ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY OF ANGEREB RESERVOIR USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS

Dissertation Submitted for the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Masters of Science in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems(GIS) Of Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia BY Abebe Ejigu Gessesse Under the guidance of Dr.K.V. Suryabhagavan Assistant Professor, Department of Earth Sciences Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa July 2008

ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY OF ANGEREB RESERVOIR USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS

Dissertation Submitted for the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Masters of Science in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems(GIS) Of Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia BY Abebe Ejigu Gessesse Under the guidance of Dr.K.V. Suryabhagavan Assistant Professor, Department of Earth Sciences Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa July 2008

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY ANGEREB RESERVOIR USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS
By

Abebe Ejigu Gessesse

Faculty of Science Department of Earth Sciences Remote Sensing and GIS
Approval by Board of Examiners

Dr. Balemual Atnafu

Chairman, Department Graduate Committee

____________________________

Dr.K.V. Suryabhagavan
Advisor ____________________________ Examiner ____________________________ Examiner

____________________________

________________________________

__________________________________

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY OF ANGEREB RESERVOIR USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS has been carried out by me under the supervision of Dr. K.V. Suryabhagavan, Department of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa during the year 2008 as a part of Master of Science programme in Remote Sensing and GIS. I further declare that this work has not been submitted to any other University or Institution for the award of any degree or diploma. Place: Addis Ababa Date: July 16, 2008 (Abebe Ejigu)

CERTIFICATE
This is certified that the dissertation entitled ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY OF ANGEREB RESERVOIR USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS is a bonafied work carried out by under my guidance and supervision. This is the actual work done by Abebe Ejigu Gessesse for the partial fulfillment of the award of the Degree of Master of Science in Remote Sensing and GIS from Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

Dr. K.V. Suryabhagavan Assistant professor Department of Earth Sciences Addis Ababa University Addis Ababa

Table Of Content
Table Of Content .................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... x Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... xi Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... iii 1.1 Background Information .......................................................................................................... iii Ethiopia............................................................................................................................ iii Amhara Region................................................................................................................. iii The city of Gondar and Angereb Reservoir........................................................................ vi

1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2 1.3

Statement of the Problem and Justification.............................................................................viii Objective ................................................................................................................................. ix General Objective............................................................................................................. ix Specific Objectives ........................................................................................................... ix

1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.5 2.

Research Questions ................................................................................................................. ix Chapter Scheme........................................................................................................................ x

Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ xi 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Land Use/ Cover Change Analysis Using Remote Sensing and GIS: ............................................ xi Water Quality Modeling .......................................................................................................... xiv Pollutants ............................................................................................................................. xviii Environmental Impact Assessment ..........................................................................................xx Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Non point Sources (BASINS) ........................ xxi PLOAD .................................................................................................................................. xxiii Best Management Practice (BMP) ......................................................................................... xxiv

MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................................................... xxvi 3.1 Description of the Study Area ........................................................................................... xxvi Location ........................................................................................................................ xxvi

3.1.1

3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8 3.2

Topography .................................................................................................................. xxvii Climate......................................................................................................................... xxvii Soils ............................................................................................................................. xxvii Vegetation .................................................................................................................. xxviii Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... xxix Socio economic setting ................................................................................................... xxx Water supply of Gondar city .......................................................................................... xxxi

Data and Acquisition Methods ........................................................................................ xxxiii Remote sensing Data................................................................................................... xxxiii Pollutant loading rate data .......................................................................................... xxxiv BMP data ................................................................................................................... xxxvi

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 4

Methods ........................................................................................................................... xxxvii

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................................... xxxviii 4.1 4.2 4.3 Satellite Image Analysis and its Results .......................................................................xxxviii Pollutant Load Assessment and its Results...................................................................... xliii BMP Computation and its Results ..................................................................................... xlix

DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................................................................. lii 5.1 Land use/ Land cover Dynamics of Angereb Watershed .................................................. lii Forest Land ...................................................................................................................... lii Cultivated Land ............................................................................................................... liv Grazing Land ................................................................................................................... lvi

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2 5.3 6

Land use change and its impact on the Pollutant load of Angereb Watershed .........................lvii Prediction of Annual Pollutant Load of Angereb Watershed .................................................... lix

Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................. lxi

Annexes................................................................................................................................................ lxv Annex 1: Chemical Test Results of Row water at Angereb Treatment plant ......................................... lxv Annex 2: Monthly and Annual Rainfall Data of Gondar Area .............................................................. lxix Annex 3: Summary of Hydrometric discharge data ............................................................................. lxx Annex 4: Catchment Pollution Calculator: EMC to EXPORT converter ................................................ lxxi Annex 5: KGHAYR EXPORT Calculator ............................................................................................... lxxii References.......................................................................................................................................... lxxiii

List of Tables
Table 1: Surface Water Resources of Major River Basins of Ethiopia-----------------14 Table 2: Major AEZs of Amhara Region------------------------------------------------------16 Table 3 Export coefficient values from Reference 1--------------------------------------26 Table 4: Export coefficient values from Reference 2-------------------------------------27 Table 5: Pollutants source and impact -------------------------------------------------------31 Table 6: Models of BASINS and Their Brief Descriptions---------------------------------33 Table 7: Efficiency of Agricultural BMP-------------------------------------------------------35 Table 8: Mean Monthly Temperature, wind speed and Relative humidity-----------37 Table 9: EMC Values-------------------------------------------------------------------------------44 Table 10: Export coefficient value--------------------------------------------------------------45 Table 10: Catchment Pollution Calculator: EMC to EXPORT converter---------------46 Table 11: Export Coefficient value per land use--------------------------------------------46 Table 12: Land use /cover of Angereb Watershed (1986) ------------------------------50 Table 13: Land use /cover of Angereb Watershed (1999) -------------------------------51 Table 14: Land use /cover of Angereb Watershed (2002) -------------------------------52 Table 15: Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) for the year 1986----------------------------53 Table 16: Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) for the year 1999----------------------------55 Table 17: Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) for the year 2002----------------------------57 Table 18: Annual Pollutant Load with BMP (Scenario 1) ----------------------------------61 Table 19: Annual Pollutant Load with BMP (Scenario 2) ----------------------------------62 Table 20: Forest Land use/cover change of Angereb watershed-----------------------60 Table 21: Rate of Change of Forest Land in Angereb watershed------------------------64 Table 22: Cultivated Land use/cover change of Angereb watershed-------------------65 Table 23: Rate of Change of Cultivated Land in Angereb watershed--------------------64 Table 24: Grass Land use/cover change of Angereb watershed--------------------------66 Table 25: Rate of Change of Grass Land in Angereb watershed---------------------------66 Table 26: Pollutant Load change in the Cultivated Land of Angereb watershed-------69 Table 27: Pollutant Load change in the Cultivated Land of Angereb watershed-------68 Table 28: Pollutant Load change in the Grass Land of Angereb watershed-------------69 Table 29: Pollutant Load with and without BMP (Scenario 1) ------------------------------70 Table 30: Pollutant Load with and without BMP (Scenario 2) ------------------------------71

List of Figures
Figure1: Location Map of Angereb watershed-------------------------------------------------36 Figure2: Plantation Forest around Angereb Dam and Reservoir--------------------------39 Figure3: Angereb Dam and Treatment Plant---------------------------------------------------43 Figure 4: Flow chart for the Methodology -----------------------------------------------------47 Figure 5: Land use/cover map of Angereb watershed in 1986----------------------------50 Figure 6: Land use/cover map of Angereb watershed in 1999----------------------------51 Figure 7: Land use/cover map of Angereb watershed in 2002----------------------------52 Figure 8 spatial distribution maps of Pollutant Load for the year 1986-----------------55 Figure 9 Map for the weighted sum of Pollutant Load for the year 1986---------------56 Figure 10 spatial distribution Maps of Pollutant Load for the year 1999-----------------57 Figure 11 Map for the weighted sum of Pollutant Load for the year 1999--------------58 Figure 12 spatial distribution Maps of Pollutant Load for the year 2002----------------59 Figure 13 Map for the weighted sum of Pollutant Load for the year 1922--------------60 Figure 14 Chart for Forest Land coverage of Angereb watershed ------------------------63 Figure 15 Chart for Cultivated Land coverage of Angereb watershed -------------------65 Figure 16 Chart for the Annual Pollutant Loads of Angereb watershed -----------------67

Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge my supervisor Dr K.V.Suryabhagavan for his valuable advice, comments and companionship approach during my thesis work. His patience and friendship sprit will be real forever. This research work in particular and my MSc education program in general would not have been possible without support from my employer organization: Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA). Hence I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to its staff that permitted to continue my MSc study and assisted me during my study period.

I am very indebted to the staff of the department of Earth Science of AAU for their support during
my research thesis work and study period. Besides AAU, I want to acknowledge the following institutes: Bahirdar University, Ethiopian Metrology Agency, water supply and sewerage office of Gondar town and other institutes.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation and thanks to Hana Ejigu and all my other families for their support in every aspect. In addition to my family, I want to acknowldge
Alemseged Tesema, Admasu Amare, Antenh Zewdie, Muluken Emagnu, Addis Hailemicheal, Essayas from Bahirdar University and others who provide me data and advice during my thesis work. At last but not least, I wish to acknowledge my collogues in the Department of Earth Science, GIS and Remote sensing unit for their technical assistance and advise. (Abebe Ejigu)

Acronyms
ac AFAP AEZ ANRS BASINS Acre Amhara Forestry Action Program Agro-ecological Zones Amhara National Regional State Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources Best Management practice Calcium Central Statistics Agency European Economic Commission Environmental Impact Assessment Event Mean concentration Environment for Visualizing Images Environmental Protection Agency Enhanced thematic Mapper Iron Geographic Information System Hectare Hydrological Simulation Program- FORTRAN USGS USLE UTM NPS NH3 NO2 NO3 PLOAD PO4 ROI TDS TLU TM TN TP USEPA lb/yr LD m.a.s.l Mg mg/lt Mm3 MSS NGO Pound per Year Load Meter above sea level Magnesium Milligrams per Liter Million Cubic Meter Multispectral scanner Non Governmental Organization Non Point Source Ammonia Nitrite Nitrate Pollutant load Phosphate Region of Interest Total Dissolved Solids Total Livestock Unit Thematic Mapper Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Geological Survey Universal soil Loss Equations Universal Transverse Mercator

BMP Ca CSA EEC EIA EMC ENVI EPA ETM Fe GIS ha HSPF

Abstract
Angereb watershed is the source of drinking water supply for the town of Gondar dwellers and the basis for the livelihood of the rural inhabitants of the watershed. It is obvious that the agricultural activities carried out around the Angereb dam and reservoir increase the pollutant loads. This research studies the long term impacts of the upstream land use management which involve the gradual buildup of pollutants on the downstream reservoir and predicts the impacts of land use management of Angereb watershed on the pollutant load status by using remote sensing and GIS techniques. This study uses the BASINS software and its extension PLOAD in addition to the ENVI and ArcGIS softwares. The LANDSAT images for the year 1986, 1999, and 2002 of the study area are used to obtain the respective land use/ cover maps of the watershed. In the modeling process the inputs used are three years land use/ cover data obtained from the image analysis, Average annual Rainfall, hydrometric discharge data and Water quality test results of Angereb Dam. The outputs from this model are annual pollutant load of TDS, Nitrite, Nitrate, Ammonia, Phosphate, Calcium, Magnesium and Iron for the three years (1986, 1999 and 2002). Moreover the future pollutant load has been predicted by assuming two scenarios. The first scenario is based on the past land use management trends and the second one by considering the different BMPs recommended in this study. Finally in the GIS analysis environment the results of the remote sensing data and the biophysical modeling is changed to raster dataset and reclassified to give the weighted sum outputs of annual pollutant load. The weighted sum result of the year 2002 shows that the highest pollutant load is in the Western part of the watershed in which the intensively cultivated land is also highly concentrated in this part of the watershed. Key words: Remote sensing, GIS, PLOAD, BASINS, BMP, weighted sum

1. Introduction
1.1 Background Information

1.1.1 Ethiopia
Ethiopia is part of East Africa region commonly referred to as the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia is situated between 3030 and 14050 North latitudes and 32042 and 48012 East longitudes. It has a surface area of about 1.13 million square kilometer, of which 1,119,683 square kilometer land and 7,444 square kilometer water area. The country is bordered by Somalia and Djibouti to the east, the Sudan on the west, Eritrea to the north and Kenya to the south. Despite Ethiopias proximity to the equator, the central and the western highlands enjoy a temperate climate due to the moderating influence of high altitudes, with a mean annual temperature rarely exceeding 200C. Rainfall generally occurs in a five month unimodal rainy season from May to September in western parts of the country and averages around 1000mm annually. The eastern and southern parts, on the other hand, have bimodal rainfall averaging annually from less than 200mm in the semi-desert to 1,000mm in the high lands. Rainfall can sometimes be erratic, especially in the eastern Ethiopia and drought is a common feature. Ethiopia is endowed with one of the largest surface fresh water resources in Sub- Saharan Africa. The distribution and quantity of water has strong relationship with the topography and rainfall distribution. Based on topography, Ethiopia is subdivided in to twelve major drainage basins and their respective surface water resources are shown on Table 1.

1.1.1 Amhara Region

The Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) is located in the North central and North-Western parts of Ethiopia, approximately between 90 21' to 140 0' N latitude and 360 20' to 400 20'S longitude. ANRS occupies about 170,152 square kilometers of land with an altitudinal zone, ranging from 600 to 4620 meters above sea level. The recorded annual mean temperature of the region ranges from 12.40c in Mehal Meda to 27.80c in Metema. The physiography of the Amhara Region reflects its geology and geological history. A general uplifting of the highland plateau, followed by tilting, provided an initial highland altitude range

between 1,500 and 3,000 m.a.s.l. Volcanic activity produced upstanding picks (volcanoes) rising to over 4,000 m.
Table 1 Surface Water Resources of major river basins of Ethiopia S.No Basin Area in Km2 Annual Runoff (billion m3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Blue Nile Afar Dankil Awash Aysha Baro Akobo Genale Dawa Mereb Ogaden Omo Ghibe Rift valley Tekeze Wabi shebele Total 199,812 74,000 112,700 2,200 74,100 171,050 5,700 77,100 78,200 52,740 89,000 20,0214 1,136,816 Source: - (Abebe Sine, 2004) 52.60 0.86 4.60 0.001 23.60 5.80 0.26 0.001 17.90 5.60 7.63 3.15 122 Area coverage 17.58 6.51 9.91 0.19 6.52 15.05 0.50 6.78 6.88 4.64 7.83 17.61 100%

The region has diverse topography consisting of low lands, extensive plateaus, numerous mountains, river valleys and gorges. The low lands (500-1,500 m.a.s.l) mainly cover the eastern and northwestern areas bordering the Afar region and the Sudan. These areas are largely plain and constitute big river drainage basins. The highlands, which are above 1,500 m.a.s.l. comprise the largest part of the Northern and Eastern parts of the region. The highland areas are rugged and mountainous with peaks rising to 4,230 m and 4,640 m at the summit of mount Guna and Ras Dashin respectively which the associated out pouring of lava left the plateau protected by a thick basalt cap. Broadly five major land-forms occur in the Region; the mountains, the scarps and the adjoining lowlands, nearly flat plateaus, major river gorges and valleys. High relief volcanic mountains such as Mt. Ras Dashin, Guna, Choke and Adama are scattered throughout the Region. The steep scarps

extend along the main Debre Sina - Desse road which is the result of the major rift system. The diverse in altitude range makes the region able to grow various agricultural food crops and livestock development in different places. The nearly flat to undulating plateaus are the major agricultural potential areas of the Region. Most of these areas are concentrated in the whole Gojam zones. Major soil types occurring include Vertisols, Acrisols, Luvisols and Nitosols. The scarps are generally with no vegetation cover with shallow and stony soils (Leptosols). The adjoining lowlands (part of the "Afar lowlands") are predominated with Vertisols, Solonchacks, Fluvisols and Gleysols. While in the flat and depression Tana plain, Vertisols and Luvisols predominate, however, drainage is the major limitation for crop production uses. Climate, topography and human settlement are the main factors that have influenced both the land use and the natural vegetation cover type of the Region. As it has been one of the early settlement areas in the country, the Region has been subjected to prolonged agricultural use. Results of land use and cover analysis based upon LANDSAT scenes covering the period 1981 through 1985 highlighted that the Region is composed of eleven major land use/cover classes, which are further sub-divided into 24 different land use/land cover types (AFAP, 1999). More than half (56.22%) of the Region is cultivated land indicating that sedentary crop cultivation is the major land use activity. Of the total land mass about 27.3 percent is under cultivation, 30% under grazing, 9.1 percent represents settlement sites, swampy areas, lakes, etc. The second major land use/cover component is shrub land covering some 19.9 % of the Region's land mass. High forests account for 81,047 ha, or (only 0.5%), the woodlands 716,915 ha (4.2%), grassland 881,835 ha (5.2 %,) swamps and marshes 23,958 ha (0.1%), bush land with 1,986,870 ha is 11.6%, afro-alpine vegetation with 93,626 ha is 0.5%, highland bamboo 52,298 ha (0.3%), bare land 78,835 ha 0.5% and water body 340,960 ha 2% of the Regions total surface area. Given the dynamic nature of land-use activities, these proportions are constantly changing. The rugged terrain, high relief and steepness of slope have resulted in many different agroecological zones (AEZ) of ANRS. Analysis of climatic parameters (temperature and length of growing period) superimposed onto major physiographic units yielded 62 agro-ecological zones

throughout the country. According to the revised Agro-ecological zones (AEZ) of Ethiopia (MoA, 1998), the Amhara Region is categorized into 9 major and 17 sub-AEZs. The area and extent of the major AEZs are shown in table 2.

