E4715 V1 REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE FOR WATER RESOURCES Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Phase-11 (SYNAS-11) Project Feasibility Study Report 3 Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (Book1) PC «Institute Kazgiprovodkhoz» Almaty, 2014 I I VJVVI. I I lf;h;JV 11 \ \J J 1 11;.1~ 11 / REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTA AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE FOR WATER RESOURCES Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea,Phase-2 (SYNAS-2) Feasibility Study Report 3 Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (Pre-EIA) (Book 1) Chairman of the Board A.Ryabtsev Chief engineer of the project M.Yeliseev Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) SYNAS II Report Organisation General Explanatory Note (Summary Report) Thematic Reports : Report 1: Water Management Information System Report 2: Hydraulic Report Report 3: Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Report IActual report (Book 1, Book 2) Report 4: Socio-economic Assessment Report Technical Reports: Volume 1 Project Package for Syrdarya River Basin Management 1. Flood protection dikes at Karmakchi an Kazalinsk districts of Kzylorda oblast 2. Syrdarya riverbed straightening at Korgansha and Turimbet sites in Zhalagash district of Kzylorda oblast (Book 1, Book 2) Volume 2 A: Left-Bank Irrigation Offtake at Kzylorda Barrage (Book 1,Book 2) Volume 3 B: Road Bridge near Birlik settlement at Kazalinsk district of Kzylorda oblast Volume 4 C: Rehabilitation of Kamyshlibash and Akshatau Lake System (Book 1, 2, 3, 4) Volume 5 D: Reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at Tastak site of Kamyshlybash fish hatchery in Aralsk district of Kyzylorda region ~· .... ... .. ..... ~· ·~· ~ ,...~~- ' ·~~~~~·. ·~· .. TABLE OF CONTENTS SYNAS II Report Organisation .. ........... .... ... .... ... .. ..... ... .. ... .. ... .... ....... .. ..... ......... ...... ...... .. iii 1 INTRODUCTION ... .... ......... ...... .......... .... .... .............. ..... .... ...................... .... .... ... ........ ... .7 1.1 General ..... ... ...... .............. ....... ... ...... ......... .. .. .... .... .. ........ .... ... .... ............ .. .. ....... ... .. 7 1.2 Strategic Context .... .... .... .... .... ..................... ........ ............... .... ...... .... .... ... ... ...... .... 9 1.3 Project Objectives ........ ... .... ..... .... ..... ... ... ...... ...... .. ............. ... ...... ............ ......... ... 10 1.4 Environmental Review. Process .......... ...... ...... ... .. .................... ......... ... .... ........ .. 12 1.5 Project Baseline - SYNAS-1 ....... ... ....... .... .... .. ... ... .... .. ....... .. .......... .. ... ..... .... .... .. .. 13 1.5.1 Project objectives and construction measures ... .. .. ....... .... .. ....... .. .. ......... ... . 13 1.5.2 Project alternatives ... ..... .... .. ...... ...... ........... ..... .. ... ........ ... ... ........... ... .. ...... .... .. 13 1.5.3 Description of structures constructed or rehabilitated by SYNAS-1. .. ....... .. 15 2 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE .. ... ..... ........ .... ...................... 21 2.1 Policy ....... .................... ......... ... .. ... ... ... .. .. .......... ... ... ............... ... ... .................. ... ... 21 2.2 National Legal and Administrative Setting ..... ........ .. .... ........... .. .. ....... ... ........ .... 21 2.3 International Conventi~ns .. .. ... ... ..... ........... ,..... .. ... ... ..... ... .. ... ....... ...... .. .. .. ..... ... .. 23 2.4 World Bank Environmental Procedures ........ .. ........... ....... ... ...... ... .. ... .. ........ .... .24 2.5 Ongoing Environmental Programs .... .......... ...................... ... ...... ... .................... 27 3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........ .... .... .... ... .......... .. .......... ... .... .... ..... ... .. ... .. .. ........ ..... .30 3.1 Development Options ..... .. ..... .. ..... ....... .. ... .. .... ........ ....... .......... ... ..... ................... 30 3.2 Proposed Strategy ......................... ........... .. ....... ........ ... ....... .. .. ..... ..... ... .. ... ... ...... 32 3.3 Project Components I Subprojects ............... .... .... ... ....................... ...... .. ......... .33 4 BASELINE SITUATION FOR THE PROJECT .......................................... .. ................. 35 4.1 Project Area and Area of lnfluence ... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ...... .. ......... : ...... .... ... ... .... ... ... 35 4.2 Geo-Physical Profile .... .... .. .. .. ...... ..... ... ... .... .. ... .. ...... .... ... ...... ..... .... ..................... 36 4.2.1 Climate ....... ............... .... .. .... ..... ............. .. ... ..... .... .... ............. .... .. ....... .......... ..... 36 4.2.2 Geomorphology ...... ..... .. ............. .. .... ....... .. ......... ........................... .. ............... 38 4.2.3 Hydrology ... ....... ......... ........... .. .... .......... .... ..... .. ....... ......... ...... .. ........ ...... .. ...... .40 4.2.4 Geology and soils .... .... ..... ..... ..... ...... .... ... ...... .. .. ...... ... ... .. ..... .......................... 53 4.3 Biological Profile ....... .... .... ... ... .... ......... .... .... ......... ... .. ..... ........ ... ... ..... .. .............. 57 4.3.1 Vegetation ..... .. ... ... ....... ..... ......... .. ........ ..... ..... .... .. .... ... ..... ... ... .. .. ................ ..... 57 4.3.2 Fauna ... ..................... ... ............. ........... ... ...................................... .......... ...... .. .62 4.3.3 Protected areas ............ ... .... .... .. ..... ... .... .. .. ... .. ...... ... ........... ... ...... ... ... ..... ......... 73 4.4 Socio-Economic Profile ... .. ..... ... ...... ..... ... .. ...... .. ..... ... ................. .. ... ...... .. ........... 74 4.4.1 Ancient civilizations in the Syrdarya region .. ..... ............................ .. .. .......... 74 4.4.2 Demography .......... .... ........ ... ..... ... .. .... ................. ............... ..... ....... .... .... .... .... .75 4.5 Land and Resource Use .................. .. .. ........... .. .. ..... .......... .... ................. .. .. .. ...... 80 4.5.1 Agriculture and livestock .......... .. ................. .......... ... .................... .. .. .. ... ...... .. 80 4.5.2 Water management in the Syrdarya basin .. ...... .. .............. ...... ...... .... .. .......... 84 4.5.3 Fisheries .... ..... ..... .... ........ ....... ... .............. ... ........... .... .... .... ......... .... .... .. ... .. .. ....85 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE SUBPROJECTS COVERED BY THE FEASIBILITY STUDY ..... .. .... ...... .... .......... .. ............. .. ... ........ ................. ...... ........ ... .. .. .... ..... 86 5.1 Reconstruction of left bank offtake-regulator at Kzylorda barrage 85 5.1.2 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Measures ............ .. .. ........ ...... ...... ... 85 5.1.3 Without project case ..... ..... .......... ... ... ....... ... ........ ...... ... .. .. ....... .. ... ....... .... ... ... .88 5.1.4 Environmental Impact during Construction ... ............................................... 89 5.1.5 Environmental Impact during Operation ... ..... .... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .... .... .......... .. ... 90 5.1.6 Impact in case of worst possible incident .. .. .. .. ..... ........ ..... ........ ................ .91 5.1. 7 Synergies with other sub-projects .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .................................. ..... ....... .91 5.2 Syrdarya river bed straigthening at Korgansha and Turumbet sites 92 5.2.1 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Site and Area of Influence .......... ... 93 5.2.2 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Measures .................. .... ................ 96 5.2.3. Without project case ... ... ... .... ....... .... ..... .......................... ....... .... ..... ..... ... .. .. 100 5.2.4 Environmental Impact during Construction .................... ...... .. ........... ... ... .. . 101 5.2.5 Environmental Impact during Operation ... ....... ...... .. ..... ....... ... ..... ........ ...... 102 iii Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 5.2.6 Impact in case of worst possible incident .... .. ........... .... ...... ... .. ... .... ... .. ..... 103 5.2. 7 Synergies with other subprojects .. .... ....... ... ........ ........ ....... .... .. ... ... .. .. ...... . 103 5.3 Flood protection dikes in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts of Kzylorda oblast 102 5.3.1 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Site and Area of Influence .. ... .. .. 102 5.3.2 Brief characteristics of the ·s'ubproject Measures ..... .. ... .. ..... ....... .... ... ... .. .. 109 5.3.3. Without project case .. .......... .. ...... .. ... ... .. ... .. ..... ... .... ... ... .... .... .... ... ............. .. . 114 5.3.4 Environmental Impact during Construction ......... .... .. ...... ........ ........ ......... 117 5.3.5 Environmental Impact during Operation .... ....... ... ...... ........ .... ....... .. .... ... ..... 118 5.3.6 Impact in case of worst possible incident.. ........ ...... .. ... .... ............ ... .... .... ... 119 5.3. 7 Synergies with other subprojects ............ ..... ..... ......... ... ... ....... ..... ........ .. ... 120 5.4 Construction of bridge near Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk district 121 5.5 Rehabilitation of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau lake systems in Aralsk districs of Kzylorda oblast 124 5.6 Reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at "Tastak" site of Kamuishlibash fish hatchery in Aralsk district of Kzylorda oblast. 128 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 130 6.1. Environmental Impact Monitoring .... ........... .... ..... ... .. ........... ........... ...... .. ... 131 ANNEXES 148 _ -· .... -· .. . ·-· ... .. .. ·.---·. ·-----·. ·-· .. GLOSSARY I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACBK Association for Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan ASBP Aral Sea Basin Programme as! above sea leve ~ (Baltic Sea) km 3 Billion Cubic Meters (km 3 ) BVI Basin Water Inspection CES Consulting Engineers Salzgitter CITES Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species CWR Committee on Water Resources under the MoEP DANI DA Danish Organization fo_r International Development Assistance DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloro-Ethane EA Environmental Assessment EC Electrical Conductivity EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMIS Environmental Management Information System EMP Environmental Management Plan ES Environmental Screening EU European Union g/I grams/liter GEF Global Environmental Facility GIS Geographic Information System GoK Government of Kazakhstan GPS Global Positioning System GTZ Gesellschaft fi.ir Technische Zusammenarbeit (Organization for Technical Cooperation) H&E Health, Safety and Environment (Department) HCCH Hexa-Chloor-Cyclo-Hexane HllD Harvard Institute for International Development HPS Hydro-power Station IBA Important Bird Areas (according to classification criteria by Birdlife International) IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICWC Interstate Commission on Water Coordination !FAS International Fund for the Aral Sea JEP Joint Environment Programme JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency Kazg idromet Kazakh National Department for Hydro-Meteorology KazNllRKh Kazakh Scientific Research Institute for Fishery KOi Kazgiprovodhoz Design Institute KSB Kazakhstan Syrdarya Basin KZT Kazakh Tenge (USO 1 = KZT 130) LAS Large Aral Sea M&E Monitoring and Evaluation v Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoEP Ministry of Environmental Protection MoH Ministry of Health NAS Northern Aral Sea NEAP/SD National Environmental Action Plan for Sustainable Development NEC/SD National Environmental Centre for Sustainable Development NGO Non-governmental organization OP Operational Policy (of the World Bank) PCB Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyl PPF Project Preparation Facility sco Shanghai Cooperation Organization SYNAS Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project TACIS EU Technical Assistance Programme for the Commonwealth of Independent States UN CED United Nations Commission on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children's Emergency Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development USO US Dollar WARMAP Water Resources Management and Agricultural Production Project 1...11 Y II VI 1111\,,1 It.QI II 1 ltJC4Vt. r\..:l..:lV..:l..:ll I IVI It. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General This Environmental Appraisal at feasibility level prepared by Mott MacDonald Euroconsult of the Netherlands assesses the potential environmental impacts of the subprojects proposed for the second phase of the Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea project. In the pre- feasibility study all considered subprojects have been studied at pre-feasibility level and two of them were selected for the feasibility study. The preparation of SYNAS-11 is being undertaken by the Committee on Water Resources (CWR) of the Ministry of Agriculture representing the Government of Kazakhstan (GoK) in cooperation with the World Bank. Project preparation is done by the consortium Mott MacDonald - Euroconsult I Jacobs Babtie I Danish Hydraulic Institute with Kazgiprovodkhoz as main subcontractor. Unfortunately, Synas II has been underbudgeted. Not all of the ten sub-projects developed during the pre-feasibility stage could be developed to fully fledged feasibility stage. While the World Bank would have approved the grant of loans on the pre-feasibility level of studies, the taking out of a loan by the Kazakh Government requires approval by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which requires the passing of the stringent requirements of the state expertise on feasibility studies. Initial time - consuming attempts at gaining approval from the state expertise failed , because the pre-feasibility level studies were not complete enough. Only in December 2007 the final decision was reached during a joint video-conference. In the final selection of the sub-projects selected on SYNAS-2 project , not only the priority rating of the consultant played a role , but also the political decision of the Kazakh Government, the World bank and last but not least the availability of finance According to results of meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 22 , 2012 (minutes of meeting NQ04-6/138) , the final selected sub-projects are : • Left bank irrigation offtake at Kzylorda barrage • Repair of the left bank irrigation offtake was planned during Synas -I and is long overdue. Failure of the intake structure is a high risk and would lead to large scale flooding of 60 000 ha of irrigable land , including loss of harvest and heavy damage to civil infrastructure; • River bed straightening at Turumbet and Korgansha sections; • Flood protection dikes in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts; Plan to rehabilitate and strengthen 50 km of existing dikes, perform riverbed straightening at selected sites in the lower Syrdarya basin in order to pass winter floods in conjuction with already built Koksarai counter-regulator is a highly effective measure . • Road bridge near Birlik settlement , Kazalinsk district; This road bridge will replace existing low capacity pontoon . It will be the first in Kazalinsk district which markedly improves season-independent communication and economic parameters during freight handling by motor transport. • Rehabilitation of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau lake systems in Aralsk district of Kzylorda oblast . Rehabilitation of Kamuishlybash and Akshatau lake systems in Aralsk district of Kyzylorda region due to provision of guaranteed water abstraction to the lakes and maintenance of the required level regime there with the help of Amanotkel weir and other engineering structures increase water suplly of lake systems and create conditions for use of its biodiversity by the nature users and population . 7 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) • Reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at Tastak site of Kamuishlibash fish hatchery in Aralsk district of Kzylorda oblast Fish hatchery in Aralsk district of Kzylorda oblast provides an accelerated rehabilitation of fish capacity of NAS, delta lakes and Syrdarya river due to its artificial stocking by valuable fish species, breeded in fish hatchery at "Tastak" section , that would create the opportunity for the development of fish-breeding and improvement of conditions for the employment of local population It is planned to finalize FS at the following sub-projects within the implementation of the first stage of SYNAS-2 project: 1. Reconstruction of North Aral Sea (two or one-level option); 2. Construction and equipping of operational center of water resources management in Kazakh Syrdarya Basin It is proposed to include the following components into the second stage of SYNAS-2 project 1. Reconstruction of North Aral Sea ; 2. Construction and equipping of operational center of water resources management in Kazakh Syrdarya Basin. Moreover, taking into account that the procedure of review of second phase of SYNAS-2 project by World Bank and government bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan delays the construction of sites up to 2017-2018 years (with this there is a possibility of coming of large volume of flood water to Shardara reservoir up to 2018, that threatens the safety of downstream settlements)- to exclude component "Construction of emergency water spillway on Shardara dam" and start its immediate implementation on account of budget in the established order. During the discussion of the issue on preparation and financing of SYNAs-2 project with the World Bank, the Ministry of Agriculture took a decision on the two-stage approach with the use of special lending (credit) instrument of World Bank, known as "Adaptable Program Loan" (APL). Adaptable Program Loan allows to carry out the support on phased basis of long-term development program, including loan series. At that the subsequent loans in series are provided on the phased basis, subject to the achievement of the satisfactory progress in passing of certain phases towards the previous loan in series. Two phased Adaptable Program Loan were used to implement SYNAS-2 project. The first loan will be used ·: for the implementation of 6 sub-projects, included in the first stage of the project implementation ; for the development of Feasibility Study in order to take the final design solution by the conduction of careful analysis and evaluation, which will be financed on account of the funds of the second adaptable program loan. Adaptable program loan-1 will be also used for capacity building of governmental authorities on river basin management, measures necessary for river modeling and procurement of the appropriate equipment for refit of the existing gauging stations and construction of new ones and monitoring conduction Adaptable program loan -2 will be used for financing of two sub-projects on the basis of the results of Feasibility Study and decisions taken within Adaptable program loan-1 The environmental assessment is carried out in fulfillment of the World Bank's operational policies (Operational Policy OP 4.01 and related operational guidelines), so as to ensure that projects that require funding from the Bank are environmentally sound and sustainable. The . _ I IV II V f II f f V l I L(,.U 11 1 l t-'U\JL I \'1VVVVI 1 I V l IL I IVjV\JL I llUVV II \.._,JllUV II) environmental assessment is as well developed in accordance with the national legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan 1.2 Strategic Context Basin-wide international context Starting 1992, ICWC in the framework of interstate coordination , developed a common strategy for trans-boundary water management for the Aral Sea Basin, determining water allocations and reservoir operations in the Amudarya and Syrdarya River basins. Declarations on water sharing were signed in 1995 (Nukus) and in 1997 (Almaty). In March 1998, a long-term water and energy agreement was signed between the three riparian countries, Kazakhstan , Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan , vis-a-vis sharing hydro-power benefits from Kyrgyzstan . In August 2007 on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit the heads of several of the SCO member-states have proposed a new policy of utilization of hydroelectric energy resources. In this frame a new agreement on utilization of transboundary water resources is considered. An International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS) was established in 1993 and an Interstate Council was created to coordinate and manage financial resources and programs in the field of ecological and socio-economic development in the Aral Sea Region. In the Ashgabat declaration of April 1999, the five Heads of State expressed once more their concern on the quality of life in the Aral Sea region. They acknowledged the need for an integrated and joint regional strategy based on an ecosystem approach and integrated water management. In spite of all these agreements, non resolved issues concern the operation of Toktogul reservoir in Kirgistan in hydropower regime, which provides a serious obstacle to the optimum river basin management in respect to irrigation water supply and winter flood prevention. Recently, the reduction of spilling opportunities from Chardara reservoir to Arnasai-Aydarkul depression has raised an important dam safety issue for Chardara dam . The SYNAS project is part of a larger international program under the Aral Sea Basin Program, which has been prepared by World Bank in coordination with UNEP and UNDP, after diagnostic investigations made in 1992. Four main targets were recommended : (i) stabilization of the Sea environment; (ii) restoration of the ecology disaster zone around the Sea; (iii) integrated management of water resources; and (iv) creation of regional institutions for planning and implementation of the program. The Action Plan prepared for the improvement of the environmental situation in the Basin was approved by the Heads of State of the five basin countries in January 1994. The restoration of the NAS and the SYNAS project form part of Programme 4, which deals with environmental issues in and around the Aral Sea. · National context To improve water management in Kazakhstan's Syrdarya Basin (KSB) and address problems caused due to degradation of the Aral Sea and the delta lakes, the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) started preparation of a program for the development of the Syrdarya Basin . The long-term program for the Syrdarya basin includes: modifications in the Shardara dam to reduce spills to the Arnasay depression; the rehabilitation of weirs and the replacement of pontoon bridges with high-level bridges in order to increase the carrying capacity of the river; the rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage infrastructure; flood protection measures; improvement of hydraulic infrastructure in the Delta; and complementary measures which will be beneficial to the riparian communities and the environment. The present project will continue SYNAS-1 as part of this program . This report will be a part of the feasibility study for the subprojects to be realized as first steps during the second phase of SYNAS taking stock of the latest situation in the Basin , 9 t - Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) developments in the upstream countries as well as various interventions downstream under the SYNAS-1 and other projects with an aim to prepare a program for improving water resources management in the Basin consisting of structural and non-structural measures. The feasibility stud ies for further subprojects identified as highest priority investments in the SYNAS-11 project during the pre-feasibility study will be elaborated in time as funding will be allocated. The present environmental impact assessment however, already takes into consideration the context of the entire SYNAS-11 project package instead of dealing with the selected first subprojects in an isolated way. For the GoK, the SYNAS project is a priority project in the water resources sector. The project has been included in the first medium-term Public Investment Program. This program focuses on priority projects that have been selected for implementation by the national and local administrations. The CWR coordinates activities with the Syrdarya Basin Water Authority (BVO) and with the Interstate Commission on Water Coordination (ICWC) of the five Central Asian States. At regional level (oblast), the project is strongly supported by the regional authorities in Kzylorda Oblast and the local adm inistration of the Rayons of Kazalinsk and Aralsk which are most affected by the environmental calamity. After the considerable success of SYNAS-1 continuation and completion in form of a second pha.se is wished by the GoK. The project fits into the National Environmental Action Plan for Sustainable Development (NEAP/SD, 1999), which identifies water resources co. nservation and improvement of the environmental situation in the Lower Syrdarya River as a priority action . Recently a "Concept for the Sustainable Development of the RoK for 2007-2024" has been approved by the government. This concept mentions the application of modern approaches for environmentally friend ly water use and the rehabilitation of environmentally disastrous regions to which the Aral Sea region officially belongs. The Government of Kazakhstan has also started rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage systems on the lands located on the Kazakhstan 's Syrdarya Basin (KSB). The latest project under preparation, Irrigation and Drainage Improvement Phase-II (IDIP2) Project would cover some 200,000 ha primarily in KSB. Irrigation being the largest water user, a major objective of SBDP is to ensure adequate supplies to the irrigation systems. The SYNAS projects are designed to ensure water supplies .for the irrigation systems at various locations on Syrdarya in addition to environmental , domestic and other uses. 1.3 Project Objectives The entire SYNAS-11 package is designed for further enhancement and completion of the impacts achieved in SYNAS-1. For SYNAS-11 Project Objective and Project Area are defined by the ToR for the feasibility study: "The proposed Project would aim at: a) continued environmental revival of the Northern Aral Sea (NAS) and delta area of the Syrdarya Basin and improved environmental/ecological conditions in the basin leading to enhanced human and animal health and biodiversity; b) improving overall water use efficiency in the basin by improving operation and safety of the important water infrastructure and providing protection against flooding particularly during winter leading to improved agriculture and fish production and population safety; and c) improving institutional capacity to manage basin water resources through better operation and management of the water management facilities in the basin . The project area will consist of KSB including the Northern Aral Sea. " The following immediate interventions in water management are envisaged to fulfill the first two general project objectives stated in the terms of reference, which are a) Continued environm.ental revival and b) Improving overall water use efficiency: L...1IVllVI111 l'C I llCU 111 ltJOVl r\.;;).;:'IC.;).;)l I ICI ll • Establishment of new hydrological and hydraulic models, which will enable to operate the Shardara reservoir in such a way, that an optimum flow of the Syrdarya is achieved for flood control , hydropower, agriculture, fishery and environmental purposes. • Development of proper operational procedures of Shardara reservoir so that it will be possible to reduce the need to spill water irretrievably into the Arnasay depression and to achieve a stabilization of the Arnasay water level in the interest of transboundary ecology, farming and flood control. • Eliminate river water flow bottlenecks in winter on Syrdarya and avoid ice barrages and floods through constructive measures. • Avoid flooding hazard in winter time in Kzylorda Oblast by applying reservoir operation rules obtained by modeling and by effective construction measures on the river. • Regulate Syrdarya water flow in such a way as to avoid diverting winter flood water into desert depressions, without any specific agricultural, pasture, drainage, or environmental use. • Provide a secure amount of water for the planned extent of irrigated agriculture, meadow and haymaking areas, in agreement with oblast authorities. • Improve irrigation water use efficiency by rehabilitating canals , collectors and hydraulic structures. • Install regulating structures for the adduction canals to the delta lakes·to maintain fishery functions and secure the lake system as Important Bird Area. • Fill the Northern Aral Sea with a yearly reliable amount of water for ecology and the economic revival of fisheries in the region . Excess water should be provided for maintaining the LAS downstream of Kokaral (Berg Strait) dike. The project will also help to fulfill these aims by implementing a number of specific institutional flanking measures to reach the third main objective c) improving the institutional capacity in water management for the local , national and international transboundary level. Measures foreseen are: • Provide the River Basin Operational Centers, with capacity to deal with national and international river basin management issues. • Provide hydraulic Infrastructure Operation and Maintenance capacities. • Provide monitoring capacity for the environment. • Provide the installation of a financial management system. • Create a capacity to implement and monitor projects. • Provide telemetry and communication for hydrological and meteorological stations to establish contact with the Operational Centers. • Install a Water Management Information System and capacity for hydrological and hydraulic modeling. In the context of the environmental assessment especially the impacts of the construction measures and planned operation regimes of the hydraulic structures are to be assessed . At present a range of projects have been selected for elaboration of the detailed feasibility studies and accordingly for specific Environmental Assessment and Elaboration of the Environmental Management Plan. 11 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 1.4 Environmental Review Process Requirements by World Bank The World Bank requires EA for all projects proposed for Bank financing in order to ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable. The EA is an important tool for decision-making. In an EA, the projects' environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence, which is often larger than the project area itself, are evaluated. Project alternatives are studied; negative and positive environmental impacts are identified in relation to location, design , construction and operation of the project. Ways of preventing, reducing and compensating adverse impacts on the environment are worked out, as well as potential measures to enhance the positive impacts of the project. The EA further describes a monitoring system and includes an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The first step in the environmental review process is an Environmental Screening (ES) in order to determine the type of EA to be carried out. The SYNAS project was classified as Category A, which essentially comprises those projects that may have significant environmental impacts, which are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented in nature and may affect an area broader than the direct project sites. The SYNAS project would necessitate an EIA in view of the unprecedented nature of the crisis of the Aral Sea, the complex hydrological systems, the ongoing and degradation of wetlands and natural habitats, and the poor socio-economic and health situation in the area. In addition , an EIA is required as the project could have trans-boundary impacts on the LAS and Arnasay depression, which may have adverse environmental ramifications in Uzbekistan. Category A projects have the widest scope of evaluation and require a full EA. Therefore, potential negative and positive impacts of the project are to be studied and compared with those from feasible alternatives including the "without project" situation. During the EA process, public consultations of project-affected groups and local non-government organizations (NGOs) have to be held .. Requirements of GoK The environmental legislation of Kazakhstan has recently been changed by passing of the new Environmental code (December 2006). The Environmental code stipulates an environmental clearance by the · responsible state organ of project proposals concerning nature resource use and state investment programs within a review period of 90 days. The SYNAS-11 project belongs to category II (Special water use) for which the territorial organs of the MoEP (in the Oblasts Kzylorda and South Kazakhstan) are in charge of the environmental clearance . However, due to the inter-oblast, national and international importance of the project approval by the MoEP will likely be required . With regard to the proposed SYNAS-11 project, the pre-feasibility study did not require environmental clearance. The Environmental Assessment at feasibility level will be submitted to the responsible state agencies for obligatory environmental clearance. Environmental Review in the frame of the feasibility study The environmental review process in the frame of the elaboration of the feasibility study for SYNAS-11 consists of the following stages: (I) Pre-feasibility studies At pre-feasibility level the entire project including all potential subprojects has been reviewed on the basis of available information (Materials from Kazgiprovodkhoz, EDIKO, SYNAS-1 , IBA sites inventory of ACBK etc.). As the environmental appraisal was conducted parallel to the designing of subprojects the intensity of evaluation depends on the level at which the respective subprojects were advanced . In a limited scale additional field assessments have been carried out by environmental specialists (botanist, ornithologist). On this basis the presented short .environmental appraisal of the expected subprojects positive and negative effect under normal operational conditions has been prepared . The detail level is considered sufficient to permit a semi-quantitative comparative environmental ranking of the subprojects. (II) Feasibility studies For the feasibility study priority subprojects have been selected as described above. For the entire project in general and for the selected subprojects in detail positive and negative environmental impacts during construction , operation , and if applicable, worst possible incident have been analyzed . The analysis builds on the evaluation of existing information on the project design and the environmental situation in the areas of influence. For filling information gaps field work has been carried out by the international envi.ronmental specialist and national consultants covering all envisaged sites of the subprojects as well as potential areas of influence. The net environmental effect was evaluated semi-quantitatively (by impact matrix) in a manner fit to be entered into a multi-criteria analysis. (Ill) Environmental management plan For the selected subprojects environmental management plans have been elaborated , which determine necessary measures for avoidance , minimizing , mitigation or compensation of adverse effects from the structures' construction , operation and worst possible incident. Based on the monitoring work for SYNAS-1 , performed by Scott Wilson Company, an environmental monitoring plan for the project was devised , with particular consideration of the selected subprojects , naming items to be monitored , monitoring schedule and recommending organizations responsible for the task. 1.5 Project Baseline - SYNAS-1 The SYNAS-11 Pre-feasibility study and feasibility study is conducted before the background of the SYNAS-1 implementation . The following description of SYNAS-1 objectives and outcomes is based on the Final Report of Scott Wilson on Syrdarya Control & Northern Aral Sea Phase I - Monitoring & Project Evaluation (Scott Wilson 2007) . SYNAS-1 implementation is still ongoing with a planned closing date 31 December 2008. 1.5.1 Project objectives and construction measures The aims of the SYNAS-1 Project are to increase the carrying capacity of the Syrdarya River and to optimize water management both in terms of allocation to various user groups as well as to allow a more reliable and better distribution in both spatial and temporal terms. In order to achieve these aims various structures have been constructed or rehabilitated on the Syrdarya River. In addition , a permanent dam (Kokaral dam or Bergs Strait dam) has recently been finalized that separates the Northern Aral Sea (NAS) from Large Aral Sea (LAS). Hydraulic structures on the Syrdarya River at Shardara Dam , Kzylorda Barrage, Aitek and Akiak have recently been or will soon be rehabilitated and additional flood protection measures will be installed. The expected increase in carrying capacity coupled with the focus on water management of the river flow will have the effect of allowing more water to enter the NAS; the dam separating NAS from LAS will enable the sea level to rise from 38 m to 42 m in the NAS. This level has recently been achieved (May 2007). 1.5.2 Project alternatives The SYNAS-1 project was designed following the consideration of all possible alternatives to address the problems of environmental degradation and improving water management in Kazakhstan's portion of the Syrdarya basin to the Aral Sea. After determining a broad strategy to address these issues, the selection of each intervention was based on obtaining optimal designs considering , costs , benefits , environmental and social impact and long-term sustainability. Major alternatives considered and reasons for rejection are described below: Alternative 1: Rehabilitation of the Entire Aral Sea The goal of restoring the entire Aral Sea to its historic levels is not achievable in the foreseeable future. The estimates are that about 75 km 3 of water would be required annually over a period of 25-30 years to rehabilitate the whole Aral Sea. The total flow of the 13 I • Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Amudarya and Syrdarya Rivers is about 120 km 3 annually. With present water use being more than the total river flows as water is reused it is unrealistic to assume that more than half of the total flow of these two rivers could be allocated to the restoration of the Aral Sea in the near future. Furthermore, due to storage of water in reservoirs and water use in the basin upstream , the river capacity downstream has reduced to a level that water cannot be delivered to the Aral Sea even if it becomes available. To expand the river capacity downstream to deliver the required quantities of water would involve the reconstruction of bridges, diversion structures and embankments requiring huge investment. Finally, restoring the entire sea would require large losses of irrigated land; the present livelihoods of millions of people in the Amudarya basin in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The impossibility of fully restoring the Aral Sea is currently well recognized by the countries participating in the ASBP. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are therefore now concentrating on finding their own local solutions. Alternative 2: the "No Project" Alternative in Kazakhstan Currently the Aral Sea has already split into the relatively small NAS and the much larger Large Aral Sea (LAS). If nothing is done the situation will worsen. The process of environmental degradation will continue and the NAS would further split into four water bodies, resulting in increased salinity. The river bed and bank erosion caused by lowering of the sea level would intensify, river bed erosion would move upstream and hydraulic and other infrastructure would become derelict. Also, as a result, fresh water flows to the delta lakes would cease , resulting in increased salinity and loss of fisheries. Water supply to irrigated areas would diminish. With the limited carrying capacity of the Syrdarya and the constraints in the operation of Shardara dam due to safety issues, increasing amounts of water would be spilled (and wasted) to desert areas and to the Arnasay depression resulting in property damage and loss of arable land in Uzbekistan. The cost of resettling the affected populations elsewhere would be extremely high. Furthermore, social assessment surveys conducted in 1998 of the residents of the area specifically indicated that they are not in favor of leaving the area despite the high rate of unemployment. Therefore, the "no project" alternative was considered not being a pragmatic approach. Alternative 3: Rehabilitation of the NAS and Delta Are.as. Taking advantage of the topographic conditions and the location where the Syrdarya enters the NAS , the NAS could be (partially) restored and its further desiccation into small water bodies prevented. Water required for rehabilitation of the Nf.S is available from the Syrdarya basin-and could be delivered to the NAS with some rehabilitation of the infrastructure along the river's course and in the delta area. The rehabilitation of the water conveyance infrastructure on the Syrdarya is also needed for irrigation, flood protection and fisheries. Rehabilitation of the NAS actually impacts a much larger area than the NAS itself. With higher water levels in the NAS and improved hydraulic control of the Syrdarya, the surrounding delta areas and fresh water bodies can also be rehabilitated . This alternative was adopted for the SYNAS-1 project. Within this approach several design options were considered . In fact an optimal sizing exercise was carried out for each structural intervention proposing either replacement or rehabilitation under the project. The project implemented the most urgent measures. Other structures of lower priority or at this stage not possible to be financed have been left for a second project phase (SYNAS-11) which is currently in the stage of feasibility study. Cl IVllUI 111 ICI llC:U 111 lfJdvl n;:,;:,c;:,;:,111c1 ll 1.5.3 Description of structures constructed or rehabilitated by SYNAS-1 The following projects were proposed and have been completed at the end of 2006 or were that time under construction (See figure 1-1 for their approximate locations). Flood protection dikes and river straightening -- - -- ~ -­ ,.,_ ~ - t9 - SYNAS003 Rehabilitation of Shardara dam --- C'..· - ·- Fig. 1.1: Location Map of Construction Works under SYNAS-1 (Source: Scott Wilson, Final Report, 2007) 15 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Rehabilitation of Shardara Dam The Shardara dam was found not to meet normal safety standards and it was considered to be 'at risk'. The major problems were that 'sinkholes' were forming at the crest of the dam , seepage rates were very high due to which there was a danger of internal erosion as the drainage system was ineffective, bottom outlets in the power station and spillway gates towards Syrdarya did not operate properly due to which the flows were limited to 40% of their normal capacity. The rehabilitation of Shardara Dam has covered priority works such as rehabilitation of the Kyzylkum irrigation outlet, the drainage system, spillway gates, and repairs of spillway outlets, chutes , stilling basins and related works, and installation of dam instrumentation. These works comprise the first phase of the program for the rehabilitation of Shardara dam in order to ensure its safety in the immediate future. Details of the engineering works and operational capacities received from Mott MacDonald in October 2005 and March 2006. - Contract SYNAS 003 "Shardara Dam Reconstruction " The main works at Shardara Dam are: a) Construction work: • reconstruction of drainage system of the dike, construction of the new water measuring structures; • reconstruction of outlet and other structures on the discharge canal of the drainage system ; • construction of the new unload well • Repair of junctures and concrete coating of the backslope • Survey and compacting works in Kyzylkum canal water outlets, reconstruction of junctures of water outlets; • Construction of the new vertical piezometers; • Modification of the stilling basin of the bottom discharge on Shardara HPS , different surveys and experiments; • Concrete works around the bottom discharges, reconstruction of ice profile and construction of intermediate walls ; • Mounting of the downstream face of Arnasay dike. b) Mechanic and electric works • Reconstruction of the gate (hoisting) apparatus; • Reconstruction of the frame crane ; • Reconstruction of the stop beam; • Installation of the new working gates; • Installation of the steel lining under the floodgates ; • Installation of the new temporary floating caisson gate • Replacement of the electric and technical equipment. Works at Shardara are planned for completion by September 2007. · Moreover , taking into account the fact that the procedure of consideration of second. phase of SYNAS-2 by World Bank and the Government Authorties of the Republic of Kazakhstan delays the construction of the objects up to 2017-2018 years, it was taken a decision to start the immediate implementation of the component " Construction of emergency spillway at Shardara dam" on account of budget funds in the established order, excluding it from SYNAS-2 project ' '""J""''"'" I 1u••o.1\,,,r ti \ ' - ' J I U... ..., ''I Improving the Hydraulic Control of the Syrdarya When completed , the rehabilitation and construction of hydraulic structures will contribute to regulating and improving water management, and controlling allocations to various water users, including an increased inflow for the NAS. Works under this component include: (i) reconstruction of Akiak weir (and related works) - included in SYNAS Contract 001 "Northern Aral Sea (NAS) Dam and Akiak hydrostructure" described below; (ii) reconstruction of the Aitek and Karaozek water control structures; (iii) rehabilitation and construction of low height dikes along the river to protect urban and rural areas from flooding and for increasing flow capacity of the river; and (iv) repairs of Kazalinsk headwork and Kzylorda barrage; Details of the engineering works and operational capacities received from Mott MacDonald in October 2005 and March 2006. - Contract SYNAS 002 Aitek complex infrastructure The Aitek complex infrastructure includes the following : (i) The construction of a new structure with a capacity of 700 m3/s in summer and 425 m3/s in spring on Aitek hydro area. (ii) Reconstruction of the headworks on Karaozek branch with a flow of 80 m3/s . (iii) Reconstruction of the headworks of Aitek, Sorkol, Eltai canals. (iv) Construction of 4 apartment houses for servicing the facilities. This project was completed in November 2004. The facilities have been put into operation . Details of the engineering works and operational capacities received from Mott MacDonald in October 2005 and March 2006. - Contract SYNAS 005 "Protection dams on Syrdarya River". In the framework of the contract the main contractor carried out the rehabilitation I construction of the protection dams within Karmakshy and Kazalinsk rayons and in Kzylorda City at the following sites listed in Table 1-1 . The works were completed in May 2005. Fig. 1-2: Insufficient(?) flood protection dike at Abay village. According to reports recently constructed under SYNAS-1 17 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Table 1-1: Constructed protection dikes Earth work volume, No Items Length, km m3 1 Protection dam of Zhanazhol village . 4.0 85 ,192 2 Protection dam of lirkol village. 4.8 248,254 3 Protection dam of the Pioneer camp 1.4 34,896 4 Protection dam of Zhusaly village. 1.3 9,871 Total in Karmakshy rayon 11 .5 378 ,213 5 Right bank protection dam 8.3 121 ,253 1 6 Protection dam of Abay village. 3.0 45 ,315 7 Protection dam of Birlik village. 6.3 180,700 Total in Kazalinsk rayon 17.6 347,268 Protection dam of Left bank main canal 8 20.2 402 ,900 KalQandarva Total in Kzylorda town 20.2 402,900 In Kz~lo[da oblast 49....3 1128 381 Details of the engineering works and operational capacities received from Mott MacDonald in October 2005 and March 2006. - Contract SYNAS 006 a "Straightening of the Syrdarva River bed" The site of the straightening of the Syrdarya River bed is located in the territory of Aksu farm of the Zhalagash rayon and consists of three sites with the length of 2805 m. • The first site with the length - 1780 m. , the volume of the excavation is 480,300 m3; • The second area with the length 763 m., the volume of the excavation - 221 ,300 m 3. ' • The third area with the length - 262 m., the volume of the excavation - 86,900 m 3 . On 13 September 2005 the site has been passed to the Commission. See fig . 1-2. One of the riverbed straightening sites has by error again be included in the Pre-feasibility study (subproject 7, object 21). Details of the engineering works and operational capacities received from Mott MacDonald in October 2005 and March 2006. - Contract SYNAS 009 "Reconstruction of Kazalinsk headworks" The main works under this contract are: • To provide reliability of power supply of the site, by replacing a high-voltage line of electric transmissions , transformer substation and installation of backup diesel electric power plant; • Major repairs of the frame crane and other accessory equipment; 1 During the field visit August 2007 the protection dike at Abay village looked insufficient for fulfilling the intended purpose and _ _ _ _ _ .... " - ... _ ..... .... .... .... ...1 ........... ...... , ~ ..... ,., l ;,.. .. ') \ L..11 VII VI 111 ICI ILGll 111 ltJGIVL F""\.;J.:JC.;J.;Jl I ICI IL I IVJCVL I 110.:JC II \'-'YllGl.:J I I ) • Partial replacement and reconstruction of the reinforced concrete construction of the headworks, fastening of the slopes of the river and canals , entrance jetty and other structures; • Construction of fish-pass at Aksay canal ; • Major repairs with the replacement of working parts of the segment gate of the headworks with cleaning and painting; • Full replacement and reconstruction of the hydro-mechanic and electro-technical equipment and metal structures of the Right bank main canal (RBMC) and Left bank main canal (LBMC)_and Aksay canal ; • Construction of the hydro-technical stations on the main bed of the Syrdarya River and on the canals of RBMC , LBMC and Aksay; • Study of the conditions of the under water parts of the headworks; • Planting trees and installation of light oConstn the headworks territory; Works at Kazalinsk should have been completed by May 2006. Several sites critical in terms of carrying floods still remain. The options for solving these problems have been assessed in the Pre-feasibility study of SYNAS-11 and selected as one of the first two projects for which feasibility studies are to be elaborated . Fig. 1-3: Google Earth image of completed riverbed straightening under SYNAS-1(Contract006a) Details of the engineering works and operational capacities received from Mott MacDonald in October 2005 and March 2006. - SYNAS 011 "Reconstruction of Kzylorda headworks" On the Contract SYNAS 011 "Reconstruction of Kzylorda headworks" - concrete placement on the Right bank main canal (RBMC) and on hydro stations have been completed and mounting of the hydro mechanic equipment of the RBMC have also been completed . The main works completed by September 2005 are: 19 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) • To provide reliability of power supply on the site, changing of a high-voltage line of electric transmissions, transformer substation and installation of standby diesel electric power plant; • Major repairs or replacement of the auxiliary equipment, electric components and others, • Partial replacement and reconstruction of the reinforced concrete structures on the headworks and adjacent canals , fastening of the slopes, training wall ancf other structures The outlet of the Kyzylorda left bank main canal is in deteriorating conditions and a possible failure of the structure would in a large extent threaten irrigated agriculture on some 60,000 ha of land. The options of rehabilitation of this hydraulic structure have been assessed in the Pre-feasibility study of SYNAS-11 and selected as one of the first two projects for which feasibility studies are to be elaborated. Construction of Northern Aral Sea Dam A well engineered dam has been constructed across the Berg strait, a deep channel connecting NAS and LAS. The dam has a spillway for regular use, and an emergency spillway with an earthen fuse plug. These measures will , once the NAS has reached 42m asl, create a stable level of the NAS and allow for flushing to maintain salinity at an acceptable level and pass flows during periods of high inflow through the Berg Straights to the LAS. C:l IVll VI Ill 11::1 lldl 111 lf.Jdvl /"\::>::>t:::>::>l I lt:l ll ·2 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE 2.1 Policy Governed by the resolutions of the World Summit in Johannesburg (2002), Kazakhstan carries out a consecutive policy for sustainable development. The Strategic Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2010, the Concept of Environmental Security for the period 2004-2015 speak in favor of a need to make the social and economic system more environmentally sensitive. The main goal is defined as ensuring the protection of natural systems, of the vital interests of the society and protection of human rights against threats resulting from adverse anthropogenic impacts on the environment. Other national action programs and government plans determine the policy of environmental protection and sustainable resource use. Prominent examples are the National Environmental Action Plan for Sustainable Development (1998), the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and the National Action Plan on Combat Desertification (1998). A problem is that many of these programs and action plans have not been approved at the appropriate level and consequently are not much put into practice. Recently more attention is paid on mainstreaming of the environmental policy by direct inclusion in budget planning and appropriate government approval. This has been done e.g. with the National Program for Combating Desertification (2005-2015) . The environmental degradation of the Aral Sea region and the inefficient use of water resources are among the serious environmental threats affecting the social, environmental and economic wellbeing in the country. Accordingly the Government of Kazakhstan has adopted a number of important measures on mitigation of the immediate impacts of the Aral Sea disaster and the improvement of the water management in general and in the Aral Sea basin in particular. The policy of the GoK is expressed by the participation in regional multi-country agreements concerning the water management and environmental rehabilitation in the Aral Sea basin (see. 2.3). In September 1995, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan signed the joint declaration of five Central Asian Countries pertaining to stable development of the Aral Sea region . In 2003 a Sub-regional Action Plan on combating desertification was agreed by all five Central Asian Countries and since 2004 the countries have started a multi-country initiative for sustainable land management (CACILM) which is supported by a broad range of donor organizations. 