Issyk-Kul Wastewater Management Project (RRP KGZ 50176)

Initial Environmental Examination

Project No.: 50176-002 September 2018

KGZ: Issyk-Kul Wastewater Management 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 IWMP Issyk-Kul Wastewater Management 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 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 ...... 9 7. IKBR Zones and Issyk Kul Development Setback ...... 10 8. Wastewater and Sludge Application for Agriculture ...... 10 9. Sanitary Protection Zones ...... 13 2.2 Policy and Institutional Framework ...... 14 1. Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy ...... 14 2. Environmental Management Institutions ...... 14 3. Environmental Monitoring Capacity ...... 16 2.3 Kyrgyz Republic Environmental Assessment Requirements ...... 16 1. Legal Basis ...... 16 2. Environmental Process ...... 17 3. Review and Approval of Project IEE ...... 18 2.4 Applicable ADB Policies and Environmental Assessment Requirements ...... 19 1. Environmental Assessment Requirements ...... 19 2. Information Disclosure and Public Consultation ...... 19 3 Description of the Project ...... 20 3.1 Background ...... 20 3.2 Project Rationale ...... 20 3.3 Existing Situation ...... 21 1. Balykchy ...... 21 2. Karakol ...... 24 3.4 Proposed Subproject Description Project Activities ...... 27 3.5 Schedule ...... 31 3.6 Budget ...... 32 3.7 Implementation Arrangements ...... 32 4 Description of the Environment ...... 32 4.1 Location ...... 32 4.2 Physical Resources ...... 32 1. Geography, Topography, Land Use, and Soils ...... 32 2. Climate ...... 33 3. Water Resources ...... 38 4. Water Quality...... 41 5. Total Phosphorous ...... 44 6. Site-Specific Surface Water Quality Conditions ...... 45 7. Air Quality & Noise-The Two Project Sites ...... 47 4.3 Ecological Resources ...... 51 1. Habitat Types ...... 51 2. Flora ...... 51 3. Fauna ...... 52 4. Mammals ...... 52 5. Avifauna ...... 52 6. Fish ...... 55 7. Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 56 8. Protected Areas ...... 57 4.6 Socioeconomic Profile ...... 61 1. Population ...... 61 2. Economy and Employment ...... 62 3. Poverty ...... 68 4. Transportation ...... 69

5. Power Sources and Transmission ...... 69 4.7 Physical Cultural Resources ...... 70 1. Primary Data Sources ...... 70 2. PCRs in the Project Area ...... 71 3. Legislation and permit requirements relevant to PRCs and to this Project ...... 71 4.8 The Project Sites ...... 72 1. Balykchy ...... 72 5 Analysis of Alternatives ...... 79 5.1 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ...... 79 1. Alternative 1: No Change ...... 79 2. Alternative 2: Full Rehabilitation of Existing Treatment Plants ...... 79 3. Alternative 3: Rehabilitate and Modify Existing Treatment Processes ...... 79 4. Alternative 4: New Treatment Plants on New Sites ...... 79 5. Alternative 5: New Treatment Plants on Existing Sites ...... 79 6. Discussion of Alternatives ...... 79 7. The Preferred Options: ...... 80 6 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... 86 6.1 Survey of Sensitive Receptors ...... 86 1. Ecological Status of Balykchy and Karakol WWTP and surrounding area...... 89 2. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Balykchy ...... 93 3. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Karakol ...... 96 6.2 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 98 1. Preamble ...... 98 2. Process of determining impacts ...... 98 3. Mitigation ...... 99 4. Results of the Assessment Process ...... 99 5. Additional Impact Assessment Requirements ...... 111 7 Information Disclosure, Consultation and Participation ...... 112 7.1 Stakeholder Consultation Approach ...... 112 7.2 Compliance with ADB and KR Requirements ...... 112 7.3 Public Consultation ...... 112 1. Public Consultation – July 2017 ...... 112 2. Information Disclosure ...... 114 8 Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) ...... 115 8.1 Introduction ...... 115 8.2 ADB’s GRM Requirements ...... 115 8.3 Project GRM ...... 115 1. Introduction ...... 115 2. Definitions ...... 115 3. Operation ...... 116 4. Grievance Redress Group Membership ...... 117 9 Environmental Management Plan ...... 119 9.1 Mitigation and Monitoring Actions ...... 119 A. The EMP Tables ...... 119 B. Pre-Construction Phase ...... 119 C. Construction Phase ...... 120 D. Operating Phase ...... 120 9.2 Performance Indicators ...... 133 9.3 Implementation Arrangements ...... 136 A. Environmental Requirements to be Implemented ...... 136 B. Roles and Responsibilities ...... 136 C. Reporting ...... 137 9.4 Institutional Capacity, Needs, and Proposed Strengthening ...... 137 A. Existing Conditions ...... 137 B. Improving Institutional and Technical Capacity ...... 137 9.5 Estimated Inputs ...... 138 10 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 141 10.1 Conclusions ...... 141 10.2 Recommendations ...... 142 REFERENCES ...... 143

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 Issyk-Kul Wastewater Management Project (project)1, 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.2 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 biodiversity3 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.4

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 2013.5 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),6 and other external assistance continues to be provided.7

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 Formerly Second Issyk-Kul Sustainable Development Project. 2 The lake’s rich environmental, archeological and cultural resources are renowned internationally. 3 The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty relating to wetlands sustainable use and conservation. 4 Including the Siberian ibex and the endangered snow leopard. 5 Tourism is also highly seasonal, with about 90 percent of tourists visiting during the summer months. 6 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. 7 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,8 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, 2009.9 In addition, the Kyrgyz national legal framework includes laws in other substantive areas with relevance to the Project,10 over 20 regulations are in place to support wildlife protection, and various standards are enforced.11 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 environment12. 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.13

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

8 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. 9 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. 10 Chief among these are laws concerning labor and occupational health and safety, and cultural heritage protection. 11 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. 12 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. 13 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 uncia14). 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 2001.15 In 2002, the lake was also designated as a Ramsar site.16 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.17 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).18 Previously, ADB has assisted to improve environmental management and urban services in the region through the first Issyk- Kul Sustainable Development Project (ISDP-1),19 and other external assistance continues to be provided.20 The proposed Issyk-Kul Wastewater Management 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.

14 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 15 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. 16 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. 17 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. 18 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’. 19 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. 20 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.21 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.22 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.23 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:

21 As specified in the Annex to Appendix 1, pg. 41-42 (Approach to IEE Preparation). 22 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). 23 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 Provides state policy and the general legal framework for natural resource Law on 1999 utilization and environmental protection, including environmental impact Environmental (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, assessment, setting environmental standards, and the legal regime for Protection 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) protected areas. It establishes the basic principles of environmental policy and determines The Environmental global, national and local environmental issues; priorities in the field of Safety Concept of 2009 (2012) environmental protection at the national level as well as tools to ensure KR environmental safety. Provides the legislative framework for the SAEPF to undertake SER and Law on Ecological 1999 approval of EIAs. Defines (in general) projects requiring environmental Expertise (2003, 2007, 2015) assessment and SER. Law on Sustainable Provides a framework to regulate the preservation, use and sustainable Development of 2004 development of Issyk-Kul Lake, including controls on natural resource use Environmental- (2013) and economic development, such as a prohibition on capital construction Economic System within 100 m of the shoreline. of Issyk-Kul Regulates the organization, protection and use of biosphere reserves; Law on Special 1994 national parks; other protected areas with unique natural areas, flora or Protected Natural (2011) fauna or cultural heritage values; and protected areas for recreational Territories use. Sets out legal standards for biosphere reserves, with the goal of preservation, restoration and use of areas rich in natural and cultural Law on Biosphere 1999 heritage, and supporting long-term sustainable economic and social Reserves No. 48 development, including recreation, restoration of natural resources, long- term ecological control, monitoring and education. Regulates the use, protection, and reproduction of flora. Key tenets include preservation of biodiversity and growth of wild plants and Law on Protection 2001 ecosystems; restoration and preservation of rare, endangered, and and Use of Flora (2003, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2016) endemic species; and use and restoration of natural vegetation resources based on scientific principles. Regulates commercial fisheries with a view to conservation and 1997 Law on Fisheries development of fish stocks, increasing aquaculture, and meeting the fish (1998, 2008, 2013) product needs of the population. Establishes that fauna is the property of the national state. Regulates protection of fauna during infrastructure design and construction, 1999 Law on Wildlife including faunal species’ habitat, migration routes and areas for nesting (2003, 2014, 2015) and breeding. Provides definitions of wildlife, rare and endangered species, wildlife protection, and use of wildlife. Regulates the use and protection of water resources, including prevention of negative impacts, and seeks to improve cooperation and enforcement. Law on Water 1994 Regulates the quantity and quality of water released into the Resources (1995, 2012, 2013, 2016) 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. 1999 Law on Drinking (2000, 2003, 2009, 2011, 2012, Regulates drinking water availability and its quality. Water 2014) Establishes a unified legal base regulating the use, protection and 2005 Water Code development of water resources to ensure sufficient and safe supply and (2012, 2013, 2016) environmental preservation. Rules on Protection Provides the legislative framework for defining, specifying standards for of Surface Waters 2016 the quality of water bodies used for fisheries and irrigation and enforcing of the Kyrgyz regulations regarding discharges to water bodies, among other things. Republic Law on the 1999 Protection of Regulates ambient air quality and air quality management. (2003, 2005) Ambient Air Law on Protection Establishes a system for protecting items of local, state and international 1999 and Use of Historic- historical or cultural importance. Includes definitions of key terms and (2014, 2015, 2017) Cultural Heritage types of protected objects. 7

Legislation Year Passed (Amended) Purpose / Content Law of the Kyrgyz Provides the basis for regulation of working conditions, including Republic on 2003 workplace safety features, workplace safety procedures, and workplace Occupational hygiene. Safety 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’.24 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 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.

24 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

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.25 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 Leq 27 Lmax 28 Description of Activity Category Category26 Day = 45 Day = 60 8 Areas immediately adjacent to hospitals and sanatoriums Night = 35 Night= 50 9 Day = 55 Day = 70 Areas immediately adjacent to dwellings, polyclinics, dispensaries, rest Night = 45 Night = 60 homes, holiday hotels, libraries, schools, etc Day = 60 Day = 75 10 Areas immediately adjacent to hotels and dormitories Night = 50 Night = 65 11 35 50 Recreational areas in hospitals and sanatoriums Rest areas at the territories of micro-districts and building estates, rest 12 45 60 houses, sanatoriums, schools, homes for the aged, etc

Table 3 – Ambient Air Quality Standards in Kyrgyzstan Maximum Average Daily Pollutant Permissible Concentration (mg/m3) (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

25 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. 26 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. 27 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. 28 LMax = maximum sound level. 9

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 Adopted KR Convention Main objectives / in force Signed Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would United Nations Framework 1992/1995 2000 prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with Convention on Climate Change the climate system. Kyoto Protocol 1997/2005 2003 Setting internationally binding emission reduction targets. Reverse and prevent desertification and land degradation in affected United Nations Convention 1994/1996 1996 areas in order to support poverty reduction and environment Combat Desertification sustainability. United Nations Convention on Conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components and 1992/1993 1999 Biological Diversity equitable sharing of the benefits. Convention on the Conservation of the World Cultural and Natural 1972/1975 1995 Protection of natural and cultural heritage. Habitats Convention on International Ensuring that international trade does not threaten wild animals and Trade in Endangered Species of 1973/1975 2007 plants. Wild Fauna and Flora Convention on the Conservation Global platform for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory 1979/1983 2014 of Migratory Species animals and their habitats. Conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national Ramsar Convention 1971 2002 actions and international cooperation to achieve sustainable development. Regulation, reduction and restriction of hazardous wastes Basel Convention 1989/1992 1996 transboundary movement. Convention on the Transboundary Effects of 1992/2000 2000 To protect people and the environment against industrial accidents. Industrial Accidents Stockholm Convention on Eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic 2001/2004 2003 Persistent Organic Pollutants pollutants. Protect the human environment against air pollution and gradually Convention on Long-Range 1983 2000 reduce and prevent air pollution, including long-range transboundary Transboundary Air Pollution air pollution. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Promote shared responsibilities in relation to the importation of Procedure for Certain Hazardous 2004 1999 hazardous chemicals. Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Granting public rights regarding access to information, and Aarhus Convention 1998/2001 2001 participation and access to justice on matters concerning the local, national and transboundary environment. Integrating environmental assessment into state plans and programs Convention on EIA in a 1991/1997 2001 at the earliest stages – so as to help to lay the groundwork for Transboundary Context 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:

10

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 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.

11

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 23 Molybdenum -//- 0.2 0.5 25 E. coli. CFU / 100 <1,000 mL 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. WHO Guidelines29 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 Option Required pathogen Verification Type of (Figure reduction by monitoring level (E. Notes Irrigation 4.1) treatment (log units) coli per 100 mL) 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 agency30 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 WHO Guidelines for Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater, Volume II, Wastewater Use in Agriculture (2006). 30 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.

