Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineDraft Final Report
A1-1
Appendix 1Correspondence
date/month/year Subject Attention Sender22/12/2010 Navigation clearance Ukrainian
WaterwaysJICASurvey Team
28/12/2010 Ditto JICASurvey Team
UkrainianWaterways
23/12/2010 Record for Number of ships JICASurvey Team
UkrainianWaterways
24/12/2010 Restriction for construction of Mykolaiv bridge dueto aerial navigation.
JICASurvey Team
InternationalAirport Mykolaiv
18/12/2010 Inception Report Explanation State RoadAdministration
JICASurvey Team
05/05/2011 Explanation of Bridge Type Selection State RoadAdministration
JICASurvey Team
19/05/2011 Agreement on the Result of Bridge Type Selection JICASurvey Team
State RoadAdministration
A1-1
12-1, Honmachi 3-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-0071 JapanTel: +81-3-6311-7570 Fax: +81-3-6311-8020 e-mail: [email protected]
ORICONSUL
The Preparatory Survey onthe Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine
The Consortium of Oriental Consultants Co., Ltd. andChodai Co., Ltd.
December 22, 2010Our Ref.No.705R3349-04
To: STATE ENTERPRISEUKRAINIAN WATER WAYS
Attn: Mr. Grygoriy MEDVEDEVDeputy of the Chief12, P Sagaidachnogo Str.,Kiev, Ukraine
RE: NAVIGATION CLEARANCE FOR MYKOLAIV BRIDGE
Pursuant to “Navigation Clearance under Bridges on Inland waterways (GOST26775-97)”,the minimum navigation clearance at the crossing point of the Yuzhniy Bug River for twonavigable spans is 120 m width and 13.5 m high for each span.
As the JICA Survey Team for “THE PREPARATORY SURVEY ON THE PROJECT OFCONSTRUCTION OF MYKOLAIV BRIDGE IN UKRAINE”, we would like to propose toapply one navigable span for the Project instead of the two navigable spans because of thefollowing reasons.
- Proposed bridge location is on a curved point of the river where the velocity of riverstream varies depending on the position (inside or outside of the corner).
- Visibility at the bridge site is sometimes reduced by foggy weather
- The pier between two navigable spans is NOT preferable considering accidental collisionof vessels into the pier with above mentioned conditions.
Therefore please kindly approve the application of one navigable span for the captionedbridge.
Yours faithfully,
Hideki YoneyamaTeam Leader of JICA Survey TeamOriental Consultants Co., Ltd.
cc Deputy Chairman - UKRAVTODOR
A1-2
[Emblem of Ukraine]MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS OF UKRAINE
UKRAINIAN MARINE AND RIVER FLEETSTATE ENTERPRISE ON WATER WAYS
UKRVODSHLYAH
04070, Kyiv-70, P.Sagajdachnogo Str., 12 tel. (044) 417-57-54Code acc. to Uniform State Registryof Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine 03150102, c/a No 26005301301 tel./fax (044) 425-45-13in Private JS Company of Prominvestbank in Kyiv city, MFO 300012 E-mail: [email protected]
Ref.No 2-12/350 dated 28.12.2010
To Team LeaderJICA Survey Oriental Consultants Co., LtdHideki Yoneyama
to Ref.No 705R3349-04dated 22.12.2010
State Enterprise “Ukrvodshlyah” have considered the letter on the designing of one navigationspan of the bridge pass on the River Pivdenniy Bug in Mykolaiv city and agree this designsolution provided that the navigation span width is to be not less than 240 m.
First Deputy Head [signature] G.M.Medvedev
Executed Guseynov Y.G.Tel. 428-86-63
QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMCERTIFICATED ON THECORRESPONDANCE with System of Standardization of Ukraine ISO 9001-2009Navigation Registry of Ukraine
A1-4
(レターの英訳)Dear Hideki san,
As I promised sending you the additional information to the questionnaire which we stillreceiving from the Ministries. Sending you attached pdf. letter from the UkrainianWaterway Administration regarding the number of ships passing under the MykolaivBridge and its translation.
Number of ships passing under the Mykolaiv Bridge separation required
# Year/Month 2008 2009 20101 January 1 12 February 1 13 March 2 44 April 4 3 15 May 1 2 46 June 2 3 27 July 5 98 August 1 1 29 September 5 110 October 2 111 November 7 3 112 December 1 4Total 31 33 11
Number of ships passing under the Mykolaiv Bridge NO separation required
# Year/Month 2008 2009 20101 January 82 February 3 103 March 24 April 15 May 16 June 17 July8 August9 September 1 210 October 1 111 November 212 December 4Total 11 21 5
A1-7
[Logo: International Airport Mykolaiv]Tel. (+380512) 47-86-50, Fax (+380512) 47-74-17 AFTN: UKONAPDU54017, Ukraine, Mykolaiv, post box 310, Airport email: [email protected]
Ref.No 1058 dated 24.12.2010
To Head of Road Servicein Mykolaiv RegionMr. Getun V.M.
We would like to submit you the conclusion regarding the agreement on bridge pass constructionover the Pivdenniy Bug River in Mykolaiv city.
Director GeneralCommunal Enterprise “International Airpot Mykolaiv” [signature, stamp] A.E. Keyan
A1-11
From: International Airport Mykolaiv Tel. 439389 Dec 24. 2010 15:33 Pages 2
APPROVEDDirector GeneralCommunal Enterprise
“International Airport Mykolaiv”[signature] A.E.KEYAN24.12.2010
CONCLUSION
Regarding Agreement on the construction of the Bridge pass over the Pivdenniy Bug River inMykolaiv city.
Customer: State Road Service of Ukraine (Road Service in Mykolaiv Region)
Commission on the height restriction agreement on the near-by airfield zone of Mykolaiv airportconsisting of:
Head of commission: Chief Airport Engineer O.V. LugovyCommission members: Deputy Chief Airport Engineer Vaskov S.G.
Chief of Ground and Security ServiceChief Navigating Officer of the Airport Karastoyanov M.M.Engineer-Inspector on the flights safety Smirnov V.V.
considered the materials on the construction of the Bridge pass over the Pivdenniy Bug River inMykolaiv city and determined:
1. Bridge abutment is located beyond the air approach zone against the runway threshold 05п 47030272 c 031542291.
2. Height reference mark of bridge abutment makes 112 m, relating to the runway level itmakes 56 m.
3. According to the Regulations on Flight Operations and the Table of Estimation of themin passing safety while landing (OCA/OCH) on the runway level 05, the bridgeabutment height is not considered as an obstacle for flight safety.
CONCLUSION:
1. According to the regulatory documents structure of bridge pass over the Pivdenniy BugRiver on its key rates is not an obstacle for flight safety within the near-by airfield zone.
2. The Structure of bridge pass over the Pivdenniy Bug is to be marked during day andnight time according to the Air Code of Ukraine.
3. After construction completion it is necessary to submit the engineering documentation,where the absolute structure marks are specified, to the address of the CommunalEnterprise “International Airport Mykolaiv”.
Head of commission: Chief Airport Engineer [signature] O.V. LugovyCommission members: Deputy Chief Airport Engineer [signature] Vaskov S.G.
Chief of Ground and Security Service [signature] Tatochenko A.V.Chief Navigating Officer of the Airport [signature] Karastoyanov M.M.Engineer-Inspector on the flights safety [signature] Smirnov V.V
A1-12
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A2-1
Appendix 2 Study for Waterway 1. Summary
The width of the waterway at the river is stipulated in the norm of Ukraine “DSTU B V.2.3-1-
95(GOST26775-97)”. Dimension of target ships indicated in the norm is defined as 180m in length, 21m in
width and the waterway with 120m-width for each directions are stipulated.
In this study, the width of waterway is compared with the one of the other standard in order to confirm its
adequateness.
2. Norm of Ukraine for waterway
Target ships and dimension of waterway is shown in Table-1
Table-1 dimension of waterway in Ukraineian norm.
Item Contents Remarks Target ship Ship:180m(L) ×21m(W)×12.8m(H)
Raft:680m(L)×75m(W)×12.8m(H)
Width 120m(in case of bascule bridge: 50m) 2×120m for upstream and downstream
Waterway class 3 -Trunk
Height 13.5m
Draft Mean:2.3m~2.9m(min. 1.9~2.5m)
3. Target ships
Based on the above dimension of ship, i.e. L=180m, loaded draft=2.0m, it is considered that ships may be
barges as indicated below.
出典:SHIP COLLISION WITH BRIDGES, The International between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures,
IABSE, AIPC, IVBH
153m
22.8m
A2-2
4. Waterway width in the standards of Japan
Standard of waterway is stipulated in “Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbor
Facilities in Japan” (hereinafter referred to as Japanese Port Standards).
According to Japanese Port Standard, in case that target ships and navigation environment are unidentified,
following dimensions should be recommended.
There is possibility of passing each other of ships:
- Length of waterway is comparably long (long waterway) ;1.5Loa
- Ships are passing each other frequently. :1.5Loa
- Both situations occur simultaneously. :2.0Loa
Based on the above situation of “Long waterway”, required width of waterway should be…..
Width of waterway B= 1.5Loa =1.5 ×180 m= 270m
In addition, according to Japanese port standard, the waterway at curved point should be corner cutoff in
case of intersection with more than 30 degree.
For instance, if radius of waterway’s centerline is 4x180=720m and intersection angle is 30 degree,
dimension of cutoff is 20m.
Figure-1 corner cutoff of waterway
5. Evaluation for width of waterway
Comparison between Ukrainian standard and Japanese one is as follows.
Ukrainian: B=2×120m=240m <Japanese;B=270m+20m(corner cutoff)
θ
Δ
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A3-1
Appendix 3 Live Loads based on DBN Specifications
1. Live Loads
1.1 AK-loading (model-1)
・Application : Distributed load and Tandem load applied simultaneously.
・Distributed load : p=0.98K=0.98×15=14.7 kN/m
・Tandem load : P=9.81K=9.81×15=147.15kN
- Number of notional lane is not always equal to the number of carriageway
- Center of lane (vehicle) shall be apart more than 1.5m from face of curb (or guard rail), and interval
of lanes (vehicles) shall be 3.0m in terms of application of AK-loading.
- Number of notional lanes equal to the width of the carriageway in meters divided by 3.5m.
- The difference of the width between notional lanes and carriageway is called as additional lane.
- Multiple presence factor (S1) can be referred to below table;
Number of
Carriageway distributed load Tandem load
1 1.0 1.0 2 0.6 1.0 3 0.6 0.75 4 0.6 0.5
5 or more 0.6 0.0 Add lane 3 0.25 0.25 Add lane 4 0.25 0.25
Other add. lanes 0.25 0.0
- When some loads, such as Sidewalk live load and Railway tracks, are simultaneously applied,
additional factor “S2” should be applied.
→ For the combination of Rail tracks and AK-loading
S2= 1 - 0.01・λ ≧0.75
→ For the combination of Subway tracks / Street car and AK-loading
S2=1 - 0.002・λ ≧0.75
1.5m 1.9m
0.6 m
P/2 P/2
C=0.2m p
A3-2
Here, λ is the length of superstructure on which loads are applied.
1.2 NK cart (Model-2) loading : not necessary to be applied together with Earthquake load
NK-100: P=245 kN(axis load)
1.3 Sidewalk load
1) Distributed load
a) For pedestrian bridge and sidewalk for city br. :q= 3.92kN/m2
b) When traffic loads are applied simultaneously :q= 1.96kN/m2
2) When Distributed load is applied without other loads
This case is specified for the combination with Railway tracks
3) When Concentrated load is applied without other loads
a) City bridges : P= 9.8 kN (applied at the area of 0.15m x 0.10m)
b) Other bridges : P= 1.27 kN
1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 2.7 m
0.8 m
P/2 P/2
C=0.2m
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A3-3
2. Comparison of DBN live load and B-load (specified in Japanese standards)
A comparison study of live loads specified in DBN and Japanese standards was carried out. The comparison is
focused in terms of magnitude of bending moment at span-center of simple beam.
M(DBN)=Ry・x・Wn・m
Where, x : a ratio of plastic section module to elastic section module
Ry : Yield strength of steel material
Wn : elastic section module
M : service coefficient(coefficient for reduction of resisting strength)
M(B-load)=Ry・Wn・ν
Ry : Yield strength of steel material
Wn : elastic section module
ν : safety ratio = 1.7
The comparison result is shown in below figure;
The magnitude of the bending moments generated by the DBN live load and B-live load are almost same for the
span length around 40m to 80m, according to the diagram.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
D+L(DBN)
D+L(B LOAD)
L(DBN)
L(B LOAD)
Span length (m)
M(kN.m)
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A4-1
Appendix 4 Reference for Alignment Setting 1. Horizontal alignment
Horizontal alignment of M14 bypass is same to feasibility study in 2004 as a result of review (refer
chapter 5.1.1 and 5.7.1). And elements of alignment is shown in Report Vo.2 “approach road design”.
2. Longitudinal alignment of bridge section ( bridge selection stage)
(1) Design policy
Optimum longitudinal alignment was considered between location of A1 abutment and right bank of
Bug River for bridge selection. Main design policy is as follows.
- Follow the DBN V 2.3-4-2007(vertical gradient and vertical curve)
- Keep clearance against crossing roads and navigation clearance of southern Bug river.
- Cut depth of right bank should be kept less than 12m. (If it is more than 12m, land acquisition area
will be so much wider.)
(2) Control Point
C.P.1 Crossing Road (PK8+810)
3.0+5.5+2.5=11.0m & considered cross fall affection -- PH should be higher than 11.5m
Elevation of existing road: 3.0m
Clearance of crossing road : 5.5m
Necessary thickness for short Bridge: 2.5m
P.H
A4-2
C.P.2 Navigation Clearance (PK11+00)
1.58+13.5+5.0=20.08m --- PH should be higher than 20.08m
C.P.3 Crossing Road T-1506 (PK11+867)
58.0-2.5-5.5=50.0m --- PH should be lower than 50.0m, but it should be tried to keep cut
depth less than 12m from ground level.
(3) Outline of alternatives
Alternative 1 : Vertical gradient of long bridge section is 2.0% (F/S 2004 is also 2.0%). But total
longitudinal design was modified because of longitudinal planning of F/S 2004 dose not
match DBNV2.3-4 2007.
Alternative 2 : Vertical gradient of long bridge section is 2.5%
Alternative 3 : Vertical gradient of long bridge section is 2.7%, this is limit to keep navigation
clearance.
H.W.L 1.58m (FS2004)
Navigation clearance: 13.5m
Necessary thickness for longt Bridge: 2.5m
Width for
navigation: 280m
Center of navigation PK11+00 →
Navigation area PK10+860-PK11+140
P.H
P.H
Elevation of existing T-1506 : 58.0m
Necessary thickness for short Bridge: 2.5m
Clearance of M-14 bypass road : 5.5m
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A4-3
Figu
re. 1
: Thr
ee-a
ltern
ativ
es o
f lon
gitu
dina
l pla
nnin
g
A4-4
(4) Conclusion
Table. 1 Geometric parameters
From DBN Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3
Maximum vertical gradient
3.5% 2.0% 2.5% 2.7%
Minimum vertical gradient
0.5%
0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Minimum Vertical curve R
(convex)
25000m 35000m 33000m 21800m(OUT)
Vertical curve section length
(convex)
Recommendation :more than 300m 500m 660m 300m
Minimum Vertical curve R
(concave)
7000m 26700m 20000m 18200m
Vertical curve section length (concave)
Recommendation :more than 100m 400m 400m 400m
Alternative-3 is not available because of minimum vertical curve radius is less than 25000m.
Table. 2: Planning Height at control points
Target of PH Alternative-1 Alternative-2
(CP1)PK8+810Ccrossing road Higher than 11.50 11.90 11.90
(CP2)PK10+860 Edge of
navigation Higher than 20.08m 25.60 22.00
(CP3)PK11+867 T-1506
Lower than 50.0m 45.47 46.01
(Cut depth 12m)
PK11+800:53-12 > 41 44.33 44.83
PK12+00: 59-12 > 47 47.36 47.96
(CP3)PK11+800-12+200 cut
section
PK12+200: 58-12 > 46 49.24 49.86
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A4-5
Above table shows the deference of planning height at CP2 is 3.6m. This is big difference for
construction cost.
