Coke Watershed Restoration PDF

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits
in Community Water Partnership Projects
Prepared for:
in collaboration with
January 25, 2010
Ann Arbor, Michigan

www.limno.com
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects
January 25, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary.....ES-1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Summary of Phase I Project Outcomes ............................................................ 1
1.2 Phase II and Phase III Objectives ..................................................................... 2
1.3 Phase II and III Approach ................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Identification of CWP Watershed Restoration Projects........................... 3
1.3.2 Compilation of Data & Supporting Information ...................................... 4
1.3.3 Development of Computational Engine................................................... 4
1.3.4 Quantification of Restoration Benefits .................................................... 5
2. Quantification Results ............................................................................................... 7
2.1 Characterization of Watershed Restoration Activities ...................................... 7
2.2 Estimates of Watershed Restoration Benefits ................................................... 8
2.2.1 Water Quantity Benefits .......................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Water Quality Benefits ............................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Example Calculations .............................................................................. 9
3. Discussion of Findings............................................................................................ 15
3.1.1 CWP Project Objectives ........................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Availability of Required Data and Information ..................................... 16
3.1.3 Interpretation of Quantification Results................................................. 17
3.1.4 Projects Generating the Greatest Benefits ............................................. 17
3.1.5 Quantification of Reforestation Benefits ............................................... 18
3.1.6 Volume Equivalents of Water Quality Benefits .................................... 19
3.1.7 TCCCs Cost Share ................................................................................ 20
3.1.8 Future Projections .................................................................................. 21
3.1.9 Additional Benefits Not Quantified ....................................................... 21
4. References ............................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A. CWP Projects with Watershed Restoration Activities
Appendix B. CWP Survey
Appendix C. Description of Computational Engine
Appendix D. Quantification of Watershed Restoration Benefits
Appendix E. Fact Sheets for Activities Quantified
Appendix F. Fact Sheets for Activities Investigated but not Quantified
Page i
January 25, 2010
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Preliminary Estimate of Watershed Restoration Benefits ...................ES-1
Table 2-1. CWP Projects by Activity Type ...................................................................7
Table 2-2. Preliminary Estimate of Water Quantity Benefits ........................................9
Table 2-3. Preliminary Estimate of Water Quality Benefits ..........................................9
Page ii
January 25, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Coca-Cola Company is interested in gaining a better understanding of the
watershed restoration benefits derived through its Community Water Partnership
(CWP) Projects. This report describes the outcomes of an effort to quantify those
benefits and advance the development of computational methodologies for this
purpose. The work described in this report builds on previous Phase I activities
described in a full report (LimnoTech and TNC, 2008) and summarized in a White
Paper (DePinto, et al., 2009), and updates numbers presented in an August 5, 2009
Phase II report (LimnoTech and TNC, 2009).
For many of the CWP projects reviewed as part of this project, watershed restoration
benefits are being realized through multiple activities. To date, a total of 61 activities
implemented through 50 CWP projects have been quantified. The remaining projects
were not quantified because implementation is still in its early stages, available
information was insufficient to make an estimate, or the types of benefits are not
quantifiable.
The current estimate is that the projects implemented by the end of 2009 will provide
a benefit of approximately 28.8 billion liters/year, representing 21% of the product
volume generated by TCCC facilities. Projects implemented by the end of 2013 are
estimated to provide a beneficial gain of water of approximately 56.8 billion
liters/year, representing 34% of the product volume generated by TCCC facilities
(Table ES-1). An annual increase in product volume of 5.25% was assumed (per
information provided by Greg Koch).
The pollution reduction benefits of these activities were also estimated as part of this
exercise. The primary focus of most of the CWP projects that address water quality
problems is erosion control, so the reduction in sediment yield was estimated where
relevant. The preliminary estimate is that the 61 CWP activities evaluated will reduce
sediment load in 2009 by 3,018,392 metric tons/year, increasing to 3,577,769 metric
tons by 2013. These reductions will significantly improve the quality of receiving
waters in those watersheds.
Table ES-1. Preliminary Estimate of Watershed Restoration Benefits
Year
End of 2008
End of 2009
End of 2010
End of 2011
End of 2012
End of 2013
1
Product Volume
(billion L/yr)1
129.0
135.8
142.9
150.4
158.3
166.6
Estimated Quantity
(billion L/yr)
15.7
28.8
34.2
40.7
54.8
56.8
Percent of Product
Volume1
12%
21%
24%
27%
35%
34%
Assumes a projected annual increase in product volume of 5.25% during 2009-2013.
Page ES-1
January 25, 2010
Figure ES-1 shows the increase in estimated watershed restoration benefits compared
to projected product volume through 2020. The ratio of benefits to product volume is
also shown (black line). The graph will be refined and extended in time in the future
as more information about ongoing projects becomes available, and new projects are
implemented. Restoration benefits for ongoing infrastructure-dependent projects
beyond 2013 will need to account for depreciation.
100%
250
90%
200
80%
175
70%
150
60%
125
50%
100
40%
75
30%
50
20%
25
10%
0
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Ratio of Quantity Benefit to Product Volume
Water Quantity (billion L/yr)
225
Product volume
Water quantity benefit
Ratio
0%
2020
Year
Figure ES-1. Projected Benefits Compared to Projected Product Volume

This report provides details on the quantification approach used to derived these
estimates, describes the development of the computational engine, and discusses
findings and associated recommendations.
Page ES-2
January 25, 2010
1. INTRODUCTION
This document represents an essential component in the development of methods to
support the advancement of water stewardship and sustainability. It builds on
previous work conducted in 2008 (LimnoTech and TNC, 2008) and described in a
White Paper (DePinto, et al., 2009). These previous Phase I activities focused on
characterization of TCCCs Community Water Partnership (CWP) projects,
identification of potential activities that would enhance water resources, and
development of a conceptual framework for calculating those enhancements. It also
builds on previous Phase II work conducted in 2009 (LimnoTech and TNC, 2009)
that began to build the computational portion of the conceptual framework, and test
its utility by using it to develop an initial estimate of the total water quantity and
quality benefits derived from completed and ongoing CWP projects. This Phase III
work provides an update to the Phase II report and quantifies the benefits of
additional projects and activities.
1.1 SUMMARY OF PHASE I PROJECT OUTCOMES
During Phase I, the project team reviewed all CWP projects and identified those that
were primarily focused on water quantity and/or quality in the watershed within
which they were implemented. Two other categories of projects are those directed at
socio-economic benefits (i.e., water access), and those focused primarily on education
or outreach.
The criteria for what counts as a watershed restoration activity in this context were
determined to be those projects that are: 1) directed at the sustainable and equitable
use of water; 2) focused on conserving or restoring water quantity and/or water
quality; and 3) quantifiable in terms of their watershed restoration benefits.
Based on these criteria, nine categories of watershed restoration actions were
identified through Phase I:
1. Agricultural land practice changes
2. Stormwater management
3. Land use/land cover alterations
4. Hydraulic/hydrologic waterbody alterations
5. Recaptured leakage from water systems
6. Wastewater treatment
7. Biologic management
8. Water reuse
9. Rainwater harvesting and aquifer recharge
These categories encompass a wide range of activities that can be targeted at almost
any specific water quantity and/or quality problem that exists in a watershed. It is
Page 1
January 25, 2010
feasible, given sufficient data and information about the project, to quantify any of
these actions to allow evaluation of their effect on the sustainable use of water in a
watershed.
It is noteworthy that several of these watershed restoration actions have been
identified as adaptation activities to reduce vulnerability to climate change.
Specifically, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified
agricultural practice changes, hydraulic/hydrologic waterbody alterations, biologic
management, water reuse, and rainwater harvesting as possible adaptation activities
(IPCC, 2007; Bates, et al., 2008). Some of the restoration activities are also known to
sequester carbon. For example, agricultural practices that improve water-holding
capacity such as reduced tillage may also sequester carbon through both increased
crop productivity and reduced soil respiration (Bates, et al., 2008). Tree plantings can
also sequester significant quantities of carbon, and the slowing of forest degradation
can significantly contribute to avoided emissions (Bates, et al., 2008). Furthermore,
some of the restoration actions can result in an energy savings, with associated
carbon-related benefits. For example, stormwater management practices that involve
green infrastructure can reduce pumping and treatment needs, and reduce energy use
overall. While these additional benefits are recognized, only the benefits on water
quantity and quality are quantified in this report.
The project team also developed a methodology and conceptualized a framework that
could be used to quantify the water quantity and quality changes associated with
projects such as those implemented through the CWP, as well as other potential
projects that TCCC might undertake in achieving its water stewardship goals. The
conceptualized tool is referred to as the Watershed Restoration Benefits Evaluation
Tool (WRBET).
1.2 PHASE II AND PHASE III OBJECTIVES
The goal of Phase II was to develop an initial estimate of the total water quantity and
quality benefits derived from the CWP projects implemented to date, and to begin to
build the computational engine of the WRBET. At the same time, there was interest
in disseminating the conceptual framework developed in Phase I to the broader water
stewardship community for review and comment, in the interest of further advancing
these concepts and methods. This was accomplished during Phase II through the
development of a White Paper that has been distributed to the Water Footprint
Network for review and comment (DePinto, et al., 2009).
Phase III activities included continuation of the quantification work. The
quantification of watershed restoration benefits from CWP projects represents an
exploration of methods as well as an evaluation of the challenges involved in
compiling data inputs required for those computations. A wide variety of project and
activity types were evaluated, with a range of data available to support the
quantification process. Recommendations for improving the quantification process
are provided in Section 3.
Page 2
January 25, 2010
1.3 PHASE II AND III APPROACH

Four steps were conducted as part of Phase II, as described in the following sections:
1. The list of CWP projects that have the potential to generate watershed
restoration benefits was expanded to include new projects described in the
2009 Replenish Report.
2. Key data and information needed to quantify watershed restoration benefits
were obtained and compiled;
3. Development of the computational engine of the WRBET was conducted;
and
4. Watershed restoration benefits were estimated for selected activities.
The Phase III update expanded the quantification work to include additional CWP
projects that have the potential to generate watershed restoration benefits. Similar to
Phase II, key data and information were obtained and compiled and benefits were
estimated for selected activities using the same approach taken for Phase II
quantification.
1.3.1 Identification of CWP Watershed Restoration Projects
During Phase I, the approximately 140 Community Water Partnership (CWP)
projects described in the 2008 Replenish report (TCCC, 2008) were categorized, and
47 projects (approximately one-third) were found to be focused primarily on water
quantity and/or quality. The 2009 Replenish report (TCCC, 2009) published in
February, 2009 describes more than 200 CWP projects in 60 countries. On the
publication date, 57 projects had been completed, and the remaining projects were in
progress or scheduled to launch within the first quarter of 2009.
The new projects in the 2009 report and others identified by TCCC staff were
reviewed to identify projects that potentially involve activities that may fall into one
of the nine categories of restoration activities. A total of 81 CWP projects were
determined to potentially involve these types of activities based on the project
descriptions in the 2009 Replenish report. A list of these projects is provided in
Appendix A, along with the status of quantification work for each project.
As part of this review, the list of nine potential watershed restoration activity types
developed during Phase I was revisited based on the additional information provided
in the 2009 Replenish Report (TCCC, 2009) and the associated CWP database. It is
recommended that the leak repair category be expanded to include water conservation
measures that may be implemented as part of a CWP project (e.g., installation of
water-saving fixtures in homes).
Page 3
January 25, 2010
1.3.2 Compilation of Data & Supporting Information

Site-specific data and information are needed for each project before restoration
activities can be quantified. To accomplish this, a survey was developed that was
directed at gaining a better understanding of the project objectives, specific
restoration activities being implemented, important characteristics of the watershed
within which the project is taking place, and other information specific to the
watershed and the project. The full survey is provided in Appendix B. The level of
detail provided in the responses received varied considerably. The project team
followed up via email and phone calls with numerous contacts in an effort to obtain
as much of the required information as possible.
1.3.3 Development of Computational Engine
The Phase I report provided specific recommendations with respect to developing a
Watershed Restoration Benefits Estimation Tool (WRBET) to assist in quantifying
water quantity and quality benefits resulting from specific actions within a watershed
(LimnoTech and TNC, 2008). The approach recommended for constructing the
WRBET involved the development of two primary components: 1) a computational
engine to provide a suite of methods to perform the calculations required to quantify
benefits, and 2) an expert system to interact with the user to obtain the necessary
information to support the benefit calculations. In terms of software development,
Phase II focused on the development of the computational engine component of the
overall WRBET framework.
The Phase I report recommended that a suite of process-based methods be
incorporated into the WRBET computational engine to quantify changes in water
quantity and quality for a variety of physical conditions and management situations.
Specific recommendations were made for methods to compute changes in various
pathways of the hydrologic budget, including runoff and infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and groundwater storage and outflow. The watershed hydrologic
budget and Runoff Curve Number methods were proposed for use in quantifying
changes in runoff and infiltration quantities. For water quality, the Modified
Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) method was recommended for quantifying
changes in sediment runoff and yield. Several existing watershed models were
identified as sources for these methods, including Hydrologic Simulation Program
FORTRAN (HSPF), the Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), and the Watershed
Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF).
The development of the computational engine involved encoding key watershed
algorithms, which were adapted from the HSPF and SWAT model source codes. As
noted above, these algorithms use various process- and empirically-based calculations
to compute water runoff and infiltration, soil water storage and movement,
evapotranspiration, and groundwater storage and outflow. Several of these methods,
including the Runoff Curve Number method and the MUSLE served as the basis for
quantifying water quantity and quality benefits for reforestation, revegetation,
riparian buffer, and conservation activities identified for the collection of CWP
Page 4
January 25, 2010
projects. The hydrology approach represented in the computational engine is similar

to the approach described by Limbrunner et al. (2006).
All of the methodologies and models selected as the basis for the WRBET
computational engine were originally developed and applied in the United States.
Modeling tools for predicting watershed quantity and quality have also been
developed in a number of other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, the Netherlands, and Denmark (see Appendix C in the Phase I report for
details). The rationale for selecting the proposed suite of U.S.-based tools was threefold:
1. The proposed U.S.-based methods have a range of capabilities that are similar
to, or more advanced than, watershed modeling tools developed in other
countries.
2. The proposed methods are public domain and can be freely used and
modified. As a result, these methods can be efficiently extracted from their
native source codes and integrated into the WRBET computational engine.
Conversely, several of the more advanced watershed modeling tools available
internationally (e.g., Netherlands, Denmark) require substantial investment in
commercial software products.
3. The SWAT model, including the associated Runoff Curve Number and
Universal Soil Loss Equation methods, has been extensively applied to
watersheds in a number of countries on several continents (Gassman et al.,
2005). For example, peer-reviewed publications can be found in the literature
for SWAT applications in India (Tripathi et al., 2003), Finland (Grizzetti et
al., 2003), China (Zhang et al., 2003), Tunisia (Bouraoui et al., 2005), United
Kingdom (Shepherd et al., 1999), and Greece (Varanou et al., 2002), among
other locations outside of North America.
Additional details related to the development of the WRBET computational engine
and the application of specific methods to support Phase II and Phase III
quantification work are provided in Appendix C.
1.3.4 Quantification of Restoration Benefits
The quantification of benefits from watershed restoration activities requires an
accounting of the changes in the overall water budget of the local watershed system.
As discussed in Section 1.3.3, numerous methods and modeling tools exist that can
address these pathways. These quantitative tools generally fall into two categories:
1) empirically-based methods, which rely strongly on observations and data collected
from study sites; and 2) process-based methods, which are derived from theoretical
considerations and then calibrated and verified based on site-specific observations. In
addition to these methods, a number of restoration benefits can be quantified using
direct measurements based on available data. Simple and more complex empirical
Page 5
January 25, 2010
and process-based methods, as well as direct measurements were used to support the
quantification work.
An example of a project using direct measurements is the quantification of reduced
water use due to leak repair projects, such as the Big Spring Watershed Protection
project. In this case, the water savings due to leak repairs was measured using meters,
and the reported annual savings is the watershed restoration benefit. An example of
the use of more complex empirical and process-based methods is a project involving
cropland management, such as the Paw Paw River Watershed Restoration Project. In
this case, The Runoff Curve Number method as implemented in the Soil & Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Neitsch et al. 2005) was used to estimate the decrease in
surface water runoff for the conversion of conventionally-tilled straight row cropland
to conservation tillage. The Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) method
(Williams, 1975) as implemented in SWAT was used to compute the change in
sediment erosion and solids washoff that would occur as a result of converting
conventionally tilled cropland to conservation tillage.
The changes in water quantity were estimated in units of million liters (ML) per year.
Changes in water quality were estimated in units of metric tons (MT) per year.
Page 6
January 25, 2010
2. QUANTIFICATION RESULTS
A review of information in the 2009 Replenish report and associated database
indicated that 81 of the more than 200 CWP projects (approximately 40%) potentially
involve activities that may provide watershed restoration benefits (see Appendix A).
Many of these projects were found to involve multiple restoration activities. For
example, the TCCC-WWF Partnership Rio Grande/Rio Bravo project was determined
to involve 11 restoration activities, including water transfers to support environmental
flows, reforestation, and wastewater treatment. Eight of these activities could be
quantified, and each activity was addressed separately.
For the purpose of this report, the term project refers to each of the approximately
200 projects described in the 2009 Replenish report and associated database. The
term activity refers to the specific restoration actions that are being implemented
under each project.
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
A tally of the number of CWP projects that involve watershed restoration activities is
provided by activity type in Table 2-1. The total number of projects shown in the
table is larger than the 81 CWP projects determined to involve watershed restoration
activities because many projects involve multiple activities. More than one-third (32)
of the 81 projects involve agricultural land practice changes (e.g., irrigation
improvements). Land use/land cover alterations (e.g., reforestation) are also a
component of more than one-third (28) of the 81 projects.
Table 2-1. CWP Projects by Activity Type
Activity Type
Number of CWP Projects
1. Agricultural land practice changes
32
2. Stormwater management
3. Land use/land cover alterations
28
4. Hydraulic/hydrologic waterbody
alterations
10
5. Recaptured leakage from water systems
6. Wastewater treatment
7. Biologic management
8. Water reuse
9. Rainwater harvesting for aquifer recharge
The information obtained through this phase of work was sufficient to quantify
benefits from 61 activities being implemented through 50 of the 81 CWP projects
involving watershed restoration activities. One of these projects, the Expansion of
Page 7
January 25, 2010
Yelnya Bog in Belarus was quantified, but the results were not included in any
benefit tallies pending review of the results by parties involved in the project. The
remaining projects/activities were not quantified because insufficient information was
received within the project timeframe, or the project is in its early stages, or the
benefits are not quantifiable.
2.2 ESTIMATES OF WATERSHED RESTORATION BENEFITS
This section provides the results of the quantification work to date. Water quantity
and water quality benefits are discussed separately below. Additional details are
provided in Appendices D and E. Appendix D is a spreadsheet that includes details on
each activity with sufficient information to quantify. The total estimated benefit is
provided in columns K and M of the sheet named benefits tracker in the attached
Excel workbook. This quantity is adjusted based on TCCCs percent contribution to
the project (as shown in column I). For projects that TCCC did not solely fund, the
total benefit was adjusted based on the estimated funding split. The total benefit is
also adjusted according to the timeline for implementation, as shown in columns Q
through V. For many of the projects, such as those directed by WWF, implementation
follows years of study and negotiations, and those future benefits are reflected in the
percentages shown in the table for the 2008-2013 period.
The supporting documentation for each project that was quantified is provided in
individual fact sheets, which are included in Appendix E. Each fact sheet includes a
basic description of the activity with watershed restoration benefits, contact
information, the water quantity and/or water quality benefit that was estimated, the
approaches used to make the estimates, and the source of data and information used
to compute the quantity/quality benefits.
Several activities were investigated but not quantified as part of this phase of work
because information was insufficient or the type of benefit could not be quantified.
Fact sheets for these activities are included in Appendix F.
2.2.1 Water Quantity Benefits
The current estimate is that the projects implemented by the end of 2009 will provide
a benefit of approximately 28.8 billion liters/year, representing 21% of the product
volume by TCCC facilities. Projects implemented by the end of 2013 are estimated to
provide a beneficial gain of water of approximately 56.8 billion liters/year,
representing 34% of the product volume by TCCC facilities (Table 2-2). An annual
increase in product volume of 5.25% was assumed (per information provided by Greg
Koch).
Page 8
January 25, 2010
Table 2-2. Preliminary Estimate of Water Quantity Benefits

Year
End of 2008
End of 2009
End of 2010
End of 2011
End of 2012
End of 2013
1
Product Volume
(billion L/yr)1
129.0
135.8
142.9
150.4
158.3
166.6
Estimated Quantity
(billion L/yr)
15.7
28.8
34.2
40.7
54.8
56.8
Percent of Product
Volume1
12%
21%
24%
27%
35%
34%
Assumes a projected annual increase in product volume of 5.25% during 2009-2013.
2.2.2 Water Quality Benefits

The pollution reduction benefits of these activities were also estimated as part of this
exercise. The primary focus of almost every CWP project that addresses water quality
was determined to be erosion control, so the reduction in sediment yield was
estimated where relevant. The preliminary estimate is that the CWP activities
evaluated will reduce sediment yield in 2009 by 3,018,392 metric tons/year,
increasing to 3,577,769 metric tons by 2013 (Table 2-3). These reductions will
significantly improve the quality of receiving waters in those watersheds.
Table 2-3. Preliminary Estimate of Water Quality Benefits
Year
Estimated Reduction in Sediment Yield

(MT/yr)
End of 2008
End of 2009
End of 2010
End of 2011
End of 2012
End of 2013
2,742,396
3,018,392
3,147,073
3,269,547
3,577,769
3,577,769
2.2.3 Example Calculations

The six examples below illustrate how watershed restoration benefits were quantified
for a selection of projects that are diverse in terms of geographic location, spatial
scale, restoration activities, the types of benefits attained, and the complexity of the
approaches used to quantify those benefits. The fact sheets in Appendix E provide
details on these and the other CWP projects that were quantified as part of Phase II
and Phase III activities.
Page 9
January 25, 2010
2.2.3.a Big Spring Watershed Protection, U.S.

Big Spring is an example of a leak repair project that involved a simple quantification
approach based on readily available data, and resulted in a large benefit in terms of
water quantity. Big Spring is an approximately 16 million gallon per day water source
serving the Borough of Bellefonte in Pennsylvania. Coca-Cola (the CCDA Waters,
LLC - Milesburg plant) offered to partner with the Borough Council to fund
improvements in its infrastructure in lieu of increasing water fees. The Coca-Cola
plant partnered with the Borough to support improvements and provide sonic testing
of the piping system to detect and repair leaks from 2006 to the present.
Water savings from the detection and repair of leaks in the water supply distribution
system were obtained through the CWP survey. Since 2006, third-party leak detection
technicians have identified 90 leaks with estimated water savings of 1,990,520
gallons of water/day. Based on this information, a water savings in terms of reduced
pumping of 2,750 ML/yr was estimated. For the 5-year projection it was assumed that
the system would continue to function as in 2008. Additional water savings over the
next 5 years as a result of the ongoing leak repair program were not quantified
because data on future activities were not available at the time of the survey.
2.2.3.b Rainwater Harvesting and Aquifer Recharge, India
The India rainwater harvesting/aquifer recharge projects are examples of projects that
were quantified using an empirical approach, and yielded large water quantity
benefits. Coca-Cola India, in conjunction with partner organizations, is installing,
restoring and maintaining rainwater harvesting and aquifer recharge structures to
increase access to clean water and provide water for aquifer recharge. The objective is
to collect rainwater for multiple uses including aquifer recharge. Currently, there are
approximately 600 rainwater harvesting structures at approximately 270 locations in
communities throughout India. Structures include rooftop and surface rainwater
catchments that collect water for storage and distribution and/or infiltration to
recharge aquifers. Examples of these structures include storage tanks, check dams,
ponds, traditional step-wells and aquifer recharge shafts. Maintenance activities are
conducted at the structures to promote efficient operation and prolonged lifespan.
The India Division has estimated the rainwater harvesting potential and estimated
recharge of rainwater harvesting (RWH) and artificial aquifer recharge (AAR)
projects using the following equation and coefficients:
[Estimated Recharge] = [Catchment Area] x [Annual Precipitation] x [Catchment Coefficient]
where:
[Catchment Area] (m2) = surface area of the catchment(s) utilized to harvest precipitation
for a given project;
[Annual Precipitation] (m2) = best available annual rainfall data for a given location; and
[Catchment Coefficient] = coefficient representing the estimated efficiency for each

catchment type.
Page 10
January 25, 2010
For projects that utilize collected precipitation for artificial aquifer recharge and/or
aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), the Division assumes that this value is equal to
the value calculated using the above equation. In essence, 100% of the precipitation
captured is assumed to be recharged.
India Divisions estimates were provided in a spreadsheet. The total benefit in terms
of recharge estimated is 2,658 ML/yr in 2008 and 3,249 ML/yr in 2009. These
estimates do not include projects that the India Division is in the process of verifying.
The India project data are currently undergoing further analysis using a probabilistic
modeling tool developed by Delta Consultants. The model more rigorously estimates
the volume of rainwater captured by a rainwater harvesting (RWH) project and
artificially recharged to the aquifer, if applicable, over a period of one year using
readily available and limited site-specific information. The model is currently under
revision based on a Subject Matter Expert (SME) review process instituted in MarchApril 2009. Upon finalization, India project data will be analyzed through the model,
providing for more robust estimates of water quantity benefits.
2.2.3.c Conserving the Mekong: Tram Chim National Park, Vietnam
This example involves a hydraulic/hydrologic management project that was
quantified using simple calculations and yielded a large benefit in terms of a change
in direct streamflow. Tram Chim National Park (TCNP) is the site of a demonstration
project of the Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use
Programme. Tram Chim is a depressed wetland area within the Plain of Reeds whose
protected grasslands and Melaleuca forests offer valuable habitat for many species,
including the Sarus Crane (Grus antigone). The project objectives are to mitigate
flood and drought impacts, maintain groundwater levels and reduce saline water
intrusion, and demonstrate a change in the way of thinking about management
practices and policy.
A comprehensive examination of water management in the park showed that
prevalent fire prevention practices resulted in retention of extra water during the dry
season in the largest (4700+ ha) zone of the park. At the same time, failure of control
structures led to premature drying in two smaller zones (750+ ha). Optimization of
water level management in the largest zone (moving towards a more natural
hydroperiod) and repair of the control structures for the other two zones will
contribute to dry-season replenishment. This replenishment volume will mitigate
flood and drought impacts in the Plain of Reeds as well as in the downstream Mekong
Delta. It will also contribute to maintenance of groundwater levels in the Tram Chim
vicinity and reduce saline water intrusion at the edge of the Mekong Delta.
The replenishment volume for the largest zone (Zone A1) was calculated as the added
volume of water discharged from Zone A1 when operating under the revised Tram
Chim target water levels. Monthly discharge volumes under the revised levels were
calculated as the difference between beginning-of-month and end-of-month volumes
as estimated from park elevation zone data in conjunction with the targets. The
Page 11
January 25, 2010
discharge volumes under the previous management plan were calculated using
reported water levels for the years 2002-2006. The discharge volumes for 2002-2006
were calculated by converting monthly water levels into volumes, then averaging
across all months. Replenishment for the smaller zones (A3 and A4) was calculated
as the added volume of water stored in Zones A3 and A4, which were previously dry.
Target water levels of 123 cm for Zone A3 and 137 cm for Zone A4 were selected as
the comparison points. The total additional volume was estimated to be 11,400 ML.
In addition to increased water availability, these actions will lead to water quality
improvements. In conjunction with mimosa eradication and Melaleuca restoration,
water quality will improve through reduction of acidity and through increased
filtration. These water quality benefits were not quantified due to insufficient data.
2.2.3.d Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin Pandeo Spring, Mexico
Pandeo Spring is an example of a hydraulic/hydrologic management project that
involved simple calculations and yielded a large benefit in terms of decreased
groundwater pumping. This thermal spring is about 200 square meters in size and
located near the Rio Conchos in Mexico. The spring is home to an endemic fish, the
Julimes pupfish (Cyprinodon julimes), a new species being currently described and
considered to be among the three vertebrates that live at the highest temperatures on
the planet. It is among several springs impacted by increasing pumping that depletes
the local groundwater supply.
The objectives of this project were to reestablish a viable population of endemic
pupfish in Pandeo Spring, develop a demonstration project for a legal and
administrative framework authorizing environmental flows, and establish the spring
as a protected area. Technical studies to support water rights acquisition were
conducted to determine the needs of the fish. It was determined that 70-80 L/sec in
water rights ultimately needs to be secured. The 2009 savings was based on the
quantity of water that was recently secured (50 L/sec, or 1,578 ML/yr). Projected
future acquisitions of 25 L/sec (resulting in a total of 75 L/sec) were assumed to take
place by 2011 based on information provided by WWF. Therefore the benefit
obtained by 2011 was estimated to be 75 L/sec, or 2,370 ML/yr.
2.2.3.e Flint River Watershed Restoration, U.S.
The Flint River example illustrates how benefits were quantified for a project focused
on agricultural land practice improvements related to improved irrigation practices
through remote soil moisture monitoring. The objective was to provide a
demonstration project for decreasing irrigation water use in the region. Based on
previous studies it is known that remote soil moisture monitoring can reduce
irrigation application by 1-2 applications per season. However, the reduction volume
is dependent on rainfall which determines irrigation rate (currently 12 inches in a dry
year, 10 inches in an average year, and 8 inches in a wet year). This ongoing project
will track soil conditions in real time and reduce the number of applications based on
crop need.
Page 12
January 25, 2010
For simplicity, it was assumed that 100% of the water not pumped from the aquifer
can be claimed as a benefit. In other words, it was assumed that only a small
percentage of irrigation water percolates to the aquifer after an application, and that
the rest is lost to plant uptake/transpiration, evaporation from the upper soil zone, and
interflow/runoff. The water quantity benefit was calculated based on the pre- and
post-project irrigation application rates provided by TNC in the survey response. The
annual water savings in terms of reduced groundwater usage was estimated to be 154
ML/yr.
2.2.3.f Coca-Cola Reforestation Program, Mexico
This large-scale, multi-year project is an example of a land use/land cover alteration
project with large benefits that were quantified using more complex empirical and
process-based methods. TCCC, the Comision Nacional Forestal (Conafor), and
Pronatura Mexico are reforesting 25,000 hectares of priority ecosystems (forests,
jungles, and wetlands) that supply water to different towns nationwide. The
objectives are to reduce runoff and increase infiltration, reduce sediment
erosion/runoff, and restore forest habitat. Approximately 30 million trees will be
planted in deforested lands to mitigate climate effects, restore habitat and
biodiversity, rehabilitate aquifers and watersheds, and promote economic and
community growth.
The decrease in runoff for the conversion of unforested land to forested land was
estimated using the Runoff Curve Number method as implemented in the Soil &
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Neitsch et al. 2005). Water quantity calculations
were focused on estimating the change in runoff volume because runoff serves as a
useful indicator for both hydrologic improvements (e.g., enhanced baseflow) and
reductions in sediment erosion/yield, and predictions of runoff are more certain than
predictions for changes in baseflow for relatively small land areas. The benefit in
terms of runoff reduction was estimated to be 9,400 ML/yr.
The Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) method (Williams, 1975) as
implemented in the Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to compute the
change in sediment erosion and washoff that would occur as a result of converting
unforested land to forested land. The meteorological and physical datasets described
above for the runoff calculation were used to support application of the MUSLE
equation. Estimates of runoff volume were based on the Curve Number method, and
daily maximum hourly rainfall intensities were estimated for year 2000. The reduced
annual sediment yield was estimated to be 770,472 MT/yr.
Page 13
Page 14
January 25, 2010
January 25, 2010
3. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The results of the quantification work highlight the wide diversity of CWP projects,
in terms of geographic location, spatial scale, project objectives, and outcomes. For
example, CWP activities include installation of rain gardens and rain barrels to reduce
stormwater impacts, rainwater harvesting to recharge aquifers, agricultural practice
changes to reduce water used in irrigation, and restoration of environmental flows
through large-scale water transfers. This diversity of activities is generating a wide
range of watershed restoration benefits, which were quantified through this project
using a variety of simple calculations and empirical and process-based methods.
The concepts and terminology surrounding water stewardship are evolving, and the
use of the term watershed restoration benefit is used in this report in place of the
term offset. Based on the outcomes of this quantification work, the word
restoration was determined to be a fitting term for the benefits derived from CWP
projects. As examples: rain gardens restore infiltration function in developed
landscapes with high imperviousness; riparian buffers restore filtering functions that
had been lost when riparian plants were removed for agriculture or other purposes;
leak repairs reduce the water extracted from a river and, in doing so, help restore the
natural flow regime; and reforestation reverses the stress on the natural hydrology that
had been caused by the cutting of trees or fires and helps restore the natural
hydrologic functions.
The primary findings of this phase of work are discussed below, with
recommendations where appropriate. The findings are organized by key topic area.
3.1.1 CWP Project Objectives
The essential first step in the quantification process involved gaining an
understanding of the water problem that led to the project, and the project objectives.
The project objectives define the benefits to be quantified, and the methods for doing
so. For some projects, the objectives were not immediately apparent from the
description of the project activities, particularly when the objectives are stated very
broadly (e.g., conserve freshwater resources). For this reason, the initial focus was
to understand the specific water quality problems and goals of each project. With this
information, the watershed restoration benefits to be quantified could be determined.
As an example, projects involving removal of invasive plants can serve one or more
purposes. In some cases, invasive species control measures are implemented because
the plants are crowding out native vegetation and reducing wetland plant diversity. In
other cases the plants take up large quantities of water compared to native vegetation.
In a third case, the plants are removed because they cause physical alterations to the
hydrology of a river system by trapping sediment and impeding flow. In the first case,
the concern is not that the plants are impacting water quantity or water quality (or this
is unknown), so watershed restoration benefits were not quantified (but improvements
to biodiversity were noted). In the second case where the invasive plants are thirsty,
Page 15
January 25, 2010
the reduction in groundwater uptake or improvement in baseflow due to removal

efforts may be quantified. In the case of physical alterations, the benefit can be
quantified in terms of the change in hydrology and hydraulics (e.g., change in water
level, flow, area of floodplain inundation). In this way, the project objectives drive
the selection of the benefit that is quantified, and the method for doing so.
The objective of many of the CWP projects is to improve water quality by reducing
erosion and associated sedimentation. Approximately one-half of the 81 CWP
projects that were identified as providing watershed restoration benefits involve
activities directed at erosion control. This is not surprising, given the widespread
consequences of erosion due to alterations of land cover and land uses. An example is
the Gulf of Mexico, where nutrient loads due to erosion in the Mississippi River
watershed have caused a dead zone to form off the coast of Louisiana. The Great
Barrier and Mesoamerican Reefs, the focus of two TCCC-WWF Partnership projects,
are another example of systems impacted by sediment and nutrient loads from
watersheds where land disturbances have increased erosion.
The concepts related to watershed restoration benefits were evolving as this project
progressed, and many contacts were not familiar with the purpose and basis for the
quantification work. The CWP guidance document in preparation will highlight the
need to define specific objectives in the framework of watershed restoration benefits.
3.1.2 Availability of Required Data and Information
A great deal of time and effort was expended to obtain the data and information
required to quantify benefits. The survey developed through this phase of work
provided a comprehensive list of the data and information needs, but many surveys
were not returned, and the responses in the surveys that were returned were often
insufficient. It was challenging in many cases to get in contact with the individuals
with access to the necessary information, and there was often a need for numerous
iterations. In some cases, important data needed to quantify benefits were not
available. As an example, local daily precipitation data, a necessary requirement to
quantify runoff reduction from reforestation projects, were found to be lacking or
very limited for some projects.
Additional data gathering conducted after finalization of the Phase II report has
resulted in the quantification of several additional projects. These include two
TCCC-WWF projects: Protecting the Mesoamerican Reef and Conserving the
Mekong (Chi River Watershed project). However, the challenges associated with
obtaining data and information still preclude the inclusion of some projects in the
most recent quantification effort. It is recommended that the data gathering effort
continue in the next phase of work, and that additional projects be quantified as
feasible.
The information-gathering effort will be reduced in the future by providing project
implementers with guidance that includes the monitoring data and information that
should be collected as the project progresses. In addition to providing guidance on
defining project objectives, the guidance document will describe the site-specific
Page 16
January 25, 2010
information and monitoring data needed to quantify the benefits from each type of
restoration activity. A list of specific questions similar to the survey prepared for this
phase of work (see Appendix B) will be included in this guidance.
3.1.3 Interpretation of Quantification Results
The watershed restoration benefits provided in this report represent the change in
water quantity and/or quality due to each individual CWP project activity. Ideally, it
would be desirable to quantify the benefit in terms of the change in quantity and/or
quality of the blue water of the watershed receiving the restoration action.
However, assessing the actual impact of pollutant loads in the receiving stream, lake,
reservoir, estuary, or aquifer requires an additional level of modeling and/or data
collection and analysis. Because of the lack of sufficient data for the watersheds
associated with most of the CWP projects, the benefits were quantified in terms of the
local change in quantity and/or quality due to the project activity alone, and not in
terms of its impact on the larger-scale watershed hydrology. Later phases of work will
include compilation of the data needed to permit evaluation of the receiving water
benefit, such as the increase in base flow in the river, increase in infiltration, or
decrease in evapotranspiration loss.
It is important to note that no attempt was made during this phase of work to
determine if the CWP projects that were quantified as part of this effort are located in
the same watersheds as TCCCs bottling plants. For this reason, the estimates of
watershed restoration benefits are not linked to particular uses in the watersheds that
may be impacted by TCCCs water use.
The quantification results presented in this report represent the project teams best
estimate of watershed restoration benefits based on data and information available at
the present time. The fact sheets in Appendix E provide descriptions of the data used
and assumptions made as part of the quantification work. Many of the projects are
ongoing, and the estimates can be refined as additional information and monitoring
data become available as the project progresses.
3.1.4 Projects Generating the Greatest Benefits
The projects that are currently generating the largest watershed restoration benefits in
terms of water quantity involve water transfers, reforestation/revegetation, ground
restoration, land conservation, leak repair, irrigation improvements, rainwater
harvesting for aquifer recharge and floodplain/wetland reconnection. The projects in
these categories generating the largest benefits represent a total of 23 of the 60 project
activities listed in Appendix D, and these activities provide 99% of the ultimate total
water quantity benefit. In terms of water quality (e.g., sediment reduction), the
projects generating the largest benefit involve reforestation and revegetation, land
conservation, and agricultural practice improvements.
Several of the CWP projects are designed to be demonstration projects, and the
estimated present-day benefits are small. Examples include the TNC Flint River
Page 17
January 25, 2010
Watershed Project, the USAID project in Nigeria to promote the use of small-scale
irrigation methods, and the Rio Conchos pilot wastewater treatment project. The true
benefits of these projects will be considerably larger if/when these projects are scaled
up in the future.
3.1.5 Quantification of Reforestation Benefits
Converting barren or sparsely vegetated land to a mature native forest is generally
considered to be a very beneficial action for restoring a watershed back toward its
natural hydrology. However, reforestation affects many pathways in a watersheds
hydrologic budget. Furthermore, those changes will gradually be manifested over
time as the forest matures. Therefore, quantification of the watershed restoration
benefits of CWP reforestation actions required several assumptions. The annual
runoff volume was computed using the Runoff Curve Number approach developed by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The annual sediment load was
computed based on application of the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
(MUSLE). The two benefits are computed separately; however, the estimated
sediment erosion/washoff yield depends on the magnitude of the daily runoff
estimates. The results of these calculations before (i.e., pre-project) and after (i.e.,
post-project) reforestation or securing land for conservation were used to evaluate
the benefits of the project.
The rationale for estimating water quantity/quality benefits based on runoff volume
reduction and sediment yield reduction is that the reforestation efforts are generally
restoring the watershed to a more natural hydrology. For example, reduction in
runoff represents a shift in the local hydrologic budget back to natural conditions.
The presence of trees or other vegetation may increase evapotranspiration relative to
pre-project conditions, but, again, this represents the natural condition. For
conservation projects, the assumption is that the forested/vegetation land would be
converted to a more degraded land use condition (e.g., agriculture or residential) if
not secured for conservation. Therefore, the benefit is the runoff savings that occur
as the result of not allowing the land to be developed. Based on this approach, the
various CWP reforestation/revegetation and conservation projects comprise a
significant contribution to the total watershed restoration benefits reported in Tables
2-2 and 2-3.
It should be noted that reforestation and soil conservation measures are generally
reported in the literature to reduce peak flows and stormflows associated with
deforestation, but the beneficial effects on base flows are less consistent and less
well-documented (LimnoTech and TNC, 2008).
Water quantity and quality benefits associated with reforestation or revegetation were
assumed to take effect in the year that plantings occurred. For conservation activities,
benefits were assumed to be in effect at the point in time when the land was secured
for conservation. These assumptions result in benefits becoming effective at the
earliest point in time possible. In reality, the benefits associated with reforestation
will tend to ramp up over time as the plantings grow and transform into a mature
Page 18
January 25, 2010
forest cover. A potential alternative to making reforestation benefits effective

immediately would involve developing a schedule to represent the evolution of the
forest cover from plantings to mature forest. For conservation projects, it could
potentially be argued that benefits should not become effective until that point in time
when development of the land would have occurred if the land had not been
conserved. However, this information is often not available at the time the land is set
aside.
To account for these issues and to refine the estimates of the benefits of these types of
actions, it will be necessary to analyze the watershed response at a finer spatial and
temporal scale and to consider the long-term development of the new conditions as
the system matures. This will require more site data than it has been possible to
acquire to date. The necessary data for refining this calculation will be included in the
guidance that is developed during the next phase of this project.
3.1.6 Volume Equivalents of Water Quality Benefits
The benefits associated with CWP projects relative to water quality were quantified in
terms of the change in mass loading and were not converted to a volume equivalent.
There is interest in being consistent with the Water Footprint Network as to how grey
water footprints are quantified and compared with blue and green water footprints.
However, there is currently no consensus on how to express water quality changes in
volume equivalents. The previous analysis of this question identified four possible
approaches, which were summarized in Appendix D of the Phase I report
(LimnoTech and TNC, 2008). Each of these approaches is summarized briefly below:
Waste Source Purification: This method focuses on the volume and quality of the
waste source. The equivalent volume for a reduction in pollution is based on the
percentage that the pollution load (or concentration) is reduced. Conceptually, it can
be characterized as the percentage of the waste flow that is purified. It is simple to
apply and requires little data but includes no consideration of actual receiving water
impacts or benefits.
Water Body Purification: This method is similar to the waste source purification
method but focuses on changes in the receiving water rather than the waste source.
Conceptually, it can be described as the percentage of the receiving water that is
cleaned up by a pollution control action. The core method only considers the
incremental impacts and percentage of purification from the waste source, but
refinements could consider the effect of other sources, background water quality,
and/or a target for purification. This method is more complex and requires more data
than waste source purification, but it considers actual water body impacts and
benefits.
Waste Source Dilution: This method focuses on the waste source and the reduction in
concentration or load. The equivalent volume is calculated by determining the
equivalent clean water flow needed to dilute the waste source in order to achieve the
same level of reduction in concentration as achieved with the actual pollution control
Page 19
January 25, 2010
action. This method does not consider receiving water conditions. This method is
simple to apply and requires limited data but can result in some large, unreal
calculations of benefits.
Water Footprint Reduction: This method involves calculating the grey water footprint
for the waste source before and after the action is taken. The footprint approach
involves calculating a dilution volume relative to a water quality target or criterion.
This requires specification of a water quality target against which the footprint can be
computed, but it does not consider actual impacts or benefits within a water body.
Unlike the waste source dilution approach, this method has an implicit cap equal to
the original grey water footprint.
The problem is that depending on the specifics of a particular project, each of these
approaches can result in widely varying conversions to a volume metric for a given
mass loading change. Other issues include the method by which multiple pollutant
reductions are credited, and whether credit for pollution load reduction should be
given if that action has no significant effect on a problem that exists in the receiving
water body. The benefits, issues, and implementation details associated with
converting pollutant loads to a volume currency require further investigation and
discussion. Until a resolution of the issues is reached, it is recommended that the
water quantity and quality components of water uses or restoration actions be
accounted for separately, such that quantity changes only be used to address blue
and/or green components of the footprint, and quality changes (i.e., pollutant load
reductions) only be used to address the grey component of the footprint.
3.1.7 TCCCs Cost Share
The watershed restoration benefits provided in Table 2-2 and 2-3 for each year are the
product of the computed restoration benefit (in ML/yr or MT/yr) and TCCCs cost
share (as a percent). The estimates of TCCCs cost contribution were generally
provided by the project contacts, who often indicated that they were unsure of the
actual cost split, particularly for large projects involving multiple partners. The
project teams research focused primarily on the technical details of the project
activities, and far less time was dedicated to this important factor. The project team
generally did not have access to financial information, and therefore relied primarily
on the best estimates provided by contacts. If it was determined that the project would
not have occurred without TCCC funding, the TCCC share was set at 100%. Another
important question related to cost share to be resolved is the best way to handle
situations where TCCC funding was used indirectly to achieve benefits (e.g., funding
the writing of a grant).
The complexities related to TCCCs contribution could introduce a great deal of
uncertainty into the final estimates of benefits. It is recommended that the collection
of cost information continue, and that the current estimates then be refined
accordingly.
Page 20
January 25, 2010
3.1.8 Future Projections

The watershed restoration benefits provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 are provided by
year, for the 2008-2013 period. The annual estimates are derived from the percent
complete in each year based on the information provided by the contacts on the
implementation schedule. In many cases, activities are in the planning stages, and the
certainty of successful implementation was based on the opinions of project
managers. Where it appeared very likely that the project would proceed as planned,
the predicted benefits were quantified. Where it was determined to be too early to
know what specific activities will occur as a result of ongoing efforts, no attempt was
made to quantify the benefits. As an example, much important progress has been
made in the Yangtze River Basin related to building and operating green dams.
Efforts have involved essential stakeholder ice breaking, but the ultimate outcomes
are currently unknown. As another example, TCCC-WWFs Southeast Rivers and
Streams project has been primarily focused on influencing policies and regulations
related to stormwater management that will ultimately reduce stormwater loads and
related impacts, but it would be premature to quantify the benefits of those activities.
The benefits reported for each year are the benefits generated at the end of that
calendar year. When an activity was reported to be completed during a given year, it
counted toward the end-of-year benefit for that year.
It is important to note that the success of CWP projects in terms of attaining the full
watershed restoration benefits and the length of time that a realized benefit will
persist is not always known. Post-monitoring data are not often available for
completed projects, and the success of ongoing or planned projects is uncertain.
Furthermore, information on the long-term maintenance of existing projects is
generally not available. As an example, for projects involving removal of invasive
species, plans to continue removal are dependent on continued funding and other
factors. For projects involving irrigation infrastructure improvements, the long-term
maintenance of those systems is also dependent on continued funding. For this
reason, benefits were projected out to 2013 and no longer, based on the assumption
that the projects will continue to function for at least 5 years and depreciation of
benefits is not necessary.
3.1.9 Additional Benefits Not Quantified
Through this project, water quantity and water quality benefits associated with a wide
range of projects were successfully quantified. The scope of the Phase II and III effort
does not, however, reflect the many other important benefits from these projects,
including habitat improvement, increased biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. As
an example, the removal of a small dam as part of TNCs Etowah River Watershed
Conservation Partnership project did not affect the flow regime and generate
watershed restoration benefits, because it was a run-of-river dam. However, the dam
removal did re-establish stream reach connectivity, thereby enabling fish passage and
providing important habitat quality improvements. The best way to include these
important benefits in a water certification framework warrants further discussion.
Page 21
January 25, 2010
The estimates of watershed restoration benefits also do not include savings in energy
use due to less water use or improvement in water quality. For example, some
restoration activities such as reduced water use for irrigation result in lower energy
use (and associated water use) because less water is pumped through the system.
The results presented in this report also do not consider the watershed restoration
benefits from new projects without current commitments or planned expansions of
current projects that extend beyond 2013. Furthermore, many of the CWP project
activities are demonstration projects, and the benefits of related projects that were
facilitated or created as a result of a TCCC-supported project are not included in the
results. Other important benefits such as stakeholder engagement, promotion of
sustainability, increased crop yields, and improved local economies are also not
included in the quantification results.
Page 22
January 25, 2010
4. REFERENCES
Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds. 2008: Climate Change
and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp.
Bouraoui, F., S. Benabdallah, A. Jrad, and G. Bidoglio. 2005. Application of the
SWAT model on the Medjerda river basin (Tunisia). Physical Chemistry of the
Earth, 30(8-10):497-507.
DePinto, Joseph, W. Larson, T. Redder. P. Freedman, B. Richter, D. Knight. 2009.
Quantifying Benefits from Watershed Restoration Projects: An Initial
Exploration.
Gassman, P.W., M.R. Reyes, C.H. Green, and J.G. Arnold. 2005. SWAT PeerReviewed Literature: A Review. Proceedings of the 3rd International SWAT
Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, July 11-15, 2005.
Grizzetti, B., F. Bouraouia, K. Granlundb, S. Rekolainenb, and G. Bidoglioa. 2003.
Modelling diffuse emission and retention of nutrients in the Vantaanjoki
watershed (Finland) using the SWAT model. Ecological Modeling, 169(1): 2538.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 976pp.
Limbrunner, J.F., R.M. Vogel, and S.C. Chapra. 2006. A Parsimonious Watershed
Model, Chapter 22 in Watershed Models, ed. by V.P. Singh and D.K. Frevert.
CRC Press.
LimnoTech and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2008. Quantifying Water Offsets
in Community Water Partnership Projects; Phase I: Potential Offset Identification
and Conceptualization of a Methodology.
LimnoTech and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2009. Quantifying Watershed
Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects, Phase II Report.
Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, and J.R. Williams. 2005. Soil and Water
Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation: Version 2005. January.
Shepherd, B., D. Harper, and A. Millington. 1999. Modelling catchment-scale
nutrient transport to watercourses in the U.K. Hydrobiologia, 395-396: 227-238.
Page 23
January 25, 2010
The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC). 2008. Replenish Report: Achieving Water

Balance through Community Water Partnerships.
The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC). 2009. Replenish Report: Achieving Water
Balance through Community Water Partnerships.
Tripathi, M.P., R.K. Panda, and N.S. Raghuwanshi. 2003. Identification and
Prioritisation of Critical Sub-watersheds for Soil Conservation Management
using the SWAT Model. Biosystems Engineering, 85(3): 365-379.
Varanou, E., E. Gkouvatsou, E. Baltas, and M. Mimikou. 2002. Quantity and
Quality Integrated Catchment Modeling under Climate Change with use of Soil
and Water Assessment Tool Model. J. Hydr. Engr., 7(3): 228-244.
Williams J.R. 1975. Sediment yield prediction with USLE using runoff energy
factor. In: ARS-S-40. Agr. Res. Serv., USDA. Washington DC. pp. 244-252.
Zhang, X.-S., F.-H. Hao, H.-G. Cheng, and D.-F. Li. 2003. Application of SWAT
model in the upstream watershed of the Luohe River. Chinese Geographical
Science, 13(4): 334-339. Science Press, Beijing, China.
Page 24
January 25, 2010
APPENDIX A
CWP Projects with Watershed Restoration Activities
January 25, 2010

Appendix A
January 25, 2010
Quantified?1
Country
Project Name
Phase III
Phase II (Aug. 2009)
Too early
(Dec. 2009)
Australia
Great Barrier Reef Project (Project

Catalyst)
Australia
Toongabbie Creek Restoration
Habitat benefits
Australia
Watershed Protection and Regeneration

Program - Landcare
Habitat benefits
Latin America
Environmental Services for Improving

Water Quality Management
Belarus
Expansion of Yelnya Bog Project
Brazil
Brazilian Rainforest Water Program
Canada
Freshwater Conservation and Sustainable

Water Use in Canada
China
Recycling Water Program - Hefei Plant
China
Upper Yangtze River Basin
Ecuador
Protection of Water Resources in El

Carmen
Egypt
Environmental Services for Improving

Water Quality Management
El Salvador
Rio San Antonio Watershed Protection

Initiative
Ghana & Ivory

Coast
Transboundary Community Water

Management
Guatemala
Protecting the Mesoamerican Reef

Teculutan sub-watershed
Pueblo Viejo sub-watershed (includes
communities of Pueblo Viejo, Cancoy
and Rio Chiquito)
The Water Fund "Sierra de las
Minas"2
Motagua-Polochic Watersheds
protection2
Honduras
Rio Chamelecon River Watershed

Protection Initiative2
Hungary
Let's Save the Liberty (Szabadsag) Island!
India
Checkdam for Groundwater Recharge
India
Rain Water Harvesting, Aquifer Recharge

and Improved Access to Water
India
Rainwater Harvesting and Aquifer

Recharge
Not to be quantified
Results under
review
Additional
information needed
Too early
Page A-1
Too early
Too early
Habitat benefits

Appendix A
January 25, 2010
Quantified?1
Country
Project Name
Phase III
India
Rainwater Harvesting Project in 39

Villages
India
Rainwater Harvesting Project in Varanasi
India
Recharge Shafts for Sustainable

Groundwater
India
Rejuvenation of a pond in Karnataka
India
Maintenance of Rainwater Harvesting

Structures across India
India
Small Drip Irrigation Pilot Study
Italy
Fonti del Vulture
Jordan
Repair and Upgrading of an Irrigation

Network in the Greigreh and Fenan Region
Kenya
Community Water, Sanitation, and

Sustainable Agriculture
Liberia
Paynesville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Malawi
Building Local Conservation Capacity East Africa
Malawi
Mulanje Mountain Community Watershed

Management
Maldives
Island Sanitation in the Maldives
Mali
Community Water Supply, Sanitation, and

Wastewater Program
Mali
Productive Uses of Treated Wastewater
Mexico
Reforestation of Nevado de Toluca
Mexico
Mexico Restoration Forest and

