DRAFT REPORT

S/N/N/P/R/S WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT BUREAU IRRIGATION

CONSTRUCTION AND SCHEME ADMINISTRATION AGENCY, IRRIGATION
POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF OMO-GIBE RIVER BASIN

Client: Snnprs Water And Irrigation Development Bureau Irrigation Construction And Scheme
Administration Agency
Consultant:Hawassa University Water And Water Related Engineers’ Consultancy Association
Study team: Abel Getahun (MSc)
Wendimagen Girma (PhD candidate)

i
Executive summary

The general objective of this part of the project is to assess the groundwater
Irrigation potential of Omo Gibe basin of Southern Nations and Nationalities
Regional State (SNNPRS), Ethiopia. Groundwater potential in the study
determined using analytical hierarchy method indicates about 34503 square
kilometer shows moderate potential, 10924 square kilometer shows poor
potential and 7231 square kilometer shows good potential.

The groundwater potential produced based on the amount of recharge the area
gets, the distribution of fractures and faults, distribution of springs of variable
yields and depth and yield of boreholes results 3833.918square kilometer area
yielding greater than 20l/s discharge, 6051.49 square kilometer area yielding
5-20l/s, 15192.16 square kilometer area yielding 1-5 l/s, 7547.9 square
kilometer area yielding 0.5-1 l/s and 19892.958 square kilometer area has
discharge less than 0.5 l/sec discharge.

Aquifer types based on information from water point inventory are;- sandy
gravel, weather ignimbrite, fractured basalt and Alluvial. Shallow well depth
from existing well information collected ranges from 7.34m to 13.27m and deep
well depth from existing well information collected ranges from 40.14m to
180.4m. The recharge to groundwater is estimated between 23-145mm/year.
The groundwater level map indicates that the groundwater flow direction is
similar with surface flow.

List if Figures
Figure 2-1 Omo Gibe basin in SNNPRS.....................................................................10
Figure 2-2 Topography of Omo Gibe basin in SNNPRS...............................................11
Figure 2-3 Woredas and different area of SNNPRS in Omo Gibe basin.......................12

i
Figure 2-4.Hydrologic components and water flows in the coupled SWAT –MODFLOW
.................................................................................................................................19
Figure 3-1 Mean Annual Rainfall of Omo Gibe in SNNPRS.........................................23
Figure 3-2 Weighted Class of Mean Annual Rainfall of Omo Gibe in SNNPRS............24
Figure 3-3 Land-use Land-Cover in Omo-Gibe SNNPRS.............................................26
Figure 3-4 Weighted classes of Land-use Land-Cover in Omo-Gibe SNNPRS..............27
Figure 3-5 Slope of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS..................................................................29
Figure 3-6 Weighted class of slope of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS......................................30
Figure 3-7 Omo-Gibe Soil Class.................................................................................32
Figure 3-8 Soil map classified for groundwater potential mapping.............................33
Figure 3-9 Geology map for groundwater potential mapping in Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS
.................................................................................................................................38
Figure 3-10 Reclassified Geology map for groundwater potential mapping in Omo-
Gibe in SNNPRS........................................................................................................39
Figure 3-11 Reclassified Geomorphologic map of the Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS..............41
Figure 3-12 Lineament density map of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS (Developed from
Ethiopian Geologic Survey Geology Map)...................................................................43
Figure 3-13 Weighted class of Lineament density......................................................44
Figure 3-14 Drainage density map Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS.........................................46
Figure 3-15 Reclassified drainage density map of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS...................48
Figure 3-16 Groundwater Potential map of Omo-Gibe developed by weighted overlay
from thematic maps of the area.................................................................................49
Figure 3-17: Groundwater source inventory sites.....................................................50
Figure 3-18: Aquifer Types of Omo Gibe Basin of SNNPRS.........................................52
Figure 3-19: Groundwater level map of the study area..............................................56
Figure 3-20: Shallow well sites from existing data (depth of aquifers in the area) for
Omo-Gibe basin........................................................................................................57
Figure 3-21: Groundwater rechargezonemap of thestudyarea....................................58
Figure 3-22: Groundwter potential/yield of Omo Gibe Basin.....................................59
Figure 3-23: Ground Water Yield Class for Omo-Gibe basin in SNNPRS....................60
List of Tables
Table 1 Rainfall and its rank as per suitable for groundwater potential and recharge 22
Table 2 Landuse Landcover classification..................................................................25
Table 3 Reclassified Slope range for determining groundwater potential....................28
Table 4 Reclassified Soil for determining groundwater potential.................................31
Table 5 Geologyical formation and Terrian of Baro Akobo in SNNPRS (source Ethiopian
Geologic Survey)........................................................................................................37
Table 6 Reclassified geology for groundwater potential...............................................37
Table 7 Omo-Gibe Linemants density classification in SNNPRS.................................42
Table 8 Drainage Density Classsification...................................................................45
Table 9 pairwise comparison matrix and normalized weight......................................48

ii
iii
Table of Contents
List if Figures.................................................................................................................................................i
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................i
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5
1.1. Background of the study.....................................................................................................5
1.2. Significance of this study....................................................................................................6
1.3. Objectives.................................................................................................................................7
1.3.1. General objective............................................................................................................7
1.3.2. Specific objectives..........................................................................................................7
1.4. Previous Studies.....................................................................................................................8
2. Methodology.................................................................................................................................11
2.1. Description of study area..................................................................................................11
2.2. Main Activities of this Assessment.................................................................................13
2.3. Data Collection.....................................................................................................................14
2.3.1. Digital elevation model (DEM)..................................................................................14
2.3.2. Existing maps................................................................................................................14
2.3.3. Hydro-Meteorological and Hydrogeological data................................................15
2.4. Models and Tools Applied..................................................................................................15
2.5. Sub-Surface Hydrological Models using SWAT-Modflow Model............................16
2.5.1. Data Analysis and Methodology followed..............................................................17
2.5.2. Sub-Surface Hydrological Models Using Swat-Modflow Model......................18
2.5.3. SWAT-MODFLOW Setup and Description............................................................19
2.5.4. Overview of Swat-Modflow Code Structure..........................................................21
3. Result and Discussion....................................................................................................................22
3.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................22
3.2. Water points..........................................................................................................................22
3.3. Thematic Layers...................................................................................................................22
3.3.1. Rainfall............................................................................................................................22
3.3.1. Land-use Land-cover..................................................................................................26
3.3.2. Slope................................................................................................................................29

iv
 3.3.3. Soil....................................................................................................................................32
3.3.4. Geology............................................................................................................................35
3.3.5. Geomorphology.............................................................................................................41
3.3.6. Lineament Density.......................................................................................................43
3.3.7. Drainage density..........................................................................................................46
3.3.8. Groundwater potential mapping.............................................................................49
3.4. Water Points Inventory for the Basin.............................................................................51
3.5. Aquifer Classification..........................................................................................................52
3.5.1. Intergranular aquifer system....................................................................................54
3.5.2. Double permeability-storativity aquifer system..................................................56
3.5.3. Single permeability-storativity fissured hard rock aquifers............................57
3.6. Ground Water Depth and Flow Direction.....................................................................57
3.7. Groundwater Recharge......................................................................................................62
3.8. Groundwater Potential of The Basin..............................................................................63
4. Conclusion and recommendation..................................................................................................67
4.1. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................67
4.2. Recommendation.................................................................................................................68
5. References.....................................................................................................................................69
6. Appendix........................................................................................................................................70

v
 Introduction
1.1. Background of the study

According to FAO (2011) reports irrigated agriculture is the most inefficient and
much water consuming sector, which contributes about 70% of water
withdrawal from different sources like aquifers, streams, and lakes. Because of
the accelerated population growth and changes in dietary habits, food
consumption is increasing in most regions of the world. It is expected that by
2050 an additional billion tons of cereals and 200 million tons of meat will
need to be produced annually to satisfy growing food demand (FAO, 2012).
Around 80% of the world’s total cultivated land under rainfed agriculture,
supply 60% of the world’s food; while the remaining 20% of land under
irrigation, contribute the other 40% of the food supplies (Dowgert, 2010).

In Ethiopia, rainfall has an uneven distribution both in time and in space. This
is partly due to the presence of one major and one small rainy season, in large
part of the country. A subsidiary effect is that a large amount of rainfall on the
highlands is concentrated as runoff in river alleys, which drain into the low-
lying areas where annual rainfall is low. In almost all river basins in Ethiopia,
some 80% of the runoff results from annual precipitation falling in four months
from June to October (Alemayehu, 2006).

Based on MoWR (2002) report the 12 basins of Ethiopian have 122 Bm 3

annual surface runoff and groundwater resource is approximated 2.6 Bm 3. The
groundwater resources potential in the country is not clearly known. Initial
estimates of groundwater potential vary from 2.6 to 13.5 Bm 3 per year. Studies
indicate that groundwater resource in Ethiopian is barely exploited, especially
for agriculture. (Awulachew, 2010).

Groundwater plays an important role in Ethiopia as a major source of water for

domestic uses, industries and livestock. Although the surface water and
groundwater resources is enormous, the distribution is uneven. Groundwater
6
utilization in the country has been limited specially in using deep groundwater
for agriculture is almost nonexistent (Alemayehu, 2006). The available studies
on the groundwater resources of the country are very limited, in that, the
delineation of aquifer systems, the water balance and determination of the
aquifer characteristics has not been conducted (Awulachew, et al., 2007).

According to Awulachew (2010) cultivable land in Ethiopia is approximated

between 30 Mha to 70Mha. Among this total irrigable land potential is 5.3
Mha. Potential from surface water source is around 3.7 Mha and 1.6 Mha
through rain water harvesting and groundwater. Awulachew (2010) has
indicated the advantages and constraints of using groundwater compared to
other sources for irrigation. The advantages are reliability of the water sources,
availability at many places, and supply from natural storage and has no
transboundary issue. The constraints are Costly development and operation,
lack of comprehensive understanding of Ethiopia’s groundwater resources and
specialized equipment and well trained staff requirement. Among constraints in
using groundwater resources for irrigation is lack of understanding of the
resources. This study is designed to enhance in understanding of groundwater
resources in Omo Gibe river basin within SNNPRS.

