Prepared under: · Web viewLAC-EA-17-02 APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)...

LAC-EA-17-02

APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)

Activity Location : Honduras

Activity Title : Rainwater Harvesting Infrastructure for Small/Medium-size Farms in Western and Southern Honduras – Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA)

Life of Activity : FY 2017 – FY 2022

Referenced EnvironmentalThreshold Decision: LAC-IEE-16-65

Date Prepared : March 23, 2017

Purpose and ScopeThis document approves the programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) for rainwater harvesting infrastructure for small/medium-size farms in western and southern Honduras. It also serves to amend Initial Environmental Examination LAC-IEE-16-65, for USAID/Honduras’ IR 2.1, as well as the IEE for the Global Development Lab’s Rainwater Harvest Project, to incorporate the results of the PEA.

BackgroundIn June 2015, USAID’s Global Development Lab (GDL) issued an IEE with a positive determination for the Rainwater Harvesting Activity which involved construction of reservoirs in southern Honduras, and subsequently approved an Environmental Assessment (EA) for ten specific reservoir sites. Implementing Partner (IP) Global Communities has been implementing the activity.

After the EA was issued, the USAID’s GDL Bureau Environmental Officer, the Regional Environmental Advisor (REA) for Central America, and the Honduras Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) recommended that a broader environmental assessment, notably a programmatic one (PEA), was needed to complement the original EA and provide a more in-depth analysis and integrated guidelines. This PEA can be used by USAID partners such as Global Communities, as well as any other institution, interested in developing rainwater harvesting infrastructure for irrigation, not only in southern and western Honduras, but anywhere in the country.

1

`

USAID/HONDURASPROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)

RAINWATER HARVESTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SMALL/MEDIUM-SIZE FARMS IN WESTERN AND SOUTHERN HONDURAS

FEBRUARY 2017

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared under USAID’s Global Environmental Management Support (GEMS) contract.

I

FRONT COVER Rainwater Harvesting Reservoir in Southern Region of Honduras. PhotoCredit: Michelle Rodríguez,

2016.

I

USAID/HONDURASPROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)RAINWATER HARVESTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SMALL/MEDIUM-SIZE FARMS IN WESTERN AND SOUTHERN HONDURAS

February 15, 2017 DraftReport AuthorsDavid Harris, Sun Mountain International Becky Myton, Sun Mountain International Carlos Cobos, Sun Mountain International Michelle Rodríguez, Sun Mountain International

Technical Support Peter Hearne, USAID Isaac Ferrera, USAID Sofía Méndez, USAID Angie Murillo, USAID César Varela, USAID Joe Torres, USAIDAlejandro Agüero, Global Communities Mario Noboa, Global Communities

Mario Ochoa, SAG Honduras Karen Enríquez, SAG HondurasKathleen Hurley, The Cadmus Group David Scharzman, SAG Honduras Conor Walsh, CRSDarinel Lainez, CRS Héctor Táblas, ACS Michelle Jaramillo, SMTN

E3 Global Environmental Management and Support II (GEMS II) Project, Award Number AID-OAA-13-00018. The Cadmus Group, Inc., prime contractor. Sun Mountain International, principal partner.ANDUS Global Development Lab “Climate Change Adaptation through Community Rainwater Harvesting Reservoirs,” Award Number AID-OAA-F-14-00027 Grantee: Cooperative Housing Foundation dba Global Communities, The Cadmus Group, Inc. subcontractor to Global Communities (COSECHA-PC-16-01).

Sun Mountain International Cadmus Group, Inc.Quiteño Libre E15-108 and Flores Jijón 100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100Sector Bellavista Waltham, MA 02451 USAQuito, Ecuador Tel: +1.617-673-7000Tel 1: 593-22-922-625 Fax: +1.617-673-7001Cell: 593-9-83-016-562www.smtn.org

Prepared under:The Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS), Award Number AID-OAA-M-11-00021. The Cadmus Group, Inc., prime contractor (www.cadmusgroup.com). Sun Mountain International, principal partner

I

(www.smtn.org).

DISCLAIMERUntil and unless this document is approved by USAID as a 22 CFR 216 Programmatic Environmental Assessment, the contents may not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

I

This page is intentionally blank.

I

TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................VEXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................VII

Background.........................................................................................................................viiProject area.........................................................................................................................viiProject Purpose...................................................................................................................viiProject Need.......................................................................................................................viiProposed Action..................................................................................................................viiIssues................................................................................................................................. viii

Issue 1: Water Flows...............................................................................................viiiIssue 2 Water Quality.............................................................................................viiiIssue 3 Changes in Vegetation Species, Structure and Function............................viiiIssue 4: Mosquito Breeding Source.........................................................................viiiIssue 5: Risk of Dam Failure...................................................................................viiiIssue 6: Water Loss to Evaporation.........................................................................ixIssue 7: Reservoir Nuisances................................................................................... ixIssue 8: Community and User Conflicts...................................................................ixIssue 9: Participating Group Management...............................................................ixIssue 10: Irrigated Crop and Water Management....................................................ixIssue 11: Local Communities and Livelihoods..........................................................ix

Alternatives......................................................................................................................... ixAlternative 1: No Action........................................................................................... ixAlternative 2: Modified Proposed Action..................................................................ixAlternative 3: Direct Piping without Water Storage..................................................x

Alternatives Considered but not studied in detail.................................................................xEffects................................................................................................................................. xiSummary of the Recommended Action..............................................................................xiii

Rationale for Recommendation..............................................................................xivAdditional Recommendations.................................................................................xv

1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................11.1. Background................................................................................................................1

1.1.1. Relation to Honduras Legal Requirements....................................................22. PURPOSE AND NEED..............................................................................3

2.1. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................32.1.1. Social and Economic......................................................................................32.1.2. Physical and Biological..................................................................................3

2.2. Desired Conditions.....................................................................................................42.2.1. Social and Economic......................................................................................42.2.2. Physical and Biological..................................................................................5

2.3. Purpose......................................................................................................................52.4. Need..........................................................................................................................5

3. PROPOSED ACTION...............................................................................64. ISSUES.................................................................................................8

Issue 1: Water Flows............................................................................................................8Issue 2: Water Quality..........................................................................................................8Issue 3: Change in Vegetation Species, Structure and Function...........................................9Issue 4: Mosquito Breeding Source......................................................................................9Issue 5: Risk of Dam Failure.................................................................................................9Issue 6: Water Loss to Evaporation......................................................................................9Issue 7: Reservoir Nuisances................................................................................................9Issue 8: Community and User Conflicts..............................................................................10Issue 9: Participating Group Management..........................................................................10Issue 10: Irrigated Crop and Water Management...............................................................10

I

Issue 11: Local Communities and Livelihoods.....................................................................105. ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................11

5.1. Alternative 1, No Action Alternative.........................................................................115.2. Alternative 2, Modified Proposed Action...................................................................115.3. Alternative 3, No Water Storage System..................................................................115.4. Alternatives Dismissed from Detailed Study............................................................125.5. Alternative Comparison............................................................................................13

6. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..........176.1. Affected Environment Overview...............................................................................17

6.1.1. Livelihoods in the Western Dry Corridor......................................................176.1.2. Livelihoods in the Southern Dry Corridor.....................................................186.1.3. Ecoregions in Western Honduras.................................................................196.1.4. Ecoregions in Southern Honduras................................................................206.1.5. Land Use in Western Honduras....................................................................216.1.6. Land Use in Southern Honduras...................................................................226.1.7. Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Western Honduras...............................246.1.8. Biodiversity and protected areas in Southern Honduras..............................266.1.9. Water Resources in Western Honduras........................................................276.1.10.....................................................................................................................Water

Resources in SoUthern Honduras.................................................................286.2. Legal Framework......................................................................................................296.3. Effects Summary by Issue........................................................................................30

6.3.1. Issue: Water Flows.......................................................................................306.3.2. Issue Water Quality......................................................................................346.3.3. Issue: Change in Vegetation Species, Structure and Function.....................366.3.4. Issue: Mosquito Breeding Source.................................................................386.3.5. Issue: Risk of Dam Failure............................................................................406.3.6. Issue: Water Loss to Evaporation and Seepage...........................................436.3.7. Issue: Reservoir Nuisances..........................................................................456.3.8. Issue: Community and User Conflicts..........................................................466.3.9. Issue: Participating Group Management......................................................486.3.10. Issue: Irrigated Crop and water Management...........................................496.3.11. Issue: Local Economies and Livelihoods...................................................50

7. FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATION............................................................547.1 Rationale for Recommendation................................................................................547.2 Additional Recommendations...................................................................................55

REFERENCES.............................................................................................57ANNEXES..................................................................................................66

Annex A. Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan....................................................66Annex B. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted......................................93Annex C. List of Preparers..................................................................................................94

David Harris...........................................................................................................94Becky Myton..........................................................................................................94Carlos Roberto Cobos.............................................................................................94Michelle Rodríguez.................................................................................................95

Annex D. Scoping Statement..............................................................................................96Annex E. US Army Corps of Engineers Technical Guide......................................................97Annex F. Best practices for small hydroelectric projects.....................................................98Annex G. PERSUAP.............................................................................................................99Annex H. Additional Document Links................................................................................100Annex I. Implementation Checklist....................................................................................101

Site Selection and Feasibility Phase......................................................................101Engineering Design Phase....................................................................................102Construction Phase...............................................................................................104

I

Operations Phase.................................................................................................105

I

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Modified proposed action.................................................................................1Figure 2. Livelihood Zones in Western Honduras..........................................................18Figure 3. Livelihood Zones in Southern Honduras.........................................................19Figure 4. Ecoregions in Western Honduras....................................................................20Figure 5. Ecoregions in Southern Honduras..................................................................21Figure 6. Land Cover and Land Use for Western Honduras (2012)................................22Figure 7. Land Use in Southern Honduras.....................................................................23Figure 8. Protected Areas in Western Honduras............................................................26Figure 9. Protected areas in Southern Honduras...........................................................27Figure 10. Major Rivers and Watersheds in Western Honduras.....................................28Figure 11. Watersheds in Southern Honduras..............................................................29

LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Effects of Summary by Issue............................................................................xiTable 2. Engineering Design Criteria..............................................................................2Table 3. Environmental Design, Monitoring and Mitigation.............................................5Table 4. Environmental Protection Design, Monitoring and Mitigation............................6Table 5. Comparison of key alternative Actions............................................................13Table 6.Land Use Summary..........................................................................................24Table 7. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 1...................................................33Table 8. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 2...................................................36Table 9. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 3...................................................37Table 10. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 4.................................................39Table 11. United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Hazard Classification System...................................................................................................................................... 42Table 12. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 5.................................................43Table 13. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 6.................................................45Table 14. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 7.................................................45Table 15. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 8.................................................47Table 16. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 9.................................................48Table 17. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 10...............................................50Table 18. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary Issue 11...............................................53

V

LIST OF ACRONYMSAYS Average Years of SchoolingBEO Bureau Environmental Officer COPECO Comisión Permanente de ContingenciasCDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy DAP Departamento de Áreas ProtegidasDIBIO Dirección General de Biodiversidad DIGEPESCA Dirección General de PescaDO Development ObjectiveEA Environmental AssessmentEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan EMPR Environmental Management Programme Reports ENSO El Niño Southern OscillationESIA Environmental and Social Impacts AssessmentFAO Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations GAP Good Agricultural PracticeGEMS Global Environmental Management Support GMO Genetically Modified OrganismGMP Good Manufacturing PracticeGoH Gobierno de Honduras (Government of Honduras) HDI Human Development IndexIEE Initial Environmental ExaminationICF Instituto de Nacional de Conservación Forestal y Vida Silvestre ICM Integrated Crop ManagementIHAH Instituto de Antropología e Historia IHT Instituto de TurismoINSEP Secretary of Infrastructure and Public Services IP Implementing PartnerIR Intermediate ResultsJAA Juntas Administadoras de AguaMAPANCE La Mancomunidad de Municipios del Parque Nacional Montaña de Celaque MOCAPH Mesa de ONGs Comanejadoras de Áreas Protegidas de HondurasMSME Micro, Small, and Medium Sized Enterprises PAG Proyecto Aldea GlobalPEA Programmatic Environmental AssessmentPERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use

V

Action Plan PLCI Permanent Land Cover IndexPNMC Parque Nacional Montaña Celaque REARegional Environmental AdvisorREHNAP Red Hondureña de Reservas Naturales Privadas RUP Restricted Use PesticidesSENASA Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria SEPLAN Secretaría de PlanificaciónSERNA The Ministry of Energy Natural Resources Environment and Mines

(now known as MiAmbiente)

V

USAID United States Agency for International Development USGS United States Geological SurveyWAB Water Association BoardsWRI World Resources InstituteZOI Zone of Influence

V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYBACKGROUNDIn March 2015, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center declared the occurrence of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Historically, the effects of ENSO in Honduras relate to erratic rainfall patterns and increases in temperatures which can lead to droughts and irregular rainfall episodes that generate flooding and landslides. This has a direct impact on the productivity of traditional rain-fed agriculture undertaken by the majority of small farmers in Honduras, particularly along the so-called dry corridor in the western part of the country.In June 2015, the USAID Global Development Lab (GDL) issued an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) with a positive determination for Rainwater Harvesting Activity which involved construction of reservoirs, or holding ponds, in southern Honduras, and subsequently approved an Environmental Assessment (EA) for ten specific reservoir sites, to be implemented by implementing partner Global Communities. After the EA was issued, the USAID’s GDL Bureau Environmental Officer, the Regional Environmental Advisor (REA) for Central America, and the Honduras Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) recommended that a broader environmental assessment, notably a programmatic one (PEA), was needed to complement the original EA and provide a more in-depth analysis and integrated guidelines. This PEA can be used by USAID partners such as Global Communities, as well as any other institution, interested in developing rainwater harvesting infrastructure for irrigation, not only in southern and western Honduras, but anywhere in the country.

PROJECT AREAThe project area is located within the area known as the “Dry Corridor” and includes the Departments of Copan, Lempira, Ocotepeque, Santa Barbara, La Paz and Intibucá in the Western portion, and the Southern Departments Valle and Choluteca well as the southern sections of Francisco Morazán, El Paraiso and La Paz.

PROJECT PURPOSEThe project purpose is to provide a sufficient and sustainable source of water for irrigation to intensify production and productivity of crops on existing cultivated lands, extend crop production cycles, allow for production of higher value crops, improve human nutrition through crop diversity, and enhance the region’s economic and ecological resilience to the impacts of El Niño events and climate change.

PROJECT NEEDThe capacity and production of agricultural crops is needed to improve social and economic conditions, especially of the rural poor is limited by access to water and productive lands. Production is further limited by the increasingly erratic weather patterns associated with climate change, including changing frequency and intensity of storms and drought conditions.

PROPOSED ACTIONThe Proposed Action is to develop small scale sustainable rainwater harvesting systems for irrigated crop management in Southern and Western Honduras.

V

The Proposed Action is based on an adaptive management approach that would allow for a variety of water source options to be utilized as needed based on site-specific conditions. Water sources may include:

Option A: Capturing surface runoff using natural topographical man-made features, such as basins, dry ravines, ditches, or roads.Option B: Capturing only peak flows or excess flows from permanent streams.Option C: Capturing water directly from springs only during rain events and where appropriate ownership and water rights exist.

Water storage types may include:

ISSUES

1. Earthen reservoirs constructed outside of intermittent1drainages.2. Earthen reservoirs constructed within intermittent drainages, but

never within permanent steams.3. Cement, metal or plastic tanks (usually for micro single-user

applications only).

ISSUE 1: WATER FLOWSExtracting water from permanent or intermittent stream channels could cause a decrease in the normal flow in the stream course below the reservoir. This could reduce the resilience of downstream riparian ecosystems, habitat, vegetation, fauna, and reduce available water to downstream communities.

ISSUE 2 WATER QUALITYConstruction of reservoirs can increase sedimentation of rivers and streams. The use of agrochemicals in irrigated crop systems can produce contamination of soil and water potentially affecting riparian and aquatic biota as well as humans.

ISSUE 3 CHANGES IN VEGETATION SPECIES, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONThe removal of vegetation during the construction of reservoirs and roads needed to transport equipment for the construction of reservoirs (especially those greater than 5m in depth) could change the distribution, structure, and composition of the vegetation in the area.

ISSUE 4: MOSQUITO BREEDING SOURCEThe constructed reservoirs could serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes which can cause dengue, chikungunya, and more recently Zika, which causes microcephaly and malformations in babies born to mothers who have had Zika.

ISSUE 5: RISK OF DAM FAILUREImproper design or construction of dams could result in serious flooding potentially causing the loss of lives, infrastructure and/or cropland if the dam weakens and fails due to either improper construction or natural events such as flooding or earthquakes.

I

1Intermittent streams as referenced in this document refer to those channels that only flow during and in immediate response to precipitation events. Permanent streams are generally flowing year-round, but in severe drought conditions may cease to flow.

X

ISSUE 6: WATER LOSS TO EVAPORATIONHigh temperatures and dry conditions in the southern and western dry corridor could result in a high rate of evaporation in the reservoirs causing a reduction in the quantity of water available for irrigation.

ISSUE 7: RESERVOIR NUISANCESReservoirs can attract cattle and local fauna looking for drinking water as well as local public that may inappropriately use the reservoirs. Cattle can degrade the dike and banks as well as the vegetation needed for dike protection, both of which result in bank destabilization and erosion. Local wildlife may be exposed to hunting or capture by the local residents. Reservoirs can also present a threat to public safety from drowning if access and use is not controlled.

ISSUE 8: COMMUNITY AND USER CONFLICTSSystem development could create conflict between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, as well as conflicts among users if changes to water availability occur that either expand or reduce system capacity.

ISSUE 9: PARTICIPATING GROUP MANAGEMENTIf clear operating guidance is not established and followed by participating groups, the effectiveness of water use has proven to be problematic frequently leading to project failure.

ISSUE 10: IRRIGATED CROP AND WATER MANAGEMENTActions associated with the cultivation of irrigated crops can lead to inefficient use of water, sedimentation, reduced productivity and economic benefits if not planned and operated correctly.

ISSUE 11: LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LIVELIHOODSIrrigation has the potential to help lift poor and extremely poor households out of poverty. The effects of the proposed action on local economies are expected to be beneficial. Benefits would be realized not only for the participating producers, but also the community at large through associated availability of diversified food sources, and direct and indirect employment.

ALTERNATIVESThree alternatives were studied in detail (Alternative 1: No Action, Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Action, and Alternative 3: Direct Piping without Water Storage,). There were four additional alternatives considered, but eliminated from further analysis.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTIONCurrent traditional agricultural practices, both irrigated and non-irrigated would continue to be used. The Honduran Government, as well as multiple NGOs, would likely continue to promote rainwater harvesting and a variety of irrigation and crop management techniques. While these non-US funded projects can be extremely beneficial, well-designed and implemented, they have not been considered collectively on a programmatic basis for potential

I

cumulative effects, or consistently monitored.

ALTERNATIVE 2: MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION.As a result of additional scoping and interdisciplinary evaluation after the preparation of the published Scoping Statement, the original Proposed Action identified was modified slightly to address new information. These changes are described and analyzed in this PEA as the Modified

X

Proposed Action. The changes were not determined to require analysis separately as a new alternative since they were within the scale and scope of the proposed action and only represented clarifications. The primary changes include the following:

The distinction between ephemeral and intermittent streams was dropped since these conditions are difficult to distinguish in Central American ecosystems where snow melt is not a factor. Intermittent streams as referenced in this document refer to those channels that only flow during and in immediate response to precipitation events. Permanent streams are generally flowing year-round, but in severe drought conditions may cease to flow.

The description of project size was refined to more closely reflect the Purpose and Need of the proposal by focusing on systems generally in the range of 10,000-20,000 m3 of storage capacity that would benefit 10-15 farmers irrigating up to approximately 10 hectares total. The number of participating farmers and the area irrigated would vary based on the water available, the water needs of the selected crops, and actual environmental conditions such as droughts.

Conveyance systems from the source to the reservoir were modified to include either open or closed systems. Open systems would be limited to 100 meters distance.

Conveyance systems to the fields would always be closed system to maintain required pressure for drip irrigation systems.

The list of design criteria and mitigations was clarified and expanded within the basic alternative concept to improve effectiveness of the alternative.

ALTERNATIVE 3: DIRECT PIPING WITHOUT WATER STORAGEThis alternative was developed to reduce the potential risk of dam failure and associated impacts of reservoirs including mosquito breeding sources, and reservoir construction costs. It utilizes direct piping from permanent streams without the use of reservoirs. This alternative would include all design criteria and mitigations from Alternative 2 except those related to the planning, design, construction and operation of reservoirs. It would require the maintenance of ecological flows using guidance developed by USAID for small hydroelectric projects in Honduras summarized in Annex F.Under this alternative water diversion structures would be constructed at the stream and direct piping using materials designed for the specific conditions and application would be used to transport water to the fields for irrigation. The most commonly used materials would be PVC or flexible conduit, but others may be used based on site-specific terrain and cost objectives.Distance of water conduction is only limited by topography needed to maintain pressure, cost of materials, and ability to acquire rights-of-ways from water source to fields. Past projects using this approach have averaged 3.5 km per system.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT STUDIED IN DETAIL.A variety of alternative methods for developing water sources and managing irrigated crops were considered. The following alternatives are recommended for dismissal from detailed study in the PEA because they are inconsistent with one or more components of the Purpose and Need as described below.

X

1) Use of sprinkler or flood irrigation system: In a region with high evaporation potential and a possible 10-20 percent decrease in precipitation by 2050, the use of sprinklers combined with reservoirs would not represent the most efficient use of water (Cosecha, 2015 ).

2) Groundwater pumping: Very little comprehensive data exist for groundwater resources and aquifer volume and extent in Central America, which presents significant

X

challenges for use and management of groundwater resources (Ballestero, Reyes, and Astorga, 2007). A limited study of groundwater in Choluteca found that the hydrogeology of the region is complex due to fractures related to a fault line in the underlying bedrock. The study’s results did not clearly indicate whether groundwater could flow across an existing fault line. Groundwater in the region occurs in the bedrock and alluvium, although the study results indicated marginal flow from test wells (from 80-155 ft below ground surface) in both the bedrock and the alluvium (USAID 2002). Additional test sites in the Choluteca flood plain indicated the alluvial deposits there do not yield sufficient supplies for municipal purposes and would not be an adequate source for agricultural purposes. The limited data from the region indicate a high level of uncertainty related to groundwater availability. If this alternative were pursued, extensive hydro-geological studies of each proposed site would need to be undertaken to assure sufficient flow for irrigation purposes (Cosecha, 2015 ).

3) Expansion of agriculture through land use conversion: Developing water sources and expanding cropland where existing lands are in permanent cover could change the distribution, structure and composition of the vegetation in the area.

4) Dam construction directly in permanent stream courses. The construction of dams directly in permanent stream courses would present an excessive level of complexity with respect to construction and evaluation of effects on ecological flows and riparian habitats. Dams can create significant changes in natural sediment flows as well as reducing available storage capacity from captured sediment. In addition, this approach would not fully meet the Purpose and Need with respect to adapting to climate change since it would rely entirely on modifying existing permanent water sources.

EFFECTSThe effects descriptions as required by 20 CFR 216.6(3)(c)4 are discussed in the context of the issues identified during scoping.

TABLE 1. EFFECTS OF SUMMARY BY ISSUE

ISSUES NO ACTIONALTERNATIVE 2

MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 3: NO RESERVOIR STORAGEIssue 1 Continued reduction in Reduction in total Reduction in total

Changes to total water downstream,

downstream, but base downstream, but minimumwater flows but compliant with flows of permanent ecological flow maintained.Honduras minimum

flowstreams maintained.

requirement.Issue 2: Continued use of Increased use in agro Increased use in

agroWater Quality

agrochemicals, chemicals, but PERSUAP

chemicals, but PERSUAPsedimentation, and

reducedrequirements reduce risk

requirements reduce riskflows from land use of contamination

aboveof contamination aboveactivities that may not current levels. current levels.

include adequatemitigations continue todegrade water quality.

Issue 3 Continued land use change

Some loss of vegetation

Less vegetation removedVegetation caused by traditional including permanent

coverthan Alternative 2. NoSpecies agricultural practices

wouldwould occur in foot print

measurable change instructure

andcontinue in all alternatives.

of reservoir, access and

vegetation or permanent

X

function. conveyance construction,

cover.Land use conversion due

but change would notto non-USAID reservoir result in a meaningfuldevelopment is expected

effect.to be minimal due to high

X




ALTERNATIVE 3: NO RESERVOIR STORAGEconstruction costs.

Issue 4Mosquito Breeding Source:

Some increase in breedinghabitat. Use of biological and environmental mitigations frequently used voluntarily in many existing projects can help

Some increase in breedinghabitat. Use of biological and environmental mitigations required under alternative 2, can help reduce the overall numbers of

No additional increase inbreeding habitat for mosquitoes beyond what is occurring in the No Action Alternative.

Issue 5Risk of Dam Failure

Reservoirs built withoutengineered designs and construction requirements and especially those with water volumes greater than 20,000

Reservoirs built toengineered designs and construction requirements and water storage capacity less than 20,000 m3 would have lower hazard

No risk of dam failure.

Issue 6Water Loss

Water loss to evaporationand seepage is unavoidable. However, reservoirs not built to engineered design and construction

Water loss to evaporationand seepage is unavoidable. However, reservoirs built to engineered design and construction

No water loss toevaporation or seepage.

Issue 7Reservoir Nuisances

Under the No ActionAlternative, it is likely that many of the existing reservoirs are already fenced based on evidence from scoping. However, it is uncertain to what degree the fences are maintained. In addition, promotion within the community of the need to protect wildlife attracted to

The required fencingmitigation in Alternative 2 would eliminate impacts from cattle as long as the fence is properly maintained and closed.Fencing would act as a deterrent to unauthorized uses such as swimming or fishing, but the possibility of

No change since noreservoirs would be constructed.

Issue 8Community and User Conflicts:

Under the No ActionAlternative, systems currently in place should be consistent with Honduran legal requirements, but it is likely that many are not. If strong community involvement and consensus building did not occur prior to system developments, conflicts may already exist or have a higher risk of occurring in

Alternative 2 would beexpected to have less potential conflict than the No Action Alternative based on pre-development consensus building efforts. Changes to system size after operation has begun could result in the development of new conflicts, but the required mitigation to reevaluate land tenure and group participation would

Alternative 3 would besimilar to Alternative 2, but may be more difficult to establish required rights-of- way for systems requiring longer conveyance distances or multiple ownerships.

Issue 9Group

Not all systems wouldinclude the use of clear

The required designcriteria to establish a

Same as Alternative 2

X




ALTERNATIVE 3: NO RESERVOIR STORAGEManageme

nt:operating guidance forparticipating members.

Similarly, the lack of well managed funds can reduce the effectiveness of water use and lead to project failure.

Large participating group sizes (>20) often lead to inefficiencies and internal conflicts.

formally documentedMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the project participants that establishes clear operating guidance is expected to reduce conflicts and ensure efficient operations.

In addition, requiring use of an established operating fund (rural credit unions, called Cajas Rurales) would reduce problems associated with funding repairs and

Issue 10Crop and Water Management:

On-going traditionalagricultural methods would continue. In addition, other NGO and government supported programs would likely continue but may include varying levels of technical support and training.

The design mitigationsrequiring technical assistance in the proper use and management of irrigation systems is expected to increase production, conserve water, and reduce potential for

Same as Alternative 2, butthere would be less overall reliability of water sources compared with Alternative 2 since no water is stored.

Issue 11Local Economies and livelihoods

Economic improvementfrom on-going programs would continue to improve economies and livelihoods in general.

With access to water forirrigation, the benefits to local economies would be realized not only for the participating producers, but also the communities at large through associated availability

Same as Alternative 2, butmay have less crop diversity due to less reliable water source without reservoir storage.

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONBased on review of the effects described in the PEA, Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action), and Alternative 3 (No Storage), are both identified as viable alternatives for consideration in site- specific project proposals.

X

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONAlternative 2 is recommended for the following reasons:

1. The adaptive approach of Alternative 2 allows the greatest degree of flexibility to select and design systems based on site-specific conditions and local needs.

2. It best meets the Purpose and Need for supplying an adequate amount of water for irrigation while minimizing the impacts on natural water systems and ecosystems when applied with the associated mitigation measures.

3. The lack of information on stream flows, precipitation, watershed conditions, and water uses makes any project a potential risk for environmental and social impacts. By limiting the size of projects to 10,000-20000 m3 of storage capacity, the risk of dam failure and excessive water use can be reduced.

