Small Scale Irrigation Project Design Watershed Feasibility Study Final Report

SNNPRS BUREAU OF WATER & IRRIGATION
DEVELOPMENT
IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION & SCHEMES

ADMINISTRATION
AGENCY
BISARIE SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION

PROJECT DESIGN
WATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT
July, 2017
Ethiopia
ደቡብ ዲዛይንና የግንባታ South Design and Construction
ቁጥጥር ድርጅት Supervision Enterprise
FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
List of Table Page
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. GENERAL........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. DEFINITION...............................................................................................................................................1
1.2. Land Degradation and SWC Practices in Ethiopia..............................................................................3
2. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY............................................................................................................ 3
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY........................................................................................... 5
3.1. Desk works........................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2. Field works........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1. Data collection methods..............................................................................................................................5
3.2.1.1. Field observations..............................................................................................................................5
3.2.1.2. Public consultations...........................................................................................................................6
3.2.1.3. Discussions and secondary data collection with Woreda sectors......................................................6
3.2.2. Data analysis methods.................................................................................................................................6
3.2.3. Approaches and procedures.........................................................................................................................7
4. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA............................................................................................. 8
4.1. Location............................................................................................................................................... 8
4.2. Topography........................................................................................................................................ 13
4.3. Watershed and Channel Geomorphology........................................................................................... 16

4.3.1. Watershed Geomorphology.......................................................................................................................17
4.3.1.1. Drainage Area; Ad............................................................................................................................17
4.3.1.2. Watershed Length; Lws.....................................................................................................................17
i
4.3.1.3. Axial length (Lb)..............................................................................................................................18

4.3.1.4. Watershed Slope; Sws........................................................................................................................18
4.3.1.5. Watershed Shape; B.........................................................................................................................19
4.3.2. Channel Geomorphology...........................................................................................................................20
4.3.2.1. Main Channel Length.......................................................................................................................20
4.3.2.2. Drainage Density; Dd.......................................................................................................................20
4.3.2.3. Stream density [Ds]..........................................................................................................................20
4.3.2.4. Drainage density [Dd].......................................................................................................................21
4.3.3. Average stream slope; Ss...........................................................................................................................21
4.3.3.1. Channel Slope; Sc.............................................................................................................................21
3.1.1.1. Stream order; Os....................................................................................................................................22
4.3.3.2. Drainage pattern...............................................................................................................................23
4.3.4. Climatic Condition of Bisarie Watershed..................................................................................................24
4.3.4.1. Rainfall.............................................................................................................................................24
4.3.4.2. Monthly mean Temperature of the Project Area.............................................................................25
4.3.4.3. Agro Climatic Zone.........................................................................................................................26
4.3.5. Major Soils of the Watershed....................................................................................................................26
4.3.6. Land Use/ Land Cover of Bisarie Watershed............................................................................................29
4.4. Socio Economic Condition of the Project area....................................................................................32
4.5. Past Land use History and Conservation Practices............................................................................32
4.6. Future Land use Trends..................................................................................................................... 33
5. ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION AND SWC ACTIVITIES......................................34
5.1. Assessment of Soil Erosion in the Watershed.....................................................................................34

5.1.1. Soil Erosion Rate Assessment...................................................................................................................34
5.1.1.1. Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R)............................................................................................................35
5.1.1.2. Soil Erodibility (K)..........................................................................................................................37
5.1.1.3. Slope Length and Gradient (Factor Ls)............................................................................................38
ii
5.1.1.4. Land Cover Factor (C).....................................................................................................................39

5.1.1.5. Land Management Practice (P)........................................................................................................41
5.1.2. Annual Soil Loss Estimate of Bisarie Watershed......................................................................................42
5.1.2.1. Erosion Hazard & Severity of Soil Erosion.....................................................................................42
6. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF EROSION & LAND DEGRADATION

PROBLEMS IN BISARIE WATERSHED........................................................................................ 44
6.1. Identification of Soil Erosion & Land Degradation Problems............................................................44

6.1.1. Removal of Forest trees and Open grazing...............................................................................................44
6.1.2. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation...........................................................................................................45
6.1.3. Decrease in Soil Fertility...........................................................................................................................45
6.2. Prioritization of Soil Erosion & Land Degradation in the Watershed................................................46
7. PROPOSED SWC & WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS FOR BISARIE

WATERSHED....................................................................................................................................... 47
7.1. Integrated Watershed Management................................................................................................... 47
7.2. Soil & Water Conservation Interventions.......................................................................................... 48
7.3. Agronomic Practice............................................................................................................................ 49
7.4. Recommended SWC Measures for the Watershed.............................................................................50

7.4.1. Implementation and Budgeting.................................................................................................................51
7.4.2. Time Schedule and Phasing.......................................................................................................................51
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION..................................................................52
8.1. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ 52
8.2. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. 52
iii
9. REFERENCE.............................................................................................................................. 54
10. ANNEXES................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 1. profile of Gilo Bisarie watershed along its principal flow path......................................10
Table 2. Distribution of slope (%) Class and Area Coverage (ha) of the Bisarie Watershed........16
Table 3. Table of characteristic parameters of Bisarie Catchment................................................22
Table 4. Annual mean (a) - Maximum, & (b) - Minimum monthly temperature (oC) of the area25
Table 5. Major Soils Group and their Extent in Bisarie Watershed..............................................27
Table 6. Characteristics of Soils in the watershed.........................................................................28
Table 7. Land cover/Use in Bisarie watershed area......................................................................29
Table 8. River channel characteristics and the dominant land use/cover of the watershed
including respective curve number Table a,b and c......................................................................29
Table 9. Hydrological conditions, soil groups and CNs for AMC II of Bisarie watershed...........31
Table 10. Erosivity of reference station for Bisarie watershed area..............................................36
Table 11. Erodibility Value of soil units adopted in Ethiopian Condition....................................37
Table 13. The dominant soil class in Bisarie watershed................................................................38
Table 14. Adopted land cover values preferred to Bisarie watershed...........................................40
Table 15. Land Cover (C) value of Bisarie Watershed.................................................................40
Table 16. P- value (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)........................................................................41
Table 17. Land management (P- Value) of Bisarie Watershed.....................................................41
Table 18. Soil Loss rate table of Bisarie watershed.......................................................................42
iv
Figure 1. Area and Drainage network (a) - of Bisarie ssip and (b) - a typical watershed..............2
Figure 2. Location map of Gilo Bisarie ssip & respective..............................................................9
Figure 3. Map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed& associated land escape [Global Mapper v15.0]. 12
Figure 4. Topographic map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed [C.I=20m]........................................14
Figure 5. Slope Class map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed............................................................15
Figure 6. Map of Drainage Network of Bisarie& adjacent watersheds.........................................24
Figure 7. Major Soil Map of Gilo Bisarie Watershed [ArcGIS 10.3]...........................................28
Figure 8. Drainage channel (Hydro-shader) map of the watershed...............................................31
Figure 9. Rainfall erosivity map of the watershed.........................................................................36
Figure 10. Soil Erodibility map of the Bisarie watershed.............................................................38
v
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. GENERAL
1.1.1. DEFINITION
The concept of watershed is one of the basic points of considerations to all hydrologic designs.
Since large watersheds are made up of many smaller watersheds, it is necessary to define a
watershed in terms of the point of interest; the location referred to as the watershed "outlet."
With respect to the outlet, the watershed consists of all the land area that sheds water to the
outlet; more usually during the rainstorm. Using the concept that "water runs downhill," a
watershed is defined by all points enclosed within the area from which rain falling at those points
would contribute runoff to the outlet.
Concerning an irrigation project, the entire area of a river basin whose surface runoff; mainly of
a rainstorm drains into the river in the basin is considered as a hydrologic unit and is called a
drainage basin, a watershed or a catchment area of the river considered and the associated
boundary line along the topographic ridge separating two adjacent drainage basins is called
drainage divide.
1
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Area and Drainage network (a) - of Bisarie ssip and (b) - a typical watershed
Therefore, the term watershed is synonymous with a drainage basin or catchments area in
practical cases as in irrigation, potable water supply from surface water, hydropower
development projects and so. Hydrological, a watershed could be defined as an area from which
all the runoff drains through a particular point in the drainage system (Figure 1(b) above). As a
result, a watershed is made up of all the natural resources within the basin; especially of water,
soil, and vegetative elements. Furthermore, a watershed includes people and their farming
system including livestock & interaction with land resources, coping strategies, social and
economic activities and cultural aspects at the socio-economic level of view.
As an appropriate approach, a watershed analysis for an irrigation project has to consider not
only with respect to the “watershed outlet” but also specialized focus with respect to identified
key points; the locations of diversion (head work) and the command area in particular. Similarly,
2
hydrologic analysis has to account the same focus and details. Accordingly, the watershed of
Bisarie ssip is identified to be 1,170ha from as to alternative DEM data & application ArcGIS &
Global Mapper in line with field survey and ground checking works. This watershed is one of the
micro watersheds of Lake Abbaya.
1.2. Land Degradation and SWC Practices in Ethiopia
SWC activity is started about a decade earlier than the watershed management approach in
Ethiopia; dated back to the 1971 &1972 where land degradation was and is more serious and
alarming. The major factors accounting to sever soil losses in Ethiopia are the undulating
topographic conditions, farming practices which do not consider conservation measures, seasonal
intense rainfall, low soil fertility and lack of awareness on soil erosion problem and willingness
to adopt introduced SWC practices. As a result, the Soil Conservation Research Project (SCRP)
estimated an average soil loss of 42 t/ha /year on cultivated lands and a maximum of 300-400
t/ha/year in highly erodible and intensively cereal cultivated fields in Ethiopia.
The general watershed conditions and/or characteristics, morphology, land use/ land cover
situation, agricultural practices, existing SWC practices and associated results are assessed and
investigated so as to evaluate and analyze runoff potential, degree of soil erosion and identify
and recommend requirements with regard to the effective management and conservation
practices within the Bisarie catchment area.
2. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
Effective SWC and utilization of the existing flood has not yet been adopted in Bisarie SSIP
area. As a result, sever soil erosion, much higher sediment deposits along the downstream course
of rivers & streams, reduced productivity and lower living standard of the people in the
watershed are commonly observed problems.
Therefore the main objective of the study is:

To describe the Bio-physical nature of the watershed,
To assess the existing potential situation of resources and problems of the watershed and
apply the necessary analyses,
3
To propose and quantify the results drawn out from the analyses to enable the necessary
measures for effective catchment protection & watershed management measures from the
perspective of both the existing environment as well as sustainability of the Bisarie ssip,
and
To develop the action plan and estimate project budget requirement to implement the
planned activities
4
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

3.1. Desk works
Identification of the watershed area and topographic features, measurement and interpretation
was carried out using base map, various satellite imagery and DEM data of the area prior to the
field work. Subsequently, secondary information on the catchment biophysical features and
associated problems have been collected through review of relevant studies and base map in the
meantime at the woreda level using the Soddo Zuriya woreda irrigation development & scheme
administration core work process as the key informant.
3.2. Field works
Adequate field visit was carried out across the watershed to collect and ascertain the collected
data on biophysical and socio-economic features required for the watershed management study.
Accordingly, various data have been collected through direct observation, measurement and
discussions with watershed communities and relevant experts of the irrigation development &
scheme administration core work process of the woreda.
3.2.1. Data collection methods
Various data collection approaches & methods have been used for Bisarie watershed
management study; to enable looking at different levels in the system features and resources of
the watershed in relation to its dynamics in diversity, coverage and constraints. Those details
used during the field data collection process are provided as follows:
3.2.1.1. Field observations
Field observations were conducted across the entire watershed including neighboring watersheds
of the woreda. The tools used in the data collection were direct observation & measurement,
ground-checking with in-hand secondary data and conducting interviews with the local farmers.
Through transect walk data have been collected on land use/land cover types, soils vegetation
types, topographic features, soil erosion and land degradation problems, types of SWC and
farming practices.
5
3.2.1.2. Public consultations
Sufficient public discussions are conducted with the target community members in different rural
kebeles of the catchment; those communities concerned with the proposed irrigation project and
bordering watersheds; particularly community leaders, elders, women and youths of upstream
catchments. These community discussions helped to understand perception of the local people on
land degradation situation and their willingness on watershed management interventions and also
to identify the watershed problems and solutions on the bases of community views and priorities.
3.2.1.3. Discussions and secondary data collection with Woreda sectors
In the meantime of the field observation works, important discussions were conducted with the
Wereda offices of Agricultural & water resource Development. The discussion points
encompassed major problems of the watershed and their causes, adopted interventions and
strategies, sustainability of the implemented SWC measures and practices, land use
proclamations and possible options &potentials for future development and management of the
watershed resources. The discussions have helped for cross-checking the issues raised by the
community and fill the data gaps. It has also assisted us to understand the institutional capacity
and organizational structures of the core implementing institutions. In addition, secondary data
have been collected from the target Wereda with the designed format through discussions with
the relevant experts.
3.2.2. Data analysis methods
The collected data have been analyzed using system analysis tools. Land based resource data of
the watershed in the system were collected and interpreted using standard descriptions with
respect to diversity, coverage and constraints in relation to land management. Likewise socio-
economic and institutional factors which are relevant for watershed management are identified
and analyzed as integral component which have helped in identifying appropriate solutions for
sustainable management of the watershed resources. The soil loss of the watershed area was
estimated using previous studies and universal soil loss equation adapted to Ethiopian condition
and finally appropriate measures will be proposed together with the implementation strategies
and estimated budgets.
6
3.2.3. Approaches and procedures
Feasibility study of the Bisarie watershed management was undertaken considering the following
approaches and procedures:
Delineation of watershed boundary using topographic map and DEM of Global Mapper
v15.0 accompanied by ground-checking of important points.
Inferring the physiographic features (slope and contour) of the watershed interpreted
using Global Mapper & GIS software application tools.
Collection of available data through measurement, observation & interpretation,
interview and discussion with targeted communities & woreda staffs as well as review of
the previous data and from secondary data sources.
Conducting land cover/use classification using the collected data and comparing ArcGIS,
Land sat Global Mapper v15.0 and Google Earth images of the watershed with ground-
checking and applying ArcGIS 10.3.
Analysis of the resources and identification of opportunities and constraints within and
around the watershed.
Proposal of integrated watershed management intervention approach.
7
4. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

4.1. Location
Gamo gofa This project is found between Soddo Zuriya and Damot Woyide woredas of Wolayita
zone on Bisarie River which originates from Soddo highlands and draining down to Lake
Abbaya. Source of the river is at the location x=371693.90, y=752843.93 and z=1,892masl and
drains down to the Gilo Bisarie watershed outlet at x=374435.80, y=758823.53 & elevation of
1,740masl; having a total of 6.925km length through this course. The river has higher flows from
April to September with the highest flow in between June to August. Command area of the
project is observed to have high ground water potential as seen during the field study.
Because that Bisarie River is the boundary of two different kebeles as stated earlier, the
command area is located in both Gilo Bisarie of Soddo Zuriya Woreda and Demba Girara
kebeles of Damot Woyide Woredas; about 60ha in Gilo Bisarie kebele and about 24ha in Demba
Girara kebele of Damot Woyide Woreda. The project is found at 175km from the Regional Town
Hawassa, of which 160km asphalt road from Hawassa to Soddo and 15km gravel all weather
road from Soddo to the project site South-East of Soddo. Geographical coordinate of the
headwork site of the project is at x=373354m, y=756184m and an altitude of 1,746masl.
8
Figure 2. Location map of Gilo Bisarie ssip & respective
Delineated watershed of Bisarie River has an area of 42.46 sq. Kms (See brief details of the
watershed spatial analysis below and the path profile analysis of the principal flow route of
Bisarie River provided in table 1 next).
DESCRIPTION=Watershed Area & Drainage Network
File Name: Watershed Area of Gilo Bisarie ssip
499 vertices, Perimeter: 45.215 km, Area: 42.46 sq km,
Bounds: x= (368781.750, 377563.003), y= (752889.926, 763009.252)
9
Table 1. profile of Gilo Bisarie watershed along its principal flow path
Distance Distance Slope Slope
ID X Y
(Segment) (Total) (0) (%)
1 368819.01 762817.06 0.00 0.00 - -
2 369010.13 762758.25 200.00 200.00 0.60 0.01
3 369201.25 762699.45 200.00 400.00 1.10 0.02
4 369276.12 762676.41 78.35 478.35 1.50 0.03
5 369393.47 762644.41 121.65 600.00 1.60 0.03
6 369586.38 762591.80 200.00 800.00 0.70 0.01
7 369662.91 762570.92 79.34 879.34 5.20 0.09
8 369768.82 762513.16 120.66 1000.00 0.20 0.00
9 369944.36 762417.40 200.00 1200.00 0.10 0.00
10 370049.70 762359.95 120.01 1320.00 0.60 0.01
11 370095.56 762294.43 79.99 1400.00 0.00 0.00
12 370210.23 762130.61 200.00 1600.00 0.30 0.01
13 370295.84 762008.32 149.30 1749.30 0.30 0.01
14 370329.21 761970.18 50.70 1800.00 2.80 0.05
15 370460.89 761819.69 200.00 2000.00 11.00 0.20
16 370541.97 761727.03 123.16 2123.20 1.90 0.03
17 370576.33 761658.31 76.84 2200.00 3.00 0.05
18 370665.76 761479.46 200.00 2400.00 1.50 0.03
19 370752.95 761305.08 195.00 2595.00 14.10 0.25
20 370755.08 761300.55 5.00 2600.00 81.00 6.30
21 370840.22 761119.62 200.00 2800.00 10.80 0.19
22 370925.36 760938.70 200.00 3000.00 0.00 0.00
23 371010.50 760757.77 200.00 3200.00 55.70 1.47
24 371034.25 760707.31 55.77 3255.80 14.10 0.25
25 371082.75 760571.51 144.23 3400.00 45.60 1.02
26 371150.00 760383.20 200.00 3600.00 38.20 0.79
27 371210.06 760215.04 178.60 3778.60 0.90 0.02
28 371219.03 760195.61 21.40 3800.00 0.00 0.00
29 371302.82 760014.06 200.00 4000.00 0.10 0.00
30 371386.62 759832.50 200.00 4200.00 0.90 0.02
31 371421.03 759757.93 82.15 4282.10 1.90 0.03
32 371442.11 759642.00 117.85 4400.00 0.00 0.00
33 371477.88 759445.26 200.00 4600.00 0.60 0.01
34 371491.36 759371.14 75.35 4675.40 0.00 0.00
35 371535.12 759254.45 124.65 4800.00 0.80 0.01
36 371596.85 759089.84 175.84 4975.80 0.20 0.00
10
37 371605.33 759067.22 24.16 5000.00 0.00 0.00

38 371675.54 758880.00 200.00 5200.00 67.90 2.47
39 371702.33 758808.54 76.33 5276.30 7.60 0.13
40 371789.77 758721.11 123.67 5400.00 17.20 0.31
41 371931.16 758579.72 200.00 5600.00 49.80 1.18
42 371948.47 758562.41 24.49 5624.50 0.00 0.00
43 372050.47 758419.61 175.51 5800.00 1.70 0.03
44 372124.28 758316.27 127.02 5927.00 67.40 2.40
45 372162.33 758254.01 72.98 6000.00 0.00 0.00
46 372266.60 758083.39 200.00 6200.00 43.20 0.94
47 372370.87 757912.77 200.00 6400.00 15.30 0.27
48 372475.14 757742.14 200.00 6600.00 64.50 2.09
49 372511.07 757683.34 68.92 6668.90 0.00 0.00
50 372594.06 757581.92 131.08 6800.00 0.40 0.01
51 372720.68 757427.16 200.00 7000.00 1.90 0.03
52 372827.53 757296.56 168.77 7168.80 5.80 0.10
53 372843.59 757269.79 31.23 7200.00 0.00 0.00
54 372946.47 757098.32 200.00 7400.00 66.20 2.27
55 373038.51 756944.93 178.92 7578.90 80.90 6.24
56 373045.75 756925.14 21.08 7600.00 87.70 25.40
57 373114.46 756737.36 200.00 7800.00 75.80 3.94
58 373183.18 756549.58 200.00 8000.00 52.70 1.31
59 373251.90 756361.79 200.00 8200.00 30.60 0.59
60 373295.00 756244.00 125.46 8325.50 1.70 0.03
61 373335.58 756181.49 74.54 8400.00 85.10 11.75
62 373406.00 756073.00 129.37 8529.40 81.70 6.83
63 373461.37 756029.17 70.63 8600.00 2.20 0.04
64 373618.16 755905.06 200.00 8800.00 83.40 8.65
65 373774.94 755780.96 200.00 9000.00 7.80 0.14
66 373809.00 755754.00 43.44 9043.40 0.00 0.00
67 373864.95 755607.82 156.56 9200.00 1.60 0.03
68 373936.43 755421.07 200.00 9400.00 77.80 4.62
69 374007.90 755234.32 200.00 9600.00 77.90 4.65
70 374079.38 755047.57 200.00 9800.00 77.90 4.67
71 374093.38 755011.00 39.17 9839.20 0.00 0.00
72 374184.91 754878.79 160.83 10000.00 9.30 0.16
73 374298.73 754714.39 200.00 10200.00 10.50 0.19
74 374409.84 754553.89 195.25 10395.30 0.20 0.00
75 374409.84 754549.14 4.75 10400.00 0.00 0.00
11
76 374409.84 754378.08 171.10 10571.10 0.90 0.02

77 374404.17 754349.74 28.90 10600.00 88.30 34.67
78 374364.96 754153.67 200.00 10800.00 80.70 6.10
79 374339.52 754026.45 129.76 10929.80 84.00 9.46
80 374294.56 753972.50 70.24 11000.00 6.30 0.11
81 374166.55 753818.89 200.00 11200.00 85.30 12.28
82 374163.70 753815.48 4.44 11204.40 0.00 0.00
83 374131.56 753622.62 195.56 11400.00 85.60 12.88
84 374128.54 753604.50 18.37 11418.40 0.00 0.00
85 374167.93 753427.24 181.63 11600.00 9.80 0.17
86 374198.87 753288.04 142.62 11742.60 2.20 0.04
87 374219.01 753234.32 57.38 11800.00 87.40 22.26
88 374289.22 753047.10 200.00 12000.00 81.20 6.47
89 374304.35 753006.74 43.11 12043.10 0.00 0.00
90 374304.35 752901.25 105.51 12148.60 1.00 0.02
91 374304.35 752866.09 35.17 12183.80 86.70 17.32
Average 25.00 2.49
Table 1: Path
Figure 3. Map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed& associated land escape [Global Mapper v15.0]
12
4.2. Topography
The topography/slope The topography of a watershed is one of the key determining factors in the
use of the land resource. In general flat or almost flat land is the first priority for any
development and also more suitable for agriculture/irrigated (if water is available) and for
mechanized farming; whereas, sloppy land could preferably be used for afforesting, fruit tree
plantation or other land use types. The most crucial issue related with the landscape of a
watershed is generally the condition of surface runoff; the speed and extent of runoff is faster in
sloppy land, and less amount of water could be retained in the soil profile. As a general fact, the
greater the slope, the greater the velocity of the flow of runoff and the greater would be its
erosive power. As a result, shallow depth soils frequently occur on steep slopes.
In order to determine the topographic features (slope and elevation classes) of Bisarie Watershed,
DEM of the study area was processed and the catchment was delineated using Global mapper
v15.0 and Arc GIS 10.3 tools. Then, the watershed is classified into five slope classes and the
corresponding area has been calculated. Finally elevation and slope class maps are generated as
presented with the next sections.
13
Figure 4. Topographic map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed [C.I=20m]
14
Figure 5. Slope Class map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed
As it could be seen from the figure 6,more than 61% of Bisarie watershed landscape is within the
slope class of 0-10%; and the remaining 26% within the range of 10.01-30% and only about 13%
with slope of 30% and above. This shows that the watershed in general and the upstream part of
the watershed in particular has a safe landscape. However, from the general environmental
degradation point of view, risk of the watershed; particularly associated with the upstream, it has
been observed that land cover/use of the upper catchment seeks great emphasis as will be
detailed in respective section of this document next.
15
Table 2. Distribution of slope (%) Class and Area Coverage (ha) of the Bisarie Watershed
Slope range
S.№ Landform Size([ha] Coverage [%]
[%]
1 Almost flat 0.00-5.00 1455.95 34.29
2 Undulating to Rolling 5.01 -10.00 1079.76 25.43
3 Slopping 10.01 – 20.00 674.26 15.88
4 Hilly 20.01 – 30.00 439.46 10.35
5 Steep ≥30.01 596.56 14.05
Total 2,323 100
This land escape classification in slope percentage is taken into account in the analysis &
estimation of soil loss, erosion hazard and in the selection of appropriate soil and water
conservations measures/interventions in combination with land use/ land cover incorporating the
soils result and rainfall data.
4.3. Watershed and Channel Geomorphology
The watershed consists of all the land area that drains water to the outlet particularly during a
rainstorm. The boundary of the watershed therefore consists of the line drown across the
contours joining the highest elevations surrounding the basin. Watershed considered in
engineering hydrology varies in size from a few hectares in urban areas to several thousand
square kilometres for large river basins.
Watershed geomorphology refers to the physical characteristics of the watershed. Certain

physical properties of watersheds significantly affect the characteristics of the runoff and
sediment yield and are of great interest in hydrologic analyses. The rate and volume of runoff,
and sediment yield from the watershed have much to do with shape, size, slope and other
parameters of the landscape. These suggest that there should be some important relations
between basin form and hydrologic performance. If the basin and hydrologic characteristics are
to be related, the basin form must also be represented by quantitative descriptions. These
parameters can also be measured from respective maps; these physical watershed characteristics
could be classified under three major categories; the Watershed geomorphology, the Channel
16
geomorphology and the Average stream slope as discussed in detail as follows (also see the
necessary analysis with the respective parameters).
4.3.1. Watershed Geomorphology
4.3.1.1. Drainage Area; Ad
The drainage area (Ad) is probably the single most important watershed characteristic for
hydrologic design. It reflects the volume of water that can be generated from a rainstorm. It is
common in hydrologic design to assume a constant depth of rainfall occurring uniformly over the
watershed; the volume of water available as runoff assumed to be the product of the rainfall
depth and the drainage area. Thus the drainage area is required as input to models ranging from
simple linear prediction equations to complex computer models.
4.3.1.2. Watershed Length; Lws
The length (Lws) of a watershed is the second watershed characteristic of interest. While its
importance increases as the length increases as the drainage area increases. The length of a
watershed is important in hydrologic computations as in calculations of the time-of-
concentration and also highly correlated with channel length.
Watershed length is usually defined as the distance measured along the main channel from the
watershed outlet to the basin divide. Since the channel does not extend to the basin divide, it is
necessary to extend a line from the end of the channel to the basin divide following a path from
where the greatest volume of water would travel. The straight-line distance from the outlet to the
farthest point on the watershed divide is not usually used to compute L because the travel
distance of flood waters is conceptually the length of interest. Thus, the length is measured along
the principal flow path. Since it will be used for hydrologic calculations, this length is more
appropriately labeled the hydrologic length (Lhyd).
While the drainage area and length are both measures of watershed size, they may reflect
different aspects of size. The drainage area is used to indicate the potential for rainfall to provide
17
a volume of water. The length is usually used in computing a time parameter, which is a measure
of the travel time of water through the watershed.
4.3.1.3. Axial length (Lb)
Basin length or axial length is defined as the longest dimension of a basin parallel to its principal
drainage channel.
L b=1.312( Ad)0.568
Where; Ad= basin area in km2, and Lb= Axial length in km.
4.3.1.4. Watershed Slope; Sws
Flood magnitudes reflect the momentum of the runoff. Slope is an important factor in the
magnitude of the momentum the flood would attain and thus both the watershed and the channel
slopes may be of interest. Watershed slope reflects the rate of change of elevation with respect to
distance along the principal flow path.; typically, the principal flow path is delineated, and the
watershed slope (Sws) is computed as the difference in elevation (∆E) between the end points of
the principal flow path divided by the hydrologic length of the flow path (Lhyd):
Sws =∆E/Lhyd
The elevation difference; ∆E may not necessarily be the maximum elevation difference within
the watershed since the point of highest elevation may occur along a side boundary of the
watershed rather than at the end of the principal flow path. Where the design work requires the
watershed to be sub divided, it will be necessary to compute the slopes of each subarea. It may
also be necessary to compute the channel slopes for the individual sections of the streams that
flow through the subareas. When computing the slope of a sub area, the principal flow path for
that sub area must also be delineated. It should reflect flow only for that subarea rather than flow
that enters the subarea in a channel. The stream-reach slope may also be necessary for computing
reach travel times.
18
4.3.1.5. Watershed Shape; B
Basin shape is not usually used directly in hydrologic design methods; however, parameters that
reflect basin shape are used occasionally and have a conceptual basis, so a few words about it are
in order. Watersheds have an infinite variety of shapes, and the shape supposedly reflects the
way that runoff will "bunch up" at the outlet. A circular watershed would result in runoff from
various parts of the watershed reaching the outlet at the same time. An elliptical watershed
having the outlet at one end of the major axis and having the same area as the circular watershed
would cause the runoff to be spread out over time, thus producing a smaller flood peak than that
of the circular watershed. Thus the shape of a drainage basin can generally be expressed by form
factor, compactness coefficient and Elongation ratio.
Form factor, Ff= Wb /Lb = Ad /Lb2 A = Lb X Wb; where:
 Wb= axial width of basin
 Lb= axial length of basin, i.e., the distance from the measuring point (MP)
to the most remote point on the basin.
Compactness coefficient, Cc= Pb /(2√(∏Ad)
Where;
Pb= perimeter of the basin
 2√(∏Ad) = circumference of circular area, which equals the area of the
basin.
The compactness coefficient is independent of the size of the catchment and is dependent only
on the slope. A fan-shaped catchment produces greater flood intensity since all the tributaries are
nearly of the same length and hence the time of concentration is nearly the same and is less,
whereas in the fern-shaped catchments, the time of concentration is more and the discharge is
distributed over a long period.
 Elongation Ratio (Er): Elongation ratio shows us how much the watershed is elongated.
The Er value is with the range less or equal to one; less value indicates more elongation,
which in turn shows less peak flow and is given by:
19
Er =
2
√Ad
Lb
π
Where Lb, the maximum length of the basin, that is parallel to the principal drainage lines.
Generally, the shape factor (B) is the best indicator of peak discharge. It is negatively correlated
with peak discharge; as B decreases, peak time decreases and peak discharge increases.
4.3.2. Channel Geomorphology
4.3.2.1. Main Channel Length
It is the distance measured along the main channel from the watershed outlet to the end of the
channel as indicated on the map as LC. The watershed length requires the user to extend a line
on the map from the end of the main channel to the divide; this requires some subjective
assessment; and thus is often a source of inaccuracy.
For very small watersheds, the watershed may not include a stream channel; it may consist of a
section of overland flow and a section where the flow is in a swale or gully. As the size of the
watershed increases, channel flow dominates and the watershed and channel lengths are
essentially the same. The design problem of interest would be to determine which length to be
computed.
4.3.2.2. Drainage Density; Dd
The drainage density (Dd) is the ratio of the total length of streams within the watershed to the
total area of the watershed; thus Dd has units of the reciprocal of length; m-1. A high value of the
drainage density would indicate a relatively high density of streams and thus a rapid storm
response. The characteristics of the drainage net may be physically described by:
The number of streams;
The length of streams;
Stream density; and
Drainage density
20
4.3.2.3. Stream density [Ds]
The stream density of a drainage basin is expressed as the number of streams per square
kilometer given by:
Ds=Ns / Ad ,
WhereNs= number of streams Ad= area of the basin
4.3.2.4. Drainage density [Dd]
Drainage density is expressed as the total length of all stream channels (perennial and
intermittent) per unit area of the basin and serves as an index of the areal channel development of
the basin given by:
Dd=Ls/Ad
Where Ls= total length of all stream channels in the basin.
Drainage density varies inversely with the length of overland flow and indicates the drainage
efficiency of the basin. A high value indicates a well-developed network and torrential runoff
causing intense floods while a low value indicates moderate runoff and high permeability of the
terrain.
4.3.3. Average stream slope; Ss
Average stream slope is the total fall of the longest water course. As a method suggested by
Horton for determining the slope of large drainage areas, the area is subdivided into a number of
square grids of equal size. The number of contours crossed by each subdividing line is counted
and the lengths of the grid lines are scaled. Then the slope of the basin is given by:
Ss=1.5 (Ci) Nc / ∑L
Where;
Ss= slope of the basin,
Ci = contour interval,
NC= number of contours crossed by all the subdividing lines, and
Σ L = total length of the subdividing lines.
21
4.3.3.1. Channel Slope; Sc
The channel The channel slope can be described with any one of a number of computational
schemes. The most common is: SC = ∆Ec/Lc; in which ∆E, is the difference in elevation (ft)
between the points defining the upper and lower ends of the channel, and LCis the length of the
channel (ft) between the same two points.
3.1.1.1. Stream order; Os
 Stream order is the measure of the amount of branching with in a watershed.
Accordingly, a small unbranched tributary is of a first order stream; these two 1 st order
streams creating2nd order tributary when joining. The 3rd order is occurred when two
second order streams join and so on. With the help of stream orders, drainage pattern of
the basin can easily be distinguished. Drainage pattern in turn indicates the flow pattern
and geological formation of the area. Dendrite drainage pattern, for instance, shows there
were no folding and faulting processes.
 Texture ratio (T):It expresses the ratio of number of streams per length of basin
perimeter and can be given as:
T = Ns/Pbwhere; Ns the number of streams & Pb the basin perimeter.
 Length of over land flow (Lo)
 Length of over land flow expresses how far a drop of rain travels until it joins a
concentrated channel flow; expressed by:
Lo = 1/2Dd
Where; Lo = Over land flow length (m), Dd = Drainage density.
35.32Km
Accordingly, characteristics of Bisarie watershed are analysed and presented in the following
table 3.
Table 3. Table of characteristic parameters of Bisarie Catchment
S.
Parameters Symbol Unit Formula Values Result
№
1 Area Ad km2 measured 42.46 42.46
2 Perimeter Pb Km measured 45.22 45.22
3 Basin length Lb Km Lb=1.312A0.568 11.03 11.03
4 Basin width W km W=A/Lb 3.85 3.85
5 Total № of streams Ns no counted 1 1
6 Total stream length (L) L km measured 6.93 6.93
22
7 Stream density Ds no/km2 Ns/Ad 0.02 0.02

