EBRD-KIPF - MPF Supplementary Info Report - Environ Impact Assessment (#2)

O
REPORT N DRAFT FINAL
MAKINSK POULTRY FARM PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (ESIA) SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION REPORT (SIR)
JANUARY 2016
MAKINSK POULTRY FARM
PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (ESIA)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
REPORT (SIR)
EBRD
Draft Final
Project no: 70017146

Date: January 2016
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

The Victoria, 150-182 The Quays
Salford Quays, Greater Manchester, M50 3SP
Tel: +44 (0)161 886 2400

Fax: +44 (0)161 886 2401
www.wspgroup.com
www.pbworld.com
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3
Remarks Draft for review
Date January 2016
Prepared by Stuart Clayton

Paul McGimpsey
Elena Bub
Barbara Silva
Rachael Bailey
Sean Allen
Stephanie Tyrrell
Denise Evans
Neil Bodsworth
Jon Seller
Signature
Checked by Neal Barker
Signature
Authorised by Neal Barker
Signature
Project number 70017146
Report number Version 1
File reference E09\Projects 2015

ii
PRODUCTION TEAM
CLIENT - EBRD
Senior Environmental Advisor (UK based) Mark Hughes
Principal Banker (Kazakhstan) Laurence Bahk
WSP GLOBAL INC. (WSP)
Project Director Neal Barker
Project Manager Stuart Clayton
Environment and Social Specialist Susan Woods/Liz Watts
Ecologist Jon Seller
Acoustic Specialist Neil Bodsworth

Air Quality Specialist Denise Evans
EIA Specialist Rachael Bailey
SUBCONSULTANTS
Local EHS Specialist (Eco Social Analysts Vladimir Merkuryev

Consulting)
Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

EBRD Project No 70017146
January 2016
iii16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Site and Location 1
1.3 Scope of the Supplementary Information Report for the Environmental
and Social Impact Assessment 2
1.4 The EIA Process in Kazakhstan 2
1.5 Content and Format of the ESIA 4
1.6 Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) 5
1.7 Project Area of Influence 5
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 6

2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Site Context and Description 6
2.3 Proposed Makinsk Poultry Farm 10
3 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK 15

3.1 Legal Framework 15
3.2 Republic of Kazakhstan Regulation 15
3.3 Regional and International Agreements 17
3.4 International Best Practice and the EBRD Requirements 19
4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 25
4.1 Strategic Location of the Poultry Farm 25
4.2 Locations within the Akmola Region 26
4.3 Locations within the Bulandy District 27
4.4 Site Layout Alternatives 27
4.5 Technological Alternatives 27
4.6 ‘No Project’ Alternative 27
5 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE INFORMATION 29

5.1 Meteorological and Climate 29
5.2 Local Climatic Conditions 30
5.3 Landscape and Visual 31
5.4 Air Quality 35
5.5 Noise and Vibration 36
5.6 Soil, Geology, Hydrogeology and Hydrology 37
5.7 Surface Water 50

January 2016
iv
5.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 51

5.9 Solid Waste Management 53
5.10 Cultural Heritage 56
6 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS (PUBLIC

CONSULTATION) 59
6.1 Background 59
6.2 Methodology 59
6.3 Outcome of Stakeholder Consultations 59
6.4 Future Public Participation 60
7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 61
7.1 Introduction 61
7.2 Impact Assessment Methodology 61
7.3 Air Quality 62
7.4 Noise Impacts 71
7.5 Potential Landscape and Visual Impacts 75
7.6 Geology and Soil 77
7.7 Hydrogeology, Hydrology and Water Quality 78
7.8 Potential Impacts on Flora and FaunA 84
7.9 Electromagnetic Fields 86
7.10 Groundwater and Water Supply 86
7.11 Waste Management 88
7.12 Cultural Heritage 93
8 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 94
9 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 112

9.1 Natural Hazards 112
9.2 Construction 112
10 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 114

January 2016
v
TABLES
TABLE 2-1 DESCRIPTION OF FARM AND ASSOCIATED
INFRASTRUCTURE........................................................................ 12
TABLE 3-1 PRINCIPAL ROK ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND H&S LAWS
AND CODES RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT................................. 15
TABLE 3-2 PARTICIPATION OF THE ROK IN THE RELEVANT
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS ................... 17
TABLE 3-3 COMPARATIVE POSITION REGARDING IED PERMITTING ......... 20
TABLE 3-4 HIGH LEVEL BAT ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT COMPONENTS.. 21
TABLE 5-1 METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA ............ 30
TABLE 5-2 AVERAGE HIGH/LOW TEMPERATURES BY MONTH (2000-
2012) .............................................................................................. 30
TABLE 5-3 RELATIVE HUMIDITY DATA BY MONTH ....................................... 30
TABLE 5-4 WIND DATA FOR AKMOLA REGION.............................................. 31
TABLE 5-5 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
IN AMBIENT AIR IN KAZAKHSTAN ................................................ 35
TABLE 5-6 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVELS....................................... 37
TABLE 5-7 BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY DATA ....................................... 50
TABLE 5-8 CONSTRUCTION WASTE FIGURES.............................................. 55
TABLE 5-9 WASTE PREDICTED TO BE GENERATED AT MAKINSK
POULTRY FARM (TONNES/YEAR) ................................................ 55
TABLE 7-1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS................................................... 61
TABLE 7-2 AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND DIRECTION FREQUENCY................... 63
TABLE 7-3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................. 70
TABLE 7-4 ASSUMED NOISE GENERATING EQUIPMENT ............................. 72
TABLE 7-5 PREDICTED INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ........... 74
TABLE 7-6 EFFLUENT PARAMETERS............................................................. 83
TABLE 7-7 ESTIMATED WATER USAGE (M3) BY THE PLANT’S
COMPONENTS. FODDER PLANT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
EIA .................................................................................................. 87
TABLE 8-1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.................. 94
FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 VIEW OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE LOCATION – VISITED BY WSP
PB IN DECEMBER 2015 ................................................................... 8
FIGURE 2-2 PROCESS LAYOUT OF MAKINSK POULTRY FARM
OPERATIONS................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 5-1 AVERAGE RAINFALL BY MONTH (MM)......................................... 31
FIGURE 5-2 EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL LANDSCAPE IN MAKINSK AREA ............ 33
FIGURE 5-3 EXAMPLE OF LOCAL VEGETATION IN MAKINSK AREA .............. 34
FIGURE 5-4 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF INCUBATOR...................................... 38

January 2016
vi
FIGURE 5-5 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF FACILITY GROUND .......................... 39

FIGURE 5-6 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF BROILER HOUSE 1........................... 40
FIGURE 5-14 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF POULTRY PROCESSING FARM....... 48
FIGURE 5-15 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF COMPOSTING GROUND .................. 49
FIGURE 5-16 WASTE HIERARCHY...................................................................... 54
FIGURE 5-17 ATATOBE MONUMENT (LEFT) AND LENIN MONUMENT
(RIGHT) .......................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 7-1 WHO SEISMIC HAZARD DISTRIBUTION MAP OF
KAZAKHSTAN ................................................................................ 77
FIGURE 7-2 MECHANICAL TREATMENT PROCESS ........................................ 82
MAPS
MAP 2-1 AKMOLA REGION OF KAZAKHSTAN .............................................. 6
MAP 2-2 PROPOSED LAYOUT OF FARM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED
INFRASTRUCTURE.......................................................................... 7

January 2016
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the “EBRD” or the “Bank”) is
considering providing finance to the Ust-Kamenogorsk Poultry Farm JSC (“UKPF” or the
“Company”) which is one of the largest vertically integrated poultry producers in Kazakhstan. The
Bank’s finance will be in the form of an up to USD 30m mezzanine/equity hybrid investment in
return for subscription to newly issued ordinary shares in a newly established investee entity.
Part of the proceeds of the Bank’s investment will be to assist funding of the construction of a new
integrated broiler production site and a feed mill at Makinsk (together “the Project”). The
investment programme is planned to be implemented over 3 years (2015–17), with main
construction phase to be carried out during 2016–17.
WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff (WSP PB) has been commissioned by EBRD and UKPF to prepare a
Supplementary Information Report (SIR) for the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
(ESIA) for the proposed Makinsk Poultry Farm to be in line with EBRD Requirements.
This document constitutes the main SIR ESIA document, with further addendum documents
provided in order to provide further coverage of the ESIA requirements. Further documentation
relevant to the ESIA disclosure will also be produced through Environmental and Social Action
Plan (ESAP) requirements as the project progresses and further project information is finalised.
The key addendum reports relevant to this SIR include:
Non-Technical Summary;
Stakeholder Engagement Plan;
Land acquisition and livelihood restoration framework; and
Social and Health Impact Assessment (Supplementary Information Report).
1.2 SITE AND LOCATION
This planned Poultry Farm is located at Makinsk. Makinsk is a town in northern-central

Kazakhstan. It is the administrative center of Bulandy District in the Akmola Region. Population
for Makinsk was 16,745 (2009 Census results). The wider Bulandy District has a population of
34,815 (2009 Census results).
Akmola Region is a centrally located region of Kazakhstan. Its capital is Kokshetau. The national
capital, Astana, is enclosed by the region, but is politically separate from Akmola Region. The
region's population is 748,300; Kokshetau's is 124,000. The area is 146,200 square kilometers. It
and Karaganda Region are Kazakhstan's only two regions which don't touch the country's outer
borders. Akmola Region borders North Kazakhstan Region in the north, Pavlodar Region in the
east, Karagandy Region in the south, and Kostanay Region in the west.
The environmental and social context of the site is described fully in Chapter 5.

January 2016
2
1.3 SCOPE OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REPORT FOR THE

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA)
The objectives of the assignment will be to produce a fit-for-purpose package of information as a

Supplementary Information Report (SIR) to compliment the current Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) undertaken in Kazakhstan, to allow a full package of disclosure to cover all
ESIA requirements required by the EBRD Environment and Social Policy 2014. This
Supplementary Information Report, as well as the National EIA and associated documents will
then be released for public consultation in accordance with EBRD requirements. In order to
achieve this, the following will be undertaken:
Compare the national requirements for EIA in Kazakhstan to the EBRD requirements for an
ESIA, according to the requirements of the EBRD PRs (2014), and which requires
consideration of the EIA standards within the current European Union (EU) EIA legislation
(updated in 2014).
Review of documents produced to date for national permitting processes in respect of
environmental and social issues. Public consultations on this document were held and the
Declaration of the Environmental Impacts was published in the local media and on the
website of the Municipality.
Review of any stakeholder identification, analysis and engagement actions, relative to EBRD
PR10, which have been undertaken to date;
Based on the above:
Clearly identify any gaps in the existing documentation and processes relative to the
EBRD requirements;
Substantiate how the identified gap(s) could pose a risk to the Project;
Identify a scope of work that would be required to fill the gaps;
Develop an Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP); and,
Preparation of a Disclosure Pack including supplementary information, a NTS, and a SEP
in Russian and English.
The gap analysis detailing the shortcomings of the existing EIA to EU EIA Directive standards
was reported in Environmental and Social Assessment for EBRD Ust-Kamenogorsk Poultry Farm
JSC Baseline Environmental and Social Audit & Animal Welfare and Biosecurity Audit January
2016. The purpose of the SIR is to address the shortcomings wherever practicable.
Furthermore, gaps have been identified in the baseline data where additional field studies are
recommended, comprising an ecological baseline survey and an assessment of the sustainable
use of groundwater for the water supply for the project.
1.4 THE EIA PROCESS IN KAZAKHSTAN
The MPF environmental performance is controlled by the regional department of the Ministry of
Energy and the Regional Prosecution Office. Below is the description of the compliance that the
project is to achieve by the start of the operation:
1. Responsibility for all compliance issues of the project lies on MPF. MPF shall check licenses
and emission permits of contractors and suppliers before signing the contracts.

January 2016
3
2. EIA is required to include all project stages and components, acquired land and the
immediate surroundings air, flora, fauna, surface and groundwater, social settings and
archaeology. Assessment of cumulative impact and impact along the supply routes is not
required. Some components may be reviewed separately from the EIA if their construction
schedule substantially differs from the main development timeline.
3. A positive conclusion of the State Environmental Expertise (SEE) of the Ministry of Energy on
the EIA shall be obtained before operation starts. Prior EIA approvals by other regulatory
authorities (e.g. Consumer Protection, Emergency Situation) are required.
4. After the SEE positive conclusion is obtained and before the operation starts, an Emission
Permit shall be obtained. The application for the permit shall include a maximum permitted
emission, discharges and waste disposal projects and an operational environmental control
plan. The Emission Permit is to include the emissions made during construction.
5. Construction permits for each project component shall be obtained from the State Technical
Expertise by the detailed design contractor;
Construction must be conducted in compliance with the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK)

construction standards, international agreements ratified by the RoK and other regulations some
of which are given below:
Environmental Code #212-III from 9 January, 2007

Concept of Environmental Safety for 2004-2015
Water Code #481-II from 9.07.2003 amended on 24.12.2012
Land Code from #442-II 20.06.2003 with changes and additions from 08.01.2013
Act on People’s Health and Health Care System #193-IV from 18.09.2009
Act on Industrial Safety on Dangerous Industrial Facilities #314-II from 3.04. 2002
Fire Safety Act #48-I from 22.11.1996
Act on Technical Regulation #1232 from 14.12.2007
Act on Protection, Reproduction and Use of Wildlife #593-II from 9.07.2004
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan #245 from 12.03.2008 on the list
of best available technologies.
Sanitary epidemiological requirements for industrial buildings and facilities #93 from
17.01.2012
Sanitary epidemiological requirements for water sources, potable water intake and supply
points, places of cultural and household water use and safety of water bodies #104 from
18.01.2012
Regulations issued before the enforcement of the Environmental Code are applied unless they
contradict the Code.
International agreements ratified by the RoK have a priority over its local laws and are applied
directly unless it requires enactment of corresponding law by the Constitution (Art. 4).
The Veterinary Law 2013 defines general rules of animals handling. Sanitary Rules and
Standards (SanPiNs) regulate food production (#164) and retail (#230), laboratories (#385) and
general operational constructions and buildings (#174), personnel medical inspections (#128) and
water sources (#209).

January 2016
4
The main project specific regulatory document is Veterinary Requirements to the Enterprises that
grow and sell animals, Ministry of Agriculture, #7-1/498, 2015. It regulates bird houses internal
conditions, sizes and material of structures and buildings, birds’ disease prevention procedures;
birds maximum density; hatching eggs quality and impact to the personnel and surrounding
population. The maximum birds’ density is defined in Appendix 11: as 3-3.5/m2 for parents (A.2)
and 7-8/m2 for broilers (B.2). MPF has to add to the standard approach the following requirements
of this document:
Monitor and record feather condition (A.166);

Tile the meat and bone shop walls to 1.8m height (A.t178);
Provide solariums for parent chickens (A.185.1)
Restrict access of wild animals by installing a 2m wire mesh fence (A.227).
Disinfect wastewater before discharge (A.250).
The current MPF design does not adhere to another requirement of this document: distance from
the Incubator to the nearest house shall be not less than 200m (A.224).
The project is supported by the regional council that is tasked to accelerate business
development in the region and develop the ‘Food Belt’ around Astana. The Karaozek rural area
council has allocated the project the required land, the sanitary-epidemiological approval for this
land has been obtained, radiation survey and geotechnical drilling has been conducted. The latter
also proved that the land does not contain valuable natural resources. The Regional Forestry and
Wildlife Inspection have confirmed that the land does not contain the Red Book species. The
Regional Soil Preservation Office (NPCZem) has given recommendations for handling the
removed during construction top soil.
The Company has prepared detailed design and environmental impact assessment. After review
of the design, the power distribution and water supply companies have given technical conditions
for connection to the grid and mains. The EIA and the 1 km Sanitary Protection Zone around the
development has been approved by the Regional Consumer Rights Protection Department. At the
time of this assessment the State Environmental Expertise was reviewing the EIA. The Expertise
positive conclusion would allow the Company to Proceed with the development. On the basis of
the approved EIA, the Company will have to obtain the Emission Permit during the calendar year
after the start of the construction.
1.5 CONTENT AND FORMAT OF THE ESIA
The ESIA has adopted the following structure:
An Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Description of the Project
Chapter 3: Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework
Chapter 4: Description of Alternative Options, including the “No Project” Option
Chapter 5: Environmental and Social Baseline Information
Chapter 6: Consultation with stakeholders
Chapter 7: Assessment and Mitigation of the Impacts
Chapter 8: Emergency Situations
Chapter 9: Compliance of the Intended Activity against the approved policy for the given
area

January 2016
5
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program comprising an Environmental Social Management Plan

(ESMP)
A Bibliography provides the references of documents, the author and technical information that
has been used and appendices are provided that site plans and maps.
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ESMP)
An ESMP has been prepared as a separate document and addresses all impacts and provides
the means to monitor and ensure that impacts are as predicted, to provide reassurance as to the
compliance with legal, corporate and EBRD requirements and to allow detection of emerging
issues.
The ESMP addresses all anticipated impacts in respect of air, noise, water, soil, waste, social
conditions of the local community etc. The ESMP references the relevant standards and
regulations (Kazakh and the EBRD) that will apply to all phases of the project and includes the
roles and responsibilities of the different parties involved in the design and implementation of the
project.
1.7 PROJECT AREA OF INFLUENCE
The area of influence in respect of this project is the investment programme proposed for the
development of the new poultry farm at Makinsk and its associated infrastructure such as feed
mill, wastewater treatment plant, composting process and water supply.
From the perspective of the Makinsk Poultry Farm, the Project Affected Area is the units that
comprise the farm and its associated infrastructure and the immediate vicinity, including the
residential areas 125m away from the hatchery unit and 1,250m away from some of the main
farm buildings. The Project Area of Influence extends to the settlements nearby including the city
of Makinsk.

January 2016
6
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter provides details of the proposed development and describes the layout of the
planned poultry farm and its associated infrastructure. The description of the project, its
components and activities has been provided and based on the various studies completed by
MPF in 2014.
2.2 SITE CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDING

The proposed development is located on green field agricultural land to the west of the town on
Makinsk. Makinsk is a town in northern-central Kazakhstan. It is the administrative center of
Bulandy District in the Akmola Region. Population for Makinsk was 16,745 (2009 Census results).
The wider Bulandy District has a population of 34,815 (2009 Census results).
Akmola Region is a centrally located region of Kazakhstan. Its capital is Kokshetau. The national
capital, Astana, is enclosed by the region, but is politically separate from Akmola Region. The
region's population is 748,300; Kokshetau's is 124,000. The area is 146,200 square kilometers. It
and Karaganda Region are Kazakhstan's only two regions which don't touch the country's outer
borders. Akmola Region borders North Kazakhstan Region in the north, Pavlodar Region in the
east, Karagandy Region in the south, and Kostanay Region in the west. Map 2-1 shows the
location of Akmola Region within Kazakhstan.
Map 2-1 Akmola Region of Kazakhstan
The proposed site lies immediately to the west of the town of Makinsk with the farm units in
excess of 2km from the town with the associated infrastructure such as the feed mill, water
treatment, wastewater treatment and composting facility closer to the town. Map 2-2 shows the
layout of the farm units and associated infrastructure.

January 2016
7
Map 2-2 Proposed Layout of Farm Units and Associated Infrastructure

January 2016
8
Figure 2-1 View of Slaughterhouse Location – Visited by WSP PB in December 2015
The land acquired on behalf of the Makinsk Poultry farm project was all state owned land. The
project is to use 301 hectares of which 76 hectares is for the farm area for the technical aspects
of the farm whilst a further 225 hectares will be utilised for the associated infrastructure such as
the electrical, water and wastewater systems.
The wastewater treatment plant is to be located on a parcel of land that was previously set aside
for a new landfill for the town of Makinsk. However, the landfill was given another parcel of land
within an appropriate development zone to allow the wastewater treatment plant to be built in the
proposed location. This wastewater treatment plant will be utilised by both the farm and the town.
KEY FEATURES AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
There are no ecologically protected areas within the immediate vicinity of the MPF site.
There are no Specially Protected Areas of Nature (SPANs) near to site, the closest protected area
is Bulandy Nature Preserve (7 km east) from the project location. The preserve protects moose
but also has deer, roe, boar, lynx, wolf, fox, steppe fox, hare, badger, weasel, marten, ermine,
marmot, muskrat, polecat and large birds partridge, grouse and wood and black grouses, quail,
duck, coot and sandpiper for which limited hunting is allowed.

January 2016
9
The site under development at Makinsk was Steppe which was utilised for the grazing of horse,
sheep and cows.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Each of the different sections of the Makinsk Poultry farm are discussed in turn below with their
proximity to nearby residential receptors:
Incubator site will be located in Karaozeksk rural district, near Baysuat village. The closest
residential dwellings are located easterly at the distance of 125m from the site.
Administrative and service building of broilers (clean) will be located in Karaozeksk rural district,
near Karaozek village. The nearest residential buildings are located to the west at a distance of
1,250m from the site. In a northerly direction for a distance of 800m will be located site for
growing of broilers BP1.
Site for growing of broilers (BP1) will be located in Karaozeksk rural district. The nearest
residential buildings, Karaozek village are located in a southwestern direction at a distance of
1,500m from the site.
Site for growing of broilers (BP2) will be located in Karaozeksk rural district. The nearest
residential buildings, Karaozek village are located in southwestern direction at the distance
2,220m from site.
Site for growing of broilers (BP 3) will be located in Karaozeksk rural district. The nearest
residential building, Karaozek village is located in a southwestern direction at a distance of
3,980m from the site territory. In a North-easterly direction at a distance of 375m will be located
site for growing broilers BP 4. Westerly at a distance of 994m from the site Kayrakty River flows.
Easterly – territory is free of buildings.
residential buildings, Karaozek village are located in southwestern direction at the distance
4,965m from the site territory.
residential building, Makinsk city is located in easterly direction at the distance of 5,410m from the
site.
residential building, Makinsk city is located in easterly direction at the distance of 4,870m from the
site territory.
residential buildings, Makinsk city are located in easterly direction at the distance of 5,070m from
the site territory.
residential buildings are at Makinsk city in an easterly direction at the distance of 4,280m from the
site.
Site of plant on poultry processing will be located on territory of Makinsk. The nearest residential
buildings are at Makinsk city in an easterly direction at the distance of 2,012m from the site.
Administrative and service building of broilers (dirty) will be located on territory of site of plant on
poultry processing.

January 2016
10
Site of PS-110/10kV will be located in Karaozeksk rural district. Karaozek village is located in
south-westerly direction at the distance of 7,750m from the site.
Site of station for the biological treatment of sewage water will be located in Karaozeksk rural
district. The nearest residential buildings at Karaozek are located in a south-westerly direction at a
distance of 7,750 from the site. The nearest residential building, Makinsk city is located in
easterly direction at the distance of 1,820m from the site territory
Composting site is located at the same site with station biological treatment of sewage water. The
nearest residential buildings are at Makinsk city in an easterly direction at the distance of 2,015m
from the site.
2.3 PROPOSED MAKINSK POULTRY FARM
In general, the company’s market for the poultry products is the national market, i.e. Kazakhstan
as poultry products are not exported, so the export potential has not been investigated, but it is
assumed that there are good opportunities for the development of sales in the countries of the
Customs Union.
The distribution system will remain the same, ie, Mixed B2B (own and through distributors), sales
through the major distribution companies, major retailers, branded network of retail outlets, retail
outlets, HORECA.
POULTRY FARM AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-3 shows the layout of the poultry farm process.
Figure 2-2 Process Layout of Makinsk Poultry Farm Operations

January 2016
11
Note:
Brown color indicates the units of the projected Poultry farm;

Green color designates the objects constructed at the first stage, parallel to the construction
of Poultry farm on individual projects;
Orange color designates the objects, constructed at the second stage on individual projects
Blue color designates the organizations, performing a contract.
The Poultry farm process begins with the hatching of eggs supply in an incubator unit. This is
followed by 21 days of the incubation process, and broiler chicks hatching. At the end of the
process one day-old chicks are taken by special vehicles to Broiler houses for housing into the
poultry houses intended for growing the broiler chickens. For 40-42 days the poultry houses
continues the process of growing the poultry in accordance with the production schedule of the
housing. At the end of the growing cycle poultry should be prepared for slaughter and transported
to the poultry processing plant. After a series of processes, such as stunning, slaughter, bleeding,
scalding, removal of feathers, gutting, cleaning, cooling, cutting, sorting and packaging, the final
product should be taken out to the central storage and end product distribution warehouses.
See Map 2-2 above which shows the layout of the proposed development.
Each element of the proposed farm project is summarised in Table 2-1 Description of Farm and
Associated Infrastructure
below.