2.2 National Legal and Administrative Setting The present study complies with EIA regulations adopted by the World Bank. Requirements defined by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan are considered in the level adequate for a pre-feasibility assessment. Environmental protection and the management of natural resources in Kazakhstan are regulated by the new Environmental code which passed in December 2006. This environmental code replaces a number of laws, among them the laws "On . Environment Conservation in the Republic of Kazakhstan" (15.07.1997) and "On Ecological Expertise" (18.03.1997) . The Environmental code defines the legal , economic and social basis for environmental conservation , the avoiding of negative effects on people's lives and on the environment that could result from administrative decisions, economic activities and other projects. In addition , the laws and regulations listed in Table 2-1 below are relevant to the present project. 21 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Table 2-1. Relevant Legislation in Kazakhstan pertaining to Environmental Protection and Sustainable Natural Resource Use Land Code (20 June 2003) Water Code (9 July 2003) Environmental Code (December 2006) Law "On mineral resources and use of mineral resources" (27.01 .1996) Forest Code (08 July 2003) Law "On social protection of citizens suffering from the environmental disaster in the Priaral region (30 June 1992)" Law "On special protected natural territories" (7 July 2006) Law "On sanitary - epidemiological welfare of the people" (04 December 2002) Law "On conservation , reproduction and exploitation of the fauna" (1996) Decree of Cabinet of Ministers "On the conservation of the environment and the rational exploitation of the natural resources" Decree of Cabinet of Ministers "On ecological measures for restoration of the environment" Decree of Cabinet of Ministers "On the conservation of the forests" Order and approval of complex schemes for management and conservation of water resources List of rare animal species in danger of extinction (Hunting and Fishing Regulation) Regulation on approval and issue of special permits for water resources exploitation (29 .12.1994) Ordinance on the establishment of a State Water Survey (24.01 .1995) Decree on approval of State control of water resources exploitation and conservation (20 .01 .1995) Decree on the payment procedure for water supply of irrigated lands (04.03.1997) Ordinance on the estimation of natural losses caused by violation of environmental legislation (27 .06.1995) Decree on the approval of the Resolution "On funds for environmental protection in Kazakhstan and payment procedures for pollution of the environment" On protection and use of Historical and Cultural Heritage (1992) These laws and resolutions form the legal basis for the management and conservation of water, soil and biological resources and for pollution control. Some of the more recent enactments also reflect provisions listed in international conventions that have been ratified by Kazakhstan , see Section 2.3. An important provision in these enactments is that technical designs of development projects must comply with international standards relating to environmental protection and monitoring. The Environmental code makes an Environmental Impact Assessment mandatory for any type of economic or other activity which can have direct or indirect impacts on the environment and the health of the population. The results of the EIA are considered as integral part of the pre-project and project documentation, including feasibility studies. The documentation is subject to an Environmental clearance by the organ in charge of environmental protection, depending of the category of the planned object at the republic, oblast or local level. The central agency in charge of all water management issues is the Committee on Water Resources (CWR) under the Ministry of Agriculture. The subordination, structure and functions of the CWR are defined by the Decree Nr. 310 of the GoK "On the approval of the Order about the Committee on Water Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture" (6 April 2005) . The Basin Water Authorities (BVUs) are subunits of the CWR, responsible for the management and utilization of the water resources in the area of Kazakhstan's river basins. These river basins are administratively defined areas, determined under consideration of the natural watersheds. The areas covered by each BVU contain usually of two or more oblasts, in the case of the. Syrdarya BVU the oblasts South Kazakhstan and Kzylorda . The BVUs legal basis is provided by the Water code of the RK, article 40, and relevant bylaws. According to the Governmental Regulation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on February 28 enterprises of the Committee for Water Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan were rearranged by the merging into Republican State enterprise on water management with the right of economic control "Kazvodhoz" On the oblast level exist state enterprises, "Kazvodhoz" which are directly responsible for the - •, allocation and delivery of irrigation water. Hydrogeological-ameliorative expeditions are subordinated to the CWR and carry out monitoring of the ameliorative status of irrigated lands, of the quality of irrigation and drainage waters in the oblasts with significant irrigated arable lands. In the KSB the Kzylorda and South-Kazakhstan Hydrogeological-ameliorative expeditions are active. The legislation on water and land use provides for the creation of rural water-users associations - voluntary associations of physical and (or) legal entities owning and using land lots on the irrigated territories for joint management of hydro-technical facilities and equipment. The main task of such associations is ensuring rights of equal access to water for all water users; protection of their interests; support of the regime of rational use of water and land resources and environmental protection. Until now the establishment of these associations is slowly advancing. 2.3 International Conventions Kazakhstan has signed a number of international environmental conventions and agreements, including some that resulted from the UN Conference on Environmental Conservation and Economic Development (UNCED, Rio de Janeiro, 1992). In 1996, Kazakhstan became involved in a global network of environmental information exchange, under the aegis of the UNEP. Only recently, Kazakhstan has ratified the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, also known as the RAMSAR Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) . Some wetland sites which form parts of the project area of SYNAS-11 may qualify for inclusion in the RAMSAR list. Since 19 April 2000 the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is in force in Kazakhstan . International treaties and conventions pertaining to Environmental Protection and Natural and Cultural Heritage Preservation that have been signed and ratified by the GoK are listed in Table 2-2. Table 2-2. International Conventions and Treaties pertaining to Environmental Protection and to Natural and Cultural Heritage Preservation, Signed or Ratified by Kazakhstan Convention/Treaty Date of Signing/Ratification International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 05-06-1994 Convention on Safety of Sea-Living Organisms 07-06-1994 Convention on Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage 09-07-1994 Convention on Biological Diversity 06-09-1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 17-05-1995 Convention on World Meteorological Organization 13-04-1993 Convention to Combat Desertification 09-07-1997 Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer 26-08-1998 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 26-08-1998 Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects 17-12-1994 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 19-04-2000 and Flora (CITES) Convention on Migratory Species 01-05-2006 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) 02-05-2007 In 1993, Kazakhstan , together with Uzbekistan , Turkmenistan , Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan , concluded the "Agreement for Joint Actions Aimed at Solution of the Aral Sea Problem and Environmental Rehabilitation and Socio-Economic Development of the Aral Sea Region". 23 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) The Nukus Declaration (1995) among these five Central Asian countries acknowledged the formulation of the Aral Sea Basin Sustainable Development Conventions as a high priority. Following this convention, IFAS was established, as well as a Commission on Sustainable Development, and an Interstate Commission on Water Economy. A long-term water and energy agreement for the Syrdarya River Basin was signed in February 1998 between Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (the Almaty Declaration) . A new agreement is currently considered to be signed in the frame of the SCO. Also in 1998, an "Agreement for Cooperation in the field of Environment and Rational Use of Nature was signed by the Governments of the Central Asian countries. In the same year, these countries decided to set up a Regional Environmental Centre with a network of national branches. 2.4 World Bank Environmental Procedures The World Bank defines the requirements for Environmental Assessments by the category to which projects are assigned. Category A: A proposed project is classified as Category A if it is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works. EA for a Category A project examines the project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts, compares them with those of feasible alternatives (including the "without project" situation), and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. For a Category A project, the borrower is responsible for preparing a report, normally an EIA (or a suitably comprehensive regional or sectoral EA). The SYNAS-1 project was classified as a category A project. This classification can be as well applied to SYNAS-11 as its extension , contributing to the same basic objectives and having principally the same character, temporal and spatial extent of environmental impact. In addition the transboundary impacts on the LAS and the Arnasay depression in Uzbekistan determine the requirements for the EIA. Operational Policy 4.01 Environmental Assessment The EA for SYNAS-11 complies with the Bank's OP 4.01 and with the guidelines for EA laid down in the EA Source Books, Vol. 2 and 3. Its content is in accordance to the requirements for EIA. The EMP in accordance to this OP for the subprojects selected for priority financing is enclosed in the present EA report. Of particular significance to the present project, are the guidelines for irrigation and drainage projects and those pertaining to river regulatory works including small dam/weir constructions . Operational Policy 4.04 Natural Habitats The . conservation of natural habitats, like other measures that protect and enhance the environment, is essential for long-term sustainable development. The Bank therefore supports the protection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of natural habitats and their functions in its economic and sector work, project financing , and policy dialogue. The Bank does not support projects that, in the Bank's opinion, involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats and if the environmental assessment indicates that a project would significantly convert or degrade natural habitats, the project includes mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank. The SYNAS-11 will likely have impact on significant areas of natural habitats and in some cases even critical natural habitats, according to the definitions provided in OP 4.04 Annex A Natural habitats include water areas of the Syrdarya River, the Aral Sea, the Aydar- Arnasay lake system , the delta lakes and many other lakes, wetlands and terrestrial ecosystems, most notably semi-desert and desert ecosystems. Critical natural habitats include protected areas (in the zone of influence the Zapovednik Barsakelmes, Zapovednaya Zona Arys-Karaktau , planned Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve in Uzbekistan), areas with known high suitability for biodiversity conservation ; and sites that are critical for rare, vulnerable , migratory, or endangered species (e.g. assigned and ootential lmoortant Bird Areas and ootential Ramsar sites). The TuQay forests in the -· .."-·".·-· ,._, ".·r---· . ·-----·. ·-· .. Syrdarya floodplain can also be considered as critical natural habitats as they represent an ecosystem type specific for Central Asian rivers , extremely in decline and inhabited by several endemic and vulnerable species. Such forests are found in especially valuable conditions in the region of the planned Koksaray Reservoir. Operational Policy 4. 11 Physical Cultural Resources In the course of history, the Aral Sea and its periphery, and the Syrdarya River valley and adjacent plains, have been the scene of a succession of ancient civilizations. At present, a large number of sites of historical and cultural significance have been discovered and marked for preservation , both in the international and national context. For this reason , due note is taken of the Bank's OP 4.11 on Physical Cultural Resources, in order to guarantee that the proposed project interventions will in no way interfere with the nation's cultural property. This includes a check whether project interventions will interfere with existing cultural sites, structures, places of worship, graveyards, etc. and measures for avoiding , minimizing or mitigation of adverse impacts are proposed . The Consultants studied the presence of cultural historical sites in and near the project area from existing documents and maps and paid special attention to those sites in the field surveys. Operat~onal Policy 4. 12 Involuntary Resettlement This OP is of relevance in case if • resettlement is required in floodplain areas remaining under regular flooding or at risk in cases of exceptional high water (to be determined what flood level and frequency justifies resettlement) . While the project envisages the reinforcement of existing but insufficient dikes, there are houses in some areas which are located in the immediate floodplain. These houses have obviously been erected without consideration of the specific conditions in a natural floodplain and most likely in many cases without permission . Under the current flood regime some of these objects are under permanent threat of flood damage and often compensation is demanded for those damages. The protection of such houses by dikes may not always be the best solution from the cost-benefit ratio point of view and in terms of environmental impact. Instead of supporting inappropriate settlement forms by protection with public funds, resettlement might be the better option . In this case resettlement would not be caused by the project but may be supported by the project. Operational Policy 4.36 Forests This policy applies to the following types of Bank-financed investment projects that have or may have impacts on the health and quality of forests . Forest by the definition in Annex A is as an area of land of not less than 1.0 hectare with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 percent that have trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2 meters at maturity in situ. It includes as well young stands which have yet to reach the crown density of 10 per cent and clear cut areas with the potential to revert to forest. In countries with low forest cover, the definition may be expanded to include areas covered by trees that fall below the 10 percent threshold for canopy density, but are considered forest under local conditions. This OP is of relevance as the project will affect floodplain forests (tugay) by changing the river runoff and flood seasonality. The tugay forests can be considered as critical natural forests in accordance to the definition in the Annexes A of OP 4.04 and OP 4.36. One subproject (Koksaray Reservoir) potentially has direct impact on tugay forests by construction of diversion structures in the floodplain, flooding of floodplain areas (affected areas of existing and potentially rehabilitating forests) and reducing the flow in a river section with valuable tugay forest. The present report proposes variants which minimize these affects as required by the Bank for financing of projects. 25 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas 11) The subproject on the flooding of the Saryshiganak Bay in NAS may affect woodlands. Raising of the water level in the Saryshiganak Bay can lead to degradation and destruction of secondary shrub lands with saxaul developed over the last decades on the dry seabed. Operational Policy 4.37 Safety of Dams The Bank distinguishes between small and large dams. Small dams are normally less than 15 meters in height. This category includes, for example, farm ponds, local silt retention dams, and low embankment tanks . Large dams are 15 meters or more in height. Dams that are between 10 and 15 meters in height are treated as large dams if they present special design complexities - for example, an unusually large flood-handling requirement, location in a zone of high seismic risk, foundations that are complex and difficult to prepare, or retention of toxic materials. Dams below 10 meters in height are treated as large dams if they are expected to become large dams during the operation of the facility. OP 7.50 Projects on. International Waterways This policy applies to any river or body of surface water that flows through , two or more states, whether Bank members or not. It applies to projects that involve the use or potential pollution of international waterways as described above. The Bank attaches great importance to countries sharing international waterways making appropriate agreements or arrangements for these purposes for the entire waterway or any part thereof. The SYNAS-11 project likely will have impact on two waterbodies of transboundary character - the Aral Sea and the system of Shardara reservoir and (Aydar-)Arnasay depression , both shared with the Republic of Uzbekistan. Aral Sea and rehabilitation of Saryshiganak Bay The Bank's OP 7.50 on Projects on International Waterways would , in principle, apply to planned interventions in the Aral Sea, which is bisected by the international boundary between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The well-documented drying up of the Aral Sea and the construction of the Berg Strait dike have led to a separation of the NAS within Kazakhstan territory, from the southern LAS , shared between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Consequently, the international waterway between Nukus and Aralsk has been disrupted and is no longer in use. The proposed rehabilitation of the Saryshiganak Bay by dam construction and water supply from the Syrdarya River will reduce the amount of water flowing via the spillway at the Berg Strait into the LAS by 1.5 km 3 once for filling and about 0.5 km 3 for covering evaporation and infiltration losses. These losses are due to the smaller surface area of the rehabilitated compared to the original Saryshiganak Bay below the level before the drying out of the bay. Impacts on the LAS water balance are, however, considered to be insignificant. As to international water sharing policies pertaining to the waters of the Aral Sea, this is laid down in the Nukus Declaration of September 1995 and in the Almaty Declaration of February 1998 signed by the Central Asian states. Shardara dam and Arnasay depression. Uzbekistan The development of the present lake system in the Arnasay depression is related to the flow regulation of the Syrdarya River and in particular to the construction of the Shardara reservoir and the Toktogul reservoir, located at the Naryn River in Kyrgyzstan . In order to prevent disastrous floods at the Syrdarya river in 1969 and 1970 21.8 km 3 of water from the Shardara reservoir were spilled through an emergency spillway into the Aydar basin. Afterwards, the lake level was at 239.4 m asl, the surface area amounted to 2300 km 2 and the water volume equaled 20 km 3 . Until the end of the seventies, the lake level sank by 4 m. The salt content was approximately 8-10 g/I. In the eighties, the sea level was kept at an artificial balance. Since 1990, the Toktugul reservoir is operated mainly on a power supply basis, which means that a large volume of water is discharged in winter and flows into Shardara (storage capacity limited to 4.2 km 3 ) coinciding with the period when there is no demand for irrigation water. Then the carrying capacity of the river is minimal due to ice and c::r rvrr vr rr 1rcr nar rr r '1...IC2vL f"\::>::>c::.::.r 111::1 rL the presence of a number of obstructions. Consequently, surplus water is spilled into the Arnasay depression in Uzbekistan . In wet years , the volume lost into the Arnasay depression could amount to 7.5 km 3 or more. Thereby, the lake surface and its water volume increased considerably . In 1991 the lake covered an area of circa 2320 km 2 . In June 1998) its water volume came up to 32.26 km 2 and the surface area amounts to 3067 km 2 . Vast land area , mainly used for pasture, was lost due to the rising lake level. Furthermore, the increase of the lake causes problems with the release of drainage water (for both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan farmers!) , the destruction of dams, roads and of a railway line and aggravated conditions for fishery. The Government of Uzbekistan has requested GoK to · halt releases into the depression. The implementation of the SYNAS-1 project has improved the situation by increasing the carrying capacity of the Syrdarya during the critical winter months. However, the original aim of avoiding water spills to Arnasay, as the entire flow of the Syrdarya could be regulated , has not been achieved due to remaining bottlenecks for the flow in the Syrdarya River and the failure to implement coordinated operations of the storage reservoirs in Kyrgyzstan (Toktogul reservoir) , Tajikistan , Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan . The during the planning stage of SYNAS- 1supposed reduction of releases in winter from the Toktugul reservoir has not been possible due to high demand for electric energy in Kyrgyzstan during the winter months. In any case as a result of SYNAS-11 the spillage into the Arnasay depression can be significantly reduced . As the water balance of the Aydar-Arnasay lake system is in its present extent naturally negative, options for future management of the water body, based on transboundary operations, are to be developed . The hydraulic modeling conducted under the pre-feasibility considers for different scenarios annual inflows of an average 68 or 94 Million m3 per annum respectively . The option preferred from an environmental point is the maintenance of the lake system at a level of about 1-1 .5 m below the current maximum and as stable as possible, especially during the nesting period. The option preferred by Kazakhstan water managers is the stopping of any water discharge except in case of emergency which would lead to a significant reduction of the water body and salin ization but the availability of a significant buffer capacity in case of extreme floods. The recent construction of two low earth dams in Arnasai depression by Uzbekistan without prior transboundary consent from Kazakhstan , with a spillway capacity fo only 600 m3/sec has blocked the former opportunity to spill in an emergency up to 2300 m3/sec into Arnasai- Aydarkul depression . This capacity is necessary to allow for a Chardara dam safety of one in 1O 000 years . Although this has helped Uzbekistan in preventing the flooding of additional territory in the vicinity of the Arnasai water bodies and provides opportunity for pumped irrigation in Golodnya steppe, the reduction of spilling opportunities from Chardara reservoir to Arnasai-Aydarkul depression has raised an important dam safety issue for Chardara dam. 2.5 Ongoing Environmental Programs Over the last one and a half decade, the serious environmental degradation of the Aral Sea and its periphery has attracted quite some attention from donors. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) has provided financial support for the ASBP , i.e. in establishing a Regional Strategy on Water Resources Management. The World Bank is financing the SYNAS-1 project with a loan of 64.5 Million US Dollars. The project is active since the 5 June 2001 and is the direct predecessor of the presented project. The Kazakhstan Forest Protection and Reforestation project, financed by the World Bank and the GEF, has started recently and will include a significant component for planting of perennial plants on the Dry Aral Seabed . The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is financing the Technical Assistance «Improvement of Shared Water Resources Management in Central Asia» (ADB RETA 6163) . The purpose of the TA is to help the CARs strengthen their cooperation in the management of shared water resources in the Aral Sea Basin and other transboundary basins. Among other tasks the TA will help the CARs to jointly move forward with concrete steps on selected high priority 27 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) regional water policy issues and will strengthen the capacity of key regional water management institutions and their national affiliates. In· 1993, UNESCO in cooperation with GTZ (Germany) provided equipment for ecological monitoring of the Kazakhstan part of the Aral Sea. This equipment is currently in use by the Institute of Geography of the Academy of Science, and partly at the Aral Sea local research centre at Kazalinsk. A NEAP/SD was prepared with support of donor organizations, including the World Bank, EU/TACIS, UNDP, the Harvard Institute for International Development (HllD), USAID, Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan. It includes rehabilitation programs for the Aral Sea, but few activities are operational. UNDP, through its funding committed to "The Aral Seashore Capacity and Rehabilitation Programme", has provided financial support to strengthen the capacity and performance of local administrations and NGOs through training courses and supply of equipment. Focal · points were health, environment, education and employment within the Kzylorda oblast. A small-scale project entitled "The Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Programme" has been carried out under the aegis of UNDP, with contributions from IFAS and from the World Bank. Its main purpose is to assist the most affected riparian communities of the Aral Sea in capacity building and poverty alleviation . UNDO is implementing the project "National Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans for Kazakhstan" that supports the development of a National Integrated Water Resources (IWRM) and Water Efficiency (WE) Plan and the creation of river basin councils in each of the eight large river basins of Kazakhstan , among them the Aral-Syrdarya Basin Council. The ongoing UNDP/GEF funded "Integrated Conservation of Globally Significant Migratory Bird Wetland Habitats" project supports the protection and management of three important wetland sites (Ural River Delta, Tengiz-Kurgaldzhin and Alakol/Sasykol Lakes) and sustainable development of peripheral communities . Experience from this project might used for achieving biodiversity benefits in SYNAS-11. The present SYNAS-11 project is expected to have a positive effect on wetland restoration in the Syrdarya Delta and the Northern Aral Sea. Some of the Delta lakes would potentially qualify for inclusion on the RAMSAR list of wetlands of international significance. The European Union (EU) support is channeled through its Tacis program . Tacis projects aim at solving environmental problems through improved (irrigation) water management. An allocation of USO 6.5 million was granted for the "Water Resources Management and Agricultural Production Project" (WARMAP). Since February 1996, seven subprojects of WARMAP ha. ve started . The TACIS financed project "Environmentally Friendly Development in Kzylorda Oblast (EDIKO)" has supported an improved water management in rice cultivation , the development of water users associations, modeling of the water balance in the Syrdarya, irrigation systems and natural wetlands. The outcomes of the project are of high relevance for the design of SYNAS-11. The Committee on Forestry and Hunting of the Mini$try of Agriculture has recently extended the strict nature reserve (zapovednik) Barsakelmes, originally located on an island in the LAS which suffered from the drying out of the sea and the increasing salinity level in the remaining water body. By the extension valuable habitats on areas at the former eastern coast and on the dry seabed have been included . The further extension and development of the protected area as a Biosphere Reserve in accordance to the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program is considered . In this case the protected area would include zones of graded protection and nature use, promoting sustainable development of its area. The Association for Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK) is currently implementing a program for the identification and designation of Important Bird Areas (IBA) according to the criteria provided by BirdLife International. In the SYNAS project area several sites already have been identified and further potential sites are currently L..11 v II VI 111 ICI ILC::U 11 'ltJO\,,L n;;:,;;:,c;;:,;;:,111c1 IL investigated. These sites should be considered as critical natural habitats in the sense of the World Bank's OP 4.04. 29 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1 Development Options The rural people in the Aral Sea region have long been seriously affected by the envi ronmental crisis of the Aral Sea. Already since the 1980s this crisis has led to widespread out-migration especially of former fishermen who almost completely lost their basis for livelihood. The process was enforced by the deteriorating socio-economic conditions as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unemployment became rampant and living conditions deteriorated due to the high incidence of respiratory and parasitic diseases, frequent dust storms, absence of clean drinking water and poor sanitary and medical conditions. Although large-scale resettlement of population was proposed, massive translocation programs have not been executed due to local resistance. In 1998, over 75% of the people were not in favor leaving the area; despite the high rate of unemployment (over 80% of the households had in that year one or more unemployed members). Moreover, the cost of mass resettlement was considered to be prohibitive. Since the beginning of the new millennium the economic situation in Kazakhstan is increasingly improving as reforms take effect and the growing oil prices provide significant incomes for the state budget and private incomes. The economic growth reaches step by step also the suffering rural areas of the Aral Sea basin . In addition development efforts by the government and donor funded projects have a positive impact. In the result during the last five years a significant improvement of the socio-economic situation can be observed especially in the coastal region of the Aral Sea. Employment opportunities in the frame of SYNAS-1 without doubt contribute to this take-off and the sustainability of this positive trend in employment and income is not secure yet. Restoration of the entire Aral Sea appears to be impossible, as this would require the reconstruction of the (pre-1960) water allocation regime of the Amudarya and Syrdarya Rivers with massive socio-economic consequences for the population living in the river basins and depending on water use for agriculture, power supply and industries. Alternative options of reallocating water from the Siberian rivers of the lrtysh System have been discussed in the 1980s but turned out being non-feasible due to unpredictable environmental risks and enormous economic costs. During the design of the SYNAS project the no-action alternative was not considered as a feasible option , because that would eventually have led to a further decline in the sea water level and further salinization and drying out and break-up of the NAS into four separate lakes. The bed erosion of the Syrdarya River would have further progressed making the water supply of the remaining delta lakes impossible. This would certainly have led to declining water-tables , a strong increase in salinity and a further decline of the fisheries which is still an important source of income for a number of people. The SYNAS project in total aimed to improve the hydraulic control of the river Syrdarya and to safeguard part of the original Aral Sea. Allowing more Syrdarya water to enter the NAS will raise the water level sufficiently to maintain one water body in the NAS and to improve the quality of the water as well as supplying the delta lakes with the amount of water needed for the maintenance of the lakes' surface area and water quality. During SYNAS-1 the most urgent and cost efficient measures for achieving this situation have been implemented. This included the rehabilitation of existing and erection of new hydraulic structures as described above (see 1.5.3). The most tangible result is the restoration of the NAS as one water body separated from the LAS by a dike with regulated spillway. The maximum water level of 42 m asl is achieved and surplus water is supplied to the LAS allowing a flushing of accumulated salts from the NAS and in future a salinity level between 4-17 g/I with spatial and temporal variations. - J - - • • - - - • \ - .I • -- - •• I The measures, implemented in SYNAS-1 , were intended as the phase of a long term development strategy for the Kazakhstan part of the Syrdarya basin. Several issues which seriously hamper the improvement of the environmental situation and economic development have not yet been addressed. These include: • The operation regime of the Toktogul Cascade in Kyrgyzstan remains oriented on power production during the winter season. This leads to high water flow in the Syrdarya outside the natural high water season , vegetation period and time of irrigation water demand . Additionally, the surplus water in winter causes out of season flooding leading to environmental problems and damages to infrastructure and property. • The level of 42 m leaves large parts of the Saryshiganak Bay dry and is insufficient for water to reach the harbor of Aralsk. For this to happen, a level of 46 m in the NAS is required . However, a further increase in the level of the NAS to 46 m would require considerable investments in the Berg Strait dike construction . Additionally a higher water discharge to the NAS of about 3 km 3 would be required . • The water supply to the delta lakes is still insufficient and poorly regulated. During the dry season under the present water management conditions the Syrdarya does not reach the gauge needed for supplying the delta lakes. The canals supplying the lakes are regulated by earth plugs which are difficult to manage in a manner adaptive to the water availability and demand. The solution of the identified problems can be divided into two main components: I) Increasing water flow in the Syrdarya and prevention of winter floods II) Rehabilitation and maintenance of water bodies additional to the currently existing NAS The second component depends on the first one as increased water availability is the precondition of the rehabilitation of water bodies in the downstream areas. The increasing of the water flow of the Syrdarya during the vegetation period and the prevention of winter floods can mainly be achieved by changing the operation regime of the Toktogul Cascade, by the construction of hydraulic structures which allow a storage of the surplus water in winter and its release during the appropriate season or a combination of elements of both . This would at the same time reduce the risk of flooding in winter season . Additionally this risk can be reduced by removing remaining artificial barriers in the river and by protection dikes for specific objects vulnerable to flooding . The currently practiced emergency spillage of winter excess water to drainless depressions cannot be considered a viable alternative as this water cannot be returned to the river and is lost to evaporation without providing tangible environmental and economic benefits. Although some stakeholders propose to extend this practice in order to create new "ecological" water bodies, especially in Kzylorda Oblast, the option of spillage to drainless depression would thus not contribute to the major objectives of the SYNAS-11 project of continued environmental revival of the NAS and delta area of the Syrdarya and improving overall water use efficiency in the basin. It is therefore no longer considered an option in the SYNAS-11 project package. The rehabilitation and maintenance of additional water bodies can potentially include the improvement of the hydrological conditions of existing water bodies, in particular in the Delta Lakes, the rehabilitation of the Saryshiganak Bay and the transformation of temporary water bodies in the Aksay-Kuandarya system , the Zhanadarya , in the Telikol and in other areas in permanent ones. The improvement of the conditions for fisheries and the rehabilitation and maintenance of ecosystems important for biodiversity would be the purposes of these subprojects. The options providing the best effects in these terms, combined with a good cost-benefit ratio and highest water use efficiency will be pursued. 31 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 3.2 Proposed Strategy The SYNAS-11 project will be the continuation of SYNAS-1 as first phase in the frame of the strategy of an overall program for rehabilitation and development of the Aral Sea Basin. The long-term strategy is: increasing the carrying capacity of the Syrdarya and the water flows to the Aral Sea; and securing and sustaining the NAS level , through careful water allocation and water management and control of the river resources. The strategy for improvement of water management and water allocation was originally planned to be implemented in three phases: Phase 1: • Improve operation and maintenance of existing irrigation infrastructure achieving an efficiency improvement of between 0.3-0.4; • ne lands (60,000 ha); Limit irrigated areas to 300,000 ha, while abandoning sali_ • Improve carrying capacity of Syrdarya in order to convey additional water to its Delta and NAS; • Construct permanent dike in NAS to provide maximum level of 42 m asl. Phase 2: • Raise the efficiency in irrigation sector to 0.5 by technical means (canal lining , proper drainage collectors , field leveling , water pricing, etc.) and use saved water for raising water level of NAS. Phase 3: • Prepare multilateral agreement with riparian countries for use of additional run-off for inflow into NAS; • Raise the NAS dike: to achieve a water level as high as possible (e .g. 46 m asl). The Phase 1 is currently under realization by SYNAS-1 and completed and planned .projects for rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage systems financed by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The SYNAS-11 will contribute to the full implementation of Phase 1. SYNAS-11 will contribute to the further rehabilitation of the NAS by the envisaged raising of the water level in the Saryshiganak Bay to 46 m asl. In recent years, the area irrigated in the Kazakhstan part of the Syrdarya basin has strongly decreased. The irrigated area in Kzylorda oblast has dropped from a post Soviet Union high of 272 000 ha in 1992 and stabilized since 1997 to a figure around 150 000 hectares for all crops and from 93 500 ha to 57 000 ha below Chardara dam in South Kazakhstan oblast. Most of the area irrigated in South Kazakhstan oblast is supplied by Syrdarya River sections upstream from the Shardara reservoir and by tributaries of the rivers. Under the SYNAS project, it has been estimated that the total irrigated area between Shardara and the NAS will not exceed 300,000 ha. A recent study shows that the requirement for irrigation water in Kzylorda oblast is 3.23 km 3 per annum. This can be reduced to 2.51 km 3 per annum by implementing an improved production system with increased water efficiency (EDIKO, 2005: Technical note on Agricultural Production Systems) . Similar improvements should be possible in South Kazakhstan oblast. These water use efficiency improvements will allow the required water supply for the maintenance of the NAS and the delta lakes even under the conditions of a recovery of the agricultural production. In the frame of the feasibility study for SYNAS-11 modeling of the actual and potential water allocation is carried out. 3.3 Project Components I Subprojects The proposed project consists of a number of construction measures which have been structured as 10 subprojects. These have been studied in the pre-feasibility study to a level permitting to analyze their effect on river basin management, on economy, socio-economy and environment, which then can be ranked by multi-criteria analysis. The analysis of the environmental aspects have been present in a thematic report on which the presented Environmental Assessment study builds on . The subprojects for which the preliminary environmental appraisal had been conducted are presented in table 3-1. The short description, purpose and anticipated effects present the preliminary conclusions as studied and evaluated in the frame of the pre-feasibility study. Table 3-1: Overview of subprojects Sub-project Number and Short description, variants Purpose name 1Reconstruction of left bank Reconstruction of deteriorated Prevention of total failure and irrigation offtake at Kzylorda left bank irrigation offtake maintenance of irrigation capabilities barraqe 2. Syrdarya river bed Construction of channels Flood control , increase of carrying straightening at Korgansha straightening the meanders capacity of river and Turumbet sites in along Syrdarya river Zhalagash district of Kzylorda ob last 3. Construction of flood Flood protection dikes' raise Irreversible discharge of water into the protection dikes in Kazalinsk depressions in the desert in order to avoid and Karmakchi districts of flooding in the low reaches Kzvlorda oblast 4. Construction of bridge near Bridge to replace pontoon Improvement in traffic and avoidance of ice Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk jams, floods in winter district of Kzvlorda oblast 5.Rehabilitation of Construction of Amanotkel -2 Improve water supply and water quality of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau weir, regulation structures and the lakes by improving water exchange lake systems in Aralsk district canals for delta lakes of Kzylorda oblast 6. Reconstruction and Construction of fish ponds , Improvement of conditions of production extension of fishery ponds at . pumping station for water supply and increasing of production yield ( Tastak site of Kamuishlibash and other objects stocking material) for lake system of fish hatchery in Aralsk district Syrdarya river delta of Kzvlorda oblast An additional project component will deal with institutional support to the river management structures. They consist of such items as the design of operational centers , the provision of a water management information system , provision for telemetry from selected hydrological posts, assistance to the CWR in pursuing implementation measures (tendering , evaluation , and construction supervision) , monitoring and evaluation of project activities as well as environmental monitoring, and assistance in providing operation and maintenance of important hydraulic infrastructure. In the pre-feasibility study a priority ranking has been done according to the joint appraisal of independently evaluated parameters, economy, ·socio-economy, ecology and safety. By definition , the most advantageous project package is the one in which the best synergies are achieved and the best cost-efficiency for a given investment achieved. The Project should be composed of components· which are mutually interelated and optimised and will make a contribution to the basic problem of the Syrdarya basin , in effect the river basin management. As mentioned several times , the World bank is looking for a comprehensive project that includes almost all activities that have been proposed. 33 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) ' . Budget situation The budget situation is well known and no improvement is foreseen in the near future. Sub- projects that can be realised thus are either small or must rely on available previous information. Consultants proposal In the consultants view, looking at the above situation with their sometimes diametrically opposed opinions they propose a project solution which we would be able to: a) provide a coherent concept for the river basin management b) provide dam safety and flood prevention c) gain state expertise approval d) fit within the available budget e) provide a stable water balance situation for the realization of subsequent projects. &...I I Yll V I 111IVI11.UI 111 lfJUVI. I h~WVWWI I I V I 11. I I IUWV 11 \ ' - ' J I IUW 11 / 4 BASELINE SITUATION FOR THE PROJECT 4.1 Project Area and Area of Influence The overall project area of the SYNAS-11 package as defined by the ToR for the consultancy includes: • the floodplain of the Syrdarya between the Shardara reservoir and the Aral Sea including the Delta lakes; • the NAS; • Zhanadarya and Telikol systems; The areas of influence include the LAS (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) , the Arnasay depression (Uzbekistan). The locations of subprojects are shown in figure 4-1 . KAZAKH SYRDARYABASIN © - ) ( I 2 3 4 5 6 Fig. 4-1: Overview map of subproject sites 35 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) 4.2 Geo-Physical Profile 4.2.1 Climate The project area lies within the arid continental climate zone characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, dry winters. About 20 years of climatic data are available from five meteorological stations (Shardara, Chieli, Kzylorda, Kazalinsk and Aral Sea). Rainfall data (summarized in Table 4-1) indicate increasingly drier climates from Shardara in the south- east to the mouth of the Syrdarya in the north-west of the project area. However, the Aral Sea station (at Aralsk) , in the north-east corner of the Sea, receives consistently more precipitation than the lower Syrdarya valley (near Kazalinsk station) . The mean annual precipitation varies from 258 mm at Shardara to 128.5 mm at Kazalinsk. The driest months are June-September. In the north of the Syrdarya basin the distribution of monthly rainfall over the year is more even than in the south with almost no rainfall during the dry season . There are great inter-annual fluctuations in the annual precipitation. In dry years, total annual rainfall in Kazalinsk can be as low as 37 mm, and in Kzylorda , 81 mm. There is ·relatively little snowfall in the area. Average monthly climate data for Kazalinsk and Aralsk are given in Table 4-2. Table 4-1 Average Annual Precipitation in the Project Area (1976-1996) Station Period of Average annual Maximum Minimum recording mm mm/year mm/year Chardara 1978-1996 244 372 1,993 105 1,995 Chieli 1977-1996 116 354 1,981 67 1,995 Kzyl Orda 1969-1996 158 311 1,981 81 1,975 Kazalinsk 1969-1996 127 188 1,981 37 1,974 Aral Sea 1969-1996* 141 270 1,981 67 1,984 (Aralsk) * Data for the years 1971 , 1972, and 1974-1977 are not available. Source: Meteorological Stations , RK. The mean annual air temperature varies from 14°C in the south (Shardara) to 9°C at Kazalinsk. The cold period starts in November and ends in late March, with the lowest temperature averaging -25.4°C in the north and -6.1°C in the south. The frost-free period varies from 170 to 190 days (end of April to beginning of November) . The warmest month is July, the coldest month is December. Table 4-2 Average Monthly Values of Climatic Parameters at Kazalinsk and Aralsk (1969-1996) KAZALINSK ARALSK Ambient Precipitati Average Relative Ambient Precipi- Wind velocity Rel. Air Air on Wind Air Air tation (mis) · Humidity Temp. Velocity Humidity Temp . (oC) (mm) (mis) (%) (OC) (mm) Averaoe Max. (%) Jan. -8.4 11.2 2.0 80.0 -13 .0 11 4.8 20 82 Feb. -9 .5 6.6 2.7 76.0 -12 .0 10 5.2 25 81 Mar. -2.1 15.2 2.5 74.0 3.5 13 5.3 20 78 Aor. 11 .3 17.1 2.5 53.0 9.1 14 5.3 26 55 May 19.0 9.8 2.1 46.0 17.9 12 5.0 25 45 Jun. 25.0 5.4 1.8 41 .0 23.5 10 5.0 24 38 Jul. 27.9 4.7 1.4 42.0 26.3 10 4.9 20 36 Aug . 24.6 7.4 1.4 44.0 24.4 9 4.6 20 37 Seo. 17.2 5.9 1.5 49.0 17.3 6 4.4 20 48 Oct. 8.0 13.1 1.5 62.0 7.9 17 4.8 24 59 Nov. 0.3 15.4 1.8 77.0 -1.2 12 4.7 20 76 Dec. -5.3 15.2 2.0 81.0 -8 .5 13 4.7 20 83 Year 9.0 128.5 1.9 60.4 7.4 137 4.9 22 59 Source: Meteorological Station Aralsk and Kazahnsk, RK. 1 1 n ... ...,- 11 \ - ] 1 n ... ..., 11 I Kaz alinsk Aralsk 9 °C 129nm 15,1 °C 13 7mn 40 80 40 80 35 70 35 70 30 60 30 60 25 50 25 50 20 40 20 40 15 30 15 30 10 20 IO 20 IO 10 -10 -5 -20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Joo Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jm Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Kzylorda Dzhizak I0.7 °C I63 .7 nm 14,2 °C 425 ,0 rrm 40 80 40 80 35 70 35 70 30 60 30 60 25 50 25 50 20 40 20 40 15 30 15 30 IO 20 10 20 IO 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Joo Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jm Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Fig. 4-2: Climate diagrams for the stations Kazalinsk, Aralsk(both based on Table 7), Kzylorda (1989- 2003, source ED/KO project 2005) and Dzhizak (based on data from Uzhydromet, southeast of Shardara reservoir, in Uzbekistan) The relative humidity is about 60% . The potential annual evaporation ETpot varies between approx. 600 mm per year in the NAS area and 700 mm per year in the Shardara region. The reference evapotranspiration of a standard crop (i.e. 12 cm tall grass) is ET ref+ 1365 mm per year and ET ref+ 1441 mm per year respectively for the two regions (IWMI World Water & Climate Atlas). Water bodies are generally known to have an accumulated annual evaporation between 800 to 1100 mm . Within the project area the prevailing winds are from the north-east, north and north-west, with a velocity ranging from 1.4 to 2.7 m/s during the whole year. The number of sunshine hours ranges, on average, from 8.3-8.9 hours/day, while in summer it can reach 12.9-12.2 h/day, decreasing to 4.6-5.3 h/day during winter- time . Specifics of the Aral Sea climate The climatic conditions of the Aral Sea are defined by its inland location in the centre of the Eurasian continent. A determinant factor is the high solar radiation energy, which reaches a mean annual value of about 5,800 MJ/m 2 . The mean annual rainfall at Aralsk is 137 mm/y, with a range of 110-150 mm/y; with highest recorded rainfall during spring and autumn. In July, the average air temperature over the Sea is 25-26°C, while in February it drops to - 10°C to -13°C , with extreme temperatures reaching +44°C and -38°C recorded. The period with sub-zero temperatures lasts from 120 to 150 days a year. Air humidity ranges from 65- 70%. The wind regime is mainly of an inland nature with predom inant north-east direction. The average wind velocity is 5-6 m/s, with a maximum of 20-25 m/s. 37 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) ' . Regional climate change The Aral Sea creates a land-water interface, which is an important factor in regulating regional climatic conditions. It is assumed that the sea's influence upon the local climate extends up to a distance of 100-150 km from the sea. Understandably, the rapid reduction of the sea area and its water storage has led to a considerable decrease of its thermal storage, to changes in the thermal balance and in the precipitation and air humidity. As neither climate data nor new specific literature could be analyzed for this study the following facts are quoted from the EIA for SYNAS-1 (ARCADIS , 2000). The mean annual thermal storage of the Aral Sea has been decreased by 54%, as compared to the values estimated for the period before 1960. Especially the thermal storage in winter has greatly decreased (93%) . Consequently, changes in heat and moisture exchange between the Sea and the atmosphere have affect~d the climate of the Aral Sea region. Notably, the difference b~tween summer and winter temperatures has increased, and the mean annual relative air humidity declined by 10-15%. Also , the number of cloudy days and the frequency of strong winds have decreased. On average, annual rainfall has remained nearly the same, but over the last decade of the 201h century, the wettest month shifted from March to April, while the driest month shifted from September to July. Dust storms with salt load are frequently menacing men and animals in the Aral Sea region , including the project area downstream from Kzylorda. Most of these storms originate on the exposed bottom of the Aral Sea. They carry particles of fine salt to distances of up to 400- 500 km . Salt and dust transportation are one of the most serious negative consequences of the dramatic decline in Aral Sea surface elevation and size. These severe dust storms are considered one of the most serious health-threatening consequences of the drying up of the Aral Sea. Howeve·r few proven evidence about the health impacts of the dust storms is available from scientific literature, at least for Karakalpakstan which is even more affected by the dust storms than the Kazakhstan part of the Aral Sea region (Grol1e-Ruschkamp 2005). Since 1970, strong dust storms have been detected on satellite images from the Aral region . The increasing water surface area of the NAS and consequently the reduction of exposed dry seabed due to the construction of the Berg Strait Dike should have led to a significant reduction of dust storms originating from the dry bottom of the NAS. On the other hand it is possible that these positive effects are compensated by the increasing surface of exposed and highly erodible salt and silt substrates in the LAS. So far no monitoring data are available. 