FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES
-f
BARO-AKOBO RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT
7 MASTER PLAN STUDY
I
I
-- - ~ V *
FINAL REPORT
ANNEX 1 PT. 4
KT’*-'-’-- -
WATER RESOURCESFEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES
BARO-AKOBO RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT 
MASTER PLAN STUDY
ANNEX 1
WATER RESOURCES
Part 4
Annex IH
Annex II
Annex 1J
Irrigation Projeers
Water Supply Projects
Hydropower Projects
TAMS-ULG Bam-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master PlanINDEX or VOLUMES AND ANNEXES
Volume I:Executive Summary
Volume IT:- RESOURCE BASE AND DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Volume nt—Master Plan Development
Volume IV:PROJECT AREA MAPS
Volume V.................. .................-  PREFEASffiTLmr STUDIES annexes
J. WATER RESOURCES
Annex IA                     Climatology
Annex IB
Annex 1C. Flood Studies Annex ID GroundWater
Hydrology
Annex IE Reservoir Operation Studies
Annex 1F Sediment Studies
Annex 1G Water Resources Cost Estimating
Annex 1H Irrigation Projects
Annex II Water Supply Projects
Annex 1J       Hydro power Projects
2         NATURAL RESOURCES
Annex 2A                  Land Evaluation
Annex 2B  ......................................... Soils and Soil Conservation
Annex2C
Annex 2D
Annex 2E Forestry
,,,, Geology
Mineral Resources
Annex 2F ............................................. Wildlife
Annex 2G
.Annex 2H          Apiculture Annex 21 .  Agriculture Annex 2J 
Annex 2K Fisheries Annex 2L
J- SOCIOECONOMICS Annex 3A
Tourism
Renewable Energy
....... Livestock
. Population Aspects
.Annex 3B                            Socio-Ethnic Groups Analysis
Annex 3C
Economic Infrastructures
Annex 3D,...................... ..................... Social Infrastructures
Annex 3E................................... Economic and Financial .Analysis
Annex 3FInstitutional Support
V. E/VPMOWEAT
Annex 4 ... EnviTroAnMmSe-nUtLG Biro-Akobo Riser Basin lntezrati-d Development Master PlanWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
ANNEX 1H
IRRIGATION PROJECTS
1AMS-ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master PlanI
IVS ATER RESOURCES
ANNEX in IRRIGATION PROJECTS
CONTENTS
1.     INTRODUCTION
I  I Objectives and Approach
12 The Study-Area
I  3 institutional Setting
1 4 Government Policies  -• ••
-
---
2         AVAILABLE DATA AND PREVIOUS STUDIES ................... ........ ................. 4
2 1 Previous Studies 
2.2        Basic Data
2.3       Potential Irrigation Areas 
3, UPPER BASIN PROJECTS
32 ApprIanveisanl taonry d oSfcrPeroejneict ngs                                5 31
4. LOWER BASIN PROJECTS9
4 I Inventory of Projects 
4 2 Agriculture and Cropping Patterns 
4
-....................................................... 4
4
-5
..... 9
.................................... 11
4,3
Irrigation               Water
11
4 4 Reservoir Operation Studies 4 5 Layouts and Costs .
Requirements 
................................... 14
12
46 Project Ranking ................................................................................................... ...16
4.7 Preliminary Economic Review
16
5. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS18
APPENDICES
TABLES
1       Upper Basin Potential Irrigation Sites Characteristics (2 sheets)
2        Upper Basin Potential Irrigation Sites Land Resource Assessments 
3        Upper Basin Preliminary Cost Estimates
4        Lower Basin Irrigation Systems investigated
5        Irrigation Water Requirements - Typical Cropping Pattern 6        Irrigation Projects Main Technical Characteristics (2 sheets) 7        Irrigation Project Cost Summary...
8        Irrigation Projects Cost Ranking
FIGURES
1       Potential Irrigation Projects
2        Upper Basin Preliminary Assessment of potential Sites
3        Lower Basin Potential Irrigation Systems Layout
.............
TAMS-ULG Barn-Akobo Integrated Development Master PlanWATER RESOURCES
annex ih irrigation projects
1. INTRODUCTION
LI Objectives and Approach
The  present  document  describes  the  studies  made  regarding  the  Master  Planning  of  Irrigation in the Baro-Akobo River Basin
The purpose of this  study  was  to evaluate the potential for irrigation development, to define and formulate possible projects, to estimate the cost of these projects, and to identify the best projects  suitable for inclusion in a series  of Master Plan Proposals  The cost estimates  of the top ranking projects  will also serve for preliminary  economic  evaluation of these projects  and will be the basis  for proposals  by  the consultant concerning the project that will be recommended for subsequent prefeasibility  level study  within the framework  of the present contract The economic analysis is given m Annex 3E,
1.2       The Study Area
The study area is located in the southwestern part of Ethiopia It covers approximately 75,912 km . The area includes all or part of four Administrative Regions SEP AR in the south,
2
Oromiya in the NE. Gambela tn the central western portion and Benshangul in the north
western extremity.
The land comprises high plateaux al elevations ranging from 1500 and 2000 tn and mountains with peaks exceeding 2500 metres in the easternmost and southern portions of the basins The Gambela plains  lie west of the escarpment, with elevations  ranging from 400 to 600 metres, forming the central westernmost part of the basin
The main rivers within the basin include the Baro, its left tributary the Alwero, the Akobo and its  right tributary  the Gilo These rivers  are part of the Pibor Sobat River System, a major tributary of the White Nile in Sudan.
Present population in the basin is  about 2.2 million with some 90% in the highlands  and the remaining part in the lowlands  .About 92% of the present population is  rural and the remaining 8% is classified as urban
Most  of  the  agriculture  is  subsistence  fanning  in  rhe  highlands,  where  most  of  the  animal population is also locaied and cotfee is a major crop.
The urban population is growing at a very' high pace, about 3 times the rate of growth of the rural population By the end of the planning period, year 2035, the total population is expected to be in the order of 5.3 million people including about 85% rural and 15% urban At this time, it is anticipated that 77% of the population (4.) million) will be in the highlands and 23% (1.2 million) will he in the lowlands
TAJVIS-ULG Baru-Akobo Integraled                          Master Plan
IH- 1WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
The area has a moderately developed road system and several airfields The major airport is al Gambela which includes a first class paved runway.
Navigation  in  the  Bare  which  used  to  link  the  Gambela  region  to  Sudan  was  discontinued years ago.
Power infrastructure includes  the 5 MW Sor hydropower station, the 0 75 MW Dembi hydro power station and several Diesel installations  The Sor station supplies  Metu, Gore, Gambela and Dembidolo via a 66 kV transmission system The Dembi station supplies  Tepi. Mizan Teferi
Annual  precipitation  in  the  area  varies  from  750mm  in  the  lowlands  to  over  2000mm  in  the highlands
The climatology  and the hydrology  of the basin are discussed in Annexes  1A and IB, respectively  Groundwater is  discussed in Annex  ID. The land resources  arc  discussed in Annexes 2A and 2B Agriculture is discussed in Annex 21
1.3      Institutional Setting
In the recent past, the institution in charge of irrigation in Ethiopia was  the Ethiopia Valleys Development Studies  Authority  (EVDSA). This  institution was  superseded by  the Water Resources Development Authority
Recognising the importance of water resources  for the development of Ethiopia, the Government recently  created the Ministry  of Water Resources  This  is  the highest institution related to water sector policy , development and management,
The  agricultural  aspects  of  the  irrigation  subsector  are  the  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of Agriculture.
In addition, within the administrating regions, a Bureau of Water, Mines  and Energy; a Bureau of Agriculture and other sector Bureaux  and offices  implement the Government Policies Water project development is  generally  the responsible of an ad-hoc  Project Office A more detailed description is found in Annex 3F
1.4     Government Policies
The mam government policy  is  to develop the agricultural sector within a free marker orientation. Another important policy  concerns  the promotion of agricultural development considering the need for food security  Further, opportunities  are open to investment by  the private sector in the production of agricultural produce, with the intent of supplementing the governmental initiatives in this sector
The irrigation subsector recognises  the need io develop the intensive irrigated farming potential of this  country. Several projects  of this  nature which are an important contribution to the economy exist in the Awash Valley. Fincha and elsewhere Construction of additional
TAMS-ULG BanbAkobo Integrated Developniejit Master Plan
IB -2ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
WATER RESOURCES
projects  is  pursued  in  the  more  and  areas  and  of  supplementary  irrigation  in  the  wet  part  Of  the country
The   development   of   irrigation   in   the   Baro-Akobo   river   basin   has   commenced   with   the
construction  of  the  Abobo  dam  on  the  Alwero  River  This  project  designed  to  irrigate  10400
hectares will be the initial phase to develop this subsector in the study area and should have an important impact on its  economic  development In addition, the regional administration is studying possibilities  for developing irrigation near Lake Tata in the Gilo river basin and in the Bonga area in the Baro River basin. As  much as  possible, this  has  been taken into account in this study
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Matter Plan
1H-JWATER RESOURCES
annex ih irrigation projects
2.        AVAILABLE DATA AND PREVIOUS STUDIES
2.1 Previous Studies
The most complete and recent data concerning the irrigation possibilities  in the Study  area is the report by  ARDCO-GEOSERV for the Upper Basin, dated May  1995 and the comprehensive Master Plan Study  by  Selkhozpromexport of the former Soviet Union (Russian Master Plan) dated 1990. for the Lower Basin Other previous  studies  in the Lower Basin which include a proposal for irrigation development in the Gambela Plain are the study  earned ouI by TAMS in the 1970’s, and a report by a Dutch firm EUROCONSULT
The ARDCO-GEOSERV, the Selkhozpromexport and the TAMS report were reviewed in the course of this  assignment The EUROCONSULT report was  not available However, the Russian study provides general information on its findings
2.2 Basic Data
Baseline information and the Master Plan Studies  were used as  required and are discussed elsewhere in this  Report These include information concerning the population, climate, hydrology, geology, soils, land use. agriculture and other resources  that may  have an impact on the potential for irrigation development and the possibilities  for flow regulation, dam and hydropower development within the basin which would have a direct effect upon flow availability
Other information used extensively in this study includes
•     existing topographic maps at 1:250000 and 1:50000,
•     the layouts and designs of the projects in the Russian Master Plan,
•     information on the Alwero project including the Abobo dam presently under construction,
•     data on several irrigation projects elsewhere in Ethiopia and
•     miscellaneous cost information obtained from various government sources
2.3 Potential Irrigation Areas
.ARDCO-GEOSERV  identified  18  potential  irrigation  areas  in  scattered  locations  in  the  Upper Basin  and  presented  preliminary  information  on  these  areas  In  contrast,  under  the  Russian Study,  a  comprehensive  master  plan  was  developed  for  the  lower  basin  which  included  several areas located along a band of land above the flood prone zone
.All the potential irrigation areas identified in the previous studies are shown on Figure 1
TAMS-ULG Eiru-Akobo Integrated Development Muter Plan
JH -4______ .1-. .I
fTKtWLA
Baro Akobo River Basin Integrated Development
Master Plan Project
FIGURE H-1 POTENTIAL IRRIGATION PROJECTS
TAMS  Consultants.  Inc.  (U.S.A.)  and
ULG Consultants Lid. (U.K.)
For the Ministry of Water Resources
at the Government of Ettii opt a
Produced on: July 20. 1996
Sources: TAMS-ULG; ARDCO/Soyuz; Topo (1: 250 000}
GlS Filename: damsite.apf
iv
S4
I
,(
’
as*water resources
UPPER BASIN PROJECTS
3.1 Inventory of Projects
annex ih irrigation projects
The  1S  potential  projects  identified  by  AKDCO  GEOSERV  tn  the  Upper  Banin  were  assessed with respect to:
•     Location
•     Population
•     Land resources
•     Water resources
•     Possible diversion and conveyance
•     Access conditions
In  as  much  as  they  impact  on  the  availability  of  water,  potential  storage  sites  identified  for irrigation and for hydropower were considered in the assessment
Their location is presented on Figure I The project characteristics are given in Table 1
3.2 Appraisal and Screening
Various land resources assessments of the candidate projects are given in Table 2 in terms of irrigation suitability, land capacity, soils and present farming systems The analyses and
preliminary assessment is shown graphically on the matrix on Figure 2
Among  the  candidate  projects,  17  were  found  to  be  unsuitable  for  irrigation  for  a  variety  of reasons
•     The  projects  located  in  the  highlands  have  abundant  precipitation  and  any  supplemental irrigation  in  this  area  would  not  be  economically  justified  as  compared  to  dry'  farming improvements  which  can  have  a  high  Economic  Rate  of  Return  (EIRR)  of  more  than  30% as  demonstrated  in  Annex  3E.  This  category'  includes  most  of  the  candidate  projects:  Fani, Gumero, Alwero, Godere, Beko and Meni, Guy, Achani, Bebeka, Kilu, Akobo I
•   The land resources assessment indicates that most of the candidate projects are unsuitable
or marginal for irrigation. This category includes candidate project Lafo Kotu, Fani
Alwero, Guy, Achani, Awaya, Guracha^ Bebeka, Sako Guda, Beko and Meni, Kulu. Birbir, Godere, Gumero, .Akobo I. Akobo II
•   Several of these projects are located in forest areas and their construction would therefore involve the destruction of these forests This category includes the Fani, Alwero. Guy,
Achani, Awaya, Guracha, Bebeka. Beko Mem, Kilu, Godere. Gumero and Akobo I
An approximate cost estimate and cost ranking was  developed for all candidate projects  The estimate is presented on Table 3. This shows that cost per hectare varies from USS 10,200 to L'S $143,600 The majority of projects are too costly and could not be justified economically
TAMS-ULG Biro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan
1H -5annex ih irrigation projects water resources
3isM   ™  the  above,  the  folk«g  sendee  projects  are  considered  non  viable  for  the  reasons indicated below
Candidate Project Main Reawn(s) for Non viability
Koji
Lafo Kotu Fam Alwerci Guy Achani Awaya
High Cost
Unsuitable land, high cost
High rainfall, unsuitable land, forest destruction, high cost
High rainfall, unsuitable land, forest destruction, high cost
High rainfall, marginal land suitability, forest destruction, high cost High rainfall, marginal land suitability , forest destruction, high cost Unsuitable land, forest destruction, high cost
Guracha                    Marginal land suitability, forest destruction
Bebeka                      Hgh rainfail, marginal land suitability, forest destruction, high cost Sako Guda                Unsuitable land
Beko/Meni Kilu
High rainfall, unsuitable lands, forest destruction, high cost Hgh rainfall, marginal land, high cost
Godere                      High rainfalL unsuitable land, forest destruction, high cost Gurnero                    Hgh rainfall, marginal land, forest destruction, high cost
Akobo I
High rainfall, marginal land, forest destruction, high cost
Akobo n                    Most of the land is marginal, high cost
This assessment was confirmed during the field reconnaissance visit and is shown graphically on the matrix presented in Figure 2 In view of the above, no further consideration was given to the above 17 candidate projects considered non-viable on the basis of available data and field reconnaissance
The Baro project located in the Lower Basin would be flooded by a dam at Gambela and us cost is higher than that of other schemes in the Lower Basin For these reasons this candidate project was not favoured in the Master Plan The small Bonga area (400ha) being studied by the Gambela region is part of the Baro candidate project area and should have a similar cost ranking
TAMS-CLG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan
1H-6VI I k'l' u n JI M
■ •-
PROJECT
AREA i‘ ]‘
1M
an
fci -
Rr
P»
R
---------------
WEJtEDA
Wneda
P^IMLklHl
A
Eicumk
d IM5
(3j
Wtftda
Town
EkbmdK
d
Present Wenda
Tw«i
1‘upmli
in [It
5o N>i
hT
rw
0   Scale Maps
tout
Gross
Area
thaj
(Ct
Grau
Irnujt-I
e
Ain
ItaHlJ
Aimp
Slcfw l-t
Swli
VLifi
As era.
fe
Flcv«l
HJfl
(flUilj
<n
Saiurr. of Witer famfi]
L75 Gcrige
Dun
Approx fJrvcriioo Siu
LoCUtKXI |2 J
Ap^dx CMVqpKC
FLtquiremerrs llE
t KOJJ
6.
J
Anti Id
JI citl
Mufi
l ?4l
a
D834A4 Q8MA1
6,WO
2M
0.3
A-G
475
Kajl A S juxjr
Na
Ut KorjL k M El. JOlfll w Jkll NE10 Stun iwenl ih sic« i« nnH
lukm (ting dd Idt bank
J LAFOKOTV
6
4
C-i Jaru
2*3, Ml-
11710
Uk&kfi-J
?.■?!
MKAJ
9.U0Q
IT
15
A-G
<50
Lt-V
N*
El WUm -----------------------------------—[
Oft LU iXmkMf ------------------------------------------------------------ J
1 FAW
4
5alc
4.553
KamlwkM
111
0H15C1
1 2n»
212
1-6
AG
1 J»
Fui
Nd
On fra R al EC 1 1WJ-1,2lLt» ISCXtJjJ iplJLilll n iUh
On LB 20Km lent [wxrrjJ
pwh[!(t|ibet
i ALWtftO
12
AU<c
Go< A J*1*
|b.DJ|
15.990
Abeba
Gw
LIU
16.M
U7J4IH
5,500
240
t-6fr
I i iln
A-G
6W
Al«ro
Nd
Oil. AJwtEO R. Ill Et t4JJ0i cm Inwwi LllCJ ftiL Idle 14 11 Ell 561 M
5K«  lens  an  LB.  9Km  qr  LB  * KipIlM kti crauiAt
• CITY
12
Gof AJcr
13P9tt
Gw
1.631
0734D4
I.W0
110
10
A-U
5W
Gu* A Lemon
Nu
Al EO.i7DOM wibcih rn«n
On Guy R RE. 15Kra
On Lcnuui R. CJI. (Ker.
i ACHAhJ!
1 if
Crtderc
28S.^
Mell
2.477
Oil KU
4 JUG
3 J2
too
talli
A-G
950
Aduai. |Hl Busk al GIId.
No
OnAchntuK MEI LOUM.OZQm
On  LB.  IKm  Im<  ock   is  in  all.  3Km Icmf wi SB
AWAYA
It
Gum r^rdi
12,311
Gun Fjfda
7T
0614B2
inn
IJ7
2-1
I - 2 mm
A-G
fiMi
AlkTYI
Nd
At bl 640fli an Ami>u R W W El ?• Wffl Ufl iht JJJtE mET
KB,  1  *Km  tong  (Iqhee  ahcnulr  | HB. -'Km too^ [ufcpcr silrnurtisc i
1 GUHACilA
11
Lhira Fardi
12 5M
Gun Fvd*
71
l»WAJ_l
2 OW
1*4
J-4
AG
I '■lira- hn
Na
Uh Chtficht k m El «3m
On LB. 6Kin k1 r
i SEBEKA
11
Shna
l*JW
1 104
06J5A2
GDOO
414
5-7
A-G
*w
Gdcheb
Na
tJti Gttdwb k m EL %5tn
On R.B & Km Ion $
10 SAKOGL’DA
12
Gimbclk
W.IJ3
GambclLa
J»M0
0S14D3
4.600
1.0! B
6-J5
Rush
■
550
Satn Gull
Saka Gudn
H* ±"t> Power
(MlUcKCRckAlEl 5HJ» EN'Sd
IwdjcPS.
Canal uo Kilch ClKk
II BEKO MEM
12
Godcrc
21. ns
Mcu
2 117
OTJ5D3
6.DDCJ
344
1 -1.3.
1.5-2
A-G
1 IHJ
Hdo & Mem
So
Un   Ekli   k   .it   El   Llllm OiMrnK it El 1.103m
4 Km on LB -N Bou mci
4-4 Km on RB cJ Muiu mci
11 KXLU
II
S-lwvi Gimim*
w
6tr*
(xiXi
Ji boa
D6J5HJ 06) MH
5«ai
4.994
J.fl-7
A-G
i.osa
Kilo
No
On Kiln k »< El 1 CWm. q< nil or fame mcr ii EJ 1 o&hn
15 Mi loaf <Ni LBw
2<1 Kji* kaqf LB mil 1
1 HARD
Cl
L’rJmtK^
30.113
Gambdk
17.1*4
D1J4D4
Z.IHJO
2.DOO
2-3
tuiii
4
500
Burp
hum pi ng from          R m both banki   AH   brnnkc   5   <*   TaMS 0AM. bath U 5 oT C■         1* 0 «
Pmkuit pipe line aa bath banir nr 1 JKrn lOBf LB Canal Lc Bonjp p|m crofiil jj Id InifilE HJJ
■
4 affjam
4
Dale Wabera
41,604
Kake
2 461
IJ1J5A3
1.000
I.U»
10.0
—
A-G
1.130
BUttr * Ke*j
Birt»r U/S
H*-dJO Feuer
Oa  Bijtar  EL  Small  pumpinj rintkiRi below El. L200m
■
Socral  pitHum  ptpci  liuni  over  <w l±fi£ sfjCs
1* GOTFRE
u
Godcre
JH RJ9
Men
2.177
0TUCI
1 100
3, JOO
1.3-2
AG
750
Gate-rt
Na
. ...
UnGwkre R MEI BDO^Sflm
KLBKmaii L B
6 GtfMFRO
<
Meta
WJTO
Melo
num
013 5C? mjsa
1
4.WW
4.467
1 -2
A-G
JjMMl
Gumcto
Cj-jiwc ;
Oft El 1.607m  ue from lhe dim at H k | oKth
LH   i   cioisinif   id    UN   ink.   20K.ni long
’ AKOBQ1
11
Golm
1.195
GcsIij
110
□S33C2 Jtal5D[
S.Wt
4.521
*0
AG
no
Akrtll
-
Un Ndh H. M F t 412m
On  L4l  7  KM  Long  *  Na  tapo  On RS 1 JKm
■ AKOBDU
It 1
Giihi iJidJ
I2.58R
(Art frill
-**
DfilSCI
■3fi35A3
IILIMft
28.521
2.3-J
AG
450
Kila Dim
Hi dn- PfMtr
Cm  Kih  R  iDluu"!,  plcvalion  to  be fclcj-mucd
(In RB HU-100 Km loiif (nmy Itt rediiLod U ulitobk pumping Dr &im me it found i
licit H-1 (1 of
------------ ■
2§UPPER BASIN POTENTIAL IRRIGATION SITES CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT
AREAIh
1 KOJI
r-
5 vnijnf AcccuUF
Ni?nr
P-squired AtttM Ruad Leii|t1S l2| ijhvl H> Km from Gullflsi - Go Road Sheri Nt> rilUBI
hppiiLwon (2|
Unpopulated
Neared Population Tnuer ill
Ue». Gwliffli - 51) DO Kill Eid Marab Himld - ID 00 K m Aoutli
REMARKS (ll
BarrtiL soffit busL lira 41 El                 u hu Ear aum from uxjnz Alt ntci ll El l*n I9Q ma? be bdier for dn trtj&ti purpHci
2 t-AFOKOTlJ
Muk
Chef -WKjh from Kun Shctl M CHPJB!
Unpopulated
Kun - MF Cm Km tad
Rarmi wok t*uh itQiitH iwn znmeMnet carui
J FAM                   *
None
Ottl HF Km froai Eurc-Now-Gecha P4 plus new hud*; on Hara
R
ClzipGpviHkd
Bon 20.1X1 Km North
HothCk ham>15 10 OG Km SE barren, *unc<rilcd tn forwl pidhnbh rw more than l(M.00 hiuf land rt Wimble far imp ben due to itcrp i>-pc.
i ALWERO
Ntme
1 h cr M Km East from AMw
Fea b Limit Li
Abeba W 00 Km Wcu 4 Aiea
Fcnsled area. iDcm kiniirli bcokefl fcopoglapln Milder topography ItKAifd D.'S tT Lite Mie and Lhe Uta K ktimed. Lb'S erf Dumbuu Dam
5. GVY
Num
O%=r l«J Km
1. npqjsilatEd
Too I-» from An? PLatz
Atu Jiuccted tn GuLim on ndfci al El -In.'ni kurrounded by Idmlrd uu.. does, tul ip^-
Mibit
* ACHANI
Sw
Sera 15 Km i™ Tcpi - Mrti told
5pai«
| epi. Mell
Area  propcsed  b?  ARD('D-G«men  u«  LB  la  pirth  farcUed  and  It  tew  tlecp  FLhiter  illcnMlitt  .•«  RH il enurth fortiicd
7. AWAVA
None
O>if W Km from Gun Ferta Shen No to55 A1
Unpopulated
Gun Farda - leal Hjmlrti
Area is mewh fomicd. broken. •» «e%i edje or Lopa nvull p*lcba U/S of Aral Hamkl that be
irrt gable
B GURACHA
N&tt
(hei  Wkm  South,  from  Gura  Frrdi  iNeni  Dima  Refuge# C*np.l
Lapufnilukd
[ iura Feriki
SrrjJL palch crfSaitl land vuilUuJidcd by Garul al cEnflucncc at G-uracba R A. Akobu H
5 BEHEKA
N'tint
About  12  km  NW of Ucbcki -  Mixai Tefcn V4 and Budge Cioulng
Lapcpulmwi
Mirny hanim outside Hctxha ccJIec plaJilJdjL*
Fotta area, hugh dope n.muiub4c for imgaijuo 1mi nrtih of HcBcli ctrflcc ptutfjtojii
10. SAKO GUDA
Poor
Near Gambdla-Dcmb. Dote Earth Rud and need ■ Km Rm<1
AdfMtiti io
Gambella
liajiibdla
LocmwI cn RB cl llaro an the KBeh Cnric juw earn of Gjjnhcila however mosty lacks xxcu
11 BEKO MEM
None
South oCTcpi  -  Shaiiunda Roud Rxqi_in. Approx 15K» Road Cofistnictioa.
Sparse
Hwh, < hJ* md Many Hirnfcn
Located  Ob  LB  of  Beko  R  bekm  El  l.lBUni  M  Komi  loral  and  on  Ihr  Rhiof  Mem  R  beta*  El  1.100 m U Clhdb Forest area Iwailod m ltk resejxgir of Beko jxi^fi liai uk
11 KILU
None
^bowl  11  Km  SW  cTJcmu.  Rajuirei  Apprrw  ID  Km  rkad CoaHnkuUiNi
1' npop til lied
Jemu plus So er al Kiuiltts W dun 10.00 Km [IMikc
Foiru ’ 00 km north of Luebu MooMim Area could mm be supjil ini b« kLnhu pcreer ihm.
IJ BARO
Y«
ll H Mli}|.
None,  on  RH  KB  «tmld  requair  20  Kin  road  limn  Uambcllaw bridge Kross Buro from Bwiga
Sjmjk
Beep, Gunbdla Bonga Rdugw
Ciiitp
Akog Ganrtxita ■ Cure i<x>d or. and njdil banfa of Rato Valley Area n (Mid be Itxakd by
Gliiabellq Dua
14. BIRBIR
None
About Jfflr J5 Km from Gimhl ■ Deirtbht&Kj Raid or from Lafo- Dipo rood
1 npcpulaitd
€ iLunaku over ?0 DO Km Narllt
Sirrp bldkcli dcliMDled. huh? nnJ iCAky area, niM suitable lot IrnpliMl cu'tpe fcr idukll icgEtrtnJ areas on rtici Icmm. w fazh could be trngatod bm pumping Irani Uirbir Cohllict w ith downare-im pom rr prejevi
15 GUDERE
—
About IS 40 Km front GeNvi - Tepl Raid Io the SE
Very Sparse
Ttp.  UJ  UJ  ■  50.00  Km  SE  ud Local Hi mk ii
Forru »mc               paulic*
14 GUMERO
None
AEkmI 20 Kia from Gore on GiUnfeeld-GMe Remit [3 F Nc» Jaad IG SUfudu irnpcrnemeiM from flaruWto Mem is icqtnretf
Man? local hamlets
Metu
The tallcy h Iwmcd nftd t*un<h HiLli nre grmat Jcruch papuloled Projeti n tociled al Gumer}-
2 Hs lira Po^er Re witter TV Vaduaien include feral                                M Gumero Dam uic nnd ixiitfed iti i piaMMaoa
IT AKODOI
Now
Cher 10 Km to Maji - Scmu Rwd
Unpopulated, soak
luuthlcil | J Km Lail
Mtx*« Tefen. o*ct  o£<XF Km NE and Hunkit 11 Km Ejw
Land is L»«d on krfh IwnM <i( Akebo Rjttr and it all lorcucd
11 AKO0OII
N»e
th e r km kt Tuma - Mixta Tefcn Read from renter of area
UhpopuLsicd
Mu» Tdtfi.            ?u CRj km
Bmhry mci Rnct n mxh k^ci *<Mld require puinpmg, majoi cwr.c?>ax. lum
NHIK-S l Source ARDCO-GFOSFRV i i-MSn
2 Appiulvd TAMS-ULG I M9k|
J Sure load. it found about 20.00 km. neat lite head^aitr.Thc valley Is loreMcd and Jvrtnpy. Hills are graisv, drnseh populated Projcti II located at Gurr^tt - 1 lEdw PfnCT Petenair The IvaitantCFi include forwL iwipt M rJ ■ al1nr
Duu uic and in .hied lea
r^Mt h-1 (1 of i)4^HMUMKOBO BASIN INTEGRA MAS1EM M-AN FltjJLCT
VITER basin
f RE LlMlN ARY ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SITES111Table 2 Upper Busin Potential Irrigation Sites Land Resources Assessments (I)
1
Project
Irrigation Suitability
Lund Capacity
Sods Types
Farming Types
Non Rice
Rice
Koji
Suitable
j Unsuitable
Annual. Non Agricultural
5
Wooded, open
Lafo Kolu
Marginal (topo)
Unsuitable
Annual, Non Agricultural
5.9
Wooded, open
Fani
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Perennial crops, over grazing
2
Forest, very disturbed
Al were
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Annual non agricultural
4
Forest, disturbed
Guv
Marginal
Unsuitable
Annual non agricultural
7
Wooded, dense
Achani
Marginally unsuitable
Unsuitable
Annual
7
Wooded, dense
Awaya
1"
Marginally unsuitable
Unsuitable
Annual
8,2
Wooded, dense
Guracha
Bebeka
“
■----- ™"   ■ _ —  ” Marginally unsuitable
Marginally unsuitable
“u
Unsuitable
Annual
47
Wooded, open
Unsuitable
Annual
7
Perennial crops (cofleel
Sako Goda
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Non Agricultural
1,3,9
Wooded open
Beko & Merti
Partly unsuitable
Unsuitable
Annual. Non .Agricultural
6 JO
Perennial! co ITee)
Kilu
Marginal (topo)
Unsuitable
Annual
7
Wooded, open
Baro
Partly suitable
Part suitable
Annual
II
Wooded, open
Birbir
Marginal (topo)
Unsuitable
Annual
6
Wooded, open
God ere
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Annual
4
Forest, very disturbed
Gumero
Marginal (topo)
Unsuitable
Annual
9
Cultivated >60%
Akobo 1
Marginal (topo)
Unsuitable
Annual, non Agricultural
8
Wooded, open
Akobo 2
Marginal (topo)
Unsuitable
Annual, non Agricultural
5.7
Wooded, open
Note: (1) See respective annexes, maps in Vol. 4.Table 3 Upper Basin Potential Irrigation Projects Preliminary Cost Estimat
Candid ate
Project
v
Diversion Storage
Dam
Pumping
1 Conveyance
i
T------ ,
| Irrigation
1--------------------------
Deforest
Access
Total (1)
Koji
Lafo Koto
Hani
Alwcro
Gu\
Achani
Awaya
(juratha
Bebeka Sako Guda (2) Beko/Meni
Kilu
Haro (4)(5) Birbir (4)(7) Godere
,
0.2
02
02
15
05
0.3
02
02
05
() 5
03
05
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
0.4
3.0
1.5 _
20
06
02
07
003
05
04
02
0.5
02
5.64
2.44
5 81
7.66
7 66 ___ 3.30____
3 70
05
02
0.3
0 02 _
0.3
06
0.1
06 _____
02
02
1.5
12
04_____
18
30
0.5
2.0
Nel    Area    1
(HaH6)
245
0.5
. 40
12
11
1.0
04
0
r6
20
12 5
1.4
2.0
]0
03
0.5
'2 11
5.54
25 48
6.86
41 84
20.86
8.31
48 05
69 43
42 50
_17
250___  ___ 200
100
260
110
I2O_
^360
2500______ 460
Cost Per Hectare
USS
22.630
143.600
23 200
JO, 3J 0w0    __ 76.600
12.700
33.600
17.600
15,400
10.200
14.900
Cost
Ranking
12
18
13
16
17
c
15
1(1
90
12 6
6.8
0
0.5
17.0
10.0
7.2
7.0
2 5
112
90
20
0.6
0.0
1.0
4200     ___ 1700
10,000
7 ____
2
6
1
12.300
3
00
1.0
08
0
0
1.5
60
12
500
2800
16,600
17,200
Gumero
Akobo 1
200
15
0
19 0
14 0
30
06
[3800
18,300
8
9
11
3400
12,500
Akobo 11(3)
2.0
0
72.0
24.0
80
15 0
1.5
40
154 44
6000
25,700
4
14
L
------------- —1
(0 Project features plus 20% physical contingencies plus 10% engineering and administration
(2) Depends on construction of Sako Guda Hydropower Project
(3)  Depends on construction of Kasim Hydropower Project
(4)  including pumping station penstock and power
(5)  Area located in the Lower Basin
(6) Areas considering water resources
mk. wphK.,1,lu„„bkvallc> ttllOTcsBaro-Akobo River Basin
Integrated Development
Master Plan Project
FIGURE H-3
POTENTIAL
IRRIGATION
PROJECTS
Dam (exisUnQ)
i i Dam (potential)
#    Pumping slallon
-'*•*’* Canal
✓Sx-Tunnel
Q Siphon
Lower hmrl of study area
* * - - Project under construct ion
Reservoir
River
Road
*
Town
□ikes not shown
□umbong
• '
■ 7^
TAMS  Consultants  Inc  (U.S  A,)  and
ULG Gonsuttants LW (U.K.)
For   the   Unistry   of   Waler   Resources
of the Government of Ethiopia
Produced on July 24, 1996
Sources.            TAMS- U LG Sefchozpromexport GIS Filename potirraprWATER RESOURCES
4. LOWER BASIN PROJECTS
4.1 Inventory of Projects
annex ih irrigation projlck
In contrast with the Upper Basin, the Lower Basin, specifically the Gambela plain area mostly above the seasonally flooded areas, between elevations 425 and 550 metres above sea level offer many  promising possibilities  for the development of irrigation. This  was  previously recognised in the studies made by TAMS and EUROCONSULT and more recently in the Russian Master Plan As a result of the latter, the Ethiopian Government decided to undertake the development of the 10.400 hectare Alwero project that includes the Abobo dam, which construction is nearly completed This project is conveniently located in the centre of gravity of the extensive irrigable areas
Based on available data, 14 basic irrigation systems and 8 vanants were identified, laid out. sized and costed The list of these potential projects is given in Table 4 The location of the 14 irrigated areas is shown on Figure 3
The irrigation systems include
1)
dams for storing and regulating the available flows and for diverting and making
possible to lake water from these reservoirs at desirable elevations for command of the
areas to be irrigated,
2)
pumping stations either as an alternative to diversion intake structures at the
regulating dams or to gain command of higher areas;
3)
Conveyance systems including canals, tunnels, siphons, chutes and other structures,
4)
irrigation systems including land development, water distribution systems, roads,
drainage, flood protection dikes and drainage pumping
Because of the hydrological regimen and the environmental requirements to maintain minimum flows in the rivers, storage and regulation dams were favoured over run-of-river diversion dams
For the same reason, schemes which use river pumps need the existence of adequate flo* regulation to service the pumped areas as well as the river environmental requirements estimated at 8% of the average flow
The area investigated composes a gross surface area of about 63] 000 hectares Based on water and land resources, the net area that can ultimately be developed is about 480 000 hectares
rhe use of groundwater for ungation was examined and rejected due to the low yield of the aquifers and resulting high cost as compared to surface water based irrigation *
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan
1H-9WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX IH IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table 4              Lower Basin Irrigation Systems Investigated
Gross Area, ha
------------------- .
Svstem/Project Description
BARO RIVER
-------------------------
-1
1
Baro River Right Bank Itanc Dam, Gravity Conveyance _
2
Baro River, Right Bank, Bang, River Pumping, Gravity Conveyance
66 581
41.267
------- -------
2A
Sv^em 2 plus relifi station, plus additional canal
57,495
3
Baro River Riehl Bank, Gambela Dam. Gravity Conveyance
17.338
3A
System 3 nius low lift station plus additional canal
41,016
in
System 3A plus high lift stations, plus additional canals
67,740
4
System 3 with Gambela River Pumping Station in lieu of dam
17,338
4A
System 3 A with Gambela River pumping station m lieu of
dam
41,016
|4B           “1
System 3B with Gambela River pumping station in lieu of
dam
67,740
rr
h■
Baro River. Left Bank bane Dam, Gravity conveyance
61,900
Baro River Left Bank, Itang River Pumping Sta Canal
15,832
7
Baro River, Left Bank. Gambela Dam, Gravity conveyance
57,018
I8
Baro  River,  Left  Bank  River  Pumping  Station  in  lieu  of  dani canal convevance
57,018
Sub Total, Biro River
326.566
ALWERO RIVER
Alwero Project Abobo dam under construction, gravity
13,600
ho
Alwero RjverRB Chiru Dam, Gravity conveyance
17,054
10A
Alwero River, right bank  Dumbong Dam, Gravity 
Conveyance
23,192
10B
Alwero River, right bank Chiru and Dumbong Dams, gravity
34,665
Sub Total. Alwero River
48,265
GILO RIVER
11
Gilo River, Right Bank, Gilo 1 Dam. Gravity
81,346
12
Gilo River, Left Bank, Gilo 1 Dam, Gravity
79,652
12.A
Gilo River, Left Bank River Pumping canal
65.538
13
Gilo River, Left Bank Gilo 2 Dam,. Gravity
33,855
14
Gilo River, Right Bank, Gilo 2 Dam, Gravity
61.325
Sub Total. Gilo River
256,178
Approximate Total Gross Area (ha)
631,009
The net irrigable areas for the most part were estimated on the basis of the gross areas, 10% was  deducted and assumed to be non irrigable due to being occupied by  streams, roads, towns, rocky' areas, and further reducing the resulting area by  15% to account for irrigation and other infrastructure in the irrigated areas
TAMS ULC BartnAkobo Integrated Develop men I Master Plan
1H -10WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX lfl IRRK A
' TI()\ PROje^
4.2 Agriculture and Cropping Patterns
For the purpose of master planning and ranking of potential projects  in the lower baS^ t
typical diversified crop rotation was used Crops included are the following -
[■
% Area 
‘1
Crop
Drv Season                                    Wet Season
Cotton
25
15
Maize
40
,5
--         —.
Sorghum
19
10
Soya Bean
io     io
Vegetables
1
1
Green Manure (fodder)
5
|
1 ■ *" ■ - Groundnuts
15
1 Sub-Total %                                                  100                                                66
Total cropping intensity
166%
1
Other crops considered were sugar cane and rice Sugar cane is a permanent crop Two rice crops are possible Crop intensities would vary depending upon the areas planted in each crop A more detailed discussion of irrigated agriculture is given in .Annex 21.
4.3       Irrigation Water Requirements
The net irrigation demand was estimated on the basis of the monthly field water requirements based on the crops under consideration, minus the 80% reliability monthly (effective) rainfall at Gambela based on analysis of about 80 years of monthly records at Gambela station since 190 The gross irrigation requirements were estimated by dividing the net requirements by the assumed irrigation efficiency. For the purpose of this  Master Plan overall irrigation efficiency including on-farm. conveyance and distribution losses was taken al 50%.
The overall gross imgation requirement for the typical diversified rotation is 13 106 n? per hectye per year and the peak monthly flow per hectare is 1 22 litres per second’ However, for planning pulses the peak was taken at I 3 Vs/ha Thus the irrigation systems were sized on the ba»s ofthis peak flow rate per hectare and the net areas obtained as /escribcd above.
The irrigation water requirement calculations are presented on Table 5 The resulting monthly imgatmn water requirements per 10,000 ha of net irrigated area for the tvp.cal diversified rotation are presentee in (he following tabulation
J
Irrigation Waler Requirements for 10,000 ha in m /s
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 9.4 4.6 1.2 0 0 76 9 ] 0 0 0 5.8 12 2
TAMS ULG Bare-Akobo Integrated ER veto promt Muter Plan
JR - ElWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
4,4 
Reservoir Operation Studies
For   the
purpose   of   sizing   the   various
potential
projects,
a   reservoir
operation   s
tudy   was 
earned
out  to  determine  the  maximum
areas  that
could  be
irrigated  fro
m  individual
potential
storage
dams  This  included  Itang  and  G
ambela  on
the  Baro
River  Basin,
(.'him  and
Dumbong
in  the  Alwero  River  Basin  and  the  Gilo  1  and  Gilo  2  sites  in  the  Gilo  River  Basin  According to this study, the maximum net irrigable lands, not including return flow, are as follows
Dam______________
Itang
Gambela
Chiru
Dumbong Gilo  1  (Irrigation) Gilo 1 (multipurpose) Gilo 2
Net Area (I) (ha)
95,000
110,000
12.000
15,000
160.000
52.400
100,000
(1) Considering environmental releases at 8% of mean flow
Likewise,  a  low’  dam  about  50  m  high  was  considered  at  Gambela  Its  potential  for  irrigation may be increased by increasing the height of the dam
The   above   regulation   studies   were   based   on   the   anticipated   monthly   outflows   from   the assessments of irrigation water requirements
Finally, a multiple reservoir systems  analysis  was  earned out considering the various  potential storage dams  in each of the major rivers, in order to find the total maximum areas  that could be irrigated under the typical diversified rotation. As  a result, the maximum irrigable areas, considenng the environmental releases  and excluding return flow were found to be as follows -
River
Maximum Net irrigable Areas (ha)
Baro
Alwero
Gilo
Total (ha)
250,000
34,000
196.000
480,000
These  areas  would  be  reduced  if  high  water  consumption  crops  such  as  rice,  sugar  cane, bananas or citrus were introduced in the study area
The reservoir operation studies are presented in .Annex IE
TAMS ULG Baro-Akabo Integrated Development Marler FlanJan
Rnmfa!L(l}rnnVmontbi_ I 0 Field Walcr Requirements -mm
^FISEASe.N_
c Otton 25% Maize 40%_ Sorghum 19% Soy Bean 10% VegctabksJ%_ Green Manure 5% Sub Total 100% PRY SEASON
Table 5
March
Irrigation Water Requirements -Typical Cropping Patter
June
42.5
too
49 4
Cotton 15% Maize 15%_ Sorghum
57 8
41.3
Annual
932
212.5 320.0___ 98        8
65.0
3.3
31.5
731.1 140 3 132 I
10%
Groundnuts J5%_ Vegctabks_ 1%
Soya Bean 1()%
Sub Total 66%
Tolal
Crop Intensity 166%_ Field water Requirements 
29 7 462
77
24 8
07
16.5
125 6
17.6 57.2
23 1 c:85".9
1.2
3.6
0
5.5
32 3
16.5
90.3
22 0         71 5          | 163.0 | 490 6
- mm
J I2L6J55 7                  T23 7
NcUnigationRcqiyrcmCTts (2)
-mm
-n?/ha
_______ _ __ _________ . -___ , 557 Gross Irrigation Requirements (3£
1256
1256
55 1
15.7
216.0      267.0 98 0       £22 0
_32 5          34 3 00
90 3
75.3
980
1960
1220
_.___       _ i _         ._         _ (1) Effective rainfall. 80% reliability, based on approximately 80
(2)   Field Water requirements minus effective rainfall
-VsTha
^—4-
_________        0 76    ^J£9l years of records at Gatnbcta.
___0
0
I .0 ...
0
0
0
753
1506
0.58
163 0 163.0
1630
3260
1.22
1221.7
655.3
6553
13106
(3) For 50% irrigation efficiency, including licld, distribution and conveyance losses and waste.
»:1WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
4.5 
Layouts
 and Costs
The
layout
of
the  systems  was  based
on
the
lie
of
the
land,
available  water,
land
reso
urces 
infor
mation,  and  approximate
con
veya
nce
ca
paciti
es  det
ermined  on  the
basis 
of the net areas and the peak design flow rate of 13 Ls/ha
The hydraulic design of canals was based on the peak flow rates, conveyance capacities and maximum velocities  ranging from 0 9 1/s  to I 1 l/s  for the typical canal sections shown on Annex  1-G, Water Resources  Cost Estimating The same information and criteria was also used for estimating project costs
The   channel   gradients   used   were   1/10,000   for   the   larger   flows,   2/10,000   for   the intermediate flows and 5/10,000 for the smaller flows.
The irrigation intakes at the dams were located high enough to assure command of the land and adequate flow' regulation at the reservoir
The choice between Lmed/urdined canals  was  made on the basis  of available geotechnical information in the Russian study, observations  during field reconnaissance and on a geological assessment
For tunnels, it was assumed they would be fully lined, mostly supported by shotcrete,
wire mesh and rock bolts along 90% of the tunnel length and use of steel supports in
10% of the length, mainly in the vicinity of the portal areas The tunnels were sized for
a partially foil (80%) hydraulic section, the peak flows and a 3m/s flow velocity The
tunnels were assumed to be horseshoe shaped
The pumping stations were sized on the basis of the peak design flow, estimated dynamic head including losses in the steel penstocks (pressure pipes) and surcharge.
The penstocks were sized for a 3 m/s flow velocity The surcharge was assumed to be
equal to 10-15% of the velocity head.
The siphon crossings were sized on the basis of the peak design flow and a lm/s flow velocity.
The main technical characteristics  of the projects  studied are summarised in Table 6 whereas  their cost estimates, including 20% physical contingencies  and 10% for engineering and administration costs are summarised in Table 7 Costs are given in US Dollars  (January  1996) These costs  include both local and foreign currency requirements
he summary of the gross and net irngable areas in hectares, of the cost estimates in LS  Dollars  and  the  resulting  project  Tanking  based  on  unit  cost  in  US  Dollars  per  net hectare are given in Table S. The overall layout is presented on Figure 3
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan
in 14Inigatian Projects Main Technical CharacIcffrsllcB (Shr*rf 1 of 2)
Na
Syslern/F-ojar’ D«cnp'< '
Rw Pumr 5u><jm.
Ralil! Stenani
Flo*'
mJj
<v
m
r<
! Prn»1o«*
tJo
Fonato-.k
LXan-
<T>
PaMloch
_eisgth
HIT
r
Trjmsn-itsuo'i Line
TraM/nifcSujr line
MW
hV
Lengtf
km
Adcksi
ftaad
km
Na
------ - --------—
.
P
MW
P'lni.totfk
angah
km
KV
fcm
Access. | Ftaad 1
Km
Aoc •«
ha
□am ,
tan
1
BiroR.0 . Ilana Earn. Grav»i>
-
-
-
-
1
30 ,
__
z*
Zj
^Pa-o RB ft*- i R'vai 1 ,*rpiny
-
-
-
-
-
•'--------
1-
-
■yaia-i'*. 2 jiluii Hal t Station
5??
51
«•
3
3
35
69
25
3
1
1 9
Lj
345
20
0
3
llam R B Gam sal,* Dam Grtrlv
---- T—
.
-
-_
-
-
:—
a
1A
.yitem 3’Lo*
*
-
-
-
1
Ufi
&26
SB
___ ,
40
D
□
JB
4
Syvtotrn 3A+ H ■J* : 1 Pump hq
.
*
*
-
3
40 7
<9
43
3
a
Dxro R.& Rvc-’- 'Pumpip.D Stamen
172
57
14 7
1
3
05
69
15
5
*
■
*
AA
4B
S-jrt’x-i <* Inw'.tl purring
57
34 4
2
3
1
B9
15
S
11
14 A
2x25
£9
«
a
.-■/stkj*p 4A» "wflh Irt iU(ior
bdfl
ST
57 1
3
"
_
L.
15
69
1S
5
3
407
17
59
43
j
F
Bajo LB. hang Dan
-
-
1'
-
-
c
6
7
1
Bare LB. --ar.g
ui
40
95
1
, ________ 24
4
69
20
X
-
X
Ba-ns LB GambeUiDan Gri.’.
-
-
-
:
-
-
a
RarO LB. Rirtr Piling
547
es
55 3
24
12
6»
3
1
-
1
S
Alwara Ahot^Dam
-
-
B’2
ID
AhMirU OlllU Olff
*
■
-
175
‘CA
Afwaic*. Durriofit 3am
— 7—
-
-
-
20
1DB
JUw>-d Chin- ♦ Duriibor-O Darif
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
37 5
71
Ota, RB Oilo 1 Dam
-
*
-
•
-
-
61
12
Gila LB. Gita 1 Dam Gravity
-
-•
-
-
-
-
-
-
64
1?A
. Ic L 0 RrvHf PlHOpIflQ
*4 2
too
97»
1
26
4
69
100
2
-
S3
GAo L D Gilo 2 Dam CAavjy
'' 1
-
-
.
-
-
1*
M
Cui: s-ifl Gilo2 (Jam Q'nviyf
—i
-
-
-
1'.
1 Jan dwcnp^rorrs anti main e'i*r*d<iH»1iL* ara c\»t r Appa^ii'a J’ Exating um-3 oily *Of •x- “ jaa^tS >“ p
r
2 Traftirni«-<« aMurf^M pcwe'ivTi'Iablt at Gani'ic-l a i • longtli* a'* Irnm bis Igwr 4 I ha cat als i*i tytlarn 1? l-ndiarj* a ZAflr'rn 5-5 3 mX's ch jle slryc"jr#ITable H-5
Irrigation Projects Main Technical Churactehsbcs I Sheet 1 of 2)
Canvw ’-jance Wai k*
No
brtWm-'PTjjBc' De»cnp^Qn
Net Area
<*
G*n-ads
7 uroall
phons
Le'wjth
km
Flown.
mJ/i
Na
I
Lex'l'
km
Flown, |
1
0*71
m
No
1 engTi
MT
naw
■Fl Ari
DiilV
m
I
E*-5-H b lar-o
50 WO
56
65 la 7
L
-
-
2
B**o A fi iar-g, Rv^r P^r-p-ng
31 569
44
4i lo 13
•
-
2*
SytHkH. 2 jfctii RiJdtStahor
43.963
W
5Tto4 f
■I
*
*
1
Bjmo- A B Gambella LJuni Gj
13 264
55
17to45
■.
•
1*
Systa-i 3*Lo» !*H
31 37*
100
4]xj1 6
-
1
-
30
Sy**n 3A* N’Qh llh lumping
51 U1
155
671:1 6
-
-
a
Hirfl, R.B (-kve' Pi|.‘npirg 5 La bon
13
4j
17D4 5
-
-
-
4A
SyM*”’ 4* toe «* pump.nj
3».3?6
65
41tol 6
-
-
46
5y*1fc ’• «* h'lj^ hnUMjcm
51 021
143
STtol Q
-
...
5
Gai □ Lfl lanfl D«n Grav-iy
47 400
ft
62to16
‘—
-
,
fl l
Ears L B &ng 1 -v“ipir>q
12 100
<«
-
J
Baro.L B Ganntwfc* Gan. Gr«.-^
43 619
64 7
57ta7
2
25
54to10
5'.ta2 6
a.
fc
6
B-atu L B Haw Pvir^ng
43619
«
5?to7
2J
25
54»ia
5
,
9
Ahvero AZKibci t?*m 2
1C4C0
21
135VS
-
-
"
■
10
Akwo CM j D*7’
12 W0
3t
15 6401 3
,
•
-
.
r-
10*
AN^n Durr-Mng U*t,
15000
37
’5$to55
.
2
3
176 107
'fl 763 7
iob
AhMHO ChH-j * OuTiXM'f darns
26 550
"ST
34 fe>l 5
1
15
11 4
21
2
3
325-25 7 6.465 7
11
Giia A.0 dip ' Dct
52.230
MJ
6lta3
7
’22
Bl lol 3
6*ta20
1
1
302
52
1?
G-to LB. Gilo 1 i&*rn rawly
60 934
211 B
79to3.5
r*
13?
^9to6
5 3to2B
2
2 75
31 6
53
12*
Gkto LflRwiPwig
50167
77
6*ta?
35
i33»32
4
fl
65^25
SStofift
U
&to LB. Gilo2D*.-» Gn-awiy
25 W0
Lk
34m: «
1
_
1 r~
-r—• - --------
14
G*kj Rfi GlHJZCkm Q/*r*ily
46WC
41
«1Io3
■
-
t±z
1 darn diWrO-iCrtiailt tld mart! ■ t-nrazigriS1IC* ai« giv»i n Aft>a*c3*
2 Lffli-iihj on^ tar cgmpar>w*i
3 TransnMi**ofl muirm pcw«' *v*ii*b>« *r Gambell* * ■ lenpihs aiv hom r.4 twm
4   1 Nf iLiria t                        12 irvcludw • ?53>n 65 J el i chyle drudure.TABLE H-7
’Irrijiiion Projects -€«l Snatiury
Million US Dollars}
| fyatem/Projcci
. Prclinunarv
1
2
2A
3
JA
3B
4
4A
4B
5
6
7
1
9
10
I0A
JOB
11
12
12A
13
14
41.4
JI 4
57.2
206
314
70 4
IS 1
40 2
81.6
44 5
123
46 4
60
Sb
13 2
124
28.6
90.9
100
2
329
42 7
DumfiXl)
40 7
0
0
67)
67 3
67 3
0
0
0
40.7
a
67 3
0
1) 5(6
493
14
66 5
84 9
849
0
56 I
56 I
Access Road Io Oun (ij
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4
0
a
0
0.R6)
15
0.8
13
6
6
0
1
1
Rjvn Pumping Simon 12)
0
119
161
0
□
0
42 3
97
160
0
27
0
11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
239
0
0
Main Canal ConveyuKc I J)
soa
25 7
26 6
222
J6 3
41 6
10 2
113
20 6
547
9.7
76.7
52
45
8 7
17 7
37 2
216
21)
942
44 I
41 5
Rdift Pumping Simons H)
0
0
12 6
0
24 6
155
0
286
155
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ConvomcCT from Rein Pumping Station [4}
0
0
126
0
10 1
20 1
0
10 1
20 I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Imgaliirtt System 15)
2d)
112
161
44 1
114
188
44 1
114
IBS
195
45.7
165
165
39 3
214
50.6
15 6
i 299
293
241
111
186
Suh Total
31*
494
4JB
151
295
543
116
30®
626
337
946
356
460
66 2
114
95 5
2202
697
766
661
252
127
Physical Conlingenoca ’20%
63 5
58 9
17?
31 6
519
109
23 2
61 6
125
67 3
111
71 2
92
13.2
229
i 19 1
44
1J9
153
132
<04
65.5
Engijwcting A Admm»traliofl -10%
3B. 1
J5 3
52 6
19
354
65 2
139
37
75 I
40.4
11 4
42.7
552
79
. 13 7
115
264
13 6
92
79 1
302
392
Tolal
419
389
m
209
389
717
153
407
826
444
125
1 470
608
87 4
151
126
291 1
920
1013
| 872
333
432
1 Includes the dam itself, the rvrx divers era wuriii (coflenhou, diversion lunnd, canal 1. the ipillway, the fowievd wild works and the inipiKra mtakc wockf
2  [nduda the pumping (tat ion itself, the wed penstock (s). ibe access road to lhe slaiicra, the power trmimhuon Hue. the presmi sitae of power and the present taiuc of rephang equipment
j Includes the main canal. mnnd\ wphwtj and other wuctura along the main conveyance
4  LncJudttlheBWonand itnacttMes
5  Includes iaod deanng land levelling, irriguion system, surface drainage, flood protection dikes and drainage pumpiftg szalioru Irrigation and surface drainage include both oikfarm and off-farm tyilcnu
b Easting dun and road. Included for compuiinn purpose onlyWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table 8            Imgaiion Project! Cost Ranking
System
1
Description
Gross 
.Area Ha
Nel Area
Ha
Total
Cost
USSxlO'
Unit
Cost
USSftia
Cost
Ranking
1
Baro FIB Itang Dant gravm
66600
50900
419 1
8235
1(1)(2)
I2
Baro, RB itxng. Pumping
41267
31569
3886
12309
10
Ha
Svstcm 2 + Re lift Station
57495
43983
578.5
13153
15
3
Baro RB. Gambela Dam
17338
13264
208 98
15748
19
3A
Svstcrn 3+ Low lift
41016
31378
388 9
12393
11
3B
System 3 A-High lift
67740
51821
716.8
13833
16
———— 4A
4
Baro RB River Pumping
17338
13264
152 8
11520
9
Sv stem 4+Low Lift
41016
31378
40c 6
12958
14
4B
Svsicm 4 A-High Lift
67740
51821
8260
15939
20
5
Baro LB. Itang Dani Gravity
61900
47400
4442
9371
5
6
Baro, LB. Pumping
15832
12100
124.9
10324
6
7
Baro LB. GambelaDam
57018
43619
4697
10767
7
ia
Baro LB. River Pumping
57018
43619
6075
13927
17
9
AJwero, Abobo Dam
13600
10400
87.4
8405
2(1)
10
Alwero, Chiru Dam
17054
12000
151,0
12584
12
10A
Alwero, Dumbong Dam
23192
15000
126 1
8408
3(1)
I0B
Al were, Chiru * Dumbong
Dams
34665
26550
290 7
10947
8
11
GiJo RB. Gilo 1 Dam
81346
62230
9199
14782
18
12
Gilo LB. Gilo 1 Dam
79652
60934
1011.6
16600 I
21
12A
Gilo. LB. River Pimping
65538
50167
87L9
17370
22
13
Gilo, LB, Gilo 2 Dam
33855
25900
332 5
12839
13
H
Gilo RB Gilo 2 Dam
61325
46900
432 0
9212
4(1)
(1)       Proposed for Master Plan
(2) Proposed for Prefeasibility Study
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Marter Plan
IB - 15WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJtc^
4.6 Project Ranking
The ranking of the 14 potential irrigation areas  in the basis  of cost/ha is  given in Table 8 The unit cost figures  are comprehensive and include costs  of storage dams, pumping stations  main canals, land clearing, preparation and levelling, irrigation system and structures, drainage system and flood protection system The unit costs  thus  reflect fully  the physical characteristics  of the various  irrigation areas  The irrigation system itself was  designed to support a mix  of crops  that could typicaJlv  be developed in most parts  of the potential irrigation areas  At the Master Plan level of analysis  there are no grounds  for selecting different cropping mixes  on a geographic  basis  It is  possible of course to adopt various  irrigation strategies  such as  meeting local food needs, or aiming for high value cash crops. Broadly  speaking such strategies  can be applied in al! the potential irrigation areas
If follows  therefore that project ranking at the master plan level can be under taken using unit costs  as  the ranking criteria On this  basis  the following preferred projects can be identified
System  Description
Net Area
(ha)
Unit Cost
US$/ha
Ranking
1
I               Baro RB. Itang Dam, gravity 9              Alwero, Abobo Dam
10A         Alwero. Dumbong Dam, 14            Gilo RB, Gilo 2 Dam
50,900           1 8,235           yr—r 10,400             8,405              2
15,000             8.408
L_ -
46.900             9,212              4
J
The total net area of these projects  amounts  to a little over 123,000 ha which would require an implementation rate of over 4000 ha/year over a 30 year period Such a sustained rate of implementation is  in excess  of the maximum sustained that could be obtained in practice
4.7 Preliminary Economic Review
An
analysts of inigared agriculture is presented in Voltune tl Chapter 5.
T, Baro RB with
D “"
diversified crops aimed at the local market
rice
sugar with other diversified crops
Three types of legated
The diversified cropping partem is given in Seaion 4 2 above The result follows -
s Is were as
TAMS LLG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Muter Plan
1H- 16WATER RESOURCES
Irrigation Project
Alwero-Abobo Dam Alwero-Dumbong Dam Baro RB-ltang Dam
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Agricultural Scenario Economic Rate of Return ______________________ (EIRR) (%)________________
Local food production 11.4
Rice Sugar
10 0
12 6
The EIRR for the AJwero-Abobo Project includes  the investment already  made in the dam If this  investment were assumed as  a bunk  cost, the EIRR of this  project would be considerably  greater, possibly  in the order of 25% This  confirms  that this  is  an economically  attractive project and implementation should be completed as  soon as possible
Likewise,   the   above  results  confirm  the  previously  found  relative   ranking  among  these three projects based on the investment requirements
TAMS I'l.G Bart>-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan
IB-17WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX !H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The irrigation study clearlv indicates that the potential for irrigation development lies in the Gambela Plain in the Lower Basin where the ultimate development potential is  in the order of 600.000 hectares gross area or 480,000 hectares net area
Fourteen basic systems have been laid out. sized and their costs have been estimated at the Master Plan level In addition, eight variants  were studied. As  shown in Table 8, the resulting unit costs  in USS per net hectare vary  from about USS 8.200 to about USS 17.400 with an average of about USS 12,800 per net hectare
Based on these unit costs, a ranking of possible projects has been established as shown on Table 8 This  ranking indicates  that the most promising projects  in terms  of cost
are
(!) The right bank  of the Baro River, including the Itang Dam and gravity  system with command of about 66,600 hectares (gross) and 50.900 hectares (net) at a cost of about USS 8.200 per hectare
(2)       The Alwero Project which has already been designed and for which Abobo dam
is presently under construction and expected to be completed shortly, with command of about 10,400 hectares (net), at a cost of approximately USS 8,400 per hectare
(3)        The Alwero Dumbong System, upstream of the Alwero Project (2), above, in the  Alwero  River  Basin,  including  the  Dumbong  Dam  and  a  gravity  system This  project  could  irrigate  a  further  15,000  hectare  net  area  in  the  Alwero Valley at a cost of approximately USS 8,400 per hectare,
(4)       The right bank of the Gilo River in the vicinity of Agenga, where a net area of about 47.000 hectares of land could be irrigated at a cost of about USS 9,200 per net hectare This project would involve the construction of the Gilo 2 Dam and a gravity conveyance
Based on the above, it is recommended that the Master Plan scenarios include the above projects as being the mosi favourable among those options identified Of these, the Alwero Project under construction would be the logical initial phase of irrieation development
Further, it is suggested that the Baro nght bank-ltang Dam project with a potential for about 50,900 hectare irrigation development be considered for prcfeasibilitv  level
studies 
r
The Project Profiles for projects described under (1), (3) and (4), above are attached to this .Annex
to addmon. the profiles of the otto dams considered are also pven in the same
TAMS VLG tae-AMo tofeirew totol ml Mener „„
1H-18water resources
ANNEX IR IRRIGATION PROJECTS
APPENDICES
PROJECT PROFILES
Appendix I Bare River, Right Bank, Itang Dam Gravity Irrigation Project System 1
Appendix 2 Alwero River Right Bank, Dumbong Dam, Gravity. Irrigation System 10a
Appendix 3 Gilo River, Right Bank. Gilo -2 Dam. Gravity, Irrigation Project
(System 14)
Appendix 4 Chiru Dam
Appendix 5 Gambela Dam
Appendix 6 Gilo-1 Dam
FIGURES
1 I Irrigation System 1 Baro River Right Bank. Itang Dam, Gravity Layout
1.2        Itang Reservoir Area-Capacity Curve
1.3        It ang D am Layout
2.1          Irrigation   System   10A   Alwero   River   Right   Bank,   Dumbo   ng   Dam,   Right   Bank Gravity-Layout
2.2        Dumbong Reservoir .Area-Capacity Curve
2 3       Dumbong Dam Layout
3 1 Irrigation System 14 Gilo River Right Bank Gilo 2 Dam. Gravity Layout
3 2       Gilo 2 Dam Layout
3 3       Gilo 2 Reservoir Area-Capacity Curve
4.1       Chiru Dam Layout
4.2        Chiru Reservoir Area-Capacity Curve
5 I        Gambela Reservoir .Area-Capacity Curve
5.2        Gambela Dam Layout
TABLES
1 1 Baro River, right Bank, kang Dam, Gravity Irrigation Project Characteristics
1.2        Baro River Right Bank Itang Dam Gravity Irrigation Project Cost Estimate
1 3      [tang Irrigation Scheme-Earth Dam Cost Estimate
2 1      Alwero River, Right Bank, Dumbong Dam Gravity irrigation Project
Characteristics
2      2    Alwero    River,    Right    Bank,    Dumbong    Dam    Gravity    irrigation    Project    Cost Estimate
2 3 Dumbong Irrigation Scheme-Rollcrete Dam Cost Estimate
3 1      Gilo River Right Bank Gilo 2 Dam Gravity irrigation                      Project Characteristics 3  2     Gilo River Right Bank Gilo 2 Dam Gravity Irrigation                      Project Cost Estimate 3 3      Gilo 2 Irrigation Scheme Earth Dam Cost Estimate
4  1      Chiru Irrigation Dam Characteristics
4 2      Chiru Irrigation Scheme-Earth Dam Cost Estimate
5    1 Gambela Irrigation Dam Characteristics
3.2        Gambela Irrigation Scheme Dam Cost Estimates
6    1 Gilo 1 Irrigation Dam Characteristics
6-2 Gilo I Hydroelectric Dam Cost Estimate
TAMS ULG Baru-Akobo Integrated Development Master plan 1H Appendices -1WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 10 IRRIGATION PROJECTS
APPENDIX   I   BARO   RIVER   RIGHT   BANK   ITANG   DAM   GRAVITY fRRlGATION PROJECT
General
This  irrigation project, called Itang-Lare in the Russian report, is  located on the right bank, north, of the Baro river between approximate elevations  430 and 420 metres above sea level and approximately  between co-ordinates  33® 57TE-34“3O'E and 8" KXN- g D 25TT The main project features  include the Itang Dam, a gravity  conveyance and the irrigation works  The project layout is  presented on Figure 1.1 Table 1 I gives  the main project characteristics and Table 1.2 gives the estimated cost.
Dam Site Geology
The Itang Dam site is  on the Baro river ]0km upstream of the town of Itang in the flood plain, and 26 km downstream from Gambela Geological section 08-12 shows the site to be in lacustrine-alluvial deposits  of clays  and loams  overlying intrusive trachytes  and syenites  at depth The section indicates  five drillholes  The site is  not covered by  aerial photos, but photos  from upstream and downstream of the site show the river to be an unstable meandering system with a wide floodplain with point bars and back  swamp areas  For this  reason the site is  not considered to be a good one. but it may  be possible to construct an earthfill dam Impervious  fill would probably  be available to the north west of the site as  residual clay, approximately  4 km away  from the site.
Project Description
a. Itang Dam
The  kang  dam  would  have  a  maximum  height  of  11  metres,  and,  because  of  the  poor foundation   conditions   and   underseepage   problems,   would   also   have   very   flat   upstream and  downstream  slopes  The  cost  estimate  has  been  prepared  on  the  basis  of  an  earth dam,   with   1   V   on   5   H   upstream   and   downstream   slopes   which   should   gjve   a reasonable   estimate   The   spillway   would   be   located   on   the   left   bank   flood   plain   and would   be   250   metres   long,   ungated   to   pass   the   spillway   design   flood   of   1.400   m3/s with  a  2  metre  surcharge.  It  would  have  an  upstream  impervious  blanket  to  protect  the structure    from    uplift    pressures    The    river    diversion    during    construction    would    be accomplished  with  a  low  cofferdam  across  the  main  river  channel  and  a  diversion  canal on  the  left  river  flood  plain.  After  building  the  bulk  of  the  5,100  metre  long  dam,  the section   above   the   diversion   channel   would   be   filled   during   the   low   flow   season   Two irrigation  intakes  would  be  provided  for  this  project,  one  on  each  bank,  with  a  capacity of  up  to  100  mVs  each  The  right  bank  intake  would  serve  this  irrigation  project  The left   bank   one   may   serve   for   supplying   a   future   development   on   the   left   bank   Actual capacities  were  estimated  at  66  m’/s  on  the  right  bank  and  62  mVs  on  the  left  bank However   because   of   its   relative   low   cost   implication   the   intakes   were   oversized   for Master Plan level studies
The   reservoir   would   flood   some   presently   farmed   lands,   but   the   irrigation   benefits   to ateas downstream of the dam would offset these losses
TAMS (J LG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan 1H Appendices - 2WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX IB IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table 1 1 presents  the principal characteristics  of the Itang Dam The cost estimate for the dam and appurtenant works  is  given on Table 1 3 The total cost including the dam and appurtenant works  and 30 Ian long access  road improvement is  estimated at USS 63.859.000
An  area-capacity  curve  of  the  reservoir  is  presented  on  Figure  1.2  A  layout  of  this  dam is presented on Figure H 1-3.
b. Conveyance and Irrigation Systems
The conveyance system would consist of a 56km long main canal, mostly  unlined, on the right bank, designed for a maximum flow of 66.2 nri/s  at the origin just downstream of the irrigation intake works  This  canal would supply  the irrigation system from several off take structures  along the main canal The off take structures would supply  a mostly  unlined canal distribution system by  gravity, serving a net area of about 50,000 hectares  In addition to the gravity  irrigation system, the irrigated area would be provided with a road system, mainly  along the main canal and distribution system. A surface drainage system would also be included. This  system would discharge any  excess  flows  from irrigation and storm water to the natural drainage creeks in the area
The   lmgation   project   area   would   be   protected   from   flooding   by   an   extensive   dike system and seasonal pumping stations. A project cost estimate is presented on Table
1.2 This includes all project features.
TAMS ULG B*ro-Akabo Integral Dftelopnrem .Master Plan 1H Appendices - JWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table 1.1 Hang Irrigation Project Characteristics (System 1, Itang-Lare) L DAM
Catchment Area
Mean Annual Flow,
Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest Level
Normal Maa Operating Level Normal Min Operating Level. Active Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir  Surface  .Area: Spillway Design Flood.
Gates.
Max Flood Level. Irrigation Outlet Capacity
Gates: Access Road to Dam
24,420 km2
390 0 m’/S
Earthfill
11 m
El 436 0
El 431.6
El 428 5
157.9 mem
88.6 mem
71 Okm2
1,397
Ungated
EL434.0
100 m3/s max each bank (1) 8-5 00 m x5 00 m high
30 km long improvement
(1) Intake requirements for schemes considered are 66m 3/s on the right bank and 62 m 7s on the left bank
2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Cross Area
Nel Area
Canal Conveyance
66,600 ha
50,900ha
Type
Mostly unlined earth canal
Sideslopes
I’/iH IV
Length (total)
56 km
Flow  at  initial
section
(max)
66.2   m 7s
Major crossings
Approx. 300 m at main creeks
Irrigation Distribution
Gravity, open, mostly
unlined canal system,
Flood Protection Dikes
60 km long
Drainage System
Surface, open canals, unlined
Road System
Mostly along hydraulic infrastructure
TAMS ITLG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Mailer Plan
1H Appendices - JWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX IH IRRIGATION projects
TABLE   L2   BARO   RIVER,   RB,   ITANG   DAM   GRAVITY   IRRIGATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Item                          Description
Unit
Qty
Unit
Cost
USS
1
2
3
4
5
5.1 |5.2
53 i 5.4
55 5.6 5.7 58
1 5.9 6
6.1
I
62 163
6.4 65 6.6 6.7
1
Preliminary 15 % of all items) hang Dam (See Table I 3) Access Road to Dam (See Table 3.3 Pumping Station
Main  Canal  conveyance Section 1      66.2 m3/$
Section 2 58 5 m7s
Section 3      56 0 m3/s
Section 4 49 7 m7s
Section 5 45.3 m3/s
Seaion 6 37.0 m’/s
Section 7 20 5 m /s
a
?
Section 8 7,0 m /s
Major Crossing Structures
Irrigation system Land Clearing Land Levelling Destoning
LS
- km kW
1
-
30
0
-
- 47,000
-
m               13000
m                 8000
m                 1500
m                 3500
m lOOOO
m                9000
m 5000
m 6000
LS
1
ha 13,300
ha 50,900
ha
0
Distribution Sy stem Gravity Irrigation             ha            50,900
Surface Drainage
Flood Protection Dikes
Drainage Pumping (200 000 ha)
Sub Total
Physical Contingencies 20% Engineering and Administration 10%
Total USS (Jan 1996)
ha            66,000
m             60,000
kw            42,000
900 500 480 450 420 400 350 300
- 600 800
0 2000
200 100 800
Total "’Cojt USS
40,657 659 U410,000
0
11,700,000 4,000 000'
720,000
1,575,000
4.200,000
3,600.000
1.750,000 1
1.800.000 1,500,0001
7.980,000 40,640,000
o1 101,800,000
13,200,000'
6,000,000
33,600,000
317.819,558
63.505.912
38,103.547 419,139.017
TAMS ULG Biro-Akobo Integrated Dodopment Master PIm 1H Appendices - 5^ aT?O^ SCHEME-EA/?TH DAM CO$r ESTIMATE
G
Table H - 13 (Sheet 1 of 21
, K.nVm.nl O.r-
Date of Prien :
Eichinfl. Rati ;
J*H 15. 9B
1.00
low Rfrttfvolf Lml (mJ =
Dam Haight |m| =
Depth al common aicavatfon |m) ■ Crail Dam Elevation (m) =
421.50
11M
A
Ltrsgth «r Cmt End to End (m) Lc »
5,700.00
W*
' *’ Lln"' *
:
Width of Vlllay far Full Height esf Dam Bv=
2,500 00
G  d          1V)
° *^HSIOpO’ ‘
.VI=
5.00
Depth of cul-off-mnch <m| »
5.00
a so ajfi.oo
awjRTENJtfT -ftWKS
W
iitarr I       LS-Cjki.,
eOMP!>ltJfT|
rnaun
FMlLcs*. I
GQMKwtVT ' TffT«L  |
L0UL
uiiDUW* fLRii 11
faftEjQH
eo^*o-twr
TOTAL
-w*-
t - —-
1______ . I_______
r___ _
_____ _
U
I*_____
jj „ -
7.* _ - 17____ , 2J______ 119
’jm
pr^dirnirxjmf              ---------- --------------------------- -
■4                    11 »                        HOP]
1500
• JW.CJ3C £
5.0M.1H
SJIQ 14%
]
■• *
DMTiky* flf WBi«T
l5
1
T1                             0
0
0
TZ^Z^^TejOV"*** - CoHxmcr
11
1   m3
tl                         3 1
4.00
TDOO 15.539
isejD
31 C?B
1.425.131
1 7B1 <13 '
fjiw T ■ - ------------ —  ■ |
ori
F<MM-,djlrwi "ro*’*   '
rrj
—
1
U4J12
155.393
------ u
• •'       J9                  1J81.4K
:
pfl p] j^=»riq«*V - EilTT^
i
mJ
3
4 00
1.726.750
131140*
1.52Sfi3£l
ft,90l.Cje
mJ
l]
3
4.00             5 T 7.250
413.100
1.555 JOO 1
Z.0M.9QC i
I
7_r-N                    C®r   *ae* -*• Mrme
W1
m3
2                            f                   a do
517 250
CJ7.IOQ
3.310.400
4.1M.OOQ
piai rrf&W - Pw*<r«                            1***
m3                        5
IB
34 DC
372 335
1.717 44B
7,1*B,7BT
B.BJ7.244 I
- 0rov<* and f**™
m3                        1
»
JJ.OO
324 5*3
713K*
JA&5 9*6
3iW975
Dnirtg md Gr©uirti?
M5
5                         5 90
Mill
1 374 KH
17ZJ-255 f
'
Urrnwiiurrd ritarftl.
*
s
L                    5. DO
3114*4
1.447.334
i *a*.4n
1 Dwtt
Ticjq 
Jf.»7JGt7
XH iJSI
tlWT
UX4L
IMfl Mbe4 (LIS Si
FOtEiGM
c<acR»-fto**
COMWOMiMT
[
TOTAL SMMffiTT
LOCAL
ti>»orr
JMOCXffrT IU3 II
FOUhom
nwiw.
TOTAL
1
Access RoldS
Jf
RfcW ffiOflJwenw^L
L—            »40C Q0
37 IOC W           47 000 00
JG.OO
mi
1.12a.ooo
1 41© DOC
lU              <U«wRM
ten                  DOC
o.oa                       0 DO                   0.00                                0
0
C
'17            j 5pi*ffl CJ-r*iiri|J
*>□
O.K
o ao                        0 DO                 0.00 I                               0 I
0]                  0
vwr mh ftrt ii
iiI4«i.
■ •OKpejil
eaw^Nlirr
TOTAL
—
W4J(TTT*
AMOUWT r-a ID
DtacRtmeai
LOCAL
:.Z-hJ^=s<FsT
LOCAL
□gMKSMWT
CDW^SHEMT
IfiTLL
<
□Kamen Tunnel
4.1
O-Wii-K-. 7 urw*ei Clan LUi. Linet
O.K
0,00
fl DO
DOC
9
0
e
«■' 'JV 0 00
_ JLT 
V
4J
Ji VPffcart TLiWlfieJ Ciets ‘W 5,iTMK
rr
ai»
OK
0.0C ■                                     u
0
0
c
e
M 300
1* J 44>M
J0.D40
3.204.000
4 005.000
0 00
H 3               Q.00                    o.oa >           GOO
15                    OK                    aoo                 390
JJQJOOOM
!
exj
1 m                000                         OX                        0 00                    DI
0
0
t
1 rn                       OK
OK                       ODD                    Di                          0                                           0
c
1o
O.»
o.n                      bCC-                    0|                          0
C
m                      OX
ooo                       DOO
01                        0
r
0C
m                      OK
000                           0f»
a
0
aL                                 s
iocw
Tolaf Item* J to 6
Grand Totaf
Mf 3,532
W.OW
n 6 $4,127
*X» KK
42,M7»65$
$.675,562
36702,246
45.377,806ITANG IRRIGATION SCHl=Mt-i=^,nu^m — - > —.....................
A : SUMMARY DAM 4 APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (US $)
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
1,262.030
5,046.119
5310,149
Earth Dam
7.243.272
28,973.087
36.215.359
r
3.
Access Roads
282.000
1.128.000
1.410.000
i
Diversion Tunnel
0
0
0
5.
Spillway
BOB,260
3.233.040
4,041.300
5.
Low Level Outlet
60.000
320,000
400.000
SUB-TOTAL A:
9.675,562       38,702.246         48,377.808
S : SUMMARY POWER PLANT 4 APPURTENANT WORKS
rTEMNO
---------------------------------r
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT [US $)
LOCAL             FOREIGN
COMPONENT COMPONENT TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
0
0
0
2.
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
0
0
0
5.
Power Tunnel
a
00
6,
Surge Shaft
0
00
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
00
8.
Penstock & Manifold
a
00
9.
Powehouse & Equip.
0
00
SUB-TOTAL B:                                                                                               0
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT [US 5)
ITEM NO
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
z
0
0
0
Switchyard
0
0
0
3.
Transmission Line
0
0
0
SUB TOTAL C :
0
0
0
TOTAL BASE COST :
9,675.562
38,702,246
48,377,808
Physical Contingencies
1,935,112
7,740,449
9.675,562
Su&totif
11,610,674
46.442,695
58.053.369
Engineering A Artn/ft.
1.161,067
4.844,270
5,805,337
GjRAND TOTAL ;
12.771,741
51,086,965
63,B5B,706
20
Engin 10L/M/r project
A«A
LIMIT QF PROJECT
AREA
MAIN PROJECT DATA :
UMll AMA M                              UiM
. . W HO
DAHdl
TAM
ACCIU >0*0 M
i
■UYW MWlMi ST A,
- KM I TGI AL >
.M
FiiOiOO frofectjow
T'JWrtL tlMfTM _
I
DIKES
MAJCA CUHBiM -KM
•3
f • I M<tfi to o« ft Mmj »d Dj»«d
»n d«r«.led
anal/slB at tiaras <id
rh<r tfcftt
LftifW
l rp )tUfI«4TltW sk'ltM
r
NOTE:- Orilft»g* pumping atitlm / (n«t KhavnJ to b« lot» tod >1 Pht (o*er «nd of •■In dFalnc-
/t
tTANC Dltf - - *f I
APPROX UW Of PROJECT AMA
EX 1ST I Hfi QAM / RtJCTVOIR PROPOSED DAN / RESERVOIR PROPOSED MAIM CANAL CONVETANCc
*/X PROPOSED DIKES
□ PROPOSED IRRIGATION INTAKE
-*--------- PROPOSED IRRI6AT10* OFFTAKE / BRANCH CANAL
i— f
f             Foa
Soli t IX 1*1
LAYOUT
'
IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1
BATO RIVER RIGHT BANK.
ITANG DAM. GRAVITY
‘X
T"
FiQurt W
H-T.1 )Elevation in meters
Area in km 2
ITANG RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity Curve Figure 1H-1.2*uAYOUT
HANG UAM
Flgurt Ho
H-1 3I
I
:I ’ I-
1I
I
rWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
4
fl
APPENDIX 2  ALWERO RIVER,  RIGHT BANK.  DUMBONG DAM
gravity IRRIGATION PROTECT
General
This project is located on the right (north) bank of the Alwero river, upstream, of the
Alwero Project presently under construction The project lies approximately between
elevations 510 and 460 metres above sea level and approximately between co-ordinates 
“ 3JE - 34 ’40TE and 8° OO’N-7 45'N. The main project features include the
Dumbong Dam, a gravity conveyance and the irrigation works The project layout is 
presented on Figure 2 1 Table 2.1 gives the main project characteristics Table 2 2
gives the estimated cost
Dam Site Geology
The Dumbong dam site is  located on the .Alwero River 26 km upstream of the Abobo dam. currently  under construction, and 55 km south of Gambela. According to the AG 1 250.000 geological map the site is  in biotite gneiss  A geological cross  section 08-13 shows  the site to be in granitoid gneiss  Overburden is  negligible The cross  section shows  12 drill holes. The rock  is  strongly  weathered to 10 m and moderately weathered to 20 m The section also shows  the rock  to be fissured Slightly  fissured, practically  impermeable rocks  occur at a depth varying from 35 to 50 m There are no aerial photographs  available which cover the dam site where some material for rockfill or concrete aggregate could be obtained Photos  to the south of the site show the area to be forested with very  shallow relief There does  not appear to be rock  exposed near the site except in hills  to the south of the site, where some material for rockfill or concrete aggregate could be obtained Impervious  fill can probably  be obtained from residual soil on the upper hill slopes  A diversion tunnel should be easy  to construct in the gneiss  with support of shotcrete wire mesh and rock  bolts. A rollcrete Ham seems to be the most appropriate choice of dam type for this site
Project Description
A- Dumbong Dam
The Dumbong dam would be 48 metres high and of rollcrete construction It would be developed for irrigation alone, but consideration would be given to the installation of a small power plant The spillway would be ungated, 100 metres long located on the dam crest, and designed to pass the maximum flood of 600 m /s with 2 metres of
J
surcharge The spillway chute would taper to 20 metres wide, terminating in a roller
bucket 15 metres deep Diversion during construction would be provided by a 15-
metre high cofferdam and two 5.80 metre diameter diversion tunnels through the right
abutment The irrigation outlet, on the right abutment, would be designed for a
m aximum release of 20 m’/s and would have two 5.00 m by 2.50 m high gates A low
level outlet would be provided by a shaft leading to one of the diversion tunnels 
equipped with gates for emergency operation.
^he   site   is   located   in   a   virtually   unpopulated   forested   region   and   its   ecological   and environmental impact would appear to be minimal.
TAMS ULG Bam-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan 1H Appendices - 6WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table   2.1   presents   the   particulars   of   the   Dumbong   irrigation   project   A   layout   of   the dam is presented on Figure 2.3.
An area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 2.2
The   total   dam   construction   cost   is   estimated   to   be   527.432,000   A   detailed   cost estimate of the dam is presented on Table 2.3
b. Conveyance and Irrigation Systems
The 37 km long conveyance system would consists  of a 34 km long mostly  unlined canals  with command of the irrigable land, and two major river crossings  The conveyance would be designed for a maximum flow rate of 19 5 m3/s  al the origin The flow rate would be reduced proportionally  to the command area, The Ney  and Chiru river crossings  would consist of siphons  designed for 17.6 m Vs  and 10.7 mVs, respectively. The combined length of the two river crossings  is  about 3km. The conveyance would supply  the irrigation distribution system from several off-take structures along the main canal
The   off-take   structures   would   supply   a   mostly   unlined   canal   distribution   system   by gravity, serving a net area of about 15,000 hectares.
In  addition  to  the  gravity  distribution  system,  the  area  would  be  provided  with  a  road system, mostly along the main canal and distribution systems
A  surface  drainage  system  would  also  be  included.  This  system  would  discharge  any excess flows from irrigation and storm water to the natural drainage/creeks in this area.
It appears that this project area is high enough and does not need to have a dike system to protect it again floods. However, a study  of the back  water effect from floods entering the Abcbo dam should be done It is  likely  that the Dumbong Dam could have a beneficial effect up on the Abobo dam in terms  of flood attenuation and sedimentation and would thus prolong the life of the Abobo Dam
TAMS ULG Buro-Akobo lntesrarrd Development Matter Plan
IB Appendices - 7WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX IH IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table 2.1 Dumbong Characteristic!
DAM
Catchment Area
1.100 km2
Mean Annual Flow;
7.80 m’/s
Dam Type
Rollcrete
Dam Height
48 m
Crest Level:
El 518 0
Normal Max. Operating Level:
El.513.5
Normal Min Operating Level
El 506 0
Active Storage
93.3 mcm
Dead Storage.
66 2 mcm
Reservoir Surface Area
13.9 km7
Spillway Design Flood
600 m’/s
Gates
Ungated
Max Flood Level
El.515.5
Irrigation Outlet Capacity.
20 m’/s (I)
Gates:
2-5 00 m x 2.50 m high
Access Road to Dam
20 km long road improved
Actual required capacity was found io be 19. 5 m /s.
3
2 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Cross Area
23.200 ha
Net .Area
15.000ha
Canal Conveyance
Type
Mostlv unlined canal
Sideslopes 
l'AH: IV
Length (total)
37 km
* Flow at initial section (max)
19.5 mJ/s
Major crossings 
Ney River crossing
17.6 3/s, 1.5 km long siphon
Chiru River crossing
10 7 m3/s, 1.5 km long siphon
Irrigation Distribution
gravity,   mostly   unlined   open   canal
Drainage System
Surface, open canals, unlined
Road System
Mostly     along     hydraulic     infrastructure
Flood Protection Dikes
Apparently not required
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Milter Plan
1H Appendices - 8water resources
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
TABLE  2.2  ALWERO,  RB,  DUMBONG  GRAVITY  IRRIGATION  PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Item
Description
Unit
Qty-
Unit
Cost
USS
Total
Cost
USS
1          Preliminary
2           Dumbong Dam (See Table 2.3)
3 Access  Road to Dam (See Table 2 3
4           Pumping Station
5          Main Canal conveyance
5.1        Section 1        19.5 m’/s
5.2 I      Section 2         17.6 m’/s
5.3        Section 3          10 7 m’/s
54        Section 4          10.0 m7s
5.5        Section 5            7 2 m’/s
5 6       Section 6            5 8 m ’/s
5.7       Siphon 17.6 m  /s (Ney R. Crossing) 58        Siphon 10 7 m’/s(Chiru R Crossing
J
1 59
6
61
Miscellaneous Structures
Irrigation system
6.2       Land Clearing
6.3        Land Levelling
64        Destoning
6.5       Distribution System Gravity’ Irrigation 66        Surface Drainage
6.7     1 Flood Protection Dikes
Drainage Pumping Station
Sub Total
Physical Contingencies 20% Engineering and Administration 10%
Total, USS (Jan 1996)
L.S                      1 KM                    20
KW                      0
m                  7,000
m                 7,000
m                  5,000
m               11,000
m                 3,000
m                 4,000
m                 1,500
m                 1,500
LS 1
ha 9,300
ha              15,000
ha                       0
ha              15.000
ha              15,000
0
0
40,000
350
350
240
240
210
200
2,600
2,175
600
800
-
2,000
200
60
800
12,46Tj70' 14.005,964
800,000
0
2,450,000
2.310,000
1.200,000
2,640,000
630,000
800,000
3,900,000
3,262,500
500,000
5,580,000
12,000,000
0
30,000,00*0 3,000.000
0
0
95,540.234 19,108.047 11,464,828 126.113,101
TAMS ULG Biro-Akobo Integrated Development Muter PI in
1H Appendices-9
s3Table 1H-2.3 - Project Cost BMimale 4P*9* 1 o< 2)
C«S Lev* Jinyaiv 1
TAMS Cafliuftw’h lf«
DUMBONG DAM
Rawrwjir Max. Laval; El 513.5
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMDUHTiUMI
HEM 1*5.
oescramo*
LOCAL
COMPOM1KT
FOWBGN
cobpwemt
TOTAL
1
Preliminary
444 179
1,776716
2,220.8*5
2-
Rockfill Dam
2 163.193
8,652,771
10 815 964
3.
Access Roads
160,000
640 000
800 000
4.
Diversion Tunnel
108 300
432,000
540,000
5
Spillway
0
0
0
e.
Low Level Outlet
530.000
2,120,000
2 650.000
Sub-rc£if A              3,405.372
tJ.S2f.487
P/iys/ca/ ConrifTpenc-tas
Engirmrinp 4 Administration
08LO74 2.734,29?
1034578
f 7.028.358
3,406.372
2,043.223
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST               <495.097        77,980,363            22,475,4538AROJU<060 PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
T Ate 1H-2J - Pw0d Ca« trtmW (FW* ’ «* ’I
DUMBONG DAM
IRRIGATION PROJECT
Rewrote Max. Level: II*1L5
X
UK* COST
AMOUNT
int
OCOCRRTX*
LOCH
COMTaWH
UMHWI
TOTH
OWTTTT
LOCAL
UU*OO**^1
co*ra®n
W
<
Dmnar Ttnta
«
Omm T«m CM III LM
■
ug
100
axo
s
0
D
Cl
OMM T«vtM ‘Mx* V L*kS
at>
WC K
2 IRK
2 tOO DC
JOO
■Mtrt
<32.»
<J
Obna ’aww* M V. l*»<
m
ON
:M
OK
0
0
0
NOT CWT
•MOUNT
LOOT
LOCAL
CWV4UAMI
r ?*1W
Tutat
,
' A-U4,,IV
LOCAL
rn -r_—q
«*•**
OAMWOff
Tt
£
*±3
LT
m3
ON
OX
OX
n
«
0
U
■
oat
aw
0.X
i
a
kJ
CMa
■
ox
too
ON
a
II
:
U
•
ON
CX
:oc
0
3
a
M
-IM
LB
QW
ON
•X
3
0
i
IM* 
i’ M*
W Mae|»«
imc«m
M Appvrrwwvf ITwta T«N
J.OS.J72 n,«MX*7MAIN PROJECT DATA :
MIL* -H*__________ H.IM
4T MID -IUL.
CA-MUSi
MDI
jkCClll »0M> -ICH----------------- Jfl RLVU FUMTIM »TA **___! luul cmrtrrAKl -
- (K I TOTAL 1 .                        W
- FLOW 1 MAX i - ■«/._________ qj
fl
R* ot| CJIMllMO -**---------------------- 3
r
Dices -fr --
pauWAlH f-.'hFIMi* -■’W-----------f
LEGEND
APPROXUHH OP PROJECT AREA EXISTING CAM / RESERVOIR PROPOStD 0AM ✓ RESERVOIR PROPOSEDMAIM CANAL CONVETAMCE PROPOSES TUNNfL PROPOSEDSIPHON
PROPOSED
lRR|ljA?ICN INTAKE
PROPOSED
RRIGAtIQN OFFTAKt / BRANUM CANAL
layout
IRRIGATION S**™ « A ALWERO RIVER
JMQC On RKHT BAH< ®AVlPIElevation in meters
Area in km 2
DUMBONG RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity Curve
Figure 1H-2.2IDUMBONG DAM
OUMBONG DAM PLAN
Fiflurt ^o.
