Volume II Annexes

Water Resources & Irrigation Development Division Office Talbesi Multipurpose Reservoir Project
Gorkha, Nepal Volume II
PREPARED BY:
INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Water Resources & Irrigation Development Division Office Shikharbesi Multipurpose Dam Project
VOLUME II CONTENTS
ANNEX A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY REPORT

ANNEX B ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAM REPORT
ANNEX C CROP WATER REQUIREMENT
ANNEX D RESERVOIR VOLUME CALCULATION
ANNEX E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ANNEX F RATE ANALYSIS
ANNEX G COST ESTIMATE
Innovative Engineering Services

APPENDIX A
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY REPORT

VOLUME – I:
MAIN REPORT
DETAIL SURVEY REPORT
IRRIGATION PROJECT Volume – 1: Main Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME – 1: MAIN REPORT

FIGURE – 1 : PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CONTENTS PAGES
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... I
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... i
1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. i
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ i
1.4 Available Information & Data ............................................................................................. i
2. DETAIL TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ...........................................................................................II
2.1 The Survey Team ............................................................................................................... ii
2.2 The Survey Instruments...................................................................................................... ii
2.3 Monumentation of Control Points ...................................................................................... ii
3. DESCRIPTION CARDS .................................................................................................................II
4. FINAL COORDINATES OF CONTROL POINTS .............................................................................II
5. DETAIL TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ......................................................................................... III
6. TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPPING .................................................................................................... III
7. FINDINGS AND REMARKS ........................................................................................................ XV
Appendixes
Appendix – B : Description Cards

Appendix – C : Field Photographs
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: i

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Nepal, officially the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal is a landlocked sovereign state located in
South Asia. It is situated along the southern slopes of the Himalayan mountain range bordering
People's Republic of China to the North and Republic of India in the remaining three sides. The
country has a rugged terrain and topography of middle and high mountains in the north and fertile flat
terai area suitable for cultivation in the south bordering India. It is primarily an agricultural country
where 66% of population rely on agriculture.
Expanding agricultural productivity is vital to reducing poverty and advancing nourishment security in
Nepal, for which irrigation is an essential entry point. However 43% of the Nepal's net cultivated area
is irrigated, and their productivity remains low due to inefficient system operation. Nepal recognizes
the critical importance of improving the performance of existing irrigation systems and expanding
access to irrigation, with effective integration of agriculture and livelihood support services. In this
context, there is significant scope for enhancing rural livelihoods by improving irrigation access to poor
Marginal and small holders with community-driven minor irrigation. Promote minor/micro irrigation
systems including low-cost drip and sprinkler irrigation to produce high value crops, with development
of various water-harvesting techniques.
1.2 Project Location

The irrigation lies in Western Development Region, Zone Marsyangdi, District –Gorkha, VDC – Laxmi
bazar and palungatr Gorkha.
1.3 Objectives
The objective of the assignment shall be to carryout detail survey and prepare topographical maps and
DTM of the project for the “irrigation project”.
. The Consultant's services shall include the following:
 Establish Control Points.

 Detailed Topographical Survey along the project pipe alignment and its key spots.
 Prepare Topographical map of contour interval 1m.
1.4 Available Information & Data
The Coordinates of base points are Mobile GPS Control points at Gorkha. The points are carries out
through Closed Details Survey. The list of Coordinates and Reduced Level are as follows:
List of existing coordinates and reduced level.

Point Name Easting Northing RL Remarks
BM-1 265642.000 3095480.000 704.500 BM-1
BM-2 265666.947 3095499.874 712.698 BM-2
The Topographical Maps (1:1000 scales) of the entire project area provided by Government of Nepal,
Survey Department collected prior to the Survey are as follows:
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: i

2. Detail Topographical Survey

2.1 The Survey Team
The detail topographical survey team was composed of following surveyors:
List of Detail Survey Team Members.

S. No. Name of Surveyors Designation
1. Mr. Deependra Devkota Sr. Surveyor
2. Mr. Dharma Raj Khadka Ass. Surveyor
3. Mr.Tek Bdr. Ale Helper
4. Mr. Tham Bdr. Ale Helper
5. Mr. Harka Bdr Magar Helper
2.2 The Survey Instruments
The detail survey was conducted using advanced total station which measures the angle and distance
precisely. Total station instruments measure angles by means of electro-optical scanning of extremely
precise digital bar-codes etched on rotating glass cylinders or discs within the instrument and
measurement of distance is accomplished with the help Electronic Distance Measurement(EDM)
devices fitted inside the telescope to measure the distance accurately. The following instrument was
used to complete the detail survey of the project:
List of Survey Instrument(s).

Survey Equipment and Model Nos. Angle Accuracy Distance Accuracy
TOPCON GM-50Series (Reflectories) 1 ± 0.1” ± (2mm + 2ppm x D)
2.3 Monumentation of Control Points
Control Points were established at the proposed location of structures and along the Irrigation
alignment of the project such as to conduct detail survey of the project. The major control points are
permanent points made by concrete pillars or cross chiseled marks on boulders. The points were
made conspicuous by enamel paint. Reference marks are created and recorded in description cards
for all the major points such that it can be relocated in the field with ease. The control points in the
proposed locations are as follows:
 Alignment :BM-1, BM-2, BM-1,BM-2,-BM-1A,BM-2B,
3. DESCRIPTION CARDS
Description card of major control points are provided with all the information (measurement from its
reference mark, XYZ, VDC, Ward, Ward No., Photo) such that it can be relocated in the field with
ease. A copy of description card is provided in Annex – B
4. FINAL COORDINATES OF CONTROL POINTS

The Final Coordinates of major and minor control points is given below in table:
List of Final Coordinates.
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: ii

Point No Easting Northing RL Remarks

BM-1 251179.000 3103217.000 487.900 BM-1
BM-1A 250604.702 3103123.190 403.202 BM-1A
BM-2B 250622.734 3103110.043 402.616 BM-2B
BM-2 251181.155 3103240.777 487.252 BM-2
5. DETAIL TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

Detail survey was carried out from May 03, 2022 to May 09, 2022. The detail survey was carried out
along the alignment of the Gorkha and Palungatr municipality area, Alignment and Ten mure and
talpokhari area of Irrigation Project. The alignment was about 3678.077 m2 Area.
The features of terrain have surveyed by means of spot surveying. Spot positions were taken by the
total station from different traverse and offset points. Inaccessible points like rock faces, top of cliff,
landslide edge, etc. have been recorded using reflector less mode of total station. The detail survey
was carried out to prepare topographical map of contour interval 1m. The detail survey depicted
following information on ground:
 Kholsi etc.,
 Boulders, Rock, Cliff, Land Slides, Trees etc.,
 Houses, Shed, Temples, Mane, Gumba etc,
 Tap, Water tank etc.
 Electric Pole, Telephone pole, Transmission lines etc.,
 Roads, Bridges, Tracks etc.
 Agricultural, Forest, Village boundaries.
6. TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPPING
The topographical map was prepared in Auto CAD using SW DTM software. All the houses, rivers,
roads, tracks etc were drawn and appropriate symbols were used to show trees, poles, transmission
lines etc. The map was prepared with a contour interval of 1 m. DTM (Digital Terrain Model) was also
prepared using SW DTM. The maps are provided in separate volume and are prepared in the scales
given below
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: iii

PPENDIX – B
DESCRIPTION CARD
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: iv

IRRIGATAION PROJECT
Description card of Permanent BenchMark
Station No:- Description:- Monumentation Mark
concrete nail (Boulder)
BM-1A
District: Gorkha
Type of Land: Barran
R / Municipality: Palungtar
Word No: 4
Location: Marsangdi Left Land Owner: Government
Bank
Measurement Sketch Distance Bearing
Co-ordinate Reference Remarks
(m) ( D)
Easting:- 250604.702 R3 R1 2.30 Tree
R1
Northing:- 3103123.190 R2 R2 9.76 Tree
Elevation:-403.202 R3 11.92 Tree
Lacation Map:
Site Photograph:-
Monumntated by Dharma Raj Khadka
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: vii

IRRIGATAION PROJECT
BM-1
District: Gorkha
Type of Land:
R / Municipality: Gorkha
Word No:
Location: Laxmi community Land Owner: Government
Fofest
R1 (m) ( D)
R3
Easting:- 265642.000 R1 3.88 Tree
Northing:-3095480.000 R2 6.23 Tree
R2
Lacation Map:
Site Photograph:-
Monumntated by Keshav
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: ix

IRRIGATAION PROJECT
BM-2
District: Gorkha
Type of Land: Barran
R / Municipality: Gorkha
Word No:
Location: Laxmi community Land Owner: Government
Forest
R1 (m) ( D)
Easting:- 265666.947 R2 R1 6.68 Tree
Northing:- 3095499.874 R3 R2 3.43 Tree
Lacation Map:
Site Photograph:-
Monumntated by Dharma Raj Khada
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: x

APPENDIX – C
FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xi

Figure 1: A View of Irrigation Project.
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xii

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xiii

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xiv

Figure15: A View of Irrigation Project.
PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xix

APPENDIX B
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAM REPORT

2D-ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY SURVEY
OF SHIKHAR BESI TO CONSTRUCT A DAM FOR THE IRRIGATION
OF COMMAND AREA
GORKHA
Final Report
Prepared by:
Earth Investigation and Solution Nepal Pvt. Ltd