Table 2: Major AEZs of Amhara Region Major Agro-ecological Zones % of the total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hot to warm semi-arid Hot to warm sub-moist Tepid to cool sub-moist Cold to very cold sub-moist Hot to warm moist Tepid to cool moist Cold to very cold moist Hot to warm sub-humid Tepid to cool sub-humid 0.08 11.02 22.80 1.70 14.60 40.70 4.70 1.20 3.20

The ANRS is divided into eleven administrative zones, which are further subdivided into 115 Woredas.

1.1.2 The city of Gondar and Angereb Reservoir

North Gondar is one among the eleven administrative zones in the ANRS. The city of Gondar, founded by Emperor Fasiledas in 1636 A.D, is also the current capital of the administrative zone. It was once the Capital of Ethiopia for more than 200 years. Gondar city is located 748km by road North of Addis Ababa. The main highway connects Addis Ababa with Gondar via Bahir Dar. It is situated in the foothills of Seimen Mountains at an average elevation of 2300 m.a.s.l. Gondar city, with the leading population in the Region, has a residence of about 200,000 and is currently divided into 21 urban kebeles. The rainfall of Gondar area is generally erratic with the annual mean rainfall of 1159.22 mm (Annex 2). The mean annual ambient temperature of Gondar is between 16OC and 20OC.

According to Ethiopian temperature zoning, Gondar belongs to Woina Dega zone. Diurnal temperature variation is large during the dry season and it often exceeds 15oc. The absolute

maximum temperature usually occurs from March to May and minimum temperature also occurs from November to February. The soils of Gondar city can be classified as silty clay, silty clay loam, and black clay and the depth of the soil in Gondar city ranges from 20 to 70 cm. The color of the soil is identified to be brown on the slopy areas and dark to gray on the flatter parts. Topography can be described as fairly mature, with rounded hills and gentle slopes except at the higher elevations where outcrops of resistant basalt may be seen. The main part of the city is located on a ridge between two rivers, the Angereb and the Kahai. The city is largely on the slope facing towards the Kahai, which is less steep than the slope facing the Angereb. The topography of the majority part of the city that includes the Air Port and Azezo is also gentle slope. Angereb watershed is found in North Gondar Zone of Amhara Regional State. It comprises 7 rural kebeles, 5 from Lai-Armachoho and 2 from Gondar Zuria woredas and 3 urban kebeles from Gondar city. The total population residing in the watershed area is estimated to be 5,279 households with a total family size of 29,148. The average family size is about 5.52 persons with the male ratio of 50.9%. The Angereb Reservoir is incited near Gonder town on the Angerb River having the main objective of supplying water for the residents of Gonder town. The water supply reservoir, with the objective of Water supply to the population of the town was commissioned in 1987 with an original volume storage capacity of the reservoir at full Supply level of 1909 meter above sea level, was 5.50Mm3 as the regional water and mining bureau information. The Angereb reservoir is found on the downstream of the watershed and the upstream area is used for agricultural development. Obviously the agricultural activities carried out on the upstream have a negative impact on the downstream reservoir. On the other hand the reservoir is mainly used for the town dwellers as a source of drinking water supply. Hence as it has been stated by Peter Morris and Riki Therivel, (1995), the question of who will be affected is of crucial importance in Environmental impact assessment.

1.2

Statement of the Problem and Justification

Though the type and extent of problem area varies from watershed-to-watershed; low crop production, Low livestock production, land resource degradation, shortage of wood and water and lack of adequate infrastructure are the commonest core problem areas across the country. Earlier studies of ANRS reveal that environmental degradation, poor agricultural production, and poor water and sanitation management are the major problem areas of the Angereb watershed. In relation to the Angereb reservoir, two major problems are expected. These are siltation and pollution of the reservoir. Siltation reduces the expected life volume while pollution increases treatment cost of the potable water. On the other hand land degradation and fertility losses are the major problems of the rural inhabitants of Angereb watershed. To remain healthy, human beings need an adequate supply of high-quality water throughout the year. Many debilitating or even fatal diseases are transmitted by the contamination of the water supply with human fecal matter containing disease-causing viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Unfortunately, over one-third of the worlds population, nearly 2.5 billion people, have inadequate access to sanitation and over 1 billion people do not have access to enough safe water. These conditions, combined with poor hygiene, are largely responsible for the fact that 50 percent of the worlds population suffers from debilitating diarrheal diseases (e.g., typhoid, cholera, dysentery) at any given time. Of those affected by such diarrhea diseases, three million die every year. (Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa, 2nd Edition, June 2001.) Overall, polluted water affects the health of 1.2 billion people every year, and contributes to the death of 15 million children under five every year. Vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, kill another 1.5 to 2.7 million people per year, with inadequate water management a key cause of such diseases (UNEP Global Environmental Outlook Report 2000). Sub-Saharan Africa is by no means exempt from the problem: In Africa alone, over 300 million people lack either sanitation or adequate water and frequently both. (Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa, 2nd Edition, June 2001.) Disease and mortality are not the only consequences of polluted and scarce water. Less attention is paid to the fact that women and children bear much of the cost of dirty water and water shortages. Children are more likely to become ill, and women have to look after them. Women and

girls carry out most water collection, and many spend hours doing so. Hours spent collecting water could be spent in more productive activity, such as food production or, especially in the case of children, education. As a result, there is a high opportunity cost to the lack of clean water. When people are sick, they and their caregivers cannot carry out other tasks, so there are opportunity costs there as well. (Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa, 2nd Edition, June 2001.) Thus to resolve the problem of Land degradation which is the problem of the rural community of the Angereb watershed and the problems related to the drinking water supply of the town of Gondar; deep knowledge of the environmental impacts plays a great role. It is a well known fact that long-term agricultural sustainability can be achieved by increasing knowledge regarding the spatial and temporal interactions between environmental processes. Thus this research studies the long term impacts of the upstream land use management which involve the gradual buildup of pollutants on the downstream reservoir and predicts the impacts of land use management of Angereb watershed on the pollutant load status.

1.3

Objective

1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of this study is to assess the environmental impacts in Angereb watershed for the last two decades and to predict impacts of land use management on the water quality of the Angereb reservoir.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives include the following. To develop the past and current land use/cover maps of Angereb watershed To assess the relative impacts of changes in land use management practice on pollutant load of Angereb watershed. To forecast the annual pollutant load considering the past trends of land use management of Angereb watershed and other assumptions.

1.4

Research Questions

The following research questions will be answered in this study. 1. What looks like the land use pattern of Angereb watershed in the past and currently?

2. What are the impacts of the changes in land use management on the pollutant load of Angereb watershed? 3. What will happen on the pollutant load of Angereb watershed if the change in the land use pattern continues with the past management trends? What will happen if new management system (BMP) is installed?

1.5

Chapter Scheme

This study consists of 6 chapters. Chapter one which is an introduction tries to give a general background about Angereb watershed and this study for the reader. Chapter two is about the literature review and chapter three describes the methodology and materials. The methodology and material describes in detail the study area, data and acquisition methods, and the methodology used. Chapter 4 gives explanation about the data processing and results. Its concentrated on how the image interpretation is carried out and the BASIN software is used for impact assessment and what results are found. Chapter 5 is about the discussion of the results of this study and tries to answer the research questions. Finally chapter 6 provides conclusion and recommendations.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Land Use/ Cover Change Analysis Using Remote Sensing and GIS:
Land is an area of the earth's surface, the characteristics of which embrace all reasonably stable or predictably cyclic attributes of the biosphere, the soil and the underlying geology, hydrology, the plant and animal populations and the results of past and present human activity to the extent that these attributes exert a significant influence on present and future uses of the land by man (FAO, 1976; Beck, 1978; FAO, 1989). The previous works showed that developing method for land-use information extraction using digital remotely sensed data is important. Land-use information should contain information related to uses, or socio-economic function, rather than land-cover types and the use of appropriate classification scheme is also critical to the success of such efforts (Projo Danoedoro, 2006) Land-cover/land-use information is recognized as an important input to planning (Lindgren, 1985; Lein, 2003). Land-use and land-cover are different. Clear differentiation between land-cover and land-use concepts has been made by several authors. Campbell (1983), for example, showed the difference in concrete-abstract dichotomy, where land-cover is concrete and land-use is abstract. That is, land-cover can be mapped directly from images, while land-use requires land-cover and additional information on how the land is used. However, both concepts were sometimes mixed in use (Anderson et al., 1976; Malingreau and Christiani, 1981), although land-use information normally contains attributes of land-cover. Visual image interpretation could normally generate land-use information by combining a set of interpretation elements including colour/tone, texture, shape, shadow, size, pattern, site and association (Lillesand et al., 2004). With digital multspectral classification, only land-cover could usually be extracted, as the land-cover types are related to their spectral responses recorded by the remote sensors (Jensen, 2004; Mather, 2004). Most digital classification methods were used for land-cover/land-use with limited number of classes, i.e. equal or less than 10 (Aplin and Atkinson, 2000; Sawaya et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004; Puissant et al., 2005), while many applications related to planning require more detailed categorisation. Detailed categorisations used in remote sensing projects were performed by some

authors, e.g. Loveland and Belward (1997), which dealt with global land cover mapping. Detailed FAO land-cover classification was prepared for visual interpretation (Jansen and Gregorio, 2003). Detailed categorisation was also found in the USGS land-cover/land-use classification system (Anderson et al., 1976). But in general detailed classification of land-use based on digital processing of remotely sensed imagery was rarely available. The software used for the image analysis in this study is ENVI 4.3. ENVI is the software for the visualization, analysis, and presentation of all types of digital imagery. ENVIs complete imageprocessing package includes advanced, yet easy-to-use, spectral tools, geometric correction, terrain analysis, radar analysis, raster and vector GIS capabilities, extensive support for images from a wide variety of sources, and much more. In this study unsupervised and supervised classification of images are carried out to produce the present and past land use/ cover of Angereb watershed. Unsupervised classification is used to cluster pixels in a data set based on statistics only, without any user-defined training classes. The unsupervised classification techniques available are Isodata and K-Means. The Isodata was used in this study. The Isodata unsupervised classification calculates class means evenly distributed in the data space then iteratively clusters the remaining pixels using minimum distance techniques. Each iteration recalculates means and reclassifies pixels with respect to the new means. Iterative class splitting, merging, and deleting are done based on input threshold parameters. All pixels are classified to the nearest class unless a standard deviation or distance threshold is specified, in which case some pixels may be unclassified if they do not meet the selected criteria. This process continues until the number of pixels in each class changes by less than the selected pixel change threshold or the maximum number of iterations is reached. Supervised classification can be used to cluster pixels in a data set into classes corresponding to user-defined training classes. This classification type requires that selecting training areas for use as the basis for classification. Various comparison methods are then used to determine if a specific pixel qualifies as a class member. Before the supervised classification carried out ROIs should be selected. ROIs typically used to extract statistics for classification, masking, and other operations.

ENVI provides a broad range of different classification methods, including Parallelepiped, Minimum Distance, Mahalanobis Distance, Maximum Likelihood, Spectral Angle Mapper, Binary Encoding, and Neural Net. The Maximum likelihood method assumes that the statistics for each class in each band are normally distributed and calculates the probability that a given pixel belongs to a specific class. Unless a probability threshold is selected, all pixels are classified. Each pixel is assigned to the class that has the highest probability (i.e., the maximum likelihood). Classified images require post-processing to evaluate classification accuracy and to generalize classes for export to image-maps and vector GIS. The Post Classification processes include clump, sieve, combine classes, confusion matrices, converting to vector layers and shape files and others. Clump and Sieve provide means for generalizing classification images. Sieve is usually run first to remove the isolated pixels based on a size (number of pixels) threshold, then clump is run to add spatial coherency to existing classes by combining adjacent similar classified areas. The Combine Classes function provides an alternative method for classification generalization. Similar classes can be combined to form one or more generalized classes. One of the most common means of expressing classification accuracy is the preparation of a classification error matrix (sometimes called a confusion matrix or a contingency table). Error matrices compare, on a category by category basis, the relationship between known reference data (ground truth) and the corresponding results of an automated classification. Such matrices are square, with the number of rows and columns equal to the number of categories whose classification accuracy is being assessed (Lillesand and Kiefer, 1994). Change detection involves the use of multitemporal data sets to discriminate areas of land cover change between dates of imaging (Lillesand and Kiefer, 1994). Change Detection Analysis encompasses a broad range of methods used to identify, describe, and quantify differences between images of the same scene at different times or under different conditions. A key benefit of geographic information systems (GIS) is the ability to apply spatial operators to GIS data to derive new information. These tools form the foundation for all spatial modeling and geo-processing. Of the three main types of GIS dataraster, vector, and tinthe raster data structure provides the richest modeling environment and operators for spatial analysis. Spatial Analyst extension adds a comprehensive, wide range of cell-based GIS operators to ArcGIS. Among

these extensions the overlay tool explores relationships between layers and combinations (ESRI, 2001). The Weighted Sum overlays several rasters multiplying each by their given weight and summing them together. The Weighted Sum tool provides the ability to weight and combine multiple inputs to create an integrated analysis. It is similar to the Weighted Overlay tool in that multiple raster inputs, representing multiple factors, can be easily combined incorporating weights or relative importance. One major difference between the weighted overlay tool and the Weighted Sum tool is the Weighted Sum tool allows for floating point values whereas the Weighted Overlay tool only accepts integer rasters as inputs (ESRI, 2006)

2.2 Water Quality Modeling

Water can be contaminated by both natural and anthropogenic causes. Human activities, or the results of human activities, are the principal source of pollutants that affect water quality. These sources are classified as either point or nonpoint. Point Source means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged (USEPA, 1991a). Non point sources of surface water pollution include overland and ground water flows to lakes, streams, wet lands, or other surface water bodies from agricultural, mining, industrial, urban, developed, undeveloped, or construction areas. These effluents enter surface water bodies along relatively large reaches or areas (USEPA, 1991a). It is reasonable to expect that the successful management of reservoirs, in regards to nutrient enrichment, must be based on a complete understanding of the inherent complexity and interactions of aquatic and terrestrial systems (Randtke and denoyelles, 1985). Appropriate strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts of water pollution are critically important in the era of sustainable development (Goonetilleke et al., 2005). In this context, the use of water quality assessment models as decision making tools and as evaluation tool are highly appreciated. The hydrological cycle is a continuous process that describes the circulation and storage of water in the Earth (Maidment, 1993a), is influenced by humans from the local to the planetary scales (Committee on Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences, 1991). Land cover change, associated

with the intensification of agriculture, cattle raising and urbanization, has had a profound influence on the hydrological processes in small watersheds and at the regional level (Sahagian, 2000). Water quality modeling can be performed on a lumped time basis or on a continuous time basis. Lumped time basis modeling is relatively easier and produce estimates of pollutant load generated from a catchment over a relatively long period of time (Deletic. A and Fletcher. T, 2006). Continuous time basis models are relatively complex and produce estimates for pollutant concentration in relatively shorter time steps (Akan and Houghtalen, 2003). As it has been explained by Deletic A and Fletcher T, 2006; in management decision making and evaluation of existing systems, the use of lumped time basis models is common. These models are based on a simplified form of pollutant export equations. This equation is parameterised by a representative rainfall-runoff parameter, commonly, runoff volume (Akan and Houghtalen, 2003). Essentially, the use of single parameter in a water quality model is questionable as storm water quality can be influenced by a range of rainfall, runoff, climatic and land-use parameters (Deletic A and Fletcher T, 2006). There have been many empirical studies over the years that examine the relationship between the nutrient loads in exiting catchments and the characteristics of the catchments. Land use has been the most consistently good predictor of nutrient loads from these studies, i.e. there are good correlations between broad land use type and observed nutrient loads (Frances Marston et.al, 1995). Several water quality models used to estimate non-point water pollution into watersheds require the input of either export coefficients (typically for rural areas) or event mean concentrations (typically for urban areas). EMCs represent the concentration of a specific pollutant contained in storm water runoff coming from a particular land use type within a watershed. Export coefficients represent the average total amount of pollutant loaded annually into a system from a defined area, and are reported as mass of pollutant per unit area per year (e.g. kg/ha/yr). EMCs are reported as a mass of pollutant per unit volume of water (usually mg/L).These numbers are generally calculated from local storm water monitoring data. Since collecting the data necessary for calculating site-specific EMCs or export coefficients can be cost-prohibitive, researchers or regulators will often use values that are already available in the literature. If site-specific numbers are not available, regional or national averages can be used,

although the accuracy of using these numbers is questionable. Due to the specific climatological and physiographic characteristics of individual watersheds, agricultural and urban land uses can exhibit a wide range of variability in nutrient export (Beaulac and Reckhow 1982). Wanielista M.P., Yousef Y.A. and McLellon W.M. (1977) summarize export coefficients from previous studies and these values are presented (Table 3) for comparison. Table 3: Export coefficient values from Reference 1

