SL Water 2012 522 Final

Document 522 POST-ASSESSMENT REPORT CHAPTER: Penn State University COUNTRY: Sierra Leone COMMUNITY: Baoma PROJECT: Community
Water Source and Governance Evaluation
PREPARED BY Jill Morris Thomas Cepek July 15th, 2012
ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USA www.ewb-usa.org
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone
p. 2
Table of Contents
Post-Assessment Report Part 1 Administrative Information ................................................. 4
1.0 Contact Information .................................................................................................................4 2.0 Travel History ...........................................................................................................................4 3.0 Travel Team .............................................................................................................................5 4.0 Health and Safety .....................................................................................................................5
4.1 Incident Reports .............................................................................................................................................5
5.0 Budget .....................................................................................................................................5

5.1 Project Budget ................................................................................................................................................5 5.2 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Hours ...................................................................................................8 5.3 List of Materials (Proposed) ...........................................................................................................................8 5.4 List of Materials (Actual) ................................................................................................................................9
6.0 Project Discipline(s) ................................................................................................................ 10 7.0 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 10
Post Assessment Report Part 2 Technical Information ....................................................... 11

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.0 Program Background .............................................................................................................. 11 3.0 Trip Description ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Community Information ......................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Description of Community ...........................................................................................................................13 4.2 Community and Partnering Organization/NGO Resources and Constraints ................................................14 4.3 Community Relations ...................................................................................................................................15 4.4 Community Priorities ...................................................................................................................................15 4.5 Members of the Community ........................................................................................................................16
5.0 Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Summary of Data..........................................................................................................................................16 5.1.1 Water Quality Data ...............................................................................................................................16 5.1.1.1 Habour Spring ...............................................................................................................................18 5.1.1.2 Garden Spring ...............................................................................................................................21 5.1.1.3 West Side Spring ...........................................................................................................................26 5.1.1.4 Motema Stream ............................................................................................................................29 5.1.1.5 Dodo Stream .................................................................................................................................32 5.1.1.6 Kamara Spring ...............................................................................................................................34 5.1.1.7 Tap Stands and Habour Connection .............................................................................................36 5.1.2 Health Assessments ..............................................................................................................................36 5.2 Mapping .......................................................................................................................................................37 5.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................41
6.0 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 41

6.1 Monitoring plan for current project .............................................................................................................41 6.2 Monitoring of past-implemented projects...................................................................................................41 6.3 Project Status Table .....................................................................................................................................42
7.0 Community Agreement/Contract ............................................................................................ 43
Page 2 of 93
p. 3
8.0 Photo Documentation ............................................................................................................ 47 9.0 Project Feasibility ................................................................................................................... 47 10.0 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................... 48 11.0 Project Status ....................................................................................................................... 49 12.0 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Assessment .................................................................. 50
12.1 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Name ...............................................................................................50 12.2 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Assessment .....................................................................................50 12.3 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Affirmation ......................................................................................51
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes ...................................................................................................... 52
A.1 First Water Board Meeting: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 ...................................................................................52 A.2 Second Water Board Meeting: Sunday, May 20, 2012 ................................................................................52 A.3 WAPFoR Meeting: Thursday, May 24, 2012 ................................................................................................53 A.4 Third Water Board Meeting: Saturday, May 26, 2012 .................................................................................54
Appendix B: Community Alternative Informational Packets .......................................................... 56

B.1 Water Supply Evaluation ..............................................................................................................................57 B.2 Point of Use Water Treatment Options .......................................................................................................65
Appendix C: WAPFoR Handouts.................................................................................................... 72 Appendix D: Health Assessment Surveys ...................................................................................... 81

D.1 Sample Questions ........................................................................................................................................81 D.2 Results..........................................................................................................................................................85
Page 3 of 93
p. 4
Post-Assessment Report Part 1 Administrative Information

1.0 Contact Information
Chapter Name Phone or Organization Name (267) 804-3972 EWB-PSU (717) 926-0991 EWB-PSU (814) 308-4510 (267) 804-3972 (484) 707-3942 0022 76 241 478 EWB-PSU EWB-PSU EWB-PSU EWB-Sierra Leone
Name
Email
Project Lead Mentor #1 Faculty Advisor (if applicable) Health and Safety Officer Assistant Project Lead NGO/Community Contact
Jill Morris Richard Kercher John Lamancusa Jill Morris Thomas Cepek Mohamed Khalil
jill.ann.morris@gmail.com rkercher@gfnet.com jslme@engr.psu.edu jill.ann.morris@gmail.com tjcepek@gmail.com moslkha@yahoo.com
2.0 Travel History

Dates of Travel July 17 - 27, 2010 December 28, 2011 January 6, 2012 Assessment or Implementation Latrine assessment Description of Trip
May 12 May 28, 2012
An assessment trip was conducted to determine the feasibility of building a latrine Combined assessment for water EWB-PSU reassessed the final and reassessment for latrine due to latrine site and design. In location change addition we conducted a first assessment for the water project. Second Water Assessment Gather more data during the wet season and determine the demands and constraints of the community.
Page 4 of 93
p. 5
3.0 Travel Team

Name Jill Morris TJ Cepek Richard Kercher E-mail Phone Chapter PSU PSU PSU Student or Professional Student Student Professional Mentor
jill.ann.morris@gmail.com (267) 804-3972 tjcepek@gmail.com (484) 707-3942 rkercher@gfnet.com (717) 926-0991
4.0 Health and Safety

4.1 Incident Reports Did any safety incidents occur during this trip? ___Yes __X_No If Yes, please submit your completed Incident Report as a separate attachment with this report. If your HSO has not yet filled out the Incident Report, a blank form can be found on the EWB-USA website Member Pages Project Process Health and Safety Program.
5.0 Budget
5.1 Project Budget
Project City/Region and Country => EWB-USA Chapter => Year => 2012 Baoma, Sierra Leone Pennsylvania State University Student Chapter
Trips Planned 1 Planned Month for Trip May Type of Trip (1) I&A Trip type: A= Assessment; I= Implementation; M= Monitoring & Evaluation *In the following table, Project Budget represents only the water project budget. The Total Budget represents the combined budget of the water and latrine projects. Total Actual Direct Costs Project Budget Budget Expenses Variance Travel Airfare @ $1,602.17 $6,000 $16,000 $11,215.20 +$4,784.80 Gas $0 $0 Rental Vehicle $0 $0 Taxis/Drivers $60 $160 $160 $0
Page 5 of 93

Misc. (Water Taxi from airport @ $60 / person) Sub-Total Travel Logistics Exit Fees/ Visas @ $235 Inoculations @ $250 Insurance @ $1.04 / day Licenses & Fees Medical Exams Passport Issuance Misc. Sub-Total Food & Lodging Lodging Food & Beverage (Nonalcoholic) Misc. Sub-Total Labor In-Country logistical support Local labor @ $8.14 / day Misc. (Transportation of materials) Sub-Total EWB-USA Program QA/QC(1) Sub-Total Project Materials & Equipment (details needed) (See section 5.3 and 5.4) Sub-Total Misc. (details needed) Report Preparation Advertising & Marketing Postage & Delivery Misc. Sub-Total TOTAL EWB-USA National office use: Indirect Costs
p. 6
$171 $6,231 $597 $900 $30
$456 $16,616 $1,592 $2,400 $80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,072 $1,997 $850 $0 $2,847 $150 $300 $0 $450 $0 $0
$420 +$36 $11,795.20 +$4,820.80 +$417 +$650 -$7.36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,512.36 +$1,559.64 $4,069.77 $850 $4,919.77 $0.00 $762.79 $70.93 $833.72 $0 $0 -$2,072.77 $0 $0 -$2,072.77 +$150 -$462.79 -$70.93 $-383.72 $0 $0 $1,175 $1,250 $87.36
$1,517 $749 $319 $1,068 $50 $0
$50 $0 $0
$234
$2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,985
$2,271.63
$0 -$271.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $9,100
$0
$22,332.68 +$3,652.32
Page 6 of 93

EWB-USA Program Infrastructure(1) Sub-Total TOTAL
p. 7
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
Note (1): These rows are calculated automatically based on type of trip. Non-Budget Items: Additional Contributions to Project Costs Community Labor Materials Logistics Cash Other Sub-Total EWB-USA Professional Service In-Kind Professional Service Hours Hours converted to $$(1) Sub-Total GRAND TOTAL (Project cost) Funds Raised for Project by Source Source and Amount (Expand as Needed) Existing Balance Corporations University APWA Grants - Government Grants - Foundation/Trusts EWB-USA Transfer Other Nonprofits Individuals Special Events Total
$0 $0 $50 $0 $50
$300 $125 $150 $200 $0 $775
$0 $0 $0 $200 $200 $400
$300 $125 $150 $0 -$200 +$375
50 $2,500 $2,500 $11,650 Actual Raised to Date
100 $5,000 $5,000 $31,760
148 $7,400 $7,400 $30,132.68 Actual Raised Total
--$2,400 $2,400 $1,627.32
$8,310 $10,000 $600 $3,000 $11,424
$8,310 $28,500
$3,000 $11,424
$33,334
$55,234
$21,900
Page 7 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 5.2 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Hours Name(s) of Professional Mentor(s) (student chapters) Technical Lead(s) (professional chapters) 1. Richard Kercher Pre-trip hours During trip hours Post-trip hours Total Hours
p. 8
58
80
10
148
5.3 List of Materials (Proposed) *The following materials list is in regards to the latrine implementation project. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Material Cement brick 16"x8"x6" Cement brick 16"x6"x6" Imported Cement (50kg Bag) Stone (5 cubic meter Truckload) Sand (5 cubic meter truckload) Zinc Roofing Sheet(28G-2'x8'-20 Pack) Roofing Nails (2.5"- 2500/box) Tar Paper (40" wide x 1 yard) 2''x12''14' (red) 1''x12''x14' (red) 2''x4''x14' (red) 2''x6''x14' (red) Box of Nails (3") Rebar (12mm x 38') Ties (25kg roll) Mesh Per Yard 3" PVC Pipe (18') 4" PVC Pipe(18') 3" PVC Elbow Squat Toilet Insert Pipe Fitting, Tee, 75mm Pipe Fitting, Y, 75mm Pipe Fitting, 45, 75mm Pipe, 3" ID, 18' Misc Hardware Quantity 240 245 14 1 1 1/5 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 Pricing (Le/unit) 5,000 3,500 41,000 550000 300000 750,000 25,000 6,000 85,000 48,000 20,000 42,500 220,000 52,000 175,000 5,000 63,000 65,000 10,000 300,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 75,000 Total Cost per Material(Le) 1200000 857500 574000 550000 300000 150000 25000 12000 85000 144000 120000 85000 220000 312000 175000 5000 63000 65000 20000 600000 40000 20000 20000 150000 100000
Total Cost of Materials (Le) Total Cost of Materials (USD)
5,892,500 $1,766
Page 8 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 5.4 List of Materials (Actual) *The following materials list is in regards to the latrine implementation project.
Material Binding Wire (Large) Binding Wire (Small) Block (Factory), 6" Cement, Bag Elbow, 3" Hacksaw Blade Hammer Hand Trawl Head Pan Level Lumber, 1X12 Lumber, 2X2 Lumber, 2X4 Nail, Packet Pad Lock Plastic, Roll Plug, 3" Pour Flush PVC Pipe, 3" PVC Pipe, 4" PVC Solvent Rebar, 1/4" Quantity Unit Price (SL) 2 100,000 1 50,000 100 6,500 46 40,000 3 10,000 3 10,000 2 40,000 1 10,000 2 25,000 1 50,000 18 20,000 10 10,000 2 18,000 72 2,500 2 10,000 1 100,000 3 35,000 2 225,000 7 95,000 2 70,000 5 20,000 1 Unit Price (US) Total (SL)
p. 9
Total (US) $46.51 $11.63 $151.16 $427.91 $6.98 $6.98 $18.60 $2.33 $11.63 $11.63 $83.72 $23.26 $8.37 $41.86 $4.65 $23.26 $24.42 $104.65 $154.65 $32.56 $23.26 $2.79
$23.26 200,000 $11.63 50,000 $1.51 650,000 $9.30 1,840,000 $2.33 30,000 $2.33 30,000 $9.30 80,000 $2.33 10,000 $5.81 50,000 $11.63 50,000 $4.65 360,000 $2.33 100,000 $4.19 36,000 $0.58 180,000 $2.33 20,000 $23.26 100,000 $8.14 105,000 $52.33 450,000 $22.09 665,000 $16.28 140,000 $4.65 100,000 $2.79
Page 9 of 93

