ODMP Stakeholder Workshop Report Hydrological Model

OKAVANGO DELTA MANAGEMENT PLAN
HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES
Maximum Depth of Overland Flow
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
11th February 2005
PROCEEDINGS
Hydrology and Water Resources Okavango Delta Management Plan
List of Contents
1 BACKGROUND
2 PROGRAMME
3 PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Introductions
3.2 Integrated Hydrologic Model
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 Conceptual Model
3.2.3 Evapotranspiration
3.2.4 Surface Waters
3.2.5 SubSurface Waters
3.2.6 Outputs
4 SCENARIOS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Hydrologic Inputs
4.3 Presentation of Results
4.4 Baseline
4.5 Upstream Water Resources Developments
4.5.1 Introduction
4.5.2 Dams in Angola
4.5.3 Irrigation
4.6 Abstractions from Delta
4.7 Climate Change
4.8 Management Planning
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Database Management
5.4 Scenarios
5.6 Stakeholders’ Responses
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary
6.2 Recommendations
Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page i

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Hydrology and Water Resources is one of the twelve components comprising the
Okavango Delta Management Plan project. The project and the component
commenced in May 2003.
The development objective of the Okavango Delta Management Plan is integrated
resource management for the Okavango Delta that will ensure its long term
conservation, and that will provide benefits for the present and future well-being of the
people, through sustainable use of its natural resources.
In line with this development objective, the immediate objectives for the Hydrology
and Water Resources component are improved water resources planning, and
monitoring and evaluation in the Okavango Delta, based on an enhanced capacity of
the Department of Water Affairs. Corresponding to these objectives, the outputs of
the component are:
(1) A comprehensive quality controlled database comprising existing climatic,
hydrologic, surface water, ground water and sediment data for the
Okavango Delta.
(2) Recommendations on the improvement and expansion of the Okavango
Delta monitoring network.
(3) A digital Topographic Model of the delta.
(4) An Integrated Hydrologic Model for the delta.
(5) The analyses of the impacts of water resources scenarios for the Okavango
Delta Management Plan.
(6) Capability within DWA to maintain and operate the Integrated Hydrologic
Model for the establishment and implementation of the ODMP.
While all aspects of the component were discussed, the Workshop focussed on
outputs (4) and (5), the Integrated Hydrologic Model and its application to impacts of
water resources developments in the delta and the basin upstream, with comments
and discussion on the model and the format of the presentation of the outputs.
1.2 Objective
The Hydrology and Water Resources workshop was convened to:
• Inform project partner institutions and the community about the role of
the integrated hydrologic model in management planning
• Afford the project partner institutions and the community the
opportunity to comment on the outputs of the model and to suggest
ways in which the outputs or result can be made usable by them
• Afford the project partner institutions and the community the
opportunity to suggest management scenarios relevant to their
respective institutions
• Ensure that this component is community driven or encompasses the
views of the majority of the stakeholders from the beginning
• Guarantee ownership, commitment and sustainability of the project
• Minimise risk during implementation of entire management planning
Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 1

1.3 Programme
The programme for the one day Workshop is presented in Annex 1. The first session
covered the background to the establishment and the implementation of the
component in DWA, the recommendations for improved hydrologic monitoring in the
delta and their pending implementation and data collection and management.
This was followed by a description of the Integrated Hydrologic Modelling system, and
its set up to represent the hydrology of the Okavango Delta. The next four
presentations covered the application of the model to represent existing
developments in the delta and the basin upstream, and hydrologic conditions as they
would be in the delta given the implementation of a range of potential water resources
developments. Each presentation was followed by a discussion session.
The team implementing the component comprises DWA staff, and national and
international consultants. An important output from the component is capacity
building in DWA, to maintain and operate the Integrated Hydrologic Model. This
entails technology transfer from the consultants to the DWA staff. The technology
transfer is carried out in a three pronged approach:
• A series of formal training courses in DWA Gaborone on the main
elements of integrated hydrologic modelling
• On-the-job training, whereby the DWA staff learn by doing, setting up
and applying the model under the guidance and supervision of the
consultants
• Overseas training, most likely MSc courses in recognised international
hydrologic institutions
DWA has assigned four permanent staff members to work full time on ODMP. As
part of the technology transfer process, each of these four staff presented an aspect
of the model application in the Workshop.
The presentation of the model and its application was followed by an open discussion
by the participants. Each sector was given a slot to allow the representatives to voice
their particular comments.
The model results at this stage are preliminary, and the focus was more on are the
hydrologic and water resources development data appropriate, and is the
presentation format of the results meaningful and useful to the respective ODMP
sectors, in the context of the Okavango Delta Management Plan.
1.4 Participation
The list of participants is given in Annex 2. Despite an early dispatch of invitation
letters in advance to representatives of the different components, it became apparent
that most components were not represented at the workshop. Most notable
absences were from the technically oriented components such as Sustainable
Livestock Management, Vegetation Resources Management, Waste Management,
etc.
Of the components that were present it appeared that these representatives were not
familiar with the project or are not dealing with the project on a daily basis judging
from their contribution to the discussions on the role of the Hydrology and Water
Resources component. It appears that project partner institutions still have a
combined workload of their routine work and new duties related to ODMP. This
added responsibility is somewhat too great and affects the ability of project officers to
deliver efficiently and effectively.

Each component should identify a suitable person to act as a focal point for liaison
with the Hydrology and Water Resources component, and this person should attend
future such workshops and meetings.

2. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 Introductions
Selected slides from those employed in the respective presentations are included in
Annex 3, and illustrate the text of the presentations in the following sections.
The introductory presentations covered the component background, implementation,
data collection and processing, and monitoring proposals. As such they generated
limited discussion. One suggestion was that as most of the stakeholders were from
sectors other than water, a glossary should be included to cover the use of technical
terms.