12

27. 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.

28. 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. Table 4-4 – Consideration of project design standards Ontario Extended Kyrgyz Proposed Parameter, mg/L Aeration Kyrgyz Republic Republic Design EEC Stds31 or as stated (Influent: (Agricultural) (water for Maximums for 150 - 200 fish) this study mg BOD/L) Biological Oxygen 70-90% 25 Not stated Not stated 25 Demand (BOD5) reduction32 25 Chemical Oxygen 75% reduction Not used Not stated Not stated 125 Demand (COD) 125 Suspended Solids 90% reduction 25 Not stated Not stated 35 (SS) (optional) 35 Total Nitrogen (TN) 70-80% 20 Not used Not used <15 reduction33 15 Ammonia (as NH3- Not used 3.0 0.1 0.5 3 for secondary; N) 0.1 for tertiary Nitrate Not used 10 9 10 (as NO3-N) Total Phosphorus 80% reduction34 3.5 10 0.2 (eutrophic) 10 for Irrigation; (TP) 2 2 for river Fecal coliform (as See Figure 5.2 Not sighted Not stated Not stated Not used CFU/100 mL) E. coli See Figure 5.2 Not sighted <1,00035 Not stated 1,000 (CFU/100 mL)

29. 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.

30. 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.

31 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). 32 Twenty-four hour average; either concentration or percent reduction applies. Note EU Directive has this as a minimum design requirement that also includes COD. 33 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. 34 Ibidem. 35 Law on Water, No. 1422-XII of 1994, Government of Kyrgyz Republic. 13

Biosolids

31. There are currently no Kyrgyz Republic Standards for biosolids. 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 B36 with respect to pathogens and stability by one of the five biosolids management approaches as given below.

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.

32. This will also reduce potential odor from the biosolids. Class B sludge under the USEPA Part 503 Rule when land applied has its own restrictions37 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).

33. 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

34. The current Sanitary-Epidemiological Rules and Regulations ‘Sanitary protection zones and sanitary classification of facilities, buildings and other plants’ (SanPiN)38 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.

35. 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.

36. While here are no Kyrgz odour standards from WWTPs as such, guidelines may be set on a case by case basis by the SESS as part of the SanPIN. Generally, internationally a value of 2 ODU at

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

14

the boundary of a wastewater treatment plant serves as a guideline and this is required to be monitored by the SAEPF and/or the SESS during the plant operation.

2.2 Policy and Institutional Framework

1. Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy

37. 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 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).

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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.

41. 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 d epartments responsible for environmental management within the Issyk-Kul basin. These are the Issyk- 15

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.

42. 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 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.

43. 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.

16

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. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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 Expertise39 (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).40

39 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. 40 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.

17

Table 4 – Key KR environmental assessment laws Legislative Instrument Requirements Law on Environmental Protection, 1999 Defines the policy and regulates the legal relations applicable to natural (amended 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2014, management and environmental protection in the KR. 2015, 2016) Article 17: Environmental requirements related to location, design, construction, reconstruction and commissioning of Defines EIA requirements. enterprises, structures and other facilities Forbids exceeding the maximum allowable standards for noise, Article 22: Environmental Protection from Harmful Physical vibrations, electromagnetic fields and other harmful physical effects on Effects human health and environment. Law on State Environmental Expertise, 1999 Defines the key legislative role for SAEPF in requiring and evaluating (amended 2003, 2007, 2015) EIAs and providing licenses. Article 3: Objects (Facilities) of State Environmental Requires SEE for construction, reconstruction, expansion, technical Expertise upgrading, temporary closing and liquidation of objects (facilities). Article 10: Environmental Impact Assessment Requires an EIA when preparing the feasibility evaluations 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 Provides detailed screening lists of projects requiring an environmental Performance Procedures in the Kyrgyz Republic (1997) assessment. Instruction for Procedure for Performance of Requires that EIA documentation reflects the full extent of the project and Environmental Impact Assessment of Planned meets specified requirements. Economic and Other Activities (1999). Source: Feasibility Study Team; ADB (2015); FAO (2011).

2. Environmental Process

47. 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 Project proponent submits application to appropriate local government authority (e.g. city mayor’s office), and authority 1 forwards application to Gosregister and the local Department of Environmental Protection (SAEPF) 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 2 against list of project types automatically requiring an EIA in Instruction on Environmental Impact Assessment Performance Procedures in the Kyrgyz Republic Application package is sent to local department of the State Agency for Architecture and Construction Management (Gosarkhitectura) 3 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) If conclusions of the Stage 1 review are positive, Gosregister issues the title for the registered land lot (by State Act) for 4 temporary use for the intended purpose. Preliminary engineering designs are developed, geotechnical/geological and other surveys are conducted and service 5 provision is investigated. 6 Designs are reviewed by Gosarkhitectura If an EIA is required, the project proponent submits an application to SAEPF for a SEE, supported by an Environmental Impact 7 Statement (EIS);a approvals from Gosregister, Gosarkhitectura and other local agencies; and a Declaration of PEE, if conducted.b SAEPF appoints a SEE committee and instigates the SER process. The project may be approved, rejected or sent for re- 8 examination.c 9 If the SEE conclusion is positive, the relevant territorial department of Gosarkhitectura issues the Construction Permit. The relevant territorial department of Gosarkhitectura considers the final project designs (including any amendments made 10 during construction) and if there are no objections, issues the Operation Permit. The local (Oblast level) Environmental Protection Department undertakes inspections and monitoring of environmental impacts 11 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

18

Step Actions 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 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).

48. 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.41

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

49. 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.

41 This IEE will fulfil the reporting requirements of an EIA 19

2.4 Applicable ADB Policies and Environmental Assessment Requirements

1. Environmental Assessment Requirements

50. 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 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.

51. 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 IEE42 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

52. 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.

53. 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).

54. 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.

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

20

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

3.1 Background

55. 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

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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.

21

3.3 Existing Situation

60. 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

61. 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

62. 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) Sludge activation tanks (Not commisioned) Winter storage Planned as Facultative Primary Aerartion Tanks Secondary Clarifiers Maturation Inlet Works Settlement (Not commisioned) (Not commisioned) Ponds Screens and Primaries to Aeration not connected Existing grit removal Channel (Winter storage) River Water transfer Inlet

Pumping Station Pumping Station Operated by Sludge Irrigation Thickener Dep't (Not commissioned) 6 Drying Beds Agricultural Land (disused) used for primary sludge only Source: Global Works (2017)

63. 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.

22

Figure 4 – Existing Balykchy wastewater treatment plant and lagoons

Chu River

64. 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 Oct 2012 Apr 2014 21 April 2017 4 Sept 2017 Standard Effluent Outflow Irrigation Parameter Unit Influent (after (from canal Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent CMEA 1977 (inlet) primary Biopond settling) 23) 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 20.52 22.4 6.78 mg/l 21.2 19.6 8.9 6.8 23.6 20.38 0.74 1.5 NH4 Nitrite- 0.09 0.15 0.21 mg/l 0.15 0.18 0.52 0.74 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.0 NO2 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.

65. 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.

23

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

Figure 6 – Balykchy lagoons

66. 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) Sampling date Standard Element Units Location CMEA 13-08-2014 20-08-2014 27-08-2014 03-09-2014 1977 Upstream 20 20 20 18 Temperature °C NA Downstream Upstream 7.84 7.5 7.8 7.3 pH 6.5-8.5 Downstream 7.6 8.0 7.8 7.62 Suspended Upstream 33 29 18 27 mg/l solids Downstream 40 20 25 26 Dissolved Upstream 5.39 5.69 5.82 5.28 Mg/l >6.4 oxygen Downstream 5.50 5.6 5.48 5.86 mg of Upstream 1.9 1.51 1.56 2.62 BOD5 3 O/l Downstream 2.06 1.89 1.88 2.79 Elec. Upstream 492 489 442 494 µS Conductivity Downstream 483 479 458 496 mg of Upstream 2.1 2.18 2.52 3.31 COD 30.0 O/l Downstream 3.54 2.6 3.7 3.89 Upstream .039 .02 .039 .02 Ammonium N mg/l .39 Downstream .05 .05 .09 .06 Upstream .003 .001 .004 .004 Nitrite N mg/l .02 Downstream .003 .005 .005 .004 Upstream .25 .28 .23 .3 Nitrate N mg/l 9.1 Downstream .23 .20 .20 .24 Upstream .30 .31 .25 .33 Total N Downstream .29 .30 .26 .34

24

Sampling date Standard Element Units Location CMEA 13-08-2014 20-08-2014 27-08-2014 03-09-2014 1977 Upstream 15.5 15.3 15.5 15.3 Chlorides mg/l Downstream 16.3 16.6 16.4 16.8 Upstream 22.0 21.6 21.2 20.9 Sulfates mg/l 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

67. 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

68. 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).

69. 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% Sewing shops: 2% Spirits: 10% Miscellaneous: 10% (wood, concrete blocks and electrical)

70. 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 as per wastewater collection rules, which are usually developed by the Municipal Water and Sanitation Utility in accordance with KR Rules for Protection of Surface Waters (2016, No 128) and approved by the City Council. The industries will be required to pre-treat their wastewater prior to discharge to the sewerin accordance with National Environmerntal Legislation.

B. Wastewater Treatment Facility

71. 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 25

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

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

26

72. 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 (Figure ), and lagoons provide the only treatment.

Figure 9 – Primary settling tank, Karakol Figure 10 – Eutrophied and overgrown lagoons, wastewater treatment plant (ADB 2015a) Karakol wastewater treatment facility (ADB 2015a)

A schematic of the existing WWTP processes is shown below.

Figure 11 – Schematic of Karakol WWTP processes (Oct 2017) Activated Sludge process (Decommisioned - acts Existing Inlet Works Primary as secondary setling) Secondary Irrigation Screens and Settlement Settlement Facultative Reservoir grit removal Ponds (needs desludging) River Water Inlet (Canal in disrepair) Comminutors

Existing chlorine contact tank and chlorine building not shown

Sludge Thickener (inoperative) Solids Digester (inoperative) Source: Global Works (2017)

73. 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.

27

Table 11 – Karakol WWTP influent and effluent wastewater quality 12 month Mean 24 April 2017 Standard 28 August 2017 8 Sept 2017 2013Note 1 Effluent Outfall Parameter Unit Influent Lagoon (After (Biopond 500m CMEA Influent Effluent (suction Influent Effluent Reservoir Outfall outlet 2nd 31) d/s 1977 chamber) Settling) 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 13.7 11.3 11.6 mg/l 19.74 17.53 19.14 10.66 8 17.04 4.91 <0.039 1.5 NH4 Nitrite- 0.195 0.15 0.1 0.2 0.08 <0.001 mg/l 0.17 0.22 0.31 0.001 0.001 1.0 NO2 Nitrate- 4.16 4.47 2.61 0.09 <0.1 <0.1 mg/l 1.75 2.18 0.86 2.2 1.1 10.0 NO3 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

74. 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).

3.4 Proposed Subproject Description Project Activities

75. 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. De-sludging of Irrigation Reservoir down from Karakol WWTP; c. Rehabilitation and expansion of the sewerage systems in both cities; d. Provision of a septage management framework for the cities, and vacuum trucks for the collection and transfer of septage; e. Provision of training and capacity building in technical, financial and managerial aspects of wastewater systems management to the vodokanals; and f. Provision of support for project management through technical assistance consultancies.

76. The wastewater treatment process selected for both the Balykchy and Karakol WWTPs is the Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration Lagoon (IDEAL) process. The IDEAL process allows the screened and degritted sewage to be biologically stabilised and the solids to be settled in a single tank. There is no need for separate settling tanks. Periodic aeration of the sewage encourages the growth of bacteria which break down the organic material to produce water, new cells and inoffensice byproducts such as water, carbon dioxide and nitrate salts. The aeration is stopped regularly, and the sludge and micro-organisms settle so that when the decanter is lowered into the tank contents it decants clear, treated liquid. One added advantage of stopping the aeration is that it promotes certain bacteris which convert nitrates into nitogen gas so that the nutrient nitrogen is largely removed from the sewage. The sludge is pumped out periodically to retain the ideal proportions of raw sewage and active bacteria. The process is effective in removing undesirable nutrients, including nirgen and phosphorus, which encourage the growth of algae in the water downstream of the discharge point. A diagram of the process is shown in Figure 39.