12,000 Rebar, 3/8" Sand, Truck Load Square Stone, Headpan Stone, Large S-Trap Elbow T' Pipe, 3" Water, Drum Zinc, Leaf 8" 36 40,000 2 395,000 1 25,000 500 2,000 150 6,500 2 50,000 4 20,000 2 10,000 2 40,000 12,000 $9.30 1,440,000 $91.86 790,000 $5.81 25,000 $0.47 1,000,000 $1.51 975,000 $11.63 100,000 $4.65 80,000 $2.33 20,000 $9.30 80,000
p. 10
$334.88 $183.72 $5.81 $232.56 $226.74 $23.26 $18.60 $4.65 $18.60
Grand Total
9,768,000
$2,271.63
6.0 Project Discipline(s)

Check the specific project discipline(s) addressed in this report. Check all that apply. Water Supply __X__ Source Development __X__ Water Storage __X__ Water Distribution __X__ Water Treatment __X__ Water Pump
7.0 Project Location

Longitude: 8 deg. 25 40 N Latitude: 13 deg. 15 50 W
Page 10 of 93
p. 11
Post Assessment Report Part 2 Technical Information

1.0 Introduction
This documents purpose is to act as a record of the assessment trip, including all relevant data and information. Over our two-week trip to Baoma, Sierra Leone, the Water Project Team took technical and social data. We also interacted with the community and observed the politics and interpersonal dynamics. This trip was our second formal water project assessment. A large amount of the work performed on this trip included: taking community water and health surveys, water quality and quantity data collection, and community meetings to discuss our partnership with the Baoma community and give some suggestions as to how we feel their water quality can be improved. The goal for this project is to develop a series of water source improvement alternatives along with recommendations of system maintenance and sustainability for Baoma. EWB-PSU also implemented the Covenant Preparatory School latrine project, which is described in a separate 526 document. To be clear, EWB-PSUs water project is independent from the latrine project. The latrine beneficiary is Baomas Covenant Preparatory School and the water beneficiary will be the Baoma community as a whole.
2.0 Program Background

The semi-rural community of Baoma lacks reliable, clean water sources. The majority of the villages drinking, cooking, and washing water comes from a few small spring sources. The community would like to improve human health and environmental conditions related to the water system. This assessment trip allowed us to better understand the water quality, use patterns, community dynamics, and project feasibility. During the January assessment trip, EWB-PSU asked Baoma to establish a Water Board. Baoma accomplished this goal and we were able to meet with the Water Board on three different occasions during this most recent trip. At the meetings we were able to discuss a lot of potential project and water improvement ideas. We presented some small scale ideas and some larger scale ideas and were able to receive helpful feedback from these community leaders. At one of these meetings we even discussed building a small berm around the Garden Spring to prevent rain water from rushing down the hillside and contaminating it. The Water Board approved of this idea and the berm was constructed, using community donated supplies and labor. A large
Page 11 of 93
p. 12
part of our time was also spent calculating flow rates and testing water samples to learn more about the water quality at the various springs. Our next step is to analyze all of the data that we have collected and use it to help us further our water system improvement alternatives for the community. We must also continue our communication with the Water Board via e-mail. We realize that collaboration with the community is vital to the future success of our project. The current goal is to develop alternatives, agree upon a memorandum of understanding, and come up with a final project for implementation during the next trip to Baoma.
3.0 Trip Description

Date Saturday 12, 2012 Sunday 13, 2012 Monday 14, 2012 Description The team departed Newark International airport starting their journey to Baoma Sierra Leone. Arrived in Sierra Leone and the team gathered water for the next few days. Walked into the community and visited the old school and met with Moses and Florence. In the evening, we briefly visited Habour Spring and had dinner in Lumly beach. Visited the Garden Spring and took flow rate measurements with food dye. We completed Nitrate and Coliform tests at Garden Spring, West Side and Habour. In the evening, we met with the Water Board and went over all the alternatives for the communitys sources. At the end of the meeting we scheduled another Water Board meeting for Sunday 20th, 2012. Determined the change in elevation at Garden Spring. In addition took soil probe measurement south of the Garden Spring. It should be noted that there was a heavy storm the night before taking soil probe measurements. In the afternoon, we took soil moisture testing at west of west side spring. Tested a weir at Garden Spring. Later we walked to Dodo taking GPS measurements and flow rate measurements of the Dodo stream. In the afternoon, we took GPS readings along the pipeline connecting to the Habour Spring. Took a recharge rating at the Habour Spring after the pipeline was closed. Took a recharge rating at Habour Spring before the pipeline was opened. Then counted the amount of buckets used at the Garden Spring for an hour. Later completed fifteen community health surveys. Completed fifteen more surveys. Met with the Water Board and discussed our collected data. Counted buckets at the Garden Spring from 10-1pm. In addition,
Tuesday 15, 2012
Wednesday 16, 2012
Thursday 17, 2012
Friday 18, 2012
Saturday 19, 2012 Sunday 20, 2012 Monday 21, 2012
Page 12 of 93
p. 13
Tuesday 22, 2012 Wednesday 23, 2012 Thursday 24, 2012 Friday 25, 2012 Saturday 26, 2012 Sunday 27, 2012 Monday 28, 2012
planned the berm around the Garden Spring with Kinnie. Took soil probe readings south of the Garden Spring for the second time. Helped with the Latrine team at the New School site. Visited the School and gave a lesson on hand washing. Later we assisted the Latrine team with construction. Met with WAPFoR to discuss Motema Stream. Later took a hike to Motema Stream. Took Nitrate tests at Motema Stream. The Latrine team and Water team took a day trip to river No. two. Met with the Water Board and finalized the Garden Spring as the next appropriate source for the community. Started the adventure back to the United States. Arrived in Newark, New Jersey just after 1pm.
4.0 Community Information

4.1 Description of Community The community of Baoma is governed by a chief, queen, and headman. The chief is John Coker and the queen is Mama Motu. SK Gbomor is the headman of the north side of the village while James Sesay is the headman of the portion of the village south of the gulley. The headmen do the vast majority of the governing and seem to hold most of the power. By-laws are effective and respected. All of the water sources reside on privately owned land, but some are communitygoverned. For us to improve a certain source, we would need to get consent from the land owner, chief, and queen. A rough estimate of the population is 2600 people. The Water Board completed a census after the first assessment to determine this figure. Homes range from small, one-room shacks to large mansions surrounded by walls and barbed wire. In the past eighteen months the community has grown immensely. Land is a very valuable resource in Sierra Leone. Once one acquires land, the owner will lay out a fence to show the community that it has been taken. Religion is very important to the community of Baoma. There are both Christian and Muslim influences in the community. Both religions are respected and honored by a prayer before every meeting. Construction activity is on the rise in Baoma. There is a brand-new sports center that is a popular place to watch football. In addition, a new community center with storefronts is being built in the village. Until the building is complete and vendors move in, residents must walk to
Page 13 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone Goderich to buy simple necessities, and obtain transportation into Freetown. Wealthier
p. 14
community members have cars, but most people ride motorcycles on which they can more easily navigate the rutted dirt roads. Few roads are paved outside of Freetown and there are no street signs, traffic lights or pavement markings making transportation difficult and risky. However, there was a marked improvement in the quality of main roads from the first trip, and we observed multiple construction crews conducting roadway repairs. Utilities in Sierra Leone are unreliable. During our trip we stayed at Ellys Guest House in Goderich where running water and electricity were sporadic. The electricity came from the government and the water from the Guma Dam. Because the electricity was unreliable, there was a generator for backup power at the guesthouse. Grid electricity and municipal water is not readily available in Baoma. An EWB-SL representative, Anthony Nimneh, lives on the border of Baoma and could afford to connect to municipal supply. Most residents of Baoma collected water from a number of smaller spring and stream sources in the village. Baoma is a community rich in natural resources. Deforestation is a problem so lumber is expensive. The community relies heavily on block construction because supplies for brickmaking are abundant and cheap. The community has experienced significant growth since the last assessment trip, but the disparity between the highest and lowest socio-economic classes has also grown. A reliable source of clean water for all is a paramount need.
4.2 Community and Partnering Organization/NGO Resources and Constraints We are aware of certain constraints in the progress and implementation of the water system. With the community, one major constraint is communication. We have multiple contacts within the Water Board, who we will be able to communicate with via e-mail or phone. Because access to the Internet and electricity is not always as readily available in Baoma as in Pennsylvania, we understand that there will likely be a potential delay in messages. The biggest constraint and most important issue to resolve during the next few months is the cost of implementation and maintenance of the water system improvements. It is vital that our project costs are kept low and that operations and maintenance will be manageable for the community. We believe development of existing sources with purification options will be feasible in the future.
Page 14 of 93
p. 15
Furthermore, many of the community members refuse to pay the maintenance fees for water usage at the present Garden Spring and Habour Spring. The wealthier believe it is cheaper to purchase packets of water than commit to a weekly or monthly fee. Many that cannot afford to pay for water would simply avoid using the Garden Spring on payment collection day. For a water system to be implemented, the community needs to understand the purpose of payment and where the money for maintenance goes. As previously stated, we understand that communication with both Baoma and EWB-SL will not always be easy. To help overcome this obstacle we have established two very reliable people as our main points of contact. One is Mohamed Khalil of EWB-SL, and Mohamed Konneh, resident and representative for Baoma.
4.3 Community Relations EWB-PSU has established a solid partnership with Baomas Water Board. One of the leaders of this group is Mohammed Konneh. He serves as our most direct contact within the group. Mohamed Konneh understands how EWB and non-profit organizations work and has become our translator in explaining our intensions to the community. As we stressed during the second assessment trip, the community understands that implementation can be a long process. They are dedicated to collaborating with EWB-PSU to build a successful water system throughout this process.
4.4 Community Priorities Throughout our meetings with the community, many issues were raised. Those topics related to water included: water containing bacteria, difficulty of hauling water from the spring sources to their homes, wasting of water, a lack of training on how to effectively treat their water, and the growing number of people dependent upon the same sources. Other topics included: poor trash management, a general lack of understanding in regards to some health and sickness issues, and the need for more and improved health centers. It is clear that an improved water system is something that the community needs and supports. They emphasized that water is life and are committed to improving their water sources as a first step in overall sanitation improvement.
Page 15 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 4.5 Members of the Community
p. 16
This list contains the names of some of Baomas and the surrounding areas community leaders with whom we had important interaction in regards to the project. Name Mohamed Kahlil Anthony Nimneh Mohamed Konneh Florence Bockarie Moses Benga SK Gbomor Mama Motu Kinnie Sesay Zynab Role EWB-SL EWB-SL Member of the Water Board Member of the Water Board Member of the Water Board Headman Queen In charge of the Garden Spring Member of the Water Board
5.0 Data Collection and Analysis

5.1 Summary of Data EWB-PSU visited, mapped out, tested water quality, and measured water quantity at six different water sources in and around the village of Baoma. This section summarizes all of the data gathered.
5.1.1 Water Quality Data Water quality data for each water source is shown in Table 1. Four sources were tested for Nitrate and Total Coliform/E. coli. In all sources, significant concentrations of coliform bacteria were found in all sources tested. The U.S. standard for coliform and E. coli bacterial in municipal drinking water supplies is 0 colony forming units per 100 milliliters of sample (CFU/mL). The high concentrations in the spring box are most likely the result of the structures warm, humid interior. West Side Spring showed greater concentrations of total/E.coli bacteria contamination than the previous assessment. At the West Side spring a new metal lid was added to the source. So it is expected that concentrations of coliform bacteria are greater due to lid insulating the spring keeping it warm and humid. Motema Stream showed greater concentrations
Page 16 of 93
p. 17
of bacteria. This could be due to the change in landscape around the source. We noticed a greater amount of deforestation surrounding the source; this can lead to low flow and an increase in coliform bacteria. The Garden Spring, on the other hand, decreased in coliform concentrations significantly during our trip. We first sampled the source in the beginning of the week. The next time we sampled the source, the community had built a berm around the spring. At all spring sources, the increase in coliform bacteria could be caused from the start of the rainy season with the flushing surface deposits into the groundwater.
Table 1: Water Quality Data Summary Sample Habour Garden Location Quality Leftmost Box Fenced Parameter seep Spring facing hillside E. coli 200/4200 200/8500 1. 5/15/12: /Total 500/2800 Coliform 2. 5/27/12: (CFU+/10 100/500 0mL) Total <0.1 <0.1 1 Nitrogen (ppm) Colony Forming Units (CFU)
West Side Drinking Catchment
Motema Stream intersection w/ trail 1. 100/6700 2. 100/3800
1. 7800/67500 2. 7200/80000
<0.1
Page 17 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone Table 2: Water Quality Data Summary from First Water Assessment Sample Location Habour Garden West Side Motema Box Fenced Drinking Stream Quality Parameter leftmost seep Spring Catchment intersection facing w/ trail hillside
(#1)
p. 18
Kamara Uppermost Dam
Total Coliform/E. 2800 4300 1) 800 0* 1) 0 DNT + coli (CFU /100mL) 2) 800 2) 0 Total Nitrogen <0.1 <0.1 3.0-3.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 (ppm) ORP 222 DNT** 202 180 250 252 (mV) Specific 57 DNT 47 91 27 37 Conductance (S/cm) pH 6.6 DNT 6.0 5.7 6.9 5.7 Temperature 26.7 DNT 26.7 27.8 22.1 26.7 (C) * Sample taken when catchment was nearly empty indicating good groundwater quality, but we expect that contamination is introduced during collection as the catchment recharges. **Did Not Test (DNT) + Colony Forming Units (CFU).
Table 3: Water Quantity Data Summary Sample Habour Garden Location Flow Rate Spring box: Color Dye (gpm) 2.65 flow rate: 77 Leakage: 2.5 Weir Flow Rate: 80 (90 notch, 4.25 inch of water depth)
West Side 4.9
Motema (from weir) 2.5 inch overflow with a 90 notch= 21.7
Dodo 250
5.1.1.1 Habour Spring There were several noticeable changes to the site at the Habour. The most notable was deforestation and new homes being built above the source. We believe this has caused the springs yield to decrease from the previous trip. Also, there we two cracks in the spring box leaking half of the water captured. In fact, we noticed that as the level in the spring box increased, the leakage from the tank increased. To calculate the flow rate we measured the
Page 18 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone recharge of the spring box overnight and conducted a five-gallon bucket test for the leaking water.
p. 19
Here are our results for the flow rate: Spring box: 2.65 gpm Leakage: 2.5 gpm
Figure 1 Habour Spring
Figure 2 New netting over Habour Spring catchment
Page 19 of 93
p. 20
Figure 3 - View from Habour Spring box
Figure 4 Leakage runoff into extra buckets
Page 20 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 5.1.1.2 Garden Spring
p. 21
Since our last trip in December 2011, there have been a few noticeable changes in Garden Spring. First the community converted the rock bed in front of the spring to a concrete slab. The can be easier to clean and maintain. Environmental changes include fish (small minnows) in the spring outlet and an increase in vegetation behind the spring. It is understood fish migrate to clean water, so this a good sign that the Garden Spring has good drinking water. The increase in vegetation is a sign of the wet season and increase of rain. During the trip we calculated the flow rate two different times. The first time was with food dye, by timing a drop of food dye to travel a certain distance. The second time, we constructed a weir at the fence line of the spring (figure 5). Each flow rate had the same results. Below are our results: Color Dye flow rate: 77 gpm Weir Flow Rate: 80 gpm (90 notch, 4.25 inch of water depth)
Figure 5 Constructed weir at Garden Spring
Page 21 of 93
p. 22
Figure 6 Another view of Garden Spring weir
We also surveyed the site to determine the elevation. Below are our results: Station 0-1 1-2 2-1 2-3 3-2 Distance 86.5 ft 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft Angle 7.33 2.5 2.5 2.33 2 Compass 118 EN 305 EN 250 EN Elevation (ft) 11.03 4.36 4.06
This data can help determine the hydraulic gradient for the pipeline at the Garden Spring.
Page 22 of 93
p. 23
Page 23 of 93
p. 24
Next, we conducted a soil moisture probe test south of the spring. Our goal was to collect data for an area that might contain a higher soil moisture level. Here are the results.
Figure 7 Legend for soil moisture readings
Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Meter Reading 6-8 4-6 10 6-8 0 6-8 6-8 6-8 8-10 2 2-4 4-6 2
Description In valley on slope Elevated ground
In front of a huge boulder In front of a huge boulder In front of a huge boulder In front of a huge boulder Behind boulder Behind boulder Behind boulder
Page 24 of 93
p. 25
Page 25 of 93
p. 26
With this data we can determine the location of the water table. It may prove to be helpful depending on the type of project we choose to proceed with.
Finally, we donated cement to the community to build a berm south of the spring. We suggested that if they build a berm to keep the water run-off from contaminating the spring, it would improve the overall water quality. One afternoon, some community Water Board members walked around the village and collected donations of sand and aggregate. Within two days the community built the berm. We tested the water at the spring before we departed, the total coliform results decreased significantly compared to the first test from the trip.
Figure 8 Berm at Garden Spring
5.1.1.3 West Side Spring Changes to the spring include a new metal lid and a small berm above the spring. There was an increase of trash down the hill from the site. We used a recharge rate to determine the flow rate. Our results were 5.3 gallons per hour, or 0.088 gpm.
Page 26 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone Also, we soil probed north and south of the spring. Here are our results:
p. 27
Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (ft) 15 (from 6) 12 10 8 5 0 8 15 17 Parallel to STA 9, 10 ft away
Soil Moisture Reading Details 0-2 4-6 6-8 6-8 4-6 4-6 Reached rock under soil 6 5 ft from edge of rock 10 Some foliage 6-8 Some foliage 8-10 Hit rock, dry soil on top
Note: From STA 7 to STA 10, the tests are below West Side Spring
With this data we can determine the location of the water table. It may prove to be helpful depending on the type of project we choose to proceed with.
Page 27 of 93
p. 28
Figure 9 New lid for West Side Spring
Figure 10 - Small berm above West Side Spring
Page 28 of 93
p. 29
Figure 11 - Above West Side Spring
Figure 12 - Slope below spring catchment covered in trash
5.1.1.4 Motema Stream Motema had the most notable changes to the environment. There was a huge increase in deforestation since our last visit. Most of the trees on the hillsides surrounding the stream were bare. This had a definite impact on the flow rate of the stream. Comparing the rough flow rate we go from this trip and the flow rate from the first assessment; the flow rate from the most recent trip was a about half the first assessment. We believe that the deforestation has become a huge contributing factor to Motemas flow rate or yield.
Flow Rate: (from weir) 2.5 inch overflow with a 90 notch= 21.7 gpm
Page 29 of 93
p. 30
Note: There was not perfect placement for the weir and we ended up with little leaks around the weir. The flow rate is a little greater than 21.7 gpm.
Figure 13 - Motema Stream Deforestation
Figure 14 - Signs of deforestation at Motema Stream
Page 30 of 93
p. 31
Figure 15 - More signs of deforestation at Motema Stream
Figure 16 Location where we used the weir
Page 31 of 93
p. 32
There has also been a change in ownership with Motema Stream. The area that the stream flows through was on governmental land. Since then the land has been given to an organization called WAPFoR (Western Area Preserve Forest or Reserve). WAPFoR has done previous water system projects and they have evaluated Baoma a year ago for a potential water system. Baoma is still on their list of projects to complete, but as of right now the organization is out of funding and it will be about five more years for WAPFoR to develop spring for Baoma. See Appendix A for meeting minutes with WAPFoR. In addition, see Appendix C for information from WAPFoR.
5.1.1.5 Dodo Stream The Motema Spring eventually branches into the Dodo Stream that runs though the neighboring community of Dodo. For any implementation project involving Motema Stream, we would implement pipeline at Motema and run it parallel to the Dodo Stream branch. One day during the assessment, we walked through Dodo to the back of Motema. There we collected GPS data with a basic outline of pipeline for Motema Stream and completed a mini flow rate test. Walking up through Dodo, the geology around the source differs from Motema. The hillside is a formation of steep, large boulders and the stream flows over the boulders (figure 18). Flow Rate: 250 gpm
Page 32 of 93
p. 33
Figure 17 Location of flow rate test
Figure 18 The rocky slope of Dodo
Page 33 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 5.1.1.6 Kamara Spring
p. 34
We briefly visited the Kamara Spring on our way down from Motema Stream. It was enough time to assess the changes to the spring box and environment surrounding. It should be noted the spring box is in the same condition as the last assessment trip. Also, the catchment held more water than last trip. This could be from the heavy rains or an increase flow rate. There is not potential for source improvement at Kamara Spring by EWB-PSU. Pastor Kamara, the owner of the spring, has not met with the Water Board at all since the first assessment.
Figure 19 A Kamara Spring private tap
Page 34 of 93
p. 35
Figure 20 Kamara Spring catchment
Figure 21 - Kamara Spring catchment
Page 35 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 5.1.1.7 Tap Stands and Habour Connection
p. 36
One afternoon we took GPS readings as we walked along the pipeline from Habour Dam. This pipe line connects to 15 houses and 6 tap stands, 4 of which are functional. Below is a map of the pipe path. The tap stands are shut off at 5 pm and turned on in the morning at 7:30 am. It should be noted that the tap stands are in the same condition as from the previous trip.
5.1.2 Health Assessments During the assessment, the water team assessed 30 households to find out their basic water needs and uses. Table 2 describes where each household gets their drinking water from and relates it to if someone has gotten sick in their family within the last two weeks. We saw a huge correlation between members using the Kamara Spring (a private source) and getting sick. Below are our notes from each household that was interviewed. See Appendix D for our interview questions and notes from each interview.
Page 36 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone Table 4: Drinking Water vs. Health
p. 37
5.2 Mapping The following maps depict data collected from GPS data. Figure 22 shows the trail to the Motema Stream from Baoma. Figure 23 shows the Habour pipeline with various House Connections. Finally, figure 24 shows the walk to the Dodo stream. The Motema Stream becomes the Dodo stream. In addition, we have all elevation data for the following maps.
Page 37 of 93
p. 38
Figure 22 - Walk to Motema
Page 38 of 93
p. 39
Figure 23 - The Habour pipeline
Page 39 of 93
p. 40
Figure 24 - Walk to Dodo Stream with Motema Stream
Page 40 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone 5.3 Conclusion From the data above and meeting with the Water Board (See Appendix A), we can
p. 41
conclude that the Habour Source is not an appropriate source for the community to expand or rely on. Compared to the other sources around the community, the Garden Spring could be the best spring for water quality and quantity, except for its location in the valley of Baoma. The best overall source would be Motema Stream. This stream could provide for the community for a long time. However, the Motema Stream is a huge project and would require long term planning before the community can benefit from the source. The next best source would be the Garden Spring for its central location in the community and better water quality and quantity. From here, we will work with the community to develop and design a water system for the Garden Spring.
6.0 Monitoring
6.1 Monitoring plan for current project Between now and our implementation trip, we will be monitoring the progress of the community through communication with the Water Board and EWB-SL. We will gather data from their meeting minutes, such as the frequency of meetings, what issues were discussed, and the number of members attending each meeting. Through this data collection, we can determine how well the community is working together to meet their common goal: safe drinking water. Hopefully, we will be able to see if they are using any of the point of use suggestions that we gave them and see how effective these methods have been. We conducted many health surveys during this assessment trip. On the next implementation trip, we expect to go back to the families that we surveyed and look at their changes in water treatment, water usage, and the occurrence and severity of sickness.
6.2 Monitoring of past-implemented projects EWB-PSU currently has no past-implemented projects. During the first assessment trip, EWB-PSU taught the children of Covenant Preparatory about hand-washing. We gave demonstrations on how quickly germs spread and discussed the importance of washing hands after going to the bathroom and before eating or handling food. To ensure that they wash their
Page 41 of 93
p. 42
hands long enough, the children wash their hands while singing the Happy song, which takes approximately 30 seconds. On this assessment trip, we repeated these lessons. We demonstrated the importance of washing your hands for at least 30 seconds. With the use of a black light and a lotion that represented germs when viewed under the black light, the students saw the amount of germs on their hands before and after washing their hands.
6.3 Project Status Table Project Type Project Discipline(s) Date of Completion (m/d/y) Functionality (enter one range per project)
050% N/A 5075% 75100%
Periodic Maintenance (yes or no)
Demonstration of Knowledge Transfer (yes or no)
Page 42 of 93
p. 43
7.0 Community Agreement/Contract