And vertical gradient 2.0% and 2.5 % are no difference, focusing the road service (safety for
traffic vehicles, provision high speed motorway)
Therefore alternative 2 is best alignment for bridge selection stage. But this longitudinal
alignment has been considered with old topographic data ( F/S in 2004), thus the time of
preliminary design, information all control points will be updated ( topographic survey will
be completed in May 2011).
Figure. 2: Longitudinal alignment for bridge selection
3. Longitudinal alignment at junction (connection to P-06)
This junction was planned as underpass road at intersection of P-06 by F/S in 2004. JICA survey team
reviewed existing F/S and studied feasibility of overpass style at this point before preliminary design
with new topographic survey result. Because if it is possible to design overpass of M-14 bypass, it will
be not cared P-06 relocation and railway bridge construction. And it can make reduce to disturb
economic activity (not to stop traffic flow) in construction stage.
A4-6
Kherson Odessa
Figure. 3: Trial section (upper plan, bottom profile)
Figure. 4: Result of M-14 bypass profile trial at junction
Conclusion
As a result of trial, overpass alignment is not available to design, the reasons below.
- If it makes to be possible over bridge, beginning point of project must be changed toward eastern
direction. (= This trial was not able to keep clearance for thickness of bridge girder)
- High embankment section continued at least 2 km (until PK35).
Thus, M-14 bypass road will be designed as underpass at this junction in preliminary design.
1
1
Программа встречив УКРАВТОДОРЕ
5 мая 2011 г.
• Начало 10:00 AM • Окончание 11:30 AM
1. График изысканий
2. Запрос о разрешении
3. Метод оценки
4. Выбор типа моста
Agenda for the meeting at UKRAVTODORon May 5, 2011
• Start Time 10:00 AM • End Time 11:30 AM
1. Survey Schedule
2. Request of Approval
3. Evaluation Method (AHP)
4. Selection of Bridge Type
2
PREPARATORY SURVEYON
THE PROJECTOF
CONSTRUCTION OF MYKOLAIVBRIDGE
INUKRAINE
EVALUATION METHOD
ORIENTAL CONSULTANTSCHODAI CO., LTD
ORIENTAL CONSULTANTSCHODAI CO., LTD
ПРЕДВАРИТЕЛЬНОЕИССЛЕДОВАНИЕПО ПРОЕКТУ
СТРОИТЕЛЬСТВАМОСТА
В Г. НИКОЛАЕВ,УКРАИНА
МЕТОД ОЦЕНКИ
A5-1
2
3
Аналитический ИерархическийПроцесс (AHP):
Приоритетный методранжирования вариантов дляпринятия решений
Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP):
A Priority Ordering Method for Decision Making
МЕТОД ОЦЕНКИ EVALUATION METHOD
4
1. Критерии для выбора типа конструкции
Стоимость строительства; Стоимость техобслуживания; Безопасность судоходства; Эстетический аспект; Сложность строительства; Экологический аспект иприобретение нового технического опыта.
(Меньше недостатков и больше преимуществ для Украины)
1. Attributes for Bridge Selection
Construction Cost, Maintenance Cost, Navigation Safety
Aesthetic Feature, Construction Difficulty
Environmental Effect and Technical Transfer
(Less Demerits and More Merits for Ukrainian side)
A5-2
3
5
1. Attributes for Bridge Selection
Construction Cost Navigation Safety > Merits for Ukrainian
> Aesthetic Feature>Construction Difficulty >Maintenance Cost
What is essential to be feasible? → Cost, Traffic Safety (both for road and river), Durability (50 to 100 years)
1. Критерии для выбора типа конструкции
Стоимость строительства > Безопасность судоходства >Преимущества для Украины > Эстетический аспект>Сложность строительства > Стоимость техобслуживания.
Что наиболее важно для осуществления проекта? Стоимость, безопасность транспорта (дорожного и водного), долговечность (ресурс прочности 50-100 лет)
6
2. Сравнительная шкала значимости
1: А равнозначно В
3, 5, 7, 9: А имеет (несколько; существенно; бесспорно; абсолютно) большую значимость, чем В
2, 4, 6, 8: промежуточные значения
Ранжирование субъективно, но поддаётся обсуждению
2. Scale of Relative Importance1: A is equal to B.
3, 5, 7, 9: A is (slightly, considerably, strongly, extremely) more important or favorable than B.
2,4,6,8: Intermediate intensity of the above numbers.
Scoring is subjective but discussible
A5-3
4
7
3. Удельный вес критериев 3. Weight for Attributes
Weight: Maltiple mean of each attribute/Total of Maltiple Means
.Удельный вес: Сред. Геометр. значение каждого критерия/Суммасредних геометр.значений
Weight0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.38 Удельный вес
Total7.862 21.00 15.50 10.83 7.08 4.28 2.45
Всего
Maintenance Cost0.335 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 0.20 0.17
Стоимость техобслуж.
Construction Difficulty0.505 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 0.20
Сложность строительства
Aesthetic Feature0.792 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25
Эстетические качества
Merit for Ukraine1.258 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33
Преимущество для Украины
Navigation safety1.979 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50
Безопасность судоходства
Construction Cost2.994 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
Стоимость строительства
Multiply Mean
Maintenance Cost
Construction Difficulty
Aesthetic Feature Merit for UkraineNavigation safetyConstruction
Cost
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стоимостьтехобслуж.
Сложностьстроительства
Эстетическийаспект
Преимуществодля Украины
Безопасностьсудоходства
Стоимостьстроительства
8
4. Матрица попарного ранжированияСоотношение: тип конструкции моста - критерий
(1) Стоимость строительстваПодвесной мост : Вантовый мост : Мост с фермами :
Мост со стальной балкой коробчатого сечения (пролёт 120 м) =
1.071 : 1.000 : 1.305 : 0.668
Баллы: 5 (существенно больше) : 4 : 7 (бесспорно больше) : 1
4. Pair Wise Matrix between Bridge Type and Attribute
(1) Construction Cost
Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span) =
1.071 : 1.000 : 1.305 : 0.668
Score 5 (considerably) : 4 : 7 (Strongly) : 1
A5-4
5
9
(1) Стоимость строительства (1). Construction Cost
(Referential alternative)Steel-box (120m span)
(Референтный вариант)0.668
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 1.305
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.000
Вантовый мост
Suspension 1.071
Подвесной мост
RemarksRatioCostПримечанияСоотношениеСтоимость
Unit:hundred million YEN
Ед. измерения: сто млн иен
Construction Cost Comparison Table
Таблица стравнения стоимостистроительства
10
(1) Стоимость строительства (1) Construction Cost
Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means
Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.
Priority0.60 0.06 0.21 0.13
Приоритет
Total5.697 1.59 15.00 5.75 8.33
Всего
Steel-box (120m span)3.440 1.00 7.00 4.00 5.00
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 0.328 0.14 1.00 0.25 0.33
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.189 0.25 4.00 1.00 2.00
Вантовый мост
Suspension 0.740 0.20 3.00 0.50 1.00
Подвесной мост
Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стальнаякоробчатая
балка
Мост сфермами
Вантовыймост
Подвесноймост
(1) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Construction Cost”.
(1) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Стоимость строительства»
A5-5
6
11
(2) Безопасность судоходства
(в зависимости от длины основного пролёта)
Подвесной мост : Вантовый мост : Мост с фермами : Мост со стальной балкой коробчатого сечения (пролёт 120 м) =
510 м : 480 м : 400 м : 120 м
Баллы 1 : 2 : 3 (несколько больше) : 7 (бесспорно больше)
(2) Navigation Safety (depending on main span length)
Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span)
510m : 480m : 400m : 120m
Score 1 : 2 : 3 (Slightly) : 7 (Strongly)
12
Какая ширина достаточна для данной реки (согласно украинскимнормам, должно проходить судно длиной 180 м)?
Из соображений безопасности:
Согласно рекомендации «Укрводшлях»:
по 120 м в обе стороны (без устоя) = 240 м
Согласно японскому стандарту 180 м x 1.5 = 270 м (Референтный вариант)
Меньший судоходный пролёт может уменьшить пропускную способность дляречного транспорта
How wide is enough for the river (180m long ship shall pass by Ukrainian Norm)?
For Safety Reason :
From Ukrainian Waterway Recommendation
120m for both way (without pier)= 240 m
From Japanese Standard 180m x 1.5 = 270m (Reference)
Smaller Span (120m) may depress the capacity of river transportation.
A5-6
7
13
(2) Безопасность судоходства (2) Navigation Safety
Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means
Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.
Priority0.05 0.18 0.29 0.48
Приоритет
Total5.327 19.00 6.20 3.67 1.97
Всего
Steel-box (120m span)0.263 1.00 0.20 0.17 0.14
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 0.953 5.00 1.00 0.50 0.33
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.565 6.00 2.00 1.00 0.50
Вантовый мост
Suspension 2.546 7.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
Подвесной мост
Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стальнаякоробчатая
балка
Мост сфермами
Вантовыймост
Подвесноймост
(2) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Navigation safety”
(2) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Безопасность судоходства»
14
(3) Преимущества для Украины(Экологический аспект и приобретение нового технического опыта)С точки зрения экологии, мост с длинными пролётами является предпочтительным (чем
меньше внедрение в русло реки, тем меньше поднимается токсичных газов и ила).
В аспекте приобретения нового технического опыта, вариант «Подвесной Мост» являетсяпредпочтительным, т.к. проекты мостов с большими пролётами могут бытьвостребованы в Украине (Киевская кольцевая дорога: Северный мост)
Подвесной мост : Вантовый мост : Мост с фермами : Мост со стальной балкой коробчатого сечения (пролёт 120 м)
Баллы 1 : 2 : 3 (несколько больше) : 5 (существенно больше)
(3) Merit for Ukrainian Side (Environmental Issue and Technical Transfer)
As for Environmental Issue, long span bridge is preferable because of less disturbance of river bed (prevent from rising toxic gas and silt)
As for Technical Transfer, “Suspension Bridge” is preferable because long span bridge may be required in Ukraine (Kiev Ring Road: Northern Bridge)
Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span)
Score 1 : 2 : 3 (Slightly) : 5 (Considerably)
A5-7
8
15
(3) Преимущества для Украины (3) Merit for Ukrainian Side
Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means
Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.
Priority0.09 0.16 0.27 0.48
Приоритет
Total4.841 11.00 6.50 3.83 2.03
Всего
Steel-box (120m span)0.426 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.20
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 0.758 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.316 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50
Вантовый мост
Suspension 2.340 5.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
Подвесной мост
Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стальнаякоробчатая
балка
Мост сфермами
Вантовыймост
Подвесноймост
(3) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Merit for Ukrainian Side-Environmental Issue and Technical Transfer”
(3) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории «Преимущества для Украины: Экологический аспект и Приобретение технического опыта»
16
(4) Эстетический аспектПодвесной мост – монументальный, визуально хорошо сбалансирован
Вантовый мост – монументальный, но визуально слишком «тяжёлый» (из-занебольшой высоты нижнего строения)
Мост со стальными фермами – замысловатая форма (каркас в форме закрытойклетки)
Мост со стальной коробчатой балкой – форма простая, но широко используемая
Подвесной : Вантовый : Мост с фермами : Стальная балка (пролёт 120 м)
Баллы 1 : 3 (несколько больше) : 7 (бесспорно больше) : 5 (существеннобольше)
(4) Aesthetic Feature Suspension : Monumental and Good Balance,
Cable Stay : Monumental but Top Heavy (because of small substructure height)
Steel Truss : Intricate Form (Closed cage), Steel-box : Simple but Common use
Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span)
Score 1 : 3 (Slightly) : 7 (Strongly) : 5 (Considerably)
A5-8
9
17
(4) Эстетический аспект (4) Aesthetic Feature
Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means
Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.
Priority0.12 0.05 0.26 0.56
Приоритет
Total5.670 9.33 16.00 4.53 1.67
Всего
Steel-box (120m span)0.667 1.00 3.00 0.33 0.20
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 0.310 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.14
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.492 3.00 5.00 1.00 0.33
Вантовый мост
Suspension 3.201 5.00 7.00 3.00 1.00
Подвесной мост
Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стальнаякоробчатая
балка
Мост сфермами
Вантовыймост
Подвесноймост
(4) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Aesthetic Feature”
(4) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Эстетический аспект»
18
(5) Сложность строительства(в зависимости от длины основного пролёта)Подвесной, вантовый – использование тросов и вант; сооружение опор между
устоями не потребуется. Сборные конструкции удобные в сборке.
Фермовый, стальная коробчатая балка – требуются временные опоры междуустоями. Небольшие элементы конструкции придётся собирать на площадке, если не будет большого плавучего крана.
Подвесной : Вантовый : Мост с фермами : Стальная балка (пролёт 120 м)
Баллы 1 : 1 : 3 (несколько больше) : 2
(5) Construction Difficulty (depending on main span length)Suspension , Cable Stay : Utilizing cables and wires, no support will be required between
piers. Prefabricated segments are easily assemble.
Truss, Steel-box (120m span): temporary supports between piers are required. Small members must be assembled at the site if the large floating crane is not available.
Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span)
Score 1 : 1 : 3 (Slightly) : 2
A5-9
10
19
(5) Сложность строительства (5) Construction Difficulty
Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means
Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.
Priority0.15 0.07 0.39 0.39
Приоритет
Total5.031 7.33 14.00 2.53 2.53
Всего
Steel-box (120m span)0.756 1.00 3.00 0.33 0.33
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 0.339 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.20
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.968 3.00 5.00 1.00 1.00
Вантовый мост
Suspension 1.968 3.00 5.00 1.00 1.00
Подвесной мост
Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стальнаякоробчатая
балка
Мост сфермами
Вантовыймост
Подвесноймост
(5) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Construction Difficulty”
(5) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Сложность строительства»
20
(6) Стоимость техобслуживания
(в зависимости от площади окрашиваемых поверхностей)
Стальная коробч < балка Подвесной = Вантовый < Мост с фермами
Подвесной : Вантовый : Мост с фермами : Стальная балка (пролёт 120 м)
Баллы 2 : 2 : 3 (несколько больше) : 1
(6) Maintenance Cost (mainly depending on the painted area)
Steel-box (120m span) < Suspension = Cable Stay < Steel Truss
Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span)
Score 2 : 2 : 3 (Slightly) : 1
A5-10
11
21
(6) Стоимость техобслуживания (6) Maintenance Cost
Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means
Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.
Priority0.420.12 0.230.23
Приоритет
Total4.397 2.33 8.00 4.50 4.50
Всего
Steel-box (120m span)1.861 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)
Truss 0.536 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.50
Мост с фермами
Cable stayed 1.000 0.50 2.00 1.00 1.00
Вантовый мост
Suspension 1.000 0.502.00 1.00 1.00
Подвесной мост
Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension
Среднеегеометр. значение
Стальнаякоробчатая
балка
Мост сфермами
Вантовыймост
Подвесноймост
(6) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Maintenance Cost”.
(6) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Стоимость техобслуживания»
22
5. Заключение анализа АНР 5. Conclusion of AHP
Steel-box -0.30 0.42 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.60
Стальнаякоробч. балка
Referential alternative (120m span)Референтный вариант (пролёт 120 м)
Truss ③0.11 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.18 0.06 Мост с фермами
Cable stayed ②0.26 0.23 0.39 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.21 Вантовый мост
Suspension ①0.34 0.23 0.39 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.13 Подвесной мост
WeightRankPriority
in total0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.38 Удельный весt
РангСуммарныйприоритет
Maintenance Cost
Construction Difficulty
Aesthetic Feature
Merit for Ukraine
Navigation safety
Construction CostBridge Type
Стоимостьтехобслуживания
Сложностьстроительства
Эстетическийаспект
Преимуществадля Украины
Безопасностьсудоходства
СтоимостьстроительстваТип конструкции
Weighted PriorityPriority factors before weightingВзвешенный приоритетПриоритетные факторы до «взвешивания»
A5-11
A6-1
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
App
endi
x 6
Env
iron
men
tal C
heck
list:
15. R
oads
and
Rai
lway
s C
ateg
ory
Env
iron
men
tal
Item
M
ain
Che
ck It
ems
Con
firm
atio
n of
Env
iron
men
tal C
onsid
erat
ions
(1) E
IA a
nd
Envi
ronm
enta
l Pe
rmits
① H
ave
EIA
repo
rts b
een
offic
ially
com
plet
ed?
②
Hav
e EI
A re
ports
bee
n ap
prov
ed b
y au
thor
ities
of t
he g
over
nmen
t?
③ H
ave
EIA
repo
rts b
een
unco
nditi
onal
ly a
ppro
ved?