1.2. Significance of this study

Before utilizing groundwater resources in a given area, understanding the

groundwater potential will be valuable. Groundwater is invisible resources and
it is not easy to quantify or characterize the storage systems. Based on
available data like topography map, geologic map, LULC map, soil map and
hydro-meteorological data of the area it is possible to understand or predict the
subsurface hydrogeological condition. In this the study hydrogeological map
will be developed and groundwater irrigation potential in different area will be
indicated/mapped. This will help decision makers in deciding while developing
irrigation projects in the area.

7
 1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. General objective

The general objective of this part of the project is to assess the groundwater
Irrigation potential of Omo Gibe basin of Southern Nations and Nationalities
Regional State (SNNPRS), Ethiopia.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To prepare the thematic maps of the study area such as Lithology, Land
use/cover, slope,lineaments, soil texture, drainage density, and
geomorphology.
2. To determine the groundwater recharge in the sub basin (identifying
recharge and discharge areas with the help of spatial map).
3. To assess the groundwater flow direction and discharge including aquifer
characteristics in the sub-basin.
4. To map the spatial extent of existing major groundwater wells and to
simulate the groundwater level (contour)

8
 1.4. Previous Studies

Geology is one of the important disciplines required to carry out ground water
studies. To assist the hydrogeological study, the following information has been
considered.

There are two independently produced geological maps of Ethiopia compiled

and published in 1972 at a 1:2 million scale by Kazmin and Merla et al. While
the map by Kazmin (1972) appears to give more detailed information on
basement geology, that of Merla et al (1972) tends to give a better classification
of the volcanics. Although there are some discrepancies of information between
the two, in combination they provide a good picture of the geology of the
country as a whole.

Within the Omo-Gibe Basin, several geological studies have been carried out in
the past, mostly concentrating in the southern and south-western (Jima area)
parts of the study area, but not all were of sufficient detail to be of great use in
the hydrogeological study. They include the following:

 MoWR (2010), Omo Gibe River Basin Master Plan.

 Mohr (1971), one of the pioneer geologists to present a systematic
geology of Ethiopia, briefly described the geology of Jima region.
 Morton (1976) also described the major rock types in the Jima area in
relation to his study of the iron ore deposits south of Asendabo.
 Bisrat and Herman (1984) of EIGS carried out geological mapping in
the Jima area, at the Jireo locality, for the purpose of fossil fuel
prospecting.
 The Hydrocarbon Department of EIGS has drilled several exploration
boreholes to evaluate the economic potential of lignite and oil shale
deposits reported in Meteso locality, again in the Jima region.

9
Ground water resources data for the Omo-Gibe Basin are fragmentary, with the
Ethiopian Institute of Geological Surveys (EIGS) and the Ethiopian Water
Works Construction Authority (EWWCA) being the main sources of
information.

As part of its country wide program of systematically mapping (at 1:250,000)

and evaluating the ground water resources of the Ethiopia, the EIGS has made
an inventory of almost all of the water points (boreholes, dug wells, springs)
that could be located in neighbouring regions such as the Chew Bahir-Lake
Turkana Basin (Map sheet NB-37-9), the Gore area (NC 36- 16) as well as the
Main Ethiopian Rift Valley area. The data collected by EIGS included location
of water points, hydraulic parameters, geological and hydrochemical
information. EIGS has also published the first hydrogeological map of
Ethiopia, this included information on the Omo-Gibe Basin. However, because
of the scale of this map and the very low density of data distribution, its
usefulness for accurate ground water resource assessment is limited.
However, the EIGS has carried out some local studies within the Omo-Gibe
Basin. They include the following:

 The hydrogeology of Jima town (Ketema, 1975). In this report, the

ground water conditions in and around the town have been
discussed and almost all water supply sources in the town were
recorded including data on the hydrochemistry. Habteab (1988) has
produced a more comprehensive hydrogeological report and map of
the Jima area (Map Sheet NB 37-1).
 An unpublished report by Eccleston (1977) also describes the extent
of ground water use in western Ethiopia. Boreholes that supply
community centres in the northern part of the Omo-Gibe Basin have
been recorded with some hydraulic details.
The hydrogeology of the Great Gibe River Basin has been reported in a Master
of Science thesis by Negash (1987).

10
Some Non GovernmentalOrganisations (NGOs) have also conducted limited
water resource surveys in selected rural areas. The Society of International
Missionaries (SIM) is one such organisation that has been engaged in rural
water supply studies in the GamoGofa area of the Omo Basin. On behalf of
SIM, Dr. O. Langenegger (1975) surveyed and reported on the hydrology and
water supply conditions in the Daramalo plain, in the north-eastern part of the
Omo-Gibe Basin. Similarly Action Aid Ethiopia (AAE) carried out a water
supply survey in KoyshaAwraja, in the north Omo Administrative Region, in
1992.

11
 Methodology
1.5. Description of study area

Omo Gibe river basin is located in the southwestern part of Ethiopia.

Figure 2-1Omo Gibe basin in SNNPRS

Topographic nature of the Study Area

The topographic feature of the study area it is characterized by mountains at

upstream and flat at downstream with no mountains. The highest elevation in
the study area is 3530m a.m.s.l and the lower part is 299m a.m.s.l near the
border of Ethiopia. Figure 2 show the topography of the study area.

12
Figure 2-2 Topography of Omo Gibe basin in SNNPRS

Study area Zones and Woredas

This study area includes all or part of thriteen zones namely, Wolayta, South
Omo, Benchimaji, Basketo, Kaffa, Konta, Yem, Dawro, Hadiya, Kembata
Tembaro, silte and Gurage. From this thriteen zones all or part of more than 80
woredas will be included in the study. Woredas and different areas included in
this study are indicated in figure 3 below.

13
Figure 2-3Woredasand different area of SNNPRS in Omo Gibe basin

1.6. Main Activities of this Assessment

The principal activities performed in this assessment include:
 Compilation of data both in map and written form from existing
sources
 Collection of data on existing important water points observed in the
field.
 Location of water points and their distributions indicated on maps
 Selection of important potential areas for groundwater development
 Reclassify thematic layers which directly affects groundwater potential
for mapping groundwater potential map

14
 o Thematic layers reclassified to different groundwater potential
classes are
 Annual precipitation mapped from existing met-stations
and interpolating
 Slope map
 Soil map
 Geomorphology map
 Lineament map
 Geology map
 Drainage density map
 Zoning of important hydrogeological features in the Basin and prepare
hydrogeological map
Well completion reports and pumping test data were collected from zonal
Water Resources, Irrigation and Energy offices. From this report
hydrogeological conditions such as aquifer types, depth to groundwater,
recharge, hydrochemistry, and existing water resources development are
analyzed.
1.7. Data Collection
Data collection for the hydrogeological study will be carried out in various
governmental and non-governmental organizations. Both the available reports
on the hydrogeology of the study area and the databanks used by the
organizations concerned with water will be studied. Data from existing maps
and from satellite images are also important resources.

1.7.1. Digital elevation model (DEM)

Topography is defined by a DEM that describes the elevation of any point in a

given area at a specific spatial resolution and which describes the topographic
surface. A 20 m by 20 m resolution DEM downloaded from SRTM (Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission) website.

15
 1.7.2. Existing maps

1. Land use and land cover map developed from satellite images.
2. Soil map
3. Geologic map received from Ethiopian Geologic Survey and different
reports of governmental and non-governmental organizations.
4. Lithological reports of water point areas

1.7.3. Hydro-Meteorological and Hydrogeological data

1. Meteorological data

Meteorological data including precipitation, maximum and minimum air

temperature, relative humidity, sunshine hour and wind speed data will be
collected from all stations of study area, which will be used as an input for
SWAT hydrological model. Meteorological data will be collected from National
Meteorological Service Agency of Ethiopia (NMSA) stations; that are found
inside the study site and in the vicinity of the watershed boundary.

2. Hydrological data

Hydrological data includes streamflow data and water level data. This data will
be valuable in determining discharge, recharge groundwater flow and related
issues in the area. Streamflow data and water level data can be found from
ministry of Water Energy and Mining.

3. Hydrogeological data.

Additional data or maps required in the preparation of groundwater Potential

map are geologic maps, Well log, landuselandcover map, groundwater quality
existing data or groundwater sample and Hydro-lithological base map. Sources
of data can be analyzed land use land cover map from satellite imagery, from
ministry of Agriculture, from Ministry of Water Energy and Mining and
Ethiopian Geologic Survey.

16
 1.8. Models and Tools Applied

1. Analytical hierarchy process Method is applied in order to produce

groundwater potential map based on existing maps and different maps
developed depending on the study area condition. In this method
different maps are used in the analysis. Each maps analyzed are
reclassified to five different hierarchies namely very good, good,
moderate, poor and very poor potential groups.
2. Modflow is used to develop groundwater level contour to show
groundwater flow direction.
3. SWAT-Modflow Model will be applied to determine Surface water and
groundwater interaction

Computers with general software packages are applied in report preparation,

the ArcGIS 10.2, ERDAS IMAGINE 2010, SWAT and Modflow will be an
important tools for the work to store data in a database, process the data, to
prepare the maps and to interpret results.

1.9. Sub-Surface Hydrological Models using SWAT-Modflow

Model

On areas with surface water limitations, irrigable land potential by

groundwater will be identified by considering topography of the land, amount of
discharges from wells and land use/land cover by using secondary data. These
factors will be derived by Arc GIS using input data from DEM, river basin
shape files, administrative shape files, top maps and identified groundwater
resources.

Unlike water supply, irrigation requires more discharge to fulfill crop water
need. Topography of land is related to relative level of command area with
respect to groundwater source (wells). Thus, after considering above factor, the
identified irrigable land by groundwater will be compared with duty of irrigation

17
so as to get irrigation potential of the ground water. If the water yields from the
wells are much less than irrigation water requirement of identified command,
then water is limiting factor. Therefore the number of wells will be increased to
fully irrigate the identified command. If irrigable land is less than available well
yields then the command area is the limiting factor so that available irrigable
land will be considered to identify irrigable land.