4.2.2 Geomorphology The Syrdarya River Basin, between Shardara Reservoir and the NAS , slopes gently in a south-east - north-west direction (average gradient 0.1 m/km) . The major part of the project area is occupied by the floodplain of the Syrdarya River and the Aral Sea depression. The Syrdarya River in its Kazakhstan section is notable for its gentle inclination towards the Aral Sea, the average gradient is 0.1 m/km . Downstream of the Shardara reservoir, the river bank elevation is 236-239 m asl , and at its outlet in the NAS , a distance of 1,650 km , its elevation is 54 m asl. The river is a typical meandering lowland river and - due to natural processes and locally due to riverbed straightening - has often changed its course , leaving behind oxbow lakes and dry riverbed sections. The Syrdarya River within the South Kazakhstan oblast flows on the flat, plain territory. Between Shardara and Tyumen-Aryk railway stations, both river banks are barren. Here, the river cuts through quaternary deposits to a depth of 1-3 m. The riverbed width is 200-300 m with low terraces above the floodplain insignificantly sloped towards the river. The slopes of the territory towards the river stream are 15-20 cm per kilometer and towards the river itself - even less. The relief along the river banks is uniform, characterized by the absence of deep depressions. From Tyumen-Aryk to the river mouth in the Aral Sea, over long sections the river bed lies 1 m and more above the adjacent plains, which is the result of sedimentation. Thus, when the river overflows its banks, wide floodplain areas become inundated . The 1::nv1ronmema1 1mpac1 Assessmem l""nase 11 l ;:,ynas 11) width of the floodplains in the central and lower reaches of the river varies from 5 -10 km ; near the Delta, the plain widens up to 40 km . During historic times the Syrdarya has changed significantly its river course, at one time also discharging its water along the present river course of the Zhanadarya into the Large Aral Sea. Satellite images reveal many variations of the river course, which has left many dry river terraces , and which at one time or another have left initially windswept dry salty plains which gradually have developed desert soils and vegetation . From the Syrdarya floodplain former river branches as the Torangylysay, Zhanadarya, Maylyozek, Kuandarya , and Karaozek lead into the Kyzylkum desert or the desert on the right bank and cut into plain areas. The old river branches are nowadays regulated and used as canals or collectors. The meandering lateral morphology, despite man made impoundment over significant lengths, and the nature-like geo-morphological dynamics make these waterways in some extent comparable to natural rivers . The flow dynamics and sediment load of the Syrdarya River is heavily transformed by a number of dams, water diversion structures and the withdrawal of water for irrigation purposes. This affects the current morpho-dynamic processes of the river bed. However the geomorphologic structures are over large sections not directly modified and only at small river sections the riverbanks are artificially reinforced . The changes of the flow in quantity, timing and sediment load since the regulation in the 1960s have affected the geomorphology of the floodplain areas. The dynamics of the floodplain geomorphology in terms of erosion , sedimentation and development of new oxbow lakes and other structures came widely to a halt. The geomorphologic processes in a river delta are generally characterized by sediment accumulation , seasonal flooding and the development of a net of river branches and islands. In the case of the Syrdarya River these typical delta structures are almost missing. Where the river enters the flat Delta, it meanders strongly into a widening floodplain with numerous lakes (Delta Lakes). In the Delta, a braided maze of old river channels , oxbows, lakes and depressions has developed. The river itself nowadays forms only one main branch which due to the dropping Aral Sea level has lowered its erosion basis and instead of accumulation is now characterized by backward erosion of the riverbed . Most of the lakes formed in natural depressions are now connected by canals and artificially supplied with water. The depression of the Aral Sea is a drainless basin of 68,300 km 2 . The relief of the Aral Sea shores shows considerable variation . The northern coast is basically high and steep, except for some small low places in the Saryshiganak, Butakov and Shevchenko Bays. At present, large areas of the shallow water gulfs of the NAS are dry. The Large and Small Barsuki Sands and Aral Karakums are adjacent to the NAS. The western coast of the Aral Sea is high (up to190 m) , being the steep edge of offshoots of the Ustyurt desert plateau . Near the western shore, the Sea is deepest, with slight unevenness. The (former) islands and peninsulas Barsakelmes, Vozrozhdeniya and Kokaral also have steep cliffs of some ten meters height. The eastern shores are gentle and sandy being in close proximity to the Kyzylkum Sands, and the former shoreline is in most areas only visible as a small terrace of one or few meters height. In the past, this low-lying but undulating coast had abounded with bays and sandy islands. At present, much of the foreshore has fallen dry due to declining sea levels, and the coastline has leveled off. The southern coast is low as it was formed by alluvial depositions from the Amu Darya River. This coast is unstable and some changes in the coastline have recently occurred. The sea bed is subdivided into several depressions which in the course of the drying out of the sea led to the development of isolated lakes. In the NAS the raising of the sea level by the construction of the Berg Strait dike has avoided the division into four separate lakes. The geomorphology of the dry seabed is mostly determined by aeolian processes. These processes partly supported by specifically adapted sand fixating shrub vegetation form sand dune areas on the former seabed. The sand dunes are concentrated in the areas close to 39 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) the former shore lines. The more central parts of the dry seabed are usually flat, but locally disrupted by small depressions and dunes. Bordering formations of the project area include the south-western slopes of the Karatau Mountains. The foothills and piedmont plains of the Western Tienshan are gently sloping towards the Syrdarya floodplain. This region is the only place where the relief conditions allow for the construction of a reseNoir from water management, economic and environmental points of view. Here the alluvial plain on the right bank of the river near the road bridge Arys - Shardara has been selected as most suitable potential construction site. The absolute elevations here vary within the range of 200-270 m. There is located a depression with gentle sloped edges, bordered from the south by the small plateau . The total area of this depression is about 400 km 2 , the overall depth - up to 1O m, the mean depth - 6-7 m. The plain character of the surface in this area is disturbed by the depressions, gullies, hills . .Besides, here the micro-relief is presented by small hillocks, closed micro-hollows and gullies. The relative difference in the heights of the micro-relief usually does not exceed one meter. The Pre-Aral Karakum sands and the Malye Barsuki formations fringe the northern extent of the project area, while Kyzylkum and Zhuankum sands form the southern limit. The area is characterized by a flat relief and belongs to the vast Turanian Lowland. 4.2.3 Hydrology River flow The Syrdarya used to deliver formerly one third of the water inflow of the Aral Sea. The remaining inflow was discharged by the Amudarya which nowadays does not reach the Aral Sea with surface flow. The water resources of the Syrdarya catchment comprise some 376 km 3 . The main flow amount, constituting some 70% , is formed upstream of the Fergana valley. The right-bank tributaries (Ohangaron, Chirchik and Keles) upstream of the Shardara reseNoir contribute some 23%, whereas the Arys River and the rivers originating from the Karatau mountains in Kazakhstan contribute the remaining 7%. A critical characteristic of the Syrdarya River is its reduced flow capacity of its downstream sections in winter due to ice bµild-up in the natural river channel. This phenomenon also occurs in other river basins northern Kazakhstan and Russia , but in those northern basins the catchments are in generally also frozen during winter months, resulting in effectively zero winter runoff, which causes little problem in winter. However the situation is different for the Syrdarya, as its upper catchment is located in a more temperate climate, with a mean base flow (in winter) of approximately 500 m3 /s, which increases (augmented by snow/glacier melt) to approximately 1500 m3 /s in summer. In addition, winter flooding (from the upper more temperate catchment) also has occurred historically, that caused further large volumes of water to be discharged over an already frozen river, which in turn was forced out of the river channel into the flood plain , where the flood water would then freeze. It has also been known for further floods to occur during the same season, thus resulting in additional layers of ice to be built up and spread over a wide area. Whereas up to 1961 the run-off of the Syrdarya has seen little change, after 1961 due to the construction of hydrological structures (construction of reseNoirs and irrigation systems), the flow regime of the Syrdarya River has changed drastically. During the period 1961 - 1973, large irrigation schemes were constructed and the Shardara and ChaNak reseNoirs were built. The flood control policy was to limit downstream from Shardara releases to approximately 500 m3 /s in winter and 1500 m3 /s in summer. Any flood flows above that were discharged from the Shardara reseNoir into the Arnasay depression . Since the construction of the Shardara reseNoir the mean recorded discharge into the Arnasay depression has been in the order of 1.4 km 3 per year, which represents a corresponding reduction of the net mean flow to the Aral Sea. During the period 1974 - 1991 , the Toktugul reseNoir was built wh ich allowed the further expansion of irrigation by buffering of inter-annual flow fluctuations. Till 1961 , the annual inflow of Syrdarya water into the Aral Sea was some 4 to 5 km 3 , while during the period 1976-1990 it decreased to 0.85 km 3 . In the 1990s, a sequence of wet years coupled with the decrease in water consumption due to the crisis in the agricu ltural sector has given rise to large volumes of Syrdarya water reaching the delta. The actual average annual discharge from the Syrdarya River to the Aral Sea over the years 1991 - 2005 is about 5.6 km 3 , varying between 3.56 and 8.4 km 3 • (Scott Wilson , Final Report 2007) . In the frame of the project development of SYNAS-1 the long-term average of the Syrdarya inflow into the Aral Sea was in the long term average 1.79 km 3 (25 years) . However the before mentioned measured data indicated that this estimate might be too conservative . The hydraulic modeling conducted under the present elaboration of SYNAS-11 compared different scenarios based on naturalized flows of the years 1912-2005 and river abstraction records from 1976 - 2005. Scenario 1 considers the SYNAS-1 up-rated river channel capacities , i.e. the present situation. In this scenario the total inflow into the Aral Sea would be 3.725 km 3 per annum. Under Scenario 5 - SYNAS II (Mid-term r,eport) uprated capacities with larger Koksaray the total annual inflow into the Aral Sea would be .4.185 km 3 . In this scenario the Aydar-Arnasay system would annually receive only 0.68 km 3 an amount, even if the other desert spillages of 0.107 km 3 would be reallocated , according to Uzgidromet by far insufficient for stabilizing the lake system . This shows the need for transboundary talks. Table 4-3 Inflow into the Shardara Reservoir Operation mode Period Total annual November - March April - October . inflow Million m3 Million m3 % Million m3 % Irri gation 1969-1988 15,097 5,897 39 9,201 61 Mixed 1989-1991 15,033 7,580 50 7,453 50 Power qeneration 1992-1996 21 ,358 11 ,841 55 9,517 45 1996-2003 18,380 Source: CES/Sogreah/Kazgiprovodhoz, 1999, ARCADIS EUROCONSULT/AFC/MNT, 2005, Technical Note 11 (data 1996-2003) Mainly as a result of construction of water regulatory works within Kzylorda Oblast the rivers ' carrying capacity has decreased considerably . Starting in 1992, the operation regime of the Toktugul reservoir changed from irrigation- oriented with summer releases into power-oriented with winter releases (see table 4-3). The main discharges under this condition are coinciding with the period when there is no demand for irrigation water. Additionally then the carrying capacity of the river is minimal due to ice. This was leading to emergency spillages from the Shardara reservoir (storage capacity limited to 4.2 km 3 ) into the Arnasay depression . In wet years , the volume spilled in the Arnasay depression and finally lost to evaporation could amount to 7.5 km 3 or more. The Government of Uzbekistan has requested GoK to halt releases into the depression. The change of the flow regime from summer high water to winter high water is problematic both in terms of land-use and environment. The current situation causes shortages of irrigation water as well as insufficient flooding of tugai forests and lack of water supply of the Delta Lakes in spring and summer. On the other hand floods of tugai and inflow into the Delta Lakes during the winter are out of season and are thus of limited ecological value or have even negative impacts. For the long-term maintenance and regeneration of the floodplain vegetation , in particular of the critical tugai forests, the current extremely rare flooding during the late spring/ early summer is not sufficient. Water consumption The water management agencies record abstraction of water from the river for the following categories : irrigation abstractions (for arable lands) hayfield abstractions 41 .. Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Feasibility Study Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) • wetland and ecosystem abstractions fisheries abstractions industrial and communal abstractions Up to 70% of available discharges below the Shardara reservoir have been used for irrigation. Table 4-4 shows the annual retrospective water balance of the project area and table 4-5 provides year-specific figures . Table 4-4 Annual retrospective water balance of the project area Probability of Average Wet year Normal year Dry year Very dry year exceeding(%) 20% 50% 70% 90% Inflow. Shardara inflow 14,486 18,800 12,750 10,900 8,800 Arvs River 470 679 472 299 199 Return flow 756 847 763 746 671 Total 15,712 20,326 13,985 11 ,945 9,670 Consumption: Irrigation 6,365 6,876 6,493 6,139 5,506 Pastures 2,059 2,607 2,074 1,548 699 Delta 1,053 1,504 1,149 474 462 Fisheries 57 63 50 44 40 Industrial and Domestic 61 67 60 56 47 Inflow in NAS 1,785 2,700 675 368 0 Shardara losses 1,483 1,754 576 562 548 River losses 2,849 4,755 2,908 2,754 2,368 Total 15,712 20,326 13,985 11,945 9,670 Source: CES/Sogreah/Kazgiprovodhoz, 1999 Recent approximate river basin balances (ARCADIS EUROCONSULT/AFC/MNT, 2005, Technical Note 9) reveal the fact, that agriculture presently diverts on average only 37% (6 km 3 ) of the water resources discharged downstream from Shardara dam (16 km 3 ) . Of the remaining only a small proportion (2 km 3 ) reaches the Northern Aral Sea, mainly in winter. Most losses can presently be attributed to the diversion of water from the main river stream for winter flood control purposes. Table 4-5: Water flow and use data (ARCADIS EUROCONSULT/AFCIMNT, 2005, Technical Note 11) .. Average 1996-2003 2003 (wet year) Inflow Shardara reservoir 18.38 km 3 26.28 km 3 Outflow Shardara reservoir 16.33 km 3 20.49 km 3 • Losses reservoir and spillage to 2.05 km 3 5. 79 km 3 Arna say River flow hydro-post Kzylorda 9.55 km3 12.38 km 3 barraQe River flow hydro-post Kazalinsk 9.77 km 3 River flow hydro-post Karateren 9.18 km 3 (last post before Aral Sea) SYNAS-1 calculation inflow Aral 1.79 km 3 (long term average) sea SYNAS-1 calculation need to cover 2.5 km 3 evaporation loss in NAS Irrigation use in South Kazakhstan 0.480 km 3 oblast for 60 000 ha in 2003 2 Irrigation in Kzylorda Oblastv for 3.27 km 3 160 000 ha Water use for" pastures and 1.08 km 3 wetlands in Kzylorda oblast Thus at present in Kzylorda Oblast, water needs to be dumped during winter in quantities almost equaling yearly irrigation needs into the main irrigation canals and collectors in order to relieve downstream river sections. Apart from the strain put onto a deteriorated irrigation and drainage infrastructure, this water is led to drainage depressions and has created huge new wetlands and lakes of doubtful ecologic value , such as in the Telikol, in the Kuandarya , in the Aksay and the Zhanadarya systems, where water is irretrievably lost for irrigation purposes as well as for the Aral Sea. Thus, recent findings and modeling results reveal the curious fact that in this semi-de.sert climate of the Kazakh Syrdarya basin there presently not a water scarcity problem but a flood control problem . Table 4-6: Bottlenecks on Syrdarya restricting through-flow, summer and winter (ARCADIS EUROCONSULT/AFC/MNT, 2005, Technical Note 11, adapted) Maximum allowable Summer flow Winter flow Remarks flow Shardara outflow 1500 700 Determined by restrictions downstream Kz lorda barra e 1200 600 Aitek weir 700 450 · Karaozek old diversion 65 65 Until 2004 Karaozek new diversion 350 350 0 erational since 2005 Railwa brid e Karaozek 1000 450 Akiak weir 515 400 New weir, o erational since 2006 .' Irrigation infrastructure The water management infrastructure for irrigation in Kzylorda Oblast consists of 19 principal canals branching off from Syrdarya with varying capacity, length and area connected. Some canals like Zhanadarya (also called Torangilsai) are old river courses, wh ich have been converted to conveyors for irrigation water. In South Kazakhstan oblast the principal canals are the Kyzylkum canal , directly starting from the Shardara reservoir, the Arys canal and its extension , the Arys-Turkestan canal (supplied by the Arys river) and the Kirov and Southern Golodnostpeskiy canals, both diverted from the Syrdarya upstream from the Shardara reservoir. A number of smaller canals exist, feeding directly out of the river, but 2 Water for irrigated area also obtained from other sources than the Syrdarya (tributaries - mountain rivers). 43 Feasibil ity Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) are not in regular use anymore. They are used to feed small lakes, pasture and haym_ aking . In addition the landscape is crisscrossed by remnants of large number of canals once used for former vegetable growing , temporary irrigation of reforestation schemes and windbreak plantings - most schemes resulting in failure. Most canals are diverted directly from the Syrdarya, with a regulating structure, recessed further inland . The exceptions are the important Left Bank Main Canal (LMK) and Right Bank Main Canal (RMK) , branching off directly from Kzylorda barrage and two corresponding canals branching off from the Kazalinsk barrage. Apart from the intake regulating structures, the big canals possess at regular intervals cross-regulators for providing high enough water level for the secondary or so called "inter-farm" canals . Canals at their end are transformed frequently without a special structure into collectors , which gather the drainage and un- controllable, not used irrigation water. Drainage waters from the irrigated farms are disposed off via the collectors and are led in most cases into distant drainage depressions, the most notable systems being the Telikol , the Zhanadarya, and the Kuandarya. In Kazalinsk the Aksay system also carries away drainage water from agricultural lands, although without a definite collector. Only in some special cases does drainage water flow back into the river. In effect, water from the Toguskenski area is drained by KP 17, in Chiili KP 18 and water from the Kzylorda RMK is discharged into the Karaosek branch (Koksu Collector, KP 24) of the Syrdarya. Canals, collectors and structures have as a rule surpassed their service life and most are in the need of de-silting , weeding and structure rehabilitation if not complete reconstruction Aral Sea The Aral Sea is fed by two major river systems, the Amudarya (Oxus) River draining into the Sea at its southern limit, and the Syrdarya River entering the Sea from the north-east. Between 1911 and 1960, the mean water level of the Aral Sea was at 53 m asl and its surface extended over approximately 68,300 km 2 , including 66,100 km 2 of water and 2,200 km 2 of land (islands). The water storage was 1,064 km 3 and the average depth was 16.1 m, while the maximum depth reached 69 m. At that time , the NAS Sea covered approximately 6,000 km 2 and had a water volume of about 80 km 3 , which was 9.1% and 7.5% respectively of the total Aral Sea. The very significant decline in river flow at its sea outlet since the 1960s as the result of large-scale diversions for irrigation development and retention of river water for hydro-power generation has led to a drastic decrease in sea water levels, .and to a general increase in sea water salinity due to evaporation. By 1988, the Sea had reached the critical level of 40 m asl and the NAS became separated from the southern part, the LAS. With the lowering of the Sea, Kokaral Island , located between the northern and southern Seas became a pen insula and the NAS became disconnected when the narrow, shallow Berg Strait, west of Kokaral Island dried out. Only a small channel connected both Seas seasonally. Figure 4-2 shows the changes of the lake surface configuration over six decades. - · ',." .... . 00 0 · - · , .. _ , II I . , . . . - ...... . · - - - - - · 0 , ._ , ' "' . ··--- .. ,-,··-- .., ,. . 1957 2006 2003 ...,~ __, ______!' DynamlosOfcnanglngAral coasnlne Macu.rral5 f Scale 1 : 5 000 000 ~ ' Fig. 4-3: Changing coast lines Areas of NAS and LAS (Source: Scott Wilson, Final Report 2007) From Table 4-7 it can be concluded that the Saryshiganak Bay is separated from the NAS at sea level below 40.5 m (this occurred in November 1997), while Butakov Gulf and Shevchenko Gulf will be isolated at 40.0 m and 38.0 m respectively. Thus , in order to keep the NAS as one contiguous water body, sea water levels should not drop below 41 m asl. This is currently achieved by the new Berg Strait dike which allows the maintenance of a water level of 42 m asl in the NAS . According to press statements this level has already been achieved, and has been confirmed by experts observation . Table 4-7 Some Characteristics of the Sub-Water Bodies of the NAS (1998) Elevation of Water surface at Storage at Water areas Depth (m asl) underwater level of thresholds threshold level . thresholds (m asl) (km 2 ) (MCM) 1. Central part 24.5 Channel bottom to 1,700 10,000 LAS 38.5 2. Shevchenko Gulf 26.5 38 .0 812 6,740 3. Saryshiganak Bay 40.5 40.5 - - 4. Butakov Gulf 37.5 40.0 89.6 130 Source: CES , Sogreah and Kaz1provodhoz, 1999 45 Feasibil ity Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Approximate 42m counter line of Aral Sea coastline Scalo 1:500 000 Fig. 4-4: North Aral Sea Comparative Coastline Changes (1957, 2003 and 42 m design level of NAS Dam) (Source: Scott Wilson, Final Report 2007) Variation of Aral Sea surface area Variations in sea water levels are typical for closed, "terminal" lakes such as the Aral Sea. Over the last few centuries, the Aral Sea level fluctuated considerably. During high water periods , sea water filled the Sarykamysh depression, which overflowed towards the Caspian Sea. Recent archaeological excavations showed that during the late middle age (13 century?) a city was located on the only recently again dried seabed, indicating a decades or even centuries long period of sea level below 45 m asl. Over the last 200 years (till 1960), sea levels fluctuated between 50.0 and 53.0 m asl. Since 1960, however, the Aral Sea level has dropped 15 m, i.e. an average rate of 45 cm/y over the period 1961-1997. See Figure 4- 4. . Prior to 1960, seasonal sea water fluctuation was also limited to approximately 1 m. Since 1961 , the difference between maximum and minimum levels during the year became less pronounced: 5-10 cm less difference; in some years , there was no difference. The time of maximum sea level shifted from July-August to April-May, and the period of the sea level rise shortened , while the period of receding sea levels became longer. Variation of salinity in the Aral Sea Until the split into the NAS and LAS the salinity level in both parts increased continuously from about 10-12 g/I TDS at the beginning of intensive irrigation schemes up to 32 g/I TDS at the time of splitting into the two separated parts. Since than, the salinity level in the LAS increased further (about 50 g/I TDS at the end of the last millennium). In the NAS the average salinity level dropped . since the separation from the LAS due to an inflow of less saline river water exceeding the evaporation. NAS is now approaching historic average baseline of the Aral Sea prior to the 1960's pre-development mineralization of 10-12 g/I TDS . The most considerable reduction has naturally been achieved in the area between the Syrdarya River mouth and the spillways in the Berg Strait dike. Due to blending of the sea water and diffusion the salinity of the other parts is also dropping, significantly in the Central part, less noticeably in the more isolated bays with limited · water exchange. So far no measurable impact is documented as result of the new Berg Strait dike and the raising of the water level. The relation of sea level and salinity is shown in figure 4-4. A map of salinity levels is provided in figure 4-5. (Both based on: Scott Wilson , Final Report 2007). The considerable difference between 2001 and 2002 might be caused by the contrast in 1=1 IVll UI 111 ICI ILCll 111 'tJGIVL M.;:>;:>t;:;:>;:>J I ICI IL precipitation . The year 2001 was a dry year, as it was 2000 as well. Consequently inflow of Syrdarya was lower (in total 3.56 km 3 ) and salinity of the river water increased . The year 2002 was in contrast wet (6.14 km 3 inflow) and river water was less mineralized. Aral Sea Levels and Salinity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~ go ~ " I F\AA I ' ' A AA I A/'\A I 50 ''" "" I -+-- North Aral Sea( NAS) 80 Sea Level (masl) ""''""" 40 LAS Sea Level --9-- North Aral Sea( NAS) Salinity average (gA) " AA A ",, " F\ A I I I 1 I r' NAS Sea Level r 70 --*- LAS Salinity I' I ' 60 I Beginning of I LAS · Intensive Irrigation Sea Level "' I .s "' 30 Schemes 50 § .. Qi > c: ~ ."' ...J 40 :; "' "' 20 30 NAS 20 10 ~linity 10 Year O+-~~~---,-~~~~,..-~~-+----,-~~~~,..-~~~---r-~~~_....,..-~~~---r-~~~---t-O 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Fig. 4-5: Aral Sea Levels and Salinity Values (Source: Scott Wilson, Final Report 2007) "' t ' ' Summer 2001 (g/I) Summer 2002 (g/I) Fig. 4-6: NAS Mineralisation as TDS Values (g/I) (Source: Scott Wilson, Final Report 2007) Syrdarya Delta lakes The Delta lakes serve many functions : lake fisheries , livestock watering , hay and reed harvesting and wildlife habitat. In 1900, the total lake area was about 43,000 ha, grouped into four main clusters of lakes (see figure 4-6). However the comparison of satellite images taken in different seasons shows a high fluctuation of the lake surface areas from maximum to complete drying out (see also table 4-8). The lake surface area depends on the inflow from the Syrdarya River, the evaporation and the extent of flow back into the river during 47 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) periods of low discharge. Under natural flow regime the discharge in the river was highest at the beginning of the dry season with maximum evaporation. Since the development of the large scale irrigation schemes these seasonal patterns changed dramatically making the water supply of the lakes without managed hydraulic structures insufficient. • Kamyshlybash Lake System: on the right bank of the river, total area 22,700 ha, dominated by Lake Kamyshlybash (approx. 16,600 ha) and containing Laikol (2,000 ha), Kayazdy and Kuly (1,400 ha) , Zhalanaskol (1 ,700 ha), and Raimkol (800 ha), as well as smaller ponds and wetlands. Surface elevation is about 56 m. It is supplied from the Syrdarya by two old canals , Sovetzharma (1920) and Taszharma (1940). • Akshatau Lake System: on the river's left bank, total area 10,200 ha. Principal lakes are Akshatau (2,200 ha), Katankol (3, 113 ha), Karakol (1 ,922 ha) , Shomyshkol (642 ha) and Kolshikan (258 ha) . Surface elevations are at 55-57 m. The system was fed by several canals from the old Amanotkel Weir. • Aksay-Kuandarya System: on the left bank, south of Kazalinsk, once consisting of some 31 ,7150 ha of lakes and marshes, now reduced to about 4,500 ha with most of the open water now being of only seasonal character. The Aksay group of lakes consists of three subsystems: in the north, the Zhualy subsystem , now mainly consisting of grazing lands, is provided with water from the Kazalinsk Barrage via the Aksay Canal. It consists of the lakes Tamakol (565 ha), Utebas (938 ha), Zhuan-Sydyrbay (69,800 ha) and is drained by the Sagir Canal into the Lohaly subsystem (4.348 ha) , the overflow of which passes directly into the Zhanay subsystem , consisting of Bolshoy (6,547 ha) and Malyy Zhanay (4,908 ha). At the request of the local government, the project is evaluating the establishment of three shallow fishing ponds - Lohaly, Bolshoy and Malyy Zhanay covering in total 20,000 ha of currently seasonally flooded hay making areas (limans). The Kuandarya group consists of the lakes Akkol (1 ,585 ha), Altynkol (1 ,927 ha) , Karakol (543 ha) and Maryamkol (3,374 ha). • Seaside Lakes System : the most downstream lakes on the right and left banks of the river. The largest and western-most lake was Karashalan , originally covering some 3,600 ha, but now reduced to about 525 ha. Tushibas Lake is now the largest (1 ,350 ha), but it has also been reduced in area. On the left bank is a cluster of smaller lakes that once totaled some 6,800 ha, now some 2,000 ha. It was fed by the Akiak structure. '-•••••-•1111v111.-• i111t-'-""'"' ,...,...,"'...,...,'''"'''" I 11--V II \ " ' J l l - - II/ Planned water supply measures in Kamyshlybash and Akshatau lake systems "'\ '\ (Scheme 1 - with river barrage Amanotkel 2) \ \ . Ban le Desi an dischara:e, ml/s \ " \ \ • ,.., 10 \ canal N!!l 780 \ 680 5 \ \ 5 Ak koisoiaan(Ahhatau) IOutlet cana l Totail: 8960 1Ul7 10518 ... 20 10 \ 4000 10 4250 10 140 10 / 10 Ker11er (ZhASulan) Outlet una l Totail: ...... 2200 2763 40 70 / " / / I I i f-t · I ,. ..-" / I.Ag end / / / a District border Design structures L . ~J D DesSgn 1r.1 border Settflements 0 Heed sttucl\lre Reeerv e spilhvay Roads Qutlel Asphalt • Spi~w ay \ \ • Piped crossing sou )-( o.&ign bri~ · Ram· \, \!\later supply canals Railroad ··~ Outlete1r11ls -----. Exi91irig ponton bridge ..... ......... __ Operation roade ~ Exi91ln !il ferry bo1t Flood protection dikes OVl Lake.ewamp systems 1:150000 Lakes (open water svrtac.e with Swtmps {water s\Xfllce 1.5 reed bushes 1t sha~ow water placn) with reeds) Lake areas of annual nooding and Swamps 1reH of1nnU11l l\ooding • 1 cm = 1.5km nooc1s with rare occurrence 1nd fbods of rare occun9ne* Fig. 4-7 Overview of the Delta Lake systems - Kamyshlybash and Akshatau lake systems, (Seaside and Aksay-Kuandarya lake systems not shown) • 49 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) • , Scheme of Aksai - Kuandarya lake system I Utebas lake car::.nism Bolshoi Zhanai # / lake 3 • °"""" Tasaryk "" •.o 1,5 10,0 70,0 TOTAL ..o.a Aizharym dike ozkol dike Canals parameleis ca ..~ leng1h DiM;harge, - - Legend Lake Swamps ~ Kazalinsk barrage _,. Tomaitr.or u-. TOTAL "" 18,0 6,3 1' ,0 35'.3 70.0 5,0 5,0 - Reconstruction or lake dikes Reconstructed canals _,?( Oudet structure Object status : Water intake structure P -·fish Q ' 5 Roads 10 15 20 ~5 X .economtc 3 -ecological PX -fishery M 1:500000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---< Syrdwy1 Contrgj .,d - 1>111 S.. Projod, ""-I (SYlllS-1) Psy--'-•~Aplll.ama-Clml ll (l'l'CC.W.U) - - Kuonderye leke aystom .. Fil eC/ ll)IOS/ Fig. 4-8 Overview ofthe Delta Lake systems - Aksay-Kuandarya lake system L..11 y II VI 111 IV"l lt.Cll 111 ltJOVt. rl...:>.:n;:;;..:>..:>111v111. Table 4-8: Dynamics of wetland areas according to satellite images, areas in thousand ha (Source: Project INTAS Aral 2000, 2004) Year 1967 1981 1989 1997 Oct.99 Jul. 00 Mar. 03 Name of the system Lakes other lakes other lakes other lakes Lower Delta right- 14.71 6. 12 1.4 7,1 9.4 5.56 5.73 3.53 6.58 2.74 side Lower Delta left-side 9.61 4.67 0.55 4.43 14.23 8.37 2.14 0.77 4.62 1.26 Lower Delta total 24.32 10.79 1.95 11 .53 23.63 13.93 7.87 4.29 11.20 4.01 Mid Delta 26.7 20.1 17.7 21.45 22 .59 16.99 28.16 16.42 34 .21 23.26 Kamvshlvbash Mid Delta Akchata u 19.8 12.7 10.2 9.97 15.5 8.27 15.42 8.21 37.42 24.65 Mid Delta total 46.5 32.8 27.9 31.42 38.09 25.26 43.58 24.64 71.63 47.91 Aksay-Kuandarya 37.3 29.4 8,7 12.7 27.35 12.22 21 .28 9.13 64.49 43.87 9.9....12 12..9.9 .3.8...5.5 5.5...6.5 8.9..0Z .51A1 1.2..n. .3.8...0.6. 14U2 .9.5.1.9 Other lakes in the project area (ARCADIS EUROCONSUL T/AFC/MNT, 2005, Technical Note 3) In the project area and the area of influence a large number of lakes can be found outside the floodplains . The most important of these lake systems are the Telikol, Karaozek (both right side) , Zhandarya, Kuandarya and Aksay-Kuandarya systems (left side). To determine the origin of these lakes and to distinguish between natural lakes and artificial ones is often not easily possible. Many of the lakes have a natural origin but under the circumstances of a large scale human influence on the natural water household they are highly affected by water management practices. There are cases where additional water is supplied into naturally wet depressions, e.g . in emergency cases. In other cases the regulation of supplying rivers makes the water level in natural lakes dependent on water management decisions. The total area of water surface in these systems (without Kuandarya and Aksay Kuandarya) has been determined for 2004 with 22,551 ha based on satellite images. • Telikol system: located on the right side of the Syrdarya in an enclosed depression, northwest of the Karatau mountains range at the south-western edge of the Betpak Dala. The lake system includes eight lakes between 40 and 130 ha surface area . The Telikol depression forms the end of the Sarysu River flowing from north and providing irregular, seasonally and annually varying flow. The major contribution of water to the lake system is provided by the Telikol canal , a collector (KP 23) draining water from the irrigation areas in Chiili rayon . • Karaozek system : located on the right riverside between Kzylorda and Djusaly. Extended wetlands are spread on both sides of the river branch Karaozek and form such large lakes as Birkazan, Karaketken , and Zhamankol. The entire area is supplied by the Karaozek diverting .a part of the Syrdarya flow in times of high water. This causes a seasonally changing water supply with a maximum during the winter months and only minimal discharge during the summer and autumn seasons. In August 2005 approximately one third of the observed lakes were more or less dried out. On the other hand in the area of Karaketken large areas were flooded . Lakes in the east of the Karaozek system (Lake Birkazan or Karakol as well as some smaller lakes) get water from the collector Baykadamskiy and linked smaller canals . There are plans to use large areas of the Karaozek as a water reservoir to buffer high waters in winter. Due to the undulating relief with poorly developed natural drainage and many small enclosed basins a high proportion of the water disposed to this area would be lost due to evaporation and infiltration . • Zhanadarya system: located on the left bank of the Syrdarya and formed by an old river branch stretching from the Syrdarya near Tasboget into south western direction into the Kyzylkum desert. The upstream part is called Torangylysay. Along the river branch various lakes and wetlands are located . The Zhanadarya receives the main inflow from the Syrdarya, at the sluice Tasboget (Kyzylorda barrage) . In 2003 the amount of 84.43 Mio m3 was diverted by the Zhanadarya for 51 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas 11) "ecological use". Another part of the water is withdrawn from the Syrdarya east of Aydarli. The water delivered in 2003 amounted to 17.78 Mio m3 for "ecological use". Only a low amount of drainage water contributes to the water balance of the Zhandarya system . The Kzylorda oblast authorities consider the irreversible · disposal of excess water into dry lnkardarya and the lower course of the Zhanadrya system a potential option for flood control in winter and alternative to the construction of the Koksaray reservoir. This would cause the waste of otherwise needed water resources and the flooding of desert ecosystems. • Kuandarya system : an old river branch stretching from the Syrdarya through the Kyzylkum desert to the sand desert zhuankum and swamps Bozkol in the southern part of the old delta of the Syrdarya (Aksay-Kuandarya system . The Kuandarya forms a riverbed meandering over hundreds of kilometers in the desert, partly filled with water, partly dry at the surface. The river branch is accompanied by a number of lakes and wetland areas, subject to seasonal and annual changes. The Kuandarya is supplied with water from the left side canal systems between Kyzylorda and Dzhalagash. The Kyzylorda Left Side canal provides 87.48 Mio m3 for "ecological use". Another 404.72 Mio m3 are considered as losses from this canal , a significant part discharged into the Kuandarya system. The origin of the water of Kuandarya in the irrigation areas suggests that a higher proportion of the water is drainage water, than in the Zhanadarya. Surplus water from irrigation is also contributing to the flow in the Kuandarya. During the last winters the Kuandarya system was also supplied with significant amounts of water prevent flooding . · • Aksay-Kuandarya System: see delta lake systems above! The amount of water allocated for "ecological use" in Kzylorda oblast amounted in 2003 to 1.11 km 3 or 16,84 7 m3 per ha. This is significantly more than according to the rayon data used for irrigation of pastures and hay meadows (in the average 10,520 m3 ) . These numbers probably cover in significant proportion water loss from the principal canals and discharge to secondary wetlands , in particular to permanent and temporary lakes and reed areas. Aydar-Arnasay lake system The Aydar-Arnasay lake system (including Arnasay, Aydarkul and Tuzkan) in the north of the Nuratau Mountain range stretches about 180 km from east to the west and is one of the l~rgest lakes in the Syrdarya Basin. The area today covered by the lake system has been a depression with salt swamps and small standing waters until 1968. At that time , the Tuzkan Lake was the largest one of the region. It was fed by the Kly River and it dried out every year. The water surface varied between 100 km 2 in spring and 40 km 2 in autumn. In the forties , salt was still won out of the dry lake basin. The soils of the then Aydar depression comprised Shory (salt content 3-8%) and Solonchaks (salt content 2 %). The development of the present lake began with the development of irrigated agriculture in the Golodnaya Steppe when the area was used for disposal of drainage waters . From 1957 till 1968 the amount of drainage water spilled into the depression increased from 82 to 880 million m3 per year. In early spring 1969 heavy rainfall caused an emergency situation in the lower Syrdarya valley and a regulated overspill of 21 .8 km 3 from the newly constructed Shardara reservoir into the Arnasay depression , which initiated the creation of the Aydar- Arnasay lake system , with a level at 239.4 m asl and a surface area of 2300 km 2 at that time. Until the end of the seventies, the lake level dropped by 4 m. The salt content was · approximately 8-10 g/I. In the eighties, the sea level was maintained at an artificial balance. A dam separated the Tuzkan Lake from the Aydarkul. -· .. "-·". ·-· ,._, ". ·r---·. ·-----·. ·-· .. . ··--- .. ,-,··-- .. , 240 -+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -' ui ni 235 !!? .!!! 230 I• Water Level I Cl) E 225 220 215 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 90 98 Fig. 4-9: Development of the water level of the Aydarkul. Since 1993 the water level was raised several times by excess water of the Shardara reservoir. From 1993 till 2003 more than 33.7 km 3 have been disposed , the water level reached the gauge of 244 m asl and the surface area grew to 3106 km 2 • An area some 1000 km 2 of land mainly used for pasture was lost. Furthermore, the increase of the lake causes problems with the release of drainage water, the destruction of dams, roads and of a railway line. As the result of freshwater inflow the salinity of the water was reduced and was in 2003 between 4.5 g/I in the southeastern part (Tuzkan) , and 8.8-10.4 g/I in the western part. Without artificial inflow, the long-term average of the water balance is negative. The sum of ground water inflow (0.04 km 3 per year) , precipitation (0.28 to 0.43 km 3 per year) and inflow of collector water (between 1969 and 1982 1. 72 km 3 annually) exceeds the present evaporation . When stabilizing the lake system at the level of 2003 (244 km 2 ) the annual evaporation losses of would be 3.41 km 3 (calculated with 1100 mm* 3100 km 2 ). Accord ing to information from Uzgidromet a regular inflow from Shardara of 1.5 to 2.0 km 3 per year would allow the stabilization of the lake system at a level slightly below the maximum one. For an exact calculation of the water needs for stabilizing the lake system at the desired level in particular the amount of collector water spillage needs to be monitored . 4.2.4 Geology and soils Syrdarya floodplain Within the territory of Kazakhstan , the Syrdarya River has formed an alluvial plain with numerous oxbow lakes, ancient river beds, levees (mainly loams on top of sandy deposits) and basin-like depressions filled with silt or clay-like material. Over the whole length of the river, from Shardara reservoir to the Aral Sea, the river bed is basically located in quaternary alluvial formations (except for some reaches) , represented by sandy-loams of 3-5 m depth, underlain by fine-grained sands. The thickness of the sandy layer varies from 3-5 m to 120-200 m. The thickest sandy deposits can be found in the Arys- Turkestan depression (between Turkestan railway station and Kzylorda town). Near the towns of Leninsk and Kazalinsk, the quaternary deposits are only 3 to 10 m thick (occasionally 20 m) , and underlain by clay-loams and gravel layers. The sandy layer is deposited over clay, which forms the water-confining stratum in the reg ion. In places along the right river bank 100 km downstream of the Shardara reservoir, from Tyuratam Station to Baikhozhi Station , and also near the original Aral Sea coastline , the river bed has cut into Neogene-Paleogene terraces consisting of clays , while between Leninsk and the Zhiirma natural boundary, it has cut into Turon Cretaceous deposits, 53 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) represented by clay-like strata with sands and sandstone layers. The thickness of the Turon deposits varies from 60 to 120 m. Five soil types dominating the Syrdarya basin are: • well-drained alluvial soils (mainly Torrifluvents); • moderately drained alluvial soils (mainly Fluvents and lnceptisols); • sandy desert soils (Salorthids , Calciorthids and Psamments); • poorly drained hydromorphic (Delta) soils (Hydraquepts); • sandy soils of the (former) Aral Sea bottom (Psamments and Salorthids). Alluvial soils are usually cultivated or used for pasture. Limiting factors for agriculture are insufficient rainfall and poor water-holding capacity. Hydromorphic soils and soils of the dry sea bottom are often subject to strong salinization. In the Delta, these hydromorphic soils are used for rice cultivation and grazing . Under present conditions , these soils in the Syrdarya lowlands lack natural drainage, are often waterlogged and are prone to salt accumulation and soil degradation. Changes in soil formation processes and consequently in vegetation , such as a shift towards salt-tolerant plant species (halophytes), have negatively influenced the productivity of the soils. The annual biomass return into the soil has been reduced to a fraction of the previous quantities. Accumulation of salts into the top soils causes a widespread salinization of soils. This together with a lower rate of humus formation has caused a general physical-chemical degradation of soils, leading often to the formation of saline-alkaline soils in depressions. These soils are characterized by poor, compacted soil structure and high pH (> 8.5). The reduction in river flow and the lowering of the river bed due to bed erosion is leading to drainage of seaside lakes, and natural wetlands . This in turn is causing an intensive drying of land and a lowering of the groundwater-tables. River water no longer reaches the seaside lakes and natural depressions, resulting in widespread desiccation and formation of saline ponds, which will eventually result in depressions covered with a salt crust. Boggy {peaty) soils have been subject to subsidence and mineralization. This process is affecting some 65% of the Delta . By 1978, there were hardly any non-saline soils left in the Delta, with the exception of some very sandy soils on higher elevated areas. Aral Sea bottom The development of soils on the dry Aral Sea bottom is, compared to other large dry salt lakes, a historically young process. The soil formation depends on the substrates on the sea ground, the salt content of the substrate during the drying out, the proximity of the ground water table and the time since the drying . From 1960 till 2004 more than 46,000 km 2 former sea surface became dry lands. The following basic substrate and soil types can be distinguished on the dry seabed (after Wucherer et al. 2004): I) Sand desert soils - these can be plain and of different thickness or form dune areas (barkhan areas) with heights from up to 1 m or of 1-3 m height. II) Salt desert soils - these can be distinguished in several sub-types: o Coastal solonchaks with sand layer in the top soil o Takyr like coastal solonchaks o Crusty solonchaks with loamy-clayey substrates and sands only in deep horizons • sandy and loamy solonchaks have developed with groundwater-tables at 1-2m o Sor soils in closed , poorly drained depressions (known as salinas) and .' consisting of a salt crust underlain by dark brown clay-like material with saline-alkaline characteristics . Ill) Marshland solonchaks IV) Meadow solonchaks V) Alluvial soils The area of sandy sediments on the dry seabed is about 20 % of the sea bottom. Sandy soils are typical for the areas at the former seashore, in particular at the eastern coast between the deltas of the Amudarya and Syrdarya Rivers , around the former islands Barsakelmes and Vozrozhdeniya and in the Saryshiganak Bay. They are developed on areas which have fallen dry first, mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, latest in the 1980s and are found at altitudes of 53 - 43 m asl (eastern coast) , 53-48 m asl (northern coast) and 53 - 36 m asl (south-eastern coast) . The sands have a grain size of 0.1-0.5 mm, in the delta areas larger. The sand is dominated by quartz materials; the proportion of mussel is 30-70% . The dry seabed originating from the 1980s and later, and partly from the 1970s is characterized by salt desert soils. These soils cover about 80% of the sea bottom. The salt desert soils are diverse in terms of physical structure, mechanical content and salinity. While salt desert soils on the NAS bottom are now in a large extent covered by the water of the restored sea, the LAS is falling dry with an increasing speed. During the upcoming years the LAS area covered by salt desert will further increase and due to the growing concentration of soluble salts in the remaining water body the salinity of the soils will also increase. Marshland solonchaks and meadow solonchaks are saline soils in areas influenced by the ground water table. They are locally found in areas close to the former deltas and along the coast line. Project area outside the Syrdarya floodplain and Aral Sea bottom The soil cover project area and the area of influence outside the Syrdarya delta is composed by the typical zonal desert and semi-desert soils mixed with automorphic and hydromorphic soils. The zonal soils consist of brown desert soils, characterized by the absence of a root mat and humus contents of some 1.5% and grey-brown desert soils. They occur on loamy substrates. Sand soils are typical for the Kyzylkum and Aral Karakum sand deserts and are characterized by minimum humus content and few silt and clay particles. Takyr soils are developed in depressions and are made up of the fractions clay and silt dominating . They are temporary covered by water from rainfall and after drying form a polygonally structured crust on the surface. The serozem soils are typical semi-desert soils at the foothills and plain piedmonts. Their humus content varies between 1 and 3.5% and a B-horizon with carbonate and sulfate accumulation is typical. Solonets soils have a high sodium content resulting in alkaline reaction and low physiological water availability. Solonchaks are soils with high salt content due to saline bedrock (automorphic types) or high level of saline ground water (hydromorphic types). Solonchaks have a content of 1-8 % of soluble salt in the upper horizon ; on the surface salt can be even more concentrated . ' I In the area between Lake Tushibas and the Saryshiganak Bay, outside the former sea basin loamy and sandy substrates are found . The area of the planned Koksaray Reservoir is foothill and piedmont area or pro-alluvial and alluvial plain. The zonal soil type is the grey serozem , developed on loess-like loam. It is mainly formed under the wormwood vegetation . In the lower part of the area grassland- serozem saline soils, solonets, solonchak and sands are developed. The meadow- · serozems have low influence of ground water and the humus content varies between 1.5 and 2.5%. Solonets and solonchak are spread at small spots under halophytic vegetation . The latter are confined to the lowest and least drained sites in closed depressions. Plain fixed sands are found at small spots on the· delta-alluvial plains. Soil pollution and salinity 55 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) As a result of widespread discharge of industrial effluent in the Syrdarya River, polluted irrigation water led to soil pollution. Table 4-9 Heavy Metal Contents in Soil Samples from the Syrdarya Delta Element Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum allowable concentration (mg/kg) Copper 12-18 36 Zinc 60-90 140 Molybdenum 0.89-2.4 10 Manganese 900-1250 Cobalt 5-10 20 Boron 50-60 Chromium 90-130 100 Nickel 25-35 35 Source: Institute of Pedology, Almaty (1984) Other sources also refer to high concentrations of lead, and also of nitrates. Some seven years later, only a slight increase in some concentrations was reported (Kazgiprovodhoz Institute, 1991 ). Apparently, no residues of oil .products were found and only low concentrations of pesticides (DDT, PC~) could be detected in some of the samples. Information on soil salinity of agricultural lands (used for rice and alternative crops as wheat and alfalfa) in Kzylorda oblast is provided by the EDIKO report on irrigation and water management (ARCADIS EUROCONSULT/AFC/MNT, 2005, Technical Note 11). In Summary, the demonstration plots show the following picture: • Mineralization : 0.344% minimum , 0.724% average, 1.010% maximum, after rice crop 0.522% average (i.e. below the overall average), after alternative crops 0.880% average. • Salinity type: Na, Ca with Cl , S04 to equal parts. The salinity type is mainly of the chloride-sulfate type , out of 37 samples only 17 were dominated in the anionic complex by chloride . The average soils are moderately affected by s.alinity. Table 4-10: Levels of salinity in relation to anion composition Salt % in soil Cl salt S04 salt Not saline up to _ ._i, ....---=-- 0.2 weak ly saline up to m iddle saline up to s trong ly saline up to so1onchak greater The salinity patterns and comparison with historical data (1985, 1988, 1994) show that rice in the crop rotation cycle supports trends to lower salinity. The analysis showed that · abandoned lands develop quickly high salinity as the salt is no longer leached but remaining high ground water tables support capillary upstream of saline water. Thus , salinity is often not the cause but the effect of land abandonment. Salinization can be reversed by adequate leaching and drainage. The soil fertility of the demonstration plots is satisfactory: nitrogen supply (total N) with an average of 0.121 % is very high, phosphorus supply P2 0 5 of average 0.173% is considered low to medium and available K2 0 with 0.044% is good. No restrictions of fertility due to lack of macro-elements have been found. L....11 VII VI 111IVl11.UI 111 lfJCAVI. I hOt~V~~l I IVl 11. I I ICA~V 11 \ '-J J I lc;A'1 11 / The South-Kazakhstan Hydrogeological-ameliorative Expedition (2005) carries out monitoring of salinity and drainage status of agricultural lands in cotton areas of South- Kazakhstan oblast, Maktaaral rayon. Figure 4-9 shows the trends in salinity over five years on lands with rehabilitated irrigation and drainage systems, but unused vertical drainage. Soil salinity in Maktaaral rayon 50 % .