2.2.1 Introduction
The Introduction to the Integrated Hydrologic Model set out the approach to
mathematical modelling in the context of the hydrology of the delta. The key flow
processes above, in and below the delta are shown in slide 1. Given the critical
linkages among the atmospheric, surface and ground waters, it is necessary to
develop an Integrated Hydrological Model, which integrates the essential physical
phenomena controlling the delta. As such the model requires a basis in physical
processes, as opposed to a conceptual model which has an idealised representation.
It is not the intention to set up a detailed model. The available data do not justify this,
and the project resources are not available. The model will be somewhat schematic,
but nonetheless capable of describing the essential processes, such as the overall
flow pattern among the distributaries, flooding and drainage of seasonal swamp
areas. The model will not be capable of predicting the small scale vegetation and
morphological changes which appear to have a significant impact on the overall flow
pattern.
Water and its distribution in space and time is the fundamental physical basis for
management of the ecosystem. Management criteria for the delta could include:
• Maintain present flood extent and duration
• Maintain current pattern of flows through the delta
• Minimise adverse impacts on any part of the interconnected hydrological
system
The distinct environments and key hydrologic phenomena were presented illustrating
the complex interactions among the atmospheric, surface and subsurface
components of the wetland.
In order to have a realistic representation of these key phenomena and their
interactions, and to make quantitative prediction of the potential effects of changes in
water use, it is necessary to employ an Integrated Hydrologic Model. The system
selected is MIKE SHE, developed by DHI Water and Environment, Denmark. The
generic system (the software can be applied to any hydrologic system) is marketed
commercially, and is applied to hundreds of catchments and wetlands worldwide.
The key features of the software package are (slide 2):
• Physically based, with a realistic representation of the hydrologic
phenomena based on the laws of physics

• Simulates all significant processes in the land phase of the hydrologic

cycle
• Full dynamic integration of atmospheric, surface and subsurface waters
• Highly structured graphical user interface, for setting up the model,
checking the validity of the input data, running the application and
viewing the results
• Linked to GIS for the assimilation and presentation of data and results
• May be applied at the scale of river basins, individual catchments,
wetlands, irrigation schemes, ground water well fields and individual
cultivated fields
The Integrated Hydrologic Model provides a closed distributed water balance and flow
model. All water movements are fully accounted. The model simulates the existing
hydrologic state of the delta, and the potential state under possible future water
resources developments.
The following sections briefly describe the key functions of the model with respect to
evapotranspiration, surface water flows, subsurface flows and their interactions.
2.2.2 Conceptual Model

A conceptual model is developed to assess the major flow processes, introduce
assumptions to assist the mathematical description of the flow process, and to
address the key management planning issues.
The model development priorities are, in order:
(1) Flood Extent – the model should simulate the extent of permanently and
temporarily flooded areas of the delta. This will be compared against 20
years of delta flooding assessed by remote sensing.
(2) Water Balance – the model should simulate the total water balance
including all losses within the delta, and discharges through the river
network. These will be evaluated against measured rates of
evapotranspiration and river discharges.
(3) Water Levels – the model should simulate water levels observed at
gauges throughout the delta.
2.2.3 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration from the open water and vegetation in the delta is key to
describing the water balance. Of the main inflows to the delta, river flows from the
basin upstream and rainfall over the delta, upwards of 95% is lost to
evapotranspiration, the remainder infiltrating to ground water and downstream surface
water outflows.
The greater the inflows and the corresponding extent of flooding in any one year, the
greater the losses to the atmosphere. The rate of evapotranspiration is crucial to the
water balance and the extent of flooding. The model uses a soil-vegetation-
atmosphere transfer (SVAT) mechanism to describe the process.
The SVAT component comprises a two layer soil-canopy system linked by a network
of resistances. This enables representation of the latent and sensible heat flux
between the soil, the canopy and the atmosphere based on humidity and temperature
gradients controlled by aerodynamic and stomata resistances, and atmospheric
conditions. The model distinguishes losses from open water, the soil and the
vegetation, and thus has a dynamic coupling with the surface and subsurface waters

(slide 3). The vegetation dynamics are based on remotely sensed data with limited
ground verification (see slides 4 and 5). The relationship between the extent of
surface water and the rate of evapotranspiration is shown for the normally and
seasonally flooded areas in slide 6.
2.2.4 Surface Waters

The surface water flows are dependent on the topography of the delta, which has
been described by a digital elevation model of the Ramsar area with a 30m resolution
based on aerial radar altimetry and remote sensing, and a limited number of channel
cross sections available at gauging stations and surveyed by researchers.
The key characteristics of the delta are the numerous bifurcations or defluences (as
opposed to confluences), extensive spills to the flood plains and swamps and
hydraulic connections among the spill areas, and slow flood wave propagation
(around four months from upstream to downstream) with a high variation in the extent
of flooding (slide 7).
The surface waters of the delta are described by a full hydrodynamic representation
of the flows in the main rivers and channels, and by a distributed kinematic
representation of the flows over the flood plains and through the swamps. The
descriptions are fully coupled (slide 8), and enable the representation of the
essentially one dimensional flows through the channels giving definition to the flow,
and the spreading and distributed storage over the flood plain (slide 9).
2.2.5 SubSurface Waters

Infiltration rates are significant on the predominantly sandy soils in the early stages of
the flood season. The infiltration raises the ground water levels, up to the flood water
level. This increases the water available to plants, which in turn increases
transpiration from the leaf surfaces to the atmosphere (slide 10).
An essential component is the inclusion of the critical unsaturated root zone, the zone
from which plants draw water and transpire to the atmosphere. Together with
evaporation from open water, this is represents the main loss of water in the delta.
The evapotranspiration component simulates both the hydrologic and vegetation
dynamics (slide 11).
The ground water component is important to account for the local effects of ground
water on the water balance, ie recharge and discharge, and evapotranspiration
losses. Only the surficial ground water aquifer is represented (slide 12).
Detailed ground water studies show infiltration and recharge of fresh water lenses
embedded in older saline ground water. Given the low topographical relief, limited
ground water flow is directed towards local depressions (slide 13). Model water
balance tests indicate that there is no significant ground water flow from the delta, nor
are there data to support such flow hypotheses. Consequently, there is no flow
across the subsurface model boundary.
2.2.6 Outputs
The outputs from the model are designed to support broad based management
planning in the Okavango Delta. The outputs are presented in grid or map format
showing the spatial variation in the parameters over the delta, time series (plots of
various parameters against time) and summary tables of results. The outputs may be
summarised as:
• The actual evaporation from open water and the transpiration from
vegetation

• Surface water levels and flows through the rivers and over the flooded
swamp areas, and the extent of flooding
• The moisture content of the soil
• The ground water levels and flows
• The overall water balance, including inflows, outflows and changes in
surface and subsurface storage, for the delta and selected areas of the
delta
• Sediment transport along the main channels of the delta, showing
patterns of erosion and deposition
The Integrated Hydrologic Model does have practical certain limitations, and it is
important that these are recognised by the stakeholders and management planners.
Channel Switching
While the model can predict the impact of cutting and dredging a new channel
through the delta, and the impact of closing an existing channel through the
encroachment of vegetation, it is not able to predict the occurrence of the formation of
new channels, and the realignment of existing channels, which may be initiated by the
movement patterns of large mammals and vegetation growth.
Certain trends in sedimentation and channel development and decay may be
predicted by the application of sediment transport to the model. Work on this area
has just commenced. Detailed analyses of selected reaches and areas of the delta
may be carried out through the application of two dimensional morphological models.
This is beyond the scope of the present component activities.
Level of Detail and Accuracy

