Second Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project (RRP KGZ 50176)

Initial Environmental Examination

Project No.: 50176-002 July 2018

KGZ: Second Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project

Prepared by Department of Drinking Water Supply and Sewerage Development (DDWSSD) under the State Agency for Architecture, Construction and Public Utilities under the Government of Kyrgyz Republic (Gosstroy) for the Asian Development Bank.

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

ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank ASP Activated Sludge Process CMEA Council for Mutual Economic Assistance DPMDCH Dep‘t on Preservation, Monitoring and Development of Cultural Heritage d/s Downstream EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product GKR Government of the Kyrgyz Republic Gosstroy State Agency for Architecture, Construction, Housing and Communal

Services GRG Grievance Redress Group GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism GW Global Works International (Consultant of this PPTA) IBA Important Bird Area IBR Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve IBRGD Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve General Directorate IDAL Intermittently Decanted Aeration Lagoon (the preferred treatment option) IDEAL intermittently decanted extended aeration lagoon IEE Initial Environmental Examination ISDP Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project ITDEP Issyk-Kul Territorial Department for Environmental Protection KR Kyrgyz Republic LAS Land Allocation Statement LFP Local Focal Point MAA Ministry of Agriculture and Amelioration MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration MASL Meters above sea level MES Ministry of Emergency Situations MoH Ministry of Health MLSD Ministry of Labor and Social Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NSC National Statistical Committee NSSD National Strategy for Sustainable Development for the Period 2013- 2017 OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OLSG Organs of Local Self-Governance PC Public Consultation PCR Physical Cultural Resources PEE Public Ecological Expertise PIO Project Implementation Office (ISDP offfice, Karakol) PMO Project Management Office REA Rapid Environmental Assessment RSAs Rayon State Administrations SAEPF State Agency of Environmental Protection and Forestry Gosregister State Agency on Registration of Rights to Immovable Property SAIKO State Administration of the Issyk-Kul Oblast SCIEMR State Committee on Industry, Energy and Mineral Resources SEE State Ecological Expertise SEMP site specific environment management plan SER State Environmental Reviews SIETS State Inspectorate for Ecological and Technical Safety SISDP Second Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project SPS 2009 ADB Safeguard Policy Statement 2009 u/s Upstream UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNDP United Nations Development Programme WSS Water Supply and Sanitation WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 3

2 POLICY, Legal and Institutional Framework .............................................................................. 5 2.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................... 5

1. Constitution ............................................................................................................................. 5 2. Natural Resources and Environment Legislation .................................................................... 5 3. Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 7 4. Standards ................................................................................................................................ 7 5. International Treaties and Obligations .................................................................................... 9 6. Protected Areas .................................................................................................................... 10 7. IKBR Zones and Issyk Kul Development Setback ................................................................ 10 8. Wastewater and Sludge Application for Agriculture .............................................................. 11 9. Sanitary Protection Zones ..................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Policy and Institutional Framework .................................................................................. 14 1. Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy ........................................................... 14 2. Environmental Management Institutions ............................................................................... 15 3. Environmental Monitoring Capacity ...................................................................................... 17

2.3 Kyrgyz Republic Environmental Assessment Requirements ........................................ 17 1. Legal Basis ............................................................................................................................ 17 2. Environmental Process ......................................................................................................... 18 3. Review and Approval of Project IEE ..................................................................................... 19

2.4 Applicable ADB Policies and Environmental Assessment Requirements ................... 19 1. Environmental Assessment Requirements ........................................................................... 19 2. Information Disclosure and Public Consultation ................................................................... 20

3 Description of the Project .......................................................................................................... 21 3.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Project Rationale ................................................................................................................. 21 3.3 Existing Situation ................................................................................................................ 22

1. Balykchy ................................................................................................................................ 22 2. Karakol .................................................................................................................................. 25

3.4 Proposed Subproject Description Project Activities ...................................................... 29 3.5 Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 32 3.6 Budget .................................................................................................................................. 32 3.7 Implementation Arrangements .......................................................................................... 32

4 Description of the Environment ................................................................................................ 33 4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Physical Resources ............................................................................................................ 33

1. Geography, Topography, Land Use, and Soils ..................................................................... 33 2. Climate .................................................................................................................................. 34 3. Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 39 4. Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 42 5. Total Phosphorous ................................................................................................................ 45 6. Site-Specific Surface Water Quality Conditions .................................................................... 46 7. Air Quality & Noise-The Two Project Sites ........................................................................... 48

4.3 Ecological Resources ......................................................................................................... 52 1. Habitat Types ........................................................................................................................ 52 2. Flora ...................................................................................................................................... 52 3. Fauna .................................................................................................................................... 53 4. Mammals ............................................................................................................................... 53 5. Avifauna ................................................................................................................................ 53 6. Fish ........................................................................................................................................ 56 7. Amphibians and Reptiles ...................................................................................................... 57 8. Protected Areas .................................................................................................................... 58

4.6 Socioeconomic Profile ....................................................................................................... 63 1. Population ............................................................................................................................. 63 2. Economy and Employment ................................................................................................... 64 3. Poverty .................................................................................................................................. 70 4. Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 71

5. Power Sources and Transmission ........................................................................................ 71 4.7 Physical Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 72

1. Primary Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 72 2. PCRs in the Project Area ...................................................................................................... 73 3. Legislation and permit requirements relevant to PRCs and to this Project .......................... 73

4.8 The Project Sites ................................................................................................................. 74 1. Balykchy ................................................................................................................................ 74

5 Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 82 5.1 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives .................................................................................. 82

1. Alternative 1: No Change ...................................................................................................... 82 2. Alternative 2: Full Rehabilitation of Existing Treatment Plants ............................................. 82 3. Alternative 3: Rehabilitate and Modify Existing Treatment Processes ................................. 82 4. Alternative 4: New Treatment Plants on New Sites .............................................................. 82 5. Alternative 5: New Treatment Plants on Existing Sites ......................................................... 82 6. Discussion of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 83 7. The Preferred Options: .......................................................................................................... 84

6 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................... 88 6.1 Survey of Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................... 88

1. Ecological Status of Balykchy and Karakol WWTP and surrounding area. .......................... 91 2. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Balykchy ................................................... 96 3. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Karakol ...................................................... 99

6.2 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................... 102 1. Preamble ............................................................................................................................. 102 2. Process of determining impacts .......................................................................................... 102 3. Mitigation ............................................................................................................................. 103 4. Results of the Assessment Process ................................................................................... 103 5. Additional Impact Assessment Requirements .................................................................... 114

7 Information Disclosure, Consultation and Participation ...................................................... 115 7.1 Stakeholder Consultation Approach ............................................................................... 115 7.2 Compliance with ADB and KR Requirements ................................................................ 115 7.3 Public Consultation .......................................................................................................... 115

1. Public Consultation – July 2017 .......................................................................................... 115 2. Information Disclosure ........................................................................................................ 117

8 Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) ................................................................................... 118 8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 118 8.2 ADB’s GRM Requirements ............................................................................................... 118 8.3 Project GRM ....................................................................................................................... 118

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 118 2. Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 118 3. Operation ............................................................................................................................. 119 4. Grievance Redress Group Membership ............................................................................. 120

9 Environmental Management Plan ........................................................................................... 122 9.1 Mitigation and Monitoring Actions .................................................................................. 122

A. The EMP Tables ................................................................................................................. 122 B. Pre-Construction Phase ...................................................................................................... 122 C. Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 123 D. Operating Phase ................................................................................................................. 123 9.2 Performance Indicators ................................................................................................... 137

9.3 Implementation Arrangements ........................................................................................ 140 A. Environmental Requirements to be Implemented ............................................................... 140 B. Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 140 C. Reporting ............................................................................................................................. 141

9.4 Institutional Capacity, Needs, and Proposed Strengthening ....................................... 141 A. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 141 B. Improving Institutional and Technical Capacity ................................................................... 141

9.5 Estimated Inputs ............................................................................................................... 142 10 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 145

10.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 145 10.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 146

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 147

VOLUME II: ANNEXES

Annex 1: Supplementary Baseline Monitoring Annex 2: Biodiversity Surveys Annex 3: Archaeological Survey Annex 4: Public Consultation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction. This Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) forms part of preparations for the Second Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project (project), which is being implemented by the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic (government) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It has been prepared in accordance with ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement of June 2009 (SPS 2009), the Kyrgyz Republic’s Law on Environmental Protection, 1999, and other relevant laws, regulations and requirements. The objective of the IEE is to (i) identify and assess potential impacts and risks from project implementation on the physical, biological, physical cultural and socio-economic environments of the project area, and (ii) recommend measures to avoid, mitigate and provide compensation for adverse impacts, while enhancing positive impacts. 2. Background and rationale. The Issyk-Kul Lake and surrounding region is a nationally valuable environmental, economic and cultural asset.1 Being 180-km long, 60-km wide, and with a surface area of 6,200-km2, the lenticular-shaped lake is the world’s second largest high-altitude lake. Over 40 rivers and streams feed into it, including hot springs and snow melt. The wider region is designated as a Ramsar (wetlands) site of globally significant biodiversity2 and forms part of UNESCO’s Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve (IBR), which extends over 43,000-km.2 Rich with environmental, archeological and cultural resources, the region also provides a vital habitat for threatened and endangered species.3 3. Being of outstanding natural beauty, the lake, shoreline and surroundings are one of the nation’s most popular tourist destinations: over 750,000 tourists visited in 2013.4 Consequently, tourism has become an important economic driver for the region, and particularly for lakeshore areas. While the growth in tourism is destined to continue, its impact on the pristine and fragile environments and ecosystems of the lake and vicinity are however of increasing concern. Being both oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) and endorheic (lacking conventional outflows), the lake is highly sensitive to elevated nutrient and contaminant inflows. Unchecked, the lake and surrounding areas are therefore increasingly vulnerable to pollution from expanding human activity. These impacts are of concern in relation to wastewater pollution, notably in the primary lakeshore cities that include the cities of Balykchy and Karakol, which are located on the lake’s western and eastern shoreline, respectively.

4. Recognizing the significant environmental value of the lake and its region, the government is currently implementing WSS sector reforms, which have included the formulation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy for the Kyrgyz Republic (2013–2017). Currently, the ADB is assisting to improve environmental management and urban services in the region through the first Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project (ISDP-1),5 and other external assistance continues to be provided.6 5. Proposed project. The proposed project complements these initiatives by further improving wastewater systems in the two cities of Balykchy and Karakol, greatly enhancing health, hygiene, and sanitation standards. The project will achieve this in both cities by (i) developing new wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that will produce effluent to meet national and international standards, (ii) expanding the existing sewerage networks, (iii) improving septage management, and (iv) strengthening the capacity of the city’s water and wastewater utilities, known as vodokanals. The project is aligned with the following impacts: improved living standards, health, and economy in the Issyk-Kul Region. The project will have the following outcome: improved and expanded access to reliable, sustainable, and affordable wastewater services in Balykchy and Karakol. The tentative, total project budget is estimated to be $ 36.52 million. This is comprised of an ADB Asian Development Fund (ADF) grant amounting to $12.84 million, and ADB concessional loan financing of $23.58 million.

1 The lake’s rich environmental, archeological and cultural resources are renowned internationally. 2 The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty relating to wetlands sustainable use and conservation. 3 Including the Siberian ibex and the endangered snow leopard. 4 Tourism is also highly seasonal, with about 90 percent of tourists visiting during the summer months. 5 ADB. 2009. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Loan and Asian Development Fund

Grant Kyrgyz Republic: Issyk–Kul Sustainable Development Project. Manila. The project is improving water supply, wastewater collection and conveyance, solid waste management, and community upgrading, as well as enhancing service delivery through improved enterprise resource management.

6 Including: (i) the World Bank Small Towns Infrastructure and Capacity Development Project, (ii) water supply system improvements in Balykchy by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and (ii) water supply investments in Karakol by the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.

6. Existing status. The wastewater systems in both cities are dilapidated, having deteriorated substantially since their construction, which dates back to Soviet times, several decades ago. The WWTPs in both cities have never been fully operationalized, and have suffered substantially from minimal investment and maintenance. Less than half of consumers in the two cities are connected to the centralized wastewater systems,7 with the balance disposing of wastewater primarily through septic tanks and pit latrines. Although collected wastewater receives only settlement and detention treatment before discharge, it is noted that the Balykchy WWTP discharges outside of the Issyk-Kul catchment, and the Karakol WWTP effluent passes through a pond system before discharge. 7. Environmental setting of the project. The project region is topographically, climatically and ecologically diverse, and also vulnerable to anthropogenic hazards, including resource extraction, solid and liquid waste, and climate change. Pressures on the local environment have been identified, especially regarding the lake, and a clear, conceptual linkage established between current wastewater management status in the project cities, and previous and expected changes in the lake’s water quality. The existing WWTP sites have quite low biodiversity values (although the Karakol WWTP lagoons are home to a listed, vulnerable species), and generally there are no known Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) in the immediate vicinity of the WWTPs. Neither of the WWTPs are located in densely populated areas. 8. Policy, legal and institutional framework. The supreme legislative instrument in the Kyrgyz Republic is the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, 1993 (latest revision 2016), which establishes the principles of natural resource and environmental management, and through its legal framework, regulates between natural resource users and the state. The most relevant environmental legislation includes the Law on Environmental Protection, 1999, the Law on Ecological Expertise, 1999, the Law on Sustainable Development of Environmental-Economic System of Issyk-Kul, 2004, and the Law on Surface Water Protection, 2009.8 In addition, the Kyrgyz national legal framework includes laws in other substantive areas with relevance to the Project,9 over 20 regulations are in place to support wildlife protection, and various standards are enforced.10 The environmental study therefore conforms with the national legal framework of Kyrgyzstan, which also includes international treaties.

9. Project categorization. The project includes civil works and equipment, institutional development and capacity building activities, and project management and implementation. Given the proximity to the culturally, environmentally and ecologically sensitive Issyk-Kul lake, there was an initial perception that the project would necessitate a category A status for environment11. However, given that works are generally confined to rehabilitation on existing (disturbed) sites (site specific impacts), that the Balykchy WWTP discharges outside of the Issyk-Kul catchment, and that Karakol treated effluent will not pass directly to Issyk-Kul, but rather through irrigation reservoirs before being discharged to agricultural land for irrigation purposes, a Category B status is appropriate. Regarding IBR classification, both the Balykchy and Karakol WWTPs are located in the IBR Transition Zone, where sustainable economic development is allowed.12

10. Implementation arrangements. The State Agency for Architecture, Construction, Housing and Communal Services (Gosstroy) will be the Executing Agency (EA) for the project. A Project

7 The number of sewerage connections in Karakol and Balykchy is 7,190 and 3,325 respectively, which represents 45% and 35% of the

current populations. 8 Elaborated as follows: (i) Law on Environmental Protection, 1999, providing state policy and the legal framework for natural resource

utilization and environmental protection, (ii) Law on Ecological Expertise, 1999, empowering the State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry (SAEPF) to undertake State Environmental Reviews (SERs) of projects, (iii) Law on Sustainable Development of Environmental-Economic System of Issyk-Kul, 2004, providing a framework to regulate the preservation, use and sustainable development of Issyk-Kul Lake, and (iv) Law on Surface Water Protection, 2009, providing a framework for the protection of water bodies.

9 Chief among these are laws concerning labor and occupational health and safety, and cultural heritage protection. 10 These relate to noise, air quality, hygiene, potable water safety, surface waters protection, effluent discharges and other standards. One

notable standard that directly relates to the project is an extremely stringent discharge standard for ammonia of 0.1 mg/L. To meet this standard, the WWTPs have been designed with tertiary treatment systems.

11 Category A: anticipated to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are irreversible, diverse or unprecedented, requiring a full scale environmental impact assessment. Category B: anticipated to have environmental impacts that are less adverse, site-specific, mostly reversible, and in most cases, can be mitigated.

12 Confimed by the Head of Science of the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve (IBR) in Balykchy (April 2017). Reportedly, the IBR is currently revising the zoning composition of the biosphere territory, and will propose inclusion of the Balykchy and Karakol WWTPs in the Rehabilitation Zone, which promotes regeneration, rehabilitation, remediation, revegetation and other associated measures in order to restore ecological integrity of the damaged areas.

Management Office (PMO) will be established and report directly to the EA. The State Administration of Issyk-Kul Oblast (SAIKO) will be the Implementing Agency (IA), and project implementing units (PIUs) located in the vodokanals of each city administration will be responsible for day-to-day project activities.

11. Project alternatives considered in the planning of the Project. In relation to the WWTPs, alternatives include; (i) a ‘No Project’ option; (ii) full and partial ‘Rehabilitation’ options; and (iii) the construction of new WWTPs on entirely new sites. The Preferred Option is identified as being the construction of new process lines to tertiary treatment on existing WWTP sites, combined with a sludge management system that will allow the safe and beneficial agricultural use of the plants’ sludge outputs (rather than landfill disposal), and enhancing the existing biodiversity values of the Balykchy and Karakol sites using the existing treatment lagoons. 12. Potential negative impacts are either avoidable through design and construction planning, or with proven and established mitigation measures. Very few of the potential negative impacts could be considered long-term in nature, and those that are have readily applied solutions. Significantly, it is noted that in all cases, the planned project activities are to be carried out on existing sites that are at present problematic both environmentally and socially, whether that is because of what they don’t do (i.e., provide safe, effective and environmentally sound wastewater services), or because of what happens there (i.e., discharge of essentially untreated wastewater directly to fields, pastures, streets and surface waters). On balance, the impacts of the Project – provided the potential negative impacts identified are effectively mitigated – are likely to be strongly positive relative to existing conditions. To ensure that the potential negative impacts do not materialize, or are minimized, a set of impact-specific mitigation measures are recommended to address negative impacts identified. These mitigation proposals are carried forward for inclusion into the Project’s Environmental Management Plan (EMP). 13. Environmental Management. An EMP is incorporated in this IEE, which includes (i) mitigation measures for environmental impacts during design and implementation phases; (ii) an environmental monitoring program; (iii) responsible entities for mitigation, monitoring, and reporting; (iv) public consultation and information disclosure; and (v) a grievance redress mechanism. The EMP will be included in civil works bidding and contract documents. 14. During the construction phase, anticipated impacts on the physical and biological environment are temporary, localized and can be easily avoided or minimized with the implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures which are detailed in the EMP. The following are the anticipated impacts and corresponding mitigation measures during the construction phase of the project:

a. Air pollution from dust emissions during on-site excavations, movement of earth materials and emission from movement of heavy equipment and construction vehicles. This will be mitigated by good construction practices such as water spraying on road surface and work areas, covering all materials during transportation, and proper maintenance of construction vehicles and equipment;

b. Water pollution from run-off or soil erosion from stockpiled construction materials, wastewater from domestic sewage of construction workers, and accidental spillage of oil and other lubricants from the washing of construction equipment. This will be mitigated by covering exposed soils, constructing temporary silt traps, and providing adequate and on-site sanitation facilities;

c. Noise pollution from construction activities that causes a nuisance to local communities will be mitigated through consultation with communities regarding the schedule and time of noise-generating construction activities, and the use of noise suppression on construction equipment;

d. The generation of construction wastes, which will be mitigated by the provision of waste bins in construction sites and the proper segregation, collection and disposal of solid wastes;

e. Occupational health and safety in construction sites, potentially causing harm and danger to the lives and welfare of workers. This will be mitigated through the implementation of an occupational and health safety plan, including the provision of personal protective equipment to all workers; and

f. Community health and safety, such as the disruption of normal traffic patterns, and risks from unauthorized entry to the construction areas resulting in accidents. This will be mitigated through implementation of a community health and safety plan, which will include the provision of fences to enclose areas of civil works, and the posting of warning signs and information in construction areas.

15. During the operational phase of the project, all facilities and infrastructure will operate with routine maintenance, which should not affect the environment. Facilities will need to be repaired from time to time, but environmental impacts will be much less than those of the construction period. For the two WWTPs, the respective operators will be responsible for the sludge management program to ensure that the collection, treatment, transport and final disposal of the sludge will be in compliance with applicable environmental standards.

16. Consultation, Participation and Information Disclosure. The stakeholder consultation and involvement process undertaken during project preparations have provided the public in the two project cities an opportunity to become aware of the Project and its details. The means of engaging with the public, through information disclosure, discussion, and soliciting feedback have been identified, and details of public meetings provided. Public reception to the project has been positive, with a majority of participants expressing a strong interest in benefitting from the renewed wastewater management infrastructure.

17. Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). The project will establish and implement a GRM in order to receive and facilitate the evaluation and resolution of affected peoples’ concerns, complaints, and grievances regarding the project’s environmental performance. When and where the need arises, this mechanism will be utilized to address complaints that may arise during the implementation of the project. The proposed GRM addresses affected people's concerns and complaints promptly, utilizing an understandable and transparent process that is gender responsive, culturally appropriate, and readily accessible to all segments of the affected people at no costs and without retribution.

18. Major Findings of the IEE are summarized as follows:

a. Based on the existing conditions at the project sites, and the impacts and threats that these conditions pose to public health, environmental quality, and the development prospects of the Issyk-Kul Lake basin’s population, there is a demonstrated and crucial need for the project.

b. Public responsiveness to the Project, as documented in the public consultation forum, has been strongly positive.

c. The Project Alternative that will most effectively achieve the project’s environmental and social objectives includes the construction of replacement WWTPs in both Balykchy and Karakol, utilizing the intermittently decanted extended aeration lagoon (IDEAL) technology and tertiary treatment systems, in order to meet national and international effluent discharge standards.

d. The impacts anticipated to arise from Project activities are strongly positive, since the negative impacts that are expected to arise are mostly short-term in nature, and all impacts are readily manageable using available, well-tested mitigation measures.

19. Conclusions and Recommendations. In view of the foregoing, this IEE concludes that the Project has a well-supported rationale, strong public support, few downside impacts, and an opportunity to make a positive difference to the environmental quality of the Issyk-Kul Lake basin and to the health and socioeconomic development prospects of the people who live there. It is therefore recommended that the Project, based on the Preferred Alternative identified in this report and including the EMP, is put forward for implementation.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1. Issyk-Kul Lake is the second largest high-altitude lake in the world. It is cradled by the Kungei-Alatau mountain chain to the north and the Teskei-Alatau mountain chain to the south. Although fed by over 40 rivers and streams, it is an endorheic lake (without drainage) and its waters are slightly saline. The Issyk-Kul basin supports internationally important biodiversity, including many migratory birds, seven endemic fish species, and the vulnerable endangered Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia13). Issyk-Kul Oblast was designated a biosphere reserve by the government in 1998, and by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2001.14 In 2002, the lake was also designated as a Ramsar site.15 The lake is also a major regional economic growth driver, attracting over a million tourist overnight stays each year, which places increasing pressure on the region’s limited infrastructure and built and natural environments. Unchecked, the lake and surrounding areas are increasingly vulnerable to pollution from expanding human activity. These impacts are of significant concern in relation to wastewater pollution, notably in primary lakeshore cities that include Balykchy and Karakol, which are situated on the western and eastern shoreline of the lake, respectively. 2. Although municipal water supply and sanitation (WSS) companies, known as vodokanals, provide basic services in Balykchy and Karakol, they face considerable service delivery difficulties due primarily to limited institutional capacity, financial constraints and obsolete Soviet-era assets. Less than half of consumers in the two cities are actually connected to centralized wastewater systems, with the balance disposing wastewater primarily through septic tanks and pit latrines.16 The centralized wastewater systems are also severely dilapidated, having deteriorated substantially since their construction, which dates back to Soviet times, several decades ago. In both cities, the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) provide only basic (inadequate) treatment. 3. Recognizing the significant environmental value of the lake and its region, the government is currently implementing WSS sector reforms, which have included the formulation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy for the Kyrgyz Republic (2013–2017).17 Previously, ADB has assisted to improve environmental management and urban services in the region through the first Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project (ISDP-1),18 and other external assistance continues to be provided.19 The proposed Second Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project (project) therefore complements these initiatives by further improving wastewater systems in the two cities of Balykchy and Karakol, greatly enhancing health, hygiene, and sanitation standards. Being implemented by the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic (government) and the ADB, the project will achieve this in both cities by rehabilitating the existing dilapidated WWTPs, expanding the wastewater collection networks, and strengthening institutional capacity. Figure 1 shows the location of the two cities.

13 By IUCN Red list, the Snow Leopard is classed as Vulnerable as of 2017. A downgrade from endangered in previous IUCN assessments

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22732/0 14 Biosphere reserves are sites established by countries and recognized under UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programmed to

promote sustainable development based on local community efforts and sound science. 15 The Ramsar Convention (formally, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat) is an

international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands. It is named after the city of Ramsar in Iran, where the Convention was signed in 1971.

16 The number of sewerage connections in Karakol and Balykchy is 7,190 and 3,325 respectively, which represents 45% and 35% of the current populations.

17 The ‘National Sustainable Development Strategy for the Kyrgyz Republic for the period 2013-2017’ prepared by the National Council for Sustainable Development of the Kyrgyz Republic. The Issyk-Kul region is specifically identified in the strategy as the selected location on which to ‘create an international forum-center on the shore of the lake Issyk- Kul to conduct political and economic (forums) and large national events’.

18 ADB. 2009. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Loan and Asian Development Fund Grant Kyrgyz Republic: Issyk–Kul Sustainable Development Project. Manila. The project is improving water supply, wastewater collection and conveyance, solid waste management, and community upgrading, as well as enhancing service delivery through improved enterprise resource management.

19 Including: (i) the World Bank Small Towns Infrastructure and Capacity Development Project, (ii) water supply system improvements in Balykchy by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and (ii) water supply investments in Karakol by the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.

2

Figure 1: Location of Issyk-Kul Oblast and the Project Cities

Project Cities

BA - Balykchy, KK - Karakol

3

1.2 Purpose of the Report 4. This IEE therefore forms part of preparations for the project. It has been prepared in accordance with ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement of June 2009 (SPS 2009), and the Kyrgyz Republic’s Law on Environmental Protection, 1999 and other relevant laws, regulations and requirements. The objective of the IEE is to (i) identify and assess potential impacts and risks from project implementation on the physical, biological, physical cultural and socio-economic environments of the project area, and (ii) recommend measures to avoid, mitigate and provide compensation for adverse impacts, while enhancing positive impacts. Relevant references, desk assessments, site reconnaissance, community consultations, and discussions with government agencies and other stakeholders have provided the basis for IEE preparation. Once completed, it will be submitted to the State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry (SAEPF) for review and approval. 5. The Project has been screened and classified by the ADB as Environment Category B, and accordingly requires an IEE, including an EMP. This IEE has been prepared to comply with the ADB’s requirements as stipulated in SPS 2009.

1.3 IEE Structure 6. This IEE is structured in accordance with SPS 2009 specifications.20 It consists of an executive summary, ten chapters, a reference chapter, and appendices that are presented in Volume 2. It has been prepared based on infrastructure design work undertaken by technical specialists; primary surveys and secondary data collection and analyses carried out by archeological, environmental, biodiversity, hydrogeology, and social experts; and public and stakeholder consultations. Key data sources are as follows:

a. ISDP Phase I Outputs: I. Phase I findings and outputs, including (i) the Strategic Environmental Management

Plan (ADB 2009); and (ii) the Environmental Impact Assessment (ADB 2009) and its associated EMP, which was updated in 2012.

II. The findings of earlier Phase II activities, which preceded the ongoing assignment.21 b. Project Description: Data sources for the project description, including the feasibility study

infrastructure designs and detailed design and tender documents prepared by the previous project’s international and national technical specialists

c. Primary Data Surveys: Including archeological field surveys, biodiversity field surveys, and river and stream water quality monitoring.

d. Secondary Data Sources: Including government, academic and other documents relating to the Issyk-Kul basin’s topography, geology, soils, climate, air and noise quality, water resources, ecology, socioeconomic characteristics, and archeological resources.22

e. Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Anticipated positive and negative environmental impacts assessed based on the findings of the data collection, field surveys, site reconnaissance, stakeholder consultations, applicable sections of the Kyrgyz Republic Environmental Impact Assessment regulations and SPS 2009, as well as experiences from other wastewater projects in the Krygyz Republic and elsewhere.

f. Information Disclosure and Public Consultation: Guided by the SISDP Stakeholder and Communication Awareness Strategy (ADB 2014).

1.4 Methodology 7. A project environmental impact is defined as any change (both positive or negative) in physical, biological, and socio-economic conditions, and physical cultural resources (PCRs) resulting from project activities. The methodology for identifying potential project impacts and associated mitigation measures includes the following steps:

20 As specified in the Annex to Appendix 1, pg. 41-42 (Approach to IEE Preparation). 21 Including (i) Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II, Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC) - Environmental

Impact Assessment for Improvement of Sewerage And Wastewater Treatment Systems In The Issyk-Kul Basin Towns Of Balykchy, Cholpon-Ata And Karakol (ADB 2015a), and (ii) and Feasibility Study: Improvement of Sewerage Network in Cholpon-Ata (ADB 2015b).

22 References to these data are presented in Section XI.

4

a. Collection of information on project pre-construction, construction and operational stage activities, to identify those with the highest potential for environmental impacts.

b. Collection of information on the environmental setting, including available data from secondary sources, primary surveys and site visits undertaken by national and international specialists in environment, biodiversity, archaeology, sociology and engineering.

c. Identification of sensitive receptors and the characterization of potential environmental impacts based on parallel consideration of information on the proposed project and the environmental setting.

d. Specification of appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures based on good international practice, experiences in similar projects of the region, and the expertise of the national and international specialists.

8. Potential impacts of a project are assessed with reference to the following typology:

Direction

• Positive impact: results in a positive effect on physical, biological, and socio-economic conditions, and PCRs.

• Negative impact: results in a negative effect on physical, biological, and socio-economic conditions, and PCRs.

Type

• Direct: impacts which occur through direct interaction of a project activity with physical, biological, and socio-economic conditions, and PCRs.

• Indirect: environmental impacts that cannot be immediately traced to a project activity but can be causally linked.

Duration

• Short term: impact does not result in a permanent alteration in conditions. In general, the impact is short-lived (less than a year).

• Long term: impact results in a permanent alteration, or duration of impact is more than one year.

Accumulation

• Simple: impacts that if occurring over a prolonged time period do not lead to worsening consequences.

• Accumulative: impacts that if prolonged over time increase in severity. 9. Based on an assessment of the above, the magnitude of project impacts on physical, biological, and socio-economic conditions and PCRs can be classified as follows:

• No Impact: no adverse consequences.

• Low Impact: a minor impact from which recovery is immediate or short-term, and which requires limited and typical mitigation measures, or none at all.

• Moderate Impact: a moderate impact from which recovery to initial conditions will occur over time, and which requires typical mitigation measures.

• High Impact: a significant impact from which recovery requires significant mitigation measures over a long period, and/or where there will likely be a failure to re-establish initial conditions.

5

2 POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework

1. Constitution

10. The supreme legislative instrument in the Kyrgyz Republic is the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, 1993 (latest revision 2016), hereafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’. All laws must comply with the Constitution, and only the parliament may amend it, change or pass laws or ratify international agreements. Under the Constitution, the Kyrgyz Republic is a parliamentary democratic republic, with a popularly elected president, a nominated prime minister, and a 120-seat unicameral legislative assembly. This analysis of the policy, legal and institutional framework of the Kyrgyz Republic draws heavily on the earlier SISDP feasibility study EIA (ADB 2015a) together with information from this assessment.

2. Natural Resources and Environment Legislation

11. The Constitution establishes the basic principles of natural resource and environmental management, including the right of KR citizens to access the primary sources of life while the main resources (land, water and subsoil) are the common property of the people and belong to the state. Based on these principles, a legal framework has been developed to regulate relations between natural resource users and the state (UNDP 2007a). The most significant relevant legislation includes:

a. Law on Environmental Protection, 1999, which provides state policy and the general legal framework for natural resource utilization and environmental protection;

b. Law on Ecological Expertise, 1999, which empowers the SAEPF to undertake State Environmental Reviews (SERs) of proposed projects;

c. Law on Sustainable Development of Environmental-Economic System of Issyk-Kul, 2004, which provides a framework to regulate the preservation, use and sustainable development of Issyk-Kul Lake;

d. Law on Surface Water Protection, 2009, which provides a framework for protection of water bodies, including development and approval of water protection activities and defining rules and enforcing sanctions for violations.

12. In addition to legislation that pertains directly to environment and natural resources, the Kyrgyz national legal framework includes laws in other substantive areas with relevance to the Project. Chief among these are laws concerning labor and occupational health and safety, and cultural heritage protection. These are addressed as follows.

13. The Constitution offers protections for workers, stipulating that they are entitled to labor conditions in which basic requirements for safety and hygiene in the workplace are met. The Ministry of Labor and Social Development has primary responsibility for overseeing occupational health and safety. Key relevant legislation includes the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Occupational Safety, 2003, the Labor Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, 2004, and individual regulatory norms. The KR joined the International Labor Organization on March 31, 1992. A review by that organization in 2008 concluded that the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Occupational Safety met international norms and standards, though it also identified a lack of trained state inspectors to ensure enforcement (ILO 2008).

14. The Constitution also guarantees state protection to historical monuments. The Law on Protection and Use of Historic-Cultural Heritage, 1999 (last revised 2014) establishes a system for the protection of objects of local, state and international historical or cultural importance, with the Ministry of Education and Science having custodial authority. The Ministry maintains the official state cultural heritage register, which lists over 5,000 items of local, state and international importance. Legislation most relevant to the Project is summarized in Table 1.

6

Table 1 – Relevant Kyrgyz Republic Environmental Legislation

Legislation Year Passed (Amended) Purpose / Content

Law on Environmental Protection

1999 (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015,

2016)

Provides state policy and the general legal framework for natural resource utilization and environmental protection, including environmental impact assessment, setting environmental standards, and the legal regime for protected areas.

The Environmental Safety Concept of KR

2009 (2012)

It establishes the basic principles of environmental policy and determines global, national and local environmental issues; priorities in the field of environmental protection at the national level as well as tools to ensure environmental safety.

Law on Ecological Expertise

1999 (2003, 2007, 2015)

Provides the legislative framework for the SAEPF to undertake SER and approval of EIAs. Defines (in general) projects requiring environmental assessment and SER.

Law on Sustainable Development of Environmental-Economic System of Issyk-Kul

2004 (2013)

Provides a framework to regulate the preservation, use and sustainable development of Issyk-Kul Lake, including controls on natural resource use and economic development, such as a prohibition on capital construction within 100 m of the shoreline.

Law on Special Protected Natural Territories

1994 (2011)

Regulates the organization, protection and use of biosphere reserves; national parks; other protected areas with unique natural areas, flora or fauna or cultural heritage values; and protected areas for recreational use.

Law on Biosphere Reserves No. 48

1999

Sets out legal standards for biosphere reserves, with the goal of preservation, restoration and use of areas rich in natural and cultural heritage, and supporting long-term sustainable economic and social development, including recreation, restoration of natural resources, long-term ecological control, monitoring and education.

Law on Protection and Use of Flora

2001 (2003, 2007, 2009, 2010,

2016)

Regulates the use, protection, and reproduction of flora. Key tenets include preservation of biodiversity and growth of wild plants and ecosystems; restoration and preservation of rare, endangered, and endemic species; and use and restoration of natural vegetation resources based on scientific principles.

Law on Fisheries

1997 (1998, 2008, 2013)

Regulates commercial fisheries with a view to conservation and development of fish stocks, increasing aquaculture, and meeting the fish product needs of the population.

Law on Wildlife 1999

(2003, 2014, 2015)

Establishes that fauna is the property of the national state. Regulates protection of fauna during infrastructure design and construction, including faunal species’ habitat, migration routes and areas for nesting and breeding. Provides definitions of wildlife, rare and endangered species, wildlife protection, and use of wildlife.

Law on Water Resources

1994 (1995, 2012, 2013, 2016)

Regulates the use and protection of water resources, including prevention of negative impacts, and seeks to improve cooperation and enforcement. Regulates the quantity and quality of water released into the environment, and prohibits the discharge of industrial, household and other wastes into water bodies. Provides water protection zones, where activities that can negatively impact water quality are prohibited.

Law on Drinking Water

1999 (2000, 2003, 2009, 2011,

2012, 2014) Regulates drinking water availability and its quality.

Water Code 2005

(2012, 2013, 2016)

Establishes a unified legal base regulating the use, protection and development of water resources to ensure sufficient and safe supply and environmental preservation.

Rules on Protection of Surface Waters of the Kyrgyz Republic

2016

Provides the legislative framework for defining, specifying standards for the quality of water bodies used for fisheries and irrigation and enforcing regulations regarding discharges to water bodies, among other things.

7

Legislation Year Passed (Amended) Purpose / Content Law on the Protection of Ambient Air

1999 (2003, 2005)

Regulates ambient air quality and air quality management.

Law on Protection and Use of Historic-Cultural Heritage

1999 (2014, 2015, 2017)

Establishes a system for protecting items of local, state and international historical or cultural importance. Includes definitions of key terms and types of protected objects.

Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Occupational Safety

2003 Provides the basis for regulation of working conditions, including workplace safety features, workplace safety procedures, and workplace hygiene.

Sources: Adapted from ADB (2009a, 2009b); FAO (2011); unofficial translations; and Feasibility Study Team.

3. Regulations

15. There are over 20 regulations in place to support the above-mentioned laws with respect to the protection of wildlife. The most relevant of these are the Regulation on Protection and Use of Fish Resources and Aquatic Organisms, 1994 and Regulation on Protection of Fish Resources and their Habitats, 2008, which prescribe measures to ensure the conservation of fish resources and their habitats during economic activities, establishment of sanitary and protective zones along shorelines, and the prohibition of pollution of shoreline areas by municipal and other wastes. Another relevant regulatory instrument is the List of Rare and Threatened Animal and Plant Species included in the Red Data Book of Kyrgyzstan, 2005 (amended 2009), known locally as the ‘Red Book’.23 Species included in the Red Book – and their habitats – are protected by law, and proposed development projects must incorporate measures to avoid negative impacts, as well as mitigation measures designed to prevent habitat destruction and species extirpation or extinction.

16. A series of instructions and decrees support the cultural heritage law. These include:

a. Decree of the President on Measures to Promote the Studies of Historic and Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of Kyrgyzstan, dated January 27, 2012 №18;

b. State List of Monuments of History and Culture in Kyrgyz Republic of National Status, approved by the government on August 20, 2002 № 568;

c. Instruction on Registration, Protection, Restoration, and Use of Historic and Cultural Monuments of Kyrgyz Republic, approved by the government on August 20, 2002;

d. Local ‘Lists of Monuments of Regional Importance’ approved by local authorities in compliance with the Law on Protection and Use of Historic-Cultural Heritage (Article 10).

17. The key legislation governing occupational health and safety, including at construction sites (the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Occupational Safety, 2003) is supported by the Labor Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, 2004, as well as other regulatory norms.

4. Standards

18. Environmental standards that are relevant to the Project are identified as follows. Key elements of some of these standards, such as tables showing allowable limits of pollutants, are presented in Annex 2 along with similar material from relevant international standards. The relevant standards include:

a. Technical Regulation for Potable Water Safety (2011), which establishes microbiological, parasitological and chemical maximum allowable concentrations (MACs) for potable water from centralized urban water supply systems and non-centralized sources (e.g., community wells).

b. Rules for Protection of Surface Waters (2016, No. 128), which establishes ambient standards for surface water used for potable water, recreation, fisheries and irrigation. The rules regulate the discharge into

23 The Red List categorization provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on plants and animals which have been

globally evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and highlight flora and fauna which are facing a high risk of global extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered). The former Soviet Union originally provided a Red List of species known as the Red Data Book for its territories, and this name is still used in the KR.

8

water bodies of all wastewaters, including domestic, industrial, rainfall and snow-melt waters, road washings, runoff from built-up areas, discharge waters of ameliorative systems, drain waters and mine waters. The rules also regulate economic activities, such as water engineering, that may cause adverse impacts on surface waters. The rules apply to all water bodies, including rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs.

c. Hygiene Standard 2.1.5.1315-03 (2004), which establishes standards for the quality of water bodies used for domestic and potable water supply and recreational purposes. Adapted from Russian Federation standards, this standard is typically used only when a particular parameter of interest is not covered by the Rules for Protection of Surface Waters (2016).

d. Sanitary protection zones and sanitary classification of facilities, buildings and other plants’ SanPin 2.2.1/2.11.006-03 (2004). requires sanitary protection zones (SPZs) around WWTPs and pump stations in order to protect surrounding human receptors primarily from atmospheric impacts. The extent of the SPZs varies depending on the type and size of facilities.

e. Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) Wastewater Standard (1977). The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was an economic organization that existed from 1949 to 1991 under the leadership of the Soviet Union and included the countries of the Eastern Bloc and a number of socialist states elsewhere in the world. In the field of water pollution, CMEA countries worked together on technologies for wastewater treatment and standards, cleaner production methods, and a unified classification system for surface water quality.

f. Instruction for Establishing Maximum Permissible Discharges of Pollutants into Water Bodies (SAEPF Instruction, Dec 8 1993), which specifies MACs for wastewater treatment plants based on an assessment of existing water quality and other conditions.24

g. SNIP 2.04.03-85-Sewerage (External Networks and Facilities), which establishes criteria for hydraulic capacity calculations for sewerage networks and wastewater system design, and specifies standards for components of wastewater management systems, including sewerage and treatment plants.

h. SNIP 3.05.04-85 (External networks, water supply and sewerage facilities), which identifies specifications for pipes, water supply and wastewater plants, tanks, pressure mains and gravitational pipelines.

i. Kyrgyz Republic Noise Standards, which are adapted from Russian Federation noise standards. The standards were promulgated as Collection of the Most Important Records on Sanitary and Anti-epidemiological Issues; Volume 2, Part 1 (Information Publishing Centre of Goskomsanepidnadzor, Russian Federation, 1994).

j. Hygiene Standard 2.1.6.1338-03 (June 10, 2004 No. 64-04), which sets MACs for pollutants in outdoor air in urban and rural settlement areas. The MACs are designed to prevent human health impacts from air pollutants and are used when establishing allowable emission levels from industries.

k. KR Law on Sanitary, Epidemiological Well Being of the Population No. 60, July 26, 2001, which aims to ensure sanitary-epidemiological wellbeing of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic and is used to enforce guarantees given by the state to the people to exercise their right to their health protection and to the healthy environment.

l. In respect of monitoring the Soviet standards: GOST 17.2.3.01-86. Rules for Air Quality Control in Settlements (1986) and RD 52.04.186-89 Manual on Atmospheric Pollution Control (1989) adopted by Kyrgyz Republic will apply, as shown in the following table.

Table 2 – Ambient Outdoor Noise Standards in Kyrgyzstan

Activity Category25

Leq 26 Lmax 27 Description of Activity Category

8 Day = 45 Day = 60

Areas immediately adjacent to hospitals and sanatoriums Night = 35 Night= 50

9

Day = 55 Day = 70 Areas immediately adjacent to dwellings, polyclinics, dispensaries, rest homes, holiday hotels, libraries, schools, etc

Night = 45 Night = 60

10 Day = 60 Day = 75

Areas immediately adjacent to hotels and dormitories Night = 50 Night = 65

11 35 50 Recreational areas in hospitals and sanatoriums

12 45 60 Rest areas at the territories of micro-districts and building estates, rest houses, sanatoriums, schools, homes for the aged, etc

24 These assessments have not yet been performed for the two Project wastewater treatment plants, so the IETPD refers to the CMEA

standard when undertaking wastewater effluent monitoring. 25 Activity Categories 1 to 7 relate to indoor standards. The standards provide for allowable noise levels to be reduced in “green areas” or

other designated sensitive areas. 26 Leq = the sound level equivalent, the Leq represents the level of steady sound which, when averaged over the sampling period, is

equivalent in energy to the fluctuating sound level over the same period. 27 LMax = maximum sound level.

9

Table 3 – Ambient Air Quality Standards in Kyrgyzstan

Pollutant Maximum

Permissible (mg/m3)

Average Daily Concentration

(mg/m3) Particulate Material: With silica content > 70% 0.15 0.05

Particulate Material: 70 - 20% (cement, coal, clay, etc.) 0.3 0.1

Particulate Material: < 20 % (dolomite, etc.) 0.5 0.15

Cement dust (Calcium oxide > 60% and silica >20%) 0.5 0.05

Sulfur Dioxide SO2 0.5 0.05

Carbon monoxide CO 5 3

Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 0.085 0.04

Nitrogen Oxide NO 0.40 0.06

Lead (Pb) and compounds (except tetra ethyl) - 0.0003

Lead sulphorous (in terms of Pb) - 0.0017

5. International Treaties and Obligations

19. The Kyrgyz Republic is a party to a number of international treaties and conventions (Table 4). Fulfillment of the terms of these commitments contributes to environmental sustainability, attracts external funding for stabilization and prevention of degradation of natural resources and cultural heritage, and enhances the country's capacity to use its natural and cultural resources as a basis for poverty reduction and socio-economic development (IMF 2012). Ratified international obligations and associated laws take priority over national legislation, provided they do not contradict the Constitution. In addition to UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserve Convention, the nation is also signatory to the Ramsar Convention for the preservation and protection of wetlands. Issyk-Kul wetlands have been designated as Ramsar site No. 1231. This is not a legally binding designation in the nation, but rather voluntary protection.

Table 4 – Kyrgyz Republic participation in international conventions relevant to the Project

Convention Adopted / in force

KR Signed

Main objectives

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

1992/1995 2000 Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.

Kyoto Protocol 1997/2005 2003 Setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.

United Nations Convention Combat Desertification

1994/1996 1996 Reverse and prevent desertification and land degradation in affected areas in order to support poverty reduction and environment sustainability.

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

1992/1993 1999 Conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components and equitable sharing of the benefits.

Convention on the Conservation of the World Cultural and Natural Habitats

1972/1975 1995 Protection of natural and cultural heritage.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

1973/1975 2007 Ensuring that international trade does not threaten wild animals and plants.

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

1979/1983 2014 Global platform for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their habitats.

Ramsar Convention 1971 2002 Conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and international cooperation to achieve sustainable development.

