Lac-Ea-17-02 Approval of Programmatic

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 Environmental Threshold Decision: LAC-IEE-16-65

Date Prepared: March 23, 2017

Purpose and Scope This 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.

Background In 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.

The required Scoping Statement for this PEA was approved in 2016, and the PEA was completed in March 2017.

This PEA amends LAC-IEE-16-65 for USAID/Honduras' IR 2.1, as well as the IEE for the Lab's Rainwater Harvesting Project, to include an array of preferred rainwater harvesting alternatives, and hereby satisfies the positive determination from both those documents.

Conditions and Requirements The conditions and requirements of the Lab's original EA, and LAC-IEE-16-65, remain in full force. The PEA and the IEE amendment will be implemented in concert with the existing documents. Any conflicts will be resolved by the pertinent USAID office, either the Lab or Honduras Mission.

Specific to selection of rainwater harvesting reservoir sites, USAID IPs will employ the criteria outlined in the PEA. Only sites that meet the site selection criteria shall be pre selected, and for those sites the IP will prepare a site-specific environmental mitigation and monitoring plan (EMMP), in accordance with the guidelines presented in Annex A of this PEA. The complete EMMP must then be submitted to the pertinent USAID COR for approval. Once approved, the IP will fully :implement the EMMP and conduct monitoring and reporting consistent with its agreement/contract with USAID.

This PEA, and the Scoping Statement that preceded it, complies with USAID Environmental Procedures as specified by 22 CFR 216.3(a)(4) and 216.3(a)(5), and also follows the format required in 216.6. The scoping process identifies the potentially significant impacts to be evaluated in the PEA, includin·g an analysis of alternatives and effects.

Diana Shannon Bureau Environmental Officer Bureau of Latin America and the Caribbean ,P. v~, ~ J.-1 , 2--01? P. V. Sundareshwar Date Bureau Environmental Officer ('A.~) Global Development Lab

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

2 Signature Page for Rainwater Harvesting PEA

Drafted: March 23, 2017 SMendez: DIMEO PHearne: MEO

Concurrence: Date: (i ~ Wt}" mes Watson SAID/Honduras Mission Director

Mission Clearance: Andrew McKim, EG Date: ~/'cl,.~f;}O!? Peter Hearne, MEO Date: {'4v- )7 diJ1( Anya Glenn, PO Date: 3Jrqj;7 I ' Amy Paro, DMD Date: ~llP/i1I

REA Clearance:

Joseph Torres, REA Date: 4 /.3 J Z©I +

USAID/HONDURAS

PROGRAMMATIC 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.

FRONT COVER Rainwater Harvesting Reservoir in Southern Region of Honduras. Photo Credit: Michelle Rodríguez, 2016.

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

February 15, 2017 Draft

Report Authors David Harris, Sun Mountain International Becky Myton, Sun Mountain International Carlos Cobos, Sun Mountain International Michelle Rodríguez, Sun Mountain International

Technical Support Peter Hearne, USAID Mario Ochoa, SAG Honduras Isaac Ferrera, USAID Karen Enríquez, SAG Honduras Sofía Méndez, USAID Kathleen Hurley, The Cadmus Group Angie Murillo, USAID David Scharzman, SAG Honduras César Varela, USAID Conor Walsh, CRS Joe Torres, USAID Darinel Lainez, CRS Alejandro Agüero, Global Communities Héctor Táblas, ACS Mario Noboa, Global Communities 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. AND US 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 100 Sector Bellavista Waltham, MA 02451 USA Quito, Ecuador Tel: +1.617-673-7000 Tel 1: 593-22-922-625 Fax: +1.617-673-7001 Cell: 593-9-83-016-562 www.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 (www.smtn.org).

DISCLAIMER Until 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.

This page is intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... VII Background ...... vii Project area ...... vii Project Purpose ...... vii Project Need ...... vii Proposed Action ...... vii Issues ...... viii Issue 1: Water Flows ...... viii Issue 2 Water Quality ...... viii Issue 3 Changes in Vegetation Species, Structure and Function ...... viii Issue 4: Mosquito Breeding Source ...... viii Issue 5: Risk of Dam Failure ...... viii Issue 6: Water Loss to Evaporation ...... ix Issue 7: Reservoir Nuisances ...... ix Issue 8: Community and User Conflicts ...... ix Issue 9: Participating Group Management ...... ix Issue 10: Irrigated Crop and Water Management ...... ix Issue 11: Local Communities and Livelihoods ...... ix Alternatives ...... ix Alternative 1: No Action ...... ix Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Action...... ix Alternative 3: Direct Piping without Water Storage ...... x Alternatives Considered but not studied in detail...... x Effects ...... xi Summary of the Recommended Action ...... xiii Rationale for Recommendation ...... xiv Additional Recommendations ...... xv 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 1.1.1. Relation to Honduras Legal Requirements ...... 2 2. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 3 2.1. Existing Conditions ...... 3 2.1.1. Social and Economic ...... 3 2.1.2. Physical and Biological ...... 3 2.2. Desired Conditions ...... 4 2.2.1. Social and Economic ...... 4 2.2.2. Physical and Biological ...... 5 2.3. Purpose ...... 5 2.4. Need ...... 5 3. PROPOSED ACTION ...... 6 4. ISSUES ...... 8 Issue 1: Water Flows ...... 8 Issue 2: Water Quality ...... 8 Issue 3: Change in Vegetation Species, Structure and Function ...... 9 Issue 4: Mosquito Breeding Source ...... 9 Issue 5: Risk of Dam Failure ...... 9 Issue 6: Water Loss to Evaporation ...... 9 Issue 7: Reservoir Nuisances ...... 9 Issue 8: Community and User Conflicts ...... 10 Issue 9: Participating Group Management ...... 10 Issue 10: Irrigated Crop and Water Management ...... 10

Issue 11: Local Communities and Livelihoods ...... 10 5. ALTERNATIVES ...... 11 5.1. Alternative 1, No Action Alternative ...... 11 5.2. Alternative 2, Modified Proposed Action ...... 11 5.3. Alternative 3, No Water Storage System ...... 11 5.4. Alternatives Dismissed from Detailed Study ...... 12 5.5. Alternative Comparison ...... 13 6. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 17 6.1. Affected Environment Overview ...... 17 6.1.1. Livelihoods in the Western Dry Corridor ...... 17 6.1.2. Livelihoods in the Southern Dry Corridor ...... 18 6.1.3. Ecoregions in Western Honduras ...... 19 6.1.4. Ecoregions in Southern Honduras ...... 20 6.1.5. Land Use in Western Honduras ...... 21 6.1.6. Land Use in Southern Honduras ...... 22 6.1.7. Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Western Honduras ...... 24 6.1.8. Biodiversity and protected areas in Southern Honduras ...... 26 6.1.9. Water Resources in Western Honduras ...... 27 6.1.10. Water Resources in SoUthern Honduras ...... 28 6.2. Legal Framework ...... 29 6.3. Effects Summary by Issue ...... 30 6.3.1. Issue: Water Flows ...... 30 6.3.2. Issue Water Quality ...... 34 6.3.3. Issue: Change in Vegetation Species, Structure and Function ...... 36 6.3.4. Issue: Mosquito Breeding Source ...... 38 6.3.5. Issue: Risk of Dam Failure ...... 40 6.3.6. Issue: Water Loss to Evaporation and Seepage ...... 43 6.3.7. Issue: Reservoir Nuisances ...... 45 6.3.8. Issue: Community and User Conflicts ...... 46 6.3.9. Issue: Participating Group Management ...... 48 6.3.10. Issue: Irrigated Crop and water Management ...... 49 6.3.11. Issue: Local Economies and Livelihoods ...... 50 7. FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATION ...... 54 7.1 Rationale for Recommendation ...... 54 7.2 Additional Recommendations ...... 55 REFERENCES ...... 57 ANNEXES ...... 66 Annex A. Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ...... 66 Annex B. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted ...... 93 Annex C. List of Preparers ...... 94 David Harris ...... 94 Becky Myton ...... 94 Carlos Roberto Cobos ...... 94 Michelle Rodríguez ...... 95 Annex D. Scoping Statement ...... 96 Annex E. US Army Corps of Engineers Technical Guide ...... 97 Annex F. Best practices for small hydroelectric projects ...... 98 Annex G. PERSUAP ...... 99 Annex H. Additional Document Links ...... 100 Annex I. Implementation Checklist ...... 101 Site Selection and Feasibility Phase ...... 101 Engineering Design Phase ...... 102 Construction Phase ...... 104 Operations Phase ...... 105