While the technology exists to simulate the hydrologic behaviour of the delta at a high
level of detail (previous applications have been made at the level of individual
cultivated fields), this is constrained by:
• The resources available to the component do not permit the
development of submodels which could enable the study of a particular
area of the delta below the present one square kilometre resolution
• The available data do not justify high expectations on the level of
accuracy with respect to absolute water levels and quantities.
Recommendations have been made for improved data collection and
management which when available could justify further model
development.
The key issue at this stage is that the Integrated Hydrologic Model represents the
essential hydrologic phenomena in an integrated manner, such that it may be applied
with confidence to the assessment of the impacts of future water resources
developments on the delta hydrology for the purposes of the management plan.
Physical Phenomena
The model simulates physical hydrological phenomena only. Studies have revealed
in particular the importance of the interdependency of physical and biological
phenomena, for example the movement of large mammals opening new flow paths
through the vegetation, sedimentation and vegetation in closing existing channels.

Hydrologic Output
The hydrologic model is integrated in the sense that it integrates atmospheric, surface
and ground waters. It does not integrate the various sectors of the management plan.
The output of the model describes the dynamics of the waters of the delta, under
present conditions and under future water resources development scenarios. It does
not describe the impact on wildlife, vegetation, livestock, fisheries, tourism, etc.
Impacts on and management criteria for these sectors have to be assessed by their
respective plan components, based on the outputs of the levels and flow patterns
presented by the Hydrology and Water Resources component.
2.3 Scenarios
2.3.1 Introduction
The ODMP Integrated Hydrologic Model has been run to simulate present
development conditions in the delta, and development conditions as they may be
given a range of water resources development scenarios in the delta and the basin
upstream:
• Upstream water resources developments: dams and irrigation
schemes in Angola and Namibia
• Surface and ground water abstractions from the delta
• Regional climate changes
These scenarios represent possible conditions in the basin, notionally in the year
2025. Each scenario is compared against the present conditions which serve as a
baseline.
The development states are considered static. It would be possible to represent a
dynamic basin condition, as populations and corresponding abstractions increase and
water resources developments are implemented year on year. This is not considered
as it would introduce complications regarding the coincidence of development with
hydrologic events, and the impacts would be more difficult to assess. For example,
the completion of a dam before a sequence of dry years would have a very different
impact if a wet period followed completion.
2.3.2 Hydrologic Inputs

While the existing conditions and the scenario conditions may represent static
development states in the basin, the basin is hydrologically dynamic, with variations in
the rainfall, surface inflows and outflows, and storage changes both seasonally within
one year, and over several annual cycles.
In order to analyse the impact of the scenarios, representative hydrological input data
have to be selected. Criteria for selection are set out as follows:
• Real data should be used as opposed to synthetic data – in processing
synthetic data, information is lost and false information may be
introduced.
• The data should reflect critical ie dry conditions in the delta.
• Sequences of critical years are more important than a single critical dry
year.
• The data should be recent to represent the existing conditions for
baseline comparison.

• The data should reflect how the delta may recover in a period of
normal inflows after a dry period.
The long term inflow in terms of volume per annum from 1933 to date is shown in
slide 14 for both Mukwe in Namibia and Mohembo in Botswana. Whereas at Mukwe
the river is more or less confined to the gauged channel, at Mohembo the river has
broadened out with a wide flood plain. It is not possible to gauge the flows over the
flood plain, and Mohembo will not represent the total discharge. This is most clearly
evinced in the high flow years 1998/99 and 2000/01.
An anomaly appears in the data from around 1950 to 1980, where the total inflow at
Mohembo appears higher than Mukwe. As there is no significant inflow to the river
between the two gauges, this can only be explained by gauging errors. The series
after 1980 is more consistent, with Mukwe showing a higher inflow than Mohembo.
The period from 1992 to 1997 represents the sequence of the five lowest inflow
years, and is therefore chosen to provide the input data to analyse the impacts under
critical conditions, for both the existing state and possible future states with water
resources developments.
The following five year period, from 1997 to 2002 represents relatively normal
hydrologic conditions in the delta, and has been used to assess how the delta may
recover after a sequence of dry years (see slide 15).
A high inflow period could also be selected, eg 1987 to 1992, to assess the impacts
under high inflow conditions. It is not planned to analyse this period as:
• The conditions will not be critical to a management planning exercise
• The number of impacts which have to be assessed in terms of flows,
depths, etc will be further increased
Appropriate time series of inputs (inflows, precipitation, etc) have been prepared and
applied to the existing state of the delta. The model results are used as a baseline
against which future developments are assessed for their impacts. The inputs are
modified to represent conditions which may prevail under future conditions.
To summarise, while the inflows to the delta will be dynamic, ranging over two five
year periods representing critical dry and normal average hydrologic conditions, the
existing and future states will be static. This implies that for the duration of the five
year model run period, the population for instance will not be increasing, no new
dams or irrigation schemes are built, etc.
At present, the Baseline and Scenario Conditions have been simulated for the critical
dry hydrologic input period from October 1992 to October 1997. Summary results are
presented and discussed in the following sections. Slides illustrating the outputs are
presented in Annex 3.
2.3.3 Presentation of Results

In order to assist the stakeholders assess the outputs and their implications for their
particular sectors, a common format for the presentation is adopted. The resolution
of the model in space is one kilometre, and in time four hours. In order to limit the
size of the output files, the results are output with a temporal resolution of one week
for surface flows and the unsaturated zone, while the slower responding ground water
results are output every two months of the five year period.
For the purpose of presenting summary data, the delta is divided into five zones
according to the probability of flooding, as assessed from 15 years of satellite images
(source J McCarthy, Stockholm University), with the Panhandle treated as a fifth

separate zone (slide 16). The probability, delta area and a zone description are given
in the table.
Model Area (km2) 28,782 Description
Zone 1 - 0.1>FP>0 19,322 rarely flooded

Zone 2 - 0.5>FP>0.1 3,534 occasionally flooded
Zone 3 - 0.9>FP>0.5 2,328 seasonally flooded
Zone 4 - 1>FP>0.9 2,152 normally flooded
Zone 5 - Panhandle 1,446 Panhandle
(1) Animated sequence of flooding in the delta showing the monthly variation in
flooded area and depth. (The AVI format file is available from DWA, size
around 110Mb.)
(2) Map based on the one kilometre grid showing the minimum depth of water
in the delta for the five dry years.
(3) Time series showing the variation in the depth of flooding over the five year
period. The depth is averaged for each of five zones (see table).
(4) Map based on the one kilometre grid showing the minimum level of soil
moisture in the root zone (the zone from which plants draw water) in the
delta over the five dry years.
(5) Map based on the one kilometre grid showing the maximum depth to
ground water in the delta over the five dry years.
(6) Summary tables are prepared showing the following:
• Water balance showing inflows, outflows and storage changes
• Baseline conditions and impacts for the surface water, soil
moisture and ground water, for the entire delta and for each of
the five zones
A wide range of outputs of all hydrologic parameters in various formats is possible,
and can be tailored to the needs of the individual stakeholders. It is possible also to
select different zones to calculate average time series and summary results. The
above selection has been made by the component as samples of what may be useful
and meaningful to the stakeholders, and to generate discussion.
2.4 Baseline
Surface Water
The animated depth of flow sequence (slide 17) shows the expansion and contraction
of the flooded area and depth as the sequence of flood waves for each of the five
years propagates through the Panhandle and spreads out through the delta. Slide 18
shows the detail for the lower envelope of flooding for the upper delta. Each square
is one square kilometre.
Time series of the depth of surface water are shown for each of the five zones in slide
19. The Panhandle is the first area affected by the flood wave from upstream and,
being relatively confined within a flood plain around 20km wide, has the maximum
range from the seasonal wet to dry periods, around 0.6m through the five dry years.
As the flood wave propagates through the delta, the range in water levels declines.

The accumulated impact of the drought years is also felt more as there is a general
decline in the flood depth.
As the summary table (slide 20) shows, the area flooded ranges from 1,513km2 to
12,077km2, while the depth ranges from 0 to around 5m. The average depth in the
normally flooded area ranges from 0.11m to 0.92m.
SubSurface Water
The distribution of the soil moisture content is shown as a deficit below saturated
level, as the lower envelope (maximum deficit) for the five year period in slide 21.
The average deficit ranges from 0.56m in the rarely flooded area, to 0.12m in the
normally flooded area.
The depth to ground water over the delta area is shown for the lower envelope
(maximum depth) over the five year period in slide 22. The depth ranges from an
average of 1.88m in the rarely flooded area to 0.37m in the normally flooded area.
Water Balance
The overall water balance for the Baseline and Scenarios is shown in slide 23.
Negative values indicate an inflow to the delta (eg precipitation and river inflow), while
positive values indicate an outflow (eg evapotranspiration and river outflows). The
Total should be zero: the small value indicates a very minor continuity error. The
negative overland and subsurface storage changes indicate a decline in storage in
these levels.
2.5 Upstream Water Resources Developments

2.5.1 Introduction
To date, no significant water resources developments have taken place upstream in
Angola and Namibia. In the past, plans have been made for the construction of dams
for irrigation and hydropower. Anticipating that these plans may be revived, the
WERRD project has run a number of scenarios using a modified rainfall-runoff model
of the basin (Pitman model, Rhodes University), including a scenario for all planned
dams.
A number of sources describes potential irrigation in the upstream basin, in Angola
and Namibia. These have been reviewed, and a potential scenario compiled based
on:
• Irrigation demand based on 15,000m3/ha/a with a 25% return flow
• Irrigated area in Angola: 54,500ha; in Namibia: 7,500ha
• Angola grows vegetables in winter (June to October); Namibia grows
maize in summer (December to April)
The corresponding runoff from the upstream basin has been applied under two
scenarios: Dams in Angola and Irrigation, as inflow to the delta upstream. The two
potential developments are kept separate for the purpose of initial appraisal, in order
that the impact from each can be identified. This will assist in minimising the adverse
impacts from these developments.
2.5.2 Dams in Angola

The impact of the previously planned hydropower dams in Angola on the inflow to the
delta is presented in slide 24. Hydropower development does not consume water,
but stores water in the flood period for release in the dry period. This results in a

redistribution of the natural hydrograph: flood flows are reduced while dry season
flows are increased. (The impact appears only to be significant in 1993 and 1996 –
this needs further investigation.)
The impact of the dams on the surface and subsurface waters of the delta is minimal,
given the limited apparent impact in three out of the five dry years, and the fact that
there is no nett water loss in the basin upstream.
2.5.3 Irrigation
The impact of the potential irrigation scenario on the inflow to the delta is shown in
slide 25. The impact is greatest in the dry period, when water is withdrawn for the
relatively large area of winter crops in Angola. The summer withdrawals for irrigation
in Namibia are significantly less.
Correspondingly, the impact on the delta in the flood period is minimal, while in the
dry period the overland depth of flow is reduced, particularly in the Panhandle and
normally flooded areas, and the minimum flood extent is reduced by 660km2, or 40%
of the present dry period area (slide 26).
2.6 Abstractions from Delta

Water for largely local domestic use is abstracted from both the surface and ground
waters of the delta. The surface water abstractions are based on water rights issued
by DWA (ie the amount which may legitimately be withdrawn – actual withdrawals are
not monitored, and may be greater or less than allowed). Ground water abstractions
are based on the demands projected from historic information to the present day.
In terms of the inflows to the delta (river flows from the basin upstream and
precipitation over the basin, the abstractions and corresponding impacts are minimal.
Surface water abstraction represents 0.006% of the inflow, and ground water 0.2%.
In the five dry years analysed, the minimum flooded area is reduced by 0.25%.
Future scenario runs will simulate the impact of abstractions with projected increased
population and rates of consumption to the notional year 2025.
2.7 Climate Change

Potential climate change will have an impact on the delta in respect of inflows from
the basin upstream, and the climate over the delta. The WERRD project has run a
global climate model HadCM31 to predict the changed precipitation and temperature
over the basin. For the upstream basin, the Pitman rainfall-runoff model has been
applied to predict the modified inflows upstream of the delta (slide 27). The modified
precipitation and temperature over the delta have been used as direct inputs to the
Integrated Hydrologic Model (slide 28).
The impact of the climate change scenario is highly significant, in both the flood and
dry seasons. River inflows to the delta are reduced by 38%, and precipitation over
the delta by 9%. Temperature increases by 2.2ºC.
The corresponding impact on flow depths is shown on the reduced depths: the impact
on the minimum depths is shown for the Panhandle and normally flooded areas in
slide 29, and in each of the five zones through the five year run period in slide 30.
The reduction in depth averages 0.03m over the entire delta, and the minimum
flooded area is almost halved.
1
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/HadCM3.html

2.8 Management Planning

The model analyses are carried out to assess the impacts of possible future basin
conditions on the delta for the purposes of management planning. An iterative
process is envisaged with a series of bilateral meetings with the Stakeholders, and
common Workshops, in which the inputs and outputs are presented to and discussed
with the stakeholders. The outputs can migrate towards a presentation format that is
both meaningful and relevant to the stakeholders.
The Hydrology and Water Resources component will only analyse the impacts on the
waters of the delta. DWA and its consultants do not have the capability or the
resources to analyse the impacts on the wildlife, vegetation, livestock, fisheries or
tourists. It is up to these respective sectors to assess these impacts based on the
changed delta hydrology.

3. DISCUSSION
3.1 Introduction
The following sections record the comments made on the foregoing presentations,
and the responses given by the hydrology team (in italics).
3.2 Database Management

(1) What is lithology? Remember that as much as you are speaking to experts,
you are also speaking to non-experts.
The point is well taken. A glossary will be prepared to explain technical
terms.
(2) The presentations are too fast and we need details of the graphs, for
example.
This point is also noted: presentations should emphasise important points.
Selected slides from the Workshop are included in Annex 3, and a full
report is being prepared of both the Integrated Hydrologic Model and the
preliminary scenario analysis. These should be studied by the
stakeholders in advance of further (bilateral) discussions.
(3) Is there a slide to show locations of critical rainfall and flow stations so that
we could appreciate all the difficulties encountered? We would appreciate
much if we could have locations of all your data sources.
The locations of the existing and proposed gauging stations is available in
DWA in GIS format. The key source for this and information from other
sectors and stakeholders will be the Okavango Delta Information System,
implemented in HOORC.

(1) I like your conceptual model, but what is applicable in Europe may not
necessarily be applicable here also.
The conceptual model is fundamental to the development of a numerical
model. The conceptual model is strictly formulated for the Okavango Delta
based on available data and scientific publications on the subject. The
conceptual model has no relation to European or other climatic conditions.
(2) Your evapotranspiration rates are higher than those from Class A pan when
actually the reverse should be true. This should be looked into.
Actual rates of evapotranspiration (ET) are not necessarily lower than pan
evaporation owing to a number of factors including: pan correction method,
combined free surface ET and vegetation transpiration in flood plains, and
actual location in the delta versus the location of pan measurements. If
new documented field data on ET losses are available the hydrology team
would be happy compare these to model simulations.
(3) Is there any physical evidence of flooding?
The assessment of the observed flood extent has been based mainly on an
analysis of satellite images from 1984 to 2000 (J McCarthy, Stockholm
University), and DWA water level observations.
(4) How do you parameterize your flow in respect to flow resistance?

The Manning resistance coefficient is used to describe the resistance to

flow in the river channels and over the flood plains. Values for overland
flow are distributed according to three vegetation zones based on
vegetation mapping (S Ringrose, HOORC). Values in the river channels
are ascribed based on channel vegetation descriptions (Dr CK Naidu,
DWA). Adjustments are made to give a good match with observed flood
extent, overall water balance and downstream discharges.
(5) Your climate input data comprise rainfall, evapotranspiration, etc from
Maun and Shakawe. To what extent can one use a physically based model
with such a coarse resolution? Could we conclude that this is an empirical
model?
MIKE SHE is a physically based model, which implies that the model
parameters have a clear physical interpretation as opposed to lumped
conceptual models. Data measured in single locations may be used to
assign parameter values, but the parameters used at the current grid scale
of 1km2 should be regarded as ‘efficient’ parameters representing the
aggregated response.
The lack of input data on distributed rainfall or any other model input does
not imply that the MIKE SHE model is empirical. Maun and Shakawe are
the only two stations in and adjacent to the delta with reliable data. The
delta is not a conventional catchment area where the runoff from individual
subcatchments is essential to arrive at the combined flow in the
mainstream. Overland flows mix the runoff from the subcatchments, and
evapotranspiration dominates. Thus a high resolution of the rainfall data is
not of major importance in a general flow model of the delta. Nonetheless,
recommendations for improved monitoring include rehabilitation of the eight
DCPs which measure rainfall, and the installation of an additional eight
automatic gauges in the delta.
(6) Our confidence on the model cannot be based on your numbers.
This particular comment was based on relatively consistent outflows for the
Baseline and Scenarios. This was owing to the nature of the downstream
boundary condition, which has since been improved and now shows a
variation.
The flow leaving the delta (and the model) has passed through an
extremely complex hydrologic system: flood propagation, flow splits among
distributaries, spills to vast flood plains and swamps, evapotranspiration
and infiltration. The measurement of the discharge upstream is subject to
errors of at least 10% (say 50m3/s at the flood peak). Differences between
the model computations and the observations cannot better this.
(7) What resolution should we have confidence on as it pertains to your
model?
Given the complexity of the area and the available data model results
should not be interpreted looking at single grid values. Interpretation based
on delta zones or subsystems is more appropriate. Five zones based on
flood probability have been applied in the scenario demonstration runs, and
others may be devised according to stakeholders’ needs. The minimum
area should cover several square kilometres.

3.4 Scenarios
(1) You have run the scenarios based on dry period(s). Could you please
revise this? You might be missing out on recharge to groundwater as a
result of high floods. A single high flood could recharge an aquifer for the
next twenty years, for example.
It is the intention to run the model for a period of normal flows, to see how
the delta recovers from a drought. As suggested, the model will also be run
for high floods (this is also important for sediment transport in the delta.)
(2) In taking the dry period as critical, you have to consider floods as also
critical. Floods need to be covered as well.
The delta is not under stress during high flow periods, and the impacts of
water resources developments will not be so keenly felt and therefore not
critical to management planning. See also response to (1) above.
(3) People are more worried about the switching of channels. Maybe this
aspect needs to come out in your model outputs as well.
The introduction of sediment transport to the model (which has just
commenced) will give an indication of possible future switches, and
redistribution of delta flows. Switching and realignment of channels has a
chaotic component (the butterfly effect on global climate is akin to a
hippopotamus going walkabout in the delta), and accurate predictions are
simply not possible.
(4) Looking at the model’s level of resolution, critical management issues will
not be answered.
The component has been conceived and ToR written (in 2001/02) to
address the broad scale management planning issues (water resources
developments upstream, climate change, abstractions from the delta, reed
cutting and dredging). On this basis the model approach has been set out,
and the model set up and applied. Preliminary applications suggest that
the main threats to the delta will arise from upstream irrigation and climate
change. These are the critical management issues related to hydrology.
(5) Channel blockages impacts need to be covered in detail. Channel switching
is another fundamental management issue.
The model can simulate the impact of channel blockages and channel
switching. As discussed in (3) above the model cannot predict these
occurrences.
(6) You mentioned that your model could handle sediment transport. Do you
have something on sediment transport now?
An approach to introducing sediment transport to the model has been
drafted (pending report on the Integrated Hydrologic Model).
(7) You seem not to be representing your conditions.
See response to (6) above.

(1) You can’t have a reduction of flow by 40% and yet have no impact on the
outflow. This gives me the confidence of your model.
See response to (4) above.

(2) The difference in long-term average discharge between observed and

simulations should not be taken to be insignificant. This should be
combined with other scenarios to better appreciate its impact.
It is important in the preliminary stage to separate the impacts from
individual water resources developments to obtain a good understanding of
which are critical, and which are not. A limited number of combination
scenarios may be run at a later stage, once these can be defined and
agreed by the management planners and stakeholders.
(3) It would be good to combine all the scenarios as well
See (2) above.
(4) It would be interesting, also, to look at frequency and duration of flooding
The impact on the duration of flooding can be assessed through the time
series plots for different zones. An estimate can also be made on the
impact of the scenarios on the frequency of flooding.
(5) What is the model doing as it pertains to erosion and sedimentation?
Sediment transport is being introduced to the model. This will enable the
assessment of the broad pattern of erosion and deposition through the
main river channels, along which the bed load is conveyed from the basin
upstream.
(6) The issue of land use change has to be incorporated into the model.
To introduce the impact of land use changes in the basin upstream requires
the application of a water resources planning model to the upstream basin.
This is not within the present scope of ODMP, which is relying on the
outputs of basinwide projects such as Sharing Water and WERRD (both
completed), and possibly in the future TwinBas (ongoing). If ODMP
partners suggest particular potential land use changes within the delta
which have an impact on the hydrology, these may be simulated using the
Integrated Hydrologic Model.
(7) The presentations have mostly been technical. I would like to suggest that
we make handouts available after the workshop so that the participants
could have ample time to go over them and later submit their suggestions,
comments and /or questions.
This document represents a full report on the proceedings. Further
comments from ODMP partners are welcome, that our further work may
more closely meet the needs of delta management planning. Further
discussions will be held with the stakeholders on the ongoing model
applications, possibly on a bilateral basis to obtain a closer understanding
of particular needs and ways to meet these needs.
3.6 Stakeholders’ Responses

Wildlife
(1) We need drying flood plain map to better track movement of wild animals
The drying and wetting of the flood plains was presented as animated
sequences in the Workshop for all scenarios, with a monthly time step. A
finer temporal resolution can be prepared (down to four hours), though the
spatial resolution is limited to one kilometre squares.

(2) We would appreciate information on correlations between the distribution of

elephants population and extent of flooding close to the buffalo fence.
The H&WR component can provide information on the waters of the delta.
It is up to the individual partners to analyse this information for their own
needs. The H&WR component cannot be expected to carry out all the
analyses for the management plan.
The integration of information from all ODMP components will be carried
out within the Okavango Delta Information System, implemented in
HOORC (also with support from Danida).
Fisheries
(1) Water quality is very critical as this have impact on fish population
dynamics. Sedimentation is also critical as it has a bearing on fish
populations.
Sedimentation is indeed critical to fish populations, as fine organic rich
sediment is washed out from the flood plain into the channels by the flood
waters, resulting in oxygen depletion.
The MIKE SHE integrated hydrologic modelling system has the capability to
simulate water quality. This is not within the present scope of ODMP.
Systematic data (including DO and SOD) do not exist at present on which
to develop such a model. Improved monitoring recommendations include
the introduction of systematic sampling and analysis at the key inflow
station of Mohembo, and monthly in-situ measurements of salinity and pH
at around 20 discharge stations throughout the delta.
Water Affairs
(1) Is MIKE SHE an instrument or what?
MIKE SHE is one of a suite of water and environmental software packages
developed and marketed commercially by DHI Water and Environment.
The MIKE SHE package is the most advanced generic (can be applied to
any system) hydrologic software available. MIKE SHE has a consistent
development history over thirty years, and has been applied to hundreds of
hydrologic systems worldwide.
(2) Can the model predict channel shifts?
The sediment transport model will predict erosion and deposition leading to
channel aggradation and eventual closure. The delta morphology is
inherently unstable and chaotic, and no model can predict channel
abandonment with higher certainty than what is constrained by natural
variability (chaos). Nonetheless, the impact of major channel shifts can be
predicted, as well as possible management measures to mitigate such
shifts.
(3) Mr Dikgomo mentioned that Hydrology and Water Resources component is
one of the twelve. What are the other eleven components?
The CTA may best respond to this question, though it is suggested that
representatives from participating organisations take the trouble to inform
themselves of the ODMP structure, objectives and outputs before attending
such fora.

Land Board
(1) Is it possible for the model to give us depth of water table within at least
500 metres from the delta? This can help us with land use. This will also
help us determine how far we can avoid pollution in land allocations.
The spatial resolution of the model is one square kilometre. The model can
give the various hydrologic parameters such a depth to ground water within
the general area (within a few square kilometres). This should be quite
adequate for the purpose of broad based management planning.
(2) Can the model add value to Tawana land board land use and management
plan (2004-2029)?
The Hydrology and Water Resources component is concerned with
hydrology and water resources. The outputs from the component are
hydrologic data and predictions for the delta. It is up to the various sectors
and components of the management plan to assess the impact of these
hydrologic parameters for their own purposes. The H&WR component can
assist in the interpretation of the hydrologic data.
Tourism
(1) There are lodges and camps located close to the river channels. Can the
model be able to help on the implications of pollution?
The model can simulate the pattern of flow in the delta, which may give a
useful indication of the movement of pollution, though not the output which
may be given by a water quality model (advection, dispersion, decay, etc).
General
(1) This component (Hydrology and Water Resources) is so detached from the
rest. It should relocate to Maun.
The component is located in Gaborone as the capital has better
infrastructure. Progress on the component would be constrained by the
limited infrastructure in Maun.
(2) To what extent is your data real time series that it could be relied upon?
The data available from the delta at present are poor, largely owing to
difficulties in access, and disturbance of gauging stations by humans and
large mammalian wildlife. Lack of systematic use of the data to date have
also contributed to neglect. Improved monitoring is necessary for
management planning, and an improved hydrologic model with finer
resolution and greater accuracy. Recommendations have been prepared
for DWA to improve hydrologic monitoring, and it is hoped these can be
implemented in the course of 2005.
(3) The presentations are too technical. When will ODMP reach out to us?
Someone mentioned that communication and or/ information dissemination
is a problem. Why cant we find other Batswana who could do the job to
convey the information in an audience screened and targeted way?
The hydrology of the delta is complex, and requires a complex model for a
realistic simulation of the processes. The presentations were intended to
give all participants an understanding that the model is indeed capable of
simulating the key hydrologic phenomena of the delta. It is hoped that this
has been achieved, though it is recognised that the depth of understanding

will depend upon the level of the individual participant’s hydrologic

knowledge.
The DWA staff assigned to ODMP will gradually take over presentations in
such fora, as part of the process of technology transfer which is an
essential part of the component.
Lessons have been learnt from this Workshop. A second and possibly third
Workshop will be planned, along with bilateral meetings with the individual
Stakeholders, hopefully improving the communication to the diverse
participants (see Conclusions).
(4) Communications and networking is lagging behind but its pro-activeness is
so crucial. The component would simplify information and relay it to
community and/or stakeholders.
The H&WR component looks forward to this component being activated,
and to cooperating with the Communications and Networking component in
presenting results of the hydrologic analyses meaningful to all.

4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Summary
Prof Francis Sefe from the consultants’ team summarised the Workshop discussion
as follows:
(1) There were discussions on both spatial and temporal resolutions of the
model, which need clarification.
(2) It was observed that data quality and availability is a constraint to accurate
modelling of the hydrology of the delta, and providing physical evidence to
back the model conclusions.
(3) In the selection of scenarios, it is critical to understand that the individual
scenarios are not stand alone.
(4) The choice of what constitutes the baseline scenario was discussed. It has
to be emphasised that the inclusion of exceptional floods is also important
and hence not only the dry period should be used.
(5) The presentation was multifaceted.
(6) People could not easily locate any landmark features on the map. This
need not be. Villages could be labelled, and even the rivers themselves.
(7) Though water quality is not in the scope of the current modelling, water
quality is very important and this has to be looked into in the future.
(8) Ground water fluctuations at the periphery of the delta need to be looked
into.
(9) Various stakeholders have difficulty interpreting the results. This is a critical
issue that needs to be addressed. The target audience should reasonably
be able to assimilate the information relayed to them.
4.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made with regard to the future interaction
between the Hydrology and Water Resources component and the other ODMP
participants.
(1) While the introductions to the set up and application of the Integrated
Hydrologic Model attempted to convey the complexity of the delta
hydrology and its computer based representation, further effort needs to be
made to present the model and its results in a manner which is fully
comprehensible to the Stakeholders, most of whom do not have in depth
hydrologic knowledge.
(2) It was originally believed that presentation of the model to Stakeholders in a
combined forum would allow the interchange of ideas and knowledge
among the Stakeholders as well as with the Hydrology and Water
Resources component. The resulting discussion tended to be dominated
by those with technical hydrologic knowledge at the expense of those
without. The next round of discussions should be on a bilateral basis, such
that the discussions can proceed at a level appropriate for the individual
Stakeholders, and their needs in respect of hydrology and water resources.

(3) Each ODMP component should identify a suitable person to act as a focal
point for liaison with the Hydrology and Water Resources component. This
person would attend all future meetings and Workshops aimed at
integrating hydrology into ODMP, thereby providing continuity to the
process.
(4) The Data Management component of ODMP implemented in HOORC is
crucial to integrating and interpreting information among the partners. A
member of the Data Management component should also be involved in
discussions to demonstrate how this can be realised in practice.

ANNEX 1
PRESENTATION OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

COMPONENT TO ODMP STAKEHOLDERS
11th February 2005
Time Presentation Presenter

9.00 to 9.20 Background and Implementation Ontlogetse Dikgomo
9.20 to 9.50 Improved Hydrologic Monitoring Ontlogetse Dikgomo
9.50 to 10.10 Introduction to Integrated Hydrologic Model Alasdair Macdonald
10.10 to 10.30 Coffee break
10.30 to 11.00 Data Management Kobamelo Dikgola
11.00 to 11.40 Integrated Hydrologic Model Torsten Jacobsen
11.40 to 12.10 Introduction to Scenarios Alasdair Macdonald
12.10 to 12.40 Upstream Water Resources Developments Ontlogetse Dikgomo
12.40 to 13.40 Lunch
13.40 to 14.10 Surface and Ground Water Abstractions Benjamin Mafa
14.10 to 14.30 Climate Change Ditiro Moalafhi
14.30 to 14.45 Tea break
14.45 to 15.00 Discussion on Scenarios and Presentation of

Results - Wildlife
Results - Vegetation
Results - Agriculture
Results – Fisheries
Results – Tourism
Results - General
16.30 to 17.00 Summary and Concluding Remarks Francis Sefe

ANNEX 2
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Name Surname Organisation Address Telephone E-mail
Eliot Taylor ODMP-CTA P.O.Box 35 Maun 6801035 Eliot.taylor@iucn.org

Sekgowa Motsumi ODMP P.O.Box 35 Maun 6801237
Hannelore Bendsen HOORC P/Bag 285 Maun 6861833 hbendsen@orc.ub.bw
Felicity Rabolo Department of P.O.Box 439 6860492 frabolo@hotmail.com
Tourism Maun
Shimane Mongati Tawana Land P.O.Box 134 6860292 mongati@yahoo.co.uk
Board Maun
Jonathan Diedricks DANIDA P.O.Box 11439 +271244309350 jondie@um.dk
Hatfield, Pretoria.
RSA.
Tapson Bombo DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452 tbombo@gov.bw
Clifford Libalamwe DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Uziruapi Hange DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Saleshando Tsheko DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Banyatsang Dinyando DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Kago Salepito DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Cecilia Molosi DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Ntshwarang Matsuntsube DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Kelemogile Moncho DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Kebuseditswe Shimwe DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Babinang Majatsie DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452

Keletso Kgosana DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452

Karaere Tjiparoro DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Chandrasekar Kurugundla DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Amogelang Tebape DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Ompoetse Chere DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Goitebetswe Pharatlhatlhe DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452
Olebeng Balapi DWA P.O.Box 131 6874029 obalapi@gov.bw
Gumare
Bonatla Tsholofelo KCS-ERP P/Bag BO 50 6862352 coordinator@kcs.org.bw
Maun
Khawulani Ale Bachobeli DWNP- P.O.Box 11 Maun 6860275 lekkerkose@hotmail.com
Research
Margaret Joan McFarlane ODMP/Bosele P.O.Box 66 Maun 6862349 mcf@dynabyte.bw
Maxwell Kebuelemang MZCDT P.O.Box 21637 6800010
Maun
Geoffrey Manja MZCDT P.O.Box 21637 6800010
Maun
Constance Masalila ODMP/HOORC P/Bag 285 Maun 6861833 cmasalila@orc.ub.bw
Piotr Wolski HOORC P/Bag 285 Maun 6861833 pwolski@orc.ub.bw
Benjamin Mafa DWA P/Bag 0029 3952241 bmafa@gov.bw
Gaborone
Kobamelo Dikgola DWA P/Bag 0029 3952241 kdikgola@gov.bw
Gaborone
Ditiro Moalafhi DWA P/Bag 0029 3952241 dmoalafhi@gov.bw
Gaborone

Alasdair Macdonald DWA P/Bag 0029 3952241 amacdonald@gov.bw

Gaborone
Ontlogetse Dikgomo DWA P/Bag 0029 3952241 odikgomo@gov.bw
Gaborone
Mompoloki Pitlagano DWNP P.O.Box 11 Maun 6860275
Letty Regonamanye NWDC P/Bag 001 Maun 6861729 letties@hotmail.com
Thethela Bokhutlo Fisheries P.O.Box 70 Maun 6860262 tbokzone@yahoo.com
Dominic Mazvimavi HOORC P/Bag 285 Maun 6861833 dmazvimavi@orc.ub.bw
Francis Sefe EHES P.O.Box 20502 3952652 ehes@botsnet.bw
Gaborone
Pete Hancock Birdlife P.O.Box 20463 6862481 pete@info.bw
Botswana Maun
Hans Enggrob DHI Agern Alle 5, +4545169127 hge@dhi.dk
2970 Horsholm
DENMARK
Nathalie Barbancho Conservation P/Bag 132 Maun 6860017 nbarbancho@conservation.org
International
Nlisi Chillie Mothusi Conservation P/Bag 132 Maun 6860017 nmothusi@conservation.org
International
Kesefilwe Thomologo Okavango P.O.Box 5 6876851 oct@info.bw
Conservation Seronga
Trust
Nthakeng Ramotswetla Tribal P.O.Box 25 Maun 6862238
Administration

ANNEX 3
SELECTED PRESENTATION SLIDES
1 Key Flow Processes in Delta

2 Key Features of MIKE SHE Software Package
3 Evapotranspiration Mechanism
4 Distributed Vegetation Parameters
5 Vegetation Density from Remote Sensing
6 Extent of Surface Water and Rate of Evapotranspiration
7 Characteristics of Surface Water Flows
8 River Channel – Flood Plain Coupling
9 Two Dimensional Flood Pattern
10 Ground Water Dynamics
11 Soil Types in Unsaturated Zone
12 Unsaturated Zone and Ground Water
13 Saturated Zone
14 Upstream Inflows (70 years)
15 Upstream Inflows (1992 to 2002)
16 Delta Zones
17 Baseline Overland Flow
18 Baseline Overland Flow (detail)
19 Baseline Depth Time Series
20 Flooded Areas
21 Baseline Soil Moisture
22 Baseline Ground Water Depth
23 Water Balance
24 Dams in Angola – Inflows
25 Irrigation Upstream – Inflows
26 Irrigation Upstream – Impact on Depth of Overland Flow
27 Climate Change – Inflows
28 Climate Change – Temperature and Precipitation
29 Climate Change – Impact on Depth of Overland Flow
30 Climate Change – Impact on Depth of Overland Flow – Time Series
CLICK HERE TO VIEW SLIDES

(then click Full Screen Slide Show button in bottom right hand corner)

ODMP Stakeholder Workshop Report Hydrological Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ODMP Stakeholder Workshop Report Hydrological Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OKAVANGO DELTA MANAGEMENT PLAN

HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

Maximum Depth of Overland Flow

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page i

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 1

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 2

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 3

2. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION

2.2 Integrated Hydrologic Model

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 4

• Simulates all significant processes in the land phase of the hydrologic

2.2.2 Conceptual Model

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 5

2.2.4 Surface Waters

2.2.5 SubSurface Waters

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 6

Level of Detail and Accuracy

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 7

2.3.2 Hydrologic Inputs

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 8

2.3.3 Presentation of Results

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 9

Model Area (km2) 28,782 Description

Zone 1 - 0.1>FP>0 19,322 rarely flooded

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 10

2.5 Upstream Water Resources Developments

2.5.2 Dams in Angola

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 11

2.6 Abstractions from Delta

2.7 Climate Change

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 12

2.8 Management Planning

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 13

3.2 Database Management

3.3 Integrated Hydrologic Model

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 14

The Manning resistance coefficient is used to describe the resistance to

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 15

3.5 Presentation of Results

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 16

(2) The difference in long-term average discharge between observed and

3.6 Stakeholders’ Responses

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 17

(2) We would appreciate information on correlations between the distribution of

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 18

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 19

will depend upon the level of the individual participant’s hydrologic

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 20

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 21

Hydrology and Water Resources Workshop No 1 page 22

PRESENTATION OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

11th February 2005

Time Presentation Presenter

9.20 to 9.50 Improved Hydrologic Monitoring Ontlogetse Dikgomo

9.50 to 10.10 Introduction to Integrated Hydrologic Model Alasdair Macdonald

10.10 to 10.30 Coffee break

10.30 to 11.00 Data Management Kobamelo Dikgola

11.00 to 11.40 Integrated Hydrologic Model Torsten Jacobsen

11.40 to 12.10 Introduction to Scenarios Alasdair Macdonald

12.10 to 12.40 Upstream Water Resources Developments Ontlogetse Dikgomo

12.40 to 13.40 Lunch

13.40 to 14.10 Surface and Ground Water Abstractions Benjamin Mafa

14.10 to 14.30 Climate Change Ditiro Moalafhi