H-2.3’.IW ATER RESOURCES
ANNEX iH IRRIGATION PROJECTS
APPENDIX   3   GILO   RIVER,   RIGHT   BANK,   GILO-2   DAM   GRAVITY IRRIGATION PROJECT
General
This  irrigation project, called Ube la-Pash al a in the Russian Report, is  located the right bank  (north) of the Gilo river between approximate elevations  425 and 460 metres above sea level and co-ordinates  34’ OOt - 34’30’ E and 7° 5ON-7* 30’N The main project features  include the Gilo-2 Dam, a gravity  canal conveyance and the irrigation works  The project layout is  presented on Figure 3 1. Its  main characteristics  are given in Table 3.1 The estimated cost is provided in Table 3 2
Dam Site Geology
The Gilo 2 dam she is  on the Gilo River approximately  33 km upstream from the village of Agenga and 85 km south of Gambela, The Russian engineering geological map shows  the site to be in colluvial and alluvial deposits  overlying volcanic  and basement metamorphic. Geological cross  section 08-04 shows  the dam site to be in mixed alluvial and eluvial clays  and sands  overlying basalts  at the upper abutments, overlying biotite gneisses  The clays  and sands  are up to 10 m thick  Weathering of the bedrock  is  15 to 20 m deep. Five drillholes  are shown on the section. The site is  shown on aerial photo, strip 29,photo 385, but no stereoscopic  coverage is  available. According to the 1:50,000 topographic  map the site has  moderate relief. On the photo ihere appears  to be no rock  exposed in the vicinity  of the dam site If basalt or gneiss were to be found nearby  it would be suitable as  rockfill Impervious  fill is  probably available as  residual soil on the upper hill slopes. A diversion tunnel can be constructed in the gneiss  bedrock  without difficulty  and support would be shotcrete, wire mesh and rock  bolts. An earthfill dam would appear to be the most appropriate type of dam at this site
Project Description
a -        Gilo-2 Dam
I   he   Gilo-2   dam   would   be   36   metres   high   and   constructed   of   earthfill.   It   would   be developed    for    irrigation    alone    with    the    possibility    of    considering    a    small    hydroelectric power   plant   at   a   future   stage   The   spillway   would   be   ungated,   designed   for   a   maximum discharge   of   665   mJ/s   with   2   metres   of   surcharge.   Due   to   the   wide   floodplain   at   the S| te,   and   considerable   sediment   overlying   bedrock,   river   diversion   would   be   handled   by a    channel    on    the    right    bank,    with    final    closure    being    carried    out    behind    a    high cofferdam   that   would   eventually   pass   the   river   over   one   of   the   irrigation   outlets   The ’rogation   outlets,   one   on   each   bank,   are   designed   for   a   peak   flow   of   45   m’/s   and   would ^ Ve    four   5.00   m   by   2   50   m   high,   low   head   gates   leading   to   the   irrigation   canals   of  the same    capacity    (These    flows    need    to    be    modified    to    actual    irrigation    requirements.
lm ’/5     on   the   right   bank   and   34   m’/s   on   the   left   bank   However,   because   of   its   minor cosl      implication,   the   capacities   were   not   modified   for   Master   Plan   level   cost   estimating Purposes)
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Mailer Plan IH Appendices - 10WATER RESOURCES annex 1H IRRIGATION projects
The reservoir area is  mostly  bottom land and cultivated, although the photogrammetric maps do not show any houses Nevertheless, construction of th
will result in the loss of some agricultural land
e
Table   3.1   presents   the   particular   of   the   Gilo-2   irrigation   project   A   layout   of   the   dam and appurtenant works is shown on Figure 3 2
.An area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 3.3
The   total   construction   cost   is   estimated   to   be   US$86,679,000   A   detailed   cost  estimate of the dam is presented on Table 3.3
b. Conveyance and Irrigation System
The conveyance system consists  of 61km long main canal, lined, on the right bank, designed for a maximum flow of 61 m3/s  at the origin, just downstream of the imgation intake works  at the dam The upper 50% approximately  is  a "dead canal" strictly  for water conveyance purposes  The lower half approximately  is  the mam irrigation canal itself This  canal would supply  the irrigation system from several off take structures along the main canal The off take structures  would supply  a number of lined distributaries  and the remaining distribution system conforming a canal network  (the lining or not of this  network  needs  to be carefully  considered) The distribution system would serve a net area of up to 46 900 hectares
In addition to the distribution system, the area would be provided with a road network mostly  along the main canals  and distributaries  A surface drainage made of unlined canals  would also be provided The area needs  some protection against flooding At this  state of master planning a conservative approach of surrounding the entire area with protective dikes  has  been taken Irrigation return flows  and storm flows  would be pumped to the adjacent natural drains  and river A project cost estimate including all features is given in Table 3 2
In the future this  project could be expanded to provide irrigation of some 25,900 ha (net) on the left bank  However, an intake would need to be built at the dam in the event this expansion would be adopted prior to dam construction
At present the regional administration is  considering the possibility  of developing irrigation in part of this  project area Local consultants  are studying an area of 7000 ha supplied by  pumping from Lake Tata With proper planning and engineering the main canals in this scheme may be incorporated in the large gravity scheme described above
TAMS I’LG Ban>-Akobo Integrated Development Maiter Plan
IH Appendices - 11WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Table 3J Gilo-2 Irrigation Project Characteristics (System 14, Ubela-Pashala) DAM
Catchment Area
9.640 km2
Mean Annual Flow:
92.3 mJ/s
Dam Type
Earthfill
Dam Height
36 m
Crest Level
El 478 0
Normal    Max.    Operating
Level
El 473 0
Normal     Min     Operating
Level:
El. 460.0
Active Storage
Dead Storage:
Reservoir Surface .Area
1,427 6 mem 564 1 mcm
150.7 km2
Spillway Design Flood:
665 mJ/s
Gates:
Ungated
Max Flood Level:
El 475 0
Irrigation Outlet Capacity
90       n?/s 
(2045m /s 
s
intakes 
were
assumed) (1)
Gates:
8 - 5 00 m x 2 50 m high
Access Road to Dam
New 11 km long road
(1) Actual capacities were found to be 61 m’/s on the right bank and 34m 3 /s on the left bank
2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Gross Area
Net Area
Canal Conveyance
Type
Sidesfopes 
length (total)
Flow   at   initial   section   (max) Major crossings
Irrigation Distribution Drainage System Flood Protection Dikes
61,300 ha
46,900 ha
Lined Canal
PAHrlV
61 km
61 mJ/s
Apparently,    no    major    crossings Gravity, mostly lined canal System
Mostly      along      hydraulic      infrastructure Up to 110 km long
Tams ULG Baro-Akubo Integraied Development Muter Plan ]H Appendices - 12water resources
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTs
TABLE 3.2 GILO» RB, GELO 2 DAM GRAVITY IRRIGATION PRnrr* COST ESTIMATE
^JECT
Item
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit
Cost
USS
------ ——
Total             ' Cost US$
1
2
3
4
5
51
52
53
5.4
5.5
5.6
6
6.1
6.2
63
64
6.5
66
67
Preliminary
Gilo 2 Dam (See Table 3.3) Access Road to Dam (See Table 3.3
Pumping Station
Main Canal conveyance
Section 1           61 m3/s
Section 2           23 9 m Vs
Sections 20.5 mVs
Section 4            IO Om7$
Section 5             7.8 m Vs Section 6             7.8 m  /s (final)
Irrigation system
Land Clearing
Land Levelling
Destoning
Distribution System Gravity Irrigation
Surface Drainage
Hood Protection Dikes
Drainage Pumping Station
Sub Total
Physical Contingencies 20% Engineering and Administration 10% Total. USS (Jan 1996)
L.S
km
km
l
li
o
87,000
3
m
m
m
m
m
m
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
kW
32,500
2,000
5,000
11,000
6,000
4,000
49,000
46,900
0
46,900 46,900
110.00 11,625
875
825
625
425
330
330
600
800
2,000
200
60
800
42,690^9]' 5 6,143,609
957 000
0
28.437,500 1,650,000 3,437,500
4,675,000
1,980.000
1,320.000
29.400,000
37,520,000
0
93,800,000
9,380,000
6,600,000
9,300,000
327.290,700
65,458,140 39,274,884
432.O23V2L
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan 1H Appendices - 13v0 H SCHEME - EARTH DAM COST ES77JVMTE
Table H - 3.3 (Sheet 1 of 2i
. -. _,
I 1= Little. B WtC-uff, C» High)
3
CittofS’ntn
Esehinge Ratr
J®IT T5, && 1.00
0
J. JO
j.oo
Law RtMtrvQir Ldrwct (mi ■
Dim H»»ght rm) »
Length of Cfrit End t© EM (m) Lc -
Width ©F Vidrr hsr Full Height ©f Dim B/3
D*pthol cul-©H-irifteh tm} =
400 00
Jfl.M
f.JW 00
JCW.OO
fJ.OO
H 1V>
■
D«©Uiof common ■iti'TiliO" (tn) ■
fit?0
CfmI Dim E1fva«ian (mi =                        47S.0O
WM^miCE lUB ¥1
JUKM*T dIS ®l
. u«T
L
fdlEM'U'i
LOCAL.                             F0MO3N
C5MraN(NT                      WTU,                   OUANTT*
TOTAL
*
-5X                           ‘SX 1
1 WM1
G -H 1*4
’ Mil 09"
’ WJ30C0C
14TQ MJ
1 JM.COO
JOl&OE?
•m an
sbk: osj
!■ **2-^57
M< XW                      Z.955    2OQ
j_aatoc
4 IMaQC
&1 ITt                      2.52ft Mi
ill IM
[if
3runr»g
i T'O tea
srrisn
'7T 9W
? Mt
7 lit Mt
3. TOE 300
? 41300C
1 <5T J7B
■S65 T4S
5XC 311
m |mtwM w™ .
llO
n.»*4 0T>
r
4 2,135.™ f
LH“ MfaCI lUS T1
iliMfPilWT fU> II
LIMIT            UXLL-
i
R5UKJH
-uw
MJfCHIFWN
|
FOREHLH
CflMHMENT 1oT*L
LOCAL
OUJXmv                           cowwW                       ■EOMTOWEST
Total
]          Access Roads
1
J r       Ri*5 mprwinwr*
1 tn
ex
OX
•: do                       0H|
0
1□
Q
U        Hitf »G#ti
tri
-?«X0C
5i50C X |
tf.DO 1
'9* 400
755 BOC
H7 0C£i
l«         5rt*r- Cratfan*
• Nc
lJ.X
one <                         a so                     0 00                                   0
0
Su^H-nr
UMlT **7C£ Vl »!
1
iM&wfcrr as«
“taw
CTESCRMTnOH
! 'UNIT              L3CJU.        |
^E-WFaNgNT              CChJWUMT
!
TO’*L
1
'□UJWTIT*
1
■Local
CDwowts7
*c«4iC3s
TCTaL
4
Drmrsio.n Ttrnnil
u1
0**icn Tjrt*i                            m   ^-,
1!L
Lr
‘ *■                       2X
QS
DOO
DOC 1
al
o1
fl
U____
.9
i
TBWO l£~—"
"4 14
14
^•rafcn Trfswi CUli W. L.*-efl
Cliij, V L<rwd
m                     2X1
2X
■m
OiX •
0X
DOC b                               0                                               0                                                          0
:x
zx
0X
Jup-rfliu  ewr 4.
1
jjhribrtiaff Tiwwri      r
a
a
&l
a
0
0
DuewtiM
Mte!                U1 I]
w           -SEAL,
“UFO*<WT              -£S**C«wT
TOT*.
UMXM? KI* 11
LOCAL                                  IMU4N
Gvih’nT £01* fri*T corwrascir?
|
10TM.
1
1
'
^p'4wiy                             ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T---------------------------
—----- ------------------------------------------;
rv. . - ~ ------■----------
JjTJ*
-e:
'z
I*
IM
*.4*t0
MOOD
T 51
sm -o
B *U
713 X
60
1 i M 4QQ 33. IM
3 W&.QClCi ; 43.9B0 1
]*4£ X
4.MOOO                    W                            4KOOG
1 JJQ 000
icon Xc j
ul^gg B im*i
El.... “  -- ----- =-------- —-
_
2.075 2C
4 MC K
f0.37fi.00
71                         M/M 1                                  732 <12
79CI S2fl
1
--------------
Li                       a X                                  DX
0,00
0                                10
0
fl  |
Svi-ii>l*i iMfiv 4. I'/ngabwl
1.M7.1W
5.7JI.W
4.3J4.00C
ToBli /rims J ID ft
fojum
41,W.4?5
57, IM, 5 OS
Grand Iota/
1T,a7Zf47
47,4*8,569
65.865.701IRRIGATION SCHEME - EARTH DAM COST ESTIMATE
H - 3.3 (Sheet 2 q(
L : SUMMARY DAM 4 APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (US $)
FOREIGN
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
COMPONENT
TOTAL
f.
Preliminary
1.548.541
6.194,164
8 565.091
2
Earth Dam
7.488.505
29,954,019
42 925.101
957,000
\
4.
. 3.
Access Roads
191,400
765.600
Diversion Tunnel
0
0
0
5.
Spillway
1,336.502
5.346.006
6,682.508
4.
Irrigation Intake
1.307.200
5.228.800
6.536.000
SUB-TOTAL A;
11,872.147       47,488,589         65.66S.7O1
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (US S)
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
0
0
0I
z
Access Roads
0
0
oI
3-
Power Intake
00
0j
Power Canal
0
0
0
5.             [Power Tunnel
0
0
0
4.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
0
0
0
9.
Powehouse & Equip.        I 0.
0
0
SUB-TOTAL B:                                        0                       0                        0
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT (US S)
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
0
00
z
Switchyard
0
00
3.              Transmission Line
0
00
SUB-TOTAL C :                                      0                      0                       0
TOTAL BASE COST :            11,872,147      47,488.589       65,665,701
Physical Contingencies          2,374,429        9,497,718       13,133,140
Sub-total
Engineering & Admin.
GRAND TOTAL :
14,246,577 56,986,307 78,798,841 1.424,658 5.698,631 7,879,884
15.671.234 62,684,937 86,678,725
20
Engin  10To ()••*•<«
Abobi
MAIN PROJECT DATA QMoil u«* -*A<OH
ftlLO 2
ACCESS BOAO KM.____ .... *1 BlVtt MJMP'NB IfA. MCV...I CAMAJL CWVnW^I *M
• KM I TOTAL I Al
W FLOW < MAX I • M*7-....41
NRRNL LLNGTW............... •
... H*
f • I M»«dx fa b« r*ost*s««4
on more do fell rd
trjlfils of • f or tot end river a leges
LEGEND
LZZ3 APPROX LIMIT OF PROJECT AREA EXISTIM6 OAM / RESERVOIR PROPOSEO OAK / RESERVOIR
--------- PROPOSED MAIN CANAL CONVEYANCE
U A : IRRIGATION SECTOR
NOTE - Drelnoge pumping «t»t;oni fnot shown) To b« tocoted «f
Ithe lower end of p»|n O*e!ns
PROPOSED
D PROPOSED
-— PROPOSED
1
dikes
IRRIGATION INTAKE
IRRIGATION OFFTAKE / BRANCH CANAL
______ xaao.M*
fi
<*■
LAYOUT IRRIGATION SYSTEM R
GILO RIVER RIGHT BANK, GILO 2 DAM. GRAVITY
Figure
H-3.11
/13 jMW 1
./
Mr/ff*f/on iunn*tg
//
Chut* -/
1
^"^frlgatton funnat e 5
0r/dQ«
*tWIf ar/cfpe
0/r«r*/«n inraite
GILO 2 DAM
LAYOUT
1
|
*.orv •* I
*-3-7Elevation in meters
Area in km2
GILO-2 RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity Curve
Figure 1H-3.3WATER RESOURCES
APPENDIX 4 CHIRU DAM PROJECT
Site Geology
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION projects
The Chiru dam site is  on the Chiru River 15 km upstream of its  confluence with the Alwero and 42 km south of Gambela According to the 1 250,000 AG geological map the site is  in granite Geological section 08-09 shows  the site to be in Quaternary deposits  overlying gneisses  A badly  crushed zone 800 m wide and up to 76 m deep which is  severely  fissured occurs  at the dam site and geological conditions  are not favourable The site is  covered on aerial photos, strip 22, photos  188,189 The river follows  a major lineation almost perpendicular to the dam axis  This  correlates  with the crushed zone shown on the geological section Much of the area is  forested and relief is  gentle Upstream of the dam site some of the uplands  show striations  indicating gneisses  and schists  However no large areas  of rock  are seen on the photos  and it appears  that there is  no suitable quarry  site Impervious  fill can probably  be obtained from residual soil in the grassland areas  near the dam site .An earthfill dam would seem to be the most appropriate type for this  site A diversion tunnel in granite could be constructed easily with support of shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts
Project Description
The Chiru dam would be 37 metres  high and as  suggested above constructed of earthfill Due to the 800 metre wide crushed zone in the foundation, a 400 metre long impervious  blanket would be placed upstream of the dam and tied in to the dams impervious  core The spillway  would be ungated, 16 metres  wide, with a capacity  to pass  the design flood of 100 m3/s. A spillway  chute, 10 metres  wide and 150 metres long, would lead to a small stilling basin River diversion would be handled by  two 4 metre diameter tunnels  and a 15 metre high cofferdam The irrigation outlet on the right bank, would be a 4 metre diameter tunnel with a single 3-metre square intake gate
The reservoir area is  generally  forested with some small homesteads  and small areas  of cleared land, presumably  used for farming, however, the ecological effects  of the dam and reservoir appear to be marginal
Table  4  1  presents  the  particular  of  the  Chiru  irrigation  dam  project  A  layout  of  the dam and appurtenant works is shown on Figure 4 1
An area capacity  curve of the reservoir is  presented on Figure 4.2 The total construction cost is  estimated to be $77,095,000 A detailed cost estimate is  presented on Table 4 2
Note - The Chiru dam is part of irrigation systems 10 and 10B which are not proposed in the Master Plan because of their relative high cost with respect to other possibilities However the proposed system 10A, based on the construction of the Dumbong Da* (which was retained in the Master Plan as being among the most economical options for development of imgation) could be expanded in the tuture This could occur if
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan 1H Appendices - 14water resources
annex ih irrigation projects
economically viable, by construction of the Chin, ___________
infruimcwe.
dm “>»»*>" <* inigarion
Table 4.1 Chiro Irrigation Dim Project Characteristics
DAM
Catchment .Area:
Mean Annual Flow.
Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest Level
Normal Max Operating Level:
733 km7 5,50 m’/s Earthfill 37 m
El 5170
El 512 0
Normal Min Operating Level
El 504 0
Active Storage
132.5 mcm
Dead Storage:
115 1 mcm
Reservoir Surface Area:
21 8 km7
Spillway Design Flood:
Gates
100m3/s
Ungated
Max Flood Level
El 514.0
Irrigation Outlet Capacity Gates;
18m’/s
2-5 00 m x 2 50 m high
J
(1) Actual requirement is 15 6 m .s but the intake capacity was not modified due to its minor cost implication at Master Plan level cost estimating
1 AMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Master Plan 1H Appendices - 15CHIRU
IRRIGATION
SCHEME
•    EARTH    DAM    COST    ESTIMATE
Table H - 4.2 (Sh,
r'
Data of Pnces :
Jan 15. 96
Low Reservoir Level (   ,
m)
7
or
Eichange Rate:
f.00
Dam Type: Embankme
c
Oem Height (m|w Length of Crest End to End (m) u -
Grade of Foundation (
nt Dim
( A* L.ttJe. B "‘‘
« Medium, C« High)
Width oi Valley fo* Height of Dam Bv*
^.00
U/SSJope (H; 1 V) ■
zx
Depth of cut-off-trench (m) •
>00.80
0/8 Slope (M: 1 V) «
, 
Depth of common excavation |m)«
•00
Crest Dam Elevation (m)•
« 00
’Q08
A DAM 1 APPURTENANT WOAKS
---------- * f utfT
UMT             -XU
►wet tvs n
ce*rewvr
A
TOTAL
QU4«m^«
LOCAL
coaamcm
timno
i.              Preliminary
2;---------------
15 Ml
t>8|
«- -2i
Earth Oam
rrxoooi •1MC00C0G
3 '2*2 3CC
U                ‘ewiat^ CrcxAUor - Cammer
■nj ,                          1                              J                       • w                 aiA«w
>-u
’^aeo
2J            II FouHdatcr £iz*rtbcr • Foc»
m3                           2 1                            8
10 CO
173
>4A
1.301
14              Sera- banwr - Off**
rrd                                1 1                           31
4 00
1 111131
KC 505
3S«2_X'    ------—
n                Wl niM«ner< - f AHN*
m3
ti
3I
4 00
1 111131
ttC 505
imlojT
11
Bc«tdw On Mmanal
«a                            21
3|
4 00
47$ 556 1                     34C 525
1 S221X
if
pt»4em*rt are Csmpaacm V Cora Matara            m3
2'
»                            6 00
475 556 1                      ’$• 35C
JG«200
it
F.nv»                      - PnX« arc ? tea                     m3                            S                            It                        24 00                    M *23!                       <23 X'
1S52 3C2
h~.
flic R« -                  and e<aca
•3 1                          2
t
ii co                 26 24 7 j
ttt<3
2<a $n
|7i«              DnSrq rd >01X09
xT
”
25 00
i n* $11
«exs4&
(f.Tf
i.vY-«aAS*4 <amt
%                             5 1                            5                         500
<33«2t
1.714 S«1               -
SaCMea^ 2. 0»«n
WM14
HMK1
i                   ^Arr»«Kf (U311
urn 1 LOCAL rOREMA
AMOUNT |Ut D
1
mil mo                                                   ot*cne*taR
1
canKWEm           COUFOHtm                     WAL
r”
□uAvrrrr
LOCAL
coirw
mans i
courwur
IX                Access Roads
1
XI               Rtad npwr-rr
<s»                        CX                            OX                        0 00
000                                  0
0
JJ              Ne^aoad
cr                        •’KCa                    6t BX X                 8700000
17 50                         XX 500
1 2’I3X
JJ               Sh-aari C.-uiW’s
Nc                            OX
OX
ooo                    0 00
0
0
I
UMH
-3CU
Sub-to col
war PMctiva u
roancb
JUROUMT |U« II
LOCAL
Foauc-
1 nw so
MWBFnOM
wt
cowroMtjr --------------------------L
TOTAL
tJUAWWTY
£------- n
.4.1
Diversion Tunnel
D-wwjr 7/«v Cah III Lr«5 1 31
3X   ------------------ 2X                          0 00                      000
0
------------------------------
42               Dhmnc* Tjnral CKll IV Lzec
1    3»                  32*3 OC                   1 3BCX 1                1.500 X I           1 000 00
EQ 300
iieoccc  —.
4 J             l0’»W»cr Tumal Clan V ir»c
-
3 CO
OX
OX
0 00 I
0
a:_______
JJOOOO
1T98 0M
n-——
. JM’
LSCAL
•>n *m>c« <V1 41
toatJ&M
iTIMNO
tCHRONlWT             , CO^XXT
TOTAL
LOCAL
auAMTrrr courcmvr
4 mount ius n ------------ -----------
FQffVG"           I             |
COMFORT
• 1
apuiwwy
Lrcrntxn
' m3
1 12
7M
9 60             MOOOO
2V600
1 ors^LL——
221 20 I m                     <4400
aa< x
1 7KX
1.106 00                       15
:ui
iM
OxAt
2.230 X                     150                         MSCO
2*7 ®0____
5<An; Bain
111              Gate*
im Lt
574 40
leezea                3.372 00 E~      7
4 721
10
j. $^r»,
o
WHO
l-r jibon
wu>u Swc^rw_________ Ti/vV Q—I It inod T«avwC«aM IV Lnad
’um*
V ir*O
Shea _£^UL‘ ***’<‘s
2OOOCC
Tcraf trema 2 ro 6
Grand Total
•raee 6.627.474
7.621,595
2J.SOS.**5
30,486,279tpRlGATION SCHEME - EARTH DAM COST ESTIMATE
A SUMMARY OAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
Tabls H - 4.2 (Sheet 2 of 2)
description
ITEM NO-
1
2
1
|5.
1
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT (US 51
FOREIGN
component TOTAL
Preliminary
994 12',
3,976.484
7,518.083
Earth Dam                                    5.576.214
22,304.855
45.530.913
Access Roads
3C4.5C0
1,210.000
1.522.500
Diversion Tunnel
32D.00G
1.280.000
1.600.000
[Spillway
343.960
1,375.840
1.719,800
Irrigation Intake
82.800
331.200                414.000
SUB-TOTAL A ;
7,827.595           30r486,379           5S.405.30f
SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT |US Si
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
T
Preliminary
0
0
0
2
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4
Power Canal
0
0
01
5,
Power Tunnel
0
0
0I
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
B.
Penstock & Manifold
0
0
a
9.
Powehouse & Equip.
0
0
0
SUB-TOTAL B.                                            0                      0                       0
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT |US $1
ITEM no.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
t
Preliminary
0
0
0
2.
Switchyard
0
0
1
/Transmission Line
01
0
0
Fl
SUB-TOTAL C:
Q
0
0
total BASE COST :
7,821,595
30,436.379
58,405,301
Physical Contingencies
1,524,319
6,097,276
11,681,060
Sub-tatal
9,145,914
36,533,655
70,086,361
Engineering & Admin.
914,591
3.658,365
7.008,636
GRAND TOTAL :
10.060.505
40.242,020
77,094.997
20
£ngir» 10!
JrrrQrffori FwintH 3 5 *
V
Jrrlpa/Jw? 17
CHIRU 0AM
LAYOUTi’.V
*Elevation in meters
Area in km2
CHIRU RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity Curve
Figure 1H-4.23^•aTER RESOURCES
APPENDIX 5 gambela dam project
Silt Geology
ANNEX m irrigation projects
This  site is  on the Bare river, situated 16 2 km east of the town of Gambela The AG I 250,000 geological map indicates  that the site is  granite to the north and biotite gneiss  and calc-silicate gneiss  to the south, The published 1:250,000 Gore sheet indicates  granites, granitoid gneiss  and biotite gneiss  The geological section 08-03 shows  the site to be underlain by  granite and gneiss  Weathering on the section is indicated as  30 m No drillholes  are indicated on the section so this  estimation is  rather conjectural It is  likely  that the depth of highly  and moderate weathering is  only  10-20 m The site is  covered by  aerial photos, strip 16, photos  1282-1283 Bula mountain to the north is  in granite and rock  occurs  close to the surface A good contour quarry could be developed in this  location Impervious  fill can be obtained from residual soil on sloping ground at the dam site or in the reservoir area A sample of this  material was  obtained with a hand aueer to the left of the road at the dam site. The material was  from 0.1 to 0 85 tn and was  red brown silty  clay  At depth 0 85 m the augering stopped in weathered yellow granite A diversion tunnel could be constructed in the granite or gneiss  without difficulty  with support of shotcrete, wire mesh and rock bolts. The dam is  very' long and a rockfill dam would appear to be the most appropriate type (Note - The "very  long dam" refers  to the dam height proposed by the Russians, it may  be possible to construct a smaller dam for irrigation, as  described below)
Project Description
The Gambela dam would be 50 metre high and constructed of rockfill, as  suggested above It would be developed for irrigation alone but consideration would be given to the installation of a power plant in the future The spillway  would be ungaled, 250 metres  long, and designed for the maximum discharge of 1,749 rriVs  with 2 metres  of stir charge and would utilise a stilling basin 225 metres  wide and 12 metres  long by  4 metres  deep for energy  dissipation During construction of the dam, two 9,6-metre
•ameter   diversion   tunnels   through   the   right   abutment   would   be   convey   the   river ar ound  the  site  A  15  metre  high  cofferdam  would  also  be  constructed  to  protect  the works  The  irrigation  outlets,  both  in  coDs  on  each  abutment  would  have  a  capacity  of
® tn ,'s  each (the required capacities  would be 57 mJ/s  on the left bank  and would
Vary        from     I?
[:
^/s        t0        mi/s        on        ngto     hank     Because     of     their     minor     cost
’^plication, the intake capacities were oversized at the Master Plan level of study)
reservou inundates bottom land which is sparsely cultivated or used for grazing.
e construction of the dam would probably result in loss of some agricultural land
^natural habitat
1 Prcsents the principal characteristics of the Gambela Dam An area-capacity f’gur ^servoir is presented on figure 5.1 A layout of this dam is presented on
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Mister Plan III Appendices -16WATER resources
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJ1Cts
The  total  construction  cost  is  estimated  to  be  $102,114.000.  Detailed  cost  estimate  is presented on Table 5.2
Note:- This  dam was  not selected in the Master Plan but appears  to be of interest for future development Thus, in order to preserve this  site for the future, no major infrastructure that would hamper its development should be built in the reservoir area
Table 5.1 Gambela Irrigation Project Characteristics
1. DAM
Catchment Area
Mean Annual Flow:
Dam Type:
Dam Height
Crest Level:
Normal Max  Operating Level Normal Min Operating Level Active Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir  Surface  Area Spillway Design Flood:
Gates
Max Flood Level Irrigation Outlet Capacity:
Gates
22.740  km2
372 mJ/s
Rockfill
50 m
El 490 0
El 485.0
El. 482 0
214 mcm
1,239 mcm
74.5 km2
1.740   m3/s
Ungated
El 487 0
200 m3/s
8 - 5.00 m x 5.00 m high
Note  This  dam  was  studied  as  part  of  irrigation  systems,  3,3  A,  3B,  7,  7A  and  7B,  not retained in the Master Plan
(1) Actual intake capacities would be as follows:
Left Bank Right Bank
57 m3/s
variable  from  17m’/$  to  67  m  3/s  depending  upon  scheme considered.
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Dcvtiopmrnt Master Plan
IB Appendices - 17SCHEME - *OCXPU_ CUJki - COsrnrwjkTW
Tabte H - 5.2 (Sfieef T of 2J
1
Tt«W
<W MSB |-r« H
. 
’
| 
IKWAaU
1
IMT             w«CMu
LMM.
MaMF*wa
CDWT
•WJML
: ^™T!
I
k----- ArcntRMdl
J»
TJ---“ Ara -flje5
H ort *        ■ 1 ■^■r*1
3W
3X                       9
fl                                    0
9'
_
---- wffi
- *w
six     ~               5 JO                  5».
n
«n«n
____________  _
J ac
I*
i»!
a
a’
a
o
4
a
a
3
------------""Tl
s
1
■MH   ■WCBHrt ■
—                        A MBrtl iVB in
WT             JSCfa:
1
rtiaiw.
1 V’lii
'Majflri'"
UGM.              1          -WW „           U            |        U^_4_,
WFM
1
|
i                     DrrrrsiQH Tynntl
<
___________________
|
41                0—n^i
IIIW««
□ ac                     VSC                   »s*:                       q
3
4J
-,<j
.■^iniiufl 1 M’WM *1 * V
.‘.-rf-i-=.’ iurusn *»■ 3 _/*' 1 ■
#1
,1 EC K
ib «x x
Il K**  ■
4JW3M <
i
Tid^W
l£4           3M
Sit i                      4                                         3
S
________________
rmjfiSi
3
uMI nqcs iui a
CJTfl.ew tjjm.w
im? l|1 Bl
| __
1  M
1
1    — 1
1
UKM
•'■tWEBUB
' min
______ 1
1
L               iS p ilfwiy
11
1J
U----------
T-J ’                12
'JJi
ist          1 JOO
-uiwinil.
m                 ]t*C2£. ■*!« ■x. i       ttW'U;
'»rx
«’ xc
TEF1
11 !$■ XKI
r Hjiji
lM     itW?
M
<■
ui
3® 5 ST a»
^eC a jl T3ff
’.'Ml
iJil
ffi
J-
1"
5J-
g5
T
¥
• >x
Fxi we ”.
□
g
5  1 
d:
c
■fri^ik-gn igiuifc.B
~n — ■x**f --Illi f! u>wd
ax                       1                                3                                3                                     3
1J
•.»*’**-*■!■•- '_j^D
■ un!>« " jjj ,
*
-
]X
IRc
:X• 
:m
u
i
m "              IX-
3 CQ •             J X                     3
5
’-■',
,«. f
:—‘■-9^' itXiiri n            ;i
Hi            “Tic                    3'X                  lx                       3
3
E'
J‘
T~* -             *•*-■ Caib» ,• jm|
J
a.
3•
L.J
rjT
■S -
. ■                   Ts                      r
- - —--- —
lM
|L‘x-Jl Im* „
m --------------- j XT
jx.
TX                         3                                    7                                   0
.              75*55 7------- ■ u nlju x
■KG ao                       1 2i -<fc
Githo1 Taraf
!3.*7r.72ir eT aj6.sfj
r
IF-MlJfJ
F7.343.M0
5EF>   a*   CUT   ■QrF
J ’ l<J* «
Ihl
”1 '7*Sfc Si ■ U»r “B, VI bB^ri f> SMF|
* * LBi, ft ■ vmM ; « - ^.
T£<H
U/t 1LG*1
aiiucrt
*
■
3C/TM0* COMWCM
UCAVATXW
11
ir*:i v
LI m' i *4
1MM
*OCViU OAJM
^-•1 *
VM
IM#|IW LMl-GAMBELA IRRIGATION SCHEME - ROCKFILL DAM -  OSTEST|m
c
At
A: SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
H. .
s
'
ITEM NO                    DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT (USS)                   -----
LOCAL                  FOREIGN
COMPONENT COMPONENT TOTAL
1.             Preliminary
2.013.051
8,072.206
2.             Rockfill Dam
0.008.477
32.033.506
3.                Access Roads
—^2^2 38/
0
0
—-t.
n
4.              Diversion Tunnel
4.320.000
17.280.000
21.600.000
5-                Spillway
820.200
3.280,800
4 ~ToTon(r
6                 Irrigation Intake                                305.000
1.220 0C0
1.52SOOO~
SUB-TOTAL A :
15.471,728         61,886,912
77.358.64C
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (US S)
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
0
0
c
z
Access Roads
0
0
0
3
Power Intake
0
0
0
4               Power Canal
0
0
0
5.                Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.                Surge Shaft
0
0
oj
7.              Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.              Penstock & Manifold
0
0
0
9.                Powehouse 4 Equip.                                 0                             0
0_
SUB-TOTAL B:                                            0                         0
C SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT (US _ ________________ -- FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
J.
Preliminary
U
0
0
2.              Switchyard
J.                 i ransmission Line SUB-TOTAL C:
0
0
A
--------- 0
-- ------------
0
0
u
0
0
TOTAL BASE COST :
15.471,728
61,886.912
77.358.^
Physical Contingencies
3,094,346
12,377.382
16.471.^
Sub-total
18,568,074
74,264.294
92.830^
9,283.03'
Engineering i Admin.
1,856,607
7,426,429
GRAND TOTAL :
20,422,681
81,690,724
102,H '
3 40i
Physical Contingency (%) - 20 Er.gineenering & Administration (%) = 10Hevation in meiers
■t
Area in km2
GAMBELA RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity Curve
Figure 1H-5.1rwaTE
r resources
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION PROJECTS
APPENDIX 6 GILO 1 DAM PROJECT
Site Geolog*
The  Gilo-1  dam  site  is  on  the  Gilo  River  approximately  75  km  upstream  from  the village  of  Agenga,  in  the  flood  plain,  and  95  km  WNW  from  Mizan  Teferi  It  is practically impossible to reach the site According to the AG 1.250.000 geological map the site is in granite Cross section 08-05 shows the dam site to be in gneiss, with weathering  to  40  m  However  due  to  the  inaccessibility  of  the  site  this  depth  of weathering  is  highly  conjectural  The  site  is  just  covered  on  the  edge  of  the  aerial photos,  strip  33,  photos  2236.  2237.  but  the  site  is  only  just  stereoscopic  although there is a lot of relief displacement. The valley has very steep side slopes Mountains to the north of the site have very sharp features indicating a very thin soil cover, so a rock quany must be possible to develop It may however be at a higher elevation than the dam The gneiss or granite would be suitable as rockfill To the north of the site the photos  appear  to  reveal  gneisses  in  the  mountains,  with  many  striations  A  spillway could probably be constructed in a coll (saddle) on the southern bank. Impervious fill should be available downstream of the dam site in the lower-lying gently undulating land A diversion tunnel can be constructed easily in the gneisses and support will be shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts The most appropriate type of dam for this site is rockfill, but if rock was found to outcrop sufficiently on the valley slopes at the dam site a concrete dam. even arched, might be feasible
Project Description
The Gilo-1 dam would be a 107 metres  high and, as  indicated above would be of rockfill construction The spillway would be on the left abutment, discharging through a coll to the flood plain below, well away  from the dam toe (see Figure J-8 1) in Appendix J The spillway would have three 7 00 by 6 00 m high gates and a short chute which would terminate at the head of a ravine on the downstream side of the abutment No concrete paving would be required beyond this  point, due to the presumed high quality  of the rock  During construction, the river would be diverted through two 7 00 metre diameter diversion tunnel with a 15 metre high cofferdam A low lever outlet tunnel with a capacity  of 200 m’/s  and two 1.50 m by 2 50 m high pressure slide gates would also be provided
Ba *ed on the 1986 aerial photography, the reservoir area is virtually unpopulated and no major adverse environmental effects are anticipated
T he principal characteristics of this hydroelectric dam project are presented on Table 1   A  layout  of  the  dam  and  the  appurtenant  works  is  shown  on  Figure  J-8  1  in
Appendix J.
t
to ?rca'caPac* y curve of the reservoir is presented j Ot . Constnjction cost of the hydroelectric dam is 
bailed cost estimate is presented on Table 6 2.
on Figure J-8.2 in Appendix J The estimated to be $133,179.000 A
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Development Muter Plan 1H Appendices -1®WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1H IRRIGATION Pr
Oj{;
An alternative use of this dam, for irrigation, was considered, as pan of
systems 11 and 12 The cost of an irrigation dam was derived from the cost Irngar,°n Table 6 2 by including the cost of irrigation intakes required by systems ln However, because of cost, these projects were not retained in the Master P] 12
Table 6.1 Gilo-1 Hydroelectric Dam Project Characteristics
1. DAM
Catchment Area Mean Annual Flow Dam Type
Dam Height
7,570 km*’ 74 1 m3/s Rockfill
107 m
Crest Level
El 612 0
Normal Max Operating Level
El 606 6
Normal Min Operating Level
El. 578.6
Active Storage
2,341 mcm
Dead Storage
874 mcm
Reservoir Surface Area:
116.8 km*
Spillway Design Flood
1,065 m3/s
Gates
Max Flood Level Low Level Outlet Capacity
Gales
3-7 00 m x 6.00m high
El 609
200 m3/s
2 - 1 00 m x 3 50 m high
essentially     the^m^^r     im8atl0n       darn       a*     Oilo-1     site     were     assumed     to     be
“ °2 hydropow‘r
11 or on the left bank 3 100
convenien.lv toted “P*”*)' on ‘he ngh. bank for system
at El S60 masL annr * Sy?,enl respectively  These structures  would be toted
the dam. its  annfn«, y Wh “^mating the costs  of systems  11 and 12, the cost of
^ dedinthe^ofthefcSnKs he m^
C
e
8atiOn
WCrC Subsft>uent,y determined to be 81 m’/s implication, the intakes were overrsi s^zeedd ffloMr Master Planning cost est°ima"t°ing purposes
f mi    r
TAMS ULG Baro-Akobo Integrated Doelop meet Masi er PU»
IB Appendices - 19JC*
It t.
i» *•&
i ——
»n
> i‘H»
A ’- ► «
K
n»RirO3 43 Hl*>3
-          34QTK «r C
-       jrfc-n tin
iitrxre. #3 ni^aa
*--3 >un«Mn.|
'*-**r-L*^K 4*^. u
ftlWOOl
LLftn’ZI
aitn
jji'nz'os
Krtn’o?
)«joi pu»>9
eztw w                    u?»n7J
MIWlV
■tfn#ii
Jt. ME
7CT1'*
CSQIE
«•<»*
iffcta
• 33 «
i 4-'
S-K* *1-       El
•e
1 w. nrr
HOf»f
" FTfe!
’
1I
ft W                        W                  □r-t.".              ix*rr*     -“J5L'
XL                  at             xc                    Ui
Lu
t.:E»
"Ek it
• iJ
Lffilb ‘ Ut
' KTT=- r I i e* ”i t M Hr E
±iil   W 1
ifdZMk
FVW?Tt-
^iruir) H i
t:
*”“l 1 1
111
rj
II
1
p  1 x- ■-■*r«K 1 ^kjeu I —M
||t
| wir'
r-
1
-
I rpivui
I**'     ■
S iZli |!>M A«
rtC ttrH
?r rr» ~
r
wxri
pm j*n*x
jwnir; MUwvJ T jnw^|<*f
> C X-C i      Isa iKfI
D». •
xt
rctrzt
rc                Kt
x vy.. x:rj .
3W“ r ttrz *■■*■
s*dn * 11*-* fcJX =tjbaj-
1 c
:c
C                   000              KC                          Kt
*
*
“■ 1
s*-H ii ire-i
„ »*wmO
rr
rr
JT.
11
IflUimj, UUUiWQ               »
— i
—
W KU.
-HTXT!
Ll'fer^ rXu^r
1.1 IM. 13b*4*K
1J
■cTLUl
t
t
POW> HOzi'l
i*                                 0
{                    Kfi                XC                  oar
xr IW
a
P3 Ll£J
L
• n
IC
*
x XT |4          !«“»• d
•u 1
i-j* I
£<*■- - ~»v
re
rx
Kt
COO
“* |
*irttf MVH
,?T
i
i
i                    ;--------------------------------------- 1-----------------
tStflfei nr»tf
t
UkJTU             1*4*4
■man
TWJ
i | IftT;
»T>» GJ j Tw?m
KI MJ tMMJJK
MAW
tnlhlTl
«r«;T<
*mET
JUHZ
. > •; »t i
!.?5 ELL
-a£.^LL
Ex*llLi
ill!
-Th n
r< ik » 
«f itt*i
: P1J!U
(*!«
BL»L
kx tn
*«otii:
E.Tttn 3
'IW.J
■JELEi
w
I
. .a*i u                        KU .XT th
£ JO l
= L»^Ltnx50i -WTCTTtfXD^ - 5M3H5S
f HWOV JJri*^*'’***’
fcr *C' lhGILO f-W HTD-ROfLf CTWC MWW                      - WOCMWJ. DAM- COS rEJFOlATj
m_C ILO
.
1.R HVDRO-ZLBCTWC POWER SCHEME . a0CK5ILL MH.
A : SUMMARY DAM 3 APPURTENANT WORKS
Tsble " - 6.2 tSheet 3 f j
AMOUNT (US I]
ITEM NO-
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
component
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
Y
Preliminary
2,631.983
10.527.933
13.159,917
z
Rockfill Dam
12,723,288
50.893,154
63.616.442
3.
Access Roads
M 74. SCO
4,690,000
5,872.500
4
Diversion Tunnel
2,097,600
8.390.400
10,488.000
5
Spillway
385,967
1,543,868
1,929,835
&
|Low Level Outlet
1J65.2C0
4,650.800
5.826.000
SUB-TOTAL A:                                 20,178,539         8O.714.15S 100.392.694
0 ; SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT {US Si
ITEM NO,
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
*•
Preliminary
1.565.190
6,250,760
7,825,950
z
Access Roads
a
0
0
z                Power Intake
97.600
390.400
488.000
4.               Power Canal
0
0
0
5.                Power Tunnel
432.000
1,728,000
2 J 60.000
6                 Surge Shaft
0
0
0
I?.       Pressure Shaft
0
“61
0
[>■     1 Penstock & Manifold
305,000
1.220,000
1,525.000
[9.               1 Powehouse & Equip.
9,600,000        38,400 oao      48.000.000
SUS-TOTAL B:
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
11.999.790        47.999.160      59.998,950
AMOUNT (US J)
item no
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN       I COMPONENT
TOTAL
J.
z_
[2-
Preliminary
2,835,000         11.34Q.000
14,175,000
Switchyard
0
Ti
0
Transmission Line            18.900.000
75.600,000
94.500.QC0
SUB-TOTAL C
21,735,000
06,940,000
108,675.000
TOTAL BASE COST :
53,913.329
275,653,315
26 fl, 56 6,644
Physical Contingencies
10,782,666
43,730,863
53,913.329
Sub-tota!
64,695,994
258,783.978
323.479,972
Engineering & Admin.
6,469.599
25.878,338
32,347,997
GRAND TOTAL :
71.765,594
284,652.376
355,827.970
Physical Contingency (%) - 20 Engineenerrng & Administration (%) - 10r-F’ANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
ANNEX II
WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
M^lJLG Baro-ALnhn Rivrr Halin
Tnicgmu-d Development Ma«tr PUnANNEX II. WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
CONTENTS
introduction.............................. •............ -..........
Objectives 
...................................................................
.1 !
1
.2
.2 4
.5
3.
The Study Area .........................................................................
3
Institution ^ Setting ............. .................... ......................................
Government Policy.. ...................................................................... Available Data
yFETHODOLOG^
EXISTING SUPPLIES AND CURRENT PROGRAMS...
3.1      Existing W'ater Supplies
32 Current Programs and Projects ............
...................
4.
FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS.............................................
41       Population Projections 
.................................. ............
42
43
5.
5]
fa
fa
52
Consumption Levels 
................. ...... .
Projected Water Requirements .................................................... WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS....
Urban Water Supply Programs...................................... ..............
Main Towns..................................................................
Small Towns.................................................................. ..
Rural Water Supply Program................................................... .
TABLES
11
H
12
12
1
Current Water Supply Levels and Tariffs 
2
Existing Water Supply Systems-Mam Towns 
3
Existing Water Supply Systems-Medium Size To
Existing Water Supply Systems Small Towns and Villages 
Projected Town Populations 
Projected Rural Population and Population Denstti
Assumed Net Daily Water Supply Demands 
Projected Net Average Daily Town Water^Require e
laoie ]0
T *ble. 11
Tjb|  12
e:
Table- n is
17
;F J
4;
^22
u !c; 16
Projected Gross Peak Daily Town Water Require Rural Community Water Supply Wells Require City Water Supply Program Cost Summary Asosa Water Supply Cost Estimate
Dembrdolo Water Supply Cost Summary Gambela W ater Supply Cost Estimate
Metu Water Supply Cost Estimate
Tepi Water Supply cost Estimate
Mizan Teferi Water Supply cost Estimate Begi Water Supply Cost Estimate
Gore Water Supply Cost Estimate
Masha Water Supply Cost Estimate
Small 50 Towns Water Supply Program Cost
c,  man
im
r
-^Medium Towns
TAMS-VLG Baro-Akobo tow »“■ ta"*"’"1 d ’
II-»WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX IL W ATER SUPPLY
Tabic; 23          28 Small Towns-Typical Town Cost Estimate Table; 24          7 Villages-Typical Village Cost Estimate
Table: 25 Rural Community Water Supply Program Cost Summary
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan
II - iiANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
p-fRODlCTION
j J Objectives
He present Annex deals with the supply  f
o   poUble water in
.
\toer Planning purposes It is based primarily on available data and "r " Basin for
is to assess the present conditions and to identify the future requirements™^ inlCM
future water supply requirements translate into required inveatm™, i , perceived needs of the population in the basin These n«d T* ’ J*** S t0 mcet the quantified in this Annex and can serve to plan future wator ’ t
bm
1.2  The Study Area
P n mtUre Wa,er suPPb' development within the
been ldenlif,ed and
Tie study  area is  located in the south-western part of Ethiopia It covers  approximately 75,912 km1 The area includes  all or pan of four Administrative Regions: SEPAR in the south. Oromiya in the NE. Gambela in the central western portion and Benshangul in the ranh-westem extremity
land « composed of high
with peaks exceeding 2*0 basins. The Gambela plains lie west
from 1500 and 2000 m and
<o
“ ^menl
devBioM rangmg Son 400
forming rhe central western most pan
Th main rivers with in the basrn include the Bare. ®Sobal its right tributary the Gilo. These rivers are p
^tributary of the White Nile in Sudan
I*.A tributary tnC
m
System, a ma,or
in the highlands and the
p r«ent population in the basin is about 2.2 million J*'1
^ing     pan     in     the     lowlands     About     92%     of     pr<* rt maining 8% is classified as urban
most Of the agriculture is subsistence fanni^ ®^ ^of crop
in this area
population is rural and
..M highlands Also this is the arw
*     most of the animal population is located^
pov/th of the
^djan    popuiaXlon      js      growing    at    a    very    high    pace,    ab°^ar      2035,    the    ^tLT^urban.