III

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

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS AYS Average Years of Schooling BEO Bureau Environmental Officer COPECO Comisión Permanente de Contingencias CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy DAP Departamento de Áreas Protegidas DIBIO Dirección General de Biodiversidad DIGEPESCA Dirección General de Pesca DO Development Objective EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan EMPR Environmental Management Programme Reports ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation ESIA Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment FAO Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations GAP Good Agricultural Practice GEMS Global Environmental Management Support GMO Genetically Modified Organism GMP Good Manufacturing Practice GoH Gobierno de Honduras (Government of Honduras) HDI Human Development Index IEE Initial Environmental Examination ICF Instituto de Nacional de Conservación Forestal y Vida Silvestre ICM Integrated Crop Management IHAH Instituto de Antropología e Historia IHT Instituto de Turismo INSEP Secretary of Infrastructure and Public Services IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Results JAA Juntas Administadoras de Agua MAPANCE La Mancomunidad de Municipios del Parque Nacional Montaña de Celaque MOCAPH Mesa de ONGs Comanejadoras de Áreas Protegidas de Honduras MSME Micro, Small, and Medium Sized Enterprises PAG Proyecto Aldea Global PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan PLCI Permanent Land Cover Index PNMC Parque Nacional Montaña Celaque REA Regional Environmental Advisor REHNAP Red Hondureña de Reservas Naturales Privadas RUP Restricted Use Pesticides SENASA Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria SEPLAN Secretaría de Planificación SERNA The Ministry of Energy Natural Resources Environment and Mines (now known as MiAmbiente)

USAID United States Agency for International Development USGS United States Geological Survey WAB Water Association Boards WRI World Resources Institute ZOI Zone of Influence

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND

In 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 AREA

The 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 NEED

The 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 ACTION

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

VII

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:

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). ISSUES

ISSUE 1: WATER FLOWS Extracting 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 QUALITY Construction 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 FUNCTION The 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 SOURCE The 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 FAILURE Improper 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.

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.

VIII

ISSUE 6: WATER LOSS TO EVAPORATION High 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 NUISANCES Reservoirs 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 CONFLICTS 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 capacity. ISSUE 9: PARTICIPATING GROUP MANAGEMENT If 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 MANAGEMENT Actions 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 LIVELIHOODS Irrigation 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. ALTERNATIVES

Three 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 ACTION Current 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 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

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 STORAGE This 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.

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) 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. EFFECTS

The 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 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO ISSUES NO ACTION MODIFIED PROPOSED RESERVOIR STORAGE ACTION Issue 1 Continued reduction in Reduction in total water Reduction in total water Changes to total water downstream, downstream, but base downstream, but minimum water flows but compliant with flows of permanent ecological flow maintained. Honduras minimum flow streams maintained. requirement. Issue 2: Continued use of Increased use in agro Increased use in agro Water Quality agrochemicals, chemicals, but PERSUAP chemicals, but PERSUAP sedimentation, and reduced requirements reduce risk requirements reduce risk flows from land use of contamination above of contamination above activities that may not current levels. current levels. include adequate mitigations continue to degrade water quality. Issue 3 Continued land use change Some loss of vegetation Less vegetation removed Vegetation caused by traditional including permanent cover than Alternative 2. No Species agricultural practices would would occur in foot print measurable change in structure and continue in all alternatives. of reservoir, access and vegetation or permanent function. conveyance construction, cover. Land use conversion due but change would not to non-USAID reservoir result in a meaningful development is expected effect. to be minimal due to high

TABLE 1. EFFECTS OF SUMMARY BY ISSUE ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO ISSUES NO ACTION MODIFIED PROPOSED RESERVOIR STORAGE ACTION construction costs. Issue 4 Some increase in breeding Some increase in breeding No additional increase in Mosquito habitat. Use of biological habitat. Use of biological breeding habitat for Breeding and environmental and environmental mosquitoes beyond what is Source: mitigations frequently used mitigations required under occurring in the No Action voluntarily in many existing alternative 2, can help Alternative. projects can help reduce reduce the overall numbers the overall numbers of of mosquitoes. mosquitoes. Issue 5 Reservoirs built without Reservoirs built to No risk of dam failure. Risk of Dam engineered designs and engineered designs and Failure construction requirements construction requirements and especially those with and water storage capacity water volumes greater than less than 20,000 m3 would 20,000 m3 can have high have lower hazard ratings. hazard ratings. Issue 6 Water loss to evaporation Water loss to evaporation No water loss to Water Loss and seepage is unavoidable. and seepage is unavoidable. evaporation or seepage. However, reservoirs not However, reservoirs built built to engineered design to engineered design and and construction construction requirements requirements may have generally have manageable excessive losses. losses. Issue 7 Under the No Action The required fencing No change since no Reservoir Alternative, it is likely that mitigation in Alternative 2 reservoirs would be Nuisances many of the existing would eliminate impacts constructed. reservoirs are already from cattle as long as the fenced based on evidence fence is properly from scoping. However, it maintained and closed. is uncertain to what degree Fencing would act as a the fences are maintained. deterrent to unauthorized In addition, promotion uses such as swimming or within the community of fishing, but the possibility the need to protect wildlife of unauthorized use can attracted to the area may never be entirely not be taking place. eliminated. Issue 8 Under the No Action Alternative 2 would be Alternative 3 would be Community Alternative, systems expected to have less similar to Alternative 2, but and User currently in place should potential conflict than the may be more difficult to Conflicts: be consistent with No Action Alternative establish required rights-of- Honduran legal based on pre-development way for systems requiring requirements, but it is consensus building efforts. longer conveyance likely that many are not. If Changes to system size distances or multiple strong community after operation has begun ownerships. involvement and consensus could result in the building did not occur prior development of new to system developments, conflicts, but the required conflicts may already exist mitigation to reevaluate or have a higher risk of land tenure and group occurring in the future. participation would reduce the potential for serious conflicts. Issue 9 Not all systems would The required design Same as Alternative 2 Group include the use of clear criteria to establish a

XII

TABLE 1. EFFECTS OF SUMMARY BY ISSUE ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO ISSUES NO ACTION MODIFIED PROPOSED RESERVOIR STORAGE ACTION Management: operating guidance for formally documented participating members. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Similarly, the lack of well signed by the project managed funds can reduce participants that establishes the effectiveness of water clear operating guidance is use and lead to project expected to reduce failure. conflicts and ensure efficient operations. Large participating group sizes (>20) often lead to In addition, requiring use of inefficiencies and internal an established operating conflicts. fund (rural credit unions, called Cajas Rurales) would reduce problems associated with funding repairs and maintenance. (Fund the primary 50% of the total investment cost). Issue 10 On-going traditional The design mitigations Same as Alternative 2, but Crop and agricultural methods would requiring technical there would be less overall Water continue. In addition, other assistance in the proper reliability of water sources Management: NGO and government use and management of compared with Alternative supported programs would irrigation systems is 2 since no water is stored. likely continue but may expected to increase include varying levels of production, conserve technical support and water, and reduce potential training. for unintended effects or project failure. Issue 11 Economic improvement With access to water for Same as Alternative 2, but Local from on-going programs irrigation, the benefits to may have less crop Economies would continue to improve local economies would be diversity due to less and livelihoods economies and livelihoods realized not only for the reliable water source in general. participating producers, but without reservoir storage. also the communities at large through associated availability of diversified food sources, and direct and indirect employment.

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION

Based 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.

XIII

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION Alternative 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 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.

XIV

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 RECOMMENDATIONS The 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. 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.

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.

XVI

1. INTRODUCTION

This 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. BACKGROUND In 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 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.

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 REQUIREMENTS This 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.

2. PURPOSE AND NEED The 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 CONDITIONS

2.1.1. 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 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).

• 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 CONDITIONS

2.2.1. 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). 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

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. PURPOSE The 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. NEED The 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.

3. PROPOSED ACTION The 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.

FIGURE 1. MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION

Water Source

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

rainfall events.

Conveyance to Storage

Open Ditch System Closed Pipe System

Earthen Storage

Tank Storage

Storage Location

In-line Off-line (Within intermittent source channel) (Outside intermittent source channel)

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

Irrigation Method Drip System

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 CRITERIA ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS General 1. Construction shall occur only in the dry-season to reduce erosion, avoid damage to 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 required permits and approvals prior to beginning construction. 7. Ensure adequate access using existing or temporary roads only. 8. Ensure crop lands are feasible for irrigation. 9. Ensure adequate distance and relief from diversion to reservoir and/or to fields.