28

77. The works proposed for the 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 Existing 16 mm screen works but automatic Having a 10 mm screen would 10 mm, duty/standby and place for a third screen mechanical component has long since avoid potential problems in the for Phase II. ceased. downstream IDEAL(s) 2. Renew existing screen building 20m x 7m, Modifications needed to house three Inspection by structural replace with 20m x 15m. channels of 10 mm step screens. Two engineer needed if existing channels to be brought on line for building to be reused duty/standby. Includes channel with manual screen for >2ADWF bypass. 3. New mechanical vortex degritting units, 1 for The concrete on the existing cyclone grit units Phase I, another for Phase II. (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 The existing tanks if reused would need Reuse of tanks would require (20mW x46m Lx~5mD) would be Option BA1 or cleaned and sealed around the inside with an structural engineer inspection. replace aeration tanks as Option BA2. New (2 appropriate membrane liner. Existing tanks to No) aeration tanks for BA2 to be 14.5mW x 46mL be demolished if Option BA2 selected for new x 5mD. tanks 5. Installation of an intermediate aeration system, A diffused aeration system would be needed Slow speed surface aerators to slow speed surface aerators (SOTR of ca. 417 kg with rubber diffusers for Option BA1. Tanks be mounted with crossbar. O2/hr [136 kW] at an 1,700 m altitude and 4.5 m are too narrow for surface aeration. Slow average active tank depth or TWL of 5 m). speed surface aerators are nominated for Option BA2, which would use 4 x 11 kW aerators per IDEAL 6. Renovation of existing blower building (17m x The building appears structurally sound If Inspection by structural 7m) as an option. Preferred aeration is by slow suitable the building would require engineer. speed aerators. renovation/modification, including a new roof. This would not be required in Option BA2 if surface aeration is selected. 7. Installation of a decanter mechanisms in the A metal decanting mechanism would be Ancillary piping also needed; IDEALs + associated piping mechanically raised and lowered to decant off decanters along long side in supernatant from the tank after a settlement Option BA1, short side in BA2 period. 8. A chlorine contact (CCT) This would be necessary if chemical Optional disinfection is selected over that obtained by Additional ponds would the ponds, plus canal dilution during irrigation eventually need to be enlarged or period. disinfection implemented for river Preliminary sizing puts the tank as 7.5mW x discharge to accommodate 16.5mL x 2mD to get a 30 min residence time. future larger flows 19. Construction of new chlorine building. This could be made optional, as the ponds Optional could act as the primary source of disinfection Renovation of existing if properly renovated. chlorination building is an Building would be required to house gaseous option. chlorine cylinders, likely the 720 kg version (to be determined). 10. New chlorine gas dissolution system is This could be made optional, as the ponds Optional needed. 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. 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 If suitable, it would need rehabilitation and A structural engineer needs 17m). modification to house a small laboratory. inspection of the existing building 13. Process Automation. The treatment would be fully automated with a SCADA in the Administration Building. 29

Actions Details Comments Wastewater treatment plant 14. The 6 existing drying beds, 62 mW x 250 mL Twenty two new beds are proposed for the Twenty day rotation with twenty each, would be made redundant. top of the site, each with an area of about 24m two beds (two for cleaning long x 6m wide. allowance) 15. New penstock valves and hydraulic Current penstocks are corroded and likely Priority. Feed channels all to be rehabilitation of pond hydraulics for discharge. dysfunctional. The feed distribution channel modified when new ponds are to the ponds is in need of complete added renovation or replacement. The discharge pipework from the ponds are also in a bad state and needs rehabilitation. 16. Inspection and review of existing pumping This pumping station would become Needs to be reviewed station. redundant. 17. Inspection of power transmission facilities. To determine whether this is suitable for Priority. future long-term use and if there is any rehabilitation needs. 18. Demolition of unnecessary site infrastructure. Option BA1 would make redundant the 17m Redundant structures should be ϕ primary clarifiers, the 18m ϕ secondary demolished or re-purposed for clarifiers and the 60m x 8.5m regeneration safety reasons 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. Sewerage network. Road surface will be An additional 10.3 km of secondary gravity Extension of sewerage network. rehabilitated & reinstated to sewer pipelines will be included. original after sewer laying work 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 Existing single 16 mm screen is to be replaced with Having a 10 mm screen 10 mm, duty/standby and place for a third screen pair of automatic screens inside a covered building. would avoid potential for Phase II. All flows >2ADWF to be bypassed A septage truck off loading area to be available with problems in the to the ponds. a mulcher pump before the step screens. downstream IDALs/IDEAL(s) 2. New mechanical vortex degritting units, one in The concrete on the existing cyclone grit units (5m Existing units to be Phase I and the second in Phase II around 2038 φ) appears is in poor condition demolished.

3.Construction of two to four IDEALs with a total IDALs to be about 18W x 57L x 5.5D including treatment capacity of 12.0; another 12.0 MLD freeboard. would be added in Phase II. 4. Installation of an intermediate aeration system A diffused aeration system would that the IDEALs be This would include all (SOTR of ca. 580 kg O2/hr [190 kW] at an ca. equipped with rubber diffusers that would seal when relevant pipework and 1,700 m altitude and 4.5m avg. tank depth, TWL the air is cycled on/off. These have to be replaced blowers at 5 m). every three years or so. SOTR is to be supplied by two 22 kW slow speed surface aerators per IDAL. 5. Installation of a decanter mechanism in each A metal decanting mechanism would be Ancillary piping tie-ins IDAL + associated piping mechanically raised and lowered to decant off also needed supernatant from the tank after a settlement period. 6. Renovation of existing blower building (30m x The building may be reusable but new blowers Inspection by structural 14m) would be called for if diffused aeration is selected. engineer This building would not be needed with surface aeration. Part of this building could be petitioned off for a control room. 7. Existing chlorine contact (CCT): circular The existing tank (if not reusable) to be replaced by Inspection by structural 16φx5D a new 15.5W x 36.5L x 2mD CCT engineer

8. Existing chlorine building (21m x 11m) This building would be required to house gaseous Inspection by structural chlorine cylinders t for disinfection. engineer required 9. New chlorine gas dissolution system is This system converts liquid chlorine into gas to needed. where it can be dissolved in a water stream that would be directed into the CCT.

30

Actions Details Comments Wastewater treatment plant 10. Existing sludge drying beds, 10 off: 9mW x Existing beds to be rehabilitated. A combination of Facility would be better 35mL x 3mD IDAL waste solids and primary solids after twenty covered with good days of anaerobic treatment to be dewater on the vehicular access sludge drying beds. Add additional beds by 2038. 11. Administration facilities / Laboratory (17m x The building looks suitable for rehabilitation The A structural engineer 8m) building would also house a small laboratory. needs inspection of the Potable water is available on site. existing building 12. Sludge thickeners to be added, one 15 m  Waste sludge from IDALs wasted during aeration to in Phase I and another similarly sized unit in be directed here along with primary sludge, with Phase II. 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- Priority term use and if there is any rehabilitation needs. 14. Process Automation The treatment would be fully automated with a SCADA in the Administration Building. 15. Demolition of unnecessary site infrastructure The preferred process option would make redundant Initial estimate of spoil many of the existing STP components, which are in from redundant structures mostly poor condition. is 5,600 m3 16. Disposal of sludge produced by WWTPs The amount of sludge produced by the WWTPs is Estimate of sludge relatively small and will be air dried such as to meet produced by the WWTPs US EPA Class B standards. It will be suitable for by 2040 is 2.9 tonnes/day land application or disposal at the landfill and the (Karakol) and 1.2 quantity of sludge is unlikely to be an issue. tonnes/day (Balykchy). 16. Desludging of existing ponds at WWTP Sludge sampling and analysis will be conducted as Priority descibed below for the existing Karakol Irrigation Reservoir. In the case of no contamination, sludge will be dried on site and disposed of on land or at the landfill site. Should the quantity of sludge exceed the demand of land application or of the landfill, sludge will be stockliled and dried on site as dicussed below for the Karakol Irrgation Reservoir.

If the sludge is contaminated it will not be disposed of under the ADB project. 17. Desludging of exisitng Karakol Irrigation Sludge Sampling and Analysis Initial estimate of the Reservoir • Before start of any removal activity on the sludge from reservoir is sludge, sampling and analysis to be 400,000 m3 undertaken by a reputable company • Prior to sampling, a Sludge Sampling and Analysis Plan shall be prepared and submitted to ADB for approval – the plan will contain, but not limited to: parameters to analyze, proper sampling and transport plan to recognized and certified labs, methodologies, standards to use for comparison, etc • Once results of the analysis are ready, an assessment on the level of contamination must be undertaken, including comparing the results with international standards

The quantity of sludge to be disposed from the Irrigation Reservoir is likely to exceed the immediate capacity for land application or disposal of the landfill. It is therefore proposed to stockpile the dredged sludge in an allocated section of the reservoir where it can be dried and disposed of for either land application or at the landfill at a controlled rate. It is considered unlikely that this sludge will be contaminated and that after drying will be suitable for either of these applications. The following scenarios will be considered:

31

Actions Details Comments Wastewater treatment plant Scenario 1 – No Contamination • In case of no contamination, the following steps for cleaning, transport, management and disposal will be undertaken: o Isolate an area of up to 10 ha within the lagoon for stockpiling of sludge. o Construct a temporary but impermeable wall to separate the stockpiling area from the storage area. o Construct sumps in the stockpile area to pump out water seeping from the excavated sludge to keep the area dry. o Dredge sludge from the remaining lagoon area and place in the stockpile area. o As the sludge dries in the stockpile area, transport dry sludge at a controlled rate for either land application or disposal at the landfill in accordance with demand at those areas.

Scenario 2 – Contaminated Sludge • If the sludge is contaminated, removal and disposal of the sludge will not be undertaken under the ADB project.

The amount of sludge produced by the WWTPs is relatively small and will be air dried such as to meet US EPA Class B standards. It will be suitable for land application or disposal at the landfill and the quantity of sludge will not be an issue.

Sewerage network. Road surface will be An additional 11.3 km of secondary gravity sewer rehabilitated & reinstated Extension of sewerage network. pipelines will be included. to original after sewer laying work Sewerage network. Construction of Sewage PS-4 and rehabilitation Construction of a new submersible pumping station PS-4 was not rehabilitated of Pumping Main at Pristan No.4 in Pristan to collect sewage from up to 100 under ISDP-1, and households not currently connected to the Pristan currently raw sewage is wastewater system. 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 parallel43.

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

32

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.

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.44 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 biodiversity45 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.46

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.

44 The lake’s rich environmental, archeological and cultural resources are renowned internationally. 45 The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty relating to wetlands sustainable use and conservation. 46 Including the Siberian ibex and the endangered snow leopard. 33

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 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)47.

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.

47 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

34

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 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 North South South North Month North East South West Calm East East West West 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

35

Figure 12 – Topography, Issyk-Kul Basin

Source: EC Copernicus Project, reproduced in ADB 2009b

36

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 North South South North Month North East South West Calm East East West West 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

37

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

38

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 lake48. 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.

48 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. 39

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.

40

Figure 15 – Issyk-Kul Lake bathymetry

41

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 frequency49. 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 websites50 (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.

49 The sampling data records have been poorly documented, such as dates, locations and depths of samples cannot be verified and locations retraced. 50http://water.nature.gov.kg/index-php/en/finwaterwei-ii-2014-2017 and www.skye.fi/en_US/Research_and_development_projects.and

42

Figure 16 – Hydrological network of Issyk-Kul Lake

43

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 рН (pH 8.67 9.2 8.45 8.39 8.56 8.52 8.44 6.5-8.5 units) 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 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 0.39 NH4+ Nitrite NO2- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 0.024 Nitrate 0.05 7.6 8.2 <0.1 0.50 1.00 0.02 9.0 NO3- P <0.005 <0.02 Fe 0.345 1.05 <0.05 Ca 106.8 100.6 Petroleum Mg 341.5 333.1 Station, Na 1807.9 1630.3 Balykchy 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 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10 Surfactants Oil <0.02 0.05 <0.05 0.03 0.021 0.05 products 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 1.02 0.2 0.2 0.20 <0.039 2.03 3.0 0.39 NH4+ Nitrite NO2- 0.032 0.01 <0.01 0.16 0.228 0.024 Nitrate 0.48 8.8 8.8 0.90 0.60 3.5 4.20 9.0 NO3- P 0.006 Fe 0.054 0.184 <0.05 Ca 105.9 105.9 Mg 340.9 329.6 Na 1847 1640 Ship yard, K 85.6 76.9 Balykchy 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 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.10 Surfactants Oil <0.02 0.07 <0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 products 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 Ammonium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 0.39 NH4+ Nitrite NO2- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 0.024

44

Location Parameter 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 Jun 2013 Oct 2013 MAC Nitrate <0.08 7.7 1.5 <0.1 0.70 1.20 9.0 NO3- P <0.005 Fe <0.006 <0.006 <0.05 Ca 111.7 111.7 “Cruise” Mg 414.8 414.8 Yacht Na 2324.9 1516.7 Club, K 105.8 105.8 Cholpon- Cu <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 0.001 Ata 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 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10 Surfactants Oil <0.02 0.06 0.11 <0.02 <0.02 0.05 products 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 <0.05 0.06 0.05 <0.039 <0.039 <0.039 0.39 NH4+ Nitrite NO2- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.024 Nitrate 0.05 8.4 0.5 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 9.0 NO3- P <0.005 Fe 0.594 0.032 <0.05 Ca 110.5 121.3 Mg 407.5 345.6 ULAN Na 2366.9 1784 plant, K 85.6 Karakol 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 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10 Surfactants Oil <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.05 products 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 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 45

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 Before Biological After Biological In Irrigation Inlet standard Ponds Ponds Channel April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 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 - 118 83 62 57 10 106 (mg/L) Total Dissolved Solids - 525 246 548 381 267 165 (mg/L) 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.