4. Of the three water source options included in Alternative 2, the preference should be Option A since it best meets the need of responding to climate change by utilizing available surface flows rather than using limited permanent sources. It also has the least risk of affecting other users downstream, and the least risk of affecting riparian communities downstream. As a result of reduced environmental risk, it would also have the least monitoring cost since it does not potentially influence ecological flows. However, this option when combined with in-line storage creates an absolute need to fully comply with engineering design, construction and operation requirements. Improper design and construction is one of the leading causes of dam failure.

5. Option B of Alternative 2 can be a viable option, but presents complexities in designing diversions that only utilize excess rainwater above base flows, and has an increased risk of not maintaining ecological flows if not properly designed. The mitigation and monitoring items required for this option would reduce risk, but can be complicated and costly to implement.

6. Option C of Alternative 2 is a viable option although limiting water extraction to occur only during rain events would limit potential reservoir size, but eliminate downstream effects to riparian habitats and downstream uses. This option would likely be best suited for provision of a supplemental water source, or for smaller applications.

The No Action Alternative is not selected for the following reasons:

1. Large reservoirs (>20,000 m3 volume) have higher construction and maintenance costs, and require higher skill levels to design, construct and maintain.

2. Large reservoirs are often not within the capacity of a rural village and/or a, small scale farmer to operate and maintain due to costs and technical capabilities.

3. Construction of larger reservoirs requires use of heavy machinery which can require road construction or improvement for access of equipment.

4. Some of the current non-USAID funded projects underway have group sizes over 50. Global Communities has identified limitations associated with large group sizes water use, irrigation scheduling and water governance. Other limitations include the ineffectiveness and high costs

X

of training large numbers of participants.5. Large reservoirs have an increased hazard risk due to higher volumes of

water and the complexities of design and construction which can lead to dam failure.

6. Larger reservoirs based on water sources from permanent streams have a higher risk of not maintaining ecological flows.

7. Smaller systems (less than 1,000 m3) of water storage can be useful for individual families, and have very little risk associated with water use or dam failure, but are not as beneficial at the community level because of their limited scale.

X

Alternative 3 is recommended for the following reasons:

1. Alternative 3 eliminates the risk of dam failure, mosquito breeding sources and would generally be less costly to implement than alternatives requiring reservoir construction.

2. Relying on available flows from permanent streams could increase the risk that ecological flows would not be maintained. However, in situations where available water is abundant, and downstream water needs can be maintained, this alternative can provide a reliable water source for drip irrigation systems.

3. Implementing ecological flow monitoring as described in Annex F and evaluating available water balances during proposal development would reduce the potential effects on downstream habitat and water needs although monitoring costs would be higher than other options.

4. Alternative 3 may not supply sufficient water during low or dry seasons due to the lack of water storage, but still meets the Purpose and Need with respect to providing water for irrigation systems and improving efficient water use through drip technology.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe lack of detailed hydrologic information including stream flows, precipitation and water uses makes effects analysis extremely difficult even at the programmatic scale. This lack of information requires analyses to depend on the documented effectiveness of the design criteria and mitigations incorporated in this document.While not identified as a required mitigation, the use of the recently developed Agri Tool by CIAT and USAID should be encouraged to facilitate the systematic identification of potential sites.The adaptive approach described in this document is only useful if the information gained during monitoring is utilized to identify needed changes in approach or guidance. Similarly, this information can be used to validate the effectiveness of guidance that is working as designed and should be continued in future projects.Some of the required mitigations in this PEA rely on the participation of government agencies during both the development and operation phases. For example, permitting and authorizing water use for projects prior to construction and monitoring and permitting future projects that may later affect the proposed action. Their participation is currently hampered by limited funding and human resources, while trying to implement the most recent water law among others. This situation is critical with respect to all aspects of identifying, managing and monitoring water quantity and quality. Efforts should be made to help the government strengthen their capacity to effectively implement the law to ensure that future projects are in compliance and maintaining or improving both social/economic and environmental conditions.The interdisciplinary team recommends that efforts be pushed forward to inventory water assets, uses, and document water balances on a national scale. This information should include developing a country wide database accessible for site-specific analyses. This information is critical for a full understanding of cumulative effects at both the local and national level and will become more critical as water needs increase.

X

In the meantime, this situation places a substantial burden on site-specific projects to adequately evaluate the potential water availability, effects on aquatic ecosystems, and downstream uses. Also of critical importance for projects is providing quality control during all phases of a proposal including site-selection, design, construction and operation.

X

A review of a variety of completed projects identified the following general conclusions which should be considered during site-specific project development:

Higher costs of construction reduce feasibility and effectiveness of projects.

A local financial system (caja rural) should be present to support production.

Including participation from local organizations and agencies helps support the sustainability of projects.

Proper site selection is the fundamental criteria for project success.

Use a systematic process to identify sites:

Utilize a pre-selection process to evaluate potential sites and interest in participation.

Study the physical environmental, social, and economic viability of the project.

Design the system and organization of the participants. Develop the capacity of the local organizations and participants (Juntas

de agua, caja rural). Design and construct the system. Provide on-going technical assistance in production, system use and

maintenance as well as marketing and financial management.

1

1. INTRODUCTIONThis PEA (Programmatic Environmental Assessment) was prepared for USAID/Honduras for activities in response to the USAID Global Development Lab (GDL) Bureau Environmental Officer, USAID’s Regional Environmental Advisor (REA) for Central America, and the USAID/Honduras Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) for actions involving rainwater harvest covering Southern and Western Honduras to evaluate the potential environmental and social impacts of construction and operation of rainwater harvesting holding ponds.

1.1. BACKGROUNDIn March 2015, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center declared the occurrence of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Historically, the effects of ENSO in Honduras relate to erratic rainfall patterns and increases in temperatures which can lead to droughts and irregular rainfall episodes that generate flooding and landslides. This has a direct impact on the productivity of traditional rain-fed agriculture done by the majority of small farmers in Honduras, particularly along the so-called dry corridor in the western part of the country.In 2015 the Government of Honduras (GoH) carried out rapid assessments of the impact of ENSO in western, southern, and eastern Honduras. According to estimates, nearly 200,000 families would potentially be affected by the drought and the GoH would have to invest approximately $7.7 million on food aid for these families. The GoH established a response strategy that included three components: food provision, rehabilitation of crops, and construction of infrastructure for water management. In terms of water management infrastructure, one of the key actions is construction of holding ponds for rainwater harvesting, which would allow small farmers to access water for irrigation. Rainwater harvesting is an adaptation measure that is increasingly being promoted and adopted in regions with high climate variability, such as Honduras. This technology is also cited by the Climate Change National Strategy as one of the responses to an increasing water demand for household and agricultural use. The GoH has built approximately 190 rainwater harvesting holding ponds since 2014, and as many as 1,500 more are planned as funding allows (SAG Scoping Meeting 12-9-2016). The effectiveness and environmental sustainability of these investments has not been studied.On behalf of the U.S. Government, USAID/Honduras has taken the lead to provide support to more than 30,000 families in western Honduras through the provision of technical assistance and other agricultural inputs, including improving access to irrigation. USAID/Honduras is expecting to invest more than $20 million in irrigation over the next five years.To increase the magnitude of support and provide solid technical guidance for the GoH water management infrastructure efforts, a team from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under an Inter-Agency Agreement with USAID and the U.S. Embassy/Honduras, in response to a request from the GOH, carried out a technical review of the GoH-built rainwater holding ponds in January-February 2016, and made a series of technical recommendations to overcome

X

design and construction deficiencies and shortfalls.2 In addition, a software application to select potential suitable sites for rainwater harvesting was developed as part of the support to the GoH.

2Technical Guide: USACE Support to SAG/USAID Drought Assistance Program. Latin American Project Management Section, Geotechnical and Dam Safety Section, USACE. June 2016. 54pp. provided as separate attachment.

2

In addition, a 22 CFR 216 Environmental Assessment (EA) was carried out by USAID’s Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS II), with funding by the USAID Global Development Lab (GDL) and in-kind support from Global Communities (GC), a development NGO from October to December 2015, for the construction of a pilot project of 10 rainwater holding ponds at specific sites in southern Honduras (Cosecha, 2015). The “Cosecha EA,” approved by the GDL BEO in January 2016, was conducted to evaluate the environmental and social economic effects of a research project studying the use of communal rainwater harvesting reservoirs coupled with drip irrigation on 10 sites. A GDL grant to GC was to fund the drip irrigation component of rainwater harvest systems at these 10 sites. Subsequent to completion of that EA, and due to financial difficulties on the part of the agricultural cooperative that was to fund holding pond construction, it became apparent that construction may or may not occur at the 10 original sites evaluated in the Cosecha EA, and that additional/alternative sites might need to be chosen. For additional background on GC’s intended activities see Cosecha EA .In addition to efforts from the GOH, other organizations such as Catholic Relief Service (CRS), the Fundación Vida, Juntas Administradoras de Sistemas de Agua (AHJASA), CARE and others have also implemented similar rainwater harvesting projects in the dry corridor region over the last 6 years.Considering the above, and as a result of field inspections in June 2016, the USAID GDL Bureau Environmental Officer, USAID’s Regional Environmental Advisor (REA) for Central America, and the USAID/Honduras Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) recommended a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) be prepared for rainwater harvest covering Southern and Western Honduras to evaluate the potential environmental and social impacts of construction and operation of the rainwater harvesting holding ponds.

1.1.1. RELATION TO HONDURAS LEGAL REQUIREMENTSThis PEA was developed for USAID/Honduras as a programmatic assessment undertaken to comply with regulations as described in 22 CFR 216. It is not required for compliance with Honduran laws and need not be submitted to the government of Honduras for review. Any subsequently developed site-specific projects prepared with federal funding and tiered to this PEA would require review for compliance with any applicable Honduran laws. It is anticipated this compliance review would be completed during preparation of the project specific Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). This PEA does not supersede any previously approved EA for any site specific projects already evaluated in an EA.

3

2. PURPOSE AND NEEDThe Purpose and Need is developed by contrasting the existing and desired conditions of the project area based on the scope of the scope of the proposal. The key existing and desired conditions listed below were identified based on review of the recently approved Environmental Assessments titled USAID/Global Development Lab A Rainwater Harvesting Project in Southern Honduras (Cosecha, 2015) and USAID/HONDURAS Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Development Objective 2, 2016 (USAID/Honduras, 2016), and others as noted. These conditions do not represent a summary of the overall affected environment, but rather those key elements most relevant to or potentially affected by the proposal. Additional information on broader aspects of the area in general is described in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section of this PEA.

2.1.EXISTING CONDITIONS2.1.1. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

Agricultural use is the primary demand for surface water in Honduras (GWP, 2011).

Where water for irrigation is not available, or is limited, crop production is generally limited to low value crops such corn and beans produced during the winter months. This situation is increasing pressure to develop higher elevation forested lands for coffee production (IDT Field Trip 9-11-2016).

Potential for irrigation is limited due to high costs and lack of permanent water sources.

Without irrigation, farmers typically only produce one crop per year, which can fail due to unpredictable rainfall and/or drought (Global Communities).

The targeted departments of the proposal are considered particularly vulnerable to both drought and flooding, which disproportionately affects those with few economic resources, such as small farmers (Cosecha, 2015 ).

At the national level, the country has 400,000 hectares of irrigable land, but is currently only irrigating 130,000 (SAG, 2014).

Only six percent of the cultivated areas in Honduras are equipped for irrigation of any kind (FAO, 2015).

The continued use of traditional farming methods, combined with the fragmentation of land, causes an accelerated deterioration of soil, forests, and watersheds. Additionally, the low coverage and poor maintenance for irrigation systems suggest that water and land resources are currently not being used efficiently (Cosecha, 2015 ).

Producers and land able to be irrigated by the available surface water and gravity-based systems are constrained by water volume and geography (USAID, 2015b).

2.1.2. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL The Dry Corridor of Honduras is characterized by irregular precipitation

and prolonged periods of extreme heat, called the “canícula” (SERNA, 2014).

During El Niño events, precipitation decreases by 30-40 percent in

4

Southern Honduras, resulting in drought and loss of crops (SERNA, 2014).

Climate models suggest that by mid-century, Western Honduras may be a “hotspot” of magnified climate change stress as compared to other areas of Central America and Mexico, and observational data offer strong indications that seasonal rainfall regimes are changing extremely rapidly over most of Western Honduras, with a marked trend towards wetter conditions (USAID, 2014a).

While there is a trend of increasing precipitation in western Honduras, it results from less frequent, but more intense rainfall events (USAID, 2014a).

5

In response to the effects of climate change on agricultural stability, a number of organizations including the Honduras government, Global Communities, INVEST-H, Catholic Relief Service (CRS), the Fundación Vida, Juntas Administradoras de Sistemas de Agua (AHJASA), CARE and others have also implemented similar rainwater harvesting projects in the dry corridor region over the last 6 years. A full inventory of these efforts does not exist, but is believed to number in the hundreds with sizes ranging from personal use cement tanks storing a few cubic meters of water to reservoirs holding as much as 80,000 m3 of water.

Some of the currently implemented systems are extracting base flows from permanent streams reducing downstream water availability for human uses as well as for the maintenance of riparian habitats and aquatic biota.

There is no existing data on the distribution or abundance of wildlife species outside of established Protected Areas in Honduras. It is believed that overall poor watershed conditions from extensive traditional agricultural practices, fire, land use change, and other human uses has severely degraded the riparian habitat and distribution of aquatic biota. Exacerbating this situation is the difficulty of inventorying these species since they frequently require expert identification who have limited time frames for identification.

2.2. DESIRED CONDITIONS2.2.1. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

In the context of increased demand for food and increased water scarcity, improving agricultural production by increasing crop yields on existing agricultural lands, rather than clearing more land for food production should be considered (FAO, 2009).

Support for effective water planning and water governance to sustainably manage water supply (USAID, 2014a; USAID, 2008/2014b).

Activities are designed so that the poor will acquire the tools to sustainably increase their incomes through improved resource management and human capacity (USAID, 2015a).

Maintain or increase long-run income flows for these populations through the long-term sustainable use of natural resources, including biodiversity (USAID, 2015a).

Sustainably increase the profitability of agro forestry, organic production, value chains and certification of coffee cultivation, with careful expansion of the production area (USAID, 2015a).

The water user groups within the communities are the key organizations for irrigation system investment and operation (USAID, 2015b).

Irrigation:o Drip irrigation is used for effective farming of higher value crops

and more efficient water use (USAID, 2015a).o Drip irrigation is one of three technologies identified by the USAID

Mission in Honduras with the potential to positively contribute to the reduction of poverty, malnutrition and stunting within the geography targeted for investment and impact (USAID, 2015b).

o While drip irrigation is an efficient method of irrigating agricultural crops, irrigation development requires managing tensions with alternative uses for the water, and management and protection of the water source itself and the surrounding watershed (USAID, 2015b).

6

o The potential scaling up opportunity for drip irrigation among the poor and extremely poor and the subsequent estimation of expanded crop production resulting from intensification and diversified irrigated production should be determined by an overlay of a surface water inventory, segmentation of producers and land areas able to be irrigated by that water, and the potential

7

increased crop production resulting from adoption of the technology (USAID, 2015b).

The goals of Global Communities agricultural program in Southern Honduras, including Choluteca, Valle, and the southern sections of Francisco Morazán, el Paraiso and La Paz include:

o Identify crops that are both well-suited to the climate of and have market demand;

o Study and design a rainwater-based conservation and drip irrigation system; and,

o Conduct a technical assessment of the environmental and socio-economic conditions needed to ensure success through a comparative analysis of the outcomes in communities that have a) irrigation with technical assistance, b) only technical assistance, and c) no technical assistance.

2.2.2. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL Promote sustainable water management at the municipal and

community levels (USAID, 2015a). Investment in protecting the watershed is essential to ensure the

irrigation system's long- term sustainability (USAID, 2015b). Honduras Secretary of Agriculture has an overall objective to construct

up to 1,500 ponds / reservoirs as funding allows (SAG Meeting 2/12/2016).

Identify the potential zones to establish rainwater harvesting through the use of technology to complement agricultural irrigation using adaptive methods to strengthen the resilience of livelihoods and ecosystems in response to climate change (SAG, 2014).

The Drought Plan from the SAG Sustainable Family Agriculture Project proposes to build rainwater reservoirs, irrigation systems among farms, develop productive-diversified acres, develop livestock systems where conditions are appropriate, and provide technical assistance.

Increase irrigated cropland by 50,000 hectares in four years at a rate of 6,500 per year (SAG, 2014).

2.3. PURPOSEThe project purpose is to provide a sufficient and sustainable source of water for irrigation to intensify production and productivity of crops on existing cultivated lands, extend crop production cycles, allow for production of higher value crops, improve human nutrition through crop diversity, and enhance the region’s economic and ecological resilience to the impacts of El Niño events and climate change.

2.4. NEEDThe capacity and production of agricultural crops is needed to improve social and economic conditions, especially of the rural poor who are limited by access to water and productive lands. Production is further limited by the increasingly erratic weather patterns including frequency and intensity of storms, as well as drought conditions caused by climate change.

8

3. PROPOSED ACTIONThe Proposed Action is to develop small scale sustainable rainwater harvesting systems for irrigated crop management in Southern and Western Honduras.As a result of additional scoping and interdisciplinary evaluation after the preparation of the published Scoping Statement, the original Proposed Action identified was modified slightly to address new information. These changes are described and analyzed in this PEA as the Modified Proposed Action. The primary changes include the following:

The distinction between ephemeral and intermittent streams was dropped since these conditions are difficult to distinguish in Central American ecosystems where snow melt is not a factor.

The description of project size was refined to more closely reflect the Purpose and Need of the proposal by focusing on systems generally in the range of 10,000-20,000 m3 of storage capacity that would benefit 10-15 farmers irrigating up to approximately 10 hectares total.

Conveyance systems from the source to the reservoir were modified to include either open or closed systems. Open systems would be limited to 100 meters distance.

Conveyance systems to the fields would always be closed system to maintain required pressure for drip irrigation systems.

The project area is located within the area known as the “Dry Corridor” and includes the Departments of Copan, Lempira, Ocotepeque, Santa Barbara, La Paz and Intibucá in the Western portion, and the Southern Departments Valle and Choluteca as well as the southern sections of Francisco Morazán, El Paraiso and La Paz.The Proposed Action is based on an adaptive management approach that would allow for a variety of water source options to be utilized as needed based on site-specific conditions. Water sources may include:

Option A: Capturing surface runoff using natural topographic or man-made features, such as basins, dry ravines ditches, or roads.

Option B: Capturing only peak flows or excess flows from permanent streams.

Option C: Capturing water directly from springs only during rain events and where appropriate ownership and water rights exist.

Water storage types may include:

1. Earthen reservoirs (storage) constructed outside of intermittent flowing drainages.

2. Earthen Reservoirs (storage) constructed within intermittent flowing drainages, but never within permanent streams.

3. Cement, metal or plastic tanks (usually for micro single-user applications only).

The graphic below illustrates the potential components of the Proposed Action which may be utilized based on the evaluation of site-specific conditions.

1

Water Source

A: Rainwater collected from intermittent streams, dry ravines or other natural topographic features where water only flows during rainfall events.B: Rainwater collected directly from permanent streams.C: Water collected directly from a spring.

Storage Location

Conveyance to Storage

Open Ditch System

Closed Pipe System

Earthen Storage

Tank Storage

In-line(Within intermittent source channel)

Off-line(Outside intermittent source channel)

Closed Sytem Conveyance from Reservoir to FieldsClosed System pipe required to maintain pressure for drip system

Irrigation MethodDrip System

FIGURE 1. MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION

1

In general, the size of the reservoirs and associated irrigated lands are only limited by site-specific conditions of available water volume and timing of availability from any of the above sources, suitable cropland, soil types, topography and presence of an organized group of interested farmers. However, projects must also meet consistency requirements of the listed design criteria and mitigations as described below.The primary connected action to the construction of reservoirs is the subsequent agricultural use of the water. These activities will include piping the water from the reservoir to the field using gravity fed systems. Irrigation systems would be designed using drip system technology. Crop selection would be based on site-specific conditions, quantity of water used by each crop, and markets.An additional connected action may include construction of temporary road access for reservoir construction.Site-specific projects that are tiered to this PEA may be developed at any time following normal completion of a site-specific Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) consistent with the requirements developed in the PEA.Based on implementation experience gained from participating partners, literature review and specialist input from the interdisciplinary team, the Proposed Action would include the design criteria and mitigations that are listed in the Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). Specific actions included in the Modified Proposed Action are described in the following tables because they are considered part of the alternative. The EMMP in Annex A includes the detailed methodology for implementing these requirements. The engineering design criteria summarized in Table 1 should be followed as best management and construction practices.TABLE 2. ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIACATEGORY ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING AND

MITIGATIONCOMPONENTS

1

General 1. Construction shall occur only in the dry-season to reduce erosion, avoid damageto access routes, and avoid contractor rain delays, etc.

2. Identify water basin capacity with approved hydrologic methods or models such as those described in the Handbook of Applied Hydrology, VenTe Chow, 1964 McGraw Hill. Page 21-38 and table 21; incorporate reservoir capacity; then evaluate flow rates and flow volumes based on reduced capacity. The post- water harvesting water balance should be used to define environmental limits (present and future) and withdrawal limits. Once established, the hydrologic model can be updated in an ongoing fashion for a given watershed. For any additional reservoirs proposed the same watershed, the hydrology model can be updated to define user capacity and remaining discharge capacity for environmental limits on water harvesting.

3. Site selection may benefit by utilizing the Agri-Tool software developed through USAID and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) to help identify and evaluate possible options for site location.

4. During the planning phase, identify and integrate the spatial aspect and relationship of all users in a drainage system including the size and locations of other reservoirs on those tributaries, and the water rights within the system.

5. Includes review of designs for technical accuracy.6. The project proponent shall be responsible for obtaining all Water

Source: Common

1. Surface runoff directly into a reservoir or above water diversion point shouldrun down land with vegetative cover to minimize sedimentation accumulation in reservoir system. If the catchment zone does

3

TABLE 2. ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIACATEGORY ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING AND

MITIGATIONCOMPONENTSAll Options cover, erosion prevention measures such as construction of

canals, rock walls,and live barriers may be developed.Water

Source: Option A (Surface Runoff ravine or intermittent Stream)

1. When water storage is “off-line”, i.e., (outside of a defined channel), a diversionsystem is constructed that can temporarily divert flow to the reservoir until full, and then be removed to allow normal flows continue through the channel.

2. When water storage is “in-line”, i.e., (within a defined channel), the spillway must be designed to specifications described in item #23 under storage type in the EMMP. In addition, the spillway must be armored.

WaterSource: Option B (Permanent Stream)

1. To assure that only water for peak flows is collected; the mean flow shall beestimated using either the rational formula with intensity equivalent to one year period, or by duplicating the ecological flow defined on the hydroelectric ecological flow guide. This will allow the weir to be calibrated to collect only water above the mean flow. Optional diversion methods would include either a standard diversion weir with pipes at the bottom to allow water to pass up to the ecological flow, or at the base of the natural channel define the height of the water surface for the ecological discharge and construct a lateral weir that allows withdraw of water only above that level.Water

Source: Option C (Spring

1. Withdraw water from the spring only during rain events and within authorizedlimits. In case of severe drought, or if riparian condition monitoring (item #1) indicates measurable changes from baseline, the flows should be rerouted back to the natural Open

Conveyance System

1. Design and construct system to avoid standing water by ensuring constant flowsthrough adequate slopes, and that system is completely dry when not in use.

2. Channels should be lined with mortar and rock unless soil types have low permeability.

3. Reduce lengths to less than 100 meters for easier visual inspection and maintenance to prevent water leakage/waste.

4. Design shall include a sediment basin capable of reducing ClosedConveyance System

1. This option is only recommended when an open system is not feasible due torocks/ridges, distance, topography or other issues that preclude building open channel conveyance.

2. Ensure design and construction includes a review of the design for technical accuracy by a competent professional and verification of construction quality and adherence to the plans and specifications.

3. Provide technical training to user groups in maintenance/repair of the conveyance system.

4. Provide groups with minimum spare parts to initiate project. Pipe materials may require vacuum breaks, they can deteriorate with Storage

Type(Earthen)

1. Maintain water surface area less than one Ha to reduce water loss toevaporation.

2. Reservoir design shall be included an Operation and Maintenance manual.

3. When using cascading reservoirs, drain the highest reservoir first to avoid risk of dam failure of the upper reservoir into the lower reservoir due to increased pressure.

4. Reservoir capacity should be designed for the demand needed, but generally not exceed 20,000 m3. The design should account for infiltration, evaporation, and include a factor of safety for

4


MITIGATIONCOMPONENTSthe selected crops, and actual environmental conditions such as

droughts.5. The dam should be located to minimize height of earth

embankment while achieving required storage and pressure to the irrigation system.

6. Embankment side slopes should be at a minimum ratio of three Horizontal: one Vertical.

7. Alignment/locations of the embankment features should be laid out on the ground in the field before construction begins. Wooden stakes are recommended and may be color coded.

8. No excavation activities of the reservoir shall be closer than 10 meters to the upstream toe of the embankment. See figure 19 of Tech Guide.

9. All the vegetation, rocks and loose soil shall be removed from the footprint of the embankment (clearing and grubbing).

10. Ensure proper core trench (diente) design and construction if included in embankment. See Tech Guide “Design of Dam Embankment”

11. No rocks larger than half the thickness of one lift allowed in the embankment. See Tech Guide Chapter “Construction Methods and Practices”

12. Ensure compaction of embankment fill meets design specifications. The width at the crest of the embankment should be at a minimum 3 meters wide.

13. Embankment seepage is checked in design memorandum.14. Seepage monitoring during first filling of reservoir.15. Identify soil type at the bottom of the reservoir, under the

embankment, and downstream of the embankment.16. After construction, vegetate surface to protect from erosion.17. If the height of the embankment from the downstream toe is

greater than 10 meters, or a dam failure could result in loss of life, (i.e. houses or communities directly downstream of the reservoir) an approved geotechnical design shall be required.

18. Excavations deeper than one meter should be no steeper than a ratio of two Horizontal: one Vertical.

19. If a higher permeability soil is uncovered during construction an infiltration test should be conducted. Reservoir design/capacity should be checked for project requirements. In southern areas, experience indicates that free draining soil can be encountered at depths of 1 meter below existing ground surface.

20. Soil infiltration shall not exceed 10^-6 cm/sec (5mm/day).21. Excavation and embankment volumes shall be calculated during

the design phase to determine amount of off-site fill material required

22. Little to no exposed rock should be present at proposed reservoir location to reduce costs.

23. Include a staff gage to measure water volume in the reservoir to track consumption and availability. A simple vertical board with gradations related to capacity could easily be developed for every reservoir and could be an essential tool for planning environmentally sound withdrawal from streams with farm groups, etc.

24. Spillway is designed to convey overflow without reservoir overtopping (see tech page 29):

a. Shape should be rectangular since it is easy to maintain and

5


MITIGATIONCOMPONENTSspillway at the design flow should not exceed 0.75 m.

e. The spillway location should be specified for construction over undisturbed, natural soil from the side and around the embankment on natural ground rather than over the embankment. If unavoidable, spillways over the dam must be armored. Armoring should extend beyond the dam embankment.

f. Outfall of spillway shall be protected from scour (for example with rock armoring, gabions) depending on available materials. Continue armoring or assure that no scouring velocities develop for at least 10 meters downstream of the earth embankment.

a. 25. An emergency system to empty the reservoir in StorageLocation: In-Line

1. Only use in-line storage under water source option A. In-line storage presentsgreater risk of failure and requires more detail/precise design and construction practices. See spillway and embankment sections above.

2. Monitor daily water volume used, rainfall, and frequency of spillway use to determine the percentage of watershed volume Storage

Location: Off-Line

1. Earthen Dam (Same requirements under Earthen Storage above)2. Tank Storage System

a) May be considered if an earthen reservoir is not feasible.b) Due to high cost, this option is generally limited where

water needs are small (<1,000 m3).Conveyanceto Fields

1. Design assures minimum pressure requirements to operate the irrigation system.

2. Design assures maximum pressure does not exceed conveyance system requirements.Source: SMTN, 2016.

TABLE 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATIONCATEGORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND

MITIGATIONCOMPONENTSWater Flow 1. Monitor and maintain ecological flows in permanent streams

with direct pipingutilizing the guidance in USAID Best Management Practices for Small Hydroelectric Projects (USAID 2012) (See Appendix F).