Water 1. Surface runoff directly into a reservoir or above water diversion point should Source: run down land with vegetative cover to minimize sedimentation accumulation in Common to reservoir system. If the catchment zone does not have sufficient vegetation

TABLE 2. ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS All Options cover, erosion prevention measures such as construction of canals, rock walls, and live barriers may be developed. Water 1. When water storage is “off-line”, i.e., (outside of a defined channel), a diversion Source: system is constructed that can temporarily divert flow to the reservoir until full, Option A and then be removed to allow normal flows continue through the channel. (Surface 2. When water storage is “in-line”, i.e., (within a defined channel), the spillway must Runoff ravine be designed to specifications described in item #23 under storage type in the or EMMP. In addition, the spillway must be armored. intermittent Stream)

Water 1. To assure that only water for peak flows is collected; the mean flow shall be Source: estimated using either the rational formula with intensity equivalent to one year Option B period, or by duplicating the ecological flow defined on the hydroelectric (Permanent ecological flow guide. This will allow the weir to be calibrated to collect only Stream) 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. 2. 2. Maintain ecological flows of permanent streams when no storage system is used. Water 1. Withdraw water from the spring only during rain events and within authorized Source: limits. In case of severe drought, or if riparian condition monitoring (item #1) Option C indicates measurable changes from baseline, the flows should be rerouted back (Spring) to the natural system. Open 1. Design and construct system to avoid standing water by ensuring constant flows Conveyance through adequate slopes, and that system is completely dry when not in use. System 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 reservoir sediment loads. Closed 1. This option is only recommended when an open system is not feasible due to Conveyance rocks/ridges, distance, topography or other issues that preclude building open System 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 time, leak, and waste harvested water. Storage Type 1. Maintain water surface area less than one Ha to reduce water loss to (Earthen) evaporation. 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 volume. The number of participating farmers and the area irrigated would vary based on the water available, the water needs of

TABLE 2. ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS the 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 construct. b. Discharge should 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 should 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

TABLE 2. ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS spillway 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 case of an extreme event or detected risk of dike failure due to earthquakes or floods. Storage 1. Only use in-line storage under water source option A. In-line storage presents Location: greater risk of failure and requires more detail/precise design and construction In-Line 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 used. This information should be used to identify needed changes to spillway design. Storage 1. Earthen Dam (Same requirements under Earthen Storage above) Location: 2. Tank Storage System Off-Line 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). Conveyance 1. Design assures minimum pressure requirements to operate the irrigation system. to Fields 2. Design assures maximum pressure does not exceed conveyance system requirements. Source: SMTN, 2016.

TABLE 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS Water Flow 1. Monitor and maintain ecological flows in permanent streams with direct piping utilizing 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 authorized limits and during rain events. 5. Monitor water usage. Riparian 1. Monitor the number and distribution of Non-Native Invasive Species ecosystem (NNIS) as indicators of stream health downstream of the diversion. condition

Water Quality 1. Use only pesticides listed in the most recently approved Honduras PERSUAP. 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. 4. Promote voluntary compliance with the most recent Honduran PERSUAP

TABLE 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS on 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.

Vegetation 1. No projects shall be developed in established protected areas. Structure and 2. Avoid removal of permanent vegetation for reservoir construction if Function 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 cultivating saplings, species selection, planting, maintenance, etc.) Mosquito 1. Maintain short grassy vegetative buffers around the pond. Breeding 2. Use top feeding minnows and or fish to reduce or eliminate mosquito Habitat 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 MITIGATION SOCIAL ECONOMIC DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS Crop 1. Provide technical assistance prior to and during operation to support the Management producers’ 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 Action Plan (PERSUAP) revised in August 2016 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 practical.

TABLE 4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION SOCIAL ECONOMIC DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION CATEGORY COMPONENTS 9. Provide technical Assistance and training in production and marketing of high- value irrigated crops. Participating 1. Assess group dynamics and skills as part of the site selection process. Key factors Groups to 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 finance 6. 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 infrastructure, agricultural markets, and willingness of local municipalities and government agencies to support and/or participate in the development. Reservoir 1. The entire reservoir shall be fenced with at least 3-strand barbed wire or other Nuisances 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. Community 1. Require compliance with Honduran laws to validate appropriate land tenure and Conflicts rights-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 would be repeated.

4. ISSUES The 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 FLOWS

Extracting 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 QUALITY

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

ISSUE 3: CHANGE IN VEGETATION SPECIES, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION

The 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 SOURCE

The 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 FAILURE

Improper 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 EVAPORATION

High 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 NUISANCES

Reservoirs 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.

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 CONFLICTS

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. This issue applies to both the planning and operation phase of all options. Evaluation Criteria: Effectiveness of mitigation measures. ISSUE 9: PARTICIPATING GROUP MANAGEMENT

If 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 MANAGEMENT

Actions 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 LIVELIHOODS

Irrigation 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.

5. ALTERNATIVES This 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 ALTERNATIVE Current 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 ACTION Refer to Section 3: Modified Proposed Action for a description of this alternative. 5.3. ALTERNATIVE 3, NO WATER STORAGE SYSTEM This 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 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.

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 STUDY

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. 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 existing permanent water sources.

5.5. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON The 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 ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: KEY ALTERNATIVE 1: NO MODIFIED PROPOSED NO WATER COMPONENTS ACTION: ACTION STORAGE Objectives Continued implementation Provide improved water Same as Alternative 2, by a variety of reliability during rainy season but designed to implementers without and the potential to at least eliminate the concern USAID specified design extend cultivation season to of dam failure, spread criteria or funding. Scoping add an additional crop cycle. of mosquitoes, and to indicates that hundreds of varying degrees cost. systems of all sizes have Includes a coordinated suite been constructed or are of design criteria and planned throughout the mitigations required to dry corridor. reduce, avoid or minimize potential environmental Scoping indicates a wide- effects and ensure efficient variety of objectives would water use. continue to drive the implementation of In addition to design criteria, irrigation development. projects would include technical assistance in the No consistently developed operation and maintenance and applied mitigation of the reservoir and requirements would be irrigation systems including mandated other than best management practices compliance with existing for crop management, and Honduran water law and coordination with local other local environmental water boards and other requirements. applicable local governments. Mitigation Not specified. Scoping A wide variety of mitigation Mitigations would be Measures indicates a variety of measures are included to the same as NGO’s and government reduce, avoid or minimize Alternative 2 except agencies are supporting effects of the proposed the mitigations for water use for irrigation. actions. These include water storage would These efforts incorporate measures incorporated in not be applicable. varying levels of technical the planning, design, support, and guidance for construction, and operation construction and use. phases of the project. Water Source Not specified. Scoping Option A: Surface rain Option A: Not indicates a wide-variety of water collected in basin applicable without sources would continue to collection areas, gullies, or water storage system. be used. intermittent streams. Option B: One of the currently used Option B: Permanent Permanent Streams water sources is from Streams only extracting but not limited to permanent streams. surplus rain water above surplus rainwater However, scoping base flow. flows only. This indicates that users are option would require extracting water year- Option C: Water obtained compliance to round and are likely below directly at spring source maintain minimum base flows including in the location only during rain ecological flows based dry season. events. on Honduran legal requirements.

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF KEY ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: KEY ALTERNATIVE 1: NO MODIFIED PROPOSED NO WATER COMPONENTS ACTION: ACTION STORAGE These systems are required by law to Option C: Same as maintain a minimum 10% Alternative 2 flow, but no monitoring information is available. Water Not specified. Scoping Open channel canals or Direct closed system Conveyance (to indicates a wide-variety of closed pipe using piping to fields using Storage and to conveyance systems would appropriate materials for the the most appropriate fields) continue to be used. designed application from materials for the source to storage may be designed application. 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 using appropriate pipe material are used to convey water to fields to maintain pressure for drip irrigation. Storage Type Not specified. Scoping 1. Earthen dams. No storage. indicates earthen storage types are the most 2. Storage in Metal, Cement common type except for or Plastic Tanks. These may very small applications be either above or below where cement tanks have ground. Storage capacity been used. limited by tank size and cost which can be modified by the number of tanks. These systems would generally only be practical for individual family applications. Storage Size Storage size is only limited Specific storage size is No storage by site-specific physical limited by site-specific conditions, water physical conditions, water availability, developer availability, ability to comply objectives and ability to with all PEA design criteria comply with Honduran and implementing partner environmental laws. objectives.

Scoping indicates that As a general rule, reservoir system sizes can generally size should be limited to be grouped into three dam heights less than six categories. 1) micro meters at the downstream storage that generally only toe and provide water serves individual family storage of approximately uses; 2) small storage with 10,000 to 20,000 m3. Based embankments less than six on site-specific conditions meters in height and these could also be designed

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF KEY ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: KEY ALTERNATIVE 1: NO MODIFIED PROPOSED NO WATER COMPONENTS ACTION: ACTION STORAGE storage capacities less than in a series of smaller 15,000 m3 and serving reservoirs to increase small groups of less than overall capacity. 15 farmers; and 3) large systems with dam heights Tank storage size is limited greater than 6 meters and by costs and capacity of each capacities of up to 80,000 tank. Multiple tanks may be m3 that serve as many as used to increase available 80 farmers. water volume. Storage Not specified. Scoping Earthen storage could occur No storage Location indicates existing systems within natural basin occur both within natural collection areas, or outside rainwater collection basins of permanent stream and outside of stream channels. No dams would be channels. constructed directly within permanent stream channels.