If c
ondi
tions
are
im
pose
d on
the
appr
oval
of E
IA re
ports
, are
the
cond
ition
s sat
isfie
d?
④ I
n ad
ditio
n to
the
abo
ve a
ppro
vals
, ha
ve o
ther
req
uire
d en
viro
n-m
enta
l pe
rmits
be
en
obta
ined
fr
om
the
appr
opria
te
regu
lato
ry
auth
oriti
es o
f the
gov
ernm
ent?
①EI
A R
epor
t ha
d co
mpl
eted
onc
e tim
e -
in 2
004.
How
ever
, nei
ther
EI
A R
epor
t, no
r th
e Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dy in
gen
eral
had
not
bee
n se
nt
for
the
stat
e ex
perti
se a
nd, t
here
fore
, hav
e no
t obt
aine
d ap
prov
al o
f th
e su
perv
isor
y bo
dies
of U
krai
ne.
②N
ew E
IA R
epor
t its
elf
in U
krai
ne s
hall
not
be c
onsi
dere
d by
the
st
ate
ecol
ogic
al e
xper
tise.
The
refo
re, f
or E
IA R
epor
t app
rova
l it i
s re
quire
d to
pre
pare
the
who
le p
roje
ct (
the
prev
ious
pro
ject
(th
e Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dy)
is o
utda
ted
and
does
not
ref
lect
the
gis
t of
the
pl
anne
d ac
tivity
, bec
ause
it c
onsi
ders
onl
y on
e ve
rsio
n of
the
brid
ge
stru
ctur
e- th
e gi
rder
brid
ge).
③In
Ukr
aine
an
EIA
Rep
ort c
anno
t be
appr
oved
par
tially
. EIA
Rep
ort
gets
eith
er p
ositi
ve c
oncl
usio
n of
the
stat
e ec
olog
ical
exp
ertis
e or
it
shal
l be
reje
cted
. If
in th
e pr
oces
s of
the
expe
rtise
ther
e ar
ise
som
e re
mar
ks w
hich
can
be
corr
ecte
d th
en th
ey s
hall
be c
orre
cted
. If
the
rem
arks
are
of
the
prin
cipa
l cha
ract
er a
nd c
anno
t be
corr
ecte
d th
en
the
proj
ect r
ealiz
atio
n sh
all b
e pr
ohib
ited.
(U
p to
now
no
"roa
d" o
r "b
ridge
" pr
ojec
t wer
e re
ject
ed).
④ A
part
from
the
ecol
ogic
al e
xper
tise
it is
als
o re
quire
d to
per
form
the
sani
tary
exp
ertis
e. T
erm
s an
d co
nditi
ons
of it
s pe
rfor
man
ce a
re th
e sa
me-
ava
ilabi
lity
of th
e pr
ojec
t.
1 Pe
rmits
and
Ex
plan
atio
n
(2) E
xpla
natio
n to
th
e Pu
blic
① D
id i
mpl
emen
ting
agen
cy e
xpla
in c
onte
nts
of t
he p
roje
ct a
nd t
he
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s ad
equa
tely
to
the
publ
ic b
ased
on
appr
opria
te
proc
edur
es c
once
rnin
g in
form
atio
n di
sclo
sure
? D
id p
artic
ipan
ts
unde
rsta
nd w
hat t
o be
exp
lain
ed?
② A
re p
rope
r re
spon
ses
mad
e to
com
men
ts f
rom
the
pub
lic a
nd
regu
lato
ry a
utho
ritie
s?
① A
t thi
s st
age
all t
he p
roce
dure
s st
ipul
ated
by
Ukr
aini
an le
gisl
atio
n as
to in
form
ing
of th
e in
tere
sted
pub
lic: p
ublic
atio
n of
"D
ecla
ratio
n of
Int
ent"
and
"D
ecla
ratio
n of
Eco
logi
cal
Con
sequ
ence
s" i
n m
ass-
med
ia a
re p
erfo
rmed
. U
p to
now
the
re a
re n
eith
er a
pplic
atio
ns f
rom
the
int
eres
ted
pers
ons
with
the
requ
est t
o pr
ovid
e ad
ditio
nal i
nfor
mat
ion
nor r
emar
ks.
To e
nhan
ce p
ositi
ve im
age
of th
e C
usto
mer
and
to b
ette
r tra
nspa
renc
y of
the
plan
ned
activ
ity it
is r
easo
nabl
e to
hol
d th
e pu
blic
hea
ring
at
the
early
sta
ge o
f the
pro
ject
(the
re is
no
man
dato
ry re
quire
men
t on
that
in
the
legi
slat
ion
but
the
publ
ic c
onsu
ltatio
ns a
re d
esira
ble)
. Su
ch p
ublic
hea
rings
sha
ll be
hol
d by
the
loca
l aut
horit
ies
and
they
ar
e pl
anni
ng to
hol
d su
ch p
ublic
hea
ring.
②
In
case
the
publ
ic h
earin
gs a
re h
eld,
then
legi
slat
ion
oblig
ates
the
prop
onen
t of t
he p
ublic
hea
rings
to g
ive
grou
nded
pub
lic a
nsw
ers
to
all t
he m
entio
ned
ques
tions
and
rem
arks
.
A6-2
Cat
egor
y E
nvir
onm
enta
l It
em
Mai
n C
heck
Item
s C
onfir
mat
ion
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
sider
atio
ns
2 M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s (1
) Air
Qua
lity
① I
s th
ere
any
poss
ibili
ty t
hat
air
pollu
tant
s em
itted
fro
m v
ario
us
sour
ces,
such
as
vehi
cle
traff
ic,
may
aff
ect
ambi
ent
air
qual
ity?
D
oes
ambi
ent
air
qual
ity c
ompl
y w
ith t
he c
ount
ry’
s am
bien
t ai
r qu
ality
stan
dard
s?
② W
here
ind
ustri
al a
reas
alre
ady
exis
t ne
ar t
he r
oute
, is
the
re a
po
ssib
ility
that
the
proj
ect m
ake
air p
ollu
tion
wor
se?
① D
urin
g op
erat
ion
of th
e br
idge
cro
ssin
g th
e ne
gativ
e im
pact
on
the
open
air
qual
ity w
ill b
e ca
used
by
mot
or v
ehic
le e
mis
sion
s (th
eir
estim
ated
am
ount
in 2
035
will
be
of 4
1 00
0 un
its).
The
per
form
ed
in E
IA R
epor
t ca
lcul
atio
ns u
nder
the
met
hod
adop
ted
in U
krai
ne
show
tha
t on
the
bor
der
of r
esid
entia
l ar
ea t
he c
once
ntra
tion
of
pollu
tant
s in
the
air
will
not
exc
eed
mar
gina
l da
ta a
llow
ed b
y sa
nita
ry st
anda
rds
of U
krai
ne (t
hese
sta
ndar
ds a
re m
ore
stric
t tha
n in
m
ajor
ity o
f ot
her
coun
tries
), ev
en c
onsi
derin
g th
e ex
istin
g ai
r po
llutio
n by
diff
eren
t sta
tiona
ry e
mis
sion
sour
ces.
It is
acc
ount
ed fo
r th
e ro
ad r
uns
away
fro
m t
hese
sou
rces
. In
the
fut
ure
the
terr
itory
ne
ar th
e ro
ad w
ill v
ery
likel
y be
larg
ely
build
up
with
new
bui
ldin
gs,
incl
udin
g, l
ikel
y, p
rodu
ctio
n fa
cilit
ies
and
the
air
qual
ity w
ill g
et
wor
se. H
owev
er, i
f th
is h
appe
ns, t
hen
not b
ecau
se o
f th
e tra
nspo
rt ve
hicl
es, b
ecau
se o
f san
itary
are
a w
ill b
e ke
pt, d
ista
nce
till t
he ro
ad
of 1
00 m
.
It is
im
porta
nt t
o co
nsid
er t
hat
curr
ently
the
air
qual
ity i
n th
e re
side
ntia
l are
as o
f Nik
olay
ev o
n m
any
inde
xes d
o no
t cor
resp
ond
to
Ukr
aini
an s
anita
ry s
tand
ards
. The
key
fac
tor
influ
enci
ng o
n th
at is
co
nges
tion
of c
ity s
treet
s by
tra
nsit
trans
port
vehi
cles
, whi
ch h
ave
no
alte
rnat
ive
plac
e to
cr
oss
Bug
est
uary
exc
ept
the
exis
ting
Var
varo
vski
y br
idge
. The
refo
re, a
fter c
onst
ruct
ion
of th
e ne
w b
ridge
cr
ossi
ng it
is e
xpec
ted
the
air q
ualit
y in
resi
dent
ial a
rea
of N
ikol
ayev
w
ill b
e si
gnifi
cant
ly b
ette
r.
② T
he b
ridge
cro
ssin
g al
ignm
ent
is l
ocat
ed a
way
fro
m i
ndus
trial
ar
eas.
At t
he s
ame
time
stat
iona
ry e
mis
sion
sou
rces
(ind
ustri
al o
nes)
w
ill c
ompr
ise
on th
e w
hole
less
than
30%
of
the
tota
l one
s on
the
city
. Th
eref
ore,
inf
luen
ce o
f tra
nspo
rt ve
hicl
es w
hich
will
use
the
br
idge
cro
ssin
g w
ill n
ot e
xcee
d th
e ai
r sa
nita
ry s
tand
ards
in
the
exis
ting
resi
dent
ial a
nd in
dust
rial a
reas
.
A6-3
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
Cat
egor
y E
nvir
onm
enta
l It
em
Mai
n C
heck
Item
s C
onfir
mat
ion
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
sider
atio
ns
(2) W
ater
Qua
lity
① Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
that
soi
l run
off f
rom
the
bare
land
s re
sulti
ng
from
land
slid
e, s
uch
as c
uttin
g an
d fil
ling
wor
ks, m
ay c
ause
wat
er
qual
ity d
egra
datio
n in
dow
nstre
am w
ater
are
as?
②
Is
th
ere
a po
ssib
ility
th
at
surf
ace
runo
ff
from
ro
ads
may
co
ntam
inat
e w
ater
sour
ces s
uch
as g
roun
dwat
er?
③
Do
efflu
ents
fro
m v
ario
us f
acili
ties,
such
as
stat
ions
and
par
king
ar
eas/
serv
ice
area
s, co
mpl
y w
ith t
he c
ount
ry’
s ef
fluen
t st
anda
rds
and
ambi
ent w
ater
qua
lity
stan
dard
s?
Is th
ere
a po
ssib
ility
that
the
efflu
ents
may
cau
se a
reas
tha
t do
not
sat
isfy
with
the
cou
ntry
’s
ambi
ent w
ater
qua
lity
stan
dard
s?
① E
arth
wor
ks,
incl
udin
g cu
t-out
s, im
bank
men
ts,
flatte
ning
of
the
slop
e on
th
e rig
ht
bank
of
th
e riv
er
will
ce
rtain
ly
lead
to
de
terio
ratio
n of
the
est
uary
wat
er q
ualit
y (in
crea
se o
f tu
rbid
ity,
min
eral
izat
ion)
ups
tream
a an
d do
wns
tream
of t
he ri
ver (
dim
ensi
ons
of th
e pl
ume
will
be
of a
bout
1 k
m).
But
this
impa
ct is
lim
ited
by
perio
d of
the
wor
k pe
rfor
man
ce. A
fter t
he e
arth
wor
ks c
ompl
etio
n al
l th
e op
en a
rea
of th
e so
il w
ill b
e gr
ass-
cove
red
(sow
ing
of g
rass
) and
th
e in
fluen
ce o
f flo
win
g fr
om th
em w
ill b
e m
inim
um a
mou
nt.
② U
nder
grou
nd w
ater
firs
t ho
rizon
(be
ddin
g ro
ck)
are
clos
e to
the
su
rfac
e (2
-3 m
) an
d ca
n be
pol
lute
d in
cas
e of
vio
latio
n of
the
co
nstru
ctio
n ru
les
whe
n m
akin
g cu
t-out
s. A
fter
com
plet
ion
of t
he
cons
truct
ion
the
unde
rgro
und
wat
er p
ollu
tion
will
be
emili
nate
d,
beca
use
all
the
flow
ing
from
the
roa
d su
rfac
e w
ill b
e ar
rang
ed b
y w
ater
dis
char
ge o
utle
t. ③
The
re is
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f tem
pora
ry p
ollu
tion
in c
ase
of e
mer
genc
y si
tuat
ions
. Ukr
aini
an le
gisl
atio
n (W
ater
cod
e) p
rohi
bits
dis
char
ge o
f th
e in
suff
icie
ntly
unt
reat
ed w
ater
int
o na
tura
l ob
ject
s (c
hann
els,
gulc
hs, l
ower
are
as o
f gro
und
feat
ures
.
(3) N
oise
and
V
ibra
tion
① D
o no
ise
and
vibr
atio
ns f
rom
veh
icle
tra
ffic
sat
isfy
with
the
co
untry
’s s
tand
ards
?
① N
oise
and
vib
ratio
ns in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
fore
cast
of u
p to
203
5,
will
not
exc
eed
leve
ls a
llow
ed b
y sa
nita
ry st
anda
rds o
n th
e bo
rder
of
the
exis
ting
resi
dent
ial a
rea.
If
the
new
dev
elop
men
t will
get
clo
ser
to t
he r
oad
at t
he d
ista
nce
of l
ess
than
38
m a
nd p
rote
ctiv
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns (b
affle
s) a
re n
ot m
ount
ed, t
hen
ultim
ate
leve
ls w
ill
be e
xcee
ded.
3 N
atur
al
Envi
ronm
ent
(1) P
rote
cted
Are
as
① I
s th
e pr
ojec
t si
te l
ocat
ed i
n pr
otec
ted
area
s de
sign
ated
by
the
coun
try’
s la
ws o
r int
erna
tiona
l tre
atie
s and
con
vent
ions
? Is
ther
e a
poss
ibili
ty th
at th
e pr
ojec
t may
aff
ect t
he p
rote
cted
are
as?
①N
o. T
he P
roje
ct s
ite is
not
in p
rote
cted
are
a. In
the
area
of i
nflu
ence
by
the
obje
ct (3
km
) the
re a
re n
o te
rrito
ries a
nd o
bjec
ts, p
rote
cted
by
envi
ronm
enta
l leg
isla
tion.
A6-4
Cat
egor
y E
nvir
onm
enta
l It
em
Mai
n C
heck
Item
s C
onfir
mat
ion
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
sider
atio
ns
(2) E
cosy
stem
① D
oes
the
proj
ect
site
enc
ompa
ss p
rimev
al f
ores
ts,
tropi
cal
rain
fo
rest
s, ec
olog
ical
ly v
alua
ble
habi
tats
(e.
g., c
oral
ree
fs, m
angr
oves
, or
tida
l fla
ts)?
②
D
oes
the
proj
ect
site
en
com
pass
th
e pr
otec
ted
habi
tats
of
en
dang
ered
sp
ecie
s de
sign
ated
by
th
e co
untry
’s
law
s or
in
tern
atio
nal t
reat
ies a
nd c
onve
ntio
ns?
③ I
f si
gnifi
cant
eco
logi
cal
impa
cts
are
antic
ipat
ed,
are
adeq
uate
pr
otec
tion
mea
sure
s tak
en to
redu
ce th
e im
pact
s on
the
ecos
yste
m?
④ A
re a
dequ
ate
prot
ectio
n m
easu
res
take
n to
pre
vent
impa
cts,
such
as
disr
uptio
n of
mig
ratio
n ro
utes
, ha
bita
t fr
agm
enta
tion,
and
tra
ffic
ac
cide
nt o
f wild
life
and
lives
tock
?
⑤ I
s th
ere
a po
ssib
ility
tha
t in
stal
latio
n of
roa
ds w
ill c
ause
im
pact
s su
ch a
s de
stru
ctio
n of
for
est,
poac
hing
, des
ertif
icat
ion,
red
uctio
n in
w
etla
nd a
reas
, and
dis
turb
ance
of e
cosy
stem
s du
e to
intro
duct
ion
of
exot
ic (
non-
nativ
e in
vasi
ve)
spec
ies
and
pest
s?
Are
ade
quat
e m
easu
res t
aken
in o
rder
to p
reve
nt su
ch im
pact
s con
side
red?
