Amhara National Regional State Of Water, Irrigation … WATERSHED...Amhara National Regional State...

Amhara National Regional State Of

Water, Irrigation and energy Bureau

(BOWIE)

Feasibility Study and Detail Design

Of

Jeram Small-Scale Irrigation Development Project

Volume I: Watershed Management Study

Final Report

Nov, 2017

Bahir Dar

Client: Water, Irrigation and energy Bureau

(BOWIE)

Address:

P.O.Box: 88

Telephone: 0528-200853/855

Fax: 251-08-20-65-68/204676/202040

Consultant: Amhara Design & Supervision Works Enterprise

(ADSWE)

Address:

P.O.Box: 1921

Telephone: +251-582-181023/ 180638/181201/181254

Fax: (058) 2180550/ (058) 2180560

E-mail: amhara [email protected]

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

mailto:amhara%[email protected]

ANRS Water,Irrigation And Energy Bureau , Jeram Intake Small-Scale Irrigation Project

Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page ii

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE

Volume I: Watershed Management

Volume II: Engineering Geology

Volume III: Irrigation Agronomy

Volume IV: Engineering Design

Volume V: Socio Economy

Volume VI: Environmental Impact Assessment


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENT

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE ..................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. V

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... VI

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... VIII

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

1. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 The project .................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 General Objective ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.4.2 Specific Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.5 Limitation of the Study ............................................................................................................................... 3

2. METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Methods....................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Pre Field ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 At Field ................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.1.3 Post Field ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Materials ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

3. GEOGRAPHIC AND NATURAL FEATURES .......................................................................... 6

3.1 Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Natural Condition ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.2.1 Geology and Soil .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2.2 Topography .......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.3 Catchment Morphology ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.4 Drainage Pattern ................................................................................................................................. 12


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page iv

3.2.5 Agro Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Land Use Land Cover ............................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.1 Past Land Use History........................................................................................................................ 16

3.3.2 Present Land Use Condition .............................................................................................................. 16

3.3.3 Future Land Use Trend ...................................................................................................................... 17

4. SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITION ........................................................................................... 18

4.1 Demographic Features .............................................................................................................................. 18

4.2 Existing Farming System .......................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Crop Production ................................................................................................................................. 19

4.2.2 Livestock Production ......................................................................................................................... 20

4.2.3 Forest Production and Wild Life ........................................................................................................ 22

4.2.4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 23

5. EROSION ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Erosion Hazards ........................................................................................................................................ 24

5.1.1 Sheet Erosion ..................................................................................................................................... 24

5.1.2 Rill Erosion ........................................................................................................................................ 25

5.1.3 Gully Erosion ..................................................................................................................................... 25

5.1.4 Stream Bank ....................................................................................................................................... 25

5.2 Erosion Rate and Sediment Yield Estimation ........................................................................................... 26

5.2.1 Estimation of Soil Loss ...................................................................................................................... 26

5.2.2 Sediment Yield ................................................................................................................................... 34

5.3 Soil and Water Conservation Experience ................................................................................................. 35

6. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION IN THE WATERSHED ....................................................... 36

6.1 Crop Production Problems .................................................................................................................... 36

6.2 Livestock Production ........................................................................................................................ 36

6.3 Natural Resource Problems ............................................................................................................. 36

7. LAND EVALUATION AND ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................... 38

7.1 Land Capability Classes ......................................................................................................................... 38

7.1.1 Land Capability Class IV ................................................................................................................ 39

7.1.2 Land Capability Class VI ................................................................................................................ 39

7.2 Land use adjustment ............................................................................................................................... 39


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page v

7.3 Area Closure ............................................................................................................................................ 40

8. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN ....................................... 41

8.1 Soil and Water Conservation Measure ...................................................................................................... 41

8.1.1 Physical Soil and Water Conservation Measures ............................................................................... 41

8.1.2 Biological Soil and Water Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 42

8.2 Implementation and Budgeting ................................................................................................................. 43

8.2.1 Time Schedule and Phasing ............................................................................................................... 43

8.3 Cost Qualitative Benefit Estimation ......................................................................................................... 46

8.3.1 Cost Estimation .................................................................................................................................. 46

8.3.2 Benefit Estimation.............................................................................................................................. 48

9. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ........................................................................................... 50

10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................ 54

10.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 54

10.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 54

11. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 55

12. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 56

LIST OF TABLES

Table: 1 Slope classes of the watershed ................................................................................................................ 9

Table: 2 Catchments Morphology....................................................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Drainage parameters of the watershed .................................................................................................. 12

Table 4: Kabe metrological station rainfall data ................................................................................................. 14

Table 5: Temperature Data .............................................................................................................................. 15

Table 6: LGP Calculation of Jeram diversion Watershed at dry and wet season for different Crops ................ 15

Table 7: Present land use /land cover .................................................................................................................. 17

Table: 8 Population size and Household of the kebeles ................................................................................ 18

Table 9: Productivity of crops existed in the watershed ................................................................................ 19

Table 10 : Livestock Population ...................................................................................................................... 21

Table 11: Incidence of Common Livestock Diseases ..................................................................................... 22

Table 12: Jeram watershed soil factor value .................................................................................................. 29

Table 13: Crop management (C) value of Jeram watershed ........................................................................ 31

Table 14: Jeram Watershed soil loss based on FAO classification ..................................................................... 34

Table 15: Land Capability class and area proportional of the watershed. .................................................. 39


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page vi

Table 16: Watershed Management Activity and Budget Total Plan ................................................................... 44

Table 17: Work plan for three years ................................................................................................................... 45

Table 18: Multi-Year Targets for Implementation.............................................................................................. 46

Table 19: Type of Basic Nursery Tools Required .............................................................................................. 46

Table 20: Cost Summary .................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 21: Crop management (C) factor in previous studies ............................................................................... 56

Table 22: P- value (Wischemeier and Smith, 1978) ........................................................................................... 56

Table 23: Soil-cover complex curve number for AMC II conditions ................................................................. 57

Table 24: Soil-cover complex curve number for AMC II conditions for non-agricultural lands ....................... 58

Table 25: Land capability classification look up table........................................................................................ 59

Table 26: Work norms of the soil and water conservation practices .................................................................. 60

Table 27: CN calculation of the study area ......................................................................................................... 62

Table 28: Time of concentration of the study area ............................................................................................. 62

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location Map ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Major Soil Types ................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Slope class map of the watershed .......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4: Drainage pattern .............................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 5: Drainage Order ................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 6: Present Land Cover/Use Map ......................................................................................................... 17

Figure 7: Stream bank erosion at Jeram River. ............................................................................................. 26

Figure 8: Jeram Watershed Erosivity Map .................................................................................................... 28

Figure 9: Jeram watershed Erodiblity Map ................................................................................................... 29

Figure 10: Jeram watershed LS map .............................................................................................................. 30

Figure 11: Jeram watershed crop factor map ................................................................................................ 31

Figure 12: Jeram Watershed Management Practice Map ............................................................................ 32

Figure 13: Jeram Watershed Soil loss Map ........................................................................................................ 33

Figure 14: Capability class map .......................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 15: Cross section of a bund...................................................................................................................... 41


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADSWE Amhara Design Supervision Work Enterprise

BOWRD Bureau of Water Resource Development

CBPWD Community Based Participatory Watershed Development

DEM Digital Elevation Model

ERDAS Earth Resource Data Analysis System

FAO Food Agriculture Organization

GIS Geographical Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

Land Sat TM Land Satellite Thematic Mapper

LGP Length of Growing Period

LUPRD Land Use Planning and Regulatory Department

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

NGO None Governmental Organization

RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

SWAT Soil Water Assessment Tool

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

T/ha/yr Tons per hectare per year

WMS Watershed Modelling System

WoA Woreda Office of Agriculture


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A watershed is defined as any surface area from which runoff resulting from rainfall is collected and

drained through a common confluence point. Now a day, with the increasing population watershed

degradation is a serious problem in developing countries like Ethiopia. Amhara Regional state is

highly potential for agricultural production for the country.

The region is now affected by land degradation. Wereilu is one of the potential woreda in the South

Wollo Zone but the woreda is now become under immense threat of agricultural productivity

reduction.

Land degradation is the main cause of decline in productivity of land, low income of the people.

Natural resource depletion by sever soil erosion and environmental mishaps eroded the confidence of

farmers living in the high rainfall and productive regions. Wereilu woreda is one of those areas

considered as agricultural potential areas. To sustainable develop this high agricultural potential and

labor available area; priority should be given to natural resources, especially soil and water

conservation, based and economically feasible development projects. For that matter, investment on

irrigation projects will increase crop production and reduce natural hazard risks. Therefore,

construction of small-scale irrigation project is significantly important for the area.

Jeram small scale irrigation project watershed is found in Wereilu wereda of South Wollo Zones of

Amhara Regional State. Land degradation assessment study carried out at Jeram watershed at

Wereilu woreda. The study has to assess land characteristics related to land degradation for watershed

management project study. The study was based on overlay of soil geomorphology; climatic, present

lands cover processed in Arc.GIS 10.1 environments and analyze physical land resources, social

implications and economic benefits.

The general objective of the Jeram irrigation watershed management plan study is to identify,

understand ecological and socio-economic problems in the watershed and prepare the watershed

intervention plan that enable sustainable management and use of resource; there by establishing long-

lasting irrigation water supply system while improving livelihood of the communities in the

watershed through creating and sustaining improved agricultural production systems and land

productivity.

The methodology employed includes collection of primary and secondary data at field level .The

study approaches and procedures exercised during different stages of the study include pre-field

work, field work and post field work activities.


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page ix

Jeram irrigation project watershed, has an area of 1521.3ha is located in Amhara National Regional

State South Wollo zone Wereilu wereda. The watershed has an altitudinal range from 2980 to 3540

m.a.s.l. The watershed has only dry weathered feeder road join from kebele to woreda town. Four

types of soils have been identified in the watershed namely: Eutric Cambisols, Eutric Regosols,

Lithosols and rock surface. The dominant textures identified in this watershed are clay and clay loam.

It has about 874.86mm/yr annual rainfall. The annual average maximum temperature is estimated

at17.22oc

. The total population of watershed is about 5466 in number. The farming system comprises

field crop production, livestock rearing and tree growing. The major crop types cultivated in the

watershed are wheat and Barley. The dominant trees and shrubs grown in the watershed are sesbania,

Tree Lucerne and eucalyptus. The common type of erosion is water erosion exhibited with all forms

of erosion such as sheet, rills, gully and stream bank.

To assess soil erosion hazard for project area the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE)

approach was followed. The land degradation map was developed on ArcGIS environment by using

RUSLE parameters (rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and gradient, land cover and land

management practices) as an input to assess average annual soil loss rate of the area. Based on the

analysis, the total amount of soil loss in the watershed is about 60.70 ton/ha/year in mountains and

hilly areas and 0.2972 ton/ha/yr at flat and level areas where deposition takes place. From the

assessment 62.24% of the area has soil loss and the mean value of soil loss lays between the classes

from this 91.56% of the area non to slight,5.40% moderate 2.60% high and 0.44% very high soil loss

class. In order to alleviate the problems, the study identified and presented different mitigation

measures in the main body of the report.