Basel Convention 1989/1992 1996 Regulation, reduction and restriction of hazardous wastes transboundary movement.

Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents

1992/2000 2000 To protect people and the environment against industrial accidents.

10

Convention Adopted / in force

KR Signed

Main objectives

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

2001/2004 2003 Eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants.

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

1983 2000 Protect the human environment against air pollution and gradually reduce and prevent air pollution, including long-range transboundary air pollution.

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

2004 1999 Promote shared responsibilities in relation to the importation of hazardous chemicals.

Aarhus Convention 1998/2001 2001

Granting public rights regarding access to information, and participation and access to justice on matters concerning the local, national and transboundary environment.

Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context

1991/1997 2001 Integrating environmental assessment into state plans and programs at the earliest stages – so as to help to lay the groundwork for sustainable development.

Source: Adapted from Yessekin et. al. (2006) and ADB (2014f)

6. Protected Areas

20. The Kyrgyz Republic legal framework provides for four classes of nationally designated protected areas, as follows:

a. State Nature Reserves, where any economic or other activity that may disturb the natural environment is prohibited.

b. National Parks, in which the regime of protection (preserve, recreation area, etc.) depends on its environmental and ecological sensitivity.

c. Nature Monuments and Geological Reservations, where public access is allowed, although certain activities (e.g. camping, lighting fires, etc.) may be prohibited.

d. Reserves, which are created for the protection of discrete components in a larger area (e.g. forest reserves, zoological reserves) (ADB 2009b).

21. The Issyk-Kul Oblast includes examples of most of the above-mentioned nationally designated protected area types, as well as two internationally designated protected areas, the Issyk-Kul Ramsar Site and the Issyk-Kul. Biosphere Reserve (IBR). Protected areas of the Issyk-Kul Oblast are discussed in more detail in Chapter IV. The initial and overarching legal document establishing and protecting the IKBR is the Decree on Regulation of the Issyk Kul Biosphere Territory, No. 40 (2000) which defines the long-term strategy for the sustainable multi-purpose use coupled with a long-term monitoring program and environmental awareness raising program. The order of the Ministry of Environment, i.e., The Order on the Administration of the Issyk Kul Biosphere Territory (2000) was repealed in 2009 apparently due to governance issues at the Issyk Kul Biosphere Reserve Directorate. Prior to its repeal, the SAEPF Regulation on the Issyk Kul Biosphere Reserve General Directorate (2008), set out the fee structure and collection procedure for each vehicle and vehicle origin entering the biosphere reserve. Unfortunately, to date there is no legal description of the IBR in terms of actual boundaries and the delineation of the core, buffer, transition and rehabilitation zones and a clear definition of each zone (consultant findings and Wunderlich, 2013).

7. IKBR Zones and Issyk Kul Development Setback

22. The only definitive data provided by IKBR are the areas of the three zones, which are described later in this IEE. The UNESCO charter defines only the type of development permitted in each of the zones. The IKBR has not done this. As indicated in paragraph 56, no precise map showing the boundaries of the different zones has been prepared. Development setback is controlled by Government Resolution No. 271, July 1995. Position on Water Protection Zones for Lakes, Rivers and Canals, which specifies development setback on the basis of the type of landuse, type of water body and the volume of water retained. For Issyk Kul, with an approximate volume of 1738 km3, the legal setback is 500 m for any agricultural activity and 100m for commercial tourism development such as

11

hotels and guesthouses. The Resolution is not clear and presents overlapping and ambiguous boundaries (at least in the unofficial English translation).

8. Wastewater and Sludge Application for Agriculture

23. The Kyrgyz Republic permits the use of WWTP wastewater for irrigation of all agricultural crops, but a rigorous testing program must be followed by the State Inspectorate for Ecological and Technical Safety (GOSEKOTEHINSPEKTSIYA) and implemented by the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Station in Cholpon Ata. The locations where wastewater and any sewage is applied must be tested according to the Rules for Protection of Surface Waters (2016, No. 128). 24. Rules for Protection of Surface Waters (2016, No. 128), which establishes ambient standards for surface water used for potable water, recreation, fisheries and irrigation. The rules regulate the discharge into water bodies of all wastewaters, including domestic, industrial, rainfall and snow-melt waters, road washings, runoff from built-up areas, discharge waters of ameliorative systems, drain waters and mine waters. The rules also regulate economic activities, such as water engineering, that may cause adverse impacts on surface waters. The rules apply to all water bodies, including rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. 25. The ultimate objective of treating sewage or wastewater is to allow its beneficial reuse. Besides the usual water quality parameters that must be met such as carbon (BOD & COD), suspended solids (SS), acidity (pH), nitrate (NO3), ammonia (NH3) and phosphorus (P), etc., the microbiological content of the water is amongst the most important, particularly if there is possibility for human contact. Both WWTPs considered in this study (at Balykchy and Karakol), once upgraded, will not directly discharge into surface waters but into storage reservoirs/irrigation canals prior to reuse in agriculture.

26. The team met with the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service (SESS) of the Ministry of Health in Bishkek, Cholpon-Ata and Karakol regarding the discharge standards with which the WWTP discharges would have to comply. Discussions were also conducted with the State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry who now have responsibility for effluent discharge standards. Local representatives of the SESS were also present during public hearings in each city on environmental issues. The Kyrgyz Republic Standards for irrigation water at the time of this writing is summarized in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 – Kyrgyz Republic Standards for irrigation water quality Indicators characterizing the content of substances and chemical elements necessary for the normal growth and development of crops and the functioning of the ameliorative system (Group I)

№ Characteristics Unit Optimal range Allowed value 1 Hydrogen pH -log[H+] 6.5-8.0 6.5-8.4

2 Temperature °C 15-30 15-35

3 Mineralization mg/L 200-500 1000

4 Hydrocarbonates -//- 50-250 300

5 Carbonates -//- non-availability 6.0

6 Sulphates (anion) -//- 30-300 500

7 Chlorides (anion) -//- 10-200 250

8 Sodium -//- 10-100 150

9 Calcium -//- 50-200 300

10 Magnesium -//- 20-100 150

11 Potassium -//- 10-20 30

12 Phosphates -//- 5-10 10

13 Nitrates -//- 30-40 45

14 Nitrite -//- 0.2-0.3 0.5

15 Ammonium -//- 0-0.1 0.1

16 Iron total -//- 1.0-2.0 2.0

17 Zinc -//- 0.1-1.0 1.0

18 Copper -//- 0.5-1.0 1.0

19 Boron -//- 0.5-1.0 1.0

20 Fluorine -//- 0.7-1.0 1.5

21 Manganese common -//- 0.1 0.1

22 Cobalt -//- 0.1 0.2

12

№ Characteristics Unit Optimal range Allowed value 23 Molybdenum -//- 0.2 0.5

25 E. coli. CFU / 100 mL

<1,000

27. Note that the microbiological indicator organisms, fecal coliforms and total coliforms are not currently used. However, E coli is specified by the Law on Water, No. 1422-XII of 1994 as shown. 28. WHO Guidelines28 were subsequently consulted for additional guidance. The guidelines state on page 69 that E. coli can be used as a disinfection indicator organism as shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 – Verification monitoring of wastewater treatment (E. coli numbers per 100 mL of treated wastewater) for the various levels of wastewater treatment

Type of Irrigation

Option (Figure

4.1)

Required pathogen

reduction by treatment (log

units)

Verification monitoring level (E. coli per 100

mL)

Notes

Unrestricted

A 4 <103 Root Crops

B 3 <104 Leaf Crops

C 2 <105 Drip irrigation of high- growing crops

D 4 <103 Drip irrigation of low- growing crops

E 5 or 7 <101 or <100 Verification level depends on the requirements of the local regulatory agency29

Restricted F 4 <104 Labor intensive agriculture (protective of adults and children under 15)

G 3 <105 Highly mechanized agriculture

H 0.5 <106 Pathogen removal in a septic tank

29. The Kyrgyz Republic legal framework defines the calculation of per capita generation of pollutants such as BOD and suspended solids that can end up in sewage (via SNiP 2.04.03-85). There are also discharge standards that are dependent on the subsequent use of the treated water, either for agricultural irrigation (Table 4-4) or as water for a fishery. The waters that would be used for a fishery could be broadly interpreted as being [at least similar to] the discharge into a surface water. 30. The Kyrgyz Republic water quality standards are compared with other more overt or obvious discharge design standards in Table 4-4. The European Union standards were designed to bring member countries into compliance in a realistic and timely manner as several, particularly Eastern European countries, had not in the past focused much in this area. Ontario, Canada standards are shown as the location is similar to Kyrgyzstan and the influent is dilute. The Kyrgyz Republic standard for ammonia in irrigation water is quite low and could only be met coming out of the WWTP with advanced tertiary treatment after biological treatment.

28 The WHO Guidelines for Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater, Volume II, Wastewater Use in Agriculture (2006). 29 For example, for secondary treatment, filtration and disinfection: BOD <10 mg/L; turbidity < 2 NTU; chlorine residual of 1 mg/L;

pH of 6-9; and Fecal coliforms, not detectable in 100 mL.

13

Table 4-4 – Consideration of project design standards

Parameter, mg/L or as

stated EEC Stds30

Ontario Extended Aeration (Influent: 150 - 200

mg BOD/L)

Kyrgyz Republic

(Agricultural)

Kyrgyz Republic (water for

fish)

Proposed Design

Maximums for this study

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

70-90% reduction31

25

25 Not stated Not stated 25

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

75% reduction 125

Not used Not stated Not stated 125

Suspended Solids (SS)

90% reduction (optional)

35

25 Not stated Not stated 35

Total Nitrogen (TN)

70-80% reduction32

15

20 Not used Not used <15

Ammonia (as NH3-N)

Not used 3.0 0.1 0.5 3 for secondary;

0.1 for tertiary

Nitrate (as NO3-N)

Not used 10 9 10

Total Phosphorus (TP)

80% reduction33

2

3.5 10 0.2 (eutrophic)

10 for Irrigation; 2

for river

Fecal coliform (as CFU/100 mL)

See Figure 5.2 Not sighted Not stated Not stated Not used

E. coli (CFU/100 mL)

See Figure 5.2 Not sighted

<1,00034 Not stated 1,000

31. Disinfection in some form is required for the upgraded WWTPs to meet the E. coli delimit of 1,000 CFU/100 mL. Meeting this E. coli limit would directly comply with the Kyrgyz Republic standard as well as to lower the risk for use of the treated effluent on a number of plant types as shown in the WHO Guidelines in Table 4-3. 32. All the sewage treatment options considered herein for upgrading the WWTPs at Balykchy and Karakol will have to be able to meet the selected standards given in Table 4-4. All the selected design standards are within international guidelines and can be achieved without employing overly complex process configurations or excessive operating and maintenance costs.

Biosolids

33. It is proposed that the rehabilitated WWTPs produce stabilized biosolids in that primary solids and will not be allowed to be recycled directly. It is recommended that all biosolids meet at least USEPA Class B35 with respect to pathogens and stability by one of the five biosolids management approaches as given below.

30 Council Directive Concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment, Directive 91/27/EEC: Annex I and Annex II, Brussels (1991); see also

http://www.euwfd.com/IWA_Krakow_Sep_2005_REV.pdf (accessed April 2017). 31 Twenty-four hour average; either concentration or percent reduction applies. Note EU Directive has this as a minimum design

requirement that also includes COD. 32 Given for plants for treatment plants for 10,000 to 100,000 PE. EU Directive has this as an additional requirement for sensitive waters

for treatment plan over 10,000 PE that also includes phosphorus; annual averages, either concentration or percent reduction applies. 33 Ibidem. 34 Law on Water, No. 1422-XII of 1994, Government of Kyrgyz Republic. 35 USEPA Guide to the Part 503 Rule, page 119; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

05/documents/a_plain_english_guide_to_the_epa_part_503_biosolids_rule.pdf (accessed April 2017).

14

1. Aerobic Digestion: Biosolids are agitated with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions

for a specific mean cell residence time (MCRT or sludge age) at a specific temperature. Values for MCRT and temperature shall be between 40 days at 20°C and 60 days at 15°C.

2. Air Drying: Biosolids are dried on sand beds or on paved or unpaved basins. The biosolids dry for a minimum of 3 months. During 2 of the 3 months, the ambient average daily temperature is above 0°C.

3. Anaerobic Digestion: Biosolids are treated in the absence of air for a specific mean cell residence time at a specific temperature. Values for the mean cell residence time and temperature shall be between I5 days at 35°C to 55°C and 60 days at 20°C.

4. Composting: Using either the within-vessel, static aerated pile, or windrow composting methods, the temperature of the biosolids is raised to 40°C or higher and maintained for 5 days. For 4 hours during the 5-day period, the temperature in the compost pile exceeds 55°C.

5. Lime Stabilization: Sufficient lime is added to the biosolids to raise the pH of the biosolids to 12 after 2 hours of contact.

34. This will also reduce potential odor from the biosolids. Class B sludge under the USEPA Part 503 Rule when land applied has its own restrictions36 such as food crops, feed crops, and fiber crops, whose edible parts do not touch the surface of the soil, shall not be harvested until 30 days after biosolids application, animals shall not be grazed on land until 30 days after application of biosolids and others that involve longer periods of avoiding contact the closer the plant is to the biosolids (i.e. crops grown near the ground) or the greater the potential for human contact (e.g use on parks or sports fields). 35. It is envisioned that all solids from the STPs at Balykchy and Karakol will be treated via options 1 to 3 to achieve Class B.

9. Sanitary Protection Zones 36. The current Sanitary-Epidemiological Rules and Regulations ‘Sanitary protection zones and sanitary classification of facilities, buildings and other plants’ (SanPiN)37 requires sanitary protection zones (SPZs) around WWTPs and pump stations in order to protect surrounding human receptors primarily from atmospheric impacts. The extent of the SPZs varies depending on the type and size of facilities. For the proposed WWTPs in Balykchy and Karakol, the stipulated SPZ extent is 400 m, while for pumping stations it is between 15-20 meters depending on size. 37. The SanPiN stipulates restrictions for land use and activities conducted in SPZs, in particular disallowing the construction of residential properties. It also stipulates that the Chief Doctor of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service (SESS) of the Ministry of Health can revise the extent of SPZs. Any revisions to the extent of SPZs around WWTPs however requires thorough justification through both detailed technical (odor) modeling, followed by field sampling and testing: the former of which can only be completed once the final design of the WWTPs is completed following loan approval, and the latter completed only when the WWTPs are operational. Field observations have revealed that residences and other human activities currently exist within the SPZ surrounding the WWTP in Karakol, and possibly limited activities in Balykchy, and that in order to meet the requirements of the SanPiN, residences and other human activities would be subject to involuntary resettlement under the project.

2.2 Policy and Institutional Framework

1. Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy

38. The main document setting out government policy for current and future development within the Kyrgyz Republic is the National Strategy for Sustainable Development for the Period 2013-2017 (NSSD), approved in January 2013. The strategy was developed by the National Council for Sustainable Development, in response to a perceived lack of vision and goals in terms of the country's economic, political and social development. The NSSD argues the necessity of linking economic and environmental factors in order to achieve sustainable development. It recognizes that current economic growth in the nation is based mostly on natural resource-intensive development, and identifies the

36 Ibidem, Figure 2-4, page 38. 37 Reference: SanPin 2.2.1/2.11.006-03.

15

following significant consequences of this ‘brown development’: (i) environmental problems and depletion of natural capital (climate change, pollution, loss of biodiversity, degradation of agricultural land, desertification, lack of water for irrigation and domestic use); (ii) increases in poverty; (iii) threats to food security; (iv) threats to energy security; and (v) inequality. The NSSD affirms that sustainable development requires the inclusion of environmental factors as economic development indicators and states the GKR’s intention to formulate and consistently implement uniform state policy within a framework of environmental security and protection, covering all aspects of ecosystem sustainability. The principles of this environmental policy include:

a. Minimization of adverse environmental consequences of economic growth by assessing the environmental impact of planned commercial and other development projects;

b. A fee basis for the use of nature and reimbursement of damages inflicted on the environment as a result of violations of environmental legislation;

c. Accessibility and openness of environmental information; d. A gradual shift to a system of strategic sustainable development planning of economic, social

and environmental activities, irrespective of their form of ownership; and e. Participation of all interest groups in decision making on environmental protection and rational

use of nature, at both national and local levels (NCSD 2013).

39. Currently the GoKR, is working on a new Kyrgyz Republic National Strategy for Sustainable Development “Zhany Doorgo – kyrk kadam” (40 Steps to the New Era) 2018–2040, succeeding the Kyrgyz Republic’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) 2013-2017. The NSSD 2018-2040 is aimed at social and economic reforms both at the national and local level, as well as diversifying economic activities and promoting establishment of modern and accessible infrastructure, and growth and productivity in key economic sectors. 40. For the purposes of this IEE, the NSSD for 2013 – 2017 has been used until a new Sustainable Development strategy will be developed and come into force.

2. Environmental Management Institutions

41. The SAEPF has the primary responsibility for environmental management in the Kyrgyz Republic. The SAEPF receives its mandate through the Law on Environmental Protection (1999). The main objectives of the SAEPF are to:

a. Develop and implement fundamental directions in environment and biodiversity protection, forest ecosystems, and protected areas;

b. Promulgate the rational use of natural resources, sustainable development, and the implementation of mechanisms for environmental protection; and

c. Formulate environmental legislation.

42. The Department for State Ecological Expertise (SEE) under the SAEPF is responsible for reviewing environmental assessment documents for projects of national significance. The review and approval of less significant projects will be delegated to the oblast level departments. The organizational structure of SAEPF is presented in Figure 2.Error! No bookmark name given. The SAEPF has two departments responsible for environmental management within the Issyk-Kul basin. These are the Issyk-Kul Territorial Department for Environmental Protection (ITDEP), which has a regional office in Cholpon-Ata, and the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve General Directorate (IBRGD), which has its office in Balykchy.

43. Although these two organizations have different mandates, they have some overlapping duties. The ITDEP is responsible for monitoring producers of waste for compliance with environmental regulations and providing the environmental component of project approvals and environmental reviews (State Ecological Expertise) when projects are reviewed at the oblast level. Depending on the severity of the proposed environmental impacts, the SAEPF and/or the ITDEP are responsible for subsequent environmental monitoring and protection. The ITDEP laboratory conducts periodic monitoring of water quality in Issyk-Kul Lake and incoming rivers. The IBRGD received related laboratory equipment and training support through Phase I of the ISDP. The IBRGD has the mandate to manage and support environmental protection and sustainable development within the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve, which includes all of the Project’s proposed sites of activity. IBRGD activities include awareness-raising, scientific research and conservation activities. The IBRGD is financed from the state budget and other

16

sources, and since 2005 has been considered to be financially independent. Figure 2 – Organizational structure of SAEPF

Source: ISDP Phase II Institutional Analysis, 2014 and SAEPF website (http://www.nature.kg), 2014.

44. Other government agencies with environmental management responsibilities include:

a. State Inspectorate for Ecological and Technical Safety (SIETS), which is responsible for safety in areas of environment, energy, industry, construction, labor, land and firefighting. The Inspectorate was established in 2012, and took over inspection and oversight functions of several state bodies in order to concentrate powers to investigate and fine safety rule violations in one place. The agency imposes fines for illegal disposal of waste and monitors landfills. In Issyk-Kul Oblast, the agency has two regional divisions based in Cholpon-Ata and Karakol.

b. Ministry of Health (MoH), which is responsible for health and safety, standards for pollutants in air, water and food, and noise and vibration standards. The State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service (SSES) under the MoH implements sanitary, hygiene and anti-epidemic activities; improvements to working and recreation environments; and disease prevention. It operates through a network of regional offices.

c. Ministry of Labor and Social Development (MLSD), which oversees the development of long-term programs on occupational health and safety and contributes to occupational health and safety services at other ministries, agencies, enterprises and organizations. Policy is implemented through its local oblast level departments.

d. Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES), which is responsible for emergency response and natural hazards. Its subsidiary agency, Kyrgyz Hydromet, is responsible for meteorological services and ambient air and water quality monitoring.

e. Ministry of Agriculture and Amelioration (MAA), which is responsible for agricultural lands and pastures.

f. State Committee on Industry, Energy and Mineral Resources (SCIEMR), which is responsible for exploration, regulation, control and protection of subsurface resources.

g. State Agency on Registration of Rights to Immovable Property (Gosregister), which acts as a land registry and undertakes systematic registration of properties in urban and municipal areas.

17

h. Rayon State Administrations (RSAs), whose responsibilities include resettlement and land acquisition, public hearings, and information disclosure.

i. Organs of Local Self-Governance (OLSG), known also as aiyl okmotu, which are responsible for social issues, and the allocation of lands for stockpiles, asphalt plants, construction camps, etc. (ADB 2014).

3. Environmental Monitoring Capacity

45. The SAEPF has the main responsibility for environmental monitoring. The SAEPF’s central laboratory is located in Bishkek, within the Environmental Monitoring Administration. The laboratory (i) undertakes water sampling and analytics, (ii) exercises control over industry wastewater permits, (iii) provides assistance when state control inspectors need help to collect samples or analytical services, and (iv) takes part in trans-boundary water quality studies and monitoring. There are also SAEPF laboratories under oblast-level Territorial Environment Protection Monitoring Departments in Osh, Jalalabad and Issyk-Kul. The Environmental Monitoring Administration is benefitting from a capacity building program funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (Project KGZ-Water/Issyk Kul –FinWater WEI II-2014-2017) and the ADB (ADB 2014f). The ITDEP laboratory undertakes periodic monitoring of water quality in Issyk-Kul Lake and the rivers in its watershed.

2.3 Kyrgyz Republic Environmental Assessment Requirements 46. The Project is subject to the environmental assessment requirements of both the Kyrgyz Republic and the ADB. This section describes the Kyrgyz Republic requirements.

1. Legal Basis

47. The primary legal basis for environmental assessment in the Kyrgyz Republic is the Law on Environmental Protection, 1999, which prohibits financing and implementation of projects without a positive statement of State Ecological Expertise38 (SEE). The Law on State Environmental Expertise specifies the requirements for the preparation of the SEE and provides supporting instructions. The Kyrgyz Republic is also a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, and its requirements, together with the Law on State Environmental Expertise, provide the legislative framework for requiring public participation in environmental decision-making through the process of Public Ecological Expertise (PEE).39 Table 4 – Key KR environmental assessment laws

Legislative Instrument Requirements Law on Environmental Protection, 1999 (amended 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)

Defines the policy and regulates the legal relations applicable to natural management and environmental protection in the KR.

Article 17: Environmental requirements related to location, design, construction, reconstruction and commissioning of enterprises, structures and other facilities

Defines EIA requirements.

Article 22: Environmental Protection from Harmful Physical Effects

Forbids exceeding the maximum allowable standards for noise, vibrations, electromagnetic fields and other harmful physical effects on human health and environment.

Law on State Environmental Expertise, 1999 (amended 2003, 2007, 2015)

Defines the key legislative role for SAEPF in requiring and evaluating EIAs and providing licenses.

Article 3: Objects (Facilities) of State Environmental Expertise

Requires SEE for construction, reconstruction, expansion, technical upgrading, temporary closing and liquidation of objects (facilities).

Article 10: Environmental Impact Assessment Requires an EIA when preparing the feasibility evaluations

38 Concerning ‘expertise’- If read without an understanding of the specific context, expertise has little meaning as translated. It is

grammatically incorrect and confusing since sometimes it refers to an agency, sometimes to a process and at others to a decision. It most often is used for environmental assessment.

39 The Aarhus Convention establishes a number of rights of the public (individuals and their associations) with regard to the environment, including (i) access to environmental information; (ii) public participation on environmental decision-making; and (iii) access to justice regarding environmental decisions made without regard to the first two rights or in contravention of environmental law. The Parties to the Convention are required to make the necessary provisions so that public authorities will honor these rights.

18

Legislative Instrument Requirements for:

- Concepts, programs and plans of sectorial and territorial socioeconomic development;

- Plans of integrated usage and protection of natural resources;

- Master plans of towns and settlements as well as other town-building documentation;

- New construction, reconstruction, expansion and re-equipment.

Instructions on Environmental Impact Assessment Performance Procedures in the Kyrgyz Republic (1997)

Provides detailed screening lists of projects requiring an environmental assessment.

Instruction for Procedure for Performance of Environmental Impact Assessment of Planned Economic and Other Activities (1999).

Requires that EIA documentation reflects the full extent of the project and meets specified requirements.

Source: Feasibility Study Team; ADB (2015); FAO (2011).

2. Environmental Process

48. Beginning with the initial application, the environmental assessment and permitting process in Kyrgyz Republic follows a prescribed set of steps. These are presented and described below in Table 6.

Table 5 – Environmental assessment and permitting process

Step

Actions

1 Project proponent submits application to appropriate local government authority (e.g. city mayor’s office), and authority forwards application to Gosregister and the local Department of Environmental Protection (SAEPF)

2

Gosregister reviews issues of land use and ownership and issues Land Allocation Statement (LAS) Local Department of Environmental Protection (SAEPF) reviews LAS to scope environmental issues, and screens project against list of project types automatically requiring an EIA in Instruction on Environmental Impact Assessment Performance Procedures in the Kyrgyz Republic

3

Application package is sent to local department of the State Agency for Architecture and Construction Management (Gosarkhitectura) Gosarkhitectura consults with local agencies to consider issues of location and design (e.g., land suitability; environmental impact; public health; architecture and landscape; fire risk; and availability of electricity and other services), and consults with the relevant rayon administration(s)

4 If conclusions of the Stage 1 review are positive, Gosregister issues the title for the registered land lot (by State Act) for temporary use for the intended purpose.

5 Preliminary engineering designs are developed, geotechnical/geological and other surveys are conducted and service provision is investigated.

6 Designs are reviewed by Gosarkhitectura

7 If an EIA is required, the project proponent submits an application to SAEPF for a SEE, supported by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);a approvals from Gosregister, Gosarkhitectura and other local agencies; and a Declaration of PEE, if conducted.b

8 SAEPF appoints a SEE committee and instigates the SER process. The project may be approved, rejected or sent for re-examination.c

9 If the SEE conclusion is positive, the relevant territorial department of Gosarkhitectura issues the Construction Permit.

10 The relevant territorial department of Gosarkhitectura considers the final project designs (including any amendments made during construction) and if there are no objections, issues the Operation Permit.

11 The local (Oblast level) Environmental Protection Department undertakes inspections and monitoring of environmental impacts during operation.

a The EIS should be prepared by a licensed and certified EIA professional hired by the project proponent, and must cover: (i) description of the project or planned activity; (ii) possible alternatives for the project or planned activity; (iii) description of the existing environment; (iv) types and degree of impacts on environment and population; (v) possible changes in environmental quality; (vi) description of socio-economic and ecological consequences; (vii) findings from public consultations; and (vii) actions to prevent environmental damage or mitigate the level of ecological risk. b The proponent will be required to conduct public consultations as a matter of course, and include the findings in the EIS. In addition, the project may also go through an independent PEE review. PEE may be initiated by citizens, local administrations or public associations, and is meant to inform interested

19

Step

Actions

parties about a proposed project, identify probable adverse environmental and social impacts, and search for solutions to avoid or limit adverse impacts. The PEE process can include public meetings, workshops, public opinion surveys, dissemination of newsletters and bulletins, and information sharing via press and TV. The conclusions of the process should be summarized in a PEE Declaration, which will be submitted to the state expert commission conducting the project SER. The PEE Declaration is a supplement to the SER and is considered to be of a recommendatory nature. It may be published in the mass media and passed to local state administrations and local councils, the project proponent, and other stakeholders. PEE is typically only undertaken for large scale controversial projects. c The SER duration depends on the complexity of the project, but should not exceed 3 months.

Source: Adapted from ADB (2009b).

49. Under KR law, certain types of projects (Table 7) automatically require an EIA. The Instruction on Environmental Impact Assessment Performance Procedures in the Kyrgyz Republic (1997) contains a screening list for determining project category. As the current project involves major work on facilities for wastewater treatment, an EIA is required.40

Table 7 – List of activities requiring an EIA in the KR

Activities Requiring an EIA (bold text designate relevance to the ISDP Phase II)

1. Energy Facilities 2. Reservoir 3. Mining and processing of petroleum 4. Production of Building materials 5. Agriculture and Forestry 6. Mining 7. Metal Industry 8. Production of Glass 9. Production of pharmaceutical and biological products 10. Chemical production 11. Food 12. Textile, leather and paper industries 13. Warehouses of toxic, hazardous or radioactive substances 14. Facilities for wastewater treatment and flue gases 15. Water withdrawal from groundwater 16. Water supply system of settlements, irrigation or drainage 17. Construction of roadways or railways 18. Airports, airfields, training grounds for internal ports, navigation and

racing grounds 19. Construction of facilities for recreation and tourism 20. The organization of industrial sites 21. Sewer network 22. Mountain lifts and cable cars 23. Disposal, recycling and disposal of industrial and household wastes.

Source: GKR (1997)

3. Review and Approval of Project IEE

50. A Russian language version of this IEE report will be submitted to the SAEPF and/or the Issyk-Kul Oblast ITDEP for review and comment. It is understood that once approved by SAEPF or Issyk-Kul Oblast ITDEP, this process will satisfy the domestic EIA requirements for the Project.

2.4 Applicable ADB Policies and Environmental Assessment Requirements

1. Environmental Assessment Requirements 51. The major applicable ADB policies, requirements and procedures for Environmental Assessment are the SPS 2009; ADB Operations Manual for the SPS (OM Section F1, 2010); and

40 This IEE will fulfil the reporting requirements of an EIA

20

Environmental Safeguards – A Good Practice Sourcebook (2012). The SPS 2009 promotes good practice as reflected in internationally recognized standards such as the World Bank Group’s Environment, Health and Safety Guidelines. The Operations Manual underpins the policy statement, and the Sourcebook provides practical guidance on SPS 2009 implementation.

52. The SPS 2009 establishes an environmental review process to ensure that projects are environmentally sound, are designed to operate in line with applicable regulatory requirements, and are not likely to cause significant environmental, health, social, or safety hazards. ADB assigns proposed projects to one of four categories, described in detail in SPS 2009. Category A requires a full scale EIA, Category B an IEE41 while C requires no document, although effects are reviewed and recorded. Both category A and B projects require the production of an EMP. The Project has been classified by ADB as Category B and requires the preparation of an IEE. All applicable environmental requirements in the SPS 2009 are covered in this IEE.

2. Information Disclosure and Public Consultation

53. Information disclosure involves delivering information about a proposed project to the general public and to affected communities and other stakeholders, beginning early in the project cycle and continuing throughout the life of the project. Information disclosure is intended to facilitate constructive engagement with affected communities and stakeholders over the life of the project. In order to make key documents widely available to the general public, the SPS 2009 requires submission of a finalized IEE for Category B projects to ADB for posting on its website. In addition, the SPS 2009 requires that borrowers take a proactive disclosure approach and provide relevant information from the environmental assessment documentation directly to affected people and stakeholders. The SPS 2009 also requires that the project proponent carry out meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, including civil society, and facilitate their informed participation. 54. Meaningful consultation is defined under the SPS 2009 as a process that (i) begins early in the project preparation stage and is carried out on an ongoing basis throughout the project cycle; (ii) provides timely disclosure of relevant and adequate information that is understandable and readily accessible to affected people; (iii) is undertaken in an atmosphere free of intimidation or coercion; (iv) is gender inclusive and responsive, and tailored to the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; and (v) enables the incorporation of all relevant views of affected people and other stakeholders into decision making about such matters as project design, mitigation measures, the sharing of development benefits and opportunities, and implementation issues (ADB 2009c).

55. In accordance with the Project’s status as a Category B project, this IEE has involved extensive public consultations, including local information disclosure in Kyrgyz and Russian, as well as a consultation workshop held in the two towns served by components of the Project. The methodology and proceedings of these consultations are described in Chapter VII of this report.

41 The IEE is also detailed environmental investigation as an EIA, the main differences relate to administrative procedures for the loan.

21

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

3.1 Background

56. As previously discussed, the project will improve the existing wastewater management systems in Balykchy and Karakol, located on the western and eastern shores of Issyk-Kul Lake, respectively (Figure 1), by doing that eventually improve environmental quality. The project also will address potential negative impacts through either avoidable design and construction planning, or with proven and established mitigation measures. This is the focus of this IEE.

3.2 Project Rationale 57. As previously discussed the Issyk-Kul Oblast is internationally important for biodiversity, and was designated a biosphere reserve by the GKR in 1998 and by UNESCO in 2001. Issyk-Kul Lake was named a Ramsar site in 2002 for its globally significant wetland values. The lake is also a spa, known for its curative waters, by most of the central Asian countries and Russia, it is the second largest alpine lake in the world, and its clear waters and setting between two chains of snowcapped mountains make it the top tourist attraction in the KR. More than 70% of tourists to the KR visit Issyk-Kul Lake, accounting for approximately one million tourist bednights per year. Harnessing tourism’s potential as an engine of economic development in the decades to come will depend largely on the maintenance of the natural values of the lake and its surroundings.

58. As previously discussed, the existing wastewater management infrastructure in the two Project towns is poor. The sewerage systems only serve part of the urban populations, leaving most residents and businesses to rely on septic systems and open pit latrines, it is reported that many of the sewer lines leak. The wastewater treatment plants, constructed in the two towns in the Soviet era (1960s), were never fully commissioned and have suffered from low levels of maintenance, discharging effluent that is virtually untreated (relying solely on coarse screens and the settlement characteristics of existing tanks). The lack of adequate wastewater treatment has the potential to adversely impact on the health, aesthetic and biodiversity values of the Issyk-Kul Oblast through adverse odor impact, visual impact of polluted watercourses and public health risk for tourists and residents. Ultimately, this could lead to declines in tourist numbers and socio-economic status of the region.

59. The Project can be expected to result in tangible infrastructural and institutional improvements, which will in turn generate significant positive overall impacts. Specific planned outcomes of the Project include:

a. Two completely reconstructed and functional WWTPs, capable of meeting international and Kyrgyz Republic standards for effluent quality, to serve Balykchy and Karakol;

b. Expanded sewerage systems in Balykchy and Karakol connecting neighborhoods and households to safe, effective and non-polluting sanitation;

c. Improvement of septage management services and the provision of septage collection equipment; and

d. Revitalized and strengthened institutional capacity, to maintain the integrity of the two wastewater collection and treatment systems.

60. Project impacts in the Project towns and in the broader Issyk-Kul region will flow from the outcomes identified above. Project impacts (positive) can be expected to include:

a. Improved environmental quality; b. Reduced risks to public health; c. Increased supply of irrigation water for local agriculture; d. A demonstration effect, in which successful implementation establishes a new regional

norm for public wastewater services; and e. Enhanced long-term potential for tourism growth and broader social and economic

development.

22

3.3 Existing Situation 61. The following section describes the current status of the two wastewater collection and treatment systems. The information provided below is based on site visits, meetings and analysis conducted through the PPTA.

1. Balykchy

A. Sewerage System

62. Currently in Balychy, a total of 3,325 households and 106 commercial/industrial/ institutional/tourist entities are connected to the sewerage network. This represents about 30% of the total population of 46,900 in the city. In the 1990-s the food processing industries (meat, flour and fruits) before their closure were connected to the sewerage system of Balykchy and the last industry (distillery) was closed in 2007. There are no metal producing industries so it is unlikely that heavy metals or toxic substances are in the wastewater influent. The remaining households use septic tanks or cesspools which are serviced, when necessary, by the vodokanal or private sector.: Septage that is collected by the vodokanals is discharged to manholes in the sewerage system. The septage collected by private operators should also be disposed of in the same manner but is uncontrolled and may be disposed of elsewhere. The sewerage network comprises 64 km of gravity sewers comprising vitrified clay, asbestos-cement, steel, and concrete pipelines constructed in the 1970s. To improve the situation, the wastewater pumping station was replaced under ISDP-1, which collects all sewage from the collection system and pumps to the WWTP via new 5.7km long dual sewer main also built under ISDP-I.

B. Wastewater Treatment Facility

63. The Balykchy WWTP is located 5 km northwest of the center of Balykchy. The facility was built to use two different treatment processes, a traditional activated sludge process (ASP) wastewater treatment plant, and six tertiary treatment lagoons located 400 m southwest of the plant. The aeration tanks were never commissioned and the main aeration pipework has been stripped from the plant. The existing ponds provide limited treatment capacity, acting primarily as winter storage ponds. A pumping station (operated by Irrigation Department take pond effluent, mixed with Chui River water is transported by a 1,300 m pressure pipeline to an irrigation channel about 15 km in length where it irrigates about 70 ha of land. around Balykchy. A schematic of the existing process is set out below.

Figure 3 – Schematic of Existing Balykchy WWTP (Oct 2017)

Source: Global Works (2017)

64. The aeration plant was never made operational (Figure 5), and currently influent is only screened and pumped to lagoons which are the only source of treatment (Figure 6). Currently sludge is allowed to accumulate in the lagoons.. The treatment process is minimal and does not produce sludge – the sludge that is deposited in the lagoons is based on sedimentation of the raw sewage. As a result, the lagoons are never de-sludged.

Winter storage

Secondary Clarifiers

Primaries to Aeration not connected

Aerartion Tanks

River Water

transfer

Screens and

grit removal

Inlet Works

used for

primary

sludge only

Sludge

Thickener

(Not commissioned)

Pumping

Station

Sludge activation tanks

Primary

Settlement

Existing

Channel

(Not commisioned) (Not commisioned)

Planned as

Facultative

Maturation

Ponds

6 Drying

Beds

(disused)

(Winter storage)

Pumping

Station

Operated by

Irrigation

Dep't

(Not commisioned)

Agricultural Land

Inlet

23

Figure 4 – Existing Balykchy wastewater treatment plant and lagoons

65. Influent and effluent monitoring is undertaken periodically at the lagoons by the ITDEP at Balykchy (Table 8). The results indicate that no treatment other than the dilution with river water is being provided, and effluent does not meet wastewater discharge standards, though there are reductions in BOD5 and suspended solids due, primarily, to dilution.

Table 8 – Influent and effluent wastewater quality, Balykchy wastewater treatment plant lagoons

Parameter Unit

Oct 2012 Apr 2014 21 April 2017 4 Sept 2017 Standard

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent (inlet)

Effluent (after

primary settling)

Outflow (from

Biopond 23)

Influent Effluent

Irrigation canal CMEA

1977

Temp °C 10.5 9.3 11 11.5 14.5 18.5

pH - 6.8 7.3 6.59 6.94 7.57 7.37 8.04 8.07

Ammonium NH4

mg/l 21.2 19.6 8.9 6.8 20.52 22.4 6.78

23.6 20.38 0.74 1.5

Nitrite- NO2

mg/l 0.15 0.18 0.52 0.74 0.09 0.15 0.21

0.001 0.001 0.001 1.0

Nitrate-NO3

mg/l 0.0 0.63 2.6 0.8 7.09 2.75 11.16

0.05 0.05 0.05 10.0

BOD5 mg/l 126.8 67.8 60.0 38.4 76.75 83.78 35.06 128.3 80.7 5.6 6.0

SS mg/l 123 39 46 23 118 62 57 83 10 106

Alkalinity mg/l 300 275 180 201 288 155

Source: ITDEP Laboratory, 2014, 2017; Standard; Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) 1977.

66. The final discharge point for the treated effluent is a channel that runs to an irrigation reservoir in a farming area northwest of the lagoons, where the effluent mixes with water pumped in from the Chu River before being pumped into the irrigation canal system from where it is used by anyone accessing the system. During the growing season, when demand for irrigation water is high, the effluent thus is used on the land. Outside the growing season, the pumping station is shut down, but the effluent continues to come from the WWTP to the reservoir and if capacity is exceeded, overflows into a channel of the Chu River, from where it is free to flow into the main Chui River channel. The Chui River flows north and east through Boom Gorge, where it is joined by the Chon-Kyomin, and then flows northwest through the fertile Chu Valley, in which much of its water is used for irrigation, before finally disappearing into the sands of the Moyynqum Desert.

Chu River

24

Figure 5 –Balykchy wastewater treatment plant, looking towards aeration tanks

Figure 6 – Balykchy lagoons

67. There is no regular water quality monitoring undertaken at the Chui River in the Project area. As part of the previous project, a monitoring program was undertaken over four weeks in 2014 to assess the impact of WWTP discharges on the river (see Table 9). The monitoring results do not suggest a dramatic effect, but it is worth noting that the sampling was carried out over a period of only four weeks during the growing season, when discharges to the river are least likely to occur. It is therefore likely that the results understate the actual effect of the discharges on the river’s water quality.

Table 9 – Water quality sampling in the Chu River upstream and downstream of Balykchy WWTP (2014)

Element Units Location

Sampling date Standard

CMEA 1977

13-08-2014

20-08-2014

27-08-2014

03-09-2014

Temperature

°C

Upstream 20 20 20 18

NA Downstream

pH

Upstream 7.84 7.5 7.8 7.3

6.5-8.5 Downstream

7.6 8.0 7.8 7.62

Suspended solids

mg/l

Upstream 33 29 18 27

Downstream

40 20 25 26

Dissolved oxygen

Mg/l

Upstream 5.39 5.69 5.82 5.28

>6.4 Downstream

5.50 5.6 5.48 5.86

BOD5 mg of O/l

Upstream 1.9 1.51 1.56 2.62

3 Downstream

2.06 1.89 1.88 2.79

Elec. Conductivity

µS

Upstream 492 489 442 494

Downstream

483 479 458 496

COD Upstream 2.1 2.18 2.52 3.31 30.0

25

Element Units Location

Sampling date Standard

CMEA 1977

13-08-2014

20-08-2014

27-08-2014

03-09-2014

mg of O/l

Downstream

3.54 2.6 3.7 3.89

Ammonium N

mg/l

Upstream .039 .02 .039 .02

.39 Downstream

.05 .05 .09 .06

Nitrite N mg/l

Upstream .003 .001 .004 .004

.02 Downstream

.003 .005 .005 .004

Nitrate N mg/l

Upstream .25 .28 .23 .3

9.1 Downstream

.23 .20 .20 .24

Total N

Upstream .30 .31 .25 .33

Downstream

.29 .30 .26 .34

Chlorides mg/l

Upstream 15.5 15.3 15.5 15.3

Downstream

16.3 16.6 16.4 16.8

Sulfates mg/l

Upstream 22.0 21.6 21.2 20.9

Downstream

22.0 22.1 21.8 21.0

Source: ITDEP, 2014 Standard: The Rules of Protection of Surface Waters (1993, No. 136) – MAC for fisheries.

C. Operation and Management

68. The sewerage system and WWTP are run by the Balykchy Vodokanal, which has operated the sewer system and treatment plant on an inadequate budget for many years, due to an almost complete reliance on user charges, which have tended to stay low because granting rate increases is politically unpopular. Staffing, training, and procedures have suffered accordingly, with the result that maintenance has been largely inadequate. There are no written procedures, instructions or register of tasks involved in the operation and maintenance of the treatment plant (ADB 2014b).

2. Karakol

A. Sewerage

69. The overall sewerage system in Karakol includes a public sewerage network, a WWTP with lagoons, and pit latrines and septic tanks. The total length of sewers is 110 km, with pipe diameters ranging from 100 to 700 mm. The sewerage network within Karakol is gravity-fed, and four pumping stations bring wastewater from sewers in the adjoining village of Pristan. It is estimated that the network serves a population of about 28,500. As in other towns in the Issyk-Kul Oblast, pit latrines and septic tanks (holding tanks) are used by upt to 70% of the population. Septage that is collected by the vodokanals is discharged to manholes in the sewerage system. The septage collected by private operators should also be disposed of in the same manner but is uncontrolled and may be disposed of elsewhere.The currently serviced areas are mainly the central and north-eastern sectors of city, but under the first phase of the ISDP project, 12 km of new sewers were constructed, and 7 km replaced, covering the area to the west of the Karakol River. However, no secondary or tertiary sewers were constructed to allow connections into this new collector sewer (GW 2017). 70. Industrial connection to the sewerage: there are 21 factories in operation in Karakol, mostly mill flour. Total industrial wastewater production was estimated as small at about 45 m3/d and the industries have the following makeup (PPTA Field Survey 2014):

Flour mills: 41% Bakeries: 28% Abattoirs: 9% Textiles: 2% Spirits: 10% Miscellaneous: 10% (wood, concrete blocks and electrical)

26

71. There are no metal producing industries so it is unlikely that heavy metals or toxic substances are in the wastewater influent. In any case wastewater discharge from industries will not be permitted to directly discharge to the sewer if the effluent contains pollutants in excess of domestic sewage. The industries will be required to pre-treat their wastewater prior to discharge to the sewer.

B. Wastewater Treatment Facility

72. The WWTP in Karakol was originally constructed with an estimated treatment capacity for a 55,000 equivalent population (EP) or a design capacity of 22 MLD at 400 L/p/d. The treatment plant is located about 7 km northwest of the city center, along the Karakol River. The influent in 2009 was estimated by vodokanal to be between 7 to 8 MLD. KSTP is located on approximately 13 hectares, along the southern slopes of a local river valley (see Figure 7). The plant was built in the 1980s, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and most project information has been lost and there are no design specifications or installation drawings available. The facility was designed to use two different treatment processes, a traditional ASP plant and four tertiary treatment lagoons (Figure 8), and there is also an anaerobic digester for sludge.

Figure 7 – Karakol wastewater treatment facility and irrigation reservoir

27

Figure 8 – Karakol wastewater treatment facility showing treatment plant and lagoons

73. Wastewater flows through the plant, but the aeration tanks are not functioning (pipework removed) and are not mechanically desludged. There is no chemical or biological treatment being provided (Error! Reference source not found.Figure ), and lagoons provide the only treatment.

Figure 9 – Primary settling tank, Karakol wastewater treatment plant (ADB 2015a)

Figure 10 – Eutrophied and overgrown lagoons, Karakol wastewater treatment facility (ADB 2015a)

A schematic of the existing WWTP processes is shown below.