Reforestation Program
Mexico
Reforestation Efforts at the de Monarca

Butterfly Bioreserve
Mexico
Water Management in the San Pedro

Mezquital Basin in Durango-Nayarit
Mozambique
Protecting and Preserving Lake Niassa

and Lake Chiuta-Amaramba
Nigeria
Improved Health and Livelihoods in

Nigeria's Rural Communities
Nigeria
Water for Community Productive Use Fish Farms
Pakistan
WWF-Pakistan Western Himalayan

Ecoregion
Page A-2
Too early
(Dec. 2009)
Additional
information needed
Additional
information needed
Additional
information needed
Need a contact
Additional
information needed
Too early
Too early
Too early
Additional
information needed

Appendix A
January 25, 2010
Quantified?1
Country
Project Name
Phase III
(Dec. 2009)
Philippines
Ilagan Watershed Conservation Project in

Isabela
Philippines
River Councils
Philippines
Go Green! Go for the Real Thing!
Philippines
Laguna Lake Watershed Project

Santa Rosa River Basin Protection
and Rehabilitation4
Too early
(See fact sheet in
Appendix F)
Philippines
Haribon Foundation Native Tree Nursery
Too early
(See fact sheet in
Appendix F)
Philippines
Green Kalinga
Too early
(See fact sheet in
Appendix F)
Romania
Reconnecting the Lifeline
South Africa
School Plumbing Repair and Energy

Savings
South Africa
Watergy Program - Fixing the Leaks
Spain/Portugal
La Guadiana Sub Basin
Tanzania
Improved Community Livelihoods and

Sustainable Water Management
Thailand
Conservation and Rehabilitation of the

Klong Yan Watershed in Surat Thani
Thailand
Monkey Cheeks Project
Thailand
Sustainable Coast Living Neighborhoods
Turkey
Every Drop Matters - in Saraykoy and

Beypazari
United States
Big Bigby Creek Dam Removal
United States
Big Spring Watershed Protection
United States
Chesapeake Bay Rain Barrel Donation

Program
United States
ClearWater Community Watershed

Partnership
United States
Adopt-A-River High Springs Watershed

Partnership
United States
Paw Paw River Watershed Restoration
United States
Tallgrass Prairie Watershed Restoration in

North Texas
Additional
information needed
Too early
(See fact sheet in
Appendix F)
Additional
information needed
Habitat benefits
Page A-3
Habitat benefits

Appendix A
January 25, 2010
Quantified?1
Country
Project Name
Phase III
United States
Flint River Watershed Restoration
United States
Etowah River Watershed Conservation

Partnership
United States
Friends of Alum Creek
United States
(Dec. 2009)
Habitat benefits
Additional
information needed
4-H2O
United
States/Mexico
Protecting the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo River
United States
Rio Bosque Wetland Park Partnership 3
United States
Southeast Rivers and Streams Freshwater

Conservation Partnership
United States
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

Partnership
United States
CCE - Cobb County Water Stewardship

program
United States
Village of Niles Rain Garden
United States
Wildlands Conservancy within the Lehigh

Valley and Lehigh River
United States
Lexington Rain Garden
Vietnam / Thailand
Conserving the Mekong

Chi River
Plain of Reeds Wetland Restoration
Project 5
Notes
1Check
mark indicates that benefits were quantified for one or more project activities as part of this phase of work.
Habitat benefits indicates that project is improving habitat, and benefits to water quantity or quality
cannot be quantified.
Yes in the column Phase IV (2010 anticipated) indicates information may become available to quantify
benefits in 2010.
2 Listed
separately in 2009 Replenish Report but appears to be part of Protecting the MesoAmerican Reef
Listed separately in 2009 Replenish Report but part of TCCC-WWF Protecting the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo
Listed separately in 2009 Replenish Report, but Santa Rosa River Basin project is in the Laguna Lake
watershed and is the first part of the Laguna Lake project.
Listed separately in 2009 Replenish Report but part of TCCC-WWF Conserving the Mekong project
Page A-4
APPENDIX B
CWP Survey
January 25, 2010
January 25, 2010
CWPSurveyOverview
Inaneffort toquantifythe "watershedrestorationbenefits"ofTCCC'sCommunityWaterPartnership projects,additionalsitespecific
dataandinformationisneeded.Theinformationgathered throughthissurveywillbeusedtoquantifythechangeinwaterquantity
and/orwaterquality whenpostprojectconditionsarecomparedtopreprojectconditions.Theprojectsbeingsurveyedhavebeen
determinedtopotentially includeactivitiesthatcouldhavequantifiableeffects,basedprimarilyonareviewoftheinformationprovidedin
the2008and2009Replenishreports.Thesurveyquestionsaredesignedtoverifythatthelistof"qualifying"projectsiscorrect,andto
gatherspecificinformationabouteachproject.
Inordertoquantifyeachprojectscontribution,afirst stepisto identifyallonthegroundactivitiesthatarebeingplannedor
implemented,theprogressthathasbeenmadetodate,thewaterquantityand/orqualityproblemsthattheprojectwasdesignedto
address,andspecificinformationaboutprojectactivitiesandthelocationwheretheprojectisbeingimplemented.Werecognize thatnot
allinformationrequestedisavailable approximationsareveryusefulifexactnumbersarenotavailable.
ThissurveyisbeingconductedforTCCCbyLimnoTech,anenvironmentalscienceandengineeringfirm,incollaborationwithTheNature
Conservancy.
Thankyoufortalkingthetimetofilloutthissurvey.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcerns,pleasecontact:
Denise Knight TCCC
DeniseKnight,TCCC
deknight@na.ko.com
4046763638
or
WendyLarson,LimnoTech
wlarson@limno.com
7343321200
Goto"Project Info"page>>
COCACOLACOMMUNITYWATERPARTNERSHIPPROJECTINFORMATION
(pleaseprovidethefollowinginformation)
PROJECTINFORMATION
Instructions
1 ProjectName:
ThisExcel workbookcontainsaseriesofformsfor
youtoprovidetherequestedinformation.
Instructionsforfillingouttheseformsareprovided
oneachpage.
PROJECTCONTACT
2 Name:
3 Title:
Youmustnavigatethroughtheforms intheproper
sequencebyfollowingtheinstructionsoneach
page.TonavigatetotheActivitiespage,pleaseuse
yourmousetoclickonthe'Activities' worksheet
tabbelow.
4 Affiliation:
5 Address:
6 Phone:
7 Email:
PROJECTLOCATION
(Ifmultiplelocations,provideonlyinformationthatiscommontoeverylocation)
8 Country:
9 Stateorprovince:
10 LocalMunicipality:
11 Watershedname,ifknown:
Nameofnaturalsurfacewaterbody
12 innearestproximity(e.g.,lake,pond,
river creek):
river,creek):
13 Distancetonearestwaterbody
Projectlocation(latitudeand
14
longitude):
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
and
PROJECTSTATUSANDSUPPORTINGINFORMATION
PercentcompleteasofDecember
31,2008:
Totalcostofproject:
PercentfundedbyTheCocaCola
Company:
ListofProjectReports(cantheybe
provided?):
ListofProjectMaps/GISFiles(can
theybeprovided?):
Provideordirectustolocal
precipitationdata:
Provideordirectustolocalstream
flowdata:
22 OtherComments:
Goto"Activities"page>>
Pleasecheckandcorrectanyinformationinblue
andfillinotherrequestedinformation.
COCACOLACOMMUNITYWATERPARTNERSHIPPROJECTACTIVITIES
(pleaseprovideinformationforallactivitiesthathavebeenorwillbeimplementedfromthelistbelow)
ID
ActivityDescription
Examples/Notes
Agriculturalpractices :fertilizer,
herbicide,orpesticidemanagement
Agriculturalpractices :irrigation
2
e.g.,dripirrigation
watermanagement
Agriculturalpractices :
3
e.g.,conservationtillage
crop/farmlandmanagement
Vegetatedfilterstrips/riparian
4
buffers
ActivityStillin StartDatefor
Doesyour
Total
Planning
Implementing
project
numberof
Phase?
Activity
involvethis
locations?
(select'Yes'or
activity?
(month/year)
'No')
EndDatefor
Implementing
Activity
ActivitySpecific
Questions
InstructionsforActivitiesPage
(month/year)
No
Goto'A01'
No
Goto'A02'
No
Goto'A03'
No
Goto'A04'
No
Goto'A05'
No
Goto'A06'
Damremovalorchangeindam
operation
No
Goto'A07'
8 Repairingleaksinwatersystems
No
Goto'A08'
No
Goto'A09'
No
Goto'A10'
Yes
Goto'A11'
12 Rainwaterharvesting
No
Goto'A12'
13 Invasivespeciescontrol
No
Goto'A13'
No
Goto'A14'
No
Goto'A15'
Conservation/ProtectionofExisting e.g.,wetlandspreservation,
Resources
firecontrol
6 Reforestationorrevegetation
7
Wastewatertreatmentplant
construction
Wastewatertreatmentplant
10
improvement
e.g.,grasslandrestorationor
treeplanting
11 Beneficialreuseofwater
14
Transferofwaterrightsfor
environmentalflows
15 Otherwaterrelatedactivities
e.g.,reductioninpollutant
loadings
e.g.,treatedeffluentused
foragriculture
Whenfinishedprovidinginformation
foreachactivity(row)thatisapplicable
toyourproject,pleaseproceedtothe
ActivitySpecificQuestionsform
designatedforthatrowbyclickingon
theappropriateworksheettabbelow.
Youcanproceedtotheactivityspecific
questionsforeachrowifyouhave
provideda 'Yes'answerinthecolumn,
Doesyourprojectinvolvethis
activity?, andhaveindicatedthe
numberoflocationsinthecolumn,
Totalnumberoflocations?
AftercompletingeachActivitySpecific
form,returntothisform(Activities),
providetheinformationforthenext
activity,navigatetotheActivity
SpecificQuestionspageforthatrow,
andcontinueuntilallactivityspecific
informationhasbeenprovided.
Note:Dropdownboxeswithalistof
answerstochoosefromarepresentin
thethreecolumnsentitled,Doesyour
projectinvolvethisactivity?, Total
numberoflocations? andActivityStill
inPlanningPhase?.Accessthedrop
downboxlistbyusingyourmouseto
selectacellinthesecolumns,clickon
thearrowthatappearsatthebottom
rightofthecell,andclickonyour
answer.
AgriculturalPractices:Fertilizer,Herbicide,orPesticideManagement
Overview:Toquantifyimprovementsinwaterqualitythroughchangeinmanagement,weneedtounderstandhowthequantityand/ortimingof
applicationhasbeenchanged.
(pleaseprovideand/orcorrectthefollowinginformationinblue)
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
Watershedname,ifknown:
Typeofsurfacewaterbodyinnearestproximity:
Distancetonearestwaterbody
Projectlocation(latitude,longitude):
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Comments(whereyouprovidedavalue,please
Question
Response
indicateifitisbasedonmeasurementsoran
educatedguess)
Describethelandareawheremanagement
practiceshavebeenapplied(e.g.,describecrop
typesforcropland).
Whatisthesurfaceareaofcroplandaffectedby
thisproject?
InstructionsforActivity
SpecificForm
Youmayprovideactivity
specificinformationfor
multiplelocations,if
applicable,asthisformis
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
providinginformationfor
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
informationforthenext
activity.
Whatistheapproximateslopeofthelandsurface?
Whatarethepredominantsoiltype(s)inthe
projectarea?
Whattypeofchemicalapplicationisbeingaffected
bytheproject?Ifpossible,pleaseprovidea
specificdescription,includingthepreandpost
projectchemicalformulations,inthe'Comments'
field.
N t Dropdownboxes
D
d
b
Note:
withalistofanswersto
choosefromarepresent
intheyellowhighlighted
cellsinthe'Response'
column,wherepresent.
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
mousetoselectacellin
thesecolumns,clickon
thearrowthatappears
atthebottomrightof
thecell,andclickonyour
answer.
Whatmanagementpracticesdoestheproject
involve?Providedescriptionsofpreandpost
projectpracticesin'Comments'field.
Whatreductionsinfertilizer,herbicide,orpesticide
applicationrateshavebeen(orwillbe)achieved
withthisproject?
Whatarethepreandpostprojectapplication
frequencies(e.g.,#days/year,monthsof
application)
Hastheeffectivenessofthechangeinpractices
beenmeasuredinanyquantitativeorqualitative
way(e.g.,improvedwaterqualityinnearby
stream)?Ifyes,pleasedescribeand/orprovide
data.
1of10
AgriculturalPractices:IrrigationWaterManagement
Overview:Toquantifythewatersavingsthroughachangeinirrigationmanagement,weneedtoknowthetypesofirrigationpracticesemployed,the
sizeofirrigatedland,typesofcrops,andrelatedinformation.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Whatisthewatersource(e.g.,aquifer,nameof
river/stream,etc.?
Whattypeofirrigationwasbeingemployed"pre
project"?
Whatisthesurfaceareaofcroplandaffectedbythis
project?
Whichtype(s)ofcropsaregrownintheproject
area?
SpecificForm
replicated10timesbelow.
Whenfinishedproviding
informationforeach
Questiononthisform,
returntotheActivitiesPage
andcontinueproviding
f
f h
activity.
Whatarethepredominantsoiltype(s)intheproject
area?
Howmanydays/yearisthelandirrigatedaspartof
thisprojectandpreviously?
Whataretheapproximatepreandpostproject
waterrequirements?(e.g.,inhectarem/monthor
acreft/month)
Whataretheapproximatepreandpostproject
irrigationefficiencies(expressedasapercentageof
wateruptakebycroprelativetototalwater
application)?
Werethereotherchangesmadewhentheirrigation
methodsweremodified(e.g.,croptype,tillage
practices)?
Note: Dropdownboxes
choosefromarepresentin
theyellowhighlightedcells
inthe'Response'column,
wherepresent.Accessthe
dropdownboxlistbyusing
yourmousetoselectacellin
thesecolumns,clickonthe
arrowthatappearsatthe
bottomrightofthecell,and
clickonyouranswer.
1of10
AgriculturalPractices:Crop/FarmlandManagementPractices
Overview:Toquantifythewatersavingsorwaterqualityimprovementrealizedthroughachangeincrop/pasturelandmanagement,weneedto
understandpreandpostprojectpractices,andsoilcharacteristics.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
SpecificForm
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Whatisthespecificobjectiveofimproved
crop/pasturelandmanagementpractices?
Whatisthesurfaceareaofcrop/pastureland
affectedbythisproject?
Whatare/werethepredominanttypesofland
covers(croporother)fortheprojectarea(preand
postproject)?
Whattillingpracticeshavebeenusedforthetarget
area(preandpostproject)?(e.g.,fall/springplow,
turnplow,"notill")
Whatcontouring,contourstrip,terracing,orother
supportingpracticeshavebeenused(preandpost
project)?
Forcropland,isthecropproductivityconsideredto
be"high"or"moderate"?
N t Dropdownboxes
D
d
b
Note:
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thearrowthatappears
atthebottomrightof
answer.
Hastheeffectivenessofthechangeinpractices
beenmeasuredinanyquantitativeorqualitative
way(e.g.,measuredrunoffloadsbeforeandafter
implementation,improvedwaterqualityinnearby
stream)?Ifso,pleaseprovidedataandexplain.
Whatisthepredominantsoiltype(e.g.,sand,
sandyloam,silt/clay,etc.)?
Whatistheapproximateorganicmattercontentin
thesoils,ifavailable?(Pleasespecifyasa
percentage.)
1of10
VegetatedFilterStrips/RiparianBuffers
Overview:Toquantifythewatersavingsorwaterqualityimprovementrealizedthroughtheimplementationoffilterstripsorriparianbuffers,
informationonthelocationandsizeofthebuffersisneeded,aswellaslanduseandsoilcharacteristics.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
SpecificForm
informationforeach
Questiononthisform,return
totheActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Whatisthespecificpurposeoftheproject?
Hastheeffectivenessoftheprojectbeenmeasured
inanyquantitativeorqualitativeway?Ifso,how?
Whatistheapproximatewidthofthefilterstrip(s)
and/orriparianbuffer(s)?
Whatistheapproximatesizeoftheplotforwhich
thefilterstriporbufferhasbeendesigned?
Whatspecifictypesofvegetationwereplantedas
partoftheproject?
Canyouprovideamapordiagramshowingthe
locationsofthebuffersorstrips?Photographs
wouldalsobehelpful.
Note: Dropdownboxeswith
alistofanswerstochoose
fromarepresentinthe
yellowhighlightedcellsin
the'Response'column,
yourmousetoselectacellin
these columns click on the
thesecolumns,clickonthe
arrowthatappearsatthe
bottomrightofthecell,and
clickonyouranswer.
projectarea?
Doestheprojectinvolveriparianbuffersorfilter
strips(notlocatedadjacenttoastream)?Pleasego
toappropriatesetofquestionsbelow.
QuestionsRelatedtoRiparianBuffers
Whatisthetotalstreamlength(inthelongitudinal
direction)whereadjacentbufferswere
constructed?
Werebufferimprovementsmadetoboth
sides/banksofthestream?Ifso,describewhat
improvementsweremade(e.g,typeofvegetation)
andwheretheyweremade.
Response
Comments
QuestionsRelatedtoFilterStrips
Whatisthetotallengthofthefilterstrip(s)?
Response
Comments
Wherearethefilterstripslocatedwithrespectto
thecrops(e.g.,betweencroprows,aroundfield
perimeter,betweencropsandsurfacewaterbody?
Whatkindsofagricultural(orother)practicesare
associatedwiththefilterstripplacement?
1of10
Conservation/ProtectionofExistingResources
Overview:Wherelandorwaterresourcesareconserved,informationisneededonconservationobjectivesandvegetativecover.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Whatspecificconservationobjectivesare
associatedwiththeproject?(selectallthatapply)
Whatisthetotalsurfaceareaaffectedbythe
project?
projectarea?
Arewetlandareasbeingconserved?Ifyes,whatis
thetotalwetlandareaaffected?
Whatkindsofspecificvegetativecoverare
representedintheprojectarea(e.g.,specifictree
orgrassspecies)?Pleasebeasspecificaspossible.
Istheconservationeffortaspecificresponseto
impendingorfuturedevelopmentoftheproject
area?Ifyes,pleaseexplainthenatureofthe
developmentandapproximatetiming.
Doesthisactivityinvolvefirecontroltomaintaina
healthyforestcover?Ifyes,pleaseanswer
questionsbelow.
Response
educatedguess)
SpecificForm
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Note: Dropdownboxes
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thearrowthatappearsat
thebottomrightofthe
cell,andclickonyour
answer.
answer
Hasanestimatebeenmadeoftheimpactof
pastfiresonlocalwaterbodies?Ifyes,please
provideadescriptionofimpactsandestimatesof
%changeinwaterquantity/qualityparameters.
Pleaseprovideanysupportingdata,ifavailable.
Whatisthetotalareaofforestwherefire
controlhasoccurred?
Hasanestimatebeenmadeofthereductionin
landarea(e.g.,insq.kilometers)affectedby
forestfiresduetothefirecontrolmeasures?If
yes,pleaseprovidetheestimatedpercent
reduction.
Doesthisactivityinvolveeffortstoreduce
householdfirewoodconsumption?Ifyes,please
answerquestionsbelow.
Whatisthetotallandareaofthetargeted
forest?
Hasanestimatebeenmadeofthereductionin
landareaclearedasaresultoftheseefforts(e.g.,
areaofforestleftintactperhouseholdorfuel
efficientstove)?Ifavailable,pleaseprovidean
estimateofthepercentreductionfortheland
area.
1of10
ReforestationorRevegetation
Overview:Quantifyingchangesinwaterqualityorwaterquantityduetoreforestationorrevegetationrequiresinformationonpreandpostlandcover
andwatershedcharacteristics.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Whatisthespecificpurposeoftheproject?Please
selectallthatapply.
Whatisthetotalsurfaceareaaffectedbythe
reforestation/revegetationproject?
Whatis/wastheexisting/previouslandcoverforthe
projectarea?Pleasebeasspecificaspossible.
InstructionsforActivitySpecificForm
Youmayprovideactivityspecific
informationformultiplelocations,if
applicable,asthisformisreplicated10
timesbelow.Whenfinishedproviding
informationforeachQuestiononthis
form,returntotheActivitiesPageand
continueprovidinginformationforthe
nextactivity.
Note: Dropdownboxeswithalistof
answerstochoosefromarepresentin
theyellowhighlightedcellsinthe
'Response' column where present
'Response'column,wherepresent.
Accessthedropdownboxlistbyusing
yourmousetoselectacellinthese
columns,clickonthearrowthat
appearsatthebottomrightofthecell,
andclickonyouranswer.
Whatisthenewlandcoverfortheprojectarea?
Please be as specific as possible (e g indicate
Pleasebeasspecificaspossible(e.g.,indicate
vegetationtypeanddensity).
Canyouprovideamapordiagramshowingthe
reforestedorrevegetatedareas?Photographs
wouldalsobeuseful.
Whatarethepredominantsoiltype(s)intheproject
area?
1of10
DamRemovalorChangeinDamOperation
Overview:Damremovalorachangeinoperationsaffectswaterqualityandtheflowregime,sodatarelatedtostreamflowandwaterqualityis
needed.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Doestheprojectinvolvepartialorfulldam
removal,ordoesitinvolveachangeindam
operations?
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Whatarethespecificobjectivesofthedam
removalorchangeindamoperations?
Howhas/willtheprojectaffectedinstreamflow
rates?Pleaseprovidepreandpostprojectmean
monthlyflowrates,ifavailable.
Howhas/willtheprojectaffectedwaterquality
(e.g.,suspendedsolids)?
Location#2
ProjectName:
j
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
SpecificForm
Response
educatedguess)
Doestheprojectinvolvepartialorfulldam
removal,ordoesitinvolveachangeindam
operations?
Whatarethespecificobjectivesofthedam
removalorchangeindamoperations?
Howhas/willtheprojectaffectedinstreamflow
rates?Pleaseprovidepreandpostprojectmean
monthlyflowrates,ifavailable.
Howhas/willtheprojectaffectedwaterquality
(e.g.,suspendedsolids)?
1of5
Note:
boxes
Note: Dropdown
Dropdownboxes
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thebottomrightofthe
cell,andclickonyour
answer.
RepairingLeaksinWaterSystems
Overview:Toquantifywatersavingsduetoleakrepairs,informationonthetypesofrepairsmadeandtheestimatedsavingsarehelpful.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Towhichtypeofwaterrelatedinfrastructurewere
repairsmade?Pleaseselectallthatapply.
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Specifically,whereweretherepairsmade?
Ifrepairsweremadetodrinkingwatersystems,
whatisthewatersupplysourceforthedrinking
water?Pleaseselectallthatapply.
Whatistheestimatedwatersavingsintermsofa
volumetricrate(e.g.,liters/year)?
Location#2
ProjectName:
Project
Name:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
SpecificForm
Response
educatedguess)
Towhichtypeofwaterrelatedinfrastructurewere
repairsmade?Pleaseselectallthatapply.
Specifically,whereweretherepairsmade?
Ifrepairsweremadetodrinkingwatersystems,
whatisthewatersupplysourceforthedrinking
Whatistheestimatedwatersavingsintermsofa
volumetricrate(e.g.,liters/year)?
1of5
Note: Dropdownboxes
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thebottomrightofthe
cell,andclickonyour
answer.
WastewaterTreatmentPlantImprovement
Overview:Toquantifychangesduetoimprovements,informationonpreandpostimprovementconditionsisneeded,aswellascharacteristicsofthe
receivingwater.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Whatisthepurposeofthewastewatertreatment
plantimprovementproject(e.g.,reduceeffluent
flow,improvewaterquality)?
SpecificForm
informationforeach
Questiononthisform,
returntotheActivitiesPage
andcontinueproviding
i f
ti f th
t
activity.
Pleasespecifythepreandpostprojecteffluent
flowforthetreatmentplant(e.g.,inMGD).
Iftreatmentplanteffluentloadsarebeingreduced,
pleasespecifythetargetedpollutantsandthe
associatedpreandpostprojectloads.
Hasanewwetland/lagoonbeenconstructedto
facilitateimprovementsinwastewatertreatment?
Note: Dropdownboxes
choosefromarepresentin
theyellowhighlightedcells
inthe'Response'column,
yourmousetoselectacell
inthesecolumns,clickon
thebottomrightofthecell,
Whatarethemajorcharacteristicsofthewater
bodythatreceives(orwillreceive)theeffluent
streamfromthenewtreatmentplant?
Selecttypeofreceivingwaterbody:
Watershedareatributarytowaterbodyat
treatmentplantdischargelocation?
Approximateaveragedailyflowofstream(e.g.,
m3/sorft3/s)?
Willtherebeanynewbeneficialreuseofeffluent
flowfromthetreatmentfacility?(pleasealsosee
questionsassociatedwithActivity#11)
1of10
WastewaterTreatmentPlantConstruction
Overview:Toquantifythechangeinwaterqualityduetoimprovedtreatment,informationonpreprojectconditionsisneeded,aswellasdetailsonthe
typeoftreatmentandthereceivingwater.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Describeproblemconditionspriortothe
constructionofthenewtreatmentplant
Whatpopulationis(orwillbe)servedbythenew
treatmentfacility?
Whatisthetypeoftreatmentthatisbeing
implemented(e.g.,primary,secondary)?
InstructionsforActivitySpecific
Form
Youmayprovideactivityspecific
informationformultiple
locations,ifapplicable,asthis
formisreplicated10timesbelow.
informationforeachQuestionon
thisform,returntotheActivities
Pageandcontinueproviding
informationforthenextactivity.
Isthenewtreatmentfacilityintendedtoreplace
septictanksystems?Ifso,indicateapproximately
howmanysepticsystemsarebeingreplaced(or
numberofpeopleaffected).
Note: Dropdownboxeswitha
listofanswerstochoosefromare
list of answers to choose from are
presentintheyellowhighlighted
cellsinthe'Response'column,
wherepresent.Accessthedrop
downboxlistbyusingyour
mousetoselectacellinthese
columns,clickonthearrowthat
appearsatthebottomrightof
thecell,andclickonyouranswer.
Whatarethemajorcharacteristicsofthewater
bodythatreceives(orwillreceive)theeffluent
streamfromthenewtreatmentplant?
Selecttypeofreceivingwaterbody:
Watershedareatributarytowaterbodyat
treatmentplantdischargelocation?
Approximateaveragedailyflowofstream(e.g.,
m3/sorft3/s)?
Willtherebeanybeneficialreuseofeffluentflow
fromthetreatmentfacility?(pleasealsosee
questionsassociatedwithActivity#11)
1of10
BeneficialReuseofWater
Overview:Toquantifychangesinwaterqualityorquantityduetoreuseofwater,informationonpreandpostprojectusesaswellasquantitiesare
required.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Describethesourceofthewaterbeingreused.
Pleaseselectallthatapply.
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Describethenewuseofthewater.Pleaseselectall
thatapply.
Ifthereusedwaterisappliedtoland,whatisthe
approximateslopeofthelandsurface?
Ifthereusedwaterisappliedtoland,whatarethe
predominantsoiltype(s)intheprojectarea?
Whatquantityofwaterisbeingreusedinmillion
gallonsperday(MGD),cubicfeetpersecond(CFS),
orcubicmeterspersecond(CMS)?
Note: Dropdownboxes
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thebottomrightofthe
the bottom right of the
cell,andclickonyour
answer.
Wherewasthewaterbeingdischarged"pre
project"?
Wherewasthewaterbeingdischarged"post
project"?
Location#2
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
SpecificForm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Describethesourceofthewaterbeingreused.
Pleaseselectallthatapply.
Describethenewuseofthewater.Pleaseselectall
thatapply.
Ifthereusedwaterisappliedtoland,whatisthe
Ifthereusedwaterisappliedtoland,whatarethe
Whatquantityofwaterisbeingreusedinmillion
gallonsperday(MGD),cubicfeetpersecond(CFS),
orcubicmeterspersecond(CMS)?
Wherewasthewaterbeingdischarged"pre
project"?
Wherewasthewaterbeingdischarged"post
project"?
1of5
RainwaterHarvesting
Overview:Rainwatermaybecollectedforavarietyofpurposes,andquantificationofchangestowaterqualityorquantityrequiresinformationonthe
intendeduse,preprojectconditions,andsiteconditions.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
ti it
Whatisthespecificobjectiveorpurposeofthe
rainwaterharvestingproject?(Pleaseselectallthat
applyandanswerrelatedquestionsbelow.)
Whatistheapproximateareaofrainwater
collection?
Isharvestedrainwaterreplacingorsupplementinga
previous/existingsourceofwater,suchaswater
withdrawnfromsurfaceorgroundwater?Ifyes,
pleaseanswernext2questions.
Whatistheprevious/existingsourceofwater(e.g.,
surfaceorgroundwater)?
Howmuchhavewithdrawalsfromthissourcebeen
reduced?Pleasespecifypreandpostproject
withdrawalrates,ifavailable(e.g.,MGDorm3/s).
Directuseofcollectedwaterfordrinkingwaterand/orirrigation:
Question
Whatquantityofwaterisbeingconsumed(e.g.,liters
peryear)?
Ifthecollectedwaterisappliedtoland,whatisthe
Response
Comments
Response
Comments
Response
Comments
Question
Response
Stormwaterdrainagesystem:
Priortorainwatercollection,wherewaswater
Infiltration:
routed?(Pleaseprovideapproximatepercent)
Isthecollectedrainwatertreatedinanywayprior
to discharge?
todischarge?
Whereisthecollectedrainwaterultimately
discharged?
Whatisthetotalquantity(volumetricrate)of
rainwatercollected?
Istherainwaterharvestingachievedthroughuseof
rainbarrels?Ifyes,pleaseanswerquestions
below.
Whatistheprimarypurposeoftherainbarrel
program?
Comments
Ifthecollectedwaterisappliedtoland,whatarethe
Directuseforsanitationpurposes:
Question
Whatquantityofwaterisbeingconsumed(e.g.,
litersperyear)?
Howisthecollectedrainwaterultimatelydisposed
ofafterbeingusedforsanitationpurposes?
Rechargegroundwateraquifer:
Question
Whatistherateofwaterrechargetothe
groundwateraquifer(e.g.,inMGDorm3/s)?
SpecificForm
Haveaquiferrechargepracticesresultedinlarger
withdrawalsofgroundwatertosupplywaterfor
drinkingwatersupplies,irrigation,orsanitation?If
yes,whatistheapproximateincreaseinthe
groundwaterwithdrawalrate(s)?
Hastherechargeprojectaffectedflowsinnearby
surfacewaters(e.g.,increasedbaseflow)?Ifyes,
pleaseprovidemeasuredrateofincrease.
Reductionofstormwaterrunoffimpacts:
Howmanyrainbarrelshavebeendistributed?
Approximatelyhowmanyhouseholdsareusing
rainbarrels?
Howlargearetherainbarrels(approximate
volume,e.g.,ingallons)?
Howisthecollectedrainwatergenerallyused
(e.g.,gardening)?
Canyouprovideanestimateofthetotalvolume
ofwatercollectedbytherainbarrelsinan
averageyear?
1of10
Note: Dropdownboxes
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thebottomrightofthe
cell,andclickonyour
answer.
InvasiveSpeciesControl
Overview:Toquantitythechangeinwaterquantityduetoinvasivespeciescontrol,informationonthetypesofplants,areaofcontrol,andareaormass
removedisneeded.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Pleasenamethetypes/speciesofplantsthatare
targetedforremovalorcontrol.
SpecificForm
informationforeachQuestion
onthisform,returntothe
ActivitiesPageandcontinue
providinginformationforthe
nextactivity.
t ti it
Describewhatisknownabouttheimpactofthese
plantsonwaterquantityorqualityinthetarget
watershed.Pleaseindicatewhethertheinvasive
plantsimpactsurfacewater,groundwater,orboth.
Arespecificareas(e.g.,subwatersheds)targetedfor
control?Ifyes,canyouprovidemapsorschematics
of the affected areas?
oftheaffectedareas?
Hasanestimatebeenmadeofthequantityofwater
takenupbytheinvasiveplants(e.g.,litersper
hectareperyear),orthechangeinwaterquality?
Note: Dropdownboxeswitha
listofanswerstochoosefrom
arepresentintheyellow
highlightedcellsinthe
'Response'column,where
present.Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyourmouseto
selectacellinthesecolumns,
clickonthearrowthatappears
atthebottomrightofthecell,
Areestimatesavailableforthequantity(areaor
mass)ofplantsthathavebeenremovedtodate?
Pleaseprovidesizeoflandareawhereplantshave
beenremoved(ifavailable).
Ifprojectisongoing,whatquantity(areaormass)of
plantsisexpectedtoberemovedinthefuture?
Haveestimatesbeenmade(orprojected)forthe
postprojectwaterquantityorquality
improvementsduetoinvasiveplantcontrols?(e.g.,
litersperdayincreaseinbaseflowpersquaremeter
ofplantsremoved)
1of10
TransferofWaterRightsforEnvironmentalFlows
Overview:Toquantifytheimpactoninstreamflowduetotransferofwaterrights,informationonwithdrawalrates,andwaterusesisneeded.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Question
Response
educatedguess)
Pleaselistallwaterbodieswherewaterrights
transfershavebeenorwillbeaccomplished.If
available,mapsorschematicswouldbevery
helpful.
SpecificForm
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
AreUSGSgagedataorotherflowdataavailablefor
streamlocationsaffectedbytheproject?
Havewaterrightstransfersalreadyoccurredas
partofthisproject?Ifyes,pleaseanswer
questionsbelow.
Howwasthewaterused"preproject"(e.g.,
irrigation)?
Whatquantityofwaterisnolongerwithdrawn
(e.g.,MGD)?
Havemeasurementsbeenmadeofinstream
changesduetothesetransfers?
Ifthewaterwaspreviouslyusedforirrigation,
howisthelandareausednow?
Willadditionalwaterrightstransfersoccurinthe
futureaspartofthisproject?Ifyes,please
answerquestionsbelow.
Pleaseprovideatimetableforproject
implementation,ifavailable.
Howisthewatercurrentlybeingused(e.g.,
irrigation)?
Whatquantityofwaterwillnolongerbe
3
withdrawn(e.g.,MGDorm /s)?
N t Dropdownboxes
D
d
b
Note:
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thearrowthatappears
atthebottomrightof
answer.
Havepredictionsbeenmadeoftheexpected
instreamchangesduetothesefuturetransfers?
Ifyes,pleaseprovideestimatesofpreandpost
projectflowrates.
1of10
OtherWaterRelatedActivities
Overview:Pleaseprovideacomprehensivedescriptionofyourwaterrelatedactivityinthespaceprovidedbelow.
Location#1
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
SpecificForm
DescriptionofActivity(pleaseprovideanyrelevantdata)
replicated10times
below.Whenfinished
eachQuestiononthis
form,returntothe
ActivitiesPageand
continueproviding
activity.
Location#2
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Note: Dropdownboxes
Accessthedropdown
boxlistbyusingyour
thebottomrightofthe
cell,andclickonyour
answer.
Location#3
ProjectName:
Country:
Stateorprovince:
LocalMunicipality:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
1of4
January 25, 2010
APPENDIX C
Description of Computational Engine
January 25, 2010

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
Overview
The Phase I report provided specific recommendations with respect to developing a
Watershed Restoration Benefits Estimation Tool (WRBET) to assist in quantifying
water quantity and quality benefits resulting from specific actions within a watershed.
The recommended approach involved the development of two main components of
the WRBET: 1) a computational engine to provide a suite of methods to perform the
calculations required to quantify benefits, and 2) an expert system to interact with the
user to obtain the necessary information to support the benefit calculations. In terms
of software development, Phase II focused on the development of the computational
engine component of the overall WRBET.
The Phase I report recommended that a suite of process- and empirically-based
methods be incorporated into the WRBET computational engine (CE) to provide a
means for quantifying changes in water quantity and quality for a variety of physical
conditions and management situations. The collection of proposed water quantity
methods provide a means for calculating the movement of water through the various
pathways represented in the watershed hydrologic budget, as depicted in Figure C-1.
The water quality methods build on the water quantity results by calculating the
transport of sediment and other pollutants of interest (e.g., nutrients) along these
pathways. Sediment erosion and runoff, along with associated nutrients, is of
particular interest in many circumstances, although leaching of dissolved-phase
pollutants to soil water and groundwater may also be of concern depending on sitespecific conditions.
Figure C-1. Watershed Hydrologic Transport Pathways

Page C-1

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
ComputationalEngineDevelopment
Several existing watershed models were identified in the Phase I report as sources for
the quantity and quality-related methods described above, including Hydrologic
Simulation Program FORTRAN (HSPF), Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT),
and Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF). These modeling
tools provide a collection of process- and empirically-based methods to compute
water runoff and infiltration, soil water storage and movement, evapotranspiration,
and groundwater storage and outflow. The methods incorporated into the WRBET CE
were consistent with those recommended in the Phase I report and are summarized
below:
Runoff/Infiltration:
Runoff and infiltration can be estimated using a combination of two
methodologies included in the CE: 1) the watershed hydrologic budget
approach adapted from the HSPF model (Bicknell et al, 2003), and 2) the
Runoff Curve Number approach originally developed by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, 1986) and adapted from the
SWAT model (Neitsch et al., 2005). If detailed site-specific data are available
to parameterize the watershed land surface and soil characteristics, then the
hydrologic budget approach provides a robust method for estimating runoff
and infiltration rates. However, many sites, particularly those located in
countries other than the United States (U.S.), have only limited data available.
In these cases, the Runoff Curve Number method is better suited for
estimating runoff quantities.
Snow Accumulation / Melt:

For watersheds that routinely experience sub-freezing conditions during the
winter months, it is critical to account for the impact of snowfall and snow
melt. Snow accumulation and melt can have a significant impact on the
overall watershed hydrologic budget, particularly the estimation of the
magnitude and timing of runoff quantities. The approach implemented in the
SWAT model for simulating snow accumulation and melt was incorporated
into the CE in order to provide this important capability for watershed
locations where significant snowfall occurs (e.g., Paw Paw River watershed in
southwestern lower Michigan).
Evapotranspiration:
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is required for supporting the runoff
volume estimates and the estimation of actual evapotranspiration from the
watershed surface, canopy, and soil zones. The Hamon method (Lu et al.,
2005; Hamon, 1963) was incorporated into the CE for the purpose of
estimating PET. This method is more attractive than alternatives methods for
estimating PET because it only requires latitude and daily air temperature as
inputs.
Page C-2

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
Soil Water Budget:

Meaningful predictions of water storage and vertical flow rates in the
unsaturated (i.e., vadose) soil zone require detailed information concerning
watershed soil layer properties, including density, permeability, and water
storage capacities. The CE includes soil water algorithms adapted from the
HSPF model that can be applied for watershed areas where these properties
can be reasonably estimated. Upper and lower soil zones are represented
by site-specific storage capacities, which in turn effect the percolation of
water through the soil to the underlying shallow aquifer zone.
Groundwater / Baseflow:
Shallow groundwater storage and baseflow can be simulated using the
groundwater accounting and baseflow recession methods adapted from the
HSPF and SWAT models. Applying these groundwater methods requires
estimates of aquifer storage capacity and recession characteristics, as well as
predictions of rates of water percolation from the unsaturated soil zone to the
saturated zone.
Soil Erosion / Washoff:

Soil erosion and washoff associated with runoff are calculated using the
Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) (Williams, 1975) adapted
from the SWAT model. While the original USLE is limited to calculating
average soil erosion over long periods of time (e.g., multiple years), the
MUSLE can be used to estimate event-specific sediment yields that can be
aggregated to the time period(s) of interest (e.g., monthly basis).
The SWAT model also provides an equation (6:1.11.2) to estimate the
reduction in sediment load for runoff passing through a filter strip or riparian
buffer (Neitsch et al., 2005). This equation was incorporated into the CE to
complement the MUSLE, as described in the application section below.
Additional methods for quantifying changes in water quantity and quality can be
incorporated as needed into the CE as development of the WRBET progresses. The
current version of the computational engine was constructed using an object-oriented
approach based on the Visual Basic .NET language. This modular approach provides
considerable flexibility in terms of 1) adding and modifying methods as development
of the WRBET progresses, and 2) efficiently integrating the CE with the expert
system component described in the Phase I report.
ComputationalEngineApplication
In its current state of development, the CE consists of a collection of methods that
cannot be directly applied without connecting the CE to a user interface or expert
system. However, a number of project activities identified as part of the CWP project
quantification effort required application of detailed methods contained in the CE.
This included any activities requiring estimates of the change in water runoff quantity
Page C-3

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
and/or sediment erosion/washoff yields, such as reforestation, revegetation,

conservation actions, and construction of riparian buffers.
In order to accommodate the quantification of changes in runoff quantity and
sediment yields, a subset of methods available in the CE were adapted for use in a
spreadsheet-based estimation tool. The methods incorporated in the spreadsheet tool
included:
Runoff Curve Number method (as implemented in the SWAT model);
Hamon method for estimating PET (for cases when estimates of daily PET are
not available), and
MUSLE for estimating sediment erosion and washoff; and the
SWAT empirical equation for estimating reductions in sediment loads for

riparian buffers or filter strips (Neitsch et al., 2005).
The Runoff Curve Number method was selected for use in supporting the CWP
quantification work because a majority of the reforestation/revegetation and
conservation activities were conducted in areas where detailed soil data are not
readily available, and, therefore, application of the detailed hydrologic budget method
is precluded.
The key input datasets required to support the application of these methods for the
CWP project activities outlined above include: 1) meteorological time series, 2) land
cover/use and soil conditions, 3) land slope conditions, and 4) cover/crop
management and other practice (e.g., contouring of cropland) factors, when
applicable. The overall approach and input datasets involved in implementing the CEbased water quantity and quality benefit calculations are described below.
Step #1: Obtain/process local meteorological datasets
Observed time series for daily precipitation and minimum/maximum air temperature
are required to apply the Runoff Curve Number and MUSLE methods. These
meteorological datasets were obtained for as many years as possible from available
data sources. For watershed sites located within the U.S., precipitation and air
temperature datasets were readily obtained from the internet using USEPAs BASINS
4 watershed modeling software tool. Typically, daily PET datasets were also
available from the BASINS database, which eliminated the need to use the Hamon
method to develop estimates for U.S. locations.
The availability of meteorological datasets for locations in other countries besides the
U.S. are often limited, and the overall quality of these datasets is relatively poorer.
The TuTiempo.net website (http://www.tutiempo.net/en/) was found to provide the
most comprehensive source of recent/historical weather data for other countries.
Considerable effort was required to obtain and quality check data for countries such
as Ghana, Tanzania, Mexico, and Brazil. Fortunately, it was possible to obtain one or
multiple years of reasonably complete daily precipitation and minimum/maximum air
temperature datasets to support water quantity/quality calculations for most locations.
Page C-4

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
Step #2: Develop estimates of watershed characteristics/parameters

Estimates were required for key physical characteristics and associated parameters for
watersheds where CE-based methods were applied. Key physical input parameters
included:
Land use/cover characteristics (e.g., agricultural land, forest land);
Soil characteristics, including hydrologic soil group (HSG types A/B/C/D)

and/or available water capacity (AWC);
Average land slope conditions; and
Cover management and crop practice factors to support the MUSLE.
The approaches used to develop the required parameter estimates are described
below. Detailed documentation of the assumptions and final parameter estimates
developed for each reforestation, revegetation, and conservation activity are provided
in the individual fact sheets for those activities (see Appendix E).
Land use/cover characteristics and hydrologic soil group (HSG) classification were
used to obtain Curve Number estimates to support the runoff estimates based on
tables provided by USDA-NRCS (1986). For locations within the U.S., site-specific
HSG classifications were estimated based on STATSGO datasets
(http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/statsgo/) obtained via the BASINS 4
program. For other countries, regional estimates of soil available water content
(AWC) were obtained from Baatjes (1996) and used to infer a HSG classification.
Professional judgment was required to assign appropriate pre- and post-project land
use/cover characteristics for watershed reforestation/revegetation and conservation
activities. For example, the following Curve Number assignments were made for the
Brazilian Rainforest Water Program reforestation activity:
Pre-project Conditions:
o Pasture/grassland in fair condition: 50-75% vegetative cover (CN =
69)
o Hydrologic soil group (HSG) B
Post-project:
o Woodland in good condition (CN = 55)
o Hydrologic soil group (HSG) B
Similar to the soil estimation approaches discussed above, the approach used to
estimate local land slope (on a percentage basis) varied depending on whether the
watershed of interest was located inside or outside the U.S. For watersheds within the
U.S., local fine-resolution (e.g., 50-meter) digital elevation models (DEMs) were
obtained via BASINS 4 and used to estimate average slope for the area(s) of interest.
For watersheds outside the U.S., a global slope dataset obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey and the American Geological Institute (AGI)
(http://www.agiweb.org/pubs/globalgis/) was used to estimate slopes. This dataset is
derived from global DEM data available at a resolution of degree (~900 meters).
Page C-5

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
Therefore, the global slope dataset may not provide accurate estimates of local slope
in mountainous areas or other areas where topography varies significantly within a
one-kilometer distance.
Estimates of the cover management (C) and crop practice (P) factors were required
for activities where soil erosion and washoff were quantified. These two factors serve
as inputs to the MUSLE, along with derived factors for land slope/distance, runoff
volume, and peak rainfall intensity. The C and P factors, which are identical to the
factors used in the original USLE, were assigned based on tabulated values compiled
from a variety of USLE-related sources (Haith et al., 1992).
Step #3: Calculate runoff quantities for pre- and post-project conditions
Using the meteorological time series data and the approaches described above for
estimating watershed physical parameters, the Runoff Curve Number approach was
used in conjunction with the SWAT-based snow accumulation and melt algorithm to
compute daily runoff of surface water for the available time period (i.e., spanning one
or more years, depending on the availability of weather data). Daily runoff quantities
were summed across each year to develop annual estimates of runoff volume, and
annual volumes were then averaged across all years. This approach was used to
develop estimates of annual average runoff volume for both pre-project and postproject conditions. For example, Table C-1 shows the pre- and post-project runoff
volumes estimated for the Brazilian Rainforest Water Program reforestation
activity.
Table C-1. Estimated Runoff Volumes for the Brazilian Rainforest Water
Program Reforestation Activity
Pre-Project Runoff
Volume (ML/yr)
Post-Project Runoff
Volume (ML/yr)
2006
8,752
4,257
2007
10,633
9,696
2008
24,690
24,037
Average:
14,692
12,663
Year
Once annual average runoff volume estimates were developed, the post-project
volume (e.g., 12,663 ML/yr) was subtracted from the pre-project volume (e.g., 14,692
ML/yr) to obtain the water quantity benefit in terms of the reduction in annual
average runoff volume (e.g., 2,029 ML/yr).
Step #4: Calculate soil erosion/washoff for pre- and post-project conditions
As discussed above, the MUSLE was applied to estimate sediment yield reductions
for projects where changes in land cover/use would be expected to affect erosion and
washoff of sediment from the watershed surface. The approach used to estimate water
quality benefits in terms of sediment yield reduction was analogous to the approach
described above for estimating benefits resulting from runoff volume reductions. Preand post-project conditions were used to generate annual estimates of sediment yield,
Page C-6

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
which were then averaged to obtain annual average sediment yields. As an example,
Table C-2 provides sediment yield estimates (in metric tons per year, MT/yr)
developed for the Brazilian Rainforest Water Program reforestation activity.
Table C-2. Estimated Sediment Yields for the Brazilian Rainforest Water
Program Reforestation Activity
Year
Pre-Project
Sediment Yield
(MT/yr)
Post-Project
Sediment Yield
(MT/yr)
2006
104,124
2,468
2007
130,556
5,935
2008
336,200
16,399
Average:
190,293
8,268
Similar to the approach used for runoff volume, the annual average sediment yield
obtained for the pre-project condition (~190,300 MT/yr) was subtracted from the
post-project sediment yield (~8,300 MT/yr) to obtain the average reduction in
sediment yield (~182,000 MT/yr). In general, estimated reductions in sediment yield
tend to be greater than reductions in runoff volume because the degree of sediment
erosion/washoff is highly dependent on the degree and quality of vegetative cover
present on the watershed land surface. For the Brazilian Rainforest Water Program
example presented above, a 14% reduction in runoff volume is estimated, as
compared to a 95% reduction in sediment yield.
Watershed restoration activities involving the construction or rehabilitation of
riparian buffers or filter strips require additional considerations. The purpose of
riparian buffers (and filter strips) is generally to reduce the delivery of sediment and
other pollutants (e.g., nutrients) associated with runoff from the watershed land
surface to a water body (typically a stream reach). A two-step approach was required
to estimate the reductions in sediment loading to a water body based on the presence
of a buffer:
1. The Runoff Curve Number and MUSLE approaches discussed above are used
to estimate the runoff volume and sediment yield (in MT/yr) generated from
the watershed area that drains directly through the buffer.
2. Equation 6:1.11.2 in the SWAT model technical documentation (Neitsch et
al., 2005) is used to estimate the sediment trapping efficiency of the buffer
(trap_eff) based on the width of the buffer (wbuffer, meters):
trap _ eff
2.1661 w
buffer
5.1302
100
(C-1)
Page C-7

Appendix C
January 25, 2010
The water quality benefit provided by the buffer was then calculated as the reduction
in sediment yield (MT/yr) based on the trapping efficiency: [WQ_Benefit (MT/yr)] =
[trap_eff]*[Sed_Yield (MT/yr)].
References
Batjes, N. H. (ed.). 1996. Documentation to ISRIC-WISE global data set of derived
soil properties on a 1/2 deg by 1/2 deg grid (Version 1.0). Working paper and
Preprint 96/05. International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC),
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, T.H. Jobes, and A.S. Donigian. 2003.
Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN: Version 12 Users Manual.
AQUA TERRA Consultants. March.
Haith, D.A., R. Mandel, and R.S. Wu. 1992. Generalized Watershed Loading
Functions Version 2.0 Users Manual. December. Cornell University. Ithaca,
NY.
Hamon, W.R., 1963. Computation of Direct Runoff Amounts From Storm Rainfall.
Int. Assoc. Sci, Hydrol. Pub. 63:52-62.
LimnoTech and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2008. Quantifying Water Offsets
in Community Water Partnership Projects; Phase I: Potential Offset Identification
and Conceptualization of a Methodology.
Lu, J., G. Sun, S. McNulty, and D.M. Amatya. 2005. A Comparison of Six Potential
Evapotranspiration Methods for Regional Use in the Southeastern United States.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 41(3):621-633.
Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, and J.R. Williams. 2005. Soil and Water
Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation: Version 2005. January.
USDA-NRCS. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release No.
55. 2nd Edition. June. Washington, DC.
Williams J.R. 1975. Sediment yield prediction with USLE using runoff energy factor.
In: ARS-S-40. Agr. Res. Serv., USDA. Washington DC. pp. 244-252.
Page C-8
January 25, 2010
APPENDIX D
Quantification of Watershed Restoration Benefits
January 25, 2010
January25,2010
AppendixD:QuantificationofWatershedRestorationBenefits
End2008
129.0
15.7
12%
TCCCConsumptionUsage(billionL/yr):
TCCCWatershedQuantityBenefits(billionL/yr):
%ofBenefitsRelativetoUsage:
Project
ID
Country
U.S.MI
U.S.TX
U.S.GA
U.S.GA
Partner/
Lead
ProjectDescription
TNC
PawPawRiverWatershed
Restoration
TNC
TNC
TNC
TallgrassPrairieWatershed
Restoration in North Texas
RestorationinNorthTexas
FlintRiverWatershed
Restoration
EtowahRiverWatershed
ConservationPartnership
WaterQuantityBenefits
WaterQualityBenefits
Activity
Timeline
%TCCC
Contribution
Croplandmanagement(conservation
tillage809ha)
20092011
100%
Runoff(decrease)
168.00
Sediment
Removalofglossybuckthorn
20092011
1%
Directstreamflow
68.90
None
Conservationofprairielandsand
wetlands(526ha)
50%
Runoff(decrease)
424.00
Sediment
11
Invasivespeciescontrol(134ha)
50%
Runoff(decrease)
41.00
15
Revegetationofprairielands(113ha)
100%
Runoff(decrease)
19
Riparianbufferconstruction(2.8ha)
Sept2008
May2009
Sept2008
May2009
Sept 2008
Sept2008
May2009
Sept2008
May2009
100%
Runoff(decrease)
23
Remotesoilmoisturemonitoringfor
irrigationmanagement
AprilSept
2009
100%
GWusage(decrease)
26
Riparianbuffer(RaccoonCreek)
Apr2009
May2012
100%
None
0.00
Sediment
29
Stormwatermanagement(tributary
ditchimprovements)
Apr2009
May2012
100%
None
0.00
AppE
Page#
DescriptionofActivity
TypeofBenefit
Quantified
QuantityChange
(millionL/yr)
Target
Pollutant
LoadingChange
(MT/yr)
End2010
142.9
34.2
24%
End2011
150.4
40.7
27%
End2012
158.3
54.8
35%
End2013
166.6
56.8
34%
TCCCWater
TCCCWater
%Complete %Complete %Complete %Complete %Complete %Complete
QuantityBenefit QualityBenefit
(end2008) (end2009) (end2010) (end2011) (end2012) (end2013)
(MT/yr)
(millionL/yr)
Goals/ProblemsAddressed
Reducerunoffandsedimentfrom
agriculturallands;increase
recharge/baseflow
Reduceevapotranspirationlosses
fromwetlandareas
Maintainhydrologicconditionof
prairielands
Increaseinfiltration,reduce
sedimenterosion/runoff
Increase infiltration reduce
Increaseinfiltration,reduce
Increaseinfiltration;reduce
Providedemonstrationprojects
fordecreasingirrigationwater
usage
Stabilizestreambank(reduce
instreamerosion)
instreamsedimenterosion);
increaseinfiltration
168.00
2,238.00
0%
33%
66%
100%
100%
100%
0.69
0.00
0%
39%
66%
100%
100%
100%
1,637
212.00
818.50
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Sediment
164
20.50
82.00
40%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
34.00
Sediment
307
34.00
307.00
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2.80
Sediment
5.1
2.80
5.10
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
154.00
0.00
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100
0.00
100.00
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
100%
Sediment
33
0.00
32.60
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
100%
27
6.00
26.50
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Protectbiodiversity,reduce
sediment&otherpollutantloads
0.18
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reduceirrigationwaterusage
17.00
30.20
0%
%
100%
%
100%
%
100%
%
100%
%
100%
%
Reducelanddegradation&
sediment erosion
sedimenterosion
154.00
2,238
End2009
135.8
28.8
21%
None
Ghana,Ivory
Coast
GETF
TransboundaryCommunity
WaterManagement
32
Conservation/reforestationoftropical
rainforest(~13.5ha)
Aug2007
Feb2009
100%
Runoff(decrease)
6.00
Sediment
Mali
GETF
CommunityWaterSupply,
Sanitation,andWastewater
Program
37
Irrigationsystemimprovements(drip
irrigation)
Nov2005
Aug2008
100%
GWusage(decrease)
0.18
None
Tanzania
GETF
ImprovedCommunity
LivelihoodsandSustainable
WaterManagement
39
(
)
Reforestation(23ha)
JanAug
2009
100%
%
Runoff(decrease)
(
)
17.00
Sediment
TwoProjects:1.)Watergy
ProgramFixingtheLeaks
and2.)SchoolPlumbing
RepairandEnergySavings
44
Leakrepairinschools&private
households
19972009
100%
SW/GWusage
(decrease)
407.52
None
407.52
0.00
96%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Increasewateruseefficiency
47
irrigation)
2008
100%
SWusage(decrease)
0.18
None
0.18
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Promote&demonstrateuseof
dripirrigationkits
49
irrigation)
20072008
100%
SW/GWusage
(decrease)
1.26
None
1.26
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Promoteimprovedsmallscale
irrigationmethods
52
Repairingleaksindrinkingwater
systems
2006
ongoing
100%
2,750.00
None
2,750.00
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
54
Abandonedminedrainagetreatment
(LausanneTunnel)
20042009
50%
50%
50%
SW/GWusage
(decrease)
None
None
None
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reducesedimentrunoffto
streams;stabilizestreambank
59
JordanCreekstreamstabilization
project
2009
50%
62
LittleLehighstreambankstabilization
project
2008
65
MonocacyCreekstreamrestoration
projects(EdgewoodValleyFarm,Just
EnuffAngusFarm)
69
Conservation/protectionofexisting
resources(106ha)
75
Communityraingarden(1.5acre)
SouthAfrica
GETF
Malawi
GETF
10
Nigeria
GETF
14
U.S.PA
Delta
15
U S PA
U.S.PA
Delta
MulanjeMountain
CommunityWatershed
Management
ImprovedHealthand
LivelihoodsinNigeria'sRural
Communities
BigSpringWatershed
Protection
WildlandsConservancy
withintheLehighValleyand
within
the Lehigh Valley and
LehighRiver
16
U.S.PA
Delta
ClearwaterCommunity
WatershedPartnership:the
ScotiaBarrensConservation
ProjectsHalfmoonWildlife
Corridor
18
U.S.IL
Delta
VillageofNilesRainGarden
LimnoTech
30
0.00
0.00
0.00
Iron
Aluminum
Sulfates
20
7.5
1,327
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.96
3.74
664.64
None
0.00
Sediment
7.9
0.00
3.95
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
erosion)
50%
None
0.00
Sediment
3.5
0.00
1.75
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
erosion)
2008
50%
None
0.00
Sediment
7.6
0.00
3.80
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reducesedimentrunoffto
streams;stabilizestreambank
20092010
1%
Runoff(decrease)
11.90
Sediment
223
0.08
1.54
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Conservation/protectionofa
corridorforwildlifepassage
2008
100%
Runoff(decrease)
5.50
None
5.50
0.00
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reducestormwaterrunoff
pg.1of3
January25,2010
End2008
129.0
15.7
12%
Project
ID
Country
Partner/
Lead
ProjectDescription
AppE
Page#
20
U.S.MD
Delta
ChesapeakeBayRainBarrel
DonationProgram
78
87
89
98
92
21
U.S./Mexico
WWF
ProtectingtheRioGrande/
RioBravoRiver
U.S.Southeast
WWF
25
Honduras
WWF
28
Vietnam/
Thailand
WWF
31
Romania
WWF
33
Pakistan
WWF
35
Brazil
TCCC
36
China
TCCC
37
Mexico
TCCC
LimnoTech
SoutheastRiversand
StreamsFreshwater
ConservationPartnership
RioChameleconRiver
WatershedProtection
Initiative
ConservingtheMekong

ReconnectingtheLifeline
WWFPakistanWestern
HimalayanEcoregion
BrazilianRainforestWater
Program
RecyclingWaterProgram
HefeiPlant
ReforestationofNevadode
TolucaPark
%TCCC
Contribution
2008
100%
Runoff(decrease)
0.03%
SWusage(decrease)
Rainwaterharvesting(Baltimore,MD;
Charlottesville,VA)
RioConchos DeliciasIrrigationDistrict
modernization
RioConchos PandenoSprings(water
efficiencyimprovements)
2002
ongoing
2007
ongoing
RioConchos reforestationin
headwaters(122.5ha)
2007
ongoing
RioConchos Pilotwastewater
treatmentplant(50people)
Activity
Timeline
TypeofBenefit
Quantified
51%
GWpumping
(decrease)
35%
Runoff(decrease)
60%
60%
End2010
142.9
34.2
24%
End2011
150.4
40.7
27%
End2012
158.3
54.8
35%
End2013
166.6
56.8
34%
TCCCWater
TCCCWater
LoadingChange
(millionL/yr)
(MT/yr)
(MT/yr)
QuantityChange
(millionL/yr)
Target
Pollutant
8.73
None
8.73
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
396,000.00
None
118.80
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2,370.00
None
1,208.70
0.00
0%
67%
73%
100%
100%
100%
Secureflowstoreestablish
populationofendemicfish
Reducesedimenterosion/runoff
andsedimentation
Sediment
220
5.11
77.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
None
None
Sediment
BOD
61.4
27 6
27.6
0.00
0 00
0.00
36.86
16 58
16.58
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
60%
None
TotalColiform
3.0
0.00
1.78
0%
1%
1%
100%
100%
100%
60%
None
FecalColiform
0.030
0.00
0.02
0%
1%
1%
100%
100%
100%
2007
ongoing
35%
SWusage(decrease)
0.01
None
0.00
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Augmentdomestic&irrigation
watersupplies
20072011
1%
Floodplain
inundation(increase)
123
None
1.23
0.00
0%
33%
66%
100%
100%
100%
Reestablishchannelmorphology
2009
14.60
Demonstrationprojectfor
wastewatertreatment
96
RioConchos Rainwaterharvestingfor
dripirrigation
81
PecosRiver wetlandrestoration
102
RioGrande (CaballoDamtoAmerican
Dam,NewMexico) Reestablishmentof
channelmorphologyandfloodplain
connectivity
2007
ongoing
30%
Directstreamflow
3,765
None
1,129.38
0.00
0%
0%
16%
33%
50%
66%
andfloodplainconnectivity
83
RioGrande(BigBend,Texas)
Reestablishmentofchannelmorphology
2007
ongoing
30%
Infiltration(increase)
3,040
None
911.97
0.00
0%
20%
28%
35%
42%
49%
2007
2007
ongoing
50%
Di
Directstreamflow
t t
fl
6,661
6 661
N
None
3
3,330.40
330 40
0.00
0 00
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
100%
Securewatersupplytosustain
habitat
2008
100%
Runoff(decrease)
18.44
None
18.44
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reducesedimenterosion/washoff
105
22
End2009
135.8
28.8
21%
108
RioGrande(RioBosqueWetlandPark)
Acquisitionofwaterrightstosupport
A i iti
f t i ht t
t
environmentalflows
CumberlandRiverCompact/Coke
ConsolidatedNashvilleplant(rainwater
harvesting)
111
Conversionofdegradedopenlandto
managedcropland
20082009
31%
Runoff(decrease)
18.00
Sediment
14,571
5.49
4,444.16
115
ChiRiversubcatchment: Reforestation
2008
ongoing
50%
Runoff(decrease)
128.00
Sediment
171
64.00
85.35
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reducesedimenterosion/runoff;
improvebiodiversity
122
ChiRiversubcatchment: Agricultural
practices
2008
ongoing
50%
None
Sediment
2,856
0.00
1,428.00
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Demonstrationprojectfor
improvedagriculturalpracticesto
reducesediment,nutrient,and
chemicalrunoff.
119
PlainofReeds(TramChimN.P.):
Conservation/protectionofexisting
resources
20082011
50%
Directstreamflow
11,400.00
None
5,700.00
0.00
80%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Mitigatefloodanddrought
impacts
126
Reestablishmentoffloodplainwetland
2011 2013
20112013
connectivitytoDanubeRiver
38%
Floodplain
inundation(increase)
13 750 00
13,750.00
None
5 156 25
5,156.25
0 00
0.00
0%
0%
0%
33%
66%
100%
131
Revegetationofbareslope(10ha)
20082010
100%
Runoff(decrease)
8.50
Sediment
4,475
8.50
4,475.00
33%
66%
100%
100%
100%
100%
136
Reforestation(3,000ha)
20062010
50%
Runoff(decrease)
2,029.00
Sediment
182,025
1,014.50
91,012.50
7%
13%
51%
100%
100%
100%
141
Beneficialwaterreuse
2007
100%
SWpumping
(decrease)
1.00
0.00
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
143
20052010
20%
108.00
0.00
60%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
1.00
540.00
None
Sediment
Reuseofwastewater
Increaserechargeoflocalaquifer
pg.2of3
January25,2010
End2008
129.0
15.7
12%
Project
ID
Country
38
Mexico
Partner/
Lead
TCCC
39
Mexico
TCCC
40
Philippines
WWF
41
Turkey
TCCC
42
Maldives
UNDP
ProjectDescription
AppE
Page#
IslandSanitationinthe
Maldives
Activity
Timeline
%TCCC
Contribution
TypeofBenefit
Quantified
148
20082012
100%
Runoff(decrease)
145
Groundrestoration(infiltration
trenches)
20082012
100%
154
20072009
156
Conversionofdegradedgrasslandto
agroforestry(220ha)
162
Leakrepair:replacingwatermainsto
reducewaterloss
MexicoRestoration&
ReforestationProgram
ReforestationEffortsatthe
deMonarcaButterfly
Bioreserve
IlaganWatershed
Conservation Project in
ConservationProjectin
Isabela
EveryDropMattersin
SaraykoyandBeypazari
164
End2010
142.9
34.2
24%
End2011
150.4
40.7
27%
End2012
158.3
54.8
35%
End2013
166.6
56.8
34%
TCCCWater
TCCCWater
LoadingChange
(millionL/yr)
(MT/yr)
(MT/yr)
QuantityChange
(millionL/yr)
Target
Pollutant
9,400.00
Sediment
18,780.00
100%
2009 2010
20092010
72%
Runoff (decrease)
Runoff(decrease)
20072008
89%
GWpumping
(decrease)
39%
None
Sediment
39%
None
BOD
39%
None
39%
None
2008
100%
Runoff(decrease)
2,078.00
Sediment
Ongoing
100%
Recharge(increase)
3,249.00
None
Constructionofwastewatertreatment
20072008
facilities
End2009
135.8
28.8
21%
770,472
Reducerunoff/increase
infiltration;reducesediment
erosion/runoff
erosion/runoff
9,400.00
770,472.00
7%
39%
50%
60%
100%
100%
Sediment
18,780.00
0.00
7%
39%
50%
60%
100%
100%
1,080.00
Sediment
1,080.00
0.00
66%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rehabilitatedegradedforestareas
136 00
136.00
Sediment
98 33
98.33
8 097 60
8,097.60
0%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
fromdegradedgrasslandareas
45.38
None
40.39
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
9.4
0.00
3.67
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7.8
0.00
3.06
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TotalColiform
0.272
0.00
0.11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
FecalColiform
0.00272
0.00
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2,679,600
2,078.00
2,679,600.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Conservationofexistingforest
land;decreaserunoff
3,249.00
0.00
82%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rechargeaquiferandenhance
watersupply
1.80
127.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reduce runoff / increase

erosion/runoff
11 200
11,200
43
Thailand
TCCC
Conservationand
RehabilitationoftheKlong
YanWatershedinSurat
Thani
169
Conservationofforestland
51
India
TCCC
IndiaRainwaterHarvesting
andAquiferRecharge
Projects(8projects)
173
Rainwaterharvestingandartificial
aquiferrecharge
70
Spain
WWF
LaGuadianaSubBasin
177
Reforestation(15ha)
2008
50%
Runoff(decrease)
3.60
Sediment
71
U.S.GA
TCCC
CCECobbCountyWater
Stewardshipprogram
182
Rainwaterharvesting
20082011
100%
Runoff(decrease)
4.07
None
4.07
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
72
U.S.GA
TCCC
CCNAUpper
ChattahoocheeRiverkeeper
Partnership
185
Rainwaterharvesting
20082009
100%
Runoff(decrease)
8.13
None
8.13
0.00
30%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
73
Australia
WWF
GreatBarrierReefProject
(ProjectCatalyst)
188
Improvedagriculturalpractices
20092013
50%
None
None
None
75
Ecuador
TCCC
ProtectionofWater
ResourcesinElCarmen
194
Reforestation(120ha)
20082010
53%
Runoff(decrease)
Reductionofrunoffandnutrient,
sedimentandpesticideloadingsto
theGreatBarrierReef
erosion/runoff
198
CommunitiesofPuebloViejo,Cancoy:
20072009
Improvedagriculturalpractices(201ha)
30%
None
202
CommunitiesofPuebloViejo,Cancoy:
Forestconservation(1,021ha)
20072009
30%
Runoff(decrease)
207
Teculutansubwatershed: Dripirrigation
20082009
(9ha)
30%
76
Guatemala
WWF
Protectingthe
MesoamericanReef
423.00
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Pesticides
9.9
32
0.134
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.95
16.00
0.07
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Sediment
15,860
222.79
8,353.46
0%
42%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Sediment
1,954
0.00
586.20
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
151.00
Sediment
SWusage(decrease)
98.00
None
77
Philippines
TCCC
GoGreen!GoFortheReal
Thing!
210
Reforestation/revegetation(13ha)
2009
44%
Runoff(decrease)
14.50
Sediment
78
U.S.KY
Delta
LexingtonRainGarden
216
RaingardenatCokebottlingplant
2008
100%
Runoff(decrease)
3.40
None
LimnoTech
254
17,160
389
45.30
5,148.00
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
29.40
0.00
10%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
6.38
171.16
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
3.40
0.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reductionofsedimentloadingsto
thePolochicandMotaguaRivers
andtheMesoamericanReef
(C ib
(CarribeanSea).
S )
pg.3of3
APPENDIX E
Fact Sheets for Activities Quantified
January 25, 2010
January 25, 2010
AppendixETableofContents
Project ID
Country
U.S. MI
U.S. TX
Partner /
Lead
TNC
TNC
Project Description
Paw Paw River Watershed Restoration
Tallgrass Prairie Watershed Restoration in North

Texas
U.S. GA
TNC
Flint River Watershed Restoration
U.S. GA
TNC

Partnership
Description of Activity
Page Number
in Appendix E
Cropland management (conservation tillage 809 ha)
Removal of glossy buckthorn
Conservation of prairie lands and wetlands (526

ha)
Invasive species control (134 ha)
11
Revegetation of prairie lands (113 ha)
15
Riparian buffer construction (2.8 ha)
19
Remote soil moisture monitoring for irrigation

management
23
Riparian buffer (Raccoon Creek)
26
Stormwater management (tributary ditch

improvements)
29
Ghana, Ivory
Coast
GETF
Transboundary Community Water Management
Conservation/reforestation of tropical rain forest

(~13.5 ha)
32
Mali
GETF
Community Water Supply, Sanitation, and

Wastewater Program
Irrigation system improvements (drip irrigation)
37
Tanzania
GETF
Improved Community Livelihoods and

Sustainable Water Management
Reforestation (23 ha)
39
South Africa
GETF
Two Projects: 1.) Watergy Program - Fixing the

Leaks and 2.) School Plumbing Repair and
Energy Savings
Leak repair in schools & private households
44
Malawi
GETF

Management
47
10
Nigeria
GETF
Improved Health and Livelihoods in Nigeria's

Rural Communities
49
14
U.S. PA
Delta
Big Spring Watershed Protection
Repairing leaks in drinking water systems
52
Abandoned mine drainage treatment (Lausanne

Tunnel)
54
Jordan Creek stream stabilization project
59
Little Lehigh stream bank stabilization project
62
Monocacy Creek stream restoration projects

(Edgewood Valley Farm, Just Enuff Angus Farm)
65
Conservation/protection of existing resources

(106 ha)
69
15
16
U.S. PA
U.S. PA
Delta
Delta
Wildlands Conservancy within the Lehigh Valley

and Lehigh River
Clearwater Community Watershed Partnership:

the Scotia Barrens Conservation Projects
Halfmoon Wildlife Corridor
Project ID
Country
Partner /
Lead
Project Description
18
U.S. IL
Delta
Village of Niles Rain Garden
20
U.S. MD
Delta
Chesapeake Bay Rain Barrel Donation Program
21
U.S. / Mexico
WWF
Page Number
in Appendix E
Community rain garden (1.5 acre)
75
Rainwater harvesting (Baltimore, MD;

Charlottesville, VA)
78
Pecos River - wetland restoration
81
Rio Grande (Big Bend, Texas) - Reestablishment

of channel morphology and floodplain
connectivity
83
Rio Conchos - Delicias Irrigation District

modernization
87
Rio Conchos - Pandeno Springs (water efficiency

improvements)
89
Rio Conchos - Pilot wastewater treatment plant

(50 people)
92
Rio Conchos - Rainwater harvesting for drip

irrigation
96
Rio Conchos - reforestation in headwaters (122.5

ha)
98
Rio Grande (Caballo Dam to American Dam,

New Mexico) - Reestablishment of channel
morphology and floodplain connectivity
102
Rio Grande (Rio Bosque Wetland Park) Acquisition of water rights to support
environmental flows
105
Protecting the Rio Grande / Rio Bravo River
22
U.S.
Southeast
WWF
Southeast Rivers and Streams Freshwater

Conservation Partnership
Cumberland River Compact / Coke Consolidated

Nashville plant (rainwater harvesting)
108
25
Honduras
WWF
Rio Chamelecon River Watershed Protection

Initiative1
Conversion of degraded open land to managed

cropland
111
Chi River subcatchment:Reforestation (79 ha)
115
Plain of Reeds (Tram Chim N.P.): Conservation/

protection of existing resources
119
Chi River subcatchment: Agricultural practices
122
Re-establishment of floodplain wetland

connectivity to Danube River
126
Revegetation of bare slope (10 ha)
131
28
Vietnam /
Thailand
WWF
Conserving the Mekong 1
31
Romania
WWF
33
Pakistan
WWF
WWF-Pakistan Western Himalayan Ecoregion
Project ID
Country
Partner /
Lead
Project Description
35
Brazil
TCCC
Brazilian Rainforest Water Program
36
China
TCCC
Recycling Water Program - Hefei Plant
37
Mexico
TCCC
Reforestation of Nevado de Toluca
38
Mexico
TCCC
Mexico Restoration & Reforestation Program
Page Number
in Appendix E
Reforestation (3,000 ha)
136
Beneficial water reuse
141
143
Ground restoration (infiltration trenches)
145
148
154
39
Mexico
TCCC
Reforestation Efforts at the de Monarca Butterfly

Bioreserve
40
Philippines
WWF
Ilagan Watershed Conservation Project in

Isabela1
Conversion of degraded grassland to agroforestry (220 ha)
156
41
Turkey
TCCC
Every Drop Matters - in Saraykoy and Beypazari
Leak repair: replacing water mains to reduce

water loss
162
42
Maldives
UNDP
Island Sanitation in the Maldives
Construction of wastewater treatment facilities
164
43
Thailand
TCCC
Conservation and Rehabilitation of the Klong

Yan Watershed in Surat Thani
Conservation of forest land
169
51
India
TCCC
India Rainwater Harvesting and Aquifer

Recharge Projects (8 projects)
Rainwater harvesting and artificial aquifer

recharge
173
70
Spain
WWF
La Guadiana Sub Basin 1
177
71
U.S. GA
TCCC
CCE - Cobb County Water Stewardship program
Rainwater harvesting
182
72
U.S. GA
TCCC
CCNA - Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

Partnership
Rainwater harvesting
185
73
Australia
WWF
Great Barrier Reef Project (Project Catalyst)
Improved agricultural practices
188
74
Belarus
TCCC
Expansion of Yelnya Bog Project
75
Ecuador
TCCC
Protection of Water Resources in El Carmen 1
76
Guatemala
WWF
Protecting the Mesoamerican Reef
77
78
Philippines
U.S. KY
TCCC
Delta
Go Green! Go For the Real Thing! 1

Lexington Rain Garden
Restore groundwater levels to prevent fires and

associated loss of wildlife habitat
Communities of Pueblo Viejo, Cancoy: Improved
agricultural practices (201 ha)
Communities of Pueblo Viejo, Cancoy: Forest
conservation (1,021 ha)
Teculutan subwatershed: Drip irrigation (9 ha)
Reforestation / revegetation (13 ha)
Rain garden at Coke bottling plant
191
194
198
202
207
210
216
PROJECTNAME:PawPawRiverWatershedRestoration
PROJECTID#:01
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Implementconservationtillagepracticesfor2,000acresofcroplandinthe
PawPawRiverwatershed
LOCATION:PawPawRiverwatershed(locatednearthecityofPawPawinsouthwestlowerMichigan)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JohnLegge
DanFields
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
WestMichiganConservation
EcologistforCocaCola WaterResources
Director
NorthAmerica
Manager
TheNatureConservancy
CocaColaCompany
DeltaConsultants
CocaColaCompany
3728WestRiverDr.NE,
PawPaw,MI
ComstockParkMI49321
6167857055ext.3012
2696578437
4047232433
4046769112
jradtke@na.ko.com
jlegge@tnc.org
dfields@na.ko.com
rstricker@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reducerunoffandincreaseinfiltration/baseflow
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Implementingconservationtillage(e.g.,notill)practicesfor
agriculturalfieldsthatarecurrentlysubjecttoconventionaltillageisexpectedto:1)reducerunoff
quantitiesandenhancegroundwaterbaseflow,and2)reducesedimenterosionandrunofffrom
agriculturalfields.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectwillbeimplementedduringa2yearperiodextendingfromSeptember2009through
August2011.
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:100%
ProjectwouldnothaveoccurredwithoutTCCCfunding.Thereareothersourcesoffunding
relatedtoimplementation.
WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSCALCULATED:
1. Decreaseinrunoff
2. Decreaseinsedimenterosion/runoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
TheCurveNumberRunoffmethodasimplementedintheSoil&WaterAssessment(SWAT)model
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunofffortheconversionofconventionally
tilledstraightrowcroplandtoconservationtillage.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedon
estimatingthechangeinrunoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorforboth
hydrologicimprovements(e.g.,enhancedbaseflow)andreductionsinsedimenterosion/yield;and2)
predictionsofrunoffaremorecertainthanpredictionsforchangesinbaseflowforrelativelysmallland
areas.
Curvenumbers(CN)forthepreandpostprojectconditionswereestimatedasfollowsbasedon
informationprovidedintheTR55document(USDANRCS,1986):
Preproject:Conventionaltillage(CN=81)
o
straightrowcrop
poorcondition(<20%residuecoverage)
HydrologicsoilgroupB
Postproject:Conservationtillage(CN=75)
o
straightrowcrop+cropresidue
goodcondition(>20%residuecoverage)
HydrologicsoilgroupB
Hourlymeteorologicaldataforlocalweatherstationswereobtainedfromthedatabaseprovidedaspart
ofUSEPAsBASINS4watershedmodelingsoftwarepackage.Hourlydatawereusedtocomputetotal
dailyprecipitation,maximumhourlyrainfallintensity,dailyaverageandmaximumairtemperature,and
dailytotalpotentialevapotranspiration(PET).
Curvenumbersandprocessedmeteorologicaldatawereusedtocomputedailyrunoffforthepreand
postprojectcasesfora29yearperiod(19701998),includingtheeffectsofseasonalsnowaccumulation
andmelt.Totalannualaveragerunoffvolumesandtheresultingwaterquantitybenefitwereestimated
asfollows:
Preproject:2,624ML/yr(324mm/yr)
Postproject:2,456ML/yr(303mm/yr)
Benefit(runoffreduction):168ML/yr(21mm/yr)
DataSources:
Sizeofareatargetedforconservationtillage:2,000acres(809Ha)
Slope:1%(estimatedbasedonlocaltopographicdatasets)
Soiltype:predominantlyhydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)B
Characterizedbymoderatetohighinfiltrationrates
BasedonSTATSGOsoilsdatabaseavailablethroughBASINS
Meteorologicaldata:
AllmeteorologicaldataobtainedviaUSEPAsBASINSversion4software
HourlyprecipitationdatawereobtainedforColoma,MIforthe19701998period.
HourlyairtemperatureandevapotranspirationrateswereobtainedforBerrienSprings,
MIforthe19702006period.

Assumptions:
Landslopewasassumedtobe1%onaveragefortheagriculturalareasofinterest(basedon
localtopographicdata)
SWATmodelparameterCNCOEFwassetto1.0(usedtocalculatethedailychangeinthe
retentionparameterbasedondailypotentialevapotranspirationrates).
ItwasassumedthatTCCCwillprovidefundingforBMPimplementation.
2. DECREASEINSEDIMENTEROSION/RUNOFF
Approach&Results:
TheModifiedUniversalSoilLossEquation(MUSLE)method(Williams,1975)asimplementedintheSoil
&WaterAssessment(SWAT)modelwasusedtocomputethechangeinsedimenterosionandwashoff
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertingconventionallytilledcroplandtoconservationtillage.The
meteorologicalandphysicaldatasetsdescribedabovefortherunoffcalculationwereused.Estimatesof
runoffvolumewerebasedontheCurveNumbermethoddescribedintheprevioussection,anddaily
maximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswerecalculatedbasedonhourlyprecipitationdataforthe1970
1998period.
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)fortheMUSLEwereestimatedas0.20and0.062forpreproject
andpostprojectconditions,respectively,basedoninformationprovidedinHaith(1992).Totalannual
sedimentyieldsforthecroplandwereestimatedasfollows:
Preproject:3,137MT/yr(3.9MT/ha/yr)
Postproject:899MT/yr(1.1MT/ha/yr)
Benefit(reducedsedimentyield):2,238MT/yr(2.8MT/ha/yr)
DataSources:
Seepreviousrunoffsectionforadescriptionofsupportingmeteorologicalandphysicaldatasets
andsources.
STATSGOsoilsdataobtainedfromUSEPABASINS4wereusedtoestimateasoilerodibility
factor(K)of0.17foruseinMUSLEequation.
Assumptions:
Landslopewasassumedtobe1%onaveragefortheagriculturalareasofinterest.
TheCoverFactor(Cusle)wasassumedtoremainconstantthroughtime(bothseasonallyand
amongyears).
TheUSLEPracticeFactor(P)wasassumedtobe1.0,correspondingtonocontouringor
terracingofthelandsurface.
OTHERBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED
None
NOTES
Thisisapreliminaryestimate.Monitoringandmodelingarebeingconductedaspartofthe
project.
REFERENCES
Haith,D.A.,R.Mandel,andR.S.Wu.1992.GeneralizedWatershedLoadingFunctionsVersion2.0
UsersManual.December.CornellUniversity.Ithaca,NY.
Neitsch,S.L.,J.G.Arnold,J.R.Kiniry,andJ.R.Williams.2005.SoilandWaterAssessmentTool
TheoreticalDocumentation:Version2005.January.
USDANRCS.1986.UrbanHydrologyforSmallWatershedsTechnicalRelease55(TR55).2ndEdition.
WilliamsJ.R.1975.SedimentyieldpredictionwithUSLEusingrunoffenergyfactor.In:ARSS40.Agr.
Res.Serv.,USDA.WashingtonDC.pp.244252.
WischmeierW.H.andSmithD.1978.Predictingrainfallerosionlosses:aguidetoconservation
planning.USDAARSAgricultureHandbookNo.537,WashingtonDC.
PROJECTNAME:PawPawRiverWatershedRestoration
PROJECTID#:01
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofglossybuckthorn(invasivespecies)fromprairiefens
LOCATION:PawPawRiverwatershed(locatednearthecityofMattawaninsouthwestlowerMichigan)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JohnLegge
DanFields
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
WestMichiganConservation
Director
NorthAmerica
Manager
CocaColaCompany
DeltaConsultants
CocaColaCompany
3728WestRiverDr.NE,
PawPaw,MI
ComstockParkMI49321
6167857055ext.3012
2696578437
4047232433
4046769112
jradtke@na.ko.com
jlegge@tnc.org
dfields@na.ko.com
rstricker@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reduceevapotranspirationlossesofwaterfromwetlandareasbyclearingtheinvasivespecies
glossybuckthornfromheavilyinfestedareas.
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Glossybuckthornisaninvasivespeciesthathasinfested
largeareaswithinprairiefenslocatedinthePawPawwatershed.Apreviousgroundwaterlevelstudy
conductedbyTNCinLenawee,Michiganindicatedthatoneacreofdenseglossybuckthornremoved
0.325milliongallonsofwaterperyear.Therefore,removalofglossybuckthornisexpectedtoenhance
groundwaterbaseflowderivedfromthesewetlandareas.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectwillbeimplementedduringa3yearperiodextendingfromJanuary2009through
December2011.
Atotalof22acresofaplanned56acres(39%)havebeenclearedtodate.
ProjectisonlyreceivingminorfundingfromCocaCola,butsomevolunteerassistanceby
CocaColaemployeescontributestothisgoal.
1. Increaseingroundwaterstorage/baseflow
1. INCREASEINGROUNDWATERSTORAGE/BASEFLOW
Approach&Results:
TheNatureConservancypreviouslyconductedagroundwaterlevelstudyinLenawee,Michiganto
investigatetheimpactsofglossybuckthornonlocalwaterquantity.Theresultsofthisstudysuggest
thatdenseareasofglossybuckthornwillremoveapproximately0.325milliongallonsofwaterperacre
peryear(MG/ac/yr)viauptakeofsurfaceandgroundwaterandsubsequenttranspirationlosses.

Theapproachtakenassumesthatthewaterlostviaglossybuckthornuptakeandtranspirationwould
haveotherwisebeenmaintainedasgroundwaterstorageandwouldhaveeventuallybeenavailablefor
baseflowtothestreamnetwork.Basedonthisassumption,thewaterquantitybenefitcanbeexpressed
intermsofthegroundwaterstorage/baseflowthatwouldbeavailableduetotheremovalofglossy
buckthorn.Theapplicationoftheunitwaterlossassociatedwithglossybuckthorn(0.325MG/ac/yr=
1.23ML/ac/yr)tothetotalplannedareaofremoval(56acres)givesatotalquantitybenefitof68.9
ML/yr.
DataSources:
Sizeofareatargetedforglossybuckthornremoval:56acres(22.7ha)
WaterusagedataforglossybuckthornobtainedfromthegroundwaterlevelsstudyinLenawee,
Michigan.
Assumptions:
GlossybuckthornwateruptakeratesmeasuredintheLenaweestudyarerepresentativeof
uptakeratesinthePawPawRiverwatershed.
Wateruptakeratesforglossybuckthornaremuchgreaterthanuptakeratesfornativewetland
plantspeciesthatwillsucceedthem.
OTHERWATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED
Improvedwetlandplantspeciesdiversity(i.e.,promotionofnativespeciesviaremovalof
invasivespecies).
NOTES:
REFERENCES:
PROJECTNAME:TallgrassPrairieWatershedRestorationinNorthTexas
PROJECTID#:02
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Conservationofnativeprairieland(1,300acres)
LOCATION:TheClymerMeadowPreservelocatedwithinEastForkTrinityRiverwatershed
(approximately20milesnortheastofDallas,Texas).
PRIMARYCONTACT:
DavidBezanson
BradCozart
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
TheNature
CocaColaCompany
Conservancy
DallasSyrupPlant,
NorthAmerica,
Manager,CocaCola
GrandPrairiePlant
DeltaConsultants
NorthAmerica
5122170025
2143574504
4047232433
4046769112
dbezanson@tnc.org
bcozart@na.ko.com
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Openspaceconservation
Protectionofwaterresources(includingreductioninrunoffandincreaseininfiltration)
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheNatureConservancyispursuingseveralactivitiesatits
ClymerMeadowPreserve,includingtheconservationof1,300acres(526ha)ofnativeprairiegrassland,
with24acresofwetlands.Theconservationeffortisindirectresponsetotheongoingconversionof
large,nativegrasslandtractstoruralresidentialdevelopment.Thisactivityinvolvespurchasinglandor
obtainingconservationeasementstopreventlandconversion.
ClymerMeadowPreserve(photobyTNC)

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
ProjectwillbeimplementedbetweenSeptember2008andMay2009.
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:TBD
Assumed50%forcurrentesitmates
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunoffthatwouldoccurbypreventingthe
conversionofgrasslandstoruralresidentialland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedon
areas.
Preproject:ruralresidentialdevelopment
o
Herbaceouscover(grass/weedmixture)infaircondition,3075%cover(CN=89)
HydrologicsoilgroupD
Postproject:nativegrassland
o
Grassland/rangeingoodcondition,>75%cover(CN=80)
HourlymeteorologicaldataforDallas,TX(LoveField)wereobtainedfromthedatabaseprovidedaspart
postprojectcasesfora12yearperiod(19952006).Totalannualaveragerunoffvolumesandthe
resultingwaterquantitybenefitforpreservingthe1,300acre(526ha)nativegrasslandareawere
estimatedasfollows:
Preproject(ruralresidentialdevelopment):1,213ML/yr(231mm/yr)
Postproject(grassland/rangegoodcondition):789ML/yr(150mm/yr)
Benefit(runoffreduction):424ML/yr
DataSources:
Sizeofrevegetatedprairiearea:1,300acres(526ha)
Slope:2%(estimatedaveragebasedonlocaltopographicdatasets)
Soiltype:predominantlyhydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)D
Characterizedbylowinfiltrationrates
Meteorologicaldata:
Hourlyprecipitation,airtemperature,andevapotranspirationdatawereobtainedfor
theDallasLoveFieldweatherstation(ID:TX412244)forthe19952006period.
Assumptions:
Preproject(i.e.,postdevelopment)conditionswereassumedtobe3075%herbaceouscover
(faircondition),andpostproject(conservedland)wasassumedtohavegreaterthan75%
nativegrasscover(goodcondition).
Approach&Results:
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertingruralresidentialareatonativegrasslandarea.The
meteorologicalandphysicaldatasetsdescribedabovefortherunoffcalculationwereusedtosupport
applicationoftheMUSLEequation.EstimatesofrunoffvolumewerebasedontheCurveNumber
methoddescribedintheprevioussection,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswerecalculated
basedonhourlyprecipitationdataforthe19952006period.
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)fortheMUSLEwereestimatedasfollowsbasedoninformation
availableinHaith(1992):
Preproject:prairiewith~60%coverasweeds/grassmixture(C=0.06)
Postproject:prairiewith~80%coverasgrass(C=0.01)
Totalannualsedimentyieldsforthecroplandwereestimatedasfollows:
Preproject:1,837MT/yr(3.5MT/ha/yr)
Benefit(reducedsedimentyield):1,637MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
amongyears).
Increaseininfiltrationandbaseflow
Improvementsinterrestrialhabitatandbiodiversity
NOTES
Estimationsarepreliminary.Monitoringisbeingconductedaspartoftheproject.
REFERENCES
10
PROJECTID#:02
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofinvasiveprairieplantspecies
PRIMARYCONTACT:
DavidBezanson
BradCozart
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
TheNature
CocaColaCompany
Conservancy
DallasSyrupPlant,
NorthAmerica,
Manager,CocaCola
GrandPrairiePlant
DeltaConsultants
NorthAmerica
5122170025
2143574504
4047232433
4046769112
dbezanson@tnc.org
bcozart@na.ko.com
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Increaseinfiltrationandreducesedimenterosion
Eliminatemonoculturalstandsofinvasiveplantspecies
Promoteexpansionofnativeprairiegrassspeciesandoverallbiodiversity
ClymerMeadowPreserve,includingtheremovalof330acres(134ha)ofinvasivegrassspecies,
includingtallfescue,Johnsongrass,andKingRanchbluestem.TallfescueandJohnsongrassdevelopinto
monoculturalstands,loweringspeciesdiversityanddecreasingoverallfunction.KingRanchbluestemis
anonnativebunchgrasscharacterizedbyinterstitialbaregroundbetweenclumps,whichpromotessoil
loss,soilcrusting,andenhancedrunoff/decreasedinfiltration.In2008,approximately130acresofland
weretreated,includingremovalof100acresoftallfescue,30acresofKingRanchbluestem,and<1acre
ofJohnsongrass.
11

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Invasiveplantremovalisongoing.
Assumed50%forcurrentestimates
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunoffthatwouldoccurbyremovalof
invasiveprairiespeciesandsuccessionbynativegrasslandspecies.Waterquantitycalculationswere
focusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorfor
bothhydrologicimprovements(e.g.,enhancedbaseflow)andreductionsinsedimenterosion/yield;and
2)predictionsofrunoffaremorecertainthanpredictionsforchangesinbaseflowforrelativelysmall
landareas.
Preproject:grasslandareadominatedbyinvasivespecies
o
Grasslandinfaircondition,5075%cover(CN=84)
o
estimatedasfollows:
Preproject(invasivespecies):242ML/yr(180mm/yr)
Postproject(nativegrassland):201ML/yr(150mm/yr)
12
DataSources:
Sizeofinvasivespeciestreatment/removalarea:330acres(134ha)
Vertisols(Pellusterts)andMollisols(Haploquolls)
Meteorologicaldata:
Assumptions:
Preproject(i.e.,areadominatedbyinvasivespecies)conditionswereassumedtobegrassland
infaircondition(5075%cover),andpostproject(nativegrassland)wasassumedtobein
goodcondition(>75%vegetativecover).
Approach&Results:
Preproject:prairiewith~80%coverasweeds(C=0.04)
Preproject:207MT/yr(1.5MT/ha/yr)
Benefit(reducedsedimentyield):164MT/yr
13

DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
amongyears).
NOTES
Thesearepreliminaryestimates.Monitoringisbeingconductedaspartoftheproject.
REFERENCES
14
PROJECTID#:02
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Revegetationofprairielandwithnativegrasslandspecies
PRIMARYCONTACT:
DavidBezanson
BradCozart
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
TheNature
CocaColaCompany
Conservancy
DallasSyrupPlant,
NorthAmerica,
Manager,CocaCola
GrandPrairiePlant
DeltaConsultants
NorthAmerica
5122170025
2143574504
4047232433
4046769112
dbezanson@tnc.org
bcozart@na.ko.com
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reducerunoffquantityandincreaseinfiltration
Improvebiodiversity
ClymerMeadowPreserve,includingtherevegetationof280acres(113ha)ofdegradedriparian
woodlandwithnativegrassandtreespecies.Covergoalsforgrasslandcommunitiesare70%totalcover
bynativeperennialgrassesandforbs,andthegoalfortreeplantingisaminimumof6treesperacre
survivingtomaturity.Revegetationwithnativeplantspeciesisexpectedtoimprovetheinfiltration
characteristicsofthegrasslandandpromotefloralandfaunalhabitatandbiodiversity.
15
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunoffresultingfromtheconstructionofa
riparianbuffer.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolume
because1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorforbothhydrologicimprovements(e.g.,enhanced
baseflow)andreductionsinsedimenterosion/yield;and2)predictionsofrunoffaremorecertainthan
predictionsforchangesinbaseflowforrelativelysmalllandareas.
Preproject:
o
Grassland/rangeinfaircondition,5075%cover(CN=84)
Postproject:
o
resultingwaterquantitybenefitforrevegetatingthe280acre(113ha)prairieareawereestimatedas
follows:
Preproject(grassland/rangefaircondition):204ML/yr(180mm/yr)
Postproject(grassland/rangegoodcondition):170ML/yr(150mm/yr)
16
DataSources:
Sizeofrevegetatedprairiearea:280acres(113ha)
Meteorologicaldata:
Assumptions:
Vegetativecoverwasassumedtobe5075%(faircondition)priortothisactivityandgreater
than75%(goodcondition)followingtherevegetationefforts.
Approach&Results:
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertinggrasslandfromfairtogoodcoverconditions(see
definitionsinprevioussection).Themeteorologicalandphysicaldatasetsdescribedaboveforthe
runoffcalculationwereusedtosupportapplicationoftheMUSLEequation.Estimatesofrunoffvolume
werebasedontheCurveNumbermethoddescribedintheprevioussection,anddailymaximumhourly
rainfallintensitieswerecalculatedbasedonhourlyprecipitationdataforthe19952006period.
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)fortheMUSLEwereestimatedasfollowsbasedonHaith(1992):
Preproject:prairiewith~60%coverasweeds/grass(C=0.08)
Preproject:343MT/yr(3MT/ha/yr)
17
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
Landslopewasassumedtobe1%onaveragefortheagriculturalareasofinterest.
amongyears).
Improvementsinterrestrialfloralandfaunalhabitat
NOTES
Estimatesarepreliminary.Monitoringisbeingconductedaspartoftheproject.
REFERENCES
18
PROJECTID#:02
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Constructionofariparianbuffer
PRIMARYCONTACT:
DavidBezanson
BradCozart
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
TheNature
CocaColaCompany
Conservancy
DallasSyrupPlant,
NorthAmerica,
Manager,CocaCola
GrandPrairiePlant
DeltaConsultants
NorthAmerica
5122170025
2143574504
4047232433
4046769112
dbezanson@tnc.org
bcozart@na.ko.com
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reducerunoffquantity,increaseinfiltration
ClymerMeadowPreserve,includingtheplantingofa7acreriparianbufferareaalonga1,400footreach
ofClymerCreek,atributaryofArnoldCreekandtheEastForkTrinityRiver.Thebufferconsistsofnative
woodyandgrassspeciesandwillhaveawidthofapproximately200feetalongbothbanksofthecreek.
19
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunoffthatwouldoccurbyconstructingthe
riparianbuffer.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolume
Ingeneral,buffersprobablydonotsubstantiallyreducethequantityofrunoffandshallowsubsurface
(interflow)waterdeliveredtoastreamduetheircloseproximitytothestreamnetwork.However,
reductionsinrunoffarebeingconsideredinthisparticularcasebecausetheplannedbufferwidth(200
feet)ismuchgreaterthanatypicalriparianbufferwidth.
Preproject:
o
Herbaceouscover(grass/weedmixture)infaircondition,3075%cover(CN=89)
o
Woodlandsingoodcondition(CN=77)
estimatedasfollows:
Preproject(ruralresidentialdevelopment):6.5ML/yr(231mm/yr)
Postproject(grassland/rangegoodcondition):3.7ML/yr(131mm/yr)
20
Benefit(runoffreduction):2.8ML/yr
DataSources:
Sizeofrevegetatedprairiearea:7acres(2.8ha)
Meteorologicaldata:
Assumptions:
Preproject(i.e.,postdevelopment)conditionswereassumedtobe3075%herbaceouscover
(faircondition),andpostproject(conservedland)wasassumedtohavegreaterthan75%
nativegrasscover(goodcondition).
Calculationsassumethattheriparianbufferissufficientlymaturetoaffectrunoff/infiltration
characteristics.
Approach&Results:
&WaterAssessment(SWAT)modelwasusedtocomputethechangeinsedimenterosionandrunoff
Preproject:prairiewith~60%coverasweeds/grassmixture(C=0.06)
Postproject:woodlandwith4075%treecanopy(C=0.002)
21
Preproject:5.2MT/yr(1.9MT/ha/yr)
Postproject:0.1MT/yr(0.04MT/ha/yr)
Benefit(reducedsedimentyield):5.1MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
amongyears).
Improvementsinfishhabitat(duetoincreaseinstreamshading)
NOTES
Monitoringisbeingconductedaspartoftheproject,soestimatesarepreliminary.
REFERENCES
22
PROJECTNAME:FlintRiverWatershedRestoration
PROJECTID#:03
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Remotesoilmoisturemonitoringforirrigationmanagement
LOCATION:FlintRiverWatershed,Georgia
PRIMARYCONTACT:
DavidReckford
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
EcologistforCocaColaNorth
WaterResourcesManager,
America,DeltaConsultants
CocaColaNorthAmerica
2294000035
4047232433
4046769112
dreckford@tnc.org
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Providedemonstrationprojectfordecreasingirrigationwateruse
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:
Thisisademonstrationprojectfocusedonimprovedirrigationpracticesthroughremotesoilmoisture
monitoring.BasedonestimatesbyUGAandUSDA,remotesoilmoisturemonitoringcanreduce
irrigationapplicationby12applications/season;however,thereductionvolumeisdependenton
rainfallwhichdeterminesirrigationrate(currently:12inchesinadryyear;10inanaverageyear;8ina
wetyear).Thisprojectwilltracksoilconditionsinrealtime,andreducethenumberofapplications
basedoncropneed.
23

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectinitiation:2008
Anticipatedprojectcompletion:2009
COKECONTRIBUTION:100%
1. Decreaseingroundwaterpumping
1. INCREASEINRECHARGE
ApproachandResults
Forsimplicity,itwasassumedthat100%ofthewaternotpumpedfromtheaquifercanbeclaimedasa
benefit(i.e.,assumethatonlyasmallpercentageofirrigationwaterpercolatestotheaquiferafteran
application,andthattherestislosttoplantuptake/transpiration,evaporationfromtheuppersoilzone,
andinterflow/runoff.
1acreinch=27,154gallonsor102,790litersofwater;
Centerpivotirrigationisusedon~1,000acresoflandwithaslopeof12%.Thecropseasonis6months.
Thewaterquantitybenefitwascalculatedbasedonthepreandpostprojectirrigationapplicationrates
providedbyDavidReckfordinthesurveyresponse.
Preproject:2acin/month*6months*1000acres=1.23billionL/yr
Postproject:1.75acin/month*6months=1.08billionL/yr
Representsa12.5%reductioninirrigationwaterapplied
1acreinch=102,790.15461liter
Watersavings=0.25acin/month*6months*1000acres=154millionL/yr
Datasources
AllinformationusedintheestimatewasprovidedbyD.Reckford.
Assumptions
Itisassumedthattheacreageintheprogramis1,000acres.Thisisanapproximationatthe
presenttime.
None
NOTES
24
REFERENCES
Evans,RobertO,etal.1998.IrrigationConservationPracticesAppropriatefortheSoutheasternUnited
States.Editedby:DanielL.Thomas.ProjectReport32.
25
PROJECTNAME:EtowahRiverWatershedConservationPartnership
PROJECTID#:04
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:RiparianbufferplantingforRaccoonCreek
LOCATION:RaccoonCreekwithintheEtowahRiverwatershed
PRIMARYCONTACT:
KatieOwens
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
UpperCoosaRiverProgramDirector, EcologistforCocaCola
TheNatureConservancy,
NorthAmerica,
P.O.Box737,Amuchee,GA
DeltaConsultants
301050737
7067670497
4047232433
4046769112
kowens@tnc.org
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Streambankstabilizationtoreduceinstreamerosion
Improvedriparianshadingforfishhabitat
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:RaccoonCreek,atributarytotheEtowahRiver,islocated
adjacenttoa300footGeorgiaPowerrightofway.Anapproximately6,700footreachofRaccoonCreek
iscurrentlyvoidofriparianvegetationduetooverlapwiththerightofway.Theprojectwillinvolve
plantinga25footwideriparianbufferalongthewestandeastbanksofthisreach.Theriparianbufferis
primarilyintendedtoimprovestreamstabilizationandimprovethequalityoffishhabitatviaimproved
shading.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectwillbeimplementedduringa3yearperiodfromApril2009throughMay2012.
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola(seenotebelow)
1. Decreaseinsedimentrunoff
1. DECREASEINSEDIMENTRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
&WaterAssessment(SWAT)model(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethecurrentsediment
erosionandwashoffforthelandareasadjacenttoRaccoonCreekthatdraindirectlytoRaccoonCreek
forthereachwherethebufferisplanned.ThedirectdrainageareasweredelineatedmanuallyinGIS
andoverlainwithlandsuse,soils,andtopographydata.Thecharacteristicsofthisareacanbe
summarizedasfollows:
26
Totaldrainagearea:226acres(91ha)
Landuse:58%forest,24%pasture,8%openspace,9%herbaceouscover
Averageslope:1.5%
HydrologicsoilgroupB(moderateinfiltration)
Forsimplicity,33%ofthetotalareawasassumedtobepastureand67%wasassumedtobeforested.
Thecoverandmanagementfactors(Cusle)forpastureandforestwereestimatedas0.090and0.003,
respectively.
Hourlyprecipitation,airtemperature,andpotentialevapotranspiration(PET)datawereobtainedfor
Dallas,GA(stationID:GA092485)forthe19702006period.Thesedatasetswereusedtocalculatedaily
totalprecipitationandPETandaverage/maximumairtemperature.
TheCurveNumber(USDANRCS,1986)andMUSLEmethodswereusedtoestimatetotalannual
sedimentyieldforthedirectdrainageareabasedonthephysicalcharacteristicsandmeteorological
datasetsdescribedabove.ThetotallandbasedsedimentloadtoRaccoonCreekwasestimatedtobe
150MT/yr.TheSWATmodelalsoprovidesanequationtoestimatethereductioninsedimentloaddue
tothepresenceofariparianbuffer(Equation6:1.11.2;Neitschetal.2005).Usingthisequation,a
trappingefficiencyof67%iscalculatedforabufferwidthof25feet(7.6m).Therefore,thereductionin
sedimentloadisestimatedas100MT/yr.
DataSources:
Sizeofdirectdrainagearea:226acres(91ha)(estimatedfromGIS)
Slope:1.5%(estimatedbasedonlocaltopographicdatasets)
Characterizedbymoderatetohighinfiltrationrates
Meteorologicaldata:
AllmeteorologicaldatawereobtainedviaUSEPAsBASINS(version4)software.
Hourlyprecipitation,airtemperature,andPETdatawereobtainedforDallas,GAforthe
19702006period.
Assumptions:
Riparianbufferwasassumedtohaveoptimalfilteringefficiency.
Reductionofinstreambanksedimenterosion
Improvementsinfishhabitatqualityduetoriparianshading
27
NOTES:[perKatieOwensemail,5/18/09]TNCsubmitteda$100,000grantproposaltoUSFWStoassist
intherestorationofRaccoonCreek.Anumberofsitesneedactualstreambankstabilizationusing
Geomatting,whichwouldbepaidforthroughtheseadditionalfunds.TheTCCCfundsarebeingusedfor
plantings.]
REFERENCES
28
PROJECTID#:04
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:StormwaterInfiltrationProject
LOCATION:EtowahRiverwatershed
PRIMARYCONTACT:
KatieOwens
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
NorthAmerica,
DeltaConsultants
301050737
7067670497
4047232433
4046769112
kowens@tnc.org
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Improvedinfiltrationcharacteristics,dissipationofenergyintheditch.
Reductionofsedimentbankerosionandgullyingwithinthestormwaterditch.
ReductionofsedimentbankerosionwithintheEtowahRiverdownstreamoftheditchoutlet.
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Thestormwaterinfiltrationprojectinvolvedstabilizingand
improvingstormwaterinfiltrationsurroundingtheUpperEtowahRiverAlliancesoffice,whichislocated
justoutsideofdowntownCantononthemainstemEtowah.
Thestormwaterinfiltrationprojectfocusedprimarilyonalargedrainageditchandthedevelopmentof
anenvironmentallyfriendlyparkingpad.Initscurrentstatethedrainageditchwasrapidlyerodingand
causingdownstreamstreambankinstability.
Thegoalofthestormwaterinfiltrationprojectwastoslowwaterintheditchdowntoallowfor
infiltration,especiallyafterhighrainflowevents.Thiswasaccomplishedbyreshapingthechannelof
theditch,removinginvasivesinandalongtheditch,replantingnativevegetationalongtheditch,and
placingChannelSoxxwithintheditchbedinordertoslowwaterandallowforinfiltration.This
particularditchisdownstreamofMcLureStreetandmultiplehomessothisprojectshouldreducenon
pointsourcepollutionenteringtheEtowahRiver.Inadditiontoworkontheditch,aporousparkinglot
wasalsoestablished,ratherthanusingthetypicalconcretepad.Thisprojectinvolvedusing
environmentallyfriendlyporousmaterialthatallowswatertoinfiltrateratherthanincreasing
stormwaterflowstotheadjacentditchandEtowahRiver.
ThisprojectisalsoconsideredPhase1inthestabilizationofamajorstreambankerosionsite,located
justdownstreamoftheUERAofficeanddrainageditch.Increasinginfiltrationofstormwater
immediatelyupstreamofthestreambankerosionsitewillreducedownstreamstreambankerosion,thus
reducingsedimentloadsenteringtheriver.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectwillbeimplementedduringa3yearperiodfromApril2009throughMay2012.
29

1. Decreaseininstreamsedimenterosion
1. DECREASEININSTREAMSEDIMENTEROSION
Approach&Results:
Instreamerosionratesarehighlysitespecificandrequiremonitoringdatatoaccuratelyquantify.
Examplesofmonitoringdatathatcouldbeusedtosupportasedimenterosioncalculationinclude1)
suspendedsedimentconcentrationsattheditchoutletforstormevents,and/or2)estimatesofbank
retreatrates.Thesedataarenotavailableatthistime;however,thetypicaldimensionsoftheditchand
thedimensionsoftheerodedsectionoftheditchwereprovidedbyTNCstaff:
Typicaldimensions:
o
Depth:~4ft
Width:~35ft
Erodedreach:
o
Length:~30ft
Maximumdepth:12ft
Width:18ft
Thetimelinefortheerosionandgullyingofthelower30feetoftheditchisunknown.Ifitisassumed
thattheerosionhasoccurredoveraperiodofapproximately10years,thentheannualrateoferosion
fromthebanksandthebottomoftheditchisroughly1foot/year.Basedonthisestimateandthe
averagedimensionsoftheerodedsectionoftheditch,theannualvolumeofsedimenterosionwithin
theditchcanbeapproximatedas:(16ft2)x(30ft)=480ft3=13.6m3.Assumingasedimentbulkdensity
of2,400kg/m3,thetotalsedimentmasserodedis32,600kg/yr(32.6MT/yr).Itisanticipatedthatthe
ditchimprovementswillessentiallyeliminateerosion;therefore,thetotalbenefitintermsofreduction
ofsedimentdeliverytotheEtowahis32.6MT/yr.
DataSources:
TNCstaffprovidedthephysicaldimensionsofthestormwaterditch(includingtypical
dimensionsandthedimensionsoftheerodedsectionseeabove).
Assumptions:
Erosionofthebanksanddowncuttingintotheditchhasbeenoccurringatarateof
approximately1footperyear.
Ditchimprovementswillessentiallyeliminatesedimenterosionduetodowncuttingandbank
erosion.
30

Enhancedinfiltrationwithinthestormwaterditch.
ReducedinstreambankerosionintheEtowahRiverdownstreamoftheditchoutlet.
NOTES
Increasesininfiltrationofstormwaterdeliveredtotheditchwerenotquantifiedbecausethese
rateswillbesitespecificandrequiredirectorindirectmeasurement.
DecreasesinbankerosionwithintheEtowahRiverdownstreamoftheditchoutletwerenot
quantifiedbecausedataonbankretreatratesoradetailedmodelwouldberequiredtosupport
thisestimate.
REFERENCES:
31
PROJECTNAME:TransboundaryCommunityWaterManagement
PROJECTID#:05
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Reforestationofriparianzones
LOCATION:GhanaandIvoryCoastTanoRiverBasinWatershed(WesternRegionofGhanaandAboisso
PrefectureofIvoryCoast)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JamesDyett,ProjectDirector
GlobalEnvironment&TechnologyFoundation(GETF)
2900So.QuincySt.,Suite410
Arlington,VA,22206
(703)3792713
james.dyett@getf.org
OBJECTIVES:
Reduceerosion
Reducesedimentationinriver
Restoreriparianforesthabitat.
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:
Deforestationcancontributetoincreasedsoilerosion,reducedsoilfertility,reducedreceivingwater
quality,anddecreasedbiodiversity(bothterrestrialandaquatic).TheWaterResearchInstituteof
GhanahasnotedthatintheTransboundaryprojectarea,annualrainfallanddischargerateshavebeen
decreasingduringthepastfewdecades.Althoughthereisnoscientificevidencetosupportthat
deforestationhasbeenafactor,thesetrendsaregenerallyattributedtowidespreaddeforestationand
landusechanges.Deforestationmayalsocontributetofloodingproblems.Aprogramtoreverse
degradationoftheTanoRiverwatershedareaincludes:
Creationof100meterbufferstripsalongthebanksofTanoRiverand30meterbufferstrips
alongalltributaries;
Initiationofagroforestryactivitiesinthebufferstrips;
Prohibitionoffarmingclosetotheriveranditstributaries;
Preventionofwildfires;
Publicawarenesscampaigns.
Thereareapproximately20tributariesthatfeedtheTanoRiveratitsheadwaters.Someareseverely
threatenedfromlandclearingandassociatederosion.Theeffectsofenvironmentaldegradationinthe
headwatersisfeltdownstream.ThispartoftheTanoRiverwatershedisalsoproximatetothe
(NewmontGoldGhana)NGGoperations.
Thisprogramaddressesaneedtorestoreriparianzones.Technicalstudieswereconducted,andthe
estimatedareaofriparianzoneidentifiedforrehabilitationwas1,000hectares(accordingtofinal
contractorworkplan).Combatingwildfireswasanotherkeyactivity.
32
InGhana,theprojectfocusedontworegions:BrongAhafoRegion
andWesternRegion(BrongAhafoislocateddirectlynorthof
WesternRegion).IntheIvoryCoast,theprojectfocusedonthe
AboissoPrefectureandtheSousPrefectures.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:100%Complete
April2008:Fivecommunitynurseriesinplacewithatotalofabout8,000seedlingsof4
indigenousspecies(Edinam,Emire,OframandMahogany).Treeplanting(2,300seedlingsof
Mahogany,Cedrela,Ofram,Emire,EdinamandKola)infivecommunitiesalongtheTanoRiver
beganmidMay2008inGhanaandJuly2008inIvoryCoast.(fromApril2008QuarterlyReport)
September2008:10,000trees(Mahogany,Cedrela,Ofram,Emire,EdinamandKola)planted
alongtheTanoRiver.(fromSeptember2008QuarterlyReport)
March2009:13,544indigenoustimbertrees(Mahogany,Cedrela,Ofram,Emire,Edinamand
Kola)plantedalongtheTanoRiverinGhanaasofFebruary2009.(fromsurveyresponses)
ProjectwouldnothaveoccurredwithoutTCCCfunding(perDeniseKnight)
1. Decreaseinrunoffwaterquantity
1. DECREASEINRUNOFFWATERQUANTITY
Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunofffortheconversionofunforested(e.g.,
pasture/range)landtoforestedland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedonestimatingthe
changeinrunoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorforbothhydrologic
improvements(e.g.,enhancedbaseflow)andreductionsinsedimenterosion/yield;and2)predictionsof
runoffaremorecertainthanpredictionsforchangesinbaseflowforrelativelysmalllandareas.
Curvenumbersforthepreprojectconditionandthepostprojectconditionwereestimatedbasedon
Preproject:
33
Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)C
Pasture/grasslandinfairtogoodcondition:>5075%vegetativecover(CN=76.5)
Postproject:
o
Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)C
Woodlandingoodcondition(CN=70)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedforAdiake,CoteD'IvoirefromTuTiempo.net
forthe200308period.Dataforthistimeperiodaregenerallyrepresentativeofthelongtermannual
averagemeteorologicalconditionsfortheregion.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedaily
potentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
Processedmeteorologicaldatawereusedtoestimatedailyrunoffforthepreandpostprojectcasesfor
years200308.Totalannualrunoffvolumesandtheresultingwaterquantitybenefitwereestimatedas
follows:
Preproject(openspace):49.4ML/yr(366mm/yr)
Postproject(reforestedland):43.4ML/yr(322mm/yr)
Benefit(runoffreduction):6.0ML/yr(44mm/yr)
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:13.5ha(estimatedbasedon13,500treesplanted,assuming1,000
treesperhectare)
Slope:assumedtobe5%(conservativeestimate)
Soiltype:Availablewatercontentof3mmpermeterofsoildepth(Batjes,1996)consistent
withhydrologicsoilgroupCcharacteristics.
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200308wereobtainedforAdiake,CoteD'Ivoire(stationID:
655850)fromTuTiempo.net(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Adiake/655850.htm).
Assumptions:
Reforestedlandareaisapproximately13.5ha(basedonanassumedtreedensityof~1,000
treesperhectare).
PrecipitationdataobtainedforAdiake,CoteD'Ivoireforyears200308aregenerally
representativeofaverageannualprecipitationconditionsfortheareaswherereforestationis
occurring.(AverageprecipitationforAdaikefor200308is1,301mm/yr.)
Thepreprojectlandcovercanbeappropriatelycharacterizedasopenpasture/rangelandwith
approximately5075%ormorevegetativecover.(Notethatthisprovidesaconservative
estimateofCurveNumberforareasthathavebeenutilizedascropland.)
Theaverageslopeconditionsforthereforestedareaareapproximately5%(conservative
estimate).
34
Approach&Results:
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertingunforestedlandtoforestedland.Themeteorologicaland
physicaldatasetsdescribedabovefortherunoffcalculationwereusedtosupportapplicationofthe
MUSLEequation.EstimatesofrunoffvolumewerebasedontheCurveNumbermethoddescribedin
theprevioussection,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswereestimatedforyear2000.
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)usedintheMUSLEwereestimatedasfollowsbasedonHaith
(1992):
Preproject:grass,80%cover(Cusle=0.01)
Postproject:woodlandwith75100%treecanopy(Cusle=0.001)
Totalannualsedimentyieldsfortheunforestedandforestedlandareaswereestimatedasfollows:
Preproject(pasture/rangeland):29.1MT/yr(2.2MT/ha/yr)
Postproject(forested):2.6MT/yr(0.2MT/ha/yr)
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
Thetreecanopyinthereforestedareaswasassumedtobemature.
TheCover/ManagementFactor(Cusle)wasassumedtoremainconstantthroughtime(both
seasonallyandacrossyears).
Thesoilerodibilityfactor(K)wasassumedtobe0.24foruseinMUSLEequation.
Habitatimprovementsbenefitingterrestrialwildlife
Shadingofstreamslowerswatertemperaturesandimprovesfishery
NOTES
Surveyresponsestatesthearearestoredisunknownbutworkplanstates1,000hectares.
35
REFERENCES
AlbertKatako,CAREGhana,2008a.WestAfricaQ4QuarterlyReport,ApriltoJune2008.
AlbertKatako,CAREGhana,2008b.WestAfricaQ5QuarterlyReport,JulytoSeptember2008
Batjes,N.H.(ed.).1996.DocumentationtoISRICWISEglobaldatasetofderivedsoilpropertiesona1/2
degby1/2deggrid(Version1.0).WorkingpaperandPreprint96/05.InternationalSoilReference
andInformationCentre(ISRIC),Wageningen,TheNetherlands.
Hamon,W.R.,1963.ComputationofDirectRunoffAmountsFromStormRainfall.Int.Assoc.Sci,
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
USAID/GETF,2007.Ghana/IvoryCoastTransboundaryCommunityWaterManagementProject,
USAID/WestAfricaandCocaColaEquatorialAfricaTerritory.WestAfricaFinalContractor
ImplementationPlanUSAIDGETFFinal,April4,2007.
36
PROJECTNAME:CommunityWaterSupply,Sanitation,andWastewaterProgram
PROJECTID#:06
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Irrigationimprovements
LOCATION:Mali
PRIMARYCONTACT:
Arlington,VA,22206
(703)3792713
OBJECTIVES
Improvecropyields
Anewtechnologyforsmallscaleirrigationwasintroduced,involving78dripkits.Thesewereusedto
irrigate7.6hectaresofcropland.Theoutcomewasanincreaseinirrigationwateruseefficiencyfrom
60%to90%.Theirrigationwatersourceisthelocalgroundwateraquifer.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(fromCloseOutReport)
Projectduration:November9,2005toJuly30,2008
1. DECREASEINGROUNDWATERPUMPING
Approach&Results
Irrigationwaterusagerateswerereportedinthesurveyresponse.Estimatesofpreprojectwaterusage
are1,200,000m3/ha/month,andpostprojectwaterusagewasestimatedat800,000m3/ha/month.
Thisresultsinawatersavingsof400,000m3/ha/month(morethan18billionlitersperyearassuminga
6monthirrigationseason).Thecontactconfirmedthiswatersavings,butitishighlyelevatedand
unrealisticfortheprojectssmall7.6haplotofcropland.
Asaresult,thebenefitfromirrigationwatersavingswasestimatedbasedondatareportedforasimilar
dripirrigationprojectwithasimilarlandareainNigeria(ImprovedHealthandLivelihoodsinNigeria's
RuralCommunities).ThewatersavingsinNigeriawascomputedasthedifferencebetweenpreproject
waterusageandpostprojectwaterusage,resultinginsavingsfora7.6hectareirrigatedplotasfollows:
37
Preprojectwaterusage:20,000L/day
Postprojectwaterusage:18,000L/day
Watersavings:2,000L/day
Numberofdaysofirrigationperyear:90
Benefit(watersavings)of180,000liters/year=0.18ML/yr
Datasources
WatersavingsusedwerereportedforthedripirrigationprojectconductedinNigeria
Assumptions
AssumedconditionsinMaliandNigeriaaresimilar.
AssumedWatersavingsof2,000L/day
Assumednumberofdaysirrigation/year=90
Assumednodepreciationinsavingsover5years(systemcontinuestofunctionasin2008).
OTHERBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED:None
NOTES:TheapproachisconservativebecausetheirrigatedareainNigeriais4Ha,andtheMaliproject
involves7.6Ha.
REFERENCES
GETF.2009.CommunityWaterSupply,Sanitation,andSmallScaleAgriculture,WADAMaliCloseOut
Report.
38
PROJECTNAME:ImprovedCommunityLivelihoodsandSustainableWaterManagement
PROJECTID#:07
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Reforestation
LOCATION:Wami/RuvuandPanganiRiverBasins,Tanzania.
PRIMARYCONTACT:
Arlington,VA,22206
(703)3792713
OBJECTIVES:
Reducelanddegradationanderosion
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Areforestationefforttoreducelanddegradationwas
introducedinApril2007attwoprojectsites(MsoweroVillageinKilosaDistrictandMionoWardin
BagamoyoDistrict)where,initially,morethan13,000treeseedlingswereplantedandthreetree
nurseriesestablishedtosustainthetreeplantinginitiatives.AttheprojectcompletioninAugust2008,
38,861trees(includingcedartrees,amongothers)wereplantedon23hectaresateightlocationsinthe
WamiRiverBasin.Otherprojectactivitiesincludeddevelopmentofwatersupplyandsanitation
MapofWamiwatershed(grayshape)showingwards(yellowhighlight)includedintheWADAproject.
ThreeadditionalwardsinthePanganibasinarelocatedintheupperrightcorner.Labelsrefertowards
orvillagesincludedintheproject.(FromCloseOutReport)
39

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
AprilJune,2007(fromJune2007QuarterlyReport):13,000treeswereplantedattwoproject
sitesandthreetreenurserieswereestablished.
August,2008(fromsurveyresponseandFebruary2009CloseOutReport):Activitycompletion
withatotalof38,861treesplantedon23hectaresateightlocations.
Approach&Results:
Preproject:
o
Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)B
Pasture/grasslandinfaircondition:5075%vegetativecover(CN=69)
Postproject:
o
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedforDarEsSalaamAirportfrom
TuTiempo.netforthe200308period.Dataforthistimeperiodaregenerallyrepresentativeofthelong
termannualaveragemeteorologicalconditionsfortheregion.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimate
dailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,
1963).
follows:
Postproject(reforestedland):31.9ML/yr(139mm/yr)
40
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:23ha(providedbycontact)
Slope:assumedtobe5%(basedon010%estimateprovidedbycontact)
Soiltype:Availablewatercontentof7mmpermeterofsoildepth(Batjes,1996)consistent
withhydrologicsoilgroupBcharacteristics.
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200308wereobtainedforDarEsSalaamAirport(stationID:
655850)fromTuTiempo.net(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Adiake/655850.htm).
Assumptions:
PrecipitationdataobtainedforDarEsSalaamAirportforyears200308aregenerally
representativeofaverageannualprecipitationconditionsfortheareaswherereforestationis
occurring.(Averageprecipitationfor200308datasetis1,065mm/yr.)
approximately5075%vegetativecover.(Notethatthisprovidesaconservativeestimateof
CurveNumberforareasthathavebeenutilizedascropland.)
Theaverageslopeconditionsforthereforestedareaareapproximately5%.
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject:grass,80%cover(Cusle=0.01)
Preproject(pasture/rangeland):32.3MT/yr(1.4MT/ha/yr)
41
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
NOTES
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
TanzaniaCoastalManagementPartnership,2009.ImprovedCommunityLivelihoodsandSustainable
WaterManagement,Water&DevelopmentAlliance(WADA)TanzaniaCloseOutReport.Tanzania
CoastalManagementPartnership.January30,2009.
URI,2007.WADATanzaniaQuarterlyReportAprilJune2007.CoastalResourcesCenter,Graduate
SchoolofOceanography,UniversityofRhodeIsland(URI).
USAID/GETF,2007.Ghana/IvoryCoastTransboundaryCommunityWaterManagementProject,
USAID/WestAfricaandCocaColaEquatorialAfricaTerritory.WestAfricaFinalContractor
ImplementationPlanUSAIDGETFFinal,April4,2007.
42
43
PROJECTNAME:SupplywithWatergyInterventionandEducation(2projects:1.)WatergyProgram
FixingtheLeaks,2.)SchoolPlumbingRepairandEnergySavings)
PROJECTID#:08
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Leakrepairindrinkingwaterandsanitaryplumbingsystems
LOCATION:SouthAfrica
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JamesDyett&NicoleTerrillion
ProjectCoordinator,GETF
2900S.QuincyStreet,Suite410,Arlington,VA22206
7033792713
james.dyett@getf.org& nicole.terrillion@getf.org
OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:WatergyprojectspromotewaterconservationinSouth
Africancommunitiesbyrepairingleaksandpromotingwatersavingsinschoolsandprivatehouseholds.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(fromCWPsurveyinformationreceivedfromGETFandprojectcloseoutreports
seeReferences)
MaytoOctober2009:LeakrepairsatschoolsinEkhuruleni,Gauteng,SA;CapeTown,Western
Cape,SA;MandelaBay,EasternCape,SA
August2006toApril2007:Leakrepairsat3650householdsinSharpeville,Gauteng,SouthAfrica
MaythroughNovember2006:Leakrepairsatsevenprimaryschools(FredHabedi,Masimini,
TheoTwala,Duduza,JamesNkosi,Emzimkulu,Elusindisweni)inmunicipalitiesofGroblersdal,
Middelburg,Witbank,Duduza,Standerton,KatorusinprovincesofGauteng&Mpumalanga,
SouthAfrica
December2005throughJuly2006:Leakrepairsat1,371householdsinMunsieville(Properand
Ext1),Gauteng,SouthAfrica
Approximately1997to2004:Leakrepairsatthreeprimaryschools(Ntuthuko,Vumbeni,Abram
Hlope)inEkhuruleni,Gauteng,SA
1. Decreaseinsurface/groundwaterusage
1. DECREASEINSURFACE/GROUNDWATERUSAGE
Approach&Results
Watersavingswerereportedforfiveprojects(ae,below)ineithertheprojectsurveyreturnedbyGETF
orintheprojectassociatedCloseOutreports.Watersavingswerenotreportedforthreeschools
44
becauseofwatermeterorwatersupplyfailures,sosavingsfortheseschoolswereestimatedasthe
averageofwatersavingsforallotherreportingschools.
a. Watersavingsatschoolsinthreemunicipalities(Ekhuruleni,CapeTown,WesternCape,Mandela
Bay)MaytoOctober2009
WaterSavings:Estimate660L/hoursavingspermunicipality=5,781,600L/yearsavingsper
municipality=17,344,800L/yeartotalsavings
Datasources:
WatersavingswerereportedinCWPSurvey.
Assumptions:
Assumednodepreciationinsavingsover5years(systemscontinuetofunctionaswhenrepairs
completed).
b. Watersavingsat3650householdsinSharpevilleAugust2006toApril2007:
WaterSavings:513KLperdayfrommunicipalmeterreadings=187,245,000L/year
Datasources:
WatersavingswerereportedinSharpevilleCloseOutReportandPowerPointpresentation
(AlliancetoSaveEnergy,2006).
Assumptions:
completed).
c. LeakrepairsatsevenprimaryschoolsinprovincesofGauteng&MpumalangaMaythrough
November2006:
WaterSavings:20,809,243L/yearfrommeterreadings
Datasources:
WatersavingswerereportedinCloseOutReport
Assumptions:
Watersavingswerenotreportedforoneschool(EmzimkuluPrimarySchool)becauseof
frequentinterruptionsofwatersupplyduringloggingexercise,sosavingsforthisschoolwas
estimatedastheaverageofwatersavingsforallotherreportingschoolsforallprojects.
completed).
d. Leakrepairsat1,371householdsinMunsievilleDecember2005throughJuly2006
WaterSavings:432.733KLperdayfrommunicipalmeterreadings=157,947,545L/year
Datasources:
WatersavingswerereportedinCloseOutReport&PowerPointpresentation(AlliancetoSave
Energy,2006).
Assumptions:
completed).
45
e. LeakrepairsatthreeprimaryschoolsinEkhuruleni
WaterSavings:24,173,186L/yearfrommeterreadings
Datasources:
WatersavingswerereportedinCloseOutReport.
Assumptions:
Watersavingswerenotreportedfortwoschools(NtuthukoPrimarySchool,AbramHlope
PrimarySchool)becauseofwatersupplyand/ormeterfailureproblems,sosavingsforthese
schoolswereestimatedastheaverageofwatersavingsforallotherreportingschoolsforall
projects.
completed).
TotalWaterSavingsatSchoolsandHouseholds
Totalsavingsfromthe5Watergy/USAIDprojectslistedabove=407,519,774liters/year=
407.52ML/yr
Environmentalbenefitsfromwaterconservationbehaviorsasaresultofcommunityeducation
NOTES
Thisprojectincludedjobtrainingformorethan80beginnerplumbers,improvedtheplumbing
infrastructureformorethan37,800people,andpromotedwaterconservationeducationfor
communitymembers.
REFERENCES
AlliancetoSaveEnergy.2008.TheImplementationofaWatergyInterventionandEducationProjectat
SelectedSchoolsWithintheCocaCola/ShandukaBeveragesAreaofSupply,ClosureReport,
December.
AlliancetoSaveEnergy.2006.PresentationontheRepairofLeaksonPrivatePropertiesinMunsieville&
Sharpeville.
AlliancetoSaveEnergy.2006.MunsievillePrivatePropertyLeakRepairProject,CloseOutReport,
September.
AlliancetoSaveEnergy.2007.SharpevillePrivatePropertyLeakRepairProject,CloseOutReport,April.
AlliancetoSaveEnergy.2008.TheImplementationofaWatergyInterventionandEducationProjectat
SelectedSchoolswithintheEkurhuleniMetropolitanArea,ClosureReport,April.
46
PROJECTNAME:MulanjeMountainCommunityWatershedManagement
PROJECTID#:09
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Smallscaleirrigationimprovements
LOCATION:Malawi
PRIMARYCONTACT:
Arlington,VA,22206
(703)3792713
OBJECTIVES
Promoteanddemonstrateuseofdripirrigationkits
Boostproductionofirrigatedvegetableswhichareinhighdemand
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Anewtechnologyforsmallscaleirrigation(dripkits)was
introduced.Previousirrigationtechniquesweregravity,treadlepumpandbucket/wateringcans.The
introductionanddemonstrationofsmall,affordableandlocallymanufactureddripirrigationkits
createdsignificantinterestamongstfarmersandalocalfoodcanningandprocessingcompanythat
providesareadymarketforlocalproduce.Dripirrigationisexpectedtoboostproductionofirrigated
vegetables.Fiftydripirrigationkitsweredistributedfordemonstrationstofarmersinvegetable
irrigationclubsandninekitsweredistributedtoschoolsunderaschoolfeedingandnutritionprogram,
basedonorganicfarming.Thekitsareeachcapableofirrigatingupto200squaremetersofcropland.
Withoutdemonstrationstohighlighttheiradvantages,suchaswaterconservationandlaborsavings,
farmerswillbeunwillingtoacceptthekitsoncredit.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectduration:January2008toJune2008(fromCloseOutReport)
Projectis100%complete
1. Decreaseinsurfacewateruse
1. DECREASEINSURFACEWATERUSE
Approach
Waterusageandotheressentialinformationwerenotreported,sowatersavingswereestimatedbased
upondatareportedforadripkitirrigationprojectconductedinNigeria(ImprovedHealthand
LivelihoodsinNigeria'sRuralCommunities).WatersavingsinNigeriawerecomputedasthedifference
47
betweenpreprojectwaterusageandpostprojectwaterusage,resultinginsavingsfora4hectare
irrigatedplotasfollows:
Preprojectwaterusage:20,000L/day
Postprojectwaterusage:18,000L/day
Watersavings:2,000L/day
Numberofdaysofirrigationperyear:90
Benefit(watersavings)of180,000liters/year=0.18ML/yr
Datasources
Datadeficienciesforthisprojectare:
o Soiltype,pre&postprojectwaterrequirements,pre&postprojectirrigation
efficiencies,otherchangesimplementedinassociationwithdripirrigationsurvey
responsesforthisinformationisunknown.
o Sizeofirrigatedarea:Conflictinginformationprovided.Surveyresponsestates6
hectares,butthesupportinginformationis60kits@100m2whichequals0.6hectares
(60kits@100m2*1ha/10,000m2=0.6ha).Closeoutreportstatesthatareais1.18ha
(59kits@200m2).
Assumptions
ApproachassumessimilarconditionstoNigeriaproject
AssumedWatersavingsof2,000L/day
Assumednumberofdaysirrigation/yearat90
OTHERWATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED:None
NOTES:Sitespecificestimateofwatersavingscanbecomputedifdatadeficiencieslistedaboveare
addressed.
REFERENCES
DevelopmentAlternatives,Inc.2009.MalawiCloseOutReport:MountMulanjeCommunityWatershed
PartnershipProgram,WADAMalawiCloseOutReport.
CWPsurveyresponsefromGETFforImprovedHealthandLivelihoodsinNigeria'sRuralCommunities.
48
PROJECTNAME:ImprovedHealthandLivelihoodsinNigeria'sRuralCommunities
PROJECTID#:10
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Implementationofsmallscaleirrigationimprovements
LOCATION:Nigeria(4locations)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
Arlington,VA,22206
(703)3792713
OBJECTIVES
Increasecropyields
Promoteimprovedsmallscaleirrigationmethods
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Methodsforsmallscaledripirrigationwereintroduced.
Anincomegenerationprojectwasimplementedasapilotprojecttoenablefarmingofimproved
varietiesofvariouscropsandvegetablesthroughsustainablepractices.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectduration:20072008(fromCloseOutReportandsurveyresponse)
1. Decreaseinsurface/groundwaterusage
1. DECREASEINSURFACE/GROUNDWATERUSAGE
Approach&Results
Waterusagewasprovidedinsurveyresponse.Thewatersavingswerecomputedasthedifference
betweenpreprojectwaterusageandpostprojectusageateachofthe4croplandlocations.Thewater
benefitinlitersperyeariscalculatedasthewatersavingsinlitersperdaytimes90daysofirrigationper
year,asfollows:
Location1
Landarea:4hectares
Watersource:groundwaterwell
49
Waterusageratesondaysofirrigation:
o PreProject:20,000L/day
o Postproject:18,000L/day
o Watersavings:2,000L/day
o Waterbenefit:180,000L/year
Location2
Landarea:2hectares
Watersource:Challawadam(surfacewater)
Location3
Landarea:4hectares
Watersource:Wataridam(surfacewater)
Location4
Landarea:4hectares
Watersource:Wataridam(surfacewater)
TotalWaterSavingsBenefit(Locations14)
Benefit(watersavings)of1,260,000liters/year=1.26ML/yr
Datasources
Waterusagedatawereprovidedinsurveyresponses.
Reportednumberofdaysirrigation/year=90days
Assumptions
50
None
NOTES:
REFERENCES
WomanFarmersAdvancementNetwork.2009.ImprovedHealthandLivelihoodsinNigeriasRural
Communities,WADAMalawiCloseOutReport,January30.
51
PROJECTNAME:BigSpringWatershedProtection
PROJECTID#:14
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Leakdetectionandrepairofmunicipalwaterdistributionandpipingsystem
LOCATION:BoroughofBellefonte,Pennsylvania
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
JamesGazza,CSP
CocaColaNorthAmericaEcologist
Safety,EnvironmentalandSecurityManager
DeltaConsultants
CCDAWaters,LLC,Howard,PA
4047232433(cell)
8143578631
rstricker@deltaenv.com
jgazza@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND&DESRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:BigSpringisanapproximately16milliongallonperday
springwatersourceservingtheBoroughofBellefonte,anumberofneighboringcommunities(including
theBoroughofMilesburg)andcommercialcustomers.TheBoroughofBellefonteusesoversixmillion
gallonsofwaterperdaytoserviceitscommunity.Thecityhashadproblemswithagingpipingand
distributioninfrastructurethatwascausingleaksandwaterloss.TheBoroughCouncilconsidered
increasingwaterfeestofundinfrastructureimprovements,butCocaCola(theCCDAWaters,LLC
Milesburgplant)offeredtopartnerwiththeBoroughCounciltofundimprovementsinitsinfrastructure
inlieuofincreasingwaterfees.TheCocaColaplantpartneredwiththeBoroughtosupportthe
constructionofacatchmentaroundandacoverovertheBigSpringfrom1998to1999,tosupport
improvementsintheBigSpringpumphousefrom2006to2007,andtoprovidesonictestingofthe
pipingsystemtodetectleaksfrom2006tothepresent.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
ConstructionofacatchmentaroundandacoverovertheBigSpringfrom1998to1999
ImprovementsintheBigSpringpumphousefrom2006to2007
Sonictestingofthepipingsystemtodetectleaksandrepairofdetectedleaksfrom2006tothe
present
Approach
Watersavingsfromthedetectionandrepairofleaksinthewatersupplydistributionsystemare
reportedintheprojectsurveyreturnedbyDeltaConsultants.Since2006,thirdpartyleakdetection
technicianshaveidentified90leakswithestimatedwatersavingsof1,990,520gallonsofwater/day.
52

2008andonwardwatersavings
1,990,520gal/day=726,539,800gal/yr=2,750,252,320liters/year
Benefit(watersavings):2,750,252,320liters/year=2,750ML/yr
Datasources
Watersavingswerereportedinsurveyresponse.
Assumptions
20062008watersavingswouldhaveincreasedyearlyasmoreleakswererepairednodata
providedtodetermineactualsavingsduringthistimeperiod.
NOTES
Industriesandhomeownersbenefitedbecausewaterfeeswerenotincreased.
REFERENCES
53
PROJECTNAME:WildlandsConservancywithintheLehighValleyandLehigh_RiverAbandonedMine
DrainageTreatmentatLausanneTunnelandBigBuckMountain#2Tunnel(USPA)
PROJECTID#:15
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:
1. LausanneTunneloperation,maintenanceandmonitoringactivitiesnecessarytoensurethe
operationofa1.5acreacidminedrainage(AMD)passivewetlandtreatmentsysteminstalledto
treattheLausanneTunnelsdischargetotheNesquehoningCreek,atributaryoftheLehigh
River
2. BigBuckMountain#2Tunnelconstructionofapassivetreatmentsystemconsistingofa
flushableoxiclimestonedrainfollowedbyanaerobicwetlandbasintoneutralizeacidityand
reduceAMDmetalsloadingsfromtheBuckMountain#2TunneldischargeintoBuckMountain
CreekandtheLehighRiver.
LOCATION:
1. LausanneTunnelLehighGorgeStatePark,BoroughofJimThorpe,CarbonCounty,PA
2. BigBuckMountain#2BuckMountainCreek,LausanneTownship,LehighRiverwatershed,PA
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
OBJECTIVES:
1. LausanneTunnelreduceloadsofacidminedrainageconstituentsintoNesquehoningCreek
2. BigBuckMountain#2reduceloadsofacidminedrainageconstituentsintoBuckMountain
Creek
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Abandonedminedrainage(AMD)isundoubtedlythelargest
negativeimpacttowaterqualityintheLehighRiverwatershed.EachdaytheLehighRiverreceives
approximately75,000lbsofAMDrelatedheavymetals.TheLehighRiverwatershedcontainsnumerous
stripmines,pits,andundergroundworkingsbeingdrainedbyeightdischargesthatenterfourmajor
Lehightributaries.TwoAMDstructures(theLausanneTunnelandBigBuckMountain#2)arethefocus
ofthisprojectandaredescribedbelow.
1. LausanneTunnel
TheLausanneTunnelAbandonedMineDrainageRestorationProjectinvolvesa1.5acreconstructed
passivewetlandtreatmentsystemtotreatAMDfromtheLausanneTunneldischargeinto
NesquehoningCreek,atributaryoftheLehighRiver.Thedesignandconstructionactivitieswere
completedinJune2004.Beginningin2004,WildlandsConservancy,alongwithPADEPBureauof
AbandonedMineReclamation,hasconductedvisualsiteinspections,waterflowandwaterquality
samplingandanalysis,andvegetationinspectionstodeterminetheeffectivenessofthepassive
wetlandtreatmentsystemandtoaddressanyissuesorareasofconcern.Invasive/exoticplant
speciesareidentifiedandremovedbeforetheyspreadtoanextentthatcouldimpairthe
functionalityofthesystem.
54
LausanneTunnelDischarge(Photo:WildlandsConservancy)
Theabilitytoincreaseretentiontimeiscriticalbecausethelongerwaterisallowedtoremaininthe
systemthemoreopportunitythereisfortheheavymetalstoberemovedandabsorbedbyaquatic
plantsofthewetland.In2006adyetracerwasusedtostudywaterflowthroughthesystem
resultingintheinstallationofhaybalesbetweenthewetlandsegmentstoretardwaterflow.More
recentwaterqualitysamplingresultshaveledengineersfromtheBureauofAbandonedMine
Reclamationtosuggesttheinstallationoftwoweirsatthesite.Theweirswillfurtherincreasewater
retentiontimeinthewetlandsystemandallowcollectionofmoreaccuratewaterqualityandflow
data.
PassiveWetlandTreatmentSystem:LausanneTunnel
WetlandAwaterflowingover
waterflowsthroughpipes(forefront)intoWetlandA
haybalesintoWetlandB
(Photo:WildlandsConservancy)
(Photo:WildlandsConservancy)
FlowandwaterqualitysamplinghasbeenconductedattheLausanneTunnel,withinthewetlands,
andattheNesquehoningCreek,belowtheLausanneTunneldischarge.Waterqualitydatahasbeen
gatheredatLausanneTunnelsince1998.TheLausanneTunnelpassivewetlandtreatmentsystem
55
removessignificantquantitiesofheavymetalsfromthedischarge.Uponanalysisofannualdata
gatheredfrom2004to2007,theremovalofironfromthewatercontinuestoincreasesignificantly.
In2007,morethan48%ofthetotalironconcentrationwasremovedcomparedto2006when26%
wasremovedfromtheLausanneTunneldischarge.In2007,56%ofthealuminumconcentrationwas
removedcomparedto29%in2006.Sulfate,aluminumandironremovalrateshaveallimproved
sincethetreatmentsystemwascompletedin2004.
Total Removal of Iron, Aluminum & Manganese

from Lausanne Tunnel Outflow
3
2
Iron Total (mg/l)
mg/L
2
1
Aluminum (mg/l)
Manganese (mg/l)
1
0
-1
Total Removal - 2004
Total Removal of Sulfate from Lausanne Tunnel Outflow

80
60
40
mg/L
20
Sulfate Total (mg/l)
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
Total Removal - 2004 Total Removal - 2005 Total Removal - 2006 Total Removal - 2007
2. BigBuckMountain#2Tunnel
Thisremediationprojectinvolvestheconstructionofapassivetreatmentsystemconsistingofa
flushableoxiclimestonedrainfollowedbyanaerobicwetlandbasintoneutralizeacidityandreduce
metalsloadingsfromthedischarge.CompletionofthisprojectwillgreatlyreduceAMDloadings
fromtheBuckMountain#2TunneltoBuckMountainCreekandtheLehighRiver.Constructionwas
scheduledtobegininDecember2008.ByMay2009,theprojectwascompletebutnomonitoring
datahasbeenreported.
56
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
1. LausanneTunnel
June2004completionoftreatmentsystemdesignandconstructionactivities
2004Presentwaterqualityandflowmonitoring(mostrecentreporteddataisfrom2007)
2006waterflowdyestudyandinstallationofhaybalesbetweenwetlandsegmentsto
increasewaterretentiontimeinwetlands
20089futureinstallationofweirstoincreasewaterretentiontimeinwetlandsand
provideformoreaccurateflowmeasurements
May2009project30%complete(perMay26,2009emailfromRenaSticker)
2. BigBuckMountain#2Tunnel
December2008scheduledstartofAMDtreatmentsystemconstruction
May2009project100%complete(perMay26,2009emailfromRenaSticker)
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:
1. LausanneTunnel50%ofthe$20,000totalcost(reportedinLTICWPsurvey)
2. BigBuckMountain#2Tunnel5%ofthe$300,000totalcost(reportedinLTICWPsurvey)
WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSCALCULATED:LausanneTunnelonly
1. WaterQualityDecreasedpollutantloading
1. DECREASEINPOLLUTANTLOADINGLAUSANNETUNNEL
Approach&Results
DailyloadreductionswerereportedintheLTICWPsurveyforiron,aluminumandsulfates.
Thesystemispreventingapproximately120lbsofiron,45lbsofaluminum,and8,000lbsof
sulfatesfromenteringNesquehoningCreekandLehighRivereachday.
Additionalmonitoringdataforalkalinity,pH,totalsuspendedsolids,manganeseandhotacidity
wasreportedinunitsofconcentration,butflowdataand/orloadsassociatedwiththese
parameterswasnot;thereforereducedloadsfortheseadditionalparameterscouldnotbe
quantified.
WaterQualityBenefits(reducedloads):
20MT/yrtotaliron
7.5MT/yraluminum
1,327MT/yrsulfates
Datasources
SeeReferences
Assumptions

57
Concentrationchangesassociatedwiththepassivewetlandstreatmentsystemwerereported
alsoforalkalinity,pH,totalsuspendedsolids,manganese,andhotacidity.Associatedflowdata
werenotreportedandwaterqualityloadingbenefitswerenotcalculatedfortheseparameters.
NOTES:BigBuckMountainunabletoquantify,nomonitoringdatahasbeenreportedtodate.
REFERENCES
WildlandsConservancy,2008.CommunityWaterPartnershipsProjectofCocaColaFoundation&
WildlandsConservancywithintheLehighValleyandLehighRiverWatershedofEastern
Pennsylvania.ProjectUpdateReport,November10.
WildlandsConservancy,2007.LausanneTunnelAbandonedMineDrainageRestorationProject,Project
Completed2004.WildlandsConservancy,2007UpdateReport,July.
58
PROJECTNAME:WildlandsConservancywithintheLehighValleyandLehighRiver
PROJECTID#:15
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:JordanCreekstreamstabilizationproject
LOCATION:JordanCreeklocatedwithinLowhillTownship,LehighCounty(long:75.6331,lat:40.6522)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
OBJECTIVES:
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheJordanCreekStreamBankStabilizationProjectwill
includecompletingthedesign,permittingandconstructionofstreambankstabilizationimprovements,
andtheinstallationofnativeriparianplantingsalongapproximately1,000linearfeetoftheJordan
Creek,attheTrexlerNaturePreserveinLowhillTownship,LehighCounty.
Thisprojectisthefirstphaseofamultiphaserestorationstrategythroughoutaonemilestretchof
streamcharacterizedbyseverelyeroded,baresoilstreambanks(46feetinheight)andanalmost
completelackofinstreamstructuralhabitat.Becauseofthedegradedbankriparianzone,eachstorm
eventfurtherentrenchesthestreamanderodesthebanks.Theprojectwillinvolveinstallationof
multiplestreambankstabilizationandaquatichabitatimprovementstructures,andmanagementof
invasivespecies.Thebufferwillhelptocreateafunctioningfloodplain,filterrunoffanddecrease
sedimentationoftheJordanCreekwatershed.Thisprojectwillimprovestreambankstabilityalongthe
JordanCreek,reducenonpointsourcepollutionintheformofsedimentandexcessnutrients,improve
waterqualitywithintheLittleLehighwatershed,andprovideamodelforbestmanagementpractices.
JordanCreek(photoprovidedbyRenaSticker/DeltaConsultants)
59

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Planningisongoingandtheriparianplantingprojectwillbecompletedinfall2009.
CostsplitprovidedbyRenaStrickerin5/22/09email.Theother50%makesupadditional
partnerfundingsourcesandinkindservices.
Approach&Results:
erosionandwashoffforthelandareasadjacenttoJordanCreekthatdraindirectlytothecreekforthe
reachwheretherevegetationisplanned.ThedirectdrainageareasweredelineatedmanuallyinGIS
andoverlainwithlanduse,soils,andtopographydata.Thecharacteristicsofthisarea,includingland
usesandassociatedCurveNumbers(CN)andCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)canbesummarizedas
follows:
Totaldrainagearea:70.3acres(28.5ha)
Averageslope:11%
HydrologicsoilgroupC(lowinfiltrationrates)
Landuse:
o
42%forest(CN=70,Cusle=0.001)
51%pasture/openspace,faircondition(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
7%straightrowcrop,goodcondition(CN=85,Cusle=0.20)
Hourlyprecipitation,airtemperature,andpotentialevapotranspiration(PET)datawereobtainedforthe
Allentown,PAweatherstation(stationID:PA360106)forthe19702006period.Thesedatasetswere
usedtocalculatedailytotalprecipitationandPETandaverage/maximumairtemperature.
datasetsdescribedabove.Tosimplifythecalculations,areaweightedaverageCN(75.6)andCusle
(0.045)valueswerecomputedbasedonthelandusedistributionpresentedabove.Thetotaldirect
drainagesedimentloadtoJordanCreekforthereachofinterestwasestimatedtobe567MT/yr.
TheSWATmodelprovidesanequationtoestimatethereductioninsedimentloadduetothepresence
ofariparianbuffer(Equation6:1.11.2;Neitschetal.2005).Usingthisequation,atrappingefficiencyof
1.4%iscalculatedforanassumedbufferwidthof10feet(3.0m).Therefore,thetotalreductionin
sedimentloadisestimatedas7.9MT/yr.
60
DataSources:
Sizeofdirectdrainagearea:70.3acres(28.5ha)(estimatedfromGIS)
Slope:11%(estimatedviaGISbasedonlocaltopographicdatasets)
Soiltype:predominantlyhydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)C
Meteorologicaldata:
Hourlyprecipitation,airtemperature,andPETdatawereobtainedforAllentown,PAfor
the19702006period.
STATSGOsoilsdataobtainedfromUSEPABASINS4wereusedtoestimateanaveragesoil
erodibilityfactor(K)of0.24foruseintheMUSLEequation.
Assumptions:
Bufferwidthwasassumedtobeapproximately10feet(3.0m)oneithersideofthecreek.
Riparianbufferwasassumedtobesufficientlymatureinordertooptimallyfiltersediment.
TheSWATbasedCNCOEFparameterwasassumedtobe0.0(parameterusedtocalculate
changeinsoilmoisturecapacitybasedondailyPET).
Reductionofinstreambanksedimenterosionandaccompanyingloadingofsedimentsand
nutrientsintostream
Improvementsinqualityoffishhabitat
NOTES
REFERENCES
61
PROJECTID#:15
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:LittleLehighStreamBankStabilizationProjectatPooleWildlifeSanctuary
LOCATION:JordanWildlandsConservancy/PooleWildlifeSanctuaryinEmmaus,PA(long:75.6331,lat:
40.6522)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
OBJECTIVES:
Reductionofsedimentrunofftothestream
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheLittleLehighStreamBankStabilizationProjectatPoole
WildlifeSanctuaryprojectwillinvolvetheinstallationandmaintenanceofabrushrevetmentstructure
alongapproximately250linearfeetofstreambank,andmaintenanceofpreviouslyconstructedstream
bankstabilizationandfishhabitatenhancementstructures.Implementationofthisprojecthas
improvedstreambankstabilityalongapproximately250linearfeetofstreambankoftheLittleLehigh
Creek,reducednonpointsourcepollution(intheformofsediment)andimprovedwaterqualitywithin
theLittleLehighCreek;improvedprotectionofWildlandsConservancysfloodplainboardwalkstructure,
publicsafetyandfutureaccesstoWildlandsConservancy/PoolWildlifeSanctuarysfloodplaintrails
whichareutilizedforpublicrecreationandeducationalprogrammingactivities,andaBest
ManagementPracticesdemonstrationsiteforlocalmunicipalities,privatelandownersandthegeneral
public.
ErodedbankinLittleLehighRiver
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectwasimplementedbytheendof2008.
62

Approach&Results:
erosionandrunoffforthelandareasadjacenttoJordanCreekthatdraindirectlytothecreekforthe
andoverlainwithlandsuse,soils,andtopographydata.Thecharacteristicsofthisarea,includingland
usesandassociatedCurveNumbers(CN)andCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)canbesummarizedas
follows:
Totaldrainagearea:32.7acres(13.2ha)
Averageslope:4%
HydrologicsoilgroupB(moderateinfiltrationrates)
Landuse:
o
47%lowdensityresidential
80%openspace,faircondition(CN=69,Cusle=0.06)
20%impervious(CN=98,Cusle=0)
32%forest(CN=55,Cusle=0.001)
21%pasture/openspace,faircondition(CN=69,Cusle=0.06)
datasetsdescribedabove.Tosimplifythecalculations,areaweightedaverageCN(67.2)andCusle
(0.035)valueswerecomputedbasedonthelandusedistributionpresentedabove.Thetotaldirect
drainagesedimentloadtoJordanCreekforthereachofinterestwasestimatedtobe248MT/yr.
63

DataSources:
Characterizedbymoderateinfiltrationrates
Meteorologicaldata:
the19702006period.
Assumptions:
NOTES
REFERENCES
64
PROJECTID#:15
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:MonocacyCreekStreamRestorationProjects
LOCATIONS:TwoprojectsiteswithintheMonocacyCreekwatershed:
1. JustEnuffAngusFarm,EastAllenTownship,NorthamptonCounty
2. EdgewoodValleyFarms,BushkillTownship,NorthamptonCounty
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
OBJECTIVES:
Reductionofsedimentrunofftothestream
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheMonocacyCreekStreamRestorationProjectswere
implementedtoimprovewaterqualityandaquatichabitatconditionsintwotributariesofthe
MonocacyCreek.Theseprojectsalsoserveaseducation/demonstrationprojectsforsimilarstreamand
riparianbufferenhancementprojectsonagriculturallands.Theprojectscollectivelyincluded
establishmentofriparianbufferareaswithnativeplants,enhancementofexistingriparianbufferareas,
constructionofstreamfencingforlivestockexclusion,andconstructionofstabilizedagricultural
crossings.Theprojectsresultedinimprovedstreamandripariancorridorhabitatconditionsalong
approximately3,000linearfeetofstreamandestablishmentandenhancementofapproximatelytwo
acresofriparianbufferhabitats.Inaddition250linearfeetofuplandstreambankwasrepairedat
EdgewoodValleyFarmsthroughstormwaterbestmanagementpractices.
EdgewoodValleyFarms:Preproject(left)&PostProject(right)Conditions
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectwasimplementedpriortotheendof2008.
65
Approach&Results:
erosionandrunoffforthelandareasadjacenttoJordanCreekthatdraindirectlytothecreekforthe
andoverlainwithlandsuse,soils,andtopographydata.Thecharacteristicsofthisarea,includingland
usesandassociatedCurveNumbers(CN)andCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)aresummarizedbelow.
datasetsdescribedabove.Tosimplifythecalculations,areaweightedaverageCN(Edgewood:83.6,Just
Enuff:85.9)andCusle(Edgewood:0.15,JustEnuff:0.16)valueswerecomputedbasedonthelanduse
distributionpresentedabove.ThetotaldirectdrainagesedimentloadtoMonocracyCreektributaries
forthereachesofinterestwasestimatedtobe540MT/yr.
DrainageAreaCharacteristics:
Totaldrainagearea:91acres(36.8ha)
o
EdgewoodValleyFarm:18acres
JustEnuffAngusFarm:73acres
Averageslope:
o
EdgewoodValleyFarm:7.5%
JustEnuffAngusFarm:2.5%
Hydrologicsoilgroup:
o
EdgewoodValleyFarm:PA033typeC(lowinfiltrationrates),K=0.24
66
JustEnuffAngusFarm:PA076typeB(moderateinfiltrationrates),K=0.32
Landuse:
o
EdgewoodValleyFarms:
64%rowcrop(CN=88,Cusle=0.20)
13%pasturefaircondition(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
11%low/mediumdensityresidential
80%pervious(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
20%impervious(CN=98,Cusle=0.00)
10%openspace(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
JustEnuffAngusFarm:
72%rowcrop(CN=88,Cusle=0.20)
4%pasturefaircondition(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
9%low/mediumdensityresidential
80%pervious(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
20%impervious(CN=98,Cusle=0.00)
15%openspace(CN=79,Cusle=0.06)
DataSources:
Characterizedbymoderateinfiltrationrates
Meteorologicaldata:
the19702006period.
Assumptions:
67
Reductionsindeliveryofnutrientstothestreams
NOTES
REFERENCES
68
PROJECTNAME:ClearWaterCommunityWatershedPartnershipScotiaBarrensHalfmoonWildlife
Corridor(USPA)
PROJECTID#:16
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Landprotectionandconservation
LOCATION:AdjoininglandparcelsintheSpringCreekwatershedofHalfmoonTownshipnearState
College,PA.Thelandconsistsof2subparcelscontainingcropfields,mixeddeciduousandconiferous
forest:
40acres(16.2ha)previouslywasgoingtobeconvertedtoLDR
66acres(26.7ha)offorested,agricultural,andpastureland
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
OBJECTIVES:
Conservation/protectionofacorridorforwildlifepassage
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:ClearWaterConservancyisworkingwiththecommunityto
completeacriticalconservationproject.Apocketofecologicaltreasures,theScotiaBarrensisan
exceptionalecosystemofrarenaturalcommunitytypes.Manyofthewildlifespecieswhichcallthe
ScotiaBarrenshomewoulddisappearfromtheregionifthebarrenshabitatwerelost.Becauseofits
closeproximitytothegrowingcommunityofStateCollege,residentialdevelopmentthreatensto
consumelargepocketsofthisrarehabitatandisolateitfromothernearbynatureareas.Tobalancethis
growthandtomaintainourcommunityssenseofplace,ClearWaterConservancyhasinitiatedthe
ScotiaBarrensConservationProjecttopreventisolationofScotiaBarrensfromencroaching
development,toincreasethesizeofprotectedbarrenshabitat,andtoeducatethecommunityabout
thisvaluableresource.
AspartofthelargerScotiaBarrensConservationProject,weareworkingtomaintainnatural
connectionsbetweenScotiaBarrensandTusseyandBaldEagleMountains.Significantdevelopment
pressurefromthenorthimminentlythreatenstoisolatetheBarrensfromthelargeforestedtractsof
BaldEagleMountain,itselfanimportantnaturalresource.Eventhoughthereappearstobeopenspace
remainingasonemakesthedrivefromRoute322westalongRoute550towardsStormstown,thefactis
thatfuturedevelopmentsareonthebooksforallbutasliverbetweenScotiaBarrensandtheridge.
EcologicalisolationofScotiaBarrensthreatensviablepopulationsofwildlife,includingmanyneotropical
birdspecies.AccordingtothePennsylvaniaGameCommission,WesternPennsylvaniaConservancy,
AudubonPennsylvania,andPartnersinFlight,connectionsbetweenScotiaBarrensandBaldEagle
MountainmustbemaintainedtoallowwildlifepopulationstoflourishwithinScotiaBarrens.
Timeisoftheessence.ThereremainsonlyonepotentialwildlifecorridorconnectingScotiaBarrenswith
BaldEagleMountain.ClearWaterrecognizedthisopportunityandhasbeenworkingdiligentlyoverthe
pastseveralyearstoproactivelylaythefoundationsforlandacquisitionstoensurethatthiswildlife
corridorismaintainedandprotected.ClearWaterConservancynowhastheopportunitytoprotect106
69
acresofthislastwildlifecorridorthroughacombinationoflandpurchaseandtheHalfmoonTownship
OpenSpacePreservationProgram(leaseofdevelopmentrights).Protectionofthis106acrepropertyis
keytoprotectingtwoadditionaladjacentproperties.
[TextandfigurefromClearWaterConservancywebsite
http://www.clearwaterconservancy.org/Halfmoon%20Wildlife%20Corridor.htm]
70
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
AgreementofSalesignedMarch2009
Stillfundraising;haveuntilMarch2010tocompletethepurchase
Afterpurchaseofthepropertyandconservationeasementsareinplace,intentionistowork
withadjoiningconservationlandowneronriparianbufferplantings,etc.
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:0.71%
Totalcost:$700,000(confirmedbyRenaStricker,5/22/09email)
TCCCcontribution:$5,000(reportedinLTICWPsurvey)
1. Decreaseinrunoff
2. Decreaseinsedimentload
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethechangeinrunofffortheconversionofwoodlandarealow
densityresidentialdevelopment(40acres)andopenrange/pasture(66acres).Waterquantity
calculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasa
usefulindicatorforbothhydrologicimprovements(e.g.,enhancedbaseflow)andreductionsinsediment
erosion/yield;and2)predictionsofrunoffaremorecertainthanpredictionsforchangesinbaseflowfor
relativelysmalllandareas.
Forthe40acre(16.2ha)parcel:
Preproject:lowdensityresidentialuse(postdevelopment)
o
Openspaceingoodcondition,>75%cover(CN=74,soilgroupC)
Impervioussurfacesroofs,pavement,etc.(CN=98,soilgroupC)
80%ofarea(13.0ha)
20%ofarea(3.2ha)
Postproject:woodlands
o
Woodsingoodcondition(CN=70,soilgroupC)
Assumeeventualcompletereforestationofpreservedarea
Forthe66acre(26.7ha)parcel:
Preproject:openrange(postdevelopment)
o
Openspaceingoodcondition,>75%cover(CN=74,soilgroupC)
71
Postproject:
o
Woodsingoodcondition(CN=70,soilgroupC)
Assumeeventualcompletereforestationofpreservedarea
HourlymeteorologicaldatafortheweatherstationlocatedatStateCollege,PAwereobtainedfromthe
databaseprovidedaspartofUSEPAsBASINS4watershedmodelingsoftwarepackage.Hourlydata
wereusedtocomputetotaldailyprecipitation,maximumhourlyrainfallintensity,dailyaverageand
maximumairtemperature,anddailytotalpotentialevapotranspiration(PET).
postprojectcasesfora12yearperiod(19952006),includingtheeffectsofseasonalsnowaccumulation
andmelt.Totalannualaveragerunoffvolumesandtheresultingwaterquantitybenefitwereestimated
asfollows:
Preproject(postdevelopment):162.1ML/yr
Postproject(preserved,reforested):150.2ML/yr
DataSources:
Sizeofareatargetedforconservation/reforestation:106acres(42.9ha)
Slope:5%for40acparcel,15%for66acparcel(estimatedbasedonlocaltopographic
datasets)
Soiltype:predominantlyhydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)C
Meteorologicaldata:
HourlymeteorologicaldatawereobtainedforStateCollege,PAforthe19952006
period.
Assumptions:
Oftheconservedarea,the40acreparcelwasassumedtobesubjecttolowresidential
residentialdevelopment,andthe66acreparcelwasassumedtobeopenrange.
Approach&Results:
72
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertingwoodlandtolowdensityresidentialandopenrangeland.The
meteorologicalandphysicaldatasetsdescribedabovefortherunoffcalculationwereused.Estimatesof
runoffvolumewerebasedontheCurveNumbermethoddescribedintheprevioussection,anddaily
maximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswerecalculatedbasedonhourlyprecipitationdataforthe1970
1998period.
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)fortheMUSLEwereestimatedasfollowsbasedonHaith(1992):
Preproject:postdevelopmentcondition
o
Openspace(80%grasscover):C=0.01
Imperviousarearoofs,pavement,etc.:C=0.00(conservativelyassumeminimal
sedimentavailability)
Postproject:conservedcondition
o
Woodswith75100%canopy:C=0.001
Preproject:248.1MT/yr
Postproject:24.9MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
Landslopewasassumedtobe5%onaverageforthe40acreparceland15%onaverageforthe
66acreparcel.
amongyears).
Terrestrialhabitatbenefits
NOTES

73
REFERENCES
ClearWaterConservancywebsite
http://www.clearwaterconservancy.org/Halfmoon%20Wildlife%20Corridor.htm
74
PROJECTNAME:NilesCommunityRainGarden
PROJECTID#:18
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Constructionofaraingardenonavacanturbanlandparcel
LOCATION:WestTouhyAvenue,Niles,IL(42o043N,87o4817W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
StevenC.Vinezeano
WatershedCoordinationforCocaColaNorthAmerica AssistantVillageManager
DeltaConsultants
VillageofNiles
1000CivicCenterDr.
Niles,IL60714
4047232433(cell)
8475888007
scv@vniles.com
OBJECTIVES:
ReductionofsedimentandotherpollutantrunoffintostormsewersandNorthBranchof
ChicagoRiver
Improvedstormwaterinfiltration
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheVillageofNilesandCocaColainstalledtheVillagesfirst
municipalraingarden,whichmaybethelargestofitskindinCookCounty,accordingtothePresidentof
TheConservationFoundation.Thefirstphaseoftheprojecttransformedanunderutilizedvacantloton
WestTouhyAvenueintoaspecializedgardendesignedtosoakupandfilterrainwaterrunofffrom
surroundingbuildingsandparkinglots.Themunicipalpropertyiswheretwostructuresoncestoodand
wascoveredbyvariousturfgrassspeciesandsomeareaswithnovegetationduetodisturbanceor
pondingwaterthatkilledthegrass.Futureplannedworkincludesinstallationofthreesmallerrain
gardensandalargeareaofprairiegrassinordertoaccommodateallofthestormwaterthatthesite
receives.Oncefinalized,thesitewillnotrequireuseanyfertilizer,herbicideorpesticide.Inadditionto
theplantings,theplancallsforapermeablewalkingpath,recycledcontentbenches,educational
signage,andsomemiscellaneoussitework.Rainbarrelinstallationscollectingstormwaterfromanarea
of1.5acresareplannedatalaterdate.
Totaldrainageareagoingtotheraingardenis1.5acre(65,340ft2).Theraingardenwillretain
approximatelythefirstinchofrainfall.Thisraingardenisapproximately1400squarefeetandhasover
560nativeforbs(flowers)andgrassesinthefirstphase.Theplantmix(sand,topsoil,organicmulch)in
theraingardenandbioswaleareawillsignificantlyincreasetheabsorptionrateofthesoils.Runofffrom
roofs,lawnfertilizers,pesticides,oil(andotherfluidsthattypicallyleakfromcars)arefilteredintherain
garden.Thenativeplantsabsorbandconsumepollutants.Thishelpsprotectlocalstreamsandrivers
fromfloodingandpollutionproblems.Raingardenandbioswaleareasallowtherainwatertoinfiltrate
andwaterisfurthercleansedthroughevapotranspirationbythenativeplants.Theraingardenprovides
anewvaluablehabitatforbutterflies,birdsandotherinsects.Raingardensattractdragonflieswhich
consumemosquitoesathighrates.Onceestablished,raingardensarelowmaintenanceandattractive
landscapes.
75
VillageofNilesCommunityRainGardenconceptualplan(Source:VillageofNileswebsite)
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
PercentcompleteasofDecember31,2008:25%
Completionschedulenotavaialable.Assumedcompletedin2009.
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola($22,000)
1. Decreaseinstormwaterrunoffintosewersandstreams
76

1. DECREASEINSTORMWATERRUNOFFTOSEWERS/STREAMS
Approach&Results:
Averageannualrainfallcapturedbyraingarden(rainfalluptoa1/hourstorm):35.5
inches/year=0.90meters
Drainagearea:1.5acres=6,070.3squaremeters
Volumeofrunoffcapturedbyraingarden:0.9metersrainfall*6,070squaremetersarea=
5472.85cubicmetersstormwater=5.46millionlitersstormwater/year
Benefit(runoffdecrease):5.5ML/year
DataSources:
FromvillageofNileswebsiteandLTICWPSurvey:
Drainagearea:1.5acres
Areaofraingarden:1,400ft2
Raingardencollectsupto1inchofrainfallfromsurrounding1.5acrearea.
Slopeoflandsurface:02%
Predominantsoiltype(s)intheprojectarea:silt/clay
Soiltype(s)intheraingardenandbioswalearea:sand,topsoil,organicmulch
Assumptions:
Decreasedpollutantloadingtoreceivingwaters.
NOTES
Rainbarrelsareplannedforthefuture.
REFERENCES
VillageofNiles,ILCommunityRainGardenwebsite:http://www.vniles.com/Content/templates/?a=207&cat=62
77
PROJECTNAME:ChesapeakeBayRainBarrelDonationProgram
PROJECTID#:20
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Rainbarreldistributionforcommunityhouseholdandschool/businessuse.
LOCATION:Baltimore,MDandCharlottesville,VA
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
NickMartin
KateRumbaugh
WatershedCoordinationfor
SeniorProjectManger
CocaColaEnterprises
DeltaConsultants
DeltaConsultants
CocaColaEnterprises
8043326401
4103021776
4047232433(cell)
nmartin@deltaenv.com
krumbaugh@cokecce.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reductioninstormwaterrunoff
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheCocaColaCompanyispartneringwithwatershedgroups
intheChesapeakeBayareatodistributeCocaCola55gallonsyrupdrumsforreuseasrainbarrels.Our
partnerorganizationsareprimarilysupportingrainbarreluseforresidentialproperties.Theuseof
collectedwaterrunsarelativelysmallgamutfromuseforlightgardeningworktoexteriorhousehold
cleaningneeds(vehiclewashing).Asmallportionofbarrelsaredonatedtolocalschoolsandbusinesses.
Bycollectingrainwaterthatnormallyflowsoffaproperty,rainbarrelssavemoneyonwaterbills,
conservewaterduringdryperiodsandpreventpollutedrunoff.Thereuseofthese55gallonbarrelswill
notonlyhelpintheefforttoprotecttheChesapeakeBaywatershed,butalsoeliminatetheenergy
CocaColawouldexpendrecyclingtheplasticbarrels.In2008,750rainbarrelsweredonatedandithas
beenestimatedthat600barrelsweredistributedinthegreaterBaltimore,MDmetropolitanareaand
50barrelsweredistributedintheCharlottesville,VAarea.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
2008:750rainbarrelsweredonatedandithasbeenestimatedthat600barrelsweredistributed
inthegreaterBaltimore,MDmetropolitanregionand50barrelsweredistributedin
Charlottesville,VA.
Theactivityisexpectedtocontinueforatleast3years(through2011),withanestimated500
drumsdonatedannually.
1. Decreaseinstormwaterrunoff
78
DECREASEINSTORMWATERRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
DeltaConsultantsdevelopedandusedaMicrosoftExcelbasedrainbarrelcalculatortoestimatethe
waterbenefitfromuseofdonatedrainbarrels.Thecalculatorisfoundeduponasupplyanddemand
methodologyandincludesgeographyspecificinputdata,asfollows:
SupplyCalculations:
Tocalculatethepotentialrainwateravailableforharvest,thecalculatorutilizesthefollowingformula
andvariables:
CatchmentSizeXNumberofBarrelsXTotalPrecipitationXCatchmentEfficiencyCoefficient
CatchmentSizeBaseduponanassignedpercentageoftheaveragesinglefamilyhomeandschool.For
example,theaveragesinglefamilyroofsizeis1,200squarefeetwithmosthouseshavingapeakedroof.
Therefore,thecalculatorutilizes600squarefeetasthecatchmentsite.
NumberofBarrelsAnestimateofthenumberofdonatedbarrelsactuallydistributedandinuse.
TotalPrecipitationCombinedmonthlyrainfallandsnowfall.SnowfallisconvertedtoSnowWater
Equivalentusinga0.20densitycoefficient.Precipitationdataispreloadedforselectgeographic
locations.
CatchmentEfficiencyCoefficientAn85%runoffcoefficientwasselected,meaning85%oftherain
fallingonthecatchmentwillrunofftothegutterandrainbarrel.Theother15%willbelostto
evaporation,wind,leaks,infiltrationintothecatchmentsurface,etc.
DemandCalculations:
Tocalculatethedemandorestimatedbarrelwateruse,thecalculatorutilizesthefollowingformulaand
variablesforbothhouseholdsandschools/businesses.
(EvapotranspirationXLandscapeCoefficientXLandscapeArea)+EstimatedOtherUseXOverflowLoss
EvapotranspirationDataispreloadedforselectgeographiclocations.
LandscapeCoefficientAlsocommonlyreferredtoasthe"PlantFactor"andthefunctionalequivalent
ofthe"CropCoefficient."Afactorof0.55wasselectedwhichisanaveragevalueformoderatewatering
needs.Turfgrassesarecommonly0.60.8,whereasgardensandshrubsarecloserto0.40onaverage.
LandscapeAreaTheestimatedsquarefootageofthelandscapeareservicedbytherainbarrel.The
householdaverageis300squarefeetandtheschool/businessis700squarefeet.Thelargerlandscape
areaforschools/businessesaccountsfordesignatedgroundspersonnel.
EstimatedOtherUseEstimatesfortheamountofwaterutilizedineachgivenmonthforpurposes
otherthanlandscapingorgardening(e.g.,washingavehicle).
OverflowLossApercentagereductionbaseduponthemonthtomonthprobabilityofreceivingmore
than0.30precipitationinasingleday.Thisrepresentstheapproximateamounttofillarainbarrel.
Estimatedannualcapture(2008):
Baltimore(600barrelsin2008):2,137,320gallons=8.09ML/yr
Charlottesville(50gallonsin2008):169,569gallons=0.642ML/yr
Totalbenefit=8.73ML/yr
79
DataSources:
SoutheastRegionalClimateCenter(http://www.sercc.com)
HarvestingWaterforLandscapeUse(http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1052/harvest.html)
GuideToEstimatingIrrigationWaterNeed(http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/wucols00.pdf)
CropWaterRequirements(http://texaset.tamu.edu/coefs.php)
CWPSurveycompletedbyCurtisEtherlyofCocaColaEnterprises(CCE)
Assumptions:
Homeownersandschool/businessrepresentativesthatattendaworkshopandreceivearain
barrelthroughthedonationprogramwilluseitconsistentlytocollectrainwaterfromroofed
areasandusethecollectedwaterforgardening,cleaning,andotheroutdooruses.
Giventhat55gallonsisarelativelysmallstorageamount,thekeytoestimatingactualharvestis
toestimatetheamountofwaterremovedfromthebarreleachmonth.
Ofthe750totalbarrelsdonatedtopartnerorganizations,650areestimatedtobeinuse.
Additionalassumptionsincorporatedintothecalculatorformulasandcoefficients.
Reductioninmunicipalwaterusageduetouseofwatercollectedinrainbarrelsforgardening,
andotheractivities.
NOTES:
Thecalculatorassumesthatalldonatedbarrelswillbehookedupandusedtoharvestrainwater
fromrooftops.Currentlynodataexisttodetermineifthisistrue,orwhattheactualpercentage
mightbe.
REFERENCES
AlliancefortheChesapeakeBaywebsite
http://www.alliancechesbay.org/pressrelease.cfm?id=248
CityofPhiladelphiaRainBarrelProgram
http://www.phillywatersheds.org/rainbarrel/rb_map.htm
NineMileRunRainBarrelInitiativeFinalReport
http://www.harvesth2o.com/adobe_files/Runoff_Report.pdf
VirginiaCooperativeExtension
Estimatesthatgardensrequire65to130gallonsofwaterper100squarefeetonceperweek.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(Region3)
Estimatesthatonebarrelcansavetheaveragehouseholdapproximately1,300gallonsoverthethree
peaksummermonths.http://www.epa.gov/Region3/p2/whatisrainbarrel.pdf
CornellCooperativeExtensionofOnondagaCountyRainBarrelPilotStudy
http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/onondaga/Rain%20Barrel%20Pilot%20Study%20Concludes%20in%20Ska
neateles%20long%20version.pdf
80
PROJECTNAME:TCCCWWFPartnership:RioGrande/RioBravoBasin
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofinvasiveplantsandnaturallevees,banklinedestabilization,and
otherrestorationactivities.
LOCATION:MiddlePecosRiver,NewMexico(BitterLakeRestoration):Reaches2and3
PRIMARYCONTACT:
BethBardwell
elizabeth.bardwell@wwfus.org
(575)6403415
OBJECTIVES
Reestablishchannelmorphologyandriverfloodplainconnectivity
ThelossoffloodplainconnectivityintheMiddlePecosRivercontributestodegradationofthehabitatof
numerousaquaticandriparianspeciesincludingthenativeNewMexicoPecosbluntnoseshiner.Dense
thicketsofaninvasiveplant,saltcedar,poseafirerisk(FWS,2007).Birds,fish,amphibians,andnative
riparianplantcommunitieswillbenefitfromaconnectedfloodplain.
Thisprojectinvolvesrestorationofa5.7milereach.Theprimaryactivitiesareremovalofbankline
leveesandassociatedtamariskthickets,removaloftamariskthicketsonpointbars,andthe
reconnectionofasmalloxbowlakeatthenorthendofReach2.(FWS,2007)
ThesemodificationsaredesignedtoworkwithinthemodernhydrologyofthePecosRiver.(FWS,
2007)
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(basedonFWS,2007andpersonalcommunicationswithB.Bardwell)
Technicalstudieshavebeencompletedandprojectisreadytoproceed.
FinalEAandFONSIcompletedFeburary2009
SaltcedarRemovalcompletedSpring2009
BanklineDestabilizationanticipatedFall2009
Additionalsaltcedarremoval,revegetationandconstructionanticipatedthrough2011.
Adaptivemanagementmonitoring:20092011andbeyond.
COKECONTRIBUTION:TBD
WWFmatchingfundsfromTCCCforstateRiverEcosystemRestorationInitiativeGrant:$25,000
overlifeofgrant
WWFalsousedTCCCfundstolobbyforNewMexicostateappropriationstotheRiver
EcosystemRestorationInitiativewhichawardeda$513,000granttoU.S.FWSforthisproject:
$25,000includingthirdpartycontractsforlobbyistand%ofB.Bardwellssalary.
Assumed1%forcurrentestimate.
1. Increaseindirectstreamflow
81
1. INCREASEINDIRECTSTREAMFLOW
ApproachandResults
Theapproachwastoestimatethevolumeofanticipatedfloodplaininundation(thevolumeofwater
thatwouldhaveotherwisefloweddownstreamwithoutservingimportantfloodplainfunctions).
Itisestimatedthat100acresoffloodplainwillbeenhancedforannuallyrecurringfloodsbetween1200
and3700cfs(FWS,2007).Thefloodplainwillalsobefloodedduringrarerfloodsabove3700cfs,but
thesewerenotincludedintheanalysis,sotheestimateisconservative.
100acresfloodedannually*1footaveragedepth=100acft/yr
100acft/yr=123ML/yr
Datasources
AcreagefloodedunderdifferentflowconditionsprovidedinFWS,2007.
Assumptions
Itwasassumedthatreoccurringfloodsbetween1200and3700cfsoccuronaverageonlyoncea
year
Anaveragewaterdepthof1footinthefloodplainwasassumed.
ItwasassumedthatrestorationwillproceedaccordingtotheFWSproposedschedule.
Removalofinvasiveplantsandrevegetationwithnativespecieswillexpandhabitatavailability
andquality,andleadtoincreasedabundanceofbirds,mammals,reptiles,andfish.
Theriskoffireassociatedwithdensesaltcedarstandswillbereduced.
Reconnectingspringflowstotheriver.
Attenuationoffloodingdownstreamfromrestorationsitefromincreasedstorageoffloodflows
onthefloodplain
NOTES
TCCCpercentcostcontributionisunknownrequiresfurtherinvestigation.
REFERENCES
FWS,2007.ProposalforNewMexicos2007RiverEcosystemProgram:PecosRiverRestoration,Phase
II:RepairingFloodplainConnectivity.
82
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofstreamsideinvasiveplants,quantifyingandsecuring
environmentalflowpulsestoremobilizechannelsedimentsandpromotechannelconditionsthatare
wide,shallow,andlaterallyunstable,leadingtoimprovedaquaticandriparianforavarietyofnative
species.
LOCATION:RioGrande,Texas(BigBend)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
MarkBriggs
ActingDirector,LasCrucesOffice,
ChihuahuanDesertProgram,WorldWildlifeFund
(520)5484045
mkbriggs@msn.com
OBJECTIVES
Reestablishchannelmorphologyandriverfloodplainconnectivity
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Themainobjectiveofthecurrenttreatmentsalongthe
BigBendreachoftheRioGrandeistoreestablishwideandshallowchannelmorphologicconditionsthat
willprovidesignificantactivefloodplainareasforreplenishmentunderthecurrenthydrologicregimeof
theriver.Measurestoreestablishfloodplainconnectivityaretargetedatincreasingthefrequencyand
durationofoverbankinundationthroughremovalofinvasiveplantsandnaturallevees,bankline
destabilization,andotheractivities,whichvarybylocation.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(perM.Briggs,WWF)
Implementationthrough2020,withannualincreasedareaofnewlyestablishedfloodplain
surfacesconducivetoreplenishment(seeattachedspreadsheet).
Assumed30%forcurrentestimate
29%TCCC71%NOAA,NationalParkService,andALON
1. Increasereplenishmentofhydrologicallyreconnectedfloodplainsurfaces
1. Increasereplenishmentofhydrologicallyreconnectedfloodplainsurfaces
ApproachandResults(perMarkBriggs)
Thebenefitwascalculatedasanestimateoftransmissionratesthroughfloodplainsurfacesthathave
beenhydrologicallyreconnectedtotheriverviaconservationactivities..
83
Basedonexperience,WWFwillbeabletodirectlytreataboutonethird(duetoaccessandchannel
morphologicconditions)oftheriverchannellengthalongtheBigBendreachoftheRioGrande.The
totallengthoftheBigBendreachfromPresidothroughBoquillasCanyonisapproximately216Km,
whichmeansjustover70Kmmayultimatelybetreatedintheyearstocome.Todate,WWFhastreated
justover14Kmofriverchannel,whichhasresultedinreestablishingactivefloodplainsurfacesalongthe
treatedreachthataverage8mwideonbothsidesofthechannel.
WWFanticipatesintheforeseeablefuturethattheywillbeabletotreatonaverageabout5Kmofriver
channelperyear(bothsides).Inthecurrenthydrologicregime,thenewlyreestablishedactive
floodplainsurfaceswillbeinundatedonaverageaboutthreedaysperyear.
AlluviumalongtheBigBendreachisasandyloamtosandy,whichequatestoaseepagerate(or
replenishmentrate)ofabout1.01m^3perm^2perdayofinundationforthenewlyestablishedactive
floodplainsurfaces.
Estimatedreplenishmentrate:
2009:616.79ML/yr
2010:837.076ML/yr
2011:1,057.36ML/yr
2012:1,277.64ML/yr
2013:1,497.93ML/yr
(estimatesthrough2020providedinattachedspreadsheet)
Datasources
CalculationsprovidedbyM.Briggs,WWF(seeattachedspreadsheet)
Assumptions(seeattachedspreadsheet)
Ratingcurvesforfloodplainsurfacesareunderdevelopment,sorecurrenceintervalofthe
dischargerequiredtoinundateactivefloodplainsurfacesthathavebeenreestablisheddueto
treatmentsiscurrentlyunknown.Itwasassumed(conservatively)thatnewlycreatedfloodplain
surfaceswillbeinundatedonaveragethreedaysperyearunderthecurrenthydrological
regime.
Itisassumedthatagreementsarereachedandprojectedwaterandwaterrightstransferswill
occurasanticipated.
andquality,andleadtoincreasedabundanceofnativebirds,mammals,reptiles,andfish.
Reductionoffireriskassociatedwithdensesaltcedarstands.
Reducedfloodfrequencyandfloodhazardtostreamsidetownsandinfrastructure.
NOTES
Theseareverypreliminaryandconservativeestimatesbasedoninformationavailableatthe
presenttime.Moreaccurateestimateswillbemadeasdatabecomesavailableandmodel
refinementsarecompleted.
84
ApproachusedfortheNewMexicoreachwouldnotbeappropriateforBigBendbecausewater
rightspurchasedforenvironmentalflowpurposesontheUSsidearerunofriverandwouldnot
benefitfloodplainecologywithoutreestablishmentoffloodplainconnectivity.
REFERENCES
WWF.2007.RestoringaDesertJewelTheChihuahuanDesertsBigBendandtheWWF/CocaCola
Partnership.August.
85
PreliminaryEstimatesSubjecttoRevision
PreparedbyMarkBriggs,WWF
5/15/2009
EstimatedReplenishRatesDuetoReestablishmentofHydrologicConnectivitytoActiveFloodplainSurfacesAlongtheBigBendReachoftheRioGrande(liters/year)
ReasoningandAssumptions
ThemainobjectiveofourcurrenttreatmentsalongtheBigBendreachoftheRioGrandeistoreestablishwideandshallowchannelmorphologicconditionsthatwillprovide
significantactivefloodplainareasforreplenishmentunderthecurrenthydrologicregimeoftheriver.
Basedonexperience,wehavebeenabletotreataboutonethird(duetoaccessandchannelmorphologicconditions)oftheriverchannellengthwhereweareworking.
ThetotallengthoftheBigBendreachfromPresidothroughBoquillasCanyonisapproximately216Km,whichmeansjustover70Kmwillactuallybetreatable.
Todate,we'vetreatedjustover14Kmofriverchannel,whichhasresultedinreestablishingactivefloodplainsurfacesalongthetreatedreachthataverage8mwideonboth
sidesofthechannel.
Webelieveintheforeseeablefuturewe'llbeabletotreatonaverageabout5Kmofriverchannelperyear(bothsides).
Inthecurrenthydrologicregime,thenewlyreestablishedactivefloodplainsurfaceswillbeinundatedonaverageaboutthreedaysperyear.
AlluviumalongtheBigBendreachisasandyloamtosandy,whichequatestoaseepagerate(orreplenishmentrate)ofabout1.01m^3perm^2perdayofinundationforthe
newlyestablishdactivefloodplainsurfaces
Thenewlyestablishedactivefloodplainsurfaceswillbeinundatedonaverageaboutthreedaysayearunderthecurrenthydrologicregimeoftheriver.
Parameters
AnticipatedLengthofNewlyEstablished
FloodplainSurfacesConduciveto
Replenishment(Km)
AnticipatedLengthofNewlyEstablished
FloodplainSurfacesConduciveto
Replenishment(m)
Anticipatedareaofnewlyestablished
floodplainsurfacesconduciveto
replenishment(m^2)
Estimatedaveragenumberofdaysper
yearthatnewlyestablishedfloodplain
surfaceswillbeinundated.
AverageMinimumSeepageRatesfor
Canals(m^3/m^2)ofwettedareaperday
Estimatedreplenishmentrate(m^3/yr)
Estimatedreplenishmentrate
(liters/year)
AnticipatedKilometersofTreatedChannel
Apr12
Apr13
Apr14
Apr15
Apr09
Apr10
Apr11
Apr16
Apr17
Apr18
Apr19
Apr20
14
19
24
29
34
39
44
49
54
59
64
69
14,000
19,000
24,000
29,000
34,000
39,000
44,000
49,000
54,000
59,000
64,000
69,000
224,000
304,000
384,000
464,000
544,000
624,000
704,000
784,000
864,000
944,000
1,024,000
1,104,000
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1,497,926
1,718,210
2,158,776
2,379,059
2,599,343
2,819,626
3,039,909
616,793
837,076
1,057,360
1,277,643
616,793,201
837,076,487
1,057,359,773
1,277,643,059
1,497,926,346 1,718,209,632
86
1,938,493
1,938,492,918 2,158,776,204 2,379,059,490 2,599,342,776
2,819,626,062 3,039,909,348
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ModernizationofDeliciasIrrigationDistricttoimprovewateruseefficiency
LOCATION:RioConchosBasin,Mexico
PRIMARYCONTACT:
MauricioDeLaMazaBenignos
DirectorProgramaDesiertoChihuahuense
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES
StabilizeflowsintheRioConchosandRioGrande
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Prolongeddroughtin19942005reducedriverflowsand
ledtoshortagesforirrigation.Thedrought,alongwith1944Treatyobligationsledtoconservation
measures.ModernizationoftheDeliciasIrrigationDistrict(90,589Ha)addressedwaterlossesin
transmission,distribution,andirrigationsystemsduetounlinedcanals,deterioratinginfrastructure,and
poorirrigationtechniques.
AerialviewoftheDeliciasIrrigationDistrict(photobyWWF/PabloCervantes
fromFebruary16,2009QuarterlyReport)
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectimprovementsbeganin2002andwerecompletedin2005
Evaluationofinteractionbetweensurfaceandgroundwaterintheirrigationdistrict(ongoing
andtobecompletedin2009)
87

Totalcost:$143,600,000(USD)
TCCCcontribution:Annualcontributionin2008=$52,000
Approach
WaterusageprovidedbyWWFstaff.Thesavingswerecomputedasthedifferencebetweenpreproject
waterusageandpostprojectusage:
2008watersavingsbasedonfarmersestimatesandprojectestimates(5/7/09emailfromAlfredo
Rodrguez,hydrologistoftheWWFChihuahuanDesertProgram).
AccordingtoNADBANK,theexpectedwatersavingsforthethreeirrigationdistrictswere396hm3=396
millionm3/year=396billionliters/year.FortheDeliciasIrrigationdistrict05theexpectedsavingswere
343hm3.Actualsavingsarestillunknown(WWFiscurrentlyrequestingtheofficialtallyfrom
CONAGUA).
Datasources
Nodatausedwatersavingswerereported.
Assumptions
FromNADBFactSheet:
Reductionofagrochemicalsinrunoff
Highercropyields&bettercropquality
NOTES
TheMexicanWaterAgency(CONAGUA)hasnotyetreleasedtheofficialsavingsfor2008,so
2008savingsarebasedonbestestimates.
Higherlandvalues&lowermaintenancecostsareotherbenefitsmentionedinNADBFact
Sheet.
REFERENCES
NorthAmericanDevelopmentBank(NADB).Undated.FactSheet:IrrigationDistrict005Delicias,
Chihuahua.URL:(http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/state_projects/FS%20Delicias%20Irrigation%2010
02%20_Eng_.pdf)
88
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Acquisitionofwaterrights,andconservationofspringanditsendemic
biota.
LOCATION:RioConchosBasin,Mexico(PandeoSpring,Julimes)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES
ReestablishaviablepopulationofendemicpupfishinPandeoSpring
Demonstrationprojectforlegalandadministrativeframeworkauthorizingenvironmentalflows
Establishthespringasaprotectedarea
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ThePandeoSpringisasmall(~200squaremeters)
thermalspringthatishometoanendemicfish,theJulimespupfish(Cyprinodonjulimes.),anewspecies
beingcurrentlydescribedandconsideredtobeamongthethreevertebratesthatliveatthehighest
temperaturesontheplanet(WWF,2007).Itisamongseveralspringsimpactedbyincreasingpumping
thatdepletesthelocalgroundwatersupply.
Technicalstudiestosupportwaterrightsacquisitionwereconductedtodeterminetheneedsofthefish.
Itwasdeterminedthat7080L/secinwaterrightsneedstoultimatelybesecured.
PandeospringinJulimesandoneofthelandownersbelongingtotheSanJosdePandosfarmers
association,mainWWFpartner(PhotoJrgenHoth/WWFMexicoProgram).
89
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
BasictechnicalstudiescompletedbyFebruary,2009(WWF,2009)
AsofApril2009,50L/sechavebeensecured(perM.DeLaMazaBenignos).
EstablishthePandeoSpringProtectedAreain2009.
Additional2030L/secwaterrightsacquisitionisanticipatedby(2011)
Approximatetotalcostofproject:($1,294,200pesos
Cokecontribution:($664,200pesos)
ApproachandResults
The2009savingswasbasedonthequantityofwaterthatwasrecentlysecured(50L/sec).Projected
futureacquisitions25l/sec(resultinginatotalof75L/sec)wereassumedtotakeplaceby2011.
50L/sec=1,580ML/yrin2009
75L/sec=2,370ML/yrby2011
Datasources
WateracquisitionestimatesprovidedbyWWF,andconfirmeddataprovidedbyofficial
documentation(NationalWaterCommission)
Assumptions
Futureprojectionsassumethataquantityof75L/secissuccessfullysecuredby2011.
Physicalprotectionoftheofthepupfishshabitatwasachievedthroughvoluntarydesignation
offourhectaresoflandasaprotectedareaandfencingofitsperimeter.Itsadditional
designationasaFederallyrecognizedprotectedareaisunderway.
Thewaterthatisacquiredflowsthroughthespringandintotheriver,andisavailablefor
downstreamusesincludingirrigation.
EstablishmentofalocalNGOAmigosdelPaneo,A.C.,asasteptodeveloplocalwater
stewardship.
NOTES
TheframeworkdevelopedforPandeoSpringisamodelforprotectionofotherthreatened
springs,waterrelatedareasandresourcesinMexico.
Manylegal,social,andpoliticalchallengeshavebeenovercome.Supportfromlocalownersand
municipalauthoritieshasbeenthekeyofsuccess
REFERENCES
90

Partnership.August.
WWF2008,ConservacindeCyprinodonnovsp.Julmes:Taxonoma,filogeniamolecular,etologa
reproductivaycoloracincrpticacomparadadelGneroCyprinodon(Pisces:Cyprinidontidae)
enlacuencadelRoConchos,ByLourdesLozanoandSusanaFavela,UANL,
WWF2008Plandemanejodelreanaturalprotegidaelpandeo,enelmunicipiodejulimes,
chihuahua.ByCastaedaG.,G.Jimnez,J.Blando,M.Ortegaand.M.Valencia,BiodesertA.C.
PreparedforWorldWildlifeFund
WWF.2009.WWFTCCCPartnershipQuarterlyReport:ChihuahuanDesertEcoregion.February16.
91
PROJECTNAME:TCCCWWFPartnership:RioGrande/RioBravoRiverBasin
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Pilotwastewaterbiotreatmentplant
LOCATION:RioConchosBasinJulimes,Chihuahua,Mexico
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES
Reducepollutantloadinriverfromsewagedischarges
Demonstrationprojectforwastewatertreatment
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:UntreatedsewagecurrentlyflowsintotheRioConchos.A
pilotcosteffecitve(from5to8timeslessexpensivecomparedtotraditionalwatertreatmentplants)
wastewaterbiotreatmentplantfor50peoplewillbeoperationalbytheendof2009.Thesystemwillbe
designedasaprimarytreatmentplant.Thankstotheuseofearthwormsaspartofthetreatment
processtheresultingsludgecanbeusedasfertilizerandeffluentwillbeusedforirrigation.Basedupon
resultsfromthepilotproject,alargerplantwillbeconstructedforupto5,000peopleovera2year
timeframe.
ASPERSORES
SUSTRATOORGANICO,LOMBRICES,GRAVAYPIEDRA
AGUALIMPIAHACIAPILETADE
Diagramofwatertreatmentprocessrelatedtothebiofilter(Lpez.2009).
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Pilotplantfor50peoplewillbecompletedinAugust2009
Baseduponpilotresults,alargerplantservingupto5,000people(basedonpopulationgrowth
projectionsfromthecurrent2,500inhabitants)willbebuiltovera2yeartimeframe.
92
Totalcost:$513,000Pesos
CocaColacontribution:313,000Pesos
1. Decreaseinpollutantload
1. DECREASEINPOLLUTANTLOAD
ApproachandResults
Thedecreaseinpollutantloadwascalculatedasthedifferencebetweenthepollutantloadinraw
sewage(basedtypicalconcentrationsandpercapitawaterusage)andthepollutantloadintreated
effluentfromaprimarywastewatertreatmentplant.Seeattachedspreadsheetforcalculations.
Loadreductionestimates(metrictons/50persons/year):
Biochemicaloxygendemand(BOD):0.2763
Totalsuspendedsolids(TSS):0.6143
Totalcoliform:0.0297
Fecalcoliform:0.000297
Datasources
TheprimarysourceofinformationwasMetcalfandEddy(2003).SeeattachedExcelfile.
Assumptions
Pilotplantwasassumedtofunctionasaprimarytreatmentplant.
Itisassumedthatthesystemismaintained,soitcontinuestofunctionoverthe5yearperiod.
OTHERWATERSHEDRESORATIONBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED
Improvedaesthetics
Reducedexposuretopathogens
Reducednutrientloadings
NOTES
Basedupontheresultsofthepilotplant,theplanistoexpandthesetypesofplantsthroughthe
TCCCfundedCleanBasinProjectovera35yearperiod.Theultimategoalistomakethis
technologyavailabletothe150,000peoplelivinginruralareaswithintheentirebasin.
93
REFERENCES
Arango,J.2003.EvaluacinambientaldelsistematohenlaremocindeSalmonellaenaguasservidas
domsticas.TesisdeMaestra.UniversidaddeChile.SantiagoChile
Lpez,L.2009.DiseoplantapilototratamientodeaguasresidualsJulimes,Chihuahua,Mxico.Club
RotarioCamargo.
MetcalfandEddy.2003.WastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.4thEdition.
94
PreliminaryEstimateofPollutantLoadReduction
RioConchos Pilotwastewaterprimarytreatmentplant(50people)
Waterconsumptionindevelopingcountriesandareas[1]
Percapitawaterconsumption
Units
Gal/d
L/d
LatinAmericaandCaribbean
1951
70190
Waterconsumptionindevelopingcountriesandareas
PercapitawaterconsumptionAverageValues
Gal/d
L/d
L/yr
35
130
47450
TypicalwastewaterconstituentdataforvariouscountriesConstituentRanges[2]
Countries
BOD[2]
Units g/capita*d
Brazil
5568
Egypt
2741
India
2741
Palestine(W.Bank&GazaStrip)
3268
Turkey
2750
Uganda
5568
US
50120
Total
Fecal
NH3N[2] TotalP[2] Coliform[3] Coliform[3]
TypicalwastewaterconstituentdataforvariouscountriesAverageValues
Total
Coliform
BOD
TSS
TKN
NH3N
TotalP
TSS[2]
TKN[2]
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
No./100mL
No./100mL
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
5568
4168
ND
5272
4168
4155
60150
814
814
ND
47
814
814
922
ND
ND
ND
35
911
ND
512
0.61
0.40.6
ND
0.40.7
0.42
0.40.6
2.74.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1E+71E+10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1E+51E+8
61.5
34
34
50
38.5
61.5
85
61.5
54.5
ND
62
54.5
48
105
11
11
ND
5.5
11
11
15.5
ND
ND
ND
4
10
ND
8.5
0.8
0.5
ND
0.55
1.2
0.5
3.6
No./100mL
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.01E+09
Fecal
Coliform
No./100mL
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.01E+07
EstimatedTypicalWastewaterConstituentDataforMexico
AverageofValuesforBrazil,Egypt,India,Palestine,TurkeyandUganda(above)
g/capita*d
kg/capita*d
MT/capita*yr
BOD
46.6
0.046583
0.017003
TSS
56.1
0.056100
0.020477
TKN
9.9
0.009900
0.003614
NH3N
7
0.007000
0.002555
Total
Fecal
TotalP Coliform[4] Coliform[4]
0.71
3.25
0.033
0.000710
0.003253
0.000033
0.000259
0.001187
0.000012
EstimatedTypicalWastewaterConsituentLoadsforRioConchosWWTP
MT/50persons*yr
PrimaryWWTPPlantRemovalEfficienciesConstituentRanges[5]
PercentRemoval
BOD
2540
TSS
5070
TKN
NA
BOD
0.85
TSS
1.02
TKN
0.18
NH3N
0.13
TotalP
0.01
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
0.0594
0.000594
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
50
50
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
0.0297
0.000297
PrimaryWWTPPlantRemovalEfficienciesAverages
NH3N
NA
TotalP
NA
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
2575
2575
BOD
32.5
TSS
60
TKN
n/a
NH3N
n/a
TotalP
n/a
EstimatedWastewaterConstituentLoadingChangeforRioConchosWWTP
MT/50persons*yr
Notes
ND:notdetected
n/a:notavailable
BOD
0.2763
TSS
0.6143
TKN
n/a
NH3N
n/a
UnitConversions
2E+12 cells/g[4]
DataSources
[1]Table39:Waterconsumptionindevelopingcountriesandareas.WastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.
[2]Table314:Typicalwastewaterconstituentdataforvariouscountries.WastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.
[3]Table315:Typicalcompositionofuntreateddomesticwastewaterathighstrengthconcentration(basedonwastewaterflowrateof60gal/capita/day).Wastewater
Engineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.
[4]Theconversionoffecalcoliformcounttomassconcentrationusedavalueof2x10^12cells/drygbasedonreportedpropertiesofE.coli
(Watson,J.D.1970.MolecularBiologyoftheGene.W.A.Benjamin,NewYork)(http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsaar/cdlodos/pdf/assessmentofrisk635.pdf)
[5]PrimaryWWTPplantremovalefficiencies(Table37:Primarytreatment(withoutchemicals),QuantifyingWater"Offsets"inCommunityWaterParnershipProjects,LTI.Data
fromWastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.;ShaoJ.Y.,Advancedprimarytreatment:Analternativetobiologicalsecondary
treatment.ThecityofLosAngeleshyperiontreatmentplantexperience.WaterScienceandTechnology,1996(34),223233.)
95
TotalP
n/a
PROJECTNAME:TCCCWWFPartnership:RioGrande/RioBravoBasinRainwaterharvestingfor
irrigationoforchards
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Rainwaterharvesting
LOCATION:Tarahumararegion,RioConchosBasin,StateofChihuahua,Mexico
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES
Augmentdomesticandirrigationwatersuppliesduringthedryseasonusingstoredrainwater
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Arainwaterharvestingprojectwasimplementedin2007
intheTarahumararegionofthesouthwesternportionoftheMexicanStateofChihuahua.Rainwateris
capturedfromtherooftopsof26participatinghouseholdswithaverageroofsizeof35squaremeters
each.Thewateriscollectedina10,000literdomestictankwhichusuallycompletelyfillsduringthe
rainyseason.Priortorainwaterharvesting,theonlysourceofwaterwasSisoguichicreek.The
harvestedrainwaterisusedinequalproportionstosupply60%ofthedomesticandorchardirrigation
needs(theaverageorchardsizeis50squaremeters)duringthefourmonthsofthedryseason(March
throughJune).AnaverageTarahumarahouseholdof5individualsconsumes70litersofwaterperday
or8,400litersofwaterduringthedryseason.Thewatertankprovides60%oftheirdrinkingneeds(i.e.,
5,040l)andtheremaining40%(3,360liters)isobtainedfromthecreek.Similarlyfororchardirrigation
needsofapproximately8,500litersduringthedryseason,thetankprovides4,960litersandthe
remaining3,570litersareobtainedfromthecreek.
RainwaterHarvestingintheTarahumararegionofChihuahua,Mexico
orchardinforeground;tankandroofcatchmentinbackground(photoWWFCDP.2007).
96

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectimplementedin2007andisongoing
Totalcost:$1,869,000Pesos
CocaColacontribution:651,000Pesos
Approach
WaterharvestingandusagerateswereprovidedbyWWFstaff.Thewaterbenefitisequaltothe
amountofwaterharvestedinthe10,000litercollectiontank.
Totalyearlybenefit(decreasedsurfacewateruse):0.01ML/year
Datasources
NodatausedwatersavingswerereportedinemailfromJurganHoth/WWFonMay17,2009.
Assumptions
NOTES:None
REFERENCES:None
97
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ReforestationinUpperConchosBasin
LOCATION:Mexico:RoConchosheadwaters(EjidoPanalachi,SierraTarahumara);
UpperportionofUreynamicrobasinandResonachimicrobasinofPanalachi
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES:
Reduceerosionandassociatedsedimentationinriver&abovedams
Restoreforesthabitat
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Extensiveforestfiresin2001and2003clearedtheland.A
totalof122.5haoflandwasreforestedwithnativepine(Pinusarizonica).
Areasshowing100haofreforestationeffortsintheupperConchosbasin.
Theremaining22hectaresarescatteredandlocatednearby.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
122.5hareforestedinSeptember,2008
Futurereforestationgoalswilldependontheforestrymanagementplanunderdevelopment,so
extentoffuturereforestationiscurrentlyunknownandwasnotquantified.
Totalcost:660,000pesos
CocaColacontribution:320,000pesos
98

Approach&Results:
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunofffortheconversionofunforestedland
toforestedland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolume
Preproject:
o Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)B
o Herbaceousgrass/weeds/brushmixtureinfaircondition(CN=71)
Postproject:
o Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)B
o Woodlandingoodcondition(CN=55)
Dailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromthemeteorologicaldatabaseavailable
fromWaterBase(www.waterbase.org)forthe200005period,althoughsufficientlycomplete
precipitationdatawereonlyavailableforyear2000.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedaily
year2000.Totalannualrunoffvolumesandtheresultingwaterquantitybenefitwereestimatedas
follows:
Postproject(reforestedland):0.1ML/yr(0.1mm/yr)
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:122.5ha(providedbycontact)
Slope:12%(providedbycontact)
Soiltype:
primarilyRegosoleutrico,Luvisol,andfeozem(providedbycontact)
Availablewatercontent(AWC)=8mm/meter(hydrologicsoilgroupB)
Dailyprecipitationdataforyear2001obtainedfromWaterBasemeteorologicaldatabasefor
Parral,Mexico(lat:26.93,long:105.66,elev:1661meters)foryear2000(411mm).
99
Assumptions:
PrecipitationdataobtainedforParral,Mexicoforyear2000aregenerallyrepresentativeof
averageannualprecipitationconditionsfortheareawherereforestationisoccurring.
SoildrainagepropertiescanberepresentedusingHydrologicSoilGroup(HSG)Bforthe
purposeofrunoffcalculations.
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject:grass/weedsmixture,6080%cover(Cusle=0.05)
Preproject(unforested):220MT/yr
Postproject(forested):~0MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
100
Shadingofstreamslowerswatertemperaturesandimprovesfishery
Subsistenceagriculturalpracticesincludinglowimpacttillinganduseoforganicfertilizerswillbe
proposedtolocalcommunitiesusingnative/traditionalcorn.Anticipatedbenefitsinclude
reducedrunoffandreducedpollutantconcentrationsinrunoff.
NOTES
Quantificationdoesnotincludefuturerestorationeffortsbecausedetailsarenotcurrently
known.
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
WWF.undated.AnnualActionPlanfortheStringofPearls;ChihuahuanDesertCocaColaPartnership.
Filename:RioGrandeTCCCworkplanSECONDJan9.xls
101
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofinvasiveplantsandnaturallevees,increasinghighorpulse
flows,banklinedestabilization,andotherrestorationactivities.
LOCATION:RioGrande,NewMexico(CaballoDamtoAmericanDam)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
BethBardwell
(575)6403415
OBJECTIVES
Enhancenativeriparianhabitatandaquaticdiversity,andreestablishriverfloodplain
connectivity
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Followingextensivescientificstudies,aconceptual
restorationplanwasdevelopedforupto30sites.Theplanaddressesproblemsduetoalterationofthe
naturalhydrograph,historicalcanalization,historicalvegetativemanagement,invasiveplants,dam
operations,andothercauses.
Measurestoreestablishfloodplainconnectivityaretargetedatincreasingthefrequencyanddurationof
overbankinundationthroughbankexcavation,removalofinvasiveplantsandnaturallevees,increasing
highorpulseflows,banklinedestabilization,andotheractivities,whichvarybylocation.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(perB.Bardwell,WWF)
ScientificstudiesandconceptualplanninglargelycompletedbyMarch,2009
FinalRecordofDecisionauthorizingimplementationanticipatedinMayAugust,2009period.
Implementationscheduleforbringing30restorationsitesonlineandundertaking
environmentalwatertransactions:210yeartimeframe
Additionalagreementsneededtoauthorizeenvironmentalpeakreleaseanticipatedtooccur
over510yeartimeframe.
Assumed30%forcurrentestimatebasedonroughapproximationfromcontact.
WWFstaff:50%FTEBethBardwell
102
ApproachandResults
Thevolumewascomputedasthetotalamountofwaterorwaterrighttransferredtorestorationsites
orforpeakrelease.Thisisassumedtobeequaltotheprojectedvolumeoffloodplaininundation(acre
ft/year).Thefloodplainwillstayconnectedandwaterwillflowthroughthesite.Floodplaininundation
thatresultsfromrestorationactivitiesmayoccuronlyperiodicallyandnotonanannualbasis.
Changesinvegetationcommunitiesassociatedwiththerestorationactivities(invasiveplantstonative
plants)areanticipatedtoresultinanetincreaseinannualdepletionsduetoevapotranspiration(ET).
Thisquantityisestimatedtobe429acft.Insomecases,supplementalannualirrigationofrestoration
siteswillbenecessarytosustainandenhanceproductivityofnativeriparianvegetation,becauseat
somerestorationsitesthedepthtogroundwaterhasdecreasedasaresultofcanalization,irrigation
drainsandgroundwaterpumping.Thisquantityisestimatedtobe227acft,butthequantitymay
increaseunderanadaptivemanagementprogram.
Therestorationplanincludesvoluntarywatertransactions(donations,leasesandpermanent
acquisition)thatwouldtransferwaterand/orwaterrightsfromfarmlandorlandstakenoutof
productionforhousingdevelopmenttooffsetannualdepletionsand/orirrigaterestorationsitesonan
annualbasis.Ifagreementswithirrigatorsandfederalagenciescanbereached,therewillalsobe
periodicsupplementalpeakflowsthroughdamreleases.Thisquantityisestimatedtobeonaverage
9,500acftperaugmentationevent,andreoccurontheorderof3to5yearsasdeterminedunderan
adaptivemanagementprogram.
Calculations
450acft/yrtooffsetdepletionquantity
227acft/yrsupplementalirrigation
2,375acft/yrpeakflowreleasefromdam(onannualbasisassumingonceevery4years)
TOTAL=3,052acft/yr=3,765ML/yr
Datasources
WatertransferquantitiesprovidedbyB.Bardwell,WWF.
Assumptions
occurasanticipated.
Peakflowreleasewasconvertedintoanannualvolumeforthepurposeofestimatinganannual
average.Thisquantityofwaterwillnotbeputintheriveronanannualbasis;ratheritwillbe
bankedandthecumulativeamountwillbereleasedperiodicallyonceevery3to5years.
103
andquality,andleadtoincreasedabundanceofbirds,mammals,reptiles,andfish.
Theriskoffireassociatedwithdensesaltcedarstandswillbereduced.
NOTES
Projectalsoinvolvesestablishmentofalegalframeworkforthesetypesofprojects(WWF,
2007).
REFERENCES
Partnership.August.
104
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Acquisitionofwaterrightstosupportenvironmentalflows
LOCATION:RioBosqueWetlandPark:ElPaso,Texas
PRIMARYCONTACT:
BethBardwell
(575)6403415
OBJECTIVES
Secureawatersupplyfortheparktosustainyearroundwetlandandnativeriparianhabitat
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:RioBosqueWetlandParkis372acresinsize.Itprovides
thelargestexpanseofnativehabitatalongaseveralhundredmilelongstretchoftheRioGrande.
Whiletreatedwastewaterisroutinelydivertedtoflowthroughtheparkinthelatefallandwinter,the
parkdoesnotreliablyreceivewaterduringthegrowingseasonandbreedingseasonforresident
waterfowl.Nopermanentnowaterrightsarecurrentlyallocatedtothepark.(WWF,2008).
Theplanincludesvoluntarywatertransactions(donations,leases,andpermanentacquisition)to
transferwaterand/orwaterrightsfromfarmlandsorpublicwaterutilitiestoflowthroughtwowetland
cellscovering30acres.
Thefollowingphotosrepresentdepicttemporalchangesinplantcompositionandproductivityalongthe2
milelongoldriverchannelthatwasrebuilttodeliverwatertothewetlandcellswithinRioBosquePark.2002
wasthelastyearthatwaterwasdeliveredtotheRioBosqueWetlandParkduringthegrowingseason.The
parkreceivestreatedeffluentduringthefallandwinternow,buthasnotreceivedwaterduringthegrowing
seasonforsevenyearsnow.
Theserepresent"before"pictures,the"after"pictureswoulddocumentchangesonceanenvironmentalwater
transactionsprogramwasinplacetodedicatewatertotheRioBosqueWetlandPark.
JUNE2002
JUNE2003
105
MARCH2004
APRIL2008
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(perB.Bardwell,WWF)
ScientificstudiesandconceptualplanninglargelycompletedbyMarch,2009
FormalagreementhasnotyetbeenreachedbetweenBureauofReclamation,localirrigation
district,andlocalpublicwaterutility,anduniversitywhomanagesthewetland.
Onceagreementsarereached,thewaterdeliveryinfrastuctureandenvironmentalwater
transactionscouldbeimplementedonatimeframeof15years.
Assumed50%forcurrentestimate
WWFhascontributedfundingintheformofgrantstoUTEPandthirdpartycontractsforlegal
research,environmentaleducationandcommunication,andotheractivitiesthatbenefittheRio
BosqueWetlandPark:$23,000
WWFstafftime:5%10%ofFTEBethBardwell
ApproachandResults
Thevolumewascomputedasthetotalamountofwaterorwaterrightstransferredtothepark.Thegoal
istoacquire5,400acreft/yrthroughacquisitions&donations.Anestimated2,552acrefeetwould
flowthroughtheparkandbereturnedtotheirrigationnetworkforusebydownstreamirrigators.2,862
acrefeetwouldpercolatetogroundwater,evaporateorbetranspiredbyvegetationwithinthepark
(WWF,2008).
5,400acrefeet/year=6,661ML/year
106
Datasources
WatertransferquantitiesprovidedbyB.Bardwell,WWF.
Assumptions
occuronscheduleasanticipated.
Improvedwetlandandriparianhabitatwillprovideimportanthabitatforaquaticlifeandbirds.
NOTES
Consumptiveuseinthepark(percolationtogroundwater,evaporation,andtranspiration)is
projectedtobe2,862acrefeet/year.
REFERENCES
WWF.2008.RioBosque:JustAddWater.April.
107
PROJECTNAME:SoutheastRiversandStreams
PROJECTID#:22
LOCATION:Nashville,TN
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
NickMartin
WatershedCoordinationforCocaColaNorthAmerica SeniorProjectManger
DeltaConsultants
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
8043326401
OBJECTIVES:
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:CocaColaConsolidatedNashvilleispartneringwithWorld
WildlifeFund(WWF)andCumberlandRiverCompactintheNashville,TNareatodistributeCocaCola
55gallonsyrupdrumsforreuseasrainbarrels.Rainbarrelsareprimarilydonatedtoresidential
propertieswiththeuseofcollectedwaterrunningarelativelysmallgamutfromuseforlightgardening
worktoexteriorhouseholdcleaningneeds(vehiclewashing).Asmallportionofbarrelsaredonatedto
localschoolsandbusinesses.Bycollectingrainwaterthatnormallyflowsoffaproperty,rainbarrelssave
moneyonwaterbills,conservewaterduringdryperiodsandpreventpollutedrunoff.Thereuseof
these55gallonbarrelswillnotonlyhelpintheefforttoprotectSoutheastRiversandStreams,butalso
eliminatetheenergyCocaColawouldexpendrecyclingtheplasticbarrels.In2008,1,500rainbarrels
weredonated.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
2008:1,500rainbarrelsweredonated.
ProjectisfullyfundedbyTheCocaColaCompanyandCocaColaConsolidatedNashville
1. DECREASEINSTORMWATERRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
108
SupplyCalculations:
andvariables:
locations.
DemandCalculations:
Nashville(1,500barrelsin2008):4,872,412gallons=18.44ML/yr
DataSources:
109

Assumptions:
andotheractivities.
NOTES:
mightbe.
AnewrainbarreldistributionprojectintheAuburn,AlabamaareawasstartedinNovember
2008,with45barrelsdistributedbyyearend.Thisprojectisongoingin2009withatotalof221
barrelsdistributedasofMay2009.Benefitsfromthisprojecthavenotbeengenerated.
REFERENCES
110
PROJECTNAME:RioChameleconRiverWatershedProtectionInitiative
PROJECTID#:25
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Implementationofimprovedagriculturalpractices:cropland/farmland
management
LOCATION:ManchagualasubwatershednearSanPedroSula,Cortes,Honduras(15.5N,88.1W)
Specificallyselectedareasinsevencommunities(NuevaSantaElena,BuenaVista,Guadalupede
Baaderos,LagunadeBaaderos,SantaElenaViejo,MonteAlegreySanJosManchaguala)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JoseVasquez
WorldWildlifeFundCentralAmerica
jvasquez@wwfca.org
OBJECTIVES
Increaseinfiltration/aquiferrechargeand/orincreasebaseflows
Reduceerosionandassociatedsedimentationofreceivingwaters
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:(fromWWF,2008;WWF,2009)
TheChameleconwatershedencompasses4,350squarekilometersintheMerendonmountainsand
provideswatertoindustryandresidentsofSanPedroSula(approximately600,000inhabitants),aswell
as15othermunicipalitieswhichrepresentonefifthofHondurasstotalpopulation.TheMerendon
mountainshostmanysubsistenceagriculturefarmingcommunities,dedicatedmainlytoagricultureand
livestock.Theupperwatershedisthreatenedbyillegallogging,pooragriculturepractices,andthe
presenceofpestsanddiseasesamongitsforests.Thelowerwatershedisthreatenedbyunregulated
industrialandresidentialeffluents,anineffectivewatercommission,andunplannedeconomicurban
residentialgrowth.WWFscommitmenttoconservingtheintegrityoftheMesoamericanReefidentifies
effluentreductionasafundamentalconservationstrategyandtheRioChameleconWatershed
ProtectionInitiativeprojectdirectlyaddressesthisneedbyreducingfarmlanderosionandrunoff.
ThisprojectisapilotefforttoimplementthePaymentforWatershedServicesprograminHondurasby
establishingacommunitybasedintegratedwatershedmanagementprogram.Effortstoachievethis
goalincludeengagingkeycommunitiesinsustainablelandusemanagementpracticesthatreduce
erosion,controlwaterflowandprotectwaterandsoilintegritywhilesustaininglocallivelihoods.This
projectisexpectedtoincludethefollowingresults:21parcelsunderagroforestrysystemsimplemented
withtheparticipationof21smallproducers,constructionof21efficientfuelwoodstovesand2
kilometersoflivebarriers(fromtcccgws.comprojectdatabase).
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:November2008
EndDate:2009
111
TotalCostofProject:$3,020,000USD
CocaColaFoundation$920,000USD
fromtcccgws.comprojectdatabase
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results
Thewaterquantitybenefitfromimplementationoftheimprovedagriculturalpracticeswasestimated
forwaterquantity(runoffreduction)andwaterquality(soilerosionreduction)usingdataprovidedin
thesurveyresponses.TheCurveNumberRunoffmethodasimplementedintheSoil&Water
Assessment(SWAT)model(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunoffforthe
conversionofunvegetated/erodedlandtoagroforestryland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocused
onestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorforboth
areas.
Preproject:
o
Grasslandinfaircondition(CN=69)
Postproject:
o
Orchard/treefarmingoodcondition(CN=58)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromtheTuTiempo.netonline
meteorologicaldatabasefortheTela,Hondurasstationduringthe200608timeperiod
(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Tela/787060.htm).TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimate
dailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)forthisyearbasedondailyaverageairtemperatureand
latitude(Hamon,1963).
Processedmeteorologicaldatawereusedtoestimatedailyrunoffforthepreandpostprojectcases.
Totalannualrunoffvolumesandtheresultingwaterquantitybenefitwereestimatedasfollows:
Preproject(openspace)runoffvolume:201ML/yr
Postproject(agroforestry)runoffvolume:183ML/yr
112
DataSources/SitespecificCharacteristics:
Preproject:erodedareaswithnocroporforestcover
Postproject:agroforestrywithcroprotationpractices,etc.
Surfacearea:21hectares
Slope:3255%
Soiltype:silty/claysoil(Franco)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromtheonlineTuTiempo.net
meteorologicaldatabase(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/)fortheTelastation(ID:787060).
Assumptions:
PrecipitationdatafortheTelastation(200608)arerepresentativeofprecipitationconditions
fortheunvegetatedareasconvertedtocropland.
Approach&Results:
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertingunvegetated/erodedlandtoagroforestryland.The
methoddescribedintheprevioussection,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswereestimated
foryears200608.
(1992):
Preproject:~60%coverasgrass(Cusle=0.04)
Postproject:2040%treecanopycover(Cusle=0.01)
Totalannualsedimentyieldsfortheunvegetated/erodedlandandcroplandareaswereestimatedas
follows:
Preproject(openspace)sedimentyield:18,903MT/yr
Postproject(cropland)sedimentyield:4,332MT/yr
Benefit(sedimentyieldreduction):14,571MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
113
Assumptions:
Protectionofforestcoverthroughuseoffuelefficientstovestoreducefirewoodconsumption
(nodataprovided).
Anybenefitsrealizedthroughtheuseoflivebarriers.
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
WWF2009.ProgressReport.MaraAmaliaPorta,WWFCA,September1,2009.
WWF2008.ParticipatoryIntegratedWatershedManagementfortheChameleconWatershedinSan
PedroSula,Honduras.ProposalSubmittedtoTheCocaColaFoundation.WWFCA,August8,2008.
114
PROJECTNAME:ConservingtheMekong
PROJECTID#:28
LOCATION:ChiRiverwatershedinThailand(ThaSala,KamKan,NongPan,andPonPekdistricts)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RebeccaNg,ProgramOfficer
WorldWildlifeFund,GreaterMekongProgram
125024thStreetNW
Washington,DC20037USA
++1.202.495.4717
rebecca.ng@wwfus.org
OBJECTIVES:
Improvebiodiversity
Reducesedimenterosion&runoff(stabilizesoils)
TheChiRiverwatershedincludesasignificantamountofagriculturallands,includingplotsforsugar
cane,rubberplantations,andpulpandpapergeneration.Currentfarmingpracticesintheregionare
generallypoorandunsustainableandhaveresultedinadegradedconditionforthewatershed.
ReforestationoftheChiRiverwatershedisbeingundertakentoimprovetheconditionofthe
watershed,includedenhancingbiodiversityandstabilizingsoilstoreducesedimenterosionandrunoff.
ReforestationmapforChiRiverwatershed.
115
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Activitybeganin2007andcontinuedthrough2008.
Futurereforestationeffortsarenotknownatthispoint.
Noinformationavailableassumed50%forcurrentestimate.
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
Preproject:
o
CurveNumberestimateisconservativeforagriculturallands
Postproject:
o
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfortheKabinburi,Thailandforthe200304
period.Dataforthistimeperiodaregenerallyrepresentativeofthelongtermannualaverage
meteorologicalconditionsfortheregion.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedailypotential
evapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
follows:
Preproject(openrange):450ML/yr(572mm/yr)
Postproject(reforestedland):322ML/yr(409mm/yr)
Benefit(runoffreduction):128ML/yr(163mm/yr)
116

DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:492rai=78.7hectares(providedbycontact)
Slope:variable,but2%onaverage
Soiltype:
Availablewatercontentof~8mmpermeterofsoildepth(Batjes,1996)consistent
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200304wereobtainedforKabinburi,Thailandfromthe
WaterBasemeteorologicaldatabase(http://www.waterbase.org).
Assumptions:
Precipitationdataobtainedforyears200304aregenerallyrepresentativeofaverageannual
precipitationconditionsfortheareaswherereforestationisoccurring.
Theslopeconditionsforthereforestedareaareapproximately2%onaverage.
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject(pasture/range):177.0MT/yr(2.2MT/ha/yr)
117
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
Correspondingincreasesininfiltrationandgroundwaterbaseflowtolocalstreamnetworks.
Habitatimprovementsbenefitingaquaticandterrestrialwildlife.
NOTES
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
118
PROJECTID#:28
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Waterlevelmanagement
LOCATION:TramChimNationalPark,Vietnam
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RebeccaNg,ProgramOfficer
WorldWildlifeFund,GreaterMekongProgram
125024thStreetNW
Washington,DC20037USA
++1.202.495.4717
rebecca.ng@wwfus.org
OBJECTIVES
Mitigatefloodanddroughtimpacts
Maintaingroundwaterlevelsandreducesalineintrusion
Demonstrationprojecttochangethewayofthinking,managementpractices,andpolicy
TramChimNationalPark(TCNP)inVietnamisthesiteofademonstrationprojectofTheMekong
WetlandsBiodiversityConservationandSustainableUseProgramme,aajointprogrammeofCambodia,
LaoPDR,Thailand,andVietNamthataimstostrengthencapacityforwetlandconservationand
sustainableuseintheLowerMekongBasinbyworkingatregional,nationalandlocallevels.TramChim
isadepressedwetlandareawithinthePlainofReedswhoseprotectedgrasslandsandMelaleucaforests
andoffervaluablehabitatformanyspecies,includingtheSarusCrane(Grusantigone).
Acomprehensiveexaminationofwatermanagementintheparkshowedthatprevalentfireprevention
practicesresultedinretentionofextrawaterduringthedryseasoninthelargest(4700+ha)zoneofthe
park.Atthesametime,failureofcontrolstructuresledtoprematuredryingintwosmallerzones(750+
ha).Optimizationofwaterlevelmanagementinthelargestzonemovingtowardsamorenatural
hydroperiodandrepairofthecontrolstructuresfortheothertwozoneswillleadtoanestimateddry
seasonreplenishmentofmorethan11billionliters.
ThisreplenishmentvolumewillmitigatefloodanddroughtimpactsinthePlainofReedsaswellasthe
downstreamMekongDelta.ItwillalsocontributetomaintenanceofgroundwaterlevelsintheTram
ChimvicinityandreducesalineintrusionattheedgeoftheMekongDelta.Inadditiontoincreasedwater
availability,theseactionswillleadtowaterqualityimprovements.Inconjunctionwithmimosa
eradicationandMelaleucarestoration,waterqualitywillimprovethroughreductionofacidityand
throughincreasedfiltration.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
119
TBD50%wasassumeduntilinformationbecomesavailable
1. Changeindirectstreamflow
1. CHANGEINDIRECTSTREAMFLOW
ApproachandResults
Thereplenishmentvolumeforthelargestzone(ZoneA1)wascalculatedastheaddedvolumeofwater
dischargedfromZoneA1whenoperatingundertherevisedTramChimtargetwaterlevels(Table2inNi
etal).Monthlydischargevolumesundertherevisedlevelswerecalculatedasthedifferencebetween
beginningofmonthandendofmonthvolumeasestimatedfromparkelevationzonedata(Table1in
Thienetal.)inconjunctionwiththetargets.Thedischargevolumesunderthepreviousmanagement
planwerecalculatedusingwaterlevelsfortheyears20022006reportedinFigure5ofNietal.).The
dischargevolumesfor20022006werecalculatedbyconvertingmonthlywaterlevelsintovolumes,
thenaveraging.
TheaddedJanuaryAprildischargevolumeforZoneA1=2.90BG10,980ML
Replenishmentforthesmallerzones(A3andA4)wascalculatedastheaddedvolumeofwaterstoredin
ZonesA3andA4,whichwerepreviouslydry.Targetwaterlevelsof123cmforZoneA3and137cmfor
ZoneA4wereselectedasthecomparisonpoints.
TheaddedvolumeofwaterstoredinA3=7.32milliongallons27.7ML
TheaddedvolumeofwaterstoredinA4=116MG439ML
Totalvolume=10,980+27.7+43911,400ML
Datasources
Alldataandinformationweretakenfromreferencescitedabove.
Assumptions
Seereferencesbelow
ImprovedpHthroughreductioninwatervolumelefttostagnateandadditionalmitigationfrom
restoredMelaleucaforest.
Improvedecosystemhealth
NOTES
[5/12/09EmailfromNguyenHuuThien]TheultimategoaloftheworkatTramChimisfor
ecosystemhealthandourapproachistodemonstrateandchangethewayofthinking,
managementpractices,andpolicy(uniformlyappliedacrossprotectedareasdespitethe
differencesintheneedsofdifferentecosystems.Thepolicyandmanagementpracticeswere
120
originallydevelopedforuplandforestswhicharenotsuitableforwetlandsandthatswhat
shouldbecountedasthemainfeatureoftheproject.
REFERENCES
Nguyen.V.XandWyatt.A(2006).SituationAnalysis:PlainofReeds,VietNam.MekongWetlands
BiodiversityConservationandSustainableUseProgramme,Vientiane,LaoPDR.60pp.
Ni,D.V.,Shulman,D.,Thompson,J.,Triet,T,Truyen,T,vanderSchans,M.(2006).IntegratedWaterAnd
FireManagementStrategyTramChimNationalPark.MekongWetlandsBiodiversityConservationand
SustainableUseProgramme.
Thien,N.H.,Quoi,L.P,andMarks,K.(2008?).ProtectingTheTreesOrConservingWetlandHealth?A
CaseStudyOfTramChimNationalPark,MekongDelta,Vietnam
121
PROJECTID#:28
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Pilottestingforasuiteofimprovedagriculturalpractices,including
pesticidereductions,fertilizerimprovements,andstripcropping.
LOCATION:ChiRiversubwatershedinThailand(includingtheThaSala,KamKan,NongPan,andPhon
Pekdistricts).Longitude/Latitude:(102.56,16.24)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RattaphonPitakthepsombat
ProjectManager
ChiWatershedRestorationProject,WWFGreaterMekong
ThailandCountryPrograme
404406Moo13,KasetwattanaRd,
Kudkao,ManjakhiriDistrict
KhonKaen,Thailand,40160
Tel:+6643381158
Fax:+6643381159
Mobile:+66817024537
Email:rpitakthepsombat@wwfgreatermekong.org
Website:http://thailand.panda.org/
OBJECTIVES:
Reducenutrientloadingstoreceivingwaters
Reduceexcesschemicalsinrunoff
Reducesedimenterosion&runoff(stabilizesoils)
TheChiRiverwatershedincludesasignificantamountofagriculturallands,includingplotsforsugar
cane,Cassava,ricepaddies,rubberplantations,andpulpandpapergeneration.Currentfarming
practicesintheregionaregenerallypoorandunsustainableandhaveresultedindegradedconditions
forthewatershed.Agriculturebestmanagementvolunteersweremobilizedtotestanumberof
sustainableagriculturalpracticesaimedatreducingchemicaluseonthefarmandreducingsoilerosion
andrunofffromagriculturalfieldsintolocalwatersources.Thevolunteersselectedwereallinterested
inestablishingalternativeagriculturalplotsontheirfarms.Ineachcase,thealternativeplotcoversa
portionofthetotalfarmareaandnotthetotallandcultivatedbyeachfarmer.Thisisfortworeasons:1)
toreducetheriskofeachfarmertoalevelthattheprojectcanguaranteeifthealternativeplotcrop
fails,and2)byonlyworkingonpartofthefarmerslandtheycancompareandcontrastbetweenthe
alternativeplotandtheirregularfieldstobetterunderstandthecostsandbenefitsofthealternative
practicecomparedtoregularpractice.Oncethevolunteerfarmerswereselected,astudytourwas
organizedtoinstructthefarmersaboutthealternativefarmingsystemsthatarepossibleforeachcrop
andlandtype.
Thealternativeagriculturalpracticeswereindividuallydesignedbaseduponthelocalconditionsandthe
farmersinterests.Forexample,somefarmerswereinterestedinreducingtheirfertilizercostssowere
keenontestingorganicfertilizers,whereasotherfarmerswantedtotrysoilstabilizationtechniquesto
protecttheirsoil.Atotalof40farmersareengagedinthisactivitywith144Rai(23ha)ofrice,49Rai
122
(7.8ha)ofsugarcaneand123Rai(20ha)ofCassavarepresented.Aworkinggrouphasbeenestablished
tosupport,adviseandmonitorthesealternativeagriculturepracticeactivitiescomprising
representativesfromKhonKaenUniversity,KhonKaencropresearchcenter,GreenManjaKheioKajee
Network,theSubdistrictcouncils,andtheagriculturevolunteerineachvillageassistedbyprojectstaff.
AgriculturalareaswithintheChiRiverwatershed.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
PilotactivitiesbeganinFebruary2008andareongoing.
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:Tobedetermined.
Approach&Results:
&WaterAssessment(SWAT)model(Neitschetal.,2005)wasusedtoestimatetheoriginalsediment
erosionandwashoffforthefarmplotspriortoimplementationofthepilotprojects.Supporting
estimatesofwaterrunoffvolumewerebasedontheCurveNumbermethod(USDANRCS,1986),and
123
dailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswereestimatedforyears200608basedonlocal
meteorologicaldata.DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfortheKhanKaen,
Thailandmeteorologicalstationforthe200608periodfromTuTiempo.net
(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Khon_Kaen/483810.htm).Dataforthistimeperiodaregenerally
representativeofthelongtermannualaveragemeteorologicalconditionsfortheregion.TheHamon
methodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageair
temperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
Todate,stripcroppingpracticeshavebeenimplementedfor20ricepaddyplots(16ha),19Cassava
plots(8.3ha),and6sugarcaneplots(8.5ha)foratotalcroplandareaof32.8ha.TheRunoffCurve
Numbers(CN)andtheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)usedintheMUSLEwasestimatedforthese
farmplotsasfollowsbasedonHaithetal.(1992):
CurveNumber:
o
Ricepaddies:CN=73(smallgrains,goodcondition,hydr.soilgroupB)
Sugarcane/Cassava:CN=75(contouredrowcrop,goodcondition,hydr.soilgroup
B)
Cover/ManagementFactor(Cusle):
o
Ricepaddies:Cusle=0.40
Sugarcane/Cassava:Cusle=0.10
Totalannualsedimentyieldsforthepreproject(i.e.,nopractices)andpostproject(stripcropping
practice)croplandareaswereestimatedasshownbelow.Thepostprojectestimateisbasedonan
assumed70%reductioninsoilerosion/runoffbasedonimplementationofstripcroppingpractices
(TableB13inHaithetal.,1992):
Preproject(nopractices):4,080MT/yr(124MT/ha/yronaverage)
Postproject(stripcropping):1,224MT/yr(37MT/ha/yronaverage)
DataSources:
Totalareaoffarmlandwherestripcroppingisbeingtested(32.8ha)providedbycontact.
Slope:variable(2%forricepaddies,515%forCassavaandsugarcaneplots)providedby
contact.
Soiltype:
Sand/claymixture(providedbycontact)
Availablewatercontentof~8mmpermeterofsoildepth(Batjes,1996)consistent
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200609wereobtainedforKhanKaen,Thailandfrom
TuTiempo.net(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Khon_Kaen/483810.htm).
124
Assumptions:
Precipitationdataobtainedforyears200608(mean:1,534mm)aregenerallyrepresentativeof
averageannualprecipitationconditionsfortheareaswherepilottestingisoccurring.
SelectedvaluesfortheCover/ManagementFactor(Cusle)wereassumedtoberepresentativeof
fieldconditions.Inaddition,thesefactorswereassumedtoremainconstantthroughtime(both
Potentialreductioninnutrientloadingstosoilsandtoreceivingwatersresultingfromtheuseof
organicfertilizersinplaceoftraditionalfertilizers.
Reductioninpesticideloadingstoreceivingwaters(notethatpesticideloadingdataare
requiredtosupportthisestimate).
Possiblewaterquantityand/orqualitybenefitsassociatedwithwetlandconservation(more
informationneededonthisactivity).
Habitatimprovementsbenefitingaquaticandterrestrialwildlife.
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
125
PROJECTNAME:ReconnectingtheLifeline
PROJECTID#:31
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:RestorationofthenaturalconnectionbetweentheGrlaMare
wetland/floodplainareaandtheDanubeRiverinRomania
LOCATION:DanubeRivernearriverkilometer833(totalriverlengthis2,780km)
MehedintiCounty,RomaniaN44o1042,E22o4822
PRIMARYCONTACT:
SuzanneEbert
FreshwaterOfficer,WWFInternational
DanubeCarpathianProgramme
Vienna,Austria
Telephone:+431524547018
Fax:+431524547070
sebert@wwfdcp.org
OBJECTIVES
Reconnectwetlandstoa)increasebiodiversityandhabitatarea,b)reestablishnatural
hydrologicalconditions,andc)retainwatersduringfloodevents.
TheDanubeRiverflowsthroughtencountriesandfourcapitalcities.Itservesasasourceofdrinking
waterforover20millionpeople,andprovidesahostofotherbenefitsandservicesincludingflood
protectioninitsremainingfloodplains,fisheries,tourism,andfiltrationofpollutantsandnutrients.
WWFhasidentifiedtheLowerDanubeandDanubeDeltaasoneoftheearths200mostvaluable
ecologicalregions(WWFDanubeCarpathianProgrammeOffice,2008).
Over80%oftheDanubesformerfloodplainshavebeendisconnectedfromtheriver,reducingwater
managementandfloodprotectionbenefitsoftheseareas.Floodinginparticularhasbecomeaconcern
ontheLowerDanubeinrecentyearsduetoanincreaseinextremeweatherevents.Between1998and
2002,HungaryandRomaniaexperiencedthemostfrequentfloodeventsinEurope.Subsequentflash
floodingoccurredinBulgariaandpartsofRomaniain2005,andanapproximately100yearfloodevent
occurredonthelowerDanubein2006.AcrosstheentireDanubebasin,atleast10liveswerelost,upto
30,000peopleweredisplaced,andoveralldamagewasestimatedatahalfbillionEuro(WWFDanube
CarpathianProgrammeOffice,2008).
Rehabilitationistargetedatreconnectingformerwetlandareasandsidearmsystems.Theareaaround
CalafatinRomaniaandthecorrespondingareaontheoppositeriverbankinBulgaria(downstreamVidin
uptoLom)wereidentifiedashavinghighpotentialforreconnectingformerwetlandsandformer
meanderswiththecurrentDanubewatercourse(WWFDanubeCarpathianProgrammeOffice,2008).
Afeasibilitystudyisunderwayfortherestorationandreconnectionofawetlandcomplex(GrlaMare)
tothemainriverstemonthelowerstretchesoftheDanube.This2,746hectareareaisdesignatedason
theEuropeanlevelasaNatura2000SpecialProtectedArea.Thiseffortispartofalargerproject,which
alsoincludesactivitiesonpolicywork,networkingprotectedareasandsturgeonconservationinitiatives
(WWFDanubeCarpathianProgrammeOffice,2008).
126
LocationofGrlaMareWetlandRestorationandReconnectionProject
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(basedonWWFDanubeCarpathianProgrammeOffice,2008)
In2008,apilotsitewasselected,aprojectproposalwaswrittenandascopingstudywas
developed.
Afeasibilitystudyisplannedforcompletioninthefirstquarterof2009.Thefeasibilitystudywill
identifythetechnicalworkstobecarriedoutforrestorationof/relinkingtheareatotheriver
system.
Implementationoftherestorationworkisplannedtostartin2011.Theschedulefor
completionofthisworkisdependentonnatural,politicalandlocalfactorsandisanticipated
between2012and2015.
TotalbudgetrequestedfromWWFUS/TCCCforwetlandrestorationis250,000USD(basedon
theoriginalproposalofWWFDanubeCarpathianProgrammeOfficein2008).Thesefundswill
covercompletionofastakeholderanalysis,staffandofficecosts,traveltoandfromthesites
area,technicalfeasibilitystudy,productionofavirtualormodelwetlandforthesitetobeused
asacommunicationsandeducationaltooltogainstakeholderbuyin,meanstopreparea
projectproposaltoleverageadditionalfundsforcompleteimplementationofworks,and
developmentofacompleterestorationplan(includinggoalsandobjectives,restoration
activities,costsandacapacitybuildingandcommunicationsplan).
1. Increaseinstoragevolumerestoredinthefloodplain
127

ApproachandResults
Theapproachwastoestimatetheannualstoragevolumethatisrestoredinthefloodplaindueto
reconnectingthiswetlandareatothemainstemoftheDanubeRiver.Thisstorageisameasureofthe
volumeofwaterthatwouldhaveotherwisefloweddownstreamwithoutservingnaturalhydrologic
functionsinthefloodplain.ThecalculationisbasedonaroughestimateforGrlaMareofapproximately
9daysofinundationperyearforanaveragedepthof0.51.0meters.
Anadditional0.5meterofwaterstorage(conservative)over2,750haoftheGrlaMaressurfacearea
translatestoawaterquantitybenefitof13,750ML/yr.
DataSources
AreafloodedprovidedinLimnoTech,2009.
Roughestimateofinundationfrequencyandaveragedepth(0.51.0m)providedbycontact
basedonextrapolationsfromanirregularelevationmodelandobservationsfromspring2009
floods.
Assumptions
Anaverageinundationdepthof0.5meterinthefloodplainwasconservativelyassumedbased
oninformationprovidedbytheprojectcontact.
ItwasassumedthatrestorationwillproceedaccordingtothescheduleinWWFDanube
CarpathianProgrammeOffice,basedontheinitialprojectproposalsubmittedtoWWFUSfor
riverbasinfundingfromtheWWFTCCCGlobalPartnershipfunds.
Improvedhabitatformigratingbirdsandspawningfish.
Recreationalbenefitssuchasfishingandotherwaterbasedactivities.Potentialinincreasedfish
catch,i.e.increaseinrevenue,forlocalinhabitantsandfishermen.
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
LimnoTech,2009.WatershedProtectionActivities:DataandInformationNeedsSurveyresponses.
April3,2009.
WWFDanubeCarpathianProgrammeOffice,2008.EuropesLifelineReconnectingtheDanubeandits
People.ProjectproposalsubmittedtoWWFUS.
128

MAPS
TheareaslikelytobetargetedforrestorationactivitiesontheGrlaMarerestorationsite.Thefeasibility
studytobecompletedinthefirstquarterof2010willhavespecifictechnicalplansandalternativesfor
restoration.
129
MapdepictingthepresentlanduseoftheGrlaMarerestorationsite.Theareainblueiswherewater
usedtonaturallyinfiltratethearea,butnowitisleveedoffintoaseriesofpoolsthataresometimes
usedforcommercialfishproduction(fishponds).
130
PROJECTNAME:WWFPakistanWesternHimalayanEcoregion
PROJECTID#:33
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Revegetationofdegradedhillslope
LOCATION:1)NamliMeraKhurdsubcatchmentofNalaMandrialongAyubiaNationalPark,Pakistan
(34o2540N,73o2352E);2)NamliKundla(34o0214N,73o2308E);3)SaifulMalookLake(34o
52N,73o41E).
PRIMARYCONTACT:
FahadQadir
EnterpriseCommunications
TheCocaColaCompany
fqadir@apac.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Revegetationtoreducerunoffandassociatedsedimentation,toprotectdrinkingwatersupply
andtoimprovehabitat/increasebiodiversity.
AyubiaNationalPark(ANP)coversanareaofapproximately3,312haandislocatedwithintheWestern
Himalayanglobalecoregion.TheWesternHimalayasisalsothecatchmentareafor7080%ofwater
fromthemeltingofsnowandglacierstotheIndusDelta.Itssignificanceinwatershedmanagementis
critical;deforestationintheareawillhavefarreachingconsequencesthatwillhavenegativeimpactin
theIndusandGangesdeltashttp://www.wwfpak.org/wwfprojects/ayubia_national_park.php).
WorldWideFundforNaturePakistan(WWFP)isworkingonsubwatershedmanagement,community
developmentandawarenessraisingandcapacitybuildinginvolvingcommunitiesthataredependenton
thenaturalresourcesinandaroundtheAyubiaNationalPark(TCCC,2009).Insupportofthisoverall
effort,WWFPlaunchedaSubWatershedManagementandEnvironmentalAwarenessProjectinand
aroundAyubiaNationalPark,NorthWestFrontierProvince(NWFP)withthefinancialcollaborationof
CocaColaFoundation.Theprojectaimstoimproveandsustaintheperennialflowofcleanwaterin
springsandstreamsoftheareathroughanintegratedwatershedmanagementapproach.Moreover,it
supportsthekeystakeholdersinthewastemanagementandcleaningoftheSaifulMalookNational
Park(http://www.wwfpak.org/101109_watershed_management.php).Thereareseveralactivities
underwayinNamliMeraKhurdandKundlathatareworkingtowardachievementoftheprojectgoals.
ThesesitesaresituatedontheNorthwesternedgeofAyubiaNationalParkintheNorthWestFrontier
Province(NWFP)ofPakistan(LTI,2009).
WithinNamliMeraKhurd,severalprojectsareunderwaytostabilizeerodingslopesthrough
revegetation,bioengineeringandbiologicaltechniques,includingrevegetating10hectaresofa
previouslybarehillslopewithgrasscover(seebeforeandafterphotosbelow).
131
BeforerevegetationAfterrevegetation
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:November2008
EndDate:June2010
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:100%(fromCWPProjectInformationSheet)
TotalCostofProject:$233,000.00USD
132

1. Reductioninrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunofffortheconversionofdegraded
grasslandtorevegetatedland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangein
runoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorforbothhydrologicimprovements(e.g.,
enhancedbaseflow)andreductionsinsedimenterosion/yield;and2)predictionsofrunoffaremore
certainthanpredictionsforchangesinbaseflowforrelativelysmalllandareas.
Curvenumbers(CN)forthepreprojectconditionandthepostprojectconditionwereestimatedbased
oninformationprovidedintheTR55document(USDANRCS,1986):
Preproject:degradedgrasslandwithnotrees
o
Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)A
CN=68(grasslandinpoorcondition)
Postproject:
o
Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)A
CN=49(grasslandinfaircondition)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedforthePeshawar,Pakistanmeteorological
stationforthe200608periodfromTuTiempo.net.Dataforthistimeperiodaregenerally
representativeofthelongtermannualaveragemeteorologicalconditionsfortheregion.TheHamon
methodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)forthisyearbasedondaily
averageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).Processedmeteorologicaldatawereusedto
estimatedailyrunoffforthepreandpostprojectcases.Totalannualrunoffvolumesandtheresulting
waterquantitybenefitwereestimatedasfollows:
Preprojectrunoffvolume:12.9ML/yr
Postprojectrunoffvolume:4.4ML/yr
DataSources/Sitespecificcharacteristics:
Totalsurfaceareaforrevegetation:10ha(providedbycontact)
Soiltype:Sandyloamtogravel(providedbycontact)
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200608wereobtainedforPeshawar,Pakistanfrom
TuTiempo.net(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Peshawar/415300.htm).
133
Assumptions:
Precipitationdataobtainedforyears200608(mean:647mm)aregenerallyrepresentativeof
averageannualprecipitationconditionsfortherevegetatedarea.
Approach&Results:
&WaterAssessment(SWAT)modelwasusedtoestimatetheoriginalsedimenterosionandwashofffor
thefarmplotspriortoimplementationofthepilotprojects.Supportingestimatesofwaterrunoff
volumewerebasedontheCurveNumbermethod,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswere
estimatedforyears200608basedonlocalmeteorologicaldata.TheHamonmethodwasusedto
estimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude
(Hamon,1963).
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)usedintheMUSLEwereestimatedforthepreandpostproject
conditionbasedonHaithetal.(1992):
Preproject:Cusle=0.100(~60%coverasweeds)
Preproject:Cusle=0.020(6080%grasscover)
Totalannualsedimentyieldswereestimatedasshownbelow:
Preproject(degradedgrassland):4,507MT/yr
Postproject(revegetated):32MT/yr
DataSources:
SeedatasourcesdiscussionintheReductioninrunoffsectionabove.
Assumptions:
SelectedvaluesfortheCover/ManagementFactor(Cusle)wereassumedtoberepresentativeof
fieldconditions.Inaddition,thesefactorswereassumedtoremainconstantthroughtime(both
NOTES
None
134
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
LimnoTech,Inc.(LTI),2009.WatershedProtectionActivities:DataandInformationNeedsSurvey
responses.
TheCocaColaCompany(TCCC),2009.TheCocaColaCompanyReplenishReport,AchievingWater
BalancethroughCommunityWaterPartnerships.
135
PROJECTNAME:BrazilianRainforestWaterProgram
PROJECTID#:35
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Reforestationof3,000hectaresofdeforestedlandintworegionsofthe
StateofSaoPaulo,Brazil
LOCATION:TheJapiandMartiqueriaMountainCorridor,andthePiracicamirimRiverSubBasin
(watershedareaofPiracicaba,CapivariandJundiarivers)oftheStateofSaoPaulo,Brazil
PRIMARYCONTACT:
HelenPedroso
ProjectCoordinator
CocaColaBrazilInstitute
Phone:552125591166
Fax:552125591569
hpedroso@la.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Restoreforesthabitat(createwildlifecorridorsintheJapiandMatiqueiraMountainCorridorby
connectingforestfragmentsandreforestedriparianzones)
Promotecreationofreforestationrelatedjobsandmitigatepovertyinlocalcommunities
Test/validatescientifichypothesisthatwillallowforadditionalsustainableexpansioninthe
AtlanticRainforestand/orothertropicalforests
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Thereforestationprojectisbeingimplementedoveraperiod
of5yearsinBrazilsAtlanticRainforestregionalong3differentriversrunningthrough4main
municipalitieswithapproximately850,000people.Rainforestsoncecoveredmorethan80percentof
thestateofSaoPaulo.Intheprojectwatershedsarea,only6.9%ofthetotal1,520,500hectaresremains
forested.Thisprojectwillprovideanexampleforreplicationinotherareasandwillinfluence
approximately45millionpeopleina100mileradiusaroundthereforestationsites.Goalsandexpected
outcomesofreforestationincludethefollowing:
WatershedImprovementreducedriverbankerosionandwaterwaysedimentationwill
improvewaterflowandhabitats.Agriculturallandborderingwaterwaysareoftenhighly
degraded,leadingtoriverbankerosionandsedimentationofwatersources.Thisprojectwill
reforestriparianbufferzonesthatincludetheBraziliangovernmentmandatedAreasof
PermanentProtection(APPs),whichextend30100metersfromthehighwatermarkofwater
bodies.
HabitatProtectioncreatewildlifecorridorsintheJapiandMatiqueiraMountainCorridorby
connectingforestfragmentsandreforestedriparianzones.Thecorridorswillsupportbiological
exchangesandreduceendogamyandspeciesendangerment.TheAtlanticRainforestcontainsa
largenumberofhighlyendangeredspeciesandhasbeendesignatedaWorldBiosphere
Reserve.Reforestedareaswillalsoactascarbonsinks,mitigatingtheeffectsofglobalwarming.
Carbonoffsetcreditsproducedbytheprojectwillbeusedtofundprojectexpansion.
SocioEconomicCapacityBuildingnurseryoperationswillcreatelocaljobs,strengthenlocal
capacityforenvironmentalservices(includingreforestation,watershedmonitoring,andCO2
reductionefforts)andprovideanadditionalrevenuebaseofenvironmentalservicestosupport
136
ongoing,sustainableoperations.Theprojectwillrequire6millionseedlingsandthe
establishmentoflargescalecommercialnurseriesinthelocalcommunities.
ExamplereforestationlocationsforsmallriparianfarmlandsintheStateofSaoPaulo,Brazil.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
2007:Projectwaslaunched
20082009:goalistoreforest400hectares
20092010:goalistoreforest1,130hectares
20102011:goalistoreforest1,470hectares
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:50%(providedbycontact)
1. Decreaseinrunoff
137
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
Preproject:
o
Postproject:
o
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfortheSaoPauloairportfromTuTiempo.net
forthe200608period.Dataforthistimeperiodaregenerallyrepresentativeofthelongtermannual
averagemeteorologicalconditionsfortheregion.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedaily
follows:
Preproject(openspace):14,692ML/yr(490mm/yr)
Postproject(reforestedland):12,663ML/yr(422mm/yr)
Benefit(runoffreduction):2,029ML/yr(68mm/yr)
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:3,000Ha(providedbycontact)
Slope:highlyvariable(075%)(providedbycontactthereisalargevarietyoflandscapesall
overthePirahyRiverBasin)
Soiltype:
Availablewatercontentof8mmpermeterofsoildepth(Batjes,1996)consistent
138
predominanceofdystrophic(lowfertility)andacid(pH<5)Cambisols(providedby
contact)
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200608wereobtainedfortheSaoPauloairport(stationID:
837800)fromTuTiempo.net(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Sao_Paulo_Aeropor
To/837800.htm).
Assumptions:
PrecipitationdataobtainedforSaoPaulo,Bazilforyears200608aregenerallyrepresentativeof
averageannualprecipitationconditionsfortheareaswherereforestationisoccurring.
Theaverageslopeconditionsforthereforestedareaareapproximately15%.
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject(pasture/range):190,293MT/yr(63.4MT/ha/yr)
Postproject(forested):8,268MT/yr(2.8MT/ha/yr)
DataSources:
andsources.
139
Assumptions:
Correspondingincreasesininfiltrationandgroundwaterbaseflowtolocalstreamnetworks
Habitatimprovementsbenefitingaquaticandterrestrialwildlife
NOTES
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
140
PROJECTNAME:RecyclingWaterProgramHefeiPlant
PROJECTID#:36
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:RecyclingCocaColaplanttreatedwaterforbeneficialnonpotable
communityuses
LOCATION:HeifeiPlant,China
PRIMARYCONTACT:
DeniseKnight
TheCocaColaCompany
4046763638
deknight@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reductionoftapwaterusebycommunity
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Theprojectgoalwastoencouragereductionofindustrial
wateruseandgeneratecostsavingsbyrecyclingandreusingwater.In2007,100,000tonsofrecycled
waterwassuppliedtotheSanitaryBureauofHefeiEconomicandTechnologicalDevelopmentZonefor
irrigationandcleaningthestreets.Tapwaterwaspreviouslyusedforthesepurposes.Theprogramwas
discontinuedafter2007.
141

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Activitywasconductedonlyin2007
ProjectwasfullyfundedbyCocaCola
1. Decreaseinsurfacewater/groundwaterusage
1. 1. DECREASEINSURFACEWATER/GROUNDWATERUSAGE
Approach&Results:
NocalculationsWatersavingswasreported
Benefit(decreaseinwaterusage):1millionlitersin2007
DataSources:
DataprovidedbyDeniseKnight(fromJasmineTianresponsesinLTICWPSurvey)
Assumptions:
Benefitattributedto2008
NOTES
REFERENCES
142
PROJECTNAME:ReforestationofNevadodeToluca
PROJECTID#:37
LOCATION:NevadodeTolucaNationalPark,Mexico
PRIMARYCONTACT:
VivianAlegriaGallo
DirectoraAsuntosComunitarios
CocaColadeMexico
525552622339(phone)
valegria@la.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Increaserechargeoflocalaquifer
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ElNevadodeTolucaParkisarechargeareaforthecityof
Toluca.Thegoalofthisreforestationprojectistocover1,000hectareswith1,200treesperhectare
over5years.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Basedonapproximatefundingsplit(TCCC,CIMSA,andFEMSA),per4/27/09emailfromV.
AlegriaGallo.
1. Increaseinrechargerate
ApproachandResults:
AccordingtoanAccinPlanetafactsheetpreparedforthisproject,itisexpectedthattheaquiferwill
bereplenishedwith540cubicmetersperhectareasaresultofthereforestationeffort.Thesupporting
technicalstudiesforthisratewerenotavailable,butitisareasonableestimateforthelocation.
WaterQuantityBenefit:
1,000hectares*540m3/ha/yr=540,000m3/yr=540ML/yr
Datasources:
Allinformationusedintheestimatewasprovidedinthefactsheet.
Assumptions:
143
Assumereforestationoccursatthesamerateeachyear(200ha/yr)for5years.
Improvedbiodiversity
NOTES
Estimatedrechargeratecanbereevaluatediftechnicalstudiessupportingtherechargerateof
540m3/ha,orsitespecificinformationareprovided.
REFERENCES
AccionPlaneta.FactSheetonNevadodeTolucaproject.
144
PROJECTNAME:MexicoReforestationProgram
PROJECTID#:38
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Groundrestoration(infiltrationtrenches)
LOCATION:Amecameca,Mexico
PRIMARYCONTACT:
VivianAlegriaGallo
CocaColadeMexico
525552622339(phone)
valegria@la.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Increaseinfiltration
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Thisgroundrestorationprojecthasinvolvedthediggingof
162,500infiltrationtrencheson250hectares.Thetrenchesarehanddugindeforestedareas,to
maintainthehumidityoftheground,increaseinfiltration,andreducegrounderosion.Thetrenchesare
2feetwideand7feetlong.Thisactivityisexpectedtoexpandalongwithreforestationefforts
throughoutMexico,withthetotalareadrainedtoinfiltrationtrenchesestimatedtobeapproximately
15%ofthetotalreforestedarea.
Photoofinfiltrationtrenches,takenbyPronatura
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectfortheinitial250hectareswascompletedin2008.
145
Asreforestationeffortsexpandinfutureyears,infiltrationtrenchesareexpectedtorepresent
approximately15%ofthetotalreforestedarea.Therefore,infiltrationtrencheswillultimately
beimplementedfor3,750ha(0.15x25,000ha)bytheendof2012.
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola.
1. Increaseininfiltration
1. INCREASEININFILTRATION
ApproachandResults:
Thetotalinfiltrationratewascalculatedasthesumofdirectinfiltration(thequantityofwaterthatfalls
directlyineachtrencheachyear)plusinfiltrationofrunofffromuntrenchedareasofthe250ha(i.e.,
drainsurface).
Averageannualrainfall=800mm/year(measured)
Directinfiltration=surfaceareaoftrenches(162,500m2)xannualprecipitation(0.8m/yr)=130,000
m3/yr.
Runoff/drainagesurface=surfacearea(2,337,500m2)xaverageprecipitation(0.8m/yr)xrunoff
capturecoefficient(0.6)=1,122,000m3.(Runoffcapturecoefficientestimatedbasedonslopeandsoil
type.)
Totalinfiltration=(directinfiltration)+(drainvolume)=(130,000m3/yr)+(1,122,000m3/yr)=1,252,000
m3/yr=1,252ML/yr(for250ha).
Theabovecalculationappliesto250hectares,or6.67%oftheultimateestimatedsurfaceareaof3,750
haforinfiltrationtrenches.Therefore,theultimatewaterquantitybenefitiscalculatedasfollows:
TotalBenefit=(1,252ML/yr)/(0.0667)=18,780ML/yr
DataSources:
Allinformationusedinthecalculationswasprovidedinthe3/5/09PowerPointpresentation.
Assumptions:
Assumedtrencheswillcontinuetofunctionfor10years(perinformationprovided)
Decreasedsedimenterosion/runoff.
NOTES
146
This250haprojectispartofthe25,000hectaresbeingreforestedorrestoredunderthe
program.
REFERENCES
TCCC.2009.CinasTiegas.March5,2009PowerpointPresentation,Atlanta(providedbyVivianAlegria
Gallo).
147
PROJECTNAME:CocaColaMexicoReforestationProgram(inpartnershipwithCONAFORand
Pronatura)
PROJECTID#:38
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Reforestationof25,000hectaresofdeforestedlandinMexico
LOCATION:Mexico(variouslocations,includingCoahuila,Durango,Tlaxcala,Veracruz,andZacatecas,
etc.)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
VivianAlegriaGallo
DirectorofCommunityAffairs
CocaColaofMexico
Phone:525552622339
Fax:525552622016
OBJECTIVES:
Reducerunoff/increaseinfiltration
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:CocaCola,theComisionNacionalForestal(Conafor),and
PronaturaMexicoareplanningtoreforest25,000hectaresofpriorityecosystems(forests,jungles,and
wetlands)thatsupplywatertodifferenttownsnationwide.Approximately30milliontreeswillbe
plantedindeforestedlandstomitigateclimateeffects,restorehabitatandbiodiversity,rehabilitate
aquifersandwatersheds,andpromoteeconomicandcommunitygrowth.
LocationsforreforestationeffortsfortheVeracruzregionofCentralMexico,
including700hectaresin2008.
148
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Atotalof1,649hectareswerereforestedin2008
Year2009goalistoreforest8,162hectares
Ultimategoalistoreforestatotalof25,000hectaresbytheendof2012
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
Preproject:
o
Herbaceousgrass/weeds/brushmixtureinfairtogoodcondition(CN=67)
Postproject:
o
meteorologicaldatabaseforvariouslocationsduringthe20002008timeperiod.TheHamonmethod
wasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageairtemperature
andlatitude(Hamon,1963).Aconcertedeffortwasmadetoinsurethattheprecipitationdatausedfor
eachreforestationlocationwererepresentativeoflongtermannualaverageclimatepatternsforthe
region.
Preproject(openspace):41,402ML/yr
Postproject(reforestedland):32,002ML/yr
Benefit(runoffreduction):9,400ML/yr
149
(Itshouldbenotedthatonly85%ofthetotalreforestationareawasincludedintherunoffquantity
estimateshownabove.Theremaining15%ofthe25,000hareforestationareawillinvolveinfiltration
trenches.Thewaterquantitybenefitassociatedwithinfiltrationresultingfromthepresenceofthese
trenchesiscalculatedasaseparateactivity.)
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:25,000ha(providedbycontact)
Slope:highlyvariableandsitedependent(040%)(providedbycontact)
Soiltype:highlyvariable,butgenerallycharacterizedbyavailablewatercontent(AWC)of7to
8mmpermeterofsoildepth(Batjes,1996).
meteorologicaldatabase(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/)forrepresentativelocations
throughoutMexico,includingJalapa,Cuernavaca,Chihuahua,Queretaro,andPuebla.A
summarytableisprovidedbelow.
Table1.MeteorologicalStationsforWaterRunoffAnalysis
Station
Location
AverageRainfallfor
SelectedYears(mm)
StationID
SelectedYears1
Jalapa
766870
200002
1,402
Cuernavaca
767260
200308
1,018
Chihuahua
762250
2000,200608
335
Queretaro
766250
200304,2007
601
Puebla
766850
200001,
718
200405
Yearsselectedbasedonrecentdataavailability,completeness,andrepresentativeness.
Table2.SummaryofReforestationLocations
Location
Chihuahua
BajaCaliforniaSur
SanLuisPotosi
Zacatecas
Durango
Coahuila
Aguascalientes
Queretaro
NuevoLeon
Guanajuato
Hidalgo
EstadodeMexico
Area
Fraction1
5.1%
3.0%
5.2%
1.0%
6.1%
5.3%
3.1%
0.3%
6.1%
7.2%
2.0%
8.0%
150
AssignedMet.
Station
Chihuahua
Chihuahua
Chihuahua
Chihuahua
Chihuahua
Chihuahua
Queretaro
Queretaro
Queretaro
Queretaro
Puebla
Puebla
Assumed
Slope
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Michoacan
Tlaxcala
Puebla
Morelos
Jalisco
Veracruz
1
20.2%
6.1%
3.6%
0.7%
3.6%
13.3%
Cuernavaca
Cuernavaca
Cuernavaca
Cuernavaca
Cuernavaca
Jalapa
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
20%
Basedonactualreforestationareasfor2008andstatedgoalsforyear2009.
Assumptions:
The200809distributionofreforestedlandamongthevariouslocationsisrepresentativeofthe
ultimatedistributionforthereforested25,000hectares(Table2).
Precipitationpatternsformeteorologicalstationsarerepresentativeofconditionsforreforested
areas.Inreality,weexpectthattheprecipitationdataarebiasedlowandtheairtemperature
databiasedhighrelativetoactualconditionsatreforestationsitesoccurringonmountainslopes
athigherelevations.Therefore,itisreasonabletoexpectthatthecurrentestimatesare
conservativerelativetoactualrunoffreductionbenefitsforthereforestedareas.Collectionof
dailyprecipitationdataforspecificreforestationlocationswouldallowforarefinedestimateof
runoffreduction.
Thepreprojectlandcovercanbeappropriatelycharacterizedbyherbaceous
(grass/weeds/brush)withapproximately3080%vegetativecover.(Notethatthisprovidesa
conservativeestimateofCurveNumberforareasthathavebeenutilizedascropland.)
Landslopeswereconservativelyassumedtobe~10%unlessotherwisedeterminedbasedon
availablelatitude/longitudelocationsandglobalslopedatasets.Slopeestimates(e.g.,10%)are
likelyconservativerelativetoactualslopeconditionsforsomesites;specificlatitude/longitude
coordinatesforallreforestationlocationswouldberequiredtorefineslopeestimates.
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject:grass/weeds,6080%cover(Cusle=0.02)
151

Preproject(pasture/rangeland):803,048MT/yr
Postproject(forested):32,577MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
NOTES
Collectionofdailyprecipitationdataforspecificreforestationlocationswouldallowforamore
accurateestimateofrunoffreductionsandsedimenterosion/yield.
Specificlatitude/longitudecoordinatescouldbeusedtobetterestimatelocalslopeconditions.
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
152
153
PROJECTNAME:ReforestationEffortsattheMonarchaButterflyBioreserve
PROJECTID#:39
LOCATION:MonarchButterflyReserve,Michoacan,Mexico
PRIMARYCONTACT:
VivianAlegriaGallo
CocaColadeMexico
525552622339(phone)
valegria@la.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Rehabilitatedegradedforestareas
Protectwinteringhabitatformonarchbutterfly
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Projectinvolvestheproductionof100,000Oyamel
trees/yearforplantingon1,000hectaresofthereserveeachyearduringa2yearprogram.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Currentstatus:2yearprogramwascompletedin2009.Programisongoingbutnoinformation
currentlyavailablerelatedtofutureproduction.
TCCCsupportednursery,FEMSAsupportedtreeplantings
1. Increaseinrechargerate
ApproachandResults
AccordingtoanAccinPlanetafactsheetpreparedforthenearbyNevadodeTolucaproject,itis
expectedthattheaquiferwillbereplenishedwith540cubicmetersperhectareasaresultofa
reforestationeffort.Thesupportingtechnicalstudiesforthisratewerenotavailable,butitis
consideredareasonableestimateforthelocation.
WaterQuantityBenefit:
2,000hectares*540m3/ha/yr=1,080,000m3/yr=1,080ML/yr
Datasources:
Allinformationusedintheestimatewasprovidedinthefactsheets,andina4/27/09email
fromV.AlegriaGallo.
154
Assumptions
Assumedreforestationiscompletedin2009.
Improvedbiodiversity
NOTES
Estimatedrechargeratecanbereevaluatediftechnicalstudiesareprovided.
OyameltreesaredifficulttofindinMexico,andthelocalgovernmentisgoingtobuythetrees
forotherareasthatneedoyamel.Thenurserysupportsthelocaleconomy.
REFERENCES
AccionPlaneta.FactSheetonMonarcaButterflyproject.
AccionPlaneta.FactSheetonNevadodeTolucaproject.
155
PROJECTNAME:IlaganWatershedConservationProjectinIsabela
PROJECTID#:40
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Implementationofimprovedagriculturalpractices:cropland/farmland
management
LOCATION:AbuanRiversubwatershed,CityofIlagen,IsabelaProvince,Philippines
(17.089N,122.068E)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
EdgardoTongson
WorldWildlifeFundPhilippines
etongson@wwf.org.ph
OBJECTIVES
Increaseinfiltration/aquiferrechargeand/orincreasebaseflows
ThisprojectwillhelptoprotecttheAbuanRiverwatershed,neartheCityofIlagan,andbenefitwater
usersintheprovinceofIsabela,Philippinesincludingindustries,irrigationfarmers,waterdistricts,
recreationists/ecotouristsandfutureminihydroproject(s).Thegoalsoftheprojectareto:
Identifyandassessthreatstothewatershedandfacilitatestakeholderplanningforthe
conservationandsustainableuseofthewatershed.
DevelopplanstorehabilitatedenudedareasinthiswatershedoftheNorthernSierraMadre
throughagroforestryschemesandassistednaturalregeneration.
DevelopschemesforPaymentsforWatershedServicesinvolvinguser/buyerstoprovide
sustainablefinancingforwatershedactivities.
Increaseawarenessoflocalcommunitiesontheimportanceofprotectingwatershedsand
conservingwaterresources.
TheAbuanwatershedislocatedonthewesternedgeoftheNorthernSierraMadreandischaracterized
bymountainoustohillyterrain.Annualrainfallinthisareais2900mm.Ofthis,67%endsupassurface
runoff,28%asevapotranspirationandonly5%goesintogroundwaterrecharge.The63.79sqkm
watershedisstillwellforestedwith89%forestcover.Theremainderconsistsoflandsplantedtocorn
(4.35%),opengrasslands(3.36%),andlessthanonepercenteachofkaingin(swiddenorslashandburn
farms),shrubs,builtupareaandricelands.Some5,581residentslivein5villages,orbarangays,inthe
lowercatchmentarea.
Soilerosionfromillegalloggingisthreateningthewatershed,andtheresultingwaterpollutionand
sedimentationarereducingtheamountofwateravailabletofarmersandotherusers.Achievementsof
theprogramincludethefollowing:
Characterizedthewatershedastogeology,soils,landuse,hydrology,hydrogeology;including
population,farmingpractices,watersupplies.
Distributed16,000fruitingseedlingsto29farmerhouseholdbeneficiariescovering58hectares.
Completedreconnaissance,fieldresearchandtourpackagesforecotourism.
Deployedthecollectionandplantingofsome90,000seedlingsindesignatedreforestationsites.
156
ImpactonWaterQuantity
Theprojectfacilitatedtheplantingof16,000seedlingson58hectaresoffarmlandwithinaCommunity
BasedForestManagementarea.Thisislocatedinsubbasinno.1410withanareaof1099hectares.
Thepresentlanduseofthesubbasinis60%agroforest,11%cornlandand29%consistingofopen
grasslandsandorswiddenfarms(kaingin).Assuming20%or220hasoftheexistinggrasslandsand
swiddenfarmsinthesubbasinareconvertedtoagroforestry,andassuminga24hour50yearstorm
returnperiod,thehydrographshowsareductioninpeakdischargeby6cubicmeterspersecondand
reductioninrunoffby80,450cubicmetersperday.Addingvegetationcoverwillreducefloodrisks
downstreamduringaheavyrainfallevent.
ImpacttoWaterQuality
Soilerosionismajorthreattothewatershed.Topsoilremovalreducessoilproductivity,infiltration
capacitiesanddiminishesbaseflows.Siltationalsoreducescapacitiesofirrigationcanalsand
hydropowerplantsandpollutesdrinkingwater.Swiddenfarmingisthebiggestcontributortosoil
erosionwitherosionratesrangingfrom2617tons/hayear.Thisisfollowedbyopengrasslandwith
erosionratesrangingfrom20to97tons/hayear.Incontrast,awellmaintainedforestcoverhasan
erosionraterangingfrom1.54to7.49tons/hayear.Convertingopengrasslandsintomangoareasin
thesubbasincanreduceerosionratesfrom69.44to18.52tons/hayear.For220hectaresofgrasslands
convertedtomangotreefarms,thismeans11,202tonsofsoilmaterialconserved.Thisvolumeofsoils
holdsasizablevolumeofinfiltratedwaterintheformofinterflowwhichthencontributestobaseflows.
157

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:February2009
EndDate:February2010
TotalCostofProject:$154,918USD
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunofffortheconversionofexisting
grasslandsandswiddenfarmstoagroforestryland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedon
areas.
158
informationprovidedintheTR55document(USDANRCS,1986)andHaithetal.(1992):
Preproject:
o
Grasslandinfaircondition(CN=69)
Postproject:
o
Mangoorchard/treefarmingoodcondition(CN=58)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromtheTuTiempo.netwebsiteforthe
Casiguranstation(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Tuguegarao/983360.htm)duringthe200608
timeperiod.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)forthis
yearbasedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
Preproject(openspace)runoffvolume:4,383ML/yr
Postproject(agroforestland)runoffvolume:4,247ML/yr
Preproject:opengrasslandsinfairconditionwithnoforestcover
Postproject:agroforestedland(mangoorchard/treefarms)
Surfacearea:220ha(totalareatargeted)plantingofmangotreeson58hasofar.
Slope:Terrainissteeptoverysteepwith54%oftheareahavingslopesof3050%followedby
35%oftheareawithslopesexceeding50%.Milderslopesoflessthan30%arefoundinthe
lowercatchmentareainthefloodzone,alluvialplainsandupperbankstotherightoftheAbuan
river.
Soiltype:Rugaoclayloam,foundin3050%slopesisawelldrainedmoderatelydeep(60cm
depth)withmoderatepermeabilitysubangularblockystructuredclayloamsoils.Soilsurfaceis
fairlystony.
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromTuTimpo.netfortheCasiguran
station(ID:983360).
Assumptions:
Usedfutureprojectionof220haofgrasslandconvertedtoagroforestry(mangotrees)
Usedapproximateaverageslopeof50%.
159
PrecipitationdatafortheCasiguranstation(200608)arerepresentativeofprecipitation
conditionsfortheagroforestedareas.Averageannualprecipitationforthese3yearswas3,226
mm,whichissimilartothe2,900mmcitedintheprojectsurvey.
Soilerodibilityfactor(K)wasassumedtobe0.24forbothpreandpostprojectconditions.
Approach&Results(pertheCWPsurveyresponse):
Soilerosionismajorthreattothewatershed.Topsoilremovalreducessoilproductivity,infiltration
capacitiesanddiminishesbaseflows.Siltationalsoreducescapacitiesofirrigationcanalsand
hydropowerplantsandpollutesdrinkingwater.TheEStimationofONsiteERosionorESONER,aGIS
basedmodeldevelopedbytheBureauofSoilsandWaterManagementforPhilippineconditionswas
adaptedandusedforthisstudy.TheESONERmodelenablestheestimationofthesourceerosionrate
fromtheproductoffourparametersconsideredsuchasrainfalldata,topographicorslopecondition,
soilcharacteristicsandthevegetativecoverorlanduse.
Kaingin(i.e.,swiddenfarms)isthebiggestcontributortosoilerosionwitherosionratesrangingfrom
2,617tons/hayear.Thisisfollowedbyopengrasslandwitherosionratesrangingfrom20to97
tons/hayear.Incontrast,awellmaintainedforestcoverhasanerosionraterangingfrom1.54to7.49
tons/hayear.Convertingopengrasslandsintomangoareasinthesubbasincanreduceerosionrates
from69.44to18.52tons/hayear.For220hectaresofgrasslandsconvertedtomangotreefarms,this
means11,202tonsofsoilmaterialconserved.
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
SeeabovediscussioninApproach&Resultssection.
None
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
160
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
161
PROJECTNAME:EveryDropMattersinSaraykoyandBeypazari
PROJECTID#:41
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Leakrepair
LOCATION:SaraydistrictofAnkara,Turkey
PRIMARYCONTACT:
OmarBennis
PublicAffairsandCommunications
CocaColaEurasia&AfricaGroup
Tel.+90.216.556.2039
ombennis@eur.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Reducewaterlossfromagingwaterdistributionsystem
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Thisprojectisreplacingagingwatermainstoreduce
waterloss(50,000tonsperyear)andensurewatersafety.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Pilotimplementedin2006andisongoing
Projecttotalcost:360,000
CocaColacontribution:320,000
1. Decreaseinsurfacewater/groundwaterusage
Approach
Watersavedfromleakrepairs(watermainreplacement),asreportedinsurvey
Leakrepairssave50,000tonsofwaterperyear=100,000,000lbswater/62.4lb/ft3=
1,602,564ft3water*28.3L/ft3=45,379,562Lwatersavingsafter2007
Totalyearlybenefit(decreasedsurfacewateruse):45.38millionL/year
Datasources
Nodatausedwatersavingswerereportedinsurvey.
Assumptions
Assumednodepreciationinsavingsover5years(systemscontinuestofunctionasin2008).
162

NOTES:None
REFERENCES:None
163
PROJECTNAME:IslandSanitationintheMaldives
PROJECTID#:42
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Pilotwastewaterbiotreatmentplant
LOCATION:DhambidhooIsland,LaamuAtoll,MaldiveIslands
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JohnGacutanandArunKashyap,Ph.D,OfficerinCharge
UNDPMaldives
UNBuilding,BuruzuMagu
MaleMaldives
Tel:(960)3343251,Fax:(960)3324504
arun.kashyap@undp.org and john.gacutan@undp.org
OBJECTIVES
Reducepollutantloadinmarinewatersandgroundwaterfromsewagedischarges
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:(UNDP,2006a;UNDP,2006b)
ProvidingasustainablesanitationsystemfortheresidentsofDhambidhooIsland,LaamuAtollinthe
Maldives,thisprojectsupportsthegovernment'sposttsunamisanitationeffortsandimprovesthe
qualityofthegroundwaterontheisland.TheDhambidhooprojectincludestheinstallationofa
sustainablesanitationsystemforall526residentsoftheisland.(Note:Whenthetsunamistruck,the
islandspopulationwas856,but330havesincerelocatedtothecapital,Male,andotherislands.)Atthe
completionofthisproject,allhouseholdsandpublicbuildingswillbefittedwithadurable,watertight
septictankandconnectedtoasewagenetwork.Throughthiswaterbornesanitationmodel,the
dischargewillbechanneledsafelythroughanetworkofpipestoasecondstagepurificationfacilityand
thenintothedeepwatersbeyondtheislandencirclingreef.Thiswillbringanendtothepretsunami
practiceofdischargingrawsewagedirectlyintotheislandslagoonorintothegroundwater.
Priortothe2004tsunami,therewasnowastewatertreatmentsysteminplaceontheIslandof
Dhambidhoo;inmosthouseholds,therewerepittoilets,andothersdidnthaveanytoiletfacilities.The
soakagepitsinthehouseholdsthathadpittoiletfacilitiesweredesignedtodisposeofthewastedirectly
tothefreshwaterlanesofthecoralislands,whicharearound0.51mdeepinmostareas.Afterthe
project,thesanitationsystemincludedspeciallydesignedseptictanksineachhousehold.Thesetanks
holdallthesolidparticlesandsludgeanddisbursethewastewater,whichiscollectedatthepump
stationsandsenttoatreatmentfacility.Atthetreatmentfacility,thewastewaterisfilteredusinga
biologicalfiltrationsystem.NogroundwaterqualitydataareavailableforDhambidhooIslandpriorto
thetsunami.
164
Diagramsofwatertreatmentprocess(UNDP.2006b).
165

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
September9,2007Projectlaunchandpreliminaryactivities
December2007Procurementandshippingofequipmentsandmaterials,deliverytothesite
October2007July2008Constructionwork
MayJuly2008Training,operationandmaintenance
July31,2008Projectcompletion
Totalcost:$1,152,664USD
CocaColacontribution:$450,000USD
1. Decreaseinpollutantload
1. DECREASEINPOLLUTANTLOAD
ApproachandResults
Thedecreaseinpollutantloadwascalculatedasthedifferencebetweenthepollutantloadinraw
sewage(basedtypicalconcentrationsandpercapitawaterusage)andthepollutantloadintreated
effluentfromaprimarywastewatertreatmentplant.Seeattachedspreadsheetforcalculations.
Loadreductionestimates(metrictons/526persons/year):
Biochemicaloxygendemand(BOD):7.8
Totalsuspendedsolids(TSS):9.4
Totalcoliform:0.3
Fecalcoliform:0.003
Datasources
TheprimarysourceofinformationwasMetcalfandEddy(2003).SeeattachedExcelfile.
Assumptions
Thewastewaterplantwasassumedtofunctionasasecondarytreatmentplant.
Itisassumedthatthesystemismaintainedandproperlyfunctionsoveritslifespan.
OTHERWATERSHEDRESORATIONBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED
Improvedaesthetics
Reducedexposuretopathogens
Reducednutrientloadings
NOTES
None
166
REFERENCES
MetcalfandEddy.2003.WastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.4thEdition.
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP).2006a.PosttsunamirecoveryIslandsanitationin
theMaldives(projectfactsheet)
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP).2006b.UNDPMaldivesTsunamiRecovery
DhambidhooIslandProjectUpdate(December2006)
167
PreliminaryEstimateofPollutantLoadReduction
DhambidhooIsland,Maldives Sanitationproject(526people)
Waterconsumptionindevelopingcountriesandareas[1]
Percapitawaterconsumption
Units
Gal/d
L/d
WesternPacific
824
3090
Waterconsumptionindevelopingcountriesandareas
PercapitawaterconsumptionAverageValues
Gal/d
L/d
L/yr
16
60
21900
TypicalwastewaterconstituentdataforvariouscountriesConstituentRanges[2]
Countries
BOD[2]
Units g/capita*d
Brazil
5568
Egypt
2741
India
2741
Palestine(W.Bank&GazaStrip)
3268
Turkey
2750
Uganda
5568
US
50120
TypicalwastewaterconstituentdataforvariouscountriesAverageValues
Total
Coliform
BOD
TSS
TKN
NH3N
TotalP
TSS[2]
TKN[2]
NH3N[2]
Total
Fecal
TotalP[2] Coliform[3] Coliform[3]
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
No./100mL
No./100mL
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
g/capita*d
5568
4168
ND
5272
4168
4155
60150
814
814
ND
47
814
814
922
ND
ND
ND
35
911
ND
512
0.61
0.40.6
ND
0.40.7
0.42
0.40.6
2.74.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1E+71E+10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1E+51E+8
61.5
34
34
50
38.5
61.5
85
61.5
54.5
ND
62
54.5
48
105
11
11
ND
5.5
11
11
15.5
ND
ND
ND
4
10
ND
8.5
0.8
0.5
ND
0.55
1.2
0.5
3.6
No./100mL
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.01E+09
Fecal
Coliform
No./100mL
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.01E+07
EstimatedTypicalWastewaterConstituentData
AverageofValuesforBrazil,Egypt,India,Palestine,TurkeyandUganda(above)
g/capita*d
kg/capita*d
MT/capita*yr
BOD
46.6
0.046583
0.017003
TSS
56.1
0.056100
0.020477
TKN
9.9
0.009900
0.003614
NH3N
7
0.007000
0.002555
TotalP
0.71
0.000710
0.000259
TKN
1.90
NH3N
1.34
TotalP
0.14
Fecal
Total
Coliform[4] Coliform[4]
1.50
0.001502
0.000548
0.015
0.000015
0.000005
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
0.29
0.003
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
94.5
94.5
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
0.2724
0.002724
EstimatedTypicalWastewaterConsituentLoads
MT/526persons*yr
SecondaryWWTPPlantRemovalEfficienciesConstituentRanges[5]
PercentRemoval
BOD
8590
TSS
8590
TKN
NA
BOD
8.94
TSS
10.77
SecondaryWWTPPlantRemovalEfficienciesAverages
NH3N
NA
TotalP
NA
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
9099
9099
BOD
87.5
TSS
87.5
TKN
n/a
NH3N
n/a
TotalP
n/a
TKN
n/a
NH3N
n/a
TotalP
n/a
EstimatedWastewaterConstituentLoadingChange
MT/526persons*yr
Notes
ND:notdetected
n/a:notavailable
BOD
7.8256
TSS
9.4243
UnitConversions
2E+12 cells/g[4]
DataSources
[1]Table39:Waterconsumptionindevelopingcountriesandareas.WastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.
[2]Table314:Typicalwastewaterconstituentdataforvariouscountries.WastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.
[3]Table315:Typicalcompositionofuntreateddomesticwastewaterathighstrengthconcentration(basedonwastewaterflowrateof60gal/capita/day).Wastewater
Engineering,TreatmentandReuse.Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003.
[4]Theconversionoffecalcoliformcounttomassconcentrationusedavalueof2x10^12cells/drygbasedonreportedpropertiesofE.coli
(Watson,J.D.1970.MolecularBiologyoftheGene.W.A.Benjamin,NewYork)(http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsaar/cdlodos/pdf/assessmentofrisk635.pdf)
[5]PrimaryWWTPplantremovalefficiencies(Table37:Primarytreatment(withoutchemicals),QuantifyingWater"Offsets"inCommunityWaterParnershipProjects,LTI,2008.
[DatacompiledfromWastewaterEngineering,TreatmentandReuse,Metcalf&Eddy,4thEdition,2003;andDesignofMunicipalWastewaterTreatmentPlants,4thEdition,Water
EnvironmentFederationandAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,1998]
168
PROJECTNAME:ConservationandRehabilitationoftheKlongYanWatershedinSuratThani
PROJECTID#:43
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Conservationofforestland(3,040hectares)
LOCATION:SuratThani,Thailand(latitude:9.109.42,longitude:98.8099.00)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
BudsayadaYoungfhuengmontra(Nan)
CorporateCitizenshipManager
CocaCola(Thailand)Limited.
Tel.6628351477
Mobile.66817521787
Fax.6628351021
Email:ybudsayada@apac.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Conservationofexistingforestland
Reducerunoff
Conservelocalwatershedandpromoteenvironmentalawareness
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:VillagersintheSuratThaniregionintrudeontropicalrain
forestlandinordertoexpandtheirfarmland.Theactivitythatcouldbequantifiedinvolvesconserving
19,000rais(3,040hectares)offorestarea,therebypreventingfurtherexpansionofagriculturalareas.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
ConservationactionwascompletedbyAugust2008.
FullyfundedbyCocaCola.
Approach&Results:
169
Preproject:agriculturaldevelopment
o
Pastureinfaircondition(CN=69)
Postproject:conservedforestland
o
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedforSuratThani,Thailand(stationID:VTSB,
#485510)fromthemeteorologicaldatabaseavailablefromWaterBase(www.waterbase.org)forthe
200005period,althoughsufficientlycompleteprecipitationdatawereonlyavailableforyears200304.
TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondaily
averageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
year2000.Totalannualrunoffvolumesandtheresultingwaterquantitybenefitwereestimatedas
follows:
Preproject(agriculturalland):11,729ML/yr(386mm/yr)
Postproject(conservedforestland):9,651ML/yr(318mm/yr)
Benefit(runoffreduction):2,078ML/yr(68mm/yr)
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:
3,040ha(providedbycontact)
Slope:
2747%(1525)inmostareas,6070insteepestareas(providedbycontact)
Averageslopeof37%usedforallcalculations(conservative)
Soiltype:
Describedasloosesoilbycontact
Availablewatercontent(AWC)=8mm/meter(hydrologicsoilgroupB)
Meteorologicaldata:
Dailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedataforyears200304obtainedfrom
WaterBasemeteorologicaldatabaseforSuratThani,Thailand.
Precipitationtotalsfor2003and2004are2,174mmand20041,364mm,respectively.
Assumptions:
100%ofconservedforestlandareawouldhavebeendevelopedforagriculturaluse(eventually).
170
Theagriculturallandforthepostprojectconditionwasconservativelyassumedtobe
representedbypasturelandinfaircondition(CN=69).Inreality,theCurveNumbercouldbe
higherformoreintensiveagriculturaluse,includingfarmingofrowcrops,etc.
SWATmodelparameterCNCOEFwasconservativelysetto0.0(usedtocalculatethedaily
changeintheretentionparameterbasedondailypotentialevapotranspirationrates).
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject:agriculturalland(Cusle=0.10)
Preproject(unforested):2,701,900MT/yr(889MT/ha/yr)
Postproject(forested):22,300MT/yr(7MT/ha/yr)
Benefit(reducedsedimentyield):2,679,600MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
100%ofconservedforestlandareawouldhavebeendevelopedforagriculturaluse(eventually).
Thesoilerodibilityfactor(K)wasconservativelyassumedtobe0.17foruseinMUSLEequation.
171
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
172
PROJECTNAME:RainwaterHarvestingandAquiferRechargeinIndia(8projects:1.)Checkdamfor
GroundwaterRecharge,2.)RainWaterHarvesting,AquiferRechargeandImprovedAccesstoWater,3.)
RainwaterHarvestingandAquiferRecharge,4.)RainwaterHarvestingProjectin39Villages,5.)
RainwaterHarvestingProjectinVaranasi,6.)RechargeShaftsforSustainableGroundwater,7.)
RejuvenationofapondinKarnataka,8.)MaintenanceofRainwaterHarvestingStructuresacrossIndia)
PROJECTID#:51
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Construction,useandmaintenanceofrainwaterharvestingstructuresfor
watersupplyandaquiferrecharge
LOCATION:LocationsthroughoutIndia
PRIMARYCONTACT:
PraveenAggarwal
NickMartin,Sr.ProjectManager
CocaColaIndia
DeltaConsultants
Gurgaon,India
8043326401
paggarwal@apac.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Collectrainwaterformultipleusesincludingaquiferrecharge
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:CocaColaIndia,inconjunctionwithpartnerorganizations,is
installing,restoringandmaintainingrainwaterharvestingandaquiferrechargestructurestoincrease
accesstocleanwaterandprovidewaterforaquiferrecharge.Currently,thereareapproximately600
rainwaterharvestingstructuresatapproximately270locationsincommunitiesthroughoutIndia.
Structuresincluderooftopandsurfacerainwatercatchmentsthatcollectwaterforstorageand
distributionand/orinfiltrationtorechargeaquifers.Examplesofthesestructuresincludestoragetanks,
checkdams,ponds,traditionalstepwellsandaquiferrechargeshafts.Maintenanceactivitiesare
conductedatthestructurestopromoteefficientoperationandprolongedlifespan.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Construction,restorationandmaintenanceactivitieswereinitiatedin2006
ProjectsarefullyfundedbyCocaCola
1. Increaseinrecharge
Approach&Results:
TheIndiaDivisionhasestimatedtherainwaterharvestingpotentialandestimatedrechargeofRWHand
AARprojectsutilizingthefollowingequationandcoefficients:
CatchmentSurfaceAreaXAnnualPrecipitationXCatchmentCoefficient
173
CatchmentAreaTheareaofthecatchment(s)utilizedtoharvestprecipitationforagivenproject.
Measuredinsquaremeters(m2).TheDivisionutilizesthreecategoriesofcatchmentswithin
calculations,including:Roof;Paved;andOpen.
AnnualPrecipitationThebestavailableannualrainfalldataforagivenlocation.Measuredinmeters
(m).
CatchmentCoefficientAcoefficientrepresentingtheestimatedefficiencyforeachcatchmenttype.
TheDivisionutilizesthefollowingcoefficients:
Roof:0.80
Paved:0.60
Open:0.30
Forprojectsthatutilizecollectedprecipitationforartificialaquiferrecharge(AAR)and/oraquifer
storageandrecovery(ASR),theDivisionassumesthatthisvalueisequaltothevaluecalculatedusing
theaboveequation.Inessence,100%oftheprecipitationcapturedisrecharged.
IndiaDivisionestimatesaresummarizedwithintheattachedspreadsheetentitledRWHMasterData
OnlyOfCommunity090428MinusUnverifiedData.Cellshighlightedinyellowrefertoprojectsthatthe
IndiaDivisionisintheprocessofverifyingandhavenotbeenincludedinsummaryresultsprovided
below.
Results:
2008estimatedtotalharvested=2,658,109cubicmeters/yr=2,658.11ML/yr
2009projectedtotalharvested=3,249,439cubicmeters/yr=3,249.44ML/yr
TheIndiaprojectdatawillbefurtheranalyzedMayJune2009throughprobabilisticmodeldevelopedby
DeltaConsultants.Themodelmorerigorouslyestimatesthevolumeofrainwatercapturedbya
rainwaterharvesting(RWH)projectandartificiallyrechargedtotheaquifer(AAR),ifapplicable,overthe
periodofoneyearusingreadilyavailableandlimitedsitespecificinformation.Themodeliscurrently
underrevisionbaseduponaSubjectMatterExpert(SME)reviewprocessinstitutedinMarchApril2009.
RWH/AARProbabilisticModel(Version1.1)willbecompletedinMay2009.Uponfinalization,India
projectdatawillbeanalyzedthroughthemodelprovidingformorerobustimpactestimates.
TheRWH/AARProbabilisticModel(Version1.0)wasdevelopedin2008usingMicrosoftExcelVersion
2003andCrystalBallVersion7.2.CrystalBallisMonteCarlosimulationsoftwarethatallowsthe
usertospecifyvariation,oruncertainty,inmultipleparametersusedinacalculation.Themodeluses
thecollectionofparametersandcoefficientstocalculatethevolumeofwaterharvestedandartificially
rechargedtotheaquiferapproximately10,000times.Eachtimethemodelassignsvaluestothe
parametersandcoefficientsbasedupontheprobabilisticdistributionspecifiedbytheuserandrecords
thevolumeofwatercalculated.Theresultsarereviewedandinterpretedstatistically,inorderto
estimatetheexpectedresultsandtheuncertaintycausedbythevariationintheinputparameters.By
statisticallyinterpretingtheseresults,userscanestimatethemostlikelyvolumeofwaterthatwillbe
harvestedandrechargedbyaspecificRWH/AARsystemandestimatethepotentialuncertainty
associatedwiththevolumecalculated.
Detailedinformation,references,andvaluetablesareprovidedinadocumentproducedbyDelta
ConsultantsentitledProbabilisticModelFormulasandAssociatedDocumentationVersion1.1.
(CurrentlyunderrevisionsandwillbefinalizedinearlyJune2009).
174
QuestionnaireProjectName
GoaUniversity
NewBuildingofKrishiVigyanKendra,
Kallipur,Varanasi
ResidentWelfareAssociation(RWA),
VasantKunj,CBlock,9,NewDelhi
KaladeraVillage,Jaipur
PondDesiltingatRamnagarTaluk,
Bangalore,Karnataka
ProjectType(Roof;
Paved;
Open/Unpaved)
Roof
Roof
ModelEstimate
forRainwater
Collected(m)
25,681
802
IndiaRWH
Potential
Estimate(m)
20,000
1,600
Roof
735
2,000
Open/Unpaved
Open/Unpaved
198,313
116,759
190,000
45,000
Inearly2009,Version1.0ofthemodelwasusedtoanalyzefiveselectIndiaprojectsrepresentingthe
diversityofprojectdesignconfigurationutilizedbytheIndiaDivision.Baseduponthisanalysis,the
followingprovidesanoutputcomparisonforthefiveIndiaprojects:
DataSources:
DeltaRWHSurveyscompletedbytheIndiaDivisionforfiverepresentativesampleprojects.
SpreadsheetsprovidedbytheIndiaDivision,including:
o Rwh_status_July_2008
o RWHMasterDataOnlyOfCommunity09042
RWHpurpose:supplementalwatersource
Previouswatersource:surfacewaterandgroundwater
Precipitationdata:providedbyprojectcoordinators,includingthefollowingdatafiles:
o AverageAnnualRainfall:http://indiawaterportal.org/
o IndiaDivisionsubmittedannualrainfallvalues
Assumptions:
Catchmentcoefficientsasdefinedabove,including:Roof:0.80;Paved:0.60;andOpen:0.30.
Assumptionsandlimitationsoftheprobabilisticmodelasdefinedwithinadocumentdeveloped
byDeltaConsultantsentitledProbabilisticModelFormulasandAssociatedDocumentation
Version1.1.(CurrentlyunderrevisionsandwillbefinalizedinearlyJune2009).
Reductioninstormwaterrunoffandassociatedpollutantload
NOTES:
TheprobabilisticmodeliscurrentlyunderrevisionbaseduponaSubjectMatterExpert(SME)
reviewprocessinstitutedinMarchApril2009.RWH/AARProbabilisticModel(Version1.1)will
becompletedinMay2009.Formulasandparametersdetailedwithinthisfactsheetaresubject
tomodificationpriortofinalization.
175

REFERENCES
RainWaterHarvesting(RWH)/ArtificialAquiferRecharge(AAR)MetricsMethodologyQuestionnairesfor
fiverepresentativeIndiaprojects.SuppliedbyPraveenAggarwalinDecember2008.
ProbabilisticModelFormulasandAssociatedDocumentationVersion1.1.methodology
documentation.ProducedbyDeltaConsultants,May2009.
176
PROJECTNAME:LaGuadianaSubBasin
PROJECTID#:70
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Reforestationof10hectaresrecentlyaffectedbyfire
LOCATION:TheRiverRuecas,atributarytotheGuadianaRiverwatershedinSpain
(UTMCoordinatesED50,29North):297065,4361219
PRIMARYCONTACT:
BeatrizArribasSantori
Email:barribassantori@eur.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Restorationofstreamcorridorsandbiodiversity
Slopeandriverbankerosioncontrol
TheGuadianaRiverbasinislocatedinSpainandPortugal.Portionsofthisbasinarehighlyimpactedby
intensiveflowregulation,groundwaterextraction,watercontamination,lossofbiodiversityand
territoryfragmentation(CocaColaEspaa,2009).
TheRiverRuecasisatributarywithintheGuadianaRiverbasin,locatedwithintheSpanishdistrictof
Caamero,intheSoutheastportionoftheCceresprovince(AutonomicCommunityofExtremadura).
ThisareaishometoendangeredfaunaincludingtheGoldenandSpanishImperialEagles,andGriffon,
BlackandEgyptianVultures(Villeta,2009).TheRiverRuecascontainsextensiveHolmandcorkoak
pasturesanddenseoakandchestnuttreeforests.In2005,thisareasufferedadevastatingfirethat
destroyedapproximately13,000hectares.Plantationpineforestsandnaturaloakforestswere
destroyed,alongwithamagnificentaldergrove(CocaColaEspaa,2009).
In2008,WWFSpainconductedreforestationplantingneartheRiverRuecas.Morethan9,000plants
havebeenplantedonatotalof15hectares(Villeta,2009).
RiverRuecas
LocationoftheRiverRuecaswithintheGuadianaRiverBasin
177
ReforestationinLaGuadianaRiverBasin
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Atotalof15hectareswerereforestedin2008
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:Tobedetermined.
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results
178
Curvenumbers(CN)forthepreprojectconditionandthepostprojectconditionwereestimatedbased
oninformationprovidedintheTR55document(USDANRCS,1986):
Preproject:deforested
o
Hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG)D
CN=83(grass/weeds/brushmixturepoorcondition)
Postproject:
o
CN=79(woodsinfaircondition)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfortheMartimLongo(Portugal)
meteorologicalstationforthe200002periodfromtheSNIRHmeteorologicalwebsite(http://snirh.pt/).
TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)forthisyearbasedon
dailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
Preprojectrunoffvolume:19.7ML/yr
Postprojectrunoffvolume:16.1ML/yr
Totalsurfaceareaforrevegetation:15ha(providedbycontact)
Slope:variable,550%(providedbycontact)approximateaverageslopeof25%usedfor
calculations.
Soiltype:
Quartziteandhardsoil,withlowthickness(providedbycontact)
HydrologicsoilgroupDselectedbasedonBatjes(1996)
Dailyprecipitationdataforyears200002wereobtainedforMartimLongo,Portugalfromthe
SNIRHmeteorologicalwebsite(http://snirh.pt/).
Assumptions:
Precipitationdataobtainedforyears200002(mean:594mm)aregenerallyrepresentativeof
averageannualprecipitationconditionsforthereforestedarea.
179
Approach&Results:
&WaterAssessment(SWAT)modelwasusedtoestimatetheoriginalsedimenterosionandwashofffor
thefarmplotspriortoimplementationofthepilotprojects.Supportingestimatesofwaterrunoff
volumewerebasedontheCurveNumbermethod,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswere
estimatedforyears200002basedonmeteorologicaldataobtainedforMartimLongo.
TheCover/ManagementFactors(Cusle)usedintheMUSLEwereestimatedforthepreandpostproject
conditionbasedonHaithetal.(1992):
Preproject:Cusle=0.020(6080%grasscover)
Preproject:Cusle=0.003(4075%treecanopycover)
Totalannualsedimentyieldswereestimatedasshownbelow:
Preproject(degradedgrassland):290MT/yr
Postproject(revegetated):36MT/yr
DataSources:
SeedatasourcesdiscussionintheReductioninrunoffsectionabove.
Assumptions:
SelectedvaluesfortheCover/ManagementFactor(Cusle)wereassumedtoremainconstant
throughtime(bothseasonallyandacrossyears).
Habitatimprovementsbenefitingterrestrialandaquaticwildlife.
NOTES
None.
180
REFERENCES
CocaColaEspaa.2009.RestorationProjectGuadianaRiverBasin.May13,2009.
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
Villeta,M.2009.EmailcorrespondencefromMayteVilletatoBeatrizSantori.May27,2009.
181
PROJECTNAME:CocaColaEnterprises/CobbCountyRainBarrelDonationProgram
PROJECTID#:n/a
LOCATION:Atlanta,GA
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
NickMartin
LarryHill
WatershedCoordinationfor
SeniorProjectManger
CoordinatorforBarrel
Donations
DeltaConsultants
DeltaConsultants
CocaColaEnterprises
4047232433(cell)
8043326401
7707954122
larrhill@cokecce.com
OBJECTIVES:
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:CocaColaEnterprises(CCE)ispartneringwithcommunity
andwatershedgroupsintheAtlanta,GAareatodistributeCocaCola55gallonsyrupdrumsforreuseas
rainbarrels.ThedonationprogramiscoordinatedwiththeCobbCountyWaterStewardshipprogram.
Rainbarrelsareprimarilydonatedtoresidentialpropertieswiththeuseofcollectedwaterrunninga
relativelysmallgamutfromuseforlightgardeningworktoexteriorhouseholdcleaningneeds(vehicle
washing).Asmallportionofbarrelsaredonatedtolocalschoolsandbusinesses.Bycollectingrainwater
thatnormallyflowsoffaproperty,rainbarrelssavemoneyonwaterbills,conservewaterduringdry
periodsandpreventpollutedrunoff.Thereuseofthese55gallonbarrelswillnotonlyhelpintheeffort
toprotectthelocalwatershed,butalsoeliminatetheenergyCocaColawouldexpendrecyclingthe
plasticbarrels.In2008,250rainbarrelsweredonated.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
2008:250rainbarrelsweredonated.
Theactivityisreevaluatedonayearlybasis,butiscurrentlyexpectedtocontinueforatleast3
years(through2011).
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola(CocaColaEnterprises)
182
Approach&Results:
SupplyCalculations:
andvariables:
locations.
DemandCalculations:
Atlanta(250barrelsin2008):1,075,467gallons=4.07ML/yr
183
DataSources:
GeorgiaWaterBalanceCalculator(ZipCode:30313)(http://www.georgiaweather.net)
Assumptions:
andotheractivities.
NOTES:
mightbe.
REFERENCES
184
PROJECTNAME:UpperChattahoocheeRiverkeeperRainBarrelDonationProgram
PROJECTID#:n/a
LOCATION:Atlanta,GA
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JonRadtke
NickMartin
WaterResourceManager
SeniorProjectManger
DeltaConsultants
404.676.9112
8043326401
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:CocaColaNorthAmericasAtlantaSyrupPlantispartnering
withwatershedgroupsintheAtlanta,GAareatodistributeCocaCola55gallonsyrupdrumsforreuse
asrainbarrels.ThedonationprogramiscoordinatedbytheUpperChattahoocheeRiverkeeper(UCR).
Rainbarrelsareprimarilydonatedtoresidentialpropertieswiththeuseofcollectedwaterrunninga
relativelysmallgamutfromuseforlightgardeningworktoexteriorhouseholdcleaningneeds(vehicle
washing).Asmallportionofbarrelsaredonatedtolocalschoolsandbusinesses.Bycollectingrainwater
thatnormallyflowsoffaproperty,rainbarrelssavemoneyonwaterbills,conservewaterduringdry
periodsandpreventpollutedrunoff.Thereuseofthese55gallonbarrelswillnotonlyhelpintheeffort
toprotecttheUpperChattahoocheewatershed,butalsoeliminatetheenergyCocaColawouldexpend
recyclingtheplasticbarrels.In2008,150rainbarrelsweredonated.Todate(May2009),350rain
barrelshavebeendonatedin2009.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
2008:150rainbarrelsweredonated.
2009:350rainbarrelshavebeendonatedtodatein2009.
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola(CocaColaNorthAmerica)
Approach&Results:
185
SupplyCalculations:
andvariables:
locations.
DemandCalculations:
Atlanta(150barrelsin2008):645,280gallons=2.44ML/yr
Estimatedannualcapture(2009)
Atlanta(350barrelsin2009):1,503,000gallons=5.69ML/yr
DataSources:
186
GeorgiaWaterBalanceCalculator(ZipCode:30313)(http://www.georgiaweather.net)
Assumptions:
andotheractivities.
NOTES:
mightbe.
REFERENCES
187
PROJECTNAME:GreatBarrierReefProject(PROJECTCATALYST)
PROJECTID#:73
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ImplementGPSbasedprecisionagricultureinvolvingsoil,nutrient,
pesticideandirrigationmanagementwith19innovativesugarcanefarmers
LOCATION:MackayWhitsundayregionofAustralia.
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WillHigham,LandandWater
OperationsManager
ReefCatchments
1/174VictoriaSt,Mackay4740,
Australia
PietFilet,ReefCatchments
Manager
WWFAustralia
Level3,129MargaretSt,
Brisbane4000,Australia
+61(0)732112845
+61(0)437640186
+61(0)407711262
will.higham@reefcatchments.com.au PFilet@wwf.org.au
KevinOgorzalek,Program
Officer,Agriculture
WWFUS
125024thSt.NW
Washington,D.C.20037
2024954769
2023840462
kevin.ogorzalek@wwfus.org
OBJECTIVES:
Reducesediment,nutrientandchemicallossinfreshwaterenteringtheGreatBarrierReefLagoon
Reducerunoffandincreaseinfiltration/baseflow
Workingwith19individualsugarcanegrowers(16enterprises)tofasttrackthedevelopmentand
implementationofinnovative,cuttingedge(AClass)managementpractices.The16enterprisesaccountfor
4,784hectaresofsugarcanewithinsixprioritysubcatchments(RockyDamCreek,SandyCreek,Bakers
Creek,MurrayCreek,OConnellRiverandMyrtleCreek).ImplementingAclasssoilmanagementisexpected
to:1)reducelossofsediment,particulatenitrogenandparticulatephosphorus,and2)reducerunoff
quantitiesandenhancegroundwaterbaseflow.ImplementingAclassnutrientmanagementisexpectedto
reducelossofdissolvedinorganicnitrogenandfilterablereactivephosphorus.ImplementingAclass
pesticidemanagementisexpectedtoreducelossofresidualherbicides(eg.atrazine,diuronand
hexazinone).ImplementingAclassirrigationmanagementisexpectedto:1)improvetheeffectiveness
(placementandtiming)ofthesoil,nutrientandpesticidemanagementactivities,and2)reduceirrigation
lossestorunoffanddeepdrainage.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Year1oftheprojecthasbeenimplementedduringthe2009calendaryear.Subjecttocontinued
funding,theprojecthasa5yearworkplanuptotheendof2013.
ProjectwouldnothaveoccurredwithoutTCCCfunding.Inthe2009calendaryear,the
AustralianGovernmentsReefRescueProgramhascontributed$380,000AUforindividual
landholderwaterqualitygrantsand370,000AUforpaddockscalemodelingandmonitoring.
1. Decreaseinsoil,nutrients,chemicalsenteringtheGBRLagoon
188

1.
DECREASEINSOIL,NUTRIENTS,CHEMICALSENTERINGTHEGBRLAGOON
Approach&Results:
Reinterpretationofexistingcatchmentscalemodeling(SedNetandAnnex)developedtosetwaterquality
targetsandobjectivesfortheMackayWhitsundayregionwasusedtoestimatethereductioninendof
catchmentloadsresultingfromthisproject.TheSedNetandAnnexmodelspredictlongtermannual
averageloadsofsedimentandnutrientsattheendofcatchmentandassuchareusefulforpredictingthe
longtermbenefitsofdifferentmanagementpracticescenarios.Detailsofthemodelingusedtosupportthe
WaterQualityImprovementPlan(Drewryetal2009)arepresentedin(Drewry,Higham,Mitchell,Rohde,
2008).
Astheprojectprogressesitisproposedtouseacombinationofpaddockscalemonitoring,rainfall
simulationandpaddockscalemodelingtoestimatethepaddockscalebenefitsoftheproject.Itis
anticipatedthatthepaddockscalemonitoringandmodelingdatawillbesynthesizedtoupdatethe
estimatesofbenefitseveryOctober(thefirstsynthesiswilloccurinOctober2010).Itisimportanttonote
thattheendofcatchmentbenefitspresentedbelowarelikelytobemoreconservative(i.e.muchlower)
thanpaddockscalebenefitsthatwillbecalculatedinthefuture.
Table1:Year1OutputsexpressedashasofimprovedmanagementandYear1outcomesexpressedas
annualEndofCatchmentloadreductions
Year1Outputs(2009)
1.
2.
Year1Outcomes
AdoptionofAClasssoilmanagementon4784ha
AdoptionofA&someBClassnutrient
managementon4784ha
AdoptionofA&someBClasspesticide
managementon4784ha
AdoptionofsomeA&BClassirrigation
managementon4784ha
3.
4.
ParticulateNitrogenloadreducedby17t/yr
ParticulatePhosphorusloadreducedby7.6t/yr
DissolvedInorganicNitrogenloadreducedby
15t/yr
FilterableReactivePhosphorusloadreducedby
2.3t/yr
Totalpesticideloadsreducedby134kg/yr
OTHERBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED:
1
Annualdecreaseinsoil,nutrients,chemicalsleavingthepaddock
2
Annualdecreaseinrunoffleavingthepaddock
3
Thevolumeoffreshwaterimprovedbytheproject
NOTES:Thisisapreliminaryendofcatchmentestimate.Paddockscalemonitoringandmodelingarebeing
conductedaspartoftheproject.Itisanticipatedthatuptodateestimatesofbenefitswillbecalculatedin
Octobereachyear(startingin2010).
189
REFERENCES
Drewry, J., Higham, W., Mitchell, C. 2008. Water quality improvement plan. Final report for Mackay
WhitsundayRegion.MackayWhitsundayNaturalResourceManagementGroup.
Drewry,J.,Higham,W.,Mitchell,C.,Rohde,K.,Masters,B.,Galea,L.2008.Waterqualityimprovement
plan.Turningenvironmentalvaluesintowaterqualityobjectivesandtargets.MackayWhitsunday
NaturalResourceManagementGroup.
Drewry, J., Higham, W., Mitchell, C., Rohde, K. 2008. Water quality improvement plan. Modeling
sedimentandnutrientexportsandmanagementscenarios.MackayWhitsundayNaturalResource
ManagementGroup.
190
PROJECTNAME:CocaColaBeveragesBelorussiya:LetsSaveYelnyaTogether!
PROJECTID#:74
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:CanalsthatartificiallydrainYelnyaBoghavebeenblockedtoincreasethe
localgroundwaterstorage/level,therebyreducingthethreatofsignificanthabitatdestructioncausedby
annualfires.
LOCATION:Vitebskregion(Miory,SharkovshinaDistrict),Belarus(coordinates:5534N,2755E)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
AlexanderYaroshevich
GeneralManager,CocaColaBelarus
Kolyadichi,Minskdistrict,203010,RepublicofBelarus
Tel.:+375(17)2100488
Email:ayaroshevich@eur.ko.com
Website:http://www.cocacola.by
OBJECTIVES
ProtecthabitatbypreventingfurtherdamagetoYelnyaBogsnaturalcoverandpeatlayer
causedbyannualforestfires.
Restorebirdpopulationsandnaturalvegetativecover.
TheYelnyaBog,whichisoneofEuropeslargestpeatbogs,covers24,000hectaresinnorthernBelarus.
ThebogisadesignatedNaturePreserve,anImportantBirdArea(IBA),andaRamsarterritory,andit
provideshabitatfor98birdspecies(including23endangered)and11plantspecieslistedintheNational
RedDataBook.
Irrigationcanalsconstructedintheearly20thcenturycausedasignificantdropinYelnyasgroundwater
table,resultinginannualfiresthatsignificantlyaffectvegetativecoverandhabitatforbirdsandother
fauna.In2002,amajorfiredestroyedapproximately70%ofthebogsnaturalvegetativecover.
Subsequentmajorfireslikelywouldhaveburnedthepeatlayer,resultinginirreparableecological
damage.
BeginninginOctober2007,CocaColaBeveragesBelorussiyaorganizedvolunteerteamstomanually
constructdamsoutofdamagedtreesandpeatmaterialtoblockflowthroughthethreemainirrigation
canals.Bytheendof2008,groundwaterlevelsinthe14,000hectaresofthebogaffectedbythe
restorationeffortshadincreasedby1meter.Thesuccessoftheprojecthasbeenfurtherevidencedby
thelackofdestructivefiresduringthesummersof2008and2009.
191
MapShowingtheYelnyaBogArea
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
VolunteerorganizationandworkinitiatedinOctober2007.
Recoveryeffortsareongoingasof2009.
LocalCocaColaemployeestookpartinthreemissionsperseason(MayOctober)
Totalabout150othervolunteerstookpartintheproject.
50%CocaColacompany
50%CocaColaHellenicBelaruslocalbottler
Newsponsorscommittedtomoreconservationeffortsin2010
1. Increaseinwaterstorage
1. INCREASEINWATERSTORAGE
ApproachandResults:
Theincreaseingroundwaterstoragewascalculatedbasedontheestimated1meterincreasein
groundwaterlevelsoverthe14,000habogareaaffectedbytheblockingofirrigationcanals.This
correspondstoawaterquantitybenefitof140,000ML/yr.
192
DataSources:
EstimatesofarealcoverageandincreasesingroundwaterlevelswereprovidedbyAlexander
Yaroshevich(CocaColaBelarus)
Assumptions:
Canalswillremainblockedbytheconstructeddamstructuresfortheforeseeablefuture.
The1meterincreaseingroundwaterlevelswithinthebogcanbeexpectedtobemaintainedfor
eachyearthattheirrigationcanalsremainblocked.
Preservationofuniquehabitatformanybirdspeciesandotherfauna.
CO2impact:everyhectareofoverdrybogdischargesupto10tonnesofCO2peryear.Thefull
restorationoftheboginthefuturewillcompletelyreversetheCO2dynamicfromemission
towardsabsorbingaminimum1tonneofgreenhousegasesperonehectareperyear.
NOTES
Restorationeffortsareongoing,whichmayresultinincreasesinwaterstorage/waterlevelsfor
theremainingbogarea(10,000ha)notaffectedbythecanalblockingeffortscompletedtodate.
However,thesepotentialadditionalwaterquantitybenefitsarenotincludedintheestimate
providedwithinthisfactsheet.
REFERENCES
http://www.foodbev.com/news/cocacolahellenicreceivesspecialcommendationforwaters
193
PROJECTNAME:ProtectionofWaterSourcesinElCarmen
PROJECTID#:75
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Reforestationof120haofhighmountaincommunalareatoprotectnatural
springs.
LOCATION:PitaRiverwatershednearthevillageofElCarmeninPintag,Pichincha,Ecuador(UTM
system:Latitude9946000Longitude794200)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
CarolinaMartnezL.
LuzMaraValdiviezo
Coordinadora
GerentedeAsuntosPblicosyComunicacin
Tel:(5932)3982657
Tel:(5932)3982650
lvaldiviezo@la.ko.com
carolmartinez@la.ko.com
FundacinCocaColadeEcuador
Av.RepblicadelSalvadorN36230yNacionesUnidasEdificioCitybank,1erpiso
Quito,Ecuador
OBJECTIVES:
Reducerunoff/increaseinfiltration
TheobjectiveofthisprojectistoprotectandmaintainthePitaRiversubwatershedthrough
reforestationthatwillhelpimprovethefuturequantityandqualityofthesewaterresources.Thisarea
provideswaterforElCarmenandneighboringcommunities,locally,andalsotheMetropolitanDistrictof
Quito.TheprojectwillalsoassuresustainabilitybyinvolvingtheElCarmencommunityinsafeguarding
thewatershedandinotheractivitiesthatwillincreasetheirincomebyimprovingagroecological
productioncapacity.PhaseIoftheprojectaccomplishedreforestationof50hectareswith50,000trees
plantedinthecommunalhighmountaindegradedlandsandinthecommunityfarmstocreatenatural
shields.Additionally,atleast25farmerswhoareinvolvedintheIntegratedSelfsufficientFarms(ISF
model)wereorganizedandtrained.PhaseIIwillaccomplishadditionalreforestationofatleast70
hectareswith70,000treesandnativeshrubsplanted,andprotectionofmicrowaterspringsinthearea.
Maintenanceactivitieswillbeconductedforatleastthreeyearsafterplantingtoprovideaguaranteeof
thesustainabilityandresultsoftheproject.Thereforestedhighmountaindegradedlandsareinthe
PramooftheSincholaguaVolcano.Thisareaisaneotropicalecosystemlocatedathighelevation
betweentheupperforestline(about3800maltitude)andthepermanentsnowline(about5000m).
Thisecosystemconsists,ingeneral,ofmostlyglacierformedvalleysandplainswithalargevarietyof
lakes,peatbogsandwetgrasslandsintermingledwithshrublandsandforestpatches.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Phase1:November2008toSeptember2009Reforestationof50hectares(50,000trees
planted)andorganizationofatleast25farmersintheIntegratedSelfsufficientFarms.
Phase2:November2009toOctober2010Reforestationofatleast70hectares(70,000native
treesandshrubsplanted)andprotectionofmicrowatersprings.
194
PhaseI:$105,340USDtotalwith$60,000USDfromCocaColaFoundationofEcuador(56.96%)
PhaseII(estimatedfromgrantproposal):$122,475USDtotalwith$60,000USDfromCocaCola
FoundationofEcuador(48.99%)
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
Preproject:
o
Pasture/grasslandinpoorcondition(CN=79)
Postproject:
o
meteorologicaldatabasefortheGuayaquilstationduringthe19851991timeperiod
(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Guayaquil_Simon_Bolivar/842030.htm).However,manyof
theseyearshadannualrainfalltotalslessthan50%ofthelongtermaveragerainfallfortheElCarmen
area(1,113mm).Therefore,year1987(precip:1,308mm)wasselectedasasinglerepresentativeyear
forthemodelinganalysis.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration
(PET)forthisyearbasedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
Preproject(openspace)runoffvolume:711ML/yr
Postproject(reforestedland)runoffvolume:288ML/yr
195
DataSources:
Sizeofreforestedlandarea:120ha(providedbycontact)
Soiltype:sandyloamandAndeanblackclay(assignedasHSGBperBatjes,1996)
meteorologicaldatabase(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/)fortheGuayaquilstation(ID:842030).
Assumptions:
PrecipitationdatafortheGuayaquilstation(foryear1987only)arerepresentativeof
precipitationconditionsforthereforestedareasnearElCarmen.
Approach&Results:
(1992):
Preproject:pasture/grassland80%coverasgrass/weeds(Cusle=0.01)
Preproject(openspace)sedimentyield:16,491MT/yr
Postproject(forested)sedimentyield:632MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
196
Assumptions:
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
197
PROJECTNAME:ProtectingtheMesoamericanReefPuebloViejosubwatershed,Guatemala
PROJECTID#:76
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Implementmanagementpracticesforagroforestrylands
LOCATION:ThreecommunitiesinthePuebloViejosubwatershed,Panzo,AltaVerapaz,Guatemala
PuebloViejo(15166.925N,89413.166W)
Cancoy(151426.677N,894232.386W)
RioChiquito(1514326.925N,894021.676W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
MaraAmaliaPorta
OficialdelProgramadeAguaDulce
15avenida1345Oakland,zona10
CiudaddeGuatemala,Guatemala
Tel/Fax:(502)23665856
mporta@wwfca.org
OBJECTIVES
AprojectalignedwiththeresultsofthefirstphaseoftheProgramofCompensationbyHydrologic
ServicesfacilitatedbyWWFandCARE,andwiththeobjectivesoftheWaterFund,which involvesland
useandconservation,wascarriedoutinthePuebloViejoRiverwatershedinGuatemala.ThePueblo
Viejowatershed(14,892.5hectaresinarea)isoneofthe63subbasinsoftheMotaguaPolochicRiver
complexinnorthernGuatemala,whichinturnaffectsthehealthoftheMesoamericanReef,thesecond
longestbarrierreefintheworld.Theprimaryprobleminthiswatershedissoilerosionand
sedimentationtothePuebloViejoRivercausedbyinadequateagriculturalandsoilconservation
practicesthatcontributetoelevatederosionrates(38.7TM/ha/year)thatarethreetimesthatofthe
naturalsystem.Theerosionwillultimatelyreducecroplandsoilqualityandlocalcropyields.The
resultingsedimentationtostreamscontributestoincreasedfloodingandcroplossdownstreamalong
thePolochicRiver.
ThecommunitiesinthePuebloViejowatershedthatcontributemosttotheerosionprobleminclude
PuebloViejo,Cancoy,SantoToribio,andRioChiquitoIandII.Thesecommunitiesinclude2,715persons
(fromthe6,759peoplelivingintheriverbasin)thatareofMayanorigin(Qeqchiethnicgroup)whose
primaryoccupationisagriculture,producingsubsistencecrops(maizeandkidneybeans)and
commercialcrops(cardamom,rubber,coffeeandcitrus).Thelandareaofthesecommunitiescomprises
29%ofthetotalriverbasinandcorrespondsto42%oftheareathathasanegativeimpactonwater
quality.Theannualprecipitationinthisareais4,357.7mm/year,withareasoiltypesandratesofrainfall
volumeandfrequencythatfacilitatecroplanderosion.Theprogramisdesignedtoimplementsound
practicesforsoilconservation,agroforestry,andreforestationincriticalareasofthewatershedthat
havethegreatesterosion.Amajorprogramgoalistoachieveasedimentationreductionof12%,from
138,061MT/year(14.868m3/year)to121,818MT/year(1,749m3/year).
198

PuebloViejoSubwatershed(LowerPart)(PhotoCredit:ClaudioVSQUEZBIANCHI,Peter
ROCKSTROH;PhotoSource:Figure4,WWF2007b)
ErosionEvaluationResultsforthePuebloViejoSubWatershed
(Table1,Figure1&Figure3fromWWF2007a)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Scenario
Presentsituation
ContrastSituation(withoutforest)
Scenariowithintervention
Deforestationbyadvanceofagricultural
frontierin600has
Totalreforestationoftheriverbasin
Scenariowithintervention(3)andtoavoid
advanceofagriculturalfrontier(4)
Erosion
TMtotal Change TM
138,061
331,176
+193,114
121,818
16,244
154,922
+16,861
Sedimentation
m
Changem3
%
14,868
35,665
+20,797
+140%
13,119
1,749
12%
16,684
+1,816
+12%
3
11,820
126,242
1,273
13,595
91%
104,957
33,104
29,803
3,565
24%
199
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:July2007
EndDate:June2009
TotalCostoftheProject:US$142,929
CocaColasshare:US$42,488
Approach&Results:
Croplandmanagementpracticesarebeingimplementedfor60.9haofcoffeeagroforestrylandinthe
PuebloViejosubwatershed(terracing)and140haofcardamomcoffeeagroforestrylandintheCancoy
subwatershed(contouredstripcropping).TheCWPsurveyresponsesindicatedthat15%and12%
reductionsinsedimentyieldhavebeenestimatedforthePuebloViejoandCancoylocations,
respectively(WWF,2008).
ThehydrologicevaluationreportdevelopedfortheregionindicatedthatsedimentyieldsforPueblo
ViejoandCancoyare1050MT/ha/yrand50150MT/yr,respectively(WWF,2008).Thewaterquality
benefitswerecalculatedintermsofsedimentreductionusingthemidpointofthesedimentyieldrange
reportedforPuebloViejoandCancoy:
Preproject:15,827MT/yr
o
PuebloViejo:[30MT/ha/yr]*[60.9ha]=1,827MT/yr
Cancoy:[100MT/ha/yr]*[140ha]=14,000MT/yr
Postproject:13,873MT/yr
o
PuebloViejo:[1,827MT/yr]*[0.85]=1,552.95MT/yr
Cancoy:[14,000MT/ha/yr]*[0.88]=12,320MT/yr
o
PuebloViejo:[1,827MT/yr]*[0.15]=274MT/yr
Cancoy:[14,000MT/ha/yr]*[0.12]=1,680MT/yr
DataSources:
Estimatesofpresentdaysedimentyieldandanticipatedpercentreductionsobtainedfrom
projectcontactandthehydrologicevaluationreport(WWF,2008).
200
Assumptions:
Theestimatedreductionsinsedimentyield(1215%)willbeachievedthroughtheplanned
managementactionsandstayineffectfortheforeseeablefuture.
Possiblereductionsinwaterrunoffvolumesduetoimplementationofbestmanagement
practicesforagriculturallandareas.
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
WWF2007a.PropuestadeNegociosaserpresentadaalIngenioGuadalupeyComunidadesdePueblo
ViejoporpartedeWWFCentroamricayCAREGuatemala.ProgramaGlobalCompensacin
EquitativaporServiciosHidrolgicos,FinanciadoporlosGobiernosdeHolanda(DGIS)yDinamarca
(DANIDA).Junio,2007
WWF2007b.EvaluacinhidrolgicadelassubcuencasPasabinyPuebloViejo,Guatemala.
CompensacinEquitativaporServiciosHidrolgicos.Oscarvalos,JuanCarlosRosito.Producido
por:ProgramadeComunicacionesWWFCentroamrica2007.
WWF2008.EvaluacinhidrogeolgicadelosrosPasabinyPuebloViejo,Guatemala.CORDILLERAS.A.
Producidopor:ProgramadeComunicacionesWWFCentroamrica2008.
201
PROJECTNAME:ProtectingtheMesoamericanReefPuebloViejosubwatershed,Guatemala
PROJECTID#:76
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Conservationofforestland
LOCATION:ThreecommunitiesinthePuebloViejosubwatershed,Panzo,AltaVerapaz,Guatemala
PuebloViejo(15166.925N,89413.166W)
Cancoy(151426.677N,894232.386W)
RioChiquito(1514326.925N,894021.676W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
MaraAmaliaPorta
Tel/Fax:(502)23665856
mporta@wwfca.org
OBJECTIVES
Maintainhydrologiccondition
AprojectalignedwiththeresultsofthefirstphaseoftheProgramofCompensationbyHydrologic
ServicesfacilitatedbyWWFandCARE,andwiththeobjectivesoftheWaterFund,which involvesland
useandconservation,wascarriedoutinthePuebloViejoRiverwatershedinGuatemala.ThePueblo
Viejowatershed(14,892.5hectaresinarea)isoneofthe63subbasinsoftheMotaguaPolochicRiver
complexinnorthernGuatemala,whichinturnaffectsthehealthoftheMesoamericanReef,thesecond
longestbarrierreefintheworld.Theprimaryprobleminthiswatershedissoilerosionand
sedimentationtothePuebloViejoRivercausedbyinadequateagriculturalandsoilconservation
practicesthatcontributetoelevatederosionrates(38.7TM/ha/year)thatarethreetimesthatofthe
naturalsystem.Theerosionwillultimatelyreducecroplandsoilqualityandlocalcropyields.The
resultingsedimentationtostreamscontributestoincreasedfloodingandcroplossdownstreamalong
thePolochicRiver.
ThecommunitiesinthePuebloViejowatershedthatcontributemosttotheerosionprobleminclude
PuebloViejo,Cancoy,SantoToribio,andRioChiquitoIandII.Thesecommunitiesinclude2,715persons
(fromthe6,759peoplelivingintheriverbasin)thatareofMayanorigin(Qeqchiethnicgroup)whose
primaryoccupationisagriculture,producingsubsistencecrops(maizeandkidneybeans)and
commercialcrops(cardamom,rubber,coffeeandcitrus).Thelandareaofthesecommunitiescomprises
29%ofthetotalriverbasinandcorrespondsto42%oftheareathathasanegativeimpactonwater
quality.Theannualprecipitationinthisareais4,357.7mm/year,withareasoiltypesandratesofrainfall
volumeandfrequencythatfacilitatecroplanderosion.Theprogramisdesignedtoimplementsound
practicesforsoilconservation,agroforestry,andreforestationincriticalareasofthewatershedthat
havethegreatesterosion.Amajorprogramgoalistoachieveasedimentationreductionof12%,from
138,061MT/year(14.868m3/year)to121,818MT/year(1,749m3/year).
202

PuebloViejoSubwatershed(LowerPart)(PhotoCredit:ClaudioVSQUEZBIANCHI,Peter
ROCKSTROH;PhotoSource:Figure4,WWF2007b)
ErosionEvaluationResultsforthePuebloViejoSubWatershed
(Table1,Figure1&Figure3fromWWF2007a)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Scenario
Presentsituation
ContrastSituation(withoutforest)
Scenariowithintervention
Deforestationbyadvanceofagricultural
frontierin600has
Totalreforestationoftheriverbasin
Scenariowithintervention(3)andtoavoid
advanceofagriculturalfrontier(4)
Erosion
TMtotal Change TM
138,061
331,176
+193,114
121,818
16,244
154,922
+16,861
Sedimentation
m
Changem3
%
14,868
35,665
+20,797
+140%
13,119
1,749
12%
16,684
+1,816
+12%
3
11,820
126,242
1,273
13,595
91%
104,957
33,104
29,803
3,565
24%
203
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:July2007
EndDate:June2009
TotalCostoftheProject:US$142,929
CocaColasshare:US$42,488
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results:
Atotalof1,021hectaresofforestlandisbeingconservedinthePuebloViejo(593ha)andCancoy(428
ha)subwatersheds.Thewaterquantitybenefitfromimplementationoftheconservationeffortswas
estimatedforwaterquantity(runoffreduction)andwaterquality(soilerosionreduction)usingdata
providedinthesurveyresponses.TheCurveNumberRunoffmethodasimplementedintheSoil&
WaterAssessment(SWAT)model(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunoff
associatedwithavoidingthedevelopmentofforestedlandtoagroforestryland.Waterquantity
calculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoffvolumebecause1)runoffservesasa
usefulindicatorforbothhydrologicimprovements(e.g.,enhancedbaseflow)andreductionsinsediment
erosion/yield;and2)predictionsofrunoffaremorecertainthanpredictionsforchangesinbaseflowfor
relativelysmalllandareas.
Preproject:(developedcondition)
o
Agroforestryland(i.e.,orchard/treefarm)ingoodcondition(CN=58)
Postproject:(conservedforestcondition)
o
Woodsingoodcondition(CN=55)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfortheAeropuertola,Guatemala
meteorologicalstationforthe200608periodfromTuTiempo.net
(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Guatemala_Aeropuertola_Aurora/786410.htm).TheHamon
methodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)basedondailyaverageair
temperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
204
Preprojectrunoffvolume:2,853ML/yr
Postprojectrunoffvolume:2,702ML/yr
DataSources/SitespecificCharacteristics:
Surfacearea:1,021hectares
Slope:3255%(averageof44%used)
Soiltype:silty/claysoil(Franco)
meteorologicaldatabase(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/)fortheAeropuertolastation(ID:
786410).(Notethatdataforthisstationandtimeperiod(meanprecip:1,014mm)appeartobe
conservativerelativetositeconditions;however,thisdatasetappearstobebestlocaldata
availableatthistime.)
Assumptions:
Ifnotconserved,theforestedlandareawouldeventuallybeconvertedtoagroforestry(e.g.,
coffee,cardamom).
Approach&Results:
thatwouldavoidedasaresultofpreventingtheconversionofforestedlandtoagroforestryland.The
methoddescribedintheprevioussection,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswereestimated
foryears200608.
(1992):
Preproject:Agroforestry,with~2070%treecanopycover(Cusle=0.003)
Postproject:Woodswith75100%canopycover(Cusle=0.001)
Totalannualsedimentyieldsfortheunvegetated/erodedlandandcroplandareaswereestimatedas
follows:
Preprojectsedimentyield:25,091MT/yr
Postprojectsedimentyield:7,931MT/yr
205

DataSources:
andsources.
Assumptions:
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
WWF2007a.PropuestadeNegociosaserpresentadaalIngenioGuadalupeyComunidadesdePueblo
ViejoporpartedeWWFCentroamricayCAREGuatemala.ProgramaGlobalCompensacin
EquitativaporServiciosHidrolgicos,FinanciadoporlosGobiernosdeHolanda(DGIS)yDinamarca
(DANIDA).Junio,2007
WWF2007b.EvaluacinhidrolgicadelassubcuencasPasabinyPuebloViejo,Guatemala.
CompensacinEquitativaporServiciosHidrolgicos.Oscarvalos,JuanCarlosRosito.Producido
por:ProgramadeComunicacionesWWFCentroamrica2007.
WWF2008.EvaluacinhidrogeolgicadelosrosPasabinyPuebloViejo,Guatemala.CORDILLERAS.A.
Producidopor:ProgramadeComunicacionesWWFCentroamrica2008.
206
PROJECTNAME:ProtectingtheMesoamericanReefTeculutansubwatershed,Guatemala
PROJECTID#:76
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:IrrigationWaterManagementfloodirrigationsystemconvertedtodrip
irrigation
LOCATION:Teculutansubwatershed,Teculutan,Zacapa,Guatemala(145810N,894130W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
MaraAmaliaPorta
Tel/Fax:(502)23665856
mporta@wwfca.org
OBJECTIVES
Convertfromfloodirrigationtodripirrigationtodecreasequantityofwaterwithdrawalsfrom
surfacewatersandimprovecropyields
TheTeculutansubwatershedhasanareaof216km2,drainsviatheTeculutanRiver,anddischargesinto
theMontaguaRiver,whichflowstotheCaribbeanSea(WWF2008).TheTeculutanRiverprovideswater
originatingfromtheSierradelasMinasBiosphereReservethatsupportsthelivelihoodsoftherural
communitieswithinitsborders.ThewaterinthegeneralregionoftheSierradelasMinasBiosphere
Reserveisusedforirrigationofsubsistencecropsandsmallscalecattlepastures,processingofcoffee
andfruitforexports,andtheproductionofhydroelectricenergy.However,inappropriateagricultural
andcattleranchingpracticesaredegradingtheland,causingdeforestationthathasresultedinreducing
thewatersupply,especiallyduringthedryseason(Goldberg2007).
ThisprojectwasconductedaspartoftheProgramofCompensationbyHydrologicServices(facilitated
byWWFCAandCAREGuatemala)toreducetheamountofwaterusedandincreasecropyieldsinthe
projectareabyimplementingdripirrigationpracticeswhere,previously,floodirrigationhadbeenthe
standardpractice.Theprojectwillalsopreventtheexpansionoftheagriculturalfrontierinthemiddle
upperpartoftheriverbasin.Theprojectareais8.8hectaresinsizeandsupports6.0hectaresofokra
and2.8ofcornproduction.Inaddition,managementpracticeswereimplementedtoreducethe
amountsoffertilizers,herbicidesandpesticidesused,tousemoreenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts,
andtocleanapplicationequipmentinthefieldsratherthandirectlyintheriver.
207
MapoftheTeculutanRiverWatershed(Figure1,WWF2008)
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:December2008
EndDate:July2009
TotalCostofProject:US$89,000
CocaColasCostShare:US$27,000
DECREASEINSURFACE/GROUNDWATERUSAGE
Approach&Results
Thewaterquantitybenefitwasestimatedasthewatersavingsresultingfromconversionfromfloodto
dripirrigation.Irrigationwaterusagewasprovidedinthesurveyresponse.Thewatersavingswere
computedasthedifferencebetweenpreprojectwaterusageandpostprojectusageattheproject
croplandlocation.
Sitespecificcharacteristics:
Surfacearea:8.8hectares(okra6.0ha,corn2.8ha)
208
ProjectConditions:
Preprojectwateruse(floodirrigation):8,575m3/ha/cycle
Postprojectwateruse(dripirrigation):3,000m3/ha/cycle
Changeinwateruse=5,575m3/ha/cycle
QuantificationResults:
[WaterSavings]=[5,575m3/ha/cycle]*[8.8ha]*[2cycles/yr]=98,120m3/yr
Estimatedwaterquantitybenefitis98ML/yr
DataSources:
Waterusagedatawereprovidedinsurveyresponses.
Assumptions
Twofullirrigationcyclesareconductedperyear.
Reductioninnutrient/chemicalrunofftostreams(nomonitoringdataprovided)
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Goldberg2007.EconomicValuationofWatershedSystems:AToolforImprovedWaterResource
Management.JeffreyGoldberg,OrganizationofAmericanStates,DepartmentofSustainable
Development.BackgroundNotefortheVIInterAmericanDialogueonWaterResource
Management,GuatemalaCity,Guatemala;August15,2007.Page7.
WWF2008.EstudioHidrolgicodelaCuencadelRoTeculutn.PreparandoporCarlosRobertoCobos,
HidroinformticaAmbiental,S.A.,Mayo2008.
209
PROJECTNAME:GoGreen!GofortheRealThing!
PROJECTID#:77
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ReforestationTreeplantingtohelpalleviatethedenudationofmountains,
forests,mangroves,andwatershedareas
LOCATION:30sitesacrossthePhilippines
PRIMARYCONTACT:
Ms.SophieCastillo
BoyScoutsofthePhilippines(BSP)
(632)5278317or(63917)7882001
Sophie.castillo@scouts.org.ph
OBJECTIVES
Decreasesedimenterosionandsurfacewaterrunoff
ThistreeplantingprojectwasinitiatedbytheBoyScoutsofthePhilippinesinpartnershipwithCoca
Colaandwillhelpalleviatethedenudationofmountains,forests,mangroves,andwatershedareas
throughoutthePhilippines.Thetreesplantedincludedhardwoodandfruitbearingvarietiesendemicto
eachlocality.Afterestablishinganurseryandaseedlingbank(fundedbyCocaCola),morethan6,000
Scoutsandothervolunteersconductedtreeplantingactivitiesoveratwodayperiodat30locations
throughoutthecountrywithatotalof10,466treesplanted.Thisincluded381volunteersfromCoca
ColaBottlersPhilippines,Inc.(CCBPI)whoparticipatedinplanting5,640treesat13sitesinBacolod,
Calasiao,Carlatan,Cebu,Ilagan,Iloilo,Maycauayan,Naga,Sta.Rosa,Tacloban,Tagbilaran,and
Zamboanga.
ZamboangaTreeplantingsite
210
TagbilaranMangroveplantingsite
GoGreen,GofortheRealThingQuezonCity,NationalCapitalRegion
211
CCBPIParticipationResults
Location
Latitude,
Longtitude
Watershed
Brgy.Alangilan,Bacolod
City
LanantinHS,Urdaneta
10.618768,
123.135452
15.991695,
120.568085
Bued,SanFabian,
SanRoque
Bareor
grassland
Bareor
grassland
MajorsPark,Rosario,La
Union
16.244837,
120.482855
Bued,SanFabian,
SanRoque
CampPolikit,Capitol
Hills,Lahug,CebuCity
10.332821,
123.893917
July18IlaganSanctuary 17.125206,
Brgy.StaVictoria
122.126684
Mandalagan
PreProject
LandCover
Qty.Trees
Planted
(5,640)
150
PostProjectLand
Cover
Narra
140
Mahogany,Gmelina,
Nehm,Chico
Bareor
grassland
100
Mango,Guyabano,
Avocado
Mananga&
KotkotLusaran
Bareor
grassland
200
100Narra,50Auricacia,
50Jackfruit
Abuan
Bareor
grassland
500
500Narra
DonJoseArmadaLocsin
ScoutCamp,Sitio
Tangaw,Cabanu,San
Lorenzo,Guimaras
10.578609,
122.685699
SanLorenzo/
Buenavista
Bareor
grassland
200
Whitelauan
InangPilipinasShrine,
Pandi,Bulacan
BSPPili,CamarinesSur
14.866819,
120.958958
13.542205,
123.273468
Angat
Bareor
grassland
Bareor
grassland
300
150
100Mahogany200
Narra
Molave,Yakal
SanFranciscoHS,QC
14.657250,
121.028250
LaMesa
Bareor
grassland
100
Narra
PUPSubdivisionTagapo,
Sta.Rosa
14.319029,
121.104805
SantaRosa
Bareor
grassland
300
Narra,Kamagong,Ipil
Brgy.Salvacion,Tacloban
11.233886,
125.012913
PaloRiver
Bareor
grassland
200
Mahogany
SantaFe,Albur,Bohol
9.629184,
124.111862
Bohol
Bareor
grassland
3000
Mangrove
Brgy.AbongAbong,
ZamboangaCity
6.953691,
122.075272
Pasonanca
Bareor
grassland
300
300Narra
Mt.Isarog
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:June2009
EndDate:July2009
TotalCostofProject:$5,387.06USD
CocaColaFoundation$2,362.06USD
212
1. Decreaseinrunoff
1. DECREASEINRUNOFF
Approach&Results
(Neitschetal.2005)wasusedtoestimatethedecreaseinrunofffortheconversionofopen,unforested
landtoforestedland.Waterquantitycalculationswerefocusedonestimatingthechangeinrunoff
volumebecause1)runoffservesasausefulindicatorforbothhydrologicimprovements(e.g.,enhanced
Preproject:
o
Grasslandinfairtopoorcondition(CN=87)
Postproject:
o
Woods/grassmixtureinfaircondition(CN=82)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromtheTuTiempo.netwebsiteforthe
Calapanstation(http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Calapan/984310.htm)duringthe200005time
period.TheHamonmethodwasusedtoestimatedailypotentialevapotranspiration(PET)forthisyear
basedondailyaverageairtemperatureandlatitude(Hamon,1963).
Preproject(openspace)runoffvolume:345.3ML/yr
Postproject(agroforestland)runoffvolume:330.8ML/yr
Landconditionpreproject:bareorgrassland(assumed50%ofeach)
Landconditionpostproject:variousnativetreesplanted(Mahogany,Narra,Jackfruit,etc.)
Slope:mostlyflat(assume5%slope)
Soiltype:primarilyclay(assumeHSGtypeD)
DailyprecipitationandairtemperaturedatawereobtainedfromTuTimpo.netfortheCalapan
station(ID:984310).
213
Assumptions:
Surfaceareaisapproximately30ha(10,466treesplanted)basedon30locationsandasurface
areaofapproximately1hectareperlocation.
Assumedpreprojectlandconditionwas50%grasslandand50%bareland
Usedapproximateaverageslopeof5%.
PrecipitationdatafortheCalapanstation(200005)arerepresentativeofprecipitation
conditionsfortheagroforestedareas.(Averageannualprecipitationforthese6yearsatthis
stationwas2,254mm.)
Approach&Results:
thatwouldoccurasaresultofconvertingopen,unforestedlandtoforestedland.Themeteorological
andphysicaldatasetsdescribedabovefortherunoffcalculationwereusedtosupportapplicationofthe
theprevioussection,anddailymaximumhourlyrainfallintensitieswereestimatedforyears200005.
(1992):
Preproject:6080%coverasgrass/weedsmixture(Cusle=0.02)
Postproject:4075%treecanopycover(Cusle=0.003)
Totalannualsedimentyieldsforthepreandpostprojectconditionswereestimatedasfollows:
Preproject(unforested)sedimentyield:454MT/yr
Postproject(forested)sedimentyield:65MT/yr
Benefit(sedimentyieldreduction):389MT/yr
DataSources:
andsources.
214
Assumptions:
None
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
Hydrol.Pub.63:5262.
215
PROJECTNAME:CocaColaLexingtonRainGarden
PROJECTID#:78
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Constructionofaraingarden
LOCATION:BluegrassCocaColaBottling,2275LeestownRoad,Lexington,FayetteCounty,KY(38
4'33.48"N,8432'17.87"W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
RussTurpin
WatershedCoordinationforCocaColaNorthAmerica EnvironmentalSpecialist
DeltaConsultants
EcoGro
4047232433(cell)
P.O.Box22273
Lexington,KY40522
8592310500
Russ@EcoGro.net
OBJECTIVES:
Reductionofsedimentandotherpollutantrunoff
Improvedstormwaterinfiltration
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:ACokebottleshapedraingardenwasconstructedatthe
BluegrassCocaColaBottlingplanttocollectstormwaterrunofffromaparkinglot.Thishelpedreduce
thevolumeofoffsiterunoffduringsmall,frequentstormevents.Runoffpreviouslydrainedoffthesite
toGreendaleRoadstormsewersand,ultimately,toSouthElkHornCreek.Theraingardenwas
designedtocapturestormwaterrunofffroma0.75acreparkinglotduringa1inchrainevent.The
pollutantstargetedaresediments,grease,oils,fuelsandotherpotentialdischargesfromvehiclesinthe
parkinglot.Asidefromvisualsurveysoftheraingardenduringrainevents,nodatahasbeencollected.
TheuseofKentuckynativewildflowerandgrassspeciesintheraingardenprovidesfoodfornumerous
pollinatorsandbirds.Theraingardenwasconstructedusing85%recycledmaterials.Theraingardenis
ajointeffortbyLexmark,EcoGro,BluegrassRainGardenAlliance,UniversityofKentuckySchoolof
AgricultureandLexingtonFayetteUrbanCounty.ConstructiondiagramsfromtheBluegrassRainGarden
Alliancewebsitefollow.
216
217
218

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
ActivitycompletedduringthemonthofAugust2008
ProjectisfullyfundedbyCocaCola($22,000)
1. Decreaseinstormwaterrunoffintosewersandstreams
1. DECREASEINSTORMWATERSEDIMENTLOADINGTOSEWERS/STREAMS
Approach&Results:
Averageannualrainfallcapturedbyraingarden(rainfalluptoa1/hourstorm):44.5
inches/year=1.13meters
Drainagearea:0.75acre=3,035squaremeters
Volumeofrunoffcapturedbyraingarden:1.13metersrainfall*3,035squaremetersarea=
3,429cubicmetersstormwater=3.43millionlitersstormwater/year
Benefit(reducedrunoff):3.4ML/year
DataSources:
FromLTICWPSurvey:
Totaldrainagecollectionarea:0.75acreparkinglot
Areaofraingarden:3,000ft2(30x100)
Slopeoflandsurface:25:1
Predominantsoiltype(s)intheprojectarea:Maurysiltloam
Dailyaveragerainfallisalways<=1inch(NOAAweathernormalsforLexington,KY)
Assumptions:
Decreasedpollutantloadingtosewers/streams.
NOTES
REFERENCES
BluegrassRainGardenAlliancewebsite:http://www.bluegrassraingardenalliance.org/?q=node/16
Ecogrowebsite:http://www.advancedmulching.com/EcoGro/ecogro_coca_cola.htm
StormwaterSolutionswebsite:http://www.estormwater.com/CorporateRainGardenMakesItsMark
article9897
219
January 25, 2010
APPENDIX F
Fact Sheets for Activities Investigated but not
Quantified
January 25, 2010
AppendixFTableofContents
Project ID
17
21
47
Country
US
Project Description

Partnership
Malawi

Management (Malawi)
US
Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries CocaCola Wetland (US OH)
Mexico
Australia
Page Number in
Appendix F
Removal of a run-of-the-river dam on an unnamed tributary to

Raccoon Creek.
Implementation of the Etowah Habitat Conservation Plan

(EHCP) to promote habitat conservation
Cropland management using contour marker ridges, tree

plantings, and vetiver grass strips on contours.
Removal of invasive species
Installation of a riparian buffer
Land protection and improved land management
11
Check dam installation & terracing
13
TCCC-WWF Partnership: Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

Basin
Watershed Protection and Regeneration Program

Removal of invasive species near waterways
- Landcare
15
79
Philippines
Santa Rosa River Basin Protection and

1
Rehabilitation (includes Laguna Lake
Watershed Project)
Stormwater management
to reduce runoff, sedimentation, and
g
flooding; Reforestation/revegetation and conservation of
existing land cover to protect drinking water supplies; Dam
removal or changes in dam operations to restore natural flow
regime; Wastewater treatment plant construction to reduce
human health risks from pathogen exposure; watershed
management and rehabilitation activities.
80
Philippines
Haribon Foundation Native Tree Nursery
Establish a nursery of native tree species suitable for planting

within the Caliraya watershed
21
81
Philippines
Green Kalinga
Wastewater treatment plant construction and other unspecified

water resource management activities
16
Monkey Cheeks Project
Installation of check dams and retention ponds to capture and

store water for community and agricultural use and mitigate
flood and drought impacts; Construction of natural treatment
wetland for wastewater
22
82
Thailand
18
PROJECTID#:04
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:RemovalofarunoftheriverdamonanunnamedtributarytoRaccoon
Creek.
PRIMARYCONTACT:
KatieOwens
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
NorthAmerica,
DeltaConsultants
301050737
7067670497
4047232433
4046769112
kowens@tnc.org
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Restorestreamreachconnectivitytoimprovehabitatandrangefordarterspawning.
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Asmallmanmadedam(length:8,height:2.5)onan
unnamedtributarytoRaccoonCreek(whichisatributarytotheEtowahRiver)wasremovedtorestore
accesstoupstreamspawninghabitatfordarters.Theremovalofthedamisnotexpectedto
significantlyaffectflowratesinthestream.Waterqualityimprovementsarealsoexpectedtobesmall,
butsomereductioninstreambankerosioninthevicinityofthedammayberealized.Nomonitoringof
flowratesorwaterqualityisplannedforthisactivity.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
DamremovaloccurredinNovember2008.
WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSCALCULATED:(None)
Habitatqualityimprovements,includingfishpassage.
Reductionininstreamerosioninthevicinityoftheformerdamstructure.
NOTES
Asnotedabove,removalofthissmallrunoftheriverdamisnotexpectedtosignificantlyaffect
eitherlocalflowconditionsorwaterquality.
Quantificationofreductionsininstreambankerosionwouldrequiremonitoringoftotal
suspendedsolidsconcentrationsdownstreamofthedamlocation,bothpriortoandfollowing
removalofthestructure.
PROJECTID#:04
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ImplementationoftheEtowahHabitatConservationPlan(EHCP)to
promotehabitatconservation
PRIMARYCONTACT:
KatieOwens
RenaStricker
JonRadtke
NorthAmerica,
DeltaConsultants
301050737
7067670497
4047232433
4046769112
kowens@tnc.org
rstricker@na.ko.com
jradtke@na.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Habitatconservation
Reductionofstormwaterimpactsonrunoffquantityandwaterquality
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheNatureConservancyispartneringwithUSFWS,the
UniversityofGeorgia,andtheUpperEtowahRiverAlliancetosupporttheEtowahHabitatConservation
Plan,thelargestaquaticHCPeverwritteninNorthAmerica.TheHCPiscurrentlyunderregionalreview
byUSFWS.OncethereviewiscompletetheHCPwillgothroughapubliccommentperiodbeforebeing
formallyadoptedbycitiesandcountiesintheUpperEtowahWatershed.ThegoaloftheEtowahHCPis
toprotectlistedspecies,whileatthesameallowingsustainabledevelopment.TheHCPdoesthisby
enactingspecificordinancesrelatedtostormwaterrunoff,buffers,etc.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Activityisstillintheplanningphase,and,onceadopted,theEHCPandrelatedordinanceswillbe
implementedgraduallyinfutureyears.

COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:50%[peremailfromKatieOwens,5/18/09]
TNCisworkingcloselywithUSFWS,UGA,andtheUpperEtowahRiverAllianceonallHCP
outreachefforts,andtherearealsoseveralprivategrantsinvolved.
WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSCALCULATED:(Nonetooearlytoquantify)
Variousfutureimprovementsinstormwaterrunoffreductionandwaterqualitydueto
implementationofordinancesassociatedwiththeEHCP.
NOTES
AdditionaldetailsontheEHCPareavailableat:http://www.etowahhcp.org
PROJECTNAME:MulanjeMountainCommunityWatershedManagement(Malawi)
PROJECTID#:09
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Croplandmanagementusingcontourmarkerridges,treeplantings,and
vetivergrassstripsoncontours.
LOCATION:Malawi
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JamesDyett
ProjectDirector
Arlington,VA,22206
(703)3792713
OBJECTIVES
Reducesedimentrunofffromsmallholderfarms
Smallholderfarmsinvolvehandcultivationwithahoeformoderatelyproductivecroplands(forests,
plantations,teaestates,maizegardens,irrigatedvegetablegardens,andsmallfruitorchards).Cropland
slopesrangefrom0%to40%.
TheMinistryofAgriculturehasanongoingprogramofsoilandwaterconservation,supportedinthis
areabytheMulanjeMountainConservationTrust(MMCT).Approximately8,000hectaresareunder
improvedwaterresource,watershed,orbasinresourcemanagement(numberofhectaresderivedfrom
mappedareawithinboundaryofMulanjeForestReserveandTraditionalAuthorityLastonNjema).
Conservationfarming,useoforganicfertilizers,agroforestryandcontourfarmingaretheprimary
technologiesbeingpromoted.Approximately200,000teaseedlingsweredistributedtofarmers.60,000
treeseedlingswereplantedalongexposedriverbanksin20062007(55,000arereportedtohave
survived).
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:(basedonsurveyresponse)
Projectduration:January2007toJanuary2008
1. None
NOTES:Datadeficienciesincludephysicalcharacteristicsforprojectareas(i.e.,surfaceareaofland
affected,soiltype/organiccontent)anddetailsoncroplandmanagementpractices
REFERENCES
DevelopmentAlternatives,Inc.2009.MountMulanjeCommunityWatershedPartnershipProgram,
WADAMalawiCloseOutReport.
GETF.2007.TripReport,MulanjeMountainCWPPSiteVisit,29January3February2007.Franklin
Broadhurst,Consultant.
PROJECTNAME:FriendsofAlumCreekandTributariesCocaColaWetland(USOH)
PROJECTID#:17
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofinvasivespecies
LOCATION:AlumCreekinColumbus,Ohio(3954'12.11"N,8256'8.95"W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
NickMartin
WatershedCoordinationforCocaColaNorthAmerica SeniorProjectManager
DeltaConsultants
DeltaConsultants
4047232433(cell)
8043326401
OBJECTIVES:
Restorehabitat/wildlifediversity
Improvewaterinfiltration
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Thepurposeoftheprojectistorestoreawetlandbeingtaken
overwithinvasivegrassspecies.Thelackofbufferaroundthewetlandandthesurrounding
developmenthasimpactedthewetlandintermsofbiodiversityofherbaceousandwoodyplantspecies,
andmostlikelyanimalspecies;ithasbeendocumentedthatamphibiandiversityisdependentonbuffer
width.
Theprimarybenefitofthisprojectwillbetorestorehabitatdiversityand,asaresult,wildlifediversity.
Atthesametime,nativeplantstypicallyhavemoresubstantialrootsystemandcanprovidemore
infiltration.Insteadofmowingtheareaaroundthewetland,thebufferoftreesandshrubswiththeir
deeperrootsystemswillallowmorewatertoinfiltrateandthereforethewetlandwillhaveabetter
capacitytoactasasponge.TherearefewwetlandswithinAlumCreekwatershed,thereforeincreasing
thefunctionofthiswetlandwouldbebeneficialoverall.
During2008,150treeswereplantedinthe1.81acrearea(seeFigureofprojectarea,below)thatwas
outsidethewetlandzone;however,anumberofthesetreesweredestroyedduringareamowing
activities.DuringSpring2009,FACThopedtoplantherbaceousspeciesinthewetland.DuringFall2009,
FACThopestoreturntoplantmoretreeandshrubspeciesinthe1.17acrenorthofthewetlandand
somesupplementalplantingsinthe1.81acrezone.Nativespeciestobeplantedinclude:American
HighbushCranberry(Viburnumtrilobum),WitchHazel(Hamamelisvirginiana),Winterberry(Ilex
verticillata),SilkyDogwood(Cornusamomum),EasternRedbud(Cerciscanadensis),PawPaw(Asimina
triloba),RedMaple(Acerrubrum).

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Thereisnoreportedtimelineforinvasivespeciesremoval
April2008:Projectimplementation
September2009:Projectedprojectcompletion
WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSCALCULATED:None
Primaryfocusisonhabitatimprovements.
Increasedinfiltrationquantitywouldrequireanunderstandingoftheuptakerateoftheinvasive
honeysuckleandthenativeplantscurrentlynotavailable.
Improvedwetlandplantspeciesdiversity(i.e.,promotionofnativespeciesviaremovalof
invasivespecies).
NOTES
REFERENCES
PROJECTNAME:FriendsofAlumCreekandTributariesCocaColaWetland(USOH)
PROJECTID#:17
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Installationofariparianbuffer
LOCATION:ApproximatelyonemilefromAlumCreekinColumbus,Ohio(3954'12.11"N,8256'8.95"W)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
RenaStricker
KimberlyL.Williams
WatershedCoordinationforCocaColaNorthAmerica WatershedCoordinator/ExecutiveDirector
DeltaConsultants
FriendsofAlumCreekandTributaries
4047232433(cell)
2820WatkinsRoad
Columbus,OH43207
6144090511
kwilliams@friendsofalumcreek.org
OBJECTIVES:
Restorationofwetlandhabitatandnativeplantdiversity
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:Thepurposeoftheprojectistorestoreanisolatedwetland
beingtakenoverwithinvasivegrassspecies.ThewetlandisamileawayfromAlumcreek,separatedby
aroadandbuildings.Thelackofbufferaroundthewetlandandthesurroundingdevelopmenthas
impactedthewetlandintermsofbiodiversityofherbaceousandwoodyplantspecies,andmostlikely
animalspecies;ithasbeendocumentedthatamphibiandiversityisdependentonbufferwidth.
Theprimarybenefitofthisprojectwillbetorestorehabitatdiversityand,asaresult,wildlifediversity.
Atthesametime,nativeplantstypicallyhavemoresubstantialrootsystemandcanprovidemore
infiltration.Insteadofmowingtheareaaroundthewetland,thebufferoftreesandshrubswiththeir
deeperrootsystemswillallowmorewatertoinfiltrateandthereforethewetlandwillhaveabetter
capacitytoactasasponge.TherearefewwetlandswithinAlumCreekwatershed,thereforeincreasing
thefunctionofthiswetlandwouldbebeneficialoverall.
During2008,150treeswereplantedinthe1.81acrearea(seeFigureofprojectarea,below)thatwas
outsidethewetlandzone;however,anumberofthesetreesweredestroyedduringareamowing
activities.DuringSpring2009,FACThopedtoplantherbaceousspeciesinthewetland.DuringFall2009,
FACThopestoreturntoplantmoretreeandshrubspeciesinthe1.17acrenorthofthewetlandand
somesupplementalplantingsinthe1.81acrezone.Nativespeciestobeplantedinclude:American
HighbushCranberry(Viburnumtrilobum),WitchHazel(Hamamelisvirginiana),Winterberry(Ilex
verticillata),SilkyDogwood(Cornusamomum),EasternRedbud(Cerciscanadensis),PawPaw(Asimina
triloba),RedMaple(Acerrubrum).

ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
April2008:Projectimplementation
2008:150treeswereplantedinthe1.81acrearea
Spring2009:plantherbaceousspeciesinthewetland
Fall2009:plantmoretreeandshrubspeciesinthe1.17acrenorthofthewetlandandsome
supplementalplantingsinthe1.81acrezone
September2009:Projectedprojectcompletion
$344.00forplants.Othermaterialscostisunknown.OctaviaArthursrecordsshouldbe
consultedatCocaCola.
Noneprojectisnotdirectedatrunoffreduction.
Improvementinwetland/riparianhabitat
NOTES:
REFERENCES
10
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Landprotectionandimprovedlandmanagement
LOCATION:Mexico:PegisCanyon(RoConchoslowlands)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES:
Protectwildlife&biodiversity
Reduceerosion
Improvelivelihoodsoflocalcommunities
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:PegisCanyonishometomuledeerandbighornsheep.Itis
inexceptionalconditionduetoitsremotelocation.WWFeffortshavebeenprimarilyfocusedon
protectionmeasuresfora55,000Haarea,includingthelandsoftwoneighboringejidos:elAgrillaland
CaondelaBarrera.Themainthreatispoorgrazingpracticesandlimitedeconomicalternatives.A
managementplanwasrecentlycompleted.WWFisworkingwiththeStateandFederalgovernments
towardprotectionstatus.[BasedoninformationprovidedbyM.DeLaMazaBenignos]
PegisCanyonandRoConchosatejidoElAgrillal.PhotoprovidedbyWWFMexicoProgram
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Habitatassessments&socioeconomicstudiescompletedin2008(WWF,2008)
Managementplancompletedin2008(WWF,2008)
Landuseplancompletedin2009(CONANP,2009)
11
Totalcost:($1,421,000pesos)
CocaColacontribution:$651,000pesos
1. None(wouldbeprematuretoquantifybenefitsfromlandprotectionmeasures)
WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSNOTQUANTIFIED
Reducederosionandsedimentationduetoimprovedgrazingandlandmanagementpractices.
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
WWF2008Estudiosocioeconmicodelascomunidadesruralesyelentornoinstitucionalqueincidenen
laregindelCanySierradelPegis,Chihuahua,byGerardoJimpnez,BiodesertA.C.
PreparedforWorldWildlifeFund.
WWF,2008CaracterizacindelhbitatparaBorregoCimarrnyVenadoBuraenlosejidosElAgrillaly
CandelaBarrera,byCarrenHernndez,E.,P.A.CaldernDomnguez,J.C.GuzmnAranda
andA.Valerio,ProfaunaA.C..PreparedforWorldWildlifeFund.
WWF,2008PropuestadeProgramadeManejoyConservacindelosEjidosElAgrillalyCandela
Barrera,Chihuahua,Mxico.ByGuzmnAranda,J.C.,E.CarrenHernndezyP.A.Caldern
DomnguezyA.LafnTerrazas.2009.PreparedforWorldWildlifeFund.
12
PROJECTID#:21
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Checkdaminstallation&terracing
LOCATION:Mexico:RoConchosHeadwaters(EjidoPanalachi,SierraTarahumara);
UpperportionofUreynamicrobasinandResonachimicrobasinofPanalachi
PRIMARYCONTACT:
WWFProgramaMxico
Tel.+52(614)4157526,4157413ext.102
www.wwf.org.mx
mmaza@wwfmex.org
OBJECTIVES
CreatemicrohabitatsforApariquetrout
Controlerosionandassociatedsedimentation
Demonstrationprojecttoillustratesoundresourcemanagementbaseduponcommunity
involvement
BACKGROUND&DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:ThelastrefugeoftheendemicApariquetroutis7Kmof
thearroyoUreyna.Flashflooding,exacerbatedbypoorlandpracticesandforestfiresintheheadwaters
basinhaveimpairedfishhabitat,andcausedgullyinganddepositionofsedimentonfloodedlands.
Biologicalstudieswereconductedtoassessneeds,and550checkdamswerebuiltin426hectaresas
partofWWFmicrobasinrestoration.Thedamsaremadeofstonesandbranchesanddesignedtoslow
waterflow,retainsoil,andmaximizewaterinfiltration.
ApariquetroutindividualscollectedinJuly2008forhusbandrystudies
attheGuachochiAquacultureCenter.
(PhotofromWWF,2009WWF/JosLuisMontes)
13
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Allactivitieswereconductedin2008.
Totalcost:$2,626,000pesos
CocaColacontribution:$838,000pesos
None(Datatoestimatereducedsedimentloadarenotavailable;primaryfocusisoncreationof
microhabitats)
Improvedfisheryduetocreationofmicrohabitats(WWF,2007)
Improvementoflivelihoodsoflocalcommunities(WWF,2007)
NOTES
ImprovementsduetocheckdamshavenotyetbeenquantifiedbyWWF.Datawillbecollected
duringtheJulyAugust2009rainyseason,thefirstyearafterconstruction.Themetricusedto
measureimprovementistheIndexofBiologicalIntegrity(IBI).
Thisisademonstrationpilotprojectestablishedtoillustratesoundresourcemanagementbased
uponcommunityinvolvement.Maybereplicatedbygovernmentagenciesinfuture.
REFERENCES
Partnership.August.
WWF,2008.TCCCPartnershipQuarterlyReportingForm.November12,2008.
14
PROJECTNAME:WatershedProtectionandRegenerationProgramLandcare
PROJECTID#:47
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Removalofinvasivespeciesnearwaterways
LOCATION:Australia
PRIMARYCONTACT:
MichelleAllen
PublicAffairsandCommunicationsManager
EnvironmentandInternalCommunication
CocaColaSouthPacific
Telephone:+61(0)292913427
miallen@apac.ko.com
OBJECTIVES:
Reintroducenativevegetation
Minimizesedimentationandpollutantloadingintowaterways
BACKGROUND&ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION:TheAustraliangovernmentandlocalbusinessesare
collaboratingthroughtheLandcarepartnershipandapplyinginnovativeenvironmentalmanagement
practicestowatershedcommunitiestoensurethecleanup,protection,andregenerationofmany
valuableandthreatenedwaterways.Over30invasivespeciesaretargetedforremovalandreplacement
byupto76nativespecies.Themajorityoftheinvasivespeciesareterrestrialweedsthatdonotdirectly
impactwaterquantityorquality;however,theyengulftheinvadedareas,reducingoreliminatingnative
species.Somereducethegrowthofnativegroundcoverspeciesthatarecriticalforfiltrationoferoded
sediments,biomass,contaminantsandnutrients,minimizingentryofthesesubstancesintowaterways.
TenLandcaregroupshavepositivelyimpacted27hectareswithinvasivespeciesremovalandover
22,000plantings.Theprojectrequirementsdidnotincludequantitativeestimatesofpostprojectwater
quantityorqualityimprovementsbasedoninvasiveplantcontrol.Itiscurrentlytooearlypostprojectto
seeanyreportableimprovementsinwaterqualityandmanyprojectlocationshaveseendrought
conditionsandaretherebyunabletoassessanyassociatedrunoffintowaterways.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:

COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:

WATERSHEDRESTORATIONBENEFITSCALCULATED:Noneprimarypurposeistoreestablishnative
species
NOTES:
REFERENCES:
15
PROJECTNAME:GreenKalingaPhilippines
PROJECTID#:n/a
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Waterresourcemanagementactivities
LOCATION:11villagesintheprovincesofLaguna,Pangasinan,NationalCapitalRegion,NegrosOriental,
Davao,CompostelaValley,Sulu,andZamboanga,Philippines
PRIMARYCONTACT:
JoshCayabyab
GawadKalinga
(632)7181738
Josh.ong.cayabyab@gmail.com
OBJECTIVES
Wastewatertreatmentplantconstruction
Otherunspecifiedwaterresourcemanagementactivities
Thisprojectwillpromotewaterresourcemanagementbyidentifyingcommunitiesinthemostneedof
cleanwaterandconstructingwatertreatmentsystems,includingrainwatercatchments,anaerobic
baffledreactors(ABR),reedbedwetlandsand/orbiodigesters.Monitoringofwatertreatmentsystems
willbeconductedbytheexternalprojectpartner,GawadKalinga.Theprojectisexpectedtobenefit780
familiesin11priorityvillagesinvariouslocationsnationwide.
Severaloftheprioritysiteshavelittleornoaccesstowater.TheprojectwillprovideABRandreedbed
technologytoareaswheretherearecurrentlynosanitationfacilities,orwillbeinstalledasadditional
facilitiesinareaswhereseptictanksarealreadyinuse.Reedbedsystemswillbeaddedtoseveral
villagesinordertoincreaseeffectivityofwastewatertreatmentsafterthesehaveinitiallypassed
throughtheseptictanksystems.Receivingwatersareprojectedtoincluderivers(Davao,Negros
Oriental,Mindanao,Zamboanga,QC,Compostela),lakes(Laguna),andcoastalareas(Alaminos,Sulu).
Futureplansincludereusingapproximately30%oftreatedwastewatereffluentatcertainsitesfor
farming/agriculturalpurposes.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:Projecthasnotyetlaunched
StartDate:Tobedetermined
EndDate:Tobedetermined
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:65.8%*
CocaColaFoundation(*$100,000USDGrantAmountappliedfortoCCFUSAActualGrant
Amountstillunspecified)
16
Projecthasnotyetbegun
None
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
None
17
PROJECTNAME:SantaRosaRiverBasinProtection/LagunaLakeWatershedsPhilippines
PROJECTID#:n/a
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Watershedmanagementactivities
LOCATION:SantaRosawatershed,CityofSantaRosa,MunicipalitiesofBinanandCabuyao,Laguna
Province,Philippines(14.33N,120.98E)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
EdgardoTongson
WorldWildlifeFundPhilippines
etongson@wwf.org.ph
OBJECTIVES
Stormwatermanagementtoreducerunoff,associatedsedimentation,andflooding
Reforestation/revegetationandconservationofexistinglandcovertoprotectdrinkingwater
supply
Damremovalorchangesindamoperationstorestorenaturalflowregime
Wastewatertreatmentplantconstructiontoreducehumanhealthrisksfrompathogen
exposure
TheSantaRosaRiverBasinisoneof24basinssurroundingtheLagunadeBay(LagunaLake).Thebasin
hasanareaofabout120km2(11,500ha)comprising4.1%oftheLagunaLakeBasin.Thebasincovers
practicallythewholeCityofSantaRosaandCabuyaomunicipality,thesouthernpartofBianand
severaleasternbarangaysofthemunicipalityofSilang,Cavite.Thedominantlandusecategoriesare
commercialresidentiallands(25%),grasslands(25%),ricelands(17%),industries(9%),forests(8%),
mixedcrops(8%)andcoconutplantations(7%).
Thedownstreampartofthewatershedconsistsof
heavyusersofgroundwaterincludingbeverage
companies,semiconductors,distilleries,chemical
companiesandcarmanufacturers.
Thefloodzoneandcoastalplainsofthewatershed
haveslopes03%.Theterrainisundulatingand
gentlysloping.Thewesternsectionismarkedby
anescarpmenttraversedbytheWesternMarikina
Faultlineanddissectedslopesleadingtothe
plateauinSilang.
Theannualrainfallvariesfromabout3000mmin
theheadwaterstoabout1800mmonthelake
shore,withameanannualrainfallof2436mm.An
averagemonthlyrainfalloflessthan40mmis
experiencedduringthedrymonthsfromJanuary
toApril.ThewetseasonpeaksinJulyandAugust
withabout430mmrainfallpermonth.Extreme
monthlyrainfallofmorethan1000mmhas
18
occurredseveraltimesmostprobablyduetotheintensesouthwestmonsoons.Recentfloodingduring
typhoonstriggerednationalattentiontoprioritizewatershedsandavertingfuturenaturaldisasters.
Theprojectisengagingprivatesectorcompaniesininitiatingandsharingbestpracticesinwater
managementandefficiency.TheprojectwillreducedamagesduetofloodinginthelowerareasofSanta
Rosa(municipalitiesofBinanandCabuyao).Thesefloodsoccurduringheavyrainsduetolackofa
formaldrainagesystem.Theprojectwillintroducetheconceptofacombinedsewerageanddrainage
system,andwillassistthelocalgovernmentindesigningaformaldrainagesysteminSantaRosausing
thenaturalfloodwayprovidedbytheSantaRosaRiver.Theseweragesystemwillprovidetreatmentof
wastewaterfromunservedhouses,institutionsandestablishmentsbeforedischargetothelake.
TheuptownmunicipalityofSilangprovidesfortheinfiltrationofrainwaterthatreplenishesthe
downstreamaquifersdependedonbyhalfamillionresidentsofSantaRosa.Infiltrationisstillconducive
tothelanduseofSilangwhichispredominantlyagriculturalwith10,163hectares(or73%oftotalland
area).TheprojectwillhelpformulateanenvironmentalcodeinSilangtoprovidepenaltiesand
incentivesforlanddevelopersandlandownerstomaintainlandsconducivetowatershedfunctioning
(infiltration,detentionponds,swales,greenbelts,reforestation,etc.)
TheSantaRosaRiverBasinProtectionprojectisthefirstpartoftheLagunaLakeWatershedsproject.
ThebestpracticesandlessonslearnedfromtheSantaRosaprojectwillbeusedtodevelopabroader
IntegratedWatershedResourcesManagement(IWRM)programthroughoutthe25subwatershedsof
theLagunaLakebasin.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
StartDate:February2008
EndDate:February2013
TotalCostofProject:$1,110,204.00USD
Fromtcccgws.com
Overview:
Activity#1:
o DevelopformaldrainagesystemforSantaRosawatershed,includingintroducingthe
conceptofacombinedsewerageanddrainagesystemwhichcanbefactoredinwhen
preparingthedrainageengineeringplans.Thiswilltreatthewastewaterofunserved
houses,institutionsandestablishmentsbeforethesearedisposedtoLagunaLake.
Activity#2:
o AssistinformulateanenvironmentalcodeinSilangtoprovidepenaltiesandincentivesfor
landdevelopersandlandownerstomaintainlandsconducivetowatershedfunctioning
(infiltration,detentionponds,swales,greenbelts,reforestation,etc.)
19

Location:
CityofSantaRosa,MunicipalityofBinanandCabuyao
LagunaLake
Coordinates:14.33N,120.98E
Sitespecificcharacteristics:
Surfacearea:120km2(12,000ha)isthetotalaffectedarea
Slope:typically03%(mostlycoastalplains)
Soils:sand/silt/clay,pyroclastic
Precip:basinmeanannualrainfall=2,436mm
QuantificationApproach:
Tooearlytoquantify;projectappearstobeintheplanningstages.
None
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
WWF2009.SantaRosaWatershedHydrologyandHydrogeologyReport2009.SantaRosaWatershed
ManagementProject,WWFPhilippines.
20
PROJECTNAME:HaribonFoundationNativeTreeNurseryPhilippines
PROJECTID#:n/a
LOCATION:Calirayawatershed,cityofCavinti,provinceofLaguna,Philippines(1418'18"N,12129'
19E)
PRIMARYCONTACT:
TBD
OBJECTIVES
Reforestation
Supportingwaterquality,thisprojectwillestablishanurseryofnativetreespeciessuitableforplanting
withintheCalirayawatershed,andwilleducateandinitiateactiveparticipationofvariousstakeholders
(communitiesandlocalNGOs)inforestrestoration.Theprojectispartofalargercampaign,Haribon's
ROADto2020.
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:Projecthasnotyetlaunched
StartDate:April2010
EndDate:December2011
COCACOLACONTRIBUTION:100%*
CocaColaFoundation(*$44,000USDGrantAmountappliedfortoCCFUSAActualGrant
Amountstillunspecified)
Projecthasnotyetbegun
None
NOTES
None
REFERENCES
None
21
PROJECTNAME:MonkeyCheeksProject(partofthelargerVillagethatLearnsandEarnsproject)
PROJECTID#:n/a
DESCRIPTIONOFACTIVITY:Watersupplyforcommunityuse/agriculture
LOCATION:Thailand
MonkeycheeksinBuriram(northeasternThailand),NakhonSawan(centralThailand)and
Lumpang
CheckdamsinChiangmaiandTak(northernThailand)andSongkla(southernThailand)
NaturalTreatment:ConstructedWetlandinSongkla
PRIMARYCONTACT:
BudsayadaYoungfhuengmontra(Nan)
CorporateCitizenshipManager
CocaCola(Thailand)Limited
Tel.6628351477
Mobile.66817521787
Fax.6628351021
ybudsayada@apac.ko.com
OBJECTIVES
Captureandstorewaterforcommunityandagriculturalirrigationuse
Mitigatefloodanddroughtimpacts
Maintaingroundwaterlevels
Waterresourcemanagementpracticesappliedforthisprojectaretypicallydividedintothreemajor
areas:Headwatershedareas,WaterscarcityareasandExcessivewaterareas.
Checkdams(smallwaterdikes)arebuiltintheareasofChiangmaiandTakintheNorthandSongklain
theSouthofThailandtoslowdownthespeedofwaterflowinheadwatershedareas.Thisresultsin
highersoilmoisturecontentandenhancedbiologicalsystems.
MonkeyCheeksareawaterretentionconceptchampionedbyKingBhumibolAdulyadejtostorewater
forthecommunity.TheMonkeyCheeksProjectinvolvestheconstructionofnewwaterstoragefacilities
(waterretentionpondsorMonkeyCheeks),waterfiltrationtreatmentfacilities,pipingsystems,and
distributioncanalsintheprovincesofBuriraminnortheasternThailandandNakhonSawanincentral
Thailand.ThetermMonkeyCheekscomesfromamonkey'seatingbehaviorwherebyitcollectsfoodin
bothcheeks.Theconstructedwaterretentionunitsstorewaterandareconnectedtoanexistingmain
watercanalandwillfill,primarily,bycapturingrainwaterduringtherainyseason.
Theprojecthastwomajorbenefits:1)duringperiodsofwatershortage,thecollectedwaterwillbeused
foragriculturalpurposestoincreasecropproduction,especiallyinwaterscarcityareas(northeastregion
ofThailand)and2)duringtherainyseason,thewaterretentionunitswillhelppreventfloodingon
farmlands.Inaddition,thecheckdamsandretentionpondswillprovidepotentialadditionalsourcesof
soilmoistureandgroundwaterrecharge.
22
Theprojectalsoincludestheplantingofvertivergrassandtreesalongthebanksofthenewly
constructedretentionpondsandirrigationchannelstopreventsoilerosion,aswellasthedevelopment
ofasatelliteimagemappingsystemthatenablesvillagestomanagetheirwaterresourcesmore
effectively.
ConceptofMonkeyCheeksReservoirNetwork
ACTIVITYTIMELINE:
Projectinitiation:June2006
Anticipatedprojectcompletion:October2010
June2006May2007
BanPaSakNgam,Chiangmaiplantobuild100additionalcheckdamseveryyearinBanPa
SakNgam,Chiangmaiprovince
BanLimthong,Burirumexistingponds
June2007May2008
BanBangKeaw,NakornSawan2ponds(26,700m3)
BanLimthong,Burirum7ponds(51,696m3)refilledbyrainfall(exceptfilledbycanal
waterdiversioninPhase1,June2006May2007)
June2008May2009
BanLimthong,Burirumenlargepondstostore121,000m3inrainyseasonand72,600m3
insummer
BanNongThongLim,Burirum8ponds(83,882m3)waterrefilledbyrainfall
June2009May2010
BanKhaoPra,Songkla(beneficiaries:300households,~1000people)build5checkdams,
build400liter/day
BanDonHuaWang,Lumpangpondcapacityextendedto20,000m3throughcanal
renovation
November2009October2010
BanNongThongLim,NongbodeSubdistrict,BuriRamProvincewaterways(1.5mwidthX
1.5mdepthX~4,000mtotallength)tolinkallwaterstorages(totalcapacity56,000m3)
BanNonKwang,BuriRamProvince10ponds(14,000m3)
23
1. RAINWATERHARVESTINGFORSTORAGEINMONKEYCHEEKSPONDS
2. FLOODMITIGATION
3. GROUNDWATERRECHARGE
Improvedecosystemhealth
NOTES
REFERENCES
24

Coke Watershed Restoration PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Coke Watershed Restoration PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits

in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Ann Arbor, Michigan

This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Assumes a projected annual increase in product volume of 5.25% during 2009-2013.

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Ratio of Quantity Benefit to Product Volume

Water Quantity (billion L/yr)

Figure ES-1. Projected Benefits Compared to Projected Product Volume

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

1.3 PHASE II AND III APPROACH

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

1.3.2 Compilation of Data & Supporting Information

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

projects. The hydrology approach represented in the computational engine is similar

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Number of CWP Projects

1. Agricultural land practice changes

3. Land use/land cover alterations

5. Recaptured leakage from water systems

9. Rainwater harvesting for aquifer recharge

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Table 2-2. Preliminary Estimate of Water Quantity Benefits

Assumes a projected annual increase in product volume of 5.25% during 2009-2013.

2.2.2 Water Quality Benefits

Estimated Reduction in Sediment Yield

2.2.3 Example Calculations

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

2.2.3.a Big Spring Watershed Protection, U.S.

[Catchment Coefficient] = coefficient representing the estimated efficiency for each

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.

January 25, 2010

Quantifying Watershed Restoration Benefits in Community Water Partnership Projects

January 25, 2010