46

Table 19 - Surface Water Quality in Chui River, u/s and d/s of Balykchy WWTP Elements Measure Analysis Data for spots on (dates) 2014-2017 MAC unit (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 mg/l None None None None 0.05/0.05 0.05 products 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 Karakol CMEA At Storage At Mixing Irrigation Parameter Before Biological After Biological standar Inlet Lagoon Point canal Ponds Ponds d April Aug 2017 April Aug 2017 April Aug 2017 Aug 2017 Aug 2017 Aug 2017 2017 2017 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 - 76 128 75 22 78 12 26 42 (mg/L) Total Dissolved Solids - 348 704 373 353 643 528 213 160 (mg/L) 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 Alkalinity (mg/L) - 175 285 165 170 271 328 174 89 Total Phosphorus - 2.6 0.7 3.7 2.8 0.9 2.8 1.4 0.03 (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) - 12.7 9.5 15.6 14.0 8.9 15.5 5.0 0.1 47

Karakol CMEA At Storage At Mixing Irrigation Parameter Before Biological After Biological standar Inlet Lagoon Point canal Ponds Ponds d 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.

118. Samples were taken from the Chui River upstream and downstream of the WWTP lagoons in 2014 and 2017. At this spot 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 22), reflecting the fact that raw, albeit diluted sewage, does reach the river via the canals and pumping station reservoir.

Table 21 – Surface Water quality in 2013, 2017 u/s and d/s of Karakol wastewater treatment plant Elements Measure Analysis Data for spots on 2013 (month) - 2017 MAC unit (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. Table 22 – Surface Water quality in 2014, 2017 u/s and d/s of Balykchy wastewater treatment plant Elements Measure Analysis Data for spots on 2014 - 2017 MAC unit (CMEA 1977) Date 13.08 20.08 27.08 03.09 12.07.17 рН рН unit ------7.3/ 7.62 6.5-8.5 Flow speed m/sec ------NA Suspended solids mg/l 33/40 29/20 18/25 27/26 32/35 No CMEA standard BOD5 mg of O/l 1.9/2.06 1.51/1.89 1.56/1.88 2.62/2.79 2.5/2.66 3.0 COD mg of O/l 3.31/3.89 30.0 Ammonium N mg/l 0.039/0.05 0.02/0.05 0.039/0.09 0.02/0.06 0.035/0.05 2.0 Nitrite N mg/l 0.003/0.003 0.001/0.005 0.004/0.005 0.004/0.004 0.002/0.002 10.0 Nitrate N mg/l 0.25/0.23 0.28/0.20 0.23/0.20 0.3/0.24 0.24/0.21 1.0 Source: ITDEP, 2014, 2017 Standard: The Rules of Protection of Surface Waters (1993, No. 136) – MAC for fisheries.

119. 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.

48

7. Air Quality & Noise-The Two Project Sites A. Air Quality

120. 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.

121. 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 23: 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 Standard51 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

122. 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

123. 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.

51 "Maximum allowable concentration of contaminants in atmospheric air settlements" (2004), Resolution of the Chief state Sanitary Inspector No. 20, 28 May 2004. 49

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

D. Avalanches 124. 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 125. 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).

126. 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).

127. 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.

50

Figure 18 – Mud flow risk map, Issyk-Kul Basin 51

4.3 Ecological Resources

128. 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

129. 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.

130. 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.

131. 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

132. The IBR is home to an estimated 1,500 plant species.52 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

52 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.

52

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.

133. 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.).

134. 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).

135. 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).

136. 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

137. 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

138. 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

139. 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.

140. 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

53

141. 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.

142. 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.

143. 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

54

Figure 20 – Vegetation community map, Issyk-Kul Basin

55

6. Fish

144. 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 24 – The ichthyofauna of Issyk-Kul Lake Family Species Common English Name Origin/status Salmonidae Salmo ischchan gegarkuni Sevan trout Introduced in 1930 (salmon, Salmo gairdneri Rainbow trout Introduced trout) Coregonus lavaretus Sevan whitefish Introduced in 1970s 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) Cyprinidae Diptychus dybovskii lansdelli Issyk-Kul naked osman Endemic (in lake) (carp, Endemic Diptychus gymnogaster microcephalus Issyk-Kul scaled osman dace) 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 Introduced Pseudorasbora parva Gudgeon or amur chebachok

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 Cobitidae Noemacheilus strauchii ulacholicus var. (loaches) Spotted thicklip loach Endemic pedaschenko Noemacheilus strauchii dorsaloides Lake gubach Endemic Noemacheilus dorsalis Grey loach Endemic to Central Asia Noemacheilus labiatus Plain stone loach Introduced Percidae Stizostedion lucioperca Pike-perch or zander Introduced in 1956-58 (perch) Eleotridae (sleeper Hypseleotris cinctus Sleeper goby Introduced gobies) Source: UNDP 2007; ADB 2009b

145. 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.

146. 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 fish in the lake (UNDP 2007a). Other threats to endemic species are (i) a substantial increase in

56

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 25 – Endemic and introduced species in urgent need of management Recommended Scientific Name Common Name Origin Status Action Leuciscus schmidti Chebak Endemic Threatened Leuciscus bergi Chebachok Endemic Threatened Protect and re-stock 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 Parasalmo (Salmo) mykiss Rainbow Trout Introduced Voracious piscivore Control and remove gairdneri

Stizostedion lucioperca Zander (or Pikeperch) Introduced Voracious piscivore Abramix brame orientalis Bream Introduced Fish-egg feeder Source: UNDP 2007a

147. 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

148. 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.

Figure 21 – Rana asiatica. Copied from Google Image

57

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

149. 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

150. 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 (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.

151. 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 26 – Protected Areas in the Issyk-Kul Oblast Year IUCN Name Area (ha) Purpose founded Category* 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 Preservation of game species and alpine Ak-Suu Forest Sanctuary 32,014 1958 Category IV forest ecosystem Preservation of game species and alpine Teplokluchinka Game Sanctuary 29,000 1972 Category IV forest ecosystem Protection of Roe Deer, Siberian Deer, Wild Tup Game Reserve 19,085 1978 Category IV Boar Preservation of ecosystems and game Chon-Kemin Game Sanctuary 13,092 1980 Category IV species Ottuk Complex Sanctuary Complex sanctuary of game species and Category IV (part of Issyk-Kul Strict Nature 13,130 1985 ecosystem (created for preservation of

Reserve) Goitered Gazelle) Ken-Suu Game Sanctuary 8,712 1989 Category IV Preservation of game species

58

Year IUCN Name Area (ha) Purpose founded Category* Preservation of game species and forest Jargylchak Game Sanctuary 23,098 1990 Category IV ecosystems Sarychat-Ertash Strict Nature Ecosystem and rare and endangered species 135,400 1995 Category I Reserve protection Karakol National Park 38,256 1997 Category II Preservation of Karakol Gorge ecosystems 4,311,588 (all Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve of Issyk-Kul 1998/ 2001 Category V Sustainable development Oblast) No official protection status in the KR, but Eastern Issyk-Kul Lake IBA 2,700 2008 NA recognized at the global level as significant for Western-Issyk-Kul Lake IBA 8,400 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.

4.4 Nationally Designated Protected Areas

152. 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.

153. 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.

154. 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)

155. 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.

156. 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.

59

157. 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).

158. 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 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).

60

Figure 23 – Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve zoning map

61

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

2. Issyk-Kul Lake Ramsar Site

160. 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)

161. 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).

162. 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

163. 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.

164. 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).

165. 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.

166. 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

62

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

167. 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).

168. 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.

169. Existing and projected population growth rates for the Low Growth and High Growth scenarios are shown in Table 27.

Table 27 – Population Growth Rates in Balykchy and Karakol Population Growth Rates (% p.a) Location Projected Low Projected High Growth 2009-2013 (Actual) 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.

170. Based on the above growth rates, the projected residential populations for the low growth and high growth scenarios are shown in Table 28 below.

Table 28 – Population Projections for Balykchy and Karakol Population (‘000) Location 2017 census 2018 2028 2038 Low High Low High Low High

Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth 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

171. 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 World Bank recently reclassified the KR from a ‘low income country’ to a ‘lower-middle income country’. 63

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

172. 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

173. 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.

174. 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.

175. 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

176. 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).

177. 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.

178. 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.

64

Figure 24 – Population density map, Issyk-Kul Basin 65

E. Fishing

179. 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

180. 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.

181. 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).

182. 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).

183. 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 29).53 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).

53 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.

66

Table 29 – 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

184. 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.

185. 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.

186. 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.

187. 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 30. 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 30 – Tourism Projections for Greater Cholpon-Ata and Karakol Number of Tourist and Available Beds in Greater Cholpon-Ata and Karakol (‘000) 2012 2018 2028 2038 Item Low High Low High Low High Low High Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth No. of Tourists in 688.7 688.7 734.9 790.8 862.9 1,215.8 1,102.1 1,448.0 Issyk-Kul Oblast No. of tourists in 282.3 282.3 301.3 324.2 353.8 498.5 451.9 593.7 Balykchy, Cholpon- Ata and Karakol No. of Beds (hotels 14.1 14.1 15.0 16.2 19.4 42.7 24.8 50.9 formal) No of Beds 79.2 79.2 84.5 90.9 108.7 151.2 138.8 180.1 (informal) Source: Consultant estimate based on ISDP-2, Population Projection, Ministry of Finance, Kyrgyz Republic PMO, June 2014

67

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

68

188. 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 31 and 32 show the projected number of tourists staying in Balykchy and Karakol during 2018, 2028 and 2038. Table 31 – Total Number of Tourists Visiting the Towns and Karakol Number of Tourists Location 2012 2018 2028 2038 Total for Issyk-Kul Oblast 688,700 790,800 1,215,000 1,498,000 Total for Balykchy and 282,300 342,200 498.500 593,700 Karakol 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 32 – Total Number of Tourist Nights Number of Tourist Nights Location 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

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

G. Service Sector

190. 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).

191. 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 192. 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 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.

69

193. 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.

194. 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 33).

Table 33 – 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 9,795 77.6% 7,800 39.5% and 2017) 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 195. 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.

196. 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.

197. 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 198. 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 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).

70

199. 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).

200. 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).

201. 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

202. 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 203. 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.

204. 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).

205. 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. 71

2. PCRs in the Project Area 206. 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.

207. 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.

208. 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.

209. 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.

210. 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 211. 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 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

72

4.8 The Project Sites

1. Balykchy

A. Overview

212. 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.

213. 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

214. 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.

215. 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).

216. 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.

73

Figure 26 - Wetlands surrounded by riparian Figure 27 – Desert habitat around lagoons, Balykchy vegetation, Balykchy wastewater treatment facility wastewater treatment facility

217. 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

218. 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

Fauna

219. 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

74

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.

220. 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.

221. 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.

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

Assessment

223. 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.

224. 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.

225. 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.

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

Legend: Blue arrow = drainage direction 75

Physical Cultural Resources

226. 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

Table 34 – Known and Surveyed PCR Sites in the General Vicinity of Balykchy WWTP Map PCR Location Description Code A01 Old Kyrgyz Cemetery 880 m W of Abandoned 50+ years ago. No archeological protection status. WWTP A02 Ruins of Aik Chiy 1000 m W of Ruins of settlement abandoned 50+ years ago. No archeological protection status. Settlement WWTP A03 Kok-Bulak Burial Ground 880 m NW of Burial ground consists of numerous stone and earthen mounds of round and WWTP 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 4.5 km SW of Rayon (district) list of historical and cultural heritage. Ground WWTP A05 Kyzyl-Ompol Burial 6.4 km SW of No protection status Ground WWTP A06 Sary Bulan Ancient 6.2 km SW of The settlement was one of the metallurgical centers of the Issyk-Kul from 1000-1200 Settlement WWTP 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 4.5 km SW of Stone tools made more than 100,000 years ago. Site is included in the national list Paleolithic Site WWTP 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 4.5 km SW of Burial site in Boz-Barmak Lower Paleolithic Site (see above). Ground WWTP A09 Salamat-Bulak Lower 4.5 km SW of Stone tools made more than 100,000 years ago. Since 1965 the Paleolithic site has Paleolithic Site WWTP 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 4.5 km SW of Stone tools dated Low Paleolithic (2.6 million - 150,000 years ago). During previous Paleolithic Site WWTP site investigation stone tools were collected on an area of several hundred m2.