January 2016
12
Table 2-1 Description of Farm and Associated Infrastructure

ELEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS AND DETAILS
Farms The key farm activities are detailed below:
62,258 tons of live weight annually;
8 broiler farms with 12 houses each comprising with their own associated
checkpoint building for biosecurity control;
Chickens for slaughter;
incubator- for day old chicks and hatching eggs per year;
slaughter floor;
Dirty and clean roads to ensure biosecurity;
Rendering facility producing approximately 11 tonnes of meat and bone meal
per day;
Laundry;
Central warehouse;
Garage for 12 cars; and
Gas fired hot water boilers with a capacity of 6.8MW. Gas fired boiler providing
15 tons of steam per hour.
Feed Mill Feed is delivered from the feed mill to the farm with 3-4 days margin. The grain
elevator, located in Makinsk, was acquired where it is planned to build the feed mill with
the capacity of 20 tonnes per hour. The feed mill is planned to be operational run
simultaneously with the first stage of the poultry farm. It is planned that this plant will
provide 100% of the feed for the poultry farm complex.
The following equipment is to be installed at the feed mill:

Scales;
Transport lines-conveyors and bucket elevators
Crushers
Mixers
Mixer Granulator
Sifter (separator)
Elevator equipment
Reception: Transporters with 36 internal silos and 8 street silos
Composting Pad The composting process will process 73,727 tons per year of waste.
The litter from the broiler houses is shipped using litter dump trucks to the composting
pad with a frequency according to the production schedule of the MPF which will be
based on the 42 day growing cycle of the birds. Litter will be stored in windrows with a
height of 2.6 m, width of 6m (in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
manufacturer of equipment for turning clamp) and length of 100 meters. The
composting period is 42-55 days.
In addition to the treatment area there is further asphalt pad areas designed for the
storage of finished products and raw materials during times of slowing technology and
inability to export products because of climatic conditions (Frost, snow).
The compost is spread as manure on the fields of the consumer and this agricultural
fertiliser period lasts approximately 60 days a year, from the moment of harvest season
(August-September) to the moment when snow falls. The spreading will take place
using two compost spreaders with a capacity of 20 tons per hour, based on one tractor
and forklift carrying load of compost in the spreader on the edge of the field.
Wastewater The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) incorporates dissolved air flotation
Treatment Plant technology. Wastewater comes to an open reservoir designed for the separation of
(WWTP) solid particles from water using air. Flakes float to the surface of the reservoir which
automatically removes them using a drag mechanism. Flotation uses plastic plates,
which increase the surface area and guarantees that even the smallest flakes are
removed from the wastewater. Built-in recirculation/aeration ensures the required air-

January 2016
13
water mixture. Physico-chemical cleaning methods are by coagulation. As a result of

physico-chemical treatment three streams are formed:
Treated sewage water is sent into the buffer capacity before biological
treatment facilities;
Removed floating material is sent for recycling in the shop on manufacture of
meat and bone meal; and
Sludge goes to mechanical strainer and is later transported by truck to be
composted to manure.
Boilers LPG is used within the boilers and there is a gas storage next to the feed mill. The
central heating at some smaller isolated buildings is from electric boilers. An LPG fired
central heating boiler will be at each farm component: broiler houses (100kW), broiler
office (560kW), fodder mill, slaughter plant (steam, 6 800kW) and incubator (1 900kW).
Administrative building- there are two administrative areas for the production process –
Buildings one for each of the clean and dirty area. The clean area administrative building is
located in front of the broiler houses, whilst the dirty area administrative building is
located at the poultry processing plant territory. These territories are used for
compliance with sanitary and epidemiological and hygienic standards of production;
Garages are present at administrative clean, dirty , slaughterhouse and composting pad
for machinery and collection vehicles including car washing facility and fuel storage
provision.
8 farms consisting of 12 broiler houses each, hatchery unit, slaughterhouse and

rendering plant, feed mill and grain elevator, wastewater treatment plant and compost
hangar.
Access and Paved clean and dirty access roads constructed for the project.
security Passage onto and exit from the farms is by a checkpoint. The building dimensions 6 x 6
m. units posted security room, bathroom, entrance.
CCTV system of cameras at checkpoint and fence perimeter for 24-hour security of the
site with digital recording facility.
Site paving Paved entrance area, paved parking area and lighting.
Equipment Grain and feed transport trucks, staff minibuses for moving staff between farms and
smaller cars.
2 landspreading units with a capacity of 20 tonnes per hour
1 forklift
Vehicle wash One vehicle wash facility located at each garage.

Surface water Surface water collection, storage and discharge.
Services Includes wastewater, waste collection, electricity, drinking water and communications.
The slaughterhouse will also include an ammonia based refrigeration system.
Power supply will be provided from electrical mains and hot water and steam from the
boilers as detailed above.
Others Fire extinguishers are located throughout the buildings.
Ammonia refrigeration system fitted with leak detection system.
The internal road network will be developed in part during the first phase construction works and
also during the operation of the farms. These roads will either be for clean and dirty areas and
vehicles will be limited to only those that are suitable for the biosecurity of the clean area.

January 2016
14
Lighting in the buildings is undertaken by using LED lamps (LED) as the most efficient. The broiler
buildings have 3 rows of lighting. Illuminance is governed by the RoK special lighting program,
starting with 35-40 Lux @ sunshine for young birds, and up to 5-7 Lux sunshine duration at the
age of more than 7 days.

January 2016
15
3 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

FRAMEWORK
3.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The construction and operation of the proposed Makinsk Poultry Farm will meet the requirements
of the RoK policy and legal requirements and international environmental agreement and
standards and guidance such as those developed by the EBRD that are relevant to the project
and these are discussed below. Compliance with the legal requirements listed in Sections 3.1 and
3.2 are mandatory. Compliance with the requirements list in Section 3.3 will be required by the
EBRD. Consequently this national EIA, SIR and the project have been designed to comply with all
these requirements.
3.2 REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN REGULATION
Environmental permitting in RoK historically was predominately based on the requirements of

Soviet legislation. Table 3-1 below provides a summary of the RoK legislation relevant to this
project that has been considered in the EIA, although this is not an exhaustive list.
Table 3-1 Principal RoK Environmental, Social and H&S Laws and Codes Relevant to the Project
ROK LAW/CODE DATE ADOPTED
Environmental Code 2007
Labour Code 2015
Public Health and Healthcare System Code 2009
Land Code 2003
Water Code 2003
Forest Code 2003
Law on Veterinary Medicine 2002
Law on Conservation, Reproduction and Usage of Fauna 2004
Law on Conservation of Flora 2002
Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL CODE
The Code covers all aspects of environmental legislation including main requirements for
environmental state expert examinations, environmental audits, permissions, monitoring
procedures, waste management, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, soil contamination,
radiation.
LABOUR CODE
The labour code covers:
Labour relations, the foundations of the origin of the labour relations, parties of labour
relations
Representation during collective labour relations
Terms and timings

January 2016
16
Control and supervision over compliance with labour legislation

Exercising and protecting labour rights
Social partnership in the area of labour
Regulation of collective labour disputes
Execution of an employment contract
Termination of employment contract
Protection of the personal data of the employees
Working time
Vacations
Wages and compensation
Guarantees and compensation
Labour discipline
Material liability
Health and safety of employees
PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM CODE

The Code establishes the legal, economic and financial guidelines for medical care and service
delivery, which ensures the realisation of people’s constitutional right to preserve their health.
LAND CODE
The Land Code defines the main directives for management and use of state lands, including
those allocated for various purposes, such as agriculture, urban construction, industry and mining,
energy production, transmission and communication lines, transport and other purposes. The
Code defines the lands under the specially protected areas as well as forested, watered and
reserved lands. It also establishes the measures aimed to the lands protection, as well as the
rights of state bodies, local authorities and citizens towards the land.
WATER CODE
The main purpose of the Water Code is to provide the legal basis for the protection of the
country’s water resources, the satisfaction of water needs of citizens and economic sectors
through effective management of water resources, and safeguarding the protection of water
resources for future generations. The Water Code addresses the following key issues:
responsibilities of state/local authorities and public, water cadastre and monitoring system, public
access to the relevant information, water use and water system use permitting systems, trans-
boundary water resources use, water quality standards, hydraulic structures, operational safety
issues, protection of water resources and state supervision.
FOREST CODE
The Code shall regulate relations connected with sustainable forest management - guarding,
protection, rehabilitation, afforestation and rational use of forests and forest lands of the Republic
of Kazakhstan as well as with forest stock-taking, monitoring, control and forest lands.

January 2016
17
LAW ON VETERINARY MEDICINE

The Law sets legal, financial and institutional basis for veterinary medicine and covers various
aspects of veterinary-sanitary management including prevention and treatment of animal
diseases. It also specifies funding sources and liability for violation.
LAW ON FAUNA
The law defines RoK state policy in the field of maintenance, protection, usage and regeneration
of fauna. The law defines the objectives of survey of the fauna, state monitoring, state inventory,
requirements and approaches of red book preparation on fauna, conditions, peculiarities,
limitations of allocation of fauna objects for purposeful usage, basis of termination of the right to
use, provisions on fauna maintenance, and economic encouragement of usage and
implementation of supervision. The law also defines the rights and obligations of the state
governance and local governmental bodies in the field of flora maintenance, protection,
reproduction and usage.
LAW ON FLORA
The law defines RoK state policy in the field of maintenance, protection, usage and regeneration
of flora. The law defines objectives of flora examination, state monitoring, state inventory,
requirements and approaches of red book preparation on flora, conditions, peculiarities,
limitations of allocation of flora objects for purposeful usage, basis of termination of the right to
use, provisions on flora maintenance, and economic encouragement of usage and
implementation of supervision. The law also defines the rights and obligations of the state
governance and local governmental bodies in the field of flora maintenance, protection,
reproduction and usage, mechanisms of state inventory, principles of deciding their indicator.
LAW ON SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS

The law defines the legal basis and relations of state policy for development, restoration,
maintenance, reproduction and use of natural complex and separate objects, as well as
ecosystems of specially protected natural areas of the Republic. According to the law, specially
protected natural areas are divided into four categories, National parks, State Reserves, Natural
museums and the forth category is divided into three separate types: areas of international,
republican and local importance.
The law defines concepts, regimes of maintenance, principles of preparation of specially

protected natural areas management plans, monitoring, calculation and state registrar, as well as
the requirements of usage, limitations and principles, rights and obligations of state governmental
and local governmental bodies, maintenance bodies of the protected areas, the rights public to
get information on protected areas, financial sources of protected areas, requirement of
supervision and responsibility for violating the Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas.
3.3 REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Below are the conventions related to the projects that are ratified by the RoK.
Table 3-2 Participation of the RoK in the Relevant International Environmental Agreements
CONVENTION RATIFIED BY ROK
World Meteorological Organization (October 11, 1947) 18.12.1992
Convention on Biological Diversion (Rio de Janeiro, June 19.08.1994
1992)
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution 4.05.1994

January 2016
18

Damage (Brussels, 29 November 1969)
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World 29.04.1994
Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, November 1972)
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 4.05.1994
from Ships (London, November 1973)
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other 20.02.1995
Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
(Geneva, May 1977)
Energy Charter Treaty (Lisbon, December 1994) 18.10.1995
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 04.05.1995
Change (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992)
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 07.07.1997
(Paris, June 1994)
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 30.10.1997;
Ozone Layer (Montreal, September 1987) with 07.05.2001;
amendments 6.04.2011
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone 30.10.1997
Layer (Vienna, November 1989)
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 6.04.1999
of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington, March 1973)
UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact 21.10.2000
Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Finland,
February 1991)
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air 23.10.2000
Pollution (Geneva, November 1979)
UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of 23.10.2000
Industrial Accident (Finland, March 1992)
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public 23.10.2000
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (Aarhus, June 1998)
UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of 23.10.2000
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
(Water Convention) (Helsinki, March 1992)
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 10.02.2003
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
(Basel, March 1989)
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 13.12.2005
especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Paris, December 1982)
with amendments
Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine 13.12.2005
Environment of the Caspian Sea (Tehran, November
2003)
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 7.06.2007
(Stockholm, May 2001)
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent 2007

January 2016
19

Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade (Rotterdam, September
1998)
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of 13.12.2005
Wild Animals (Bonn, June 1979)
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention 17.06.2008
on Biological Diversity
Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on 26.03.2009;
Climate Change (Kyoto, December, 1997) and 25.08.2011
Amendments
3.4 INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE AND THE EBRD REQUIREMENTS
The European Union (EU) has laid down strict requirements for the management of poultry
operations to prevent and reduce as far as possible the negative effects on the environment from
the growing of chickens.
EU ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

With the animal by-products regulations1, animal by-products are defined as the entire bodies or
parts of bodies of animals or products of animal origin not intended for human consumption. The
scope covers the health and surveillance rules for the collection, transport, storage, handling,
processing and use or disposal of animal by-products and also the placing on the market and, in
certain specific cases, the export and transit including products derived from animal by-products.
The slaughter house will incorporate a rendering facility which will produce animal by-products for
sae to the market. At the Ust-Kamenogorsk poultry facility the rendered chicken is incorporated
into the feed although it is advised that this is prohibited under the animal by-products regulations.
THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE (IED)
The IED Directive combines seven existing Environmental Directives including, IPPC, Waste
Incineration, Solvent Emissions, Titanium Dioxide and Large Combustion Plant Directives. Each
member state was required to transpose the directive into law by January 2013. From this date,
2
relevant sites would be required to apply for a permit under the IED Directive (2010/75/EU). The
new Makinsk Poultry Farm (MPF) site would fall under IED regime due to the principal operation
of the farm:
“Annex I, Section 6 their Activities 6.6. Intensive rearing of poultry or pigs: (a) with more than
40 000 places for poultry”.
Table 3-3 gives the full scope of each of the projects activities that could be considered to require
an IED permit in their own right.
1
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health
rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption
2
Directive 2010/75/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions
(integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast)

January 2016
20
Table 3-3 Comparative Position Regarding IED Permitting

SITE AND PROCESSES REQUIREMENT PERMIT REQUIRED IN
LIKELY TO REQUIRE AN EU CONTEXT UNDER
PERMITS THE IED
Makinsk
Poultry Farm 6.6. Intensive rearing of Yes
poultry or pigs:
(a) with more than 40 000
places for poultry;
Feed Mill 6.4 (b) Treatment and Yes- 20 tonnes per hour
processing, other than which equates to 480
exclusively packaging, of the tonnes per day
following raw materials, whether
previously
processed or unprocessed,
intended for the production of
food or feed from:
iii) animal and vegetable raw
materials, both in combined and
separate products, with a
finished product
production capacity in tonnes
per day greater than:
— 75 if A is equal to 10 or
more; or,
— [300- (22,5 × A)] in any
other case,
where ‘A’ is the portion of
animal material (in percent of
weight) of the finished product
production
capacity.
Meat Processing Facility 6.4. (a) Operating Yes- 9,000 heads per
slaughterhouses with a carcass hour with each bird
production capacity greater than weighing 2.2-2.5kg
50 tonnes per day
Boiler Plant 1.1. Combustion of fuels in No- below 50MW
installations with a total rated
thermal input of 50 MW or more
Wastewater Treatment Plant 6.11. Independently operated Yes
treatment of waste water not
covered by Directive
91/271/EEC and discharged by
an installation covered by
Chapter II
Composting Process 5.3 (b) Recovery, or a mix of Yes- The 73,000 tonnes
recovery and disposal, of non- of litter to be converted
hazardous waste with a capacity to compost comfortably
exceeding 75 tonnes per exceeds the 75 tonnes
day involving one or more of the per day threshold.
following activities, and
excluding activities covered by
Directive 91/271/EEC:
(i) biological treatment;

January 2016
21
Table 3-4 High Level BAT Assessment of Project Components

PROJECT COMPONENT BAT STATUS
Poultry Farm The sanitary protection zone of 1km for the farm units
ensures that any potential for emissions to air, odour or noise
affecting local communities are minimised.
Animal welfare and dietary requirements will meet BAT.

Efficient drinking systems to be used.
Litter applied by hand and feed to have vegetable oil in pellet

to reduce dust emissions.
Certified EMS to be developed for the poultry farm and all

associated activities.
Feed Mill There is little information with regards to the feed mill as this
is still not fully designed.
The following equipment is to be installed at the feed mill:
Scales;
Transport lines-conveyors and bucket elevators
Crushers
Mixers
Oil injectors
Mixer Granulator
Sifter (separator)
Elevator equipment
Reception: Transporters with 36 internal silos and 8
street silos
The system of abatement of dust emissions to air has not

currently been finalised. However, if the design incorporates
bag filters, as detailed by the ESAP and what the UKPF site
is being upgraded to, then this should ensure compliance
with IED emission limit requirements for particulates of 50
mg/m3.
Preliminary noise assessment suggests that noise is likely to

be below WHO day and night time limits at the nearest
residential receptor.
Meat Processing Facility Wastewater and clean water kept separate. Good reuse
throughout a shift with water only disposed of at end of shift.
Hoses to be fitted with trigger switches. Cleaning

requirements undertaken in accordance with food safety
HACCP requirements.
Refrigeration system monitored and controlled with ammonia

monitors to alarm in the event of a leak being detected.
Water stunning used rather than inert gases.
Odorous emissions from rendering process are not thermally

treated.
Boiler Plant The aggregated capacity of all boiler plant is below 20MW
and will utilise LPG until natural gas supply is available. LPG
more appropriate than fuel oil and the intent to move to
natural gas when available will meet BAT requirement.
The largest unit is 6.8MW with most of the broiler houses

using 0.1MW units which are all not required to meet any
emission limits.

January 2016
22
PROJECT COMPONENT BAT STATUS

Wastewater Treatment Plant Grease traps and screens to be in place to remove
(WWTP) contaminants prior to the WWTP
The wastewater treatment process will be a dissolved air

flotation process with activated sludge treatment which will
ensure that BAT emission limits for discharges to water are
met.
Composting Process Litter heaps to be placed on hardstanding which slope to
water collection system which goes to the WWTP. Thus, no
discharges of leachate to land.
Litter heaps are to be stored externally and not covered.
Land spreading has not previously been assessed and

procedures need to be put in place to ensure this is
managed correctly.
EBRD PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
The EBRD seeks to ensure that all projects financed are socially and environmentally sustainable,
respect the rights of affected workers and communities, and are designed and operated in
compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and good international practices. The EBRD’s
Environmental and Social Policy was published in 1991 and updated in 2008 and 2014. The
EBRD PRs consider the potential environmental and social impacts that must be assessed to
demonstrate compliance, and provide the basis on which clients must demonstrate commitment
to the sustainability of their business operations. The EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy
includes compliance with the PR, which outline social and environmental responsibilities and
specific practices that the EBRD clients must follow:
Performance Requirement 1 - Environmental and Social Appraisal and Management
The requirement defines the importance of a systematic approach to the management of the
environmental and social impacts associated with project activities and operations. The PR
provides guidance on the client’s responsibilities for managing and monitoring environment and
social issues and how these will be assessed in relation to the Bank’s Policy. The PR also defines
the ‘area of influence’ associated with the project that comprise all direct, indirect and supporting
activities. In addition, the area and communities potentially impacted by project activities should
be defined within the area of influence.
Performance Requirement 2 - Labour and Working Conditions
The EBRD requires that the structure and human resources for projects are transparent, fair and
provide a framework for the sustainability of the enterprise over the lifetime of the project. The
requirements should be articulated through appropriate policies, working conditions and equal
opportunities.
Performance Requirement 3 - Pollution Prevention and Control
Increased economic activity associated with projects can result in pollution to air, water and land,
as well as increased consumption of finite natural resources. The role of adhering to good
international practice is identified, including the principle that the potential for environmental
damage should be rectified at source, and the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

January 2016
23
Performance Requirement 4 - Community Health, Safety and Security
PR4 requires that adverse health and safety impacts should be avoided or mitigated to reduce the
potential effects on project workers, affected communities and consumers. The objective of this
PR that include the protection and promotion of a health and safety culture throughout the client
organisation together with appropriate management systems that enforce appropriate measures
and anticipate risks associated with project activities.
Performance Requirement 5 - Land Acquisition, Involuntary Resettlement and

Economic Displacement
Land acquisition needs consideration for this project. The land acquired on behalf of the Makinsk
Poultry farm project was all state owned land. The project is to use 301 hectares of which 76
hectares is for the farm area for the technical aspects of the farm whilst a further 225 hectares will
be utilised for the associated infrastructure such as the electrical, roads, water and wastewater
systems. The wastewater treatment plant is to be located on a parcel of land that was previously
set aside for a new landfill for the town of Makinsk. However, the landfill was given another parcel
of land within an appropriate development zone to allow the wastewater treatment plant to be built
in the proposed location. This wastewater treatment plant will be utilised by both the farm and the
town.
Under the RoK national legislation, a Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) of 1,000m will be in place
for the farms, 50m for the hatchery and 100m for the feed mill. Most of the land within the SPZ will
be Steppe.
The objectives of the PR include measures to reduce impacts associated with land acquisition,
and methods and measures to maintain and improve living standards of Project-affected
communities. As such as part of the project, a Land Acquisition and Livelihood Restoration
Framework have been developed.
Performance Requirement 6 - Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management

of Living Natural Resources
The importance of maintaining core ecological functions is emphasised as these are integral to
conserving and protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity potentially impacted by the Project
activities. The PR identifies the use of the precautionary principle, mitigation hierarchy (including
the objective of achieving no net loss, and where appropriate a net gain of biodiversity) and the
promotion of good international practice throughout the Project activities.
Performance Requirement 7 - Indigenous Peoples
No Indigenous Peoples identified associated with this Project.
Performance Requirement 8 - Cultural Heritage
The importance of cultural heritage for current and future generations must be recognised. The
Project should aim to protect cultural heritage and be precautionary in the management and
sustainable use of these resources.
Performance Requirement 9 - Financial intermediaries
There are no financial intermediaries involved in the Project.

January 2016
24
Performance Requirement 10 - Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement
The importance of open and transparent communication and engagement with Project workers,
affected communities and other stakeholders is identified in this PR. As such as part of the
project, a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) has been updated.
An important additional requirement of the EBRD PRs is that projects funded by the EBRD
achieve the outcomes of relevant European Union (EU) Directives. This also applies to projects in
countries outside of the EU, and as such this project will be required by the EBRD to meet
relevant EU Directives.

January 2016
25
4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 STRATEGIC LOCATION OF THE POULTRY FARM
The Akmola region of the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK) was identified as the preferred region for
the proposed poultry farm project. The selection of the Akmola region for the proposed farm was
determined by the proximity to the capital Anstana which is the main sales market for poultry farm
products as well as a good supply of grain in the region from local crop farms.
FOOD SECURITY
Currently, one of the priorities in the agro-industrial sector of the RoK is to ensure food security in
the country. One of the priorities of the Akmola’s local plan is to ensure overall supply of good
quality food for the capital of Kazakhstan – the city of Astana. In this case, Akmola region has a
major competitive advantage, due to its location on the geographical territory surrounding the
capital Astana.
The Akmola region is one of the major grain-producing regions of Kazakhstan. It is one of the
major grain exporters in the country, including durable species of wheat. This region produces a
quarter of the total volume of high-quality wheat in the RoK. The gross annual average of grain
harvest comprises about 4 million tonnes, including an export potential of 1.5 million tonnes of
high-quality grain. Therefore, construction of the proposed farm in the Akmola region would result
in sustainability benefits associated with reducing the need to transport raw materials to and
goods from the farm.
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
The Akmola region has a favourable location for the project, because it is situated at the
intersection of the regional highways that lead to the capital Astana. It has a developed railway
network, road network and air transport. Kazakhstan's first six-lane 205 km long motorway
between Astana and Shchuchinsk is currently under construction in the region, and also the
funding to improve the state of the local roads is increasing annually.
In accordance with the announcement of the President of the RoK (11 November 2014), it is
expected that the transport and logistics infrastructure will be further developed in the future.
Infrastructure schemes will provide roads, rail lines and airlines to interconnect the regions
between themselves and with the capital Astana.