1.9.1. Data Analysis and Methodology followed

1.9.1.1. Organization of all related existing data with in and around the
study area

Detail review of all the previous works related to the study area if any of
(geology, hydrogeology and hydrogeophysics) from Published or unpublished
maps. well-log data bases, and other production information organized by
region, zone or town and related works, Summary reports prepared by state
agencies on groundwater, surface water, or water use, Consulting firms and
other experienced hydro geologists and etc, pertinent data base are developed
in excel sheet to understand the proposed study area.

1.9.1.2. Preparation of the base map and undertaking the field

mapping, sampling and analysis

Preparation of base map

Based on the database in office level strategic base map showing of all water
points inventory, geology, hydrogeology, geophysics and hydrochemistry is
prepared using ArcGIS. Field traverse routes will be formed on the base map
within selected area of the region. Following the field route data gap will be
filled through geologic mapping from exposed areas (quarry sites, fault scarps,
river cuts, erosion gullies), lithologic contacts, fracture lines, faults, land use
and land cover conditions using DEM, topographic and satellite maps. As the
litho-stratigraphic setting and geological structures are the major controls on

18
the dynamics of groundwater in a given area, the data base and the maps will
be used to construct the first hand geological and hydrogeological cross
sections along the selected traverses and used to understand more about the
nature of emplacement of the trap series volcanic, nature of eruption,
thickness of individual lava flows, thickness and extent of paleosole layer
which restrict groundwater flow and the dip amount and direction of the
volcanic flow layers. Existing data of Rock samples will be verified with
exposures of variable rock types at field which will be used to understand the
chemical composition of minerals that could be used for hydro geochemical
interpretation. Finally from this step geological map and cross sections will be
developed with the aid of GIS and Remote Sensing software and from previous
works.

1.9.1.3. Characterization of the aquifer framework and flow dynamics

From the database of water points of previous studies mentioned in literature

and cross section and base maps are used to characterize the aquifer
framework and flow dynamics.

Lithologic units will be characterized for their hydraulic properties. Pumping

test data and reliable analysis results of the existing wells will be used to define
the hydraulic properties of the lithologic units. For conceptualization of spatial
and stratigraphic aquifer variations, hydraulic properties of lithologic units
(permeability and porosity) of rocks will be mapped and the relations will be
set. In doing so, water level, hydraulic property and hydrogeological and
structural controls on cross sections will be constructed for local, intermediate
and regional flow systems.

19
 1.9.2. Sub-Surface Hydrological Models Using Swat-Modflow
Model

Hydrological processes governed by a large number of variables such as

terrain, land use, soil characteristics and the state of the moisture in the soil,
hydrogeological inputs. Moreover, it simulates hydrological outputs based on
an input to the model.

1.9.3. SWAT-MODFLOW Setup and Description

It is a new-coupled hydrologic model that combines SWAT and MODFLOW to

provide a comprehensive coupled hydrologic model for watershed systems.
SWAT performs operations for land surface hydrology, soil hydrology, and
surface water hydrology and MODFLOW performs operations for groundwater
hydrology and interactions between groundwater and surface water.

Solution of MODFLOW requires input parameters and boundary conditions,

including soil water content, lateral flow, groundwater recharge,
evapotranspiration, and water uptake. Those boundary conditions could be
specified by model user. In addition, MODFLOW has the modeling capability to
simulate some surface-subsurface interactive processes, including prescribed
recharge and linear dependence of recharge in groundwater and surface water
heads (Furman, 2008).

In this study, the groundwater system is simulated numerically by means of the

well-known MODFLOW groundwater flow model (McDonald & Harbaugh, 1988).

While SWAT includes both shallow and deep aquifers in the watershed-scale
water balance, it does not simulate the temporal and spatial variations in
groundwater components. In addition, SWAT has limitations in dealing

20
with groundwater flow with spatially distributed parameters such as
hydraulic conductivity. Without a comprehensive simulation of surface
hydrologic processes, conversely, MODFLOW may not accurately estimate the
groundwater recharge rates. SWAT components of surface runoff,
streamflow routing, reservoir management, evapotranspiration, and
agricultural activities can be calibrated to reasonably generate MODFLOW
input data of water recharge, landscape evapotranspiration, and
groundwater exploration (Figure. 4). Therefore, a coupling of the two models is
required to have a better understanding on the water movement in both
surface water and groundwater domain.

Figure 2-4.Hydrologic components and water flows in the coupled SWAT –

MODFLOW

21
SWAT and MODFLOW will be coupled by following the four procedures listed
below:

I. Landscape characterization and SWAT parameterization. Watershed

delineation will be conducted based on Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and
stream network maps. The sub-basins, rivers, and reservoirs in the study
area will be geo-referenced.
II. Horizontally, a grid system will be developed as computational units for
MODFLOW simulations.
III. Under the same geographic projection, a mapping table between the
computational units for surface water (sub-basins) and groundwater
(grid cells) will be developed. Since sub-basin areas will be usually larger
than groundwater grid cells, one-to-many mapping from the sub-basins
to the grid cells will be implemented in this study. Hydrologic
components such as ET and recharge will be calculated at HRU level,
then summarized and evenly distributed over the groundwater cells in
the sub-basin.
IV. SWAT-predicted groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration, and
groundwater pumping will be assigned to the grid cells for MODFLOW
simulation according to the mapping table. At the same time, the predicted
groundwater components such as water table will be transferred to surface
water modeling for the determination of groundwater exploration, soil water
content, and associated processes such as plant growth and
evapotranspiration.

1.9.4. Overview of Swat-Modflow Code Structure

Both SWAT and MODFLOW are written in the FORTRAN programming

language. The MODFLOW model is called as a subroutine within the SWAT
code. It replaces the original SWAT groundwater subroutines, and hence these
subroutines are not active when MODFLOW is being used. By default, the

22
MODFLOW model is called daily. However, any frequency can be specified in
the swatmf_link.txt file. The following figure shows the structure of the code.
Within the daily SWAT loop, all subbasins calculations are performed first,
followed by mapping variables to the MODFLOW grid cell, running MODFLOW,
and then mapping variables back to SWAT. Routing of surface return flow and
groundwater return flow through the watershed stream network then can be
performed for that day.

23
 Result and Discussion
1.10. Introduction

The topographic map, land-use land-cover map, soil map and geologic maps of
the basin as well as the satellite images, different scale will be used as base
maps for the hydrogeological study and mapping.GIS techniques and Modflow
computer programs are used to process, interpret, and present the data
collected in the office and the field.

Groundwater potential is dependent on rainfall, topographic map, land-use

land-cover map, soil map, geologic maps and so on at different level. Analytical
hierarchy process method is applied in order to produce groundwater potential
map based on existing maps and different maps developed depending on the
study area condition. Each thematic layer is first classified into five different
class, the relative effect of each thematic layer on groundwater potential is
determined. In this method different maps are used in the analysis. Each maps
analyzed are reclassified to five different hierarchies namely very good, good,
moderate, poor and very poor potential groups. Finally, by weighted overlay of
thematic layers groundwater potential maps is produced and interpreted.

In addition to producing groundwater potential map with qualitative scale,

existing well data (major existing well discharge, static water level and water
level) are mapped spatial.

1.11. Water points

1.12. Thematic Layers

1.12.1. Rainfall

Rainfall is the major source to recharge groundwater. Part of the rain water
reaches ground, is infiltrated into the soil and part of this infiltrated water is
utilized in filling the soil moisture deficiency while the remaining portion

24
percolates down to reach the water table, which is termed as rainfall recharge
to the aquifer (Kumar, 2012). Rainfall is the most important factoraffecting
ground water potential/recharge.

Value (mm) Class in word Class in Number

0-700mm Very poor 1
700mm-1000mm Poor 2
1000-1200 Moderate 3
1200-1500 Good 4
>1500 Very Good 5
Table 1Rainfall and its rank as per suitable for groundwater potential and
recharge

25
 35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

³
9° N
Omo-Gibe basin Annual rainfall in SNNPRS
9° N
High : 1614.94

Low : 666.256

8° N 8° N

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-5 Mean Annual Rainfall of Omo Gibe in SNNPRS

26
 35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

Omo-Gibe basin reclassified Annual rainfall in SNNPRS

9° N 1 Very Poor
2 Poor
3 Moderate
4 Good
³ 9° N

5 Very Good

8° N 8° N

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-6Weighted Class of Mean Annual Rainfall of Omo Gibe in SNNPRS

27
 1.12.1. Land-use Land-cover

Agricultural land close grown covers 55% (32018.05 square Kilometer) of the
total area, Forest-evergreen, covers 16% (9308.62 square Kilometer), Pasture-
land cover 14% (8371.41 square Kilometer) and Shrub-land cover 12.88%
(7494.95 square Kilometer) of total area. The remaining land-use land-cover
includes bare-land, residential area and waterbody. Different land-use land-
cover have different effect on infiltration/runoff.Waterbody and forest
areweighted as very good, shrub-land as good, Pasture land as moderate,
cultivated land as poor and bare land and residential area as very poor
potential for infiltration/recharge.