Memorandum of Understanding: Water Governance and Source Improvement in Baoma, Sierra Leone I. Introduction Engineers Without Borders, Penn State (EWB-PSU) is a chapter of Engineers Without Borders, USA (EWB-USA). They are a non-profit humanitarian organization established to partner with developing communities worldwide in order to improve the health and quality of life of its members. EWB strives to assist the community in the implementation of sustainable engineering projects that meet basic needs such as water and sanitation. Stakeholders: Engineers Without Borders Penn State (EWB-PSU) Engineers Without Borders Sierra Leone (EWB-SL) The Baoma Community o Landowners and caretakers o Chief o Headman o Queen o Community members who cannot afford to buy or treat drinking water o The Water Board The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the goals and expectations of the partnership between the village of Baoma, EWB-PSU, EWB-SL, and the Water Board. These groups will be working together to make important decisions regarding the management, maintenance, and development of both publically and privately-owned water sources.
II. Project Description. A number of reliable water sources exist in Baoma, but the supply of Habour Spring, the most developed source, is inadequate during the dry season. Furthermore, the largest and most utilized sources contain significant concentrations of coliform bacteria. Baoma has taken steps to improve water quality through source protection measures, regular cleaning and maintenance, and an increased focus on community ownership. Furthermore, a lot of great discussion took
Page 43 of 93
p. 44
place during the second assessment trip between EWB-PSU and the Water Board in regards to the development of solutions that improve water quality and quantity. The goal of this MOU is to reach an agreement between EWB-PSU and the Water Board on continuing the project process and continuing communication with each other describing what progress has been made. EWB-PSU will be focusing on the development of project alternatives and the organizations will agree upon a project for implementation. The Water Board will focus on continuing their weekly meetings and keeping EWB-PSU informed on what is discussed and what changes have been made in regards to any water related situations. EWB-PSU, the Water Board, and EWB-SL will ultimately work together to develop effective water source improvement alternatives.
III. Roles of Responsible Parties EWB-PSU 1. Keep the Water Board updated on all progress that is made 2. Keep community needs and constraints in mind while developing project alternatives 3. Provide feedback on Baomas progress, and update the Water Board with preliminary design ideas 4. With the communitys ideas and input, design a water system appropriate for their needs 5. Educate caretakers on the maintenance, operation, and long-term sustainability of such a system EWB-SL 1. Check in regularly with Baomas Water Board as it meets 2. Oversee the implementation of suggestions and improvements 3. Be a point of contact between EWB-PSU and Baoma when necessary The Baoma Community 1. Continue to hold periodic Water Board meetings 2. Discuss what would be beneficial to them and how the current system can be improved 3. Discuss their thoughts related to the project ideas that EWB-PSU present to them
Page 44 of 93
p. 45
4. Sensitize community members about the arrangement with EWB-PSU and the source improvement process 5. Attempt to make use of the information that was provided to them by EWB-PSU during the second assessment trip, including point of use water treatment options 6. The Water Boards main point-of-contact with EWB-PSU will provide updates to EWB-PSU and EWB-SL about the happenings of their meetings, any new issues that present themselves regarding Baomas water situation, and anything that they feel may aid in the development of a treatment system design. Joint Responsibility 1. Maintain periodic communication throughout process. 2. All parties must consider: Will villagers pay for the water they use? If so, what is a reasonable amount? Who will conduct maintenance on the system? How will repairs be handled and funded? For example, can a community plot of land be established, and the crop sold to fund repairs? How quality and quantity monitoring will occur to ensure that water is pathogen-free and there is adequate supply throughout the dry season
IV. Project Time Frame Post May 2012: The Water Board meets periodically while EWB-PSU continues to analyze their data and furthers the project alternatives and design processes. Communication between all parties is carried out throughout the interim as these alternatives are evaluated. Fall 2012: EWB-PSU will complete the 523 form, known as the Alternative Analysis Report. EWB-PSU will send this document to EWB-SL and the Water Board to keep them informed and hear their suggestions. Spring 2013: EWB-PSU plans to complete the 524 and 525 forms, respectively known as the Preliminary Design Report and Pre-Implementation Report. May 2013: At the moment, EWB-PSU hopes that it will be possible to return to Baoma for an implementation trip during this time.
Page 45 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone V. Agreement to Discuss
p. 46
Both EWB-PSU and Baoma will keep open communication lines throughout the entire assessment, implementation, and monitoring process. Baoma can expect EWB-PSU to remain committed to the community, while designing and implementing an effective water system to meet their needs. However, EWB-PSU reserves the right to delay or cancel the project process if Baomas Water Board does not continue to meet their responsibilities. If either party is dissatisfied with the arrangement, or deems some change to the MOU is necessary, it will be openly discussed.
VI. Signatures Headman EWB-PSU Water Project Manager EWB-SL Representative Members of the water committee
Page 46 of 93
p. 47
8.0 Photo Documentation