January 2016
26
4.2 LOCATIONS WITHIN THE AKMOLA REGION
The selection of the location for the development of the proposed poultry farm considered districts
within, or near to, the Akmola region. An options study was undertaken by ‘TOO
Astanatechstrojexpert’ to identify the most suitable location for the proposed development within,
or near to, the Akmola region. 3 Technical, environmental and social factors were considered in
assessing the potential location. In total, nine districts for the proposed poultry farm site were
considered:
Arshaly;
Astrakhan;
Ereymentau;
Shortandy;
Tselinograd;
Akkol;
Korgalzhyn;
Egindikol; and
Bulandy.
Site selection criteria involved taking into account future location of the poultry farm in relation to
available feed mills. In particular, the poultry farm and the feed mill should be in close proximity to
each other, at a distance of no more than 10 km - 50 km.
Additional key factors that were considered included availability of existing infrastructure, number
of urban consumers of future poultry farm products, raw materials availability, and existing
competitors. Another priority was availability of railway lines and railway sidings in close proximity
to the proposed development.
Of the nine districts initially considered, five districts were shortlisted as possible locations:
Arshaly,
Astrakhan,
Akkol,
Bulandy, and
Shortandy.
The main reason for the selection of these districts was the fact that there is an existing cultivation
of grain (grade 4), which represents the main source for animal feed. The final choice of the
district for the proposed development site was determined by the following criteria:
Existing infrastructure, including labour;

Presence of a sufficient number of urban consumers of poultry farm products nearby; and
3
«Astanatechstrojexpert», (2015).
(Feasibility Study). Astana, Kazakhstan.

January 2016
27
Raw materials availability;
The assessment resulted in Bulandy district scoring the best overall score. As a result the town of
Makinsk in the Bulandy district was chosen as preferred location for the proposed poultry farm.
Bulandy district is located in the northern part of the Akmola region. The area of the district
comprises 51,000 km 2. The area is bordered by Leninsky district in the north, by Akkol and
Astrakhan districts in the south, by Enbekshilder district in the east, and by Atbasar and
Sandyktau districts in the west. Makinsk is the administrative centre of Bulandy district.
4.3 LOCATIONS WITHIN THE BULANDY DISTRICT
Two potential sites were identified during this analysis: one site to the west and the other to the
east of the town of Makinsk.
The site to the east was deemed unsuitable due to its close proximity to the Bulandy Nature
Reserve (approximately 7 km). Therefore, for biosecurity reasons and in order to avoid potential
risk of adverse impacts that the proposed poultry farm could have on the Bulandy Nature
Reserve, the site to the east of the town of Makinsk was not selected for the realisation of the
proposed development.
As a result, it was recommended to build the proposed poultry farm to the west of the town of
Makinsk.
4.4 SITE LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES
Site layout was constrained and influenced by the following criteria:
Size of the area required to allow sufficient distance between each of the farm units (300 m to
1,000 m);
Need to avoid sanitary protection zones (SPZ);
Need to provide appropriate buffer distance from residential areas;
4.5 TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES
Technology selection criteria involved taking into account:
Breed choice;
Sanitation;
Veterinary and environmental requirements;
Use of modern methods for incubation;
Use of modern methods for feeding;
Use of modern methods for rearing and slaughter;
Minimization of potential risks in the operation process;
As a result of the technological alternatives analysis, modern hi-tech technology and machinery
were selected for the proposed poultry farm construction and operation.
4.6 ‘NO PROJECT’ ALTERNATIVE
Under the “no project” alternative (or do-nothing scenario), the site would remain an undeveloped
brownfield, except for a parcel which would be allocated for a new landfill for the town of Makinsk.

January 2016
28
Furthermore, if the project is not realised then the increased demand for poultry and protein
supply with the country would remain unfulfilled and the economic benefits of the project to the
Akmola region (e.g. employment and supply chain trade) would not be realised.

January 2016
29
5 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
INFORMATION
This Chapter includes a description of relevant aspects of the physical and natural environment in
the Project’s area of influence which serve as a baseline against which the anticipated impacts of
the project will be determined.
The baseline conditions have been established through a combination of desk studies, field
surveys and consultation with key stakeholders carried out by MPF during the development of the
national EIA in 2014, and those carried out by the project team during the visit in December 2015.
No further field studies have been completed by WSP PB in order to prepare this section of the
report, although where gaps have been identified in the baseline data and additional field studies
are recommended these have been incorporated in the ESAP. These include an ecological
baseline survey and an assessment of sustainable water yield for the water supply for the project.
Social baseline information has been provided in a separate social assessment report.
5.1 METEOROLOGICAL AND CLIMATE
NATIONAL CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

The climatic conditions within the RoK are generally dry and continental, although significant
variation does occur within the different regions. The RoK is not landlocked as it has 12,012km of
land borders with China (1,533 km), Kyrgyzstan (1,051) km, Russia (6,846) km, Turkmenistan
(379) km and Uzbekistan (2,203) km. The RoK borders the Aral Sea, now split into two bodies of
water (1,070 km), and the Caspian Sea (1,894 km).
The climatic conditions within the RoK are highly variable with the following climatic zones being
present:
Warm humid continental climate;

Hot humid continental climate;
Cold semi-arid climates; and
Cold desert climate.
An example of the warm humid continental climate is Astana which has an average temperature
variation of 37.3oC across the year with February coldest at -16.6oC and July the warmest at
20.7oC. Average rainfall varies from 12mm in February to 53mm in July.
An example of the hot humid continental climate is Almaty which has an average temperature
variation of 29.5oC across the year with January coldest at -6.8oC and July the warmest at 22.7oC.
Average rainfall varies from 27mm in September to 97mm in May.
An example of the cold semi-arid climate is Taraz which has an average temperature variation of
29.6oC across the year with January coldest at -4.6oC and July the warmest at 25.0oC. Average
rainfall varies from 5mm in August to 49mm in April.
An example of the cold desert climate is Aktau which has an average temperature variation of
27.4oC across the year with January coldest at -1.2oC and July the warmest at 26.2oC. Average
rainfall varies from 8mm in January to 17mm in May.

January 2016
30
5.2 LOCAL CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
As detailed above the project location is within the warm humid continental climate zone typified
by Astana.
The location of the closest meteorological station to the Project area is Sucinsk meteorological
station, which is located approximately 38 km from the proposed site location. See Table 5-1
below.
Table 5-1 Meteorological Stations in the Project Area

SETTLEMENT HEIGHT ABOVE SEA LEVEL
Sucinsk 263m
The average high and low temperatures for Makinsk for each month are presented below in Table
5-2. The highest average temperature was recorded in June and July at 24oC (, whilst the lowest
average temperature was recorded in January at -21oC.
Table 5-2 Average High/Low Temperatures by Month (2000-2012)

MONTH AVERAGE HIGH/LOW
TEMPERATURE (OC)
January -11/-21
February -10/-20
March -2/-13
April 9/-3
May 19/5
June 24/10
July 24/12
August 22/9
September 16/4
October 9/-1
November -3/-12
December -10/-19
Source: World Weather Online
The relative humidity data in Makinsk is presented below in Table 5-3. The average annual
relative humidity was recorded at 74.1%, with the highest relative humidity percentage in January
(97.9%) and the lowest average relative humidity percentage in June (50.9%).
Table 5-3 Relative Humidity Data by Month

MONTH RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)
January 97.9
February 94.8
March 92.7
April 66.7
May 51.5
June 50.9
July 56.8
August 59.2
September 58.7
October 75.3
November 89.6
December 95.3
Average annual 74.1
Source: Weatherbase
Average rainfall data for each month is presented in Figure 5-1 Average Rainfall by Month (mm)

January 2016
31
below. This shows that the lowest rainfall is in January at 5.2mm and 7 rainfall days to a high in
July of 38.9mm and 8 rainfall days on average.
Figure 5-1 Average Rainfall by Month (mm)
Source: World Weather Online
The average wind speeds are provided in Table 5-4 below.
Table 5-4 Wind Data for Akmola Region

MONTH AVERAGE AVERAGE
SPEED SPEED
KNOTS M/SEC
January 9 4.6
February 9 4.6
March 11 5.7
April 9 4.6
May 10 5.1
June 8 4.1
July 9 4.6
August 8 4.1
September 8 4.1
October 8 4.1
November 10 5.1
December 9 4.6
Source: http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/astana
Wind direction is predominantly from the south-west throughout the year. The annual average
wind speed for 2011 is 2.1 m/sec. There are also seasonal wind patterns in the winter months
where there is an equal or greater proportion of time in which the wind blows from the south-west,
whilst from May to June the predominant direction is easterly.
5.3 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
CONTEXT
The proposed farm site covers an area of approximately 107 ha. Within the area, the total
construction footprint of the proposed facility is approximately 8 ha. The proposed farm site is

January 2016
32
bordered by a major road to the north of the site. There are no settlements or residential buildings
on the other side of the road. The site is bordered by a major road to the east. In close proximity
on the other side of the road there are residential buildings, part of the town Makinsk. The north-
east site boundary is in close proximity to a railway line and the town Makinsk, which is located at
a distance of approximately 635 m from the site at its closest point. The south-west corner of the
development site is adjacent to the Baisuat village. The site boundary to the west is in close
proximity to the Karaozek village. The Kayrakty River flows to the west of the site boundary and
Sukhaya River to the south-west of the site.
BASELINE
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
The site is located within the Kazakh Steppe landscape which covers an area of approximately
804,500 km 2 across most of northern Kazakhstan. The landscape is characterised as semi-arid,
receiving an average of 200 mm to 400 mm of rain per year.
The proposed site comprises flat terrain and is relatively uniform in character. Elevation with 2 km
of the proposed site does not vary by more than 50 m. The site consists predominantly of dark
brown soils. The formation of the soil in this area was influenced by continental climate, which is
characterized by high aridity and sharp changes in temperature.
The site comprises largely undeveloped land with no buildings (residential or other) being located
on site previously to the beginning of construction works. The Baisuat village to the south-west is
in immediate proximity to proposed location of the incubator building (125 m). The proposed feed
mill that would supply feed for the chickens is immediately adjacent to the north-east site
boundary. No other residential or industrial buildings are immediately surrounding the proposed
farm site.
Given the flat character of the terrain, the views across the proposed development into the site
are predominantly long range views. The views towards the site from the Kayrakty River and pond
on the Kayrakty River are partly blocked by woodland areas.

January 2016
33
Figure 5-2 Example of Typical Landscape in Makinsk Area
LOCAL VEGETATION
Due to the low rainfall the area receives, the steppe consists of mostly grasslands and large,
sandy areas. Some woodland areas consisting of birches and pines are growing in immediate
proximity to the site. Vegetation on the site is predominantly low growing and sparse, with
approximately eight to ten plant species per 100 m2. Local vegetation predominantly comprises of
low-level drought-resistant plants including:4
Artemisia frigida
Artemisia nitrosa
Festuca
Festuca sulcata
Helictotrichon desertorum
Koeleria gracilis
Stipa capillata
Suaeda corniculata
Salicornia europaea
Stipa rubens
4
Gladkova, A., (2015). (OBOC)
“
” (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project “Construction of poultry farm in
Bulandy district, Akmala region of the Republic of Kazakhstan”). Astana, Kazakhstan.

January 2016
34
Figure 5-3 Example of Local Vegetation in Makinsk Area
SETTLEMENTS
There are three main settlements within a 1.5 km radius of the site. The nearest settlement is
Baisuat village.
Makinsk (Russian: ) – is a town in northern-central Kazakhstan. It is the administrative

centre of the Bulandy District in the Akmola Region. Makinsk has a population of 16,745 people
(2009 Census results). It is located to the north-east of the site, at a distance of approximately
635 m.
Karaozek (Russian: , before 2007 – Kolokolovka) – village in the Bulandy District in

Akmola Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is situated to the south-west (approximately 11
km away) from the town Makinsk. Karaozek has a population of 1026 people (2009 Census
results).It is located to the west of the site, at a distance of approximately 1,250 m.
Baisuat (Russian: , before 2007 – Prochorovka) – village in the Bulandy District in

Akmola Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is situated to the south-west (approximately 11
km away) from Makinsk. Karaozek has a population of 230 people (2009 Census results). It is
located to the south-west of the site, at a distance of approximately 125 m.
VISUAL RECEPTORS
The highly sensitive visual receptors predominantly comprise people living in residential
properties in:
Makinsk town (distance from the proposed site boundary to the nearest residential
property: approximately 635 m)
Karaozek village (distance from the proposed site to the nearest residential property:
approximately 1,250 m)
Baisuat village (distance from the proposed site to the nearest residential property:
approximately 125 m)

January 2016
35
Visual receptors of moderate sensitivity include people enjoying views from:
Kayraktyi River (distance from the site to the river: approximately 700 m)
Pond on Kayrakty River (distance from the site to the river: approximately 500 m)
Sukhaya River (distance from the site to the river: approximately 75 m)
Receptors of low sensitivity include people using roads to travel to work.
5.4 AIR QUALITY
NATIONAL MONITORING
Air quality was monitored across Kazakhstan at 29 locations in eleven cities between 2010 and
20125. Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids (from which particulate matter (PM 10)
concentrations are estimated), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) were monitored
using manual, short-term methods; annual mean concentrations were then calculated and
compared to European Union Limit Values (40µg/m3 for annual mean PM10 and NO2, which are
the Limit Values for the protection of human health, and 20µg/m 3 for SO2, which is the annual
mean Limit Value for the protection of ecosystems).
The majority of the monitoring carried out was in relatively close proximity to industrial facilities
(including heavy industry, mining, smelting operations). The results indicated that all three
pollutants breached the EU Limit Values for a number of years at the majority of the monitoring
sites. The high concentrations were attributed to high levels of traffic, small-scale combustion
sources, industrial and mining activities. A contributory factor to the high SO2 concentrations is the
high sulphur content of fuel used within Kazakhstan. The limitations of the short-term monitoring
should however be recognised; the study recommended that an expanded and modernised
monitoring network, considering a wider range of pollutants and continuous monitoring, is
implemented.
None of the monitoring stations are located in close proximity to the Proposed Development Site,
and none are considered to be particularly representative of conditions in the vicinity of the Site;
the Site is located in a rural area, approximately 4.6km west of the nearest town (Makinsk).
Concentrations of all three pollutants at the Site, are therefore likely to be significantly lower than
those presented within the above study.
Kazakhstan has implemented Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPCs) levels of pollutants

which are defined in legislation, and are presented in Table 5-5 Maximum Permissible
Concentration of Pollutants in Ambient Air in Kazakhstan
Table 5-5 Maximum Permissible Concentration of Pollutants in Ambient Air in Kazakhstan

3
COMPONENT MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATION (µG/M )
Short Term Maximum Daily Mean Hazard Class

Carbon oxide 5000 3000 4
Nitrogen oxide 400 60 3
Nitrogen dioxide 85 40 2
5
Joint Economic Research Program (JERP), The World Bank and Ministry of Environment and Water Resources of the
Republic of Kazakhstan, November 2013. Towards Cleaner Industry and Improved Air Quality Monitoring in
Kazakhstan.

January 2016
36
3
COMPONENT MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATION (µG/M )
Short Term Maximum Daily Mean Hazard Class

Suspended matters 500 150 3
Phenol 10 3 2
Formaldehyde 35 3 2
Ammonia 200 40 4
Sulphur dioxide 500 50 3
Hydrogen sulphide 8 - 2
Chlorine 100 30 2
Hydrogen fluoride 20 5 2
Ozone 160 30 1
Hydrogen chloride 200 100 2
Chrome (VI) - 1.5 1
Lead 1 0.3 1
Cadmium - 0.3 1
Arsenic - 3 2
Chrome - 1.5 1
Copper - 2 2
Hydrocarbons 1000 - 3
MONITORING AT SIMILAR FACILITIES

Monitoring has been carried out at a number of locations around the boundary of the sanitary
protection zone for an existing similar facility (Ust-Kamenogorsk Poultry Farm). Data available for
2015 indicate that at each monitoring location concentrations of ammonia (NH3), NO2, SO2, and
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) are below the Kazakhstan MPCs. Dust concentrations, however, exceed
the defined MPC for suspended matters.
LOCAL AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS

The Proposed Development is located in a predominantly agricultural area. An existing Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) lies to the northeast of the Proposed Development, on the edge
of Makinsk. Existing sources of emissions in the area are likely to include road traffic emissions
(from vehicles traveling on the R-170 and A1), dust generated by activities relating to the
agricultural activities, and odour from the WWTP. Overall, existing air quality is likely to be good
within proximity to the Site, with a risk of elevated PM10 concentrations as a result of agricultural
operations.
5.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION
It is understood that the only local state policy referring to noise is the control of sound levels in
the workplace which is subject to a limit of 80 dB(A). No documentation or reference could be
found in the OVOS to environmental noise limits beyond the Site boundary.
The following guidance documents have therefore been used as the basis for assessment of
operational noise from the proposed development:
The EBRD document Environmental and Social Policy, May 2008

The IFC document Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines: General EHS Guidelines:
Environmental, 2007;

January 2016
37
The World Health Organisation document Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999
The EBRD document refers any specific requirements for pollution prevention to EU legislation or
other good international practices. The general aim of pollution prevention is to apply control
technologies and practices that are best suited to avoid or, where avoidance is not feasible,
minimise or reduce adverse impacts on human health and the environment while remaining
technically and financially feasible and cost-effective.
Section 1.7 of the IFC document refers to noise and, in addition to providing generic control
measures that should be considered, presents noise limits for off-site residential receptors.
These limits are subject to a maximum increase in background noise levels of 3 dB. The limits
quoted are 55 dB LAeq,1hr during the day (07:00-22:00) and 45 dB LAeq,1hr at night (22:00-07:00),
making reference to the WHO guidelines as a source.
The WHO guidelines provide noise limits for noise at various community locations. For residential
receptors, the following guideline values apply:
Outdoor living areas daytime and evening: 55 dB LAeq,16hr (to prevent serious annoyance)
50 dB LAeq,16hr (to prevent moderate annoyance)
Outside bedrooms at night 45 dB LAeq,16hr (to prevent sleep disturbance)
Noise impacts shall therefore be assessed against the absolute guideline levels summarised in
mits:
Table 5-6 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels
7, below, where significant impacts shall be considered to be those that exceed these limits:
Table 5-6 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels
RECEPTOR HOURS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVELS

Outside residential 07:00-22:00 55 dB LAeq,1hr
dwellings
22:00-07:00 45 dB LAeq,1hr
5.6 SOIL, GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
SOIL
The terrain underlying and surrounding the site is flat. Elevation within 2 km does not exceed 50
meters to 1 km.
The surrounding terrain is monotonous and sparsely vegetated, with the soil consisting of a
subzone of moderately dry Fescue-feather grass steppes in dark chestnut soils. The soil is
characterised by a continental climate, associated with high aridity and sharp changes in
temperature. On soil-vegetation is made up of steppes landscape.
A profile of dark chestnut soils is relatively clear differentiation in genetic horizons. Prevalence of
humus varies from 38 to 60 cm., but traces of humus can also be observed at depths of up to 70-
80 cm. Humus content in the upper horizon of dark chestnut soil relatively normal high- -4.5 3.5%.
Deeper it dropping to 2.3% in the horizon -3.0 B1 and up to 1.8% in the horizon -2.1 B2. High
humus
The upper humic-accumulation horizon is made up of undisturbed soils, mainly between 13 and
18 cm. It is made up of a brownish-dark grey silt lumpy structure.

January 2016
38
Soil containing hydrochloric acid is found at a depth of 30-45 cm. At a depth of 75-85 cm it is
characterised by clays or heavy loam. This is characterised by a high content of gypsum, which is
present in the form of small crystals.
The dark chestnut soil salinity is related to their formation on multi-coloured tertiary clays. This soil
is rich in potassium but lacking in phosphorus.
GEOLOGY
The published geology (USSR Ministry of Geology, Map of Mineral Resources, Sheet No. 42-
XXV, 1:200,000 scale) indicates the ground conditions to comprise recent and Quaternary alluvial
deposits associated with the flood plain of the River older deposits of fossil soils (loam) and
colluvium. The basement rocks comprise Ordovician granodiorites beneath the eastern side of the
river. Folded Ordovican metasediments and Archaen amphibolites subcrop are shown beneath
the eastern side of the valley.
See Figure 5-4 to 5-15 below for site specific profiles.
Figure 5-4 Geological Profile of Incubator

: Object: Incubator
: geologic structure:
1. , (dpQ ); loam
2. , (dpQ ), (N-Q1); sand large size
3. , (dpQ ); gravelly sand
4. , (N-Q1); loam
5. , (N-Q1). clay
3,1 4,5 . Groundwater at a depth of 3.1m to 4.5m.

January 2016
39
Figure 5-5 Geological Profile of Facility Ground

: Object: facility ground
1. , (dpQ ); brown loam
2. , (dpQ ), (N-Q1); sand medium size
4. , (N-Q1); sand large size
5. , (N-Q1); clay
6. , (eMZ); sand
7. , (eMZ). priming material
5,7 6,4 . Groundwater at a depth of 5.7 to 6.4 m.

January 2016
40
Figure 5-6 Geological Profile of Broiler House 1

: 1 Object: Ground for breeding broiler chicken 1
2. , (N-Q1); sand medium size
3. , (N-Q1); sand large size
4. , (N-Q1); gravelly sand
5. , (N-Q1); loam
6. , (N-Q1). clay

January 2016
41

1. , (dpQ ) loam
2. , (dpQ ), (N-Q1); sand large size
4. , (N-Q1); loam
5. , (N-Q1); clay
6. , (N-Q1). clay

January 2016
42

1. , (dpQ ) loam
2. , (N-Q1); loam
3. , (eMZ); loam
4. , (eMZ); sand
5. , (eMZ); priming material
6. , (D2). granite large size

January 2016
43

1. , (dpQ ) loam
2. , (N-Q1); loam
3. , (eMZ); loam
4. , (eMZ); sand
04.03.15 5,2-5,8
. Groundwater level recorded on 04 March 2015 at a depth of 5.2m-5.8m from the surface of the earth.

January 2016
44

: geological structure:
2. , (dpQ ); sand medium size
3. , (dpQ ); sand
4. , (N-Q1); loam
5. , (N-Q1); clay
6. , (eMZ); loam
7. , (eMZ). clay
04.03.15 2,4-5,2
. Groundwater level recorded on 04 March 2015 at a depth of 2.4-5.2m from the surface of the earth.

January 2016
45

2. , (N-Q1); loam
3. , (eMZ); loam
4. , (eMZ); sand
5. ; priming material
6. , (D)2. granite large size
4,2 ( 24.12.14 ) 4,5 ( 07.02.15 ) Groundwater level
recorded on 24 December 2014 at a depth of 4.2m and on 07 February 2015 at a depth of 4.5m from the surface of the earth.

January 2016
46

2. , (dpQ ); brown clay
3. , (dpQ ); sand large size
4. , (dpQ ); sand large size
5. , (dpQ ); sand
6. , (eMZ); loam
7. , (eMZ); sand
9. , (D)2). granite large size

January 2016
47

2. , (dpQ ); brown clay
5. , (N-Q1); clay
6. , (eMZ); sand
7. , (eMZ). priming material

January 2016
48
Figure 5-14 Geological Profile of Poultry Processing Farm

: Object: poultry processing farm
: geological structure
3. , (dpQ ); sand
4. , (dpQ ), (N-Q1); gravelly sand
5. , (eMZ); sand
4,5-4,7 Groundwater at a depth of 5.8 to 7.0 m.