⑥
In
case
s w
here
the
proj
ect
site
is
loca
ted
at u
ndev
elop
ed a
reas
, is
ther
e a
poss
ibili
ty th
at th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ent w
ill re
sult
in e
xten
sive
lo
ss o
f nat
ural
env
ironm
ents
?
①Th
ere
is n
o pr
imev
al, t
ropi
cal f
ores
t, no
r eco
logi
cal v
alua
ble
habi
tat
in th
e pr
ojec
t are
a or
nea
rby.
②
No
③N
o si
gnifi
cant
eco
logi
cal i
mpa
cts
are
antic
ipat
ed d
urin
g th
e br
idge
us
e.D
urin
g th
e co
nstru
ctio
n it
is e
xpec
ted
pote
ntia
lly s
igni
fican
t but
lim
ited
by th
e w
ork
perf
orm
ance
per
iod
impa
ct o
n aq
uatic
med
ium
(b
ecau
se
of
the
brea
king
of
th
e bo
ttom
se
dim
ents
), ge
olog
ic
envi
ronm
ent (
impa
ct o
n th
e sl
ope
on th
e rig
ht b
ank
of th
e riv
er) a
nd
the
vege
tabl
e w
orld
(d
efor
esta
tion)
. Th
e fir
st
two
obje
cts
of
influ
ence
sha
ll be
pro
tect
ed b
y te
chno
logi
cal s
olut
ions
and
the
latte
r - b
y w
ay o
f com
pens
ator
y pa
ymen
ts.
④D
isru
ptio
n of
mig
ratio
n ro
utes
, hab
itat f
ragm
enta
tion
and
so o
n ar
e no
t an
ticip
ated
. Th
e pr
ojec
t ar
ea
is
mos
tly
agric
ultu
ral
area
. Pr
even
tion
of r
oad
traff
ic a
ccid
ents
is s
uppo
sed
to b
e pe
rfor
med
by
inst
alla
tion
of th
e pr
otec
tion
fenc
e on
all
the
leng
th o
f the
road
way
. ⑤
It
is r
equi
red
to p
erfo
rm d
efor
esta
tion,
but
on
acco
unt
of t
he
com
pens
ator
y pa
ymen
ts (o
n th
e ba
sis o
f UA
H 2
50 0
00 p
er 1
ha)
it is
su
ppos
ed t
o ar
rang
e ne
w p
lant
ed l
ands
in
othe
r pl
ace.
A
reas
of
perio
dica
lly u
nder
-flo
oded
(wat
erlo
gged
) lan
d on
the
left
bank
of t
he
river
wha
t le
ads
to r
educ
tion
of a
rea
of a
cer
tain
hab
itat.
It is
im
poss
ible
to
com
pens
ate
this
im
pact
but
thi
s la
nd i
s ne
ither
pr
ecio
us n
or u
niqu
e on
e. A
fter
redu
ctio
n of
the
und
er-f
lood
ed a
nd
wat
erlo
gged
lan
d th
ere
the
bree
ding
are
a of
the
blo
od-s
ucki
ng
inse
cts w
ill b
e le
ss.
⑥
The
obje
ct w
ill b
e lo
cate
d in
the
terr
itorie
s w
hich
pre
viou
sly
have
be
en a
ctiv
ely
used
.
(3) H
ydro
logy
① I
s th
ere
a po
ssib
ility
tha
t ch
ange
of
topo
grap
hic
feat
ures
and
in
stal
latio
n of
stru
ctur
es s
uch
as t
unne
ls m
ay a
dver
sely
aff
ect
surf
ace
wat
er a
nd g
roun
dwat
er fl
ows?
①D
rain
age
and
prot
ectiv
e fa
cilit
ies
will
sig
nific
antly
inf
luen
ce o
n un
derg
roun
d w
ater
and
les
s in
fluen
ce o
n su
rfac
e w
ater
. H
owev
er,
this
influ
ence
can
not b
e tre
ated
as
nega
tive
one,
bec
ause
sta
blen
ess
of th
e fo
resh
ore
slop
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed.
A6-5
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
Cat
egor
y E
nvir
onm
enta
l It
em
Mai
n C
heck
Item
s C
onfir
mat
ion
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
sider
atio
ns
(4) T
opog
raph
y an
d G
eolo
gy
① Is
ther
e a
soft
grou
nd o
n th
e ro
ute
that
may
cau
se s
lope
failu
res
or
land
slid
es?
Are
ade
quat
e m
easu
res
cons
ider
ed t
o pr
even
t sl
ope
failu
res o
r lan
dslid
es if
nee
ded?
②
Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
that
civ
il w
orks
suc
h as
cut
ting
and
fillin
g w
ill c
ause
slo
pe f
ailu
res
or l
ands
lides
? A
re a
dequ
ate
mea
sure
s co
nsid
ered
to p
reve
nt sl
ope
failu
res o
r lan
dslid
es?
③
Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
that
soi
l run
off
will
resu
lt fr
om c
uttin
g an
d fil
ling
area
s, w
aste
soi
l di
spos
al s
ites,
and
borr
ow s
ites?
A
re
adeq
uate
mea
sure
s tak
en to
pre
vent
soil
runo
ff?
①C
ross
-sec
tion
of t
he b
ridge
on
the
right
ban
k of
the
riv
er r
uns
in
clos
e vi
cini
ty t
o so
me
land
slid
es,
one
of t
hem
is
in a
ctiv
e st
age.
U
nles
s so
me
prev
entiv
e m
easu
res
durin
g th
e co
nstru
ctio
n ar
e m
ade,
th
en th
ere
appe
ars
a gr
eat r
isk
of it
s m
ovem
ent.
Prot
ectiv
e fa
cilit
ies
can
be i
nsuf
ficie
nt t
o re
stra
in l
and-
slid
ing
proc
ess;
the
refo
re i
t is
re
quire
d to
co
nsid
er
poss
ibili
ty
to
flatte
n th
e sl
ope
with
si
mul
tane
ous a
rran
gem
ent o
f the
dra
inag
e fa
cilit
ies.
②
Ther
e is
suc
h th
e da
nger
on
the
right
ban
k of
the
river
. To
redu
ce
risk
it is
requ
ired
to p
repa
re th
e sl
ope
as d
escr
ibed
abo
ve. I
n th
e re
st
area
s th
ere
no s
uch
nece
ssity
to
arra
nge
deep
ear
th c
uts
and
high
em
bank
men
ts.
③R
ainf
all
run-
offs
and
sno
wm
elt
runo
ffs
will
hap
pen
durin
g th
e co
nstru
ctio
n pe
riod
only
. The
y w
ill b
e co
ntai
ned
(isol
ated
) in
low
er
parts
of
the
grou
nd f
eatu
res.
Mea
sure
s to
pre
vent
the
m a
gain
st
pollu
tion
are
take
n.
4 So
cial
En
viro
nmen
t (1
) Res
ettle
men
t
① I
s in
volu
ntar
y re
settl
emen
t ca
used
by
proj
ect
impl
emen
tatio
n?
If ye
s, ar
e ad
equa
te e
ffor
ts m
ade
to m
inim
ize
the
impa
cts?
②
Is
adeq
uate
exp
lana
tion
on r
eloc
atio
n an
d co
mpe
nsat
ion
give
n to
af
fect
ed p
erso
ns p
rior t
o re
settl
emen
t by
resp
onsi
ble
agen
cy?
③ Is
the
rese
ttlem
ent p
lan,
incl
udin
g pr
oper
com
pens
atio
n, re
stor
atio
n of
liv
elih
oods
an
d liv
ing
stan
dard
s de
velo
ped
base
d on
so
cioe
cono
mic
stud
ies?
④
Doe
s th
e re
settl
emen
t pl
an p
ay p
artic
ular
atte
ntio
n to
vul
nera
ble
grou
ps o
r pe
rson
s, in
clud
ing
wom
en,
child
ren,
the
eld
erly
, pe
ople
be
low
the
pove
rty li
ne, e
thni
c m
inor
ities
, and
indi
geno
us p
eopl
es?
⑤
Are
agr
eem
ents
with
the
aff
ecte
d pe
rson
s ob
tain
ed p
rior
to
rese
ttlem
ent?
⑥
Is
the
orga
niza
tiona
l fra
mew
ork
esta
blis
hed
to p
rope
rly im
plem
ent
rese
ttlem
ent?
Are
the
capa
city
and
bud
get s
ecur
ed to
impl
emen
t the
pl
an?
⑦ Is
a p
lan
deve
lope
d to
mon
itor t
he im
pact
s of r
eset
tlem
ent?
①
Any
in
volu
ntar
y re
settl
emen
t is
not
caus
ed
by
the
proj
ect
impl
emen
tatio
n ex
cept
for l
and
acqu
isiti
on. C
ompe
nsat
ory
paym
ents
ar
e st
ipul
ated
. ②
Loc
al a
utho
rity,
whi
ch w
ill m
ake
the
rese
ttlem
ent
toge
ther
with
U
krav
todo
r will
sta
rt pr
oced
ure
1 ye
ar b
efor
e th
e la
nd a
cqui
sitio
n as
st
ipul
ated
by
legi
slat
ion
of U
krai
ne.
③ R
eset
tlem
ent
actio
n pl
an w
ill b
e pe
rfor
med
by
loca
l au
thor
ities
w
hich
hav
e al
read
y pe
rfor
med
the
prel
imin
ary
rese
arch
of
the
cost
of
the
com
pens
ator
y pa
ymen
ts.
Afte
r th
e re
settl
emen
t pr
oced
ure
com
men
cem
ent t
he s
aid
issu
e w
ill b
e de
fined
with
con
side
ratio
n of
ba
lanc
e of
inte
rest
of a
ll th
e co
ncer
ned
pers
ons a
nd th
e st
ate.
④
No
spec
ific
vuln
erab
le p
erso
ns is
ther
e.
⑤ O
btai
nmen
t of
agr
eem
ent
/dis
agre
emen
t of
the
per
sons
to
be
rese
ttled
af
ter
com
men
cem
ent
of
the
rese
ttlem
ent
proc
edur
e,
nam
ely-
afte
r th
ey a
re o
ffic
ially
inf
orm
ed o
f th
e ne
cess
ity o
f th
e re
settl
emen
t, w
hich
sh
all
be
star
ted
1 ye
ar
befo
re
the
land
ac
quis
ition
and
del
iver
y of
it in
to u
se o
f the
pro
pone
nt (c
usto
mer
) of
the
cons
truct
ion
(Ukr
avto
dor)
. ⑥
It
is n
ot r
equi
red
to e
stab
lish
new
org
aniz
atio
nal
fram
ewor
k. T
he
budg
et s
hall
be a
ccep
ted
by g
over
nmen
t of
Ukr
aine
afte
r th
e re
settl
emen
t pr
oced
ure
com
men
cem
ent
and
final
ag
reem
ent
of
amou
nts o
f the
com
pens
ator
y pa
ymen
ts.
⑦ M
onito
ring
plan
pro
ject
is d
evel
oped
.
A6-6
Cat
egor
y E
nvir
onm
enta
l It
em
Mai
n C
heck
Item
s C
onfir
mat
ion
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
sider
atio
ns
(2) L
ivin
g an
d Li
velih
ood
① I
n a
plac
e w
here
roa
ds a
re n
ewly
inst
alle
d, is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
th
at th
e pr
ojec
t may
aff
ect t
he e
xist
ing
mea
ns o
f tra
nspo
rtatio
n an
d th
e as
soci
ated
wor
kers
? Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
that
the
proj
ect m
ay
caus
e si
gnifi
cant
im
pact
s, su
ch a
s ex
tens
ive
alte
ratio
n of
exi
stin
g la
nd u
ses,
chan
ges
in s
ourc
es o
f liv
elih
ood,
or u
nem
ploy
men
t? A
re
adeq
uate
mea
sure
s con
side
red
for p
reve
ntin
g th
ese
impa
cts?
②
Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
tha
t th
e pr
ojec
t m
ay a
dver
sely
aff
ect
the
livin
g co
nditi
ons
of in
habi
tant
s ot
her
than
the
affe
cted
inha
bita
nts?
A
re
adeq
uate
m
easu
res
cons
ider
ed
to
redu
ce
the
impa
cts
if ne
cess
ary?
③
Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
tha
t di
seas
es,
incl
udin
g co
mm
unic
able
di
seas
es,
such
as
HIV
may
be
intro
duce
d du
e to
im
mig
ratio
n of
w
orke
rs a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith t
he p
roje
ct?
Are
ade
quat
e co
nsid
erat
ions
gi
ven
to p
ublic
hea
lth if
nec
essa
ry?
④
Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
tha
t th
e pr
ojec
t m
ay a
dver
sely
aff
ect
road
tra
ffic
in th
e su
rrou
ndin
g ar
eas
(e.g
., by
cau
sing
incr
ease
s in
traf
fic
cong
estio
n an
d tra
ffic
acc
iden
ts)?
⑤
Is
ther
e an
y po
ssib
ility
tha
t ro
ads
and
may
cau
se i
mpe
de t
he
mov
emen
t of i
nhab
itant
s?
⑥ I
s th
ere
any
poss
ibili
ty th
at s
truct
ures
ass
ocia
ted
with
brid
ge m
ay
caus
e a
sun
shad
ing
and
radi
o in
terf
eren
ce?
①Th
e Pr
ojec
t im
pact
on
thes
e as
pect
s of
act
ivity
will
hav
e po
sitiv
e ef
fect
. ②
It is
not
exp
ecte
d th
e Pr
ojec
t will
cau
se n
egat
ive
impa
ct o
n th
e liv
ing
cond
ition
s of t
he re
side
nts.
③
Yes
. Th
ere
is a
pos
sibi
lity
to b
e br
ough
t co
mm
unic
able
dis
ease
s. M
atte
rs o
n sa
nita
tion
and
heal
th c
are
of w
orke
rs a
re c
ontro
lled
with
co
nsid
erat
ion
of r
equi
rem
ents
of
Ukr
aini
an s
anita
ry,
med
ical
and
la
bour
le
gisl
atio
n.
The
Con
tract
or
bear
s re
spon
sibi
lity
for
obse
rvan
ce o
f the
se m
atte
rs.
④N
o. T
he P
roje
ct w
ill b
ring
abou
t po
sitiv
e im
pact
s to
roa
d an
d tra
nspo
rt in
fras
truct
ure.
⑤
Sam
e as
abo
ve.
⑥N
ot si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct b
y th
e br
idge
con
stru
ctio
n.
(3) H
erita
ge
① I
s th
ere
a po
ssib
ility
tha
t th
e pr
ojec
t m
ay d
amag
e th
e lo
cal
arch
eolo
gica
l, hi
stor
ical
, cul
tura
l, an
d re
ligio
us h
erita
ge s
ites?
A
re
adeq
uate
mea
sure
s co
nsid
ered
to
prot
ect
thes
e si
tes
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith t
he c
ount
ry’
s la
ws
and
JIC
A G
uide
lines
for
Env
ironm
enta
l an
d So
cial
Con
side
ratio
ns?
①To
pre
vent
neg
ativ
e im
pact
on
arch
eolo
gica
l her
itage
it is
stip
ulat
ed
the
perf
orm
ance
of
th
e re
leva
nt
rese
arch
w
orks
be
fore
co
mm
ence
men
t of
the
wor
k an
d th
e ea
rthw
ork
shal
l be
per
form
ed
unde
r arc
heol
ogic
al a
utho
rity
cont
rol.
(4) L
ands
cape
① Is
ther
e a
poss
ibili
ty th
at th
e pr
ojec
t may
adv
erse
ly a
ffec
t the
loca
l la
ndsc
ape?
Are
nec
essa
ry m
easu
res t
aken
?
① L
ands
cape
of
the
slop
e on
the
rig
ht b
ank
of t
he r
iver
can
be
sign
ifica
ntly
influ
ence
d, h
owev
er th
is in
fluen
ce w
ill b
e po
sitiv
e. I
f du
e to
som
e re
ason
the
cons
truct
ion
will
not
be
perf
orm
ed th
en th
is
land
scap
e w
hich
pr
evio
usly
ha
d be
en
dam
aged
by
in
corr
ect
cons
truct
ion
anyw
ay w
ill re
quire
to b
e ch
ange
d.