2. During the planning phase, identify and integrate the spatial aspect and relationship of all users in a drainage system including the size and locations of other reservoirs on those tributaries, and the water rights within the system.

3. Ensure only peak flows are collected when using water source option B.

4. Withdraw water from springs under option C only within Riparian ecosystem conditio

1. Monitor the number and distribution of Non-Native Invasive Species

(NNIS) as indicators of stream health downstream of the diversion.

Water Quality

1. Use only pesticides listed in the most recently approved HondurasPERSUAP.

2. Provide training in proper pesticide application and the requirements of the most recently approved Honduras PERSUAP.

3. Follow application methods and protocols described in the most recently approved Honduras PERSUAP.

6

TABLE 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATIONCATEGORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND

MITIGATIONCOMPONENTSon adjacent non-participant lands.5. Compliance with the listed engineering construction and

operation mitigations.6. Identify an approved site for deposition of excess of

construction material and/or reservoir sediment.7. Prevent excess nutrients and pollutants from entering the

reservoir. Do not spray chemicals or apply fertilizer near, above, or upwind from the pond.

VegetationStructure and Function

1. No projects shall be developed in established protected areas.

2. Avoid removal of permanent vegetation for reservoir construction if avoidance is feasible and practical.

3. Limit agricultural cultivation to areas previously or currently cultivated to ensure no net increase in land use change for agricultural purposes.

4. Provide training for planning and implementation of reforestation in the reservoir watersheds (including Mosquito

Breeding Habitat

1. Maintain short grassy vegetative buffers around the pond.

2. Use top feeding minnows and or fish to reduce or eliminate mosquito larvae.

3. Prevent excess nutrients and pollutants from entering the pond. Do not spray chemicals or apply fertilizer near, above, or upwind from the pond.

4. Prevent livestock from entering the reservoir and degrading the banks of the reservoir.

TABLE 4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATIONCATEGORY SOCIAL ECONOMIC DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION

COMPONENTSCrop Management

1. Provide technical assistance prior to and during operation to support theproducers’ sustained adoption and utilization of the drip irrigation technology. Frequency of training is based on individual group needs assessments.

2. Complete an irrigation system design by qualified technicians that includes all relevant design aspects including topography, soil types, water quality and availability, climatic conditions.

3. Carryout system maintenance to keep irrigation canals free of weeds and trash, reduce effects of sedimentation, and prevent wasteful leaks. Maintenance schedules will be documented in the group operating.

4. Scheduling irrigation based on soil or atmospheric measurements are preferred. An alternative is the development of general interval guides based on historic crop needs. This method is less complicated, but not as efficient as actual moisture measurements.

5. Select a filtration system appropriate to the scale and water conditions for each project.

6. Select crops according to water availability, crop needs and market conditions.

7. Compliance with the Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use

7

TABLE 4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATIONCATEGORY SOCIAL ECONOMIC DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION

COMPONENTS9. Provide technical Assistance and training in production and marketing of high-

value irrigated crops.Participating Groups

1. Assess group dynamics and skills as part of the site selection process. Key factorsto consider include the participants knowledge and understanding of basic agricultural practices, desire and ability to learn new techniques, and ability and desire to work together to achieve the shared objective.

2. Develop a group Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing all operation and maintenance requirements, standards, and procedures. These should include both administrative and operational requirements.

3. Fees collected by water user groups for maintenance and future replacement of their irrigation systems to capitalize an associated caja rural for irrigation members.

4. Such a fee structure may have an initial membership fee to offset the already sunk cost of installation, in addition to water use and/or regular irrigation subscriber fees.

5. Provide technical support to growers in business skills and finance6. Participating group sizes should generally be limited to 10 to 15

participants. Exceptions may occur in situations where demonstrated skills and consensus are well established.

7. Provide support to group participants to promote attitude changes through a facilitated plan to improve core family values.

8. As part of the site selection process, assess community ReservoirNuisances

1. The entire reservoir shall be fenced with at least 3-strand barbed wire or other effect materials to exclude cattle from grazing on any portion of the interior or exterior banks.

2. Technical assistance will include a provision to make the participants aware of potential wildlife concerns and promote community awareness of the need to protect wildlife that use the reservoirs.Communit

yConflicts

1. Require compliance with Honduran laws to validate appropriate land tenure andrights-of-way are established.

2. Pre development community involvement is conducted to educate the potentially affected individuals and develop clear consensus related to participation.

3. If changes in water availability affect system performance requires changes to participants or the system, a re-evaluation of legal compliance and the predevelopment consensus meetings

8

4. ISSUESThe PEA inter-disciplinary team reviewed the issues and corresponding mitigation measures considered in the Cosecha, and Western DO2 EAs. Based on those findings and where possible, previously identified mitigations and partner experience have been incorporated as design criteria in the proposed action and alternatives. No other issues not previously identified, evaluated, or dismissed in this or previous EAs were identified.Based on continued scoping and interdisciplinary review, the issues identified during scoping identified several areas of issue overlap and the need to clarify some of the causes and effects to more effectively consider in the PEA. In addition, while Regulation 216 distinguishes Significant and Non-Significant issues, current USAID LAC guidance is to consider all unresolved conflicts as issues and not make a distinction of significance at the EA level. This allows the EA to evaluate the effects as appropriate and make an overall determination of significance based on all effects analyses. The modified issues are as follows:

ISSUE 1: WATER FLOWSExtracting water from permanent or intermittent stream channels could cause a decrease in the normal flow in the stream course below the reservoir. This could reduce the resilience of downstream riparian ecosystems, habitat, vegetation, fauna, and reduce available water to downstream communities.This issue is primarily relevant during the operation phase. Due to uncertainty of minimum environmental flows required to maintain downstream ecosystems and communities, this issue could be significant depending on the number and location of other interventions upstream or downstream and existing watershed conditions.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of design and mitigation measures to maintain flows at levels that would not affect downstream uses or riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

ISSUE 2: WATER QUALITYConstruction of reservoirs can increase sedimentation of rivers and streams. The use of agrochemicals in irrigated crop systems can produce contamination of soil and water potentially affecting riparian and aquatic biota as well as humans.An increase in agricultural intensity could result in an increase in use of pesticides and other agrochemicals which can produce contamination of soil, downstream water, affecting aquatic biota and humans if not applied and managed appropriately based on PERSUAP guidance and recommendations.The removal of vegetation during the construction of ponds, topsoil stockpiles and roads needed to transport equipment for the construction of reservoirs (especially those with dam heights greater than 5-meters) could produce erosion resulting in sedimentation of area streams.Stream sedimentation could occur during all phases of construction and implementation while agrochemical effects would be limited to the operation phase of projects.

9

Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of design and mitigation measures to reduce sedimentation and potential misuse of agrochemicals.

1

ISSUE 3: CHANGE IN VEGETATION SPECIES, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONThe removal of vegetation during the construction of reservoirs and roads needed to transport equipment for the construction of reservoirs (especially those greater than 5m in depth) could change the distribution, structure, and composition of the vegetation in the area.This issue applies to all phases of implementation and all options.Evaluation Criteria: Sensitivity analysis of potential area of disturbance.

ISSUE 4: MOSQUITO BREEDING SOURCEThe constructed reservoirs could serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes which can cause dengue, chikungunya, and more recently Zika, which causes microcephaly and malformations in babies born to mothers who have had Zika.This issue applies to the operation phase of all options. There are numerous documented methods for controlling mosquito larvae (WHO, 1982).The most common biological method is the inclusion of preferably native fish species; or non-native species, such as tilapia, are often utilized. Additionally, reduction of vertical vegetation is used to control mosquito larvae.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of design and mitigation measures to reduce potential increase in mosquito breeding habitat.

ISSUE 5: RISK OF DAM FAILUREImproper design or construction of dams could result in serious flooding causing the loss of lives, infrastructure and/or cropland if the dam weakens and fails due to either improper construction or natural events such as flooding or earthquakes.This issue applies to the operation phase of all options, but primarily reservoirs with dam heights greater than five-meters in height at the downstream toe.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of design criteria and mitigation measures.

ISSUE 6: WATER LOSS TO EVAPORATIONHigh temperatures and dry conditions in the southern dry corridor could result in a high rate of evaporation in the reservoirs causing a reduction in the quantity of water available for irrigation and salinization of the water in the reservoir.This issue applies to the operation phase of all options.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of design criteria to reduce water loss.

ISSUE 7: RESERVOIR NUISANCESReservoirs can attract cattle and local fauna looking for drinking water as well as local public that inappropriately use the reservoirs. Cattle can degrade vegetation needed for dike protection and result in bank destabilization and erosion. Local wildlife may be exposed to hunting or capture by the local residents. Reservoirs can also present a threat to public safety from drowning if access and use is not controlled.

1

This issue applies to the operation phase of all options. Inclusion of fencing as part of project design has proven effective in reducing impacts of grazing and watering of cattle at reservoir sites.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of mitigation measures.

ISSUE 8: COMMUNITY AND USER CONFLICTSSystem development could create conflict between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, as well as conflicts among users if changes to water availability occur that either expand or reduce system size.This issue applies to both the planning and operation phase of all options.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of mitigation measures.

ISSUE 9: PARTICIPATING GROUP MANAGEMENTIf clear operating guidance is not established and followed by participating groups, the effectiveness of water use has proven to be problematic frequently leading to project failure.This issue applies to the operation phase of all options.Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of group operating guidelines design criteria.

ISSUE 10: IRRIGATED CROP AND WATER MANAGEMENTActions associated with the cultivation of irrigated crops can lead to inefficient use of water, sedimentation, reduced productivity and economic benefits if not planned and operated correctly.

Evaluation Criteria: General discussion of the potential social and economic effects resulting from increased agricultural intensity through the use of irrigated crops.

ISSUE 11: LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LIVELIHOODSIrrigation has the potential to help lift poor and extremely poor households out of poverty. The effects of the proposed action on local economies are expected to be beneficial. Benefits would be realized not only for the participating producers, but also the community at large through associated availability of diversified food sources, and direct and indirect employment.This issue applies to the operation phase of all options. In most cases social and economic changes would not likely be measurable even at the community level except for very small rural villages. The potential for varied combinations of crops and multiple production seasons creates complexity in quantifying the effects. This issue is not significant based on the limited context and intensity of the proposed action.Evaluation Criteria: General discussion of the potential social and economic effects resulting from increased agricultural intensity through the use of irrigated crops.

1

5. ALTERNATIVESThis section describes the alternatives considered and provides a tabular comparison of key elements and effects. There were three alternatives considered in detail, and three alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study.

5.1. ALTERNATIVE 1, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVECurrent traditional agricultural practices, both irrigated and non-irrigated would continue to be used. The Honduran Government, as well as multiple NGOs would likely continue to promote rainwater harvesting and a variety of irrigation and crop management techniques. While these non-US funded projects are extremely beneficial, well designed and implemented, they have not been considered collectively on a programmatic basis for potential cumulative effects, or consistently monitored.The USAID-ACCESO project has provided production extension assistance to thousands of the poor and extremely poor over the past 3.5 years, and approximately 5,000 have gained access to irrigation. The USAID-ACCESO project has completed approximately 150 systems for a total of over 1,600 hectares under irrigation. These systems utilize on average approximately 3.5 km of water conduction using direct piping without reservoirs.The Secretary of Agriculture (SAG) has constructed 192 reservoirs since 2014. Sizes have varied widely with some of the larger reservoirs capable of storing over 50,000 m3 of water, but based on experience they are moving towards capacities in the 30,000 to 40,000 m3 range. The SAG has stated their objective is to implement 1,500 nationally, but this is a budget dependent objective and actual projects would likely be substantially less.The Government of Honduras through INVEST-H has an objective of constructing 18 reservoir based irrigation systems in the Dry Corridor. These reservoirs also trend to larger systems up to 50,000 m3.Global Communities has constructed three systems and have plans to implement 23 by the end of 2017. These reservoir based systems generally store between 10,000 to 20,000 m3 of water and provide irrigation water to 10-15 families each. They are focused on only capturing surface flows rather than water from permanent streams.A variety of other less intensive and smaller scale projects are also on-going in the Dry Corridor such as those implemented by the Catholic Relief Services. While these on-going non-USAID funded projects would not be required to incorporate the design and mitigations of the action alternatives, they are still required to comply with current Honduran environmental and water laws. It should be noted that these and other projects and programs similar in nature would likely continue to be implemented even if federal funding is not used.

5.2. ALTERNATIVE 2, MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTIONRefer to Section 3: Modified Proposed Action for a description of this alternative.

5.3. ALTERNATIVE 3, NO WATER STORAGE SYSTEMThis alternative was developed to reduce the potential risk of dam failure and associated impacts of reservoirs including mosquito breeding sources, and reservoir construction costs. It utilizes direct piping from permanent streams without the use of reservoirs. This alternative would include all mitigations

1

from Alternative 2 except those related to the planning, design, construction and operation of reservoirs. This alternative would allow for water extraction from the base flows, but would require the maintenance of ecological flows based on guidance developed by USAID for small hydroelectric projects in Honduras (Honduras, 2012) and summarized in Annex F.

1

Under this alternative water diversion structures would be constructed at the stream and direct piping using materials designed for the specific conditions and application would be used to transport water to the fields for irrigation. The most commonly used materials would be PVC or flexible conduit, but others may be used based on site-specific terrain and cost objectives.Distance of water conduction is only limited by topography needed to maintain pressure, cost of materials, and ability to acquire rights-of-ways from water source to fields. Past projects using this approach have averaged 3.5 km per system.

5.4. ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED FROM DETAILED STUDYA variety of alternative methods for developing water sources and managing irrigated crops were considered. The following alternatives are recommended for dismissal from detailed study in the PEA because they are inconsistent with one or more components of the Purpose and Need as described below.

1) Use of sprinkler or flood irrigation system. In a region with high evaporation potential and a possible 10-20 percent decrease in precipitation by 2050, the use of sprinklers combined with reservoirs would not represent the most efficient use of water (Cosecha, 2015 ).

2) Groundwater pumping. Very little comprehensive data exist for groundwater resources and aquifer volume and extent in Central America, which presents significant challenges for use and management of groundwater resources (Ballestero, Reyes, and Astorga, 2007). A limited study of groundwater in Choluteca found that the hydrogeology of the region is complex due to fractures related to a fault line in the underlying bedrock. The study’s results did not clearly indicate whether groundwater could flow across an existing fault line. Groundwater in the region occurs in the bedrock and alluvium, although the study results indicated marginal flow from test wells (from 80-155 ft below ground surface) in both the bedrock and the alluvium (USAID 2002). Additional test sites in the Choluteca flood plain indicated the alluvial deposits there do not yield sufficient supplies for municipal purposes and would not be an adequate source for agricultural purposes. The limited data from the region indicate a high level of uncertainty related to groundwater availability. If this alternative were pursued, extensive hydro-geological studies of each proposed site would need to be undertaken to assure sufficient flow for irrigation purposes (Cosecha, 2015).

3) Intensification of agriculture through land use conversion. Developing water sources and expanding cropland where existing lands are in permanent cover could change the distribution, structure and composition of the vegetation in the area.

4) Dam Construction directly in permanent stream courses. The construction of dams directly in permanent stream courses would present an excessive level of complexity with respect to construction and evaluation of effects on ecological flows and riparian habitats. Dams can create significant changes in natural sediment flows as well as reducing available storage capacity from captured sediment. In addition, this approach would not fully meet the Purpose and Need with respect to adapting to climate change since it would rely entirely on modifying

1

existing permanent water sources.

1

5.5. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONThe following table summarizes some of the key components of each alternative. For a complete list of all design measures and mitigations refer to Annex A

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF KEY ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSKEY COMPONENTS

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION:

ALTERNATIVE 2:MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 3:NO WATER STORAGEObjectives Continued

implementationby a variety of implementers without USAID specified design criteria or funding. Scoping indicates that hundreds of systems of all sizes have been constructed or are planned throughout the dry corridor.

Scoping indicates a wide- variety of objectives would continue to drive the implementation of irrigation development.

No consistently developed and applied mitigation

Provide improved waterreliability during rainy season and the potential to at least extend cultivation season to add an additional crop cycle.

Includes a coordinated suite of design criteria and mitigations required to reduce, avoid or minimize potential environmental effects and ensure efficient water use.

In addition to design criteria, projects would include technical assistance in the operation and maintenance of the reservoir and irrigation

Same as Alternative 2,but designed to eliminate the concern of dam failure, spread of mosquitoes, and to varying degrees cost.

MitigationMeasures

Not specified. Scopingindicates a variety of NGO’s and government agencies are supporting water use for irrigation. These efforts incorporate varying

A wide variety of mitigationmeasures are included to reduce, avoid or minimize effects of the proposed actions. These include measures incorporated in the planning, design,

Mitigations would bethe same as Alternative 2 except the mitigations for water storage would not be applicable.

Water Source

Not specified. Scopingindicates a wide-variety of sources would continue to be used.

One of the currently used water sources is from permanent streams.However, scoping indicates that users are extracting water year- round and are likely below base

Option A: Surface rainwater collected in basin collection areas, gullies, or intermittent streams.

Option B: Permanent Streams only extracting surplus rain water above base flow.

Option C: Water obtained directly at spring source location

Option A: Notapplicable without water storage system.

Option B: Permanent Streams but not limited to surplus rainwater flows only. This option would require compliance to maintain minimum ecological flows

1




ALTERNATIVE 3:NO WATER STORAGEThese systems

arerequired by law to maintain a minimum 10% flow, but no monitoring

Option C: Same as Alternative 2

WaterConveyance (to Storage and to fields)

Not specified. Scopingindicates a wide-variety of conveyance systems would continue to be used.

Open channel canals orclosed pipe using appropriate materials for the designed application from source to storage may be used depending on site- specific conditions.

Open systems would generally be less than 100 meters in length and would be cement lined to reduce infiltration and facilitate maintenance.

Only closed systems

Direct closed systempiping to fields using the most appropriate materials for the designed application.

Storage Type

Not specified. Scopingindicates earthen storage types are the most common type except for very small applications where cement tanks have been used.

1.Earthen dams.

2.Storage in Metal, Cement or Plastic Tanks. These may be either above or below ground. Storage capacity limited by tank size and cost which can be modified by the number of tanks. These systems would generally only

No storage.

Storage Size

Storage size is only limitedby site-specific physical conditions, water availability, developer objectives and ability to comply with Honduran environmental laws.

Scoping indicates that system sizes can generally be grouped into three categories. 1) micro storage that

Specific storage size islimited by site-specific physical conditions, water availability, ability to comply with all PEA design criteria and implementing partner objectives.

As a general rule, reservoir size should be limited to dam heights less than six meters at the downstream toe and provide water storage of approximately

No storage

1




ALTERNATIVE 3:NO WATER STORAGEstorage capacities less

than15,000 m3 and serving small groups of less than 15 farmers; and 3) large systems with dam heights greater than 6 meters and capacities of up to

in a series of smallerreservoirs to increase overall capacity.

Tank storage size is limited by costs and capacity of each tank. Multiple tanks may be Storage

LocationNot specified. Scopingindicates existing systems occur both within natural rainwater collection basins and outside of stream channels.

Earthen storage could occurwithin natural basin collection areas, or outside of permanent stream channels. No dams would be constructed directly within permanent stream channels.

Tanks could be

No storage

System Access

Not specified. Scopingindicates that system access is driven by location and size. Systems located near areas currently being farmed and designed for small applications generally require less road construction for access.Larger systems using heavy equipment

Only temporary accessroads needed for construction access of small equipment would be allowed.

Access routes would be restored to preconstruction conditions following use.

Only temporaryaccess roads needed for construction access of small equipment would be allowed.

Access routes would be restored to preconstruction conditions Irrigation

SystemNot specified. Scopingindicates a variety of systems including flood, sprinkler and drip

Gravity fed drip system.

Gravity fed dripsystem.

CropManagement

Not specified. Scopingindicates a wide range of crops and crop management practices would continue to be used.

Larger projects currently being planned and implemented are generally limited to 10 hectares of cropland to comply with Honduran

Groups of approximately 10-15 participants wouldcultivate approximately 10 hectares of cropland.

Technical assistance provided to help producers learn to cultivate higher value crops to increase crop diversity and incomes.

Technical assistance provided to improve

Same as Alternative 2.

1




ALTERNATIVE 3:NO WATER STORAGEto more than 50 soil conservation

participants. trenching, green mulching, cover crops,

In many cases, even others as available water frequently continue to Use of agro-chemicals cultivate traditional be consistent with the rather than higher USAID PERSUAP.ones without technicalassistance.

Use of Agro-chemicalswould not be as described in the USAID PERSUAP.

Source: SMTN, 2016.

2

6. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Consistent with 22 CFR 216(6)(c)(4) this section describes the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration and the environmental consequences required by 22 CFR 216.6c(3).

Reg 216.6(c)3 -The Environmental Assessment shall succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The descriptions shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in the Environmental Assessment shall be commensurate with the significance of the impact with less important material summarized, consolidated or simply referenced.Reg 216.6(c)4-This section of the Environmental Assessment should include discussions of direct effects and their significance; indirect effects and their significance; possible conflicts between the proposed action and land use plans, policies and controls for the areas concerned; energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures; natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various requirements and mitigation measures; urban quality; historic and cultural resources and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures; and means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.

6.1. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEWThe overall affected environment of the area is described in detail in the Cosecha Environmental Assessment (Cosecha, 2015) and the Programmatic Environmental Assessment DO2 (USAID/Honduras, 2016).The analysis area includes the southern dry corridor (Departments of Valle and Choluteca) and in the western dry corridor (Departments of Copan, Lempira, Ocotepeque, Santa Barbara, La Paz and Intibuca).

6.1.1. LIVELIHOODS IN THE WESTERN DRY CORRIDORWestern Honduras has some of the highest rates of male employment in the country. Over 50 percent of the men employed in Copán, Intibucá, Lempira, and Ocotepeque work in agriculture (SS, INE, and ICF International, 2013).Maize and beans, and to a lesser extent sorghum, are the principal basic grains that households grow for food and nutrition security. The most economically profitable crop is coffee, followed by horticultural crops, notably lettuce and potato.Figure 2 presents the livelihood zones in western Honduras.

2

FIGURE 2. LIVELIHOOD ZONES IN WESTERN HONDURAS

Source: Western DO2 PEA, 2016

6.1.2. LIVELIHOODS IN THE SOUTHERN DRY CORRIDORLivelihoods in the southern dry corridor are substantially different than the livelihoods in the western dry corridor. Fishing and shrimp culture, both artisanal and commercial, are the principal livelihoods of the coastal residents. Salt production is also an important source of income in the coastal zone.On the interior coastal plains basic grains including corn and beans are grown for subsistence. Melons and vegetables are grown commercially and are an important source of income.Cattle are also raised in the deforested areas.Figure 3 presents the livelihood zones in southern Honduras.

2

FIGURE 3. LIVELIHOOD ZONES IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016

6.1.3. ECOREGIONS IN WESTERN HONDURASThe ecoregions in western Honduras are characterized by forest. Figure 3 shows the World Wildlife Fund ecoregion classifications (with Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-The Nature Conservancy [FAO-TNC] designations in parenthesis):

montane forest (tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf), moist forest (tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf), pine-oak forest (tropical and sub-tropical coniferous), dry-forest (tropical and sub-tropical broadleaf).

These ecosystems, however, have been substantially disrupted in some areas and are now characterized by high-mountain grassland and agricultural uses.

2

FIGURE 4. ECOREGIONS IN WESTERN HONDURAS


6.1.4. ECOREGIONS IN SOUTHERN HONDURASThe primary ecoregions in Valle and Choluteca are pine-oak forest, dry forest, and Pacific mangroves (Central American Pacific Dry Forests (CAPD) is characterized by an extensive (five to eight months) dry season and a semi-deciduous, two-story forest structure. CAPD serve as an inter-continental migratory route for many endemic species of fauna of the region. This ecoregion in Honduras comprises an area of 5,703 km2. These forests serve as the wintering grounds for many migratory bird species and contain endangered populations of various fauna.

2

FIGURE 5. ECOREGIONS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016

6.1.5. LAND USE IN WESTERN HONDURASWhile nearly half of Honduras’ land is forested, the agricultural sector takes up a large portion of Honduras’ land use.Though Honduras is well suited for agriculture, as recently as the mid-1980s less than half of the country’s cultivable land was planted with crops. Most was used for pastures or was forested and owned by the government or banana corporations. Meanwhile, much of the land within the ecoregions (Caribbean Mangroves, Moist Forests, Dry Forests, Montane Forests, Pine Oak Forests, Pacific Mangroves, and Meskito Pine Forests) has been significantly deforested for commercial and subsistence agriculture (Churchill and Dobrowolski, 2002).The percentage of land used for agriculture in Honduras is currently 12.98 percent of the total surface area of the country. This percentage is divided into arable land (9.07 percent) and permanent crops (3.91 percent). Irrigated land in Honduras covers an area of 875.5 km2, while lands used for other purposes represent 87.02 percent of the country’s area (CIA, 2015).Figure 6 presents the forest cover and land use for Western Honduras.

2

FIGURE 6. LAND COVER AND LAND USE FOR WESTERN HONDURAS (2012)


Western Honduras is slightly less forested than the national average, with 36.94 percent of the land designated as forest. There is severe deforestation pressure, especially on deciduous forest and coniferous forest above 1800 meters (where coffee is typically grown). These high-elevation forests contain several threatened or endangered species, and face further danger with the rapid increase of coffee cultivation. Deforestation and encroachment on protected areas can be seen as the red dots in Figure 5, which indicate a change in land cover from undeveloped land to developed land between 2001 and 2012. Limitations do exist to using satellite data for land use change analysis, however. For example, land use change from forest to grasslands can be classified with greater precision than a change from virgin forest to shade grown coffee. Figure 6 also shows some afforestation (conversion from grasslands to forest), which may indicate a transition to agro forestry, including share-grown coffee. Between 2014 and 2015, coffee exportation increased by 21 percent (ICF, 2014; Ordonez, 2015). The extent to which this is shade grown versus open canopy coffee has substantial implications for limiting the degradation of forest ecosystems.

6.1.6. LAND USE IN SOUTHERN HONDURASThe departments of Valle and Choluteca are characterized by croplands and woody savannahs with minimal forest cover, which decreased between 2001

2

and 2012 (see Figures 6 and 7).

2

FIGURE 7. LAND USE IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016.The following table summarizes the categories of land use for each department. This information was collected through ESNACIFOR (National School of Forest Sciences) in 2009.Although the department of Choluteca is the fourth largest in territory it has the least forest coverage and is the most at risk to impacts from climate change as well as contributing to the environmental effects described in Issues 1, 2, and 3. All departments except for Santa Barbara, and La Paz have comparatively large amounts of agricultural land use and forested cover below 80%.

2

TABLE 6. LAND USE SUMMARY

DEPARTMENT

COPÁN INTIBUCÁ LA PAZ

LEMPIRA OCOTEPEQUE CHOLUTECA SANTA BÁRBARA

TOTAL

Area (ha) 409,800

485,070 400,638

590,663 271,898 437,604 719,449 64,824Fisheries 8,775 127,779CommercialAgriculture 350 250 1,950 150 524 47,108 3,400 240,104General

Agriculture 145,112

101,434 60,912 156,083 80,059 221,930 106,620 432,706Urban Areas 300 50 150 100 725 865,412Mangroves 21,343 1,730,824Deciduous

Forest 138,002

102,650 27,543 160,280 89,573 8,512 357,761 3,461,647Mixed Forest 6,373 5,655 5,450 8,975 3,727 1,869 15,453 6,923,294Dense Pine

Forest 45,217 107,990 118,584

101,073 61,849 11,417 66,825 13,781,765Thin Pine

Forest 17,800 114,647 125,776

75,266 22,509 29,605 26,586 27,435,752

Dry Forest 50 13,131 54,631,400Water 248 8,525 108,830,0

94Shrubs 56,647 52,343 60,273 88,836 13,558 72,942 134,279 216,794,777FOREST

AREA%

64% 79% 84% 74% 70% 36% 84% 72%Source: SMTN, 2016 using data from ICF, 2009.

6.1.7.BIODIVERSITY AND PROTECTED AREAS IN WESTERN HONDURASThe Western Region has 23 out of 51 ecosystems found throughout the country (USAID, 2014b). Two types of ecosystems that are not found in other regions of the country are found in the Western region: sub-montane broadleaf evergreen seasonal forest (in the Copan valley) and remnants of dry forests (deciduous shrub lands and semi-deciduous forests) mainly located in the valleys of Jesus de Otoro, La Paz, Quimistán, Santa Barbara, Sesecapa and Sensenti (House and Midence, 2007).The Honduran ecosystems richest in endemic species are the dry forests and the cloud forests. The western region has both types of ecosystems and therefore the number of endemic species in the region is high for both amphibians and plants (USAID, 2013).The region reports a total of 36 plant species endemic to Honduras, one species co-endemic with El Salvador, one endemic to Central America, and three endemic to the Mesoamerican region. Four amphibian species endemic to Honduras are reported in the western region as well as another four co-endemic with Guatemala and El Salvador, all of them (8) with very small populations and under critically endangered condition according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, which means that they are at an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. In the group of birds, the region stands out by the presence of the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird (Amazilialuciae), the only endemic bird species to Honduras,

2

critically endangered according to IUCN Red List, and reported in the buffer zone of Celaque National Park and other sites in the region but outside protected areas boundaries (in the department of Santa Barbara). Additionally, pine-oak forests of the western region serve as winter

3

habitat for Golden Cheeked Warbler (Dendroicachrysoparia), a migratory bird that is endangered according to the IUCN Red List (SERNA, 2008) and facing a very high risk of extinction or decline of wild populations. In western Honduras this species is mainly reported outside protected areas within Intibucá department (USAID, 2013).A total of 771 species of birds can be found in Honduras. Migratory birds make up roughly 25 percent of the total. Migratory birds typically arrive from August to October and return north in March or April. Birds are the most numerous of the vertebrate species in Honduras and can be found in a large range of habitats including cloud forests, rain forests, deciduous forests, coniferous forests, scrub forests riparian habitats, and lakes and lagoons. They consume a wide range of food types including seeds, insects, fruits and carrion. Birds are responsible for controlling a wide range of insects, including those crop pests. They can also however, also consume large quantities of farmer seed crops. Seed crop eaters include blackbirds and grackles which can arrive in large numbers and decimate some crops. Large birds including hawks, eagles, vultures and falcons can be killed by wind generating equipment (Thorn, 2015).To protect Honduras’ biological richness, its cultural heritage, and many ecosystems services that undeveloped land offer, the government has established the Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Honduras (SINAPH).These protected areas are defined as areas set-aside by law for the purposes of conservation, protection of natural resources, and protection of cultural resources. Geographic, anthropologic, biotic, social and economic factors help determine whether or not a site is designated as a protected area. Figure 9 presents the protected areas in Western Honduras.

3

FIGURE 8. PROTECTED AREAS IN WESTERN HONDURAS


6.1.8. BIODIVERSITY AND PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Honduras has a rich biodiversity in the coastal mangrove forests and coastal lagoons. The Ramsar site (Habitat Management Area in Figure 10) was established to conserve the biodiversity found in the Ramsar site (see section on Ecosystem Services).Biodiversity in the interior is much reduced. Iguanas still can be found, but are hunted as food and sold by local inhabitants.

3

FIGURE 9. PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016.

6.1.9. WATER RESOURCES IN WESTERN HONDURASThe 2014 Evaluation of Natural Hydrological Resources indicates that western Honduras generally experiences low surface water and groundwater recharge rates, and a high evaporation potential (SERNA, 2014). Furthermore, studies indicate groundwater is only abundantly available in lowlands in the north of the country, where the water table generally is not significantly reduced, although it can drop a few meters in the dry season. In the central and southern zones, the water table can drop several meters between November and April. The absolute level of water table reduction increases as one moves further south, significantly decreasing the yield of the wells. In hilly and mountainous regions, scattered springs dry seasonally (Environmental Status Report of Honduras, 2000).

3

FIGURE 10. MAJOR RIVERS AND WATERSHEDS IN WESTERN HONDURAS


The water potential is uneven across the six departments. The more northern departments such as Copán and Santa Barbara may have more water resources, with as many as 60 to 80 percent of the poor and extremely poor with the potential to benefit from irrigation. La Paz and Intibuca have areas where there may be less surface water available in the driest seasons. Gravity-fed systems from existing surface water sources may not cover as many producers with drip irrigation, even though drip irrigation is an extremely efficient irrigation method (USAID, 2015b).

6.1.10. WATER RESOURCES IN SOUTHERN HONDURASThere are five watersheds in Southern Honduras, the Goascoran River Basin, the Nacaome River Basin, the Choluteca River Basin, the Coco River Basin and the Rio Negro Basin (see Figure 13).

3

FIGURE 11. WATERSHEDS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016.

6.2. LEGAL FRAMEWORKThe General Water Law established a decentralized National Water Authority to replace the DGRH which is currently functioning as the Water Authority. The National Water Authority will regulate and provide oversight of water sector institutions (GoH, 2009).Under the Water Framework Law, municipalities are responsible for water provision subject to national water policy as governed by the National Water and Sanitation Council (CONASA) and regulated by the Potable Water and Sanitation Regulatory Agency (ERSAPS). CONASA is responsible for planning, financing and developing strategy and norms, while ERSAPS is responsible for sector regulation and control (GoH, 2009).Additional water sector institutions include:

1. The General Directorate of Water Resources (DGRH), made obsolete by the General Water Law (2009), granted water concessions for use of water outside of potable water supply and sanitation sectors, which is under SERNA. DGRH will be replaced by the National Water Authority.

2. The Department of Irrigation and Drainage is responsible for the guidance, planning, regulation, and monitoring of the integrated management of irrigation and drainage.

3. The General Directorate for Impact Assessment and Environmental

3

Control (DECA) and the Centre for the Study and Control of Contaminants (CESCCO), which is under SERNA, are responsible for addressing environmental problems and pollution.

4. The Department of Public Works, Transport and Housing (SOPTRAVI) is responsible for

3

flood control, drainage and land reclamation.

5. The National Autonomous Service of Aqueducts and Sewerage Service (SANAA) provides technical assistance to municipalities. Prior to implementation of the Water Framework Law, SANAA provided piped water and sewer services throughout the country.

6. The National Electricity Company (ENEE) oversees energy development and hydroelectric projects.

In rural areas, the Water Management Board (JAA) controls water use. The boards are controlled by regulations and supported with technical and administrative assistance by SANAA, which also operates many of the urban water and sanitation systems (FAO, 2000; GoH 2009).

6.3. EFFECTS SUMMARY BY ISSUEThe effects descriptions as required by 20 CFR 216.6(3)(c)4 are discussed in the context of the issues identified during scoping. The effects described in this section are based on the assumption that all design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective. It is further assumed that monitoring would identify situations where measures have not been implemented or effective and corrective action would be taken and would limit the duration of any adverse effects.At the programmatic level where site-specific proposals have not yet been identified, cumulative effects are not possible to quantify. This document describes the general effects that could occur and the factors that would influence cumulative effects. Mitigations require future proposals to consider cumulative effects based on actual site-specific conditions at the time of the proposal.

6.3.1. ISSUE: WATER FLOWSExtracting water from permanent stream channels could cause changes in normal stream flows below the reservoir. Extracting surface flows would reduce water below the reservoir. This could reduce the resilience of downstream riparian ecosystems, habitat, vegetation, fauna, and reduce available water to downstream communities.In contrast to dams and reservoirs that store water and sustain releases, diversions remove a specified volume of flow from a stream channel as needed. Diversions include permanent or temporary structures designed to divert water to ditches, canals, or storage structures.The effects of diversions on the flow regime depend on the quantity and timing of the diversion (Bradford and Heinonen, 2008). Although the largest diversions by volume occur during storm events, a greater proportion of flow is generally removed during low-flow periods, when plants and wildlife are already under stress. Although diversions result in an immediate decrease in downstream flow magnitude, some of the diverted water may eventually return to the stream as irrigation return flow or point-source dischargeClimate change is an important and complex source of flow alteration because of the broad geographic extent of its effects and the lack of management options for direct mitigation at the watershed scale. Recent climate trends have included rising ambient air and water temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather such as heavy precipitation events, increased intensity of

3

droughts, and longer growing seasons, all of which are expected to continue in the coming years and decades (Karl and others, 2009).Specific biological effects of a given type of flow alteration vary by location and degree of alteration; however, some generalities can be made. Literature summarizing biological responses to altered flows, compiled and reviewed by Bunn and Arthington (2002) include studies showing overall reductions in the abundance and diversity of fish and macro invertebrates, excessive growth of aquatic macrophytes, reduced growth of riparian vegetation, and shifts in aquatic and riparian species composition.

3

The relations among variables such as flow, temperature, habitat features, and biology are key in controlling species distribution (Zorn and others, 2008). Water temperature is an associated hydrologic characteristic and has a particularly strong effect on aquatic organisms in summer months, when stream flows are lowest and temperatures are highest (Brett, 1979). Increases in water temperature that result from alterations such as withdrawals, especially during critical summer low flow periods, can have detrimental biological effects.The most severe of alterations, the complete dewatering of a perennial stream or river, can result in complete extirpation of aquatic species in those water bodies. In addition to directly contributing to impairments through physical changes (hydrologic, geomorphic, and connectivity change), hydrologic alteration may also be the underlying source of other impairments such as low dissolved oxygen, modified thermal regimes, increased concentrations of sediment, and nutrients or toxic contaminants.Although low flows serve a critical role in ecosystem function, current scientific research indicates that flow criteria ideally should support the natural flow regime as a whole, and that criteria for minimum flow alone (that is, a single minimum discharge value or a minimum passing flow) are not sufficient for maintaining ecosystem integrity (Annear et. al., 2004). Minimum flow criteria do not address the full range of seasonal and interannual variability of the natural flow regime in most rivers and streams.Rolls identified the frequency, magnitude, duration, timing, and spatial extent of flow events as universal drivers of ecological integrity in riverine ecosystems and apply to events of both high- and low-flow magnitude (Rolls, 2012).

First, low flows control the extent of physical aquatic habitat, thereby affecting the composition of biota, trophic structure, and carrying capacity.

Second, low flows mediate changes in habitat conditions and water quality, which in turn, drive patterns of distribution and recruitment of biota.

Third, low flows affect sources and exchange of material and energy in riverine ecosystems, thereby affecting ecosystem production and biotic composition.

Last, low flows restrict connectivity and diversity of habitat, thereby increasing the importance of refugia and driving multi-scale patterns in biotic diversity.

These principles do not operate in isolation, and many of the ecological pathways that are affected by low flows are likely to overlap or occur simultaneously, potentially resulting in cumulative effects.Increased duration of low flow or absence of flow has been associated with change and decreased species richness of macro invertebrate assemblages (Larned et al. 2007). Therefore, increased duration of moderate low flow may have more significant ecological consequences than a short period of severe low flow.Rivers that experience frequent and regular periods of low flows are likely to support biota that are capable of persisting through low-flow disturbances (of durations typically experienced) and show only subtle or short-term changes in response to each low-flow event. In contrast, rivers that rarely experience

3

ecologically critical low-flow magnitudes are likely to support a greater proportion of taxa with life-history traits that are unsuited to survival under conditions of low flow and show more significant effects of individual low-flow events (Rolls, 2012).Low flows occur over a range of spatial scales, from river reaches that are hundreds of meters long to entire river networks. Within networks, low flows may occur in headwaters, mid-reaches, and lowland reaches (Lake 2003), or any possible combination of these regions. The spatial extent of low flows will affect the range and type of ecological responses to them.

4

Abstraction of surface water from unregulated rivers produces artificial drought (Boulton 2003), with reduced magnitude and increasing frequency and duration of low-flow events. Urbanization, agriculture, and forestry are the primary drivers of flow-regime change in many rivers (Poff et al. 1997) and have direct effects on low-flow hydrology.At the catchment-scale, elevated temperatures and decreased rainfall will result in decreased average runoff, thereby decreasing magnitude and increasing the frequency and duration of low- flow periods (Poff et al. 1997). Increased frequency and duration of low flows have occurred or are predicted to occur under climate change scenarios in tropical and temperate regions (Chiew and McMahon 2002).Fish, salamanders, frogs and aquatic invertebrates are among the most affected fauna because they live directly within the Water Influence Zone and have limited ranges. They can die if deprived of water even for a few days or a week for fish and species that cannot survive without moisture. Breeding of salamanders, fish and frogs could stop because the eggs of these species need water to develop. Almost half of the species of frogs and salamanders in Honduras are endemics (42 of the 111 species of salamanders and frogs are endemics) due in part, to their lack of mobility and small home range) (SERNA, n.d.). This means that when a stream dries up they cannot migrate to another stream or body of water. If the aquatic fauna dies, the food chain and ecosystem may be changed and lead to the disappearance of other species (for example, snakes which feed on aquatic amphibians and fish.The composition of the riparian vegetation which forms part of the habitat and local stream ecosystem can also be affected when flows are stopped or flow is reduced. The interruption or decrease of stream flow will cause a shift from hydric to mesic plants and can cause an increase in the number of annuals plant species and a decrease in the number of perennials. Canopy cover can be reduced (Stromberg, Lite and Dixon, 2009)The alteration and change in composition of the flora in the riparian vegetation can affect the fauna that depend on this vegetation, especially herbivores and nectar feeders including insects (bees are especially important), birds and bats. Birds and bats also pollinate many plants.ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative continued land use changes, agricultural and forestry activities would continue to alter frequency, and volume of water flows throughout the analysis area. These effects will continue to occur under all alternatives. While the government of Honduras has a water law in place, it is struggling with effective implementation. This situation is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.Under Alternative 2 (Option A), since only surface runoff is taken, and usually will not exceed 10% of water volume, the effect on downstream riparian ecosystems, habitat, vegetation, fauna is expected to be negligible. This option would not have direct impacts on permanent stream, river, or spring flows since there is no direct capture from stream base flows. While water would be removed from the overall system, there would not be any measurable indirect effects to the overall system. This alternative would not result in measurable impacts to downstream habitats and reservoirs could create new habitat for wildlife outside of nearby streams.Under Alternative 2 (Option B), as long as only peak flows were taken, the

4

effect on downstream riparian ecosystems, habitat, vegetation, and fauna is expected to be negligible. There is a risk that during severe drought conditions, there could be local pressure to exceed peak flows. Monitoring the water volumes extracted and precipitation levels would identify where these situation occur.Under Alternative 2 (Option C) by limiting reservoir filling to occur only during rain events, this option would generally simulate a rainwater harvesting method. It would have no measurable

4

effect on downstream flows or riparian habitats or aquatic species by limiting withdrawal to rain events because base flows would not be affected.Alternative 3 presents a risk for affecting water flows since without water storage there maybe local pressure to exceed flows needed to maintain ecological conditions. Monitoring the water volumes extracted and precipitation levels would identify where these situations occur. Implementation of the mitigation measure to maintain ecological flows would reduce downstream impacts to habitats or other water users.

TABLE 7. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 1EFFECT NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2

MODIFIEDPROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE 3: NORESERVOIR STORAGE

Direct Effects

Continued reduction intotal water downstream, but compliant with Honduras minimum flow

Option A: No measurablechange in flowsOption B: No measurable change in flowsOption C: No

Potential reduction in totalwater downstream. Maintaining ecological flows during dry periods may not be possible.Indirect

EffectsPotential for reducedriparian vegetation diversity, increased NNIS presence, reduced water availability for

No measurable change toriparian and aquatic habitats or species.Option B: would have higher monitoring costs than Option A or C.

Potential for short-termchanges to aquatic habitats or species if ecological flows are not maintained. Downstream uses may also be affected. Monitoring would identify changes and

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSCumulative effects will depend on the size and number of water harvesting for reservoirs drawing from the same watershed and the effects will be more noticeable when the water source comes from small streams or springs.If the increase in size and frequency of water harvesting systems by both government and non- government entities continues, there is a potential for measurable impacts to riparian habitat and water available for other uses. The mitigation measure requiring a site-specific watershed assessment of available water and downstream and upstream uses would reduce the potential for projects authorized under this PEA having a cumulative effect. However, future projects implemented outside of this PEA could have a measurable cumulative effect.At the basin level, reducing water from permanent sources could alter the flow of fresh water to the coastal mangrove ecosystems in the Departments of Valle and Choluteca, depending on the distance from the project to the mangrove forest. The south coast is fringed by mangroves and is comprised of seven protected areas with together form an important Ramsar site. A decrease in the flow of fresh water, sediments and nutrients to the mangroves could cause more salt water intrusion into the mangroves, as well as impact mangrove fauna.The introduction of fresh water from rivers and streams facilitates the uptake of water by the mangroves and increases productivity, survivorship and growth (Reef and Lonlock, 2015). Mangroves are facultative halophytes and can grow in salinity up to 90 ppt, but thrive in salinity is between 5 and 70 ppt (Noor, 2015).

4

In addition the inflow of fresh water increases the amount on nitrogen in the mangroves due, in part, to the fertilizer residues in the rivers (Briceno, 2013).

4

MISSING INFORMATION AND MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESSThere is very little information available on stream flows, and precipitation in Honduras. This lack of information limits the ability to predict effects and properly design water harvesting systems that utilize permanent streams. Water harvesting systems that are limited to collection of surface runoff are more predictable although accurate precipitation information is still important for designing functional systems. Use of the Agri-Tool developed by USAID and CIAT provides a practical tool to help identify sites and also provide a centralized database of implemented systems.There is similarly very limited information available about terrestrial wildlife, aquatic organisms, and plants. Because of limited monitoring resources the strategy of the ICF has been to focus on protecting and monitoring species diversity in designated protected areas rather than areas already more intensively managed. Consequently little species information is available outside of the established protected areas.Stream flow and biological indicators are specific measures that are used to analyze the relations between flow alteration and biological response (termed “flow-ecology” relations).The EPA (2015) described that flow indicators correspond to “measures of exposure” in the EPA ERA framework, whereas biological indicators correspond to “measures of effect.” Biological indicators reflect narrative flow criteria and can include various measures of the diversity, abundance, or specific life-history traits of fish, macro invertebrates, and aquatic vegetation. Many flow indicators have been proposed to characterize the flow regime; these indicators describe the magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, and rate of change of various flow conditions. They are calculated from long-term daily flow datasets, and software tools are available to automate this process (Henriksen and others, 2006).Ideally, the biological indicators selected directly reflect the biological attributes of concern described by assessment endpoints (for example, fish diversity). In cases where assessment endpoints cannot be directly measured or have limited observational data for flow-ecology modeling, surrogate biological indicators are linked to assessment endpoints through additional analysis.To address this missing information and the potential impacts from Alternative 2 option B and Alternative 3, a requirement to follow the protocols for evaluating ecological flows is incorporated in Appendix F of this PEA. The protocol was established by USAID in 2011 for small hydroelectric facilities and includes guidelines for evaluating ecological flows.In addition, a monitoring item recording the frequency and distribution of NNIS plants downstream as an indicator of riparian health is included for systems under Alternative 2 (Option B and C) and Alternative 3.Similarly, there is limited information on precipitation other than at very broad scales. Lack of site-specific project area precipitation information will limit the ability to estimate available flows from affected stream courses.

6.3.2. ISSUE WATER QUALITYConstruction and operation of reservoirs and irrigation operations can increase sedimentation of rivers and streams and the use of agrochemicals can produce contamination of soil and water potentially affecting riparian and aquatic biota as well as humans.

4

Pesticides can reach water bodies in a variety of ways: they may drift outside of the intended area when they are sprayed, they may percolate, or leach, through the soil, they may be carried to the water as runoff, or they may be spilled, for example accidentally or through negligence. They may also be carried to water by eroding soil.

4

Factors that affect a pesticide's ability to contaminate water include its water solubility, the distance from an application site to a body of water, weather, soil type, presence of a growing crop, and the method used to apply the chemical (Pedersen, 1997).Effects depend on the application rates, toxicity, persistence and length of exposure. The effects would lessen as the pesticides are diluted downstream. The faster a given pesticide breaks down in the environment, the less threat it poses to aquatic life. Insecticides are typically more toxic to aquatic life than herbicides and fungicides (Helfrich, 1996).Organic pollutants from pesticide use in urban and agricultural areas act as stressors on aquatic communities. Macro invertebrates in stream reaches containing pesticides have shown similar numbers of individuals, but lower overall diversity and richness than communities in pesticide-free reaches (Thiere and Schulz 2004). Certain taxa are more sensitive than others to contaminants (Sibley et al. 1991, Thiere and Schulz 2004). The effects of different chemicals used for pest control are variable. For example, chemicals which are less water soluble to soil particles may be less toxic to macro invertebrates than they would be if they were available in the water (Schulz and Liess 2001b).Natural sources of sediments transported to the sea include erosion of bedrock, soil and decomposition of plants and animals (UNEP & Gems Water Programme 2006). Natural sediment mobilization is an important process in the development and maintenance of coastal habitats, including wetlands, lagoons, estuaries, sea-grass beds, coral reefs, mangroves, dunes and sand barriers (UNEP/GPA 2006a). However, anthropogenic activities or those which are carried out by man, often change the processes of erosion and sedimentation as well as modifying the flow of rivers and the amount of sediments it can carry.Most land-based activities such as agriculture, forestry, urbanization, and mining contribute to these changes. Another cause of changes in sedimentation is through hydrological modifications that may occur from construction of reservoirs, dams and causeways, dredging of water bodies and development of large-scale irrigation schemes (UNEP/GPA 2006a).ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative, use of pesticides outside of the established PERSUAP would likely continue with the exception of those projects funded by USAID. The continued conversion of land use for agricultural use would similarly increase the use of pesticides and the risk of the above described direct and indirect effects from pesticides occurring.Erosion and sedimentation from existing roads and agricultural lands would likely continue at current rates for all alternatives. Similarly, erosion and sedimentation from projects implemented without adequate mitigation measures would continue to contribute to stream sedimentation.Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the cultivation of irrigated crops would increase the use of agrochemicals needed to manage higher value crops. However, the proper use of drip irrigation technology would reduce the potential spread of chemicals from irrigation water. Use of drip irrigation systems using fertigation techniques under Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce potential water contamination from fertilizers, but not from foliar applications of pesticides.

4

The increased use would generally be mitigated by requiring compliance with the most recent Honduras PERSUAP. In addition, the promotion of proper pesticide use under the PERSUAP could be adopted by participants and non-participants in other non-irrigated areas, or at least increase general awareness of proper pesticide use.There would likely be no meaningful amount of sedimentation from reservoir construction, temporary road construction, or crop management. The mitigations to reduce soil erosion under Alternatives 2 are standard practices that have proven to be effective if properly implemented.

4

Alternative 3 would have no potential impacts from construction sedimentation since no reservoirs or roads would be constructed.

TABLE 8. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 2EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



Direct Effects

Use of unapprovedpesticides creates potential mortality of aquatic organisms including aquatic plants, fish, amphibians,

PERSUAP requirementsreduce risk of contamination from current levels.

PERSUAP requirementsreduce risk of contamination above current levels.

IndirectEffects

Potential for: Disruption of

food web. Transport of

agrochemicals in sedimentation.

Behavioral changes from repeated chemical exposure.

PERSUAP requirementsreduce risk of contamination from current levels.Erosion control measures reduce risk of additional sedimentation contamination downstream.

Same as Alternative 2, butno sedimentation from construction activities.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects from agrochemicals are likely under all alternatives. Adjacent agriculture land has a high probability of agrochemical use and would frequently overlap with the irrigated crops either through surface water collected in the reservoirs or direct contact from erosion or drift from the adjacent lands. The degree of effects would depend on the amount of pesticides used, frequency of application, and proximity to streams, slopes, soil characteristics, topography and rainfall.MISSING INFORMATIONThere is very limited water quality information available in Honduras and no biotic index available for the monitoring of the water quality in Honduras. Current water quality monitoring schemes in Honduras involve chemical and physical parameters which are relatively expensive and only provide a snapshot of conditions at the time of sampling (O’Callaghan, Jocque, and Kelly-Quinn, Biodiversity Science (http://www.biodiversityscience.com/2012/01/31/bioassessment-water- monitoring-honduras/).The aquatic invertebrates of Central America are poorly studied with few identification keys available for the region and many taxa new to science. Despite this, to date, 72 families and 106 genera have been identified.This missing information limits the degree to which effects of future projects can be analyzed and the ability to monitor for changes to the environment. However, the effectiveness of the proposed water quality mitigations are well documented and routinely used agricultural and construction projects.

6.3.3. ISSUE: CHANGE IN VEGETATION SPECIES, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION

4

Reservoir and conveyance system construction could result in change of permanent cover potentially affecting the structure and function of local habitats.

5

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder all alternatives, traditional agriculture would continue to occur throughout the area. These activities are the greatest cause of changes in vegetation structure and function in the country. Under the No Action Alternative, irrigated crop programs not funded by the USAID may not include environmental mitigations that reduce the amount of clearing for reservoirs or agricultural use.Under Alternative 2 and 3, limiting agriculture use to currently cultivated lands and not allowing additional clearing of permanent vegetation for cultivation would result in no net change to vegetation structure or function. In addition, existing roads would be used as much as possible to minimize the loss of vegetation. Where temporary roads are needed, the change in vegetation would be temporary and reversible.Under Alternative 2, although there may be a reduction in permanent terrestrial vegetation (less than one hectare per system) there would be an equal increase in aquatic habitat which can help support migratory birds. In addition, the required mitigation prohibiting development in established protected areas under both Alternatives 2 and 3 would avoid additional impacts to these areas, and maintain species and habitats in these key areas.Clearing associated with reservoir or conveyance system construction is not expected to result in a meaningful change to vegetation structure or function. A sensitivity analysis considering a maximum potential change at the department level was considered. Using an average reservoir size of 1 hectare and a maximum potential total of 500 systems would result in a less than 1% change in permanent cover assuming an even distribution of system locations on a department level basis. It is highly unlikely that this alternative could lead to a measurable effect on vegetation structure or function.Alternative 3 would have virtually no measurable changes in vegetation since no reservoirs would be constructed. In addition, the use of existing or temporary access roads where possible would minimize changes to vegetation.TABLE 9. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 3EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



Direct Effects

Continued land usechange caused by traditional agricultural practices would continue.

No additional land usechange for cultivation. Potential direct mortality during construction for species present during construction could occur.

Same as Alternative 2, butno direct mortality from construction.

IndirectEffects

Foraging and nestinghabitat for some species including invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals would likely continue to be

Some loss of vegetationincluding permanent cover would occur in foot print of reservoir, access and conveyance construction, but would not result in a meaningful change to vegetation diversity.

No measurable change invegetation or permanent cover.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSUnder all alternatives, clearing of land for traditional agricultural use and the construction of access roads and water harvesting systems by projects not

5

authorized under this PEA would create potential for cumulative effects to vegetation structure and function. The potential for significance depends on the presence or absence of species sensitive to a change in vegetative

5

structure or function, especially if there is a listed species present that is sensitive to the distribution.MISSING INFORMATIONThere is essentially no formally documented information on terrestrial or aquatic wildlife in Honduras outside of established Protected Areas. The information is unavailable because there has never been a coordinated collection effort and none has ever been funded. Honduras has focused use of limited funding in the established protected areas since in many cases they are the only areas where many species still occur other than incidental occurrences. The missing information is not relevant to a determination of effect because of the extremely limited amount of change in vegetation that would be likely to occur under any of the three alternatives.

6.3.4. ISSUE: MOSQUITO BREEDING SOURCEThe constructed reservoirs could serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes which can spread a variety of diseases including dengue, chikungunya, and more recently the Zika virus.According to the World Health Organization, Aedesaegyptiis the principal mosquito species that transmits Zika, dengue, chikungunya, and yellow fever to humans. Laid eggs can survive for very long periods of time in a dry state, often for more than a year. Once submerged in water, they hatch immediately. If temperatures are cool, mosquitoes can remain in the larval stage for months so long as the water supply is sufficient (WHO, 2016).Integrated approaches that target all life stages of the mosquito and fully engage communities are recommended.The proximity of mosquito breeding sites to human habitation is a significant risk factor for Zika virus infection. Prevention and control relies on reducing the breeding of mosquitoes through source reduction and reducing contact between mosquitoes and people. NOTE: *Treating mosquitoes other than those occurring in the reservoir or conveyance system of the action alternatives is beyond the scope of this PEA. In addition, the Honduran government is actively promoting the control of mosquitoes throughout the country.The Purdue University Extension service (Publication WQ-41-W) identifies that while ponds and wetlands can increase mosquito populations, predators of mosquitoes such as fish and other aquatic organisms will usually control mosquito populations if the pond or wetland supports a well-balanced ecosystem.A well-functioning pond is characterized by a living ecosystem that includes fish and other aquatic organisms, stable banks with good plant cover, and a diversity of insect and animal life. Such a pond will have water with adequate and stable levels of oxygen, some surface wave action, and possibly a slight greenish tint from the presence of phytoplankton.Ecologically stable ponds normally do not produce problem mosquito populations because the natural factors of fish predation and surface wave action tend to kill mosquito larvae.Ponds receiving excess nutrients can favor algae blooms and submersed aquatic vegetation. This situation can lead to increased mosquito egg laying due to excess plant cover, providing the larvae with protection from predators, wave action, and rainfall.