January 2016
49
Figure 5-15 Geological Profile of Composting Ground

: Object: ground for composting
2. , (N-Q1). clay
No baseline environmental noise and vibration monitoring data was provided in the OVOS to
enable any relative noise assessments to be completed in accordance with standard EIA or IFC
requirements.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The main aquifer system beneath the potential development area appears to comprise the
superficial alluvial deposits. The upper sections of these deposits (loams, sands and gravel
deposits) would appear to be the most transmissive, with the older underlying Loams and Clays,
apparently considered as aquitards. It is not clear how thick these superficial deposits are with
reference to what I have seen. It may only be of the order of 6-7m. Groundwater levels are
typically 1-4m bgl and show relatively pronounced fluctuation in the order of 2m.

January 2016
50
There is deeper groundwater within the upper weathered Granite horizons, with a deeper
groundwater table typically about 6-8m bgl - although this is apparently not contiguous across the
development area, and strongly dependent on predominance of fracturing. It is unclear whether
the lower permeability Loams and Clays of the alluvial deposits confine this deeper groundwater
body and therefore whether it is hydraulic connection within the upper more transmissive
superficial deposits.
It is likely that the transmissive horizons within the superficial deposits are in good hydraulic
connection with the Kairakty River and respond quickly to seasonal input/output variations,
indicated by groundwater level variations.
HYDROLOGY
The hydrographic network (the configuration or arrangement in plan view of the natural stream
courses in an area) is underdeveloped across the area. Kairakty River originates in the southern
part of Burabay district, Akmola region, East of the village of Klimovka. The length of the river is
171 km of them 150 km for Akmola region, the total catchment area of 4930km 2.
5.7 SURFACE WATER
No data is available for the Sukhaya nor Kayrakty rivers water in terms of flow data but some
water quality data was gathered during the EIA process. The Sukhaya and Kairakty rivers
originate from springs 17 km northeast and 30 km north from the discharge respectively. Kairakty
has another large irrigation impoundment 9km upstream that can regulate water level at the
discharge pipe entry.
Table 5-8 shows the existing background water quality data. This shows that no priority
substances are released and the background data shows that chloride and phosphate levels in
the river woud likely exceed annual average environmental quality standards if the river was in the
UK.
Table 5-7 Background Water Quality Data

PARAMETER BACKGROUND DATA
IN RIVER KAIRAKTY
COD -
BOD -
Total nitrogen -
Suspended solids 36.75 mg/l
Total phosphates 0.25 mg/l
Chlorides 300 mg/l
Fats and oils -
pH -
Temperature -
Nitrates 40 mg/l
Nitrites 0.08 mg/l
Sulphates 100 mg/l
Hydrocarbons 0.05 mg/l

January 2016
51
5.8 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
OVERVIEW
The current baseline of the site is likely to be one of long-term disturbance, with original steppe
habitat (and likely forest-steppe before this) having been lost or significantly altered as a result of
agricultural, municipal, transportation and construction activities, The biodiversity of the area will
be markedly reduced from its previous character; this is detailed below.
In general, the habitats across the site comprise a network of agricultural fields, with scattered
scrub (including hedgerows) and some remnant steppe areas.
FLORA
The large extent of land under agricultural tenure will likely be typically very species-poor; there
are no notable areas of set-aside land within these areas.
The undisturbed areas of the territory appear typical of such habitats across the region, and are
likely to be dominated by a feather grass Stipa lessingiana – fescue Festuca valesiaca
community, which includes herbs. Species typical of this community include prairie wormwood S.
frigida, oatgrass Hellictotrichon desertorum, fescue Festuca sulcata, crested hair-grass Koeleria
gracilis, red feather grass Stipa rubens, saltwort Suaeda corniculata and common glasswort
Salicornia europaea. Overall the diversity is very low.
Pockets of scrub and woodland are scattered across the site and wider area, with the largest such
example located in the east of the site. To the immediate south a more extensive woodland/scrub
habitat prevails. The species composition is likely to be typical of the region, with oak Quercus
sp., lime Tilia sp., aspen Populus tremula and ash Fraxinus sp. all being common.
The River Kairakty flows to the north-west of the site, and is ca. 300m away at its closest point.
No specific records of Red Book flora have been obtained as part of the original study.
FAUNA
As would be expected given the disturbed/altered nature of the habitat as described above, the
faunal composition has been similarly affected. A review of faunal data collected from within the
Bulandy Nature Preserve (ca. 7km east of the site) suggests that the following mammals may
have once been present across the site and the wider area:
Roe deer Capreolus capreolus

Boar Sus sp.
Lynx Lynx sp.
Wolf Lupis sp.
Fox Vulpes vulpes
Steppe fox Vulpes corsac
Hare Lepus sp.
Badger Meles meles
Weasel Mustela sp.
Marten Martes sp.
Stoat Mustela sp.

January 2016
52
Marmot Marmot sp.

Muskrat Ondatra sp.
Polecat Mustela sp.
Given the aforementioned disturbance, this assemblage is likely to be much reduced, and
dominated by mammals with a greater capacity for adapting to the influences of anthropogenic
interference. As an illustration of this, the following suite of mammals has been recorded
commonly amongst urban/suburban areas of Makinsk, as follows:
Little ground squirrel Spermophilus pygmaeus

Pallas vole Microtus arvalis
Water vole Arvicola amphibious
Steppe lemming Lagurus lagurus
Striped field mouse Apodemus agrarius
Wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus
House mouse Mus musculus
Rat Rattus spp.
Although no records have been obtained as part of this study, it is considered possible that bat
species will make use of the site for foraging, and potentially roosting purposes (amongst mature
trees and suitable buildings).
In terms of ornithological interest, observations and published data (Giscov, Gavrilov, Erokhov,
Žulij, Hrokov 1970-1997) related to territories adjacent to Astana recorded 176 species of bird, 99
of which are wetland birds, 51 were passerines, with the remaining birds comprising game
species and birds of prey. Whilst it is unlikely that these species occur on the site with any great
regularity, the presence of open water within 2km of the site may provide suitable habitat for the
wetland species and thus their occasional presence closer to the site is possible. The most
common anticipated bird assemblage is considered to be as follows:
Hooded crow Corvus comix

Rook . frugilegus
Jackdaw . monedula
Magpie Pica pica
House sparrow Passer domesticus
Field sparrow Passer montanus
Rock dove Columba livia
In addition, the abundance of suitable prey species (both in terms of the above birds and
aforementioned mammals) means that a number of predatory birds are likely to be found in the
area, as follows:
Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus

Lesser kestrel F. naumanni
Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus
Black kite Milvus korschun

January 2016
53
Although no records were obtained as part of this study, the presence of a common reptile and
amphibian assemblage is considered likely.
It Is likely that an abundant insect assemblage is present at the site, including numerous fly
species (many of which are either syanthropic, associated with standing water, or both), ground
beetles and ants.
It is likely that the majority of the species/faunal groups listed above are absent here due to the
ongoing influence of human interference. There are however a number of animals that will be
sufficiently tolerant of increased levels of disturbance in order to remain at the site (e.g. rats,
ground squirrels etc.); additionally, some species are sufficiently adaptive to exploit the conditions
(e.g., fox).
No specific records of Red Book fauna have been obtained as part of the original study.
SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURE AREAS
There are no Specially Protected Areas of Nature (SPANs) near to site, the closest protected area
is Bulandy Nature Preserve (7 km east) from the project location. The preserve protects moose
but also has deer, roe, boar, lynx, wolf, fox, steppe fox, hare, badger, weasel, marten, ermine,
marmot, muskrat, polecat and large birds partridge, grouse and wood and black grouses, quail,
duck, coot and sandpiper for which limited hunting is allowed.
5.9 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The ESDD assessment and OVOS gap analysis has identified gaps within the current
assessment of environmental effects of the poultry farm on solid waste and its management.
Although there is some coverage with regards to estimations of waste generation during
construction and operational phases of the project, there are no details with regards to the offsite
disposal routes described in the impact assessment. The assessment also omits details on
manure management.
National Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan requires that those who generate waste as a
result of their activities are responsible for the safe management and movement of wastes in a
way that complies with environmental and sanitary requirements. Waste must be assigned a
status of either hazardous, non-hazardous or inert.
In accordance with the national legislative requirements in Kazakhstan, the predicted waste
generation figures will be reported and detailed in a Permit, to be obtained prior to commencing
operations.
The EBRD’s ESP also requires waste minimisation techniques to be assessed and, where
possible, waste to be minimised, recovered ad reutilised. Adoption of the waste hierarchy is
required:
The Waste Hierarchy requires avoidance of waste in the first instance and reducing, as far as
possible, the volume of waste requiring disposal once it has been generated. It gives an order of
preference for waste management options to minimise the volume for disposal, as shown in
Figure 5-16

January 2016
54
Figure 5-16 Waste Hierarchy
The main principles of the Waste Hierarchy are:
Waste should be prevented or reduced at source as far as possible;

Where waste cannot be prevented, waste materials or products should be reused directly or
refurbished and then reused;
Waste materials should be recycled or reprocessed into a form that allows them to be
reclaimed as a secondary raw material;
Where useful secondary materials cannot be reclaimed, the energy content of the waste
should be recovered and used as a substitute for non-renewable energy resources; and
Only if waste cannot be prevented, reclaimed or recovered, should it be disposed of into the
environment and this should only be undertaken in a controlled manner.
Where waste is generated the EBRD require wastes to be appropriately stored and disposed of in
an environmentally sound manner, considering the limitations applicable to transboundary
movements and other legal requirements.
When waste is transferred offsite it is required that MPF obtains chain of custody documentation
to the final destination. It is also required that MPF determine whether reputable and legitimate
and licenced enterprises are being used and operated to acceptable standards. Where this is not
the case MPF should consider alternative disposal routes including the possibility of developing
recovery and disposal facilities on site.
THE MAKINSK POULTRY FACILITY – WASTE MANAGEMENT BASELINE
The proposed new integrated poultry farm has the potential to give rise to significant levels of
construction and operational waste streams.
Construction waste has been assessed as part of the OVOS and details waste streams and the
potential generation figures.

January 2016
55
Table 5-8 Construction Waste Figures

WASTE TONNES/YEAR
Municipal solid waste 65.32
Construction waste 1,135.79
(rubble, glass, bricks,
sand, wood, tiles, soil)
Scrap welding electrodes 11.52
Ferrous and nonferrous 100
metal
Paint containers and 37.8
residues
Storage arrangements are discussed at a very high level, detailing metal containers that the
waste will be stored it. It is also reported that specialised organisations will transport the waste off
site. It is proposed that the MSW and construction waste will be disposed of at a MSW landfill.
The disposal routes for the other waste streams are not detailed.
Waste streams and the estimated generation weights, during the operational phase of the project,
are presented below:
Table 5-9 Waste Predicted to be Generated at Makinsk Poultry Farm (tonnes/year)

WASTE TONNES/YEAR
Municipal solid waste 678.7
Scrap welding electrodes 0.024
Sludge from WWTP 2,339
Litter 73,727
Spent automotive filters 0.1782
Lead acid accumulators 0.648
Spent tyres and casings 1,312
Waste oils 6.35
Ferrous metal 5.91
Scrap waste abrasive wheels 0.0198
Mercury containing lamps 0.50
Solid residue 1.787
Hatchery waste has been estimated, however this is considered indicative as variations will occur
from breed to breed and will also depend on other factors.
Table 5-10 Waste predicted to be generated at the Hatchery of Makinsk Poultry Farm (tonnes/year)
WASTE KG/WEEK
Eggs (embryo died) 4,926.9
Eggs (embryo died in shell or 2,164.8
immediately after pecking)
Egg shells 6,270.6
It is reported that incubation eggs are taken for composting.

January 2016
56
A high level description of storage and disposal arrangements are described within the OVOS,
however it is not considered to be of adequate detail. As shown above, hazardous waste streams
will be generated during the operational phase, which pose a higher risk of pollution and health
related incidents. Therefore, it is especially important that appropriate storage and disposal
routes will need to be identified and implemented.
It is considered that the litter from the poultry houses will be transferred, using dump trucks, to a
composting pad. The frequency of this movement is to be scheduled in accordance with the
production figures at MPF.
The litter will be stored in windrows, with a height of 2.6m and a width of 6m (this is in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the manufacturer of equipment for turning clamp); the length has
been selected at 100m based on the estimated waste generation at the facility. The litter will be
mixed with water and allowed to compost. The composting period is 42-55 days. The compost
will then be sold as a fertiliser. It is then anticipated that the compost will be spread by a
subsidiary company on consumer fields (Not MPF owned fields). The spreading period will be
approximately 60 days within the year; from the harvest season (August – Sept) to when the
ground freezes. Two compost spreaders will be used, with a capacity of 20 tonnes per hour
(based on one tractor and forklift carrying load of compost in the spreader on the edge of the
field).
Currently there are no procedures or plans in place for the safe management of waste/ litter and
slurry.
Odour and nuisance related impacts are associated with the transport of litter and hatchery waste
to the composting site. Currently the OVOS does not detail the specific routes of transport or the
vehicles to be used to carry the waste materials to the composting site.
5.10 CULTURAL HERITAGE
CONTEXT
Historic and cultural resources include monuments, structures, works of art and sites of
outstanding universal value from historical, aesthetic, scientific ethnological and/or
anthropological points of view, including graveyards and burial sites. The Ministry of Culture has
responsibility for the preservation, maintenance and assessment of historical and cultural
monuments in the Kazakh Republic.
The main legislation relating to cultural resources comprises:
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "About Culture”, dated 15.12.2006

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Protection and Use of the Historical Cultural
Heritage", dated 2.07.1992 (amended on 29.09.2014)
The Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, dated 20.06.2003
For the purposes of recording and protecting historical and cultural monuments, they are divided
into the following categories:
Historical and cultural monuments of international status representing the historical, scientific,
architectural, artistic and memorial objects included in the UNESCO World Heritage List;
Historical and cultural monuments of national status representing the historical, scientific,
architectural, artistic and memorial objects, having the special significance for the history and
culture of the whole country;

January 2016
57
Historical and cultural monuments of local significance representing the historical, scientific,
architectural, artistic and memorial objects, having the special significance for the history and
culture of the oblasts (city of republican status, capital), regions (cities of oblast sub
ordinance).
According to Article 39 of The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Protection and Use of the
Historical Cultural Heritage”, development and use of any allocated lands shall be made only after
archaeological research. Any works that may endanger the existence of monuments are
prohibited. Businesses, organizations, institutions, public associations and citizens in case of
detection of archaeological and other sites of historic, scientific, artistic, and other cultural value,
are obliged to inform the authorized body for the protection and use of historical and cultural
heritage, and to suspend any works that may affect them immediately.
BASELINE
There are no internationally6, nationally7 or locally8 designated historical and cultural monuments
in the project area. However, two monuments and three churches were identified within a 15km
area surrounding the site and are assessed to be of cultural or religious value:
A monument of a prominent Kazakh fighter and poet Baluan Sholak, ‘Atatobe’, situated at
1km east of Voznesenka (approximately 13km from the site);
A monument of Lenin on (approximately 2km from the site);
A Mosque on .1- (approximately 3.5km from the site);
A Catholic Church on .(approximately 350m from the site);
The Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas on . . (approximately 2.3km from the site).
6
UNESCO Kazakhstan [online] available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/kz (Accessed January
2016).
7
Culture Legacy – Akmola region [online] available at: http://www.madenimura.kz/en/culture-
legacy/memorials/region/akmola_oblast (Accessed January 2016).
8
State list of historical and cultural monuments of local importance [online] available at:
http://tengrinews.kz/zakon/gosudarstvennyie_organyi_akmolinskoy_oblasti/kultupa/id-V10B0003364/
(Accessed January 2016).

January 2016
58
Figure 5-17 Atatobe Monument (left) and Lenin Monument (right)
There are 82 archaeological areas of local significance in the Bulandy District. Two of them are in
Makinsk and are located 26km from the project area. They are identified are burial grounds from
the middle-age period.9
9
State list of historical and cultural monuments of local importance [online] available at:
http://tengrinews.kz/zakon/gosudarstvennyie_organyi_akmolinskoy_oblasti/kultupa/id-V10B0003364/
(Accessed January 2016).

January 2016
59
6 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

(PUBLIC CONSULTATION)
6.1 BACKGROUND
As a requirement under the under the Environmental Code the project falls under the category of
projects that required an expert review. According to the legal requirements the competent
authority should announce public hearings for the local community and the general public in the
area. In line with national and international requirements a stakeholder engagement program has
been developed as part of the Environmental, Health and Safety and Social Due Diligence
assessment in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). The program is aimed at providing
information on the Project and an opportunity to participate for local communities, affected and
interested stakeholders from the wider Project area of influence.
Stakeholder engagement activities started in 2015 during the impact assessment stage of the
Project. A Project related meeting was organised with relevant national, regional and municipal
authorities.
The EIA consultation was in line with national legislation and the requirements of the national EIA
processes. The methodology and outcome of past consultation events and the future stakeholder
engagement plans are summarised in this chapter.
6.2 METHODOLOGY
The consultation and stakeholder engagement activities was designed to reach out for all affected
communities in the wider Project area of influence. This included not only the residents of local
communities but also government authorities and organisations as well as the general public in
the Bulandy District, and Makinsk town. This methodology for outreach will continue to be used
for further consultation activities.
Several channels are provided to disclose information and ensure that there is a dialogue with the
stakeholders. The internet, brochures, information boards, newspaper advertisements, TV news,
consultation and public hearing events have been used to disseminate Project information and
engage with stakeholders. There has been a public hearing organised as part of the national EIA
procedure where detailed information on the Project design and impacts were shared with
participating stakeholders. Contact details to the MPF were provided to stakeholders who were
interested to find out more about the Project, had specific questions or comments that they
wanted to share.
6.3 OUTCOME OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS
The stakeholder consultation was undertaken in December 2015 disclosing information about the
Project, its impacts and timeframes for implementation. Project information including the
stakeholder engagement plan, ESIA SIR will be uploaded to the website of the MPF and the
EBRD Russian versions of the NTS will be available in hard copies throughout the municipal
offices in the town of Makinsk. The draft national EIA was presented to the public in December
2015. A Project grievance mechanism has been set up and publicised during the consultation
events.
There were questions about the size of the sanitary protection zone, location of the nearest
residence, where wastewater will be discharged and to what quality as well as what decisions had
been made with regards to waste disposal.

January 2016
60
Based on the meeting in December 2015 details were given to the stakeholders present at the
meeting with regards the Project and its potential impacts. There seems to be no further
questions or comments from stakeholders.
6.4 FUTURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The SEP has been developed to reflect the Project design and to provide tailored stakeholder and
public consultation activities focusing on the pre-construction and construction phases. The SEP
and the supplementary documentation will be available through the designated websites and hard
copies will be available in regional municipal offices. Prior to construction activities a number of
awareness raising meetings will be organised with governments and affected people and
information leaflets will be distributed in libraries and other public places. Consultation activities
will discuss construction impacts and will provide updated timescales for Project implementation.
Local and regional newspapers will be used to disseminate Project information and raise
awareness of construction works and potential impacts on traffic and noise. Bulletins with
vacancies will be distributed in the town of Makinsk to ensure that local people are informed about
Project related employment opportunities. The SEP requires that MPF designates a contact
person responsible for the Project in general, appoint a community liaison representative who is
responsible for SEP activities and provide updated contact details for the grievance mechanism.

January 2016
61
7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter sets out the potential and predicted environmental and social impacts of the Project
in all its phases (construction, operation and closure). It identifies the sources of the impact
associated with the Project’s infrastructure and activities as set out in Chapter 2, and describes
the potential impacts of these and the mitigation measures needed.
The Project-affected area includes the Project footprint together with the surrounding areas that
would potentially be affected by impacts associated with the construction, operation and closure
of the proposed poultry farm. It is anticipated that many of the impacts identified related to final
decommissioning of the poultry farm are expected to be similar to the impacts posed by the
poultry farm during the construction and operation phases.
7.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The methodology developed and adopted for the assessment provides a tool for assessing and
evaluating the significance of impacts. The identified potential impacts of the proposed Project
include positive and negative impacts of higher or lower significance. Impact significance is based
on the following criteria.
Magnitude of impact – the level or intensity of changes caused by the project activities with
regard to baseline conditions. An impact of high magnitude would mean major changes for
large amount of biophysical resources and/ or people.
Area of impact – the area where the changes occur.
Duration of recovery – estimated time required for returning to pre-impact conditions after the
impact has ceased.
From the viewpoint of significance, the impacts can be negligible, minor, moderate or major.
Definitions of these levels of significance are described in Table 7-1 below.
Table 7-1 Impact Significance Levels

LEVEL IMPACT ON BIOPHYSICAL IMPACT ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC
RESOURCES CONDITIONS
Almost no changes in socio-economic
Almost no changes in the environment; the
Negligible conditions or commercial activities, the
effects can be recovered within a few days.
effects can be recovered within a few days.
Isolated change in biophysical conditions Isolated change in socio-economic
within a limited area (radius of 100m or so); conditions and/ or commercial activities
Minor
the recovery takes a few months; no lasting for a few days to a few months with
residual effects observed. no residual effects,
Observable change in biophysical Considerable change in socio-economic
environment lasting for a few months to a conditions and/ or commercial activities of
Moderate few years before recovery. Considerable up to 10% of present in Bulandy District and
affected area is within a radius of 0.5 km or Makinsk town or lesser change for 50% of
a lesser impact over a larger area. persons.

January 2016
62
LEVEL IMPACT ON BIOPHYSICAL IMPACT ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC

RESOURCES CONDITIONS
Considerable changes in socio-economic
Changes in biophysical conditions conditions and/ or commercial activities of
observable within a radius beyond 0.5 km more than 50% of persons present in
Major
or a considerable change in a smaller area Bulandy District and Makinsk town or
not recoverable within a few years. noticeable changes for persons outside
Bulandy District and Makinsk town.
RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION

Adverse effects rated as “significant” must be mitigated in order to reduce the level of significance
of the residual impact. Monitoring measures must also be defined to assess the efficacy of the
mitigation measures.
The potential impacts, with mitigation imposed, have then been reassessed to derive residual
effects as a result of Project activities. This assessment is based on the same Impact Significance
Matrix (Table 7-1) as used to assess unmitigated impacts. The residual effect is determined as a
result of the impact and implemented through appropriate risk analysis based on the monitoring
programme targeted to audit the effectiveness of the mitigation measure targeted on the potential
impact. The residual impacts of the new poultry farm in the majority of cases are considered to be
Negligible.
APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY FOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SOCIAL ASPECTS
Defining the significance of the effects has been used as the basis for determining the appropriate
mitigation strategies in combination with identifying the need and scope of management plans.
FORECAST OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
In addition to the above approach, prospective harmful substances to land, water and air have
been calculated to the extent possible based on current information/ data in the previous studies
undertaken by MPF. This is to inform the forecast of social-economic consequences as legally
required in RoK and is presented in Chapter Error! Reference source not found..
7.3 AIR QUALITY
Emissions to atmosphere will occur at all stages of the proposed Project lifecycle, including
construction, operation and decommissioning. Such emissions include release of air quality
pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG). Impacts on the environment from atmospheric
emissions during each stage of the project lifecycle differ significantly in duration, scale and
magnitude.

