Ya'a Bure Climate & Hydrology Final Report August, 2022

HE NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE OF OROMIA,
THE NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE OF OROMIA,

OROMIA IRRIGATION & PASTORALIST DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
STUDY AND DETAIL DESIGN OF FINNA OROMIA YA’A BURE
DAM PROJECT
CLIMATE & HYDROLOGY FINAL REPORT
CLIENT CONSULTANT
Oromia Irrigation & Pastoralist Development Engineering Corporation of Oromia (ECO)
Bureau
P.O. Box 870/1250
P. O. Box 20120
Tel +251 11-896-2203/011-849-3852 Tel +251 11-439-2162/2470
Email: Email: owwdse@telecom.net.et
Finfine/Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Finfine/Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ECO (Climate & Hydrology Report): FINNA Oromia, Ya’a Bure Dam Project August 2022
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 General Background ......................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objective of the Study ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Location of the project ..................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Scope of the Study............................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Limitation of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ..................................................................................... 5
2.1 Hydro-Climatic Condition................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Hydro-Climatic Data ........................................................................................................ 5
3 METHODOLOGY FOR CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY STUDY.................................... 7
3.1 Data Collection Methodology .......................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Climatic Data Collection........................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Catchment Characteristics ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Hydrological Data Collection ................................................................................. 10
3.1.4 Sediment Data Collection ....................................................................................... 11
3.1.5 Water Balance Data Collection ............................................................................... 11
3.1.6 Water Quality Data Collection................................................................................ 11
3.1.7 Reservoir Routing Data Collection ......................................................................... 11
3.2 Data Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Climatic Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Catchment Characteristics Analysis ....................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Hydrological Data Analysis .................................................................................... 14
3.2.4 Sediment Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 24
3.2.5 Water Balance Data Analysis ................................................................................. 29
3.2.6 Water Quality Data Analysis .................................................................................. 30
3.2.7 Reservoir Routing Data Analysis............................................................................ 32
4 STUDY RESULT AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT .............................................. 34
i
4.1 Climatic Condition ......................................................................................................... 34

4.1.1 Precipitation (P) ...................................................................................................... 34
4.1.2 Summary of Climate Parameters ............................................................................ 38
4.2 Catchment Characteristics Study Result and Discussion ............................................... 39
4.2.1 Physiographic Features & Drainage System........................................................... 39
4.2.2 Slope Data ............................................................................................................... 41
4.2.3 Soil Data.................................................................................................................. 41
4.2.4 Land Use Land Cover Data (LULC) ...................................................................... 42
4.3 Hydrological Study Result and Discussion .................................................................... 42
4.3.1 Stream Flow/Discharge ........................................................................................... 42
4.3.2 Low Flow & Dependable Flow Study Result and Discussion ................................ 43
4.3.3 Design Peak Rainfall & Flood Study Result and Discussion ................................. 44
4.4 Sedimentation Study Result and Discussion .................................................................. 51
4.5 Water Balance Study Result and Discussion ................................................................. 52
4.5.1 Catchment Water Balance....................................................................................... 52
4.5.2 Reservoir Water Balance & Operation ................................................................... 52
4.6 Water Quality Study Result and Discussion .................................................................. 54
4.7 Reservoir Routing Study Result and Discussion ........................................................... 54
4.7.1 Reservoir Site Characteristics ................................................................................. 54
4.7.2 Reservoir Routing ................................................................................................... 56
4.7.3 Reservoir Users ....................................................................................................... 58
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................... 59
5.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 59
5.2 Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 59
6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 60
7 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................ 62
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Location map of the project area (watershed) and proposed dam site ....................... 3
Figure 3-1: The Project Area, Baro Basin (left) and Meteorological Stations Distribution in
Ethiopia (right) ............................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3-2: Comparison of Monthly CHIRPS & Ground Station Rainfalls Data .......................... 8
Figure 3-3: The Project Area and Gauged Stations Distribution in Oromia/Ethiopia ................ 10
Figure 3-4: SCS Dimensionless UH, Time and Discharge Ratios ............................................... 23
Figure 3-5: Flow chart showing the Application of RUSLE method in SWAT, adopted from Amsalu
and Mengaw (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-6: Sediment distribution curve estimation from curve types, for different location of
reservoirs from relative depth (P) versus F (Strand and Pemberton, 1982) ................................ 29
Figure 4-1: Mean Monthly Rainfall Distribution ......................................................................... 34
Figure 4-2: Seasonal Rainfall patterns for the Period (1987-2021) ............................................ 35
Figure 4-3: Yearly Rainfall Trend for the period (1987-2021) .................................................... 35
Figure 4-4: Graph of Probability of Exceedence for Annual Rainfalls (1987 -2021).................. 37
Figure 4-5: Average and 80% dependable Rainfall ..................................................................... 38
Figure 4-6: Topography of the Project Area and Extent of the Proposed Reservoir ................... 40
Figure 4-7: Longitudinal profile (left) & Cross sectional profile (right) of the project catchment
along the longest streamline and across the dam axis, respectively (in meters) .......................... 40
Figure 4-8: Soil (left) and LULC (right) Maps of the Project Catchment Area ........................... 41
Figure 4-9: Average Monthly and Annual Stream flow for the period (1992-2021).................... 42
Figure 4-10: Yearly Stream flow Trend for the Period (1992-2021) ........................................... 43
Figure 4-11: Graph of Annual Flow Probability of Exceedence ................................................. 43
Figure 4-12: Consistency of Annual Daily Maximum Rainfall Data for a period (1987-2021) .. 46
Figure 4-13: Temporal Distribution of the 24-hr Areal Rainfall (alternating block method) ..... 48
Figure 4-14: Design Inflow for 500-years Return Period ............................................................ 50
Figure 4-15: Hydrographs of Discharge Inflows for the Various Return Periods....................... 50
Figure 4-16: Monthly Sediment Yield of the Catchment .............................................................. 51
Figure 4-17: Graphs of the Annual Reservoir Water Balance ..................................................... 53
Figure 4-18: Reservoir Area-Elevation and Capacity-Elevation Curve for the proposed Dam .. 56
Figure 4- 19: Reservoir inflow and outflow hydrographs (T=500 years, Crest Length=30m) ... 57
iii
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Potential Climate/Meteorolical data stations (around the proposed project area) .... 8
Table 3-2: Location of used CHIRPS grid data stations (around the project catchment) ............ 9
Table 3-3: Values C, m and N on types of Reservoir curves ....................................................... 28
Table 3-4: Types of Reservoirs in Area Reduction Method ......................................................... 28
Table 3-5: Classification of Irrigation water based on EC to Check for Salinity Hazard .......... 31
Table 3-6: Classification of Irrigation water based on Na% to Check for Sodium Hazard ....... 31
Table 3-7: Classification of Irrigation water based on SAR to Check for Sodium Hazard......... 32
Table 4-1: Monthly Rainfall Averages (CHIRPS, 1987-2021 Data) ............................................ 34
Table 4-2: Rainfall Probabilities and Plotting Position .............................................................. 36
Table 4-3: Monthly Wet, Normal and Dry Rainfall Probabilities ................................................ 37
Table 4-4: Monthly and Annual Climate Parameters.................................................................. 39
Table 4-5: Slope Classes and their Relative Percentage .............................................................. 41
Table 4-6: Average Monthly and Annual Stream flow Data (From QSWAT Analysis) ............... 42
Table 4-7: 70% and 80% Dependable Flows (m3/s) ................................................................... 44
Table 4-8: Annual Maximum daily rainfall (in descending order)............................................... 44
Table 4-9: Design rainfall with different return periods and distribution methods (in mm) ....... 46
Table 4-10: Temporal Distribution of 24-hr Areal Rainfall ........................................................ 47
Table 4-11: Hourly Rainfall distribution for various return periods (Design Point Rainfall)..... 48
Table 4-12: Design Rainfalls & Design Discharges for Various Return Periods ....................... 49
Table 4-13: Estimated Model Parameters .................................................................................... 49
Table 4-14: Water Balance Estimation of the project area catchment ........................................ 52
Table 4-15: Estimated Monthly Irrigation and Other Demands ................................................. 53
Table 4-16: Irrigable Command Area & Percentage of Reliability ............................................ 54
Table 4-17: Elevation-Area-Capacity data for the Reservoir of Project Dam Site ...................... 55
Table 4-18: Maximum Spillway Outflows for various weir lengths. ........................................... 57
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The food security situation in Ethiopia has events such as Gumbel, Log Normal, Pearson Type
continued to deteriorate because of various factors III, Log Pearson Type III and Gumbel’s Extreme
including shortage of rain, high population growth, Value (GEV) Type I. The fittest distribution
deforestation, soil degradation, pest out break and method was selected based on the smallest D-
other related factors. Therefore, the development index. The design Rainfall corresponding to return
of irrigation dams under Finna Projects is expected periods of 100, 200, 500 and 1000 years is
to contribute towards alleviating these problems by 53.66mm, 56.18mm, 59.41mm and 61.80mm
augmenting a productive and sustainable respectively.
agriculture in Oromia Region thereby increasing
food supply and income source to the community Three methods of estimating flood magnitudes
at local and regional levels. (namely the rational method, SCS method and
gauged data method) can be applied for ungauged
The project area has a catchment area of 81.43km2 catchments. The SCS hydrograph method was
on the upstream side to the dam axis or catchment selected for the analysis of the rainfall-runoff
outlet point. This hydrology & climate study on hydrographs and computation of the design flood.
Ya’a Bure small-scale irrigation project is very The estimated design floods corresponding to
crucial for the design of the dam and pertinent return periods of 100, 200, 500 and 1000 years are
systems, through capturing seasonal flows from 105.75m3/s, 113.47m3/s, 123.46 and 130.90m3/s,
upstream catchment areas. This study begins with respectively.
a general background information, objective,
location and scope of the project within a brief For this irrigation project, it is recommended to
introduction. The subsequent sections present all construct a dam with a height of 40m and a
the information required in connection to designing spillway crest length of 20m. At this height, it will
the dam. store 16.48MCM of water to meet all the annual
irrigation demand as well as the other demands
Hydrological analysis has been conducted based on (domestic, livestock and environmental flow
35 years daily rainfall data. However, there was no demands). The irrigation demand alone accounts
gauging station around the dam project area or for 14.18MCM to irrigate 4700 hectares of land
nearby rivers of similar catchment characteristics. with 80.6% of reliability.
Consequently, it was preferred to base the flood
analysis on the precipitation data with the aid of Taking the selected 500-years return period into
SWAT modeling. The mean annual rainfall of the consideration, the spillway crest (weir) length of
area is 1605.39mm while the mean annual flow of 20m and design inflow of 123.46m3/s the
the project area catchment is 459.34mm. The 80% maximum spillway discharge is 93.68m3/s. The
annual dependable rainfall is 1542.72mm whereas Hd value for this case is 1.65m. However, the
the dependable flow is 441.35mm. design engineer is free to choose among the various
weir length options given in this report. Design
Frequency analysis for maximum daily rainfall floods of 25-years return period can be used for
data has been carried out in excel spreadsheet by designing cross drainages and other minor
using different but recommended statistical hydraulic structures.
distributions that are used to fit extreme rainfall
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background

Water plays significant role in supporting productive human activities such as agricultural, energy and
industrial production, sanitation, transportation services, fishing and tourism. The water demands
exponentially grow due to population and economic growth, rapid urbanization and the increasing demand
for food and energy. Therefore, pertinent to water demands for agricultural productions, assessing the
available water resources at relevant scales is essential since on the other hand availability of water resources
generally varies both spatially and temporally.
A dam is a means of water storage to harvest seasonal runoffs and to utilize it for various uses including
irrigation projects. Its plan and design is highly dependent on systematic hydro-climatological studies in order
to bring sustainable irrigation related developments. Accordingly, it will be very essential to give significant
attention to the hydro-climatic data collections and analyses.
Finna Oromia Ya’a Bure Dam Project is one of 70 irrigation projects recently planned in Oromia Regional
State. Engineering Corporation of Oromia (ECO) has prepared this climate & hydrology report as part of the
feasibility study & design of the project, which has provided hydro-climatic data and analyses required. It was
prepared based on a consultancy contract agreement between Oromia Irrigation & Pastoralist Development
Bureau (The Client) and Engineering Corporation of Oromia (The Consultant). It begins with a concise and
general background information, the objective, location and scope of the project within a brief introduction.
The subsequent sections present all the remaining information required in connection to designing the dam
1.2 Objective of the Study
The prime objective of this small/medium-scale irrigation project is improving the water availability and
security for better crop production in the project area as well as the region. It involves collecting hydro-
climatic data that is crucial to plan irrigation water management and design dam hydraulic structures,
including headwork, irrigation and drainage structures for the proposed dam project, investigating the
availability and adequacy of water resources at the proposed dam/headwork site and deriving parameters that
are required for dimensioning, design and evaluation of the irrigation project.
Most importantly, the following evaluations will be carried out: (a) Time series data collection and analysis
of the daily and monthly rainfalls, (b) Catchment features pertinent to the analysis and simulation of
hydrological data, (c) Temperature (maximum, minimum, average values), humidity, wind speed and solar
radiation analyses, (d) Design peak rainfall based project design floods estimation, (e) Estimation of monthly
potential evapo-transpiration and rainfall deficit, (f) Estimation of incoming floods (inflow) to the dam
reservoir and the outgoing (outflow) design flood and (g) Estimation of dependable and availability of lean
flow of river flow to schemes to irrigate the proposed land. Sediment transport calculation for estimation of
dead load at the dam site (back of the reservoir) and irrigation area as well as the distribution of these water
resources in time and space for all stakeholders and the environment are also part of the main objective. The
following are descriptions of the most common specific objectives of this project:
 Analyzing the hydrological water resources at proposed head work/dam site
 Analyzing the climate data to derive the irrigation water requirement and rainfall and effective rainfall in
the command area
 Modeling and estimating the stream flow potential at proposed head work/dam site
2
 Estimating the maximum flood by maximum flood frequency for the design of diversion head work/dam,
appurtenant and irrigation conveyance structures
 Estimating low flow and environmental flows at the head work sites and at the downstream site
 Estimating the water resources demands for irrigation, environment and other demands in the area
 Analyzing water balance of the catchment and for the proposed command area
 Estimating the sediment transport, load at the dam site and estimation of dead load for dam capacity fixing
1.3 Location of the project
The proposed project area or Ya’a Bure small-scale irrigation project (SSIP) dam site is located in Oromia
Regional State, Ilu-Ababora Zone, Bure district, Koture, Agelomoka & Kufi Kebeles. It is about 710km from
Addis Ababa/Finfine, 110km from zonal town (Mettu) and 30km from the district capital town.
The selected dam axis lies across a stream in a rural area. The WGS 1984 datum, UTM system, geographic
location (coordinate point) of the catchment drainage outlet, on/near the dam axis, is X= 736959.363mE and
Y= 922313.515mN. The riverbed level in flood plain has around 1415m elevation above mean seal level.
Figure 1-1 shows the location map of the project area.
Figure 1-1: Location map of the project area (watershed) and proposed dam site
3
1.4 Scope of the Study

The study mainly focuses on the existing primary and secondary hydro-meteorological data, spatial data and
different relevant documents related with the project area. According to the Terms of Reference (TOR), the
following are expected from this study:
 Office level review of previous works, data collection & analysis
 Field visits to the project area and to hydro-meteorological stations on the river under interest and its
tributaries
 Collecting and analyzing the climatic data (rainfall, temperature, wind speed, relative humidity,
sunshine hours) and estimation of evapotranspiration within and nearby stations surrounding the
project area
 Estimation of river flow for as many years as possible for the estimation of existing and reliable water
resources
 Average surface water yield and the flows depending on given statistical occurrences, and the low
flow characteristics of the river at the proposed locations
 Flood magnitude and flood frequency for the design of hydraulic structures such as dam, diversion
structure and flood protection work, etc. i.e. detailed flood study, determination of design floods for
diversions and spillway structures
 Assessed present and future water uses in the river basin at upstream and downstream of the diversion
(dam) site
 Analyzed water balance of the River basin under interest at the dam or design location
 Assessed sediment transport condition of the river for the rehabilitation of intake head works, canals
and irrigation water supply system and watershed management options to protect the schemes from
excessive sedimentation and erosion of catchments
 In general, qualitative and quantitative analysis of all related hydro-meteorological data and derivation
of parameters and hydro-meteorological series required for reservoir operation and spillway
dimensioning
1.5 Limitation of the Study
Station networks to measure rainfall and climate parameters are mandatory in hydro-climate studies. Main
deficiencies of such networks, in the case of Oromia region (Ethiopia), are their limited density and hence
lacking spatial coverage as well as measurement related problems.
Even most of the rainfall data collected, for available stations, from the Ethiopian Meteorological Agency
(EMA), are full of missing data that requires tremendous efforts in quality checking approaches like detection
of gaps in the data, detection of physically impossible values, control of measurement variability, detection of
constant values, control of internal consistency (i.e., at one station different parameters), control of spatial
consistency (i.e., spatial homogeneity) of data of one parameter.
To sum up, lack of gauged stream flow at the catchment outlet (to calibrate and validate watershed flow), lack
of rain gauges within the catchment area or at the vicinity, lack of measured data on sediment of the catchment,
etc. are some limitations observed in the present study. Previous studies were not also available at the scale
of the studied catchment. Due to these facts, only secondary yet recommended data were utilized, regional
studies were referred to and SWAT modelling was relied on, to come up with this climate & hydrology
analysis of the current project.
4
2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

No previous study or data has been found for the specific study area or catchment in relation to irrigation
activities around/inside the project area. However, Baro basin in which the current project is located was one
of those basins for which a potential assessment was conducted. The previous studies if found are usually
more general and are conducted in regional scale. The following sections describe some important data that
are compiled from regional scale assessments and studies mainly pertinent to hydro-climate conditions and
data.
2.1 Hydro-Climatic Condition
The rainfall of the country is highly variable both in amount and distribution across regions and seasons
(Tesfaye, 2003, Tilahun, 1999; Mersha, 1999). The seasonal and annual rainfall variations are results of the
macro-scale pressure systems and monsoon flows, which are related to the changes in the pressure systems
(Haile, 1986; Beltrando and Camberlin, 1993; NMSA, 1996). The most important weather systems that cause
rain over Ethiopia include Sub-Tropical Jet (STJ), Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), Red Sea
Convergence Zone (RSCZ), Tropical Easterly Jet (TEJ) and Somalia Jet (NMSA, 1996).
The spatial variation of the rainfall is influenced by the changes in the intensity, position, and direction of
movement of these rain-producing systems over the country (Taddesse, 2000). Moreover, the spatial
distribution of rainfall in Ethiopia is significantly influenced by topography (NMSA, 1996; Camberlin, 1997;
Taddesse, 2000), which also has many abrupt changes in the Rift Valley.
The formation of Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and elevation (altitude) play a great role in
influencing the hydro-climate of the country (the project area inclusive). The transition between lowlands and
highlands is commonly very sharp, resulting in a variety of climates, from very arid to very humid typical of
equatorial mountains, with further differentiation at local scale. Precipitation generally varies with latitude,
decreasing from south to north, whereas the meteorological framework is deeply affected also by elevation
and physiography, especially as regards temperature distribution and anemometric characteristics.
According to Massimiliano Fazzini et al, 2015, the contrast between the thermal anticyclone of western Asia
and Egypt and the equatorial low pressures determines the presence of trade winds blowing from northeast to
southwest. These winds relatively cool but rather dry, control the dry period (bega in the local language). In
spring, the influence of southwestern winds, coming from the Congo basin, determines the season of ‘little
rains’ (belg in the local language) that can bring relatively abundant precipitation in the southern part of the
country. In summer, the Guinean monsoon, consisting of equatorial warm and humid winds, results in
bountiful rains (kiremt in the local language) which are also substantially influenced by the orographic
diversity mentioned above. Such a complex meteorological framework is reflected by the distribution of
annual precipitation. In the Danakil depression, it is constantly less than 250 mm but can be as low as 50 mm.
By contrast, on the highlands, 2,000 mm can be locally exceeded. Similar values of annual precipitation,
however, are recorded also in the southwestern lowlands, likely due to a larger contribution of the spring rains.
Based on altitude and temperature, in traditional climatic classification, the project area can be categorized
under “Weyinadega”. According to Koppen’s classification, the climate of the area categorized under Tropical
Monsoon (Am).
2.2 Hydro-Climatic Data
According to Chala D. G & Tesema A. D (2019), most developing nations like Ethiopia are characterized by
missing data, short-length data archives, unreliable data, and uneven spatial coverage of meteorological
stations. Accordingly, it was recommended to use high-resolution satellite based rainfall products to improve
5
the quality of observed rainfall data in such countries, through proper evaluation and validation processes.
Their study evaluated the performance of CHIRPS satellite based rainfall in reference to ground-based rainfall
of Finchaa and Neshe watersheds located in Blue Nile River Basin. Their findings indicated a strong positive
linear correlation. It was also indicated that CHIRPS data only slightly overestimates and underestimates the
rainfall amounts at higher and lower altitude areas, respectively.
CHIRPS precipitation data is still the best as compared to other satellite-based precipitation products such as
CFSR, PERSIANN-CDR and TRMM (Mulugeta et. al., 2019) for daily and monthly stream flows analysis
in regions lacking observed and reliable data.
6
3 METHODOLOGY FOR CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY STUDY

3.1 Data Collection Methodology
3.1.1 Climatic Data Collection
Among the climatic data, rainfall is one of the basic elements in the hydrological analysis for
different scale irrigation projects. The amount, intensity, and spatial and temporal distribution of
rainfall in the catchment as well as command area of the project should be known. Climate data is
also important for crop-water requirement estimation and for estimation of design flood of
drainage structures. The rainfall received in an area is an important factor in determining the amount
of water available to meet various demands, such as agricultural, industrial, domestic water supply and
for hydroelectric power generation. Rainfall is the most important climatic variable as it has far-
reaching influence on agricultural crop production. The amount, incidence, variation and reliability of
rainfall determine differences in cropping pattern in various ecological zones.
In general, rainfall and climate data are required in a distributed form for modern hydrologic
model-based applications such as flood warning, hydraulic and irrigation structure design, re-
analysis of past events and reservoir operation. Climate is the function of the location (latitudinal),
altitude, angle of the sun, distance from oceans or other water bodies, terrain and the like. As
climate is associated with altitude, the highlands have cool climate with moderate temperature and
sufficient rainfall while the lowlands have harsh climate of high temperature and low to medium
rainfall. For this purpose, a daily climate data of the selected nearby climate stations, for a
minimum of 30 years period of recorded data, must be collected from National Meteorological
Agency (NMA) of the country. Excel spreadsheets or software packages can be used for the
analysis of the Climatic data. The majority of the historical station records, whenever available
and supplied by NMA, are accepted to be a true representation of the natural occurrence and
temporal variation of the respective measured parameter. The current irrigation project area is
located in the Baro River basin. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the basin and closer
meteorological stations that present around the new Finna project (left) and the stations distribution
in the country (right).
Project
Area
Figure 3-1: The Project Area, Baro Basin (left) and Meteorological Stations Distribution in
Ethiopia (right)
7
Meteorological (climatic) data outlined in the TOR has to be collected for the nearest possible
meteorological stations and gauged stations from National Meteorological Agency (NMA). In the
case of available and obtained primary data, some missing data must be filled with recommended
methods and data quality analysis also need to be done before performing any hydrological
analysis.
Table 3-1 shows the meteorological stations that are relatively found around the catchment.
Nevertheless, most of them are too far from the study area to consider them as a source. Uka station
(in Bure woreda) is the most closer among all the surrounding stations (about 6km from center of
catchment and less than 1km from southern catchment boundary). Even climate data from this
station is full of missing values or incomplete. Yet it can be used for a comparison purpose with
the CHIRPS rainfall data (Figure 3-2).
Table 3-1: Potential Climate/Meteorolical data stations (around the proposed project area)
Period Distance
Station_Name Long. Lat. Alt. Class Region Zone Wereda (Years) from cat.
center (km)
Ilu Aba 9.7
Bure 35.10 8.23 - 1 Oromiya Bure
Bora
Ilu Aba 6
Uka_ 35.18 8.23 1700 3 Oromiya Bure
Bora
Ilu Aba 14
Sibo 35.28 8.23 1800 4 Oromiya Yayu
Bora
sortefases 35.27 8.22 1671 3 Oromia Eliababora Metu 13
Meligewa 35.31 8.24 1888 4 SNNPR Bonga Dedu 15
CHIRPS Rainfall (mm) Uka Station Rainfall (mm)
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
1987
2001
1987
1988
1988
1989
1989
1990
1991
1991
1992
1992
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
Figure 3-2: Comparison of Monthly CHIRPS & Ground Station Rainfalls Data
Thus, it is highly recommended to use the corrected and accepted satellite data (CHIRPS), which
is almost similar (with some underestimated values mainly in the upper section of the graph) with
that of the NMA data (Figure 3-2). There is no also significant difference in the pattern of the
rainfall data. CHIRPS data are usually in the form of grids of pixels that require Python or Mathlab
processing to convert them into time series data. However, one could also use Google Earth Engine
8
and Climate Engine services to process and download in the form of time series data despite their
slightly overestimated rainfall data from these sources. CHIRPS data only slightly overestimates
and underestimates the rainfall amounts at higher and lower altitude areas, respectively (Chala D.
G & Tesema A. D, 2019). The data from Uka station if obtained will be used for comparison
purpose with this preferred and gridded CHIRPS rainfall data.
For the present study, 35 years CHIRPS rainfall data, covering the period from 1987 to 2021 was
used from six (6) stations (Table 3-2). The mean monthly rainfall pattern was depicted using
histogram, while trend line was used to depict the slope of the annual rainfalls. The annual
maximum rainfall data record extending between the same period was also analyzed. CHIRPS is
known to its data service that provides precipitation with station Data (For rainfall estimates from
rain gauges and satellite observations, with spatial resolution of 0.05x0.05 degrees or
approximately 6km). It generally serves with time series data from January 01, 1981 to present
(>40 years). The obtained data were also used to simulate water balance, sediment release,
evapotranspiration, etc. of the catchment beyond the proposed dam site.
Table 3-2: Location of used CHIRPS grid data stations (around the project catchment)
Station Name Latitude Longitude Elevation
KotureP11 8.125 34.875 813
KotureP12 8.375 34.875 1472
KotureP21 8.125 35.125 1242
KotureP22 8.375 35.125 1416
KotureP31 8.125 35.375 1818
KotureP32 8.375 35.375 1563
Global weather generator provided by The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)
and known as CFSR (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis) was another source that could be used
to fill probable missing hydro-climatic data while analyzing in SWAT. It considers rainfall, solar
radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, minimum and maximum temperatures of the area. CFSR
provides data on global grid with spatial resolution of 1.0o latitude by 1.0o longitude for the solar
radiation and 0.1o latitude by 0.1o longitude (about 10km) for meteorological data sets. CFSR data
service is also used for the analysis of monthly specific humidity (1987 – 2014) while TerraClimate
(with a resolution scale of 4000m) is used for monthly analysis of solar radiation, wind speed,
minimum and maximum temperatures of the area (1987 – 2021) and presented in the following
sections.
3.1.2 Catchment Characteristics
Using, DEM of 12.5m resolution, a hydrological map or watershed of the catchment where the
streams or surface runoffs flow to a common outlet point was delineated.
The topography of the project area was obtained from the same DEM then verified by a field level
observation. Slope of the catchment is one of the factors, which affect runoff amount to be
generated and time to reach the outlet point or reservoir area. It was analysed in SWAT modelling
using DEM as an input. Soil and land use land cover data were obtained from Global FAO Soil
map and ESRI 2020 land cover maps, respectively. Stream networks and the longest stream were
delineated from the same DEM in GIS.
9
3.1.3 Hydrological Data Collection

Stream flow data is also very crucial in the hydrological study of a dam project. Hydrology of an
area is a direct reflection of the climate, the terrain and other physical characteristics such as
porosity, permeability and vegetation cover. Water travels on the surface, underground and in the
atmosphere in a well-known cycle. The nature of the river channel, which is a direct function of
the relationship between the flow and formation of the channel, governs accessibility to and pattern
of use of the water flowing in the rivers or stored in natural depressions. Unfortunately, this type
of data is so rare in the context of the country, Ethiopia. Only a few of rivers or streams are gauged
and recording daily flow data. Climate and meteorological data records are relatively available for
many places. The stream system in or around the project catchment area is not gauged (Figure 3-
2) i.e. its annual flow at the reservoir outlet is not known to estimate the catchment yield and design
flow (for design of the dam project). However, efforts have been made to estimate by using some
indirect methods. Thus, grid daily rainfall data from 1987-2021 (for 35 years) that were provided
by CHIRPS (The Climate Hazards Group Infra-Red Precipitation with Station data) data service
have been used to analyze the mean annual stream flow (in SWAT) and to estimate design storm
(peak rainfall) as well as the design peak flow. Monthly and yearly average flows were estimated
from time-series rainfall data, in SWAT modelling.
Project
Area
Figure 3-3: The Project Area and Gauged Stations Distribution in Oromia/Ethiopia
10
Thus, as mentioned above, the SWAT model analysis was used to come up with hydrological flow
data, from daily precipitation data. QGIS/ArcGIS and SWAT software packages were utilized to
simulate the hydrological components. Again, observed data representing the catchment were not
available to calibrate and check the performance of the simulated stream flow. However, SWAT
is still recommended and the best tool to model ungauged catchments.
3.1.4 Sediment Data Collection
There is no sediment measurement mechanism with in or around the project area. Thus, the data
was obtained from SWAT Model Analysis by using FAO soil and ESRI 2020 land use data as an
input.
3.1.5 Water Balance Data Collection
3.1.5.1 Catchment Water Balance
Watershed water balance data was obtained from the same SWAT modelling or analysis. The
mean values of other climate data like sunshine duration, relative humidity, wind speeds are
usually considered sufficient for the analysis of rainfall-runoff modeling in ungauged site for the
hydrological water balance.
3.1.5.2 Reservoir Water Balance
Reservoir Water Balance & Operation is aimed for checking the availability and reliability of
Irrigation water supply, domestic and livestock demand as well as environmental flow
requirement. It takes into account all incoming flows, evaporation, seepage, change in water level,
environmental flow requirement and all other demands mainly irrigation demand.
The livestock and domestic demands data of the area are obtained from the socio-economic
information. Irrigation demand and duty are found from agronomy studies. Environmental flow is
assumed to be 20% of the inflows into the proposed reservoir for the time in reference. The other
data collected from different hydrological analyses.
3.1.6 Water Quality Data Collection
There is no any data obtained regarding the quality of the water in the study area. It is
recommended to collect water samples and have analyzed in the future, in a renowned laboratory,
in order to check its suitability for the intended irrigation development.
3.1.7 Reservoir Routing Data Collection
For reservoir routing, inflow data were obtained from an analysis of peak discharges and scaling
of dimensionless SCS-UH. It was based on peak rainfalls obtained from 35 years maximum daily
precipitation frequency analysis. The Peak discharges (Qo) and estimated time to peak (tp) were
used to come up with the inflow discharges for various return periods. Elevation-Area-volume
relationship data was obtained from a survey analysis conducted by surveyor and design engineer.
The proposed dam’s reservoir surface area and capacity (flood pool storage) values were calculated
into different units in excel spreadsheet.
11
3.2 Data Analysis Methodology

3.2.1 Climatic Data Analysis
3.2.1.1 Data Quality Check and Analysis

However, for this study, we are using secondary data from the corrected and accepted satellite data
(CHIRPS), and other global gridded datasets. The data from these sources do not have
considerable quality problems except differences in spatial and temporal resolutions. Despite some
overestimations or underestimations caused by using these secondary sources, relative to observed
or primary data sources, the analyzed results are reasonably acceptable. Thus, data quality check
and analysis is not required.
3.2.1.2 Missing Data
Missing data is a common problem in hydrology. To perform hydrological analysis and simulation
using data of long time series, filling in missing data is very important. The missing data can be
completed using metrological and/or hydrological stations located in the nearby, provided that the
stations are located in hydrological homogenous region. A number of methods exist to conduct
estimation of missing rainfall data (Richard H.McCuen (1989).
The normal-ratio method is conceptually simple; it differs from the station-average method in that
the average annual rainfall is used in deriving weights. If the total annual rainfall at any of the rain
gauges differs from the annual rainfall at the point of interest by more than 10%, the normal-ratio
method is preferable. The general formula for computing missing rainfall, P is:
Where, PX is the precipitation for the station with missed record, N is number of stations used in the
computation, PA, PB, PC….PN are the corresponding precipitation at the index stations and Nx is
Normal annual precipitation of X station, NA, NB, & NC is Normal annual precipitation of surrounding
stations.
The CHIRPS gridded precipitation data collected had no any missing data. Thus, the infilling
activity was not necessary in the present hydrological analysis.
3.2.1.3 Dependable Rainfall

Estimation of dependable rainfall was obtained from computation and plotting of probabilities
from the rainfall records using the simple ranking method as described by Doorenbos and Pruitt
(1975). The procedure is as the following:
a) Tabulate data of yearly rainfall totals for the given period
b) Arrange the yearly rainfall data in descending order
c) Tabulate the plotting positions from the following expression
12
d) Plot the values on log normal scale and evaluate the logarithmic regression equation
e) Calculate the year values at 20, 50, and 80% probability represented as P wet, Pnormal, and
Pdry, respectively
f) Determine monthly values for the dry year using the following relationship
g) Determine and specify dry and humid years using the dependable rainfall index (DRI). This
index estimates the minimum water requirement of a region especially in terms of
agriculture as well as water resources (Popov et al., 2002, Khoshraftar, 2009 and Bahman,
2011).
Where, 0.8 is the constant coefficient,

P is the given year’s precipitation,
N is the number of the annual precipitation observations
The scale for classifying the intensity of rainfall and to determine the rainfall quality through the
DRI is as the following:
13
3.2.2 Catchment Characteristics Analysis

Physiographic Features & Drainage System - Catchment characteristics were conducted based
on field level observation and delineation from 12.5m resolution DEM using GIS software
package. Using, DEM of 12.5m resolution, a hydrological map or watershed of the catchment
where the streams or surface runoffs flow to a common outlet point was delineated.
At the outlet point, an embankment dam has been proposed to impound the river/streams flow and
create an artificial reservoir for irrigation purpose (Figure 3-2). At this point, the total upstream
catchment area as estimated by using QGIS/ArcGIS software package from which surface runoff
drains to the outlet at the proposed dam site. The altitude of the whole catchment was also analyzed
in from DEM. The cross-sectional width and profile were also drawn in GIS.
Slope Analysis - The project area topography comprises different categories of slopes. Five classes
were set in SWAT modelling to analyze the slopes.
Soil Data -Soils are key parameters in watershed management and so does in SWAT analysis.
Pertinent to this the significant characteristics that influence the process within watershed include
soil permeability, soil erodibility and compositions of nutrients that help vegetation growth. These
characteristics are influenced mainly by soil properties such as soil texture, structure, depth,
organic matter content, soil fertility, soil reaction, soil colour and stoniness that are highly
important parameters in watershed development planning. FAO (2020) soil classification was
used.
Land Use & Land Cover (LULC)- Land cover (LC) refers to physical features on the surface of
the Earth such as vegetation, water, crops and the built-up land. Whereas, land use (LU)
specifically refers to the human (economic) utility of what is on the Earth’s surface (Younos and
Parece, 2015). From LULC data analysis, most of the watershed area of the catchment is covered
with agricultural cropland (Table 3-3). Since LULC has great effect on the catchment water yield
of the project, it has been utilized in SWAT modeling and included in the analysis of hydrological
study of this report.
3.2.3 Hydrological Data Analysis
3.2.3.1 Stream Flow/Discharge

For this study, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is selected as appropriate model to
generate long-term catchment yield at the outlet point (dam site). This model needs different input
data (climate, hydrological, and spatial data) in order to get reasonable output result.
14
Hydrology of an area is a direct reflection of the climate, the terrain and other physical
characteristics such as porosity, permeability and vegetation cover. Water travels on the surface,
underground and in the atmosphere in a well-known cycle. The nature of the river channel, which
is a direct function of the relationship between the flow and formation of the channel, governs
accessibility to and pattern of use of the water flowing in the rivers or stored in natural depressions.
The stream system in the project catchment area is not gauged i.e. its annual flow at the reservoir
outlet is not known to estimate the catchment yield and design flow (for design of the dam project).
However, efforts have been made to estimate by using some indirect methods.
Monthly and yearly average flows were estimated from time-series rainfall data, using SWAT
modelling. The following flow chart shows the general steps followed in SWAT modelling to
simulate the flow of a studied catchment. Calibration is only applied when observed data exists.
3.2.3.2 Estimation of Design Rainfall

There is no gauging station on the streamline in the study catchment or nearby river of similar
catchment characteristics. Thus, it is preferred to base the flood analysis on design rainfall data.
The SCS hydrograph method is selected for the analysis of the rainfall-runoff hydrograph and
computation of the design flood.
Different analytical methods are available to estimate a design rainfall using statistical approach
and PMP method. Weibul formula, Hazen formula, Cbegodayev formula and Blom formula can
be mentioned as the available methods where the Weibul formula is the most popularly applicable
15
statistical method. Therefore, the Weibul formula was applied to determine the probability of
occurrence of certain rainfall event.
𝑚 1
𝑃= ,𝑇 =
𝑁+1 𝑃
Where, P = probability of occurrence
m = the rank given to the individual event
N = sample size
T = recurrence interval (return period)
In order to derive design rainfall/storm, duration and time distribution, to be subsequently applied
in the flood hydrograph modeling, rainfall analysis from various years and stations was carried out
in the following stages:
 Compilation and analysis of annual maximum daily rainfall

 Selection of peak design storm for the project, for a given return period (T)
Test of Outliers: Outliers are data points which depart significantly from the trend of the
remaining data. The observed annual daily maximum rainfall series was subjected to tests for high
and low outliers. This test is conducted using the methodology specified in the US Army Corpse
of Engineers Manual on Hydrologic Frequency Analysis. The following equation is used for
detecting low and high outliers:
Outliers, which are data points that depart significantly from the trend of the remaining data were
identified and excluded from the subsequent evaluations.
Adequacy of Data: After excluding a higher outlier, for the annual maximum daily precipitation
data for the periods (year range) under consideration, the mean (µ) and standard deviation (σn-1)
values are estimated, respectively. Here we need to check to percentage error using relative
standard (σn) calculation for the whole number of data (N) we used, which is estimated by:
σn (%) = (σn-1/µ*N^0.5)*100
The percentage error should not be greater than 10%, if the available data is adequate.
16
Skewness Test: Skewness measures the symmetry of the data series about their mean or median.
As its value is near to zero, it shows the symmetricity of the data, and it is given by:
Skewness =1/N*∑(x-µ)3, where x = the observed data, µ = the mean and N =
number of data.
The skewness of the N-1 (after excluding a higher outlier) annual precipitation data series is
calculated, which shows the degree of existence of symmetry of the data series about their mean.
Consistency Test: Consistency of the data can also be checked for the given time period by
plotting double mass curve i.e. time period along the x-axis and the data along the y-axis.
Selection of Distribution: The data was then tested using different but recommended statistical
distributions that are used to fit extreme rainfall events such as Gumbel, Log Normal, Pearson
Type III, Log Pearson Type III and Gumbel’s Extreme Value (GEV) Type I. The fittest distribution
method is finally selected based on smallest D-index (sum/mean values). The corresponding
annual maximum daily rainfall value is then taken as the Design Storm. This is a base for the
Design flow analysis in the absence of a gauging station. The frequency analysis is conducted for
various return periods in excel spread sheet or an appropriate software package.
Temporal distribution of the 24-hour Areal Rainfall: Because there is no information of the
rainfall hourly distribution for the project site the design daily storm is hourly distributed by
using the following equation.
Where P is rainfall depth, T is rainfall duration and M is a constant. Using the known/computed
M value for the daily rainfall, the next step was to determine the accumulated rainfall value for
each hour at the time of the 24 hr rainfall occurrence, by using the appropriate M value and the
required T.
Taking the differences between adjacent hours it was possible to obtain the hourly rainfall
distribution. The final step was to arrange the hourly series for each 24-hour rainfall by using the
Alternating Block Method (Chow et al, 1988). Accordingly, the hourly distribution of the 24 hours
for different (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200,500 and 1000) return period rainfall events are performed
to obtain the hourly distribution.
Areal Reduction Factor (ARF): Areal rainfall is usually expressed as a percentage of the storm
center (point rainfall). Areal Reduction Factor is used to transfer the point rainfall (Pp) extremes
to areal rainfall (Pa). ARF is estimated by a relationship developed by Fiddes D. Forsgate J.A and
Grigg A.O. (1979) as:
ARF=Pa/Pp
Depending on the size of the catchment area, the areal rainfall is less than the point rainfall. The
physical reason for this lies in the fact that a rainstorm has a limited extent. The ARF is a function of
rainfall depth, storm duration, storm type, catchment size and return period. For instance, it increases
17
(gets closer to unity) with increasing total rainfall depth, which implies higher uniformity of heavy
storms. It also increases with increasing duration, again implying that long storms are more uniform.
Storm type varies with location, season land climatic region. Published ARFs are thus not generally
applicable or can be used everywhere. The Prediction of Storm Rainfall in East Africa is given by:
ARF = 1 - 0.044*A0.275 A > 30 km2
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 1 − 0.02 ∗ 𝑇 0.33 𝐴0.5 A < 30 km2
Where: A = Catchment area in km2
Then the areal rainfall (Pa) is predicted by multiplying the point rainfall (Pp) by the calculated
ARF. This method was applied in the conversion process of the peak rainfall in to peak design
flow as it requires translating point rainfall data to areal rainfall data.
3.2.3.3 Estimation of Design Flood
In general, three types of estimating flood magnitudes (namely the Rational Method, SCS method
and Gauged Data method) can be applied for ungauged catchments. The US Soil Conservation
Services (SCS) Method is preferred for the present study based on the size of the catchment area.
Estimation of Direct (Excess) Runoff: The SCS runoff equation is a method of estimating direct
runoff from 24-hour or 1-day storm rainfall. The SCS-CN method is based on the water balance
equation and two fundamental hypotheses. The first hypothesis equates the ratio of the actual
amount of direct surface runoff (Q) to the total rainfall (P) (or maximum potential surface runoff)
to the ratio of the amount of actual infiltration (F) to the amount of the potential maximum retention
(S). The second hypothesis relates the initial abstraction (Ia) to the potential maximum retention.
Parameter S of the SCS-CN method depends on the soil type, land use, hydrologic condition, and
antecedent moisture condition (AMC). The method considers the time distribution of the rainfall,
the initial rainfall losses to interception and depression storage, and an infiltration rate that
decreases during the course of storm. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) derived a
relationship between accumulated rainfall and accumulated runoff. The equation is:
( P  I a )2
Q
( P  Ia)  S
Where,
Q = accumulated direct runoff (mm)
P = accumulated rainfall (potential maximum runoff) (mm
Ia = initial abstraction (mm)
S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (mm)
Initial abstractions (Ia) is all losses before runoff begins. It includes water retained in surface
depressions, water intercepted by vegetation, evaporation, and infiltration. Ia is highly variable but
generally is highly correlated with soil and land cover properties.
18
The relationship between Ia and S was developed by SCS through studies of many small agricultural
watersheds. Ia was found to be approximated by the following empirical equation:
I a  0.2S
Substituting 0.2S for Ia, the SCS rainfall-runoff equation becomes:
( P  0.2S ) 2
Q
( P  0.8S )
The SCS uses a combination of soil conditions and land-use (ground cover) to assign a runoff
factor to an area. These runoff factors, called runoff curve numbers (CN), indicate the runoff
potential of an area. The higher the CN, the higher is the runoff potential. S (in mm unit) is related
to soil and LULC conditions of the catchment area through CN (which ranges from 0.00-100.00)
by the following equation:
S  (25400 )  254
CN
Conversion from average antecedent moisture conditions to wet conditions can be done by using
tables or multiplying the average CN values by Cf [where Cf = (CN/100)-0.4]
Determination of Curve Number: The curve number (CN) for the watershed is determined from
the land use/land cover and soil data of the watershed. Secondary data from GIS sources
(Ethio_GIS and Woody Biomass) was used to extract the required information for the watershed.
Soil Properties-influence the relationship between rainfall and runoff by affecting the rate of
infiltration. The SCS has divided soils into four hydrologic soil groups based on infiltration rates
(Groups A, B, C, and D). Since we are dealing with annual daily maximum rainfall, the probability
is so high in which the soil would be thoroughly wetted due to preceding rainfalls (the wet season).
Thus, the hydrologic soil group of the project can be categorized as “C”, with an average
antecedent moisture condition i.e. AMC II (the condition that have preceded the occurrence of the
maximum annual flood). In addition, curve numbers shall be selected after a field inspection of
the catchment area and a review of cover type and soil maps. Here, the curve number recommended
from SWAT analysis (for AMC II) was selected and applied in the aforementioned method.
Estimation of Peak Discharge (Flood): The calculation of peak discharge by SCS techniques is
based on the triangular unit Hydrograph (UH) concept. The SCS method is generally applied for
watershed areas greater than 0.5 km2. Since the unit hydrograph is a response to 1 unit of rainfall,
the peak discharge must be scaled to reflect a total volume of discharge from the unit hydrograph
that is equal to 1 unit of rainfall times the area of the watershed. Peak discharge is estimated using
the following formula:
0.2083𝐴𝑄
𝑞𝑝 =
𝑡𝑝
Where,
19
qp = Unit Peak discharge (m3/s)

A = Catchment Area (km2)
Q = Storm depth (mm)
Tc = Time of concentration (hr)
D = Storm Duration (hrs)
Estimating the Model Parameter: The SCS UH lag can be estimated via calibration for gauged
headwater sub watersheds. For ungauged watersheds, the SCS suggests that the UH lag time may
be related to time of concentration,
The time of peak (also known as the time of rise) is related to the unit excess precipitation duration
as: tp = D/2 + t lag
tc, as: tlag = 0.6 Tc
Thus, tp = D/2 + 0.6Tc
D = the excess precipitation duration (which is also the computational interval) and tlag = the basin
lag, defined as the time difference between the center of mass of rainfall excess and the peak of
the UH. For adequate definition of the ordinates on the rising limb of the SCS UH, a computational
interval, D that is less than 29% of tlag shall be selected (USACE, 1998a). With this, the SCS UH
becomes a one-parameter model, which requires tlag as input.
A most commonly used empirical equation for the estimation of tc is that of Kirpich given as:
Where,
Tc = time of concentration (in hours),
L = maximum length of main stream (in meters),
H = elevation difference of upper and outlet of catchment, (in meters).
However, due to Kirpich’s limitation to smaller catchments, Bransby-William is preferred and
used to estimate time of concentration (Tc) in the given watershed. The later one is limited to rural
catchment areas up to 130km2 (Fang et al. 2005, Li and Chibber 2008), which fits to the project’s
catchment area.
20
In the SCS approach, the dimensionless unit hydrograph is scaled based on lag time computed
from watershed properties, including length of the main stream (L), maximum retention (S), and
percent slope (Y) of the watershed.
However, if soil cover and land use information is not available, then a curve number for the
watershed is unknown and the maximum retention cannot be calculated. For these circumstances,
lag time must be calculated using a formula that is not dependent on soils information, like that of
Watt and Chow (1985) mentioned previously.
Once the lag time has been calculated, then other related time dimensions may be calculated.
21
Convoluting Excess (Direct) Runoff using the SCS Unit Hydrograph: At the heart of the SCS UH
model is a dimensionless, single-peaked UH. This dimensionless UH expresses the UH discharge,
q, as a ratio to the UH peak discharge, qp, for any time t, a fraction of tp, the time to UH peak
(Figure 3-4).
22
Figure 3-4: SCS Dimensionless UH, Time and Discharge Ratios
Storm hydrograph for a watershed in response to excess rainfall with duration, tR, lag time, tL, time
of concentration, tc, and time to peak, tp. Tabular ratios for time and discharge for the SCS method
are also indicated in the figure.
SCS Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: A hydrograph is a graphical representation of water
output from a watershed typically presented as a streamflow time series. The output can be
measured in the form of stage, discharge, velocity, or other characteristics of water at a given point
as a function of time. A design storm hydrograph is the predicted water output from a watershed
based on a hypothetical rainfall or snowmelt event (e.g., a design storm hyetograph). The specified
event typically has a particular exceedance probability (or frequency) and effective duration (e.g.,
a 100-yr, 12-hr rainfall hyetograph).
Important characteristics of a hydrograph are its shape and peak flow value. The peak flow value
represents the maximum flow rate that must be considered for design purposes. In addition, the
total volume of runoff and the time over which runoff occurs must be considered for design
purposes. If storm runoff travels quickly to the watershed outlet, then a high peak flow occurs; on
the other hand, if the same volume of storm runoff travels slowly to the watershed outlet, then the
23
peak flow is diminished. Factors that affect this travel time include the flow distance, pathway,
slope, watershed shape, and surface roughness.
A unit hydrograph is the direct runoff hydrograph resulting from1 cm of excess rainfall generated
uniformly over a watershed at a constant rate for an effective duration. The SCS dimensionless
unit hydrograph is a widely used synthetic unit hydrograph developed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (now the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
NRCS). The SCS dimensionless unit hydrograph has a standard shape (Figure 3-4) which, when
scaled by the drainage area and lag time of a specific watershed, gives the unit hydrograph for that
watershed.
Determination of Direct Hydrograph: For the computation of the design flood using the SCS
dimensionless Unit Hydrograph method, the catchment and the drainage network above the dam
site has been delineated from the 12.5m by 12.5m DEM in the GIS. The GIS processing phase
includes derivation of the important morphological characteristics that is used to derive the
maximum time of flow concentration (tc), such as the longest flow length (L), the centroidal flow
length (Lc), the average slope. The time to peak (tp) has been estimated from the time of
concentration (Tc) values using the US SCS method.
Once the time to peak, tp, and peak discharge, qp, are determined, then the dimensionless unit
hydrograph can be properly scaled. Therefore, design flow can be estimated by multiplying the
SCS dimensionless UH by the estimated peak design discharges (qp) and time to peak (tp). The
computation was conducted in an excel spreadsheet for the considered return periods. Then Direct
(Inflow) hydrograph is obtained at the inlet to the dam reservoir using the standard dimensionless
SCS unit hydrograph (cited in. Accordingly, floods were computed for various return periods if
needed.
3.2.4 Sediment Data Analysis
3.2.4.1 Watershed Erosion and Sediment Yield

Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) can be used for modeling of sediment yield from the
watershed of the upstream of the dam sites from the input data of topographic map, soil and land
use land cover map, rainfall data and management practice in the area. However, there is no
sediment yield data in the nearby streams to calibrate the sediment yield.
Suspended sediment load result from the SWAT hydrologic modeling (but without calibration)
will be taken as an estimation method for the present project area watershed. The common method
for soil erosion estimation from watershed is the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
(Ganasri and Ramesh). It is given as:
A = R*K*LS*C*P
Where A = annual soil loss from sheet and rill erosion in tons/acre or tons/hectare
R = rainfall erosivity factor
K = soil erodibility factor
24
LS = slope length and steepness factor

C = cover and management factor
P = support practice factor
Figure 3-5: Flow chart showing the Application of RUSLE method in SWAT, adopted from Amsalu
and Mengaw (2014)
3.2.4.2 Reservoir Sedimentation

Determining the useful life of a reservoir is an important design parameter, which may crucially
affect the economic feasibility of a water resources project. Sedimentation of a reservoir, which
ultimately determines its useful life is a complicated phenomenon and depends on a number of
variables of which reliable information is generally not available. Of these variables, the inflow
rates of water and sediments are probably the two most important factors. Both of these vary with
time. Sedimentation is controlled by the future discharges of water and the sediments in a river,
and there is no way of predicting these factors reliably.
Up on this, there is no sediment measurment practice for the river at the proposed dam site. The
sediment data is crucial to determine the sediment transport in the river, sediment load at the dam
sites and storage at the back of the dam in the reservoir after construction of the dam. Hence, it is
important to decide the bottom outlet size and position for environmental flow, flashing suspended
25
sediment and release of flood flow. It is also important to design the life span of the dam and dam
size (dead load).
Suspended-sediment-discharge records are derived from analytical results of sediment samples
and water discharge. Since the river in the project area is not gauged and there is no recorded
sample of sediment, indirect approaches were followed to estimate sediment load at the dam site.
In general, in an ungauged catchment, estimating sediment load is somewhat difficult, but some
assumptions may be used in order to estimate it using different characteristics of the catchment.
One can estimate the degree of watershed erosion and the effect of sediment load on the dam site
(reservoir) from the slope of the catchment, upstream LULC characteristics, morphology of the
river channel, soil type and the other characteristics.
Determining the useful life of a reservoir is an important design parameter which may crucially affect
the economic feasibility of a water resources project. Sedimentation of a reservoir which ultimately
determines its useful life is a complicated phenomenon and depends on a number of variables of which
reliable information is generally not available. Of these variables, the inflow rates of water and
sediments are probably the two most important factors. Both of these vary with time. Sedimentation is
controlled by the future discharges of water and the sediments in a river, and there is no way of
predicting these factors reliably. If there is a sufficient length of past records of these parameters, time-
series approach can be used to generate future data but there is generally a scarcity of past records on
many projects. The present general practice is to adopt representative values of sediment and water
discharges taking guidance from the past measurements if available. The representative values thus
assumed are kept constant in calculating the useful life of a reservoir. Here, it is assumed that the
characteristic values of sediment and water discharges are available. A simple hydrological approach
is used which uses the concept of trap efficiency as shown below.
Where,
C = Capacity of the reservoir in MCM
A = Area of the catchment above the reservoir site in ha
E = Reservoir trap efficiency (the ratio of deposited sediment to the total sediment inflow of
a reservoir for a given period)
k = a coefficient which varies from 0.046 to 1.0 for the data used by Brown.
A value of k = 0.1 was recommended for average conditions, and Values of k = 1.0, 0.1 and 0.046
may be used for coarse, medium and fine sediments, respectively.
The above equation is obviously an oversimplified relationship because E should depend not only on
the capacity of the reservoir and the catchment area but also on numerous other parameters.
3.2.4.3 Distribution of Sediment
The sediment distribution in reservoirs may also be prepared using empirical and theoretical methods.
Theoretical approaches to forecasting water reservoirs’ silting are mathematical methods that can be
26
divided into analytical and numerical ones. Irrespective of the type of theoretical model used, it is
necessary to calibrate or verify the results of calculations. The simplest methods for determining
sediment distribution at the bottom of reservoirs are based on the assumption that the entire sediment
accumulates by the dam’s wall and fills the near-dam zone of the reservoir. This assumption is
inconsistent with the actual course of the silting process, which is characterized by considerable
irregularity of sediment distribution across the reservoir’s bottom. The distribution of sediments over
a longer period of operation requires calculations in consecutive periods of characteristic water and
load flows, in regards to operating conditions of the reservoir.
In these first empirical methods of sediment distribution, calculations were quite simple to make, albeit
less accurate. One example is the empirical Area-Increment Method (AIM), developed by Christofano
in 1953. According to this method, it is assumed that the sediment load will accumulate only in the
dead zone of the reservoir. The application of this method in forecasting small reservoirs’ silting may
be impossible or at least subject to considerable error. The difficulty in applying some of these methods
may be due to the specificity of small reservoirs, i.e., forecasting sediment distribution in small
reservoirs according to the Area-Increment Method involves sediment load deposition in the dead zone.
However, due to the height of the dam, small reservoirs frequently do not have a separate dead volume,
or it is negligible.
Empirical methods for forecasting sediment distribution have been developed following the large
reservoirs’ research. One of the examples is the method developed in 1958 by Borland-Miller
(Empirical Area-Reduction Method-EARM), which was established based on the results of silting
measurements of 30 reservoirs with capacities from 49 million m3 to 37 billion m3. This method,
verified by Lara and Pemberton, is based on the conclusion that the change in thickness of the deposits
throughout the length of the reservoir is characteristic for groups of reservoirs with similar catchment
properties, layout of reservoir bowl, methods of operation and congruent characteristics of the supplied
sediment.
Area Reduction Method Simulation: The area reduction method is a mathematical method based
on observation principles in reservoirs in which the accumulation and distribution of sediments in the
different levels have a specific relation with reservoir’s shape. The reservoir shape is defined and
categorized according to the height and volume of the reservoir.
The basis of categorizing the reservoirs is M factor, which is converse of the division of the best
drawing line of reservoir height versus reservoir capacity, which is drawn on a full logarithm paper
where the depth is on the vertical axis and volume is on the horizontal one.
The main equation in this method is: (Borland and Miller, 1971)
In which S is the total input sediments to the reservoir during life span of reservoir and the bottom
an above limit of the first integral count for the primary level of the river bed at the place of
construction before and after sediment settlement, respectively. A is the reservoir area in the
different elevations is the height increment, H is the reservoir height a normal water level, and is
the approximate area of sediments which is measurable according to a difference for the
27
approximate of p, and k is the proportion coefficient to change the sediment in the approximate
area into the real area obtained from Equation below.
In which A0 is the reservoir area in height h0, a0 is the sediment in the approximate area in the new
height zero. The approximate area is obtained through the following formula.
Where the measures C, m and n are fixed coefficients determined according to the type of reservoir
from Table 3-3. Of course, these measures are Borland and Miller: corrected measures which can
be calibrated for each reservoir.
Table 3-3: Values C, m and N on types of Reservoir curves
Reservoir Type C m n
I 5.074 1.85 0.36
II 2.487 0.57 0.41
III 16.967 1.15 2.32
IV 1.486 -0.25 1.34
In this method, the reservoirs are divided into 4 types with different Area-Reduction method
equations (Borland & Miller, 1958; Muterja, 1986). Refer to Table 3-4 below.
Table 3-4: Types of Reservoirs in Area Reduction Method
m Reservoir Shape Reservoir Type Recommended Equation
3.5 – 4.5 Lake I a=5.074p^1.85(1-p)^0.35
2.5 – 3.5 Floodplain II a=2.487p^0.57(1-p)^0.41
1.5 – 2.5 Hill & Gorge III a=16.967p^1.15(1-p)^2.32
1 – 1.5 Gorge IV a=1.486p^-0.25(1-p)^1.34
m = the reciprocal of the slope of the line obtained by plotting the reservoir depth as ordinate
and capacity as the abscissa on log-log graph, a = relative sediment area, p = relative depth of
reservoir measured from the bottom
The measures of dimensionless function h (p) for the different measures of approximate depth of
p are calculated from equation under.
28
Based on the relative depth p and also F – p relation obtained from the graph in Figure 3, the
value/s of h (p) is/are drawn in the Cartesian system, where these two curves cross is the new zero
level in dam.
Figure 3-6: Sediment distribution curve estimation from curve types, for different location of
reservoirs from relative depth (P) versus F (Strand and Pemberton, 1982)
3.2.5 Water Balance Data Analysis
3.2.5.1 Catchment Water Balance

For the evaluation of water balance, Quantum-Soil and Water Assessment Tool (QSWAT) is
selected as appropriate model. This model needs different input data (climate, hydrological, and
spatial data) in order to get reasonable output result. The water balance of the study catchment is
estimated with Penman-Monteith method inside the QSWAT modeling.
29
3.2.5.2 Reservoir Water Balance

In order to obtain reservoir water balance, irrigation, domestic and environmental water demands
should be estimated accurately as much as possible. Water demands including irrigation, livestock,
and domestic use were analyzed and used at this stage. This analysis will include:
 The upstream and downstream water use (water consumption) must be known
 Irrigation water requirement of the area should be calculated
 The runoff from the command area as determined by the hydrological study for which
rainfall and infiltration rate of the soil will be used.
3.2.6 Water Quality Data Analysis
3.2.6.1 Water Sampling

Water quality is defined by analyzing a water sample taken from the stream under study in terms
of:
 Chemical Content: Hardness (calcium + magnesium), Metals (iron, magnesium etc.),
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), chloride, sodium, organic compounds, etc.
 Physical Content: Turbidity, colour, odour, etc.
 Biological Content: Faecal coliform, total coliform, viruses, etc.
The required amount, i.e. a 2-liter of water sample (in a plastic bottle) has to be taken and submitted
to a well-known laboratory for physico-chemical analysis.
3.2.6.2 Accuracy of the Chemical Analysis
Electrical-neutrality (Electrical Balance) is used as a check on the accuracy of the chemical
analysis since the sum of positive and negative charges in the water should be equal. If the
Electrical balance (EB) > 5% the analysis result has high deviation from normal due to some error
and must be rejected (not used for analysis).
The number of the major dissolved constituents in water is quite few. Normally, the total ionic
concentration of cations is equal to the total concentration of anions. This character, which is
termed as electrical neutrality is used as a check on the accuracy of the chemical analysis; hence a
cation-anion balance is usually performed. These ions are usually present at concentrations greater
than 1 mg/l. More than 90% of the dissolved solids in groundwater can be attributed to these major
ions: Cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) and anions (Cl-, NO3-, HCO3-, and SO42-). Analysis of these
ions is also essential to correlate the water with other samples in the area (if any) and determine
aquifer connectivity and ground water evolution. It also helps us in determining the type of water,
hardness of water, etc.
 ( Cations   Anions ) 
EB (%)    *100 , where the cations and anions are expressed in meq/L
 ( Cations   Anions ) 
and inserted with their charge sign.
30
3.2.6.3 Irrigation Water Quality Check for Irrigation Suitability

For the purpose of using the reservoir water for irrigation or production of crops, the following
potential hazards should be checked based on the analysis of the water:
Salinity Hazard: Water with high salinity is toxic to plants and poses a salinity hazard. Soils with
high levels of total salinity are called saline soils. High concentrations of salt in the soil can result
in a “physiological” drought condition. That is, even though the field appears to have plenty of
moisture, the plants wilt because the roots are unable to absorb the water. Water salinity is usually
measured by the TDS (total dissolved solids) or the EC (electric conductivity).
Table 3-5: Classification of Irrigation water based on EC to Check for Salinity Hazard
EC Range (μs/cm) Salinity
100-250 Excellent or Low
250 -750 Good or Medium
750 – 2250 Doubtful or High
> 2250 Unsuitable or Very High
Sodium Hazard: Excess sodium in waters produces the undesirable effects of changing soil
properties and reducing soil permeability. Hence, the assessment of sodium concentration is
necessary while considering the suitability for irrigation.
Na % = (Na+) * 100 / ( Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+ + K+), where the quantities of all cations are expressed in
milliequivalents per liter.
Table 3-6: Classification of Irrigation water based on Na% to Check for Sodium Hazard
Na Range (%) Salinity
<20 Excellent
20 -40 Good
40 – 60 Permissible
60 - 80 Doubtful
>80 Unsuitable
Sodium hazard is also usually expressed in terms of the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). SAR is
calculated from the ratio of sodium to calcium and magnesium. Continued use of water having a
high SAR leads to a breakdown in the physical structure of the soil. Sodium is adsorbed and
becomes attached to soil particles. The soil then becomes hard and compact when dry and
increasingly impervious to water penetration.
31
All ionic concentrations are expressed in milliequivalents per litre.

Table 3-7: Classification of Irrigation water based on SAR to Check for Sodium Hazard
Na Range (%) Salinity
10 Excellent
10 -18 Good
18 - 26 Doubtful
>26 Unsuitable
Bicarbonate Hazard: Bicarbonate hazard is usually expressed in terms of RSC (Residual Sodium
Carbonate). RSC is calculated using the following equation.
In waters having high concentration of bicarbonates, there is tendency for calcium and magnesium
to precipitate as the water in the soil becomes more concentrated. Residual carbonate levels less
than 1.25 milliequivalent per liter are considered safe.
3.2.7 Reservoir Routing Data Analysis
The hydrograph of a flood entering a reservoir will change in shape as it emerging out from the
reservoir. This is due to volume of water stored in reservoir temporarily. The peak of the
hydrograph will be reduced, time to peak will be delayed and base of the hydrograph will be
increased. The extent up to which an inflow hydrograph will be modified in the reservoir will be
computed by the process known as reservoir routing.
Routing is a procedure to determine the flow hydrograph at a point on a watershed from a known
hydrograph upstream because as the hydrograph travels; it attenuates, is delayed and account for
changes in flow hydrograph as a flood wave passes downstream.
This helps in accounting for storages and studying the attenuation of flood peaks. Reservoir flood
routing is carried out to design the dimension of the spillway. The design flood of the spillway
flooding was carried out based on the criteria of selecting return periods.
Three types of Lumped flow routing:
1. Level pool method (Modified Pulse)- Storage is nonlinear function of Q
2. Muskingum method- Storage is linear function of I and Q
3. Series of reservoir models- Storage is linear function of Q and its time derivatives
32
Level pool routing: Here, the method followed for the reservoir routing is the level pool method.
It is a procedure for calculating outflow hydrograph Q(t) from a reservoir with horizontal water
surface, given its inflow hydrograph I(t) and storage-outflow relationship.
Reservoir routing based on water balance of the reservoir storage, inflow and outflow, is given
according to the following equation:
𝟐𝑺𝒏 𝟐𝑺𝒏
[𝑰𝒏 + 𝑰𝒏+𝟏 ] + [ − 𝑶𝒏 ] = [ + 𝑶𝒏+𝟏 ]
∆𝒕 ∆𝒕
From Reservoir Capacity curve, the elevation of the reservoir above the spillway and its
corresponding storage is known, Spillway capacity (Q) versus Spillway head (H) is determined
from the spillway type (Here, uncontrolled Ogee spillway is an option) and inflow hydrograph is
known or calculated.
33
4 STUDY RESULT AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT

4.1 Climatic Condition
4.1.1 Precipitation (P)
4.1.1.1 Mean Annual & Monthly Rainfall

The following table shows the annual and monthly averages, maximum and minimum rainfall
data, analyzed from CHIRPS daily rainfall time-series data. The project area gets medium to high
annual rainfall that may range from 1305.90mm to 1874.82mm (Table 4-1). The mean annual
rainfall is 1605.39mm. The monthly averages have also been presented in Figure 4-1. The
dominant rainy season is from May to October contributing for about 86% of the mean annual
rainfall. These facts imply a reliable yearly rainfall availability for the project area (at least for six
months). The patterns of seasonal rainfall amounts have been presented in graphs (Figure 4-2).
Table 4-1: Monthly Rainfall Averages (CHIRPS, 1987-2021 Data)
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Annual
Mean Monthly 14.42 16.87 55.21 81.56 218.48 244.51 246.78 261.18 253.54 155.76 38.56 18.54 1605.39
Max 46.58 44.58 108.60 180.27 352.82 312.74 334.38 316.01 336.46 259.18 87.77 49.75 1874.82
Min 5.35 6.40 9.33 23.93 100.59 167.58 158.43 186.55 169.12 73.93 12.81 1.23 1305.90
St. Dev. 8.20 9.77 25.82 39.29 62.43 35.43 34.70 30.41 41.02 50.64 18.90 12.63 116.11
300.00 261.18 253.54

244.51 246.78
250.00 218.48
Rainfall(mm)
200.00 155.76
150.00
100.00 81.56
55.21
38.56
50.00 14.42 16.87 18.54
0.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Time (Month)
Figure 4-1: Mean Monthly Rainfall Distribution
34
1000
800
Rainfall (mm)
600
400
200
0
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
Time (Year)
JFM AMJ JAS OND
Figure 4-2: Seasonal Rainfall patterns for the Period (1987-2021)
According to the National Meteorological Agency (NMA) rainfall classification, there are three
types of rainfall regions in Oromia region (i.e., Region B- Mono-modal, Region A- Bi-modal type
1, Region C- Bi-modal type 2). The project area falls in the Region B- Mono-modal type (one long
rainy season) and the above figure depicts the same rainfall distribution (Figure 4-1). The dominant
rainfall season starts in month June and ends in the month September (for four months).
On the other hand, observing the yearly rainfalls for the period from 1987-2021, it shows an
increasing trend through the years (Figure 4-3), in the area. This could be due to the increasing
climate change impacts.
Annual CHIRPS Precipitation

2000.00
1900.00 y = 3.0543x - 4515.4
1800.00
Rainfall (mm)
1700.00
1600.00
1500.00
1400.00
1300.00
1200.00
2005
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
Time (Year)
Figure 4-3: Yearly Rainfall Trend for the period (1987-2021)
35
4.1.1.2 Dependable Rainfall

Computation and plotting of rainfall probabilities: The values of the rainfall probabilities are
presented in Table 4-2, while Table 4-3 shows the values of monthly wet, normal and dry rainfall
probabilities. The 80% dependable rainfall implies that for the month considered, the tabulated
values of rainfall will be available for crop use 80% of the time. The annual 80% dependable
rainfall is 1542.72mm.
The rainfall in normal years (50% probability) is in general well approached by the average rainfall
as seen in Table 4-3. The average and 80% dependable rainfalls have been presented together in
Figure 4-5.
Table 4-2: Rainfall Probabilities and Plotting Position
Annual Annual Rainfall in
Rainfall Descending Order Plotting
S/N Year (mm) (mm) Rank (m) Position (%)
1 1987 1647.12 1874.82 1 2.78
2 1988 1776.42 1776.42 2 5.56
3 1989 1580.42 1746.35 3 8.33
4 1990 1612.57 1735.39 4 11.11
5 1991 1554.83 1730.46 5 13.89
6 1992 1605.03 1726.31 6 16.67
7 1993 1527.13 1717.13 7 19.44
8 1994 1400.19 1715.09 8 22.22
9 1995 1305.90 1672.43 9 25.00
10 1996 1735.39 1660.17 10 27.78
11 1997 1715.09 1658.74 11 30.56
12 1998 1561.87 1655.30 12 33.33
13 1999 1558.97 1647.12 13 36.11
14 2000 1672.43 1634.68 14 38.89
15 2001 1575.72 1630.54 15 41.67
16 2002 1425.34 1612.57 16 44.44
17 2003 1458.84 1611.77 17 47.22
18 2004 1655.30 1605.03 18 50.00
19 2005 1480.74 1596.67 19 52.78
20 2006 1717.13 1593.49 20 55.56
21 2007 1593.49 1590.93 21 58.33
22 2008 1746.35 1583.17 22 61.11
23 2009 1550.29 1580.42 23 63.89
24 2010 1433.93 1575.72 24 66.67
25 2011 1596.67 1561.87 25 69.44
26 2012 1583.17 1558.97 26 72.22
27 2013 1611.77 1554.83 27 75.00
36
28 2014 1658.74 1550.29 28 77.78

29 2015 1590.93 1527.13 29 80.56
30 2016 1630.54 1480.74 30 83.33
31 2017 1726.31 1458.84 31 86.11
32 2018 1660.17 1433.93 32 88.89
33 2019 1874.82 1425.34 33 91.67
34 2020 1634.68 1400.19 34 94.44
35 2021 1730.46 1305.90 35 97.22
2000.00
1900.00
1800.00
Annual Rainfall (mm)
1700.00
1600.00
1500.00
1400.00
1300.00
1200.00
1100.00 y = 1810.4e-0.002x
R² = 0.9011
1000.00
1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Probability of Exceedence (%)
Figure 4-4: Graph of Probability of Exceedence for Annual Rainfalls (1987 -2021)
Table 4-3: Monthly Wet, Normal and Dry Rainfall Probabilities

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean Monthly (mm) 14.42 16.87 55.21 81.56 218.48 244.51 246.78 261.18 253.54 155.76 38.56 18.54 1605.39
Pdry (P80) 13.86 16.21 53.05 78.37 209.95 234.96 237.14 250.99 243.64 149.68 37.05 17.81 1542.72
Pnormal (P50) 14.71 17.21 56.33 83.22 222.94 249.49 251.81 266.51 258.71 158.93 39.34 18.91 1638.12
Pwet (P20) 15.62 18.28 59.82 88.36 236.72 264.92 267.38 282.99 274.71 168.76 41.77 20.08 1739.41
Paverage 14.73 17.23 56.40 83.32 223.20 249.79 252.11 266.83 259.02 159.12 39.39 18.94 1640.08
37
Mean Monthly Rainfall 80% Dependable Rainfall
300.00
250.00
Rainfall (mm)
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time (month)
Figure 4-5: Average and 80% dependable Rainfall
Dependable Rainfall Index (DRI):

The calculated Dependable Rainfall Index (DRI) is 1281mm while the calculated Geometric Mean
(GM) is 1601.23mm. The DRI and GM were used as a base value to classify the rainfall (P) levels
using the following scale also presented in methodology section:
NP = DRI ≤ P ≤ GM
D = P < DR
W = P > GM
The classification revealed that for the period under study, there were zero (0) years of drought,
eighteen (18) wet years and seventeen (17) normal years. The dependable rainfall (80%) indicated
in Table 4-3 can be used for the calculation of storage reservoir capacity and main irrigation canals.
This value ensures that on average, there will be enough water to meet the crop's need four out of every
five years. If the mean value (50%) is used in the design of an irrigation system then on average, in
one out of every two years, there will not be enough water to meet the demands of the crop and yield
will be reduced. For drainage projects, the 20% dependable rainfall is normally adopted. If the mean
is used in drainage design, then one out of every two years the crops will be flooded. Thus, it is better
to use design values with lower associated risk. Utilizing mean monthly rainfall, which has high
variability instead of the dependable rainfall, may result to insufficient water provision for crops (FAO,
1998).
4.1.2 Summary of Climate Parameters
Temperature (T), Specific Humidity (Sp.H), Wind Speed (WS), Solar Radiation (SR),
Evapotranspiration (ET), Potential-evapotranspiration (PET) and Rainfall (P) values have been
summarized in Table 4-4.
38
Table 4-4: Monthly and Annual Climate Parameters

Month Tmax Tmin Sp.H WS SR ET PET Rainfall
o o
C C g/kg m/s MJ/m2/d mm mm mm
Jan 29.78 14.16 7.98 1.52 20.59 40.61 160.66 14.42
Feb 30.07 13.91 7.42 1.81 21.13 39.76 165.67 16.87
Mar 30.30 15.00 8.91 2.27 20.46 86.95 182.53 55.21
Apr 29.51 15.08 11.20 1.83 22.22 72.86 158.95 81.56
May 26.91 14.00 13.49 1.66 17.33 96.45 129.64 218.48
Jun 25.28 13.75 13.18 1.47 15.59 113.34 140.75 244.51
Jul 24.44 13.98 12.80 1.47 14.84 100.06 132.74 246.78
Aug 24.77 14.16 13.26 1.47 12.80 98.64 138.77 261.18
Sep 26.12 14.37 13.62 1.28 17.01 100.01 144.26 253.54
Oct 26.97 14.08 12.98 1.44 19.26 78.17 125.84 155.76
Nov 27.21 13.96 10.96 1.58 19.33 64.79 144.35 38.56
Dec 28.77 14.46 9.26 1.31 19.97 45.93 150.7 18.54
Annual 27.51 14.24 11.25 1.59 18.38 937.57 1774.86 1605.39
4.2 Catchment Characteristics Study Result and Discussion

4.2.1 Physiographic Features & Drainage System
Low rising ridges, gently sloping topography and shallow valley landforms characterize the
physiographic feature of the project area or the catchment under interest.
Using, DEM of 12.5m resolution, a hydrological map or watershed of the catchment where the
streams or surface runoffs flow to a common outlet point was delineated (see Figure 4-6). The
drainage system of the catchment is of dendritic type. At the outlet of the catchment, an
embankment dam has been proposed to impound the river/streams flow and create an artificial
reservoir for irrigation purpose.
At the outlet point, the total upstream catchment area as estimated by using QGIS software package
from which surface runoff drains to the outlet at the proposed dam site is 81.41km2. The altitude
of the whole catchment ranges from 1416m (streambed at dam axis) to around 1793m (at opposite
and highest water divide or maximum elevation), above mean sea level. The longitudinal profile
elevation difference is about 305m within the longitudinal length of 16.84km (along the longest
streamline), for the maximum elevation of 1721m and the minimum elevation of 1416m (Figure
4-7).
39
Figure 4-6: Topography of the Project Area and Extent of the Proposed Reservoir
The dam site was carefully selected so that it would have good cross section and be appropriate
for construction of an embankment dam. The cross-sectional width is also appropriate for the
needed dam height (Figure 4-7, right).
Figure 4-7: Longitudinal profile (left) & Cross sectional profile (right) of the project catchment
along the longest streamline and across the dam axis, respectively (in meters)
40
4.2.2 Slope Data

Slope of the catchment is one of the factors, which affect runoff amount to be generated and time
to reach the outlet point or reservoir area. The project area topography comprises of different
categories of slopes. Most of the topography of the catchment area fall within low to moderate
elevation ranges with an average slope of 2.0%.. The following table (Table 4-5) shows the
percentage of slope classes and respective area coverages, in the catchment area.
Table 4-5: Slope Classes and their Relative Percentage
Slope Class (%) Area (ha) Area (%)
0-20 5787.96 71.05
20-30 1819.89 22.34
30-60 528.27 6.48
>60 10.37 0.13
Total 8146.49 100
4.2.3 Soil Data

Soils are key parameters in watershed management and so does in SWAT analysis. Pertinent to
this the significant characteristics that influence the process within watershed include soil
permeability, soil erodibility and compositions of nutrients that help vegetation growth. These
characteristics are influenced mainly by soil properties such as soil texture, structure, depth,
organic matter content, soil fertility, soil reaction, soil colour and stoniness that are highly
important parameters in watershed development planning. According to FAO (2010) soil
classification, two major soil types as shown in Figure 4-8 (left) cover the catchment.
SWAT
Soil Type/Group SNAM/Class Area (ha) Area (%) LULC Area (km2) Area (%)
Code
Humic Cambisols Bh12-3c-31 4866.14 59.73 Crop land CRWO 5711.88 70.11
Eutric Nitosols Ne13-3b-158 3280.34 40.27 Forest FRST 1264.86 15.53
Total 8146.48 100 Woodland/Mixed Forest FOMI 350.35 4.3
Grassland GRAS 816.69 10.03
Figure 4-8: Soil (left) and LULC (right) Shrub/Bush SHRB 2.7 0.03
Maps of the Project Catchment Area Total 8146.48 100
41
ECO (Climate & Hydrology Report): FINNA Oromia Ya’a Bure Dam Project June 2022
4.2.4 Land Use Land Cover Data (LULC)

Land cover (LC) refers to physical features on the surface of the Earth such as vegetation, water,
crops and the built-up land. Whereas, land use (LU) specifically refers to the human (economic)
utility of what is on the Earth’s surface (Younos and Parece, 2015). From LULC data analysis,
most of the watershed area of the catchment is covered with agricultural cropland (Figure 4-8).
4.3 Hydrological Study Result and Discussion

4.3.1 Stream Flow/Discharge
The stream system in the project catchment area is not gauged i.e. its annual flow at the reservoir
outlet is not known to estimate the catchment yield and design flow (for design of the dam project).
However, efforts have been made to estimate by using some indirect methods.
Monthly and yearly average flows were estimated from time-series rainfall data, using SWAT
modelling. Accordingly, the annual average stream flow of the catchment is 1.19 m3/s. The annual
catchment water yield from the simulation is 459.34mm (Table 4-6). This is 37.39 MCM. The
river in the catchment is intermittent (flowing only in wet seasons). The long-term trend of annual
flows has been shown in Figure 4-10.
Table 4-6: Average Monthly and Annual Stream flow Data (From QSWAT Analysis)
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average 11.09 7.27 7.24 6.88 29.87 52.19 64.34 74.96 78.30 66.28 39.28 21.63 459.34
(mm)
90.00
80.00
70.00
Stream Flow (mm)
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time (Month)
Figure 4-9: Average Monthly and Annual Stream flow for the period (1992-2021)
42
65.00
Water Quantity (MCM) 60.00
55.00
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00 y = 0.6551x + 35.764
30.00 R² = 0.4603
25.00
20.00
1997
2012
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Time (Years)
Figure 4-10: Yearly Stream flow Trend for the Period (1992-2021)
4.3.2 Low Flow & Dependable Flow Study Result and Discussion
The main stream in the study catchment is perennial. Thus, it is fed by shallow groundwater during
dry seasons. This makes it a gaining river i.e. there is groundwater contribution as baseflow to the
annual stream flow. The minimum flows or dominant dry seasons occur between December and
April. The monthly low flows inferred from the total runoff (flow) presented in Figure 4-9 range
from around 5mm (in April) to 20mm (in December).
The following graph (Figure 4-11) shows the exceedence probability for the annual flow of the
catchment under study. The 70% dependable flow is1.22m3/s (473.35mm) while the 80%
dependable flow is 1.14 (441.35mm), Figure 4-11 & Table 4-7.
2.50
2.00
Annual Flow (m3/s)
1.50
1.00
y = 1.9946e-0.007x
R² = 0.839
0.50
0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Probability of Exceedence (%)
Figure 4-11: Graph of Annual Flow Probability of Exceedence
43
Table 4-7: 70% and 80% Dependable Flows (m3/s)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean Monthly 11.09 7.27 7.24 6.88 29.87 52.19 64.34 74.96 78.30 66.28 39.28 21.63 459.33
10.66 6.99 6.96 6.61 28.70 50.15 61.82 72.03 75.23 63.69 37.74 20.78 441.35
P80 (80%)
11.43 7.49 7.46 7.09 30.78 53.78 66.30 77.25 80.69 68.30 40.48 22.29 473.35
P70 (70%)
Paverage 11.06 7.25 7.22 6.86 29.78 52.04 64.15 74.74 78.07 66.09 39.17 21.57 458.01
4.3.3 Design Peak Rainfall & Flood Study Result and Discussion
4.3.3.1 Design Peak Rainfall (Frequency Analysis)

Compilation and analysis of annual maximum daily rainfall: Annual maximum daily rainfall
values were identified from daily time series of CHIRPS rainfall data, for years ranging from 1987
to 2021 and are presented in Table 4-8. Frequency analysis of the annual maximum daily rainfall
has been carried out to compute design 24-hour rainfall of various return periods.
Table 4-8: Annual Maximum daily rainfall (in descending order)

Year RF(Max) (mm) Descending RF Rank (m) P T
1987 47.75 48.17 1 0.03 35.00
1988 32.26 47.75 2 0.06 17.50
1989 32.01 47.45 3 0.09 11.67
1990 35.01 45.96 4 0.11 8.75
1991 48.17 43.62 5 0.14 7.00
1992 29.53 43.14 6 0.17 5.83
1993 33.92 42.72 7 0.20 5.00
1994 35.00 42.15 8 0.23 4.38
1995 25.03 41.71 9 0.26 3.89
1996 34.20 39.12 10 0.29 3.50
1997 45.96 38.14 11 0.31 3.18
1998 26.44 37.56 12 0.34 2.92
1999 26.71 36.70 13 0.37 2.69
2000 26.32 36.23 14 0.40 2.50
2001 35.54 35.55 15 0.43 2.33
2002 47.45 35.54 16 0.46 2.19
2003 32.98 35.01 17 0.49 2.06
2004 38.14 35.00 18 0.51 1.94
2005 32.64 34.25 19 0.54 1.84
2006 43.62 34.20 20 0.57 1.75
2007 29.25 33.92 21 0.60 1.67
2008 39.12 33.89 22 0.63 1.59
2009 37.56 32.98 23 0.66 1.52
2010 30.62 32.64 24 0.69 1.46
2011 36.70 32.26 25 0.71 1.40
44
2012 34.25 32.01 26 0.74 1.35