Kathmandu
MAY 2022
Table of Contents
I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Physical and geological basis of electrical resistivity methods ........................................................ 1
1.3 Study objectives................................................................................................................................. 3
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Electrical Resistivity of Rocks ............................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey Design ............................................................................. 5
2.3 Data acquisition ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Data quality........................................................................................................................................ 9
2.5 Data processing................................................................................................................................ 12
III ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Relation of electrical resistivity with geotechnical parameters .................................................... 13
3.2 Correlation of model electrical resistivity with lithology ............................................................... 13
3.3 Interpretation of model electrical resistivity patterns and values with geology and hydrogeology
................................................................................................................................................................ 14
3.4 Pitfalls of the processing and interpretation .................................................................................. 16
3.5 Resistivity tomograms and interpretative cross-sections .............................................................. 17
I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This report deals with the results of 2D-Electrical Resistivity Tomography (2D-ERT) that has
been carried out in Shikar Besi area for irrigation of the Command Area on the downstream area
of the project.
Fieldwork was carried out during the May 2022. During the fieldwork, measurement of electric
current, primary voltage and decay voltage has been carried out to calculate resistivity and
chargeability. Chargeability information of the subsurface could be an interpretational aid to 2D-
ERT sections in case of ambiguity in the interpretation of electrical resistivity tomography.
Figure 1: Locations of ERT profiles

Measurements of decay voltages have been carried out to estimate chargeability of the
subsurface. The measurements have been carried out in eighteen profiles. The details about
length and location of 2D-ERT profiles are presented in Table 1 and the location of the profiles
on the map is presented in Figures 1.
1.2 Physical and geological basis of electrical resistivity methods
Different response to the applied voltage between two points in the subsurface is responded by
the flow of electric current in variable quantities. This is the main basis for the response of the
applied voltage by different layers and bodies in the subsurface. The result to applied voltage
mainly depends on the capacity to conduct electric current by different materials in the
subsurface. In 2D-electrical resistivity tomography (2D-ERT) alternating current (AC) of very
low frequency is passed through the geological subsurface. The response of current flow on
geological formations, such as clay, silt, sand, gravel, boulders, and bedrock are different. By
virtue of the different capacity of different materials to conduct electricity it is possible to
1
separate different materials from each other. Electrical resistivity of a material depends both on
the matrix (rock and/or granular) and on the salinity of the water and degree of saturation of the
pore space. The influence on the current conduction by pore water salinity and its saturation is
high in high porosity formations than in low porosity formations.
There is medium to high grade metamorphic rock like Gneiss, schist and limestone in the
investigation site. These rocks comprise of minerals of Pilitic composition such as clay, mica,
sericite mica, calcite and chlorite. Similarly, the Psammatic schist contains abundant minerals of
quartz and feldspar. Bedrocks are covered by thin soil cover and colluvium in most of the hilly
area. These rocks are weathered on exposed outcrops. The Bharbhung River flows through
narrow channel in some of the area and wide channel in some of the area and all the
investigation site on the right uphill side of the Bharbhung River. The proposed headworks area
is on the wide flood plain area. The power house area is at the old small terrace of the Veri River
and Tatu khola. The ERT profiles covers small valleys, spurs, and colluvium material of old
landslide. On the other hand most of the old landslide area were occupied by cultivated land.
For metamorphic bedrocks if unaltered have low porosity (usually in the range of 0.1%-3%,
rarely reaches to 10%) and very few pores are interconnected. Pores in metamorphic rocks
resemble very fine capillary tubes. Below the zone of weathering even if the regional water table
is at depth the water will rise in these capillary tubes. In other words due to fine pore structure
these rocks have good moisture holding capacity. Because of low porosity the electrical
resistivity of the unaltered metamorphic rocks depend predominantly on the rock matrix and less
extend to the mineralization of the water in the capillary. In sedimentary rocks like shale, there
are enough interconnected pores in the rock therefore these are very conductive in nature. On the
other hand these rocks have higher moisture holding capacity which increases the conductive
nature of the sedimentary rocks. If some kind of shale contains graphite mineral the rock shows
high conductive nature.
2
1.3 Study objectives
The main objective of the proposed study of 2D-Electrical Resistivity Tomography (2D-ERT)
are
1. To establish ground profile showing different layers of soil and rock,
2. To find out depth to bedrock
3. To find out jointed, fractured and sheared zone (weakness zone) within the
bedrock
4. To find out plane of weakness for slope stability, deformed zones in bedrock,
slopes and slides
3
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Electrical Resistivity of Rocks
Electrical resistivity of the rocks or sediments depends on the resistivity of the rock mineral
matrix and the fluid contained in its pore spaces. Rocks are composed primarily of quartz,
feldspar and mica or other silicate minerals, which are poor conductors. They contain water in
the pores, which is usually a better conductor. Thus the resistivity of rocks generally depends on
geometry of its pore spaces and the resistivity (or salinity) of its contained fluid. As permeability
and porosity decrease, resistivity usually increases, when there is no change in formation fluid.
The resistivity also depends upon the age of the rock or sediment as, with age, they become
compacted and/or weathered. Compacted rocks show very high resistivity compared to
unconsolidated sediments like clays, sands, gravels and so on as there will be less fluid in it. The
weathered rock shows low resistivity when there is presence of water in it. Dry rocks or
sediments have very high resistivity (of the order of 10,000 to 100,000 Ohm-m), whereas water
bearing rocks or saturated sediments become much less resistant (10 to 1,000 Ohm-m). The
resistivity of different rocks and sediments are in Table 2.
All rocks contain some pores in them. Under any reasonable circumstances, these pores are
partly or completely filled with water. This water usually carries some salt in solution so that the
water content of rock has a far greater capacity for transmitting current than does the solid
matrix of the rock unless highly conducting minerals are present.
In some rocks such as consolidated sedimentary rocks, porosity is inter-granular in nature

consisting of the spaces left over after the rock grains were compacted. In other rocks and
particularly in igneous rocks, porosity occurs primarily in the form of joints.
In general, hard rocks are poor conductors of electricity, but geological processes like
weathering, dissolution, hydrothermal alteration; faulting and shearing can alter rock to increase
the porosity and permeability of rock and hence decreases resistivity. By comparison,
compaction of sedimentary rock and metamorphism of all types may result in lower porosities
and permeability. Resistivity is, therefore, a widely varying parameter, which changes not only
from lithology to lithology, but also within a particular formation of same lithology.
Apparent resistivity values obtained in the field are not equal to the actual resistivity of the
geologic units which affect the potential measured at the potential electrodes, unless
4
measurements are being made over homogenous ground (Telford and others, 1990). At shallow
exploration depth and at short current electrode spacing, shallow layers through which most of
the current flows mostly influence measured apparent resistivity. As electrode spacing increases,
a greater proportion of the induced current flows into deeper geologic layers, thus the response
measured at the surface is reflective of the resistivity of increasingly deeper geologic units as the
electrode spacing are increased. Hence as the distance between the current electrodes increases,
so does the exploration depth or the depth of investigation of the survey.
Figure 2: Electrical Resistivity versus Lithology
2.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey Design

Electrical Resistivity Tomography survey is usually conducted following the various
arrangements of four electrodes, two current (A and B) and two potential (M and N) depending
upon the specific purpose (Figure 3). The field operation is presented in photographs.
5
A M N B
Electrodes shifting in this direction Inhomogeneity in the overburden