Population By the end of the planning peno 1 > *
&5% rural and 1-
io be in the order of 53 million people me ud"8^^ wiU be in the highlands n is anticipated that 77 % of the popular
• 0 2 million) wilt be in the lowlands.
d
ai rport is
« 3as a moderately developed road system
e 'a which includes a first class paved runway
rrnd several airfieWs The"**3'’’
-—________________ ____ ___
Ml5ltr Pla
Baro-AkobTw^^*'^
11-1WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 11. WATER SUPPLY
Navigation in the Bara which used to link the Gambela region to Sudan was disc 
years ago
Power infrastructure includes the 5 MW Sor hydropower station, the 0.75 MW Dembi h power station and several Diesel installations The Sor station supplies Metu, Gore Ga k and Dembidolo via a 66 kV transmission system The Dembi station supplies Te
Mizan Teferi
Annua! precipitation in the area varies from 750 mm in the lowlands to over 2000 mm in highlands 
The climatology and the hydrology of the basin are discussed in annexes 1 A and ]0 respectively Groundwater is discussed in Annex ID, The land resources arc discussed in Annexes 2A and 2B Agriculture is discussed in Annex 21.
1.3        Institutional Setting
OI "'
1
“*
The lead government institution in water resources  in Ethiopia is  the Ministry  of Water Resources  This  institution is  responsible for national level policy, planning, co-ordination and technical advisory capacity and is instrumental in the funding process
The Regional Governments  execute policy, implement projects, operate and maintain the main water services  and provide advise to community  owned and operated water services The administration. Operations  and Management (O & Mj and the collection of revenue from water supply is the responsibility of the water services
A  more  detailed  description  of  the  institutional  set-up  at  various  levels  of  government  is given in Annex 3F
1.4        Government Policy
National level water policy is outlined in the Letter of Sector Policy by the Ministry of Resources dated January 1996 This concerns among others the quality standards I e capita water supply levels, guidelines concerning the levels/ type of services through nation and nation-wide government targets for meeting the water needs of the population
The purpose of the Letter is to describe the sector policies that the country plans t£> f°^er during implementation of upcoming International Development Agency (IDA) an
donor funded projects
Some key issues addressed in the letter are as follows -
•            To improve the water supply and sanitation sector management O&M, regulatory framework that will allow enforcement of regulation needs to be or
•             Policies, guidelines and directives so far developed include
TAA1S-ULG Baro-Akotrt River Basin Integrated Deveinpment Master Pl*°
11-2A TTR RfSOURCES __________________  ANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
.    Water    Resource    utilisation    proclamation    (92/94)    This    is    the    only    legally instituted   instrument   for   the   development,   management   and   utilisation   of water resources
.    Guidelines    for    the    establishment    of    water    committees    which    is    meant    to involve communities in all aspects of water supply
♦  Basic  principles  and  guidelines  for  urban  water  Tariff  Study  has  been  recently- approved by the government The regions will be implementers of the Policy
According to the plan of action prepared in August 1992 The national target is  to achieve the following water supply  coverage for the population by  the end of the century.
Urban              95%
Rural.              3 5%
»  The  country  has  attempted  to  establish  a  quality  standards  with  the  view  of  achieving the World Health Organisation standard
•          The  quantity  standards:  35-40  l/c/d  for  urban  water  and  15-25  l/c/d  for  rural  water supply   schemes   However   the   design   parameters   for   urban   centres   allow-   higher values
•        Level of service for water supply in Ethiopia
Sat of
Population
less than 100
101-400
401-2000
'OlW-Jooo
: 000-10000
l00o*and above
Type of service
dug well
large diameter dug well
drilled well piped supply- piped supply- piped supply
Level of service
Provided by community self help
Hand pump
Hand pump, 300-500 persons per well
95  %  by  public  fountain  -  300-350  persons  per fountain
80%  by  public  fountain  -  400-500  persons  per fountain
60% by public fountain - 400-500 persons per fountain
' Ortl the above it
*
appears that -
c ’cs are for the short term Medium and long term policies need to be established
Quai;?^   Slandards   are   non   existent   No   time   frame   exists   for   adopting   the   WHO
4Uab,y standards
There jc 
.
Mandarrt.    TUention      of    adopting    WHO    quantity    standards    However,    the    present is CQhe• J* *east f°r the urban population are better than the previous idea that 201 cd
l/c/d j' adequate, This seems to have been abandoned in favour of the 35-40 Urban ^eas. However, in rural areas 15-25 l/c/d is the present standard
11-3WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX II. WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
More details on the above and other issues such as cost recovery, management d ordination participation of stake holders, linkages with other sector, regulatory fta r 00 integration of water supply and sanitation, and also given in the letter
1.5       Available Bata
mc ^ork
in  order  to  carry  out  this  task,  use  has  been  made  of  available  data  and  information  from related  studies  bv  ARDCO  GEOSERV  and  other  consultants  Other  sources  include  data  on water supply services and on water policy and current project development plans provided bp> the  Ministry  of  Water  Resources,  data  gathered  from  regional  authorities,  system  operators. Bureau  of  Natural  Resources  and  Energy  (ex  WSSA  Regional  Office)  at  Jimma  and  visits  to the  project  area  Data  on  rural  projects  was  provided  by  UN  agencies  and  other  donors Likewise,  data  developed  for  the  purpose  of  Master  Plan  concerning  population,  surface  and groundwater  resources  and  cost  estimating,  presented  in  Annexes  3A,  IB,  ID  and  1  G  has been utilised as appropriate
TAMS-ULG Blro-Akobo Rjvcr Basin Integrated Development Waiter Plan
11-4^TtR R^£VRCES____________________ ____  ANNEX imATERSCPPLY PROGRAMS
METHODOLOGY
2*
iD
■« -
•    Main Towns
10,000 or more
•    Medium Towns 
4,000 to 9,999
» Small Towns
1,000 to 3,999
•    Villages
less than 1,000
The rural population was dealt with on a wereda and regional bases
The available data on the existing urban water supplies was analysed for the above mentioned pnups  of towns  Subsequently, desirable water supply  levels  were identified on a per capita average net daily basis for the projected populations throughout the planning penod
The future average net daily water demands were then assessed on the basis of the projected populations  and the per capita water supply  levels. The future gross  peak  daily  town requirements were estimated from the net daily values, increased by an allowance for losses ad assumed percentage variations in the daily demand patterns. Projected deficits were then identified based on future anticipated needs and existing capacities
Unit costs  to meet the future urban requirements  were subsequently  derived from existing project cost data and total cost estimates  for major towns  and for typical groups  of the tnedium and small towns and villages
Installations were scheduled to meet the projected future demands taking into existing facilities. Finally, the Operation and Maintenance costs for civi, e Mechanical components, wells, pipes were estimated based on the investment co s Mstallation Power costs were estimated based on anticipated power requirem
5*°f power and chemical costs were estimated on the basis of
costs of chemicals. For more information on costs, see Annex G,
^mating.
Kural water requirements were             ^jmated^cosSt of s ° tf otal projected rby e uraal Pch^* Ornate of number of wells required a              number of P^op ^jwater, on
cost
bcT  of
’•inquired was estimated based on 
derived from the well costs est^«ed^ , ieeCTl
4
J  current WIBS project experience an 
.„ Mr.ex 1-0?™                 funded®
Canadian International Development N8en J           size tow® 0T| hulated combining the main towns,
Elation.
ymally.          ^
tegCS
progm®  and
T '^LG
River B» in
S
11-5water resources
ANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY
3. EXISTING SUPPLIES AND CURRENT PROGRAMS
3.1       Existing Water Supplies
Available  information  regarding  the  present  town  water  supplies  has  been  organised presented in the following tables 
Table I            Summary' of Present Water Supply Levels and      Tariffs Table 2           Existing Water Supply Systems -Main Towns
Table 3           Existing Water Supply Systems -Medium Size       Towns Table 4           Existing Water Supply Systems -Small Towns       and Villages
15
This data has been used to ascertain the present conditions and the future needs within the planning penod
Rural water supply  data is  practically  non exisicnt However, the limited information from the ARDCO-GF.OSERV Hydrogeology  report and estimates  in the WTBS project have betz used.
An  analysis  of  available  town  water  supply  systems  data  presented  in  Tables  I  through  4. lead to the following findings.
Tne   present   lcve'   °f   wa[&     supply   is   extremely   low   and   far   from   the   present standards of 35-40 l/c/d for urban centres and 15-25 1/c/d for rural water supply schemes.
The   ARDCO-GEOSERV   Study   reports   that   most   of   the   existing   supplies   are inadequate, in many instances people travel long distances to fetch river or spring waters.
Although financial data is scar™ ■, tw-n from J t0 4 Birr per cut>ic
the which varv from town to
cn
C0S<    rccovefy   scheme   The   r   C     ",sil^ic'em     to   cover   cost   and   do   not   allo*
studying water tariffs
h Government of Ethiopia is in the process of
wound water is tbe
whereas  sur&ce water, if available icrh°Uf*CC watcr supply  for the small towns
n several instances, the use nf \
due K low
wmam,nanon
A8err?ecl«ia- ble source of now* ■      'S Institutional development inH,
probable source for the larger towns f "8                 has been abandoned in favour rf
sn
and dl^
specialise
d personnel is 
abl ' yields and/or because of the high nsk «
for normal development of water supP» and ^r,ance personnel, opera™’*
and development of these                 ^^her basic requirement for proper function^?
TA MS-U LG Baro-Akobo River Biun        Integrated Development Master 11*11^josoubces
ANNEX H, WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
Table 1 Current Water Supply Levels and Tariffs (I)
Water Tariffs
vljin To^115
Consumption litres/capit>/day
Birr per m1
Connection
Tap
Per Bucket
!____ -7-                  “
4
2.50
N/A
- - —-------------- --------- ‘
!l    i
en p           —
3
1.00
1.00 or 2.25
-
Mnu ----- ----------- ~
Tf"fi 1
13 to 19
1.00
1.5
0 05
3
1.75
1 75
Kfizaii Tefen
4
1.75
1.75
Gambeta
13 to 17
1.00
1.00
Other Towns
Mugi
—
6
N/A
N/A
L---- ------ -- Rob Gebia
Haro Sabu (Alem Tef)
6
ri 5
5
2.5
Guliso
-
2.0
[nango
-
N/A
Algae
8
N/A
Sigmo
7
fl) latest available data
3.2     Current Programs and Projects
The current Government programs and projects 
m tndtattetl in the document Besic Dau on Major U.ta Wat« Supply sera
Ministry of Water Resources. 26 December 1995 This document covers the enhre
except Addis Ababa
^ssificaf  ocyment  presents  a  list  and  basic  data  on  major  water  supplies,  a  proposed 0  1    r  U|^*an    water   supply   services   based  on  complexity,  annual   income  and
t °mpleted   (]   1St     °f    ComPleted   projects   from   1977   to   1995,   feasibility   studies   recently ^istrucn   \UnC     .   a   list   of   on-going   projects   (feasibility   and   design,   rehabilitation   and
a
U   Ply Services. t«^ n
Population *
Conslructiol 3
for feasibil'tC lndi
cat n
proposed projects (feasibility study, design and rehabilitation, ' 8 the source of funding and, a list of towns for which sources of fund
criteria 7^'^ anc* design has not yet been identified In addition, the document lists °r the selection of water supply projects/programmes
P’e status of th
ls &ven below main tOwns « the Baro-Akobo River Basin, abstracted from this document
T AMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin minted Development Master Plan
11-7WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX II. WATER SUPPLY
Town
Begi
Minn
Teferi
Mctu
Region
Benshangul SEPRA Oromiya
Dembidolo Oromiya
Asosa and Benshangul
Gambeln          Gambela
Gore
Oromiya
Begi Tepi Benshangul SEPRA
Status
Prefeasibility study completed in June 1995 as pan of the 6 Town Water Supply Prefeasibility Study Program funded by the GOE.
Feasibility Study and Design completed in 1996 under 12 Town feasibility and design program funded by the African Development Fund (ADF) and the GOE
Rehabilitation completed in 1996 with funding from the German Reconstruction credit Agency (KFW) and the GOE, as part of a 12 town Expansion and Rehabilitation Program
Planned Feasibility Study, Design
Rchabilitation/Expansion. starting 1996/97, as part of a 25 Town Water Supply Feasibility, Design and Rehabilitation Program funded by the International Development Agency (IDA) of the World Bank, the GOE and others 
Feasibility and Design completed in 1992/93 under a 7 town Feasibility and Design Program funded by 
ADF/ADB ADB has agreed to finance the implementation from unused funds already committed to Ethiopia
In addition to the above, small towFenapsirobjielitcty s staurdeiebs eianngdimdepsi legmneanrteedplbay nntheed.GHaomwbeevelarr,egion, and rural water supply is currently fubnediinngg ihmaps lenmoteyentet dbeinensoidmeentoiffiethde weredas as part ot t WIBS funded by UNICEF, GOE and others. Likewise. NGOs are involved in small rur projects and the UNHCR is involved in water supply to refugee camps at Bonga, Pugnido a Dima
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Buia InfeKmted Development Master FJa°#aTEB RESOURCES___________ ____________ ANNEX II. water SUPPLY PROGRAMS
firrURE WATER REQUIREMENTS
4  j population Projections
wthe  purpose  of  this  Master  Plan,  population  in  the  study  area  within  the  planning  penod been  assumed  to  be  in  accordance  with  data  provided  in  Annex  3A,  Population  The
'foiected town population through year 2035 abstracted from the above referred annex  are ' Uted in Table 5 for the town categories  listed in Section 2, above Similarly, the protected rural populations  per region during the planning penod abstracted from the population annex and resulting densities per sq km are summarised in Table 6
From the above, the following is concluded
The  present  urban  population  will  double  in  the  next  20  years  and  will  multiply  by four within the end of the planning period.
Population densities will more than double over the planning period
U Consumption Levels
In order to estimate the future water requirements, water supply levels have been assumed as shown in Table 7
for  the  urban  population  it  was  assumed  that  water  demands  would  evolve  from  near  the present levels to levels compatible with current standards
Table 1 a minimum of 8 litres per capita per day would appear to be the present level
e town Populations Thus, this was taken as the initial point in the demand projection for
on bcT*5 excepr for Metu and Gambela that al present have a higher level of demand Based
P5C .ln8 datA the present demands for Metu and Gambela were taken at 15 and 20 litres 
av ai!ab|ta day’ resPectivdy .Although these values are low, it was decided to use the best
e current demand data as the starting point in the demand projection.
L'1                     T the demand projection assumes that all of the main towns would meet the
into ateg target within the planning period The higher values  assigned to Gambela take would do'T! higher temperature levels  in this  town As  can be seen most of the towns of 5 6% Z. C ,^1eir water supply levels in 15 years which would indicated a sustained growth leve|staro r Over period All other towns  and villages  would meet the 15-25 Led
for rural systems
■ l'Vas<assum!T lhc needs oflh« rural population al large, for the purpose of Master Planning ye ar ZOfif? that the service per well would start by a minimum of 1000 persons per we
This and Would reach a level of 350 persons per well target ™‘hin the pianning
e          1'*"5 reducing the travel distance from 3.3 km in year 2000 to L4 km a
th  nla"
p anning penod This method was preferred over the conventional method of well Baro-Akobo River Buln Integrated Development Plan
11-9WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 11. WATER SUPPI v -------  — ------------------------------------------ ——---------- _
yields and per capita allocations which would have resulted in excessive travel dist^
resulting waste of valuable time
4.3       Projected Water Requirements
The  water  requirements  were  projected  for  the  urban  and  rural  populations  for  the  n[ar period  through  year  2035  in  order  to  allow  planners  to  establish  immediate,  short
and   long   term   plans   It   should   be   emphasised,   however,   that   the   reliability   of projections  decreases  over  time  or  as  one  departs  from  the  present.  In  other  words.  fuC needs become more uncertain in the longer term horizons and thus planning should be revised and adjusted periodically in order to get closer to real conditions, such as increased demar.d reflecting  improved  living  standards  and  or  economic  /social  development  Likewise  the* figures need to be revised if high water consuming industries are established
The projected net average daily water requirements for the townships within the study are are presented in Table 8 in cubic metres per day, excluding losses The figures indicate tht probable evolution from the present through years 2000, 2010 and thereafter through year 2035 at 5 year intervals The townships are grouped as described in section 2, Methodology The projections are based on the projected populations presented in Table 5 and the assumed net daily water supply levels shown in Table 7
Similarly  the  peak  daily  gross  water  requirements  for  the  towns  in  the  study  area  were estimated and are presented in Table 9, expressed in m per day, including losses
The peak day projections admit the feet that daily demands vary due to various factors, The average daily demand may be subject to both daily and season variations Fro01 the
Consultant's experience, it is considered likely that, in the Baro-Akobo situation with o*
levels of per capita consumption, seasonal variations will be negligible Internatio-
experience suggests that the peak daily demand will be 30% greater than the average ■*< demand International experience also shows that system losses will not be less than
average daily demand In other words, the gross peak daily values presented in Tab e , arrived al by multiplying the figures presented in Table 8 by the factors 1.15 (losses)
(ratio peak day over average day requirements).”
The puipose of establishing the peak day projections, incorporating losses, is t0
scheduling of system development in stages according to the evaluation of t c a
demands The staged development, however, should be revised periodically aftcr c
and adjusted according to actual evolution of demand
h
Similarly, the requirements of the rural population expressed in number of wells f
the planning periods is presented in Table 10 The needs take into account installations based on cunent estimates and assumptions described in Section 4 >-
M indicated at the foot of Table 10, the number of wells for each planning 1*^ number of wells required each year assume a 100% coverage of the P populauon These figures can be adjusted in accordance with government available funding and other resources such as personnel, contractors, equip menu
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development           PU”
II-W, 4rtK^OORC^
annex il water supply programs
w
il vking the assessment of the existing water supplies and that of the future requirements, 3 ible programs were developed in order to meet the perceived future needs of the urban
plural populations  throughout the planning period, i e, to year 2035 The proposed Mentions  were designed having in mind a phased development strategy  Ail costs  are ^en in US 5 and reflect January 1996 cost levels They include construction costs, physical tontingencies, engineering and administration Costs  were estimated as  discussed in Annex [G Water Resources Cost Estimating
5.1 Urban Water Supply Progra ms
The urban water supply programs include (1) a "city" program concerning the 9 main towns ind (2) a "Small Town" program concerning the 50 medium and small (owns and villages The main towns include Asosa, Dembidolo, Gambela, Metu, Tepi, Mtzan Teferi, Begi, Gore and Masha The small town program actually  includes  15 medium sized towns, 28 small towns and villages as defined in Section 2, above
The purpose of these programs is to meet the current policy of supplying at least 95% of the urban population with safe drinking water Based on existing information, the assumed sources of town water supply were nearby rivers in the case of Gambela, Metu. Tepi. Mizan Teferi, Gore and Dembidolo All other towns and villages were assumed to be supplied by seep u 1|
es
,a J Main Towns
in * summary  of the city  water supply  program is  presented in Table II whereas  the T,hirma?°n COnccrning the 9 towns  that would benefit from such a program is  presented in Tables 12 through 20
The
inveslIT3ent requirements to implement the city program, expressed in million summarised below;-
 ATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
Term Immediate
term Medium Term
^Tenn
total
Average Annual
Years
1997-2000
2001-2015
2016-2030
2031-2035
1995-2035
1995-2035
Investment (USS million) 26,0
14,6 27.2 2,5
703
1,8
'^s cap be
^<*ev | T*
en
n    'n   Tables    12  through  20.  the  installations  are  staged  in  approximately  equal
^’^ha] n^ ?
e
1
h also includes smaller investments between stages to provide for
p
ro
res P laVing P  Brams in accordance with actual town expansion The investments 
ttU ’ beca „
u    lf^e reAect urgent needs where these needs could be assessed
° the recently completed project no new investments arc planne unti *- Tj AMS-CLG Baro-AkolHi River Buio Integrated Develop^ Muter Plaa
11-11WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX II. WATER SUPPLY PROGRa\
The first large construction projects would take place in years 1999 and 2000 to all
for securing funding and for completing feasibility and design where required
An approximate breakdown between local and foreign costs and of annual O & M co recurrent costs, is also given The latter vary from USS 0 62 per cubic metre in year V * reflecting the cost of the initial construction package to about USS 0 30 in subsequent °° The average long term cost is in the order of USS 0.37
The above suggests it would be possible to design future rates to cover not only the recu cost but in addition to allow for al least parttai cost recovery of the capital investments required
W time
^ ears
s
El should be pointed out that if future assessments indicate a steeper demand growih then ihe level of investments should also be reassessed upwards
(b) Small Towns
The small town program summary  is  presented in Table 21 The estimates  for the 15 medium towns, 28 small towns  and 7 villages  comprising the small town program are given in Tables 22, 23, and 24, respectively. The investment requirements  expressed in million US Dollars, are summarised below: -
Term
Years
Investment
Immediate
1997-2000
8.0
Short term
2001-2015
7.5
Medium Term
2016-2030
80
Long Term
2031-2035
0
Total
1997-2035
23.5
Average Annual
1997-2035
06
Thus, the total requirements  for the enure period would amount to about USS 23.5 million This  investment could be spread more or less  evenly  to meet the available funding an averaging about S 0.6 million per year.
The annual unit running cost of water averages about USS 0.15 per m3 This suggests I^ '^
a
c
rate design should include a scheme to recover as much of the capital investment as poss!
The fact is that people are currently paying much more
It should be pointed out that if future assessments indicate a steeper demand growth then th levs! of investments should also be reassessed upwards.
5.2 Rural Water Supply Program
A  program  for  well  construction  to  provide  safe  drinking  water  in  the  rural  populated throughout the project area is presented in Table 25.
The  program  includes  the  construction  of  shallow  hand  dug  wells  equipped  with  hafl^s^rT]ed as well as deep bore hole wells equipped in the suitable mechanical pumps It waS
TAMS-U LG Baro-Akobo Rncr Basin Integrated Development Master Plan
11-12RESOURCES^________________________ ANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
M of units would be shallow wells and 20% would be deep wells This is based on *' -riencc in similar rural projects.
ffceni e*Peri
rta | number of wells and the investment required during the planning period i5
Tenn
[mmedi^c
Short ter™ 
y odium Term Longterm Total
Average Annual
Years
1997-2000
2001-2015
2016-2030
2031-2035
1997-2035
1997-2035
Investment (USS million) 79
27 7
54,4
18 1
108.1
28
The actual number of shallow and deep wells  can not be ascertained at the present This multi require an extensive hydrogeological investigation. However the adopted breakdown would appear to be reasonable for the purpose of this  Master Plan If future data indicates  a different breakdown, then the estimates can be easily adjusted
The above assumes that the following % of future rural population is served
1997-2000          25%
2001-2015          50%
2016-2035              75%
Average for period                59%
The running costs  of the above program average about USS 0.12 per cubic  metre, for the Krire 39 year period Thus  it appears  that the design of the water tariff should allow for at W!t partial recovery of the capital investment plus running costs.
r lL  mr^  Program  is  flexible  so  rt  can  be  adjusted  to  meet  the  desired  target  levels  concerning P^ctntage of the rural population served and/or the level of funding secured
TA MS-ULC
11-13^SOURCES
A NNEX 1L WA™ SUPPLY PROGRAMS
lA MS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Intefrated Develop®*" Master Pl«*T whir 1-2
page I of J
Kliiriatit Water Supply System
Main Town*
/'
f
f                      la
J AMM( IJ
J DcrnbrJkitoi J1
I Meria 41
1 TcpKW J
Muaa TcfcnW
Ganibdla {*>
Gore ()RT|
VlsUUl LU(
1 f rtimjtffif Prpnlrifon (•> J |iWM6>
r 11 w
r 20 m
I
IQ W
10.740
!»,5W
1.041
6.MI7
L
S.«l
|
p
1 Sdurrr rf Wiia
j Ground Water
| Ground Water
' Sorflner
Spruigntoer
GrtMjndWjltf
Haro Rmtt
Spring waler
GiwumIi Wald
Spnngwatof
(T*XthdsiM<r
I
j Wafer FVoducXhoo oil
7
2WJ
25 hl)
4>4i2]
W-!P)
WA
N/A
H'A
Hi—
J -M-Qtij
1 Wiicr Coraampilofi
*
«1f2k
)»WlJ
77 mi)
■W7UJ
217 4|]^
iwotl)
N/A
WA
N/A
5
-Srsicm lm*« S
T""
IS
14
21
6
t
, NJA
. NfA
N/A
1
Approt   per   opb   ftfllCf ujEwuni|KiptJ hirrkdi*
4
J
n & in
J
4
151017
N-A
N/A
N'A
1
Water PrcdiKUoo
fianlrm
L
_
Town u oppiMd from
1-Mmdeep drilled
•di Its aver >icld u
1 2 L*i The pump n JKrwctad by 1 Ocsel pthentor The HJMK
* L u 1 7a hele* ground In addtoon,
the ktarilak ennr ■ 4 Ira deep ucU with mt
1«ld 1 tL's >ad the fehool u«n» « Tim. deep well mill «<r
yidd N/A Ifath art
dnDod mU>
(Biaibnlftfl The tutuc Wl, » ]?■ d Ita bknpiul Mtd 14 I Mihe
Teran is supplied
from l-
bwctolcfdnlted)
well lU dunucriiL arc ihm jt-jilable. lit
■drirexx. (here are 5 hand dug wells In the town One h vwwed by the school and 4 it? privately owned Thru depth vines Pram ■ M> 15m normwacr
k Im TbtHMK WL vana from 7 la 17m Thai yield ti km know*
The iBMhe ui 120m
>'■< filter plfen ud i Sla'.h lira humd pump hUOnu tedding to 1 irerameni plane The imaKUlpUn consist
of tkxKuhtnw tank,
dui und fllttn and n cMorunUon unt The tnnune tic capacity u IS Vi {1300 m’^dj The plant is followed i 2u0m licad jiuHip kMmmi wiLh 2-lQl/a pun^t sad is
16W in k*i 200 airu DI prcsswc inpc to a
nsmwr
The lu«Q Id supplied by a
4p< II Hl M Ydu Ha locAlcd io Mihm Lhe town cauiitlDf gf several saull ipinp tfnad over
■           MR!
area with ku<Ji ruk
of aMiarurutou
lu base ikra ■» abewe t. aL i because of m Icctem thu Wwio needs to be treated, cJdannurrl
The town id mpphol by
|0 5«i deep dnlicd »c!k built to 193 5 Its met ikM ia J
|A- A«r usteha-li^ily 11 MS nun tonkEik. The MtU u equipped with a 15 hp wtMTKTwb*e elieam: pump The ElitK Wl. |« 191m The dinuiUL head u 'to In addiOcM, ihert it a 97m deep dnltod well H Lk kKoOL
meh i uik WL of 41.4m below ground and «*«r. yield of 12 Vk and ■ 9r» duqp HDW with 4 *«} low yield at the p<uoe (EC-177 aantaa/an) Tbr Gibi apnat
ahukdeood » IMQhr
The town li
suppiKd by a Hiring; sudM. tlaU nrili The Iu_j4jliu and choracitoiiuca ire mH available In
■adiiAin there arc I shallow Ira
ham} Ju.
The wwn n nppkied h»to a qwiti^
There it iuj
data on
kxuhoa. cluratKtUDCt of lhi« spring Held and walei iguaho
u mH
jiaiUik
t4 li-
ml
J
Tlie Laule Li a steel cuiuoa jnd filler
gsilo} sail lotg Ilk rtfcer bed and apuppnl with me kLtouKistotc etecUK pumps Row
* arr li tMnryad Io s eMomtutton utiii a treated -Me pump tfsticD equipped with rwo subrenhlf puiiij* 20 hp each, TOlip etch, designed far lOtaVl cipaun Thew pampa ngi th* wsStt msue Uiii to a tacaicd water itncnw New reuwn plant u rewind the old pLuu bull to 1972 ru dHUMMimmd m 170S
wdh tn the l<mn Or* 04 10 Cmdtx? welt dw nod by the patero lioicl t<aUc WL6IJ. The
mini well 11 4 ill chBEp wdl u owned by the Hcnel tsutic WL bm| 1 We u
■odala on on >hcfcb or OuaUiv
The nmn was wppftoj ncm 2
*pnnp l *11 liihuihsunl >jfac
ro uTiru-Uinuliuii The kximmJ qdc dUMDUUuned 1
because of Pt tow ixld. The mu u
aow lupgRbcd from a baichulc, IVradoEp. J7/T , toll" jurtwka
rfath. W‘l_ I7hl 1
£qul|i|Kil wiLli
7 5 bg> rub-
ntrnihk pump
yield IS V*
Lhctiei ft laraiLif i r ] 10 1 KVASAN AtJJfl* IO1VM r j" z ■■*dI
S’
- i*l‘ • w D■
I!
I^resources
ANNEX II. WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
Table 5 Projected Town Populations
J
Region
Wereda
Present
2000
2015
2035
rrSTTowns
Mun
------ p
6
Asosa
11490
13872
ASOS?.__. - - I-
28176
65853
4
Seyo
20121
22273
31395
44714
4
Metu
19663
_ ——----- —
21981
31858
46731
11
Yeki
10524
13144
30183
81729
v(i?an Teferi
11
Temenja Yazhi
10740
12914
25896
59601
Gambela
12
Gambda
19510
25848
62376
151192
Red
6&4
Begi
6680
7854
12442
22756
Gore
4
All
8042
8377
10039
12702
Masha
11
Masha
565)
6409
10136
18569
Sub Totals
112421
132672
242481
503847
1
' .Ifediifm Ttwrt5
1 Gidami
6
Gadami
2872
2839
2887
2935
iMugi
4
Anifilo
4748
4879
5534
6303
1 Kake
4
DaleWabera
2666
3069
5094
9952
Hisabui ATeferi)
4
Dale Sedi
3125
3596
5969
11662
Rob Gtbia
4
Hawa Gdan
2478
2852
4734
9248
Guliso
4
Avra Guliso
4408
5074
8422
16454
Juango
4
Lalo Asabi
3665
4218
7002
13680
Bube
nr—---------------------
4
NoleKaba
3073
3399
5642
11023
J/upa
4
Danmu
2336
2688
4463
8718
r Hurmu
4
Hurumu
3389
3901
6474
12649
4
Yayu
3437
3955
6565
12827
i-2Te
~“
—
4
Bure
2136
2423
3832
7019
?nev.'a
inaga
4
Shewa Gim
2918
3310
5235
9589
12
Itang
2289
2596
4106
7523
Sink T_ B r “—~—■-
12
Godere
2877
3263
5161
9455
^SLJptals
__
46417
52062
| 81120
149037
B»n>Akobo River Baiin Integrated Development Master Plan 11 - TablesWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX JLWATER SUPpLY
Town
Small To*
Kiebi .__ Tejo________ Lalo
Mukie Yubdo Git Algae Nopa Alemo
-
Becho Lalo___ Yadota Sigmo Gatra Kubabe
Region 4
Weredi
Gawa Kebe
Present
1012
2000
1165
£
Meloye Welel                    612                 205
4
Lalo Kile
1357
1562
4 TBoji Cherkosa                                 816                  939
4 4 4 4 4
_4_ 4~
'_4_ l_4_ "_4_
Yubdo_________ Haru___________ Supe &Sodo
Bilo
Durene________ Becho
Didi Lalo
Savlem________ Sigmo_________
1420
729
1740 1084
164] 2003 1247
976
985
1539 1529 2368
3324
2554
2538
3931
319$J
495T
7679 ’
Set ema_______                                    1598               2652
Chora
2043'
3392
Berbsa                       4 Gecha
Deka
Beta Gunet Wacha____ Shew Jeba _ Jemu Kebish
L Kurgen
11 D
H
n n
i] 'n 
n
Mono__________                                     757                1256
Anderacha                                              1198                1895
Gesha    Tilku                                         1199                1896
Gesha Timishu Chena_________ Sheco_________ Biro___________ Shasha________ Tirmatid_______ Jikawo
1928 £080 1252 2132
833
1126
941
854 188j 1390
3050
1709
1980
3539
1383
Tirgol                         12             Akobo
Pugnido 12
Abobo 12
Gog &Jor 1658
Abobo 1225
Sub Totals                                                                32794            37714
Village
Kurmuk 
£
Meko 4
Sachi
Kurmuk 442 502
Meko 209 244
793
Uka
4
Kobolcha
*4—
Kuju
Sub Total
TOTALS
Sachi
Haiu
Sale______ Gura Farda
461
259
511
77
531 298 589
89
11
Gesha                               322                  319
2281
193913
2572
225020
Source Baro-Akobo Integrated Master Plan Project. Population Annex 3A
1AMS-t LG BirtHAkobo R^r Basin Integrated Doelopn’enI
II-TablesANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS ^TERRKSOl^L—---------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -___________________
Tab|e 6
Projected Rural Population and Population Densities
—Z
6
232 273
2000
256153
2015
320854
2035
r 378359
g- rtstoJE^-———
4
241 170
1321943
1732388
2209188
Orofflif_——
$EPAK _ _ -
11
445 530
458187
595491
859739
12
167 427
199717
412267
1053714
Gambell _——
2086400
2236000
3061000
4501000
nensny PEL —----------
27.5
29.5
40.3
59.3
r-
Baro-Aknbo Integrated Master Plan Project, Population Annex 3/4
Table 1 Assumed Net Daily Water Supply Levels (1X2) (in litres per capita per day'
Present
® towns 74)
Gambela
20
Metu
15
Other Main Town 13)
Medium Towns
Smail Towns
8
8
8
Villages
8
2000
n>5
20
20
12
10
10
2015
60
40
40
20
20 ’
12
2035
80
60
50
30
25
20
I Rural (People per well )
N/A
1000
loo
350
(1) Net values, excluding losses and large water consuming industries
(2) Includes public, private and institutional demands
J"1Mi^an      Tefcn.      Begj,      Gore.      Mesha.      Asosa      and      Dembidolo w Population exceeding 10,000 by 2015
II - Tableswater resources
ANNEX II. WATER SUPPLy
T.bk 8 PROJECTED NET AVERAGE DAILY TOWN Wat. 
requirements
Wat er
(in cubic metres per day, excluding losses)
2010        2015         2020
2301
2288
926
566
754
21548
266
375
313
---------- ----------- ------------------------------ ------------
TAMS-ULG BiroAkobo Rhtr Boan integrated Devclopn*01
II - Table*ANNEX II. WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
Biro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Miser Pint
II - TibiesWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 11. WATER SUPp, „
---------------------
'I
Table 9 PROJECTED GROSS PEAK DAILY TOWN u REQUIREMENTS (in cubic metres per day, including los,*^R
II-TablesPresent
20J 5
127
154
Alemc
Bochp
Late
'Yadota
Sigjing
147
120
LI8
182
ISO
148
229
J88
114
199
102
242
IS] 118
120
187
185
287_
Gatra
155
Kumbabe
127
124
160
200
Hertsa
Gecha
Deka
_Beia Gunet
169
Wacha
Sheco
Jehi
205
81
109
194
248_
91
130
130
2009
116
£36_
259
jemu
Kebish
102
£36
102"
93
109
Sub Totals
122
203
151
2293
3548
4421
19 10.5 22 5
28 5
.10 5_
100
127
27407
£69
223 _
11822      17427      23022
42096
56-464
1  wa/or OSSes a,lt^ a 7.3 peak factor or an overall factor of 1.15x1.3 applied to r re ^rements.
Integrated Development Mailer Plan
II TablesWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 11. WATER SUPP, v
Table 10 Rural Community Water Supply Wells Requjre<J
Region
4
3 Biegi
£ Gid ami
5 Anifilo
6 Jima Haro
7 Ki^a Kiebi
8 Yemelogie
9 Dalie Wabera 10 Dale Sedi
11 lalo Kile
12 Sevo____
13 Hawa Gelan 14 Ayra Guliso 15 Boje Mukle 16 Boje Dirmeji 17 Yubdo
18 Lulo Asabi
19 Gimbi_______ 20  Haiu_______ 21 NoleKaba
22 Meko_______ 23 Sachi
24 Darimu
25 Supe & Sode 26 Bilo
27 Durene
28 Meru
29 Hurumu
30 Yaw
31 Becho
32 Bure
33 Halu
34 Ale
35 Didi Lalo
36 Saylem
37 Sigmo
38  Setema
70 Bedele
39 Chora
40  Dega
41 Nono
42  Sele
69 Gera
Sub Total Region 4
2J9
116
0   60’
TAMS-ULG Biro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Develop * II - TablesANNEX IL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS
2016-2035
43 232
Total
89 549 291
4 Gid^rni
5 Anit'tlo
flu'll                                    442                  1082
41 _Masha _
44  Andrcacha
45  Yeki
46~G«ha Tilku
47    Gaw ata___ 48 Gesha Tims
49  Chena
50  Gimbt
51 Shewa Girni
52 Gura Farda
53 Sheco________ 54 Temema Yashi 55 Bari/Biroi
56 Kent
57 Gesha__ 58 Goldia
59 Shasha 60 Tinnaud
6JLMaha Maji
165
104
208
116
28
118
206
246 155
405
198
J7
114
264 59
j.82 527
Subjoul RegloiT 11
1269
2459
62 Gambela
J3 Jiang
167
272
^.64 Jikamo
230
375
840
J^Akobo
To7
168
114
588
400
198
203
357
2185
551
_67 Abobo
272
280
Godere
492
- Al»iai Re^ion^n
u
624
T  3010
'oRiver Basin
2235
3884
6762
12881
^"red per year (2)
in i,
150 2085 521
0 3884 259
0 6762 338
!50 12731 326
<ZN7CFT  -  identified   by   ARDCO-GEOSERV   and   some   120   wells   bmlt   by   ihe p °ri0o^l ViBS Programme
0  coverage of the rural population
UXG BarO’ Akobo River Bxsin Integra led Devriopmeni Master plan II-TablaCity Watar Supply Program Coat Ealknato
5<»r t.fMi
1
a Ajm <ipm/
» vs 8 ua» ii
>»»><>. CO - *-7** 80*
*'—r.ow >e'»M ooi
LOCAL
LOCAL
1 IV «•
■ 177 Ba
C SM 74 4.711 83 5*0 F3 44 1345 75
n "M «j
7 <5° r ’
»«n m
J 835 55
JO 778 M
o_a m cotvi iou« vr
1 B200°
7 6S7 ta M 3 ’ 3 DO
_ 7-Mtoa 130 305 DO
i-y-ao J%
40    17300 ?)•   73QOO m<a oo
1 00 m 4*s oa
0 75
• 4 XJ JC
•  741  00 I58  MS  OJ
478*134   00
8 75*303 00
7 134 Oft 00
0 r; ! W0 I£7 78
l
50.382 JC
»• .'08 oZ
Cowl ,1OIM.OiWCQ5l
***!>!<
lf% VW«4v U5 1
1 '.k -k :
^MUEi
25 503 00
110 427 00
n 29100
4 M MO pc
3 70 783 ‘ h* W
Q XJ 18.170 00
on
• 803 00 lOOjMOO
M 414 00
184 13OOO
344 570 00
I.4MMOOO
_______ 0
1 004 11300
1tM7 13
55M5 04
0 '? 3 777 MS 08
___41 388 40 __74»'Cl 04
34 11334 545
■ 717 503 31 0 33
a I 4C4 « 4CJ JM34
nut n I 147 ’57 >7
‘vhct coil - uu 8 rwn
003
0 Mj
0 ,'4 2,733.278 08
» 545 *? 177 885 34
1803034 387,703 00
»8O.»»8 33 0L'Takto I JI
Abw«« W<»l+r Supply Cna« VTailmata
'it
124M
PWtJPOSED Fff OGgAM
Conalwle*
»1»_20W
tur
Boifrgogj
AriMcnA Mi S^j
pild
i
T olW AMgHabh Supplj
rnQq_
• 50C
3MC
USLAnW
________ I
1M0C0
i tao um
HOttJIl
IMJMd
7 MS DCO
COST •REAM DOW4 ■ Lil I'lfMi
_______
rtlUi IOTiAOS
US 1
?34 O(XJ
ft
?34 OOO
cm xr*i?cm
LJSt
/CJ.OUU
M.D00
Tfl^OW
' MAT MS *70%
us J
HIV BXJ
___y.BK-
fl'3 OQO
hpi 25% A 00%
USI
Ml 000
1Q0.CCC
MllMXi
F ng < Ad*
us i
105 0UCJ
15 000
IV. KM
TOTAL COITUS! 1fM
2.535 DOO
IMDW
7 MS DOO
coiraREAKOcm - «« un [in*}
LOCAL
FOAftON
LOCAL
FOOtlGh
LOCAL
FQREFQN
LOCAL
foreign
LOCAL
iFQREKLN
LOCAL
edhe«h  local
l
POAUGh
LOCAL
FUMtltlN
LOCAL
fOAkiilfc
AMIH WbAMJ*
157 20
ow
OM
4ft AO
14F 20
&MI 30% * . O%
r
210M
411 40
10 BO
H JO
2IDM
4*1 40
U < L 2D% AAO%
153 K
ASS ?0
TK
MAO
IBJ o3
ass ju
F'.p ■ ■ J\»% A Kf%
117 00
*S4M
?iao
M 40
u? oo
«M DO
Eng A A<yn 26% A T6%
M FA
140 25
1 FS
MM
4« h
1<A 25
TOTAL COST IMO Uli [MM]
54M55
1 MOOS
4135
IM AS
Mfl bl
i wi ns
o ittcosrs touiPr
WnM 1%
J. MFOO
J MCW
4ftM DC-
4 MOtXJ
4AMX
4«U-M
rJjrt c*%
3 510 DO
1 WOri.
) OMO W
7 7 IM DO
F loom
7 MU DC
f r «iOC
u | [ J (H
24 Sr&OC
25 AWMJ
M 550 00
50 7J0 DO
M7TO00
M22OOQ
M?W <1
Pip*in2%
* 1J0D0
1 3M0D
1 SHOD
2 MA DO
2 sum
I Maw
JiUi'JO
•A’Uftf CoPiurtH-***'
101 105 QQ
757MDOQ
411 3M«1
AM QiO 00
171 tt»OO
11V BOO JO
1 201 MS A)
P»if
Q 10
010
0 10
0 14
D 10
0 10
0«
Pnav i Gr-Mrafj
io ooo m
TF400 00
mtnooo
is i cm oo
T/J 00000
ZJ?DUU<JU
JJJM»i»
- J«M
US LMa*v
DD1'
0 01
0 01
Q10
0 10
o id
a id
- toil
ulV *'
IttOK
.' 'DO Cid
I7SCOOC
<4.1041 DO
?J OdOOC
JZ AM 90
W JNW
tf*WM
UlklAwM
0 DO
000
Out
dCO
000
om
ow
ml
US 1
0 00
o«i
□ oc
dm
DOO
a oc
Sm
TOTAL 0 A VCQil
li 420OU
40 FMCG
M MO 00
•o th oo
M 6 50 i
UJ J 56 m
liU '>6<U
LIMIT COM- Ul |«»
O»
014
□ 11
Q IS
A 12
0 *0,
0Mo»Lot/ *
^Myctorn
_ *nv*»*i*>n4 ▼ »* ^>SAcy>* N*<
Tw « Av*4*N» S
_ IfraiCPAI_________
---------
Si
2010
1.5OC 150 OOC
7v?n.ajt
?               com •ut'a
-
[2O%j
tn U *Mn QOU)
Lo4aI F
COST BRf AKOOWH US liIBMl ' ***» 1(2% A 0%
C<wM 3Q% < 20%
. MAE_ 35% A 70% ffe* ?^% AAO%
J A A4»n 15% TOTAL COST USt 19M
L»S I
USJ
>^*ir in
7?o Quo 3*0BJC
__ C ’.SUgA L^?2?
1512 001
LOCAL
LOCAL _ rogtiOjiT~ LOCAL TiOAnQA
Civil 30% A 70%
ML F 20% L 00%
000
24
Ll*t£ 2% _ 8^
Log lAOrn 25% L 75%
TOTAL COST 1000 UH [Tttt)
JI53 60
259 70
1 105 To"
302 40
1 209 60
SO 00
270 00
_ Q_°° 1 050 40
1 CJ3B M
3 574 ao
QAM COSTS 5 OUS v^f
7 5*0 00
7 740 00
15 *30 00
13  3X>on
’3 JOO CL
15 54OCC
M ABO 00 [
39 W>00
74 84000
rtMc’nc
7 HMD JO
B0 2<QCC
3.024 001
3240 00
<224 Opt
fl XM 00
<244 00
9’-: *J
»ea 075 o6)
3?4 4B5 00
529515 50!
BIJ »C5 Lti
.*2V ’45X
• •fl 140 JO
1 00
1.00
rx
1 CO
1 00
IX
1VI 000 00
324 465 00
546113 00
BI2 1fl5 30
721 740 JO
Jffl 140 Ml
***!!!
ODA
OJfl
0»
0»
USLMW
006
ooe
32 7B7 00
4J J.M 00
an jmcc;
SI
9 055 00
19 45B 00
oK
c
nW
Cml
004
3 04
0 04
a I 424 00
28204 JO
son co
11 357 QO
IB 11400
ISA 434 00'
MAIJP
-cmL
BI7M CM
152.245 00
JOIALOLMCOV
iUHrt COST OS MBKX
o me
S £
• M • 05.It* E
■ r-tsTable 1»
Malu Waler Supply Coil Eatimala
i oeo oo
aia oo
»«.«ao oo I DO DOT
u—» mm>.'v7
J
Jwir*T I
■“^*450                J
J
TTiT
"?r?T"
/
F17T
I
I
f
/
TTT-
“1—
-f—
i
I
I
J*'
t
IM rt* SlWL r ffEOUWMfW/.'S
*W
rp?j
rj
I
jjr
JU)]
=2l
•w» I 1C451
7^
1*1^1
— f
11M-I
1*04
mi ' V
mt
244.2
iMK
Trrr
-------r
I
'  j' f
3WL
466
1                       z=\
LwrlGUli
fflUAOSF 0 PWORAM
1
ConrHXfav n **r
jnrflWnt Vwr
i kU rJwf|
JJ4 2L-15
1
iw-7pw|
■72jq:i 1
C1M 21)55___
1
AdttlipnH NW t.UjPPf
|mli>
jmj
J, ELU
Trtjf AyAAJCUfl £-jpp>_____________ LkwCoU
EitwnMa C^ry Im A.fll*L4* mjyY C orringftndftt [ ?O%£
Eng A Adm
TtHlJ F uMing___________
mltf
USI
LTSL_____ U5I
| |l<r
r 5 Olli
1fl5 OOtl
4MU
_____ 0
6a  ooc
jd OLU
7\am:
JJ3LLL
I
■jS 1
US I LT5 I
TO FAICOfcT kfll 1*M
CDf T MR EA* &O**I - IBM L|-» [1IM]
■.-. 1
f IO!