Tanks could be located anywhere based on topography. System Access Not specified. Scoping Only temporary access Only temporary indicates that system roads needed for access roads needed access is driven by location construction access of small for construction and size. Systems located equipment would be access of small near areas currently being allowed. equipment would be farmed and designed for allowed. small applications generally Access routes would be require less road restored to preconstruction Access routes would construction for access. conditions following use. be restored to Larger systems using heavy preconstruction equipment require larger conditions following and more permanent road use. access. Irrigation Not specified. Scoping Gravity fed drip system. Gravity fed drip System indicates a variety of system. systems including flood, sprinkler and drip would continue to be used. Crop Not specified. Scoping Groups of approximately 10- Same as Alternative 2. Management indicates a wide range of 15 participants would crops and crop cultivate approximately 10 management practices hectares of cropland. would continue to be used. Technical assistance provided to help producers Larger projects currently learn to cultivate higher being planned and value crops to increase crop implemented are generally diversity and incomes. limited to 10 hectares of cropland to comply with Technical assistance Honduran environmental provided to improve law. However the number efficient water use and of participants can vary incorporate Climate Smart from single user systems agriculture practices such as

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF KEY ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: KEY ALTERNATIVE 1: NO MODIFIED PROPOSED NO WATER COMPONENTS ACTION: ACTION STORAGE to more than 50 soil conservation terracing, participants. trenching, green manures, mulching, cover crops, and In many cases, even with others as appropriate. available water farmers frequently continue to Use of agro-chemicals would cultivate traditional crops be consistent with the 2016 rather than higher value USAID PERSUAP. ones without technical assistance.

Use of Agro-chemicals would not be constrained as described in the 2016 USAID PERSUAP. Source: SMTN, 2016.

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 OVERVIEW The 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 CORRIDOR Western 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.

FIGURE 2. LIVELIHOOD ZONES IN WESTERN HONDURAS

Source: Western DO2 PEA, 2016 6.1.2. LIVELIHOODS IN THE SOUTHERN DRY CORRIDOR Livelihoods 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.

FIGURE 3. LIVELIHOOD ZONES IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016

6.1.3. ECOREGIONS IN WESTERN HONDURAS The 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.

FIGURE 4. ECOREGIONS IN WESTERN HONDURAS

Source: Western DO2 PEA, 2016 6.1.4. ECOREGIONS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS The 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.

FIGURE 5. ECOREGIONS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016

6.1.5. LAND USE IN WESTERN HONDURAS While 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.

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

Source: Western DO2 PEA, 2016

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 HONDURAS The departments of Valle and Choluteca are characterized by croplands and woody savannahs with minimal forest cover, which decreased between 2001 and 2012 (see Figures 6 and 7).

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%.

TABLE 6. LAND USE SUMMARY

LA SANTA DEPARTMENT COPÁN INTIBUCÁ LEMPIRA OCOTEPEQUE CHOLUTECA TOTAL PAZ BÁRBARA Area (ha) 409,800 485,070 400,638 590,663 271,898 437,604 719,449 64,824 Fisheries 8,775 127,779 Commercial 350 250 1,950 150 524 47,108 3,400 240,104 Agriculture General 145,112 101,434 60,912 156,083 80,059 221,930 106,620 432,706 Agriculture Urban Areas 300 50 150 100 725 865,412 Mangroves 21,343 1,730,824 Deciduous 138,002 102,650 27,543 160,280 89,573 8,512 357,761 3,461,647 Forest Mixed Forest 6,373 5,655 5,450 8,975 3,727 1,869 15,453 6,923,294 Dense Pine 45,217 107,990 118,584 101,073 61,849 11,417 66,825 13,781,765 Forest Thin Pine 17,800 114,647 125,776 75,266 22,509 29,605 26,586 27,435,752 Forest Dry Forest 50 13,131 54,631,400 Water 248 8,525 108,830,094 Shrubs 56,647 52,343 60,273 88,836 13,558 72,942 134,279 216,794,777 FOREST 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 HONDURAS The 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, 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

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.

FIGURE 8. PROTECTED AREAS IN WESTERN HONDURAS

Source: Western DO2 PEA, 2016 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.

FIGURE 9. PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016.

6.1.9. WATER RESOURCES IN WESTERN HONDURAS The 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).

FIGURE 10. MAJOR RIVERS AND WATERSHEDS IN WESTERN HONDURAS

Source: Western DO2 PEA, 2016 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 HONDURAS There 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).

FIGURE 11. WATERSHEDS IN SOUTHERN HONDURAS

Source: Cosecha EA, 2016.

6.2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK The 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 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

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 ISSUE The 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 FLOWS Extracting 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 discharge Climate 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 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.

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 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.

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 SUMMARY Under 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 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

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 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECT NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Continued reduction in Option A: No measurable Potential reduction in total total water change in flows water downstream. downstream, but Option B: No measurable Maintaining ecological flows compliant with change in flows during dry periods may not Honduras minimum Option C: No measurable be possible. flow requirement. change in flows Indirect Potential for reduced No measurable change to Potential for short-term Effects riparian vegetation riparian and aquatic habitats changes to aquatic habitats diversity, increased or species. or species if ecological NNIS presence, Option B: would have higher flows are not maintained. reduced water monitoring costs than Downstream uses may also availability for Option A or C. be affected. Monitoring downstream uses. would identify changes and allow for corrective action.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative 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). 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).

MISSING INFORMATION AND MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS There 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 QUALITY Construction 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. 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.

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 SUMMARY Under 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. 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.

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 2 EFFECTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Use of unapproved PERSUAP requirements PERSUAP requirements pesticides creates reduce risk of contamination reduce risk of potential mortality of from current levels. contamination above aquatic organisms current levels. including aquatic plants, fish, amphibians, insects and mollusks. Indirect Potential for: PERSUAP requirements Same as Alternative 2, but Effects • Disruption of food reduce risk of contamination no sedimentation from web. from current levels. construction activities. • Transport of agro- Erosion control measures chemicals in reduce risk of additional sedimentation. sedimentation contamination • Behavioral changes downstream. from repeated chemical exposure. • Sedimentation from construction

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

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY Under 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 3 EFFECTS ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Continued land use No additional land use Same as Alternative 2, but change caused by change for cultivation. no direct mortality from traditional agricultural Potential direct mortality construction. practices would during construction for continue. species present during construction could occur.

Indirect Foraging and nesting Some loss of vegetation No measurable change in Effects habitat for some including permanent cover vegetation or permanent species including would occur in foot print of cover. invertebrates, reptiles, reservoir, access and birds, and mammals conveyance construction, but would likely continue would not result in a to be reduced. meaningful change to vegetation diversity.

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

structure or function, especially if there is a listed species present that is sensitive to the distribution. MISSING INFORMATION There 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 SOURCE The 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. ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY Under 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.

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 4 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Some increase in Some increase in breeding No additional increase in breeding habitat. Use of habitat. breeding habitat for biological and mosquitoes. environmental mitigations frequently used voluntarily in many existing projects can help reduce the overall numbers of mosquitoes. Indirect Potential risk of Reduced risk of mosquito No additional risk of Effects mosquito borne illness. borne illness. mosquito borne illness. Use of NNIS fish to Use of NNIS fish to control No risk of NNIS fish control mosquitoes mosquitoes could spread to contamination of native could spread to non- native systems. systems. contaminated systems.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The 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 EFFECTIVENESS There 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 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.

6.3.5. ISSUE: RISK OF DAM FAILURE Improper 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, 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

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 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.

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 SYSTEM CATEGORY LOW SIGNIFICANT HIGH Direct loss of life None expected (due to Uncertain (rural Certain (one or more rural location with no location with few extensive residential, permanent structures residences and only commercial, or for human habitation) transient or industrial industrial development) development) Lifeline losses No disruption of Disruption of or loss of Disruption of or loss of services; repairs are access to essential access to essential cosmetic or rapidly facilities facilities repairable damage Property losses Private agricultural Major public and private Extensive public and lands, equipment and facilities private facilities isolated buildings Environmental losses Minimal incremental Major mitigation Extensive mitigation damage required cost or impossible to mitigate 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 SUMMARY Most 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 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.

