PROJECT FOR MASTER PLAN STUDY ON ...Project for Master Plan Study on Hydropower Development in the...

The Republic of Uganda Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development

PROJECT FOR MASTER PLAN STUDY ON

HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT IN

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

FINAL REPORT

SUMMARY

March 2011

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Electric Power Development Co., Ltd. Nippon Koei Co., Ltd.

IDD JR

11-024

Location Map

Isimba Site

余　白

余　白

Kalagala Site

Oriang Site

余　白

余　白

Karuma Site

Kiba Site

余　白

余　白

Ayago Site

余　白

余　白

Murchison Site

1st Stakeholder Meeting in Kampala (11 December, 2009)

3rd Stakeholder Meeting in Kampala ( 20 January, 2011)

余　白

2nd Stakeholder Meeting in Kampala (19 February, 2010)

Ayago Left Bank Plan

Project for Master Plan Study on Hydropower Development in the Republic of Uganda Summary

Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. i

TABLE OF CONTENS

Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 1 Background, Objectives and Scope of the Study 1.1 Background of the Study............................................................................................... 7 1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Study................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 Possibility of Alternative Energy Sources other than Hydropower on the Victoria Nile

2.1 Alternative Energy Sources........................................................................................... 8 2.2 General Evaluation of Alternative Energy Sources....................................................... 10 2.3 Necessity for Development of Large Scale Hydropower.............................................. 13

Chapter 3 Hydropower Development Master Plan 3.1 Hydrology and Meteorology ......................................................................................... 15 3.2 Present Condition of Natural Environment................................................................... 17 3.3 Geology......................................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Salient Features of Identified Candidate Hydropower Projects .................................... 20 3.5 General Evaluation of the Candidate Hydropower Projects ......................................... 22 3.6 Selection of Prospective Project.................................................................................... 23

Chapter4 Long-Term Power Development Plan 4.1 Demand Forecast........................................................................................................... 24

4.1.1 Domestic Demand Forecast.............................................................................. 24 4.1.2 Demand Forecast for Export ............................................................................ 26

4.2 Scenarios of Power Development Plan ......................................................................... 29 4.2.1 Basic Assumptions ........................................................................................... 29 4.2.2 Power Development Plans Considered ............................................................ 30 4.2.3 Power Development Plan for Each Scenario ................................................... 31

Chapter 5 Pre-Feasibility Study on Ayago Project 5.1 Geology and Topography of Ayago Site ....................................................................... 44 5.2 Biological Environment at Ayago Project Site.............................................................. 44

5.2.1 Survey Methods................................................................................................ 44 5.2.2 Flora and Vegetation......................................................................................... 45 5.2.3 Mammals.......................................................................................................... 46 5.2.4 Birds ................................................................................................................. 46 5.2.5 Amphibians and Reptiles including Crocodiles ............................................... 46 5.2.6 Invertebrates (butterfly).................................................................................... 46 5.2.7 Fish ................................................................................................................... 46

5.3 Social Environment at Ayago Project Site .................................................................... 47 5.3.1 Administrative Boundaries............................................................................... 47


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. ii

5.3.2 Land Use and Land Ownership ........................................................................ 47 5.3.3 Population......................................................................................................... 48 5.3.4 Ethnic Groups................................................................................................... 48 5.3.5 Internally Displaced Persons ............................................................................ 48 5.3.6 Local Economy ................................................................................................ 49 5.3.7 Education.......................................................................................................... 49 5.3.8 Health ............................................................................................................... 50 5.3.9 Water Use ......................................................................................................... 50 5.3.10 Tourism............................................................................................................. 51 5.3.11 MFNP and the Community .............................................................................. 54 5.4 Optimal Layout Study ...................................................................................... 54

5.5 General evaluation of the proposed layouts .................................................................. 59 5.6 Study on Optimum Development Scale ........................................................................ 60 5.7 Design ........................................................................................................................... 62

5.7.1 Salient Feature of Main Structures ................................................................... 62 5.7.2 Layout of the Principals Structure.................................................................... 63 5.7.3 Transmission Line ............................................................................................ 65

5.8 Construction Plan and Cost ........................................................................................... 67 5.8.1 Construction Schedule...................................................................................... 67 5.8.2 Construction Cost ............................................................................................. 70 5.8.3 Total Construction Cost.................................................................................... 70 5.8.4 Construction Cost for Staged Development ..................................................... 72

Chapter 6 Environmental and Social Considerations 6.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment ............................................................................ 73 6.2 Environmental Flow...................................................................................................... 73 6.3 Information disclosure and Stakeholder meeting .......................................................... 74 6.4 Consideration of Downstream and Neighboring Countries and International

Watercourse................................................................................................................... 76

Chapter 7 Implementation Plan 7.1 Execution Plan .............................................................................................................. 78 7.2 Implementation schedule .............................................................................................. 79

Chapter 8 Development Subjects and Suggestions 8.1 Environmental and Social Considerations .................................................................... 82 8.2 Design ........................................................................................................................... 85 8.3 Construction Plan and Cost Estimation......................................................................... 86 8.4 Framework for Implementation of F/S.......................................................................... 86


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1-1 Outline of Energy Sources ................................................................................ 8 Table 2.1-2 Development Potential of the Renewable Energy............................................. 9 Table 2.1-3 Nuclear Power - Prospective Nuclear Holder Country ..................................... 10 Table 2.2-1 General Evaluation of various energy sources .................................................. 11 Table 3.1-1 Major Lakes in Uganda ..................................................................................... 16 Table 3.2-1 Number of IUCN Red List Species in UGANDA............................................. 17 Table 3.4-1 Salient Features of Candidate Hydropower Projects......................................... 22 Table 4.1.1-1 Result of Domestic Energy Demand Forecast (GWh) ...................................... 24 Table 4.1.1-2 Result of Domestic Power Demand Forecast (MW)......................................... 25 Table 4.1.2-1 Result of Demand Energy Forecast (GWh)....................................................... 27 Table 4.1.2-2 Result of Demand Power Forecast (MW) ......................................................... 28 Table 4.2-1 Scenarios of Power Development Plan ............................................................. 29 Table 4.2.2-1 Large Hydropower Projects............................................................................... 30 Table 4.2.3-1 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario I) .................................................... 31 Table 4.2.3-2 Energy Demand - Supply Balance (Scenario I)................................................. 31 Table 4.2.3-3 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario II) ................................................... 33 Table 4.2.3-4 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario II)........................................... 33 Table 4.2.3-5 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario III).................................................. 35 Table 4.2.3-6 Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario III, Low Case).................................... 35 Table 4.2.3-7 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario IV) ................................................. 37 Table 4.2.3-8 Supply Demand Balance (Scenario IV) ............................................................ 38 Table 4.2.3-9 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario V)................................................... 39 Table 4.2.3-10 Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario V) ....................................................... 40 Table 4.2.3-11 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario VI) ................................................. 42 Table 4.2.3-12 Supply Demand Balance (Scenario VI) ............................................................ 42 Table 5.3.3-1 Population Estimates of Survey Area C by Gender, 2010................................. 48 Table 5.3.7-1 School Attendance in Survey Area C, 2002 ...................................................... 50 Table 5.3.7-2 Literacy Rate in Survey Area C, 2002............................................................... 50 Table 5.3.9-1 Distance to Nearest Water Sources of Households by Sub County................... 51 Table 5.3.10-1 Murchison Falls National Park Tourism Revenue in 2009................................ 51 Table 5.3.10-2 Classification of Management Zones of Murchison Falls Protected

Area ................................................................................................................... 53 Table 5.4-1 Main Features of Alternative Layouts at Ayago Site ......................................... 58 Table 5.5-1 General Evaluation for 3 Layouts ..................................................................... 59 Table 5.6-1 Optimization Study on Development Scale of Ayago Hydropower

Project................................................................................................................ 60 Table 5.8.3-1 Approximate Project Construction Cost............................................................ 71 Table 5.8.4-1 Project Construction Cost.................................................................................. 72 Table 7.1-1 Financial Plan.................................................................................................... 78


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2-1 Evaluation Results (Neutral Case) .................................................................... 12 Figure 2.2-2 Evaluation Results (Priority for Environment Case)......................................... 12 Figure 2.2-3 Evaluation Results (Priority for Economy Case) .............................................. 13 Figure 2.3-1 Power Balance in Year 2023 by GDP2009-2025 .............................................. 14 Figure 3.1-1 Watershed Boundary in Uganda........................................................................ 15 Figure 3.1-2 Major Rivers and Lakes in Uganda................................................................... 16 Figure 3.2-1 Number of IUCN Red List species in UGANDA ............................................. 17 Figure 3.2-2 Distribution of endangered species (Mammal and Amphibian)........................ 18 Figure 3.2-3 Protected Area in UGANDA............................................................................. 19 Figure 3.4-1 Profile of Major Rivers, Lakes and Hydropower Sites in Uganda.................... 20 Figure 3.4-2 Integrated Hydropower Development Plan in Victoria Nile River ................... 21 Figure 3.5-1 Evaluation of Each Site ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.6-1 Demand and Supply Balance up to 2023 .......................................................... 23 Figure 4.1.1-1 Result of Domestic Energy Demand Forecast (GWh) ...................................... 25 Figure 4.1.1-2 Result of Domestic Power Demand Forecast (MW)......................................... 26 Figure 4.1.2-1 Result of Demand Energy Forecast (GWh)....................................................... 27 Figure 4.1.2-2 Result of Demand Power Forecast (MW) ......................................................... 28 Figure 4.2.3-1 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario I) ............................................. 32 Figure 4.2.3-2 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario I) ............................................ 32 Figure 4.2.3-3 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario II) ............................................ 34 Figure 4.2.3-4 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario II)........................................... 34 Figure 4.2.3-5 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario III)........................................... 36 Figure 4.2.3-6 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario III) ......................................... 36 Figure 4.2.3-7 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario IV) .......................................... 38 Figure 4.2.3-8 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario IV) ......................................... 39 Figure 4.2.3-9 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario V)............................................ 41 Figure 4.2.3-10 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario V)........................................... 41 Figure 4.2.3-11 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario VI)........................................... 43 Figure 5.2.1-1 Survey Area ....................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5.3.1-1 Administrative Boundaries around Ayago Site, 2009

(WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_36N) ....................................................................... 47 Figure 5.3.10-1 Management Zones of Murchison Falls Protected Area

(WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_36N) ....................................................................... 52 Figure 5.4-1 Alternative-1 at Ayago Site (Dam and Waterway Type).................................... 56 Figure 5.4-2 Alternative-2 at Ayago Site (Waterway Type, Left Bank Route) ...................... 56 Figure 5.4-3 Alternative-3 at Ayago Site (Waterway Type, Right Bank Route) .................... 57 Figure 5.6-1 Optimization Study on Development Scale of Ayago Hydropower

Project................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 5.7.2-1 Outline of Ayago Hydropower Project .............................................................. 64 Figure 5.7.3-1 Transmission Line Route Map of Ayago Project............................................... 65 Figure 5.7.3-2 Transmission Line Network of East Africa ....................................................... 66


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. v

Figure 5.8.1-1 Construction Schedule....................................................................................... 68 Figure 5.8.1-2 Construction Schedule....................................................................................... 69 Figure 6.2-1 Sample procedure on determining the environmental flow............................... 74 Figure 7.2-1 Flow of Implementation Plan after this Study................................................... 79 Figure 7.2-2 Implementation Plan ......................................................................................... 81


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. AB - i

ABBREVIATIOM

Short Title Formal Nomenclature AfDB African Development Bank BEL Bujagali Energy Ltd. CAPP Central Africa Power Pool DSM Demand Side Management DWD Department of Water Development DWRM Department of Water Resource Management EAC East African Community EAPL East Africa Electric Power & Lighting Company Limited EAPMP East African Power Master Plan EAPP Eastern Africa Power Pool EEPCO Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank EPC Engineering, Procurement, Construction ERA Electricity Regulatory Authority ERC Energy Regulatory Commission F/S Feasibility Study GDP Gross Domestic Product GNI Gross National Income HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries IDA International Development Association IEA International Energy Agency IFC International Finance Cooperation IMF International Monetary Fund IPP Independent Power Producer IREMP Indicative Rural Electrification Master Plan IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KCCL Kasese Cobalt Mine Limited KenGen Kenya Electricity Generating Co. Ltd. KfW Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau KML Kilembe Mines Limited KPC Kenya Power Corporation KPLC Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd. Ksh Kenya Shilling LA Local Authority LCPDP Kenya's Least Cost Power Development Plan LRA The Lord's Resistance Army MAAHF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Husbandry and Fisheries


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. AB - ii

MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis M/P Master Plan MEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development MFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development MOH Ministry of Health MOU Minute of Understanding MTTI Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry MWE Ministry of Water and Environment NPA National Planning Authority NBD Nile Basin Discourse NBI Nile Basin Initiatives NDF Nordic Development Fund NBS Net Basin Supply NELSAP Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program NEMA National Environmental Management Authority NFA National Forest Authority NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation OJT On the Job Training PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PPA Power Purchase Agreement PPP Public Private Partnership Pre-F/S Pre-Feasibility Study PSIP Power Sector Investment Plan PSRPS The Power Sector Reform and Privatization Strategy PSS/E Power System Simulator for Engineering PV Photovoltaic REA Rural Electrification Agency REB Rural Electrification Board REF Rural Electrification Fund RESP Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan SADC Southern African Development Community SAPP Southern Africa Power Pool SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SHM Stakeholder Meeting SIDA Swedish International Development Agency TANESCO Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd. UBS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UEB Uganda Electricity Board UEDCL Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. UEGCL Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd. UETCL Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd.・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd. AB - iii

UMEME (Swahili) Ush Uganda Shilling ULC Uganda Land Commission UMD Uganda Meteorological Department UTB Uganda Tourist Board UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority WAPP West Africa Power Pool WB the World Bank WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature


Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd・Nippon Koei Co.,Ltd - 1 -

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

This study (the Study) was conducted under the name of the Project for Master Plan Study on Hydropower Development in the Republic of Uganda (the Project) from November, 2009 to March 2011. The Study consists of a master plan study on hydropower development and a pre-feasibility study on a selected prospective site. As the result of the Study, Ayago hydropower project was selected as the selected prospective site and judged feasible from technical, economic, financial and environmental viewpoints. Taking the current situation of power supply into account, there is a need for Ayago hydropower project to proceed to the next step, feasibility study, as early as possible. The conclusions are summarized below.

(1) Background of the Study

The power demand in the Republic of Uganda has been increasing rapidly against a background of recent economy growth and it is predicted that the growth rate of power demand continues to be around 8%. Uganda is a member of Eastern Africa Power Pool and is expected to play a role of “Power Supply Country” utilizing wealthy hydropower resources.

Meanwhile, in the present circumstances, there is a lack of power generation infrastructures of installed capacity of about 600MW in total, low operation rate of hydropower stations that is actual power generation of 140-200MW against Installed capacity of 409MW and chronicle power shortage in Uganda. The maximum power demand is 391MW, while the maximum possible power supply is 387MW. Such situation would be one of disincentives to reinforce Eastern Africa Power Pool.

Under those circumstances, the government of Uganda (GoU) recognized that the development of power infrastructures was one of the top priorities and aimed to increase power supply with domestic energy sources, mainly hydropower and to expand electrification rate from the present 10% to 20% by 2014/2015. GoU also planned an aggressive hydropower development as an important source of foreign exchange from power export to neighbor countries including Kenya.

(2) Selection of Prospective Project

The Study conducted a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) pursuant to the JICA Guideline on Environmental and Social Consideration issued April 1, 2004. Firstly, a comparative study was made to verify the advantage of hydropower developments on the Victoria Nile between conceivable alternative energy sources. The alternative energy sources compared were geothermal, diesel engine, solar thermal, wind power, biomass and nuclear power. As the result of the Study, hydropower was judged as an indispensable and essential energy source in Uganda. Secondly, seven candidate hydropower projects (Kalagala, Isimba,



Karuma, Oriang, Ayago, Kiba and Murchison) were identified and evaluated from various standpoints: technical, economic, environmental and social ones. Then, three hydropower projects -Ayago, Karuma, and Isimba- were selected as prospective hydropower projects. Finally, Ayago hydropower project was selected as selected prospective hydropower project, considering that feasibility studies (F/S) on Isimba and Karuma Hydropower projects were already underway. Therefore, a pre-feasibility study (Pre-F/S) on Ayago hydropower project was conducted. The stakeholder consensus on that procedure was built through a stakeholder meeting. In addition, the above information was disclosed on Internet WEB.

The selected Ayago hydropower project is of the run-of-river type with a firm capacity of 300MW and a maximum capacity of 600MW. In Uganda, low-cost power supply for base load is needed and also such a firm power source is worthy of power export because Ayago hydropower project could generate 300MW of stable energy at low cost. Hence, it is highly necessary to develop Ayago hydropower project.

(3) Power Demand Forecast and Power Development Plan

In the Grid Development Plan 2009-2025 (herein referred to as “GDP 2009-2025”), the annual growth rate of power demand from 2009 through 2025 is assumed at around 8%. The Study Team confirmed that this demand forecast was basically acceptable. The Study Team set three cases for power demand forecast from 2009 through 2023 in Uganda. Annual increase rate of Middle case of the power demand forecast by the Study Team is the same as that of GDP 2009-2025. Annual increase rate of High case is Middle case plus 1% and that of Low case is Middle case minus 1%. The Study Team prepared a power development plan in Uganda for five scenarios, I, II, III, IV and V, corresponding respectively to: Scenario I- Middle case of power demand forecast, Scenario II- High case, Scenario III- Low case, Scenario IV- Middle case plus export to Kenya and Scenario V and VI- Case considering the targeted demand of Uganda government. As the result of this Study, the conclusion was that Ayago hydropower project should be developed in stages from 2019 or 2020 with 100MW in each stage up to 2023.