Name of LULC Class in Word Class in

Number
Forest Evergreen and Very Good 5
Waterbody
Shrub Land Good 4
Residential area and Bare-land Very Poor 1
Pasture land Moderate 3
Agriculturalland close grown Poor 2
Table 2 Landuse Landcover classification

28
 36° E 37° E 38° E

³
Omo-Gibe Land-use Land-cover map in SNNPRS
Water Body
Shrub Land
Residential Area
Pasture Land
Forest-Evergreen
8° N 8° N
Bare Land
Agriculture Land-Close-grown

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

4° N 4° N
36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-7Land-use Land-Cover in Omo-Gibe SNNPRS

29
 36° E 37° E 38° E

Omo-Gibe Reclasssified Land-use Land-Cover

5 Very Good
4 Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
8° N 8° N
1 Very Poor

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-8 Weighted classes of Land-use Land-Cover in Omo-Gibe SNNPRS

30
 1.12.2. Slope

The slope map of the study area was prepared from Digital Elevation Model
(DEM)with 20m spatial resolution data using the spatial analysis tool in ArcGIS
10.2. Slope ranging from gentle 0-2deg (i.e. flat to gentle slope) to steep (>15
deg) are classified into five classes. Because water cannot get enough time to
infiltrate to the ground on steep slope part of watershed, the steep slope
corresponds to high runoff and flat/gentle slope part allows more water
infiltration than producing more runoff. Slope ranging from 0-2 deg weighted
as very good and slope greater than 15 deg weighted very poor as it is shown in
table below.
Classes Slope in degree Class in Number
Very Poor >15 1
Poor 10-15 2
Moderate 4-10 3
Good 2-4 4
Very Good 0-2 5
Table 3Reclassified Slope range for determining groundwater potential

31
 36° E 37° E 38° E

Omo Gibe Slope reclassified in SNNPRS

High : 86.3704

8° N Low : 0 8° N

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-9 Slope of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS

32
 36° E 37° E 38° E

Omo Gibe Slope reclassified in SNNPRS

5 Very Good
4 Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
8° N 8° N
1 Very Poor

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-10Weighted class of slope of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS

33
 1.12.3. Soil

Soils are most important factor influencing infiltration of water into ground
which directly affects groundwater recharge. Sandy soils have high infiltration
capacity low runoff potential whereas clay soil have low infiltration
capacity(Chow, et al., 1988). Clay and clay loam soils are fine textured soils
and sandy clay loam soils are medium textured soil (FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-
CAS/JRC, 2009). The study area dominant soil textural class is clay which is
reclassified as very poor (very low infiltration capacity group) for groundwater
potential. The remaining soil group clay loam is classified as poor (low
infiltration capacity) and Sandy clay loam soil is classified as good hence the
ratio of sand is more than 50 % and clay is less than 25% (good infiltration
capacity).

Name of Soil Textural Class Class in Word Value in Number

Clay Very Poor 1
Water Very Good 5
Sandy loam/Loam Good 4
Table 4 Reclassified Soil for determining groundwater potential

34
 36° E 37° E 38° E

Omo Gibe Slope reclassified in SNNPRS

Clay
loam sandy
sandy loam/Loam
8° N 8° N
water

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-11Omo-Gibe Soil Class

35
 Reclassified Soil
1-Very Poor

4 Good

5 Very Good

³
Figure 3-12Soil map classified for groundwater potential mapping

36
 1.12.4. Geology

JimmaVolcanic (lower part); Flood basalt with minor salic flows (Pib);- The
Lower basalt flows also contains basaltic pyroclastics especially in the valley
of Omo to the east & west lying on the trachte. The basalts in this area are fine
grained, dark grey and slightly weathered, and show 7 to 6 meter thickness,
with sharp contact forming successions of 12 layers. The pyroclasts are topped
by fine grained basalt layer. The lower basalt flows are also exposed in the
lower coarse of Gilgel Gibe, to the east of Gibe & around Agaro and to the
extreme southwest part of the map area. Around Agaro, olivine-pyroxene-
plagioclase phyric basalt is exposed. The rock is medium grained, dark grey,
massive & compact rock (Haro, et al., 2012).

Jimma Volcanics (Upper part); Rhyolite and trachyte and tuff with minor basalt
(PJr);- The upper basalt is continuation of plateau basalt of central Ethiopia.
They are fissure eruption covering vast areas. At places similar rock units form
minor hill tops. The basalt is at places interlayered with thin trachyte flows and
lesser pyroclasts (subaerial tuffs) and ash flow tuffs (Haro, et al., 2012).
Lower basalt traditionally called Ashangie and Upper basalt called as Aiba,
Alaji, Termaber. Generally the basal (Ashangie) unit (lower basalt) shows the
least groundwater potential owing to closure of the porosities by deep
weathering and isolation of the unit from recharge by overlying cap. The upper
sequence of the basalt which forms the ‘plateau proper’ has highest
groundwater storage and recharge owing to well-developed fractures and
connection to modern day recharge. The upper basalt units exposed in the
south western Ethiopia are also located under highest rainfall condition leading
to well-developed regoliths which allow shallow groundwater circulation and
storage and enhanced recharge (Kebede, 2013).

Layered hornblende and biotite gneisses are found at southern part of Maji
highlands. Predominantly composed of grey, fine to medium grained granular

37
to foliated gneisses. This unit also contains minor amounts of interlayered
amphibolite calc-silicate gneisses, granitoid gneiss outcrops east of
Gogarariver. A large body of granitoidorthogneiss underlies the rugged ridges
extending southwest from the Maji highlands. In the central outcrops, the
rocks are mainly massive or weakly foliated. The predominant rock is a dark
low weathering, fine-grained amphibole bearing schists, locally grading to
thinly layered parts. It is intimately associated with smaller amounts of
fedspatic schists, chlorite and schists (Alemayehu, 2006).

The metamorphic rocks exposed in the western and southern part of the
country are located within the area of favourable climatic conditions where
rainfall is high. However, their water holding properties are poor as witnessed
by the springs, which emerge from the contact between overburden soils and
the massive gneisses (Alemayehu, 2006).

NazretSeries (Nn) rocks are younger post-rift rocks. The Nazret series in the
area form rift shoulder deposits. The Nazret series is a name given for thick
succession of welded ignimbrite, minor basalt and rhyolite flows (Haro, et al.,
2012). The Nazareth series volcanics because of their low permeability and
storage properties act as local aquifers of low yields or act as regional confining
layer for the Plateau series units. Intrusive rocks in the study area are low
productive area, PR2b and AR1 and Arb geologic formations are highly
productive aquifer (Kebede, 2013)(see appendix).

According to Kebede (2013) Quaternary basalts are the most productive

aquifers system which is characterized with plenty of vesicles and highly
weathering. The relative occurrence of high discharge springs and wells implies
its potential for bearing of high ground water. Groundwater occurrence in the
broad Ethiopian volcanic plateau is in phreatic condition in the weathered zone
above the hard rock and in semi-confined to confided condition in the fissures,
fractures, joints, cooling cracks, lava flow junctions and in the inter-trappean

38
beds between successive lava flows, within the hard rock. Highly productive,
yield of wells reach 20 l/s, discharge takes place to rivers and fracture springs,
Elsewhere in Ethiopia the quaternary volcanics are highly productive with dual
porosity nature.

Palaeozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks posses both primary and secondary
permeability that play important role in the occurrence and movement of
groundwater.Potential aquifers can be found in Enticho sandstones within the
most superficial horizons notably weathered and significantly reworked or
within more distinctly conglomeratic intercalations at different depths; deep
aquifers or peculiar highly productive springs may be found at the contact
between Lower Sandstone and the impervious glacial deposits. The main
recharge to the Enticho sandstone comes from the overlying Trap basalts that
slowly feed the underlying sandstone (Alemayehu, 2006).

Identified geologic formations in the area (source Ethiopian Geologic Survey)

are presented below.

Label Geology Terrain

ARa Awata Group; Biotite, homblende, sillimante- ARCHEAN
gamet, calc-silicate and quartzo-feldspathic
gneisses, marbel and granulite
ARb Baro group; Biotite, homblende-biotite, gamet-
amphibole, garnet-sillimarite, calc-silicate and
muscovite gneisses
ARk Konso Group; Homblende, pyroxene, granet-
pyroxene gneisses and amphobolite with minor
metasedimentary gneis
ARl Alghe group; Biotite, homblende gneisses, granulite
and Mumatite with Minor metasedimentary
gneisses
ARy yavello Group; Quartzo-feldsphatic gneiss and  
granulite
gt1 pre-tectonic and syn-tectonic granite PRECAMBRIAN AND
gt2 Syn-tectonic granite PHANEROZOIC
gt3 late to post tectonic granite INTRUSIVE ROCKS
gt5 Alkali granite and stenite
Nb Mursi and bofabaslat; alkaline basalt Pliocene-Pleitocene
Nn Nazret series; ignimbrites, unwelded tuff, ash flows, PRECAMBRIAN AND

39
 rhyolitic flos, demos and trachyte PHANEROZOIC
INTRUSIVE ROCKS
NQ Undivided Lacustrine and Fluvial sediments; Sand, Pliocene-Pleitocene
silt gravel Conglomerate (Omo Group and Hadar
Formations)
Ntb Tarmabermegezez formation; transitional and alkali middle-miocene
basalt
Nts Teltele and surma basalt; flood basalts middle-miocene
Pjb Jimma Volcanics (lower part); Flood basalt with LATE EOCENE - LATE
minor salic flows OLIGOCENE

Pjr Jima Volcanics (Upper part); Rhyolite and trachyte LATE EOCENE - LATE
and tuff with minor basalt OLIGOCENE
PNmb Mekonnen Basalts; Flood basalts, Commonly OLIGOCENE -
directly overlaying the chrystalline basement MIOCENE
Q Alluvial and lacustrine deposite; sand, silt, clay. Quaternary
Diatomite, limestoione and beach snad
Qb Basalt flows, spatter cones and hyalolastites; alkali
olivine basalt
Qh Undifferentiated alluvial, lacustrine and beach
sediments
Qr Rhyolitic volcanic centers, obsidian pitchstone,
pumice, ignimbrite, tuff, subordinated trachytic
flows (Predominantly peralkaline in composition)

Table 5 Geologyical formation and Terrian of Baro Akobo in SNNPRS (source

Ethiopian Geologic Survey)

 Geology Class in Word Value in Number

Very Poor 1
gt2/gt1/gt5/gt3/Nn/Ntb/Nts/Nb
Poor 2
Pjb
Moderate 3
PNmb/Pjr
Good 4
ARl/NQ/ARb/ARa/ARk/ARy
Very good 5
Q/Qr/Qb/Qh

Table 6 Reclassified geology for groundwater potential

40
 35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

³
Omo_Gibe Basin Geologic Map in SNNPRS
ARa
ARb
ARk
ARl
8° N 8° N
ARy
gt1
gt2
gt3
gt5
Nb
7° N 7° N
Nn
NQ
Ntb
Nts
Pjb
Pjr
6° N 6° N
PNmb
Q
Qb
Qh
Qr

5° N 5° N

4° N 4° N
35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-13Geology map for groundwater potential mapping in Omo-Gibe in

SNNPRS

41
 35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

³
Omo_Gibe Basin Geologic Map in SNNPRS
1 Very poor
2 Poor
3 Moderate
4 Good
8° N 8° N
5 Very Good

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

4° N 4° N
35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-14Reclassified Geology map for groundwater potential mapping in

Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS

42
 1.12.5. Geomorphology

High elevation mountainous area result higher runoff and lower infiltration.
Hence, highest elevations are classified as very poor class and the lowest
elevation areaare classified as Very good potential area for groundwater. The
remaining three part in between highest level to lowest part of each sub basin
is classified in poor, moderate and good portion from high elevation to low.
Accordingly the classified geomorphology classified map is presented below.