Feasibility Study & Detail Design Final Report, Watershed Management Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

A watershed is defined as any surface area from which runoff resulting from rainfall is collected and

drained through a common confluence point. The term is synonymous with a drainage basin or

catchment area. Hydrologically, watershed could be defined as an area from which the runoff drains

through a particular point in the drainage system. A watershed is made up of the natural resources in

a basin, especially water, soil, and vegetative factors. (CBPWD, 2005)

Now a day's, with the increasing population watershed degradation is a serious problem in

developing countries like Ethiopia. Amhara Regional state is highly potential for agricultural

production for the country. The region is now seriously affected by land degradation. Wereilu is one

of the potential woreda in the South Wollo Zone but the woreda is now become under immense threat

of agricultural productivity reduction. Due to the ever increasing population, uneven distribution of

rain fall and land degradation, productivity has reduced. Land degradation is the main cause of

decline in productivity of land, low income of the people. Natural resource depletion by sever soil

erosion and environmental mishaps eroded the confidence of farmers living in the high rainfall and

productive regions. Wereilu woreda is one of those areas considered as agricultural potential areas.

For sustainably develop this high agricultural potential and labor available area, priority should be

given to natural resources, especially soil and water conservation, based and economically feasible

development projects. For that matter, investment on irrigation projects will increase crop production

and reduce natural hazard risks. So, construction of small scale irrigation project is significantly

important for the area.

The irrigation project must be integrated with watershed development strategy. The natural resources

on the watershed have to be properly utilized and conserved. This study particularly deals with the

existing natural resources inside the watershed and future intervention needs to sustainably develop

the watershed.

1. 1 Background

Environmental problems in least developed countries like Ethiopia are manifested in the form of

deforestation, soil erosion, and depletion of biodiversity. These are the results of century cultivation,

rapid population growth rate, and abuse of the natural resources (Berhanu, 2003). The population

pressure, which is alarmingly increased, contributes a great share in expanding cultivation of

marginal lands. Increasing human and livestock population on one hand, and diminishing (small



holding size or fragmentation) of the existing arable lands on the other hand could help to increase

the proportion of waste lands. This problem is more aggravated on the highlands of Ethiopia where

88% human and 70% of animal population live (Kruger et al, 1996). This part also comprises 44% of

the land area of the country and 95% of the cropped area.

This high pressure on the highlands leads to extreme condition of land degradation. Soil Conservation

Research Project (SCRP) has estimated that about 1.5 billion tone of soil are eroded every year in

Ethiopia. Similarly, the Ethiopian Highland Reclamation study (EHRS) estimated that between 1985

and 2010 the rate of land degradation would have cost about 15.3 billion Eth birr, most of which

(78%) is due to crop failure or low yield (Kruger et al, 1996).

1.2 The project

Jeram small-scale irrigation project watershed is found in Wereilu woreda of South Wollo Zones of

Amhara Regional State. Jeram watershed is one of the watershed located in the woreda which is

highly affected by land degradation. Different soil and water conservation intervention were applied

during Durge Regime. These are mostly physical measures but they did not meet their original

purpose that is to reduce siltation from the watershed to a minimum level, increase the base flow of

the streams and increase land productivity on the watershed area.

Even if some of the activities indicated that there is good start for biological measures, Physical

measures were not well supported by biological measures and cultural practices of the farmers were

poor. Thus, new marginal lands were brought to cultivation due to high population pressure. Land

management that helps to improve soil fertility was very minimal. The steep slope of cultural ditches

and some crops aggravated soil erosion hazard.

The other causes that contributed for improper implementation were, less attention given to soil

conservation activities and technical failures. Due to less sense of ownership, the structures and

forests on the watersheds were destroyed by the farmers themselves for different reasons/purposes.

Some of the listed causes were shortage of fuel and construction wood, free grazing, shortage of

cultivated lands, lack of awareness towards watershed treatment.

Though the previous activities gave awareness to the local people as to how soil conservation

measures reduce siltation, increase base flow of the streams and increase crop productivity, the

expected result is far beyond the expectations. Hence, it calls for strong measures and

recommendations that will be practically applicable that includes technical and social aspects of the



area. To make the measure appropriate, strong discussions with the concerned bodies at each level are

of paramount importance for erosion control and soil productivity improvement.

1.3 Scope of the Study

Land degradation assessment study carried out at Jeram watershed at Wereilu woreda in Southern

Wollo zone of Amhara Regional State. The study has to assess land characteristics related to land

degradation for land evaluation process in watershed management study. The study was based on

overlay of soil geomorphology; climatic, present lands cover processed in Arc.GIS 10.1

environments and analyze physical land resources, social implications and economic benefits.

1.4 Objective

1.4.1 General Objective

The general objective of the Jeram irrigation watershed management plan study is to identify,

understand ecological and socio-economic problems in the watershed and prepare the watershed

intervention plan that enable sustainable management and use of resource; there by establishing long-

lasting irrigation water supply system while improving livelihood of the communities in the

watershed through creating and sustaining improved agricultural production systems and land

productivity.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

Recognition of watersheds as a proper unit for wise utilization and development of all

land resources.

To increase the productivity of the land through the practice of soil and water

conservation measure.

Utilization of natural resources for improving agriculture and socio-economic condition of

the local residents.

To enhance the irrigable potential of the river water flow discharge for irrigation.

1.5 Limitation of the Study

The absence of secondary data for the watershed is not fully available.



2. METHODS AND MATERIALS

2.1 Methods

The methodology employed includes collection of primary and secondary data at field

level. The primary data were collected in the field by using checklists of biophysical land resources

survey based on the prepared land cover and slope class and also by asking key informants. The

secondary data were collected from development agents and woreda expert by using readily made

questionnaires and by making discussion with the concerned experts. The study approaches and

procedures exercised during different stages of the study includes pre-field work, field work, and post

field work activities.

2.1.1 Pre Field

Base Map Preparation

During pre-field work the main activities were concentrated on base map preparation. To make the

land resources survey activity simple and economical the Digital Elevation Model data (DEM) of the

project area was extracted and land use / land cover was developed by using FAO shapefile. In

addition to the Land use /land cover base map, the watershed boundary, drainage line, networks,

longest flow path and slope of the watershed was extracted from 90m DEM data by using Arc Hydro

extension in the Arc GIS environment.

Guideline Preparation

The preparation of watershed management project guide line.

Preparation of check lists and questionnaires for:

Personal information to test the attitude and awareness of the

dwellers.

Interviewing woreda experts and development agents.

Field data collection format prepared for biophysical survey.

2.1.2 At Field

At field the following activities were undertaking; during field study the primary and secondary data

of Jeram watershed was collected.

Primary Data Collection



The study was conducted mainly by primary data collection. Field observation of the watershed

through transects walk to investigate land cover, types and forms of soil erosion and conservation

practices.

Field investigation on the topography, biophysical features, type, forms and extent of

soil erosion.

Qualitative description of the land use land cover the forms of soil erosion and

conservation practice were also made.

Secondary Data Collection

The secondary data were collected from development agents and woreda experts by using readily

made questionnaires and by making discussion with the concerned experts.

2.1.3 Post Field

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Finally, Different maps were prepared by using ArcGIS software.

2.2 Materials

In conducting this study different materials are used at field and office. These include:

The following materials used for the study:

Computer facility with GIS and Remote sensing programs;

Field data collection format prepared for the study;

GPS with Alkaline battery;

Digital data like administrative maps, FAO digital soil map, digital Land cover map and

DEM data.

4 wheel drive vehicle

Software: Arc GIS and Arc Hydro tools.



3. GEOGRAPHIC AND NATURAL FEATURES

3.1 Location

Jeram irrigation project watershed, has an area of 1521.3 ha. The watershed is geographically located

between UTM coordinates of 556347 to 559798 meters east and 1198380 to 1206960 meters north

and with an altitudinal, range is from 2980 to 3540 m.a.s.l. The watershed has only one dry

weathered feeder road about 12km that join to kebele center the weather road is turned to the left side

which have gone 44 km from Dessie town to Mekane Selam main asphalt road. The watershed lays

on Wereilu woreda in Southern Wollo zone of Amhara Region. The watershed include four kebles

namely Arenfema, Werebayasu, Gatira and Doyu.

Figure 1: Location Map



3.2 Natural Condition

3.2.1 Geology and Soil

As some book refers, the dominant parent material in the central plateau is basalt; the soil of the

catchment is the result of the weathering process of this basalt. As there is strong relation between

landform and soil characteristics, samples to characterize soil type should be taken as per the major

landform types within the watershed. Because of similarity in landforms, the soil characteristics are

almost similar for most of the mapping units.

a) Soil color: soil color is useful indicator of drainage. The dominant color for this watershed is black

brown.

b) Soil texture: soil texture is mainly concerned with size and shape of mineral particles. Soil erosion

depends much on the infiltration rate of the soil. The infiltration rate again depends on soil texture.

Hence, the decision for selecting graded or level physical soil conservation structures on cultivated

lands mainly dependent on soil texture. For example, for clayey soil graded structures are

recommended because of less infiltration rate. The dominant textures identified in this watershed are

clay and clay loam.

C) Soil depth: It refers the depth of the soil above a layer of hard rocks, stones or other materials,

which hinder root penetration. In this watershed, soil depth classes are very deep with small

proportion of shallow soil at the periphery of the watershed.

Four types of soils have been identified in the watershed namely: Eutric Cambisol, Lithosols, Eutric

Regosols and rock surface. The dominant soil types are shown in the following map.



Figure 2: Major Soil Types

3.2.2 Topography

The watershed is found within 2980 to 3540 meters above sea level altitudinal range. The watershed

has marked topographic variation. Five types of slopes are present. The dominant slope class is

moderately steep (15-30%) which covers 38.60% of the total area followed by sloping (8-15%),

which is 34.09%. Gently sloping (3-8%), steep slope (30-50%) and flat (0-3% and which accounts

20.73%, 3.51% and 3.06% respectively. The table shows the slope classes and proportion of the

watershed.



Table: 1 Slope classes of the watershed

Designation Slope Class Area (Ha) Coverage (%)

Flat or almost flat 0-3% 46.62 3.06

Gently sloping 3-8% 315.44 20.73

Sloping 8-15% 518.6 34.09

Moderately steep 15-30% 587.22 38.60

Steep 30-50% 53.42 3.51

1521.3 100.00

Figure 3: Slope class map of the watershed

3.2.3 Catchment Morphology

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 descriptors. These



parameters can be measured from maps or aerial photos. The following are brief descriptions on

important watershed forms and relief parameters.

Below are some of the descriptions of important parameters.

Basin area (A): is defined as an area within the vertical projection of the drainage divide on a

horizontal plane.

Axial length (Lb): basin length or axial length is defined as the longest dimension of a basin parallel

to its principal drainage channel.

Lb = 1.312A^0.568

Where A= basin area in km2; Lb= Axial length in km.

Shape (B): The shape of the basin affects the stream flow hydrograph and peak flow rates. The shape

of the watershed is almost an elongated type which indicates the runoff response is somewhat slow,

and show less peak flow. It is a common practice to express the watershed shape by index. The

dimensionless index B is most commonly used to characterize the shape of the watershed. The value

of B is mostly greater than unity.

It is given as B = Lb2 /A

Where, B = shape index; A = watershed area (km2); Lb = Axial length of the watershed

(km)

Form factor (Rf): is given by the formula, Rf = A/ Lb2. Rf <1 means less runoff with respect to

square where, Rf = 1

Elongation ratio (E): Elongation ratio shows us how much the watershed is elongated. The E value

is with the range less or equal to one. Less value indicates more elongation, which in turn shows less

peak flow. E is given by, E = Dc/ Lb

Where, Dc = Diameter of a circle having equal area with the watershed

Circularity ratio (Rc): Expresses how much the watershed resembles a circle. It is given by, Rc =

4∏A/Pc2

Where, Pc = perimeter of the circle having equal area with the watershed

Compactness coefficient (Cc): it expresses whether the watershed approaches circle (or compacted).

It can be given as Cc = Pb/pc

Where, Pb = basin perimeter; Pc = perimeter of a circle with equivalent area to the basin

Texture ratio (T): it expresses the ratio of number of streams per length of basin perimeter.

It can be given as N/Pb



Stream order (Os): is the measure of the amount of branching with in a watershed. A small-un

branched tributary is the first order stream. When these two 1st order streams join, they create second

order tributary. The third order is occurred when two second order stream 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.

Bifurcation ratio (Rb): Expresses the ratio of primary stream to that of secondary or secondary to

that of tertiary and so on. It is given by Rb = Nw/Nw+1, Where Nw = number of streams in the w

order.

Drainage density (D): The total length of stream within the watershed divided by the drainage area

defines drainage density. This is simply the length of the channel per unit area. A high drainage

density reflects a highly dissected basin, and relatively a rapid response of runoff while low drainage

density reflects a poorly drained basin with low hydrologic response. High values of drainage density

are expected from easily eroded soils, relatively impermeable, steep slopes and scantly vegetation

covered watersheds. However, classification is still under argument. Most scholars are not daring to

put the boundary of degree of dissection. It is also hardly available in literatures. Mostly drainage

densities more than 25 streams per km2 are considered to be highly dissected. It is given by D = total

stream length/drainage area.

Length of over land flow (Lo): Length of over land flow expresses how far a drop of rain travels

until it joins the concentrated channel flow. It can be expressed by L = 1/2D

Where, L = Over land flow length (m), D = Drainage density

Channel slope: The slope of the channel affects the velocity of flows and hydrograph shapes.

Commonly, only the main stream is considered in describing the channel slope of the watershed.

Average watershed slope: It also influences overland flow process and hence it is one of the

hydrologic parameters. This is because flow process is a dominant factor in determining hydrograph

shape i.e. a time of peak flow. In general, these parameters help us to see the effect of them on the

erosion rates; runoff volumes and sediment yields at the outlet in different angles. This can be done

by comparing the result of measured and/or calculated values of these parameters with that of the

standard ones. From the results of these parameters this watershed is less dissected, elongated type in

shape, and might not generate a good deal of runoff and but the sides are too steep to generate high



sediment yield at the out let. The watershed characteristics are analyzed and presented in the

following table.

Table: 2 Catchments Morphology

3.2.4 Drainage Pattern

The drainage pattern has something to do with erosion hazard and sediment yield. As it can be seen in

the drainage map the drainage pattern is dendrite. The order of the streams in this watershed is 2nd

.

The most important drainage parameters are also indicated in table below.

Table 3: Drainage parameters of the watershed

S/N Stream order No. of streams Length in km

1 1st order 2 6.89

2 2nd

order 1 0.55

Total 3 7.44

S/N Parameters Symbols Unit Formula Result

1 Area A km2 Measured 15.21

2 Perimeter Pb km Measured 25.93

3 Axial length Lb km 1.312*A^0.568 6.16

4 Basin width W km A/Lb 2.47

5 Total no. of streams N no Measured 3

6 Total stream length L km Measured 7.44

7 Main stream length Lm km Measured 10.88

8 Stream density Sd no/km2 N/A 0.20

9 Main stream slope S % Measured 0.2

10 Stream order Os no Measured 2nd

11 Drainage density D km/km2 L/A 0.49

12 Over land flow length Lo m 1/2D 0.24

13 Shape factor B unit less Lb^2/A 2.49

14 Form factor Rf unit less A/Lb^2 0.40

15 Perimeter of circle having same A Pc km 3.545A^0.5 13.83

16 Texture ratio T unit less N/Pb 0.12

17 Diameter of circle having same area Dc km 1.128A^0.5 4



Figure 4: Drainage pattern

Figure 5: Drainage Order



3.2.5 Agro Climate

The watershed is situated from elevation 2955 to 3550 m.a.s.l. It has about 874.86mm/yr annual

rainfall. In addition, trees like Acaccia spps, Cordia Africana, Ficus vasta are common trees in the

area and crops like teff, maize, sorghum and check pea are major once. The majority of the soil color

is black brown. According to the above characteristics the watershed falls in moist Weyna Dega and

Dega agro climatic condition

3.2.5.1 Rain fall

Kabe meteorological station records of rainfall data are used in this report. The average of annual

rainfall of the area is calculated based on 13 years record of the station and is equal to 874.86mm/yr.

Table 4: Kabe metrological station rainfall data

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

1996 59 4.1 97 10.9 117.4 28.9 253.4 334.5 40.7 2.7 8.8 4.3 961.7

1997 49.7 0 46.1 37.7 4.9 97.8 195.1 206.8 39.4 30 8.1 0.3 715.9

1998 15.5 32.4 70.1 26.9 39.9 2.9 366.4 369.3 39.3 17.4 0 0 980.1

1999 24.8 0 47.9 3 19.3 13.8 296.9 335.1 60.6 41.3 0 3.3 846

2000 0 0 0 90.1 17.7 32.6 405.9 277.1 62.6 26.7 19.9 0.4 933

2001 0 6.5 108.8 3.2 51.8 49 407.6 288.2 48.1 4.6 0 0 967.8

2002 67 15 59.5 71.2 6.4 11.9 272.7 263.8 77.1 3.7 2.5 16.3 867.1

2003 13.6 24.2 15.6 75.3 13.6 29.1 286.9 270.1 79.6 0 0 19.1 827.1

2004 2.5 21.1 43.7 47.9 0 52.2 235.3 286.3 23.2 12.7 14.9 8.9 748.7

2005 60.7 0.7 50.3 126.6 47.1 37.5 271.9 280.9 40 6.8 14.9 8.9 946.3

2006 6 5.7 86 38 18.6 5.6 370.9 335.7 56.33 29.4 2.3 0 954.53

2007 28.5 63.7 31.7 37.6 0 166 323.3 178.4 53.4 15.6 0 0 898.2

2008 3 9.9 0 45 22 34 264.2 348.6 0 0 0 0 726.7

Average 25.41 14.10 50.52 47.18 27.59 43.18 303.88 290.37 47.72 14.68 5.49 4.73 874.86

3.2.5.2 Temperature and Other Metrological Information

All-important climatic variables such as rain fall, maximum and minimum temperature are observed

at Kabe station. Monthly average maximum temperature ranges from 15.01 to21.25oc observed



respectively in October and June. The Annual average maximum temperature is estimated at 17.22oc.

Monthly average minimum temperature ranges from 4.60 to 9.62oc observed respectively in January

and May with the annual average value of 7.52 oc. The mean annual temperature is about 12.37

0c.

Table 5: Temperature Data

3.2.5.3 Length of Growing Period (LGP) Analysis

LGP is defined as the period of the year when the available moisture is adequate for crop growth and

development. It is determined from the balance of rainfall and potential evapo-transpiration (PET).

Thus LGP is a powerful tool for crop suitability assessment and crop production intensification. LGP

can be calculated by comparing rain fall with that of PET. Therefore, LGP can be stated as the

continuous period of the year when rainfall exceeds half PET, plus the period required to evaporate

an assumed 100mm stored soil moist.

Table 6: LGP Calculation of Jeram diversion Watershed at dry and wet season for different

Crops

Crops proposed LGP Crops proposed LGP

Wet Season Dry Season

Wheat 135 Garlic 140

Barley 135 Onion 130

Faba bean 150 Potato 120

Lentil 135 Cabbage 120

Fenugreek 150

As Kebele experts and farmers described, the rain starts on around April first and ends on September.

Farmers having long experience of cultivation well describe the cropping season .As indicated above;

the area stays wet for about 5 months within local LGP of 150 days.

Temperature(°

C)

Months

Averag

e Jan Feb Mar

Apri

l May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Maximum

16.5

3

17.1

1

17.0

3

16.9

3

17.6

2

21.2

5

18.6

7

18.1

8

15.8

2

15.0

1

15.5

0

16.9

6 17.22

Minimum 5.97 7.33 7.93 8.87 9.62 9.29 8.52 8.57 7.80 6.76 4.60 4.98 7.52



3.3 Land Use Land Cover

The watershed land use history and present situation are discussed with elderly farmers and DAs and

expressed as follows.

3.3.1 Past Land Use History

As some elderly farmers explain, population density is by far lower than the present, hill sides and

stream banks were covered with naturally grown trees and grasses. The production of the cultivated

land and the occupation of each household were enough to support family’s food need. But as the

population grows, these all things deteriorated. Population growth is attributed to expansion of

cultivated lands and use of trees for firewood. The farmers said that expansion of the cultivation do

exist till now. The expansion is mostly on grazing, bush lands and hilly areas of the watershed.

3.3.2 Present Land Use Condition

The farming system in the watershed is mixed with dominantly oxen plough cereal crop production

and livestock rearing, which is centuries old system. Accordingly, the major land use types in the

watershed include cultivated, grazing, very spares and patches of shrub/bushes, plantations,

settlement and miscellaneous lands. The distribution of land use type is very fragmented and patches

that are virtually difficult to show on map of small scales

Cultivated Land

Cultivated lands are found on all types of slope classes all over the watershed. The soil depths of the

cultivated lands are decreasing due to long year cultivation without remedial measures. For a very

long period of time the area is subjected to continuous cultivation of almost similar crops, especially

food grain are the major crops both in production and area coverage. Wheat, barley and pea are

preferable crop types in the area. Almost all of the cultivated land is unterraced.

Grazing Lands

This land use type is less in amount located mostly found confined to around the streams and on

flatter slopes though patches of grazing lands are available on steeper slopes. Most of the farmers

graze without any shifting controlled system .Only few farmers harvest the grass by cut and carry

system to feed their cattle and for sale from these protected grass lands.

Forest Areas/Shrub Land

Only patches of sparse and open trees, bush/shrubs exist in hillsides areas. Economically and

ecologically important indigenous trees are almost disappeared because of the use of tree resources

for different socio-economic and socio-cultural needs at the rate of beyond its regenerative capacity.



Settlements

Settlements in the watershed are scattered, that it cannot be delineated as one village. It was even

noted that there is one house in the farmlands, which can’t be considered as a village. Individual

houses are even being constructed on farmlands and near hilly areas without plan.

Table 7: Present land use /land cover

S/N Major Land Cover Area (ha) Cover (%)

1 Cultivation 1255.27 82.51

2 Grassland 266.03 17.49

Total 1521.3 100.00

Figure 6: Present Land Cover/Use Map

3.3.3 Future Land Use Trend

The most part of this watershed has relatively steep slope with shallow soil depth and endanger the

remaining soil remnants on cultivated and grazing lands. This is due to total removal of top soil by

accelerated erosion on steep lands. However, by implementing some protection and developmental

measures the existing sever conditions can be changed to promising one. If there is no appropriate

measure to curtail the situation, the total watershed will be changed to unproductive area.



4. SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITION

It was so difficult to get population size in the Jeram diversion watershed level; but the woreda do

have total population record of kebeles. This watershed comprises more than two kebeles having the

total population about 5466 in number However, the socio economic analysis is centered the peasant

associations (PA) in the watershed as identified by the development agents.

4.1 Demographic Features

The total population of the peasant association in the watershed is about 5466 of which 2706 male

and 2766 female constituting 1157 households (HH) with 900 male headed HH and 257 female

headed HH. The population of households includes both inside the watershed outside the watershed.

The average family size is five persons per household and males are more in number.

The general nature of the settlement pattern is rural and traditional, which is clustered into groups

called “Got” are rather sparsely scattered throughout the area. The villages are located on the

escarpments and foothills of the watershed. Most of the inhabitants live on the top of the hill and the

houses are moderately scattered all over the watershed. Similar to housing condition of rural

Amhara, wood and mud are the major materials commonly used for the construction of house in the

watershed. Almost all the housing units in the area have the same type of walls and the majority of

them have roof of bamboo and Eucalyptus trees with corrugated iron sheet roofing.

Table: 8 Population size and Household of the kebeles

Kebele

Population Size Household

Male Female Total Male Female Total

Doyu(018) 2706 2766 5466 900 257 1157

Source: - Kebele Office of Agriculture and Rural Development

From the data above 50% of the total population is expected to be active group for soil and water

conservation activities or works of which 5466 people around 2733 will be active group. So that in

the total watershed 2733 working labor exists.

4.2 Existing Farming System

The farming system in the watershed comprises field crop production, livestock rearing and tree

growing. Agriculture is the main economic base of the community in the watershed. Both crop

production and livestock rearing, mixed agriculture, is carried out with almost equal emphasis. The

results of household survey show that crop products are the major source of income followed by of

livestock.



The field crops production system focuses on production of cereals and pulses. Its trend is traditional,

oxen cultivation, subsistence agriculture. Due to exploitive type of land use system, the watershed

area is generally characterized with severe land degradation situation, evidenced with soil erosion and

decline of soil fertility, deforestation and low vegetation cover, and progressively decline of land

productivity. Large part of the watershed area is highly affected due to land degradation to the extent,

which could not sustain further agricultural production in the area.

Livestock in the farming system also contributes draught power, dung fuel, manure for soil

conditioning, food, cash income and transport. Cattle, sheep, mule and donkey are respectively are

more important.

4.2.1 Crop Production

Crop production is the leading economic activity in all part of the project area. The major crop types

cultivated in the watershed are wheat and barley. However, there are other vegetable crops in grown

like Potato, onion, pepper and other types .Onion is being the dominant in the vegetable crop types.

The production system for almost all crop types is traditional with oxen plowing. Farming operation

and agricultural crop production process is carried out throughout a year. Land ploughing is done by

traditional farm implement known as Maresha and oxen power, which cuts soil in shallow depth and

very small width.

4.2.1.1 Productivity

According to the results of the discussion with agricultural extension agents and farmers, the

productivity of crops is decreasing year after year at alarming rate. The higher yield is associated with

fertilizer application and improved seeds. Agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and improved seeds

were distributed in the previous years but due to high cost and shortage of the supply, restricted the

use. The current productivity of major crops, which was collected from community members and

extension agents in the watershed, is indicted below.

Table 9: Productivity of crops existed in the watershed

Major crops types Cultivated land(ha) Total production productivity(Qt/ha)

Barley 124 806 6.5

Wheat 230 2070 9

pea 60 450 7.5

Source: Kebele Agricultural Development Office (DAs).



Most farmers currently use improved seed and artificial fertilizer (DAP and UREA) that distributes

through WoARD and apply compost prepared by themselves. Some farmers’ follow the

recommended rate of artificial fertilizer and others decrease the rate because the price rate of the

fertilizer became increase due to this farmer to buy and now compline about the price of fertilize

during field survey.

The woreda and DA explained that the amount of fertilizer distribution relatively year to year is

increased this indicates that farmers who have the capacity to buy the fertilizer is also increased and

preparing compost for their farm land is relatively year to year become better and the some farmers

use inputs recommendation appropriately .

4.2.1.2 Cropping Calendar

Cropping Calendar is also identified through discussion with the community members and extension

workers. Farming operation and agricultural crop production process is carried out throughout a year.

The crop calendars, especially plowing frequency, sowing, and weeding should be performed through

scientific specifications. However, farmers perform these and other cropping practices traditionally;

different farmers are seen practicing different cropping seasons for the same crop type for the same

season.

4.2.2 Livestock Production

Livestock husbandry is also an integral part of crop production and contributes to the household

economy including part of food. Even if crop production is the first economic activity, almost all

production procedures are manipulated by the support of livestock labor.

Livestock in the farming system also contributes draught power, dung fuel, manure for soil

conditioning, food, cash income and transport. Economically livestock and livestock products

constitute significant part on the farmers' life. They are the only insurance at the time of crop failure.

Cattle, sheep, mule and donkey are respectively are more important in high altitudes.

4.2.2.1 Livestock Population

All livestock species are produced in the watershed. Cattle rearing are compulsory for an

agriculturalist of draught animal farming. Commonly shoats, equines and poultry and bee colonies

are also reared in the watershed for multi purposes. The livestock population throughout the

watershed has effect on the project in one way or another.



The livestock population in the watershed area, as obtained from the agricultural development

centers, is presented below, which shows total 2217 cattle, 2474 shoats, and 674equines/pack

animals, 3740 poultry and 248 bee colonies.

Table 10 : Livestock Population

Kebele

Live stocks

Cattle Shoats Equine Poultry Bee colony Total

Doyu (018) 2217 2474 674 3740 248 9353

Source: - Kebele Agricultural office.

4.2.2.2 Livestock Management

The livestock management which includes herding, housing, feeding and breeding, is traditional.

Unlike the size of livestock, the productivity is very low. There is feed deficit in the project area to

solve such problem farmer’s use crop residues as feed resource for their livestock and sometimes they

use grazing lands. Due to such problem livestock management is poor and also affected by different

types of diseases.

Feeding: Even though the is shortage of grazing land in the project area the use that area for grazing

is all year round but crop residues and hay are supplied in the dry and rainy seasons. Livestock

depend on limited open communal grazing, including crop aftermath. Introduction and promotion of

fodder trees/shrubs is insignificant. As elsewhere in the country, grazing system is totally

uncontrolled where increased numbers of livestock are allowed to graze throughout a year, regardless

of the productivity/the grass and shrub regenerative capacity and size of the grazing lands.

Furthermore, the productivity of grazing land is very low associated with the prevailing free grazing

system that overgrazing and soil erosion are sever particularly in hilly and steep areas where steep

slopes accelerate soil erosion problems.

Since grazing alone cannot supply the feed requirement of the livestock all year round, farmers in the

area practice conserving residues. The straw is commonly fed to selected cattle, in most cases draught

animals and milking cows.

Breeding: All the livestock are local breeds. Production of local breeds is not weakness; but the

treatment. The fertility rate of a cow is also poor, which is a calf within four to five years.



4.2.2.3 Function

Livestock is produced by peasants for different purposes they proposed. The use of animals is

different in different seasons. Regularly, oxen are draught animals and cows are used for producing

ox, through which milk is obtained as byproduct. Shoats are used for sale and somewhat for food as

meat production. Equines are used for transportation of man and items. These animals are used

mainly to transport items and good of peasants from home to markets and vice versa. These animals

are also used for harvesting agricultural products crops, grasses and straws.

4.2.2.4 Disease

The major seasonal and regular livestock diseases that reduce population and productivity are

tabulated below.

Table 11: Incidence of Common Livestock Diseases

Livestock Type Types of Diseases Livestock Type

Types of Diseases Livestock Type Types of Diseases

Cattle

Anthrax

Shoats

Anthrax

Equines

Anthrax

Black-Leg Pastreulosis Internal parasite

FMD Internal parasite External parasite

Internal parasite External parasite Strangles

External parasite

MoARD is doing his effort to tackle the problem and organized in one process work from region to

wereda level, but still the problem is there. The grazing land has no enough feed due to continuous

grazing. No rotational grazing or other scientific methods are applied. The livestock is yet to feed

throughout the day during the dry season without any rest for the land. In addition to pasturelands

bush lands are also used as grazing fields.

4.2.3 Forest Production and Wild Life

4.2.3.1 Forest Production

There is no natural dense vegetation cover. Only patches of spare and open trees, bush/shrubs exist in

hillsides areas. Economically and ecologically important indigenous trees are almost disappeared

because of the use of tree resources for different socio-economic and socio-cultural needs at the rate

of beyond its regenerative capacity. The main needs and uses of tree resources include firewood,

construction and rapid population growth and accompanied expansion of cultivation in to marginal



lands. Over livestock, population and overgrazing systems also contributed for aggravating the loss

of vegetation. During the field survey, it was observed some indigenous trees exist and sparsely

scattered pocket areas of bushes and shrubs.

Homesteads are surrounded by eucalyptus plantation, which are the source of energy, construction

material and significant economic source for the farmers. Some farmers provide forest products like

construction and firewood for woreda market. The dominant trees and shrubs grown in the watershed

are sesbania, Tree Lucerne and eucalyptus. All these tree species provide economic and social

benefits like firewood, forages for livestock, bee keeping, fencing, soil erosion control, maintain soil

fertility and sheds.

4.2.3.2 Wild Life

The watershed has community forest protected from the influence of man induction; inconvenient as

wild lives sheltering. However, there are few numbers of wild lives in the bush and community

forest. Even though there is no attention given to the wild life, few wild animals remaining in the

natural and plantation forest need urgent concern. Some of them are Hyena, fox, monkey and birds.

Wild life agency should act actively on such small patches of habitats. It needs attention unless we

can lose our resource in the near future. As development agents explained that, the community is

giving insignificant attention to protect the forest as compared to the benefit that they get from the

forest.

4.2.4 Infrastructure

The project area of watershed of has started different facilities. There are different levels of schools,

health post, veterinary clinic, police station, agricultural office, cooperative farmer association,

kebele administrative, market, grain mill and dry weathered road to the woreda, mobile and wireless

telephone are present in the watershed. There are development agents in kebele. One spring is water

source of the community but it is not enough for the community. Jeram diversion is river exists in the

watershed but the developed hand dug wells are rare. The main market place of this watershed is at

the Doyu, Guguftu and Wereilu town.



5. EROSION ASSESSMENT

5.1 Erosion Hazards

Land degradation is not a new phenomenon in Amhara Region. The main type of land degradation, in

the Jeram watershed is water erosion. However, the degree and intensity of erosion varies from place

to place depending on the soil types and intensity of erosion agents. The highland area of the

Wereilu woreda is the source of land degradation. This is due to increase in human and animal

population number causes high deforestation and over grazing of hilly areas contributes different

types of erosion .The problem has been long aged and deep rooted, as the watershed is one of the

aged agricultural areas. The major form of land degradation in the watershed is soil erosion by water.

The common type of erosion is water erosion exhibited with all forms of erosion such as sheet and

rills, gully, stream bank and land sliding on very steep slope areas. The long aged agricultural

activities resulted in progressive depletion on resources through deforestation, overgrazing and over

cultivation and hence sever soil erosion and land degradation. Presently, these resources, including

water resources, are exceedingly depleted resulting in environmental, socio-economic and ecological

losses. The resources depletion has created to progressively lowered land productivity to the rural

people.

The disastrous soil degradation in this watershed is caused by sheet and rill erosion. Most part of the

cultivated land is subject to sheet and rill erosion, especially the hazard is more on cultivated lands.

The cause of sheet and rill erosion is complex and inter linked with one another. The key factors

aggravating this problem are:

Expansion of cultivated land to steep slopes, stream sides or ecologically sensitive lands.

Inadequate land covers during erosive periods.

Lack of sufficient conservation measures.

5.1.1 Sheet Erosion

Sheet Erosions is the removal of thin layer of soil and. it is unnoticed because of the total amount of

soil removed in any storm usually small. However, it has series determinately effect on soil fertility

and productivity since it removes lighter soil particles and soluble nutrients. Sheet erosions the

dominant form of erosion occurring in all parts of the basin. It is the most widely destructive erosion

process. However, it is obvious that sheet erosion is more series where the surface cover is little.



5.1.2 Rill Erosion

Rill erosion is the next noticeable form of erosion. In all areas where sheet erosion occurs, we can

observe the symptoms of rill erosion. The symptom of rill erosion is the occurrence of rills or small

channels on different land units. Rill erosion occurs in all parts of the basin and considered as the

second destructive form of erosion. The intensity of rills varies with in the basin; rills are observed

frequently in areas of having relatively high slopes and frequent rain.

5.1.3 Gully Erosion

Alike sheet and rill erosion, gully erosion is a threat .With continues encroaching of gullies mostly

towards cultivated and grazing land; gully erosion is also a problem in the watershed. Unlike the

promising beginning on conserving cultivated lands, gullies has been ignored a serious problem.

Because of this neglection, the gullies are regularly expanding. Cultivated and grazing lands are

expanded up to the edge of the gully and even on gully sides. Livestock are trampling around and

inside gullies. Most of the gullies in the watershed can be grouped to medium sized and deep gullies

i.e. gully greater than 3.5 meter deep.

5.1.4 Stream Bank

Stream bank erosion is a form of water erosion and occurred due to excess amount of flood,

which comes from the high land of Wereilu woreda, the side of the river becomes expanded, and the

cultivated land near to riverbank become further risk. Most of the time stream bank erosion is not

understand by the people about its effect but this form of erosion expanded and devastates high

amounts potential areas, irrigation structures, weirs and canals. The area affected by stream bank

erosion may be understand by people are small as compared to other forms of water erosion and

treatment is not usually made because this land is considered as marginal land.



Figure 7: Stream bank erosion at Jeram River.

5.2 Erosion Rate and Sediment Yield Estimation

5.2.1 Estimation of Soil Loss

Erosion is the removal of soil particles from the large soil mass and transportation or dislocation of

soil particles in to downstream area by running water.The revised universal soil loss equation (USLE)

for Ethiopian condition was used to compute the total average annual soil loss from sheet and rill

erosion within the watershed for it considers different catchment characteristics. Of course, the major

weakness of this equation is that it could not estimate gully, stream bank and channel erosions. For

ease of computation, the six parameters of the USLE are estimated for each of the mapping units.

Thus, the total sum of average soil loss from all mapping unit within the watershed may estimate the

total soil loss of Jeram diversion watershed.

The revised universal soil loss equation is given as: A= R*K*L*S*C*P

Where: A = Average annual soil loss (ton/ha/yr); R = Rainfall erosivity

K = Soil erodibility; LS = Slope length factor and gradient

C = Cover factor ; P = Management factor

All the layers of R, K, LS, C and P with 90 X 90m output cell size were generated in GIS and were

crossed to obtain the product, which gives annual soil loss (A) for the sub basin. Each parameter of

RUSLE was assessed in the following sections.

A. 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 to be the most important rainfall characteristics. There are

different ways of analyzing the erosivity factor. The erosivity factor was calculated according to

the equation given by Hurni (1985), derived from a spatial regression analysis (Hellden, 1987) for

Ethiopian conditions based on the easily available mean annual rainfall (P). It is given by a

regression equation:

Where: R= Rainfall erosivity factor, and; P= mean annual rainfall in mm

In this study, the erosivity factor was calculated for each grid cells on the bases of mean annual

rainfall 4 meteorological stations distribution of the stations as shown in the figure (below) using

Spatial analyst tool in GIS environment.

Rainfall data of each station was used to get the mean annual rainfall (P) and the calculated erosivity

factor (R) for the study area and are presented. Each grid cells of mean annual rainfall was calculated

based on equation adapted for Ethiopia to get the R-value (Rainfall Erosivity) using Spatial Analysis

tool in Raster Calculator. To make ease of calculation each variables would be changed in to raster

form, should have continuous value. There are different interpolation techniques to change point

rainfall to areal rainfall. Hence, the value we get varies significantly. Therefore, it is used merit to

select the best method by considering the topography of the area, rain gauge density and so on. As

shown here in the map the erosivity values about 483.55 MJ.mm/ (ha.h).



Figure 8: Jeram Watershed Erosivity Map

B. Soil Erodibility: The soil erodibility factor characterizes more or less the soil sensitivity towards

erosion force. The value of K ranges from 0 to 1. The soil of the study area was attempted to

classify based on their FAO soil unit though soil survey guide FAO (2006). Accordingly, the K -

value of the study area was assessed based on FAO soil unit types adapted from (Robert and

Hilborn, 2000). The erodibility factor of study area of ranges from 0.1 to 0.15.



Table 12: Jeram watershed soil factor value

No FAO Major Soil unit Area coverage- Ha Area coverage (%) K-value

1 Eutric Cambisols 1369 89.99 0.15

2 Eutric Regosols 139.71 9.18 0.15

3 Lithosols 11.48 0.75 0.1

4 rock surface 1.11 0.07 0.1

1521.3 100.00

Figure 9: Jeram watershed Erodiblity Map

C. Topographic factor (L and S)

The slope length and gradient factors was estimated from Digital Elevation Model data in the GIS

environment. The technique described here for computing LS requires a flow accumulation grid layer

and slope grid layer. The flow accumulation also was computed from DEM (Digital Elevation

Model). The cell size of the DEM represents the length of the cell. Flow Accumulation was derived

from the DEM after conducting FILL and Flow Direction processes in Arc GIS 10.1.

LS= Power (Flow Length, 0.3)/22.13*Power ("Slope"/9, 1.3) developed by (Griffin et al. 1988)



Where: 22.13 is the length of the research field plot where the equation was derived.

Figure 10: Jeram watershed LS map

D .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.

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

for food production, commercial forestry and other. Land cover refers to the cover of the surface of

the earth .Examples of land cover classes include: water, snow, grassland, deciduous forest and bare

soil, without the reference how the cover is used. In many cases, land use and land cover are directly



related; for example grass (land cover) may generally be used for livestock grazing (land use). Some

classified maps include a mix of land cover and land use.

However, the dominant crop cover was used to match the C- value of the project area. The C-value of

Jeram watershed was assigned by 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 Jeram watershed was covered with

cereal crops. Hence, the C-value of the study area is presented below.

Figure 11: Jeram watershed crop factor map

Table 13: Crop management (C) value of Jeram watershed

S/N Major Land Cover Area (ha) Cover (%) C_factor

1 Cultivation 1255.27 82.51 0.15

2 Grassland 266.03 17.49 0.01

1521.3 100.00

E. 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 depends 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 land. The agricultural land sub-divided in to six



classes based on the slope percent to assign different P-value. The P-value ranges from 0.1-1

depending on the present land cover and slope condition of the study area.

Figure 12: Jeram Watershed Management Practice Map

F. Soil Loss Estimation (A)

All the five the layers were superimposed and the parameters multiplied according to the general

RUSLE-formula. These values gave annual soil loss per hectare per year at pixel level. Based on the

analysis, the total amount of soil loss in the watershed is about 60.7045 ton/ha/year in mountains and

hilly areas and 0.2972 ton/ha/yr at flat and level areas where deposition takes place from 1521.3

hectare with mean annual soil loss is 2.53 tons/ha/yr. The average annual rate of soil loss in Ethiopia

is estimated to be 12 tons/hectare and it can be even higher on steep slopes with soil loss rates greater

than 300 tons/hectare/year, where vegetation cover is scant. The result of study also falls within the

ranges of the findings of FAO (1984). According to the estimate of FAO (1984), the annual soil loss

of the highlands of Ethiopia ranges from 1248 – 23400 million ton per year from 78 million of

hectare of pasture, ranges and cultivated fields throughout Ethiopia.



Figure 13: Jeram Watershed Soil loss Map



From the assessment 99.37% of the area has soil loss is non to slight, 0.59% moderate and 0.04%

high soil loss class.

Table 14: Jeram Watershed soil loss based on FAO classification

Ton/ha/yr Average Soil

Loss(Ton/ha/yr) Area(ha)

Total Soil

Loss Ton/yr Area (%) Description Area(ha) Area (%)

0-5 2.5 1401.94 3504.84 92.15 None to Slight 1511.78 99.37

15-30 10 109.84 1098.41 7.22

15-30 22.5 8.96 201.64 0.59 Moderate 8.96 0.59

50-60 55 0.56 30.95 0.04 High 0.56 0.04

1521.3 4835.83 100 1521.3 100.00

Taking density of mineral soil as 1.65 ton/m3

Total soil loss in tons/ yr = 4835.83 tons/yr

Density=mass/volume---------------v=m/d

Estimated rate of erosion = yrmmtons

yrtons/381.2930

3/65.1

/83.4835

Soil loss in depth = yearmmyrmm

yrm/193.0/000193.0

215213000

/381.2930

This implies that 0.193 mm of soil depth would be washed per hectare every year in regardless of soil

formation rate estimation.

5.2.2 Sediment Yield

Even though sediment yield 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.

Area factor =

23.03.1521

112.02.0

A

Where; A- Is area of watershed in hectare

= (0.23* 2930.81m3/yr) = 676.94m

3/yr

The main erosion sources in the area are miscellaneous lands around mountains and hilly areas,

cultivated lands; gullies and stream bank formed due to untreated the side of the river bank and hilly

areas.



5.3 Soil and Water Conservation Experience

Soil degradation is not a new phenomenon on the region and it is also clear that farmers understand

that degradation as one part of their problem. Soil conservation trend in the area is said to be poor

compared to other parts of the areas.

This activity mainly targets on physical soil conservation measures, particularly soil bunds check

dams. Even though the area coverage were better during construction time, by now they hardly serve

the purpose; the effectiveness was lower because of farmers little awareness and unwillingness.

The farmers owning the plot do not undertake proper maintenance. Previous practices show that most

farmers are interested to maintain bunds inside their plot. However, few are not interested because of

problems caused by the bunds i.e. becoming host for rats (mice) and reducing area of arable land.

Currently farmer’s willingness for conservation measures is positive. They are very much aware of

land degradation caused by soil erosion. By exploiting the farmer’s motivation with proper watershed

based development program; the area can recover from degradation. Besides the benefit of

conservation work are now clear in this particular area.

During field discussion with the woreda and kebele experts reflects that soil and water conservation

structures were started during Dergue Regime but the sustainability is not profitable and almost

kebeles included with in the watershed is supported by safety nate and there is food for work for the

construction of physical soil and water conservation structures to protect from further degradation of

the area and a little bit hilly and degraded lands are stared to rehabilitate and the local farmers also

explained that big stone boulders are retard. By now the Regional agricultural bureau develop a new

natural resource conservation strategy at regional level to rehabilitate especially degraded areas and

made proper physical and biological conservation structures which should be agrological and area

based structures this show good result and sustainability is become well.



6. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION IN THE WATERSHED

Most developing countries of the world are threatened by global and local environmental changes.

The worst effect lies on the poor farmer who is often directly dependent on natural resources for

survival and have very few resources to counteract the negative effect of environmental change. This

is the image of a farmer particularly in the project area people are exposed to many problems directly

or indirectly related to environment. Watershed problems in Jeram are characterized by land

degradation, over grazing and inappropriate farming practice. Field observations at numerous points

in the watershed indicated that physical and biological degradations are the common phenomena of

watershed. There are different problems are observed in the watershed.

6.1 Crop Production Problems

The major problems of crop production are improper timing in cultivation Occurrence of disease and

pests, lack of production management extravagancy at harvesting seasons for weeding and other

cultural ceremonies, seasonal fluctuation, lack of awareness of farmers and Lack of farm inputs or

unable to purchase it

6.2 Livestock Production

The constraints encountered in livestock production are man induced. The major problems are

shortages of food, lack of awareness of the peasants in performing the following basic livestock

managements, vaccinating their animals with little charges and/free programs set by governmental

institutions, early examining of sick animals, improving and cross breeding and technical practice in

feeding and breeding

6.3 Natural Resource Problems

The major problems observed in natural resource are deforestation of communal lands for cultivation

practice, steep slope cultivation, improper land utilization; using lands without any management

practice, soil erosion by water and relatively higher animal population densities.

Improper Land Utilization System

The major cause for land structural deterioration of the watershed is believed to be long-term

excessive tillage without any remedial measures. Cultivation for a long period, which is common

feature for the northern part of the country, results in depletion of soil nutrients and organic matter

that in turn enhances crusting, aggressive runoff, accelerated erosion and ultimately low productivity.



Soils low in organic matter due to long-term cultivation and high in silt contents are usually most

prone to crusting that often occurs after heavy erosive storms. The removal of forest cover 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.

Soil Erosion and Degradation

Soil erosion by water is high in this watershed .Even though erosion process is subtle one, it could be

evaluated by its effect on cultivated lands and check dams. Uncontrolled erosion finally leads to land

deterioration.

The major soil erosion and land degradation problems are related to:

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 and continued lack of proper management of communal

grazing lands and lack of attention to animal feed production by any concerned agencies.

Lack of responsibility of the farmers with regard to land use.

Decline of Soil Fertility

Loss of soil fertility is severely affected by soil erosion and land degradation, use of dung and crop

residues for household fuels and animal feeds and decline in fallow periods. Even though the farming

system in the project area is mixed crop–livestock, the culture is based on the nutrient take way from

the soil that the nutrient return to the soil is very minimal. The chemical fertilizer use is also limited

because of its unaffordable price to the watershed area for the poor farmers. The soil fertility problem

in the watershed is therefore one of the serious problems, which should be addressed in this

watershed management plan.



7. LAND EVALUATION AND ADJUSTMENT

The variability of land resources and farming system would mean variable problems and constraints

spatially distributed with in the watershed. Variations in soil type, depth, slope and the like factors

have a strong influence on agricultural land husbandry practices. It is therefore, necessary to classify

similar areas within the watershed based up on physical land resources and socio-economic

characteristics. One of the most widely used systems of land classification is that of the Soil

Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It commonly referred as

land capability classification. There is no one land capability classification (LCC) but many (Taffa,

2002). Different countries have different classification system, for in every country or geographical

region there are different factors, which allowed for (Taffa, 2002). Although the numbering of classes

is similar in each of the systems, this does not necessarily mean that the lands are the same. Land in

class II in Ethiopia, for instance, may not be the same with that of class II in U.S.A or Israel

(Berehanu, 2001). The land capability classification adopted here is the one developed to the

Ethiopian condition by J.V Scobedo (1988).

Accordingly, the land evaluation targeted to assess the capacity of land for soil and water

conservation purposes. The input data for capability classification are slope, soil depth, past erosion,

water logging, drainage, and texture obtained from soil survey and land degradation assessment

organized in soil mapping unit over the study area and reclassified based on the factor-rating table.

7.1 Land Capability Classes

Land capability assessment utilized soil information obtained from field survey to classify the land

based on capability concepts of maximum limitations. In this regard, land capability maps were

prepared based on the capability assessment criteria and used to determine the conservation needs;

understand the basic characteristics of the soils and climate used as a background document for the

preparation of soil and water conservation plan in the study area. In general, the capability class maps

produced for the study area presented below in figure 15.



Figure 14: Capability class map

Table 15: Land Capability class and area proportional of the watershed.

No Capability Class Area(ha) %

1 IV 435.13 28.60

2 VI 1086.16 71.40

Total 1521.29 100.00

7.1.1 Land Capability Class IV

The soils and climatic conditions in this class used for cultivation, but there are very severe

limitations on the choice of crops. In addition, very careful management is required. This class covers

435.13 hectares, which is28.60% of the land area of the watershed.

7.1.2 Land Capability Class VI

Soils in this class have extreme limitations that restrict their use other than grazing, forestry and

wildlife. This class covers about1086.16 hectares, which is 71.40 % of the study area.

7.2 Land use adjustment

Land use changes are recommended based on land capability classification and suitability. Of course,

suitability class is done after chemical analysis. But lands are classified as suitable for crop



production, grazing and forestry activities based up on land capability classification. Those lands

under class IV is assigned for cultivation, those under VI is assigned for grazing and perennial crops.

7.3 Area Closure

Land capability classes also didn’t force the lands to be closed. However, degraded grazing and bush

lands, and the gully banks need to be closed for rehabilitation purposes. Gullies should be temporary

closed for at least for two years or so until the vegetation cover regenerate naturally



8. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN

8.1 Soil and Water Conservation Measure

For sound watershed management different interventions are proposed that will solve the stated

problems when it is implemented properly. The development plan is designed considering social,

economic, technical and ecological aspects of the area. Based on this, the watershed management

plan covers physical, bio-physical and biological conservation measures.

8.1.1 Physical Soil and Water Conservation Measures

The soil erosion status of the area is classified as moderate to severe level. Both classes are hazardous

and require strong measures of conservation, which is integrated in all agriculture activities because

most physical soil conservation measures are applied in agricultural production areas. The main

physical SWC measures recommended to be implemented in the command area are soil bunds, stone

faced soil bunds, stone bunds, Cut off drain, waterway, check dams. These physical measures are

applicable in a broad range of agro-ecological zones and land uses.

They should be integrated with:

Bund stabilization using grasses, legume shrubs, trees, cash crops.

Compost making.

Control grazing-avoid animals to graze between bunds.

Soil bunds: Applied generally on cultivated lands with slops above 3 and below 15% slope. Soil

bunds can also be applied on grazing lands with slops at wider interval, and within slopping

homestead areas combined with cash crops.

Stone-faced soil bunds: These structures are recommended on cultivated lands with some levels of

stoniness.

Figure 15: Cross section of a bund



Cut off drain: After assessing existence of enough out let facility, cut-off drain is effective to avoid

the excess runoff from cultivated lands. Before designing the cut off drain the peak runoff rate should

be known.

Suitable at a foot of a steep hillside under which cultivated fields are exposed.

Constructed above gully head to divert run off from active gullies to treated/stable ones.

Soil Fertility Management: Soils in the command area range from the very infertile, in steep slopes,

to moderately fertile, in lower slopes. There is a close relationship between soils, and soil and water

conservation. The aim of soil management is to maintain the fertility and structure of the soil. Highly

fertile soil result in high crop yields, good plant cover resulting in conditions, which minimize the

erosive effects of raindrops and runoff. The central theme in here is that soil fertility must be seen as

a key to soil and water conservation.

Soil fertility can be maintained through addition of organic matter; typically composting and

manuring, to increase the resistance of erodible soil and increase agricultural production. The system

includes practices such as leaving dead plant material at the surface of the soil, after the crop is

harvested, to keep moisture within the ground, and protect the soil from erosion. It also includes

ploughing along contours to have plough ferrous that slowdown speed of surface runoff and increases

soil-water infiltration.

8.1.2 Biological Soil and Water Conservation Measures

Grass strips: Grass strips are the most effective ones in arresting the sediment inflow. For this

watershed there are different exotic and local grasses adapted in that area which therefore can be

planted on soil and or stone-faced soil bunds. Grass strips can be done by direct sowing, planting the

sods and by developing it from the un ploughed lands between the cultivated areas.

Green manuring, organic matter application, mulching and crop rotation: are considered as

biological soil conservation measures. They are mainly concerned with keeping soil fertility and as a

result develop good soil structure, which can resist erosion. Mulching and organic matter applications

are much more effective than the other factors for they influence surface condition of the soil which

in turn control infiltration rate.

Hedge row plantation: There are different bush species for hedge row plantation such as tree

Lucerne, Susbania sesban and other that are being grown at the near vicinity of the project area.

Plant, shrub and grass species to be planted should be with multipurpose quality and fast growing.

The species must have high palatable bio-mass for livestock feed and forage; enriching ability of soil



nutrients; high yield of food, fuel and construction wood; quality for soil and water conservation but

not aggressively compete or suppress the field.

Area Closure: Area closure is a protection system and saving mechanism of land against any

external influences including erosion. Slopes above 40% are recommended to be closed from day to

day-human activities and livestock grazing to give a way for natural trees and grass vegetation

regeneration.

Main land use: Mostly degraded hillsides and large gully networks.

Main core measures: Guarding, hillside terraces, micro basins, trenches, multipurpose plantation,

check dam, cut off drain and others.

River Bank Protection: Currently, Stream and river bank undercutting, soil sliding and deep gorges

creation is one of the problems related to soil erosion and ecological degradation. Removal of soil

from stream bank is mainly aggravated by the run-off falling over the banks of the river from the

nearby areas without appropriate measures for soil conservation. This stream and river bank erosion

causes several problems such as continuous destruction of adjoining productive cropped lands right

up to the stream banks and sometimes badly damages the lands, during flood. Therefore, protecting

of streams and riverbanks should be important part of the watershed management.

Cut and Carry: Cut and Carry is a system of utilizing forage for shade feeding. It is a conservation

based management technique to preserve soil and vegetation. It helps to avoid damages that may be

caused if animals are allowed to graze.

8.2 Implementation and Budgeting

The proposed watershed management interventions includes time schedule for the measures

implementation with the sequence of activities; list of inputs required; strategic issues that should be

considered for successful implementation and institutions that should be responsible for

implementing the proposed development interventions based on the existing government structures.

These all have been discussed by considering the existing situation of the country, regional and the

local situations.

8.2.1 Time Schedule and Phasing

Sequencing of activities on the basis of priority and prerequisites are 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 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 viewpoint 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. Considering the above-mentioned issues and

other related, time schedule for the activities implementation has been prepared considering the

active manpower 507610 person/days, of all the population of the kebeles intersecting the watershed.

Working months is taken as

3 months and more than 60 days for communal and private owned lands respectively.

Table 16: Watershed Management Activity and Budget Total Plan

S.N Measures Unit Total

Plan Work Norm

Total

PD

Estimated Budget

(ETB)

1 Physical SWC Measures

1.1 Stone faced Soil Bund Km 1175.19 250pd/km 293798 7638735.00

1.2 Cut Off Drains m3 12350 0.7m3/pd 17643 458714.29

1.3 Water Ways m3 15530 1pd/0.75m3 20707 538373.33

1.4 contour trench 117600 1pd/3trench 39200 1019200

2 Biological SWC Measures

2.1 Seedling Production(out of

loss) No 117600 15seedling/pd 7840 203840.00

2.2 Pitting no 117600 15 Pit/pd 7840 203840.00

2.3 Plantation No 117600 50 Plant/pd 2352 61152.00

2.4 Area Closure Ha 177.95 4pd/ha/yr 712 18506.80

Sub Total 390091 10142361.42

3 Biophysical SWC Measures

3.1 Plantation On Bunds No 5875950 50 Plant/pd 117519 3055494

Grand Total

507610 13197855.42

PD: Person Day ETB: Ethiopian Birr



Table 17: Work plan for three years

No Selected Measures Unit Quantity

Years

1 2 3


1.1 Stone Faced Soil Bund Km 1175.19 391.73 391.73 391.73

1.2 Cut Off Drains m3 12350 4116.7 4116.7 4116.7

1.3 Water Ways M3 15530 5176.7 5176.7 5176.7

1.4 Contour Trench No 117600 39200 39200 39200


2.1 Seedling Production No 117600 39200 39200 39200

2.2 Pitting No 117600

2.3 Area Closure Ha 177.95 59.32 59.32 59.32

3

Biophysical SWC

Measures

3.1 Plantation On Bunds No 5875950 1958650 1958650 1958650



Table 18: Multi-Year Targets for Implementation

S.N Measures Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


1.1 Stone Faced Soil Bund x x x x x

1.2 Cut Of Drains x x x x x

1.3 Water Ways x x x x x

1.4 Contour Trench x x x x x x x


2.1 Seedling Production x x x x x x x x x

2.2 Hill Sides Plantation X

2.3 Gully Sides Plantation X

2.4 Area Closure x x x x x X X X x x x x

2.5 Plantation On Bunds X

8.3 Cost Qualitative Benefit Estimation

8.3.1 Cost Estimation

A/ Implementation cost:

The manpower cost to implement the proposed measures is calculated by taking the current

approximate estimation of labor price to be 26birr/pd = 507610PD*26.00birr=13197855.42 Birr.

B/ Nursery establishment and upgrading cost and the following basic tools will require.

Table 19: Type of Basic Nursery Tools Required

Use Requiring tool Amount Unit price (birr) Total price

For working the soil

Pick axe 7 150 1050

Hoe 9 120 1080

Shovel 9 90 810

Rake 8 130 1040

Preparation of potting soil Sieve 40 (m2) 2 450 900

For watering Watering cane 23 100 2300

For transport within nursery Wheel barrow 13 1500 19500

For tending of seedlings Pruning shears 12 130 1560

For many purpose Axe 7 150 1050

29290

NB: the prices of tools are estimation.

C/ Training cost

The anticipated cost for training shall be:



Training costs

Numbers of

trainers

Number of days

Required for

training Per dime (ETB) Total birr(ETB)

For woreda experts 4 15 220.00 13200.00

For DAs 16 15 157.00 37680.00

For Farmers 28 15 107.00 44940.00

For trainers 4 15 220.00 13200.00

Sub Total 109020.00

Transport for Trainers 10900.00

Total 119920.00

D/ Materials cost

Most of the field tools that required for implementing conservation measures will be expected

from the community and woreda agricultural office. To upgrade the nursery with the following basic

tools will require about 29290.00 birr.

E/ Maintenance cost

From the total cost can be allocated for maintenance 10%*13197855.00 birr= 1319785.50 birr.

F/ Monitoring and evaluation cost

The anticipated cost for monitoring during the implementation years (per dime for 4 experts, fuel

…etc) will be as follows:

Per dime and transportation for Woreda experts is per dime= 3days/month* 3months/year* 3years*

4experts* 220birr/day=23760.00birr. Transport cost fuel and lubricant for motor bikes/car and per

dime for driver about 15332.00 birr. Totally=39092.00birr

G/ Contingency costs

Let keep 10% of the sum of total cost of implementation, nursery upgrading, training, materials,

maintenance, and that of monitoring and evaluation, which is = 10%*14705942.92= 1470594.29birr

H/Cost summary



Table 20: Cost Summary

Activities Total cost

(birr)

Cost covered by

the project

Cost covered by

community&

WoA

Remark

Implementation 13197855.42 80% 20% Need negotiation

Training 119920.00 100% -

Maintenance 1319785.50 100% Need negotiation

Monitoring and evaluation 39092.00birr 100%

Nursery establishment and

upgrading cost

29290.00 100% -

Contingency 1470594.29 80% 20% Need negotiation

Total 16176537.21

Cost sharing

At least about 20% of the labor cost of implementation: waterway, cutoff drain, bund and check dam

construction will be expected to be shared with the community in community participation basis

people should cover 3235307.44birr freely.

8.3.2 Benefit Estimation

The benefits obtained by the existence of the project include quantitative and qualitative benefits.

The quantified benefits need detail research and an actual data to explain. However some of them

could be explained generally by comparison with the existing one.

Yield builds up benefit:

-Crop production increment- the current productivity of crop is relatively low. One of the reasons

for its reduction is soil fertility. So because of the existence of this project the soil fertility and

increase the nitrogen content will be improved due to an appropriate land use systems and mulching

and leaf fall from trees in alleys.

-Grass production- only by considering the grass that produced from the recommended, 1175.19km

soil bunds and 177.95 hectare closed areas additional grass production will be very high to supply

cattle with a subsidiary fodder.

- Fodder production- about 6 kg fodders can be harvested per year from each tree so plantation will

increase fodder production significantly.

Wood yield benefits: - the project is also supposed to have area closure for different purposes such

as timber, foul wood, and farm implements.



-High amount of water recharge and development.

-Sediment protection benefits: From this watershed 60.70 tone/ha (within one hectare) of soil is

expected to be conserved in each year due to proper conservation measurement.

-Sediment reduction: - It is obvious that Bunds trap considerable amount of sediment. As a result

productivity of the soil increases

-Wildlife habitat development: By closing and rehabilitating the forests the ecosystem becomes

favorable habitat for wild life to live in. so the community get an additional income from tourism or

and by selling products that obtained from animals.

-Creating rehabilitated and sustained environment. The environment will rehabilitate through

conservation and a forestation measures.



9. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Preparation for the implementation.

Different watershed teams will play a major role in maintaining a high level of participation during

implementation. They will coordinate the efforts provided by the community and those of single

individuals or target groups.

Institutional organization and terms of reference

General roles and responsibilities for participatory watershed development program (PWDP):

1. Regional, zonal (if applicable), wereda experts and DAs are responsible to propose and arrange

training for land users before and during implementation based on local conditions and specific

needs. Therefore, training proposals should be developed and forwarded to wereda level, which will

provide the technical support.

2. DAs and wereda experts are responsible to follow-up trials and development of on-farm

participatory technology for innovative measures to be tested in specific areas.

3. DAs and wereda experts will play a major role in strengthening the communication between the

various sector agencies operating in the area by involving their experts and using their resources

whenever required; for instance, education and health experts, resources, NGOs and others.

Resource identification and mobilization

Self-help contributions and empowerment:

Work parties and solidarity efforts:

The community has a key role to play in the contribution of labor and support to the implementation

of the plan.

Implementation and management of watershed plans:

Identify farming system-specific menu of activities, which can be undertaken using self-help

resources that would enhance household physical assets.

Identify households on whose holdings NRM activities can be undertaken following

watershed logic, can facilitate their organization into a number of groups, and can ensure

timely accomplishment of the activity. Link the self-help activity to any other form of

available support in different areas.

Work towards requiring group members to contribute in kind to the task being carried out

within their capacity and agreement.



Identify eligible households where other assets are to be built using external support.

Determine the quantity of the transfer that the group is eligible for and effect the payment on

schedule.

Facilitate the accomplishment of agricultural/NRM tasks in/around the homestead of disabled

people following the spirit.

Group formation, community and social organization: Proper establishment and construction of

quality measures help much on sustainability but they are only half the job. The other half is proper

management of assets. Proper management is not only necessary to sustain and improve measures but

also to initiate their replication and expansion. Development initiatives will not be sustained unless

beneficiaries make some form of resource commitment to support those initiatives. Watershed

development and management should be thought as a contract where self-help and external support

efforts translate into commitments to manage, protect and eventually improve assets once established

are considered part of the agreement.

Social organization built on traditional or new methods is also intended to promote initiatives and

activities that enable improved social interactions between groups and people, highlight gender issues

constructively as well as optimize sharing of benefits and enhance mutual mechanisms of solidarity.

Group formation for social organization and income generation initiatives is, on the other hand,

meant strengthen local capacities required to sustain community-focused development, to improve

the living conditions and income of rural households, the poor and disadvantaged in particular.

A long-lasting, collective responsibility for natural resources requires the construction of a common

vision rooted in the values of farmers who live on the watershed and experts in the wereda line

agencies. This can lead to adoption of new social norms and a refusal to allow land degradation to

continue. This is also linked to gradually building an increased capacity of the watershed

communities and the broader watershed continuums to build enough resilience to sustain them and

exit from external assistance.

The community watershed team will form the groups that will implement the plan, generate

community income and manage community assets. It will decide on the number of group

membership following local norms.

Large parts of Ethiopia have degraded and food-insecure areas. These require the implementation of

multiple activities that pass the test of quality. Otherwise, the impact of a few activities would remain

limited and not be able to catch up with the pace of overall problems.



As problems of households are multiple and interrelated, the solutions should be multiple and

integrated. Therefore, a broad network of watershed plans and activities, properly selected and

designed based on people’s problems, priorities allow the vulnerable areas, and to plan based on food

gaps, number of vulnerable people and resources available.

Organizational arrangement at watershed/community level

Community labor based contracts and solidarity schemes. Based on the watershed plan prepared, the

amount of labor requirements and type of materials are then estimated. Building on the traditional

work parties, the labor component could be thought as a labor based community watershed

“contract”. The resources provided or to be provided on self-help and/or other forms of assistance

can be translated into person days. The total cumulative person days can then be taken up as a credit

that the able-bodied target group should “repay” back to themselves or to the community in a

participatory manner, or to specific groups they themselves prioritize during a given year in terms of

assets building for watershed development.

Watershed development should strive to ameliorate the position of women in general and female-

headed households in particular. The case is also made for people unable to work to build significant

assets but who are able to manage. Many women and the categories of people named retain

considerable potential to manage assets with dedication and care.

On the other hand, the number of chronic, food-insecure women-headed households is considerable

compared to the total number of food-insecure households. In addition, it is not likely to move into

other areas for opportunities as men do. Women groups or the whole target group could be organized

to this effect and assist those women in building their asset base. Women have a high sense of

protection, saving and market-oriented attitudes that should be nurtured. They should be given

support to increase their participation in watershed development and NR management, including

productivity intensification measures at homestead level.

Linkages with land-use certification. The ongoing efforts on land-use certification in several regions

is an excellent incentive to enable land users to value their land holding but also to encourage

investments in degraded and marginal areas. The certification process should be closely linked with

watershed development planning. The responsibilities of households in managing their land should be

related to the management of the measures implemented in such landholdings following watershed

development logic and interventions. Specific arrangements at wereda and regional levels are needed



to ensure that land certification is integrated with watershed development and avoid that interventions

undertaken on private or communal areas are disconnected and of poor quality.

Training and experience sharing

Building the capacity of local communities and extension workers is an important component in

watershed management. Different people will have different roles and responsibilities in watershed

projects implementation and there is a need to train people involved in the watershed development

program/project at various levels-villagers, CBOs, extension staff, and others.

The purpose is to achieve sustainable village/community-based development with integrated

watershed management serving as a tool.

Training can enhance knowledge, attitude (problem solving, behavior, and the like), skills

(communication, technological, demonstrations, conceptual) and relationship (trust, respect, co-

operation and teamwork)

How to assess training needs: The role that one is expected to play in watershed programs/ projects

often determine training needs. We need to determine roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders

(wereda team, DA, kebele, innovative farmers, and others). What are the activities that the

stakeholder was involved with during the specified period and what are the skills/capacities required

to effective and efficiently undertake these activities.

Core aspects of training and experience sharing:

(1) Extension staffs need to be trained and encouraged to develop their own training modules as per

the needs of the watershed community;

(2) Identification and use of trainers and resource persons both from within and outside the project

area will strengthen the process of capacity building;

(3) Exposure visits, interactive sessions and networking among stakeholders can play a major role in

the capacity building of the grass root level workers;

(4) Participatory training methodologies encourage innovation;

(5) Accountability must be in-built within the capacity-building process;

(6) Linkage with research institutions help in providing practical solutions to specific problems

encountered.



10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

10.1 Conclusion

The recent high agricultural potential regions of the country are now under food security. Most of

them are depending on food aid to sustain throughout the year. Natural hazards specially hail storm,

grazing and cultivated land shortage due to rise in population, decline in productivity of the land

caused by mismanagement of the resource. The current soil loss is very high about 60.70ton/ha/yr. It

brings loss of land fertility because it dislocates essential minerals and minimizing the rooting depth

of plants. It also may create problem for downstream-cultivated lands. As elders said, the river Jeram

diversion flow is decreasing from time to time. Deforestation and overgrazing is a common

phenomenon for this watershed and population is increased from time to time. There for the land is

becoming degraded. These shows there are urgent need to environmental protection through different

soil and water conservation activities.

10.2 Recommendations

To alleviate the above problems Soil and water conservations should be held in the watershed

based on the specification.

Physical and biological conservation should be implemented in proper place and

specification.

Different concerned sectors/ stakeholders shall discuss and take their part in the watershed

development work.

Detail works for specification of conservation structures should be studied in detail.

The farmers should be involved on planning and implementation period so that Community

based Watershed development must be applied.

In implementing soil and water conservation activities as per the development 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.



11. REFERENCES

Haromaya University, 2006.Watershed Management: Lecture. Alem Maya, Ethiopia.

Hawassa University, 2004.Soil and Water Conservation: Lecture. Awassa, Ethiopia.

Hurni. H 1983; Soil formation rate in Ethiopia, Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study. Land Use

planning and regulatory department, Ministry of Agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Mekele University, 2006.Watershed Management: Lecture. Mekele, Ethiopia

MoARD, Jan.2005.Community Based Participatory Watershed Development: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

RELMMA, WAFC and MoARD, 2008. Managing Land. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.



12. APPENDICES

Table 21: Crop management (C) factor in previous studies

No Land Cover/Use class Source C- factor

1 Forest Hurni, 1985 0.01

2 Shrub land CGIP,1996 0.02

3 Grass Land CGIP,1996 0.01

4 Dense grass Hurni, 1985 0.01

5 Degraded grass Hurni, 1985 0.05

6 Crop land/ wooded crop land CGIP,1996 0.15

7 Crop land, Teff as a main crop Hurni, 1985 0.25

8 Crop land, cereals, pulses Hurni, 1985 0.15

9 Crop land: wheat, barely CGIP,1996 0.15

10 Crop land: sorghum, maize Hurni, 1985 0.10

11 Afro-alpine BCEOM,1998 0.01

12 Open scrub land CGIP,1996 0.06

13 Bush land BCEOM,1998 0.1

14 Bare land BCEOM,1998 0.6

Table 22: P- value (Wischemeier and Smith, 1978)

Land use type Slope % P-factor

Agricultural land 0-5 0.1

5-10 0.12

10-20 0.14

20-30 0.19

30-50 0.25

50-100 0.33

Other land use All 1.00



Table 23: Soil-cover complex curve number for AMC II conditions

Cover Description Hydrologic soil

condition3

Curve Number of Hydrologic Soil Groups

Cover type Treatment2 A B C D

Undeveloped area1

Fallow

Bare soil 77 86 91 94

Crop residue cover

(CR)

Poor 76 85 90 93

Good 74 83 88 90

Row crops

Straight row (SR)

Poor 72 81 88 91

Good 67 78 85 89

SR+CR

Poor 71 80 87 90

Good 64 75 82 85

Contoured ( C )

Poor 70 79 84 88

Good 65 75 82 86

C+CR

Poor 69 78 83 87

Good 64 74 81 85

Contoured &

Terraced (C&T)

Poor 66 74 80 82

Good 62 71 78 81

C&T+CR

Poor 65 73 79 81

Good 61 70 77 80

Small Grain

SR

Poor 65 76 84 88

Good 63 75 83 87

SR+CR

Poor 64 75 83 86

Good 60 72 80 84

C

Poor 63 74 82 85

Good 61 73 81 84

C+CR

Poor 62 73 81 84

Good 60 72 80 83

C&T

Poor 61 72 79 82

Good 59 70 78 81

C&T+CR

Poor 60 71 78 81

Good 58 69 77 80

Cross seeded or broad casted

legumes or rotation meadow

SR

Poor 66 77 85 89

Good 58 72 81 85

C

Poor 64 75 83 85

Good 55 69 78 83

C&T

Poor 63 73 80 83

Good 51 67 76 80 1Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.2S.

2 Crop residue cover applies only if residue is on at least 5% of the surface throughout the year.



3 Hydrologic condition is based on combination of factors that affect infiltration and runoff, including

(a) density and canopy of vegetative areas. (b) amount of year-round cover, (c) amount of grass or

close-seeded legumes in rotations, (d) percent of residue cover on the land surface (good $ 20%), and

(e) degree of surface roughness.

Poor: Factors impair infiltration and tend to increase runoff.

Good: Factors encourage average and better than average infiltration and tend to decrease runoff.

Source: Reproduced from USDA-SCS Technical Release 55, (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June

1986)

Table 24: Soil-cover complex curve number for AMC II conditions for non-agricultural lands

Cover type

Hydrologic soil

condition

Curve Number of Hydrologic Soil Groups

A B C D

Undeveloped area1

Pasture, grass land, or range--- continuous forage

for grazing2

Poor 68 79 86 89

Fair 49 69 79 84

Good 39 61 74 80

Meadow--- continuous grass, protected from

grazing & generally mowed for hay _______ 30 58 71 78

Brush---brush-weed-grass mixture with brush the

major element3

Poor 48 67 77 83

Fair 35 56 70 77

Good 430 48 65 73

Woods--- grass combination (orchard or tree

farm)5

Poor 57 73 82 86

Fair 43 65 76 82

Good 32 58 72 79

Farmsteads---buildings, lanes, driveways and

surrounding lots _____ 59 74 82 86

1 Average runoff condition, and Ia = 0.2S.

2 Poor: <50% ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch.

Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover and not heavily grazed.

Good: >75% ground cover and lightly or only occasionally grazed.

3 Poor: <50% ground cover.



Fair: 50 to 65% ground cover.

Good: >75% ground cover.

4 Actual curve number is less than 30: use CN = 30 for runoff computations.

5 CN’s shown were computed for areas with 50% woods and 50% grass (pasture) cover.

Source: Reproduced from USDA-SCS Technical Release 55, (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June

1986)

Table 25: Land capability classification look up table

Class Slope Soil Permeability Past Erosion Suitability

I

(0-8 %) nearly

level slope

Deep to Very

deep soil(> 150

cm)

good to very

good

little erosion and

drainage problems

Suitable for permanent

agriculture with irrigation

II

(8-15 %) Gentle

to rolling slope

Moderate to

deep soil(50-

150 cm)

good to very

good

Moderate to little

erosion problem.

Suitable for continuous

farming, for strip cropping

or mulching

III

Steep slope (15-

30 %)

Shallow

soil(25-50 cm

poor to very

poor

Moderately erodible

with some gullies.

Suitable for Cover crops

and improved practices are

necessary

IV

(30-60 %), steep

to very steep

slope

Shallow to very

shallow soil(<

50 cm)

poor to very

poor

Moderately erodible

with some gullies,

semi-arid climate,

subject to wind

erosion.

Suitable for perennial

crops are best

V

Nearly level

slope (0-8 %)

Shallow

soil(25-50 cm poor

Moderately erodible

with some gullies on

cultivated due to

stoniness.

Suitable for forestry and

grazing, no cultivation due

to stoniness’.

VI

(30-60 %), steep

to very steep

slope

Shallow

soil(25-50 cm Very poor

Moderately erodible

with some gulnglies,

very sandy or stonney.

Suitable for forestry and

grazing land with careful

management and

controlled grazing

VII

Very steep slope

(>60 %) Sallow soil very poor

Moderately erodible

with some gullies,

very sandy and

stonney,

Sever limitation even for

grazing and forestry,

handle very carefully.

VIII

mountainous (>

60 %), and

deserts Shallow Very poor eroded

Used for wild life,

recreation, or watershed

value; no agriculture, no

forestry and no grazing;

protect them from fire or

burning



Table 26: Work norms of the soil and water conservation practices



Table 27: CN calculation of the study area

No

LC1LU_D

ES SOIL_TYPE

Area_h

a

Hydrologi

c

Condition

Soil

Group CN CN*Area

1 Grassland

Eutric

Cambisols 234.33 Poor B 79 18512.07

2 Grassland Eutric Regosols 25.55 Poor A 68 1737.4

3 Grassland Lithosols 5.04 Poor D 89 448.56

4 Grassland rock surface 1.11 Poor A 68 75.48

5 Cultivation

Eutric

Cambisols 1134.67 Poor B 77 87369.59

6 Cultivation Eutric Regosols 114.16 Poor A 66 7534.56

7 Cultivation Lithosols 6.44 Poor D 89 573.16

1521.3

116250.8

2

Av.CN 76.42

Correction factor 1.16

At condition three 88.64

Table 28: Time of concentration of the study area

Partial Distance/km/ Cumulative distance/km/ Elevation/m/ Elevation diff./meter TC/hr

0 0 3540 0

2.22 2.22 3280 260 0.29

2.74 4.96 3160 120 0.50

2.76 7.72 3040 120 0.50

3.16 10.88 2980 60 0.77

10.88

TC 2.06

Amhara National Regional State Of Water, Irrigation … WATERSHED...Amhara National Regional State...

Documents

Transcript of Amhara National Regional State Of Water, Irrigation … WATERSHED...Amhara National Regional State...