5

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative, many reservoirs constructed in the country have been stocked with common fish species such as tilapia for mosquito control and family food source. However, their production in irrigation reservoirs is sometimes abandoned due to impacts on irrigation systems if proper filtration is not maintained.

5

Alternatives 1 and 2 may have some increase in breeding habitat. Use of biological and environmental mitigations required under Alternative 2, and frequently used voluntarily in the No Action alternative, can help reduce the overall numbers of mosquitoes.Alternative 3 would result in no additional increase in breeding habitat for mosquitoes beyond what is occurring in the No Action Alternative.TABLE 10. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 4EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



Direct Effects

Some increase inbreeding habitat. Use of biological and environmental mitigations frequently used voluntarily in many existing projects can help reduce the overall

Some increase in breedinghabitat.

No additional increase inbreeding habitat for mosquitoes.

IndirectEffects

Potential risk ofmosquito borne illness. Use of NNIS fish to control mosquitoes could spread to non-

Reduced risk of mosquitoborne illness.Use of NNIS fish to control mosquitoes could spread to native systems.

No additional risk ofmosquito borne illness. No risk of NNIS fish contamination of native systems.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSThe home range of mosquitoes can be as much as one to three miles. The potential for cumulative effects depends on the future development of other breeding sources within this range. The limited amount of additional breeding habitat created under Alternative 2 is not likely to result in a significant cumulative effect if considered with proper design and mitigation.

MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESSThere are numerous documented methods for controlling mosquito larvae (WHO 1982). The available methods of mosquito control are usually classified into chemical, biological and environmental. The most common biological method in Honduras is the inclusion of fish species that feed on mosquito larvae. In addition environmental methods such as controlling water levels, water movement, and maintaining shoreline vegetation are commonly used.The most effective controls are based on integrated pest management plans which incorporate a variety of environmental, mechanical and chemical controls. However, chemical controls are not supported in this PEA because the long-term repeated application of pesticides may induce vector resistance, particularly if they are also used in agriculture. As previously stated, the Honduran government is actively promoting the control of mosquitoes throughout the country.The Gambusia fish is a voracious eater of mosquito larvae and, if introduced in sufficient numbers in pools, ponds and marshes, it can destroy large quantities of mosquito eggs, larvae and pupae. The fish are small, are capable of penetrating vegetative protective cover, and can survive in the absence of mosquito larvae as a source of food. They multiply rapidly (200-300 per female). They need no special habitat for oviposition since they are viviparous

5

as well as resistant to wide ranges of water temperature and water quality.A non-native species widely used in Honduras is tilapia. This species is has been widely used since the 1980’s in Honduras. At lower elevations where most agricultural production would occur, there would be few areas where this species is not already established.

5

6.3.5. ISSUE: RISK OF DAM FAILUREImproper design or construction of dams could result in serious flooding causing the loss of lives, infrastructure and/or cropland if the dam weakens and fails due to either improper construction or natural events such as flooding or earthquakes.There are many reasons for dam failure. These can be both structural and non-structural. Frequent sources of failure can be traced to decisions made during the design and construction process and to inadequate maintenance or operational mismanagement (FEMA, 1987). Failures have also resulted from the natural hazards such as large scale flooding, earthquake movement and poor environmental protection. Dam structure itself can be a source of risk due to possible construction flaws and weaknesses which develop because of aging.Common causes of dam failure include:

Sub-standard construction materials/techniques Spillway design error Geological instability caused by changes to water levels during filling

or poor surveying Poor maintenance, especially of outlet pipes Extreme inflow Internal erosion, Earthquakes

Studies indicate the most common types of a structural dam failure are due to foundation defects (36%) and overtopping by flood (33%) (Gindy, 2007).Natural events that can cause a dam failure are referred to as external initiating events and include floods, earthquakes, and failure under normal operating conditions. Once an external initiating event occurs, a number of circumstances related to the malfunction of a dam can follow.The following discussion summarizes key elements of dam failure described in Stephens, 2010.

The importance of correct core construction cannot be over-emphasized. Failure to correctly carry out these comparatively inexpensive procedures could lead to expensive problems later that remedial measures will rarely completely resolve. If the core and cutoff trench have not been taken down to a firm foundation, or laid in layers thin and moist enough to allow compaction, it will be too late to introduce corrective measures after construction. In severe cases the dam can fail.Sodic soils are virtually cohesionless when wet and are responsible for many catastrophic earth dam collapses. Such failures usually occur soon after first filling of a dam reservoir and it is normally not advisable to attempt repair work as the embankment and foundation may still have sodic areas as yet unaffected. If sodicity is suspected the best rule is not to use any of the soil concerned and avoid such areas when extending dam, core or foundation work.Slumping and sliding of the downstream face and occasionally to the upstream side of the dam is usually the result of poor quality material,

5

too steep side slopes, inadequate drainage and/or excessive seepage. If severe, the dam’s stability can be affected and it is then very important to lower the reservoir water level as soon as possible. Use of good material and well-designed side slopes at the time of construction and following correct construction procedures will prevent these problems from developing.Movement of the embankment on its foundation can lead to complete failure of the dam. Usually associated with a poor choice of site and, with larger dams, movement of the

5

embankment will lead to cracks appearing in the structure. They are most serious when they extend transversely across the embankment and below the water line. Reduce the water level immediately and fill all cracks with good material and plant to grass. Earth dams can absorb some movement without suffering damage but if cracks continue to form, or suddenly appear in old dams, it is best to seek expert advice immediately.Piping occurs when seepage establishes a tunnel or pipe through an embankment and in severe cases can lead to undermining and the eventual collapse of the dam. It is most serious in dams constructed of poorer soils with greater permeability’s. To avoid this it is best to anticipate such problems at the design stage and construct drains beneath the downstream section before the dam proper is started. However, when piping is excessive, or not allowed for, measures already outlined to reduce seepage should be followed. When brown, muddy water is seen to emerge from the downstream face of the dam or seepage starts to increase, this can mean serious internal damage is occurring. This may be associated with the development of whirlpools on the upstream side when most severe.A dam breaches when a section of the embankment finally gives way and a hole appears that can cause complete failure. Unless caused by overtopping by an exceptional flood (or too small a spillway), breaching is usually the result of one of the problems outlined above developing into a major fault.Spillway erosion and the inability to carry flood flows are the main reasons behind many earth dam failures. Once erosion on a grassed spillway or a friable rock spillway has started, it is very difficult to prevent it recurring without continual maintenance and remedial procedures. Normally this signifies that solid rock should have been used for spilling flood water.Wave action on the upstream face can cause erosion, which can increase the slope angle to an undesirable steepness or establish ‘beaches’ on the slope that could lead to the slumping of this section. If this is allowed to continue, it can reduce the crest level to below the full supply level. This is often exacerbated by poor grass growth and erosion from animal tracks and, as a result, it may become necessary to reconstruct the entire upstream area to reduce slopes and allow for the laying of rip-rap in the most susceptible areas. If neglected, and should either the crest level fall, or an exceptional storm lead to backing up of floodwater from the spillway, the dam will overtop, water will concentrate in the low spots and serious damage could result.

All earth dams will leak to some extent and seepage only becomes a problem if it endangers the embankment. This could be either by encouraging erosion in the downstream area or by causing water logging of the dam and thus affecting its stability. Dirty water seeping from the downstream face of any dam is cause for concern. As finer materials are eroded, and carried out of the embankment, this could lead to piping or slumping in the structure (Stephen, 2010).The spillway configuration can affect the reliability and the ultimate discharge capacity of a spillway. Uncontrolled, overflow spillways are generally reliable

5

with predictable discharges. Gated spillways can have inherent reliability concerns, due to the potential for mechanical and power failures, and the potential for operations to differ from planned operations as a result of the inability of an operator to access the gate controls or an operator decision to delay opening the gates due to downstream flooding concerns.Spillway discharges assumed in flood routings are often based on idealized discharge curves. If the spillway discharge curve was not based on a site-specific hydraulic model study, and the approach conditions to the spillway are less than ideal, consideration should be given to the potential for reduced discharge.

6

The depth and duration of overtopping and the erodibility of the embankment materials are the key parameters to determine the likelihood that dam failure would occur as a result of overtopping. The estimated probability of an embankment dam failure due to overtopping depends on site-specific conditions. Heavily armored downstream slopes and highly plastic embankment materials are more erosion resistant.Classifying the degree of potential hazard requires numerous assumptions be made. Most federal agencies have some sort of hazard or risk rating system in use. The United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) uses a dam hazard potential structure developed in the early 1970s largely based on ratings for life, lifeline, property and environmental losses (USACE 1997). The following table presents the four major components of the potential hazard classification system used by USACE. Generally, if a dam is located in a heavy residential or commercial area and at least one fatality is expected as a result of a dam breach, a high hazard classification is assigned. If loss of life in the downstream area is uncertain or is not expected, a significant hazard and a low hazard rating is assigned, respectively.TABLE 11. UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (USACE)

HAZARD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMCATEGORY LOW SIGNIFICANT HIGHDirect loss of life None expected (due

torural location with no permanent structures for

Uncertain (rurallocation with few residences and only transient or industrial development)

Certain (one or moreextensive residential, commercial, or industrial Lifeline losses No disruption of

services; repairs are cosmetic or rapidly

Disruption of or loss ofaccess to essential facilities

Disruption of or loss ofaccess to essential facilitiesProperty losses Private

agriculturallands, equipment and

Major public and privatefacilities

Extensive public andprivate facilities

Environmental losses

Minimal incrementaldamage

Major mitigationrequired

Extensive mitigationcost or impossible to Source: USACE 1997

Property losses are evaluated based on direct and indirect losses experienced by the downstream population. Direct losses include property damaged by the flood wave whereas indirect losses include loss of services provided by the damaged dam or other damaged downstream infrastructure such as loss of power or water. Loss of lifelines include inaccessible bridges or roads and disruption of major medical facilities. If disruption of or loss of access to essential or critical facilities is expected, a significant or high hazard rating is assigned. Otherwise, if such facilities experience cosmetic damage that is rapidly repairable, a low hazard rating is assigned instead. Environmental losses resulting from a dam failure are also considered. If major or extensive mitigation costs are incurred, the dam is classified as significant hazard and high hazard, respectively.ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYMost of the reservoirs constructed under Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely occur in more isolated or remote areas away from concentrated areas of homes or other permanent structures. However, these systems frequently can

6

occur near individual farm houses and lands managed for other agricultural uses. Dams larger than 20,000 m3 storage capacity could lead to a significant hazard rating.

6

By limiting the maximum size of dams to 20,000 m3, and following the design criteria and construction mitigations, the risk of dam failure should be a low hazard rating based on USACE classification system.

Dams located directly within narrow seasonally flowing ravines (Alternative 2-Option A) could have an increased risk of failure during major floods caused from rapid and intense flows compared to reservoirs outside narrow drainages. Following the associated design, location, and construction mitigation measures would minimize the risk of failure. Conversely, these dams if properly designed can provide some degree of flood control.Alternative 3 has no risk of dam failure since direct piping is used and no reservoirs. TABLE 12. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 5

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSThere would be no cumulative effects of dam failure risk under any of the alternatives. Since the affected area is limited to the immediate dam area it would be unlikely that the effects from this activity would combine with those of another.

MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESSThe engineering design criteria described in Annex A represents the current best practices and procedures implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers for constructing dams that will minimize the potential risk of failure. These practices are well established and widely implemented in the United States and are fully applicable to reservoirs constructed under this PEA.

6.3.6. ISSUE: WATER LOSS TO EVAPORATION AND SEEPAGEHigh temperatures and dry conditions in the southern dry corridor could result

EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIEDPROPOSED ACTION


Direct Effects

Reservoirs built withoutengineered designs and construction requirements and especially those with water volumes greater than 20,000 m3 can have high hazard ratings.

Reservoirs built toengineered designs and construction requirements and water storage capacity less than 20,000 m3 would have lower hazard ratings. Reservoirs constructed directly within drainage

No risk of dam failure

IndirectEffects

Potential loss of cropproduction until dam is repaired.

Potential loss of cropproduction until dam is repaired.Reservoirs constructed directly within drainages can provide flood control when constructed using the required design and

No indirect effects

6

in a high rate of evaporation in the reservoirs causing a reduction in the quantity of water available for irrigation and salinization of the water in the reservoir.The main causes of loss of stored water are seepage through a leaking basin or dam wall, and evaporation from the surface (Hudson, 1987).

6

Evaporation losses can be high and will depend upon climate and the surface area of the stored water. A narrow deep reservoir will have a much smaller evaporation loss than a broad shallow reservoir. Wind can also be an important factor in dry areas.

Seepage losses are difficult to estimate before the dam is built and to calculate after the dam has been constructed (Hudson 1987). Since all dams will seep, it is best to estimate that even a well- constructed embankment can lose up to 10 percent of its water to seepage in any one year.Based on local experience, reservoir planning by Global Communities considers a 5% reduction for evaporation and a 5% reduction for seepage.Many methods have been developed for controlling both, but few are economically attractive (Laing, 1975 and Hollick, 1982).To some extent evaporation losses can be reduced by management. If the surface area can be reduced by increasing the depth, this will both reduce the evaporating surface and also lower the incoming radiation and the heating effect.Other mitigation measures are sometimes used but they are largely considered uneconomical due to high costs. For example, shading the water surface can reduce evaporation. Crow and Manges (1967) showed that a plastic mesh which gave only 6 percent shade reduced the evaporation by 26 percent, while a mesh which gave a 47 percent shade reduced evaporation by 44 percent. However, suspending nets or branches over the water surface is expensive, and no floating mesh has yet been successful.Loss from seepage is most efficiently reduced through proper site selection, avoiding sands and gravels and utilizing proper design and construction methods (Laing 1975). For example, an inexpensive construction method which can be helpful is to increase the compaction of the reservoir basin by working it while moist, either by driving wheeled tractors round in the basin, or herding livestock (Laing 1975).Surface membranes are sometimes used, but thin membranes such as polyethylene lack sufficient strength or durability, while the stronger and more durable materials like butyl rubber are too expensive (Hollick, 1982). Also, Global Communities’ experience indicates that using this type of membrane cause water temperature to rise, which adversely affects fish production and can become too hot for use in irrigation systems.ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY

Under the No Action Alternative reservoir construction and use from projects not implemented under this PEA would continue. Most of these would likely voluntarily incorporate some planning and design features to reduce evaporation and seepage. If not supported by professional design assistance they would have an increased chance for excessive seepage and evaporation. In addition, dams with surface areas greater than one hectare would have increased losses to evaporation.Under Alternative 2 (all options) with proper location and design measures the losses to evaporation and seepage would be limited to manageable levels. Using enclosed water tanks would eliminate evaporation and seepage.

6

Alt 3 would have no loss to evaporation since there is no open storage or conveyance. Water loss could occur if a conveyance pipe breaks but routine maintenance and checking the pipelines often would minimize this potential impact.The only impact from this type of water loss is to the effectiveness of the system. As long as the sites are selected as described in the design guidance that includes soil analysis, reservoir shaping,

6

and an allowance for losses is included in the calculations for needed storage size, there are no anticipated environmental effects from any of the alternatives.




Direct Effects

Water loss toevaporation and seepage is unavoidable. However, reservoirs not built to engineered design and construction

Reservoirs built toengineered design and construction requirements have manageable losses.

No water loss toevaporation or seepage.

IndirectEffects

Water loss can lead toexcess drawdown of water from streams or springs.Potential for reduced water

Reduced potential risk ofcrop failure to water shortages.

No indirect effects

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSThere would be no cumulative effects from water loss to evaporation or seepage since the effects are limited to the individual reservoir area. If other projects in the watershed reduce available water beyond the evaporation loss calculated during design, the reservoir could have insufficient water for the designed crop area. Similarly, long-term climatic changes could reduce available water and increase evaporation which could result in insufficient water for the designed crop area.

6.3.7. ISSUE: RESERVOIR NUISANCESOpen reservoirs can create a variety of management problems associated with unplanned uses.These effects can occur throughout the construction and operation phases of reservoirs. Public safety risks would be most prevalent during the construction phase when terrain is frequently unstable and highly disturbed. Impacts to wildlife most likely only be a concern in areas where few or no other water sources are within the species home range which would increase the density of wildlife attracted to the reservoir.ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative, It is likely that many of the existing reservoirs are already fenced based on evidence from scoping. However, it is uncertain to what degree the fences are maintained. In addition, promotion within the community of the need to protect wildlife attracted to the area may not be taking place.The required fencing mitigation in Alternative 2 would eliminate impacts from cattle as long as the fence is properly maintained and closed. Fencing would act as a deterrent to unauthorized uses such as swimming or fishing, but the possibility of unauthorized use can never be entirely eliminated.Under Alternative 3 there is no risk of these effects since no reservoirs

EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED


6

would be constructed. TABLE 14. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 7

6




Direct Effects

It is likely that many ofthe existing reservoirs are already fenced based on evidence from scoping.However, it is uncertain to what

The required fencingmitigation would eliminate impacts from cattle as long as the fence is properly maintained and closed.

No direct effects

IndirectEffects

Promotion within thecommunity of the need to protect wildlife attracted to the area may not be taking

Fencing would act as adeterrent to unauthorized uses such as swimming or fishing, but the possibility of unauthorized use can

No indirect effects

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSSince the effects of cattle and unauthorized use are limited to the immediate reservoir area there would be no reasonably foreseeable additional actions that might combine with an individual reservoir and result in a cumulative effect. This is true for both Alternative 1 and 2.Attraction of wildlife could extend beyond the immediate reservoir area resulting in some increased wildlife densities present in the surrounding area as wildlife move to and from the reservoir. The potential for cumulative effects on wildlife poaching depends on the presence of other sources of water in the area, the species of wildlife that may be attracted and the degree to which local communities are support wildlife protection. Alternative 2 would likely have less potential for a cumulative effect on wildlife poaching since it includes a requirement to promote wildlife protection within the communities.MITIGATIONSInclusion of fencing as part of project design has proven effective in reducing impacts of grazing and watering of cattle at reservoir sites as long as fences are maintained and communities are educated to discourage improper use.The effectiveness of promoting wildlife protection cannot be determined since it depends on multiple variables beyond the control of this project. It is unlikely that this uncertainty would result in a significant impact on species outside designated protected areas.

6.3.8. ISSUE: COMMUNITY AND USER CONFLICTSWater system development could create conflict between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, as well as conflicts among users if changes to water availability occur that either expand or reduce system size.Conveyance systems frequently extend several kilometers across multiple ownerships. These situations can lead to a variety of community conflicts to system use and development. Note that conflicts with downstream users are discussed under the water flow issue.The USAID Country Profile Honduras Property Rights and Resource Governance states that “land tenure Security in Honduras is challenged by ambiguity of ownership, lack of title and the threat of land invasion. Approximately 80% of

6

the privately held land in the country is untitled or improperly titled. Only 14% of Hondurans legally occupy properties and, of the properties held legally, only 30% are registered” (USAID, 2016).

7

Overall system size, conveyance distance and the number and types of ownerships affected are the primary variables influencing the potential for community and user conflicts.These effects can occur during both the planning and operation phases of project implementation.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY

Under the No Action Alternative, systems currently in place should be consistent with Honduran legal requirements, but it is likely that many are not. If strong community involvement and consensus building did not occur prior to system developments, conflicts may already exist or have a higher risk of occurring in the future.Alternative 2 would be expected to have less potential conflict than the No Action Alternative based on predevelopment consensus building efforts. Changes to system size after operation has begun could result in the development of new conflicts, but the required mitigation to reevaluate land tenure and group participation would reduce the potential for serious conflicts.Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but may be more difficult to establish required rights-of-way for systems requiring longer conveyance distances or multiple ownerships.




Direct Effects

Systems currently inplace should be consistent with Honduran legal requirements, but it is likely that many are not.

Reduced potential conflictbased on predevelopment consensus building efforts.

Similar to Alternative 2,but may be more difficult to establish required rights-of-way for systems requiring longer conveyance Indirect

EffectsIf strong communityinvolvement and consensus building did not occur prior to system developments, conflicts may already exist or

Changes to system size afteroperation has begun could result in the development of new conflicts, but the required mitigation to reevaluate land tenure and group participation would

Same as Alternative 2.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTSCumulative effects could occur in the future if unforeseen changes in water availability reduces system capacity requires a change in the number of participants or system location. If this situation occurs, a re-evaluation of the system design would be required. The potential for cumulative effect is essentially the same for all three alternatives assuming Honduran legal requirements are complied with, but the mitigation for consensus building within the community is expected to reduce potential conflicts.

MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS

7

The design criteria to ensure documented land tenure and rights-of-way, and conducting predevelopment involvement with the community to develop consensus within the community is expected to minimize the potential for conflicts. Global Communities have implemented these requirements and found them useful. There are no mitigations that could entirely eliminate the potential for community and user conflicts described in this issue.

7

6.3.9. ISSUE: PARTICIPATING GROUP MANAGEMENTGroup dynamics and skills can influence the effectiveness of irrigation operations, system maintenance and management of operating funds.These effects can occur throughout the operation phase of a project. The most relevant factors influencing the effects related to this issue are the number of participants, their skill levels and the degree of training and on-going support they receive during project development and operations.Experience from Global communities indicates that group sizes greater than 15 participants increase the management complexities and risk of project failure.The most relevant organizational needs for group management include system and operation maintenance and funding.ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative, it is likely that not all systems would include the use of clear operating guidance for participating members. Similarly, the lack of well managed funds can reduce the effectiveness of water use and lead to project failure. In addition, scoping indicates that group sizes range from a few participants to more than 50.Projects developed by Global Communities have had positive results using agreements with users that fully describe roles and responsibilities of participants.ACCESO irrigation grants have purposefully sought to achieve roughly 45 percent matching contributions to their own grant dollars with each system. This extends their own financial reach and ensures commitment and ownership by the beneficiary producers (USAID, 2015b).Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, the required design criteria to establish a formally documented Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the project participants that establishes clear operating guidance is expected to reduce conflicts and ensure efficient operations.In addition, requiring use of an established operating fund (rural credit unions called Cajas Rurales) would reduce problems associated with funding repairs and maintenance. (For example, fund the primary 50% of the total investment cost).In previous experiences with Global Communities, the beneficiaries have deposited 50% of the investment. This is the protocol that is recommended; the payments must be made by the farmers in the first three harvests obtained from the water reservoir. The 50% payment will allow farmers to have financial resources for the maintenance and operation of the irrigation system.While group size is not a fixed requirement in Alternatives 2 and 3, it is recommended that groups be limited to 10-15 participants to increase the effectiveness of training, and efficiency of group management.

TABLE 16. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 9ISSUES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



7

Direct Effects

Not all systems wouldinclude the use of clear operating guidance for participating members.

The required design criteriato establish a formally documented Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the project participants that establishes clear operating guidance is


7

TABLE 16. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 9ISSUES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



operations.Indirect Large participating Requiring use of an Same as Alternative 2Effects group sizes (>20)

oftenestablished operating fundlead to

inefficiencies(rural credit unions calledand internal

conflicts.Cajas Rurales) would reduceSimilarly, the lack

ofproblems associated withwell managed funds

canfunding repairs and

reduce the maintenance.effectiveness of wateruse and lead to projectfailure.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Capacity building and financial training: Beneficiaries, families and communities will potentially build capacities, acquire knowledge on capacity building and earn financial training useful to them, and surrounding population for present and future projects.MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESSThe required design mitigations have been utilized by Global Communities and have proven effective at reducing overall management problems related to this issue.

6.3.10. ISSUE: IRRIGATED CROP AND WATER MANAGEMENTActions associated with the cultivation of irrigated crops can lead to inefficient use of water, sedimentation, reduced productivity and economic benefits if not planned and operated correctly.In general the effects of using drip irrigation are positive and result in the most efficient use of water with the least potential for negative effects compared with other irrigation methods. For this reason, the scope of this PEA is limited to drip systems and does not discuss nor compare the effects of other methods. A comparison of other irrigation systems is considered in the Cosecha EA.As with any irrigated crop system, improper management can lead to any number of unintended effects including inefficient use of water, chemical contamination, soil salinization, increased risk of insects and disease, crop failure, and ultimately overall system failure. To reduce the risk of these unintended effects from occurring a variety of design criteria are incorporated into the action alternatives. The discussion of effects assumes these design criteria would be effectively implemented.Without the use of the existing PERSUAP, people could potentially use agrochemicals in inappropriate ways which could lead to agrochemical runoff into water sources and filtrating into soil which could affect water and soil quality and communities wellbeing in general.Traditional irrigating systems could potentially cause water use conflicts, over irrigation which causes soil salinization and sets ideal conditions for pests and diseases development.Population could potentially lack knowledge of the water quantity being used

7

per crop (no water measurement systems).ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative, on-going traditional agricultural methods would continue. In addition, other programs supported through NGOs, and the Honduran Government would likely continue to support improved crop management and soil and water conservation practices. Many

7

of these programs include varying levels of technical support and training which have had many successes.One of the frequently identified problems with technical support is the limited number of skilled trainers available to address the demand from farmers. The absence of supporting production extension technical assistance could also limit stand-alone adoption of efficient farming methods.Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the design mitigations requiring technical assistance in the proper use and management of irrigation systems is expected to increase production, conserve water, and reduce potential for unintended effects or project failure.Compliance with the Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) revised in August 2016 would reduce risk of contamination to the environment as well as users.Implementing best management practices described in USAID Sector Environmental Guidelines Agriculture, 2014 would reduce potential impacts to other resources and increase productivity and efficient water use.The amount of irrigated land and number of group participants is a key factor in the effectiveness of the included mitigations. Larger areas increase management complexities and costs.Under Alternative 3, there would be less overall reliability of water sources compared with Alternative 2.TABLE 17. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 10EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



Direct Effects

Systems other thandrip irrigation are less efficient in water use.

More efficient water use, lesserosion, efficient fertilization.

Same as Alternative 2, butthere would be less overall reliability of water sources compared with Alternative 2 since no Indirect

EffectsProjects may includevarying levels of technical support and training. In addition not all projects promote use of drip irrigation.

The design mitigationsrequiring technical assistance in the proper use and management of irrigation systems is expected to increase production, conserve water, and reduce potential for unintended effects or


CUMULATIVE EFFECTSThe effects of this issue are strictly limited to those occurring on the cultivated fields and related to the actual crop and water management. There are no additional projects identified whose effects might overlap in space or time with the effects crop or water management on the cultivated lands and result in a cumulative effect. The potential effects generally associated with traditional agricultural activities such as water contamination, soil erosion and economic impacts are discussed under separate issues in this PEA.

6.3.11. ISSUE: LOCAL ECONOMIES AND LIVELIHOODS

7

Increased productivity and crop diversification can improve local economies and individual participant livelihoods.

7

Irrigation has the potential to help lift poor and extremely poor households out of poverty (USAID, 2015b). The poor and extremely poor have an average of just over $1,600 per year as a total household income ($0.89 per capita per day for a household average of five members).While poverty is an outcome of complex interactions of many factors, water plays a key role through its wider impacts on food production, hygiene, sanitation, food security, and the environment (Hussain and Hanjra, 2004).Access to reliable irrigation water can enable farmers to adopt new technologies and intensify cultivation, leading to increased productivity, overall higher production, and greater returns from farming.Instances of negative effects associated with irrigation systems are frequently the result of management issues (Hussain and Hanjra, 2004). The following examples of management issues were identified in the USAID Drip Irrigation in Honduras report (USAID, 2015b):

Poor design. The sale and installation of the technology (water pumping versus gravity based, for example) may have been prioritized over selection of the appropriate technology for the local context. Also noted was a lack of adequate consideration of community experience during the design: where the water is, practicalities of the geography, etc.Lack of water. The water capacity was assessed during the rainy season and faulty assumptions were made either based on anecdotal evidence or based on experiences elsewhere. These systems may be adequate to provide supplemental irrigation during rain fed seasons, but either are not appropriate for year-round irrigation or create water conflicts. Water assessment for system design must occur during March and April, the driest months.Lack of production experience with Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) is critical for outcomes. Irrigation systems were abandoned because of a lack of understanding as to how to irrigate crops and produce crops other than corn and beans. Higher-value irrigated crops require more technical production practices. These irrigation systems were abandoned due to an absence of supporting technical assistance, which they needed on an ongoing basis over many production seasons.Poor irrigation management without a user fee structure. Some donated systems failed due to a lack of maintenance and management. User groups may have been structured loosely to receive and benefit from an irrigation system without a structure in place to build capital and implement maintenance for future utilization. The irrigation asset was used while it worked, but a lack of clear ownership or structure left the system broken or decaying.Lack of market access and linkages. Intensive irrigated production of higher perishable horticulture requires timely market access. The producers need linkages to new markets for new products or they lose their input investment and abandon the irrigation systems.