43
 35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

³
Elevation
299 - 945.2 (5-Very good)
945.21 - 1,591.4 (4-Good)
1,591.5 - 2,237.6 (3-Moderate)
2,237.7 - 2,883.8 (2- Poor)
8° N 8° N
2,883.9 - 3,530 (1-Very Poor)

7° N 7° N

6° N 6° N

5° N 5° N

4° N 4° N
35° E 36° E 37° E 38° E

Figure 3-15Reclassified Geomorphologic map of the Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS

44
 1.12.6. Lineament Density

Lineaments are structural discontinuity of earth surface like faults, joints and
foliations linear features on the surface. The lineaments map taken for this
study is fromEthiopian geologic survey. Lineament affects groundwater
recharge and discharge. In this study area lineament density is calculated
using line density in ArcGis tool. High lineament density is related to highly
suitable groundwater potential/recharge since it allows water transmission to
subsurface formations.
Factors Km/km2 Class in Class in Word
Lineament 0 -0.01 Number
1 VeryPoor
0.01-0.05 2 Poor
Density
0.05−0.1 3 Moderate
0.1 –0.15 4 Good
>0.15 5 VeryGood

Table 7Omo-Gibe Linemants density classification inSNNPRS

45
 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

8°0'0"N
Linemaent density map
High : 0.284

Low : 0
³ 8°0'0"N

7°0'0"N 7°0'0"N

6°0'0"N 6°0'0"N

5°0'0"N 5°0'0"N

36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Figure 3-16 Lineament density map of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS (Developed from

Ethiopian Geologic Survey Geology Map)

46
 35°0'0"E 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Lineament density reclassified

1 Very Poor
9°0'0"N 9°0'0"N
2 Poor
3 Moderate
4 Good
5 Ver Good

8°0'0"N 8°0'0"N

7°0'0"N 7°0'0"N

6°0'0"N 6°0'0"N

5°0'0"N 5°0'0"N

35°0'0"E 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Figure 3-17 Weighted class of Lineament density

47
 1.12.7. Drainage density

Drainage density is calculated at smaller watershed level dividing streams

length in watershed to the area of each smaller watershed. Larger drainage
density indicate low infiltration area which results higher runoff. Hence lower
drainage density value within watershed indicate very good groundwater
potential/recharge and higher drainage density relates to very poor
groundwater potential/recharge zone. Accordingly the study area is classified
into five classes of groundwater potential/ recharge area depending on
drainage density as indicated in table below.

Factors Km/km2 Rank Rankinwords

DrainageDens ≤ 0.22 5 Veryhigh
ity
0.22−0.24 4 High
0.24 −0.26 3 Moderate
0.26−0.28 2 Low
≥ 0.28 1 Verylow
Table 8 Drainage Density Classsification

48
 35°0'0"E 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

drainage density within the study area

9°0'0"N 9°0'0"N
High : 0.314608

Low : 0.205026
³
8°0'0"N 8°0'0"N

7°0'0"N 7°0'0"N

6°0'0"N 6°0'0"N

5°0'0"N 5°0'0"N

36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Figure 3-18 Drainage density map Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS

49
 35°0'0"E 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Reclassified drainage density within the study area

9°0'0"N
1 Very Poor 9°0'0"N

³
2 Poor
3 Moderate
4 Good
5 Very Good

8°0'0"N 8°0'0"N

7°0'0"N 7°0'0"N

6°0'0"N 6°0'0"N

5°0'0"N 5°0'0"N

36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Figure 3-19Reclassified drainage density map of Omo-Gibe in SNNPRS

50
 1.12.8. Groundwater potential mapping

Analytical hierarchy process/ Weighted overlay is applied in order to produce

groundwater potential map based on produced existing maps and different
thematic maps developed depending on the study area condition. In this
method different maps are used in the analysis. Each maps analyzed are
reclassified to five different hierarchies namely very good, good, moderate, poor
and very poor potential groups. Pairwise comparison among the thematic
layers on groundwater potential/recharge, weight for selected thematic layers
and comparison matrix and normalized weight are given in tables below.
No Thematic layer Theme Weight Converted Weight
. (100%)
1 Rainfall 5 15
2 Geology 5 15
3 LULC 4.5 14
4 Geomorphology 4 12
5 Lineament Density 4 12
6 Slope 3.5 11
7 Soil 3.5 11
8 Drainage Density 3 10

Table 9pairwise comparison matrix and normalized weight

51
 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Groundwater potential map of Omo Gibe in SNNPRs

2 Poor

3 Moderate

4 Good
8°0'0"N 8°0'0"N
5 Very Good

7°0'0"N 7°0'0"N

³
6°0'0"N 6°0'0"N

5°0'0"N 5°0'0"N

36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Figure 3-20 Groundwater Potential map of Omo-Gibe developed by weighted

overlay from thematic maps of the area

52
1.13. Water Points Inventory for the Basin
This part of the work includes collection of all the available data of deep wells,
shallow wells, cold springs and hot springs from the existing documents
including reports, research articles and other sources such as water bureau
and south waters works. Based on this the 500 point data of deep wells,
shallow wells, cold springs and hot springs are organized for the preparation of
spatial maps and analysis of the groundwater situation of the basin (Figure 3-
11).

53
 Figure 3-21: Groundwater source inventory sites

1.14. Aquifer Classification

In an area where there is inadequate subsurface information to define the

hydraulic characteristics of the individual lithologies, it is not easy to decide in
advance which geological unit is a useful aquifer or a useful aquiclude. This
problem is more pronounced when dealing with non-sedimentary rocks. This

54
problem can be approached conceptually in terms of the likely characteristics
of the permeability-storativity system in the rocks. For example, sedimentary
rocks, and some volcanoclastic rocks, are generally considered to have an
intergranular permeability-storativity system, whereas non-sedimentary rocks
may have a range of characteristics.

Based on the physical characteristics, the basic volcanic rock masses could be
considered as having a double permeability-storativity systems. Such a system
could result from

i) the presence of permeable, granular sediments interbedded with the

lavas
ii) jointed blocks, forming a relatively small scale fracture network.
These components act in conjunction with the main permeable fracture and
fault systems to form the double permeability-storativity system.

Basement crystalline rocks and acidic volcanic rocks are considered as having
a single permeability-storativity system. The ground water flow in these rocks
is controlled by the network of open fissures, with the mass permeability
depending on factors such as the number, length, width, depth and the degree
of inter-communication between the fractures. Based on the above concepts,
the various geological units in the Omo-Gibe Basin are broadly classified into
three aquifer systems, namely:

i) single permeability-storativity
ii) double permeability-storativity
iii) intergranular permeability-storativity systems

Each system in turn could be sub-divided further depending on recorded yield,

areal extent, topographical features and availability of recharge, thicknesses of
lava flows, fracture characteristics, thicknesses of clay mantle, etc. In the
present analysis, all these factors are taken into consideration while classifying
the permeability and productivity of the rock units.

55
Figure 3-22: Aquifer Types of Omo Gibe Basin of SNNPRS

1.14.1. Intergranular aquifer system

The Quaternary superficial deposits and the sediments of the Omo Group
represent this aquifer system. The permeability of these sediments is generally
high to moderate, but the depth to the saturated aquifer, productivity and
56
quality of water could vary from one unit to the other. The following
summarises the characteristics of the intergranular aquifer systems in the
Basin.
i) Very highly permeable alluvial and colluvial aquifers of the Danan
Plain (Q3), comprising sands and gravels. Generally, the ground
water table does not exceed about 50 mbgl, and boreholes yield at
least 4 litres/second of excellent quality ground water with
drawdowns of only 4 m. The recommended depth of drilling is 50-100
mbgl.

ii) Highly Permeable fan deposits (Q1) composed of sand and gravely
beds at least 40 m thick, having calculated transmissivities of the
order of 60 m2/day. Good quality water has been abstracted from
depths of 25-40 mbgl.

iii) Highly Permeable, thick (50 m), sandy aquifer of the Gojeb and
Gilgel Gibe depressions (Q4) yields 1.0-3.0 litres/second, with
transmissivity varying between 0.6-2.2 m 2/day. Drilling to a depth of
about 50 mbgl is recommended to achieve full aquifer penetration.

iv) Highly Permeable aeolian sands and coarse fluviatile sediments

within the 90 m thick Nkalabong Formation (NPon). These
aquiferous sediments are confined by an aquiclude formed from
tuffaceous sediments, which may give rise to artesian conditions.
Optimum recommended depth of drilling is 50-90 mbgl.

v) Highly permeable sands and gravels interbedded, in a 760 m thick

sequence, with clay silts, tuffs, marls and fresh water limestone beds
of the Shungura Formation (NQos). Depth to saturated aquifer
could be more than 200 meters.

vi) Highly permeable, 150 m thick sediments of the Mursi Sediments

(NPom1) composed of clay, silts and sands with intercalations of tuff.
These underlie the 100 m thick Mursi Basalts, although recharge of
the sediments may be facilitated through fissures in the basalt.
Drilling through the basalt into the saturated aquifer is required, that
is to depths of 100-200 mbgl.

vii) Moderately permeable, fluviatile silty sand aquifer (Q2). Clayey

silts (35 m thick) and marl beds confine ground water in the silty

57
 sand aquifer at depths of 40 to 70 m. Although conditions could be
artesian, the water quality may be poor.

viii)Moderately permeable, 200 m thick fluvial and lacustrine sediments

of Usno Formation (NPou) composed of white sand with
intercalations of tuff horizons. Development of both shallow (0-50m)
and deep ground water (up to 200m) might be possible.

ix) Moderately permeable sediments of the Kibbish Formation (Qk)

about 120 m thick. The sediments are alternating clays, silts and
sand, becoming more permeable in its upper units. The
recommended depth of drilling is 30 to 70 mbgl.

x) Poorly permeable, thinly stratified, very thick silt and clay of

lacustrine origin (Q5). These contain ground water at shallow levels,
but the sediments are poorly permeable and the ground water is of
poor quality.

1.14.2. Double permeability-storativity aquifer system

In this category are basic volcanic rocks and ignimbrites that could be divided
into aquifer sub-classes ranging from very low to very high permeability and
productivity potentials.
 Highly permeable Makonnen Basalt (Pom), up to 700 m thick, crops
out in a high recharge area, but its upper 40-50 m may be weathered
to a clayey sediment. The unweathered, jointed basalt has measured
transmissivities of 0.67 - 54 m2/day and yields of 0.5 to 5.0
litres/second of good quality water have been achieved. Under
favourable conditions of recharge and aquifer penetration, the
optimum recommended depth of drilling is 40-100 mbgl.

 Highly permeable volcanic sand of the Nazareth Group (NMn)

intercalated with trachyte, rhyolite, ignimbrite, tuff and minor basalt
flows. These volcanic sands are the principal aquifers with yields up
to 4 litres/second, transmissivity is high (18-40 m 2/day), but water
tables are generally deep (60m). Recommended depth of drilling is
100-150 mbgl.

 Highly permeable, ’undifferentiated Flood Basalts’ (Pv), mainly

composed of degraded basalts with minor rhyolite, trachyte, tuff and
ignimbrite. These have transmissivities of up to 25m 2/day and

58
 potentially large storage properties. Deep boreholes into the basalts
and ignimbrite could yield up to 4 litres/second.

 Highly permeableMursi Basalt (NPom2) which is up to 100 m thick

and areally extensive on the Omo plain. It has thin columnar joints
and thin layers of lava flows, which may allow recharge of the
underlying Mursi sediments (Section 6.1).

 Moderate permeability Lower Felsic Volcanics and Sedimentary

Formation (PNv1), dominantly trachytes, welded tuffs (ignimbrite)
with basalts at the bottom. The ignimbrite is the primary aquifer
yielding 0.1-0.2 litres/second from springs and dug wells and 0.3-3
litres/second from boreholes, but transmissivity is poor (3 m 2/day)
which may result in large drawdowns. Recommended depth of drilling
is 50 -100 mbgl.

 Moderately permeable sandy pyroclastic sediments of the

Pleistocene-Holocene Volcanic group (Qv1), which are interbedded
with massive trachy-rhyolite horizons, are the primary aquifers.
Boreholes located in sunken areas have their water levels >100 mbgl.
The boreholes may yield up to 3 litres/second but drawdown could
exceed 70 m due to low transmissivities (1.3 m 2/day). Recommended
depth of drilling is in the range of 150-200 mbgl.

 Poorly permeable - Upper Felsic Volcanics (PNv2) which form high

relief, rugged topography. Although they are fractured and faulted,
the very few springs that exist discharge at only 0.05 to 0.3
litres/second.

1.14.3. Single permeability-storativity fissured hard rock

aquifers

All Precambrian basement rocks are considered to be poorly permeable.

However, fractures in granite, diorite, pegmatite and gneiss of the high plateau
and their weathered products yield large quantities of very good quality water.
Schists and phyllites may yield limited groundwater (<0.5 litres/second). The
distribution of fissured hard rock aquifers and aquifers formed by their
weathered products dominant distribution in the south of the Basin (MoWR,
2010).

59
1.15. Ground Water Depth and Flow Direction

A water table contour map of an aquifer is a very vital tool in groundwater

studies as one can derive from it the gradient and the direction of the
groundwater flow. It is a graphic representation of the hydraulic gradient of the
potentiometric surface. Hence the direction of the groundwater flow, being
perpendicular to the equipotential lines, can be directly deduced from these
maps. Furthermore, an effluent (gaining) or influent (losing) from a source
(upper lands or river) and artesian effect can be determined using these maps
(Freeze and cherry, 1979).

The groundwater level map of the basin is made based on static water level
where Subtracting static water level from surface elevation for boreholes can
generate groundwater depth. The groundwater depth of springs is controlled
either by slope break or fracture lines and therefore for better understanding
data on boreholes is used. The groundwater depth depends mainly on
topography, deeper near mountains and partially penetrated wells, but is
shallow around highly fractured aquifers both in highlands and lowlands. The
depth generally ranges from 0 to 15m in the basin based on the data set for
static water level measured and obtained from boreholes, hand dug wells and
spring water levels, this values doesn’t represent the depth of ground water in
the basin it needs further investigation. This data set is very important tool to
produce the groundwater contour map and perpendicular flow direction to
contours.

60
Figure 3-23: Groundwater level map of the study area

The groundwater movement in the Omo Gibe BasinBasin is generally in the

same direction as the drainage.

61
Figure 3-24: Shallow well sites from existing data (depth of aquifers in the area) for
Omo-Gibe basin

62
 36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

#
#
##

#
#
8°0'0"N 8°0'0"N
#
#
#
# # #
#
##
#
##

##
7°0'0"N 7°0'0"N
#

# ##
#
#
#
# #

6°0'0"N 6°0'0"N

# Groundwater depth
40.16 - 61.61
61.62 - 70.96
70.97 - 80.31
80.32 - 91.32
5°0'0"N 91.33 - 102.3 5°0'0"N
102.4 - 116.6
#
116.7 - 134.2
134.3 - 152.4
# 152.5 - 180.4
# Deepwell

36°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 38°0'0"E

Figure 3-25 Deep well sites from existing data (depth of aquifers in the area) for
Omo-Gibe basin

63
1.16. Groundwater Recharge
The recharge to groundwater is estimated between 23-145mm/year. The
general recharge to groundwater from rainfall was estimated on the basis of
the estimated recharge values and presented in Figure 3-21.

64
 Figure 3-26: Groundwater rechargezonemap of thestudyarea

1.17. Groundwater Potential of The Basin

From the past, many years wells and springs have been used as potable water
sources and sources for irrigation depends on the potential of the Study area.
Therefore, the identification of a good aquifer which satisfies the above
mentioned criteria shall be put in first priority. The investigation of
groundwater potential shall be clarified by the distribution of good aquifers, as
well as its quality and quantity as an aquifer unit (JICA, 2013).

65
Figure 3-27: Groundwter potential/yield of Omo Gibe Basin

The groundwater potential of Omo Gibe River Basin of Southern Nations

Nationalities Regional State is delineated based on the amount of recharge the
area gets, the distribution of fractures and faults, distribution of springs of
variable yields and depth and yield of boreholes. Based on the integration of
these parameters, the groundwater potential zones are classified to be high
potential, moderate potential and low potential zones (Figure 3-22). The study
area has been divided into five groundwater potential zones and explained as

66
‘Vey high (>20l/s)’, ‘High (5-20l/s)’, ‘moderate (1-5l/s)’, ‘low (0.5-1 l/s)’ and
‘very low (<0.5l/s).

Area (km2)
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
VERY HIGH (>20 High (5-20 l/s) Medium (0.5 -5 Low (0.5-1 l/s) Very Low (<0.5)
l/s) l/s)

Area (km2)

Figure 3-28: Ground Water Yield Class for Omo-Gibe basin in SNNPRS

Delineation of ground water in the Basin (Figure 3-21 and 3-22) showed the
depth range of the aquifers and mostly similar to potential map of the area.
High groundwater potential zone of the basin found in the southern part of the
basin.

In the final analysis, many of the above points have been drawn together to
identify prospective ground water resource development regions. Within the
Omo-Gibe Basin, five main prospective regions are considered for ground water
development by various methods.

I. The high basic volcanic mountains. These are areas occupied by the
Makonnen Basalt (POm) in the north-west and the degraded part of the
‘Flood Basalts’ (Pv) in the south-eastern parts of the Basin. In the
former, very good quality ground water could be obtained by drilling
moderately deep boreholes (40 to 100 m deep). In the latter, drilling in
intermundane valleys or spring capture from the highlands could

67
 provide large quantities of ground water. However, possible Pv basalts
in the Bako area suggest that large yields may not always be obtained.
II. The alluvial plains (Q3, Q4). These sediments occur in the sunken
areas in Gojeb and Gilgel Gibe valleys as well as in the tectonic
grabens between Sodo and Jinka towns. In the graben, large volumes
of good quality water could be abstracted from a depth of 50-100
meters with very little drawdown. In the Gojeb and Gilgel Gibe valleys,
though not as much as in the former area, significant ground water
yields could be obtained from a shallow depth of 50 meters, but since
this area is susceptible to environmental pollution care should be
taken in the design of boreholes and hand dug wells. In addition,
drilling in this area showed that the sediments were mainly clay-rich
non-aquifers (MoWR, 2010).
III. The eastern piedmont plains. These areas are generally covered by
silica volcanic interbedded by highly permeable pyrociastic sands of
the Nazareth Group (MMn). Since the ground water table is generally
deep (>60m), boreholes may need to be deep (100-150m), however a
large groundwater potential exists.
IV. The lower Omo alluvial fan deposits (Q1). In contrast to the flood
plains, the fan deposit areas both on the east and western margins of
the Turkana Basin could provide moderately good quality and quantity
of ground water from shallow depths. Technical difficulties could occur
during drilling as a result of caving and circulation loss. Care should
be taken to avoid these problems as well as the possibilities of
encountering saline water with increased depth of drilling.
V. The Gurage highiands and plains. These are the most densely
populated regions of the Basin. A bery thick pile of mainly silicic
volcanic (Qv1, Qv2) of this area. Lateral variations occur in the
hydrogeological parameters including, depth to water bearing unit,
yield, permeability, transmissivity, etc. with proper location of

68
 boreholes, high ground water yields could be obtained from a depth of
150-200 m. as the area is short of other water supply sources, it is
advisable to concentrate on ground water development by deep drilling
in this region.