(5) E
thni
c M
inor
ities
and
In
dige
nous
Pe
ople
s
① W
here
eth
nic
min
oriti
es a
nd i
ndig
enou
s pe
ople
s ar
e liv
ing
in t
he
right
s-of
-way
, ar
e co
nsid
erat
ions
giv
en t
o re
duce
the
im
pact
s on
cu
lture
and
life
styl
e of
eth
nic
min
oriti
es a
nd in
dige
nous
peo
ples
? ②
Doe
s th
e pr
ojec
t co
mpl
y w
ith t
he c
ount
ry’
s la
ws
for
right
s of
et
hnic
min
oriti
es a
nd in
dige
nous
peo
ples
?
①Th
ere
is n
o m
inor
ities
and
indi
geno
us p
eopl
e in
the
area
.
A6-7
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
Cat
egor
y E
nvir
onm
enta
l It
em
Mai
n C
heck
Item
s C
onfir
mat
ion
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
sider
atio
ns
(1) I
mpa
cts d
urin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
① A
re a
dequ
ate
mea
sure
s co
nsid
ered
to
redu
ce i
mpa
cts
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n (e
.g.,
nois
e, v
ibra
tions
, tu
rbid
wat
er,
dust
, ex
haus
t ga
ses,
and
was
tes)
?
② I
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es a
dver
sely
aff
ect
the
natu
ral
envi
ronm
ent
(eco
syst
em),
are
adeq
uate
mea
sure
s con
side
red
to re
duce
impa
cts?
③
If
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
adv
erse
ly a
ffec
t th
e so
cial
env
ironm
ent,
are
adeq
uate
mea
sure
s con
side
red
to re
duce
impa
cts?
④
If
nece
ssar
y, i
s he
alth
and
saf
ety
educ
atio
n (e
.g.,
traff
ic s
afet
y,
publ
ic h
ealth
) pro
vide
d fo
r pro
ject
per
sonn
el, i
nclu
ding
wor
kers
?
①A
dequ
ate
mea
sure
s are
con
side
red.
②
No
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
mig
ht b
e an
ticip
ated
. ③
Ade
quat
e m
easu
res
have
bee
n co
nsid
ered
to re
duce
impa
ct o
n so
cial
en
viro
nmen
t. ④
The
cons
truct
ion
cont
ract
or w
ill e
stab
lish
sani
tary
sys
tem
in
the
cons
truct
ion
site
, con
stru
ctio
n of
fice
and
cons
truct
ion
cam
p.
5 O
ther
s
(2) M
onito
ring
① D
oes t
he p
ropo
nent
dev
elop
and
impl
emen
t mon
itorin
g pr
ogra
m fo
r th
e en
viro
nmen
tal
item
s th
at a
re
cons
ider
ed
to
have
po
tent
ial
impa
cts?
②
Are
the
item
s, m
etho
ds a
nd fr
eque
ncie
s in
clud
ed in
the
mon
itorin
g pr
ogra
m, j
udge
d to
be
appr
opria
te?
③ D
oes
the
prop
onen
t es
tabl
ish
an a
dequ
ate
mon
itorin
g fr
amew
ork
(org
aniz
atio
n, p
erso
nnel
, equ
ipm
ent,
and
adeq
uate
bud
get t
o su
stai
n th
e m
onito
ring
fram
ewor
k)?
④ A
re a
ny re
gula
tory
requ
irem
ents
per
tain
ing
to th
e m
onito
ring
repo
rt sy
stem
iden
tifie
d, s
uch
as th
e fo
rmat
and
fre
quen
cy o
f rep
orts
from
th
e pr
opon
ent t
o th
e re
gula
tory
aut
horit
ies?
①Y
es.
Envi
ronm
enta
l m
onito
ring
prog
ram
s co
nsis
t of
air
qual
ity,
nois
e le
vel
vibr
atio
n, w
ater
qua
lity,
tra
ffic
and
Soc
io-e
cono
mic
co
nditi
ons.
It w
ill b
e pe
rfor
med
with
par
ticip
atio
n of
the
rel
evan
t st
ate
auth
oriti
es.
②Y
es. A
ppro
pria
te p
rogr
am w
ill b
e m
ade.
③
Yes
. Ade
quat
e fr
amew
ork
will
be
esta
blis
hed.
④
Reg
ulat
ory
requ
irem
ents
req
uire
tha
t fo
rm a
nd f
requ
ency
of
the
repo
rts s
ubm
issi
on s
hall
be p
ropo
sed
and
agre
ed w
ith a
utho
rized
st
ate
auth
oriti
es.
Ref
eren
ce to
C
heck
list o
f Oth
er
Sect
ors
① W
here
nec
essa
ry, p
ertin
ent i
tem
s de
scrib
ed in
the
Fore
stry
Pro
ject
s ch
eckl
ist s
houl
d al
so b
e ch
ecke
d (e
.g.,
proj
ects
incl
udin
g la
rge
area
s of
def
ores
tatio
n).
②
Whe
re
nece
ssar
y,
perti
nent
ite
ms
desc
ribed
in
th
e Po
wer
Tr
ansm
issi
on
and
Dis
tribu
tion
Line
s ch
eckl
ist
shou
ld
also
be
ch
ecke
d (e
.g.,
proj
ects
incl
udin
g in
stal
latio
n of
pow
er tr
ansm
issi
on
lines
and
/or e
lect
ric d
istri
butio
n fa
cilit
ies)
.
No
rela
tion
with
fore
stry
, pow
er tr
ansm
issi
on p
roje
ct.
6 N
ote
Not
e on
Usi
ng
Envi
ronm
enta
l C
heck
list
① I
f ne
cess
ary,
the
impa
cts
to tr
ans-
boun
dary
or g
loba
l iss
ues
shou
ld
be c
onfir
med
(e.
g.,
the
proj
ect
incl
udes
fac
tors
tha
t m
ay c
ause
pr
oble
ms,
such
as
tra
ns-b
ound
ary
was
te
treat
men
t, ac
id
rain
, de
stru
ctio
n of
the
ozon
e la
yer,
or g
loba
l war
min
g).
No
conc
ern.
1) R
egar
ding
the
term
“C
ount
ry’s
Sta
ndar
ds”
men
tione
d in
the
abov
e ta
ble,
in th
e ev
ent t
hat e
nviro
nmen
tal s
tand
ards
in th
e co
untry
whe
re th
e pr
ojec
t is
loca
ted
dive
rge
sign
ifica
ntly
fro
m in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
, ap
prop
riate
env
ironm
enta
l con
side
ratio
ns a
re m
ade,
if n
eces
sary
. In
cas
es w
here
loc
al e
nviro
nmen
tal
regu
latio
ns a
re y
et t
o be
est
ablis
hed
in s
ome
area
s, co
nsid
erat
ions
sho
uld
be m
ade
base
d on
com
paris
ons
with
app
ropr
iate
sta
ndar
ds o
f ot
her
coun
tries
(in
clud
ing
Japa
n'
expe
rienc
e).
2) E
nviro
nmen
tal c
heck
list p
rovi
des g
ener
al e
nviro
nmen
tal i
tem
s to
be c
heck
ed.
It m
ay b
e ne
cess
ary
to a
dd o
r del
ete
an it
em ta
king
into
acc
ount
the
char
acte
ristic
s of t
he p
roje
ct a
nd th
e pa
rticu
lar c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
co
untry
and
loca
lity
in w
hich
it is
loca
ted.
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A7-1
Appendix 7 Minutes of the Meeting on Construction of the Bridge over the State Land Resources Administration
MINUTES
of the meeting on construction of the bridge over the State Land Resources Administration, Nikolayev, Ukraine
City of Nikolayev Date: 01.12.2010 Opening time: 15:30 The following persons participated in the meeting: No Surname Position, Organization
1 Mr.Nikolenko G.B. First Deputy Head of Nikolayev Regional Administration, Nikolayev
regional administration
2 Mr.Chayka V.D. Head of Nikolayev municipal council
3 Mr.Rakova A.A. Head of Oktyabrskiy regional state administration
4 Mr.Tkachenko V.V. Deputy head of regional state administration of Nikolaevskaya regional state administration
5 Mr.Zla L.S. First deputy head of Novoodesskaya regional state administration
6 Mr.Yanchuk V.P. Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region
7 Mr.Moroz O.I. Head of Administration, Municipal administration on land resources 8 Mr.Atanasov O.P. Head of Administration, Regional administration of municipal
construction and architecture
9 Mr.Bondar`O.V. Head of Administration, Municipal administration of municipal construction and architecture
10 Mr.Kubrak I.V. Deputy Head of Administration of Environment Protection in Nikolayev region
11 Mr.Raevskiy V.A. Deputy chief physician, Regional sanitary-epidemiological station
12 Mr.Ganusovskiy V.T. Chief physician, Municipal sanitary-epidemiological station
13 Mr.Tonkantsov O.G. Deputy head of Administration, Regional Administration of Inner Affairs in Nikolayev region
14 Mr.Getyun V.N. Head of the state road administration in Nikolayev region
21 Mr.Gurko A.A. First Deputy Head, Nikolayev state forestry husbandry
26 Mr.Harada K. JICA Survey Team, Social and Environmental Issues
27 Mr.Hitoshi Nakamura JICA Survey Team, Bridge Design
A7-2
The meeting was held in the conference-room of Nikolayev State Regional Administration. The meeting was called to order at 15:30 Ukrainian time and chaired by Mr.Nikolenko G.B., the First Deputy Head of Nikolayev State Regional Administration. The meeting agenda was as follows:
1. Opening remarks and the meeting objects. 2. Speech of Nikolenko G.B., the First Deputy Head of Nikolayev State Regional
Administration on the Project. 3. Speech of Mr.Getun B.M., Head of the State Road Administration on the Bridge
Construction Project. 4. Discussions and questions. 5. Closing remarks.
1. Opening remarks and the meeting objects. In his opening remarks Mr.Nikolenko G.B. greeted all the stakeholder meeting participants and declared the meeting agenda and the meeting objects. 2. Speech of Nikolenko G.B., the First Deputy Head of Nikolayev State Regional Administration on the Project. Then Mr.Nikolenko G.B. addressed to the audience with the background to the Bridge Construction Project in question. He, as well, informed that after negotiations were held between Ukrainian and Japanese sides in summer 2010, there was taken a decision on of performance of pre-project preparation work. Hence, in mid-November 2010 the Survey Team of JICA Company arrived to Nikolayev with the view to Survey and collect all the relevant technical documentation, environmental and sociological issues, etc. to have a clear and precise understanding of the existing conditions and situation. In connection with that, Mr.Nikolenko G.B. mentioned, that Nikolayev regional state administration issued the letter to all interested relevant administrations and authorities to provide the said information and data to the Survey Team as well as the former research work results and emphasized the importance of the bridge for Nikolayev region and that it is under personal control of Mr.Kruglov N.P., Head of Nikolayev Regional Administration, and Mr.Nikolenko G.B. himself is the supervisor of the Project from the side of Nikolayev regional administration. Considering the importance of the Project the chairman applied to all the participants to render all appropriate assistance within framework of the current legislation of Ukraine. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. mentioned that at the present stage of the Project, it is very important to complete all the documentary work, approvals and the like, since no further work can be done unless this stage is successfully completed. Then Mr.Nikolenko G.B. gave the floor to Mr.Getun V.N., Head of the state road administration in Nikolayev region who supervises the Project. 3. Speech of Mr.Getun B.M., Head of the State Road Administration on the Bridge Construction Project. Mr.Getun B.M. informed that the stakeholder meeting participants represent organizations which in 2004 signed the protocol on preliminary land acquisition within framework of the feasibility study of 2004 for the bridge construction.
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A7-3
Upon request of the Survey Team the said protocol shall be renewed and signed, thus confirming the terms of 2004 remain unchanged and if they changed it also shall be reflected in the updated protocol. Mr.Getun B.M. asked the participants to consider the Survey Team questionnaire and give the written answers to questions stated in it within the given dates. 4. Discussions and questions Question: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region asked if there is a topological mapping of the area of the acquisition? He also added that there is no entire cadastral map of the site, the Land Resources Administration has breakdown of plow land, forest area are indicated on uncoordinated material, so it shall be more precise. Answer: Mr.Getun V.N. informed that the said data can be found in the feasibility Study of 2004. Question: Mr.Kubrak I.V., Deputy Head of Administration of Environment Protection in Nikolayev region mentioned asked the question on powers of the new protocol to be signed, since there are about 4 ha of forest influenced by land acquisition and the Ecological Department must agree that issue with the Ministry? Answer: Mr.Getyun V.N. answered the protocol to be re-signed has a status of preliminary acquisition of the land for the bridge construction. To the point, Mr.Kubrak I.V. also mentioned that after negotiations with the Ministry he was told the Ecological Administration in Nikolayev region may as the basis use the EIA report of 2004, so the Ecological Administration will approve the new EIA report. Question: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region mentioned that it must be considered that there was the order of Nikolayev State Regional Administration to Local Region Administrations and to the Municipal Authorities to select the plots of land for the construction of the bridge and now the legislation on that changed and in case two or more regions are involved in a project, then the regional administration itself makes the selection of the plots of land, therefore in this order the relevant modifications shall be implemented. Answer: Answering the remark Mr.Nikolenko G.B. asked to present an offer to modify the order. Question: Mr.Harada K., JICA Survey Team, Social and Environmental Issues asked if the list of the land holders of 2004 influenced by the Project has changed. Answer: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region answered that land ownership is a live process and that during the land acquisition the land ownership shall be fixed and the physical or legal bodies holding these plots of land shall then either sell the plots of land or the land shall be withdrawn in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine, because these plots of land are required for social needs. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. added that current Ukrainian legislation enables the state to buy back the plots of land. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. added that current legislation of Ukraine enables to re-purchase and acquire these plots of land without difficulties.
A7-4
Mr.Getun B.M. informed the participants on the timing of the Survey Team work and said the Survey Team work period will last for 6-8 months and the present visit will last till 23rd December 2010. Then they will process the obtained information and will come back in April 2011, then the Survey Team will prepare the Technical Report to the Government of Japan in August 2011and in case the positive answer it given, then a group of 4 persons will arrive in October-December 2011 and will prepare the Final Proposal to the Government of Japan and then in February-March 2012 will be taken the Final Decision to grant the credit or not and in case the answer is possible then JICA Company will receive the order to commence procedures on credit arrangement. Question: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region asked if the land acquisition issue will be settled only after the credit are granted. And if so then probably it is too early to discuss the land acquisition matter? Answer: Mr.Getun B.M. answered that most likely this issue will be settled after the decision of granting the credit is given. And this question is mentioned in the questionnaire and the questions stated in it relates to the present moment. Mr. Chayka V.D., Head of Nikolayev municipal council and major of the City summarized that the City has not got problems on the land acquisition. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. mentioned that as far as he knows the budget of Japan is approved in April. And Mr.Getyun V.N. commented that it was told the Project is not connected with the budget of Japan and summarized that provided all procedures go well the Final Decision will be taken in the first half of 2012. Mr.Harada K., JICA Survey Team, Social and Environmental issues commented that in March 2012 the Japanese side will be ready to take the decision to grant the credit or not. 5. Closing remarks. When asked whether they had any questions and since no further questions were raised Mr.Nikolenko G.B. declared the meeting closed.
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A7-5
«APPROVE» Head of regional state administration
______________ N.P.Kruglov «___»____________2011.
MINUTES
of meeting with representatives of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» on the subject of land plots allocation for implementation
of the Project of the bridge crossing construction over River of Yuzhniy Bug
City of Nikolayev Date: 09.09.2011 Conference-room of Nikolayev regional state administration Opening time: 10:00 The following persons have attended the meeting: Kruglov N.P., Nikolenko G.B., Katvalyuk I.A., Maksimchyuk M.M., Andrienko Yu.G., Savchenko G.V., Litvak S.M., Machko O.V., Konyukhov D.V., Satusheva S.V., Yanchyuk V.P., Keyan A.E., Palamaryuk P.M., Tarabrin V.E., Zabolotniy M.M., Nefedov O.A., Moroz O.I., Maximishin A.V., Hideki Yoneyama, Yasunori Kawaguchi, Hitoshi Nakamura, Kunihiko Harada, Tetsumi Masui, Marmazinskaya N.V., Nazina V.A., Tsegelniy D.A.