-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---. 45 % +-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----i 40% +--====l {l 35% c: :: 30% 0 • 2000 ~ 25% 02005 ~ 20% fl ... Q) 15% a.. 10% 5% 0% not saline weakly saline middle saline strongly saline Salinity level Fig. 4-10: Development of soil salinity by areas affected (Source: South-Kazakhstan Hydrogeologica/- ameliorative Expedition 2005) All monitoring observations on pollutants (heavy metals, agrochemicals, herbicides, oil products) in Maktaaral rayon showed either there absence in the range of analytic sensitivity or presence in concentrations below the Maximum Allowable Concentrations. This means that the researched cotton areas at present do not show problems of soil pollution . This is likely related to the reduced application of pesticides and fertilizer during the last years plus the leaching which removes pollutants from the soils. On the area of the planned Koksaray Reservoir the infiltration pond SHNOS is located. The pond is contaminated with various toxic hydro-carbonates. The Environmental Impact Assessment (Kazgiprovodkhoz, 1999) provides biological test of the toxicity of the sediment in the infiltration lakes. The results of the tests with biological indicators (Daphnia tests) show that in the dilution achieved in the case of flooding of the pond by the reservoir the concentration of hazardous substances would be much below toxic levels and maximum allowable concentrations. 4.3 Biological Profile 4.3.1 Vegetation The vegetation of the project area and the areas of influence is highly diverse and relates to different but interrelated and locally overlapping vegetation zones. In its southern part (basically the South Kazakhstan oblast) the area belongs to the Mountain Middle Asia province and the sub-province of the piedmonts of West Tienshan and Pamiro-Alai. In the northern part it belongs to the North Turanian province and the sub-province West-North Turan (Rachkovskaya et al. , 2003) . lntrazonal vegetation includes the floodplain of the Syrdarya River and azonal vegetation of the dry seabed of the Aral Sea and of the lakes and wetlands - the main impact zones of the project. A species list of vascular plants is provided in Annex A 2. 57 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Vegetation of the Syrdarya floodplains The vegetation of the Syrdarya floodplains has been studied by Dieterich et al. (2002). Figure 4-10 shows a transect through the three river terraces. As the river lost most of its dynamics, this pattern is now very stable and almost not changing over the years . The 2nd and 3rd terraces are usually carrying shrub formations. In areas where farmers keep these terraces free from woody plants, they are covered by grassland (quack grass Elytrygia repens is here dominant). On the riverbank only temporary free of water vegetation is composed of fast establishing ruderal plants, among them dominating Xanthium strumarium . Desert/ Bush formations Steppe Tamarix species Artemisia species Bush formations Halimodendron Tamarix species Tugai halodendron Tuga i Eleagnus oxycarpa Populus pruinosa Populus pruinosa P. diversifolia Populus divers ifol ia Salix species Wathershed Tama rix species 3rd Terrace 2nd Terrace Bottomland ' - ........... 1. Terrace Islands & Water level River bank Syr-Darya \ - - Burozems or Salty soil Alkoli soil ----··· Marsh soil Kastanozems Sandy soil Fig. 4-11 : A transect in the middle reaches shows the different terraces and typical plants growing on them. Due to the "extensive water regulation by dams in the upper reaches of the river these terraces are relatively stable and not affected by the dynamic of the river any more. Dieterich et al. (2002) Under tugai the woody vegetation on the alluvial soils of the floodplains is understood. The main species are poplars of the subgenus Turanga (Populus pruinosa and P. diversifolia) , Eleagnus and Tamaricaceae species. The determining ecological factors for the tugai vegetation are regular floods during the vegetation season and high but varying groundwater tables. The soils are saline in various degrees, which allows the growth of halophytic plants, but under natural flood regime regular leaching limits the salinity level. The most turanga forests (poplars) are nowadays either clear cut or heavily degr aded due to grazing and burning and replaced by Eleagnus-Tamarix shrub vegetation. Generative rejuvenation of turanga depends on flooding during the appropriate season (late spring/early summer) because the germination of the seeds requires very specific moisture conditions and the seeds are germinable only for a very short time. The condition of floodplain vegetation is due to decreasing water availability worsens downwards the river. The most intact forest sections are found between Shardara and Kzylorda . Despite the existence of the Shardara reservoir, on the islands in the river and ~· '." ~· "' ·~· .. ~. "' .,...~~·. ·~~~~~·' ·~· .. very low terraces still some level of riparian dynamics is effective. For instance due to the very heavy rainfalls during spring 2002, most lower parts (mainly 1st and 2nd terrace) have been under water. In the lower reaches (northwest from Kzylorda) naturally vast reed beds have been predominant. Nowadays in many sections the river has eroded its bed very deep down and the groundwater table has dropped several meters in vast areas. Combined with the little water flow reaching this part of the river due to extensive irrigation in the upper reaches much of the reed and most tugai vegetation has vanished. Hardly one can imagine that in this region just 150 years ago numbers of tigers where roaming in the reed , hunting on wild boar and deer. Additionally to the reduced flood dynamics fire is the most important factor limiting the (re-)establishment of woody tugai vegetation. In wide areas only singular shrubs of Eleagnus and other species can be found due to regular burning of the reed areas. The last patches of tugai forest deserve protection by the establishment of nature reserves , as planned in the national action plan for the Republic of Kazakhstan until the year 2030 (Baisakov et al. , 1998). Floodplain areas still in some extent influenced by flood dynamics, including those under succession after abandonment of temporary cultivated lands should not be cut off from the river dynamics by erection of new embankments or increasing of the height of existing ones. A major requirement for any water management project impacting on the flood dynamics in the Syrdarya floodplains is the establishment and maintenance of a flood reg ime which by its seasonality, frequency and intensity supports the protection and natural development of the remain ing tugai forests . An appropriate operational regime of the Shardara and the planned Koksaray reservoir will therefore be of outmost importance. Vegetation of the Delta lakes and other wetland areas Natural lakes and swamps in the Syrdarya floodpla in are vegetated by typical varying series of wetland plant communities , for instance (from the water body to the dry land): submerse vegetation (Potamogeton spp.) , shore vegetation (Phragmites, Typha , Schoenoplectus and other reed species) , shrub vegetation (Tamarix, Eleagnus). The entire territory is characterized by a very diverse mosaic of site characteristics , determined by the micro- and mesa-relief, varying levels of ground water and with them linked processes of salinization and desalinization. The vegetation characteristics are varying over the time due to very dynamic site conditions in terms of relief, substrate, salinity and hydrology. 3KonornYeCKHH Pl1A coo6~ecre Ha 03epe KyaH,qapbHHCKOH c11creMb1 : I Kape1u.1H1o1eeoe ~ Kareli n ia caspia I I Lactuca altaica , ( l >KaHT8 KOBOe (A~agi pseudalhagi) TpocrH11Koeoe Ajhagi pseudalhag~ ) no nOHH>KBHH~M trali.<) (Ploragmite."'C"'.:>11 ICI IL r 1 1o;)c 11 \ v y 1 10;) 11 I flyways of Palaearctic migrants. Thirty bird species are listed to the Red Data Book of Kazakhstan , 13 .species are globally endangered. Species recorded - Eastern Aral Sea I Syrdarya 1900 - 2005 250 -~ Q) 200 - Cl. V) 0 0 150 z Total number of species • Breeding Species 100 50 1900-1950 1970-2000 2005 Period Fig ..4-18: Bird species recorded - Eastern Aral Sea I Syrdarya 1990 - 2005 (Scott Wilson, 2005) At the same time the situation south of the NAS continues deteriorating, and now that the Kokaral canal is closed by the NAS Dam , the process will accelerate. The diversion of water from the Syrdarya delta to the Saryshiganak bay will contribute to this process. Therefore with the growing unsuitability of the Southern or Large Aral Sea to support birds, the NAS and Syrdarya delta will become increasingly important in the region. Amphibians There are three species of amphibians, the green toad (the diploid Bufo variabilis in the north and the tetraploid Bufo pewzowi in the south , both belonging to the Bufo viridis subgroup, Stoeck et al. 2005) and the sea frog (Rana ridibunda) in the project area. Both Bufo variabilis and sea frog can still be found on the Aral Sea islands. Their present status is unknown but their tolerance to moderate salinity makes them comparably less prone to environmental degradation. Reptiles 39 reptiles , (2 tortoise species, 23 lizards and 14 snakes) are known from the project area. Among these, two lizard species (Grey Monitor Lizard and Yellow-Bellied Lizard) and two snake species (Red Wood Snake and Black-Striped Wood Snake) are listed in the Red Data Book. Smaller reptiles (lizards, a few snake species) are still common in most of the area. Annex A4 lists the amphibians and reptiles recorded in and near the project area . The planned construction site of the Koksaray reservoir is known for a high population density of Central Asian tortoises (Testudo horsfieldi) , an endangered species, listed as vulnerable in the International Red Book ((VU A2d) . 67 • Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) lchthyofauna The ichthyofauna of the project area has been severely affected by anthropogenic impacts. The key factors have been : • Construction of barriers blocking the migration ways in the river (dams, diversion structures), leading to fragmentation of populations and for some species to the inability of reaching spawning grounds. The first fish-ladder is now installed in the new Akiak weir. Monitoring information on its functioning and impact is still awaited . • Changes of the river runoff dynamics, especially changes of the seasonality of floods and reduction of their frequency and intensity. This affects especially the reproduction as some species use flooded areas in the floodplains for spawning . • Reduction of water flow in the Syrdarya River and water pollution, mainly from agriculture. This is related to the reduction of fish habitat in the river itself, increased concentration of soluble salts and pollutants, changes in the water supply of the Delta Lakes and the drying out of the Aral Sea with the consequence of its almost complete loss as fish habitat. • Introduction of allochthonous fish species. In the Syrdarya River the relation of autochthonous and allochthonous species is 33: 16. The relics of the Turkestan faunistic complex have been most affected by competition and direct predation by introduced species. In the most lakes and rivers the representatives of the autochthonous ichthyofauna became very rare. As a result of different efforts at various times the following introduced species became acclimatized species in Syrdarya downstream lakes: · o of the Cyprinidae family: grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), and spotted silver carp (Aristichthys nobilis); o of the Channidae family: snakehead (Channa argus warpachowskii) ; o of the Atherinidae family: Caspian sand-smelt (Atherina boueri caspia); o of the Gobiidae family: bald goby (Pomatoschistus caucarcus Kawrajsky); o the bald goby and Caspian sand-smelt are unplanned settlers that accidentally got into the Aral Sea during delivery of grey mullets from the Caspian Sea. This had implications for the entire ecosystems and food chains. Kazakhstan ichthyologists (Mitrofanov, 2004) recommend the avoidance of the establishment and maintenance of reproductive populations of introduced species. Instead of this the protection and reconstruction of autochthonous fish populations should have priority. No new allochthonous species should be introduced. Approved economically important exotic species should be regularly released for only temporary growing, but no reproduction in natural water bodies should be supported. The separate influence of each of these factors would result in the reduction of numbers of some species or forms of fishes, but would likely not result in the disappearance of species. However, the cumulative effect of these factors has caused the full extinction of some species in the region. Rare and endangered fish species in the project area (Under utilization of Mitrovanov. 2004 and Kovshar. 2004) The Syrdarya shovelnose (Pseudoscaphirhynchos fedtschenkoi), Red Book RK category 1, is probably already extinct. The species has· not been registered in Kazakhstan since almost 30 years. If there is any chance for rehabilitation of population remnants or reintroduction -· ' ." ~ ·" ' ·~· .. ~. "''I"~~·.·~~~~~·'·~· .. needs to be evaluated. The project should avoid additional adverse impacts on this species. (Reasons for decrease, limiting factors , requirements for rehabilitation should be checked) • The Aral Sea sturgeon (Acipenser nudiventris) , Red Book RK category 1, a sturgeon species, is critically endangered and in the International Red Book the autochthonous Aral Sea population is considered extinct. Acclimatized populations in other areas (e.g. Iii- Balkhash system) are in comparable less critical condition and play some commercial role. The protection and rehabilitation of the species in the Syrdarya and Aral Sea would require the establishment of a more natural hydrological regime, removal of barriers hindering migration and the improvement of the water quality. The SYNAS-11 should contribute to the first two requirements . However, as the spawning of the species is bound to the upper . reaches of the rivers a full rehabilitation of the natural reproduction cycle is hardly possible. Artificial reproduction would thus necessary for rehabilitation of a population in the NAS and Syrdarya River. The Aral salmon (Salmo trutta aralensis) , Red Book RK category 1, is likely already extinct. The subspecies occurred in the Aral Sea and the Amudarya and has not been found in the Syrdarya. The main limiting factors have been the reduction of waterflow in the Amudarya and the decrease of water level and increase of salinity in the Aral Sea. If the subspecies is still existent in the northern Aral Sea the SYNAS-11 project should support the improvement of its habitat. The ~YKOBAHblill >1::>t::::>::>lllO:::lll conditions for the potential reintroduction of Aral Sea sturgeon are favorable as those are important prey for this species. Catches 1600 1400 1200 -+- Flounder 1000 - - carp Pikeperch "' c: 800 .s ~ Leshch 600 - - o thers 400 -+- Total 200 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Fig. 4-20 Harvest offish in the Northern Aral Sea 2001-2006. (Source: KazNllRKh, 2007) In the NAS area outside the zone of influence of the fresh water inflow from the Syrdarya, i. e. in the western bays, flounder fisheries are still thriving , mainly thanks to the Danish Society for a Living Sea, a DANIDA supported NGO providing training and marketing assistance to fishermen . Tests have shown that the quality of the NAS flounder is comparable to the best flounder from elsewhere. During the preparation of SYNAS-1, an annual sustainable harvest of over 1,000 t was estimated (Danish Society for a Living Sea and KazNllRKh Aralsk, quoted in ARCADIS EUROCONSULT (2000)) . It is interesting to note that while official data on catches of freshwater fish in the delta lakes and river mouth indicate increasing harvests from 2002-2004 (Fig . 4-20, 4-21 ), official data on flounder harvest in the Sea until 2004 show a decrease. It is unclear, however, whether these . official data reflected decreases in actual harvests, or rather the failure to register actual harvests. It was expected that as parts of the Sea become less saline the flounder, which prefers higher salinity than now in the river mouth , will be replaced by the fresher water and will remain in more distant areas where the water remains saline. This factor may cause the effect that flounder disappears in the main fishery areas and would lose value for commercial fishery . While such a trend was visible from 2001 till 2004, during 2005 and 2006 the flounder harvest significantly increased. It is not clear if these numbers represent a better recording of catches or a real increase. In case of real increase this may not necessarily indicate stable or growing flounder populations but may be as well a result of intensified fishery activities Delta lakes (under utilization of information in Scott Wilson , 2007) The original distribution of the second group (bream , wild carp, Caspian roach , pike perch, etc.) also included the Delta lakes. The lakes in the delta and the floodplains played an important role as spawning and nurturing sites for many original river and sea species. Some species (Aral carp , bream , and Aral roach) had two ecological forms: anadromous and local. The anadromous form fed and fattened in the sea and came to the river and the lakes to spawn. The local form spent all its life in the lakes. The now extinct Aral Sea sturgeon once migrated upstream for spawning , but its migratory route became blocked by water regulatory works in the downstream reaches of the river. Lake fisheries declined for a number of well-known reasons : increasing salinity, lack of replenishment of fresh water, blocked access to the lakes and floodplains (catfish) and drying up of lakes. 71 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Figure . 8.1 Harvest of freshwater fish in t he downstream areas of the Syrdarya River (including the delta lakes and river mouth) 1995-2004. Tons 500 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 300 250 200 150 100 50 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fig. 4-21: Total harvests of freshwater fish in the downstream areas of the Syrdarya River (including the delta lakes and river mouth) 1995-2004. (Source: KazNllRKh, 2005) 300 250 200 ~ • Bream 0 • carp ;- 150 oAral Roach ~ c D Pike-perch c 0 .... • Total Others 100 50 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Yea r Catches 1000 900 800 700 -+- Carp 600 --- Pikeperch "' c .9 500 Les heh ~ others 400 ....,._ Total 300 200 100 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Fig. 4-22: Harvest of freshwater fish in the downstream Syrdarya River (including the delta lakes and river mouth) by species, 1995-2004. (Source: KazNllRKh2005) and 2001-2006 (Source KazNllRKh, 2007) Analysis of fish harvest in the Syrdarya downstream lakes since 1960 shows that before the river was dammed at Shardara total c.atches in lakes had been significant. Since 1975 there has been a steady decline in fish catches in almost all lakes. In order to increase fish productivity in the lakes, and taking into account the total collapse of the Aral Sea fishery, efforts were made during 1976-1978 to rejuvenate the fisheries of Lakes Kamyshlybash , Akshatau and Raim . These efforts included the reduction of low-value and non-food species, control of number of predators and annual stocking with fries of valuable food fish species Aral carp , common carp, common silver carp and grass carp. Young fish for the stocking of the lake fisheries were raised in ponds at the Koszh~r and Tastak sites of the Kamyshlybash fish hatchery. Nevertheless harvests fluctuated and decreased until 2002. During the recent . years fish harvests outside the NAS increased. From the data available it is neither possible to identify the main species harvested nor to analyze the underlying reasons . One thinkable cause for this increase of harvest above the years 95 till 2004 may be that during that time low harvests were not caused by lack of available fish but by other economic problems of . the fishermen , or even poor recording of real harvests. 4.3.3 Protected areas In the project area the following existing or planned protected areas are to consider: Zapovednik Barsakelmes and planned biosphere reserve The zapovednik (strict nature reserve) is located on· a former island which since 2000 became a peninsula in the LAS. The zapovednik protects a typical section of zonal desert ecosystems and in its surroundings on the dry seabed sand desert vegetation (in particular dominated by black saxaul (Haloxylon ammodendron) and diverse zhuzgun species (Calligonum spp.). Until the development of a land bridge the zapovednik was used for protection of several herbivore species (saiga, goitred gazelle, kulan) which had been introduced to the island and supported by artificial watering sites. Nowadays these species occur only occasionally on the island but are found in sand desert habitats on the fo rmer seabed at the western shoreline and at the former island Kaskakulan. In 2006 the protected area has been extended by inclusion of these areas. The development of a biosphere reserve Northern Aral region including the zapovednik Barsakelmes and its extension area as core zones and the Syrdarya delta (see below) as protected or restricted use zone is currently in the phase of feasibil ity study. Arys-Karaktau Zapovednaya Zona The Arys-Karaktau zapovednaya zona (protected zone) is located in the region of the planned Koksaray reservoir and stretches at both sides of the Syrdarya River. The area's conservation importance is justified by its bird fauna and consequently it has been included into the list of Important Bird Areas. A map and brief characterization is provided under section 4.2 and the data sheet in Annex C. Important Bird Areas Delta Lakes and Northern Aral Sea The Syrdarya Delta lakes and the eastern part of the Northern Aral Sea are included in the list of IBAs and P part of both areas; the Syrdarya delta and surrounding areas of the Aral Sea are proposed for inclusion as a Ramsar Site - a wetland of International Importance. However at present they are no protected areas. The Syrdarya delta has been considered for inclusion into the zapovednik Barsakelmes as a separate cluster. Due to the high importance of the area for fisheries this is not longer followed but the designation as protected area with restricted utilization (e.g. Zakaznik) and its inclusion as zone II area in a potential biosphere reserve Northern Aral region are considered . The assigning of the status of protected areas to the other IBAs in the project area deserves consideration but is currently not included in the planning documents of the state agency in charge of protected areas (Committee for Forestry and Hunting under the MoA) . 73 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Planned Nuratau-Kyzy/kum Biosphere Reserve in Uzbekistan A part of the planned Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve in Uzbekistan is located the area of influence of the project. This concerns the Aydar-Arnasay lake system with the already existing Arnasay Ornithological Zakaznik which is supposed to form significant core and restricted use zones and the lake Aydarkul which is part of the development zone (zone Ill) . The protection and sustainable development objectives require a stabilization of the water level in the lake system at present or slightly lower level than currently without major fluctuations. Parts of the area (Tuzkan Lake) and of the adjacent Arnasay reservoirs are recognized as IBAs. 4.4 Socio-Economic Profile 4.4.1 Ancient civilizations in the Syrdarya region First traces of human occupancy in this region of Kazakhstan date from about 1 million years ago. Th is is evident from numerous archaeological findings on the slopes of the Karatau · Range , which runs some distance parallel to the Syrdarya valley . The civilizations of the Bronze Age and early Iron Age living in these areas were already very advanced. Traces can be found of numerous settlements, burial grounds, mounds, mining work places and petroglyphs, dating from these periods; but many of them have as yet not been properly investigated. During the last few thousand years , most of the population of Kazakhstan turned to a nomadic life, raising cattle and establishing tribal states. Around the Aral Sea, the Sakas or Scythians were living as in many other places of Central and East Kazakhstan. These people were warriors but developed remarkable skills in writing , "animal arts", handicrafts and trade. Information about the Sakas can be found in Chinese, Persian and Greek sources (e.g . Herodotus) . Since the first millennium B.C. , Southern Kazakhstan and the Syr Darya valley have played a dominant role as a trade route between the Far East and the countries of the Levant. The Great Silk Road is one of the most famous caravan-ways and trading routes in the history of world civilization. It connected the Mediterranean Coast, including the large empires of Egypt, Byzantium and Mesopotamia with China. The trade highway led through vast tracts of hazardous and deserted country in Central Asia. Rich caravans laden with silk from China, spices precious stones from the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and many other goods moved through the Karakum and Kyzylkum deserts on their way to the Middle East and Europe. They traded these for silver goods from Iran , Byzantine cloths , Turkish slaves, Afro- Arabian ceram ics and more. On their way, these caravans passed rich settlements such as Bukhara, Samarkand, Turkestan, Otrar, Shymkent and other towns , following the Syrdarya River and other streams. The Silk Route in fact consisted of a number of tracks, some of them running south of the Aral Sea, others following a more northerly route through the project area and along the Syrdarya River towards Aralsk, the Caspian Sea and Samara. Not only were goods traded , but scientists, priests and craftsmen also joined the caravans . The Great Silk Road thus facilitated the exchange of ancient art, scientific and technological achievements, religious creeds and ideas. Since the 5th century, settlements were established in the Syrdarya valley with farming communities . These people practised irrigation and used watermills and windmills for lifting water and for milling grain . Earth-fill dams were built to store water and they developed extensive systems of irrigation canals and feeders. Large tracts of the lands along the Syrdarya River, and its branches, the lnkardarya , the Zhanadarya and the Kuandarya , were irrigated . Traces of these civil izations and the irrigation schemes they build cou ld be found in the Southern part of the project area (fig . 4-22). L-11YIIVI111 IVI llC:U 111 'fJClVl ll..:>..:>V.:>..:>1 111;;1 I\. I llCl.:>V 11 \Vy11C1.:> I I / Fig. 4-23: Ruins of the medieval city of Shankent on the Syrdarya right bank 4.4.2 Demography Introduction Kyzylorda Oblast is one of the poorest oblasts in Kazakhstan. Characterised by a predominantly rural economy, the socio-economic situation in the project area is marked by poverty, unemployment, and outward migration. Once declared a disaster zone , the area has, however, started to recover slowly. Proximity to oil reserves and construction opportunities in the area have had some , albeit limited impact on employment patterns. Thus , the majority of the population work in subsistence farming and livestock production or are unemployed. However, as noted above the picture of Kyzylorda Oblast is beginning to transform and implementation of SYNAS is expected to help that transformation. The results of the household survey are presented in full in Appendix 9 of the Final Report) Figure 4-24 shows average monthly incomes for the oblast as well as the rayons of Kazalinsk and Aralsk. In 2004 the average monthly income in Kazalinsk rayon was 24497 tenge and in Aralsk it was 19896 tenge - 7% and 25% lower than the oblast average of 26399 tenge per month respectively. Even though there has been an annual increase in the monthly incomes of approximately 21 %, the monthly income levels are still below the oblast and national averages. The low income levels are explained by heavy reliance on agrarian economy which has only recently started to recover from crisis . The general economic situation is best described by subsistence livestock production that is acting as the major safety net for the population . 75 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Figure 4-24: Income distribution in Kyzylorda Oblast, and Kazalinsk and Aralsk Rayons. 30000 26399 25000 Sala~oooo Tenge 15000 10000 5000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 •Kyzlorda oblast o Kazalinsk • Aralsk Years Source: State Statistics Department, income fig ures for 2000-2004. Poverty Kazakhstan is a fast growing economy with impressive annual growth of approximately 9% for the past six years. Kyzylorda Oblast has the highest poverty rate in Kazakhstan : 32.2 % (see Figure 4-25) . The urban-rural distinction in poverty levels is striking throughout Kazakhstan and in Kyzylorda Oblast urban poverty is at 20.2 % whereas rural poverty is more than double at 49.2 %. Hence, in ru ral areas nearly half of the population is living below the poverty line. From 2001 to 2002 poverty in Kyzylorda Oblast increased from 28.1 % to 32.2 %. Multidimensional poverty is widespread in Kyzylorda Oblast, affecting 69 % of the population (see Table 4-11 ). Figure 4-25: Poverty distribution in Kazakhstan by Oblasts . 100 - 90 80 70 60 O/o 50 - 40 - 30 - - - n rr r - 20 10 - 0 -i I I - I i I ~ ~ j I ~ l Ij I l!! ~ I D Poverty rate • Ill Mu ltidimensional poverty .1 i~! Ob lasts ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ () g Source: World Bank Poverty Report 2004. Table 4-11: Types of Poverty Types of Poverty 2002 Consumption poverty Poverty rate 32 .2% Urban rate 20.2% Rural rate 49.2% Non-consumption Poverty HousinQ poverty 51 .0% Education poverty 7.5% Source: World Bank Poverty Report 2004, Regional Annex Understanding the depth of poverty is essential to portraying the whole picture in Kyzylorda Oblast. According to the UNDP data on Kazakhstan , despite the oblast's high poverty rate, food poverty is actually decreasing . Especially in the past four years , food poverty has decreased from 25.5 % in 2000 to 4.9 % in 2004. The data also shows that both urban and rural poverty levels are decreasing, yet the decrease in rural poverty lags behind that in urban poverty (see Figure 4-26). Figure 4-26: Urban and rural poverty levels 2000-2003 100 90 I-+- Urban I- Rural 1- 80 70 • 60 50 40 ..,,. ""' ~ - .... - - 30 .... _ 20 ..... 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: UNDP Kazakhstan lnfobase. Standards of Population and Poverty in Kazakhstan (Statistical Monitoring) , 2004. Unemployment In Kazalinsk and Aralsk rayons unemployment is a grave concern . One of the emerging trends in Kazakhstan in general is increasing rural poverty and rural unemployment. As the oil and mining industries generate soaring revenues urban settlements have increasing employment opportunities. However, outdated techniques and limited investment in agriculture have prevented the sector from reaching its economic potential, adversely affecting employment prospects of rural populations . In the absence of alternative economic development opportunities the local populations have become largely dependent on subsistence agriculture and are facing an unemployment trap . According to WB indicators, the unemployment rate in Kyzylorda is the highest among all oblasts in Kazakhstan with an overall rate of 32%. What is striking is the increasing gap between the rural and urban unemployment levels. The urban unemployment rate is ~t 23% whereas rural unemployment rate is at 47%. There is a wide discrepancy between the unemployment figures used by the World Bank's HBS and official Kazakh Government data. According to the data obtained from State Statistics Office.which are also used by UNDP for Human Development Index, the overall unemployment level in Kyzylorda Oblast was 10.2% in 2004 (see Figure 4-27). 77 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Over the past several years , unemployment in the oblast fell from 14.5% to 10.2%. Rural unemployment is slightly higher than urban unemployment at 11 % and 9.5% respectively. Figure 4-27: Annual unemployment rates in Kyzylorda Oblast and Kazakhstan, 1997-2004. 100 90 80 -t--~~~~~~~~-----; I ~ Kazakhstan I 1~~~~~~ I--- Kyzylorda oblast I 70 60 ~ 0 50 40 30 20 10 - ~ - - - - - 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Years Source: UNDP Kazakhstan Databank 2006. According to the UNDP Human Development Index, Kyzylorda Oblast belongs to the third group of oblasts in Kazakhstan , characterized by below average human development index. Even though the life expectancy of 67 years is slightly higher than the national average of 66.2 years , Kyzylorda's development is lagging behind, especially in education and economic development (Table E9). Economically, per capita GDP in Kyzylorda is 24% lower than the national average. Even though literacy rate is higher, enrollment rates are much .lower than the national average. The infant mortality rate is the highest nationwide with 22.4 per 1000 livebirths - 43% higher than the national average. Public health is also a key determinant of development. Poor public heath is a key concern in Kyzylorda Oblast. The general incidence rate of all disease clusters for 100,000 people is 68,311, the fourth highest among all oblasts in Kazakhstan , 22% higher than the national average. Unfortunately, Kyzylorda Oblast has the highest illness rates in Kazakhstan in tuberculosis (TB), cancer of esophagus, iron deficiency and nervous system diseases. Hence, any improvement in economic wellbeing of the population is expected to have positive impact on public health since the two factors are strongly interlinked. Table 4-12: Human Development in Kyzylorda and Kazakhstan Comparison Life Per Life Literac Enrollme Educatio Income expectanc capita Expectancy HDI y rate nt rate nlndex , Index y GDP Index Kyzylorda 67 99 ,6 80 ,4 5849 0,688 0,932 0,657 0,763 Kazakhstan 66 ,2 99 ,5 84 7260 0,681 0,943 0,715 0,782 Source: UNDP Human Development Index 2005 Health In the rayons of Kazalinsk and Aralsk infant mortality has fallen in the past three years and in year 2004 the rates in Kazalinsk rayon were lower than the national average. However, there is a striking difference in mortality per 1000 persons. Mortality rates are a disturbingly ·three times higher than the national average in both Kazalinsk and Aralsk rayons (See Figure 4-28) . I IU"'"'"'- II \-Jll"""'"' 11/ Figure 4-28: Mortality per 1000 people .' -+- --- Source: Statistical Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan The data also reveals striking differences in terms of public health patterns between Aralsk and Kazalinsk rayons and between these areas and Kyzylorda Oblast as a whole and the country. In Kazalinsk infectious and parasitogenic disease rates are 89% higher than the national average. In Aralsk on the other hand, the rates are 9% lower than the national average. Migration Kyzylorda Oblast is losing inhabitants due to migration . Outward migration is a predominant factor in both cities of Kazal insk and Aralsk. Even though both cities do have some inward migration , outward migration numbers are much higher (See Table 4-13). Table 4-13: Migration in and out of Kazalinsk and Aralsk. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Kazalinsk in 362 468 371 715 638 924 788 787 Aralsk in 266 403 453 326 280 588 367 522 Kazal insk out 796 1045 824 1048 1056 1566 1124 1319 Aralsk out 934 953 713 989 1096 1178 893 1105 Source: Statistical Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan Education Education is one of the pillars of development and achieving universal primary education is the second UN Millenium development goal. In 2004, the UNDP Human Development Report for Kazakhstan had a special focus on education published under the title "Education for all : The Key goal for a new millenium". According to 2.004 Human Development indicators, the education index for Kyzylorda Oblast (0.932) is lower than the national average (0.943). The education enrollment rate follows a similar pattern of 80.4 at oblast level versus 84.0 at national levels. The proportion of students ages 6-24 enrolled in all levels of education reaches 75.4 % in Kyzylorda Oblast (see Figure 4-29) . The urban-rural discrepancy in education is substantial in the oblast and , worryingly , grew from 1998-2004. Even though the proportion of students (aged 6-24) enrolled in all levels of education reached 93.3% in urban settlements in 2004, it reaches merely half of the population in rural settlement. 79 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Figure 4-29: Urban-rural education rates in Kyzylorda Ob/ast. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: UNDP Living Standards and Poverty 2005 Conclusions Kyzylorda Oblast, and its Kazalinsk and Aralsk rayons in particular, have suffered and still suffer from high poverty rates , due to various causes including ecological disaster and economic transition . The analysis illustrates that even though poverty is still widespread , it is decreasing . In addition to agriculture, thahks to the SYNAS project, fishing is expected to revive as an important economic activity in the region. Livestock rearing and agriculture production are widely practiced however, due to numerous obstacles, including lack of processing facilities and transportation barriers, they are important more for their subsistence benefits than income generating capacity. Hence, economic development in the project area is picking up, albeit at a slow pace. The -standards of living on health and education are low, especially in rural areas; the social indicators show that there is a severe urban rural gap. Unless measures are taken to control the widening of the gap, outward migration, which has been a significant trend in the oblast, may continue . 4.5 Land and Resource Use 4.5.1 Agriculture and livestock Irrigated arable lands Arable farming in the project area and in wide parts of the Kazakhstan Syrdarya Basin is based on irrigation. Almost exclusively flood irrigation based on gravitation is applied. After the independence the area cultivated in the floodplain of the Syrdarya has strongly decreased but got stabilized during the recent years. Irrigated agriculture currently occupies some 423,000 ha of land in the South Kazakhstan oblast (about 3.6% of the SKO area), with a decline of some 40% having been experienced since the period of maximum activity some 20-25 years ago. During the 1980s in South Kazakhstan oblast an area of 512,000 ha was reclaimed with irrigation infrastructure and at least temporary irrigated. These lands are located in the Syrdarya basin and are supplied by the Syrdarya or its tributaries. The irrigated areas in Maktaaral rayon make up 130,000 ha, on 50,000 of which irrigation and drainage systems have been rehabilitated in 2002-2006 with assistance from WB and ADB. Further rehabilitation work with WB financing is planned on another 140,000 ha of irrigated lands in the rayons Maktaaral , Shardara and Turkestan. The areas in Maktaaral rayon are supplied with irrigation water from the Syrdarya River 1 ••-w- 11 \"-'}''-"""' 11/ upstream from the outlet of the Shardara reservoir. Irrigated lands in Shardara rayon are supplied by the Kyzylkum canal with water directly discharged from the Shardara reservoir. Table 4-14: Potential and actually irrigated areas in the Syrdarya basin in Kazakhstan. Oblast/Rayon Potential irrigated area in the Actual irrigated arable lands in Syrdarya basin (ha) the Syrdarya basin (ha) South Kazakhstan oblast 512,000 250,000 (423,000 total for oblast!) Maktaaral (upstream from Shardara) 135,680 (2004) Shardara 48,560 (2004) Arvs 16,238 (2004) Turkestan 40,000 (2004) Kzylorda oblast 270,000 150,000 (158,280 in 2003) Zhanakuroan 25,690 (2003) Shieli 26,030 (2003) Syrdarva 29,840 (2003) Kzvlorda 7' 780 (2003) Zhalaghash 30,320 (2003) Karmakchi 20,000 (2003) Kazalinks 18,060 (2003) Aralsk 560 (2003) In Kzylorda Oblast from the 270,000 ha areas that maximum have been irrigated; only 150,000 ha are actually used. Table 4-15: Agricultural development, water use and yields in Kzylorda 1991- 2004 (ED/KO, 2005) Year Irrigation Rice area Water Use - gross Average area yie lds ha ha % Million m3 m3 /ha t/ha 1990 258390 87040 33.69% 4869.0 18844 1991 261431 82122 31.41% 4666.0 17848 1992 271991 82705 30.41% 5070.0 18640 1993 264252 80298 30.39% 4941 .0 18698 1994 243103 73410 30.20% 4671.0 19214 1995 231458 68196 29.46% 3916.0 16919 4.94 1996 195430 65969 33.76% 4171 .9 21347 4.90 1997 155940 64903 41 .62% 9965.5 63906 4.87 1998 149830 62930 42.00% 3656.5 24405 4.28 1999 146570 58589 39.97% 3133.4 21378 3.94 2000 150060 62245 41.48% 3168.0 21112 4.00 2001 147750 58562 39.64% 2904.0 19655 4.01 2002 145940 52590 36.04% 2729.0 18699 3.75 2003 158280 69846 44.13% 3272.0 20672 4.21 2004 150390 66208 44.02% 3165.0 21045 4.17 Under the present project the water use modelling component has considered what areas in the Kazakhstan part of the Syrdarya basin are actually irrigated. Based on this the respective irrigation water needs have been estimated . No increase of the sown areas under irrigated crops is foreseen and supported in the SYNAS-11 project. The present irrigation water use efficiency is low, e.g. for rice it is application efficiency of 45 % and conveyance efficiency of 60 %, this results in this example in an overall efficiency of the system of 27 %. The new methodology of Bastiaanssen , (EDIKO, 2005, Technical Note 7) based on evapo-transpiration measurement on satellite images shows an irrigation efficiency for rice of only 17.6%. Using the calculated net potential evapo-transpiration of Bastiaanssen for all crops in Kzylorda Oblast, average system efficiency 30 % is the result 81 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project , . Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) against overall system efficiency of 43 % calculated by FAO Cropwat. Both methods show, that rice is the major consumer of irrigation water in Kyzylorda with very low irrigation efficiencies. At the same time both methods show, that other crops, mainly alfalfa and wheat have very high irrigation efficiencies of 50 % respectively 75%. The apparent high efficiency of these dryland crops results from rice crop residual water (EDIKO, 2005, Technical Note 11 ). It is assumed that the irrigation efficiency can be improved , depending on the question of how far water managers and farmers of the Syrdarya basin would be interested and able to apply water saving management and cropping systems. Crops In the project area different institutional types of agricultural land-users cultivate various crops in differing proportions. These types include large agricultural enterprises (corporate farms), medium sized farm enterprises and small household plots. At the household plots a significant proportion of the gross agricultural production is produced (70% in Kzylorda oblast according to Efimov, SYNAS-11) and this type of land-users dominates the production of "bakhcha", i.e. melons and gourds. They further produce vegetables , potatoes and fruit for home consumption . The large agricultural enterprises and farms in Kzylorda oblast focus on rice (about% of the cultivated area) combined with alfalfa in the crop rotation . Wheat plays a minor role. In South Kazakhstan Oblast cotton is the major crop cultivated by farms and larger enterprises. Rice and grains are only cultivated by few farms and on small proportions of the irrigated lands (less than %). Livestock In Kzylorda oblast more than 90% of livestock is owned by the rural households. In these households livestock serves as a monetary equivalent to buy food , pay for services and for children's tertiary education . In the composition of livestock dominate sheep and cattle , while horses and camels have a smaller share , but are still represented in large numbers. Table 4-16: Distribution of livestock numbers in Kzylorda oblast 2004 (after ED/KO 2005, TN 6) Share of All Large Individual Species the Farms % % categories enterprises households category% Milking 78,184 405 0.5 1,553 2.0 76,226 97.5 cows Other 120,542 969 0.8 2,837 2.4 116,736 96.8 cattle Sheep & 634,852 32,658 5.1 18,580 2.9 583 ,614 91 .9 Qoats Horses 50 ,772 2,997 5.9 1,966 3.9 45,809 90.2 Camels 23,154 2,326 10.0 1,333 5.8 19,495 84.2 Total animal units of 399 622 ~ 13 lliQ5 2...8. .314.9.8.9 .9.3...8. above 3 species PiQS 3,133 209 6.7 215 6.9 268 ,761 86.5 Poultrv 426,656 157,324 36.9 571 0.1 2,709 92.8 3 1 Al I = 1 N1w 1 hnrc:P 1 /"::lmPI nr I\ c:hPPn nr nn::itc: I llOl.;)C II \VJllOI.;) II) All categories All categories 1!1 Milki ng cows 11 Milking cows • Other cattle • Other cattle o Sheep & goats o Sheep & goats (AU) o Horses o Horses • Camels • Camels Fig 4-30: Livestock species (share by total numbers and animal units) in all categories of enterprises During the 1990s the livestock numbers of most species, in particular small ruminants, dropped dramatically. Fig . 4-18 shows these developments for the rayons Aralsk and Kazalinsk. Since around 2001/2002 the situation stabilized and animal numbers are now growing . Animal units Rayon Aralsk Animal units Rayon Kazalinsk 45.000 ,--- - - - - - - - - - - 70,000 -.--~-------------, 40.000 r-----,..-- 60,000 T-.i: : - - - - - 35,000 + -- - 50,000 + - - - ----"'""'---- - - - -----l 30,000 +---___::'-----"'~----____. -+- Cattle -+- Cattle 40,000 + - - - - - --- sheep 25,000 1---::::::;o;;::::~~"""-------. --- sheep 20,000 t------"""'"""---..........::::~.:::::_~;::.-1---i Horses 30,000 +-"-----""...:ll~-----j - Horses 15,000 +--- - - _,,__ Camels 20,000 10,000 W"==~~'==""'--_.:~~~'==~ 5,000 +-----------~------; 0 +-~-~~-~~-~~----1 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 10,000 + - - - - - - - o+--~-~~-~~-~~__, 1990 1991 ------< 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 - Fig. 4-31: Development of livestock numbers during the 1990s (5 sheep equivalent to one AU) Despite vast pasture resources, seasonal migration has become either impossible or unnecessary for the large majority of livestock keepers . Large-scale owners, however, do continue to move their animals. Overall, some three quarters of farmers do not move their stock, but keep them around villages . Households that occupy the foothills of mountains are often able to move their animals to rich mountainous pastures in summer. The small minority of farmers that moves its stock every season are among the richest owners, usually with over a thousand sheep equivalent units. To this group also belong people who manage other people's stock. Movement in every season is costly and labor- intensive (most frequent movers own a truck, well pump, barn or house at remote pastures and access to labor - usually family) and consequently , the threshold flock size for frequent movement is 350 animals. This group falls into the category of group or corporate farms . The majority of farmers have settled in villages , grazing their animals at one day's wa lking distance, usually up to 5 km away. Animals may roam up 15 km , however. Management is largely passive, since the animals roam freely. In the winter season , management becomes more intensive, as fodder is commonly provided to animals. Although animals may be moved to summer mountain pastures or distant winter pastures, movement is largely impossible due to lack of financial and/or infrastructural means and incentive. Two sources of winter fodder are used in the project area. First, in the crop rotation alfalfa is cultivated . Second , grasslands and reeds are managed as irrigated haymaking areas (limans). The reed hay is of comparable low fodder value and is preferably used in combination with more nutritious alfalfa hay and/or concentrated fodder. Livestock breeders 83 . Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) • based in winter far from irrigated arable lands (e.g. in most parts of rayon Aralsk and Karmakchi) more rely on haymaking areas than those in the proximity of irrigated fields on which alfalfa is cultivated or where livestock can graze on fields after harvest. The relative importance of the livestock sector in Kzylorda Oblast is presently underestimated. Its combined farm gate value and market value is respectively 5.73 billion Tenge and 8.97 billion Tenge (EDIKO, 2005, TN 6). The combined value of the beef and milk sub-sector is larger than that of rice. The respective turnovers and added value of the beef, milk and mutton value chains are far larger than those of skins, wool , eggs and karakul. Sales-to-production ratios of households are low and the majority of produce bypasses formal market channels. 4.5.2 Water management in the Syrdarya basin , Water management, in particular for purposes of irrigation, power generation and flood protection, is the key factor influencing on the hydrology in the Syrdarya basin. That's why water management issues have been broadly described under section 4.2.3 Hydrology and no details are repeated here. The Scenario 1 - "SYNAS I up-rated river channel capacities", developed for the SYNAS-11 Pre-Feasibility Study represents the case with Syrdarya river channel capacities up-rated to that recommended in the SYNAS I report to allow the following discharge regime from Shardara reservoir: • 600m 3 /s maximum winter release from Shardara; • 1100m3 /s nominal summer release from Shardara; • 1800m3 /s maximum summer flood release from Shardara. Scenario 1 - Water Balance (Mm3/yr) Enhanced SYNAS I Channel Capacities Net Water Abstraction 8,211 C Reservoir Evaporation • Arnasai Spillage 0 Depression Spillage D Net Water Abstraction Depression Spillage 742 • River Losses Arnasai Spillage 94 D Sharishiganak Reservo ir Evaporation 724 Spill to South Aral Sea • North Aral Sea 672 North Aral Sea Sharishiganak 0 Spill to South Aral Sea 2,576 478 Fig. 4-32. Scenario 1 Water Balance (Source SYNAS-11, Pre-Feasibility Thematic Report on Hydrologic Modelling 2007) As SYNAS-1 in the meantime is almost completely implemented and most structures are put into operation, this scenario provides a good summary of the current water allocation . I l l U .... '"" II \ ' - ' J l l U .... II/ 4.5.3 Fisheries The developments in the fisheries in the Aral Sea and in the Delta Lakes are closely related to environmental conditions for fish , in particular to water salinity and to timing and amount water supply to delta lakes. Fishery activities and achieved yields are closely related to the fish fauna and populations of economically important species. The information available on actual fish harvests is therefore provided in section 4.3.2 Fauna. 85 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE SUBPROJECTS COVERED BY THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 5.1 Reconstruction of left bank offtake regulator at Kzylorda barrage 5.1.1 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Site and the Area of Influence The subproject concerns the left-bank irrigation offtake at the Kzylorda barrage , an area heavily transformed during the construction of the barrage in 1956. The Normal Operation Level (NOL) is 129.0 m asl at design discharge of 1200 m3 /s . The maximum discharge in case of flood of 1 % probability, equal to 1900 m3 /s, results in an upstream water level of 129,37 m asl and a downstream water level of 128.86 m. The Leftbank Magistral Canal (LMK) has a capacity of 208 m3 /s used for irrigation of some 62,400 ha of arable lands and some haymaking areas. In winter the LMK is used for flood release when ice jams limit the capacity of the Kzylorda barrage for passing the full river discharge despite of a maximum discharge capacity of 1900 m3 /s. The spillage of water into the LMK for flood release purposes contradicts the objectives of SYNAS I and the particular subproject 011 "Reconstruction of Kzylorda headworks" which were justified by the improvement of water discharge to the Aral Sea and avoidance of spillages needed due to limited capacity of water diversion structures. Fig. 5-1: Overview of the location of the subproject at Google Earth satellite image. The hydrological situation at the Kzylorda barrage is determined by the overall hydrological characteristics described in section 4.2.3. The releases from Shardara Reservoir are the determining factor for discharges at Kzylorda barrage. The average annual water trow during the vegetation period at the range of Kzylorda barrage varies: in dry years - 100-250 m3 /s , in average wet years - 300-450 m3 /s , and in high water years - 500-700 m3 /s . The winter flow is less variable - 300-500 m3 /s. Ice jams in the Syrdarya River cause temporary winter water levels 1 to 1.5 m higher than the summer V{ater levels at the same discharge. The annual average of salinity for 'the period of observations from 1986 to 1996 varied from 1040 to 1230 mg/I; in 2001 it amounted to 1220 mg/I. In dry years the average salinity can be 1-1IYIIVI11 1 ICl ILCll 111 ltJClVL l\,;:),;:)IOJ.;:).;:)l I ICI IL I I I Cl.;:)C I I \VY I I Cl.;:) 1 1} significantly higher, e.g. in 1975 - dry year - it amounted to 2090 mg/I. The salinity varies considerably between the seasons. In 2001 during the flood period it amounted to 1080 mg/I, and during the autumn low-water period - 1540 mg/I. In the chemical composition the sulphate anions (S04 ) and sodium and potassium cations (Na and K) are prevailing . The salinization of the river water requires the application of sulphate-resistant cements for the repair of concrete structures. The riverbanks of the first one hundred meters of the canal and the first 25 m of the left Syrdarya riverbank upstream from the diversion structure as well as about 80 m Syrdarya riverbank downstream are artificially formed as slopes with uniform standard inclination and are covered with concrete slabs. The ground uncovered in the vicinity of the structure is artificially transformed , i. e. the riverbank enforcement structures have been backfilled and compacted. Thus no natural soil types exist at the project site. The transformed relief and soil conditions determine the vegetation cover. At the left Syrdarya Riverbank immediately upstream from the canal offtake in gaps between concrete slabs and in gravel below the slabs only few plants of saltworts (Atriplex tatarica , Petrosimonia squarrosa, Salsola nitraria Climacoptera aralensis) and few shrubs and trees (Elaeagnus oxycarapa, Salix songorica , Ulmus pumila) grow. At the lowest, wet parts of the slopes very few fragments of wetlands vegetation ((Eleocharis acicularis, Panicum crus-gali , Mentha aquatica, Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) are found. On the uncovered riverbanks fragments of tugai forest vegetation (Elaeagnus oxycarapa , Salix songarica, Halimodendron halodendron , Lycium ruthenicum) with a sparse herb layer formed by weedy plants (Zygophyllum oxianum , Glycyrrhiza glabra , Setaria viridis , Pseudosophora alopecuroides, Peganum haramala, Lactuca serriola) . At the reinforced sections of the canal the slabs are partly destroyed or washed out allowing the growth of shrubs (Salix songorica, Halimodendron haolodendron , Lycium ruthenicum , Tamarix hispida) and gasses/herbs (Phragmites australis, Salsola foliosa , S.nitraria) and lianas (Clematis orientalis) . Downstream of the reinforced banks bank erosion is taking place. At the not reinforced banks of the canal on both sites very narrow belts of floodplain vegetation (tugai) of shrubs (Elaeagnus oxycarapa, Tamarix ramosissima) and herbs (Alhagi pseudalhagi , Karelinia caspia , Phragmites australis, Suaeda microphylla) are developed. In these belts few turanga poplars (Populus pruinosa) with numerous offshoots from roots participate. The turanga poplars formed in the past large floodplain forests in the Syrdarya valley but are now as rare that they became included into the Red book of Kazakhstan . During the site visits only few representatives of the typical river valley fauna were observed : swallow (Hirundo rustica) and common tern (Sterna hirundo). About the local fish fauna no information was available. According to the Kazakh Scientific Institute of Fisheries in Aralsk, Zaulkhan Ermakhanov, through the offtake significant numbers of fish are lost from the river into the canal. The area of influence includes 62,363 ha irrigated agricultural lands and haymaking areas (several ten thousands hectares) supplied by the LMK in the rayons Syrdarya (18,638 ha) , Zhalaghash (24,720 ha), Karmakchy (17,254 ha) and the city of Kzylorda (1749 ha). The main crops on these areas are rice (37.446 ha), alfalfa (18,784 ha), wheat, potatoes, vegetables and melons. Close to the canal several villages and infrastructure are located . Around 25,000 people live in the villages potentially affected by flooding caused in case of catastrophic fa ilure of the offtake structure. 