The potential for groundwater development in the Omo-Gibe Basin is

summarized in Figure 3-23, showing that the areas of highest potential are
generally located in the southern part of the Basin. However, important areas
with high development potential also occur in the central and northern parts of
the Basin.

69
 Conclusion and recommendation
1.18. Conclusion

Groundwater potential in the study determined using analytical hierarchy

method indicates about 34503 square kilometer shows moderate potential,
10924 square kilometer shows poor potential and 7231 square kilometer
shows good potential.

The groundwater potential produced based on the amount of recharge the area
gets, the distribution of fractures and faults, distribution of springs of variable
yields and depth and yield of boreholes results 3833.918square kilometer area
yielding greater than 20l/s discharge, 6051.49 square kilometer area yielding
5-20l/s, 15192.16 square kilometer area yielding 1-5 l/s, 7547.9 square
kilometer area yielding 0.5-1 l/s and 19892.958 square kilometer area has
discharge less than 0.5 l/sec discharge.

Aquifer types based on information from water point inventory are;- sandy
gravel, weather ignimbrite, fractured basalt and Alluvial. Shallow well depth
from existing well information collected ranges from 7.34m to 13.27m and deep
well depth from existing well information collected ranges from 40.14m to
180.4m. The recharge to groundwater is estimated between 23-145mm/year.
The groundwater level map indicates that the groundwater flow direction is
similar with surface flow.

70
 1.19. Recommendation

Recommendations given after data organization, analysis and observations:-

 Irrigation water requirement is high when it is compared with domestic
water supply. Hence to get this higher discharge for areas with low
surface water potential it is recommended drill two or more wells far
enough each other so that there is no interference between wells.
 For areas selected to use groundwater as a source for irrigation it is
recommended to further investigate the resources using geophysical
investigation.
 Groundwater potential estimated within the study area which can
possible used for irrigation purpose should be monitored/Managed to
sustainably utilize the resources and avoid over exploitation.
 Data organization in water resources offices at different level should be
well organized and available when required. Well completion data at
different points have different deficiencies. Some of the data has no GPS
location, some of the data lack depth of well, some of the data lacks
static water level, some lacks discharge and so on information.
 Groundwater study requires historical groundwater level data in order to
do different analysis. This data is important to determine groundwater
recharge, detect historical change and so on. Hence, it is recommended
that water resources offices at different level should gauge groundwater
level so that it can be used when required.

71
 References
Alemayehu, T., 2006. GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE IN ETHIOPIA. Addis Ababa:
UNESCO.
Awulachew, S. B. et al., 2007. Water Resources amd Irrigation Developement in
Ethiopia. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 78p.
(Working Paper 123).
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R. & Mays, L. W., 1988. Applied Hydrology. United States
of America: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Dowgert, M. F., 2010. THE IMPACT OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE ON A STABLE FOOD
SUPPLY. Colby, Kansas, CPIA, 760 N.Thompson, pp. 1-11.
FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC, 2009. Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.1).
Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, FAO.
FAO, 2001. World Soil Resources Reports, Roma: s.n.
Furman, A., 2008. Modeling Coupled Surface-Subsurface flow Ptocesses: A Review.
Vadose Zone Journal Volume 7, Number 2, pp. 741-756.
Haro, W. et al., 2012. GEOLOGY, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND GRAVITY SURVEY OF JIMA
AREA, ADDIS ABABA: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ETHIOPIA.
Kebede, S., 2013. Groundwater in Ethiopia Features, Numbers and Opportunities,
Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer.
Kumar, C. P., 1996. Potential, Assessment of Ground Water. s.l., s.n.
Kumar, C. P., 2012. ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL. The International
Journal of Engineering And Science (IJES), I(I), pp. 64-79.
McDonald, G. & Harbaugh, A., 1988. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference
Groundwater Flow Model. s.l.:U.S Geologic Survey.

72
 Appendix
Appendix I Well Data

Sample Location UTME UTMN Altitude Statu Depth SWL Yleld Dlam( Aquifer type
No (masl) s (M) (m) (Vs) M)
1 omo rate town 17242 531184 399 Good 18 12.5   1.2 Alluvial
4
2 Wiswish 18455 808085 1944 Good 11 10   1 ignimbrite
2
3 Bonga 19554 803344 1768 Fair 0.12 7.3     ignimbrite
4
4 Chira 19603 857507 2033 Fair 12.96 6.66   1 fractured basalt
8
5 Diri 20062 815886 1759 Fair 10 9.4   1 ignimbrite
4
6 Maki ilage 21093 652553 607 V.goo 3 0.78   1.2 Alluvial
4 d
7 turmi town 22442 550369 895 Good 6.7 4   1 Sanday Gravel
6
8 Shebe 22694 831469 1868 Fair 7 6.25   0.7 ignimbrite
9
9 Yetnebersh 22860 647279 1475 Good         Basalt
Village 8
10 dimeka town 22873 572264 1079 Good 7 4 6 1.5 Sanday Gravel
1
11 Jinka 23048 640737 1547 Good 16.5 12.5   1.2 Sanday Gravel
7
12 Gazer town 23190 654118 1747 Good 12.2 10     weathered basalt
1
13 alduba village 23521 599988 1295 V.goo 5 2   1 Sanday Gravel
7 d
14 Donke Village 23593 696385 1763 poor 5.38 4.48   1 Lateritic soil
5

73
15 Sombo 23817 836477 2037 Fair 10.5 8.05   1 Sanday Gravel
3
16 BeltaVilage 23872 707343 2082 Fair 10.57 10.4   1 ignimbrite
2
17 Seka 24966 841364 1818 Fair 17.1 16.1   1 Sanday Gravel
8
18 Chida 25689 862252 1544 Good 3.3 2.55   1 Weathered
0 Ingnimbrite
19 Bulki 25751 695276 2357 Fair 4.1 3.4   1 ignimbrite
6
20 Jima town 26065 848497 1697 Fair 11.3 11   1 Lateritic soil
1
21 Dedo 26540 830283 2222 Fair 15.6 15.28   1 Welded tuff
5
22 Serbo 27694 852443 1693 Fair 6 5.4   1 Lateritic soil
8
23 Bako town 28698 100896 1602 bad 3 0.3   1.5 Alluvial
0 7
24 Mala Village 28849 707013 1195 Fair 8.1 5.4   1 fractured basalt
0
25 Sheboke town 29294 100555 1633 Fair 9.5 7.5   1.2 ignimbrite
8 6
26 Waka 29789 780953 2418 poor 11.3 10.9   1 fractured basalt
5
27 Asendabo 30449 858342 1582 Good 11.5 9.4   1 Mart
6
28 Omo Nada 30740 843461 1859 Good 9 8.42   1 Lateritic soil
8
29 ljaji 31576 993801 1678 Good 17 15   1 ignimbrite
8
30 Gedo town 32946 996413 2536 bad 14.6 14   1 fractured basalt
3
31 Kumbi town 33421 898466 1953 Fair 17 13.5   1 Lateritic soil
1

74
32 Ablti 34271 903933 1592 poor 4.5 3.9   2 weathered basalt
0
33 Doge Mashiod 34832 762382 2193 Good 16.8 16.6     Mart
5
34 Tunto 34901 979056 1590 poor 15.3 10.6   1 Lateritic soil
0
35 Wachiga 35107 746189 1747 Fair 9.55 9.2   1 Lateritic soil
3
36 Bokota village 35113 914224 1592 Good 5 3   1.2 fractured basalt
1
37 Hadaro Town 35293 795355 1775 poor 14.7 14.45   1 Lateritic soil
1
38 Shamba 35392 765745 2059 Fair 5.1 5   1 Lateritic soil
1
39 Areka 35709 781123 1718 Fair 14.7 14.45   1 Lateritic soil
4
40 Woirre village 36240 878191 2058 Fair 10.75 10.4     ignimbrite
3
41 Shinshicho 36542 796733 1803 Fair 17.8 16.7   1 trachyte
0
42 lera 37793 856372 2677 Fair 12.2 11.9   1 ignimbrite
2
43 Durame Town 37818 800263 2078 V.goo 9.4 9.1   1 Gravety clay
9 d
44 GururaGura 38132 933296 1933 Good 16 14   1.2 Sanday Gravel
Village 2
45 Agena 39126 899457 2263 Fair 5.78 4.9   1 Lateritic soil
9
46 Kile Village 39561 935900 1966 broke          
0 n
47 areke 39699 803844 2780 Fair 18 17.5   1 ignimbrite
8
48 Kotke Village 39897 934633 2177 Fair 21.5 17.7   1 Basalt
1

75
 49 Getbo Village 40561 938733 2415 Fair 7 6.6   1 ignimbrite
6
50 Bejebar 41290 896922 3172 Fair 27       ignimbrite
2

Appendix II Spring Data

Sample Location UTM E UTM N Altitude (masl) Topography Peran- States Yield Aquifer Type
No nlel (vs)
1 Waka 11699 775429 2768 Hill Sied Yes Poor aliuvial
3
2 Hana Village 18292 688782 591 Mountain Yes Poor 0.2 Freactuned basalt
8 Bottom
3 Wishiwish 18302 809232 1954 Hill bottom Yes Good v high Basalt
5
4 chira 19566 856556 2121 Hill bottom Yes Fair v high Fissured
4 ingimbrite
5 Bonga 19690 804442 1680 Hill bottom Yes Fair v high aliuvial
2
6 DekishoSuboni 20271 696207 1707 Flat land Yes Good 0.32 sandy Clay
7
7 Berka 22325 655293 1539 Hill bottom Yes Good 0.19 Freactuned basalt
8
8 Tolta 22593 661274 1660 Mountain Yes Good Freactuned basalt
1 Bottom
9 Laska 23686 697088 1781 Hill bottom Yes Fair Fissured trachyite
0
10 Sombo 23844 836568 1942 Hill bottom Yes Fair 3 ignimbrite
9
11 BeltaVilleag 23872 707527 2091 Hill bottom Yes Poor Fissured trachyite
2
12 lawke 24191 837379 1988 Hill bottom Yes Fair 4.5 trachyte
9