28

Figure 11 – Schematic of Karakol WWTP processes (Oct 2017)

Source: Global Works (2017)

74. Wastewater is discharged from the lagoons via an underground pipeline to a reservoir operated by the Department of Irrigation. The reservoir is 2.5 km northwest of the plant (Figure 7 – ), and also receives discharge from 5 small streams. Water is pumped from the reservoir to irrigate agricultural lands from March to November. The Karakol River flows close to the WWTP but there is no interconnection. Similarly, there is no outlet or connection between the irrigation reservoir and Issyk-Kul Lake. However, none of the agricultural lands in the vicinity of the reservoir are far from rivers and streams that flow to the lake, and it is probable that the contents of the virtually untreated wastewater sent to the lagoon contribute to nutrient loading and contamination of these watercourses when the water is used in irrigation. Currently sludge is allowed to accumulate in the Irrigation Lagoon., Since the treatment process is minimal, it does not produce sludge and the sludge deposited in the Irrigation Lagoon is based on sedimentation from the raw sewage. The Irrigation Lagoon has never been de-sludged, but this has resulted in a decrease in the volume of the lagoon which compromises its purpose of storing effluent during the non-irrigation period. Table 11 – Karakol WWTP influent and effluent wastewater quality

Parameter

Unit

12 month Mean 2013Note 1

24 April 2017 28 August 2017

8 Sept 2017 Standard

Influent

Effluent

Lagoon

outlet

Influent (suction chambe

r)

Effluent (After

2nd Settling

)

Outfall (Biopon

d 31) Influe

nt Efflue

nt Reservo

ir Outfa

ll 500m

d/s CMEA 1977

Temp °C 9.8 10.5 12 13 15

pH - 7.19 6.91 7.12 7.43 7.14 7.77 7.9 8.01

Ammonium NH4

mg/l

19.74 17.53 19.14 13.7 11.3 11.6

10.66 8 17.04 4.91 <0.03

9 1.5

Nitrite- NO2

mg/l

0.17 0.22 0.31 0.195 0.15 0.1

0.001 0.001 0.2 0.08 <0.00

1 1.0

Nitrate-NO3

mg/l

1.75 2.18 0.86 4.16 4.47 2.61

2.2 1.1 0.09 <0.1 <0.1

10.0

BOD5 mg/

l 98.9 67.7 58.34

109.6 86.9 49.5 97.2 55.1

29.2 16.1 2.4 6.0

SS mg/

l 71.91 36.33

37.82 76 75 22 128 78

12 26 42

Alkalinity mg/

l

175 165 170 285 271

328 174 89

Note 1) 2013 results are a summary of the monthly influent and effluent sampling results for the earlier ISDP study Operations and Maintenance

75. The sewerage system and WWTP are operated by the Karakol Vodokanal, which, like its counterpart in Balykchy, has suffered chronic and severe financial shortages for many years. The operation has been kept going by employees working without the benefit of proper written operating procedures, maintenance registers, appropriate tools and equipment, or professional training, and there is a lack of funding and weak administrative support for improving existing conditions (ADB 2014).

Existing chlorine contact tank and chlorine building not shown

(Canal in

disrepair)

(inoperative)

Comminutors

(Decommisioned - acts

as secondary setling) Secondary

Settlement

Sludge

Thickener

Solids

Digester

Primary

Settlement

Inlet Works

Screens and

grit removal

(inoperative)

Activated Sludge process

(needs desludging)

Facultative

Ponds

Existing

Irrigation

Reservoir

River

WaterInlet

29

3.4 Proposed Subproject Description Project Activities 76. Reflecting the poor state of the physical and operating conditions of the facilities, the project concentrates on the:

a. Retention of structures where possible; new IDEAL (typical process flow diagram for IDEAL is shown in Figure 38) wastewater treatment lines installed at Balykchy and Karakol within existing WWTP footprint to meet international standards for effluent quality,

b. Rehabilitation and expansion of the sewerage systems in both cities; c. Provision of a septage management framework for the cities, and vacuum trucks for the

collection and transfer of septage; d. Provision of training and capacity building in technical, financial and managerial aspects of

wastewater systems management to the vodokanals; and e. Provision of support for project management through technical assistance consultancies.

77. The works proposed for Balykchy sewage treatment plant are shown in Table 12.

Table 12 – Preliminary list of works required for Balykchy seweage treatment plant

Actions Details Comments

Wastewater treatment plant 1. New channels and mechanical screens, 2 off 10 mm, duty/standby and place for a third screen for Phase II.

Existing 16 mm screen works but automatic mechanical component has long since ceased.

Having a 10 mm screen would avoid potential problems in the downstream IDEAL(s)

2. Renew existing screen building 20m x 7m, replace with 20m x 15m.

Modifications needed to house three channels of 10 mm step screens. Two channels to be brought on line for duty/standby. Includes channel with manual screen for >2ADWF bypass.

Inspection by structural engineer needed if existing building to be reused

3. New mechanical vortex degritting units, 1 for Phase I, another for Phase II.

The concrete on the existing cyclone grit units (6m φ) to be demolished and replaced with a single mechanical vortex degritter and grit classifier for Phase I and another for Phase II.

4. Renovation of aeration tanks as IDEALs (20mW x46m Lx~5mD) would be Option BA1 or replace aeration tanks as Option BA2. New (2 No) aeration tanks for BA2 to be 14.5mW x 46mL x 5mD.

The existing tanks if reused would need cleaned and sealed around the inside with an appropriate membrane liner. Existing tanks to be demolished if Option BA2 selected for new tanks

Reuse of tanks would require structural engineer inspection.

5. Installation of an intermediate aeration system, slow speed surface aerators (SOTR of ca. 417 kg O2/hr [136 kW] at an 1,700 m altitude and 4.5 m average active tank depth or TWL of 5 m).

A diffused aeration system would be needed with rubber diffusers for Option BA1. Tanks are too narrow for surface aeration. Slow speed surface aerators are nominated for Option BA2, which would use 4 x 11 kW aerators per IDEAL

Slow speed surface aerators to be mounted with crossbar.

6. Renovation of existing blower building (17m x 7m) as an option. Preferred aeration is by slow speed aerators.

The building appears structurally sound If suitable the building would require renovation/modification, including a new roof.

This would not be required in Option BA2 if surface aeration is selected.

Inspection by structural engineer.

7. Installation of a decanter mechanisms in the IDEALs + associated piping

A metal decanting mechanism would be mechanically raised and lowered to decant off supernatant from the tank after a settlement period.

Ancillary piping also needed; decanters along long side in Option BA1, short side in BA2

8. A chlorine contact (CCT) This would be necessary if chemical disinfection is selected over that obtained by the ponds, plus canal dilution during irrigation period.

Optional Additional ponds would eventually need to be enlarged or disinfection

30

Actions Details Comments

Wastewater treatment plant Preliminary sizing puts the tank as 7.5mW x 16.5mL x 2mD to get a 30 min residence time.

implemented for river discharge to accommodate future larger flows

19. Construction of new chlorine building.

This could be made optional, as the ponds could act as the primary source of disinfection if properly renovated. Building would be required to house gaseous chlorine cylinders, likely the 720 kg version (to be determined).

Optional Renovation of existing chlorination building is an option.

10. New chlorine gas dissolution system is needed.

This could be made optional, as the ponds could act as the primary source of disinfection if properly renovated. This system converts liquid chlorine into gas to where it can be dissolved in a water stream that would be directed to the CCT.

Optional

11. Construction of new sludge thickener.

New 9 m dia. thickener in Phase I and another in Phase II. Waste sludge from IDEALs wasted during aeration to be directed here, with supernatant returned to head of works and solids to drying beds.

12. Administration facilities / Laboratory (25m x 17m).

If suitable, it would need rehabilitation and modification to house a small laboratory.

A structural engineer needs inspection of the existing building

13. Process Automation. The treatment would be fully automated with a SCADA in the Administration Building.

14. The 6 existing drying beds, 62 mW x 250 mL each, would be made redundant.

Twenty two new beds are proposed for the top of the site, each with an area of about 24m long x 6m wide.

Twenty day rotation with twenty two beds (two for cleaning allowance)

15. New penstock valves and hydraulic rehabilitation of pond hydraulics for discharge.

Current penstocks are corroded and likely dysfunctional. The feed distribution channel to the ponds is in need of complete renovation or replacement. The discharge pipework from the ponds are also in a bad state and needs rehabilitation.

Priority. Feed channels all to be modified when new ponds are added

16. Inspection and review of existing pumping station.

This pumping station would become redundant.

Needs to be reviewed

17. Inspection of power transmission facilities.

To determine whether this is suitable for future long-term use and if there is any rehabilitation needs.

Priority.

18. Demolition of unnecessary site infrastructure.

Option BA1 would make redundant the 17m ϕ primary clarifiers, the 18m ϕ secondary clarifiers and the 60m x 8.5m regeneration tanks. If demolished this would amount to about 2,100 m3 needing to be landfilled. Option BA2 would require more demolition with about 3,526 m3.

Redundant structures should be demolished or re-purposed for safety reasons

Sewerage network.

Extension of sewerage network. An additional 10.3 km of secondary gravity sewer pipelines will be included.

Road surface will be rehabilitated & reinstated to original after sewer laying work

31

The works proposed for Karakol sewage treatment plant are shown in Table 13.

Table 13 – Preliminary list of works required for Karakol WWTP

Actions Details Comments

Wastewater treatment plant 1. New channels and mechanical screens, 2 off 10 mm, duty/standby and place for a third screen for Phase II. All flows >2ADWF to be bypassed to the ponds.

Existing single 16 mm screen is to be replaced with pair of automatic screens inside a covered building. A septage truck off loading area to be available with a mulcher pump before the step screens.

Having a 10 mm screen would avoid potential problems in the downstream IDALs/IDEAL(s)

2. New mechanical vortex degritting units, one in Phase I and the second in Phase II around 2038

The concrete on the existing cyclone grit units (5m φ) appears is in poor condition

Existing units to be demolished.

3.Construction of two to four IDEALs with a total treatment capacity of 12.0; another 12.0 MLD would be added in Phase II.

IDALs to be about 18W x 57L x 5.5D including freeboard.

4. Installation of an intermediate aeration system (SOTR of ca. 580 kg O2/hr [190 kW] at an ca. 1,700 m altitude and 4.5m avg. tank depth, TWL at 5 m).

A diffused aeration system would that the IDEALs be equipped with rubber diffusers that would seal when the air is cycled on/off. These have to be replaced every three years or so. SOTR is to be supplied by two 22 kW slow speed surface aerators per IDAL.

This would include all relevant pipework and blowers

5. Installation of a decanter mechanism in each IDAL + associated piping

A metal decanting mechanism would be mechanically raised and lowered to decant off supernatant from the tank after a settlement period.

Ancillary piping tie-ins also needed

6. Renovation of existing blower building (30m x 14m)

The building may be reusable but new blowers would be called for if diffused aeration is selected. This building would not be needed with surface aeration. Part of this building could be petitioned off for a control room.

Inspection by structural engineer

7. Existing chlorine contact (CCT): circular 16φx5D

The existing tank (if not reusable) to be replaced by a new 15.5W x 36.5L x 2mD CCT

Inspection by structural engineer

8. Existing chlorine building (21m x 11m)

This building would be required to house gaseous chlorine cylinders t for disinfection.

Inspection by structural engineer required

9. New chlorine gas dissolution system is needed.

This system converts liquid chlorine into gas to where it can be dissolved in a water stream that would be directed into the CCT.

10. Existing sludge drying beds, 10 off: 9mW x 35mL x 3mD

Existing beds to be rehabilitated. A combination of IDAL waste solids and primary solids after twenty days of anaerobic treatment to be dewater on the sludge drying beds. Add additional beds by 2038.

Facility would be better covered with good vehicular access

11. Administration facilities / Laboratory (17m x 8m)

The building looks suitable for rehabilitation The building would also house a small laboratory. Potable water is available on site.

A structural engineer needs inspection of the existing building

12. Sludge thickeners to be added, one

15 m in Phase I and another similarly sized unit in Phase II.

Waste sludge from IDALs wasted during aeration to be directed here along with primary sludge, with supernatant returned to head of works and solids to anaerobic digesters.

13. Inspection of power transmission facilities

To determine whether this is suitable for future long-term use and if there is any rehabilitation needs.

Priority

14. Process Automation The treatment would be fully automated with a SCADA in the Administration Building.

32

Actions Details Comments

Wastewater treatment plant 15. Demolition of unnecessary site infrastructure

The preferred process option would make redundant many of the existing STP components, which are in mostly poor condition.

Initial estimate of spoil from redundant structures is 5,600 m3

16. Desludging of existing ponds This needs further exploration Priority

Sewerage network.

Extension of sewerage network. An additional 11.3 km of secondary gravity sewer pipelines will be included.

Road surface will be rehabilitated & reinstated to original after sewer laying work

Sewerage network. Construction of Sewage PS-4 and rehabilitation of Pumping Main at Pristan

Construction of a new submersible pumping station No.4 in Pristan to collect sewage from up to 100 households not currently connected to the Pristan wastewater system.

PS-4 was not rehabilitated under ISDP-1, and currently raw sewage is discharged into a pit close to the lake shore which requires daily pump-outs by the Vodokanal. It is critical that construction of PS-4 is undertaken as a priority.

3.5 Schedule 78. Construction will take place over about 30 months for the wastewater treatment plants: each being built under separate contracts and in parallel42.

3.6 Budget

79. The total Project budget is $ 36.52 million. This is comprised of ADB Asian Development Fund (ADF) grant amounting to $12.84 million, and ADB concessional loan financing of $23.58 million.

3.7 Implementation Arrangements

80. Gosstroy will be the EA, and the SAIKO will be the IA. During the construction phase, a Project Management Office (PMO) responsible for overall management of the Project and staffed by representatives from Gosstroy, will be established within Gosstroy. A Project Implementation Office (PIO) responsible for day-to-day management will be established within the oblast, likely the capital Karakol. City-level implementation units, responsible for overseeing the works, will be housed within the offices of the mayor of each city.

81. Once construction is complete, the responsibility for the management of the wastewater treatment collection and treatment systems will be transitioned to the vodokanal in each city.

42 This approach has not been confirmed and is an indicative way forward, to be clarified by the local authorities

33

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Location

82. The participating Project cities, Balyckhy and Karakol (shown in Figure 15), are lakeshore cities which are situated on the western and eastern shoreline of the Issk-Kul Lake basin, respectively. The lake is entirely within the Issyk-Kul Oblast which is located in the northeastern portion of the KR surrounded by the ridges of the Tian Shan mountain system: the Kyungey Ala-Too mountains to the north and the Terskey Alatau to the south (the 'sunny' and 'shady' Alatau, respectively).

83. The Project Cities. Balykchy (42°28′ N, 76°12′E) is a city at the western end of the the Issyk-Kul Lake, at an elevation of about 1,900 meters with an area of 38 m2. Karakol (42°29′ N, 78°23 ′E) is situated on the eastern tip of Issyk-Kul Lake, about 150 kilometers from the KR – Peoples Reoublic of China border and 380 kilometers from the capital Bishkek.

4.2 Physical Resources

1. Geography, Topography, Land Use, and Soils

84. The KR is a landlocked country in Central Asia, bordering Kazakhstan, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It lies between latitudes 39° and 44° N, and longitudes 69° and 81° E. The country’s total area is 199,951 km2 of which 191,801 km2 is land and 8,150 km2 is water. KR’s topography features the peak of Tien Shan, which rise to over 7,000 meters, and about 90% of KR has an elevation exceeding 1,500 meters above sea level (masl). 85. The Issyk-Kul Lake and surrounding region, located in the east of the Kyrgyz Republic, represents a nationally valuable economic and cultural asset.43 Being 180-km long, 60-km wide, and with a surface area of 6,200-km2, the lenticular-shaped lake is the world’s second largest high-altitude lake. Over 100 rivers and streams feed it, including hot springs and snow melt. The wider region is designated as a Ramsar (wetlands) site of globally significant biodiversity44 and forms part of UNESCO’s Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve, extending over 43,000-km2. Rich with environmental, archeological and cultural resources, it also provides a vital habitat for threatened and endangered species.45

86. Land use in the Issyk-Kul basin was mapped based on the United States Geological Service’s Global Land Cover Characterization database (Table 14). Much of the land in the upper reaches of the basin can be classified as alpine tundra, while grassland, irrigated land, shrub land, dry land and settlements typify the lower altitude surface cover.

Table 14 – Issyk-Kul basin land use, derived from Global Land Cover Characterization database

Land Use Area (ha) Area (%) Alpine tundra 414,416 46.03

Barren or sparsely vegetated 142,345 15.81

Mixed forest 100,261 11.14

Shrub land 96,941.3 10.77

Grass land 56,192 6.24

Crop land/wood land mosaic 55,119.1 6.12

Crop land/grass land mosaic 16,766.3 1.86

Irrigated crop land and pasture 12,984.4 1.44

Dry land and pasture 4,861.51 0.54

Residential medium density 336.35 0.04

Source: Kulenbekov and Merkel 2012.

87. Numerous soil types are found in the Issyk-Kul basin; these are shown in Figure 18. Soil distribution in the basin is a result of complex interactions between a variety of factors, including

43 The lake’s rich environmental, archeological and cultural resources are renowned internationally. 44 The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty relating to wetlands sustainable use and conservation. 45 Including the Siberian ibex and the endangered snow leopard.

34

geography, geology, topography, climate, vegetation and anthropogenic influences such as land use and irrigation.

88. The areas of the basin where the Project sites are located (e.g. between 1,600 to 1,900 masl range) are characterized by a preponderance of alluvial fans and foothills, with soils that are typically sandy grey or brown, with gravel intrusions and rocks eroded from the mountains or glacial erratics, high permeability, low buffer capacity, and low organic matter (ADB 2009a). Lowland soils in the eastern basin are typically dark chestnut in color and quite fertile, and this is one of the main areas for cultivation. In the northwest the soils are mostly light or dark chestnut brown below about 2,000 masl, and more sandy and gravelly higher up in the semi-desert steppe zone found at 2,000 – 3,000 masl. Lacustrine and alluvial soils around the lake are somewhat peaty in areas that were previously inundated and covered with reeds and other marsh vegetation; and close to the lakeshore, soils are waterlogged, swampy, high in organic content, and poorly drained as a result of the high water table (ADB 2009b)46.

2. Climate 89. Issyk-Kul Lake basin has a moderate continental climate characterized by warm summers with highest temperatures in June, July and August; cool winters with low temperatures from November to March; and relatively short spring and autumn periods. Although they are situated at quite high altitude, the Project towns are not subject to extreme seasonal temperature swings, as the climate is tempered by the mass of Issyk-Kul Lake, which does not freeze. The surrounding mountains provide protection from the cold Arctic air masses from the north and the hot Central Asian desert air from the south and east. The altitudinal range and varied topography of the basin allow for a great diversity of climatic zones, ranging from deserts in the west to permafrost zones in the peaks of the bordering mountains (ADB 2009a). In Balykchy, the average annual temperature is 4.9 °C. Precipitation here averages 150 mm. 90. The highest average temperatures occur in August in all locations, while January and February have the lowest average temperatures. The maximum average monthly temperatures occur in August in all locations, while the lowest average monthly temperatures occur in January (Milko et al. 2006).

91. There are marked differences in the temperature regimes according to altitude. Near the lake, the average monthly temperature typically reaches a maximum of approximately 17°C in July and maximum daytime temperatures can exceed 30°C, while in winter the average monthly temperature falls to approximately -7°C in January and nighttime temperatures can reach -25°C. In the mountains, temperatures are approximately ten degrees lower throughout the year (ADB, 2009b). Differences in temperature are also evident between the eastern and western areas of the Issyk-Kul basin. In the eastern basin the average air temperature is often lower than in west, with the most significant difference of up to 5°C occurring during the winter season.

92. Precipitation levels are highest in the summer months, when westerly winds originating in the Atlantic Ocean are warmed over the Central Asian land mass, become saturated with water evaporating from Issyk-Kul Lake, and are then cooled by the mountains in the east of the basin. This produces a significant increase in precipitation as one moves from west to east, with average rainfall being 108 mm at Balykchy in the west of the basin, 250 mm at Cholpon-Ata in the central basin, and 541 mm at Tup in the eastern basin near Karakol (Milko et al. 2006). Precipitation falls mainly as snow in the higher altitudes throughout the year; the snowline is around 3,600 masl in the north and east, and 4,000-4,300 masl in the south and west (ADB 2009b).

93. Stable snow cover does not typically form in Balykchy in the western portion of the Issyk-Kul basin. In the eastern portion of the basin, snow falls in late October and stable snow cover is typically formed by late November and lasts until early April. Annual average humidity in the Project towns is 52 percent in Karakol, with Balykchy sometimes dipping below this, given its exceedingly dry climate.

94. The wind regime in the Issyk-Kul basin is strongly affected by topography. The predominant winds are from the west and are known locally as ‘Ulan’. Ulan winds account for over 40% of all wind

46 This is highly relevant since these soil conditions in parts of Balykchy are not well suited for septic tank systems, unless very carefully

engineered and significant setabacks (more that the present 100 m rule) are applied. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/techpub/moe5/moe5.pdf

35

events, and average 8.3 m/sec. Storm winds blowing from the west and entering the basin through the Boum Gorge in the Balykchy region, and are known locally as ‘Boum’ winds, and can reach 40 m/sec (Milko et al., 2006). Together, the Ulan and Boum winds blow approximately 60% of the time (ADB 2009b) and bring precipitation as they pick up water vapor from Issyk-Kul Lake. The other major wind direction is from the east, particularly during the winter. Known locally as ‘Santash’ winds, easterlies are often associated with dust storms.

95. Daily variations in winds also occur in the basin. During the daytime, onshore winds occur when the land area heats more rapidly than the lake water; as this warm air rises, cooler air from over the lake flows toward the land. As the sun goes down, the land cools more rapidly than the water and the flow of air is reversed, producing offshore winds.

96. A summarized five years of meteorological (wind) data has been obtained from the Agency for Hydrometeorology (Kyrgyzhydromet) under the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the KR for the towns of Balykchy and Karakol. The summarized data is presented in the following figures and tables.

Table 15 – Repeatability (%) of wind and calm directions according to the Balykchy MS

Month North North East

East South East

South South West

West North West

Calm

January 25 8 3 16 1 0 35 13 26

February 17 6 4 19 0 1 41 11 22

Mart 19 8 5 25 0 0 35 7 24

April 7 5 26 18 2 1 36 5 31

May 16 10 6 26 1 1 30 10 13

June 16 7 9 27 2 2 25 12 17

July 14 6 7 26 2 2 32 12 15

August 17 6 5 31 2 2 22 15 16

September 21 5 3 23 1 1 36 10 14

October 18 5 5 21 1 1 38 11 17

November 21 7 3 15 0 1 44 10 19

December 29 8 3 15 0 1 32 12 21

Year 18 7 7 22 1 1 34 11 20

Source: The Agency for Hydrometeorology (Kyrgyzhydromet) under the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Kyrgyz Republic

36

Figure 12 – Topography, Issyk-Kul Basin

Source: EC Copernicus Project, reproduced in ADB 2009b

37

97. Possible odour problems are more likely in low winds conditions with no upwind or downwind to the road to the north of the WWTP (less than 25% of wind days).

Table 16 – Repeatability (%) of wind and calm directions according to the Karakol MS

Month North North East

East South East

South South West

West North West

Calm

January 6 16 24 16 27 3 5 2 34

February 7 14 23 16 20 4 11 6 30

Mart 9 12 20 13 14 6 15 11 28

April 9 11 17 10 14 6 19 14 21

May 8 13 13 10 14 7 20 14 23

June 8 12 12 12 17 7 17 15 23

July 8 12 15 14 15 7 16 14 25

August 6 14 13 17 16 6 16 12 24

September 8 12 14 15 18 5 13 14 26

October 6 12 19 17 20 5 11 10 29

November 6 14 19 17 25 6 7 6 28

December 5 14 17 21 26 6 6 4 31

Year 7 13 17 15 19 6 13 10 27

Source: The Agency for Hydrometeorology (Kyrgyzhydromet) under the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Kyrgyz Republic

38

Figure 13 – Soil types in the Issyk-Kul basin and two project towns

39

3. Water Resources

98. The KR’s water resources have been estimated at 2,458 km3, including 650 km3 of water stored in glaciers, 1,745 km3 in lakes, groundwater reserves of 13 km3 and average annual river flows of 44.5 – 51.9 km3. The total annual renewable water resource is estimated at 46.5 km3 (OECD 2013). The KR is the source of many of the main Central Asia rivers; it has over 40,000 rivers, the longest being the Naryn at a length of 535 km. The KR also has 1,923 lakes, the largest being Issyk-Kul Lake. Total annual water consumption is estimated at 8-9 km3, of which about 90 percent is used for agricultural purposes. The Issyk-Kul basin has an area of 22,080 km2, or about half the area of the Issyk-Kul Oblast. Issyk-Kul Lake is 180 km long and 60 km wide at its widest point, and has a surface area of 6,236 km2, with a surrounding flood plain of approximately 3,000 km2. Its average depth is 280 m, the maximum depth is 668 m, and its water volume is 1,731 km³ (Figure 15).

99. Issyk-Kul Lake is endorheic and its waters are saline and not used as source of water for either the drinking or irrigation. The salinity is relatively low (5.9 g/L), approximately 1/6th the concentration on seawater (35 g/L). The lake water is unusually rich in oxygen even at great depths, as a result of vertical mixing, many lake bottom springs and wind driven vertical mixing.

100. Approximately 38% of the lake is less than 100 m deep, primarily at the western and eastern ends, and these are the areas most densely occupied by organic life (ADB 2009a). However, given the depth of the lake, its hydrology, the relatively small coves and bays along the coast, and its chemistry being dominated by sodium, potassium, magnesium, chlorides and sulfates, it is considered to be an oligotrophic lake47. Phytoplankton production rates are less than 488 mg/m3, zooplankton production is 910 mg/m3, and zoobenthos production is 10 g/m2 (Baetov, 2005). The surrounding ring of mountains is breached by the Boum Gorge on the western perimeter of the basin, through which the Chu Rivers flows to the northwest. The Chu flows within 4 km of the lake, but does not currently normally discharge into the lake. However, the Kutmaldy channel reportedly can allow water exchange between the lake and the river during extreme rainfall events.

101. The maximum historical lake level was 1675–80 masl. Currently the highest possible lake level before discharging through the Kutmaldy channel to the Chu River is 1620 masl. During the Holocene, the water level of Issyk-Kul Lake dropped to 1565 m, as indicated by underwater shore terraces, submerged canyons, a network of river channels and submerged human settlements. In the first half of the 19th century the lake level rose to 1622 masl. Since then the lake level has gradually dropped towards its current 1606-m level, dropping 3 m since 1927 though recovering to close to the 1965 levels during the last decade (OECD 2013; Bowman et. al. 2004) (Figure 14). An array of gravelly sandy beach bars extends from the base of the cliff down to the recent shoreline, reflecting the last stage of lake level fall.

47 It is this oligotrophic –clear water that makes the lake a tourist destination; a condition that needs to be maintained if tourism is to grow and attracts higher-spending international patrons.

40

Figure 14 – Water level of Issyk-Kul Lake, 1927 – 2010

Source: OECD 2013

102. The Issyk-Kul Lake watershed includes a total of 118 rivers and streams; however, most of the rivers are heavily utilized for irrigation, and according to Merekel (2012), only 21 actually discharge to the lake. The lake is fed primarily by rivers from the east, where the hydro-network is densest, reflecting the heavier precipitation in the area. Glaciers provide an important source of water for the river network, and the basin includes 834 glaciers ranging in size from 0.1 km2 to 11 km2, covering approximately 650 km2, equivalent to 3 percent of the total basin area. A significant proportion of inflow to the lake (up to 40% by some estimations) is from groundwater (Aladin and Plotnikov 1993; Savvaitova and Petr 1999). The drainage basin of Issyk-Kul and the river network is shown in Figure 16.

41

Figure 15 – Issyk-Kul Lake bathymetry

42

4. Water Quality

103. Water quality monitoring of Issyk-Kul Lake is undertaken by the IBRD at a number of sites (Table 17). The lake’s chemistry is dominated by sodium, potassium, magnesium, chlorides and sulfates. The high content of sulfates and chlorides is a natural characteristic. Water sampled from the southern shore is less mineralized than samples from the northern coast, where there is a relatively low input from rivers. The high content of iron is probably associated with iron cations in incoming rivers.

104. Overall, the monitoring program indicates that the lake’s water quality is reasonably good. Dissolved oxygen levels exceed the relevant benchmark for fisheries management (6.0 mg/L), and range from 7.17 to 10.12 mg/l, reflecting good aeration of the lake. BOD5 levels are also typically below the relevant MAC for fisheries management (3.0 mg/L) and range from 0.32 to 3.20 (there is one exceedance of the MAC, occurring in Karakol). Levels of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate are all well below or in compliance with the relevant MACs, and heavy metals (e.g. copper, zinc, chromium, cadmium and lead) are all below relevant MACs. However, previous studies (e.g., Safege et al 2007) have suggested that the lake is polluted by a variety of substances, including (i) sewage and domestic water discharged into rivers; (ii) sewage from septic tanks and pit latrines percolating in via groundwater; (iii) nitrates and phosphates draining from agricultural land; (iv) livestock grazing in areas near the lake and tributaries; and (v) metals and chemicals leaching from mining waste dumps (ADB 2009b; Mikkola 2012). If such sources continue to pollute the lake – or increase in magnitude, as is likely just due to population growth – there is a risk that the lake could eventually transition from being oligotrophic to being at least mesotrophic and beyond. This is an especially prescient danger in an endorheic lake, which has no flushing function. There is a need for a more comprehensive and rigorous monitoring program, including additional shallow and deeper water samples, additional parameters such as total phosphorous and increased monitoring frequency48. A good example are the data presented in Table 17, where stations are named generally, but not located, no dates are provided, no sampling depth referenced or unit of measure attached. Further, it is not known what sort of aggregated values these measurements are; i.e. one number per year.

105. Given this vague documentation the data can only be used as general indication, and much more rigorous collection and record keeping needs to be implemented.

106. The Finish Environment Institute provided major technical assistance to SAEPF through the KGZ-Water/Issyk-Kul project, which began in 2011-through 2014 with systematic water quality monitoring of Issyk Kul; including water resources based policy enhancements, upgraded indicator-based reporting and upgrading of water quality testing laboratory facilities and methods for SAEPF’s lab in Cholpon Ata. This work has recently been extended with the Water Management Programme in KR II, operating through 2018. Component 7 of the regional 8 million Euro project is to strengthen how water quality data are used in ecological decision making and planning for the Issyk Kul basin.

107. This work has already yielded valuable information, which is available from the project websites49 (SYKE 2015), which can be used as a baseline for water quality monitoring of the lake. This dataset is not tracking phosphorous levels in the lake.

48 The sampling data records have been poorly documented, such as dates, locations and depths of samples cannot be verified and locations retraced. 49http://water.nature.gov.kg/index-php/en/finwaterwei-ii-2014-2017 and www.skye.fi/en_US/Research_and_development_projects.and

43

Figure 16 – Hydrological network of Issyk-Kul Lake

44

Table 17 – Water quality monitoring data, Issyk-Kul Lake (All units are mg/l, unless indicated)

Location Parameter 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 Jun 2013

Oct 2013

MAC

Petroleum Station, Balykchy

рН (pH units)

8.67 9.2 8.45 8.39 8.56 8.52 8.44 6.5-8.5

BOD5 1.66 2.13 2.12 0.83 3.00

DO 8.17 9.02 8.54 8.11 9.0 ≥6.0

Ammonium NH4

+ <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 0.39

Nitrite NO2- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 0.024

Nitrate NO3

- 0.05 7.6 8.2 <0.1 0.50 1.00 0.02 9.0

P <0.005 <0.02

Fe 0.345 1.05 <0.05

Ca 106.8 100.6

Mg 341.5 333.1

Na 1807.9 1630.3

K 92.5 75.8

Cu <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 0.001

Zn <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.01

Cr <0.007 <0.007 <0.02

Mn 0.006 0.008

Cd <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.005

Pb <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.006

Ni <0.01

Chlorides 1829 300

Sulfates 973 100

Synthetic Surfactants

0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10

Oil products

<0.02 0.05 <0.05 0.03 0.021 0.05

Ship yard, Balykchy

рН 8.67 9.1 8.54 8.42 8.56 8.48 8.40 6.5-8.5

BOD5 0.57 1.85 1.69 0.32 3.00

DO 8.04 8.54 8.47 9.10 8.7 ≥6.0

Ammonium NH4

+ 1.02 0.2 0.2 0.20 <0.039 2.03 3.0 0.39

Nitrite NO2- 0.032 0.01 <0.01 0.16 0.228 0.024

Nitrate NO3

- 0.48 8.8 8.8 0.90 0.60 3.5 4.20 9.0

P 0.006

Fe 0.054 0.184 <0.05

Ca 105.9 105.9

Mg 340.9 329.6

Na 1847 1640

K 85.6 76.9

Cu <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 0.001

Zn <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.01

Cr <0.007 <0.007 <0.02

Mn <0.003 <0.003

Cd <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.005

Pb <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.006

Ni <0.01

Chlorides 1772 300

Sulfates 985 100

Synthetic Surfactants

<0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.10

Oil products

<0.02 0.07 <0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05

рН 8.55 9.2 8.5 8.37 8.53 8.46 8.33 6.5-8.5

BOD5 0.67 2.41 2.65 0.79 3.00

DO 9.26 9.28 9.69 7.60 9.0 ≥6.0

45

Location Parameter 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 Jun 2013

Oct 2013

MAC

“Cruise” Yacht Club, Cholpon-Ata

Ammonium NH4

+ <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 0.39

Nitrite NO2- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 0.024

Nitrate NO3

- <0.08 7.7 1.5 <0.1 0.70 1.20 9.0

P <0.005

Fe <0.006 <0.006 <0.05

Ca 111.7 111.7

Mg 414.8 414.8

Na 2324.9 1516.7

K 105.8 105.8

Cu <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 0.001

Zn <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.01

Cr <0.007 <0.007 <0.02

Mn <0.003 <0.003

Cd <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.005

Pb <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.006

Ni <0.01

Chlorides 1629 1495 1574 300

Sulfates 1987.8 1911 1181 100

Synthetic Surfactants

<0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10

Oil products

<0.02 0.06 0.11 <0.02 <0.02 0.05

ULAN plant, Karakol

рН 8.5 9.0 8.7 8.39 8.16 8.32 6.5-8.5

BOD5 0.99 2.47 3.2 0.22 3.00

DO 7.17 9.29 10.12 7.78 8.8 ≥6.0

Ammonium NH4

+ <0.05 0.06 0.05 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 0.39

Nitrite NO2- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.024

Nitrate NO3

- 0.05 8.4 0.5 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 9.0

P <0.005

Fe 0.594 0.032 <0.05

Ca 110.5 121.3

Mg 407.5 345.6

Na 2366.9 1784

K 85.6

Cu <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 0.001

Zn <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.01

Cr <0.007 <0.007 <0.02

Mn 0.005 0.008

Cd <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.005

Pb <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.006

Ni <0.01

Chlorides 1553 1456.2 1489 300

Sulfates 1926.8 1884.7 1164 100

Synthetic Surfactants

0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10

Oil products

<0.02 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.05

Note: Shaded areas indicate values in excess of MAC standards.

Source: Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve Directorate, 2014 Standard: MAC for fisheries activities, Rules for Protection of Surface Waters, Aug 09, 1993.

5. Total Phosphorous

108. Oligotrophic lakes, such as Issyk Kul are extremely sensitive to nutrient enrichment. Compunding this is its endorheic characteristic, makes Issyk Kul a prime candidate for eutrophication and with it the loss of the key tourist attractant to the area; a crystal clear aesthetically pleasing lake. The issue of phosphorous as the limiting nutrient in cold-water lakes has been studied for decades and

46

is indisputable (Schindler, 2012 and many other documents). When lake concentrations edge toward the 10 micrograms/l level a catastrophic shift starts to takes place where the crystal clear waters are replaced by richer, greener, aquatic vegetation populated conditions; not the conditions sought by the tourists flocking to the lake. Unfortunately, TP levels have not been carefully tracked for the lake, as seen in the lack of any readings in the datasets obtained by the consultant. This is a very large data gap that needs to be filled, and a full-fledged TP testing program in parallel with the testing of other inputs needs to be continued at varying depths and locations around the lake. In addition, all point sources need to be identified and discharges curtailed.

109. With an average of 11mg/l total phosphorus now being discharged per liter of sewage effluent, or 235 kg/day estimated for 2021 (with no new treatment) the new WWTPs will be a very welcome since this will reduce loading from 235 to around 43 kg/day.

110. This however is not the full picture of the problem as there are another 55 towns and villages within one km of the lakeshore, with most having their effluents eventually reaching the lake.

6. Site-Specific Surface Water Quality Conditions

111. In 2014 and 2017, surface water quality samples were taken in surface waters flowing in the vicinity of the WWTPs. The following data are for surface water quality in the two project towns. 112. Balykchy – Regular monitoring of wastewater at Balykchy WWTP is undertaken by the ITDEP Laboratory and data for 2017 confirms that the facility is not providing adequate treatment, and though there is some reduction in BOD5 and suspended solids, the effluent does not meet wastewater standards (Table 18).

Table 18 – Wastewater Quality Results at Balykchy WWTP – April 2017 and September 2017

Parameter Balykchy

CMEA

standard

Inlet Before

Biological Ponds

After Biological Ponds

In Irrigation Channel

April 2017

Sept 2017

April 2017

Sept 2017

April 2017

Sept 2017

April 2017

Sept 2017

Temperature (oC) - 11 18.5 11.5 14.5

pH - 6.59 7.37 6.94 7.57 8.04 8.07

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

- 118 83 62 57 10 106

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

- 525 246 548 381 267 165

BOD (mg/L) 6.0 76.75 128.3 83.78 35.06 80.7 5.6

COD (mg/L) - 135.8 169.6 150.4 59.3 101.4 15.1

Ammonia (mg/L) 1.5 20.52 23.6 22.4 6.78 20.38 0.74

Nitrite (mg/L) 1.0 0.09 0.001 0.15 0.21 0.001 0.001

Nitrate (mg/L) 10.0 7.09 0.05 2.75 11.16 0.05 0.05

Oil and Grease (mg/L)

- 8 13.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 0.5

Alkalinity (mg/L) - 300 201 275 180 288 155

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

- 2.9 2.9 3.7 1.7 2.0 0.05

Total Nitrogen (mg/L) - 11.5 25.0 12.0 9.1 18.8 0.8

Conductivity (uS/cm) - 821 764.8 856 595 866.3 405.1

Source: ITDEP Laboratory, 2017. Standard: CMEA, 1977.

113. Samples were taken from the Chui River upstream and downstream of the WWTP lagoons. At this location, the samples were taken near the bridge where a canal leading to BEREKE Pumping Station (PS) begins and then downstream of the PS. All wastewater related parameters such as TSS, BOD5, conductivity, COD and TN were higher downstream than upstream (Table 19), reflecting the fact that raw, albeit diluted sewage does reach the river through the canals and pumping station reservoir.

47

Table 19 - Surface Water Quality in Chui River, u/s and d/s of Balykchy WWTP

Elements Measure unit

Analysis Data for spots on (dates) 2014-2017

MAC (CMEA 1977)

Date 13.08.14 20.08.14 27.08.14 03.09.14 12.07.17

Temperature C0 22 20 20 18 16.7 NA

рН рН unit 7.84/7.6 7.5/8.0 7.8/7.8 7.3/7.62 8.35/8.48 6.5-8.5

Flow speed m/sec -- -- -- -- -- NA

Suspended solids mg/l 33/40 29/20 18/25 27/26 25/23 No CMEA standard

Dissolved oxygen mg of O/l 5.39/5.50 5.69/5.6 5.82/5.48 5.28/5.86 8.78/8.17 ≥ 6

BOD5 mg of O/l 1.9/2.06 1.51/1.89 1.56/1.88 2.62/2.79 2.94/2.98 3.0

Electrical conductivity

µS 492/483 489/479 442/458 494/496 373/380

COD mg of O/l 2.1/3.54 2.18/2.60 2.52/3.7 3.31/3.89 5.2/6.0 30.0

Ammonium N mg/l 0.039/0.05 0.02/0.05 0.039/0.09 0.02/0.06 0.04/0.04 2.0

Nitrite N mg/l 0.003/0.003 0.001/0.005 0.004/0.005 0.004/0.004 0.001/0.001 10.0

Nitrate N mg/l 0.25/0.23 0.28/0.20 0.23/0.20 0.3/0.24 0.19/0.1 1.0

Total N 0.30/0.29 0.31/0.30 0.25/0.26 0.33/0.34 0.21/0.10

Chlorides mg/l 15.5/16.3 15.3/16.6 15.5/16.4 15.3/16.8 11.12/12.5 350

Sulphates mg/l 22.0/22.0 21.6/22.1 21.2/21.8 20.9/21.0 59.9/52.2 500

Hardness mg-equ/l 4.35/4.5 4.32/4.44 3.9/4.2 4.36/4.62 2.4/2.2

Detergents mg/l bdl bdl bdl bdl -- 0.5

Ether-extractable oil products

mg/l None None None None 0.05/0.05 0.05

Iron 0.035//0.004 0.030/0.033 0.028/0.030 0.018/0.021 0.1/0.1 0.09

Copper 0.01/0.01 0.011/0.011 0.01/0.01 0.009/0.01 0.001/0.001 1.0

Cadmium None None None None/ 0.001/0.001 0.005

BDL=Below Detection level, MACs provided are for water used for domestic purposes

114. When compared with past data collection, these values compare favorably but underscore that effluent discharge is reaching the Chui River.

115. Karakol – For Karakol, the samples were taken from the Karakol River, close to the WWTP. 116. Regular monitoring of wastewater is undertaken by the ITDEP under contract to the Karakol municipal government. Data for April and August 2017 confirms that the facility is not providing adequate treatment, and though there is some reduction in BOD5 and suspended solids, the effluent does not meet wastewater standards (Table 20). In Karakol there is no dilution of the effluent and the irrigators complain of odours and there is clearly a health risk. Wastewater quality testing was conducted for water in Karakol River and at other points in the system as shown in the table below.

Table 20 – Wastewater Quality Results at Karakol WWTP – April 2017 and August 2017

Parameter

Karakol

CMEA standard

Inlet Before

Biological Ponds

After Biological Ponds

At Storage Lagoon

At Mixing Point

Irrigation canal

April 2017

Aug 2017

April 2017

Aug 2017

April 2017

Aug 2017

Aug 2017 Aug 2017 Aug 2017

Temperature (oC) - 9.8 13 10.5 12 15

pH - 7.19 7.43 6.91 7.12 7.14 7.77 7.9 8.01

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

- 76 128 75 22 78 12 26 42

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

- 348 704 373 353 643 528 213 160

BOD (mg/L) 6.0 109.6 97.2 86.9 49.5 55.1 29.2 16.1 2.4

COD (mg/L) - 184.0 129.5 176.3 80.3 72.8 43.4 25.1 3.5

Ammonia (mg/L) 1.5 13.7 10.66 11.3 11.6 8.8 17.04 4.91 <0.039

Nitrite (mg/L) 1.0 0.195 0.001 0.15 0.10 0.001 0.2 0.08 <0.001

Nitrate (mg/L) 10.0 4.16 2.2 4.47 2.61 1.1 0.9 <0.1 <0.1

Oil and Grease (mg/L)

- 19.5 8.0 14.0 2.5 2.5 0.5 5.0 <0.05

48

Parameter

Karakol

CMEA standard

Inlet Before

Biological Ponds

After Biological Ponds

At Storage Lagoon

At Mixing Point

Irrigation canal

Alkalinity (mg/L) - 175 285 165 170 271 328 174 89

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

- 2.6 0.7 3.7 2.8 0.9 2.8 1.4 0.03

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

- 12.7 9.5 15.6 14.0 8.9 15.5 5.0 0.1

Conductivity (uS/cm)

- 538 654.3 583 552 509.6 714.3 452 159.7

Source: ITDEP Laboratory, 2017. Standard: CMEA, 1977.

117. Table 21 presents water quality data for 2013 and 2017 taken from sampling sites on the Karakol River 1 km upstream and 0.5 km downstream of the wastewater treatment plant facility collected by the ITDEP. The results indicate that the water quality in the Karakol River is relatively good, being mostly in compliance with the relevant MACs for fish well-being. The data also suggest that wastewater is not contaminating the river, as the water quality upstream and downstream of the plant is very similar. That being said, no microbiological tests were taken to confirm that there was no leakage into the river.

Table 21 – Surface Water quality in 2013, 2017 u/s and d/s of Karakol wastewater treatment plant

Elements Measure unit

Analysis Data for spots on 2013 (month) - 2017

MAC (CMEA 1977)

Date 01/13 04/13 07/13 10/13 11.07.17

рН рН unit -- -- -- -- 8.22/8.21 6.5-8.5

Flow speed m/sec -- -- -- -- -- NA

Suspended solids mg/l 10/10 11/15 67/77 27/28 35/32 No CMEA standard

BOD5 mg of O/l 1.80/1.90 1.72/1.90 3.10/3.08 1.78/1.88 2.4/2.4 3.0

COD mg of O/l 4.1/4.2 30.0

Ammonium N mg/l 0.050/0.050 0.046/0.05 0.050/0.05 0.390/0.390 0.04/0.04 2.0

Nitrite N mg/l 0.003/0.003 0.003/0.016 0.003/0.003 0.010/0.010 0.001/0.001 10.0

Nitrate N mg/l 2.10/2.20 0.163/0.163 0.925/0.313 0.002/0.002 0.1/0.1 1.0

Source: ITDEP, 2014, 2017 Standard: The Rules of Protection of Surface Waters (1993, No. 136) – MAC for fisheries.