76

Map PCR Location Description Code Significance - included in the national list of cultural heritage. Present condition is satisfactory, but not protected. A11 Kutmaldy Landscape Encompasses Watercourse which once connected the Chu River to Issyk-Kul Lake. Linked with the area 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

227. 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.

228. 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.

B. Wastewater Treatment Plant Site

Habitat

229. 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).

230. 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.

231. 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).

232. 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 77

(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 Figure 33 – Riparian remnant forest along Karakol formation River

233. 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 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

234. 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

235. 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.

236. 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

78

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

237. 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.

238. 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

239. 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.

240. 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.

241. 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

242. There are no known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the WWTP or irrigation reservoir, and this finding was confirmed by the archaeological survey. 79

5 Analysis of Alternatives

243. 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.

244. 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

245. 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

246. 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

247. 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

248. 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

249. 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.

6. Discussion of Alternatives

250. 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.

80

251. 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.

252. 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.

253. 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.

254. 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.

255. 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.

256. 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.

7. The Preferred Options:

257. 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.

81

258. 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.

259. The wastewater treatment process selected for both the Balykchy and Karakol WWTPs is the Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration Lagoon (IDEAL) process. The IDEAL process allows the screened and degritted sewage to be biologically stabilised and the solids to be settled in a single tank. There is no need for separate settling tanks. Periodic aeration of the sewage encourages the growth of bacteria which break down the organic material to produce water, new cells and inoffensice byproducts such as water, carbon dioxide and nitrate salts. The aeration is stopped regularly, and the sludge and micro-organisms settle so that when the decanter is lowered into the tank contents it decants clear, treated liquid. One added advantage of stopping the aeration is that it promotes certain bacteris which convert nitrates into nitogen gas so that the nutrient nitrogen is largely removed from the sewage. The sludge is pumped out periodically to retain the ideal proportions of raw sewage and active bacteria. The process is effective in removing undesirable nutrients, including nirgen and phosphorus, which encourage the growth of algae in the water downstream of the discharge point. A diagram of the process is shown in Figure 39.

260. Currently, both the private sector and the Vodokanals operate pumpout (vacuum) trucks and it was assumed that future septage loads would be accepted at a rehabilitated STPs with a special septage covered receival station as shown in Figure 36. The city’s septage load would proportionally decrease as the sewer connections increased. The current number of vacuum trucks operating is 4 and 8 trucks in Balykchy and Karakol respectively. Additionalvacuum trucks will be provided to the vodokanals to increase their sludge collection capacity, A septage management framework will provide: • A review of the current septage management practices in Issyk-Kul including existing regulatory arrangements, analysis of septage characteristics and composition, details of the current de- sludging practices and opportunities for improvement and operator health and safety. • Outline of the the institutional arrangements and regulatory strengthening including the current role of the Vodokanals in septage management, engaging with the private sector, tariffs and payments, promotional activities, development of ordinances on septage management. • Details of the septage collection and transportation arrangements including number and types of vehicles, equipment needs. • Septage disposal and treatment arrangements – co-treatment with wastewater, stand-alone septage treatment facilities. • Disposal, re-use and regulation of biosolids and by-products of septage. • Scheduled de-sludging arrangements for the three towns and neighbouring villages. • Implementation road map for the Septage Management Framework and the next steps for implementation.

82

Figure 36 – Inlet works proposed for all WWTPs

261. 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.

83

Figure 37 – Proposed process schematic at Balykchy WWTP

84

Figure 38 – Proposed process schematic at Karakol WWTP

85

Figure 39 – Typical process flow diagram (PFD) for IDEAL secondary treatment following by tertiary trickling filter treatment for additional ammonia reduction

86

6 ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

262. The Project has been classified by the ADB as Category B for environment,54 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.

263. This section provides information on the impact assessment methodology and process adopted for the assessment of project impacts and determination of their significance.

264. Development of mitigation measures for identified significant effects are set out, and any residual significant effects are reported.

265. 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.

266. 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.

267. 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

268. 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.

269. 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.

54 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. 87

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

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

Table 35 – 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

88

Figure 41 – Location of sensitive receptors, in relation to Karakol WWTP

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

Table 36 – 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 Riparian Habitat Small stream flowing to – the E, NE and N of B04 WWTP, and associated riparian habitat SE06 Modern Kyrgyz 350 W of WWTP Cemetery 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 Biodiversity/Ecological lagoon SE10 Orchard 330 M to the E of the B05 Riparian habitat Wetlands and riparian lagoon – habitat, and Karakol B07 River, to the NW, N and E of the lagoon

89

1. Ecological Status of Balykchy and Karakol WWTP and surrounding area. Preamble 270. 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.

271. 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 272. 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 273. 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.

274. 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.

275. 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.

276. 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.

277. 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 278. The boundary of the area selected for the Karakol WWTP Critical Habitat Assessment is shown in Figure 42. 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.

90

Figure 42 – Boundary of Karakol Critical Habitat Assessment Area

Designations

279. PS No 6, states that areas which have international designation for biodiversity purposes are likely to be considered as critical habitats.

280. 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.

281. It is therefore considered on this basis that the area within the CHA boundary is not considered to be Crtical Habitat.

282. 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

283. 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.

284. 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.

Criterion 2: Endemic and/or restricted-range species

285. The biodiversity survey within Karakol WWTP area indicated the possible present of the Asiatic 91

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 43.

Figure 43 – Distribution of Asiatic Frog – Orange = Known Extant = Purple = Possible Extant

286. 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.

287. 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.

288. 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.

289. 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.

290. 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

Criterion 3: Migratory and/or congregatory species

291. 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.

92

Criterion 4: Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems

292. 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

293. 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

294. 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

295. The boundary of the Balykchy CHA area is shown in Figure 44. 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.

Figure 44 – Balykchy Critical Habitat Assessment Boundary

93

Designations

296. 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

297. 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

298. 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

299. 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

300. 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.

Criterion 5: Key evolutionary processes

301. 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

302. 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

303. Valued Environmental Receptors relating to the ecological status of Balykchy WWTP and surrounding area are provided in Table 37. These have been used to determine the potential impacts and their significance due to project activities.

94

Table 37 – 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

304. The project has the potential to adversely affect existing ecological value of the project site. Predicted effects are shown below in Table 38. These provide the agreed mitigation measures which will be put in place as part of the project. These are project commitments.

305. 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.

95

Table 38 – Matrix for Determining the Significance of Ecological Impacts in relation to Balykchy WWTP Impact Description Impact Magnitude Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigatio n EC08 Site clearance works will require Moderate General Wetland Local Low Minimise clearance of areas of vegetation to least NS habitats loss habitat required for safe construction and operation of WWT facility Maintain land not required in present condition EC09 Changes in local hydrology Moderate Ecosystem Local Low Design to ensure that wet areas remaining within NS affecting wetland status Functioning and the design do not have the hydrology changed so Services 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. EC10 Loss of habitat, and indirect Minor Breeding birds Local NS Do not conduct vegetation clearance during NS impacts such as noise, lighting, breeding season of species present visual disturbance during Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction construction procedures near to nesting habitats

EC11 Harm, kill and disturbance of Minor Corncrake National Medium Conduct ground clearance works outside of NS breeding Corncrake 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. EC12 Introduction of invasive species Minor Critical Habitat and National Medium All equipment to be used on site shall be cleaned NS and predators Ecosystem functioning thoroughly prior to delivery to project site. Soils and possible seeds from past projects shall be removed from all equipment. EC13 Increase in hunting pressure, Minor Critical Habitat and National Medium No workers will be allowed to hunt animals within NS predators etc Ecosystem functioning 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.

96

3. Biodiversity Valued Environmental Receptors – Karakol 306. Valued Environmental Receptors relating to the ecological status of Karakol WWTP and surrounding area are provided in Table 39. These have been used to determine the potential impacts and their significance due to project activities.

Table 39 – 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 Local Important to maintain the local functioning of the ecosystem services 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

307. The project has the potential to adversely affect existing ecological value of the project site. Predicted effects are shown below in Table 40. These provide the agreed mitigation measures which will be put in place as part of the project. These are project commitments.

308. Of particular significance is the presence of possible Critical Habitat within the project area. ADB requirements within the SPS (2009) state:

309. 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.

310. 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.

311. In accordance with best practice, the current assessment has been based on the precautionary approach and assume that the Asiatic Frog is present.

312. 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. 97

Table 40 – Matrix for Determining the Significance of Ecological Impacts in relation to Karakol WWTP Impact ID Description Impact Magnitude Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after Sensitivity mitigation Mitigatio n EC01 Site clearance works will Moderate General Wetland Local Low Minimise clearance of areas of vegetation to least required for NS require habitats loss habitat safe construction and operation of WWT facility Maintain land not required in present condition EC02 Changes in local Moderate Ecosystem Local Low Design to ensure that wet areas remaining within the design NS hydrology affecting Functioning and do not have the hydrology changed so that they dry out. In wetland status Services 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 EC03 Direct impacts of work on Moderate Asiatic Frog National Medium Preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where NS Asiatic Frog, casing disturbance of suitable habitats will occur. displacement, harm and If Asiatic Frog is confirmed, no direct works on the habitat they kill 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. EC04 Loss of habitat, and Minor Breeding birds Local NS Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season NS indirect impacts such as of species present noise, lighting, visual Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures disturbance during near to nesting habitats construction EC05 General loss of habitats, Moderate Assemblage of Local Low Avoid vegetation clearance during breeding season NS disturbance and change in birds Plan to include development or reinstatement of similar land use. habitats following completion of works. EC06 Introduction of invasive Minor Critical Habitat and National Medium All equipment to be used on site shall be cleaned thoroughly NS species and predators Ecosystem prior to delivery to project site. Soils and possible seeds from functioning past projects shall be removed from all equipment. EC07 Increase in hunting Minor Critical Habitat and National Medium No workers will be allowed to hunt animals within the project NS pressure, predators etc Ecosystem site or surrounding areas. Work camps if any on site shall not functioning 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.

98

6.2 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

1. Preamble

313. This section provides information on the impact assessment methodology and process adopted for the assessment of project impacts and determination of their significance.

314. Development of mitigation measures for identified significant effects are set out, and any residual significant effects are reported.

315. 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.

316. 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. 317. 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. 318. 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 319. 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. 320. 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 41 – Matrix for Determining the Significance of Environmental Impacts International/ National/ High Regional/ Local/Low Extreme Moderate Major HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW Moderate HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW Minor MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW NS Negligible NS NS NS NS

321. 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.

322. 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.

99

3. Mitigation 323. Hierarchy of Mitigation – Figure 45 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 45 – Hierarchy of Mitigation

324. 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 325. The results of the assessment are present in the following sections.

326. 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. • 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.

100

• 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. • Desludging of the Irrigation Reservoir down from Karakol WWTP will cause generation of the big volume of sludge waste (estimated 400,000 m3): (i) If the sludges are not contaminated, they will be disposed they will be disposed in traditional method (reuse as an organic additive on agricultural lands near to the WWTPs or placed on the dump site agreed with the local municipal bodies. (ii) In case if the sludges are contaminated with harmful substances, detailed environmental protection plan will be developed, in consultation with Local Authorities and State Environmental Protection Agency on the method of storage, treating, and disposal, and confirm the place to dispose the sludge. No works will be carried out before IEE & EMP updated and confirmed by the Government.

101

Table 42 – Assessment of Impacts for Archaeology – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation AR01 Risk of encountering unknown Potential unknown National/High Medium Develop and Implement a Chance Finds Procedure as part of the EMP NS archaeological resources or artefacts below ground artefacts

Table 43 – Assessment of Impacts for Air Quality – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation AQ01 Localised changes in ambient air Local population National/High Medium Contractor to maintain all fossil fuel burning equipment in accordance with NS quality due to operation of mobile and health manufacturers recommendations stationary equipment burning fossil Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum emissions and avoid fuels. using old equipment and vehicles No equipment shall be left idling if not in use AQ02 Emissions from mobile and stationary National Air Quality National/High NS No equipment shall be left idling if not in use NS equipment on sewerlines, affecting Standards Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum emissions and avoid local air quality standards using old equipment and vehicles

AQ03 Fugitive dust emissions from works, Local population National/High Medium Construction traffic speed limit when passing through populated areas N/S construction traffic causing dust health Water of dusty-unpaved roads and populated areas soiling and increase in PM2.5 and PM10

Table 44 – Assessment of Impacts for Community Safety – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation CS01 Increased risk of road traffic accident Local population National/High Medium Actively enforce speed limits for Project vehicles. NS due to construction traffic movements health 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. 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.