(4) Main Features of Ayago Hydropower Project

A comparative study was conducted in technical, economic, environmental and social viewpoints to select the best type of Ayago hydropower project from three alternative layouts: Dam and water-way type, run-of-river type (right bank) and run-of-river type (left bank). As the result, the run-of-river type (left bank) was selected.

Main features of Ayago hydropower project is as follows.

Head.................................... 87m

Power Discharge ................. 840m3/s

Annual Energy .................... 4,095GWh



Intake Weir.......................... Concrete gravity type,

............................................ Height: 15 m, Crest length: 250 m

Headrace Tunnel ................. Concrete lining, 6lines, Length: 113m

Penstock .............................. 6-12lines, Length 85 m

Tailrace................................ Concrete lining, 6lines, Length: 7,400-7,890 m

Powerhouse......................... Underground type

............................................ Width 23 m × height 40 m ×length 150 m ×2 Units

Turbine................................ Francis, 51 MW/unit × 12 units

Generator ............................ 55.5MW /unit × 12 units

The estimated construction cost for 600MW was around US$1,600 million at 2010 cost basis, including preparatory construction cost, environmental mitigation cost, civil works, hydro-mechanical equipment, electromechanical equipment, transmission lines, administrative and engineering costs and physical contingency. The construction period was estimated to be 5 years and 6 months.

(5) Economic and Financial Evaluation

Economic and financial evaluation was made for Scenario I and IV. The result of economic evaluation was that EIRR for Scenario I and IV were 24.36% and 24.44% respectively. Both Scenarios were confirmed as feasible from an economic point of view because both of them show EIRR over capital opportunity cost of 10%. This evaluation was done on the condition that power supply was limited to 300MW on account of its firm capacity and the benefit was the cost of alternative thermal power plant.

And also, as the result of financial evaluation and cash flow analysis, both scenarios were profitable and repayable because FIRR of Scenario I and IV were 12.83% and 18.46% respectively and DSCR of Scenario I and IV were 2.68 and 3.75 respectively. The above evaluation was done on the condition that electricity tariff was US$6￠/kWh.

Recommendations

Ayago hydropower project is a valuable domestic energy to cover the increasing demand at an annual rate of over 8%. Development of Ayago hydropower project is expected to bring about the following effects:

Contribution to stable power supply in Uganda;

Cost saving by suspension of diesel thermal power plants; and,

Carbon dioxide emissions reductions, over 500kt annually by suspending diesel and other HFO thermal power plants.



In addition, economic effect by earning foreign exchanges from power export is expected.

Nevertheless, there are plans for a series of large hydropower developments (Karuma, Isimba and Ayago), far exceeding the actual capabilities of Uganda in terms of financial requirements and human resources, bringing about a lot of uncertainties and issues to be solved financially, environmentally and organizationally on account of the perspective to 2020s of global economy and Uganda’s situation as well as environmental change and uncertainty. In developing those hydropower projects, it is vital to give due consideration to capacity building of Ugandan human resources and to tackle the mounting issues flexibly according to future change of the situation.

Hence, suggested below are several recommendations and considerations in proceeding to the next stage -feasibility study (F/S).

(1) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Ayago hydropower project has few social impacts because it is located in the Murchison National Park, while adequate investigations and countermeasures for natural environment conservation are necessary. In order to mitigate impacts on natural environment as much as possible, this Pre-F/S adopted the run-of-river type with underground powerhouse and tunnel for waterway. Considering the limited nature of the environmental impact assessment made at SEA level in this Pre-F/S, it is necessary that a more in-depth study should be conducted at EIA level in such a way as to satisfy pertinent Ugandan law and donors’ guidelines at F/S stage. It is especially to be noted that amenity flow on water reducing zone should be determined through consultation with related organizations in consideration of impacts on fauna and flora due to change in width and depth of river water as well as cumulative effects by other hydropower developments upstream and downstream of Ayago project.

A particular consideration should be paid to compatibility of development with tourism because national parks are important tourism sources for Uganda.

Moreover, as the Nile River is an international river, so it is desirable to fulfill accountability of development plan to downstream countries.

(2) Staged Development

Being of the run-of-river type, Ayago hydropower project has two kinds of output: firm energy produced by 300MW, dependable capacity for a period of 90 % of a year, and secondary energy produced only at the time of much river flow (Max 300MW). Generally, in a power system with thermal power as main supplier and hydropower as supplementary, the secondary energy will contribute to fuel saving of existing thermal power plants. Meanwhile, in Uganda with hydropower as main supplier and thermal power as supplementary, the secondary energy governed by rainfall is not dependable, so the secondary energy should not be counted into a power development plan.



Therefore, although the eventual development scale of Ayago project was determined to be 600MW, it is suggested to develop Ayago project to 300MW till the first half of 2020s and, as for the remaining potential of 300MW, it is wise to proceed to the development when power export negotiations with neighboring countries has been favorably concluded.

It should be noted that it is suggested to implement staged development with 100MW in each stage according to actual increase of power demand. In this case, the estimated construction costs of 1st stage, 2nd stage, 3rd stage, 4th stage 5th stage and 6th stage are US$436 mil, US$213 mil, US$213 mil, US$295 mil, US$221 mil, US$220 mil respectively.

(3) Funding plan

Bujagali hydropower project, now under construction, has been implemented by IPP scheme and also Isimba hydropower project, of which a feasibility study is under way, is planned to be implemented by IPP. Comparing with those projects, Ayago hydropower project requires a larger amount of funds. And there is not much likelihood in attracting foreign, private investment on favorable conditions to Uganda, which does not have strong export industries. It is therefore advisable to develop Ayago project in staged development, which is more likely to increase the possibility of obtain ODA loans.

(4) Restructuring the organization for project execution

Currently, in Uganda, except for tasks regarding demand forecast and grid expansion conducted by UETCL, a combined number of less than 10 of staff of MEMD and HPDU (UEGCL) are engaged in different tasks for Karuma, Isimba and Ayago hydropower projects. In proceeding to further stages of detail design and construction, the current organization and system will not be able to handle all tasks related to those projects.

Therefore, it is suggested to restructure the organization and system for project execution to form a dedicated agency for hydropower developments to properly cope with technical, environmental and financial issues.

(5) Development of Human Resources

Uganda has a serious lack of engineers necessary for hydropower development, especially geologists and civil engineers. As a short-term solution to such lack of human resources, it is more realistic to employ foreign consultants and experts dispatched by foreign governments under ODA scheme, who will provide capacity building through OJT.

In a longer term, it is suggested to reinforce higher education institutions by establishing special courses on hydropower for example.



(6) Technical Standards

There is no technical standard for hydropower development in Uganda. It is strongly suggested to establish the technical standards related to execution of hydropower projects from planning and design to construction and maintenance appropriately.

(7) Recommendation for Feasibility Study

It is recommended to implement the following items at the next Feasibility Stage, not covered by the Pre F/S.

1) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Particular points of consideration for EIA are as follows.

Countermeasures and monitoring for water reducing area

Compatibility with tourism

Consideration for landscape impact, especially transmission line

2) Site investigation works and experiment for design and construction planning

It is necessary to execute additional topographical survey, river section survey and geological investigation for more in-depth basic design and construction planning.

It is recommended that a hydraulic model experiment should be conducted in order to grasp impacts on aquatic animal by flow condition around the intake.

3) Additional study for power system stability analysis and unit capacity

In addition to power flow and accident current analysis executed at this Pre-F/S, it is necessary to conduct power system stability analysis and, if necessary, additional study for determination of unit capacity, in order to build up highly reliable transmission system, in consideration of long-distance transmission line over 200km, which may become a governing factor in sound power system operation.



Chapter 1 Background, Objectives and Scope of the Study

1.1 Background of the Study

The power demand in the Republic of Uganda is increasing by around 8% every year against a background of recent economy growth. As a member of the East African Power Pool, Uganda could become a regional power supplier using an abundance of water resources. On the other hand, the chronic lack of power supply resulting from the lack of power facilities, low availability of hydropower plants, that is actual power generation of 140-200MW against Installed capacity of 409MW, and undeveloped transmission lines has become a problem, which may lead to the disincentive of the East African Power Pool.

Under the prevailing condition, the government of Uganda (hereinafter referred to as “GOU”) recognizes the urgent need for the development of new electric power plants and the expansion of power grids as prerequisites for economic growth. Therefore, GOU plans to increase the ratio of electrification from the present about 10% to 20% by 2014/2015 and to supply energy by using the domestic energy (especially hydropower) mainly. GOU is also willing to develop hydropower resources to accrue foreign currency by means of power export to neighbour countries (Kenya, etc.).

Considering that background, the government of Japan decided to conduct the Project for Master Plan Study on Hydropower Development in Uganda (hereinafter referred to as “the Study”) in response to the request of GOU.

1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Study

The Study aimed at the preparation of a master plan (hereinafter referred to as “M/P”) of hydropower development in the Republic of Uganda in line with the long term power and transmission development plan. The Study includes the prioritization of potential hydropower sites based on consideration of technical, environmental, economical and financial aspects for development in the period of 15 years as well as the optimal scale, basic layout and the framework of development so that the GOU can implement the projects. Technical transfer and capacity development for the counterpart personnel (hereinafter referred to as “C/P”) was also carried out in the course of the joint study. Finally, the Study aimed at the implementation of necessary power supply plan that would support economic growth in the Republic of Uganda as well as the East African region.



Chapter 2 Possibility of Alternative Energy Sources other than Hydropower on the Victoria Nile

2.1 Alternative Energy Sources

(1) Outline of Alternative Energy Sources

The technical outline of the alternative energy sources in this assessment is as shown in the following table.

Table 2.1-1 Outline of Energy Sources

Energy Source Energy Production Method Hydropower (Large Scale Hydropower)*1)

Hydropower is the power that is derived from the force of moving water, which can be harnessed for useful purposes.

Geothermal Geothermal is the power extracted from heat stored in the earth. Diesel Engine (Heavy Oil) *2)

Diesel engine is the most popular type of reciprocating engine which drives an electrical generator.

Solar thermal*3) Solar power is the generation of electricity from sunlight.

Wind Power Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a useful form of energy, such as using wind turbines to make electricity.

Biomass Cogeneration*4)

Biomass Cogeneration is the power that is producing thermal energy by burning biomass material with heat recycles system. Steam turbine or gas turbine type can be selected.

Nuclear Nuclear is the power that is derived from atomic energy. The heated steam by water reactor spin a steam turbine which droves an electric generator.

(Source: Study Team)

*1) Note: The Study Team aimed to develop hydropower energy source in order to meet the energy demand on national grid until year of 2023 inclusive. Target power demand is over 800MW and more than 50MW may be suitable for development scale of a power plant. According to the ERA survey, development potential of mini and/or micro hydro is about 184MW in total and development of mini and/or micro hydro should be proceeded in parallel with the large scale hydropower. However, dependable output, during dry season, of the mini and/or micro hydro is too small comparing with their installed capacity due to unstable discharge of their small river basin. Such small dependable output of mini and/or micro hydro may not contribute to stability of the power system in the national gird. Hence, mini or micro hydropower is excluded from the study.

*2) Note: The government of Uganda (herein after mentioned as “GoU”) surveyed oil potential in Uganda and planned to extend diesel engine with domestic-produced heavy-fuel- oil power plant. The plan is the most feasible development plan of fossil thermal development.

*3) Note: As described in *1), the target development of the Study Team is more than 50MW/Plant, and only solar thermal can achieve more than 50MW of large scale power generation among solar energy development at present. Hence, the Study Team selected solar thermal as one of the competitive energy sources of large scale energy development.

*4) Note: Large scale biomass cogeneration plants utilizing bagasse have been planned in Uganda and the cogeneration plants are the most feasible type to develop over 50MW. There are two kinds of biomass material, 1) wood chip, waste crop and/or garbage, peat, bagasse and 2) bio-fuel such as bio-diesel ethanol. Biomass cogeneration plant can be planned with both of the above materials, however, production amount of bio-fuel is too small in Uganda’s market. Hence, the Study Team adopted biomass cogeneration plant using wood, waste crop and/or garbage.



(2) Development Potential of Alternative Energy Sources

1) Renewable Energy

According to “The Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda November 2007” issued by the Electricity Regulatory Authority (herein after mentioned as “ERA”), development potential of renewable energy, such as large scale hydro, mini-hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, peat, and wind power, is estimated at 5,300MW in total.

Summary of the development potential of renewable energy in Uganda is shown in the following table.

Table 2.1-2 Development Potential of the Renewable Energy

Energy Source Estimated Electrical Potential (MW) Hydro (mainly on the Nile) 2,000

Mini-Hydro 200 Solar 200

Biomass 1,650 Geothermal 450

Peat 注 1) 800 Wind 注 2) -

Total 5,300 (Source: The Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda, (November 2007)」)

*1) Note: Technically, peat is not a renewable energy source, however, GoU aim to utilize 10% of peat resources which will make generation of about 800MW for the next 50 years. However, the Study Team considered that the peat resources classified into the fossil fuel in this JICA Study

*2) Note: Recent study by the Electricity Regulatory Authority (herein after mentioned as ERA) indicates that the wind speed in most areas of Uganda is moderate, with average wind speeds ranging from 1.8m to 4m/s. The wind record indicates that the wind resource in Uganda is only sufficient for small scale electricity generation and for special application such as water pumping mainly as applied in the Karamoja region. Small industries in rural areas where targets for a mill range from 2.5kV to 10kV could benefit from wind resources.

2) Fossil Fuel Thermal

According to GoU survey, the current estimate of the country’s oil potential are around 1.0 to 1.5 billion barrel. In terms of production levels, Tullow (UK’s oil Company) estimates an output of between 100,000–150,000 barrels per day (bpd) over a possible 25-year production period and heavy oil is planned to be utilized for energy production.

Inferring from energy production rate of heavy oil at around 0.45 MWh per barrel, 500MW at least, which is less than 1% of theoretical energy of heavy oil resources, of thermal power may be developed.

3) Nuclear Power

Development potential of nuclear power depends on procurement of nuclear fuel, such as uranium or plutonium, and disposing method of nuclear fuel. Therefore, it is difficult to



estimate development potential of nuclear power in Uganda.

In order to carry out the alternative study, the Study Team roughly estimated the development potential of nuclear power based on an example of prospective nuclear power holder country. As shown in the following table, 600 to 2,000 MW of nuclear development may be suitable for the prospective nuclear power holder country. Therefore, development potential of nuclear power in Uganda is considered to be reasonable at around 600 to 2,000MW.

Table 2.1-3 Nuclear Power - Prospective Nuclear Holder Country

Reactors Planned Reactors Proposed Country No. MWe No. MWe

Bangladesh 0 0 2 2,000 Belarus 2 2,000 2 2,000 Egypt 1 1,000 1 1,000

Indonesia 2 2,000 4 4,000 Israel 0 0 1 1,200

Kazakhstan 2 600 2 600 Poland 0 0 6 6,000

Thailand 2 2,000 4 4,000 Turkey 2 2,400 1 1,200 UAE 4 5,600 10 14,400

Vietnam 2 2,000 8 8,000 (Source: Reactor data: WNA to 4/1/10 IAEA- for nuclear electricity production & percentage of electricity (% e) 5/09.）

4) Energy Import

In the case of energy import from neighboring countries without no domestic power development, the magnitude of energy import is governed by backup energy sources during a trouble of power transmission lines. Excess capacity of the Nalubaale, Kiira and Bujagali power stations can be utilized as backup energy sources. Since the combined installed capacity of those power stations are 630 MW and the dependable output of the power stations are 323MW, about 300MW of the output of the power stations can be utilized as emergency backup for imported energy. Hence, the magnitude of energy import is considered to be not more than 300MW.

2.2 General Evaluation of Alternative Energy Sources

The adopted general evaluation method of alternative energy sources was multi-criteria decision analysis. The total number of criteria was twenty seven, including economic and technical items such as development cost and existing potential, environmental items such as air pollution and waste, and social items such as resettlement and tourism. After giving ratings from A to E, the ratings were converted into the value of 5 to 1 for each, multiplied by weight, and summed up by energy source. The weighting patterns were divided into three cases: even case, environmental



weighting case, and economic weighting case.. The result shows that hydropower, geothermal and solar thermal earned relatively high scores (see Table 2.2-1).

Table 2.2-1 General Evaluation of various energy sources

Evaluation items Weight

Hyd

ro

Geo

ther

mal

Die

sel E

ngin

e (H

eavy

Oil)

Win

d Po

wer

Bio

mas

s C

ogen

erat

ion

Sola

r T

herm

al

Nuc

lear

Ene

rgy

impo

rt

Development cost (US$/kW) 4 3 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 Operation & Maintenance cost (US$/kW/year)

4 5 3 3 5 3 5 1 5 Cost

Unit cost of power generation (US$/MWh)

12

4 5 5 1 5 3 1 5 1

Existing potential (MW) 4 5 3 3 1 4 2 4 2 Technically feasible potential at present (MW)

4 5 3 2 1 4 3 1 1 Development potential

Availability of Energy Source

12

4 4 5 2 1 2 3 1 1 Survey maturity 3 4 3 5 1 5 5 1 1 Construction Lead time for construction

52 3 2 5 1 4 4 1 3

Initial Starting Time 1 5 3 4 1 3 3 2 1 Energy stability 1 4 5 5 1 3 1 5 3 Power supply stability 1 4 5 3 1 2 1 2 2

Operation

Life Span (Year)

4

1 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 5

Econ

omic

and

tech

nica

l

Contribution to national economy

34

1 1 5 5 1 3 5 3 5 3 Air pollution 4 5 5 1 4 2 4 5 2 Water pollution 5 3 2 3 5 3 4 2 2 Consumption of natural resource 5 5 4 1 5 3 5 3 1 CO2 emission 4 5 4 1 3 3 2 5 1 Waste 4 4 3 3 5 2 5 1 2 Water right/ water resource 5 2 4 3 5 4 4 3 3 En

viro

nmen

tal

Impact on natural ecology

33

6 1 3 2 4 3 5 3 2 Impact on Agriculture 5 2 5 5 3 1 4 5 5 Resettlement 5 2 5 5 3 1 5 4 5 Impact on fishery 6 1 3 2 5 2 5 2 2 Impact on tourism 5 1 4 5 2 5 3 3 5 Legal aspects 4 5 3 5 5 5 1 5 5 Human health hazard 4 2 2 2 4 2 5 2 2

Soci

al

Risk of accident

33

4 2 4 1 5 4 5 2 1

328 363 291 344 295 368 285 264Even Case

B A C B C A C C320 367 277 367 291 378 298 261

Environment weighting case B A C A C A C C

367 361 299 266 332 348 260 219

General Evaluation

Economic & Technical weighting Case A A C C B B C C



As seen from the figures below, the results of the three cases, neutral case, environment priority case, and technical and economical priority case, show basically similar tendency. Solar thermal power is the most suitable case in terms of minimizing environment impacts; however, solar thermal has no advantage from technical and economic points of view. Geothermal has balanced advantages from environmental, technical and environmental points of view. Large-scale hydropower exceeds in technical and economic aspects, despite less advantage from environmental point of view.