In addition, upstream developments and over use of water supplies can negatively affect the welfare of downstream users. Negative effects of upstream uses can include loss of fish, flash floods and contaminated water. These effects can be compounded by poor design, faulty structures, inequity in

7

water distribution, untimely water deliveries, and insufficient water for irrigation and other uses.Some studies have identified poor drainage, the loss of soil fertility and productivity with adverse impacts for the poor and regional economies. These effects are considered reversible through soil reclamation technologies.

8

The impacts of irrigation on poverty will vary by site-specific conditions, institutional settings, land distribution, quality and quantity of water, production technologies, crop diversifications and support of irrigation technology.A key component for success is market access. With crops of higher perishability, the timeliness of market access is as important. Markets for produce typically include local small community markets, regional markets, large domestic markets of San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa, and export markets such as the U.S., El Salvador and Guatemala. Informal markets account for 70 percent of the Honduran market with 30% based on formal markets. Local markets provide the greatest opportunity for early adopters of irrigated farming. Expanded production could overwhelm local markets and create the need to develop regional markets.An additional potential indirect negative effect includes increased income leading to social problems such as increased alcoholism, or uses of money that do not improve the social wellbeing at the family level.ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARYUnder the No Action Alternative, without on-going coordinated technical support, evidence indicates an increased risk of project failure may occur. However, these past and on-going projects have shown that these practices can help lift people from poverty. The 2015 Final Report for the USAID-ACCESO project found that in September 2014, there were 30,383 households registered with baseline incomes below the poverty line (27,857 extreme poor, 2,526 poor). Of these, 3,783 achieved household incomes to move above the poverty line, of which 2,97S moved from extreme poverty. In September 2013, 2,236 households achieved incomes to move above the poverty line, of which 1,630 moved from extreme poverty. In September 2012, I, 183 households achieved incomes to move above the poverty line, of which 834 moved from extreme poverty.The cost and specific design and implementation aspects of each irrigation system make it unlikely that individuals or groups would be able to adopt the technology without external grant support, even though the upstream private sector is in place. Another important factor is the high input cost of the irrigated crops. Cash for seed, fertilizers, fumigation for pest and disease management, and supplemental labor are significant. Production credit is critical for adoption of high-cost input irrigated crops.Construction costs are driven by many factors including distance of water conduction, access to the site, size of reservoirs and physical site characteristics.The Average costs of ACCESO systems have been approximately $33,000 irrigating approximately 8 hectares per system. These systems average approximately 3.5 km of water conduction at an average cost of approximately $8,700/km.Average costs of Global Communities reservoir based systems have been approximately $5-$8/m3 irrigating approximately 10 hectares for 10-15 participants per system.SAG constructed reservoirs cost of approximately $1.50/m3 irrigating approximately 10 hectares for more than 30 participants per system.The effects of all alternatives (1, 2 and 3) on local economies and livelihoods

8

are generally expected to be beneficial. Benefits would be realized not only for the participating producers, but also the communities at large through associated availability of diversified food sources, and direct and indirect employment.All of the direct and indirect effects listed above would be long-term in nature and are expected to continue throughout the life of the projects. However, alternative 2 is expected to result in the most resilient system since it incorporates design criteria and mitigations developed based on the experience of past and on-going efforts described in the No Action alternative. As experience in

8

irrigated crop management is developed, it is expected that there would be an upward trend in all of the beneficial effects for alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action would likely show improvement as well, but without consistently applied mitigations of technical support, planning and design the improvement may be more sporadic than Alternative 2 or 3.Alternative 3 would likely have less increase in both direct and indirect effects compared with alternative 2 since Alternative 3 incorporates a less reliable water source and has less adaptability to climate change without water storage capacity.TABLE 18. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 11ISSUES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2



Direct Effects

Economic improvementfrom on-goingprograms

would continue to

Increased crop yield anddiversification,

and opportunity to produce higher value crops would increase

Same as Alternative 2, butmay have less crop diversity due to less reliable water source without reservoir storage.Indirect

EffectsLimited stability oflivelihoods, due to potential for crop failure.

Potential benefits to non-participants via overall contribution to local economy (sales, employment, food


CUMULATIVE EFFECTSCumulative social and economic effects of individual projects implemented under Alternatives 2 and 3 combined with on-going and future projects of the No Action alternative would generally be positive. The degree of improvement depends entirely on the number and effectiveness of other projects. Additionally, market availability and general supply and demand will also factor in to the effectiveness of projects implemented under this PEA and non-tiered projects. Market saturation of smaller community markets could occur if multiple producers are developed in a limited area. If markets are not expanded in these situations only the most efficient producers would be expected to continue.MISSING INFORMATIONWith respect to social and economic impacts there is a range of missing or unavailable information. Clearly identified markets, distances from productions sites to markets, and product demand information is needed to fully assess the potential impacts on local economies and livelihoods. This information is unavailable due to the high cost and time required to assimilate the information.At the programmatic level and based on existing studies it is reasonable to assume that this missing information would not result in a significant determination on the described effects. An estimated quantification of increased supply is an important strategic question in most cases. For irrigation, the complexity of crops possible makes it impossible to calculate, but also less important since the diversification of production also diversifies the risk of adoption by producers.MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESSStudies indicate that the positive impacts of irrigation can be intensified by creating conditions or enabling environments rather than the mere supply of

8

irrigation water.In most cases, project success requires a strong functional water user group that collects and manages user fees, to install, maintain and re-invest in the shared water source and physical system components, as well as manage water allocation and usage by the individual members.

8

Mitigations and design measures included in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are summarized in the following table.Incorporation of these mitigations is expected to enhance the beneficial effects of the action alternatives and reduce the potential negative effects. These practices have been widely used in past projects including USAID-ACCESSO and Global Communities, and have been shown effective if implemented throughout the planning and implementation phases of projects.

7. FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONBased on review of the effects described in the PEA, Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action), and Alternative 3 (No Storage), are both identified as viable alternatives for consideration in site- specific project proposals.

7.1 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONAlternative 2 is recommended for the following reasons:

1. The adaptive approach of Alternative 2 allows the greatest degree of flexibility to select and design systems based on site-specific conditions and local needs.

2. It best meets the Purpose and Need for supplying an adequate amount of water for irrigation while minimizing the impacts on natural water systems and ecosystems when applied with the associated mitigation measures.

3. The lack of information on stream flows, precipitation, watershed conditions, and water uses makes any project a potential risk for environmental and social impacts. By limiting the size of projects to 10,000-20000 m3 of storage capacity and providing options to tailor the system to the site conditions, the risk of dam failure and excessive water use can be reduced.

4. Of the three water source options included in Alternative 2, the preference should be Option A since it best meets the need of responding to climate change by utilizing available surface flows rather than using limited permanent sources. It also has the least risk of affecting other users downstream, and the least risk of affecting riparian communities downstream. As a result of reduced environmental risk, it would also have the least monitoring cost since it does not potentially influence ecological flows. However, this option when combined with in-line storage creates an absolute need to fully comply with engineering design, construction and operation requirements. Improper design and construction is one of the leading causes of dam failure.

5. Option B of Alternative 2 can be a viable option, but presents complexities in designing diversions that only utilize excess rainwater above base flows, and has an increased risk of not maintaining ecological flows if not properly designed. The mitigation and monitoring items required for this option would reduce risk, but can be complicated and costly to implement.

6. Option C of Alternative 2 is a viable option although limiting water extraction to occur only during rain events would limit potential reservoir system, but eliminate downstream effects to riparian habitats and downstream uses. This option would likely be limited to providing a supplemental water source, or for smaller applications.

8

The No Action Alternative is not selected for the following reasons:

1. Large reservoirs (>20,000 m3 volume) have higher construction and maintenance costs, and require higher skill levels to design, construct and maintain.

2. Large reservoirs are often not within the capacity of a rural villages, small scale farmer to operate and maintain due to costs and technical capabilities.

8

3. Larger reservoirs require use of heavy machinery which can require road construction or improvement for access of equipment.

4. Some of the current projects underway have group sizes over 50. Global Communities has identified problems associated with large group sizes with respect to water use, irrigation scheduling and water governance. Other limitations include the ineffectiveness and high costs of training large numbers of participants.

5. Large reservoirs have an increased hazard risk due to higher volumes of water and the complexities of design and construction which can lead to dam failure.

6. Larger reservoirs based on water sources from permanent streams have a higher risk of exceeding ecological flows.

7. Smaller systems (less than 1,000 m3) of water storage can be useful for individual families, and have very little risk associated with water use or dam failure, but are not as beneficial at the community level because of their limited scale.

Alternative 3 is recommended for the following reasons:

1. Alternative 3 eliminates the risk of dam failure, mosquito breeding sources and would be less costly to implement.

2. Relying on available flows from permanent streams could increase the risk that ecological flows would not be maintained. However, in situations where available water is abundant, and downstream water needs can be maintained, this alternative could provide a reliable water source for drip irrigation systems.

3. Implementing ecological flow monitoring as described in Annex F and accurately evaluating available water balances during proposal development would reduce the potential effects of on downstream habitat and water needs although monitoring costs would be higher than other options.

4. Alternative 3 may not supply sufficient water during low or dry seasons due to the lack of water storage, but still meets the Purpose and Need with respect to providing water for irrigation systems and improving efficient water use through drip technology.

7.2 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe lack of detailed hydrologic information including stream flows, precipitation and water usage makes effects analysis extremely difficult even at the programmatic scale. This lack of information requires analyses to depend on the documented effectiveness of the design criteria and mitigations incorporated in this document.

While not identified as a required mitigation, the use of the recently developed Agri Tool by CIAT and USAID should be encouraged to facilitate the systematic identification of potential sites.

The adaptive approach described in this document is only useful if the information gained during monitoring is utilized to identify needed changes in approach or guidance. Similarly this information can be used to validate the effectiveness of guidance that is working as designed and should be continued in future projects.

8

Some of the required mitigations in this PEA rely on the participation of government agencies during both the development and operation phases. For example, permitting and authorizing water use for projects prior to construction and monitoring and permitting future projects that may later affect the proposed action. Their participation is currently hampered by limited funding, human resources, while trying to implement the most recent water law among others. This situation is critical with respect to all aspects of identifying, managing and monitoring water quantity and quality. Efforts should be made to help the government strengthen their capacity to

8

effectively implement the law to ensure that future projects are in compliance and maintaining or improving both social/economic and environmental conditions.

The interdisciplinary team recommends that efforts be pushed forward to inventory water assets, uses, and document water balances on a national scale. This information should include developing a country wide data base accessible for site-specific analyses. This information is critical for a full understanding of cumulative effects at both the local and national level and will become more critical as water needs increase.

In the meantime, this situation places an extreme burden on site-specific projects to adequately evaluate the potential effects on aquatic ecosystems and downstream uses. Also of critical importance for projects is providing quality control during all phases of a proposal including site- selection, design, construction and operation.

A review of a variety of completed projects identified the following general conclusions which should be considered during site-specific project development:

Higher costs of construction reduces feasibility and effectiveness of projects.

A local financial system (caja rural) should be present to support production.

Including participation from local organizations and agencies helps support the sustainability of projects.

Proper site selection is the fundamental criteria for project success.

Use a systematic process to identify sites:

Utilize a pre-selection process to evaluate potential sites and interest in participation

Study the physical, environmental, social, and economic viability of the project

Design the system and organization of the participants Develop the capacity of the local organizations and participants (Juntas

de agua, caja rural) Design and construct the system Provide on-going technical assistance in production, system use and

maintenance as well as marketing and financial management.

REFERENCES3Power Energy Group. (2011). HydroEnergy—Honduras.

http://3powergroup.com/generation/hydro/hondurasAbcAgro.com. (2013). El Cultivo del Maní.http://www.abcagro.com/frutas/frutos_secos/mani.asp.Annear, Tom, Beecher, Hal, and Instream Flow Council. (2004). Instream

flows—For riverine resource stewardship, revised edition: Cheyenne, Wyo., Instream Flow Council.

Balairón Pérez, L.; J. Álvarez Rodríguez; E. Borrell Brito; and M. Delgado Sánchez. (2003). Balance Hídrico de Honduras. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258291968.

Ballestero M, V Reyes, Y Astorga. (2007). Groundwater in Central America: Its Importance, Development and Use, with Particular Reference to Its Role in Irrigated Agriculture. The Agricultural Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to Development: Chapter 6. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/CABI_Publications/CA_CABI_Series/Ground_Wat er/protected/Giordano_1845931726-Chapter6.pdf? galog=no.

Blanco-Sepulveda, R, and A. Nieuwenhuyse. (2011). "Influence of Topographic and Edaphic Factors on Vulnerability to Soil Degradation Due to Cattle Grazing in Humid Tropical Mountains in Northern Honduras," Catena, 86, 130-137.

Boulton, A. J. (2003). Parallels and contrasts in the effect of drought on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 48:1173–1185.

Bradford, M.J., and Heinonen, J.S. (2008). Low flows, instream needs and fish ecology in small streams: Canadian Water Resources Journal, v. 33, no. 2, p. 165–180.

Brett, J.R. (1979). Environmental factors and growth, in Hoar, W.S., Randall, D.J., and Brett, J.R., eds., Fish physiology: New York, Academic Press, Bioenergetics and Growth, v. VIII, p. 599–675.

Briceno, Henry. (2013). Relating Freshwater Flow with Estuarine Water Quality in the Southern Everglades Mangrove Ecotone. Wetlands.

Bunn, S.E., and Arthington, A.H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity: Environmental Management, v. 30, no. 4, p. 492–507.

Carrasco, J. and R. Flores. (2012).La Palma Africana Especie Exótica e Invasora en los Humedales Costeros Marinos de la Vertiente Caribe de Honduras.

Center for Disease Control. (2015). Chikungunya Virus. http://www.cdc.gov/chikungunya/transmission/index.html

Center for Information on Legislative Studies (CIEL); Compendium of Environmental Legislation, Honduras. (2011). Compiled by Attorney Edwin Natanael Sanchez Navas.

Chiew, F. H. S., and T. A. McMahon. (2002). Modelling the impacts of climate change on Australian streamflow. Hydrological Processes 16:1235–1245.

9

Chow, VenTe. (1964). Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill.Churchill, M., and Dobrowloski, J. (2002). Agricultural Pressures on Ecoregions in Honduras.

Department of Geography, University of British Colombia.

57

5

Churchill, M., and J. Dobrowolski. (2002): "Agricultural Pressures on Ecoregions in Honduras," Department of Geography, University of British Colombia.

CIA. (2014). "Central America and Caribbean: Honduras." The World Factbook. Retrieved May 2014 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ho.html

Colaizzi PD, Lamm FR, TA Howell, and SR Evett. (2006). Crop Production Comparison under Various Irrigation Systems. USDA Agricultural Research Service and Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Contribution No. 06-193-A from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station - https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/irrigate/reports/Colaizzi06.pdf

Cosecha. (2016). Environmental Assessment for Cosecha: a Rainwater Harvesting Project in Southern Honduras. Approved 7 Jan 2016. Available at http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/egat/envcomp/repository/pdf/46031.pdf.

Crow F.R. and Manges H.L. (1967). Comparison of chemical and non-chemical techniques for suppressing evaporation from small reservoirs. Trans. ASAE 10(2): 172-174.

Cruz, Gustavo. (2014). Communication Personal.Deitch MJ, AM Merelender, and S Feirer. (2013). Cumulative Effects of Small

Reservoirs on Streamflow in Northern Coastal California Catchments. Water Resources Management. DOI 10.1007/s11269-013-0455-4.

Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria-Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería Honduras (DICTA-SAG). (2015). Regionales. http://www.dicta.hn/.

Dirección de Ciencias y Tecnología Agropecuaria-Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería (DICTA- SAG) Honduras. (2015). Regionales. http://www.dicta.hn/.

Eitzinger A, Sonder K, Schmidt A. (2012). Tortillas on the Roaster: Central American Maize-Bean Systems and the Changing Climate. PQ Publications, Baltimore.

EPA Report 822–P–15–002, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5160. (2015).EPA-USGS. (n.d). Technical Report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration. Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET). (2014). Honduras Livelihood Zone

Descriptions.FAO. (2009). Global Agriculture toward 2050. Rome. Retrieved May 2014

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agric ulture.pdf

FAO. (2010). Manual on small earth dams. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 64.http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1531e/i1531e00.pdf

5

FAO. (2014): "Honduras." AQUASTAT. Retrieved May 2014 from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/ countries regions/HND/index.stm

FAO. (2015). Aquastat Fact Sheet. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=HND. FEMA. (1987). Dam Safety: An Owner's Guidance Manual. Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Washington, D.C., FEMA 145, August 1987.Fipps G and FJ Dainello. (2014). Chapter V: Irrigation in the Texas Vegetable Growers Handbook.

Texas A&M Horticulture Network.http://aggie- horticulture.tamu.edu/vegetable/guides/texas-vegetable-growers-handbook/chapter-v- irrigation/ FOSDEH. 2014. Análisis de Pobreza en Honduras. Caracterización y Analisis de determinantes.

6

http://www.fosdeh.com/archivos/documentos/Publicaciones/Libros/determinantes_pobrez a.pdf

Gilbert, A.J. and Jansson, R. (1998). Use of Environmental Functions to Communicate the Value of a Mangrove Ecosystem under Direct Management Regimes. Ecol. Econ 25: 323-341.

Gobierno de Honduras (GoH). (2010). Visión de País 2010–2038. Infraestructura Productiva como motor de la actividad económica

GoH. (2009).Ley General de Aguas. Available at http://www.gwp.org/Global/GWP- CAm_Files/LEY %20GENERAL%20DE%20AGUAS%202009.pdf.

Government of Canada. (2013). Positive Effects of Small Dams and Reservoirs. Secondary menu.http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1351881784186

Global Water Partnership (GWP). (2011). Situación de los Recursos Hídricos en Centroamérica: Hacia una Gestión Integrada. Tegucigalpa: 93 pp. Available at: http://www.gwp.org/Global/GWP-CAm_Files/SituaciondelosRecursosHidricos.pdf.

Hansen, P., and E. Florez. (2008): "Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity (FAA 118 and 119) Analyses: USAID/Honduras Report," Tegucigalpa: US Agency for International Assistance, 93 pp.

Hanson, G.J., D.M. Temple, S.L. Hunt, and R.D. Tejral. (2011). Development and characterization of soil material parameters for embankment breach. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 27(4): 587‐ 595.

Helfrich, Louis, et al. (n.d.). Pesticides and Aquatic Animals: A Guide to Reducing Impacts on Aquatic Systems. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Virginia Cooperative Extension.Retrieved on 2007-10-14.

Henriksen, J.A., Heasley, John, Kennen, J.G., and Nieswand, Steven. (2006). Users’ manual for the hydro ecological integrity assessment process software (including the New Jersey Assessment Tools): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1093, 71 p.

Hirji, Rafik; Davis, Richard. (2009). Environmental flows in water resources policies, plans, and projects : findings and recommendations. Environment and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2009/01/10630614/environmental-flows- water-resources-policies-plans-projects-findings-recommendations

Hollick, M. (1982). Water harvesting in the arid lands. Scientific Reviews on Arid Zone Research Vol. 1: 173-247, Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.

Hondubirding. (2008). Parque Nacional Celaque. https://hondubirding.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/parque-nacional-celaque/.

House, P.R. and Midence, C. (2007).Elaboración de un Análisis de Vacíos del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Honduras: Distribución de

6

Especies Prioritarias. DIBIO/TNC/WWF.Hussain, Intizar and Hanjra, Munir A. (2004). Irrigation and Poverty Alleviation:

Review of the Empirical Evidence. Available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/propoor/files/ADB_Project/Research_Papers/Irrigation_and_po verty_alleviation.pdf?galog=no .

IDB. (2014). Agriculture and Future Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean: Systemic Impacts and Potential Responses. Discussion Paper No.IDB-DP-329.

INE. (2001). National Census on Population and Housing 2001.

6

INE. (2013). "Censos y Encuestas," Tegucigalpa: Gobierno de Unidad Nacional. Retrieved May 2014 from http://www.ine.gob.hn/

Institute for Economics and Peace. (2015). Global Peace Index: 2015. Sydney, Australia. http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Global-Peace-Index-Report- 2015_0.pdf .

Instituto Nacional de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (ICF). (2014). Anuario Estadístico Forestal 2013.Available athttp://www.reddccadgiz.org/documentos/doc_1199314319.pdf.

Instituto Nacional de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal, Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre/Departamento de Áreas Protegidas (ICF/DAP). (2009). Manual de Procedimientos para la Elaboración de Planes de Manejo en las Áreas Protegidas del SINAPH. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. https://mocaph.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2009-manual-planes-de- manejo.pdf

Instituto Nacional Estadística. (2001). Censo Nacional.Instituto Universitario en Democracia, Paz y Seguridad (IUDPAS). (2012). Boletín Nacional: Enero

- Diciembre 2011. Observatorio de la Violencia 24. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. http://iudpas.org/pdf/Boletines/Nacional/NEd24EneDic2011.pdf.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. www.ipcc.ch

International Crisis Group. (2014).Corridor of Violence: The Guatemala-Honduras Border. Latin America Report n.52, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin- america/Guatemala/052-corridor-of-violence-the-guatemala-honduras-border.pdf.

IUCN. (2010). Especiesinvasoras.https://iucn.org/es/sobre/union/secretaria/oficinas/med/programa_uicn_med/esp ecies/especies_invasoras/ .

IUDPAS. (2015a). Boletín Nacional: Enero - Diciembre 2014. Observatorio de la Violencia 36. http://iudpas.org/pdf/Boletines/Nacional/NEd36EneDic2014.pdf.

IUDPAS. (2015b). Boletín Especial Sobre Muerte Violenta de Mujeres y Femicidios: Distrito Central, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, La Cieba y Tela. Observatorio de la Violencia Edición Especial 27. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. http://iudpas.org/pdf/Boletines/Especiales/BEP_Ed27.pdf.

Jiménez Nehring, N.G. (2012). Producción de madera y almacenamiento de carbono en cafetales con cedro (Cedrelaodorata) y caoba (Swieteniamacrophylla) en Honduras. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE).Turrialba, Costa Rica. http://orton.catie.ac.cr/repdoc/A9025E/A9025E.PDF.

Jovel et al. (2011). Malaria Journal. 10:376 doi:10.1186/1475-2875-10-376.Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., and Peterson, T.C., eds. (2009). Global climate

6

change impacts in the United States: New York, Cambridge University Press.

Laing I.A.F. and Prout A.L. Bitumen. (1975). Oil, and clay surfaces on a deep sand to increase runoff from catchments for excavated tanks in Western Australia. In: Proc. Water Harvesting Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona, March 1974. Frasier G.W. (ed). USDA-ARS-W-22.

Lake, P. S. (2003). Ecological effects of perturbation by drought in flowing waters. Freshwater Biology 48: 1161–1172.

6

Larned, S. T., T. Datry, and C. T. Robinson. (2007). Invertebrate and microbial responses to inundation in an ephemeral river reach in New Zealand: effects of preceding dry periods. Aquatic Sciences 69:554–567.

Londra PA, AT Theocharis, E Baltas, and VA Tshirintizi. (2015). Effect of Dry Period in Sizing of Domestic Rainwater Harvesting Tanks. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Rhodes, Greece. 3-5 September 2015.http://cest.gnest.org/cest15proceedings/public_html/papers/cest2015_00344_poster_paper.pdf

Mayrai Gindy, May. (2007). Assessment of Downstream Hazard Potential for Dam Failure in Rhode Island, Rhode Island Water Resources Center.

Merrill, T. (1995): Honduras: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. Mesa de ONGs Comanejadoras de Áreas Protegidas de

Honduras (MOCAPH). (n.d.). ParqueNacional Montana de Celaque Mancomunidad MAPANCE-PROCELAQUE. Accessed 2015. https://mocaph.wordpress.com/miembros/capitulo-occidente/mapance/.

Ngonidzashe LM. (2007). The Development of a Risk-of-Failure Evaluation Tool for Small Dams in Mzingwane Catchment, University of Zimbabwe.

Noor, T. (2015). Effects of Siltation, Temperature and Salinity on Mangrove Plants. European Academic Research, Vol 2, Issue 11.

Norman WH. (1987). Soil and Water Conservation in Semi-Arid Areas, FAO Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0321e/t0321e00.htm.

Obama, Barack. (2014). Executive Order Climate-Resilient International Development. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/executive-order-climate- resilient-international- development.

OCHA. (2015). http://reliefweb.int/report/honduras/honduras-emergencia-por-sequ-en-el- corredor-seco-al-24-de-agosto-del-2015

Ordoñez, Mario. (2015). Exportaciones de café suben en 21%. La Voz de Honduras. Available at http://www.radiohrn.hn/l/noticias/exportaciones-de-caf%C3%A9-suben-en-un-21.

Orellana, Jorge H.; Machado, F.; and Rivas, A. (2008). Recursos Hídricos, contaminación y sociedad civil en el occidente de Honduras. Revista Ciencia y Tecnología, No.2, Segunda Época, UNAH Septiembre 2008.

Pan American Health Organization. (2009). Health Systems Profile Honduras: Monitoring and Analyzing Health Systems Change/Reform. Washington, D.C. http://www.paho.org/PAHO-

6

USAID/dmdocuments/Health_System_Profile- Honduras_2009.pdf .Pedersen, TL. (1997). Pesticide residues in drinking water.

extoxnet.orst.edu. Retrieved on September 15, 2017.Peters RT. (2009). Drip Irrigation for Agricultural Producers. Washington

State University Extension Services.http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Secondary_Pages/Irr_Fact_Sheets/DripIrrForAgProducer s.pdf.

PHI. (2012). "Informe Nacional de Honduras sobre Actividades Relacionadas Al PHI," Tegucigalpa: UNESCO, 10 pp. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/temp/IHP- IGC-XX/Honduras_NatRep_2012.pdf

6

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, And J. C. Stromberg. (1997). The natural flow regime. BioScience 47: 769–784.

Prinz D, Singh A. (2002). Technological Potential for Improvements in Water Harvesting. World Commission of Dams. Assessment of Irrigation Options Review IV.2.

Programa PYMERURAL. (2013). Manual de manejo del cultivo de camote. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. http://www.pymerural.org/docs/manual_camote_11-12-13.pdf?url=/camote.

Programa REDD/CCAD-GIZ. (2014). Mapa Forestal y de Cobertura de la Tierra de Honduras: Análisis de Cifras Nacionales.http://www.reddccadgiz.org/monitoreoforestal/docs/mrv_1731341615.pdf.

Pulver, JS, Moreira S, Zorrilla G. (2010). Catching the Rains. Rice Today Vol. 9 (3) (July-September 2010). International Rice Research Institute. http://www.irri.org

Reef, Ruth and Catherine Lonloch. (2015). Regulation of Water Balance in Mangroves. Annals of Botany, 385-395.

Relief Web. (2015). 48% of Municipalities in Honduras are impacted by drought. http://reliefweb.int/report/honduras/el-48-de-municipios-golpeados-por-sequ-en-honduras

Robert J. Rolls, Catherine Leigh, and Fran Sheldon. (n.d.). Mechanistic effects of low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles and consequences of alteration, Freshwater Science, 2012, 31(4):1163–1186.

Sánchez-Triana E and S Enríquez. (2007). A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Analysis Systems in Latin America. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/c688c7004c08ac00ae87be79803d5464/2_EIA+in+LA C+IAIA+Seoul.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Schultz, R., and M. Liess. (2001a). Acute and chronic effects of particle-associated fenvalerate on Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería (SAG). (2014). Inicia Construcción de Cosechas de Agua.

Disponible en http://www.sag.gob.hn/sala-de-prensa/noticias/ano-2014/agosto-2014/inicia- construccion-de-cosechas-de-agua/ .

Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (SERNA). (2008). Especies de preocupación especial de Honduras. http://www.hn.undp.org/content/dam/honduras/docs/publicaciones/Especies_Preocupacion_Especial_Honduras.pdf.

Secretaría de Salud, Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) e ICF International (SS, INE e ICF International). (2013). Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Demografía 2011–2012. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. http://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR274/FR274.pdf

SERNA. (2014a). Plan de Acción Nacional de Lucha Contra la Desertificación y

6

Sequía 2014-2022.Government of Honduras.

SERNA. (2014b). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras. Evaluación de los recursos hídricos en su régimen natural al nivel nacional.

SERNA. (n.d.). Especies de Preocupación Especial en Honduras.Servicio Meteorológico Nacional. (2014): "Perspectiva Climática para Honduras," Tegucigalpa.

Retrieved July 2014 from http://www.smn.gob.hn/index.php/climatologia/perspectivas-del- clima-en-honduras.html.

6

Sibley, P.K., K.N. Kaushik, and D.P. Kreutzweiser. (1991). Impact of a pulse application of permethrin on the macroinvertebrate community of a headwater stream. Environmental Pollution 70:35-55.

Sistema Iberoamericano de Información Sobre el Agua (SIAGUA). (n.d.).Honduras.http://www.siagua.org/pais/honduras.

Stanford University. (2014). Understanding California’s Groundwater. Water in the West.

Available at http://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/.Stockhom Environment Institute (SEI). (2009). Rainwater Harvesting: A

Lifeline for Human Well- being. UNEP. Available at http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Rainwater_Harvesting_090310b.pdf.

Stromberg, J. G., S. J. Lite, M. D. Dixon (2009). Effects of Stream Flow Patterns on Riparian Vegetation of a Semiarid River. Implications for a Changing Climate. River Research and Application 26:712-729.

Tabora, F., M. Basterrechea, H. Candanedo, M. Wallace, N. Kawas, R. Artiga, R. Frutos, M. Solis, J. Sánchez, T. Rodriguez, L. Zelaya, P. Ramirez, and G. Paquet. (2011). "Situación de los Recursos Hídricos en Centroamérica: Hacia una Gestión Integrada," Tegucigalpa: GWP- EU-ZONAF-BCIE, 147 pp. Available at http://www.gwp.org/Global/GWP- CAm_Files/SituaciondelosRecursosHidricos.pdf.

TetraTechARC. (2013). Vulnerability and Resilience to Climate Change in Southern Honduras.

USAID: Africa and Latin America Resilience to Climate Change. Available at http://community.eldis.org/.5b9bfce3/Southern%20Honduras%20Vulnerability%20Assessm ent%20Report_CLEARED.pdf

The Nature Conservancy. (2006). The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Flows. Available at http://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/TNC_and_Environmental_Flows.pdf.

Thiere, G., and R. Schulz. (2004). Runoff-related agricultural impact in relation to macroinvertebrate communities of the Lourens River, South Africa. Water Research 38:3092-3102.

Thorn, Sherry. (2015). Personal communication.Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. (2011). Global Food Demand and the

Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. Proc National Academy of Science, USA. 108: 20260-20264.

Tim Stephens. (2010). Manual on small earth dams, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2002). Coastal Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-1100. (With 2008 changes).

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2015). Central America and Caribbean: Honduras. The World Factbook. Retrieved November 2015 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ho.html.

6

US Bureau of Reclamation. (2012). Flood Overtopping Failure of Dams and Levees, Best Practices and Risk Methodology http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/risk/methodology.html

UNDP. (2003). Human Development Report 2003.UNDP. (2012). Garantizar la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. Objetivos del

Milenio. UNDP Honduras. Available at http://www.ar.undp.org/content/argentina/es/home/mdgoverview/overview/mdg7.html.

7

UNDP. (2013). Human Development Report. 2013: The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. Available athttp://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country- Profiles/HND.pdf

UNDP. (2014). HDI Honduras Country Profile. Available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/HND.

UNEP/GPA. (2006a). The State of the Marine Environment. Trends and processes. unep/gpa, The Hague.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Global study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data. Report, Vienna, Austria. https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

US Bureau of Reclamation. (2012). Flood Overtopping Failure of Dams and Levees , Best Practices and Risk Methodology http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/risk/methodology.html.

USACE. (1997). “Hazard Potential Classification,” ER 1110-2-1155 12 Sep 97.USACE. (2016). Technical Guide: USACE Support to SAG/USAID Drought Assistance Program.

Latin American Project Management Section, Geotechnical and Dam Safety Section.

USAID. (2002). Groundwater Resources Monitoring Report and Management Plan. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnacu597.pdf.

USAID. (2008).Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity (FAA 118 and 119) Analyses: USAID Honduras Report. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadq905.pdf.

USAID. (2013). Biodiversity-Related Threats in Southern and western Honduras: Implications for USAID and GoH Programming, 2014–2018.

USAID. (2014a). Vulnerability and Resilience to Climate Change in Western Honduras. African and Latin American Resilience to Climate Change Project (ARCC). http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K6DW.pdf

USAID. (2014b). Honduras Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Analyses: US Foreign Assistance Act, Section 118/119 Report, September 2014. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadq905.pdf

USAID. (2014c). Sector Environmental Guidelines: Agriculture. Available at http://www.usaidgems.org/Sectors/agriculture.htm.

USAID. (2015a). Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2015-2019. Available at https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1862/Honduras%20CDCS%20Public.p df

USAID. (2015b). Drip Irrigation in Honduras: Findings and Recommendations. Scaling Up Agricultural Technologies from USAID´s Feed the Future. Available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KFQH.pdf.

7

USAID. (2016). USAID Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance – Honduras.

Available at http://www.land-links.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Honduras_Profile_0.pdf.

USAID/Honduras. (2016). Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Development Objective 2.

USGS. (2015). Irrigation techniques. The USGS Water Science School.. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/edu/irmethods.html.

Vasquez, M. (2015). Proyecto: Mitigación a la Sequía. CRS, Honduras.

7

Velásquez, Ana R. (2013). ICF y su Contribución a las Áreas Protegidas y Corredores Biológicos.ICF. http://www.camaradeturismodelaceiba.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/Presentaci%C3%B3n-Ana-R.-Velasquez-Corredores- Biologicos.pdf .

Wahl, Tony L. (1998). “Prediction of Embankment Breach Parameters, A Literature Review and Needs Assessment,” DSO-98-004, Dam Safety Research Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Water Planning and Regulation of Water Supply, Department of Energy and Water Supply. (2016).

Guidelines on Acceptable Flood Capacity for Water Dams.Watershed Evaluation of Beneficial Management Practices Government of

Honduras. (2001). Estrategía para la reducción de pobreza: Un Compromiso de todos para Honduras. http://www.unicef.org/honduras/ERPCompleto.pdf

WHO. (2015). Global Health Observatory Data for Honduras.WHO. (2016). Mosquito control: can it stop Zika at source?

Available at http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/articles/mosquito-control/en/.

World Bank. (2015). Forest area (% of Land Area).Data. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wb api_data_value+wbapi_data_value- last&sort=asc.

World Population Review. Rivera, et al., (2009). Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), United Nations Development Programme (UNPD), 2014

World Resources Institute (WRI). (2011). Ecosystem services review for Impact Assessment. http://www.wri.org/publication/ecosystem-services-review-impact-assessment

World Resources Institute (WRI). (2011). Ecosystem services review for Impact Assessment. Available online at: http://www.wri.org/publication/ecosystem-services-review-impact- assessment

Zhu, Qiang and Yuanhong Li [GRIWAC]. (2003). Drought-proofing villages in Gansu province.

LEISA Magazine, 19.2, June 2003. Available online at: http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/using-every-drop-of-water/drought- proofing-villages-in-gansu-province.

Zorn, T.G., Seelbach, P.W., and Rutherford, E.S. (2012). A regional-scale habitat suitability model to assess the effects of flow reduction on fish assemblages in Michigan streams: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 48, no. 5, p. 871–895.

ANNEXESANNEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLANCost estimates are not included since they must be considered at the project level to account for site-specific conditions and described in the project level EMMP.

Designer of Record (DOR) and is the qualified engineer assigned to

design the project. CC is the Construction Contractor.

Project Manager is the implementing partner staff assigned to implement the project.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIONDESCRIPTION OF

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION GENERAL

1. Construction shall occur Project Manager/ Dates of Provide construction schedule with The schedule should in the dry-season to reduce

Contractor shows work will be accomplished during the dry

provided with theerosion, avoid damage to

season (November thru May). planning and designaccess routes, and avoid documents.contractor rain delays, etc.

66

6


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

2. Identify water basin capacity with approved hydrologic methods or models

DOR Method used; Water capacity m3.

Utilize commonly accepted methods such as those described in the Handbook of Applied Hydrology, VenTe Chow, 1964 McGraw Hill. Page 21-38. Incorporate reservoir capacity; then evaluate flow rates and flow volumes based on reduced capacity. The post-water harvesting water balance should be used to define ecological flows (present and future) and withdrawal limits. Once established, the hydrologic model can be updated in an ongoing fashion for a given watershed. For any additional reservoirs proposed within the same watershed, the hydrology model can be updated to define user capacity and remaining discharge capacity for ecological flows on water harvesting. Apply standard hydrologic algorithms using best available data. Rainfall data inputs may require estimates and can be updated over time, but the withdrawal volumes will be accurate so that the model shows relative withdrawal effects. Every existing reservoir would require its’ unique watershed model, and those with multiple reservoirs in the same watershed will show cumulative effects and limits. The growing number of

During Initial design/Planning.

6


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

3. Site selection should utilize the Agri-Tool software developed through USAID and CIAT to help identify and evaluate all possible options for site

Program Manager Agri-tool output Existing agency personnel are trained in the use of the tool, and staff engineers can use Agri-tool watershed delineations, slope information, etc., to build Hydrologic models;

When: Planning and Design.

Initial site selection phase

4. Identify and integrate the spatial aspect and relationship of all users in a drainage system including the size and locations of other reservoirs on those tributaries, and the water rights within the

DOR/Project Manager

Map of water uses occurring in the affected watershed,

Includes water volume (m3) for each use.

During the planning phase, identify through community interviews, available information other activities and land uses in the affected watershed that could influence available water or be affected by the proposed project. Information is incorporated in design specifications and used by the project manager to resolve potential conflicts

During initial site selection phase

5. Ensure design and construction includes a review of the design for technical accuracy by a competent professional and verification of construction quality and adherence to the plans and specifications.

DOR/Project Manager

# Designs reviewed Date of Review

Review Design Prior to construction

6. Obtain all required permits and approvals prior to beginning construction.

DOR/Project Manager

Permit List Consult local municipality, MiAmbiente, and local water board.

Prior to construction

7. Ensure adequate access can be achieved using only existing or temporary roads and that temporary roads are obliterated following

DOR/Project Manager

# meters temporary roads# meters existing roads

Based on equipment needs, ensure existing roads are adequate for construction equipment. Where temporary roads are used they must be obliterated and restored to pre-construction conditions following use


6


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

8. Ensure crop lands are feasible for irrigation

DOR/Project Manager

Soil Type% Slopes

Consider soil infiltration and slopes Prior to construction

9. Ensure adequate distance and relief from diversion to reservoir and/or to fields.

DOR/Project Manager

% SlopeDistance (meters)

Utilize basic topography to ensure adequate slopes are present to meet pressure requirements for drip irrigation


Engineering and ConstructionWater sources common to all options1. Surface runoff directly

into a reservoir or above water diversion point should run down land with vegetative cover to minimize sedimentation accumulation in reservoir system. If the catchment zone does not have sufficient vegetation cover, erosion prevention measures such as construction of canals,

DOR/Project Manager

% veg cover in catchment area.

Review vegetation condition During design phase and incorporate treatments as needed.

Engineering and ConstructionWater Source Option A Surface Runoff Collection.1. When reservoir is

outside a defined channel, a diversion system is constructed.

DOR Completed design review

Diversion system should be constructed that can temporarily divert flow to the reservoir until full and then be removed to allow normal flows through the channel.

Design and operation phase.

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

2. When reservoir is constructed within a defined channel, the spill way must be designed and armored per engineering design

DOR Completed design review

The spillway must be designed to specifications described in item #23 under storage type in the EMMP.

Design and operation phase.

Engineering and ConstructionWater Source Option B Collection from Permanent Streams.1. Ensure only peak flows are

DOR #Completed Design

The mean flow shall be estimated using either the

Design and Operationcollected from permanent

Reviews rational formula with intensity equivalent to one

Phase collected monthlystreams under water

sourceyear period, or by duplicating the ecological flow

and reviewed annually.option B. Water use records defined in the hydroelectric ecological

flow guide. This will allow the weir to be Water volume used (m3);

only water above the mean flow. Optional diversion methods would

Water volume flowing;

standard diversion weir with pipes at the bottomPrecipitation

(cm/month)to allow water to pass up to the ecological flow,or at the base of the natural channel define theheight of the water surface for the ecologicaldischarge and construct a lateral weir that allowswithdraw of water only above that level. Wateruse is recorded for each crop cycle.

2. Maintenance of Ecological

Project Manager See Annex F. See Annex F. Best Management Practices for

Prior to constructionFlows of permanent Small Hydroelectric Projects. Note, the

guidanceand monthly during

streams when no storage

in Annex F will be superseded when the guidance

operationssystem used. currently being prepared by the

Department ofHydrologic Resources is complete.

Establishment of ecological flows would be refinedbased on project implementation monitoring.

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

Engineering and Construction Water Source: Option C (Spring)1. Withdraw water from the

Project Manager Water use records Review water use records annually. (Operation Phase)spring only during rain events and within authorized limits. In case of severe drought, or if riparian condition

Water volume used (m3); Water volume flowing; Precipitation (cm/month)

Data collected monthly and reviewed annually.

measurable changes frombaseline, the flows should

bererouted back to the naturalsystem.

Engineering and Construction Open Conveyance System1. Design and construct

system to avoid standing water by ensuring constant flows through adequate slopes, and that system is completely

DOR % slope# of areas with pooling water

Verify design before construction and inspect construction.

(Design and construction Phase)

2. Line channels with mortar and rock unless soil types have low permeability.

DOR Type of channel material

Verify design before construction and inspect construction

(Design and Construction Phase)

3. Reduce lengths to less than 100 meters for easier visual inspection and maintenance to prevent water

DOR Conveyance length (meters)

Verify design before construction and inspect construction

(Design and Construction Phase)

4. Design will include a sediment basin.

DOR Completed Design Verify design before construction and inspect construction

Design and construction phase.

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

Engineering and Construction Closed Conveyance System1. Only use when an

open system is not feasible due to Rocks/ridges, distance, topography or other issues that preclude building open channel

DOR Completed Design Verify design before construction Design Phase

2. Ensure design considers calculations for both positive and negative pressure.

DOR Pressure calculations

Verify design before construction Pre-construction

3. Train groups in maintenance/repair of the conveyance system.

DOR/Program Manager

Training Attendance Records.

Training takes place before during and after construction to ensure full understanding of all system components.

Prior to operation.

4. Provide groups with minimum spare parts to initiate project. Pipe materials may require vacuum breaks, they can deteriorate with time, leak, and waste

Program Manager Parts list A completed parts list is provided to the participants

Prior to initiating operations.

Engineering and Construction Storage Type (Earthen)1. Maintain water surface

area less than one hectare to reduce water loss to evaporation.

DOR Surface Area (hectares)

Check for consistency during design review.

Design Phase

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

2. The DOR will create an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manual for the farmers that will detail key aspects of operations and

DOR Completed O&M Manual

N/A The O&M manual will be delivered to the farmers at the conclusion of construction activities.

3. When using cascading reservoirs, drain the highest reservoir first to avoid risk of dam failure of the upper reservoir into the lower reservoir due to increased pressure.

Farmers N/A Include language/illustration showing the emptying of the upper reservoir first.

As needed

4. Reservoir capacity should be designed for the demand needed, but should generally not exceed 20,000 m3

DOR/Program Manager

Completed Design calculations

Provide narrative and plan that details what crops, land area, evaporation/infiltration rates, will be supported by the water harvesting project. The plan should be communicated to the farmers as technical assistance with crop management.

This value should also account for infiltration, evaporation, and include a factor of safety for volume. The number of participating farmers and the area irrigated would vary based on

Planning phase and post construction

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

5. The dam should be located to minimize height of earth embankment while achieving required storage and pressure to the irrigation system. No embankment should be greater than 6 m. high.

DOR Completed Design calculations

Narrative in design memorandum explaining the optimization of embankment location and height to provide the required storage capacity and pressure. In cases where the embankment is greater than six meters high, a special justification and technical specification must be included in the design. As a general rule, embankments taller than 6 meters present more risk of

Design and construction phase

6. Embankment Side slopes should be at a minimum 3H:1V.

DOR and Construction Contractor

Side slope measurements

Site plans and specifications should clearly show the side slopes of the embankment (DOR). Side slopes of embankment should be checked during construction for conformance with plans and specifications

Design phase and construction phase

7. Alignment/locations of the embankment features should be laid out on the ground in the field before construction begins. Wooden stakes are recommended and

DOR, Construction Contractor, Farmers

Dates of preconstruction field layout

Meet on site and lay out the embankment alignment before construction begins. The layout at a minimum should include the crest of the embankment (where it ties into high ground), upstream and downstream toe, spillway, and excavation outline of reservoir.

Construction Phase

8. No excavation activities of the reservoir shall be closer than 10 meters to the upstream toe of the embankment. See figure 19 of Tech Guide

DOR and Construction Contractor

Completed Design Show excavation limits on plans and specifications and ensure direction is clear. (DOR). Ensure compliance with plans and specifications during construction (CC).

Design and construction Phase

9. All the vegetation, rocks and loose soil shall be removed from the footprint of the embankment (clearing and grubbing).

DOR and CC % vegetation, rocks and loose soil on embankment

Show clearing and grubbing excavation section and detail on plans and ensure direction is clear in specifications (DOR). Ensure compliance with plans and specifications during construction (CC).

Design and construction

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

10. Ensure proper core trench (diente) design and construction if included in embankment. See Army Core Tech Guide Annex E “Design of Dam Embankment”

DOR and CC % course grain material

Show core trench on plans and specify trench material requirements (i.e. clay with less than 50% course grain material). Ensure that core of dam is constructed with clay material (greater than 30% clay). If the field test define that the clay content is less than 50% lab test is recommended. Identify borrow source for core trench material (DOR and/or CC). Perform quality control of material composition as it is placed in embankment structure (CC). Reject material that does not comply with plans and specifications (CC). Ensure clear understanding of the critical care the


11. No rocks larger than half the thickness of one lift (layer of embankment fill) allowed in the embankment. See Tech Guide Chapter “Construction Methods

DOR/ CC # Rocks larger than lift layer

Include the definition of the largest size rock allowed in the embankment in the contract documents (DOR). Plan construction process to remove rocks from embankment fill material.Import material that meets design specifications (CC). Perform quality control during embankment construction


7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

12. Ensure compaction of embankment fill meets design specifications. The width at the crest of the embankment should be at a minimum a 3 to 1 embankment geometry.

DOR/CC Compaction Specifications from design

DOR must specify minimum compaction requirements of embankment fill in the contract plans and specifications. Contract plans and specifications must include required testing procedures to prove compaction has been met (DOR). CC must provide means (equipment, labor, etc.) and methods (plan to place and compact fill, moisture control, density testing). CC and DOR should coordinate actions to mitigate instances of improper compaction (may include removal of fill and


13. Check embankment seepage in design memorandum.

DOR Seepage results from Inspection Report

Include Lanes Creep Ratio check in design memorandum (Tech Guide “Design of Dam Embankment”) or performs seepage analysis using accepted industry standard methods. Since seepage is dependent on assumed characteristics of the embankment and foundation soil, the DOR should witness excavation of embankment area or be notified by the

Design and construction

14. Monitor seepage during first filling of reservoir.

DOR and Farmers Seepage results from Inspection Report

O&M manual includes instructions to check for seepage of the embankment and downstream of the embankment during the first filling (DOR). First filling is the critical test of the embankment and should be monitored closely (DOR & Farmers). The Farmers should understand what to look for and what to do if seepage is observed during first filling (example: stop filling reservoir if

Operation Phase

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

15. Ensure adequate clay/silt content.

DOR and CC Soil Types at the bottom of the reservoir, under the embankment, and downstream of the embankment

The soil type(s) should be identified during the planning and design phase. The DOR will use this information to make decisions about infiltration of reservoir, seepage through and under embankment, and suitability for use as embankment fill (Tech Guide “Subsurface Conditions & Investigations”)(DOR). The CC should be familiar with the assumed soils at the site and inform the DOR if soil conditions are not as assumed. Modifications to embankment and/or

Planning, Design, Construction Phases

16. After construction, vegetate surface to protect from erosion.

DOR, CC, Farmer. % Vegetation Plans and specifications should require vegetation as erosion protection on exposed earth (embankments, backfilled conveyance lines, etc) (DOR). Use native grass species such as pastoestellacynodonplectostachius – Cynodonnlemfluensis, alisia to create a carpet of protection (CC). Farmer should maintain vegetation to ensure

Design, construction, and O&M Phases

17. If the height of the embankment from the downstream toe is greater than 10 meters, or a dam failure hazard rating is High, an approved geotechnical design and shall be required.

DOR Dam Height at downstream toe

A detailed geotechnical investigation and design is required for higher risk dams. Taller embankments are a greater concern for dam failure because of the higher water pressures acting on and through the soil. The geotechnical report should include seepage and slope stability analysis of the embankment under transient and steady state seepage conditions. Rapid draw down and seismic stability

Design Phase

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

18. Excavations deeper than one meter shall be no steeper than 2H:1V.

DOR & CC. Excavated steepness ratio

Plans and Specifications state excavation slopes no steeper than 2h: 1v (DOR). CC adheres to plans and specifications (CC). Rule of thumb is to require dozer operator to be able to travel all slopes horizontally during construction. If the slope is too steep to operate the dozer across the slope then

Construction Phase

19. Monitor soil type during reservoir excavation and notify DOR if different soils are uncovered (

DOR & CC Soil Types CC). If a higher permeability soil is uncovered during construction an infiltration test should be conducted. Reservoir design/capacity should be checked for project requirements. In southern areas experience indicates that free draining soil can be encountered at depths of 1 meter below existing ground surface. If a free draining soil (sand/gravel) is encountered during excavations of reservoirs, excavations should cease.

Construction Phase

20. Soil infiltration shall not exceed 10^-6 cm/sec(5mm/day).

DOR/Program Manager

Infiltration rate cm/sec

Soil in the bottom of the reservoir should have an infiltration rate of less than 10^-6 cm/sec (5mm/day). This value is typical for clay and will provide the best retention of water, thus reduced reservoir volume when accounting for losses due to infiltration. If this infiltration rate is exceeded by the reservoir soil then the DOR should account for the reservoir volume increase. The DOR should include a cost comparison of “over building” the reservoir with natural soil versus using a

Design Phase

7


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

21. Calculate excavation and embankment volumes.

Program Manager, DOR, and CC

Volume of borrow soil

The DOR includes volume calculations for the excavation in the reservoir and fill soil needed in the embankment. The design memorandum shall say if soil for the embankment must come from a borrow source outside of the reservoir excavation (DOR). The cost of borrow soil should be a factor in the feasibility determination of the project (DOR & Planner). DOR and CC should identify off site borrow source before construction begins. The cost of the borrow soil must be confirmed before construction begins. In southern areas, experience indicates 50% of the

Planning, Design, Construction Phases

22. Little to no exposed rock present at proposed reservoir location.

Program Manager/DOR

% rock present Try to locate the reservoir in areas with the least amount of rock and cobbles. Rock and cobbles add extra work and cost during construction.Surface rocks can indicate that bedrock is relatively shallow and may cause capacity issues if encountered during

Planning Phase

23. Include a staff gauge to measure water volume in the reservoir to track consumption and availability. A simple vertical board with gradations related to capacity could easily be developed for every reservoir and could be an essential tool for planning environmentally sound

DOR/CC Gauge presence Use post-construction elevation data from the reservoir basin for a simple water depth/volume relationship with depth increments painted on a flat surface. For example, the gradations could be painted on a board or piling installed vertically in the water or even angled from the dry bank towards the bottom of the reservoir from a fixed point on the bank. (Centimeter or decimeter gradations would be sufficient)

After construction but prior to filling.

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

24. Spillway is designed to convey overflow without reservoir overtopping (see tech page 29):

DOR Calculations showing spillway volume specifications

a. Shape should be rectangular since it is easy to maintain and construct.

b. Discharge must be calculated using standard hydrologic methods. Maximum Rainfall intensity will be used, established to account for regional variations. Spillway design should specify the requirement for grass cover or armor (example: with mortar/rock) based on velocity from the maximum rainfall intensity flow from the design calculations.

c.The bottom of the spillway must be at least one meter below top of the dam. This allows storage for high-intensity events that greatly reduces the risk of overtopping and scouring the dam.

d. The recommended maximum design height of water going through the spillway at the design flow should not exceed 0.75 m.

e. The spillway location shall be specified for construction over undisturbed, natural soil from the side and around the embankment on natural ground rather than over the embankment. If unavoidable, spillways over the dam must be armored. Armoring should extend beyond the dam embankment.

f. Outfall of spillway should be

Design Phase

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

Engineering and Construction Reservoir Location1. Only use in-line storage

when off-line storage is not available or feasible. In-line storage presents greater risk of failure

Program Manager Decision rationale documented in initial planning report.

Document rationale for reservoir location in design report.

Design Phase

Engineering and Construction Tank Storage System1. Tank storage may be

considered only if an earthen reservoir is not feasible. Due to high cost, this option is generally limited where water needs are small

Program Manger Decision rationale documented in initial planning report.

Document rationale for storage type in design report.

Design Phase

Engineering and Construction Conveyance to Field1. Assure pressure

requirements (minimum and maximum) are provided by the conveyance system for the proposed irrigation

DOR Volume and psi. Provide irrigation conveyance calculations that show flow and pressure through the system. Pressure reducers/regulators are included where needed. Show pressure does not exceed recommended values of pipe

Design Phase

Water Flow

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

1. Identify and integrate the spatial aspect and relationship of all users in a drainage system including the size and locations of other reservoirs on those tributaries, and the water rights

DOR/Project Manager

Number and type of other water uses in watershed

Identify through community interviews, available information other activities and land uses in the affected watershed that could influence available water or be affected by the proposed project. Information is incorporated in design specifications and used by the project manager to resolve potential conflicts with other activities.

Planning Phase

2. For Alternative 2 (Option B, and C and Alternative 3, monitor and maintain ecological flows

Project Manager Flow volume (m3/hour)

Utilize the guidance in USAID Best Management Practices for Small Hydroelectric Projects (USAID 2012)

Monthly

3. Measure NNIS as indicators of stream health for systems utilizing springs (Alternative 2 Option) and Alternative 3.

Project Manager # occurrences#species

Where land ownership patterns permit, establish five permanent two-meter diameter plots within 100 meters of water diversion.

Prior to construction and Annually during growing season

4. To assure that only water for peak flow is collected; the mean flow shall be estimated using either the rational formula with intensity equivalent to one year period, or by duplicating the ecological flow defined on the

DOR Flow volume (m3/hour)

This will allow the weir to be calibrated to collect only water above the mean flow. Optional diversion methods would include either a standard diversion weir with pipes at the bottom to allow water to pass up to the ecological flow, or at the base of the natural channel define the height of the water surface for the ecological discharge and construct a lateral weir that allows withdraw of water only above that level.

Design phase

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

5. Withdraw water from the spring within authorized limits only. In case of severe drought, or if riparian condition monitoring (NNIS frequency) indicates measurable changes from baseline, the flows should be rerouted

Project manager Flow volume (m3/hour)

Monitor flow volumes Monthly

6. Monitor and track water usage for each system.

Farmers Water volume used (m3/day)

Based on the storage volume of the reservoir, maintain a daily record of water levels and use. Compare annual use with other systems in the watershed to track potential

Daily

7. Develop and institute a Monitoring and Information System capable of collecting information on water flows and use throughout each

SAG and DGRH Volume of water stored by watershed/Volume of surface water available for watershed (%)

This system would incorporate geo-referenced flow information for tracking all water use in each watershed. Data collected monthly and summarized annually.

Planning phase.

Water Quality1. Use only pesticides

listed in the most recently approved Honduras PERSUAP

Participants List of pesticides used

Complete a list of agrochemicals used. Each crop cycle

2. Follow application methods and protocols described in the most recently approved Honduras

Participants Quantity and method of application used

Complete a list of agrochemical application rates and methods used.

Each crop cycle

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

3. Prevent excess nutrients and pollutants from entering the reservoir. Do not spray chemicals or apply fertilizer near, above, or upwind from the pond.