AGENDA:
1. The current state and formation of general plan of actions in relation to further implementation of the Project of the bridge crossing construction over River of Yuzhniy Bug in city of Nikolayev. Spokesman: Hideki Yoneyama, leader of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team. 2. Observance of legislation on land allocation rules as well as norms and standards of environmental management at the stage of construction and operation of the bridge crossing as the main criteria of environmental impact. Spokesman: Kunihiko Harada, engineer on EIA, «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team. 3. Miscellaneous. Heard: N.P.Kruglov, head of Nikolayev regional state administration has called the meeting to order and mentioned that at present time there is the mutual interest of Ukrainian and Japanese sides on further implementation of the Project of the bridge crossing construction over River of Yuzhniy Bug in city of Nikolayev, which is under personal control of the Government and President of Ukraine. In order to ensure proper and timely implementation of the plan of joint actions on the matter, mentioned by both sides, there is urgent need to openly discuss problematic issues arising during the joint work. On the first subject: Hideki Yoneyama, leader of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team expressed gratitude to the management of Nikolayev regional state administration for arrangement of cooperation and introduced members of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team to the persons attending the meeting. At present Japanese side has prepared the report-summary on general description of the
A7-6
project, aiming at creating of effective conditions of European-Asian corridor development with principal trunk motor-road M-14 Odessa-Melitopol`-Novoazovsk (towards Taganrog) as part of it, confirmation of maintenance and strengthening of economic and ecological conditions of the bridge crossing operation at different stages of its operation, improvement of city of Nikolayev development.
The stated schedule of developments will be considered by «JICA», which representatives will arrive to Ukraine in November 2011 for confirmation of decision on commencement of the work financing.
Mr.Hideki Yoneyama has also drawn attention of the meeting participants to the subject of land resources allocation, engineering features of the selected bridge crossing design, by determining its principal technical features and also on direct participation of “Ukravtodor» as the main performer of the project from Ukrainian side at all stages of the preliminary work of «JICA» agency, which shall be completed in 2014. On the second subject: Mr. Kunihiko Harada has informed the meeting participants on the existing requirements of EIA report and the world bank on principal criteria of the project impact on environment development and necessity to take preventive environmental measures to maintain the existing landscape ecological system in the area of the construction. Following the results of his speech the meeting participants have been offered to thoroughly learn with the given criteria, because in order to take decision from «JICA» side, it is required to obtain estimation of all the sides.
N.P.Kruglov, head of Nikolayev regional state administration has drawn attention of the meeting participants that at present time in the state on legislative level there are the procedures on land resources allocation for road construction, including plots of land which are of private ownership. To prevent possible negative impact of the bridge crossing construction on the territories adjacent to river of Yuzhniy Bug, it is planned to establish fish factory, which capacity will be sufficient enough to compensate possible damage to fish resources and in order to do this, Nikolayev regional state administration will take relevant measures.
All the meeting participants have taken part in discussion of the agenda subjects.
Following the results of the agenda subjects discussion the have been taken decisions as follows: 1. To deliver into charge the main economic affairs department of the regional state administration (Mr.Tyulskiy) with the task to draw up the letter to «Ukravtodor» with the relevant proposals to enter changes to order of Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 17.06.10 № 684-р «On establishment of working group on the matters of designing and construction of the bridge crossing with approaches over river of Yuzhniy Bug in city of Nikolayev» regarding replacement of the working group staff. Deadline: 28.09.11 2. To deliver into charge the chairmen of Nikolayev district state administration (Mr.Serebryakov), Novoodesskaya district state administration (Mr.Zabolotniy), Octyabr`skaya district state administration (Mrs.Rakova) together with Chief Administration of the State Committee on Land Resources in Nikolayev region (Mr.Yanchyuk) to work out measures and arrange work on land resources allocation which are covered by the bridge crossing construction project implementation area. Deadline: prior to 01.11.11 3. To recommend the Chief Administration on protection of ecological environment in Nikolayev region (Mr.Litvak) to provide performance of study and system analysis of occurrence of possible risks of negative impact on environment at the stage of construction and operation of the bridge crossing over river of Yuzhniy Bug of criteria specified in the
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A7-7
report-summary of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team and provide the relevant conclusions and proposals to the regional state administration. Deadline: 01.11.11 The minutes has been kept by M.M.Maksimchyuk head of industry and infrastructure development department of the regional state administration
A7-8
MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
FOR “PREPARATORY SURVEY ON THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF
MYKOLAIV BRIDGE IN UKRAINE”
Mykolaiv, September 09, 2011
The meeting was held in the conference-room of the State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 Ukrainian time and chaired by Mr. Kruglov N.P., Governor of Mykolaiv region. The following persons participated in the meeting:
State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv region
1 Mr. Kruglov N.P. Head of the State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv region 2 Mr. Nikolenko G.B. First Deputy Head of the State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv
region State Road Administration in Mykolaiv region
3 Mr. Savchenko G.V. Head of the state road administration in Mykolaiv region
JICA Survey Team
4 Dr. Hideki
YONEYAMA Team Leader/ Transport Planning
5 Mr.Hitoshi NAKAMURA
Bridge design (Superstructure)
6 Mr.Yasunori KAWAGUCHI
Road design
7 Mr. Kunihiko Harada Social Environmental Assestment 8 Mr. Tetsumi Masui Construction Planning
Other stakeholders 9 Mr. Keyan A.E. Director of Mykolayiv Airport 10 Mr.Yanchuk V.P. Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources
in Mykolayiv region
11 Mr. Polyakov A.P. Mayor of Nova Odesa town 12 Mr. Litvak S.M. Head of administration of the State Administration on Environment
Protection 13 Representative Representative of private land owners of Nova Odesa district of
Mykolayiv region
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A7-9
Mr. Kruglov N.P. greeted all the stakeholder meeting participants, expressed his opinion that both Ukrainian and Japanese sides are deeply interested in realization of the Project and informed that the Project is under control of Primer Minister and President of Ukraine. He asked to discuss all requirements and issues frankly. Dr. Yoneyama, Team Leader of the JICA Survey Team (hereinafter referred to as “the Team” thanked and greeted stakeholders and briefly introduced project outline and offered for consideration the list of affected items. Mr. Harada informed that the Team started preliminary EIA study by contracted Company from Kiev “Ukrpromindustriya” and by that information the Team judged about environmental impact. Mr. Harada explained that in the list of affected items the Team proposed impact and risk assessment during construction and after work completion. He emphasized that this assessment based on judgment of the Team and landowners should express their own opinion about these results. Mr. Kruglov N.P. said that 3 years ago Ukrainian Law on compulsory resettlement was accepted, so this issue can be settled in legislative way and private land will be buying out, in any case the governor mentioned that he doesn’t expect any difficulties. He also stated that there is a list of land users of approximately 51 Ha due to allocation and informed that preliminary expert evaluation of the total compensation cost for this land makes app. 331 thousand UAH, the governor specified that this cost may be doubled, but still it is not large amount. Mr. Kruglov informed that the work group which deals with allocation of land plots for construction was established in 2007. Dr. Yoneyama asked if this work group deals with compensation procedure. Mr. Kruglov replied that at the stage of basic design area of lands due to allocation and compensation cost will be considered and all legislated issues and disputes between land owners and Ukravtodor will be solved. Mr. Kruglov mentioned that if information about implementation will be published in mass media, the price of land plots will be increased and the task of State Regional Administration is to prevent speculation. The Representative of private land owners of Nova Odesa said that there are private land plots which will be divided half-and-half by the new road and asked if such land plots will be buying out in full or partly. Mr. Kruglov answered that in such case the land plots will be buying out partly, but it’s difficult to answer to this question for sure at the present moment. Mr. Harada asked if there are industrial facilities at the territory of lands due to allocation. Mr. Yanchuk replied that project route passes only through private agricultural land plots and mentioned that among total 50 Ha, 28 Ha are lands owned by the state (airport area, Mykolaншм forestry, recreation area Lazurnoe, etc.) and the rest 22 Ha are private land plots. Mr. Yanchuk mentioned that in the course of allocation of land plots owned by the state and rented by the private companies, some losses might be arisen. Mr. Kruglov said that there will be no problems on this matter. Mr. Kawaguchi explained connections between the project route and existing road. Mr. Litvak S.M. asked why the Team assessed water and air pollution as “B”.
A7-10
Mr. Harada replied that expected air pollution caused by traffic is not above industrial emissions. As for water pollution, Mr. Harada said that the Team considers protective measures and the EIA report will be published based on local regulations. Mr. Kruglov asked if there is a possibility to lay engineering facilities such as pipelines, electric cables under the bridge as the city is split and connection providing electricity from the one river bank to another is needed. Mr. Nakamura assured to consider this. Dr. Yoneyama asked about compensation cost to the fishery and stated that on construction stage there should not be such long staying due to spawning or winter navigation close. Dr. Yoneyama asked who will calculate compensation cost. Mr. Kruglov explained that construction of the fishery plant is planned together with bridge construction, for this project State Regional Administration has funds and fish product amount produced by the fishery plant will exceed the fish losses, so there will be no need in compensation cost. Mr. Kruglov also mentioned that designed fishery plant will be located 80 km upstream from the designed bridge alignment.
:by JICA Survey Team
A8-1
Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
App
endi
x 8
Env
iron
men
tal M
onito
ring
Pla
n
Mon
itori
ng F
orm
, Fra
mew
ork
and
Mon
itori
ng c
ost
1.R
espo
nses
/Rea
ctio
ns to
Com
men
ts a
nd G
uida
nce
from
Gov
ernm
ent A
utho
ritie
s and
the
Publ
ic
Mon
itori
ng It
em
Mon
itori
ng R
esul
ts d
urin
g R
epor
t Per
iod
(1) A
ir qu
ality
(2
) Noi
se le
vel
(3) W
ater
qua
lity
(4) L
and
acqu
isitio
n an
d R
eset
tlem
ent
Mon
itorin
g an
d re
ports
shal
l be
subm
itted
to JI
CA
an
nual
ly d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n an
d fo
r 2 y
ears
afte
r op
erat
ion.
2.N
atur
al E
nvir
onm
ent
- A
ir Q
ualit
y (A
mbi
ent A
ir Q
ualit
y)
Rem
arks
Item
U
nit
Mea
sure
d V
alue
(M
ean)
Mea
sure
d V
alue
(M
ax.)
Sam
plin
g tim
e
*Sta
ndar
ds fo
r m
onito
ring
(r
efer
ence
of
WH
O)
Det
ail o
f loc
atio
nN
o. o
f m
onito
ring
po
ints
Fr
eque
ncy
dura
tion
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
Dus
t (S
oot)
mg/
m3
1 hr
0.
15
(0.2
0)
CO
m
g/m
3
1
hr
5 (3
0)
NO
2
mg/
m3
1 hr
0.
2 (0
.2)
1. T
erni
vka
2. C
emet
ery
3. re
crea
tion
base
R
ondn
iki
3
Bas
elin
e on
ce p
rior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
ever
y th
ree
mon
ths e
xcep
t du
ring
froz
en se
ason
.
5 ye
ars
Ope
ratio
n pe
riod
Dus
t (S
oot)
mg/
m3
24 h
r 0.
05 (0
.05)
CO
m
g/m
3
8
hr
3 (1
0)
NO
2
mg/
m3
24 h
r 0.
04
1. T
erni
vka
2. C
emet
ery
3. re
crea
tion
base
R
ondn
iki
3
Onc
e a
year
Tw
o ye
ars a
fter
com
plet
ion
of
wor
ks
* “S
tate
sani
tary
rule
s of t
he a
tmos
pher
ic a
ir pr
otec
tion
(aga
inst
con
tam
inat
ion
by c
hem
ical
and
bio
logi
cal a
gent
s) in
resi
dent
ial a
reas
”, N
o.20
1 da
ted
09.0
7.19
97
A8-2
- W
ater
Qua
lity
(Eff
luen
t/Was
tew
ater
/Am
bien
t Wat
er Q
ualit
y)
Item
U
nit
Mea
sure
d V
alue
(M
ean)
Mea
sure
d V
alue
(M
ax.)
*Sta
ndar
ds fo
r m
onito
ring
Sa
mpl
ing
loca
tion
Freq
uenc
y du
ratio
n
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
Tem
pera
ture
pH
C
ondu
ctiv
ity
Susp
ende
d so
lids (
SS)
mg/
L
W
ith in
+0.
75 to
bac
kgro
und
Gre
ase
and
oil
mg/
L
0.
5 D
isso
lved
oxy
gen
(DO
) m
g/L
4.0
BO
D
mg/
L
6.
0
500m
ups
tream
of b
ridge
co
nstru
ctio
n si
te (t
wo
poin
ts)
500m
dow
nstre
am o
f brid
ge
cons
truct
ion
site
(thr
ee p
oint
s)
2000
m d
owns
tream
of b
ridge
co
nstru
ctio
n si
te (t
wo
poin
ts).
Bas
elin
e on
ce p
rior
to c
onst
ruct
ion.
D
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ev
ery
thre
e m
onth
s ex
cept
dur
ing
froz
en
seas
on.
5 ye
ars
Dur
ing
oper
atio
n Te
mpe
ratu
re
pH
Con
duct
ivity
Su
spen
ded
solid
s (SS
) m
g/L
With
in +
0.75
to b
ackg
roun
d G
reas
e an
d oi
l m
g/L
0.5
Dis
solv
ed o
xyge
n (D
O)
mg/
L
4.
0 B
OD
m
g/L
6.0
500m
ups
tream
of b
ridge
co
nstru
ctio
n si
te (t
wo
poin
ts)
500m
dow
nstre
am o
f brid
ge
cons
truct
ion
site
(thr
ee p
oint
s)
2000
m d
owns
tream
of b
ridge
co
nstru
ctio
n si
te (t
wo
poin
ts).
Ever
y th
ree
mon
ths
exce
pt d
urin
g fr
ozen
se
ason
.
Two
year
s af
ter
com
plet
ion
of w
orks
* “S
anita
ry ru
les a
nd re
gula
tions
of t
he su
rfac
e w
ater
pro
tect
ion
agai
nst p
ollu
tion”
, No.
4630
-88
date
d 04
.07.
1988
- N
oise
Item
U
nit
Mea
sure
d V
alue
(M
ean)
Mea
sure
d V
alue
(M
ax.)
Sam
plin
g tim
e *S
tand
ards
for
mon
itori
ng
(nat
iona
l sta
ndar
d)D
etai
l of l
ocat
ion
Freq
uenc
y du
ratio
n
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
Noi
se L
evel
s (L
eq, L
max
, L90
)dB
(A)
24 h
r 65
(day
time)
55
(nig
ht ti
me)
1.
Ter
nivk
a 2.
Cem
eter
y 3.
recr
eatio
n ba
se R
ondn
iki
Onc
e at
eac
h st
atio
n w
hen
the
cons
truct
ion
is c
arrie
d ou
t nea
r the
pa
rticu
lar s
tatio
n.
5 ye
ars
Dur
ing
oper
atio
n
Noi
se L
evel
s (L
eq, L
max
, L90
)dB
(A)
24 h
r 65
(day
time)
55
(nig
ht ti
me)
1.
Ter
nivk
a 2.
Cem
eter
y 3.
recr
eatio
n ba
se R
ondn
iki
Onc
e a
year
Tw
o ye
ars a
fter
com
plet
ion
of
wor
ks
* “S
anita
ry n
orm
s of a
ccep
tabl
e no
ise
rate
in p
rem
ises
of r
esid
entia
l and
pub
lic b
uild
ing
and
in re
side
nt a
rea”
, no.
3077
-84
03.0
8.19
84
A8-3
Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
Fi
gure
Loc
atio
ns M
ap o
f Env
iron
men
tal M
onito
ring
Lege
nd
Loca
tions
of s
ampl
ing
Surf
ace
Wat
er
Air
pollu
tion
and
Noi
se
NO
.1
NO
.2
Dow
n st
ream
stre
am
Up
stre
am st
ream
Con
stru
ctio
n si
te
NO
.3
A8-4
3.So
cial
Env
iron
men
t M
onito
ring
Form
for S
ocia
l Env
ironm
ent i
s sho
wn
follo
win
g ta
ble,
but
det
aile
d sc
hedu
le is
not
dec
ided
yet
.
Tabl
e S
ched
ule
of P
repa
ratio
n of
Res
ettle
men
t site
s (w
here
nec
essa
ry)
No.
Ex
plan
atio
n of
the
site
(e
.g. A
rea,
no.
of r
eset
tlem
ent H
H, e
tc.)
Stat
us
(Com
plet
ed (d
ate)
/ no
t com
plet
e)
Det
ails
(e
.g. S
ite se
lect
ion,
iden
tific
atio
n of
can
dida
te si
te,
disc
ussi
on w
ith P
APs
, Dev
elop
men
t of t
he si
te. E
tc.)