Land Use Residential/commercial Mixed: 74% non-urban, 17% urban, 9% surface water
Urban - literature summary

Total Phosphorus(kg/ha/yr) Mean Range

3.7

Total Nitrogen(kg/ha/yr) Mean Range

5.7

2.2
1.0 - 5.0

Pasture - Litrature summary Cultivated - literature summary Woodland - literature summary

0.24 - 0.66 0.18 - 1.62

0.01 - 0.86

2 0.3 1.05 0.1

3.2 - 18

2.5-8.5 15 - 37 2.4 - 5.1

1.1 8.5 5.3 26 3.1

Source: Frances Marston, William Young, Richard Davis ,1995 A paper by Sonzogni W.C. et.al (1980) provides a brief summary of the "PLUARG" project undertaken by the International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities. This project was one of the most extensive studies of nonpoint source pollution and a brief description of the study areas, the effects of land form', land use, fertilizers and climate are discussed. Summary ranges of nutrient export rates are given in Table 4. There is some question as to the applicability of applying export coefficients or event mean concentrations for different land uses developed in one part of the country to another region. As seen in the tables and reports presented above, wide variation can exist not only regionally, but on a local scale as well. Furthermore, national mean concentrations or coefficients obtained by averaging numbers from a variety of geographically disbursed studies can still yield differing results. For example, Rast and Lee (1983) suggest using a national TP export coefficient of 0.5 kg/ha/yr for agricultural land use, and 0.05-0.1 kg/ha/yr for forested land use. However, mean values for TP coefficients as reported in Reckhow et al. (1980) are much higher: 0.236 kg/ha/yr for forested land use and 1.08-4.46 kg/ha/yr for agricultural land use (row and non-row crops).

Table4: Export coefficient values from Reference 2 Land Use Generation Rates (kg/ha/yr) Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen General agriculture 0.1 - 9.1 0.6 - 42 Cropland 0.2 - 4.6 4.3 - 31 Improved pasture 0.1 - 0.5 3.2 - 14 Forest 0.02 - 0.7 1.0 - 6.3 Idle 0.07 - 0.7 0.5 - 6.0 General urban 0.3 - 4.8 6.2 - 18 Residential 0.4 - 1.3 5.0 - 7.3 Commercial 0.1 - 0.9 1.9 - 11 Industrial 0.9 - 4.1 1.9 - 14 Developing urban 63 23 Source: Frances Marston, William Young, Richard Davis, 1995. Omernik (1976, 1977) conducted an extensive study looking at relationships between regionality (as well as a variety of other factors) and nutrient export and concentrations in streams. The 1976 report examined regional relationships of TN and TP concentrations among four general regions within the Eastern United States. Although differences exist in concentrations among the regions, Omernik cautions that use of these distinctions is limited due largely to small sample sizes. The 1977 report includes several maps depicting ranges of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations across the entire United States. A few noticeable trends are evident in these maps. Total phosphorus concentrations are generally higher in the West than they are in the East. Also, total nitrogen concentrations are higher in the eastern region than in the central or western regions. Some of these differences are attributable to differing regional land use (for instance, areas in the far northeast and northwest corners of the country have relatively low TP and TN concentrations, due to those areas containing watersheds that are largely forested). Conversely, TP and TN concentrations are relatively high in large portions of the Midwest containing primarily agricultural watersheds. The suitability of applying regional coefficients may depend largely on the goals of the particular study. If the study is conducted primarily for local comparative purposes (comparing/ranking nutrient loads into local watersheds or catchments), then using regional or national values may suffice. However, if accurate pollutant estimates are required, researchers should look into obtaining (or generating their own) local coefficients/concentrations for their area of interest (Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, 2004).

2.3 Pollutants
A pollutant is a man-made or naturally occurring constituent that creates an undesirable effect when introduced to a specific environment. Elements such as nutrients, sediment, organic matter, organic compounds, and metals are naturally occurring constituents that do not create adverse effects when introduced to an aquatic system in balanced proportions. In fact, many of these constituents are essential for the propagation of aquatic life. However, the introduction of excessive, unbalanced quantities can create an undesirable effect and result in their acting as pollutants. Constituents that provide no beneficial use in an aquatic system are also termed pollutants. Water quality control is the balancing of required constituent masses with the elimination of pollutants to provide a desirable aquatic system. The major chemical impurities included in this study are described as follows:

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Dissolved solids (TDS) in natural waters consist mainly of carbonates, bicarbonates, chloride, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Dissolved metals, dissolved organics and other substances account for a small portion of the dissolved residue. TDS in drinking water tends to change the waters physical and chemical nature. It is generally agreed that the TDS concentration of palatable water should not exceed 500mg/lt.

Ammonia NH3
Ammonia occurs as break down product of nitrogenous material in natural waters. It is also found in domestic effluents and certain industrial waste water. Ammonia is harmful to fish and other forms of aquatic life and the ammonia level must be carefully controlled in water used. Ammonia tests are routinely applied for pollution control on effluents and waste waters, and for the monitoring of drinking supplies.

Nitrate NO3
Nitrates are normally present in natural drinking and waste waters. Nitrate enters water supplies from the breakdown of natural vegetation, the use of chemical fertilizers in modern agriculture and from the oxidation of nitrogen compounds in sewage effluents and industrial wastes. Nitrate is an important control test for water supplies.

Drinking water containing excessive amounts of Nitrates can cause methaemoglobinaemia in bottle fed infants (Blue babies). The EEC has set a recommended maximum of 5.7 mg/lt N (25mg/lt NO3) and an absolute maximum of 11.3mg/lt N (50mg/lt NO3) for Nitrate in drinking water.

Nitrite NO2
Nitrite are found in natural waters as an intermediate product in the Nitrogen cycle. Nitrite is harmful to fish and other forms of aquatic life and the Nitrite level must be carefully controlled in water used for fish farms and aquariums. The Nitrite test is also applied for pollution control in waste waters, and for the monitoring of drinking water.

Calcium Hardness
Calcium hardness is caused by the presence of calcium ions in the water. Calcium salts can be readily precipitated from water and high levels of calcium hardness tend to promote scale formation in water systems. Calcium hardness is an important control test in industrial water systems such as boilers and steam raising plant; and for swimming pool waters.

Magnesium Hardness
Magnesium is a widely occurring natural element and is found in most water supplies. Magnesium salts contribute to the hardness of water and higher levels of magnesium will be found therefore in hard water areas. Scale formation in heating and steam raising equipment is promoted by the presence of magnesium salts do however have a lower scale forming tendency than calcium salts.

Phosphate PO4
Phosphates are extensively used in detergent formulation and washing powder. Phosphates also find wide spread application in the food processing industry and industrial water treatment processes. Agricultural fertilizers normally contain phosphate minerals and phosphates also arise from the breakdown of plant materials and in animal wastes. Phosphates can therefore enter water courses through a variety of routes particularly domestic and industrial effluents and runoff from agricultural land. Phosphate is an important control test for natural and drinking water.

Iron Fe
Iron occurs naturally in rocks and soils and is one of the most abundant of all elements. It exists in two form ferrous (Fe+2) and ferric (Fe+3) iron. Ferrous iron is found in well waters without much dissolved oxygen. Iron in solution in water is derived naturally from soils and rocks. It may also

result from the corrosive action of water on unprotected iron or steel mains steel well casings, and pumps. Water quality limits on allowable concentrations on iron in water supplies are based on aesthetic and test problems rather than health concerns. Iron concentration above 0.3mg/lt can cause Red water and staining of plumbing fixtures. Iron also provides a nutrient source for some bacteria that grow in distribution systems and wells. Iron bacteria such as gallionella, cause red water, testes and odour, clogged pipes and pump failure. Earlier studies by the Regional professionals using USLE; reveal that the total soil loss of Angereb watershed is 546,454.24ton/yr. Based on the same study the annual sedimentation rate is 69,491.51m3/yr. Moreover Angereb technical committee, 2004 and Shawel, 1999 reveal that the sedimentation rate of Angereb dam is 88,389.81m3/year and 124,000m3/year respectively. Both studies also estimated the sediment accumulated in the dam and the result was 1.364Mm3 (Shawel, 1999) and 0.9173Mm3 (Angereb Technical Committee, 2004)

2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

In order to predict environmental impacts of any development activity and to provide an opportunity to mitigate against negative impacts and enhance positive impacts, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure was developed in the 1970s. An EIA may be defined as: A formal process to predict the environmental consequences of human development activities and to plan appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects and to augment positive effects. (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 53, 1995). In the case of environmental impact assessment related to water quality assessment the type of pollutant, source and impact that can be considered are summarized in table 5. Once the major impacts to be studied have been identified, prediction work can start. This stage forms the central part of an EIA. Realistic and affordable mitigating measures cannot be proposed without first estimating the scope of the impacts, which should be in monetary terms wherever possible. It then becomes important to quantify the impact of the suggested improvements by further prediction work. It is also important to test the without project scenario. An important outcome of this stage will be recommendations for mitigating measures. This would be contained

in the Environmental Impact Statement. Clearly the aim will be to introduce measures which minimize any identified adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts. Table 5: Pollutants source and impacts
Stormwater Pollutant
Nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus

Examples of Sources

Related Impacts

Sedimiments: Suspended and deposited

Animal waste, fertilizers, falling Algal growth, reduced clarity, other problems associated with septic sytems eutrification(oxygen deficit, relese of nutrients and metals from sediments) Construction sites, other disturbed Increased turbidity, reduced clarity, lower dissolved oxygen, and/or non-vegetated lands, deposition of sediments, smothering of aquatic habitat including eroding banks, road sanding spawning sites, sediment and benthic toxicity Leaves, grass clippings

Oxygen deficit in receiving water Organic Materials Leaves, grass clippings Animal waste, falling septic sytems Human health risksvia drinking water supplies, contaminated Pathogens: Bacteria, Viruses swimming beaches Toxisity of water column and sediment, biaccumulation in aquatic Hydrocarbons: Oil and greases, Industrial processes; automobile species and through the food chain, fish kill PAHs(Napthalenes, Pyrenes) Metals: Lead, Copper, Cadmium, Zinc, Industrial processes; normal wear Toxisity of water column and sediment, biaccumulation in aquatic of auto brake linings and tires, species and through the food chain, fish kill Mercury, Chromium, Aluminium, others automobile emissions and fluid leaks, metal roofs Pesticides(herbicides, insecticides, Toxisity of water column and sediment Pesticides: synthetic chemicals fungicides, rodenticides, etc.), industrial processes Organic Materials Chlorides Road salting and uncovered salt Degradation of the beauty of surface Trash and Debris Litter storage washed through storm drain

Source: Minnesota urban small sites BMP manual, 2001

2.5 Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Non point Sources (BASINS)
BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system for use by regional, state, and local agencies in performing watershed- and water-quality-based studies. It was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Water to address three objectives:

To facilitate examination of environmental information To support analysis of environmental systems To provide a framework for examining management alternatives

Because many states and local agencies are moving toward a watershed-based approach, the BASINS system is configured to support environmental and ecological studies in a watershed context. The system is designed to be flexible. It can support analysis at a variety of scales using tools that range from simple to sophisticated.

Traditional approaches to watershed-based assessments typically involve many separate steps preparing data, summarizing information, developing maps and tables, and applying and interpreting models. Each individual step is performed using a variety of tools and computer systems. The isolated implementation of steps can result in a lack of integration, limited coordination, and time-intensive execution. BASINS makes watershed and water quality studies easier by bringing key data and analytical components "under one roof". Using the familiar Windows environment, analysts can efficiently access national environmental information, apply assessment and planning tools, and run a variety of proven, robust nonpoint loading and water quality models. With many of the necessary components together in one system, the analysis time is significantly reduced, a greater variety of questions can be answered, and data and management needs can be more efficiently identified. BASINS take advantage of recent developments in software, data management technologies, and computer capabilities to provide the user with a fully comprehensive watershed management tool. A geographic information system (GIS) provides the integrating framework for BASINS. GIS organizes spatial information so it can be displayed as maps, tables, or graphics. GIS provides techniques for analyzing landscape information and displaying relationships. Through the use of GIS, BASINS has the flexibility to display and integrate a wide range of information (e.g., land use, point source discharges, and water supply withdrawals) at a scale chosen by the user. The watershed characterization component, working under the GIS umbrella, allows users to quickly evaluate selected areas, organize information, and display results. The modeling component module allows users to examine the impacts of pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint sources. The Models menu of BASINS contains three models that can be set up based on information in the BASINS project, HSPF, AQUATOX, and PLOAD. The HSPF and AQUATOX options aid the user in setting up powerful external, yet linked simulation models. The PLOAD option provides a very simple watershed model for estimating pollutant loads on an average annual basis. This study uses the PLOAD model and the details are explained in section 2.6.

Table 6: Models of BASINS and Their Brief Descriptions Model Description Sophisticated, high-level watershed model able to perform continuous simulation of surface and subsurface flow and associated physical, chemical, and biologic processes at a tributary level.

HSPF

Simulation model for aquatic systems that predicts the fate of various pollutants, such AQUATOX as nutrients and organic chemicals, and their effects on the ecosystem, including fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants. PLOAD Simple watershed model that computes nonpoint source loads from different sub watersheds and land uses based on annual precipitation, land uses and BMPs. Source: BASINS 4.0 User Manual

2.6 PLOAD
The BASINS Pollutant Loading Estimator (PLOAD) is a simplified, GIS-based model to calculate pollutant loads for watersheds. Based on the PLOAD extension developed for BASINS 3.0 by CH2M HILL in Herndon, Virginia, PLOAD estimates nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution on an annual average basis, for any user-specified pollutant. The user may calculate the NPS loads using either of two approaches, using Export Coefficients or the EPA's Simple Method. Optionally, best management practices (BMPs), which serve to reduce NPS loads, point source loads, and loads from stream bank erosion, may also be included in computing total watershed loads. PLOAD produces maps and tables showing the NPS pollution results, and the tool can be run multiple times to compare results under various scenarios. PLOAD calculates loads for any sub basin polygon shape file, which may be user-supplied or the output of one of the BASINS watershed delineation tools. In addition to this sub basin shape file, the PLOAD application requires pre-processed GIS and tabular input data as listed below: GIS land use data Pollutant loading rate data tables BMP site and area data (optional) Impervious terrain factor data tables (for the Simple Method only)

Pollutant reduction BMP data tables (optional) Point source facility locations and loads (optional) Bank Erosion data tables (optional)

Annual pollutant loads may be calculated for each watershed using either areal export coefficients or EPA's Simple Method approach. The Simple Method is an empirical approach developed for estimating pollutant export from urban development sites and its application is limited to small drainage areas of less than one square mile. The areal export coefficient model is a similarly empirical approach that provides total loads based on factors containing mass pollutant per unit area, per year. This option is provided for agricultural and undeveloped land uses or larger watersheds for which the Simple Method may not apply. Since Angereb watershed comprises majorly rural land use and it is greater than one square mile, the export coefficient methods is used in this study.

2.7 Best Management Practice (BMP)

BMPs are any measure, practice, or control implemented to protect water quality and reduce the pollutant content in storm water runoff. Research in the Catskills has shown that undisturbed forests can remove as much as 90 percent of the nitrogen from rainwater before it can reach nearby streams (Lovett et al., 1999). However, activities that produce NPS pollution also cause changes in vegetative cover, disturbance of soil, or alteration of the path and rate of water flow. These physical changes may prevent the land from naturally removing pollutants in storm water. Thus, there are two interacting effects of NPS activities: (1) production of a pollutant and (2) alteration of the land surface in a way that increases pollutant loading to receiving waters. The goals of NPS pollution best management practice (BMPs) are to maintain or restore the ability of the land to remove pollutants and to limit production of the pollutant. In the Chesapeake Bay program Watershed Model of Nonpoint Source Best Management Practices that have been PeerReviewed and revised 1/18/06 and the results are given in Table 6.

Table 6 Efficiency of Agricultural BMPs

Agricultural BMPs
Riparian Forest Buffers and Wetland Restoration - Agriculture1: Coastal Plain Lowlands Coastal Plain dissected Ulands Coastal Plain Ulands Piedmont Crystalline

How Credited Land use conversion + efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Land use conversion + efficiency
Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency

TN Reduction Efficiency (%)

TP Reduction Efficiency (%)

Sed Reduction Efficiency(%)

Efficiency applied to 4 upland acres

25 40 83 60

Efficiency applied to 4 upland acres

75 75 69 60

Efficiency applied to 4 upland acres

75 75 69 60

Blue Ridge Mesozoic low lands Piedmont Carbonate Valley and Ridge Carbonate Valley and Ridge Siliciclastic Appalachian Plateaus
Riparian Grass Buffers and Wetland Restoration - Agriculture1: Coastal Plain Lowlands Coastal Plain dissected Ulands Coastal Plain Ulands Piedmont Crystalline

45 70 45 45 55 60 Efficiency applied to 4 upland acres

17 27 57 41 31 48 31 31 37 41

50 70 50 50 65 60 Efficiency applied to 4 upland acres

75 75 69 60 50 70 50 50 65 60

50 70 50 50 65 60 Efficiency applied to 4 upland acres

75 75 69 60 50 70 50 50 65 60

Blue Ridge Mesozoic low lands Piedmont Carbonate Valley and Ridge Carbonate Valley and Ridge Siliciclastic Appalachian Plateaus

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Revised 1/18/06

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location Administratively Angereb watershed is found in North Gondar Zone of Amhara Regional State. It
comprises 7 rural kebeles, 5 from Lai-Armachoho and 2 from Gondar Zuria woredas and 3 urban kebeles from Gondar city. This watershed is located at about 748 km away from Addis Ababa which is the capital of the country. Geographically the study area lies between UTM coordinate of N 1394096 - N 1407336, and E 329033 - E 338981 with an approximate altitude range of 2,100 to 2,870 m.a.s.l. Two all weather roads, Gondar-Humera and Gondar-Ambagiorgis, cross the watershed in the northwest and northeast direction respectively. Fig 1 shows the location map of Angereb watershed.

Fig 1: Location map of Angereb Watershed

3.1.2 Topography The major landform of the Angereb watershed comprises chains of hills with mountainous ridge,
which include most of what is designated in the North central massif. This watershed can briefly be expressed by mountainous rugged south facing topography. Angereb watershed is almost oval in shape with dendritic drainage pattern, steep ridges at the boundary, numerous convex hills inside the watershed and steep gorges. The altitude range of Angereb watershed varies from 2100 - 2870 m.a.s.l, while the slope is less than 8% for 11.5% of the land, 8-30% slope for 43.1% of the land and over 30% slope for 45.4% of the land area.

3.1.3 Climate Similar to other parts of the ANRS, the rainfall of Gondar area is erratic. The annual rainfall varies
from 711.8 to 1822.42 mm with a mean annual value of 1159.22 mm. Based on the long-term rainfall data (1952 - 2000) most of the rain occurs in July followed by August (Annex 2). The rainfall in May is also quite significant. The annual rainfall is generally decreased from year to year except in 1999, which has the second highest extreme value in the history of 45 years rainfall data.

Mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, wind speed and relative humidity of Gondar area are indicated in table 8. Table 8. Mean monthly Temperature (0C), wind speed (m/s) and Relative humidity (%)

Temperature(max) Temperature(min) Mean Temp Wind speed(m/s) Wind speed(km/hr) Relative humidity(%)

Jan 27.9 10.8 19.4 1.5 5.5 43.3

Feb 28.5 12.2 20.4 1.8 6.3 39.2

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 29.4 29.4 28.1 25.3 22.4 22.6 24.5 14.2 15.1 14.9 13.7 13.2 12.8 12.4 21.8 22.3 21.5 19.5 17.8 17.7 18.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.5 6.8 6.6 6.8 5.9 5.1 5.2 5.3 38.7 40.2 51.4 66.1 78.6 79.3 72.1

Oct 25.9 12.1 19.0 1.5 5.5 59.3

Nov 26.5 11.5 19.0 1.6 5.8 50.2

Dec 26.7 10.8 18.8 1.9 6.8 45.9

Source: Regional technical committee (December2004)

3.1.4 Soils
In most of the sub watersheds, the soils are shallow cambisol underlain by unconsolidated medium sized gravels with loose joints, which in turn underlain by watertight rocky layers. These layers are easily visible in some healing gullies and steeper part of the riverbeds. The dominant color of soil for this watershed is brown. Of course, there are some black soils on

lower flat lands and foot of hills and patch of red soil. The color and the texture of the soils of the area characterized by moderate acidity, high available potassium, calcium and magnesium contents (DEVECON study). Based on the technical Committee for Gondar water supply and Angereb watershed report the dominant textures identified in Angereb watershed are silty clay and loam and the dominant soil depth classes are between 25 and 100cm.

3.1.5 Vegetation
The original vegetation cover of the Angereb watershed has been so severely destroyed that the landscape, over wide areas, are virtually bare. Some scattered trees left in the farm fields, churchyards and open riverine forest along the streams are important indicators of the climax vegetation. Based on the technical Committee for Gondar water supply and Angereb watershed report Dodoma viscosa, Olea africana, Croton macrostachys, Apodytes dividiata, Carisa edulis, Combretum collinum, Acanthus arobresus are some of the dominant vegetation species, in this watershed. In addition, there are a number of tributaries of Angereb River whose courses are marked by scattered tree and woody vegetation types as an indicator of riparian forest. It is common to see homestead plantations, farm boundary planting and woodlots (block plantations) in the watershed. Plantation forests are either privately, communally or state owned. Earlier studies reveal that the management and status of privately owned forests is very good whereas that of state and community forests are regrettable. Most of the state and community owned forests in the area were established during the previous Dergue regime, some of these plantations were established twenty years back and yet not utilized even once. The plantation forests dominantly comprise Eucalyptus globules, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and to some extent Cuppresus lusitanica respectively in their order of abundance. One of the plantations near the Reservoir is shown on fig 2.

Fig 2: Plantation forest around the Angereb Dam and Reservoir

3.1.6 Hydrology
There are several small streams and springs that feed Angereb River and finally joins Megech River. Some of the major tributaries of Angereb are Korebreb, Key Bahir, Embuaymesk and Kokoch. Inspections of streambeds indicate that runoff is high during times of heavy precipitation. Streambeds are covered with large boulders. During the dry season, flows frequently disappear into the permeable streambed gravels. Apparently the major streams maintain a small flow throughout the dry season. This is the base flow maintained by groundwater discharge from springs and from seepage into the beds of the streams. Based on the hydrogeological map of Ethiopia (1: 2million); Angereb watershed is classified under the extensive Aquifers with fracture permeability of Volcanic rocks with low productivity. Based on the same source the Angereb watershed is under the stratographic unit of Miocene to Pliocene. More over two fault lines having North-south direction are found in the watershed. Experiences of drilling wells in Gondar area show that ground water can be obtained from the volcanic rocks. However, the rocks of the area are not permeable. But water is able to move through fractures and particularly along the horizontal contacts between the flows. The total amount of water which can be obtained from volcanic rocks by wells, assuming that recharge is adequate, depends on the number of interflow zones cut by the well and permeability of

such zones. The deeper the rocks wells are drilled the more zones are penetrated and the higher water yield can be obtained.

3.1.7 Socio economic setting 3.1.7.1 Population and settlement

The total population residing in the study area is estimated to be 5,279 households with a total family size of 29,148. Out of the total population about 57% are urban and 43% are rural inhabitants. The average family size is about 5.52 persons with the male ratio of 50.9%. The overall population density of the project area is 295 persons /km2. Most of the inhabitants live on the hill and mountainsides, and the houses are moderately scattered all over the watershed. Similar to housing condition of Northern rural Ethiopia wood and mud are the major materials commonly used for the construction of house in the watershed.

3.1.7.2

Agriculture

The estimated present population of the project area is 29,148 of which 13,685 (2,407 HHs) are engaged in traditional agriculture mainly in crop production. The average farm per household is 2.2 ha. It seems larger when it is compared to the regional average landholding but this is due to the fact that very steep sloped of mountain ridges and hillside of the watershed are intensively cultivated. The cultivated lands are not only being on steeper slopes but also they are losing their depth and fertility. The main crops grown in the area are dominated by Wheat 37.9%, Barley 27.9% Teff 21.3% , Horse Bean 13.5%. Besides to crops grown in rain fed, they also practice traditional irrigation and used to cultivate potato, onion, and pepper with it. Agronomic practices used by the farmers are mainly traditional, which includes plowing with pair of oxen and hand weeding. A total of 890.5 Dap and Urea have been used in the Angereb watershed in the year 2004. However, the uses of these inputs are not reflected in crop yields, which are generally low. Also, the farmers use their own local crop varieties in the area for

longer periods.

This mismanagement of land and its consequence on land resources

substantially contributed to low production, which is below the national average. Livestock production is a principal source of income to the farmers after crop production. Farmers in the study area keep their livestock for the production of draft power, for the supply of human nutrition, for social prestige and as a capital asset. In the project area, there are 7013 cattle, 6320 sheep, 1111 goats, 6540 donkeys, 125 horses, 8 mules, 3571 chickens and 431 hives. The total number of tropical livestock unit as it has been revealed by earlier studies is about 8270.8 TLU.

3.1.8 Water supply of Gondar city

Modern water supply system for the city of Gondar was introduced in 1940s during the Italian invasion. The first modern water supply was constructed from Korebreb River in 1946 without any treatment plant and, therefore, was of poor quality. Because of its age, the Korebreb system has contributed to high rate of water loss as well. After two decades, the so-called Yugoslavia system was constructed in 1969. It added one deep well to the existing system and contributed its share to improve the service. The government, from 1975 to 1994, constructed a total of eleven deep wells. The continued effort has contributed to the increased water supply coverage of the city. All, except the two deep wells constructed in 1994, were interconnected with the old Korebreb system. The average discharge rate of each water source except, Angereb reservoir was on the average 6.6 liters per second. With increased population and the shortfall in water supply, the Ethiopian government in 1982 conducted feasibility study on different alternatives to improve the water supply for Gondar city. Associated Engineers, an international Consulting firm from Canada, conducted this study. During the study different options were identified. Of these, the first option, which was found to be the most feasible one in terms of cost, was digging deep wells. This option was not selected because earlier deep wells were less than 120 meters deep and there was shortage of reliable data about ground water potential (discharge of wells).

The other option was the prospect of using water from Lake Tana as a source. This option was found to be the second feasible one. This would have meant the installation of 39 km pipeline and a power requirement of about 4000 kW to pump water up an elevation of 215 meters. Even though it has the prospect of a reliable water source, it was rejected because it demanded a total budget estimated of 58 million Ethiopian Birr with substantial foreign currency and high electric power requirement. Both were in short supply and even not available during that time. The third feasible option was the construction of Megech dam across Megech River. This was also rejected because it required over 77 million Eth. Birr. The fourth feasible options were the construction of Fenter and Angereb dams across Fenter and Angereb rivers, respectively. These options were rejected because the proposed dam sites were located down streams and closer to the city. Thus, the reservoirs could be potentially polluted from both solid and liquid waste disposal from Gondar and thereby increase the cost of water treatment, beside their construction cost. At the end, water supply from the construction of a dam on the Angereb River was chosen, though it was one of the fourth feasible options. The exact reason, why the government had chosen this option is not known. Hence, the construction of Angereb dam, across Angereb River within the Angereb watershed to alleviate the potable water deficiency of Gondar city, was approved. Thus, with a total budget of 77 million Ethiopian Birr, the construction of the huge Angereb dam that commands a total watershed area of 9,869 hectares was begun in 1986 to serve about 275,000 people of Gondar for at least 20 years. Moreover, the scheme was expected to fulfill the demand of water for enhancing other economic activities of the city including the development of industries. The existing treatment plant of the system has a capacity of 90 Lit/sec, the treatment plant has the following major parts and processes: - Balancing chamber, Pre chlorination, Lime dosing unit, Rapid mixer, Sedimentation, Rapid Sand Filter, Post chlorination, Water pumps. The dam and the treatment plant is shown on fig 3.

Fig3: Angereb Dam and Treatment plant

3.2 Data and Acquisition Methods

In principle, there are two main categories of spatial data acquisition: the first one is ground based methods such as making field observations, taking in situ measurements and performing land surveying. The other one is remote sensing methods, which are based on the use of image data acquired by a sensor such as aerial cameras, scanners or radar. In this study the following data and acquisition methods are used.

3.2.1 Remote sensing Data

In this study Land sat images for the year 1986, 1999 and 2002 are used. These images are obtained from different sources. The 1986 image is obtained by downloading from the site:

http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml using Path number 170 and row number 51. The 1999 and 2002 landsat images are obtained from Bahirdar University. These satellite images are analyzed to give the land use /cover data which is used as one of the input data for the modeling using PLOAD

3.2.2 Pollutant loading rate data

The PLOAD application requires pre-processed GIS and tabular input data. One of the tabular input data is the pollutant loading rate data. This tabular input data is provided in commadelimited text format. The pollutant loading tables consist of the event mean concentration (EMC) and the export coefficient. The export coefficient table is developed from the EMC values. And the EMC values are obtained from sample chemical test results that have been collected in the Angereb treatment plant by the office of Gondar town water supply and sewerage office. (Annex 1) The hourly data collected by the office of Gondar town water supply and sewerage include the pollutant concentration in the raw, filtered, clarified and potable water samples. But in this study only major pollutants and the raw samples which can represent the pollutant coming from the watershed are considered. Pollutants evaluated in this study include: TDS, Nitrite, Nitrate, Magnesium Iron, Calcium, Ammonia and phosphate. In this research hourly data for the last two years are considered and the mean concentration is calculated to give the following EMC values (Table 9).
Table 9: EMC Values TDS Nitrite Nitrate 0.51 Ammonia Magnesium Calcium Iron 0.10 0.21 0.28 0.23 Phosphate 3.63

Concentration 146.83 0.47 in mg/l

Since the coefficient method is used in this study, EMC is converted to export coefficient value using a catchment pollution calculator (Annex 4). This spreadsheet calculator is obtained from UW Urban water.info and uses the following input data.

1. EMC value in mg/l: As explained above this is obtained by taking the mean value of the hourly concentration data of Gondar Town water supply and sewerage office. 2. The annual rainfall for the Angereb watershed: This is calculated by using the monthly rainfall data (Annex 4) and the result is 1159.22 mm. 3. Entering the runoff co-efficient for the drainage area. This co-efficient can be calculated in a coarse way using the equation: = ( )
( 3) 1000

( 2)

The measured runoff in the above equation is obtained from the SUMMARY OF HYDROMETRIC DISCHARGE DATA (Annex 3) of the Ministry of water resource development. Based on this data the measured runoff is 1.197 X108 m3. The drainage area of Angereb watershed is 98.69km2 (9.869 X 107 m2) as it has been indicated in the Discharge data. Therefore using the above equation the runoff coefficient is calculated to be 0.96. 4. Entering the catchment area in hectares: As it has been indicated in the land use data the Angereb watershed is 9869ha. Finally the following Export coefficient value is obtained for each pollutant as shown in table 11. Table11: Export coefficient value Pollutant type TDS Nitrite Nitrate Ammonia Iron Magnesium Calcium Phosphate Load/Basin Area (kg/ha/year) 1633.7 5.2 5.7 1.1 2.3 3.1 2.6 40.4

But it is obvious that this pollutant load could not be contributed uniformly from all of the land uses. Since cultivated land is exposed for erosion and it is also the source for chemical pollutants due to fertilizer applications; more pollutant is expected from cultivated land than forest or grass land. Since most of the large extraordinary EMC values are excluded during the development of

EMC values, the export coefficient values (table 9) are considered the lowest amounts and 15% is added for cultivated land. Based on this assumption the export coefficient value for each land use is given in Table 12. Table 12: Export Coefficient value per land use Pollutant type TDS Nitrite Nitrate Ammonia Iron Magnesium Calcium Phosphate Load/Basin Area (kg/ha/year) Forest Land Grazing Land Cultivated Land 1633.7 1633.7 1878.7 5.2 5.2 5.98 5.7 5.7 6.555 1.1 1.1 1.265 2.3 2.3 2.645 3.1 3.1 3.565 2.6 2.6 2.99 40.4 40.4 46.46

3.2.3 BMP data

BMP pollutant removal efficiencies are used for each pollutant type in the study area. The data can be in the format of percentage removal (0 to 100) or removal fraction (0.00 to 1.00). If the case is percentage removal as it has been used in this study, then PLOAD will automatically divide each value by 100 prior to processing. In this study the pollutant removal efficiency data is put in two scenarios. The first one is estimated to be 15% based on the past trends of land use management practice of Angereb watershed and the development of EMC values for each land use. In the second scenario 45% efficiency is taken based on Literature values. Of course in most of previous studies carried out abroad the BMP efficiency percentage is different for the different BMPs (Table 6). But it is too difficult to use those efficiency percentages in this study since most of the estimates based on controlled research studies that are highly managed and
maintained by a BMP expert. This approach is not reflective of the variability of effectiveness estimates in real-world conditions where farmers, not BMP scientists, are implementing and maintaining a BMP across wide spatial and temporal scales with various hydrologic flow regimes, soil conditions, climates, management intensities, vegetation, and BMP designs. By assigning effectiveness estimates that more closely align with operational, average conditions modeling scenarios and watershed plans will better reflect monitored data (Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Program housed at the

University of Maryland, 2006). Thus based on the above justification a15 and 45% BMP efficiency is used for the first and second scenarios.

3.3 Methods
Multi temporal images of Angereb watershed is used to obtain the land use/ cover dynamics of the watershed by applying the remote sensing techniques. The multi temporal land use classifications resulted from the images and other inputs will be used in PLOAD modeling tool. Finally the output data of the PLOAD model is processed in the GIS environment. In general the following process has been carried out in this study.
Landsat Images of Year 1986, 1999, 2002 Water Quality Test Data BMP Value

Digital Image Processing

EMC Value

Rainfall Data

Discharge data

Pollutant Coefficient Value Land use/ Cover BASINS PLOAD

GIS Analysis Environment

Output Assess the environmental impacts and Predict the effects of land use management

Fig 4: Flow chart of the Methodology

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Satellite Image Analysis and its Results

The Landsat images for the year 1986, 1999, and 2002 of Angereb watershed are used to obtain the respective land use/ cover maps of the watershed by applying the remote sensing techniques. The following satellite image processing activities are carried out in this study. The first step carried out after downloading the 1986 Land sat image is layer stacking. Layer Stacking is used to build a new multiband file from georeferenced images of various pixel sizes, extents, and projections. The input bands are re-sampled and re-projected to a common userselected output projection and pixel size. After stacking the different bands for the 1986 image; unsupervised classification was carried out for all the three years images (1986, 1999 and 2002). As it has been discussed in the literature review unsupervised classification is used to cluster pixels in a data set based on statistics only, without any user-defined training classes. The unsupervised classification techniques available are Isodata and K-Means. The Isodata was used in this study. The unsupervised classification result is used as benchmark during the supervised classification. Before the supervised classification carried out ROIs have been selected. ENVI provides a broad range of different supervised classification methods, including Parallelepiped, Minimum Distance, Mahalanobis Distance, Maximum Likelihood, Spectral Angle Mapper, Binary Encoding, and Neural Net. The Maximum likelihood method has been used in this study after comparing it with some of the other methods using the accuracy assessment results. Classified images require post-processing to evaluate classification accuracy and to generalize classes for export to image-maps and vector GIS. The Post Classification carried out in this study includes clump, sieve, and combine classes, confusion matrices and converting to vector layers and shape files. In this study, the images after post classification and ROIs have been compared to give out the accuracy assessment results. The training set pixels that are classified in to the proper land cover categories are located along the major diagonal of the error matrix (running from upper left to lower right). All diagonal elements of the matrix represent errors of omission or commission. Omission errors correspond to

non diagonal column elements. Commission errors are represented by non diagonal row elements. The overall accuracy is computed by dividing the total number of correctly classified pixels (i.e. the sum of the elements along the major diagonal) by the total number of reference pixels. The statistics is a measure of the difference between the actual agreement between reference data and an automated classifier and the chance agreement between the reference data and a random classifier. Conceptually, can be defined as = 1

This statistics serves as an indicator of the extent to which the percentage correct values of an error matrix are due to true agreement versus chance agreement. As true agreement (observed) approaches 1 and chance agreement approaches 0, K approaches 1. The statistics is computed as: = Where r = number of rows in the error matrix xii = the number of observations in row i and column j(on the major diagonal) xi+ = total of observations in row i (shown as marginal total to right of the matrix) x+I = total of observations in column i (shown as marginal total at the bottom of the matrix) N = total number of observations included in matrix In reality usually ranges between o and 1. In this study a value of 0.99 for the year 1986 is found and it can be thought of as an indication that an observed classification is 99% better than one resulting from chance. In the same manner K values for the year 1999 and 2002 are calculated and are shown in table 12, 13 and 14. The overall accuracy only includes the data along the major diagonal and excludes the errors of omission and commission. On the other hand, K value incorporates the non diagonal elements of the error matrix as a product of the row and column marginal. Normally it is advisable to compute and analyze both of these values. ( ( . . ) )

Finally the shape files obtained from the image analysis using ENVI have been scrutinized using the ArcGIS 9.2 software to give the Land use/cover attribute data and maps for the year 1986, 1999, and 2002 (Table 12, 13, 14 and Fig 5,6,7 ). Table 12: Land use /cover of Angereb Watershed (1986) Overall Accuracy = 99.4253% Kappa Coefficient = 0.9927
S/n 1 Forest 2 Shrub 3 Scrub Sub Total 4 Grazing Sub Total 5 Intensively Cultivated 6 Moderately Cultivated 7 Sparsely Cultivated Sub Total Total 454 3066 1952 962 5980 9869 3435 454 Land use/ Cover 1986 765 506 2164 % 7 5 22 34 5 5 31 20 10 61 100

Fig 5: Land use/Cover map of Angereb watershed in 1986 Table 13: Land use /cover of Angereb Watershed (1999) Overall Accuracy = 97.9263% Kappa Coefficient = 0.9748
S/n 1 Forest 2 Shrub 3 Scrub 4 Grazing Sub Total 5 Intensively Cultivated 6 Moderately Cultivated 7 Sparsely Cultivated Sub Total Total Land use/ Cover Area (Ha) % 7 14 10 31 11 11 34 13 11 58 100

647 1422 971

Sub Total 3041

1102 1102 3351 1259 1116

5726 9869

Fig 6: Land use/cover map of Angereb watershed in 1999

Table 14: Land use /cover of Angereb Watershed (2002) Overall Accuracy = 97.2441% Kappa Coefficient = 0.9653
S/n 1 Forest 2 Shrub 3 Scrub Sub Total 4 Grazing Sub Total 5 Intensively Cultivated 6 Moderately Cultivated 7 Sparsely Cultivated Sub Total Total 3332 Land use/ Cover Area (Ha) %

1059 1258 1014 754 754 3708 1130 946

5783 9869

11 12 10 33 8 8 38 11 10 59 100

Fig 7 Land use/cover map of Angereb watershed in 2002

4.2 Pollutant Load Assessment and its Results

To sustain the supply of water to the city of Gondar at the required level and prolong the useful life of the dam, it is crucial to estimate the annual pollutant load and identify spots in the watershed with the huge amount of pollutant. This study tries to assess the biophysical environment of Angereb

watershed and its impact on the Angereb Dam using the PLOAD model. As it has been discussed earlier the export coefficient method is used for calculating the annual pollutant loads. In this method of PLOAD, the loads are calculated for each specified pollutant type by watershed using the following equation: = Where Lp = Pollutant Load Lpu = Pollutant loading rate for land use type u Au = Area of land use type u Based on the above equation PLOAD has given the annual pollutant load for the year 1986, 1999 and 2002 in the form of tables and their spatial distribution in maps (fig 8, 9, 10). The attribute data obtained from the PLOAD model is in lb/year so that the KGHAYR EXPORT CALCULATOR which is modified for the pollutants and land use of this study has been used instead which has kg/year unit of measurement. Annex 5 shows the modified KGHAYR EXPORT Calculator. Using this spreadsheet calculator the annual pollutant load results are shown in table 15, 16 and 17. Finally the data obtained from remote sensing and pollutant load analysis is taken to the GIS environment for further analysis. The GIS environment analysis include rasterization of the shape file obtained from the BASINS software, Reclassifying each pollutant load based on its annual pollutant load value, and finally a weighted sum analysis is carried out to identify the spatial distribution of the pollutant loads. Table 15: Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) for the year 1986
S/N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Land use/Cover
Forest Grazing Intensively_Cultivated Moderately Cultivated Scrub Shrub Sparsely_Cultivated Total

TDS
1,249,781 741,700 5,760,094 3,667,222 3,535,327 826,652 1,807,309 17,588,085

Nitrite
3,978 2,361 18,335 11,673 11,253 2,631 5,753 55,983

Annual Polutant Load (Kg/Year) Nitrate Magnesium Iron Calcium

4,361 2,588 20,098 12,795 12,335 2,884 6,306 61,366 842 499 3,878 2,469 2,380 557 1,217 11,843 1,760 1,044 8,110 5,163 4,977 1,164 2,544 24,762 2,372 1,407 10,930 6,959 6,708 1,569 3,430 33,375

Ammonia Phosphate
1,989 1,180 9,167 5,836 5,626 1,316 2,876 27,992 30,906 18,342 142,446 90,690 87,426 20,442 44,695 434,946

Fig 8 spatial distribution Maps of Pollutant Load for the year 1986

Fig 9 Map for the weighted sum of Pollutant Load for the year 1986 Table 16: Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) for the year 1999

S/N

Land use/Cover

TDS
1,057,004 1,800,337 6,295,524 2,365,283 1,586,323 2,323,121 2,096,629 17,524,222

Nitrite
3,364 5,730 20,039 7,529 5,049 7,394 6,674 55,780

Annual Polutant Load (Kg/Year) Nitrate Magnesium Iron Calcium Ammonia Phosphate
3,688 6,281 21,966 8,253 5,535 8,105 7,315 61,143 712 1,212 4,239 1,593 1,068 1,564 1,412 11,800 1,488 2,535 8,863 3,330 2,233 3,271 2,952 24,672 2,006 3,416 11,946 4,488 3,010 4,408 3,979 33,253 1,682 2,865 10,019 3,764 2,525 3,697 3,337 27,890 26,139 44,521 155,687 58,493 39,228 57,449 51,849 433,367

1 Forest 2 Grazing 3 Intensively_Cultivated 4 Moderately Cultivated 5 Scrub 6 Shrub 7 Sparsely_Cultivated Total

Fig 10 spatial distribution Maps of Pollutant Load for the year 1999

Fig 11 Map for the weighted sum of Pollutant Load for the year 1999 Table 17: Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) for the year 2002

S/N

Land use/Cover

TDS
1,730,088 1,231,810 6,966,220 2,122,931 1,656,572 2,055,195 1,777,250 17,540,065

Nitrite
5,507 3,921 22,174 6,757 5,273 6,542 5,657 55,830

Annual Polutant Load (Kg/Year) Nitrate Magnesium Iron Calcium Ammonia Phosphate
6,036 4,298 24,306 7,407 5,780 7,171 6,201 61,199 1,165 829 4,691 1,429 1,115 1,384 1,197 11,810 2,436 1,734 9,808 2,989 2,332 2,893 2,502 24,694 3,283 2,337 13,219 4,028 3,143 3,900 3,372 33,283 2,753 1,960 11,087 3,379 2,636 3,271 2,829 27,915 42,784 30,462 172,274 52,500 40,966 50,823 43,951 433,759

1 Forest 2 Grazing 3 Intensively_Cultivated 4 Moderately Cultivated 5 Scrub 6 Shrub 7 Sparsely_Cultivated Total

Fig 12 spatial distribution Maps of Pollutant Load for the year 2002

Fig 13 Map for the weighted sum of Pollutant Load for the year 2002

4.3 BMP Computation and its Results All the above results are without considering BMP. The amount of pollutant load declines if BMP
are applied in and the PLOAD model has an option for this purpose. After the raw pollutant loads are calculated using the export coefficient method, three equations are used to recalculate the pollutant loads. First, the percent of the watershed area serviced by BMPs are determined using the following equation

The BMP and watershed areas are derived from the BMP and watershed GIS data. Next, the pollutant loads remaining after removal by each BMP are calculated:

The raw watershed pollutant loads are derived from the results of the export coefficient methods, while the percent load reduction comes from the BMP efficiency tables. Finally, the total pollutant loads accounting for BMPs are computed by watershed. Each watershed load is a cumulative total of areas which are and are not influenced by BMPs.

As it has been discussed in the Data and acquisition methods the efficiency for the BMP in this study are in two scenarios.

Scenario 1: By assuming an efficiency value of 15%. This assumption is by considering the past
land use management practices which is tree planting activities carried out in the watershed and their efficiency value is estimated to be 15%. Based on this assumption the results obtained are shown in Table 18. Table 18: Annual Pollutant Load with BMP (Scenario 1)

S/N

Land use/Cover

TDS
1,133,738.93 807,213.55 4,565,145.92 1,391,212.21 1,085,563.05 1,346,783.35 1,164,678.54

Nitrite
3,601 2,564 14,498 4,418 3,448 4,277 3,699

Annual Polutant Load (Kg/Year) Nitrate Magnesium Iron Calcium Ammonia Phosphate
3,961 2,820 15,948 4,860 3,792 4,705 4,069 1,620 1,154 6,524 1,988 1,551 1,925 1,664 1,800 1,282 7,249 2,209 1,724 2,139 1,849 2,160 1,538 8,699 2,651 2,069 2,566 2,219 810 577 3,262 994 776 962 832 27,995 19,932 112,724 34,352 26,805 33,255 28,759

1 Forest 2 Grazing 3 Intensively_Cultivated 4 Moderately Cultivated 5 Scrub 6 Shrub 7 Sparsely_Cultivated

Scenario 2: By assuming efficiency value of 45%. This assumption is by considering the different
BMP techniques (Riparian forest buffers, Riparian Grass buffers, land retirement, row cropping, and cereal cover crops) and referring their efficiency values from literatures (Table 7) and taking a median value. The results for the second scenario are shown in Table 19.

Table 19: Annual Pollutant Load with BMP (Scenario 2)

S/N

Land use/Cover

TDS
700,250.51 498,573.08 2,819,648.95 859,278.13 670,494.83 911,059.33 719,360.28 7,178,665

Nitrite
2,224 1,583 8,955 2,729 2,129 2,893 2,285 22,798

Annual Polutant Load (Kg/Year) Nitrate Magnesium Iron Calcium Ammonia Phosphate
2,446 1,742 9,850 3,002 2,342 3,183 2,513 25,078 1,001 713 4,030 1,228 958 1,302 1,028 10,259 1,112 792 4,477 1,364 1,065 1,447 1,142 11,399 1,334 950 5,373 1,637 1,278 1,736 1,371 13,679 500 356 2,015 614 479 651 514 5,130 17,291 12,311 69,624 21,218 16,556 22,496 17,763 177,258

1 Forest 2 Grazing 3 Intensively_Cultivated 4 Moderately Cultivated 5 Scrub 6 Shrub 7 Sparsely_Cultivated Total

DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Land use/ Land cover Dynamics of Angereb Watershed

As it has been discussed in the literature review one of the drawback in land use classification is the limited number of classes used for classification. Even though an ample amount of classes are not used; this study tries to reclassify the major land uses of the Angereb watershed in to different sub classes depending on the spectral response values. The various land use classes and their respective assumptions used for this study includes the following. 1. Cultivated land: In terms of cultivated land, three subunits are used in this study based upon the proportion of cultivated land within the unit. These are: 2. 3. Grazing Land Forest Land: In this study the forest land is subdivided in to three subunits based upon the coverage intensity. These are: Forest: Vegetation with the highest coverage Shrub: Vegetation with Medium coverage Scrub: Vegetation with low coverage Intensively cultivated: Almost all part of the land is under annual crops. Moderately cultivated land: Most part is under annual crop Sparsely cultivated land: some part is under annual crops.

In this study the land use / cover for the year 1986, 1999 and 2002 has been considered and its rate of

change is calculated as follows: =

5.1.1 Forest Land

As it is shown in the Land use change Table (Table 18 and Fig 11) the forest land coverage declined in the year 1999 and revived during 2002. The forest land declined by 11.5% in the year between 1986 and 1999; and it increased by 9.6% in the year between 1999 and 2002. Of course it declined by 3% when the change between 1986 and 2002 is considered. The increment in forest coverage in the year between 1999 and 2002 may be resulted from the effort to rehabilitate the Angereb

watershed by the government, Local NGOs and the community and majorly the expansion of privately owned plantation sites. Table 20: Forest Land use/cover change of Angereb watershed

S/n Landuse/ Cover 1 Forest 2 Shrub 3 Scrub Sub Total

Landuse use Changes 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 1986 1999 2002 Change (Ha) Change (%) Change (Ha) Change (%) Change (Ha) Change (%) 765 647 1059 -117 -15 412 64 295 39 506 1422 1258 915 181 -163 -11 752 149 2164 971 1014 -1193 -55 43 4 -1150 -53 3435 3040 3332 -395 -11.5 291.5 9.6 -103.1 -3.0
A r e a
(

Area (Ha)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Forest Shrub Type of Land use Scrub 1986 1999 2002

H a
)

Fig 11: Forest Land coverage chart for the three years

The rate of forest land use change is summarized in Table 21 and the results show that in the year 1986 - 1999 and 1986 2002; the forest land declined by 30 and 6.4 ha per year respectively. But in the year between 1999 and 2002 the forest land increased by 97 ha per year. When the forest extent of Angereb watershed is considered; it is also possible to classify as Natural Vegetation and Plantation (Artificial) forest. Currently there are no significant tracts of natural vegetations seen in the area, only remnants of it is observed in old churchyards, in a scattered form on farmlands, in rocky cliffs and more commonly around the most upper watershed divide (Around Kedeste and Janhoy bata localities).

Table 21: Rate of change of forest land in Angereb watershed

S/n Landuse/ Cover 1 Forest 2 Shrub 3 Scrub Sub Total

Area (Ha) 1986 1999 765 647 506 1422 2164 971 3435 3040

Rate of Change (Ha/Year) 2002 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 1059 -9 137 18 1258 70 -54 47 1014 -92 14 -72 3332 -30 97.2 -6.4

Due to the considerable increase of human population and its increased pressure on the natural forest, the natural forest coverage of the area depleted greatly. The existent of illegal fuel wood and charcoal vendors in the watershed due to the geographical proximity of the watershed to Gondar town contribute for its depletion. In contrary to the natural forest, the trend of the plantation forest in Angereb watershed showed increment in 2002 as compared to 1999. There are homestead plantations, farmsteads, farm boundary planting and woodlots (block plantations) in the watershed. The reasons for wide adoption of artificial plantations include the following: The decline in the natural forest coverage is creating a great gap between the demand and supply for wood and its products. Hence to fill these gap farmers of the Angereb watershed show a great effort on individual tree planting activities. Most of the exotic tree species used for the artificial plantation grows more rapidly and vigorously than the natural forest species. High price of fuel and construction wood due to the geographical proximity of the watershed area to Gondar town. Decline of agricultural land productivity from time to time in the area due to severe land degradation problems

5.1.2 Cultivated Land

As any other rural areas of the Amhara region, the major source of livelihood in Angereb watershed is crop production. Thus cultivated land has a dominant coverage as compared to the other land uses of the Angereb watershed. The image analysis result shows that from the total area of the watershed; cultivated land covers 61%, 58%, and 59% in the year 1986, 1999 and 2002 respectively.

From the cultivated land coverage it is observed that there was no any considerable fluctuation but there is still variation from time to time. The cultivated land declined from 61% in 1986 to 59% in 2002 considering the total watershed area (Fig 12).

A 4000 r e 3000 a 2000 1986 1999 2002

(

H 1000 a 0

Fig 12: Chart for Crop Land coverage of Angereb watershed The cultivated land declined by 4.2% and 3.3% in the year 1986 - 1999 and 1986 - 2002,

respectively. But there was a 1% increment in the year between 1999 and 2002 (Table 22). Table 22 Cultivated Land use/cover change of Angereb watershed

S/n Landuse/ Cover 1 Intensivly_Cultivated 2 Moderatly_Cultivated 3 Sparsly_Cultivated Sub Total

The rate of cultivated land use change is summarized in Table 20. The results show that in the year 1986 - 1999 and 1986 - 2002 the cultivated land declined by 20 and 12.3 ha per year respectively. But in the year between 1999 and 2002 the cultivated land increased by 19 ha per year. The decline in size of cultivated land and increment on forest coverage is not a common observable fact in most parts of the rural areas since encroachment to forest land is a familiar phenomenon along with population pressure. This extra ordinary condition in Angereb watershed may be due to

Type of Land use/Cover

Area (Ha) 1986 3066 1952 962 5980 1999 3351 1259 1116 5726

Landuse use Changes 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 2002 Change (Ha) Change (%) Change (Ha) Change (%) Change (Ha) Change (%) 285 9 357 11 641 21 3708 1130 -693 -35 -129 -10 -822 -42 946 154 16 -171 -15 -16 -2 5783 -254 -4.2 56.9 1.0 -196.7 -3.3

The enhancement of plantation sites by the individual farmers. Degradation problems: prolonged agricultural use without appropriate land husbandry result in poor productivity which in turn forced farmers to change it to other land uses.

Table 23: Rate of change of cultivated land in Angereb watershed

S/n Landuse/ Cover 1 Intensivly_Cultivated 2 Moderatly_Cultivated 3 Sparsly_Cultivated Sub Total

Area (Ha) 1986 1999 3066 3351 1952 1259 962 1116 5980 5726

Rate of Change (Ha/Year) 2002 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 22 119 40 3708 -53 -43 -51 1130 12 -57 -1 946 5783 -20 19.0 -12.3

5.1.3 Grazing Land Feed for livestock in the watershed is derived mainly from grazing and browsing. Crop residues are
also used as reserve fodder to feed the animals over the long dry season. It is a common phenomenon that the rapid increase of human population results to reserve more land for crop production, and the area available for animal grazing is diminishing from time to time. Unlike this the Angereb watershed grazing land coverage showed an increment by 143 and 66% in the years 1986 to 1999 and 1986 to 2002 respectively. But it declined in the year between 2002 and 1999 by 32% (Table 24). Table 24 Grass Land use/cover change of Angereb watershed
Area (Ha) S/n Landuse/ Cover 1 Grazing Land 1986 454 1999 1102 Landuse use Changes 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 2002 Change (Ha) Change (%) Change (Ha) Change (%) Change (Ha) Change (%) 754 648 143 -348 -32 300 66

The rate of Grazing land use change results (Table 25) show that in the year 1986 - 1999 and 1986 2002 the grazing land increased by 50 and 19 ha per year respectively. But in the year between 1999 and 2002 the grazing land decreased by 116 ha per year. Table 25: Rate of change of Grass land in Angereb watershed
S/n Landuse/ Cover 1 Grazing Land Area (Ha) 1986 1999 454 1102 Rate of Change (Ha/Year) 2002 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 754 50 -116 19

From the change in grazing land use we can scrutinize that the encroachment to forest land is due to the expansion of grazing land in the years between 1986 and 1999. That is why the forest land

declined in the year 1999 as compared to its coverage in the year 1986 and the grazing land started to decline in the year 2002 as the forest land increased.

5.2 Land use change and its impact on the Pollutant load of Angereb Watershed
The pollutant load estimation is based on the land use area and export coefficient values. The major land uses considered in this study are Forest, Cultivated Land and Grazing. The forest and grazing land are considered as a measure to decline the annual pollutant load where as the cultivated land is assumed to play a major role in increasing the amount of pollutant load. Of course as a land use cover all of the three can contribute the pollutants based on their area of coverage. But the cultivated land contributes greater as it is the major land area used for fertilizer applications and it is more susceptible to soil erosion in addition to its dominant coverage (Fig 13).

9,000 8,000 7,000

Pollutant Load (Ton)

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 1986 1999 Year Forest Land Cultivated Land Grazing Land

2002

Fig 13 Chart for the Annual Pollutant Loads of Angereb watershed When the Forest land is considered, it declined in size and its pollutant load contribution also decreased in the year 1986 1999 and 1986 - 2002. In contrary to this; the forest land size

increased and its pollutant loads contribution raised in the year between 1999 and 2002 (Table 26). When the cultivated land of Angereb watershed is considered, it declined in size and its pollutant load contribution decreased in the year between 1986 1999 and 1986-2002. In contrary to this; the cultivated land size increased along with its pollutant loads contribution in the year between 1999 and 2002 (Table 27). Table 26: Pollutant Load change in the forest Land of Angereb watershed
Pollutant Load(Kg) 1986 1999 4,326,383 3,830,140 13,740 12,164 15,114 13,380 6,183 5,474 6,870 6,082 8,244 7,298 3,092 2,737 106,829 94,575 Pollutant Load Change 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 (496,243) 365,255 (130,988) (1,576) 1,160 (416) (1,734) 1,276 (458) (709) 522 (187) (788) 580 (208) (946) 696 (250) (355) 261 (94) (12,253) 9,019 (3,234)

Pollutant TDS NO2 NO3 Mg Fe Ca NH3 PO4

2002 4,195,395 13,324 14,656 5,996 6,662 7,994 2,998 103,594

Table 27: Pollutant Load change in the Cultivated Land of Angereb watershed
Pollutant TDS NO2 NO3 Mg Fe Ca NH3 PO4 Pollutant Load(Kg) 1986 1999 8,661,582 8,293,682 27,508 26,340 30,259 28,974 12,379 11,853 13,754 13,170 16,505 15,804 6,189 5,926 213,875 204,790 2002 8,377,690 26,606 29,267 11,973 13,303 15,964 5,986 206,865 Pollutant Load Change 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 (367,900) 84,009 (283,891) (1,168) 267 (902) (1,285) 293 (992) (526) 120 (406) (584) 133 (451) (701) 160 (541) (263) 60 (203) (9,084) 2,074 (7,010)

When the Grazing land is considered, it increased in size and its pollutant load contribution also increased in the year 1986 1999 and 1986-2002. In contrary to this; the Grazing land size decreased along with its pollutant loads contribution in the year between 1999 and 2002. This is shown in table 28.

Table 28: Pollutant Load change in the Grass Land of Angereb watershed
Pollutant TDS NO2 NO3 Mg Fe Ca NH3 PO4 Pollutant Load(Kg) 1986 1999 571,813 1,387,969 1,816 4,408 1,998 4,849 817 1,984 908 2,204 1,090 2,645 409 992 14,119 34,272 2002 949,663 3,016 3,318 1,357 1,508 1,810 679 23,449 Pollutant Load Change 1999-1986 2002-1999 2002-1986 816,156 (438,306) 377,850 2,592 (1,392) 1,200 2,851 (1,531) 1,320 1,166 (626) 540 1,296 (696) 600 1,555 (835) 720 583 (313) 270 20,153 (10,823) 9,330

From the spatial distribution of the pollutant loads in the year 2002 (Fig 10) it is observed that the dominant pollutant load is on the Western part of the watershed since the intensively cultivated land (Fig 7) in this year is located foremost in the Western part of the watershed. In contrary to this the intensively cultivated land is concentrated in the central part of the watershed in the year 1999 and the highest pollutant load is also mainly on the central part of the watershed in this year (Fig 9). In the year 1986 the intensively cultivated land is almost uniformly distributed in the watershed (Fig 5) and the same trend of distribution existed for the highest pollutant load in this year (Fig 8). In general, the pollutant load contribution increased or decreased along with its land use size and type.

5.3 Prediction of Annual Pollutant Load of Angereb Watershed

Trends in the forest coverage of Angereb watershed show that there was an impressive increment in 2002 as compared to the 1999. In this case the plantation (Artificial) forest by individual farmers is expected to have a great contribution. But there was a decline in the forest coverage in year 1999 as compared to the 1986 coverage. Hence it seems that the trend in the forest coverage fluctuated from year to year but it has shown a growth trend after 1999. Hence it is possible to predict the annual pollutant load from this increasing trend of forest coverage. To predict the impact of land management on the amount of Pollutant load; Best management practice (BMP) has been considered in this study. BMPs serve to reduce pollutant loads and PLOAD has an option to calculate loads based on the remedial effects of the various BMP types. The equations used to calculate pollutant loads influenced by BMPs and their results in two scenarios are described in section 4.4 of this study. To show the impact of the application of BMP, the 2002 annual pollutant load is compared with annual pollutant load result with a 15% BMP efficiency

(Table 29) and with a 45% BMP Efficiency (Table 30). As it has been shown on tables 29 & 30 the annual pollutant load of Angereb watershed decreased after applying the BMP. In the first scenario; it is assumed that the current land use management practice (Tree planting) continues in the future and the pollutant load decreased by 2,103 metric ton annually. But it is also possible to decline the annual pollutant load by 6,579 Metric ton annually by applying selected BMPs with an efficiency value of 45%. Table 29: Pollutant Load with and without BMP Scenario 1
S/N Pollutant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TDS NO2 NO3 Mg Fe Ca NH3 PO4

Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) With out BMP With BMP Variation
13,522,748 42,946 47,241 19,326 21,473 25,768 9,663 333,908 11,494,336 36,504 40,155 16,427 18,252 21,903 8,213 283,822 2,028,412 6,442 7,086 2,899 3,221 3,865 1,449 50,086

Table 30: Pollutant Load with and without BMP Scenario 2

S/N Pollutant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TDS NO2 NO3 Mg Fe Ca NH3 PO4

Annual Pollutant Load (Kg/Year) With out BMP With BMP Variation
13,522,748 42,946 47,241 19,326 21,473 25,768 9,663 333,908 7,178,665 22,798 25,078 10,259 11,399 13,679 5,130 177,258 6,344,083 20,148 22,163 9,067 10,074 12,089 4,533 156,650

Conclusion and Recommendations

In general the major activities carried out in this study can be summarized as image classification, biophysical modeling and Analysis in the GIS environment. The biophysical modeling relates quantitatively the results of the image classification to the measured biophysical features and phenomena specifically to the pollutant loads of Angereb watershed. Finally in the GIS environment analysis different land use/ cover maps are produced and weighted sum analysis is accomplished to identify the spatial distribution of pollutants. The forest land use/cover of Angereb watershed is subdivided in to forest, shrub and scrub. And its coverage is 34, 31 and 33% in the year 1986, 1999 and 2002 respectively. The forest land declined by 11.5% and 3%; in the years 1986 1999 and 1986 2002 respectively. In the years between 1999 and 2002, the forest land increased by 9.6%. The cultivated land use/cover of Angereb watershed is subdivided in to intensive, moderate and sparse. And its coverage is 61, 58 and 59% for the years 1986, 1999 and 2002 respectively. The cultivated land declined by 2.54 and 3.3% in the years 1986 1999 and 1986 2002. But the cultivated land increased by 1%in the years between 1999 and 2002. The grass land coverage is 5, 11 and 8% of the total watershed in the year 1986, 1999 and 2002 respectively. The grazing land increased by 143 and 66% in the year 1986 1999 and 1986 2002 respectively. But it declined in the years between 1999 and 2002 by 32%. The change in land use of Angereb watershed shows some extraordinary trends because of the following reasons. 1. In contrary to the natural forest, the trend of the plantation forest in Angereb watershed shows increasing due to the high price of fuel and construction wood resulted from the geographical proximity of the watershed area to Gondar town and other reasons; 2. Prolonged agricultural use without appropriate land husbandry resulted in poor productivity of crop land which in turn forced farmers to change it to other land uses. Along with the change in the cultivated land use cover the pollutant load change result showed that there is an increment in the year between 1999 and 2002, and a decline in the year between 1986 and 1999 in this land use. Thus the change in the cultivated land resulted in the change of the

pollutant loads. In the same manner the pollutant load change in the forest land is directly proportional to the change in the forest cover. The pollutant load showed a trend of increment in the year between 1999 and 2002 and declined in the year 1986 1999 and 1986 -2002. In contrary to the forest land; the case of pollutant load change in the grass land declined in the year between 1999 and 2002, but it showed an increment in the year 1986 1999 and 1986 2002. When the spatial distribution of pollutants and its relation with the land use management is considered the following trend is observed. The highest pollutant load is spatially distributed in the Western, central and in all parts almost uniformly in the years 2002, 1999 and 1986 respectively. The same trend of distribution of the intensively cultivated land is seen in the three years. Hence the spatial distribution of pollutants is dependent on the land use management. In addition to the assessment of current and past land use management and its relation with the annual pollutant load, this study predicts the annual pollutant load of Angereb watershed considering two scenarios. The first scenario assumes that the tree planting activity which is being carried out in the watershed has 15% efficiency. The result shows that a total of 2103 metric tons of pollutant can be minimized annually using these assumptions. In the second scenario modern BMP are considered and their efficiency is assumed to be 45%. In this case the pollutant load minimized by 6,579 metric ton annually. In general this study is directed towards the assessment of the biophysical condition of the watershed to resolve the pollution and land degradation problem of the Angereb watershed to benefit both the town dwellers of Gondar and the rural inhabitants of the watershed. Moreover this study gives attention for problem solving from the source than curing symptoms. This is to mean that the water quality problem of Angereb watershed emanated from the problem of the poor rural inhabitants. Unless the land degradation problem of the watershed is resolved and the livelihood of the rural inhabitants is improved; it is not possible to tackle the water pollution problem of the town of Gondar. Furthermore it is cost effective to control the pollutants from run off before entering to the dam and this is possible by understanding the trends of the land use and knowledge of the pollutants of watershed. In this study the PLOAD model of the BASIN software is used for:

Estimating pollutant loads from non-point sources, Estimating changes in pollutant load due to changes in land use Estimates changes in pollutant load after incorporation of BMPs, and Generates map outputs of pollutant loads.

From this study we can conclude the following about the PLOAD model and the BASINS software: BASIN and PLOAD can play in screening environmental impacts The experience obtained from Angereb watershed can be used for assessing environmental impacts on lakes and it could also be used for environmental impact assessment of other Dams and reservoirs. This technique can be applied in permission of new construction near environmentally sensitive areas like Lakes and wetlands In general this study reveals that the pollutant load entering to the dam is vigorous that it needs a due attention to decline the annual pollutant load of the watershed. This is possible by practicing different BMP techniques. In the selection of BMP the trends of land use management of the watershed has been given attention. As it has been presented in the discussion part of this study tree planting activities are getting acceptance in the Angereb watershed. Hence this study recommends activities related to the biological measures of soil and water conservations and the following BMPs are recommended. 1. Riparian Forest Buffers: are linear wooded areas along rivers, stream and shorelines. Forest buffers help filter nutrients, sediments and other pollutants from runoff as well as remove nutrients from groundwater. 2. Riparian Grass Buffers: are linear strips of grass or other non-woody vegetation maintained between the edge of fields and streams, rivers or tidal waters that help filter nutrients, sediment and other pollutant from runoff. 3. Land Retirement: Agricultural land retirement takes marginal and highly erosive cropland out of production by planting permanent vegetative cover such as shrubs, grasses, and/or trees.
4. Tree Planting (Row Crop): includes any tree planting on agricultural lands, except those

used to establish riparian forest buffers, targeting lands that are highly erodible or

identified as critical resource areas. This BMP results in a land use conversion from row crop to forest. 5. Cereal Cover Crops: reduce erosion and the leaching of nutrients to groundwater by maintaining a vegetative cover on cropland and holding nutrients within the root zone. This practice involves the planting and growing of cereal crops (non-harvested) with minimal disturbance of the surface soil. The crop is seeded directly into vegetative cover or crop residue with little disturbance of the surface soil. These crops capture or trap nitrogen in their tissues as they grow.

Annexes
Annex 1: Chemical Test Results of Row water at Angereb Treatment plant
(Source: Gondar city water supply and sewerage office) Name of Result Time Date chemical mg/l
Magnisum Hard ness Sulphate Sulphide Ammonia Amminum Nitrite 20 6.9 5 0.07 0.8 0.02 0.08 160 copper 0.05 Hydrogen per oxyede 0 Iron 0.2 Ammonia 0.04 Silica 3.2 Calcium hardness 81 Magnesium hardness 21 Hardness 102 0.09 Sulphate 6l Sulphide 0.09 Nitrate 0.337 Nitrate 0.007 Aluminium 160 copper 0.46 Hydrogen per oxyede 0 Iron 0.31 Silica 17.1 Calcium 49 copper Total 0.6 Shulphate 0.08 Shulphide 0.13 Amonia (Ammonia 0.02 Silica 13.21 Nitrite 0.008 Sulphate 5 Sulpide 0.01 Sulpnate 9 9:40 9:40 8:40 8:40 10:25 10:25 7:35 5:00 5:00 11:05 11:05 10:40 11:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 9:30 7:50 7:50 11:35 11:30 4:20 4:20 4:40 4:40 10:30 9:40 3:05 5:00 5:00 5:10 8:50 10:40 10:30 10:30 12:05 7/7/2000 7/7/2000 8/7/2000 8/7/2000 10/7/2000 10/7/2000 12/7/2000 14/7/2000 14/07/2000 15/07/2000 15/07/2000 17/07/2000 19/07/2000 21/07/2000 21/07/2000 21/07/2000 22/7/2000 24/07/2000 24/07/2000 26/06/2000 30/06/2000 1/7/2000 1/7/2000 3/7/2000 3/7/2000 5/7/2000 7/7/2000 14/06/2000 16/06/2000 16/06/2000 17/06/2000 19/06/2000 23/06/2000 24/06/2000 24/06/2000 9/6/2000

Name of chemical
Sulpnide

Result mg/l

Time Date

0.03 12:05 9/6/2000 15.45 9:00 10/6/2000 Silica 0.003 8:40 10/6/2000 Ammenia 0.33 8:40 10/6/2000 Alummnium 0 4:10 12/6/2000 Nitrite 0.08 4:10 12/6/2000 0.095 4:10 12/6/2000 Nitrite 134 3:05 14/06/2000 T.Alkalinity 129 7:00 2/6/2000 Copper FREE 0.91 6:00 3/6/2000 PH(Alcalinity 0.04 6:00 3/6/2000 Copper 0.1 6:00 3/6/2000 Hydrogen per oxyede 15 9:00 5/6/2000 Iron 15 8:00 7/6/2000 Silica 68 8:00 7/6/2000 Magesium 95 8:30 21/5/2000 Hrdeness 0 1:15 23/6/2000 Hrdeness 0 4:55 25/6/2000 Nitirite Nitrogen 0.06 4:55 25/6/2000 Sulphate 169 8:00 26/5/2000 Sulphide 0.34 7:30 28/5/2000 Nitrate 0.03 7:30 28/5/2000 Alminium 0 6:00 30/05/200 Ammonia 0.089 9:30 12/5/2000 Nitrite Nitrogen 121 4:40 14/5/2000 Nitrate 0.6 4:40 14/5/2000 PH(Alcalinity) 0.11 5:00 16/5/2000 Copper 0.13 3:40 17/5/2000 Hydrogen per oxyede 7.11 6:10 19/5/2000 Aluminum 79 8:30 21/5/2000 Silica 16 8:30 21/5/2000 Calcium 65 9:00 7/5/2000 Magesium 22 9:00 7/5/2000 Calicium 87 9:00 7/5/2000 Magesium 0 6:10 9/5/2000

Name of chemical
Hard ness Sulphate Sulphide Alumunium Amonia Nitrite Ammoniad Alminium Nitrite Allcalaine Copper Iron Silica

Result mg/l
0.01 0.06 0 0.009 0.01 0.15 0.003 287 0.28 0.34 19 81 20 101 0.009

Time Date
6:10 10:10 10:10 9:30 7:00 7:00 7:40 11:00 10:00 10:00 11:00 6:15 6:15 6:15 8:15 11:30 11:30 8:30 5:00 5:00 9:30 9:30 9:30 11:00 11:20 12:10 10:00 10:00 10:50 10:50 10:10 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:40 10:40 5:00 6:30 6:30 9/5/2000 11/5/2000 11/5/2000 12/5/2000 28/4/2000 28/4/2000 30/4/2000 2/4/2000 4/5/2000 4/5/2000 5/5/2000 21/4/2000 21/4/2000 21/4/2000 23/4/2000 25/4/2000 25/4/2000 27/4/2000 11/4/2000 11/4/2000 16/4/2000 16/4/2000 16/4/2000 20/4/2000 30/3/2000 2/3/2000 4/4/2000 4/4/2000 5/4/2000 5/4/2000 9/4/2000 21/3/2000 21/3/2000 21/3/2000 25/3/2000 25/3/2000 27/3/2000 28/3/2000 28/3/2000

Name of Result chemical mg/l

Time Date
30/3/2000 2/3/2000 4/4/2000 4/4/2000 5/4/2000 5/4/2000 9/4/2000 13/3/2000 14/3/2000 16/3/2000 16/3/2000 18/3/2000 18/3/2000 20/3/2000 21/3/2000 7/3/2000 7/3/2000 7/3/2000 9/3/2000 9/3/2000 11/3/2000 11/3/2000 13/3/2000 29/2/2000 30/2/2000 30/2/2000 30/2/2000 4/3/2000 4/3/2000 6/3/2000 20/2/2000 20/2/2000 20/2/2000 22/2/2000 23/2/2000 23/2/2000 25/2/2000 27/2/2000 27/2/2000

Calcium hardness Magesium 0l Total Hardness0.06l Nitrite 0.107 Sulpide 0.2 Nitrate 0.11 Aluminium 0.48 Silica 0.38 Nitate 0.01 0.47 Nitrite 0.002 Hydrogen per oxyede0.91 Iron 0.05 NH4 Ammonia 1.1 Alminium 19.9 26.5 Nitrate 0.02 Copper 71 Alcaline 131 101 copper Total 0 Silica 0.04 Sulphide 0.11 Sulphate 0.02 Magesium Hardness 0.37

Hard ness 0.002 11:20 Nitrate 0.91 12:10 Sulpha as So4 0.05 10:00 Sulphide as S 1.5 10:00 Nitrate 19.9 10:50 26.5 10:50 Ammonia 0.02 10:10 Almmunim 0.007 6:10 Nitrate 0.01 8:15 Copper 103 8:00 Alcaline 0.7 8:00 Copper Free 0.09 2:00 copper Total 0.15 2:00 Silica 39 9:00 Sulphid 60 10:30 Sulphate 84 11:30 Nitrate 55 11:30 Ammonia 139 11:30 PH(Alcalinity 11 9:00 Cooper 0.04 9:00 Iron Mras Fe 0 3:00 Hydrogen per oxyede 3:00 0.19 Silica 0.069 6:10 Calcium hardness0.19 1:10 Calcium hardness 0.002 4:40 0.026 4:40 Magesium Hardness 10:20 0.806 Sulphate 0 1:35 Sulphide 0.07 1:35 Ammonia 25 5:00 Almunium 67.2 1:30 Nitrate 77 1:30 Almunium 144.25 1:30 Nitrite 0.005 2:00 Nitrate 0.05 10:50 Allcalaine 5 10:50 Nitrite 0.115 11:20 Iron as Free 0.02 2:00 0.04 2:00

Name of chemical

Result mg/l

Date Time
2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 11:00 11:00 9:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 10:20 10:20 9:00 10:15 10:15 10:15 10:15 1:50 1:50 7:45 7:45 8:10 8:10 11:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 1:20 3:10 5:30 5:30 11:00 11:00 4:05 5:50 5:50 5:50 10:10 23/2/2000 23/2/2000 15/2/2000 15/2/2000 16/2/2000 16/2/2000 18/2/2000 4/2/2000 6/2/2000 6/2/2000 6/2/2000 8/2/2000 9/2/2000 9/2/2000 11/2/2000 25/1/2000 27/1/2000 27/1/2000 28/1/2000 1/2/2000 1/2/2000 2/2/2000 2/2/2000 15/5/2000 15/5/2000 12/1/2000 20/1/2000 20/1/2000 20/1/2000 22/1/2000 24/1/2000 1/1/2000 1/1/2000 3/1/2000 3/1/2000 4/1/2000 6/1/2000 6/1/2000 6/1/2000

Name of Result chemical mg/l

Time Date

Silica 165 pati magnesium hardness 2.87 Calcium hardness 0 Toal hardness 1.16 Nitrite Nitrogen 0 0.04 Sulphide 19.05 Sulphate 68 Nitrate 88 Ammonia Nitrogen as 150 N Nitrite 5 Total Alkalinity0.01l as Cooper as Cu 0.4 Iron 0.109 Hydirogen per oxide0.397 0.519 Ammonia 0 Silica 0.006 Silica 110 Calcium hardness 0.23 Magesium Hardness 0.09 Total Hardness 0.23 Sulphate 0.17 Ammonia 0.06 Almunium 29.3 Nitrate 43 Nitrate 9 Ammonia 52 Almunium 0 Nitrite Nitrogen 5l RH 2.03 Cooper Free 70 Hydirogen per oxide 0.03 Iron 0.11 Iron(MR) 55 Hydirogen per oxide 31 Silica 5 Calcium hardness 36 0.19

Magesium 0.23 5:30 5/13/1999 Hardness total 0 5:30 28/12/99 Nitrite Nitrogen as N 7:15 28/12/99 0.01 Sulpate 0 11:30 30/12/99 Copper 49 3:30 2/13/1999 Calcium hardness 13.65 10:45 5/13/1999 Calcium hardness 26 8:40 19/12/99 Magesium 24 8:40 21/12/99 Hardness 50 8:40 21/12/99 64 8:40 21/12/99 0.005 7:15 21/12/99 0.002 7:15 21/12/99 Aluminium 0.009 7:15 21/12/99 Aluminium 81 8:30 23/12/99 Ammonia 0.02 8:30 25/12/99 Nitrite 0.946 10:40 25/12/99 Amonia Nitrogen 0.707 8:30 26/12/99 Calcium hardness 0.005 8:30 12/12/1999 Silica 1.44 4:30 12/12/1999 28 4:30 14/12/99 Aluminium 0.04 4:45 14/12/99 0.32 4:45 16/12/99 Silica 0 8:00 16/12/99 Calcium 10.1 8:30 18/12/99 Magesium 35 7:45 5/12/1999 Hardness total 7 7:45 7/12/1999 Nitrite 42 7:45 7/12/1999 Sulphate 0.04 7:45 7/12/1999 Sulphide 53 7:45 7/12/1999 Nitrate 0.15 2:00 7/12/1999 Nitrate 0.02 2:00 11/12/1999 copper Total 73 1:30 23/11/99 Alkaphat (PH) 0.04 2:20 25/11/99 Hydrogen peroxid 44 8:30 30/11/99 Iron 1.53 8:30 2/12/1999 Amonia Nitrogen 0.09 8:10 2/12/1999 Silica 1.01 8:10 4/12/1999 Magesium 0.08 2:00 9/11/1999 Hardness 0.13l 2:00 11/11/1999

Name of chemical
Sulphate Almunium Ammonia Nitrite Sulphate Sulphide Nitrite PH (alkalinity) Copper Hydero per oxide Iron Sulphate Aluminium Ammonia Calcium hardness Sulphide Amonia Aluminium Alkalinity Sulphate Sulphide Hydrogen peroxide Magnsium Calcium Total Hardness Nitrate Copper Iron Amonia Nitrate Copper total Hydrogen peroxide Iron Silica Calcium hardness Magnisum Hardness total Sulphate Magnisum

Result mg/l

Date Time

Name of chemical
Calcium hardness Hardness Sulphate Sulphaid Nitrate

Result mg/l
0.17 28 67 81 0

Time Date
17/9/1999 17/9/1999 18/9/1999 20/9/1999 20/9/1999 20/9/1999 22/9/1999 24/9/2000 8/9/1999 8/9/1999 10/9/1999 10/9/1999 11/9/1999 11/9/1999 11/9/1999 15/9/1999 15/9/1999 1/9/1999 1/9/1999 3/9/1999 3/9/1999 4/9/1999 6/9/1999

0.005 8:30 13/11/99 0.2 2:00 13/11/99 0.32 3:50 18/11/99 0.006 8:00 21/11/99 0.02 5:10 27/10/99 101 6:00 30/10/99 0.69 6:00 2/11/1999 0.57 8:15 2/11/1999 0.04 10:45 4/11/1999 19.0l 10:45 6/11/1999 53 5:10 6/11/1999 0.03 8:00 7/11/1999 0.09 7:55 22/10/99 0.09 7:55 23/10/99 0.72 5:00 0.46 4:40 0.19 7:00 15/10/99 0.19 7:00 16/10/99 11 6:10 16/10/99 64 8:20 18/10/99 15 8:20 20/10/99 79 8:20 20/10/99 29 8:00 20/10/99 19 6:25 22/10/99 62 6:25 6/10/1999 15l 2:30 6/10/1999 0.04 2:30 8/10/1999 0.119 2:30 8/10/1999 0.001 8/10/1999 135 4:40 8/10/1999 0.08 8:00 15/10/99 0.102l 5:50 25/9/99 0.121 7:30 25/9/99 105 2:50 27/9/99 0.46 2:50 1/10/1999 0.192 10:00 1/10/1999 0.59 10:00 2/10/1999 9.5 8:10 2/10/1999 0.12 >> 4/10/1999

>> >> >> >> >> 11l >> nitrite 0 >> PH(total Alkalinty) 1 5.4 Allimunium 0.05 5.4 Nitrate as N 0 9.2 Nitrite Nitrogen 0.3 9.2 Phosphate 0.23 4.1 0.009 4.1 Copper 1.45 8.45 Hydrogen peroxide 1.15 8.45 Iron MR 135 8.1 Silica 0.22 8.1 hydrogene per oxide 1.16 2.2 iron 0.08 2.2 Silica 20 6.5 calicon hardness 82 6.2 Hardness (total) 51l 6.2 sulphate 49 6.2

Annex 2: Monthly and Annual Rainfall Data of Gondar Area

Months year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual R.F 1952 4.5 5.0 17.7 40.0 88.7 132.6 226.3 357.4 50.4 37.2 3.2 7.6 1195.3 1953 0.0 52.7 1.5 53.4 109.0 162.3 310.1 481.8 126.4 26.7 3.7 24.3 1351.9 1954 0.0 19.3 1.9 22.4 15.8 242.3 421.0 392.6 261.6 3.6 9.5 10.0 1400.0 1955 5.0 10.7 24.2 68.7 44.5 223.0 370.1 331.3 146.8 0.0 90.8 23.3 1338.4 1956 0.0 0.0 11.4 102.3 15.7 149.0 342.8 280.9 109.6 87.8 10.2 0.0 1109.7 1957 4.7 3.1 60.4 1.0 105.8 224.5 295.2 294.0 50.5 38.1 58.1 6.5 1141.9 1958 1.2 17.5 1.8 64.4 105.2 123.0 335.2 331.9 86.3 112.2 10.3 71.2 1260.2 1959 4.0 0.4 15.1 91.8 98.1 208.2 332.8 344.7 198.6 59.6 14.2 3.0 1370.5 1960 4.5 5.0 17.7 37.8 88.9 91.4 318.6 270.7 106.6 4.3 19.1 23.8 988.3 1964 4.5 0.0 10.0 15.0 176.4 247.0 548.7 560.4 153.0 83.2 13.0 11.2 1822.4 1965 14.0 0.0 23.4 19.3 17.8 94.3 351.1 301.6 43.6 122.3 27.3 13.5 1028.2 1966 6.5 5.0 12.8 10.8 118.3 103.1 218.4 237.2 96.6 103.0 35.6 0.0 947.3 1967 0.0 8.5 89.3 30.3 57.2 161.6 319.5 229.7 50.4 53.4 18.8 0.0 1018.7 1968 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 17.5 169.6 314.4 195.1 133.3 35.0 24.9 33.3 927.8 1969 4.3 12.5 88.8 72.4 42.0 90.2 324.8 268.5 70.8 40.0 3.8 0.0 1018.1 1970 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 36.6 116.7 285.5 148.8 142.0 97.5 0.0 4.4 838.1 1971 0.0 0.0 22.0 42.4 138.0 93.6 261.0 208.9 103.4 87.1 31.2 0.0 987.6 1972 18.0 1.5 0.9 39.2 48.0 212.7 255.5 258.4 163.0 40.4 84.6 0.0 1122.2 1973 0.0 0.0 11.9 63.5 160.0 103.7 400.7 377.5 147.1 99.8 43.7 0.0 1407.9 1974 17.0 6.8 0.5 0.5 219.7 175.6 429.6 304.0 230.8 39.3 2.2 11.2 1437.2 1975 26.9 12.3 1.0 18.8 61.3 308.9 468.0 295.7 118.7 5.6 43.8 38.6 1399.6 1976 0.0 4.6 30.7 106.7 160.1 255.8 385.5 307.0 132.7 27.2 39.4 5.0 1454.7 1977 0.0 0.0 18.6 2.2 143.0 142.1 267.0 351.8 86.1 72.6 36.6 36.3 1156.3 1978 3.9 0.0 23.6 43.6 57.9 118.9 243.8 274.0 198.8 26.8 26.6 10.7 1028.6 1979 3.8 2.6 0.0 21.3 108.7 122.5 194.5 368.1 74.1 93.6 0.0 0.0 989.2 1980 0.0 5.2 29.8 130.2 47.9 184.7 352.0 298.5 128.6 89.1 57.3 0.0 1323.3 1981 4.0 0.0 11.4 60.9 96.2 74.7 265.6 212.1 86.2 26.4 5.5 0.5 843.5 1982 14.6 0.0 20.3 21.8 41.9 50.6 214.2 218.2 70.3 36.4 23.5 0.0 711.8 1983 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 99.7 148.7 271.6 194.5 92.1 69.0 19.3 0.0 900.2 1984 0.0 0.0 4.6 7.0 92.9 214.3 264.1 238.3 151.5 13.2 25.1 21.7 1032.7 1985 0.0 0.0 56.4 62.2 89.8 80.3 287.7 337.2 92.8 61.5 4.4 16.0 1088.3 1986 0.0 0.0 6.9 29.6 10.5 159.0 283.5 269.4 85.7 79.3 2.2 3.2 929.3 1987 12.8 0.0 2.1 36.5 210.6 207.5 232.6 195.2 125.1 90.6 17.4 3.7 1134.1 1988 0.0 32.6 0.0 12.2 62.2 190.5 306.6 304.1 92.1 83.3 7.7 0.7 1092.0 1989 0.0 1.4 38.7 32.4 59.7 208.4 269.1 279.7 108.1 34.5 7.0 11.7 1050.7 1990 13.2 0.0 6.5 29.7 13.0 59.4 359.1 255.2 129.1 1.4 1.2 0.0 867.8 1992 0.0 0.0 2.7 51.7 80.7 86.8 249.5 218.2 117.6 79.6 11.9 23.6 922.3 1993 0.0 3.5 30.8 78.5 104.2 166.6 305.4 201.9 136.6 86.7 16.8 0.5 1131.5 1994 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.8 84.5 156.0 282.4 265.9 120.0 38.0 20.0 2.8 978.4 1995 0.0 0.0 34.5 23.9 99.3 105.9 283.0 307.1 91.8 11.9 0.9 19.8 978.1 1996 0.0 4.4 22.2 83.6 183.8 194.7 249.3 260.0 74.8 67.7 23.2 0.4 1164.1 1997 0.0 1.8 28.2 42.8 124.2 184.8 239.7 230.4 33.1 200.3 40.2 13.7 1139.2 1998 0.0 0.0 10.0 3.7 88.5 234.6 383.0 487.9 125.7 126.4 126.4 4.8 1591.0 1999 35.5 0.0 1.1 42.0 116.3 146.4 440.9 412.6 211.1 334.3 11.3 52.6 1804.1 2000 0.0 1.4 3.9 23.2 60.7 364.3 451.4 368.6 186.6 268.7 1.9 11.6 1742.3 Mean 4.5 4.9 17.7 39.2 88.9 162.0 315.8 296.2 118.7 71.0 23.9 11.6 1159.2 ETO 134.4 134.6 151.9 156.0 136.4 108.6 80.6 86.6 105.0 117.8 111.0 105.5 1/2ETO 67.2 67.3 76.0 78.0 68.2 54.3 40.3 43.3 52.5 58.9 55.5 52.8 P>1/2ETO 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 27.0 44.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 24.0 5.0 1.0 P>1/2ETO(%) 0.0 0.0 4.4 13.3 60.0 97.8 100.0 100.0 88.9 53.3 11.1 2.2

Annex 3: Summary of Hydrometric discharge data

SUMMARY OF HYDROMETRIC DISCHARGE DATA
Angereb River Nr. Gonder (Old Station) STATION:BASIN:- Blue Nile 76 DRAINAGE AREA, Km^2:Co-Ordinate:- 11d22'n 37d03'e

* I. MONTHLY RUNOFF IN MILLION M^3 Annual Total Runoff 11.921 15.543 44.430 85.830 42.281 32.052 48.255 17.518 57.151 36.282 23.813 34.892 62.042 371.020 192.774 5.051 23.430 335.506 366.552 250.640 456.723

YEAR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Average

* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

JAN 0.236 0.043 0.113 0.023 0.012 0.015 0.073 0.235 0.098 0.004 0.405 1.107 0.449 0.180 1.555 2.889 1.842 8.957 2.19 1.747 1.066 23.239 1.107

FEB MAR 0.088 0.019 0.761 0.032 0.048 0.087 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.119 0.008 0.027 0.023 0.137 0.084 0.041 0.045 0.002 0.001 0.227 0.200 0.761 0.516 0.296 0.262 0.078 0.073 0.664 0.669 1.114 0.648 2.704 1.304 5.677 4.852 1.271 1.147 1.203 0.339 15.224 0.725 10.312 0.491

APR 0.002 0.044 0.200 0.003 0.000 0.007 0.019 0.064 0.044 0.003 0.203 0.486 0.331 0.114 0.512 0.4 1.909 4.819 0.51 0.054 9.724 0.463

MAY 0.065 0.082 0.509 0.000 0.859 0.008 0.032 0.126 0.370 0.006 1.133 0.919 5.327 0.102 3.337 1.833 4.682 0.828 0.009 20.227 0.963

JUN 0.196 2.100 8.077 3.360 3.310 0.206 10.420 0.371 0.044 8.077 0.783 8.077 0.614 8.077 1.466 7.019 30.66 2.557 106.509 201.923 9.615

JUL 0.279 2.430 24.083 12.830 2.740 8.966 20.800 7.75 0.865 8.197 5.912 2.631 16.206 68.913 95.306 76.622 88.991 36.544 49.752 529.817 25.229

AUG 5.800 4.490 6.580 55.120 20.290 15.825 11.390 5.52 54.490 3.833 5.034 9.156 33.360 272.496 28.259 130.999 170.134 145.553 234.316 1212.645 57.745

SEP 4.480 3.050 3.330 11.770 13.760 5.117 3.440 2.871 0.862 10.528 3.633 8.560 3.961 12.747 24.43 51.596 20.456 39.248 51.599 275.438 13.116

OCT NOV 0.511 0.156 1.470 0.647 1.070 0.285 2.680 0.1.5 0.987 0.256 1.293 0.334 1.100 0.572 0.166 0.105 0.224 0.054 3.264 1.679 2.856 2.036 1.141 0.862 0.646 0.361 0.154 5.246 36.066 0.394 15.276 5.373 30.304 17.868 6.663 16.982 10.966 5.963 6.769 2.837 122.786 5.847 62.830 2.992

DEC 0.089 0.394 0.049 0.036 0.066 0.154 0.359 0.089 0.014 0.688 1.391 0.676 0.229 2.84 0.116 2.781 11.506 3.679 3.863 1.589 30.608 1.458

Monthly Mean 0.993 1.295 3.703 7.153 3.523 2.671 4.021 1.460 4.763 3.023 1.984 2.908 5.170 30.918 16.065 0.421 1.953 27.959 30.546 20.887 38.060

2513.707 119.700

209.476 9.975

Annex 4: Catchment Pollution Calculator: EMC to EXPORT converter

STEP HOW TO ADDING THE DETAIL AND MAKING THE CALCULATIONS

Enter the event mean concentration for your pollutant in the blue box (in mg/L)

EMC

146.83

mg/L

Enter the annual rainfall for the catchment or subcatchment in mm

Annual rainfall

1159

mm/yr

Enter the runoff co-efficient for the drainage area (this may be for a roof, road, sub-catchment or a whole catchment). This co-efficient can be calculated in a coarse way using the equation: Annual rainfall (mm) x drainage area (m2) Measured runoff (m3) x 1000

Runoff co-efficient

0.74

(unitless)

Enter the catchment area in hectares

Catchment area

9869.0

ha

View the result

Export Rate

1259.3

kg/ha/yr

Annex 5: KGHAYR EXPORT Calculator

ADDING THE DETAIL AND MAKING THE CALCULATIONS Catchment Area Forest Grazing Intensively_Cultivated Moderately Cultivated Scrub Shrub Sparsely_Cultivated Total 9869 % 7% 11% 34% 13% 10% 14% 11% 100% Forest ha ha

1059 754 3708 1130 1014 1258 946

9869 Grazing Intensively_Cultivated Moderately_Cultivated Scrub Shrub Sparsely_Cultivated kg/ha/yr 1448.4 1259.5 1259.5 1448.4 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 5.1 4.4 4.4 5.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 35.8 31.1 31.1 35.8 Magnesium Iron Calcium Ammonia Phosphate 1906.2 2118.0 2541.6 953.1 32934.9 1357.2 1508.0 1809.6 678.6 23449.4 7675.6 8528.4 10234.1 3837.8 132616.6 2339.1 2599.0 3118.8 1169.6 40414.5 1825.2 2028.0 2433.6 912.6 31535.4 2264.4 2516.0 3019.2 1132.2 39123.8 1958.2 2175.8 2611.0 979.1 33833.7 47,241 19,326 21,473 25,768 9,663 333,908

TDS Nitrite Nitrate Magnesium Iron Calcium Ammonia Phosphate Forest Grazing Intensively_Cultivated Moderately Cultivated Scrub Shrub Sparsely_Cultivated Total

1259.5 1259.5 1448.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.4 4.4 5.1 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 31.1 31.1 35.8 TDS Nitrite Nitrate 1333810.5 4236.0 4659.6 949663.0 3016.0 3317.6 5370759.9 17056.8 18762.5 1636720.3 5198.0 5717.8 1277133.0 4056.0 4461.6 1584451.0 5032.0 5535.2 1370210.1 4351.6 4786.8 13,522,748 42,946

References
Amhara Forestry Action Program, 1999. Amhara Bureau of Agriculture, Bahirdar Andrew Ford, 1999. Modeling the Environment An introduction to system Dynamics modeling of Environmental Systems. Island Press, Washington Dc. Deletic A. and Fletcher T.(Eds.), 2006. Understanding the interrelationships between stormwater quality and rainfall and runoff factors in residential catchments. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Urban Drainage Modeling and the Fourth International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design Melbourne, Australia.
EPA, 1985. A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water-Part I . United States Environmental Research ESRI, 1999-2006. Using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst , Redlands, USA ESRI, 2001-2002. Using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst . Redlands, USA Hadley, Doyle W. Stephens, and Steven J. Gerner, 2002. Water-Quality Assessment of the Great Salt Lake Basins, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, Environmental Setting and Study Design Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4115, Salt Lake City, Utah. Mankin, Kyle R, Wang, Shin-Hsien , Koelliker, James K, Huggins, Donald G, deNoyelles, Frank JUL., 2003 Watershed-lake water quality modeling: verification and application. USA Lucas L. F. Janssen and Gerrit C. Huurneman, 2001. Principles of Remote sensing an introductory text Book , ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands K. Sharma and R. R. Navalgund ,A. K. Pandey and K. K. Rao. 2003. Micro-watershed development plans using Remote Sensing and GIS for a part of Shetrunji river basin, Bhavnagar district, Gujarat Projo Danoedoro, 2006. Extracting Land-Use Information Related to Socio-Economic Function from Quickbird Imagery: A Case Study of Semarang Area, Indonesia, Centre for Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science (CRSSIS), the University of Queensland, Stlucia Australia Peter Morris, Riki Therivel (eds). 1995. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, Oxford Brooks University T.C. Dougherty, 1995. Environmental Impact Assessments of Irrigation and drainage projects, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 53, A.W. Hall HR Wallingford

Task Committee on Hydrology Handbook of Management Group D of the American Society of Civil Engineer, 1949. Hydrology Handbook, Second Edition, ASCE 345 East 47th street New York. Woldeamlak Bewket , 2003. Towards Integrated Watershed Management in Highland Ethiopia: The Chemoga watershed case study, Wagenigen University, Netherlands.

USAID AFR/SD Document, June 2001. Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa, 2nd Edition, TELLUS Institute, Resource and Environmental Strategies . U. Sunday Tim and Sumant Mallavaram. 2003. Application of GIS Technology in Watershed-based Management and Decision Making, Watershed update Vol. 1, No. 5. United States Environmental Protection Authority. 2001. Better Assessment Science Integrating point and Non point sources users manual, USA.
V.M Chowdary et.al. 2003. Remote sensing and GIS approach for watershed monitoring and Evaluation A case study in Orissa state, India, Paper presented at 22nd Asia conference in Remote sensing, Singapore. Thomas M. Lillesand and Ralph W. Kiefer; 1994.Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. third edition John Wiley & Sons, New York. Yongsheng, 2004. GIS Application in Watershed Management, Nature and Science, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University.