Environmental Assessment Report Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Project Number: 42399 November 2010 KGZ: CAREC Transport Corridor 1 (Bishkek–Torugart Road) Project 3 Prepared by the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Kyrgyz Republic for the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The environmental impact assessment 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. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary······················································································1 2. Policy, Legal, and Administrative Framework ············································3 3. Description of the Project·············································································10 4. Description of the Environment ···································································20 5. Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures·················· 36 6. Information Disclosure, Consultation, and Participation ·························54 7. Environmental Management Plan ································································57 8. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ··········································70 Appendices Appendix 1: Site Photos ····················································································71 Appendix 2: Results of Socio-Economic Survey ············································87 Appendix 3: Results of Emissions and Pollution Analyses ···························92 Appendix 4: Cumulative and Induced Impacts··················································107 Appendix 5: Summary of Public Consultations in 2009 and 2010 ·················115 Appendix 6: Summary of Roundtable Consultation in September 2010 ·······160 ii List of Figures Figure 2.1: Project Organization·········································································8 Figure 3.1: Bishkek-Torugart Road Rehabilitation Program ··························10 Figure 3.2: Project Area (Map) ···········································································11 Figure 3.3: Project Area (Satellite Image) ·························································12 Figure 3.4: Elevation Profile of Existing Road and Project Area ···················14 Figure 3.5: Alternative Alignments ···································································16 Figure 3.6: Existing Road Near Km 525 ·····························································19 Figure 4.1: Major Orographic Features in the Project Area ····························21 Figure 4.2: Soils in the Project Area ·································································22 Figure 4.3: Monthly Temperatures ····································································23 Figure 4.4: Monthly Rainfall ··············································································23 Figure 4.5: Monthly Snowfall ·············································································24 Figure 4.6: Monthly Wind Speed ·······································································24 Figure 4.7: Flora in the Project Area ·······························································25 Figure 4.8: Chatyr Kul Protected Area Showing Key Habitats ·······················27 Figure 4.9: Chatyr Kul Water Analysis Sampling Locations ··························28 Figure 4.10: Hydrological Zoning of Chatyr Kul Lake ·······································30 Figure 5.1: Schematic of Pollutant Sources, Pathways, and Receptors ·······36 Figure 5.2: Predicted Noise Levels ···································································41 Figure 5.3: Predicted Vibration Levels ·····························································42 Figure 5.4: Predicted Dust Levels ·····································································42 Figure 5.5: Predicted NO2 Levels ······································································43 Figure 5.6: Predicted SPM Levels ·····································································43 Figure 5.7: Predicted SO2 Levels ······································································44 Figure 5.8: Predicted CO Levels ·······································································44 Figure 5.9: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenarios ········································45 Figure 5.10: Proposed Chatyr Kul “Ecological Passport” Zone ····················50 Figure 5.11: Example of Retention Pond ··························································51 Figure 6.1: Grievance Redress Mechanism Complaint Flow ·························56 Figure 7.1: Recommended Monitoring Stations ··············································59 Figure 7.2: Preliminary EMP Work Program ····················································69 iii List of Tables Table 2.1: Major Legislation for Environmental Protection ····························4 Table 2.2: Ambient Air Quality Standards ························································5 Table 2.3: Vehicle Emissions Standards ··························································5 Table 2.4: Noise Standards ················································································6 Table 3.1: Design Summary ···············································································13 Table 4.1: Analyses of the Institute of Biology of the National Academy of Sciences ····················································28 Table 4.2: Ionic Composition of Chatyr Kul ·····················································31 Table 4.3: Water Birds Breeding in Chatyr Kul ················································32 Table 4.4: Comparison of Educational Levels···················································35 Table 5.1: Potential Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ························37 Table 5.2: Summary of Emissions during Construction and Operation ·········40 Table 5.3: Results of Groundwater Gasoline Pollution Analysis·····················46 Table 5.4: Bulk Fuel Spill Scenario ···································································47 Table 5.5: Estimated Pollutant Loads from Contaminated Runoff Water ······48 Table 7.1: Minimum Provisions for Environmental Monitoring ······················58 Table 7.2: Preliminary Environmental Management Plan ·······························60 Table 7.3: Preliminary EMP Cost Estimates ·····················································67 1 EIA for CAREC Corridor 1, Project 3 v1.1 – 22 Nov 2010 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction The 540 kilometer (km) Bishkek-Torugart road is part of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Transport Corridor 1 linking the Kyrgyz Republic (KR) with other central Asian countries, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Russia. The proposed Project 3 (the Project) comprises rehabilitation of the existing road from the checkpoint at Km 479 to the PRC border at Km 539. Various parts of Corridor 1 have been under development since the late 1990s with the initial concepts for transport sector development in the context of regional cooperation. The KR Government, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and other development partners have been discussing the Bishkek-Torugart road since 2005. The Bishkek-Torugart Road Rehabilitation Project was included in the ADB Country Strategy and Program Update for 2006 - 2008 (published in November 2005) as a proposed loan project for approval in 2008. The Joint Country Support Strategy for 2007 – 2010 (published in August 2007) also included the Bishkek-Torugart road project. The proposed Project is included in the ADB Country Operations Business Plan for 2009 – 2011, published in January 2009. This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was prepared on behalf of the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC), the Executing Agency (EA) for the project, beginning in 2009 by Japan Overseas Consulting Company, Ltd. (JOC) in association with Kyrgyz TREC International, Ltd. (KTI). A draft final version of the EIA, dated December 2009, received government endorsement. ADB determined that the assessment should cover additional aspects in order to comply with its Safeguard Policy Statement 2009, in particular the sections pertaining to natural and critical habitats. In September 2010, ADB engaged a staff consultant to assist MOTC in completing the assessment and disclosing the findings and recommendations (EIA Report) to the public. 1.2 Summary Findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment The assessment of alternatives revealed that the CAREC Transport Corridor 1, Bishkek- Torugart Road, including Project 3, is the most economically and environmentally sustainable option for meeting national development goals. The Project will reduce transit time and cost, improve traffic safety and reduce accident risk. The “no action” alternative has a higher risk of environmental deterioration and negative impact on the Chatyr-Kul ecosystem. There will be impacts on the environment during implementation of the proposed project, but most are temporary and reversible. The most severe risk is hazardous materials spills (mainly vehicle fuels and lubricating oils). Potential impacts during the design lifetime of 20+ years will increase as the pollutants entering the Chatyr Kul aquatic ecosystem will accumulate because the lake has no outlet. Therefore, pollution prevention measures must be taken at the outset. In consultation with ADB, MOTC has