118. The effluent in Karakol passes into a large irrigation reservoir located 1,5km downstream from the WWTP. This pond was never de-sludged and so the sludge contained in the lagoons would be quite old and highly digested. Test on the quality of the sludge would need to be done prior to de-sludging and determining where the sludge will be disposed. However, due the sludge age and as there are no metal industries in the area, the biosolids when they are extracted, can be dewatered in the existing lagoons and land applied, likely on the site of the WWTP or on adjacent farm land. It has been suggested that some leakage occurs from the Karakol irrigation reservoir and investigation of this and rehabilitation as required has been included in the project works.

7. Air Quality & Noise-The Two Project Sites

A. Air Quality 111. Air quality is not routinely monitored in Issyk-Kul, the only air quality measuring point of Kyrgyz Hydromet is located in Cholpon-Ata, and therefore, baseline data are extremely limited. Overall air quality is generally reported by local authorities (personal communication IK Oblast, 2015) to be good since the collapse of the Soviet Union, primarily because of the limited number of pollutant sources in the Issyk-Kul basin. There are few large urban centers; population levels are low; industrial production is limited, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and KR’s independence.

49

112. Therefore, collection of air samples was not considered necessary since the data for Cholpon Ata will be used as the baseline for monitoring construction period impacts. Further a limited sampling program is proposed in the EMP and these findings will be compared against national standards. During the field visits, sewage odor was detected in the immediate vicinity of the sewage lagoons and on the grounds of the pumping stations.

Table 22: Air quality recorded in Cholpon Ata 1999-2012 (annual average, µg/m3)

Year SO2 NO2 NO CO NH3 HCOH* Dust

1999 10 10 400 40

2006 6 20

2012 5 20

National

Standard50

Daily average 50 40 60 150 40 3 150

Maximum 500 85 400 500 200 35 500

* Maximum concentration limit of contaminants in atmospheric air of settlements, as per Resolution of the Chief

State Sanitary Inspector No. 20, 28 May 2004.

Source: Hydrometeorology Department (Kyryzgidromet) of the Ministry of Extreme Situations. Reproduced in ADB (2009) and updated in 2014

B. Noise

113. Noise is not monitored routinely in Issyk-Kul, and therefore no preexisting baseline noise monitoring data were available during the preparation of this IEE. However as with air quality, the predominantly rural nature of the basin is such that in all non-urban areas, noise levels are very low. Even in the urban areas of Balykchy and Karakol, it is unlikely that noise levels exceed KR standards.

C. Landslides

114. Landslides are common in the mountainous areas of the KR (Figure 17). They are triggered by increasing steepness of slopes (owing to geological processes), seismic events, meteorological and hydrological anomalies, and a variety of anthropogenic processes. Most landslides occur in foothill and mountain areas around 1,000 to 2,400 masl and on slopes 19 degrees or steeper (depending upon soil type). They can be hundreds of meters in width and as thick as 20 meters (Thurman 2011). The Project sites are within the gently sloping flood plain of Issyk-Kul Lake, and are at low risk from landslides.

50 "Maximum allowable concentration of contaminants in atmospheric air settlements" (2004), Resolution of the Chief state

Sanitary Inspector No. 20, 28 May 2004.

50

Figure 17 – Issyk-Kul Lake basin Earthquake risk zones, based on Modified Mercalli Intensity scale

D. Avalanches

115. More than one‐half of the territory of the KR is at risk of avalanches during the 5- to 7-month annual avalanche season. The avalanche risk areas in Issyk-Kul Oblast are in the mountain areas to the north and south of the lake; the Project sites are well outside of the risk areas.

E. Floods and Mudflows

116. Much of the KR is vulnerable to floods and mudflows (Figure 18). Floods occur mainly in the spring and summer on the main rivers and their tributaries. Rain-fed rivers tend to flood in the spring, earlier and more suddenly than those fed by snow and glacial melt, which flood in late spring and summer. Landslides occurring during flood periods can impound large amounts of water and release significant surges if they wash out, with the potential to affect areas far downstream. The largest floods in the KR usually affect the broad alluvial plain of the Chu River, where the towns of Bishkek and Tokmak are located. Other high-risk areas include the middle reaches of the Naryn River, the Talas River valley and the eastern and northern lowlands near Issyk-Kul Lake (including the city of Karakol) (Thurman 2011).

117. Flash floods and mudflows are more common and widespread than more slowly forming river floods. They are usually triggered by intense rainfall events and/or glacial lake outburst floods, and tend to occur in steeply sloping valleys in mountainous areas where there is available loose sediment, gravel, and other debris to be mobilized. Most mountain areas have a high density of steep alpine streams, which deliver runoff and sediment rapidly to the valleys below. These events are most common in springtime (April to May), but they also occur with significant destructive potential in the summer (Thurman 2011). The Issyk-Kul Oblast is one of five regions in the KR which face the highest risk of floods and mudflows (World Bank 2011). 118. Mud flows from lake outbursts can be particularly destructive. The KR has approximately 2,000 high altitude lakes, of which 330 are included in the catalogue of outburst-prone lakes. There are more than 300 settlements in proximity to these lakes. Even lakes with lower-risk dams are vulnerable during seismic events. There are also moraine and glacial high altitude lakes prone to water outbursts located in the upper reaches of mudflow-prone and flood-prone rivers. Melting of moraine and glacial dams during the summer increases the risk of a catastrophic outburst of large volumes of water. Situated in the relatively flat lands near Issyk-Kul Lake, the Project sites are not as vulnerable to mudflows and flash floods as locations in mountainous river valleys, but could still be affected by a major outburst even well upstream.

51

Figure 18 – Mud flow risk map, Issyk-Kul Basin

52

4.3 Ecological Resources

119. The Issyk-Kul basin is considered to be of international importance for its biodiversity. Wildlife found in the basin includes 54 mammal species (9 are listed in the National Red Data Book and IUCN Red List), 267 bird species (18 listed), 9 endemic fish species, and more than 1,500 plant species. This rich biodiversity is also very important at the local level, providing numerous ecosystem services and goods. The TA team commissioned a survey team to carry out an ecological study of the site, on the territory of sewage treatment facilities (STF) in Balykchy and Karakol cities (Annex 3).

1. Habitat Types

120. The Issyk-Kul Oblast is part of the Tien Shan Bioregion, which is considered a global biodiversity hotspot, with more than 2,500 plant species. Within the Tien Shan Bioregion, the Issyk-Kul basin is recognized especially for its migratory birds, endemic fish species, and endangered mammals such as the Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia). The richness of the basin’s biodiversity is a function of the great variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitats found there. Key habitat types include:

• Desert areas, found mainly in the west and northwest, where rainfall is low and colonization by plants is limited by the harsh conditions. Flora consists mainly of drought-resistant and salt-tolerant shrubs and grasses.

• Grasslands cover much of the lake flood plain, intermontane areas and foothills. The steppes of this region are part of the extensive area of grassland habitat that covers much of southern Russia and Central Asia, extending from Ukraine to China.

• Sub-alpine meadows cover extensive areas at higher elevations above the tree line. The flora in of these areas has been greatly influenced by human activities, in particular farming at lower elevations and grazing by livestock in the uplands.

• Alpine meadows occur at higher altitudes and include species that are more cold tolerant.

• Forest is a relatively minor habitat type, covering only 3 percent of the land area, but range from high conifer stands to riparian forests (ADB 2009b).

• Aquatic and wetland habitats are found along the region’s many rivers, and of course in and around Issyk-Kul Lake, which dominates the basin. The network of rivers draining into the lake provides rich riparian habitats, particularly in wetter eastern region.

121. The two WWTP sites are located in a zone of foothills and arid plain areas close to the lake shoreline. Even within this narrow zone the ecological conditions vary significantly, and a diversity of flora and fauna are found. This zone has been heavily modified by agriculture, industrial and residential development and other human activity, and consequently features species that are well adapted to disturbance. The biodiversity study completed in 2014 included a detailed inventory of the faunal and flora of the project sits and showed that these existing WWTP sites had no vulnerable, sensitive or endangered species.

122. The Project sites are part of the Aksu-Tup meadow-steppe region, with fragments of forests and shrubby vegetation. Balykchy belong to the Western Issyk-Kul Botanical Subprovince, whose vegetation communities are represented by arid grasslands with xerophytes, psammophytes and fragments of meadow (Balykchy); steppe with fragments of meadows, spruce forests and thorny formations of Prickly Thrift (Acantholimons sp.) (Cholpon-Ata); and desert-steppe with fragments of meadows and spruce forests (Ton). Karakol belongs to the Eastern Issyk-Kul Subprovince (Atlas of Kyrgyz SSR 1987).

2. Flora

123. The IBR is home to an estimated 1,500 plant species.51 The western part of the basin is surrounded by semi-desert vegetation, typified by shrubs such as Ephedra (Ephedra sp.) and abundant representatives from Salsola and Suaeda genera (flowering plants from the Amaranthaceae family). The dry steppes contain small shrubs including sage brushes (Artemisia sp.) and cereal grasses such as Poaceae, which are widespread at the bottom of the mountain slopes and along the shores. Plant

51 Estimate by Consultants’ Biodiversity Expert (ADB 2015a). A review of flora in the IBR undertaken by Kasiev (2003) lists 1,134 plant

species from 463 genera and 77 families. This is likely an incomplete review; a previous study found 1,192 plant species on just the northern slopes of Terskey Alatau ridge, though it should be noted that mountain floral diversity is very rich.

53

diversity of the arid plain areas is relatively low; approximately 60 species of flowering plants have been recorded in the desert ecosystems around the lake. The number of recorded semi-desert species exceeds 100, and in steppe ecosystems 120 to 150 floral species have been recorded (Kulagin et al. 1999). Figure 25 shows the distribution of vegetation communities in the basin.

124. Riparian zones are characterized by formations of trees and bushes, including Common Sea-buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides), Kyrgyz Tamarisk (Caragana kirghisorum), (German tamarisk (Caragana pleiophylla), Tien-Shan Cherry (Cerasus tienschanica), Barberry (Berberis sphaerocarpa), Common Salt Tree (Halimodensdron halodendron) and Nitraria sibirica. Thickets along river courses around the lake and the riparian ecosystems contain trees such as poplars (Populus sp.), Willow (Salix sp.) and Birch (Betula sp.).

125. Many plants used in traditional medicine grow in the vicinity of Issyk-Kul Lake, including Common Sea-buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides), Ziziphora (Ziziphora clinopodioides), British Yellowhead (Inula Britannica), and various Plantains (Plantago sp.) and Sage Brushes (Artemisia scopalia and others).

126. There are a total of 83 plant species listed in the KR Red Data Book; however, only 3 of these species are known to occur in the foothills and lakeside plain area where the Project sites are located: Kolpakovski's Tulip (Tulipa kolpakowskiana), Quadrifolius Tulip (Tulipa tetraphylla), and Pilose Chesnea (Chesnea villosa).

127. Aquatic floral diversity is also rich; according to Kulagin et al. (1999), Issyk-Kul Lake is home to 346 aquatic plant species. Charophyta algae play an important role in phyto-production, and the lake has several endemic algal species such as Pinnularia issykkulensis, Oocystis issykkulica and others. Higher flowering aquatic plants are represented by Pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), Spiked Urrutia (Myrophyllum spicatum) and many other species.

3. Fauna

128. The fauna of the IBR derives largely from the migration of species from adjacent areas in the post-glacial period, and there are representatives from a wide range of habitats and faunal types. The geographical separation of the area has also resulted in the evolution of a number of endemics found only in the Tien Shan Mountains or Issyk-Kul Lake (ADB 2009b).

4. Mammals

129. The literature identifies over 50 likely mammal species in the IBR (Harder et. al. 2010), though it is commonly understood that from 34 to 36 aquatic and terrestrial mammal species have a confirmed presence. Flagship species include the endangered Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia), the near-threatened Argali (Mountain Sheep, Ovis ammon) and the Siberian Ibex (Capra sibirica). Other large mammals include Wild Boar (Sus scrofa), Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx isabellina), Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) and Central Asian Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus). Smaller and medium-sized mammals include Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Pallas Cat or Manul (Felis manul), Stone Marten (Martes foina), European Badger (Meles meles), Tolai Hare (Lepus tolai), Gray or Long-tailed Marmot (Marmota caudata) and many others. Most of those species occur in the high mountain zones and can typically only be observed in zoos and rehabilitation centers. Of the 23 Red Book-listed mammal species in the KR, only two are known to occur in the foothills and lakeside plain area where the Project sites are located, namely the Eurasian Water Shrew (Neomys fodiens) and the Siberian or Mongolian Five-toed Jerboa (Allactaga sibirica).

5. Avifauna

130. Issyk Kul has two internationally important bird habitats on the lake: (i) the western shore south of Balykchy and (ii) the eastern shore are north of Karakol.

131. Western shore of Issyk Kul – This area (Figure 19) comprising about 2,700 ha includes dry steppes and semi-deserts, part of Issyk-Kul lake, foothill-dry areas. The territory is close to Balykchy city and more or less forms a narrow arc around the western short of the lake for a distance of about 40 km. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=27414

54

132. This area is an internationally important bird habitat for mostly migrating and wintering species. These include the Pallas’s sandgrouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxys), Saker falcon (Falko cherrug), and wintering species such as Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) and White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla). There are also a large number of wintering waterfowl and waterbirds, including Anseriformes, Podicipedidae, Laridae and waders during the passage. According to Birdlife International winter counts every year from 25 to 80 thousand individuals of 30 species winter here. Based on actual observations this site hosts 267 bird species. Shallows and inlets are used in the winter by coots (Fulica atra) and mallard ducks which breed there. During the migration period northern pintail, common teal and waders and present in large numbers. The WWTP in the stony desert, is the habitat of the Pallas’s sandgrouse, lesser short-toed lark, Oenanthe spec., the saker falcon, golden eagle, Egyptian vulture and several other vulture species.

133. Eastern Shore of Issyk Kul- This area (Figure 19) includes around 100,000 ha of mudflats along the shores, sea buckthorn thickets growing along the 2 km length of shores, shallow floodplains, estuaries of the Tyup, Djergalan, Kara-Kol, Kizil- Suu rivers, north of the capital of the oblast, Karakol city.

134. Key Biodiversity. The biodiversity study completed as part of this project (ADB 2017h) and over a short period identified 75 species and underscored the importance of the western shore as an important bird habitat. The proposed WWTPs will have no impact on this zone, since they are removed from the coastal zone and none of the activities will eliminate habitat. Figure 19 – Internationally Important Bird habitat areas around Issyk Kul Birdlife International Bird fact sheet No. 27414 and 27415

55

Figure 20 – Vegetation community map, Issyk-Kul Basin

56

6. Fish

141. Issyk-Kul Lake contains 26 fish species, of which 12 are endemic to the lake and its drainage basin, 4 are Central Asian endemics, and 10 have been introduced (figures vary slightly according to which source is consulted) (Table 23). Commercial fishing is believed to have started on the lake in the 1890s; it was at first relatively disorganized and concentrated on Chebak, Chebachok, Sazan Carp, Marinka and Sheer Osman. The endemic Chebachok (Leuciscus bergi) was the dominant species and accounted for around 90% of the overall catch (UNDP 2007).

Table 23 – The ichthyofauna of Issyk-Kul Lake

Family Species Common English Name

Origin/status

Salmonidae (salmon, trout)

Salmo ischchan gegarkuni Sevan trout Introduced in 1930

Salmo gairdneri Rainbow trout Introduced

Coregonus lavaretus Sevan whitefish Introduced in 1970s

Cyprinidae (carp, dace)

Leuciscus schmidti Issyk-Kul chebak Endemic

Leuciscus bergi Issyk-Kul chebachok Endemic

Phoxinus issykkulensis Issyk-Kul minnow Endemic

Gobio gobio latus Issyk-Kul gudgeon Endemic

Schizothorax pseudoaksaiensis issykkuli

Issyk-Kul marinka Endemic

Diptychus dybovskii Naked osman Endemic (mainly in rivers)

Diptychus dybovskii lansdelli Issyk-Kul naked osman Endemic (in lake)

Diptychus gymnogaster microcephalus

Issyk-Kul scaled osman Endemic

Cyprinus carpio Carp or sazan Introduced in 1950’s

Carassius auratus gibelio Gibel carp or goldfish Introduced in 1950’s

Tinca tinca Tench Introduced accidentally in 1950s

Abramis brama Common bream Introduced in 1956-58

Pseudorasbora parva Gudgeon or amur chebachok

Introduced

Cobitidae (loaches)

Noemacheilus stoliczkai Tibetan loach Endemic to Central Asia

Noemacheilus elegans Tien Shan loach Endemic to Central Asia

Noemacheilus strauchii Thicklip loach Endemic to Central Asia

Noemacheilus strauchii ulacholicus Issyk-Kul gubach or “usan” Endemic

Noemacheilus strauchii ulacholicus var. pedaschenko

Spotted thicklip loach Endemic

Noemacheilus strauchii dorsaloides Lake gubach Endemic

Noemacheilus dorsalis Grey loach Endemic to Central Asia

Noemacheilus labiatus Plain stone loach Introduced

Percidae (perch)

Stizostedion lucioperca Pike-perch or zander Introduced in 1956-58

Eleotridae (sleeper gobies)

Hypseleotris cinctus Sleeper goby Introduced

Source: UNDP 2007; ADB 2009b

142. The first introduction of a non-native species took place in 1930 with the release of the Sevan Trout (Salmo ischchan gegarkuni). In the 1950s, other non-native species were introduced, including Bream (Abramis brama orientalis) and Zander or Pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca), both of which migrated to the eastern part of the lake where they found suitable habitat. Also introduced were Tench, (Tinca tinca) and Crucian Carp (Carassius auratus gibellio). In the early 1970s, attempts were made to establish introduced Trout and Whitefish as the major commercial species, and to gradually reduce the numbers of the little-valued Chebachok. Sevan Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus), Pelyad (Coregonus peled), and Baikal Omul (Coregonus autumnalis migratorius) were also introduced. The Pelyad did not survive, but the Whitefish established itself as a major component of the Issyk-Kul ichthyofauna. The numbers of native species have diminished, and two endemic species – the Issyk-Kul Marinka (Schizothorax issyk-kuli) and Issyk-Kul Naked Osman (Diptychus dybowskii) are included in the Red Data Book and considered to be in imminent danger of extinction. The remaining two endemic species commonly caught in the commercial fishery are considered to be under extreme pressure.

143. Some introduced species, notably the Zander and Sevan Trout (both voracious piscivores) and the Bream (which feed on fish eggs) have been implicated in the reduction in numbers of endemic

57

fish in the lake (UNDP 2007a). Other threats to endemic species are (i) a substantial increase in unregulated fishing in recent years; (ii) the virtual cessation of artificial stocking of the lake with juveniles of the four commercially targeted endemic species; and (iii) no active programs to control or eradicate introduced species. Table 24 lists endemic and introduced species that are the highest priorities for management actions.

Table 24 – Endemic and introduced species in urgent need of management

Scientific Name Common Name Origin Status Recommended

Action Leuciscus schmidti Chebak Endemic Threatened

Protect and re-stock

Leuciscus bergi Chebachok Endemic Threatened

Schizothorax issyk-kuli Marinka Endemic Threatened

Diptychus dybovskii Sheer or Naked Osman

Endemic Close to extinction

Salmo ischchan issykogegarkuni

Sevan or Issyk-Kul Trout

Introduced Voracious piscivore

Control and remove

Parasalmo (Salmo) mykiss gairdneri

Rainbow Trout Introduced Voracious piscivore

Stizostedion lucioperca Zander (or Pikeperch) Introduced Voracious piscivore

Abramix brame orientalis Bream Introduced Fish-egg feeder

Source: UNDP 2007a

144. Annual catches in the lake peaked around 1,200 tons at the beginning of the 1960s, which is near the theoretical calculated maximum production from the lake. At that time, an additional 500 tons per year was produced in fish ponds surrounding the lake. In recent years the fishing industry of the KR has experienced many dramatic changes, leading to a sharp decrease in public sector involvement and a strengthening of the private sector in both fishery and fish farming activities. Catches have declined substantially and are at extremely low levels compared to historical values (UNDP 2007a). Recent discussions with Oblast officials have confirmed this, indicating that the commercial fishery is all but dead and the two most often fishes species are threatened with extinction.

7. Amphibians and Reptiles

145. There are 4 amphibian species and 10 reptile species in the Issyk-Kul Oblast. One endemic amphibian, the Central Asian Frog (Rana asiatica) and one reptile, the Central Asian Tortoise (Testudo horsfieldii), are included in the Kyrgyzstan and Khazakstan Red Data Books. However, IUCN lists this frog as “LC” or of least concern given its wide distribution across Khazakstan, China and Kyrgyzstan and its tolerance of a broad range of habitats, with a presumed large population.

58

Figure 21 – Rana asiatica. Copied from Google Image

Figure 22 – Existing Karakol WWTP and location of Central Asian Frog Habitat.

146. This frog was found to inhabit the most westerly sewage lagoon pond in the old Karakol WWTP. This lagoon (Figure 22) has been filled in and has been transformed into a wetland. In order to protect this species, the lagoons will not be disturbed.

8. Protected Areas

147. Protected areas in the Issyk-Kul Basin include a number of nationally designated protected areas, as well as two internationally designated protected areas, the Issyk-Kul Ramsar Site and the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve (IBR) (Table 25). Protected areas in the general vicinity of the Project sites include: (i) the nationally designated Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve; and (ii) the internationally designated Issyk-Kul Ramsar site (which is the entire lake). The lake also has two Important Bird Areas

59

(IBAs), which, while having no special protection status in the KR, are recognized at the global level, as significant areas for species conservation. These IBAs are intricately linked to the wetlands, since this is where they congregate.

148. These areas are many kilometers away from the three project sites. The wetland on the shore of Issyk Kul, south of Balykchy is about 10km from the WWTP, while the other site on the SE shore of the lake is about 15 km from the Karakol WWTP.

Table 25 – Protected Areas in the Issyk-Kul Oblast

Name Area (ha) Year

founded

IUCN Category*

Purpose

Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve

18,998 1948 Category I Water bird protection

Jeti-Oguz Nature Monument

31,300 1958 Category III Protection of ecosystems and game species

Ak-Suu Forest Sanctuary 32,014 1958 Category IV Preservation of game species and alpine forest ecosystem

Teplokluchinka Game Sanctuary

29,000 1972 Category IV Preservation of game species and alpine forest ecosystem

Tup Game Reserve 19,085 1978 Category IV Protection of Roe Deer, Siberian Deer, Wild Boar

Chon-Kemin Game Sanctuary

13,092 1980 Category IV Preservation of ecosystems and game species

Ottuk Complex Sanctuary (part of Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve)

13,130 1985 Category IV

Complex sanctuary of game species and ecosystem (created for preservation of Goitered Gazelle)

Ken-Suu Game Sanctuary 8,712 1989 Category IV Preservation of game species

Jargylchak Game Sanctuary

23,098 1990 Category IV Preservation of game species and forest ecosystems

Sarychat-Ertash Strict Nature Reserve

135,400 1995 Category I Ecosystem and rare and endangered species protection

Karakol National Park 38,256 1997 Category II Preservation of Karakol Gorge ecosystems

Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve

4,311,588 (all of

Issyk-Kul Oblast)

1998/ 2001

Category V Sustainable development

Eastern Issyk-Kul Lake IBA Western-Issyk-Kul Lake IBA

2,700 8,400

2008 NA

No official protection status in the KR, but recognized at the global level as significant for migratory bird conservation

* IUCN Categories of Protected Areas are as follows: Ia Strict Nature Reserve – Strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values; Ib Wilderness Area –Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence without permanent or significant human habitation, and which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition; II National Park – Large natural or near-natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible, spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities; III Natural Monument or Feature – Set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value; IV Habitat/Species Management Area – Aim to protect particular species or habitats; V Protected Landscape/Seascape – A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant, ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value; VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources – Protected areas that conserve ecosystems and habitats together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems (IUCN 2014)

Source: Baetov, R. (2005) with corrections and supplements from Project team.

60

4.4 Nationally Designated Protected Areas

149. Nationally designated protected areas in the Issyk-Kul Oblast include nature reserves, nature monuments, game sanctuaries, state parks and national parks (Table 24). The two that are closest to the Project sites are Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve and Karakol National Park.

150. The Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve was established in 1948 and was the KR’s first nature reserve. It was established to protect aquatic bird species and natural wetland ecosystems, and to control fishing (ADB 2009b). The reserve has an area of 19,000 ha and is made up of 12 separate areas covering the Issyk-Kul, Tup, Djety-Oguz and Tonsky districts, including almost 400 km of Issyk-Kul Lake shoreline. A major block of the reserve occupies the eastern edge of the lake, quite close to Balykchy.

151. Karakol National Park was established in 1997 on the northern slopes of Teskei Alatau Mountain between Sarychat-Ertash Nature Reserve and Karakol. The park has an area of 38,256 ha and was created to preserve the ecosystems of the Karakol River gorge, and to provide recreational opportunities. The park boundary is approximately 20 km upstream from the Karakol wastewater treatment plant.

4.5 Internationally Designated Protected Areas

1. Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve (IBR)

152. The entire Issyk-Kul Oblast was designated a Biosphere Reserve by the GKR in 1998 and by UNESCO in 2001. The objectives of the IBR are to: (i) protect natural landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic diversity; (ii) ensure sustainable economic and cultural development of the region; and (iii) conduct long-term monitoring and environmental studies.

153. The IBR is managed by the IBRGD, with offices in Balykchy. Land use and economic activities within the IBR are regulated by the Law on Biosphere Reserves (1999), the Law on Specially Protected Natural Territories (1994), and other relevant laws and decrees.

154. The IBR encompasses all of the Issyk-Kul Oblast and has an area of 43,100 km2. Elevation within the IBR ranges from 1,600 to 6,000+ masl, and it includes a wide range of habitats including deserts, semi-deserts, steppes, meadow-steppes, tundra, forests, lakes, rivers and wetlands. The range of altitudes and climatic conditions and the geographical isolation of the basin are key features influencing the region’s rich and diverse ecology (ADB 2009b).

155. Like all biosphere reserves, the IBR is divided into zones (Figure 23) based on physical and ecological conditions and allowable land uses. These zones are as follows:

a. Core Zone, which covers 141,120 ha and includes the most important habitats, species and other natural features. It is comprised of (i) the Issyk-Kul Lake Ramsar site (19,842 ha, including 3,164 ha of shore line and 16,678 ha of lake area); (ii) slope ecosystems of the Terse Ki Alatoo forest belt within Karakol National Natural Park (area 8,600 ha); (iii) highland forest and grassland ecosystems (syrts) of Sarychat-Ertash Strict Nature Reserve (72,080 ha); and (iv) the subalpine, alpine and glacial zones of the Terskey-Alatau Mountains (59,500 ha). The core zone is strictly protected; all economic activities are forbidden, and only scientific studies, monitoring and conservation work are permitted.

b. Buffer Zone, which has an area of 3,501,516 ha and is comprised of (i) the buffer zone of the Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve (except for human settlements, resorts and cropland); (ii) the water area of Issyk-Kul Lake except for a 1 km zone near ports and resort docks (457,145 ha); (iii) state forest lands within the Terskey-Alatau and Kungey-Alatau mountain ranges; (iv) state land reserves and agricultural lands located on Kungey-Alatau and Terskey-Alatau mountains; and (v) the portion of Issyk-Kul Province south-east from Terskey-Alatau to the border of the KR (except human settlements, industrial lands, energy infrastructure and mining deposits). The buffer zone also covers a 500 m wide strip of land all around the shoreline of the lake. The buffer zone protects the core zone from adverse human activities. Limited activities are allowed if they do not have adverse impacts on the core areas; these might include scientific studies, ecosystem monitoring, forestry, traditional land uses, recreational activities and tourism, hunting and sport fishing, traditional hunting and fishing, use of mineral water and resources for health and medication, and public awareness and education. Activities which can damage

61

ecological integrity are forbidden, including establishment of new settlements and industrial facilities, construction, geological works, mining, introduction of alien floral and faunal species, and works that could alter hydrological regimes.

c. Transition Zone, which has an area of 688,540 ha, and includes agricultural and industrial lands; transportation infrastructure; military and other facilities; human settlements and resorts; and other areas not designated as core or buffer zone. The Transition Zone is focused on sustainable economic development. Economic activities are permitted but regulated so as to ensure sustainable use of ecosystem services. Allowable activities include agriculture, industry, recreational facilities, transport, communication, defense and the establishment of communities.

d. Rehabilitation Zone, which includes areas that have been severely degraded by human activities and require rehabilitation, such as mining areas, certain human settlement areas, and overgrazed areas. Regeneration, rehabilitation, remediation, revegetation and other associated measures are undertaken in order to restore ecological integrity of the damaged areas (UNESCO definition).

62

Figure 23 – Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve zoning map

63

156. Both of the Project’s wastewater treatment plant sites are located within the IBR’s Rehabilitation Zone.

2. Issyk-Kul Lake Ramsar Site

157. The first international recognition of the ecology and biodiversity of Issyk-Kul Lake came in 1975, when the lake was included by the Ramsar Convention on its initial list of Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. This designation lapsed with the break-up of the Soviet Union, but was reinstated in 2003 when the KR became a signatory of the Ramsar Convention (ADB 2009b). Signatories commit to promoting the wise use of designated wetlands. The Ramsar site area is 626,439 ha, including the Issyk-Kul Nature Reserve and the entire surface area of Issyk-Kul Lake, and was recognized as a unique Central Asian wetland supporting vulnerable, rare and endangered species of birds and fish, including endemics.

Important Bird Areas (IBAs)

158. Issyk-Kul Lake also has two IBAs which were designated as such by Birdlife International. While IBAs have no special protective status in the KR, they are recognized at the global level as being significant areas for species conservation. The Western Issyk-Kul Lake IBA has an area of 2,700 ha, all of it within the boundaries of the Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve. The IBA serves as important winter habitat for up to 80,000 birds including the globally threatened Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug), Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus), Red-crested Pochard (Netta rufina), Black-necked Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) and others (Birdlife International 2014). 159. The Eastern Issyk-Kul Lake IBA has an area of 8,400 ha, most of it coastal marshes and inland wetlands (55%) and shoreline (around 30%). The IBA is primarily located within a 2 km zone along the shores of Issyk-Kul Lake, centered on the junction of the estuaries of the Tyup, Jergalan, Karakol, and Kyzylsu rivers. It provides important habitat for up to 20,000 migratory and wintering waterfowl and shorebirds such as Northern Pintail (Anas acuta), Ruddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea), Red-crested Pochard (Netta rufina), Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), and Demoiselle Crane (Anthropoides virgo).

4.6 Socioeconomic Profile

1. Population A. Kyrgyz Republic

160. This section is based on official National Statistical Committee (NSC) data, including two population censuses (1999 and 2009), and recent information collected by the consultant team from the regional departments of the Ministry of Social Development.

161. The NSC estimates that the KR’s permanent population was 6.02 million in 2016, compared to 5.663 million in 2013 and 4.851 million in 1999. The fertility rate increased from 2.8 children in 2008 to 3.2 in 2012, and the mortality rate in 2012 was 6.5/1000 inhabitants. Life expectancy at birth for males is 66 years vs. 74 years for females. In 2012 the population growth rate was 2.0 percent per annum, with the highest rate in Bishkek (2.3%) and the lowest in the Issyk-Kul Oblast (1.2%). One third of the population (34%) resides in urban areas and two thirds (66%) in rural areas. The average population density for the country is 31 persons/km2 (NSC 2016a).

162. The youth sector represents a significant portion of the KR population; 32 percent are in the 0-15 age group, 61 percent are in the working age group (16-59), and seniors older than 60 make up the remaining 7 percent. The population structure has a gender imbalance; the number of females starts surpassing males in groups more than 33 years old, and in groups 80 years and older there are twice as many females as males. 163. Emigration and immigration have had a significant impact on KR demographics. The peak emigration period was in the 1990s, when large groups of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Germans, Jews and other nationalities left the KR following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The late 1990s to

64

early 2000s saw an emigration of workers, and even in the 2008 to 2012 period the KR experienced a net emigration rate of 165,000 persons. The majority of emigration was to the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan (NSC 2013a).

B. Issyk-Kul Oblast

164. The Issyk-Kul Oblast’s population was 453,000 in the beginning of 2013, with less than one third (27.8%) living in urban areas. Population demographics along the northern shore of Issyk-Kul Lake over recent years have been characterized by a birth rate lower than the national average and a mortality rate equal to the national average, resulting in a population growth rate of 1.58 percent in 2013, versus the national average growth rate of 2.12 percent. The area also experienced a negative although gradually decreasing migration balance, mostly due to the growing difficulties with naturalization in the Russian Federation, the primary emigration destination; in 2012 and 2013 the Issyk-Kul Oblast lost only 500 persons per year (NSC 2014).

165. Population data and projections for 2018, 2028 and 2038 have been developed for Balykchy and Karakol (Table 26). The estimates and projections are based on official population data obtained from the National Statistics Committee (NSC) of the Kyrgyz Republic, together with the 2013 to 2017 population data provided by the local administrations.

166. Existing and projected population growth rates for the Low Growth and High Growth scenarios are shown in Table 26.

Table 26 – Population Growth Rates in Balykchy and Karakol

Location

Population Growth Rates (% p.a)

2009-2013 (Actual)

Projected Low Growth

Projected High Growth

2018-2028 2029-2038 Karakol 1.71 1.87 2.20 2.00

Balykchy 0.94 0.90 1.20 1.15

Source: Population Projection, Ministry of Finance, Krgyz Republic PMO, June 2014. Low growth rate scenario based on actual growth rates over 5 years (except Kara-oy for which Cholpon-Ata growth rate used. High growth rates generated by PPTA consultants.

Based on the above growth rates, the projected residential populations for the low growth and high growth scenarios are shown in Table 27 below.

Table 27 – Population Projections for Balykchy and Karakol

Location

Population (‘000)

2017 census 2018 2028 2038

Low

Growth High

Growth Low

Growth High

Growth Low

Growth High

Growth

Karakol 74.1 75.5 75.7 90.9 94.1 109.3 114.8

Balykchy 46.9 47.3 47.5 51.7 53.5 56.6 60.2

Source: PPTA Consultants, 2017

These population projections were discussed with the Mayors of Karakol and Balykchy. It was agreed that the high growth projections would be used for both cities.

2. Economy and Employment

A. Kyrgyz Republic

167. The KR economy was severely affected by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting loss of its vast market; in 1990, 98 percent of KR exports went to the Soviet Union. In the post-independence period, the KR has undergone a deep economic and social transformation. With the adoption of market-based economic reforms and business environment liberalization, the economy has demonstrated substantial growth, and in 2011, recovered to its pre-independence output level. The

65

World Bank recently reclassified the KR from a ‘low income country’ to a ‘lower-middle income country’. In 2013, GDP was $7.226 billion and GNI per capita was $1,200. Despite the general positive trends in economic activities, economic growth in the KR remains constrained by a complicated business environment, limited access to finance, increasing shortages of qualified human capital, and a lack of adequate public infrastructure.

B. Issyk-Kul Oblast

168. The Issyk-Kul Oblast has suffered the same post-independence challenges as the rest of the KR. However, bolstered by mining, tourism, and agriculture. With just 8 percent of the KR population in 2012, the Issyk-Kul Oblast contributed 11.6 percent of the KR GDP.

C. Industry

169. The higher than average contribution of the Issyk-Kul Oblast to GDP is at least in part explained by the Kumtor Gold Mine, located 110 km southwest of Karakol in in Dzhety-Ogyz district. This mine alone contributes more than 85 percent of the industrial output of the Issyk-Kul Oblast. However, the contribution of mining to employment is limited (1.1% in 2009), and the majority of mining operations are located outside the Project towns.

170. Manufacturing, once important in the Issyk-Kul Oblast under the Soviet system, has declined significantly in recent decades, and is currently limited to a number of small enterprises primarily in construction, agribusiness and food processing. In 2009, only 2.5 percent of the Issyk-Kul Oblast’s population remained employed in manufacturing. According to the local city governments, manufacturing has also generally declined in importance within the Project towns, but remains significant in Balykchy, where 3,800 people were employed in manufacturing in 2013, compared to 205 people in Cholpon-Ata and 1,651 in Karakol.

171. The post-independence decline in industrial output in the Issyk-Kul Oblast has meant that a large number of industrial buildings and infrastructure were abandoned in the Project towns, including ones located within the 500-m Issyk-Kul Lake buffer zone. The rehabilitation, demolition and cleanup of such sites poses a major challenge to the Project towns and environmental management authorities within the Issyk-Kul Oblast.

D. Agriculture

172. Agriculture is by far the most important livelihood activity in the KR, contributing to one-third of GDP and employing two-thirds of the population. Industrial processing, the second most productive sector, also highly depends on the agricultural sector for provision of raw goods (GFDRR 2014).

173. Farm incomes are driven by irrigated agriculture (1.3 million ha) and pasture-based livestock production (9 million ha). The sector expanded rapidly between 1996 and 2002, but growth has been modest since then, averaging between 2 and 3% per annum. Productivity remains low or is even falling, a result of limited access to finance, lack of inputs, deteriorated infrastructure, outdated agricultural machinery, weak farming skills, and fragmentation of land holdings. The number of private farms increased from 318,815 in 2009 to 356,642 in 2012, dropping the average arable land holding from 2.73 ha to 2.5 ha per farm. Agriculture is also important in the Issyk-Kul Oblast economy, and the oblast generates more than 20 percent of the KR’s cereal production, about 40 percent of its potatoes, and about 20 percent of fruits and vegetables. However, the average size of privately owned agricultural land plots in the Issyk-Kul Oblast is even lower (1.26 ha) than the national average.

174. The main agricultural areas in the Issyk-Kul basin are the shallow plains on the northeast, east and southeast areas of the lake. Around 80 percent of agricultural land is used for grazing sheep, cattle, horses, and goats. Animal husbandry has increased in recent years, leading to over-grazing, soil erosion and loss of productivity. Many of the agricultural areas in the vicinity of the Project towns have visible signs of over-pasturing and soil erosion. The majority of agricultural products are exported out of the oblast for sale; local enterprises only process about 20 percent of grain and milk, 10 percent of fruit, 5 percent of vegetables, and 1 percent of meat. Very few people in the Project towns are employed in the agricultural sector, according to the 2009 census (NSC 2010). In addition to commercial agriculture, local residents in all three municipalities are involved in subsistence farming, producing vegetables, fruits, meat, poultry, and milk for their own consumption.

66

Figure 24 – Population density map, Issyk-Kul Basin

67

E. Fishing

175. Many people living along the lake’s shores are involved in fishing, both commercial and artisanal. The commercial fishery has declined significantly since the collapse of the Soviet Union, as has regulation of fishing activity; both commercial and artisanal fishing were made technically illegal by presidential order in 2003, but an estimated 500 people in the region still fish regularly for a living, with an unknown number of others involved in processing and marketing fish (Mikkola 2012). Most people involved in fishing do so partly for subsistence, and partly to generate cash income. Few derive a majority of their livelihood from fishing, but sales of fish to processors and fishmongers in the informal sector may account for a significant portion of daily cash flow for some households. The informal fishing sector is highly segregated, with men doing most of the fishing, and women dominating the processing and resale of fish purchased from the men (Alamanov and Mikkola 2011).

F. Tourism

176. Existing Conditions – Tourism is a promising sector for economic development in the KR because of its ability to generate jobs and income, and because it is one of the few industries that has expanded in the post-independence era. The KR in general and the Issyk-Kul Oblast in particular have significant tourism potential due to a combination of natural resources, diversified landscapes, and unique cultural heritage. However, currently this potential is only partially exploited due to (i) the remoteness of the country from major markets and limited access to regional markets; (ii) underdeveloped transport and tourism infrastructure; and (iii) insufficient hospitality skills and marketing efforts.

177. According to the NSC, in 2012 tourism contributed 4.7 percent of national GDP, a slight increase from 4.5 percent in 2011. In terms of direct contribution of tourism to national GDP, KR ranked 153rd of 184 countries in 2012, behind Azerbaijan and Belarus and at the same level as Armenia (WTTC 2013). In the same year the hospitality sector provided 58,000 direct jobs (2.5% of total employment), including employment in hotels, travel agents, airlines and other passenger transportation services, and restaurant and leisure industries. The total contribution of tourism to employment (direct and indirect) in 2012 was 180,000 jobs (7.8% of total employment). Tourists visits to the KR are increasing dramatically; total visits were 87,000 in 1997, 250,000 in 2003, and 1.19 million in 2012 (NSC 2013a).

178. Issyk-Kul Oblast is arguably the most important tourist site in the KR. Attractions include the scenic beauty and environmental interest of the lake and Tien-Shan mountains; health resorts and thermal springs in and around the lake; hiking, horseback riding and skiing in the mountains and foothills; community-based tourism for those wishing to sample traditional local ways of life; and a variety of important cultural and historical sites and monuments dating from the Stone Age to the more recent Soviet era. There is also a wide range of facilities available, including resorts, hotels, sanatoria, guest houses, mountain lodges and cottages, private houses and traditional yurts in rural and mountain areas (ADB 2009b).

179. According to NSC data, in the 2008 to 2012 period, 70 to 80 percent of all officially registered tourist accommodation facilities in the KR were located in the Issyk-Kul Oblast. Industry experts estimate that 60 to 70 percent of tourists to the KR visit the Issyk-Kul resort area. In 2008 there were 542,000 tourist visits to Issyk-Kul; by 2012 this had grown to 765,200 visits, an increase of over 40 percent in just four years (Table 28).52 Escalating tourism and the development of resorts along the northern shores of Issyk-Kul Lake have increased pressure on already malfunctioning municipal infrastructure and the lake environment (ADB 2009b).

52 National data on tourism numbers varies dramatically depending on the source of information. For example, according to the NSC the

number of tourists coming into the KR is 7 times higher than the number provided by the Border Service of the State Committee for National Security. With respect to Issyk-Kul, for 2012 i) the NSC bases the number of tourist visits on the registration of visitors staying in hotels and other recreational facilities operating in the formal sector of the economy, and on household surveys; ii) the Department of Economy, Tourism, and Social Protection of the Issyk-Kul Oblast administration estimates the number at 1.06 million for the same year; and iii) the “Explanatory Note” to the “Master Plan of the Issyk-Kul’ Shore Zoning” uses a figure of 1.8 million. For reasons of consistency of quantitative data, this section is based mainly upon the NSC information and the data provided by the city authorities.

68

Table 28 – Data on tourists, accommodation in the Issyk-Kul Oblast 2008 – 2012

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 # of tourists per year (thousands) 541.8 487.3 323.0 482.9 765.2

# of beds (thousands) 79.9 88.0 88.0 115.3 93.3

Source: NSC 2013

180. In 2012, 74 percent of all officially registered tourists visiting Issyk-Kul were KR citizens. Taking into account the large number of non-registered residents visiting during the summer, the share of KR citizens in total tourist visits is likely closer to 85 percent. One quarter (24.6%) of officially registered tourists are from CIS countries (mostly from Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation), and only one percent of tourists come from countries outside the CIS. Balykchy is not a major tourist destination, likely due to its typically strong winds and less aesthetically attractive landscapes, but it acts as a transportation hub for entry into Issyk-Kul. The railway which terminates at Balykchy connects Issyk-Kul with neighboring regions of the KR and Kazakhstan; Highway A365 from Bishkek passes through Balyckhy; and its location on the shores of the lake even provides water borne access to other sites.

181. The major tourist destination in the Issyk-Kul Oblast is centered on the north shore around Greater Cholpon-Ata, with the main attractions being beaches, swimming, sailing and other water sports, as well as restaurants and nightlife. In recent years, small hotels and guesthouses have been built in growing numbers along the north shore from Toru-Aygyr to Semenovka village. Karakol receives a limited number of tourists during the summer, often on transit to and from mountain areas or using the city as a base for day trips into the adjacent mountains. During winter the main attraction is the Karakol Ski Resort, seven km from the town and equipped with five ski lifts.

182. Future Projections – The Low Growth projection assumes that the rate of increase in tourists will generally follow the demographic trend in the Kyrgyz Republic. The High Growth projection assumes that available tourist accommodation in the Issyk-Kul Oblast will increase responding to the increasing demand. 183. Based on these scenarios and considering the actual data for tourist numbers provided by NSC for 2012, tourist projections for both scenarios are shown in Table 29. The low growth scenario assumes 2.3% growth in tourist numbers from 2012 to 2038. The high growth scenario assumes 3% growth from 2018-2021, 5% growth from 2022 to 2028 and 1.8% growth from 2029 to 2035. Of the total tourists in the Issyk-Kul Oblast, it is reported that 49% visit other towns on the north shore and 10% visit other locations in the Oblast Table 29 – Tourism Projections for Greater Cholpon-Ata and Karakol

Item

Number of Tourist and Available Beds in Greater Cholpon-Ata and Karakol (‘000)

2012 2018 2028 2038

Low Growth

High Growth

Low Growth

High Growth

Low Growth

High Growth

Low Growth

High Growth

No. of Tourists in Issyk-Kul Oblast

688.7 688.7 734.9 790.8 862.9 1,215.8 1,102.1 1,448.0

No. of tourists in Balykchy, Cholpon-Ata and Karakol

282.3 282.3 301.3 324.2 353.8 498.5 451.9 593.7

No. of Beds (hotels formal)

14.1 14.1 15.0 16.2 19.4 42.7 24.8 50.9

No of Beds (informal)

79.2 79.2 84.5 90.9 108.7 151.2 138.8 180.1

Source: Consultant estimate based on ISDP-2, Population Projection, Ministry of Finance, Kyrgyz Republic PMO, June 2014

69

Figure 25 – Tourism sites in issyk Kul Basin, highlighting three project towns

70

184. It has been reported that about 41% of tourists visiting the Issyk-Kul Oblast stay in the towns of Cholpon-Ata and Karakol. 90% of these tourists visit Issyk-Kul during the months of June, July and August and stay an average of 7 nights. Tables 30 and 31 show the projected number of tourists staying in Balykchy and Karakol during 2018, 2028 and 2038.