102

Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation Zero tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use amongst all workforce CS02 Impacts on health of dust and noise Local population National/High Medium Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant noise and air NS emissions health 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.

CS03 Damages to utilities by excavation Local population National/High Medium Require contractors to carry out a utility survey before construction and take NS and temporary access cut-off to health action during construction to minimize impact on utilities and attend to any properties. 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

Worker Health and Safety – Construction

Table 45 – Assessment of Impacts for Workers Safety – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation WH02 Poor quality housing and hygiene Worker Health and National/High Medium Contactor to ensure that workers accommodation and rights are in line with the NS standards resulting in injury or Safety FIDIC Pink Book requirements sickness 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 WH03 Injury or fatality of workers due to Worker Health and National/High Medium Contractor shall develop Method Statements for all major activities and include NS insufficient controls on work activities Safety health and safety risk assesment for each of these activities and processes Contractor shall provide health and safety induction training for all staff, and specific training for staff working on work sites.

103

Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation 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 WH04 Potential presence of asbestos piping Worker Health and National/High Medium If asbestos is encountered, Contractor shall develop an Asbestos Management NS - risk of worker exposure to asbestos Safety Plan fibres Worker awareness of asbestos and risks asscoiated with handling such material

Table 46 – Assessment of Impacts for Waste Management – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation WM01 Inappropriate management and General environment Regional/Moderate Low Prior to start of construction, develop an inventory of waste fractions expected NS disposal of waste during construction to be generated during construction Get approval for disposal routes and sites by Municipalities of Balyckhy and Karakol and SES

WM02 Inappropriate management and Water courses - water Regional/Moderate Low EMP to include appropriate waste management protocols NS disposal of waste during construction quality Location of appropriate waste storage facilities at all work sites affecting water courses 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 WM03 Poor waste management practices General environment Regional/Moderate Low All hazardous waste containers to be labelled clearly with a waste hazard NS resulting in direct and indirect affects identification label. on project area environment 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.

104

Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation 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. WM04 Desludging of the Irrigation reservoir Water courses - water Regional/Moderate Medium Sludge Sampling and Analysis NS will cause generation of the big volume quality. • Before start any removal activity on the sludge, sampling and analysis to of sludge waste. Soils. be undertaken by a reputable company • Prior sampling, a Sludge Sampling and Analysis Plan to be prepared and submitted to ADB for approval – plan will contain, but not limited to: parameters to analyze, proper sampling and transport plan to recognized and certified labs, methodologies, standards to use for comparison, etc • Once results of the analysis are ready, an assessment on the level or not of contamination must be undertaken, including comparing the results with international standards

Scenario 1 – No Contamination • In case of no contamination, the following steps for cleaning, transport, management and disposal will be undertaken: - Isolate an area of up to 10 ha within the lagoon for stockpiling of sludge. - Construct a temporary but impermeable wall to separate the stockpiling area from the storage area. - Construct sumps in the stockpile area to pump out water seeping from the excavated sludge to keep the area dry. - Dredge sludge from the remaining lagoon area and place in the stockpile area. - As the sludge dries in the stockpile area, transport dry sludge at a controlled rate for either land application or disposal at the landfill in accordance with demand at those areas.

105

Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation Scenario 2 – Contaminated Sludge • If the sludge is contaminated, removal and disposal of the sludge will not be undertaken under ADB project.

Table 47 – Assessment of Impacts for Water Resources – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation WR01 Potential for contamination of water Water courses - water Regional/Moderate Low Contractor to conduct risk assessment on all activities near to water courses and NS course due to release of quality apply approriate controls hydrocarbons or oils and grease etc No refuelling of vehicles or equipment to take place within river beds or withi 25 metres of the edge of the water course. WR02 Site rainwater runoff can wash away Water courses - water Regional/Moderate Low Store all liquid/solid waste properly above ground to avoid spills/ leaks; NS residues, garbage, leaves, grease, quality Store Haz-Mat, e.g. fuels, chemicals, and hazardous waste, in bunded areas to etc., thereby potentially avoid leaks escaping to the ground or nearby surface waters. Provide ample polluting nearby surface water natural ventilation; Develop spill response procedures and provide spill response kits at all Haz- Mat storage areas and work sites;

WR03 Impacts due to mining of Water courses - water Regional/Moderate Low Procure construction material (sand, gravel, aggregate, etc) only from NS construction materials quality 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

Table 48 – Assessment of Impacts for Noise and Vibration – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation NO01 Noise disturbance due to Local population National/High Medium Awareness program for local residents prior to commencement of works NS equipment and construction health Limitation of working hours for normal construction activities near to settlements times to be set activities. out in the EMP Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant noise No idling of equipment when not in use

106

Table 49 – Assessment of Impacts for Socio-economics – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation SE03 Positive effect - short term Local incomes Regional/Moderate Low Develop plan for local recruitment of workers for project - train as required Positive - employment of local people, Low this can offset some of the Employ at least 30% of workforce from the vicinity of construction works if possible disturbance experienced by people living near construction sites

Table 50 – Assessment of Impacts for Soil and Ground Water – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation SG01 Accidental spillage of Ground Water Regional/Moderate Low Fuels should be stored in good quality above ground tanks placed on an impervious surface NS hydrocarbon affecting local with a spill containment bund capable of containing 110% of the tank capacity ground water 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 SG02 Potential damage or loss of Soils Regional/Moderate Low Soils shall be protected from water and wind erosion. Removal of vegetation shall be NS soil resource due to erosion minimised or improper handling. 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

Table 51 – Assessment of Impacts for Biodiversity – Construction Phase Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation TE01 Potential impacts on Trees/vegetation Local/Low Low Contractor to develop a tree protection plan as part of the SEMP. This will as a minimium NS trees/vegetation adjacent to within pipelines right set out restrictions on tree removals, stock piling soils over tree root systems, excessive work sites of way and on compression of soils around tree root systems. WWTP sites 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.

107

Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation TE02 Site clearance works will General Wetland Local Low Minimise clearance of areas of vegetation to least required for safe construction and NS require habitats loss habitat operation of WWT facility Maintain land not required in present condition TE03 Direct impacts of work on Asiatic Frog National Medium Preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog in all locations where disturbance of suitable habitats NS Asiatic Frog, casing will occur. displacement, harm and kill 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. TE04 Loss of habitat, and indirect Breeding birds Local Low Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season of species present NS impacts such as noise, Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures near to nesting habitats lighting, visual disturbance during construction TE05 Harm, kill and disturbance of Corncrake National Medium Conduct ground clearance works outside of Corncrake breeding season breeding Corncrake Clear all required sites of vegetation during winter period. Competent ecologist to check for presence of breeding Corncrake within or near to project NS 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. TE06 Introduction of invasive Critical Habitat and National Medium All equipment to be used on site shall be cleaned thoroughly prior to delivery to project site. NS species and predators Ecosystem Soils and possible seeds from past projects shall be removed from all equipment. functioning TE07 Increase in hunting pressure, Critical Habitat and National Medium No workers will be allowed to hunt animals within the project site or surrounding areas. Work NS predators etc Ecosystem camps if any on site shall not allow domesticated cats or dogs to be kept. functioning Appropriate control of vermin such as rats and house mice shall be carried out by the contractor at worker camps and site office facilities.

Table 52 – Assessment of Impacts for Socio-economics - Operation Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation SE01 Large portion of population in Karakol and Balykchy cities Local incomes Regional/Moderate Medium Consider development of sustainable Positive - will receive an adequate access to centralized sewerage community tourism plan. Medium system.

108

Table 53 – Assessment of Impacts for Water Resources - Operation Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation WR031 Unsafe disposal of Water courses - Regional/Moderate Medium Solid wastes that are captured in the screen must be treated and placed in specially Low sediments and sludge from water quality designated disposal areas agreed by the SES and Municipality; STP into water ways or the Sand captured by the sand trap must be treated and disposed in a safe site agreed by the environment SES and Municipality; Biosolids from the wastewater treatment plants will be handled as follows: It is proposed that the rehabilitated WWTPs produce stabilized biosolids in that primary solids will not be allowed to be recycled directly. It is recommended that all biosolids meet at least USEPA Class B with respect to pathogens and stability by one of the five biosolids management approaches as given below. 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. This will also reduce potential odor from the biosolids. Class B sludge under the USEPA Part 503 Rule when land applied has its own restrictions 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). It is envisioned that all solids from the WWTPs at Balykchy and Karakol will be treated via options 1 to 3 to achieve Class B.

109

WR02 Operational failure from the Water courses - Regional/Moderate Medium Low WWTP and potential water quality Operational failure at the plant would be due to power failure (likely to be short term) or pollution of waterways 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: (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 54 – Assessment of Impacts for Air Quality/Odour - Operation Impact Description Receptor Receptor Value/ Sig. before Approved Mitigation Measures Sig. after ID Sensitivity mitigation Mitigation WR03AQ Localised changes in Local population National/High Medium NS 01 ambient air quality (odour) health A septage receiving facility will be provided at the wastewater treatment plants and septage will due to operation of STP. be treated at the plant. Biosolids from the wastewater treatment plants will be handled as follows: There are currently no Kyrgyz Republic Standards for biosolids. It is proposed that the rehabilitated WWTPs produce stabilized biosolids in that primary solids will not be allowed to be recycled directly. It is recommended that all biosolids meet at least USEPA Class B55 with respect to pathogens and stability by one of the five biosolids management approaches as given below. 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.

55 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).

110

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. This will also reduce potential odor from the biosolids. Class B sludge under the USEPA Part 503 Rule when land applied has its own restrictions56 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). 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.

111

5. Additional Impact Assessment Requirements

327. The location of important elements of the project such as construction camps, additional streets for sewerlines in Karakol is currently unknown.

328. The PMO shall be responsible for obtaining any required National and Local Permits for these facilities.

329. 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

330. 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 months57 of an international environmental sdpecialist and 21 months of a national environmental specialist.

6.4 Environmental Reporting Requirements

331. 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.

332. 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.

333. 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

334. 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.

57 International consultant time assumes 2 months in first year to set up monitoring systems, confirm the contractors SEMP and set up reporting templates.

112

7 INFORMATION DISCLOSURE, CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION

7.1 Stakeholder Consultation Approach

335. 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

336. 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

337. 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

338. 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

339. 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.

113

340. 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

341. 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:

342. Q1. WWTPs treatment efficiency (BOD, COD and Ammonia) and use of treated wastewater.

343. 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.

344. Q2. The sewer lines network coverage increase and connection to it.

345. 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.

346. 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.

347. Q3a. Is there any norm to ban the construction of houses near the WWTPs

348. 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.

349. 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.

350. 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.

351. Q5. Terms of construction of the WWTP after the approval of the project.

352. 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.

Table 55 – Public Consultations participation summary Participant Meeting # Location Date/ Approx. Time Language 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

114

D. Conclusion

353. Without exception, participants (Table 55 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

354. 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.

355. 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.

115

8 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM)

8.1 Introduction

356. 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

357. 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

358. 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).

359. 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

360. 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.

116

3. Operation

361. 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 46). 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.

117

Figure 46 – Grievance Redress Steps

362. 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.

363. 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

364. 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.

118

B. Karakol City

365. 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.

119

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

366. 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

367. 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

368. The impacts identified in the course of the analysis presented in this report are listed as line items in EMP, which appears in Tables 56-58 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.

369. 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 59 after the EMPs.

370. 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 • Treatment and Disposal Plan for the sludge from the Irrigation Reservoir • 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

371. 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

120

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

372. 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

373. 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.

121

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PLAN (EMP)

Table 56 – Design Stage Mitigation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND EMP: mitigation measures at pre- Mitigation measures Responsibility OBJECTIVE: design stage Area Potential impact Protection of historical/cultural areas • Identify potential historical / cultural sites • The PPTA team has carried out a cultural heritage • PMO to confirm that a detailed survey is carried that could be affected by onsite or offsite preliminary investigation that concluded that works out and mitigation requirements (in the form of construction activity. at existing WWTPs would not impact on cultural protection of off alignment features and • Locate optional construction heritage sites (sites remote and footprint relocation of online features) are included in the sites/activities away from them. disturbed). contract documents. • Ensure construction personnel are • A Chance Finds Procedure as part of the EMP for • PMO to confirm that a provisional sum is aware of locations of historical / cultural the construction phase includes provision for included in the Contract Document to cover the areas and avoid them. ceasing work and notifying the Engineer should cost of engagement of a national archaeological • If the proposed construction passes artifacts of cultural or historical importance be specialist to visit the site, assess any chance close to historical / cultural areas, unearthed. finds and identify mitigation / remedial programs include temporary fences to restrict • A provisional sum shall be identified in the (Allow for up to 5 events at USD800/ event. machines and activities from Contract document to cover the costs of engaging encroaching in the area. a national archaeological specialist to determine the status of the find and remedial works needed. Protection of (sensitive) natural areas • Identify potential environmentally The WWTP sites have been the subject of a preliminary sensitive / natural areas. investigation See appendix 2 for report. The contractor should carry out works in a way that • Locate optional construction • During the design phase, attention should be paid minimizes destruction of vegetation and with minimum sites/activities away from them. to any impact on natural areas. of noise disturbance and containment of silty runoff. • Ensure construction personnel are • DSC together with competent ecologist needs to aware of locations of sensitive areas and undertake preconstruction survey for Asiatic Frog avoid them. in all locations where disturbance of suitable • If the proposed construction passes habitats will occur. close to these areas, include temporary • Competent ecologist to check for presence of fences to restrict machines and activities breeding Corncrake within or near to project site. from encroaching in the area. If present, suitable protection plans shall be developed, agreed with PMO and implemented. Ongoing monitoring of breeding Corncrake shall be part of this plan. To minimize damage to personal and • Ensure works will be restricted to the Project impacts have discussed with communities and Contractor will take ultimate responsibility for community property: existing WWTP footprints. councils during the consultation process. construction impacts on property. • Ensure projected impacts and proposed Detailed surveys of affected property will be completed measures have been discussed in prior to construction. advance with the affected community.

