INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

III. HYDROLOGY

3.1 Watershed Characteristics

Malita watershed has a total river length of 31.52 km resulting in a drainage density of 0.7115 km/sq.km.
Drainage density less than 2 km/sq.km indicates that rivers in the watershed are very coarse. A lower value
of drainage density also represents a low relief basin while a high value represents high relief basin. It is
also generally linked to climate, rock types, terrain relief, vegetation cover, infiltration capacity, surface
roughness, and run-off intensity index. Time of concentration is the measurement of how long a certain
drop of rainfall from the farthest point of the watershed reaches the outlet or drainage point downstream,
this parameter indicates how fast the watershed could reach its peak flow during a rainfall event. The time
of concentration is greatly affected by the shape of the watershed so comparing the shape of the two
watersheds, Malita has a long and narrow shape which could provide longer Tc. Malita basin has a time of
concentration of 1.76hrs, which means that during rainfall, peak flow at the outlet point could be reached in
just almost 2 hours. This parameter is also a very important factor in the design of structures. The curve
number was also computed for the basin, this number represents the run-off properties of soil and ground
cover. High CN values (such as 98 for pavement) cause most of the rainfall to appear as runoff, with
minimal losses. Lower values (such as 58 for certain wooded areas), correspond to an increased ability of
the soil to retain rainfall and will produce much less runoff. The average curve number was computed for
the Malita watershed to be 51.77. A low curve number indicates lesser runoff which is just natural given the
condition of the project site which is mostly a forested area. Ground cover in the area could absorb a
significant volume of water that helps to prevent intense flooding in the area. Initial Abstraction was also
computed to be 11.99mm for Malita, this value indicates how much rainfall it could initially absorb before
runoff occurs in the watershed. And lastly, the Storage coefficient was identified as part of watershed
properties that tells us how many hours water could be stored temporarily in the basin as it drains to the
outlet point, it affects the time to peak in the watershed together with the time of concentration. The storage
coefficient for Malita was computed to be 1.62 hours. These parameters were used in the watershed model
of Malita which helped us understand better its behavior relative to water availability in the area. All of these
parameters were extracted using a geographic information system and SAR dem.

1
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Figure 3.1 Malita Site Watershed

Figure 3.1 shows the delineated watershed inside the project site. Malita basin has an estimated area of
44.3 sq. km. The watershed is ungaged and needs to use interpolated data based on the nearest gaged
stations like Buayan.

3.2 Land Cover

Land cover refers to the surface cover on the ground, whether vegetation, urban infrastructure, water, bare
soil, or other. Identifying, delineating, and mapping land cover is important for global monitoring studies,
resource management, and planning activities. Based on the land cover map produced by NAMRIA. There
were five classifications of land cover in the area of Malita Watershed namely: Brushland, Closed canopy,
Grassland, Open canopy forest, and Tree plantation. The composition of the land cover is presented in
Table 1. Malita basin is mostly Brushland (59.72%) and Closed canopy (30.74%). The composition of its
land cover tells us that the area is not yet greatly affected by anthropogenic activities and no development
has been done yet that makes the basin a good source of water supply. The land cover map of the area is
shown in Figure 3.2.

2
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Table 3.1. Land Cover of Malita Basin

Watershed Land Cover Area %Area
Malita Closed Canopy 13.5796577 30.7396572
Open Canopy Forest 1.90530361 4.31294963
Tree Plantation 2.31135926 5.23211945
Brushland 26.3800267 59.7152737

Figure 3.2 Malita and Lais Land Cover Map

3.3 Slope

A terrain slope is defined as the rise and fall of the terrain surface, also known as its inclination or gradient.
The slope is a driver and modifier of energy both above and below the water. Water flows from higher to
lower elevations. The slope represents the change in elevation concerning distance. A higher slope
presents a high change of elevation in a short distance and would also induce higher water flow velocity. A
slope map is presented in Figure 3.3 sourced from NAMRIA. Table 3.2 below shows that the majority of the

3
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Malita basin area is categorized as very steep with 66.64% of the total area. This corresponds to why the
computed time of concentrations was very fast.
Table 3.2 Slope details of Malita Basin
Watershed Slope Area %Area
Malita Undulating to rolling (8-18) 0.88353584 2.00002013
Rolling to moderately steep (18-30) 9.958809 22.5433057
Steep (30-50) 3.8941608 8.81503574
Very steep (50 and above) 29.4398416 66.6416385

Figure 3.3 Malita and Lais Slope Map

4
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

3.4 Soil Map

The Soil Map in Figure 3.4 provides the soil texture in the area which could either be clay, loam, sand, or
silt. Soil particles that have smaller sizes will have lesser permeability compared to those with larger
particle sizes. According to the data from NAMRIA there are two soil textures in the area, clay loam, and
loam. Clay loam is a mixture of a high percentage of clay and a small percentage of sand and silt. Loam on
the other hand is soil composed mostly of sand, silt, and a smaller amount of clay. It shows that clay loam
has a lesser permeability compared to loam. Loam is dominant in the Malita basin with 98.70%of the total
area. It shows that the area has a good permeability which could help prevent intense flooding.

Table 3.3 Soil Map/Texture of Malita Basin

Watershed Slope Area %Area
Malita Madunga clay loam 0.57375532 1.29878398
Malalag loam 43.6025919 98.701216

Figure 3.4 Malita and Lais Soil Map

5
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

3.5 Climatological Setting

3.5.1 Climate Type

The typical climate of any particular region in the Philippines is dependent mainly on the prevailing wind
systems during the different times of the year. The prevailing wind systems are the northeast monsoon
from November to February; the southeast monsoon from July to September and the trade winds during
the rest of the year.
Four typical climates have been identified in the Philippines of the Coronas classification by the Philippine
Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA); described in terms of
rainfall distribution in the different months of the year. These climate types are as follows:
a) Type 1: Two pronounced seasons; one dry from November to April, the other wet during the rest of
the year.
b) Type 2: No dry season with a very pronounced maximum rain period from November to January.
c) Type 3: Seasons are not very pronounced relatively dry from November to April and wet during the
rest of the year.
d) Type 4: Rainfall is more or less evenly distributed throughout the year.
The project site falls in the Type 4 classification as shown in Figure 3.5. Type 4 generally has more or less
evenly distributed throughout the year. This is a good project site for the hydropower project as we are
expecting a relatively distributed flow throughout the year.
The Philippines experiences year-to-year variability in climate linked with El Niño Southern Oscillation
(ENSO). El Niño influences the monsoons in the region, generally bringing warmer and drier conditions. La
Niña (a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon that is the counterpart of El Niño) brings wetter and
colder conditions.