Expe
cted
dat
e of
com
plet
ion
Tabl
e M
onito
ring
Form
for S
ocia
l Env
ironm
ent
Prog
ress
in Q
uant
ity
Prog
ress
in %
R
eset
tlem
ent a
ctiv
ity
Plan
ned
Tota
l U
nit
Dur
ing
the
Qua
rter
Till
the
last
Q
uarte
r U
p to
the
Qua
rter
Till
the
last
Q
uarte
r U
p to
the
Qua
rter
Expe
cted
dat
e of
com
plet
ion
Res
pons
ible
or
gani
zatio
n
Prep
arat
ion
of R
AP
Im
plem
enta
tion
of C
ensu
s sur
vey
(incl
udin
g So
cio-
econ
omic
surv
ey)
M
an-m
onth
App
rova
l of R
AP
Dat
e of
app
rova
l Fi
naliz
atio
n of
PA
Ps L
ist
N
o. o
f PA
Ps
Prog
ress
of c
ompe
nsat
ion
paym
ent
N
o. o
f HH
s
Lot 1
No.
of H
Hs
Lo
t 2
N
o. o
f HH
s
Lot 3
No.
of H
Hs
Lo
t 4
N
o. o
f HH
s
Prog
ress
of L
and
Acq
uisi
tion
(all
lots
)
ha
Lo
t 1
ha
Lot 2
ha
Lo
t 3
ha
Lot 4
ha
Pr
ogre
ss o
f Ass
et R
epla
cem
ent (
all l
ots)
No.
of H
Hs
Lo
t 1
N
o.of
HH
s
Lot 2
No.
of H
Hs
Lo
t 3
N
o.of
HH
s
Lot 4
ha
Pr
ogre
ss o
f Rel
ocat
ion
of P
eopl
e (a
ll lo
ts)
N
o.of
HH
s
Lot 1
No.
of H
Hs
Lo
t 2
N
o.of
HH
s
Lot 3
No.
of H
Hs
Lo
t 4
ha
Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A8-5
4.Monitoring Framework and Reporting
Monitoring framework is shown in the following Figures.
Monitoring will be conducted by environmental surveyor hired by the consultant and result of monitoring will be reported to competent authority through SRA. Monitoring report shall be issued quarterly during construction phase, and one time per six months during operation phase from two years after start of the operation
Monitoring Framework during construction stage (In pre-construction and Construction)
Contractor (Sub contractor)
Left bank
Environmental standard (desired value)
Measurement Measurement Measurement
In the River Right bank
SRA Mykolaiv
Mykolaiv Oblast
Mykolaiv City Committees (Composed by Environmental experts)
Ministry of Environment
Instruction & Report
Comparison
Consultation & Advice
Legend
Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A8-6
Monitoring Framework during operation stage
SRA Administration office
Left bank
Environmental standard (desired value)
Measurement Measurement Measurement
In the River Right bank
SRA Mykolaiv
Mykolaiv Oblast
Mykolaiv City Committees (Composed by Environmental experts)
Ministry of Environment
Instruction & Report
Comparison
Consultation & Advice
Legend
Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A8-7
Table Environmental Monitoring Cost Estimation of Mykolaiv Bridge Construction Project
(Duration from year 2013 to 2019 for seven(7) years)
Natural Environment
1. air quallitybeforeconstructio
duringconstructio
during operation total times
itemunit ofmeasure
unit cost(samplinganalysisreportingUS$)
samplingtimes
number oflocation
one time
four(4)times peryear forfive(5) years
one time for two(2)yearsfor surface waterfour(4) times per yearfor two(2) years
Dust(soot) mg/m3 85 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$140,760.00
CO mg/m3 85 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$140,760.00
NO2 mg/m3 85 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$140,760.00
2. water qualitytemparature ℃ 12 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$2,436.00pH 12 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$2,436.00conductivity 12 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$2,436.00suspended solid (SS) mg/L 26 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$5,278.00Grease and oil mg/L 50 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$10,150.00Disolved Oxyzen (DO) mg/L 15 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$3,045.00BOD mg/L 60 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$12,180.00Fetcal Coliform Bacteria MNP/100ml 60 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$12,180.00Total Coliform Bacteria MNP/100ml 60 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$12,180.00
3. NoiseNoise Level (Leq, Lmax) dB(A) 160 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$264,960.00
722 US$749,561.00
methodologicalsupport, maintenance 0.1 US$74,956.10
Transport 0.2 US$149,912.20assignment(business trip 0.33 US$247,355.13Taxes 0.2 US$149,912.20Total US$1,371,696.63
Social Environmentdailyallowance(US$)
number ofdays
1.Preparation of RAP 100 10 US$1,000.002.Approval of RAP 100 5 US$500.003. Detailed Measurement Survey 100 20 US$2,000.004. Appraisal and Finalization of PAPs List 100 10 US$1,000.005. Progress of compensation payment 100 90 US$9,000.006. Progress of Land Acquisition 100 180 US$18,000.007. Progress of Asset Replacement 100 90 US$9,000.008. Progress of Relocaton of People 100 60 US$6,000.009. Reporting 100 30 US$3,000.00total 495 US$49,500.00
methodologicalsupport, maintenance 0.1 US$4,950.00
Transport 0.2 US$9,900.00assignment(business trip 0.33 US$16,335.00Taxes 0.2 US$9,900.00Total US$90,585.00
total
cost, USD
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A9-1
Appendix 9 List of Parties Concerned in the Recipient Country
Name Position Note Date of Meeting
Kiev Embassy of Japan 12-Nov-10 IZAWA Tadashi Ambassador OKAMOTO Yoshiko First Secretary (Dr.) Kiev (Public) SRA Head Office (Ukravtodor) 18-Nov-10
05-May-11 Vitaliy PROKOPENKO Head of the Construction and
Investment policy department Vitaliy PROKOPENKO
Mikola Grigorovich Parubets Deputy director, head of the artifical constructions department
Mikola Grigorovich Parubets
Maxim Maxim
Yevgen Prusenko Deputy Chairman Yevgen Prusenko (Mrs.)Tereziya Babvch Head of the Foreign Economic
Activity Department (Mrs.)Tereziya Babvch
(Mrs.)Irina SHAPOUALOVA
Fiance Department
(Ms.)Mariia CHUMAK
Main Specialist of the Foreign Economic Activity Department
Contact person (Successor of Maxim)
State Enterprise Ukrainian Water ways 12-Nov-10 Grygoriy MEDVEDEV Deputy of the chief Ukrdiprodor (State Road Department of Ukraine) 6-May-11 Shcherbachenko Victor Chief Engineer Kiev (Private) Kievvsoyuzdorproekt 11-Nov-10
Limonov Evgeniy Grigoryevich Chairman, Director of the Institute 12-Nov-10
Kulik Vasiliy Ivanovich Deputy Chief Engineer (Chief engineer) 18-Nov-10
Gerasimenko Alexander Alexandrovich
Head of engineering and geodesy department
(Topo Survey) 19-Nov-10
Repeta Boris Alexandrovich (Geo Survey) 11-Nov-10
Alexander Shevchenko Head of the geo surveys and transport department
(Geological Engineer)
Kyivdiprotrans 19-Nov-10 Volodymyr MONASHCHENKO Director Victor Verko Deputy Chief Engineer Ukrspetstunelproyect 20-Nov-10 Vadim Volynsky General director
Anatoly ANAOLYEV First Vice President of the Board
Sergiy OSYZPOV Chief Engineer
Soyuztransproyect 19-Nov-10 Tulenev Igor Efgenebich Chief Engineer Mostobud (Bridges construction company) 19-May-11 Bobrovytskyi Anatoliy Vice Chairman of Supervisory
Board
Volodymyr Snisar Head of Foreign Economic Activity
A9-2
Name Position Note Date of Meeting
Mykolaiv (Public) SRA (Ukravtodor) Mykolayiv Branch 15-Nov-10
Vyacheslov Getun The Head of SRA Mykolaiv
Valeriy Bloshenko Deputy Head
Ivan Chausenko Chief of roads and bridges department
Mykolaiv Regional State Administration of Ukraine 15-Nov-10 Mykola KRUGLOV The Head Gennadiy B.NIKOLENKO The 1-st Deputy Head Igor A. KATVALYUK Deputy Head Ukrainian River Port Authority 16-Nov-10 Vladimir Petrovich Serbinov The Head of the river port
Mykolayiv
Mykolaiv Aviation Authority 17-Nov-10 Andrey E.KEYAN Director of the Mykolayiv airport Mykolaiv Regional State Administration of Ukraine on Protection of Environment 23-Nov-10 Litvak Sergey Mikhaylovych Head of the Administration Kubrak Ivan Vadimovych Deputy Head of the Administration Efimov Vladimir Igorevych First Deputy Head of the
Administration
City of Mykolaiv 25-Nov-10 Valeriy Bloshenko Deputy Head of the State Road
Administration “Ukravtodor”
Land Resources Administration 2-Dec-10 Yanchuk V.P. Head of administration of the
State Administration on Land
Resources in Mykolaiv Region
Sanitary- Epidemiological Administration of Mykolaiv Region, Ukraine 6-Dec-10 V. Kiochko Chief State Sanitary Physician of
Mykolaiv Region
V. A. Raevskiy Head of Sanitary-hygienic
Department of Region Sanitary
Administration
I. V. Saganevych Senior Specialist
Institute of Fishing Industry of National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, Kherson laboratory of aquaculture
29-Apr-11
Konstantin Nikolayevich HEYNE Candidate of Biological Sciences
Mykolaiv (Private) Daughter Company JC"Mostobud" Mostootryad 30-Nov-10 Allahverdiev Novruz Iskenderovich Head MZZHBI (freshly mixed concrete product manufacturer) Kislichenk Vikkor Director 10-April-11 Dyckerhoff Ukraine (Cement & freshly mixed Concrete product manufacturer) Paolo Zelano Country Manager 28-April-11 Tatjana Kazakevich Commercial director Anton isaev Director
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report
A9-3
Name Position Note Date of Meeting
Pribuzhsky Granit Ltd (Manufacture and the dealer of aggregate and sand) 30-April-11 Sergey Zherihov Director Public JSC Nikitovskiy Granit Quarry (Manufacture and the dealer of aggregate and sand) 30-April-11 Vasiliy Moroz Owner Yuriy Kret Director of sand Rost Dorstroy (Asphalt concrete manufacture and a construction contractor ) 13-May-11 Konstantin Kiose General Director Vladimir Marenich Chief Engineer
A10-1
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
App
endi
x 10
L
ist o
f Ref
eren
ce M
ater
ials
(a
s of 9
th S
epte
mbe
r 20
11)
Supp
lier
No.
T
itle
Out
line
Lan
guag
eO
rgan
izat
ion,
Pe
rson
M
edia
D
ate
1 Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dy R
epor
t on
cons
truct
ion
Proj
ect o
f a n
ew
road
brid
ge in
Nik
olae
v C
ity, U
krai
ne fo
r Mar
ch 2
000,
13
6 pa
ges
F/S
1999
Japa
n C
onsu
lting
In
stitu
te
En
OC
B
ook
2 Pr
ojec
t des
crip
tion
for t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
of th
e br
idge
ove
r th
e Y
uzhn
y B
ug ri
ver i
n N
ikol
aev
for M
ay 2
003,
34
page
s F/
S 20
03
PCI
En
OC
B
ook
Dat
a
3 To
pogr
aphi
c m
ap o
f Nik
olae
v re
gion
1:2
00 0
00
Rus
O
C
Pa
per
4 Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dy a
s am
ende
d in
200
4, K
yiv
2004
, V
olum
e1 1
10 p
ages
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y En
JI
CA
, Ms.T
aked
a B
ook
5 U
krai
ne -
Myk
olai
v B
ridge
Pro
ject
QA
200
912.
En
JIC
A, M
s.Tak
eda
05-N
ov-1
0 6
Ukr
aine
Myk
olai
v Po
licy
Doc
CP0
2-10
En
JI
CA
, Ms.T
aked
a PD
F 09
-Nov
-10
7 Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dy a
s am
ende
d in
200
4, K
yiv
2004
, V
olum
e3 1
94 p
ages
En
viro
nmen
tal A
sses
smen
t R
epor
t En
JI
CA
, Ms.T
aked
a PD
F 10
-Nov
-10
8 O
utlin
e of
Eur
ope
and
CIS
Cou
ntrie
s (B
y JE
TRO
) G
ener
al In
fo. o
f Ukr
aine
Ja
p Ito
chu
Pape
r 11
-Nov
-10
9 A
mag
azin
e "T
rans
port
deve
lopm
ent o
f Ukr
aine
", 5
1 pa
ges #
1(15
)/200
9 B
roch
ure
of K
ievs
oyuz
U
kr
Kyi
vSoi
uzdo
rpro
ekt
Bro
chur
e12
-Nov
-10
10
A m
agaz
ine
of K
yivS
oiuz
dorp
roek
t fro
m id
ea to
em
bodi
men
t 200
8, 1
5 pa
ges
Bro
chur
e of
Kie
vsoy
uz
Ukr
K
yivS
oiuz
dorp
roek
t B
roch
ure
12-N
ov-1
0
11
A m
agaz
ine
"Tra
nspo
rt de
velo
pmen
t of U
krai
ne",
47
page
s #1(
16)/2
010
Bro
chur
e of
Kie
vsoy
uz
Ukr
K
yivS
oiuz
dorp
roek
t B
roch
ure
12-N
ov-1
0
12
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
as a
men
ded
in 2
004,
Kyi
v 20
04,
Vol
ume1
123
pag
es
Exec
utiv
e Su
mm
ary
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Boo
k 19
-Nov
-10
13
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
as a
men
ded
in 2
004,
Kyi
v 20
04,
Vol
ume2
50
page
s D
raw
ings
U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
B
ook
19-N
ov-1
0
14
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
as a
men
ded
in 2
004,
Kyi
v 20
04,
Vol
ume3
194
pag
es
EIA
U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
B
ook
19-N
ov-1
0
15
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
as a
men
ded
in 2
004,
Kyi
v 20
04,
Vol
ume4
9 p
ages
C
ost
Estim
atio
n U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
B
ook
19-N
ov-1
0
16
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
as a
men
ded
in 2
004,
Kyi
v 20
04,
Vol
ume5
80
page
s A
naly
sis o
f Inv
estm
ent
Effic
ienc
y U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
B
ook
19-N
ov-1
0
A10-2
(as o
f 9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
)
Su
pplie
r
No.
T
itle
Out
line
Lan
guag
eO
rgan
izat
ion,
Pe
rson
M
edia
D
ate
17
(Sup
rem
e C
ounc
il of
Ukr
aine
(BD
), 20
02, N
24,
st.1
66)
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-N
ov-1
0
18
DB
NV
1.2-
15:2
009
Brid
ge a
nd P
ipes
/ Lo
ads a
nd
Effe
ct (w
ithou
t fig
ures
) U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-N
ov-1
0
19
DB
NV
1.2-
15:2
009
Brid
ge a
nd P
ipes
/ Lo
ads a
nd
Effe
ct(F
rom
Inte
rnet
) U
kr
Inte
rnet
W
ord
15-D
ec-1
0
20
DB
NV
2.3-
4:2
007
RO
AD
S /
Part
I. D
esig
n/ P
art
II. C
onst
ruct
ion
(with
out
figur
es)
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 15
-Nov
-10
21
DB
NV
2.3-
4:20
07
RO
AD
S /
Part
I. D
esig
n/ P
art
II. C
onst
ruct
ion (
From
Inte
rnet
)
Ukr
In
tern
et
22
DB
NV
2.3-
14:2
006
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs /
Des
ign
Rul
es
(with
out f
igur
es)
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 15
-Nov
-10
23
DB
NV
2.3-
14:2
006
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs /
Des
ign
Rul
es
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 14
-Dec
-10
24
DB
NV
2.3-
14:2
006
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs /
Des
ign
Rul
es
App
endi
x (w
ithou
t fig
ures
) U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-N
ov-1
0
25
DB
NV
2.3-
14:2
006
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs /
Des
ign
Rul
es
App
endi
x U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-D
ec-1
0
26
DB
NV
2.3-
22:2
009
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs/
Des
ign
Rul
es
(few
pag
es a
re m
issi
ng)
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 15
-Nov
-10
27
DB
NV
2.3-
22:2
009
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs /
Des
ign
Rul
es
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
13-D
ec-1
0
28
DB
NV
2.3-
22:2
009
Brid
ge a
nd T
ubs /
Des
ign
Rul
es
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 13
-Dec
-10
29
DB
NV
1.1-
12:2
006
Prot
ectio
n ag
ains
t dan
gero
us
geol
ogic
al p
roce
sses
, the
ha
rmfu
l eff
ects
of m
aint
enan
ce
of fi
re/ C
onst
ruct
ion/
Earth
quak
e in
UK
RA
INE
(with
out
atta
chm
ent)
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 15
-Nov
-10
A10-3
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
(as o
f 9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
)
Su
pplie
r
No.