(A and B are current electrodes and M and N are Potential electrodes)
Figure 3: WENNER Electrode Array for profiling
There are many electrode arrangements, which can be used in the ERT field survey. These
arrays have advantages and disadvantages. In some geological situations one is particularly
better than the other to give better response. To map lateral changes in structures Dipole –Dipole
and Schlumberger are better whereas Wenner seems to have a strong signal/noise ratio and
smoothens the picture more.
The choice of a particular electrode array for the survey in question depends upon many factors.
These are summarized below:
Ease in handling:
As mentioned above, gradient and pole-pole arrays are easier to handle. Only two electrodes are
to be moved along the profile. Three electrodes are to be moved in Pole-Dipole array and all
four electrodes are moved in Wenner, Schlumberger and Dipole-Dipole arrays adding
complications in handling more electrodes. But for multi core cables with takeouts at a fixed
distance and automatic equipments with switchers, there is no need to move once the cable has
been laid out. Our equipment automatically switches between electrodes and data acquisition is
possible for 5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, 25 m, and so on till 95 m of spacing between two electrodes
which is almost impossible in manual equipments.
6
Signal to noise ratio:
In a collinear electrode arrangement, signal to noise ratio (SNR) depends on whether the
potential electrodes M and N are placed within or outside of the current electrodes A and B. The
voltage between M and N and SNR will be higher for the former than for the latter case. In this
regard, Wenner array rates higher followed by Schlumberger and Dipole-Dipole arrays. Wenner
array has the highest SNR among the conventional arrays. The Pole-Pole, Pole-Dipole and
Dipole –Dipole arrays are more sensitive to near surface variations. Hence, even in very noisy
areas, the Wenner array measurement is the most reliable.
EM coupling:
Frequencies of source signals used in DC resistivity surveying are usually very low (from DC to
50 cycles per seconds) to avoid electromagnetic effects. Most commercial instruments use
square waves or pulsed direct currents as source signals. Such signals yield high harmonics,
which may result in coupling between the two dipoles and the wires connecting them to the
recording instrument. The coupling increases with the frequency, electrode configuration and
conductivity of the medium of the flowing current. In this regard, pole-dipole, gradient,
Schlumberger and Wenner arrays are progressively more susceptible to coupling. However, the
coupling can be reduced taking special care while laying the current and potential cables in the
field.
Lateral resolution:
The resolving powers of these arrays are different. It is found that the gradient array has better
ability to resolve the steeply dipping inhomogeniety. Coggon, (1973) and Dey et al (1975)
establish that Schlumberger array ranks with Wenner array in its lateral resolving power.
Vertical Resolution:
A better vertical resolution helps to demarcate the boundary between different lithology/geology
more accurately. The experiment showed that (Loke, M. H. 1999) the vertical resolution is best
exhibited by Wenner array. The Dipole Dipole and Wenner-Schlumberger arrays come only
after Wenner array.
7
Anomaly Pattern:
Pole-Dipole is an asymmetrical array and gives rise to somewhat more complicated anomalies in
the pseudo section. Signal strength or anomaly strength measured with Pole-Dipole array
decrease less rapidly compared to Dipole-Dipole array.
This (Wenner) array is a robust array, which was popularized by the pioneering work carried out
by the University of Birmingham research group (Griffiths and Turnbull 1985; Griffiths,
Turnbull and Olayinka 1990). Many of the past and present 2 D surveys are carried out with this
array.
Based on these considerations, it is found that Wenner array has the advantages of i) ease of
field operation, ii) high signal to noise ratio, iii) symmetrical array and hence symmetrical
anomalies, iv) good lateral resolution, v) good vertical resolution etc. Hence this array method
was employed in the present study program. The schematic diagram of this array is shown in Fig
No. 3.
2.3 Data acquisition
A continuous coverage of the subsurface along the line of investigation is essential to gather a
quality data in the field. In 2D-electrical resistivity tomography data are usually collected by
using any one of the conventional or non-conventional electrode arrangements. It is an
established fact that different electrode arrangements have different degree of sensitivity,
resolution and depth penetration. The selection of electrode arrangement for data acquisition
mainly depends on the geological and topographical setup of the area, requirements of the depth
of investigation and resolution, sensitivity of the selected electrode arrangement, and voltage
resolution and noise rejection capacity of equipment, field logistics, and data processing facility.
Field data were gathered to obtain a continuous coverage of the subsurface along the line of
investigation. As mentioned above Wenner electrode configuration was employed in the present
study. Geologically the area under investigation lies in the Lesser Himalayan Meta-sedimentary
rocks. Bed rock exposed at the study area are quartzite and shale.
8
2.4 Data quality
Data collected in the field are influenced by different types of noises of different origins. The
degree of influences depends on the method of data acquisition, quality of the equipment and
accessories, and geological setup. Selection of proper equipment with accessories, and data
acquisition system helps to gather reliable field data, data which has high signal to noise ratio
(S/N ratio). Proper selection of the orientation of the profiles or an additional cross profiles helps
to recognize noise due to the geological and morphological setup of the area. The selection of
the electrode arrangement is based on the requirement of depth of investigation and resolution of
the subsurface. Moreover, it is related with the power of the transmitter and signal resolving and
processing capacity of the receiver of the equipment and quality of the peripheral parts and
accessories. Some electrode arrangements produce high level of signal but poor resolution
whereas some produce low level of signal but higher resolution of the subsurface. As the
distance between transmitting and the receiving electrodes increase the level of the noise also
increases dramatically. The type of the noise are capacitive coupling, induction and of telluric
and cultural origin. To avoid this adverse effect on the signal it is necessary to have high quality
accessories and digital signal processing facility of the receiver electronics.
It is important to know that the geophysical methods cover not only along vertical and lateral
along the profile but also look sideways. Geological variations that come within the radius of
influence in sideways also influence the data. Such influences could disorganize the section and
make difficult to make meaningful interpretation. So the noises introduced into the data due to
the geological setup that are not easily interpretable are known as geological noises. For 2D-
ERT variation caused due to the off line bedrock topography and other materials that are off of
the profile introduce effect that is not easily interpretable. In addition to geological setup the
quality of the data and results depends on following factors:
1. Type of the equipment and accessories used
2. Field crew (geophysicists, assistants, surveyors, laborers)
3. Code of inversion of the field data
4. Interpretation capacity of geophysicist
Type of equipment and accessories used
9
In the survey works the data acquisition was made using the state of art technology equipment
known under the brand name GD-10, SUPREME, manufactured by Geomative Co. Ltd.,
Shenzhen, China. Following are the set of instruments used in the survey.
▪ Multi-function digital DC Electrical Resistivity and Induced Polarization meter.
▪ Multi electrode converter (multi electrode switching equipment)
▪ Multi core cable with each take out at every 10 m (60 take outs in total)
The equipment has been designed to make high precision and high productivity measurement of
electrical current and voltages (primary and decay). The electrical voltages are measured during
the current pulse transmission and after the switch off of the current pulse. These measured
current and voltages are used to calculate resistivity of the subsurface. The equipment has
receiving channels and automatic switching capacity of 60 groups of electrodes (60 take outs in
total). Number of channels available and switching capacity makes instrument ideal for use in
imaging of subsurface. Specially designed multi electrode converter (multi electrode switching
equipment) multicore cables are connected between the instrument and the electrodes. Stainless
steel electrodes each of 40cm long were used for both current transmission and voltage
receiving. These electrodes were grounded in each profiles and were connected with the
GEOMATIVE, GD-10 by specially designed shielded multi core cables.
The measurement sequences were created by using software. Measurement sequences can be
created manually or automatically for conventional and non-conventional electrode
arrangements. For shallow depth of investigation sequences were created to make measurement
along forward and reverse direction. All the sequences were uploaded to the memory of GD-10.
During the measurement data are automatically stored in the memory of GD-10. After the
measurement has completed data are downloaded from the memory of the instrument to the
computer by the help of software GEOMATIVE STUDIO. GEOMATIVE STUDIO is designed
for data transfer, data visualization, editing and preliminary processing and data export into the
format of the code of inversion.
Field crew
The crew members involved in the geophysical field are geophysicist, geologist, and laborers.
The main responsibilities should be borne by the geophysicist who involved in all stages starting
from planning to report submission. Present field survey was carried out by an experienced
geophysicist who was also involved for all stages of geophysical survey. Without good
10
knowledge of the field condition it is difficult to make reliable interpretation of the model.
Experienced assistants were involved during the field work and they were responsible for
checking of the field layout and connection between shielded multicore cables and the
electrodes, preparation of the station for good grounding and supervising to laborers. Surveyor
was responsible to fix the profile direction preferred by geophysicist and to make topographic
leveling needed for data inversion. Detail topographic leveling of the profiles is important in the
study of slope.
Data inversion code
Another main component of 2D-ERT survey is data inversion code. There are numbers of
commercially available inversion code designed for the data processing of 2D-ERT. The
inversion code must be bug free and licensed. Unauthorized versions of the inversion code
usually produce errors and misguides. The limitation of the inversion code is that even if one has
fully Authorized Version, it is not free from artifacts of the data processing. A geophysicist
involved in the data processing must work based on the geological/hydrogeological concept
worked out during geophysical fieldwork, geological observation and further discussion with the
field geologist.
The code RES2DINV Ver. 4.05.37 designed by Geotomo Software, Malaysia, was used for the
inversion of 2D-ERT field data. The finite-element processing technique was used for both
inversion and topographic modeling. To recognize the possible processing-artifacts of the code,
inversion was carried out by choosing different processing parameters.
Interpretation capacity of geophysicist
Interpretation capacity of a geophysicist largely depends on his/her understanding of the applied

methods of investigation and its limitation, his/her knowledge about the sites, formulation of the
geological concepts based on the surface geological observation and geological concepts formed
during geophysical data processing. There is no meaning of computer output unless there is
reliable interpretation based on geological/hydrogeological concept. So, geophysicist who is
responsible for interpretation is necessary to take part in fieldwork.
11
2.5 Data processing
Tomographic processing
Measured apparent resistivity values in the field were fed into the computer. The raw field data
for a profile represents a pseudo section of the apparent resistivity. Pseudo sections show the
variation of apparent resistivity in the subsurface, which have been affected by the electrode
arrangement and relative apparent resistivity distribution in the subsurface. The inversion of the
pseudo section was carried out to get an approximated model of the true resistivity distribution.
For inversion of the pseudo section it is necessary to input processing parameters. The input of
the processing parameters largely depends on the geological concepts and data quality. The
software calculates a two-dimensional resistivity model for the subsurface using the apparent
resistivity measured along a profile and the processing parameters suitable for the geological
setup of the area. The depth of the bottom row of blocks is set to be approximately equal to the
equivalent depth of investigation (median depth) of the datum points with the largest electrode
spacing. A finite-element forward modeling subroutine is used to calculate the apparent
resistivity values, and a non-linear least-squares optimization technique is used for the inversion
routine. The optimization method basically tries to reduce the difference between calculated and
measured apparent resistivity values by adjusting the resistivity of model blocks. The end
products of processing by this software are refined tomograms (images) of resistivity
distribution in subsurface. Finite-element method was used for inversion and topographic
correction.
12
III ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
3.1 Relation of electrical resistivity with geotechnical parameters
Electrical resistivity depend on moisture content (degree of saturation) and material types (clay
content). The ratio of electrical resistivity between zones of aeration to zone of saturation is 4 to
10. For saturated and clay free materials the relation between the porosity and formation
resistivity is related by Archie’s equation. For saturated granular materials there is direct log-log
relationship between permeability and electrical resistivity. The empirical relationship indicates
that log-log inverse relationship between permeability for low concentration of clay. There is an
empirical linear relationship between internal angles of friction with logarithmic of electrical
resistivity. This indicates that higher the electrical resistivity higher the internal angle of friction.
The rock mass quality also has direct relation with logarithmic of electrical resistivity. However
this relation is valid for rock mass that is below the water table or at greater depth. All these
relations between geotechnical parameters and electrical resistivity vary among different rock
types and for different basins. In the case of Bharbhung (Dolpa) Hydropower Project we can use
these relations between different parameters to make general conclusion.
3.2 Correlation of model electrical resistivity with lithology
Electrical Resistivity
For the interpretation of electrical resistivity model, to extract subsurface geological and
hydrogeological information, we need geological concepts, which correlate physical model
parameters with geology. The detail requirements of the geological concept for electrical
resistivity model interpretation depend on the geological set up of the area, the contrast in
electrical resistivity between different layers and bodies in the subsurface and to some extent
electrode arrangement used for the measurement.
In 2D electrical resistivity methods such as electrical resistivity tomography mathematical filters

are used to avoid effects mostly related to surface and near surface variations caused by
heterogeneity. This increases the reliability of the interpretation of the models for depth
information. In simple geological setup the role of the geological concept is not so important.
Simple geological setup means high contrast in physical properties between lithological zones
13
and large size of the zones of different physical properties in comparison with depth of the zone.
Meaning of the zone here means those, which are of main interest to engineering projects.
In conventional methods of geophysical interpretation boundaries between different lithological

types and formations are considered to be discrete. In such consideration interpretation are value
based. The lithological boundaries and types are differentiated based on the resistivity values
only. However in tomographic methods of geophysical investigation gradient methods are also
used along with the value based interpretation. The values are for guiding purpose whereas
gradients are for the differentiation of geological and hydrogeological boundaries.
Taking into consideration of the factors that have been discussed in the subheadings of this
chapter such as relation between resistivity and porosity and analysis of the model resistivity
helps to form the following correlation ranges of model resistivity values (these values are just
for guiding purpose):
Table: 2 Resistivity of some common geo materials

Lithological type Most likely values
Unsaturated material >2000 Ohm.m
(Coarse material, colluvium, dry alluvium, (Usually much higher)
detached block and open jointed rock)
Bedrock >2000 Ohm.m
(intact bedrock at depth) (Usually much higher)
Jointed rock mass at depth 1500-4000 Ohm.m
Fractured rock mass or joints filled by clay <1000 Ohm.m
Material of recent slide, near the surface >2000 Ohm.m
3.3 Interpretation of model electrical resistivity patterns and values with geology and
hydrogeology
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) section provides spatial distribution of model

resistivity values providing structural information along the section. This structural information
14
together with surface geological observation information helps to form geological concepts
which is important for 2D-ERT section interpretations.
The main clue for the geological (engineering geological) interpretation of 2D-ERT sections is
the spatial distribution and patterns of distribution of resistivity values with consideration of the
surface geological information. Here are some general discussions, which are useful for the
interpretation of 2D-ERT sections.
Interpretation of surface layers and bodies: Usually surface layers are highly heterogeneous,
porous and have less moisture content, they are usually identified by zones of very high
electrical resistivity. If the surface layer is formed by weathered material, or by fine materials its
electrical resistivity is much lower. Furthermore the distribution of any impermeable beds at
shallow depth may also create a low resistivity surface layer. In most case the surface layer is in
dry environment therefore have high resistivity.
Interpretation of the intermediate layers and bodies: Intermediate layers are indicated by lower
electrical resistivity values than the surface layers. This is due to the presence of higher moisture
content. This layer’s resistivity is highly dependent on the mineralization of the groundwater and
proportion of the fine materials. Coarse-grained materials (below water table), fine-grained
material, weathered and highly fractured bedrock, shear zones, and slip-surfaces are indicated by
lower electrical resistivity zones. The gravitationally deformed slopes are also indicated by
lower electrical resistivity zones.
Interpretation of the layers and bodies at greater depth: In general below the water table or
material that is at greater depth are related to porosity and rock types. Within the same material
type the decrease in porosity causes the increase in the electrical resistivity. Consolidation and
cementation of the material also increases the electrical resistivity of the material. Unaltered and
undisturbed bedrock in the area are indicated by intermediate to high electrical resistivity zones.
Schist zones and other weak rock mass zones, and gravitationally deformed zones are indicated
by low electrical resistivity values.
15
3.4 Pitfalls of the processing and interpretation
Every geophysical method has some limitations. The limitations are usually posed by the power
of the instrument, its signal resolving and processing capacity, geological, hydrogeological and
topographical setup of the area, and by the physics of the particular methods. Data obtained from
the complicated geological and topographical setup, and noise in the data combined with the
processing techniques could result in artifacts. There could be possibility of the over
interpretation of such artifacts.
In the interpretation of resistivity tomograms following factors have been taken into account:
Artifacts of inversion code are usually due to the poor data coverage. To sample a subsurface
target of interest with higher degree of reliability we need to collect data that represents multiple
paths of signal (which is current) transmission and reception (which is voltage). The equipment
used in the present study (GEOMATIVE GD-10) has multi-channel receiving facility which
helps to collect considerable number of data that represents to multiple paths of transmission and
reception. High density data coverage and measurement in forward and reverse direction helps
to minimize and recognize the artifacts which are usual in scanty data coverage.
Proximity of any unusually high or low resistivity and their relative thickness: In our case
fractured and jointed rock mass zone are highly conductive than the intact gneiss. In smooth
model inversion technique which is generally applied to identify the geological boundaries low
resistivity zones (if they are thin) have tendency to inflate in thickness. In the study area
thickness of jointed or highly jointed rock could be distorted. In some cases these jointed and
fractured rock mass zone are indicative rather than their actual spatial distribution. Furthermore,
low resistivity zones that are at the bottom or in the start and end of the profile have smearing
effects which results in unusually large thickness and zones. This is due to the insufficient data
coverage in that part of the profile.
Limitations of the smooth model inversion method to estimate the true resistivity of the
subsurface.
Non-uniqueness of the geophysical interpretations, also called principle of equivalence in

electrical resistivity method. The resistivity and thickness of the thin layers are distorted.
16
Thickness of low resistivity zone is usually inflated than the actual thickness. The resistivity
values obtained for such thin zones are also distorted but they are indicative.
In the present investigation, for bodies and layers of small size, both their size and electrical
resistivity could be distorted if they are resolved separately. These zones could be resolved
separately if they are at shallow depth. On the other hand, if they are at relatively greater depth
(compared to the size of the zone) they may not be resolved separately and cumulative effects of
several zones could be observed. The off line effect could be recognized due to the high density
data coverage and overlapping data levels.
Since there are no sufficient data points in the start and end of 2D electrical resistivity
tomography profiles the reliability of the start and end of the profile largely depends on local
geological variation. Model section could be distorted at the start and end of the profile if there
is significant level of variation in the geology in these parts.
3.5 Resistivity tomograms and interpretative cross-sections
The model sections obtained from data inversion are presented as resistivity tomograms.
Tomograms show the variation of modeled physical properties (electrical resistivity) in depth
and along the line of investigation. These variations in modeled physical properties have relation
with the subsurface geological and hydrogeological set up. Representative resistivity tomograms
for each line and their interpretations are presented in Figure 8 to Figure 10.
17
Fig 4a: Resistivity Tomogram of ERT 1
Fig 4b: Interpretative cross-section of ERT 1

ERT 1 runs along the river channel. It shows thick alluvium towards the upstream side and possible bed rock towards downstream side. The
depth of possible bed rock is about 10m from the surface
1
2
The ERT profile-2 runs across the river channel. It also shows thick alluvium of thickness 10m at the surface and bed rock at the depth of 10m
3
4
This ERT profile-3 also runs across the river channel. It also shows thick alluvium of thickness 10m at the surface and bed rock at the depth of
10m. The colluvium deposits towards the both end of the profile.
5
APPENDIX C
CROP WATER REQUIREMENT

Water Resources Irrigation Development Division Office Shikharbesi Multipurpose Dam Project
Gorkha, Nepal Volume II: Crop Water Requirement
80% Reliable Rainfall

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total, mm/ month 1.52 1.36 7.70 35.32 101.34 228.30 340.10 245.48 106.74 9.94 0.00 0.00
Potential Evapotranspiration
ETo, mm/day 1.90 2.57 3.69 4.78 4.49 3.69 3.40 3.19 3.12 2.98 2.41 1.88
Evaporation (Eo), mm/ day

Eo, mm/day 2.25 3.68 5.97 7.98 9.48 10.56 10.57 9.73 8.18 5.52 3.14 1.98
Deep Percolation
1st half, mm/day 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.50 2.50 1.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00
2nd half, mm/day 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00

Calculation of Evaporation by Penman Equation

Eo, mm/day = (Qn+ Ea) /( +  )
o
Mean Air Temperature, C 12.85 14.95 19.30 22.40 23.55 25.10 25.30 25.35 24.20 21.30 17.45 13.60
Relative Humidity (Rh), % 62.00 58.00 53.00 48.00 57.00 77.00 84.00 83.00 84.00 69.00 61.00 61.00
Mean Sunshine Duration, hrs (n) 6.60 7.30 7.40 7.30 5.40 3.70 3.40 3.10 4.40 6.10 7.40 7.10
Possible Sunshine Hours (N) 3.91 4.33 4.39 4.33 3.20 2.19 2.01 1.84 2.61 3.61 4.39 4.21
n/N ratio 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68
Wind Speed at 10 m height, miles/day 53.44 64.62 75.19 91.34 91.34 80.78 75.19 64.62 59.03 53.44 48.47 48.47
Adjustment Factor for Wind Speed at 10 m 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
Wind Speed 2 m height, miles/day 41.15 49.76 57.89 70.33 70.33 62.20 57.89 49.76 45.45 41.15 37.32 37.32
Extra-terrestrial Radiation, mm/day (QA) 9.30 11.10 13.40 15.30 16.50 16.79 16.69 15.70 14.10 12.00 9.90 8.80
Reflection Coefficient (r) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
QA*(1-r)*(a+b*n/N) 9.47 11.30 13.64 15.57 16.79 17.09 16.99 15.98 14.35 12.21 10.08 8.96
ϬTᵅ4 for different mean Temperature 13.65 14.10 15.03 15.69 15.94 16.27 16.31 16.32 16.08 15.46 14.63 13.81
ea, mm of Hg 11.14 12.72 16.82 20.31 21.77 23.91 24.20 24.27 22.63 19.01 14.96 11.74
ed, mm of Hg (ea*Rh) 6.91 7.38 8.91 9.75 12.41 18.41 20.33 20.14 19.01 13.12 9.12 7.16
Qn (mm of water) = QA*(1-r)*(a+b*n/N) -
4 2.35 4.13 6.58 8.52 10.55 12.53 12.93 11.87 10.01 6.38 3.28 1.85
ϬTᵅ *(0.56-0.092√ed)*(0.1+0.9*n/N)
Ea = 0.35*(ea-ed)*(1+0.0098*u2) 2.08 2.78 4.34 6.24 5.54 3.10 2.12 2.15 1.83 2.89 2.79 2.19
 0.80 1.00 1.30 1.60 1.80 1.85 1.75 1.73 1.70 1.50 1.25 0.85
Psychometric Constant,  0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
Eo =(Qn+ Ea) /( +  ) 2.25 3.68 5.97 7.98 9.48 10.56 10.57 9.73 8.18 5.52 3.14 1.98

Country : Nepal Statation Pokhara Airport

Month Min Temp Max Temp Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo
°C °C % km/day hours MJ/m²/day mm/day
Jan 6.8 18.9 62 86 6.6 12.7 1.9
Feb 8.6 21.3 58 104 7.3 15.5 2.57
Mar 12.2 26.4 53 121 7.4 18.2 3.69
Apr 15.5 29.3 48 147 7.3 20 4.78
May 17.9 29.2 57 147 5.4 18 4.49
Jun 20.5 29.7 77 130 3.7 15.7 3.69
Jul 21.4 29.2 84 121 3.4 15 3.4
Aug 21.6 29.1 83 104 3.1 14 3.19
Sep 20.3 28.1 84 95 4.4 14.5 3.12
Oct 16.5 26.1 69 86 6.1 14.7 2.98
Nov 11.7 23.2 61 78 7.4 13.9 2.41
Dec 7.5 19.7 61 78 7.1 12.5 1.88
Average 15.04 25.85 66.41 108.08 5.76 15.39 3.17
6.0
ETo
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Volume II: Crop Water Requirement
Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13b Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Monsoon Paddy_120 days
Month Jun Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov
Half Month I II I II I II I II I II I
ETo, mm/day 3.69 3.69 3.40 3.40 3.19 3.19 3.12 3.12 2.98 2.98 2.41
Crop_Coeff, Kc 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95 0.95 0.95
ETcrop, mm/day 0.00 0.00 3.74 3.74 3.51 3.51 3.43 3.28 2.83 2.83 2.29
ETcrop, mm/half month 0.00 0.00 56.10 56.10 52.64 52.64 51.48 49.14 42.47 42.47 34.34
Land Preparation, mm/half month 75.00 75.00 50.00 50.00
Deep Percolation, mm/half month 37.50 30.00 22.50 15.00 15.00 15.00 37.50 37.50 37.50 0.00 0.00
Eo, mm/day 10.56 10.56 10.57 10.57 9.73 9.73 8.18 8.18 5.52 5.52 3.14
Eo, mm/half month 158.34 158.34 158.52 158.52 145.91 145.91 122.69 122.69 82.86 82.86 47.12
Total CWR, mm/half month 270.84 263.34 287.12 279.62 213.54 213.54 211.67 209.33 162.82 125.32 81.46
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 99.10 129.20 168.89 171.21 137.66 107.82 67.40 39.34 8.16 1.78 0.00
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 84.24 90.44 118.22 119.85 96.36 75.47 57.29 33.44 6.93 0.00 0.00
Net CWR, mm/half month 186.60 172.90 168.90 159.77 117.18 138.07 154.38 175.89 155.89 125.32 81.46
Net CWR, l/s/ha 1.44 1.33 1.30 1.23 0.90 1.07 1.19 1.36 1.20 0.97 0.63
Field Efficiency, % 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 1.69 1.57 1.53 1.45 1.06 1.25 1.40 1.60 1.42 1.14 0.74
Distribution Efficiency, % 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 2.12 1.96 1.92 1.81 1.33 1.57 1.75 2.00 1.77 1.42 0.92
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 2.35 2.18 2.13 2.01 1.48 1.74 1.95 2.22 1.97 1.58 1.03

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13c Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Monsoon Paddy_135 days
Month Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec
Half Month II I II I II I II I II I II I
ETo, mm/day 3.69 3.40 3.40 3.19 3.19 3.12 3.12 2.98 2.98 2.41 2.41 1.88
Crop_Coeff, Kc 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0.95 0.95
ETcrop, mm/day 0.00 0.00 3.74 3.51 3.51 3.43 3.28 3.13 3.13 2.29 2.29 1.79
ETcrop, mm/half month 0.00 0.00 56.10 52.64 52.64 51.48 49.14 46.94 46.94 34.34 34.34 26.79
Deep Percolation, mm/half month 30.00 22.50 15.00 15.00 15.00 37.50 37.50 37.50 45.00 45.00 0.00 0.00
Eo, mm/day 10.56 10.57 10.57 9.73 9.73 8.18 8.18 5.52 5.52 3.14 3.14 1.98
Eo, mm/half month 158.34 158.52 158.52 145.91 145.91 122.69 122.69 82.86 82.86 47.12 47.12 29.64
Total CWR, mm/half month 263.34 256.02 279.62 263.54 213.54 211.67 209.33 167.29 174.79 126.46 81.46 56.43
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 129.20 168.89 171.21 137.66 107.82 67.40 39.34 8.16 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 90.44 118.22 119.85 96.36 75.47 57.29 33.44 6.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net CWR, mm/half month 172.90 137.80 159.77 167.18 138.07 154.38 175.89 160.36 174.79 126.46 81.46 56.43
Net CWR, l/s/ha 1.33 1.06 1.23 1.29 1.07 1.19 1.36 1.24 1.35 0.98 0.63 0.44
Field Efficiency, % 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 1.57 1.25 1.45 1.52 1.25 1.40 1.60 1.46 1.59 1.15 0.74 0.51
Distribution Efficiency, % 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 1.96 1.56 1.81 1.90 1.57 1.75 2.00 1.82 1.98 1.43 0.92 0.64
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 2.18 1.74 2.01 2.11 1.74 1.95 2.22 2.02 2.20 1.59 1.03 0.71

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13d Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Late Paddy_105 days
Month Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov
Half Month I II I II I II I II I II
ETo, mm/day 3.40 3.40 3.19 3.19 3.12 3.12 2.98 2.98 2.41 2.41
Crop_Coeff, Kc 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95 0.95 0.95
ETcrop, mm/day 0.00 0.00 3.51 3.51 3.43 3.43 3.13 2.83 2.29 2.29
ETcrop, mm/half month 0.00 0.00 52.64 52.64 51.48 51.48 46.94 42.47 34.34 34.34
Deep Percolation, mm/half month 22.50 15.00 15.00 15.00 37.50 37.50 37.50 45.00 0.00 0.00
Eo, mm/day 10.57 10.57 9.73 9.73 8.18 8.18 5.52 5.52 3.14 3.14
Eo, mm/half month 158.52 158.52 145.91 145.91 122.69 122.69 82.86 82.86 47.12 47.12
Total CWR, mm/half month 256.02 248.52 263.54 263.54 211.67 211.67 167.29 170.32 81.46 81.46
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 168.89 171.21 137.66 107.82 67.40 39.34 8.16 1.78 0.00 0.00
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 118.22 119.85 96.36 75.47 57.29 33.44 6.93 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net CWR, mm/half month 137.80 128.67 167.18 188.07 154.38 178.23 160.36 170.32 81.46 81.46
Net CWR, l/s/ha 1.06 0.99 1.29 1.45 1.19 1.38 1.24 1.31 0.63 0.63
Field Efficiency, % 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 1.25 1.17 1.52 1.71 1.40 1.62 1.46 1.55 0.74 0.74
Distribution Efficiency, % 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 1.56 1.46 1.90 2.13 1.75 2.02 1.82 1.93 0.92 0.92
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 1.74 1.62 2.11 2.37 1.95 2.25 2.02 2.15 1.03 1.03

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13e Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Wheat
Month Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Nov Dec Dec
Half Month I II I II I II II I II
ETo, mm/day 1.90 1.90 2.57 2.57 3.69 3.69 2.41 1.88 1.88
Crop_Coeff, Kc 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.90 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.65 1.05
ETcrop, mm/day 2.19 2.19 2.96 2.31 1.48 1.48 1.04 1.22 1.97
ETcrop, mm/half month 32.78 32.78 44.33 34.70 22.14 22.14 0.00 0.00 29.61
Land Preparation, mm/half month 60.00 60.00
Deep Percolation, mm/half month
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Total CWR, mm/half month 32.78 32.78 44.33 34.70 22.14 22.14 60.00 60.00 29.61
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 0.66 0.86 0.44 0.92 2.27 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 0.46 0.60 0.31 0.65 1.59 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net CWR, mm/half month 32.31 32.17 44.03 34.05 20.55 18.34 60.00 60.00 29.61
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.26 0.16 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.23
Field Efficiency, % 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 0.29 0.29 0.40 0.31 0.19 0.17 0.54 0.54 0.27
Distribution Efficiency, % 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.37 0.37 0.50 0.39 0.23 0.21 0.68 0.68 0.34
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.41 0.41 0.56 0.43 0.26 0.23 0.76 0.76 0.37

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13g Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Late_Maize
Month Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul
Half Month I II I II I II I
ETo, mm/day 4.78 4.78 4.49 4.49 3.69 3.69 3.40
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.45 0.65 0.80 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.80
ETcrop, mm/day 2.15 3.11 3.59 4.71 3.87 3.87 2.72
ETcrop, mm/half month 32.27 46.61 53.88 70.72 58.12 58.12 40.80
Land Preparation, mm/half month
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Total CWR, mm/half month 32.27 46.61 53.88 70.72 58.12 58.12 40.80
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 12.51 22.81 39.45 61.89 99.10 129.20 168.89
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 8.76 15.97 27.62 43.32 69.37 90.44 118.22
Net CWR, mm/half month 23.51 30.64 26.26 27.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.18 0.24 0.20 0.21 - - -
Field Efficiency, % 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 0.21 0.28 0.24 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Distribution Efficiency, % 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.31 - - -
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.35 - - -

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13l Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Potato
Month Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Dec Dec
Half Month I II I II I II I I II
ETo, mm/day 1.90 1.90 2.57 2.57 3.69 3.69 4.78 1.88 1.88
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.79 1.01 1.13 1.13 1.08 0.94 0.77 0.42 0.55
ETcrop, mm/day 1.50 1.92 2.90 2.90 3.99 3.47 3.68 0.79 1.03
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.17 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.45 0.37 0.36 0.09 0.12
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.21 0.27 0.41 0.41 0.55 0.46 0.44 0.11 0.15
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.23 0.30 0.46 0.45 0.62 0.51 0.49 0.13 0.16

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13n Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Sesame
Month Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May
Half Month II I II I II I
ETo, mm/day 2.57 3.69 3.69 4.78 4.78 4.49
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.40 0.46 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.72
ETcrop, mm/day 1.03 1.70 3.03 4.78 4.78 3.23
ETcrop, mm/half month 15.42 25.46 45.39 71.70 71.70 48.49
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Total CWR, mm/half month 15.42 25.46 45.39 71.70 71.70 48.49
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 2.89 4.09 4.74 4.25 7.01 12.38
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 2.02 2.87 3.32 2.97 4.91 8.67
Net CWR, mm/half month 13.40 22.60 42.07 68.73 66.79 39.83
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.10 0.17 0.32 0.53 0.52 0.31
Field Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 0.11 0.19 0.36 0.59 0.57 0.34
Distribution Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.13 0.22 0.40 0.65 0.64 0.38
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.14 0.24 0.45 0.73 0.71 0.42

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13p Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Sunflower
Month Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul
Half Month II I II I II I II I II
ETo, mm/day 3.69 4.78 4.78 4.49 4.49 3.69 3.69 3.40 3.40
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 1 0.35 0.35
ETcrop, mm/day 1.29 1.67 1.67 1.57 4.49 3.69 3.69 1.19 1.19
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.39 0.17 - - -
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.48 0.21 - - -
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.53 0.24 - - -

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13h Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Pulse (Arhar)
Month Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Dec
Half Month I II I II I II II
ETo, mm/day 1.90 1.90 2.57 2.57 3.69 3.69 1.88
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.50 0.75 0.95 1.05 1.05 0.96 0.40
ETcrop, mm/day 0.95 1.43 2.44 2.70 3.87 3.54 0.75
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.11 0.16 0.28 0.31 0.44 0.38 0.09
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.14 0.21 0.37 0.40 0.57 0.50 0.11
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.15 0.23 0.41 0.45 0.63 0.55 0.13

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13m Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Pulse (Moong)
Month Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul
Half Month II I II I II I II I
ETo, mm/day 3.69 4.78 4.78 4.49 4.49 3.69 3.69 3.40
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.75 0.95 1.05 1.05 0.96
ETcrop, mm/day 1.48 2.15 2.39 3.37 4.27 3.87 3.87 3.26
ETcrop, mm/half month 22.14 32.27 35.85 50.51 63.98 58.12 58.12 48.96
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Total CWR, mm/half month 22.14 32.27 35.85 50.51 63.98 58.12 58.12 48.96
80% Reliable Rainfall, mm 4.74 4.25 7.01 12.38 24.22 46.88 80.16 152.86
Effective Rainfall, mm/ half month 3.32 2.97 4.91 8.67 16.95 32.82 56.11 107.00
Net CWR, mm/half month 18.82 29.29 30.94 41.85 47.03 25.30 2.01 0.00
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.15 0.23 0.24 0.32 0.36 0.20 0.02 -
Field Efficiency, % 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00
Field Crop Water requirement, l/s/ha 0.17 0.27 0.28 0.38 0.43 0.23 0.02 0.00
Distribution Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.19 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.47 0.26 0.02 -
Conveyance Efficiency, % 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha 0.21 0.33 0.35 0.47 0.53 0.28 0.02 -

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13j Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Vegetables_Summer
Month Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct
Half Month I II I II I II I
ETo, mm/day 3.40 3.40 3.19 3.19 3.12 3.12 2.98
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.34 0.54 0.93 1.05 1.05 1.04 0.91
ETcrop, mm/day 1.16 1.84 2.97 3.35 3.28 3.24 2.71
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Net CWR, l/s/ha - - - - 0.02 0.16 0.27
Tertiary Water Requirement, l/s/ha - - - - 0.02 0.20 0.33
Intake Water Requirement, l/s/ha - - - - 0.02 0.22 0.37

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13k Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Vegetables_Winter
Month Jan Jan Feb Feb Nov Dec Dec
Half Month I II I II II I II
ETo, mm/day 1.90 1.90 2.57 2.57 2.41 1.88 1.88
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.28 0.34 0.54
ETcrop, mm/day 1.63 1.81 2.44 2.29 0.67 0.64 1.02
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.19 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.12

Gorkha, Nepal
Table C- 13o Crop Water Requirement
Crop: Vegetables_Spring
Month Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr
Half Month II I II I II I II
ETo, mm/day 1.90 2.57 2.57 3.69 3.69 4.78 4.78
Crop_Coeff, Kc 0.28 0.34 0.54 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.89
ETcrop, mm/day 0.53 0.87 1.39 3.17 3.51 4.54 4.25
Eo, mm/day
Eo, mm/half month
Net CWR, l/s/ha 0.03 0.08 0.15 0.35 0.38 0.50 0.45

Gorkha, Nepal
Crop Coverage and water demand for different crops under proposed agricultural plan
Gross Command Area (GCA) 3.5 Max Duty 1.9103 lps/ha
Cultivable Command Area (CCA) 3.15
Month Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec Dec
Area Area
I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II
Crop (ha) (%)
Monsoon Paddy 120 1.6 50% 2.35 2.18 2.13 2.01 1.48 1.74 1.95 2.22 1.97 1.58 1.03 0.73
3.71 3.43 3.35 3.17 2.33 2.74 3.07 3.49 3.10 2.49 1.62 1.15
Monsoon Paddy 135 0.8 25% 2.18 1.74 2.01 2.11 1.74 1.95 2.22 2.02 2.20 1.59 1.03 0.71 0.78
1.72 1.37 1.59 1.66 1.37 1.53 1.75 1.59 1.74 1.26 0.81 0.56 0.61
Late Paddy 105 0.3 10% 1.74 1.62 2.11 2.37 1.95 2.25 2.02 2.15 1.03 1.03 1.29
0.55 0.51 0.66 0.75 0.61 0.71 0.64 0.68 0.32 0.32 0.41
Wheat 0.3 10% 0.41 0.41 0.56 0.43 0.26 0.23 0.76 0.76 0.37
0.13 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.12
Spring Maize 1.6 50% 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.47 0.61 0.52 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
Potato 0.5 15% 0.23 0.30 0.46 0.45 0.62 0.51 0.49 0.20 0.27
0.11 0.14 0.22 0.21 0.29 0.24 0.23 0.10 0.13
Oil seed (Sesame) 0.9 30% 0.14 0.24 0.45 0.73 0.71 0.42 0.20
0.13 0.23 0.42 0.69 0.67 0.40 0.19
Oil seed (Sunflower) 0.0 0% 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.53 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pulses (Arahar) 0.5 15% 0.15 0.23 0.41 0.45 0.63 0.55 0.13
0.07 0.11 0.19 0.21 0.30 0.26 0.06
Pulses (Moong) 0.0 0% 0.21 0.33 0.35 0.47 0.53 0.28 0.02 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Veg Sum 0.3 10% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.37
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.12
Veg Win 0.2 5% 0.25 0.28 0.38 0.36 0.11 0.10 0.16
0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03
Veg Spring 0.8 25% 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.47 0.52 0.69 0.62
0.03 0.09 0.16 0.37 0.41 0.54 0.49
Sum 7.7 245%
Discharge requirement from reservoir (lps) 0.35 0.46 0.73 0.91 1.27 1.41 1.93 1.77 0.92 0.54 3.71 5.15 5.27 5.27 4.65 4.86 5.22 6.02 5.44 4.90 3.20 2.54 1.32 1.13
cumecs 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001
Note: The values given in highlighted rows are the crop water requirement for the corresponding crop at that period

APPENDIX D
RESERVOIR VOLUME CALCULATION

Gorkha, Nepal
Demand Stream Discharge Rainfall (mm / Rainfall in Downstream Downstream Evaporation Evaporation from Seepage Loss Adjusted Inflow (Demand-Adjusted Storage
Month Half (lps) Demand (lts) (lps) Supply (lts) half month) Reservoir (lts) Release (lps) Release (lts) (mm/day) Reservoir (lts) (lts) (lts) Inflow) (lts) Requirement (lts)
Jan I 0.35 455,812.24 18.25 23,652,000.00 0.76 13,010.18 0.75 972,000.00 2.25 576,804.52 6,480,000.00 15,636,205.66 -15,180,393.42 -
II 0.46 590,651.20 20.25 13,122,000.00 0.76 13,010.18 0.75 972,000.00 2.25 576,804.52 6,480,000.00 5,106,205.66 -4,515,554.46 -
Feb I 0.73 951,676.74 18.75 12,150,000.00 0.68 11,640.69 0.75 972,000.00 3.68 945,989.86 6,480,000.00 3,763,650.83 -2,811,974.10 -
II 0.91 1,176,147.94 17.25 11,178,000.00 0.68 11,640.69 0.75 972,000.00 3.68 945,989.86 6,480,000.00 2,791,650.83 -1,615,502.89 -
Mar I 1.27 1,646,991.28 15.75 10,206,000.00 3.85 65,906.84 0.75 972,000.00 5.97 1,532,163.02 6,480,000.00 1,287,743.82 359,247.47 359,247.47
II 1.41 1,823,166.90 14.25 9,234,000.00 3.85 65,906.84 0.75 972,000.00 5.97 1,532,163.02 6,480,000.00 315,743.82 1,507,423.08 1,507,423.08
Apr I 1.93 2,500,729.10 12.75 8,262,000.00 17.66 302,315.54 0.75 972,000.00 7.98 2,049,868.81 6,480,000.00 (937,553.28) 3,438,282.38 3,438,282.38
II 1.77 2,290,540.25 12.25 7,938,000.00 17.66 302,315.54 0.75 972,000.00 7.98 2,049,868.81 6,480,000.00 (1,261,553.28) 3,552,093.53 3,552,093.53
May I 0.92 1,192,164.89 12.75 8,262,000.00 50.67 867,402.50 0.75 972,000.00 9.48 2,434,143.08 6,480,000.00 (756,740.58) 1,948,905.47 1,948,905.47
II 0.54 705,041.24 15.50 10,044,000.00 50.67 867,402.50 0.75 972,000.00 9.48 2,434,143.08 6,480,000.00 1,025,259.42 -320,218.18 -
Jun I 3.71 4,802,277.52 20.50 13,284,000.00 114.15 1,954,095.04 0.75 972,000.00 10.56 2,710,568.51 6,480,000.00 5,075,526.53 -273,249.01 -
II 5.15 6,674,518.51 66.25 42,930,000.00 114.15 1,954,095.04 0.75 972,000.00 10.56 2,710,568.51 6,480,000.00 34,721,526.53 -28,047,008.02 -
Jul I 5.27 6,829,012.65 152.75 98,982,000.00 170.05 2,911,028.13 0.75 972,000.00 10.57 2,713,637.48 6,480,000.00 91,727,390.65 -84,898,378.00 -
II 5.27 6,829,905.08 209.75 135,918,000.00 170.05 2,911,028.13 0.75 972,000.00 10.57 2,713,637.48 6,480,000.00 128,663,390.65 -121,833,485.57 -
Aug I 4.65 6,027,422.08 237.25 153,738,000.00 122.74 2,101,144.33 0.75 972,000.00 9.73 2,497,758.90 6,480,000.00 145,889,385.43 -139,861,963.35 -
II 4.86 6,297,901.98 237.75 154,062,000.00 122.74 2,101,144.33 0.75 972,000.00 9.73 2,497,758.90 6,480,000.00 146,213,385.43 -139,915,483.45 -
Sep I 5.22 6,762,540.86 211.25 136,890,000.00 53.37 913,622.88 0.75 972,000.00 8.18 2,100,300.11 6,480,000.00 128,251,322.77 -121,488,781.91 -
II 6.02 7,798,708.28 170.50 110,484,000.00 53.37 913,622.88 0.75 972,000.00 8.18 2,100,300.11 6,480,000.00 101,845,322.77 -94,046,614.49 -
Oct I 5.44 7,051,609.84 115.50 74,844,000.00 4.97 85,079.74 0.75 972,000.00 5.52 1,418,372.16 6,480,000.00 66,058,707.58 -59,007,097.73 -
II 4.90 6,350,944.43 69.75 45,198,000.00 4.97 85,079.74 0.75 972,000.00 5.52 1,418,372.16 6,480,000.00 36,412,707.58 -30,061,763.14 -
Nov I 3.20 4,142,955.02 33.25 21,546,000.00 0 - 0.75 972,000.00 3.14 806,602.51 6,480,000.00 13,287,397.49 -9,144,442.48 -
II 2.54 3,287,155.36 13.75 8,910,000.00 0 - 0.75 972,000.00 3.14 806,602.51 6,480,000.00 651,397.49 2,635,757.87 2,635,757.87
Dec I 1.32 1,706,537.09 11.25 7,290,000.00 0 - 0.75 972,000.00 1.98 507,457.81 6,480,000.00 (669,457.81) 2,375,994.90 2,375,994.90
II 1.13 1,465,777.40 7.50 4,860,000.00 0 - 0.75 972,000.00 1.98 507,457.81 6,480,000.00 (3,099,457.81) 4,565,235.21 4,565,235.21
Total Storage Requirement (lts) 20,382,939.90
Total Storage Requirement (m3) 20,382.94

Dam Height Surface Area Surface Area in Storage

2
S.N. (masl) in 2D (m ) 3D (m2) Volume (m3)
1 691 23.56 24.06 4.14
2 692 87.24 95.81 53.47
3 693 177.67 202.30 177.89
4 694 509.50 562.87 474.43
5 695 973.66 1,070.00 1,197.99
6 696 1,900.39 2,051.26 2,604.96
7 697 2,828.38 3,054.58 4,972.50
8 698 3,936.59 4,267.14 8,351.53
9 699 5,092.79 5,545.23 12,888.10
10 700 6,109.20 6,697.93 18,490.54
11 701 7,248.09 7,995.70 25,153.19
12 702 8,718.27 9,643.94 33,072.80
13 703 10,352.21 11,463.91 42,657.03
14 704 12,006.18 13,310.96 53,822.96
15 705 13,684.34 15,195.08 66,658.10
16 706 15,443.93 17,178.82 81,217.28
17 707 17,244.34 19,216.10 97,561.00
18 708 19,063.20 21,280.04 115,709.21
19 709 21,083.09 23,546.35 135,760.02
20 710 23,102.28 25,821.30 157,858.60
21 711 25,048.91 28,030.77 181,939.73
22 712 27,289.70 30,532.37 208,086.05
23 713 29,521.76 33,039.50 236,488.50
24 714 31,921.54 35,748.41 267,180.64
25 715 34,406.16 38,555.46 300,328.59
26 716 37,304.03 41,800.55 336,122.32
27 717 40,507.57 45,370.60 375,071.37
28 718 43,420.70 48,673.11 417,052.43
29 719 46,305.87 51,957.97 461,911.86
30 720 49,443.29 55,518.15 509,788.91
c3 15.17818394
c2 48.171648 c2 -31263.2708
c1 -66250.91115 c1 21462885.91
b 22777747.71 b -4911115957

Considering the sediment concentration of 2000 ppm

Density of sediment 2600 kg/m3
Packing Factor 0.65
Sediment
Stream concentration Sediment
Month Half Discharge (lps) (kg/lps) deposition (m3)
Jan I 18.25 0.0365 27.99
II 20.25 0.0405 31.06
Feb I 18.75 0.0375 28.76
II 17.25 0.0345 26.46
Mar I 15.75 0.0315 24.16
II 14.25 0.0285 21.86
Apr I 12.75 0.0255 19.56
II 12.25 0.0245 18.79
May I 12.75 0.0255 19.56
II 15.5 0.031 23.77
Jun I 20.5 0.041 31.44
II 66.25 0.1325 101.61
Jul I 152.75 0.3055 234.28
II 209.75 0.4195 321.70
Aug I 237.25 0.4745 363.88
II 237.75 0.4755 364.64
Sep I 211.25 0.4225 324.00
II 170.5 0.341 261.50
Oct I 115.5 0.231 177.15
II 69.75 0.1395 106.98
Nov I 33.25 0.0665 51.00
II 13.75 0.0275 21.09
Dec I 11.25 0.0225 17.25
II 7.5 0.015 11.50
Total Volume of Sediment Deposition in a year 2,629.96

Dead Storage Volume 78,898.79 m3
Dead Storage Level 705.84 masl
Total Volume of Water Storage Required 20,382.94 m3
Total Reservoir Volume Required 99,281.73 m3
Reservoir Top Elevation 707.11 masl
Reservoir Surface Area 17,110.82
Provided Free Board 3 m
Dam Top Elevation 710.00 masl

Stage Storage
600,000.00
y = 15.178x3 - 31263x2 + 2E+07x - 5E+09

500,000.00 R² = 1
Storage Volume (m3)
400,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
-
685 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725
Dam Height (masl)
Surface Area of Reservoir

60,000.00
Surface Area in 2D (m2)
50,000.00 y = 48.172x2 - 66251x + 2E+07

R² = 0.9997
40,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
10,000.00
-
685 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725
Dam Height (masl)

APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Gorkha, Nepal Volume II: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
According to Environmental Protection Rules 2054 of the Government, in Hilly Areas

Environmental Impact Assessment must be carried out for subprojects having command
area more than 500 hectare. For sub-project with lesser command area Initial
Environmental Examination IEE will be sufficient. Since, the command area of this project
is only 3.50 Ha, only IEE is carried out using checklist of environmental parameters. In the
checklist, actions affecting environmental resources and values are classified into
Headings. They are listed below:
a) Environmental effect due to the site selection
1. Encroachment into forests:

There is no forest in reservoir area, pipe alignment therefore, there will be no
encroachment. Therefore, for this category, the impact is ranked at D1 significance
level i.e. moderate significance impact.
2. Impediment to movement of wildlife, cattle and people:

The delivery of water up to the reservoir tank via pipe and pipe will be grounded in the
alignment. So there will be no any open system of water supply. So the impact is
ranked at D1 significance level.
3. Impediment of historical / cultural, monuments buildings and

values:
Such objects are not located in the sub-project area. Hence, it is ranked at D1
significance level.
4. Conflicts in water supply rights:

Currently, the discharge from the Shikharbesi Kholsi is only being used for irrigation by
downstream command area, which will also get the water for year-round irrigation,
hence there will be no conflict in water supply rights after construction of the dam. So
possibility of such conflicts up to now not observed, and ranked at D1 significance
level.
5. Regional flooding / drainage hazards.

There are no chances of command area to be flooded. So for this category, the impact
is ranked at D1 significance level.
Innovative Engineering Services EA-1

b) Problems from oversight in planning and Design
1. Watershed erosion and sedimentation:

The watershed area is conserved by the jungle and agriculture land. Vegetation of
watershed area is protected. No problem or erosion and watershed sedimentation was
observed. So the impact is ranked at D1 significance level
2. Suitability of water quality for irrigation:
There is no any industry in the watershed area. So that water pollution problem is not a
major issue. Water quality will not be deteriorated due to the sub-project
implementation hence; the impact is ranked at D1 significance level.
3. Adequacy of drainage planning:
The Command area has sufficient slope for proper drainage. Hence, the impact is
ranked at D1 significance level.
4. Scouring hazards:
Source Rivers at intake site is possesses gravel boulder mix soil in bed. So scouring
hazards is anticipated. Therefore, impact is ranked at D2 significance level.
c) Problems during construction stage

1. Soil erosion / landslides:
This is a new scheme located at hill terrain and canal excavation constitute major
portion of the work. Problems of soil erosion and landslide are not observed. Hence,
major portion of canal is proposed to be pipe lined and covered. Remaining part of
canal passes through command area having mild slope where landslide will not occur.
The impact is ranked at D1 significance level.
2. Monitoring during construction
Monitoring is necessary to achieve good quality of work. WUA and WRIDD Gorkha
should strictly supervise during construction to achieve good quality of work.
d) Problems Stemming from Deficiencies in operation
1. Inadequate O & M:
Farmers of the project area should be capable for O & M of the system to prevent the
loss in project efficiency. Being this is a rehab project; the farmers should be trained

for proper O & M of this system after its completion. There the impact is ranked at D1
significance level.
2. Adverse modification and changes in water table:
Since the command area is terrace land, these adverse effects are not anticipated in
this sub-project and ranked is done at D1 level.
3. Use / misuses of agrochemicals:
People of the sub-project are use more organic manure and expected to use
chemicals by farmers due to nearby place. So the monitoring will be carried out by
ASC, and no adverse effects due to use of agrochemical are anticipated and ranking is
done at D1 level.
e) Realization of Enhancement Potentials
1. Community Water Supply:
The project area has good water supply facility and no need of use canal water for
drinking propose, however somewhere peoples are use the canal water for cattle, and
washing the cloth.
2. Micro hydro electricity:

The source water for the project is Shikharibesi Kholsi which is in its initial reach and
there are no hydroelectricity projects, and the chances of developing hydropower
project is not possible in the future, so ranking is done at D1 level.
3. Industrial Water Supply:
No industrial water supply schemes observed in the Source River.
The training regarding the proper use of forestry material, conservation of flood hazard
area to the water users should be carried out and to mitigate the flood hazard problem
land stabilization with bio –engineering G.I crating will be carried out .The canal in this
area is also designed narrow and deep and concrete lined (cover canal).

CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETER FOR PROJECTS IN IRRIGATION.

Project: Shikharbesi Multipurpose Dam Project, Laxmibazar, Gorkha
Actions Affecting Recommended Feasible IEE (D)
Environmental Damages to Protection Measures Significant Impact
Resources and value Environment No Small Moderate Major
Significant (D2) (D3) (D4)
Impact (D1)
A) Environmental Effects Due to Site selection
1. i. Encroachment into i. Loss of vegetation i. Minimize losses of trees D1
forests from the alignment Plantation
of trees and grasses and
maintain them and careful
planning and design
ii. Impediment to ii. Impediment of ii. Provide proper access. D1
movement of wildlife, wildlife and
cattle and people disruption of local
socio-economic.
iii. Impediment of iii. Loss of precious iii. Avoid such sensitive areas D1
historical/cultural values or provide conservative
monuments, buildings measures
and values.
iv. Conflicts in water iv. Socio economic, iv. Coordination among users D1
supply rights. Political problems and related agency and
monitoring program.
v. Regional v. Project benefits v. River training, flood control, D1
flooding/drainage impaired check dams, plantation.
hazards

Problems from Oversights in Planning and Design.

B) i. Watershed erosion i. Project i. Provide appropriate D1
benefits appurtenance and plantation
impaired around catchment area and
conservation education to
farmers.
ii. Downstream water ii. loss of ii. Careful planning/design. D1
quality/quantity problem. aquiculture and
other beneficial
uses of
downstream.
iii. Suitability of water iii. Project benefits iii. Testing of water quality and D1
utility for irrigation. impaired use of remedial measures.
iv. Adequacy of iv. Project benefits iv. provide adequate drainage D1
drainage planning. impaired network in low laying area.
v. Land use conflicts. v. Social conflicts/ v. Careful planning/design D1
Project benefits
impaired
vi. Inadequate canal vi. Social conflicts/ vi. adequate design, proper D1
system Project benefits scheduling and monitoring
impaired
vii. Passageways viii. Loss of wildlife vii. Provide adequate number D1
plus disruption of of passageway.
local socio-
economics.
viii. scouring hazards viii. Damage to the viii. Proper location and D2
system. provision of adequate
protection measures
insufficient.
C). Problems during construction stage.
i. Flood hazard/Soil i. Loss of soil plus i. Cover exposed slopes with D1
erosion/Landslides damage to downstream vegetations, retaining walls as
water quality per need.

ii. monitoring during ii. Poor quality work ii. Strict supervision of D1
construction invites serious construction qualities and
problems stemming environmental adverse environmental measures.
from deficiency in impacts.
operations.
D) Problems stemming from deficiencies in operations

i. Inadequate O & i. Loss in Project i. Fund raising for O & M D2
M. Efficiency. and careful operation.
ii. Adverse soil ii. Loss in Project ii. soil testing ,deep D1
modifications Efficiency ploughing, drainage network
maintaining.
Iii .Changes in iii. Adverse effects in iii. Control water table with D1
water table. other water and land proper drainage and other
use measures.
iv. Water borne iv. Increase in iv. Provide awareness D1
diseases hazards. communicable training for
diseases in service preventive/remedial
area and region. measures.
v. Use/Misuse of v. Advance effects on v. Use cultural/mechanical D1
agrochemicals. aquiculture and control measures to avoid
downstream water hazards.
quality.
E) Realization of Enhancement Potentials
i. Community i. No realization of very i. Investigation potential D1
water supply valuable socio- value and provide services.
economic gain.
ii.Micro hydro ii. No realization of ii. Investigation potential D1
electricity very valuable socio- value and provide services.
economic gain.
iii. Industrial water iii. No realization of iii. Investigation potential D1
supply. very valuable socio- values and provides
economic gain. services.
iv. Aquiculture in iv. No realization of iv. Investigation potential D1
service area very valuable socio- value and provide services.
economic gain.

APPENDIX F
RATE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX G
COST ESTIMATE

Volume II Annexes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume II Annexes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume II Annexes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Resources & Irrigation Development Division Office Talbesi Multipurpose Reservoir Project

Gorkha, Nepal Volume II

ANNEX A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY REPORT

Innovative Engineering Services

Innovative Engineering Services

VOLUME – 1: MAIN REPORT

Appendix – B : Description Cards

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: i

1.2 Project Location

. The Consultant's services shall include the following:

 Establish Control Points.

1.4 Available Information & Data

List of existing coordinates and reduced level.

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: i

2. Detail Topographical Survey

The detail topographical survey team was composed of following surveyors:

List of Detail Survey Team Members.

2.2 The Survey Instruments

List of Survey Instrument(s).

2.3 Monumentation of Control Points

 Alignment :BM-1, BM-2, BM-1,BM-2,-BM-1A,BM-2B,

4. FINAL COORDINATES OF CONTROL POINTS

List of Final Coordinates.

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: ii

Point No Easting Northing RL Remarks

5. DETAIL TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: iii

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: iv

Monumntated by Dharma Raj Khadka

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: vii

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: ix

Monumntated by Dharma Raj Khada

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: x

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xi

Figure 1: A View of Irrigation Project.

Figure 2: A View of Irrigation Project.

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xii

Figure 3: A View of Irrigation Project.

Figure 4: A View of Irrigation Project.

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xiii

Figure 5: A View of Irrigation Project.

Figure 1: A View of Irrigation Project.

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xiv

Figure15: A View of Irrigation Project.

Figure 16: A View of Irrigation Project.

PRITHIVI SURVEY ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY(P) LTD. Page: xix

Innovative Engineering Services

Earth Investigation and Solution Nepal Pvt. Ltd

Figure 1: Locations of ERT profiles

2.1 Electrical Resistivity of Rocks

In some rocks such as consolidated sedimentary rocks, porosity is inter-granular in nature

Figure 2: Electrical Resistivity versus Lithology

2.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey Design

Electrodes shifting in this direction Inhomogeneity in the overburden

Figure 3: WENNER Electrode Array for profiling

2.3 Data acquisition

Type of equipment and accessories used

Data inversion code

Interpretation capacity of geophysicist

Interpretation capacity of a geophysicist largely depends on his/her understanding of the applied