Hence, geothermal, solar thermal and large-scale hydro powers were evaluated as superior energy sources over the other sources in Uganda.

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

50 70 90 110 130 150 170

Economic

Env

iron

men

tal &

Soc

ial *

* Hydro

Geothermal

Diesel Engine　(Heavy Oil)

Wind Power

Biomass Thermal Cogeneration

Solar Thermal

Nuclear

Energy import

Figure 2.2-1 Evaluation Results (Neutral Case)

190

210

230

250

270

290

310

330

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Economic **

Env

iron

men

tal &

Soc

ial *

* Hydro

Geothermal


Wind Power


Solar Thermal

Nuclear

Energy import

Figure 2.2-2 Evaluation Results (Priority for Environment Case)



100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

50 100 150 200 250 300

Economic **

Env

iron

men

tal &

Soc

ial *

* Hydro

Geothermal


Wind Power


Solar Thermal

Nuclear

Energy import

Figure 2.2-3 Evaluation Results (Priority for Economy Case)

2.3 Necessity for Development of Large Scale Hydropower

Large scale hydropower as well as geothermal and solar thermal is superior to the other energy sources. Geothermal, which has balanced advantage from environmental, technical and economic points of view, has high evaluation scores. However, technically feasible potential of geothermal is about 50MW at present. Energy peak demand of 900MW by 2023 cannot practically be supplied by geothermal energy source only.

On the other hand, technically feasible potential of the large scale hydropower is 2,980 MW at present. The large scale hydropower has by far the largest potential and was evaluated as third superior energy source after geothermal and solar thermal.

The other energy sources also are essential to realize secure energy supply. It is recommended to develop all kinds of energy sources except for nuclear power, which has many unknown factors in technical aspects, for balanced generation mix aimed at secure and economical energy supply with minimum environmental impacts.

Large scale hydropower can provide secure and economical energy supply in Uganda. About 90% of the energy demand by 2023 can be supplied by large scale hydropower, which was planned in the GDP2009-2025. Hence, it is concluded that large scale hydropower is the most essential energy source for power development plan in Uganda.

The JICA Study has conducted an optimized master plan study on hydropower development, which is the most essential and superior energy source in Uganda.



HydroThermalSolarBiomass

Figure 2.3-1 Power Balance in Year 2023 by GDP2009-2025



Chapter 3 Hydropower Development Master Plan

3.1 Hydrology and Meteorology

The area of Uganda can be divided into eight major basins including that of Lake Victoria, and of Lake Kyoga, and all of those eight basins belong to the Nile Basin. The boundaries of the major basins in Uganda are shown in Figure 3.1-1.

(Source: Wet Land Department)

Figure 3.1-1 Watershed Boundary in Uganda

It can be seen from Figure 3.1-1, that the area of Lake Victoria basin is the largest, followed by that of Lake Kyoga and then the Victoria Nile basin. The total area of these three basins covers almost 62% of the country’s total area.

Uganda has an abundant number of lakes ranging from small swamps to large lakes like Victoria. The total area of the lakes is estimated at 66 km2 1, which is almost 15% of the total area of Uganda. Principal features of the major lakes in Uganda are shown in Table 3.1-1.

(1World Water Assessment Program, “Case Study: Uganda, National Water Development Report: Uganda,” 2006



Table 3.1-1 Major Lakes in Uganda

Lakes Total Area (Km2)

Area in Uganda (Km2)

Mean Elevation above Sea level (m)

Maximum Depth (m)

Victoria 68,457 28,665 1,134 82 Albert 5,335 2,913 621 51 Edward 2,203 645 913 117 Kyoga and Kwania 2,047 2,047 1,033 7

Bisina (Salisbury) 308 308 1,047 -

George 246 246 914 3 (Source: National Water Development Report (2006), National Environment Action Plan (1992))

The Nile River connects Lake Victoria, Lake Kyoga, and Lake Albert as it flows downstream from Lake Victoria. The river stretch from Lake Victoria to Lake Albert is called the Victoria Nile River.

The location of the major lakes and rivers in Uganda is shown in the figure below.

(Source; Wet Land Department)

Figure 3.1-2 Major Rivers and Lakes in Uganda

LLaakkee

LLaakkeeLLaakkee

LLaakkee

LLaakkee

LLaakkeeLLaakkee



3.2 Present Condition of Natural Environment

(1) Endangered Species

Uganda is one of the species-rich countries in the world, with 315 species of mammals, over 1,000 birds and 1,200 butterflies. The number of IUCN red list species in Uganda is 1,838, including Animalia and Plantae. The number of ACTINOPTERYGII categorized in CR (Critically Endangered) is relatively high. This is considered attributable to the impact on domestic species by Nile perch (Lates niloticus) stocked in Lake Victoria. Among mammals, 8 species, including mountain gorilla, are EN (Endangered), and 13 species, including Hippopotamus, are VU (Vulnerable).

Table 3.2-1 Number of IUCN Red List Species in UGANDA

Red List status* Kingdom Class

EX CR EN VU NT LC Total

MAMMALIA 8 13 19 259 299AVES 6 13 27 872 918AMPHIBIA 1 1 5 1 52 60REPTILIA 1 17 18ACTINOPTERYGII 1 33 7 21 3 87 152INSECTA 2 3 220 225GASTROPODA 2 4 2 6 25 39BIVALVIA 1 5 6

ANIMALIA

CRUSTACEA 2 2 7 11PLANTAE 3 5 31 6 65 110

Grand Total 1 40 33 90 65 1,609 1,838

*Extinct (EX); Critically Endangered (CR); Endangered (EN); Vulnerable (VU); Near Threatened (NT); Least Concern (LC)

(Source: IUCN Web site (http://www.iucnredlist.org/))

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

MAMMALIA

AVES

AMPHIBIA

REPTILIA

ACTINOPTERYGII

INSECTA

PLANTAE

EX CR EN VU NT


Figure 3.2-1 Number of IUCN Red List species in UGANDA



In terms of Mammal and Amphibian, the distribution of EN, VU, and NT of IUCN red list species are mainly concentrated around the lakes on the western side of the country.


Figure 3.2-2 Distribution of endangered species (Mammal and Amphibian)

(2) Protected Area

Many kinds of protected areas, such as national parks, Wildlife Reserves, and Community Wildlife Management Areas, are in Uganda. The largest national park is Murchison Falls National Park, which is 3,867km2, the same size as Saitama Prefecture (see Figure 3.2-3).



Source: World Database on Protected Areas (http://www.wdpa.org )/ National Forest Authority Uganda/ Nature Uganda (JICA revised)

Figure 3.2-3 Protected Area in UGANDA

3.3 Geology

The Victoria Nile River, forming some small cascades, meanders through gently hilly terrain of gneiss rocks. General topographic features along the Victoria Nile River consist of approximately 200 m to 300 m wide riverbed, 15 to 25 degrees slopes on the both river sides and gentle hilly terrains of 30 m to 50 m in height above riverbed.

Volume of unconsolidated deposits such as river sand and gravels, terrace deposits and talus deposits distributed along the river is not considerable. Overburdens are estimated at less than 3 m to 5 m in thickness according to surface observations, but gneiss rocks on the hilly terrains are possibly highly weathered along joints deeper to the closest river floor level.

According to the site reconnaissance carried out in this study, the Candidate Hydropower Projects are underlain mainly by hard gneiss rocks, which are suitable for the foundation of the structures for power stations structures.

Kalagala and Isimba sites are underlain mainly by massive granitic gneiss and mafic gneiss, while the bedrocks of Karuma, Kiba Ayago, Oriang and Murchison site are composed mainly of biotite gneiss including mafic gneiss. Generally, biotite gneiss is not suitable as construction materials such as concrete aggregates, due to its high abrasion characteristics. It should be noted that



disposal of excavated materials and construction material sources for concrete aggregates are necessary to be studied in the early stages of the feasibility study (F/S), especially for Karuma, Kiba Ayago, Oriang and Murchison Falls site.

3.4 Salient Features of Identified Candidate Hydropower Projects

The following 7 candidate hydropower projects were identified on the Victoria Nile River.

Kalagala Site Isimba Site Karuma Site Oriang Site Ayago Site Kiba Site Murchison Site

Figure 3.4-1 shows the location of the above projects along the river profile as well as the existing Owen Falls dam, Nalubaale Kiira hydropower stations and Bujagali hydropower project under construction.

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Lake VictoriaLake Kyoga

Lake Albert

100 km 500 km400 km300 km200 km 600 km0

Nalubaale & Kiira Hydro Power

Bujagali Hydro

Isimba Hydro

Karuma Hydro

Ayago Hydro

Murchison Hydro

Kalagala Hydro

Oriang Hydro

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Masindi GS

Paraa GS

Namasagali GS

Swanp

Lake Kuwania

Border with Sudan

Owen Falls Dam

Figure 3.4-1 Profile of Major Rivers, Lakes and Hydropower Sites in Uganda



The hydropower sites between Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga were planned as peaking power station and those located between Lake Kyoga and Lake Albert as base-load power station.

Figure 3.4-2 Integrated Hydropower Development Plan in Victoria Nile River

The salient features of the7 project sites are shown in Table3.4-1.

Lake Victoria

Kiira Hydro (Existing)

Bujagali Hydro (Under construction)

Owen Falls Dam

Kalagala Hydro

Peak Power i

Peak Power ii

Peak Power iii

Isimba Hydro

Nalubaale Hydro (Existing)

Lake KyogaBase Power iv

Murchison Hydro

Lake Albert

Base Power vi

Ayago Hydro

Base Power v Oriang Hydro

Karuma Hydro Lake Kyoga

i ii

iii iv v

vi

Daily Load Pattern

Kiba Hydro

Peak Power

Base Power

Base Power



Table 3.4-1 Salient Features of Candidate Hydropower Projects

Kalagala Ishimba Karuma Oriang Ayago Kiba Murchison

Dam Type Dam Type WaterwayType

WaterwayType

WaterwayType

WaterwayType

Dam&Waterway

TypeDam / Weir

Type ComnbinedDam

ComnbinedDam Concrete Weir Concrete Weir Concrete Weir Concrete Weir Comnbined

DamHeight m 45 30 20 20 20 20Clest Length m 235 320 620 610 480 550 650Width of River Bed m 175 70 - - - - 240Catchment Area km2 264,450 264,620 346,000 346,710 346,850 348,120 348,600Full Supply Level m 1,088 1,059 1,030 910 852 765 718Rated Water Level m 1,087 1,058 1,030 910 852 765 715Minimum Operation Level m 1,086 1,057 - - - - 712Gross Storage Capacity MCM 82 88 - - - - 42Effictive Storage Capacity MCM 19 22 - - - - 19

WaterwayHeadrace Tunnel Number of Tunnel nos. - - 6 4 6 6 6 Inner Diameter m - - 8.4 9.8 8.4 8.4 9.0 Length m - - 555 740 96 390 290Penstock Number of Penstock nos. - - 12 8 12 6 12 Inner Diameter m - - 3.8 4.9 3.8 5.4 5.9 Length m - - 70 90 50 55 46Tailrace Tunnel Number of Tunnel nos. - - 6 4 6 6 6 Inner Diameter m - - 8.4 9.8 8.4 8.4 9.0 Length m - 11,000 11,000 7,600 14,000 1,800Tail Water Level m 1,059 1,045 945 852 765 718 625

PowerhouseType Open Air Open Air Underground Underground Underground Underground UndergroundNumber of Unit nos. 10 6 12 8 12 6 12Type of Turbine Kaplan Kaplan Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis

Transmission LineLength km 28 47 1 34 46 56 122Voltage kV 220 220 400 400 400 400 400

UnitItem

45

3.5 General Evaluation of the Candidate Hydropower Projects

As a result of weighting and summing up all items by the projects, the general evaluation showed that Ayago, Isimba, and Karuma have relatively higher scores than the other projects. This evaluation is not absolute but relative one. High evaluation does not mean no problems on all points but means relatively higher than the other projects.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Kalag

ala

Ishim

ba

Karu

ma

Oria

ng

Ayago

Kiba

Mur

chiso

n

Even Case

Environmental Weighting Case

Social Weighting Case

Economic Weighting Case

Figure 3.5-1 Evaluation of Each Site



3.6 Selection of Prospective Project

Review of GDP 2008-2023 was carried out for selection of prospective projects from among the 7 sites. According to the demand forecast in GDP 2009-2025 as shown in Figure 3.6-1, expansion of 1,129 MW of peak power and 6,458 GWh of firm energy will be needed without considering power export and expansion of 1,449 MW of peak power and 8,967 GWh of firm energy will be needed in case power export is considered. This power expansion will be possible by 2 or 3 prospective sites: Ayago project, Karuma project and Isimba project, all evaluated as A rank by comparative study of the 7 candidate sites.

Among those 3 sites, Karuma and Isimba projects are under feasibility study by an Indian and a German consultants, respectively.

Therefore the Study Team determined the Ayago Site as the selected prospective site for the further investigation.

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Pow

er （

MW

)

MW Balance

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Pow

er （

GW

h)

Murchison

Ayago Hydro

Karuma

Isimba Hydro

Bujagali Hydro

Owen Falls Hydro

Other Hydro

Co-Generation

Thermal

Demnd（Export）

Demand（Domestick）

GWh Balance

Figure 3.6-1 Demand and Supply Balance up to 2023

It is to be noted that Ayago project remains with environmental problems such as impact on a national park as it is in the middle of the National Park and impact on important species. Some appropriate mitigation measures will be needed based on detailed impact assessment in a further study.



Chapter4 Long-Term Power Development Plan

4.1 Demand Forecast

4.1.1 Domestic Demand Forecast

MEMD and the Study Team agreed to use the then latest version of Grid Development Plan 2009-2025 of UETCL in 2009 (hereinafter GDP2009), published in the beginning of the year 2010. The Study Team verified the demand forecast of GDP2009 by comparing with GDP2008 and considering elasticity of energy demand to Gross Domestic Product and concluded that the growth rate of 8.06% can be applied to the study. The Study Team assumed that the growth rate of 8.06% was the medium case. Considering the fluctuation of the growth rate, it was assumed to add 1.0% to the middle case as a high case (9.06%) and to distract 1.0% from the medium case as a low case (7.06%). In order to estimate the maximum power demand, the actual load factor of 66% was adopted.

Table 4.1.1-1 ad Fig. 4.1.1-1 shows the forecasted result of the domestic energy demand (GWh). As the growth rate in GDP2009 is verified, the energy demand of 6,428GWh in 2023 coincides with that of GDP 2009. Focusing on the growth rate, while the Study Team employed a constant growth rate of 8.06% through the year, therefore the domestic energy demand curves have smooth shape as shown in the Figure 4.1.1-1. On the other hand, the minimum growth rate estimated by GDP 2009 is 6.04% in 2010 and the maximum growth rate is 10.16% in 2017. The growth rate estimated by GDP2009 is varying widely. Since the accuracy of demand forecast in later yeas is limited, the growth rate, except in recent years, should take a constant value generally. Hence, the staggering growth rate in the GDP2009 is considered to be inappropriate value.

Table 4.1.1-1 Result of Domestic Energy Demand Forecast (GWh)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GDP2009 Medium 2,171 2,302 2,449 2,595 2,793 3,003 3,232 3,554

Medium 2,171 2,346 2,535 2,740 2,961 3,199 3,457 3,736High 2,171 2,368 2,582 2,816 3,072 3,350 3,654 3,985JICA Low 2,171 2,324 2,489 2,664 2,852 3,054 3,270 3,500

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 GDP2009 Medium 3,915 4,242 4,604 4,986 5,406 5,889 6,428

Medium 4,037 4,363 4,714 5,094 5,505 5,949 6,428 High 4,346 4,740 5,169 5,637 6,148 6,706 7313 JICA Low 3,748 4,012 4,296 4,599 4,924 5,272 5,644

(Source: Study Team）



2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Dom

est

ic E

nerg

y D

em

and (

GW

h) Medium(GDP2009)

Medium(JICA)

High(JICA)

Low(JICA)


Figure 4.1.1-1 Result of Domestic Energy Demand Forecast (GWh)

Table 4.1.1-2 and Fig.4.1.1-2 shows the forecasted power demand (MW). The difference of the forecasting between the Study Team and GDP2009 arises from use of different annual load factors in addition to different energy demand forecasting. The Study Team employed a constant annual load factor of 0.66. On the other hand, the annual load factor in GDP2009 fluctuates as 0.66 in the first period, 0.63 in the middle period, and 0.65 in the last period. In order to forecast power demand, the usual practice is such that annual load factor should gradually decrease or increase on a constant basis. The annual load factor in the GDP2009 shifts in the middle period from decreasing to increasing tendency. This can be achieved by means of conducting load leveling. Therefore, the power demand forecast in the GDP2009 is considered to be appropriate.