122

• work with local government officers and non-governmental organizations. • Conduct surveys before activities commence to identify all members of affected populations. EMP requirements included in the Design Preparation of SSEMP: • PMO will ensure that EMP will be adequately PMO will be responsible for EMP implementation. • Tree Management Plan included in bidding documents and all • Asbestos Management Plan environmental mitigation measures will be included • Traffic Management Plan in construction contracts. • Waste Management Plan • Monitoring of environmental quality and of the • Treatment and Disposal Plan for the implementation of mitigation measures will be sludge from Irrigation Reservoir performed by the Design and Supervision • Archaeological Chance Finds Consultant (DSC) with sufficient TORs and staff- Protocol/Plan time for this task. • Water Course Protection Management • As a minimum, it is required for DSC to recruit 4 Plan months of an International Environmental Specialist • Construction Camp Management Plan and 21 months of a National Environmental • Emergency Response Plan specialist over 3 years during the project • Air quality and Dust Suppression Plan implementation. • Complaints Log Book • The monitoring results will be included in the project monthly and quarterly progress reports and semi- • Health and Safety Management Plan annual environmental monitoring reports. • Construction Noise Management Plan Contractor’s SSEMP as an integral part of the Contractor is responsible for the EMP • The contractor will submit a site-specific Project proponent verifies that EMP is included into bid documents implementation. The bidding documents shall Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the bidding documents. have an Environment Protection section and following, prior to commencing construction works, include this. EMP is a part of the bidding but not limited to: (i) SEMP for demolition and documents so that the bidder is aware of the construction work at WWTPs; (ii) layout of the work environmental requirements for the Project. 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 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.

123

Table 57 – Construction Stage Mitigation Plan Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: Cultural Heritage: Archaeological find • Work stopped immediately in the area of any find, barriers All sites Throughout Contractor DSC on site. The desk survey did not identify erected to prevent casual access. where the project. any cultural and heritage elements on the excavation WWTP or pumping station site • Chance Finds Procedure as part of the EMP for the is carried construction phase includes provision for ceasing work and out. Casual finds: - there is always potential, notifying the Engineer should artifacts of cultural or historical during excavation works for cultural and importance be unearthed. archeologic artifacts to be uncovered Social or Community Concerns • Advise the local community of project plans in advance of All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC To minimize social disturbance and construction, and involve them in planning, as necessary. locations the project cost. Assume 6 monthly maximize community benefits from the • Avoid or minimize disturbances near living areas, schools, meeting with major project: hospitals, etc. stakeholders (6 half day • Control runoff and manage sediments near cultivated areas. workshops) and meeting • Abide by the laws of the Kyrgyz Republic relating to with stakeholders in major employment and use of labor. residential areas prior to • Maintain liaison with community representatives and works (half day workshop / arrange for the involvement of community groups where briefing) say 10 half day practicable. workshops). • Actively enforce speed limits for Project vehicles. All Throughout Contractor DSC Increased risk of road traffic accident due • Awareness program for local population prior to works locations the project to construction traffic movements 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. • 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 • Avoid using older vehicles and machinery, with significant Sewer lines Construction Included in overall project Contractor DSC Impacts on health of dust and noise noise and air emissions. of sewer lines cost emissions • Build trenches in short lengths; refill quickly; remove excess spoil quickly.

124

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: • 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.

Damages to utilities by • Require contractors to carry out a utility survey before Sewer lines Construction Included in overall project Contractor DSC excavation and temporary access cut-off construction and take action during construction to minimize of sewer lines cost to properties. 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

Community Socio-economics • Develop plan for local recruitment of workers for project - Positive effect - short term employment train as required of local people, this can offset some of • Employ at least 30% of workforce from the vicinity of the disturbance experienced by people construction works if possible living near construction sites Air Quality • Contractor to maintain all fossil fuel burning equipment in All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC Localised changes in ambient air quality accordance with manufacturers recommendations locations the project cost due to operation of mobile and stationary • Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum equipment burning fossil fuels. emissions and avoid using old equipment and vehicles • No equipment shall be left idling if not in use Emissions from mobile and stationary • No equipment shall be left idling if not in use All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC equipment on sewerlines, affecting local • Contractor to use good quality equipment with minimum locations the project cost air quality standards emissions and avoid using old equipment and vehicles

Fugitive dust emissions from works, • Construction traffic speed limit when passing through All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC construction traffic causing dust soiling populated areas locations the project cost and increase in PM2.5 and PM10 • Water of dusty-unpaved roads and populated areas Transportation of construction materials • Dust suppression by water tankers with sprinkling systems Along haul Throughout Contractor cost Contractor with DSC / RCD are to be deployed along regularly trafficked routes. roads with the project approval of DSC • The vehicles deployed for material transportation will be spill prior proof to avoid or minimize the spillage of the material during approval of transportation. DSC

125

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: • Transportation links are to be inspected daily to clear accidental spillage, if any. • 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 • Awareness program for local residents prior to Noise disturbance due to equipment and commencement of works construction activities. • 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 • Contactor to ensure that workers accommodation and rights All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC Poor quality housing and hygiene are in line with the FIDIC Pink Book requirements locations the project cost standards resulting in injury or sickness • 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 Injury or fatality of workers due to • Contractor shall develop Method Statements for all major All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC insufficient controls on work activities and activities and include health and safety risk assesment for locations the project cost processes 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.

126

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: • 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 - • If asbestos is encountered, Contractor shall develop an All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC risk of worker exposure to asbestos Asbestos Management Plan locations the project cost fibres • Worker awareness of asbestos and risks asscoiated with handling such material Establishment of construction camp sites • The construction campsites will be located away from any At identified Throughout Contractor cost Contractor with DSC (offices) local human settlement areas and preferably located on camp the Project approval of DSC lands, which are barren/waste lands. location • The campsites will be provided with adequate water supply, with prior sanitation and all requisite infrastructure facilities. This will approval of minimize dependence on outside resources, presently being DSC 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.

Waste Management • Include appropriate waste management protocols All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC Inappropriate management and disposal • Location of appropriate waste storage facilities at all work locations the project cost of waste during construction affecting sites water courses • 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 • All hazardous waste containers to be labelled clearly with a All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC resulting in direct and indirect affects on waste hazard identification label. locations the project cost project area environment • 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.

127

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: • 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. Inappropriate management and disposal Sludge Sampling and Analysis Irrigation During Included in overall project Contractor with DSC of sludge waste during Irrigation • Before start any removal activity on the sludge, Reservoir reconstruction cost. approval of DSC Reservoir rehabilitation affecting water sampling and analysis to be undertaken by a reputable in Karakol The $0.5 million could be courses and soil quality company WWTP used to form the stockpile • Prior sampling, a Sludge Sampling and Analysis Plan Area area and the dredging to be prepared and submitted to ADB for approval – activities as well as any plan will contain, but not limited to: parameters to remedial work required for analyze, proper sampling and transport plan to the lagoon. recognized and certified labs, methodologies, Any excess could be used standards to use for comparison, etc for some initial transport of • Once results of the analysis are ready, an assessment dried sludge. on the level or not of contamination must be undertaken, including comparing the results with international standards

Scenario 1 – No Contamination • In case of no contamination, the following steps for cleaning, transport, management and disposal will be undertaken:

128

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: • In case of no contamination, the following steps for cleaning, transport, management and disposal will be undertaken: o Isolate an area of up to 10 ha within the lagoon for stockpiling of sludge. o Construct a temporary but impermeable wall to separate the stockpiling area from the storage area. o Construct sumps in the stockpile area to pump out water seeping from the excavated sludge to keep the area dry. o Dredge sludge from the remaining lagoon area and place in the stockpile area. o As the sludge dries in the stockpile area, transport dry sludge at a controlled rate for either land application or disposal at the landfill in accordance with demand at those areas.

Scenario 2 – Contaminated Sludge • If the sludge is contaminated, removal and disposal of the sludge will not be undertaken under ADB project.

Demolition and reconstruction • Use water to damp down dust generated during breaking. WWTP and During Included Contractor with DSC • Identify any asbestos containing materials and implement P/S reconstruction approval of DSC containment practices during demolition and secure disposal. Cleaning work sites and waste disposal • All operational areas (office/storage area, work force camps) All sites Duration of the Contractor cost Contractor with DSC will be cleaned up and restored to their previous state soon project approval of DSC 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.

Water Resources • Contractor to conduct risk assessment on all activities near All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC to water courses and apply approriate controls locations the project cost

129

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: Potential for contamination of water • No refuelling of vehicles or equipment to take place within course due to release of hydrocarbons or river beds or withi 25 metres of the edge of the water course oils and grease etc Biodiversity • Contractor to develop a tree protection plan as part of the All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC Potential impacts on trees/vegetation SEMP. This will as a minimium set out restrictions on tree locations the project cost adjacent to work sites 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. • 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 • Do not conduct vegetation clearance during breeding season WWTP During Included Contractor with DSC as noise, lighting, visual disturbance of species present Areas reconstruction approval of DSC during construction • Monitor nesting activity during noisy construction procedures near to nesting habitats

Soil and Ground Water • Fuels should be stored in good quality above ground tanks All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC Accidental spillage of hydrocarbon placed on an impervious surface with a spill containment locations the project cost affecting local ground water 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 Potential damage or loss of soil resource • Soils shall be protected from water and wind erosion. All Throughout Included in overall project Contractor DSC due to erosion or improper handling. Removal of vegetation shall be minimised locations the project cost • 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

Reporting. Environmental monitoring • Safeguards Monitoring: Contractor’s monthly reports and Project Duration of the Included within Contractor, DSC TPIU and reporting to confirm compliance DSC’s quarterly progress reports should have a section on Reporting project management costs safeguard compliance. PIO will submit for disclosure on

130

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: 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.

Table 58 – Operation Stage Mitigation Plan Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: Contamination from accidental spills • The accident sites will be contained and cleared At WWTP and P/s Throughout Maintenance cost ITDEP, Vodokanal Gosstroy (e.g. chlorine – if required) immediately. project life Vodokanal • 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. Air pollution • Plant and machinery will be managed well to avoid All WWTP and P/s Throughout Maintenance cost ITDEP, Vodokanal Gosstroy situations where excessive odor is generated, e.g. project life Vodokanal stagnant septic material. • The principal source of potential odour will be at the inlet works. This area will be covered and vented. It could be vented to a biofilter if necessary, but this has not been considered necessary at the buffer zone around the treatment plan is considered sufficient to disperse any odour generated.

Noise pollution • Doors to buildings housing mechanical plant to be All WWTP and P/s Throughout Maintenance cost Vodokanal Gosstroy kept closed. project life

Water pollution • Efficient operation of STP facilities will ensure that All WWTP and P/s Throughout Maintenance cost ITDEP, Vodokanal Gosstroy Operational failure from the WWTP the effluent quality will be in compliance with project life and potential pollution of waterways. 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.

Waste Management • Solid wastes that are captured in the screen must All WWTP and P/s Throughout Maintenance cost Vodokanal Gosstroy be treated and placed in specially designated project life disposal areas agreed by the SES and Municipality;

131

Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Locations Timeframe Costs Implementation Supervision Objective: Unsafe disposal of sediments and • Sand captured by the sand trap must be treated sludge from STP into water ways or the and disposed in a safe site agreed by the SES and environment. 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. • Consider development of sustainable community - Throughout - Vodokanal Municipalities Large portion of population in Karakol tourism plan. project life and Balykchy cities will receive an adequate access to centralized sewerage system. Emergency Response Measures Team of STP emergency situations should be All WWTP and P/s Throughout Maintenance cost ITDEP, Vodokanal Gosstroy established in the shortest time to identify a suitable project life 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.