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 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Reservoirs built without Reservoirs built to No risk of dam failure engineered designs and engineered designs and construction construction requirements requirements and and water storage capacity especially those with less than 20,000 m3 would water volumes greater have lower hazard ratings. than 20,000 m3 can Reservoirs constructed have high hazard directly within drainage ratings. Potential loss of systems have higher risk of life and infrastructure. failure from intense rain events. Indirect Potential loss of crop Potential loss of crop No indirect effects Effects production until dam is production until dam is repaired. repaired. Reservoirs constructed directly within drainages can provide flood control when constructed using the required design and mitigation measures.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS There 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 EFFECTIVENESS The 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 SEEPAGE High 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. The main causes of loss of stored water are seepage through a leaking basin or dam wall, and evaporation from the surface (Hudson, 1987).

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. 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,

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.

TABLE 13. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 6 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Water loss to Reservoirs built to No water loss to evaporation and engineered design and evaporation or seepage. seepage is unavoidable. construction requirements However, reservoirs have manageable losses. not built to engineered design and construction requirements may have excessive losses. Indirect Water loss can lead to Reduced potential risk of No indirect effects Effects excess drawdown of crop failure to water water from streams or shortages. springs. Potential for reduced water availability for crops.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS There 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 NUISANCES Open 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 SUMMARY Under 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 would be constructed.

TABLE 14. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 7 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE

TABLE 14. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 7 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects It is likely that many of The required fencing No direct effects the existing reservoirs mitigation would eliminate are already fenced impacts from cattle as long as based on evidence the fence is properly from scoping. maintained and closed. However, it is uncertain to what degree the fences are maintained. Indirect Promotion within the Fencing would act as a No indirect effects Effects community of the need deterrent to unauthorized to protect wildlife uses such as swimming or attracted to the area fishing, but the possibility of may not be taking unauthorized use can never place. be entirely eliminated.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Since 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. MITIGATIONS Inclusion 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 CONFLICTS Water 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 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).

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.

TABLE 15. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 8 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Systems currently in Reduced potential conflict Similar to Alternative 2, place should be based on predevelopment but may be more difficult consistent with consensus building efforts. to establish required Honduran legal rights-of-way for systems requirements, but it is requiring longer likely that many are conveyance distances or not. multiple ownerships. Indirect If strong community Changes to system size after Same as Alternative 2. Effects involvement and operation has begun could consensus building did result in the development of not occur prior to new conflicts, but the system developments, required mitigation to conflicts may already reevaluate land tenure and exist or have a higher group participation would risk of occurring in the reduce the potential for future. serious conflicts.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative 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 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.

6.3.9. ISSUE: PARTICIPATING GROUP MANAGEMENT Group 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 SUMMARY Under 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 9 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO ISSUES NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Not all systems would The required design criteria Same as Alternative 2 include the use of clear to establish a formally operating guidance for documented Memorandum participating members. of Understanding (MOU) signed by the project participants that establishes clear operating guidance is expected to reduce conflicts and ensure efficient

TABLE 16. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SUMMARY ISSUE 9 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO ISSUES NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE operations. Indirect Large participating Requiring use of an Same as Alternative 2 Effects group sizes (>20) often established operating fund lead to inefficiencies (rural credit unions called and internal conflicts. Cajas Rurales) would reduce Similarly, the lack of problems associated with well managed funds can funding repairs and reduce the maintenance. effectiveness of water use and lead to project failure.

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 EFFECTIVENESS The 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 MANAGEMENT Actions 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 per crop (no water measurement systems). ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY Under 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

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 10 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO EFFECTS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Systems other than More efficient water use, less Same as Alternative 2, but drip irrigation are less erosion, efficient fertilization. there would be less overall efficient in water use. reliability of water sources compared with Alternative 2 since no water is stored.

Indirect Projects may include The design mitigations Same as Alternative 2 Effects varying levels of requiring technical assistance technical support and in the proper use and training. In addition not management of irrigation all projects promote systems is expected to use of drip irrigation. increase production, conserve water, and reduce potential for unintended effects or project failure.

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

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 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.

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 SUMMARY Under 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 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

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 11 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 3: NO ISSUES NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION RESERVOIR STORAGE Direct Effects Economic improvement Increased crop yield and Same as Alternative 2, but from on-going diversification, and may have less crop programs would opportunity to produce diversity due to less continue to contribute higher value crops would reliable water source to local economies and increase contribution to local without reservoir storage. livelihoods in general. economies and livelihoods. Indirect Limited stability of Potential benefits to non- Same as Alternative 2 Effects livelihoods, due to participants via overall potential for crop contribution to local failure. economy (sales, employment, food diversity).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative 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 INFORMATION With 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 EFFECTIVENESS Studies indicate that the positive impacts of irrigation can be intensified by creating conditions or enabling environments rather than the mere supply of 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.

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 / RECOMMENDATION Based 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 RECOMMENDATION

Alternative 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.

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

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 RECOMMENDATIONS

The 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.

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

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.

REFERENCES

3Power Energy Group. (2011). HydroEnergy—Honduras. http://3powergroup.com/generation/hydro/honduras AbcAgro.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. 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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). Especies invasoras.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 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.

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.). Parque Nacional 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-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

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 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

ANNEXES ANNEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN

Cost 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 ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION GENERAL 1. Construction shall occur only Project Manager/ Dates of construction Provide construction schedule with dates that The schedule should be in the dry-season to reduce Contractor shows work will be accomplished during the dry provided with the erosion, avoid damage to season (November thru May). planning and design access routes, and avoid documents. contractor rain delays, etc.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 2. Identify water basin capacity DOR Method used; Utilize commonly accepted methods such as During Initial with approved hydrologic Water capacity m3. those described in the Handbook of Applied design/Planning. methods or models 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 watershed models would be a key component of flow management over time for all Honduras Agricultural-related agencies. Water assessment for system design must occur during March and April, the driest months.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 3. Site selection should utilize Program Manager Agri-tool output Existing agency personnel are trained in the use of Initial site selection phase the Agri-Tool software the tool, and staff engineers can use Agri-tool developed through USAID watershed delineations, slope information, etc., to and CIAT to help identify and build Hydrologic models; evaluate all possible options for site location. When: Planning and Design. 4. Identify and integrate the DOR/Project Manager Map of water uses During the planning phase, identify through During initial site spatial aspect and relationship occurring in the affected community interviews, available information other selection phase of all users in a drainage watershed, activities and land uses in the affected watershed system including the size and that could influence available water or be affected locations of other reservoirs Includes water volume by the proposed project. Information is on those tributaries, and the (m3) for each use. incorporated in design specifications and used by water rights within the the project manager to resolve potential conflicts system. with other activities. 5. Ensure design and DOR/Project Manager # Designs reviewed Review Design Prior to construction construction includes a review Date of Review of the design for technical accuracy by a competent professional and verification of construction quality and adherence to the plans and specifications. 6. Obtain all required permits DOR/Project Manager Permit List Consult local municipality, MiAmbiente, and local Prior to construction and approvals prior to water board. beginning construction. 7. Ensure adequate access can DOR/Project Manager # meters temporary roads Based on equipment needs, ensure existing roads Prior to construction be achieved using only existing # meters existing roads are adequate for construction equipment. Where or temporary roads and that temporary roads are used they must be temporary roads are obliterated and restored to pre-construction obliterated following use conditions following use

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 8. Ensure crop lands are feasible DOR/Project Manager Soil Type Consider soil infiltration and slopes Prior to construction for irrigation % Slopes 9. Ensure adequate distance and DOR/Project Manager % Slope Utilize basic topography to ensure adequate Prior to construction relief from diversion to Distance (meters) slopes are present to meet pressure requirements reservoir and/or to fields. for drip irrigation Engineering and Construction Water sources common to all options 1. Surface runoff directly into a DOR/Project Manager % veg cover in catchment Review vegetation condition During design phase and reservoir or above water area. incorporate treatments diversion point should run as needed. 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, rock walls, and live barriers must be developed. Engineering and Construction Water Source Option A Surface Runoff Collection. 1. When reservoir is outside a DOR Completed design review Diversion system should be constructed that can Design and operation defined channel, a diversion temporarily divert flow to the reservoir until full phase. system is constructed. and then be removed to allow normal flows through the channel.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 2. When reservoir is DOR Completed design review The spillway must be designed to specifications Design and operation constructed within a defined described in item #23 under storage type in the phase. channel, the spill way must be EMMP. designed and armored per engineering design Engineering and Construction Water 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 Operation collected from permanent Reviews rational formula with intensity equivalent to one Phase collected monthly streams under water source year 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 calibrated to collect

only water above the mean flow. Optional Water volume used (m3); diversion methods would include either a Water volume flowing; standard diversion weir with pipes at the bottom Precipitation (cm/month) 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 use is recorded for each crop cycle. 2. Maintenance of Ecological Project Manager See Annex F. See Annex F. Best Management Practices for Prior to construction Flows of permanent Small Hydroelectric Projects. Note, the guidance and monthly during streams when no storage in Annex F will be superseded when the guidance operations system used. currently being prepared by the Department of Hydrologic Resources is complete.