*Photo documentation can be found throughout this document
Figure 25 - The first meeting with Baoma's Water Board
Figure 26 - The small concrete wall seen here was built during our trip to keep rain runoff from contaminating the Garden Spring.
9.0 Project Feasibility

Findings from the assessment trip indicate that: The village of Baoma has significant water supply needs. Community leaders and concerned villagers recognize the importance of water supply issues, and the community is eager to improve its water supply system. They have demonstrated this commitment through the formation of the Water Board.
Page 47 of 93
p. 48
Any changes in system operation and/or infrastructure will need to be coordinated closely with the community in order to be compatible with social and religious considerations. The community has extremely limited financial resources. The cost-benefit aspect of any proposed changes in system operation and/or infrastructure will need to be coordinated closely with the community in order to stay within the budget constraints.
EWB-PSUs modified work plan for the water project is appropriate. It will be appropriate to present a range of alternatives for water system improvements to the community for their review and comment, and then proceed to final implementation planning for the chosen alternative(s).
As observed during the implementation of the latrine and berm project, the Baoma community in general is filled with skilled workers. Within just a few days of approving the building of the Garden Spring berm, the community had gathered donations of sand, aggregate, etc. for the concrete wall and completed construction. This quick, skillful action shows that the community definitely understands their water situation and is eager to work with us on improving it.
EWB-PSU has determined that we have the technical ability to provide meaningful assistance to the village of Baoma and we will continue with the next phase of the water project. This will include the completion of the 523 form and the further development of water supply improvement alternatives to present to the community.
10.0 Lessons Learned

Pre-trip Planning EWB trip planning materials were useful. Brainstorming during pre-trip meetings was also useful.
Travel Coordination with PSU travel personnel was useful to identify baggage limitations for air travel.
Page 48 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone Health and Safety
p. 49
We used first aid kits for minor cuts and scrapes. The time spent in preparing for health and safety issues before the trip was useful in sensitizing team members to health and safety issues such as personal hygiene, food safety, and daily medications.
Community Involvement This project involves a community with complex dynamics. We spent quite a bit of time discussing issues with community members and learning about Baomas culture. This time spent was definitely worthwhile. Balancing our commitment to Pastor Martin and the school through the latrine project and our commitment to the large community through the water project will be a challenging task. We must continue to tread carefully when addressing communications to Martin, so the community cannot interpret our actions as favoring Martins goals and agenda. Above all, we must strive to treat all in the community with respect, and be mindful of their lifestyles and customs.
Flexibility In spite of our pre-trip planning, local conditions were not completely as expected. We found that it was helpful to be flexible with the assessment trip work plan in order to address changing conditions. Also, we must be prepared to work within the times constraints and day-today activities in the village.
11.0 Project Status

This project has been deemed feasible, and it is in progress. EWB-PSU has determined that we have the technical ability to provide meaningful assistance to the village of Baoma. We will continue with the next phase of the water project which will include the completion of the 523 form and the development of water supply improvement alternatives to present to the community. The next phase of the project will be to further analyze the data we have collected, develop alternatives, and share a preliminary draft report with the Baoma community.
Page 49 of 93
p. 50
12.0 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Assessment

12.1 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Name (who provided the assessment): Richard Kercher
12.2 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Assessment The primary goals for the assessment trip were to assess existing water supply conditions, identify arising problems, develop preliminary alternatives, and discuss community involvement. The team bought and brought an incubator to collect water quality data. The team made a presentation on day two explaining the alternatives of each source. Copies of water source mapping, previous assessment trip data, and guidance on short-term water quality improvement was provided to the Baoma Water Committee. The team did an excellent job describing the alternatives for each source and discussing further information they would need to gather this trip. Finally the team scheduled a meeting during one of the communitys regular water meeting to further discuss community involvement and the project. The second meeting with the Water Board was infused with political drama by SK, who was determined to discuss the financials of the project. . However, other community members as well as members of the Baoma Water Committee understand EWBs policy of community contribution and ownership of projects. Mr. Konneh summed it up best by describing 3 types of community members: ones who will lead the effort, others who will sit on the fence until they see something tangible and then will contribute, and a third category who wont contribute at all. The water team redirected the discussion back to looking at simple improvements to the garden spring and a meeting with WAPFR. A final meeting with the water committee was scheduled and a plan to create a berm around the garden spring with the community donating the sand and aggregate. In addition, one community member, Moses, planned to call WAPFR to discuss Motema stream. The trip was wrapped up with a meeting with the Water Board. The team discussed the success with the garden spring berm and their meeting with WAPFR. While some community members were pushing for improvements to the Habour Spring since this is located on higher ground and serves private home connections, the preferred alternative turned out to be the garden spring for several reasons. The garden spring is the most reliable source in the dry season and
Page 50 of 93
p. 51
serves a larger portion of the community. The garden spring also serves as the main source for members of the community that cannot afford to purchase drinking water. The garden spring is seen as the preferred alternative for Baoma until funding becomes available for a Motema spring project. Throughout the trip, the team collected data from each source and talked with the community about how they use their water. The team has obtained basic technical information, and will be developing estimates of daily demand, water supply sufficiency, and various alternatives for water system operation, including but not limited to: spring improvement, distribution system standards, system storage, development of distributed tap stands, cost allocation and rate charging, in-kind services by indigent villagers, water disinfection in private homes and of community water sources, source area protection, utilization and development of new sources, and education. Social dynamics, including interaction between a village chief, a tribal Queen, two Headmen for different areas of the village, and interested villagers, are very complex. The water team identified some of the social complexities at the first community meeting, and it appears that the team was successful in working compatibly with the local, social context. The next phase of the project will be to compile basic information, develop alternatives (per the preceding paragraph), and share a preliminary draft report with the Community. In the teams last community meeting we outlined this intended approach, and the community leaders are expecting the water team to follow this approach. We anticipate receiving comments from the community on identified alternatives, and then the water team will address comments and perform other follow-up tasks (such as cost estimates, designation of in-kind labor, etc.) as appropriate.
12.3 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Affirmation I, Richard Kercher, was actively involved in trip preparation and I am glad to take responsibility for the course that the project is taking.
Page 51 of 93
p. 52
Appendices
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes
A.1 First Water Board Meeting: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Jill: (passes out handouts) Florence: (In discussion of Motema) minister not in WHH-World Health Hunger (in partnership with WAPFoR)-land passed to the Water Board-9 members, 4 men and 5 women on committee Alternatives on 4 topics -source improvement -source storage -source distribution -water quality improvement Jill then goes through all alternatives: see handouts Topics brought up during discussion: Wells sometimes challenging b/c of bedrock Florence has a 56 well on the hill Immediate need = getting water Financial resources, board took a poll in the community and calculated a total of $4 could be donated by the community. (300 households) 90% of the community does not want to donate Florence: land sold out, need sacrifice for community wells Next meeting will be the usual Water Board meeting time on Sunday.
A.2 Second Water Board Meeting: Sunday, May 20, 2012 Attendees: Baoma Mohammed Konneh SK (headman) Florence Zynab Savanos Emmanuel 7 unknown men 1 unknown woman EWB-PSU Jill Morris TJ Cepek John Lamancusa EWB-SL Anthony
Page 52 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone SK: Recap of the first meeting Jill: Recap of the work EWB-PSU has done since the first meeting
p. 53
Florence: Explains that Moses will call WAPFoR to set up a meeting before EWB-PSU returns home SK: Tries to discuss monetary issues EWB-PSU: Clarifies that this meeting is not about money and we dont have accurate cost estimates at this point Jill: Opens up discussion about the various spring sources and suggestions to improve them The leakage from Habour Spring is addressed Berm for Garden Spring o The Water Board supports the idea, but land ownership will need to be addressed o Florence says that Mama Motu owns the Garden Spring o Building of the berm is approved o EWB-PSU will need to talk to Kinnie about construction of the berm o Materials are discussed the community will gather donations for the concrete EWB-PSU suggests planting trees and terracing above Habour Spring o Land ownership is the major problem for this Motema discussion o Land ownership and the high cost are the potential issues with Motema Point of use treatment discussion o EWB-PSU mentions solar disinfection and use of Moringa seeds o More information will be given about the above suggestions and the next meeting
A.3 WAPFoR Meeting: Thursday, May 24, 2012 Attendees: Baoma Florence Moses EWB-PSU Jill Morris TJ Cepek John Lamancusa WAPFoR Joakim (Project Manager) Idrissa Samba (Field Coordinator) Lahai Ensah Bunduka (Environmental Officer)
Page 53 of 93
p. 54
Baoma and EWB-PSU: introductions and explain that a partnership with WAPFoR could prove to be very beneficial Joakim: explains exactly what WAPFoR does WAPFoR has worked on a lot of environmental projects, but they are currently out of money until the next grant cycle Some of the information Joakim provided: Pipelines are expensive, but dams are usually only about $5,000-$10,000 In regard to Motema: o Pipeline must be 4-5 inches in diameter o Estimates 10-20 taps would be necessary o Estimates $10,000 for a storage tank o Estimates $60,000-$100,000 potentially for total project cost o It would probably be about a 5 year project Phase 1 would be for EWB-PSU and WAPFoR to collect and trade data/studies Phase 2 would be to continue networking
A.4 Third Water Board Meeting: Saturday, May 26, 2012 Attendees: Baoma Moses Mohammed Konneh Junior Mama Motu Emmanuel Alex Some unknowns EWB-PSU Jill Morris TJ Cepek John Lamancusa Richard Kercher Jared Yarnall-Schane Caroline Klatman Kyle Palmeter EWB-SL Mohammed Kahlil Anthony
Jill: discussion about the meeting with WAPFoR and more suggestions Habour would probably be a waste of a project o In comparison with the Garden Spring, not a lot of people use it and the water quality is worse
Page 54 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone Garden Spring o Spring box and other possibilities o Baomas monetary contribution could be lessened by taking in kind contributions into consideration (such as labor) Process/time frame for potential Garden Spring project o EWB-PSU needs to complete the 522 document, willing to send it to Baoma o Alternatives o MOU, cost estimate (November, December of 2012) o Come back to Baoma (hopefully around May 2013)
p. 55
Page 55 of 93
p. 56
Appendix B: Community Alternative Informational Packets

*The following are the information packets that EWB-PSU gave to and discussed with Baomas Water Board during the second assessment trip.
Page 56 of 93
Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone B.1 Water Supply Evaluation
p. 57
Page 57 of 93
p. 58
Page 58 of 93
Document 522 - Post-Assessment Report Penn State University Baoma, Sierra Leone Community Water Source and Governance Evaluation 1.0
1.1
Rev. 09-2011
HABOUR SPRING
Storage Improvement
Provide system storage immediately after the slow sand filter. Provide one-days storage (25,000 liters; 6,600 gallons). Place a plastic tank on poured concrete floor. Fence off the storage tank area to prevent tampering or accidental damage. Inspect the tank periodically. Provide system storage at the tap stands. Each tap stand tank should have 4,000 liters (3,785 gallon) storage capacity. Tap stand valves should be self-closing (i.e., must be manually held open to work). Tap stands tanks should be placed on a block stand to prevent accidental damage and to provide room to place a bucket beneath the tap. Tap stands and tap stand tanks should be fenced to prevent accidental damage and to control local activity. 1.2 Source Improvement
Located relatively close to village, existing system serves tap stands. Flow is fairly persistent, although low flow during dry season. Available to all villagers, water managed under this supply system is to be delivered to homes & monthly fees paid to maintain the system. Others can access the water @ tap stands or @ pool downstream from catchment. 1.2.1 Manage overland flow at Spring

Identify area that is immediately upslope from spring. Prohibit development of latrines within 500 feet upslope from the spring. latrines exist in this area, they must be removed / relocated. Prohibit livestock pasturing within 250 feet upslope from the spring. Construct a berm to divert water around the spring pool. Berm must be at least 0.5 meter high. Place a 1-meter fence in the berm. Prohibit people from entering the fenced area except for spring maintenance. Distribution system issues If
1.3

Vulnerable areas, such as road crossings, should be identified. Where piping must cross a vulnerable area, the piping should be placed underground beneath a conduit (such as Sch 80 PVC pipe). Both ends of the conduit should be left open so that leakage can be identified. The conduit should be large enough so that the piping can be pulled out of the conduit if repair is needed. Piping in non-vulnerable areas should be above-ground and visible so that leakage and illicit connections can be identified.
Page 59 of 93
Document 522 - Post-Assessment Report Penn State University Baoma, Sierra Leone Community Water Source and Governance Evaluation
1.4 Disinfection/Filtration
Rev. 09-2011
2.0
2.1 2.2
GARDEN SPRING
Decide whether or not to continue to utilize this spring Disinfection Decide how to deliver water to disinfection gravity of ram pumping.
Construct a slow sand filter. Place the filter out of floodway. Base may be watertight, poured concrete on a gravel bed. Walls may be water-tight block. Base and walls must be constructed so that leakage is quickly apparent (i.e., use gravel witness zone beneath the filter) Provide secure lid or other provision to access sand bed for maintenance. Bed to be sized for 5 gpm capacity (or greater). Develop an operation & maintenance plan. responsible for O&M. Designate individuals who are
Develop a backup disinfection alternative. UV disinfection is recommended, since it does not require the use of chemicals. Villagers should stockpile 1 days supply of water in clear plastic bottles for use in case of disruption of the bulk disinfection system. System storage
2.3
Provide system storage immediately after the slow sand filter. Provide onedays storage (40,000 gallons; 150,000 liters). Place a plastic tank on poured concrete floor. Fence off the storage tank area to prevent tampering or accidental damage. Inspect the tank periodically. Water is to be delivered from system storage through multiple tap stands located at the storage tank. No plan for remote tap stands. Develop usage and protection measures for tap stands. Distribution system issues
2.4
No distribution system for remote tap stands.
3.0
WEST SIDE SPRING
Page 60 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
NOTE no discussion of alternatives for West Side Spring, since the number and type of alternatives are limited for this low flow-rate spring. 3.1 Source Improvement
3.1.1 Alternatives to address Spring Vent issues A. B. Develop rules for spring use. designated dipper bucket. No standing in the spring vent, use a
Assess whether wash water from the adjacent wash area is travelling to the spring. If yes, relocate wash area to a lower elevation than the point immediately before water is taken for use (i.e., below spring vent or else below collection trench). Disinfection
3.2
The simplest, bulk disinfection alternative would be a slow sand filter. If bulk disinfection is chosen, then the disinfected water would need to be placed in sanitary storage prior to use. Storage is also required so that villagers dont have to wait for the water to pass through the filter when fetching water. Bulk disinfection may be prone to system-wide unavailability of water during upsets. It may be prudent to have a backup disinfection scheme in case of disruptions to service. Construction: Small containers (such as 50-gallon drums) to hold filter media. If collector trenches are used, place the filters downslope from the bottom of the collector trench to use gravity feed. Point-of-taking disinfection could consist of a dispenser to deliver a portion of disinfectant (e.g., chlorine) suitable for a 5-gallon bucket. This could occur at the tap stands downslope from the system storage tank (if developed). A. Assist villagers with point of use disinfection.
As previously discussed, this is not a first-tier alternative. B. Do the best that we can to clean up the source and dont worry about disinfection.
As previously discussed, this is not a first-tier alternative. 3.3 System Storage
System storage should be provided at the spring immediately after the sand filter.
Page 61 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
System storage should be sized for twice the daily output of the spring to provide excess capacity during system disruption, or roughly 3,000 gallons (10,000 liters). Tap stands @ system storage should be plumbed so that the default condition is off, i.e., users must manually hold a valve open in order to draw water. Conventional taps (hose bibs) should not be used. 3.3.1 Alternatives to low flow and incomplete capture of water Water flows to the spring vents through fractures in rock. The water rises to the level of the top of the vent (or to the highest, open fracture in rock) and no further. There is no practical, passive alternative to low flow. Incomplete capture could be addressed by either: A. Run a pipe through the downslope edge of the spring vent in order to collect the water as it enters the spring vent. This would slightly increase the rate of capture of water from the spring vent. Develop collection trenches downslope from the spring. If the downslope soil is wet (through the red rock to the grey rock), then we may be able to install trenches, slope the trenches to a low-point vertex, and install a pipe at the vertex to collect water from the trenches by gravity. Alternatives to address distribution system issues
B.
3.4
Gravity tap stands should be placed at the system storage tank. Because of frequent use, it may be beneficial to develop a pipeline to the school. If this is done, then the water should be delivered to storage tanks at the school. The storage tanks should contain level-sensing shutoff values (toilet tank shutoffs) to prevent overfilling and water loss.
4.0
4.1 4.2
QUARRY SPRINGS
Address Ownership Diffuse Flow Alternative B - Collect the water as it flows down the high wall to within 10 feet of the bench floor. Convey the diffuse flow into a single collector pipe Disinfection
4.3
Page 62 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
The simplest, bulk disinfection alternative would be a slow sand filter. If bulk disinfection is chosen, then the disinfected water would need to be placed in sanitary storage prior to use. Storage is also required so that villagers dont have to wait for the water to pass through the filter when fetching water. Bulk disinfection may be prone to system-wide unavailability of water during upsets. It may be prudent to have a backup disinfection scheme in case of disruptions to service. Construction: Small, modular containers (such as 50-gallon drums) to hold filter media. System storage.
4.4
Provide system storage immediately after the slow sand filter. Provide onedays storage (15,000 liters; 3,000 gallons). Place a plastic tank on poured concrete floor. Fence off the storage tank area to prevent tampering or accidental damage. Inspect the tank periodically. Provide tap stands at the system storage tank. Tap stand valves should be selfclosing (i.e., must be manually held open to work). Tap stands tanks should be placed on a block stand to prevent accidental damage and to provide room to place a bucket beneath the tap. Tap stands and tap stand tanks should be fenced to prevent accidental damage and to control local activity. Distribution system
4.5
If the water supply at the quarry spring proves to be persistent through the dry season and if the amount of flow that is captured is sufficient, then it may be possible to construct tap stands downslope from the quarry to serve the southwest portion of the village.
5.0
5.1 5.2 5.3

MOTEMA SPRING
Address Ownership Address other, existing uses of the Motema water Distribution Survey the spring vents, Inspect the outflow channel and identify potential locations where a pipeline could divert water from the channel. Inspect potential routes for pipelines, select best route.
Page 63 of 93
5.4
Rev. 09-2011
Disinfection The simplest, bulk disinfection alternative would be a slow sand filter. Size and construction considerations similar to Habour Spring. System storage

5.5
Size and construction considerations similar to Habour Spring Provide tap stands at the system storage tank. Tap stand valves should be selfclosing (i.e., must be manually held open to work). Tap stands tanks should be placed on a block stand to prevent accidental damage and to provide room to place a bucket beneath the tap. Tap stands and tap stand tanks should be fenced to prevent accidental damage and to control local activity. It may be desirable to construct remote tap stands, similar to the remote tap stands for the Habour Spring. All tap stands would be located downslope from treatment and storage.
Page 64 of 93
B.2 Point of Use Water Treatment Options
Rev. 09-2011
Moringa Water Treatment
Figure 27: Moringa Seeds
Figure 28: Moringa Tree
1.0 Background 1.1 Maintenance The Moringa tree is known to grow best in sandy soil and be drought resistant. It requires 250 to 3000 mm of annual rainfall. It may lose its leaves in low rainfall conditions, but will recover when rainfall returns. It grows best at low-altitudes (below 600 m), but can grow at higher elevations. It survives in a temperature range of 25 to 40 degrees Celsius (77 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit). The Moringa prefers neutral to slightly acidic soil that is well drained. It can tolerate clay soil, but does not grow well if waterlogged. Measures would have to be taken to
Page 65 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
make sure the trees are not damaged by wildlife. The trees would also have to be cut back to make for easier harvesting. Seeds would need to be harvested only once a year since the Moringa produces seeds on an annual basis. The flowers, leaves, and fruit may be harvested at other times of the year. The seeds can be ground into a powder that can be stored. The water purification process that uses the powder should be performed each time water is needed. The purified water should be used soon after the purification process. 1.2 Failure Indication At the end of the purification process, one can tell if it was successful by seeing if the particles and contaminants have sunk to the bottom. While this is a good way to judge whether these particles have been removed from the water, it may be difficult to determine if bacteria and other pollutants have been removed. 2.0 Treatment Efficiency 2.1 Startup Time Within three years, a tree can produce around 400 pods (about 4800 seeds). After reaching maturity, a tree can produce 1000 pods (about 12000 seeds). 2.2 Reduction of Bacteria Pterygospermin and benzyl isothiocyanate are found in the seeds. Benzyl isothiocyanate is a highly effective antibiotic and can be used to treat bacterial infection. Pterygospermin can be used to counter the effects of a number of bacteria responsible for causing infections and also offers an anti-fungal effect. Treatment of water with Moringa solution is capable of removing 90-99.9% of the impurities in water. 2.3 Aesthetics (taste, smell, clarity) After being purified, the water appears clear. No information was found regarding the taste and smell of water treated with Moringa seeds. It should only be used on turbid water. 2.4 Throughput In general, every 1 to 2 liters of water would require one seed for purification. The largest limitation to a system that uses the Moringa seeds is the number of trees that are grown.
3.0 Ease of Implementation 3.1 Availability of Materials One website offers contacts for people that sell the seeds in Sierra Leone. I tried to contact a few of them for pricing but have not heard back. 3.2 Education Required The water purification process would need to be taught to everyone since it is a point of use treatment. The process itself is fairly simple and only requires a few steps. Depending on the plan for growing the trees, a number of people will need to be educated in the practice of growing and harvesting. Villagers would also need to be educated in consumption of the leaves, fruit, flowers, and seeds since some parts should not be consumed and others must be cooked first.
Page 66 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
3.3 Time Requirement Villagers would need to take time to care for the trees and harvest the seeds. They would also need to take time to grind and store seeds for later use as well as allocate time daily to purify the water. 4.0 Additional Benefits 4.1 Possibility of Incentives There would be incentive for people to grow their own trees as a source of seeds for their own family as well as an additional source of food and income. 4.2 Added Economic Incentive Most parts of the tree can serve a purpose. The leaves, flowers, seeds and gum can all be eaten and are extremely rich in vitamins and nutrients. Various parts of the tree are said to be able to be used as medicine but not much study has been done to support these claims. The oil can be used for skin care, cooking, and biodiesel production. The oil does not turn rancid and burns without smoke. The seeds contain 35% oil. 5.0 Environmental Impact 5.1 Ecological Impact The trees would be a benefit to the environment because they would help reduce erosion and serve as homes for birds and other animals. 5.2 Waste Generation The waste material that is left at the bottom of the container during the purification process would need to be discarded after each use. 6.0 Social/Cultural Acceptance 6.1 Change in lifestyle Since the purification process is supposed to be performed as needed, this would mean a drastic change in lifestyle. Instead of simply getting the water and immediately drinking it, villagers would need to obtain the water, make the purifying solution, mix the purifying solution with the water intended for consumption, wait for the material in the water to settle to the bottom, and then pour the water above the settled material into another container to be consumed. 6.2 Total Time for drinking water Assuming that the seeds were already in powder form, it would take a person approximately 20 to 30 minutes to prepare the water and then a wait time of about an hour is necessary to purify the water. Time would need to be taken to grind the seeds into a powder form. 6.3 Percentage of Income It is difficult to speculate on the cost that each family would sustain since the cost would likely be determined by the cost of the land on which the trees are grown. 6.4 Scalability It is hard to imagine large-scale implementation because it is widely agreed that the water should be consumed shortly after being purified. 7.0 Cost 7.1 Startup Cost Initially the trees would require more care to ensure that they grow properly. Cost for seeds varies, but generally ranges from $5 to $10 for 50 to 100 seeds. 7.2 Cost of Maintenance
Page 67 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
It is likely that someone would need to be put in charge of the growing operation and likely require some type of payment for his or her services (pruning and protection from animals and insects). Another cost would be to pay the people who harvest the seeds, leaves, etc. The largest cost would be paying for the land on which the trees would be grown but some type of agreement might be able to be worked out with a landowner.
Ceramic Filtration
Figure 29: Ceramic Filter and Container to Catch the Water
1.0 Description The ceramic can filter small particles of bacteria when it passes through the clay material. It is susceptible to plugging because large particles (problem can be avoided if you have another filter) cant fit through small ceramic holes. 2.0 Requirements for Implementation - Buy multiple ceramic filters - Locally produce ceramic filters and sell them to neighboring areas 2.1 Start Up Cost Hydraulic press, hammer mill, mortar mixer, source of clay, potters, dry burnout materials (sawdust, rice, milled husks, etc.), colloidal silver, pyrometer, kiln, soaking tank, plastic spigots, plastic bags, and measuring device. 3.0 Cost - Manufactured ceramic PFP-design filters range in cost from $7.50-$30. - If a family filters 20 liters of water per day (running the filter continuously) and the filter lasts 3 years then the cost per liter treated (including cost of filter only) is 0.04-0.14 US cents. - Cost more for a more sustainable ceramic making factory. 4.0 Benefits to community - Water is purified very well.
Page 68 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
- Inexpensive if you choose to buy multiple filters or could be a source of income if people invest in a ceramic making factory. - No power source needed. - Educate the community on the benefits of purified water. 5.0 Sustainability Challenges - The filter element holds approximately 10 liters (2.64 gallons), allowing a family to produce 30 liters (7.93 gallons) of water per day with three fillings, or more if required. - Throughput is low, so it takes a lot of time to filter. - Cost might be too much for every home to own one. - Every six months it needs to be cleaned. - Could be very appropriate if they are made locally by a potter, but this may not be viable. - Dependent upon if there is a sustainable clay source and enough dry material (like saw dust) - Probably not a long term strategy because the process is time consuming and building a factory would be very capital intensive
Solar Disinfection
1.0 Description Uses solar energy to destroy pathogenic organisms. 2.0 Materials Transparent plastic bottles are required in order to contain the water while letting in ultraviolet rays. Ideal placement of the bottles would be on residential roofs. The metal would allow for thorough decontamination of the water in the bottle. It is also ideal for the bottles to be places in area that are exposed to the sun for as long as possible (i.e. a location that does not have anything around it blocking the sunlight). 3.0 Cost and Availability The water to be used must be low turbidity because UV rays will be blocked by large particles. The only cost would be that to buy the transparent plastic bottles. 4.0 Treatment Efficiency Solar Disinfection is documented to inactivate the following bacteria: Escherichia coli (E. coli), Vibrio Cholerae, Streptococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aerugenosa, Shigella flexneri, Salmonella (typhii, enteritidis, and paratyphi). 4.1 Advantages The water treatment method is inexpensive due to low cost and low demand for materials. It is a simple concept to grasp and practice. It also improves the microbiological quality of the drinking water. 4.2 Disadvantages Solar disinfection requires water of low turbidity so water with heavy particles will not be effectively treated. It used only for small quantities of water. The required time for proper disinfection is 6 hours of solar radiation.
Page 69 of 93
Document 522 - Post-Assessment Report Penn State University Baoma, Sierra Leone Community Water Source and Governance Evaluation Slow-Sand Filtration
Rev. 09-2011
Figure 30: Example of a Slow-Sand Filter
1.0 Operations/Maintenance A slow-sand filter requires the following to be checked Daily: 1) Intake rate 2) Water level in filter 3) Water level in clear water well (output tank) 4) Water quality Monthly: 1) Scrape filter bed 2) Wash the scrapings and store Yearly: 1) Clean clear water well 2) Check the water tightness of clean water well Every two years: 1) Replace sand The indication of failure of the slow sand filter is a slowing or stopping of output water flow. If the water is not flowing through the filter consistently there is risk of low water quality.
2.0 Cost It costs less than one hundred dollars to construct the filter. The materials required include a vessel for the filtering material (could be concrete), stones, gravel, and sand. The majority of these materials can be obtained locally. 3.0 Treatment Efficiency After installing the filter requires about 3 weeks to gradually build up a layer of organic material which has the main filtering ability of the device. After cleaning, it would take about 1 to 2 days
Page 70 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
to flow consistently again. These time requirements vary with the size of the filter. The reduction of bacteria is recorded at 99.9%. 4.0 Aesthetics The slow sand filter does not remove 100% of the smell/odor or turbidity of the water. 5.0 Throughput The slow-sand filter has a constant flow of water if maintained properly. 6.0 Education Required Measuring of the materials for installation is one thing that requires instruction. Construction of the vessel and drainage system must also be taught for implementation. 7.0 Scalability This method of water treatment is very scalable due to the effect that the effectiveness is maintained for any size of the filter. It can produce for both small scale (household) and large (community) scale demand.
Page 71 of 93
Document 522 - Post-Assessment Report Penn State University Baoma, Sierra Leone Community Water Source and Governance Evaluation Appendix C: WAPFoR Handouts
Rev. 09-2011
Page 72 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 73 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 74 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 75 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 76 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 77 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 78 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 79 of 93
Rev. 09-2011
Page 80 of 93
Document 522 - Post-Assessment Report Penn State University Baoma, Sierra Leone Community Water Source and Governance Evaluation Appendix D: Health Assessment Surveys
D.1 Sample Questions
Rev. 09-2011
Mission Statement: Engineers Without Borders-Penn State is here to work with your community to develop clean water sources. We would like to ask you a few questions on your daily water questions. Location and observations of house (north, south, edge of town, near Goderich, size of property, etc.): (maybe take a picture with family and have a sign saying the house assessment number)
Household # of Occupants: Children in School: Sources of Income:
# Children (0-12 years old): School:
Where do you get water?
Do you ever pay for water? Yes What do you pay for water? Where do you get it?
No
Page 81 of 93
Treatment: Do you treat your water? Yes How? No
Rev. 09-2011
What is the cost to treat your water?
How often do you treat it?
Note: How much solution is used per treatment?
Usage How much water do you use each day? (Household)
Do you store your water? Quantity?
When do you get water each day? Time of day Before breakfast After breakfast Before Lunch After Lunch Before Dinner After Dinner Before Bedtime X
Page 82 of 93
What do you use your water for? Quantities?
Activity drinking bathing cooking cleaning dishes other: Quantity of water
Rev. 09-2011
UNITS:_____________
Health: Within the past two weeks, how many times have your children been sick (tummy, fever)?
What are common symptoms?
Future: Are you satisfied with the current water system? Yes How could the current water system be improved? No
How much would you pay for a pipe connection?
How much would you pay for clean water?
Page 83 of 93
Questionnaire Advice: 1. Probe can you tell me more about____________?
Rev. 09-2011
2. Contrast-is your experience common, or have others had a different experience? 3. Do NOT lead questions (i.e. Would a water project make you healthier?) 4. Observe: smells, sounds, feels, weather, animals nearby, litter, space, fire, smoke, personal space, crying, water storage, cooking fuel, roads, and moods). 5. Perceptions = FACTS. (e.g. If a respondent says that hand washing is unimportant; nod, write, keep moving. Do not educate, do not correct, just listen and get their perspective) 6. Expand notes within 24 hours!!!
Page 84 of 93
D.2 Results
Rev. 09-2011
Household 1: Motu Compound Number of Occupants: 20 Number of children: 15 Children in School: all Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 30-40 gallons per day Health: Moses- sick with Malaria and Typhoid, Mama Motu- heart complaint Latrine? Yes, VIP Household 2: Abibatu Coker Number of Occupants: 11 Number of children: 9 Children in School: all that are old enough Pay for water? 3,000 SL for the packets at the local shop (use 5 packets per day) Treat water? No How much water used daily? 20 gallons Water storage: 40 gallons per day Health: 1 child sick with stomachache Latrine? Yes, VIP Household 3: Ester Hubbard Number of Occupants: 8 Number of children: 2 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? No Treat water? Yes, aquatablets, per two gallons Cost of treatment: 80 tabs, 50,000 SL How much water used daily? 15 gallons Water storage: 15 Health: No Latrine? Yes, VIP
Page 85 of 93
Household 4: Chief Coker Number of Occupants: 6 Number of children: 2 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? No Treat water? Yes, aquatablets, per two gallons Cost of treatment: 80 tabs, 50,000 SL How much water used daily? 5 gallons per day Water storage: some left for the next day Health: yes, one with fever Latrine? Yes, pit Household 5: Mariatu Samura Number of Occupants: 8 Number of children: 6 Children in School: yes Pay for water? Yes, packets every 1-2 weeks Treat water? No How much water used daily? 50 gallons per day Water storage: yes, +50 gallons Health: No Latrine? Yes, pit Household 6: Ibrahim Banguna Number of Occupants: 6 Number of children: 4 Children in School: 3 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 100 gallons per day (Habour and packets) Water storage: 6 containers ranging from 5-15 gallons Health: No Latrine? Yes, pit Household 7: Abdul Laemboi Number of Occupants: 5 Number of children: 3 Children in School: 3 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 30 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: yes, frequent diarrhea, and stomachache Latrine? No
Rev. 09-2011
Page 86 of 93
Household 8: Florance Sesay Number of Occupants: 7 Number of children: 2 Children in School: 2 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 40 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? No Household 9: Saffiatu Jalloh Number of Occupants: 3 Number of children: 0 Children in School: 0 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 25 gallons per day, (2 bottled/week) Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? Yes, flush Household 9: Ibrahim Bangura Number of Occupants: 16 Number of children: 7 Children in School: all Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 60 gallons per day Water storage: 10-15 gallons left over from the storage Health: 1 person, malaria and typhoid Latrine? No Household 10: Gbasay Mansaray Number of Occupants: 4 Number of children: 2 Children in School: No Pay for water? No Treat water? Yes, aquatabs How much water used daily? 17 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: yes, 1 with fever Latrine? No
Rev. 09-2011
Page 87 of 93
Household 11: Florance Sesay Number of Occupants: 7 Number of children: 2 Children in School: 2 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 40 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? No Household 12: Fatmata Fullah Number of Occupants: 8 Number of children: 4 Children in School: all (1 baby?) Pay for water? No Treat water? Sometimes not often, aquatabs How much water used daily? 25 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: yes two, stomach ache Latrine? No Household 13: Adama Koroma Number of Occupants: 5 Number of children: 4 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 10 gallons per day Health: yes, 3 children headache and stomachache Latrine? No Household 14: Christina Sesay Number of Occupants: 12 Number of children: 3 Children in School: 3 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 35 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: yes 1 headache Latrine? Yes, VIP
Rev. 09-2011
Page 88 of 93
Household 15: Ester Sesay Number of Occupants: 13 Number of children: 9 Children in School: 8 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 70 gallons per day Health: Yes, 2 headache and fever Latrine? No Household 16: Fatmata Massaquoi Number of Occupants: 7 Number of children: 5 Children in School: 2 Pay for water? No Treat water? Yes, regularly How much water used daily? 30 gallons per day Health: Yes, 1 person Malaria, typhoid Latrine? Yes, VIP Household 17: Jonathon Msaruna Waypoint: 58 Number of Occupants: 8 Number of children: 4 Children in School: all Pay for water? No Treat water? Yes, aquatablets regularly How much water used daily? 30 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? Yes, Pour flush Household 18: Ibrahim Kamara Waypoint: 59 Number of Occupants: 15 Number of children: 3 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 50 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: yes 1 headache and throat Latrine? Yes, VIP
Rev. 09-2011
Page 89 of 93
Household 19: Mablle Allie Waypoint: 60 Number of Occupants: 16 Number of children: 5 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? No Treat water? Aquatabs, regularly How much water used daily? 90 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? Yes, flush Household 20: Josephine Boima Waypoint: 59 Number of Occupants: 10 Number of children: 3 Children in School: 2 Pay for water? No Treat water? Aquatabs, regularly How much water used daily? 75 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: yes 2 children, stomach and fever Latrine? Yes, flush
Rev. 09-2011
Household 23: Jabatea Dembie Waypoint: 64 Number of Occupants: 15 Number of children: 1 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 100 gallons per day (some goes to construction site) Water storage: large concrete rain catchment Health: No Latrine? Yes, VIP
Page 90 of 93
Household 21: Fatmata Kamara Waypoint: 62 Number of Occupants: 7 Number of children: 2 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? Yes, packets (mother uses) Treat water? No How much water used daily? 20 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? Yes, flush Household 22: Roseline Cole Waypoint: 63 Number of Occupants: 7 Number of children: 3 Children in School: None Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 25 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon buckets Health: yes 1 fever Latrine? Yes, flush Household 24: Adama Koroma Waypoint: 65 Number of Occupants: 16 Number of children: 6 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? Sometimes - packets Treat water? No How much water used daily? 56 gallons per day Water storage: 5 gallon containers Health: No Latrine? No
Rev. 09-2011
Page 91 of 93
Household 25: Abdul Taiwarie Waypoint: 66 Number of Occupants: 12 Number of children: 5 Children in School: 3 Pay for water? No Treat water? No How much water used daily? 30 gallons per day Health: father sick (unknown) Latrine? No Household 26: Kinnie Massaquoi Waypoint: 67 Number of Occupants: 7 Number of children: 3 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? Yes, one bundle of packets per day Treat water? No How much water used daily? 25 gallons per day Health: No Latrine? Yes, flush Household 27: Margret Teh (owner of sports bar) Waypoint: 69 Number of Occupants: 12 Number of children: 1 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? If from Army Barracks (150,000 SL for 8,000 L) Buy 50 bundles of packets per week Treat water? No How much water used daily? 30 gallons Water storage: +100 gallons per day (huge rain water collection) Health: No Latrine? Yes, flush
Rev. 09-2011
Page 92 of 93
Household 28: Nenhi Kamara Waypoint: 70 Number of Occupants: 16 Number of children: 4 Children in School: 4 Pay for water? Yes, bagged Treat water? No How much water used daily? 90 gallons Health: 3, typhoid, malaria, measles Latrine? Yes, flush Household 29: Francais Kandeh Waypoint: 71 Number of Occupants: 8 Number of children: 2 Children in School: 1 Pay for water? Yes, Packets (1 bundle every two days) Treat water? No How much water used daily? 25 gallons Health: No Latrine? Yes, flush Household 30: James Sesay Waypoint: 72 Number of Occupants: 8 Number of children: 4 Children in School: 4 Pay for water? Sometimes packets Treat water? No How much water used daily? 20 gallons Health: Yes, 2-3 with fever diarrhea, malaria Latrine? Yes, VIP
Rev. 09-2011
Page 93 of 93

SL Water 2012 522 Final

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SL Water 2012 522 Final

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Document 522 POST-ASSESSMENT REPORT CHAPTER: Penn State University COUNTRY: Sierra Leone COMMUNITY: Baoma PROJECT: Community

Water Source and Governance Evaluation

PREPARED BY Jill Morris Thomas Cepek July 15th, 2012

ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USA www.ewb-usa.org

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

5.0 Budget .....................................................................................................................................5

6.0 Project Discipline(s) ................................................................................................................ 10 7.0 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 10

Post Assessment Report Part 2 Technical Information ....................................................... 11

5.0 Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................... 16

6.0 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 41

7.0 Community Agreement/Contract ............................................................................................ 43

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

Appendix B: Community Alternative Informational Packets .......................................................... 56

Appendix C: WAPFoR Handouts.................................................................................................... 72 Appendix D: Health Assessment Surveys ...................................................................................... 81

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

Post-Assessment Report Part 1 Administrative Information

jill.ann.morris@gmail.com rkercher@gfnet.com jslme@engr.psu.edu jill.ann.morris@gmail.com tjcepek@gmail.com moslkha@yahoo.com

2.0 Travel History

May 12 May 28, 2012

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

3.0 Travel Team

jill.ann.morris@gmail.com (267) 804-3972 tjcepek@gmail.com (484) 707-3942 rkercher@gfnet.com (717) 926-0991

4.0 Health and Safety

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

$171 $6,231 $597 $900 $30

$1,517 $749 $319 $1,068 $50 $0

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

$300 $125 $150 $200 $0 $775

$0 $0 $0 $200 $200 $400

$300 $125 $150 $0 -$200 +$375

50 $2,500 $2,500 $11,650 Actual Raised to Date

100 $5,000 $5,000 $31,760

148 $7,400 $7,400 $30,132.68 Actual Raised Total

--$2,400 $2,400 $1,627.32

$8,310 $10,000 $600 $3,000 $11,424

Total Cost of Materials (Le) Total Cost of Materials (USD)

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

$334.88 $183.72 $5.81 $232.56 $226.74 $23.26 $18.60 $4.65 $18.60

6.0 Project Discipline(s)

7.0 Project Location

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

Post Assessment Report Part 2 Technical Information

2.0 Program Background

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

3.0 Trip Description

Tuesday 15, 2012

Wednesday 16, 2012

Thursday 17, 2012

Friday 18, 2012

Saturday 19, 2012 Sunday 20, 2012 Monday 21, 2012

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

4.0 Community Information

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

5.0 Data Collection and Analysis

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone

West Side Drinking Catchment

Motema Stream intersection w/ trail 1. 100/6700 2. 100/3800

Kamara Uppermost Dam

West Side 4.9

Motema (from weir) 2.5 inch overflow with a 90 notch= 21.7

Figure 1 Habour Spring

Figure 2 New netting over Habour Spring catchment

Water Supply Evaluation Village of Baoma, Sierra Leone