2013 42.15 31.54 27 0.77 1.30
2014 31.54 30.62 28 0.80 1.25
2015 35.55 29.53 29 0.83 1.21
2016 43.14 29.25 30 0.86 1.17
2017 33.89 28.88 31 0.89 1.13
2018 28.88 26.71 32 0.91 1.09
2019 36.23 26.44 33 0.94 1.06
2020 42.72 26.32 34 0.97 1.03
2021 41.71 25.03 35 1.00 1.00
Max 48.17
Mean 35.77
St. Dev 6.42
Test of Outliers: Outliers are data points, which depart significantly from the trend of the
remaining data. The observed annual daily maximum rainfall series was subjected to tests for high
and low outliers. This test is conducted using the methodology specified in the US Army Corpse
of Engineers Manual on Hydrologic Frequency Analysis.
The calculated higher limit value is 56.24mm while the lower limit is 22.06mm. Consideration of
the outliers (if available) depends on the value of skewness coefficient. If the value is between -
0.4 and +0.4, we consider and exclude both the Higher and the Lower outliers. If the value of
skewness coefficient is < -0.4 or >+0.4, consider and exclude the higher outlier first then based on
this we consider again the Lower and higher outlier. In our case, no outlier has been observed that
means all data is within the limit and can be used for the frequency analysis.
Adequacy of Data: For the annual maximum daily precipitation data for the periods from 1987-
2021, the mean (µ) and standard deviation (σn-1) value is 35.41mm and 6.14mm, respectively.
Here we need to check to percentage error using relative standard (σn) calculation for the whole
number of data (N) we used. The percentage error should not be greater than 10%, if the available
data is adequate. The result obtained for the annual precipitation values is 2.98%. This means the
available data is still adequate and acceptable.
Test of Skewness: The skewness of the given annual precipitation data series is calculated to be
0.36, which shows the existence of more or less symmetry of the data series about their mean.
Test of Consistency: The following figure shows that the obtained data are nicely consistent for
the given time period.
45
1,430.00
Double mass curve
1,230.00
Cummulative Rainfall (mm)
1,030.00 y = 35.209x - 69920

R² = 0.9995
830.00
630.00
430.00
230.00
30.00
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Time (Year)
Figure 4-12: Consistency of Annual Daily Maximum Rainfall Data for a period (1987-2021)
Selecting the Fittest Distribution Method: The fittest distribution method has the smallest D-
index value. Hence, Log Pearson Type III is the fittest and selected as the indicator of the peak
Design Rainfall/Storm for the respective return periods (Table 4-9). They will also be used for the
Peak Design flow estimations for the respective return periods.
Table 4-9: Design rainfall with different return periods and distribution methods (in mm)
Return Period Normal Log Normal Log Pearson Type III Pearson Type III Gumbel EVI Gumbel Smallest D-Index
2 35.41 35.18 35.18 35.37 34.40 34.47

10 43.28 44.33 44.33 43.30 43.42 44.81
25 46.16 48.28 48.28 46.24 47.96 50.02
50 48.02 51.04 51.04 48.14 51.33 53.88
100 49.70 53.66 53.66 49.86 54.67 57.71
500 53.09 59.41 59.41 53.36 62.40 66.57
1000 54.39 61.80 61.80 54.71 65.72 70.38
10000 58.25 69.48 69.48 58.73 76.75 83.02
D-index 0.6755157 0.5119591 0.5119585 0.6581747 0.7598076 0.7421851 0.5119585
Level of Confidence: the longer the time-series the more confidence we have in the derived
extreme value distribution. For short series (N < 30), it will be appropriate to indicate the level of
confidence for the data we have used. For now, no need to evaluate the level of confidence because
the sample we are working with is over 30.
Temporal distribution of the 24-hour Areal Rainfall: Because there is no information of the
rainfall hourly distribution for the project site, the design daily storm is hourly distributed by using
the recommended equation. An example has been presented in Table 4-10 for a return period of
46
100. The same procedure will be applied for the remaining return periods. The results have been
summarized in Table 4-11.
Table 4-10: Temporal Distribution of 24-hr Areal Rainfall
Temporal distribution of the 24-hour Areal Rainfall (Alternating Block Method)
P=M*Sqrt(t) Return Period (T) 100 years
Time, t (in hrs) 24.00 24 hrs Point Rainfall 53.66 mm
M=53.66/Sqrt(24) 10.95 Catchment Area 81.41 km2
Point Areal Areal
Cummulative ARF = Cummulative Incremental Alternating
t (hr) Rainfall (mm) 1-0.044*A0.275 Rainfall (mm) Rainfall (mm) Block (mm) Remark
1 10.95 0.85 9.34 9.34 0.96 24
2 15.49 0.85 13.20 3.87 1.01 22
3 18.97 0.85 16.17 2.97 1.06 20
4 21.91 0.85 18.67 2.50 1.12 18
5 24.49 0.85 20.88 2.20 1.19 16
6 26.83 0.85 22.87 1.99 1.27 14
7 28.98 0.85 24.70 1.83 1.38 12
8 30.98 0.85 26.41 1.71 1.52 10
9 32.86 0.85 28.01 1.60 1.71 8
10 34.64 0.85 29.53 1.52 1.99 6
11 36.33 0.85 30.97 1.44 2.50 4
12 37.94 0.85 32.35 1.38 3.87 2
13 39.49 0.85 33.67 1.32 9.34 1
14 40.98 0.85 34.94 1.27 2.97 3
15 42.42 0.85 36.16 1.23 2.20 5
16 43.81 0.85 37.35 1.19 1.83 7
17 45.16 0.85 38.50 1.15 1.60 9
18 46.47 0.85 39.61 1.12 1.44 11
19 47.74 0.85 40.70 1.09 1.32 13
20 48.98 0.85 41.76 1.06 1.23 15
21 50.19 0.85 42.79 1.03 1.15 17
22 51.38 0.85 43.80 1.01 1.09 19
23 52.53 0.85 44.78 0.98 1.03 21
24 53.66 0.85 45.74 0.96 0.98 23
Sum 45.74 45.74
47
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
Rainfall (mm)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hrs)
Figure 4-13: Temporal Distribution of the 24-hr Areal Rainfall (alternating block method)
Table 4-11: Hourly Rainfall distribution for various return periods (Design Point Rainfall)
Tc (hr) 2 5 10 20 25 50 100 200 500 1000
1 7.2 8.4 9.0 9.7 9.9 10.4 11.0 11.5 12.1 12.6
2 10.2 11.8 12.8 13.7 13.9 14.7 15.5 16.2 17.2 17.8
3 12.4 14.5 15.7 16.7 17.1 18.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 21.8
4 14.4 16.7 18.1 19.3 19.7 20.8 21.9 22.9 24.3 25.2
5 16.1 18.7 20.2 21.6 22.0 23.3 24.5 25.6 27.1 28.2
6 17.6 20.5 22.2 23.7 24.1 25.5 26.8 28.1 29.7 30.9
12 24.9 28.9 31.3 33.5 34.1 36.1 37.9 39.7 42.0 43.7
24 35.2 40.9 44.3 47.4 48.3 51.0 53.7 56.2 59.4 61.8
4.3.3.2 Design Peak Flood (Discharge)

It is an estimation of Excess Runoff and Design Discharges from 24 hour Design Point Rainfalls,
for different return periods. Accordingly, floods computed for various return periods are
presented in Table 4-12 (below).
48
Table 4-12: Design Rainfalls & Design Discharges for Various Return Periods
Return 2 5 10 20 25 50 100 200 500 1000
Period
(Years)
Design 35.18 40.93 44.33 47.36 48.28 51.04 53.66 56.18 59.41 61.80
Rainfall
(mm)
Design 52.46 68.27 77.99 86.85 89.59 97.81 105.75 113.47 123.46 130.90
Discharge,
Qp (m3/s)
Estimating the Model Parameters: Time of concentration (Tc) was estimated with Bransby-
William method and time to peak (tp) and lag time (tlag) were calculated based on their relation
with the time of concentration (Table 4-13).
Table 4-13: Estimated Model Parameters
Time to Peak (tp) 5.89 hr
Lag Time (tL) 5.36 hr
Time of Concentration (tc) 8.00 hr
Determination of Curve Number: The curve number (CN) for the watershed is determined from
the land use/land cover and soil data of the watershed in ArcSWAT. The CN from the SWAT
analysis is 83.13 and it was re-used for estimating the potential retention values applied to calculate
the excess runoffs indicated in Table 888 (above).
Selection of Design Flood: The USACE has published guidelines for selection of spillway
design flood by classifying dams by height, volume impounded, and hazard potentials in the
downstream areas in the event of dam failure. These provisions are described in Annex 7.5.
According to the size classification of dams, the proposed dam falls under large size with a height
of around 40m but intermediate in the case of reservoir storage capacity storing about 32MCM
of water at Full Supply Level. Nevertheless, when the command area of the project to be developed
is considered, the dam classification may fall within Intermediate scale project. It is also
recommended to base the size classification on the reservoir storage capacity than on the dam
height since dam heights are usually results of embankment topographies at the dam site. In other
words, even though the height of the dam is big, the reservoir area of the dam has a narrow cross
section along the dam axis that raises the water elevation in turn increasing the height of the dam.
On the other hand, the category of the hazard is low to significant with less or none risk, as there are
no considerable size of village or town to be inundated with the breach of the dam and incoming floods
of 500 years return period (Annex 7.5). Similarly, the Forest Service of the US Department of
Agriculture recommends selection of spillway design-flood criteria as described in Annex 7.5.
Accordingly, for this project, the recommended design flood is in the range of 100 years and 1/2 PMF
and a return period of 500-years is preferred and recommended to use in the selection of the design
peak flood.
49
Preparation of Inflow Hydrograph: Design Peak Discharges are transformed into Inflow
hydrographs, at the reservoir inlet site, using the standard dimensionless SCS unit hydrograph. The
peak designs (Qp) indicated in Table 4-12 (above) and time to peak (tp) estimated and indicated
in Table 4-13 (above). The tp in use in the transformation process was estimated from the tc values
using US SCS method. The design hydrograph prepared for 500-years return period has been
shown in Figure 4-14 (below).
Design Inflow (m3/s)

140.00
120.00
Discharge (m3/s)
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Time (hr)
Figure 4-14: Design Inflow for 500-years Return Period
T = 25 Years (m3/s) T = 100 Years (m3/s) T = 200 Years (m3/s)

T = 500 Years (m3/s) T = 1000 Years (m3/s)
140.00
120.00
Inflow Floods (m3/s)
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Time (hr)
Figure 4-15: Hydrographs of Discharge Inflows for the Various Return Periods
The design discharge for the proposed dam, corresponding to the recommended return period of
500 years, is 123.46m 3/s.
50
4.3.3.3 Cross-Drainage Study Result and Discussion

Currently, irrigation structural systems in the potential command area are not known. However, it
is recommended to use design inflow of 25-years return period for cross-drainage and other minor
structures (Figure 4-15).
4.4 Sedimentation Study Result and Discussion
From the QSWAT analysis, considering the total catchment area size of 8141 ha (81.41km2), the
volume of the total sediment generated from the catchment area (total soil loss from the whole
catchment area) is estimated to be 131,232.92 ton/year i.e. the total sediment yield from the
catchment area at the dam site or catchment outlet. The per hectare sediment income from the
catchment area is 16.12 ton/ha/year.
On the other hand, 50-years sediment storage or deposit as dead storage behind the proposed dam
site, as estimated using sediment-trap efficiency and Area Reduction methods, is 0.7 MCM at a
new zero level (NZL) of 1429m.a.m.s.l. Afforestation and reforestation activities are highly
recommended in the catchment area to minimize potential erosions if possible. The monthly
sediment yield in the catchment is presented in Figure 4-16 in tons/ha/month.
By using the reservoir’s capacity–depth curve, New Zero Level (NZL) is known by estimating
sediment trap efficiency and inflow versus reservoir capacity. By using 50 years design period
(service years) of the dam or reservoir, New Zero Lever is estimated and known. Accordingly, the
new zero level is located at an elevation of 1429 m filling about 12m meters from the river bed
which is found at an elevation of 1417m. The amount of sediment deposition estimated at this level
is 0.70MCM.
5
Sediment Yield (ton/ha/Month)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (Month)
Figure 4-16: Monthly Sediment Yield of the Catchment
51
4.5 Water Balance Study Result and Discussion

4.5.1 Catchment Water Balance
Table 5-1 presents the estimated values of catchment water-balance components considering soil
water system.
Table 4-14: Water Balance Estimation of the project area catchment
Inflow/G Outflow/Losses Change
ains
Precipitat Surface Evapotrans Percolation Lateral flow Return Soil Water
ion (mm) Runoff piration (mm) to channel Flow/Baseflow (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1534.71 210.82 937.57 132.41 100.76 148.26 4.89
4.5.2 Reservoir Water Balance & Operation

Water Demands: When planning an irrigation dam design, it is also important to consider the potential
water demands in the project area.
Reservoir Operation (RO) is aimed for checking the availability and reliability of Irrigation water
supply, domestic and livestock demand as well as environmental flow requirement. It takes into
account all incoming flows, evaporation, seepage, change in water level, environmental flow
requirement and all other demands mainly irrigation demand. If the river or stream is perennial,
there should be an allocation of Environmental Flow Release (EFR) of at least 25% of the river
inflow at the dam site, at all times. The reservoir should release to meet environmental flow when
there is no spill from the reservoir at discharges equal to or higher than EFR.
The following table (Table 4-15) summarizes the various water demands considered in this study. The
monthly irrigation duty was taken from a previous works in the region. The total irrigation water
demand alone accounts for 14.18MCM per year. Domestic and Livestock water demands are
0.07MCM and 0.15MCM, respectively. The mean annual inflow into the proposed reservoir has been
estimated as 37.40MCM. The annual EFR should account for at least 7.5MCM. The daily average for
EFR is around 0.11m3/s.
Reservoir Losses: Evaporation and subsurface seepages are expected and uncontrolled losses
from the reservoir. It would usually be difficult to quantify accurately these losses from the
reservoir storage. Estimated annual Evaporation and Monthly Evaporation is 0.66MCM, and
0.06MCM, respectively. However, for simplicity, we can allocate about 5% for the seepage as a
potential loss out of the stored amount of water in the reservoir.
52
Table 4-15: Estimated Monthly Irrigation and Other Demands

Area (ha) 4700 Irrigation Demand Domestic Livestock demand Total Demands
Total Total
Duty Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand demand demand
Month Day (L/s/ha) (m3/s) (MCM) (m3/s) (MCM) (m3/s) (MCM) (m3/s) (MCM)
Jan 31 0.620 2.914 3.902 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 2.921 3.921
Feb 28 0.860 4.042 4.889 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.011 4.049 4.906
Mar 31 0.600 2.820 3.777 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 2.827 3.795
Apr 30 0.140 0.658 0.853 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.665 0.870
May 31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.018
Jun 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.007 0.018
Jul 31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.018
Aug 31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.018
Sep 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.007 0.018
Oct 31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.018
Nov 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.007 0.018
Dec 31 0.120 0.564 0.755 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.571 0.774
Avg. 0.195 0.917 1.181 0.005 0.923 1.199
Total 6149.520 14.176 0.066 0.150 14.392
Reservoir Storage Unmet (MMC) MDDL Spill
25 12.00
Storage and unmet Demand (MMC)
20 10.00
Spillover Flow (MMC)

8.00
15
6.00
10
4.00
5 2.00
0 0.00
Apr-93
Apr-98
Apr-03
Apr-08
Apr-13
Apr-18
Oct-95
Oct-00
Oct-05
Oct-10
Oct-15
Oct-20
Jan-92
Jan-97
Jan-02
Jan-07
Jan-12
Jan-17
Jul-94
Jul-99
Jul-04
Jul-09
Jul-14
Jul-19
Year
Figure 4-17: Graphs of the Annual Reservoir Water Balance
Irrigable Command Area & Its Reliability: From Table 4-16 one can conclude that with a dam
constructed at height of 40m, 4700ha of land will be irrigated with 80.6% reliability.
53
Table 4-16: Irrigable Command Area & Percentage of Reliability

Area (ha) Dam Height(m) 30 35 40 45 50 51
Storage 7.7 11.5 16.5 22.8 30.3 31.9
Overall
4700 Reliability (%) 56.5 66.9 80.6 97.2 99.6 99.7
Overall
5000 Reliability (%) 52.40 62.00 74.70 90.1 98.3 98.4
4.6 Water Quality Study Result and Discussion

No data is available regarding the water quality. The irrigation water should be sampled and
analyzed in an appropriate laboratory in the future in order to check its suitability for crops
production.
4.7 Reservoir Routing Study Result and Discussion

4.7.1 Reservoir Site Characteristics
4.7.1.1 Elevation-Storage-Area Data

Fixing the dam’s spillway crest level at an elevation of 1457m, the reservoir yield (reservoir
capacity) will be 16.48MCM (Table 4-17). At this elevation, the height of the dam (up to the
spillway crest) will be 40m while the surface area of the reservoir will be 112.41ha. After 50 years
of service time, the reservoir’s new live storage capacity will be expected to reduce to around
15.78MCM.
54
Table 4-17: Elevation-Area-Capacity data for the Reservoir of Project Dam Site
Water Surface Vertical Incremental
Area Average Area Flood Pool Storage, Cumulative
Elevation Distance Volume of storage
Remark
(m) (ha) (ha) (m) (ha-m) (ha-m) (MCM) (m3)
1417.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 -

1418.00 0.28 0.14 1.00 0.14 0.14 0.001 1,379.64
1419.00 1.42 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.010 9,851.91
1420.00 2.26 1.84 1.00 1.84 2.82 0.028 28,235.47
1421.00 2.90 2.58 1.00 2.58 5.40 0.054 54,029.67
1422.00 3.40 3.15 1.00 3.15 8.55 0.086 85,521.97
1423.00 4.44 3.92 1.00 3.92 12.47 0.125 124,703.19
1424.00 5.41 4.92 1.00 4.92 17.39 0.174 173,941.61
1425.00 7.80 6.60 1.00 6.60 24.00 0.240 239,987.62
1426.00 9.19 8.49 1.00 8.49 32.49 0.325 324,924.12
1427.00 10.49 9.84 1.00 9.84 42.33 0.423 423,332.67
1428.00 11.87 11.18 1.00 11.18 53.52 0.535 535,167.04
1429.00 19.48 15.68 1.00 15.68 69.19 0.692 691,940.41 NZL
1430.00 21.35 20.42 1.00 20.42 89.61 0.896 896,125.40
1431.00 23.20 22.28 1.00 22.28 111.89 1.119 1,118,889.84
1432.00 24.91 24.06 1.00 24.06 135.95 1.359 1,359,451.66
1433.00 26.79 25.85 1.00 25.85 161.80 1.618 1,617,986.80
1434.00 28.49 27.64 1.00 27.64 189.44 1.894 1,894,422.71
1435.00 30.42 29.46 1.00 29.46 218.90 2.189 2,188,994.37
1436.00 32.50 31.46 1.00 31.46 250.36 2.504 2,503,596.92
1437.00 34.63 33.57 1.00 33.57 283.93 2.839 2,839,265.35
1438.00 37.18 35.90 1.00 35.90 319.83 3.198 3,198,305.88
1439.00 39.50 38.34 1.00 38.34 358.17 3.582 3,581,660.24
1440.00 41.59 40.54 1.00 40.54 398.71 3.987 3,987,076.85
1441.00 43.70 42.65 1.00 42.65 441.35 4.414 4,413,529.57
1442.00 45.89 44.80 1.00 44.80 486.15 4.862 4,861,508.13
1443.00 48.21 47.05 1.00 47.05 533.20 5.332 5,331,997.92
1444.00 54.70 51.45 1.00 51.45 584.65 5.847 5,846,516.89
1445.00 57.68 56.19 1.00 56.19 640.84 6.408 6,408,398.90
1446.00 63.84 60.76 1.00 60.76 701.60 7.016 7,015,974.91
1447.00 67.13 65.48 1.00 65.48 767.08 7.671 7,670,813.65
1448.00 70.90 69.01 1.00 69.01 836.09 8.361 8,360,945.07
1449.00 74.34 72.62 1.00 72.62 908.71 9.087 9,087,130.72
1450.00 77.67 76.01 1.00 76.01 984.72 9.847 9,847,190.88
1451.00 81.05 79.36 1.00 79.36 1064.08 10.641 10,640,775.00
1452.00 84.77 82.91 1.00 82.91 1146.98 11.470 11,469,831.97
1453.00 91.56 88.16 1.00 88.16 1235.15 12.351 12,351,456.12
1454.00 98.69 95.13 1.00 95.13 1330.27 13.303 13,302,719.04
1455.00 103.40 101.05 1.00 101.05 1431.32 14.313 14,313,175.19
1456.00 108.32 105.86 1.00 105.86 1537.18 15.372 15,371,788.31
1457.00 112.41 110.37 1.00 110.37 1647.55 16.475 16,475,472.63 FSL
1458.00 116.16 114.29 1.00 114.29 1761.83 17.618 17,618,332.53
1459.00 119.69 117.92 1.00 117.92 1879.76 18.798 18,797,576.01
1460.00 130.63 125.16 1.00 125.16 2004.92 20.049 20,049,191.25
1461.00 135.17 132.90 1.00 132.90 2137.82 21.378 21,378,188.26
1462.00 140.02 137.59 1.00 137.59 2275.41 22.754 22,754,102.34
1463.00 144.35 142.19 1.00 142.19 2417.60 24.176 24,175,963.34
1464.00 148.61 146.48 1.00 146.48 2564.08 25.641 25,640,798.89
1465.00 152.82 150.72 1.00 150.72 2714.80 27.148 27,147,951.50
1466.00 156.84 154.83 1.00 154.83 2869.62 28.696 28,696,237.00
1467.00 160.88 158.86 1.00 158.86 3028.48 30.285 30,284,825.73
1468.00 165.01 162.95 1.00 162.95 3191.43 31.914 31,914,291.16
1469.00 196.06 180.54 1.00 180.54 3371.96 33.720 33,719,642.37
1470.00 202.36 199.21 1.00 199.21 3571.17 35.712 35,711,722.51
1471.00 234.59 218.48 1.00 218.48 3789.65 37.896 37,896,497.22
1472.00 243.07 238.83 1.00 238.83 4028.48 40.285 40,284,833.73
55
4.7.1.2 Elevation-Area-Capacity Curves

Reservoir Area-Elevation and Volume-Elevation curves for the selected reservoir site were derived
from the reservoir area survey data and given as shown below in Figure 4-18.
Area-Elevation-Storage Capacity Curve

Volume (ha.m)
5000.00 4000.00 3000.00 2000.00 1000.00 0.00
1480.00 1480.00
1470.00 1470.00
1460.00 1460.00
FSL/Crest Level
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1450.00 1450.00
1440.00 1440.00
1430.00 1430.00
NZL
1420.00 1420.00
1410.00 1410.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
Area (ha)
Figure 4-18: Reservoir Area-Elevation and Capacity-Elevation Curve for the proposed Dam
4.7.2 Reservoir Routing
The reservoir routing was done for potential storages above the FSL (elevation of 1457m), for 100,
200, 500 and 1000 return periods and the corresponding discharge inflows. However, 500-years
return period is recommended for the dam and spillway design. Figure 4-19 shows the discharge
inflow and outflow hydrographs of the proposed reservoir. Maximum spillway outflows and Hd
values (above weir water levels) for different weir (spillway crest) lengths have been indicated in
Table 4-18 below.
Maximum spillway discharges of the respective inflows, at the inlet of the reservoir, for all the
above return periods, have been presented in Annex 7.1.
56
Inflow Outflow
140.00
120.00
Flood Flow (mᵌ/s)
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Time (hr)
Figure 4- 19: Reservoir inflow and outflow hydrographs (T=500 years, Crest Length=30m)
The dam design engineer is free to choose to the appropriate weir length among the one listed in
the following table.
Table 4-18: Maximum Spillway Outflows for various weir lengths.
57
4.7.3 Reservoir Users

The users of the water stored in the reservoir are the local people and they are expected to mainly
use it for irrigation purpose. In addition to its aesthetic value, the reservoir water is expected to use
for small-scale fish production for market and local consumption, for domestic and livestock water
demand.
58
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion
Finna Oromia Ya’a Bure Dam Project aims to store flowing streams during rainy seasons and
efficiently utilize it to irrigate over 4000ha of land or command area, with a monthly average
demand (irrigation duty) of 0.2 lit/sec/ha, to improve the living standard of the beneficiaries and
meet the market requirements of the surrounding population.
Hydrological analysis of the project watershed has been conducted based on 35 years maximum
daily rainfall data. The frequency analysis has been carried out by different statistical distributions
methods. There is no gauging station on the River of the studied catchment or nearby river of
similar catchment characteristics. Thus, it is preferred to base the flood analysis on rainfall data.
The SCS hydrograph method is selected for the analysis of the rainfall runoff hydrograph and
computation of the design flood.
QSWAT modeling was used to estimate the mean annual flow and water balance of the catchment
from CHIRPS daily precipitation data. Carefully organized Excel spreadsheet template was used
for the reservoir routing. In reservoir planning, reservoir area topographic (contour) data should
be the actual and primary data for the accurate estimation of reservoir capacity analysis. Here, a
surveyed elevation-area data supplied by the assigned design engineer has been used for the
proposed irrigation dam volume or capacity calculations.
5.2 Recommendation
The suitability of the irrigation water for agricultural productions should be checked prior to
utilization. Thus, in the future it is recommended to collect water samples of adequate quantities
and have analyzed it in a renowned laboratory.
59
6 REFERENCES
Abate H. (2007), Review of Extension Systems Applied in Ethiopia with Special Emphasis to the
Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System, Rome: FAO.
Admasu Gebeyehu, 1988: Regional Analysis on Some Aspects of Stream flow Characteristics in
Ethiopia. (Unpublished Draft Report). August 1988.
Awulachew, S.B. et al. 2007, Water resources and irrigation development Ethiopia, Ethiopia
working paper 123, Addis Ababa, International Water Management Institute.
Banihabib, M. E., Valipour, M., and Behbahani, S. M. R. (2012). “Comparison of autoregressive
static and artificial dynamic neural network for the forecasting of monthly inflow of Dez
reservoir.” J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 13(4), 1–14.
Beltrando, G., Camberlin, P., 1993. Inter annual variability of rainfall in the eastern horn of Africa
and indicators of atmospheric circulation. Int. J. Climatol. 13, 533-546.
Camberlin, P., 1997. Rainfall anomalies in the Source Region of the Nile and their connection with
the Indian Summer Monsoon. Journal of Climate, Vol. 10, pp. 1380 - 1392.
Davis, K, B. Swanson, and D. Amudavi. (2009), Review and Recommendations for Strengthening
the Agricultural Extension System in Ethiopia. International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).
Ebissa G. K.(2017), ‘’ Agronomy study on small scale Irrigation project’’, International Journal
of Engineering Development and Research, Vol.5, No 2, May, pp. 1157-1167,
Ebissa G. K.(2017), ‘’ Geological study of Gondoro small scale Irrigation project’’, International
Journal of Engineering Development and Research, Vol.5, No 2, May, pp. 1148-1156
ERA (Ethiopian Roads Authority), 2002: Drainage Design Manual, Hydrology.
Estevez, J., Gavilan, P., and Berengena, J. (2009). “Sensitivity analysis of a Penman–Monteith
type equation to estimate reference evapotranspiration in southern Spain.” Hydrol. Process. 23(23),
3342–3353.
FAO (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome, Italy.
FAO (2001). Climate Variability and Change: A Challenge for Sustainable Agricultural Production.
Committee on Agriculture.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2014), Food and
Agriculture organization of the United Nations, Global information and Early warning
system country brief. December 2014.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), homepage. www.fao.org (01-01-2008)
60
Mulugeta Musiea, Sumit Sena, Puneet Srivastava (2019). Comparison and evaluation of gridded
precipitation datasets for streamflow simulation in data scarce watersheds of Ethiopia. Journal of
Hydrology 579 (2019) 124168
OIDA (2018): Oromia Irrigation Potential Assessment Project (OIPA): Baro Basin Irrigation
Potential Assessment, Volume II-Meteorology & Hydrology, Hydrology and Climate Study Final
Report
S. Carmelita Nishanthiny, M. Thushyanthy, T. Barathithasan and S. Saravanan (2010). Irrigation
Water Quality Based on Hydro Chemical Analysis, Jaffna, Sri Lanka. American-Eurasian J. Agric.
& Environ. Sci., 7 (1): 100-102, 2010
Seleshi Bekele Awulachew, A. D. (2007). Water Resources and Irrigation Development in
Ethiopia. International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water Resources: Baro River Basin
Integrated Resources Development Master Plan Study: Vol. II.1 A. Hydrology and Climate
Watt, W. E., and K. C. A. Chow, (1985), “A general expression for basin lag time,” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 12:294-300, doi: 10.1139/l85-031.
WMO. (2012). Technical Material for Water Resources Assessment. World Meteorological
Organization (WMO).
61
7 ANNEXES
7.1 Summarized Hydrology and Climate Results for Dam Engineers
No Result Remark
.
1 Project Ya’a Bure
Name
2 General Zone: Ilu Ababora Woreda: Bure
Location
3 Dam X= 736959.363 Y=922313.515 Z=1415
outlet
Location
4 Catchme Km2= 81.41
nt Area
5 Annual MMC=37.40
Yield
6 TC Hr=8
7 Annual mm=1534.71
RF
8 Design TR 2 5 10 20 25 50 100 200 500 1000
RF for
Rainfall 35.18 40.93 44.33 47.36 48.28 51.04 53.66 56.18 59.41 61.80
Different
Return
Periods
(mm)
9 Design TR 2 5 10 20 25 50 100 200 500 1000
Floods
Flood 52.46 68.27 77.99 86.85 89.59 97.81 105.75 113.47 123.46 130.90
for
different
Return
periods
(m3/s)
10 Sediment MMC/yr = 0.09
Yield
11 New Zero NZL = 1429m,0.70MCM Outlet Level = 1430m FSL=1457m,16.48MCM
level,
outlet
level,
FSL
12 Reservoir Net Command area can be irrigated with reliabilities vs FSL
water
balance Area Dam
summary (ha) Height(m) 30 35 40 45 50 51
Storage 7.7 11.5 16.5 22.8 30.3 31.9

Overall
4700 Reliability (%) 56.5 66.9 80.6 97.2 99.6 99.7
Overall
5000 Reliability (%) 52.40 62.00 74.70 90.1 98.3 98.4
13 Spillway For different Design floods (100 & 200 or 500 & 1000) and for Different FSL
Routing
(Indicated below, 500 return period is recommended)
summary
(For
different
spillway
length Vs
Hd)
Q100
Q100 For varying Weir Lengths:

Outflow or
Max Max
Elevation Inflow Spillway Q Above Crest Water
Weir length (m) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) Flow Depth (m)
0 1460.88 105.75 0.00 3.88
5 1459.45 105.75 42.38 2.45
10 1458.98 105.75 61.34 1.98
15 1458.68 105.75 71.86 1.68
20 1458.48 105.75 79.18 1.48
25 1458.33 105.75 84.27 1.33
30 1458.20 105.75 87.15 1.20
35 1458.10 105.75 89.24 1.10
40 1458.03 105.75 91.74 1.03
45 1457.98 105.75 95.74 0.98
50 1457.90 105.75 94.35 0.90
60 1457.83 105.75 99.36 0.83
80 1457.70 105.75 103.55 0.70
100 1457.60 105.75 102.71 0.60
Q200

Outflow or
Max Max
0 1461.15 113.47 0.00 4.15
5 1459.60 113.47 46.33 2.60
10 1459.08 113.47 66.06 2.08
15 1458.78 113.47 76.74 1.78
20 1458.55 113.47 85.29 1.55
25 1458.40 113.47 89.08 1.40
30 1458.28 113.47 92.66 1.28
35 1458.18 113.47 95.39 1.18
40 1458.08 113.47 98.53 1.08
45 1458.03 113.47 99.45 1.03
50 1457.95 113.47 102.32 0.95
60 1457.85 113.47 103.91 0.85
80 1457.73 113.47 109.14 0.73
100 1457.63 113.47 109.20 0.63
Q500

Outflow or
Max Max
0 1461.53 123.46 0.00 4.53
5 1459.80 123.46 51.77 2.80
10 1459.23 123.46 73.35 2.23

15 1458.90 123.46 85.11 1.90
20 1458.65 123.46 93.68 1.65
25 1458.48 123.46 98.97 1.48
30 1458.35 123.46 104.00 1.35
35 1458.25 123.46 104.87 1.25
40 1458.15 123.46 109.02 1.15
45 1458.08 123.46 110.85 1.08
50 1458.03 123.46 114.67 1.03
60 1457.90 123.46 117.65 0.90
80 1457.78 123.46 120.62 0.78
100 1457.68 123.46 122.56 0.68
Q1000

Outflow or
Max Max
0 1461.80 130.90 0.00 4.80
5 1459.95 130.90 55.99 2.95
10 1459.35 130.90 78.35 2.35
15 1458.98 130.90 92.01 1.98
20 1458.73 130.90 100.14 1.73
25 1458.55 130.90 106.62 1.55
30 1458.40 130.90 109.83 1.40
35 1458.30 130.90 114.65 1.30
40 1458.20 130.90 116.20 1.20
45 1458.13 130.90 118.67 1.13
50 1458.05 130.90 118.89 1.05
60 1457.95 130.90 122.78 0.95
80 1457.80 130.90 126.51 0.80
100 1457.70 130.90 129.43 0.70
7.2 Monthly and Annual Rainfall Summary (based on CHIRPS Precipitation data)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annua
1987 6.23 16.31 122.46 108.98 167.09 33.51 58.60 157.37 98.22 33.92 5.31 6.06
l814.07
1988 33.79 30.09 19.16 91.19 33.09 54.65 150.89 193.38 180.72 40.16 4.90 9.56 841.58
1989 6.86 23.30 136.51 185.46 31.84 67.98 120.19 154.50 115.76 50.78 12.38 38.52 944.08
1990 10.25 134.15 129.38 151.19 59.28 33.02 129.18 138.25 119.55 34.48 8.57 9.24 956.55
1991 11.35 25.68 115.78 82.60 101.07 53.67 127.32 152.41 108.63 61.06 6.98 29.49 876.05
1992 23.93 27.37 32.82 126.50 122.80 89.71 126.86 191.63 133.91 56.16 22.33 17.53 971.55
1993 32.58 78.06 22.49 251.10 152.06 37.20 103.87 108.04 129.99 76.05 8.04 10.92 1010.41
1994 8.35 7.07 52.64 136.73 123.82 93.74 226.10 138.06 168.59 19.60 22.28 7.46 1004.46
1995 6.61 15.80 121.63 178.82 52.12 43.42 115.69 126.34 132.36 23.26 7.27 8.89 832.21
1996 30.80 13.72 182.65 142.50 127.47 80.84 188.19 161.16 163.13 22.00 22.17 7.10 1141.73
1997 18.78 5.98 75.18 154.34 59.47 73.17 137.63 97.17 97.05 250.76 72.74 9.47 1051.74
1998 35.39 33.00 135.19 106.31 65.99 46.59 122.20 134.54 148.82 142.41 13.96 6.74 991.15
1999 11.32 6.66 111.21 37.80 47.96 67.31 177.20 168.67 112.61 137.51 10.86 6.17 895.28
2000 6.53 3.91 20.68 117.70 80.19 48.22 124.87 167.99 100.78 93.11 35.52 14.07 813.56
2001 8.63 10.75 95.24 66.37 95.14 64.04 144.80 147.53 87.50 47.77 7.40 10.19 785.37
2002 18.58 7.00 84.05 67.41 50.83 44.18 94.43 112.17 94.74 28.92 5.02 19.41 626.73
2003 17.34 15.83 61.64 134.62 32.67 84.70 144.87 174.85 94.66 20.77 20.62 22.77 825.34
2004 41.25 13.43 56.72 207.29 35.90 44.37 107.81 128.20 119.13 68.63 20.98 9.04 852.75
2005 13.14 7.93 98.30 138.31 174.44 58.44 134.52 107.10 115.19 32.59 29.86 5.45 915.28
2006 7.29 31.68 118.89 127.28 57.16 74.04 135.80 129.54 112.19 129.98 7.49 42.18 973.51
2007 8.98 16.72 87.68 139.35 82.78 62.15 124.37 173.64 178.12 50.35 15.68 4.73 944.57
2008 10.13 5.94 13.68 96.51 123.31 37.37 186.15 134.69 108.03 99.34 53.28 5.64 874.07
2009 37.54 8.06 35.85 90.96 56.41 56.76 108.31 99.13 93.80 178.71 13.18 25.43 804.14
2010 4.13 79.96 127.72 187.35 135.65 46.96 143.24 130.18 144.29 12.69 16.22 6.91 1035.27
2011 3.28 9.74 33.26 45.68 141.76 72.22 136.14 191.89 155.56 13.71 26.03 5.83 835.10
2012 3.23 4.89 24.57 89.61 74.57 60.56 190.32 195.93 158.63 22.97 7.22 10.49 842.98
2013 15.25 4.72 95.01 163.59 86.16 47.14 196.12 106.08 147.65 70.34 48.71 6.11 986.89
2014 4.22 13.52 96.44 100.52 104.53 23.08 115.50 132.65 167.20 127.79 10.70 8.85 905.00
2015 5.65 6.43 22.45 65.25 118.94 63.63 62.14 119.45 64.50 28.49 18.32 7.57 582.81
2016 12.59 14.34 22.55 187.91 156.61 60.52 179.97 89.26 111.82 24.30 28.06 6.77 894.69
2017 6.19 27.03 90.82 43.07 134.80 41.21 155.38 142.05 162.36 13.51 5.42 6.66 828.50
2018 4.60 31.56 39.29 246.95 90.24 88.53 93.28 148.55 88.64 64.36 19.23 6.79 922.00
2019 4.42 12.63 46.48 130.40 73.93 80.78 165.02 106.41 186.64 196.96 56.82 25.85 1086.34
2020 10.36 11.00 91.98 208.82 65.42 64.02 151.00 201.72 131.21 19.09 8.67 10.64 973.93
2021 4.25 7.19 10.57 115.99 167.16 34.31 133.69 155.55 129.61 83.80 6.99 5.11 854.23
7.3. Monthly and Annual Stream Flow Averages Summary (in m3/s, based on CHIRPS
Precipitation data & QSWAT Modeling)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average
1992 0.31 0.24 0.19 0.23 0.95 1.21 1.34 2.27 2.09 1.69 0.83 0.59 0.99
1993 0.46 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.43 2.19 1.79 2.28 1.38 1.35 0.62 0.42 0.99
1994 0.33 0.25 0.18 0.19 1.12 1.51 1.52 2.36 1.74 1.05 0.70 0.40 0.94
1995 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.41 1.12 0.88 1.64 2.05 1.30 0.79 0.42 0.79
1996 0.29 0.20 0.22 0.22 1.83 2.59 3.14 2.99 2.68 2.27 1.30 0.66 1.53
1997 0.39 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.52 2.32 3.01 2.12 2.29 3.22 1.86 1.12 1.47
1998 0.52 0.35 0.29 0.23 0.70 1.60 2.49 2.41 2.54 2.97 1.71 1.03 1.40
1999 0.49 0.35 0.26 0.22 1.35 1.90 1.84 2.36 2.99 3.17 1.60 0.90 1.45
2000 0.43 0.30 0.23 0.35 1.39 2.71 2.76 2.98 2.95 3.24 1.94 1.08 1.70
2001 0.50 0.37 0.32 0.24 0.83 1.78 1.86 2.75 3.24 2.50 1.70 1.05 1.43
2002 0.50 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.25 1.92 2.05 2.67 2.79 1.95 1.09 0.53 1.22
2003 0.28 0.23 0.31 0.16 0.29 1.62 2.56 2.59 3.60 2.09 1.34 0.61 1.31
2004 0.33 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.59 1.59 2.59 3.29 3.67 2.54 1.92 0.96 1.51
2005 0.44 0.32 0.37 0.21 0.38 2.18 2.57 2.28 2.72 2.03 1.34 0.57 1.28
2006 0.32 0.25 0.18 0.15 1.61 2.71 4.02 2.93 3.45 3.28 2.01 1.21 1.84
2007 0.52 0.38 0.35 0.39 0.71 1.24 1.96 2.95 4.31 2.32 1.42 0.59 1.43
2008 0.36 0.26 0.21 0.51 2.71 3.22 3.24 2.87 3.27 2.32 1.65 0.77 1.78
2009 0.44 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.33 2.21 1.81 3.74 2.42 2.57 1.45 0.72 1.39
2010 0.37 0.28 0.20 0.17 1.33 1.97 2.55 2.52 2.67 1.83 1.15 0.48 1.29
2011 0.32 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.73 2.14 3.20 3.83 3.37 2.04 1.26 0.54 1.51
2012 0.34 0.25 0.20 0.17 2.02 1.90 2.22 3.50 3.42 2.36 1.88 0.93 1.60
2013 0.46 0.33 0.26 0.22 2.87 2.28 2.91 3.52 2.81 2.42 1.63 0.70 1.70
2014 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.38 2.56 2.33 1.78 2.02 2.48 2.99 1.51 0.71 1.48
2015 0.37 0.28 0.22 0.20 0.83 2.16 2.67 2.32 3.20 2.46 1.71 0.95 1.45
2016 0.41 0.28 0.26 0.22 2.58 2.90 2.95 3.03 2.48 2.38 1.46 0.72 1.64
2017 0.38 0.30 0.29 0.26 0.67 1.15 2.09 3.27 4.86 3.99 2.30 1.40 1.75
2018 0.61 0.46 0.33 0.30 1.29 2.07 2.57 3.22 3.05 2.48 1.82 0.93 1.59
2019 0.46 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.34 2.32 2.85 3.81 4.01 4.17 2.24 1.49 1.89
2020 0.56 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.85 1.51 2.23 3.14 4.24 2.95 1.69 0.82 1.58
2021 0.41 0.32 0.31 0.22 1.07 2.38 3.05 2.95 4.50 2.91 1.80 0.93 1.74
Average (m3/s) 0.41 0.30 0.26 0.26 1.12 2.02 2.42 2.82 3.04 2.49 1.52 0.81 1.46
Standard Dev. (m3/s) 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.76 0.52 0.65 0.55 0.80 0.71 0.42 0.28 0.26
Max 0.61 0.46 0.37 0.51 2.87 3.22 4.02 3.83 4.86 4.17 2.30 1.49 1.89
Min 0.26 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.25 1.12 0.88 1.64 1.38 1.05 0.62 0.40 0.79
7.4. Satellite & Climate Datasets with their respective variables currently available in
Climate Engine.
7.5. Basis for the Selection of Design Flood

The USACE has published guidelines for selection of spillway design flood by classifying dams
by height, volume impounded, and hazard potentials in the downstream areas in the event of dam
failure. These provisions are described in the following tables.
Category of Dams Impoundment Storage (MCM) Height (m)

Small 0.67-1.23 7.72-12
Intermediate 1.23-61.7 12-30.5
Large >61.7 >30.5
Hazard Potential
Loss of life (extent of development) Economic loss
Category
Minimal (undeveloped to
None expected (no permanent
Low occasional structures or
structures for human habitation)
agriculture)
Few (no urban developments Appreciable (notable
Significant and no more than a small agriculture, industry, or
number of inhabitable structures) structures)
Excessive (extensive
High More than a few community, industry, or
agriculture)
Recommended Spillway Design Floods (USACE)

Hazard Size Spillway design flood (SDF)
Low Small 50- to 100-yr frequency
Intermediate 100-yr to 1/2 PMF
Large 1/2 PMF to PMF
Significant Small 100-yr to 1/2 PMF
Intermediate 1/2 PMF to PMF
Large PMF
High Small 1/2 PMF to PMF
Intermediate PMF
Large PMF
Ethiopian Committee of Large Dams (ETCOLD) Recommendation
Design Flood Return Period Check Flood Return Period

Potential Impact (years) (years)
1 (Low) 500 1000
2 Moderate 1000 10000 or 0.5 PMF
3 High 10,000 or % of PMF PMF
7.6. Time versus Discharge Inflows for Various Return Periods

Design Inflows for various return periods
Time T = 25 Years T = 100 Years T = 200 Years T = 500 Years T = 1000 Years
(hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.59 2.69 3.17 3.40 3.70 3.93
1.18 8.96 10.57 11.35 12.35 13.09
1.77 17.02 20.09 21.56 23.46 24.87
2.36 27.77 32.78 35.18 38.27 40.58
2.95 42.11 49.70 53.33 58.03 61.52
3.54 59.13 69.79 74.89 81.48 86.40
4.12 73.46 86.71 93.04 101.24 107.34
4.71 83.32 98.34 105.53 114.82 121.74
5.30 88.69 104.69 112.33 122.22 129.59
5.89 89.59 105.75 113.47 123.46 130.90
6.48 88.69 104.69 112.33 122.22 129.59
7.07 83.32 98.34 105.53 114.82 121.74

7.66 77.05 90.94 97.58 106.18 112.58
8.25 69.88 82.48 88.51 96.30 102.10
8.84 60.92 71.91 77.16 83.95 89.01
9.43 50.17 59.22 63.54 69.14 73.31
10.02 41.21 48.64 52.20 56.79 60.22
10.61 34.94 41.24 44.25 48.15 51.05
11.19 29.56 34.90 37.44 40.74 43.20
11.78 25.08 29.61 31.77 34.57 36.65
12.96 18.54 21.89 23.49 25.56 27.10
14.14 13.17 15.54 16.68 18.15 19.24
15.32 9.59 11.31 12.14 13.21 14.01
16.50 6.90 8.14 8.74 9.51 10.08
17.68 4.93 5.82 6.24 6.79 7.20
18.85 3.58 4.23 4.54 4.94 5.24
20.03 2.60 3.07 3.29 3.58 3.80
21.21 1.88 2.22 2.38 2.59 2.75
22.39 1.34 1.59 1.70 1.85 1.96
23.57 0.99 1.16 1.25 1.36 1.44
26.51 0.45 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.65
29.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ya'a Bure Climate & Hydrology Final Report August, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ya'a Bure Climate & Hydrology Final Report August, 2022

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

Ya'a Bure Climate & Hydrology Final Report August, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HE NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE OF OROMIA,

THE NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE OF OROMIA,

CLIMATE & HYDROLOGY FINAL REPORT

4.1 Climatic Condition ......................................................................................................... 34

1.1 General Background

1.4 Scope of the Study

2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

3 METHODOLOGY FOR CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY STUDY

CHIRPS Rainfall (mm) Uka Station Rainfall (mm)

3.1.3 Hydrological Data Collection

3.2 Data Analysis Methodology

3.2.1.1 Data Quality Check and Analysis

3.2.1.3 Dependable Rainfall

Where, 0.8 is the constant coefficient,

3.2.2 Catchment Characteristics Analysis

3.2.3 Hydrological Data Analysis

3.2.3.1 Stream Flow/Discharge

3.2.3.2 Estimation of Design Rainfall

 Compilation and analysis of annual maximum daily rainfall

qp = Unit Peak discharge (m3/s)

Figure 3-4: SCS Dimensionless UH, Time and Discharge Ratios

3.2.4 Sediment Data Analysis

3.2.4.1 Watershed Erosion and Sediment Yield

LS = slope length and steepness factor

3.2.4.2 Reservoir Sedimentation

3.2.5 Water Balance Data Analysis

3.2.5.1 Catchment Water Balance

3.2.5.2 Reservoir Water Balance

3.2.6.1 Water Sampling

3.2.6.3 Irrigation Water Quality Check for Irrigation Suitability

All ionic concentrations are expressed in milliequivalents per litre.

4 STUDY RESULT AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT

4.1.1.1 Mean Annual & Monthly Rainfall

300.00 261.18 253.54

Figure 4-1: Mean Monthly Rainfall Distribution

Figure 4-2: Seasonal Rainfall patterns for the Period (1987-2021)

Annual CHIRPS Precipitation

Figure 4-3: Yearly Rainfall Trend for the period (1987-2021)

4.1.1.2 Dependable Rainfall

28 2014 1658.74 1550.29 28 77.78

Table 4-3: Monthly Wet, Normal and Dry Rainfall Probabilities

Mean Monthly Rainfall 80% Dependable Rainfall

Figure 4-5: Average and 80% dependable Rainfall

Dependable Rainfall Index (DRI):

Table 4-4: Monthly and Annual Climate Parameters

4.2 Catchment Characteristics Study Result and Discussion

4.2.2 Slope Data

4.2.3 Soil Data

4.2.4 Land Use Land Cover Data (LULC)

4.3 Hydrological Study Result and Discussion

Figure 4-11: Graph of Annual Flow Probability of Exceedence

Table 4-7: 70% and 80% Dependable Flows (m3/s)

4.3.3.1 Design Peak Rainfall (Frequency Analysis)

Table 4-8: Annual Maximum daily rainfall (in descending order)

2012 34.25 32.01 26 0.74 1.35

1,030.00 y = 35.209x - 69920

2 35.41 35.18 35.18 35.37 34.40 34.47

D-index 0.6755157 0.5119591 0.5119585 0.6581747 0.7598076 0.7421851 0.5119585

4.3.3.2 Design Peak Flood (Discharge)

Design Inflow (m3/s)