Establishment of ecological flows would be refined based on project implementation monitoring.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 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 Data collected monthly and within authorized limits. Water volume used (m3); and reviewed annually. In case of severe drought, or Water volume flowing; if riparian condition monitoring (item #1) indicates Precipitation (cm/month) measurable changes from baseline, the flows should be rerouted back to the natural system. Engineering and Construction Open Conveyance System 1. Design and construct system DOR % slope Verify design before construction and inspect (Design and construction to avoid standing water by # of areas with pooling construction. Phase) ensuring constant flows water through adequate slopes, and that system is completely dry when not in use. 2. Line channels with mortar and DOR Type of channel material Verify design before construction and inspect (Design and rock unless soil types have construction Construction Phase) low permeability. 3. Reduce lengths to less than DOR Conveyance length Verify design before construction and inspect (Design and 100 meters for easier visual (meters) construction Construction Phase) inspection and maintenance to prevent water leakage/waste. 4. Design will include a sediment DOR Completed Design Verify design before construction and inspect Design and construction basin. construction phase.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE Engineering and Construction Closed Conveyance System 1. Only use when an open DOR Completed Design Verify design before construction Design Phase system is not feasible due to Rocks/ridges, distance, topography or other issues that preclude building open channel conveyance. 2. Ensure design considers DOR Pressure calculations Verify design before construction Pre-construction calculations for both positive and negative pressure. 3. Train groups in DOR/Program Training Attendance Training takes place before during and after Prior to operation. maintenance/repair of the Manager Records. construction to ensure full understanding of all conveyance system. system components. 4. Provide groups with minimum Program Manager Parts list A completed parts list is provided to the Prior to initiating spare parts to initiate project. participants operations. Pipe materials may require vacuum breaks, they can deteriorate with time, leak, and waste harvested water Engineering and Construction Storage Type (Earthen) 1. Maintain water surface area DOR Surface Area (hectares) Check for consistency during design review. Design Phase less than one hectare to reduce water loss to evaporation.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 2. The DOR will create an DOR Completed O&M Manual N/A The O&M manual will be Operation and Maintenance delivered to the farmers (O&M) manual for the at the conclusion of farmers that will detail key construction activities. aspects of operations and maintenance. 3. When using cascading Farmers N/A Include language/illustration showing the emptying As needed reservoirs, drain the highest of the upper reservoir first. 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 DOR/Program Completed Design Provide narrative and plan that details what crops, Planning phase and post designed for the demand Manager calculations land area, evaporation/infiltration rates, will be construction needed, but should generally supported by the water harvesting project. The not exceed 20,000 m3 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 the water available, the water needs of the selected crops, and actual environmental conditions such as droughts.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 5. The dam should be located to DOR Completed Design Narrative in design memorandum explaining the Design and construction minimize height of earth calculations optimization of embankment location and height phase embankment while achieving to provide the required storage capacity and required storage and pressure pressure. In cases where the embankment is to the irrigation system. No greater than six meters high, a special justification embankment should be and technical specification must be included in the greater than 6 m. high. design. As a general rule, embankments taller than 6 meters present more risk of failure due to seepage and piping. (Design Phase ) 6. Embankment Side slopes DOR and Construction Side slope measurements Site plans and specifications should clearly show Design phase and should be at a minimum Contractor the side slopes of the embankment (DOR). Side construction phase 3H:1V. slopes of embankment should be checked during construction for conformance with plans and specifications documents. 7. Alignment/locations of the DOR, Construction Dates of preconstruction Meet on site and lay out the embankment Construction Phase embankment features should Contractor, Farmers field layout alignment before construction begins. The layout be laid out on the ground in at a minimum should include the crest of the the field before construction embankment (where it ties into high ground), begins. Wooden stakes are upstream and downstream toe, spillway, and recommended and may be excavation outline of reservoir. color coded. 8. No excavation activities of the DOR and Construction Completed Design Show excavation limits on plans and specifications Design and construction reservoir shall be closer than Contractor and ensure direction is clear. (DOR). Ensure Phase 10 meters to the upstream compliance with plans and specifications during toe of the embankment. See construction (CC). figure 19 of Tech Guide 9. All the vegetation, rocks and DOR and CC % vegetation, rocks and Show clearing and grubbing excavation section Design and construction loose soil shall be removed loose soil on embankment and detail on plans and ensure direction is clear in from the footprint of the specifications (DOR). Ensure compliance with embankment (clearing and plans and specifications during construction (CC). grubbing).

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 10. Ensure proper core trench DOR and CC % course grain material Show core trench on plans and specify trench Design and construction (diente) design and material requirements (i.e. clay with less than 50% Phase construction if included in course grain material). Ensure that core of dam is embankment. See Army Core constructed with clay material (greater than 30% Tech Guide Annex E “Design clay). If the field test define that the clay content is of Dam Embankment” 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 core of the dam requires during construction to reduce risk of dam failure (DOR). 11. No rocks larger than half the DOR/ CC # Rocks larger than lift Include the definition of the largest size rock Design and construction thickness of one lift (layer of layer allowed in the embankment in the contract Phase embankment fill) allowed in documents (DOR). Plan construction process to the embankment. See Tech remove rocks from embankment fill material. Guide Chapter “Construction Import material that meets design specifications Methods and Practices” (CC). Perform quality control during embankment construction (CC).

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 12. Ensure compaction of DOR/CC Compaction Specifications DOR must specify minimum compaction Design and construction embankment fill meets design from design requirements of embankment fill in the contract Phase specifications. The width at plans and specifications. Contract plans and the crest of the embankment specifications must include required testing should be at a minimum a 3 to procedures to prove compaction has been met 1 embankment geometry. (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 compaction). See appendix Tech Guide chapter “Construction Methods and Practices” for additional details. 13. Check embankment seepage DOR Seepage results from Include Lanes Creep Ratio check in design Design and construction in design memorandum. Inspection Report 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 CC if soil type is different than what was used for seepage analysis. 14. Monitor seepage during first DOR and Farmers Seepage results from O&M manual includes instructions to check for Operation Phase filling of reservoir. Inspection Report 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 dirty water springs up).

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 15. Ensure adequate clay/silt DOR and CC Soil Types at the bottom The soil type(s) should be identified during the Planning, Design, content. of the reservoir, under the planning and design phase. The DOR will use this Construction Phases embankment, and information to make decisions about infiltration of downstream of the reservoir, seepage through and under embankment 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 reservoir may be needed to ensure a successful project. 16. After construction, vegetate DOR, CC, Farmer. % Vegetation Plans and specifications should require vegetation Design, construction, and surface to protect from as erosion protection on exposed earth O&M Phases erosion. (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 soil stabilization. 17. If the height of the DOR Dam Height at A detailed geotechnical investigation and design is Design Phase embankment from the downstream toe required for higher risk dams. Taller downstream toe is greater embankments are a greater concern for dam than 10 meters, or a dam failure because of the higher water pressures failure hazard rating is High, acting on and through the soil. The geotechnical an approved geotechnical report should include seepage and slope stability design and shall be required. analysis of the embankment under transient and steady state seepage conditions. Rapid draw down and seismic stability analysis is also required.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 18. Excavations deeper than one DOR & CC. Excavated steepness ratio Plans and Specifications state excavation slopes no Construction Phase meter shall be no steeper steeper than 2h: 1v (DOR). CC adheres to plans than 2H:1V. 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 it is too steep. 19. Monitor soil type during DOR & CC Soil Types CC). If a higher permeability soil is uncovered Construction Phase reservoir excavation and during construction an infiltration test should be notify DOR if different soils conducted. Reservoir design/capacity should be are uncovered ( 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. DOR may require modification to reservoir design to account for lost capacity. 20. Soil infiltration shall not DOR/Program Infiltration rate cm/sec Soil in the bottom of the reservoir should have an Design Phase exceed 10^-6 Manager infiltration rate of less than 10^-6 cm/sec cm/sec(5mm/day). (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 liner or soil mixing (adding clay to the natural soil).