January 2016
63
ODOUR
CONSTRUCTION
Earthworks and civil works are not among the activities considered likely to generate significant
odour emissions. It is considered unlikely that activities associated with the construction phase
would result in the generation of odours other than odours from vehicles and construction
machinery/ equipment exhausts. The closest residential properties which may be subjected these
odours are located approximately 125m northeast of the proposed hatchery building. At this
distance, it is considered unlikely that any odours generated by exhaust emissions will be
detectable. All other properties are located further from the Site and it is therefore considered that
the odour impact during the construction phase would be of Negligible significance prior to
mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to odour are described in Chapter
10.
OPERATION
Due to the nature of the proposals, once operational, a number of processes on the Site will have
the potential to be sources of odour nuisance. These include:
Waste Water Treatment Plant;

Composting pad;
Slaughter / processing plant;
Broiler sheds; and
Movement of waste from broiler sheds to composting pad at end of growing cycle.
The likelihood of odours generated by the Site once operational causing a nuisance depends on a
number of factors, including the frequency, intensity, duration, unpleasantness and location of
human receptors in relation to the odour. This can be judged by taking into account the location of
the source relative to sensitive receptors (distance and direction), and the effectiveness of
dispersion / dilution. Meteorological conditions play an important part in whether or not offensive
odour will be experienced (wind direction and speed being particularly important), and available
local meteorological data (Makinsk) have therefore been considered (Table 7-2).
Table 7-2 Average Annual Wind Direction Frequency

DIRECTION FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE (%)
North 4
Northeast 3
East 5
Southeast 7
South 19
Southwest 45
West 7
Northwest 9

January 2016
64
The Site will be operational throughout the year, and therefore there is a risk of odours to be
generated at all times. The wind direction data indicate that the predominant wind direction in the
area is from the south through south-western sector (64%). Therefore, for the majority of the time,
the greatest potential for any odours generated to be detected will be at the receptors located to
the north through to the northeast. The closest property lies approximately 125m from the
proposed hatchery building, however this is unlikely to be a significant source of odours given the
nature of the activities. The closest properties to the site (excluding the hatchery) are at least
1.5km away, in Makinsk (to the northeast of the Site).
How offensive an odour is perceived to be is subjective, and varies from person to person.
Odours associated with waste water, faeces, and rendering activities are considered to be highly
unpleasant, whilst odours from composting are considered as moderately unpleasant. Odour
emissions from composting are an indication of suboptimal conditions, and will be controlled
through regular turning of composting matter.
Based on the distance between the potentially odorous activities and the sensitive receptors,
there is the opportunity for significant dispersion and dilution by the wind, and it is considered
unlikely that significant odours will be perceived by residents in the area surrounding the
Proposed Development. This being the case, odour impacts are considered to be of Negative
Minor significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to
odour are described in Chapter 10.
DECOMMISSIONING
The environmental impacts associated with the closure the Site will be similar to the impacts that
occur during the construction of the Project. Accordingly, impacts are considered to be Negligible
significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to odour are
described in Chapter 10.
DUST AND SMOKE GENERATION

CONSTRUCTION
Dust comprises particles typically in the size range 1-75 micrometres (µm) in aerodynamic
diameter. The larger dust particles fall out of the atmosphere quickly after initial release and
therefore tend to be deposited in close proximity to the source of emission. Dust therefore, is
unlikely to cause long-term or widespread changes to local air quality; however, its deposition on
property and cars can cause ‘soiling’ and discolouration. This may result in complaints of
nuisance through amenity loss or perceived damage caused.
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Development that have the potential to
generate and/or re-suspend dust are likely to include:
Preparation of access routes and internal road network;

Earthmoving and drilling;
Demolition of existing buildings on Site;
Materials handling, storage, stockpiling, spillage and disposal;
Grinding, sanding and sandblasting of surfaces;
Movement of vehicles and construction traffic within the Site; and
Construction of new buildings and structures.

January 2016
65
The majority of the releases are likely to occur during the 'working week'. However, for some
potential release sources (e.g. exposed soil produced from significant earthwork activities) in the
absence of dust control mitigation measures, dust generation has the potential to occur 24 hours
per day over the period during which such activities are to take place. The construction will
involve potentially dusty materials such as concrete, crushed stone, and gravel.
The highest risk of dust exposure is to regular staff and informal workers on site. The closest off-
site receptors, and the closest to dust generated by activities carried out during construction, are
located in Bajsuat; the closest property within Bajsuat is approximately 125m from the proposed
hatchery building. Besides the properties in Bajsuat, all others are located over 1.5km from the
Site. Ecological habitats which are sensitive to dust deposition within 50m of dust generating
activities may be at risk of impacts during construction, however, the majority of construction
activities will take place more than 50m from the Site boundary. The area surrounding the Site is
therefore considered to be of low sensitivity to dust generated by construction activities, and
therefore low risk of experiencing significant dust impacts during construction. Consequently, dust
generation impacts during construction on ambient air quality are considered to be of Negligible
significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to dust are
OPERATION
During operation, dust may be generated as a result of a number of processes carried out on Site.
These include:
Feed mill operations;

Preparation of litter (chopped straw);
Litter spreading within broiler sheds pre-cycle; and
Removal of waste from broiler sheds at end of cycle and transportation to composting pad.
On a daily basis, dust emissions originate from the feed, bedding material and from the animal
activities. Waste removal occurs after each (roughly 8 week) cycle. The amount of airborne dust
will vary significantly throughout the day depending on:
The amount of ventilation;

The activity of the birds;
Type and quantity of litter;
The type and the consistency of feedstuff; and
The humidity in the broiler shed.
The proposed feed mill is located approximately 150m south of Makinsk. There is therefore a risk
that dust generated and emitted from the processes associated with the feed mill will affect the
closest residential properties. However, the exhaust will be fitted with bag filters; these filters,
fitted in line with BAT, will significantly reduce the risk of dust impacts in the surrounding area.
The ventilation regime is controlled in order to ensure optimal growth conditions are maintained
within the house (and varies throughout the day and depending on season / external conditions to
ensure the internal temperature is maintained appropriately). Fine litter material (e.g. the chopped
straw proposed) is considered highly dusty, however the proposed feeding regime (constantly
available to the birds) is considered most favourable in terms of dust generation.

January 2016
66
The highest risk of dust exposure is to regular staff on site. Measures put in place to protect
on-Site staff will ensure that the risk of impacts off-Site are smaller. The closest off-Site receptors
are located in Bajsuat, approximately 125m from the proposed hatchery building, however,
activities associated with the hatchery are unlikely to generate significant dust emissions. Besides
these properties, all others are located over 1.5km from the Site. The area surrounding the Site is
therefore considered to be of low sensitivity to dust generated by the identified operational phase
activities, and therefore low risk of experiencing significant dust impacts.
Consequently, dust impacts during operation on ambient air quality are considered to be of
Negative Minor significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures
related to dust are described in Chapter 10.
DECOMMISSIONING
significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to dust are
EMISSIONS TO AIR
CONSTRUCTION
The greatest potential impact on air quality due to emissions from vehicles and plant associated
with the construction phase will be in the areas immediately adjacent to the Site access and the
Site boundary. The number of construction vehicles likely to be generated is not known, however,
given that existing air quality within the vicinity of the Site is likely to be good, and that there are
limited residential properties in the vicinity of the Site, there are unlikely to be any significant
changes in air quality at residential properties.
Final details of the exact construction plant and equipment likely to be used on the Site will be
determined by the appointed contractor, it is considered likely to comprise bulldozers, road rollers,
cranes, and excavators. The number of plant and their location within the Site are likely to be
variable over the construction period. There will also be emissions relating to welding, roofing and
painting, however, these are unlikely to be released in significant volumes, and will be temporary
in nature, and any impacts will be highly localised.
Based on the proximity of sensitive receptors to the roads likely to be used by construction
vehicles and the Proposed Development site boundary, the impacts are therefore considered to
be of Negligible significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures
related to emissions to air are described in Chapter 10.
OPERATION
During operation, emissions of air pollutants may be generated as a result of a number of

processes and activities carried out as a result of the Proposed Development. These include:

January 2016
67
Emissions from vehicles operating on-site, as well as vehicles travelling to and from the Site;
Emissions from on-site energy generating plant (Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG));
Emissions from the broiler houses due to physical processes;
Emissions from composting; and
Emissions from the disinfection process.
Vehicle exhaust emissions associated with the operation of the Site (deliveries, transportation of
produce and staff movements) have the potential to negatively impact on local ambient air quality.
It is understood that, once operational, the Site will generate up to 60 vehicle movements per day,
associated with deliveries, transportation of the processed product off site, and staff travel. In the
UK, criteria have been provided in guidance10 in order to screen when additional traffic flows have
the potential to significantly impact on air quality. In order for a change in traffic flows to have a
potentially significant impact on air quality, the total daily flow must increase by 1,000 vehicles per
day, or Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV; >3.5 tonnes) must increase by 200 vehicles per day, on roads
where the existing traffic flows exceed 10,000 vehicles per day. Where the increases in traffic
flows do not exceed these thresholds, impacts on air quality can be judged to be insignificant. The
estimated traffic flows associated with the operation of the Site are significantly below the
threshold.
In addition to electric boilers, a number of boilers operating on LPG will be installed across the
Site. Each broiler house will have a 100kW boiler installed, with larger boilers provided in each of
the other buildings on the Site (office, feed mill, processing plant and hatchery). Emissions
associated with combustion of LPG include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), SO 2
and particulate matter. Given the small scale of the proposed boilers, it is considered unlikely that
these emissions will have a significant impact on concentrations at the closest residential
properties (located some distance from the majority of boilers proposed). It is intended that the
source of fuel will change to natural gas (timescales unknown); this will reduce the risk of SO 2 and
particulate matter emissions (which are negligible from natural gas). Impacts on air pollution
related to the boilers are judged to be insignificant.
The key emission to air produced in animal housing systems is ammonia, the main source of
which is the rapid hydrolysis of urea contained in urine by the urease; within broiler houses,
optimal conditions (temperature and moisture content) arise for ammonia production. Due to its
reactive nature, ammonia is rapidly deposited and therefore ammonia concentrations rapidly
decrease with distance from the source. Ammonia is not a human health issue unless at very high
concentrations; concentrations are unlikely to reach these levels even within the broiler sheds, as
this would be harmful to both on site staff and the health / growth of the broilers themselves. The
ventilation management ensures that concentrations do not reach levels which are harmful to
human health. After emission from the broiler sheds, the ammonia concentrations will rapidly
decrease. Consequently, concentrations are unlikely to be significant at the closest residential
properties to the broilers sheds, which are located over 1.5km away.
Ammonia deposition can lead to eutrophication (increased nitrogen) and acidification of water and
soil, which can lead to changes in species diversity. The impact of these processes on the
surrounding area in relation to potential habitat impact, is considered within the habitat / ecology
assessment.
10
Highways Agency, 2007. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1
HA207/07 Air Quality. Available at: www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3/ha20707.pdf

January 2016
68
Additionally, there is a risk of ammonia production during composting. There is also a risk of
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions where the compost is allowed to develop
anaerobic conditions; this will be minimised by regular turning. The composting will take place
over 1.8km from the nearest residential property, and therefore for the same reasons as
described above for emissions from the broiler houses themselves, concentrations are unlikely to
be significant at the closest residential properties.
Formaldehyde is also produced during disinfection. It is considered unlikely that emissions will be
significant beyond the buildings being disinfected as there would be an unacceptable risk to on
site workers in these circumstances. Consequently, formaldehyde emissions are unlikely to have
a significant impact off site including at the closest residential properties.
Overall, the potential impact of emissions to air during the operation of the Site is considered to
be of Negligible significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures
related to pollutant emissions are described in Chapter 10.
DECOMMISSIONING
significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to pollutant
emissions are described in Chapter 8.
EFFECTS FROM EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES (GHG)

CONSTRUCTION
During the construction phase, the primary sources of greenhouse gases are CO2 generated from
combustion sources. However, there could potentially be limited GHG releases from the site
associated with:
On-site use of temporary construction facilities (office , engineer’s facilities and associated
amenities);
Extraction and manufacture of materials required to construct the proposed development;
Transport of materials and labour from the assumed point of production to the poultry farm
locations;
On-site use of plant and equipment; and
Indirect impact of grid electricity generated by fossil fuels.
Overall, the potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions during construction is considered to be
of Negative Minor significance prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures
related to GHGs are described in Chapter 10.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
During the operation of the site GHG emissions will be generated from the following activities:
The poultry farm broiler houses and hatchery;

Transport of raw materials and labour to the farms and associated waste and products
from the farms;
On-site use of associated liquid petroleum gas fired boiler plant and other equipment;
Composting of the chicken litter and subsequent landspreading;

January 2016
69
Wastewater treatment process; and

Indirect impact of grid electricity generated by fossil fuels.
Greenhouse gases have an effect on global warming in relation to their potential for
trapping heat in the atmosphere. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the most
important greenhouse gases associated with animal farming and their GWP for a time horizon of
100 years is 25 (CH4 ) and 298 (N2O) times greater than CO2.
When manure is stored or treated as a liquid (e.g. in lagoons, tanks, or pits), it decomposes
anaerobically and can produce a significant quantity of CH4 . The amount of methane
generated is affected by the extent of anaerobic conditions present, the temperature of the
system, and the retention time of organic material in the system. The liquid effluent from the
slaughterhouse and rendering plant will be treated in the wastewater treatment plant and should
not be retained in the reception chambers for long periods of time in order to generate anaerobic
conditions.
When manure is handled as a solid (like the windrows proposed at the site) or when it is
deposited on agricultural land as proposed, it tends to decompose under more aerobic conditions
and less CH4 is produced.
Most of the nitrous oxide in livestock systems occurs through the microbiological
transformation of nitrogen and this involves three main processes:
Nitrification under aerobic conditions;

Denitrification under anaerobic conditions; and
Autotrophic nitrifier denitrification is believed to be similar to denitrification.
Under partial or transient anaerobic conditions, the denitrification reaction is uncompleted,

resulting in the production of NO and N2O. Apart from the lack of oxygen availability,
denitrification is also favoured by the presence of an available carbon source and warm
temperatures, among others. Because of this dependence upon such site-specific factors,
emissions of N2O exhibit a rather high degree of spatial and temporal variability.
Soil microbial processes (denitrification processes) produce nitrous oxide from the breakdown of
nitrate in the soil, whether derived from manure, mineral fertilisers or the soil itself, but the
presence of manure encourages this process. Livestock housing itself, particularly littered
systems, is an additional source of N2O emissions
The European Guidance Note Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the
Intensive Rearing of Poultry or Pigs Final Draft - August 2015 provides emission data for the
production of poultry which can be seen in Table 7-3 below.

January 2016
70
Table 7-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PARAMETER KG CO2-EQ/KG OF RELEASE FROM MPF
PRODUCED POULTRY IN TONNES OF CO2
MEAT
CH4 0.04 2,400
N2O 1.1 66,000
CO2 related to 84,000
energy 1.4
consumption
CO2 related to 144,000
land use and 2.4
land use change
Total 4.94 296,400
From the above we can see that the total release would be 296,400 tonnes of CO2 which would
categorise it as a medium-high GHG emitter based on EBRD Methodology for Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However, this guidance is just for the poultry farm where the project
also incorporates a slaughterhouse, rendering facility, wastewater treatment plant, feed mill and
composting facility as part of the wider project. Therefore, the GHG emissions are likely to be
higher than those described above.
The EBRD Methodology for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions states that industrial
waste water treatment is categorised as having a negligible GHG impact and has therefore not
been considered further.
The fuel use for the project is 12.64MW electricity and 18.86MW installed LPG fired gas boilers
across the broiler houses, offices, slaughter house and rendering plant and hatchery. This would
calculate as 12.64MW x8760 hours x 1.506 emission factor for grid produced electricity in
Kazakhstan for a total of 166,753 tonnes of CO2. The Environment Agency guidance note H2
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Energy Efficiency has an emission factor of
240kg CO2 per MWh for LPG. Given that heating is required for less than 50% of the year which
comprise 9.6MW of the total and the slaughterhouse and rendering plant are not 24 hour 7 day a
week operations a factor of 40% of the total has been used as a conservative worst case. This
would calculate as 18.86MW x 3,504 operational hours x 240kg per MWh= 15,860 tonnes of CO2.
Therefore the calculated usage from the fuel use is excluding transport of 182,613 tonnes of CO 2.
This is substantially higher than the BREF guidance but incorporates all of the other facilities in
the wider project over and above just the poultry farm but excluding the feed mill.
If we take the value from table 7-3 above for CH4 and N2O generation from the poultry houses
and CO2 from land application and land use changes and add the calculated energy use then the
estimated total GHG are 395,013 tonnes. This excludes the composting process, feed mill and
transport.
The 2012 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's (UK Government Departments) GHG Conversion Factors
for Company Reporting has an emission factor of 3,164kg CO2 per tonne of diesel. Given that
diesel is 850 kg per m3 and the usage of 173 m3/year would be 147 tonnes of diesel producing
465 tonnes of CO2.
It is recommended as part of the ESAP that when the poultry farm and associated infrastructure is
operational, a greenhouse gas inventory be calculated using actual data and monitored and
reported to EBRD on an annual basis.

January 2016
71
From the above the impact of greenhouse gas emission during the operation of the poultry farm
and associated infrastructure is considered to be of Negative Moderate significance prior to
mitigation. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to GHGs are described in
Chapter 8.
DECOMMISSIONING
Greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with the closure of the poultry farm will be
associated with the decommissioning and removal of the facilities and would be similar in nature
to those during construction although it would be expected that it would be for a shorter duration.
Accordingly, impacts are considered to be Negative Minor significance prior to mitigation. A

summary of proposed mitigation measures related to GHGs are described in Chapter 10.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADAPTATION

CONSTRUCTION
The construction works are planned to be carried out during summer months, and as such the
probability of extremely hot temperatures should be considered during planning of the works. In
addition, the possibility of severe winter frosts and heavy snow should be addressed during the
planning of equipment and construction site maintenance. The impact of construction of the
Project to climate change and adaptation is considered to be Negligible.
Operation of poultry farm will be carried out according to procedures developed for the climate
conditions during its design. However, the poultry farm design and development based on the
best international practice will allow for mitigation of the impacts of extreme temperatures (e.g.
lengthy too hot or too cold periods) or precipitation pattern (e.g. heavy rain, thick snow, drought),
so that they are negligible for areas adjacent to the poultry farm. The poultry farm operational
procedures will be updated, if necessary, according to the climate change trends eg for back-up
heat supply and feed movements during extended periods of inclement weather. This being the
case, the impact of operation and maintenance of the poultry farm to climate change and
adaptation is considered to be Negligible.
DECOMMISSIONING
Climate change and adaptation impacts associated with the closure and decommissioning of the
poultry farm will be similar to the impacts that occur during the construction and operation of the
Project, and on this basis are considered to be Negligible.
7.4 NOISE IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
The primary source of noise during construction will be heavy equipment (e.g. bulldozers,
graders, excavators, dump trucks, etc.) and vehicular traffic. The magnitude of construction noise
impacts depend upon the specific plant used, its duration of use during a typical day and the
distance between construction works and sensitive receptors.
The OVOS has identified the following construction plant that is likely to be used:
Bulldozers, 79 kW/HP/108
Diesel hammers,

January 2016
72
Self-propelled road rollers are smooth,

8 t mobile compressors with internal combustion engine pressure up to 686 kPa
Gantry cranes at work on the installation of technological equipment,
Various mobile/crawler cranes from 10t to 100t
35 t (tractors, crawler, q/t) self-propelled scaffoldings, lifting height of 12 m (tractors,
crawler, d/ton)
Excavators diesel Caterpillar
Wheeled 25 t. tractors
The closest residential receptor from any part of the Proposed Development is Baysuat village,
which is approximately 125m from the Incubator site. All other surrounding villages are at least
1250m from any part of the development.
In the absence of a specific construction program, it is not practicable to determine accurate noise
level predictions at the residential receptors, however, construction noise levels are only likely to
cause isolated changes to the existing environment within a distance of 1km from the works and
when all construction plant is operating at the same location simultaneously.
Given the distances to the surrounding residential areas and the fact that construction noise
impacts would cease as soon as the works have been complete, any potential noise impacts
would be temporary and therefore considered to be of Negative Minor significance at receptors in
Baysuat village and Negligible significance at all other residential receptors, prior to mitigation.
Construction noise can be managed with proper planning and a summary of proposed mitigation
measures related to noise are described in Chapter 8.
The primary noise sources during operation are assumed to be mechanical services equipment
and vehicular traffic on the internal ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ road networks.
It is understood that under Kazakh law, noise calculations are not required during the design
development stages and that exact locations and specification of mechanical services equipment
are therefore not provided until after the commissioning stage.
For the purpose of the noise impact assessment, mechanical services equipment noise levels
have been assumed, based on similar facilities in the UK and are summarised below in Table 7-4:
Table 7-4 Assumed Noise Generating Equipment

SITE IDENTIFIED NOISE GENERATING ASSUMED NOISE LEVEL
EQUIPMENT (SOUND POWER)
Incubator/Hatchery Ventilation fans on Hatchery Building 12 No per building at 84 dB(A) each
Site
Air conditioning plant for Hatchery Building 2 No at 78 dB(A) each
1900kW Boiler 85 dB(A)
Stand-by Diesel Generator 102 dB(A)*
Administrative and Ventilation fans for ABK Building 3 No at 84 dB(A) each

service building
Ventilation fans for Garage 6 No at 84 dB(A) each
Ventilation fans for Workshop 4 No at 84 dB(A) each

January 2016
73
Forklift (assume 50% on-time) 104 dB(A)
Broiler Farms Ventilation fans for Broiler houses (12 houses 16 No per house at 84 dB(A) each
per farm)
Transformers (2 No per farm) 60 dB(A) each
Stand-by Diesel Generators (2 No per farm) 102 dB(A) each*
Boilers for Broiler houses 1 No per house – 76 dB(A) each
poultry processing Ventilation fans for process building 12 No at 84 dB(A) each
Air conditioning plant for process building 4 No at 78 dB(A)
Ventilation fans for Laboratory 2 No at 84 dB(A) each
Ventilation fans for Warehouse 4 No at 84 dB(A) each
Ventilation fans for Garage and workshop 7 No at 84 dB(A) each
Compressor house 102 dB(A)
Transformer 60 dB(A)
Forklift (assume 50% on-time) 104 dB(A)
Feed Mill Grinders/mixers/conveyors 6 No at 97 dB(A) each

Very limited
information available Silo loading/unloading 36 No at 95 dB(A) each
on the Feed Mill but
will incorporate a Ventilation fans 36 No at 84 dB(A) each
number of grinders,
mixers and conveyor
belt systems with 36
internal silos,
assumed to include
mechanical
ventilation.
Composting Pad Front loader (2 No) 110 dB(A)
Windrow turner 97 dB(A)
Wastewater Plant Pumps 90 dB(A)
Clean Road Network Light-Medium Goods Vehicles Approx 24 movements per hour
Heavy Goods Vehicles Approx 4 movements per hour
Dirty Road Network Heavy Goods Vehicles Approx 14 movements per hour
*Note : For the purpose of the assessment, stand-by generators are assumed to operate for 10% of the day
The equipment and vehicular movements scheduled above have been incorporated into a 3-D
computer noise model using CandaA environmental noise modelling software in order to predict
indicative operational noise levels from the Site to the surrounding residential areas. Output from
the noise model is shown in Figure 7-1 and summarised in Table 7-2, below.

January 2016
74
Table 7-5 Predicted Indicative Operational Noise Levels

RECEPTOR LOCATION INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Makinsk City 30-44 dB LAeq,T
Karaozek village 34-36 dB LAeq,T
Baysuat Village 32-40 dB LAeq,T
Bulandy District <25 dB LAeq,T
The predicted noise levels quoted above are considered to be indicative, due to the lack of
technical data and design detail available for the Proposed Development, and could therefore be
subject to tolerances of up to ±10 dB, depending on the source.

January 2016
75
Allowing for a worst case scenario (i.e. 10 dB above the predicted noise levels quoted in Table
7.5), the likely noise levels all fall below the day-time criteria stipulated by the WHO for impacts at
residential receptors but could exceed the night-time limit of 45 dB(A). The upper range of the
predicted noise impacts are at the residential receptors that are closest to the road network used
by vehicles associated with the Proposed Development and are therefore only likely to be
reached during the more active daytime shifts.
Considering the threshold of significant impacts as being the levels presented in Table 5-7, the
areas in which these levels are predicted to arise are limited to residential receptors within 500m
of active parts of the Proposed Development.
The magnitude of likely noise impacts during operation and prior to mitigation, are therefore
considered to be of Negative Moderate significance at residential receptors in Makinsk and
Baysuat that are closest to the road network and of Negative Minor significance at all other
residential receptors. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to noise are described
in Chapter 8.
DECOMMISSIONING
Noise impacts generated during decommissioning of the development are anticipated to be
predominantly associated with use of heavy machinery and vehicles, similar to the construction
process.
Accordingly, potential noise impacts would be temporary and of Negative Minor significance at
receptors in Baysuat village and Negligible significance at all other residential receptors.
7.5 POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS
The assessment of landscape and visual impacts is broadly based on the UK Guidelines for
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA)11 and professional judgement.
CONSTRUCTION
Visual impacts during the construction period will result from on-site machinery, hoardings,
scaffolding, ground formation works, construction works for foundations and buildings, traffic and
lighting on site.
The Proposed Development is likely to have short term direct effects on the views from Makinsk
town, Baisuat village, Karaozek village, Sukhaya River, Kayrakty River, and the pond on Kayrakty
River. Specifically, works during construction phase could have a minor to moderate adverse
impact on the views from Baisuat village, since it is located at a distance of 125 m to the east of
the site. Similarly, a moderate adverse impact on the views from Sukhaya River is likely due to
its close proximity to the site boundary. Therefore, mitigation measures, such as visual screening,
are recommended during construction phase.
11
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013). UK Guidelines for
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 3rd Edition, London: Routledge.

January 2016
76
OPERATION
Visual impacts during the operation phase will mainly result from on-site buildings and farm
facilities, traffic and lighting on site. The proposed farm will comprise approximately 140
structures. The height of the structures on site will vary from 2.5 m to 12.6 m. The buildings will be
widely spread across the farm. The spacing between the eight individual farm units for breeding
broiler chickens (BP1 to BP8) will be of approximately 300 m – 1,000 m.
The wider project is not expected to have adverse impacts on sensitive visual receptors.
However, the incubator building (proposed height of 9.18 m) could have a permanent minor
adverse impact on the views from Baisuat village and Sukhaya River due to its close proximity to
each of these receptors. Similarly, the incubator building and the 12 buildings on farm unit BP1
(proposed height of 5.20 m) could have a permanent minor adverse impact on the views from
pond on Kayrakty River. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended during the operation
phase.
Other higher buildings (up to 12.6 m) within the proposed site are not expected to have an
adverse impact on the identified visual receptors, since they will be located more than 1 km from
any visual receptors.
While some planting will tempt to integrate the development into the wider landscape, overall the
scale of the development and the relatively flat terrain means that the farm would result in a
moderate adverse impact on the local landscape character.
DECOMMISSIONING
The environmental impacts associated with the closure of the Proposed Site will be similar to the
impacts that occur during the construction of the Project. Accordingly, works during the
decommissioning phase would result in minor to moderate adverse impact on local landscape
and visual amenity. A summary of proposed mitigation measures related to closure of the
Proposed Site are described in Chapter 10.
MITIGATION
All practicable measures should be implemented to avoid or effectively control potentially adverse
construction and operation effects on existing landscape character and visual receptors.
Installation of 2 m high fence with checkpoint is planned for the construction and operation phase
in order to protect the site and to screen the development from nearby sensitive receptors.
Visual impacts of the poultry farm facilities during operation phase can be reduced by painting the
buildings in a colour that is sympathetic with the surrounding environment.
Mitigation planting of local tree species on site is planned to reduce the landscape and visual
impacts of the farm. Within each farm unit, planting of two rows of trees is planned between the
buildings used to breed broiler chickens. Similar planting will be undertaken around veterinary,
composting and clearance facilities as well as along the site boundary. This mitigation planting
would improve integration of the development into the local landscape and reduce the visual
impact of the development, particular when viewed from residential areas such as Baisuat village.
In particular, to avoid adverse impacts on the visual amenity, planting of trees should be
undertaken around the incubator building and along the south-west and south site boundaries to
screen Baisuat village, Karaozek village, Sukhaya River, Kayrakty River, and pond on Kayrakty
River from the proposed farm.

January 2016
77
7.6 GEOLOGY AND SOIL
Impacts relating to geology are unlikely to arise during the construction, operation or
decommissioning of the project. Impacts on soil may arise during construction when topsoil is
displaced to construct the buildings.
SEISMICITY
The majority of Kazakhstan lies in a very low risk hazard zone. Towards the south and southwest
lie incrementally higher hazard zones with the most southeastern areas of the country susceptible
to very high seismic hazards. The project site in Makinsk lies approximately 1000km away from
increasing seismic hazards (see Figure 7-1 below). Impacts on and from the project at any stage
relating to seismic hazards are very unlikely to arise.
Figure 7-1 WHO Seismic Hazard Distribution Map of Kazakhstan
In the very unlikely event of major earthquake activity in the proximity of the site, it could result in
ground shaking and shearing-induced displacements along pre-existing faults. In such
circumstances the potential impacts could include damage to integrity of project buildings
including rupture of pipework and breach of containment measures from storage of any
hazardous materials on site. Release of general waste from site is unlikely to have a significant
environmental impact. The impacts resulting from seismic activity are considered Negative and
considered to be of Minor significance prior to mitigation.

January 2016
78
The impact on topsoil resulting from clearance during construction and reinstatement during
operation and decommissioning has the potential to cause soil erosion and soil degradation.
These potential impacts are considered Negative and considered to be of Minor significance
during construction, operation and decommissioning prior to mitigation. A summary of proposed
mitigation measures related to geology and soil are described in Chapter 8.
7.7 HYDROGEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section discusses the significance of potential hydrogeological, hydrological and water
quality impacts associated with the Project. There are four potentially significant impact areas
associated with the construction and operation of the new poultry farm:
Contamination of ground and surface water resources by wastewater from the process
and leachate from the composting area;
Landspreading of the manure on agricultural land;
Changes to surface water regime; and
Wastewater generation and disposal.
CONTAMINATION OF GROUND AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES FROM

LEACHATE EMISSIONS
CONSTRUCTION
Pollution of surface water and groundwater resources during construction is usually related to
improper storage of construction materials, construction waste and excavated materials, spillage
of fuel, oil and other hazardous substances during construction activities. The potential impact
would be negative moderate without mitigation but with appropriate spillage controls and
procedures it would be negative minor.
OPERATION
During poultry farm operations pollution of groundwater resources may be caused by uncontrolled
discharge of run-off or leachate and leakage from blocked drainage systems at the composting
process area or wastewater treatment plant.
Wastes from the production when growing broiler (used litter, manure, sewage sludge) and waste
from the hatchery are routed to the composting pad with a view to producing organic fertilizers for
use in agriculture. The choice of technology for the composting process is by a simple aerobic
process without adding enzymes.
The delivered litter is stored in windrows 2.6 m high and 6 m in width and length of the pile
selected is 100 meters. The composting period in 42-55 days. The final compost is stored until it
is required to be landspread during the growing period for crops which lasts 60 days in August
and September to the first snow fall.
The composting process will take place on hardstanding in a hangar which helps to control the
moisture content of the compost and prevent any contaminated run-off. There is an additional
asphalt storage area for the storage of treated litter once it has been converted to compost.

January 2016
79
Drainage systems to and from the compost area and to and from the wastewater treatment pad
will be newly constructed to RoK construction standards and should ensure that there are no sub-
surface discharges. Composting will be arranged on an open water impermeable pad inclined to
the edges towards the drainage troughs. The compost row watering is made with the WWTP
treated water which is collected in a sedimentation tank from where it is reused. The excess water
runs back to the WWTP for treatment. i.e. there is not risk of wash off running to the ground even
during extreme weather events.
All wastewater produced in farm units, slaughterhouse and rendering plant as well as garage with
car wash take place in enclosed buildings (with the exception of the garage) which will contain
any water and direct it to the foul drainage system and to the wastewater treatment plant. These
building and their associated drainage infrastructure will be newly constructed to RoK construction
standards and should ensure that there are no sub-surface discharges.
The wastewater treatment plant is detailed in a following section and comprises a series of
treatment processes that will be subject to flow control
Rainfall directly on to roadways will be directed to on-site surface water drainage systems and will
not contain any contaminants as the roadways will be kept clean.
The composting process is several kilometres away from the River Kayrakty which will ensure
there is no impact with regards to surface water contamination by leachate.
Potentially polluting substances impacting land and surface water during construction, operation
and decommissioning is considered to be of Negative Minor significance prior to mitigation. A
summary of proposed mitigation measures related to water are described in Chapter 8.
DECOMMISSIONING
The potential impacts and mitigation would be the same as for construction.
LANDSPREADING OF THE MANURE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

CONSTRUCTION
Land spreading would only take place after the poultry farm is operational.
MPF is to spread manure on the fields of the consumer who purchases and requests it. This
spreading period lasts approximately 60 days a year, from the moment of the harvest season
(August-September) to when the snow falls. In order to undertake spreading operations MPF will
have two spreaders with a capacity of 20 tons per hour, based on one tractor and forklift carrying
the load of compost in the spreader to the edge of the field.
No procedures with regard to land spreading have been developed. It is important for this to be
the case as the problems that could occur from over spreading are:
Over nutrition of the land with the excess nitrogen and phosphate entering groundwater or
surface water;
Spreading too close to the edge of rivers near to the wetted area or after periods of heavy
rainfall which means that the manure could be easily washed off;
Not incorporating into the ground quick enough allowing odour to be a nuisance to local
residents; and

January 2016
80
Spreading at the wrong time for crop growth which would not utilise the nutrients spread.
This being the case, the operation of the poultry farm is anticipated to have a Negative Moderate
impact from landspreading if mitigation measures are not developed.
The Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) has included an action to develop procedures
to ensure that the appropriate measures below are considered before landspreading.
The principle of BAT is based on doing all the following four actions:
1. Applying nutritional measures
BAT is to minimise the emissions from manure to soil and groundwater by balancing the amount
of manure with the foreseeable requirements of the crop.
BAT is to take into account the characteristics of the land concerned when applying manure, in
particular soil conditions, soil type and slope, climatic conditions, rainfall and irrigation, land use
and agricultural practices, including crop rotation systems.
Not applying manure to land when the field is: water-saturated, flooded, frozen, snow-covered
Not applying manure to steeply sloping fields
Not applying manure adjacent to any water course
Spreading manure as close as possible before maximum crop growth and nutrient uptake occur.
2. Balancing the manure that is going to be spread with the available land and crop
requirements and, if applied, with other fertilisers.
3. Managing landspreading of manure to minimise odour problems.
Spreading during the day when people are less likely to be at home and avoiding weekends and
public holidays
Paying particular attention to wind direction in relation to neighbouring houses
Manure can be treated to minimise odour emissions which can then allow more flexibility for
identifying suitable sites and weather conditions for land applications.
4. Only using the techniques that are BAT for the spreading of manure on land.
If procedures are implemented to manage the issues above then this activity will have a Negative
Minor impact.
DECOMMISSIONING
Decommissioning will mean that land spreading operations cease and there will be no further
impact from this activity.
ALTERATION OF SURFACE WATER REGIME
No major changes in drainage pattern will be caused during construction or operation of the
poultry farm. Some of the land taken will be from irrigation fields which would have been used to
irrigate the land that will now form part of the poultry farm and no longer used for agricultural use.

January 2016
81
CONSTRUCTION
According to Project proposals, alterations in the local drainage systems during establishment of
the poultry farm will be related to construction of surface water run-off management system and
leachate management system from the composting pad. The run-off collection system from the
poultry farm is designed to keep clean surface water run-off separate from the contaminated run-
off, leachate and wastewater.
During construction, the water will mostly be used for dust suppression during soil moving works
and top soil storage; when clearing vegetation and grading; for unpaved road traffic; for making
concrete for foundations; and for consumption by construction workers.
Construction activities for the proposed new poultry farm development may have a Negative
Minor impact on hydrology and water quality of the local area as the construction waste will not
be leached into groundwater or to any surface water body.
The area is designated as acceptable for location of the poultry farm as it is relatively flat, and
therefore minor changes in grade could alter the direction of surface water run-off. Grading
associated with earthworks could cause run-off to be directed away from the site. In addition, rain
falling directly on the poultry farm area will flow under gravity to site drainage gullies and may
discharge into a surface water feature potentially affect the water quality. Overall, the impacts on
surface water resources are related to the project footprint (e.g. land disturbance, erosion,
changes in run-off patterns and hydrological changes, etc.).
Site specific drainage control is required to ensure that surface water run-off is properly managed
and the potential for flooding is Negligible.
The majority of water used during operation and maintenance of the new poultry farm will
comprise poultry farm cleaning, use in the slaughterhouse of hot water and steam in the rendering
facility as well as minor usage such as washing vehicles wheels, sprinkling the earth access
roads and in the administration building. Wastewater will be treated in the wastewater treatment
plant as described below before discharge to the River Kayrakty. Surface water run-off within the
site will be managed and allowed to naturally discharge via soakaway. This being the case, the
operation of the poultry farm is anticipated to have a Negligible impact on hydrology flooding.
DECOMMISSIONING
The impact of the closure of the poultry farm and associated infrastructure on hydrology, water
quality and flooding potential in the area is anticipated to be Negligible.
WASTEWATER GENERATION AND DISPOSAL

CONSTRUCTION
During construction water will be used at the construction camp for drinking, cooking and washing
in addition to construction activities such as dust suppression, wheel wash facility, etc. The
facilities for the workers will be provided with a water supply and a sewerage collection system.
The wastewater form the construction camp will be collected in a septic tank (5 m3 capacity)
constructed of impermeable material. The tank will be emptied appropriately and transported to a
centralised wastewater collection facility in accordance with prior agreement with the local
authorities. Wastewater volume will amount to 3.3 m3/day, 1204.5 m3/year.

January 2016
82
Improper operation of the sewerage system and wastewater collection tank may have Negative
Minor impacts prior to mitigation on the site in the event of pollution Mitigation measures will be
adopted to minimise the negative impacts as described in Chapter 8 from wastewater generation
and discharges from the site.
OPERATION
Water will be used during operation of the new poultry farm for operations such as drinking for the
poultry, cleaning of the buildings and equipment, for canteens and toilets, vehicle washing and
steam generation for use in the rendering process. Grease traps will be installed at the discharge
points where grease can form including car washes.
Wastewater generation from the process is subject to mechanical cleaning and then biological
treatment using dissolved air flotation equipment.
Mechanical cleaning is separated into three wastewater flows.
Domestic waste water, pass through the screens and the filtrate are routed to biological
treatment facilities. Selected screened material such as solid household waste and
disposed of in landfills.
Wastewater from the arrival area is weighed, passed through the screen and the filtrate
enters the first pit. Screened material at this stage are solid wastes which are exported by
truck to the composting process.
Runoff from screening effluent from the first pit is added to the rotating drum sieve from
the inside. Filtered waste is sent for recycling.
The process is constantly circulating, self-cleaning filter tape. The circulating tape transports
suspended solids over the channel and dumps them into the container the rotating drum screen
with internal feeding is a self-cleaning drum filter, used as a prefilter before applying water on
flotation devices or as a separate filter. See Figure 7-X below.
Figure 7-2 Mechanical Treatment Process

January 2016
83
From here the effluent then goes to the flotation system. Waste water comes into the flotation
system which represents a high frame structure with an open reservoir and designed for
separation of solid particles from water using air. Flakes float to the surface of the reservoir and
are automatically removed by the drag mechanism. Flotation is aided by plastic plates which
increase the surface area and guarantees that even the smallest flakes are removed from the
wastewater. Built-in recirculation/aeration ensures the required air-water mixture.
Physico-chemical cleaning methods at the flotation stage are by coagulation. As a result of

physico-chemical treatment there are three waste streams:
Treated for construction of sewage water is sent into the buffer capacity before biological
treatment facilities in number 1590 m3/day.
Organic material is sent for recycling in the shop on manufacture of meat and bone meal.
Sludge removed by mechanical strainer transported by truck to the composting process.
Table 7-6 Effluent Parameters
PARAMETER INCOMING TREATED BEST BEST
EFFLUENT EFFLUENT AVAILABLE AVAILABLE
TECHNIQUES1 TECHNIQUES2
COD 8000 mg/l up to 80 mg/l 25-125 mg/l <30-100
mg/l
BOD 4000-5000 mg/l to 10 mg/l 10-40 mg/l -
Total nitrogen 250 mg/l Ammonia 15-40 mg/l 5-25 mg/l
nitrogen-to 0.6
mg/l
Suspended 2000-3000 mg/l to 10 mg/l 5-60 mg/l 5-35 mg/l
solids
Total 45-50 mg/l to 4 mg/l 2-5 mg/l 0.5-3.0 mg/l
phosphates
Chlorides < 300 mg/l to 200 mg/l - -
Fats and oils 800-1000 mg/l - 2.6-15 mg/l -
pH 6-8 - - -
o
Temperature 15 – 25 C - - -
Nitrates - to 15 mg/l - See total
nitrogen
Nitrites - to 0.2 mg/l - See total
nitrogen
Sulphates - to 80 mg/l - -
Note 1: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on

Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouses and Animal By-products Industries
May 2005
Note 2: Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Common Waste water and Waste Gas
Treatment/Management Systems in the Chemical Sector Final draft July 2014
Table 7-X shows that the effluent will be treated in line with best available techniques standards
for slaughterhouses for COD, BOD, total nitrogen, suspended solids and total phosphorous.
There is no estimation with which to compare fats oils and grease and the nitrite, nitrate and
ammoniacal nitrogen values of the treated effluent is not directly comparable to the best available
technique associated emission levels (BAT-AELs) detailed in Table 7-6.

January 2016
84
Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Common Waste water and Waste Gas
Treatment/Management Systems in the Chemical Sector states that the (BAT-AELs) are for
direct discharges to a receiving water body whilst Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouses and Animal By-
products Industries adds that the emission levels given are generally considered to be appropriate
for protecting the water environment.
Treated wastewater is discharged via a 3.7 km pipeline into the Sukhaya (stands for dry) River
1.2 km upstream of its mouth where it runs into the Kayrakty River. This part of the river is
impounded for wheat fields irrigation. The end of the discharge pipe is positioned to enable
wastewater dilution by the impounded water. Drainage from the roofs is not collected.
It should be noted that the Baysuat village water is taken from the Kayrakty River 12.6 km
downstream from the WWTP discharge downstream the third irrigation impoundment. The
incubator discharges water into a seasonal stream (incidentally also called Sukhaya River) that
most of the year stands dry. It discharges spring waters into the Kayrakty River 1.3km
downstream of the incubator discharge pipe.
No data is available for the Sukhaya Kayrakty rivers water quality but they originate from springs
17 km northeast and 30 km north from the discharge respectively. Kayrakty has another large
irrigation impoundment 9km upstream that can regulate water level at the discharge pipe entry.
Wastewater generated and treated via the WWTP should be within the BAT emission levels for
slaughterhouses. The main exception to this are fats oils and grease where there is no defined
treatment efficiency although the mechanical treatment at the front end of the treatment process
should be effective in reducing the incoming levels significantly and nitrogen where the results are
not directly comparable to the total nitrogen limit. However, the ammoniacal nitrogen value,
nitrates and nitrites when combined are still significantly below the top of the BAT-AEL range of
40 mg/l. It is therefore considered that discharge of the wastewater water treatment to the River
Kairakty can have a Negative Moderate impact prior to mitigation. Mitigation measures described
in Chapter 8 have been recommended to minimise the negative impacts from the poultry farm and
after mitigation are likely to be Negative Minor.
DECOMMISSIONING
The impact of the closure and decommissioning of the poultry farm and infrastructure on waste
water generation and disposal is anticipated to be similar to those related to the construction
phase described above.
7.8 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA
This section comprises a general assessment of overall impacts upon receptors of ecological
importance in relation to the poultry farm; a more detailed assessment will be required on
completion of the requisite baseline surveys in order to corroborate these findings (as detailed
within the ESAP). Given the likely relative lack of valued ecological receptors, the following
assessment is necessarily generic in terms of overall impacts to biodiversity; this will be
corroborated through further survey and subsequent re-assessment.

January 2016
85
CONSTRUCTION
The construction of the poultry farm, associated infrastructure and Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ)
will result in direct habitat loss, fragmentation and displacement of wildlife (through disturbance).
Construction activities also have the potential to result in pollution events within the catchment
(the River Kairakty is ca. 1km at its closest point), which could result in significant losses to
biodiversity over a long period of time. These activities also have potential animal welfare
considerations by virtue of the dangers associated with an active work site to local wildlife (i.e. risk
of animals becoming trapped etc.). Finally, the influx of works vehicles has the potential to
facilitate the spread of non-native invasive plant species.
In light of the limited nature of the baseline data collection, it will be necessary for a more
complete review of existing information (or if this does not exist, field survey work) to be
undertaken prior to construction in order to confirm this assessment. Each ecological receptor of
requisite importance subsequently identified should then be subject to the assessment methods
as detailed within the ESIA.
Whilst it is unlikely that the site will support important floral/faunal assemblages, it is possible that
the site provides a foraging and localised shelter resource for animals and birds, which may be
impacted by the proposed poultry farm. It is plausible that raptor species (e.g. lesser kestrel, black
kite) forage across the site on carrion and small mammals and will be displaced from the site.
Given the relative abundance of similar habitat across the wider area, and the tolerance of the
general prey assemblage to human disturbance, this isn’t considered to represent a significant
impact. Should field survey identify specific habitat features of importance to fauna (e.g. trees of
importance to roosting bats and/or nesting birds), then these features should be retained where
possible, or alternative features provided as part of a compensatory measure. Any such
measures in this regard should be subject to a monitoring plan in order to inform ongoing
management.
In order that the water environment in proximity to the site is protected against adverse effects, a
suitably robust pollution prevention plan should be produced and adopted during construction.
Similarly, measures should be taken to ensure animal welfare measures are adopted (such as
securing work sites when not in use), and invasive species are prevented from colonising
(through sufficient cleaning of work vehicles prior to their accessing site).
Given the above, the construction of the poultry farm is considered to have an overall impact that
is of Negative Moderate significance to biodiversity, which will be reduced to Negligible with the
implementation of the above mitigation (summarised in Table 8-1), subject to further assessment.
OPERATION
The main potential impact of the operation of the poultry farm is the discharge of pollutants in to
the local environment. Specifically, the discharge of nitrogen (through ammonia associated with
animal waste) and organic matter (and blood in particular) in to the local environment (both
aquatic and terrestrial) can have significant adverse effects through alteration of the water and
soil chemistry to the detriment of biodiversity.
The main potential impact of the operation of the poultry farm is the discharge of pollutants in to
the local water environment. Specifically, the discharge of organic matter (and blood in particular)
can have significant adverse effects through alteration of the water chemistry to the detriment of
aquatic ecology.
The other main potential effect is the localised death/injury caused by animals becoming trapped
within the SPZ and/or within the vermin traps which will be deployed across the site.

