SOURCE in Myanmar
Ayeyarwady River Basin Surface Water Resources Assessment
Speakers: Juanita Moolman, Geoffrey Adams Where is it?
Area: Chindwin R. • 414 000 km2
Ayeyarwady R. Main rivers: • Ayeyarwady River • Chindwin River Why?
SOBA (World Bank)
1 – Surface water resources
2 – Groundwater & WISDM
3 – Geomorphology & Sediments
4 – Biodiversity & Fisheries
5 – Socio-economics
6 – Local Consultations
State of the Basin Assessment (SOBA) How?
• provide a preliminary Baseline Source model which can be used to facilitate the ongoing assessment of the Ayeyarwady Basin and scenario building to evaluate future options and implications • contribute to the credible, evidence base that SOBA is developing for the ARB planning process • facilitate an understanding of any gaps in data collection as required for effective model building • provide a description of the hydrology of the ARB according to 5 identified Hydro-Ecological Zones (HEZ) and 13 identified sub-basins, with a focus on water availability and water use in the ARB What does it look like?
Hydro-Ecological Zones • 5
Tributary Sub-Basins • 13 What does it look like?
Climate Rainfall Himalayas • monsoonal • snow melt • cyclones
Central Dry Zone
Delta Temperature / PET What does it look like?
Land use/Land cover – IWMI 2014 • SOURCE functional units What does it look like?
~ 300 storages What does it look like?
Irrigation
• 77 rainfed cropping functional units • 84 SOURCE irrigator nodes • 17 lumped storages Domestic
• 36 SOURCE time series demands 95 Sub-catchments: • 27 Major Storages • 10 HP, 11 IrrigWorks, 6 MP • 5 HEZs, 13 sub-basins • 9 discharge sites The SOURCE model
Excluding: • Delta The SOURCE model
Rainfall-runoff modelling: • GR4J • GR4JSG plugin • Agricultural Runoff • Irrigator as FU • OpenWaterRR plugin The SOURCE model
Water use modelling • Domestic extractions • Irrigation extractions Thapanseik Reservoir • Irrigator Water User node • Beneficial areas • ‘Other’ areas • Storages • Major storages (hydropower, irrigation works, multipurpose Mu River Sub-basin • Lumped notional storages The SOURCE model
Baseline: Current • 2014 land use • 2016 storages • 1981 – 2016 climate The SOURCE model
Calibration at Pyay • 8% volume bias The SOURCE model
Pyay 8% volume bias Magway 6% volume bias Sagaing -3% volume bias Myitkyina 3% volume bias Monywa 5% volume bias Hkamti -5% volume bias The SOURCE model
Challenges:
Data • Availability • Reliability
Operations The SOURCE model
Challenges:
• Discharge flow rates – 9 sites • Climate • Rainfall – 16 sites • PET – 1 site evaporation • Temperature – 15 sites (inc. flow sites) • Water use • crops • extractions • Storages • Catchment delineation The SOURCE model
Challenges: Rainfall (and Temperature) global data sets based on remote sensing • representative values • date range matching to observed (1986-2015)
• TRMM ~25km resolution – 1998-2013 • Princeton ~50km resolution – stops in 2012 • Watch Forcing data (EU) ~ Princeton res Aphrodite (stops 2007) • CHIRPS 5km res - (1981-2017) • Persianne The SOURCE model
Challenges: Rainfall at Hkamti The SOURCE model
Challenges: Rainfall Bias Error
CHIRPS APHRODITE Princeton PERSIANNE WATCH Site (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Ayartaw 54% -17% 245% 142% 292% Bhamo -2% -23% -2% 10% -9% Gangaw 33% -27% 84% 81% 143% Hinthada -7% -14% 16% 5% 25% Hkamti -26% -32% -52% -35% -55% Katha -2% -22% 16% 42% 8% Magway 0% -27% 206% 66% 222% Mandalay -6% -35% 33% 59% 50% Mawlaik -2% -17% 9% 34% 11% Minbu 13% -18% 247% 87% 265% Monywa 20% -17% 117% 131% 196% Myitkyina -4% -24% -13% 0% -14% Nyaung_Oo 31% -26% 257% 137% 297% Pakokku 26% -30% 205% 139% 268% Pyay -4% -17% 107% 44% 139% Sagaing 0% -36% 58% 71% 60% Ywatha 57% 3% 93% 129% 74% Overall 1% -23% 47% 36% 59% The SOURCE model
Challenges: Temperature – snowmelt and PET • Princeton • Watch
• 1981 – 2012
PET • Hargreaves method – only needs min and max temperature The SOURCE model
Challenges: Discharge flow rates – 9 sites
Five lines of evidence support problems with at least some historical recorded flow data: • The river in the Central Dry Zone should gain flow from groundwater (Len Drury per. Comm. June 2017), therefore flow at the downstream gauge should exceed the sum of the flows at the upstream gauges • The AWP Activity 1 investigation into the reliability of rating curves in the ARB – Katha and Nyaung U • Different ratings were developed for some gauges at different times • The apparent reduction in minimum dry season flow rates with time, especially at Sagaing ,which is more likely due to changes in rating curve (flow rate versus stage relationship) than a real reduction in flow rates • The reduction in recorded annual flows over time at Sagaing, compared with modelled. The next relatively reliable gauge downstream, Magway, shows no such trend to reducing annual flows The SOURCE model
Challenges: Discharge flow rates – 9 sites
Five lines of evidence support problems with at least some historical recorded flow data: • The river in the Central Dry Zone should gain flow from groundwater (Len Drury per. Comm. June 2017), therefore flow at the downstream gauge should exceed the sum of the flows at the upstream gauges • The AWP Activity 1 investigation into the reliability of rating curves in the ARB • The apparent reduction in minimum dry season flow rates with time, especially at Sagaing ,which is more likely due to changes in rating curve (flow rate versus stage relationship) than a real reduction in flow rates • The reduction in recorded annual flows over time at Sagaing, compared with modelled. The next relatively reliable gauge downstream, Magway, shows no such trend to reducing annual flows The SOURCE model
Challenges: Discharge flow rates – 9 sites
Five lines of evidence support problems with at least some historical recorded flow data: • The river in the Central Dry Zone should gain flow from groundwater (Len Drury per. Comm. June 2017), therefore flow at the downstream gauge should exceed the sum of the flows at the upstream gauges • The AWP Activity 1 investigation into the reliability of rating curves in the ARB – Katha and Nyaung U • Different ratings were developed for some gauges at different times
• The apparent reduction in minimum dry season flow rates with time, especially at Sagaing ,which is more likely due to changes in rating curve (flow rate versus stage relationship) than a real reduction in flow rates The SOURCE model
Challenges:
• Water use – agricultural and domestic • crop type Thapanseik Reservoir • cropping pattern • cropping areas • (FAO 2000! Agricultural Atlas) • extraction sources
Mu River Sub-basin The SOURCE model
Challenges:
• Storages Google Earth • location Thapanseik Reservoir • volume, area • operations!
Mu River Sub-basin The SOURCE model
Some outputs:
Rainfall
2000 2000 The SOURCE model
Some results: Seasons • Onset and duration of the wet season The SOURCE model
Some results: • Where does the flow come from? The SOURCE model
Some results: • Which are the most impacted sub-basins? The SOURCE model
Some results: • Which are the most impacted sub-basins?
40 38 23 8 9 5 The SOURCE model
Some results: Water balance – whole basin The SOURCE model
Some results: Water balance – Mu River sub-basin
Thapanseik Reservoir
Mu River Sub-basin The SOURCE model
Some results: Mu River sub-basin – patterns of use
Thapanseik Reservoir
Mu River Sub-basin The SOURCE model
Key findings:
• Stressed Sub-Basins • Data gaps • operational rules • return efficiencies • Monitoring recommendations • Data storage recommendations Understanding surface water resources in the Ayeyarwady River Basin
Thank You Example text
Statement one Statement two • Point 1 • Point 1.1 • Point 1.1.1 • Point 2 Do not reduce this text size (24pt) – use additional slides under the same heading. Keep text above footer graphics.
Hyperlink (preferably 22pt) eWater logos for use