T
itle
Out
line
Lan
guag
eO
rgan
izat
ion,
Pe
rson
M
edia
D
ate
30
DB
NV
1.1-
12:2
006
Prot
ectio
n ag
ains
t dan
gero
us
geol
ogic
al p
roce
sses
that
are
ha
rmfu
l ope
ratio
nal e
ffec
ts,
from
fire
ISS
"arc
hite
ct"
(Kie
v,
st. M
G K
ryvo
nosa
, 2a,
tel /
fax.
24
9-34
-04)
CO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
In
seis
mic
are
as U
KR
AIN
E
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 16
-Dec
-10
31
DB
NV
1.1-
12:2
006
App
endi
x in
Ukr
aine
U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
32
DB
NV
1.1-
12:2
006
App
endi
x in
Eng
lish
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
33
DB
NV
1.1-
4:2
009
The
syst
em o
f urb
an
plan
ning
/Com
posi
tion,
con
tent
, de
velo
pmen
t, C
oord
inat
ion
and
appr
oval
Pla
nnin
g ju
stifi
catio
n
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 15
-Nov
-10
34
DV
NV
2.3-
20:2
008
Excu
tion
and
Acc
epta
nce
of
Wor
k C
oord
inat
ion
and
appr
oval
U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-N
ov-1
0
35
DST
UB
.V2.
3-1-
95
Nav
igat
ion
Cle
aran
ce u
nder
B
ridge
s on
Inla
nd w
ater
way
s Pl
anni
ng ju
stifi
catio
n U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-N
ov-1
0
36
Snip
2.0
2.01
-83(
2000
) C
onst
ruct
ion
Stan
dars
and
R
ules
/Fou
ndat
ion
of B
uild
ings
A
nd S
truct
ures
U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor,
Mr.
Ivan
W
ord
15-N
ov-1
0
37
DB
NV
.1.2
-2: 2
006
Sy
stem
relia
bilit
y an
d sa
fety
of
cons
truct
ion
proj
ects
/Loa
ds
and
effe
cts/
Stan
dard
s des
ign
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Wor
d 15
-Dec
-10
38
Win
d R
ose
in M
ykol
aiv
Win
d R
ose
in M
ykol
aiv
Rus
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Pape
r PD
F 15
-Dec
-10
39
Met
eoro
logi
cal d
ata
from
Myk
olai
v R
egio
nal H
ydro
-m
eteo
rolo
gica
l St
atio
n M
eteo
rolo
gica
l dat
a,
tem
pera
ture
, win
d, ra
infa
ll R
us
Myk
olai
v R
egio
nal H
ydro
-m
eteo
rolo
gica
l St
atio
n Pa
per
10-D
ec-1
0
40
Wat
er le
vel f
rom
Myk
olai
v R
egio
nal H
ydro
-m
eteo
rolo
gica
l St
atio
n W
ater
leve
l of Y
ujni
y B
ug ri
ver
Rus
M
ykol
aiv
Reg
iona
l Hyd
ro-
met
eoro
logi
cal
Stat
ion
Pape
r PD
F 15
-Dec
-10
A10-4
(as o
f 9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
)
Su
pplie
r
No.
T
itle
Out
line
Lan
guag
eO
rgan
izat
ion,
Pe
rson
M
edia
D
ate
41
Empl
oyer
’s in
form
atio
n of
“M
osto
otry
ad N
o.73
” O
ccup
atio
nal s
truct
ure
and
expe
rienc
e le
vel o
f tec
hnic
ians
an
d en
gine
ers
Rus
“M
osto
otry
ad N
o.73
” Pa
per
9-D
ec-1
0
42
Atta
chm
ent o
f DB
N, s
eism
ic in
form
atio
n Li
st o
f pop
ulat
ion
cent
ers o
f U
krai
ne, l
ocat
ed in
seis
mic
da
nger
are
as
Rus
U
krav
todo
r, M
r. Iv
an
Pape
r 16
-Dec
-10
43
Am
endm
ent o
f Dec
ree
of M
inis
try o
f Hea
lth o
f Ukr
aine
Am
endm
ent t
o D
ecre
e of
M
inis
try o
f Hea
lth o
n ap
prov
al
of te
mpo
rary
pro
cedu
re o
f Sta
te
Sani
tary
Exa
min
atio
n
Rus
M
inis
try o
f Hea
lth o
f U
krai
ne
Pape
r 14
-Dec
-10
44
Roa
d M
ap o
f Myk
olai
v R
oad
Map
of M
ykol
aiv
Ukr
Map
25
-Nov
-10
45
Doc
umen
t for
Cos
t Est
imat
e In
dust
rial p
rodu
cers
’ pric
e in
dex
Con
sum
er p
rice
inde
x En
g In
tern
et
Pape
r
46
Coo
rdin
atio
n of
Roa
d C
ente
r lin
e R
aod
Cen
ter l
ine
U
krav
todo
r Pa
per
25-N
ov-1
0 47
M
ykol
ayiv
Reg
ion
Myk
olai
v R
egio
n in
form
atio
n U
kr
Ukr
avto
dor
Boo
k
48
Nat
ural
Res
erve
s in
Myk
olai
v O
blas
t M
Yko
laiv
City
info
rmat
ion
Ukr
/ Eng
Ukr
avto
dor
Boo
k 10
-Dec
-10
49
Rek
omen
dats
ii po
opr
edel
eniy
u ne
sush
chei
spos
obno
sti
svai
-obo
loch
ek i
buro
v.pd
f
Rec
omm
enda
tions
on
dete
rmin
atio
n of
bea
ring
capa
city
of p
iles
Rus
U
krav
todo
r PD
F 15
-Dec
-10
50
Met
OiF
_Kor
nien
ko.p
df
Foun
datio
ns a
nd B
ases
R
us
Ukr
avto
dor
22-D
ec-1
0
51
Sani
tary
Rul
es a
nd T
erm
s of S
urfa
ce W
ater
Pro
tect
ion
Aga
inst
Pol
lutio
n Pr
otec
tion
Rul
e A
gain
st W
ater
Po
llutio
n R
us
Min
.of H
ealth
Pro
tect
ion
Pape
r 10
-Dec
-10
52
Stat
e Sa
nita
ry R
ules
on
Prot
ectio
n of
Atm
osph
ere
air o
f Po
pula
tion
Agg
rega
te
Prot
ectio
n R
ule
Aga
inst
Air
Pollu
tion
Rus
M
in.o
f Hea
lth P
rote
ctio
n Pa
per
10-D
ec-1
0
53
Sani
tary
Rol
es o
f Per
mitt
ed L
evel
of N
oise
in R
esid
entia
l B
uild
ings
and
Com
mer
cial
Bui
ldin
gs a
nd o
ther
Ter
ritor
y of
Res
iden
tial D
evel
opm
ent
Prot
ectio
n R
ule
Aga
inst
Noi
se
Rus
M
in.o
f Hea
lth P
rote
ctio
n Pa
per
10-D
ec-1
0
54
Clim
atol
ogic
al d
ata,
Ice
regi
me
and
thic
knes
s of i
ce c
over
Snow
Fal
l and
Riv
er F
roze
n D
ata
Rus
M
ykol
aiv
Reg
iona
l Hyd
ro-
met
eoro
logi
cal
Stat
ion
Pape
r 6-
May
-11
55
Soci
al a
nd e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t of U
krai
ne Ja
nuar
y-M
arch
201
1
Soci
al a
nd e
cono
mic
de
velo
pmen
t ind
ex o
f M
ykol
aiv
Eng
Inte
rnet
PD
F 10
-May
-11
A10-5
Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report
(as o
f 9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
)
Su
pplie
r
No.
T
itle
Out
line
Lan
guag
eO
rgan
izat
ion,
Pe
rson
M
edia
D
ate
56 Додаток
5. С
хема
галуз
.doc
M
anag
emen
t sch
eme
of R
oad
auth
ority
of U
krai
ne
Ukr
U
krav
todo
r W
ord
20-D
ec-1
0
57 Про
затвердж
ення
Державної програми розвитку
автомобільних
доріг
загального
користування на
20
07-2
011 роки
Stat
e Pr
ogra
m fo
r the
D
evel
opm
ent o
f Pub
lic
Hig
hway
s for
200
7-20
11
Ukr
Pa
rliam
ent o
f Ukr
aine
W
ebsi
te
Htm
l 9-
Dec
-10
58
КороткІ
Підсумки
Соціально
-Економічного
Становища М
.Миколаєва
За
2010
Рік
Перелік
міських
програм
розвитку,
які
діють
в 2
011
-20
14 роках
Econ
omic
and
Soc
ial
Dev
elop
men
t of M
ykol
aiv
City
in
201
0 C
ity D
evel
opm
ent P
rogr
ams
Run
ning
in 2
011-
2014
Ukr
M
ykol
aiv
City
Cou
ncil
Web
site
H
tml
9-D
ec-1
0 21
-Apr
-11
59 Про
затвердж
ення
Державно
. програми
розвитку
м
.ського електротранспорту на
200
7-20
15
роки
App
rovi
ng th
e St
ate
of th
e C
ity
Elec
tric
in 2
007-
2015
U
kr
Parli
amen
t of U
krai
ne
Web
site
H
tml
9-D
ec-1
0
60
Out
line
of U
krai
ne (
Apr
il 20
11)
O
utlin
e of
Ukr
aini
an
Dip
lom
acy
Jap
Web
Site
of J
apan
Em
bass
y in
Ukr
aine
H
tml
10-J
un-1
1
61
Stat
istic
al p
ublic
atio
n R
egio
ns o
f Ukr
aine
200
9 St
atis
tics o
f Ukr
aine
U
kr/E
ngSt
ate
Stat
istic
s Com
mitt
ee
of U
krai
ne W
ebsi
te
9-A
pr-1
1
62
Cou
ntry
Brie
f 201
0-U
krai
ne
Wor
ld B
ank’
s Cou
ntry
Brie
f of
Ukr
aine
for 2
010
Eng
Wor
ld B
ank
Web
site
H
tml
16-F
eb-1
1
63
Cou
ntry
Par
tner
ship
Stra
tegy
for U
krai
ne fo
r the
Per
iod
FY08
-FY
11
Wor
ld B
ank’
s Ass
ista
nce
Polic
y fo
r Ukr
aine
En
g W
orld
Ban
k W
ebsi
te
16-F
eb-1
1
64
OD
A D
ata
Boo
k 20
10
Out
line
of U
krai
ne
Jap
MoF
A W
eb S
ite
16-F
eb-1
1
65
Out
line
of U
krai
nian
Agr
icul
ture
(Jul
y 20
10)
Out
line
of U
krai
nian
A
gric
ultu
re
Jap
MA
FF W
eb S
ite
16-F
eb-1
1
66
Trad
e St
atis
tic o
f Agr
icul
ture(
2009)
A
gric
ultu
ral T
rade
Sta
tistic
s in
Ukr
aine
Ja
p M
AFF
Web
Site
PD
F/Ex
cel
22-M
ar-1
1
67
Stud
y fo
r Und
ergr
ound
Res
ourc
es in
Ukr
aine
O
utlin
e of
Ukr
aini
an M
inin
g an
d In
dust
ry
Jap
JOG
MEC
Web
Site
PD
F 30
-Mar
-11
68
Stat
e St
atis
tic S
ervi
ce o
f Ukr
aine
St
atis
tics o
f Ukr
aine
U
kr/E
ngSt
ate
Stat
istic
Ser
vice
of
Ukr
aine
Web
site
H
tml
15-N
ov-1
0
69
Land
-use
pla
nnin
g m
ap fo
r Myk
olai
v ci
ty
Map
with
col
or il
lust
ratio
ns
Ukr
M
ykol
aiv
city
Pa
per
14-D
ec-1
0
70
DB
NV
2.3-
16:2
007
Land
Allo
tmen
t for
C
onst
ruct
ion
of M
otor
Roa
ds
Ukr
In
tern
et
Wor
d 09
-May
-11
A10-6
(as o
f 9th
Sep
tem
ber
2011
)
Su
pplie
r
No.
T
itle
Out
line
Lan
guag
eO
rgan
izat
ion,
Pe
rson
M
edia
D
ate
71
2007
Min
eral
s Yea
rboo
k U
krai
ne
2009
Min
eral
s Yea
rboo
k U
krai
ne (A
dvan
ce R
elea
se)
The
Min
eral
Indu
stry
of
Ukr
aine
in 2
007,
200
9 En
g U
nite
d St
ates
Geo
logi
cal
Surv
ey (I
nter
net)
Wor
d,
Exce
l, PD
F
09-M
ay-1
1 10
-Aug
-11
72
Trad
e St
atis
tics o
f Jap
an(
JETR
O)
Tr
ade
Stat
istic
bet
wee
n Ja
pan
and
Ukr
ane
Jap
JETR
O W
eb S
ite
Exce
l 10
-Aug
-11
73
Prod
uctio
n Pr
ojec
t on
Rec
onst
ruct
ion
of A
utom
obile
Pr
inci
pal R
oad
Kie
v-K
hark
ov-D
ovzh
ansk
iy k
m 2
04+9
65
Polta
va R
egio
n B
ridge
ove
r the
Sul
a R
iver
O
vera
ll B
ill o
f Qua
ntiti
es
Ref
eren
ce o
f Cos
t Est
imat
ion
U
kr
Join
t-Sto
ck
Com
pany
“K
ievs
ojuz
dorp
roje
ct”
Boo
k 10
-May
-11
74
Wor
king
Doc
umen
tatio
n on
Rec
onst
ruct
ion
of
Aut
omob
ile P
rinci
pal R
oad
Kie
v- K
hark
ov- D
ovzh
ansk
iy
km 2
02+0
00 –
km
207
+000
Pol
tava
Reg
ion
C
ost E
stim
atio
ns P
repa
rato
ry W
orks
and
Ear
thw
orks
C
over
ing
of R
oadw
ay.
Roa
d Fa
cilit
ies C
onst
ruct
ion
Ref
eren
ce o
f Cos
t Est
imat
ion
U
kr
Join
t-Sto
ck
Com
pany
“K
ievs
ojuz
dorp
roje
ct”
Boo
k 10
-May
-11
75
Pric
e Fo
rmat
ion
in C
onst
ruct
ion
Ref
eren
ce o
f Cos
t Est
imat
ion
U
kr
Scie
ntifi
c-
Prod
uctio
n C
ompa
ny ”
Inpr
oekt
” B
ook
10-M
ay-1
1
76
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
of t
he B
ridge
Cro
ssin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
over
the
Riv
er P
ivde
nniy
Bug
Riv
er
Vol
ume
3 C
onst
ruct
ion
Cos
t Cal
cula
tion
Ref
eren
ce o
f Cos
t Est
imat
ion
U
kr
CJS
C
“Kyi
vsoy
uzsh
lyak
hpro
ekt”
B
ook
10-M
ay-1
1
77
Cor
rect
ion
of th
e Pr
ojec
t of t
he P
odils
kiy
Brid
ge C
ross
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n ov
er th
e D
nipr
o R
iver
in K
yiv
The
Brid
ge o
ver t
he D
esen
ka R
iver
C
ost E
stim
atio
n D
ocum
enta
tion
Ref
eren
ce o
f Cos
t Est
imat
ion
U
kr
CJS
C
“Kyi
vsoy
uzsh
lyak
hpro
ekt”
B
ook
10-M
ay-1
1
78
Cor
rect
ion
of th
e Pr
ojec
t of t
he P
odils
kiy
Brid
ge C
ross
ing
over
the
Riv
er D
nipr
o in
the
City
Kyi
v Se
ctio
n 8
Cos
t Est
imat
ion
Doc
umen
tatio
n B
ook
8.1
Ref
eren
ce o
f Cos
t Est
imat
ion
U
kr
CJS
C
“Kyi
vsoy
uzsh
lyak
hpro
ekt”
B
ook
10-M
ay-1
1
Top Related