When problem is identified and a solution is agreed upon, Vodokanals may involve for solution of emergency situation qualified specialists

132

Table 59 – Environmental Monitoring Plan Responsible party Environmental Features Aspect Monitored Time and Frequency of Monitoring Location Implementation Supervision Qualitative analysis during the At all working sites as part of regular Air quality During weekly audit by contractor and DSC. Contractor DSC/PMO construction phase. environmental monitoring program Qualitative analysis during the At all working sites as part of regular Ambient noise and vibration During weekly audit by contractor and DSC. Contractor DSC/PMO construction phase. environmental monitoring program Analysis for BOD5, COD, pH, temp, SS, Before starting any construction activities, when DO, Ammonia, Nitrate and Nitrite as requested during construction and once after WWTPs Contractor DSC identified in management plan at inlet and commissioning. Water quality outfall and up / downstream from WWTP. Analysis for coliforms are required at Monthly effluent sampling program during operation outfall from WWTP as part of the WWTPs Vodokanal ITDEP/SES period of the WWTPs monitoring program. Analysis of stabilized sludge samples from the wastewater treatment plant confirm non presence of toxic Soil and land resources Quarterly stabilized sluge sampling program during substances and ensure that it is WWTPs Vodokanal ITDEP/SES quality operation period of the WWTPs harmlessly applied for agricultural purposes.as per Kyrgyz regulation.

133

9.2 Environmental Monitoring Program

374. 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.

134

Table 60 – Indicators for Assesssing EMP Implementation Parameters to be Indicator Measure Monitored Locations Method Responsibility

Pre-Construction Phase Construction Phase 1. Occurrence of avoidable 1.1 Violations of noise limits (construction period) Ambient noise 1.1.1 Physical noise monitoring (though DSC, PMO impacts levels (day, night All construction sites and site observation by DSC is often more levels), dB(A) access routes imediate and effective)

1.2 Evidence of sedimentation in watercourses as a 1.2.1 Water quality monitoring (though DSC, PMO result of erosion from work sites (construction All construction sites and visible observation by DSC is often more period) access routes imediate and effective)

1.3 Exceedences of MAC of airborne asbestos fiber All construction sites and 1.3.1 Indoor air quality monitoring DSC, PMO in demolition site indoor air (construction period) access routes 1.4 Spills of fuels, lubricants, coolants or hazardous All construction sites and 1.4.1 Visual site inspections DSC, PMO chemicals at work sites access routes 1.5 Exceedences of dust standards at residences Ambient air quality 1.5.1 Physical air quality monitoring DSC, PMO and sensitive receptor sites (SPM, RSPM, CO, All construction sites and (though site observation by DSC is often SO2) access routes more imediate and effective)

Operating Phase 1.6 Exceedences of MACs in effluent (incl. As per the government At the inlet and outlet of 1.6.1 Effluent quality monitoring ITDEP and the Coliforms) regulations WWTP Vodokanals

1.7 Exceedences of noise limits As per the government At the WWTPs 1.7.1 Noise monitoring SES and the regulations Vodokanals

1.8 Exceedences of heavy metals MACs in sludge As per the government At the Irrigation Reservoir of 1.8.1 Sludge quality monitoring ITDEP and the products regulations Karakol WWTP Vodokanals

1.9 Exceedences of pathogen MACs in sludge As per the government At the sludge drying beds of 1.9.1 Sludge quality monitoring SES and the products regulations WWTPs Vodokanals

1.10 Exceedences of pathogen (coliform) MACs in As per the government At the outlet of WWTPs 1.10.1 Effluent quality monitoring ITDEP and the treated effluent regulations Vodokanals

135

Parameters to be Indicator Measure Monitored Locations Method Responsibility

2. Recurrence of impacts 2.1 Rate of recurring impact by 2.1.1 Review of inspection records site/contractor/impact 3. Compliance with EMP 3.1 Number of findings of non-compliance as 3.1.1 Visual site inspections prescriptions proportion of total compliance findings 3.2 Number of repeat non-compliance findings 3.2.1 Review compliance findings 4. Effects of Project 4.1 Number of complaints received by PIO, PMO, 3.1.1 Gather and count complaint activities on public and municipalities about impacts considered reports unacceptable by members of public 4.2 Number of grievances files under GRM about 3.2.1 Review GRM records impacts 5. Safeguard specialists at 5.1 A safeguard specialist on staff 5.1.1 Inspection of safeguard specialist work with PIO and contract and terms of engagement. Contractor

136

9.3 Implementation Arrangements

Environmental Requirements to be Implemented

375. 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

376. 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 61 – Roles and responsibilities in EMP implementation Entity Role Specific EMP responsibilities Overall management of the Draws on consultants to provide inputs to EMP PMO (Project Management implementation of this project. They preparation Office) oversee the application of safeguard Develops and delivers EMP-specified training measures for the project as a whole . Houses safeguards specialists involved Provides guidance to contractors on preparation of PIO (Project Implementation in training and monitoring. Local level SEMPs Office) entity with direct oversight of Project, Monitors contractor compliance with SEMPs including EMP implementation Provides EMP-specified training DSC (Design and supervision Undertakes the technical oversight for Ensure that EMP mitigation and monitoring measures Consultant) the delivery of all safeguard measures re implemented and compliance reporting completed. Lead technical advisory services Provides oversight of monitoring related to environmental protection in Conducts some environmental monitoring the IK basin. Provides as advice as needed. ITDEP (Issyk-Kul Territorial Oversees monitoring of health-related elements of Department for Environmental Supporting role in relation to wastewater management (including outputs), namely Protection) environmental and human health microbiological testing of effluent and sludge implications of wastewater Can provide inputs to strategies for addressing management operation phase problems and challenges in relation to sludge and effluent Main supporting entity, with strong IBRGD (Issyk-Kul Biosphere Unknown due to severely depleted technical resources complementarity of duties and Reserve General Directorate) and management capabilities to ITDEP State Agency for Issyk Kul Fully endorse EMP implementation and support Administrative guidance and support Oblast necessary enforcement decisions Carry out most construction period Contractors Implements mitigation measures as specified in SEMPs mitigation Supporting role in relation to human Conducts monitoring of noise and vibration worksite SSES (State Sanitary and health implications of noise and parameters pertaining to worker health and safety Epidemiological Service) vibration Provides as advice as needed. Supporting role in relation to use of MAA (Ministry of Agriculture and Provides input in development of guidelines for land effluent and sludge on agricultural Amelioration) application of sludge and effluent lands SIETS (State Inspectorate for Supporting role in relation to Monitors worksite parameters pertaining to worker Ecological and Technical occupational health and safety health and safety Safety) DPMDCH (Department on Preservation, Monitoring and Supporting role in relation to protection Monitors contractor compliance with mitigation Development of Cultural of PCRs measures pertaining to PCRs Heritage)

137

Reporting

377. 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 60 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

378. The reader is referred to Appendix 5: Institutional Development and Capacity Building Program for more detailed information and costing.

Existing Conditions

379. 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

380. 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,58 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.59 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

381. 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.

382. 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

58 The number of sewerage connections in Karakol and Balykchy is 7190 and 3325 respectively, which represents 45% and 35% of the current population. 59 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.

138

383. 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

384. 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

385. 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.

386. 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.

387. 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:

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.

139

3. Travel and transport. 4. Testing and inventory (such as asbestos). 5. Analysis and reporting

388. 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-months60 including training, compliance monitoring, plan preparation and other tasks. 3. Travel and transport 4. Testing and inventory, 5. Analysis and reporting.

389. 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

390. 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.

391. 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.

392. Following Table 62 shows the environmental management costs of this project.

Table 62: Environmental Management Costs Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Implementation of EMP US$ US$ 4 person-month/ 30 International Environmental Specialist 14,000 56,000 months 21 person-month/ National Environmental Specialist 2,500 52,500 30 months Common Sea Buckthorn Planting 3750 pieces x 2 0.8 5,500 Others (travel, per diem, surveys / interviews, reporting, etc.) General expenses 20,000

60 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.

140

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 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 12 800*** 9,600 (years)** 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

141

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Conclusions

393. 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.

394. 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.

395. 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.

396. A further element of the Selected Alternative will be the strengthening of the vodokanals that will operate the sewerage system and wastewater treatment facilities.

397. 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.

398. 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.

399. 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.

142

10.2 Recommendations

400. 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.

143

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. . BirdLife International (2014b): Important Bird Areas factsheet: Western Issyk Kul Lake. Internet. . 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.

144

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. . 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.

145

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. . 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. . World Bank (2013): The Kyrgyz Republic Country Programme Update. Global Facility for Disaster Risk and Reduction. Internet. . 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. . 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.

146

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

Analysis findings at sampling MAC points Item Unit % of Regulatory Document 21 22 23 treated 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 MgO / l 76,75 83,78 35,06 CMEA p.1 M.1977 (BOD5) Permanganate oxidability MgO / l CMEA p.1 M.1977 Chemical Oxygen Demand MgO / l 135, 8 59,30 CMEA p.1 M.1977 (COD) 150,4

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 Chlorides Mg / l CMEA p.1 M.1977

147

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 4,5 2,0 CMEA p.1 M.1977 8 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

148

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

Analysis findings at sampling MAC Regulatory Item Unit points % of Document 21 22 23 treated 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 MgO / l 109,6 86,9 49,5 CMEA p.1 M.1977 (BOD5) 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

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

149

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

150

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

151

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

152

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.

153

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.

154

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 Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species Russian name of the species 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) Russian name of the Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species species 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)

155

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 Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species Russian name of the species 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

156

Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species Russian name of the species 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)

157

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 Russian name of the Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species species 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.

158

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 Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species Russian name of the species 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

159

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.

160

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

Russian name of the Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species species 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 Frog sp Лягушка sp Rana asiatica *(?) Pelophylax ridibundus (?)

Mammals 1 Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Ондатра * Species, included in Red Book of the Kyrgyz Republic

161

Figure 7. Rana asiatica *

Reservoir of the seasonal regulation (Site 6) Figure 8. Reservoir of the seasonal regulation (Site 6)

162

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. Table 7. Diversity of animals on the surveyed territory

Russian name of the Amount of # Latin name of the species English name of the species species 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

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 Balykchy Karakol # Latin name English name Russian name 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

163

Balykchy Karakol # Latin name English name Russian name i ii iii i ii iii 14 Corvus monedula Eurasian Jackdaw Галка 3 15 Emberiza calandra Corn Bunting Просянка 13 16 Fulica atra Common Coot Лысуха 3 100±10 17 Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Камышница 1 18 Himantopus Black-winged Stilt Ходулочник 5 himantopus 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 2 2 2 2 маскированная 23 Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night Кваква 1 Heron 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 Traces Meriones tamariscinus Tamarisk Jird Песчанка гребенщиковая 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

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.

164

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».

165

Attachments Balykchy city.

Figure 9. Silt settlers

Figure 10. Silt settlers

166

Figure 11. Burrow of a Jird Figure

Figure 12. Regurgitation of a Short-eared Owl Figure

167

Figure 13. Achnatherum and Caragana

Figure 14. Vacant silt settlers

168

Figure 15. Sterna hirundo on biological ponds

Figure 16. Tadorna ferruginea on biological ponds

169

Figure 17. Biological ponds

Figure 18. Biological ponds

170

Karakol city

Figure 19. Receiving collector and aeration tanks

Figure 20. Aeration tanks

171

Figure 21. Larus ridibundus

Figure 22. Artificial plantations

172

Figure 23. Silt settlers

Figure 24. Biological pond

173

Figure 25. Larus ridibundus

Figure 26. Biological pond

174

Figure 27. Biological pond

Figure 28. Nycticorax nycticorax

175

Figure 29. Reservoir of the seasonal regulation

Figure 30. Himantopus himantopus

176

Figure 31. Fulica atra

Figure 32. Reservoir of the seasonal regulation

177

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.

178

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 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.

179

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 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.

180

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.

181

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:

182

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

PROTOCOL

Date: 11, July 2017 Venue: Karakol City Hall

Public Consultation on Environmental Impact Assessment Karakol Participants: 1. Khafizova R. A. Sanitary Doctor of SES in Karakol 2. Shestova O. Leading Specialist ITDEP Laboratory 3. Kenenova Zh. K. Specialist ITDEP Laboratory 4. Rysbekova A.R. Specialist ITDEP Laboratory 5. Omurkanov S.A. Director of “Karakol Vodokanal” 6. Usupov D.K. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #4 7. Kerimkulov T. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #7 8. Sydykov K.A. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #6 9. Karabaev A.A. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #2 10. Jendenov K.A. Manager of Municipal Territorial Unit #3 11. Zavyalova O.I. Deputy Director, «Karakol Vodokanal»

183

12. Aysakhunov D. Environmental Inspector, SIETS 13. Ishembiev K.A. Deputy of the City Council 14. 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:

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.

184

Pictures: