REVIEW CHECKLIST For Irrigation Projects

Name of Region: Amhara region

Name of Woreda: ……………………..
Name of Kebele: …………………………
Head work location: …………………..E,………………….N
Command area location:
Date of Review: 24-25 April 2012
Completeness of the feasibility study and detail design (Yes/No)
Planning and Design Process (Yes/No)
Existing Review
Review Topic
Document Result
Is the project demand driven?
Yes/No
(Application letters, Community and woreda)
Community sensitization campaign undertaken/by petition NA
Total population & specific beneficiaries identified by sex Yes/No
Formation of IWUA NA
Training of IWUA leaders and members conducted NA
Project Preparation and Implementation MOU signed NA
Design supervision and ground truth by client
Design review workshops/Forum conducted NA
Detailed Design Evaluation Meeting conducted NA
Cost sharing arrangement agreed NA
Final Project Plan approved and signed/Consultation with
NA
beneficiaries & other stakeholders
O&M Plan/Manual prepared NA
Registration of land use rights in (envisaged) command
area completed (Head work location, Query sites and other NA
structures)
Land use system & land size identified NA
ESMF (Environmental and social management frame work)
 Existing Review
Review Topic
Document Result
Marketing Assessment conducted Yes
Access to market identified (urban consumers) yes
Availability of agricultural inputs supply markets yes
Availability of basic social services (schools, Health,
yes
extension etc)
Availability of agricultural supporting services (like micro
NA
credit)
Hydrology Study and Investigation
Review Topic
Data availability and selection (years)
Data quality/Missing data checking
(methods)
Water availability and use
Type of water source
Low/Base flow (l/s) and method of
measurement
Water balance for watershed prepared
(Up- and downstream water use
recorded) (Y/N) i.e. Does impact from
U/S & on D/S users considered (not
just on the spot only) or Is measured
flow net or gross? NB: Design flow
can be either base flow (if sufficient
Existing Document Review Result
The daily rainfall record for 27 years was
available at Chagni station but for
yes temperature, wind speed, sunshine hour,
and relative humidity the year of records
was not stated
yes
Yes
50 l/s measured in the month of may using
floating method and confirmed by the local
Yes
people the number of years flow
measurement was not available
Yes Even though figurative analysis for water
balance was not done, it was indicated that
this base flow was ruminant from upstream
(domestic use) and also there is no any
irrigation farm which uses this source
moreover in the down stream there is
tributaries which recharges the stream and
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
flow is available), or dependable flow
i.e. 80% of mean monthly flow so that also at the abstraction point it was
it can be supplementary irrigation proposed to release 5 l/s for the d/s.
project.
Design rainfall estimation (mm,
criteria, method)
Peak discharge estimation (l/s,
criteria, method)
If the SSI Scheme is existing
Existing water use for selected SSI
NA
scheme (l/s)
Existing command area (ha) of
NA
selected SSI scheme
Design flow for selected SSI scheme
45 l/s
(l/s)
Planned command area (ha) of
98 ha of which 65 ha was to be developed
selected SSI scheme due to available 33
by supplementary irrigation
water
Measured/estimated sediment load in
river (heavy, moderate or low)
especially for micro dam project
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Watershed management carried out in
river catchment (Y/N)
Land use land cover condition (Both Intensively cultivated (60.8%).
Command and watershed) Disturbed high forest (39.2%)
Encroachment of cultivation to
marginal lands, Over grazing and
Type and level of land degradation over stocking Lack of The level was not known
responsibility of the farmers with
regard to land use.
The sediment load was
Sediment load/Erosion rate and soil
estimated (computed) and found
loss condition
to be 144950.4m3/yr
Catchment yield (runoff) NA Not done.
Watershed management planned in Physical SWC Measures
river catchment (Y/N) Graded Soil Bund 425.5 Km,
Stone Faced Soil Bund 254 Km,
Cut Off Drains 6 M3 , Water
Ways 4 M3, Micro basin 11500
No, Trench 21250 NO ,and
Brush Wood Check Dams 1045
m.
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Biological SWC Measures
Seedling Production (out of loss)
No 238000, Pitting no 238000,
Hill Sides Plantation No 218000,
Area Closure 4 ha and Gully
sides plantation 2.25 ha.
Biophysical SWC Measures
Plantation on Bunds 12000 No.

Back water effect study

Design of Head Works
Headwork’s: 1. Diversion Weir
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Topography (Topo point interval and yes The topographic survey for
number and Type of BM) command has to be done
with 1m contour interval
Geology and nature of river bed yes Geological test pits at
material of the headwork site headwork at reasonable
(Engineering geological map) interval depending on the
topographic features of
head work site along the
cross section and
longitudinal section of the
proposed head work sites
was not done
Alternative sites and Minimum Site Yes
selection criteria
Weir Crest Length (m) and its 20m cut of was provided To avoid farther erodibility
determination criteria cut off was provided along
the river cross section but
since the geology was
sound rock unnecessary
 length provided it has to be
shorten up to we obtain the
crest level
Weir Elevation/ Height (m) and its The availability of head was
determination criteria not confirmed with accepted
procedure but the crest level
was fixed at river bed level
1890.3 and height of 0m
U/S water surface profile Yes
D/S water surface profile Yes
Design of Up- and downstream apron Na No need of apron due to
(based on the actual geological foundation condition sound
condition) basalt
Effect of submerged wingwall (social
effect)
Design of diversion weir/Head work Intake structure was provided
components (Elevation consistency)
 Design of guide wall Yes Unnecessarily Left guide
wall was provided
 Design of flood bank/retaining Yes Unnecessarily Left retaining
wall wall was provided
 Design of Divide wall NA
  Design of Head regulator and Yes
its gate
 Design of Head regulator gate Yes
 Design of Under Sluice and NA
Breast wall
 Design of Under Sluice gate NA
 Structural design or stability Yes
analysis
 Drawings: plan and section Yes
including layout
Head works: 3. pump
Source of Water (spring, river, ground
water)
Topography
Geology and nature of foundation
material of the pump House
Alternative pump sites and Site
selection criteria
Static head, m
Dynamic Head, m
NPSH computed (NB: Calculated
NPSH must be  NPSH to be supplied
from the manufacturer)
Discharge Capacity (l/sec)
Power requirement (hp)
Power source options with estimated
cost and distance of Grid line
Selected pump type
Pipe material selection criteria (GRP,
GI, HDPE, etc.) and length, m
Max. velocity in suction pipe 2.0 m/s
Suction head determination
Clearance between suction pipe inlet
and the footer as well as the walls of
concrete sumps should be at least
two times pipe diameter
Bell mouth suction inlet or screen with
a plate
Collection Chamber at end of delivery
pipe
Drawings: plan and section including
layout
Irrigation Distribution System: Irrigation Canals and associated farm infrastructures
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Main Distribution System
Irrigation Water Requirement
Irrigation duty (l/s/ha) 1.37 and 1.74 The agronomic computation
and the engineering was
different it has to be revised
or updated
Irrigation hour determination based on 16 Which is difficult to practice
actual site condition except night storage was
recommended since it was
dependant on the practice
of the local people
Adopted irrigation efficiency (%) 45 45
Crop type selection criteria
Total water requirement for the project 45 l/s 45 l/s
Method of irrigation
Type of geology and soil along the Yes The scale of the profile has
canal route to be 1:1000 H and also the
Topography (number of BM/ha and Yes dimension has to be
data interval) readable
Type of distribution system The hydraulics and
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Total length (m) and designed 1755.6m structural analysis of the
discharge (l/s) Qd= 45 l/s flume structure has to be
Measured/estimated level of seepage NA incorporated
losses along canal alignment (high,
moderate or low)
Design criteria, hydraulic parameters Manning’s
and formula used
Total length of lined section (m), 0
Selection of manning’s roughness
Slope stability of embankment NA
checked (If flow is large)
Availability of required crossing
structures
Provision of turnouts/division boxes at
required location
Provision of cattle troughs at required
location
Provision of washing basin at required
location
Night Storage Reservoir NA
Flow measurement devices NA
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Drawings: plan and section including Yes
layout
Drainage System
Drainage system provision (Field drain NA
and catch drainage)
Type of drainage system
Drawings: plan and section including Yes
layout
Access Road
Length (m) NA
Width (m)
Number of cross-drainage structures
Number of bridges
Drawings: plan and section including
layout
General considerations
Review Topic Existing Document Review Result
Quantity survey (BoQ and drawing NA
consistency)
Updated engineering estimation NA
Estimation of construction period NA
Availability of specification NA
Rate analysis provision (output, index
factor, profit and overhead cost, and
input consistency)
Construction material location with
required test result

Benefiting house holds

Review Topic Existing Review Result
Document
Number of existing irrigation users/households with NA
water rights
- Number of female irrigation water users NA
Number of households with water rights in proposed NA
SSI Scheme
- Number of female irrigators NA
 Average irrigable area per household (ha) in NA
proposed SSI scheme
Estimated Investment Costs and Financial yes
Feasibility
Calculated cost/benefit ratio (B/C or BCR) Yes
Calculated Internal rate of return (IRR %) yes
Calculated Net present value (NPV %) yes
Discount rate used is 10% yes 11%
considered
Project life 20 years yes 25 years used

1.1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION