Report AIDECO Version

ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS
Imi NTizghte
Agricultural project irrigation and boar fences
Stephen Ollier and Clare Wilding 1/1/2008 December 2008
Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco
December 2008
Contents
1.0 2.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Lifestyle and Agriculture in Anbdour and Imi NTizghte ................................................................... 5
3.0 Soil testing ............................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Introduction to soil surveys ................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Factors affecting Soil Fertility, Erosion and Desertification ................................................................ 8 3.3 Methodology Used............................................................................................................................ 10 3.4 Results Obtained ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.5 Analysis of Results and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 11 4.0 Irrigation System ................................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Indroduction ..................................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Khettara ............................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2.1 History ........................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2.2 Existing Khettara in Imi NTizghte .............................................................................................. 15 4.2.3 Problems with Khettara 1 .......................................................................................................... 16 4.2.4 Khettara Remediation Options .................................................................................................. 17 4.2.6 Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Seguia and Water Tanks.................................................................................................................... 19 4.3.1 Existing Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 19 4.3.2 Problems with existing Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 20 4.3.3 Remediation Options ................................................................................................................. 21 4.3.4 Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 22 4.3.5 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Clothes washing area ........................................................................................................................ 22 4.4.1 Existing usage and problems...................................................................................................... 22 4.4.2 Remediation options .................................................................................................................. 23 4.4.3 Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 24 4.4.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 24 4.5 Earth Channels (Earth Seguia)........................................................................................................... 24 4.5.1 Existing Infrastructure and the problems .................................................................................. 24 4.5.2 Problems with existing infrastructure........................................................................................ 25 4.5.3 Options for re-lining channels.................................................................................................... 25 2
December 2008
4.5.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 26 4.6 Field Application ............................................................................................................................... 27 4.6.1 Existing Operation Strategy ....................................................................................................... 27 4.6.2 Crop requirements and Irrigation Efficiency .............................................................................. 27 4.6.3 What is the potential?................................................................................................................ 28 4.6.4 A note on Drip by Drip irrigation................................................................................................ 28 4.6.5 Summary table, costs and Recommendations........................................................................... 29 5.0 Boar Fence ...................................................................................................................................... 30
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 30 5.2 Initial design considerations and materials ...................................................................................... 31 6.0 Crops ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 Different crop types a critique with respect to Imi nTizghte .............................................................. 38 6.1 Existing Crops .................................................................................................................................... 38 6.2 New crops ......................................................................................................................................... 38 6.3 Future outlook .................................................................................................................................. 40 7.0 Final Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 41 8.0 Project 2009 EWB in Imi nTizghte ..................................................................................................... 42 References .................................................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix A: Leaflet, invitation and poster ..................................................................................................... Appendix B: Crops questionnaire and results ................................................................................................. Appendix C: DPA fiche techniques .............................................................................................................. Appendix D: Soil test results ........................................................................................................................... Appendix E: Calculations ................................................................................................................................. E1 Flow calcs ............................................................................................................................................ E2 Flow losses .......................................................................................................................................... E3 Crop Requirements ............................................................................................................................. Appendix F: Drawings ..................................................................................................................................... Appendix G: Bill of Quantities .........................................................................................................................
December 2008
1.0 Introduction
A project has been established by Engineers Without Borders with a local NGO, AIDECO, in the mountainous Ammeln Valley region of Morocco. EWB provided AIDECO with a source of free engineering consultancy to progress design work on agricultural infrastructure in the village of Imi nTizghte. AIDECO is likely to be able to source funding to pay for the post design construction costs but would have been unable to pay for a comprehensive design to be carried out. The overall goal of the EWB project was to increase agricultural productivity, and thus economic stability, in Anbdour and Imi nTizghte. One indicator for success would be for the farmers to be less affected by price fluctuations and to have a more steady income. What was found in the village was that the majority of the farming is subsistence and many people rely on money sent from relatives living in the cities for their income. The goal has therefore been extended to have less reliance on money sent from cities/abroad and to stem the movement of people to the cities by providing better opportunities in agriculture in the village. Another goal is to suggest ways for slowing and preventing mass soil erosion and eventual desertification in the valley. It is clear to see when travelling through the region that many areas of land which used to be cultivated are now abandoned, leaving a bare and extremely vulnerable soil behind. This is generally due to lack of water (drought), and possibly lack of labour or inadequate boar protection. In these areas, mass erosion and desertification are inevitable in this arid/semi-arid climate.
Figure 1.1: View of Imi nTizghte
December 2008
2.0 Lifestyle and Agriculture in Anbdour and Imi NTizghte

Imi nTizghte is a small Berber village in the Ammeln valley with a population of about 320. The local language is Teshleheet and most people also speak Moroccan Arabic. Some more educated people also speak French. There is mixed primary school in the village. The secondary school and college are in Tafraout 10km away and now that there is school transport provided, the girls are able to get there as well as the boys who used to cycle or catch a lift. This is only a recent change so there are girls in their twenties who only had primary school education. Most women over the age of about 35 didnt have any schooling and are illiterate. The traditional houses are built with stone and earth based mortar however they require yearly maintenance and many are now in ruins. Newer construction is normally in concrete blocks which are often rendered and painted, though some are not. The village has mains electricity and a piped drinking water supply which comes from the same source as the irrigation water and is occasionally treated. There is also a water supply from ONEP (Office National dEau Potable) but this is expensive and only a couple of houses are connected to this. Out of 17 households questioned, two had washing machines. Most people use the communal clothes washing area though some do it at home particularly if they live a long way from the wash area. An average family uses the wash area 2 to 3 times a week. Some of the girls find that the position washing on the concrete floor gives them back ache and would prefer sinks, others are happy with the set up but say that the surface is too rough and sometimes rips the clothes. There is no municipal waste collection and so all households are forced to burn their rubbish and the majority of people use the dry river bed for this. This is a poor environmental solution and is aesthetically very unpleasing particularly in view of the fact that the association would like to increase tourism. A future project for the Association in collaboration with a Peace Corps volunteer is to set up a waste collection service providing communal bins and someone to collect the rubbish. Of those questioned on this they all thought it was a great idea but it will be interesting to see whether people will actually be prepared to pay for this service. It is hoped that some materials can be separated for recycling. Many of the younger generation move to the big cities to work (generally Casablanca), often in family run shops, or because of marriage. This means that there are less people to work on the land and some fields are abandoned. Also for those families receiving money from family in the cities there is less incentive to invest in the land and use it to its full potential. There are currently two family run shops in the village. There is at least one person employed at a local hotel and two families with edukan (traditional shoes) shops in Tafraout. Other than this there is little employment opportunity. There is a womens Co-operative about 12 strong who produce Argan oil. There is also a group of about 10 girls in their twenties and thirties who use the AIDECO building to make crafts. They also receive French and English lessons. 5
December 2008
Agriculture here is not done on a large scale. Most families own a few plots of land and these are often shared with extended family. Up to five households might share land and trees. The plot sizes are on average 5m x 10m and often a families land is scattered in many areas. It is mostly the women who work in the fields and all the work is manual or with donkeys. There is no machinery as even if it was economically viable it would not suit the small terraced plots A lot of the land is covered in trees, the most common being Argan, Almond, Olive and Date with a few Carob and the occasional Pomigranite. The majority of the produce is kept for personal use. Even if a large quantity of Argan oil is produced, any surplus is usually given as presents to visiting relatives rather than being sold. Last year the harvest was particularly bad because of the drought, some trees produced no fruit at all and some even died. So far in 2008, rainfall has been higher than usual so a better harvest is hoped for in 2009.
Figure 2.1: Freshly ploughed parcels
Figure 2.2: Local fruit trees
From the information gathered from the questionnaire the only products sold are Carob pods and the bitter Almonds (edible ones are kept). These can both be sold in Tafraout to someone who then sells on to factories in Agadir. Carob is sold for 7DH/kg and Almonds for 35DH/kg. Of 17 families asked only two sell Almonds and, although anyone who has a Carob tree does sell the pods, there were only 4 families with any trees and a total of only 6 trees amongst these families. Any crops grown are only for personal consumption. The main one is wheat and this is something the boars do not eat. This year it was sown in November after the fields had been ploughed with donkeys. Some other vegetables are grown but this has diminished a lot because the boars eat them. The main vegetables that are still grown are squash, 50% of families questioned continue to grow them. A very few people also grow onions, tomatoes, potatoes and Figure 2.3: Parcels sprouting wheat other root vegetables. In the past there was a market in the village where people sold their vegetables. Now most people dont even grow enough for themselves and go to Tafraout to buy them. The general opinion of people we spoke to was that they would like to be able to grow their own vegetables again to save money. On Sunday 23rd October 2008 a presentation was given to the people of Imi NTizghte to present the work carried out during the EWB project.
December 2008
Figure 2.4: EWB and AIDECO meeting
Figure 2.5: The survey team
Figure 2.6: Presentation of work
December 2008
3.0 Soil testing

3.1 Introduction to soil surveys
A soil survey was necessary to gain an understanding of the nature of the ground in Imi nTizghte. This exercise was carried out in order to asses the state of the existing soil and determine its fertility, suitability to existing/recommended crops and whether desertification and soil erosion are a real concern. As with most aspects of the project, one of the main aims is to try and establish a baseline against which future studies can be compared. Since the soil type does not really vary across the site (apart from the topsoil, which will vary slightly based on crop type, etc) a soil map has not been produced.
3.2 Factors affecting Soil Fertility, Erosion and Desertification

Soil Fertility There are many factors which affect soil fertility, and different plant species thrive in different conditions. The primary factors are listed below with a short text highlighting the indicators; Aeration - Good free movement of air is essential for a healthy soil (see free drainage). Moisture content - Should be adequate and balanced. Affects size and texture of soil particles. Organic content - Relates to moisture content, high organic content gives a fertile soil. Temperature - Increased temperatures (within threshold << 40o) increases microbial activity and hence fertility. pH value - Threshold between 3 and 9. A healthy soil for cultivation should have 5.5 < pH < 7.5 Essential elements - Balance is essential. Deficiencies/too much leads to fertility problems. Elements required in relatively large amounts include Ca, C, H, Mg, N, O2, P, K, S. Too much B, Cl, Cu, Co, Fe, Magnenese, Zn will reduce fertility. Good drainage - Improves fertility by promoting healthy soil structure, provides aeration, promotes decomposition and ambient temperature increases and hence microbial populations. Thickness (depth) - Greater depth allows for deeper root penetration.
IMI NTIZGHTE
MAROC
Figure 3.1: Aridity map of Africa
December 2008
Soil Erosion As a general rule, the topsoil is the most fertile part of the soil and simultaneously the most vulnerable. Simply put, a decrease in vegetation cover, and hence organic content, leads to an increase in soil erosion. Organic matter fertilizes the soil by binding particles, increasing microbial activity and promotes permeability and infiltration capacity. The loss of vegetation cover can turn an arid region into desert in just 10 years! Note an arid region is classified as an area with annual rainfall < 250mm/year. Imi nTizghte receives 170mm/year and hence is classed as arid. Figure 3.1 shows that Imi nTizghte is right on the boundary of Hyperacid and Drylands classification (Hyper arid regions receive less than 100mm of rainfall annually). Conservation techniques, in principle, are implemented to ensure that the erosion rate equals the rate of new soil formation. The main aims are to protect the soil from raindrop erosion, increase infiltration capacity (minimising run-off) and increase ground roughness (retard wind and water erosive forces). Methods for achieving this include; Terracing; to reduce effective slope angle and length. Planting crops; provides necessary protection Contour farming; reduces run-off and promotes soil moisture conservation. Crop rotation; in 4/5 year cycles. Helps retain moisture by utlising soil retaining crops e.g. Alfalfa, control pests by eliminating abnormal molds/blights/viruses, control erosion, increase soil nutrients, and improve soil structure. Fallow periods; allows the soil to conserve moisture (land must be mulched, tilled and weeded carefully) and in arid regions can be recommended up to every other year. Mulching; disturbs capillary action to conserve water and provides soil nutrients to promote repair after harvest (0.5kg/m2 provides enough cover to protect from wind erosion also). Also reduces wind and run-off erosion and increases soil surface permeability. Afforestation; increases soil permeability and provides wind and raindrop shelter. Gullies; to provide run-off with a designated route. Can be grassed, impermeable, etc. Many of these techniques work by reducing moisture loss from the soil. Another method of doing this is humid culture where plants are grown in a poly-tunnel. Water is initially provided by irrigation and then because it is recycled it does not need to be replaced for a few weeks. (1) Desertification Defined as the environmental degradation in arid and semi arid lands causing a critical decrease in the productive capacity of the soil. Deserts expand and contract naturally over time, the problem comes when human activity generates unsustainable demands on already fragile soils ecosystems. The three main causes are overgrazing, over farming and poor water management, all of which can lead to desertification of arid and semi arid lands within 5 10 years!
Figure 3.2: Desertification approaches
December 2008
Desertification can be permanent if there is no capital or resources invested. It is without doubt far cheaper and easier to invest initially in measures to avoid desertification in the first place! Poor communities may abandon areas once the soil is, in effect, destroyed. The cause and effects of desertification come hand in hand. Lack of vegetation, organic matter and moisture leads to soil removal which decreases fertility and increases wind erosion. The process of desertification is difficult to recognise in the field, it is a kind of creeping disaster. Therefore, effective monitoring is key, this can be through annual agricultural surveys (production, etc) and aerial photos.
Figure 3.3: Desertification complete
3.3 Methodology Used

Four sets of tests were undertaken on site, these were soil description, classification, 1-D permeability and home mineral testing. Samples were also sent to INRA for further testing. Soil Description Every soil has its own unique properties and qualities, a soil description is a qualitative method of explaining the details of a particular soil. The testing should also include a shear strength test (Standard Cone Penetration Test). Also useful is the general geography, land use and historical land use if known. The data is useful in design for estimating bearing pressures, etc. For this test, the topsoil was removed (top 200mm or so). (2) Soil Classification This system involves the testing of samples and classifying the soil based on a list a categories including properties such as particle size and plasticity. For example, a gravelly silt with little plasticity and a liquid limit of 50%. This data is useful when using soils as part of a stability design, earth embankments for example. Again the geography, land use and historical land use is useful and the topsoil is removed for testing.
Figure 3.4: Basic soil grading
Permeability Tests Permeability coefficient, k, is defined as the as the quantity of unit flow through unit area of soil under a unit pressure gradient. This is the basis of Darcys Law. Here, we have only conducted an on site test as specified by Engineering in Emergencies (3). The macrostructure of soils have a large influence on permeability, the lack of these features in small laboratory test samples make it difficult to obtain true values. A field test has its own problems, but in this case it was deemed more appropriate. Simply, a 100mm diameter cylinder (large tin can) was driven into the soil, the top section was filled with water and the rate at which the water level dropped was recorded over a 60 minute period. Generally the initial infiltration rate is high and then, as the soil approaches saturation, the rate levels off, it is this rate that we are most interested in (in m/s). 10
Figure 3.5: Cohesion and plasticity test
December 2008
Mineral Testing A home tester kit was used to measure pH and nutrient levels. The nutrient levels are interpreted through levels of Potassium, Nitrates and Phosphorous. The aim is to gather information on the general quality and fertility of the soil. It is important to note that nutrient levels vary significantly throughout the year, depending on the type of crops, the harvest, the season and application of fertilizer.
Figure 3.6: pH testing
3.4 Results Obtained

The site owners, Soltana and Hassin Sain, agreed for their plot to be surveyed 24th September, this was after the summer harvest so mainly only grass was growing. A flat parcel at the base of the valley, the plot receives lots of sunlight and irrigation water from the khettara via the earth seguia network. Trees on the northern edge shade a portion of the plot whilst providing wind protection. The plot had corn/maize, marrow, mint and grass (for feeding their 5 goats) and carrots. They use fertilizer (cow manure) every February, also if they plant new crops. Soil Description The fines area a brown uncompacted silt. The particles are fine to coarse silt with some clay and sand particles with frequent fine to coarse gravel. The gravel is angular, possibly Gneiss. The Topsoil is frequent organic matter. Shear strength was estimated as SPT = 10 (ground is difficult to dig due to gravel). Soil Classification Gravelly SILT (approx 40% fines) with low to intermediate plasticity. The sample showed some cohesion and a little plasticity. Liquid Limit (LL) estimated at approx 40% (category silt with some clay). Permeability A rate of 24mm/hour was taken (varying from 24 to 39mm/hour). A typical sandy loam has a rate of 25mm/hr and a silt loam up to 20mm/hr. Considering the fissures and gravel in the soil, this seems like a reasonable result. According to Cassagrand and Farram (1940) (4) 24mm/hr (6.7x10-6m/sec) represents a low permeability soil with good drainage conditions or a fissured clay modified by the effects of vegetation. Results of home testing The pH result was 7.5 (slightly alkaline). Nitrates levels low/medium to low and Phosphorous levels are low.
3.5 Analysis of Results and Recommendations

This plot is well looked after, receiving plenty of irrigation water and sunlight. The area is sheltered from wind and the plot is flat which help to minimize soil erosion and facilitate moisture retention. The permeability is reasonable also, that value will be more useful later on in the earth seguia chapter. The low nutrients and slightly high pH are most probably due to the recent harvest and lack of fertilizer. This
11
December 2008
plot is exemplorary for others, it also has a functioning boar fence which allows the user to plant root vegetables, etc which the boar would otherwise eat. Recommendations It is recommended that an annual land use survey is undertaken every year to keep check on deteriorating or abandoned parcels. All abandoned parcels should be planted with dryland crops to reduce the risk of crop failure and soil deterioration. For example prickly pears survive and fruit without irrigation water and provide a valuable crop. It is also recommended that some food waste and plant waste is placed back on the land rather than being fed to the animals, thus increasing organic content and fertility. The notes given above on increasing fertility and reducing erosion/desertification should also be considered.
12
December 2008
4.0 Irrigation System

4.1 Introduction
There are two concrete water collection tanks in the village which fill up overnight and are used to distribute water to the fields during the day. The water source is an underground spring higher up in the valley. Flow from the source is collected and reaches the tanks via approximately 300 metres of underground channels (khettara) and then an open channel for 900m (seguia). From these tanks the water is distributed to the fields via open earth channels and applied to the crops using flood irrigation. The total flow arriving at the tank was estimated using several methods and the results are summarised in Table 4.1 below, see appendix E1 for calculations.
Method Measurement of seguia velocity Depth of pipe flow (150mm UPVC) Mannings equation (5) Tank volume 50mm pipes at full bore Average
Table 4.1: Water flow test results
Flow rate l/s 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.34
One of the main aims of the project is to increase the flow in the irrigation system or, more importantly, the amount of flow reaching the parcels. It is difficult to increase the amount of flow ebbing from the springs, therefore the key to increasing water flow is understanding and pinpointing the main losses in the system and reducing them. There are three main areas where water is lost; the khettara, the concrete seguia and the earth channels. For each of these three elements, evaporation and infiltration losses were calculated. Table 4.2 below summarises the results and the calculations can be found in appendix E2.
Element Evaporation Khettara Seguia Earth channels Total 0 0.017 0.018 0.035
Losses (l/s) Infiltration 0.5 0 0.6 1.1 Total 0.5 0.017 0.618 1.135 0 1.35 1.5 2.85
Losses (m3/day) Evaporation Infiltration 43.2 0 52 95.2 Total 43.2 1.35 53.5 98.05
Table 4.2: Summary of flow losses
The calculations of losses have been based on evaporation and infiltration rates measured on site. The losses in the earth seguia are based on 300m of channel, this was chosen as an average distance of each parcel from the supply tanks.
13
December 2008
4.2 Khettara
4.2.1 History Khettara, or qanats, are underground tunnels that tap the groundwater and lead the water artificially to a human settlement and agricultural lands using gravity flow conditions. The tunnels can be many kilometres long and very deep. The longest qanat is more than 40 km long and 100m deep and can be found in Iran. In general a qanat system consists of an underground part and a part above ground surface. The underground part is divided into the "water production section" and the "water transport section". In the "water production section", the water is collected, either from a natural source or infiltration of groundwater. This section is underneath the groundwater level of the surrounding area. The "water transport section" transports the water to the surface. This section is usually lined on the sides to prevent leakage of water. The gradient of the tunnel is very precise and should not exceed 5 % in order not to let the flow erode the rock or sand in which the tunnel is dug. On the other hand, the gradient should not be too low because then the water can not be transported to the surface as self cleaning velocity is not achieved. The technique is similar to mining and originates from Old Persia (present day Iran) around 3000 years ago. (6)
Figure 4.1: Khettara/qanat typical section
Figure 4.2: Khettara/qanat typical section
14
December 2008
4.2.2 Existing Khettara in Imi NTizghte The system here uses three different underground springs. The mothershafts are 3m, 3.5m and 6m deep, each being sited to collect water from the individual underground springs. Each spring is created by water percolating through the earth and bedrock higher up in the mountains. The groundwater continues under gravity down the valley and eventually passes over a shallow section of impermeable bedrock where the motherwell picks up the flow. Further investigation is required to confirm this which would be difficult, expensive and at this point unnecessary. There are two khettara in Imi nTizghte, both of which were built in the 1940/50s by the French. Figure 4.3 below shows the layout. The khettara from source 2 was originally built with 12km of pipe to supply Tafraout with drinking water. This pipe was destroyed sometime afterwards by the villagers so they could have retain all the water that they felt was rightfully theirs.
SOURCE 1 (6m) SOURCE 2 (3.5m) RIVER
SOURCE 3 (3m - TBC) Key FLOW River (Asif) Khettara 1 (poor condition) Khettara 2 (UPVC/Dimatit) Barrage (sub river concrete dam Seguia (300x300 concrete channel) Manholes
SEGUIA
Figure 4.3: Existing Khettara layout (See drawing 2011 in appendix F)
15
December 2008
Khettara 1 Khettara 1 is a stone lined channel approximately 400mm wide by 900mm high with a gravel and sediment invert. Six years ago, two 75mm MDPE pipes of approximately 2l/s capacity each were added in the base of this khettara between MH11 and the seguia to try to increase water flow. We believe this had an initial impact of increasing flows to approx 3l/s because the total flow from both sources was measured as 6l/s according to a local engineer in 2001. Today, based on a visual inspection of the flow at MH06 (manhole 6, see drawing 2011), only one of the pipes has a significant amount of flow, approx 0.4l/s (just less than half bore). The khettara runs beneath a river which only flows as a seasonal torrent during the rare periods of heavy rainfall in the area. During this time water percolates through the khettara walls and into the channel temporarily increasing flow. A dam running perpendicular to the river flow also traps flow and directs it into the khettara. This dam is supposedly broken, we were unable to confirm. Khettara 2 Khettara 2 is a stone lined channel for the first 20m, it then becomes simply a buried Dimatit pipeline. Most of the flow in the seguia comes from this khettara, running at approximately 3l/s. In the 1980s the lower section of Dimatit was replaced with UPVC. This khettara runs beneath a smaller river at its upper section. Generally this khettara is in good condition and will not be considered for renovation as part of this study.
Figure 4.4: Khettara 1 (MH11)
Figure 4.5: Khettara 2 (source)
4.2.3 Problems with Khettara 1 Consider the khettara as having an upper section and a lower section. The lower section has 2No 75mm MDPE pipes running along the invert, whereas the upper section is as originally constructed with stone walls and gravel/sediment invert. The problem with the upper section is that the channel is unlined for approximately 180m, therefore the infiltration losses are considerable (estimated at 0.5l/s equivalent). The walls and roof have also deteriorated over time, leaving stones, rocks and debris in the channel invert which, when not cleared, restrict water flow. To get past these obstacles the flow depth increases which allows further water to escape through the khettara walls. The upper section has not been cleaned since the 1980s. The lower section has two main problems. Firstly the 75mm MDPE pipes have blocked over the last 7 years restricting the amount of flow able to pass down them, this is due to the low flow and low gradient meaning self cleansing velocities are not achieved. Secondly, the original invert has not been cleaned often enough, meaning that when flow percolates through the khettara walls it is quickly lost through the invert due to infiltration as it cannot pass through the blocked channel.
16
December 2008
FLOW IN
FLOW LOSSES Figure 4.6: Khettara 1 section
4.2.4 Khettara Remediation Options The main aim of the remediation options are: - Reduce/remove infiltration losses i.e. all flow gathered at source reaches seguia - Stop the pipes and khettara silting up and blocking with stones and rocks. - Retain permeable walls to allow for continued infiltration along the khettara length All 4 options below include the new silt traps to be built at selected manholes (MH06 and MH11, see drawing 2011), this will prevent the MDPE pipes silting up and ensure the silt gathers in a manhole which can be accessed easily.
Option 1 Description New MDPE pipework from spring (Source 1) to MH11 Concrete lining entire khettara invert Concrete lining entire khettara invert, walls and roof (re-build khettara) New 400mm concrete perforated pipe. Re-line invert with perforated UPVC pipe, gravel and PVC membrane Advantages No infiltration losses in upper section, cheap (pipe already exists on site) No infiltration losses, captures percolating flow also. New long lasting infrastructure, provides safe working and maintenance area, channel no longer blocks from falling stones/debris New infrastructure, easier and safer construction, allows for percolation Cheaper than concrete lining (option 2), also perforated pipe prevents channels blocking with large stones Disadvantages Does not allow fresh flow percolating in to join the MDPE flow. Will sediment up due to lack of flow velocity and difficult to clean. Channel can still be blocked by falling rocks, debris and sediments. Expensive, difficult construction (with very limited access for machinery) and complete removal of existing infrastructure. Removal of existing infrastructure, not a proven technology in the area. Access into manholes only (like a small sewer) Tricky construction using straight pipe sections in the meandering khettara. Fig roots may grow in the perforations and block the pipe this is TBC. Cost Labour 64740 (MDH) 180000 (MDH) 151900 (MDH) 67710 (MDH)
Table 4.3: Khettara remediation Options
17
December 2008
Option 2
Option 3
Option 5
Option 4 Figure 4.7: Khettara remediation Options
4.2.6 Recommendation Reline using UPVC pipe with perforations (option 5). It is not confirmed as to whether fig roots will block the perforations, further study is required here to confirm before construction starts. If fig roots are deemed a problem, then the pipes should be solid and maintenance improved to ensure the channel is cleared annually (remove fallen stones/boulders). Regular maintenance will also be required to remove collected silt as well as roots growing along pipe joints. See drawing 2012 in appendix F for full details.
18
December 2008
4.3 Seguia and Water Tanks

4.3.1 Existing Infrastructure The concrete seguia and storage tanks were built around 15 years ago. The seguia used to be the earth channels like the ones seen between the parcels today. The open seguia runs for 900m from the khettara outlet to the storage tanks. Water from the seguia is used for irrigation, washing clothes and drinking. There is a pumping chamber (Manhole C, see AutoCAD drawing) which raises the water to the header tank at the top of the village. N
Key
PARCELS IMI NTIZGHTE
ANBDOUR Figure 4.8: Seguia and water tanks layout
Concrete Seguia Wash Area Storage Tanks Khettara 1 Khettara 2 River
The Seguia details are shown below in figures 4.9 and 4.10. The seguia hugs a steep slope for most of its course, traversing around regular rocky outcrops and changing in gradient to mirror the natural contours. There are also several lateral outfalls (generally 100mm DIA holes) which, using stone dams, can direct flow into parcels running next to the seguia.
Figure 4.9 Typical section through concrete seguia
Figure 4.10 Seguia photo
19
December 2008
There are two water collection tanks. Tank 1, which is smaller and higher up so the seguia water reaches it first, is sometimes bypassed. Tank two, the larger tank shown in the photo, is 17mx 8.5mx 2.15m, therefore having a capacity of 310m. This tank is filled overnight and discharged to fields each morning. Both tanks can be bypassed if necessary using steel blanking plates. Tank 2 has three different outlets to serve different areas of parcels, each controlled by cast iron twist valves. Each tank has an emergency overflow and both have a build up of sediment along the invert. Both tanks are in structurally good condition and will not be considered further in this report.
Figure 4.11: Tank 2 filling & emptying via twist valve
4.3.2 Problems with existing Infrastructure The 900m of open channel is all concrete lined but varies in quality with some sections having cracks along the invert and sides. In general it does not look like there are any significant leakages. Most of the cracks have allowed plants to cling to and grow within the channel. Therefore, as shown in table 4.2 infiltration losses are negligible. In some areas the walls are falling away or are no longer lined. The gradient also varies along the length with some very steep sections. These create regions of fast flowing water which accelerate the degradation of the concrete lining. To date however the lining is still generally OK. There are also flat sections where flow is deep and slow, this causes deposition of suspended sediments which slowly block the channel and slow the flow further. Roots and plants growing within the channel also inhibit the flow and will gradually widen cracks in the concrete lining, they also use the water. Where there are cracks and the flow is slow, there are often many plants and weeds are growing. There is also lots of debris in the channel, generally dead leaves, which further inhibit flow and could compromise the quality of the drinking water. Evaporation losses from the seguia, as shown in table 4.2, are negligible.
Figure 4.12: Cracks and weeds
Figure 4.13: Unlined sides
Figure 4.14: Steep section
20
December 2008
4.3.3 Remediation Options There are four steps, or options, for remediation discussed here. Whichever scheme is chosen, it is vital that first the channel is cleaned and all plant life removed. Option 1-Step 2 should not be carried out with step 1 being carried out first. Option 1 Step 1: Fix cracks and re-line base and walls where necessary This involves fixing individual cracks by breaking out the cracked section, cleaning and scabbling the area, then re-applying concrete and finishing until smooth with the existing channel. Sections where the walls are not lined require new concrete lining, the walls should also be stabilized where they are falling away due to the steep bank adjacent. This is a quick and cheap solution, however the results will not last long unless the works are carried out to a high quality. Option 1 Step 2: Improve gradients locally There are three sections where the gradient would be unacceptable from a design perspective. These sections could be removed by introducing new backdrop manholes or a series of steps set into the existing channel. This would increase the life expectancy of the seguia. However the steps or manhole would be in reinforced concrete and tricky to construct with limited working space, a dangerous slope on one side and shallow bedrock. Option 2 Re-line the whole seguia This option is to effectively re-built the seguia with new concrete sections cast in-situ. The most cost effective and quickest solution would be to line the existing channel with membrane and pour concrete on top. The new concrete section requires expansion and contraction joints (bitumen filled) every 10m and at each major bend/change in gradient. It is estimated that this could give a lifespan for the seguia of at least 20 years, however the solution is time consuming and costly. Option 3 Piped flow A quick and cheap re-line solution is to pipe the flow for the 900m of seguia. The 150mm UPVC pipe would sit within the existing channel with regular open sections at major bends, changes in gradient and lateral connections. The solution is fairly simple to install and cheaper than option 3. However, the pipe is aesthetically less pleasing, it removes the openness which helps local community trust (everyone can see where the water is going) and it makes it more difficult to find/remove blockages.
Figure 4.15: Option 2-Backdrop detail
Figure 4.16: Reline option 3
Figure 4.17: Option 2 Concrete Steps
21
December 2008
4.3.4 Costs For full costing details see detail BOQ. Option
1 Step 1 1 - step 2A 1 - step 2B 2 3
Description
Fix cracks and re-line base and walls where necessary Improve gradients locally (backdrop manholes) Improve gradients locally (concrete steps) Re-line the whole seguia in concrete Piped flow (900m of new UPVC pipework + open sections)
Table 4.4: Seguia costs
Cost (MDH) 3,800 12,858 11,150 100,800 75,080
4.3.5 Recommendations Since the seguia is in decent condition, it is prudent that money is invested elsewhere before large amounts are spent upgrading here. It is recommended that the channel is cleaned first including the removal of all weeds growing in/near the channel. Then remediation option 1 - Step 1 carried out, which only tackles areas which are in need of repair. It is our understanding that the UPVC pipe (option 3) has already been decided on in order to improve the quality of the drinking water. Therefore recommend manholes at significant bends and changes in gradient to allow for access for cleaning (sediment, etc) and repairs.
4.4 Clothes washing area

4.4.1 Existing usage and problems
The clothes washing area is used by many women in the village. Flow is diverted from the concrete seguia just upstream and runs through the middle of the wash area in an open channel as shown. This water is extracted by hand. The used soapy water then rejoins the main irrigation channel and is used on the fields. A small treatment section in the channel already exists just downstream of the wash area. It consists of a series of four stone dams which are supposed to filter the flow. However the dams do not work effectively as all the suspended sediments and soaps pass through the cracks in the rocks. After seeing the physical evidence and speaking with the local population it is clear that contamination is an issue. According to the DPA this contaminated water doesnt actually do much harm to the trees but it does damage crops and vegetables.
Figure 4.18: Concrete wash area
Figure 4.19: Contamination in channel
22
December 2008
4.4.2 Remediation options Option 1 is to make sure that none of the washing wastewater is used for irrigation by diverting the dirty water into a new septic tank or soakaway. This would only be possible if there was a piece of land close by available for this. One big disadvantage is the loss of water. Also the effectiveness of a septic tank or soakaway is compromised by the antibacterial agents in the washing powder, especially when no other bacteria are added (from a toilet, for example). This option includes new concrete washing sinks and header tanks. Option 2, suggested by the DPA, is to move the entire wash area to a position close to the river and to use the soapy water to irrigate trees only. This option would be costly, require a large piece of land and the backing of the community because it would change their usual habits, making it much further for some people to walk. Although the water would be made use of it means less water is available for the main fields where the crops are grown. It would also be difficult to set up a system where all of the wastewater reaches trees only, especially if the system is entirely gravity fed. Option3, is the purchase of washing machines particularly if it could be shown that they were economic on water usage. It would be important that models chosen were modern energy and water efficient. This option was chosen in another area of Morocco where they had the same problem, funded by a French charity Leau de Desert. The used water would still need to be put into a soakaway or sewer. There are the obvious benefits to the women of the village, giving them more time to work in the fields for example, but it would take some organisation to avoid disputes and to agree on how much the use of it would cost. There would need to be a building, electricity supply (possibly solar) and sewer system. There would also need to be a strategy for the eventual repair and replacement of the machines. Option 4 is to install a grease trap to remove the contamination. This would need to be cleaned periodically, perhaps once a day, which would be a fairly quick and simple operation which involves removing the top scum layer and putting it into a soakaway or cesspit (it is not recommended that the waste is put into a septic tank as it will affect its operation). The settled sediments could be removed around once per month depending on wash area usage. It is recommended that a temporary grease trap is installed first to check the dimensions (the bigger it is, the less cleaning required) and the effectiveness. This can then be replaced with either a new reinforced concrete unit or a system of baffles cast into the existing outlet channel (where the stone dams exist today).
Figure 4.20: Temporary grease trap steel drum construction
23
December 2008
4.4.3 Costs
Option
1 2 3 4 4 4
Description
New soakaway and concrete sinks/header yank New wash area by river New washing machines Grease trap - temporary steel drum Grease trap Utilise existing concrete channel Grease trap RC unit
Figure 4.5: Contamination options - Costs
Cost (MDH)
4,500 TBC 4,000 each Labour only 1,775 5,050
4.4.4 Recommendations It is recommended that the temporary grease trap is installed (option 4) and the community to be consulted to decide the next step.
4.5 Earth Channels (Earth Seguia)

4.5.1 Existing Infrastructure and the problems There is a network of over 2000m of earth channels delivering irrigation water to over 15ha of agricultural land. The channels are lined with large stones and gravels. The less used channels have grass growing in them. There are many steps and drop offs to allow the channels match the parcel terracing. The channels are aesthetically pleasing and promote trust and openness with the water distribution. The permeable invert also allows water to infiltrate into the surrounding soil and feed trees which live adjacent to the seguia.
Figure 4.21: Section through existing earth seguia
24
December 2008
4.5.2 Problems with existing infrastructure The earth seguias serve their purpose in transporting water to the fields but their efficiency is quite low. The permeability test (see section 3.4) gave an infiltration rate of 6.7x10-6m/sec for the soil. This test was carried out on a dry earth seguia bed. The initial infiltration rate was 1.08x10-5m/sec which then settled to 6.7x10-6m/sec. This means that, over say 300m of channel on average 300mm wide, 0.6l/s should be lost (see table 4.2). Over a 12 hour day of irrigation that equates to 26m 3 of water wasted (26,000 litres). If 3.4l/s leaves the tanks and 2.8l/s reaches the field, the efficiency is 82%. This corresponds to data in The Civil Engineers Reference Book (7) which gives field canal efficiency of 80% for unlined canals in blocks of up to twenty hectares. If the water has to travel further or the channel is dry, which is often the case, the losses are greater. Other losses of water have also been observed, they are hard to quantify but they mean that the total loss could easily be greater than 0.6l/s. The following list gives the potential sources of inefficiencies which could be tackled: 1. 2. 3. 4. Infiltration losses through channel invert. Undersizing of channels (flow spills over the edge). Losses at the many unlined steps and drop-offs. Wastage at stone dams/junctions which do not function correctly (flow dribbles into adjacent lines, without actually reaching any fields and even if they did, the fields are not prepared). 5. Slow flow and pooling due to lack of gradient and high invert roughness (Mannings).
WASTAGE
STONE DAM
MAIN FLOW
WASTAGE
MAIN FLOW
Figure 4.22: Wastage at dams (4)
Figure 4.23: Undersized channel (2)
Figure 4.24: Poor drop-off design (3)
4.5.3 Options for re-lining channels There are 4 re-lining options, all will reduce infiltration losses and increase water availability by up to 20%.
Option
1 2 3 4
Description
UPVC pipe lining PVC membrane MDPE pipes Concrete lining
Advantages
Longevity and hard wearing Easy construction and cheap Very quick and easy construction Longevity and very hard wearing
Disadvantages
Difficult to construct with many the bends, Vulnerable to punctures if not protected Lose openness and aesthetics. Junctions awkward (many valves would be expensive) Expensive and long construction time
Cost (MDH)
132,700 42,700 115,500 107,360
Table 4.6: Earth channel re-lining options (labour inc)
25
December 2008
Figure 4.25 OPTION 1, UPVC half pipe
Figure 4.26 OPTION 2, PVC membrane
Figure 4.27 OPTION 3, MDPE pipes
Figure 4.28 OPTION 4, Concrete lining
As part of the re-lining there will need to be new junctions built. There are several options for this, the cheapest and easiest to construction and maintain is as shown below. A concrete section with steel baffle or piped sections with valves could also be used, though both incur greater costs.
Figure 4.29 UPVC/concrete junction
4.5.4 Recommendations Recommend re-lining with PVC membrane (option 2) with major junctions built as shown in figure 4.29 above. The channel needs to be well bedded and carefully covered with smooth stones to protect the membrane. Recommend that a 200m section and one junction built first as a pilot (test) scheme. 26
December 2008
4.6 Field Application

4.6.1 Existing Operation Strategy The distribution is based on water rights. Each family has the right to a certain amount of water depending on historic agreements; however this does not necessarily represent current needs. The scope of this project does not include altering these rights however, only to increase the total quantity of water. The water rights have been the source of many disputes, especially when water levels are low. Also, now that homes have tapped water without meters, water usage goes unmonitored and people can be as inefficient as they like (many even use the tap water on their fields). To amplify the problem, many villagers refuse to pay for the tap water. During summer, when flow is low, each farmer is allocated certain time slots when they can extract water from the seguia. This is measured in hours, the ancient method was to used a plate with a hole in it. A plate full of water would take, on average, 7.5 minutes to empty, therefore they knew 8 plate-loads was an hour of extraction time. Now the time is used. The distribution cycle during summer runs in 7 day loops (one farm in the morning, another in the afternoon) During winter, when flows are higher, the time slots still exist, however there is more water available per person. The distribution cycle runs in 12 day loops. Winter is considered November to April and the amount of rainfall varies from year to year, winter 2008 has already seen more rain than the whole year preceding it (TBC by DPA, Tafraout). The water is diverted from the earth seguias by building temporary dams just downstream of their respective lateral connections. This flow is channeled using stones/gravel weirs. Once in the fields a variety of irrigation techniques are used including flood irrigation, furrow irrigation and border irrigation.
Figure 4.30 : Flood irrigation
4.6.2 Crop requirements and Irrigation Efficiency As stated previously, the irrigation system is not performing to its full potential with flow losses from source (khettara outlet) to destination (parcels). Presently, of the 3.4l/s leaving the khettara, only 2.77l/s arrives at the fields (based on EWB preliminary studies, see table 4.2 above). Based on crop water requirements and irrigation efficiency it is possible to calculate the existing and potential irrigatable area. The results were as follows; see Appendix E3 for full details. Based on the Blaney and Criddle method, Crop water requirements in Imi nTizghte = 562mm/year (based on average monthly temperatures and daily daylight hours, and a summer crop of tomato or sorghum. Millet, for example requires less water and has a shorter crop cycle, hence this value would be reduced (7)). This value does not take into account rainfall (8), hence we are assuming drought conditions. It does not take into account any water added to the field between crops. Finally, this value does not take into account the efficiency of the water application method. In this case we have an earth canal distribution system (80% efficient) and flood irrigation (60% efficient). This increases the net annual crop water 27
December 2008
requirement to 1171mm/year (562/(0.8*0.6)). To verify this, the Engineers In Emergencies design guide was used (3), giving a value of 1092mm/year. We will work with the higher value. 2.77l/s gives a total water volume of 87,355m3/year available (arriving at the fields). The 2.77l/s takes into account the distribution efficiency (previously taken as 0.8), therefore the crop water requirement for every parcel becomes 0.937m3 per square metre/year (937mm/year), therefore the area which can be adequately irrigated is 9.32 Ha. At present, approximately 15ha are irrigated with this 2.77l/s, which means the crops are receiving around 60% of the water they need. This helps to explain the crop failures and lack of fruiting trees in the summer 2008 harvest. 4.6.3 What is the potential? There are two factors which can be looked at. That is to firstly increase the flow (reduce losses) and hence the application efficiency. Secondly to improve the field application efficiency by, for example, installing a Drip by Drip irrigation system. By removing infiltration losses in the khettara and earth seguias, the flow arriving at the fields can be increased to 3.87 l/s. This increases the annual water available to 122,044m3/year. With a crop water requirement of 0.937m3 per square metre, it possible to irrigate an area of 13.02Ha, a large increase from 9.32Ha. By installing Drip by Drip irrigation, field application efficiency increases to 0.8, the potential irrigation area subsequently increases to 17.37Ha. 4.6.4 A note on Drip by Drip irrigation Drip by Dip irrigation is an efficient irrigation method, it is a proven technology and many trees and crops have very been successful under the system. The trickle system transports water through an extensive pipeline network to the soil near the plant and puts the water directly into the root zone. The main issue, however, is the cost and difficulty in construction. The most efficient and intricate systems are generally used only for high value cash crops due to the high setup costs. Setting up a system to work correctly in Imi nTizghte will require a professional with the correct knowledge, skills and experience. It requires a hands on approach, training the local farmers in the process and would most certainly benefit from a pilot project on a few parcels (to test construction methods and effectiveness). INRA and DPA involvement are absolutely necessary here.
Figure 4.31 : Typical Drip by Drip layout (12)
28
December 2008
4.6.5 Summary table, costs and Recommendations
SCHEME
Existing Fix khettara an line earth seguias As above + Drip by Drip
AREA POSSIBLE TO IRRIGATE

9.32 Ha 13.02 Ha 17.37 Ha Costs nothing
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Poor efficiency, less crops, more soils erosion Setup costs Difficulty setting up correctly and high associated costs
COST (MDH)
Free 114,210 177,210
Farming practices do not have to change, more water available and more/better crops. Maximum efficiency
Table 4.7: Field Application options and costs
As shown in the table above, investment in the irrigation network can have a very significant impact on the total area which could be effectively irrigated. At present the Boar fence design will contain an area of 9.75 Ha. The total area covered by the channels is in excess of 15Ha (DPA, Fiche Techniques), it is therefore recommended that firstly the khettara and earth seguia upgrades are completed. Following this, steps need to be taken to improve the irrigation efficiency further, via drip by drip or other forms of water efficient irrigation. As a quick example, a Carob tree requires 350mm/year to fruit, so a flood irrigation system (60% efficient) would demand 580mm /year (over the root area). To compare, a drip by drip irrigation system (80% efficient) would need 438mm/year. This step, very much into the unknown for many of the local farmers, needs be driven by INRA, DPA, AIDECO and the people of Imi nTizghte. In conjunction with this, it is suggested that steps are taken to encourage people to start using more dryland crops. For example Pearl Millet (which can replace other grains such as wheat and corn), Carob trees, and Cactus trees (prickly pear). Finally, one of the main risks with flood irrigation is salinisation. This is when >0.1% salts (Na) exist in the top 200mm of soil. Salinisation can be avoided by ensuring adequate surface and sub-surface drainage to ensure no excess water pools and deposits salts. It is recommended that annual soil tests be carried out by INRA (this could be organized by AIDECO/DPA/EWB each summer) to monitor salt levels and irrigation/drainage modified as required. Remediation of salinisation is achieved in several ways, the most appropriate and simple example is to flood the fields to flush excess salts out.
29
December 2008
5.0 Boar Fence

5.1 Introduction
In recent years the wild boar population in the region has dramatically increased. A major factor in this is the absence of natural predators such as wolves and jackels which have been completely wiped out. The reproductive pattern of the boars has also amplified the problem. The boars are very destructive because they eat most vegetables, even cactus, and also rummage in the ground for grubs which causes further damage. Some people have built personal boar fences around their land. Materials seen include stone walls, brambles, reeds, and wooden posts with chicken wire. Where there are these fences vegetables seem to be successfully grown, however the vast majority of land remains unfenced.
Figure 5.1: Existing Fence types in Imi nTizghte
There has been talk of building a perimeter boar fence for many years and it is something that many people in the village say is the most important thing they would like to happen. The association had sketched a suggested outline for the fence and then the EWB engineers surveyed the land to produce a more accurate map. The total length of the perimeter was measured as 1430m. The terrain is changeable and quite hilly and there is one length in particular that the slope is very steep, approximately 30 degrees. The original design produced by the DPA was a fence with steel T sections as posts at 5m centres and galvanised steel mesh (50x50). This design was not accepted by AIDECO who thought it was excessive. See Appendix C for original fiche techniques. The cost per metre was given as 80DH and the total cost based on 1200m of fencing was 96000DH. The aim of the EWB engineers was to propose a cheaper fence design.
Figure 5.2: AIDECOs sketch of boar fence perimete
30
December 2008
Various options were looked at with each one have advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, appearance, effectiveness, time to construct, maintenance required and environmental impact.
5.2 Initial design considerations and materials

One of the first things that was looked into was an electric fence as this is what is typically used in France. The cost of this fence would be quite modest, as low as 20Dh/m, based on prices from a French website (9). However it was decided that it would probably not be appropriate here because the maintenance is so important for it to work correctly. With a wall or solid fence a small area of damage might leave an area that can be breached but if an electric fence is not working the entire thing becomes useless. Given the length of the fence and the relatively high level of maintenance required it was deemed an inappropriate technology for the village. To back this, there is an electric fence somewhere else in the valley which has proved ineffective, thought the reasons for the failure are unknown. It was thought that local materials would be the cheapest and have least environmental impact. There are fences that have been built using the trunk of a date palm as the base and then palm branches to as the barrier. This is ok for the small fences some people have but there would not be enough for the kind of lengths necessary. The British CIRIA Wildlife Fencing Design Guide (10) and all evidence of fencing seen in the UK is that timber fence posts Figure 5.3: Wild Boar and electric fencing are used. This guide does also show examples of steel posts but says that concrete is not suitable because it does not perform well under tension. The problem here might be sourcing good quality timber and preservative. Some of the electricity poles in the village are in timber and this type of timber would be suitable. It should be found out where this timber comes from, what is its expected lifetime if treated and the cost. Any timber sourced needs to be from a sustainable resource, a local managed forest is the ideal. The other obvious local material is stone. All the traditional buildings are built from stone with an earth based mortar. The advice from the DPA was that this option would be no cheaper because stone would still have to be bought still that problems could be caused by people taking stone from existing terrace walls. The opinion of the EWB engineers was that enough stone could be collected from the surrounding area if there was enough of a volunteer labour force from the village. Design 1: Dry stone walling with living barrier EWB and DPA agreed on the merits of the option of dry stone walls along the river where there is an abundance of stone. It is a traditional technique and could enhance rather than degrade the natural landscape. There is also the advantage that in some places walls already exist which just need building up to a suitable height. In addition to the walls prickly branches are placed on top to create a more effective barrier. These could be Gigibier or Argan. A line of trees can also be planted on the inside of 31
December 2008
the wall which within a couple of years will grow to a height that the can be pruned to form a living barrier over the top of the wall. It is hoped that these trees will require no irrigation and can be provided by the Department dEau et Forets.
Figure 5.4: Section through river stone dry walling with trees
Environmental issues: One concern with this is that it may affect the river if too many stones are taken from it though the DPA assured that this would not be a problem so long as stones are not taken from the river banks as this could change the course of the river. These rivers actually only flow normally about once a year and are used by most people to burn their rubbish, therefore the environmental impact is considered negligible. The embodied energy in this option is almost zero (only the transport required for labour and trees) and the planting of trees has a positive impact. Cost: The cost of this wall is very much dependant on the labour since the materials are free. If there is enough local know-how and people willing to volunteer the cost of the wall would be very low. Otherwise due to the length of time it takes to build compared to a fence the cost would not be that much less. Maintenance: For this length a maintenance strategy would need to be in place with people assigned to ensure that the Gigibier is intact, to make any repairs necessary to the walls and to prune the trees. Design 2: Mesh fence This is similar to the original design by the DPA however it is suggested that timber posts are used instead of steel to reduce the cost and also as a material with lower embodied energy. Due to the transparency of the mesh this fenceline would not have a big impact on the landscape. It is most suitable for terrain which is reasonably flat. Mesh can be placed to a depth of 200mm in the ground and attached to a tension cable to prevent the boars from digging underneath. On steeper ground masonry walls could be built to provide to provide a horizontal base on which to place the fence.
32
December 2008
Figure 5.5: Elevation section of Timber post and 50mm mesh
In order for a mesh fence to be effective certain specification should be made and it is recommended that the following advice is taken: Posts at the start of a fence line or at a change of direction need to be at least 900mm below ground and need to be supported with a strut and tie, see the figure. For a boar fence the guide recommends a minimum of 200mm below ground and 900mm above ground level. However it suggests that this may need to be increased in certain circumstances. The high population and determination of the boars here would justify increasing this height. It is important to specify a good mesh. If it is a woven mesh, the joints should be lock joints rather than hinge joints so that verticals cant slip on the horizontals. Foundations are not required if the posts can be driven into the ground without first digging out the soil. It would be beneficial to source a mechanical post driver if possible to drive the posts into the hard ground, this is made easier with pointed ended posts. It is important that the mesh is attached to the outside of the fence, i.e. so that the animal pushes the mesh onto the post rather than pushing it off. Environment and Costs The timber posts MUST be specified from a sustainable forest resource. For this scheme to become a symbol of best practice then we must invest in protecting the environment wherever possible. The openness of the mesh also helps to minimise the visual impact. As stated above, using timber also helps to reduce the cost. Maintenance These fence sections will need to be checked regularly for weaknesses and breakages. The tension wire can be tightened manually so it would be prudent to train a local person how to do this.
33
December 2008
Figure 5.6: Timber end post detail
Design 3: Half blockwork wall half mesh For the length of fence along the road a robust solution is necessary because of the possibility of impact from vehicles and the amount of pedestrians including children who frequent this route. A fence line with posts and mesh is one option, although it might be subject to damage. There is also a reasonable slope which is makes it difficult to accommodate the mesh. The DPA suggested that a wall built in concrete blocks could work out to be cheaper, particularly if a machine were purchased to produce the blocks in the village using sand dredged from the river. This seems like a good suggestion however solid concrete walls would not be very aesthetically pleasing, particularly because they would block the view and give a closed atmosphere. Therefore the proposed option is to have a block wall built to a height of 600mm 980mm with a mesh for the upper half (the height of blockwork varies over each 5m length according to the slope, 4 courses of blocks suggested as minimum). It is recommended that the blocks are plastered and painted a similar colour to the houses for a better look. The mesh required would not need to have such small squares as the 50x50 suggested for a full height mesh fence because the boars can exert more force if on the ground rather than if they have tried to climb up. A mesh size of 100 x 100 is proposed. 34
Figure 5.7: Endpost perimeter
December 2008
Figure 5.8: Elevation section, half blockwork wall half 100mm mesh
Environmental issues: One disadvantage of this wall is the amount of cement needed to construct it, with the high embodied energy which that entails. A more environmentally friendly method would be to use earth blocks, or rammed earth. The DPA do not think that the soil here is appropriate for this use but it is something that should be given more consideration before being completely ruled out, particularly when earth has been used in the construction of the old houses here. Cost: The cost depends on whether or not the blocks could be produced locally with a new machine. This mesh size is cheaper than for the type of mesh required for a full height mesh fence. Maintenance: Maintenance is quite low. Repainting of the wall every few years would improve the appearance. The mesh may need some repairs and the posts may need replacing after 10-20 years depending on the quality of timber and preservative.
Design 4: Masonry wall This option was decided upon because it offers a stiff, robust solution on steep rocky ground. It is expensive but it is a well known method used throughout the region and utilises local materials, hence it fits well with the surrounding environment. Environmental Issues: Embodied energy from the mortar and reinforced concrete posts. Using local stones removes the need for quarrying and transportation. The wall fits in well aesthetically and its high lifespan improve the overall environmental impact. Costs: Are high due to the concrete and steel volumes. Can be made cheaper if local/volunteer labour is used. Maintenance: Low. This is as maintenance free as it gets. This wall will also last longer than any other fence type discussed here.
35
December 2008
Figure 5.9: Mortared stone wall with concrete posts
Gates The position of the gates along the fenceline should be agreed with the community in order to ensure adequate access. However the number of gates should be kept to the minimum required because they represent a weakness in the fence (continuity) and they can be left open. They also increase the overall cost. A practical note; you need to put end posts either side of a gate rather than using the gate posts as end posts. This is because the endposts take the strain of the main cable and will move over time, therefore the rigid gate would not last very long under such conditions. The gate consists of timber cross members with 50x50mm mesh infill and a 200mm deep concrete footing linking the two gate-posts. Maintenance issues Problems are envisaged here because of problems in the community. The evidence of a very small turnout to a presentation given on the fence and irrigation scheme suggests that a community meeting to discuss maintenance would be impractical. A more likely outcome is that there will be a few dedicated people in the village who end up doing all the work. If this were the case it would be fairer for everyone to pay a small amount to pay these people for the work. Though again getting a consensus on this would be difficult. In summary this is an area which need a lot more consideration and work from AIDECO. It would be prudent to assign some budget to the upkeep of the fence.
Figure 5.10: Typical gate detail (Timber with mesh infill)
36
December 2008
KEY STATS 1426 m LENGTH 122550 MDH TOTAL COST 86 MDH/m COST/M 98550 MDH MATERIALS
Figure 5.11: Fence sections and plan of Imi nTizghte

Section A 235m B 222m C 206m D 72m E 280m F 35m G 110m H 119m J 147m TERRAIN Riverside flat Roadside moderate slope Roadside moderate slope Flat bare soil Riverside flat Steep rocky section Linkages between homes Flat bare soil Stepped Soil, rocky terraces FENCE TYPE Drystone wall (river stones) Bottom half block work, top half 100mm mesh As above 50x50 mesh and timber fenceposts As above (A) Mortared wall with concrete posts (5m c/c) Mortared wall with concrete posts (10m c/c) As above (D) As above (B & C) ADVANTAGES Cheap solution and longevity, also aesthetically very pleasing and sustainable material usage Suits sloping ground, longevity, strong, keeps open view. As above Quick and easy construction. Low visual impact. As above (A) Longevity, aesthetics and extremely robust Longevity, aesthetics and extremely robust As above (D) As above (B & C) DISADVANTAGES Time consuming construction, living part needs maintenance. Takes up space on land. High embodied energy. COST MDH 8225 35Dh/m 22270 100Dh/m 19775 96Dh/m 9479 132Dh/m 11100 40Dh/m 7685 220Dh/m 14605 133Dh/m 14426 121Dh/m 14985 102Dh/m TOTAL 122550
As above Relatively expensive, vulnerable to vandalism As above (A) Costly, time consuming construction Getting agreement from locals to use existing walls As above (D) As above (B & C)
Table 5.1: Fence sections cost and appraisal
37
December 2008
6.0 Crops
Different crop types a critique with respect to Imi nTizghte
A number of different crop types are grown today in Imi nTizghte, this chapter looks at those species which are grown, those which could be exploited further, and new crops which may not have been considered before. The hope is to leave the local population with ideas for future agriculture to make best use of the water whilst bolstering income.
6.1 Existing Crops

There is a limited variety of crops grown in Imi nTizghte today, generally due to the fact that the boars eat most crops. They do not eat wheat, therefore it is the most popular crop. Some small parcels have simple self maintained boar fences and they grow Courgettes, Aubergines, Squashes, Peppers and various root vegetables. Alfalfa is also grown as animal feed. The vast majority of the oasis is taken up by fruit trees including Argan, Olive, Almond, Date with a few Carob and the occasional Pomigranite. There are also some fruiting cactus trees.
Olive
Almond
Date
Argan
Figure 6.1: Some trees of Imi nTizghte
6.2 New crops

Suggestions for new crops include Pearl Millet, Pistachio tree, Marama bean and Okra. These are all dryland crops, though market value in the region requires further assessment. Pearl Millet is often preferred to maize or wheat because of its tolerance to difficult growing conditions such as drought (it can survive on 200mmrainfall /year!), low soil fertility and pH, high salinity levels and high temperatures. It can be used as animal feeds, bread and cous-cous making, and porridges. The Marama bean is rich in oil and protein (rivaling soya) and grows well in the Kalahari Desert. Okra is a another dryland crop. It is a vegetable which grows wild in Ethiopia and Egypt and is now grown and used for cooking and making oil throughout the world.
Figure 6.2: Map showing Pearl millet in Africa. Photos of Pearl Millet (top) and Okra
38
December 2008
39
Figure 6.3: The Carob and Pistachio tree
December 2008
6.3 Future outlook

It is recommended that an effort is made to increase the numbers dryland cash crops in the area. This can be in the form of the potential new crops mentioned in 6.2 and increasing numbers of certain existing crops and trees such as Carob and Cactus. INRA are very interested in driving and monitoring the use of the Prickly pear cactus. This is a native dryland crop which brings good revenue from the fruit, the oils and other products. Capable of tolerating severe drought conditions, a crop like the cactus can secure the arable future of lands in the region. Again, such a project would need to be driven by INRA, AIDECO and the DPA but, most importantly, the ideas need to be adopted by the community. Ideally unused plots could be utlised for trials in new crops. Finally, the investing in farming larger areas of prickly pear could be the start of a new, or expansion of the existing, Co-operative in the village since it can be far more profitable to produce and sell the oil rather than the whole fruit. Clearly, this is a longer term aim for the village and is beyond the scope of this report.
40
December 2008
7.0 Final Recommendations

This is a summary of all the recommendations resulting from 3 months of residence and study of two EWB volunteers in Imi nTizghte. It is important to note that these recommendations do not come in an order of priority, nor is it expected that they will be carried out simultaneously. It is therefore prudent that AIDECO and the people of Imi nTizghte carefully consider and prioritise which areas they would like to invest in step by step. For example, Engineers Without Borders believe that a boar fence should be invested in before more money is spent on improving the irrigation system. This is simply because people will not grow any more or different crops if they know the boars will eat them, regardless of how much water is available. In terms irrigation investment, it will be worth considering where you get most water per Dirham, for example it may be wise to improve the earth channels before upgrading the khettara. Finally, the people are the key to success, without their backing, enthusiasm and trust none of the schemes will have the desired effects. INRA, DPA and most importantly AIDECO need to get the locals firmly on their side and consult them throughout the whole decision making, fund procuring, investment and monitoring process.
REASON COST* Best value for money, retain existing structure which has 67710 Khettara worked for so long. If in the future the khettara starts to fail, (MDH) recommend option 4 (400mm perforated concrete pipe). Concrete seguia is in best condition of all irrigation Concrete 3,800 infrastructure therefore, for now at least, money is better seguia (MDH) spent elsewhere. This is more a maintenance scheme. This is a low cost and effective solution. However, the longer 1,775 Contamination term solution requires consultation with the community. (MDH) The best value solution which also best suited to the 42,700 Earth seguia changeable terrain of Imi nTizghte. Also helps retain the (MDH) aesthetic beauty of the parcels This is a longer term goal to start once farmers have put Field 63,000 their trust in AIDECO, INRA and the DPA. It will become key application (MDH) in maximizing irrigation efficiency in the region No single solution was suitable. This design brings value for A mix of fence designs as 141,750 Boar Fence money and quality and hence a good lifespan. The scheme shown in Table 5.1 (MDH) demands community participation throughout. Invest in pilot schemes for field To monitor the real impacts of the work and keep a check on application methods and crops the quality of the soil (a proactive approach to avoiding Agriculture N/A used. Annual land use surveys excess soil erosion, desertification and salinisation). Pilot and soil testing. schemes to develop a best practice document for the region. TOTAL 320,735 *All costs here and throughout the report are based on EWB preliminary assessments, they will need to be reviewed and updated by a qualified person(s) or professional body (DPA for example).
SECTION
RECOMMENDATION Re-line option 5 (perforated UPVC pipe) with regular maintenance Option 1 Step 1 (Clean seguia, locally repair cracks, holes and reline walls where necessary. Option 4 (build a new grease trap, temporary to begin with) Option 2 (PVC and cobble lining with new concrete/UPVC junctions) Line seguias and encourage farmers to adopt pilot drip by drip schemes.
Table 7.1: Summary of recommendations
41
December 2008
8.0 Project 2009 EWB in Imi nTizghte

As stated at the start of the project, it is hoped that two more engineers will come and work in Imi nTizghte in 2009. The aim for them is to assess the impact of any works carried out, help drive some new initiatives and hopefully at least begin to produce a document of best practice for the rest of the valley. See appendix H for full details.
42
December 2008
References
Michael Carters and Stephen P Bentley. Correlation of Soil Properties. Pentech Press, 1991. 1. Bell, F. G. Basic Environmental Engineering and Geology. Dunbeath : Whittles Publising limited, 2007. 2. Craig, R. F. Craig's Soil Mechanics. 7th. Abingdon : Spon Press, 2004. 3. Lambert, R. Davis and J. Engineering in Emergencies. Rugby : Practical Action Publishing, 2002. 4. Bentley, M. Carters and S.P. Correlation of Soil Properties. s.l. : Pentech Press, 1991. 5. Chadwich A, Morfett J and Borthwich M. Hydraulics in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Abingdon : Spon Press, 2004. 6. Moroccan Khettara: traditional Irrigation and Progressive Desiccation. R, Lightfoot D. s.l. : Elsevier, 1996, Vol. Volume 27. 7. S, Blake L. Civil Engineers Reference Book. 4th. s.l. : Elsevier. 8. P, Stern. Small Scale Irrigation. London : ITDG Publishing, 2003. 9. [Online] [Cited: October 3, 2008.] www.sanglier.net/shop. 10. Pepper H, Holland M, Trout R. Wildlife fencing design guide. London : CIRIA, 2006. 11. vcvc. cvc. dfd. 12. Trickle Irrigation Experiments in Turkey. Kanber, Osman Tekinel and Riza.
43

Report AIDECO Version

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Report AIDECO Version

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 1.1: View of Imi nTizghte

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

2.0 Lifestyle and Agriculture in Anbdour and Imi NTizghte

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 2.1: Freshly ploughed parcels

Figure 2.2: Local fruit trees

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 2.4: EWB and AIDECO meeting

Figure 2.5: The survey team

Figure 2.6: Presentation of work

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

3.0 Soil testing

3.2 Factors affecting Soil Fertility, Erosion and Desertification

Figure 3.1: Aridity map of Africa

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 3.2: Desertification approaches

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 3.3: Desertification complete

3.3 Methodology Used

Figure 3.4: Basic soil grading

Figure 3.5: Cohesion and plasticity test

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

3.4 Results Obtained

3.5 Analysis of Results and Recommendations

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

4.0 Irrigation System

Flow rate l/s 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.34

Table 4.2: Summary of flow losses

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 4.1: Khettara/qanat typical section

Figure 4.2: Khettara/qanat typical section

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

SOURCE 1 (6m) SOURCE 2 (3.5m) RIVER

Figure 4.3: Existing Khettara layout (See drawing 2011 in appendix F)

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 4.4: Khettara 1 (MH11)

Figure 4.5: Khettara 2 (source)

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

FLOW LOSSES Figure 4.6: Khettara 1 section

Table 4.3: Khettara remediation Options

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Option 4 Figure 4.7: Khettara remediation Options

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

4.3 Seguia and Water Tanks

ANBDOUR Figure 4.8: Seguia and water tanks layout

Concrete Seguia Wash Area Storage Tanks Khettara 1 Khettara 2 River

Figure 4.9 Typical section through concrete seguia

Figure 4.10 Seguia photo

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 4.11: Tank 2 filling & emptying via twist valve

Figure 4.12: Cracks and weeds

Figure 4.13: Unlined sides

Figure 4.14: Steep section

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco

Figure 4.15: Option 2-Backdrop detail

Figure 4.16: Reline option 3

Figure 4.17: Option 2 Concrete Steps

Agricultural Project- Irrigation and boar fence, Ammeln Valley, Morocco