5.1.2 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Measures The reconstruction measures at Kzylorda barrage on the Right bank main canal (RMK) and on hydro stations have been completed. The reconstruction of the left bank irrigation outlet was not included into the SYNAS-1package. The left bank irrigation offtake at the Kzylorda barrage has been constructed about 50 years ago. During that time of operation no major repair was done and during the last 15 years even the 87 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) basic maintenance was neglected due to financial constraints. Now the hydraulic structure is in deteriorating condition . This concerns all parts of the structure, i.e. basic concrete structures as are concrete chutes, guidance walls, stilling basin and bottom flushing tunnels , gates, electric and hydro-mechanical equipment as well as the gauging station located one kilometer downstream . Damages are concentrated in the area of variable water level and ice formation. All bottom gates of the flushing galleries and surface gates of the water intake are worn out and corroded. The entire hydraulic structure is in such condition that soon failure is possible. This failure can occur in the range of .two thinkable extreme cases. In one scenario the opening of the gates will not be possible, disabling the structure for the diversion of irrigation water. In the other extreme the structure would fail during winter high water, leading to an unregulated spillage of water and related flooding of irrigated arable lands, irrigation infrastructure and even settlements. In the worst cases provisional measures may support irrigation .with a limited amount of water in an unregulated regime or blocking of the inflow with emergency measures. However, a collapse of the structure would substantially threaten the water supply of the above mentioned irrigated arable lands and/or lead to an uncontrolled flooding of these lands, making their agricultural use at least for one season impossible. The subproject foresees the complete rehabilitation of the irrigation outlet. Significant advances in the state of the art by using better materials and better foundations will be made while reconstructing than in the original executed work, including the provision of operation and service buildings. The work should be performed during the 7.5 months off-irrigation season from 1 September to mid April. Considering the occurrence of severe frost for at least two months in the winter two seasons will be necessary for construction . The construction costs are estimated with 367,840,000 Tenge or 3.04 million US$. The guiding walls and covering slabs of the flushing galleries as well as the old road bridge are to be dismantled, the concrete of the galleries' bottom and walls is to be cut out to the depth of 1O cm , and corroded sections of reinforcement will be cut out and replaced by new reinforcement. The surface will be sealed with waterproofing mixture. The stilling water basin bottom and slopes will be completely rebuilt. It is foreseen to replace the operation bridge by a new one. The concrete slabs at the aprons will be replaced . Downstream of the apron it is foreseen to construct a well for an automatic regulator level sensor. At a distance of 1 km from the intake it is planned to establish the gauging station with the swing bridge, and a well for the logger. The site adjacent to the offtake regulator will be paved with asphalt. A pumping station with water intake from the river is foreseen for watering of the greenery. A shelter and a septic-tank will be built for the barrage's security service. Additionally it is planned to provide for lighting of the adjacent area and downstream part of the offtake regulator. The bottom and surface gates and hoists will be replaced , under utilization of existing cable ducts, by new ones as well as all the electric and mechanical equipment and cable lines. According to the selected operational scheme of water level and discharge control in the left-bank main canal , it is foreseen to automatically maintain the water level. Level meters will be located in the wells along the canal : the first one - in the measuring well to be operated together with the automatic regulator, and the second - at the gauging station at a distance of 1 km . . . LI IVll VI 111 ICI llCll 111 ltJClvl /"\.:>.:>C.:>.:>11 ICI ll N i Legend 2 Right-bank offteke regulator 3 Left-bank offlake regulalor Guaro-house IB ~ Distribution board 1 Pum_piJ!g_ station ~ 8 !.!rJ!!!LngJJIOPS $""' ~ 9 Gauging station (conditionally is not shown} &,,... 8000 Scale 1:1000 M 1:1000 Figure 5-2: General layout of the Kzylorda LMC offtake structures to be reconstructed 5.1.3 Without Project Case (a) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system Without the project a failure of the left bank outlet is possible. Such a failure would result in a reduced or completely lost controllability of water discharge into the LMK which would have hydrological implications. If the failure of the structure leads to the blocking of closed gates the withdrawal of water from the river would be stopped or at least reduced. Consequently a smaller amount of water would be available for irrigation . This would increase the downstream water availability, in particular in times of shortage of irrigation water. However, such a situation would cause degradation (salinization) of the majority of lands relying on water supply from the outlet. This environmental and social economic damage would largely exceed the small benefits from increased downstream water availability. During winter the LMK offtake is used for release of excess water from the Syrdarya when ice jams reduce the discharge capacity of the Kzylorda barrage below a critical level. In this situation a failu re of the offtake structure could result in an unregulated spillage into the LMK. This can lead to damages at irrigation infrastructure, irrigated lands and even settlements and to an undesired high withdrawal of river water . Fortunately, so far the described situation is entirely hypothetical. Since winter 2006/2007 one of the six gates is out of operation and permanently blocked. The capacity of the remaining gates is still sufficient for supply of irrigation water and no shortages have been reported by local administrations and water management authorities. (b) Impacts on water quality Impacts on water quality by the without project case are unlikely. However, it cannot be excluded that floods caused by impossibility to regulate an emergency spillage in winter, as described above, can lead to the contamination of water with oil derivates and/or agrochemicals. The reduction of available water for leaching and irrigation may reduce the amount of saline drainage water spilled via collectors . However, this effect would be of short term and later on the 89 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) salinized soils .would require intensive leaching for rehabilitation , causing respective salt loads of drainage water disposed into lakes, wetlands and potentially also into the Syrdarya River. (c) Impacts on atmospheric air In the case of failure of the existing offtake, irrigated lands could become abandoned in a large scale due to shortage of irrigation water or flooding . The abandonment of lands would have some local effect on air humidity and the developing salt crusts can contribute to a slight increase of salt-dust content in the air. (d) Impact on soils So far no soil degradation is reported to be caused under the present operational conditions of the irrigation offtake. But the unavoidable worsening of the operational conditions of the structure, impacts are likely. The abandonment of irrigated lands due to extreme floods or to lack of irrigation water would cause waterlogging and/or salinization of soils. (e) Impacts on biodiversity The failure of the existing irrigation outlet in the without subproject case would lead to the replacement of the existing agricultural ecosystems by secondary salt resistant (shrub-)vegetation of limited environmental value. In both cases - flooding or insufficient irrigation water supply - the situation would likely remain unstable. The rehabilitation of the former natural vegetation would only be possible over several decades with stable ecological conditions. Such a scenario of large scale renaturation of agricultural lands would contradict economic and political development concepts for the region . (f) Impacts on human environment More than sixty thousand hectares of irrigated land depend on the regular and safe supply of irrigation water every year. The deterioration of the irrigation outlet may at any time make the operation of the structure impossible leading to irrigation water shortage or winter floods. In the best case a gradual deterioration in the course of years may lower conveyable water quantities to a point where only a part of the irrigation area can be served. This would affect the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people employed in arable farming , including those cultivating small individual household plots. Further the LMK provides directly or indirectly via the collector and drainage system water for irrigation of hay making areas and for watering of livestock. The failure of water supply to these areas would make livestock breeding more difficult and may in some cases require relocation of herds. A failure of the irrigation system may also affect the drinking water supply of the villages in the irrigation area and thus affect human health. Further direct destruction of houses and infrastructure is thinkable in the case of a flood caused by unregulated excess water spillage. Finally the failure of the hydraulic structure can in one or another form cause conditions which would force several thousand people to relocate . 5.1.4 Environmental Impact during Construction (a) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system During the construction phase all works requiring a reduction of the water discharge will be timed outside the irrigation season. It is planned that reconstruction work will be phased in a way that allows full irrigation operations. However a temporary reduction of the number of operational gates cannot be excluded , reducing the . canal discharge and thus the amount of irrigation water available at one time by up to 50%. In the result a higher flow would occur in the Syrdarya River. This flow increase would be in the range of the natural flow variations and not have any significant environmental implications. The large capacity of the irrigation outlet (208 m3 /s) has been used in the past to relieve flood pressure on the barrage and on Kzylorda city immediately downstream of the barrage. This will not be possible during reconstruction , potentially engendering a slide increase of the flood risk. However, the discharge capacity of the barrage and the rehabilitation works done under SYNAS-1 should allow a safe passing of high flows in the river. The planned right-side embankment strengthening in Kzylorda city (expected to be financed and implemented outside SYNAS-1) - · · ·-- - · · ··· - · ·-- · · · ·· r - - - . -- - - - - ·· · - ·· · should preferably be completed before the start of the works on the left-bank offtake. Further the planned construction of the Koksaray Reservoir and an improved operation regime of Shardara Reservoir will finally remove the need for winter flood release into the LMK. (b) Impacts on water quality Water pollution will not be caused by the project except the possible case of accident of construction machinery during the construction phase. The observation of all applicable rules on maintenance and safety will minimize this risk. (c) Impacts on atmospheric air The civil works like dismantling of existing concrete structures and the exhaust fumes from machinery will cause local air pollution . This impact is limited in time and space and of low significance compared to other sources of dust and chemical pollution in the city and vicinity of Kzylorda . (d) Impact on soils Soil contamination by pollutants during the construction phase can be caused by leaking machinery and fuel and lubricant storage. Such contamination may not affect large areas. Any soil pollution is to avoid by observation of the applicable maintenance and safety requirements. The subproject will not require the utilization of significant areas of land so far not used as it concerns the replacement of existing structures. The debris of the removed old concrete structures will be recycled in an appropriate way and is not to be dumped into natural habitats. After crushing it will be used for the paving of roads or fixation of dikes. The amount of needed new earth , sand and gravel is small. So far no specific sources have been identified . However, the low needed amounts can be obtained from already existing quarries and no new development will be needed . (e) Impacts on biodiversity The civil works at the offtake will cause the complete removal of the fragmentary vegetation at the project site. This impact is unavoidable. It concerns only plant species and vegetation types which are abundant in the project region and will easily regenerate. The turanga poplars mentioned under 6.1.1 are located outside the immediate project site and should not be removed . As the species is adapted on fluctuating water levels no indirect impact is to expect from the temporary reduction of flow in the canal. The project site has no specific importance for the animal world as it is small by size and intensively transformed . Thus no significant impact on fauna and its habitats is expected for the construction period. (f) Impacts on human environment During the construction phase possible agricultural production losses during the irrigation season must be taken into account. The areas potentially affected by shortage of irrigation water and the scale of related production losses have not yet been estimated . There are basically two options in case of irrigation water shortages during the construction period . Either a part of the lands would be fully supplied while other would become temporary fallow, or all irrigated lands would receive water in insufficient quantities or timely unfavorably. These problems will be minimized by timing the construction activities in the non-irrigation season and by keeping the irrigation outlet at least partly operating during the summer between the two planned construction periods. 5.1.5 Environmental Impact during Operation (a) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system The impact on the hydrology under normal operation of the new offtake will be insignificant because the amount of water withdrawn from the Syrdarya will not change compared to the present situation. No increase of irrigated areas is envisaged . 91 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) The subproject will not impact on the ground water in the vicinity of the immediate project site but will influence on the ground water in the irrigated areas. The renewed outlet regulator will allow supplying water regulated and in time to the left-bank canal, to avoid excess irrigation leading to waterlogging and resulting salinization. (b) Impacts on water quality Water pollution will not be caused by the operation of the reconstructed offtake structure. Except of limited amounts of lubricants for mechanical equipment no dangerous substances are applied during operation . The observation of all applicable rules on maintenance and safety will minimize the risk of contamination of water. The sustaining of irrigated agriculture on large areas as intended by the project is unavoidable related to the leaching of soils and the arising of mineralized drainage water. The project will not increase the amount and salinity of drainage water above the current norms. (c) Impacts on atmospheric air The operation of the subproject will not have direct impacts on atmospheric air. The efficient operation of the reconstructed flushing galleries will allow flushing of sediments into the river's downstream reaches. This will replace the dumping of sediments from the main canal and avoid dust emissions from these dumped sediments. (d) Impact on soils The impact of the operation of the structure reconstructed by the subproject is in the area of influence where the degradation of soils as described under the without project case will be avoided. No additional or changed compared to the present situation impacts will occur at the project site. (e) Impacts on biodiversity The subproject will neither lead to changes of the landscape nor of natural or cultural ecosystems and no significant impact on flora and fauna is expected at this already transformed site and area of influence. (f) Impacts on human environment The realization of the subproject will ensure the reliable and regulated irrigation water supply needed for the maintenance and improvement of the agricultural production in particular rice cultivation and cattle breeding in the area of influence. 5.1.6 Impact in case of worst possible incident The worst case scenario apart from the above analyzed failure of the existing outlet would be the impossibility to provide sufficiently irrigation water during the summer between the construction periods. An adequate compensation or insurance scheme should be in place for minimizing the risk for the farmers. Another risk is the above mentioned flood situation when no excess water can be spilled through the irrigation outlet. This situation is very unlikely and can be avoided by adequate operation of Shardara Reservoir and upstream located abstraction structures. 5.1. 7 Synergies with other subprojects The operation of the irrigation scheme would be positively influenced by the existence of the counter-regulating Koksa·ray Reservoir which would avoid the need for winter discharge of excess water via the existing or new structure. The release of retained winter flow in summer will improve the water availability during the irrigation period. The strengthening of the right embankment of Syrdarya River on the territory of Kzylorda city will reduce the probability of flood damage during the construction period and contribute to the avoidance of emergency spillage in the LMK during operation. -· .. .. -· ... ·-·, .,,_ , .. .... . -- .... ·-----·. ·-· ... . ··--- .. ,-1 ··-- .., Conclusion about the environmental impact The subproject has no direct or indirect negative environmental impacts. On the other hand , the project provides little benefit for the achievement of the major objectives of the SYNAS-11 project. It does not contribute to the environmental revival of the NAS and the delta area and the improvement of the overall environmental conditions in the KSB nor does it contribute to improving overall water use efficiency in the basin . These limitations are caused by the purpose and character of the subproject which is oriented on the rehabilitation and sustainability of a still existing structure. The limited scope of the subproject does not provide for significant contributions to the achievement of the objectives of SYNAS-11. As the without subproject scenario imposes a considerable risk for significant environmental deterioration of more than sixty thousands of hectares irrigated land the overall environmental impact of the subproject is, nevertheless, positive. Impact assesement and environmental protection measures in the considered sub-project are given in the annex (Annex 1.1). Factors, sources , potential types of impact and environment components, on which the subproject exerts an influence, are given in the annex (Annex 2.1). Residuai impact after completion of measures are given in the annex (Annex 3.1). 5.2 Syrdarya river bed straightening at Korgansha and Turumbet sites. 5.2.1 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Site and the Area of Influence The sub-project is supposed to be implemented at two sites Korgansha and Turumber, located at Zhalagash district of Kzylorda oblast The location of the proposed objects is given at fig . 5-3 . Brief description of environmental conditions at sites of the proposed objects is given in table 5- 1. 93 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) N )l(anararn I I I Legend: Y CllORHblC ~H8'1 C Hl1JI : I I Syradrya "''crbcd s:1raigh1ming at Turintbct silc I np•~JICllHC p)CUU p . l~ t.tpJWpMI Im) 1-11u 1t0pora Rai lrood )t(c.:1cJ11a.. nopora Scheme of the Syrdarya riverbed straightening' at Korgansha and Turumbet sites 94 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Table 5-1: Environmental conditions at sites of sub-project Syrdyarya river bed straightening . Km from Shardara N!! reservoir along Flood situation I Comments on sit Planned measures Ecosystem characteristic Typical I rare species Syrdarya protected objects e river I Cross scetion ID Natural floodplain , with prevalence Eleagnus oxycarpa, Salix None of the mentioned objects of reed , hay vegetation , high hems, songorica, Populus pruinosa, (village Aksu , bridge , OVL actually Syrdarya river bed several bushes and small groups of Glycyrrhiza glabra, Elytrigia repens , endangered by floods which would 1 straightening - 1024.9 I 46 trees . Calamagrostis epigeios, Xanthium be addressed by the measure. Aksu "Korgansha" site strumarium , Phragmites australis village protected by local dikes. Great egret, grey heron , marsh harrier, barn swallow, magpie Dynamic floodplain with reed , Phragmites australis, Glycyrrhiza River already since decades close meadows, herbs and bushes.There glabra, Elytrigia repens, to the collector. No immediate risk. Syrdarya river bed are abanadoned fields at peninsula No risk for Zhalagash and 2 straightening- 1067.0 I 44 Common tern , grey and purple heron , pheasant, barn swallow, Shamenov village from ice jams at «Turumbet» site this site. blue-cheeked bee-eater, marsh harrier, isabelline shrike, roller 95 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) 5.2.2 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Measures For a thorough environmental impact assessment usually a detailed project of the planned activity is required . In the proposed form the sites for dike strengthening , construction of new dikes and straightening of rh.~er sections have been selected by the responsible engineer initially without own field visit on the basis of wishes expressed by the rayonvodkhoz organizations of the Zhalagash district. That's why during the elaboration of the present assessment only very general and brief descriptions and drawings on 1:200,000 topographic maps were available. The approach underlying the preliminary design of the flood protection measures seems to be based on the intention of controlling the river, keeping the river in its major course and not allowing expansion on the floodplain. However, any flood protection measure and even the strengthening of existing dikes is unavoidably causing adverse environmental impacts. Where the need for construction measures r there suitability for fulfilling their function is clearly not given , the environmental impact assessment would need to call for refraining from the measure, just because of the need for avoiding unnecessary adverse environmental impacts. The pre-feasibility study provides the following information on the planned measures to be assessed in the frame of the present preliminary EIA. Syrdarya river bed straightening · At two sections of the river in Zhalagash district it is planned to divert the river by digging channels cutting of the meander and straightening the riverbed. The channels present themselves as trench , which transition smoothly to the river. The channel has the bottom width of 30 m, slope steepness 1:2 and depth of excavation to 8 m. The self-scouring of the channel will occur with time. To accelerate the self-scouring in the upstream part of the channel a cofferdam is to be constructed . It will create an additional backwater effect and increased velocity of water at the entrance into the channel. The structure of the channel for Korgansha and Turumbet sites is given in Fig. 5.4,5-5. L..11VIIVI111 ICl llCilt 111 lfJCilVl r\.:>,:n;;.:>,:>t I ICI ll I llQ.:>C 11 \Vy11Q.:> I I ) E" nng drkc C) ll.lCCTB) K>WllC DJl~t6t.1 •,.ba\ak Kaua." ~a.,,. Cana\ A "" .. . . .... ... · UvtK right bran h Opaaa. ecnra JIMK n ti' , , 1.. ; r1 · · 1; .:' r . ;,· 111 ' h" 1111 .:· 1 't" · • ',;'\ ' :;,, ..... !1' ,'i! I ,· , · .· i:I: ,\' .!' . , .. II " , I ti " l\;i ' ,j L' 4 I ' I • ,d I I Ri verbed strnightening. Turimbet ite. Fig.4 Cnp~Mne1111e pycna y'!aCTOK "Typm16e-r". P11c.4 Fig 5-4: River bed straightening at Turumbet site 97 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) 1 Lqmd. Y~MWC o6oJ.Kncmt1: 0 - f'lkll.mdlf ...... _ _ _ 0 c~ . . ;;;,.....,,,,,.. ,.....__,_r~ 0 ....,__--.. c--..ao1 (·I ® lb<'Mk.-dlK-""" C'- - M " _ , ,. ..... ff ~--- ...........0-"fl ?SS?--7- iE:''*-:Os.. r...._...-•L)·- ."'11)-.-... ;~ ~:::;::: ~:::::-::= s=---=- Figure 5-5: River bed straightening at Korgansha site Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Table 5-2: Planned flood protection measures and conditions of existing structures Km from Need for measures Objects to be protected Present conditions of Shardara Unit Q-ty N!! Name (Remarks based on site dike I of riverbed (Priority: O - no, 3 - /cross visit) highest) section ID Aksu , bridge, motor road , Aksu village protected by Instead of riverbed OVL - from bank scouring local dikes. straightening , strengthening and formation of ice jams of the local dike for the immediate protection of Syrdarya river bed (None of the mentioned Aksu village might be 1 straightening at 1024.9 I 46 objects (village Aksu , km 2,96 considered . «Kargansha» site bridge, OVL actually ' endangered by floods (0) which would be addressed by the measure. ) Shamenov aul , Zhalagash , River already since Instead of riverbed OVL, motor road , collector decades close to the straightening riverbank Syrdarya river bed «Severnyi» . collector. No immediate strengthening at site where 2 straightening at 1067.0 I 44 risk . bank erosion threatens km 1.04 (No risk for Zhalagash and "Turumbet" site dike. Shamenov village from ice jams at this site.) (0) 99 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) 5.2.3. Without Project Case (a) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system Since the change of operation mode of the Naryn cascade, the largest reservoir cascade, to winter power generation mode high winter discharges resulting in floods became typical for the lower reaches of the Syrdarya River. In the currently developed SYNAS-11 package the construction of the Koksaray Reservoir is included as high priority measure. The operation of this reservoir as counter-regulator will allow shifting the period of high water from winter to the vegetation period . The Syrdarya is a typical meandering lowland river. The meanders extend the overall length of the river course and thus increase the time the water flows down to the Aral Sea. This slows down ' flow velocity acts as a buffer in case of high discharges and delays the occurrence of flood events in the downstream reaches. On the other hand, in narrow meanders ice jams can build up, leading to backwater and flooding of floodplain areas. (b) Impact on water quality The impact on water quality of the "without project case" is minor. No industrial objects are located in the potentially flooded areas and thus no risk of contamination with hazardous chemicals exists. During flood events erosion is increased leading to a higher sediment load than under average conditions. On the other hand flooding of large areas slows down low velocity and leads to a higher sedimentation rate of particles carried by the river. Thus total sediment load of the river is reduced . (c) Impacts on atmospheric air No impact on atmospheric air can be predicted under the without project case (d) Impact on soils Floods are an integral part of geo-morphological and soil formation processes in natural floodplains. Flooding allows sedimentation of loams in the floodplain. Under good drainage conditions it leaches salts while under poor drainage it can cause salinization . All these processes can take place in the areas influenced by floods under the "without project case". Further this case preserves the in some extent the natural geo-morphological dynamics, in particular riverbank erosion and accumulation. These processes are essential for the floodplain ecosystems. (e) Impact on biodiversity In the "without project case" remnants of natural biodiversity in floodplain areas so far not divided from the river, would remain The existence of a naturally meandering river course is an essential element of the landscape diversity and key basis for the preservation of many elements of ecosystem diversity and species diversity depending on a living river . A negative aspect from a biodiversity point of view is the currently not natural timing of high discharge and floods. Out of season flooding adversely affects ecosystems and species adapted to the natural flood regime. This problem concerns , for instance plants (as the turanga poplar) requiring timely flooding for generative rejuvenation , birds adapted in their breeding seasonality to· the floods , as well as many invertebrates. The implementation of the project measures would even increase this environmental problem as it would further reduce flooded areas and flood frequency and cut off meanders from the river dynamics (f) Impacts on human environment In the context of the feasibility study human environment includes property as well as land-use and impact on health. Under the "without project case" no direct threat for human live exists. L..11 VII VI 1111v11u;;u 111 ltJCAVL "WWWW•O:JI I IVl IL Conclusion : The "without project case" is from an environmental point of view always to be preferred against _, flood protection measures. But as human settlements and infrastructure need to be protected, the preferred solution in the frame of SYNAS-11 and beyond should be a timing of high discharge and flooding in accordance to the natural flow dynamics. Flood protection of human property would be better achieved by local, specific protection of threatened objects, temporary or permanent relocation of valuable property and adaptation of land-use. 5.2.4 Environmental Impact during Construction (a) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system No impacts on the hydrology are expected during the construction of river straighten ing works and other activities planned under the sub-project. (b) Impacts on water quality Water contamination by pollutants during the construction phase can be caused by leaking machinery and fuel and lubricant storage. The observation of all applicable rules on maintenance and safety will minimize this risk Other foreseeable impacts of the sub-project on water quality are insignificant (c) Impacts on atmospheric air. Dust em issions from earth movement and transportation and the exhaust fumes from machinery will cause local air pollution . This impact is limited in time and space. (d) Impact on soils Soil contamination by pollutants during the construction phase can be caused by leaking machinery and fuel and lubricant storage. Such contamination may not affect large areas. Any soil pollution is to avoid by observation of the applicable maintenance and safety requirements The subproject will require the utilization of significant areas of land: Riverbed straightening at a length 4.0 km with a width of new canal and embankments of 100 m would affect 40.0 ha of soils. The sub-project in its full extent would cause destruction of natural soils at an area of approximately 450 ha. The areas size might be considered being not very significant compared to the total area of influence of the sub-projects. (e) Impact on biodiversity The civil works will cause a complete destruction of vegetation and fauna at the immediate project sites. At sites of river bed straightening the regeneration of vegetation at heavily disturbed sites can be problematic. Damage will be caused by access roads , fuel wood cutting by construction workers, disturbance of wild animals and poaching . The Syrdarya floodplain is an important habitat of the pheasant, duck and geese species as well as waders . All of them are potential subject of poaching . The presence of a larger number of people increases the risk of wildfires , one of the most significant current factors threatening biodiversity and preventing natural regeneration of tugai woodlands and forests. (f) Impact on human environment At construction sites temporary impacts include dust emissions, noise and impact on aesthetic value of the landscape. 101 Feasibil ity Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) The available information indicates that no physical cultural property will be affected by the project. Conclusion The most relevant impacts during the construction period concern soils and biodiversity. They are related to physical irreversible transformation of lands and its soils and habitats and to the disturbance of larger areas of influence. The minimizing of these impacts can be achieved by limitation of flood protection measures to those sites where they are unavoidable and by the planning of necessary measures in the vicinity of the objects to be protected. 5.2.5 Environmental Impact during Operation The planned riverbed straightening will reduce the risk of ice jams at some sites and thus reduce winter floods by backwater. While this is an appreciated effect the total impact is negative because the straightening measures will shorten the overall length of the river and thus increase flow velocity and move flood problems to downstream areas. The old river branches cut off from the river are drying out. Prevention of flooding can have negative effects on ground water quantity and mineralization in the floodplain areas. In the vicinity of cut off river branches likely ground water levels will. drop (a) Impacts on water quality Foreseeble impacts of the sub-project on water quality in the river are insignificant. Ground water mineralization can increase in the vicinity of river branches cut off by river bed straightening . (b) Impact on atmospheric air No impacts on air are expected from the sub-project.. (c) Impact on soils Lack of flooding and reduced ground water due riverbed straightening will change the character of hydromorphic soils.The planned riverbed straightening would completely bring to a halt the natural gee-morphological dynamics of erosion and accumulation in the meanders. (d) Impacts on biodiversity The river landscape of the Syrdarya is characterized by its gee-morphological dynamics, in particular the existence and dynamics of many meanders and the development of temporary islands in river sections with sediment accumulation. The planned riverbed straightening would negatively affect the characteristic river landscape. The total number of meanders was continuously reduced during the last years by step-by-step straightening of the river. The negative impact of further straightening measures on the landscape character would hence be very sign ificant. The flora and fauna of floodplains is adapted to regular flooding . If this is prevented the typical species diminish. The areas flooded during spring , including pieces of arable land , are during the spring migration used for resting by many waterfowl species and waders. The prevention of flooding of irrigation areas may cause the loss of these resting sites. The floodplain ecosystems are habitats for a rich diversity of nesting bird species. These species depend on the whole range of habitats , from bare sand banks, via meadows, forbs and reeds to shrub and woodlands. Particular critical are all measures which reduce the natural dynamics of flood and geo- morphological processes, i.e. the straightening of meanders Flooded reeds and grasslands are by many fishes used for spawning . The avoidance of flooding of such areas can negatively affect the reproduction of these fish species (e) Impacts on human environment No physical cultural property will be affected by the operation of the project. 5.2.6 Impact in case of worst possible incident The worst case situation would be a formation of ice jam on channel during an extreme high flood in winter, e.g.caused by upstream problems, that is the recurrence of the situation, taking place without river bed straightening . Such a situation probably cannot be prevented by the sub-project, because an early warning and evacuation system system would be needed for saving the live of people living in the potential flood zone . The first measure for such a warning and evacuation system would be the development of a spatial dynamic flood model for potentially critical zones 5.2.7 Synergies with other subprojects Already built Koksaray counter-regulator would allow avoiding regular floods during winter and would essentially reduce capital investments in this sub-project. Local repair and regular maintenance of existing channels of river bed straightening would be sufficient Conclusion about environmental impact Impacts of planned flood protection measures on hydrology, soils and biodiversity are largely negative or indifferent. Impact on land use opportunities are more positive. The sub-project only in a limited scale will contribute to the environmental revival of the NAS and the delta area, to the improvement of the overall environmental conditions in the KSB and to the improvement of overall water use efficiency in the basin. This contribution is mainly linked to the avoidance of emergency spillage into desert depressions where the water would be irreversibly lost. Impact assesement and environmental protection measures in the considered sub-project are given in the annex (Annex 1.2). Factors, sources, potential types of impact and environment components , on which the subproject exerts an influence , are given in the annex (Annex 2.2) . Residuai impact after completion of measures are given in the annex (Annex 3.2). 5.3 Flood Protection Dikes in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts of Kzylorda oblast 5.3.1 Brief characteristics of the Subproject Site and the Area of Influence The sub-project is supposed to be implemented on two sections, located in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts of Kzylorda oblast. The location of the ejects (dikes to be reconstructed) in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts of Kzylorda oblast is given at figures 5-6 - 5-8 The reinforcement of the existing dike for the selected objects 5,6,8 is proposed for the section in Kazalinsk district. The reinforcement of the existing dike for the selected objects 13(18), 13A is proposed for the section in Karmakchi districts. Brief characteristic of environmental conditions at the sections on the proposed objects is given in table 5-3. 103 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) N Swnmary Bill of Quantities CBOAHu TafulHua o61.CMoe pa6oT Objects I 5,6,8 • 06bCICTW 5,6,8 . Description 811.Aw pa6oT Topsoil cutting. t=-0.2 m. on the dike Unit of meas EJt.H3.\I' . 1 Q-ty Kon·ao slopes anf fooi th. m TblC.M.l 145.9 CpeJn paCTHTCJlbHOro cno. 1-0.2 M tti OTKOC8X H ROJlOOJ&e !llM('i Topsoil cutting, t=0.2 m. on the borrow th . m 3 area and reserve' s urface 139.3 1 Cpe:uai paCTllTCJlbHOf'O Ci10JI t=0.2 MC Tb1C. M noecpxHOCTll Kapbepa 11 pnepaa Construction of dikes with weuing and ab. m1 rolling-<>n Tl.JC.Ml 1677.l y CTpC>Rcrso .au.6 c yana)KflCJIHCM II )'1C8TkOR th. m1 L Y crponcrao pan.c3.!lO& " ncpccuoa Ute.rtAJk' b So:lion 2 L• l0070m 'uctwtl l•10070M. ~ --.......... . ,.......pct,._P)'CCM_ <'................. _.... r.JU t . , . _ _ _ ...,_...,v..-.. ?Ol'll- ... s~. c-.. =-~A..is.....,.... l'SI _..,..._.,,_ _ _ Z!l'..!.-.......,-.1;...,,,,._.., t,t::;::"- Figure 5-6: Overview of location of protection dikes on objects 5, 6, 8. 104 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) N Mur11baev to\\n r M)'pal'6aeu LL I l.~----/ Zhalan1as :+'.L'taMTIC YcnoBHb1e o6oJH3 'tCHHJI : Existing dike. Cywccreyt0mHe Jta.!11 6~ Reconstructed protcclion dike in Kazalinsk di strict. ~=::f1~~~~~';,a7l~~(~~9o~IUHTHU l1Jl!ot6a 8 J.. Prolcction d ike for Birlik settlement - 1.8 l.(t ---=- ~.• ·. 38W llTHa• M,\t6a n oc. liHpllHt.'. = Protection dike on Contract SYNAS 005 JaruHTW•• ~aM6a no KottTJ"'HY PPCCAM-005 Railroad JKe.rte3Ha9 aopora Asp halt road Ac$ai1bT11a• nopora Settlements nocenim • 109.i Absolute ek\ 'lltion s A6cO;llOTHblC OTMCTt.<11 llon 24 Cross·section' Nu mber . Ho,.1ep n o ncpc"tHHKa. 1466.7 t:_\I Km from Chardara reservoir. (~tion22 KM OT Ulap!aapuucKoro eo11oxpa1urn 11 wa !'1011122 1.-IB O•N flK o+OO Chainage o f protection dike n11KCT 18WHT l lOA ,il~t6bl © Objec1 number I lo.\1ep 06bet...1a Figure 5-7: Overview of location of protection dikes on objects 5, 6, 8. 105 • Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Summary Bill of Quantities Ceo.n11a. Ta6n11ua o61.eMOB pa6or Objem 13 (18), 13 A 06""m" 13(18).IJA Description B1Ulw pa6or Jnit of meas Q-ty E.a,. ll]M. KOJMK> Topsoil cutting. 1""0.2 m. on lhC' dike slopes anffoot th. m3 Cpe1Ka pacr1 rrcnt.11oro cno. t=0.2 M H TWC.~ 81.9 OTKOC8X II JlO.i'lOlUBC Jl8.M6 Topsoil cutting. t=-0.2 m, On the borrow area and rcscl"\•e' surface 4~tt> 58.5 CpclK3 pacTll'l"Ml.H()f'() CJIOJI t=0.2 M c ra nO&epXHOCTll Kap..epa II pelCptta ha 29.25 Construction of dikes with wetting and th. m1 rolling-On TWC.Ml 349.4 YnponCTw Jt3..\t6 c ya.muK11cu11cM 11 yiran.:on Cross-S«tion41 Leveling of 1hc dike' cresl and slope loo41 415.1 109)M.'ll nJlaJtflJ>OBK8 rpc6HJI II OTKOC8 J18M6 Legend Ycnonitble o6o31ia,1c 11111 : Leveling of the borrow area and reserve' surface ra 29.25 Existing dike. CyttlCCTH)'tOUUtc 11aM61w rlJ13Hitpo8Ka IKHtepXHOCTJI pclCptsa II ha IUlpbCpa Prolcction dike for Birlik sett lement 3auutTH8JI A8M6a noc. li11p.n11K C'ons1ruc1ion of road crossings and cx1ensions 15.6 Railroad )l{c11C11rn.H .rtopora YC1poAc'1 ~ pa:rt.elllOB 11 11epeemot1 Asphall road Ac¢wib1·HaJ1 .Aopora IT9 Settlements nocc11K11 oq.2 Absolute elevations A6como1111.o.1e 01'MCTKll Cross-scc1ion' umber. 1-loMcp noncpe•11 11n.:a. Km from Chardara rescr\'oir. llK &-00 ~ t<:M OT U.lap,11ap11HCKO l"O HO. Chainage uf protection dike rl1tKCT J.9.UlllTllOn JlRM6bl Chai nage of LM rightdnmch ll11i.:eTnpaooti be'IKU JIM K l lOXpaUIUUIUl3 - ....... ,.,_. ,..,....,.._."""'" ...... ~....,.. ~-­ . .... 11 )(A Object numbe r I loMcp o6ncKTn • 112,8 Sc-vemyicaN1llCai11J1 .. - ~ WR Fig5-8: Overview of location of protection dikes on objects 13(18);13A. 106 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Table 5-2: Ecological conditions at the sub-project sites on construction of flood protection dikes km from Shardara N!! res. along of Flood situation I Comments Planned measure Syrdarya Ecosystem characteristics Characteristic I rare species obj on protected objects I cross ect section ID Outside the dike solonchak with Phragmites australis, Halostachys, Need and functionality of part north typical shrub and reed vegetation . Halimodendron halodendron , of Alseyt-road to be verified! Halophytic vegetation . Few Tamarix hispida, T.elongata , Protection of In large sections 1513 - abandoned melon fields . Inside the T.ramosissima, Suaeda microphylla abandoned I fallow rice fields . Not Strengthening of the dike, beyond the canal rice fields , clear if village Bekarystanbi is 1518 / Marsh harrier, pheasant. existing dike between large portion abandoned. under threat from this side. 5 the Syrdarya river and 18 - 19 Left-bank Canal "LMK" South of Alseyt (pontoon bridge) outside of dike floodplain vegetation dominated by reed with few shrubs. Beyond the main canal rice fields. Between Kazalinsk LMK and river Phragmites australis, Typha spec., Dike indicated in Pre-FS not Strengthening of the natural floodplain with wetlands Lythrum salicaria, Ailuropus littoralis, functional. Existing right-bank dike existing dike between 1487.9 - (reed) , locally solonchak with Halimodendron halodendron , of Kazalinsk LMK locally the Syrdarya river and 1501 .3/ shrubs and halophytic vegetation . Halostachys overtopped , at one site between 6 Left-bank Canal "LMK" 20 #5 and #6. Protection of LMK and black tern - (3 sites) irrigated lands on its left side justified. Outside of dike, close to the river Phragmites australis, Lythrum Dike indicated in Pre-FS not Eleagnus trees, further extensive salicaria, Typha angustifolia, functiona l. Land between river and Strengthening of the wetlands with reed , locally Bolboschoenus maritimus, Eleagnus Kazalinsk LMK probably regularly 1467 - existing dike between solonchak oxycarpa, Pseudosophora flooded . Left bank main canal and 1476.7 I 8 the Syrdarya river and alopecuroides, Halimodendron irrigated lands on its left side Left-bank Canal "LMK" 23 + 24 halodendron , Suaeda microphylla . protected by existing dike along the canal 's right bank. grey heron , great egret, roller, barn swallow 107 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Outside of the dike the major types Aeluropus littoralis, Petrosimonia No actual flood risk for mentioned of floodplain vegetation (tugai): brachiata, Tamarix hispida , T. objects visible. Dike in satisfactory shrubs and few trees damaged by ramosissima , Elaeagnus oxycarpa , condition . past wildfires, grasslands, swamp Leymus ramosus, Alhagi meadows and halophytic pseudalhagi , A.kirghizorum, meadows. Right riverbank and Calamagrostis epigeios, Gypsophila some areas left bank with perfoliata, lnula caspica, Clematis extensive reeds. Locally ruderal orientalis, Trachomitum lancifolium , Strengthening of the vegetation . Polygonum arenarium, Atriplex 13( existing right-bank pedunculata, Suaeda linifolia, 18), dike on the right branch 1086.1 I Silty loam , meadow soil, locally Argusia sibirica, Cirsium setosum , 13 of LMK from Chainage 37 -42 solonchak soil, at the riverbank fine Aeluropus littoralis, Phragmites A 420 to Chainage sand , behind the natural levee clay australis, Typha angustifolia, Lythrum 740+00 salicaria, lnula caspica purple and grey heron , common tern, sand martin , barn swallow, salt lark, isabelline shrike, 2 spoonbills, blue- cheeeked bee-eater, collared . pratincole, magpie, white-tailed lapwing , black tern , kingfisher, black-winged stilt, pigmy cormorant, 108 L-11 VII V I 111 IVI 11,.(;.U 1111,..,QVt. r-\WW'VWWI 11\JI IL I 11..:AW\J II \'-'Jll..:AW' 11/ 5.3.2 Brief characteristic of the Sub-project measures For a thorough environmental impact assessment usually a detailed project of the planned activity is required . In the proposed form the sites for dike strengthening , construction of new dikes and straightening of river sections have been selected by the responsible engineer initially without own field visit on the basis of wishes expressed by the rayonvodkhoz organizations of the concerned rayons (Kazalinsk, Karmakchi) . No cartographic information on spatial extent and timing of floods and no elevation model for calculation of flooded areas and related damage were available. That's why during the elaboration of the present assessment only very general . and brief descriptions and drawings on 1:200,000 topographic maps were available. In few cases descriptions and drawings were significantly differing from each other. Further, the field assessment showed in some cases that proposed food protection structures already have been constructed , are not suitable for achieving the supposed flood protection of the specific mentioned objects or are not needed because the objects to be protected have never been threatened by flood . The approach underlying the preliminary design of the flood protection measures seems to be based on the intention of controlling the river, keeping the river in its 'major course and not allowing expansion on the floodplain. The alternative approach of identifying really threatened objects and analyzing if and what flood protection measures would by feasible or if other adaptations to the flood threat would be more viable (e.g. tempor~ry or permanent relocation of valuables , adaptation of land-use to flood risk) was not considered . For some of the objects, according to the Pre-feasibility study to be protected , it is not clear if they are really threatened by floods originating at the proposed construction sites or if threats have other origin and are not addressed by the proposed measures. Of course , it cannot be the duty of environmental consultants to assess the feasibility of flood protection measures from hydrological or water management, safety and risk points of view. However, any flood protection measure and even the strengthening of existing dikes is unavoidably causing adverse environmental impacts. Where the need for construction measures or there suitability for fulfilling their function is clearly not given, the environmental impact assessment would need to call for refraining from the measure, just because of the need for avoiding unnecessary adverse environmental impacts. The environmental consultant in this situation choose the followimg approach . At each site it was tried to identify. Potential flood risks and places where existing dikes have been overtopped in the near past; Objects potentially threatened by floods and signs of flood damages from past flooding ; Actual condition of existing flood protection structures; Location of planned flood protection measures according to maps provided ; Probable specific location of planned measures. Based on this plausibility assessment of planned objects their environmental impact has been assessed. It is likely that many of the planned objects will be specified and modified in the feasibility and design stages of project planning. This may influence on the conclusion about environmental impacts. Of special concern are in this context borrow pits or quarries which due to the full uncertainty about locations could not be considered at all.The pre-feasibility study provides the following information on the planned measures to be assessed in the frame of the present EIA. The data on planned measures at dikes is given in the table 5-3. Strengthening of dikes 109 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Pha~e II (Synas II) The height of proposed new dikes and strengthened existing dikes is designed with 1.0 m above the modeled water level corresponding to maximum winter and summer operational discharges. The increase by 1.0 m is justified by: 0.50 m - correction, taking into account the ice jams and accuracy of the calculations for the free surface' curve; 0.50 m -standard freeboard of the dike crest above the designed water level. The designed dikes and dikes to be reconstructed are constructed of local soil with the compaction ; the top width is 3.5 m, slope steepness: outside slope -1 :3, internal slope - 1:2.50 (Fig . 5-9). Crossing points 8.0 m wide and 150 m long are foreseen at every 2 km to the pass the oncoming transport (Fig . 5-10) . Structure of protection dikes KoHcrpyKUH• JaUIHTilbl:t 11aM6 ,,. %1 • M•ll' rem.a..' =\j.\ :::. . :::. T-l•«~:--7~ c,tlU pillC1MlUwtOfO CM>ll rni~ormrthflndihY 1 '7"""1 Yc-.;ic:..r1uub1HDl--6N 'f • l 71\IJ 111 cw protection dike naMGa HOBllJI Jal.UHTilllJI .l.! "' %1 :::. =!,l1 :::. ! ---- =i11 .« Dike structure. Fig. t KoncrpyKUH• .nBM6. PHc I Fig 5-9: Design principle of the strengthening of the existing dikes and new dikes . -· .... -· ... ·-· ... _. ... ·,--- ... ·-----·. ·-· ... . ··--- .. \-1··-- .. , 1-1 LAYOUT nnAH Fig 5-10: Design principle of dike crossing point. 111 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Table 5-3: Planned flood protection measures and conditions of existing structures Km from Objects to be protected Need for measures N2 Shardara I Present conditions of Name (Remarks based on site (Priority: 0 - no, 3 - Unit Q-ty object cross dike I of riverbed visit highest) section ID I 1513 - Aksai , Birlik, irrigation See site specific information See site specific information Strengthening of the 1518 network and irrigated areas below! below! existing dike between the 148_7. 9 - (No relevance for indicated km 29.0 5,6,8 Syrdarya river and Left- 1501.3 villages) th . m 3 3417.9 bank Canal "LMK" - (3 sites) 1467 - 1476.7 (Protection of village North of Alseyt road If necessary, strengthening Bekarystan bi, protection of existing dike rather road of dike immediately along in large sections dam , not immediately along canal , continue dike around abandoned or fallow rice canal , separate canal bank the rice fields at their 1513 - Strengthening of the fields like dike. immediate boundary 1518 I existing dike between the without inclusion of 5 Need and functionality of South of road Alseyt main Syrdarya river and Left- 18 - 19 uncultivated lands. part north of Alseyt-road to dike along canal bank Canal "LMK" be verified !) Not clear if village Bekarystanbi is under threat from this side. (1) (Left bank main canal and Dike indicated in Pre-FS not Strengthening and raising irrigated lands on its left functional , important is right at even level recommended Strengthen ing of the side) bank dike of LMK, for right bank dike of LMK, existing dike between the 1487.9 - overtopped and repa ired at reconstruction of dike in the · Syrdarya rive r and Left- 1501 .3/ 6 one site between #5 and #6 immediate floodplain (as in bank Canal "LMK" - (3 20 suggested in the Pre-FS sites) map) not acceptable (2) Strengthening of the Left bank main canal and Dike ind icated in Pre-FS not Local strengthening and 1467 - existing dike between the irrigated lands on its left functional , important is right raising at even level 1476.7 I 8 Syrdarya river and Left- side bank dike of LMK, recommended for right bank Canal "LMK" 23 + 24 overtopped and repaired bank dike of LMK (n_ o large scale investment), 112 , Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) reconstruction of dike in the immediate floodplain (as in the map) not acceptable. (2) Zhanazhol , International, Dike in satisfactory Concentrate strengthening Strengthening of the right- Akzhar, motor road and condition on sites where danger is bank dike on the right 1086.1 I irrigated areas proved . Routine 13(18); branch of LMK from km 21 .16 maintenance and local 3 13A Chainage 420 to Chainage 37 - 42 (No actual flood risk for th . m 1213.0 repair probably sufficient. 740+00 mentioned objects visible.) (0) 113 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) 5.3.3. Without project case The Geomorphological character of the Syrdarya floodplain is that of a depositional river characterized by meanders. The river in this kind of regime has, in the case of high water and flood , the tendency to deposit its sediment load close to the river, forming natural dikes or levees. Thus the river is continually building up its own bed . A cross-section of the floodplain would show the river is riding mostly on the most elevated part of it. In a natural state the river in case of hjgh water would break its natural dike and inundate the adjacent floodplain and depressions. The Syrdarja floodplain shows exactly that character. In effect, in case of flood excess water would flow away from the river following a natural gradient and inundate lands beyond without coming back to the river. This is very well demonstrated by the images provided by Radarsat (fig . 5-11) on which the hypothetical flood levels are mentioned. It is clear that the further away from the river, the lower the level plain, and therefore more potential level of flooding 11,370,000 tt ,lll0,000 11 ,380,000 11_..oo,000 11.•10,000 11 ,'20,000 11 ,'30,000 ,,,..0 ,000 11,•50,000 11 ,tl0,000 Figure 5-11 : Hypothetical maximum flood levels in a 50 km corridor along the Syrdarya for Scenario 2 in the Kazalinsk area. The darker the color (range from 1.5 m to 10m) the higher the flood level. It can be clearly seen, that flood levels increase with growing distance from the natural levee of the river. Based on Radarsat Topography, Synas I river crossections and Synas II WMIS modelling Human Landuse requires protection from this kind of event, so already early during the construction of irrigation systems and human settlements protection dikes were an indispensable part. The analysis of the 'without project case" would therefore include the effect of present dikes. In the case of a dike overtopping or failure it can be assumed that most of the land lying beyond it will be affected by flood up to a considerable distance. This fact needs to be taken into account when analysing the economic effects of flood risk. (g) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system ' - 1 1 W I I - · 1111'-"1 IUoAI I I I If"''-"'-"' I ""'"""'-""""'""' 11'-"11 .. The Syrdarya River and its floodplain are naturally characterized by regular high discharges, resulting in overtopping of the riverbanks and flooding of the floodplains. Before the implementation of the large scale irrigation schemes and the construction of water reservoirs on the river's upper courses floods occurred during the late spring I early summer, determined by the melting of snow in the high altitudes of the river basin. With the increasing withdrawal of water for irrigation purposes and the buffering of flow variation by reservoirs summer flooding became a rare exception. Since the change of operation mode of the Naryn cascade, the largest reservoir cascade , to winter power generation mode high winter discharges resulting in floods became typical for the lower reaches of the Syrdarya River. Until 2004 ·significant proportions or excess water for flood prevention purposes have been released into the Aydar-Arnasay depression in Uzbekistan . This flood release option is not longer available for various reasons (capacity of the lake system completely used , irrigation dams constructed in the Arnasay, political interest to use water for Aral Sea maintenance and other environmental and economic purposes instead of irreversible spillage.). In the result winter floods are now a common phenomenon in the .Syrdarya floodplains . At present, Koksarai counter regulator will allow shifting the period of high water from winter to the vegetation period. The impacts of high discharges for the river and the floodplains are complex and difficult to predict. Due to formation of the ice cover the carrying capacity of the river is affected due to the increased flow resistance . This results in an increased water level in order to convey what is being released . As the ice cover thickens and develops further the water level keeps increasing. The effect on the carrying capacity of the ice cover is thus highly depending_ on the dynamics of the ice cover development. In addition to this the discharge it self will have an effect on the formation of the ice cover: For high discharges/velocities a full ice cover can not be formed and a canal with a free water surface will be formed. When this occurs the ice will induce less friction as compared to situation with a full ice cover. Due to this phenomenon higher discharges can lead to lower water levels. The impact of the "without project case" on the hydrology is difficult to predict and varies for different locations. Areas without flood protection dikes serve as extension space for the river and can thus reduce flood problems in downstream areas. Depending on the relief situation water flows back as the river discharge decreases or remains in the flooded areas. For the sites where dikes already exist no documentation about past and current flood situations is available. Some dikes have been locally damaged and even overtopped during the last years. All these sites have been repaired . The risk for new damages cannot be assessed by the available information. However, it can be expected that regular maintenance will minimize flooding of areas inside the dikes. Where such areas are flooded the backflow into the river is often blocked by the dikes. This leads to an extension of the flood period if no structures for release of water are built in. (h) Impacts on water quality The impact on water quality of the "without project case" is minor. No industrial objects are located in the potentially flooded areas and thus no risk of contamination with hazardous chemicals exists. During flood events erosion is increased leading to a higher sediment load than under average conditions . On the other hand flooding of large areas slows down low velocity and leads to a higher sedimentation rate of particles carried by the river. Thus total sediment load of the river is reduced . (i) Impacts on atmospheric air No impact on atmospheric air can be predicted under the without project case. U) Impact on soils Floods are an integral part of gee-morphological and soil formation processes in natural floodplains. Flooding allows sedimentation of loams in the floodplain. Under good drainage conditions it leaches salts while under poor drainage it can cause salinization . All these processes can take place in the areas influenced by floods under the "without project case". Further this case preserves the in some extent the natural gee-morphological dynamics, in particular riverbank erosion and accumulation. These processes are essential for the floodplain ecosystems. 115 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) (k) Impact on biodiversity The Syrdarya River and its floodplains have lost much of its biodiversity during the last five decades. This loss concerns at the first place the landscapes and ecosystem types . Those depending on the river dynamics were transformed in a large scale and disappeared over large areas. The entire complex of tugai ecosystems, including reeds, meadows, shrublands and forests was reduced by size and degraded in its ecosystem functions and diversity. Large areas became temporary used for agriculture and once been abandoned need long periods for fragmentary rehabilitation . The number of animal species depending on healthy river ecosystems dropped and the dominance of various plant species shifted. In particular, the characteristic tree species of Central Asian floodplain ecosystems, the turanga poplars, almost disappeared. In the "without project case" remnants of natural biodiversity in floodplain areas so far not divided from the river, would remain . In areas where dikes no longer fulfill their functions the ongoing rehabilitation or formation of secondary ecosystems will continue. Flooded agricultural lands further present in spring time resting sites for waterfowls and waders . This compensates in some extent losses of resting sites due to the degradation of the Aral Sea and the flooding of the delta area caused by the increase of the NAS water level. A negative aspect from a biodiversity point of view is the currently not natural timing of high discharge and floods. Out of season flooding adversely affects ecosystems and species adapted to the natural flood regime: This problem concerns , for instance plants (as the turanga poplar) requiring timely flooding for generative rejuvenation, birds adapted in their breeding seasonality to the floods, as well as many invertebrates. The implementation of the project measures would even increase this environmental problem as it would further reduce flooded areas and flood frequency. (I) Impact on human environment In the context of the feasibility study human environment includes property as well as land-use and impact on health. Under the "without project case" no direct threat for human live exists. Floods are in its extent, intensity and suddenness not really dangerous for human beings. The long river course provides enough time for evacuation of people as well as their mobile property even in extreme high flood situations. Flooding and riverbank erosion can threaten infrastructure. High and very dynamic floods may even destroy regulating infrastructures and canal embankments. At several sites without the project local overtopping of dikes, where these are too low may occur. In the result the ·flooding of agricultural land will occur. In the case of pasture lands and abandoned fields which make up a large proportion this flooding seems to be negatively perceived by local people and water managers, but no real economic damage is caused. Where arable lands are flooded this causes diverse problems. Fields can remain wet for extended periods, preventing cultivation and in some cases causing salinization. These problems basically occur on poorly drained lands and on areas where no structures for release of the water exist. As irrigated fields need leaching and this leaching in other areas is exactly done during the months January till March an adaptation of the agricultural technology in flood risk areas might be thinkable. No physical cultural property will be affected by the "without project case" because, as far as visible without detailed flood modelling maps, all relevant sites (graveyards, mausoleums, ancient cities) are located at higher elevations and are not affected by floods Conclusion: The "without project case" is from an environmental point of view always to be preferred against flood protection measures. But as human settlements and infrastructure need to be protected, the preferred solution in the frame of SYNAS-11 and beyond should be a timing of high discharge and flooding in accordance to the natural flow dynamics. Flood protection of human property would be better achieved by local , specific protection of threatened objects, .temporary or permanent relocation of valuable property and adaptation of land-use. -·I. II-·" I·-·, .._, II 0.,...--.. I . _ .... _ _ _ ,I·-·'" I II ___ II,_,,, __ II/ 5.3.4 Environmental Impact during Construction (g) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system No impacts on the hydrology are expected during the construction of flood protection dikes other · activities planned under the sub-project. · (h) Impact on water quality Water contamination by pollutants during the construction phase can be caused by leaking machinery and fuel and lubricant storage. The observation of all applicable rules on maintenance and safety will minimize this risk. Other foreseeable impacts of the subproject on water quality are insignificant. (i) Impacts on atmospheric air Dust emissions from earth movement and transportation and the exhaust fumes from machinery will cause local air pollution. This impact is limited in time and space. U) Impacts on soils Soil contamination by pollutants during the construction phase can be caused by leaking machinery and fuel and lubricant storage. Such contamination may not affect large areas. Any soil pollution is to avoid by observation of the applicable maintenance and safety requirements. The sub-project will require the utilization of significant areas of land. : 50 , 16 km of dike strengthening of estimated 10 m width , i.e. 50, 16 ha; Borrow pits for in total 2.023 million m3 ; the required area at depth of 2 m would be 101.3 ha, at depth 10 m - 20.23 ha; So far no sites for borrow pits have been identified for material supply for the construction of the dikes. The principle drawing shows that borrow areas will be parallel to the newly constructed dikes, outside of the dike. The sub-project in its full extent would cause destruction of natural soils at an area of approximately 151 ,5 ha. The areas size might be considered being not very significant compared to the total area of influence of the sub-projects. However the impact is relevant as it is not concentrated on one point but distributed over a large area , the entire Syrdarya Floodplain is already heavily disturbed by past earth works and the impact is in some extent avoidable as not all planned measures are actually well justified. Finally the relevance of the impact on soils during the construction phase largely depends on the specific site selection during the detailed design stage. (k) Impacts on biodiversity In areas where already existing dikes are to be strengthened this impact concerns mainly ecologically flexible species which have established after the construction of the respective dikes. Observations at recently finalized construction sites (riverbed straightening under SYNAS-1 and older construction areas (area at Kazalinsk barrage, first kilometers between Syrdarya River and LMK) and indicate that regeneration of vegetation at heavily disturbed sites can be problematic. Extensive construction work, spread over large areas adversely affects biodiversity in a much larger scale than just at the project sites. Damage will be caused by access roads, fuel wood cutting by construction workers , disturbance of wild animals and poaching. The Syrdarya floodplain is an important habitat of the pheasant, duck and geese species as well as waders. All of them are potential subject of poaching . The presence of a larger number of people increases the risk of wildfires, one of the most significant current factors threatening biodiversity and preventing natural regeneration of tugai woodlands and forests . (I) Impacts on human environment 117 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) Most of the planned construction sites are located far from villages and on extensively used areas. In these cases impacts of c~nstruction work on human environment will be insignificant At these sites temporary impacts include dust emissions, noise and impact on aesthetic value of the landscape The available information indicates that no physical cultural property will be affected by the project. Conclusion The most relevant impacts during the construction period concern soils and biodiversity. They are related to physical irreversible transformation of lands and its soils and habitats and to the disturbance of larger areas of influence. The minimizing of these impacts can be achieved by limitation of flood protection measures to those sites where they are unavoidable and by the planning of necessary measures in the vicinity of the objects to be protected. 5.3.5 Environmental impact during Operation (f) Impacts on the hydrology of the river system River embankments cut off parts of the floodplain from the river for avoiding of flooding . By this they reduce flood relief area and narrow the available discharge cross-section. This increases the flow speed and relocates flood problems to downstream areas. On the other hand the necessary flood is withheld from the floodplain. Under the current operation mode of the upstream reservoirs most floods are occurring out of the natural flood season. The prevention of these floods is the primary purpose of the planned subproject. However, the dikes are non-selective and prevent flood at any time, also during the natural flood season The objects # 5, 6, 8 in the form presented at the map would affect areas of about 2000 ha, where poorly functional or abandoned dikes have permitted a semi-natural hydrological regime which allowed the preservation or rehabilitation of floodplain ecosystems .. The objects # 13(18),13A would little change the present hydrological situation. (g) Impacts on water quality Foreseeable impacts of the subproject on water quality in the river are insignificant. Ground water mineralization can increase in the floodplain , divided from the river by dikes. (h) Impact on atmospheric air No impacts on air are expected from the subproject. (i) Impact on soils Lack of flooding and reduced ground water due to flood prevention and riverbed straightening will change the character of hydromorphic soils. The avoidance of flooding of ecosystems outside the irrigated arable lands can cause salinization due to lack of natural desalinization by flushing . Dryland soils accumulate less humus than these hydromorphic soils. Wetland soils, in particular peaty soils under reed (Phragmites australis) are important carbon sinks. Mineralization of accumulated humus occurs where peaty soils, developed under reeds , are drained and are exposed to air oxygen. This process leads to the emission of sequestrated carbon from the soil. U) Impact on biodiversity Strengthening and raising of the height of existing embankments changes the landscape in a limited and acceptable scale. Where new embankments or the strengthening and raising of the height of existing ones prevent flooding of natural and semi-natural floodplain ecosystems these are in a significant scale affected and succession towards other ecosystem types can be expected. Wetland vegetation will shift . towards drier meadows or forbs, solonchak vegetation or even towards secondary semi-desert. The lack of floods at the right season is the major reason preventing the rehabilitation of floodplain I 11u ..;n., II ,~,llU..:1 II/ forests (tugai). The most serious adverse impacts on floodplain vegetation are expected from the planned measures # 5, 6, 8. The flora and fauna of floodplains is adapted to regular flooding. If this is prevented the typical species diminish. The areas flooded during spring , including pieces of arable land , are during the spring migration used for resting by many waterfowl species and waders. The prevention of flooding of irrigation areas may cause the loss of these resting sites. The floodplain ecosystems are habitats for a rich diversity of nesting bird species. These species depend on the whole range of habitats, from bare sand banks, via meadows, forbs and reeds to shrub and woodlands , and wetlands and other floodplain habitat. Flooded reeds and grasslands are by many fishes used for spawning . The avoidance of flooding of such areas can negatively affect the reproduction of these fish species. (k) Impact on human environment The impact of improved flood protection on human health is in general considered positive because floods can cause health damage, directly and indirectly. This positive impact is only possible where actually threats to human health exist. As analysed under the "without project case" such a situation is very unlikely at the sub-project sites. The improvement of embankments has the purpose of maintaining the existing land-use opportunities on irrigated arable lands . The prevention of damage to irrigation and drainage infrastructure, of siltation of canals and collectors, the extension of the time available for maintenance of this infrastructure out of the vegetation period and the ensuring of accessibility (sufficiently dry soils) for tillage and cultivation are positive effects of improved dikes, protecting irrigated lands. As the objective of SYNAS-11 is not the extension but the maintenance of existing irrigated arable lands, dike strengthening or new dikes must not be justified by extension of irrigated arable lands or rehabilitation of long abandoned lands. In other areas (pastures, hay making areas, shrub land, woodland the embanking will have less positive impacts . Some regularly flooded are managed as liman for haymaking . Prevention of flooding would significantly reduce the productivity of these lands. The prevention of damages from built-up areas is without doubt positive. However, during the last decades the low river discharge encouraged the development of floodpla in areas for the construction of some buildings without consideration of the natural flood dynamics. Such ari inappropriate land-use should further be discouraged and not be supported by construction of embankments. In cases where a limited number of objects is concerned or these have already suffered from recent floods relocation might be the better option compared to expensive and not entirely reliable protection measures. The assessment so far did not show any objects were such relocation would be required . The expected protection of roads from flood damage for the consultant seemed to be not very obvious to be achieved by the proposed measures far away from the damaged objects. Local protection measures will more secure provide the expected protection . No physical cultural property will be affected by the operation of the project. 5.3.6 Impact in case of worst possible incident The worst case situation would be a local failure of the embankment during an extreme high flood , e.g. caused by upstream problems at Shardara reservoir (emergency spillage or failure). Such a situation probably cannot be entirely securely prevented by the sub-project because the embankments hardly can be dimensioned for the possible maximum flow (PMF) . An early warning and evacuation system will be needed for saving the live of people living in the potential flood zone. The first measure for such a warning and evacuation system would be the development of a spatial dynamic flood model for potentially critical zones. The available hydraulic model with 119 Feasibility study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II (Synas II) estimation of design water levels for different discharges still lakes a spatial component showing · and considering flood relief areas under different discharges. 5.3.7 Synergies with other subprojects The operation of Koksaray counter-regulator would allow avoiding regular floods during winter and would thus reduce the costs for sub-project execution. Local repair and regular maintenance of existing dikes at environmentally and economically useful locations protecting from extreme floods which cannot be controlled by the reservoirs would be sufficient.The realization of the alternative of spilling water into the Zhanadarya and via the Aksay canal would only mitigate the situation and winter floods may further regularly reach levels calling for higher embankments .. Conclusion Adverse environmental impacts concern the hydrology of the river and the floodplain, the geo- morphological dynamics and soil formation processes and the ecosystems and habitat value of the project's area of influence. In areas with still comparatively natural conditions these impacts are negative. In already intensively used lands they are acceptable. The operation can have some positive impacts on human environment, but in some sites even negative impacts on present land- use (hay making areas) are conceivable. Positive impacts on human environment can be achieved by adaptation of the locations and of the design of planned measures. The most critical objects in terms of environmental impacts of operation are strengthening of dikes located far from the protected canals. No specific information is available on the structures for spillage of water from flooded lands back to the river. These structures are expected to make existing dikes permeable for water in a regulated way and will without doubt have positive impacts on the key environmental components Conclusion about the environmental impact The impacts of the planned flood protection measures on hydrology, soils and biodiversity are largely negative or indifferent. Critical is the uncertainty about the need for and operational effects of most of the planned measures. Impacts on land-use opportunities are more positive but can encourage the continuation of inappropriate use of the natural retention areas in the floodplains . The sub-project only in a limited scale will contribute to the environmental revival of the NAS and the delta area, to the improvement of the overall environmental conditions in the KSB and to the improvement of overall water use efficiency in the basin . This contribution is mainly linked to the avoidance of emergency spillage into desert depressions where the water would be irreversibly lost. Impact assesement and environmental protection measures in the considered sub-project are given in the annex (Annex 1.3). Factors, sources, potential types of impact and environment components , on which the subproject exerts an influence , are given in the annex (Annex 2.3). Residuai impact after completion of measures are given in the annex (Annex 3.3) . 5.4 Construction of bridge near Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk district. Brief characteristic . The bridge have been analyzed to replace pontoon between Birlik (left bank) and Kazal insk (right bank) at the level of preparation of Feasibility Study. The existing pontoon bridge is not operational during ice periods for up to two months per year, and traffic is forced to use a detour of 40 km. Due to the limited weight capacity of the pontoon bridge and the ferry boat (3.5 - 5 t) all heavy traffic is year-round bound to the detours. This causes high costs especially for agricultural operations. The proposed bridge will be concrete bridges of a length of 264.69 m and a width of 10 + 2 x 0.75 m, i. e. 11 .5 m. The bridge is accompanied by dams at both sides of the river. The bridge will be connected by paved access roads of the category Ill , with a length of 3.0 km. The river canal at bridge can be widened up to 200 m and the site will not longer form barriers for the river discharge. .. ·. -----. -··----· ,.,~ r •• ~· I ·I-·. • 63.1 \ . ,.o. .·.. ~, \ ~ • • ..... . \ . C'! • • • • • \ •\ . . 11H058pell ( stations along the river discharge at the existing gauging ·s runoff .J in flood period stations along the river Remote sensing in Remote sensing. Processing and Space Research Specialists of institute' CWR Timing and spread area of flood weekly interval in flood analysis of results Institute departments period ~ical Flora -f With interval of one Determination and classification of Department of Field workers CWR rces j year after completion types of vegetation . The creation of vegetation of the construction catalogue of types of vegetation protection of the - 1 with photo. Ministry of ecology and bioresources Fauna With interval of one Determination and classification of Department of Field workers CWR year after completion habitant species of wild animals. wild animals of the construction Creation of catalogue of habitant protection of the - species of wild animals Ministry of ecology and bioresources Assessment of Managed by the Specialists of department CWR )- condition and value of Established standard assessment district authorities Prevented damage from omic infrastructure, methods for the respective and integrated at flooding irces protected by dikes infrastructure oblast level 136 . . ' " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Condition of the canal During operation Control and field observations Operation service Field workers C\ straightening the meander and period of the object other hvdraulic structures , - r . - - - ' ? - • - 137 - < - < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Table 6-3: Environment monitoring program for the sub-project "Construction of flood protection dikes in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi sistricts of Kzylorda oblast Accou Period/ tegory Subject Plan and methodology Organization Performers ntabili frequency ty .ruction period Technogenic disturbances of During the Construction of protection dikes in CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR soil covering construction period Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts of control the construction Kzylorda oblast. Recultivation of disturbed lands. Use of heavy construction During the Monitoring for the use of heavy CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR equipment and machines construction period equipment in order to prevent soil control the construction compaction . Possible soil contamination by During the Control over the storage and usage CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR fuel and lubricants construction period of fuel and lubricants in t~e project control the construction area ~ical Nuisance of wild animals due to During the Field investigations Ministry of Workers of department of CWR rces construction . construction period Environmental wild animals protection Protection . Risk of leakage of fuel and During the Control over the usage of fuel and CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR rces lubricants to the soils construction period lubricants in the project area control the construction )nment Collection of construction waste After completion of Control over waste collection CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR after completion of construction construction works control the construction works Dust During the Prevention of dust generation during CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR construction period earthworks and during transportation control the construction 138 . • . · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) . Operation period Soils Monitoring of water-physical soil 1 time in 5 years 1. Selection of the monitoring object KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , C\ properties on lands, protected and location . Lands, protected by sampling will be made by by dikes (selectively) dikes (selectively). 2. Soil samling field workers from genetic horizon at the depth of 2 m. Laboratory analyses. Processing and analysis of results Monitoring of soil salinization on 3 times per year Soil samling from genetic horizon KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , C\ lands, protected by dikes ( at the depth of 2 m. Laboratory sampling will be made by selectively ) analyses. Processing and .analysis field workers of results Monitoring for the content of 1 time per year Soil sampling from top layer for KIONPCzem Field workers KIONPCzem C\ heavy metals , pesticides laboratory investigations .. and farmers herbicides of soils Processing and analysis of results . on lands, protected by dikes (selectively) At the existing gauging Field measurements of water RSE «Kazhydrom Specialists of departments C\ ' stations along the discharges at the existing gauging et» of RSE «Kazhydromet» river, and where stations , and where missing , at Surface Runoff and volume of surface missing , at additional additional gauging stations waters runoff gauging staions in the flood period . Daily measurements Remote sensing with Remote sensing . Processing and Space Research Specialists of institute C\ Timing and spread area of flood weekly interval in the analysis of results Institute departments flood period Managed by the Specialists of departments C\ district authorities Areas of different land and integrated at Damage from floods , caused to use types: sown Established standard statistic oblast level land use, infrastructure and arable lands, fallow methods verified by remote sensing Support by KIO property land , haymaking areas, pastures NPCzem or Spacr Research Institute 139 - - - - - - - .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental .Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 1ical Flora With interval of one Determination and classification of Department of Field workers ( CWR rces year after completion types of vegetation. The creation of vegetation J of the construction catalogue of types of vegetation protection of the - ,. with photo . . Ministry of I ecology and c bioresources Fauna With interval of one Determination and classification of Department of Field workers CWR year after completion habitant species of wild animals. wild animals of the construction Creation of catalogue of habitant protection of the species of wild animals Ministry of - ecology and bioresources Economic losses due to Managed by the ; CWR Economic damage from flooding delayed or prevented I - cultivation of arable lands Established standard assessment district authorities of arable lands and destruction and integrated at J >mic Assessment of condition methods for the respective Specialists of departments of state infrastructure and and values of oblast level rces infrastructure property 1 infrastructure under the - threat of floodini:i Assessment of Managed by the Specialists of departments CWR conditions and value of district authorities Established standard assessment Prevented damage from infrastructure, and integrated at 1 methods for the respective flooding protected by dikes obla'st level ' infrastructure Condition of dikes and other During operation Control and field observations Operation service The workers of service CWR hydraulic structures period of the object 140 " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas 11) Table 6-4: Environment monitoring program for the sub-project "Construction of motor bridge near Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk district of Kzylorda oblast At Period/ Category Subject Plan and methodology Organization Performers n1 ( frequency Construction period Soils Technogenic disturbances of During the Construction of motor bridge near CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ soil covering ( construction period Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk district control the construction of Kzylorda oblast. Recultivation of disturbed lands. Use of heavy construction During the Monitoring for the use of heavy CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ equipment and machines construction period equipment in order to prevent soil control the construction compaction Possible soil contamination by During the Control over the the storage andf CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ fuel and lubricants construction period usage of fuels and l~bricants in the control the construction project area 3 Biological Nuisance of wild animals due to During the Field investigations Ministry of Workers of department of C\ resources construction . construction period Environmental wild animals protection I - Protection - Water Risk of leakage of fuel and During the Control over the usage of fuel and CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ resources 1 lubricants to the soils construction period lubricants in the project area control the construction ' Environment Collection of construction waste After completion of the Control over waste 9ollection CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ after completion of construction construction works \{ control the construction works - Dust During the Prevention of dust generation during CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ construction period eart~works and during transportation control the construction - Operation period Soils Monitoring of water-physical 1 time in 5 years 1. Selection of the monitoring object KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , · C\ soil properties on areas, and location . Lands, adjacent to the sampling will be made by adjacent to the bridge bridge (selectively) .- 2. Soil samling field workers by ? (selectively) from genetic horizon at the depth of KIONPCzem - c 2 m. Laboratory analyses. Processing and analysis of results r I• 141 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Monitoring for the content of 1 time in 5 years Soil sampling from top layer for KIONPCzem Field workers of CWR heavy metals , contaminants on laboratory investigations .. KIONPCzem areas, adjacent to the bridge Processing and analysis of results. (selectively) At the existing Field measurements of water RSE Specialists of department of CWR :::e Runoff and volume of surface gauging stations along discharges at the existing gauging «Kazhydromet » RSE «Kazhydromet » 5 rur:ioff the river in flood period stations Remote sensing with Remote sensing .Processing and Space Research Specialists of institute Timing and spread area of flood weekly interval in flood analysis of results Institute departments period 1ical Flora 1 time in 5 years Determination and classification of Department .of Field workers CWR rces types of vegetation with photo vegetation protection of the Ministry of ecology and bioresources Fauna 1 time in 5 years Determination and classification of Department of Filed workers CWR habitant species of wild animals . wild animals protection of the Ministry of ecology and bioresources - Monitoring of intensity of road One year after It is kept the record of vehicles Department of Workers of department CWR >mic traffic via bridge . completion of the passing over the bridge by periods passenger rces construction, then of the year. Assessment of the transport and every 3-5 years effectiveness of measures motor roads of Kzylorda oblast Condition of the bridge and During operation Control and field observations Operation service CWR other hydraulic structures period of the object 142 . . .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Table 6-5: Environment monitoring program for the sub-project "Rehabilitation of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau lake systems A< Period/ Category Subject Plan and methodology Organization Performers nt frequency Construction period Soils Technogenic disturbances of During the Construction of barrage, dikes, CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ soil covering construction period roads and canals. Recultivation of control the construction disturbed lands. Use of heavy construction During the Monitoring for the use of heavy CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ equipment and machines construction period equipment in order to prevent soil control the construction compaction . Possible soil contamination by During the Control over the storage and usage CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ fuel and lubricants construction period of fuels and lubricants in the project control the construction area Biological Nuisance of wild animals due to During the Field investigations Ministry of Workers of department of C\ resources construction . construction period Environmental wild animals protection Protection Water Risk of leakage of fuel and During the Control over the usage of fuels and CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ resources lubricants to the soils construction period lubricants in the project area control the construction Environment Collection of construction waste After completion of Control over waste collection CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ after completion of c:onstruction construction works control the construction works Dust During the Prevention of dust generation during CWR Engineers inspectors, who C\ construction period earthworks and during transportation control the construction Operation period Soils Monitoring of water-physical soil 1 time in 5 years 1. Selection of the monitoring object KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , C\ properties at stationary and location(stationary ecological sampling will be made by ecological site site) . 2. Soil samling from genetic field workers horizon at the depth of 2 m. Laboratory analyses. Processing .. and analvsis of results )• 143 - - - - - - · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Monitoring of soil salinization at 3 times per year Soil samling from genetic horizon at KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , CWR stationary ecological site the depth of 2 m. Laboratory sampling will be made by analyses. Processing and analysis field workers of results Monitoring for the content of 1 time per year Soil sampling from top layer for KIONPCzem Field workers of CWR heavy metals , pesticides laboratory investigations .. KIONPCzem and farmers herbicides of soils at stationary Processing and analysis of results ecological site ce Volume of surface runoff At barrage -every day Field measurements on gauging Operational Specialists of department CWR s in automatic regime stations along the river and service of barrage Amanotkel barrage, as well as water intakes , water-supply canals pH, temperature , electrical Each decade in flood Field measurements on gauging Hydrogeological Specialists of departments CWR conductivity, period stations along the river and melorative of water clarity. Amanotkel barrage, as well as water expedition hydrogeological rpelorative intakes , water-supply canals) expedition Salinity, Na , K, Ca, Mg , Cl, 3 times during flood Water sampling at gauging stations, Hydrogeological Specialists of departments CWR HC03, N, NH4 , P, S04, N02, period equipped on the river. The analyses melorative of N03, oil products are conducted in laboratory expedition hydrogeological melorative conditions. expedition Microelements: Cu, Zn, Mn , Ni, 3 times during flood Water sampling at gauging stations, Hydrogeological Specialists of departments CWR Pb, Fe, Cr, F, Cd , Co, Hg , period equipped on the river. The analyses melorative of biotesting , bacteriological are conducted in laboratory expedition hydrogeological melorative analysis conditions. expedition ~ical Flora With interval of one Determination and classification of Department of Field workers CWR 1 rces year after completion types of vegetation . The creation of vegetation of the construction catalogue of types of vegetation protection of the with photo. Ministry of ecology and bioresources Fauna With interval of one Determination and classification of Depart_m ent of Field workers CWR year after completion habitant species of wild animals wild animals of the construction Creation of catalogue of habitant protection of the species of wild animals Ministry of ecology and . bioresources 144 . · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Socio- Monitoring of use of pesticides One year after the The sampling is made in the period Republican and Field workers C\ economic and heavy metals and its completion of of ageing from cash crops; analysis regional resources residual quantity in organisms construction , then - of pesticides, nitrates , The same veterinary and crops milk and meat of applies to fish laboratories, animals , fishes is regional and studied every 3-5 district sanitary years, vegetable · and products are studied epidemiological on annually basis stations Condition of barrage, dikes, During operation Control and field observations Operation service C\ canals and other hydraulic period of the object structures I 145 - - . - - . - . - ~ · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea :nvironmental Impact Assessment . Project Phase II (Synas II) rab/e 6-6: Environment monitoring program for the sub-project "Reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at Tastak site of Kamuishlibash fish hatchery in Aralsk listrict of Kzylorda oblast Accou Period/ :!gory Subject Plan and methodology Organization Performers ntabili frequency ty ·uction period Technogenic disturbances of During the Reconstruction and extension of CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR soil covering construction period fishery ponds at Tastak site of control the construction Kamuishlibash fishery ponds in Aralsk district of Kzylorda oblast Recultivation of disturbed lands .. Use of heavy construction During the Monitoring for the use of heavy CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR equipment and machines construction period equipment in order to prevent soil control the construction compaction Possible soil contamination by During the Control over the storage and usage CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR fuel and lubricants construction period of fuel and lubricants in the project control the construction area ical Nuisance of wild animals due to During the Field investigations Ministry of Workers of department of CWR es construction. construction period Environmental wild animals protection Protection .1e Risk of leakage of fuel and During the Control over the usage of fuel and CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR :;bl lubricants to the soils construction period lubricants in the project area control the construction nment Collection of construction waste After completion of Control over the waste collection CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR after completion of construction construction works control the construction works Dust During the Prevention of dust generation during CWR Engineers inspectors, who CWR construction period earthworks and during transportation control the construction 146 ' " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Operation period Soils Monitoring of water physical soil 1 time per year 1. Selection of the monitoring object KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , C\ properties on the territory of fish and location. Territory of fish sampling will be made by hatchery hatchery 2. Soil samling from field workers genetic horizon at the depth of 2 m. Laboratory analyses. Processing and analysis of results MonitC!ring of soil salinization on 1 time per year Soil samling from genetic horizon KIONPCzem Laboratory analyses , C\ the territory of fish hatchery at the depth of 2 m. Laboratory sampling will be made by analyses. Processing and analysis field workers of results Monitoring for the content of 1 time per year Soil sampling from top layer for KIONPCzem Field workers KIONPCzem C\ heavy metals , pesticides laboratory investigations .. and farmers herbicides on the territory of Processing and analysis of results. fish hatchery Surface Volume of abstracted and Constantly at water Measurements at water intake, and Operational Specialists of departments C\ waters released surface runoff intake outlet ditches service of fish hatchery pH , temperature, electrical Constantly Measurements at water intake, and Operational Specialists of departments C\ conductivity, outlet ditches service of fish water clarity. hatchery Salinity, Na, K, Ca, Mg , Cl , Constantly Water sampling in fishery ponds. Operational Specialists of departments C\ HC03, N, NH4, P, S04 , N02, Analyses are made in laboratory service of fish N03, oil products. conditions hatchery Microelements: Cu , Zn, Mn , Ni, Constantly Water sampling in fishery ponds .. Operational Specialists of departments C\ Pb, Fe, Cr, F, Cd , Co, Hg, Analyses are made in laboratory service of fish biotesting , bacteriological conditions. hatchery analysis Biological Flora With interval of one . Determination and classification of Department of Field workers C\ resources year after the types of vegetation . The creation of vegetation completion of the catalogue of types of vegetation protection of the construction with photo. Ministry of ecology and bioresources 147 -· - - - - - - · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Fauna With interval of one Determination and classification of Department of Field workers CWR year after completion habitant species of wild animals wild animals of the construction Creation of catalogue of habitant protection of the - species of wild animals Ministry of ecology and bioresources - . Monitoring of use of pesticides One year after the The sampling is made in the period Republican and Field workers CWR 1mic and heavy metals and its completion of of ageing from cash crops; analysis regional rces residual quantLty in fish construction , then - of pesticides, nitrates veterinary organisms E meat of fishes is laboratories, 1 studied every 3 years, regional and district sanitary and - epidemiological stations Condition of water intake, dikes, During operation Control and field observations Operation service CWR fishery ponds, -canals and other period of the obje hydraulic structures 148 6v~ S3X3NNV I - __ ,. - \ ~ - - - - r . " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II} Annex 1.1 - Impact assessment and environmental protection measures for the sub-project "Reconstruction of left bank offtake- regulator at Kzylorda barrage " ... ... (,) CJ Influencing Affected Type and character of the impact (expected) Possible result of Measures to prevent or .!.o ~ Secondary mitigate negative .c E element factor Main impact impact 0 ·- impact impact Reconstruction of left bank Quality of Dust generation , Visibility worsening , Worsening of health Minimization of non- ..... offtake-regulator, sections of atmospheric increase of salt content especially in windy status of people in regulated field motor "(ij u access roads . Organization air ' weather; the affected area , roads and prevention of ·;:::: Q) of temporary field camps ; Emissions of pollutants Dust deposition and salt allergi.c reaction , fracturing of sor .r:. movement of transport and into atmosphere settling on vegetation and impact on vision solonchaks surface; a. en construction machinery deterioration of processes 0 E +-' of breathing and Maintenance equipment <( photosynthesis; in working order . ...-- Worsening of people and animal breathinQ . Reconstruction of left bank Structure of Cutting of top fertile soil Disturbance of soils' Loss of natural Cutting and stockpilling offtake-regulator, sections of soil cover and layer, mixing of soil natural structure and soil conditions for of top fertile soil layers , O> access roads . Organization soil horizon horizons, soil cover, development of vegetation growing especially alluvial soils c ·;:::: of temporary field camps ; compaction along the erosion and deflation, and animal living , with the subsequent Q) > movement of transport and routes and motor roads chemical pollution (fuel especially burrowing placing back at 0 u construction machinery and loosening on and lubricants etc.) animals, formation of disturbed areas, - ·a waysides sections with regulation of Cl) truncated soil and transport and C\i deflations on sands machinery traffic, especially on soils with light mechanical content Reconstruction of left bank Quality of Local turbidity and Temporary deterioration Temporary worsening Prohibition of car and ..... en Q) offtake-regulator, sections of surface waters pollution by techn ical of habitat conditions of of plenty, productivity other machinery Q) u ..... access roads . Organization and domestic wastes, water flora and fauna and typical diversity washing in natural water ~ ("I") ::i 0 en of temporary field camps ; fuel and lubricants of water flora and bodies and rivers Q) ..... movement of transport and fauna construction machinery 150 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II} Reconstruction of left bank Types of flora and Destruction of Decrease of bio-diversity Replacement of Prohibition of chaotic offtake-regulator, sections of fauna , natural vegetation and at construction site, loss natural vegetation traffic, mimimization of access roads . Organization vegetation cover, habitats of some of habitats of some communities by section of soil cutting and co of temporary field camps ; places of animal species at species of animals secondary rarefied excavation , restriction of 0 iii movement of transport and habitation of wild the construction groups of weed light and noise impacts. ~ construction machinery animals site or transport species , the loss of passage , habitat of some frightening of animal species animals locally . ·;:: Opeartion of left bank Quality of Impact on Impact on atmospheric Impact on Restriction of traffic near (]) a. . . . offtake-regulator atmospheric air atmospheric air is air is not expected . atmospheric air is not weir (/) ·- i.ri 0 co not expected . expected . (positive) . Eu :;{ Opeartion of left bank Physical-chemical No additional Impact on soil cover is Impact on soil cover Minimazation of soil cover' 0) offtake-regulator soil properties and impacts will arise not expected is not expected disturbance and c ·;:: structure of soil during operation (positive) contamination (]) cover > of the object in 0 (.) comparison with ·a (j) the existing u:i situation 151 "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Opeartion of left bank Hydrological, Updated offtake- Impact on quality of Impact on quality of The measures are foreseen offtake-regulator hydro-chemical regulator allow water is not expected in water in the river is to prevent water and thermal the river not expected contaminatiion from supplying water (/) regimes (positive) . hydromechanical Q) u imely and equipment of offtake- L.. ::J regularly to LMC regulator . 0 (/) Q) L.. in order to avoid L.. excessive ..... Q) ~ irrigation leading to swamp r-...: I formation and salinization ' Opeartion of left bank Flora, fauna, Sub-project would Impact on quality of water Impact on quality of Prohibition of cutting of offtake-regulator vegetation cover , not lead to is not expected in the water in the river is trees and bushes in the areas of wild river not expected area of offtake-regulator . animals' habitat changes in the (positive) . landscape, or to changes in natural and cultural ecosystems, it is ro ..... 0 not expected any a:i I 00 . significant impact on the flora and fauna as the site and the area of influence has I been already transformed 152 "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 1.2 - Impact assessment and environmental protection measures for the sub-project " Syrdarya river bed straighening at Korgansha and Turumbet sections in Zhalagash district of Kzylorda oblast .... Type and character of the impact 0 .. (expected) .. u Possible result of Measures to prevent or Influencing Q) "' u Q. Affected factor :s' E element Secondary impact impact mitigate negative impact o·- Main impact I I Syrdarya river bed Quality of Dust generation , Visibility~ worsening , Worsening of health Minimization of non- '-- straightening at sections, atmospheric air increase of salt especially in windy status of people in regulated field motor roads co construction of sections of content , weather; the affected area , and prevention of <..) ·;:: Q) access roads. Organization Emissions of Dust deposition and salt allergic reaction , fracturing of sor ..c of temporary field camps ; pollutants into settling 'on vegetation impact on vision solonchaks surface 0.. en movement of transport and atmosphere and deterioration of 0 E ·construction machinery processes of breathing Maintenance equipment in :;{ working order and photosynthesis; ..- Worsening of people and animal breathing Syrdarya river bed Structure of soil Cutting of top Failure of natural soil Loss of natural Cutting and stockpilling of straightening at sections, cover and soil fertile soil layer, structure and soil cover, conditions for top fertile soil horizons, Ol c construction of sections of horizon mixing of soil development of erosion vegetation growing especially alluvial soils with ·;:: Q) access roads. Organization horizons,soil and deflation, chemical and animal living , their subsequent placing 0 > of temporary field camps ; compaction along pollution (fuel and especially burrowing back at disturbed areas, <..) - movement of transport and the routes and lubricants etc.) animals, formation of regulation of transport and ·5 (/) construction machinery motor roads and sections with machinery traffic, loosening on ! truncated soil and especially on soils with light N waysides deflations on sands mechanical content I Syrdarya river bed Quality of surface Local turbidity Tempo ~ary worsening of Decrease of plenty, Prohibition of car and en straightening at sections, waters and pollution by habitat conditions of productivity and other machinery washing '-- Q) ..... Q) <..) construction of sections of technical and water flora and fauna typical diversity of in natural water bodies and '-- ~ C') ::::l 0 en access roads. Organization of temporary field camps ; domestic wastes, fuel and lubricants water flora and fauna rivers Q) '-- movement of transport and construction machinery 153 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Syrdarya river bed Types of flora and Destruction of Decrease of bio-diversity Replacement of Prohibition of chaotic straightening at sections, fauna , natural vegetation and at construction sites, loss natural vegetation traffic, mimimization of construction of sections of vegetation cover, habitats of some of habitats of some communities by section of soil cutting and ro ...... access roads . Organization places of animal species at species of animals secondary rarefied excavation , restriction of 0 en of temporary field camps ; habitation of wild the construction groups of weed light and noise impacts. ~ movement of transport and animals site or transport species, locally the construction machinery passage , loss of habitat, of frightening of some animal species animals ·;:: Operation of section Quality of Impact on Impact on atmospheric Impact on Restriction of traffic along Q) a. ..... straightened river-bed atmospheric air atmospheric air is air is not expected • atmospheric air is dikes en ·- i.c.i o ro not expected . not expected E u (positive) . ~ Operation of section Physical-chemical The nature of Planned river bed The nature of Minimazation of soil cover' straightened river-bed soil properties and hydromorphic straightening would lead hydromorphic soils disturbance and O'> c structure of soil soils will be will be changed . contamination ·;:: cover changed . to full stop of natural (neagtive) Q) > 0 geomorphological u dynamics of erosion and ·5 Cf) accumulation in cci meanders Operation of section Hydrological, Reduction of Straigthening of Impact on quality of Minimization of straightened river-bed hydro-chemical inundated areas of meanders, reducing water is insignificant disturbance and en and thermal flood plains contamination of water Q) regimes natural dynamics of resources u ..... :J floods and 0 en Q) geomorphological ..... ..... procceses in the Q) ~ floodplain would r-...: deteriorate water supply conditions 154 ' . · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Operation of section Flora, fauna , Planned river bed Natural habitas will be Prevention of straightened river-bed vegetation cover , would have a transformed . There is no overflow of floodplain Prohibition of cutting of areas of wild economically important area can have a trees and bushes in the cu negative impact 0 animals' habitat flora and fauna in the negative impact on area of meanders ro on typical river project area . reproduction of flora cO landscape and fauna I ) I 155 - - - - - " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 1.3 - Impact assessment and environmental protection measures for the sub-project "Construction of flood protection dikes m Kazalins and Karmakchi districts of Kzylorda oblast " Type and character of the impact (expected) Influencing Affected Possible result of Measures to prevent or element factor Main impact Secondary impact impact mitigate negative impact Construction of Quality of Dust generation , Visibility worsening Worsening of health Minimization of non-regulated ...._ protection dikes , atmospheric increase of salt content especially in windy status of people in field motor roads and prevention "(ii (.) sections of acces air ' weather; the affected area, of fracturing of sor solonchaks ·;:: a.> roads . Emissions of pollutants Dust deposition and salt allergic reaction , surface ..c Organization of into atmosphere settling on vegetation and impact on vision a.. (/) 0 temporary field deterioration of processes Maintenance equipment in E camps ; movement of breathing and working order . ~ of transport and photosynthesis; construction Worsening of people and machinery animal breathing Construction of Structure of Cutting of top fertile soil Disturbance of soil Loss of natural Cutting and stockpiling of top protection dikes , soil cover and layer, mixing of soil s'natural structure and soil conditions for fertile soil horizons, especially 0) c sections of access soil horizon horizons,soil cover, development of vegetation growing alluvial soils with their ·;:: a.> roads . compaction along the erosion and deflation, and animal living subsequent placing back at > 0 Organization of routes and motor roads chemical pollution (fuel especially burrowing disturbed areas, regulation of (.) temporary field and loosening on and lubricants etc.) animals, formation of transport and machinery traffic , camps ; movement waysides sections with especially on soils with light of transport and truncated soil and mechanical content construction deflations on sands machinery Construction of Quality of Local turbidity and Temporary worsening of Decrease of plenty , Prohibition of car and other (/) a.> protection dikes , surface waters pollution by technical habitat conditions of water productivity and machinery washing in natural e :::J sections of access and domestic wastes, flora and fauna typical diversity of water bodies and rivers 0 roads. fuel and lubricants water flora and fauna (/) ~ Organization of temporary field camps ; movement of transport and construction machinery 156 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Construction of protection Types of flora and Destruction of Decrease of bio-diversity Replacement of Prohibition of chaotic dikes , sections of access fauna, natural vegetation and at construction sites, loss natural vegetation traffic, mimimization of roads. Organization of vegetation cover, habitats of some of habitats of some communities by section of soil cutting and temporary field camps ; ·places of animal species at species of animals secondary rarefied excavation , restriction of movement of transport habitation of wild the construction groups of weed light and noise impacts. and construction animals site or transport species , locally the machinery passage loss of habitat of ,frightening of some animal animals species. Opearation of protection Quality of Impact on Impact on atmospheric Impact on Restriction of traffic along dikes . atmospheric air atmospheric air is air is not expected atmospheric air is not dikes not expected . expected (positive) . C') Opearation of protection Physical-chemical The nature of Disturbance of soils' Soil contamination Minimazation of soil cover' = c 0 ·;:: dikes . soil properties and hydromorphic soils natural structure and soil would not increase disturbance and CJ) Q) structure of soil will be changed . cover the existing levels contamination bridge, sections of soil cover and soil layer, mixing of natural structure and soil conditions for fertile soil horizons, especially .§ access roads. soil horizon soil horizons.soil cover, development of vegetation growing alluvial soils with their ~ Organization of compaction along the erosion and deflation, and animal living , subsequent placing back at 8 temporary field camps ; routes and motor roads chemical pollution (fuel especially burrowing disturbed areas, regulation of movement of transport and loosening on and lubricants etc.) animals, formation of transport and machinery traffic , and construction waysides sections with especially on soils with light machinery truncated soil and mechanical content deflations on sands Construction of motor Quality of Local turbidity and Temporary worsening of Decrease of plenty , Prohibition of car and other bridge, sections of surface waters pollution by technical habitat conditions of water productivity and machinery washing in natural Q; ~ access roads. and domestic wastes, flora and fauna typical diversity of water bodies and rivers ~ ~ Organization of fuel and lubricants water flora and fauna . . .; 5l temporary field camps ; .. , ~ movement of transport and construction machinery 158 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Construction of motor Types of flora and Destruction of Decrease of bio-diversity Replacement of Prohibition of chaotic traff bridge, sections of access fauna , natural vegetation and at construction sites, loss natural vegetation mimimization of section of roads . Organization of vegetation cover, habitats of some of habitats of some communities by soil cutting and excavatio1 ro temporary field camps ; restriction of light and nois 0 places of animal species at species of animals secondary rarefied ii) movement of transport and habitation of wild the construction groups of weed impacts. .q: construction machinery animals site or transport species locally , the passage, loss of habitat of frightening of some animal species. animals () Operation of motor bridge. Quality of Reduction of New bridge would reduce The emissions from Creation of conditions of ·;:: atmospheric air distances and the noices at bridge road transport will be free passage on the bridg Q) a. ..... improvement of sections and access reduced at the i.r:i (/) o ro ·- road conditions will roads . adjacent territory ( -E <( lead to decreased pollutant emissions positive) O> Operation of motor bridge .. Physical-chemical Unpaved roads anf Soil contamination will not The load on the soil Minimazation of soil cover c ·;:: soil properties and unregular route will exceed the existing levels in the area of the disturbance and Q) > structure of soil be changed , and as access road substitutes bridge will be contamination 0 () cover local ~ the existing gravel roads reduced significantly - ·- techogenoc soil and transport distance are (positive) . 0 (/) erosion will be being decrased «> decreased Operation of motor bridge .. Hydrological, Bridges will The bottlenecks are Construction of the The measures are forese (/) hydro-chemical eliminate reason for flooding bridge will reduce to prevent wa Q) () and thermal bottlenecks where problem . This problem will water contamination , contam ination by flui 1 ..... regimes effective width of ::s be eliminated heareinafter caused by accidents flowing from the bridge. 0 (/) river bed is limited on the pontoon Q) ..... by 70 m and allow bridge, river water - ..... Q) expanding river contamination by the ~ bed up to 200 m. emissions from vehicles , crossing r--.: the pontoon bridge (bridQe) . 159 ' · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Operation of motor bridge .. Flora, fauna, New access ways . Natural habitas will be The project vegetation cover , will be located transformed. There is no contributes to the Prohibition of cutting of areas of wild close to the economically important improvement of water trees and bushes in the area animals' habitat existing unpaved flora and fauna in the inflow in the lower of meanders roads and pass project area reaches of the river ro ...., over heavily used area, and thus, .Q co agriculutural lands improves habitat for c:O and areas with flora and fauna already heavily transformed vegetation . Impact on landscape will · be minimal. . 160 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 1.5 - Impact assessment and environmental protection measures for the sub-project "Rehabilitation of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau lake systemsn. .... Type and character of the impact (expected) o- - ga :a' E CJ Influencing element Affected factor Main impact Secondary impact Possible result of impact Measures to prevent or mitigate negative impact o·- Construction of barrage, , Quality of Dust generation , Visibility worsening Worsening of health Minimization of non- ...... status of people in regulated field motor roads "(ii water intakes, canals , atmospheric increase of salt especially in windy (.) dikes.Organization of air content , weather; the affected area, and prevention of fracturing ·c Q) temporary field camps ; Emissions of Dust deposition and salt allergic reaction , of sor solonchaks surface; ..c CL movement of transport and pollutants into settling on vegetation and impact on vision en 0 construction machinery .. atmosphere deterioration of processes Maintenance equipment in E ...... of breathing and working order . <( photosynthesis; ..-- Worsening of people and animal breathina Construction of barrage, , Structure of Cutting of top fertile Disturbance of soils' Loss of natural Cutting and stockpiling of top 0) water intakes, canals , soil cover and soil layer, mixing of natural structure and soil conditions for fertile soil horizons, c dikes.Organization of soil horizon soil horizons.soil cover, development of vegetation growing especially alluvial soils with ·c Q) > temporary field camps ; compaction along the erosion and deflation, and animal living , their subsequent placing 0 (.) movement of transport and routes and motor chemical pollution (fuel especially burrowing back at disturbed areas, ·0 construction machinery .. roads and loosening and lubricants etc.) animals, formation of regulation of transport and (/) on waysides sections with machinery traffic , especially N truncated soil and on soils with light mechanical deflations on sands content Construction of barrage, , Quality of Local turbidity and Temporary worsening of Decrease of plenty, Prohibition of car and orther ...... en Q) water intakes, canals , surface pollution by technical habitat conditions of water productivity and machinery washing in natural Q) (.) typical diversity of water bodies and rivers ~ dikes.Organization of ...... :::J waters and domestic wastes, flora and fauna en temporary 0 field camps ; fuel and lubricants water flora and fauna c0 ...... Q) movement of transport and construction machinery ... 161 '' Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Construction of barrage, , Types of flora and Destruction of Decrease of bio-diversity Replacement of Prohibition of chaotic water intakes, canals , fauna , natural vegetation and at construction sites, loss natural vegetation traffic, mimimization of C1l ...... dikes.Organization of vegetation cover, habitats of some of habitats of some communities by section of soil cuttingand .Q temporary field camps ; places of animal species at species of animals secondary rarefied excavation, restriction of co movement of transport habitation of wild the construction site groups of weed light and noise impacts. ~ and construction animals or transport passage species ,locally the machinery. , frightening of loss of habitat of animals some animal species ,_ Filling up of lake systems Microclimate of the Daily and annual Evaporation from the The improvement of The creation of water 'iii according to the proposed adjacent territory temperature would surface of the water microclimate protection zone not less (.) ·;::: schedule of level regime change, the would increase, the fogs (positive) than 100 m. o_ (/) absolute and are possible during the 0 relative humidity cold season . Fogs have E would increase at a negative impact on the ~ LC) the adjacent people territory (positive) Filling up of lake systems Physical-chemical The increase of Replacement of Change in soil Minimazation of soil cover' 0) according to the p·roposed soil properties and hyd romorph ic automorphic desert crust cover' structure of disturbance and c ·;::: schedule of level regime structure of soil processes in soil soils by hydromorphic due to the formation contamination of cover covering , increase and semihydromorphic of more fertile soils of > 0 of soil moisture, soils at the significant meadow and swamp (.) '6 decrease of area (positive) series (f) salin ization of upper (.) -ro ,_ schedule of level regime . and thermal Filling of lakes in close to natural. . in natural water bodies and s: ,....: ::I 0 (/) regimes spring summer rivers ,_ period . Raising of ground water table. 162 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Filling up of lake systems Flora, fauna , Replacement of . Increase of biodiversity The communities of Increase of fish according to the proposed vegetation cover , desert and semi- of flora nad fauna , trees and bushes will reproduction . Stocking of schedu le of level regime areas of wild hydromorphic increase of area of be formed , the lakes and creation of fish animals' habitat habitats hayfields and pastures esthetic value of the husbandry , strict control , ofvegetations and and reedbeds landscape will over the seasons of animals by improve . The hunting abd fishing. hydromorphic ones number of water and Prohibition of cutting of with appropriate semi-aquatic flora trees and pastures. flora and fauna. fauna, especially Rational use of hayfields birds is and pastures. increased .The number of species C1l and biomass of ....... 0 plankton , benthos iil and aquatic 00 vegetation is increased that · provide forage for fishes and birds. The possibility of hunting , fishing and recreation for the population appears (positive) Significantly increase the abundance of mosquitoes and midges (negative). 163 "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 1.6 - Impact assessment and environmental protection measures for the sub-project " Reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at Tastak site of Kamuishlibash fish hatchery in Aralsk district of Kzylorda oblast" - o- _ ga u :s' E Influencing element Affected factor Type of nature of the impact (expected) Main impact Secondary impact Possible result of impact Measures to prevent or mitigate negative impact o·- Construction of the Quality of Dust generation , increase Visibility worsening , Worsening of health Minimization of non-regulated object: ponds, atmospheric of salt content , especially in windy status of people in field motor roads and ·iu pumping station, air Emissions of pollutant into weather; the affected area, prevention of fracturing of sor u ·;:: incubation atmosphere during Dust deposition and salt allergic reaction , solonchaks surface; ~ department movement of motor transport ·settling on vegetation and impact on vision g. Organization of and construction machinery deterioration of processes Maintenance equipment in ~ temporary field of breathing and working order . Roads' wetting ;;x: camps ; movement photosynthesis; during the performance of of transport and Worsening of people and earthworks construction animal breathing machinery Construction of the Structure of Cutting of top fertile soil Disturbance of soils' Loss of natural Cutting and stockpiling of top g> object soil cover and layer, mixing of soil natural structure and soil conditions for fertile soil horizons, especially ·;:: Q) soil horizon horizons,soil compaction cover, development of vegetation growing alluvial soils with their > 0 along the routes and motor erosion and deflation, and animal living , subsequent placing back at (.) roads and loosening on chemical pollution (fuel especially burrowing disturbed areas, regulation of "(5 Cf) waysides during movement and lubricants etc.) animals, formation of transport and machinery traffic N of motor transport and sections with , especially on soils with light C'.i construction machinery truncated soil and mechanical content . deflations on sands . . ._ (/) Construction of the Quality of Local turbidity and pollution Temporary worsening of Decrease of plenty, Prohibition of car and other 2 ~ object surface by technical and domestic habitat conditions of water productivity and machinery washing in natural ~5 waters wastes, fuel and lubricants flora and fauna . typical diversity of water bodies and rivers (") (/) ~ water flora and fauna 164 .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Construction of the Types of flora and Destruction of Decrease of bio-diversity Change of natural Prohibition of chaotic traffic, object: ponds, pumping fauna , natural vegetation and at construction sites, loss vegetation mimimization of section of station , incubation vegetation cover, habitats of some of habitats of some communities by soil rcutting and excavation , C1l department places of animal species at the species of animals secondary rarefied restriction of light and noise 0 Organization of habitation of wild construction site or groups of weed impacts. co temporary field camps animals transport passage , species ,locally the ~ ; movement of frighten ing of animals loss of habitat of transport and some animal species construction machinery. 0 Filling of ponds . Microclimate of the Daily and annual Evaporation from the The improvement of The creation of water ·;:: Q) adjacent territory temperature would surface of the water microclimate protection zone not less .s::: than 100 m. c.. change, the absolute would increase,in cold (positive) (/) ..... 0 "iii and relative humidity seasons the occurrence E ...... would increase on the of fogs is possible, <( adjacent territory which has negative i.c) (positive) impact on people Filling of ponds .. Physical-chemical The strengthening of The replacement of Change in of soil Minimazation of soil cover' soil properties and hyd romorph ic automorphic desert crust cover' structure due disturbance contamination Ol structure of soil processes in soil soils by hydromorphic to the formation of ·;:: c cover covering , increase of and semihydromorphic more fertile soils of Q) > soils' moisture, soils on the insignificant meadow and swamp 0 area (positive) series . 0 decrease of - ·- salinization of top 0 Cf) levels due to filtration co and flushing at the insignificant area (positive) ..... (/) Filling of ponds .. Hydrological, Increase of surface Improvement of water Increase of surface Prohibition of car and other Q) Q) 0 hydro-chemical water area. quality due to settling. of water area machinery wash ing near ..... ~ :::J 0 (/) and thermal regimes Raising of ground water table. Decrease of water qual ity due to nurture and (positive) ponds r-...: ..... Q) fertilization . 165 " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Filling of ponds . Flora, fauna, Peplacement of Increase of biodiversity of Esthetic value of the Increase of fish vegetation cover , desert and semi- flora and fauna . landscape will reproduction . Stocking of areas of wild hydromorphic habitats improve . The lakes due to fishery farms animals' habitat ofvegetations and number of water and animals by semi-aquatic flora hydromorphic ones fauna, especially with appropriate flora birds, is and fauna. increased .The number of species and biomass of ro ....., plankton , benthos 0 and aquatic a:i vegetation is cri increased that provide forage for fishes and birds. The possibility of hunting , fishing and recreation for the population appears (positive) Significantly increase the abundance of mosquitoes and midges (negative). 166 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 2 1 - Main factors of impact durmg reconstruction of left bank offtake-regulator at Kzy orda barrage Environmental Type of activity . components to be Potential types of impact Sources of impact impacted Construction of left bank offtake-regulator at Kzylorda barrage . Dust formation ; Pollutants emissions into the atmosphere; Use of land resources; Temporary field camps ; Loss of habitats of animals and plants; Movement of transport and construction machinery; Compaction of soils along the motor roads Land withdrawal and use; routes · A . . Cutting of vegetation cover; Disturbance of natural structure of soils and tmospenc air; fertility at the sites of construction of offtake- Soil cover; Cutting of top soil layer and soil cover ; regulator Vegetation Temporary storages of materials and equipment Increase of probability of the soils ' erosion and Landscape; Parking of motor transport and other machinery; deflation ; Fauna. Use and storage of fuel and lubricants; Limitation of the animals ' movement; Technical maintenance ; Noise, light, frightening of animals ; Short term presence of staff, people' s recreation and feeding . Small leakages of fuel and lubricants materials are possible; Formation of wastes and wastewater; Increase of traffic intensiveness; Physical presence. Operation of left bank offtake-regulator at Kzylorda barrage Updated offtake-regulator allow making water supply to LMC timely and regularly Improvement of hydro melioration in order to avoid excessive irrigation leading to swamp formation and salinization on condition on the irrigated massifs Ground waters ; Socio-economic conditions the irrigated massifs 167 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 2.2 - Main factors of impact during Syrdarya river bed straightening at Korgansha and Tu rum bet sections in Zhalagash district of Kzylorda oblast. Environmental components Type of activity . Potential types of impact to be impacted Sources of impact Syrdarya river-bed straightening at Korgansha and Turumbet sections Dust formation ; Pollutants emissions into the atmosphere; Use of land resources ; Temporary field camps ; Loss of habitats of animals and plants; Movement of transport and construction machinery; Compaction of soils along the motor roads routes; Disturbance of natural structure of soils and fertility at Land withdrawal and use ; the sites of canals ' construction; Atmosperic air; Cutting of vegetation cover; lnqease of probability of the soils' erosion and deflation; Soil cover Cutting of top soil layer and soil cover ; Changes in landscape structure with presence of . ' Temporary storages of materials and equipment manmade forms (canal ofriver bed straightening); Vegetatrnn Parking of motor transport and other machinery; Limitation ofthe animals ' movement; Landscape; Noise, light, frightening of animals ; Fauna.. Use and storage of fuel and lubricants; Small leakages of fuel and lubricants materials are Technical maintenance; possible; Short term presence of staff, people's recreation and feeding Formation of wastes and wastewater; Increase of traffic intensiveness; Physical presence. Operation of sections of river bed straightened Planned river-bed straightening reduce the risk of formation of ice jams Elimination of bottleneck, limiting the Landscape and land ecosystems; . discharges in Syrdarya river and causing Ground flora and fauna ; and thus reduce the occurrence of winter floods due to backwater . fl d. oo mg ; Surface and ground waters ; Socio-economic conditions 168 ' I · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) insk and Karmakchi districts of Annex 2.3 - Main factors of impact during construction of flood protection dikes in Kazal. Kzylorda oblast . Environmental components to Type of activity . Potential types of impact be impacted Sources of impact Construction of flood protection dikes Dust formation; Pollutants emissions into the atmosphere; Temporary field camps ; Use of land resources; Movement of transport and construction Loss of habitats of animals and plants; machinery; Compaction of soils along the motor roads routes; Land withdrawal and use; Disturbance of natural structure of soils and fertility at the sites Cutting of vegetation cover; of the dikes and canals' construction; Atmosperic air; Cutting of top soil layer and soil cover ; Increase of probability of the soils' erosion and deflation-, Soil cover, Temporary storages of materials and equipment Changes in landscape structure with presence of manmade forms Vegetation (bridge ); Landscape; Parking of motor transport and other machinery; Use and storage of fuel and lubricants; Limitation of the animals ' movement; Fauna ... Technical maintenance; Noise, light, frightening of animals; Short term presence of staff, people' s recreation Small l~akages of fuel and lubricants materials are possible; and feeding Formatlon of wastes and wastewater, Increase of traffic intensiveness; Physical presence. Operation of flood protection dikes dik Without any doubt the prevention of damage of built-up area is . Planned construction of flood protection es positive. Landscape and land ecosystems; reduce the risk of occurence of No physical cultural property will be affected under the Project Ground flora and fauna , winter floods operation Surface and ground waters ; Socio-economic conditions 169 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 2.4 - Main factors of impact on the sub-project "construction of motor bridge near Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk district of Kzvlorda oblast Environmental components Type of activity . Potential types of impact to be impacted Sources of impact Construction of motor bridge Dust formation; Pollutants emissions into the atmosphere; Use ofland resources; Temporary field camps ; Loss of habitats of animals and plants; Movement of transport and construction machinery; Compaction of soils along the motor roads routes; Land withdrawal and use ; Disturbance of natural structure of soils and fertility at the At . . Cutting of vegetation cover; ! site of bridge' construction; S ~ospenc air; 01 Cutting of top soil layer and soil cover ; Increase of probability of the soils' erosion and deflation; V cto~er; Temporary storages of materials and equipment Changes m · 1 and scape structure wit . h presence 01 .+ ege atlon L d "d an scape· Parking of motor transport and other machinery; manmade £ orms (bn ge etc); F ' Use and storage of fuel and lubricants; Limitation of the animals ' movement; auna. ·· Technical maintenance ; Noise, light, frightening of animals; Short term presence of staff, people's recreation and feeding Small leakages of fuel and lubricants materials are possible; Formation of wastes and wastewater; Increase of traffic intensiveness; Physical presence. Operation of motor bridge Reduction . . . improvement of road conditions El"imma of distances and . t"10n of b ottl eneck 1 . ·t·mg the d" im1 ischarges m · will lead to decreased em1ss10ns of pollutants . S d . d . fl d Landscapes and land Unpaved roads and non-regulated route will be replaced and Ryrdaryt~ nverfand. ctausmg oods; . t f d ecosystems; . . . . b e uc 10n o is ances an improvemen o roa local . technogemc . eros10n of soil will e decreased.. . . . i ions w1.111ead to decrease d em1ss10ns cond"t" . . of po 11 utants Ground flora and fauna , Prov1s10n of all-season transport commumcation without R d f ft rt Surface and ground waters; limitation of weight ; I e uc wn °rafns~o el~pensesf; h d" mprovement o m1croc imate o t e a Jacent terntory ; . Socio-economic conditions. 170 . ' " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 2.5 - Main factors of impact during construction of barrage, canals and dikes on the sub-project "Rehabilitation of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau lake systems ". Environmental components to be Type of activity . Potential types of impact impacted Sources of impact Construction of barrages, canals and dikes Dust formation; Temporary field camps ; Pollutants emissions into the atmosphere; Movement of transport and construction Use of land resources; machinery; Loss of habitats of animals and plants; Land withdrawal and use ; Loss of forage base Cutting of vegetation cover; Compaction of soils along the motor roads routes; Atmosperic air; Cutting of top soil layer and soil cover Disturbance of natural structure of soils and fertility at the sites of the Soil cover; Excavation of trenches for canals; dikes and canals' construction; Vegetation; Temporary storages of materials and Increase of probability of the soils' erosion and deflation; Landscape; equipment Changes in landscape structure with presence of manmade forms Fauna,especially small mammals Parking of motor transport and other (barrage, dikes, canals etc); and rodents machinery; Limitation of the animals' movement; Use and storage of fuel and lubricants; Noise, light, frightening of animals; Technical maintenance ; Small leakages of fuel and lubricants materials are possible; Short term presence of staff, people' s Formation of wastes and wastewater; recreation and feeding Increase of traffic intensiveness; Physical presence. Filling in of lake systems according to the proposed schedule of level regime Rehabilitation of hayfields. L d d1 d t ·1· · f ·h . fl d .c. an scapes an an ecosys ems; Re ha b11tat10n o water ecosystems wit respective ora an 1auna; G d fl d .c. ' k. roun ora an 1auna ; Increase of surface water area Lakes stoc mg· ' Surface and ground waters; Increase of aqua landscape area and decrease of land landscape area ; Improvement of microclimate at the adjacent territory ; 171 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 2.6 - Main factors of impact during construction for the sub-project "reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at Tastak site of Kamuishlibash fish hatchery in Aralsk district of Kzy orda oblast". j Environmental components rype of activity . Potential types of impact to be impacted Sources of impact I ! Construction of fi~hponds, pumping station, incubation department Dust formation; Pollutants emissions into the atmosphere; Use of land resources; Temporary field cam~ s ; . . . Movement of transport and construction machmery; Loss of habitats of animals and plants; Land withdrawal and se ; f Cutting of vegetation pover; Loss of forage base Compaction of soils along the motor roads routes; At . . . D istur bance of natura1 structure of s01-1s and .,. . at t he S mospenc ierti.1ity . air; Cutting of top soil layer and soil cover . f h d ' . d 1 1 . 01 1 cover; Development of the pbnds ' bed with hillocks' cutting and sites o t e pon s construct10n an cana aymg; V t ( I . Increase of probability of the soils' erosion and deflation; Leg~ a ion; backfilling of pits. Exeavation of trenches for canals; Changes in landscape structure with presence of manmade Fan scape; . ll Temporary storages or materials and equipment forms (barrage, dikes o ponds , canals etc); auna,eslpecida ydsmta11 Parking of motor tran ~port and other machinery; . · · of the anima · 1s ' movement; mamma s an ro en s Use and storage of fu . land lubricants; Limitation Technical maintenan e ; Noise, light, frightening of animals; Short term presence .O ... U se o f t h e most spare met ho ds o f construct10n d . d d. for the environment ry ~eno · . . . . . ..:.: Prevention of environmental pollution b fuel Eqwpment and structures at the construct10n sites and bulldmgs provide levels o "' E b . y noise, vibration, lighting, electromagnetic radiation within the limits established by 0 an d 1 u . ncants, e_tc._ . . . the res ective SanPIN · ..:.: Proh1b1t10n or hm1tat10n of works m especially p ' . . . . . . c .. . d fi b" (A . .d M d Motor transport and construct10n machmery IS the mam source ofno1se. Established "' .Q sendsiStive perbIO s odr ioftOa bpn 1- mi - ay an limits of noise level, foreseen in SanPIN RK .N°Q3 .01.035-97 will be registered ;:::: m1 - eptem er -en o cto er) . . . . f d"k , b . . durmg construction works on land - at a distance of not more than 1000 m from ~ P rotect1on o 1 es s 1 opes y vegetation in . . . f d · . h· · b h d · ..... "d . d d fl . construct10n site. 0 urat10n o pro uct10n 1 1g tmg 1s a out 12 ours per ay m . ord er to avo1 erosion an e at1on . . d ,. ,. ,. f k · · d · 1 1. h · 0 c M" . . . f I" h d . rn amount require 1or sa1e per1ormance o wor s, nav1gat10n an s1gna 1g ts m 0 mi~ilzlatidon. 0 . hig _t an noise e ects, accordance with the Safety Rules. Heavy machinery is the source of vibration. The espec1a. y urmg mg d t time. d es1 .gn so 1 . ,. t h e use o f equipment, · wh"1c h prov1"d es t1 · 1 1e v1·b ration 1 "' ::s ... .... h" . Use o f mac mery an equipment wit stan ar .h d d . ut10ns . 1oresee , . eves . "b . . m accordance with the standards requirements . "' E 1eve 1 s o f noise, v1 ration, e1 ectromagnet1c 0 u radiation. Permanent communication stations will be the sources of electromagnetic radiation. Vegetation /direct - impact of low significance - impact of mean significance - imJ!.act of high significance 173 " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 3.2 - Residual impact on the environment for the sub-project "Syrdarya river bed straightening at Korgansha and Turumbet sites in Zhala ash district of Kz lorda oblast". Residual im act Measures on the impact' prevention and Impact Environmental component /type of mitigation Impact qualitative indexes im act Anticipated area of disturbance during construction works will have linear character "' c 0 Limitation of motor transport traffic and at the construction of dikes and approx imately will be 50,4 ha ; .. ... minimization of earth road network Construction works at construction of dikes wi ll be performed during summer -"' 0: Oll .:: Use of the most spare methods of construction for the environment Prevention of environmental pollution by fue l period (prohibition on works: in the area of special ecological regime from April 0 I to May 15 and from September 15 up to October 30) Equipment and structures at the construction sites and bui ldings provide levels o .. c ..c and lubricants, etc. Prohibition or limitation of works in especially noise, vibration, ,lighting, electromagnetic radiation within the limits established by the respective SanPIN ; .'§ - ... 0: .. "' 'O sensitive periods for biota (April - mid-May and mid-September-end of October) Protection of dikes ' slopes by vegetation in Motor transport and construction machinery is the main source of noise. Established limits of noise level, foreseen in SanPIN RK NQ3.0l.035-97 will be registered during construction works on land - at a distance of not more than I 000 .. .l:l ... > ·;::: order to avoid erosion and deflation . Min imization of light and noise effects, m from construction site. Duration of production lighting is about 12 hours per day in amount required for safe performance of works, navigation and signal lights in 0: especiall y during night time. accordance with the Safety Ru les. Heavy machinery is the source of vibration. The ..... ... Use of machinery and equipment with standard design solutions foresee the use of eq uipment, which provides the vibration levels 0: 'O ... levels of noise, vibration, electromagnetic in accordance with the standards' requirements. ..... radiation . "1 Permanent communication stations will be the sources of electromagnetic radiation Reptiles and steenbrases /direct Vegetation /direct - impact of low significance - impact of mean significance - impact of high significance 174 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 3.3 - Residual impact on the environment for the sub-project "Construction of flood protection dikes in Kazalinsk and Karmakchi districts of Kz lorda oblast. Residual im act Measures on the impact' prevention and Impact Environmental component /type of mitigation Impact qualitative indexes im act Anticipated area of disturbance during construction works will have . · · f t ffi d character at construction of dikes and will be approximately 400,0 ha. "' LH~It~twtn ° f mrtohtor dranstportk tra ic an Construction works at construction of dikes will be performed during summer "' .:.: mm1m1za u f th 10n o tea roa sth nedworf t f peno. d (pro h'b' · on wor ks: m 1 1t1on · t h e area o f special · eco Iog1ca · · I regime ti rom A pnl · "O c ,.. setho e. mos sptare me 0 s 0 cons rue wn 01 to May IS and from September 15 up to October 30) 0 ior e env1ronmen . . E qu1pment an d structures at t h e construct10n · . sites an d b u1·id·mgs prov1·d e 1 eve 1s o ;::: -"' "' ... 0 c. Prevention of environmental pollution by fu eI an 1 d b . 'f t t ~ . r.ican s, e. c'. · . Proh1b1tion or 1Im1tat1on of works m especially · d ~ b. t (A . . .d M . noise, vibration, lighting, electromagnetic radiation within the limits established by the respective SanPIN · · " . . . d Motor transport and construct10n machinery 1s the maun source of noise. . fOa t bpn 1- mi - ay an Established limits of noise level, fore seen in SanPIN RK N23.0l.035-97 will be "O 0 0 sendsisivetperbio s odr 10 m1 - ep . em f er d'k -en , o c o er) . d d unng · construct10n ·. wor k son 1 an d - at a d.1stance o f not more t han Io 00 c;::: .... 0 P ro t ec t10n o 1 es s 1opes b y vege t t. a 10n . reg1stere m ti . . D · f d · 1 . h tmg · 1s · a bout 12 h ours per d ay c ·d . d d fl t. m rom construct10n site. urat1on o pro uct10n 1g 0 or d er to avo1 erosion an e a 10n . . · d ,.. c ,.. f k · · d · I 1· h · ;::: M. · · f f I' ht d . ff) t m amount require ior sa1e per1ormance o wor s, nav1gat10n an s1gna 1g ts m mn~iza I 0 11 - u "' = ... " c' 0 especia y unng · f don. . · . higt t. an mg d 1me.. Ieve Is o noise, v1 ra 10n, e1 ·b t. . U se o f mac h mery an equipment w11 stan ar . noise e ec s, accordance with the Safety Rules. Heavy machinery is the source of vibration. The .h ectromagne 1c d d d es1gn. so 1 . ut10ns . . ioresee t he use o f equipment, c , t' m accordance with the standards requirements. . · · Ieve Is wh'1c h prov1·d es th e v1·b ration radiation .. Permanent communication stations will be the sources of electromagnetic radiation. Reptiles and steenbrases /direct Vegetation /direct - impact of low significance - impact of mean significance - impact of high significance 175 .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 3.4 - Residual impact on the environment for the sub-project " construction of motor bridge near Birlik settlement in Kazalinsk district of Kz lorda oblast " Residual im act Measures on the impact' prevention and Impact Environmental component /type of 'i mitigation Impact qualitative indexes im act ' Anticipated area of disturbance during construction works will have linear <: d character at the construction of bridge and approximately will be 3,5 ha. Li.m.ita~ion. of f mohtor dtranstport k traf iic an Construction works wi ll be performed during summer period (prohibition on mm m1zat10n o eart roa s ne wor . . . . . .. QI) "O Us o f th t th d f t t' works: m the area of special ecolog1cal regime from Apnl 01 to May 15 and from e. mos spare me o s o cons rue IOn September 15 up to October 30) ·;:: p he t' for environment. f . t r b ti Equ1pment . · · sites an d structures at th e construct10n · an d b u1·1d mgs prov1'd e Ieve Is o J:j ... r~ le~ IOn ~ environmen a 1 po 11 u IOn Y ue 1 noise, vibration, lighting, electromagnetic radiation within the limits established by 0 ..... an u . r.ican s, e.tc'. · . . . the respective SanPIN · 0 Pro~1b1t10n or hm1tat1on of works m especially . ' . . . . ... E 0 sit' se~ 1 Sivetperb . d ti b ' 10 t (A 'I 'd M d Motor transport and construction machinery IS the maun source of noise. io s odr fOa t bpn - mi - ay an Established limits of noise level, foreseen in SanPIN RK N~3.0l.035-97 will be c 0 · mid,- ep em fer d P ro ect10n o -en'k , o co er) b t t' 1opes y vege a 10n m fr . . reg1stere d d urmg· construct10n· wor ks on 1an d - at a d.1stance o f not more t h an 1000 ;:::: ... l 'd 1 es . s d d fl . . · D m om construction site. uratlon · of pro d uct1on· 11g · 1s . h tmg · a b out 12 h ours per d ay = ... ..... ord. .r to. avo1 . f . an erosion h at1on .. e d "" · . d tior sa fie perfiormance . amount reqmre m · o f wor ks, nav1gat10n · · an d s1gna · I 1·1g h ts m· M 1~1m1zat10n o 11g t an noise euects . . . . . "' c 0 . 11 d . . h . ' accordance with the Safety Rules. Heavy machinery 1s the source of v1brat10n. The u eUsp cifa Y uhnng mg dt time.. .h d d design solutions foresee the use of equipment, which provides the vibration levels s o mac mery an equ ipment wit stan ar . . . . 'b . .. m accordance with the standards ' reqmrements. Iev9 Is o f noise, v1 rat10n, e 1 ectromagnet1c radiation .. Permanent communication stations will be the sources of electromagnetic radiation .. Reptiles and steenbrases /direct Vegetation /direct - impact of low significance · - impact of mean significance - impact of high significance 176 '' Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 3.5 - Residual impact on the environment for the sub-pro"ect " Rehabilitation of Kamuishlibash and Akshatau lakes stems" Residual im act Measures on the impact' prevention and Impact Environmental component /type of mitigation Impact qu litative indexes im act I Antici pated area of di sturbance during construction works will have linear Li mitation of motor transport traffic d character at co nstruction of barrage , cabals , di kes and approx imately will be 446 an ha. minimi zation of earth roads network Use of t h e mos t spare met h o d s o f constru ct10n fo r th e environment. · f · t. . . Construct10n works on canals ' rehab1 1tat10n w ill be perfo rmed dunng summer . d ( h .b. . pen o k · h pro I 1t10n on wor s: m t e ea o spec1 b fu 0 I to May 15 and fro m September 15 u , to October 30) t.. . f . · 1 I · I · a eco og1ca regime om pn . fr A ·1 P revent1on o env1 ronmenta 1 po 11 u 10n y e1 . . . . . . d b · t t Equipment and structures at the constrpct10n sites and bmldmgs prov ide levels o 1 ~ h ~ -~·i can s, ~- c.:t t" f k . . noise, vibration, lighting, electromagne ic radi ati on within the limits established by .. ro _ 1. 1 10n or 1m1 a 1 ? n o wor s m espec1 sensiti ve pen ods fo r b10ta (Apnl - mid- May and a 11 y the res ective SanPIN" P ' . . . . ~ ... 0:: ... 0:: "d S t b 1 ; t- ~p em o ect lOn ? rd r d fO t b ) ~n , o I co ~r d 1 es s o dpd t t" esfl ty vege a ion . Established limits of noise level, fore ' en in SanP IN RK NQ3. 0l.035-97 wi ll be 10 Motor transport and construct10n 1 achm ery 1s the maun source of no ise. registered during constructi on works n land - at a di stance of not more than I 000 .... ,.Q or er o avo1 eros10 n an e a ion . ti . . D · f d · . h · · b h d 0 . · · t" f . ht d . ffi m rom construct10n site. urat1on o p o uct10n 1 1 g tmg is a out 12 ours per ay c M m1m1 za 10n o 11g an noise e ects, . . d ti ti ti f k · · d · I 1· h · 0 · d . . h t" m amount require or sa e per orman -e o wor s, nav1gat10n an s1 gna 1 g ts m ;= especia 11 y unng. mg d t 1me.. t "th d d accord ance wit · h t he S a tiety R u 1es. Hea y mac h. mery 1 ·s t he so urce o f v1 ·b ration. · Th e " = ... ..... Use o f mac h mery an equ1pmen w1 stan ar d . . "b t" t t" es1 gn so 1 . ti h f ut10ns oresee t e use o eqwpment, w 1 ~ h. h ·d h ·b · c prov1 es t e v1 rat10n 1 I eve s "' c Ieve Is o f noise, v1 ra 10n, e 1 ec romagne 1c . d .h h d d , · 0 rad iati on. m accor ance wit t e stan ar s requ1 ments .. u Permanent communicati on stat ions will be the sources of electro magnetic radi ati on Reptiles and steenbrases /direct Vegetation /direct - impact of low significance - impact of mean significance - impact of high significance 177 " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Annex 3.6 - Residual impact on the environment for the sub-project "Reconstruction and extension of fishery ponds at Tastak site of Kamuishlibash fish hatche in Aralsk district of Kz lorda oblast". · Residual im act Measures on the impact' prevention and Impact Environmental component /type of mitigation Impact qualitative indexes im act ... Limitation of motor transport traffic and Anticipated area of disturbance during construction works will have linear character "' ::: "O minimization of earth roads network . at the construction of ponds, canals, dikes and approximately will be 249,2 ha. "O Use of the most spare methods of construction Construction works wi ll be performed during summer period. = ~ for the environment. Equipment and structures at the construction sites and buildings provide levels o Prevention of environmental pollution by fuel noise, vibration, lighting, electromagnetic radiation within the limits established by and lubricants, etc. the respective SanPIN; Prohibition or limitation of works in especially Motor transport and construction machinery is the maun source of noise. "' "O sensitive periods for biota (Apri l - mid-May and Established limits of noise level, foreseen in SanPIN R.K NQJ .0 1.035-97 wi ll be = 0 mid-September -end of October) reg istered during construction works on land -at a distance of not more than I 000 .... Q. 0 Protection of dikes ' slopes by vegetation in m from construction site. Duration of production lighting is about 12 hours per day order to avoid erosion and deflation . in amount required for safe performance of works, navi gation and signal lights in = 0 Minimization of light and noise effects, accordance with the Safety Rules. Heavy machinery is the source of vibration . The :;:; " = ... .... especially during night time. design sol utions foresee the use of equipment, which provides the vibration levels Use of machinery and equipment with standard in accordance with the standards' requirements .. "' = 0 levels of no ise, vibration, electromagnetic u radiation. Permanent communication stations wi ll be the sources of electromagnetic radiation . Repti les and steenbrases /direct Vegetation /direct - impact of low significance - impact of mean significance - impact of high significance 178 .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) A 1 Geobotanist Repqrt The Geobotanist Report, May 2007 Assessment for the sub-projects of Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Project , second phase (SYNAS-11) Environmental lmpact1 During the reporting period th e analysis of the modern status of vegetation as well as the environmental impact assessment of sub-projects 5, 6, 9 have been performed. 5. The structures to i ~ prove water supply of the delta lakes, including Amanotkel weir Brief description: Construqtion of the regulating offtakes for the delta lakes: Key issues to be assJssed: I • Botanist: Impact on the ecosystems and valuable plant species, optimum and minimum water supply, influence of the stable and variable water levels in the lakes and wetlands' ecosystems as well as on the adjacent ecosystems. Modern status of vegetation Lakes Akshatau and Shomishkol belong to Akshatau lake system . Akshatau lake - at the sha low water areas are found the macereed (Typha angustifolia). reed grass (Phragmites australis) cenosis with bulrush (Scirpus lacustris) and Tuber bulrush (Bolboschoenus planiculmis) . At the modern low lacustrine terrace the annual halophytic - aeluropus (Aeluropus littoral/is, Salsola'foliosa, Suaeda acuminata) communities are presented . Upper the grain - herb communities are spread with dominating Lepidium obtusum, Apocyn,um lancifolium, Acroptilon repens, Leymus multicaulis, Puccinellia dolicholepis. Further on the tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima, T.hispida) strip with herb - aeluropus (Aeluropus littoral/is, Karelinia caspia, Limonium otolepis, Cynanchum sibiricum) grass horizon is presented. Behind the tamarisk on the pastured sections of the lower part of low hills are found the groups of weed species consisting of peganum (Peganum harmala) , ceratocephala (Ceratocarpus arenarius) , camel 's thorn (Alhagi pseudalhag1) , karelinia (Karelinia caspia) . On the flat plumes of low hills the zonal epheme ~-white-ground -wormwood (Artemisia terrae-albae, Poa bulbosa, Carex physodes) with anabasis (Anabasis aphyllum) communities are spread disturbed by the over-grazing. The micro-phytocenosis of peganum (Peganum harmala) , camel 's thorn (Alhagi pseudalhag1) and ceratocephala (Ceratocarpus arenarius) are found .. Shomishko/ lake has the significant inclination of lacustrine terraces . The climax vegetation is presented by the complexes of anabasis and white- ground-wormwood communities with ephemers and burrowing mayflies (Anabasis salsa, Artemisia terrae-albae, Poa bulbosa, Eremopyrum orientale, Carex physodes, Ferlua caspica). Everywhere the specie - an indicator of man-made disturbance - anabasis (Anabasis aphyl/a) is found . At the shallow water sections and along the bank the reed grass (Phragmites australis) is growing , also at some places the communities of annual saltworts (Salicornia europaea, Suae~a prostrata) , aeluropus (Aeluropus littoralis) with rare tamarisk (Tamarix laxa) are found . On the slopes of the lacustrine terraces the camel's thorn (.41hagi pseudalhag1) and climacoptera (Climacoptera brachiata). The man-made disturbance is medium and strong , main factor - grazing. Kamyshlybash lake system includes 9 lakes. Raimkol and Zhalanashkol lakes have been investigated. 