76CW0
jmxo
<J6OC-:
)t JtXI
(Jlr-Xl
Jwj®
24i(Xiti
]3«Mo
J KU
1 ML
■ J 200,000.
wood
1
4 |<u’"4K I
4 OC43
1 GOO
j jpg ooo
«i4C0UC |
3J0 W
4*.CO .GOO
i 344 m
1 ijj <XM
‘ 344 CO.''
320,awl
I 160 1X0
4 1W00D
1+0 MC
MVJW.1
rowriQMj LOCAL             FOitjaw| LOCAL
rcflEt-^             LOCAL
FDREH3H
I’rACKL-  ■ ■
3f DOC
nou
tM (MX
LOCAL
LOCAL        PORLM3H          LOCAL           pauiONl         LOCAL         rcmrioh
LOCAL                fOABJCW           Lt<Al
FOntMON
24 ®
E5 U
IlZ V>
gpci
«) M>
iJOib
OK
UJ1 bO
ow
iom.'
rjg.
DEC
n jo
?i M
UW
*ci ?c
___aw
IMa *n*
236 40          Wl IW
13 UC
I ft H
I J IX'
<2 Ou
LC
jV*- *
I* W
CJC
1 Dft Ml
JI M
»40
1 07a 20
JOtXJ
M l’ <1
t A Adm J uX 4 * 1 *.
0 50
■000
J4OOO
3 ?3
11 JS
240 DC
a
s4 K
TOTAL 1(3*1 IflOO Usfpwf
Tfl 2fl
26* *4
iMU * :
3 721 6Q
43 M
iSi M
3 I F> «
7> 26
75.1 H
'□ a McoiTi'wlufrr
H’-Vy Kalil Ml)
SUM-
7 IM OU
fl JHtftCW
7 i ifiaa
M Wri DO
16u
iri m CM
S l J 30
T IM DC
e oo
Tt WOO 2S4OW0Q
< oo
112 LU
440 W Ofc
112 W
JK
<1*2 SOl DO
• 00
1W Wl 00
QM
33 BM’ai'
0 04
2Q112  CO
Tinj> jj
o I)
MJ 00
14 Qm jp
4  1  IM*  :c
r Ml4 UC
■ IQ MA a
I 00
.: rth
<g flaJOu
0 04
ja 3pj ix-
iJi in DC
IHi
41  +4ri  IXI
W 014 !K
1 ii» hu m
I OC
_____ _-**** __________ . 'in tai o a m doiT
unitfttiicotr mffin
■nn
J 3KK
stijiC qo
6 31
■ J/l DO 46 2WDU
DU
Oiirt
2fl 43)00
......... Off
li 4114 «'
M WOO
0 15
. ....
M ila! LA?
■J M
30 XJ4 4AJ
iri ijccu
0 Ip
413 DO
___ 1*4 *J
43 r4fl VC
I     Li     00
i'' iMdiX
I DO
1 4J1 ay
U *al i_Xi
.! , .
I.- ■ M (.V)
ji io to i
1 ■■-1.• r -..
Table 17
M4x*n To Url Waler Supply Coat E a lima Io
-------- ii -
_
Q HMOGMAM tOru»-wf«„ ¥•*
_In**wtmerw Taar
01
2010
21) 19-2020____ 2O1/-2OTO
□ OOP
>400,000
r   20000 mo mxi
l5M.Ii
LOCAL
vw Ttmaoou
Cryd 3OH * 70M
453 60
1   05*   40
LOCAL
453«)
i  056  40
ML! TQM * BOM
259 M
T 030 90
259 20
i 036 90
7OW * BOM____________
30? 40
1 209 60
302 4C
1 709 60
Ehq 6 Mm 25% * 75M _
90 00
770 00
90 00
270 00
TOTAL COST 1090 USS (1994)
1.105 20
3 574 80
» 105 20
3 574 80
Oft M COSTS IQUSLyr
15 W4JW BO 064 CC
J5«00
4>2 020 00
1 OO
■492.020 00
US VKwtw JS 6 USVir-Vd
7 704 00 39,744 00
J 197 QQ
*4 170 00
1 00
94 170 00
0 06
a
lOILLQLW'-OM
coil OF WLTTMI
39 055 00
1
39 05500 ° 00
? 343 00 0 ..
1 3*7 OO
4 ■»> 00 O1
237 615 00
1 00
737 615 00
000
14 25’ OO
0 04
a air qq
75 197 00
.OJL
41 1*4 00
”s x
1 00
377 7 75 00
006
22 667 00
©o*
J3 722 OO
M 502 00
57          ■
4 041 00 1 00/ 700 001
1 00]
• cwr? 7oooo
0 Ort 63 /flZQOi
l) 04
Ml 070 JOI 203 « ' £»/
O
U2>
145 919 00 a jo
13 5Q4 DC 00,06-4
3 009 00 640 ■*400p;
1 co] 6*,' -MO 00
0 06 JB 540 00
0 04 72 433 00
1 •   15« re I
Ogij
I5»4OO
R 774 X
4,041 00
835.120 00
I 00 *35 120 00.
J?«J
50 J 07 00/ 0 CM I
0 72i7
Ji-J
PflhmSF 17 PffDGffXM iuiw>j'i >>*■                   _
iinenf Vmi
UM CflBi
m-|li-«j*rr^l*l | .'L>\ '
LAM ,'10%
fat* f
C01 r BREAXOQWw - in tftmj
laUS-JOOQ
.WO MH MS Off!
wti t
ClVfl XffbAJW MAE 35>A20U f ..ui ?5H 4 «i
_________
I
MT» 1»1K|
i 7 r +,sd
_‘JJJMl
r* xio
___ 1» »QC i/r <uj I .fl -r<
?«4M)0
U 1 JCI
rj V.«.i
**5000
4*5 000
—
j*i ooc
9U buO
COiT BREAAOOWN * IMO U51 |t*H)
CmF JWi A ?DM
LOCAL
rout his
'LOCAL
FOAIIUh
LOCAL
FOAAKiFl
LOCAL
fOUJGN
local
fOMiON
LOCAL
FOAtlGM
LOCAL
FORIiGN
LOCAL
IfDMEKlh
‘0 14
ww
1014
40 M
ID 14
40 54
10-14
*0 Mi
45 A3
1Qfl4 7
KM
ice 4i
4$ A3
100 4?
■L5AJ
UWI4/
M AE MMh A BD%
_____
15 «
141 »6
15 4 b’
141 91!
35 4.0
■*F W
15 40
141 (Mi
P.p«i MXk t IPX
1 £ngA Adm25H & £Mfc________ __ TOTAL COIT IW UtHltM]
QI MCD1T1 HUB tUjr
2135
10140
2133
101 *U
J5 >?
101 40
25 13
IQI III
1t W
1050
M»
10 50
14 M
IUM
lil LU
■
IM 11
44* BS
1M11
U4 CV
'JO 11
441 HU
IM 1 1
444 lib
«F CO
l 01400
1 014 »
1 Ml DO
1 »»oo
? taa w
2 020 DO
reon
1 4? 100
i i?i ®
J242W
1 521IXJ
) 04200
1 th J LXi
1 Mi M
LOftJf 00
1O.MFO0
lAOFl DO
15 071 00
Ji 2A4 0U
Ji Jim X
253 X
407 QC
sc.’ 00
701 l*J
rot DO
1 014 Xi
1 3I40C
IF X»00
1 Z> ’TO [»
141 400 Mr
22) 400 00
]h uooo
»d 000 OJ
413 4M) i3D
‘ DVJ
0 30
Q»
□ 30
0 30
aw
0M
IF lK)uO
31 110 DC
M 420 00
4 r o?o on
U 140 00
101 4 mJ ■'
IJ4O.H1 i)
0 id
0 to
0 10
0 10
0 10
D 10
0 Id
-Coy
Gullit <1
__________ JBli '■ Mi n * M i. i.5T UNifCOiT uimi
1 Jlfrirt
3 Til CO
4 442 'X
«ioa bo
A J 44 ao
IU 140 AJ
IJ 4nJ lU
IM
0 00
000
0 QQ
0 3o
OttJ
■J LU
DOO
0 3C
000
J QO
0 00
OUOi
J A)
1 MU DO
Il 400 00
IB 131 DO
H Th »
-
ja OK W
J/.314 A)
>>140 4)0
0 16
□ 14
0 11
ou
U 10
0 11
ahT«hl« 10 Gor« W«l»r Supply CoilTiTTT
X
TTiTT
7
L-
X
.wit m j iJi°pj -r- fli-'...
rot* n#f
f liflilr- J ntf wjlTJ^ry MfMI
—TijrTr
i4H?>
uaifaau___________ _________ ___________________ , _
P—k I1*-^
t-HtyOSED FWD.-WAM
fAv^4Q**< ra«l]r*iittt
rvi
?OOtL7DiLJ
L rr-e<i^*i'r.J*i [20* J
LL51
1'jL> 111 UOC
Eflfi I Adm 1 ICT*?
US 1
ToLjL Funrhng
Lrtfiwe
jmoom 117,000 JBOQC 545 ON
JM LUU 117 Opp
?fl OOP iAl DOO
COST   BREAKDOWW   -   US   L{1»Mr WM» 10* A qfr
Cwi                 A 20X
__ ____
MAE 35*120*_____________________ 25MTWX _________________
Ing ■■
’5*
_________
JOTAL CO5TJJ9I __________________
COST BWtArtDQWM 1MO UM (IBM)
LOCAL
FQWLiGN
fOAEIGr. LOCAL
FOftCJGM           LOCAL
50 TOO 152,100 !_L’_4W rj« j-u
7ft ini n.J
LOC*.
CM yy* a ro*A
___
MAC20U ■■Mm______________ L‘<*» 20* W*__________________
J i .jj A Adf* 75*4 A 25%                  _ TOTAL, COLT 1TOQ UJI [1IM|
O AMCOAT3 1WB FJjr
WHII________________ __
C*4
~M tit*J CHh_________
p^itrn
Wfrttr r.ftfiMlhpU m P°—*____________ ______
141 «
101 40
50/00 JCAJ DO
6/73 OU I *Uoo
M TOO: 00
1 QL4W
i_S7i qa 1l?H) ft*
o»
I 014 00
1.421 00
10143 00
507 00
14F 100 CM?
0»
44 UftOC*
O 10
000 l> <■
Al1“ ■?-'
I 014 1
< - • CO
IDMIQQ
faHm
mi iyju ijo
J 2SI JO
u'm o uc
/fiOQQ
i  ■: 1 do J21I *J
14/70 DO 'OdCU
xajaao
1 04 j x
nirwoo
£ rl.w w
I1
jy '
kwhrtjk
LIE L*w>k
<r5 »
Ulit/mltt
UA|
jASWOft
4l* *4*4
TOTAL O A M I jiF
UN>T CPU uY»
I1
1 401 qo JHK.
0 oft t J 44 00
ft 1*
0 3C
JO J10 ■G
___ 0_1Q JOJi®
□ xi                                           0
>:J i n 3
d io
B 454 CD
’ll 00
0 0Q
Ilhjj
Q II
a
ft niM
0
0 I'JI
]J mi oj
0 12
aU
0U
43W00 U*(»
OOP o W
24/M CO 0 IQ
.J12**Al
i a i 4 jo Ud'r00 ,v
0M
I L‘ 1-j Ml M
0 i« 0 11Tabla 23
Small 26 Towns Typical Town Cost Estimate
tofAlFR          SUPPLY          RgQIJIWMENTB JoUl A4l ftyfr^U WO'X Uitiplw
CJ      z
:—   — — —
I -I
——i TTTi
CmlUi£ net weler wpply uiiKJh
D«*OI» ______________
p —b t344»_RM|i4wwwi£l(ai^i^,,T f n<|
^ROPOSf P program
ConlructitM i’fl ||
ll
inwrutiwni r«r
_ AdgmaniH N«4 Supply
I of* Aw Allow* Supply
UnirCoH____________________________
7 9M
L»U<tv>I*i1 rmil
Kd jhtpriB  ■ <
1
1IW.O0C
DO rxxi
IPO OOP
Cniiluvgencw** >;20%i
JO  boo
20,000
E>J A Ariffl I HOX i
io wo
i o coo
Tolil CciriH-fl
130 ODO
1 30 WJ
130000
COST BREAKDOWN -UStfltM)
MAI ZVX
24 DOO
24 000
24,oon
24jmo
24.OTO
24.0)0
24,000
24 000
24 000
Pipes 4CH*
US 1
480CO
48 CKKj
48 000
* Adin
USS
10.000
10,000
10.000
TOTAL costusi 1888
130000
130,000
130.000
COS! BREAKDOWN 1000 U31JIIM}
LOCAL
foreign!
LOCAL
foreign’
LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL
FOREIGN* LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL
FOREIGN
“"■f
4R
192
w«hi» 20% a eox
4 BO
10 20
000
ODD1
4 50
ID 20
4-1 W
1*7 20
7 20
16.80
CIW 30% A 7D%
720
18 BO
W10
25 20
7 20
16 AG
21060
491 40
450
18.20
MAE 20% & BOX
4 BO
10 20
J 20
26 ao
4 80
iv ?n
183.80
655 50
100
30 40
Pipe! 20% A BOX
W
MJ 40
21.60
M.40
9H
■3B 40
117.00
460 TO
250
7 50
Enfl A Mm 25% A 75%
ZM
7 50
373
71 25
230
7 30
46.75
146 25
28 90
rot io
[total cost iooo ubi iiml
2D WO
101 10
29 90
101 16
lot M COSTS 1DUS Vyr
| We«i 1%
240.00
240 00
44000
W«
450 00
72J<M
72O.W
I CU4 05%
120 00
12000
240 00
240 00
240 00
36O.m|
36000
I MAE 3 0%
720 OT
720 00
1,440,00
7.440 00
1 440 LO
2. MO 0>0
7 JflOOCJl
1 Pipit 7%
90 00
90 00
192,00
152 00
192 00
260 JOj
l| Pommwt CtalflMy QO.VkwhAml
lKw*iryr
5MOO
1.1M 00
1,606 00
2.006 CO
2 402 00
3.1 WOOl
? ZMOcf
3
I              - rWli
lU$ VKwtv
0 10
0 101
010
ota
D 10
»4L
69.oaJ
_________
0 10/
V                Cwt
lust
i
T—
sn dc
117 00
1Bi 00
?oi no
24BDO
310 OP?
J6700J
i] ChemiMli -rate
J
oa
-
si
t=
1r
_______
1
- KAl
lust
k\_ O li "Kh COi^r \UHH 0 kN. COST
lUB V,‘W
E—
oo<
1 I4lMW
1            I °?
1 293.00 0.11
0 18
O 13
0 IDf
1 0121
D14 (X.IJ
D lof    1proposed program Lotiitrueliwi        r«<
Ir’vwtbtwnl
luppfj
rlON  I
ToUd Catling
COST BREAKDOWN
US
IM Hl CM
36%
1B%
M*L«*
p! l  me   30%
A AiWii
Al 6*1
TOTAL   COST
UM
IW
LOCAL
FOREIGN LOCAL
FQREKW
LOCAL
FOREIGN LOCAL
FOREIGN LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL I FOREIGN
LOCAL
FOREIGN
LOCAL
FO«t ION
MAE 2CFK4 VO%
P<Jl« ?0% A BO*'
Cn.j A Adm. 25% A 75% 1QIAL COST 1P&Q [IVW£
CAM COS TS 1<JU5 f; <
VJe'h 1%
240 DU
240 UQ
.’*J DO
440 DO
43000
4 BO DO
Civil <15*
litI 00
fiOOO
60 00
IN 00
JJOQO
120 00
!N0(]
Ulf 3 d4
300 00
300 00
iooflo
500 00
fl 00 JC
SCO co
aori w
•boo
40 DO
40 M
flDQO
WM
iwj no
14« OO
JIB M
CKl
IBS DO
421 a on
-
COfcl
tail
■ TOTAL Q A W COST
I 324 00
[unit Q4MCO5T "
UJOELEMENT                       ■ Noof wolfs required
Unit
1997-2000
4 years________
Assumed population served
%
i.UQZ U 25%
2001-2015
15 years
3.884 |
50% I       ,
2018-2035
20 years               |
6.782 k
75%|
TOTAL
(39 years)
12.731 h\
units
110
388
1.014
1.512
[Total
No. of walls build
[Shallow Hand Dug Wells 80%
Unit Coat of Wells & Pumps (Boreholes & Pumps
HDWH Pumps
Cost of Program ovor Poriod
units
440
.X,
units
550
' I 1.9*0
’i
4.056
5.070
6 048
7.560
• t. '• .
US $
$ 25.000
"
i? &££           1'
$ 25.000
$ 25.000
us S
$ 7.500
S 7.500
$ 7.500
|
Boreholes & Pumps
1000 s us
$ 2.750
$ 9.700
$ 25.350
fc’i ,•»’V’, ’?.        ’• M
$     37,800
HDW & Pumps
1000's us
$ 3.300
V-
$ 11.640
$ 30.420
•v '
$     45.360
Contingencies 20%
1000’s us
$ 1.210
$ 4 266
$ 11.154
$     16,632
Eng & Adm. 10%
1000's us
$       605
$ 2.134
$ 5.577
i ‘A •
$       8316
Total Cost (1996-cummulative)
1000*9 us
$ 7.665
1         .-S'* f J •* ti.'—
$ 27.742
■
$ 72,501
$ 108.108
Yearly Investment
1000's us
$    1.966
$    1.850
$ 3.625
$       2,772
ITTOCAU |FOREION| ;LOCALr|FPRElGN| LOCAL> | F.OREIGN| ■ FOREIGN | LOCAL
Cost Breakdown
[Boreholes 20% 60%
1000'6 us
$ 660
$ 2.640
$ 2.328
$ 9321
S 6.084
[HOW 60%/40%
1000's us
S 2.376
$    1.584
S 8.381
$ 15.587
$ 21 902
$ 24.336 $ 9.072
$     32.659
$ 14.602
S 36.288 |
$ 21.773 |
[Eng & Admin 107©
1000's us
$        151
$       454
$       291
$       873
$    1.394
$ 4 183
$       2.079     $ 6 237 I
[Total Costs (1996)
1000’s us
[$ 3,187
$ 4.678
$ 11 000
$ 25.781
S 29,380
$ 43.121
$     43.810
S 64.298 |
Annual O&M Costs \ Borehole & Pumps 1 5%
\HDM & Pumps 10% yTotat O&.VA Costs
^Annual O&fcA Costs
1000*9 US (1000*6 US 11000‘s us
HOOb’s us
5443  2 •*,1
*4
306 2 _________________
V*
i____ 224.8
1792 8
2016 9
134.5
O.4g
6804
6123 6ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
ANNEX 1J
HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Baro-Akobc River Ruin Integrated Development Waiter PlanIANNEX IJ HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
^TRODVCHOPI.................................
1.
Tfl£
interconnected SYSTEM
.. Mo..................................... ........
...1
...2
J.
2.1
Present
Status 
plans for System Expansion
2
2
22
Long-Run Marginal Costs of Power
3
23
■« -
Transmission Interconnections from the Baro- Akobo Projects
.3
electricity supply in the basin111...... ................................
3.
3.1         Existing Situation
.4
4
3.2
4.
4 I
12
43
Electricity Load Forecast in the Basin
energy export
Interconnection with Djibouti ....................................................... Interconnection with the Sudan
Impact on Baro-Akobo planning
5.     INVENTORY OF HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
51          Storage
Projects 
...-
5.2
Run-of-Rivcr Projects..................................................................
6. SCREENING PROCESS
61          General
6.2 
53 
63.1
Initial Screening Cost Screening
General
............................................5
. ..............6
......................................6
6
7
....... .. . ... ...
8
............................................ 9
■ ■•■«•»... .......... 10
10
10
.11
I
6.3.2 63.3
Concept design .
Pr - = ——   oject l<mayjumgj out  . . .s. ............         . . . . . . . .      .
64 i
(4.2
(4 3
6.4 4
64.5
64.6
55
5.7 
58
N
- *’ Project Rankink'
t I I !••••-
General...................... Single stage project
Staged projects........ targe projects.... Medium projects Small projects
1■I■F
\M
Baro-Akobo Projects in the National Local Projects for the Baro-Akobo basin Projects Suitable for Energy Export — Projects recommended for the Master an
Multipurpose projects
.irttWH*’*'’**1***’
......JI 12
.....   13
14
.....  14
.14
....  13 16
16
17
17
18
19
19
21
^ENRICES..........
‘^S-C LG B uro-A kobo River Basin Integrated Development Mxsier PlanWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J
1         Dam Sites
2 Schematic of Potential Dam Sites
FIGURES
3          Interconnected System
4          F.F.J PA Peak Power Demand Forecast
5         EELP A Energy Demand Forecast
6          Earthfill Dam - Typical Cross Section
Rockfill Dam Typical Cross Section
8         Typical Intake for Power Diversions
9         Baro-Akobo Basin Peak Power Demand Forecast 10       Proposed Transmission Network
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4 
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Existing Power Stations in the ICS............................... Proposed Projects  in EELP A Expansion Plan.
Existing Electricity Supplies in the Baro-Akobo Basin
Baro-Akobo Basin Load Forecast
Dam Storage Projects proposed by Sdkhozpromexport
Dam Storage Projects Proposed by ARDCO-GEOSERV
Run-of-River Projects Proposed by ARDCO-GEOSERV
Initial Screening of Hydropower Projects ......................
Cost screening of single stage hydropower projects
Cost screening of hydropower projects with staged development
I -- . . .
r
in
Table   11   Companson   of   Bare   Akobo   projects   with   Projects   in   other   Basins Table 12  Energy Generation Cost Comparison with Diesel Plant
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Candidate Projects for Energy Export Candidate Projects for Connection to the ICS Candidate Projects foi Basin Supply 
....... . .........
....... ...........
2 .. J
.... .4
5
......  I
9 
......... 9
... 10 —15 ....lb 
. 17 
.....IE
.....19 
..19 20
........
TABLES IN APPENDICES
Table 1 I Baro Hydroelectric Project Characteristics 
. .. r 1 i
Table 2 1
Table 3 1.
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Geba-A Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
Birbir-A Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
Kashu Hydroelectric Project Characteristics.......................
Gumero Hydroelectric Project Characteristics..
3
4
11
.
15
Table 5.1
Gumero Hydroelectric Project Characteristics (Cont)
Table 6 1
Birbir-R Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
.21
Table 7.1.
Sor Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
TableS.l.
Gilo-1 Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
Table 9 1.
TAMS Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
24
2"
30
Table 10 1 Geba-R Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
TaMS-LLG Baro-Akobo Rrvcr Basin Integrated Dcvelopm<Bt ^laslcr
U ■ ii
J-
i4ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
^trodl-ction
J.
o f  this  Annex  is  to  review  the  hydroelectric  power  potential  of  the  Baro-Akobo
•fte P*?ose ,T the future energy  demand of the basin itself and that of the Interconnected
■ l9n including energy export to neighbouring countries
Xkobo  basin  was  not  included  in  some  of  the  earlier  hydropower  master  planning ft*_Ba,
® 'r
o     Cxample, the 1982 Power Planning study by Acres considered only the Blue Nile, ’ Uiie5Omo Awash and Wabi Shebelli basins Basically the Baro-Akobo basin was considered
L Xoo   remote   from   the   main     !oad     ceriTrc-   Addis     Ababa
jlenwteness is indeed a problem for the Baro-Akobo basin, but on the other hand the rainfall
■ the basin is higher than in any other regions in Ethiopia The abundance of water combined wrth the relief of the basin, from the high plateau at above 2,500m elevation down to the Gsribela Plain at an altitude of 430m provides favourable conditions for hydropower in this region  In  the  lower  basin  alone,  Selkhozpromexport  has  estimated  the  total  technically feasible hydropower potential to be 13,765 GWh per year
Mere recent planning studies  continue to disregard the potential of the Baro-Akobo basin. However, EELPA transmission line network expansion plan includes connection to Mizan and Tepi from Jimma and Gilgel Gibe in the South of the Basin, to Metu from Bedele in the middle uidGhimbi from Nekemptc and Finchaa in the north
The renewable energy studies have shown that biomass fuel will continue to be the major
owrgy source for the bulk of the population within the Baro-Akobo basin. Electricity supplies 
° l?*5'0 comP ’
r se lbe Sor hydroelectric project, with an installed capacity of 5 NW and a
un r of installed diesel plants with a total capacity of 5 MW
for e'ectr'city will depend on the rate of growth of the economic activity in the
Culture                P^Btamming of the major developments such as, for example, integrated reach  6,  Hou'ever    the  electricity  demand  within  the  project  area  has  been  estimated  to
t "’iy6iWi„  Ho „
2(      i dll5MWin2(135
tasm would °n S ^ere^Ore most of the candidate hydropower projects in the Baro-Akobo ^L^A’s le^FVe lnterconnected System and would have to be justified in the context of
c ^nsidered as C°^ 8eneration expansion plan The smaller hydropower projects can be
.                  candidates to supply electricity demands within the Basin
^fcity a
stucty» it appears that, on the basis of cost per kW of installed in *. r medium to large size projects would be very competitive with projects 
basins in the country
■
^S-Ut-G Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Marler Plan
JWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER
PRq
2. THE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
2.1 Present Status
The present status of the interconnected system is shown on Figure 1 Al present th capacity amounts to 378 MW made up of the plants listed in Table 1
e lnsu1^
Table 1 Existing Power Stations in the ICS
Projects
Installed Capacity (MW)
(%)
Hvdropowr
Tis Abac
115
Finchaa
100.0
Koka
43 2
Awash II
320
Awash III
32.0
Melka Wakana
153.0
Subtotal
378.3
98.3
Thermal
Dire Dawa
45
Alemaya
2.0
Subtotal
6.5
1.7
I Total
384.8
100.0
The 230 kV line to the proposed Gilgel-Gibe project is already in place and represents^ closest 230 kV connection to the Baro-Akobo basin The nearest 132 kV connection •> scheduled to reach Nekempte and Ghimbi in 1999.
2.2 Plans for System Expansion
EELPAs demand forecast for the interconnected system which covers the Pen0^_ cxpansicn
shown on Figure 2 for power (MW) and on Figure 3 for energy (GWh/vr)
of
plan to meet these demands is given in Table 2 and is almost exclusive^ C chejuiedfor hydroelectric projects, with the exception of an aero derivative plant of 75 h, . n t0 tk 
1997 and a 30 MW provision for geothermal energy planned for 2004 In 3 hc follo*^ rehabilitation of existing projects such as Tis Abay I and Koka, the plan include installations
plan
fAMS-LLG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Develop®^• Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development’
Master Plan Project
SUDAN
C
A,
Dr*
Powerlines-
Interconnected
System
Fig. 1J-1
armj
1
* * 11 r_PEAK POWER DEMAND (MW)
eelpa peak power
demand forecast
Figure 1J-2ENERGY DEMAND (GWH/yr)
eelpa energy
demand FORECAST
Figure 1J-3WATER RESOURCES
------------ ---------- —-------- —-----
ANNEX 1J HYDROpOW£
Table 2 Proposed Projects in EELPA Expansion p|an
This  plan is  expected to meet substantially  the projected demand in year 2015 for peak canaefa and energy  of 1,965 MW and 9,531 GWh/yr respectively  These projections correspond to an average annual growth of approximately  10% per year for capacity  and energy
23 lx>ng-Run Marginal Costs of Power
The long-run marginal costs  of power and energy  were not provided by  EELPA, it was however possible to estimate an average cost of future power by using the proposed expansion plan scheduling (Table 2) and the estimated capital investment for each of the proposed projects .All the estimated costs were converted to a common basis (January 1996) The result of this  compulation indicates  that the present value of the capital investment for transmission and generation is US $2,406 per kW of installed capacity'
*» for exrfflsT”0""””’ f"" Men. and Bet “™eaed .o1£± for '999 <”
B *r"AI“"’0
™d<«e of rhe barrn. ®e So
\fiztn
« 200U
h
construction of a m tv 
T ° K Sou^000 a
nnect,on to the ICS.
tra
is expected to ukc
to
nsmission line from Jimma to Bonga and
For the initial scree
CICd ,nt
projK,! • ■'
° the ICS at the 230 kV line at the Gilg^
TAMS-ULG       Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development M*1
3annex i j hydropower projects
ELKCTRiaTY   SUPPLY IN THE BASIN
,j Existing Situation
-tion of the rePort summarises the results of study performed by ARDCO-GEOSERV
report dated May 1995 and subsequent updating from the Master Plan Steering
- the 'ttee The Baro-Akobo basin is covered by three regions of the EELPA's administrative
L °. ■ Wolleea, Sor and Bonga The existing supplies in these regions are presented in
Table 3.
.  tjw   vtollega  region,  only  Nekempte,  Ghimbi  and  Asosa  have  an  electricity  supply.  There  is oie2  27  NW  diesel  generator  owned  by  EELPA  in  Nekempte,  one  1  08  MW  diesel  generator jls  owned  by  EELPA  in  Ghimbi  and  one  439  kW  diesel  generator  in  Asosa  The  electricity sales   for   the   region   amounted   to   4.578   MWh   in   1993and   6.315   MWh   in   1996.   The connection to the ICS is planned for 1999
In the Sor region, Metu, Gore, Gambela and Dembidolo are currently  supplied by  the Sor Hidroelectnc  power plant No other towns  have electricity  supply  The electricity  sales  in the Sor region reached 3,552 MWh in 1993 and had grown to 6,448 MWh by  1996. The 5 MW Sor power plant was commissioned in the early 1990's
Inihe Bonga region, Bonga is  currently  supplied in electricity  by  EELPA with a 770 kW diesel senerating set the electricity  sales  in 1993 were 201 MWh and 338 MWh by  1996 In this region, the Dembi hydroelectric  power plant at the Bebeka coffee plantation near .Aman and Mizan Teferi, has an installed capacity of 800 kW and was commissioned in 1993
Table J Existing Electricity Supplies in the Baro-Akobo Basin
Location
Installed Capacity (MW)
___Nekempte
2.27
Ghimbi
1.08
Asosa
0 44
Sor
5 00
(__ Bonga
0.77
L Aman
0 80
? 3,50 hydroelectric projects at an advanced planning stage (feasibility study 
^ hani p *
c
Sor Phase H Project and the Achani (near Tepi) proj“‘
n u Pslream regulating reservoir and an additional 5 MW o inst cap
is
4 nrt
is a
p Ower p]ant comprising three 500 kW turb.ne-gcnen.tor
TA -MS-ULG B^Akobo Ri«r Basin Integrated’*^"*-' M*rtcr Pl"WATER RESOURCES
3,2 Electricity Load Forecast in the Basin
,^exj^drowwer pro^
The ARDCO-GEOSERV report presents the load forecast for the period
three   regions   covering   the   Baro-Akobo   basin   Wollega,   Sor   and   Bonga   Th*   l°   for   .l rate  for  the  entire  area  covered  by  the  three  regions  between  2000  and  2O]o  C  3Vera8e  grOu,_ and  2020  are  5  1%  and  5  95%  respectively  This  forecast  presented  bv  ARnr  betw«*n  2dp, shows   that   the   expected   peak   demand   in   2022   is   69   MW   along   with   a   UC°'GE°SERv GWh   corresponding   to   an   overall   load   factor   of   58%   For   the   purpo*   Pr?duct'On     of   3^
forecast were extended to year 2030 at a growth rate of 6.5% This extend
04
demand over the three regions of 115 MW and a total energy production' ^
summary' of the forecast is presented on Table 4 In this table the diff ° 568 ®^yr A
energy generated and the sales corresponds to the system losses estimate TIT* bet^ftci> tk 
study. the
equal to 18%.
Cd t0 Wroxi^
Table 4 Baro-Akobo Basin Load Forecast
Region
Sales
2000
Prod.
Peak
Sales
2020
Prod.
Peak
Sales
2030 Prod.)
Peak)
(GWWvr)
(MW
iGWh/yr)
(MW
(GWh/vrl
(MAV
Wollega
20 49
25 69
11.1
974
119 8
24.9
182.8
224 9
467
Sor
5.35
6.36
20
41 1
48.9
109
77 1
91.8
20.5
Bonga
35 90
40 80
7.9
117.9
134.0
25.5
221.3
251.5
47.9
Total
61.7
72.8
21.0
256.4
302.7
61.3
481.3
568.2
115.1
TAMS-LLG
;
e j(n
Development Master P“n
sANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS ggSOt EC**__________ ________ —----------------------------------- _— ---------
enE
rgy export
jl Interconnection with Djibouti
>he interconnection with Djibouti were undertaken by Acres International and
Ethiopia
The viability  of the interconnection was  reported to be sensitive to the program of development of geothermal energy  sources  in Djibouti at LacAsal A geothermal plant at Lac Asai significantly in excess of 10 NW would make interconnection economically unattractive
J.2 Interconnection with the Sudan
Studies  into the interconnection of the power systems  of Ethiopia and the Sudan were undertaken by IVO International in the mid 1980 s and again in the mid 1990's. The feasibility report of the latter studies was issued in 1995
The  IVO  studies  found  that  the  interconnection  could  be  justified  on  the  basis  of  exchange  of surplus energy between the two systems rather than firm energy exchanges
■'iTice  hydropower  will  continue  to  play  a  dominating  role  in  the  expanding  Ethiopian  system,
' '-■hheerree wwiillll lx*x -*
,    1. l be P^odic surpluses of energy as each hydropower plant is commissioned, c "ill be available for export to the Sudan system
*—i — r-f--------------------- -------------- n----.--.--1----- --------------------< - *
■■■
,  "  ^^DUity  is  considered  somewhat  remote  since  it  is  linked  to  very  ambitious  irrigation in northern Sudan
b *sin Onie more favourable if some of the larger hydropower plants in the Bare-
to hp-
.1
Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated OevctopmeDt Master PlanANNEX u hydropower PRojtCls
WATER RESOURCES
The interconnection proposed by IVO would be a single circuit 345 |<y aluminium conductors 
lne "ith 315
tmoaetonBaroAkobopU""^
«t/nr the Sudan would tend to favour the larger single^
43 
interconnections wiOt W“» hydropower
tetcrotneciion with’hc
;
Ertuopia
since there would be a market for the
additions to the generaung system
'^e^^sOns^cid^'T^d^twte
ronneding th' candidate hydropo P QW bi to Rosettes, were to be selected, ta XTo^fortbe-co^^ -X interconnection between .be c^det.
7ANNEX IJ HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
5VT>TORV OF HY DROPOWER PROJECTS
7b
-
stooge Projects
study   of   1990   (prepared   by   Selkhozpromexport)   identified   14   dam   storage RU   tn  the  Baro-Akobo  basin  The  primary  purpose  of  these  storage  dams  is  not  always 
P ?dectric  power  but  all  have  been  presented  with  at  least  a  small  hydropower  component h ' rejects are listed in Table 5, and their locations are shown on Figure 4,
Table 5 Dam Storage Projects proposed by Selkhozpromeiport
Dim Site
Location
Primary
Purpose
1
itang
on the Baro 10 km East of Itang
Irrigation
Gambela
on the Bare 16 km East of Gambeia
irrigation
toga
on the Baro 33 km East of Gambela
Hvdrcpower
TAMS
on the Baro 47 km East of Gambela
Hydropower
Bubir-R
■
on   the   Birbir   11   km   upstream   of   the   confluence   with Geba
Hydropower
Gebi-R “r~—■—
Mxjbo Chiru
Mcj'
on the Geba 3 km upstream of the confluence with Birbir
Hydropower
on the Sor 30 km upstream of the confluence with Geba
Hydropower
on the AJwero
Irrigation
on  the  Chiru  15  km  upstream  of  ihe  confluence  with  the Alwero
Irrigation
on   the   Mey   13   km    p i        f   the   confluence   with   the
U   S rtam    o
Irrigation
Alwero
-Zj-^DOniB
Jiilo-2
-^1 ~~~
_on the AJwero 26 km upstream of Abobo Dam
Irrigation
^2"the Gilo 75 km upstream of Agenga
Irrigation
gn the Gilo 33 km upstream of Agenga
Irrigation
Gilo 3 km upstream of .Agenga
Irrigation
Frt?e^<ioukndatiOnS °f
study are to build first the Gilo-2 project, as a multipurpose
U4ble for kri advanu8e °f the fertile agricultural lands located near the dam site, this land is also
^tritto sa^R*°n J^CCOr<
^ g to that study the power and energy generated by this project are
Il
- power demand of the Gambela region up until year 2010
'klAMSnr-
7^ of oT0ject ls commended to be built second and the Bbbir-R third to meet the power
.^itiL?Uth^'es,ern reeton of Ethiopia With regard to the hydropower potential of the
, . !ite '$ urii
the Russian study also indicates that hydroelectric power at nmgatwn
c
«Chin ? Ule® 'ent, and therefore the report does not recommend the installation o
.... ^J^andDurnbong
^^S-Vlg Baro-Alcobo River Bwin Imegraietl Dovlopment Master Plan
«Baro-Akobo River Basin
Integrated Development Master Plan Project
Figure 4
DAM SITES
3 i*cd Rem
P 'tMfc“*™«Ho*d| D
o   amS  B
*
NwtdaNc.
* ^mS*e
*   *w<n
^CtmBulanu, Inc (U.SA) and ^naufanHltd. (UK.)
7**  of Water Resource*
W
tM Ethiopia
^'Ww> July 20, 1996
T.U
dii'^ULG: AR DC O'Soyuz Topo (1: 250 000)frFOSER-V study of 1995 identified a further 8 storage dam projects which are also These projects are listed in Table 6.
, z Dam Storage Projects Proposed by ARDCO-GEOSERV Table
flare
BirbEr-A
ftiji-A
Location
^e   Baro   75   km   upstream   of   the   confluence   with
the Hirbir
__ _ — - the Birbir 70 km upstream of the confluence with
the Geba
' on the Geba 120 km upstream of the confluence with
the Birbir
Primary Purpose
Hydropower
Hydropower
Hydropower
Bflk
on   the   Beko   25   km   upstream   of   the   confluence   with (he Birbir
Hydropower
kWili
on the Kashu 85 km upstream of the confluence with
the Akobo
Hydropower
'Sse
on   the   Sese   45   km   upstream   of   the   confluence   with the Geba
Hydropower
■—
Gumero
on   the   Gumero   35   km   upstream   of   the   confluence with the Geba
Hydropower
Sake Guda
Sake   Guda   35   km   upstream   of   the   confluence   with    Hydro power
L                        the Baro
s - Rtin-or-River Projects
•RDCO-GEOSERV   also   identified   four   run-of-river   hydroelectric   projects   in   the   upper   basin ’ ,t>'ire listed in Table 7
Table 7                   Run-of-River Projects Proposed by ARDCO-GEOSERV'
Location
krtsk
-^clia
^adeoFfour Faw^PlanK
8 to 15 km from Masha
Jjfcl
S»'-
S-ggatk pffour ^
Power p|an
singlePoxve^Plam
20 to 35 km from Uka
60 km from Dembi Dollo
i
i
__as^koftwoj^er Hants
Downstream of the exi sting hydropow cr plans
Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan
--11* <
9WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOM
ERpRo
6 . SCREENING PROCESS
6.1 General
A step-by-siep screening process was adopted to successively identify h
hydropower projects to be included in the development of the Master Pl pron^n
processes were followed comprising an initial screening to elmunat
projects, a cost screening to rank the suniving projects and an economic6 °           • non
the projects that would be included in the master plan development ThSCrcenin8 to «dentrft
processes are described in the following sections 6.2 Initial Screening
" ese tflree  screen^
The purpose of this step in the screening process was to eliminate obviously non-viable options The basis of the screening was a cost evaluation based on cost and project charactenstics developed in previous studies For this step all costs were expressed m costs per installed capacity, ignoring any non-hydropower benefits of the projects The results of this screening are given in Table 8
Table 8 Initial Screening of Hydropower Projects
Project
Installed Capacity iMW]
Total Cost
(10* Bim
Cost per kW
iBnyrL
Large projects (>150
MW)
6,709
—
Bonga
372
2.496
TAMS
519
3.277
6.314,
Gambcla
258
2.002
7,759
Geba-R
180
1J38
6.322 ----------- -        c        i
Birtnr-R
Baro-A
LOttakA_______ I
, Birin r-A________________
Medium project* (>$Q MW)
Gilo-1
Sor-A
See
Beko
Gumcro
Kashu
Gilo-3
Sor-R
Sako-Guda
1.693
TAMS-l LG Biro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Develop***1
10Figure J-5
Schematic of Potential
Dam Sites
K£TTO
VfETD
QUA
§ Busting Daw
| Potential Daw Site
f Hydrometric Station River
Birb:r-R +
SESE
T
▼
Sfsc
01RBIR              A GEBA
A
Gtba-R
Gumero
-------------♦-------
Grba-A
SOR
_______
GuMERO
Gambelc
//onj? Bongo TamsWATER RESOURCES
1^2L^®ROFOWer ,
--------- ------ The first conclusions from the initial screening is that the mini-hydro
upper basin are clearly not economically justified and can be eliminated
process Mini-hydropower projects which were very popular im the anyfurthe T5'he
r
often shown poor economical return due to expensive maintenance and di ^d
many places, particularly remote areas such as the Baro-Akobo basin, tl SC°n 'nued op^,5 installed on small streams where the lack of data often resulted in P°Wer Plants ha'1011
6    1’13’1118 low
flows .After construction it frequently appears that the dry season flowT^ ^" operation As a consequence local users are forced to purchase and
Prqjta
than ^uireiT
the   expense   of   the   combined   operation   in   excess   of   the   acceptable   cost   of"6    planu    nul/
such as siltation or lack of spare pans have often plagued the proner n
these reasons it is recommended that small and num nm of nver powerS°L°f‘he pr°^s F individual basis not appropriate to the master planning level Thp P ts '^’^gated *
shod!            be conned wtth the cos, of tti erpanston of £
As previously indicated, for a number of dams with irrigation as primary purpose it suggested that hydropower could be installed but would be inefficient these sites will be as irrigation projects, and should be justified as such prior to considering the addition
Gther proh *
powerhouse These projects include dams at Gilo-2, Gtlo-3, hang, Chiru, Dumbong and Mey ° *
From Table 8 it appears  that several of the hydropower projects  are very  expensive However because of the unreliability of the cost estimating in the previous studies it was decided to cam forward most of the remaining projects for further screening
The projects eliminated in the initial screening were Sese, Beko, Sako-Guda as well as the mini hydro projects, all of which have a unit power cost in excess of Birr 10,000 per kW
A schematic representation of the surviving dam projects is shown on Figure 5 6.3 Cost Screening
General
borage,
a deiai] JcomXaH v ^eSt,!TUleS f°r dI ,he
1
t
e
nmcal review of the proposed sites was performed
hydroelectric     project
with     resenoir
f hre f
be substantiaJly>PmoretxDffl<?eCtSkSakO*Guda’ Sese and Beko- havc previously  becn foU this  study  indicated that cn LM Otber highland projects. The review earned ou
nearly so favouTabt S
Guda, although developing 500
mere long siphon and 1 i Wres °^ead 3 2.000 metre long tunnel as well fj, unfeasible Thest"n^/A^ mm' '°»8 canai. would make the project
ere Ore eliminated from any further consideration
l ° ,he Other upp^ basin projects, the dam sites
planlS WCre Ion8’ “*
the Bonga'danTwith a Powerhouse at the foot of the
7 “ COmpciJt>on for development, i e., the ^n^f^
* El 620 is 100 metres h,ghcr the TA^8
has a better potential and ther^f dam II appcars on technical ground that
_______________ Y’ U> *2]^ extent the Gambela dam would submerge
eliminated Similariy but m  *
f     W4S kepl for ftjrther evaluation, and Bong
ta.msflg
11.cnVRCES
ANNKX W HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
—-------- ‘ —-------------------------------- ---------------
Therefore this project was also eliminated for hydropower development as a ^erh01*^ This dam. however, can he designed at a lower pool level which would not
P**^  aMS dam railwater, and has sufficient storage to regulate the flow for
t
& Gambela dam has been retamed for irrigation as a primary purpose, with Lelopment of hydropower on a multipurpose basis
3 >fivottl
C^P'dg5,gn
1    *  timates  were  developed  for  the  remaining  ten  hydroelectric  projects  using  the  cost LC5a    procedures  described  in  Annex  1G  Tn  order  to  achieve  this,  for  each  of  these  ten ; 5ti?J^g   a   rCCOnnaissance   level   design   was   performed   A   set   of   design   criteria   was ^M'shed   to   size   lhe     Pr°jec’   features.   These   criteria   cover   ihe   dams,   spillways,   river
ion during construction, low level outlet, power waterways, and power plants
Pom
Timj principal types of dams have been considered, earthfill (Figure 6) and rockfill (Figure 7), epending on the availability  of materials  Some sites  appear well-suited to concrete faced Bctfili or arch dams  These could be considered in the next, prefeasibiiity, stage Ln a few asej where good foundations  exist and where it would be expensive to develop a separate foanad spillway, a roller compacted concrete dam solution has been adopted with the spillway scorpwaied into the body  of the dam. Small diversion dams, diverting power flows  into cauls have been designed as concrete gravity dams (Figure 8) All dams have been sized and ksigoed based on experience Upstream and downstream slopes  vary  with the height of the am, while core slopes  remain constant Both of these, as  well as  zoning of ihe dam, may 3an8 as maienai and foundation conditions become better known
e
Ol  s
structures have generally been designed in accordance with the design criteria of the 10 0 ’ C  ^  Engineers. Spillways for dams near populated areas have been sized for
’ W-year flood For some of the upper basin dams, with very little development
de^ t*1C 10QQ-year flood has been used The upper basin storage dams have generally -oiseqf° ungated spillways, since head for power is not developed at the dam itself
r
width Sh*11 y l*C Un^ discharge for the spillway are in the range of 4 to 10 m7s per metre of
ihe high d°rl C TJlCS
basins have been provided for all of these In the lower basin,
Per meire^! 8 nerally have gated spillways with unit
e
discharges in the range of 40 to 60 m7s 
^provided Wa,er Veloddes of 30 to 40 m/s. For these spillway  chutes  large stilling basins 12 of suffi °r Cner^y  dissipation. However, in one case, at Geba-R the rock  was  considered ^-1 pr0£:.,eiltly  high quality  that a flip-bucket could be used, while at the TAMS dam and
Wai.r  S   1   6   sP*llway  could  discharge  over  cols  across  the  abutment  and  run  through ^□rses away from the dams
f S-VLQ Baro-Akobe River Basin integrated Development Miner Plan
12/ EARTHFILL DAM TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
/.L>©@® @©@©
Lk/S Trmtltloft - S«l*ct SmU Rock Sim and Gravel
Silty Sand Couth
0/S  Fine  Filter  Zona  -  Medium  to  Fine  Clean  Sind D/S Tram It I on Zone
ROCKFILL DAM TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
A/gur.K
ELEVATION
upstream elevation of spillway and intake structure
REFLECTED SECTION
PLANrESovkces ____ ______________ ANNEX1J WYPROPOWER projects
|ClUreS design^ for the 100-year flood for earthfill or rockfill dam and for the 10-year
fywer Plants
?o*tr plants were sized to provide a plant factor of 60% Based on the reservoir storage, the ^jjd.  i.e  the  monthly  discharge  guaranteed  with  a  98%  reliability  was  determined  to
•s >biish the average energy generating flow The maximum power flow was selected to be 6?% larger than the yield in order to provide a plant factor of 60% For storage projects, the gulled capacity was established as the available capacity when the reservoir water surface is r the median level of the active storage Waterway head losses were assumed to be 6% of the cuss head, and the generating set's efficiency’, taking into account transformer losses, was ’Jia as 35%.
Pimrar Waterways
A - power waterways were sized for the maximum discharge of the power plant The power ca-jJs were assumed to be concrete lined and were assumed to be concrete lined and sized for -liximuni velocity of 1 m/s. All power tunnels were assumed to be concrete lined and sized
provided a maximum velocity of 4 m/s The steel penstock diameters were selected to ;roildea maximum water v elocity of 6 m/sWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX
located in the same basin such as Birbir-A and Birbir-R, or the combined operation was performed in order to
Geba-A  and  Geba-R. evaluate the
constructions and determine the full potential of the combined sites" Th^8 Of Pfojta
combined operation of two or several reservoirs, is that the firm energy R PUrpos« of
combined system is significantly more than the sum of the energy generated
projects For esample in the case of the Birbir basin, the system of two power d|
14 3% more energy than the sum of the two power plants operating independent^ ** 8etlerai«
6.4      Project Ranking
6.4.1 General
In order to rank the projects, the cost per kWh of firm energy was calculated by addine present value of thirty years of operation and maintenance to the cost of construct^
dividing by the discounted annual firm energy production over the same thirty year period The discount rate of 12% was used for that purpose, in the case of the companson of single projects, or non-staged systems, a different discount rate would provide the exact same ranking
'he
Two rankings have been considered The first ranking excludes the cost of transmission line in order to determine the best hydroelectric projects in the Basin The second ranking includes the cost of the transmission line to the nearest point of the ICS, i e., the Gilgel Gibe Project, this  ranking should principally  be used to determine the first project to be developed The combination of these two rankings will assist in the selection of the project to be developed first, as well as in selection of the subsequent projects when the transmission lines to the ICS might become shorter.
A third evaluation criteria was introduced to compare the projects evaluated in this report and those in other basins in Ethiopia As previously indicated, the average cost of construction, including transmission lines, of installed capacity of the planned power plants has estimated to be US $2,406 per kW: for each of the projects evaluated in this report this ra has also been determined
6.4.2 Single stage projects
The results of the cost screening process for single stage projects are ^mmanS(^in which shows the ranking of the projects in terms of unit energy costs per capacity cost per kW installed
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Batin Integrated DevelopmentANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Table 9
Cost screening of single stage hydropower projects
Installed capacity Cost per kWh Cost per kW
(MW)
MW)
210
171
170
508
422
465
1,060
310
(USS)
0.036
0 038
0,038
0.050
0.055
0 060
0.073
0 085
(USS)
1,331
1,391
1.386
1,918
1,964
2,409
2,839
3,252
tftdintt Projects (^50MW)
Kassu
60
0 04
Geba A I
105
0.045
Bahr A (El 1430)
95
0 045
A (El 1425)
86
0 045
joiAO.
65
tea A 2
66
5orA
52
0054
0.059
0.059
Gilo 1
80
0 073
1,465
1.686
1,691
1,691
2,118
2.211
2,290
2,909
Small projects (<50MW)
Guutfo 2,3
dinero 2
Ojuitro 3 (ianero 1
SorR
Gumero ],2,3
50
Eno [
40
30
0,049
0.050
Cumeno |,2
0051
1.833
1.908
1,923
38
18
20
12
13
0,053
0 063
0.078
0 084
0.147
2,030
2,399
2,973
3,211
6.090
4^
cost screening propceross  ject fos r imnuteltri-msts aogfeupnriot jeenctes rgay recosustms mpearrikWsedhinanTdabulneit10, [-
c ost
p ' KW installed
AAis’,JLg B T.r—:------ ---------- -- --------
lr    obo River Basin Integrated Derrlopmenc Mister PtmProjects Bare river
Table 10 Cost screening of hydropower projects with
■           ■          a .        —'
Installed capacity
(MW)
Cost per kWh (USS)
Baro 2 170 0038 Bare 1&2 210 0036 Geba river
Geba A I Geba A I&2 Birbir river
105
171
0 045
0.037
Birbir R                          422                                 0 055 Birbir A&R                      508                                 005
Gumtro river
Gumero 2 18 0 063
Gumero 1,2                    30
0.051
Gumero 1,2,3                 50                                   0049
.
Cost per kvv (USS)
1.386 1.331
1.686 1,391
1,964 1.918
2,399 1,923 1,833
6.4.4    Large projects
It can be seen from the Table 9 that the following projects are worthy of further consideration for connection to the ICS
• Bare 1 and 2: This project includes the construction of an upstream regulating storage
dam, and two downstream diversions having capacities of 170 MW and 40 X
respectively The total development can provide firm energy to the system at a cost o
0 036 USS per kWh
• Geba-A 1 and 2: This project includes the construction of an upstream regu ar4
storage dam, and two downstream diversions having capacities of 1 - -te(n at a
66 MW respectively. The total development can provide firm energy to t e
cost of 0 037 USS per kWh
jrtjciilar co*Jd These two projects also present the possibility of staged development, Geba m P
have a first stage of 105 MW providing firm energy at 0.045 USS per kWh. 6.4.5   Medium projects
With  regards  medium  size  projects  the  best  candidate  for  connection following
to the ICS*
------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -— TA.MS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Iniegrated Developfn
16annex u hydropower projects
The project consists of a regulating storage dam in the upper basin of the
K*,h°^er and a downstream diversion with a power canal, a penstock and a 60 MW
Akob° Li The project can generate firm energy at a cost of0 04 USS per kWh
^■er pl*™'
*. This project includes the construction of an upstream regulating storage
Bifbir a a single downstream diversion having a capacity of 95 MW This project can
firm energy to the system at a cost of0.045 USS per kWh
Sr^lpr^
« stand out as strong possibilities for power generation in the basin
Gumero; This scheme also comprises an upstream regulating storage reservoir which will deliver water to series  of three small power plants  on the Ofa river The sunultaneous development of these three power plants would result m the production of firm energy at the rate of 0 045 USS per kWh.
Biro 1. This project of 40MW would be one of the two power plants proposed on the Baro river downstream of the Baro dam By  itself this  small power scheme could generate firm energy  at a cost of 0.05 USS per kWh, including the costs  of the regulating dam and the transmission line.
Ttaetwo small projects are located on either side of the Gore to Gambela 66k V transmission ise Gumero 1, the closesi to the transmission line is approximately 14 km north of the line. Gumero 2 and 3 are 9 km and 28 km further from Gumero 1, away from the line The Baro 1
plant is located 15 km to the south of the line
Sf Baro-Akobo Projects in the National Grid
w'entC[iminaiy cntena used ,0 evaluate these projects in the context of the interconnected
3 the Fl*' 'tbC Construct’On cost per kW of installed capacity shows that a number of projects 
r°              basin should be considered at the national level Table 10 shows the cost
^tosinth C m°re attract've projects of the basin as well as the cost per kW for other
e counlry which are already considered in EELPA’s expansion plan
^Tevi
invertBaro*Akobo     project   is   at   the   reconnaissance   level,   and   certainly   requires Rejects should         con^rrn the conclusion of this report. It is however obvious, that these
0    the  *  ®ven   a    greater  attention  to  bring  them  at  the  level  of  confidence  necessary 
1 confirm
Construction cost per kW of installed capacity presented in Table should1 °n of tech™cal merits of these projects, a full economic analysis and
^>the priorities C°nducted to Se,ect tbe Project t0 be uKlude in the cxPansion pbn 31x1
17WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDRQP0Wrt>
Table 11. Comparison of Bare A kobo projects with Proiccu               " °,h«
Project Name
Installed Capacity
(MW)
Baro-Akobo Basin Projects
Biro-A 1&2
210
Geba-A 1&2
171
Btrbir A & R
455
Cr 'nnr''uion
l£SS/kW
1.295 1,351
Birbir-R (1121)
360
TAMS
1.060
Other basins in Ethiopia
Gtlgel Gibe
180
Aleltu East 1
186
Aldru West
165
Halde-Warebesa
332
Chemoga-Yeda I & II
580
2_856
2.400
1.81
6.6 Local Projects for the Baro-Akobo basin
As indicated in Table 10, the more promising medium and small projects are Gumero, Kashu and the first stage of the Baro project This  category  of small projects  should be compared with other local supply  projects, namely  isolated thermal plants  A comparison of generation costs is given in Table 12 below
Table 12 Energy Generation Cost Comparison with Diesel Plant
Project
Installed capacity         Energy Cost
(MW)
(USS/kWh)
Kashu
60
040
Gumero
50
0.049
Baro 1
40
0050
r
Diesel plant
50
0065
The above costs of hydropower projects include the cost of local transmission to
line, either the existing 66k V line or the planned 132 kV line, as appropnat^
project is the most economic option overall but suffers from the disadvantag siages capacity of 60MW', it is relatively large for a local project and cannot be “ev* ° cS of 12, 18 On the other hand the next best project, Gumero, can be developed in three s 
and 20 MW to meet growing demands 
g aStu a
,.
w er Plafls C°U
Based on the demand projection presented in Chapter 3 above these three P ^ Bar°'^?^
meet the demand of the three regions (Wollega, Sor and Bonga) covcn?f con
0 un  ss
*  *° uM
Basin until the year 2024 For example the first plant of 12 MW woul ^cofJ(j plant 2005 to increase the installed capacity of these regions to 38.5 MW The s
18ANNEX 1.1 HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
I ><<”^l'',CUn,i"he>Car Ml2Md‘h'Ih'rtnaSeOf20MW
”^ «20
y        18.
J moment would obviously require the installation of a network nf r
northern basin as show-n in F ure 10 For example
lg
0
fhe / "TT" "
*5 ^Jude the transmission line between Metu (scheduled to be <L  JLf
n
n ^'Oric
lM()| and Ghimbi which will also be connected to the ICS nJ””"1'° ***1CS
Dembidoto where .he conned™ with
dXXT
i befatter «P^ded 10
s01,t1’
bV
- conneebng Gore to Tep, £*2 XXm
f Projects Suitable for Energy Export
fwjurable projects for energy export to the Sudan can be identified from Table in ,
omnsmiMon line costs, which can be taken to be equal for all o
pt ons
ejcase is pven in Table 13.
Table 13
i    PraJ, ’ ^"T“nS "
ranking m
Project
Candidate Projects for Energy Export
Installed Capacity             Energy cost (MW)                   (USS/kWh)
Baro 1&2                               210                              0027
Geba A 1&2                             171                              0028
Birbir A&R                               508                              0037
Its anticipated that if a project like Birbir R, with a capacity in excess of 400MW. were to be 500 kV line to the Roseires project would be required.
Projects recommended for the Master Plan
scrwn*J18 process it can be deduced that the medium to large projects shown in act, j_j be justified economically for the expansion of the ICS and should therefore be
the Master plan
Table 14
Project
Candidate Projects for Connection to the ICS
Installed capacity Energy Cost
Bar l&j
1 &2
B'rbir A&R
Mshu
Sor A4R
0 030
0 036
Total
(MW)
210
171
508
60
65
(USS/kWh)
0.027
0 028
0 049
Ntcsls
961
Ejects 
14 do n01 includc transmission line costs
, since the cost attr^^
S 15 ^pendent on the order in whic
h these projects are budt This ts
k                          S-t’LG B a ro- Akabo River Basin Integrated Dor I op nun Master PlanPEAK POWER DEMAND (MW)
BARO-AKOBO ®ASJ^
gC
PEAK POWER DEMAND Figure U'5Baro-Akobo River Basin
Integrated Development
Master Plan Project
--PROPOSED TRANSMISSION X UNE NETWORK FOR
THE BASIN
+54*4
I
I£
+Gil<3 2
S«h«luted 132kv Line
" Existing 66kv Line
Existing 132kvLine
pf opoMKj  trans  line  network ^ential power plants
s
x
edon
-,
<* W«« R«ou
016'h“®«
G&:      TiL
16 1996
lk "nme amS-ulg
b roads .apt
-WATER RESOU RCES
portfolio   of   projects   and   is   suffident   for   Master   Planning   purposeTind,
term  The  timing  of  the  implementation  of  the  projects  depends  on  th  °  rncd,Urn    to financial   attractiveness   compared   with  other   hydropower   projects   in  Eth"  COOnorrMc*j studies  indicate  that  at  least  the  Baro  and  the  Geba  projects  are  as  if  not1   '°pia   P’e^ any    other    projects    under    consideration    for    the    generation    expansio^^    attn,ctive      £ evaluation   of   the   combined   operation   of   these   hydropower   schemed   Pr08ranui>e   Z? additional benefits not taken into account in the above evaluation, is de                ^hlch results ,
and is induded in one of the development scenarios in the Master Plan Cd 'n IE
One of the present strategies that is being pursued in the power sectot is the i
a programme of medium scale hydropower projects The most attractive lcmentatl°n of
ANNEX 1J HYDRqpq^
in the Baro-Akobo basin is the staged Geba and Baro projects If either of th
selected for early implementation then they could clearly be used to meet theT Pr°)Ccts
well as for the supply of the ICS Since this is essentially an out-of-basin6 demand “
projects have also been selected as local basin projects, as shown in Table 15 ec,SIOn SCVe«l Table 15 Candidate Projects for Basin Supply
a%
Project
Kashu Gumero Baro 1
Installed Capacity (MW)
60
50
40
The preferred option of these three is Gumero which can growing demand
Energy    cost
(USS/kWh)
0.040
0 049
0050
be developed in stages to meet
.feasibility study. Geba and
Of  all  the  above  projects,  two  stand  out  as  candidates  for  pre-: Gumero
20ANNIX U HYDROPOWER projects
MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS
iltipurpose  projects retained by the previous studies are located in the lower
nndpal
they are close to the imgable land The previous studies 
J
mL,,L,F'*’ ' 
r
*
ii-’firyahIs* land Th/» nr*vinite
k.J 
.
____
•■
small power plant downstream of reservoirs mainly used f recotnTnended
be considered but wffl deariv have l0
tixcentah benefii from hydropower As indiaued j, c
^dd have a s.gmfieanr mpaa on rhe reeuning flood proWen,
^rposesceruno
* —_ -..u.-h rrsnld clearlv be considered as multmuroose orniects are reffularins
-dude two dams, the Gilo-1 project and the TAMS project and possibly a third at Gambela <. this  stase of the study  it is  not possible to recommend either of these projects  for tvdfcpower as indicated on Table 9 these projects are ranked far behind a number of projects Hower, these poor returns on power could be improved, if the regulated release can be used w motion purpose For example the simulation of the Gilo-1 project shows that in addition
»the production of 425 7 GWh/yr of firm energy’, the reservoir regulated the water release to he  extent  that  52,000  hectares  of  irrigated  agriculture  could  be  developed  In  order  to xerrn  this  analysis  the  economics  of  the  irrigated  agriculture  must  be  advanced  to  a feasibility level study for identified projects
1S ’L LG Baro-xj^ Wver Bisin watc<l Devdopni«i( Mister Plan
21I*
■'!ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
APPENDICES
Baro-Akobo River Basin [ntrgnted Develop®011 Mister Pl
1J AppendicesANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS APPENDIX 1 BARO DAM PROJECT
site is in the upper reaches of the Baro basui about 75 km upstream of the
flc Baf° th the Birbir and 30 km almost due south from the town of Gore The 1 250 000
indicates Basalt in the area of the site. A geological sketch map at
jeok®**'       l 5 ooo scale indicates fluvial deposits overlying residual clay overlying basalt
ou tcrop on a 2 metres vertical section near the river bed. The site is shown on
Theb4Zt0 strip 22. photo 2388, but no stereoscopic coverage is available Most of this 
!ifUl P covered in forest The river at the dam site is following the line of a N-S fault or
P**0 feeition which continues in a gully to the north From the topographic map the relief described as gently rolling No major outcrops of rock can be seen on the photograph
nous fill is likely  lo  be  obtained from the thick residual clay on the hill slopes Sand and ^7  have  not  been  found  in  the  vicinity  of  the  dam  site  .An  earthfill  dam  is  the  only 
ability at this site A diversion tunnel can be easily constructed in the basalt with support of uhotciete, wire mesh and rockbolts A sample of residual clay was obtained from near the Baro  bridge  upstream  of  the  dam  site  It  is  a  red  brown  silty  clay  and  considered  to  be representative for the area The diversion weir and the powerhouse for diversion 1. located on i V-bend of the river, will be founded in basalt The canal and powerhouse for diversion 2 wl! be in biotite gneiss with possibly some basalt at high elevations
The Baro dam would be 45 metre high and constructed of earthfill as  noted above The spillway would be ungated, 80 metre long, with a design surcharge of 2 metres for passing the I MO-year flood A chute, 135 metre long would lead to a 35 metre wide by 28 metre long sad 8 metre deep stilling basin. Two 5-meter diameter diversion tunnels along with a 15 metre tgh cofferdam would be used during construction One of these tunnels  would later be provided with the outlet works  for passing the regulated flows  to the downstream power fcetsions
dam project is located near the village of Gordomo and the area near the reservoir nurnerous huts and tukuls At high reservoir levels, the flooded area covers 78 km‘
low reservoir, only 10 metres lower, the flooded area would be only 17 km*
lne measures would need to be taken against water bom diseases such as malaria
tf ca^X^ °
r
seconjH ** ^
Ject 'n addition to the dam consists of two power plants The first, with 40 MW
a diversion which is located 43 km downstream of the dam, and would
1    1  5 ^ead with a 1,300 metre long canal having a peak discharge of 55 m /s 
k «3d aujj pOu'cr diversion, 17 km downstream of the first, would develop 385 metres of Lle Zv •have a 170 W capacity The power canal would be 8,000 metres long with
^^ersio ^'^arge A drawing of the typical diversion dam and canal intake structure for
11B shown on Figure 8.
^ le l.l P5.characlensties of the Baro dam and the two power diversions arc shown on
dam and the appurtenant works is shown on Figure 1 I an o e S °n Figures 1.2 and 1.3
- curv e of the reservoir is presented on Figure 1.4.
Uaro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan 1J Appendices -1WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER P Oj
R       F(7
•              eanacitY of 40 MW, is expected to generate 207.6 GWl^ with an installed capnv j _nerav The second diversion has an insult
35 3 GWWyr of
capacity 
secondary enoefrgy c '’O^^'iTXcuon       cost       excluding       transmission       line       is       est.™rt           „
follows
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works Diversion and Power Plant No. 1 Diversion and Power Plant No. 2
Total Construction Cost:
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 1.2.
530,892 Don
540.164,000
5209,442,000
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Mas<«r P,*D
1J Appendices- 2ANNEX IJ HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
rfso^L
Table 1.1 Baro Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
daM
raschm**11
Annual Fl»“'
[jajnTyp6
Dam Hcght
Normal Min. Oper Level
AC nve Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir Surface Area
Spillway Design Flood
Gates 
Max Flood Level
Low Level Outlet Capacity
Gates
DIVERSION DAM No.l
Diversion Capacity
Spillway Crest Level
Spillway Weir Dimensions:
Intake Gates
Canal (bott width x depth x length) Penstock:
Powerplant
Design Head Design Flow Installed Capacity: Iail water Level
DIVERSION DAMNo.2
P^ersion Capacity Spillway Crest Level.
pillway Weir Dimensions: Gates:
1,620 km1 49 9 mJ/s Earthfill
45 m
El. 1,725.0
El. 1,720 0
El 1,710.0
483 mem 117 mem
78.5 km1 460 mJ/s
Ungated
El. 1,722 0 55 2 m3/s
1 - 2,00 mx2 00 m
55 2 mJ/s
El 1,420
80 0 m long
3 - 5,00 mx 2.50 m high 4 50 m x 4.00 m x 1.300 m long
3 40mdia x 300 tn long
95 m
55.2      mJ/s 40 MW
El 1,320
* depth x length).
pQwerplant
Design Head
Design Flow:
Stalled Capacity: Tailwater Level
55.2      tn/s
El. 1,250
80 m long
3.5.00 mx 2.50 m high 4.50mx4 00 mx8.000mlong
3 40 m dia. x 700 m long
385 m
55.2      mJ/s 170 MW
El. 860
r AjMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin lntcsrHed tV''tJoPnKD‘
lJ ADOendices - 3BARO-AKO6C PROJECT
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1 J-1.2 - Project Cost Estimate Summary
Cotl LrvN January 1990
BARO DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 1
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1720
Power Plant Inst Capacity: 40 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
amount iusv
ITEM NO.
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
foreign
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
642 603
2,570.4vT
3 213 fHa
2.
Earth Dam
2.358.232
9.432.920
.
11.791.ibi~
3.
Access Roads
353 900
1,415.600
4.
Diversion Tunnel
1.061 500
4,246.000
Spillway
438.386
.
2 191 930
.
5 307 500
1 789 500
5.
1.753,544
6.
Low Level Outlet
72 000
288,000
380.000
SvD-rocWA. 4,926,621
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
19,706.463       24,633,104
AMOUNT |US|)
item no.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
792.750
3.171.000
3.963.750
Z
Access Roads
159.000
636.000
795 000
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
302.000
1.208.000
1.510.000
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
184.000
736 000
920.000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
4,640.000
18,560 000
23.200.000
Sub-total B 6,077,750
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
24,311,000       30,388,750
AMOUNT (USS)------------------ .---------------
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
foreign
COMPONENT
1.
Preliminary
72 885
291.540
364.425
2.
Switchyard
,
170,000
680.000
3.
Transmission Line
315,900
1,263.600
1.579.500J
Sub-total C:             558,785 Sub-total A+B+C 11,563,156
Physical Contingencies
Engineering & Admin.
2,312,631
1,387,579
TOTAL
850.000
2,793,935 57,815,779
11.563,156 6,937,894
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: 15,263,366
2,235,140
46,252,623
9,250,525
5,550,315
61,053,463
76,316,8296AR0 DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION Nod
B ***rre* M»5L Lrwf; Q  7^Q
1
hww Ptunf hT-rt, C«Me l^r 4Q
dctuled corr trrnun
<US1)
Mr, < m
I bfc- 1                  ***w
MUW
IJlilM
t
twrpwce
AMOUNT
U*T
■nm
KieMFTlQN
LOCAL
COWTOMITF
*ORDO»
cotiMWr
WU4
TOT*
CNMWr
mXWMI
TOTM
'MhUMI I'iJIW’.rt
ii
"tN—Tmt Ti/wrii. |jj |   |
r-1
n
M»
K.W
■•30 (W
cat
t
3
S—           j.tw, I j^w,    ■ ry
Hl
m
M.D0
■Mn»
LllM
f
♦
•
rr>
i ®»
s
• •»&
9 MW
Nd w
1 Hl.m
JffWBARO-AKOBO PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
BARO DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION N .1
o
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1720
Power Ptant Inst Capacity; 40 MW
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
(UM)
CoN Lrvtf Jwury 1#9€
B ROWKR CLAMT A V*U*TtMJWT WORKS
UNIT RRJCL
jwouirr
U<T
rrm no.
movnoN
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FORDO*
COMPONCMT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COHNOaCNT
roasoa
COa^OABT!          T<
i
Rower TltvwI
ir
Turrw<CM«» HI
000
0 DC
0 00
0
0
11
i>
Time O*« IV tried
m
0 00
0 00
000
0
u
••
Ttrr*CM»l V ,e«3
fR
000
0 00
000
!LL                 L
•|
1
Trans/ytfss/on System Tote/
■99s(JMM
A■
-'U,™ cost Eibmrt, Summary
Ccrsr Urrtf: Jar-jary ISg
BARO OAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DtVgRSWN No. 2
Reservoir Hat Level; E) 17J0
Power Plant hit Capacity: 170 mw
ary A APPURTENANT WORKS
_________________
descriptor
ITEM *>■
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT iUSlj
COMPONENT
total
<
preliminary
642.603
Th         - - - ----- 7
2 570.411
3.213 014
A» _       - -- J.
Earth Dam
2.354232
9 4 32,925
11 791,161
___
Access Roads
353 900
1.415.800
Diversion Tunnel
1.769.500
1,061,500
4,246.000
5.307 500
6
.
4
Spillway
4 M3 86
1 753.544
,
2 191,930
Low Level Outlet
72,000
238.000
360.000
Sufr-rota/A 4,918.821
fl ; SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
19,706,483      14,633.104
AMOUNT [USS]
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPCNSn
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
2734 920
10.939 600
13.874,600
2.
Access Roads
130.800
523200
654,000
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
4,202.000
16,606.000
21.010.000
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
4r
Penstock 4 Manifold
1.490 000
5.960.CDD
7,450 ODO
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
12.410,000
49.640.000
62.050 000
x^rot..'B 20,967,720
83,870.880     104,838,600
C: SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT (USS)
rfEM Nc.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FORE GAI
COUrONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
1.278750
5,115,000
6.393750
2.
Switchyard
300 000
1,200,000
1.500.000_
J.
Transmission Line
B.225,000
32.900.000
♦1 125 0O0
Sun-mew C: 9,803,750 SutMoatf A+0+C. 35,SS8 091
Continjjencres
fog/neerirtg 8 Admin.
r
7,139.414
4,283.771
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 47.131,480
39,215,000 44.010,750
142,742,303 174.496,454
28,558,173        35,(98.897
17,135,984      21,418,855
188.485,910 235,607,400BARO-AKO0O PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
BARO DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No.2
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1720 Power Plant Inst. Capacity: 170 MW
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
<US$)
CoMlawi January
A DAM A APPURTENANT WORK!
LOCAL
COMPONENT
TOTAL            QUANTITY
Cara ny! rwvt-ti -r- of WaW Fotniaten Eirmtcn - Corrmor Fotfoatcn   tjgavaaon   ■   Koo Bcttm Ejrcavafrjn ■ EarTftl FM Racamert - Eamfil
Rap * ProwM and Place
UNfT
item no
DiSCRFT)ON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
UNIT PRICE
FOREXIN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
quantity
LOCAL
COMPONENT
arout
'on©;*
coMPoaerr
j.
Accaaa Roads
If
Road rproverrwt
km
• COO
32 000
40 000
4 00
32 000
INMQ
12
am
TWa
£3
17.400
W GOD
• ’00C
f® 50
12* K0
32
SV earn Cmaartg
No
1 A 'aoc
.
0
0
0
ooo
0
—sa.
S<4»- «o<a/ fnam J Accrw Roads
xoseo               MtlMV        ’.NUB
UMTT PRICE
AMOUNT
U*T
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
CUMPuNfeN1
FORBGN
1
TOTAL
quantity
LOCAL
COMPONENT
fob gen
cotPONDrr
•nra
4
Dirwaxjn Tunrwl
4.1
Oerucn I urrw Cam ill Lewd
m
20 X
sex
IX 00
900
9
0t
42
m
20 X
BOX
fOOOO
ooo
0
0
42
Or*arscn Tunnel CMaa V Lawd
m
1.1Q0X
4 4XX
5 50000
99500
IX' 50C
U4M             ire]
unft price
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
snout
Spillway
Heaoacrkx
5tBnc Basin
1 37B DO
. **.( i DE
5 ' -■+ 00
1 1 M0 11
2000 00
• ooox
Dam and Appurtenant Works TotaJ*WO DAM
HYDROELECTRIC **OWER DfVER^io^ j
R *servotf M**- LwH: El 1T2D
Tams CryiiulUnU. Inc.
0*1* IA-OgTM
Powrr
,nit C*p4cHy 1?0 myy
DETAILED COlT ESTIMATE
LOCJU.
F-QRBGM
CQWROWMT
UKT PRKi
UMH
DM
LOCAL
□OMWXXT
FOftSDM
COMPCmrfMT
TOTAL
OfiTAKTmr
cnnNBFi
IS
000
3«
dDB
g
L5
D.ta
am   -£j£j
0
unii
uwr
LOCAL
OESCRPT1OH
FORBCN eowtwEMT
total
oqamttty
•V£_
■i ______
£* - -
LOCAL
cxmoMEKT
Anowrr
FOABBH cowraneifT
total
w—'liia*™ --
fw cm             _ _ -------------  —I
IW»!_ --------------------------------- ------------------ -J
ip
«?,DUD.0Q sa.m
1M*30QSn i «ii3a
Jltf DOOflO 1106 00
r
<1300
’S xc
jjJ_      _ 4j
Ll
. 00
D0O
5 DC1
c
—
?
0
ifla 'Xi.
□
<J*W»
jin doo
rueim hatoam
UMT PUKE
MONT
■J**T
WK1
DfliCfWTION
LOCAL
COHPCMffllVT
FORB&M
C0MKMEMT
total.
fiHJJUflTFf
LOCAL
CDBPQWIT
COWPOMEMT
TO**4.
d
Phamr Tignqal
u
TmtOui III LrR’T
fll
am
ODQ
flj
0
0
0
0
FJ
him 'Jii IV. Uf44
ffl
o.w
a oo
:do
0
s
0
0
tf           |Ti#«i Cfeu W Lj'wj
,
r Tuvw/ 9 0 9
M
am
act
ODO
fl
0
0
0
S^Mil ftw. S
n
t
LI
U
u^~2Z
UMT
PESOWTOH
LOCAL
COmo«NT
i
&UMfTTTV
LOCAL
COMPONENT
TUT AL.
-.
J*
1 JTA &Hj 1 Lrwrj
m
Lf’i£*t* *V 1 rw-:
”'
IwRQtaa v I-,,,,
m
0 00
Qffl]
OOD
UhTT HI|Cr
COOFOWEMT
ODO
D.W
0®
TOTAL
flOE
0
AMQUHTT
'ORDCN
CCmOMMT
Q
0
COC
fl
0
0
ffl
S06
0
D
■
fl
fl
1
a
IMT
LOCAL
CtMIFC*@rT
LIMIT PRICE
FCmOCN
COUPOWlNT
a do
aoo
LOCAL
wmkkxt
AMOIMT
FOR EK*
caaxwBrr
TOTAL
l hy ~
--------- ---------------------
IP
rn
300
0M
TOTAL
600
OX
QLiArnTv
0
fl
0
a
a
0
□
G
----------------------------
f»
0 00
am
OX
a
c
0
0
LMTHK1
ANourr
UMT
LOCIU,
CO—PDMtKT
FOflDCM
COMAOKMT
TOTAL
□ L-AMTTT’
local
COMPOHfiTT
FOItm
CeflKMT
TOTAL
ffl
LS
2.IWJD MXWC OC
1 4M X
*£ Hffl W
10,500 00
pXXOX
■tV
f
7joc xc
2DMC
•o.am
wo®
T.GHM             M*ej»                FAMIW
total
emjmrr
I7D.00C
«MPA»
iMitve Tr»MJW "■’**
nsjfjw *J,rr<n»o
AitOUWl
UMT PRCfc
K*B=*
FOREKM
COlPOMEM
cgyraMEjn.
C©MPOF*MT
COWPOKNT
5115 q»_
JJBTSO
<3 33
1500
I XC JX_
IfrX 300.
aoaocqoo
1 JC< xo og_
rsyaxiff
1,*;QMaO
jzroc ux.
<1 TRQoa
as 000 DC
Maaflsaa
• MiTie ».ni,o» «,<h*7S°BARO DAM
LAYOUTPower house El. 860
p °^er canal
Diversion Dam and intake
El 12S0
o
soe too
Seale 1 : so,000
' BARO DIVERSION 2
PLAN  ,J ----------- -'MArea in km2
BARO RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity CurveANNEX IJ HYDROPOWER PROJECTS APPENDIX 2 GEBA-A DAM PROJECT
site is on the Geba River about 120 km upstream of its junction with the Birbtr
1* ast of Gore The damsite is located on basalt The AG geological sketch map of
s Alluvium over Mekonnen Basalt over hornblende and biotite gneisses At the
^Xvium overlies the basalt foundation The she is located right at the comer of
*' e daI photos, strip 16, photo 1323, and is not stereoscopic. The whole area is 
^with gentle relief and rolling country. Rock is likely io be far below the surface
’h downstream of the dam site the AG report indicates that gorges cut into basement
blende a|ld biotite 8neisses Thfi JS dominated b? N‘S= NE-SW and E-W faults From
h \Sal photo there is no indication of large areas of outcropping rock, but possible basalt
are present to the north of the site in the Kombo area which might provide a rockfill
iL
' ^' The clay on the hill slopes is reputedly suitable for impervious fill. Due to the lack of
m earthfill dam is recommended The north-south fault near the dam axis to the east
on the sketch map must be investigated Sand and gravel is found in the Geba flood
pjuis A diversion runnel should be easily constructed in basalt with suppen of shotcrete, wire
mtsh and rockbolts The canals for diversions 1 and 2 are likely to be partly in basalt and
panly in hornblende and biotite gneisses The powerhouses are more likely to be founded on
SKJSti.
Project Description
The Geba-A dam would be 45 metre high and constructed of earthfill as  noted above The spllway would be ungated, 26 metre long, with a design surcharge of 2 metres It would have ispillway  chute 26 metres  wide and 420 metres  long, with a stilling basin 28 metres  long by If metres wide and 8 metres  deep Two 4.5-meter diameter diversion tunnels  along with a 15 nirl 'e high  cofferdam would be used for diversion One of these would later be provided with ^ outlet works  for passing the regulated flows  to the power diversion downstream A layout
■ -« dam and appurtenant works is shown on Figure 2 1
review of the 1986 aerial photography, the dam and reservoir appear io be located "‘flitsai i .Unb°Pu'aled area With a maximum reservoir area of 66 km3, a drawdown of 10
ow population density’, it is unlikely to present a hazard to human health
rife
»ith               add^’On the dam and reservoir, consists of two power diversions. The first, ievtlgp j-ic * stalled capacity, is located 4 km downstream of the dam and would
n
^hare. f metres of head with a canal 3,500 metres long The canal would have a peak a L 48 01/5 FiSure 22 shows canal alignment, the intake location and the
wo,
* W Th. deVelop 175
The second power diversion is located 12 km downstream of the of head with the same design flow for a total capacity of
^^erhoii^T^ Cana' would be 6 km long Figure 2 3 shows  the canal alignment, in e ^ed iocations. Table 2 1 gives  the particulars  on the dam and power development
^^pacitv
w ' CUrve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 2 4.
Witl1 “■
of 103 MW
energy and 56 7 GWh/yr of secondary energy The secon ^^S-ULG Baro-Akobo Hirer Basin Integrated DeretopmentMu<er Ptin
I.T Anncndicts- 4WATER RESOURCES
annex u hydropower pr
Ojects
an installed capacity of 66 MW and will generate 336.6 GWh/yr of firm
36.1 GWh/yr of secondary  energy  The total construction cost excluding transm ^^' 81x1
estimated as follows 
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works Diversion and Power Plant No.l. Diversion and Power Plant No.2.
SSlOn fine is
S38.961.000
582.163,000
55Z5Q10Q2
Total Construction Cost:                                                                         SI 80.627,000 A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 2.2.
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development 1J Appendices - 5
Master
ITT-annex u hydropower projects
Table 2.1. Geba-A Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
D.aM
Catchment Area
'
(e
an Annua* Flow
Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest L^'^1
Normal Max Oper Level
Normal Min Oper Level
Active Storage
Dead Storage;
Resavoir Surface Area
Spillway Design Flood
Gates
Max. Flood Level
Low Level Outlet Capacity
Gates
DIVERSION” DAM No.l
Diversion Capacity:
Spillway Crest Level
Spillway  Weir  Dimensions 
Intake Gates:
Canal (bott width x depth x length) Penstock
Powerplant:
Design Head Design Flow: Installed Capacity Tailwmer Level:'
Di '’ERSIONDAMNo i
.
1.086 lan: 35.9 m3/s EarthfiU 45 m
El. 2,175.0
El .2,170,0
EL 2,160 0
550 mem 315 mem
65 8 km2 270 mJ/s
Ungated
El .2,172.0 48 3 m3/$
I -200mx2.00m
48 3 m’/s
El 2,120
26.0 m long
3 - 5.00 m x 2.50 m high i: 4 30 m x 4.00 m x 3,500 m long
3.20 m dia. x 700 m long
275 m
48 3 mVs 105 MW E! 1.840
Ca PKity
V Crest Level:
^X^rDirnaisions
^ock^      *      d«pth      x      length) ^lant
Head: r^gnFlow;
Tai 64 CaP  «y:
ac
r^et-LeveL
48 3 m3/s
El. 1,680
26 m long
3 - 5 00mx2.50m high 4 30 mx400 mx 6,000m long
3 20 m dia x 400 m long
175 m
48.3 m3/s 66 MW El. 1.500
1A A1 j -—__________________ ________________ __ ____ _______ —— B^nj-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master pl“
IJ Aunendices - 6bar o-a kobo project
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1J-Z2 - Project Cost Estimate Summary CoH LmL January 1996
GEBA-A DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 1
Reservoir Max. Level: El 2,170 Power Plant Inst Capacity: 105 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT (US$)
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
780.420
3.121,71O~
z
Earth Dam
3 902 1^®
3,581.309
Access Roads
14.325.234
.
17 906 «*>
3.
520.000
2.080 000
4.
Diversion Tunnel
484.100
1.936.400
5.
Spillway
2.420 500
567.442
2.269 768
2 837 2m
6.
Low Level Outlet
50.000
200.000
250.000
Sub-foc/A- 5,983,278 B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
23,933,113           29,918,391
AMOUNT i USS)
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
1.685,280
6.741 120
8,425 400
2.
Access Roads
69.600
278400
348 Q00
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
1.495.600
5.982.400
7.478 000
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
1,060.000
4,240.000
5,300,000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
8.610.000
34.440.000
43,050,000
Sub-rot* B 12,920,400
51,401,920         04,602,400
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
subtle 7,917.750
Sub-total A*B*C 26,021,508
Physical Contingencies
Engineering & Admin.
5,364,302
3,218,501
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 35,404,391
31,671,000
107,286,033
21,457,207
12,074,324
141,617,563
39,588.750 134,107.541
26,821,508
16,092,905
177,021,958_____
« ecu*-* U A
HYDWQS-ECTRIC POW® KVS?^ ,
F?e»rv4ir Mu. Ltvd etlft Pow»« Plant Intt Capacity 105 Mw
neTAJLfDCOSTESrmviTE
fUW]
CwLrrri .'rwri tlftf
T«S Connfa,,,
UMTT f^JEE
LOCAL
_ WUWT
rc4» CCWQRflfT
J'11 MC
* apf.JM
? itWHj
JZ?  a*
ia^ri
z-i fe
3 «JgJ~] < 225 *?.- i toru
UPiT
pfitPwnoN
LOCAL
CMKJtfNT
UMTT RPCf
RMOCM
TOTAL
OuxXTTT
LOCAL *   ccarawxr
TPK
A*Xrt
FWBflH
□wpowr
TOTAL
Aw^ R—»•
--------------------- - -----------
r.
tori FcroMM-wt
ITO
IOOC
B.DM                       con
15 W
woec
I3CXC]
ZSBM5
Mta ■“*
krr-
17 400
Eli KE
47 SB
SB
a
0
C
u
nw&HR
0
0
0
ano
fi
a
cmw I_M4Gf
1M9J00
UNIT MCT
UMT
me
W3C WTON
LOCAL
COMFCMSNT
FQWBCur COWOtfiiT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
LOCAL             F-CABPW
CXLUHTTY CDPPCwSfT COWQBfW7 TOTAL
t
OwwiIib. 'irfin^
e
it
**s 1 jim c*u ii trad
rn
;cco
KM
wrf
043
5
a
a
<_____
1 Jiri Cm W Lr«
94C.CC
JttO.M
4 .TH SO
315 K
4H l-X
J,® 500
1 jiri ^*iei v Leite
rr
1 IOC DC                   *weon
iS»«
a Jt
a
0
2-
UM.TB1
J*MI~
iwjsr
****** i**.
AW”3 ***«*INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No.1
Reservoir Mai. Level: EJ 2,170 Power Plant Inst. Capacity: 105 MW
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
(USS)
Coat tovai Jnar, 1996
B POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
UNIT PRICE
UNR
ITEM NO.
DESCR*TON
local
COMPONENT
FOR DON
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
%
15 00
1500
1500
40 000
erooo
UNR
FTEMNO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
UNR PRKE
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITV
X
Power intake
31
STutxra
u
OX
0 00
000
0
XX
Gam
IS
coo
coc
00
0
descrrtxdn
LOCAL
COMPONENT
J5 000CC
UMR PRICE
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
Power Cane
*Tert>aj
total
128,000 00
I fOOOO
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
ANOuet
ITEM NO.
oesc Rip-now
LOCAL
COMPONENT
roe don
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COMPONENT
X
Power Tunnel
FORBM
COMPONIW
TOTA
XI
TtmaiCUisi Hi UnaO
m
0 00
OX
COO
0
>utW Clw&a TV Lrwd
C
1
J
XX
m
0.00
ox
000
0
0
0
1
O
Tunnel Class V Laird
m
0 00
ox
ooo
0
0
0
1
SubUofa/ ffeni 5 Power TunneJ                                                                                                                                                                                                           0                                        0 1
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
LINTT
rTYM NO
D€5CWP-noN
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOABGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COMPONENT
CONPO^XT
IOTA
s.
Surya Shaft
<r
Turned CMsa III. Lined
m
OX
OX
000
0
0
2
1
XX
Turn* Qmj IV Lined
m
CX
OX
000
0
0
5
i
XX
Turn at C3asx V. Lined
m
0.00
OX
000
0
0
0
■
amouh
TOTAL
LOCAL
Dtscwy
COMreNtNT
TOTAL
Pxirtock 4 Manrtold
Rerntodt
1 500 00
roocx
T 5X-<
I 050 000
1M0A00
UNIT
REM NO
OEfiCRIPnON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
UNIT PVOCf
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
0
Powerhouae A Equipment
Svb-roralRerr 0. Powerhouse
Powar Plant and Appurtenant Worlts Total
82 X
JOO
325 X ox
QUANTITY 105 000
srcJB
0f
0-2
Powerhouse Tarnrace EaravwSon
*CA
m3
ox
0
12,920,**°
rani
Tnnvntuion Sy*rwn ToutLrrtJ; January ipgg 
7
m
Power Plant Init Capacity; $g ww
uMMflRY DAM 4 APPURTENANT WORKS
__________ ________________
GE0A-A DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION *fe, 2
Reservoir m . Leved: El 2,170
A * ®'
fT^MWO.
DESCRIPTION
__
LOCAL COMPONENT
AMOUNT [USS|
FWtSGH
component
total
preliminary
jL__________
700.426
3 121.71D
Earth Dam
,
17 906 543
3 902 T36
i- - ~
_
1
3,581.309
14,325,234
Access Roads
,
520 ODD
2. MID MM
2.600, Oct
"
J
Diversion Tunnel
__--
&___ _ - -
t
4B4.100
1,936400
Spillway
2 420 500
567,442
2269 788
Low Level Outlet
,,
2.aj7 2fT
50.000
2DC 000
,
250,ono
suotoWA 5,983,278                     23,933,113      29.91J.J91
B : SUMMARY POWER PLj^NT & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (USl)
item mo.
DESCFUPTION
LOCAL
component
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1
Preliminary
1.170.165
4 704 660
5.080,625
2.
Access Roads
17.4 DO
69,600
87 OQC
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4
Power Canal
1,345700
5.382800
0,726. SM
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
o
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0I
1.
Penstock & Manifold
340.000
1 360.000
1.700,000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
6.138, {KO
24 552.000
30 69Q.OO0
9,817,288
45.0SM25
c : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT I UM]
rtEM No.
DE5CAJPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FdRSGH
CaMPOMBfT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
927.750
3.711 GOO
463A75O
2.
Switchyard
200.000
308,000
1,000.000
3.
Jjansmission Line
5.965,DOD
23 94G QOO
29,325.000
Sufttntt Cr 7, 112,750 Subratw A4fl«C: 22.113,293
Pfiysica/ Cont>ng*ne«s
4,122,659
Sn^naenno 4 AtflnJn.
£*33,03
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 29,189,547
2M5Lf(W
88,453,173
17,490, M5
fD, 11^381
TMJSB.1W
J55S3J50 110,566,4M
11.113,233 13,287,976
T 45,947.73?BAROAKOBO PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
GEBA-A DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No 2
Reservoir Mix. Level: E 2.170 Power Plant Inst Capacity E5 MW
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
(USS)
CcMLW January <N6
uwn
mH NO
DESCRTT1ON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
UNIT PRICE
FoaeoN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTTTV
IOCAL
^•PON^
f
x
1500
tsoo
15 0C
L ■acT^T
UNIT
ITEM NO.
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
UNTT PRICE
FORDGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COMPONENT
ANOUT ro»DG* ~
CON KN or
TWA
A
Acc««« Ro*4b
3.1
Road lrrpn>wwrrt
km
tooc
J2 00C
4 . OO9
I5DC
52CO3Q
ZOE0 30D
3-2
NawRoatf
km
17 400
M6OC
B7 0OC
ex
3
JJ
STcan- Crasxrp
NC
0
0
0
000
0
0
t
Sub^oCai Irwn 3. Accra Road*
UO.flOO
LNU»
UNTT PRICE
UNO
rm NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOR DON
COMPONENT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
LOCAL              ‘ORDCk COMPONENT      coBAoaen          WK
QUANTITY
A
Divwrtion Tucn«4
41
CMnion 1-rT-*i Cta(« III Lrwd
m
20 0C
10 X
woe
000
0
0
1
43
Drvtrsacr. TL/nel Clas% IV Lined
m
940 X
JN0X
4 TQOOC
51LOO
4M 1X
1MM
jsd
4J
Dtvrwor. Tunnel C1O54 V Lr*C
m
1 10000
4W0DC
5 300 OC
ooo
c
£
U
UNTT PACE
LOCAL
Low Lavi Ovrllot
TTjcHre
I DOCX
i tot
Dam and Works Tot*MYO^ECWCp^^^^
™U
Jp<L
FtewrvQir Mu,
j
Di *«
i^Drr-st
pew HiTTt Inst. O4pK(fy « w
DETAILED cost EsnwMTE
(US1)
CMTLW .*%tf t«|
nPscHy^gj
Wt&BN COMPONENT COMhwtnt
’oRiteK
COWPesraT
TTxn#
j» m
LT PRICE
FDRUGM
-JWoNfvr
I____ _
mkhjwt
q
aBscwniggj
L£XjU
CCMiXDMEMT
r F&wtkM, catihJieM-
TOTAL
2
&
0
'r
a
trwn
£>E5CW= nDN
r
LOCAL
GCMKMEJTr
W tfucE
CCWCNINT
rerun.
auyurtir*
LOOM
cewKwnr
n»J^
AKXMT
GOWtWIWT
TBTAt
^—^■1 ___________________________________ ____ _
Lj -
rtip "..itf.            _      ________________________ _
L3
m
25 TM 30
Sax
injGcctM fifiC K
raMoae
r *DDOC
*
■i Xd
r<7»
+ K fc
u
■LI
—-------------------------------------------------------
LS
qqc
c«
Qj.
d
0
1 KJC XK 0
1 JI 300
irjriM
UWT Rd
AMOUNT
L«TT
Titt                             DEJCPJFTOH
LXAL
COWON ENT
Fas-o&N CDWtXVT
LOCAL
TQTM
G\.ANTTT>-
CCWWtPF            IflitfOHfifT        TOTLl
L                 '/M jli II Ui*d
IB
ooa
DOO
aac
0
3
5
□
lr           "jTHiEhM IV L.rw-3
m
CDC
COD
i3 0C
c
5
0
u           ■jTvTtai V „rej
m
0-D0
5®
iJ9C
>3
9
□
S<4Wte L 
TumnW
I
J
t
TOTit
l-wt met
LWTPWCT
UWT
LOCM
CDMFOMtNT
FORBS*
:t2MF€IH£MT
TOTAL
L3
row
2a 3&3OO
UCQOC
UMK
4 XCJJtf jgc aaflOO
tfiax
JCMC _
M5.0W
■ jMgg
Kio^r.
LT PftlCE
tJUOcr
lijLM UiU**
:<fg2 0B&_
0
XMOBOe
______ 3
3 i^                 ««w J.Cf 7,215                         ^™3JI
W iVOrts Taw
WTPWg
LOCAL CWKNEXT
FOR DC*
rot ben
rnlWO*«N2
-I^PClrtMT
I S DO
:5«
ja
J30WCDQ
b«i jey.M
M xc nl
tM JPOPE.
fffiTM two*Ifl. 18*0
t
iArea in km 2
geba-a reservoir
Area-Capacity CurveWATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PR  j
O  Fc
1
1
APPENDIX 3 BIRBIR-A DAM PROJECT
Site Geology
The dam site is on the Birbir river, about 65 km upstream of its confluence with th • r
70 km ENE from Dembidolo ARDCO-GEOSERV produced a sketch geological * 
on aenal photo interpretation which covers a large area The geological succession baSCd
is: Alluvium over younger Mekonnen Basalt, over Mekonnen Basalt, over p” 7-^3163 basement rocks According to the 1:250,000 geological map the area is in granite
exposed in the river bed and forms the foundation of the dam site Five test pits were I*™ * ** at the dam site which reached to a depth of 4 metres The dam site itself is on ocated 
biotite gneiss overlain by residual clay and fluvial fine sand The site is covered a
photographs, strip 6, photos 1063 and 1064 The area has very gentle relief Rock 
exposed in large areas anywhere near the damsite, but a lighter color tone area to the
probably indicates Basalt near the surface and it may be possible to develop a quarry m
area If later drilling proves granite at a fairly shallow depth, this also might provide 'roddW
as the granite is likely to be strong and competent Further investigation is required before deciding whether a rockfill or an earthfill dam is to be preferred However on present evirbw, 
it seems likely that an earthfill dam would be better ARDCO-GEOSERV report that impervious fill is to be found on hill slopes near the dam site and granite and basalt can be used for rock fill, riprap and concrete aggregates No deposits of natural sand and gravel were
found in the vicinity of the dam site A diversion tunnel can be constructed in the granite and biotite gneiss with support of shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts If the biotite content is high, heavy support may be required.
Project Description
The Birbir-A dam would  be 56  metres high  and,  as noted  above,  would  be constructed  of earthfill The spillway  would  be ungated,  30  metres long,  with  a design  surcharge of 3  metres and  a capacity  of 340  m‘/s for passing  the predicted  1,000-year flood  It would  be constructed in  a coll,  some distance from the dam and  have a chute 100  metres long  ending  in  a stilling basin  28  metres long,  30  metres wide and  8  metres deep  Two  5-meter diameter diversion tunnels would  be used  during  construction.  One of them would  be later provided  with  gates for releasing the regulated flows to the downstream diversions.
The dam and reservoir are located in a thinly populated area, but even with a maximum of 66 km* and a drawdown of 20 metres, it does not appear to expose large area of mun at minimum pool level This is due to the relatively steep slopes of the valley at this site
The diversion 1 is located 14 km downstream of the dam and would develop 95 
^^4^.  f
o
metres of head at the end of a 4,000 metre long canal The canal would have a
89 m’/s The site of the Birbir-R dam is located approximately 41 km clow?^. ^
cQuld be
e
n  upsirear. 
developed for an additional 360 MW, benefiting from the regulation provid . presented m Birbir-A dam. Layout drawings of the Birbir-A dam and the power diversion ar
Figures 3.1 and 3 2 Further particulars of the project are given in Table 3 1.
.An area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 3.3
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Developmeni 1J Appendices - 7
(Master ?lan—-—— version with an installed capacity of 95 Mw, is
Kf°*" »d 3l6m2?'Tf uf Se“"d^ p S <« “
“ UO"S
“>al <oXT4923GWhV°f
“MWta. COS w|u(6ng
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works: Diversion and Power Plant
Total Construction Cost:
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 3.2
343,049,000 ^-U^OOO 5130.417.000
Ta ^Slg— ~_______ _________ —________________
^^ro-Akobo River Bajuu Integrated Development Master Plm
1J Annrndicei - 8WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
1. DAM
Catchment Area
Mean  Annual  Flow
Dam Type:
Dam Height
Crest Level
Normal Max Oper Level: Normal Min Oper Level
Active Storage:
Dead Storage
Reservoir Surface Area:
Spillway Design Flood:
Gates
Max Flood Level
Low Level Outlet Capacity: Gates
2. DIVERSION DAM No.l
Diversion Capacity
Spillway Crest Level:
Spillway Weir Dimensions Intake Gates:
Canal  (bott  width  x  depth  x Penstock
Powerplant' 
Design Head:
Design Flow:
Installed Capacity:
Tailwater Level:
3,579 km2 57.9 m3/s
Earthfill
56 m
El. 1,436.0
El 1,430 0
El. 1,410.0
827 mem
273 mcm
65.7 km2
340 n?/s
Ungated
El 1,433.0 89.0 m3/s
1 -200mx200m
89.0 m3/s
El. 1,360
30 0 m long
3 - 5.00 m x 5.00 m high i; 5.00 m x 5.00 m x 4,000 m long 
4.50 m diax 400 m long
135 m
89.0 m3/s 95 MW El 1,220
0    M>sMr Pl*
1AMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Balin Integrated Develop®* * 1J Appendices - 9L*vN: JBnkfijry ipgg
tsnmate Summarv
WCtn^
birbir a dam HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No ,
Reservoir Mat Level: E| 1 <jq Power Plant Inst Capacity: 95 MW
DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
iMcr-at
A'
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUWTfUM]
fORECN
cowwsn
total
[Preliminary
915,486
3.661 943
Earth Dam
4 577 429~
4.434.543
17.738 172
Access Roads
22 172 7lT"
204,400
817 wT
Diversion Tunnel
S14 000
3.256,000
Spillway
,
2.753 476
..
4 070 000
,
I 022 000
552,696
2.210 782
Low Level Outlet
97 600
390 400
488.000
7,0tB 724
t
2B,074 897
t
33,093,422
B SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (US$1
rreMNO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
foregw
COMPONENT
TOTAL
f.
Preliminary
1722.795
6,891.180
8 613.975
2
Access Roads
243.600
974.490
1 21 a. M0
1
Power Intake
0
0
0
4L
Power Canal
1,145,7M
4582,800
5,728,500
31
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
f.
Surge Shaft
0
01
a
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
f.
Penstock & Manifold
406.000
1.624.000
2,030.000
8.
Powerhouse & Equip.
9690,000
38,760,000
48,450.000
SrtMnctf* 13,208,095
52.832,380 U,044,475
c : summary transmission system
AMOUNT (US$1
ovmi«c.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
2222^ r
L
—
Pre ’liminary
537.435
2.149,740
2,687.175
Switchyard
248,400
993.600
1,242.000
Transmission Line
3.334 SCO
13 338.000
16,672.500
4.120,335
24,347,154
16,481,340
97,389,(17
29,(01,875
121,735,772
Physical Contingencies
tOSTlnwInp A Admin.
4,869,431
2.921,639
rOTAi. CONSTRUCTION COST 32,138,244
19,477,723
11,684,834
125,552,975
24.347.154 14,608.293
160.691,218BAPOAKOBO PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
BIRBIR-A DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No 1
Rtservolr Mat Laval: El 1,430 Power Plant InsL Capacity: »5 MW
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
(U1S)
Jaruary 1P9?
0 POWER PLANT & APPVRTTNANT WORKS
UWT
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT
UNIT PRKg
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
f
%
f
'<>•00
U3MQ
TTEM NO 1___________ XT
OfKWFTON
local
QUANTITY
J- MI5
_ Mount ^dgn '
5rxin
UNIT
IS
LOCAL
COMPONENT
000
UNTT price FORBGN COMPONENT
000
TOTAL
0Q0
1J
G«9n
LS
000
0 00
000
0
----------------------- ---
______________
•
’SS
--£
UNIT
ITEM MO.
DEXCRRT1ON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
A
Pr«w*r Canal
LOCAL
COMPONENT
1
CCRDM
-^P*PiNprr
rtr^
4J
4J
Poww C-anw
<R
LS
260 CO 0 00
1 12C 00
f 40C 00
*
4000
»,TOO
1 ’JOOOC
103100 « <4C30C
0
- TLSf t<tiT
0
f.MATW
c
*JAM
________ i_ L’KJB
UNIT PRICE
UXT
am no
OF SCRIPTTON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COMPONENT
fcabc*
COMPOSIN'
&
Fvwe TunnM
tt<
At
TtrrwQasa 1 LreJ
m
000
000
000
—
0
0
0
AA
TuTWCMsafV Lined
m
000
000
©00
—r
0
01
SJ
TirrW CMn V Uned
m
000
0 00
000
0
0
01
Suft iwNNww 1 Power Turww/
•
0*
UMTT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNO
fTEMNO
DESCR^TTON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COMPONENT
COMPONENT
-ofu
A
Af
m
000
0X
000
0
0
9
2
AJ
ffi
000
0 00
000
0
0
9
1
aj
m
000
coo
000
0
0
o
1
fl                        ■
UNIT PRfCT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
ur> Snafl
LOCAL
umtt PRJCT
forbgn
COMPONENT
COMPONENT
□U AM ' ’
1,000 00
4 000 00
6 000 00
74 000 00
30,000 00
UMT PRXE
UXT
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
QUANTITY
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
*
Powrh<HJ— A Equipment_____________________________
5100c
9.1
9J
40S 00
m3
000
000
00c
Power P/ent and Appurtenant Works Tota/
c transmixmon system
LOCAL
UNfT PRICE
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
component.
TOTAL
i  »■  MOM  -
S»rt<chy»r4
>242X0 00
12 J XX 00
Tnntmi^on System ToutHYDWOeXCTPX PCWEF OT/IRSIOH Mo 1
Rr**rvn< Mai. LrwC EJ I .-Ufl Pow»r Plan* frat C*p«ttr M wm
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
W
jnrr
T **S
C**-
m-hi t
trnm MffVtf
lint;
LOCAL
COMPONENT
UWTPtej
EOifiGN
CMPONpfl
hrtiM.
^2.
No
II OM
iy*ag
□
note
entC
cw
-la?
raa
0
BCA
c~ia
0
IfV.flM LJtUW
UWI *RCI
MJOuHT
UWT
>*3M.
KSCRIFTON
LOCAL
COHAONlMT
forekm
coMpawjrr
TDTM
ouAjrnrr
LOCAL
£ ™a*Ht
TTTTit
1
Turwi-I
u
d
LM
m
M.K-
WK
RM3C
s
3
a
□—nW zr^ -j^nn/ Lined
ffl
1 IX X
4 «r x
i a»x
IMS 30
|I1 OK
3»X0
' jt* Ctas V Lned
1 1« K
<««
3JB
3
3’
7.MTMila JitOlvefslon Da® and /nfake
EL GM
500
500 1000 J5O0 2000  2500
Scale 1 : 50,000
BIRBIR DIVERSION 1
PLAN
I
^gtn
*
J-3-2Elevation In meters
Area in km2
T
Legend
Initial
After Sedimentation
birbir-a Area-Capac,ty
-------- -X„ DfSOV’lCES
AXNEX ,J HYDR0P0WfR PROMPTS
APPENDIX 4 KA SHU DAM PROJECT
and eroded. There is no indication of large rock outcrops on the day on rhe WU>»P« '"  P^ably provide taper.™ < „d lhe
ll
X to sta rs
n^tprllhJ   ""  s   c[ear   on   the  aerial  photos  that  alluvium  occurs  along  the
to Keetadocd 
upm
^J
river  upstream  of
• 
I----------------- ■" ——
it  dam^te  ?A,airip  day  in  the  flat  areas  and  colluvial  deposits  on  the  lower  Ml  slopes ydiia sue              provide a fill material A diversion tunnel can probably be constructed in
stimuli' may        __
-£
volcanic  flows  a; nd  pyroclastics  but  considerable  support  of  shotcrete,  wire  mesh  and 
h.il nnneirlaraH* nmoArt "f .1—------------------------ *-     ■
Beilis is likely to be necessary and steel arches may locally be required
^ecLDescnptpn
"xKashu dam would be 30 metres high and constructed of earthfill The spillway would be sated,  25  metres long,  separated  from the dam by  a rock  knob  on  the right abutment.  A axe diversion  tunnel and  cofferdam would  be used  dunng  construction  This tunnel would te be converted to a low level outlet for release of the regulated flows
wsedon the review' of the 1986 aerial surveys, the surrounding area is virtually unpopulated tower,  the reservoir is presently  a swamp  which  could  be of ecological value in  terms 'ilfiiie and  aquatic resources The proposed  reservoir would  flood  this area with  probably Mmt loss to lhe natural ecosystem.
Kashu power diversion is located 12 km downstream of the dam and would consist of an 
concrete gravity overflow weir and a typical canal intake structure as shown on Figure 8 
------------- ueauvw wcu «uiu a lYpvcu 
*nc canal w> l**) rwx
.
*.
...
• j _3j—« cvnhrm /nr
.r
‘ anal is 12,000 metres long with a discharge capacity of 14.4 m /s and 
Ions
)-- f--or-- a-- s- uwtreau t mr cusrossing yw   sing 900 m   metreetsr leong. A    s long. At tnet t ehena e or nd of  me t uui   he caau <nal• , a penst         ^7*” 2   ,. ww a
-
•Stk 5n fk*             ■
, <o the powerhouse, developing 530 metres of head for a generating °l’sa- ,, y^. 
of the Kayhu dam is shora on figure 4.1 and of to pow di*™" « B8^ - ™
4
Charart—:~l-
-.
CQst estimate is presented on Table 4 2
Baro-Akobo River Basin Integra
1J Appendices*BA RO-AKO BO PROJECT
integrated master plan
Ta bl© 1J-4.2 - Project Cost Estimate Summary Cotl Lrwi January 1996
KASHU DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 1
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1,565 Power Plant Inst Capacity: 80 MW
A: SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT (USS] ~ FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOT At
1.
Preliminary
343.181
1.372 724
2.
Earth Dam
870.269
’ 'I   9
Access Roads
Spillway
3.481 077
3.
267 000
,
1 068.000
— ’ JJi 347
4.
Diversion Tunnel
224.480
897 920
5.
835.524
Low Level Outlet
3.342 094
6.
90.600
362.400
Sub-roe-A. 2.631,054
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
—    . Q   Q5
L      '111' 70 4fvi <177 618
453.000~
10,524.215           13.155.269
AMOUNT (USS)
rTEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
foreign
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
1.253.828
5.015.310
6.269.138
2.
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
1.451.850
5.807.400
7.259.250
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
2.887 000
11.548 000
14 435.000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
4,020.000
16.080.000
20.100 000
Sub-total B: 9,6-12,678
38.450,710           48.063,388
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
auriiNT (USS)
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
139.650
558 600
698 250
z
Switchyard
190.000
760.000
950 000
3.
Transmission Line
741.000
2 964.000
3 705.000
Sub-total C: 1,070,650 Sub-total A*B*C: 13,314,381
Physical Contingencies
2,662.876
Engineering & Admin.
1,597,726
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 17,574,983
4,282,600 53,257,525
10,651,505
6,390,903
70,299,934
5,353,250
66,571,907
13,314,311
7,988,629
87,874,917Rwrroir
DETAILED COST E3TIWATI CU»|
C«r Lw< Jn*7
1
WW V^nFT 4JTX
UKT
ru«i
WICAFTK*!
LOCAL
QWflNlMT
UWTMX1
rownr*
COUMNEifT
LOCAL
MIGVT
KKKA
TOTAL
au*rrTTY
Tut AL
i
u
u
ta*
iK»
E DM
« jjo
12K
f|B9»
TSXE
m 33?
irr w
hjr
17 *00
«HC
PiM
■3 30
Fate,
341 Mt
UJOQB
u          JMWD-MT
Na
0
o
4
5JD
3,
a
4
T4M*»
UNFMKS
MLOUNT
UMT
LOCAL
HIE.
tESEmmoH
■0RB5R
caBKWirr
liXM
TOTAL
CCuLMTm
TOTAL
i____ 4
hwi.^ T jhn*i
1 ***» ~teu ■ Lrw*j
ffl
ziw :Uu r/     .<
70 X
MX
*aa®                  n®
□
□
4J
Lrw
2**»i rr- Ltaii v Lr*q
m
m
MO-M
1 1»M
;sux
i«ol
1XCX
Miff
£34 AM
JIDOW              tFQC
EIJSBAR OAK 080 PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
(W)
CoUXJirwrr 1990
B                    PLANT A APPURTVNANT WORMS
UNTT PRICE
AMOUNT
UXT
OEM NO.
DESCRRTON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOR DON
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUANTITY
LOCAL
COMPONENT
CORKWW7
?E"K
A
Power Tunnal
sr
Tune! C2aas / LrwC
m
000
000
COO
0
0
a
5J
TuvM Oua C7 Lrwd
m
0 00
J 00
000
0
0
3
SJ
Time Oasa V Lined
m
000
0 00
000
0
0
9
1
S44MotWNMw £ Power Twrvwf
*
UNTT PRICE
AMOUNT
UKT
rTEM NO
DE sc w no N
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOR CON
COMPONENT
TOTAL
quantity
LOCAL
COMPONENT
t^er n
r
COMFONENT
T£TM
A
AT
m
000
000
000
0
0
a
—•
AJ
IB
0,00
000
0 00
0
0
—fj
AJ
ooc
000
tT^fn A Surge Shaft
•
a
----------------a
TraMmiaslon System Total--
KA SHU OAM
LAYOUT
*•<««*«
(MilM
J* RaFaraArea in km2
KASHU RESERVOIR Area-Capacity Curve
Figure 1J-4-3WATER RESOURCES______________ __________ ANNEX 1J HYPRQPOWER pRnrVf?T^ APPENDIX 5 GUMERO DAM PROJECT
SiteGeology 
The   Gumero   damsite   is   on   the   Gumero   River   3   5   km   upstream   of   the   junction   with   the   n 
and  28  km northwest of Gore.  The dam site is shown  on  the geological sketch  rru^' 1:60,000  scale and  is on  Mekonnen  Basalt overlying  hornblende and  biotite gneisses 0? ** 1:250,000  geological map  and  the published  Gore sheet only  gneisses are shown  in  the *** 
The   site   is   covered   by   aerial   photos,   strip   14,   photos   1584   and   1585.   The   area   has   mod^ relief   and   the   valley   sides   are   forested   at   the   dam   site.   The   uplands   in   the   vicinity   of   the'fc' site   are   cultivated   and   have   rounded   slopes   No   large   areas   of   rock   are   seen   immediately   r the   dam   site,   but   approximately   6   km   north   northwest   of   the   dam   site,   at   Guracha   Mourns basement   gneisses   with   distinct   foliation   striations   outcrop   and   a   rockfill   quarry   here   would   be easy    to    develop    The    gentle    slopes    outside    the    steep    valley    rim    reputedly    have    suitable residual   clay   for   impervious   fill   Basalts   may   also   be   available   for   a   rockfill   quarry   No   sard and    gravel    deposits    occur    in    the    area    A    rockfill    dam    is    recommended    for    this    site    a diversion    tunnel    should    be    easily    constructed    in    either    basalts    or    gneisses    with    support    of shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts
Project Description
Gumero  dam would  be 23  metres high  and  would  probably  be constructed  of rockfill With  the proposed  quarry  site located  6  km away,  the type of fill material would  have be re-evaluated  at the feasibility  stage The spillway  would  be 15  metres long,  ungated,  and  separated  from the dam,  with  a chute 60  metres long  and  a stilling  basin  20  metres long  by  15  metres wide and  S metres deep.  A single diversion  tunnel and  cofferdam would  be used  for river diversion  dunes construction  The tunnel would  be subsequently  converted  to  a low level outlet for releasns power flows.
The  reservoir  is  in  a  flood  plain  10  to  20  metres  below  a  sparsely  populated  area  with  considerable agricultural  development  There  appears  to  be  no  agricultural  development  of  the  flood  plain  area  at the   time   of   the   1986   aerial   surveys.   It   has   been   proposed   that   a   storage   dam   be   constructed upstream  to  develop  the  flood  plain  for  irrigation  The  Gumero  power  project  would  flood  this  area permanently    and    prevent    any    irrigation    development    Under    maximum    drawdown    conditions exposed area does not appear to be excessive
The Gumero dam could release water for hydroelectric power generation at three locaIl0rV , first diversion located 8 km downstream of the dam, would have a canal 2,600 mctres^° ^v' 
L .
n
capacity of 13 m /s to develop a head of 120 metres, for an installed capacity of 12•* 
3
lgp
second, 4 km farther downstream has a canal 6,000 metres long, and would develop a he^ metres for a capacity of 18 MW. The third, a further 13 km downstream, has a head ol- at the end of a 6,000 metres long canal with a generating capacity of 20 
characteristics of the dam and power plants are shown on Table 5.1. The layout of u* is shown on Figure 5.1 and of the power diversions on Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. 
.An area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 5.5.
The first diversion with an installed capacity of 12 MW is expected to generate -
firm energy and 4 8 GWh/yr of secondary energy The second diversion has an instaU*' 18 MW and will generate 91.8 GWh/yr of firm energy- and 7.2 GWh/yr of secondary 
third diversion has an installed capacity of 20 MW and will generate 102.0 GW
TAMS-l LG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Developmeo‘ M*sier 1J Appendices - 12
,r'ter resources
----- ---------------------------- ------------------^^~VERPR0JtCrs
g.OGWyr of secondary energy. The total const™*™
~
~~~------------
"•ted as follows:                                                                            cO5t excluding transra^H
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works:
Diversion and Power Plant No. I:
Diversion and Power Plant No 2: Diversion and Power Plant No .3
Total Construction Cost:
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 5 2
520,939,000
514.513.000
518,581000
S30.9110QQ
584,<M6.CW
TAMS-ULG Ban>Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan
1J Appendices -13WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER Table 5.1. Gumero Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
project
1. DAM
Catchment Area
Mean Annual Row
Dam Type
Dam Height;
Crest Level
Normal Max Oper Level Normal Min Oper Level Active Storage
Dead Storage;
Reservoir Surface Area: Spillway Design Rood. 
Gates
Max Rood Level Low Level Outlet Capacity 
Gates:
443 km2
8 70 m’/s Rockfill 33 m
El 1.613.0 El 1,608 5 El 1,600.0
160 mcm 140 mcm
30.9 km2 60 m3/s
Ungated
El 1,610 12 8 m3/s
1 - 0 80 m x 0.80 m
2.
3.
DIVERSION DAM No.l
Diversion Capacity-
Spillway Crest Level
Spillway W’eir Dimensions
Intake Gates
Canal   (bott.   width   x   depth   x   length); Penstock
Powerplant
Design Head; Design Row Installed Capacity Tail water Level
DIVERSION DAM No.2
Diversion Capacity:
Spillway Crest Level;
Spillway Weir Dimensions:
12.8       m3/s
El 1,465
15 0 m long
2 - 5 00 m x 2.50 m high
2 60 m x 2.50 m x 2,600 m long 2.00 m dia x 400 m long
120 m
12.8       m3/s 12MW
El 1,340
12.8       m3/s
El. 1,305
15 m long
Intake Gates
Canal   (bott
width 
x   depth   x   length);
Penstock Powerplant
2 - 5 00 m x 2.50 m high
2.60 m x 2 50 m x 6,000 m long 2.00 m dia x 400 m long
Design Head Design Row; Installed Capacity: Tail water Level.
180 m
12.8 m3/s
18 MW
El. 1,120
TAMS-ULG         Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master P U Appendices - 14vv/
cter resources
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Table 5.1. Gumero Hydrodectri
^Pr.
jKICllMnerfit o(CML)
.
I.
DIVERSION DAM No-3
Diversion Capacity
Spillway Crest Level
Spillway Weir Dimensions 
Intake Gates
Canal (bott width x depth x length) Penstock
Powerplant
Design Head Design Flow Installed Capacity. Tail water Level
205 m
12.8 mJ/s
20 MW
El 800
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo Rhrr Bisin Integral cd DoxJopmert Muter Plan
1J Appendices - 15
-VBAFO-AMCOO PROJECT
•HTEORATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1 J-6.2 • Project Coat Estimate
Co»i L**»l               1 W4
GUMERO DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 1
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1,608.5 Power Plant Inst. Capecity: 12 MW
A SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
rTEMMO,
DCSCRrmoH
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT [USS]
rORFKJH
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
413 887
1 655 549
2.069 437
2
.
X
Rockfill Dam
2 142 916
B.571 672
Access Roads
80 000
320 000
4OQ OOn
4
Diversion Tunnel
384 000
1.536.0001
1 920 rm
&
Spillway
109 091
436 363
,
545 454
6.
Low Level Outlet
43.240
172 960
2163>m
Sub-total A:
3,173.138
12,892,544
’5,»«s.eao
B SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
amount [UM)
------- — —I
CTEM MO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOR DON
COMRONEMT
total
1.
Preliminary
286 793
1,147,170
1.433.963"
2
Access Roads
151,000
604 000
755,000’
X
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
320,950
1.283.600
1 604.750
&
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
8.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
204.000
816 000
1 020.000
9
Powerhouse & Equip.
1 236 000
4 944 000
6,180.000
Sub-total B:
2,198,743
8,794,970
10,993.713
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
ITEM MO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
component
FOREJON
COMPOMENf
TOTAL
f.
Preliminary
60,726
242 904 I
303 630
X
Switchyard
110.000
440 000
550 000
3.
Transmission Line
294 840
1 179 360
1.474.200
Sub-total C:
Sub-total A+B+C:
Physical Con tin genet as Engineering 8 Administration
485,548
5,837,445
1,187,489
700,493
1.88Z294
23,349,778
4,889,958
2,8Of,973
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST                7,705,427              30,821.707
2,327,830
29,187,223
5,837,445
3,502,487
38.527.134
t
□
5
□
iV
II
Ilf
□UMERDDAM
TTDROCLECTRJC *CWtR CRVERSCff Mo. 1
STTAUD •CEwT tTWTl
|U«R
R’W’
w«
•—
-at*.
W*.
—
—
1
4"
_•
iw
.1 ■
J.M
>
• '
•
4J
-
mi n
r-’-'
. ' #■ ■
—
--
* man
- ™ -™
*-r
>■
Lt
in
—L
■
■**' MW
—T
■■iML
fc “
rg*
rax
”             U
rax
*
—1
o
=•3
1?
in
«• w
■ri M
=a —«
■J
1- I ■    ■ a
IJ
FH W
HS ■?
,                   2W
w t=w
J*
£2C
wa
1 X8 »
•                  W“
«
* ana
■                  ■-•■ l-H
t ma a '
< T1X
o
_
W                    *r*
1 Si
1w
3W
«i
—                     —     —■
w
1"
.
“"" »•
■---------------------------------
_____________________
mtaiBo.
«*
lD£M.
—
wx
—
Tr——
H~ "
•■ i ' “
i xe :n
■
3 XI
— 
15
•
i ■■
fi '
i
lui
■j#
w
1■
li.TI1"
IX
II
Li
J
A
•
• 4        “
■ •  "
!i
=S^=XL^
2
1 LJL
L-Lt
_________ _______ — ----------------- LXX
4■
«»
A
• -a a
1V
•
*
-------------------- —
--------------------------- Fl
r- -vv j
XfTXfM IXffctM
r$»j®RAJI COMORO PROJECT IMTEORATED MASTER FLAM
OUMERO DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DfVERSION No. 1
Mu
D1IMJ
p**w rwt ►*«. cwMOr i >
OCTA&CD CO<T EFTMA
TI
<U«fl
• »o>l rvMft •
ix» ror
TDiXQ
——
L.OO.
——
LOCM.
TOTH.
OM*rn-,
—
«
»-*y
«•
’           UMfl It
•
i no
0 DC
0M
•
*/
■^w ta. »V r*
•
■1 MI
n •• m
aj
~rv* n—i • i p*4
-
IM
♦m
a«
9
IMHASTtRFtAN
Table U-l 1 . ProfdKi £«( Eirinwf,
>1* I.** r^w> l»f
QU ME RO DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION tic 2
R^rrtHrlMj. L«V>I El r .MS.J Fewer plant Inal Ojpeciry IS MW
A SUMMARY dam & appurtenant works
amolwt rvwi
rteM*3-
DESCRffTiQw
LOCAL
CSIWFOIWMT
r =WCM
TOT At
f
Preliminary
413 Bfl7
T656M9
7 Qfi^.OT
2.
Rockfitl Dim
2,142,916
8,571.872
tOTMSSC
3.
Access Roads
90.000
320 0C0
400 000
4.
Diversion Tunnel
384 000
1 336 000
1,930 000
_________
6
i
J
Spillway
109 OT^
435 363
MS,*5*
Low Level Outlet
43,2*0
172.900
215200
Sut>fot»7 A.'
B SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
XfTXfJS
fZMZ.544
iMOLWT I'Jlli
mw mo.
DESCSFrtM
LOCAL
-OM*dhEHT
FCHEK5M
icmrcuexr
TUTai
f
Preliminary
3*9 5-13
1 3S0 45C
1.746.063
2
Access Roads
IBS. BOO
70 200
S29 000
3.
Power Intake
0
|
o!
4.
Power Canal
2B4.98O
1.130 ™
1.434.750 |
i
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
1
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
A
Penstock & Manifold
204 000
816000
1 020,000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip
1 656 000
6.62*000
8280.000
Sub-fotal 6 C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
14721.430
JJ,40f4fJ
wqumT .tj«]
ITEM mo.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
coMFwen
F04EJ0H
CC«PONEWT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
89.907
359 629
449 535
2
Switchyard
115.000
460 000
STS 300
J
Transmission Line
4N4 350
1,937,520
2.121.900 i
SuO-totaiT c.'
669,267
X 757.146
Sub-totW A*0*C
<542,784
KI 71,142
J.44C435 nnwa
PftyaJcaJ CorrClnpenc/*?
LMB.557
A2M226
1S4X7M
Enp^TMrfng * AtfmfrulalTOtian
TBS, 134
Xf44$J7
X 925,671
TOTAL CONSTRUCT? ON COST
8,636,477
X^SOf 4V82.J34BAROAKOBO PROJBCT
OUMERO DAM
INTf ORATED MASTER FLAN
HYDROELECTRIC POWE
R DIVERSION No. 2
IlHH'lt Maa. Lav«*
D '.MAS
*■—* rw-a
c^«i»r '• mw
OCTJMLTD COST UTMATI
(UCT1
W<vfLa YtGU»ODAM
HYOfcOtLECTOC POW DftlRSlQN Nq. 2
■—W ML Id « I JU
F—**in*Cw-> fw<
r
jRT^fn cc*T trrBMTt
umt --r-r
—
—
lXT
kAL*.
—
—
it
------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
■>
art . -
■ ’■ •
1* •
*J
■
«
LevJUZJCS—
»
“'W
■1 Ti 1
-1j£JL
——Li
I
'■
v
Li'*
■ lit
:E
i
■
•r
*
IJ II ■
*
r*—
■
ft
‘XT -.li^
■■I »
i*e
IM W "
LlM*
-—J—*-
laLb.
CTL-rx^j-
J—rwr
1,1 11
1
—TTlW
dI
.»
»■>
a ■                              I*
t
■
■
■r
— 'JT9 ZBH ■      - ■
i-
4 ■» »
TMKl ■
■
■
d-E
'*■* "H <,r*rt
•
■ ■■
■-
■
■
«
■ ■ >*■           * «vw w
»
r
»
xr
tWk
FH-
lJ^L
■■ ak.
* n™1
lilLkJ
L
—-
•"■—’■■— r--*
"™ -—’ *• ■,«-
_
i■
■ *1
t>a
i
1
•
■1
4—
*« HMIW
■
i■
3 an
—
1
A
1------------------------------- rl
■
1■
1K                                      t
t
■
r M.r M
■
■< 1
<
f
f
JLMvta »t7n.
rX^r^nJBAROAXOOO PROJECT
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1J-5.4 • Project Cost Estimate
Co«t LwR January 1906
GUMERO DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 3
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1.608,5
Power Plant Inst Capacity: 20 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
rTEMNO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT [USS]
foreign
COMPONENT
total
1.
2
Preliminary
Rockfill Dam
413 887 2 142 918
1,655 549
X
Access Roads
80 000
O,D/ I O/2 320 000
--------------^069,437
10 714 5gn
4.
Diversion Tunnel
384 0O0
1,536 000
1320 000
5.
Spillway
109 091
436 363
546 z«U
fl.
Low Level Outlet
43 240
172 960
216.200
Sub-total A: B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
3,173,136
12.692,544
f5.M5.Mo
Sub-total B
4,681.593
18,726,370
23.4C7.963
C SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT [USS]
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
local
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
1S0.678
602 712
753 390
2.
Switchyard
120 000
480 000
600 000
3.
Transmission Line
884 520
3.538.080
4.422.600
Sub-total C:
1,155.198
Sub-total A+B+C:                9.009,927
Physical Contingencies Engineering & Administration
1,801.985
1.081,191
4.620.792
36.039,706
7,207,941
4.324,765
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST           11,893.103              47.572.412
5.T76.990
45.049.633
9.009,927
5,405.951
59,465.515HYDROELECTRIC POWER DMR3CU Ma 3
■ imi fwv^hm ra—f urn
jtm’
U
urn
«*
—
—
-—
r. — •—
ifl —•** r* ~-— 
UL—.
■ 3B
■
R
—i.
__
>■
n je
’■
j«
I
PR
r
1
M—
1 WM
J L—H
JM
1
IIBAJtOAKOBO PROJfCT INTEGRATED MASTER Ft_AN
OUMERO DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 3
v*** rorGUNERO OAM
LAYOUTScale 1 : SO.OOOGUMERQ DIVERSION 3 PLAN
I
UH
A5-3Elevation in meters
Area in km2ERKESOl RCfI________________________ANNCX U HYDROpOWER projects APPENDIX 6 BLRBLR-R DAM PROJECT
.  o0  the Birbir river 11 km upstream of the confluence with the Geba nver h is narrow-canyon like valley with steep slopes The dam is foc^ in
111  rocks consisting of granite and clay shale interbedded wnh quarts overlapped ^’"'Jnary deposits of various origin The granite should be a fine foundation, but the
may be only weak to moderately strong. These formations are shown on geological ^.08.08 in the Russian report Weathering is shown as 25-30 metre deep Probabk the
^weathered to moderately weathered rock is 15-20 metres thick. No drillholes are shown Action,  hence the geology  must have been determined from outcrop mapping  The
f jss! length is 1 I km and the depth of the valley is 180 metres
wwding to the aerial photographs (strip 9, photos 917,918,919) rock is exposed at a high nation (Bene Mountain) to the north of the dam site in several areas There are many jutatkffls with four main trends near the dam site and a fault or major lineation controls the Ac it the dam site Rock appears to be near the surface upstream of the dam site on the
.-tjr.il side It should be relatively easy to find a quany site for rockfill A spillway and tunnel p:tul would be preferable in the granite Impervious fill will probably be available as residual dr. on (he plateau areas Tunnelling conditions to the south of the site for the headrace tunnel should be good with support of shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbohs Excavation should be possible by either drill and blast or TBM. A rockfill dam is recommended for this site. The 'oimdaiion is not considered to be good enough for a concrete dam
tegt Description
Tis dam, as proposed in the Seikhozpromexport, would be 190 metres high and as suggested would be a rockfill dam. The spillway would have three 6.00 metre by 4 00 metre high
®Lcs'1 c^UIe 22 metres wide and 655 metres long with a stilling basin 48 metres long and 14 ^^deep Two 7,20-meter diameter diversion tunnels and a 15 metre high cofferdam would L T COnlrol r*vcr flows during  construction.  Al this project,  power flows are piiflt d 1 OU^1 a 25-meter diameter concrete lined tunnel, 6,700 metres king to a power "ould °P' ^ ^40 metres of head. A low level outlet tunnel, with 2 gates 1 83 m by 3.66 tn
n
^. Pr°vided to ^usb sediment from the power tunnel intake. This tunnel would
^'"'"'^pfcaystfcg basin
-
a  190 metre high dam, would inundate roost of an irrigation project proposed by
a more f
J ^ ^n Birbir-
c
upstream A lower dam of approximately 130 metres hagtn appears to hydroelectric return, particularly when operated as a system w
storage dam, and might leave the irrigation potential unaffected
* d'h' ’WwS?™"3 ofllK Birtir-R project ere presented in Table 6.1 ’WtnantworksisshownonFiBured.l.
dam
^irfeir
6 TeServoir ‘s P[csenled on F‘S*ire
has  ^ed capacity of 465 MW, and is
\^Uar^s
s
rrn erKr
©  a™  109.0 GWh/yr of secondary energy The total co
/1
is estimated as follows:
^sAlg  B*ro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Develop®*01 Mute
1J Aotiendices -WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J IIYDROPOWER PROJIcr
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works:
Power Plant :
Total Construction Cost:
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 6.2
5540,553 (Yn
5150J4L000
5930,900.000
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development M*®1 1J Appendices - 17i(ir£
R^OURCES-
BYDROTOWTR projects
Table 6.1.   Birbir-R Hydr»ele« < P™   Ourwemtio
ri             iM
dam
Catchment Area
Mean Annual Flow
Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest Lev el
Normal Max Open Level
Normal Min Oper Level
Active Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir Surface Area
Spillway Design Flood:
Gates
Max Flood Level Low Level Outlet Capacity;
Gates
6.&4O km2
105.9mVs
Rockfill
190m
El. 1,163
El, 1,158
El. 1,056
2,490 man
180 mom
57.5 km2
726 mVs
3 - 6 00 mx4 00mhigh
El. 1,160
360 m Vs
2 -1,83 tn x 3.66 m high
“ POWER PLANT
intake Gates
Power Tunnel.
Penstock
SurBe Shaft:
P^erplam
rjes>gn Head;
E’esign Flow ,
^stalled Capacity,
Tajlwater Level-
2 - 3.60 m x 7,25 m high
7.25 m dia x 6,700 m long
2 - 4.10 m dia x 700 m long
7.25 m dia. x 154 m high
341 m
175 mVs
465 MW
EL 766
fcaixr-Akobo River Bjuio Integrated Development Master Plan 1J Anvcndices- ISTable 1 J-8.2 - Project Cost Estimate
DARO-AXOBO PROJECT
INTEO RATED MASTER PLAN
Jan-jary
BIRBIR-R DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1.156 Power Plant Inst Capacity: 485 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM 8 APPURTENANT WORKS
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT [USS)
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
10 683 444
42 733 775
53417.219“
2.
Rockfill Dam
58,327 657
233,310 628
r
Access Roads
538 28fi
3.
762 400
3 049 600
4,
Diversion Tunnel
3 812 000
5,240.000
20 960 000
.
26 200.000
5
Spillway
3 639 701
14.558.805
,
18 198506
6.
Low Level Outlet
3 253 200
13.012 800
18.256 000
Subtotal A:
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
81,906,402
327,625,909
409.532,010
AMOUNT (USS)
FT EM NO
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
7,714.350
30 857 400
38 571 750
2
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
433,000
1 732 000
2 165 000
4.
Power Canal
0
0
0
5.
Power Tunnel
13 400 000
53 600 000
67 000,000
6.
Surge Shaft
616.000
2.464 000
3 080 000
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
1 640 000
6 560 000
8,200 000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
35 340 000
141,360 000
176,700.000
Sub-fota/ 8.
59.143,350
236,573,400
295,716,750
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT (USS)
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1,
Preliminary
3.744 375
14.977.500
18,721 875
2.
Switchyard
462,500
1 850 000
2,312.500'
X
Transmission Line
24,500,(XX)
98,000,000 I
122 500.000
Sub-rota/ C;
Sub-total A+B+C:
Physical Conbngtnclas Engineering & Administration TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
25.706,675
189.756.627
33,951.325
20.370.795
224,078,748
114,827.500
679.026,508
135.805,302 81.433.181
896,314,991
143.634.375
848,783,135
189.756,677
101.853.876
1,120,393,739MVWtCtLfCTPjC POWER SCHEME
m «aL llw^ c pjpp
s—r
<rw
^- „
4  -w
STTM-TD CCKT mUTT
■trnn1
-
u*Ji
L*UL
o'
AW
BrfM
—
1------------------
C&H
«IBU
»r
■ rt m
a> ■■<
1 LI
“■
■ FMiH
■***"
■
S*£».
1JAJ*
u
**
tit.
i*
!i
L
f.
»
V
W^=i=lT
rw«a.
-
roam
11 1
■—fit
—
luM*
J—JJ -
1 1 ■■■ ■
■'
4
Strife
,
*J
*■
0» 11 ML- •'■» .IWM » LS—II
IS
i*i
»R
- . •*
i
I
1
I1:
ii-.t Tjm» 5*wW u«
«
lip ■
HMM
■L!WB.
L2- —
'*■
TT
•
>
rfrMMO? n7M«fBlRBIR-R DAM
BARO-AXOBO PROJECT
hydroelectric POWER SCHEME
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Rmottv* Mm. L»»* D 1.1M
rwww h* Co-rr MW
DrTAJLED CO1T F riMATI
fuan
CM L»M
vwr corr
•skm-
UMT
LOCAL
KAM*
L0CM
Q9I
7.
J»
»r«u»« MiW
9M 3n> ■ l ““4
1
•
ra
fj
’-•M 3ns IV
^*M Tn* V l>»«
M
*
■ •9
■fi
•  ••
• M
«M
**»
*      t=t
•
•—
C : TWAl
To«BlElevationinmeters
Area in km2
r
Legend
Initial
After Sedimentation
BIRBIR-R RESERVOIR
Area-Capacity Cuff*RESOURCES
—-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX 7 SOR DAM PROJECT
annex ij hydropower projects
s
O
r damsite is on the Sor River about 30 km up$t eam of the Geba and 10 km northwest
T
of Metu A geological section 08-06 shows the site to be in gneiss The AG geological map
[ 250,000 and the published Gore sheet indicates leucocratic hornblende and biotite gneisses 
T he cross section indicates 30 m of weathering of the rock at the dam site, but there is no
rtdication of any drillholes being put here so this may be conjecture, and it is believed that weathering is much less The site is covered by aerial photos strip I3.phoios 1483 and 1484
fhe whole of the valley area is forested with cultivated land on the upland plateau areas 
Slopes of the valley are moderate There is no evidence of rock outcropping at the surface
from the photos The dam should be earthfill and suitable impervious fill can be found on the
upper hill slopes A diversion tunnel should be easily constructed in the gneisses with support
of shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts
Proiect Description
The Sor dam would be 66 metres  high and as  suggested above would be of earthfill construction The spillway would have three 6.00 m by 5 50 m high gates on a low overflow crest leading to a chute 21 metres wide and 200 metres long with a conventional stilling basin 48 metres long and 14 metres deep River diversion during construction would be provided by two tunnels 7 0 metres in diameter by 565 metres long and a cofferdam 15 metres high, one of the tunnel would later be used to house a 2.70 metre penstock with an intake shaft and gate 2 50 metres square A low level outlet with 200 n?/s capacity and two 1,80 m x 2.80 m high pressure slide gates would also be provided
At the Sor dam a small powerhouse, with an installed capacity of 13 MW would be provided. 21 km downstream of the Sor dam, a diversion war and canal intake would be constructed leading to an 11 km long canal and penstock with a 52 MW powerhouse, utilizing 210 metres of head at this site
D* proposed project, at the dam site is limited in height by development around the town of. fem, however, it could be made higher without disturbing the main commercial devdopmem there md ’hereby  increasing substantially  the regulated flow If such a development were socially  and Politically feasible, it raises the possibility of a larger Sor project, which would include a diversion of the reguhied flow possibly as mich as 42 m’/s, through a tunnel to the Geba over - kmi avray ai this point and 500 metres lower Such a project would also require reconstruction of a bridge across the Sor at Metu and relocation of 8 km of the Mctu-Nopa road
The : •
principal characteristics of the Sor project, dam and diversion are presented on Table 7.1 A yout drawing of the Sor dam is shown on Figure 7.1, and of the Sor Diversion on Figure 7.2
An
^^‘Capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 73.
r il MW and is expected to generate power plant at the Sor dam has an install^ T^ndan- energy The pow« plant at lhe
^0-8 GWh/yr of firm energy and 21.0 G > downstream diversion has an installed capacity o .
and 89.1 GWh'yr of secondary energy is estimated as follows
generate 271 2 G tyr0 constnjCtion cost excluding innsmis.
TAMS-ULG Biro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan 1J Appeudkes- 19WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER pRo
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works:
Power Plant at the dam site:
Dicersion and Power Plant No. 1:
Total Construction Cost:
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 7.2
$$6,636,000
51 6,921.000
5127,566,000
TAMS-L LG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development M*sler 1J Appendices - 20waTE
r resources
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Table 7.1. So r Hydroelectric Project Chara c terb tic
I*
dam
Catchment .Area
Mean Annual Flow
Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest Level
Normal Max Oper Level
Normal Min Oper Level
Active Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir Surface .Area:
Spillway Design Flood
Gates 
Max Flood Level
Low Level Outlet Capacity:
Gates
1 POWER PLANT
Intake Gates
Power Tunnel
Penstock:
Surge Shaft
Powerplant
Design Head
Design Flow
Installed Capacity Tailwaier Level:
1  DIVERSION DAM No.1
Diversion Capacity:
Spillway Crest Level
Spillway Weir Dimensions 
intake Gates
Canal (bort width x depth x length) Penstock 
Powerplant:
Design Head: Design Flow
Installed Capacity:
Tailwater Level:
1,770 km1
53.7 m’/s
Earthfill
66 m
El  1544
Ei. 1539
El. 1513
194 mem
59 mcm
13.6 fan1
672 m7s
3-6.00mx 5 50 m high
El. 1541
200 m3/$
2- 1 80 m x 2.80 m high
I - 2.50 m x2 50 m high 2.70 m dia. x 300 m long
52 m 31.3 m3/s 13 MW El. 1.474
31.3
EL 1.180
40 0 m long
2 - 5.00 m x 2 50 m high 4 00 mx 3.50 mx 11.000 m
2 70 m dia_ x 500 m long
210 m
3IJm7s 52 MW EL 960
tams-ulg Ban>Akobo River Enin InTegrited Development Mister Planbaro-akobo project
integrated MASTER PLAN
Ta bio 1J-7.2 - Project Cost Estimate Summary
Coil Level January 1»«
SOR DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No. 1
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1,53*
Power Plant Inst Capacity: 52 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (USS)
----------
FTEM NO.
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
1.197,501
4 790 005
5 987 507
2.
Earth Dam
6 134,298
24,537.192
30,671 490
3.
Access Roads
40.000
160.000
200 000
4.
Diversion Tunnel
180,800
723,200
904 000
5.
Spillway
933,724
. 3.734.897
4 668.621
6.
Low Level Outlet
694,520
2,778 080
3 472.600
Sub-rotw A.-      9,780,843 B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
36,723,374              45.9O4.2f7
AMOUNT {USS)
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
1.015.170
4,060,680
5.075.850
2.
Access Roads
288,800
1,155.200
1.444.000
3.
Power Intake
0
0
0
4.
Power Canal
1.399,000
5.596 000
6 995.000
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
504 000
2 016,000
2 520.000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
4.576,000
18,304.000
22 860 000
Sub-roc* B 7,782,970
31,131,880              38,974,850
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT (USS)
ITEM NO.
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
140,565
562,260
702 825
2.
Switchyard
200,000
800 000
1 000 000
3.
Transmission Line
737.100
2.948.400
3 685,500
Sub-total C: 1,077,685 Sub-total A^B^C: 18,041,478
Physical Contingencies
3,608.296
Engineering & Admin.
2,164,977
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: 23,814,752
4,310,660
72,785,974
14,433,183
8,659,910
95.259,006
5,388,325
90,207,392
18.041.478
10.824,887
119,073,758gAKO-AKOBO PROJECT
SOR OAM
jNTEGRATKD MASTER PLAN
HYDROELECTRIC POWER AVERSION No.1
D* lOOeUM
l*MTr^r Max Lew* fl I AM
FUrt ImL Gapecrf. W MW
DETAILED COAT AOTMATt
W
ira LM tmff 'MV
uwr "ri
.OCJkL fchmem
wmt
ITWIT
LOCAL
-m«e
Diximi
rffTM
□UMMTTTY
TtJTM
»
7a >wt --------------- -------- ----------------------------------------
11 OS
1X
IE a
■ IT? X1
• nt M
J_—
Ea#!
___
J. ... - '■ I-
"rj.^lp.nhCT
-----------------------
::
l^iHW ’KT1! DFb'W Ml-fl iHf 'iWWlW
J
A* __ — -
■1
1
»
i
-a' £dv«afir’ • ^-sr-wrwn,
■a
jn
JM
if?
«’ FM
mna                 i rs !ft
W"
Pl
■■ U-Ml'BiMri
SS
iO
FM
««r
1 I,"i
W-1                    MMS
•M
an
*■
>«
f CiMJ
vnr              ■ iw js?
JlC«
15
IF j flilvM - FtrtTl
SK
igo
is
f
1.3». 08 .          1 Tfe« VH
f «EiT"T
SnT5W isr» MBtBFWl
SI
ik
IX
*0»
U1IM
1MJW                  ISM IX
IM- n»
77-----------
-I^I' ■>-n^ fl^T C-MT3KSSP1 eH Gsr® MHftil
nJ
■ 4Q
too
win*
j               <f3 IK
J ’C JS
R||
rAh-rs • "• tWl*- f*S-Kfl »ntf rtar»
-J
IK
±2.
XX
fjwr
imjH
’ JJ» *W
LI1
»¥ Rip ■ *'-■=*•■>• flntf
S3.
J J* !
IM
fJJJ
MIX
MMJ.
»t<r
iifl
!>flmg HHS Srwjfc'^
M
11 X
MOO
na
■Rra                    1MM
IH ”*.1
MF
t^ireswTHj iif-t
S
1 ®,
sx
» a:
-S3J
1 MB UTM.
f ■3JAT 1
j. a*.
I > M*             kpt f a
lMT*UKI
aXW*
LSTT
LCCJUL
LOCAL
rraiMo
Ptscjnrriofl
TtyTAL
QU«Tm
TtJTM
JL
><L MLI irfl JTjl
11
4 □■! 1 yj U~UI W~»! 1
im
El.OQB
® LEG
JM
•Q D
Mq>»
JJ
Nw S««d
BS
rr mo
H we
rw
a J?
3
Q
a
JJ
Sfes-sps Cf-iiWi;
3
3
9
9W
1
2J                1
WflBTIF'llEE
JM0MTT
ttmhuq
JL
ijafr
U&CAL
Bdama
LfCXL
0M™
TOTAL
(XUurHTr
TSTWL
VJ
LS
3 QW«
tigeogo 1
MXQAO
T
ID J
TJXEl
Max:
'Jtafi l| | „„
ft
ws&a
1X0 91
* jtUEB
SL
Piwi
i ia«
1 fBflfEH
T JT®I r^B .   L^g
M  r/
ft
3M
AM
□ lMJ
0
•
4
5
r| B       "      "
AP"* <-*■ V
ft
CM
9D4
j±
•
9
4
a
^■* - dt, j| Lar*-
n
m
3..SB0.X
'!■ EJnM
M
141 T»
-^GWi
Tr^ —
-
Om IV Lima
^“*l =**» V. 'dHM
'** Sun
m [i—
■ *S X
1 3fiA»
IJ4MB 3D
HBtU X
l.lTi«
«f KdOa
13S5B
i:1W53C
£±rXG3
«
1
t
43. XE-
171 D
maos
3
refW
raw
«
CCfc
«jj»
TJ*L>C H5UJW M»a/T(
fl<n’ Appurhifww btoxt * TodJ
Miauj
xznw*
4AXM.WTBARO-AKOBO PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
SOR DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER DIVERSION No.1
R»»MYok Max. Level: EJ 1.MR
Power Plewf Wi«L Capacity- 62 MW
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
(USS)
UMTT
TOTAL
VOCAL '
rm mo.
VOCAL
COMPONENT
UMTT PRKt
FOR OOM
coaaroNCwT
QVAMTTTr
r.
M
1500
IS 00
1100
l                 ’ .0llf7o"
A
Ar
Read
Mr
10
sc MO
PA
12
Mtw Goed
bt
Me
IP aoc
0
ct toe
i
97 OOO
1
0
_ XA1Q0
0
— °*XR
unrr price
AMC-JV?
UKT
rrwko
DCSCIUmOM
LOCAL
COatPOMMT
FOP DON
COdBPOMEWT
TOTAL
OMAimrv
LOCAL
component
COMF0RU7          -n-x.
A
Fewer TtevW
—
S-t
T <rvW CM vs 111, Lined
m
0 00
0 oc
000
0
0
ai
s~7
Tunftei CMlt fV Lined
m
0 00
000
000
0
0
•                  II
u
TktwI On V LMed
m
0 00
ooo
0 00
0
0
o•
X^HW/tezn A
•
•
I
UMTT P1UCE
auourr
UMTT
LOCAL
rrcMRO.
oucnmoM
LOCAL
COMPONCNT
FOR0ON
COMPQUINT
TOTAL
QUAMTTrr
LUI IIRBWT
TM
A
5K*a
61
T^rfteiCMas <U, Lewd
m
0 00
0 00
0 00
0
0
1
1
AJ
I urrtei Cbu rv Lied
m
a oo
0 00
0 oo
0
•
1
1
AJ
Tunnel Cues V urwd
m
c 00
ooo
coo
0
•
•
t
•
UNIT
rrm wo
?
ouciumoM
LOCAL
coaroHtMT
UNTTPRICC
FOREIGN
COMPQIIENT
TOTAL
QUAMTTTT^
LOCAL
COUPON*^
aupfln
FOKCAP
co^cwrr
Pressure SHafl
7.1
rj
3wft CMsi III Lined
aaR OaM IV Lewd
m
m
0 oo
0 oc
0 00
0 00
000
ooo
0
0
r
0
1
i
I
l
7J
SheR CMu V Lined
m
ooo
000
ooo
0
0
*"                    a
UlfT HQC1
PORDGM
on ent
16 000 00
UWT PRJCt
rTEMNO
UMTT
DESCRIPTION
■
Al
•A
Fvwwnoua* A E
■’’•Arace Excrvetor
5<^toMeMi A. FQwdXku.
LOCAL
COMPONENT
POADGM
COMPONENT
TOTAL
KW
rrj
64 00
000
3AZOO
440 00
0 00
J
□UAXTTTY
rraBmrwy
Swtchyyt}
Trwwmtait
TransmiAs/or) Systwn Toc</
UMTTPRKt
POREKeM
COMPONENTOJlKOGO PROJECT
:£FVlTW MASTER PtAN
Tib4e 1 J-7.2 - Project Coil Estimate Summir/
QxILnwri: January t»
SOR DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT AT THE DAM
Reservoir Max Level; El 1,135
^ow Plant Inst Capacity: 13 MW
TAMS COMArtS, WXL Dei*' loOcta*
A : SUMMARY DAM A APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT [Utt)
ttemno
DESCftPDON
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREKN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
1197 SO T
4 790 005
5 967.507
2.
Earth Dam
6.134,298
24537.192
30.87 1 490
3.
Access Roads
40 000
160 000
200 000 (
4.
Diversion Tunnel
*80 800
723.200
904 000
5.
Spillway
933 724
3.734 097
4868 821
6.
Low Level Outlet
694.520
2,778 060
3,472.600
Su^iwNA 9.180,643 B: SUMMARY POWER PLANT A APPURTENANT WORKS
Jf, 723,374          *3,904,217
AMOUNT [USD
ITEM WO
DCSCR3PT1ON
LOCAL
COM FOMENT
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
314.022
1-256 088
1 570 110
2*
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
119.460
477 920
597.400
4.
Power Canal
0
0
0
5.
Power Tunnel
0
0
0
6.
Surge Shalt
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
154 000
616.000
770.000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
1,820.000
7 280,000
9J 00.000
2 T*0 7 502
9,630,008           12.037,510
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT [USS]
LOCAL
ITEM NO
ccscAmoH
COAVOWT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
53,082
212.J2B
265,410
X
Switchyard
110.000
440.000
550 000
3.
Transmission Line
243.880
975 520
1.219X00
SUDDEN C :
406,962 11,995,307
1.627,848 47.961,230
7.034,810
Sufr-coaJ A*e*C.
59.976.537
Phyx/csf Contingencies
Engineering 8 Admin.
2,399.061
1.439,437
9.596.246
5.757,748
11,995407
7,197,184
TOTAL CONSTRUCDON COST*
15,633.906
KJ335,323
79,169,029BARO-AKOBO PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
SOR DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT AT THE DAM
Rrtarvolr Mar. Laval: El 5338 Powar Riant ln<t_ Capacity: 53 MW
DETAILED COST ESTMATE
<USI)
GoM Lr*M                  1 tM
Aoam a afrlmtimamt worn
L___ L___
L1
LTfri D—
Er.Cfrwnl CVm
Cara aM CWwVoc *
_________
u
fcmMtan &ca<MOcn - Cuuwi
14
M
LT
1 •
> ptjXWicr £in-ifcan - Rod)______________ BcrrwLt-i.v^r ■
Fl Ratwmrt - Eatvm_________________ L jn?w : c* * MatrWl
^camart yid Conyxtian of Cot M
Rias Td zmm -
and PWc*
Rip Rap - Pro*** Mid PWc<______________
Lit
□rang     tt?     GnxFng
ill
urewa*re3«»m
L Dam
UMTT
rrotNo.
Dircrmcr
LOCAL
coal ROM EXT
UWTT RRJCf
FORDM
coarrowiMT
TOTAL
OUAMTTTr
LOCAL
crwoitxr
**X7
'OtDO.
l
Lxrn Roads
if
Aaad rnpTuvTJTieTt
V"
• ooc
32 000
40 OOC
5 00
40 300
’4!J#
L2
NewAoats
Ml
IT 400
eaeoo
07 000
0 00
0
LJ
Ho
0
0
one
• —---------7
0
—«
1
i
UNTT PRICE
AMOJS*
UMT
fTBIMC.
DCSCRJ^nOM
LOCAL
coaaFcwtNT
FOREKIM
COMPONENT
TOTAL
QUAMTTTV
LOCAL
COMPOMDTT
KMPQB
-era
4
Pi rUi Tured
4f
Dv®rsor> Ttreri Qbts Hi Load
m
JC 00
•OOC
•QOOC
OOC
•
1
i
4T
Ovw-aar Tired CM«a IV Lm«J
HI
••ooc
440 00
ooooc
»13000
iscaoc
T3J«
“n
4J
Ovwwxi Tired can V Lred
l«
1 130 00
4 400 DO
1300 00
ooc
>
1    _______"oAK0BO PROJECT ^ GRAT D MASTER PLAN
E
SOR DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT AT THE DAM
fl*WMr Lmt EJ 1_TM
P«wwr FWf btvL Cneflyi 13 M* CETWLTD COTT ESTWTZ
Ml)
Crt LMt Jw m
lwtbnci
MMT
IWT
gfictflKN
lom
COBFCHINT
R7RTOB
tdNOHIXT
TtWM
*jjurnrr
UKM
; ntxl
4n *^M
;u» :■■« ■'
TJJ’Ai
x
PvwwrHiAB
1j
ir
L3
X
» wcw
r
» J»
Wflixx
<■ WB .
3J
Sate*
v*
73 JMW
r< IKN J      l^«»
L
r« t^o |
Mr* «M j
SfWdM .L PKrmv
nuw
<TJW                      w^i
UWTfVKK
UNT
rtf* hCl
xicnrTtH
LXM
UtarxmM 1
rr—in
L*» ■ ■■*■ 1
TOTAL
Mum
LOCAL
i t m i maa m i
«*»
' 1 IM WWJW ■
rSTJU
J
Fimw E.vi4
41                m^a -Br^ttaa
IV
in
? JW
■3VD
j
f
>
>
CJ
." ir„ g«^il
m
OK
3 40
3 3C
f
3
f
>
<J                AW».
LS
KN
330
4N
V
4
■
»
;
■•■------- r_.-           i^y.-------------- ■
♦
*
f
Mxxacr
IMT
UKM.
hbhiql
pr*cwiFw«
LOCAL
ctiNPWiprr
RNBOB Ca-POMBTY
HJT‘k
aUJLMTrr-
wr
TOTAL
I
Lr
T JKi MI T
■'
tW
9M
?w
4
3
V
4
IJ
T MM Cta ti rv tFM
fl*
:*j
:N
J»
4
0
4
■
O
T mm Uta*. V Lrad
rfl
□M
3 0C
iX
fl
3
4
I
1
»                »*
ywt PBJCX
MKtfifF
Tq «e
r. “"
IBTT
LOCAL
OCKWHEM
FOB DOM
■:taNO«urr
TOTAL
qjuabtttt
LMv
COBFOMlaT
IWeMh
TOT AL
£**<*>* KhaH
"r
J
Jj —
■ gw* =**■ 1" . «-J
Hl
SM
0M
443
4
4
0
4
- ** ±WM Al .jRrt
31
■ 5h"* =*•* * lAWti
0»
0 34
034
30
30
J
3
1
A
4
B
■
4
T
**w Ptar «w
Warfc-
*OQ«t            rxcr.iTd
T *AltS**«« IlftTW
*X,M1 l.flT'M ItKirO
1 JPaver house EL 960
Penstock
Power
Osa
3/xJ Intake EL tW
500 UDO S» 3X0 Scale 1 ■’ 50, WG
SOO
SOR DIVERSION
PLAN
f'^
J-?-7Elevationinmeters
Area in km2
Legend
Initial
------------ After Sedimentation
s
-------------------------- ----------------------------------------watek resources
ANNEX IJ HYDROPOWER PROJECTS APPENDIX 8 GILO-1 DAM PROJECT
The   Gilo   1   dam   s'te     ‘s     on     ®1°   approximately   75   km   upstream   from   the   village   of en oa  in  the  flood  plain,  and  95  km  WNW  from  Mizan  Teferi.  It  is  practically  impossible  to
reach the site According to the AG 1:250,000 geological map the site is  in granite Cross section 08-05 shows  the dam site to be in gneiss, with weathering to 40 m. However due to ( he inaccessibility  of the site this  depth of weathering is  highly  conjectural The site is  just covered on the edge of the aerial photos, strip 33, photos 2236, 2237, but the site is only just siereoscopic  although there is  a lot of relief displacement The valley  has  very  steep side slopes  Mountains  to the north of the site have very  sharp features  indicating a very  thin sod cover, so a rock quarry must be possible to develop It may however be at a higher elevation than the dam The gneiss  or granite would be suitable as rockfill To the north of the site the photos  appear to reveal gneisses  in the mountains, with many  striations  A spillway  could probably  be constructed in a coll (saddle) on the southern bank  Impervious  fill should be available downstream of the dam site in the lower-lying gently  undulating land A diversion runnel can be constructed easily in the gneisses and support will be shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts  The most appropriate type of dam for this  site is  rockfifi, but if rock  was  found to outcrop sufficiently on the valley slopes at the dam site a concrete dam, even arched, might be feasible.
PrQkct Description
The Gilo-1 dam would be a 107 metres  high and, as  indicated above would be of rockfill construction. The spillway  would be on the left abutment, discharging through a coll to the floodplain below, well away from the dam toe (see Figure 8 1). The spillway would have three 7.00 m by 6,00 m high gales and a short chute which would terminate at the head of a ravine on the downstream side of the abutment. No concrete paving would be required beyond this point, due to the presumed high quality  of the rock  During construction, the river would be diverted through two 7.00 metre diameter diversion tunnel with a 15 metre high cofferdam. The power tunnel would have a 6.30 metre finished diameter leading to two 3 60 metre diameter penstocks  The powerhouse has  an 83 MW installed capacity. A low level outlet tunnel with a capacity of 200 m’/s and two 1.50 rn by 2.50 m high pressure slide gates would 31 so be provided
Based on the 1986 aerial photographs', the reservoir area is virtually unpopulated and no adverse environmental effects are anticipated
principal characteristics of this project are presented on Table 8 I . A layout of the dam and the a PPunenant works is shown on Figure 8.1.
An
area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 8 2.
^5: Gilo-1 project has an installed capacity of 80 MW, and is expected to generate 425 7 GWh/yr ° rm energy and 22 2 GWh/yr of secondary energy The total construction cost ex eluding
ranstrussion line is estimated as follows
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works, Power Plant,
8133,179,000 $79,198.000
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master PlanHYDROPOWER PROJECTS
S212,377,000
Iresoukces
ANNEX IJ HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Table 8.1. Gilo-1 Hydroelectric Project Characteristic!
DAM
Catchmem Area
Mean Annual Flow:
Dam Type
Dam Height:
Crest Level
Normal Max. Oper. Level Normal Min Oper Level Active Storage
Dead Storage.
Reservoir Surface Area:
Spillway Design Flood: Gates
Max. Flood Level Low Level Outlet Capacity 
Gates
7,570 kmJ
74 1 mVs Rockfill
107 m
Ei 612 0
El 606 8
El 578 6
2,341 mem
874 mcm
116 8 km1
1.065 m’/s
3 - 7 00 m x 6.00 m high El . 609
200 m’/s
2 -1.50 m x 3 50 m high
2. POWER PLANT
Intake Gates:
Power Tunnel:
Penstock:
Surge Shaft:
Powerplant.
Design Head
Design Flow:
Installed Capacity: Tailwater Level
2-3 14 m x 628 m high
6 28 m dia. x 270 tn long 2 - 3.60 m dia x 600 m long
84 m 124 m3/s 83  MW El 508 6
TAMS'ULG Baro-Ak&bo River Buin Integrated Development Muter Planbarojlkobo project INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1J-82 • Project Coat Eitimiie
>»t              Jarxjxy 1W9
GILO-1 DAM hydroelectric power scheme
Reservoir Max. Laval: El 60« 8 Power Plant InsL Capacity: 80 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM 8 APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (UM)
----------
(TEN NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1
,
z
Preliminary
2 632 023
10.528 090
13 160 113J
Rockfill Dam
12 723 550
50 894 199
63 617 749
3.
Access Roads
1.174 500
4 693 OOO
5.872.5Oo"
4.
Diversion Tunnel
2 097 600
8 390 400
10 488.000
&
Spillway
385 967
1 543.868
1.929 835
8.
Low Level Outlet
1 165 200
4 660.800
5.826.000
Sub-Tote/ A.
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
20,178.839
80.715,357
100.894,197
AMOUNT (USf)
FOREIGN
ITEM NO.
description
LOCAL
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
1 565 190
6 260 760
7 825.950
2
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
97 600
390,400
488 000
4.
Power Canal
0
0
0
5
Power Tunnel
432 000
1.728,000
2,160 000
6.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8
Penstock & Manifold
305 000
1 220 000
1.525.000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
9 600 OOO
38 400 000
48.000.000
Sub-foea/ B:
11,999.790
47,999.160
59,998.950
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AMOUNT (UM)
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FORE1QN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
402 OOO
1 608 000
2 010.000
2.
Switchyard
210 000
840.000
1 050.000
3.
Transmission Line
2.470 000
9 880.000
12.350.000
Sub-total C;
Sub-total A+B+C:
Physical ConbnpeHc/aa Engineering A Administration
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
3,082,000
35,260.829
7,052,126
4,231,276
12,328,000
141,042,517
28,208,503
18,925,102
15,410.000
1T5.3G3.1fT
35.200,029
21.15B.3TB
46,544,031          186,176,123             232,720.154g^CMXOBO PWaJtCT RATED MASTER PLAN
OVD-1 DAM
^VWOtLXCTWC KMO ICHf NS
-------------------------- M~ - ■-
rtW«
**                “ !
CWMMM
Ml*
MM
L—IU>-» 1 MI
7~                ir^—t------------------- ---------------- -         -
2JL1
zal                 ^M
11 "1                       12X14
p—g--------------------------------------------------------
---------T“------------- r         - 1                '
K                  ar- - »• * — 
IM
LN.                  ’’JI 1           M5M»                iohi
im                                    ir.“ ]
Xj
>nn»-
•N
‘ U                    V’
IT"
*
tn*« I ->» —                 •HMi
3
•M
•
t«l 1 »r
I — m                    1—»FWj             -1"W M»
”jzim i
s---------------
L0 ra-l-• >—
l>
1W                      •a
M «M                       rim             M-XM                             •mml
u
*W—
'•
«
M                     ■»’
r*
M
•a
JIM                     »M
J              'IM                            ■MM
r---------------
•»
«1
>N
HM                      ■Ml
««"
t.-wr*
!——J
m'
J!l*wiTa
V— Tl 1 I*
L •*
1*
IM                      ■•N
1-------------
t" ’ ■ M.M. J
XJ
• f
ij»                   l»             • » Ml
ihii                       *—»r»l
J ’•
*- <-r—
1%
La*.
’-1
in
vn 1         MWI1                    mi                             Tnl
LT1
19
1%
•«  I
J          mm  1               U- T 1                        7 —. - .
'mi
IM
IM                         IM
1 Slfi '-        - »«?»»>1XTJJ
w
-j--------
M9T
IIWXl
lULXI
CHJLJM
" UM|TJ
VMM.
' LF"
MM |                 -JIM
t
41
«-MM
IM
• M
IM
•
1
fl
’
4J
™                       MNV.3M4
•
•mm
’ —   _______ IJ»M     1         XN                      m
MWmmI               imm
<J
g>rw»rf—CW tlNW
LX-
IM                                  *■ I                       IM
--------------U                     L
—*
M^M—UN
MUM
---- |
*»w
mm
LMM.  |
LVMN
-J JJI
IMM.
W. 4-M
I
—
*r*”2
V
N
•M
»r                         • r
■•IM)
•IN
Mt*
u
•
!«
ran
CJ
*
M
—I*—
•
«m m
»
--
'*M
•
LMR
M Mt  L
CTNI
L!■              •
•]•
-------------------- H
11
2—•
1 j         ■ -™-  1                   MS..t=-                                   1
mm«
----------- g»|
M-MT
■ ■ -
--------------- S5S------------------‘
IMCJII.
■■mi
MWM
--Bn
mu
ft
5~
11
------------
’—^11 ft JM
MWMra
h*
»•
••
J■
I
■
•
»■
«a                        IM
•
•
M                '•«=*»* .XmM
1
•
IMft
«tMM                    IJMM
l»M
1'IM
1MM
U
ftl
•
IM                                      in
*■
■
1
»
JAM mi ft L*.
•
IM
1                   <W                     1 »
•
ft*
I
«
•
IM4M
MM4M                       W
• mm
«m «m
f-
tm -MM V ,MM
a                   1 -
IM                        1
.... .
Lft>               **-
•
1-----------------  ••
1
■  Ltl-a
1!22« L,
I
nm»                          <ihm
r --
AMMMtfel teMAmomur*/
MMLMJ           <MMM« Mf7UM «.nUT 1«UK1f7BAROAKOeO PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
aiLO-1 DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
RotCt«* Mm.                     D Ml ■ M C                      «° ***
OCTMLED COST ITTWT1
(V«t1Elevation in meters
Area in km2
GILO-1 R^curv* Area-CapacM c
Figure U-8WATER resources
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS APPENDIX 9TAMS DAM PROJECT
This dam site is on the Baro River 47 km east of Gambela It is situated on the river course where the river is  narrowest and the valley  is  quite steep-sided and V-shaped Rock  outcrops on the valley sides, and the site is considered to be suitable for a conventional rockfiU dam Depending on further geophysical investigations, a concrete*faced rockfill dam or even an arch dam might be considered Upstream of the dam site are a series of rapids The site is shown on aenal photos, strip 17, photos  1358,1359 bur the stereoscopic  coverage is  poor because the site is  al the edge of the photos, producing much relief displacement Geological section OB- 02 shows the site to be underlain by gneisses, crystalline schist, granites and granitoid gneisses Depth of weathering is indicated as 30 m but from the observations made at the site this would appear to be an exaggeration as strong rock outcrops are frequently observed on both valley sides Locally weathering may be up to 10 metres deep The rock is also shown to be jointed, principally  in two directions  One drillhole was  put down at the site near to the river. A spillway  chute on the left side of the across  from a small saddle appears  to be a suitable location and the rock  should be good A diversion tunnel should be easily  constructed with support of shotcrete, wire mesh and rockbolts. The 1:250,000 published geological map of Gore indicates  the site to be in granite, The ARDCO-GEOSERV geological map indicates granites in the north and tonalite, granodiorite in the south
An attempt was made to locate impervious fill upstream of the dam site but the material found proved to be very thin and sandy A flat to gently sloping area north of the road some 4 km upstream of the dam site may provide impervious fill and this will have to be investigated with pitting, if a rockfill dam with clay core is proposed
Project Description
The TAMS dam would be 270 metres high and probably of rockfill construction. Further she investigation would be required to determine whether the site is feasible for a concrete-faced rockfill or an arch dam. The spillway, as  indicated above, would be located on the left abutment where a substantial rock  excavation would be required. It would discharge into a ravine downstream of the abutment, eventually  returning the water to the river through an existing natural waterway. The spillway would have three 6.25 m by 8.00 m high gates and a
100-meter long chute. Beyond that point the outlet channel would be unpaved, due to the anticipated high quality of the existing rock- The project would have two 9.60-meter diameter diversion tunnels through the right abutment and a 15 metre high cofferdam.
The power intake would have 4 4.75 m by 9.50 m gates, leading to two 9.3 metre diameter power m nnels and then to two 7.60 m diameter penstocks. The powerhouse could have an ultimate capacity of 1,060 MW (eight 135-MW units) The low levd cutlet would have 4 1.83 m by 3 66 m h '&h, high pressure slide gates, with a capacity of 1,200 m’/s, discharging into one of the diversion tunnels.
The TAMS reservoir would flood the Birbir canyon almost to the confluence with the Geba. a distance of 48 km and its reservoir would also reach 24 km upstream on the Baro It would also tc quire the relocation of 35 km of the Gambela-Gore roadway At the present time the Birbir canyon is virtually inaccessible except by foot or al the bridge cresting the Baro just upstream of
TAMS’ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan 1J Appendices - 25WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
the   damsite   With   the   reservoir,   however,   access   should   be   possible   from   the   relocated boating and related water-based recreational activities
road, for
The   principal   characteristics   the   TAMS   project   are   shown   on   Table   9.1.   The shown on Figure 9.1.
An area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 9.2.
P^ect layout i,
The TAMS project has an installed capacity of 1,060 MW, and is expected to genera..
5,485 GWh/yr of firm energy and 437 GWh/yr of secondary energy The total construction
excluding transmission line is estimated as follows:                                                                                              003
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works:
Power Plant:
Total Construction Cost:
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 9.2.
$2,061,208,000
$748.311,000
$2,809,519,000
TAMS-L LG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Fl*
1J Appendices - 26
a.water RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Tabic 9.1. TAMS Hydroelectric Project Characteristic
DAM
Catchment Area
Mean Annual Flow:
Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest Level:
Normal Max  Oper Level Normal Min Oper Level Active Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir Surface Area Spillway Design Flood
Gates
Max Flood Level Ixjw  Level  Outlet  Capacity:
Gates:
20,970 kmJ 329 m3/s Rockfill
270 m
FJ 765
E 760
a 705
4,807 man
5,543 man
105 0 km1
1,365 mJ/s
3 -675 mx 8 00 m high El 762
1,200 mJ/s
4 - I 33 mx3 66 m high
2.       POWER PLANT
Intake Gates
Power Tunnel
Penstock.
Surge Shaft
Powerplant;
Design Head Design How; Installed Capacity Tail water Level
4 - 4.75 mx 950mhigh
2 - 9.50 m dia. x 815 m long
2 * 7.60 m dia. x 420 m long
246 m
548 mVs 1,060 MW El 486
TAMS-ULG Baru-Akobo River Haun Integrated Development Master Plan )J Appendices - 27BARO-AKOBO PROJECT
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1J-92 - Project Cott Estimate
Co»t LrWl January ’.OQO
TAMS DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
Reservoir Max. Leva*: El 760
Power Plant InaL Capacity: 1.060 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
AMOUNT [UST]
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
f.
Preliminary
40.735 062
162 940 327
203 675 400
2.
Rockfill Dam
256 780 952
1.027 123.809
,
1.283 904 781-
3.
Access Roads
0
,
0
0
4.
Diversion Tunnel
10800 000
43.200 000
M,000,000
5.
Spillway
1 958 259
7 833 035
9 791.294
6.
Low Level Outlet
2 028.000
8 112 000
10,140.000
Sub-fota/ A:            312,302,203
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT 8 APPURTENANT WORKS
1,249,209,170              1.581,511,483
AMOUNT (USlj
ITEM NO
DESCRJPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREXJN
COMPONENT
total
f.
Preliminary
14 836 140
59 344 560
74.180 700
2.
Access Roads
0
0
0
3.
Power Intake
648,400
2 593 600
3.242 000
4.
Power Canal
0
0
0
5
Power Tunnel
4 955,200
19 820 800
24 776 000
0.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
4 264 000
17 056 000
21.320 000
9
Powerhouse & Equip.
89 040 000
356 160 000
445.200,000 |
Sub-Tota/ B:            113,743,740
C ; SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
454,074,900
543,710,700
AMOUNT [USS]
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
5.041.875
20 167.500
25.209,375
2.
Switchyard
852 500
3.410,000
4 262,500
3.
Transmission Line
32.760 000
131.040,000
163.800000
Sub*total C:
Sub-total A+B+C:
Physical Continganciss Enginaaring A Administration
33,854,375
484,700,408
02,040,082
55,704,049
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 613,404,538
154,817,500
1,853,801,530
371,780,320
223,058,190
2,453,618,152
183,271.875
2,323582,038
484,700,408
278 820.245
3,067,022,690_ _____ TAmDAM
Kr °RO€L£CT^C POWIR tCHQ^
T
rwr
—
<**          taw
—-
—
—
—
rrw
«
—i
4f
•
•a
I
•®
»
•
•
<1
:                 >■ v ^b»
• *a
-■■■
IM
£l
2=2XXJE LZ2
•     1SJ
'«
■
—
MT     LOW                  r—
taw
>—U
•AT
—
1
«
1
"I
•1
IS
i •>
S2
taa a»
• MM
II
——•-
W !•• •
•l ri«
a
--
•J
'**1
• •• a
.'an
• MB
•a •
*». *.
If
••
tw
•
«i
■ s. -------------2-=- LU
«»»-■*]
!2Si
---
•
----------------- !2J5L
--------------- 2LSL
-*• :ar
—X—
-
JXr     cZX
—~
—
<
1 —1
«•
• MO*
WJ--
a*
v« ea
SI
1 «J
j»
«a
-----------------’   ------------- *
♦
•i
i 'a a
■ ■MB
■ «B ■
,’
•4
*•
■a
I
•
♦«
1*________ V~
•I
»**_.*■ ** •»
•
•
----------------------
■a a
■a
...
ib
IB M «
I
M
—*
■------------- tw-j        !=l
Jal
HUUJV UAMni MOTTL'D
a1
U.1BAR O-AX OB O PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
TAMS DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
Rvmtm* Mm. Lent C T«C
rwww rwi M Cwi*r i.bb* m**
tMTMLED COST tlTMATt
CUBS)Elevation in meters
Area in km2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Reservoir Capacity (mcm)
TAMS RESERVO^
Area-Capacity Cu
Figure 1J-’ZWATER RESOURCES____________  ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS APPENDIX 10 GEBA-R DAM PROJECT
jaeGwlogy
The Geba dam site is on the Gtba river 3 km upstream of its confluence with the Btrbtr River and 75 km from Gambela The dam site is located in a steep sided valley on granite Section 08-07 shows  a cross  section of the dam site with no drillholes, in granite According to the ] 250,000 geological map the area is  in hornblende biotite gneisses, but the Gore sheet published by EIGS in 1987 indicates syn-tectonic granite The site is covered by aerial photos, strip 11, photos 1131 and 1132 The topography is very rugged and the valley is steep sided
Rock appears to outcrop on the southern side of the valley 1-1,5 km upstream of the dam site This  could be a possible location for a rockfill quany  Weathering at the dam site, shown on the geological section extends  to 20 metres  Highly  and moderately  weathered rock  may extend to 10-15 m depth The spillway can be founded on slightly weathered granite at 10-15 metres depth Impervious fill can probably be obtained from residual soil on the plateaux areas 
A diversion tunnel in granite should be easily constructed but some support of shotcrete, wire mesh and rock bolts will be required Geological conditions are favorable for a rockfill dam. If the site is indeed, in massive granite, it would be ideal for tn arch dam. with a crest chord io height ratio of 3, but if it turns out that the foundation is biotite gneiss, a rockfill dam would be preferred.
Project Description
The Geba-R dam would be 240 metres high and is planned as a rockfill dam at this stage of
study Further site exploration is required to determine whether an arch dam would be more economical The spillway has three 8 00 m by 6.00 m high gates leading to a concrete paved
chute 350 metres long, terminating in a flip bucket. If the foundation proves, indeed, to be
biotite gneiss, a stilling basin would be required and the paved chute extended to river level,
about 300 metres further on Two diversion tunnels, 8 00 metres in diameter, 1,400 metres 
long, coupled with a 15 metre high cofferdam, would be required during construction The
power intake gates leading to a 7 40 metre diameter power tunnel and a 6 00 metre penstock.
The powerhouse would have a capacity of 320 MW. The low level outlet tunnel would have a discharge capacity of 400 m’/s with two 1.83 m by 3 66 high pressure slide gates The runnel
itself would be 5.50 metres diameter and would discharge near the powerhouse through a flip bucket.
The Geba site is located in a very Steep canyon with virtually no nearby development- It does not appear to have any environmental or ecological impact, except for possible future water-rdaied recreational development.
The characteristics of the Geba-R project arc shown on Tabic 10.1. A layout of the dam and appurtenant works is shown on Figure 10.1
An area-capacity curve of the reservoir is presented on Figure 10 2.
The Geba-R project has  an installed capacity  of 310 MW, and is  expected to generate 1.574 GWh/yr of firm energy and 249 GWh/yr of secondary energy. The total construction cost excluding transmission line is estimated as follows:
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo Rhw Basin integrated Development Master PUd
IJ Appendices - 28WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Regulating Dam and Appurtenant Works:
5621,896.000
Power Plant:
5389^26,000
Total Construction Cost:
51,011,422,000
A detailed cost estimate is presented on Table 10.2.
TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Pl*° 1J Appendices - 29WATER RESOURCES
ANNEX 1J HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Table 10.1, Geba-R Hydroelectric Project Characteristics
I. DAM
Catchment Area Mean Annua] Flow Dam Type
Dam Height
Crest Level
Normal
Max  Oper
Level
EL 1115
Normal
Min  Oper
Level
El 1083
Active Storage
Dead Storage
Reservoir Surface Area Spillway Design Rood
Gates
Max. Flood Level: Low  Level  Outlet  Capacity 
Gates
6,220 km2
143.1 m3/s RockfiD
240 m
El. 1120
1,365 mom
2,535 mcm
53 1 km2
920 mJ/s
3 -800mx600 mhigh El 1117
400 n?/$
2 -1.50 mx 3.50 mhigh
2. POWER PLANT
Intake Gates:
2 - 3,70 m x 7 40 m high
Power Tunnel
7.40 m dia. x 730 m long
Penstock
1 - 6 00 tn dia x 200 m long
Surge Shaft:
Powerplant
Design Head
238 m
Design Flow:
164 mJ/s
Installed Capacity:
310MW
Tailwater Level.
El. 861
TAMS-ULG Biro-Ako bo River Basin Integrated Development Master Pirn 1J Appendices - 30BAROAM OBO PROJECT
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
Table 1 J-10.2 - Project Coal Estimate
CaM Law*. January 1D96
GEBA-R DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
Reservoir Max. Level: El 1,115
Power Plant Inst Capacity: 310 MW
A : SUMMARY DAM & APPURTENANT WORKS
AMOUNT (UM.
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREJON
COMPONENT
total
1.
Preliminary
12 290.316
49 161 264
61 451 580
3
Rockfill Dam
72.007.219
288.028 875
360 036 393
3
Access Roads
243 600
974 400
1 218 000
4.
Diversion Tunnel
6,240 000
24 960 000
31 200,000
5.
Spillway
1 090 621
4,362 483
5.453 104
8
Low Level Outlet
2.354 000
9.416.000
11 770 000
Sub-total A.             94.225,755              378,903,021
B : SUMMARY POWER PLANT & APPURTENANT WORKS
471,128,777
AMOUNT (USS)
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREJON
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
4 356.150
17 424 600
21.780750
3
Access Roads
0
0
0
X
Power Intake
141 800
567.200
709 000
4.
Power Canal
0
0
0
5.
Power Tunnel
1,489.200
5 956 800
7 446 000
8.
Surge Shaft
0
0
0
7.
Pressure Shaft
0
0
0
8.
Penstock & Manifold
750 000
3.000 000
3.750 000
9.
Powerhouse & Equip.
26 660 000
106 640 000
133,300 000
Sub-tote/ B:             33,397,150
C : SUMMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
133,538,800
188,985,750
AMOUNT (US»)
ITEM NO
DESCRIPTION
LOCAL
COMPONENT
FOREIGN
COMPONENT
TOTAL
1.
Preliminary
3,279,000
13,116 000
16.395 000
2.
Switchyard
440.000
1,760 000
2.200 000
3
Transmission Line
21,420 000
85.680 000
107,100.000
Sub-total C:
Sub-total A+B+C:
Physical Contingencies Engineering & Administration
25,139.000
152.761,905
30,552,381
18,331,429
100,558,000
811,047.821
122.209,524
73,325.715
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST            201.645,715             806.582,860
125,895,000
763,809,527
152.761,905
91,857.143 1,008,228,57SejbPOJUCDftO PROJECT IHTKOftAT¥D MASTER FLAN
OEM-A DAM
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
CWTM.ID COTT rsHMTt
V»H
|J<T
Lfldjj.
.—„
ITTTR.
—
rrtM.
«
LJ-.a — • a«W
■i*
'•«                     -r-r
E
m
IW
XV
IM
1
1
-4
m
1 MV ■
iva
hmm
I 'M
'(MM
'•« “
^-WWlJw-Jw
1■
1                    ■:M
■«
■m
5
1
1
U4.M-
..J-^
HkW«
■MTn?r
tnav^BW"
•—
’A
1
F3U*
—J^*.7 |
L
k!
nJ
•w
t fl
j jiirr i
f Tu ■"
lii
-
r-|u
- "-■ v
k w: M
-T .            M W
J
*i
l.-M
•#' 1
«-
• — P
-JfcW
■w
■ k-Ltaw
la
*— •
■w
JRJf
a
!JlW
M i va
LI
LM-
| Il
■ IIM.M
’!i i»
**•»
rtin
■"
=■*
-M—jf~
"TW ML
-
iKjJl.
“—
-WTM.
—r
—
TP*M
*
■J!
s =!=►*=r
■ ■■M
li W ®
*4 Ms
■
a
u
-*■*
4
1 JJ
KV
il
■
*
j
IJ
_____________
fl
*'M W
iMxl
’ ■>
n
■ in ™
|  ■■  r.
f U !■
----------- -----------------
»
13
4k
■V
■
■
4
■
i” 
1«
1V
Ta'
1
■
*1
-W ZHMfS -#f
1*- v
-i Mi ■-
*■!■
M
■—
*,
» ■■ JW
a i— ijfl
: 2» i«r
1*
kr
i*
I
«■
1 "1 TZ. Mi
i i : sii n
nr 3i v
HP
T I«1 ■■
i M>
IMM*k * Lwfcv-IMW
w^vim
P"
WbrW T*W
g _,.
75f
IJ1M
j?« a«j »1
li
«.J-kH MJ",-r-
<Tf.rH.7TFBARO-AKO«O PROJECT INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN
GEBA-R DAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER SCHEME
Rva«rv«r Mm      B 1.11S
Power PW< h< CapacVr- *<• ****
DRTMADCOrr ISTMATt
ru«i|
CM L*» -*rxw. i«M
LOCAL
LOCAL
----------gy*
TWTM.
OMMAWT.
-
•
A•
*ia»a
u
oae
1W
4.J
•wtw          "
-7T-|
t- CB
J 31
------------------- “
---------------------- H
E-                 * 4
1—  :■!
4
-----------------
*
ixr
LOCAL
~--------------------
TOTAL
X
-
•
—
■f
'r-fo a.Haa
m
um
tiKoe
»«• ^taiar
m
ai
’.rrW 03 IV
(
3 Me uc
’7 1* <30
' *** jf”?
t* ■»
---------- 7=1
0
0
•J
•xttMLMm * Lr-»
•»
1K
: J"
0K
0
------------------------------ L
LMM*
=5
tXTCCWT
a—
UK7              LOCAL
l-TWHC
=oc—
«^X           TOTAL
LOCAL
«zx
TOIL.
4
•-ft"-*
«.1
TmvwCXh • .~M
•
4w
: ac
0*
F
1
i
IJ
1 irw T«l> rv LAtarf
•
« xv x
• « unr x
®] X
1
' \»»w riwi • L«wC
P1
■X
• rm
ax
a
a
4
1
'
1
'-ACT COTT
LMT
LOCAL
-TWMC
TOTAL
—
LOCAL
—
f.»
rrVOTUT. M4T HI
•
0W
:x
oat
0
1
1
—-----------------------
r>
rf
tA«4 CMxb W I «wc
V^OM. <L~
■
0 44
: te.
sw
Oat
n*
t
’
<
<
LMTCtWY
• ■
maTlAT
LOCAL
LOCAL
TWT4L
0^-
4
«•
•’
it
1 3st rm
'tr ano O'
______________ X”£.
Mr KE ■
»» BOD at
’wraia
___________ES-
♦
MC W
■K ttt-
IM JW
-LOMA*
-'Mf
1 -^**1 ——~ f^Wl J ----------------
VMT
LOCAL
££LS222
TTHB
rmiNo
TOTAL
tXAMTT’
1
»<
—1                Ut»A
Mac
MA M
___________ AM tt
IH v*
r< *aTg/
X >»- -t*.
1<
~-
F«MI MaJbl
Powvr PUnf A Appurtwr* Wortt> T«CN
'X
w
:x
M-LAM
xz -*•
mW '“■**
II
HElevation in meters
Area in km2
100
1150
Normal Max. Op ir. Level El. 1115
FT-
1100
Normal Min. Opei  •r. Level
1050
1000
950
900
1000
Legend
Initial
After Sedimentation
2000             3000             4000            5000 Reservoir Capacity (mcm)
GEBA-R RESERVOIR Area-Capacity Cun'

Summery

Baro-Akobo River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan - Annex 1H: Irrigation Projects

Key Findings

1. Study Area Overview

2. Irrigation Potential Assessment

3. Recommended Projects

4. Economic Analysis

Conclusions

Appendices