Table 30 – Total Number of Tourists Visiting the Towns and Karakol

Location Number of Tourists

2012 2018 2028 2038

Total for Issyk-Kul Oblast

688,700 790,800 1,215,000 1,498,000

Total for Balykchy and Karakol

282,300 342,200 498.500 593,700

Balykchy

Total 0 0 0 0

June – August 0 0 0 0

September – May 0 0 0 0

Karakol

Total 70,575 85,550 124,625 148,425

June – August 63,518 76,995 112,163 133,583

September – May 7,058 8,555 12,463 14,843

Source: Consultant estimate based on ISDP-2, Population Projection, Ministry of Finance, Krgyz Republic PMO, June 2014

Table 31 – Total Number of Tourist Nights

Location Number of Tourist Nights

2012 2018 2028 2038

Balykchy

Total 0 0 0 0

June – August 0 0 0 0

September – May 0 0 0 0

Karakol

Total 5,489 6,654 9,693 11,544

June – August 4,940 5,989 8,724 10,390

September – May 549 665 969 1,154

Source: Consultant estimate based on ISDP-2, Population Projection, Ministry of Finance, Kyrgyz Republic PMO, June 2014

185. For wastewater production each tourist will be taken as equivalent of a residential population.

G. Service Sector

186. The largest employment sector in the Project towns (88.2% of urban employment in the oblast in 2009) is the service sector, led by education (16.8%), trades, retail and repair (15.9%), health (9.9%), public administration (9.5%), and transport and communication (8.6%) (NSC 2010). In Balykchy the largest employment sector is trade, retail, and repair services (16.9% in 2009), followed by transport and communication (13.9%), education (9.6%), state administration (9.3%), and municipal, communal, and personal services (8.4%). In Issyk-Kul District tourism is the major source of employment and income to local people, led by hotels and restaurants (15.2% in 2009); municipal, communal, and personal services (13.4%); education (11.9%), trade, retail and repair services (11.0%), and health services (9.5%) (NSC, 2010).

187. In Karakol a quarter of the population (24.0% in 2009) is employed in trade, retail, and repair services. Other key service sectors with significant employment include education (12.3%), state administration (9.2%), transport and communication (8.9%), and municipal, communal, and personal services (8.7%) (NSC 2010).

3. Poverty

188. Quantitative data in this section is based mostly on data provided by the social development departments of the Project towns. The percentage of the population living under the poverty line declined rapidly for a decade – from 63 percent in 2000 to 32 percent in 2009 – but increased again to

71

38 percent by 2012, with 4.4 percent living in extreme poverty and unable to meet their basic food needs (NSC 2013b). The global economic crisis, the political unrest of April and June 2010, and food price increases in 2011 and 2012 reversed earlier gains in poverty reduction. 189. Balykchy. As of January 2017, the percent of poor households in the city is 78% (9,795 households), according to the national poverty levels. Among the number of poor households, 33% are considered as extremely poor; 34% are considered as average poor; and 43% are poor.

190. Karakol. In 2017, the percent of poor households in the city is 40% (7,800 households), according to national poverty levels. Among the number of poor households, 1.4% are considered as extremely poor; 4.4% are considered as average poor; and 7.8% are poor households (Table 32).

Table 32 – Socially vulnerable families in the Project towns, 2016 - 2017

Balykchy % Karakol % Total no. of HHs 15,344 20,716

Total No. of Poor HHs (or with social passport) (2016 and 2017)

9,795 77.6% 7,800 39.5%

No. of extremely poor households a/ 416 32.9% 281 1.4%

No. of average poor households b/ 434 34.4% 880 4.4%

No. of poor households c/ 525 42.6% 1,540 7.8%

No. of HHs who received social aid 416 3.3 % 80 0.4 %

No. of poor HHs with improved well-being 71 0.7% 100 0.5%

Total population 46,895 74,104

Source: Departments of Social Development towns of Karakol and Balykchy, April 2017 Notes:

a/ with average monthly income of 0 to 900 KGS b/ with average monthly income of 901 to 1,519 KGS c/ with average monthly income of 1,519 to 2,631 KGS

4. Transportation

191. The Issyk-Kul Oblast is connected with the rest of the KR and neighboring countries via road and rail. Highway A365 connects Bishkek to Issyk-Kul at Balykchy, and although already a Grade 1 road (asphalt or cement-concrete pavement), it is currently undergoing upgrading to improve capacity and safety. Most tourists travel by car or public transport along Highway A365 when visiting the region. There is also a railway terminating at Balykchy which links with national and international railroad systems. The passenger train from Bishkek only runs during summer season and consists of three to four cars. The trip takes up to six hours due to a large number of stops, and the train is not very popular with tourists.

192. The Issyk-Kul Oblast has a reasonably developed network of roads, including highway A363, which encircles the lake and provides access to all major settlements, including the Project towns. Classified as a Grade 1 road, highway A363 is also currently being upgraded. Local roads branch from A363 to most of the larger villages not located immediately on the highway. In total, the Issyk-Kul Oblast has approximately 2,855 km of road, 1,220 km of which are local rural roads classified as Grade 2 (cobble-stone, crushed stone or gravel), which are generally poorly maintained.

193. Aviation infrastructure in Issyk-Kul Oblast is limited, and currently there are only two partially functional airports. The first of these is the Tamchi ‘Issyk-Kul’ Airport (30 km west of Cholpon-Ata), which is used sporadically, though as of 2012 it has been upgraded to international status, servicing mostly charter flights from Alma-Ata in Kazakhstan. Local authorities report that it may be rehabilitated and the runway extended in coming years, depending on the availability of investment capital. The Karakol Airport, located in 2.5 km northeast of the city, was built in 1978. In 2011 it was upgraded to international status. However, its navigation system is outdated and its runway requires upgrading.

5. Power Sources and Transmission

194. The Issyk-Kul Oblast has no significant power generation capacity and depends on the import of energy. Electricity is produced at hydropower plants along the Naryn River cascade (installed capacity of 2,870 MW or 78% of the KR's total generation capacity). From Naryn Oblast electricity is sent by a transmission line to a substation in Balykchy, and then to transmission lines running along the northern and southern shores of Issyk-Kul Lake and connecting to another sub-station in Karakol. The

72

majority of the production and distribution infrastructure is 30 to 50 years old, and according to an assessment made in 2009, a lack of proper maintenance and repair has led to serious deterioration, with up to a third of distribution lines and a sixth of transformers in the Issyk-Kul Oblast requiring complete overhaul or replacement (ADB 2009b).

195. Natural gas supply infrastructure in the Issyk-Kul Oblast is obsolete. Only major municipalities like Karakol and Balykchy have centralized gas distribution networks, and those need to be rehabilitated to be fully operational. In 2013 the national gas distribution company Kyrgyzgaswas acquired by the Russian company Gazprom, which promised to upgraded gas distribution networks and ensure a stable supply to all regions of the KR. Some private companies also supply gas but mostly for household domestic purposes. Centralized supply of other energy sources (coal and fuel oil) is provided by the state controlled company Kyrgyzzhikkommunsoyuz, as well as by private companies (coal, gasoline, and diesel).

196. Centralized district heating systems in the rural centers of Issyk-Kul Oblast date from the Soviet times. Hot water generated at central boilers is piped to public sector buildings and apartment blocks for domestic hot water and heating during the cold season, usually from late November to mid-March. There are approximately 100 such systems in the Issyk-Kul Oblast, operated mainly by municipal authorities. The largest boiler (60 MW) is located in Karakol; it is coal fired and services 51 apartment buildings as well as some administrative buildings in the central part of the city. There are three more large-sized centralized heating systems in Balykchy, Cholpon-Ata and Bosteri. Residential areas without access to centralized heating and recreational and industrial facilities usually use individual heating systems operating mostly on coal, fuel oil and electricity; households in rural areas use coal, wood and dried dung (Consultant Data collection).

197. The Issyk-Kul Oblast and the three Project towns have substantial renewable energy potential, in the form of micro-hydropower on the many streams descending from the mountains; solar power (the KR receives and average of 2,630 hours of sunshine per year); wind power (especially in Balykchy, which has an average of 120 days per year with strong winds); and geothermal power generation in the eastern Issyk-Kul Oblast. Despite this potential, the development of renewable energy sources is currently very limited due to a lack of investment capital and local demand.

4.7 Physical Cultural Resources

198. Physical cultural resources (PCR) are movable or immovable objects, sites, structures, natural features and landscapes that have archaeological, paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural significance. PCRs may be located in urban or rural settings and may be above or below ground or under water. Their cultural interest may be at the local, provincial, national, or international level (ADB 2012a). These PCRs could include graves and cemeteries; religious buildings (intact or in ruins) and objects; sacred caves, forests, hills or cliffs; and historical artifacts, tools, relics and memorials. The archeological survey is attached as Annex 3.

1. Primary Data Sources

199. The Kyrgyz Republic is maintaining list of PCRs, an invaluable source of baseline data, which were carefully examined during the archeological survey.

• State List of Republican Values Monuments of History and Culture of the Kyrgyz Republic (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, August 11, 2003 #503, November 14, 2003 #718, August 10, 2004 #590, December 9, 2004 #904, December 18, 2004 #943, June 27, 2005 #60, July 29, 2005 #326) consists of two parts.

• Lists of historical and cultural monuments of local importance on the regional and district levels is almost completely duplicate State List of republican values Monuments of History and Culture of the Kyrgyz Republic.

200. The first part is a list of historic settlements and other populated areas of the Kyrgyz Republic, with a large number of historical and cultural monuments, urban ensembles, as well as containing ancient cultural layers (Bishkek, Osh, Uzgen, Safid-Bulan).

73

201. The second part is in tabular form with a numbered list of sites (number of objects, the name, the typological identity, dating, address (location of the monument). information about the precise location of any PCR is not provided to reduce the risk of theft, information about historical dates of many objects is left blank.

2. PCRs in the Project Area

202. The Issyk-Kul Lake basin has a long history of human occupation dating back more than 3,000 years, and the area has extensive PCRs, including:

a. Stone Age tools; bronze and gold relics of the Saka tribe dating from 600 BCE to 500 CE; b. Petroglyphs, particularly around Cholpon-Ata, depicting hunters and animals, some from the

late Bronze age (1,500 BCE) and others from the Saka period; c. Burial grounds from various times including the Saka period; d. Menhirs, or large upright standing stones; e. Medieval towns, monuments, stone sculptures, and other relics from the period of Turkish

control from 600 to 1200 CE; f. Sites along the Silk Road, one route of which is believed to have passed along the northern

shores of the lake; and g. Sites, buildings and monuments from the Soviet period.

203. Approximately 2,500 years ago, the lake was considerably shallower and over time, shoreline settlements were inundated and have recently been discovered in the lake shallows.

204. There are believed to be thousands of cultural and historic monuments in the Issyk-Kul basin, of which roughly 1,500 have been registered, and over 320 are under government protection. According to KR legislation, these monuments may be sub-divided into three major groups: (i) protected monuments with national status; (ii) protected monuments of regional or local importance; and (iii) identified monuments without legal protection. Cultural landscapes, or landscapes modified by ancient human activity, are also recognized as a form of cultural heritage in the KR, though their legal definition and protection status is not clearly formulated in the current legislation and regulations. Cultural landscapes may be classified as being of particular interest in terms of history, such as landscapes associated with historical events.

205. Many cultural and historic sites collectively form archaeological complexes. For example, petroglyphs are often arranged in mounds in fields, and these sites in many cases are situated near ancient tombs, stone sculptures, ancient settlements, bronze and iron artifacts, and so on. Archaeological complexes are a subcategory of cultural landscapes. In 2002, a SAIKO resolution established a Museum Association within the Issyk-Kul State Historical-Cultural Museum Reserve to supervise both the museum collections and the immovable cultural heritage. Studies undertaken by local archaeologists and monitoring by local museums indicate that the region’s cultural sites are at risk, primarily due to uncontrolled economic development (agriculture, urban expansion) and allocation of land plots that occurs in an uncontrolled manner without compliance with relevant KR legislation.

206. The presence of PCRs at each Project site was assessed based on a review of available information on known historical and cultural heritage resources in the vicinity of the sites and field surveys, both undertaken by a qualified KR archaeological expert. PCRs at each site are identified in section F of this chapter and described in detail in Appendix III.

3. Legislation and permit requirements relevant to PCRs and to this Project

207. These include:

a. Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on the protection and use of historical and cultural heritage dated by July 26, 1999, # 91.

b. State List of Republican Values Monuments of History and Culture of the Kyrgyz Republic (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, August 11, 2003 #503, November 14, 2003 #718, August 10, 2004 #590, December 9, 2004 #904, December 18, 2004 #943, June 27, 2005 #60, July 29, 2005 #326).

c. Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on August 20, 2002 # 568 “Regulations on

74

registered, protection, restoration and use of historical and cultural heritage” (as amended by Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on 25 August 2006 #614).

d. Provisional Regulations on the procedure for conducting an archaeological survey. Approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic dated July 11, 2014, #385

4.8 The Project Sites

1. Balykchy

A. Overview

208. Balykchy is located at the western extremity of Issyk-Kul Lake midway between Bishkek and Karakol, at an elevation of 1,620 masl. The city is a center for regional trade due to its location; it is connected with direct road and rail links to Bishkek and is a through fare for tourists entering the region. The main road from Bishkek is part of the ancient Great Silk Road and an important link to China.

209. A major industrial and transport center (wool and crop processing, lake shipping, rail terminal, and road junction) during the Soviet era, the city lost most of its economic base after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the closure of virtually all of its industrial facilities. The Balykchy administration has direct local ownership and control of much of the local infrastructure, including wastewater management.

B. Wastewater Treatment Plant Site

Habitat

210. Biodiversity surveys of the WWTP, lagoons and surrounding area were undertaken in March, June and July 2014, and again in June 2017 (See appendix 3). Habitats in the area of the WWTP include sandy desert steppe, wetlands and riparian areas, and orchards and agricultural areas. Wetlands and riparian habitat areas include branches of the Chui River and the lagoons and surrounding areas. These wetlands serve as stop-over and breeding sites for waterfowl and shorebirds. Plant communities around the lagoons include Common Reed (Phragmites australis), several semi-aquatic species such as various Docks (Rumex sp.), Golden Banner (Thermopsis lanceolatum), several species of grasses (Poaceae) growing in wet places, and other common species. The berms between the lagoons are overgrown with desert vegetation such as Nitraria sibirica bushes, which are abundant in the area (Figure 26). Silver Berry (Elaeangus angustifolia) bushes grow in several places along the lagoons but were probably planted. The Cinquefoils Potentilla anserina and P. orientalis can be found in wet and shaded places along the banks.

211. Wetland wildlife is very rich and even in the desert zone is represented by many bird species including breeding Ruddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea), Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Common Redshenk (Tringa totanus), Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) and many others. Insects are also abundant, dominated by dragonflies (Odonata) and blister beetles (Meloidae, Coleoptera).

212. Desert areas around the lagoons and WWTP contain species typical for sandy deserts along the western shores of Issyk-Kul Lake, including Nitraria sibirica, Needle Grass (Stipa lessingiana) and Clematis (Figure 27). Vegetation cover varies between 50 and 75 percent. Fauna include the Tolai Hare (Lepus tolai), Libyan Jird (Meriones libycus), and a diverse range of birds, including Turkestan shrike (Lanius phoenicuroides), Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris), Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) and Isabelline Wheatear (Oenanthe isabellina). One lizard, the Steppe Runner (Eremias arguta) was also observed.

75

Figure 26 - Wetlands surrounded by riparian vegetation, Balykchy wastewater treatment

facility

Figure 27 – Desert habitat around lagoons, Balykchy wastewater treatment facility

213. Apricot orchards (Armeniaca vulgaris) were planted several years ago to the north of the lagoons. The areas between trees are overgrown with weeds and some desert plants. So, in spite of quite poor natural conditions and habitats transformed in the results of human activities, fauna around Balykchy WWTP was quite diverse and abundant and can be characterized by presence of significant aquatic elements. Although just desert species also were present there.

Flora

214. The biodiversity survey identified 114 plant species belonging to 31 families in the habitats in and around the WWTP. The most numerous were from Asteraceae (22 species), Poaceae (19 species), Fabaceae (11 species) and Brassicaceae (11 species). This number is not very high when taking into account that wetlands create favorable conditions for diverse flora. Plant diversity was represented mostly by common species with a high proportion of agricultural weeds and species associated with degraded lands such as Golden Banner (Thermopsis lanceolata), Lesser Blindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Russian Knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Cornflower (Centaurea squarrosa), and Spear Thistle (Cirsum vulgare). Many aquatic and semi-aquatic plants were present in the lagoons, including the knotweeds Polygonum persicaria, P. aviculare, P. minor, and P. amphibium; Celery-leaved Buttercup (Ranunculus sceleratus); Common Reed (Phragmites australis); and several Dock species (Rumex sp.) (Figures 28 and 29). No rare or threatened plant species were found.

Figure 28 - Persicaria amphibia in the lagoons

Figure 29 - Dock (Rumex sp.) at lagoon shoreline

76

Fauna

215. Two amphibians were recorded, namely the Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) and Pevzov's Toad (Bufo pevzovii). The Steppe Runner lizard (Eremias argute) was common in open bare places. Bird fauna were quite abundant and 38 species were recorded, including water birds and birds typical of desert and anthropogenic ecosystems. It is estimated that over 50 percent of the observed species breed in habitats around the WWTP and lagoons, and breeding behavior was confirmed visually for the Ruddy Shelduck. Most abundant in the lagoons were Black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus), though several waders were also observed. Rock Pigeons (Columba livia) and Eurasian Tree Sparrows (Passer montanus) were observed in the WWTP. Several desert species such as the Red-headed Bunting (Emberiza bruniceps), Crested Lark (Galerida cristata), Isabelline Wheatear (Oenanthe isabellina) and Turkestan Shrike (Lanius phoenicuroides) were observed in the sandy desert habitats around the lagoons.

216. Five mammal species were recorded, including the Tolai Hare (Lepus tolai), Libyan Jird (Meriones libycus), Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis) and House Mouse (Mus musculus). Tracks of the Long-eared Hedgehog (Hemiechinus auritus) also were detected.

217. The shoreline around Balykchy and the wetland to the south of the city (see Figure 30) are internationally known, and the wetland is a Ramsar site and is therefore protected by convention to which KR is a signatory.

218. No rare or endangered animal species were recorded at or near the WWTP and lagoons.

Assessment

219. The Balykchy WWTP is located adjacent to the central Bishkek-Balykchy highway in an area with human settlements, croplands and orchards. Local flora and fauna are represented by common species typical for disturbed areas, and no rare or threatened species were found there. However, the lagoons have created conditions allowing for diverse and abundant wetland wildlife, and construction and other associated activities near the lagoons should be restricted to after the end of breeding season in late summer or autumn.

119. Involuntary resettlement - the project prioritizes the rehabilitation of WWTP in Balyckhy, as well as the construction of pipelines and other physical infrastructure. As a result, involuntary resettlement due diligence is ongoing, including detailed measurement surveys, and independent valuations. These analyses relate primarily to the sanitary protection zones (SPZs) around the WWTP. 120. Field observations have revealed that residences and other human activities currently exist within the SPZ surrounding the WWTP in Balykchy, and that in order to meet the requirements of the SanPiN, residences and other human activities would be subject to involuntary resettlement under the project.

77

Figure 30 – Balykchy wastewater treatment plant and surroundings (red arrow indicates direction of lake)

Legend: Blue arrow = drainage direction

Physical Cultural Resources

220. Figure 31 presents a summary of known and surveyed sites in the general area of the WWTP. The archeological survey discovered ruins of an Ak-Chiy settlement abandoned over 50 years ago. The site has no protection status, and it and all other sites identified in the survey are outside of the anticipated Project impact zone. Figure 31 – Known and surveyed PCR sites in general vicinity of Balykchy WWTP

78

Table 33 – Known and Surveyed PCR Sites in the General Vicinity of Balykchy WWTP

Map Code

PCR Location Description

A01 Old Kyrgyz Cemetery

880 m W of WWTP

Abandoned 50+ years ago. No archeological protection status.

A02 Ruins of Aik Chiy Settlement

1000 m W of WWTP

Ruins of settlement abandoned 50+ years ago. No archeological protection status.

A03 Kok-Bulak Burial Ground

880 m NW of WWTP

Burial ground consists of numerous stone and earthen mounds of round and rectangular shapes, with stone fences. Many mounds form chains extending in N-S direction. Graves have been previously robbed. The burial ground dates from 600 to 1000 CE.

A04 Kok-Moynok Burial Ground

4.5 km SW of WWTP

Rayon (district) list of historical and cultural heritage.

A05 Kyzyl-Ompol Burial Ground

6.4 km SW of WWTP

No protection status

A06 Sary Bulan Ancient Settlement

6.2 km SW of WWTP

The settlement was one of the metallurgical centers of the Issyk-Kul from 1000-1200 CE. The site is of high significance for the study of production processes in the Middle Ages. To date, this is the only excavated metallurgical center in Issyk-Kul. Present condition is unsatisfactory, and not protected.

A07 Boz-Barmak Lower Paleolithic Site

4.5 km SW of WWTP

Stone tools made more than 100,000 years ago. Site is included in the national list of cultural heritage, and has great importance as the largest Paleolithic site in Issyk-Kul region. Present condition - destroyed in the process of construction the Balykchy – Karakol railway.

A08 Boz-Barmak Burial Ground

4.5 km SW of WWTP

Burial site in Boz-Barmak Lower Paleolithic Site (see above).

A09 Salamat-Bulak Lower Paleolithic Site

4.5 km SW of WWTP

Stone tools made more than 100,000 years ago. Since 1965 the Paleolithic site has been investigated by archaeologist M.B. Yunusaliev. Site is included in the national list of cultural heritage, and has great importance as the largest Paleolithic site in Issyk-Kul region. Present condition - destroyed in the process of construction the Balykchy – Karakol railway.

A10 Ak-Olong Lower Paleolithic Site

4.5 km SW of WWTP

Stone tools dated Low Paleolithic (2.6 million - 150,000 years ago). During previous site investigation stone tools were collected on an area of several hundred m2. Significance - included in the national list of cultural heritage. Present condition is satisfactory, but not protected.

A11 Kutmaldy Landscape

Encompasses area

Watercourse which once connected the Chu River to Issyk-Kul Lake. Linked with the history of Kyrgyz statehood and the election of a single ruler who united, at least figuratively, the Kyrgyz tribes in 1842. No official protection.

2. Karakol

A. City Overview

221. Karakol is the largest city in the Issyk-Kul Oblast and its administrative center. The city has favorable climatic conditions, which encouraged the development of an agro-industrial base to the local economy. The city was originally developed as an outpost of the Soviet military in 1869, and has since seen influxes of migrants from surrounding countries, including Russia, Uzbekistan and China. The main urban area of the city is located approximately 12 km from the shores of Issyk-Kul Lake, and had a population of approximately 70,500 people in 2013, including the people of Pristan, a small town located nearer the lake that is administratively part of Karakol (NSC 2013a). The municipality covers a total area of approximately 4,800 ha, of which 2,633 ha is agricultural land. Population density is relatively low at 12.9 people per ha. The Karakol administration has direct local ownership and control of much of the local infrastructure, including the water supply and sewerage networks.

222. The population varies seasonally as tourists visit the region during the summer and winter, mainly for Issyk-Kul Lake, the nearby health spas, trekking and winter sports. A modern ski resort operates 7 km from Karakol and brings skiers to the city in winter.

79

B. Wastewater Treatment Plant Site

Habitat

223. Biodiversity surveys of the wastewater treatment plant and its surroundings were undertaken in March, June and July of 2014, and also in June 2017 (See appendix 2).

224. The Karakol wastewater treatment facility includes the wastewater treatment plant and four lagoons, and discharges to an irrigation reservoir 2,5 km to the northwest via a pipeline. Most steppe areas around the WWTP have been developed for crop production and agricultural fields, and remaining natural habitats include areas of trees and shrubby vegetation, with small fragments of meadows on slopes and remnant forest areas along the Karakol River. The lagoons and irrigation reservoir form artificial wetlands.

225. Fragments of meadow-steppes are occupied by shrubby vegetation dominated by German Tamarisk (Caragana alopecuroides), with Fescue (Festuca sulcata); Sagebrush (Artemisia elongata and A. tianschanica); and Feather grass (Stipa kirghisorum) present at the tops of deep valleys (Figure 32). They are replaced downslope by tall bushes of Altai Hawthorn (Crataegus altaica), Barberry (Berberis integerrima), Wild Dog-roses (Rosa beggeriana and R. albertii), Iberian Meadow-sweat (Spirea hypericifolia), Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster multiflorus) and other shrubs. Local fauna is represented mostly by bird species, which are very abundant in this habitat. The most common and widely distributed are Greater Whitethroat (Sylvia communis), Common Rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus), Eurasian blackbird (Turdus merula), and Turkestan Shrike (Lanius phoenicuroides). 226. Riparian river forest and wet meadows stretch along the Karakol River (Figure 33). Rich in diversity, they include Common Sea-Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) and other bushes and shrubs such as Silver Berry (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Willow (Salix tianschanica), Barberry (Berberis integerrima), German Tamarisk (Myricaria alopecuroides), and many others. In places where the river flow is swift and seasonally floods there are open gravel bars, while in areas where the flow is slow, dense thickets of Common Hop (Humulus lupulus), Chinese Clematis (Clematis orientalis) and other bushes have formed. Animal diversity is also rich. Birds include Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus), Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius), Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Oriental Turtle Dove (Streptopelia orientalis), Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canora), Common Kingfisher (Alcedo attis), Turkestan Shrike (Lanius isabellinus phoenicuroides), Common Magpie (Pica pica), Pale Martin (Riparia diluta), and Cetti’s Warbler (Cettia cetti), many of which breed in this habitat. Several mammal species were observed, including Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis), Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Tolai Hare (Lepus tolai) and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes).

Figure 32 – Slope with shrubs and meadow-

steppe formation

Figure 33 – Riparian remnant forest along

Karakol River

227. The artificial wetlands of the lagoons and irrigation reservoir are quite rich in biodiversity. Many plant species from natural riparian habitats are found there, and several types of trees have been planted around the lagoons, including Poplars (Populus sp.), Willows (Salix sp.), Maples (Acer sp.), and Silver Berry (Elaeangus angustifolia). Other bushes and shrubs inhabit wet areas around the lagoons, and some marsh and wet-meadow plants have successfully settled in this area, such as Spotted or

80

Marsh Orchid (Daktylorhiza kotschyi), Iris (Iris sogdiana), several dock (Rumex sp.) species, Laxman's Burlush (Typha laxmanii), sedges (Carex sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), and Cranesbills (Geranium collinum). These habitats are also characterized by the presence of many aquatic weeds, such as Black Henbane (Hyosciamus niger), Motherwort (Leonurus turkestanicus), Horehound (Marrubium alternidens), Common Toadflax (Linaria vulgariformis), and Three-lobe Beggar-ticks (Bidens tripartite). Three amphibian species were recorded in the lagoons: Pevzov’s Toad (Bufo pewzowi), Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) and Central Asian Frog (R. asiatica). Many waterfowl and shorebirds also occur there, some of them nesting on the lagoons or in bushes, like the Mallard (Anas plathyrhynchos), Ruddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea), Common Coot (Fulica atra), and Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus).

Flora

228. Plant diversity around the WWTP is rich, and 175 species from 45 families were recorded, the most numerous species belonging to the Poaceae (21), Rosaceae (18), Asteraceae (19), and Fabaceae (13) families. The flora range includes plants belonging to natural formations and plants and weeds associated with agricultural fields, abandoned places and human-modified habitats. The richest plant diversity was in the riparian habitats and around the artificial wetlands of the lagoon and reservoir. No rare or threatened plant species were observed.

Fauna

229. Wildlife in and around Karakol WWTP was rich and diverse. Five fish species were identified from the catch of local fishermen; all are reportedly still quite abundant in the local mountain rivers. Three amphibian species were observed or heard, one of which, the Central Asian Frog (Rana asiatica), is included in the Red Book of KR as a vulnerable species, and which is threatened by collection for traditional medicine. This frog occurs in riparian habitat near one of the lagoons (the other three lagoons are considered to be too polluted to provide suitable habitat). Only one reptile, a Stummer's Racerunner (Eremias stummeri), was observed.

230. Bird diversity was very rich and represented by 75 species, 40 of which most likely breed in the habitats around the lagoons. Several species are quite abundant, including Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Common Coot (Fulica atra), Common Sandpiper (Actitus hypoleucos), Common Rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus), Common Whitethroat (Sylvia communis), Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and Masked Wagtail (Motacilla alba personata) (Figures 34 and 35). Birds of prey visit the habitats near the WWTP; Black Kites (Milvus migrans) were observed flying in the direction of Karakol dumpsite, and a few of them stopped near the wetlands to chase prey. The irrigation reservoir also plays an important role as a breeding and stopover place for Ruddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea), and about 300 shelducks were observed there in July. Other birds also gathering there in flocks include the Common Coot (Fulica atra), Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), and Common Redshank (Tringa tetanus).

Figure 34 – Mallard with brood on sewage

lagoon

Figure 35 – Common Coot with brood on

sewage lagoon

81

231. The area shown in Figure 7 has been identified by Birdlife International as the second internationally most important bird sanctuary in the lake. This area includes around 100,000 ha of mudflats along the shores, sea buckthorn thickets growing along the 2 km length of shores, shallow floodplains, estuaries of the Tyup, Djergalan, Kara-Kol, Kizil- Suu rivers, north of Karakol city.

232. This area has been given a Key Biodiversity Criterion A4iii since it is home to a large concentration of wintering waterfowl. During stopover for resting and feeding, up to 2,500 Demoiselle crane, many waders, the bean goose (Ansar fabalis) as well as white-headed ducks (Oxyura leucocephala) may stop here. Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) and white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) are common in winter. Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus) is rare. Between 15,000 to 40,000 individuals of 30 species winter here each year. The biodiversity study completed earlier (ADB 2014h) and over a short period, also identified 75 species and underscored the importance of the western shore as an important bird habitat.

Assessment

233. The Karakol WWTP is situated in a naturally rich area with sensitive riparian habitats and rich flora and fauna, although the surrounding habitats have been largely modified for crop and livestock production and human settlements. The creation of the lagoons and irrigation reservoir have provided good conditions for the enrichment of local riparian fauna with wetland species dispersed from natural wetlands such as Issyk-Kul Lake, and these artificial wetlands provide habitats for a rich diversity of wetland plants and animals. One vulnerable species, the Central Asian Frog (Rana asiatica), was found near the lagoons. In order to protect this species, the lagoons will not be disturbed.

234. Involuntary resettlement - the project prioritizes the rehabilitation of WWTP in Karakol, as well as the construction of pipelines, pump station and other physical infrastructure. As a result, involuntary resettlement due diligence is ongoing, including detailed measurement surveys, and independent valuations. These analyses relate primarily to the sanitary protection zones (SPZs) around the WWTP, and also to the pump station. 235. Field observations have revealed that residences and other human activities currently exist within the SPZ surrounding the WWTP in Karakol, and that in order to meet the requirements of the SanPiN, residences and other human activities would be subject to involuntary resettlement under the project.

Physical Cultural Resources

236. There are no known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the WWTP or irrigation reservoir, and this finding was confirmed by the archaeological survey.

82

5 Analysis of Alternatives

237. This chapter presents the alternative project options which have been considered as possible ways to address the acknowledged inadequacy of wastewater collection and treatment in Balykchy and Karakol, which ultimately threatens public health and endangers the lake’s environmental values. The Project assessed options for the two WWTPs at Balykchy and Karakol. 238. The goals of the Project are to (i) improve environmental quality; (ii) reduce threats to public health; and (iii) increase the supply of suitable irrigation water for local agriculture. Several alternatives have been considered, reflecting a range of options for wastewater treatment. The alternatives are compared and discussed, and a Preferred Alternative is identified for each Project component. The chapter culminates in a summary of the Preferred Alternative for the Project.

5.1 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

1. Alternative 1: No Change

239. One possible course of action for addressing the poor state of wastewater treatment in the Project towns is to do nothing and allow the existing treatment plants to continue operating as they do now. The plants, despite not functioning to their design, do fulfil the treatment function of providing settlement (mainly minor reductions in suspended solids and BOD5).

2. Alternative 2: Full Rehabilitation of Existing Treatment Plants

240. This option is to rehabilitate the existing WWTPs, so they function as originally designed (settlement with a conventional activated sludge process [ASP]). This requires confirmation of the structural integrity of existing reinforced concrete structures, assessment of repairs that would be required to bring the WWTP structures to an acceptable standard, and the re-equiping with pipework and electrical and mechanical equipment, including transformer stations and cabling. This alternative would include capacity building and training to enable the vodokanals to operate and maintain the plants.

3. Alternative 3: Rehabilitate and Modify Existing Treatment Processes

241. A third possibility is to rehabilitate the existing plants as in Alternative 2, but incorporate a change in treatment process, with an IDEAL system instead of a conventional ASP system. This alternative would also include capacity building and training to enable the vodokanals to operate and maintain the plants.

4. Alternative 4: New Treatment Plants on New Sites

242. A fourth alternative for the wastewater treatment component is to build new treatment facilities on new sites, to seek advantages related to location. This alternative would also include capacity building and training to enable the vodokanals to operate and maintain the plants.

5. Alternative 5: New Treatment Plants on Existing Sites

243. A fifth alternative for the wastewater treatment component is to build new treatment facilities on the original sites, to seek advantages related to land and access roads. Building on existing sites would also make the construction process complicated, requiring the demolition and removal of the old facility and accommodating the flow of sewage during construction. However, the cost would be considerably less than Alternative 4 since no new land, new road system or utilities would need to be provided. This option would eliminate the need for land and the removal of housing and trees. This alternative would also include capacity building and training to enable the vodokanals to operate and maintain the plants.

83

6. Discussion of Alternatives

244. Although each of the alternatives outlined above can be seen as having some positive elements, all are problematic in terms of the environmental impacts associated with their implementation. 245. Alternative 1 (no change) is the least cost option in terms of expenditure, but does nothing to reduce the nutrient load. While the existing treatment plants do not discharge directly to the lake, it is possible that nutrients from wastewater do reach the lake through the use of mostly untreated effluent in irrigation. Over time this could lead to (i) a reduction in amenity values (and tourists’ willingness to pay to enjoy them); (ii) public health concerns; and (iii) revenue losses for tourist service providers and businesses and individuals dependent on the tourism sector. Alternative 1 is therefore not recommended.

246. Alternative 2 (Rehabilitation) would do more to address the threats to public health, environmental quality and the growing tourist economy than Alternative 1. If the existing treatment plants functioned as designed, the effluent might be expected to be less nutrient-rich and less contaminated than is currently the case. However, the conventional ASP used in the plants is considered inappropriate for the wastewater which is almost all domestic, weak to moderate in strength, and subject to variability in characteristics. It is difficult to establish sufficient microbial communities in the bioreactor under these conditions, and treatment could be expected to suffer as a result. The treatment process as designed includes no steps within the treatment plants for removal of phosphorus and only limited nitrogen removal capability, and the lagoons cannot be counted on to remove these nutrients, given the cold climate and their inadequate size (and therefore insufficient effluent residence time) (ADB 2014a). The existing plants, even rehabilitated, would be unlikely to achieve desired removal efficiencies of nutrients.

247. The condition of the existing buildings and machinery is poor. Many concrete tanks and other structures are cracked and leaking, buildings need extensive work, electrical equipment is missing and needs replacement, and virtually all metal components are badly corroded and seized or have been removed. The task of rehabilitating the existing plants would thus be a complex and expensive process (ADB 2014a). Given this, and the factors discussed above, Alternative 2 is not recommended.

248. Alternative 3 (Rehabilitate and Upgrade) is thought to be capable of overcoming the mismatch of influent character and treatment process described in relation to Alternative 2 by changing the process to an IDEAL at all WWTP. However, there are potential high costs associated with rehabilitation of structures that have been neglected for many years and the shape of tanks is not optimal for performance. Some existing structures will be retained but others will have to be removed to make space for the new IDEAL treatment line. Therefore, Alternative 3 is considered.

249. Alternative 4 (new process on new sites) could offer the potential to minimize certain location-related impacts, provided that ideal sites satisfying multiple criteria could be found (and obtained without incurring other impacts such as resettlement) for the new treatment plants. It is generally not considered appropriate to abandon industrial buildings for safety, environmental and aesthetic reasons, the existing plants would need to be decommissioned and cleaned up even if new sites were to be used for new treatment plants. This would double the number of work sites. Finally, relocating to new sites would almost certainly mean considerable lengths of new pipeline required to connect the new plants to the existing collection systems, new roads and new utility services. In view of these factors, Alternative 4 is not recommended.

250. Alternative 5 (new process on existing site) would largely avoid the shortcomings of the four alternatives discussed above, by first demolishing the existing facility and buildings, and then constructing the new facility on the same footprint. However, it does require the total removal of existing structures, adding significantly to the capital cost of the construction. However, in terms of a robust solution it is the Preferred Alternative.

84

7. The Preferred Options:

251. The preferred option at Balykchy involves demolishing the existing works and building a new activated sludge system, based again on the IDEAL technology, with tertiary treatment but without the anaerobic digestion. At the inlet would be new screening and degritting facilities. The existing ponds would be retained and additional ponds added for storage. A new sludge thickener will be provided and new drying beds constructed within the existing WWTP boundary.

252. At Karakol the preferred option is new pretreatment, new IDEAL biological treatment, a tertiary treatment unit, new sludge thickeners, demolition of many of the existing process components with reuse of some ancillary buildings and the sludge beds. As well as planned construction of Sewage PS-4 and Pumping Main at Pristan township.

253. The next section discusses the environmental implications of implementing the preferred options in terms of the potential environmental impacts and where appropriate identifies mitigation requirements.

85

Figure 36 – Proposed process schematic at Balykchy WWTP

86

Figure 37 – Proposed process schematic at Karakol WWTP

87

Figure 38 – Typical process flow diagram (PFD) for IDEAL secondary treatment following by tertiary trickling filter treatment for additional ammonia reduction

88

6 ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

MEASURES

254. The Project has been classified by the ADB as Category B for environment,53 as impacts are anticipated to be less adverse, site-specific, mostly reversible, and in most cases can be mitigated. This section includes the identification of potential impacts, analysis of their nature and severity, and identification of appropriate mitigation measures to address them. 255. This section provides information on the impact assessment methodology and process adopted for the assessment of project impacts and determination of their significance. 256. Development of mitigation measures for identified significant effects are set out, and any residual significant effects are reported. 257. The assessment findings are based on all mitigation measures presented in this document being fully implemented as part of the project implementation. All mitigation established in the report are considered to be committed mitigation once the report has been approved by ADB. The commitments made within the IEE become a binding part of the contract and grant agreement. 258. At the current stage of the development a lead construction contractor has not been appointed. As many of the potential impacts of this project relate to the project construction phase, then consideration of the need for an update of the findings of this IEE shall be made once the contractor is appointed and his working methods, proposals for camps and locally negotiated borrow pits and waste disposal areas have been made. 259. The mitigation measures provided in this IEE shall be considered as high level in many cases and will need to be refined by the contractor during the development of Site Specific and Topic Specific Environmental Management Plans.

6.1 Survey of Sensitive Receptors

260. Sensitive receptors are sites whose characteristics make them especially vulnerable to impacts, and which merit special attention when considering mitigation measures. Some prior understanding of the location and vulnerability of specific sensitive receptors in relation to the Project activities is useful in setting the stage for impact analysis; this opening section provides such a basis by presenting the results of a survey of sensitive receptors assembled based on site visits and primary field studies covering archaeology, biodiversity, and socio-economic sensitivity.

261. In addition to the lake and its ecology, sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, (i) hospitals, schools, daycare facilities and elderly housing and convalescent facilities, where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects of noise, pollutants and disturbance; (ii) environmentally sensitive areas with valuable or at-risk biological or physical resources; and iii) areas with PCRs that may be at risk of damage from project activities. Sensitive receptors at each WWTP location are presented in the following figures and tables.

53 A Category A project is expected to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are irreversible diverse, or unprecedented. A full - scale EIA and report is required including an EMP. Category B is used for a project which potential adverse environmental impacts are less adverse, site - specific, mostly reversible, and in most cases can be mitigated. An IEE including an EMP is required. Category C. is used for a project expected to have minimal to no adverse environmental impacts. Given the low levels of environmental impact from work associated with a rehabilitation project (much of the alignment will only require relaying of the surface layer) and the relatively low numbers of sensitive receivers adjacent to the alignment this project is considered to fall into Category B requiring an IEE and EMP to be prepared.

89

Figure 39 – Location of sensitive receptors, in relation to Balykchy WWTP

Sources: Google Earth, 2017; biodiversity survey, 2014, 2017; archeological survey, 2014, 2017.

Table 34 – Sensitive receptors, in relation to Balykchy WWTP

No Description Location No Description Location Socioeconomic Archeology

SE01 Orchard 75 m N of lagoons A01 Old Kyrgyz Cemetery 880 m NW of WWTP

SE02 Residence/Farm 220 m NE of lagoons A02 Ruins of Aik Chiy Settlement

SE03 Graveyard 180 m N of lagoons A03 Kok-Bulak Burial Ground 880 m NW of WWTP

SE04 Agricultural Fields 250 m SE of lagoons A04 Kok-Moynok Burial Ground 4.5 km SW of WWTP

SE05 Closest Bus Station 3.6 km SE of WWTP A05 Kyzyl-Ompol Burial Ground 6.4 km SW of WWTP

SE06 Bazar/Bus Station 4.2 km SE of WWTP A06 Sary Bulan Ancient Settlement

6.2 km SW of WWTP

SE07 Middle/High School 4.4 km SE of WWTP A07 Boz-Barmak Lower Paleolithic Site

4.5 km SW of WWTP

SE08 Driving School 4.5 km SE of WWTP A08 Boz-Barmak Burial Ground 4.5 km SW of WWTP

SE09 Middle School 4.7 km SE of WWTP A09 Salamat-Bulak Lower Paleolithic Site

4.5 km SW of WWTP

SE10 Kindergarten 4.8 km SE of WWTP A10 Ak-Olong Lower Paleolithic Site

4.5 km SW of WWTP

SE11 Bazar 5.0 km SE of WWTP A11 Kutmaldy Landscape Encompasses area

SE12 Medical Center 4.9 km E of WWTP

SE13 Balykchy City Hospital 4.9 km E of WWTP Biodiversity/Ecological

SE14 Main Orthodox Church 5.3 km SE of WWTP B01 Riparian Habitat Small channel 100 to 350 m W of lagoons

SE15 Main Mosque 6.1 km E of WWTP B02 Chui River 400 m W of lagoons

90

Figure 40 – Location of sensitive receptors, in relation to Karakol WWTP

Sources: Google Earth, 2014; biodiversity survey, 2014, 2017; archeological survey, 2014, 2017.

Table 35 – Sensitive receptors, in relation to Karakol WWTP

No Description Location No Description Location Wastewater treatment plant

Socioeconomic Archeology

SE01 Houses/Farms 220 m NE of WWTP N.A.

SE02 Agricultural Field 50 m SE of WWTP

SE03 Houses/Farms 375 m SE of WWTP Biodiversity/Ecological

SE04 Cemetery 1.2 km E of WWTP B01 Karakol River Approximately 30 m W of WWTP boundary

SE05 School, Medical Center

1.7 km E of WWTP B02 – B04

Riparian Habitat Small stream flowing to the E, NE and N of WWTP, and associated riparian habitat

SE06 Modern Kyrgyz Cemetery

350 W of WWTP

Lagoon

Socioeconomic Archeology

SE07 Houses/Farms 40 M to the W of the lagoon

NA

SE08 Agricultural Field 220 M to the S of the lagoon

SE09 Houses/Farms 140 M to the E of the lagoon

Biodiversity/Ecological

SE10 Orchard 330 M to the E of the lagoon

B05 – B07

Riparian habitat Wetlands and riparian habitat, and Karakol River, to the NW, N and E of the lagoon

91

1. Ecological Status of Balykchy and Karakol WWTP and surrounding area. Preamble 262. In accordance with ADB SPS (2009) requirement on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resources Management, an assessment of the conservation value of the two proposed project sites has been undertaken. 263. Existing baseline data regarding the wider sites and specific data collected for the current impact assessment (see Annex 3) has been used in developing the assessment.

Basis of Assessment

264. ADB SPS (2009) utilises the concepts of Modified, Natural and Critical Habitat to determine importance and relevance to a project funding and implementation. These concepts have been developed from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard (PS) No 6 (International Finance Corporation, 2012 a) and the associated guidance note. This PS and guidance provides criteria for the determination of Critical Habitat. The presence of which, under ADB SPS (2009) requires additional safeguards to be implemented.

The following text provides a Critical Habitat Assessment (CHA) for each project location.

Critical Habitat Assessment – Establishment of Boundaries

265. The first stage in conducting a CHA is establishment of a boundary for the assessment. This boundary may be a statutory boundary, for example a nature reserve area boundary, Ramsar Boundary etc., or the boundary should reflect a natural management unit. That is an area where ecological processes within the boundary are similar and form a discrete management unit. 266. For the current projects, both of which sit within the Rehabilitation Zone of the UNESCO designated Issyk-Kul Biosphere, it is considered that the overall UNESCO boundary is too large to be used for the current CHA. The project sites are relatively small, and the UNESCO site is large and so the local interests of the sites would be lost within the wider more global interests of the UNESCO Core area. 267. Both Balykchy and Karakol WWTP’s sit within a wider landscape which would be considered to be a mix of modified and natural habitat, with Karakol supporting more natural areas within the riparian zone of the river. 268. Both the project sites are existing facilities and so within the project area boundaries are considered to be modified habitat. Modified habitats are those which have been strongly influenced by human activities, for example industrial areas, agriculture and in the case of the current projects WWTP facilities and associated ponds. It is noted that both natural and modified habitats can fall within the definition of Critical Habitat. 269. In both cases based on the management of the project areas, it is considered that an appropriate management unit for the CHA will be the boundary of the existing facilities. The CHA boundaries for the projects are provided below.