8 Main stream length Lsm km measured 13.94 13.94
9 Main stream slope Ssm % measured 2.49 2.49
10 Stream order Os no counted 1 1
11 Drainage density Dd km/km2 Dd=Ls/Ad 0.163 0.163
12 Over land flow length Lo m Lo=1/2Dd 3.06 3.06
13 Form factor Ff unit less Ff=Ad/Lb2 0.35 <1
14 Shape factor B unit less B=Lm/2(Ad/π)0.5 1.90 >1
15 Elongation ratio Er unit less Er=2(Ad/π)0.5/Lb 0.67 <1
16 Circularity ratio Cr unit less Cr=4πAd/Pb 2
0.26 <1
17 Compactness coeff Cc Unitless Cc=Pb/2(πAd) 0.5
1.96 >1
18 Texture ratio T Unitless T=Ns/Pb 0.02 0.02
N.B: * indicates that the shape factor (B) is less than unity showing that the shape of the watershed would
play a significant role to decrease the time to peak; increasing the peak discharge.
Based on the above table, those watershed parameters have varying degree of contributions up
on the erosion rates; runoff volumes and sediment yields at the outlet in different angles.
Furthermore, the opportunity of thorough field investigation of the overall watershed supported
by the land cover/use classification is carried in the necessary detail and the resulting hydrologic
analysis has given the decisive points relevant for both the watershed management and inputs for
the design and sustainability of the small scale irrigation project being dealt.
From the results of the above parameters, the watershed is representatively moderate with more
impermeable terrain. However, comparative values of the stream density and observations of the
main stream length and further considerations of the highly rugged land escape of the watersheds
of the two tributaries upstream of the headwork need serious attention against risky flood,
boulder transport and silt accumulation beyond the SWC measures to be applied as to the details
in the next sections.
4.3.3.2. Drainage pattern
With the help of stream orders, drainage pattern of the basin can easily be distinguished.
Drainage pattern in turn indicates the flow pattern and geological formation of the area.
23
Dendritic drainage pattern, for instance, shows there were no folding and faulting processes. As a
result the drainage pattern will help us to know the erosion hazard and sediment yield of the
watershed. The drainage pattern is observed in the drainage map. Accordingly, the stream is of
second order. Figure 7 below shows the drainage pattern of the overall & the main watershed
being dealt.
Figure 6. Map of Drainage Network of Bisarie& adjacent watersheds
4.3.4. Climatic Condition of Bisarie Watershed
Climate is a controlling physical factor in agricultural land use. It largely determines the nature
of the natural vegetation, and its interaction with relief and soils particularly important for land
use. In addition, it is the main agent, which determines the water balance in geo-hydrology and
hydrology. Climatic factors also play a dominant role in the determination of ecological
condition.
24
4.3.4.1. Rainfall
Among those different climatic elements, rainfall amount is the most important. Rainfall
intensity and temperature are the main parameters, which are closely associated with the extent
of soil erosion. The watershed being dealt lies in wet Woyina-dega agro-climatic zone. The mean
annual rainfall is computed varying from 1000mm to 3000mm. The area has bi-modal rain fall
pattern; the main rain season extending from mid May to September and the other from
November to April. The area receives highest rain fall in the months July, August, September,
and October and its peak rainfall occurring in August.(Monthly mean Rainfall data of the project
area is provided with Annex table 1).
4.3.4.2. Monthly mean Temperature of the Project Area
The annual mean maximum and minimum temperature of the area is 25.71oC and 14.800C;
respectively. According to the regional meteorology data analysis of the recent six years, higher
maximum temperature occurs from January to April with the highest mean maximum annual in
the month March being 28.920C and the lower mean from May to October the minimum
occurring in the month July being 22.590C. Annual mean minimum temperature of the area
occurs from July to January with the lowest mean monthly temperature of 13.980C in the month
January.
Table 4. Annual mean (a) - Maximum, & (b) - Minimum monthly temperature (oC) of the area
Annual
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mean
2007 26.68 27.68 28.83 26.03 25.43 22.86 22.23 22.25 23.12 25.58 26.42 27.17 25.36
2008 28.79 28.73 29.83 27.53 25.24 23.68 21.89 22.70 23.95 24.68 25.06 26.67 25.73
2009 27.38 28.86 29.65 26.90 25.62 24.68 23.33 23.95 24.98 25.23 26.99 25.14 26.06
2010 26.26 26.56 26.33 25.66 24.27 23.68 22.00 22.45 23.76 26.05 26.79 27.03 25.07
2011 28.24 29.34 28.94 28.84 24.93 22.94 22.58 22.05 23.49 25.68 25.02 26.11 25.68
2015 27.85 29.69 29.97 28.13 25.10 23.58 23.49 24.27 25.74 26.44 26.13 26.01 26.37
Mean 27.53 28.48 28.92 27.18 25.10 23.57 22.59 22.94 24.17 25.61 26.07 26.36 25.71
25
(a)- Mean monthly maximum temperature [0C]

Annual
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mean
2007 13.93 14.86 15.83 14.26 13.63 14.76 13.97 13.98 13.90 12.84 13.60 12.84 14.03
2008 13.06 12.92 12.95 15.60 14.44 14.37 14.01 14.32 14.74 14.12 14.10 13.68 14.03
2009 14.45 15.85 16.91 15.14 15.01 15.01 14.09 14.74 14.76 14.63 14.73 15.31 15.05
2010 14.25 15.87 15.70 15.82 15.86 15.21 14.59 14.79 15.01 14.89 15.35 13.83 15.10
2011 14.80 16.31 16.95 16.15 15.64 15.30 14.33 14.35 14.50 15.00 15.19 13.27 15.15
2015 13.39 16.05 17.33 15.42 15.87 15.36 14.97 15.03 15.33 15.70 15.54 15.45 15.45
Mean 13.98 15.31 15.94 15.40 15.08 15.00 14.33 14.53 14.71 14.53 14.75 14.06 14.80
(b)- Mean monthly minimum temperature [0C]
4.3.4.3. Agro Climatic Zone
Catchment of Gilo Bisarie is situated under wet Weyna-Dega agro ecological zone with an
elevation of 2263-1748maslaccording to the classification of agro-climatic condition of Ethiopia
(Hurni, 1986). The mean annual temperature 220C and mean annual rainfall varying from
1000mm to 3000mm. The area has bi-modal rain fall pattern; the main rain season extending
from mid May to September and theother from November to April. The area receives highest
rain fall in the months July, August, September, and October and its peak rainfall occurring in
August.
4.3.5. Major Soils of the Watershed
Land use and soil characteristics affect both the volume and timing of runoff. During a rainy
storm, flow from an impervious, steeply sloped, and smooth, surface make a little retardation and
no loss to the flow. In comparison, flow along a pervious grassy hill of the same size will
produce retardation and significant loss to the flow due to infiltration. A lot of information about
land use has been gathered over the years and is available from maps or as GIS data sets. In some
cases, a field survey is necessary to determine the various land uses within a watershed. Many
hydrological analyses deal with assessing the effect of land use change on runoff.
26
Surface roughness, soil characteristics such as texture, soil structure, soil moisture and
hydrologic soil groups also affect the runoff in various ways. For example; soil properties affect
the infiltration capacity. Soil particles are usually classified as clay (d<0.002mm), silt
(0.002<d<0.02), or sand (>0.02mm).A particular soil is a combination of clay, silt and sand.
Generally, soils with a significant portion of small particles have low infiltration capacity,
whereas sandy soils have high infiltration capacity. The soil characteristics such as hydrologic
soil groups cover condition and treatment condition was observed. Based on the observation,
curve number for the watershed is determined. The curve number is 82.09 at AMCII, 96.45 at
AMC III.
Soil map of the study area was produced and the corresponding area coverage has been
calculated using FAO soil class map of Ethiopia and Arc GIS software. According to the FAO
soil class for Hararu catchment extent, Humic Nitosols soil type having an Umbric horizon and
clay texture cover 90% of the entire area of the catchment. Nitosols are one of the best and most
fertile soils of tropics. They are soils with a very thick layer of clay accumulation. They can
suffer acidity and P fixation, and when organic carbon decreases, they become very erodible. But
erosion has only slight effect on crops. Nitosols have moderate resilience and moderate to low
sensitivity.
Table 5. Major Soils Group and their Extent in Bisarie Watershed

Major soil Map unit Horizon Area (ha) %
1 NTu.um (Humic Nitosols) Umbric 1,607.10 37.85
2 GLD.ve (Dystric Glysols) Vertic 2,638.90 62.15
TOTAL 4,246 100
27
Figure 7. Major Soil Map of Gilo Bisarie Watershed [ArcGIS 10.3]
Table 6. Characteristics of Soils in the watershed
MPU1 MPU2
NTu.um GLD.ve
Geology B/P
Surface form RS B
Parent matter X C
Vegetation X
External drainage WELL IMPERFECT
Surface Stoniness % 1-3 1-3
Texture Clay Clay
Slop2[%] 8-30 0-2
Effective Soil Depth (cm) 75 - 125 0-150
Area (ha) 1,607.10 2,638.90
Area (%) 37.85 62.15
Source: [The SEA (Soil and Terrain Database Map of East Africa), FAO April 1997]
28
4.3.6. Land Use/ Land Cover of Bisarie Watershed
Land cover map of the watershed is produced from ETHIO-2008 ArcGIS database using the
ground-checking data of field visit in the study area. According to the final analysis results, the
dominant land use/cover in Bisarie watershed area is crop land 52.7% (2,237.64ha) of which
more than 80% is covered by annual crops such as maize and low growing pulses & cereals. This
catchment also has a considerable coverage of open grazing lands, bushes and poorly managed
bare plots; about 537.54ha of land across the watershed is occupied by degraded bare land,
bushes &grass/pasture land.
Table 7. Land cover/Use in Bisarie watershed area
Area
S.no Land use C _Value
Ha % coverage
1 Cultivated land/wooden crops & 41.9 52.5 0.15
Cereals
2 Degraded bare land, 25.1 31.5 0.01
grass/pasture/grazing land
3 Scattered trees, bushes 10.7 13 0.02
4 Settlement and others 2.0 2.5 0.06
Total 4,246 100
According to the final analysis, Bisarie River channel characteristics and the dominant land
use/cover of the watershed including respective curve number is summarized as shown with
table 11a, b& c below.
Table 8. River channel characteristics and the dominant land use/cover of the watershed
including respective curve number Table a,b and c
Length of Main Channel, [m] 6925.00 M

Length of Main Channel,0.3L [m] 2077.50
RIVER
CHANNEL Catchment Area, [km2] 42.46 km2
DATA
Crossing Elevation 1750.00 M
Elevation at 0.3L 1762.00
29
High Point Elevation 1805.00 M

Average River Channel Slope 0.79 %
Terrain Classification Flat
(a)- Bisarie River channel characteristics
Area
Item No. Land Use Type
Km 2
% of Coverage
1 Agricultural: 26.81 63.14
1.1 Fallow Bare land; poor 1.96 4.61
1.2 Small Grains & Cereals& legumes; good 17.90 42.16
1.3 Small trees & bushes (Agro-forestry) 6.95 16.37
2 Non-Urban; Uncultivated 15.65 36.86

Bushes, degraded Pasture & grassland;
2.1 5.59 13.17
poor
2.2 Farms, residential lots & surroundings 2.22 5.22
Woods, bushes & grass combination;

2.3 7.84 18.47
poor
TOTAL 42.46 100.00
(b)- Bisarie catchment land use/cover data
Item No. CN Number Area (Km2) Coverage in % Weighted CN
1 26.81 63.14 46.87

1.1 95.00 0.54 4.61 4.38
1.2 74.00 4.93 42.16 31.20
1.3 69.00 1.92 16.37 11.30
2 4.31 36.86 29.09
2.1 85.00 1.54 13.17 11.19
2.2 74.00 0.61 5.22 3.86
2.3 76.00 2.16 18.47 14.04
30
TOTAL 11.70 100.00

Total Weighted CN Number 75.97
(c)- SCS Curve number analysis of the watershed
Figure 8. Drainage channel (Hydro-shader) map of the watershed
Table 9. Hydrological conditions, soil groups and CNs for AMC II of Bisarie watershed
Area Coverage Hydrolo

Average Weighted CN
Treatment gic soil
Land use type Hydrologic CN (Area [%]
or practice group
condition Km2 % *CN)
Agricultural
Soil management,
Degraded Bare land Poor Limited contoured 1.96 4.61 D 93.00 4.61
& terraced
Small Grains, Insignificant 17.90 42.16 87.00
good D 42.16
Legumes& Cereals treatment
31
Soil management,
Small trees & bushes 6.95 16.37 77.00
good Limited contoured B 16.37
(Agro-forestry)
& terraced
Subtotal 26.81 63.14 63.14
Non-Urban;
Uncultivated
Degraded bare land, Ground coverage 80.00
poor 5.59 13.17 B 13.17
Pasture & grassland above 50%
Farms, buildings,
Low growing
lanes,
bushes & small 74.00
driveways, and Fair 2.22 5.22 D 5.22
trees of less than
surrounding
60% coverage
lots
Woods, bushes & 76.00
poor Poor coverage 7.84 18.47 B 18.47
grass combination
Subtotal 15.65 36.86 36.86
Sum 42.46 100 79.93
4.4. Socio Economic Condition of the Project area
Watershed-based socio economic data is not available as elsewhere in the country at the time of
the study period for the specific watershed area; however, the socio economic part of the
command area is covered in the socio economic feasibility study report. Human and animal
population is very crucial for SWC activities in that the burden on the land and human labor
availability should be known for project formulation .Even if there is no exact active labor force
data at the specific watershed, there could exist the required manpower in the watershed and the
nearby Kebele that could fill in the design gaps.
4.5. Past Land use History and Conservation Practices
The project area being around the zonal center of Wolayita Soddo town is one of high population
pressure areas of the country. Livestock populations are also usually dependent on open grazing
including the bush, shrub and farm lands. The project area is observed having a considerable
degradation due to over grazing in highly steeply landscapes and thus woodlands are more
pressurized compared to the other areas. As a result, conserving the existing natural resources
32
and managed grazing approach for sustainable development and to combat natural disaster at a
local level.
4.6. Future Land use Trends
As observed with the field survey, this catchment is facing a severe degradation and further risks
progressing with recent growths of soil erosion marks particularly at the upstream most and the
reaches of the proposed headwork site. Therefore, without designed intervention against family
planning, household biomass energy system and controlled grazing, expansion of farmland to the
steep mountains will continue unchecked. From the existing conditions, the implementation of
the mitigation measures are should be strong to combat the problem of consumption of natural
resources.
33
5. ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION AND SWC ACTIVITIES

5.1. Assessment of Soil Erosion in the Watershed
5.1.1. 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.
Concerned with the watershed being dealt, open grazing impacts have got severe gullies and do
have considerable role for the damages of the mountainous lands as well as the resulting
downstream flood & sedimentation hazards as well.
Yield reduction, exposure of tree roots, decrease in soil depth, stoniness of the land, pedestals
and other indications show that significant soil has been there. 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. As a cumulative result of poor land management practices, active gullies, unproductive
lands of silt coverage and progressive landslides are commonly observed at the downstream
lands (some of the plots affected by such process are indicated on the watershed map).
The erosion rate map/Land degradation map would be developed in ArcGIS environment by
using USLE variables as input parameters. The 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.
34
The mathematical equation of the USLE is given by the formula:

A=R . K . LS .C . P
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
5.1.1.1. 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 above formulas have been applied in different parts of the world. However, for areas with
the annual rainfall below 900mm, the equation yields estimates of erosivity, which are obviously
35
meaningless (Morgan, 1994). The second equation also needs the value of I30 for calculating of
erosivity factor, which is difficult to get in context of the study area.
Due to lack of rainfall kinetic energy and intensity data for this study, 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:

R=−8.12+0.562∗P
Where: R= Rainfall erosivity factor, and P is the mean annual rainfall in mm
Rainfall Erosivity (R) for Bisarie watershed was computed using 23 years 24 hours mean rainfall
data of Geresie national station at about 20km road distance from the center of the watershed.
Location of the station, mean rainfall and Erosivity factor of the station is presented with table 9
below.
Table 10. Erosivity of reference station for Bisarie watershed area

S.No Location X Y Mean RF(mm) R_value
1 Wolayita Soddo 363300.21 757945.55 2038 769
36
Figure 9. Rainfall erosivity map of the watershed
5.1.1.2. Soil Erodibility (K)
The soil erodibility factor characterizes more or less the soil sensitivity towards erosional 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 however there is no considerable proportion of the watershed within
the slope range above 50%.
Table 11. Erodibility Value of soil units adopted in Ethiopian Condition

S/No FAO soil unit K- value S/No FAO soil unit K- value
1 Eutric Fluvisol 0.15 45 Eutric Cambisol 0.15
2 Calcaric Fluvisol 0.1 46 Dystric Cambisol 0.15
3 Dystric Fluvisol 0.1 47 Humic Cambisol 0.1
4 Eutric Gleysol 0.15 48 Gleyic Cambisol 0.15
5 Calcaric Gleysol 0.1 49 Calcaric Cambisol 0.15
6 Dystric Gleysol 0.15 50 Chromic Cambisol 0.15
37
22 Humic Planosol 0.15 66 Luvic Xerosol 0.2

23 Solodic Planosol 0.2 67 Orthic Acrisol 0.15
24 Ochric Andosol 0.15 68 FerricAcrisol 0.15
25 Molic Andosol 0.1 69 HumicAcrisol 0.1
26 Humic Andosol 0.1 70 Plinthic Acrisol 0.2
27 Vertic Andosol 0.15 71 Gleyic Acrisol 0.15
28 Pellic Vertisol 0.2 72 Eutric Nitosol 0.15
29 Chromic Vertisol 0.2 73 Dystric Nitosol 0.15
30 Orthic solonchak 0.15 74 Humic Nitosol 0.1
[Source: FAO 1989. Reconnaissance Physical Land Evaluation in Ethiopia]
The dominant soil class in Bisarie watershed are Humic Nitosols; therefore Erodibility value 0.1
were used for soil loss assessment of the project area.
Table 12. The dominant soil class in Bisarie watershed
FID MAPUNIT ID Soil class K_VALUE
0 NTu.um 1 Humic Nitosols 0.1
38
Figure 10. Soil Erodibility map of the Bisarie watershed
5.1.1.3. Slope Length and Gradient (Factor Ls)
The LS characterizes the effect of topography on erosion in MUSLE. 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 L S
requires a flow accumulation grid layer and slope grid layer. The flow accumulation can be
computed from the hydrologically corrected DEM using Global Mapper software. 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)

39
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 10 below
shows the soil erodibility analysis of the watershed from ArcGIS 10.3.
5.1.1.4. 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 can be 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. The land cover map of the watershed was developed from Global Mapper DEM of the
project area.
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.
Table 13. Adopted land cover values preferred to Bisarie 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 Degraded grass Hurni, 1985 0.05
5 Wooded crop land CGIP,1996 0.15
40
6 Crop land, Teff as a main crop Hurni, 1985 0.25

7 Crop land, cereals, pulses Hurni, 1985 0.15
8 Crop land: wheat, barely CGIP,1996 0.15
9 Crop land: sorghum, maize Hurni, 1985 0.10
10 Open scrub land CGIP,1996 0.06
12 Bush land BCEOM,1998 0.1
13 Bare land BCEOM,1998 0.6
The crop value; C of Bisarie 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, Inset and fruits like mango &
papaw. Hence, the C-value of the study area was estimated in the following table below.
Table 14. Land Cover (C) value of Bisarie Watershed

Area
S.no Land use C _Value
Ha % coverage
1 Cultivated land/wooden crops, agro-
2,485 58.53 0.142
forestry, legumes& cereals
2 Bush, degraded bare lands,
1,539 36.25 0.009
Grass/pasture/grazing land
3 Settlement and others 222 5.23 0.057
Total 4246 100
5.1.1.5. Land Management Practice (P)
The erosion 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 dependent 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. The agricultural land sub-divided in to four and
the later considered as unity bearing in mind that this upstream part of the watershed does have
41
the steepest slope and thus the slope percent to assign different P-value as provided in table 14
below.
Table 15. P- value (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)

Land use type Slope % P-factor
0-5 0.094
5-10 0.150
Agricultural land
10-30 0.180
>30 0.230
Non-cultivated rural land All 1.00
Table 16. Land management (P- Value) of Bisarie Watershed

Land Cover Slope (%) P
Agricultural land
Bare and low growing crop lands 0-8 0.120
Grass/pasture land 8-15 0.10
Scattered trees, bushes & perennial crops >15 0.19
Other non-urban land use All slope range 1.0
5.1.2. Annual Soil Loss Estimate of Bisarie Watershed
Though 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.
In Ethiopian Condition, the practical allowable soil loss rate should not be out of 3 to 10 t/ha/yr.
On global bases, Morgan (1995) argue that 10 tons/ha/yr is an appropriate boundary measure of
42
soil loss over which agriculturalists should be concerned. This was accepted as the soil loss
tolerance value.
All the five parameters of soil loss assessment were computed using ArcGIS 10.3 geospatial data
and Microsoft access database. The mean annual soil loss of Bisarie watershed was computed by
Raster calculator tool of ArcGIS. According to this result, the minimum, mean & maximum soil
loss in the watershed is computed to be 2.74, 7.18 and 9.92 tons/ha/year; respectively.
5.1.2.1. Erosion Hazard & Severity of Soil Erosion
The GIS supported 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 was classified in to eight classes. Hence according to
this classification, the soil loss rate was laid in to four classes.
Table 17. Soil Loss rate table of Bisarie watershed

S.No Soil loss class Soil Loss (t/ha/yr) Area (ha) Coverage (%)
1 None 0-5 1,257.24 29.61
2 Slight 6-15 1,407.12 33.14
3 Moderate 16-30 915.01 21.55
4 High 31-50 666.62 15.70
4,246 100
As it is illustrated in figure above, the soil loss rates have been categorized into four classes, with
an annual magnitude raging between 0 – 50t/ha/yr. The map shows that about 1/3 of the
watershed area under study is under slight annual soil loss (6-15 t/ha/yr) and above 20% under
moderate annual soil loss rates which is a severe condition.
Moderate and high rates of soil erosion (≥16 t/ha) affected areas are disturbed & bare impervious
grazing& bush lands which are located in the near upstream of the headwork; the Western part of
43
the watershed. Therefore, the risk of erosion is probably more influenced with the slope
conditions and human interference in lack of rotation cropping, open grazing, fire wood, etc and
cultivation without appropriate conservation measures.
5.1.1. Sediment yield estimation
Even though sediment transport is not as such important for diversion projects, 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 = 4,246ha X 7.18 t/ha/yr) = 30,486.28 t/yr
Estimated rate of erosion = (30,486.28t/yr) / (1.65 t/m3) = 50,302.36 m3/yr.
Soil loss in depth = (50,302.363/yr)/(42,460,000 m2) =1.185 mm/yr
By considering the area factor, the sediment yield can be calculated as follows:
1
0. 2
Area factor (Af) = A
Where:
A = area of watershed in hectare;
The area factor will be;
1 1 1
0.2 0. 2
Af = A = (4246 ) = 5.32 = 0.188
Therefore, the sediment yield can be calculated as;
Sediment Yield = [0.188 X 50,302.36m3/yr] = 9,456.84m3/yr
44
6. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF EROSION & LAND

DEGRADATION PROBLEMS IN BISARIE WATERSHED
6.1. Identification of Soil Erosion & Land Degradation Problems
Watershed management problems in Ethiopia in general and similarly in the SNNP Regionare
characterized by land degradation, deforestation, over grazing and inappropriate farming
practice. According to the soil erosion rate/risk assessment results which are presented earlier,
about22% of Bisarie watershed requires immediate physical and biological SWC as well as
cropping management works strongly. Besides this percentage, erosion induced siltation effects
are identified to be more severe in relation to the high quartz-dominant sand deposits along the
river banks of Bisarie River downstream of the command area.
According to the watershed management field survey study, land degradation and fertility losses
in such areas are mainly attributed to the following major factors (root causes):
 Removal of forest trees, use of improper slopes for cultivation as well as improper
cropping system,
 Open grazing in steep slopes,
 Higher soil erosivity by water, and
 Population pressure/density particularly in higher altitudes.
6.1.1. Removal of Forest trees and Open grazing
The removal of forest cover due to all the cultivation, over-grazing & fire wood collection played
a great role in the process of enhancing accelerated erosion. This was not a terminating single
event, rather, a century process. As a result of this process, the topsoil depth is reduced to a
minimum uncultivable value are the most important factors in high runoff yield that results in
more accelerated erosion.
45
6.1.2. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation
Moderate to high rate of soil erosion by water is identified on about 37% of Bisarie watershed.
Even though erosion process is subtle one, it could be evaluated by its effect on cultivated lands
and check dams. This uncontrolled erosion might in the near future lead to severe damages to
natural resource potentials, lives as well as other facilities at the downstream part of the
watershed.
The major soil erosion and land degradation problems are related to:
 Natural features (hilly landscape) prone to intensive rainfall of the high altitude in the
upstream most of Bisarie watershed,
 Lack of appropriate physical SWC structures as terraces, cutoff drains, check dams &
diversion ditches,
 High population growth, which has led to shortage of and pressure on land for
cultivation, which in turn has resulted in encroachment of cultivation to marginal lands
(i.e. steep slopes, forestlands, grazing lands, etc.) without conservation measures,
 Over grazing and over stocking, lack of proper management of communal grazing lands
and lack of attention to animal feed production, and
 Lack of responsibility of the farmers with regard to land use.
6.1.3. Decrease in Soil Fertility
Even though the farming system in the project area is mixed crop–livestock, the culture is based
on low input – low output agriculture; the nutrient take away from the soil is larger than nutrient
return to the soil. The chemical fertilizer use is also limited because of its unaffordable price to
the watershed area poor farmers. The soil fertility problem in the watershed is therefore one of
the serious problems in the near future, which should be addressed in this watershed
management plan.
46
6.2. Prioritization of Soil Erosion & Land Degradation in the Watershed
As already understood, the worst effect lies on the poor farmers as the threat by Global and local
environmental changes increase. This is merely due to their direct dependence on natural
resources for survival; with very few resources to counteract the negative impact of
environmental change. Particularly in some parts of the Bisarie project area, people are on
subsistence level for their livelihood. To improve their income level and alleviate poverty from
the region and the country at large, it requires a great effort to increase production which would
be achieved through irrigation projects. Irrigation projects should have been environmental
friendly and assure sustainability of ecosystem for the coming generation. This requires
protection and proper utilization and integrated management of natural resources like soils, water
and forests.
The major social related cause for land degradation in Bisarie watershed is the land management
problem before the population pressure; the one observed as the critical cause. Creating or
increasing awareness and/or attitudes of the community towards effective watershed
management and proper agricultural practices are crucial for efficient utilization and
conservation of natural resources.
According to the current soil conservation and watershed management study, the first remedial
solution; to conserve and protect areas with nil to slight erosion and manage those areas which
are moderately and highly eroded; to bring sustainable development that considers both human
welfare and environmental conditions. A strategy has to be devised to fight poverty which also
fulfils objectives concerning sustainable management of the environment.
Critically, the following areas have to be considered:

Natural resource conservation and management: efficient utilization of water resources
by constructing water harvesting measures and adoption of conservation agriculture, to
bring sustainable agricultural production and efficient natural resource conservation,
47
Capacity building: Increasing attitude of the watershed community towards sustainable

development/Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) through effective and consistent
trainings. Providing short term and technical trainings to the Kebele DA’s and woreda
Agricultural experts; and strengthening the current agricultural extension practices in the
woreda is the key for fast adoption of IWM, and
Designing energy systems: supplying household cook stoves, infrastructure such as roads,
developing social services, attainable credit conditions and technology.
7. PROPOSED SWC & WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS

FOR BISARIE WATERSHED
7.1. Integrated Watershed Management
Integrated watershed management is very much about decision making in a multiple use and
multiple user context to improve water productivity and derive optimum benefits for all relevant
stakeholders. Nowadays, watershed projects do not focus on water conservation only; integrated
watershed management plays an important role in ensuring food security, reducing poverty,
protecting the environment and addressing issues such as equity and improved livelihoods.
SWC programs in Ethiopia have found that communities are unwilling to be involved in
interventions that do not provide an improvement in their livelihoods and therefore these
programs are now designed primarily to improve livelihoods through soil conservation usually
associated to agricultural intensification. The need for farmer participation in the process is now
universally accepted and there is a recognition that the measures must demonstrate and benefit to
the farmers who are investing their land and their time/labor in the SWC works.
The purpose of this watershed management study is primarily to reduce degradation of the
upstream catchment and as a result protecting all the downstream (irrigable area) against
flooding and through effective SWC designs. In order to get community involvement, the
interventions need to be integrated with other technical measures such as agronomic, agro-
48
forestry, area closure and reforestation measures and increased use of inputs that will show
benefits in a short period of time.
For the study area, identified SWC measures; for sustainable natural resource management and
thereby reduce the risks of physical and biological land degradation in the future; takes in to
account the physiographic feature of the upper watershed area. Accordingly, the central, western,
north-western, northern and north-eastern parts of the upstream watershed area are currently
under considerable degradation and also intensive crop production and thus need to be conserved
to reduce soil loss and fertility decline and erosion induced sedimentation and crop damage to
the downstream area including the command area.
7.2. Soil & Water Conservation Interventions
There are always strong links between measures for soil conservation and measures for water
conservation, and this applies equally in all arid and semi-arid areas. Many measures are directed
primarily to one or the other, but most contain an element of both. Reduction of surface run-off
by structures or by changes in land management will also help to reduce erosion. Similarly,
reducing erosion will usually involve preventing splash erosion, or formation of crusts, or
breakdown of structure, all of which will increase infiltration, and so help the water
conservation.
Among the various factors/variables determining the choice of the type of soil and water
conservation interventions; soil type and properties, current land use system and farming systems
and social patterns (local life styles, social systems, and patterns of administration) are the main
factors analyzed for integrated natural resources management of Bisarie watershed area.
On top of that, current soil erosion rate and severity of hazards are considered to identify hot spot
areas and determine volumes of work. In general, to implement efficient watershed resources
utilization and management intervention, the following effective and workable soil and water
conservation categories are proposed for Bisarie watershed.
Agronomic practice/soil management practices,
49
Biological soil and water conservation practices, and

Physical soil and water conservation practices.
7.3. Agronomic Practice
Agronomic soil and water conservation practice include all crop cultivation activities that
maintain soil fertility and increase soil infiltration rate by reducing runoff. The cultivation could
be intercropping, relay or double cropping, alley cropping, crop rotation, row planting, protective
cover cropping, shelter belts, wind break and improved fallow which can be considered as
agronomic measures.
Most agronomic measures are more suitable on flat and gentle topographic features and are
commonly proposed on land with slopes of less than 5%. Cultivation on higher slopes may not
contribute to soil and water conservation as ploughing on slopping land will facilitate soil
erosion. However promotion of perennial cropping on some slope ranges can be thought of as an
agronomic measure and is proposed for the upper catchment.
Cultivation practice involves contour ploughing, tie-ridging and deep tillage. Operations that
increase soil fertility (particularly organic matter content) include compost making farmyard
manure collection and application, green manuring and mulching which also increase moisture
retention and reduce runoff.
Conservation farming; which includes any farming practice which improves yield, or reliability,
or decreases the inputs of labor or fertilizer, or anything else leading towards improved land
husbandry, are also one of the main focus in the watershed management study. They are easy to
understand, simple to apply, have low inputs of labor or cash, and might show a high success rate
i.e. a high rate of return. Some of the techniques which are identified and proposed for the
Bisarie watershed are:
Farming on a ridge:
50
Cultivations and planting are done on a gentle gradient, sometimes together with graded channel
terraces. This encourages infiltration but permits surplus run-off at low velocities. Sometimes
this may be combined with simple practices to encourage infiltration such as returning crop
residues.
Strip cropping:
Strip cropping is most useful on gentle slopes of Bisarie watershed, where it helps to reduce
erosion to acceptable levels without any banks or drains.
Crop Rotations
Crop rotations are another well established and simple practice. The object may be to improve
fertility by the use of legumes or to help control pest or disease. It is proposed to alternate a
cereal crop with a free seeding self-regenerating annual forage legume.
Mixed cropping and inter-planting
Mixed cropping and intercropping are widely applied traditional techniques. A combination of
crops with different planting times and different length of growth periods spreads the labor
requirement of planting and of harvesting, and also allows mid-season change of plan according
to the rain in the early part of the season (Swaminathan 1982). Another possible advantage may
arise from the use of legumes to improve the nitrogen status for the cereal crop.
Surface mulching
Surface mulching has the advantage of providing protective cover at a time when crop cover is
not practical. It improves infiltration, and may also beneficially reduce soil temperature.
On time farming/planting
Timeliness of farming operations is always important, particularly where the rainfall is erratic,
and yields can be dramatically affected by planting or cultivating at the right time. Common
problems having to wait for rain to soften the ground because it is too hard to plough when dry,
and perhaps then not being able to plant because the ground is too wet.
51
7.4. Recommended SWC Measures for the Watershed
Before recommending any SWC measures, critical micro-watersheds have been identified and
the recommendation for Bisarie watershed focuses on these areas. The soil and water
conservation measures to be applied in the watershed considered slope steepness, land use/cover
and degree of erosion.
In this watershed, most of the cultivated land is on relatively gentle slopes 0-15%; with some on
relatively steep slopes (15-30%) and actually very little on very steep slopes of over 30%. The
upper watershed area, steep slope and moderate to high erosion risk plots need structural soil and
water conservation measures.
Bench terrace, cutoff drains and diversion ditchesare recommended on those landscapes with
slope of 15-50%and area closure is required on slope of greater than 50%. Associating the
structural measure with biological measures like grass strips makes it more effective.
The central parts of the watershed which are draining to the irrigable area are moderately and
slightly eroded and they are dominantly with slope of less than 15% except certain bare plots
severely degraded that need area closure. So these areas need to be treated with some sort of
conservation measures to reduce further erosion risk especially land that extends from river
banks. This river causes river bank erosion and will increase the rate of soil loss and land
degradation in the near future. Consequently, vegetation should be planted along the river so that
the land utilization or the irrigation development is sustained. Additionally lands with slope of 3-
15% needs structural conservation measure (level soil bund).
7.4.1. Implementation and Budgeting
The proposed Bisarie watershed management interventions include time schedule for
implementation of those measures with the sequence of activities; list of inputs required;
strategic issues that should be considered for successful implementation and institutions that
52
should be responsible for implementing the proposed development interventions based on the
working government structures.
7.4.2. Time Schedule and Phasing
Sequencing of activities on the basis of priority and prerequisite is important for the
implementation of watershed management interventions. To this end, planning the
implementation should embody sequencing and phasing. Implementing of all activities has to be
on their suitable period of time respecting their requirements. The farming calendar of the
farmers should be also respected for implementation of watershed management interventions.
Therefore, selection of appropriate season from the view point of technical aspects and farming
systems should be one of the major considerations in planning implementations of interventions.
The duration of implementation period will depend on the quantity of work involved for each
intervention, which indirectly depends on the size of areas to be treated, availability of inputs etc.
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

8.1. Conclusions
This watershed study has been carried out with the purpose of furnishing information on the
status of soil erosion/ watershed degradation, the types and causes of soil degradation potentials
and constraints, soil erosion severity and soil loss rates and the SWC efforts made as well as
limitations in implementing conservation measures. The report describes and proposes strategies
and projects to alleviate the problems. It further analyzes the perceptions/interests of the farmer's
community and elaborates the mitigation measures to be considered.
The causes for soil degradation are variably a combination of natural phenomena and man's
actions such as the destruction of vegetation cover, overgrazing and inappropriate agricultural
practices that are not in harmony with ecological environment and improper design and
53
construction of infrastructures as roads without taking into account appropriate drainage outlet
structures (for excess runoff) that suits the landscapes of the watershed area. It is man's actions,
often as a result of increasing population pressure that extend and accelerate the process of
degradation.
8.2. Recommendations
Even if topography of Bisarie watershed is not much harmful in relation to enhancing erosion by
water; the need to apply runoff retention & safe removal/diversion structures are mandatory
especially in the upstream part of the watershed. Therefore, watershed treatment is crucial using
both physical and biological SWC measures based on locally available resources in accordance
with the development plan; agro-ecology zone; soil type and rainfall intensity.
To conserve and develop natural resources of the Bisarie watershed in a sustainable, effective
application and use of the rural land use administration and land use proclamation that gives the
right and obligation of rural land users and takes into account the land use planning and proper
use of sloppy, gully and degraded lands, need to be practical. To do so, increasing awareness of
the community through education and training is the basic factor to achieve successful
development. Only if people appreciate the usefulness of the operations to be carried out, they
will incline to take them up themselves. So we can give timely advice so that money, time effort
and specially good will need not get lost. Together with local people, other ways can be looked
to achieve the objectives in a manner which is better adapted to the environment.
A balance between population and environmental carrying capacity must be achieved by family
planning and increasing agricultural productivity by intensification such as improved
implements, supplying fertilizer, seed & pesticide, developing irrigation systems and creating
reasonable credit supply condition.
Priority should be given when implementing soil and conservation activities to areas which have
moderate soil loss. In implementing soil and water conservation activities as per the development
54
plan needs a strong follow up and good expertise. Because of less supervision, the works done
had mostly fatal errors that led us wastage of scarce resources.
To protect those structures of the intended small scale irrigation project that will be constructed
downstream from upstream sedimentation& associated damages, the proposed watershed
management interventions should be implemented before or at least during the implementation
of this project. Finally, strategies and approaches recommended in the community based
participatory watershed development; a guideline, which is applicable at national level, shall be
used for proper and sound watershed management planning and implementation as well as
evaluation of watershed/soil and water conservation activities.
9. REFERENCE
FAO.1984. Ethiopian Highland reclamation Study (EHRS). Final Report, Vol 1-2.Rome.
FAO. 1986. Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study: Report prepared for the government of
Ethiopia by FAo, Rome .Vol.I
FAO and UNEP. 1984. Provisional Methodology for Assessment and Mapping of desertification.
FAO, Rome, Italy.
Fistikoglu, O., and Harmancioglu, N.B. 2002. Integration of GIS with USLE in assessment of
soil erosion. Water Resources Management, 16: 447-469.
Gachene, C.C.K. 1995. Evaluation and mapping of soil erosion susceptibility: an example from
Kenya. Soil Use and Management 11: 1-4.
Gebreyesus, B. and Kirubel, M. 2009. Estimating Soil Loss Using Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) for Soil Conservation planning at Medego Watershed, Northern
Ethiopia .Journal of American Science 2009: 5(1), 58-69. Marshland Press
Hellden, U. 1987. An Assessment of Woody Biomass, Community Forests, Land Use and Soil
Erosion in Ethiopia, Lund University Press,Lund.
Hudson N. 1995. Soil Conservation, 3rd edn. Batsford: London, 391 pp.
Hurni H. 1985a. Soil Conservation Manual for Ethiopia. Ministry of Agriculture: Addis Ababa.
Hurni H. 1985b.Erosion–productivity–conservation systems in Ethiopia. Paper Presented
55
at the 4th International Conference on Soil Conservation, 3–9 November 1985, Maracay,
Venezuela.
Hurni, H. 1988. Degradation and conservation of the resources in the Ethiopian highlands.
Mountain Research and Development, 8 (2/3): 123-130.
Hurni H. 1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In World Soil
Erosion and Conservation, Pimentel D (ed.).Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 27–62.
Hurni H, Cook MG, Sombatpanit S. 1996. Soil conservation extension—Aworld perspective.
InJenson, S.K. and J.O. Domingue, 1988. Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation
data for geographic information system analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing. 54.11: 1593-1600.
Kinnell, P.I.A. 2001. Slope length factor for applying the USLE-M to erosion in grid cells. Soil
and Tillage Research. 58:11-17.
Morgan R.P.C. 1986. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Longman Scientific and Technical Group
Ltd: Hongkong; 111–210.
ArcView. [GIS software]. Version 10.3. Help Files: Flow Direction Description and Flow
Accumulation Description.
Rehabilitation of degraded and degrading areas of Tigray, Ethiopia. Research Report,
Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.
56
10. ANNEXES
Annual Rainfall Distribution [mm] Annual
Av
Year Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monthl
y [mm]
1985 30.30 0.00 64.60 214.70 192.80 49.90 58.10 105.80 43.90 10.60 17.80 7.20 66.31 795.70
1986 0.70 4.00 18.70 21.20 37.10 31.80 36.10 35.30 15.20 0.00 35.30 76.60 26.00 312.00
1987 10.40 4.80 112.80 141.10 369.96 112.80 25.90 154.40 114.10 149.90 21.90 16.90 102.91 1234.96
1988 17.90 39.70 37.40 175.10 87.30 87.10 282.60 213.00 166.90 102.30 2.30 10.10 101.81 1221.70
1989 78.80 50.20 82.60 100.80 135.30 77.90 102.80 152.40 112.40 85.20 100.90 196.60 106.33 1275.90
1990 19.60 226.20 85.50 44.10 149.30 112.10 163.90 121.90 82.80 24.00 13.50 29.30 89.35 1072.20
1991 30.80 90.30 129.20 131.00 183.50 121.70 160.10 115.80 62.60 28.20 10.00 49.50 92.73 1112.70
1992 23.70 74.90 51.20 152.00 106.10 145.00 190.20 224.20 118.90 119.00 82.30 29.40 109.74 1316.90
1993 93.10 60.90 19.70 272.90 400.30 94.70 211.80 134.60 66.10 79.00 2.10 8.30 120.29 1443.50
1994 0.00 18.50 110.20 160.80 180.10 85.50 292.40 212.00 49.70 11.60 37.70 8.20 97.23 1166.70
1995 0.80 54.30 1.74 232.50 88.30 156.70 186.60 92.10 111.50 43.70 45.30 14.60 85.68 1028.14
1996 49.80 25.10 102.30 166.60 232.70 301.00 203.00 226.20 185.90 28.82 29.40 0.50 129.28 1551.32
1997 26.80 0.00 26.20 238.20 179.40 122.20 124.70 136.60 40.70 280.00 246.20 37.30 121.53 1458.30
1998 56.10 92.09 54.60 119.10 171.00 182.90 217.10 175.30 71.10 186.70 13.80 4.10 111.99 1343.89
1999 25.70 0.60 45.60 113.60 111.30 110.10 159.70 125.00 66.50 157.00 13.70 9.40 78.18 938.20
2000 0.60 0.00 31.00 151.70 224.80 197.90 124.20 223.40 169.50 168.00 59.80 11.30 113.52 1362.20
2001 19.10 11.90 107.40 90.00 295.50 163.80 233.70 252.40 113.40 140.40 43.80 42.30 126.14 1513.70
2002 47.90 15.50 122.00 97.90 173.40 66.90 90.50 198.40 54.30 58.60 0.40 96.50 85.19 1022.30
2003 99.50 23.40 62.10 131.40 66.60 186.80 198.20 262.70 36.20 62.40 40.40 86.00 104.64 1255.70
57
2004 55.40 52.50 41.00 277.80 106.10 103.40 185.30 159.40 63.70 94.00 143.10 27.70 109.12 1309.40
2005 8.30 30.70 213.00 208.40 323.20 108.70 241.80 241.80 151.50 107.20 113.50 5.00 146.09 1753.10
2006 4.50 25.00 125.50 222.20 142.70 101.90 136.90 258.80 62.40 133.50 37.60 150.40 116.78 1401.40
2007 74.30 35.10 90.90 186.60 225.40 259.10 225.90 245.00 248.70 23.50 15.10 0.00 135.80 1629.60
2008 8.60 15.20 15.90 119.60 134.60 134.60 225.50 241.60 191.00 206.80 131.60 0.00 118.75 1425.00
2009 13.50 21.30 0.95 128.90 125.00 60.60 95.50 122.40 100.00 186.30 45.50 164.10 88.67 1064.05
2010 16.20 97.20 145.00 189.50 280.90 199.40 113.20 97.90 131.00 34.20 18.80 19.80 111.93 1343.10
2011 4.50 9.50 43.20 68.40 271.00 115.50 202.80 202.00 106.60 25.20 138.70 10.50 99.83 1197.90
2012 1.20 1.90 10.10 199.30 139.30 89.10 314.40 246.70 135.80 37.70 33.10 17.20 102.15 1225.80
2013 47.40 7.50 196.70 342.90 105.00 159.10 253.00 232.90 124.70 77.60 44.90 0.00 132.64 1591.70
2014 33.90 50.00 127.30 90.20 237.20 133.10 199.10 229.10 179.30 307.70 131.60 164.00 156.88 1882.50
2015 0.60 6.20 40.20 122.90 192.50 161.00 135.60 77.90 79.40 69.50 127.40 62.40 89.63 1075.60
31 Yrs
24.56 23.37 61.88 140.41 157.37 117.64 156.10 156.94 90.68 89.98 54.05 33.56 105.71 1268.55
Av
58

Small Scale Irrigation Project Design Watershed Feasibility Study Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Small Scale Irrigation Project Design Watershed Feasibility Study Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Small Scale Irrigation Project Design Watershed Feasibility Study Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNNPRS BUREAU OF WATER & IRRIGATION

IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION & SCHEMES

BISARIE SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION

WATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

List of Table Page

1.2. Land Degradation and SWC Practices in Ethiopia..............................................................................3

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY........................................................................................... 5

3.1. Desk works........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Field works........................................................................................................................................... 5

4. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA............................................................................................. 8

4.3. Watershed and Channel Geomorphology........................................................................................... 16

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

4.3.1.3. Axial length (Lb)..............................................................................................................................18

4.4. Socio Economic Condition of the Project area....................................................................................32

4.5. Past Land use History and Conservation Practices............................................................................32

4.6. Future Land use Trends..................................................................................................................... 33

5. ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION AND SWC ACTIVITIES......................................34

5.1. Assessment of Soil Erosion in the Watershed.....................................................................................34

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

5.1.1.4. Land Cover Factor (C).....................................................................................................................39

6. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF EROSION & LAND DEGRADATION

6.1. Identification of Soil Erosion & Land Degradation Problems............................................................44

6.2. Prioritization of Soil Erosion & Land Degradation in the Watershed................................................46

7. PROPOSED SWC & WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS FOR BISARIE

7.1. Integrated Watershed Management................................................................................................... 47

7.2. Soil & Water Conservation Interventions.......................................................................................... 48

7.3. Agronomic Practice............................................................................................................................ 49

7.4. Recommended SWC Measures for the Watershed.............................................................................50

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION..................................................................52

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Therefore the main objective of the study is:

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

3.2.1.2. Public consultations

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

3.2.3. Approaches and procedures

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

4. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Figure 2. Location map of Gilo Bisarie ssip & respective

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

37 371605.33 759067.22 24.16 5000.00 0.00 0.00

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

76 374409.84 754378.08 171.10 10571.10 0.90 0.02

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Figure 4. Topographic map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed [C.I=20m]

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT OF OTORA SSIP – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Figure 5. Slope Class map of Gilo Bisarie ssip watershed