6
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Figure 3.5 Climate Type Map (Peng et. Al, 2010)

7
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

3.5.2 Rainfall Analysis

Malita basin is located in a remote area with no existing gaging stations for both water level and rainfall. In
this study, the weather station of PAGASA was used based on a Thiessen polygon reference created by
the UP-DREAM project as shown in Figure 3.6. Based on the map, the project site is within the area
covered by the General Santos Synoptic station. Climate records in this station were used in the study.

Project Site

Figure 3.6 Thiessen Polygon Map of Weather Stations (UP DREAM)

Figure 3.7 shows the tracks of all tropical typhoons that passed through the Philippine Area of
Responsibility (PAR) from 1951-2013 based on the study of Tablazon et al, 2015 and PAGASA records.
The project site is located in the southernmost part of the country and it could be seen that only two
typhoons passed by in the area which happened between 1950-1959 and 1970-1979. It could be seen that
the project site is not frequently experiencing typhoon events based on its location, although it is still

8
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

affected by other typhoons that are passing in other areas. It is still not safe to assume that the project site
will never experience typhoon events in the coming years. It is recommended to be designed appropriately
for possible future weather conditions in the area.

Project Site

Figure 3.7 Tracks of Simulated Tropical Cyclones from 1951-2013 (Tablazon et al, 2015)

3.5.3 Rainfall Records in General Santos Weather Station

PAGASA weather stations were installed all over the Philippines, many watersheds in the country don’t
have gaging stations inside, however, a Thiessen polygon map developed by UP Dream was used in this
study as a basis to identify which weather station would cover the Malita area in Davao Occidental. Based
on Figure 3.7, the project site is covered by the General Santos Weather Station. Therefore, rainfall data
were extracted from this station. Shown in Table 3 are the monthly rainfall records in the station for the
years 1970-2014. The highest rainfall happened in the area was in July of 1983 with a total of 444 mm,
there were also months that no rainfall was observed like January of 1973, March of 1987, and May of
1980, but since 2000 rainfall is now continuously observed in the area every month. Months of June to
October had the highest amount of rainfall every year with an average of 99.71 to 101.72 mm of rain per
month. Annually, the project site could have an average of 965.42 mm of rain which would provide a decent
amount of water in the area. This 43 years’ worth of data was used to estimate the flow in the project sites.

9
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Table 3.4 Rainfall Records in General Santos Weather Station in “mm”

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 15.6 99.9 111.9 7.8 88.2 71.1 126.8 106.7 36.2 285.6 189.2 165.1
1971 126.9 86.7 65.5 85.6 101.8 131.2 100.9 57.2 50.9 259.8 127 94.3
1972 85.5 78.1 27.5 53.6 33.3 98.2 30.9 135.2 55.3 35.7 104.2 32.9
1973 0 5.4 7.4 55.6 134 62 77.4 135.1 93.9 97.3 103 176.4
1974 40.2 104.3 55.5 95.3 104.5 62.6 61.2 68.5 55.9 118.4 139.3 105.5
1975 54.2 34.5 98.1 80 72.7 136.4 78.3 101.8 75.7 92.3 85.5 242.8
1976 102.1 69.5 26.2 35.1 38.3 67.1 114.6 98.3 113.4 129.2 48.9 36.3
1977 54.1 94.7 16.7 12.3 11.3 151.5 109.2 165.6 268.5 59 34.5 38.5
1978 20.7 37.1 23.5 1 24.5 151.5 109.2 165.6 268.5 59 34.5 73
1979 16.5 13 20.5 1.5 36 54 90 28.5 36.5 60 28 18
1980 93 9.8 15.8 46.9 0 51.5 35 16 30.5 163.1 84 48
1981 150.6 19.8 18.6 15.2 101.4 77 14 24.3 111.5 83 112 35.5
1982 102 117.5 11.1 30.4 49.9 150.3 40.2 188.3 11.5 63.5 47.5 92
1983 15.8 1.8 1 12.2 15 374.2 444 72.7 113.2 63.5 101.9 33.7
1984 81.5 142.2 104.1 33.3 37.1 439.1 86.4 51.5 82 61.1 57.6 58.1
1985 21.5 52.4 42.3 144.9 47.3 29.8 154.6 88.8 105 201.5 67.8 80.6
1986 56.3 71.6 54.3 76.1 124.8 148 129.5 65 128.9 56.1 67.7 3.4
1987 60.6 143.1 0 15 69.2 87.5 124.4 127.2 38.8 110.7 35.2 8.1
1988 31.9 78.1 19.4 66.8 88.4 59.7 153.1 46.8 159.4 117.9 144.8 61.5
1989 12.1 145.4 97 142.8 65.5 102 54.9 98.8 77.2 135.1 85.3 26.4
1990 35.9 21 39.2 73 133.1 156.2 55.1 37.9 153.3 23.8 65.7 25.7
1991 48.9 18.7 2.5 12.4 87.9 96.2 66 58.4 67.7 34.5 26.5 42.2
1992 1.9 1.2 10.9 2.8 21 122 36.5 60.9 53.3 187.3 87.1 35
1993 80.1 41.6 49.5 75.8 81.6 42.1 158.3 61.2 82.7 148.1 63.3 156.3
1994 87.7 65.3 97.6 63.9 71.7 168.4 24 148.9 43.5 8 38.4 59.4
1995 97.9 9.9 42.9 27 66.8 88.2 150.4 116.7 117 117.8 147.9 65.9
1996 85.7 88.6 37.5 74.7 66.8 96.1 116.2 75 150.3 159.9 52.8 70
1997 86 42.4 49.8 50.3 44.7 72.7 83.1 34.2 46.7 16.7 26.2 67.5
1998 24 12.4 0 3.9 28.2 62.3 76.9 18.3 31.8 97.1 186.3 82.8
1999 217.5 44.3 143.6 124.2 91.7 44 160.7 81.9 76 152.2 108 102.3
2000 128.8 195.4 74.2 149.4 128.2 89.2 116 115.1 46.3 60.7 106.7 60
2001 180 73.9 77.1 72.3 41.8 72.7 70.6 86 73.2 65 158.5 76.5
2002 92.4 77.5 58.5 21.6 87.5 92.4 71.5 132.9 106.2 23.2 38.8 13.5
2003 83.8 62.2 69.6 3 85.1 65.8 103.3 225.6 49.2 62.2 48.1 144.7
2004 54.1 21.6 37.2 127.8 58.1 196 75 43.8 67.1 135.5 29.9 68.5
2005 11.7 7.4 15.8 50.6 75.8 65.7 96.7 110 244.2 123.7 36.9 96.9
2006 44.5 38.6 103.2 34.7 27.8 86.5 56.7 186.6 80 83.4 15 51.9
2007 144.6 14.2 67.6 23.3 35.7 104.2 202.2 131.4 59.4 65.9 154.5 143.2
2008 94.3 89.7 104.8 77.2 107.9 206.9 51.9 123.6 153.4 110.8 86.2 10.6

10
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

2009 69.1 75.5 79.6 84.9 92.1 109.4 96.1 54.2 54.7 46.8 32.6 10.4
2010 181.6 12.6 31.8 59.6 210.3 38.2 168.8 73.8 51.5 85 49.5 156.3
2011 79.3 77.4 66 57.8 101.6 89.9 50.8 137.9 85.3 83.2 42.1 72.3
2012 61.4 157 102.4 48.9 90.4 97.6 73 93.5 69.2 157.4 67.4 96.5
2013 198.8 81.7 11.8 48 47.6 107.2 142.3 107.6 104.7 133.5 127.1 67.3
2014 256.8 51.7 99.5 46.3 30.7 130.3 140.5 62.8 108.1 53.6 76.5 45.6
3587. 2786. 2289. 2424. 3157. 5004.9 4577. 4220. 4087. 4487. 3569. 3251.4
TOTAL
90 70 00 80 30 0 20 10 60 10 90 0
101.7
MEAN 79.73 61.93 50.87 53.88 70.16 111.22 93.78 90.84 99.71 79.33 72.25
2
256.8 195.4 143.6 149.4 210.3 444.0 225.6 268.5 285.6 189.2
Max 439.10 242.80
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MIN 0.00 1.20 0.00 1.00 0.00 29.80 14.00 16.00 11.50 8.00 15.00 3.40

3.5.4 Climate Normal

Climate normal represents the normal climate condition in the area all year round. Climate normal data for
General Santos station was extracted from PAGASA and these data were derived from 30 years of
historical data from 1991-2020 as presented in Figure 11. It could be seen that being a climate Type 4
would have a relatively distributed rainfall year-round. The highest rainfall is only 101.9 mm in June and the
lowest is 53 mm in February. Annually, the project site could have 958.1 mm of rainfall which is lower than
what was presented in Table 3. It could be because of the effect of climate change that is being
experienced around the world. Other important data were also presented in the climate normal table such
as Temperature, Relative humidity, Vapor Pressure, Wind speed, and direction, Cloud amount, Days with
thunderstorms, and Days with lightning. It could be seen that May, June, and October have the highest
number of days with thunderstorms ranging from 6-7 days a month.

11
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Figure 3.8 Climate Normal Data General Santos City Weather Station (UP DREAM)

3.6 RET Screen Expert

The RETScreen Clean Energy Management Software (usually shortened to RETScreen Expert) is a
software package developed by the Government of Canada. RETScreen Expert was highlighted at the
2016 Clean Energy Ministerial held in San Francisco.
The software allows for the comprehensive identification, assessment, and optimization of the technical and
financial viability of potential renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cogeneration projects; the
measurement and verification of the actual performance of facilities; the identification of energy
savings/production opportunities; and portfolio management of multiple facilities.
Rainfall data from RETScreen was also used in the study. Estimated rainfall data from 1983-2022 were
extracted as presented in Table 4. Rainfall data from RETScreen are the result of numerical modeling that
the software did use global data. RETScreen has a reputation for providing reliable data and results in
project planning.

12
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Table 3.5 Rainfall Records in Project Sites using RETScreen Expert

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1983 11.4 1.6 8.6 6.0 41.8 84.7 164.7 96.6 144.9 110.3 84.9 63.2

1984 108.0 126.9 114.1 92.3 105.4 168.8 12.5 34.9 4.2 63.7 15.2 43.7

1985 25.7 22.2 37.0 37.3 102.1 41.3 151.9 251.1 164.6 167.3 147.5 99.7

1986 237.0 51.1 47.6 20.4 87.5 245.3 72.6 55.0 208.0 90.3 211.6 31.3

1987 123.1 84.9 27.7 127.6 41.9 89.6 31.4 69.6 42.6 255.2 122.3 20.3

1988 29.1 75.5 60.3 79.2 107.4 62.8 42.0 117.1 155.9 171.4 255.9 98.7

1989 140.4 136.4 186.4 112.7 236.3 188.5 366.9 108.2 89.3 191.0 145.1 40.0

1990 56.5 26.0 47.8 71.4 154.8 148.7 76.3 54.3 157.7 61.9 159.0 26.9

1991 58.7 20.7 5.3 27.1 174.8 111.9 62.0 67.2 44.8 38.7 37.8 42.6

1992 6.7 5.9 14.5 1.1 27.8 139.2 78.1 66.0 62.2 173.8 53.7 57.7

1993 75.4 34.7 51.5 78.3 38.8 54.9 174.9 139.1 107.1 142.4 86.1 193.2

1994 65.7 61.7 102.5 87.6 50.2 187.9 31.6 155.9 51.4 24.1 67.0 60.8

1995 96.5 19.7 59.3 42.8 99.1 84.2 119.8 124.0 112.2 119.5 120.8 94.3

1996 100.0 88.4 22.8 39.9 104.7 112.4 129.7 86.6 140.8 130.1 78.6 65.9

1997 98.0 60.4 62.5 90.4 118.0 67.7 93.8 30.9 55.3 73.3 36.9 70.7

1998 26.7 11.7 1.5 9.9 183.6 155.9 148.2 130.2 221.4 216.6 254.7 151.3

1999 301.9 114.7 277.6 274.1 202.7 152.6 145.0 138.7 125.0 101.5 113.4 80.9

2000 243.3 249.8 189.6 129.6 90.6 164.6 164.7 254.5 132.1 266.0 245.1 141.7

2001 185.1 111.7 112.7 126.0 66.7 155.6 202.7 144.3 122.4 113.7 169.7 135.4

2002 162.8 111.0 92.7 55.0 126.1 284.8 51.6 163.6 175.7 121.8 153.3 55.3

2003 110.2 134.1 185.8 87.6 210.0 237.9 325.2 168.2 254.5 360.4 101.8 262.7

2004 78.9 117.6 140.3 148.9 376.3 297.9 300.5 95.4 357.0 268.4 111.1 198.1

2005 103.1 46.6 114.1 81.7 239.2 218.2 236.1 180.8 202.7 188.2 128.1 350.4

2006 193.9 200.8 248.6 146.7 208.5 346.3 178.9 198.7 193.8 237.3 143.0 127.5

2007 129.2 70.2 51.4 57.2 149.8 179.2 195.1 180.5 89.2 157.8 118.5 80.7

2008 132.3 100.2 195.9 146.2 286.1 348.5 166.4 129.5 208.9 162.6 261.2 77.7

2009 190.4 116.8 83.9 190.1 244.5 180.8 320.2 137.7 170.5 108.5 151.3 59.0

13
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

2010 138.6 38.0 42.8 94.4 199.2 161.3 238.5 188.0 143.9 180.6 149.5 159.6

2011 169.2 138.8 118.7 105.6 188.0 262.7 206.2 187.9 163.5 150.6 139.5 113.2

2012 121.4 144.3 72.1 150.3 160.6 152.9 241.3 145.5 164.7 166.3 112.4 138.1

2013 234.1 132.5 63.7 102.6 119.8 178.2 194.8 138.6 84.8 237.5 170.1 66.3

2014 169.2 34.7 129.5 66.0 123.5 137.2 125.5 144.2 129.1 209.6 147.6 83.2

2015 133.1 45.3 18.1 74.4 121.6 170.4 127.0 141.9 115.5 136.2 119.2 49.1

2016 17.3 39.3 25.5 64.7 139.4 222.8 141.2 126.4 177.2 291.1 197.2 116.2

2017 178.9 128.2 151.9 133.9 249.1 187.2 180.5 153.2 180.3 206.7 107.8 241.3

2018 106.4 60.3 69.7 148.8 215.1 132.4 204.4 193.2 118.3 127.4 86.3 128.6

2019 89.2 21.5 74.9 55.1 167.9 273.9 198.8 150.1 63.4 216.8 107.0 77.6

2020 99.4 22.9 75.3 26.8 98.4 335.6 103.0 189.7 90.2 191.2 146.5 145.7

2021 204.4 260.5 93.7 167.5 342.2 102.3 669.0 109.9 147.3 135.3 107.8 83.4

2022 63.2 98.7 113.0 308.9 529.0 109.4 245.4 314.8 107.5 358.9 384.1 377.9

4814. 3366. 3591. 3866. 6528. 6936. 6918. 5561. 5479. 6723. 5548. 4509.
Total
4 4 0 0 3 3 3 7 6 8 5 8

Mean 120.4 84.2 89.8 96.7 163.2 173.4 173.0 139.0 137.0 168.1 138.7 112.7

Based on the rainfall data from RETScreen, the months of June, July, and October had the highest average
rainfall in this 40-year record of data ranging from 168.1-173.4 mm, which is the same months with the
highest rainfall as presented in the records of PAGASA in Table 3.5. The lowest rainfall was also identified
to be in February with 84.2 mm and similarly, February has the lowest rain value in the records of
PAGASA. It just shows that while RETScreen uses numerical modeling, it still provides reliable and
comparable results. These data were then used to estimate the flow of the two rivers. The average annual
rainfall using RETScreen was computed to be 1596.1mm.

3.7 Average of derived monthly Rainfall

The derived mean monthly rainfall using PAGASA (2004-2013) data, PAGASA Climate normal, and
RETScreen shows a similar rainfall pattern. Thus, the various methods are consistent with each other,
although RETScreen produced higher rainfall values compared to the readings of PAGASA.

14
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Figure 3.9 Climate Normal Data General Santos City Weather Station (UP DREAM)

Table 3.6 Comparison of Monthly average rainfall of PAGASA (1970-2013), PAGASA (Climate Normal),
and RETScreen (1983-2022)
PAGASA (1970- Climate Normal RETScreen
Average
2014) (1991-2020) (1983-2022)
JAN 79.73 96.9 120.36 99.00
FEB 61.93 53 84.16 66.36
MAR 50.87 55.3 89.78 65.31
APR 53.88 54.1 96.65 68.21
MAY 70.16 72.2 163.21 101.86
JUN 111.22 101.9 173.41 128.84
JUL 101.72 98.1 172.96 124.26
AUG 93.78 91.3 139.04 108.04
SEP 90.84 83.3 136.99 103.71
OCT 99.71 99.6 168.09 122.47
NOV 79.33 77.5 138.71 98.51
DEC 72.25 74.9 112.74 86.63

3.8 Streamflow Analysis and Estimation

3.8.1 Rainfall-Runoff Analysis
Another method of estimating the discharge of an ungagged river is by using rainfall-runoff analysis. Since
there is not sufficient rainfall data of the project location as input for the hydrological model, precipitation
data were obtained from the records of General Santos PAGASA weather station and RETScreen.

15
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Precipitation data used was that of monthly rainfall was converted as runoff using the discharge formula;
1000 CAP
Q=
T
Where:
Q = Discharge, cms
C = Runoff coefficient
A = Watershed area, sq. km
P = Precipitation, mm
T = Time, sec

3.8.1.1 Rainfall-Runoff Using PAGASA (1970-2014)

Using the data from PAGASA from 1970-2014, the flow rate in the project point Malita (A=44.3) was
calculated as shown in the table below.
Table 3.7 and Figure 3.10 show the derived mean monthly flow generated for the Malita site and its flow
duration curve.
Table 3.7 Mean monthly flow Malita using PAGASA (1970-2014)
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 0.155 0.991 1.110 0.077 0.875 0.706 1.258 1.059 0.359 2.834 1.878 1.638
1971 1.259 0.860 0.650 0.849 1.010 1.302 1.001 0.568 0.505 2.578 1.260 0.936
1972 0.848 0.775 0.273 0.532 0.330 0.975 0.307 1.342 0.549 0.354 1.034 0.326
1973 0.000 0.054 0.073 0.552 1.330 0.615 0.768 1.341 0.932 0.966 1.022 1.751
1974 0.399 1.035 0.551 0.946 1.037 0.621 0.607 0.680 0.555 1.175 1.382 1.047
1975 0.538 0.342 0.974 0.794 0.721 1.354 0.777 1.010 0.751 0.916 0.848 2.410
1976 1.013 0.690 0.260 0.348 0.380 0.666 1.137 0.976 1.125 1.282 0.485 0.360
1977 0.537 0.940 0.166 0.122 0.112 1.503 1.084 1.643 2.665 0.586 0.342 0.382
1978 0.205 0.368 0.233 0.010 0.243 1.503 1.084 1.643 2.665 0.586 0.342 0.724
1979 0.164 0.129 0.203 0.015 0.357 0.536 0.893 0.283 0.362 0.595 0.278 0.179
1980 0.923 0.097 0.157 0.465 0.000 0.511 0.347 0.159 0.303 1.619 0.834 0.476
1981 1.495 0.196 0.185 0.151 1.006 0.764 0.139 0.241 1.107 0.824 1.111 0.352
1982 1.012 1.166 0.110 0.302 0.495 1.492 0.399 1.869 0.114 0.630 0.471 0.913
1983 0.157 0.018 0.010 0.121 0.149 3.713 4.406 0.721 1.123 0.630 1.011 0.334
1984 0.809 1.411 1.033 0.330 0.368 4.358 0.857 0.511 0.814 0.606 0.572 0.577
1985 0.213 0.520 0.420 1.438 0.469 0.296 1.534 0.881 1.042 2.000 0.673 0.800
1986 0.559 0.711 0.539 0.755 1.238 1.469 1.285 0.645 1.279 0.557 0.672 0.034
1987 0.601 1.420 0.000 0.149 0.687 0.868 1.235 1.262 0.385 1.099 0.349 0.080
1988 0.317 0.775 0.193 0.663 0.877 0.592 1.519 0.464 1.582 1.170 1.437 0.610
1989 0.120 1.443 0.963 1.417 0.650 1.012 0.545 0.980 0.766 1.341 0.847 0.262

16
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

1990 0.356 0.208 0.389 0.724 1.321 1.550 0.547 0.376 1.521 0.236 0.652 0.255
1991 0.485 0.186 0.025 0.123 0.872 0.955 0.655 0.580 0.672 0.342 0.263 0.419
1992 0.019 0.012 0.108 0.028 0.208 1.211 0.362 0.604 0.529 1.859 0.864 0.347
1993 0.795 0.413 0.491 0.752 0.810 0.418 1.571 0.607 0.821 1.470 0.628 1.551
1994 0.870 0.648 0.969 0.634 0.712 1.671 0.238 1.478 0.432 0.079 0.381 0.589
1995 0.972 0.098 0.426 0.268 0.663 0.875 1.493 1.158 1.161 1.169 1.468 0.654
1996 0.850 0.879 0.372 0.741 0.663 0.954 1.153 0.744 1.492 1.587 0.524 0.695
1997 0.853 0.421 0.494 0.499 0.444 0.721 0.825 0.339 0.463 0.166 0.260 0.670
1998 0.238 0.123 0.000 0.039 0.280 0.618 0.763 0.182 0.316 0.964 1.849 0.822
1999 2.158 0.440 1.425 1.233 0.910 0.437 1.595 0.813 0.754 1.510 1.072 1.015
2000 1.278 1.939 0.736 1.483 1.272 0.885 1.151 1.142 0.459 0.602 1.059 0.595
2001 1.786 0.733 0.765 0.717 0.415 0.721 0.701 0.853 0.726 0.645 1.573 0.759
2002 0.917 0.769 0.581 0.214 0.868 0.917 0.710 1.319 1.054 0.230 0.385 0.134
2003 0.832 0.617 0.691 0.030 0.845 0.653 1.025 2.239 0.488 0.617 0.477 1.436
2004 0.537 0.214 0.369 1.268 0.577 1.945 0.744 0.435 0.666 1.345 0.297 0.680
2005 0.116 0.073 0.157 0.502 0.752 0.652 0.960 1.092 2.423 1.228 0.366 0.962
2006 0.442 0.383 1.024 0.344 0.276 0.858 0.563 1.852 0.794 0.828 0.149 0.515
2007 1.435 0.141 0.671 0.231 0.354 1.034 2.007 1.304 0.589 0.654 1.533 1.421
2008 0.936 0.890 1.040 0.766 1.071 2.053 0.515 1.227 1.522 1.100 0.855 0.105
2009 0.686 0.749 0.790 0.843 0.914 1.086 0.954 0.538 0.543 0.464 0.324 0.103
2010 1.802 0.125 0.316 0.591 2.087 0.379 1.675 0.732 0.511 0.844 0.491 1.551
2011 0.787 0.768 0.655 0.574 1.008 0.892 0.504 1.368 0.847 0.826 0.418 0.717
2012 0.609 1.558 1.016 0.485 0.897 0.969 0.724 0.928 0.687 1.562 0.669 0.958
2013 1.973 0.811 0.117 0.476 0.472 1.064 1.412 1.068 1.039 1.325 1.261 0.668
2014 2.548 0.513 0.987 0.459 0.305 1.293 1.394 0.623 1.073 0.532 0.759 0.453
Min 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.296 0.139 0.159 0.114 0.079 0.149 0.034
Max 2.548 1.939 1.425 1.483 2.087 4.358 4.406 2.239 2.665 2.834 1.878 2.410
Mean 0.791 0.615 0.505 0.535 0.696 1.104 1.009 0.931 0.901 0.990 0.787 0.717

17
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Rainfall-
% Exceedance Malita
MalitaFlow
FlowDuration
DurationCurve
Curveusing
usingDaily
Dailyrecords
records
Runoff
1 16.305
5 8.768
10 5.876
15 4.338
20 3.384
25 2.769
30 2.215
35 1.846
40 1.477
45 1.231
50 0.984
55 0.831
60 0.646
65 0.554
70 0.431
75 0.308
80 0.308
85 0.185
90 0.154
95 0.092
100 0.031

Figure 3.10 Malita Flow Duration Curve using PAGASA (1970-2014)

Shown in Table 3.6 and Figure 3.10 is the daily average flow rate in Malita River which was then processed
to produce the Flow Duration Curve of the same river. Daily rainfall data was used in this assessment from
1970-2014. According to the results, 50% of the time the flow could be 0.984 m3/s. 100% exceedance
could produce a flow of 0.031m3/s and 1% exceedance is 16.305 m3/s. The result showed significant water
flow in the river.
3.8.1.2 Rainfall-Runoff Using PAGASA (Climate Normal)
Using the data from PAGASA’s Climate Normal which represents the average climate condition in the area
from 1991-2020, the flow rate in the project point Malita (A=44.3) was calculated as shown in the table
below.
The table and figure below show the derived mean monthly flow generated for the Malita site and its flow
duration curve.

18
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Table 3.8 Mean monthly flow Malita using Climate Normal

Basin JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Malita 1.122 0.679 0.640 0.647 0.836 1.219 1.136 1.057 0.997 1.153 0.927 0.867

Rainfall-
% Exceedance
Runoff Malita Flow Duration Curve using PAGASA Climate Normal
1 1.24807
5 1.23015
10 1.2064
15 1.18115
20 1.1544
25 1.12615
30 1.0964
35 1.06515
40 1.0324
45 0.99815
50 0.9624
55 0.92515
60 0.8864
65 0.84615
70 0.8044
75 0.76115
80 0.7164
85 0.67015
90 0.6224
95 0.57315
100 0.5224

Figure 3.11 Malita Flow Duration Curve using PAGASA Climate Normal

Shown in Table 3.8 and Figure 3.11 is the average flow rate in Malita River which was then processed to
produce the Flow Duration Curve of the same river. According to the results, 50% of the time the flow could
be 0.9624 m3/s. 100% exceedance could produce a flow of 0.55224 m3/s and 1% exceedance is 1.248
m3/s.

3.8.1.3 Rainfall-Runoff Using RETScreen

Using the data from RETScreen experts which estimates the precipitation in the area using global
numerical models from 1983-2022, the flow rate in the project point Malita (A=44.3) was calculated as
shown in the table below.
The table and figure below show the derived mean monthly flow generated for the Malita site and its flow
duration curve.

19
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Table 3.9 Mean monthly flow Malita using RETScreen

YEA
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
R
1983 0.094 0.014 0.071 0.052 0.346 0.723 1.362 0.799 1.238 0.912 0.726 0.523
1984 0.893 1.122 0.944 0.789 0.871 1.442 0.103 0.288 0.036 0.527 0.130 0.361
1985 0.212 0.204 0.306 0.319 0.844 0.353 1.256 2.076 1.407 1.384 1.260 0.825
1986 1.960 0.468 0.394 0.174 0.723 2.096 0.600 0.455 1.778 0.747 1.808 0.259
1987 1.018 0.777 0.229 1.090 0.347 0.766 0.260 0.576 0.364 2.110 1.045 0.168
1988 0.241 0.668 0.498 0.676 0.888 0.536 0.347 0.968 1.332 1.417 2.187 0.816
1989 1.161 1.249 1.541 0.963 1.954 1.611 3.034 0.895 0.763 1.580 1.240 0.331
1990 0.467 0.238 0.395 0.610 1.280 1.271 0.631 0.449 1.347 0.512 1.358 0.223
1991 0.132 0.020 0.100 0.072 0.484 1.013 1.907 1.118 1.733 1.277 1.016 0.732
1992 1.251 1.570 1.321 1.104 1.220 2.019 0.144 0.404 0.050 0.738 0.182 0.506
1993 0.297 0.285 0.429 0.447 1.182 0.494 1.758 2.907 1.970 1.937 1.764 1.155
1994 2.744 0.655 0.551 0.244 1.013 2.935 0.840 0.636 2.489 1.046 2.531 0.363
1995 1.425 1.088 0.321 1.526 0.485 1.072 0.363 0.806 0.510 2.954 1.463 0.235
1996 0.337 0.935 0.698 0.947 1.243 0.751 0.486 1.356 1.865 1.984 3.062 1.143
1997 1.625 1.748 2.158 1.348 2.736 2.255 4.248 1.253 1.068 2.211 1.736 0.463
1998 0.654 0.333 0.554 0.854 1.792 1.779 0.883 0.629 1.886 0.717 1.902 0.312
1999 0.680 0.266 0.061 0.324 2.024 1.339 0.718 0.777 0.536 0.448 0.452 0.493
2000 0.078 0.073 0.168 0.013 0.322 1.665 0.904 0.764 0.744 2.012 0.643 0.669
2001 0.872 0.444 0.596 0.937 0.449 0.657 2.025 1.611 1.281 1.649 1.030 2.237
2002 0.761 0.791 1.187 1.048 0.582 2.248 0.366 1.805 0.614 0.279 0.801 0.704
2003 1.117 0.253 0.686 0.512 1.148 1.007 1.387 1.436 1.342 1.384 1.445 1.092
2004 1.157 1.094 0.264 0.478 1.212 1.345 1.502 1.003 1.685 1.507 0.941 0.763
2005 1.135 0.775 0.724 1.081 1.366 0.809 1.086 0.358 0.661 0.849 0.442 0.818
2006 0.310 0.150 0.017 0.119 2.126 1.865 1.716 1.508 2.648 2.508 3.048 1.752
2007 3.495 1.471 3.214 3.280 2.347 1.826 1.679 1.605 1.495 1.175 1.356 0.937
2008 2.816 3.092 2.195 1.550 1.049 1.969 1.906 2.947 1.581 3.080 2.932 1.640
2009 2.143 1.431 1.305 1.507 0.772 1.861 2.346 1.670 1.464 1.316 2.031 1.568
2010 1.885 1.423 1.073 0.658 1.460 3.408 0.598 1.894 2.102 1.410 1.834 0.640
2011 1.276 1.719 2.152 1.048 2.431 2.846 3.765 1.948 3.045 4.172 1.218 3.042
2012 0.913 1.455 1.624 1.781 4.357 3.564 3.479 1.104 4.271 3.108 1.329 2.293
2013 1.193 0.598 1.321 0.978 2.769 2.611 2.734 2.094 2.425 2.179 1.533 4.057
2014 2.245 2.574 2.878 1.755 2.414 4.144 2.072 2.300 2.318 2.747 1.711 1.477
2015 1.496 0.900 0.595 0.684 1.734 2.144 2.259 2.090 1.067 1.827 1.418 0.934
2016 1.531 1.240 2.268 1.748 3.312 4.169 1.926 1.499 2.499 1.883 3.124 0.899
2017 2.205 1.497 0.971 2.274 2.831 2.162 3.707 1.594 2.040 1.256 1.810 0.683
2018 1.605 0.487 0.495 1.129 2.307 1.930 2.761 2.177 1.722 2.091 1.789 1.847
2019 1.959 1.779 1.374 1.263 2.177 3.143 2.387 2.176 1.956 1.743 1.669 1.310
2020 1.406 1.786 0.835 1.798 1.859 1.830 2.793 1.685 1.970 1.925 1.345 1.599
2021 2.711 1.699 0.737 1.227 1.387 2.132 2.256 1.604 1.014 2.750 2.034 0.767
2022 1.959 0.445 1.500 0.789 1.429 1.641 1.453 1.669 1.545 2.427 1.766 0.963
Min 0.078 0.020 0.017 0.013 0.322 0.494 0.144 0.358 0.050 0.279 0.182 0.235
Max 3.495 3.339 3.214 3.695 6.125 4.169 7.746 3.644 4.271 4.172 4.595 4.375
Mean 1.394 1.068 1.039 1.156 1.890 2.075 2.002 1.610 1.639 1.946 1.660 1.305

20
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Rainfall-
% Exceedance
Runoff
1 11.378

5 6.076

10 4.203

15 3.184

20 2.473

25 1.999

30 1.619
1.310 Malita Flow Duration Curve using Daily records RETScreen
35
40 1.070

45 0.872

50 0.707

55 0.563

60 0.449

65 0.348

70 0.269

75 0.190

80 0.136

85 0.086

90 0.047

95 0.018

100 0.004

Figure 3.12 Malita Flow Duration Curve using PAGASA RETScreen

Shown in Table 3.9 and Figure 3.12 is the average flow rate in Malita River which was then processed to
produce the Flow Duration Curve of the same river. According to the results, 50% of the time the flow could
be 0.707 m3/s. 100% exceedance could produce a flow of 0.004 m3/s and 1% exceedance is 11.378 m3/s.

3.9 Watershed Area Direct Correlation

21
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

The flow-duration analyses presented in this section were based on secondary data using stream
discharges published by the Bureau of Research and Standards (BRS) of the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH).
Buayan is the nearest river in the Project sites with a drainage area of 206.68 sq. km. as shown in Figure
3.13. Buayan basin has data from 1998 to 2016 based on the BRS DPWH website. These data were used
to create its flood duration curve and it was then used to estimate the FDC of the Malita basin via the
drainage ratio method with some adjustments to fit the current condition of the site. Results are presented
in Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.13 Buayan, Malita, and Lais Watershed Properties

Rainfall-
% Exceedance Malita Flow Duration Curve using Buayan as reference basin
Runoff
1 6.62742404 Area = 44.3 sq.km
5 3.78097542
10 2.95790594
20 2.30202245
30 2.06196052
40 1.89906135
50 1.77903039
60 1.68043352
70 1.59469712
80 1.47895297
90 1.09742597
95 0.82521289
98 0.66017031
100 0.50584478

Figure 3.14 Malita Flow Duration Curve using PAGASA RETScreen

3.10 Actual Data Validation

A staff gauge was installed in Malita River for actual data monitoring. Two readings were being taken per
day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
The technical team started gathering data from February 6 in Malita River up to the present. Actual data-
gathering photos are presented in Figure 3.15 following a 1-meter interval. The staff gauge used for both
rivers is also presented in the figures below.

22
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Figure 3.15 Stream Flow Measurement in Malita River

Table 3.10 Actual flow measurement using Flow Meter

W/Flow meter
DATE Rating Curve at Malita
Staff Gage Flow
6-Feb-23 35 1.7
7-Feb-23 35 1.6
8-Feb-23 35 1.6
9-Feb-23 34 1.2
34 1.4
10-Feb-23 33 1.5

23
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

33 1.4
11-Feb-23 33 1.4
33 1.5
12-Feb-23 33 1.4
33 1.5
13-Feb-23 33 1.6
33 1.4
14-Feb-23 36 1.9
40 2.2
15-Feb-23 34 1.9

Table 3.11 Flow estimation using staff gage reading and developed rating curve

Rating Curve
DATE
Staff Gage Flow
16-Feb-23 35 1.64
34 1.53
17-Feb-23 34 1.53
34 1.53
18-Feb-23 33 1.43
19-Feb-23 32 1.34
33 1.43
20-Feb-23 32 1.34
34 1.53
21-Feb-23 34 1.53
34 1.53
22-Feb-23 34 1.53
34 1.53
23-Feb-23 34 1.53
34 1.53
24-Feb-23 34 1.53
34 1.53
Shown in Table 3.10 are the actual measured flow in Malita River using a flow meter.
Measurement started on Feb 6 and until Feb 15. Measurement was done one in the morning and one in the
afternoon. Measured flow ranges from 1.34 m3/s up to 1.64 m3/s which suggests a good yield of flow from
the river given that weather is sunny on those days. A rating curve was also developed using these data
with an R-value of 0.6393, this rating curve will continuously be improved by measuring and collecting more
flow data in the river which will be done in the next weeks and months. Starting Feb 16 up to the present,
staff gage readings are still being recorded. These staff gage readings were then translated into flow data
using the rating curve developed before. This set of data is shown in Table 3.11. These sets of data are still
not enough to produce a reliable flow duration curve, it is therefore recommended to continue the gathering
of actual flow in the river in the next few months.

24
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

3.11 Summary of Streamflow

Table 3.12 Summary of Estimated Flood duration curve using different methods
Malita River
Flow Duration Curve in cms
Area = 44.3 Lat: 6°20'3.85"N Long: 125°31'24.40"E
% PAGASA Climate Normal RET Screen Buayan as
Exceedance (1970-2014) (1991-2020) (1983-2022) Reference
1 16.3048611 1.24807 11.3775116 6.62742404
5 8.76770833 1.23015 6.07638079 3.78097542
10 5.87590278 1.2064 4.20285995 2.95790594
15 4.33770833 1.18115 3.18354977 2.567
20 3.38402778 1.1544 2.47290394 2.30202245
25 2.76875 1.12615 1.99914005 2.18199148
30 2.215 1.0964 1.61869329 2.06196052
35 1.84583333 1.06515 1.31002894 1.98051093
40 1.47666667 1.0324 1.06955787 1.89906135
45 1.23055556 0.99815 0.87215625 1.83904587
50 0.98444444 0.9624 0.70705671 1.77903039
55 0.830625 0.92515 0.5634919 1.72973195
60 0.64604167 0.8864 0.44864005 1.68043352
65 0.55375 0.84615 0.34814468 1.63756532
70 0.43069444 0.8044 0.26918403 1.59469712
75 0.30763889 0.76115 0.19022338 1.53682504
80 0.30763889 0.7164 0.13638657 1.47895297
85 0.18458333 0.67015 0.08613889 1.28818947
90 0.15381944 0.6224 0.04665856 1.09742597
95 0.09229167 0.57315 0.0179456 0.82521289
100 0.03076389 0.5224 0.00358912 0.50584478

25
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Figure 3.16 Malita Flow Duration Curve Using Different Methods

The results above show that flows using the actual data from the PAGASA station (1970-2014) produced
higher yield than the climate normal and RETScreen data however, starting at 35% Exceedance higher
flow was produced from the Watershed Area correlation that used Buayan as reference. These results also
showed that climate normal is not the best data to use to estimate the flow in a river as it just presents a
limited amount of data which is not enough for the generation of reliable FDC.

3.11 Flood Discharge

Flood studies were undertaken to determine the magnitude of floods expected to pass over the weir and
other structures during its lifetime and are necessary for its hydraulic and structure design. Results of flood
studies serve as input to the stability analysis of the diversion weir structure and the elevation setting
depending on the frequency of occurrence.
Peak flow at each return period was determined using Specific discharge and Rainfall Intensity Frequency
Duration Curves.

3.12 Specific Discharge

From the DPWH Study on the Preparation of Flood Control Manual, Technical Standards and Guidelines in
cooperation with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Creager empirical formula for the
three island groups namely, Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao were derived. This formula applies to
catchment areas with more than 20 km2. The project catchment area is 44.3 km2 making it suitable to apply
the formula. The Creager flood formula is given as:

26
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT
−0.048

q=C A( A −1)

q = Q/A, specific discharge, m3/s/km2

Q = design flood discharge, m3/s
A = catchment area, km2
C = Creager’s constant
Table 3.13 shows Craeger’s constants for the Mindanao area as the Malita project point is located there.
Mindanao Craeger’s constant was applied in the study in the calculation of peak flows at different return
periods. Craeger’s constant in the Mindanao area is much lower compared to values in Luzon since most of
the typhoons each year landfall in Luzon resulting in extreme rainfall and higher flows in rivers.

Table 3.13 Creager’s Constant

Return Period 2 5 10 25 50 100

Mindanao 8.02 9.15 10.06 11.6 12.8 14

Shown in the table below are the computed peak flow for 2,5,10,25,50 and 100-year return periods in the
Malita basin using Creager’s Constant, 100 year return period event could produce a peak flow of 330.079
m3/s at the identified outlet point. These flows will then be used to determine which area could be flooded
at each return period. That will be very important in designing the required structures in the project. A
maximum experienced flood level was also identified in the area by asking the residents about the highest
flood level they know that occurred in the river. MEFL was identified to be 2m above the normal water level.

Table 3.14 Peak flow at each return period using Creager’s Formula

Malita A=44.3 sq. km.

Return Period Discharge (cms)
2 189.087861
5 215.729917
10 237.185023
25 273.493665
50 301.786113
100 330.078561

27
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

3.13 Malita Flood Analysis

Malita Flood Level

Figure 3.17 Malita Flood Assessment Result

Figure 3.17 shows the cross-section of the Malita project point and the corresponding results of flood
frequency analysis. The elevation of the river bed was measured to be at 1032.3 masl while the normal
water level was observed to be at 1032.597 masl. MEFL on the other hand was identified to be at 1034.597
masl. Using the design flow from Craeger’s formula, 100 yr Return period could produce a flood level of
3.763m above the normal water level or at 1036.36 masl, 50 year return period on the other hand could
have a flood level of up to 1036.16 masl. The cross-section of the river is enough to accommodate such
flows. Even though the MEFL in the area was only at 1034.597 masl, it is still recommended to locate
structures above the 1036.36 masl level to ensure that it won’t be affected by any possible occurrence of
flood in the project site. Below is a summary of flood analysis at different return periods.

28
 INITIAL REPORT: 2 MW MALITA HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT

Table 3.15 Summary of Flood Assessment in Malita River

Malita R.Bed @1032.3 msl

Return Period Height from the river bed MSL
2 4.06m 1036.36
5 3.86m 1036.16
10 3.65m 1035.95
25 3.38m 1035.68
50 3.21m 1035.51
100 2.98m 1035.28

References
1. Peng, S., Huang, J., Cassman, K. G., Laza, R. C., Visperas, R. M., & Khush, G. S. (2010). The
importance of maintenance breeding: a case study of the first miracle rice variety-IR8. Field crops
research, 119(2-3), 342-347.
2. Tablazon, J., Caro, C. V., Lagmay, A. M. F., Briones, J. B. L., Dasallas, L., Lapidez, J. P., ... &
Malano, V. (2015). Probabilistic storm surge inundation maps for Metro Manila based on Philippine
public storm warning signals. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 15(3), 557-570.
3. DPWH - BRS Streamflow Management System:
https://apps.dpwh.gov.ph/streams_public/home.aspx

29