Karakol

270. The boundary of the area selected for the Karakol WWTP Critical Habitat Assessment is shown in Figure 41. This includes the WWTP facility, settlement ponds and the regulator pond which is downstream of the WWTP. The habitat between these two features are riparian wetland and so a continuous area extending along the river has been selected as a suitable ecosystem management unit for the CHA.

92

Figure 41 – Boundary of Karakol Critical Habitat Assessment Area

Designations

271. PS No 6, states that areas which have international designation for biodiversity purposes are likely to be considered as critical habitats. 272. For Karakol, the CHA boundary is within the rehabilitation area of the UNESCO Biosphere. The legal protection for UNESCO Biosphere Sites applies only to the Core Area. Thus, the Karakol site is not considered within the UNESCO site boundary for the purposes of this CHA. Similarly, Karakol WWTP does not sit within any of the other international designations recognised by PS No 6, such as IBA and Ramsar Site. 273. It is therefore considered on this basis that the area within the CHA boundary is not considered to be Crtical Habitat. 274. IFC PS No 6 also uses a set of criteria to determine if habitats should be considered as critical. The assessment of the Karakol site against each criterion is set out below.

Criterion 1: Critically Endangered (CR) and/or Endangered (EN) species 275. This criterion uses the presence of global red list species within a CHA boundary as an indicator of critical habitat. In general, if IUCN Global Red List species which are classed as Critically Endangered or Endangered, with respect to threat of extinction, then the discrete management unit and ecosystem supporting the species would be classed as Critical Habitat. 276. There are no known CR or EN species reported for the Karakol WWTP area or nearby. Therefore, Crictical Habitat is not identified based on this criterion.

93

Criterion 2: Endemic and/or restricted-range species 277. The biodiversity survey within Karakol WWTP area indicated the possible present of the Asiatic Frog (Rana asiatica). This is listed in the Kyrgyz Republic Red List, but this does not use a similar categorisation system as the IUCN Red List. Globally the species is classed by IUCN s Least Concern. However, this species has a restricted geographical range as shown in Figure 42. Figure 42 – Distribution of Asiatic Frog – Orange = Known Extant = Purple = Possible Extant

278. The species is found only in Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan and part of China. The species has a discontinuous distribution across the shown range and is considered to be declining in population numbers. 279. The definition of restricted range species is set out in PS No 6 Guidance Note, but it is noted that no internationally approved area of distribution is proposed for amphibia or fresh water ecosystem species. 280. The PS Guidance suggests that species with discontinuous distributions may qualify as a range restricted species. Within the range as shown in Figure 42, the Asiatic Frog is likely to be limited in suitable wetland habitats, with much of the area being montane and semi desert in nature. 281. Based on professional opinion, the presence of Asiatic Frog on the National Red List, globally declining populations and limited suitable habitat, it is considered that this species should be classed as restricted range for the purposes of this CHA. 282. On this basis, if the Asiatic Frog is present within the Karakol WWTP area then the project area will be considered as Critical Habitat. Additional survey will be required to further determine the presence or absence of this species, but based on a precautionary approach to the assessment, it is assumed that the species is present within the CHA area. This frog was found to inhabit the most westerly sewage lagoon pond in the old Karakol WWTP. This lagoon (Figure 22) has been filled in and has been transformed into a wetland. In order to protect this species, the lagoons will not be disturbed

94

Criterion 3: Migratory and/or congregatory species 283. Whilst some of the bird species, especially the water birds do migrate and often congregate in large numbers at certain times of the year, it is not considered that the size, land use and habitats present within the Karakol CHA will support significant numbers of either migrants or congregatory species. Therefore, the habitats are not considered to be Critical under this criterion.

Criterion 4: Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems 284. The habitats within the Karakol WWTP are not considered to be highly threatened, in fact the project will replicate similar habitats following implementation. Globally such modified habitats are common and not highly threatened. The developed ecosystem, while it has important links to the wider landscape of Issyk Kul is not considered to be unique. Therefore, Critical Habitat is not identified under this Criterion.

Criterion 5: Key evolutionary processes 285. The CHA boundary has not indication of high levels of sub species or endemism, it is considered too small and connected to the wider landscape to be considered as a likely candidate for key evolutionary processes to be taking place, any more than other areas within the Issyk Kul location. Critical Habitat is not considered to be present based on this Criterion. Summary of Critical Habitat Assessment for Karakol 286. The conducted indicates that Critical Habitat may be present within the Karakol WWTP boundary, based on the potential presence of the Asiatic Frog. This species utilises both temporary and more permanent wet areas. The species is reported as being replaced in its natural range in Kyrgyz Republic by the larger Marsh Frog (Rana ridibunda). Balykchy 287. The boundary of the Balykchy CHA area is shown in Figure 43. Thi excludes the actual WWTP and includes only the settlement ponds and sludge drying areas. The two are separated by a road and dry area and so are not considered as an integral ecosystem management uit.

95

Figure 43 – Balykchy Critical Habitat Assessment Boundary

Designations 288. Like Karakol, the WWTP sits outside of any internationally designated areas and so Critical Habitat is not inferred by this Criterion.

Criterion 1: Critically Endangered (CR) and/or Endangered (EN) species 289. There are no known Critically Endangered or Endangered species within the CHA area. No Critical Habitat is present based on this Criterion.

Criterion 2: Endemic and/or restricted-range species 290. There ae no known endemic or range restricted species within the CHA area. Therefore, Critical Habitat based on this criterion is not present.

Criterion 3: Migratory and/or congregatory species 291. The CHA is small, just 21 hectares, and while the survey recorded some water birds, it is considered that the site is not large enough to support significant numbers of either migrants or congregatory species. Therefore, Critical Habitat based on this criterion is not present.

Criterion 4: Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems 292. The habitats within the Balykchy WWTP are not considered to be highly threatened, in fact the project will replicate similar habitats following implementation. Globally such modified habitats are common and not highly threatened. The developed ecosystem, while it has important links to the wider landscape of Issyk Kul is not considered to be unique. Therefore, Critical Habitat is not identified under this Criterion.

96

Criterion 5: Key evolutionary processes 293. The CHA boundary has not indication of high levels of sub species or endemism, it is considered too small and well connected to the wider landscape to be considered as a likely candidate for key evolutionary processes to be taking place, any more than other areas within the Issyk Kul location. Critical Habitat is not considered to be present based on this Criterion.

Summary of Critical Habitat Assessment 294. The CHA for Balykchy indicates that there are no reasons for assigning Critical Habitat status to the area considered within the CHA.

2. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Balykchy 295. Valued Environmental Receptors relating to the ecological status of Balykchy WWTP and surrounding area are provided in Table 36. These have been used to determine the potential impacts and their significance due to project activities. Table 36 – Valued Environmental Receptors, in relation to Balykchy WWTP

VER No. VER Description Value/Sensitivity

Comments

7 General Wetland Habitats Local Although not part of UN Biosphere designation under legal protection, such wetland sites add value to the overall ecosystem within the Issyk Kul area. The dense vegetation allows local breeding species alternative non-disturbed nesting sites.

8 Breeding birds Local Locally common birds

9 Ecosystem functioning and services

Local Important to maintain the local functioning of the ecosystem and support the ecosystem services, in particular the role of the ecosystem in maintaining populations of Corncrake and Asiatic Frog.

10 Corncrake (Crex crex) National Bird species listed on KR Red List

Impact Assessment – Balykchy 296. The project has the potential to adversely affect existing ecological value of the project site. Predicted effects are shown below in Table 37. These provide the agreed mitigation measures which will be put in place as part of the project. These are project commitments. 297. Of note is the need to ensure the protection of the nationally important Corncrake. This may breed in surrounding landscape and the species is a ground nester, forming a nest in low vegetation and can easily be harmed by vehicles and people.

97

Table 37 – Matrix for Determining the Significance of Ecological Impacts in relation to Balykchy WWTP

Impact ID

Description Impact Magnitude Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after

Mitigation

EC08 Site clearance works will require habitats loss

Moderate General Wetland habitat

Local Low Minimise clearance of areas of vegetation to least required for safe construction and operation of WWT facility Maintain land not required in present condition

NS

EC09 Changes in local hydrology affecting wetland status

Moderate Ecosystem Functioning and Services

Local Low Design to ensure that wet areas remaining within the design do not have the hydrology changed so that they dry out. In particular the area where Asiatic Frog may be should be protected from changes in hydrology regime Preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where disturbance of suitable habitats will occur.

NS

EC10 Loss of habitat, and indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, visual disturbance during construction

Minor Breeding birds Local NS Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season of species present Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures near to nesting habitats

NS

EC11 Harm, kill and disturbance of breeding Corncrake

Minor Corncrake National Medium Conduct ground clearance works outside of Corncrake breeding season Clear all required sites of vegetation during winter period. Competent ecologist to check for presence of breeding Corncrake within or near to project site. If present, suitable protection plans shall be developed, agreed with PMO and implemented. Ongoing monitoring of breeding Corncrake shall be part of this plan.

NS

98

Impact ID

Description Impact Magnitude Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after

Mitigation

EC12 Introduction of invasive species and predators

Minor Critical Habitat and Ecosystem functioning

National Medium All equipment to be used on site shall be cleaned thoroughly prior to delivery to project site. Soils and possible seeds from past projects shall be removed from all equipment.

NS

EC13 Increase in hunting pressure, predators etc

Minor Critical Habitat and Ecosystem functioning

National Medium No workers will be allowed to hunt animals within the project site or surrounding areas. Work camps if any on site shall not allow domesticated cats or dogs to be kept. Appropriate control of vermin such as rats and house mice shall be carried out by the contractor at worker camps and site office facilities.

NS

99

3. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Karakol 298. Valued Environmental Receptors relating to the ecological status of Karakol WWTP and surrounding area are provided in Table 38. These have been used to determine the potential impacts and their significance due to project activities. Table 38 – Valued Environmental Receptors, in relation to Karakol WWTP

VER No. VER Description Value/Sensitivity Comments

1 General Wetland Habitats Local Although not part of UN Biosphere designation under legal protection, such wetland sites add value to the overall ecosystem within the Issyk Kul area. The dense vegetation allows local breeding species alternative non-disturbed nesting sites.

2 Asiatic Frog (Rana asiatica) National Global IUCN Least Concern (2017) but considered range restricted species, is listed on KR Red List and populations are fragmented and declining. Potentially present.

3 Critical Habitat National The overall biodiversity management unit is considered to be Critical Habitat as it potentially supports a viable population of the Asiatic Frog.

4 Breeding birds Local Locally common birds

5 Ecosystem functioning and services

Local Important to maintain the local functioning of the ecosystem and support the ecosystem services, in particular the role of the ecosystem in maintaining populations of Corncrake and Asiatic Frog.

6 Assemblage of birds Local Over 40 species recorded within site and surrounding area during short survey period indicates the value of the site for local species.

Impact Assessment – Karakol 299. The project has the potential to adversely affect existing ecological value of the project site. Predicted effects are shown below in Table 39. These provide the agreed mitigation measures which will be put in place as part of the project. These are project commitments. 300. Of particular significance is the presence of possible Critical Habitat within the project area. ADB requirements within the SPS (2009) state: 301. No project Activity will be implemented in areas of critical habitat unless the flowing requirements are met:

I. There are no measurable adverse impacts, or likelihood of such, on the critical habitat which would impair its high biodiversity value or the ability to function.

II. The project is not anticipated to lead to a reduction in the population of any recognised endangered or critically endangered species or a loss in area of the habitat concerned such that the persistence of a viable and representative host ecosystem be compromised.

III. Any lesser impacts are mitigated. 302. It is therefore imperative that during detailed design that the project determine, definitively, the presence or absence of the Asiatic Frog. Based on the outcome of this suitable design changes, management plans and monitoring requirements can be developed. 303. In accordance with best practice, the current assessment has been based on the precautionary approach and assume that the Asiatic Frog is present. 304. In general, the mitigation measures relate to minimisation of footprint and disturbance of habitats, and seasonal timing of clearance works to avoid bird and frog breeding season.

100

Table 39 – Matrix for Determining the Significance of Ecological Impacts in relation to Karakol WWTP Impact

ID Description Impact

Magnitude Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after

Mitigation

EC01 Site clearance works will require habitats loss

Moderate General Wetland habitat

Local Low Minimise clearance of areas of vegetation to least required for safe construction and operation of WWT facility Maintain land not required in present condition

NS

EC02 Changes in local hydrology affecting wetland status

Moderate Ecosystem Functioning and Services

Local Low Design to ensure that wet areas remaining within the design do not have the hydrology changed so that they dry out. In particular the area where Asiatic Frog may be should be protected from changes in hydrology regime Preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where disturbance of suitable habitats will occur

NS

EC03 Direct impacts of work on Asiatic Frog, casing displacement, harm and kill

Moderate Asiatic Frog National Medium Preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where disturbance of suitable habitats will occur. If Asiatic Frog is confirmed, no direct works on the habitat they are located shall be conducted without further consultation with ADB and Stakeholders Develop offsetting plan for Asiatic Frog in case they are present. Avoid all works during Asiatic Frog breeding season.

NS

EC04 Loss of habitat, and indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, visual disturbance during construction

Minor Breeding birds Local NS Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season of species present Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures near to nesting habitats

NS

EC05 General loss of habitats, disturbance and change in land use.

Moderate Assemblage of birds

Local Low Avoid vegetation clearance during breeding season Plan to include development or reinstatement of similar habitats following completion of works.

NS

EC06 Introduction of invasive species and predators

Minor Critical Habitat and Ecosystem functioning

National Medium All equipment to be used on site shall be cleaned thoroughly prior to delivery to project site. Soils and possible seeds from past projects shall be removed from all equipment.

NS

101

Impact ID

Description Impact Magnitude

Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after

Mitigation

EC07 Increase in hunting pressure, predators etc

Minor Critical Habitat and Ecosystem functioning

National Medium No workers will be allowed to hunt animals within the project site or surrounding areas. Work camps if any on site shall not allow domesticated cats or dogs to be kept. Appropriate control of vermin such as rats and house mice shall be carried out by the contractor at worker camps and site office facilities.

NS

102

6.2 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

1. Preamble 305. This section provides information on the impact assessment methodology and process adopted for the assessment of project impacts and determination of their significance. 306. Development of mitigation measures for identified significant effects are set out, and any residual significant effects are reported. 307. Existing baseline data regarding the wider sites and specific data collected for the current impact assessment (see Annex 3) has been used in developing the assessment. 308. The assessment findings are based on all mitigation measures presented in this document being fully implemented as part of the project implementation. All mitigation established in the report are considered to be committed mitigation once the report has been approved by ADB. The commitments made within the IEE become a binding part of the contract and grant agreement.

309. At the current stage of the development a Design and Supervision Consultant (DSC) has not been appointed. As many of the potential impacts of this project relate to the project construction phase, then consideration of the need for an update of the findings of this IEE shall be made once the DSC is appointed and his working methods, proposals for camps and locally negotiated borrow pits and waste disposal areas have been made.

310. The mitigation measures provided in this IEE shall be considered as high level in many cases and will need to be refined by the contractor during the development of Site Specific and Topic Specific Environmental Management Plans.

2. Process of determining impacts

311. Assessment of Impact Significance - A significant effect may be broadly defined as one which should be brought to the attention of those involved in the decision-making process. The determination of significance of an effect uses a two-dimensional matrix based on the above parameters of Impact magnitude and Value/sensitivity of the receptor.

312. The proposed assessment will use a matrix for determining the significance of impact. Significance is therefore a function of the value or sensitivity of the receptor being.

Table 40 – Matrix for Determining the Significance of Environmental Impacts

International/ Extreme

National/ High

Regional/ Moderate

Local/Low

Major HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Moderate HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW

Minor MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW NS

Negligible NS NS NS NS

313. The impact assessment has utilised the following semantic definitions of the significance terms High, Moderate and Low. They are based on the terminology used in international principles and guidance and on the geographical context of the effect:

• High – An environmental effect that has importance at international or national level and is irreversible or unprecedented;

• Medium – An environmental effect that has importance at a regional scale and/or one that can be readily reversed with intervention and is limited to the site boundary and immediate surrounding area;

• Low - An environmental effect that is only important in a local context, which is readily mitigated, and it occurs only within the boundary of the project; and

• NS – An environmental effect that is considered non-significant.

103

314. Significant adverse effects occur where valuable or sensitive receptors, or numerous receptors, are subject to impacts of considerable magnitude and duration. Some effects will be temporary, others are permanent in nature and these will be stated in the assessment.

3. Mitigation

315. Hierarchy of Mitigation – Figure 44 shows the Hierarchy of Mitigation as defined by the World Bank Group. This is based on the principle of avoidance of impacts through design, followed by minimizing impacts through mitigation, and finally offsetting impacts that cannot be mitigated fully.

Figure 44 – Hierarchy of Mitigation

316. The above hierarchy has been incorporated into the IEE process for the current project. The mitigation set out in this document is committed and will form part of the contract documentation.

4. Results of the Assessment Process

317. The results of the assessment are present in the following sections.

318. Findings are summarized below:

• The proposed WWTP works will be within the boundaries (footprints) of the existing WWTPs and these are relatively remote from sensitive receivers. Potential impacts from construction noise and dust, odor when removing accumulated sludges, and water quality from wastewater removed during demolition of existing tanks. Operation impacts include mechanical equipment noise, odor, and emergency / accidental wastewater discharge.

• Construction of the Pristan Pumping Station No. 4. Potential impacts from construction noise and dust during construction, odor when removing accumulated sludges and water quality from wastewater. Operation impacts include mechanical equipment noise, odor and emergency / accidental wastewater discharge.

• Upgrading of the Pristan Pumping Main will be along the existing alignment. Potential impacts from construction noise and dust, odor and wastewater discharge when removing old pipework.

104

• Sludge and septage disposal sites and spoil disposal sites during construction. Potential impacts from odor, noise and dust during transportation and disposal of dried sludges and silt and debris.

• Impact to surface water and soil during mining of construction materials (sand, gravel, etc) at approved quarry sites.

• Based on site observation the overall project is likely to give rise to negligible or at worst, minor temporary environmental impacts that can be easily mitigated.

• The most significant potential environmental impact will be associated with construction noise and odor during the demolition phase at the WWTPs.

• The debris from demolished structures is 3,500 m3 in Balykchy and 5,600 m3 in Karakol WWTPs will be transported to municipal dump sites for disposal.

105

Table 41 – Assessment of Impacts for Archaeology – Construction Phase

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigation

AR01 Risk of encountering unknown archaeological resources or artefacts

Potential unknown below ground artefacts

National/High Medium Develop and Implement a Chance Finds Procedure as part of the EMP

NS

Table 42 – Assessment of Impacts for Air Quality – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

AQ01 Localised changes in ambient air quality due to operation of mobile and stationary equipment burning fossil fuels.

Local population health

National/High Medium Contractor to maintain all fossil fuel burning equipment in accordance with manufacturers recommendations Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum emissions and avoid using old equipment and vehicles No equipment shall be left idling if not in use

NS

AQ02 Emissions from mobile and stationary equipment on sewerlines, affecting local air quality standards

National Air Quality Standards

National/High NS No equipment shall be left idling if not in use Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum emissions and avoid using old equipment and vehicles

NS

AQ03 Fugitive dust emissions from works, construction traffic causing dust soiling and increase in PM2.5 and PM10

Local population health

National/High Medium Construction traffic speed limit when passing through populated areas Water of dusty-unpaved roads and populated areas

N/S

Table 43 – Assessment of Impacts for Community Safety – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

CS01 Increased risk of road traffic accident due to construction traffic movements

Local population health

National/High Medium Actively enforce speed limits for Project vehicles. Awareness program for local population prior to works commencing, including visits to local schools Devlopment of Traffic management Plan as part of the SEMP Drivers to be fully competent and authorized to drive heavy loads vehicles and to receive specific training. Ensure all drivers have completed training and are licensed to drive the vehicles they are operating.

NS

106

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

Limits to be adopted and enforced for maximum number of work hours to avoid overtiredness. Minimise the number of road movements as much as practicable, maximising capacity of vehicles. Schedule road movements to minimise impact on existing road users. Zero tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use amongst all workforce

CS02 Impacts on health of dust and noise emissions

Local population health

National/High Medium Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant noise and air emissions. Build trenches in short lengths; refill quickly; remove excess spoil quickly. Water unpaved site roads and large areas of exposed soil thrice daily in dry weather Ensure that no noise above 70 dB(A) is audible for significant periods within 50 m of any construction site and cease activity producing significant noise at night (19pm-07am), Sundays & Public Holidays.

NS

CS03 Damages to utilities by excavation and temporary access cut-off to properties.

Local population health

National/High Medium Require contractors to carry out a utility survey before construction and take action during construction to minimize impact on utilities and attend to any damage; Provide temporary access during construction, if required; Contractor and PIU to ensure that coordination meetings are held and agreement has been obtained from Municipality; prior to any construction beginning on the site

NS

Worker Health and Safety – Construction

107

Table 44 – Assessment of Impacts for Workers Safety – Construction Phase

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

WH02 Poor quality housing and hygiene standards resulting in injury or sickness

Worker Health and Safety

National/High Medium Contactor to ensure that workers accommodation and rights are in line with the FIDIC Pink Book requirements Contract documentation to include requirement that worker accommodation be in line with good practice, such as that set out in World Bank Workers Accommodation Guidance Contractor to appoint camp manager who will be responsible for ensuring standards of eccommodation meet basic requirements and are safe and hygienic

NS

WH03 Injury or fatality of workers due to insufficient controls on work activities and processes

Worker Health and Safety

National/High Medium Contractor shall develop Method Statements for all major activities and include health and safety risk assesment for each of these activities Contractor shall provide health and safety induction training for all staff, and specific training for staff working on work sites. Contractor shall supply to site workers, free of charge all necessary Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to include as protective footwear, high visibility vests, safety helmet and hearing protection. For specific tasks other PPE may be required, for example welding masks, hot work gauntlets Contractor will prepare and implement a Health & Safety (H&S) Plan for all work sites and activities (including offsite) Contractor will train and assign a specialist as Health and Safety officer as responsible person for the duration of the project. Provision of health care and first aid - Contractor shall ensure that adequate first aid supplies and trained first aiders are available

NS

WH04 Potential presence of asbestos piping - risk of worker exposure to asbestos fibres

Worker Health and Safety

National/High Medium If asbestos is encountered, Contractor shall develop an Asbestos Management Plan Worker awareness of asbestos and risks asscoiated with handling such material

NS

Table 45 – Assessment of Impacts for Waste Management – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity Sig.

before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

WM01 Inappropriate management and disposal of waste during construction

General environment

Regional/Moderate

Low Prior to start of construction, develop an inventory of waste fractions expected to be generated during construction

NS

108

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

Get approval for disposal routes and sites by Municipalities of Balyckhy and Karakol and SES

WM02 Inappropriate management and disposal of waste during construction affecting water courses

Water courses - water quality

Regional/Moderate

Low EMP to include appropriate waste management protocols Location of appropriate waste storage facilities at all work sites Worker induction and regular tool box talks to make all staff aware of zero waste discharge to environment Zero tolerance of waste entering water course or flood plain areas, this will include all materials (e.g welding rod stubs, wood, plastics and metals

NS

WM03 Poor waste management practices resulting in direct and indirect affects on project area environment

General environment

Regional/Moderate

Low All hazardous waste containers to be labelled clearly with a waste hazard identification label. Contractor will establish a demarcated temporary waste storage area where waste is stored pending transport to final treatment/disposal location. Contractor will practice good housekeeping on site. Contractor will put in place measures to minimise waste, i.e. procure materials with less packaging, refrain from ordering excess materials, make arrangement with suppliers to return surplus, unused materials. Contractor will take measures to prevent the disposal, burying and burning of waste on-site, roadside dumping and illegal land filling. Contractor workforce will be trained in the requirements of the Waste Management Plan, Particularly with regards to waste segregation, storage and handling. Implementation of recycling/recovery initiatives to reduce waste sent for disposal. Contractor will practice good housekeeping on site. Waste storage containers will be secure, undamaged and appropriately labelled. Waste to be segregated and containers clearly labelled specifying which type of waste is contained to assist with identifying appropriate disposal routes and in case of accidental spills or loss to the environment. Waste to be stored in appropriate containers or skips and removed for treatment/disposal at a frequency so as to avoid the build-up of waste on site. Waste will be collected and transported under cover of a Waste Collection Log and Waste Manifest.

NS

109

Table 46 – Assessment of Impacts for Water Resources – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity Sig.

before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

WR01 Potential for contamination of water course due to release of hydrocarbons or oils and grease etc

Water courses - water quality

Regional/Moderate

Low Contractor to conduct risk assessment on all activities near to water courses and apply approriate controls No refuelling of vehicles or equipment to take place within river beds or withi 25 metres of the edge of the water course.

NS

WR02 Site rainwater runoff can wash away residues, garbage, leaves, grease, etc., thereby potentially polluting nearby surface water

Water courses - water quality

Regional/Moderate

Low Store all liquid/solid waste properly above ground to avoid spills/ leaks; Store Haz-Mat, e.g. fuels, chemicals, and hazardous waste, in bunded areas to avoid leaks escaping to the ground or nearby surface waters. Provide ample natural ventilation; Develop spill response procedures and provide spill response kits at all Haz-Mat storage areas and work sites;

NS

WR03 Impacts due to mining of construction materials

Water courses - water quality

Regional/Moderate

Low Procure construction material (sand, gravel, aggregate, etc) only from government approved existing quarry sites; Minimize extraction of construction materials from rivers and stream beds; Maintain a material entry log book at the site indicating material, source and quantity

NS

Table 47 – Assessment of Impacts for Noise and Vibration – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

NO01 Noise disturbance due to equipment and construction activities.

Local population health

National/High Medium Awareness program for local residents prior to commencement of works Limitation of working hours for normal construction activities near to settlements times to be set out in the EMP Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant noise No idling of equipment when not in use

NS

110

Table 48 – Assessment of Impacts for Socio-economics – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

SE03 Positive effect - short term employment of local people, this can offset some of the disturbance experienced by people living near construction sites

Local incomes Regional/Moderate

Low Develop plan for local recruitment of workers for project - train as required Employ at least 30% of workforce from the vicinity of construction works if possible

Positive - Low

Table 49 – Assessment of Impacts for Soil and Ground Water – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

SG01 Accidental spillage of hydrocarbon affecting local ground water

Ground Water Regional/Moderate

Low Fuels should be stored in good quality above ground tanks placed on an impervious surface with a spill containment bund capable of containing 110% of the tank capacity No onsite refulling within or adjacent to water courses On site refuelling of equipment and vehicles shall utilise a drip tray to prevent hydrocarbons entering the ground

NS

SG02 Potential damage or loss of soil resource due to erosion or improper handling.

Soils Regional/Moderate

Low Soils shall be protected from water and wind erosion. Removal of vegetation shall be minimised Top soil reources should be stripped from site and stored for later restoration. Stock piles should be no more than 1.5 m in height and shall be protected from erosion either by seeding with qucik growing non invasive grass mix or covered Valued top soils shall not be compressed by tracking of equipment and machinery

NS

Table 50 – Assessment of Impacts for Biodiversity – Construction Phase Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

TE01 Potential impacts on trees/vegetation adjacent to work sites

Trees/vegetation within pipelines right of way and on WWTP sites

Local/Low Low Contractor to develop a tree protection plan as part of the SEMP. This will as a minimium set out restrictions on tree removals, stock piling soils over tree root systems, excessive compression of soils around tree root systems.

NS

111

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

Prior to any clearing of vegetation, make a species inventory of the area to be cleared. Use vegetation inventory to identify appropriate local plant species to be used for revegetation. Avoid tree removal unless justified on engineering, safety, and environmental grounds. Worker awareness training to include protection of trees No tree cutting for fuel to be allowed Minimize tree cutting at Effluent pipeline site (3,750 pieces of Common sea-Buckthorn) to Irrigaion Reservoir (Karakol) by better site layout; plant two trees of same specie for each tree that is cut for construction.

TE02 Site clearance works will require habitats loss

General Wetland habitat

Local Low Minimise clearance of areas of vegetation to least required for safe construction and operation of WWT facility Maintain land not required in present condition

NS

TE03 Direct impacts of work on Asiatic Frog, casing displacement, harm and kill

Asiatic Frog National Medium Preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where disturbance of suitable habitats will occur. If Asiatic Frog is confirmed, no direct works on the habitat they are located shall be conducted without further consultation with ADB and Stakeholders Develop offsetting plan for Asiatic Frog in case they are present. Avoid all works during Asiatic Frog breeding season.

NS

TE04 Loss of habitat, and indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, visual disturbance during construction

Breeding birds Local Low Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season of species present Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures near to nesting habitats

NS

TE05 Harm, kill and disturbance of breeding Corncrake

Corncrake National Medium Conduct ground clearance works outside of Corncrake breeding season Clear all required sites of vegetation during winter period. Competent ecologist to check for presence of breeding Corncrake within or near to project site. If present, suitable protection plans shall be developed, agreed with PMO and implemented. Ongoing monitoring of breeding Corncrake shall be part of this plan.

NS

TE06 Introduction of invasive species and predators

Critical Habitat and Ecosystem functioning

National Medium All equipment to be used on site shall be cleaned thoroughly prior to delivery to project site. Soils and possible seeds from past projects shall be removed from all equipment.

NS

TE07 Increase in hunting pressure, predators etc

Critical Habitat and Ecosystem functioning

National Medium No workers will be allowed to hunt animals within the project site or surrounding areas. Work camps if any on site shall not allow domesticated cats or dogs to be kept. Appropriate control of vermin such as rats and house mice shall be carried out by the contractor at worker camps and site office facilities.

NS

112

Table 51 – Assessment of Impacts for Socio-economics - Operation

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigation

SE01 Large portion of population in Karakol and Balykchy cities will receive an adequate access to centralized sewerage system.

Local incomes Regional/Moderate

Medium Consider development of sustainable community tourism plan.

Positive - Medium

Table 52 – Assessment of Impacts for Water Resources - Operation

Impact ID

Description Receptor Receptor Value/

Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigation

WR031 Unsafe disposal of sediments and sludge from STP into water ways or the environment

Water courses - water quality

Regional/Moderate

Medium Solid wastes that are captured in the screen must be treated and placed in specially designated disposal areas agreed by the SES and Municipality; Sand captured by the sand trap must be treated and disposed in a safe site agreed by the SES and Municipality; Sediment processed in sludge drying bed can be used for fertilizing agricultural land, if analysis of samples confirm non presence of toxic substances and as per Kyrgyz regulation. If analysis show toxic contents making it unsuited for fertilizing agricultural land, alternative disposal sites needs to be identified by agreement with Municipality and SES.

Low

WR02 Operational failure from the WWTP and potential pollution of waterways

Water courses - water quality

Regional/Moderate

Medium Operational failure at the plant would be due to power failure (likely to be short term) or equipment failure which should be able to be repaired or replaced within the period covered by the storage allowance, at least for the initial years. Significant storage capacity is provided at both Balykchy and Karakol WWTPs such that effluent can be stored for several months during the non-irrigation period, to prevent runoff into water courses. In Balykchy WWTP effluent is discharged to an irrigation channel of Chui River, so no risk of discharge to Issyk-Kul lake. In Karakol WWTP, discharge to Karakol river should be avoided as this will flow to Issyk-Kul lake. Effluent after period of storage in irrigation lagoon should be suitable to use for irrigation without serious health hazard, but this is only likely to be for short period until repairs are effected. Additionally ther following mitigation measures will be included as well:

Low

113

(i) comprehensive O&M to maintain equipment in full working order and minimize downtime, (ii) careful and continuous monitoring of systems to allow early alert of system malfunction, (iii) a suitable repair response strategy, with repair verification. These actions should not compromise other health, environmental or safety considerations.

Table 53 – Assessment of Impacts for Air Quality/Odour - Operation Impact

ID Description Receptor Receptor

Value/ Sensitivity

Sig. before

mitigation

Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Mitigatio

n

WR03AQ01

Localised changes in ambient air quality (odour) due to operation of STP.

Local population health

National/High Low A septage receiving facility will be provided at the wastewater treatment plants and septage will be treated at the plant. Biosolids from the wastewater treatment plants will be handled as follows:

NS

114

5. Additional Impact Assessment Requirements 319. The location of important elements of the project such as construction camps, additional streets for sewerlines in Karakol is currently unknown. 320. The PMO shall be responsible for obtaining any required National and Local Permits for these facilities. 321. The results of any assessment for the facilities shall be considered and any required updates to the IEE and/or the EMP’s shall be carried out and supplied to ADB for approval.

6.3 PMO Capacity building and assistance 322. Monitoring of environmental quality and of the implementation of mitigation measures will be performed by the Design Supervisorty Consultant (DSC) with sufficient TORs and staff-time for this task. Therefore, as a minimum over the project duration of 3 years, it is suggested DSC recruit 4 months54 of an international environmental sdpecialist and 21 months of a national environmental specialist.

6.4 Environmental Reporting Requirements 323. Contractors will prepare Site Specific Environmental Management Plans (SEMP) that will incorporate the the environmental concerns identified in this IEE, the detailed in the EMP included in this document, and the contract. The SEMPs provide contractors an opportunity to address environmental concerns identified in the IEE, and utilizing their own experience and site practices, to state clearly how environmental issues will be addressed. From an SEMP, a series of checklists will be derived by a Contractor with DSC input for use in auditing the contractor’s environmental performance and offering early identification of any deteriorating environmental standards.

324. Contractors will submit monthly and quarterly engineering reports and these must include information on environmental performance. Reporting will include but not be limited to:

• Status of the SEMP;

• Status of any other contractor prepared environmental documents;

• Status of environmental permits;

• Recording any physical environmental monitoring results (e.g. air, noise, water quality, vibration);

• Results of contractor and joint contractor / DSC site audits;

• Grievance redress mechanism;

• Interaction with the public – public consultations and complaints;

• Training of site staff in environmental matters.

325. The PMO will prepare a six monthly environmental monitoring report, drawing on the contractors monthly and quarterly environmental monitoring information and reporting the environmental performance of the project. This document will be disclosed on the ADB project website.

6.5 Conclusion

326. This chapter of the IEE has described the potential impacts of the project activities in the pre-construction, construction and operation phases, and has identified appropriate mitigation measures for addressing each one. To aid in the translation of this material into practice, the impacts and mitigation measures described here will be extracted and presented in concise form in the EMP.

54 International consultant time assumes 2 months in first year to set up monitoring systems, confirm the contractors SEMP and set up reporting templates.

115

7 INFORMATION DISCLOSURE, CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION

7.1 Stakeholder Consultation Approach

327. Consultation, participation and the disclosure of information during project preparation has ensured that feedback on the proposed project design has been received from the public so that views and preferences of stakeholders were adequately considered in the project design. Consultation will continue during ongoing project development, processing and implementation phases of the project. Public participation during project formulation has included: (i) identifying interested and affected parties stakeholders; (ii) informing and providing the stakeholders with sufficient background and technical information regarding the proposed development; (iii) creating opportunities and mechanisms whereby stakeholders can participate and raise their views (issues, comments, and concerns) with regard to the proposed development; (iv) giving the stakeholders feedback on process findings and recommendations; and (v) ensuring compliance to process requirements with regards to the environmental and related legislation.

7.2 Compliance with ADB and KR Requirements

328. This IEE complies with the information disclosure and public consultation and participation requirements of both the ADB and the KR. This includes the following:

a. The Project has provided timely disclosure of relevant information through channels readily accessible to affected people and stakeholders;

b. A GRM is being established (see Chapter VIII). c. Information has been presented in an understandable way in the Russian language in both

information disclosure and the public consultations; d. Information disclosure was started early in the Project cycle; e. A formal public consultation meeting was organized in both Project cities; f. Public consultation has been gender inclusive; g. Views of stakeholders and the potentially affected population have been documented and

incorporated into decision-making regarding acceptable technical solutions.

7.3 Public Consultation 329. Details of the entire process, the information distributed/presented, minutes of meeting and attendance sheets are provided in Annex 4.

1. Public Consultation – July 2017

A. Objective

330. Public consultations were carried out in accordance with ADB’s Public Communications Policy (2011) and SPS (2009). Public consultation meetings on the environmental aspects were undertaken on 10-12 July 2017 in the two project towns of Balykchy and Karakol. They were organized by the PPTA Team through official communication with the mayors and vodokanals by inviting key stakeholders in the cities. Details of the consultation, including all supporting information, is presented in Appendix 5 of this IEE.

B. Organization 331. During the public consultations, powerpoint presentations were presented, outlining the technical features of the project and explained the potential environmental and social impacts, together with associated mitigation measures. Presentations regarding environmental safeguards were delivered in Russian, with explanations in Kyrgyz as necessary, followed by question and answer sessions. The representatives of the vodokanals answered technical questions and clarified issues that were raised. Printed hand-outs of the presentations were prepared and distributed to the participants for their information, and as a way of disseminating the environmental concerns of the project to the greater public.

116

332. Q/A sessions were lively, with focus on treated wastewater use (irrigation), establishment of sanitary protection zones, connections to sewer networks, affordability of system, WWTP treatment efficiency, and the ability of all who wanted to connect.

C. Question and Answer Session

333. At the time of the consultations, the city of Cholpon Ata was also included in the project as a third city, in which it was proposed to also rehabilitate and expand its existing wastewater treatment system, including the provision of pump stations, pipelines and a new WWTP. The questions, answers and related discussions therefore covered the three cities, summarized as follows:

334. Q1. WWTPs treatment efficiency (BOD, COD and Ammonia) and use of treated wastewater.

335. A1. Proposed wastewater treatment system is an Intermittently Decanted Aeration Lagoon (IDAL) process and will be designed to meet legislative requirements of the Kyrgyz Republic in terms of effluent discharge quality. Treated water will be stored in existing reservoirs (which may have to be improved), except for Balykchy, which would require a new reservoir or increase in the size of biological ponds. The handling of the treated wastewater is part of the project although the cost of the reconstruction of the reservoirs needs to be confirmed with the engineers.

336. Q2. The sewer lines network coverage increase and connection to it.

337. A2: Sewerline system coverage increase and connection to it was discussed and participants were told that Karakol city will have components on sewer mains and secondary collector construction. Balykchy meeting participants were told by the vodokanal Director that sewer lines extension activities might be funded by other donor agencies, since under ISDP-1 Balykchy already had delivery on wastewater collection: (i) construction of Main Pump Station and (ii) 5.7km dual sewer main from city to WWTP.

338. Q3. Possibility of a reduction in size of the Sanitary Protection Zones around the Karakol and Cholpon-Ata wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) or potential resettlement of residents, whose households are located around the WWTPs as per SanPin requirements.

339. Q3a. Is there any norm to ban the construction of houses near the WWTPs

340. A3. National sanitary and construction regulations require establishment of sanitary protection zones around WWTPs and it is not allowed to reside within the sanitary zone around the WWTPs. There should be a consultation process between the government agencies (Sanitary surveillance, State Registry Service) with municipalities before issuing the land settlement permit.

341. Q4. Will there be a problem in the future with the operation of the WWTP and will it be able to serve the entire population of the city of Karakol in the future.

342. A4. Project will include building technical capacity of the vodokanals staff, enabling them to operate and maintain the WWTPs sustainably. Regarding the capacities of the WWTPs, the project team conducted socio-economic development analysis and population projections for the period of 2017-2038 to design the wastewater treatment capacities of the plants with increasing influent flows.

343. Q5. Terms of construction of the WWTP after the approval of the project.

344. A5. Clarification was provided that it will take some time for the loan negotiation and approval process between ADB and the Government of Kyrgyz Republic with final ratification of it by the Kyrgyz Parliament.

117

Table 54 – Public Consultations participation summary

Meeting # Location Date/ Approx. Time Languag

e

Participant

Nos. 1 Karakol (City Hall) 11/07/17 13:00 - 14:30 Ru/ Kyr 24

2 Balykchy (City Hall) 12/07/17 10:30 – 11:30 Kyr/Ru 17

Total 41

D. Conclusion

345. Without exception, participants (Table 54 and Appendix 5) were eager to see the work begin, and implied that they hoped that no additional consultations were needed and that energy should be focused on getting construction started. The Sanitary Protection Zones around the WWTPs and potential resettlement/compensation of/to the affected population were the only issues remaining to be clarified. Participants were also aware that the work is still in a development stage and that each participant still had the opportunity make their points heard and to that end contact information was provided.

2. Information Disclosure

346. After ADB endorses the IEE, it is made available as information to the public, both in the English and Russian languages. The procedure for public consultation in Kyrgyz Republic includes the following steps:

1. Public notification on public discussions; 2. Providing public access to the IEE documentation by the project initiator and/or other accessible

locations (local authorities, the territorial bodies of environmental protection), and disclosure of the IEE report on the website of the proponent (if a website exists);

3. The general public familiarizes itself with the IEE documentation; 4. In the case of public interest:

a. Provide public notice regarding the date and place of the meeting to discuss the IEE documentation;

b. The collection and analysis of comments and suggestions, summarizing the results of public discussione of the IEE documentation.

347. The Russian version of the IEE will be available in the PMO office, and copies shall be submitted to the Balykchy and Karakol municipalities. The IEE shall also be disclosed to a wider audience through the ADB website. During project implementation, periodic environmental monitoring reports shall be submitted.

118

8 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM)

8.1 Introduction

348. In order to receive and facilitate the resolution of affected peoples’ concerns, complaints, and grievances about the project’s environmental performance an environmental GRM is proposed for the project. When and where the need arises, this mechanism will be used for addressing complaints that may arise during the implementation of project. The GRM addresses affected people's concerns and complaints promptly, using an understandable and transparent process that is gender responsive, culturally appropriate, and readily accessible to all segments of the affected people at no costs and without retribution. The mechanism is not impeding access to the KR judicial or administrative remedies. The project proponent will appropriately inform the affected people about the mechanism before the commencement of any civil works.

8.2 ADB’s GRM Requirements

349. The SPS 2009 requires the IA to establish a GRM to receive and facilitate the resolution of affected persons’ concerns and complaints about the project’s environmental performance during both the construction and operation phases of the project. The GRM should be scaled to the risks and adverse impacts of the project; should address affected persons’ concerns and complaints promptly using an understandable and transparent process; should be readily accessible to all sections of the community at no cost and without risk of retribution; and should not impede access to the KR’s judicial or administrative remedies.

8.3 Project GRM

1. Introduction

350. The GRM is a mechanism through which (i) any parties who may be affected by the project may voice their concerns, seek clarification to their queries, or register a complaint regarding the performance of the Project, so that (ii) the Project authorities may take appropriate and timely action to address legitimate concerns or complaints. The GRM has been designed in compliance with the KR law On the Procedure for Dealing with Complaints and Appeals of Citizens (№ 144, of 15 June 2013) and the policies of the ADB (i.e., the SPS 2009).

351. The scope of the GRM encompasses issues of environmental performance, involuntary resettlement and information disclosure only. Any complaints regarding matters of fraud and corruption are registered under the GRM but dealt with under separate procedures as established under the law of the KR and the Anti-Corruption Policy of ADB. The GRM will remain in force throughout the construction phase of the project and continue into the operation phase for as long as the primary project institutions (PMO and PIOs) are in existence.

2. Definitions

352. The GRM has the following four primary elements:

• GRM: The procedure through which complaints are received, screened, reviewed, and resolved promptly and satisfactorily.

• Grievance Redress Group (GRG): Meets to review complaints and decide on necessary actions. The GRG includes representatives of relevant parties (including affected persons) and an independent observer.

• Local Focal Point (LFP): Receives and screens complaints, convenes and facilitates GRG meetings, provides necessary documents, and keeps all records, including a complaints log.

• Public Information: The borrower must ensure that the public in the project area is fully informed about the existence and operation of the GRM and the channels for registering any complaints

• Affected Person (or Group) (AP): The people who are directly affected by the project and have a grievance to raise.

119

3. Operation

353. Complaints and appeals from affected persons will be received in the PIO offices in Balykchy and Karakol, or in the General Department of the Mayor’s Offices in Balykchy or Karakol. They will then be forwarded to the PMO. All complaints will be recorded in a Log Book held in the PMO (see Figure 45). Complaints and appeals that can be resolved by simple action on site are dealt with by the LFP in discussion with the affected person or persons, and contractors if necessary. A response letter will be prepared and signed by the LFP, with the approval of the PMO Director, and sent to the applicant within 14 days from the date of registration. Complaints and appeals that cannot be resolved locally are referred to the GRG for further consideration through the following mechanism:

• The LFP will convene a meeting of the GRG, comprising the competent persons depending on the location of the source of the complaint (Balykchy or Karakol). The meeting will be held no later than 5 days from the date of registration of the complaint.

• Before the meeting, the LFP will provide all members of the GRG with all relevant information regarding the complaint, which may include photographs, video materials, AP statements, other evidence, judicial decisions, legal advice, technical expert opinion, etc. The GRG will consider the case under the chairmanship of the LFP and may visit the site, conduct a consultation with a lawyer, or request further information from the applicant if necessary.

• After the GRG completes the study of the complaint or appeal and related discussions, the decision is recorded in the official record for the meeting and signed by all members not later than three days after the meeting. The LFP will prepare and sign a response letter with the approval of the PMO Director, and this will be sent to the applicant within 14 days from the date of registration. In special circumstances requiring further study, the review period may be extended to a maximum of 30 calendar days.

• If the applicant does not agree with the response, he or she will be given five days during which he or she may make a request for further consideration by the GRG, in which case another meeting is convened within 5 days from registration of the appeal. Otherwise, the case is closed, and this is clearly stated in the response letter.

• An integrated system and database for the processing of complaints and appeals relating to the project will be maintained in the PIO by the LFP, with a copy also maintained in the PMO. All documentation related to the project will be stored until the completion and closure of the project. Summary results of complaints and appeals will be prepared and submitted along with monthly reports to ADB.

120

Figure 45 – Grievance Redress Steps

354. At the construction stage of the project, the procedure will be modified slightly to allow lower level direct and short duration adverse impacts, incidents and grievances to be raised directly with the contractor e.g. a temporary blocked access, isolated dusty conditions, loss of amenity. The contractor shall maintain a complaints log in the site office, and any incident recorded will be reported to the PIO.