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 21. Calculate excavation and Program Manager, Volume of borrow soil The DOR includes volume calculations for the Planning, Design, embankment volumes. DOR, and CC excavation in the reservoir and fill soil needed in Construction Phases 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 material to construct the embankment must be acquired from a source outside of reservoir. 22. Little to no exposed rock Program % rock present Try to locate the reservoir in areas with the least Planning Phase present at proposed Manager/DOR amount of rock and cobbles. Rock and cobbles reservoir location. add extra work and cost during construction. Surface rocks can indicate that bedrock is relatively shallow and may cause capacity issues if encountered during construction. 23. Include a staff gauge to DOR/CC Gauge presence Use post-construction elevation data from the After construction but measure water volume in the reservoir basin for a simple water depth/volume prior to filling. reservoir to track relationship with depth increments painted on a consumption and availability. flat surface. For example, the gradations could be A simple vertical board with painted on a board or piling installed vertically in gradations related to capacity the water or even angled from the dry bank could easily be developed for towards the bottom of the reservoir from a fixed every reservoir and could be point on the bank. (Centimeter or decimeter an essential tool for planning gradations would be sufficient) environmentally sound withdrawal from streams with farm groups, etc.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 24. Spillway is designed to DOR Calculations showing a. Shape should be rectangular since it is easy to Design Phase convey overflow without spillway volume maintain and construct. reservoir overtopping (see specifications b. Discharge must be calculated using standard tech page 29): 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 protected from scour (for example with Rock armoring, gabions) depending on available materials. g. Continue armoring or assure that no scouring velocities develop for at least 10 meters downstream of the earth embankment

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE Engineering and Construction Reservoir Location 1. Only use in-line storage when Program Manager Decision rationale Document rationale for reservoir location in Design Phase off-line storage is not available documented in initial design report. or feasible. In-line storage planning report. presents greater risk of failure

Engineering and Construction Tank Storage System 1. Tank storage may be Program Manger Decision rationale Document rationale for storage type in design Design Phase considered only if an earthen documented in initial report. reservoir is not feasible. Due planning report. to high cost, this option is generally limited where water needs are small (<1,000 m3). Engineering and Construction Conveyance to Field 1. Assure pressure requirements DOR Volume and psi. Provide irrigation conveyance calculations that Design Phase (minimum and maximum) are show flow and pressure through the system. provided by the conveyance Pressure reducers/regulators are included where system for the proposed needed. Show pressure does not exceed irrigation system. recommended values of pipe system. Water Flow

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 1. Identify and integrate the DOR/Project Manager Number and type of other Identify through community interviews, available Planning Phase spatial aspect and water uses in watershed information other activities and land uses in the relationship of all users in a affected watershed that could influence available drainage system including water or be affected by the proposed project. the size and locations of Information is incorporated in design other reservoirs on those specifications and used by the project manager to tributaries, and the water resolve potential conflicts with other activities. rights within the system. 2. For Alternative 2 (Option Project Manager Flow volume (m3/hour) Utilize the guidance in USAID Best Management Monthly B, and C and Alternative 3, Practices for Small Hydroelectric Projects (USAID monitor and maintain 2012) ecological flows 3. Measure NNIS as indicators Project Manager # occurrences Where land ownership patterns permit, establish Prior to construction of stream health for #species five permanent two-meter diameter plots within and Annually during systems utilizing springs 100 meters of water diversion. growing season (Alternative 2 Option) and Alternative 3. 4. To assure that only water DOR Flow volume (m3/hour) This will allow the weir to be calibrated to collect Design phase for peak flow is collected; only water above the mean flow. Optional the mean flow shall be diversion methods would include either a estimated using either the standard diversion weir with pipes at the bottom rational formula with to allow water to pass up to the ecological flow, intensity equivalent to one or at the base of the natural channel define the year period, or by height of the water surface for the ecological duplicating the ecological discharge and construct a lateral weir that allows flow defined on the withdraw of water only above that level. hydroelectrical ecological flow guide.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 5. Withdraw water from the Project manager Flow volume (m3/hour) Monitor flow volumes Monthly 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 back to the natural system. 6. Monitor and track water Farmers Water volume used Based on the storage volume of the reservoir, Daily usage for each system. (m3/day) maintain a daily record of water levels and use. Compare annual use with other systems in the watershed to track potential cumulative effects. 7. Develop and institute a SAG and DGRH Volume of water stored This system would incorporate geo-referenced Planning phase. Monitoring and Information by watershed/Volume of flow information for tracking all water use in each System capable of collecting surface water available for watershed. Data collected monthly and information on water flows watershed (%) summarized annually. and use throughout each watershed. Water Quality 1. Use only pesticides listed in Participants List of pesticides used Complete a list of agrochemicals used. Each crop cycle the most recently approved Honduras PERSUAP 2. Follow application methods Participants Quantity and method of Complete a list of agrochemical application rates Each crop cycle and protocols described in application used and methods used. the most recently approved Honduras PERSUAP

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 3. Prevent excess nutrients and Group Participants Use of agrochemicals Within project ownership prohibit use of fertilizer During pesticide and pollutants from entering the above reservoir above reservoir and promote and encourage fertilizer use reservoir. Do not spray limitation of fertilizers on non-project ownerships chemicals or apply fertilizer above the reservoir. near, above, or upwind from the pond. Vegetation Change 1. No projects shall be Planning Location Maps Ensure project does not enter any established or Planning phase developed in established showing location of candidate protected areas. Protected Areas proposed action and Protected Areas. 2. Avoid removal of permanent Area map of permanent Estimate the amount of permanent vegetation to During project design vegetation for reservoir vegetation to be removed. be removed for reservoir construction and phase construction if and when document whether alternative locations avoiding possible removal are feasible. 3. Limit agricultural cultivation Area Map of lands Map review during project planning to ensure land Initial planning and design to areas previously or proposed for cultivation has been previously considered as agricultural use. phase currently cultivated to ensure no net increase in land use for agricultural purposes. 4. Provide training for planning DOR/Project Manager Participants Trained Identify upstream reforestation needs and provide Prior to construction and implementation of Area needing reforestation training and planning for reforestation as needed. reforestation in the reservoir Planning must consider cultivating of seedlings, watersheds species selection, planting, and protection Mosquito Control 1. Maintain short grassy Group Participants % Ground Cover Visual checks Monthly vegetative buffers around the reservoir.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 2. Use top feeding minnows and Group Participants Presence of fish Stock fish after construction and monitor Annual or fish to reduce or eliminate throughout operation of the project. mosquito larvae. 3. Prevent NNIS fish species DOR Prevention method If NNIS fish species are used, incorporate Design Phase spread to non-contaminated controls to reduce risk of spread such as screens streams or other barriers. Dam Failure 1. At the time of construction a DOR Amount of settlement At every inspection the crest must be checked to Design and construction settlement allowance must be allowance ensure it remains horizontal and that no low phase incorporated on the top of spots have developed. All over settlement must the embankment. be attended to with backfill and additional monitoring. 2. When the embankment has Farmers and Project % Vegetation Cover Inspect and complete work. After construction, but been constructed, and all Manager before spillway is used. 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 before the spillway is to be used. 3. Complete periodic dam Farmers Erosion problems Utilize routine daily inspections to identify Daily inspections. encountered 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 occurs.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 4. Do not allow trees, bushes or Farmers # Trees or bushes on Check for tree and shrub encroachment Annual other deep-rooted plants to embankment. grow anywhere near the embankment, the spillway and its outfall. 5. All erosion should Farmers # and location of incidents Check for erosion areas and repair as needed. Monthly immediately be treated by Consult technical expertise as needed. restoring the affected areas to their design dimensions, (i.e. backfill, compact and grass all eroded sections) and re- fencing as required. 6. All dams are required to have DOR and Project Spillway design flood Such potential impacts shall include detailed Design phase sufficient flood discharge Manager capacity assessments of the: (a) magnitude of the adopted capacity to pass the following: spillway design flood, how it was determined and (a) acceptable flood capacity why it is considered acceptable (b) probability of without failure of the dam (b) the floods greater than the spillway design flood spillway design flood without occurring and the potential there is for damage any damage to the dam. and loss of life caused by such floods (c) Where the selected spillway consequences of flows in excess of the spillway design flood discharge is less design flood and the impact of the higher flow than the acceptable flood velocities and greater water depths on various capacity, the potential impacts parts of the dam structure (d) potential damage of floods in excess of the to the dam caused by these flows and how the spillway design flood up to the energy from these flows is dissipated magnitude of the acceptable flood capacity shall be identified, quantified and documented in the written acceptable flood capacity assessment report.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 7. An emergency system to DOR Completed Design This system should allow drainage of the Design Phase empty the reservoir in case of Specifications reservoir in less than 24 hours. In some cases the an extreme event or detected main drainage for irrigation could be used, but it risk of dike failure due to requires a bypass to allow fast release of water. earthquakes or floods. Once emptied, the safety of the dike can be reviewed and repairs completed. 8. Reservoir capacity should not DOR Volume water storage Document volume in project design. Design Phase exceed 20,000 m3 of water (m3) without completion of a Complete a detailed analysis of the technical and detailed analysis which structural conditions that considers the potential considers risk of dam failure risk of dam failure. in detail.