Group Participants Use of agrochemicals above reservoir

Within project ownership prohibit use of fertilizer above reservoir and promote and encourage limitation of fertilizers on non-project ownerships above the reservoir.

During pesticide and fertilizer use

Vegetation Change1. No projects shall be

developed in established Protected Areas

Planning Location Maps showing location of proposed action and Protected

Ensure project does not enter any established or candidate protected areas.

Planning phase

2. Avoid removal of permanent vegetation for reservoir construction if and when possible

Area map of permanent vegetation to be removed.

Estimate the amount of permanent vegetation to be removed for reservoir construction and document whether alternative locations avoiding removal are feasible.

During project design phase

3. Limit agricultural cultivation to areas previously or currently cultivated to ensure no net increase in land use for agricultural

Area Map of lands proposed for cultivation

Map review during project planning to ensure land has been previously considered as agricultural use.

Initial planning and design phase

4. Provide training for planning and implementation of reforestation in the reservoir watersheds

DOR/Project Manager

Participants TrainedArea needing reforestation

Identify upstream reforestation needs and provide training and planning for reforestation as needed. Planning must consider cultivating of seedlings, species selection, planting, and


Mosquito Control1. Maintain short grassy

vegetative buffers around the reservoir.

Group Participants % Ground Cover Visual checks Monthly

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

2. Use top feeding minnows and or fish to reduce or eliminate mosquito larvae.

Group Participants Presence of fish Stock fish after construction and monitor throughout operation of the project.

Annual

3. Prevent NNIS fish species spread to non-contaminated streams

DOR Prevention method If NNIS fish species are used, incorporate controls to reduce risk of spread such as screens or other barriers.

Design Phase

Dam Failure1. At the time of

construction a settlement allowance must be incorporated on the top of the embankment.

DOR Amount of settlement allowance

At every inspection the crest must be checked to ensure it remains horizontal and that no low spots have developed. All over settlement must be attended to with backfill and additional monitoring.

Design and construction phase

2. When the embankment has been constructed, and all major outlets and drains installed, ensure the training banks along the spillway sides are well established with grass cover and protected with other erosion prevention measures

Farmers and Project Manager

% Vegetation Cover Inspect and complete work. After construction, but before spillway is used.

3. Complete periodic dam inspections.

Farmers Erosion problems encountered

Utilize routine daily inspections to identify problems. Unusual settlement in an older dam can indicate foundation movement or removal of embankment material by seepage or erosion.Always seek expert assistance when this

Daily

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

4. Do not allow trees, bushes or other deep-rooted plants to grow anywhere near the embankment, the spillway and its outfall.

Farmers # Trees or bushes on embankment.

Check for tree and shrub encroachment Annual

5. All erosion should immediately be treated by restoring the affected areas to their design dimensions, (i.e. backfill, compact and grass all eroded sections) and re-

Farmers # and location of incidents

Check for erosion areas and repair as needed. Consult technical expertise as needed.

Monthly

6. All dams are required to have sufficient flood discharge capacity to pass the following:(a) acceptable flood capacity without failure of the dam (b) spillway design flood without any damage to the dam. Where the selected spillway design flood discharge is less than the acceptable flood capacity, the potential impacts of floods in excess of the spillway design flood up to the magnitude of the acceptable flood capacity shall be

DOR and Project Manager

Spillway design flood capacity

Such potential impacts shall include detailed assessments of the: (a) magnitude of the adopted spillway design flood, how it was determined and why it is considered acceptable (b) probability of the floods greater than the spillway design flood occurring and the potential there is for damage and loss of life caused by such floods (c) consequences of flows in excess of the spillway design flood and the impact of the higher flow velocities and greater water depths on various parts of the dam structure (d) potential damage to the dam caused by these flows and how the energy from these flows is dissipated

Design phase

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

7. An emergency system to empty the reservoir in case of an extreme event or detected risk of dike failure due to earthquakes or floods.

DOR Completed Design Specifications

This system should allow drainage of the reservoir in less than 24 hours. In some cases the main drainage for irrigation could be used, but it requires a bypass to allow fast release of water. Once emptied, the safety of the dike can be reviewed and repairs completed.

Design Phase

8. Reservoir capacity should not exceed 20,000 m3 of water without completion of a detailed analysis which considers risk of dam failure in detail.

DOR Volume water storage (m3)

Document volume in project design.

Complete a detailed analysis of the technical and structural conditions that considers the potential risk of dam failure.

Design Phase

Water Loss to Evaporation and Seepage1. Water surface area less

than 1 HaDOR Surface area (ha) Document surface area in project

design.Design Phase

2. Maximize the height of the dam to increase water depth and minimize losses due to evaporation where

DOR Reservoir Depth (meters)

Where feasible increase depth to reduce surface area

Design Phase

3. Include an allowance based on site conditions for water losses from seepage and evaporation in the calculations for needed

DOR Design calculations Estimates can be calculated or estimated based on experience.

Design Phase

4. The reservoirs should be surrounded by windbreaks to reduce evaporation, but trees should not planted on the dam itself.

DOR # Trees around the reservoir

Check for trees that serve as windbreaks around reservoirs plant as needed, but not on the dam itself.

Annually

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

Reservoir Nuisances1. The entire reservoir

shall be fenced with at least 3-strand barbed wire or other effect materials to exclude cattle from grazing on any portion of the interior or exterior

Group Participants # of fences

Fence is closed at all times

Visual inspection that fence is constructed immediately following excavation.Visual inspection of fence daily.

Prior to and during operation

2. Technical assistance will include a provision to make the participants aware of potential wildlife concerns and promote community awareness of the need to protect wildlife that use the reservoirs.

Group Participants # of participants receiving technical assistance

Inclusion of wildlife awareness during technical assistance training.

Prior to and during operation

Community and User Conflicts1. Design construction

and operation must comply with Honduran laws which include appropriate land tenure and rights-of-way be

Promoter and Participating User Group

Documentation of completed tenure approvals.

Participating group with promoter assistance to obtain and document legal compliance.Prior to project development

Site selection phase

2. Pre development community involvement is conducted to educate the potentially affected individuals and develop clear consensus related

Promoter # of consensus building meetings conducted

Project promoter conducts meetings with local communities and governmentsPrior to project development

Site selection phase

8


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

3. If changes in water availability affect system performance requires changes to participants or the system, a re-evaluation of legal compliance and the predevelopment consensus meetings

Same as mitigations #1 and #2

Documentation of completed tenure approvals.

Participating group with promoter assistance to obtain and document legal compliance.Prior to project development

When changes occur

4. MOU signed with beneficiaries establishing agreements for Right of Way and usage

Project Manager and Participating User Group

Completed MOU MOU signed among Promoter and Beneficiaries

Completed prior to design.

Participating Group Management1. Assess group

dynamics and skills prior to site selection.

Promoter Assessment of group dynamics

Conduct interviews and meetings with potential group members and community leaders and agencies. Present project concepts and requirements. Identify agricultural skills and experience, and visit possible sites for initial evaluation.

During initial site evaluation

2. Develop a group MOU detailing all operation and maintenance requirements, standards, and procedures. These should include both administrative and

Promoter and Participants

Completed MOU The MOU will establish clear operating guidelines and be signed by all participants prior to project implementation.

After feasibility assessment

9


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

3. Fees collected by water user groups for maintenance and future replacement of their irrigation systems to capitalize an associated caja rural for irrigation members. Such a fee structure may have an initial membership fee to offset the already sunk cost of installation, in addition to water use

Project Manager and Farmers

Completed MOU Review completed MOU prior to project development.

Following site selection

4. Technical Support to Growers in Business Skills & Finance

Promoter # of training sessions

Technical assistance would include operating fund management, methods and tools.

Prior to and during operations as needed.

5. Participating group sizes should generally be limited to 10 to 15 participants. Exceptions may occur in situations where demonstrated skills and consensus are well established.

Promoter # of participants Establish prior to project implementation.

Annual

6. Assess community viability for participation.

Project Manager Completed assessment

Consider infrastructure, access, agricultural market, and willingness of local municipalities and government agencies to support and/or participate in the development of the project.

Prior to site selection

Crop Management

9


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

1. Provide technical assistance prior to and during operation to support the producers’ sustained adoption and utilization of the drip irrigation technology.

Project Manager #of training sessions# of participants

Frequency of training is based on individual group needs assessments.

Review annually

2. Complete an irrigation system design by qualified technicians.

Project Manager Completed design plan

Design includes all relevant design aspects including topography, soil types, water quality and availability, and climatic conditions.

Planning Phase

3. Carryout system maintenance to keep irrigation canals free of weeds, trash, reduce effects of sedimentation, and prevent wasteful leaks. Maintenance schedules

Farmers # Maintenance issues

System inspection during routine operation, and immediately following storm events.

Daily during use

4. Scheduling irrigation based on crop needs.

Farmers Documentation of irrigation usage.

Measure soil moisture content directly. An alternative is the development of general interval guides based on historic crop needs. This method is less complicated, but not as efficient as actual moisture measurements.

Weekly with annual reviews of usage

5. Select a filtration system appropriate to the scale and water conditions for each project.

DOR/Project Manager

Justification for selection

Include a justification for filtration system in the project design.


6. Select crops according to water availability, crop water needs and market conditions.

Farmers Crops grown, water used, crops sold

Conditions evaluated continuously Prior to each rotation

9


MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INDICATORS METHODS

FREQUENCY

7. Compliance with the Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) revised in August 2016

USAID, Farmers, Project Manager

% Compliance Conduct spot checks and require farmers to track all pesticide use.

Annual review

8. Incorporate cultivation techniques that promote soil and water conservation as well as efficient crop production. These include climate smart techniques such as mulching and the use of organic fertilizers where

Farmers Techniques used Document cropping techniques used in production and conduct visual inspections.

Annual

Local Economies and Livelihoods1. Technical Assistance and

Partner # of training sessions

Training sessions offered prior to project Training should occurtraining in production and

provided. implementation, and over the first 2-years of

prior to implementation.marketing of high-

value irrigated crops.

# of participants attending training

production. The number of sessions required is based on the participants’ successful completion and should successful completion.

2. Support to group participants

Partner # of training sessions

Encouraging inclusion of women in the direct

Training should occurto promote attitude changes

provided. management of funds/caja rural, and tracking the

prior to implementationthrough a facilitated

plan to improve core family values.

# of participants attending training

marketing and accountability to manage profits and require a register of accounting to track expenditures and incomes.3. No single crop is

promoted over others to increase diversity and respond to market demand.

Partner # of crops cultivated

Farmers should track the types of crops and sales to help determine best crops

Annually

ANNEX B. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED

No NAME ORGANIZATION1 Peter Hearne USAID2 Héctor Táblas INVESTH3 Isaac Ferrera USAID4 Sofía Méndez USAID5 Angel Serrano INVESTH6 Wilmar Rosalas Global Communities7 Jorge Reyes USAID8 Angie Murillo USAID9 Greg Vaughan USIAD10 Héctor Santos USAID11 Joe Torres USAID12 Walter Raudales El Ocotal13 Kavin Beltran El Ocotal14 Carlos Enrique Rios El Ocotal15 José Beltran El Ocotal16 Santiago Manueles El Ocotal17 Ferencio Raudales El Ocotal18 Ales Raudales El Ocotal19 Dany Raudales El Ocotal20 Juan Carlos Urquin El Ocotal21 Mario Ochoa SAG22 Wendy Padilla SAG23 Alejandro Aguero Global Communities24 Mary Liz Mann Global Communities25 Eva Karina Mejia Global Communities26 Carmen Cartegena Recursos Hidricos27 Juan Carlos Colindress Department of Irrigation

andDrainage

93

9

ANNEX C. LIST OF PREPARERSDAVID HARRISDavid Harris is a retired Forest Service NEPA specialist based in Atlanta, Georgia USA and Honduras, Central America. He has participated on or led interdisciplinary teams in the preparation of over 20 Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements over the last 30 years. Evaluations have included timber harvest, prescribed burning, pipelines, power lines, land exchanges, travel management, recreation development, and wildlife habitat restoration projects. David holds a Bachelors of Science degree in Forest Management from Oklahoma State University. David has over 30 years of experience in all aspects of natural resource management planning with the US Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service and Peace Corps. He was the Forest Planner on two National Forests and completed two Forest Plan Revisions. Prior to retirement he was the Regional Environmental Coordinator for the Southern Region of the US Forest Service providing NEPA expertise and guidance to 15 National Forests in the Southern Region. He has also participated on NEPA training teams in Honduras, Panama, El Salvador and Peru as well as the development of two best practices guides for forest management and small hydroelectric projects in Honduras published by USAID. David was a Peace Corps volunteer in Honduras where he implemented a CARE community watershed program.

BECKY MYTONBecky Myton is an international consultant based in Tegucigalpa. She has led or participated in more than 20 environmental studies including Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Assessments, Environmental Audits, Programmatic Environmental Assessments, PERSUAPS, Initial Environmental Examinations and tropical forest and biodiversity assessments, Becky holds two master’s degrees, one in Ecology and Environment from the University of Maryland and the second one in Total Quality in Education from the Catholic University of Honduras. She also has a PhD in Ecology and Environment from the University of Maryland. Becky has more than 30 years of international experience in environmental and natural resources management, teaching in Honduran universities and managing programs in livelihoods and agriculture systems, climate change and natural resources management for CARE (Honduras, Tajikistan, Bolivia, and Mozambique) and for Save the Children in the Dominican Republic. She also served as technical advisor for the Honduran Ministry of the Environment and has led environmental trainings in Regulation 216, Sphere compliance and incorporating environmental considerations into development programs. While working as Technical Advisor for the Honduran Ministry of the Environment she coordinated the team that prepared the Regulations for the National Environmental Impact System for the Environmental Law of Honduras. She has been a consultant for USAID, the World Bank, the Interamerican Development Bank and the Honduran Environmental Prosecutor’s office. Becky is a United States citizen.

CARLOS ROBERTO COBOSMr. Cobos has worked in Water Resources for more than 25 years in Central America as hydrologist he has developed water budgets for several projects

9

funded by USAID, IDB, UICN, and WWF. Also he has been a climate change consultant for UNDP at the Guatemalan Climate Change program at the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Additionally, he worked at the Ministry of Agriculture of Guatemala on Integrated Water Management for an IDB project. His experience in agricultural projects and monitoring was developed when he worked for RUTA, a World Bank project based in Costa Rica, with a mission to give Technical Assistance to the Agricultural Sector in Central America, on areas as economics, irrigation, project preparation and monitoring and evaluation. He was key team member of the Environmental Assessments – Rural

9

Value Chain Program in Guatemala and Feed the Future in Haiti. He graduated as Civil Engineer in Guatemala from Universidad de San Carlos, and later he received a Master’s degree in Water Resources at Oregon State University. He has been a coordinator or project director in more than 25 projects, related to water resources, hydrology, and hydraulics. For three years, he worked preparing Environmental Impact Assessments at Asesoría Manuel Basterrechea in Guatemala.

MICHELLE RODRIGUEZMrs. Michelle Rodriquez (Agricultural Specialist). Mrs. Michelle Rodríguez is Sun Mountain’s Senior Agriculture, Agroforestry and Climate Change specialist. Mrs. Rodríguez is forestry engineer who holds a master’s degree in Tropical Agroforestry from the Agronomic Research and Teaching Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica. She has more than 15 years of experience in the implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation projects, as well as an intimate familiarity in ecosystem services and water harvesting projects in Central America and Ecuador. She has worked for IUCN, ACICAFOC, CATIE, and many other reputable organizations. Mrs. Rodríguez has extensive experience in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. She also has vast experience in environmental assessment, technology transfer, forest management, and in strengthening capacities in climate change adaptation for local authorities and other key stakeholders. In addition, through her work experience, Michelle has developed influential contacts and the ability to coordinate with local governments and public institutions to generate strategic alliances that increase projects’ impact in the territory. With Sun Mountain, Mrs. Rodriguez has been a key team member of the Guatemala Scoping Statement and Environmental Assessment and Honduras Scoping Statement - Environmental Assessment for Cosecha: Rainwater Harvesting Project in Southern Honduras.

9

ANNEX D. SCOPING STATEMENTThe Final Approved Scoping Statement is available on the following web site: http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/egat/envcomp/document.php?doc_id=49081

9

ANNEX E. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TECHNICAL GUIDEUS Army Corps of Engineers. Technical Guide. USACE Support to SAG/USAID: Drought Assistance Program. Prepared by Latin America Project Management Section; Geotechnical and Dam Safety Section; Hydrological, Hydraulic and Coastal Engineering Section. June, 2016.

9

ANNEX F. BEST PRACTICES FOR SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTSUSAID/ProParque. Guía de Buenas Prácticas Ambientales para Pequeños Proyectos Hidroeléctricos. Honduras, 2012. Disponible en:http://www.ahper.org/en/images/pdf/Guia_BuenasPracticasHidro.pdfThe specific pages related to maintaining ecological flows are descried on pages 22-27 and 63-70. It should be noted that at the time of this PEA, the Department of Hydrologic Resources is developing new guidance related to evaluating and managing ecological flows. When that guidance is completed it will supercede the guidance provided in the Best Practices for Small Hydroelectric Projects referenced in this PEA.

1

ANNEX G. PERSUAPUSAID ACCESO. (2013). Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP). Available at: http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/repository/pdf/39597.pdf

1

ANNEX H. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT LINKSUSAID Sector Environmental Guidelines. Available at: http://www.usaidgems.org/sectorGuidelines.htm

1

ANNEX I. IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST

IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST

RAINWATER HARVESTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SMALL/MEDIUM-SIZE FARMS IN WESTERN AND SOUTHERN HONDURAS

January 15, 2017This checklist provides a summary of key required elements referenced in the EMMP for the 2017 Rainwater Harvesting Infrastructure for Small/Medium-size farms in Western and Southern Honduras. It is intended as a tool to help ensure all aspects of the EMMP are considered during project design including those actions which should occur prior to developing a project-level EMMP. It is structured based on the principal phases of the project in order beginning with Site Selection and Feasibility, Engineering Design, Construction, and Operation. This checklist should be updated as changes to the EMMP are identified based on project monitoring. Development, Review and approval of site-specific projects should be carried out based on USAID protocols and procedures in place at the time of project development.

SITE SELECTION AND FEASIBILITY PHASECOMMUNITY

◻ Assess community infrastructure, access, agricultural market, willingness of local municipalities and government agencies to support and/or participate in the development (EMMP #6 Participating Group Management)

◻ Evaluate potential participants for agricultural skills, ability to work together, desire to learn and participate (EMMP #1 Participating Groups)

◻ Conduct community involvement to educatepotentially affected individuals of participation requirements (EMMP 2 Community and User Conflicts)

◻ Identify and evaluate water collection site (EMMP #3 Engineering and Construction General)

◻ Ensure appropriate land tenure exists on all affected lands (EMMP #1 Community and User Conflicts) AND (EMMP #4 Community and User Conflicts)

◻ Prepare MOU with Participants for agreements of rights-of-way (EMMP 4 Community and User Conflicts)

◻ Develop group MOU detailing operation, maintenance and administration requirements(EMMP #2 Participating Group Management

WATER SOURCE◻ Identify water uses and watershed condition (EMMP #1 Water Flow)◻ Conduct a basin analysis to determine water capacity (EMMP #2

Engineering and Construction General)

RESERVOIR SITE

1

◻ Ensure adequate clay/silt content (EMMP #15 Engineering and Construction Storage Type)

◻ Evaluate access based on construction needs to ensure that only existing or temporary roads are adequate (EMMP #7 Engineering and Construction General)

◻ Evaluate land cover vegetation where surface runoff to be collected (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Water sources Common to all Options)

◻ Avoid sites with exposed rock (EMMP #22 Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)

1

ANALYSIS OF LANDS PROPOSED FOR IRRIGATION◻ Evaluate soil and slope conditions (EMMP #8 Engineering and

Construction General)◻ Ensure proposed crop lands have been previously or are currently

cultivated (EMMP #3 Vegetation Change)

CONDUCTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS◻ Distance and relief from diversion to reservoir (EMMP #9 Engineering

and Construction General)◻ Distance and relief from Reservoir to fields (EMMP #9 Engineering and

Construction General)

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS◻ Identify upstream uses (EMMP #4 Engineering and Construction General)◻ Identify downstream uses (EMMP #4 Engineering and Construction

General)◻ Identify watershed condition above reservoir including land use, percent

forested, ownership (EMMP #4 Engineering and Construction General)◻ Document need for upstream reforestation (EMMP # Vegetation Change)

COMPLETE PROJECT LEVEL IEE AND EMMP◻ Base IEE evaluation and EMMP on initial feasibility results. EMMP

must include cost estimates. (LAC Guidelines for Implementing Partners)

◻ Approval of IEE and EMMP must be received prior to completing full engineering design to ensure incorporation of required elements at the design stage.

PARTICIPATING GROUPS◻ Develop group MOU (EMMP #2 Participating Group Management)◻ Establish fee structure (EMMP #3 Participating Group Management)◻ Limit group size to 10-15 participants (EMMP #5 Participating Group

Management)

ENGINEERING DESIGN PHASEWATER SOURCES

◻ Design a diversion system for temporary flow diversion (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Water Source Option A)

◻ Design spillway (EMMP #2 Engineering and Construction Water Source Option A)

◻ Ensure only peak flows are collected from permanent streams diversion (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Water Source Option B)

◻ Design water collection from springs to only collect water during rain events diversion(EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Water Source Option C)

◻ For systems using direct piping with no storage, evaluate the steam

1

flows and crop needs for the project as well as downstream needs and establish an ecological flow (EMMP #2 Engineering and Construction Water Source Option B)

1

OPEN CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS TO RESERVOIRS◻ Design to avoid standing water (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction

Open Conveyance System)◻ Line Channels with mortar and rock (EMMP #2 Engineering and

Construction Open Conveyance System)◻ Maintain conveyance distance to less than 100 meters (EMMP #3

Engineering and Construction Open Conveyance System)◻ Design includes sediment basin (EMMP #4 Engineering and Construction

Open Conveyance System)

CLOSED CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS TO RESERVOIRS◻ Used when open system not feasible (EMMP #1 Engineering and

Construction Closed Conveyance System)◻ Calculate positive and negative pressure (EMMP #2 Engineering and

Construction Closed Conveyance System)◻ Train Groups in maintenance (EMMP #3 Engineering and Construction

Closed Conveyance System)◻ Provide groups with minimum spare parts for initiation (EMMP #4

Engineering and Construction Closed Conveyance System)

RESERVOIR DESIGN◻ Ensure surface area less than one hectare (EMMP #1 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Prepare operation and Maintenance Plan (EMMP #2 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Capacity is designed for demand (EMMP #4 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Minimize height of embankment (EMMP #5 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Embankment side slopes minimum 3H:1V (EMMP #6 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Layout location with stakes prior to construction (EMMP #7 Engineering

and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ No excavation closer than 10 meters of upstream toe (EMMP #8

Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Ensure proper core trench design (EMMP #10 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Ensure compliance with rock size limits of embankment (EMMP #11

Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Ensure adequate clay/silt content (EMMP #15 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ If dam height of embankment >10 meter downstream toe, prepare and

approve full geotechnical design (EMMP #17 Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)

◻ If excavation deeper than one meter steepness does not exceed 2H:1V (EMMP #18 Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)

1

◻ Soil infiltration does not exceed 10^-6 cm/sec (EMMP #20 Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)

◻ Calculate excavation and embankment volumes (EMMP #21 Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)

◻ Design spillway to convey overflow without overtopping (EMMP #24 Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)

◻ An emergency system to empty the reservoir in case of an extreme event or detected risk of dike failure due to earthquakes or floods (EMMP #7 Dam Failure)

◻ In line storage only used when off-line storage is not feasible (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Reservoir Location)

◻ Tank storage considered when earthen reservoir is not feasible (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Tank Storage System)

◻ Ensure flood discharge capacity (EMMP #6 Dam Failure)◻ Reservoir capacity should not exceed 20,000 m3 (EMMP #7 Dam Failure)◻ Water surface area less than one Hectare (EMMP #1 Water Loss)◻ Maximize depth to reduce evaporation where feasible. (EMMP #2 Water

Loss)◻ Provide water loss allowance (EMMP #3 Water Loss)◻ Establish and maintain windbreaks around reservoir (EMMP #4 Water

Loss)

CONVEYANCE TO FIELDS◻ Assure minimum and maximum pressure requirements are provided

(EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction Conveyance to Field)

FINAL DESIGN REVIEW◻ Review design for technical accuracy (EMMP #5 Engineering and

Construction General)◻ Obtain all required permits and approvals (EMMP #6 Engineering and

Construction General)

CONSTRUCTION PHASE◻ Plan construction for dry season (EMMP #1 Engineering and Construction

General)◻ Clear reservoir site of all vegetation rocks and loose soil (EMMP #9

Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Ensure compaction meets design specifications (EMMP #12 Engineering

and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Check embankment seepage (EMMP #13 Engineering and Construction

Earthen Storage Type)◻ Monitor seepage during first filling (EMMP #14 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ After construction revegetate exposed soil (EMMP #16 Engineering and

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Monitor soil type during excavation for unforeseen changes (EMMP #19

Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Provide staff gauge to measure water (EMMP #23 Engineering and

1

Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Include a settlement allowance for top of the embankment (EMMP #1

Dam Failure)◻ Ensure revegetation complete prior to using spillway (EMMP #2 Dam

Failure)

1

VEGETATION◻ No construction or land use change is permitted within Protected Areas

(EMMP #1 Vegetation Change)◻ Avoid removal of permanent vegetation when possible (EMMP #2

Vegetation Change)◻ Cultivation of crops only occurs on lands previously or currently

cultivated (EMMP #3 Vegetation Change)

OPERATIONS PHASEWATER FLOW IN PERMANENT STREAMS

◻ Monitor and maintain ecological flows (EMMP #2 Water Flow)◻ Calibrate weir to collect only water above the mean flow (EMMP #4

Water Flow)◻ Spring water use shall not exceed authorized limits (EMMP #5 Water

Flow)◻ Monitor water usage for each system (EMMP #6 Water Flow)◻ Develop a monitoring information system to collect and evaluate flow

information (EMMP#7 Water Flow)

WATER QUALITY◻ Only use pesticides listed in most recent PERSUAP (EMMP #1 Water

Quality)◻ Follow application methods and protocols in PERSUAP (EMMP #2 Water

Quality)◻ Do not apply agro-chemicals near or upwind of reservoir. (EMMP #2

Water Quality)

RESERVOIR◻ When using cascading reservoirs drain highest first (EMMP #3

Engineering and Construction Earthen Storage Type)◻ Complete periodic dam inspections (EMP #3 Dam Failure)◻ Remove deep rooted vegetation from dam (EMMP #4 Dam Failure)◻ Immediately treat any evident erosion (EMMP #5 Dam Failure)◻ Fence reservoir (EMMP #1 Reservoir Nuisances)◻ Provide awareness training for protecting wildlife at reservoirs (EMMP

#2 Reservoir Nuisances)

MOSQUITO CONTROL◻ Maintain short grassy vegetation around reservoir (EMMP #1 Mosquito

Control )◻ Use fish to reduce larvae (EMMP #2 Mosquito Control)◻ Prevent NNIS fish spreading to uncontaminated systems (EMMP #

Mosquito Control)

PARTICIPATING GROUPS◻ Provide technical support in business skills and finance (EMMP #4

Participating Group Management)

1

◻ Provide technical assistance in agriculture marketing (EMMP #1 Local Economies and Livelihoods)

◻ Provide awareness training to promote core family values (EMMP #2 Local Economies and Livelihoods)

1

CROP MANAGEMENT◻ Provide technical assistance in drip technology (EMMP # 1 Crop

Management)◻ Design drip system using qualified technicians (EMMP # 2 Crop

Management)◻ Complete system maintenance requirements (EMMP # 3 Crop

Management)◻ Schedule irrigation based on crop needs (EMMP # 4 Crop Management)◻ Filtration system appropriate to scale of project (EMMP # 5 Crop

Management)◻ Crops selected based on water availability and market conditions (EMMP

# 6 Crop Management)◻ Compliance with PERSUAP (EMMP # 7 Crop Management)◻ Cultivation techniques utilize soil conservation practices (EMMP # 8 Crop

Management)◻ No single crop is promoted over others (EMMP #3 Local Economies and

Livelihoods)

FUTURE PROJECT MODIFICATIONS◻ If changes to system are identified based on monitoring or changed

conditions, repeat all of the applicable steps in this checklist (EMMP #3 Community and User Conflicts).

Prepared under: · Web viewLAC-EA-17-02 APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)...

Documents

Transcript of Prepared under: · Web viewLAC-EA-17-02 APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)...