Table 4.1.1-2 Result of Domestic Power Demand Forecast (MW)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016GDP2009 Medium 375 398 424 449 483 519 559 615

Medium 375 406 439 474 512 553 598 646 High 375 410 447 487 531 579 632 689 JICA Low 375 402 430 461 493 528 566 605

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 GDP2009 Medium 677 769 834 903 980 1,034 1,129

Medium 698 755 815 881 952 1,029 1,112 High 752 820 894 975 1,063 1,160 1,265 JICA Low 648 694 743 795 852 912 976





Figure 4.1.1-2 Result of Domestic Power Demand Forecast (MW)

4.1.2 Demand Forecast for Export

The power demand composed of domestic demand (the medium case scenario) and export power is presented in GDP2009 and also estimated by the Study Team as shown in Table 4.1.2-1 and Fig.4.1.2-1 for the energy (GWh), and in Table 4.1.2-2 and Fig.4.1.2-2 for the power (MW).

The difference of the GDP2009 and the Study Team estimate is seen only in the domestic demands, and the export is almost the same for both forecasts. The export energy was calculated by applying the policy of GDP 2009 in such that the surplus of power supply was allocated for power export. As the power supply is dependent on power source capacity, if the power development schedule is changed, then the power export plan should be revised.

The load factor in the year 2023 is 66% for the domestic demand (Study Team), while the load factor of export is as large as 91%. This results in the load factor or 71% in total.

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Dom

est

ic P

ow

er

Dem

and (

MW

) Medium(GDP2009)

Medium(JICA)

High(JICA)

Low(JICA)



Table 4.1.2-1 Result of Demand Energy Forecast (GWh)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Forecasted by

JICA 2171 2346 2535 2740 2961 3199 3457 3736Domestic GDP2009 2171 2302 2449 2595 2793 3003 3232 3554

Kenya 10 10 88 88 13 26 102 102 Tanzania 88 88 96 105 114 175 175 175 Rwanda 9 9 9 9 4 44 44 88 Congo 9 18 26 175 175 263

Export Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 0

Forecasted by JICA 2278 2453 2737 2959 3118 3620 3953 4363Total

GDP2009 2278 2409 2651 2814 2951 3424 3728 4181Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Forecasted by JICA 4037 4363 4714 5094 5505 5949 6428 Domestic

GDP2009 3915 4242 4604 4986 5406 5889 6428 Kenya 263 438 701 745 745 745 701

Tanzania 175 175 438 438 613 701 876 Rwanda 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Congo 263 263 438 438 438 438 438

Export Sudan 0 0 175 263 263 438 438

Forecasted by JICA 4825 5326 6554 7065 7651 8358 8969 Total

GDP2009 4703 5206 6444 6957 7552 8298 8969 (Source: Study Team, GDP2009)

(Source: Study Team, GDP2009)

Figure 4.1.2-1 Result of Demand Energy Forecast (GWh)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023 Year

Dem

and E

ner

gy (

GW

h)

Export (Sudan)

Export (Congo)

Export (Rwanda)

Export (Tanzaniya)

Export (Kenya)

Domestic (JICA)

Export (Tanzania)



Table 4.1.2-2 Result of Demand Power Forecast (MW)


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023 Year

Dem

and

Pow

er

(MW

)

Export (Sudan)

Export (Congo)

Export (Rwanda)

Export (Tanzaniya)

Export (Kenya)

Domestic (JICA)


Figure 4.1.2-2 Result of Demand Power Forecast (MW)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Forecasted by

JICA 375 406 439 474 512 553 598 646 Domestic GDP2009 375 398 424 449 483 519 559 615

Kenya 1 1 10 10 10 20 20 20 Tanzania 10 10 11 12 13 20 20 20 Rwanda 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 20 Congo 1 2 3 20 20 30

Export Sudan

Forecasted by JICA 387 418 462 499 539 623 668 736 Total

GDP2009 387 410 447 474 510 589 629 705 Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Forecasted by JICA 698 755 815 881 952 1029 1112 Domestic

GDP2009 677 769 834 903 980 1034 1129 Kenya 30 50 100 100 100 100 100

Tanzania 20 20 50 50 70 80 100 Rwanda 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Congo 30 30 50 50 50 50 50

Export Sudan 0 20 30 30 50 50

Forecasted by JICA 798 875 1055 1131 1222 1329 1432 Total

GDP2009 777 889 1074 1153 1250 1334 1449

Export (Tanzania)



4.2 Scenarios of Power Development Plan

This Study made an examination of the 6 scenarios of power development plan shown in the table below: Scenarios I, II, III, IV, V and VI corresponding to Medium case of power demand forecast, High case, Low case and Medium case plus export to Kenya as well as the targeted power demand of Vision 2035 and National Development Plan 2011/12-2014/15 (NDP), respectively.

Table 4.2-1 Scenarios of Power Development Plan

Demand Forecast Data Source Scenario I Medium Case Study Team Scenario II High Case Study Team Scenario III Low Case Study Team Scenario IV Medium + Export to Kenya Study Team Scenario V Vision 2035 PSIP Draft Report Dec.8,2009 Scenario VI NDP NDP

（Source: Study Team）

It should be noted that the coverage of power development plan in this Study is nationwide, so that the power sources considered were those of over 50MW that can contribute to meet the nationwide power demand as main power supplier.

4.2.1 Basic Assumptions

The basic assumptions of the study of Power Development Plan were set as follows.

1) Time horizon for the Plan is from 2010 through 2023.

2) The Power Development Plan basically uses the data from GDP2009-2025 and incorporates the large hydropower projects. Both Isimba and Karuma hydropower projects, have a feasibility study in progress, and the schedule for Isimba and Karuma hydropower projects given to the study team by MEMD are as follows:

/ Operation of Isimba hydropower project commences in 2019; and,

/ Operation of Karuma hydropower project commences with 192MW in 2015 and, additionally, 96MW in 2017.

3) In the Plan, the order of hydropower development is firstly Karuma and then Ayago, followed by Isimba hydropower project and then Oriang hydropower project, A-ranked and B-ranked, respectively as shown in Table 4.2.2-1. Kalagala hydropower project is checked off because of Kalagala Offset.

4) The Plan uses firm power and energy.

5) Target reserve margin is 15%.



6) Diesel thermal power plants, because of high cost and large environmental impact, will be retired as early as possible upon commencement of operation of major hydropower projects.

7) Assuming the power demand based on Vision 2035 and NDP, Scenario V and VI incorporates the targeted power supply including the planned power developments, respectively.

8) Being able to be developed in phases, Ayago hydropower project could be developed in phases of 100MW in each phase.

4.2.2 Power Development Plans Considered

(1) Major Hydropower Projects

In preparing the Power Development Plan, the hydropower projects selected in this Study and the project under construction were considered. Development priority was given based on the result of this Study. The installed capacity of those hydropower projects are shown in Table 4.2.2-1.

Table 4.2.2-1 Large Hydropower Projects

Annual Energy (GWh)Project

Installed Capacity(MW) Total Firm

Stage Rank

Owen Falls 380 1,354 830 Existing - Bujagali 250 (50-5unit) 1,365 844 Construction - Kalagala 330 (33-10unit) 1,801 1,114 n/a - Isimba 138 (23-6unit) 752 465 F/S A Karuma 576 (48-12unit) 4,145 2,514 F/S A Oriang 392 (49-8unit) 2,768 1,679 n/a B Ayago 612 (51-12unit) 4,357 2,641 n/a A Kiba 288 (48-6unit) 2,066 1,253 n/a C Murchison 648 (54-12unit) 2,314 1,403 n/a C Total 3,578 20,922 12,743 n/a

(2) Other Power Sources

As for other power sources, small hydropower projects, thermal power projects and other sources, those shown in GDP2009-2025 were adopted



4.2.3 Power Development Plan for Each Scenario

(1) Scenario I

Scenario I of the Power Development Plan was prepared as shown in Table 6.12.3-1 to meet the Medium case power demand.

1) Major Hydropower Development Plan

Table 4.2.3-1 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario I)

Year Project Unit Installed Capacity Annual Firm Energy

2015 Karuma 4 192 MW 1,682 GWh

2017 Karuma 2 96 MW 832 GWh

2019 Isimba 10 138 MW 465 GWh

2020 Ayago 2 102 MW 894 GWh

2023 Ayago 2 102 MW 893 GWh

2) Demand-Supply Balance

Table 4.2.3-2 Energy Demand - Supply Balance (Scenario I)

Supply(MW) Firm Energy (GWh)Year

Power Demand (MW)

Demand With

Margin Total

Suspend Thermal

Energy Demand (GWh)

Total Suspend Thermal

2010 406 467 360 2,346 2,007 2011 439 505 469 2,535 2,290 2012 474 545 852 2,740 2,663 2013 512 589 804 2,961 2,771 2014 553 636 804 3,199 2,985 2015 598 688 998 120 3,457 4,679 756 2016 646 743 998 120 3,736 4,679 756 2017 698 803 1,094 120 4,037 5,511 756 2018 755 868 1,094 120 4,363 5,552 756 2019 815 937 1,232 120 4,714 6,017 756 2020 881 1,013 1,334 120 5,049 6,464 756 2021 952 1,095 1,334 120 5,505 6,911 756 2022 1,029 1,183 1,334 120 5,949 6,911 756 2023 1,112 1,279 1,439 120 6,428 7,804 756

Peak power demand and supply balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-1



-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Yrar

Pow

er (M

W)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Ayago

Isimba

Karuma

Bujagali

Owen Falls

Other Small Hydro

Domestic Demandwith Mergen

Figure 4.2.3-1 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario I)

Energy demand and supply balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-2.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Ener

gy (G

Wh)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Namugoga Solar

Ayago Firm

Isimba Firm

Karuma Firm

Bujagali Firm

Owen Falls Firm

Other Hydro

Domestic Demand

Figure 4.2.3-2 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario I)

Scenario I shows that Ayago hydropower project will be developed in stages as follows:

1) First stage: 102MW (51MW-2unit) in 2020

2) Second stage: 102MW (51MW-2unit) in 2023

3) Further stages: Capacity additions according to demand increase thereafter.



As shown by the areas framed by dotted line in figure 4.2.3-2 above, diesel thermal plants will be able to be retired.

This scenario was prepared so as to meet the predicted demand as much as possible, but, until 2014, the supplying capacity cannot meet the increasing demand making the reserve margin negative, leading to such a situation that supply reliability cannot be secured. The drop in power and energy supply for the 2012-2013 period is due to the cancellation of planned thermal power plants earlier scheduled for commissioning in 2013.

(2) Scenario II

Scenario II of Power Development Plan was prepared as shown in Table 4.2.3-3 based on the high case demand forecast, this scenario requires the development of another project, i.e. Oriang hydropower project, with commissioning of 102MW of Ayago in 2020 and 2022 and 102MW of Oriang in 2023.


Table 4.2.3-3 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario II)

Year Project Unit Installed Capacity Annual Firm Energy 2015 Karuma 4 192 MW 1,682 GWh 2017 Karuma 2 96 MW 832 GWh 2019 Isimba 10 138 MW 465 GWh 2020 Ayago 2 102 MW 894 GWh 2022 Ayago 2 102 MW 893 GWh 2023 Ayago 2 102 MW 854 GWh

2) Demand Supply Balance

Table 4.2.3-4 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario II)

Supply(MW) Firm Energy(GWh)Year

Power Demand (MW)

Demand With

Margin Total Suspend Thermal

Energy Demand (GWh) Total Suspend

Thermal2010 410 472 360 2,368 2,007 2011 447 514 469 2,582 2,290 2012 487 560 852 2,816 2,663 2013 531 611 804 3,072 2,771 2014 579 666 804 3,350 2,985 2015 632 727 998 3,654 4,679 2016 689 792 998 3,985 4,679 2017 752 865 1,094 120 4,346 5,511 756 2018 820 943 1,094 120 4,740 5,552 756 2019 894 1,028 1,232 120 5,169 6,017 756 2020 975 1,121 1,334 120 5,637 6,911 756



Supply(MW) Firm Energy(GWh)Year

Power Demand (MW)

Demand With



Thermal2021 1,063 1,222 1,334 120 6,148 6,911 756 2022 1,160 1,334 1,436 120 6,706 7,804 756 2023 1,265 1,455 1,636 120 7,317 9,517 756

Peak power demand and supply balance is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Pow

er(M

W)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Next Hydro (Oriang)

Ayago

Isimba

Karuma

Bujagali

Owen Falls

Other Small Hydro


Figure 4.2.3-3 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario II)

Energy supply and demand balance is shown below.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Ener

gy (G

Wh)

T hermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Namugoga Solar

Next Hydropower(Oriang)

Ayago Firm

Isimba Firm

Karuma Firm

Bujagali Firm

Owen Falls Firm

Other Hydro

Domestic Demand

Figure 4.2.3-4 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario II)



(3) Scenario III

Scenario III was based on low case demand forecast, revealing that, as for Ayago hydropower project, it is enough to develop 102MW in 2022 because of low demand growth. The result of study as is shown below.


Table 4.2.3-5 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario III)


2015 Karuma 4 192 MW 1,682 GWh


2019 Isimba 10 138 MW 465 GWh

2022 Ayago 2 102 MW 894 GWh

2) Supply Demand Balance

Table 4.2.3-6 Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario III, Low Case)

Supply (MW) Firm Energy (GWh) Year

Power Demand (MW)

Demand With



Thermal

2010 402 462 360 2,324 2,007

2011 430 495 469 2,489 2,290

2012 461 530 852 2,664 2,663

2013 493 567 804 2,852 2,771

2014 528 607 804 3,054 2,985

2015 566 651 998 120 3,270 4,679 756

2016 605 696 998 120 3,500 4,679 756

2017 648 745 1,094 120 3,748 5,511 756

2018 694 798 1,094 120 4,012 5,552 756

2019 743 854 1,232 120 4,296 6,017 756

2020 795 914 1,232 120 4,599 6,017 756

2021 852 980 1,232 120 4,924 6,017 756

2022 912 1,049 1,334 120 5,272 6,911 756

2023 976 1,122 1,334 120 5,644 6,911 756

Peak power demand and supply balance is shown below.



-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Yrar

Pow

er (M

W)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Ayago

Isimba

Karuma

Bujagali

Owen Falls

Other Small Hydro


Figure 4.2.3-5 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario III)

Annual energy demand and supply balance is shown below..

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Ener

gy (G

Wh)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Namugoga Solar

Ayago Firm

Isimba Firm

Karuma Firm

Bujagali Firm

Owen Falls Firm

Other Hydro

Domestic Demand

Figure 4.2.3-6 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario III)



(4) Scenario IV

Scenario IV considers demand forecast of Medium case plus export demand to Kenya.

Kenya was chosen as the most likely power importer from Ayago project from among the neighboring countries because of the current electric power situation and the size of electric power industry as well as the contacts already in place between both countries for power exchange.

In Scenario IV of Power Development Plan, as shown in Table 4.2.3-7, Ayago hydropower project will be developed in three stages with 102MW each in 2019, 2021 and 2023.

Regarding the power supply source for export, thermal power is not suitable as it brings negative margin to Uganda in view of acceptable level of power tariff to Kenya. It will therefore be realistic to export power only from 2015 in this scenario.


Table 4.2.3-7 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario IV)


2015 Karuma 4 192 MW 1,682 GWh


2019 Isimba

Ayago

5

2

138 MW

102 MW

465 GWh

894 GWh

2021 Ayago 2 102 MW 893 GWh

2023 Ayago 2 102 MW 854 GWh




Table 4.2.3-8 Supply Demand Balance (Scenario IV)

Supply(MW) Firm Energy(GWh) Year

Power Demand (MW)


Energy Demand (GWh)


2010 468 360 2,356 2,007 2011 515 469 2,623 2,290 2012 555 852 2,828 2,663 2013 599 804 2,974 2,771 2014 656 804 3,225 2,985 2015 708 998 3,559 4,679 2016 763 998 3,838 4,679 2017 823 1,094 120 4,300 5,638 756 2018 918 1,094 120 4,801 5,679 756 2019 1,073 1,334 120 5,415 6,368 756 2020 1,113 1,334 120 5,794 7,038 756 2021 1,195 1,436 120 6,250 7,931 756 2022 1,283 1,436 120 6,694 7,931 756 2023 1,379 1,538 120 7,129 8,785 756

For peak power, supply and demand balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-7.

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Pow

er (M

W)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Ayago

Isimba

Karuma

Bujagali

Owen Falls

Other Small Hydro

Demand withExport to Kenya.


Figure 4.2.3-7 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario IV)

Energy supply and demand balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-8.



0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Ener

gy (G

Wh)

Thermal(Suspend)

Thermal

Co-Generation

Namugoga Solar

Ayago Firm

Isimba Firm

Karuma Firm

Bujagali Firm

Owen Falls Firm

Other Hydro

Demand withExport to Kenya.

Domestic Demand

Figure 4.2.3-8 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario IV)

(5) Scenario V

Scenario V takes demand forecast from the power and energy supply target set in Vision 2035. On the supply side, besides the targeted power developments in Vision2035, Ayago and Oriang hydropower projects were added together with the conceived thermal power plants using oil or gas from the Lake Albert exploration or using imported fuel. Thermal power generation capacity and production level in this report were only assumptive due to the uncertainty of oil production.

1) Development Plan

Table 4.2.3-9 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario V)

Year Project Unit Installed Capacity Annual Firm EnergyKaruma 4 192MW 1,682GWh 2015 Thermal to be considered

5 250MW 1610GWh

2016 Thermal to be considered

2 100MW 644GWh

Karuma 2 96MW 832GWh 2017 Thermal to be considered

1 50MW 322GWh


2 100MW 644GWh



Year Project Unit Installed Capacity Annual Firm EnergyIsimba 6 138MW 465GWh 2019 Ayago 2 102MW 894GWh

Ayago 1 102MW 893GWh 2020 Thermal to be considered

2 100MW 644GWh


2 100MW 644GWh

2022 Ayago 2 103MW 854GWh 2023 Oriang 2 98MW 858GWh

2) Demand and Supply Balance

Table 4.2.3-10 Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario V)

Supply(MW) Firm Energy(GWh) Year

Power Demand (MW)

Thermal to be Considered

Total

Energy Demand (GWh)


Total

2010 642 360 3,416 2,007 2011 717 469 3,837 2,290 2012 812 852 4,308 2,663 2013 908 804 4,838 2,771 2014 1,003 804 5,367 2,985 2015 1,115 250 1,248 5,989 1,610 6,289 2016 1,235 350 1,348 6,700 2,254 6,933 2017 1,381 400 1,497 7,498 2,576 8,087 2018 1,534 500 1,597 8,281 3,220 8,772 2019 1,691 600 1,837 9,230 3,220 9,461 2020 1,875 750 2,039 10,209 3,862 11,668 2021 2,057 750 2,189 11,315 4,830 12,634 2022 2,276 750 2,291 12,411 4,830 13,488 2023 2,482 750 2,485 13,546 4,830 15,167 (Source: PSIP Draft in December, 2009)

If the thermal power projects are developed as planned, then power and energy supply of Scenario V will attain the targets stated in Vision 2035 from 2015.

Power demand and supply balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-9.



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Pow

er(M

W)

Thermal to beconsidered

Thermal

Co-Generation

Next Hydro (Oriang)

Ayago

Isimba

Karuma

Bujagali

Owen Falls

Other Small Hydro

Demand with Vision2035


Figure 4.2.3-9 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario V)

Energy demand and supply balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-10.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Year

Ener

gy(G

Wh)

Thermal to beconsideredThermal

Co-Generation

Namugoga Solar

Next Hydropower(Oriang)Ayago Firm

Isimba Firm

Karuma Firm

Bujagali Firm

Owen Falls Firm

Other Hydro

Demand Vision2035Domestic Demand

Figure 4.2.3-10 Energy Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario V)

(6) Scenario VI

Scenario VI takes demand forecast from the target supply power and energy stated in NDP. As for supply side, besides the targeted power developments in NDP, Ayago and Oriang hydropower projects were added together with the planned thermal power plant–burning oil explored at Albert Lake or imported fuel. As for that thermal power, its expected generation capacity was only considered because of uncertainty of oil production.



1) Development Plan

Table 4.2.3-11 Hydropower Development Plan (Scenario VI)

Installed Capacity (MW) Year

Hydro Project Hydro


Total

2013 1,700MW 1,700MW 2014 700MW 700MW 2015 Karuma 192MW 500MW 692MW 2016 1,000MW 1,000MW 2017 Karuma 96MW 800MW 896MW 2018 1,000MW 100MW 2019 Isimba 138MW 700MW

Ayago 102MW 840MW

2020 Ayago 204MW 500MW Oriang 194MW 898MW

2021 1,200MW 1,200MW 2022 1,200MW 1,200MW 2023 1,300MW 1,300MW


Table 4.2.3-12 Supply Demand Balance (Scenario VI)

Supply(MW)

Year Power

Demand (MW) Total Thermal to be

Considered

Construction Cost of Thermal to be

Considered (mil.US$)

2010 425 360 2011 1,117 469 2012 1,809 852 2013 2,501 2,504 1,700 1,360 2014 3,193 3,204 700 560 2015 3,885 3,898 500 750 2016 4,828 4,898 1,000 1,150 2017 5,771 5,797 800 990 2018 6,715 6,797 1,000 1,150 2019 7,658 7,737 700 910 2020 8,601 8,635 500 750 2021 9,815 9,835 1,200 1,310 2022 11,029 11,035 1,200 1,310 2023 12,242 12,335 1,300 1,390

Note: Planned Thermal is a packaged power consisting of HFO- and coal-fired thermal



Taking into consideration energy security, two types, HFO- and coal-fired thermal power of planned thermal power plants are applied. Estimated unit costs of HFO- and coal-fired thermal power plants are 580 $/kW (refer to Main Report Section 7) and 1,500$/kW (Source: IEA) respectively.

In this case, it is difficult to implement this plan because of its huge construction cost is to satisfy NDP target demand.

Power demand supply balance is shown in Figure 4.2.3-11

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Year

Pow

er(M

W)

Thermal to beconsidered

Thermal

Co-Generation

Next Hydro (Oriang)

Ayago

Isimba

Karuma

Bujagali

Owen Falls

Other Small Hydro

Demand with NDP

Figure 4.2.3-11 Power Demand and Supply Balance (Scenario VI)



Chapter 5 Pre-Feasibility Study on Ayago Project

5.1 Geology and Topography of Ayago Site

(1) Topography

The Nile River, with 200 m - 300 m wide river floor, meanderingly flow westward through gentle hills of 5-10 degrees. There are several cascades between the intake site and outlet site. Many tiny islands exposing bedrocks are found in the river. Both its banks have moderately steep slopes of 15 degrees - 25 degrees, up to 20 m - 30 m above the river floor. Ayago River, a major tributary in the Ayago site, flows into the Nile River approximately 3.3 km downstream of the intake site.

(2) Geology

Ayago site is underlain mainly by Pre-Cambrian biotite gneiss including some intercalated bands of metamorphic rocks such as granitic gneiss, quartzite, amphibolite etc.

Small amounts of Quaternary unconsolidated deposits composed of terrace deposits, talus deposits and recent river deposits are distributed along the Nile River.

Residual soil, composed of reddish lateritic soil or pale brown sandy soil, is generally 2 m-3 m in thickness. Organic soil, generally less than one meter in thickness, is found along creeks or small valleys.

Gneissosity of the metamorphic rocks trends a northwest to southeast striking structure, and 30-50 degrees dips to the northeast at the outlet site, and steeply dips to the northeast or southwest near the intake site. However, details of the geological structure along the planned tunnel alignment still remain unclear due to shortage of information about outcrops worsened by thick weathering, in addition to many minor folds in gneiss rocks.

A northeast to southwest lineament near the outlet site indicates weak zone. No active faults are found and reported near the Ayago site. There are also no serious landslides.

5.2 Biological Environment at Ayago Project Site

5.2.1 Survey Methods

Literature survey and site survey are conducted to know the biological condition at the project site. Survey area is divided in two, survey area A and survey area B. Survey area A covers around 1,020 km2 which includes access roads and transmission lines of all options. Brief survey of flora and fauna was conducted in the survey area A. Survey area B2 covers around 119 km2 which includes intake, penstock, generating facilities, and disposal area. Detail vegetation map was generated by

2 The ccoordinate values of the corners of Survey area B are 31°51’6.000”E 2°24’31.000N, 31°51”6.000”E 2°17’30.000”N, 31°58’15.00E 2°17’30.000”N, 31°58’15.000” 2°24’31.000”N. Coordination system is WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_36N.



satellite image and detail survey of flora and fauna was conducted in the survey area B. Figure 5.2.1-1 shows the survey area.

Figure 5.2.1-1 Survey Area

5.2.2 Flora and Vegetation

A total of 244 vascular plant species belonging to 54 families and 168 genera are recorded by the site survey. Among the species recorded to as red listed include Milicia excelsa (LR/nt) and Khaya anthotheca (VU) in riverine forest. According to Kalema (2005), other globally threatened species that occur in Murchison Falls national Park (MFNP) include Afzelia Africana, Vitellaria paradoxa, Entandrophragma cylindricum, Hallea stipulosa, Khaya grandifolia, Pouteria altissima, and Dalbergia melanoxylon.

Recorded vegetation types in the detail survey area are Riverine vegetation, Combretum dominated grassland, Acacia dominated wooded grassland, and Piliostigma-Acacia wooded grassland. The riverine vegetation is the most diverse vegetation type. Although this vegetation is not unique to MFNP, the vegetation is also critical because of their relatively higher sensitivity to disturbance, presence of globally threatened species, higher species richness, role in stabilization of river banks and control of erosion, and unique habitats.



5.2.3 Mammals

26 species of mammals are recorded at the site survey. The specie of Vulnerable (VU) category of IUCN Red list is Hippopotamus. The species of Near Threatened (NT) category are Leopard, Spotted Hyena, and African Elephant. Hippopotamus and African Elephant are recorded relatively high in the survey area.

5.2.4 Birds

A total of at least 491 species of birds are known to occur in MFNP (Wilson 1995). Twelve of them are categorized in EN, VU, or NT of IUCN Red List. 116 migrant species (Wilson 1995) are the intra African or inter continental migrants. 199 species are recorded at the site survey and 9 of them are conservation concern species.

Over 53% of the known avifauna of MFNP has recognized habitat preferences (Wilson 1995). Woody vegetation and water are the preferred habitats and they are thought to be important habitats for birds.

5.2.5 Amphibians and Reptiles including Crocodiles

A total of 12 amphibian species belonging to three families and 16 reptiles belonging to two orders (the true reptiles and turtles and tortoises) and 12 families are documented during the study. The list of the species is shown in the following table. 11 amphibian species are LC, one amphibian is DD, and one reptile, Crocodile, is LC of IUCN Red List. The reptiles apart from the Nile crocodile which is a resident of the rivers were randomly distributed throughout the habitats sampled. However, tortoises are only encountered in the wooded grassland while the Pelomedusids are only recorded in rain pools of water or wetlands/marshes. Most important habitat for amphibians and reptiles are wetland and river banks.

5.2.6 Invertebrates (butterfly)

66 butterfly species are recorded at the field survey. No IUCN Red List species are found. None of the swamp/wetland species that have limited continental distribution are recorded by this study. 14 forest specialists (F and FL-ecotypes) butterfly species are recorded in the areas surveyed and one swamp species (S) as well. Important habitats for butterflies are forest and wetland because of high species diversity.

5.2.7 Fish

Literature survey suggests the possibility of 8 fish species are living in the survey area. Five fish species of them are recorded at the field survey. Seven LC species of IUCN Red List are found. Most important habitat for fishes is the river mouths of relatively large water shed.



5.3 Social Environment at Ayago Project Site

5.3.1 Administrative Boundaries

Murchison Falls National Park is surrounded by the Districts of Amuru (Nwoya since July 2010) to the Nnorth, Masindi (Kiryandongo since July 2010) to the South, Oyam (Apace before July 2006) to the East, and Bulisa and Nebbi to the West. Survey Area C, which has a border with the Park, includes six Sub-counties: Purongo, Anaka, Koch Goma, Minakulu (Myene since July 2010), Aber, and Mutunda. The figure below shows administrative boundaries around the Ayago site (Survey Area B) in 2009.

Figure 5.3.1-1 Administrative Boundaries around Ayago Site, 2009 (WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_36N)

5.3.2 Land Use and Land Ownership

Land cover around the Ayago site is mainly grassland, bush land, and woodland. The northwest area near access roads (Anaka and Purongo Sub-counties) and most of the Eastern area (Myene/Minakulu, Aber, and Mutunda Sub-counties) is characterized by small-scale farmland. A part of the southern area (Mutunda Sub-county) and most of the northern area (Koch Goma Sub-county) are woodland and forest reserve.

In Northern Uganda in general, the land is commonly owned under customary tenure, and land rights are vested in the clan elders or chiefs. Customary tenure actually means that the right to use



land is regulated by local customs and linked to family inheritance and lineage. The clan heads have powers regarding access and use rights by the clan members.

However, Women have limited access and control over land and other household assets. Women do not usually own land, due to traditional culture in Uganda. A woman can purchase and own land only when her husband dies or she doesn’t have one.

5.3.3 Population

There are no residents of at the Ayago site, since the area is inside the National Park. Population by sub-county in Survey Area C is shown in the table below.

Table 5.3.3-1 Population Estimates of Survey Area C by Gender, 2010

Sub-county Male Female Total Aber 33,000 35,100 68,100 Anaka 7,600 8,100 15,700 Purongo 4,100 4,200 8,300 Mutunda 35,200 36,900 72,100 Myene/ Minakulu 26,700 26,900 53,600 Koch Goma 5,500 5,100 10,600

(Source: Sub National Projections Report Northern, Western Region 2008-2012)

5.3.4 Ethnic Groups

In Masindi District, there are a variety of ethnic groups. Banyoro and Alur account for 25.53% and 21.82%, respectively. Chope accounts for only 3.07%, but they are dominant in Mutunda sub-county. In Minakulu/Myene and Aber sub-counties in Oyam District, the majority of people (98.30%) are Langi, while in Purongo, Anaka, and Koch Goma sub-counties in Amuru, people are mainly Acholi settlers (91.09％). Out of fifteen sub-counties surrounding the park and reserves, nine of them are occupied mainly by Luo-speaking tribes.

5.3.5 Internally Displaced Persons

Due to activities of the Lord Resistance Army (LRA), Northern Uganda has experienced instability over the last two decades, resulting in the internal displacement of some 1.1 million people (UNOCHA, 2010). Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) camps were established along the main roads, trading centres, town centres, and suburbs. In Amuru District, there were 34 original camps with the population of 257,000 in 2005.

Following the end of the insurgency in 2006, the IDPs have been returning and resettling on their ancestral lands under the auspices of the peace and recovery program initiated by the government of Uganda and other development partners, including JICA. Most the camps were located in the northern part of Survey Area C, in Amuru and Oyam Districts.



Following the end of the insurgency in 2006, the IDPs have been returning and resettling on their ancestral lands under the auspices of the peace and recovery program initiated by the government of Uganda and other development partners, including JICA. According to UNHCR (“Camp phase out update as of 6th December, 2010”), all camps in Amuru District were officially closed by 30th July, 2010. The details are shown in the table below.

However, according to UNHCR camp mapping data from November 2010, 36,400 IDPs were estimated to still be residing in the former camps with 11,260 in transit sites in Amuru District. There are many extremely vulnerable individuals/persons with specific needs, including older persons, female/child-headed households, persons with disabilities, and the chronically ill.

5.3.6 Local Economy

The main source of household livelihoods in survey area C is subsistence farming. According to the Census in 2002, subsistence farming is the main source of livelihood for 67.4% of the household in Masindi, 77.4% in Amuru, and 94.0% in Apac.

The main crops grown include maize, cassava, millet, sorghum beans, ground nuts, sweet potatoes, and sesame. Being largely peasant farmers, they consume domestically what they produce and sell the surplus in local markets for cash.

Animal Livestock rearing cattle goats, pigs, sheep, duck and turkey in small numbers is also a key economic activity in survey area C.

The communities in Survey Area C carry out fishing activities on the River Nile outside the park area, and in the vast swamps and wetlands, the small rivers, and streams which act as breeding places for the fish. Fishing is on a small scale and what is caught is locally consumed.

Other activities include petty businesses such as operating small kiosk grocery shops in the village and trading centres, brick making, charcoal burning and selling, and roadside sale of farm products.

5.3.7 Education

School attendance by gender by three districts in Survey Area C is shown in the figure below. Compared to male, female attendance is low. More than 25% of females have never been to school, as compared with less than 15% of males.



Table 5.3.7-1 School Attendance in Survey Area C, 2002

(Unit: %) Attended School in 2002 Left School Never Attended School

Male Female Average Male Female Average Male Female AverageMasindi 41.1 34.6 37.8 43.5 34.2 38.8 15.4 31.2 23.3

Amuru(Gulu) 43.9 32.9 38.3 43.6 32.6 38.0 12.6 34.5 23.8 Oyam(Apac) 42.5 33.1 37.6 46.1 39.6 42.8 11.4 27.4 19.6

(Source: 2002 Population and Housing Census, District Reports of Masindi, Gulu, Apac)

Similarly, the literacy rate of women is lower than that of men in three districts, as the figure below indicates.

Table 5.3.7-2 Literacy Rate in Survey Area C, 2002

Male Female Average Masindi 70.1% 49.4% 59.7%

Amuru(Gulu) 77.7% 47.2% 62.0% Oyam(Apac) 83.2% 57.7% 70.0%


5.3.8 Health

The Government policy provides that there should be HC II from the Parish level, HC III at sub-county, and so on up to the national referral hospital level. The public health facilities in the survey area are mostly HC II and HC III, except in Aber and Anaka Sub-counties, where there are hospitals.

The health centres, including hospitals, in the surveyed sub-counties are not only few but also fall short of the expected service standards. The most frequently raised complaints against the health facilities are inadequate drugs and supplies, unqualified health workers, and long waiting period before getting the services. The long waiting time at the health centre also means that there are limited health facilities in the sub-counties. As a result, some people obtain health care services from private health outlets such as clinics and drug shops.

5.3.9 Water Use

The major sources of water around Ayago site include rivers, boreholes, protected springs, shallow wells, rainwater, and streams. The Table below shows the accessibility of water by local people in Survey Area C. The majority of people do not have a water source on premises. The responsibility of fetching water lies mainly with women and children; hence it reduces their time for other productive activities.



Table 5.3.9-1 Distance to Nearest Water Sources of Households by Sub County

Water Source Sub-county On premises Up to 1km Over 1km

Aber 163 6,287 3,532 Minakulu 312 7,100 1,056 Anaka 127 2,219 65 Purongo 104 1,419 75 Koch Goma 84 1,786 107 Mutunda 104 5,156 3,660


5.3.10 Tourism

The tourism industry in Murchison Falls National Park has not been fully developed. The annual number of tourists has been less than 50,000. Contributing factors towards the small number of visitors include rebel activities in Northern Uganda that posed a security threat, and failure to adapt to tourism needs and expectations. According to interviews with UWA officials, the current number of visitors accounts for only 30 to 40% of the carrying capacity of the Park.

Tourism activities in Murchison Falls National Park are generally limited to boat/launch trips to view wild animals and the falls, visits to the falls, and game drive.

The table below shows the tourism revenue of Murchison Falls National Park in 2009. It indicates that most revenue (70%) was collected through the entrance fees. Tourism activities such as boat rides, nature walk game drives, and fishing are not major sources of revenue. This means that currently, many of the visitors are on self-drive and they do not pay anything except entrance fee to see all the beautiful wildlife in the Park (Performance Evaluation of the Murchison Falls Protected Area General Management Plan Report, 2007).

Table 5.3.10-1 Murchison Falls National Park Tourism Revenue in 2009

Tourism Activity Annual Revenue in Ush. %Entrance fees (visitors) 1,649,033,319 63 .7Entrance fees (vehicles) 192,906,513 7 .4Canping fees 40,526,570 1 .6Landing fees 10,775,951 0 .4Photographic fees 29,938,677 1 .2Ranger Guide Fees 51,735,529 2 .0Ferry Crossing 301,849,052 11 .7Fishing Permits 39,960,836 1 .5Nature Walk fees 71,325,277 2 .8Lauch Hire 71,768,241 2 .8Vehicle Hire 3,941,737 0 .2Accomodation Bandas 16,452,950 0 .6Accomodation Ugandan Students 31,449,980 1 .2Boat rides 78,722,312 3 .0Total 2 ,590,386,944 100.0

(Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority)



To diversify tourism activity in the Park, UWA has considered the potentials for sport fishing, walking safari, and white water rafting (Murchison Falls Protected Area General Management Plan for 2001-2011).

The Murchison Falls Protected Area (MFPA) includes Murchison Falls National Park, Bugungu Wildlife Reserve, and Karuma Wildlife Reserve. It is one of the most important tourism resources in Uganda. The area has been divided into several zones to clarify tourism development and to protect important and sensitive resources. The figure below shows the location of the zones.

(Source: UWA 2010, NFA 2010, Nature Uganda 2010, Ministry of Water and Environment 2008, World Database on Protected Area 2009)

Figure 5.3.10-1 Management Zones of Murchison Falls Protected Area (WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_36N)

The areas that have a potential for tourism development include an Intensive Tourism Zone, the Moderate (a Low) Tourism Zone, and the Falls Zone. Ayago is located in the Moderate (Low) Tourism Zone.

The table below shows the classification of the zones from the viewpoint of tourism development, natural resource management, and community collaboration.



Table 5.3.10-2 Classification of Management Zones of Murchison Falls Protected Area

Management Zones

Tourism Development

Natural Resource Management

Community Collaboration

The Falls Zone • Proposed for nomination for the World heritage Site list.

• All developments are carefully designed to give the visitor the fullest exposure to the spectacular landscape of the Falls.

• It is the main breeding area for Nile Crocodiles.

• There is the unique spray forest around the Falls.

• None

The Intensive Tourism Zone

• Activities comprise the launch trip to the Falls, the drive to the Falls, game drive, walking safari, bird watching, and sport fishing. Activities will continue to be promoted with diversification of visitor experience.

• None • None

The Moderate (Low) Tourism Zone

• It is confined to game drive, walking safari, and sport fishing by concession. Development is conducted in a particularly sensitive way.

• The central part of this area is a unique habitat to almost half of the large mammals of the entire conservation area.

• None

The Wilderness Zone

• Although tourism activities suggested by operators may be allowed, the area does not appeal to tourists.

• It comprises dense bushland and thicket with low numbers of wildlife. Tsetse flies are abundant. Wildlife and habitats will remain undisturbed.

• None

The Integrated Resource Use Zone

• None • None • Local community may use resources such as firewood



Management Zones

Tourism Development

Natural Resource Management

Community Collaboration and thatching materials in a sustainable manner under MoUs.

Administrative Zones

• It contains the developed areas where resources are allocated for operations and visitor accommodation.

• The environment in this zone is kept as natural as possible.

• None

Wildlife Reserve (Alternative Management Area)

• It will be offered for long-term management by concessionaries. Sport hunting may be permitted.

• Wildlife populations are low. The vegetation is thick, infested with tsetse flies.

• None

(Source: Murchison Falls Protected Area General Management Plan for 2001-2011)

5.3.11 MFNP and the Community

According to the Murchison Falls Protected Area General Management Plan 2001-2011, UWA has promoted better relationships with local communities for collaborative management of the area. The objectives of community collaboration include the following.

To conserve and protect natural resources in MFPA, in collaboration with adjacent communities

To minimize the impact of problem animals and vermin on local communities To support local communities in implementing benefit-sharing programs To develop programs to enable local communities to use MFPA resources in a sustainable

manner In order to meet the above challenges, UWA established the Community Protected Areas Institutions (CPIs). CPIs are integrated within Local Environment Committees, and report to local councils. They are expected to address community issues in PA management, to act as intermediaries facilitating communication, and to plan and implement revenue sharing projects. According to UWA officials, the institutions have been functioning well to link with the communities.

5.4 Optimal Layout Study

Waterway type and dam-waterway type can be applicable to Ayago hydropower project.

Outline of layout alternatives for Ayago hydropower project is described below;



(1) Dam & Waterway Type Layout (Alternative-1, refer to Figure 5.4-1)

There is only one suitable location for the dam site, which is located just downstream of the confluence between the Ayago River and the Nile River. Waterway route on the right bank was selected because the route is shorter than the left-bank route and accordingly more economical.

Main structures of the dam-waterway type hydropower plant are: the intake dam, the headrace tunnel, the penstock (tunnel-embedded type), the underground powerhouse and the tailrace tunnel. Ayago project is planned to be constructed in the National Park area and the land alteration should be minimized. Hence, the concrete gravity dam is selected, since the concrete dam can minimize land alteration compared with other dam types. The concrete gravity dam consists of 1) gated section, which has function of normal flood spillway and amenity flow gate, 2) overflow section, which has function of excess flood spillway, and 3) non-overflow section.

(2) Waterway Type Layout

1) Left-Bank Route (Alternative-2, refer to Figure 5.4-2）

Head type and tail type, which are layout types of vertical alignment of the waterway, can be applied to the left-bank route. Head type layout was applied as a type of the vertical alignment for the left-bank route for the following reasons:

The layout should be determined considering not only topographic conditions but also geological conditions along the waterway.

Geological conditions along the waterway is unclear, except geology at the intake and tailrace outlet sites (which means geology at origin and end points of the waterway), on this pre-feasibility study stage.

It seems that the head-type layout may take thicker ground cover than the tail-type layout. Therefore, it is highly likely that geological conditions along the waterway is relatively-good with the head-type layout.

Main structures of the left-bank route (waterway type) are: the intake weir, the headrace tunnel, the penstock (tunnel-embedded type), underground powerhouse and the tailrace tunnel. Overflow-type concrete weir for a typical section was selected on account of economic advantage and gated-weir section for sand flushing also required at the left bank side of the weir in order to flush out sediment material. Underground powerhouse option was selected because of vertical alignment of the waterway and topographic conditions. Pressure flow type of concrete-lined tunnel was selected as structural type of the headrace tunnel and embedded type of steel-lined tunnel penstock was selected. Pressure flow type and free-flow type tunnel structure can be applied to the tailrace tunnel. Since water level fluctuation of the Kyoga Nile Rive is not so large and there is low probability of filling water in the tailrace tunnel with pressure due to usual flood water rising, the non-pressure type tunnel is



economical under such river conditions. Hence, the non-pressure type concrete lining tunnel was selected for the type of the tailrace tunnel.

2) Right-Bank Route (Alternative-3, refer to Figure 5.4-3)

The right-bank route requires considerably longer waterway than the left-bank route and the right-bank route seems to be uneconomical. However, if the left-bank route has fatal problem in geological and/or environmental aspects, the right-bank route may be considered as an optional layout of Ayago project. Hence, the right-bank route is also nominated as one of the alternative layout of the Ayago project.

Composition of the main structures and their structural types are the same as that of the left-bank route.

Main features of the alternative layouts is shown in Table 5.4-1, typical layout drawings for the alternatives are shown in Figures 5.4-1 to 5.4-3, respectively.

Figure 5.4-1 Alternative-1 at Ayago Site (Dam and Waterway Type)

Figure 5.4-2 Alternative-2 at Ayago Site (Waterway Type, Left Bank Route)

IntakePowerhous

Dam

Outlet

Tailrac

Outlet

Powerhous

Intake

Tailrac



Figure 5.4-3 Alternative-3 at Ayago Site (Waterway Type, Right Bank Route)

Intake

PowerhousTailracOutlet



Table 5.4-1 Main Features of Alternative Layouts at Ayago Site

Left Bank Route Right Bank RouteGeneral

Catrchment Area km2 348,120 346,850 346,850Reservoir Area km2 4.2 0.03 0Full Supply Level m 852 852 852Rated Water Lvel m 850 852 852Minimum Operation Level m 848 - -Gross Storage Capacity mil.m3 100 - -Effective Storage Capacity mil.m3 20 - -Tail Water Level m 765 765 765Gross Head m 87 87 87Effective Head m 80 80 80Plant Discharge m3/s 840 840 840Installed Capacity MW 600 600 600

Dam / WeirType Concrete Gravity Dam Concrete Weir Concrete WeirHeight m 45 15 1Crest Length m 1,400 245 245

Headrace / Pressure ShaftType Pressure Flow Tunnel Pressure flow Tunnel Pressure flow TunnelNumber of Tunnel Nos. 6 6 6Inner Diameter m 8.4 8.4 8.4Length m 940 113 113

Steel PenstockNumber of Tunnel Nos. 6 6 6Inner Diameter m 8.4 to 5.4 8.4 to 5.4 8.4 to 5.4Length m 6.9 6.9 6.9Number of Tunnel Nos. 6 6 6Inner Diameter m 5.4 5.4 5.4Length m 44 44 44Number of Tunnel Nos. 12 12 12Inner Diameter m 3.8 3.8 3.8Length m 37 37 37Total Length m 87.9 87.9 87.9

TailraceType Free Flow Tunnel Free Flow Tunnel Free Flow TunnelNumber of Tunnel Nos. 6 6 6Inner Diameter m 8.4 8.4 8.4

Length m 5050 7450 (#1 to #3) /7890 (#4 to #6)

9350 (#1 to #3) /9900 (#4 to #6)

Powerhousea) Machine Bay and Erection Bay Cavern

a) Inner Height m 40 40 40b) Innter Width m 23 23 23c) Number Nos. 2 2 2d) Length m 150 150 150

b) Transformer and GIS Room Caverna) Inner Height m 20.5 20.5 20.5b) Innter Width m 18 18 18c) Number Nos. 2 2 2d) Length m 67 67 6

c) Main Acces Tunnel m 1330 1740 1490Access Road

Improved km 103 122 103New km 27 6 32Total km 130 130 130

Transmission Line km 56 58 51Volume of Disposal Material mil. m3 5.2 6.1 7.6Area of spoil bank ha 43.2 57.1 66.7Volume of Rock Material from Quarry mil. m3 0.17 negligible negligible

Dam and Waterway Type Waterway TypeItem Unit

.03

5

7




5.5 General evaluation of the proposed layouts

As a result of weighting and summing up all items by the projects, the general evaluation resulted as shown in Table 5.5-1.

The evaluation shows that Left-lank option has relatively higher score than the other layouts for even case, environment weighting case, and economic weighting Case. Then, a pre feasibility study was conducted for Left-bank option.

However, it is difficult to determine the optimal layout in this study, because a lot of uncertain conditions remain. Then, the final decision of the layout should be done in the next feasibility study based on more detail survey.

Table 5.5-1 General Evaluation for 3 Layouts

Weight (even)

Dam-Waterway Type

Left Bank Route

Right Bank Route

Construction Cost 5 2 3 1 Disposal Volume 5 3 2 1 Concrete Aggregate Volume 5 1 3 3 Rock Classification Rate 6 1 3 2 Peak Power Generation Control 5 3 1 1 Construction Term 5 3 3 3

Economic and technical Construction Risk 5 3 3 2

Flora and Vegetation 7 1 3 2 Mammal 8 1 2 1 amphibians and reptiles 6 1 2 2 butterflies 6 1 2 2

Environmental Fishes 6 1 2 2

Land acquisition 5 2 1 2 Flooding area 5 1 2 2 Number of resettlement/ affected people 4 2 1 2

Impact on agriculture 4 2 3 1 Impact on historical/cultural property 5 1 2 3

Impact on poaching activities 3 2 1 2

Social

Impact on tourism 5 1 2 2 161 218 188

Even Case C A B

152 215 188 Environment weighting case

C A B 172 218 187

General Evaluation

Economic Weighting Case C A B




5.6 Study on Optimum Development Scale

In general, for determination of the optimum development scale, the following two methods are applied. In the case that efficiency of investment is emphasized, such a development scale that shows the maximum benefit-cost ratio is to be optimum. On the other hand, in the case that effective utilization of hydropower potential is emphasized without any restriction of the amount of investment cost, such a development scale that shows the maximum annual surplus benefit is to be optimum.

In this study, an economic comparison by parameters of benefit-cost ratio (B/C), annual surplus benefit (B-C) and unit energy price (cent/kWh) was carried out between 7 development scales ranging from 100 MW to 800 MW of the run of river type with a left-bank layout alternative, which is the optimum development type of Ayago hydropower project. The result of the comparison is shown in Table 5.2-1 and Figure 5.2-1.

Table 5.6-1 Optimization Study on Development Scale of Ayago Hydropower Project

Item UnitInstalled Capacity MW 100 200 300 400 500 600 800Maximum Power Discharge m3/s 140.4 280.8 421.2 561.6 702 842.4 1122.8Firm Discharge m3/sMin imum Amenity Flow m3/sFirm Power Discharge m3/s 140 280 417 417 417 417 417Firm Capacity MW 100.0 200.0 297.1 297.1 297.1 297.1 297.1Annual Total Energy Production GWh 876 1,740 2,592 3,285 3,830 4,244 4,800Annual Firm Energy Production GWh 876 1,740 2,568 2,568 2,568 2,568 2,568Annual Incremental Total Energy Production GWh 864 853 692 546 413 556Annual Plant Factor % 100 99 99 94 87 81 68Station Survices use %Annual Forced Outage %Annual Scheduled Outage %Effective Total Capacity MW 96.50 193.00 289.50 386.00 482.50 579.00 772.00Effective Firm Capacity MW 96.50 193.00 286.70 286.70 286.70 286.70 286.70Effective Annual Total Energy GWh 845 1,679 2,502 3,170 3,696 4,095 4,632Effective Annual Firm Energy GWh 845 1,679 2,478 2,478 2,478 2,478 2,478Total Construction Cost 103US$ 386,635 619,491 848,478 1,113,403 1,355,527 1,599,293 2,130,475Total Annual Cost 103US$ 46,365 74,258 101,683 133,335 162,301 191,439 254,835Unit Firm Energy Price Cent/kWh 5.48 4.42 4.10 4.92 5.71 6.54 8.Annual Surplus Benefit 103US$ 65,216 147,479 228,634 277,146 311,319 329,890 330,468Benefit Cost Ratio 2.41 2.99 3.24 2.93 2.70 2.49 2.

467

0.502.00

1.00

Description

50

12

08

Note: Unit Firm Energy Price is combined price of hydropower firm energy price and thermal power energy price



0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900Installed Capacity (MW)

Ann

ual S

urpl

us B

enef

it (1

03 US$

)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Ben

efit

Cos

t Rat

io/U

nit E

nerg

y Pr

ice

(Cen

t/kW

h)

Annual Surplus Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio Energy Price

Figure 5.6-1 Optimization Study on Development Scale of Ayago Hydropower Project

As a result of the comparison, the 300 MW alternative shows the minimum unit energy price of 4.1 cents/kWh and the maximum benefit-cost ratio of 3.24. On the other hand, the annual surplus benefit increases according to expansion of development scale up to the 600 MW alternative. Beyond this point, however, the annual surplus benefit does not increase any more. Accordingly, in the case that efficiency of investment is emphasized, the alternative 300 MW is the optimum scale and in the case that effective utilization of hydropower potential is emphasized, the alternative 600 MW is the optimum scale.

In this study, the output of Ayago hydropower project was divided into the firm output, which is guaranteed for 90 % of the period of a year, and the secondary output, which only can supply during a period when there is much flow in the Nile River. In general, in the power system with thermal power operating as main power supplier and hydropower as supplementary, the secondary output has fuel saving effect on thermal power plants. On the contrary, in Uganda, where hydropower is main supplier and thermal power supplementary, the secondary output, which is swayed by the amount of rainfall, is not dependable. Therefore, it is not wise to count the secondary output into the national electric power development plan.

Therefore, for development of Ayago hydropower project, the eventual development scale is 600 MW and, however, in the near term until the first half of 2020, 300 MW is considered to be the optimum development scale. As for development of the remaining potential of 300 MW, it is recommended that the expansion should be carried out when the following conditions are satisfied.



1) If more firm discharge than the current firm discharge of 417 m3/s, corresponding to 300 MW, is expected as a result of further deliberation of long-term discharge measurements in the Nile River

2) If the secondary output of Ayago hydropower project can contribute to fuel saving of thermal power in Kenya as a result of power export negotiation between Uganda and Kenya

3) If the secondary output of Ayago hydropower project can contribute to fuel saving of domestic thermal power after large hydropower developments are finished and there is no other choice than to add thermal power to meet future power demand.

This optimization study was carried out only based on the economics. It is necessary that in a further study for optimum development scale of Ayago hydropower project, consideration should also be paid on impacts on natural and social environment during the feasibility study of Ayago hydropower project.

5.7 Design

5.7.1 Salient Feature of Main Structures

Main structures are shown below.

Weir................................... Concrete gravity type Height:15 m、Length:250 m

Intake ................................ Side intake type 6units

Headrace Tunnel Concrete lining type 6 lines, Inner diameter:8.4 m,

Length: 113 m/line

Steel Penstock ................... 6 lines－12 lines, Inner diameter:8.4 ~ 3.8m, Length:85 m/line

Draft Pond......................... Underground type 12 m wide ×10-18 m high × 34 m long×6units

Tailrace Tunnel ................. Concrete lining type 6 lines, Inner diameter:8.4 m, Length:7,400-7890 m/line

Powerhouse....................... Underground type 23 m wide ×40 m high × 150 m long×2 units

Turbine.............................. Vertical Fransis

51.2 MW/unit × 6 units, 250 r/min (Unit 1-6)

51.1 MW/unit × 6 units, 250 r/min (Unit 7-12)

Generator .......................... 55.6MVA /unit × 6 units (Unit 1-6),

55.4MVA /unit × 6 units (unit7-12)

Main Transformer ............. Underground

................................ 13.2kV/400kV, Capacity: 111.2MVA 3 units(Unit 1-3)................................ 13.2kV/400kV, Capacity: 110.8MVA 3 units(Unit 4-6)

Cable Tunnel ..................... Vertical & horizontal tunnel type, Inner diameter:8.0m



5.7.2 Layout of the Principals Structure

Through the above examination, layout drawings of the main structures of Ayago hydropower project were designed as shown in the Figures 5.7.2-1.


Figure 5.7.2-1 Outline of Ayago Hydropower Project




5.7.3 Transmission Line

(1) Transmission Line Route

Generated power by Ayago hydropower station will be connected to Karuma switchyard and transmitted to Kawanda substation, located in the suburbs of Kampala. The length of the transmission line of Ayago hydropower station between Ayago and Karuma is 58km.

The proposed transmission line route is located on the south side of Victoria Nile River, same as Ayago hydropower station, with fewer inhabitants in the national park and possibility of constructing a new access road. Some section of the transmission line will be constructed along the access road and the other sections will be a shortest-distance route.

Outline of the transmission line route is shown below.

Figure 5.7.3-1 Transmission Line Route Map of Ayago Project

Although the extent of construction of transmission line for Ayago hydropower station is between Ayago hydropower station and Karuma switchyard, the transmission line network of East Africa is shown in Figure 5.7.3-2.

According to the transmission line network of East Africa, the generated power by Ayago hydropower station will be transmitted to the metropolitan area of Kampala via Karuma switchyard, Kafu substation and Kawanda substation.

Regarding the connection with East Africa, especially to Kenya, the generated power by Ayago hydropower station will be transmitted to Kenya via Karuma substation, Kafu substation,



Kawanda substation, Bujagali substation and Tororo substation and another route is via Karuma substation, Lira substation, Opuyo substation and Tororo substation.

Figure 5.7.3-2 Transmission Line Network of East Africa



(2) Scenic Countermeasure for Transmission Line

Transmission line route of south side of the Victoria Nile is less conspicuous than north side of Victoria Nile because of existing of tall tree. As for the detail scenic design for the transmission line, it is desirable to cooperate with local district and stakeholder in the next feasibility study stage.

5.8 Construction Plan and Cost

5.8.1 Construction Schedule

Based on the basic conditions and work quantities assumed in this study, the construction plan and schedule were prepared. The total construction period for 600MW is estimated at 66 months. The critical path of the construction works is the series of the access tunnel to the powerhouse – excavation in the powerhouse - concrete in the powerhouse – installation of electromechanical equipment – commissioning tests. The construction schedule for the Project is shown below.

However, the construction schedule shall be reviewed in the next stage because it is closely related to the site topography, geology and environmental issues.



Des

crip

tion

Requ

ired

Perio

d(m

onth

)1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

3031

3233

3435

3637

3839

4041

4243

4445

4647

4849

5051

5253

5455

5657

5859

6061

6263

6465

6667

6869

7071

721

Prep

arat

ory

Wor

ks1.

1A

cces

s Roa

d(1

)Im

prov

emen

t of E

xist

ing

Roa

d4

1.2

Tem

pora

ry P

ower

Sup

ply

4

1.3

Cam

p an

d O

ffic

e fo

r MEM

D&

Engi

neer

6

2C

ivil

Wor

ks2.

1C

are

of R

iver

5

2.2

Wei

r(1

)Ex

cava

tion

5

(2)

Con

cret

e5

(3)

Oth

er2.

3In

take

(1)

Exca

vatio

n5

(2)

Con

cret

e7

2.4

Hea

drac

e Tu

nnel

/ Pr

essu

re S

haft

(1)

Tunn

el E

xcav

atio

n2

(2)

Shaf

t Exc

avat

ion

7

(3)

Con

cret

e Li

ning

4

(4)

Con

solid

atio

n G

rout

ing

6

2.5

Pens

tock

(1)

Tunn

el E

xcav

atio

n4

(2)

Filli

ng C

oncr

ete

4

2.6

Acc

ess T

unne

l(1

)O

pen

Exca

vatio

n1

(2)

Tunn

el E

xcav

atio

n

14

(3)

10

2.7

Pow

erho

use

(1)

Arc

h Ex

cava

tion

8

(2)

Cav

ern

Exca

vatio

n7

(3)

Con

cret

e St

ruct

ure

27

(4)

Bui

ldin

g an

d U

tility

wor

ks10

2.8

Cab

le T

unne

l / S

haft

(1)

Tunn

el E

xcav

atio

n1

(2)

Shaf

t Exc

avat

ion

7

(3)

Con

cret

e Li

ning

5

2.9

Dra

ft Tu

nnel

/ Po

nd(1

)Ex

cava

tion

7

(2)

Con

cret

e7

2.10

Tailr

ace

Tunn

el(1

)W

ork

Adi

t15

(2)

Tunn

el E

xcav

atio

nA

-1 F

ace

24

A-2

Fac

e24

A-3

Fac

e24

A-4

Fac

e24

(3)

Con

cret

e Li

ning

A

-1 F

ace

18

A-2

Fac

e18

A-3

Fac

e18

A-4

Fac

e18

2.5

Out

let

(1)

Cof

ferin

g4

(2)

Ope

n Ex

cava

tion

2

(3)

Con

cret

e2

6

Con

cret

e Li

ning

53

41

2

Figure 5.8.1-1 Construction Schedule



Des

crip

tion

Requ

ired

Perio

d(m

onth

)1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

3031

3233

3435

3637

3839

4041

4243

4445

4647

4849

5051

5253

5455

5657

5859

6061

6263

6465

6667

6869

7071

723

Hyd

rom

echa

nica

l Equ

ipm

ent

3.1

Wei

r Sand

Flu

shin

g G

ate

and

Stop

log

4

3.2

Inta

ke Gat

e6

Scre

en6

3.3

Pens

tock

Stee

l Lin

er (T

unne

l)11

3.4

Dra

ft Gat

e6

3.5

Out

let Gat

e &

Sto

plog

3

4E

lecr

omec

hani

cal E

quip

men

t4.

1O

verh

ead

Trav

elin

g C

rane

4.2

#1 U

nit

(1)

Dra

ft tu

be(2

)Sp

iral c

asin

g(3

)Tu

rbin

e &

Gen

erat

or4.

3#2

Uni

t(1

)D

raft

tube

(2)

Spira

l cas

ing

(3)

Turb

ine

& G

ener

ator

4.4

#3 U

nit

(1)

Dra

ft tu

be(2

)Sp

iral c

asin

g(3

)Tu

rbin

e &

Gen

erat

or4.

5#4

Uni

t(1

)D

raft

tube

(2)

Spira

l cas

ing

(3)

Turb

ine

& G

ener

ator

4.6

#5 U

nit

(1)

Dra

ft tu

be(2

)Sp

iral c

asin

g(3

)Tu

rbin

e &

Gen

erat

or4.

7#6

Uni

t(1

)D

raft

tube

(2)

Spira

l cas

ing

(3)

Turb

ine

& G

ener

ator

4.8

Pow

er P

lant

Equ

ipm

ent

4.9

Mai

n Tr

ansf

orm

er4.

10Sw

itchy

ard

4.11

Com

mis

sion

ing

Test

(dry

test

)

(

wet

test

)5

Mis

cella

neou

s Wor

k

Not

e:In

stal

latio

n, A

ssem

bly

65

34

12

Figure 5.8.1-2 Construction Schedule



5.8.2 Construction Cost

The construction cost was estimated at US$ basis as of 2010.

(1) There is no inhabitant in the National Park, and, however, the compensation cost was estimated at 5MUS$ in consideration of the resettlement under the transmission line outside of the park.

(2) Environmental cost accounts for 5 % of the cost of civil works. (3) The construction costs of civil works were basically calculated in such a manner as to

multiply the unit price by the quantity of each work item. The unit price of civil work items were estimated using international prices of similar hydropower projects such as the existing Kiira powerhouse, the planned Karuma powerhouse, Sondu Miriu powerhouse in Kenya, allowing for cost escalation as of 2010.

(4) The construction costs for electromechanical equipment and hydro mechanical equipment were estimated in consideration of international market prices in 2010.

(5) Transmission cost consists of the line from the site to the planned switchyard in Karuma in consideration of international market prices in 2010.

(6) Administration and engineering fee was estimated at 15 % of the direct cost (total cost of preparatory works, environmental cost, civil works, hydro mechanical equipment, and electromechanical equipment and transmission facility).

(7) Contingency was estimated at 10% of the total cost of preparatory works, environmental cost, civil works, hydro mechanical equipment, electromechanical equipment and transmission facility.

(8) Price escalation and interest during the construction were not included in construction costs.

(9) VAT and customs duties for imported materials or equipment were not included in unit prices and construction costs.

The project cost, however, will not be the same as the cost to be borne by the executing agency for actual project implementation in the future. The estimated project cost may rise because the price escalation and interest during the construction should be paid by the executing agency. Furthermore, local taxes and customs duties will have to be paid when the construction equipment and materials are imported by the contractor.

The estimated construction costs should be reviewed later because it is closely related to the site topography and geology, which should be investigated more in depth at the next stage.

5.8.3 Total Construction Cost

The construction cost for 600MW estimated on the above conditions is shown in Table 5.8.3-1.



Table 5.8.3-1 Approximate Project Construction Cost

Item

1. Preparation and Land acquision 36,030 (1) Access road 13,500 100x103US$/km× 135 km (2) Compensation & Resettlment 5,000 (3) Camp & Facilities 17,530 (3. Civil work)× 2%2. Environmental mitigation cost 43,825 (3. Civil work)× 5%

3. Civil work 876,494 (1) Weir 28,613 (2) Intake 19,531 (3) Headrace 21,053 (4) Penstock 5,060 (5) Access tunnel 13,018 (6) Powerhouse 78,520 (7) Draft Pond 23,712 (8) Tailrace tunnel 601,861 (9) Outlet 5,444 (10) Miscellaneous 79,681

4. Hydraulic euipment 38,886

5. Electro-mechanical equipment 255,200 Installed Capacity 610 MW

6. Transmission line 29,000 Ayago-Karuma 58 km

Direct cost 1,279,434

7. Administration and Engineering service 191,915 Direct cost × 15%

8. Contingency 127,943 Direct cost × 10%

Total cost 1,599,293

Cost (x103US$) Note



5.8.4 Construction Cost for Staged Development

It is preferable that the project should be developed step by step corresponding to the actual demand in consideration of financing efficiency. The approximate cost for every 100MW in the case of staged construction is shown in Table 5.8.4-1.

The 1st stage for 100MW tends to be more expensive than 2nd and later stages because the former contains the common facilities such as access roads and tunnels, the weir and the transmission line.

Table 5.8.4-1 Project Construction Cost

(x 1,000US$)

Item 100 MW 200 MW 300 MW 400 MW 500 MW 600 MW

1. Preparation and Land acquision 23,046 25,391 27,736 31,121 33,579 36,030

(1) Access road 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500

(2) Compensation & Resettlment 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

(3) Camp & Facilities 4,546 6,891 9,236 12,621 15,079 17,530

2. Environmental mitigation cost 11,365 17,227 23,091 31,553 37,697 43,825

3. Civil work 227,306 344,549 461,814 631,069 753,932 876,494

4. Hydraulic euipment 15,747 18,383 21,018 33,615 36,251 38,886

5. Electro-mechanical equipment 42,533 85,067 127,600 170,133 212,667 255,200

6. Transmission line 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000

Direct cost 348,998 519,616 690,258 926,491 1,103,125 1,279,434

7. Administration and Engineering servic 52,350 77,942 103,539 138,974 165,469 191,915

8. Contingency 34,900 51,962 69,026 92,649 110,313 127,943

Total cost 436,247 649,520 862,823 1,158,114 1,378,907 1,599,293

Difference 213,273 213,303 295,291 220,792 220,386



Chapter 6 Environmental and Social Considerations

6.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment

Three Strategic Environmental Assessments such as (1) Examination of alternative power sources, (2) Examination of candidate projects, and (3) Examination of three layouts in Ayago site have been conducted under this study. Impact assessments for (1) and (2) have been conducted based on survey of literature. Impact assessment for (3) has been based on site survey. All the SEAs examine more than two alternatives from technical, economic, environmental and social points of view. The survey results and impact assessment are documented in the SEA report, attached as Appendix D. This study follows JICA guidelines for environmental and social considerations (2010, JICA).

6.2 Environmental Flow

Water recession between intake and outlet might cause serious impact on Hippopotamus and Crocodiles. In addition, the vegetation change of riverine forests might indirectly affect the fauna which depend on riverine forests. Thus, the volume of environmental flow must be carefully reviewed. It is difficult to identify the volume of environmental flow now but the reviewing process is supposed to be in two stages as shown in the following flowchart. (1) to (8) shall be conducted during the feasibility study and (9) to (15) shall be conducted during the first construction stage.



Figure 6.2-1 Sample procedure on determining the environmental flow

6.3 Information disclosure and Stakeholder meeting

Three stakeholder meetings were held in this Study. The first one focused on the overview of the Study and the consideration of the evaluation criteria in stage 1 and stage 2. The second one aimed to explain the results of stage 1 and 2 and to consider the study plan in stage 3. The objectives of the third one were to explain the results of stage 3 and to consider the Master Plan.

Main comments of the third stakeholder meeting are shown below.

The summary of multi-criteria ranking with hydro scoring the highest is interesting. However, it should be noted that there are costs involved in the mitigation involved in hydropower development. - This was noted by both the Ministry and the study team as well.

Why are solar and wind power not well placed in the multi-criteria decision making? - The multi-criteria decision making is just a summary. When you look at the detailed



evaluation they were weighted, there are very many considerations like environment and social aspects.

The study is a detailed one right from the start and the Strategic Environment Assessment was carried out well in consideration with all aspects of the environment.

How is the demand forecast carried out? When developing the NDP it was agreed that energy is necessary to stimulate economic growth and not vice versa. The demand forecast that was carried out in the study does not seem to take this into account. - The fact that energy is necessary to stimulate economic growth is represented in scenario V of the demand forecast.

It appears that there are quite a number of studies going on, what is the actual strategy that the government of Uganda going to achieve them? Are the funds available to implement these studies? - Even if the funds are not available, it is important for the government to have the plans in place and how it is going to achieve them, that’s why the government has put in place the Energy Fund as well as the PPP’s. However, it is also important to have the documents in place so as to solicit for the funds from the donors.

Suggested that most important parameter for power generation is the volume of water, did the study consider inflows from the catchment areas of the tributary rivers? - The Study Team includes hydrologists who have collected and analyzed all hydrological data including inflows from tributaries in order to come up with design flows.

What proportion of the water will be diverted into the pipes and will there be any environmental impact? - The proportion of water to be used will depend on the EIA as well as the capacity of the plant.

The study captures most of the key issues considered in choosing the project site and to be considered during implementation.

Looking at the seven candidate projects that were considered for the study, Karuma and Ayago are so close. Were other parts of the country considered? - Yes. Mini-hydros are being considered under the renewable energy in various parts of the country, but this particular study is mainly looking at big impact hydros of over 500MW like Ayago.

I appreciate the transparency in the decision making. It was educational and useful to know all the considerations that went into decision.

Are there people expected to be displaced by the project? If so, who are they and how are they affected? - The whole idea of the study is partly to know whether there is any impact on the people around the project area. For Ayago in particular, there are no people affected because of its location in the park.

The study clearly points out the vision of the community and what needs to be done to achieve the objectives of the vision.

It has been noted that most of the TOR for EIAs are not well costed. Mitigation is not well catered for. How is MEMD going to handle the mitigation? - Mitigation measures



will have to be carried out because there will be a monitoring team to ensure this. If necessary, additional resources will be obtained to carry out the mitigation.

Are the cultural sites being protected so that they can attract more tourists? - There are some that are protected and others that still need some more studies to know their significance and this will be captured in the EIA.

6.4 Consideration of Downstream and Neighboring Countries and International

Watercourse

Around Lake Victoria, which is the source of Victoria (White) Nile, there are several countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Democratic Republic of Congo. Ethiopia and Eritrea are located at the source of Blue Nile. In addition, Sudan and Egypt are located in downstream of the River Nile.

Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was established in February, 1999. It is a regional partnership among nine countries; Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda, working together to develop the resources of the Nile Basin for the benefit of all. NBI Secretariat is located in Entebbe in Uganda. It is a transitional mechanism to begin the implementation of the shared vision: “to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water resources”. It has a strong support from a many bilateral and multilateral development partners coordinated by the World Bank.

To translate the shared vision into action, the NBI has launched a Strategic Action Program, which includes two complimentary programs and a Cooperative Framework Strategy.

1) A basin wide Shared Vision Program (SVP) creating a basin wide enabling environment for

sustainable development.

The SVP includes the following projects:

Nile Trans-boundary Environment Action Project (NTEAP) Nile Basin Regional Trade (RPT) Efficient Water Use for Agricultural Production (EWUAP) Water Resources Planning and Management (WRPM) Confidence Building and Stakeholder Involvement (CBSI) Applied Training Project(ATP) Socio-Economic Development and Benefit-Sharing (SDBS)

2) Subsidiary Action Programs (SAPs).

The SVP is comprised of grant based activities to foster trust and cooperation and build an enabling environment for investment. The SAPs are the vehicle for the Nile Basin countries to



engage in concrete activities for long term sustainable development, economic growth and regional integration. The SAPs includes the following programs:

Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Program (ENSAP) Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP)

More information and the key achievement of the projects/programs can be found at the webpage (http://www.nilebasin.org/).

3) The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework

The Nile Basin countries are also pursuing through an institutional dialogue process using negotiators and a panel of experts, the establishment of a Legal Cooperative Framework for the NBI to sustain cooperation in the Nile Basin.

In May 2010, five upstream countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania signed a Cooperative Framework Agreement to seek more water from the River Nile. This was strongly opposed by Egypt and Sudan. An Egyptian government spokesman insisted that Egypt would not join or sign any agreement that affects its share. Representatives of upstream countries said they were tired of first getting permission from Egypt before using river Nile water for any development project like irrigation, as required by a treaty signed during the colonial era between Egypt and Britain in 1929. The new agreement, once effective, will transform the NBI into a permanent Nile River Basin Commission.

Therefore, in order to avoid international complication on the Nile, it is better to disclose information on hydropower development in Uganda to Nile Basin countries as much as possible. Since Egypt and Sudan are conscious on water use for irrigation by Uganda, it is necessary to take possible measures with appropriate timing such as inviting both countries for stakeholder meetings in Uganda, disclosing information on the webpage, and informing them of the progress .

For example, during the EIA stage, the hydropower development project at Bujagali sent a letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uganda to the governments of downstream and neighboring countries to inform them of the project summary (project area map, design and TOR). Then, the Ministry received a reply of “No objection letter” by Egypt. Similar procedure is advisable for the future hydropower project in Uganda.



Chapter 7 Implementation Plan

7.1 Execution Plan

The conceivable main financial resources are three sources: from Uganda government budget (Energy Fund), multi- and bilateral development aid and private sector. The table below shows a conceivable funding plan for 3 major hydropower developments.

Table 7.1-1 Financial Plan

Unit: US$ in millions2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total

KarumaFund requirement 60 580 570 250 240 1,700Funding 60 580 570 250 240 1,700

Energy Fund (70% as Equity) 42 406 399 175 168 1,190National Social Security Fund(15% as Equity)

9 87 85.5 37.5 36 255

Borrowings from private bunks (15%) 9 87 85.5 37.5 36 255 Isimba

Fund requirement 10 110 70 90 60 50 390Funding 10 110 70 90 60 50 390

Private investimant & lending (95%) 9.5 104.5 66.5 85.5 57 47.5 370.5Government's equity participationfor PPP (5%)

0.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 3 2.5 19

AyagoFund requirement 44 87 131 131 108 149 149 64 863Funding 44 87 131 131 108 149 149 64 863

Energy Fund (50%) 22 43.5 65.5 65.5 54 74.5 74.5 32 431.5Donor's aid (50%) 22 43.5 65.5 65.5 54 74.5 74.5 32 431.5

Total Funding 60 590 680 320 330 104 137 131 131 108 149 149 64 2,953Energy Fund 42 406 399 175 168 22 43.5 65.5 65.5 54 74.5 74.5 32 1,622Government's equity participationfor PPP

0.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 3 2.5 19

National Social Security Fund 9 87 85.5 37.5 36 255Donor's aid 22 43.5 65.5 65.5 54 74.5 74.5 32 432Private investimant & lending 9.5 104.5 66.5 85.5 57 47.5 370.5

.5

.5

Borrowings from private bunks 9 87 85.5 37.5 36 255

The type of project implementation will be governed by the combination of such financial sources. The Study Team considers it to be advisable to implement the Ayago project as government project of public works considering that IPP/PPP type is generally time-consuming and has uncertainties in securing the required funds.

And, as for execution type, the Study Team considers it to be advisable to adopt joint supervision type with foreign consultants (joint S/V type) under FIDIC conditions of contract (measurement type), thus minimizing consultant’s fee and enabling appropriate risk allocation between the owner and the contractor based on genuinely engineering judgment by an experienced consultant hired by the owner. Such recommendations were derived from the necessity for the Project to be implemented as scheduled in this Study and for capacity building of project management and hydropower engineering expertise of Uganda side.

Joint S/V type will take longer time to construction start as compared with EPC type, where the contractor will do detail design, but the former type will enable the tenderers to reduce markup for risks by taking enough time in detail design to provide more accurate design and cost estimate and by adopting measurement type of contract on a unit-price basis.



7.2 Implementation schedule

Shown below is the general flow to construction after this Master Plan Study.

This implementation schedule was prepared assuming the execution type to be a government project under joint S/V. joint S/V.

Figure 7.2-1 Flow of Implementation Plan after this Study Figure 7.2-1 Flow of Implementation Plan after this Study

(1) Feasibility Study

1) Basic investigations

2) Site surveys（geology, topography and river surveys）

3) Environmental study（EIA）

4) Basic design（engineering drawings）

(2) EIA procedure

1) EIA report

2) Ministerial and public inspection

3) Review and revision

4) Approval

(3) Detail design and tender documents

(5) Construction

1) Tender, evaluation and award

2) Contract

3) Preparatory works

4) Construction works

(4) Negotiation with financial institutions and

loan agreement

1) Negotiation with donors

2) Exchange of Notes

3) Loan Agreement

1) Selection of consultant

2) Exploratory adits and in-situ tests

3) Tender documents



(1) Feasibility Study

Conduct a feasibility study specifically on Ayago project site after the Master Plan Study. In order to raise the accuracy of the results of the site investigation works (geology and topography) performed at the time of the Pre F/S, perform additional surveys such as land and river surveys, drilling-hole surveys and tests. Perform an EIA study to raise the level of SEA study conducted at the time of the Pre F/S to prepare an EIA report. Prepare basic designs and more accurate project cost estimate based on the results of the above investigations.

Those tasks were assumed to take 15 months.

(2) EIA procedure

Prepare an EIA report on the part of MEMD based on the results of the above F/S and in accordance with the guidelines of environmental and social impact assessment of ODA organizations. Thereafter, submit the EIA report to ministerial and public inspection, review and revise it reflecting the comments from the stakeholders for government approval.

Those tasks were assumed to be 11 months provided that part of the above procedure overlaps the works of F/S.

(3) Detail design and tender documents

Excavate exploratory audits into the planned site for underground power station and conduct in-situ tests to establish detailed conditions of geology and foundation for design basics. Perform detail design works and prepare tender documents based on the results of those works.

Those tasks were assumed to take 20 months, provided that the costs of the tasks are financed by MEMD’s own funds to reduce the required time for the tasks although MEMD may be able to apply for engineering service loan to a donor.

(4) Negotiation with financial institutions and loan agreement

Conclude exchange of notes and loan agreements after loan negotiations with donors.

That task was assumed to take 10 months, provided that the negotiations will be commenced only when the required amount for construction has been determined by detail design.

(5) Construction

Prior to the start of construction, the tendering was assumed to take 5 months, tender evaluation 3 months and approval for contract award 2 months. It is desirable that preparatory works such as access roads and construction offices should be completed with MEMD’s own funds before the start of main construction works to shorten the construction period.

Table 9.2-3 shows a standard schedule from the end of the Master Plan Study to the construction start based on the above.



ID タ

スク

名

1A

YA

GO

2M

aste

r P

lan S

tudy

3B

asic

Rese

arch

41st

Sta

ke H

old

ers

Meeting

5Sele

ction o

f P

rosp

ective

Sites

62nd

Sta

ke H

old

ers

Meeting

7P

relim

inar

y D

esi

gn for

Sele

cte

d P

rosp

ective

Sit

8Site Inve

stig

atio

n for

Sele

cte

d P

rosp

ective

Site

9P

repa

ration o

f H

ydro

pow

er

Deve

lopm

ent

M/P

10

3rd

Sta

ke H

old

ers

Meeting

11

Repo

rt12

13

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

14

Bas

ic R

ese

arch

15

Site Inve

stig

atio

n16

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

Ass

ess

ment

Stu

dy17

Bas

ic D

esi

gn18

Repo

rt19

20

EIA

Pro

cedu

re21

Pre

limin

ary

Revi

ew

22

Publ

ic Insp

ection &

Com

ment

23

Revi

ew

24

App

rova

l25

26

Deta

iled

Desi

gn27

Sele

ction o

f C

onsu

ltan

t28

Exp

lora

tory

Adi

t & In-si

tu T

est

s

29

Deta

iled

Desi

gn30

Pre

para

tion o

f Tende

r D

ocum

ent

31

32

Fin

ancia

l A

rran

gem

ent

for

Const

ruction

33

Arr

ange

ment

34

Exc

han

ge o

f N

ote

s35

Loan

Agr

eem

ent

36

37

Const

ruction W

ork

s38

Tende

ring

39

Eva

luat

ion

40

App

rova

l41

Pre

para

tion W

ork

(R

elo

cat

ion, A

ccess

Road

etc

)42

Const

ruction

12/11 02/19

12/14

07/03 09/11

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Figu

re 7

.2-2

Im

plem

enta

tion

Plan



Chapter 8 Development Subjects and Suggestions

Issues and suggestions related to the development of Ayago Hydropower Project and concerning points for next Feasibility Study (F/S) of Ayago Hydropower Project are described below.

8.1 Environmental and Social Considerations

(1) Compliance with JICA GUIDELINES

The project supported by JICA should be compliant with JICA GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (March, 2010). Ayago project site is located in the middle of a protected area designated by Uganda Government laws to preserve natural resources and the project will cause impact on IUCN red list species and wildlife for tourism. But the total area used by the project is only 0.6 sq km, which is 0.016 % of the national park, and only management cars will access the site during operations. One cannot say that the project shall t cause serious impact on flora and fauna in the National Park, because the selected left side option lies on southern bank where population density of mammals is not so high. In addition, the project might be able to promote the protection of the National Park if the project implements not only mitigations for minimization of impacts but also supporting activities such as wild life habitat management, counter measures for poaching and encroachment as well as wild life monitoring as offset activities. It is important to seek for maximum mitigations in the Feasibility Study stage to be compliant with JICA guidelines.

(2) Mitigation Strategy at Ayago Project site

The following are the mitigation strategies in the F/S stage. The mitigations cannot completely eradicate negative impacts but will definitely alleviate some of them.

1) Minimizing the waste rock disposal area

Area of the waste rock disposal site should be minimized when the layout designing is considered in the F/S stage.

The brief minimization for the layouts has already been considered during pre-feasibility study. At first, the location for rock disposal site was sought outside the National Park. But 1,000,000 ten-ton trucks will be needed for hauling the waste rock. The environmental impact of trucks moving 40 kilometric one way in form of noise, vibration, dust on surrounding flora and fauna, and volume of carbon dioxide will be much. Thus, the disposal site within the National park seems to be better than outside the Park. All the disposal sites of the examined three layouts are located in the National Park. For the selection of the valley, the valleys with smaller watershed are sought.

When designing disposal sites in the F/S stage, more environmentally sound structures, locations and disposal measures should be considered.



2) Environmentally sound access roads

The access roads should be determined on the basis of their minimum impact on the ecosystem during the F/S stage.

The access roads briefly examined at the pre-feasibility study stage. At first, most short cut routes were examined. But it was later realized that the routes need much cut and fill earth volumes and one part needs a massive bridge. As a result the same route as the existing one was selected and although it is longer, it doesn’t need a bridge and there is minimum vegetation cutting.

The selected access road might conflict with tourism use, local people’s wood collection route, or animal migrations. Then considering tourism use and maintenance road for transmission line, the most environmentally sound route should be re-examined at the feasibility stage.

3) Mitigation for road kill

Road design and operation plan which aims to minimize road kill should be examined at the feasibility stage. The risk of road kill at the access roads would be high, because the roads go through the habitat of wild life. Coming across elephants might cause accidents. Then it is recommended to take suitable mitigation measures in the high risk areas and high risk seasons/time which is identified based on the surveyed migration routes, population density, and migration season/time. If some high risk areas are identified, crossing structures especially for wildlife, some structures which prevent invasion of animals into roads, operation plans to minimize road kill, and warning systems for drivers should be examined at the F/S stage.

4) Layout to minimize cutting vegetation

When design and location of the facilities for hydropower plant are examined, minimizing the vegetation cut should be considered. Disturbance of riparian forest should especially be minimized because it provides habitat for many species. Most of the permanent facilities except maintenance roads, waste rock disposal sites, weirs, intake and outlet such as penstock, powerhouse, surge tank and transformer are planned underground. On the other hand, most of the temporally facilities such as stock yard, crasher plant, batcher plant and temporally roads are above the ground. If this is the case, temporally vegetation loss will not be avoided. Careful designing for temporally facilities to minimize vegetation loss and vegetation recovery plans is needed.

5) Ensuring environmental flow

In order to minimize the impact on aquatic wildlife, environmental flow at the recession area must be ensured. It is difficult to suggest the ideal volume of environmental flow during pre-feasibility study. After the survey on population of Hippopotamus and Crocodiles, population home range, water quality, water temperature, water velocity, water depth,



riverbed topography, topography of landing points, and migration routes, estimation for water volume, water quality, water temperature and water depth during operations should be done. Then environmental flow should be carefully examined based on the impacts by some water flow scenarios.

6) Minimize impact on landscape

The impact on the landscape should be minimized, because landscape in the National Park is a big natural resource for tourism in Uganda. Weirs and transmission line might be landscape disturbance structures. Although weirs are not normally seen by overflowed water, the shape can be customized to make the flow natural. The route of transmission line should be selected to minimize the disturbance of natural landscape, based on the several landscape simulations from some view points and tour courses using measured topographic map. The shape, color, and airway beacon of the transmission line tower should also befit the landscape. A visibility study for the other above ground facilities should be examined and screen planting can be designed for some cases.

7) Ensure the migration route for aquatic wildlife

The division of habitat of aquatic fauna should be minimized. Possibility of the special pass for Hippopotamus, Crocodile and/or fishes should be examined on the basis of the survey for movable water velocity, bump and slope.

8) Supporting UWA’s activities

There are many National Park management activities which should be enhanced by UWA such as controlling fire, poaching patrol, encroachment patrol, park boundary management, park gate control, and wildlife monitoring. The possibility of supporting these activities might be examined as a part of the mitigations.

(3) Environmental monitoring

Environmental monitoring is recommended after EIA study, because the data is useful for mitigations before construction. Environmental monitoring at same points, by same methods before construction, under construction and in operations makes it possible to enable adequate mitigations in line with the biological changes.

(4) Survey on Bujagali Hydropower Project

Actual impact survey on Bujagali Hydropower project might have a lot to tell. The study team has already visited the project site several times, confirmed the implementation of the mitigations and reflected on the lessons on the scoping checklist during Pre F/S stage. In addition to the design of feasibility study, the lessons of Bujagali Hydropower Project should be reflected upon.



(5) Development type of Karuma Hydropower Project

As for development type of Ayago Hydropower Project, run of river type, which has no storage capacity, is selected from the view point of minimization of environmental impacts. However, in case Karuma Hydropower Project has reservoir or regulating Pond, river flow may fluctuate widely due to the peak discharge. As a consequence there is concern that ecology of plants, animals and tourism surrounding river would be affected. In addition, it will be difficult to execute integrated operation with Ayago Hydropower Project.

8.2 Design

(1) Additional Topographical Survey

Although the rough topographical maps based on the aerial survey is prepared in the Pre F/S, the detailed topographical maps based on the location survey will be required in the F/S stage. In terms of river section survey, larger area shall be investigated to design structures and the study for the environmental flow.

(2) Additional Geological Investigation

Although in the Pre F/S stage the borings are mainly conducted at the weir, the intake, the upstream powerhouse and the outlet, in the F/S stage the additional borings shall be conducted at the downstream powerhouse and waterway. It is also recommended that the elastic wave exploration to see the characteristic of wide ranging water ways and the initial rock stress and borehole TV to design the underground powerhouse will be conducted.

(3) Hydraulic Model Experiment

The maximum intake discharge is so much (840m3/s) that the hydraulic model experiment is recommended to see the impact on the animals in the river.

(4) Network Stability Analysis and Reviewing Unit Capacity

In this study, stability analysis is not undertaken because the study is master plan stage. Therefore it is necessary to carry out stability analysis in the F/S because it might be critical for the network. Besides the unit capacity of 50MW might be reviewed based on the result of stability analysis.



8.3 Construction Plan and Cost Estimation

(1) Construction Planning

In the Pre F/S stage, the temporary facility yard and the disposal area are planned by using temporary map mainly. In the F/S stage the most appropriate area and scale shall be determined based on the topographic survey in consideration of environmental impact.

(2) Cost Estimation

In the Pre F/S stage, construction costs are estimated based on approximate quantities and market unit price. In the F/S stage the accuracy of quantities shall be improved according to drawings. Especially unit prices of work items shall be examined carefully with reference to the actual examples in the neighboring countries and contractor’s quotation because there are few similar projects in Uganda.

8.4 Framework for Implementation of F/S

Necessary framework for implementation of F/S is described bellow.

1) Basic Design: including topographic survey and geological survey

2) Planning and Design: including

/civil design (hydraulic structure, underground structure and environment-conscious including amenity flow and so on)

/architecture (Building and landscape assessment)

/electromechanical

/steel structure

/transmission line (selection of route and landscape assessment)

3) Construction Planning and Cost estimation

4) Power system planning (power supply and demand, verification of stability)

5) Economic and finance

6) Natural and Social Environment

For framework of counter part, the arrangements of responsible staffs for Civil and Geological work are expected at the F/S work.

PROJECT FOR MASTER PLAN STUDY ON ...Project for Master Plan Study on Hydropower Development in the...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT FOR MASTER PLAN STUDY ON ...Project for Master Plan Study on Hydropower Development in the...