Water Loss to Evaporation and Seepage 1. Water surface area less than 1 DOR Surface area (ha) Document surface area in project design. Design Phase Ha 2. Maximize the height of the DOR Reservoir Depth (meters) Where feasible increase depth to reduce surface Design Phase dam to increase water depth area and minimize losses due to evaporation where feasible. 3. Include an allowance based on DOR Design calculations Estimates can be calculated or estimated based on Design Phase site conditions for water experience. losses from seepage and evaporation in the calculations for needed storage size, 4. The reservoirs should be DOR # Trees around the Check for trees that serve as windbreaks around Annually surrounded by windbreaks to reservoir reservoirs plant as needed, but not on the dam reduce evaporation, but trees itself. should not planted on the dam itself.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE Reservoir Nuisances 1. The entire reservoir shall be Group Participants # of fences Visual inspection that fence is constructed Prior to and during fenced with at least 3-strand immediately following excavation. operation barbed wire or other effect Fence is closed at all times Visual inspection of fence daily. materials to exclude cattle from grazing on any portion of the interior or exterior banks. 2. Technical assistance will Group Participants # of participants receiving Inclusion of wildlife awareness during technical Prior to and during include a provision to make technical assistance assistance training. operation the participants aware of potential wildlife concerns and promote community awareness of the need to protect wildlife that use the reservoirs. Community and User Conflicts 1. Design construction and Promoter and Documentation of Participating group with promoter assistance to Site selection phase operation must comply with Participating User completed tenure obtain and document legal compliance. Honduran laws which include Group approvals. Prior to project development appropriate land tenure and rights-of-way be established. 2. Pre development community Promoter # of consensus building Project promoter conducts meetings with local Site selection phase involvement is conducted to meetings conducted communities and governments educate the potentially Prior to project development affected individuals and develop clear consensus related to participation.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 3. If changes in water availability Same as mitigations #1 Documentation of Participating group with promoter assistance to When changes occur affect system performance and #2 completed tenure obtain and document legal compliance. requires changes to approvals. Prior to project development participants or the system, a re-evaluation of legal compliance and the predevelopment consensus meetings would be repeated. 4. MOU signed with Project Manager and Completed MOU MOU signed among Promoter and Beneficiaries Completed prior to beneficiaries establishing Participating User design. agreements for Right of Way Group and usage Participating Group Management 1. Assess group dynamics and Promoter Assessment of group Conduct interviews and meetings with potential During initial site skills prior to site selection. dynamics group members and community leaders and evaluation agencies. Present project concepts and requirements. Identify agricultural skills and experience, and visit possible sites for initial evaluation. 2. Develop a group MOU Promoter and Completed MOU The MOU will establish clear operating guidelines After feasibility detailing all operation and Participants and be signed by all participants prior to project assessment maintenance requirements, implementation. standards, and procedures. These should include both administrative and operational requirements.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 3. Fees collected by water user Project Manager and Completed MOU Review completed MOU prior to project Following site selection groups for maintenance and Farmers development. 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 and/or regular irrigation subscriber fees. 4. Technical Support to Promoter # of training sessions Technical assistance would include operating fund Prior to and during Growers in Business Skills & management, methods and tools. operations as needed. Finance 5. Participating group sizes Promoter # of participants Establish prior to project implementation. Annual should generally be limited to 10 to 15 participants. Exceptions may occur in situations where demonstrated skills and consensus are well established. 6. Assess community viability for Project Manager Completed assessment Consider infrastructure, access, agricultural Prior to site selection participation. market, and willingness of local municipalities and government agencies to support and/or participate in the development of the project. Crop Management

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 1. Provide technical assistance Project Manager #of training sessions Frequency of training is based on individual group Review annually prior to and during operation # of participants needs assessments. to support the producers’ sustained adoption and utilization of the drip irrigation technology. 2. Complete an irrigation system Project Manager Completed design plan Design includes all relevant design aspects Planning Phase design by qualified technicians. including topography, soil types, water quality and availability, and climatic conditions. 3. Carryout system maintenance Farmers # Maintenance issues System inspection during routine operation, and Daily during use to keep irrigation canals free immediately following storm events. of weeds, trash, reduce effects of sedimentation, and prevent wasteful leaks. Maintenance schedules will be documented in the group operating. 4. Scheduling irrigation based on Farmers Documentation of Measure soil moisture content directly. An Weekly with annual crop needs. irrigation usage. alternative is the development of general interval reviews of usage guides based on historic crop needs. This method is less complicated, but not as efficient as actual moisture measurements. 5. Select a filtration system DOR/Project Manager Justification for selection Include a justification for filtration system in the Prior to construction appropriate to the scale and project design. water conditions for each project. 6. Select crops according to Farmers Crops grown, water used, Conditions evaluated continuously Prior to each rotation water availability, crop water crops sold needs and market conditions.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY INDICATORS METHODS FREQUENCY MITIGATION MEASURE 7. Compliance with the Pesticide USAID, Farmers, % Compliance Conduct spot checks and require farmers to track Annual review Evaluation Report and Safer Project Manager all pesticide use. Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) revised in August 2016 8. Incorporate cultivation Farmers Techniques used Document cropping techniques used in Annual techniques that promote soil production and conduct visual inspections. and water conservation as well as efficient crop production. These include climate smart techniques such as mulching and the use of organic fertilizers where practical. Local Economies and Livelihoods 1. Technical Assistance and Partner # of training sessions Training sessions offered prior to project Training should occur training in production and provided. implementation, and over the first 2-years of prior to implementation. marketing of high-value # of participants attending production. The number of sessions required is irrigated crops. training based on the participants’ successful completion and should achieve at least a 70% rate of successful completion. 2. Support to group participants Partner # of training sessions Encouraging inclusion of women in the direct Training should occur to promote attitude changes provided. management of funds/caja rural, and tracking the prior to implementation through a facilitated plan to # of participants attending marketing and accountability to manage profits improve core family values. training and require a register of accounting to track expenditures and incomes. 3. No single crop is promoted Partner # of crops cultivated Farmers should track the types of crops and sales Annually over others to increase to help determine best crops diversity and respond to market demand.

ANNEX B. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED

No NAME ORGANIZATION 1 Peter Hearne USAID 2 Héctor Táblas INVESTH 3 Isaac Ferrera USAID 4 Sofía Méndez USAID 5 Angel Serrano INVESTH 6 Wilmar Rosalas Global Communities 7 Jorge Reyes USAID 8 Angie Murillo USAID 9 Greg Vaughan USIAD 10 Héctor Santos USAID 11 Joe Torres USAID 12 Walter Raudales El Ocotal 13 Kavin Beltran El Ocotal 14 Carlos Enrique Rios El Ocotal 15 José Beltran El Ocotal 16 Santiago Manueles El Ocotal 17 Ferencio Raudales El Ocotal 18 Ales Raudales El Ocotal 19 Dany Raudales El Ocotal 20 Juan Carlos Urquin El Ocotal 21 Mario Ochoa SAG 22 Wendy Padilla SAG 23 Alejandro Aguero Global Communities 24 Mary Liz Mann Global Communities 25 Eva Karina Mejia Global Communities 26 Carmen Cartegena Recursos Hidricos 27 Juan Carlos Colindress Department of Irrigation and Drainage

ANNEX C. LIST OF PREPARERS

DAVID HARRIS David 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 MYTON Becky 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 COBOS Mr. Cobos has worked in Water Resources for more than 25 years in Central America as hydrologist he has developed water budgets for several projects 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

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 RODRIGUEZ Mrs. 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.

ANNEX D. SCOPING STATEMENT

The Final Approved Scoping Statement is available on the following web site: http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/egat/envcomp/document.php?doc_id=49081

ANNEX E. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TECHNICAL GUIDE

US 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.

ANNEX F. BEST PRACTICES FOR SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

USAID/ProParque. Guía de Buenas Prácticas Ambientales para Pequeños Proyectos Hidroeléctricos. Honduras, 2012. Disponible en: http://www.ahper.org/en/images/pdf/Guia_BuenasPracticasHidro.pdf The 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.

ANNEX G. PERSUAP

USAID ACCESO. (2013). Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP). Available at: http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/repository/pdf/39597.pdf

ANNEX H. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT LINKS

USAID Sector Environmental Guidelines. Available at: http://www.usaidgems.org/sectorGuidelines.htm

100

ANNEX I. IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST RAINWATER HARVESTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SMALL/MEDIUM-SIZE FARMS IN WESTERN AND SOUTHERN HONDURAS January 15, 2017 This 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 PHASE COMMUNITY 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 educate potentially 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 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)

101

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 PHASE WATER 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 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)

102

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)

103

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 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)

104

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 PHASE WATER 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) 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)

105

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).

106