76
13 Minch temara 24537 645856 1414 Hill bottom Yes Fair 0.12 welded tuff
6
14 yebu 24897 860174 1833 Hill bottom Yes V.good fructured basalt
1
15 Chide 25663 793484 1614 Mountain Side Yes Poor v high Basement rock
7
16 Buki 25751 695276 2357 Hill side Yes Fair 0.12 ignimbrite
6
17 Bersa Village 26002 699721 2358 Hill bottom Yes Good 0.32 Freactuned basalt
6
18 Jawta 26767 704974 2595 Hill bottom Yes Good 0.5 ignimbrite
2
19 Ambuye 26937 882960 1613 Hill bottom Yes Good low fructured basalt
6
20 Zenga 27504 703593 1202 Hill side Yes Good 0.16 colluvial material
4
21 Ano town 27548 100620 1881 Hill bottom Yes Good v.hign Freactuned basalt
1 4
22 Getta 27663 693172 1765 Mountain Yes Good
3 Bottom
23 Giza Vilege 28275 685652 1256 Hill bottom Yes Fair 0.32 Freactuned basalt
4
24 Genda 28506 686781 1456 Hill side Yes Fair 0.07 ignimbrite
4
25 Jere Village 28776 101793 1858 Flat land Yes V.good tracthytic tuff
1 5
26 Mala Village 28793 707599 1123 Hill bottom Yes bad lateritic soil
9
27 Tutuchels 29242 102869 2550 Hill bottom Yes bad 0.3 ignimbrite
8 5
28 Kembe 29878 669406 2007 Hill side Yes 5 sendy clay
0
29 Bilbo 30046 694805 1000 Hill bottom Yes Not.deve ca.30 ignimbrite
5 .

77
30 Tutema tame 30576 775178 2289 Gully cut Yes Poor besalt
1
31 seyo 30862 969134 1745 Gully cut Yes Fair v.hign Lalarttic soil
6
32 Dobi Village 31680 973613 2005 Hill bottom Yes bad 1.2 ignimbrite
7
33 Yatudes Village 31737 927131 1548 Hill side Yes bad 0.2 Freactuned basalt
0
34 Deneba 32061 867247 1784 Hill bottom Yes Good ignimbrite
8
35 ZimeWaruma 32380 764086 1443 Hill bottom Yes Poor low Freactuned basalt
2
36 Sekoru town 32454 876754 1771 Hill bottom Yes Fair 14 Trachytic tuff
4
37 ShenenBillage 33150 965532 2461 Hill bottom Yes Fair 3 Trachyte
4
38 Bele town 33691 764812 1188 Hill bottom Yes Good high Freactuned basalt
3
39 Seltegesone 34297 828956 1855 Hill side Yes Fair v.hign ignimbrite
6
40 Sorto village 34762 763029 1938 Hill bottom Yes Good very low besalt
1
41 Wachigesho 34786 741468 1615 Hill side Yes Poor Freactuned basalt
6
42 Gimbicho 34862 821812 2041 Hill side Yes Fair 0.5 Basalt
5
43 Gununo town 35072 764402 2102 Hill side Yes Good 2 lateritic soil
5
44 Omocho 35888 850068 2084 Fair
Village 8
45 Mino 35941 798960 1960 Hill side Yes Poor low fructured basalt
4
46 Shenkola 35956 821012 2208 Hill side Yes Good v.hign Volcanic rock
9

78
 47 Serera 36667 807909 2701 Hill side Yes Fair 0.08 Trachyite
7
48 Geja 36838 862049 2155 Hill side Yes bad 0.13
9
49 Mosuto 36875 849763 2506 Hill side Yes Fair 0.5
3
50 Zato 37550 805490 2104 Hill side Yes Poor low ignimbrite
3
51 indibir 37667 901123 1840 Hill side Yes V.good 0.04 Freactuned basalt
4
52 Shumo 37820 844517 2320 Hill bottom Yes Fair 0.57 Freactuned basalt
8
53 Daran Village 37859 961805 2550 Hill bottom Yes Fair low clay/sand grevel
0
54 Chitu 38179 950955 2215 Hill side Yes bad 0.06
9
55 Woliso 38786 943291 1964 Hill bottom Yes Good 0.2
2
56 Gerbo Village 40625 938885 2327 Hill bottom Yes bad 0.5 tracytic rock
8
57 Arbcutue 41787 935821 2469 Hill bottom Yes bad low
Village 1

Appendix III Well data 2

N Location UTME UTMN Altitude Depth SWL DWL Yleld Dlam Aquifer type
o (masl) (M) (m) (m) (Vs) (MM)
1 Daba 724,874 1400.00 117.00 66.70   0.70 150.00  
339,956
2 Areka Town No1 780,290   157.00 13.20 85.90 3.00 150.00  
358,340
3 Bonga 195070 806175 1547 58.00 5.00   6.30 200.00 Ignlmbrite
4 WachingEsho No1 743,400   63.00 14.30 35.20 5.20    

79
 348,455
5 Wachiga 744,408   100.00 30.54   4.00    
350,792
6 wachigasho 743,401 1661.00            
348,455
7 Seresho 742,338 1586.00            
344,061
8 Hossaina 836,672 2270.00 150.00 120.00   10.00 200.00  
371,843
9 Wotkite town 916,329 1861.00 108.00 36.25 67.89 5.00 200.00  
365,060
10 serbo 852,445   42.00 7.00     150.00  
276,950
11 Kumbi town 333537 898284 1920 62.00 23.30     150.00 Fractured
basalt
12 workite town 916,330 1900.00 102.00 26.70 88.13 4.00 150.00  
365,060
13 Omo rate town 531,180   53.00 30.00     254.00  
172,420
14 Omo rate town 531,180   72.00 40.00     254.00  
172,420
15 Omo rate town 531,180   65.70 13.00     254.00  
172,420
16 Omo rate town 490,562   40.00 25.40     254.00  
191,079
17 Omo nada 307192 843093 1835 50.00 17.00       Ignlmbrite
18 Darge Village 931,664 1488.00            
335,896
19 Hossaina 836,485 2283.00 210.00 180.00   5.00 200.00  
372,824
20 Seka 839,091 1864.00            
249,319
21 Asendabo 303942 857852 1679 46.00 26.00     150.00 Basalt

80
22 Seka 839,062 1822.00            
248,981
23 Shebe 831,469 1868.00            
226,949
24 Serbo 276857 852720 1752 50.00 4.18     150.00 Volcanic rock
25 Nairi 888,843 1985.00            
328,204
26 Asendabo 857,850   109.00 9.78     150.00  
339,430
27 China 856,517 2064.00 45.00 1.00        
197,013
28 Wishiwish 808,420 1867.00            
185,107
29 Sekoru town 874,755   100.00 43.00   2.80 150.00  
324,875
30 Deneta 867,247 1784.00 70.00 6.24     15.00  
320,618
31 Abili 904,306 1772.00            
341,517
32 Sekoru town 874,756 1774.00            
324,874
33 Limu genet 893,380 1584.00         150.00  
274,604
34 Gerra institute 216306 862513 2003 65.00 5.60     150.00  
35 Umu genet 275615 893437 1732 50.00 17.00     150.00 Fractured
basalt
36 EWWCA off 262181 847875 1823         150.00  
37 jimmasta 261232 848318 1705 60.00 2.20     150.00 Fractured
basalt
38 Jimma Airport 259850 847764 1634 58.00 13.00     150.00 Basalt
39 WajaK.chur 359648 760907 1880            
40 Areka 357337 780293 1726 160.00 12.70   3.00 150.00 Sandy gravel
41 Sodo Town 360225 758510 1804 124.10 93.60     150.00 volcanic ash

81
42 Abonsa 380913 797738 2055          
43 Morka town 312934 710091 1246         150.00 basalt
44 Morka town 313456 709936 1178 90.00 28.00   3.70 150.00 fractured
basalt
45 Baso 328403 714128 1511           Fractured
basalt
46 Selamber 329667 715352 1420 61.00 6.35 15.10 4.00 220.00 sand with
gravel
47 Dana no-1 339956 724874 1288 117.50       150.00 gravel & sand
48 Dana no-2 341793 733469 1252 92.00 57.60 73.00 1.52 150.00 Trachyte
49 Gesube 340655 743331 1515 84.00 63.00 63.75 4.00 150.00 Wilded tuff
50 Otolo Village 293426 677565 1417           Alluvial?
51 Kersa 272700 701790 1305   0.53   2.00 150.00 Gravel
52 Sawfa 265268 696166 1298           Alluvlum
53 Mela Village 288306 707168 1196 57.00 10.90   3.00 150.00 Basalt
54 Kako Village 240029 625289 1301           Clayey sand
55 Keyafer 248718 611366 1654           Sandy gravel
56 Mukeche Village 244589 618450 1303           Sandy gravel
57 Jinka town 229526 638762 1446 67.00 7.26 24.60   200.00 Sandy gravel
58 Amechowato 369565 821598 2267          
59 Mugo 388035 866512 3074 33.00         ignimbrite
60 Kabul 392884 870585 2757 17.00 9.00     150.00 ignimbrite
61 Rembat 366848 890340 1869           ignimbrite
62 Gubre town 367290 905112 1844           Alluvial?
63 Adele kuili 2 340305 924368 1545 68.00         Basatl?
Village
64 odo Village 344758 920697 1460 52.00 35.00       Fractured
basalt
65 Wollote Town 365886 916326 1929 97.50 62.36 87.40 200.00 Sandy gravel
66 Gro town 375405 928338 1894 12.00 50.00      
67 Dilata Town 395535 954911 2341   16.00      

82