January 2016
86
In order to mitigate against the above, a suitably robust pollution prevention plan should be
produced and adopted throughout the operation of the poultry farm. Specific traps should be
chosen in order to reduce the risk to non-target species.
Given the above, the construction of the poultry farm is considered to have an overall impact that
is of Negative Low significance to biodiversity, which will be reduced to Negligible with the
implementation of the above mitigation (summarised in Table 8-1), subject to further assessment.
DECOMMISSIONING
The impact of the closure of the poultry farm on biodiversity is anticipated to be Negligible.
ADDITIONAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

In order to provide the requisite baseline survey information to complete a sufficiently robust re-
assessment of the effects of the poultry farm upon biodiversity, it is recommended that an
additional desk-study exercise is completed, drawing upon more detailed information regarding
the ecology of the site (e.g. from local gamekeepers, land managers, academic institutes etc.).
Beyond this, an ecological walkover should be undertaken during the summer months in order to
qualify the usage of the site by nesting birds, roosting bats and other fauna as encountered.
Particular attention should be paid to the relatively less-disturbed areas in the eastern half of the
site, outwith the agricultural field network (e.g. around buildings 5-8 and the slaughter house), and
any pockets of scrub/woodland.
Water quality monitoring should be done pre- and post-construction in order to ensure the efficacy
of pollution prevention measures and identify pollution incidents. This is described within the
water quality chapter.
7.9 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
The farm will be connected to two 110kV lines 1 km east of Zavodskaya 110kV substation located
at the east of Makinsk. The two lines pass along the regional road at some distance in one right of
way and then enter the 110/10 substation in the middle of the farm, 1 km southeast from the
nearest broiler house 8. The lines pass 650 m north of the nearest line of residential houses and
150m from the closest construction: a petrol station. The 10kV power cables run from the
substation along the roads and cross the Kayrakty River just south of Kolokolovka village 200 m
from the nearest house to reach the incubator 10/0.4kV transformer located 300m away from the
nearest house in Baysuat. The other farm components have 10/0.4kV transformers too but they
are located at greater distance to the residential houses. Thus impact from electromagnetic fields
is considered to be Negligible.
7.10 GROUNDWATER AND WATER SUPPLY
The main aquifer system beneath the potential development area appears to comprise the
superficial alluvial deposits. The upper sections of these deposits (loams, sands and gravel
deposits) would appear to be the most transmissive, with the older underlying Loams and Clays,
apparently considered as aquitards. It is not clear how thick these superficial deposits are with
reference to what I have seen. It may only be of the order of 6-7m. Groundwater levels are
typically 1-4mbgl and show relatively pronounced fluctuation in the order of 2m.
There is deeper groundwater within the upper weathered Granite horizons, with a deeper
groundwater table typically about 6-8mbgl - although this is apparently not contiguous across the
development area, and strongly dependent on predominance of fracturing. It is unclear whether
the lower permeability Loams and Clays of the alluvial deposits confine this deeper groundwater
body and therefore whether it is hydraulic connection within the upper more transmissive
superficial deposits.

January 2016
87
It is likely that the transmissive horizons within the superficial deposits are in good hydraulic
connection with the Kairakty River and respond quickly to seasonal input/output variations,
indicated by groundwater level variations.
The EIA state main water is planned to be supplied from the Kishkentay Aquifer via the
StepGeologia water storage. The city plans to fulfil its own needs of 300 000 m 3/yr from this new
water supply. The 4 wells water intake and the pipelines will be constructed by the local
authorities using the State funds of €3.2 million. Thus the main water supply source is considered
to ensure sustainable consumption.
Due to its remoteness, the incubator uses a separate source of groundwater from two wells drilled
by the Company next to the incubator. The water intake does not affect Baysuat village
(Prokhorovka) water supply system. Effluent will be collected in a septic tank that will be regularly
transferred to the WWTP.
Both connections was approved by the State Communal Enterprise Makinsk Zylu 26.02.2015 and
the Kishkentay Aquifer connection was discussed on the project related public meeting at which
two Makinsk residents were present.
Each plant component will have a water pump house with buffer reservoirs, pumps with 210m 3/h
capacity and ability to develop 30m water head pressure.
Table 7-7 Estimated Water Usage (m3) by the Plant’s Components. Fodder Plant is not Included in
the EIA
CONSUMER YEAR DAY HOUR L/SEC
Slaughter 327 333 1060.7 132.59 36.83
House
Broiler pads 177627 486.6 35.63 9.9
Broiler Office 7457 20.4 1.7 0.47
Gas storage 1215 3.3 0.42 0.12
station
WW treatment 912 2.5 0.21 0.06
plant
Composting 412 1.1 0.09 0.02
pad
Total from water 514 958 1 574.7 170.64 47.40
storage
From Baysuat
pipework 22 170 60.7 2.53 0.70
(incubator)
A 10% loss is expected in the system. The second phase of the project is expected to have 8
more broiler pads with the same water consumption characteristics as the 8 pads given above.
3
Thus maximum uptake from the water storage is 756, 603m . Water meters will be installed at
each building. The EIA states that water will be reused only at the carwashes located at the
broiler office and slaughter house garages and designed to wash 12 and 18 vehicles respectively.
However, the design description does not mention water reuse.
Uptake for slaughter house includes the boiler house district heating system replenishment.
3 3
Water use during construction is estimated to include 1,204m (3.3m /day) of hygiene and potable
3
water and 4,200 m water for concrete making, roads watering etc.

January 2016
88
Given the uncertainty with regards to the sustainability of water consumption it is considered to
have the potential to be an overall impact that is of Negative Major significance, dependent on
the findings of a sub-regional water balance and yield assessment, which could be reduced to
Negative moderate with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
ADDITIONAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

There are a number of additional steps which need consideration: Groundwater pumping
test data to assess the potential yields available and the response/impact to superficial
aquifer groundwater levels or river stage levels.
Sub-regional water balance developed to assess whether potential abstractions could be
sustained by the local aquifer/river system (basic inflows/ outflows considerations).
Consideration of the need for groundwater treatment during abstraction. During
abstraction the process of degassing may lead to the formation of precipitates which can
foul above ground pipework given elevated dissolved mineral content and redox of
abstracted groundwater. This needs to be considered because whilst there might be
enough water available to meet demands, the chemistry of that water may prohibit its use
due to onerous/costly treatment requirements before use.
There is also reference to hydrocarbons in local groundwater – again, this may relate to
broader contamination issues which should be taken into account as abstracted water may
not be suitable for potable purposes. This should be clarified.
7.11 WASTE MANAGEMENT
This section details the assessment of effect, mitigation measure and residual effects of waste
generation and management of the MPF project on the environment and area of influence.
CONSTRUCTION WASTE
Waste generation from the construction phase will increase the demand for local waste treatment
and disposal facilities. The generation of construction waste could also give rise to impacts
associate with dust generation. Hazardous waste streams are also generated, which have the
potential for pollution incidents to ground and surface water.
Construction waste streams have been identified as well as the expected volumes of waste.
Generation and storage of waste materials, if not handled appropriately, have the potential to
result in pollution incidents. The waste streams identified in the OVOS are of a low risk; however
hazardous waste streams are also generated, with the potential to result in pollution incidents to
ground and surface water. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary medium term effect
of minor negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures on ground and
water quality.
Where possible, waste should be sent to treatment facilities for segregation for recycling in order
to reduce the need to send waste to landfill. A review should be undertaken to determine the
availability of such sites, it is likely that the key waste streams generated during the construction
phase have the potential to be reused / recycled e.g. soils, concrete, bricks, glass etc. Adherence
to the Waste Hierarchy by reusing and/or recycling waste materials will reduce the volume of
waste transfer off-site or to local waste treatment and disposal facilities. The sensitivity of the
waste management infrastructure in Kazakhstan is anticipated to be high and it is unknown
whether adequate facilities are readily available to process the expected volumes of waste. The
magnitude of effect, prior to mitigation is considered to be medium as the site is unlikely to
produce a significant volume of waste. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary
medium-term effect on waste management infrastructure of negative moderate significance prior
to the implementation of mitigation measures.

January 2016
89
MITIGATION
Best practice measures and recommendation for the minimisation and management of waste
should be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
A waste management strategy is recommended to be developed and implemented to ensure that

that waste materials are stored and disposed of appropriately. In developing the waste
management plan, safe disposal routes for all waste streams will be identified. Authorised waste
disposal facilities and reputable waste transfer companies will be identified and appropriate
agreements put in place.
The waste hierarchy will be adopted as far as reasonable practicable. Material deemed suitable
for reuse on the project site will be retained and stockpiled where possible to incorporate such
materials into the subsequent construction process. If materials cannot be reused on-site, then
the feasibility of reusing them off-site will be explored. This involves identifying waste streams
which could successfully be used by other businesses or operations. This results in the diversion
of waste from landfill and thus presents the potential for cost savings.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
The effective implementation of a CEMP and waste management strategy will ensure that waste
is appropriately segregate, stored and disposed of. The waste streams identified in the OVOS
are of a low risk; however hazardous waste streams are also generated, which have a higher
magnitude of impact. Following mitigation, there is likely to be direct, temporary medium term
effect of negligible significance.
The reuse of excavated material will significantly reduce the quantity of such waste requiring off-
site disposal. The sensitivity of the waste management infrastructure is high and the magnitude of
impact, following mitigation is medium. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, temporary and short-
term residual effect on waste management infrastructure of minor significance following the
implementation of mitigation measures.
OPERATIONAL WASTE
Waste generation from the operational phase will increase the demand for local waste treatment
and disposal facilities. The generation of operational waste could also give rise to impacts
associated with dust generation. Hazardous waste streams are also generated, which have the
potential for pollution incidents to ground and surface water.
Waste streams associated with the operational phase of the project have been identified, as well
as the estimated volumes of waste. Generation and storage of waste materials, if not handled
appropriately, have the potential to result in pollution incidents. The waste streams identified in
the OVOS are of a low risk; however additional hazardous waste streams are also generated,
with the potential to result in pollution incidents to ground and surface water. Therefore, there is
likely to be a direct, temporary medium term effect of minor negative significance prior to the
implementation of mitigation measures on ground and water quality.
Where possible, waste should be sent to treatment facilities for segregation for recycling in order
to reduce the need to send waste to landfill. A review should be undertaken to determine the
availability of such sites, it is likely that the key waste streams generated during the construction
phase have the potential to be reused / recycled e.g. soils, concrete, bricks, glass etc. Adherence
to the Waste Hierarchy by reusing and/or recycling waste materials will reduce the volume of
waste transfer off-site or to local waste treatment and disposal facilities. The sensitivity of the
waste management infrastructure in Kazakhstan is anticipated to be high and it is unknown
whether adequate facilities are readily available to process the expected volumes of waste. The
magnitude of effect, prior to mitigation is considered to be medium as the site is unlikely to
produce a significant volume of waste. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary

January 2016
90
medium-term effect on waste management infrastructure of negative moderate significance prior

to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
The waste hierarchy will be adopted as far as reasonable practicable. Dedicated waste storage
areas for waste segregation for recyclable and non-recyclable refuse will be implemented on site.
Waste storage will be clearly labelled to ensure that cross contamination is minimised.
A waste management strategy is recommended to be developed and implemented to ensure that

that waste materials are stored and disposed of appropriately. In developing the waste
management plan, safe disposal routes for all waste streams will be identified. Authorised waste
disposal facilities and reputable waste transfer companies will be identified and appropriate
agreements put in place.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
The effective implementation of a waste management strategy will ensure that waste is
appropriately segregate, stored and disposed of. The waste streams identified in the OVOS are
of a low risk; however hazardous waste streams are also generated, which have a higher
magnitude of impact. Following mitigation, there is likely to be direct, temporary medium term
effect of negligible significance.
Adopting the waste hierarchy will minimise the volumes of waste going to landfill. The sensitivity
of the waste management infrastructure is high and the magnitude of impact, following mitigation
is medium. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, temporary and short-term residual effect on
waste management infrastructure of minor significance following the implementation of mitigation
measures.
LITTER WASTE AND COMPOSTING
Farm manure, slurry, dirty water, silage effluent and other organic wastes represent one of the
most significant risks to the environment across the agricultural industry. They are responsible for
odour related issues; and both point source and diffuse pollution of water courses and
groundwater. They contribute to nitrates and phosphates in surface waters which lead to
eutrophication, excessive aquatic weed growth and the alteration of fish habitats. Manures also
contribute to nitrates in groundwater.
Litter from the broiler sites and waste from the hatchery will be transported to the
biological treatment site to be stored for composting.
Odour and nuisance related impacts are associated with the transport of litter and hatchery waste
to the composting site. There are currently no details with regards to the transportation
arrangements and routes when transporting the waste materials to the composting facility. There
is likely to be a direct, temporary long term effect of minor negative significant prior to the
The volumes of litter generated at MPF are significant and have the potential to give rise to
impacts such as odour, dust emissions, and pollution related to the run off of effluent,
during both the transport of the litter and also during the composting phase.
Litter from the poultry houses and some waste from the hatchery will be mixed with water and
then left for composting for a period of 42-55 days, during this period there is the potential for
odour related nuisance impacts. However, the location of the composting site is approximately
1,820m west of residential properties, and therefore the magnitude of impact on local
communities from an odour perspective is considered to be low. There is likely to be a direct,

January 2016
91
temporary long term effect of minor negative significance prior to the implementation of
The storage of organic manures has the potential to leach nutrients into ground and surface
water. This can be a problem where there are concerns over eutrophication of water bodies
and/or nitrate levels in drinking water sources. The composting will take place on a concrete pad
and therefore will minimise the leaching into groundwater, however this increased the likelihood of
leachate and effluent run-off, and this is discussed in details in the wastewater chapter. Due to
the generation of significant quantities of litter, it needs to be ensured that there are adequate
storage facilities in place to receive the volumes. It is particularly important to consider the
storage of compost following the composting phase of up to 55 days. It is understood that the
spreading period lasts approximately 60 days and therefore adequate (temporary) storage of the
compost needs to be in place. There is the potential to be indirect, temporary and long-term
effect on waste management infrastructure of moderate significance prior the implementation of
Following the composting stage, compost will be sold as a fertiliser. A subsidiary of MPF
will complete the spreading activities on behalf of the customer. There is the potential for
pollution and nuisance incidents as a result of the spreading activities.
The risks and impacts with regard to land spreading on the manure are discussed above.
Spreading organic manures have the potential to give rise to odour related impacts. There
currently is no information with regards to the likely location of spreading and therefore the impact
associated with this activity cannot be assessed in detail. However, if spreading takes place
within close proximity to residential properties there is the potential to be indirect, temporary and
medium-term effect on waste management infrastructure of moderate negative significance prior
the implementation of mitigation measures.
Spreading organic manures adds significant nutrient value to crops, however there is the potential
for the nutrients (predominately nitrogen and phosphorus) to leach into ground and surface
waters. This can be a problem where there are concerns over eutrophication of water bodies
and/or nitrate levels in drinking water sources. There currently is no information with regards to
the likely location of spreading and therefore the impact associated with this activity cannot be
assessed in detail. However there is the potential to be indirect, temporary and long-term effect
on waste management infrastructure of major negative significance prior the implementation of
MITIGATION
It is recommended that a schedule of movements is developed, which is based on the

requirements of the broilers and the hatchery. This should take into consideration vehicle
movements through villages and planning, where possible, to minimise travel through residential
areas in order to minimise the risk of odour and noise nuisance impacts. It is recommended that
the construction of bypass roads are considered, where there is a significant impact associated
with the transportation of waste materials. Covered vehicles will be used for the transportation of
litter and hatchery waste.
It is required that a formalised calculation is undertaken to ensure that adequate storage is

available during the composting phase, in order to process 73,787 tonnes annually from the farms
and also 1,000m3 of waste from the hatchery. This calculation should also take into consideration
the likely rainfall. Heights of the windrows should be kept below 3m; higher than this will result in
compression of the compost and therefore air will not pass. The use of tarpaulins for covering
windrows will limit odour emissions and flies and allows better integration of windrows into the
landscape. It also provides health protection towards birds and rodents and is also good for
managing moisture content in places where heavy rainfall is experienced. The siting of the
windrows should also be considered, and should not be sited within 10m of surface water or on a

January 2016
92
groundwater vulnerable zone in order to minimise the pollution risk to surface and groundwater.
The following BAT points should be considered:
Store litter on solid impermeable floor, equipped with a drainage system and a collection tank
for run-off;
Ensure there is sufficient capacity to hold organic manures during periods in which the
application to land is not possible;
Store organic manure in field heaps places away from surface and/or underground
watercourse which liquid run-off might enter;
Reduce the ratio between the emitting surface area and volume of the organic manure;
Cover solid heaps.
Prior to spreading organic manures a plan will be developed. Nutrient planning is fundamental in
ensuring that both effective nutrient uptake and minimal nutrient run off is experienced.
Applications of manure should be timed to optimise crop benefit and minimise environmental loss.
Adapt the manure application rate taking into account the nitrogen and phosphorous content of
the manure and the characteristics of the soil.
Areas which are unsuitable for spreading will be identified, such as steep slopes and fields with
land drains. Organic manures will not be applied within 10m of a surface water course. They will
also not be applied when the soil is waterlogged, flooded, frozen hard or covered in snow.
Assess the manure receiving land to identify risks of run-off, taking into account:
Soil types, conditions and slope of field;
Climatic conditions;
Field drainage and irrigations;
Crop rotations;
Water resources and water protected zones
In order to minimise the potential risk of odour related impacts, the organic manure will be
incorporated within 24 hours of spreading. Where complaints / grievances are being received
considerations should be given of techniques to minimise odour impacts, this includes ploughing
immediately behind the spreader, delaying spreading until local weather conditions (i.e. wind
direction) are more favourable, and injecting into the land. Spreading should also take place
during the day when people are less likely to be at home and avoiding weekends and public
holidays. Prior to spreading the machinery will be checked to ensure that it is manure is in good
working order and set at the proper application rate.
It is recommended that guidance on manure land spreading to minimise loss of nutrients and
potential pollution to watercourses and odour nuisance is developed and communicated to all
relevant personnel.
Regular inspections of storage facilities will be undertaken. A record of the inspections will be
maintained.
Emergency preparedness and response plan will be developed and followed in the event of a leak
or failure.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
The use of covered vehicles and the identification of routes in order to minimise the risk of odour
related impacts will significantly mitigate the potential for impacts to result from this activity.

January 2016
93
Therefore, following mitigation, there is likely to be a direct, temporary medium term residual
effect of negligible negative significance.
It is already considered that the odour impact from storage of litter in windrows is minimal, due to
the distance from residential properties. However, there is the opportunity to minimise this impact
even further through following best practice and covering the windrows using tarpaulin.
Therefore, following mitigation is likely to be a direct, temporary long term residual effect of
negligible negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
Extensive mitigation has been proposed with regards to the storage of organic manures in order
to minimise the potential impacts associated with these activities. Mitigation is aimed at reducing
odour impacts and pollution incidents associated with run-off and leaching of nutrients into ground
and surface water. Following the implementation of the mitigation measures it is expected that
there will be an indirect, temporary and long-term residual effect on waste management
infrastructure of negligible negative significance prior the implementation of mitigation
measures.
Several mitigation and management measures have been proposed for the spreading of organic
manures. As with the storage activities, these are also aimed at reducing odour impacts and
pollution incidents associated with run-off and leaching. Following the implementation of the
mitigation measures it is expected that there will be an indirect, temporary and long-term residual
effect on waste management infrastructure of minor negative significance prior the
7.12 CULTURAL HERITAGE
As mentioned in the baseline, there are no internationally, nationally or locally designated

historical and cultural monuments in the project area. Two monuments and three churches were
however identified within a 15km area surrounding the site and were assessed to be of cultural or
religious value. Two designated archaeological areas were also identified 26km away from the
project area.
Consequently, the project is not expected to have an impact on the cultural resources identified,
since these are located considerable distance away from the project area. Similarly, potential
impacts on the setting of these cultural resources are also unlikely as none of them is expected to
be visible from the site. However, direct impacts to unknown cultural resources could occur from
construction activities and indirect impacts could be caused by increased accessibility to the area.
Mitigation measures are therefore recommended to avoid any potential impact.
MITIGATION
While no cultural resources are expected to be impacted by the project, the development of a
‘chance to find’ procedure to manage cultural heritage finds during the construction period is
advised as part of the ESAP. In particular, archaeological research should be undertaken prior
any development as required by article 39 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On
Protection and Use of the Historical Cultural Heritage” mentioned previously.

January 2016
94
8 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

A summary of the likely impacts and proposed mitigation measures is presented in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

POTENTIAL IMPACT PHASE MITIGATION/ POSITIVE OR IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES RESIDUAL
MANAGEMENT NEGATIVE IMPACT
PROPOSED
Air quality
Potential odour from: Operation Yes Negative Minor Optimise broiler shed management to reduce Negligible
Wastewater Treatment Plant; ammonia emissions from litter;
Composting pad; Maintain aerobic conditions within windows to
Slaughter / processing plant; minimise odour production during composting;
Broiler sheds; and Ensure broiler sheds are thoroughly cleaned
between cycles;
Movement of waste from
broiler sheds to composting Maintain a clean and tidy Site, cleaning up
pad. spillages rapidly;
Maintain and clean vehicles to reduce road
vehicle odour; and
Location of odorous processes well away from
the Site boundary.
Dust and other emissions from Construction No NA Negligible Sprinkling of water on unpaved, non-vegetated Negligible
construction activities surface to minimise airborne fugitive dust and
during earth moving activities, prior to clearing
and before excavating, backfilling, compacting or
grading;
Post and enforce speed limits for vehicles to
reduce airborne fugitive dust from vehicular
traffic;
Allow site access only to authorised vehicles;
Keep soil moist while loading into dump trucks;
Keep soil loads below the freeboard of the truck;

January 2016
95

PROPOSED
Tighten gate seals on dump trucks;
Trucks loaded with loose construction materials
(such as gravel, sand, soil, etc.) shall be covered
to minimise dust emissions during transportation;
When feasible, shut down idling vehicles and
equipment;
Train workers to handle construction materials
and debris during construction to reduce fugitive
emissions;
Where possible stockpiling of friable material
should be avoided and in time delivery should be
practiced;
Implement dust suppression measures to prevent
air pollution through water application on roads,
construction site, construction camps;
Develop a traffic management plan to ensure
smooth traffic flow and safety for workers and
passing traffic;
All vehicles must be regularly checked to ensure
they are operating within legal requirements;
Ensure no burning of waste on site;
Ensure wheels and chassis of all vehicles are
cleaned prior to site departure.
Dust and other emissions from Operation Yes Negative Minor Appropriate bag filters on feed mill exhausts Negligible
operation activities. (BAT);
Consideration of alternative bedding (e.g. coarser
material such as wood shavings);
Use oil as binding agent within feed;
Manual spreading of litter;
Cover waste when transporting to composting
pad;
Water unpaved roads to prevent spreading of
dust, particularly during dry weather conditions;
and
January 2016
96

PROPOSED
Pave internal roads.
Dust and other emissions from Decommissi No NA Negligible Refer to construction phase above. Negligible
decommissioning activities. oning
Air pollution: Dust and Construction No NA Negligible Ensure all vehicle operators switch off engines Negligible
emissions generated from when stationary - no idling vehicles;
machinery, dust during soil Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered
works, waste spreading by generators and use mains electricity or battery
birds and other animals powered equipment where practicable; and
Develop a Construction Management Plan to
manage the sustainable delivery of goods and
materials.
Operation No NA Negligible No idling vehicles on Site; Negligible
Ensure all vehicles are well maintained;
Develop and implement a Staff Travel Plan;
Optimise broiler shed management to reduce
emissions from litter; and
Maintain aerobic conditions within windows to
minimise emissions during composting.
Decommissi No NA Negligible Refer to construction phase above. Negligible
oning
Emissions of greenhouse Construction Yes Negative Minor Develop a traffic management plan to ensure Negligible
gases smooth traffic flow;
Regularly check technical condition of vehicles
and machinery;
Use vehicles equipped with effective exhaust
mufflers;
Turn-off the construction machinery and
equipment when not in use; and
Use efficient machinery and work schedule.
Operation Yes Negative Moderate Energy audits and identification of possiblities for Minor
heat and hot water reuse;
Minimisation of vehicle movements;

January 2016
97

PROPOSED
Management controls for composting and
landspreading to be implemented;
Procedures for the efficient operation of the
WWTP avoiding anaerobic conditions; and
Shut-off equipment and associated lighting when
not in use.
Decommissi Yes Negative Minor Develop a traffic management plan to ensure Negligible
oning smooth traffic flow;
Regularly check technical condition of vehicles
and machinery;
Use vehicles equipped with effective exhaust
mufflers;
Turn-off the construction machinery and
equipment when not in use; and
Use efficient machinery and work schedule.
Climate change and adaptation Construction No NA Negligible None None
Operation No NA Negligible None None
Decommissi No NA Negligible None None
oning
Noise
Noise from machinery and Construction Yes Negative Minor Limit noisy activities to the least noise- sensitive Negligible
vehicles times of the day (week days between 7am and
10pm);
All machinery and equipment should have sound-
control devices no less effective than those
provided on the original machinery/ equipment.
Motorised equipment should be adequately
muffled and maintained;
To the extent possible, route heavy-truck traffic
away from residences and other sensitive
receptors;