355. The public will be informed about the GRM through the print media in regional newspapers and on the websites of the two cities and the PMO.

4. Grievance Redress Group Membership

A. Balykchy

356. The tentative composition of the GRG for review and redress of complaints and grievances in Balykchy is:

1. Chairperson and Local Focal Point: PIO Manager; 2. PMO Social Issues Specialist; 3. Design and Supervision Consultant, Chief Project Engineer 4. Design and Supervision Consultant, Environmental Specialist; 5. Chief Architect of the Urban Planning Department and Architecture of Balykchy; 6. Representative of local authorities in Balykchy, i.e. Territorial Councils, Neighborhood

Committees, House Committees to facilitate the process on behalf of the person making the complaint / appeal – to be agreed;

7. Authorized representative of the Ombudsman for Issyk-Kul Region (depending on location), as an independent observer;

8. Other Technical Experts may be added if necessary for consideration of specific issues.

121

B. Karakol City

357. The tentative composition of the GRG in Karakol is:

1. Chairperson and Local Focal Point: PIO Manager; 2. PMO Social Issues Specialist; 3. Design and Supervision Consultant Chief Project Engineer; 4. Design and Supervision Consultant, Environmental Specialist 5. Chief Architect of the Urban Planning Department and Architecture of Karakol; 6. Representative of local authorities in Karakol, i.e. territorial councils, neighborhood

committees, house committees to facilitate the process on behalf of the person making the complaint / appeal;

7. Authorized representative of the Ombudsman for Issyk-Kul Region (depending on location), as an independent observer.

8. Other Technical Experts may be added if necessary for consideration of specific issues.

122

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

358. The EMP provides the basis for action and responsibility in relation to the specific environmental, social and cultural heritage concerns raised in this IEE. It ensures that appropriate preparatory, preventive and mitigation measures, as well as effective monitoring and follow-up actions, are properly implemented in a timely manner by designated entities. The actions and responsibilities specified in the EMP will be applied during the detailed design work and incorporated into the contract bidding documents, establishing an agreed framework of shared responsibility for ensuring that the Project is fully compliant – throughout the pre-construction, construction and operational phases, as set out in the ADB’s SPS 2009 and in the relevant laws, standards and regulations of the KR.

9.1 Mitigation and Monitoring Actions

359. This section provides an overview of and guide to the mitigation and monitoring actions that have been specified on the basis of impact analysis in Chapter VI of this report.

A. The EMP Tables

360. The impacts identified in the course of the analysis presented in this report are listed as line items in EMP, which appears in Tables 55-57 for design, construction and operation phases. Alongside each impact, the recommended mitigation action or actions; location and timing of their implementation; responsibility for their implementation; and responsibility for supervising their implementation is detailed. The EMP provides the basis for defining contractual obligations for contractors, as well as responsibilities and expectations for the vodokanals, municipal and national government entities, and Project staff.

361. Accompanying the EMP is a table which specifies the follow-up actions required to ensure that the prescribed mitigation measures are in fact implemented appropriately. This Environmental Monitoring Table provides the basis for ensuring accountability and thoroughness in relation to certifying the environmental soundness of the Project and helps define responsibilities and expectations for the Project staff and governmental entities involved in the follow-up. In the case of mitigation measures specified for the operation phase, the monitoring responsibilities specified in the EMT provide a basis for the establishment of long-term compliance monitoring programs. The EMT is included at the end of in Table 58 after the EMPs.

362. It is anticipated that the following SEMPs, as a minimum, will form part of the overall Environmental Management System.

• Tree Management Plan

• Asbestos Management Plan

• Traffic Management Plan

• Waste Management Plan

• Archaeological Chance Finds Protocol/Plan

• Water Course Protection Management Plan

• Construction Camp Management Plan

• Emergency Response Plan

• Air quality and Dust Suppression Plan

• Complaints Log Book

• Health and Safety Management Plan

• Construction Noise Management Plan

B. Pre-Construction Phase

363. Impacts arising in the pre-construction phase typically involve land acquisition and resettlement of people displaced as a result of infrastructure siting decisions. Although conventional land acquisition or resettlement will not be required for this project as the WWTPs are to be located on the same sites as the facilities they will replace, resettlement will be required in order to meet the requirements of the SPZs. Other components to be installed outside the boundaries of the existing sites will be installed

123

either on land already owned by the relevant vodokanal or in existing public rights-of-way. The pre-construction section of the EMP also includes several line items for impacts for which mitigation measures are prescribed. These are impacts likely to arise during the construction and operation phases, but for which pre-emptive mitigation action is appropriate in the pre-construction phase, especially during detailed design work. Similarly, mitigation of most construction period impacts appropriately begin with incorporation of preventive measures into the Contractor Environmental Management Work Plans during construction planning.

C. Construction Phase

364. Construction phase impacts are related to the effects of specific construction practices on elements of the biophysical environment and on people. Some of these can be severe and long-term, e.g., soil erosion, surface water contamination, and worker exposure to asbestos dust, if preventive action is not taken. Most construction impacts, such as noise, disruption of community life, and dust and emissions, are temporary, and can generally be addressed through relatively simple interventions like good maintenance and being a responsible contractor. All construction period impacts identified in the EMP are generally minimized through implementation of mitigation measures prescribed in the EMP as (good site practices), and none are likely to be permanent or long-term, provided they are addressed as identified.

D. Operating Phase

365. Impacts with potential to be experienced in the operating phase of the Project are varied, and include noise and odor impacts associated with the operation of the WWTPs and community disturbances during sewer maintenance. Some potential operating period impacts are complex and involve multiple causal steps, e.g., human health risks from surface water contamination by pathogens in improperly treated sludge applied to fields; mitigation of such impacts will often require an experimental or adaptive management approach. Many operating period impacts can be effectively prevented or minimized through mitigation actions implemented during the pre-construction phase, especially during detailed design.

124

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PLAN (EMP) Table 55 – Design Stage Mitigation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND OBJECTIVE:

EMP: mitigation measures at pre-design stage

Mitigation measures Responsibility

Area Potential impact Protection of historical/cultural areas • Identify potential historical /

cultural sites that could be affected by onsite or offsite construction activity.

• Locate optional construction sites/activities away from them.

• Ensure construction personnel are aware of locations of historical / cultural areas and avoid them.

• If the proposed construction passes close to historical / cultural areas, include temporary fences to restrict machines and activities from encroaching in the area.

• The PPTA team has carried out a cultural heritage preliminary investigation that concluded that works at existing WWTPs would not impact on cultural heritage sites (sites remote and footprint disturbed).

• A Chance Finds Procedure as part of the EMP for the construction phase includes provision for ceasing work and notifying the Engineer should artifacts of cultural or historical importance be unearthed.

• A provisional sum shall be identified in the Contract document to cover the costs of engaging a national archaeological specialist to determine the status of the find and remedial works needed.

• PMO to confirm that a detailed survey is carried out and mitigation requirements (in the form of protection of off alignment features and relocation of online features) are included in the contract documents.

• PMO to confirm that a provisional sum is included in the Contract Document to cover the cost of engagement of a national archaeological specialist to visit the site, assess any chance finds and identify mitigation / remedial programs (Allow for up to 5 events at USD800/ event.

Protection of (sensitive) natural areas • Identify potential environmentally sensitive / natural areas.

• Locate optional construction sites/activities away from them.

• Ensure construction personnel are aware of locations of sensitive areas and avoid them.

• If the proposed construction passes close to these areas, include temporary fences to restrict machines and activities from encroaching in the area.

The WWTP sites have been the subject of a preliminary investigation See appendix 2 for report.

• During the design phase, attention should be paid to any impact on natural areas.

• DSC together with competent ecologist needs to undertake preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where disturbance of suitable habitats will occur.

• Competent ecologist to check for presence of breeding Corncrake within or near to project site. If present, suitable protection plans shall be developed, agreed with PMO and implemented. Ongoing monitoring of breeding Corncrake shall be part of this plan.

The contractor should carry out works in a way that minimizes destruction of vegetation and with minimum of noise disturbance and containment of silty runoff.

125

To minimize damage to personal and community property:

• Ensure works will be restricted to the existing WWTP footprints.

• Ensure projected impacts and proposed measures have been discussed in advance with the affected community.

• work with local government officers and non-governmental organizations.

• Conduct surveys before activities commence to identify all members of affected populations.

Project impacts have discussed with communities and councils during the consultation process. Detailed surveys of affected property will be completed prior to construction.

Contractor will take ultimate responsibility for construction impacts on property.

EMP requirements included in the Design

Preparation of SSEMP:

• Tree Management Plan

• Asbestos Management Plan

• Traffic Management Plan

• Waste Management Plan

• Archaeological Chance Finds Protocol/Plan

• Water Course Protection Management Plan

• Construction Camp Management Plan

• Emergency Response Plan

• Air quality and Dust Suppression Plan

• Complaints Log Book

• Health and Safety Management Plan

• Construction Noise Management Plan

• PMO will ensure that EMP will be adequately included in bidding documents and all environmental mitigation measures will be included in construction contracts.

• Monitoring of environmental quality and of the implementation of mitigation measures will be performed by the Design and Supervision Consultant (DSC) with sufficient TORs and staff-time for this task.

• As a minimum, it is required for DSC to recruit 4 months of an International Environmental Specialist and 21 months of a National Environmental specialist over 3 years during the project implementation.

• The monitoring results will be included in the project monthly and quarterly progress reports and semi-annual environmental monitoring reports.

PMO will be responsible for EMP implementation.

Contractor’s SSEMP as an integral part of the bid documents

Contractor is responsible for the EMP implementation. The bidding documents shall have an Environment Protection section and include this. EMP is a part of the bidding documents so that the bidder is aware of the environmental requirements for the Project.

• The contractor will submit a site-specific Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the following, prior to commencing construction works, but not limited to: (i) SEMP for demolition and construction work at WWTPs; (ii) layout of the work camp with sewage management and waste management plan; (iii) siting and description of any equipment maintenance and storage facilities; (iv) spoil / soil management plan; (v) disposal of

Project proponent verifies that EMP is included into bidding documents.

126

contaminated concrete (asbestos or sludge coated; (v) pumping station rehabilitation (dealing with odor).

• The SEMPs shall be guided and endorsed by the DSC for approval by PIO.

Table 56 – Construction Stage Mitigation Plan

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

Cultural Heritage: Archaeological find on site. The desk survey did not identify any cultural and heritage elements on the WWTP or pumping station site Casual finds: - there is always potential, during excavation works for cultural and archeologic artifacts to be uncovered

• Work stopped immediately in the area of any find, barriers erected to prevent casual access.

• Chance Finds Procedure as part of the EMP for the construction phase includes provision for ceasing work and notifying the Engineer should artifacts of cultural or historical importance be unearthed.

All sites where excavation is carried out.

Throughout the project.

Contractor DSC

Social or Community Concerns To minimize social disturbance and maximize community benefits from the project:

• Advise the local community of project plans in advance of construction, and involve them in planning, as necessary.

• Avoid or minimize disturbances near living areas, schools, hospitals, etc.

• Control runoff and manage sediments near cultivated areas.

• Abide by the laws of the Kyrgyz Republic relating to employment and use of labor.

• Maintain liaison with community representatives and arrange for the involvement of community groups where practicable.

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost. Assume 6 monthly meeting with major stakeholders (6 half day workshops) and meeting with stakeholders in major residential areas prior to works (half day workshop / briefing) say 10 half day workshops).

Contractor DSC

Increased risk of road traffic accident due to construction traffic movements

• Actively enforce speed limits for Project vehicles.

• Awareness program for local population prior to works commencing, including visits to local schools

• Devlopment of Traffic management Plan as part of the SEMP

All locations

Throughout the project

Contractor DSC

127

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

• Drivers to be fully competent and authorized to drive heavy loads vehicles and to receive specific training.

• Ensure all drivers have completed training and are licensed to drive the vehicles they are operating.

• Limits to be adopted and enforced for maximum number of work hours to avoid overtiredness.

• Minimise the number of road movements as much as practicable, maximising capacity of vehicles.

• Schedule road movements to minimise impact on existing road users.

• Zero tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use amongst all workforce

Impacts on health of dust and noise emissions

• Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant noise and air emissions.

• Build trenches in short lengths; refill quickly; remove excess spoil quickly.

• Water unpaved site roads and large areas of exposed soil thrice daily in dry weather

• Ensure that no noise above 70 dB(A) is audible for significant periods within 50 m of any construction site and

• Cease activity producing significant noise at night (19pm-07am), Sundays & Public Holidays.

Sewer lines Construction of sewer lines

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Damages to utilities by excavation and temporary access cut-off to properties.

• Require contractors to carry out a utility survey before construction and take action during construction to minimize impact on utilities and attend to any damage;

• Provide temporary access during construction, if required;

• Contractor and PIU to ensure that coordination meetings are held and agreement has been obtained from

Sewer lines Construction of sewer lines

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

128

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

Municipality; prior to any construction beginning on the site

Community Socio-economics Positive effect - short term employment of local people, this can offset some of the disturbance experienced by people living near construction sites

• Develop plan for local recruitment of workers for project - train as required

• Employ at least 30% of workforce from the vicinity of construction works if possible

Air Quality Localised changes in ambient air quality due to operation of mobile and stationary equipment burning fossil fuels.

• Contractor to maintain all fossil fuel burning equipment in accordance with manufacturers recommendations

• Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum emissions and avoid using old equipment and vehicles

• No equipment shall be left idling if not in use

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Emissions from mobile and stationary equipment on sewerlines, affecting local air quality standards

• No equipment shall be left idling if not in use

• Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum emissions and avoid using old equipment and vehicles

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Fugitive dust emissions from works, construction traffic causing dust soiling and increase in PM2.5 and PM10

• Construction traffic speed limit when passing through populated areas

• Water of dusty-unpaved roads and populated areas

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Transportation of construction materials

• Dust suppression by water tankers with sprinkling systems are to be deployed along regularly trafficked routes.

• The vehicles deployed for material transportation will be spill proof to avoid or minimize the spillage of the material during transportation.

• Transportation links are to be inspected daily to clear accidental spillage, if any.

Along haul roads with prior approval of DSC

Throughout the project

Contractor cost Contractor with approval of DSC

DSC / RCD

129

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

• Precaution will be taken to avoid inconvenience to the local community due to movement of materials.

• Dry materials to be covered to avoid dust blow.

Noise and Vibration Noise disturbance due to equipment and construction activities.

• Awareness program for local residents prior to commencement of works

• Limitation of working hours for normal construction activities near to settlements times to be set out in the SEMP

• Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant noise

• No idling of equipment when not in use

Worker Health and Safety Poor quality housing and hygiene standards resulting in injury or sickness

• Contactor to ensure that workers accommodation and rights are in line with the FIDIC Pink Book requirements

• Contract documentation to include requirement that worker accommodation be in line with good practice, such as that set out in World Bank Workers Accommodation Guidance

• Contractor to appoint camp manager who will be responsible for ensuring standards of eccommodation meet basic requirements and are safe and hygienic

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Injury or fatality of workers due to insufficient controls on work activities and processes

• Contractor shall develop Method Statements for all major activities and include health and safety risk assesment for each of these activities

• Contractor shall provide health and safety induction training for all staff, and specific training for staff working on work sites.

• Contractor shall supply to site workers, free of charge all necessary Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to include as protective footwear, high visibility vests, safety helmet and hearing protection. For specific tasks

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

130

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

other PPE may be required, for example welding masks, hot work gauntlets

• Contractor will prepare and implement a Health & Safety (H&S) Plan for all work sites and activities (including offsite)

• Contractor will train and assign a specialist as Health and Safety officer as responsible person for the duration of the project.

• Provision of health care and first aid - Contractor shall ensure that adequate first aid supplies and trained first aiders are available

Potential presence of asbestos piping - risk of worker exposure to asbestos fibres

• If asbestos is encountered, Contractor shall develop an Asbestos Management Plan

• Worker awareness of asbestos and risks asscoiated with handling such material

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Establishment of construction camp sites (offices)

• The construction campsites will be located away from any local human settlement areas and preferably located on lands, which are barren/waste lands.

• The campsites will be provided with adequate water supply, sanitation and all requisite infrastructure facilities. This will minimize dependence on outside resources, presently being used by local populace and minimize undesirable social friction.

• The camps will have septic tank/soak pit of adequate capacity so that it can function properly for the entire duration of its use.

• After completion of construction works, location of campsites will be restored to its previous state by undertaking clean-up operations.

At identified camp location with prior approval of DSC

Throughout the Project

Contractor cost Contractor with approval of DSC

DSC

Waste Management Inappropriate management and disposal of waste during construction affecting water courses

• Include appropriate waste management protocols

• Location of appropriate waste storage facilities at all work sites

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

131

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

• Worker induction and regular tool box talks to make all staff aware of zero waste discharge to environment

• Zero tolerance of waste entering water course or flood plain areas, this will include all materials (e.g welding rod stubs, wood, plastics and metals

Poor waste management practices resulting in direct and indirect affects on project area environment

• All hazardous waste containers to be labelled clearly with a waste hazard identification label.

• Contractor will establish a demarcated temporary waste storage area where waste is stored pending transport to final treatment/disposal location.

• Contractor will put in place measures to minimise waste, i.e. procure materials with less packaging, refrain from ordering excess materials, make arrangement with suppliers to return surplus, unused materials.

• Contractor will take measures to prevent the disposal, burying and burning of waste on-site, roadside dumping and illegal land filling.

• Contractor workforce will be trained in the requirements of the Waste Management Plan, Particularly with regards to waste segregation, storage and handling.

• Implementation of recycling/recovery initiatives to reduce waste sent for disposal.

• Contractor will practice good housekeeping on site.

• Waste storage containers will be secure, undamaged and appropriately labelled.

• Waste to be segregated and containers clearly labelled specifying which type of waste is contained to assist with identifying appropriate disposal routes and in case of accidental spills or loss to the environment.

• Waste to be stored in appropriate containers or skips and removed for treatment/disposal

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

132

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

at a frequency so as to avoid the build-up of waste on site.

• Waste will be collected and transported under cover of a Waste Collection Log and Waste Manifest.

Demolition and reconstruction • Use water to damp down dust generated during breaking.

• Identify any asbestos containing materials and implement containment practices during demolition and secure disposal.

WWTP and P/S

During reconstruction

Included Contractor with approval of DSC

DSC

Cleaning work sites and waste disposal

• All operational areas (office/storage area, work force camps) will be cleaned up and restored to their previous state soon after operations are complete.

• All construction waste will be disposed in approved municipal dump sites, after receiving permit for construction waste dispoisal from the Municipality. Local district authorities will be consulted to determine any conditions imposed while issuing permits.

All sites Duration of the project

Contractor cost Contractor with approval of DSC

DSC

Water Resources Potential for contamination of water course due to release of hydrocarbons or oils and grease etc

• Contractor to conduct risk assessment on all activities near to water courses and apply approriate controls

• No refuelling of vehicles or equipment to take place within river beds or withi 25 metres of the edge of the water course

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Biodiversity Potential impacts on trees/vegetation adjacent to work sites

• Contractor to develop a tree protection plan as part of the SEMP. This will as a minimium set out restrictions on tree removals, stock piling soils over tree root systems, excessive compression of soils around tree root systems.

• Prior to any clearing of vegetation, make a species inventory of the area to be cleared. Use vegetation inventory to identify appropriate local plant species to be used for revegetation.

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

133

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

• Avoid tree removal unless justified on engineering, safety, and environmental grounds.

• Worker awareness training to include protection of trees

• No tree cutting for fuel to be allowed

• Minimize tree cutting at Effluent pipeline site to Irrigaion Reservoir (Karakol) by better site layout; plant two trees of same specie for each tree that is cut for construction.

Loss of habitat, and indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, visual disturbance during construction

• Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season of species present

• Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures near to nesting habitats

WWTP Areas

During reconstruction

Included Contractor with approval of DSC

DSC

•

Soil and Ground Water Accidental spillage of hydrocarbon affecting local ground water

• Fuels should be stored in good quality above ground tanks placed on an impervious surface with a spill containment bund capable of containing 110% of the tank capacity

• No onsite refulling within or adjacent to water courses

• On site refuelling of equipment and vehicles shall utilise a drip tray to prevent hydrocarbons entering the ground

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

Potential damage or loss of soil resource due to erosion or improper handling.

• Soils shall be protected from water and wind erosion. Removal of vegetation shall be minimised

• Top soil reources should be stripped from site and stored for later restoration. Stock piles should be no more than 1.5 m in height and shall be protected from erosion either by seeding with qucik growing non invasive grass mix or covered

• Valued top soils shall not be compressed by tracking of equipment and machinery

All locations

Throughout the project

Included in overall project cost

Contractor DSC

134

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

Reporting. Environmental monitoring and reporting to confirm compliance

• Safeguards Monitoring: Contractor’s monthly reports and DSC’s quarterly progress reports should have a section on safeguard compliance. PIO will submit for disclosure on ADB and EA websites semi-annual environmental monitoring reports (EMR) in January and July each year. Final EMR will include post-construction environmental audit and will be submitted one month after the project physical completion.

Project Reporting

Duration of the project

Included within management costs

Contractor, DSC TPIU

Table 57 – Operation Stage Mitigation Plan

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

Contamination from accidental spills (e.g. chlorine – if required)

• The accident sites will be contained and cleared immediately.

• Soiled earth will be removed, placed in a leak proof container and taken to a secure site for disposal.

• Soiled earth removed will be replaced with clean inert material.

At WWTP and P/s

Throughout project life

Maintenance cost

ITDEP, Vodokanal Vodokanal

Gosstroy

Air pollution • Plant and machinery will be managed well to avoid situations where excessive odor is generated, e.g. stagnant septic material.

All WWTP and P/s

Throughout project life

Maintenance cost

ITDEP, Vodokanal Vodokanal

Gosstroy

Noise pollution • Doors to buildings housing mechanical plant to be kept closed.

All WWTP and P/s

Throughout project life

Maintenance cost

Vodokanal

Gosstroy

Water pollution Operational failure from the WWTP and potential pollution of waterways.

• Efficient operation of STP facilities will ensure that the effluent quality will be in compliance with Kyrgyz surface water standards

Significant storage capacity is provided at both Balykchy and Karakol WWTPs such that effluent can be stored for several months during the non-irrigation period, to prevent runoff into water courses.

All WWTP and P/s

Throughout project life

Maintenance cost

ITDEP, Vodokanal

Gosstroy

Waste Management • Solid wastes that are captured in the screen must be treated and placed in

All WWTP and P/s

Throughout project life

Maintenance cost

Vodokanal

Gosstroy

135

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

Unsafe disposal of sediments and sludge from STP into water ways or the environment.

specially designated disposal areas agreed by the SES and Municipality;

• Sand captured by the sand trap must be treated and disposed in a safe site agreed by the SES and Municipality;

• Sediment processed in sludge drying bed can be used for fertilizing agricultural land, if analysis of samples confirm non presence of toxic substances and as per Kyrgyz regulation. The sediment can be transported by the Vodokanal to the farmers land plots in a safe manner.

• If analysis show toxic contents making it unsuited for fertilizing agricultural land, alternative disposal sites needs to be identified by agreement with Municipality and SES.

Socio-Economic. Large portion of population in Karakol and Balykchy cities will receive an adequate access to centralized sewerage system.

• Consider development of sustainable community tourism plan.

- Throughout project life

- Vodokanal

Municipalities

Emergency Response Measures

Team of STP emergency situations should be established in the shortest time to identify a suitable solution to rectify the problem; Ther following mitigation measures include: (i) comprehensive O&M to maintain equipment in full working order and minimize downtime, (ii) careful and continuous monitoring of systems to allow early alert of system malfunction, (iii) a suitable repair response strategy, with repair verification.

All WWTP and P/s

Throughout project life

Maintenance cost

ITDEP, Vodokanal

Gosstroy

136

Environmental Issue and Objective:

Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision

When problem is identified and a solution is agreed upon, Vodokanals may involve for solution of emergency situation qualified specialists

Table 58 – Environmental Monitoring Plan

Environmental Features

Aspect Monitored Time and Frequency of Monitoring Location Responsible party

Implementation Supervision

Air quality Qualitative analysis during the construction phase.

During weekly audit by contractor and DSC.

At all working sites as part of regular environmental monitoring program

Contractor DSC/PMO

Ambient noise and vibration

Qualitative analysis during the construction phase.

During weekly audit by contractor and DSC.

At all working sites as part of regular environmental monitoring program

Contractor DSC/PMO

Water quality

BOD5, COD, pH, temp, SS, DO, Ammonia, Nitrate and Nitrite as identified in management plan at inlet and outfall and up / downstream from WWTP.

Before starting any construction activities, when requested during construction and once after commissioning.

WWTPs Contractor DSC

Analysis for coliforms are required at outfall from WWTP as

part of the monitoring program.

Monthly effluent sampling program during operation period of the WWTPs

WWTPs Vodokanal ITDEP/SES

Soil and land resources quality

Analysis of stabilized sludge samples from the wastewater treatment plant confirm non presence of toxic substances and ensure that it is harmlessly applied for agricultural purposes.as per Kyrgyz regulation.

Quarterly stabilized sluge sampling program during operation period of the WWTPs

WWTPs Vodokanal ITDEP/SES

137

9.2 Environmental Monitoring Program

366. Indicators of EMP implementation performance are of two general types: (i) those that can be measured or observed in the environment; and (ii) those that are reported and can be measured with reference to compliance monitoring, reporting, and communication with people in the Project area.

138

Table 59 – Indicators for Assesssing EMP Implementation

Indicator Measure Parameters to be

Monitored

Locations Method Responsibility

Pre-Construction Phase

Construction Phase 1. Occurrence of avoidable impacts

1.1 Violations of noise limits (construction period)

Ambient noise levels (day, night levels), dB(A)

All construction sites and access routes

1.1.1 Physical noise monitoring (though site observation by DSC is often more imediate and effective)

DSC, PMO

1.2 Evidence of sedimentation in watercourses as a result of erosion from work sites (construction period)

All construction sites and access routes

1.2.1 Water quality monitoring (though visible observation by DSC is often more imediate and effective)

DSC, PMO

1.3 Exceedences of MAC of airborne asbestos fiber in demolition site indoor air (construction period)

All construction sites and access routes

1.3.1 Indoor air quality monitoring DSC, PMO

1.4 Spills of fuels, lubricants, coolants or hazardous chemicals at work sites

All construction sites and access routes

1.4.1 Visual site inspections DSC, PMO

1.5 Exceedences of dust standards at residences and sensitive receptor sites

Ambient air quality (SPM, RSPM, CO, SO2)

All construction sites and access routes

1.5.1 Physical air quality monitoring (though site observation by DSC is often more imediate and effective)

DSC, PMO

Operating Phase

1.6 Exceedences of MACs in effluent (incl. Coliforms)

As per the government regulations

At the inlet and outlet of WWTP

1.6.1 Effluent quality monitoring ITDEP and the Vodokanals

1.7 Exceedences of noise limits As per the government regulations

At the WWTPs 1.7.1 Noise monitoring SES and the Vodokanals

1.8 Exceedences of pathogen MACs in sludge products

As per the government regulations

At the sludge drying beds of WWTPs

1.8.1 Sludge quality monitoring ITDEP and the Vodokanals

1.9 Exceedences of pathogen (coliform) MACs in treated effluent

As per the government regulations

At the outlet of WWTPs

1.9.1 Effluent quality monitoring ITDEP and the Vodokanals

2. Recurrence of impacts

2.1 Rate of recurring impact by site/contractor/impact

2.1.1 Review of inspection records

3. Compliance with EMP prescriptions

3.1 Number of findings of non-compliance as proportion of total compliance findings

3.1.1 Visual site inspections

139

Indicator Measure Parameters to be

Monitored

Locations Method Responsibility

3.2 Number of repeat non-compliance findings

3.2.1 Review compliance findings

4. Effects of Project activities on public

4.1 Number of complaints received by PIO, PMO, and municipalities about impacts considered unacceptable by members of public

3.1.1 Gather and count complaint reports

4.2 Number of grievances files under GRM about impacts

3.2.1 Review GRM records

5. Safeguard specialists at work with PIO and Contractor

5.1 A safeguard specialist on staff 5.1.1 Inspection of safeguard specialist contract and terms of engagement.

140

9.3 Implementation Arrangements

Environmental Requirements to be Implemented

367. Full implementation of the EMP will require several different classes of actions. Training needs must also be met at this stage, to make the PIOs and contractors fully aware of their responsibilities and improve their understanding of environmental impact and mitigation. During construction planning, proactive effort will be required to lay the groundwork for effective implementation of mitigation measures during construction, primarily through the preparation and approval of the SEMPs. On-the-ground mitigation actions will dominate during the construction period, as contractors apply the measures specified in the SEMPs to the physical works. Similar day-to-day actions will continue in the hands of system operators once the facilities open. EMP implementation will transition to include ongoing testing, analytical and adaptive work in the operation period. Throughout the entire Project life cycle, monitoring for compliance and environmental performance, as well as enforcement, will be a constant.

B. Roles and Responsibilities

368. Several groups will have responsibilities with respect to successful implementation of the EMP, with the PMO taking the leading role, on behalf of the SAEPF. At the field level the PIOs for each WWTP work will directly on day-to-day activities.

Table 60 – Roles and responsibilities in EMP implementation

Entity Role Specific EMP responsibilities

PMO (Project Management Office)

Overall management of the implementation of this project. They oversee the application of safeguard measures for the project as a whole .

Draws on consultants to provide inputs to EMP preparation Develops and delivers EMP-specified training

PIO (Project Implementation Office)

Houses safeguards specialists involved in training and monitoring. Local level entity with direct oversight of Project, including EMP implementation

Provides guidance to contractors on preparation of SEMPs Monitors contractor compliance with SEMPs Provides EMP-specified training

DSC (Design and supervision Consultant)

Undertakes the technical oversight for the delivery of all safeguard measures

Ensure that EMP mitigation and monitoring measures re implemented and compliance reporting completed.

ITDEP (Issyk-Kul Territorial Department for Environmental Protection)

Lead technical advisory services related to environmental protection in the IK basin.

Provides oversight of monitoring Conducts some environmental monitoring Provides as advice as needed.

Supporting role in relation to environmental and human health implications of wastewater management

Oversees monitoring of health-related elements of wastewater management (including outputs), namely microbiological testing of effluent and sludge Can provide inputs to strategies for addressing operation phase problems and challenges in relation to sludge and effluent

IBRGD (Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve General Directorate)

Main supporting entity, with strong complementarity of duties and capabilities to ITDEP

Unknown due to severely depleted technical resources and management

State Agency for Issyk Kul Oblast

Administrative guidance and support

Fully endorse EMP implementation and support necessary enforcement decisions

Contractors Carry out most construction period mitigation

Implements mitigation measures as specified in SEMPs

SSES (State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service)

Supporting role in relation to human health implications of noise and vibration

Conducts monitoring of noise and vibration worksite parameters pertaining to worker health and safety Provides as advice as needed.

MAA (Ministry of Agriculture and Amelioration)

Supporting role in relation to use of effluent and sludge on agricultural lands

Provides input in development of guidelines for land application of sludge and effluent

SIETS (State Inspectorate Supporting role in relation to Monitors worksite parameters pertaining to

141

for Ecological and Technical Safety)

occupational health and safety worker health and safety

DPMDCH (Department on Preservation, Monitoring and Development of Cultural Heritage)

Supporting role in relation to protection of PCRs

Monitors contractor compliance with mitigation measures pertaining to PCRs

Reporting

369. Implementation of the EMP will be documented by the PIOs working closely with the DSC, ensuring proper compliance with all mitigation and monitoring measures specified in the EMP. The process of documentation will be guided by the framework provided by the EMP, and incorporate decisions coming from the application of the Grievance Redress Process. The PIO’s working with the contractors will assemble semi-annual monitoring information as defined in the EMP, which will then be incorporated into the semi-annual safeguards monitoring report to the ADB. Performance indicators specified in Table 59 above, as well as others that may be found appropriate in light of implementation experience will be tracked through these reports. Problems encountered should be included and directly addressed, as appropriate. The semi-annual implementation reports will also be presented to the SEE and Natural Resource Management Unit within SAEPF. Reporting during the operation period will be submitted directly to the SEE and Natural Resource Management Unit.

9.4 Institutional Capacity, Needs, and Proposed Strengthening 370. The reader is referred to Appendix 5: Institutional Development and Capacity Building Program for more detailed information and costing.

Existing Conditions

371. Although vodokanals provide basic WSS services in both the cities of Balykchy and Karakol, they face considerable difficulty in delivering reliable and sustainable WSS services, due primarily to limited institutional capacity, financial constraints and obsolete Soviet-era assets. Similar to many vodokanals of the region, they have become locked in a ‘vicious cycle’ of poor WSS service provision, reduced consumer confidence and willingness to pay, increased regulator reluctance to raise tariffs, leading back to funding limitations and poor WSS service provision. Overall, the WSS regulatory framework is relatively fragmented, regulatory compliance and oversight largely ineffective, and WSS sector planning capabilities weak. The vodokanals endure acute funding constraints for capital investments and operation and maintenance (O&M), exacerbated by low tariff levels, limited public funding, and a virtually absent private sector

372. Existing vodokanal limitations dramatically constrain wastewater service provision in the cities. Less than half of consumers in the cities are connected to centralized wastewater systems,55 with the balance being forced to dispose of wastewater through septic tanks and pit latrines. The wastewater systems are also severely dilapidated, having deteriorated since their construction that dates back to Soviet times, several decades ago.56 Up to half of pipeline networks in the cities need to be replaced. Institutionally, the vodokanals urgently require the necessary skills and resources to plan, operate and maintain viable and sustainable WSS utility services.

B. Improving Institutional and Technical Capacity

373. The TA outputs will support government’s ongoing WSS sector reforms by strengthening vodokanal management and operation capacity in the two cities of Balykchy and Karakol. Fully integrating with and supporting the activities of the PMO, to be established at the national level, the TA will build upon (i) ADB’s sector knowledge and experience, particularly its engagement in recent WSS reforms, (ii) international best practice in modern utility planning, management and operations, and (iii) a longer-term international twinning opportunity in order to provide continuity in knowledge transfer, learning and capacity strengthening.

55 The number of sewerage connections in Karakol and Balykchy is 7190 and 3325 respectively, which represents 45% and 35% of the

current population. 56 Although there is no condition survey of the collection network, it could be assumed that between 25-50% might need replacing in

Balykchy and perhaps 20-30% in Karakol.

142

374. Output 1: WSS institutional development program formulated and implemented for the vodokanals of Balykchy and Karakol in order to strengthen their mission, objectives, services, management structure, human resources, revenue base, tariff setting and financial management capabilities

375. Output 2: Vodokanal management and operational capacity strengthened in Balykchy and Karakol through completion of the following sector specific activities:

a. Development and implementation of three priority training modules for the vodokanals of Balykchy and Karakol, including for each module: (i) diagnostic assessment, (ii) formulation of appropriate methodological guidelines incorporating international best practices, (iii) training module formulation, (iv) piloting and refining of the module, and (v) initial training. The four training modules are:

i. Basic corporate knowledge: Including overall training in WSS system network management, geographic information systems, key performance indicators, billing systems, accountability, grievance redress mechanisms, public service contracts and energy efficiency. In general, this module will constitute an effective knowledge base on the performance management framework of WSS utilities.

ii. Operation and maintenance: Including training for asset management (including WWTPs), non-revenue water management, leakage detection and repair, and sludge and effluent management. The module will be developed using modern information communication technologies.

iii. Financial management and billing systems: Including training in utility financial management, budgeting, reporting, accounting and internal auditing, tariff setting and management, and progressive development of automated accounting systems based on government standards.

ii. International training tours envisioned to include (i) a basic corporate knowledge training tour for one senior oblast representative, and the vodokanal director and one senior personnel/commercial officer from each of the three vodokanals, (ii) an operation and maintenance training tour for the chief engineer and one deputy from each vodokanal, and (iii) a financial management and billing system training tour for the chief accountant and one deputy from each vodokanal. It is envisioned that the training tours would include visits to training institutes and relevant water utilities, in the United Kingdom, France, the People’s Republic of China or Korea

376. Output 3: Twinning arrangement with an international WSS knowledge-based facility operational, in order to provide long-term, knowledge-based support to the three vodokanals

9.5 Estimated Inputs

377. The estimated inputs for the implementation and monitoring of environmental and social safeguard tasks for the WWTPs’ component of the project are provided as three components: planning, construction and operations.

378. Planning (Pre-construction) Period. The EMP lists mitigation and monitoring actions to be implemented during the pre-construction period. The majority of these are basically reminders of specific design considerations to be included as the detailed designs of the three WWTPs and their layout are finalized. During this period, basic training in EMP implementation will be necessary for the three PIOs as well as the PMO. Some testing of the materials to be demolished and properly disposed of will also be needed, such as materials containing asbestos.

379. The DSC will also be responsible for assisting with the preparation of a materials demolition and disposal plan for the existing WWTPs, as well as an EMP work plan (but in close partnership with the contractor, prior to their mobilization), defining how and when construction period mitigation measures will be implemented, as well as integrating the EMP requirements into the construction contract documentation. The tasks defined for this period have a considerable overlap with the WWTP designers and project engineers. Therefore, a limited input is provided, assuming that the engineering budget will cover the design and site planning related items. The estimated inputs are therefore:

143

1. National Environmental Specialist: 21 person-months over 30-month duration, including training, compliance monitoring, plan preparation and other tasks.

2. International Environmental Specialist: 4 person-months for training, compliance monitoring, plan preparation and other tasks.

3. Travel and transport. 4. Testing and inventory (such as asbestos). 5. Analysis and reporting

380. Construction Period – The duration of the construction period will be about 30 months, with work going on simultaneously at two WWTPs. Identified environmental key issues include (i) demolition of the existing plants, (ii) disposal of wastes, (iii) management of sewage flows during construction, (iv) work camp and construction equipment operations, (v) occupational health and safety measures, and (vi) the overall management of construction related air quality, noise and surface water impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Contractors must have the necessary environmental and social safeguard skills in place to address and implement all tasks defined in the EMP, and also prepare their SEMP. A systematic monitoring program will follow this up, where, surface water quality and noise testing will be undertaken. Further, the two vodokanals responsible for the operation of the new facilities will need to establish environmental monitoring capacity, by retaining staff or ensuring that specialists are available, and actively participate in the compliance monitoring with the PIOs and the DSC. The estimated EMP implementation inputs for the 30 month construction period, including both national and international environmental specialist inputs, are estimated as follows.

1. National Environmental Specialist: 21 person-months over a 30 month duration, including

training, compliance monitoring, plan preparation and other tasks. 2. International Environmental Specialist: 4 person-months57 including training, compliance

monitoring, plan preparation and other tasks. 3. Travel and transport 4. Testing and inventory, 5. Analysis and reporting.

381. Operating Period. The EMP lists only 16 mitigation and monitoring actions for this period, which is estimated to be 3 years but with only a short period to collect data, inspect facilities and report results. However, these tasks involve the collection of field data and reporting on the appropriate operations of the WWTPs, including proper wastewater treatment to meet design specifications, nutrient load reduction, microbial degradation, and sludge management. It will be the responsibility of the two vodokanals to undertake this monitoring function (beyond the standard operating procedures) and report the results.

9.6 Environmental Management Budget 382. Most of the mitigation measures require the contractors to adopt good site practice, which should be part of their normal construction contract, so there are no additional costs to be included in the EMP. Costs of design-related mitigation measures are included in the budgets for the civil works. 383. The ambient air quality monitoring and noise monitoring to be conducted by the contractor during construction will be additional, and therefore shown here. Long-term surveys such as source water quality and treated water quality supplies to consumers will be conducted by in-house laboratory and as per the government regulations. 384. Following Table 61 shows the environmental management costs of this project. Table 61: Environmental Management Costs

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Implementation of EMP US$ US$

57 International assigned 2 months in first year for projects set up, setting up monitoring programmes, checking contractor SEMP and setting up reporting templates for the National ES.

144

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

International Environmental Specialist 4 person-month/ 30 months

14,000 56,000

National Environmental Specialist 21 person-month/ 30 months

2,500 52,500

Common Sea Buckthorn Planting 3750 pieces x 2 0.8 5,500

Others (travel, per diem, surveys / interviews, reporting, etc.)

General expenses

20,000

Environmental monitoring

6 months per year, 8* locations (air), 2,5 (years)** 24 500*** 12,000

6 months per year, 4* locations (water quality), 2,5 (years)**

12 800*** 9,600

6 months per year, 8* locations (noise-vibration), 2,5 (years)**

24 500*** 12,000

6 months per year, 4* locations (influent and effluent quality), 3 (years)**

12 800*** 9,600

TOTAL 177,200.00 * - the number of locations and measurements can vary ** - 2,5 years of physical work *** - the cost of laboratory services may vary

145

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Conclusions

385. This IEE has examined the potential impacts of the wastewater management component of the project, which proposes solutions to inadequacies in sewage treatment in two of the main towns of the Issyk-Kul basin. This final chapter of the report reviews the findings of the assessment and puts forward recommendations concerning further steps towards Project implementation.

386. The assessment has concluded that the likely positive environmental and social impacts of the Project are considerable, and help to address a genuine and significant need. It is clear that virtually none of the wastewater currently generated in Balykchy and Karakol is adequately managed, and is instead released directly to the environment. Well over half is deposited in pit latrines and septic systems, resulting in concentrated loadings in soils, surface water and groundwater, especially in densely populated localities. Unregulated dumping of the contents of septic tanks and latrines by operators of septic pump-out trucks further spreads nutrients and pathogens. The wastewater that is actually collected by sewerage systems and pumped to treatment facilities receives almost no treatment, and is dispersed into the environment as direct runoff and irrigation water.

387. The selected Alternative for the Project will:

a. Develop WWTPs that utilize an IDEAL technology to produce effluent that meets international standards for effluent quality in Balykchy and Karakol;

b. Expand the sewerage networks in Balykchy and Karakol; and c. Improve septage management processes and provide additional septage collection vehicles.

388. A further element of the Selected Alternative will be the strengthening of the vodokanals that will operate the sewerage system and wastewater treatment facilities.

389. By expanding the collection of wastewater in Balykchy and Karakol, and installing effective WWTPs to treat what is collected, the Project will significantly reduce the amounts of nutrients, pathogenic elements, and contaminants released to the local environment. The follow-on impacts of this reduction in wastewater discharges will include reduced risk of eutrophication in Issyk-Kul Lake, whose natural amenity values are the country’s largest tourist attraction and the basis of a growing tourism industry, and reduced threats to human health from pathogens present in domestic wastewater and currently spread around by their use in irrigation and release to surface waters. By generating a clean and expanded source of irrigation water and a safe, beneficial soil amendment, the Project will provide a welcome boost to local agriculture, still among the region’s most important economic activities. Benefits such as these are of considerable importance in a region much in need of sustainable economic and social development, and far outweigh negative impacts during construction.

390. No unavoidably severe or permanent negative impacts are likely to arise from project activities, provided appropriate mitigation measures are applied in a timely and competent fashion. The generally low expected incidence of impacts is due in part to the fact that virtually all Project activities will be carried out within existing WWTP sites or within public rights-of-way, with no conversion of land from other uses, and with the enforcement of the SPZs to provide a protective barrier around the WWTPs and the Pristan pump station.

391. On balance, the potential positive impacts of the Project greatly outweigh the potential negative ones, and this should hold true as long as appropriate mitigation of negative impacts is undertaken. To ensure that this happens, an EMP has been developed to specify appropriate mitigation measures for each individual Project impact, with the timing of implementation indicated and responsibility assigned. The measures included in the EMP cover the entire Project life cycle, from detailed design and construction planning through the eventual end of the operation period. The EMP also specifies responsibility for monitoring the implementation of each mitigation action, to ensure that all are put properly in place when needed, and that implementation problems can be addressed as they arise.

146

10.2 Recommendations

392. In view of the impact balance discussed above, as well as the importance of effective mitigation and capacity building, this IEE report concludes with the following recommendations:

a. The Project should be implemented, because it is needed and can be expected to make an overwhelmingly positive contribution to environmental quality, public health, and social and economic development in the Issyk-Kul basin.

b. All measures in the EMP, should be fully implemented in a competent and timely manner to ensure that the Project realizes its positive potential.

c. The institutional capacity building elements of the Project should be pursued with special vigor to ensure the long-term sustainability of the infrastructure and environmental management systems put in place.

d. The technical capacity building should parallel the institutional strengthening, with a focus on environmental monitoring, data management analysis and information sharing.

147

REFERENCES ADB (2009a): Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project, Kyrgyz Republic. ADB TA No. 7228 KGZ, Volume 2: Environmental Impact Assessment.

ADB (2009b): Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project, Kyrgyz Republic. ADB TA No. 7228 KGZ, Volume 5: Strategic Environmental Plan.

ADB (2009c): Safeguard Policy Statement. ADB Policy Paper, June 2009.

ADB (2014a): Conceptual Design for the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Process. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC), Working Paper 11.

ADB (2014b): Field Survey of Industrial Discharges to the Sewerage Systems & Inventory of Existing Sewage Treatment Facilities. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC), Working Paper 8/10.

ADB (2014c): Financial and Economic Analysis of the Proposed Urban Infrastructure. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC), Working Paper 13/14.

ADB (2014d): Initial Environmental Examination, Darkhan Wastewater Management Project. Prepared by Construction and Urban Development of Mongolia, 2014.

ADB (2014e): Outline Sludge Disposal Strategy. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC), Working Paper 12.

ADB (2014f): Project Data Sheet for Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project 41548-013. Update as of 23 Jan 2014.

ADB (2014g): Sewerage System in Cholpon-Ata – Inventory and Improvement. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC), Working Paper 7/9.

ADB (2014h): Biodiversity Study of WWTP and Solid Waste Management Project Sites. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC), Working Paper 16B

ADB (2014i): Archeological Study of the project sites. Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC),.EIA Annex Volume, Appendix 5.

ADB (2014j): Stakeholder and Communication Awareness Strategy (draft Working Paper No. 2). Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design Consultancy (FSDC)

ADB (2015a) Environmental Impact Assessment for Improvement of Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment Systems in the Issyk-Kul basin towns of Balykchy, Cholpon-Ata and Karakol (AKA working Paper 16A) (June 2015). Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design

ADB (2015b) Feasibility Study: Improvement of Sewerage Network in Cholpon Ata (Sept 2015). Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project Phase II Feasibility Study and Design.

Aladin, N. and I. Plotnikov (1993): Large saline lakes of former USSR: a summary review Hydrobiologia 267:1-12.

Alamanov, A. and H. Mikkola (2011): Is Biodiversity Friendly Fisheries Management Possible in Issyk-Kul Lake in the Kyrgyz Repulic? Ambio 40(5): 479-495.

Atlas of Kyrgyz SSR (1987). Volume 1: Natural features and resources. Moscow.

Baetov, R. (2005): Lake Issyk-Kul: Experience and Lesson Learned. World Bank.

BirdLife International (2014a): Important Bird Areas factsheets: Eastern Issyk Kul Lake. Internet. <http://www.birdlife.org>.

BirdLife International (2014b): Important Bird Areas factsheet: Western Issyk Kul Lake. Internet. <http://wwwbirdlife.org>.

Bowman, D., A. Korjenkov, and N. Porat (2004): Late-Pleistocene seismites from Lake Issyk-Kul, the Tien Shan Range, Kyrghyzstan. Sedimentary Geology 163(3): 211-228.

148

Bosch, Reiks et al. 2013. Guideline for Management of Steppe Pastures.Allowance for land Users. Birdlife International and Ukranian Soc. For the Protection of Birds and EU. 103 pg.

CAC Consulting (2014): Draft report on the work performed under the project Improvement of Solid Waste Dumpsites (DSs) and Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs), Balykchy, Cholpon-Ata, Karakol.

Dodds, W., W. Bouska, J. Eitzmann, T. Pilger, K. Pitts, A. Riley, J. Schloesser and D. Thornbrugh (2009): Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Anaysis of Potential Economic Damages. Environmental Science and Technology 43(1): 12-19.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2011): Environmental Impact Assessment Policy and Process for Aquaculture in the Kyrgyz Republic. FAO Project Support to Fishery and Aquaculture Management in the Kyrgyz Republic. GCP/KYR/003/FIN.

GKR (2009): Joint Project Document: Enhancing coordination for disaster preparedness andresponse in the Kyrgyz Republic (2010-2012).Government of the Kyrgyz Republic and United Nations Country Team in the Kyrgyz Republic.

GKR (Government of the Kyrgyz Republic) (1997): Instructions on Environmental Impact Assessment Performance Procedures in the Kyrgyz Republic, Ministry of Justice Kyrgyz Republic July 4, 1997 Index 386.

Harder, T., V. Toropova, V. Eremchenko, S. Kulagin, L. Kustareva, S. Fletcher, and C. Sagymbaev, eds. (2010): Wildlife of Kyrgyzstan. List of vertebrate animals occurring in the Kyrgyz Republic in four languages. Editors:. www.wildlife.kg.

ILO (International Labor Organization) (2008). Occupational Safety and Health in the Kyrgyz Republic - National Profile. International Labour Organization, Moscow Subregional Office.

IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2012): Kyrgyz Republic: Medium-Term Development Program—Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. IMF Country Report No. 12/112.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2014): IUCN Protected Areas Categories System. Internet. <http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/>.

Kulagin S., A. Ostaschenko, S. Sagynbaev, and A. Akhmedova (2007): Monitoring of wintering waterfowls and shore birds on Issyk-Kul Lake and other water reservoirs of Kyrgyzstan. Selevinia.

Kulagin, S., and others (1999): Nature Monitoring of Issyk-Kul Strict Nature Reserve. Report.

Kulenbekov, Z. and B. Merkel (2012): Investigation of the natural uranium content in the Issyk-Kul Lake, Kyrgyzstan. Freiberg Online Geoscience 12(33): 3-45.

Merkel, Broder (ed). 2012. Issyk Kul Lake Kyrgyzstan. Compendium of Four Papers Addressing Issyk Kul Water Resources. Freiberg Online Geology Pub. ISSN 1434-7512 VOL 33;145 pg.

http://tu-freiberg.de/sites/default/files/media/institut-fuer-geologie-718/pdf/fog_volume_33.pdf

Mikkola, H. (2012): Implication of Alien Species Introduction to Loss of Fish Biodiversity and Livelihoods on Issyk-Kul Lake in Kyrgyzstan. In G.A. Lameed, ed. Biodiversity Enrichment in a Diverse World. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. pp. 395-420.

Milko, D. A. (2006). Issyk-Kul State Nature Reserve: Biological Features and History of Biological Investigations. In Strict Nature Reserves of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan. (Ed.-in-chief R. V. Jashenko). - Tethys, Almaty - pp. 138-147. In Russian language.

MOE-Ministry of Environment et al.2007. Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook. Government of Ontario, Canada publication: http://www.ontario.ca/document/lakeshore-capacity-assessment-handbook-protecting-water-quality-inland-lakes-ontarios-precambrian

NCSD (National Council for Sustainable Development) (2013): National Sustainable Development Strategy for the Kyrgyz Republic, for the period of 2013-2017. National Council for Sustainable Development of the Kyrgyz Republic.

NSC (National Statistical Committee) (2014): Socio-Economic Situation of the Kyrgyz Republic. National Statistical Committee, Bishkek.

NSC (2013a): Demographic Yearbook, 2008 – 2012. National Statistical Committee, Bishkek.

149

NSC (2013b): Kyrgyzstan in Numbers. National Statistical Committee, Bishkek (in Kyrgyz and Russian).

NSC (2010): Population Census, 2009, Book III: Regions of Kyrgyzstan - Issyk Kul Oblast. National Statistical Committee, Bishkek.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2013): Improving the Use of Economic Instruments for Water Resource Management in Kyrgyzstan: the Case of Lake Issyk-Kul Basin.

Pretty, J., C. Mason, D. Nedwell, R. Hine, S. Leaf and R. Dils (2003): Environmental Costs of Freshwater Eutrophication in England and Wales. Environmental Science and Technology 37(2): 201-208.

SAEPF (State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry) (2009): Second National Communication of the Kyrgyz Republic to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry Bishkek. ISBN 978-997-25-326-1.

Savvaitova, K. and T. Petr (1999): Fish and Fisheries in Lake Issyk-Kul (Tien Shan), River Chu and Pamir Lakes. In T. Petr, ed. Fish and Fisheries at Higher Altitudes: Asia Issue 385:168-186.

SYKE (The Finish Environment Institute).2015. Programme for Finland’s Water Sector support to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistean-FinWaterWEI II- http://water.nature.gov.kg/index.php/en/finwaterwei –ii-2014-2015

Thurman, Michael (2011): Natural Disaster Risks in Central Asia: A Synthesis. UNDP/BCPR, Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Advisor, Europe and CIS.

UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (2007a): Kyrgyzstan: Environment and Natural Resources for Sustainable Development. Bishkek.

UNDP (2007b): Strengthening policy and regulatory framework for mainstreaming biodiversity into fishery sector. UNDP-GEF Project Document.

UNDP (2014): Disaster Risk Management in Kyrgyzstan: Effective DRM for Sustainable Human Development and Security. Internet. <http://undp.akvoapp.org/en/project/679/>.

UNISDR (United Nations Institute for Social Development Research) (2007): In-depth Review of Disaster Risk Reduction in the Kyrgyz Republic.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2002). Use of Composting for Biosolids Management. Biosolids Technology Factsheet.

US EPA (2000): Land Application of Biosolids. Biosolids Technology Factsheet. EPA 832-F-00-064.

Voskresenskaya, T. (1983): To the history of the lake reservoir in the Issyk-Kul depression and its evolution in the Cenozoic. Geomophologic and Lake Hydro-Meteorologic Studies of the Coastal Zone of the Issyk-Kul. Ilim Publishers, Frunze. pp. 65-71.

World Bank (2014): Data (Kyrgyz Republic). Internet. <data.worldbank.org/country/kyrgyz-republic>.

World Bank (2013): The Kyrgyz Republic Country Programme Update. Global Facility for Disaster Risk and Reduction. Internet. <https://www.gfdrr.org/CountryPrograms>.

World Bank (2011): Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profile: the Kyrgyz Republic. Global Facility for Disaster Risk and Reduction.

WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) (2013): Economic Data Search Tool. Internet. <http://www.wttc.org/focus/research-for-action/economic-data-search-tool/>.

Wunderlich, J. (2014). Potential for strengthening the coverage of the core zone of Biosphere Reserve Issyk-Kul. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/deskstudy_biosphere_reserve_issyk-kul_potential_expansion_bf_0.pdf, Downloaded April 1, 2015

Yessekin, B., M. Barlibaev, V. Bogachev, E. Kreuzberg, V. Sadomsky and V. Sokolov, eds (2006): Conserving Ecosystems of Inland Water Bodies in Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus. Almaty: The Central Asian Regional Ecological Center.

150

Annex 1

SUPPLEMENTARY BASELINE MONITORING

ISSYK-KUL TERRITORIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE AGENCY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTCTION AND FORESTRY UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

THE LABORATORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

722100, Cholpon-Ata, 2 Sovetskaya street Tel/Fax(03943) 62618

1. THE PROTOCOL

ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES

№ 21 -23

1. The name of the enterprise, the organization – “Vodokanal” Enterprise Balykchy

2. Sampling: WWTP - Inflow (stilling basin) №21, after Primary Settling Pond №22, outflow from

Biopond №23

3. Purpose of sampling: control on operation of WWTP

4. Sampled by: O.A. Shestova, A.R. Rysbekova

5. Date and time of sampling: 21.04.2017.

6. Date (s) of the test: 21.04.2017г. - 03.05.2017

Item Unit

Analysis findings at sampling points

MAC

% of treated

Regulatory Document

21 22 23

Temperature C0 11 11,5 14,5 CMEA p.1 M.1977

pH рН Units

6,59 6,94 7,57 6,5-8,5 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Transparency cm CMEA p.1 M.1977

Total Suspended Solids Mg / l 118 62 57 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Total Dissolved Solids Mg / l 525 548 381 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Water color index Degree CMEA p.1 M.1977

Dissolved Oxygen

CMEA p.1 M.1977

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

MgO / l 76,75 83,78 35,06 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Permanganate oxidability

MgO / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

MgO / l 135, 8 150,4

59,30 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Ammonium Mg / l 20,52 22,4 6,78 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nitrite Mg / l 0,09 0,15 0,21 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nitrates Mg / l 7,09 2,75 11,16 CMEA p.1 M.1977

151

Chlorides Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Sulphates Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Water hardness Mg-eq / l

CMEA p.1 M.1977

Anionic synthetic detergents

Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Ether extracted / Oil products

Mg / l

8

4,5 2,0 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Iron Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Copper Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Zinc Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chrome Total Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chrome 3-valence. Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chrome 6-valence. Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Alkalinity (CaCO3 mg / l )

Mg / l 300 275 180 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Phosphorus Mg / l 2,9 3,7 1,7 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Cadmium Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Lead Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nickel Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Aluminium Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nitrogen Mg / l 11,5 12,0 9,1 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0,821 0,856 0,595 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Note: CMEA - Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. p. - Part. M- Moscow 1977

Conclusion:

The Leading specialist of the Natural Use Division

(SEE -The State Environmental Expertise and “M” - Monitoring) O.A. Shestova

152

ISSYK-KUL TERRITORIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE AGENCY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTCTION AND FORESTRY UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

THE LABORATORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

722100, Cholpon-Ata, 2 Sovetskaya street Tel/Fax(03943) 62618

2. THE PROTOCOL

ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES

№ 28 -31

1. The name of the enterprise, the organization – “Vodokanal” Enterprise Karakol

2. Sampling: WWTP - Inflow №28 (Suction chamber), after Secondary Settling Tank №30 (Contact

Chamber), outflow from Biopond №31

3. Purpose of sampling: control on operation of WWTP

4. Sampled by: O.A. Shestova, A.R. Rysbekova, A.Z. Usupbaeva

5. Date and time of sampling: 24.04.2017

6. Date (s) of the test: 24.04.2017г. - 05.05.2017

Item Unit

Analysis findings at sampling points

MAC

% of treated

Regulatory Document

21 22 23

Temperature C0 9,8 10,5 12 CMEA p.1 M.1977

pH рН Units

7,19 6,91 7,12 6,5-8,5 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Transparency cm CMEA p.1 M.1977

Total Suspended Solids Mg / l 76 75 22 72,7 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Total Dissolved Solids Mg / l 348 373 353 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Water color index Degree CMEA p.1 M.1977

Dissolved Oxygen

CMEA p.1 M.1977

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

MgO / l 109,6 86,9 49,5 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Permanganate oxidability MgO / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

MgO / l 184,0 176,3 80,2 CMEA p.1 M.1977

153

Ammonium Mg / l 13,7 11,3 11,6 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nitrite Mg / l 0,195 0,15 0,1 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nitrates Mg / l 4,16 4,47 2,61 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chlorides Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Sulphates Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Water hardness Mg-eq / l

CMEA p.1 M.1977

Anionic synthetic detergents Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Ether extracted / Oil products Mg / l 19,5 14,0 2,5 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Iron Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Copper Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Zinc Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chrome Total Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chrome 3-valence. Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Chrome 6-valence. Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Alkalinity (CaCO3 mg / l ) Mg / l 175 165 170 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Phosphorus Mg / l 2,6 3,7 2,8 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Cadmium Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Lead Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nickel Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Aluminium Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

Nitrogen Mg / l 12,7 15,6 14,0 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0,538 0,583 0,552 CMEA p.1 M.1977

Note: CMEA - Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. p. - Part. M- Moscow 1977

Conclusion:

The Leading specialist of the Natural Use Division

(SEE -The State Environmental Expertise and “M” - Monitoring) O.A. Shestova

154

Annex 2

BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS

Environmental survey of the

sewage treatment facilities

in Balykchy and Karakol cities 8-9 June, 2017

Ecological movement «Aleyne plus»

Bishkek – 2017

155

Content

Introduction 3

Methodology 3

Sewage treatment facilities in Balykchy 4

Site 1 4

Site 2 6

Site 3 7

Sewage treatment facilities in Karakol 8

Site 4 8

Site 5 10

Site 6 12

Conclusion 13

Recommendations 15

References and resources 15

Attachments 16

156

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this work is to conduct an ecological study of the site, on the territory of sewage

treatment facilities (STF) in Balykchy and Karakol cities, and a separate section of Karakol STF – the

basin of seasonal regulation in Issyk-Kul oblast, which are to be reconstructed within the framework of

implementation of the second phase of the project on “Sustainable Development of Issyk-Kul”. The

project is implemented on behalf of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, the executor is a

corporation Global Works Incorporated, which is contracted to carry out works with the Asian

Development Bank. As the basis for the environmental study was the appeal on behalf of the

corporation Global Works Incorporated. To ascertain the presence or absence of rare and endangered

species of animals on site, a visual inspection was carried out using GPS fixation.

METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY

Environmental survey was carried out on unlimited width transect every 50 meters. The main objects

of observation were birds, since the most visible and available for identification and counting. Mammals

and reptiles are noted by the traces of activity and published sources. The methods of visual inspection

of the territory were also applied, routes were laid to cover the largest area, GPS-localization of the

route, outlines of the sites and identified objects, as well as other features of the surrounding landscape

is conducted. Cartographic and Internet resources were used as additional materials and sources.

The presented space images contain the following information: the red line indicates the boundaries of

the surveyed areas, the yellow line indicates the transect with fixed indications of the beginning and the

end of the route, green line is the direction of orientation of the objects to the sides of the world.

157

Sewage treatment facilities (STF) in Balykchy

The survey was conducted on July 8, 2017. Identification of birds and other animals was carried out on

a transect of unlimited width every 50 meters. The total length of transects at all sites was 1600 m. In

addition to accounting routes, birds were recorded within the 100 m zone around the sites. Mammals

were noted by the traces of activity: burrows, feces, regurgitations. Reptiles are associated with

characteristic habitats. In total, 18 species of birds, 6 species of mammals and 2 species of reptiles

were recorded.

Climatic features of the terrain impose an imprint on the nature of the vegetation and the composition

of the living animals. Vegetation is represented by typical representatives of semi-desert plant

communities growing in conditions of insufficient moisture. The main representatives of such

communities in this territory are: Ericaceae, Achnatherum, Artemisia, Ephedra, from shrubs - Caragana.

STF territory (Site 1, primary treatment)

Figure 1. The territory of the site 1

GPS coordinates:

Start: 42°27'21.0"N, 76°06'43.1"E

End: 42°27'21.4"N, 76°06'56.9"E

Site 1 is located in a well-defined semi-desert landscape with a characteristic type of vegetation:

Ericaceae, Peganum, Ephedra, Artemisia, Sisymbrium, etc. They do not form a continuous cover and

grow in small clumps on sandy-stony ground. Directly on the site there are artificial plantings:

Elaeagnus, Ulmus for more decorative purposes.

The site is an engineering facility on which primary sewage treatment is carried out: pumping complex,

aeration tanks, transformer station.

158

Species diversity of terrestrial vertebrates is small and consists of inhabitants of adjoining territories.

Birds, as the most notable, are represented more widely than other vertebrates (Tables 1, 2). The

buildings on the territory of the Site serve as shelters and nesting places for the Columba livia and the

Passer montanus, the characteristic representatives of the synanthropic birds. The rests fly from the

adjacent territories for feeding and rest.

Table 1 – Diversity of birds on the surveyed territory

# Latin name of the

species English name of the

species Russian name of the

species Amount of individuals

1 Columba livia Rock pigeon Голубь сизый 12

2 Motacilla personata Masked wagtail Трясогузка маскированная 2

3 Passer montanus Eurasian tree sparrow Воробей полевой 30

4 Pica pica Black-billed Magpie Сорока 1

5 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 2

6 Upupa epops Common Hoopoe Удод 1

Table 2 – Diversity of birds on adjacent territory (100 m)

# Latin name of the

species English name of the

species Russian name of the

species Amount of individuals

1 Corvus corone Carrion Crow Черная ворона 2

2 Emberiza bruniceps Red-headed Bunting Желчная овсянка 1

3 Falco tinnunculus Common Kestrel Пустельга 1

4 Oenanthe oenanthe Northern Wheatear Каменка обыкновенная 2

5 Phasianus colchicus Common Pheasant Фазан 1 male

6* Crex crex Corncrake Коростель 1

* Species, included into the Red Book of the Kyrgyz Republic

On the territory adjacent to the site Crex crex has been noted (Figure 2). This species is included in the Red Book of the Kyrgyz Republic. And its presence gives a special status to the project on the rehabilitation of sewage treatment facilities with the development of special protective measures in case of disruption of the Crex crex habitat.

Figure 2. Crex crex (photo from Internet)

159

Silt settler (Site 2) Figure 3. Silt settler (Site 2)

GPS coordinates:

Start: 42°27'08.8"N 76°06'41.1"E

End: 42°27'00.3"N 76°06'40.8"E

Site 2 is also located in a semi-desert area with a rather scarce vegetation. On the eastern side meadow communities adjoin, confined to wet lowlands, formed by the silted sleeves of the river Chu. To representatives of vegetation of the previous site it is possible to add Achnatherum and Caragana. Caragana forms quite large thickets, intermixed with Achnatherum.

Silt settlers are a kind of ponds formed by shafts from sandy-stony soils, forming bridges between the settlers.

The population of vertebrates is more diverse, which is explained by the proximity of meadow communities and the influence of the Chu River (Table 3). The burrows of the Meriones tamariscinus are found. Besides, in this area probably Hemiechinus auritus and Lepus tolai inhabit. From the reptiles, the presence of Lacerta agilis and Eremias arguta is noted.

Table 3. Diversity of animals on the surveyed territory

# Latin name of the

species

English name of the

species

Russian name of the

species

Amount of

individuals

Birds

1 Alauda arvensis Eurasian Skylark Полевой жаворонок 6

2 Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Болотная сова Traces

3 Circus aeruginosus Eurasian Marsh Harrier Болотный лунь 1 female

4 Corvus corone Carrion Crow Черная ворона 3

5 Emberiza calandra Corn Bunting Просянка 13

6 Lanius isabellinus Rufous-tailed Shrike Сорокопут рыжехвостый 3

160

# Latin name of the

species

English name of the

species

Russian name of the

species

Amount of

individuals

7 Motacilla personata Masked wagtail Трясогузка

маскированная

2

8 Pica pica Black-billed Magpie Сорока 2

9 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 6

10 Upupa epops Common Hoopoe Удод 1

Mammals

1 Meriones tamariscinus Tamarisk Jird Песчанка гребенщиковая Traces

2 Hemiechinus auritus Long-eared Hedgehog Ушастый еж Traces

3 Lepus tolai Tolai Hare Заяц-толай Traces

Reptiles

1 Lacerta agilis Sand Lizard Прыткая ящерица Traces

2 Eremias arguta Steppe-runner Разноцветная ящурка Traces

Biological ponds (Site 3)

Figure 4. Biological ponds (Site 3)

161

GPS coordinates:

Start: 42°27'02.3"N, 76°06'31.7"E

End: 42°27'10.9"N, 76°06'31.3"E

The Site is also located in a semi-desert landscape with characteristic vegetation. In addition to it, taking

into account sufficient moisture, there is also near-water vegetation: Phragmites, Mentha piperita, Salix

etc. Phragmites, Mentha piperita, Salix etc. grow near the water. On the crest of the shafts separating

the ponds, the Caragana forms almost continuous complexes, intermixed with Achnatherum.

Ponds are separated by high shafts of sand and pebble soil. Each of the ponds is filled with waste water

of different degree of purification.

The fauna is represented by water-waterfowl species of birds, such as Sterna hirundo, Tadorna

ferruginea, Anas querquedula, Anas clypeata, Tringa totanus, etc., and one mammal species - Ondatra

zibethicus (Table 4).

Table 4. Diversity of animals on the surveyed territory

# Latin name of the

species

English name of the

species

Russian name of the

species

Amount of

individuals

Birds

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Широконоска 2

2 Anas querquedula Garganey Чирок-трескунок 2

3 Larus ridibundus Black-headed Gull Чайка озерная 10

4 Pica pica Black-billed Magpie Сорока 3

5 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 32

6 Sterna hirundo Common Tern Крачка речная 1

7 Tadorna ferruginea Ruddy Shelduck Огарь 2

8 Tringa totanus Common Redshank Травник 1

Mammals

1 Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Ондатра 1

Sewage treatment facilities in Karakol

Karakol is located in the eastern part of the Issyk-Kul basin. This area is characterized by a significantly

higher moisture content than the western part, which provides a variety of vegetation. The objects of

research are located among deciduous shrubs in the floodplain of a small river. The study was carried

out on June 9, 2017. In all, 26 species of birds belonging to various ecological groups were recorded at

the sites: water- near water, open spaces, bushes, and synanthropic ones. At the STF of Karakol city

the presence of mammals and reptiles, as well as in Balykchy, is noted by the traces of life activity. The

total length of the survey route is about 800 m.

162

Sewage treatment facilities (Site 4)

Figure 5. Sewage treatment facilities (Site 4)

GPS coordinates:

Start: 42°32'12.4"N, 78°21'57.9"E

End: 42°32'16.4"N, 78°21'50.4"E

The treatment facilities are a complex of engineering structures for primary sewage treatment in the city

of Karakol: a pumping station, aerotanks, a transformer substation, a laboratory. Pigeons and sparrows

use some of these buildings for nesting and as shelter.

Biodiversity is characterized by the presence of natural plants and artificial plantations. The presence

of deciduous shrubs is the main difference between the eastern Issyk-Kul and the western. The territory

of Site 4 has features of parkland plantations, since it is formed by cultivated species of trees. These

are: trees - Ulmus parvifolia and Ulmus macrophylla, Elaeagnus commutata, Populus pyramidalis,

Pinus pallassiana and P.sibirica, Salix. In addition, shrubs also grow - Hippophae, Rosa, Berberidaceae,

Cornus; Herbaceous plants - Artemisia, Poaceae, etc.

The most representative group of vertebrate animals are birds. The composition of the bird population

is mixed. There are birds of water-waterfowl communities, birds of open spaces and inhabitants of

shrubs and trees (Table 5).

Table 5. Diversity of birds on the surveyed territory

# Latin name of the

species

English name of the

species

Russian name of the

species

Amount of

individuals

1 Carpodacus erythrinus Common Rosefinch Обыкновенная чечевица 1

2 Columba livia Rock pigeon Голубь сизый 50

3 Columba palumbus Common Wood Pigeon Вяхирь 1

4 Corvus frugilegus Rook Грач 50

5 Corvus monedula Eurasian Jackdaw Галка 3

6 Larus ridibundus Black-headed Gull Озерная чайка 14

7 Milvus migrans Black Kite Черный коршун 1

163

8 Motacilla personata Masked wagtail Трясогузка

маскированная

2

9 Passer montanus Eurasian tree sparrow Воробей полевой 3

10 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 1

11 Sterna hirundo Common Tern Крачка речная 1

12 Streptopelia orientalis Oriental Turtle Dove Большая горлица 2

13 Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Обыкновенный скворец 4

14 Sylvia communis Greater Whitethroat Серая славка 3

15 Upupa epops Common Hoopoe Удод 2

Biological ponds and Silt settler (Site 5)

Figure 6. Biological ponds and Silt settler (Site 5)

GPS coordinates:

Start: 42°32'17.7"N, 78°21'49.3"E

End: 42°32'21.7"N, 78°21'57.7"E

As engineering structures, ponds are excavated reservoirs with loose sides, and silt settlers are

elongated cells with concrete partitions. Only one of the ponds is empty. In the remaining ponds there

is wastewater of different degree of purification.

By species diversity of plants the Site 5 practically does not differ from Site 4, since forms a single

complex with it. Several species of plants confined to wet habitats are added. These are: Typha, Carex,

Mentha piperita, Polygonum. The main species of woody plantations is Elaeagnus commutata, growing

along the banks of biological ponds.

164

The population of terrestrial vertebrates is mainly represented by birds, which also constitute complexes

of water-surrounding and inhabiting trees and shrubs (Table 6). In the reservoir with the clearest water,

the presence of the frog and muskrat is noted, which indicates the quality of the cleaning. Since it was

not possible to catch a specimen of the frog for identification, its species affiliation is not clear. This can

equally be the Rana asiatica (Figure 7), and the Pelophylax ridibundus. The probable presence of the

Rana asiatica gives a special status to the project on the rehabilitation of sewage treatment facilities

with the development of special protective measures in case of disturbance of its habitats

Table 6. Diversity of animals on the surveyed territory

* Species, included in Red Book of the Kyrgyz Republic

# Latin name of the

species

English name of the

species

Russian name of the

species

Amount of

individuals

Birds

1 Fulica atra Common Coot Лысуха 3

2 Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Камышница 1

3 Larus ridibundus Black-headed Gull Озерная чайка 13

4 Milvus migrans Black Kite Черный коршун 1

5 Motacilla personata Masked wagtail Трясогузка

маскированная

2

6 Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night Heron Кваква 1

7 Parus bokharensis Turkestan Tit Серая синица 1

8 Passer domesticus House Sparrow Домовый воробей 3

9 Pica pica Black-billed Magpie Сорока 3

10 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 1

11 Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Обыкновенный скворец 1

12 Turdus merula Black bird Черный дрозд 2

Amphibia

1 Rana sp

Rana asiatica *(?)

Pelophylax ridibundus (?)

Frog sp Лягушка sp

Mammals

1 Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Ондатра

165

Figure 7. Rana asiatica *

166

Reservoir of the seasonal regulation (Site 6)

Figure 8. Reservoir of the seasonal regulation (Site 6)

GPS coordinates: 42°33'18.7"N, 78°20'42.1"E

This reservoir is located in a few kilometers from the main treatment facilities and is a floodplain area

enclosed by a sand dyke. Here the sewage passes through the final cleaning stage and is used to

irrigate the surrounding gardens and other cultural landings.

A small number of plants grow on sandy soils, such as: Achnatherum, Caragana, Leguminosae,

Artemisia - representatives of steppe communities. On the banks of the reservoir water plants grow:

Carex, Typha, Phragmites, Mentha piperita, Polygonum, etc.

The fauna is represented by water-waterfowl birds (Table 7). A water mirror serves as an attractant for

them.

167

Table 7. Diversity of animals on the surveyed territory

Conclusion

The vegetation and fauna of the surveyed areas have the features of surrounding landscapes. In the western part - semideserts, in the eastern - steppes and shrubs. Totally 4 species of mammals, 40 species of birds, 2 species of reptiles and 1 species of amphibians are identified (Table 8), representing various ecological groups.

Table 8. Summary table

# Latin name English name Russian name Balykchy Karakol

i ii iii i ii iii

Birds

1 Alauda arvensis Eurasian Skylark Полевой жаворонок 6

2 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Широконоска 2 50±5

3 Anas querquedula Garganey Чирок-трескунок 2 10

4 Ardea cinerea Grey Heron Серая цапля 1

5 Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Болотная сова Traces

6 Aythya ferina Common Pochard Красноголовый

нырок

40±5

7 Carpodacus

erythrinus

Common

Rosefinch

Обыкновенная

чечевица

1

8 Charadrius

hiaticula

Common Ringed

Plover

Галстучник 10

9 Circus

aeruginosus

Eurasian Marsh

Harrier

Болотный лунь 1

10 Columba livia Rock pigeon Голубь сизый 12 50

11 Columba

palumbus

Common Wood

Pigeon

Вяхирь 1

12 Corvus corone Carrion Crow Черная ворона 3

13 Corvus frugilegus Rook Грач 50

14 Corvus monedula Eurasian Jackdaw Галка 3

15 Emberiza

calandra

Corn Bunting Просянка 13

16 Fulica atra Common Coot Лысуха 3 100±10

# Latin name of the

species

English name of the

species

Russian name of the

species

Amount of

individuals

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Широконоска 50±5

2 Anas querquedula Garganey Чирок-трескунок 10

3 Ardea cinerea Grey Heron Серая цапля 1

4 Aythya ferina Common Pochard Красноголовый нырок 40±5

5 Charadrius hiaticula Common Ringed Plover Галстучник 10

6 Fulica atra Common Coot Лысуха 100±10

7 Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Ходулочник 5

8 Larus ridibundus Black-headed Gull Озерная чайка 23

9 Milvus migrans Black Kite Черный коршун 5

10 Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe Большая поганка 1

11 Rallus aquaticus Water Rail Пастушок 1

12 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 10±5

13 Tadorna ferruginea Ruddy Shelduck Огарь 10

14 Tringa totanus Common Redshank Травник 5

15 Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing Чибис 50±5

168

# Latin name English name Russian name Balykchy Karakol

i ii iii i ii iii

17 Gallinula

chloropus

Common Moorhen Камышница 1

18 Himantopus

himantopus

Black-winged Stilt Ходулочник 5

19 Lanius isabellinus Rufous-tailed

Shrike

Сорокопут

рыжехвостый

3

20 Larus ridibundus Black-headed Gull Озерная чайка 10 14 13 23

21 Milvus migrans Black Kite Черный коршун 1 1 5

22 Motacilla

personata

Masked wagtail Трясогузка

маскированная

2 2 2 2

23 Nycticorax

nycticorax

Black-crowned

Night Heron

Кваква 1

24 Parus

bokharensis

Turkestan Tit Серая синица 1

25 Passer

domesticus

House Sparrow Домовый воробей 3

26 Passer montanus Eurasian tree

sparrow

Воробей полевой 30 3

27 Pica pica Black-billed

Magpie

Сорока 1 2 3 3

28 Podiceps cristatus Great Crested

Grebe

Большая поганка 1

29 Rallus aquaticus Water Rail Пастушок 1

30 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Береговая ласточка 2 6 32 1 1 10±5

31 Sterna hirundo Common Tern Крачка речная 1 1

32 Streptopelia

orientalis

Oriental Turtle

Dove

Большая горлица 2

33 Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Обыкновенный

скворец

4 1

34 Sylvia communis Greater

Whitethroat

Серая славка 3

35 Tadorna

ferruginea

Ruddy Shelduck Огарь 2 10

36 Tringa totanus Common

Redshank

Травник 1 5

37 Turdus merula Black bird Черный дрозд 2

38 Upupa epops Common Hoopoe Удод 1 1 2

39 Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing Чибис 50±5

40 Crex crex Corncrake Коростель 1

Mammals

1 Meriones

tamariscinus

Tamarisk Jird Песчанка

гребенщиковая

Traces

2 Hemiechinus

auritus

Long-eared

Hedgehog

Ушастый еж Traces

3 Lepus tolai Tolai Hare Заяц-толай Traces

4 Ondatra

zibethicus

Muskrat Ондатра 1

Reptile

1 Lacerta agilis Sand Lizard Прыткая ящерица Traces

2 Eremias arguta Steppe-runner Разноцветная

ящурка

Traces

169

On the territory of the biological ponds of Karakol STF there was fixed the presence of a frog, but it was not possible to establish the species affiliation without catching. In general, there are two species of frogs in the Issyk-Kul region - Pelophylax ridibundus and Rana asiatica, which is an object of the Red Book of Kyrgyzstan. Another species, the object of the Red Book, is the Crex crex, noted near the STF of Balykchy. Representatives of other classes of vertebrate animals are not included in the list of threatened and protected animals. The presence of frogs and muskrats on the ponds indicates a good quality of wastewater treatment, since they do not live in dirty water. This is a kind of indicator of well-being on these water bodies. In addition to the above-mentioned animals, a good sign of well-being is the habitat of some waterbirds from the family of Rallidae and Ardeidae: Gallinula chloropus and Nycticorax nycticorax.

170

Recommendations

When implementing rehabilitation and reconstruction of STFs, the following should be done: 1. Provide measures to reduce the risk to threatened species and develop a set of compensation measures for the restoration of destroyed habitats; 2. Warehousing of building materials and parking of construction equipment should be restricted within the territories of treatment facilities (TF); 3. In case of going outside the TF territory, to provide compensation measures: a) restoration of disturbed habitats; b) detoxification and replacement of contaminated soil and vegetation; 4. Equip special platforms for storing fuel and waste oil and waste after repairing equipment; 5. Utilization of construction waste and fuel waste should be carried out at specialized landfills.

During the process and after completion of rehabilitation, it is necessary to monitor the condition of all sites. There are several types of monitoring:

A) visual - to mark the stay of the most representative species of birds or animals;

B) laboratory - by chemical analysis of selected samples of water or soil.

The most practical method is the laboratory one, since it is not tied to the seasons. Monitoring through animals is more rapid, simple and representative. Alternatively, an integrated approach can be envisaged to obtain a complete picture of the dynamics of the likely changes in the ecological state of the sites.

References and sources

1. Atlas of the Kirgiz SSR. Vol. I. М. 1987. 2. Red Book of the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek 2007. 3. I. van der Ven, Looking at the birds of Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek 2002. 4. Vorobjov G., I. van der Ven, Looking at mammals of Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek 2003. 5. Bannikov А. et al., Identificator of amphibians and reptilians of the fauna of USSR, М., «Prosveshenie», 1977. 6. Internet resource «Google Maps». 7. Internet resource «Wikipedia».

171

Attachments

Balykchy city.

Figure 9. Silt settlers

Figure 10. Silt settlers

172

Figure 11. Burrow of a Jird Figure

Figure 12. Regurgitation of a Short-eared Owl Figure

173

Figure 13. Achnatherum and Caragana

Figure 14. Vacant silt settlers

174

Figure 15. Sterna hirundo on biological ponds

Figure 16. Tadorna ferruginea on biological ponds

175

Figure 17. Biological ponds

Figure 18. Biological ponds

176

Karakol city

Figure 19. Receiving collector and aeration tanks

Figure 20. Aeration tanks

177

Figure 21. Larus ridibundus

Figure 22. Artificial plantations

178

Figure 23. Silt settlers

Figure 24. Biological pond

179

Figure 25. Larus ridibundus

Figure 26. Biological pond

180

Figure 27. Biological pond

Figure 28. Nycticorax nycticorax

181

Figure 29. Reservoir of the seasonal regulation

Figure 30. Himantopus himantopus

182

Figure 31. Fulica atra

Figure 32. Reservoir of the seasonal regulation

183

Annex 3

Archeological Survey

A. Balykchy

CONCLUSION June 20, 2017

This conclusion of archaeological expertise is prepared by A. Abdykanova according requirements of agreement for conducting the archaeological expertise from June 12, 2017 ordered by the Global Works Incorporated Corporation (further Client).

Archaeological expertise (further Expertise) is carried out on the basis:

- The Law of Kyrgyz Republic No.91 from 26.07.1999 г. «About protection and use of historical and cultural heritage»;

- The Law of Kyrgyz Republic No.65 from 20.03.2015 г. «About making changes and addings in the Law « About protection and use of historical and cultural heritage»;

- Land code of the Kyrgyz Republic No.45 from 02.06.1999 г.

The reason of making expertise: Reconstrction of structures, land development.

Aim of works: Determination of presence or absence of historical and cultural objects in the zone of reconstruction of structures and land development. The territory of expertise:

The territory of sewege treatment plants (STP) of Balykchi city with total area of 24,3 hectares, which include treatments plants, sludge pads, biological ponds, sewerage and irrigation pumping station.

Methodology: Expertise is carried out on the basis of information received from the Client according methods of making archaeological expertise by preliminary works with archival and bibliographic data, analysis of space images from Google Earth, topographic maps, GPS-fixation and visual survey of the territory in order to reveal the objects of historical and cultural heritage. Conclusion:

As a result of survey of the territory STP Balykchi city with total area of 24,3 hectares, which include treatments plants, sludge pads, biological ponds, sewage and irrigation pumping station, objects of historical and cultural heritage were not revealed.

Recommendations:

184

There is a need to be vigilant and careful in the process of making construction works and/or land development on the territory STP Balykchi city with total area of 24,3 hectares, which include treatments plants, sludge pads, biological ponds, sewage and irrigation pumping station, in Issyk-Kul oblast. In case of finding artifacts, bones (human) and other signs of material culture, it is necessary to stop all construction work and report about findings to local executive bodies, departments responsible for the protection of cultural heritage or experts in archeology.

In case of land development of the nearby zones of the territory of STP Balykchi city: a sewage treatment plant, sludge ponds, biological ponds, sewerage and irrigation pumping station with a total area of 24.3 hectares in Issyk-Kul oblast, it is necessary to conduct a new archaeological examination in order to reveal the objects of historical and cultural heritage.

B. Karakol

CONCLUSION June 20, 2017

This conclusion of archaeological expertise is prepared by A. Abdykanova according requirements of agreement for conducting the archaeological expertise from June 12, 2017 ordered by the Global Works Incorporated Corporation (further Client).

Archaeological expertise (further Expertise) is carried out on the basis:

- The Law of Kyrgyz Republic No.91 from 26.07.1999 г. «About protection and use of historical and cultural heritage»;

- The Law of Kyrgyz Republic No.65 from 20.03.2015 г. «About making changes and addings in the Law « About protection and use of historical and cultural heritage»;

- Land code of the Kyrgyz Republic No.45 from 02.06.1999 г.

The reason of making expertise: Reconstrction of structures, land development.

Aim of works: Determination of presence or absence of historical and cultural objects in the zone of reconstruction of structures and land development. The territory of expertise:

The territory of sewege treatment plants (STP) of Karakol city with total area of 14,6 hectares, which include sewage treatments plants, biological ponds and sewerage.

Methodology: Expertise is carried out on the basis of information received from the Client according methods of making archaeological expertise by preliminary works with archival and bibliographic data, analysis of space images from Google Earth, topographic maps, GPS-fixation and visual survey of the territory in order to reveal the objects of historical and cultural heritage.

185

Conclusion:

As a result of survey of the territory STP Karakol city with total area of 14,6 hectares, which include sewage treatments plants, biological ponds and sewerage, objects of historical and cultural heritage were not revealed.

Recommendations:

There is a need to be vigilant and careful in the process of making construction works and/or land development on the territory STP Karakol city with total area of 14,6 hectares, which include sewage treatments plants, biological ponds and sewerage, in Issyk-Kul oblast. In case of finding artifacts, bones (human) and other signs of material culture, it is necessary to stop all construction work and report about findings to local executive bodies, departments responsible for the protection of cultural heritage or experts in archeology.

In case of land development of the nearby zones of the territory of STP Karakol city: sewage treatment plants, biological ponds and sewerage with a total area of 14.6 hectares in Issyk-Kul oblast, it is necessary to conduct a new archaeological examination in order to reveal the objects of historical and cultural heritage.

186

Annex 4

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

PROTOCOL

Date: 12, July 2017

Venue: Balykchy City Hall

Public consultation on Environmental Impact Assessment

Balykchy

Participants: 1.

Kenenova Zh. K. Specialist IKTDEP Laboratory

2. Zhaparova G. Zh. Specialist IKTDEP Laboratory

3. Zhangazieva G. A. Leading Specialist IKTDEP Laboratory

4. Dyikanov B. N. Sanitary Doctor of SES in Balykchy

5. Sharsheev M. M. Condominium #6

6. Maltseva L. A. Condominium #3

7. Akmatov B. T. Chief Engineer, Balykchy "Vodokanal"

8. Mambetaliev T. I. Director, Balykchy “Vodokanal”

9. Bekturov Zh. Resident of Balykchy

10. Ryspekova Ch. Condominium #3

11. Bekunov A Condominium #4

12. Zhantaev T Resident of Balykchy

13. Kurmanova R Condominium #26

14. Sharsheev Zholdoshbek Leading Specialist of Balyckhy Mayor’s Office

AGENDA:

1. The presentation of "Environmental Impact from the rehabilitation of sewer collection system and wastewater treatment facilities".

2. Questions and Answers Session.

Welcome speech:

• Sharsheev Zholdoshbek, Leading Specialist of Balyckhy Mayor’s Office

Project presentation:

• Almaz Asipjanov, SISDP Environmental Specialist.

187

Questions and Comments: 1. Treated effluent mixed with river water from Pump Station straight goes to the canal Sary-

Kamysh, which is next to Balykchy and the city irrigation system is not functioning. Therefore

City is interested in receiving treated effluent for city greening purposes and irrigation as well,

instead of using potable water for irrigation purpose.

2. Q: The sewer lines network coverage increase and connection to it.

A: Sewerline system coverage increase and connection to it were discussed and participants

were explained that Karakol and Cholpon-Ata cities will have components on sewer mains and

secondary collectors construction. Balykchy meeting participants were explained by Vodokanal

Director that, sewer lines extension activities might be funded by other donor agencies, since

with ISDP-1 Balykchy already had activities with wastewater collection: construction of Main

Pump Station and 5.7km dual sewer main.

Pictures:

188

189

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

PROTOCOL

Date: 11, July 2017

Venue: Karakol City Hall

Public Consultation on Environmental Impact Assessment

Karakol

Participants: 15.

Khafizova R. A. Sanitary Doctor of SES in Karakol

16. Shestova O. Leading Specialist ITDEP Laboratory

17. Kenenova Zh. K. Specialist ITDEP Laboratory

18. Rysbekova A.R. Specialist ITDEP Laboratory

19. Omurkanov S.A. Director of “Karakol Vodokanal”

20. Usupov D.K. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #4

21. Kerimkulov T. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #7

22. Sydykov K.A. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #6

23. Karabaev A.A. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #2

24. Jendenov K.A. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #3

25. Zavyalova O.I. Deputy Director, «Karakol Vodokanal»

26. Aysakhunov D. Environmental Inspector, SIETS

27. Ishembiev K.A. Deputy of the City Council

28. Davlesova Zh.M. Citizen of the Residence “Geologiya”

AGENDA:

1. The presentation of "Environmental Impact from the rehabilitation of sewer collection system

and wastewater treatment facilities". 2. Questions and Answers Session.

Welcome speech:

• Ishembiev K.A., Deputy of Karakol City Council

Project presentation:

• Almaz Asipjanov, SISDP Environmental Specialist.

Questions and Answers:

190

Q: Possibility of Sanitary Protection Zones reduction around the Karakol wastewater treatment plants

(WWTP) or potential resettlement/compensation of residents, whose households are located around

the WWTPs (250-300 m) in relation to Sanitary Protection Zone as per SanPin requirements.

A: National sanitary and construction regulations require establishment of sanitary protection zones around WWTPs. Residences have encroached into this zone at both the Cholpon-Ata and Karakol WWTP sites. Currently the ramifications of the SPZs are being assessed by Government agencies (Sanitary surveillance, State Registry Service) together with municipalities, including the potential to reduce the extent of these zones after submission of written requests from the Karakol Municipality to the Central Office of the State Sanitary and Hygiene Surveillance Department of the Ministry of Health Care of KR, however most properties are located at distances that would not result in significantly adverse noise or air quality (construction dust or operation phase odour) impacts.

Q: The sewer lines network coverage increase and connection to it.

A: Sewerline system coverage increase and connection to it were discussed and participants were explained that Karakol city will have component on pumping main in Pristan and secondary collectors construction in Karakol.

Q: Is there any norm to ban the construction of houses near the WWTPs

A. National sanitary and construction regulations require establishment of sanitary protection zones around WWTPs and it is not allowed to reside around the WWTPs. There should be consultation process between the government agencies (Sanitary surveillance, State Registry Service) with municipalities before issuing the land settlement permit.

Q: Will there be a problem in the future with the operation of the WWTP and will it be able to serve the

entire population of the city of Karakol in the future.

A: Project will include technical capacity building of the Vodokanal staff, enabling them to operate and maintain the WWTP sustainably. Regarding the capacities of the WWTPs, project team conducted City’s socio-economic development analysis and population growth projections for the period of 2017-2038 to design the wastewater treatment capacities of the plants with potential increase of the influent.

Q: Terms of construction of the WWTP after the approval of the project.

A: clarification was provided that it will take some time for loan negotiation and approval process between ADB and the Government of Kyrgyz Republic with final ratification of it by the Kyrgyz parliament. Pictures:

191