2.guracho Draft Feasiblity Report

Feasibility Studies and Detail Design of Hydrology Draft Feasibility Study
Guracho Irrigation Project
FEASIBILITY STUDY DETAIL DESIGN OF

GURACHO IRRIGATION PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY
DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
APRIL 2023
South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise
P.O.Box. 116
Tel + 251-46-220-48-54
Fax + 251-46-220-58-10
Email – southdesign2003@gmail.com
Hawassa University Avenue,
Hawassa
Ethiopia
South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 1 April, 2023

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA, MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE, ADDIS ABEBA
FEASIBILITY STUDY DETAIL DESIGN OF

GURACHO IRRIGATION PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY
DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
APRIL 2023
Issue and Revision Record
Date Originator Checker Approver Description
LIYUTIBEB
APRIL, 2023 DRAFT
ALEMU
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part
thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without
an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written
authority of SDCSE being obtained. SDCSE accepts no responsibility or
liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other
than the purposes for which it was commissioned. SDCSE accepts no
responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the
person by whom it was commissioned.

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. 6
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... 7
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 8
1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 8
1.2 LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY ........................................................................ 9
1.3 OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGIES OF THE HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS .................. 11
1.3.1 General objective .............................................................................. 11
1.3.2 Specific objectives ............................................................................ 11
1.3.3 Methodologies of the hydrological Study .......................................... 12
1.4 WATERSHED AND RIVER CHARACTERISTICS ................................................... 12
1.4.1 Soil of the Watershed ....................................................................... 13
1.4.2 Land use and land cover.................................................................. 14
1.4.3 Topography of the Watershed .......................................................... 15
2. WATER RESOURCE AND AVAILABLITY ANALYSIS .................................... 17
2.1 DATA REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE .................................................................. 17
2.2 SOFTWARE AND TOOLS USED ....................................................................... 17
2.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA ............................................................................. 17
2.4 HYDROLOGICAL DATA ................................................................................. 20
2.5 BASE FLOW ESTIMATION AND WATER BALANCE .............................................. 21
2.5.1 Base flow Measurement and Existing Practice of the Area .............. 21
2.5.2 Water Balance and Upstream-Downstream Relationships .............. 22
3. CLIMATE OF GURACHO WATERSHED ....................................................... 24
3.1 CLIMATIC DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 24
3.2 MEAN AREAL PRECIPITATION (MAP) AND PRECIPITATION OVER THE CATCHMENT. . 24
3.3 CLIMATIC PARAMETERS ............................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Monthly Rainfall ............................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Temperature ..................................................................................... 26
3.3.3 Potential Evapotranspiration ............................................................ 27
..................................................................................................................... 27
3.3.4 Wind Speed ...................................................................................... 27
3.3.5 Sunshine duration ............................................................................ 28
Figure 15 : Average Sunshine hour ........................................................... 29
3.3.6 Relative humidity ............................................................................. 29
3.4 RAINFALL VS EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION (ETO).................................................... 30
4. PEAK FLOOD ESTIMATION ......................................................................... 32
4.1 METHODS OF PEAK FLOOD ESTIMATION .......................................................... 32
4.1.1 Rational Method ............................................................................... 32
4.1.2 SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph ....................................................... 32

4.1.3 Transferring Gauged Data ............................................................... 34

4.2 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS AND PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION ................................... 34
4.3 MISSING DATA INFILLING, DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS .......... 39
4.5 OUTLIER TEST............................................................................................ 40
4.6 CHECK FOR VARIANCE................................................................................. 43
4.7 PEAK FLOOD BY SCS-CN METHOD ............................................................... 44
4.7.1 Estimating Time of Concentration (TC) ............................................. 44
4.7.2 Determination of Curve Numbers for the Study area ....................... 45
4.7.3 Rainfall profile and Area Rainfall ..................................................... 46
4.7.4 SCS Peak Discharge Complex Hydrograph ...................................... 47
4.8 PEAK FLOOD BY REGIONALIZATION METHOD ................................................... 48
4.10 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN ESTIMATION RESULTS .............................................. 49
5. TRANSPORTED SEDIMENT FLOW .............................................................. 51
5.1 SOIL EROSION RATE ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 51
5.2 RAINFALL EROSIVITY FACTOR (R) .................................................................. 52
5.3 SOIL ERODIBILITY (K) .................................................................................. 53
5.4 SLOPE LENGTH AND GRADIENT FACTOR (LS) .................................................. 55
5.5 LAND COVER FACTOR (C) ............................................................................ 56
5.6 THE LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (P) ........................................................... 58
5.7 ANNUAL SOIL LOSS ESTIMATE OF WATERSHED ............................................... 60
5.8 EROSION HAZARD & SEVERITY OF SOIL EROSION............................................ 62
5.9 SEDIMENT YIELD ESTIMATION....................................................................... 62
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................... 63
6.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 63
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 63
8. REFERENCE ................................................................................................ 64
9. ANNEX ......................................................................................................... 65

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Guracho Soil Type.............................................................................. 13

Table 2: Guracho LULC.................................................................................... 15
Table 3: Climatic stations data availability and Location ............................... 18
Table 4: River Flow stations data availability and Location ........................... 20
Table 5: Base flow Measurement .................................................................... 22
Table 6: Water Balance @ Guracho River ........................................................ 23
Table 7: MAP of Guracho ................................................................................. 24
Table 8: Mean Monthly Temperature ............................................................... 26
Table 9: Mean monthly climatic parameters.................................................... 27
Table 10: Average wind Speed ........................................................................ 28
Table 11: Average Sunshine hour ................................................................... 28
Table 12: Average Relative humidity ............................................................... 29
Table 13: 80%Mean Monthly dependable Rainfall & Potential Evapo-
transpiration (PET) ........................................................................................... 30
Table 14: Annual maximum time series data .................................................. 36
Table 14: Maximum daily rainfall data series computation of Fonko station . 37
Table 15: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test ................................................................. 38
Table 16: Design RF for different return periods ............................................. 39
Table 17: Gap filling methods and their applicability ` ................................. 40
Table 18: Outlier test ....................................................................................... 41
Table 19: Time of concentration ....................................................................... 44
Table 20: Guracho watershed Curve Number ................................................. 45
Table 21: Rainfall Profile ................................................................................. 46
Table 22: Other SCS-CN method Data inputs .................................................. 47
Table 23: Peak Discharge analysis using Complex hydrograph method ........ 48
Table 24: Peak Discharge for different return periods..................................... 48
Table 27: Summary of Project.......................................................................... 49
Table 32: Erodibility Value of soil units adopted in Ethiopian Condition ........ 54
Table 33: Adopted land cover values applied to Watershed ........................... 57
Table 34: Land Cover (C) value of Watershed ................................................. 58
Table 35: P- Value Land management applied for Watershed ........................ 60

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Guracho project Political Location Map ............................................ 10

Figure 2 : Guracho Watershed Map ................................................................. 11
Figure 3 : Guracho Watershed Soil map ......................................................... 13
Figure 4 : Guracho Watershed LULC map ....................................................... 14
Figure 5 : Guracho Watershed DEM map ........................................................ 16
Figure 6 : Guracho Watershed Slope map ....................................................... 16
Figure 7 : Guracho Watershed Tyson Polygon map ........................................ 18
Figure 8 : Guracho Watershed Areal RF map .................................................. 19
Figure 9 : Guracho catchment Flow stations Location map ............................. 20
Figure 10 : Guracho River Base flow Measurement Cross sectional view ...... 21
Figure 11 : Guracho Areal RF isohytal map .................................................... 25
Figure 12 : Fonko mean monthly rainfall ........................................................ 26
Figure 13 : Fonko monthly Temperature ......................................................... 26
Figure 14 : Average wind Speed ..................................................................... 28
Figure 15 : Average Sunshine hour ................................................................. 29
Figure 16 : Average Relative humidity ............................................................ 30
Figure 17 : Comparison of Monthly Rainfall & Potential Evapo-transpiration
(PET) time series .............................................................................................. 31
Figure 20 : Graph of Outlier test ...................................................................... 43
Figure 24 : Rainfall Erosivity(R) Factor Map .................................................... 53
Figure 25 : Erodibility Factor Map of Watershed ............................................. 55
Figure 26 : Slope length/Topographic factor Map of watershed ..................... 56
Figure 27 : Land Use/Cover factor Map of watershed .................................... 58
Figure 28 : Land management [P] Factor map of Watershed .......................... 60
Figure 29 : Annual Soil Loss Rate, extent & distribution map of Watershed .. 61

ACRONYMS
CD = Cross Drainage
CN = Curve Number
DEM = Digital Elevation Model
ETO = Evapotranspiration
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization
GPS = Geographical positioning System
GIS = Geographical Information System
Ha = Hectares
IDF = Intensity Duration Frequency Curve
LULC = Land use Land Cover
L/s = litter per second
L/s. ha = litter per second per hectares
NGO = Non-Governmental Organization
NMA = National Meteorological Agency
RH = relative Humidity
RVLB = Rift Valley Lake Basin
SC = Secondary Canal
SCS = Soil Conservation Service
TC = Tertiary Canal
UNESCO =
US = United States

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background
The historical background of Ethiopia shows that agriculture is the

dominant activities to sustain rural community’s life and the base for
people’s basic fulfillment. And also, the country has special features to
practice agricultural activities because of its geographical and environmental
factors. Ethiopia has 111.5-million-hectare total land from million hectare is
suitable for agriculture. Currently only 16.5 million hectares is cultivated.
Due to the variability of rainfall we need irrigation as a supplement for the
incensement of productivity. Water is renewable natural resource which is
very importance for any activities done over natural environment. However,
when in adequate quantity and quality, it can rather serve as limiting factor
in poverty reduction and over all nationally development. therefore,
imperative that the linkage between water development initiative in
agriculture, food, energy, health, education and decentralized governance
sectors be clearly understood and carefully managed to benefit from them in
proper manner and to minimize or avoid negative cross-sectional impact
(Bekele S, 2000).
In Ethiopia, under the prevalent rain-fed agricultural production system, the

progressive degradation of the natural resource base, especially in highly
vulnerable areas of the highlands coupled with climate variability have
aggravated the incidence of poverty and food insecurity. The major source of
growth for Ethiopia is still conceived to be the agriculture sector. Hence, this
sector has to be insulated from drought shocks through enhanced
utilization of the water resource potential of the country, (through
development of small-scale irrigation, water harvesting, and on-farm
diversification) coupled with strengthened linkages between agriculture and
industry (Agroindustry), thereby creating a demand for agricultural output.
In line with the above, efforts have been made by the government and NGO’s
to improve the situation in the country in areas of domestic water supply
provision, irrigation, watershed management, etc.
Hydrology is a multidisciplinary subject that deals with the occurrence,

circulation and distribution of the waters of the Earth. In other words,
hydrology is the study of the location and movement of inland water, both
frozen and liquid, above and below ground. Chow et al, 1988.
Hydrology is generally defined as a science dealing with the interrelationship

between water on and under the earth and in the atmosphere. Hydrology
will deal with estimating flood magnitudes as the result of precipitation. In
the design of irrigation project structures, floods are usually considered in

terms of peak runoff or discharge in cubic meters per second (m /s) and
hydrographs as discharge per time. For structures that are designed to
control volume of runoff, weirs, or where flood routing through culverts is
used, then the entire discharge hydrograph will be of interest.
 Hydrology is applied to major civil engineering projects such as

irrigation schemes, dams and hydroelectric power, and in planning
water supply projects. Hydrological information is essential in:
 Estimating reservoir storage capacity that is needed to ensure
adequate water supplies for municipal, irrigation and hydropower
needs.
 Planning water resources projects the peak discharge and its volume
of flood that have to be adopted in design of irrigation, hydropower,
and flood control projects. If the selected flood is too high, it results in
a conservative and unnecessary costly structure while adoption of a
low design flood can result in the loss of the structure itself and
devastating damage to downstream residence and properties.
 Estimating the impact of watershed management on the quantity and
quality of the surface and the groundwater resources.
1.2 Location and Accessibility
The Guracho head work is found in Ento Lafto Lenqa kebele, Anelmo
Woreda, Hadiya Zone, SNNP Regional state. The geographical coordinate of
the headwork site lies 850432 N and 389203 E. The altitude of the
headwork is 2013.89 m ASL. The Agro-ecological classification of the
command area is characterized by Dega agro-climate condition. The project
site is set up at a distance of 195 km from the regional capital of Hawassa,
20 km from Woreda capital Fonko.

Figure 1 : Guracho project Political Location Map

Figure 2 : Guracho Watershed Map
1.3 Objective and Methodologies of the hydrological analysis
1.3.1 General objective
The General objective of this design project is to design the hydrology of

Guracho irrigation development project which is technically feasible,
economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
The Specific objective objectives of the study are
 To study the climatic condition of the study area.

 To check the Stationary, quality and consistency of data’s.
 To estimate the Base flow of the river.
 To determine the water balance of the river.
 To determine/estimate peak discharge of the river.
 To estimate sediment rate of the catchment.

1.3.3 Methodologies of the hydrological Study
The following are Methodologies for the hydrological study.
 Collect primary data from field and respective offices and relevant
hydro meteorological data (i.e. Daily Rainfall, Temperature, flow
data, Land use/cover, Soil & others)
 Collect relevant secondary data from all sources and assess
previous studies conducted on the area and from the recommended
source;
 Review and investigate previous hydrological study made in the
basin and previously implemented project of around the study area.
 Data organizing, pre-processing, analysis, producing relevant maps
(i.e. DEM 30m resolution, drainage system and sub-catchments
area delineation from DEM data using Global Mapper, Arc GIS ,
 Daily highest rainfall for frequency analysis by using Easy Fit
Statistical software;
 Determination of the peak runoff and its probability of
occurrence in the study area applying the recommended methods
for the study catchment.
 Determination of dependable flow and computation of water balance of
the river at scheme level.
 Determination of potential evaporation from representative climate
parameters or by adjusting the climatic parameters for representing
the Headwork site elevation.
 Computing magnitude of peak flood and its return period for design of
weir and related structures.
1.4 Watershed and River Characteristics
Guracho River is one of the tributaries of Bilate River that originates from
the Anelmo Woreda which is part of Rift valley lake basin. It is a perennial
river that drains an area of 126.63 Sq.km and has a Base flow of about
170.17 l/s at the Head work site. The catchment is characterized as a hilly
catchment with an average slope that ranges from 0 to more than 115.8 %
in most places and has a highly dendritic stream network in the upper and
middle part of the catchment. The catchment encounters a fall of more than
1243 m where it enters Bilate River at the lower portion of the catchment
that enables harnessing the huge head for Irrigation Development. Major
land uses in the catchment include Perennial crop, Annual crop, Woodland,
Closed grass, Dense Forest, Sparse Forest, Wetland, Open Shrub and Closed
Shrub cover along the river valley. Eutric Fluvisols, Chromic Luvisols,
Leptosols and Calcic Xerosol dominate the catchment.

1.4.1 Soil of the Watershed
FAO digital soil class map of east Africa was used and analyzed to identify
and describe major soil types of Guracho watershed. Most of the project area
was covered with Eutric Fluvisols, Chromic Luvisols, Leptosols, Orthic
Solonchak and Calcic Xerosol dominates the catchment over all Guracho
project area. Soil type maps are the following as per projects and over whole
watershed soil type map.
Figure 3 : Guracho Watershed Soil map
Table 1: Guracho Soil Type
It No SOIL_TYPE Area Coverage

1 Eutric Fluvisols 37%
2 Chromic Luvisols 8%
3 Leptosols 39%
4 Orthic Solonchak 10%
5 Calcic Xerosol 7%

1.4.2 Land use and land cover
Land use and land cover of a catchment is the major factor for runoff
generation. Land use map of the study area was delineated from land
use land cover of Ethiopia which is obtained from Ethio-GIS data. The
area extent of land use and land cover mapping units in the catchment
areas is highly dependent on the climatic, topography and
edaphic factors. Population, remoteness and traditional factors
attribute to the type of use and the natural vegetation as they are
presently expressed in the catchment area.
Most of the project area was covered with Perennial crop, Annual crop,
Woodland, Closed grass, Dense Forest, Sparse Forest, Open Shrub and
Closed Shrub. According to site visit and also using the desktop study, we
have analyzed the project areas Curve Number based on its land cover as
showed as below. Land use land cover maps are the following as per
projects.
Figure 4 : Guracho Watershed LULC map

Table 2: Guracho LULC
Area Coverage in
It No CLASS_NAME
%
1 perennial Crop 20
2 Annual Crop 23
3 Wood Land 0
4 Bare Soil 0
5 Closed Grass 8
6 Dense Forest 0
7 Sparse Forest 46
8 wetland 0
9 Salt Pan 0
10 Open Shrub 2
11 Closed Shrub 1
1.4.3 Topography of the Watershed
The watershed generally ranges from 3268.9 m to 2026.5 m. The upper and
the ragged part of the watershed is dominated by convex shapes whereas on
the lower part of watershed linear in slope shape. Contours contain
information about the relief, shape and the form of the land and the
relative distribution in space of the components of the landscape of the
watershed. An impression of the topography is obtained from the contours
printed on this kind of map.
The slope of the watershed is one of the driving parameter on runoff

generation. According to the DEM based terrain analysis results, the slope
gradient of the majority of the watershed ranges from 0 to 115.8 % in
Percent rise.

Figure 5 : Guracho Watershed DEM map
Figure 6 : Guracho Watershed Slope map

2. WATER RESOURCE AND AVAILABLITY ANALYSIS
2.1 Data Required and available
 Climate Data: - In this design project Climatic data were collected for
rainfall analysis and hydrological analysis determination.
 Land use/ land cover Data: - Land use land cover (LULC) map of
Ethiopia have been used clip out for Guracho watershed and produce
LULC map of Guracho so that we can calculate Curve number of the
watershed.
 Soil parameter data: - Soil map of Ethiopia have been used clip out for
Guracho watershed and produce soil map of Guracho so that we
would know which hydrologic soil group Guracho watershed could be
classified.
 Digital elevation model (DEM):- Recent DEM map of Ethiopia which
have (30m*30m) resolution have been used clip out Guracho
watershed area so that accurate watershed related data like watershed
area, time of concentration, slope etc. could be produced
 Agronomic data: -Here this data has been used to estimate the actual
command area that was and would be irrigated with the available
water resource.
2.2 Software and Tools Used
 ARC-GIS: - ARC-GIS have been used to delineate watershed area, to

know longest flow path, clip soil and LULC maps
 Hydrognomon Software’s have been used to Analyze statistics of
climatic data the study area
 Excel: - Microsoft Excel is used for analyzing different data like
climate and stream flow data by using different excel templates and
also to design head work and irrigation systems excel templates is
used.
2.3 Meteorological Data
There are some meteorological station in and around our watershed which
are Fonko, Wulbareg, Hosanna and Endegagn to represent the watershed
area

Figure 7 : Guracho Watershed Tyson Polygon map
Table 3: Climatic stations data availability and Location
Station Location Start & Latitude Longitude Class

Fonko SNNP Region 1986-2021 386127.5 844180.6 3
Wulbareg SNNP Region 1972-2021 403113.7 855134.4 3
Hosanna SNNP Region 1972-2021 373586.2 836560.6 1
Endegagn SNNP Region 2006-2021 372792.4 867516.9 3

Figure 8 : Guracho Watershed Areal RF map
Therefore, from the Tyson Polygon map, we have selected Fonko Metrological
station for Peak flow analysis and for Climatic analysis because Fonko
Station is found in the highest elevation in which it is the nearest to the
elevation that Guracho river Starts its journey and also it is (class 3) station
that has other climatic data’s like relative humidity, sunshine hours and
wind speed. Fonko Metrological Station have been used for the representing
the climate of the Headwork and Command area because it is the nearest
and have the same agro ecology to our Headwork and Command area.
So, Fonko station has been used
 To calculate parameters and represent our watershed.

 To calculate long-term mean monthly rainfall computed at selected
climate stations,
 To estimate the fifty-year recurrence interval point rainfall.
The Fonko rainfall station is the ideal representative station for Guracho
project area. Further, it has the reliable data for analysis with about 2% of
gaps, which were filled up by screening and simple correlation techniques.

It is however customary in hydrological analysis, to do certain consistency

analysis for inferences from the data of a phenomenon.
2.4 Hydrological Data
Guracho River is not gauged at the Headwork/upstream or downstream.

Guracho River is one of the tributaries of Bilate River that originates from
the Fonko Woreda which is part of RVL basin. It is a perennial river that
drains an area of 126.6 Sq.km. However there are neighboring catchments
which are gauged incase if we want to model our watershed using these flow
data’s.
Table 4: River Flow stations data availability and Location
River Site/Location Catchment Easting Northing

Gombera Nr. Hosanna RVLB 374964 834637
Ferfuro @Wulbareg RVLB 402590 854841
Weira Nr Hosanna RVLB 838308 380490
Figure 9 : Guracho catchment Flow stations Location map

2.5 Base Flow Estimation and Water Balance
2.5.1 Base flow Measurement and Existing Practice of the Area
The estimation of river flow is crucial for better planning and developing the
given irrigable area and well- being of the ecosystem in the d/s portion of
the river reaches. For the purpose of irrigation usually 80 % flow exceedence
should be adequately meet the crop water needed. The estimation of this
flow exceedence could only possible when direct measurements of flow are
available in the case of gauged river or it can be estimated using a
regionalization approach or different techniques.
There are different methods or techniques available for the estimation of the
base flow in the river. The automated base flow separation technique,
graphical method, tracer methods using isotopes, and rainfall runoff models
are some of the methods applicable if the river is gauged.
As far as Guracho river is concerned there is No flow measurements are

available in the river either u/s in close proximity of the headwork site
to apply these methods. But the base flow can be estimated using float
techniques by measurement of the discharge during the driest period using
continuity equation.
Wav
0.5 1.25 1.25 0.5
d1av d2av d3av
d1 d2 d3
d4 d5 d6
d7 d8 d9
Figure 10 : Guracho River Base flow Measurement Cross sectional view

Table 5: Base flow Measurement

Parameters Time Elapsed(s) Length (m) W idth (m) Depth (cm) Cross Section Area (m2)
d1 d2 d3
13.50 5.00 3.00 15.00 21.00 14.00 0.04
13.00 3.50 15.00 26.00 21.00 0.22
12.60 3.90 17.00 12.00 13.00 0.22
13.00 0.04
13.20
Average 13.06 5.00 3.47 15.67 19.67 16.00 0.52
Surface Velocity (m/s) 0.38
Average Velocity (m/s) 0.33
Total Area (m2/s) 0.52
Discharge Q (m3/s) 0.17
Discharge Q (l/s) 170.17
The Guracho river Base flow at the Headwork has a base flow of 170.17
l/sec that was measured on March, 2023 during Project feasibility study
period.
2.5.2 Water Balance and Upstream-Downstream Relationships
With regard to hydrology, as surface waters flow from headwaters

(upstream) to lower-elevation floodplains (downstream), it creates linkages
between upstream and downstream areas. The linkages are relative to the
physical hydrologic system in nature. Understanding of this upstream-
downstream linkage in hydrological processes is essential for water
resources planning in river basins. The activities in upstream areas have
both beneficial and adverse effects on downstream communities. Good
watershed management practices provide better opportunities to
downstream communities, for example, a clean and sustainable water
supply for irrigation. However, bad watershed management practices do not
only degrade upstream environmental conditions, but also adversely affect
the opportunities in downstream areas. Hence, as the ‘opportunities’ and
‘threats’ flow from upstream to downstream areas, the users in downstream
areas often have great ‘concerns’ about upstream land-use and water
management practices (Santosh, 2012). For Guracho river catchment, the
methodology we use to determine water availability in the project area is by
using Empirical Estimation Method. Water balance of the project area is
based on inflow and outflow characteristics and continuity principle, and
field observations /measurements.
Guracho river catchment is one of the catchments found in the RVL Basin.
At the moment there is No Flow gauging stations across the Guracho river
watershed. For Guracho river catchment, the methodology we use to
determine water availability in the project area is by using Empirical
Estimation Method. Water balance of the project area is based on inflow and

outflow characteristics and continuity principle, and field observations

/measurements.
Regarding Existing schemes there is No existing scheme upstream or

Downstream to the new Guracho SSIP is set.
Table 6: Water Balance @ Guracho River

Existing Schemes
It No River Name Location Baseflow Environmental Release (l/s) 15 % Remaining Water (l/s)
Upstream Downstream
1 Guracho Hadiya 170.17 No No 25.53 144.64

3. CLIMATE OF GURACHO WATERSHED
3.1 Climatic data analysis
Climatic variables are important for the design and operation of Irrigation
projects. The most important variables include; Precipitation over the
catchment and evapotranspiration estimates for the design of the water
balance. Moreover, precipitation and potential evaporation (PE) (or climatic
variables to estimate PE, temperature, wind speed, humidity and so on) of
the catchment are required.
Guracho River catchment has one class-3 met station located at Fonko
which is found near the catchment boundary. But this station represents
only the some portion of the catchment. However, there are three more
meteorological stations with long daily precipitation data records in the
vicinity of Guracho River catchment. The precipitation data in these stations
has many gaps and they are not of the same length. Moreover, some stations
are not spatially consistent with the surrounding stations. Therefore, data
have undergone the routine missing daily data filling, stationarity and
randomness check before using for variable estimation.
3.2 Mean areal Precipitation (MAP) and Precipitation over the

Catchment.
The long term mean monthly and annual areal precipitation of the
catchment at the project site was estimated from all the stations using
ArcGIS Interpolation tool and Isohytal method found. The MAP of Guracho
River catchment is presented in table below. For comparison purposes,
Isohytal estimates method has also been used. The Mean annual MAP is
about 1298 mm. The precipitation that will fall on the catchment could
better be estimated by Fonko station record, as it is found very close to the
catchment and have close annual RF value.
Table 7: MAP of Guracho
A VALUE COUNT Weightage 1st contour 2nd contour Average contour Average*Weightage
126.6 1 11 0% 1280 1290 1285 0.96
2 10652 73% 1290 1300 1295 939.41
3 4021 27% 1300 1312 1306 357.63
14684 1298

Figure 11 : Guracho Areal RF isohytal map
3.3 Climatic Parameters
3.3.1 Monthly Rainfall
Fonko Station has 30 years data and also the elevation of the station
represents the higher altitudes of our watershed. Therefore, Fonko station
has been used to calculate parameters and represent our Headwork and
command area. For the purpose mentioned above the data used for analysis
is with in the period 1990-2019 so as to observe monthly rainfall pattern of
the project area.
From the figure it can be seen that the rainfall distribution is bi-modal. The
peak average monthly rainfall appears in the months of March-May while
small to moderate rainfall occurs from Jul-Sep.

Fonko Mean Monthly RF

200
180
160
140
RF in mm
120
100 Fonko Mean
80 Monthly RF
60
40
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Figure 12 : Fonko mean monthly rainfall
3.3.2 Temperature
These elements are very useful meteorological data for estimating the water
balance of a given river basin. They are also very important for estimating
the crop water requirement of a given crop selected for the irrigable area.
The mean temperature throughout the year varies between 7 oC and 27.2
oC
Table 8: Mean Monthly Temperature
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Min Temp 7 8.4 10 10.9 9.4 9.5 9.9 9.8 9.4 7.9 8.1 7.1
Max Temp 25.7 27.1 27.2 24.3 24.1 22.4 21.4 21.2 22.6 23.8 24.8 26
Average Temp 16.35 17.75 18.6 17.6 16.75 15.95 15.65 15.5 16 15.85 16.45 16.55
Figure 13 : Fonko monthly Temperature

3.3.3 Potential Evapotranspiration
It can be defined as the sum of all the water lost to the atmosphere by
plants through transpiration, and that evaporated from the soil or water
body surrounding the plant. It basically depends on the processes of
transpiration and evaporation. It critically depends upon the climatological
factors, rather than the characteristics of the plants and soils. Using daily
data of the above, potential evaporation is computed using Penman
methods. According to the result, the Penman methods estimated higher.
Since the area of Guracho can be categorized as mid-land. For estimation of
crop water in the study area the mean monthly climatic parameter (adjusted
with the elevation of the project area) summarized in the table below shall be
adopted. Hosanna Metrology Station which is the station adjusted with
altitude adjustment.
Table 9: Mean monthly climatic parameters

Month Min Temp Max Temp Humidity W ind Sun Rad ETo
°C °C % km/day hours MJ/m²/day mm/day
Jan 7 25.7 63 130 8.2 19.9 3.92
Feb 8.4 27.1 61 130 7.6 20.2 4.2
Mar 10 27.2 65 130 7.7 21.3 4.43
Apr 10.9 24.3 75 130 7 20.3 3.96
May 9.4 24.1 75 130 7.6 20.6 3.93
Jun 9.5 22.4 79 147 5.9 17.6 3.34
Jul 9.9 21.4 81 104 3.7 14.5 2.81
Aug 9.8 21.2 79 86 4.3 15.8 2.96
Sep 9.4 22.6 80 121 5.2 17.4 3.28
Oct 7.9 23.8 70 121 7.2 19.7 3.74
Nov 8.1 24.8 71 138 8.9 21.1 3.93
Dec 7.1 26 61 138 8.3 19.7 3.97
3.3.4 Wind Speed
A wind movement creates turbulence and replaces air at the water surface
with less moist air and increase evaporation. Hence, the higher the wind
speed is the more the evaporation. There is wind speed data at Fonko
Station. For analyses Hosanna data adopted. Monthly wind speed variation
is from 84.14-135.01 Km/day; the yearly average is 122.7 Km/day. Table
shows the average monthly wind speed at Guracho Site using Hosanna
meteorological station which has been adopted.
Guracho mean monthly wind speed= Hosanna mean monthly wind

speed *(elevation of Guracho /elevation of Hosanna) ^0.17

Table 10: Average wind Speed

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wind speed
in km/day 127.18 127.18 127.18 127.18 127.18 143.81 101.75 84.14 118.38 118.38 135.01 135.01
Wind speed km/day

150.00
WS in km/day
100.00
50.00
-
Jan Feb Mar
Apr May
Jun Jul
Aug Sep
Oct Nov
Dec
months
Figure 14 : Average wind Speed
3.3.5 Sunshine duration
Solar radiation provides nearly all of the energy that reaches the earth
surface. Daily sunshine hour’s duration is thus a factor to determine
radiation and the potential evapo-transpiration. The longer the sunshine
hour is the more the evapo-transpiration. There is no sunshine hour’s data
at the project area, hence the Fonko data is considered. The average daily
duration of sunshine hours at Guracho is 7.07 hours. Sunshine hour’s
duration is Maximum in the dry season, December to February, and
minimum in the rainy season July to September. The maximum sunshine
hour’s duration of 9.25 hours occurs in November. Mean daily sunshine
hour’s duration is shown in Table
Guracho mean monthly sunshine hours = Hosanna mean monthly

sunshine hour*(elevation of Hosanna/elevation of Guracho) ^0.30
Table 11: Average Sunshine hour

Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sunshine in
hours 8.52 7.90 8.00 7.28 7.90 6.13 3.85 4.47 5.41 7.48 9.25 8.63

Sunshine hours
10.00
8.00
Sunshine hours
6.00
4.00
2.00 Sunshine hours
-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Months
Figure 15 : Average Sunshine hour
3.3.6 Relative humidity
Relative humidity, the water vapor contained in the atmosphere, is

expressed as the percentage of the ratio of actual to saturation vapor
pressure. More evaporation takes place in a dry air than in air with high
relative humidity. The relative humidity data for the project area is also
taken from Hosanna station. The average relative humidity at Guracho site
from Hosanna data is about 71.2 % in which relative minimum occurs in
December which is 60.61 % and Relative humidity is the maximum in July
(80.48 %).
Guracho mean monthly RH=Hosanna mean monthly RH*(elevation of

Guracho / elevation of Hosanna) ^0.05
Table 12: Average Relative humidity
Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
RH in % 62.60 60.61 64.58 74.52 74.52 78.49 80.48 78.49 79.49 69.55 70.54 60.61

Relative Humidity
100.00
80.00
Humidity in %
60.00
40.00
20.00 Relative Humidity
-
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
months
Figure 16 : Average Relative humidity
3.4 Rainfall VS Evapo-transpiration (ETO)
It is well known that the relationship of mean rainfall and potential

evapo-transpiration has a great role so as to justify how much water for
received and lost and thereby the need of irrigation water/water supply to
compensate the deficit if any for proper crop production in the planed
project area. In general, 80% mean monthly dependable annual
rainfall estimated is 768.4 mm/annum. According to the available
climatic data, the annual evapo-transpiration rate in the area is 1044
mm/annum. Maximum & minimum ETo rates of 126.5 to 58.28
mm/month are recorded in May and December months, respectively. As
shown on the figure bellow there is variations on rainfall and ETO and
some of the months has deficit, so that the need of irrigation and water
harvesting is paramount important in this area.
Table 13: 80%Mean Monthly dependable Rainfall & Potential Evapo-

transpiration (PET)
M onths Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
ETo 60.76 73.92 106 108.9 126.5 110.4 93.93 88.66 80.1 76.26 60.3 58.28
M onthly RF 8.1 20.4 79 110.7 83.3 75.7 105.8 127 98.1 54.5 0 5.8
Defecit -52.66 -53.52 -27.02 1.8 -43.18 -34.7 11.87 38.34 18 -21.76 -60.3 -52.48
Therefore from the table and graph, we can see that there are only Four
months that has excess moisture (April, July, August and September) other
than that we need irrigation.

Irrigation Defecit
150
100 ETo
RF,ETo in mm
50 Monthly RF
0 ETo Defecit
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
-50
-100
months
Figure 17 : Comparison of Monthly Rainfall & Potential Evapo-

transpiration (PET) time series

4. PEAK FLOOD ESTIMATION
4.1 Methods of peak flood estimation
4.1.1 Rational Method
Provides peak runoff rates for small urban and rural catchment areas, less
than 50 hectares, but is best suited to urban storm drain systems and rural
ditches. It shall be used with caution if the time of concentration exceeds
30 minutes. Rainfall is a necessary input. The Rational Method is most
accurate for estimating the design storm peak runoff for areas up to 50
hectares (0.5 km 2). This method, while first introduced in 1889, is still
widely used. Even though it has come under frequent criticism for its
simplistic approach, no other drainage design method has achieved such
widespread use.
Where
Q = maximum rate of runoff, m3/s
C = runoff coefficient representing a ratio of runoff to rainfall
I = average rainfall intensity for a given duration
A = Watershed area
4.1.2 SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has developed a synthetic unit

hydrograph procedure that has been used widely for developing rural and
urban hydro graphs. The unit hydrograph used by the SCS method is based
upon an analysis of a large number of natural unit hydrographs from a
broad cross section of geographic locations and hydrologic regions.
Techniques developed by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service for calculating

rates of runoff require the same basic data as the Rational Method:
catchment area, a runoff factor, time of concentration, and rainfall. The SCS
approach, however, is more sophisticated in that it considers also 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 a storm. With the SCS method, the direct runoff can be calculated for any
storm, either real or fabricated, by subtracting infiltration and other losses
from the rainfall to obtain the precipitation excess.

A catchment area is determined from topographic maps and field surveys.

For large catchment areas it might be necessary to divide the area into sub-
catchment areas to account for major land u se changes, obtain analysis
results at different points within the catchment area, or locate storm water
drainage structures and assess their effects on the flood flows. A field
inspection of existing or proposed drainage systems shall be made to
determine if the natural drainage divides have been altered. These
alterations could make significant changes in the size and slope of the sub
catchment areas.
The SCS method is based on a 24-hour storm event which has a Type II time
distribution. The Type II storm distribution is a ’typical" time distribution
which the SCS has prepared from rainfall records. It is applicable for interior
rather than the coastal regions and should be appropriate for Ethiopia. The
Type II rainfall distribution will usually give a higher runoff than a Type I
distribution. Figure shows this distribution. To use this distribution, it is
necessary for the user to obtain the 24-hour rain fall value.
A relationship between accumulated rainfall and accumulated runoff was

derived by SCS from experimental plots for numerous hydrologic and
vegetative cover conditions. Data for land-treatment measures, such as
contouring and terracing, from experimental catchment areas were included.
The equation was developed mainly for small catchment areas for which
daily rainfall and catchment area data are ordinarily available. It was
developed from recorded storm data that included total amount of rainfall in
a calendar day but not its distribution with respect to time. The SCS runoff
equation is therefore a method of estimating direct runoff from 24-hour or 1-
day storm rainfall.
The equation is
Where
Q = Direct runoff in mm
P = Rainfall depth in mm
S = potential difference
But

Where
CN is Curve number
4.1.3 Transferring Gauged Data
Gauged data may be transferred to an Ungauged site of interest provided

such data are nearby (i.e., within the same hydrologic region, and there are
no major tributaries or diversions between the gage and the site of interest).
These procedures make use of the constants obtained in developing the
regression equations. These procedures are adopted from the work of
Admasu (1989) as follows:
Qu=Qg (Au/Ag) 0.7
Where
Qu = mean annual daily maximum flow at Ungauged site (m3/s),
Qg = mean annual daily maximum flow at nearby gauged site (m3/s),
Au = ungauged site catchment area (km2), Ag = gauged site catchment area

(km2),
In general, three types of estimating flood magnitudes (namely: The Rational

Method, SCS method and Transferring Gauged Data method) can be applied
for ungauged catchments. Since, there is no Gauged river along the project
and since the catchment area of Guracho diversion scheme is 126.6 km2.
For the design and analysis of structures to be constructed on the river,

estimation of flood magnitude is an important task. This can be done using
different techniques depending on the data available. For this particular
case, there are no river flow data and hence the flood estimation is done
using the rainfall data and applying SCS Curve Method. But before using
the data for analysis we have to check the consistency of the data using
different methods.
4.2 Frequency Analysis and Probability Distribution
The term frequency analysis refers to the techniques whose objective is to

analyze the occurrence of hydrologic variable (e.g. rainfall) within statistical
framework. In many hydraulic-engineering applications, the probability of
occurrence of a particular extreme rainfall, e.g. a 24-h maximum rainfall,
will be of paramount importance. There is a definite relation between the
frequency of occurrences and magnitude; the ordinary events occurring
almost regularly than the severe storms. The reasonable length of record for
frequency analysis should be more than 30 years. However, a record of up to
20 years can be used as sample data set for frequency analysis if data for

longer record is not available. General frequency equation (Chow (1951) can
be used to analysis the frequency of annual 24-hr maximum rainfall of the
project area.
Where:
XT: - the event (magnitude) at return period of T years
Xav =the mean of the sample data
σ =the standard deviation and
K= frequency factor, which is different for different distribution and is

dependent on the recurrence interval, sample number, and skewness of the
distribution.
Therefore, the major question in this frequency analysis is getting the fitted
distribution for the catchment rainfall dataset. Follow procedure to
compute design or maximum 24-hr rainfall:
Procedure
 Extract the annual maximum time series data from the daily rainfall
dataset (it has to be > 15 years of data record)
 Compute the mean (Xav) and standard deviation (σ) of the data
 If there is outlier in the annual maximum data series, remove it (them)
from the data series
 Find the fitted probability distribution for the available sample data.
The fitting of the probability distribution can be evaluated with
statistical goodness fit tests (Kolmogorov Smirnov, Anderson Darling,
Chi-Squared) using Hydro gnomon tool.
 Using the parameters of the best fitted probability function, compute
the KT values for different return periods using the KT equations of
each probability distribution
 Compute the XT for the different return periods using general
frequency equation
Step 1:- Extract the annual maximum time series data from the daily
rainfall dataset (it has to be > 15 years of data record).

Table 14: Annual maximum time series data
RF
Year Max
1990 41.9
1991 38.5
1992 66.8
1993 59.6
1994 34.9
1995 39.5
1996 55.4
1997 95.2
1998 54.2
1999 54.3
2000 67.4
2001 50.4
2002 42.8
2003 49.4
2004 50.7
2005 54.8
2006 47.7
2007 41.6
2008 57
2009 45.6
2010 49
2011 110.9
2012 52.7
2013 58.4
2014 51
2015 36
2016 62.1
2017 55.2
2018 41.1
2019 50.9
Step 2:- Compute the mean (Xav) and standard deviation (σ) of the data
For a flood computation of Guracho irrigation project for 30 years maximum

one-day rainfall data of Fonko station have been used to compute statistical
analysis as follows:

Table 15: Maximum daily rainfall data series computation of Fonko

station
2
Year Yi logYi Rank (Yi -Ῡ) (Yi -Ῡ)3 (Yi -Ῡ)4
1990 42 3.74 3 142.4 -1699.36 20279.03
1991 39 3.65 4 235.11 -3605.037 55277.23
1992 67 4.2 5 168.13 2180.143 28269.19
1993 60 4.09 6 33.254 191.7673 1105.858
1994 35 3.55 7 358.47 -6787.053 128501.5
1995 40 3.68 8 205.44 -2944.704 42207.42
1996 55 4.01 9 2.4544 3.845296 6.024298
1997 95 4.56 10 1711.2 70786.69 2928209
1998 54 3.99 11 0.1344 0.049296 0.018075
1999 54 3.99 12 0.2178 0.10163 0.047427
2000 67 4.21 13 184.05 2497.005 33876.04
2001 50 3.92 14 11.788 -40.47137 138.9517
2002 43 3.76 15 121.73 -1343.137 14819.27
2003 49 3.9 16 19.654 -87.1347 386.2972
2004 51 3.93 17 9.8178 -30.76237 96.38876
2005 55 4 18 0.9344 0.903296 0.873186
2006 48 3.86 19 37.618 -230.7224 1415.097
2007 42 3.73 20 149.65 -1830.773 22396.45
2008 57 4.04 21 10.028 31.75463 100.5563
2009 46 3.82 22 67.788 -558.1194 4595.183
2010 49 3.89 23 23.361 -112.912 545.7415
2011 111 4.71 24 3256.6 185843.6 10605473
2012 53 3.96 25 1.2844 -1.455704 1.649798
2013 58 4.07 26 20.854 95.2353 434.9079
2014 51 3.93 27 8.0278 -22.74537 64.44522
2015 36 3.58 28 318.03 -5671.495 101141.7
2016 62 4.13 29 68.338 564.9256 4670.052
2017 55 4.01 30 1.8678 2.55263 3.488594
2018 41 3.72 31 162.14 -2064.554 26288.66
2019 51 3.93 32 8.6044 -25.2397 74.03646

Normal Log
N 30 30
Ῡ 53.833 3.9523
m1 53.833 3.9523
m2 253.0692 0.0613
m3 8687.5439 0.018
m4 575549.17 0.342
s 15.908 0.248
Cv 0.2955 0.016
Cs 0.49051 1.189
Ck 8.9868
Step 3:- If there is outlier in the annual maximum data series, remove it
(them) from the data series
We have checked the outlier test the section below and the data is ok and
there are no outliers to be removed
Step 4:- Find the fitted probability distribution for the available sample
data. The fitting of the probability distribution can be evaluated with
statistical goodness fit tests.
Table 16: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for:All data a=1% a=5% a=10% Attained a DMax
Normal ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 29.94% 0.17045
Normal (L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 33.98% 0.16433
LogNormal ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 74.94% 0.11627
Galton ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 76.67% 0.11431
Exponential ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 47.55% 0.14667
Exponential (L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 50.80% 0.14286
Gamma ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 59.19% 0.13347
Pearson III ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 39.86% 0.15624
Log Pearson III ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 70.49% 0.1212
EV1-Max (Gumbel) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 85.34% 0.10371
EV2-Max ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 83.08% 0.10665
EV1-Min (Gumbel) ACCEPT ACCEPT REJECT 5.32% 0.23854
EV3-Min (W eibull) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 25.65% 0.17762
GEV-Max ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 88.03% 0.09997
GEV-Min ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 42.53% 0.1528
Pareto ACCEPT REJECT REJECT 1.09% 0.28751
GEV-Max (L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 81.72% 0.10834
GEV-Min (L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 66.86% 0.12514
EV1-Max (Gumbel, L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 90.66% 0.09591
EV2-Max (L-Momments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 79.24% 0.11132
EV1-Min (Gumbel, L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT REJECT 6.09% 0.23392
EV3-Min (W eibull, L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 24.24% 0.18016
Pareto (L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 17.77% 0.19354
GEV-Max (kappa specified) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 85.76% 0.10315
GEV-Min (kappa specified) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 14.04% 0.20311
GEV-Max (kappa specified, L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 87.80% 0.10031
GEV-Min (kappa specified, L-Moments) ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT 16.29% 0.1971

By using HYDROGNOMON software and by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,

we have found that EV1-Max (Gumbel, L-Moments) methods fit the data
distribution.
Step 5:- Using the parameters of the best fitted probability function,
compute the KT and XT values for different return periods.
Table 17: Design RF for different return periods

All data - T(M ax)= 5 10 25 50 100 200
Normal 67.22 74.22 81.68 86.505 90.84 94.81
Normal (L-M oments) 65.41 71.46 77.91 82.079 85.83 89.26
LogNormal 65.86 74.8 85.68 93.529 101.2 108.8
Galton 63.3 73.38 87.37 98.666 110.7 123.5
Exponential 63.53 74.56 89.13 100.16 111.2 122.2
Exponential (L-M oments) 63.29 74.05 88.27 99.025 109.8 120.5
Gamma 66.56 74.96 84.64 91.297 97.56 103.5
Pearson III 63.08 74.33 89.4 100.9 112.5 124
Log Pearson III 62.74 72.96 87.72 100.11 113.8 128.9
EV1-M ax (Gumbel) 65.28 74.59 86.36 95.088 103.8 112.4
EV2-M ax 62.1 71.64 85.83 98.144 112.1 128
EV1-M in (Gumbel) 66.9 71.34 75.5 77.921 79.95 81.69
EV3-M in (W eibull) 67.55 74.24 81.11 85.394 89.15 92.51
GEV-M ax 63.38 73.05 86.61 97.741 109.8 122.8
GEV-M in 63.09 74.24 89.26 100.76 112.4 124.1
Pareto 63.16 74.16 89 100.46 112.1 124
GEV-M ax (L-M oments) 62.36 72.06 86.37 98.712 112.6 128.4
GEV-M in (L-M oments) 63.81 73.93 86.83 96.328 105.6 114.8
EV1-M ax (Gumbel, L-M oments) 64.16 72.56 83.18 91.053 98.87 106.7
EV2-M ax (L-M omments) 62.22 71.99 86.55 99.22 113.6 130.1
EV1-M in (Gumbel, L-M oments) 65.62 69.63 73.38 75.565 77.39 78.96
EV3-M in (W eibull, L-M oments) 65.68 71.18 76.75 80.181 83.17 85.83
Pareto (L-M oments) 64.14 74.39 86.95 95.748 104 111.7
GEV-M ax (kappa specified) 62.88 72.54 86.4 98.033 110.9 125.1
GEV-M in (kappa specified) 67.5 73.25 78.92 82.347 85.29 87.89
GEV-M ax (kappa specified, L-M oments) 62.73 72.23 85.87 97.314 109.9 123.9
GEV-M in (kappa specified, L-M oments) 65.7 70.7 75.61 78.593 81.15 83.4
Therefore from the table we can see that for Guracho SSIP the design RF for
50 Yr. return period is 91.053 mm.
4.3 Missing data infilling, Data quality assessment and adjustments
All data were checked for reliability and quality through data consistency
and stationarity tests. Since design of hydraulic structures normally assume
and require the stationarity of hydrologic design parameters, meteorological
variables also need to be stationary. For this purpose, a hydrological data
analysis software tool called HYDROGNOMON was used. HYDROGNOMON

is capable of carrying out spatial homogeneity test that is Double mass

curve analysis.
Rainfall data records occasionally are incomplete due to different reasons

like the absence of observer, instrumental failure and social disorders. In
such cases, one can estimate the missing data by using the nearest stations
rainfall data. There are a number of methods to fill the gaps of the records.
The following four methods are suggested for different conditions. Optimal
distribution
Table 18: Gap filling methods and their applicability `
It No Name Formula Condition of Applicability

For the coefficient of variation among
Arithmetic mean
1 stations less than 10%
If the amount of variation has no

Normal Ratio significance if the stations are in the
same rainfall regimes
2
If the amount of variation has no

Inverse distance
significance and the stations are in
weightage
short distance
3
4 Regression equation Locally developed If there are significant correlation
Since the amount of variation has no significance and also the stations are
in the same rainfall regimes we have used Normal ratio Method to fill the
missing data’s.
4.5 Outlier Test
Check on outliers has been undertaken on the recoded rainfall and flow data
to identify any low or high outliers. Outliers are data points, which
depart significantly from the trend of the remaining data. The
retention, modification, deletion of these outliers can significantly affect
the statistical parameters computed from the data, especially for small
samples. All procedures for treating outliers ultimately require judgment
involving both mathematical and hydrologic considerations. The
procedure followed for detection and treatment of high and low outliers
for this project are summarized in the next section based on
statistical technique described here under:
For this study we have used two methods to check the quality of data’s
Outlier Test

Higher outlier
YH= Ȳ+ KN*Sy KN values are obtained from tables
Maximum rainfall X = 10 YH
Lower outlier
YL= Ȳ+ KN*Sy KN values are obtained from tables
Minimum rainfall X = 10 Yl
Where Ȳ is mean
Sy is standard deviation
Table 19: Outlier test

Year Yi KN 2.5640 Year Yi Upper Limit Lower Limit

1990 41.90 XH 98.201 1990 41.90 98.20 27.59
1991 38.50 XL 27.592 1991 38.50 98.20 27.59
1992 66.80 1992 66.80 98.20 27.59
1993 59.60 1993 59.60 98.20 27.59
1994 34.90 1994 34.90 98.20 27.59
1995 39.50 1995 39.50 98.20 27.59
1996 55.40 1996 55.40 98.20 27.59
1997 95.20 1997 95.20 98.20 27.59
1998 54.20 1998 54.20 98.20 27.59
1999 54.30 1999 54.30 98.20 27.59
2000 67.40 2000 67.40 98.20 27.59
2001 50.40 2001 50.40 98.20 27.59
2002 42.80 2002 42.80 98.20 27.59
2003 49.40 2003 49.40 98.20 27.59
2004 50.70 2004 50.70 98.20 27.59
2005 54.80 2005 54.80 98.20 27.59
2006 47.70 2006 47.70 98.20 27.59
2007 41.60 2007 41.60 98.20 27.59
2008 57.00 2008 57.00 98.20 27.59
2009 45.60 2009 45.60 98.20 27.59
2010 49.00 2010 49.00 98.20 27.59
2011 111 2011 110.900 98.20 27.59
2012 52.7 2012 52.700 98.20 27.59
2013 58.4 2013 58.400 98.20 27.59
2014 51 2014 51.000 98.20 27.59
2015 36 2015 36.000 98.20 27.59
2016 62.1 2016 62.100 98.20 27.59
2017 55.2 2017 55.200 98.20 27.59
2018 41.1 2018 41.1 98.20 27.59
2019 50.9 2019 50.9

Outlier Test
120
100
80
Yi
60
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Figure 18 : Graph of Outlier test
4.6 Check for variance
For variability the formula used is
Where 𝛅n-1 is standard deviation
N is number of Data
Mean is X mean
α is Standard error
For variability from the formula mentioned in the methodology we got
α = (15.9/√30* 53.83)
α = 0.054 = 5.4 %
Therefore, from calculation after inserting the values we get α=5.4 % which
is less than 10 % so it is Acceptable.

4.7 Peak flood by SCS-CN Method
4.7.1 Estimating Time of Concentration (TC)
Time of concentration has been calculated by taking the stream profile of the
longest streamline and dividing it in to different elevation. Kirpich formula
is adopted for computation.
For channel-flow, Kirpich equation is:
Where: Tch is as defined above and is given in minutes

L = the overland-flow length, in meters;
S = slope of main channel (m/m)
K = a unit conversion coefficient (K = 0.0195 for SI units)
For the existence of a low slope or a transitional slope condition, an adjusted

slope should be used in calculating the time of concentration.
For the channel flow use the Kirpich
Therefor the total Time of concentration is given by

Tc = Tov + Tch
So, to use the above formula we have to first calculate the longest flow path
length in (Km) and the elevation difference in the watershed from Arc GIS
maps.
So, from GIS we have got that the longest flow path of Derki (L= 25.022 Km)
From the Figure DEM map we can see that the highest and lowest elevations
are 3268.9 m and 2026.5 m respectively. Therefore, by using these data we
can calculate Tc below.
Table 20: Time of concentration
Distance
No. from Elevation Tc Tc
Slope Tc (channel)
Reach watershed (m) (overland) (hrs)
divide(km)
1 3268.9
2 25.022 2026.5 0.05 2.50 3.32 5.83

4.7.2 Determination of Curve Numbers for the Study area
The curve number (CN) for the watershed is determined from the land
use/land cover and soil data of the watershed. The soil type of the
watershed According to FAO/UNESCO soils classification, There is one
major soil type revealed. This is Eutric Cambisol have been identified in
the watershed. These soils belong to Hydrologic Soil Group B.
Regarding the LULC Most of the project area was covered with Perennial
crop, Annual crop, Woodland, Closed grass, Dense Forest, Sparse Forest,
Wetland, Open Shrub and Closed Shrub. According to site visit and also
using the desktop study, we have analyzed the project areas Curve Number
based on its land cover as showed as below.
Accordingly, curve number (CN) is achieved based on USSCS

method by watershed characterization in terms of land cover, treatment,
hydrologic condition and soil group. From the watershed analysis curve
number at condition II = 69.62, since peak rainfall is found at an
antecedent moisture condition III state, this value has to be changed
to antecedent moisture condition III. CN Condition (III) =84.2.
Table 21: Guracho watershed Curve Number
Soils Hydrologic Area proportion W eighted

Land use Treatment CNp
Group Condition (Decimal or %) CNw
A
Sub Total
B Woodland Fair 0.00 60.00 0.14
Row crops SR+CR Good 0.20 75.00 14.88
Row crops C Good 0.23 75.00 16.88
Impervious areas Poor 0.00 95.00 0.00
Fallow Bare soil 0.00 86.00 0.02
Pasture-grass Good 0.08 61.00 4.65
Woodland Good 0.00 55.00 0.06
Woodland Poor 0.46 66.00 30.62
Impervious areas 0.00 95.00 0.27
Meadow C&T Poor 0.02 73.00 1.18
Meadow C&T Good 0.01 67.00 0.92
Sub Total 1.00 69.62
C
Sub Total
D
Sub Total
Total 1.00 69.62

4.7.3 Rainfall profile and Area Rainfall
Rainfall profile is the distribution of design rainfall with respect to time in

the whole watershed area. It needs developed models for the selected
drainage area. But there is sufficient modeling data in the vicinity and
adaptation of standard curves is the only option. Designers of this project
have adopted the standard curve from IDD Manual and used to compute
rainfall profile of the project area.
As the area of the catchment gets larger, coincidence of all hydrological

incidences becomes less and less. This can be optimized by changing the
calculated point rainfall to aerial rainfall. The conversion factor is taken
from standard table that relate directly with the size of watershed area and
type of the gauging station. Aerial Rainfall = (Point Rainfall) x (Conversion
factor).
Table 22: Rainfall Profile

Rainfall Profile ARF Numbering and
Rainfall Profile
From ordering
Time (hr) From
Formula* Keyboar Formula** Initial Rearrange
keyboard Cumulative
Incremental
d Order d order
1.00 46.01 46.01 62.87 62.87 26.34 26.34 1 5
2.00 53.82 55.82 71.87 71.87 35.22 8.88 2 4
3.00 60.55 61.55 75.93 75.93 41.87 6.65 3 1
4.00 66.62 65.62 78.93 78.93 47.88 6.02 4 3
5.00 69.78 68.78 80.93 80.93 51.42 3.54 5 2
6.00 72.36 71.36 81.93 81.93 53.98 2.56 6 6
Rainfall Runoff (mm) Time

Time of Time
Rearrange Cumulati Peak to
begging to end
d ve flow Peak
Cumulative
Incremental 3 (hr) (hr)
increment rainfall (m /s) (hr)
3.54 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4.00 10.67
6.02 8.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 11.67
26.34 34.91 8.82 8.82 58.13 2.00 6.00 12.67
6.65 41.56 12.87 4.05 26.73 3.00 7.00 13.67
8.88 50.44 18.90 6.02 39.69 4.00 8.00 14.67
2.56 53.00 20.74 1.84 12.12 5.00 9.00 15.67

Table 23: Other SCS-CN method Data inputs

Select AMC
Description Value Unit

Name of Project Gurach0 SSIP
50.0 years
Return period
24-hr maximum point rainfall 91.1 mm
126.6 2
Catchment area km
Time of concentration 5.83 hrs
Unit rainfall duration 1.00 hrs
Time to Peak 4.00 hrs
Recession Time 6.67 hrs
Base Time 10.67 hrs
Average Area Reduction Factor (ARF) 0.71 dec
Areal Rainfall 64.7 mm
Curve Number (AMC III) 84.2
Maximum retention potential (S) 47.7 mm
Runoff 20.7 mm
3
Peak flow rate per mm of runoff 6.59 m /sec/mm
Peak flood (Qp) 112.2 m 3 /s
4.7.4 SCS Peak Discharge Complex Hydrograph
The peak discharge is computed by developing hydrograph using the time

conditions and the computed runoff depth (Q) based on the maximum daily
rainfall (P) of a given return period. Hydrograph development depends on the
catchment area. If the catchment area is less than 10 km2; we can
approximate it with single triangular hydrograph analysis otherwise has to
be computed with multiple triangular hydrographs analysis based on
rainfall profile.
For a catchment area of over 10km2, the peak discharge has to be computed
with complex/combined triangular hydrograph approach. The complex
triangular hydrograph is constructed for six durational storms derived from
the 24-hr rainfall profile.

Table 24: Peak Discharge analysis using Complex hydrograph method

Time (hr) UH Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Qt
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 3.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.00 4.95 0.00 0.00 14.55 0.00 14.55
4.00 6.59 0.00 0.00 29.10 6.69 0.00 35.78
5.00 5.60 0.00 0.00 43.64 13.38 9.93 0.00 66.95
6.00 4.62 0.00 0.00 58.13 20.07 19.87 3.03 101.10
7.00 3.63 0.00 0.00 49.42 26.73 29.80 6.07 112.02
8.00 2.64 0.00 0.00 40.71 22.72 39.69 9.10 112.23
9.00 1.65 0.00 0.00 32.00 18.72 33.74 12.12 96.58
10.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 23.29 14.71 27.80 10.31 76.10
10.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.58 10.71 21.85 8.49 55.62
11.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.86 6.70 15.90 6.67 35.14
12.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 9.95 4.86 17.51
13.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.04 7.04
14.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 1.22
15.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
17.67 1 0.00 0.00
Therefore, the peak flood of Guracho River computed using SCS method (for
T=50 Year) is 112.23 m3/sec.
Table 25: Peak Discharge for different return periods
Return Period 5 10 25 50 100 200

Design RF (mm) 64.16 72.56 83.18 91.1 98.87 106.7
Peak Flood
(m3/s) 56.5 72.9 95 112.2 130.4 149.4
4.8 Peak flood by Regionalization Method
The flood study was made for most of the Ethiopian basins based on
regional approach at river basin level. Halcrow (1989) established a mean
annual regional flood regression equation based on 26 stations in the
basin maximum daily discharge data they obtained from hydrology
Department. The Halcrow (1989) regional flood equation has been used for
estimating the flood frequency of the study is for comparison of the flood
frequency analysis using SCS method. The equation has a form of:

Based on the above regional formula, where catchment area 126.6

Km2 and mean annual RF amount 1276.9 mm the mean annual flood
of Guracho river catchments computed to be 27.34 m3/sec. Hence, when
compared with the 50 year return flood computed by SCS, it is much
underestimated.
4.10 Discussion of Design Estimation Results
Guracho irrigation development project is a project which is found in SNNP

Region, Anelmo Woreda which is classified as small scale irrigation project.
The general result of the analysis of the Guracho watershed is compiled in
the table below.
Table 26: Summary of Project

Date: 4/12/2023
Analysis Made By:
Parameter Description Value

Name of Project Guracho SSIP
Region SNNP
Zone Hadiya
Woreda Anelmo
Kebele Ento Laf to Lenqa
Name of Catchment Guracho watershed
Name of river (if dif f erent f rom cartchment)
Catchment area (sq.km) 126.63
Length of rivwr/stream (km) 25.022
Maximum elevation of the river/stream (m) 3268.9
Minimum elevation of the river/stream (m) 2026.5
Average slope of the river/stream (%) 5.0
Design return period (years) 50
24-hr maximum point rainf all 91.053
Time of concentration (hr) 5.83
Unit rainf all duration (hr) 1.00
Curve Number f or AMC II 0.71
Areal Rainf all (mm) 20.7
Curve Number f or AMC II 84.2
Maximum retention potential (mm) 47.7
Runof f (mm) 20.7
Peak f low rate per mm of runof f (cms/mm) 6.6
Peak flood (cms) 112.23

5. TRANSPORTED SEDIMENT FLOW
5.1 Soil Erosion Rate Assessment
Erosion is defined as the removal of soil particles from the large soil mass
and transportation or dislocation of soil particles in to downstream area by
running water. Sheet and rill erosions are the most prominent features to
almost all cultivated lands of highland watersheds in general and this
watershed in particular. Though erosion is a subtle process, the hazard is
clearly seen on cultivated lands. Major attention of this watershed study has
also considered this fact to enable the intervention mechanisms effective in
protection of the watershed natural resources before the resources are
severely exposed.
Cultivated lands especially on the higher slopes suffer more than other land
units. This can be observed by yield reduction. The quality of soil on higher
slopes is more deteriorated and the color is lighter than the flat plains. Land
unprotected by vegetation and cultivated steep slopes are susceptible to
sheet and rill erosion.
Universal soil loss equation considers the five parameters as an input and
gives an annual average soil loss of the area. The equation uses rainfall
erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and gradient, soil cover, and land
management practices. This mathematical equation can be represented on
physical based models in the ArcGIS environment. Each variable could be
overlaid to make the overall spatial analysis.
The mathematical equation of the RUSLE is given by the formula:
Where:
A = Annual soil loss in tons/ha over a period selected for R;
R = Rainfall-Runoff erosivity factor in MJ. Mm/ (ha.hr);
K = Soil credibility factor in (t/h/MJ.mm);
LS = Topographic factor (L = S lope length and S = Slope gradient factor);
C = Land cover and management factor; and
P = Treatment/conservation practice factor

5.2 Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R)
The soil loss is closely related to rainfall partly through the detachment
power of raindrop striking the soil surface and partly through the
contribution of rain to runoff (Morgan, 1994). This applies particularly to
erosion by overland flow and rills for which intensity is generally considered
the most important rainfall characteristics. The most suitable expression of
the erosivity of rainfall is an index based on kinetic energy of the rain.
There are different ways of analyzing the R factor. For instance,

R = 9.28 * P – 8838. Mean annual erosivity (KE > 25) where P is mean
annual Precipitation [Morgan (1974) cited in Morgan (1994)]
R = 0.276 * P * I30. Mean annual EI30, where P is mean annual
precipitation [Foster et.al (1981) cited in Morgan (1994)]
R = 0.5 * P (in US unit) and R = 0.5 * P *1.73 (in Metric unit). [Roose (1975)
cited in Morgan (1994)]
The first equation appears to work well for Peninsular Malaysia, whereas the
application for other countries is less satisfactory. Especially with the
annual rainfall below 900mm, the equation yields estimates of erosivity,
which are obviously meaningless (Morgan, 1994). The second equation
needs the value of I30 for calculating erosivity factor, which is difficult in our
context.
However, rainfall kinetic energy and intensity data are not available most
cases. Therefore, the erosivity factor R was calculated according to the
equation given by Hurni (1985), derived from a spatial regression analysis
(Hellden, 1987) for Ethiopian conditions based on the easily available mean
annual rainfall (P).
It is given by a regression equation:
Where: R= Rainfall erosivity factor, and P= mean annual rainfall in mm
Rainfall Erosivity (R) for our watershed is computed through long year
rainfall data analysis of the nearby three national meteorology stations;

which is nearer distant of watershed center. Mean rainfall and Erosivity

factor of the stations presented in Figure below.
Figure 19 : Rainfall Erosivity(R) Factor Map
5.3 Soil Erodibility (K)
The Soil Erodibility factor characterizes more or less the soil sensitivity
towards erosion force (Wischmeier and Mannering, 1969, Blume, 1992); or it
is defined as mean annual rainfall soil loss per unit of R for a standard
condition of bare soil, recently tilled up and down with slope with no
conservation practices and on a slope of 50 and 22 m length (Morgan, 1994).
The value of K ranges from 0 to 1. The LUPRD, supported by FAO, 1984
adopts and estimates the Erodibility value of different soil types. Therefore,
the Erodibility value of the study area was adopted from FAO study as
tabulated below.

Table 27: Erodibility Value of soil units adopted in Ethiopian Condition

S/No FAO soil unit K- value S/No FAO soil unit K- value
1 Orthic acrisols 0.15 16 Eutric Cambisol 0.15

2 Dystric Nitsols 0.15 17 Dystric Cambisol 0.15
3 Dystric Fluvisols 0.1 18 Humic Cambisol 0.1
4 Eutric Gleysols 0.15 19 Gleyic Cambisol 0.15
5 Calcaric Gleysols 0.1 20 Calcaric Cambisol 0.15
6 Dystric Gleysols 0.15 21 Chromic Cambisol 0.15
7 Humic Planosol 0.15 22 Eutric Nitosol 0.15
8 Solodic Planosol 0.2 23 Calcaric Fluvisol 0.1
9 Ochric Andosol 0.15 24 Humic Nitosol 0.1
10 Molic Andosol 0.1 25 Luvic Xerosol 0.2
11 Humic Andosol 0.1 26 Eutric Fluvisol 0.15
12 Vertic Andosol 0.15 27 Ferric Acrisol 0.15
13 Pellic Vertisol 0.2 28 Humic Acrisol 0.1
14 Chromic Vertisol 0.2 29 Plinthic Acrisol 0.2
15 Orthic solonchak 0.15 30 Gleyic Acrisol 0.15
16 Orthic Luvisols 0.15 17 Chromic Luvisols 0.15
The soil class of this watershed is Eutric cambisol, Pellic Vertisol, and
chromic Luvisols discussed earlier. Therefore, according to FAO soil class,
its erodibility value was taken as follow to estimate total annual soil loss of
the project area. In the figure below show that soil erodibility factor map of
Watershed

Figure 20 : Erodibility Factor Map of Watershed
5.4 Slope Length and Gradient Factor (LS)
The LS characterizes the effect of topography on erosion in USLE. By using

DEM with finer resolution, it is possible to calculate both slope length ‘L’
and slope gradient ‘S’ rather than having to use as has been the case in the
past, resulting in far greater accuracy than in previous assessments
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). The slope length and gradient factors are
estimated from DEM data in the ArcGIS environment. The technique
described here for computing LS requires a flow accumulation grid layer and
slope grid layer. The flow accumulation can be computed from the
hydrological corrected DEM using Global Map per v15.0. Flow accumulation
grid represents number of grid cells that are contributing for the downward
flow. The cell size of the DEM represents the length of the cell.
LS =φ*([Flow.Acc] X [cell size)] /22.13, 0.6) X φ*((sin [slope]) X 0.01745)/0.09, 1.3)

Where:
Cell size- represents the field slope length, and 22.13 is the length of the
research field plot where the equation was derived.
Figure 21 : Slope length/Topographic factor Map of watershed
5.5 Land Cover Factor (C)
The Land Cover/Land Use factor (C) represents the ratio of soil loss under a
given land cover/land use to that of the base soil (Morgan, 1994). The land
cover factor is also calculated for each mapping unit of a project area using
the land use/cover map as an input. Each cover value of the project area
would be synchronized with the adopted C value in Ethiopian condition.
Land use and land cover often used interchangeably, but the distinction
between land use and land cover is an important one. Land use refers to the
actual economic activity for which the land is used- food production,
commercial forestry, and etc. Land cover refers to the cover of the surface of

the earth. Examples of land cover classes include: water, snow, grassland,
deciduous forest and bare soil without the reference how the cover is used.
In many cases, land use and land cover are directly related; for example,
grass (land cover) may generally be used for livestock grazing (land use).
Some classified maps include a mix of land cover and land use. However,
the land cover factor used for this watershed analysis is the one adopted for
our country’s conditions as tabulated below.
Table 28: Adopted land cover values applied to Watershed

No Land Cover/Use class Source C- factor
1 Forest Hurni, 1985 0.01

2 Shrub land CGIP,1996 0.02
3 Grass Land CGIP,1996 0.01
4 Dense grass Hurni, 1985 0.01
5 Degraded grass Hurni, 1985 0.05
6 Crop land/ wooded crop land CGIP,1996 0.15
7 Crop land, Teff as a main crop Hurni, 1985 0.25
8 Crop land, cereals, pulses Hurni, 1985 0.15
9 Crop land: wheat, barely CGIP,1996 0.15
10 Crop land: sorghum, maize Hurni, 1985 0.10
11 Afro-alpine BCEOM,1998 0.01
12 Open scrub land CGIP,1996 0.06
13 Bush land BCEOM,1998 0.1
14 Bare land BCEOM,1998 0.6
The C value; of this watershed was assigned using the land cover map of the
watershed and inferring the table of the C-values of the previous study. Most
of the cultivated land in the lower part of the watershed was covered with
cereals, wood crops etc. with moderate agronomic management. Generally
considering all possible existing situations, the C-value of the catchment
area as provided in the table below.

Table 29: Land Cover (C) value of Watershed

FID LULC Area_Ha Share in % C-Factor
0 Cropland 9644 85.72 0.15
1 Grassland 831.36 7.4 0.01
2 Tree cover Area 753.31 7 0.01
3 Shrub cover Area 19.83 0.18 0.02
Vegetation aquatic or
4 0.3 0.0026 0.05
regularly flooded
5 Bare Area 1.2 0.01 0.6
6 Built up Area 0.91 0.008 0.1
Total 100
Figure 22 : Land Use/Cover factor Map of watershed
5.6 The land management practice (P)
The land management practice (P) value is also one factor that governs the
soil erosion rate. The P-value ranges from 0 to 1 depending on the soil
management activities employed in the specific plot of land. These
management activities are highly depending on the slope of the area.

Wischmeier and Smith (1978) calculated the P-value by delineating the land
in to two major land uses, agricultural land and other rural land use.
Further, agricultural land sub-divided in to four and the later considered as
unity bearing in mind that this upstream part of the watershed has the
steepest slope and thus the slope percent to assign different P-value as
provided in table below.
Estimation of the P factor, for the study area, was carried out taking in
account the local Conservation practices which was located during the field
survey. In agricultural lands of the study area, particularly in the highland
parts of the catchment, farmers plough their farmlands in all directions, i.e.
both along the contour or perpendicular to the slope with ox drawn ploughs.
They construct drainage ditches in crop fields along slopes to reduce run-off.
The value of P factor was` assigned to cultivated lands based on the adopted
P-value by Hurni (1985).

Table 30: P- Value Land management applied for Watershed
Slope-class Contour Stripping Terracing
0-7 0.55 0.27 0.1

7-11.3 0.6 0.3 0.12
11.3-17.6 0.8 0.4 0.16
17.6-26.8 0.9 0.45 0.18
>26.8 1 0.5 0.2
Figure 23 : Land management [P] Factor map of Watershed
5.7 Annual Soil Loss Estimate of Watershed
Even if, erosion is a natural process, there is an option to minimize its effect
but difficult to control. Therefore, it is advisable that the loss/erosion rate
should not greater than the soil formation rate. Hence, it is important to set
the allowable soil loss rate; it is the rate of soil removal in which its effect
not affects plant growth and yield.
Soil loss tolerance refers to the maximum rate of soil loss can be tolerated
without decline in economic productivity. However, the question of what

level is tolerable depends on the situation of soil types and depth, its rate of
formation; land use/cover, topography and so on. All the five parameters of
soil loss assessment were computed using Arc GIS 10.3 geospatial database
and Microsoft access database. Mean annual soil loss of Guracho Watershed
was computed by Raster calculator tool of Arc GIS.
Figure 24 : Annual Soil Loss Rate, extent & distribution map of

Watershed
According to this result GIS computed value, the minimum and maximum
annual soil loss in the project are 0 and 79106 ton/yr. respectively. Average
annual soil loss is 7.33 ton/ha/yrs. The majority of watershed area from
total catchment falls within tolerable soil loss 10180ha about (94.36%).

5.8 Erosion Hazard & Severity of Soil Erosion
Mapping of erosion hazard risk is useful for rapidly identifying and pre--
selecting areas that needs to be given priority in SWC works and/or for the
watershed management planning. For purposes of prioritization this exercise
out puts should be used combined with soil erosion assessment discussed
in previous sections of this report. According to LUPRD study; FAO 1984,
the soil loss of watershed is classified in to three main classes as provided in
table 8 below.
5.9 Sediment Yield Estimation
In diversion projects sediment transport estimation may not be such much

important. Even though, it tells us how our top soils are being eroded by
running water. Due to lack of data, area factor is only considered to
estimate sediment yield.
Taking density of mineral soil as 1.65 ton/m3
Total soil loss in tons/yr is equal to Catchment Area *(Soil loss [tons/ha/yr])
TSL = 11254ha X 7.33 t/ha/yr) = 82,491.82 ton/yr
Estimated rate of erosion = (82,491.82 ton/yr) / (1.65 t/m3) =49,995 m3/yr.
Soil loss in depth = (49,995 m3/yr)/ (112540000 m2) =4.44 mm/yr
By considering the area factor, the sediment yield can be calculated as

follows:
Area factor (Af) = 1/A 0.2 Where: A = area of watershed in hectare; The area
factor will be;
Af = 1/11254 0.2 =0.15 Therefore, the sediment yield can be calculated as;
Sy = E (1∕A0.2)
Where, Sy=Sediment yield (ton) at the watershed out let; here considered
Sediment yield in m3 by considering density of mineral soil 1.65ton/m3
E= Estimated rate of total erosion (ton); A=watershed area (ha).
Sediment Yield = [49,995m3/yr 0.15] = 7,499.25m3/yrs.

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Conclusions
 The Mean Areal Precipitation of the catchment area is about 1298 mm

by isohyetal method.
 The Design Rainfall for 50 year return period is 91.1 mm.
 The Base flow of Guracho River was estimated by Floating method and
which was measured in March, 2023 to be 170.17 l/s during the dry
season.
 The peak flood estimation by SCS method 112.2 m3/s, by
Regionalization (27.34 m3/s).
 The Annual Sediment yield from Guracho catchment is
7,499.25m3/yr.
6.2 Recommendations
 Appropriate training should be given to the beneficiaries before

handling the project to them. The training should focus mainly
operation and management of the irrigation system comprises of
irrigation schedule and flow regulation mechanism with the help of
stop – log, use and operation of intake and under sluice gate.

8. REFERENCE
 Minstry of Agriculture, 2018. National Guidelines for small scale

irrigation Development in Ethiopia, Hydrology and Water resource,
First Edition.
 MOWR, 2018. National guideline for small scale irrigation
development in Ethiopia: Hydrology and water resource planning.
Ababa, Ethiopia.
 Bekele S, 2000. Water resources investigation and design guideline for
potential exploitation in limited data situation: the case of Abaya-
Chamo basin. Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D Dissertation, TU Dresden.
 Chow V. T, 1964. Statistical and probability analysis of hydrologic
data: Part 1. Frequency analysis, Section 8 in Handbook of Applied:
McGraw-Hi 11 Book Co., New York.
 Chow V. T, 1987. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hi 11 Book Co., New
York
 ERA Hydrology/Drainage Manual (2002).
 FAO, 1998. Guidelines for computing Crop Water Requirements,
Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 56. Rome, Italy.
 Garg, S.A. (2005) Irrigation engineering and hydraulic structures.
Khanna publishers.
 Sileshi, Y. (2005) Engineering Hydrology (Teaching materials for Addis
Ababa University Civil Engineering students).

9. ANNEX

Rainfall Profile
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Areal Rainfall (ARF) table
Area Duration (hr)

(km2) 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
25 88 78 82 85 87 88 88 91 92 93 93 94 94
50 61 71 78 82 84 85 87 89 90 91 92 92 93
75 57 67 75 79 82 84 83 87 89 90 91 91 92
100 54 65 73 78 80 82 83 86 88 89 90 91 91
125 52 63 72 76 79 81 82 85 87 88 89 90 91
150 50 61 70 75 78 80 81 84 86 88 89 89 90
175 48 59 69 74 77 79 81 84 86 87 88 89 90
200 46 58 68 73 76 78 80 83 85 87 88 88 89
225 45 57 57 72 75 77 72 82 85 86 87 88 89
250 44 55 66 71 74 77 78 82 84 86 87 88 88
275 42 54 65 70 74 76 78 81 84 85 86 87 88
300 41 53 54 70 73 75 77 81 83 85 86 87 88
325 40 53 63 58 72 73 77 80 83 84 86 87 87
350 38 52 63 68 72 74 76 80 82 84 85 86 87
375 39 51 62 68 71 74 78 80 82 84 85 86 87
400 38 50 61 67 71 73 75 79 82 83 85 86 87
425 37 50 61 67 70 73 75 79 81 83 84 85 86
450 36 49 60 66 70 72 74 79 81 83 84 85 86
475 36 48 60 66 69 72 74 78 81 83 84 85 86
500 35 48 59 66 69 72 74 78 80 82 84 85 86
525 34 47 59 65 68 71 73 78 80 82 83 85 85
550 34 47 58 64 68 71 73 77 80 82 83 84 85
575 33 46 58 64 68 71 73 77 80 82 83 84 85
600 33 45 57 63 67 71 72 77 79 81 83 84 85
625 32 45 57 63 67 70 72 76 79 81 83 84 85
650 32 45 56 63 67 70 72 76 79 81 82 84 84
675 31 44 56 62 66 69 71 76 79 81 82 83 84
700 31 44 56 62 66 69 71 76 78 80 82 83 84
725 31 43 55 62 66 69 71 75 78 80 82 83 84
750 30 43 55 61 65 68 71 75 78 80 82 83 84

Curve Number



Rainfall Regions of Ethiopia


2.guracho Draft Feasiblity Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

2.guracho Draft Feasiblity Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Studies and Detail Design of Hydrology Draft Feasibility Study

Guracho Irrigation Project

FEASIBILITY STUDY DETAIL DESIGN OF

DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 1 April, 2023

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA, MINISTRY OF

FEASIBILITY STUDY DETAIL DESIGN OF

DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT

Issue and Revision Record

Date Originator Checker Approver Description

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 2 April, 2023

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ 5

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 3 April, 2023

4.1.3 Transferring Gauged Data ............................................................... 34

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 4 April, 2023

Table 1: Guracho Soil Type.............................................................................. 13

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 5 April, 2023

Figure 1 : Guracho project Political Location Map ............................................ 10

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 6 April, 2023

DEM = Digital Elevation Model

FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization

GPS = Geographical positioning System

GIS = Geographical Information System

IDF = Intensity Duration Frequency Curve

LULC = Land use Land Cover

L/s = litter per second

L/s. ha = litter per second per hectares

NGO = Non-Governmental Organization

NMA = National Meteorological Agency

RVLB = Rift Valley Lake Basin

SCS = Soil Conservation Service

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 7 April, 2023

1.1 General Background

The historical background of Ethiopia shows that agriculture is the

In Ethiopia, under the prevalent rain-fed agricultural production system, the

Hydrology is a multidisciplinary subject that deals with the occurrence,

Hydrology is generally defined as a science dealing with the interrelationship

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 8 April, 2023

 Hydrology is applied to major civil engineering projects such as

1.2 Location and Accessibility

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 9 April, 2023

Figure 1 : Guracho project Political Location Map

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 10 April, 2023

Figure 2 : Guracho Watershed Map

1.3 Objective and Methodologies of the hydrological analysis

1.3.1 General objective

The General objective of this design project is to design the hydrology of

1.3.2 Specific objectives

The Specific objective objectives of the study are

 To study the climatic condition of the study area.

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 11 April, 2023

1.3.3 Methodologies of the hydrological Study

The following are Methodologies for the hydrological study.

1.4 Watershed and River Characteristics

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 12 April, 2023

1.4.1 Soil of the Watershed

Figure 3 : Guracho Watershed Soil map

Table 1: Guracho Soil Type

It No SOIL_TYPE Area Coverage

South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) 13 April, 2023

1.4.2 Land use and land cover

Figure 4 : Guracho Watershed LULC map