179 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Raimkol lake At t~ e Syrdarya river~ed shelf cocklebur groups (Xanthium strumarium) were found . At the higher elevation of the riverbed shelf in the cocklebur groups crypsis (Crypsfs acu/eata) and coming-up of oleaster (E/aeagnus oxycarpa) , willow (Salix songorica), reed grass (Phragmites australis) are foun~. At the riverbed embankment the dense shrubby bushes were formed - lycium tamarisk - silvery salt tree (Halimodendron halodendron, Tamarix ramosissima,1 T.hispida, T.laxa, Lycium ruthenicum). At the slopes of the riverbed embankment the tamarisk cenosis (Tamarix hispida, T.ramosissima) with ~ alostachys (Halostachys be/angeriana) and annual halophytic (Suaeda acuminata, Climacoptera brachiata, Petrosimonia triandra) grass horizon are presented. The annual halophytic cenosis (Suaeda prostrata, Sa/so/a foliosa) with halophytic bushes (Halostachys 1 belapgeriana, Tamar~ hispida, Lycium ruthenicum) interchanges with solonchak sites with hyper-halophytic bushes (Suaeda physophora, S.m~crophila, Kalidiu, capsicum, K.fo/iatum, Halocnemum strobi/aceum). At the strongly wetteq and shallow water sections of Raimkol lake the reed mace (Typha angustifo/ia, T.minima) , juncaceous (Scirpus /acustris, S.littbralis, S.kazachst'anicus) , reedy (Phragmites australis) and tuber bulrush (Bolboschoenus planiculmis) communities are spread. Around the lake close to the shore line jthe tamarisk communities are found (ephemer, aeluropus, annual halophytic). I , The strong man-mad~ disturbance is typical. It is determined by grazing , numerous canals and fires. Around Raim settlement the annual halophytic vegetation with anabar s (Climacoptera /anata, C.aralensis, Petrosimonia triandra, Ceratoracpus utriculosus, Anabasis aphylla) is widely spread . Raimkol lake is divided from Zhalanashkol lake depression by a dike. The water and coastal-water communities of tuber bulrush (Bolboschoenus planiculmis) , bulrush Scirpus /acustris, S.kasachstanicus) , reed mace (Typha angustifolia, T.minima) , reed grass (Phragmites australis) occupy the shallow water and stre ngly wetted areas of the lower lacustrine terrace. Further on the annual halophytic cenosis (Salicornia europaea, Suaeda prostrata) are found , hich are replaced by aeluropus (Aeluropus littoralis) followed by tamarisk strip (Tamarix hispida, T.elongata) . Higher, at the flat slopes of the lacustrin terrace the halophytic - bush cenosis of Suaeda physophora, S.microphila, Halostachys belangeriana, Lycium ruthenicum is presented. At the hills slopes the ephemer - anabasis vegetation (Anabasis salsa, Eremopyrum orientale, Anisantha tectorum, Alyssum desertorum) is spread on the zonal brown soils. The strong man-made disturbance is due to grazing. · Impact on the ecosystems The lake systems in t Ie Syrdarya Delta are maintained by the hydraulic structures and depend on the water supply from Syrdarya. The variations of water level are typic~I for them . Water supply and increase of water level in Raim lake in 2007 are observed starting from March . During the investigations of the lake shore one of the overhead transmission lines was found in the shallow water area. It is not the task of a geobotanist to study how the increase of w~ter levels influences the stability of concrete posts. But, in any case the increase of water levels above the elevation reached at the middle of May 20~7 is not recommended , because the dwelling houses and the cemetery in Raim settlement are located in close vicinity to the lake. May be, these figures are available in Kazgiprovodkhoz Institute. The significant variations of the water levels in the lakes are not desirable for preservation of the w~ter-swamping areas, valuable for migrating bird species (in 2007 Kazakhstan signed and ratified the Ramsar Convention) . The water-swamping ecos·ystems are formed by the hydrophytic and hygrophytic plants - reed , bulrush, rush, reed mace, etc. The shallowing of the lakes and then the abrupt increase of water level results in disturbance of the plants' revegetation, loss of biodiversity, reduction of the phytomass and seeds' effectiveness , disturbance of the mechanism of the water bodies' self-purification. All these will scale down water quality and forage resources for the fish and birds. During the shallowing the salinization of the coastal biotopes and increase of water temperature occur. The increase of water temperature may result in water «bloom» . If water level increases abruptly, the terrestrial biotopes, which turned out to be under water, may perish. In 180 ·· Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) the middle of May at Zhalanashkol lake the tamarisk bushes were under water. Tamarisk can withstand flooding not more than 60 days (Nikitin , 1966). At the shallow areas of Raim and Zhalanashkol lakes the bushes of Kazakhstan endemic were found - Kazakhstan bulrush (Scirpus kasakhstanicus). This species periodically appears and disappears at Raim lake. For example , it was not found during the investigation of the lake in August 2001 . Obviously, Kazakhstan bulrush is fastidious to water quality and habitats. Con'struction of Amanotkel weir should stabilize water levels in the delta lakes and should not allow water levels' abrupt variations. This will have beneficial influence on the biota. ' Co ~ clusion: Construction of Amanotkel weir is necessary to maintain the lakes' ecosystems and preserve water-swamping sites. 181 ''Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) A 2 List of Vascular Plants List of the species of vascular plants in the Project area, Syrdarya Control and the Northern Aral Sea Project (SYNAS-11) Name of the plant species The species Location Latin English Russian status 1 2 3 Trees and bushes, s~mi-shrubs , dwarf semi-shrubs nec4aHa51 a KaW~51 Ammodendron bifolium Sand acacia 1 ABYn~CTa51 AHa6a3~c 6e3n~cTHblill Anabasis aphylla Ana basis 1 1 1 (~TC~reK) Artemisia terrae-albae Sagebrush non~Hb6eno3eMenbHa51 1 Atraphaxis spinosa Atraphaxis Kyp4a0 Ka Kon104a51 1 Elaeagnus oxycarpa Ole aster nox ocrpon~cTHblill 1 1 1 Ephedra distachya Ephedra 3¢eApa ABYXKOnOCKOBa51 Halimodendron halodendron Silvery salt tree 4~Hrnn cepe6p~crb1ill 1 1 1 Halocnemum strobilaceum Halocnemum Capca3aH w~wKoBaTblill 1 1 Con51HOKonocH~K Halostachys belangeriana Halostachys 1 1 1 6enaH>KePOBCK~ill Haloxylon aphyllum Black saxaul CaKcayn 4epHblill protected 1 Kalidium caspicum Kalid ium noraWH~K Kacn~illCK~ill 1 Kalidium foliatum Kalidium norawH~K on~crseHHblill 1 1 Kalidium schrenkianum Kalidium norawH~K WpeHKOBCK~ill 1 Krascheninn ikovia ceratoides Eurotia TepecKeH poroB~AHblill 1 1 1 Limonium suffruticosum Sea lavender 1 ,IJ,ape3a Lycium dasystemum Licyum 1 1 sonoc~CT0Tbl4~H KOBa51 Lycium ruthen icum Licyum ,IJ,epe3a pyccKa51 1 1 1 Nitraria schoberi N.itrebush Cen~Tp51HKa Wo6epa 1 Tononb c~3on~cTHblill Populus pruinosa Tu rang a Red book 1 1 (rypaHra) Salix songarica Willow lt1sa A>KYHrapcKa51 1 1 182 .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Salix wilhelmsiana Willow !Ilsa B11111bre11bMca 1 1 Suaeda microphilla Suaeda CseAa Me11Ko11111crHas:1 1 1 1 Suaeda physophora Suaeda CBeAa B3AyronnOAHas:i 1 Tamarix elongata Tamarisk TaMap111Kc YA11111HeHHbtll1 1 1 1 Tamarix gracilis Tamarisk TaMap111Kc 1113s:lll.1Hbtll1 1 Tamarix hispida Tamarisk TaMap111Kc L11er111H111crb1i11 1 1 1 Tamarix laxa Tamarisk TaMap111Kc pb1x11b1il1 1 1 TaMap111Kc Tamarix ramosissima Tamarisk 1 1 1 MHOroBeTBl!1CTblil1 Ulmus pumila 1 1 TpaBffHlllCTble OAHO· Ill MHOroneTHlllKlll Achnatherum splendens Acnatherum Y1111/1 611ecrs:1L11111il1 1 Acroptilon repens Smartweed ropYaK nomyY111il1 1 1 np1116pe)f(Hll1L1a Aeluropus littoralis Aeluropus 1 1 1 COJlOHYaKOBas:i (a)f(peK) Agropyron fragile Wheat grass nbtpei/1 JlOMKl/11/1 (epKeK) 1 Bep61110)f(bs:I KOJllOYKa Alhagi kirghisorum Camel's thorn 1 1 1 Klil prn3cKas:i Bep61110)f(bs:I KOJllOYKa Alhagi pseudalhagi Camel's thorn 1 1 1 JlO)f(Has:i ()f(aHTaK) Althaea officinalis Althaea Anrei/111eKapcrseHHb1i11 1 1 1 Yacryxa Alisma plantago aquatica Water platain 1 nOAOPO)f(HlilKOBas:i Alyssum turkestanicum Alyss um 6ypaYOKTypKecraHCKll1111 1 Argusia sibirica Argusia Apry3111s:1 c1116111pcKas:1 1 1 Artemisia schrenkiana Sagebrush noJlblHb WpeHKOBCKas:i 1 1 1 Asparagus brachyphyllus Asparagus Cnap)f(a KoporK011111cras:1 Red book 1 Asparagus breslerianus Asparagus Cnap)f(a 6pec11epa 1 Astragalus sesamoides Astragalus Acrpara11 KYH)f(YTHblil1 1 Atriplex laevis Orach ne6eAa maAKas:i 1 Atriplex littoralis Orach ne6eAa np1116pe)f(Has:1 1 1 Atriplex miyrantha Orach ne6eAa MeJlKOL.IBeTKOBas:i 1 Atriplex pedunculata Orach ne6eAa nllOAOHO)f(KOBas:! 1 183 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Atriplex saggitata Orach ne6eAa 611ecn11.11as:1 1 1 1 Atrip lex tatarica Orach ne6eAa TaTapCKas:! 1 1 1 Bassia hyssopiofolia Bassia 6accll!s:i lllcconom1cTas:1 1 1 Bassia sedoides Bassi a 6aCClils:I 04lilTKOBlilAHas:I 1 Bolboschoenus maritimus Tuber bulrush Kfly6HeKaMblW MOpCKOill 1 1 1 Kfly6HeKaMblW Bolboschoenus planiculmis Tuber bulrush 1 1 1 oaeHoeeoxvweYHblill Butomus umbellatus Flowering rush CycaK 30HTlilYHblill 1 1 Calamagrostis epigeios Wood reed BeillHlllK Ha3eMHblill 1 1 1 Calamagrostis BeillHlllK Wood reed 1 1 pseudophragmites JlO>KHOTpOCTHlilKOBblill Calystegia sepium Calystegia noeoill 3a6opHb1ill 1 Centaurea squarrosa Centaury . Bacll!neK pacTOnb1peHHb1ill 1 Ceratocephala falcata Ceratocephala PorornaBHlilK nps:iMopornill 1 Chenopodium acuminatum Goosefoot Mapb 3aocTpeHHas:1 1 Chenopodium album Goosefoot Mapb 6e11as:1 1 Chenopodium rubrum Goosefoot Mapb KpacHas:i 1 Cirsium setosum Cirsium 60As:!K ll.leTlllHlilCTblill 1 · Clematis orientalis Clematis KfleMarnc BOCTOYHblill 1 1 1 KfllilMaKomepa Climacoptera aralensis Climacoptera 1 1 1 aoa11bcKas:1 KfllilMaKomepa Climacoptera brachiata Climacoptera 1 1 1 cynpOTlilBHOJllilCTHas:i KfllilMaKomepa Climacoptera lanata Climacoptera 1 wepcrncTas:i KfllilMaKomepa Climacoptera obtusifoila Climacoptera 1 1 wnonlilCTHas:i Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed 8bt0HOK no11eeoill 1 1 1 Cousinia affinis Cousinia Ky3li1Hlilfl POACTBeHHas:i 1 1 Crypsis aculeata Crypsis CKpblTHlil~a Ko11t0Yas:1 1 CKpblTHlil~a Crypsis schoenoides Crypsis 1 1 KaMblWeBlilAHafl noBll!JllilKa Cuscuta momogyna Dodder 1 OAHOTblY Iii HKO Ba fl 184 · · Feasibilty Study · Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Cynanchum sibiricum Cynanchum L\L-1HaHXYM Clllfa1pCKlllVl 1 1 1 Dodartia orientalis Dodartia ,IJ,o.Qap4llls:l BOCT04Has:l 1 Mop.QOBHlllK Echinops ritro Globe-thistle 1 06biKHOBeHHblVl Eleocharis acicularis 6onoTHV14a lllronb4aTas:i 1 Elytrigia repens Couch grass nb1peVI nomyYlllVI 1 1 1 Eremopyrum buonapartis Eremopyrum MopTyK 6oHanapTa 1 Eremopyrum triticeum Eremopyrum MopTyK nweHlll4HblVI 1 Euphorbia seguieriana Euphorbia MonoYaVI CerneposCKlllVI 1 1 paH KeHllls:l Frankenia hirsuta Frankenia 1 1 1 >KeCTKOBOnOClllCTas:l F ~ankenia pulvirulenta Frankenia paHKeHllls:i MY4HlllcTas:i 1 1 1 ConoHe4HlllK Galatella fastigiformis Ga late Ila 1 UllllTKOBlll,l\HblVl Glycyrrhiza glabra Licorice Cono.QKa ronas:i 1 1 1 Gypsophila perfoliata Gypsophila Ka4lllM npoH3eHHOnlllCTblVI 1 1 Hordeum bogdanovii Barley 714MeHb 6or,QaHOBa 1 lnula britannica Elecampane ,IJ,ess:icllln 6plllTaHCKlllVI 1 lnula caspica Elecampane ,IJ,ess:icllln KacnlllVICKlllVI 1 1 Iris sogdiana Iris Vlplllc cor.QlllVICKlllVI 1 Iris tenuifolia Iris VlplllC TOHKOnlllCTHblVl 1 Juncus gerardii Rush ClllTHlllK >Kepapa 1 Karelinia caspia Karelinia KapenlllHllls:i KacnlllVlcKas:i 1 1 1 KlllplllnOBllls:l Kirilowia eriantha Kirilowia 1 nyWl11CT04BeTKOBas:i Lactuca serriola Latice naTyK ,l\lllKlllVl 1 1 Lactuca tatarica Latice naTyK KaCnlllVICKlllVl 1 1 1 Lappula spinocarpos Lappula nlllny4Ka KOnl04ennO,QHas:l 1 KnonOBHlllK Lepidium latifolium Peper grass 1 1 1 WlllPOKOnlllCTHblVl KnonOBHlllK Lepidium perfoliatum Peper grass 1 npOH3eHHOnlllCTHblVl nenropa6.Qoc Leptorhabdos parviflora Leptorhabdos 1 Men Ko4seTKOBbl VI 185 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) BonocHeu Leymus multicaulis 1 1 1 MHOroCTe6eilbHbl'1 Lyme grass BonocHeu KlllCTeBlllAHb1'1 Leymus racemosus 1 1 (Kllls:tK) Limonium otolepis Sea lavender KepMeK ywKoBaTbl'1 1 1 1 Litwinowia tenuissima Litwinowia fllllTBlllHOBl/ls:tTOHYa'1was:t 1 fleABs:tHeu Lotus frondosus Lotus 1 rvcTOill/ICTBeHHbl'1 flOHAe3111s:t Londesia eriantha Londesia 1 nyWlllCTOUBeTKOBas:t Lythrum salicaria Looses trite ,Qep6eHHlllK lllBOillllCTHbl'1 1 1 Melilotus albus Meli lot ,QOHHlllK 6eilbl'1 1 1 Mentha aquatica Mint Ms:tTa BOAs:tHas:t 1 Ocpa'1cTOH Ofaiston monandrum Ofaiston 1 1 OAHOTblYlllHKOBbl'1 Panicum crus-gali Millet npoco ryClllHOe 1 1 1 rapMaila 06blKHOBeHHas:t Peganum harmala Peg an um 1 1 1 (aApacnaH) neTpOClll MOH llls:t Petrosimonia brachiata Petrosimonia 1 1 cynpOTlllBOBeTOYHas:t neTpOClllMOHl/ls:t Petrosimonia squarrosa Petrosimonia 1 1 OTTOnb1peHHas:t neTpOClll MOH llls:t Petrosimonia triandra Petrosimonia 1 TPeXTblYlllHKOBas:t Phragmites australis Reed grass TpOCTHlllK IO>KHbli;1 1 1 1 Poligonum arenarium Knotweed ropeu necYaHb1'1 1 1 Poligonum aviculare Knotweed ropeu nrnY111'1 1 Potamogeton pectinatum Pondweed PAeCT rpe6eHYaTbl'1 1 flOMKOKOilOCHlllK Psathyrostachys juncea Psathyrostachys 1 ClllTHlllKOBbl'1 Cocpopa n111coxsocTHas:t Pseudosophora alopecuroides Pseudosophora 1 1 1 (6pyHeU) 6eCKlllilbHlllL1a 1 Puccinellia distans Sea spear grass paccrnsneHHas:t Puccinellia dolicholepis Sea spear grass 6eCKlllilbHlllL1a 1 186 .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern .Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) ,Qm'IH H04ewy'1 Hafl Rochelia retorta Rochelia Poxem1fl corHyTafl 1 Salicornia europaea Glasswort Conepoc espone'1cKV1'1 1 1 1 Salsola australis Saltwort Conf!H Ka to)f{Hafl 1 Salsola foliosa Saltwort ConflHKa onlllCTBeHHafl 1 1 1 Salsola nitraria Saltwort ConflHKa HaTpOHHafl 1 1 1 Salsola paulsenii Saltwort ComlHKa naynbceHa Saussurea amara Saussurea ropbKywa ropbKafl 1 1 1 Endemic, Red Scirpus kasahstanicus Bulrush KaMblW Ka3axcTaHCKlll'1 1 book Scirpus lacustris Bulrush KaMblW 03epHb1'1 1 1 Scirpus tabernaemontani Bulrush KaMblW Ta6epHeMOHTaHa 1 Scirpus littoralis Bulrush KaMblW npV16pe)f{Hb1'1 1 1 1 Senecio noeanus Groundsel KpecTOBHVIK HoescKV1'1 1 Setaria viridis Setaria Ll\ernHHlllK 3eneHb1'1 1 Solanum nigrum Nightshade nacneH 4epHb1'1 1 Sonchus arvensis Sowthistle OcoT noneso'1 1 Sonchus palustris Sowthistle OcoT 6onoTHbl'1 1 E)f{eronosKa Sparganium stoloniferum Sparganium 1 no6eroHocHafl Ccpepocplll3a Sphaerophysa salsula Sphaerophysa 1 1 1 conoH4aKosafl CTplllro3enna Strigosella africana Strigosella 1 acbPlllKaHCKafl Srtigosella circinata Strigosella CTplllro3enna 3asV1Tafl 1 Suaeda acuminata Sea blite Cse,Qa 3aocTpeHHafl 1 Suaeda altissima Sea blite Cse,Qa BblCOKafl 1 1 Suaeda linifolia Sea blite Cse,Qa nbHOnlllCTafl 1 Suaeda paradoxa Sea blite Cse,Qa 3anyTaHHafl 1 Suaeda prostrata Sea blite Cse,Qa npocrnpTafl 1 1 0,QyBaH4lllK Taraxacum officinale Dandelion 1 neKapcTBeHHb1'1 KeH,Qblpb Trachomitum lancifolium Dog-bane 1 1 1 naHL1eTOnlllCTHbl'1 187 " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II} Tripolium vulgare Sea aster Acrpa np111MopcKa5! 1 Thymelaea passerina Thymelaea T111Mene51 sopo6b111Ha5! 1 1 Typha angustifolia Reed mace Poro3 AnlllHHon111cTHb1ii! 1 1 1 Thypha laxmannii Reed mace Poro3 naKCMaHa 1 Typha minima Reed mace Poro3 Manb1ii! 1 ,QypHlllWHlllK Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur 1 1 1 06blKHOBeHHbliil napHOnlllCTHlllK Zygophyllum fabago Bean-caper 1 06blKHOBeHHbl iii napHOnlllCTHlllK Zygophyllum oxianum Bean-caper 1 1 1 aMyAaPblllHCKllliil Bcero BlllAOB: 163 108 85 91 188 Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Location : 1 - Raimkol and Zhalanashkol lakes; 5 - Kzylorda irrigation massif; 6 - Kazalinsk irrigation massif. Floristic content is established based on determination of herbarium collected during the field trip (May, August 2007) (Illustrated identifier .. . 1969; 1972), literature and archive materials (Baibulov, 2006a , 2006b). In total 163 plant species were registered . The species diversity of the Project area is as follows: Raimkol and Zhalanashkol lakes - 108; Kzylorda irrigation massif - 85; Kazalinsk irrigation massif- 91 species. The flora content contains: 1 endemic of Kazakhstan : Seirpus kasahstan icus. 3 species from the Red Book: Species in the Red Book of Kazakhstan (2007): Populus pruinosa, Scirpus kasahstanicus Species in the Red Book of the USSR(1985): Asparagus brachyphyllus 1 protected species: Haloxylon aphyllum (the saxaul cutting is prohibited in accordance with the Regulation of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 2002). List of Literature: 1. A. Baibulov. Modern status of tugai vegetation in the Syrdarya river valley. // Publications of the Ill International Conference devoted to the memory of withstanding botanists of Kazakhstan (April 13-15, 2006). Almaty. 2006a. Pages 93- 97. 2. A. Baibulov. Evaluation of the spatial distribution of vegetation of the water-swamp areas in Kzylorda region using the methods of the distance penetration II Terra. 2006b. N2 1. Pages 52-61 . 3. Illustrated identifier of the Kazakhstan plants. Alma-Ata , 1969-1972. T.1-2. 4. The Red Book of the Kazakhstan plants. 2 issue (under publication). 5. The Red Book of the USSR. 1985. 189 . . . . . . • "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment - Project Phase II (Synas II) A3 Ornitologist report {Annex to report ) Table 1. List of bird species found during the period of investigations Place and character of stay N!! Russian name English name Scientific (Latin) name Syrdarya river Delta lakes valley 1 5onbwaH noraHKa Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus nesting nesting 2 CepoL11eKaH noraHKa red-necked Grebe Podiceps griseigena - nesting 3 KVADHBblVI nem1KaH Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus nesting - 4 5onbwoVI 6aKnaH Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo nesting nesting 5 Manb1VI 6aKnaH Pygmy cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus nesting nesting 6 Ks aKea Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax nesting nesting 7 5onbwaH 6enaH 1..1annH Great White Egret Egretta Alba nesting nesting 8 CepaH 1..1annH Grey Heron Ardea cinerea nesting nesting 9 Pb1>KaH 1..1annH Purple Heron Ardea purpurea nesting nesting 10 Konm11..1a Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia - nesting 11 Cepb1Lil rycb Greylag Goose Anser anser - nesting 12 ne6eAb w111nyH Mute Swan Cygnus olor - nesting 13 Orapb Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea nesting nesting 14 neraHKa Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna - nesting 15 KpHKBa Mallard Anas platyrhynchos nesting nesting 16 YlllPOK-CBlllCTVHOK Green-winqed Teal Anas crecca migrating - 17 CepaH yrKa Gadwall Anas strepera nesting nesting 18 Y111poK-rpecKyHoK Common Teal Anas querquedula nesting nesting 19 W111poKOHOCKa Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata nesting nesting 20 KpacHOHOCblVI Hb1poK red-crested Pochard Netta rufina nesting nesting 21 rony6aH 4epHeTb Common Pochard Aythya ferina migrating migrating 22 5enorna3aH YepHeTb Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca nesting nesting 23 5onOTHblVl nyHb Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus nesting nesting ~ 190 . · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 24 CrnnHo~ nVHb Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus migrating - 25 TIOB~K Shikra Accipiter badius nesting nesting 26 KypraHH~K Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus nesting nesting 27 3MeeHA Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus nesting - 28 CTenHo~ open Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis - nesting 29 MornnbH~K Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca nesting nesting 30 60nbWO~ nOAOPn~K Spotted Eaole Aquila clanga migrating - 31 YernoK Eurasian Hobby Falco subbuteo nesting nesting 32 06blKHoseHHa51 nycTenbra Eurasian Kestrel Falco tinnunculus nesting nesting 33 06blKHOBeHHbl~ cpa3aH Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus nesting - 34 nb1cyxa Eurasian Coot Fulica atra nesting nesting 35 ranCTYYH~K Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula - migrating 36 Manb1~ 3yeK Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius nesting nesting 37 MopcKo~ 3yeK Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus - nesting 38 LJ~6~c Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus nesting nesting 39 6enoxsocTa51 n~ranm.ia White-tailed Lapwing Vanellus leucurus nesting nesting 40 KaMHewapKa Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres - migrating 41 XoAynoYH~K Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus nesting nesting 42 W~nOKnlOBKa Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta - nesting 43 Kyn~K-copoKa Eurasian Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus - nesting 44 YepHblW Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus migrating migrating 45 TpasH~K Common Redshank Tringa totanus - nesting 46 nopyye~H~K Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis - migrating 47 nepeB03Y~K Common Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos nesting nesting 48 MopOAYHKa Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus migrating migrating 49 KpyrnoHOCbl~ nnasyHY~K Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus - migrating 50 TypyXTaH Ruff Philomchus pugnax migrating migrating 51 Kyn~K-sopo6e~ Little Stint Chalidris minuta migrating migrating 52 6enoXBOCTbl~ neCOYH~K Temminck's Stint Calidris temminckii migrating migrating 53 KpacHo3o6~K Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea migrating migrating 191 - . . . . . • . · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 54 4epH0306i.1K Dunlin Calidris alpina migrating migrating 55 rapwHen Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus - migrating 56 6eKac Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago - migrating 57 6onbwoi:1 KpOHWHen Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata - nesting? 58 CpeAH111i:1 KpoHwHen Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus - migrating 59 6onbwoi:1 sepeTeHHll1K Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa - migrating 60 nyroBa51 rnpKyWKa Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola · - nesting 61 CTenHa51 rnpKywKa Black-winged Pratincole Glareola nordmanni - nesting 62 4epHoronOBbli:1 XOXOTYH Great Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus - feeding 63 03epHa51 Yai:1Ka Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus nesting nesting 64 XOXOTYHb51 Caspian Gull Larus cachinnans nesting nesting 65 4epHa51 KpaYKa Black Tern Chidonias niger nesting nesting 66 4ai:1KOHOCa51 KpaYKa Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica nesting nesting 67 4erpasa Caspian Tern Sterna caspia - feeding 68 PeYHa51 KpaYKa Common Tern Sterna hirundo nesting nesting 69 Manafl KpaYKa Little Tern Sterna albifrons - nesting 70 4epH06p10x111i:1 p5160K Black-bellied Sandgrouse Pterocles orientalis feeding feeding 71 6eno6p10x111i:1 p5160K Pin-tailed Sandgrouse Pterocles alchata - feeding 72 C111Jb1i:1 rony6b Feral Rock Dove Columba livia nesting nesting 73 KonbYaTa5iropn1114a Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto nesting nesting 74 Manafl ropn1114a Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis nesting - 75 06blKHOBeHHa51 KYKYWKa Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus nesting nesting 76 AoMOBb1i:1 Cbl4 Little Owl Athene noctua nesting - 77 06blKHOBeHHbli:1 K030AOi:1 European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus nesting nesting 78 4epHbli:1 CTp111>K Common Swift Apus apus nesting - 79 C111JosopoHKa European Roller Coracias garrulus nesting nesting 80 3onorncTafl LllYPK a European Bee:eater Merops apiaster nesting nesting 81 3eneHa51 LllYPKa Blue-cheeked Bee-eater Merops superciliosus nesting nesting 82 YAOA Hoopoe Upupa epops nesting nesting 83 Aepe!3eHcKa51 nacTOYKa Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica nesting nesting 192 ·· Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 84 6eperosaH nacTOYKa Sand Martin Riparia riparia nesting nesting 85 XoxnaTbl~ >KasopoHOK Crested Lark Galerida criststa nesting nesting 86 Manbl~ >KasopoHOK Greater Short-toed Lark Calandrella cinerea nesting nesting 87 Cepb1~ >KasopoHoK Lesser Short-toed Lark Calandrella rufescens nesting nesting 88 ConoHYaKOBbl~ >KasopoHOK Asian Short-toed Lark Calandrella leucophaea - nesting 89 CTenHo~ >KasopoHOK Calandra Lark Melanocorypha calandra nesting nesting 90 ,QsynHTH111CTbl~ >KasopOHOK Bimaculated Lark Melanocorypha bimaculata nesting nesting 91 noneso~ >KasopoHoK Skylark Alauda arvensis - nesting 92 lllHA111~CKll1~ >KasopOHOK Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula - nesting 93 :>KenTaH TPHCOfY3Ka Blue-headed Wagtail Motacilla flava migrating - 94 4epHoronosaH TpHcory3Ka Black-headed Wagtail Motacilla feldegg nesting nesting 95 :>Kemono6aH TpHcoryJKa Yellow Wagtail Motacilla lutea - migrating 96 :>KenToronosaH TpHcoryJKa Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola - migrating 97 6enaH TPHCOfV3Ka White Wagtail Motacilla alba migrating - 98 MacK111posaHHaH TpHcoryJKa Masked Wagtail Motacilla personata nesting nesting 99 TypKecTaHCKll1~ >KynaH Turkestan Shrike Lanius phoenicurjides nesting nesting 100 06blKHOBeHHbl~ >KynaH Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio migrating migrating 101 ,Qn111HHOXBOCTbl~ copoKonyT Long-tailed Shrike Lanius schach nesting nesting 102 4epHono6b1~ copoKonyT Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor nesting nesting 103 nycTblHHbl~ COpOKOnyT Southern Grey Shrike Lanius meridionalis nesting nesting 104 06blKHOBeHHaH 111BOnra Eurasian Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus nesting - 105 06blKHOBeHHbl~ CKBope1..1 Eurasian Starling Sturnus vulgaris nesting nesting 106 06blKHOBeHHaH Ma~Ha Common Myna Acridotheres tristis nesting nesting 107 Co po Ka Black-bellied Magpie Pica pica nesting nesting 108 06blKHOBeHHaH ranKa Eurasian Jackdaw Corvus monedula nesting nesting 109 rpaY Rook Corvus frugilegus nesting nesting 110 BOCTOYHaH sopoHa Eastern Carrion Crow Corvus orientalis nesting nesting 111 W111poKoxsocTKa Cettis's Warbler Cettia cetti - nesting 112 lllHA111~CKaH KaMblWeBKa Paddyfield Warbler Acrocephalus agricola nesting nesting 113 CaAOBaH KaMb1wesKa Blyth's Reed Warbler Acrocephalus dumetorum - migrating 193 . ' "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 114 Apo'3AOBV1AHa5'1 KaMblWeBKa Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus - nesting 115 IO>tt - - - - - - • . easibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea vironmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) ~ i ng - neckedpheasant Phasianus colchicus 2 2 6 Surasian coot Fulica atra 3 24 3 4 48 19 2 16 2 100 40 6 20 ittle ringed plover Charadrius dubius 2 2 2 4 6 2 4 12 6 2 3 ied avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 2 6 4 8 ::urasian oystercatcher Haematopus 1 2 t3 reen sandpiper Tringa ochropus 1 2 4 1 6 2 5 1 3 6 2 3 4 2 1 3 ~orrmon redshank Tringa totanus 1 3 1 7 8 1 3 1 3 1 Marsh sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis 1 2 2 1 1 Common sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos 1 3 4 6 3 5 1 4 6 Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 3 12 15 11~uff Philomchus pugnax 3 15 10 45 2 3 50 1 80 10 35 9 30 )ttle stint Chalidris minuta 2 1 5 3 12 4 10 5 ~ommon snipe Gallinago gallinago 1 4 3 1 4 2 !Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata 1 1 4 1 30 3 Nhimbrel Numenius phaeopus 2 3 1 3 5 Slack-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 3 8 4 5 4 8 Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola 4 5 7 25 2 Black-winged Pratincole Glareola nordmanni 1 2 6 6 2 i:;reat Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus 1 2 2 1 6 1 p lack-headed Gull Larus ridibundus 10 3 5 30 1 12 25 9 3 20 50 40 9 3 6 Caspian Gull Larus cachinnans 2 2 8 20 5 20 3 20 30 13 2 9 40 60 2 4 10 ~ lack Tern Chidonias niger 20 2 3 25 2 30 4 1 5 16 1 ~ull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica 1 3 1 10 5 7 15 6 8 2 9 30 3 1 2 Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 1 2 1 3 1 Common Tern Sterna hirundo 4 15 6 2 10 20 30 8 4 2 20 20 13 3 6 3 _ittle Tern 1 Sterna albifrons 2 3 8 2 25 J31ack-bellied Sandgrouse Pterocles orientalis 3 1 6 24 f era I Rock Dove Columba livia 3 10 6 3 10 196 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 60 Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto 2 4 61 Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus 1 2 8 1 1 3 1 2 62 Common Swift Apus apus 4 2 2 63 European Roller Coracias garrulus 6 1 2 2 1 1 64 European Bee-eater Merops apiaster 6 50 23 5 3 8 65 Blue-cheeked Bee-eater Merops superciliosus 6 3 2 3 6 25 4 5 9 66 Hoopoe Upupa epops 1 3 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 67 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 26 100 50 6 15 2 40 6 6 4 25 4 15 68 Sand Martin Riparia riparia 30 50 100 12 4 20 3 150 3 20 10 10 8 69 Crested Lark Galerida criststa 3 3 2 70 Greater Short-toed Lark Calandrella cinerea 25 30 20 12 10 4 100 40 10 7 6 4 ' 71 Lesser Short-toed Lark Calandrella rufescens 2 1 2 5 8 10 50 40 25 2 2 72 Asian Short-toed Lark Calandrella 2 3 6 3 2 73 Calandra Lark Melanocorypha 18 74 Bimaculated Lark Melanocorypha 10 4 3 1 4 3 75 Skylark Alauda arvensis 2 1 76 Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula 1 2 2 1. 77 Black-headed Wagtail Motacilla feldegg 2 6 4 2 6 2 3 30 5 20 10 78 Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola 1 2 2 1 79 Masked Wagtail Motacilla personata 1 5 2 2 2 1 10 1 2 3 4 2 80 Turkestan Shrike Lanius phoenicurjides 1 4 1 3 1 2 I 81 Long-tailed Shrike Lanius schach 1 2 82 Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor 2 2 1 I 1 I 83 Southern Grey Shrike Lanius meridionalis 1 I 84 Eurasian Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus 1 I 1 85 Eurasian Starling Sturnus vulgaris 25 2 2 I 6 20 Common Myna ' 86 Acridotheres tristis 2 2 4 I 87 Black-bellied Magpie Pica pica 1 3 5 1 I 2 3 88 Eurasian Jackdaw Corvus monedula 3 89 Rook Corvus frugilegus 25 56 25 100 1 20 2 5 40 4 90 Eastern Carrion Crow Corvus corone 4 4 10 3 2 6 3 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 91 Cettis's Warbler Cettia cetti 1 1 2 I 92 Paddyfield Warbler Acrocephalus agricola 3 4 1 2 3 6 4 2 4 20 2 4 I 197 . - . - . - .. . , , , , , • . , easibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea vironmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 3reat Reed Warbler Acrocephalus 2 3 2 2 30 Syke's Warbler Hippilais rama 2 20 100 3 1 1 30 2 20 1 eastern Olivaceous Hippolais pallida 3 6 3 ,_esser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca 50 20 3 2 20 1 \llenetries's Warbler Sylvia mystacea 1 4 2 1 2 b esert Warbler Sylvia nana 1 Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe 1 2 1 bied Wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka 1 sabelline Wheatear Oenanthe isabellina 2 1 3 4 1 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 ~ ufous Bushchat Cercotrichas galactotes 2 4 2 Nightingale Luscin ia 3 10 1 Bluethroat Luscin ia svecica 2 6 2 1 2 3 Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus 8 10 W hite-crowned Penduline Remiz coronatus 6 6 8 1 2 3 !Turkestan T it Parus bokharensis 2 2 4 1 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 10 28 3 3 15 2 10 ndian Sparrow Passer ind icus 45 20 :Spanish Sparrow Passer hispan iolensis 30 10 :Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passere montanus 20 10 15 2 4 20 b esert Finch Rhodospiza obsoleta 2 6 2 Red-headed Bunting Emberiza brun iceps 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 - 198 L...llYllVlllll\Jlll.Goll lllltJc:AV'-1 \..:ll.,;1'-'.,;;t.,;;tlll'-'11\ I IVJ'-'VL I llc:A.,;;t'-' 11 \'-'JllU.,;;t 11) Table 3 Species content and number of birds at the monitoring stations according to the data of visual investigations in August 2007 Site Site Site Site Site Site Site 1 Site7 Sites 10 11 13 14 17 18 N!! Species Scientific (Latin) name 15.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 17.08 17.08 17.08 1 Great Crested Grebe Pod iceps cristatus 3 4 6 3 12 2 20 2 Red-necked Grebe Podiceps griseigena 2 23 2 3 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 6 4 31 3 4 Pygmy cormorant Phalacrocorax 1 5 12 2 16 3 2 5 Great White Egret Egretta Alba 3 1 8 4 2 150 2 23 6 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 1 2 10 2 2 26 4 15 7 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea 1 4 1 2 6 8 Greylag Goose Anser anser 30 40 6 200 4 38 9 Mute Swan Cygnus olor 2 6 10 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferrug inea 2 2 1 11 Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 4 12 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2 4 7 2 20 3 19 13 Gadwall Anas strepera 2 1 5 2 3 14 Common Teal Anas querquedula 8 4 3 30 13 15 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 1 3 16 Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina 7 9 10 45 9 24 17 Common Pochard Aythya ferina 2 18 18 Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca 6 5 2 4 7 1 19 Marsh Harrier Circus aerug inosus 2 2 7 8 3 6 4 8 20 Shikra Accipiter badius 2 21 Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus 1 1 22 Steppe Eagle Aqu ila nipalensis 1 23 Eu rasian Hobby Falco subbuteo 1 24 Eurasian Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 1 1 25 Eurasian Coot Fulica atra 3 25 9 8 30 23 26 Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 1 6 27 Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius 6 5 3 4 28 Kentish Plover Charadrius 4 3 7 1 29 Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 3 2 4 9 1 16 30 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 1 16 31 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus 5 4 2 4 6 32 Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 12 33 Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus 3 2 4 2 3 9 2 3 34 Common Redshank Tringa totanus 1 3 4 1 35 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis 1 2 8 5' 36 Common Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos 3 2 3 16 1 37 Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus 1 2 7 3 38 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 30 3 39 Ruff Philomchus pugnax 15 6 4 10 60 5 23 40 Little Stint Chalidris minuta 2 8 20 5 41 Temminck's Stint Calidris temm inckii 1 4 3 2 42 Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferrug inea 8 9 3 43 Dunlin Calidris alpina 3 20 50 4 199 ll "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) 44 Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus 1 45 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 3 2 1 46 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata 41 2 47 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 2 48 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 2 1 3 4 49 Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola 3 7 50 Black-winged Pratincole Glareola nordmanni 2 51 Great Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus 2 4 52 Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus 4 3 25 5 2 40 28 53 Caspian Gull Larus cachinnans 2 6 40 8 7 1 36 2 47 54 Black Tern Chidonias niger 2 4 3 55 Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica 1 3 4 6 56 Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 3 2 57 Common Tern Sterna hirundo 8 10 12 29 1 17 58 Little Tern Sterna albifrons 15 27 59 Feral Rock Dove Columba livia 4 3 60 Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus 1 61 European Roller Coracias garrulus 2 1 62 European Bee-eater . Merops apiaster 36 4 63 Blue-cheeked Bee-eater Merops superciliosus 6 30 6 3 15 64 Hoopoe Upupa epops 3 1 65 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 50 6 10 2 6 36 66 Sand Martin Riparia riparia 200 20 8 20 12 20 67 Crested Lark Galerida criststa 2 1 68 Greater Short-toed Lark Calandrella cinerea 3 10 14 10 8 5 69 Lesser Short-toed Lark Calandrella rufescens 30 1 70 Asian Short-toed Lark Calandrella 2 .. 71 Bimaculated Lark Melanocorypha 2 1 72 Skylark Alauda arvensis 1 73 Black-headed Wagtail Motacilla feldegg 2 4 1 2 74 Yellow Wagtail Motacilla lutea 1 75 Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola 2 1 76 Masked Wagtail Motacilla personata 1 3 4 3 77 Turkestan Shrike Lanius phoenicurjides 1 78 Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio 1 79 Long-tailed Shrike Lanius schach 1 80 Southern Grey Shrike Lanius meridionalis 1 81 Eurasian Starling Sturnus vulgaris 3 4 82 Common Myna Acridotheres tristis 3 7 83 Black-bellied Magpie Pica pica 1 1 1 2 84 Eurasian Jackdaw Corvus monedula 6 3 85 Rook Corvus frugilegus 150 8 2 12 4 86 Eastern Carrion Crow Corvus orientalis 8 6 4 2 3 2 87 Paddyfield Warbler Acrocephalus agricola 4 10 2 1 3 88 Blyth's Reed Warbler Acrocephalus 4 1 89 Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus 3 3 90 Syke's Warbler Hippilais rama 2 91 Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca 4 6 2 I IVJVVI. I llU..:IV II \'"-"'JllU..:I II/ 92 Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata 1 93 lsabelline Wheatear Oenanthe isabellina 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 2 94 Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus 5 95 White-crowned Penduline Remiz coronatus 4 96 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 40 20 97 Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passere montanus 3 2 98 Red-headed Bunting Emberiza bruniceps 3 1 Table 4 Species content and number of birds at Telikol lake, April 1gt\ 2007 NQ Species Scientific (Latin) name Registered (bird units) 1 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus 21 2 Pygmy cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus 20 3 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 20 4 Greylag Goose Anser anser 90 5 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea 6 6 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2 7 Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 15 8 Gadwall Anas strepera 70 9 Common Teal Anas querquedu la 30 10 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 500 11 Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina 170 12 Common Pochard Aythya ferina 10 13 Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca 50 14 Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 30 15 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus 1 16 Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga 2 17 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 3 18 Eurasian Coot Fulica atra 15 19 Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 2 20 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata 2 21 Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola 20 22 Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus 6 23 Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica 2 24 Blue~headed Wagtail Motacilla flava 30 25 Black-headed Wagtail Motacilla feldegg 50 26 White Wagtail Motacilla alba 1 27 Eastern Carrion Crow Corvus orientalis 20 28 Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybitus 1 29 Bluethroat Luscinia svecica 1 30 Siberian Stonechat Saxicola torquata 1 201 easibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea vironmental Impact Asses!?ment Project Phase II (Synas II) Figure 1. Map ~of the investigated area and allocation of the monitoring sites KapTa 1o1ccneAyeMoro paMoHa M pacnono>KeHM.R y'teTHblX nno~aAOK I,, .·.9 I: ~-"f-66li ' I / )( ··;. -... I (~ -- - I '" '" / I / IJ1f11 1 ~Y...,ntWI:~ 1·~pCwJtcl.. . . •OlllP9C~TU IC~ 2· P•-MCH. . . . ~• s-f'IDIM8c~.,MT9Q 4· ~p.~1,.-..T~ 5-l'blMllp.CMp,£i...-~C1".>ICan«8&1,111)t(,.c- ~,..- ... c•Mf!O"eOC~ ICu-u 7·0MIOMlllll.lll • · BocfO'lllWll)'+ettoll:~~ e-..o..,_>Kat\8P18~11P- 10.~~to10Mpe~lw&.c 11 . owpon~ 12· 0HPOT~ 1). 0Mt>O c.,,..,.... 14 • Y.to-· II I 1-1 , .. _ , II 0 't"'_._. .. 6 ·----- · • ,_., .... Picture 26. Young Imperial eagle near Akshatau lake Picture 27. Black-crowned night heron near the colony at Kotankol lake 215 "Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Picture 28. Pygmy cormorant at Kotankol lake Picture 29. Caspian gull - one of the most numerous gulls in the Syrdarya river valley and at the Aral sea L-1IVllVI111 ICI ILOI 111 lfiJCl\.IL n~~c~~l I ICI IL Picture 30. Great white egret near Kotankol lake Picture 31. Purple heron above Zhalanashkol lake 217 · · Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) • Picture 32. White-tailed lapwing on the earth road near Kokaral channel Picture 33. Marsh harrier - one of the most numerous predators of the water- swamping areas -·. " .. -· ... ·-· ... - .... 'r"'--"'. · - - - - - · . ·- · ... • Picture 34. Common snipe at the shallow areas of the Northern Aral sea near the Syrdarya mouth Picture 35. Red-necked phalaropes at the artesian water near Bugun settlement 219 .. Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea ' Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) • Picture 36. Marsh sandpiper at the artesian water near Bugun settlement Picture 37. Red-necked grebe at the Northern Aral sea near the NAS dike • • Picture 38. Great cormorants at Kokaral channel 221 • " Feasibilty Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) Picture 39. Telikol lake ANNEXES List of Literature • V. Abdullaev, S. Bakaev, A Poslavskyi. The role of man-made factors in preservation of biological : diversity and gene pool of the vertebrata in the Aral sea' rivers basins II Ecological problems of environmental protection. Moscow, 1990. Part 1. Page 75. V. Antipin . The birds' migrations in the Syrdarya valley (in 1953-1956) II Hunting and hunting economy, N2 5. Page 27 . V. Antipin. New data on the orn ithological fauna in the Syrdarya valley II Report on the 2nd All- Union orn ithological conference , Vol. 3. Moscow, 1959. Page 40-41 . V. Antipin. New data on the ornis in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Zoological magazine, 1961, Vol. 40, Publication 7. V. Antipin. Peculiarities of the swimming birds' migrations in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Materials of the 3rd All-Union ornithological conference, Vol. 1. Lvov, 1962. Page 18-19. V. Berezovskyi. Species content and population of the oystercatchers at the eastern coast of the Aral sea in summer, 1987. II Materials of the 2nd conference on the fauna and ecology of the oystercatchers. Moscow, 1980. Page 84-85. V. Berezovskyi. Population of the rare and endangered birds in the period of seasonal migrations at the eastern coast of the Aral sea II Ecology and preservation of birds (Report at the VIII-th All- Union ornithological conference) . Kishinev, 1981 . Page 23-24. V. Berezovskyi. Spring migration of the swimming and water birds at the eastern coast of the Aral sea in 1978-1979. II The birds' migrations in Asia. Publication 8. Alma-Ata , 1983a. Page 26-34. V. Berezovskyi. The predatory birds' migrations at the eastern coast of the Aral sea in 1978-1979. II Ecology of predatory birds. Moscow, 1983b. Page 7-8. V. Berezovskyi , E. Auezov, V. Khrokov. Modern status of the ornithological fauna at the eastern coast of the Aral sea and perspectives of its change due to the drying of the sea II Fauna of Kazakhstan and problems of its protection . Alma-Ata , 1982. Page 30-31 . S. Varshavskyi. Issues of the methods of visual quantitative studies of the birds ' migrations and some results of its application in the Northern part of the Aral sea region II Materials of the 3rd Baltic ornithological conference . Vilnius, 1957. Page 10-13. S. Varshavskyi. Experience of ornithological characteristics of the natural areas in the northern part of the Aral sea region and adjacent territories //Reports at the 2"d All-Union ornithological conference, Vol. 3. Moscow, 1959. Page 38-40. S. Varshavskyi. Ecological complexes of birds in the different landscape areas of the northern deserts in the Aral sea region II Ornithology in the USSR. Vol. 2, Ashkhabat, 1969. Page 99-102. S. Varshavskyi, B. Varshavskyi, V. Garbuzov. Some rare and endangered birds of the northern part of the Aral sea region II Rare and endangered animals and birds of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1977. Page 146-152. E. Gavrilov. Fauna and distribution of birds of Kazakhstan. Almaty, 1999. Page 198. N. Gladkov. Ecological notes on the bird fauna in the Syrdarya delta II Collection of articles of the Zoological Museum of MSU, 1941, Vol. 6. N. Gladkov. Ecological notes on the bird fauna in the Syrdarya delta II Zoological magazine, 1944, Vol. 23, N2 1. V. Grachev. Birds in the surroundings of Aralsk and Kamyshlybash lake (accord ing to the investigations of 1951-1954). Non-passerine II «Selevinia», 2000, N21-4. Page 95-104. N. Grachev. Additions to the ornithological fauna in Kzylorda region II News of Kazakh branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Zoological series. Alma-Ata, 1939, N2 1, Publication 1. Page 113-114. B. Gubin. Birds in the eastern part of the Aral sea region II Russian ornithological magazine. Express - publication, 1999, N2 80. Page 3-16. 223 • Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) ANNEXES S. Erokhov. Observations of the birds at the northern coast of the Aral sea II Kazakhstan ornithological bulletin . 2003. Almaty, 2004. Page 40-41 . N. Zarudnyi. Notes on the ornithology of Turkestan II Ornithological reporter, 1910. N22, Page 99-117; N23, Page 171-178. N. Zarudnyi. Notes on the ornithology of Turkestan II Ornithological reporter, 1913. N23, Page 137-154; N24, Page 254-256. N. Zarudnyi. Birds of Kyzylkum desert II Materials for cognition of flora and fauna of the Russian empire, Zoological department, Publication 14, 1915. Page 1-149. N. Zarudnyi. Birds of the Aral sea II News of Turkestan department of RGO, 1916, Vol. 12, Publication 1. Page 1-229. G. Kislenko. On biology of predatory birds in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Ornithology. Publication 9. Moscow, 1968. Page 351-353. G. Kislenko. About harmful activity of carrion crow (Corvus corone orientalis) in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Zoological magazine, 1970, Vol. 49, Publication 9. Page 1419-1420. G. Kislenko. Materials on biology of birds in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Ornithology, Publication 10, Moscow. 1972. Page 337-339. G. Kislenko. Materials on biology of passerine birds in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Ornithology, Publication 11 , Moscow. 1974. Page 381-382. Book of the gene pool of the fauna of the Kazakh SSR. Part 1. The vertebrata. Alma-Ata, 1989. Page 214. E. Koblik. Birds of the pioneer vegetation communities of the former shore line and bottom of the Aral sea at the Syrdarya river mouth II Materials of the 10th All-Union ornithological conference. Minsk, 1991. Part 1, Vol. 1. Page 282-283. A. Kovalenko. Ornithological observations near Baikonur launching site II Kazakhstan ornithological bulletin. 2004. Almaty, 2005. Page 45-49 .. A. Kovalenko. Ornithological investigations in the Syrdarya downstream valley and some adjacent territories in 2005. Kazakhstan ornithological bulletin, 2005. Almaty, 2006. Page 59-69. A. Kovshar. Trip to the northern Kyzylkum for the black stork II Kazakhstan ornithological bulletin. 2004. Almaty, 2005. Page 49-51. V. Kovshar. Observations of birds in the Syrdarya delta and adjacent areas of the dried bottom of the Aral sea in August 2000 II Selevinia, 2000, N21-4. Page 104-110. The Red Book of Kazakhstan . Publication 3. Vol. 1. Animals. Part 1. The vertebrata. Almaty- Istanbul, 1996. Page 326. P. Lankin. About distribution of steppe eagle in the Syrdarya downstream reaches II Ornithology, Publication. 12. Moscow. 1976. Page 235-236. V. Lobachev. About the biology of predatory birds in the Aral sea- region II Reports at the 2nd All- Union ornithological conference, Vol. 3. Moscow, 1959. Page 31-32. R. Malyshevskyi. Ornithological observations in the Syrdarya downstream valley in spring 1964 II Kazakhstan ornithological bulletin. 2004. Almaty, 2005. Page 211-213. V. Markov. Notes on pelicans and cormorants of the Aral sea II Fish-eating birds and their significance in the fishery. Moscow, 1965. Page 156-165: maps. A. Nikolskyi. About the fauna of mammals and birds in the steppe of the Aral sea region II Bulletin of MOIP, Biological Department. 1892, N2 4. Page 477-500. Birds of Kazakhstan. 5 volumes. Alma-Ata, 1960-1974. N. Severtsov. Vertical and horizontal distribution of Turkestan animals II News of the society of amateur of nature, anthropology and ethnography, 1873a, Vol. 8. Publication 2: Moscow, 1953, Page 270: pictures. c11v11 u11111e11La1 11 llf.li::ll.,;l l"\:S:Se:s:s111e11L t"IUjel.,;l r-11a:se I \vYlli::l:S II) ANNEXES N. Severtsov. Trips in Turkestan reg ion and investigations of the Tian-Shan mountain system • conducted by the master of zoology N. Severtsov. Collection of articles, 1873b; Publication 2: Moscow, 1947, Page 304. E. Smirnov. Hunting in the Syrdarya region II Natura and hunting, 1899, N2 9. E. Spangerberg. Birds in the Syrdarya downstream reaches and adjacent territories // Collection of articles of Zoological Museum of Moscow State University. Moscow, 1941 , Vol. 6. Page 77-140. E. Spangerberg, G. Feigin. About distribution and biology of Dalmatian pelican (Pelecanus crispus Bruch.) in the Syrdarya downstream valley II MOIP Bulletin , Biological department. 1930a, Vol. 39, Publication 1/2. Page 139-146. E. Spangerberg , G. Feigin. Hunting birds in Kzylorda district of Syrddarya region (Kazakhstan) II Reports on experimental forestry, Central experimental forest station , Department of biological and commercial hunting . Moscow, 1930b, Publication 7. Page 157-192. E. Spangerberg , G. Feigin . Birds in ~he downstream Syrdarya and adjacent territories II Collection of articles of Zoological Museum of Moscow State University. Moscow. 1936, Vol. 3. Page 41-184. L. Stepanyan. About nesting ecology of birds in the Syrdarya valley and northern part of Kyzylkum desert II Scientific report of the Higher School of Biological Sciences, 1969, N2 2(62). Page 22-26. A. Survillo. About nesting of some new bird species in Kazalinsk district of Kzylorda region II Materials of the VI-th All-Union orn ithological conference . Moscow, 1974. Part 1, Page 239. V. Khrokov. About birds' population at the Syrdarya delta lakes and mouth in spring 2001 II Migrations of birds in Asia. Publication 12. Articles of Institute of Zoology, Vol. 47. Almaty, 2004. Page 216-230. V. Khrokov, G. Tailer, L. Faustov, 0 , Shaimukhanbetov. Expeditions under the Project «Slender- billed curlew» : Kzylorda region II Kazakhstan ornithological bulletin . 2004. Almaty, 2005. Page 41 . Eversmann E. Reise von Orenburg nach Buchara begleitet von einem naturhistorischen Anhange und einer Vorrede von H. Lichtenstein. Berlin, 1823. Gubin B.M. Modern state of bird diversity in the northern Aral Sea region and problems of its conservation//Sustainable use of natural resources of Central Asia. Envir. problems of Aral Sea and surrounding areas. Almaty, 1998. P. 23. Gubin B.M. Problems Associated with Animal Diversity and Conservation in the Modern Aral seal/Abstract in the second Arab Int. Conference end Expedition on Envir. Biotechnology (Coastal Habitats) 8-12 Apri l 2000. Abu-Dhabi , 2000. P. 43. Expert - ornithologist: A. Kovalenko 225 Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) ANNEXES • A4 List of Amphibians and Reptiles Scientific English Russian Status Syrdarya Delta NAS Other Koksaray name name name floodplain lakes wetlands area (incl. Aydar- Arnasay) Rana Sea frog Q3epHaR Common + + + + ? ridibunda nRrywKa Bufo Green 3eneHHaR Unknown, Likely - - Common ? Green pewzowi toad >tt'1V.;;>.,;1111v111, I 1VJV¥1. I llQ'1V II \"""JllQ'1 I I / ANNEXES AS Fish species found in the Aral Sea in 2004 (Scott Wilson 2006) 1. Aral roach - Rutilus rutilus aralensis 2. Grass carp - Ctenopheryngodon idelle . 3. Aral pike-asp- Aspius aspius iblioides 4. Rudd - Scerdinus erychicefalus 5. Aral barbel - Barbus brahiocephalus brahiocephalus 6. Eastern bream - Abram is brama oriental is 7. Aral white-eyed bream -Abramis sapa aralensis 8. Aral shemaya - Chalcalbunus ohalcoides aralensis 9. Sabrefish - Pelecus cultratus 10. Silver crucian - Carasius carasius gibelio 11. Aral carp- Cyprinus carpio aralensis 12. Common silver carp - Hypophthalmichthys molitrix · 13. Common catfish - Silurus glanis 14. Common pike-perch - Stizostedion lucioperca 15. Common perch - Perea fluviatilis 16. Snakehead- Channa argas werpochowswii " 227 • Feasibility Study Syrdarya Control and Northern Aral Sea Environmental Impact Assessment Project Phase II (Synas II) ANNEXES A6 Fish species found in the Syrdarya Delta Lakes, 1934-2004 (Scott Wilson 2005, Source: KazNllRH, 2005. Names of Species Years of observation 1934 1964 1973-76 2001-04 Indigenous Species Acipensiredae Family - sturaeons Acipensir nudiventris- bastard sturgeon + + - - Salmonidae Family - salmons Salmo trutta aralensis - Aral salmon + - - - Cyprinidae Family - carps Rutilus ruti lus aralensis- Aral roach + + + + Leuciscus idus oxianus - Turkestan ide + + + + Aspius aspius iblioides - Aral pike-asp + + + + Scard inius ervthropthalmus - rudd + + + + Barbus caoito conocephalus- Turkestan barbell + + - - Barbus brachiocephalus brachiocephalus- Aral barbell + + - - Abramis brama orientalis- eastern bream + + + + Abramis sapa aralensis - Aral wh ite-eyed bream + + - - Chalcalburnus chaloides aralensis - Aral schemaya + + - - Pelecus cultratus - sabrefish + + + + Carasius carasius gibelio - silver crucian + - + + Cyprinus carpio aralensis - Aral carp + + + + Gobio aobio lepidolaemus - Turkestan audaeon + - - - Capeotobrama kuschakewtschi - ostroluchka + - - - Cobitidae Family - loaches Cobitis aurata aralensis - Aral spiny loach - + - - Siluridae Family - silurus Silurus qlanis - Weis catfish + + + + Esocidae Fami ly - pikes Esox lucius - pike + + + + Percidae Family - perches Stizostedion lucioperca - common pike-perch + + + + Perea fluviatilis - common perch + + + + Gymnocephalus cernuus - ruff - + - - Gasterostiidae Family - sticklebacks Pung itius platygaster aralensis - Aral stickleback + + + + Introduced Species Cyprinidae Fam ily - carps Ctenopharinaodon idella - arass carp - - + + Hypophtalmichthys molitrix - white silver carp - - + + Aristichthys nobilis - spotted silver carp - - + + Channidae Family - snakeheads Chan na arqus warpachowskii- snakehead - - + + Atherinidae Family - Atherinas Atherina boeri caspia - Caspian sand-smelt - - + + Gobiidae Family - gobies Pomatoschistus caucarcus - bald qoby - - + + Total number of species 21 19 20 20 Including I Indigenous 21 19 14 14 I Introduced - - 6 6