January 2016
98

PROPOSED
Workers in the vicinity of sources of high noise
shall wear necessary personnel protective
equipment (PPE);
Operation Yes Negative Minor to Negligible
moderate Limit noisy activities to the least noise- sensitive
times of the day (week days between 7am and
10pm);
All mechanical service equipment shall include
suitable noise control measures such as
silencers, anti-vibration mounts and flexible
connections;
Barriers (e.g. fences, etc.) or purpose-built
acoustic screens should be used to reduce noise
reaching administrative building where
practicable;
Machinery in intermittent use should be shut
down or throttled down to a minimum when not in
use; and
PPE should be provided to employees for hearing
protection, the sign boards and training procedure
should be in place.
Decommissi Yes Negative Minor As per Construction Phase, above -
oning
Landscape and visual
Landscape and visual impact Construction Yes Negative Minor to All practicable measures should be implemented Minor
of construction moderate to avoid or effectively control potentially adverse
construction effects on existing landscape
character and visual receptors;
Installation of 2 m high fence with checkpoint is
planned for the construction and operation phase
in order to protect the site and to screen the
development from nearby sensitive receptors;

January 2016
99

PROPOSED
Lighting for facilities should not exceed the
minimum required for safety and security.
Landscape and visual Impact Operation Yes Negative Moderate All practicable measures should be implemented Moderate
of poultry farm operation to avoid or effectively control potentially adverse
operation effects on existing landscape character
and visual receptors;
Mitigation planting of local tree species on site to
reduce the landscape and visual impacts of the
farm.
Planting of two rows of trees within each farm unit
and between the buildings used to breed broiler
chickens.
Planting of trees around veterinary, composting
and clearance facilities as well as along the site
boundary.
In particular, to avoid adverse impacts on the
visual amenity, planting of trees should be
undertaken around the incubator building and
along the south-west and south site boundaries
to screen Baisuat village, Karaozek village,
Sukhaya River, Kayrakty River, and pond on
Kayrakty River from the proposed farm.
Lighting for facilities should not exceed the
minimum required for safety and security.
Decommissi Yes Positive Minor to Remove all necessary aboveground structures Negligible
oning moderate and facilities from the site;
Re-establish the terrain and drainage pattern
similar to natural conditions of the adjacent areas;
Restore the vegetation cover, composition and
diversity commensurate with the ecological
setting;
Use plant species characteristic of the landscape
January 2016
100

PROPOSED
in the course of restoration of the vegetation
cover on the reclaimed areas;
Geology and soils
Loss/contamination of soil Construction Yes Negative Minor Topsoil depth confirmation and identification of Negligible
during removal for dispersion characteristics for erosion potential
construction/ operation/ Careful removal of topsoil
decomissioning of buildings Appropriate and secure storage e.g. away from
drainage lines and strategically located to assist
sequence of future rehabilitation
Management of topsoil to maintain stability e.g.
minimise length of time subsoil is exposed, use
erosion control measures such as bonded fibre
matrix, composite/ erosion control blankets,
gravelling, revegetation etc.
Upon completion of construction, reinstatement of
topsoil landscaping the works as soon as
practicable including use of suitable topsoil, use
of contour ripping to control erosion, seeding with
appropriate seed mix, application of appropriate
fertiliser or gypsum if required
Development of detailed topsoil management
plan, including a site layout drawing, locating
where soil will be removed and stored.
Operation No - Negligible None -
Decomissoin Yes Negative Minor Carry out same activities required during Negligible
ing construction of buildings
Impacts from seismic activity, Construction Yes Negative Minor Establishment of buffer zone around poultry farm; Negligible
potential for slope instability Ensure preservation of safety rules by workers
and increased erosion and whilst dealing with hazardous and toxic materials;
water quality problems Compliance with site rules on storage and
handling of construction materials, fuel, oil
products, chemical substances, etc.;
Regular inspection of poultry farm and associated
January 2016
101

PROPOSED
infrastructure to ensure proper operation;
Train workers on how to act in an emergency
situation; and
Establish reliable communication between site
and respective regional authorities, first aid
service, rescue service, police office, fire office,
operators of electricity, gas and water supply to
ensure adequate response in case of an
emergency..
Operation Yes Negative Moderate Prepare Emergency Preparedness and Minor
Response Plan, inform the workers on its
provisions;
Ensure compliance with rules on storage and
handling of construction materials, fuel, oil
Regularly inspect facilities and infrastructure to
ensure their proper operation and updating of as-
built documentation;
Provide periodic training to workers on how to act
in emergency situations; and
Maintain reliable communication between site
and respective regional authorities, first-aid
service, rescue service, police office, fire office,
operators of electricity, gas and water supply
utilities to ensure adequate response in case of
emergency.
Spillages/ leakages of oil, fuel Construction Yes Negative Moderate Compliance with site rules on storage and Minor
from machinery, equipment handling of construction materials, fuel, oil
and vehicles and other Operation Yes Negative Moderate products, chemical substances, etc.; and
potentially polluting substances Regular inspection of facilities to ensure proper
impacting land and surface Decommissi Yes Negative Moderate operation.
water oning
Hydrogeology, hydrology and water quality

January 2016
102

PROPOSED
Pollution of surface water and Construction Yes Negative Minor To reduce the likelihood of contamination due to Negligible
groundwater resources due to spillage of oil from construction equipment and
spillage of fuel/oil or other wastewater from construction camps, the sites for
hazardous substances these areas should be carefully designated and
including concrete, in addition proper technical condition of machinery and
to, movement of vehicles and equipment shall be ensured. In addition, sand or
machinery/ equipment fine gravel should be spread on the ground at
these locations designated for parking and
servicing construction machinery. In the event of
a spillage, the polluted layer should be removed
and replaced with a new layer of sand or gravel;
Sections located very close to drainage ditches/
culverts shall not be used for construction
material storage and temporary accumulation of
waste;
Provide for covered zones of preliminary
accumulation of construction materials and
wastes in order to minimise formation of leachate
as a result of rainfall;
Septic tank installed and to be emptied on a
regular basis to control domestic effluents;
All vehicles must be regularly checked and their
normal operation technical conditions shall be
ensured. In case any leakage of oil or other liquid
occurs, the vehicle must be moved to a paved
impermeable area to be immediately repaired;
and
Water samples shall be taken and analysed for oil
products in the event that leakage is observed.
Operation Yes Negative Moderate Regularly inspect and clean drainage ditches/ Minor
gullies;
Regularly inspect leachate collection and
treatment facilities, wheel wash system, water
supply and sewerage network at administrative
buildings to ensure proper operational technical

January 2016
103

PROPOSED
conditions;
To reduce the likelihood of oil spillage from
machinery and equipment, and contamination
with wastewater from administrative facilities,
proper technical condition of machinery and
equipment shall be ensured.
normal operational technical conditions shall be
is observed, the vehicle must be moved to a
paved impermeable area and be immediately
fixed;
Groundwater and surface water quality shall be
monitored at regular intervals during operation.
Decommissi Yes Negative Minor Regularly inspect and clean drainage ditches/ Negligible
oning gullies;
Regularly inspect leachate collection and
treatment facilities to ensure proper operational
technical conditions;
normal operational technical conditions shall be
is observed, the vehicle must be moved to a
paved impermeable area and be immediately
fixed;
Surface water quality will be managed for
directing clean run-off away from sources of
possible contamination; and
Groundwater and surface water quality shall be
monitored at regular intervals during
decommissioining.
Change in drainage pattern Construction Yes Negative Minor Minimise the planned amount of land to be Negligible
resulting from construction of disturbed as much as possible (use existing
construction compound and access roads and quarries if possible);
temporary laydown area, site Locate access roads to minimise stream
January 2016
104

PROPOSED
buildings, access roads, grid crossings;
connection, electric cable and Construct drainage ditches where necessary, use
other pipework installation, appropriate structures at culvert outlets to prevent
and excavation activities erosion;
Clean and maintain drainage ditches and culverts
regularly;
Use special construction techniques in areas of
steep slopes, erodible soils and stream crossings;
Dispose of excess excavation materials in
approved areas to control erosion and minimise
run-off.
Operation Yes Negative Minor Clean and maintain drainage ditches and culverts Negligible
regularly to ensure proper removal of run-off;
Do not alter or restrict existing drainage systems,
especially in sensitive areas such as erodible
soils or steep slopes; and
Regularly monitor groundwater table through
monitoring wells established at the site.
Decommissi No - Negligible None. -
oning
Wastewater generation and Construction Yes Negative Minor Avoid potential spills; Negligible
disposal Washing of vehicles and equipment on the site
will be restricted;
Chemicals and other liquid and solid dangerous
materials must be managed properly; and
Septic tank installed and to be emptied on a
regular basis to ensure that wastewater from the
welfare facilities will be collected and adequately
removed from the site.
Operation Yes Negative Moderate Regularly inspect and ensure proper Minor
maintenance of wastewater collection tank,
vehicle washing systems, leachate collection and
treatment facilities;
Regularly inspect and maintain the surface water
January 2016
105

PROPOSED
collection systems;
Ensure regular cleaning of drainage ditches/
culverts;
Avoid potential spills through application of
appropriate staff training and occupational rules;
Washing of vehicles and equipment on the site to
be restricted to garage areas;
Chemicals and other liquids and solid dangerous
materials must be stored and properly managed;
and
Wastewater from the administrative facilities and
poultry farm shall be collected and treated at the
WWTP.
Decommissi Yes Negative Minor Refer to mitigation measures related to Negligible
oning construction phase above.
Landspreading of the manure Construction No N/A N/A None N/A

on agricultural land
Operation Yes Negative Moderate Develop land spreading procedures that cover: Negative
o Nutritional need of land and crops; Minor
o Prevention of spreading too close to
rivers, when land too wet, whilst snow is
present on the ground, on sloping fields
and take into account land practices;
o Manage land spreading during sensitive
periods such as public holidays and
weekends, take into account wind
direction and how to incorporate into the
ground rapidly to reduce odour potential.
Develop a spill prevention and response plan for
addressing land spreading operations including
spill prevention measures, training requirements,
spill response actions, spill response kits and
notification to authorities;

January 2016
106

PROPOSED
Train employees to promptly contain, report
and/or clean up any spill;
Provide portable spill containment and clean-up
equipment in all vehicles;
Document accidental releases as to cause,
corrective actions taken, and resulting in
environmental or health and safety impacts.
Decommissi No N/A N/A None N/A
oning
Potential for flooding Construction No - Negligible None. -
Operation Yes - Negligible Surface water drainage infrastructure included -

within design.
Decommissi Yes - Negligible None. -
oning
Ecology
Loss of biodiversity Construction Yes Negative Moderate Pollution prevention measures to ensure Negligible
protection of the local water environment.
Site fencing installed prior to poultry farm
construction to minimise site access by
wildlife species.
Robust cleaning of works vehicles at source
in order to prevent spread of non-native
invasive plant species.
Full survey of ecological receptors across the
site – focussing primarily on fauna (e.g.
roosting bats and nesting bats).
Retention of key habitat features where
possible (as identified from the field survey
work), or compensatory provision thereof,
Monitoring of any mitigation to ensure
ongoing success of such measures.

January 2016
107

PROPOSED
Operation Yes Negative Low to Pollution prevention measures to ensure Negligible
negligible protection of the local water environment.
Specific traps chosen to avoid capture of non-
target species.
Decommissi No Negative Negligible None -
oning
Electromagnetic fields
Impact from electromagnetic Construction No NA Negligible None Negligible
fields
Operation No NA Negligible None Negligible
Decommissi No NA NA None -
oning
Groundwater and water supply
Impacts of Construction and Construction Yes Negative Major Groundwater pumping test data to assess the Moderate
Operation potential yields available and the
Operation Yes Negative Major response/impact to superficial aquifer Moderate
groundwater levels or river stage levels.
Develop sub-regional water balance to assess
whether potential abstractions could be sustained
by the local aquifer/river system (basic inflows/
outflows considerations).
Consideration of the need for groundwater
treatment during abstraction.
Decommissi No NA NA None -
oning
Waste
Construction waste impacts on Construction Yes Negative Minor Best practice measures and recommendation for Negligible
ground and water quality the minimisation and management of waste
should be incorporated into a Construction

January 2016
108

PROPOSED
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
Operation Yes Negative Minor The waste hierarchy will be adopted as far as Negligible
reasonable practicable. Dedicated waste storage
areas for waste segregation for recyclable and
non-recyclable refuse will be implemented on
site. Waste storage will be clearly labelled to
ensure that cross contamination is minimised.
Construction waste impacts on Construction Yes Negative Moderate Minor

A waste management strategy is recommended
waste management to be developed and implemented to ensure that
infrastructure that waste materials are stored and disposed of
appropriately.
The waste hierarchy will be adopted as far as
reasonable practicable. Material deemed suitable
for reuse on the project site will be retained and
stockpiled where possible to incorporate such
materials into the subsequent construction
process. If materials cannot be reused on-site,
then the feasibility of reusing them off-site will be
explored.
Identifying waste streams which could
successfully be used by other businesses or
operations. This results in the diversion of waste
from landfill and thus presents the potential for
cost savings.
Operation Yes Negative Moderate A waste management strategy is recommended Minor
to be developed and implemented to ensure that
that waste materials are stored and disposed of
appropriately.
Odour and nuisance related Operation Yes Negative Moderate It is recommended that a schedule of movements Negligible
impacts associated with the is developed, which is based on the requirements
transport of litter and hatchery of the broilers and the hatchery. This should take
waste to the composting site into consideration vehicle movements through
January 2016
109

PROPOSED
villages and planning, where possible, to
minimise travel through residential areas in order
to minimise the risk of odour and noise nuisance
impacts.
It is recommended that the construction of
bypass roads are considered, where there is a
significant impact associated with the
transportation of waste materials.
Covered vehicles will be used for the
transportation of litter and hatchery waste.
Odour and nuisance related Operation Yes Negative Minor It is required that a formalised calculation is Negligible
impacts associated with the undertaken to ensure that adequate storage is
composting available during the composting phase.
Heights of the windrows should be kept below
3m;
The use of tarpaulins for covering windrows will
limit odour emissions and flies and allows better
integration of windrows into the landscape.
The use of tarpaulins to provide health protection
towards birds and rodents and for managing
moisture content in places where heavy rainfall is
experienced.
The siting of the windrows should also be
considered, and should not be sited within 10m of
surface water or on a groundwater vulnerable
zone in order to minimise the pollution risk to
surface and groundwater.
The following BAT points should be considered:
Store litter on solid impermeable floor,
equipped with a drainage system and a
collection tank for run-off;

January 2016
110

PROPOSED
Ensure there is sufficient capacity to hold
organic manures during periods in which the
application to land is not possible;
Store organic manure in field heaps places
away from surface and/or underground
watercourse which liquid run-off might enter;
Reduce the ratio between the emitting
surface area and volume of the organic
manure;
Cover solid heaps.
Odour related impacts from Operation Yes Negative Moderate Develop a management plan prior to spreading. Negligible
spreading activities Time applications of manure to optimise crop
benefit and minimise environmental loss.
Adapt the manure application rate.
Identify areas unsuitable for spreading.
Avoid organic manure within 10m of a surface
water course.
Impacts from spreading Operation Yes Negative Moderate Assess the manure receiving land to identify risks Minor
activities on waste of run-off, taking into account:
management infrastructure
Soil types, conditions and slope of field;
Climatic conditions;
Field drainage and irrigations;
Crop rotations;
Water resources and water protected zones
Incorporate organic manure within 24 hours of
spreading.
Consideration of techniques to minimise odour
impacts:

January 2016
111

PROPOSED
Ploughing immediately behind the spreader;
Delaying spreading until local weather
conditions (i.e. wind direction) are more
favourable;
Injecting into the land ;
Spreading should also take place during the day;
Prior to spreading the machinery should be
checked;
Development and communication of guidance on
manure land spreading and odour nuisance to all
relevant personnel.
Regular inspections of storage facilities;
Development of emergency preparedness and
response plan;
Cultural heritage
Impacts of construction and Construction No Negative Negligible Develop a chance find procedure to be used Negligible
operation during construction to aid in managing
Operation No Negative Negligible archaeological finds. Negligible
The procedure should inlcude a method for
considering whether there are areas with a higher
potential for undiscovered archaeology to be
present, where an archaeological watching brief
should be used.
Decommissi No Negative Negligible None -

oning

January 2016
112
9 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
This Chapter describes the extent and the degree of the impact as a result of emergency
situations, the possibilities, the ways and the measures for reducing or eliminating the impact.
9.1 NATURAL HAZARDS
The term “natural hazard” refers to all atmospheric, hydrological, geological (including seismic)
and wildlife phenomena that, because of their location, severity and frequency have the potential
to affect human, their structures or their activities adversely. The natural hazards relevant include
drought, earth quake, flood and wild fire.
9.2 CONSTRUCTION
Mitigation of disasters usually entails reducing the vulnerability of the elements at risk, modifying
the hazard proneness of the site. Mitigation measures to address such impacts usually include
specific safety or vulnerability reduction measures incorporated into the design documents
developed for construction of the poultry farm and associated infrastructure, especially the feed
mill with blast protection. To properly deal with hazards and ensure timely implementation of
mitigation measures it is recommended that an Emergency Management Plan be developed for
the poultry farm and associated infrastructure jointly with the Regional Authorities. The
Emergency Management Plan should include measures addressing the following issues:
Natural hazard prediction;

Emergency preparedness;
Disaster rescue and relief;
Post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction; and
Education and training activities.
To reduce hazard vulnerability at the poultry farm and associated infrastructure site during
construction the following measures are recommended:
Establishment of buffer zone around the poultry farm and associated facilities;
Ensure preservation of safety rules by workers, while dealing with hazardous and toxic
materials;
Compliance with rules of MPF to ensure their proper operation;
Train workers on how to act in an emergency situation;
Establish reliable communication between MPF and respective regional authorities and
emergency services (first aid service, rescue, police, fire, etc.)
To reduce hazard vulnerability at the poultry farm and associated infrastructure site during
operation the following measures are recommended:
Prepare Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan and inform the workers of its
provision;
Regularly inspect drains and maintain the sanitary protective zone around the poultry farm
and associated infrastructure;

January 2016
113
Ensure compliance with rules on storage and handling of construction materials, fuel, oil
Regularly inspect MPF facilities and infrastructure to ensure their proper operation and
updating as-built documentation;
Provide training to workers on how to act in emergency situations; and
Maintain reliable communication between MPF and respective regional authorities, first aid
service, rescue service, police office, fire office, operations of electricity, gas and water
supply to ensure adequate response in case of emergency.

January 2016
114
10 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) has been prepared as a separate
standalone document for the construction, operation and decommissioning the Makinsk Poultry
Farm project, to be carried out by UKPF. The ESMP was prepared based on the environmental
and social issues identified during the environmental and social evaluation.
The ESMP contains plans, programmes, specifications and guidelines designed to control and
manage the potential environmental and social impacts that were identified in the ESIA. The
geographical, social, cultural and environmental dynamics have been taken into consideration.
The ESMP is an integral part of the ESIA as it is a policy setting document for MPF and its
contractors. This document represents a commitment by MPF and the local municipalities to
environmental and social sustainability, and applies to the Project’s entire life cycle.
The ESMP establishes MPF’s policies, commitments, and resources that are needed to allow
effective implementation and continuation of the programmes and procedures to manage and
mitigate the predicted impacts of the Project. Implementation of the ESMP will fulfil the
requirements established by the environmental laws and regulations of Kazakhstan, as well as
other technical and legal instruments that apply. The Project will also comply with the EBRD
Performance Requirements.
The implementation of the ESMP’s commitments will be subject to supervision and internal and
external auditing. Supervision of the implementation of, and compliance with, commitments set in
the ESMP will be overseen permanently by RoK Environmental Inspection and an Independent
Engineer appointed by Lenders during the life of the loan.
This version of the ESIA is the basis against which the ESMP monitors and continuously
improves. The ESMP is the living document that changes as things change from what was
predicted in the ESIA.
The principal objective of the ESMP is to “operationalise” the commitments to environmental and
social management and mitigation as identified by the ESIA. This should ensure that the Project
(including construction, operation, closure and post-closure phases) is undertaken in a manner
which maximises the benefits to, and minimises the negative impacts on, the physical, biological,
social and archaeological environments in the Project-affected area.
Specific objectives include:
Zero lost time injuries (LTI’s) during construction and operation;

Establishing upfront during construction a culture for safety, productivity, efficiency and
flexibility to be subsequently maintained by poultry farm operations;
Implementing appropriate prevention and mitigation measures to reduce the incidence of
negative environmental impacts and promote favourable conditions during the
construction, operation and decommissioning phases;
Creating an effective environmental monitoring and supervision plan that allows for the
monitoring of the proposed activities and environmental variables during the Project;
Establishing participation mechanisms for the Project stakeholders to keep them informed
about Project activities and how they may affect their daily activities;

January 2016
115
Elaborating procedures that will allow effective and timely response to emergencies, and
enable the reporting of events that may arise;
Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems and making special provision for habitats and
species of conservation importance at the national and international levels;
Performing adequate management of solid residues as required by applicable laws and
IFC/EBRD requirements;
Monitor any future land acquisition and economic displacement activities;
Restoring livelihoods impacted by economic displacement caused by the Project;
Preserving the archaeological heritage identified in the Project’s area of influence as
defined by applicable laws; and
Establishing and maintaining communication channels among MPF, the appropriate
authorities and stakeholders associated with the Project.

January 2016
116
End of Document

January 2016

EBRD-KIPF - MPF Supplementary Info Report - Environ Impact Assessment (#2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EBRD-KIPF - MPF Supplementary Info Report - Environ Impact Assessment (#2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EBRD-KIPF - MPF Supplementary Info Report - Environ Impact Assessment (#2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

O

REPORT N DRAFT FINAL

MAKINSK POULTRY FARM PROJECT

Project no: 70017146

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Tel: +44 (0)161 886 2400

Remarks Draft for review

Date January 2016

Prepared by Stuart Clayton

Checked by Neal Barker

Authorised by Neal Barker

Project number 70017146

Report number Version 1

File reference E09\Projects 2015

Senior Environmental Advisor (UK based) Mark Hughes

Principal Banker (Kazakhstan) Laurence Bahk

WSP GLOBAL INC. (WSP)

Project Director Neal Barker

Project Manager Stuart Clayton

Environment and Social Specialist Susan Woods/Liz Watts

Ecologist Jon Seller

Acoustic Specialist Neil Bodsworth

Local EHS Specialist (Eco Social Analysts Vladimir Merkuryev

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 6

3 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK 15

5 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE INFORMATION 29

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

5.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 51

6 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS (PUBLIC

8 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 94

9 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 112

10 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 114

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

FIGURE 5-5 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF FACILITY GROUND .......................... 39

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Stakeholder Engagement Plan;

Land acquisition and livelihood restoration framework; and

Social and Health Impact Assessment (Supplementary Information Report).

1.2 SITE AND LOCATION

This planned Poultry Farm is located at Makinsk. Makinsk is a town in northern-central

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

1.3 SCOPE OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REPORT FOR THE

The objectives of the assignment will be to produce a fit-for-purpose package of information as a

1.4 THE EIA PROCESS IN KAZAKHSTAN

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Construction must be conducted in compliance with the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK)

Environmental Code #212-III from 9 January, 2007

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Monitor and record feather condition (A.166);

1.5 CONTENT AND FORMAT OF THE ESIA

The ESIA has adopted the following structure:

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Chapter 10: Monitoring Program comprising an Environmental Social Management Plan

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ESMP)

1.7 PROJECT AREA OF INFLUENCE

Makinsk Poultry Farm Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff