watershed ecosystem service and water management ...

WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE AND WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR THE KIRISIA FOREST ECOSYSTEM IN THE SAMBURU LANDSCAPE

FINAL REPORT OF WORK COMMISSIONED AND FUNDED BY

Ngong Road, Karen P.O. Box 310, 00502 NAIROBI, KENYA COMPLIED BY

February 2016

Habitat Planners

2015

REPORT COMPILATION TEAM OF CONSULTANTS Name of expert

Qualifications

Responsibility Ecosystem analysis, lead consultant & overall team leader

1. John W. Kiringe

PhD, M.Sc, B.Sc (Wildlife Ecology)

2. Francis Mwaura

PhD, M.Sc, B.Sc. (Biogeograpghy)

Water use, landscape, land cover analysis & documentation coordination

3. Marcos Kimeu Musau

B.Sc ( Hydrology)

Surface and ground water appraisal

©This report should be cited as; Kiringe, J.W., Mwaura, F. & M.M. Kimeu (2016). Watershed Ecosystem Services and Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools for the Kirisia forest Ecosystem in the Samburu Landscape. Report to the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Nairobi.

Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

ii

Habitat Planners

2015

LIST OF ACRONYMS ASL Above Sea Level AWF Africa Wildlife Foundation ENNCA Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area ERT Electrical Resistivity Tomography ES Ecosystem Services ESP Ecosystem Service Providers GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GOK Government of Kenya GPS Global Positioning System IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KWS Kenya Wildlife Service KFS Kenya Forest Service KWTA Kenya Water Towers Authority MDG Millennium Development Goals MPM Market Price Method NCCRS National Climate Change Response Strategy NEMA National Environment Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organization RGS Regular Gauging Station RoK Republic of Kenya SAWASCO Samburu Water and Sanitation Company Ltd. SCMP Sub Catchment Management Plan SDGs Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States of Agency for International Development USGS United States Geological Surveys WES Watershed Ecosystem Service WHO World Health Organization WRMA Water Resources Management Authority WRUA Water Resources Users Association


iii

Habitat Planners

2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is a product of many hands drawn from Habitat Planners, African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Samburu County especially the communities where the fieldwork was done. Without the financial support from AWF and their point person, Ms. Fiesta Warinwa, the County Director, this work wouldn’t have been undertaken. The technical and logistical support provided by; John Kinyua, Inoti Mburugu of WRMA office in Rumuruti, Antony Ndubi (Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD), Nairobi) also greatly contributed to successful completion of this survey. Many thanks for the technical inputs provided by the County Director of Environment, Water and Natural resources Mr. Benson Lengalen. Mr. Mark Lcharuni, Managing Director of SAWASCO and Mr. David Mumo of WRMA office in Rumuruti. Many thanks to Wilson Lekaaso, Vice-secretary of the Kirisia Forest Community Forest Association for being an excellent field guide and liason person with local communities and other stakeholders. The excellent field assistance given by Bosco Lekaaso (Mararal) and Teacher Kimani (Baawa Catholic Primary School) and the Chief of Ngorika Location, Mr. Moses Leseiya is appreciated. Mr. William Leleshep, the Chairman of the Kirisia Hills Community Forest Association (CFA) was very helpful. The field visit by Evans Napwaro, the AWF officer in Nanyuki is appreciated. The driver Mr. Meshack Kariuki endured many hours of driving in very rough roads and terrain which is also deeply appreciated. Thanks to Ms. Joyce Amisi (JKUAT) for supporting in the fieldwork during the first mission. Finally, Ms. Tiffany Mwake of Habitat Planners provided incredible support in terms of information gathering, documentation, typesetting and packaging including a wide range of other errands such as facilitating the workshop and training sessions at Maralal.


iv

Habitat Planners

2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT COMPILATION TEAM OF CONSULTANTS.................................................................................. II LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................IV TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................V LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................................VI LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................VII LIST OF PLATES .......................................................................................................................................VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1 1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.............................................................................................................. 5 1.0: BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1: THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONCEPT AND ITS LINKAGE TO WATER SUPPLY IN THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED .............................................................................................................. 6 1.2: WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE............................................................................................ 7 1.3: PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE AND WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM ............................... 8 1.4. SCOPE OF THE WORK .................................................................................................................... 9 1.5. BROAD AND SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE (TORS) ........................................................... 10 1.6. OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES.................................................................................................... 11 2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 12 2.1. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS................................................................................................................. 12 2.2. ECOSYSTEM LAND-COVER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 12 2.2.1. Delineation of Watershed Boundary .......................................................................................... 13 2.2.2. Identification of Satellite Images ................................................................................................ 13 2.2.3. Preliminary Satellite Image Interpretation .................................................................................. 14 2.2.4. Ground Truthing......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.5. Final Satellite Image Interpretation ............................................................................................ 21 2.2.6. Land Cover Change Detection Analysis .................................................................................... 22 2.3. MAPPING OF SURFACE AND GROUND WATER SOURCES ....................................................... 22 2.4. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 23 2.5. SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE ESTIMATION ............................................................................. 23 2.6. TRENDS IN HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH............................................................................... 25 2.7. STATUS AND TRENDS IN RAINFALL IN THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED............................ 25 2.8. WATER USE AND MONITIZATION................................................................................................. 26 2.8.1. Water use, beneficiaries and demand........................................................................................ 26 2.8.2. Kirisia Forest water monetization............................................................................................... 27 3 THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM ............................................................................ 28 3.1. LOCATION AND SIZE ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.2. GEOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE........................................................................................................ 30 3.3. RAINFALL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................... 30 3.4. LAND COVER.................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5. LAND-COVER CHANGE ................................................................................................................. 66 3.6. DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND NETWORK ........................................................................................... 70 4. KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE .................................................................... 73 4.1. SAMBURU COUNTY WATER SOURCES....................................................................................... 73 Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

v

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2. THE SAMPLED WATER SOURCES ............................................................................................... 76 4.2.1. SPRINGS................................................................................................................................... 76 4.2.2. STREAMS AND SHALLOW WELLS ......................................................................................... 78 4.2.3. EARTH DAMS AND WATER PANS .......................................................................................... 82 4.2.4. BOREHOLES ............................................................................................................................ 89 4.2.5 SHALLOW WELLS. .................................................................................................................... 94 4.3. WATER QUALITY............................................................................................................................ 98 4.4. WATER DISCHARGE....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 5. KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFICIARIES ..................................... 102 5.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 102 5.2. WATERSHED BENEFICIARIES.................................................................................................... 102 5.2.1. Domestic and urban water use ................................................................................................ 103 5.2.2. Water abstraction characteristics for the sampled sources...................................................... 104 5.2.3. Water abstraction levels and valuation for the sampled sources ............................................ 105 5.2.4. Overall human water use in Kirisia watershed ecosystem ....................................................... 106 5.2.5. Overall livestock water use in Kirisia watershed ecosystem .................................................... 107 5.3. KIRISIA WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUE .............................................................. 107 6. ECOSYSTEM SERVICE WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” AND THEIR APPLICATION IN KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ............................................................................................................................ 109 6.1. RATIONALE FOR USE OF WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS”..................................................... 109 6.2. IDENTIFICATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ‘TOOLS”.............................................................. 109 6.3. WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” FOR SPRINGS AND STREAMS............................................. 110 6.4. WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” FOR EARTH DAMS................................................................ 111 6.5. WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” FOR BOREHOLES................................................................. 114 6.6. KEY STAKEHOLDERS TRAINED IN USE OF WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS .......................... 116 6.6.1. Field data collectors................................................................................................................. 116 6.6.2. Training materials use and data collection procedures ............................................................ 117 6.6.3. Field water data conveyance, storage and sharing system .................................................... 118 7. ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED.............................. 120 7.1: CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO FOR SAMBURU COUNTY ......................................................... 120 7.2: EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER RESOURCES AND LOCAL LIVELIHOODS ........ 121 7.3: ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER SUPPLY AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS...................................................................................................................................... 122 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 125 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 127 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. 131


vi

Habitat Planners

2015

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2- 1: Landscape inspection transects .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2- 2: Kirisia Forest rainfall stations..................................................................................................... 26 Table 3- 1: Rainfall characteristics in Kirisia Forest ..................................................................................... 31 Table 3- 2: Landcover status in Kirisia Forest during the 2015 inspection................................................... 35 Table 3- 3: Landcover change statistics for the Kirisia Forest Watershed (1973-2015)............................... 66 Table 3- 4: Drainage length and density by watershed zone in the Kirisia Forest Watershed ..................... 71 Table 4- 1: Water source types in Samburu County .................................................................................... 73 Table 4- 2: WHO and NEMA water quality standards.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4- 3: Summary of water quality status in the Kirisia Forest water sourcesError! Bookmark not defined. Table 4- 4: Summary of WHO and NEMA non-compliant water sources in Kirisia Forest Watershed... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4-5: Summary of human health implications of the water contamination in Kirisia Forest Watershed……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..96 Table 5- 1: Population estimate and projection in the Kirisia Forest Watershed beneficiary sub-locations 102 Table 5- 2: Summary of water sources in the Kirisia watershed ................................................................ 103 Table 5- 3: Summary of utility levels in selected water sources in Kirisia watershed................................. 104 Table 5- 4: Approximate abstraction levels and monetary value for the sampled water resources............ 105 Table 5- 5: Approximate human water demand in Kirisia watershed ......................................................... 106 Table 5- 6: Approximate livestock water demand in Kirisia watershed ...................................................... 107 Table 5- 7: Summary of the approximate valuation of the Kirisia watershed ecosystem service ............... 108 Table 6- 1: Water management “tools” and sites for springs and streams................................................. 110 Table 6- 2: Water management “tools” and sites for earth dams ................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6- 3: Water monitoring sites and “tools” for selected boreholes in the Kirisia Forest Watershed ..... 115 Table 6- 4: Content covered in the training and workshop sessions for the data collectors...................... 117 Table 7-1: Comparative status of water sources in Kirisia Forest watershed and likely impact of climate change………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..117 Table 7.2: Potential climate change adaptation strategies for the water sources in Kirisia Forest watershed…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….118

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2- 1: Landsat image grid................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2- 2: The USGS Landsat image selection window............................................................................ 14 Figure 2- 3: Satellite image mosaic.............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2- 4: False colour composite image.................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2- 5: False colour image clip............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2- 6: Preliminary land cover classes ................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2- 7: The route for ground truthing transect 1 - Maralal-Engata-Nanyukie transect (45 km) ............. 17 Figure 2- 8: The route for ground truthing transect 2 - Mararal-Ngari – Baawa transect (31km).................. 18 Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

vii

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 2- 9: The route for ground truthing transect 3 - Maralal-Opiroi transect (16 km)............................... 18 Figure 2- 10: The route for ground truthing transect 4 - Maralal – Ngonyeki transect (10km)...................... 19 Figure 2- 11: Kirisia Hills water catchment 2015 land cover map ................................................................ 22 Figure 3- 1: Spatial location of Kirisia Forest and its watershed in Samburu County................................... 28 Figure 3- 2: Administrative units (sub-counties) and infrastructure in Samburu County (Samburu CIDP 2013-2017) .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 3- 3: Spatial variability in mean annual rainfall (mm) in Kirisia Forest Watershed (1970-2014) ........ 32 Figure 3- 4: Rainfall trend analysis in Kirisia Forest Watershed (1974-2014) .............................................. 33 Figure 3- 5: The 2015 land cover status in Kirisia Forest............................................................................. 34 Figure 3- 6: Forest cover in 1973................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 3- 7: Forest cover in 1986................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 3- 8: Forest cover in 2000................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 3- 9: Forest cover in 2000................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 3- 10: Integrated land cover change for the Kirisia watershed (1973-2015) ..................................... 69 Figure 3- 11: Spatial location and extent of the Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area (ENNCA) ................ 70 Figure 3- 12: Management units for the Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area (ENNCA) ........................... 71 Figure 3- 13: Drainage network and landcover in the Kirisia Forest Watershed .......................................... 72 Figure 4- 1: Spatial location of water source types in Samburu County....................................................... 74 Figure 4- 2: Spatial location of operational water source types in Samburu County .................................... 75 Figure 4- 3: Spatial location of springs surveyed during the study............................................................... 76 Figure 4- 4: Spatial location of shallow wells surveyed during the study ..................................................... 79 Figure 4- 5: Spatial location of earth dams and water pans......................................................................... 83 Figure 4- 6: Tomographic profile of the Su-en dam .................................................................................... 85 Figure 4- 7: Spatial location of sampled boreholes ...................................................................................... 90 Figure 5- 1: Distribution of water sources in the Kirisia watershed……………………………………............103 Figure 7.1: Predicted short term climate change scenario for Kenya and Samburu County………………116

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 2- 1:Ground truthing ........................................................................................................................... 21 Plate 2- 2: Onsite water quality assessment................................................................................................ 23 Plate 2- 3: The field water analyzer ............................................................................................................. 24 Plate 2- 4: On-site discharge measurement using the flow meter................................................................ 24 Plate 4- 1: A section of Ngonyeki Springs.................................................................................................... 77 Plate 4- 2: Habitat Planners consultants making observations at Nangaro Springs as a local quenches her thirsty........................................................................................................................................................... 78 Plate 4- 3: Soit Ngablo Springs.................................................................................................................... 78 Plate 4- 4: Lechoro Lenanguya Dry Springs ................................................................................................ 78 Plate 4- 5: Nashunda Stream ...................................................................................................................... 80 Plate 4- 6: Naadapo Elkileku ....................................................................................................................... 80 Plate 4- 7: Lonyonyi Stream ........................................................................................................................ 81 Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

viii

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 4- 8: Lorok dry stream bed and shallow wells..................................................................................... 81 Plate 4- 9: Kirisia Stream ............................................................................................................................. 82 Plate 4- 10: Ngabai dry water pan ............................................................................................................... 84 Plate 4- 11: Ntontol Dam ............................................................................................................................. 84 Plate 4- 12: Su-en Dam ............................................................................................................................... 85 Plate 4- 13: Suen-Lkidoroto Dam................................................................................................................. 86 Plate 4- 14: Ndikir Elgwesi Water Pan ......................................................................................................... 86 Plate 4- 15: Nontotol Dam ........................................................................................................................... 87 Plate 4- 16: Loikurukul Dam ........................................................................................................................ 87 Plate 4- 17: Baawa dam .............................................................................................................................. 88 Plate 4- 18: Baawa dam is an important livestock watering point ................................................................ 88 Plate 4- 19: Small scale greenhouse irrigation facility at Baawa dam.......................................................... 88 Plate 4- 20: Prison Dam............................................................................................................................... 89 Plate 4- 21: Morijoi Dam .............................................................................................................................. 89 Plate 4- 22: Ngorika Community Borehole................................................................................................... 91 Plate 4- 23: Partuk 1.................................................................................................................................... 91 Plate 4- 24: Partuk 2.................................................................................................................................... 92 Plate 4- 25: Baawa Borehole ....................................................................................................................... 92 Plate 4- 26: Leirr borehole ........................................................................................................................... 93 Plate 4- 27: Lchoro borehole ....................................................................................................................... 93 Plate 4- 28: Lonkutukie shallow well ............................................................................................................ 94 Plate 4- 29: Ntonlol shallow well .................................................................................................................. 94 Plate 4- 30: Loikas shallow well................................................................................................................... 95 Plate 4- 31: Ngablo shallow well.................................................................................................................. 96 Plate 4- 32: Naingolie dry shallow well and abandoned drip irrigation pipes ............................................... 96 Plate 4- 33: Naingolie Shallow well.............................................................................................................. 97 Plate 6- 1: Installation of a weir at Nachuda Stream for staff gauge installation ........................................ 111 Plate 6- 2: Installation of a low water level staff gauge at Baawa Dam...................................................... 113 Plate 6- 3: Installation of a high water level staff gauge at Baawa Dam .................................................... 113 Plate 6- 4: Installation of a low water level staff gauge at Nontotol Dam ................................................... 114 Plate 6- 5: Installation of a low water level staff gauge at Nontotol Dam ................................................... 114 Plate 6- 6: Water use monitoring “tool” for Ngorika Borehole .................................................................... 115 Plate 6- 7: Installation of a water use monitoring “tool” for Baawa Community Borehole.......................... 116 Plate 6- 8: Training sessions for water “tools” data collectors and other stakeholders at Maralal Town .... 116


ix

Habitat Planners

2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Water is a key driver of livelihoods and socio-economic development of developing and developed countries. However, its availability in a useable state is rapidly declining, and this is partly attributed to rampant mismanagement and pollution among other causes. Approximately 80% of Kenya is dry–land, and water resources are therefore scarce in most regions including Samburu Landscape where this study was carried out. This has profound influence on livelihoods and socio-economic activities of communities living in these dry zones. Another notable aspect is that the country’s economy is heavily dependent on natural resources, and water is one such resource which determines productivity, local livelihoods and the nature economy. In spite of the enormous investment in human, financial and infrastructure investments in the water sector, water mismanagement is widespread and continues unabated, and if this is not effectively mitigated, it will slow down the pace of attaining the objectives of Kenya’s Vision 2030 socio-economic development blue print as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study was done in the Kirisia Forest Watershed, Samburu County as a follow-up of work done early 2015 in the Chyulu Hills Watershed where water management “tools” were installed to help monitor and track water dynamics (discharge and abstraction). The main focus of the work was to; identify and install appropriate water management “tools” in the Kirisia Forest watershed to enhance sustainable management of water resources. In the process, the following objectives were addressed; i) document water sources types and the state of their water quality, ii) test and evaluate the applicability of the Chyulu water “tools” for the Kirisia Forest Watershed, iii) install water monitoring “tools” within the watershed and train suitable field personnel to be engaged in data and information gathering using the installed “tools”, and, iv) create a suitable data storage and processing framework for the data obtained using the installed “tools”. The findings of this work showed that:a) Kirisia Forest is an important water catchment in a region where surface water resources are naturally scarce in space and time. It’s therefore an oasis of life in a water scarce landscape, and is the backbone of local livelihoods including the larger Samburu County. However, its ecological ability to harness and sustain water supply in the watershed is increasingly threatened by a myriad of anthropogenic activities including; i) dry season livestock grazing, ii) illegal settlements and encroachment coupled by vegetation cover destruction by sustainable farming, iii) illegal logging targeting valuable timber producing species especially podor and cider, iv) accidental fires, and, v) charcoal burning. b) Kirisia Forest Watershed has diverse water sources but earth dams and shallow wells are the most prevalent and provide water to wildlife, locals and their livestock. However, observations showed that they were not well secured and managed, making them vulnerable to anthropogenic contaminants and runoff during the wet season. Further, dams were faced by another problem of eutrophication due to defecation by livestock particularly during the dry season where they were heavily used by large herds of livestock. Permanent rivers and springs are very few and most of the drainage system comprises of laggas which have water mostly on a seasonal basis. Another notable feature aspect of the watershed was prevalence of dry water pans and shallow wells in most of the drainage system of the catchment zone. This is a worrisome situation which requires further investigation so as to understand the possible underlying cause(s). Kirisia Forest Water Tools Inception Report

1

Habitat Planners

2015

c) Water use in the watershed was unregulated and its management was not effectively coordinated by different stakeholders. d) Water quality in thirty seven percent (37%) of the sampled surface water sources failed to meet the set standards by WHO and NEMA for human use especially for drinking purposes. This could be a pointer that water quality in the watershed was decking probably in response to a rapidly changing environment. e) Data on water discharge and abstraction in the watershed was not available and this makes it very difficult to evaluate and understand these patterns yet they are central in decision making so as to guide sustainable water management. Current and past information on water resources was held in data bases of different stakeholders, and sharing of the same was rather poor or entirely absent. There also lacks a clear system and coordinated framework of capturing sharing data and information on water resources. f) Forty years data analysis on rainfall (1974-2014) showed that its distribution increased from the Southern to Northern zone of the watershed. Thus the North-Eastern sector was the most important in regards to water recharge in the catchment. There was a slight increase in rainfall received in the watershed. Nonetheless, numerous gaps were noted in the rainfall data, and this can be a serious set-back in monitoring its trend and effects on water resources availability in the watershed. g) Kirisia Forest has experienced massive damage in the four decades between 1973 and 2015 amounting to a loss of approximately 21% of the original forest in the 1970s. Although the major loss is attributed to the massive fire which burnt the forest in 1984, substantial forest was subsequently lost largely through charcoal burning, livestock forage harvesting and illegal harvesting of valued species like cider for fencing and construction purposes. This is having and will continue to have serious negative implications on water supply for people, livestock and wildlife in the region and will probably lead to increased water related conflicts unless serious efforts are made towards conservation and the restoration of the degraded forest ecosystem. h) Kirisia Forest watershed is the main water source for many households in 23 sub-locations including a rapidly growing urban population in Maralal town and a large population of livestock. Based on the 2009 census data, the estimated population of the locations was 92,695, and it’s projected to increase to 116,427 and 142,954 people by 2020 and 2030 respectively, and this will see an upsurge in water use and overall demand. Therefore, in 2009, the estimated water demand was 9.67million Jerri cans/day, which is projected to increase to 12.14million jerricans/day in 2020 and 15.07million Jerri cans/day in 2030. Unless effective water management interventions are put in place, trends in water demand in the watershed will exceed the available water resources and in the long-term stagnate socio-economic development. The total monetary value for consumptive use of water alone for the Kirisia Forest Watershed (i.e. domestic and livestock water use exclusive of wildlife consumption) was estimated at Kenya Shillings 32,667,963 (or USD 326,680). The findings of this survey have revealed that Kirisia forest is the life-line of livelihoods of communities living in its watershed and other parts of Samburu County. Given that water use and demand is projected to escalate in response to population increase, key interventions are urgently required to ensure sustained water supply from the catchment. These include:Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

2

Habitat Planners

2015

a) Enhance protection and conservation of Kirisia Forest which is the main water replenishment power house for the watershed. This is not an easy undertaking given the political implications of removing illegal settlers and regulating livestock grazing by local communities but it holds the key to ensuring long-term water provision in the entire watershed. b) Create an independent and inclusive oversight taskforce to oversee sustainable protection of Kirisia Forest. Currently, the management of all water towers in the country including Kirisia Forest is under different government lead agencies (i.e. Kenya Water Towers Agency, Kenya Forest Service, Kenya Wildlife Service and more recently community forest associations). But this institutional arrangement creates confusion and duplication of oversight responsibility at the expense of ensuring that water towers are effectively protected since they are the main water power houses which drives the local and national economies. c) Create awareness among the communities living within the watershed on the impacts of climate change on water resources, and train them on how to cope with this change so as to reduce adverse effects on their livelihoods. However, before this is done, we recommend that a comprehensive survey is done to understand; (i) who is vulnerable to climate change and why, ii) how climate change affects availability and quality of water resources, and its impact on the communities, iii) existence of any coping and adaptation strategies in the community in regards to water resources availability iv) how can the community adapt and cope with challenges arising from climate change, and, how this will decrease the effects of climate change, and, v) what institutional support is available in the community to enhance adaptation to climate change in regards to water availability d) Develop and implement short and long-term climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies within the watershed so as to reduce the impacts arising from reduced water availability. These include; i) development of springs/streams/wells conservation, water recharge enhancement and catchment rehabilitation plans, ii) enforcement of the Kirisia Forest Management Plan, and, iii) desiltation of water pans and earth dams e) Document and monitor water yield and abstraction in the watershed, and use the data to make informed decisions on effective and sustainable water management. f) Educate and create awareness among different water users and stakeholders on the association between water availability and the environmental state of the Kirisia Forest, and the importance of embracing sustainable water use ethics. g) Educate and train communities dependent on earth dams, shallow wells and water pans on how to secure their waters so ensure year round availability of suitable water for domestic uses especially for drinking and cooking purposes. It’s also important to have designated watering points for livestock to reduce water contamination by dung. h) Explore opportunities for exploiting ground water resources by sinking boreholes in strategic locations in the watershed. Nonetheless, there’s a need to ensure they are functional and are not stalled by mismanagement and local politics among the beneficiaries. i) Ensure the four (4) rainfall recording stations within the watershed (i.e. Baawa Catholic School, Maralal Regional Commissioner’s Office, Porro private station and Lodokejek Chief’s Office) are Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

3

Habitat Planners

2015

functional and there’s regular and consistent data capture. This will provide reliable data that will help track rainfall dynamics in the watershed. A total of ten (10) water management tools were installed in Kirisia Forest Watershed as an upscale or replication of the tools identified and installed in the Chyulu Hills Watershed. These included the following:a) stream and spring staff gauges at Nachuda Stream, Nangaro Springs, and Ngonyeki Springs; b) earth dam staff gauges at Baawa Dam and Nontotol Dam; and c) borehole water use meters at Ngorika borehole (Ongata Nanyukie area), Baawa borehole ( Baawa Group. Ranch), Leirr Borehole (Next to Leirr Primary school, Baawa Sub-Location), Ledero borehole (Ledero Village, Ledero Sub-location), and Partuk Dam (Ilpartuk area). A total of 20 people were trained on the use of the water monitoring and management tools. The trainees were drawn from community water resources users (e.g. management of Leirr, Baawa, Lchoro and Ngorika boreholes), Management and scouts of Kirisia Forest Community Conservation Association (KFCFA), SAWASSO staff and Government institutions such as Baawa Catholic Primary School.


4

Habitat Planners

2015

1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 1.0: BACKGROUND Water is a key resource which supports livelihoods in rural and urban areas of Kenya but most parts of the country are increasingly faced by exceptionally high water demand amidst a decline in its availability (Mogaka et al., 2006). This situation is worse in dry areas which make up nearly 80% of Kenya’s land mass, and where water resources are naturally scarce in time and space (Mogaka et al. 2006). Consequently, the United Nations (UN) has classified Kenya as a chronically water-scarce country (Republic of Kenya, 1992), and freshwater availability is very limited with an annual renewable supply of about 647m3 per capita, which is way below the 1,000 m3 per capita set as the benchmark for water scarcity. This water situation is attributed to a combination of factors such as; limited natural endowment of water resources, high temporal variability in water resources distribution, decline in water sector capital infrastructure investment, an economy that is largely dependent on water and increasing degradation of water catchments, lakes and aquifers. Kenya’s economy is primarily rural-based and largely dependent on natural resources (Mogaka et al., 2006; GoK, 2007), and water is a key backbone for sectors such as; energy, agriculture, fisheries, livestock and tourism (Republic of Kenya, 1992; Mogaka et al., 2006; GoK, 2007). In this regard, the National Water Policy Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1999 on Water Resources Management and Development, and the national development plans laid great emphasis on the importance of water in achievement of the country’s development goals and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (GoK, 2007). According to GoK (2007), Kenya’s vision of poverty reduction and promotion of strong and sustainable socio-economic development is partly pegged to provision of water resources in all parts of the country. Thus, degradation, general mismanagement and wastage of water present a big setback in the country’s socio-economic development agenda. Based on scanty data, Mogaka et al. (2006) estimated that degradation of water resources in Kenya costs the country 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or an equivalent of Ksh. 3.3million each year. The World Bank proposes that pollution, lack of climate variability preparations, rampant degradation and mismanagement of water resources have increasingly slowed down economic growth and perpetuated poverty not only in Kenya but also across the entire African continent (Grey & Sadoff, 2002). Over the years most parts of Kenya have been characterized by wide-spread misuse and poor conservation of water resources, water theft and corruption, and its allocation is mostly made using inadequate hydrological data and information (Republic of Kenya, 1992; 2001; Mogaka et al., 2006; Kiringe et al., 2009). The effects of this situation are felt more in water-stressed areas particularly dry-lands. Groundwater resources have not been spared either and these have been over-exploited way beyond the natural capacity of the hydrological system to sustain them. Decline in water quality has also been rampant through agricultural, urban and industrial wastes and massive deposits of sediments emanating from degraded landscapes. While sound and prudent water management is urgently needed in the entire country, it’s more urgent and critical in the dry-lands given the vulnerability of communities living in these landscapes. The first step in this initiative is to secure the watershed services provided by the high forested or vegetated grounds which act as hydrological epicenters for harnessing rain waters. The second step is to evaluate water discharge Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

5

Habitat Planners

2015

and monitor its use, project future water demands while documenting all the water users served by a given watershed. In this regard, water management “tools” provide an opportunity of documenting; water supply or discharge from a watershed, water use or abstraction by different users and track general water supply and demand through time. The data produced becomes a strong scientific basis of initiating informed management decisions aimed at promoting the best water management practices for any watershed. Early 2015, AWF funded a consultancy on development and installation of water management “tools” for the Chyulu Hills dry-land forest watershed in southern Kenya. These “tools” are being used by different stakeholders including; WRMA to gather vital data and information on water dynamics including trends in water demand, which will then be used to make informed management decisions aimed at promoting best practices for water management in the watershed. It is against this background that this consultancy assignment within the Kirisia Forest Watershed was initiated by AWF since conservation of the forest is the surest way of ensuring it continues to sustain its hydrological function so that it can discharge adequate and sustainable water resources. However, studies have shown that the forest is increasingly getting degraded due to illegal human encroachment and livestock grazing; and water resources are scarce in space and time (Watai & Gachathi, 2003; Anne, 2009; Nyaligu, 2013). Collaborative and effective management of the forest and water resources in the entire watershed is urgently needed. Some key obstacles to this endeavor include; accurate, reliable and consistent hydrological data, local politics associated with illegal settlement of communities inside the forest as well as a poor understanding of the key water users and projected water demands. Kirisia Forest catchment and the entire watershed will only continue to provide valuable goods and services to locals and other stakeholders on a sustainable basis if it’s secured and the threats facing it are effectively mitigated. Given its role in driving and sustaining the socio-economic welfare of local communities, it’s imperative that it should be conserved and managed as a local and national livelihood and economic treasure. Failure to do so will trigger a cascade of negative impacts including; water conflicts, decline and near collapse of local livelihoods, decline in pastoralism and the tourism industry in the region (which is largely sustained by large wildlife populations), and decline in water supply to meet essential needs like domestic water uses. In the long-term, it will slow down the aspirations of locals, the county and national governments to attain better livelihoods as proposed in Kenya’s 2010 National Constitution and Vision 2030 economic development blue print as well as the Samburu County Integrated Development Plan (20132017). 1.1: THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONCEPT AND ITS LINKAGE TO WATER SUPPLY IN THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED As previously mentioned, Kirisia Forest is a key water tower in a landscape where water is hard to come by, and it’s the life-line of numerous households, wildlife populations and thousands of diverse livestock species. But its ecological integrity as a functional ecosystem has continued to be threatened by all manner of anthropogenic activities (Watai & Gachathi, 2003; Hitimana et al. 2005; Anne, 2009; Powys, 2009), and if this is not mitigated effectively and timely, its natural ability to supply and replenish water will be diminish significant or lost entirely. Thus, the surest strategy of maintaining water supply and associated hydrological functions and processes in the forest is to conserve and management it based on the ecosystem approach and principles. Humans are a component of ecosystems especially in the context of the terrestrial environment, and derive all manner of goods and services from ecosystems including water Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

6

Habitat Planners

2015

provision (de Groot et al., 2002). Therefore, natural ecosystems like Kirisia Forest are important biological entities in the maintenance and regulation of ecological processes and life support systems. In order for humans to continue benefiting from goods, services and functions associated with ecosystems, we need to safe-guard the integrity and continued existence of natural ecosystems and processes (de Groot et al., 2002). However, in most instances, the indirect benefits of regulation functions associated with ecosystems are often not appreciated and recognized until they are disrupted or entire lost but they are nonetheless crucial to human survival, socio-economic development and existence on earth. Water supply and regulation is among the numerous benefits derived from Kirisia Forest due to its function as an ecosystem, and, the later involves regulation of hydrological flows within the forest and the watershed. Generally, ecosystem services derived from water regulation function include; regulation of channel flow, buffering of extremes in discharge of rivers and springs, maintenance of natural irrigation and drainage (de Groot et al., 2002). On the other hand, water supply as an ecosystem function entails filtering, retention and storage of water particularly in aquifers, lakes, springs and streams. Vegetation cover, porous rocks and soil are important in filtering function while the retention and storage ability is dependent on the sub-surface characteristics and landscape topography of an ecosystem (de Groot et al., 2002). If Kirisia Forest will continue to supply the water resources needed by different users within its watershed, it must be conserved and managed as a functional ecosystem entity. However, it should be understood that it’s not ecologically practical for it to supply water to cope with the escalating demand resulting from increase in human population, and this calls for all users to embrace sustainable water use practices and ethics at all levels. 1.2: WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE Ecosystems provide diverse services which sustain human societies, and one of such services is watershed service (Graeme & Brian, 2006; Locatelli & Vignola, 2009). A lot of confusion exists on the correct definition of ecosystem services but the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), defines it as the “benefits people obtain from ecosystems”, or in other words “functions of nature with value to human wellbeing” (Locatelli & Vignola, 2009). Therefore, ecosystems provide watershed services which regulate the quantity of water available for various human activities like; irrigated agriculture, hydro-power generation, recreation, livestock production, fisheries, transport, industrial processing and manufacturing, all of which are vital to the general welfare of humans. Thus, Watershed Ecosystem Service (WES) is perhaps one of the most fundamental provisioning services associated with ecosystems and supplies water to humans and other life-forms as well as the environmental itself. In most cases, these services are linked to high and forested elevation grounds especially mountains and hills, making them vital hydrological units or landscapes due to their natural capacity to harness rain water, which is eventually channeled to various underground and surface discharge or storage systems like aquifers, springs, rivers and springs. Most Watershed Ecosystems are usually under the management, control and ownership of different stakeholders, who are recognized as the Ecosystem Service Providers (ESP). High elevation and forested nature of Kirisia Forest makes it a natural hydrological catchment unit which intercepts rain water, which eventually emerges either as surface or ground water at various points within its Watershed and beyond. Since the Samburu region where the forest is situated is largely water deficient and rainfall is variable and generally low, the forest is vital in ecosystem service provision especially in regards to water supply. Communities living within the Watershed including livestock, wildlife populations, Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

7

Habitat Planners

2015

urban centers like Maralal, private and government institutions, ministries and departments are all dependent on water associated with the forest. This implies the forest and the entire Watershed is the fountain of life for diverse and numerous beneficiaries, which calls for stringent and effective management and conservation of the forest. Failure to do so will trigger systematic and irreversible decrease of water provision services, which will in the long-term slow down and even stagnate socio-economic activities of the locals and other parts of Samburu County. Those bestowed with oversight authority on the management of the forest can embrace concepts and principles of Watershed Ecosystem Service (WES) as a “tool” that can help ensure it continues to harness and supply adequate water for use by different stakeholders. Nevertheless, a critical and urgent approach in this endeavor is to also undertake strategic installation of diagnostic and monitoring water “tools” in suitable sites within the Watershed with an aim of generating valuable data on water discharge and abstraction dynamics. The data will be used by the forest managers and policy makers to make informed decisions on the best conservation practices and promote sustainable water use. 1.3: PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE AND WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM Kirisia Forest, also known as Leroghi, lies in the northern part of the country, within Samburu County and is one of the gazetted state forest reserves in the region way back in 1933 (Watai & Gachathi, 2003; Ngaligu, 2013). Initially, it covered an area of approximately 92,000 ha but currently covers less than 780 Km2; and lies at an altitude of 2,000 to 2,200m ASL (Watai & Gachathi, 2003; Hitimana et al., 2005). It is characterized by a tri-modal (3) wet season, with an average annual rainfall of 600 – 750mm, with January and February being the driest months (Watai &Gachathi, 2003; Nyaligu, 2013). Due to its high altitude and rainfall characteristics, the forest acts as an important water catchment area, with surface water emerging downstream in the form of springs and rivers (Nyaligu, 2013). Generally, the landscape in which the forest is situated is semi-arid mostly in agro-ecological zone IV-VI, rainfall is scarce in space and time, and the Samburu people who are largely pastoralists are the dominant ethnic group (Watai & Gachathi, 2003; Anne, 2009; Nyagilu, 2013). However, Maralal town which is the administrative centre of Samburu County, and which is situated within the forest has a cosmopolitan ethnic composition comprising of the Samburu and other Kenyan tribes especially the Kikuyu, Meru, Somali and Turkana (KFS, 2012). Pastoralism is the main land use though limited farming activities have emerged in some sections mainly for household use. Most of the communities living adjacent to the forest live in a communal land tenure system in form of group ranches (13 group ranches) though a relatively small percentage (10 %) of households live on state land in the forest through illegal encroachment or on private land ( Hitimana et al., 2005). Given that the livelihood of most locals is based on natural resources, Kirisia Forest is central to their socio-economic aspirations and provides them with diverse goods and services including but not limited to; dry season grazing grounds and livestock fodder, honey, building materials, herbal medicine, wood-fuel and water (Warner, 1997; Watai & Gachathi, 2003, Anne, 2009; KFS, 2012). Since the landscape is semi-arid, the forest is a vital water source for wildlife, local communities and their livestock, making it a life-line in a region where water resources are inadequate both in space and time.


8

Habitat Planners

2015

AWF has been a key player in conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in Samburu County through its Landscape Program with Samburu Landscape being one of its landscapes of operations and this includes securing the future of Kirisia Forest. It has also initiated numerous studies and activities linking local resources and the socio-economic aspirations of communities all aimed at enhanced livelihoods whilst promoting sustainable use of all types of natural resources (Watai & Gachathi, 2003; Hitimana et al. 2005; KFS, 2012). Thus, with the financial support of AWF, Nyaligu (2013) conducted a comprehensive survey and documentation of various water sources and their status in the Kirisia Forest Watershed. He documented a total of forty eight (48) water sources comprising of; swamps, marshes, earth dams, rivers, streams and wells, as well as community approach on water use and to a limited extent aspects on water quality. This consultancy assignment was supported by AWF with an overall aim of testing and installing suitable water management “tools” in the Kirisia Forest Watershed to help generate data and information that will enhance and promote sustainable water management. It’s envisaged the data and information obtained using the “tools” will be used to make informed decisions on management strategies that will help secure and preserve the Kirisia Forest Watershed whilst promoting sustainable use of water resources among local users. It’s also a follow-up of the Chyulu Hills Watershed water situation analysis and installation of water management “tools” carried out in 2015 with support from AWF. Successful use of such “tools” and approach can also be replicated in other forest water catchment areas under the Kenya Water Towers Authority (KWTA) so as understand their water dynamics and ultimately improve water management. The “tools”, data and information generated thereof will equally be useful to the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA) which is the key lead government agency in water resources management. The specific objectives of this consultancy assignment were:a) Test and evaluate the applicability of the Chyulu Hills Watershed water tools for the Kirisia Forest Watershed b) Install water monitoring “tools” within the Kirisia Forest Watershed c) Develop appropriate training materials for key staff of; the Kenya Forest Service, Samburu County, Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA), WRUAs, Kirisia CFA, and KWTA, who will be engaged in data and information gathering using the “tools” installed within the watershed d) Conduct training for the field staff (b above) to be engaged in data and information gathering e) Create a suitable data storage and processing framework for the data obtained using the installed water monitoring “tools” f) Assess the quality of water resources within the Kirisia Forest Watershed 1.4. SCOPE OF THE WORK This consultancy work used primary data gathered in the field, relevant secondary data and information as well as the 2015 Chyulu Hills Water Management Tools report to undertake the following:a) Delineate the spatial extent and area of the Kirisia Forest catchment and watershed b) Evaluate the status and trends in the environmental condition of the catchment and entire watershed c) Evaluate and/or quantify a subset of catchment assessment indicators that will serve as an initial starting point for future management, research, and monitoring action Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

9

Habitat Planners

2015

d) Identify suitable monitoring sites within the watershed for monitoring water discharge, abstraction and water quality e) Assess the Kirisia Forest water discharge capacity and trends f) Identify watershed service beneficiaries associated with Kirisia Forest and document patterns and trends in water abstraction, demand and projected water demand g) Test and evaluate the applicability of the Chyulu Hills water tools for the Kirisia Forest Watershed h) Review and refine the tools after testing them to ensure they are user friendly and will help capture critical data and information on the state and dynamics of water supply and use in the Kirisia Forest Watershed i) Develop appropriate training materials for key staff of; Kenya Forest Service (KFS), Samburu County, Water Resource Management Authority, WRUAs, Kirisia CFA, and KWTA, who will be engaged in data and information gathering using the “tools” installed within the watershed j) Do a rapid water quality assessment within the Kirisia Forest Watershed 1.5. BROAD AND SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToRs) This consultancy assignment was broadly aimed at “Testing and evaluation of water management “tools” in the Kirisia Forest watershed, Samburu landscape” but it also involved the following:a) Review of the Nyaligu (2013) report and any other existing and appropriate literature on water resources associated with Kirisia Forest Watershed b) Test and evaluate the applicability of the Chyulu water tools for the Kirisia Forest Watershed c) Review and refine the tools after testing them to ensure they are user friendly and will help capture critical data and information on the state and dynamics of water supply and use in the Kirisia Forest Watershed d) Identify suitable sites within the watershed for monitoring water discharge, abstraction and quality e) Identify and install appropriate water management tools within the Kirisia Forest Watershed f) Develop training materials for the water management tools, and conduct training of field staff who will be involved in data collection The following were the specific Terms of Reference for the consultancy:-a) Delineate the spatial extent and area of the Kirisia Forest catchment and watershed b) Evaluate the status and trends in the environmental condition of the Kirisia Forest catchment and entire watershed c) Evaluate and/or quantify a subset of Kirisia Forest catchment assessment indicators that will serve as an initial starting point for future management, research and monitoring action d) Assess the Kirisia Forest water discharge capacity and trends e) Identify watershed service beneficiaries associated with Kirisia Forest and document patterns and trends in water abstraction, demand and projected water demand f) Do a rapid water quality assessment within the Kirisia Forest Watershed to determine its role in water cleansing g) Identify the most suitable water management tools for the Kirisia Forest Watershed h) Define the geographic scope in which the water management tools will be installed, and identify suitable sites within the watershed for monitoring water discharge, abstraction and quality Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

10

Habitat Planners

2015

i)

Use the installed “tools” to help understand changes and trends in the state of the Kirisia Forest catchment, its ability to provide sustainable watershed services, and water use dynamics in Maralal town and immediate environs j) Develop appropriate training materials for key staff of; Kenya Forest Service, Samburu County, Water Resource Management Authority, WRUAs, Kirisia CFA, and KWTA, who will be engaged in data and information gathering using the “tools” within the watershed k) Conduct training for the field staff to be engaged in data and information gathering l) Create a suitable data storage and processing framework for the data obtained using the installed water monitoring “tools” 1.6. OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES The expected outputs and deliverables from this consultancy work include:a) Inception, draft and final reports b) Installation of appropriate, effective and user friendly “watershed service tools” that will be used to monitor the state, trends and dynamics of water resources within the Kirisia Forest Watershed c) Comprehensive approach and methodology on “watershed service tool” development process including clear details on how to identify suitable water discharge, use and quality monitoring sites for watersheds in the country. This should also include an approach to identification and development of suitable and effective water monitoring “tools” d) Materials that can be used to train data collectors in other Watersheds within the country e) Training of relevant stakeholders on; use of the water management tools, data gathering procedures, management and maintenance of the tools f) A highlight on the Kirisia Forest Watershed Ecosystem water cleansing service g) A suitable data storage and processing framework for the data obtained using the installed water management tools


11

Habitat Planners

2015

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This study used different procedures and methods in order to collect data and information on a wide range of attributes including; landscape and land cover, rainfall, water discharge, population projection and water use analysis and monetization, and these are herein outlined. 2.1. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS Rapid landscape analysis for the watershed ecosystem service and water management tools for the Kirisia Forest ecosystem in Samburu County was undertaken through literature review, GIS procedures, landcover inspection and on-site ground truth analysis. The ground truth analysis was integrated in the land cover inspection and undertaken through field missions to the area. This was conducted along four inspection transects with a total of 42 inspection sites as shown in Table 2.1. The transect inspections involved a drive-through the four transects with observation stops at different points based on landscape and land-cover uniqueness. The terrain formation in each observation point was recorded and the elevation measured using a Garmin GPS unit. Date (2015)

30th

Table 2- 1: Landscape inspection transects Transect Cross-section route

October

Transect 1 (MaralalEngata-Nanyukie)

31st October

Transect 2 (MararalNgari – Baawa)

31st October

Transect 3 (MaralalOpiroi)

1st November

Transect 4 ( Maralal – Ngonyeki)

Mararal town, Yamo, Partuk, Samburu Air Flight Radar, Soit Pus, Ngorika and Engata Nanyukie Mararal town, Ngari Group Ranch, Morinjoi, Ledero Group Ranch, Baawa Primary School Mararal town, Loindongo, Su-en dam, Lorok, Opiroi viewpoint Mararal, Loikas, Ngonyeki

No. of inspection sites

Approximate length (km)

17

45

9

31

9

16

7

10

2.2. ECOSYSTEM LAND-COVER ANALYSIS The Kirisia Hills watershed ecosystem land cover analysis was undertaken through remote sensing and GIS (RSGIS) analysis coupled with intensive ground truthing. The RSGIS methodology entailed the following broad tasks: a) delineation of watershed boundary, b) identification and selection of target satellite images; c) preliminary satellite image interpretation, d) ground truthing, e) final satellite image interpretation, and f) land cover change analysis.


12

Habitat Planners

2015

2.2.1.Delineation of Watershed Boundary

The Kirisia Forest Watershed ecosystem boundary was delineated based on 30m ASTER Digital Elevation Model (DEM) satellite data based on the existing drainage network. ASTER satellite data was displayed on an ArcGIS software view window and overlaid on the watershed drainage layer. The watershed boundary was then derived by digitizing a polygon guided by the DEM and the direction of surface water flow. The digitized polygon was considered as the Kirisia Forest Watershed ecosystem and focal point for the ecosystem service study.

2.2.2. Identification and Selection of Target Satellite Images Medium resolution Landsat images of 30m spatial resolution were identified and selected as detailed enough for watershed ecosystem land cover mapping and change analysis. The images were identified by first overlaying the delineated watershed boundary with the standard Landsat image grid system for selection of the images that covered the area of study. The watershed ecosystem was covered by three Landsat image scenes, namely: P168R059, P168R060 and P169R059 (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2- 1: Landsat image grid Thereafter, the United States Geological Surveys (USGS) website that hosts Landsat satellite images was browsed and zoomed into the watershed ecosystem and the three target area was identified (Figure 2-2). Suitable images of less than 10% cloud cover were identified, selected and downloaded. A total of twelve images were downloaded, that is, three each for 1973, 1986, 2000 and 2015. This was necessary for a detailed land-use and land-cover analysis of the watershed ecosystem. Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

13

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 2- 2: The USGS Landsat image selection window 2.2.3.Preliminary Satellite Image Interpretation The downloaded satellite images were processed by mosaicking the captured images into one image as shown in Figure 2-3 which culminated in four images, respectively for, 1973, 1986, 2000 and 2015. The processing also involved creating colour composite images for the interpretation of different land cover classes as shown in Figure 2-4 and then clipping the images based on the extent of watershed boundary as shown in Figure 2-5. Preliminary satellite image interpretation of the current image (2015) was carried out using interpreter guided on-screen image classification where the processed satellite image was categorized into different land cover classes such as grassland, bushland, open woodland, forest and built up area (Figure 2-6).


14

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 2- 3: Satellite image mosaic

Figure 2- 4: False colour composite image Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

15

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 2- 5: False colour image clip

Figure 2- 6: Preliminary land cover classes Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

16

Habitat Planners

2015

2.2.4.Ground Truthing Land use and land cover ground truthing was undertaken through field missions undertaken in October and November 2015. The ground truthing was conducted through four inspection transects, namely a) the Maralal-Engata-Nanyukie transect (45 km) analyzed on 30th October 2015, b) Mararal-Ngari– Baawa transect (31 km) analyzed on 31st October 2015, c) Maralal-Opiroi transect (16 km) analyzed on 31st October 2015, and d) the Maralal–Ngonyeki transect (10 km) analyzed on 1st November 2015. Figures 2-7 to 2.10 show the GPS points for the four inspection transects. Most of the inspection points in Transects 1 and 2 were located on the edges of Kirisia forest while those in Transects 3 and 4 were cutting trhough the forest in easterly and northerly orientations from Mararal town.

Figure 2- 7: Route map for ground truthing transect 1 - Maralal-Engata-Nanyukie transect (45 km)


17

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 2- 8: Route map for ground truthing transect 2 - Mararal-Ngari – Baawa transect (31 km)

Figure 2- 9: Route map for ground truthing transect 3 - Maralal-Opiroi transect (16 km) Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

18

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 2- 10: Route map for ground truthing transect 4 - Maralal – Ngonyeki transect (10 km) The ground truth analysis involved a rapid identification of dominant landuse and landcover type in each site. The land cover analysis included the identification of key woody and herbaceous plant species. Specimens of the species which could not be identified on site were clipped and preserved in a plant press for subsequent identification at the plant herbarium in the School of Biological Sciences at University of Nairobi. The ground trothing process included the identification of the various landcover disturbances at every site including burning, logging and fodder gathering. Every observation was GPS calibrated in order to support the final image interpretation and classification. The elevation and vegetation cover at each observation point was taken using a Garmin GPS unit and camera. Photographs of the different land cover sites visited during the fieldwork were taken as additional information for classifying the satellite images. Plate 2-1 shows pictures of the ground truthing activity at various observation sites in the Kirisia forest.


19

Habitat Planners

2015

a) Porro

b) Loindongo


20

Habitat Planners

2015

c) Oiporoi

d) Ngonyeki

Plate 2- 1:Ground truthing 2.2.5. Final Satellite Image Interpretation The final image interpretation utilized the information collected during the ground truth field missions in order to complete the land cover satellite image classification through RSGIS. This entailed downloading the ground truth GPS points and overlaying them on the satellite images and then undertaking preliminary image classification. The polygons were digitized on the satellite images around the overlaid GPS points for areas with homogeneous reflectance and land cover classes Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

21

Habitat Planners

2015

assigned based on the land cover information collected for the corresponding GPS points. Once the classification around all GPS points was complete, similar classification was extrapolated to the remaining parts of the satellite images. Areas covered by different land cover classes in terms of area in square kilometers was computed in ArcGIS software and land cover maps prepared as shown in Figure 2-11.

Figure 2- 11: Kirisia Hills Forest Watershed and Land Cover Map (2015) 2.2.6.Land Cover Change Detection Analysis Land cover change detection was done based on the GIS land cover layers created from the 1973, 1986, 2000 and 2015 Landsat images. This analysis was done using the land cover change modeler in the IDRISI software that employs cross-tabulation to produce land cover change maps and area statistics. 2.3. MAPPING OF SURFACE AND GROUND WATER SOURCES An inventory of surface and ground water sources in the Kirisia forest watershed ecosystem was done using field observations supplemented by relevant secondary information available in reports and maps sourced from the AWF office in Nairobi and WRMA offices in Nairobi and Rumuruti. Additional information was also acquired from the Samburu water resources offices as well as from the internet. The inventory of surface and ground water resources was undertaken along the four drive-through inspection transects used for the land use and land cover analysis. The water sources along the Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

22

Habitat Planners

2015

transects were identified and located with the help of field guides from the area and some of these required walking for substantial distance from the transect road track. The following information was recorded for each water source:- a) type of surface water source (e.g. spring, stream, water pan or earth dam) and type of ground water source (e.g. borehole and shallow well), b) geographic location (GPS coordinates using a hand held GPS), c) water source ownership, and c) state of the water source in terms of whether it was dry or inactive or if it was active and functional. Thereafter, the GPS coordinates for the water sources were geo-referenced on a topographic map of the Kirisia Forest watershed ecosystem using GIS software in order to create comprehensive water source maps. 2.4. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT A rapid assessment of the water quality status in the springs, streams, shallow wells, selected boreholes, water pans and earth dams was undertaken on site using the Hanna multi-parameter meter model HI 9828. The following attributes were measured on site; water pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity, salinity and oxidation reduction potential (Plate 2-2). A total of 35 water sources within the watershed environment were tested and the suitability of the water evaluated against WHO and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) standards for human consumption.

Plate 2- 2: Onsite water quality assessment in a shallow well 2.5. SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT Water discharge assessment in springs and streams was undertaken using a Son Tek ADV hand held water flow tracker (Plates 2.3 & 2.4). In the preparatory phase of this survey, it anticipated that a water flow meter would be used in a large number of sources. However, it turned out that there were very few flowing springs and streams with sufficient discharge for the use of the Son Tek ADV hand held water flow tracker. Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

23

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 2- 3: The field water analyzer

Plate 2- 4: On-site discharge measurement using the flow meter The float method was therefore the most appropriate and was used to estimate discharge for Nachuda stream, Ngonyeki and Nangaro springs where water discharge and flow were present. The method is simple, fast and inexpensive and simple, and helps to measure surface water flow velocity and Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

24

Habitat Planners

2015

compute a mean velocity is obtained using a correction factor. The basic idea is to measure the time that it takes for a floating object move from a specific start and end points of a water channel. Thus, Vsurface = travel distance/ travel time = L/t, and, V mean = k Vsurface, where “k” is a coefficient that generally ranges from 0.8 for rough beds to 0.9 for smooth beds but typically, a correction factor of 0.85 is a commonly used value) since surface water velocities are typically higher than mean or average velocities. In principal, the rationale of the float method is that the amount of water passing a point of a stream, river or spring channel during a given time is a function of water velocity and cross-sectional area of the channel; and therefore; Q = AV, where “Q” is the amount of water discharged (i.e. volume/time), “A” is cross-sectional area, and, “V” is water velocity. Water discharge is then calculated as; Cross-section area of the channel = width x depth, Velocity = distance (length)/time, and, Q (m3/sec) = AV (0.85), where 0.85 is a correction factor. The steps used to measure water discharge were as follows:Step 1: Identify a suitable section of a channel with minimal flow obstruction and turbulence (ideally at least 3 channel widths long), and measure its width and depth where it is safe to wade. Step 2: Mark the start and end point of your section, and preferably the “travel” time for the floating object should exceed 20 seconds. Step 3: Drop your object or floater into the upstream of your selected channel section, then activate a stop-watch when the object crosses the upstream marker and stop it when it crosses the downstream marker, and take note of the time taken. Repeat this process at least 3 times and use the average to calculate water discharge. 2.6. TRENDS IN HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH The human population growth in the Samburu Central Sub County in which the Kirisia Forest Watershed ecosystem is located were based on the 2009 national population census records which are available on the internet. The projection was based on the overall growth rate for Samburu County in 2009 which was 2.1%. Projections on the expected increase in the population overtime were undertaken according to the following expression:-

Where:   

t=Number of years of census period, for example from 1984-2000 P2=Population at the end of the census period, for example 200000 P1=Population at the start of the census period, for example 150000 R=Growth annual rate (in %, = 2.1)

2.7. STATUS AND TRENDS IN RAINFALL IN THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM Kirisia Forest Watershed ecosystem is situated in a landscape where annual amount of rainfall is low due to its arid and semi-arid environment, and this has direct and profound influence on its hydrological Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

25

Habitat Planners

2015

characteristics and ultimately the amount of water harnessed and released into the ground storage and surface systems. Understanding the spatial and temporal distribution and long-term trends in rainfall within the forest ecosystem is important in understanding the overall water discharge patterns. Rainfall analysis in the watershed ecosystem was done to evaluate its spatial-temporal variation using secondary data obtained from the Kenya Meteorological Department database in Nairobi. However, there was a serious lack of continuous rainfall data for Kirisia forest watershed both in the available literature as well as the available records in the Kenya Meteorological Department. Consequently, the analysis was based on discontinuous data from 4 stations (Poro Private Residential Station, Maralal Regional County Office, Baawa Catholic Primary School, and Lodokejek Chiefs Camp ) for 1970-2014 equivalent to 44 years as shown in Table 2.2.

North

Table 2- 2: Kirisia Forest rainfall stations Rainfall station Code Active period Poro (Private Residential 8836022 1996-2014 (11 yrs) Station)

Central

Maralal Regional County Office

8836000

1970-2003 (33 yrs)

South

Baawa Catholic School

8936079

1975-1993 (9 yrs)

Lodokejek Chiefs Camp

8836015

1974-1993 (10 yrs)

Forest Zone

2.8. WATER USE AND MONITIZATION 2.8.1.Water use, beneficiaries and demand Understanding water use, spatial-temporal demand pattern and trend is central in effective and sustainable water resources management. Water use analysis within the Kirisia forest watershed ecosystem was undertaken using primary data acquired through interviews with water consumers at various water sources which was supplemented with relevant secondary data and information. Primary data was obtained by through interviews with various stakeholders including the following:- a) locals communities, the Director of Samburu Water and Sanitation Company Ltd (SAWASCO), Chair of Kirisia Forest Community Forest Association, Samburu Director of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Chair of Baawa Dam Management Committee, officers in the Rumuruti WRMA office, and chairs of the management committees of Leirr, Lchoro, Ngorika and Baawa community boreholes. Secondary data water was gathered from reports and records for instances from the WRMA offices at Rumuruti, AWF office in Nairobi, Samburu County Water and Works Department in Mararal and SAWASCO office in Mararal. Some of the key data and information obtained included; water source types in the Kirisia forest watershed, typology of water uses, water beneficiaries and their numbers, water abstraction levels, water service providers and water use charges. The primary and secondary data and information was used to obtain the following information: types of water sources, monetary Kirisia Watershed Ecosystem Service and Water Management Tools

26

Habitat Planners

2015

value of water resources, approximate water economy for the watershed, water resources threats and challenges, and water source monetary value among others. 2.8.2. Kirisia Forest Watershed Ecosystem Monetization Attaching a monetary value to natural resources like water has become a common practice in developed countries but its rapidly gaining acceptance though slowly in less developed countries. This approach attaches a monetary value to natural resources thereby creating a desire to enhance their conservation and sustainable utilization. The Market Price Method (MPM) method was used to estimate the monetary value of water in the Kirisia forest watershed ecosystem, and it involved gathering information on water sale prices by different water services providers especially SAWASCO and communal water sources especially boreholes. Water monetary estimation or Gross Value of Water was done by multiplying the total raw water discharge from a given source with the local current market price.


27

Habitat Planners

2015

3. THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM 3.1. LOCATION AND SIZE Kirisia Forest also known as Leroghi lies in the northern part of Kenya within Samburu Country, and is one of the gazetted state forest reserves in the region (Hitimana et al., 2005; Anne, 2009) (Figure 3.1). It’s situated within the gazetted Legoghi Forest Reserve in the Leroghi plateau (Watai & Gachathi, 2002; Anne, 2009), and lies on the northern end of the Laikipia plateau in Northern Kenya (Anne, 2009). Initially, it covered an area of approximately 92,000ha but currently it’s less than 78,000 ha, and lies at an altitude of 2,000 to 2,200m ASL (Jaetzold & Schmidt, 1983).

Figure 3- 1: Spatial location of Kirisia Forest and its watershed in Samburu County Kirisia Forest Watershed is characterized by a tri-modal (3) wet season, with an average annual rainfall of 600 – 750mm, with January and February being the driest months (Jaetzold & Schmidt, 1983; Hitimana et al., 2005; Watai & Gachathi, 2002; Anne, 2009). The forest and its environs are endowed with diverse wildlife species such as; cape buffalo, elephant, common zebra, olive baboon, common warthog, bush-buck, lion, spotted hyena, Maasai giraffe, eland and giant forest hog (Watai & Gachathi 2003; Hitimana et al., 2005; Anne, 2009). Various species of invertebrates, birds and reptiles are also 28

Habitat Planners

2015

found in the forest and other parts of the watershed. The forest watershed covers an area of approximately 176, 208ha, and most of it is situated in Kirisia Sub-county, and the rest is found in Lorroki Sub-county (Figure 3.2).

29

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 3- 2: Administrative units (sub-counties) and infrastructure in Samburu County (Samburu CIDP 2013-2017) The pastoral Samburu people are the major ethnic group living in the Kirisia Forest Watershed, and depend on livestock as a source of livelihood (Watai & Gachathi, 2002; Hitimana et al., 2005, Anne, 2009). However, the Dorobo people who are hunter-gatherers are also found in the watershed but mostly live within the forest. Although wheat, maize and other crops are grown in the watershed, pastoralism is the key land use, and large herds of cattle and shoats are a common feature (Hitimana et al., 2005; Anne, 2009). In the recent past, permanent human settlements in the watershed have increased mostly in urban areas like Maralal town but this has also became prevalent within the forest and neighboring group ranches. 3.2. GEOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE Generally, Samburu County is dominated by sandy soils, and un-weathered rock debris and boulders are prevalent. The degree of soil development and its spatial distribution is influenced by the parent rock material, type and amount of vegetation cover, topography, amount of rainfall among other factors. The topography of Kirisia Hills is made up of metamorphic rocks in the form of granitoid gneiss varying at an altitude of between 1,273 to 2,625m ASL. The North facing side of the hills form steep slopes with several sheer granitic bare rock faces and deep seasonal river valleys forming important water channels to underground water catchments in the seasonal lagga’s between Kirisia and Mathews range. The North-West section of the forest reserve ends close to the sheer drop, which makes up the East wall of the Great Rift Valley. The South-East sides of the hills slope gradually down to meet the shallow soil flats of the Leroghi, which extend into Laikipia County (Ann, 2009). Within the Kirisia Forest Watershed, the landscape is mostly made up of sandy clay and sandy loam soils, and cambisols and lithosols are common. Okoye et al. (2015) found the topography of Suen Dam and its environs in Kirisia Forest was characterized by various sinusoidal hills made of igneous intrusives, paleogenequaternary volcanics and sediments as well as mozambiquan rocks. 3.3. RAINFALL CHARACTERISTICS Table 3.1 provides the rainfall data for four selected weather stations in Kirisia Forest Watershed out of which only one private station was active at the time when this study was undertaken. The mean rainfall based on the four stations was 551mm, though the available rainfall data for the 44year period was characterized by numerous data gaps. The northern part of the forest in the Porro area was more humid with a mean annual rainfall of 575mm followed by the central region around Mararal town which had a mean annual rainfall of 563mm while the southern section in the Baawa area had the lowest at 552mm (Figure 3.3 and 3.4). Therefore, the north eastern sector of the forest was critical in water recharge within the catchment. Overall, the rainfall trend analysis in the forest for 1970-2014 indicated a slight increase in rainfall by 1.08% (Figure 3.4).

30

Habitat Planners

2015

Table 3- 1: Rainfall characteristics in Kirisia Forest Watershed Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Mean


617.20 453.60 245.10 203.50 483.20 585.70 767.10 305.80 652.10 400.90 449.50 1064.20 721.50 922.00 467.30

South Lodokejek Chiefs Camp

617.20 453.60 245.10 203.50 483.20 585.70 767.10 305.80 652.10 400.90 449.50 1064.20 721.50 922.00 467.30 617.20

Mean

617.20 535.40 453.60 245.10 224.30 343.35 483.20 676.40 536.50 478.95 526.50 425.20 756.90 892.90 821.80 922.00 467.30 524.25

Central Maralal Regional Commissioner’s Office 660.40 714.60 440.00 543.30 574.50 674.40 459.00 666.10 714.80 480.50 313.60 789.10 396.60 552.40 213.20 495.80 552.30 430.00 688.00 677.10 1177.60 495.70 443.00 293.40 654.30 4 06.70 627.60 801.10 750.60 470.80 388.90 577.20 526.80 507.20 -

552

563

31

North Porro Private Residential Station

213.50 730.10 639.60 377.60 456.90 569.20 620.00 877.40 756.20 654.00 284.20 791.70 782.70 566.10 716.60 162.50 575

Overall total rainfall 660.40 714.60 440.00 543.30 595.85 604.90 456.30 455.60 469.55 411.93 398.40 394.55 536.50 544.45 346.07 511.15 488.75 593.45 790.45 749.45 1049.80 247.85 455.15 408.82 654.30 406.70 213.50 730.10 639.60 377.60 456.90 569.20 620.00 877.40 756.20 654.00 284.20 791.70 782.70 566.10 716.60 162.50 551

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 3- 3: Spatial variability in mean annual rainfall (mm) in Kirisia Forest Watershed (19702014) a) Baawa area (South)

b) Lodokejek area (South)

32

Habitat Planners

c) Maralal area (Central)

d) Porro area (North)

Figure 3- 4: Rainfall trend analysis in Kirisia Forest Watershed (1974-2014) 33

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

3.4. LAND COVER Previous land-cover studies have identified the Kirisia area as one of the valued dry-land forests in Kenya which is undergoing very rapid change on the negative side. Overall, four woody plant species dominate the forest top canopy; Olea europaea spp africana (up to 34 %), Juniperus procera (up to 25%), Podocarpus falcatus (up to 26 %) and Croton megalocarpus (15 %). Those species dominating the middle canopy blocks were; P. falcatus (12-45 %), O. europaea spp africana (21-28%), J. procera (20 %), Teclea simplicifolia (13-15 %) and C. megalocarpus (12 %). Beentje (1990) described floral composition of Kirisia Forest as having different vegetation associations dominated by large tree species in addition to Nuxia congesta on much of the hills and Cassipourea malosana on wetter slopes. Understory tree species include; Teclea nobilis, Maytenus undata, Acokanthera schimperi and Mystroxylon aethiopicum. The forest is also a mixture of open, disturbed and rocky areas covered with Euclea divinorum, Carissa edulis, Rhus natalensis and Croton dichogamus small sized trees and shrubs. Figure 3.4 shows the land-cover status in the forest during the 2015 assessment based on satellite data analysis.

Figure 3- 5: The 2015 land cover status in Kirisia Forest The rich vegetation cover in the forest supports a wide range of fauna including avian species. The forest is generally an important habitat for wildlife, a hot spot for biodiversity conservation and a potentially important attraction for tourism development. It’s also within an important bird area (IBA) (Evans & Fishpool, 2001). Table 3.2 shows the land cover status in various places across the forest based on the 2015 ground truth inspection. 34

Habitat Planners

2015

Table 3- 2: Landcover status in Kirisia Forest during the 2015 inspection

Transect

Site

Name

Transect 1 (Maralal-EngataNanyukie)

1

Yamo Lagga

Inspection site location N 01.087500 E 036.594740

Elevation (m) ASL 1944

Land cover

Dominant species

Deciduous woodland

 Acacia nilotica  Euphorbia candelabrum  Oncocalyx ugogensis

The zone is located at the edge of Maralal town along the MararalBaragoi road next to Kenyatta House and within the Mararal National Reserve. The catchment is expected to sustain the Yamo dam which will cost about Sh700 million

35

Habitat Planners

2015

2

Maralal High School

N 01.088600 E 036.690740

2027

Evergreen shrubland

 Juniperus procera  Croton dichagamous  Euclea divinorum Located near Mararal High School

3

Lpartuk Secondary School

N 01.083160 E 036.673610

2138

Grassland

 Penniestum schimperi

36

Habitat Planners

2015

Located near Secondary School

4

Partuk area

N 01.097180 E 036.662750

37

2176

Degraded deciduous woodland

Lpartuk

 Juniperus procera  Grewia similis  Euclea divinorum  Rhus natalensis  Carissa spinorum This is a transformed evergreen Juniperus procera forest

Habitat Planners

2015

5

Partuk area

N 01.110060 E 036.654070

2232

Wooded grassland

 Dwarf Penniestum schimperi  Juniperus procera In the 1980s, the area was covered by a dense Juniperus-Olea evergreen forest

6

Partuk area

N 01.123630 E 036.646750

2265

Degrading deciduous woodland

 Juniperus procera  Olea Africana  Grewia similis  Clutia abyssinica  Trimeria grandifolia  Carissa spinorum  Vangueria infausta  Olinis rocheatina  Rhus natalensis

38

Habitat Planners

2015

The area was covered by a dense Juniperus-Olea evergreen forest in the 1980s. There has been rapid loss of cedar and olive trees due to over-use for fencing purposes and livestock fodder provision

7

Partuk area

N 01.149420 E 036.630170

2393

Wheat

 Juniperus procera The area was covered by a dense Juniperus-Olea evergreen forest

8

Porro area

N 01.174570 E 036.619220

39

2443

Forest plantation

 Eucalyptus globulus

Habitat Planners

2015

This covers one hundred and fifty hectares of Kirisia Forest in Porro location

9

Samburu KCAA Flight Radar (UAS) area

N 01.207300 E 036.613350

2522

Evergreen forest

 Olinis rocheatina  Podorcapus  Psiadia punculata  Clutia abyssinica  Rhus natalensis The forest was relatively intact in this zone

10

Soit Pus

N 01.234400 E 036.614940

2424

Burned deciduous woodland

 Juniperus procera  Olea africana

40

Habitat Planners

2015

 Olinis rocheatina  Clutia abyssinica  Trimeria grandifolia  Rhus natalensis  Osyris lanceolata The forest zone was destroyed by fire in 1984 and thereafter it was occupied by illegal settlers

41

Habitat Planners

Site

Name

11

Ngorika


42


2015

Land cover

Dominant species

Burned deciduous woodland

 Olea africana  Juniperus procera  Dodonea angustifolia  Carissa spinorum  Psiadia punculata  Trimeria grandifolia  Rhus natalensis This zone is located at Ngorika area and the vegetation had been disturbed by humans

Habitat Planners

Site

Name

12

Ngorika

13

Chakuda stream

2015



Land cover

Dominant species

Open grassland

 Pennisetum clandestinum  Carissa spinorum The site was observed to be heavily overgrazed by livestock

N 01.274290 E 036.658960

2154

Evergreen gallery forest

 Juniperus procera  Podocapus  Olea Africana  Dryopteric sp  Vepris simpicifolia  Vepris nobilis

43

Habitat Planners

2015

This is one of the few areas of the forest with a running stream. Elephants were observed to be common in the area

Site

Name

Inspection site location

Elevation (m) ASL

Land cover

Dominant species

14

Nkirenyi

N 01.286610 E 036.662190

2192

Evergreen forest

 Juniper us procera  Podacarpus  Croton megalocarpus The dam found in this area got its waters from the forest. Elephants were observed to be common in the area

15

Engata Nanyuki Primary School

N 01.293560 E 036.666400

2227

Deciduos shrub grassland

 Plectanthus labatus  Duosperma eremophilum  Barleria spp  Aristida sp

44

Habitat Planners

2015

The area was observed to be heavily grazed by livestock

Site

Name

16

Engata-Nanyukie


45

Elevation (m)

Land cover

Dominant species

2158

Evergreen bushland

 Juniperus procera  Carissa spinorum  Psiadia punculata  Dodonea angustifolia  Clutia abyssinica  Vepris nobilis  Rhus natalensis  Euclea dividorum

Habitat Planners

2015

The sector was noted to be an important grazing area for livestock

46

Habitat Planners

Site

Name

17

Engata Nanyuki


47


2015

Land cover

Dominant species

Evergreen bushland

 Dwarf Juniper procera  Croton megalocarpus  Rhus natalensis  Euclea dividorum Rain-fed agriculture was found to be an important land use in this zone

Habitat Planners

Transect 2 (Mararal-Ngari–Baawa)

Site

Name

1

Ngari Group Ranch



2015

Land cover

Dominant species

Deciduous bushland

 

Acacia nilotica Euphorbia candelabrum

    

Juniperus procera Acacia nilotica Euphorbia candelabrum Euclea divinorum Acokanthera schimperi

This was a human settlement area below the forest reserve

2

Prison Dam lagga

N 01.068740 E 036.719550

48

1916

Deciduous woodland

Habitat Planners

2015

This is a human settlement area below the forest reserve

Site

Name

3

Morijoi lagga



Land cover

Dominant species

Deciduous woodland

   

Acacia nilotica Acacia xanthophloea Acacia robusta Euphorbia candelabrum

  

Croton dichagamous Psiadia punculata Croton megalocarpus


4

Ledero Group Ranch

N 01.011130 E 036.761450 49

1922

Semi-deciduous shrubland

Habitat Planners

2015



Aloe spp


Site

Name

5

Baawa

6

Nangaro springs



Land cover Open grassland

   

N 01.023860 E 036.816210

1852


 Croton megalocarpus  Acacia xanthopholea  Juniperus procera

50

Dominant species

Pennisetum Eragrostis pilosa Cynodon dactylon Aristida superba This is a human settlement area below the forest reserve which was characterized by intensive grazing

Habitat Planners

2015

This was an intensive use by locals fetching for domestic water, and was also frequented by elephants

Site

Name

7

Baawa Camp Site



Land cover

Dominant species

Evergreen forest

    

Croton megalocarpus Acacia xanthopholea Juniperus procera Olea Africana Vepris simplicifolia

The sector had a public campsite, and observations showed that it was frequented by elephants

8

Baawa settlement

N 01.010580 E 036.817650 51

1885

Evergreen forest

 Olea africana  Acacia sp  Croton megalocarpus

Habitat Planners

2015

 Akakanthera schimperi Located at the forest edge

Site

Name

9

Naborkeju


52


Land cover Semi deciduous shrubland

Dominant species

 Euclea divinorum  Olea africana

Habitat Planners

2015

This part of the forest was observed to be used by a variety of wildlife including elephants, zebra and Thompson gazelle

53

Habitat Planners

Transect 3 (Maralal-Opiroi)

Site

Name

1

Mararal



2015

Land cover Degraded evergreen forest

Dominant species

   

Acacia nilotica Juniperus procera Eurphobia candelabrum Euclea divinorum

This zone was previously a dense evergreen forest but was observed to be heavily degraded by locals

2

Loindongo lagga

N 01.120210 E 036.727700

54

1978

Degraded evergreen forest

 Croton megalocarpus  Euclea dividorum  Rhus natalensis

Habitat Planners

2015

This zone was previously a dense evergreen forest but had been degraded by humans

Site

Name

3

Loindongo upland


55


Land cover Degraded evergreen forest

Dominant species

    

Juniperus procera Olea Africana Croton megalocarpus Euclea dividorum Rhus natalensis

Habitat Planners

2015

This was a heavily degraded part of the forest which was previously a dense evergreen forest. Most of the giant Olea africana trees had been chopped off to provide forage for the livestock while the Juniperus procera had been logged for house and fence construction

4

Su-en Dam area

N 01.148870 E 036.745840

56

2020

   

Juniperus procera Croton megalocarpus Olea africana Euclea dividorum

Habitat Planners

2015

Forest destruction was observed to be prevalent, and the area was heavily utilized by elephants

5

Silango-Ilgwesi pan site

N 01.157000 E 036.755560

2081

Degraded evergreen forest

Site

Name Silanga-Ilgwesi


Land cover

6

Inspection site location N 01.161490 E 036.761360 57

Evergreen shrubland

 Juniperus procera  Croton megalocarpus  Olea africana  Euclea dividorum Forest destruction was noted to be prevalent

Dominant species

 Euclea dividorum

Habitat Planners

2015

This was a heavily degraded part of the forest and was previously a dense evergreen forest

7

Lorok lagga

N 01.161650 E 036.775360

58

1911


   

Juniperus procera Olea Africana Croton megalocarpus Vepris simplicifolia

Habitat Planners

2015

 Euclea dividorum  Rhus natalensis Olea charcoal burning was ongoing in this part of the forest at the time of the study

59

Habitat Planners

Site

Name

8

Lorok escarpment



2015

Land cover Evergreen forest

Dominant species

    

Croton megalocarpus Juniperus procera Olea Africana Vepris simplicifolia Rhus natalensis

This part of the forest was heavily utilized by elephants

9

Lorok escarpment

N 01.164100 E 036.779860

60

2010

Evergreen shrubland

 Euclea divinorum  Juniperus procera  Olea Africana

Habitat Planners

2015

This was a heavily degraded part of the forest and which was previously a dense evergreen forest

Transect 4 ( Maralal – Ngonyeki)

Site

Name

1

Mararal outskirts



Land cover Deciduous shrubland

Dominant species

   

Euclea dividorum Juniperus procera Croton megalocarpus Eurphobia candelabrum

This was a heavily degraded part of the forest which was previously a dense evergreen forest

2

Loikas

N 01.126930 E 036.702470 61

1982

Evergreen shrubland

 Euclea dividorum  Croton megalocarpus

Habitat Planners

2015

 Juniperus procera


Site

Name

3

Loikas lagga



Land cover Evergreen shrubland

Dominant species



4

Loikas upland

N 01.152240 E 036.711190

62

2037

Evergreen shrubland


Habitat Planners

2015


Site

Name

5

Ngonyeki area


63



Dominant species

     

Olea Africana Juniperus procera megalocarpusCroton Podacarpus sp Rhus natalensis Euclea dividorum

Habitat Planners

2015


64

Habitat Planners

Site

Name

6

Ngonyeki springs



2015


Dominant species

     

Olea africana Juniperus procera Croton podacarpus Ekebergia capensis Rhus natalensis Euclea dividorum


7

Ngonyeki floodplain

N 01.173330 E 036.704760

65

2057

Open grassland

 Pennisetum clandestinum This part of the forest was heavily utilized by about 100 elephants. It was also the source of Ngonyeki springs

Habitat Planners

2015

3.5. LAND-COVER CHANGE Table 3-3 shows the land cover change statistics for Kirisia Forest based on satellite imagery analyses for 1973, 1986, 2000 and 2015. The results show there was a major increase in the built environment by 55.38%, and a significant decrease in forest cover. Approximately 83.92% of the indigenous forest was lost between 1973 and 1986 due to a massive fire which affected the northern sections of the forest. Approximately 23.73% of the forest was also lost between 1986 and 2000 largely through charcoal burning, logging and livestock forage harvesting, which seriously affected premium species especially Juniperus procera and Olea africana. A slight increase of 5% or recovery of forest cover occurred between 2000 and 2015 mostly through natural succession of shrubland and bushland in the burnt areas. Between 1973 and 2015 there was an increase of approximately 5% of the area covered by wooded grassland. On the other hand, plantation forest area expanded by approximately 9.13% but a decline of about 0.30% occurred between 2000 and 2015 due to harvesting by KFS but this was eventually resisted by the local people. Figures 3-5-38 shows the land cover status for the forest in 1973, 1986, 2000 and 2015 while Figure 3-9 shows the integrated land cover change. Table 3- 3: Landcover change statistics for the Kirisia Forest Watershed (1973-2015) Area in km2

1

#

Land Cover Type Indigenous forest

430.60

346.68

322.95

338.75

Overall change (1973-1986) -83.92

1973

1986

2000

2015

Overall change (1986-2000) -23.73

Overall change (2000-2015) 15.80

% Change -21.33

2

Plantation forest

0.00

1.57

3.24

2.94

-1.57

1.68

-0.30

100.00

3

Open woodland

23.02

52.36

60.78

55.53

-29.34

8.43

-5.26

58.55

4

1.07

1.01

1.07

0.89

0.06

0.06

-0.18

16.98

5

Open wooded shrubland Closed shrubland

416.42

18.17

19.29

19.10

398.25

1.12

-0.19

95.41

6

Open shrubland

67.08

35.24

35.18

35.42

31.84

-0.06

0.18

47.19

7

Open wooded bushland Open wooded grassland Grassland

70.63

152.11

151.29

151.49

-81.47

-0.81

0.20

53.37

0.00

1.75

1.92

1.75

-1.75

0.17

-0.17

100.00

72.86

91.58

91.41

92.97

-18.72

-0.17

1.57

21.64

29.95

209.93

218.62

209.97

-179.98

8.69

-8.65

85.74

11

Closed wooded bushland Closed bushland

339.97

451.70

454.92

455.82

-111.73

3.22

0.90

25.42

12

Open bushland

290.61

323.09

323.34

322.35

-32.48

0.25

-1.00

9.85

13

Scattered bushland

17.26

52.30

52.64

49.79

-35.04

0.34

-2.85

65.34

14

Crop fields

0.00

19.52

20.17

19.43

-19.52

0.65

-0.74

100.00

15

Water body (dams)

0.11

0.25

0.25

0.28

-0.14

0.00

0.02

60.36

16

Built up area

2.51

4.83

5.00

5.62

-2.33

0.17

0.62

55.38

1762

1762

1762

1762

-

-

-

8 9 10

Total

66

Habitat Planners

Figure 3- 6: Kirisia Forest cover in 1973

Figure 3- 7: Kirisia Forest cover in 1986 67

2015

Habitat Planners

Figure 3- 8: Kirisia Forest cover in 2000

Figure 3- 9: Kirisia Forest cover in 2015 based on this survey 68

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 3- 10: Integrated land cover change for the Kirisia Forest Watershed (1973-2015) 69

Habitat Planners

2015

The findings for the forest cover change analysis were similar to the findings of Mwaura (2006), which revealed a tremendous land cover change in Samburu and Laikipia disticts in the 1976-2000 period. Forest and woodland cover were found to have declined by 68% and 46% in Laikipia and Samburu, respectively. At the same time, bushland and shrubland had increasingly been transformed into scattered dwarf shrub and open land which is a clear indicator of a degraded or deteriorating dry-land environment. 3.6. DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND NETWORK Kirisia Forest Watershed is situated in the Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area (ENNCA) whose spatial coverage is approximately 210,226Km2 (Figure 3.11), and is characterized by low and sparse human population, and an Arid and Semi-arid environment (WRMA, 2014). ENNCA catchment area straddles from Latitude S 000 25‟ to N 040 29‟ and from Longitude E 360 20‟ to E 410 55‟ and its altitude varies from 150mASL to 5,199mASL. It borders the Tana and Somalia catchments to the South and East respectively, Rift Valley internal drainage to the West and Ethiopia to the North (WRMA, 2014). Further, it’s situated in the larger drainage area 5 which is Ewaso Nyiro River Catchment, the largest among the 6 River catchments in the country. ENNCA is divided into nine (9) Catchment Units and the Kirisia Forest Watershed is lies in the Nundoto unit (Figure 3.12).

Figure 3- 11: Spatial location and extent of the Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area (ENNCA) (Source: WRMA, 2014)

70

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 3- 11: Management units for the Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area (ENNCA) (Source: WRMA, 2014) The drainage system associated with Kirisia Forest comprises of numerous rivers and springs some of which are either seasonal or permanent (Figure 3.13). These include; Baawa River, Baringo River, Saanata River, Lalmargwet River, Nchangalo River, Longek River, Yaamo River, Nashuda River, Rapa River and Mwata River. Most of these rivers are relatively small in size and their permanency and water discharge vary on a seasonal basis but empty some of their waters into the greater Ewaso Ngiro basin. Table 3-4 shows the drainage density for different zones in the Kirisia Forest Watershed. The Northern and Eastern zones have the longest and most dense drainage network followed by the Western and Sothern Zones in that order. This implies that the watershed is hydrologically more active in the North-eastern zone and least active in the Southwestern zone in response to the rainfall patterns. Table 3- 4: Drainage length and density by watershed zone in the Kirisia Forest Watershed # Watershed zone Approximate Total length of Drainage density (Length of area (km2) laagas (km) streams in km per km2) 1 Northern zone 1,096 568 0.518 2 Southern zone 666 307 0.461 3 Eastern zone 1,000 503 0.502 4 Western zone 762 372 0.488

71

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 3- 12: Drainage network and landcover in the Kirisia Forest Watershed 72

Habitat Planners

2015

4. KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE 4.1. SAMBURU COUNTY WATER SOURCES Samburu County is characterized by a dry environment but its climate varies spatially based on variation in landscape altitude. Most of the high grounds receive an estimated annual rainfall of more than 1,250mm of rain per year (Swartz, et al., 1992) while the highlands receive between 600 and 1000mm per year on the overall. On the other hand, the lowlands normally receive between an annual rainfall of 200 to 500mm but the rainfall is highly variable and unreliable, which makes the county prone to recurrent and at times very severe droughts. The dry nature and low rainfall characteristics of the county implies that surface water resources are scarce in space and time with the ground water in boreholes as the most reliable water sources. In this regard, numerous boreholes have been drilled during the colonial days and after independence in an attempt to ensure households as well as government and private institutions and organizations have access to the reliable water supply (Samburu CIDP 2013-2017). According to the Samburu County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP 2013-2017), the entire county is associated with approximately 645 water sources as highlighted in Table 4.1 and majority are concentrated within and around the Kirisia forest watershed (Figure 4.1). However, as shown in Figure 4.2 only some of these water sources are operational, and this presents a challenge in regards to ensuring that locals and their livestock have access to water throughout the year. # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 4- 1: Typology of water source types in Samburu County Type of water source Estimated total Permanent rivers & streams 2 Protected springs 35 Unprotected springs 37 Earth dams 213 Water pans 112 Boreholes 104 Shallow wells 141 Source: Samburu CIDP 2013-2017

Figure 4.1 shows that Kirisia Forest is a critical water source and it’s preservation as a catchment shouldn’t be taken. The deteriorating status of the forest will mean that the watershed ecosystem will increasingly be incapable of sustaining the water sources and the water needs of the people, livestock and wildlife in the area probably leading to increased water related conflicts in the area. The surface water sources in Kirisia Forest are concentrated close to the forest edge while communities living further tend to rely mostly on underground water resources drawn from bore holes and shallow wells and whose water recharge is linked to the forest water catchment. Further, underground water from the forest is harvested beneath sandy seasonal lagga’s, which cautions wildlife, livestock and communities from the adverse effects water shortage during times of droughts. Overall, people living contiguous to the forest and local communities, domestic and wildlife animals living between Kirisia Forest and the Mathews Range depend almost entirely on water supplied by the forest.

73

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 4- 1: Spatial distribution of water source in Samburu County 74

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 4- 2: Spatial location of operational water source types in Samburu County (Source: Samburu CIDP 2013-2017)

75

Habitat Planners

2015

1.2. THE SAMPLED WATER SOURCES Kirisia Forest is a source of several riverine water courses including: Lngaruai seasonal streams, Baawa River, Longek River, Baringo River, Yaamo River, Nchangalo River, Nashuda River, Rapa River, Lalmargwet River, Mwata River and Saanata River, which are all relatively small and vary in seasonal discharge and permanency. These small rivers and seasonal streams eventually feed into the greater Ewaso Ngiro River. Laggas emanating from Kirisia Forest are likely to have short lived water flows with high sediment loads associated with high soil erosion incidences caused by livestock trampling and widespread vegetation cover destruction. It is worth noting that annual low flows could decrease in future just like other degraded watersheds in the country and water commitments due to changing socioeconomic factors. At the time of the 2015 field survey, only three (3) of the many valleys in Kirisia Forest had some little water flowing through, namely in, Nachuda stream to the north of Porro, and Nangaro springs and Ngonyeki springs in the Baawa area. Most of the dry river beds had shallow wells which had water. These wells were the main water sources for households and livestock during the dry period. The characteristics of the sampled water sources are highlighted below. 1.2.1.SPRINGS Figure 4-3 shows the overall distribution of the springs surveyed during this study. The spring survey was undertaken in different zones of Kirisia Forest as highlighted below.

Figure 4- 3: Spatial distribution of streams and springs 76

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2.1.1: Northern watershed zone 1. Ngonyeki springs (N 01.173560, E 036.706350) is located within the Kirisia forest and has been the site a number of water works including the original water supply for Mararal town which was established in the colonial times (Plate 4-1). The spring site is heavily utilized by elephants. During the 2015 survey, the estimated water discharge from the Ngonyeki Springs was 0.0006m3/sec or 51.23m3/day. The springs are now slowly drying up due to the widespread destruction of the forest ecosystem.

Plate 4- 1: A section of Ngonyeki Springs 4.2.1.2: Central watershed zone There were no active springs in this section of the forest probably because of the high level of forest destruction through widespread charcoal burning, logging and fodder extraction. 4.2.1.3: Southern watershed zone 1. Nangaro springs (N 01.023760, E 036.816570) is situated in the Baawa area near Baawa Primary School, and is the main source of domestic water for locals as well as wildlife and livestock (Plate 4-2). It is also provides most of the wet and dry season recharge to Baawa dam which lies down stream. During the 2015 survey the Nangaro Springs were measure to have a water discharge rate of 0.006m3/sec which was about 512.61m3/day. Observations and discussions with locals revealed it is heavily utilized during the day particularly during the dry season when water demand is high.

77

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 4- 2: Nangaro Springs 2.Soit Ngablo springs (N 01.004740, E 036.852410) is located within the southern section of Kirisia Forest and flows into Ngablo swamp which is an elongated riverine wetland on the lower side of the springs (Plate 4-3). Observations showed it had been seriously tramped by livestock interference which might affect its water discharge capacity. The spring in addition to the riverine swamp are important source of water for livestock grazing and wildlife watering within the southern section of the forest.

Plate 4- 3: Soit Ngablo Springs 3. Lechoro Lenanguya dry springs (N 01.06251 0, E 036.734710) were inactive at the time of the 2015 survey, the springs were inactive as a result of forest destruction in the catchment (Plate 4-4), though it was evident that the dry valley received run-off during the wet season but dried up shortly after the rains. As shown in the plates below, the local people had dug some shallows where the water fetched from this source although it took a very long time for fill a 20 litre Jerri can (container) due to the very low rate of water discharge. These findings coupled by numerous observations in other sectors of the forest seemed to suggest water availability and dynamics could be declining, and this is a worrisome situation given that locals, wildlife and livestock are dependent on water resources supplied by Kirisia Forest.

Plate 4- 4: Lechoro Lenanguya Dry Springs 1.2.2.STREAMS AND SHALLOW WELLS Streams are important surface water sources, and they could be permanent or seasonal. Similarly, shallow wells are dug either along dry river beds, laggas or at the side near the banks in order to provide water especially when the stream or river is dry. The streams and shallow wells surveyed in the 2015 study are shown on Figure 4-4. 78

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 4- 4: Spatial distribution of streams and shallow wells 79

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2.2.1: Northern western zone 1. Nashunda stream (N 01.274120, E 036.659090) was one of the permanent streams in the northern section of the forest (Plate 4-5), and was major source of water for livestock and wildlife in the area. Some sections of the stream were heavily trampled and disturbed by livestock and wildlife especially elephants. The estimated water discharge from Nashuda stream was 0.003m3/sec which was an equivalent of 267.32m3/day.

Plate 4- 5: Nashunda Stream 2. Naadapo Elkileku stream (N 01.254840, E 036.628960) was dry during the 2015 survey during which the shallow wells associated with the stream were noted to be the key source of water for the locals and their livestock but the quantity of available water was quite limited (Plate 4-6).

Plate 4- 6: Naadapo Elkileku dry stream 3. Lonyonyi stream (N 01.122150, E 036.627970) was located less than 20m from the two Mararal water supply boreholes in Ilpartuk area (Plate 4-7) but its water was rather stagnant in most of the sections. The local guide mentioned that its waters had declined over the years perhaps in response to environment changes in the forest.

80

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 4- 7: Lonyonyi Stream 4.2.2.2: Central watershed zone 1. Lorok stream (N 01. 168130, E 036.776070) is a periodic or seasonal stream located to the east of Mararal town which was located in the heavily degraded section of Kirisia Forest, and during the survey most of the stream sections were dry (Plates 4-8 & 4-9). However, a series of river-bed shallow wells (Lorok, 1, 2 & 3) were observed as the only source of water for use by locals people and their livestock. The observed condition of the stream could be attributed to the environmental degradation that was rampant in this zone due to inappropriate anthropogenic activities particularly woody vegetation destruction through charcoal burning and logging as well as, trampling and overgrazing by livestock.

Plate 4- 8: Lorok dry stream bed and shallow wells 2. Kirisia stream (N 01.086430, E 036.711540) flows through the outskirts of Mararal town towards the Kisima area and is rapidly drying up due to the forest destruction (Plates 4-10). Most of its sections had stagnant water whose flow was hindered by low water volume and obstruction associated with human activities especially construction works. It’s location within the town makes its waters vulnerable to anthropogenic pollution which could potentially lower its suitability for human consumption. 81

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 4- 9: Kirisia Stream 4.2.2.3: Southern watershed zone 1. Baawa Stream (N 01.027480, E 036.819500) is one of the permanent streams in Kirisia Forest. It is the main source of water for the Baawa dam. Most of the stream stretch is still within the forest (Plate 4-10).

Plate 4-10: Baawa Stream 1.2.3.EARTH DAMS AND WATER PANS Earth dams and water pans are very important water sources in arid and semi-arid areas where the water is harnessed from surface runoff. Normally, the pans store water for a short period of up to 3 months after the rains unless they have underground recharge system. On the other hand, dams are designed to store large volumes of water for a long period of time. Although water dams and pans are supposed to provide water for various uses, their water quality is not guaranteed since most of them are open and easily accessible by humans, livestock and wildlife leading to water contamination through pollution. Figure 4-5 shows the distribution water pans and earth dams in the Kirisia Forest region. 82

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 4- 5: Spatial location of earth dams and water pans 83

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2.3.1: Northern watershed zone 1. Ngabai water pan was situated in the northern sector of Kirisia Forest but the pan was dry during the 2015 survey (Plate 4-11). . Location of Ngabai water pan

Plate 4- 10: Ngabai dry water pan 2. Ntontol dam (N 01.285970, E036.661530) was located in the Engata Nanyukie area (Plate 4-12), and was an important water source for livestock and various wildlife species.

Plate 4- 11: Ntontol Dam 4.2.3.2: Central watershed zone 1. Su-en dam (N 01.161610, E036.744280) with an estimated cost of Ksh.100 million was constructed within Kirisia Forest in March 2010 to provide an alternative source of water for Mararal town (Plate 4-13). The dam was located on Loidongo stream at an elevation of 2040 m, and 300 m upstream of a water pan, and had a catchment of 4.3 km2 with a slope of 8%. The design area of the reservoir was 22,800 m 2, with a maximum height of 9 m. The annual runoff in its catchment is approximately 430,000 m 3 while the design storage was 270,000 m3 with and estimated evaporation loss of 41,040m3 and a dead storage of 84

Habitat Planners

2015

107,500m3. Further, its gross water storage capacity was estimated to be 418,540 m 3 with a crest width of 7 m, and a bottom width and embankment length of 49.50 and 100 m respectively.

Plate 4- 12: Su-en Dam Unfortunately, the Suen dam never attained its project water storage capacity, and this was allegedly due to various factors including use off porous soils, bad design of the intake tower, inadequate catchment area, construction on fault lines and no grouting was done to seal it (Khroda et al., 2015). The potential leakage zones under the dam are shown in the tomographic profile of the reservoir below the ground surface (Figure 4-5).

Figure 4- 6: Tomographic profile of the Su-en dam (Okoye et al., 2015) 2. Suen-Lkidoroto dam (N 01.159810, E036.745400) is located less than 500 m below the Suen dam (Plate 4-14), and is believed that the water supply is associated with the leakage the Suen dam. Its waters 85

Habitat Planners

2015

are not used for drinking by locals but instead they use it for washing clothes, bathing livestock and wildlife watering as well as construction activities. Suen Dam spillway

Plate 4- 13: Suen-Lkidoroto Dam 3. Ndikir Elgwesi water pan (N 01.156600, E 036.755550) is a small shallow water pan situated inside Kirisia Forest, east of Mararal town (Plate 4-15). The water pan was dry at the time of the 2015 survey. Ndikir Elgwesi water pan

Plate 4- 14: Ndikir Elgwesi Water Pan 2. Nontotol dam (N 01.057130, E 036.675580) is located close to Maralal town on the western side after the Mararal High School and Laikipia University. Its construction started in 1982 and became operational in 1986. The dam had an expansive catchment which recharges it through run-off (Plate 4-16). The dam is the main source of water supply to Maralal town and has a capacity of 450million m3 86

Habitat Planners

2015

with the water gravitating to a nearby pumping station from where it is pumped to treatment works in Maralal town. Various species of wildlife also make use of water in this dam. At the time of this survey, it was not in use due to the low water level attributed to prolonged drought experienced in the area for the preceding 3 years.

Plate 4- 15: Nontotol Dam 3. Loikurukul dam (N 01.052930, E 036.679290) was constructed by the colonial government to supply water to Maralal town, and normally has water throughout the year due to water recharged associated with underground springs on its upper zone (Plate 4-17). Nowadays, its waters are used for bathing, washing clothes and watering livestock and wildlife. According to local views, the dam serves about 300 bomas (Samburu homesteads) which is equivalent to approximately 2400 households with a population of nearly 6,000 people. It also provides water to a substantial population of livestock estimated at; 2,000 cattle, 10,000 shoats, 100 camels and 400 donkeys.

Plate 4- 16: Loikurukul Dam 4.2.3.3: Southern watershed zone 1. Baawa dam (N 01.019520, E036.810920) is located in the southern section of Kirisia Forest next to the Baawa Catholic Primary School (Plate 4-17). It was constructed in the 1950s at the edge of the forest and is a key water source asset for wildlife, local communities and their livestock (Plate 4-18), and also supports mudfish as well as a wide range of birdlife including; Egyptian geese, Cormorants and Stilts. Elephants, zebra and buffalo are some of the wildlife species which are also known to use the dam. According to the local people, the dam is used by approximately 700 households with an estimated population of 4,000 people, 4,000 cows, more than 10,000 shoats and about 80 donkeys. There was also 87

Habitat Planners

2015

evidence of small scale irrigation using greenhouse facilities which could be an emerging climate change adaptation strategy for food security and alternative sources of household income (Plate 4-19). The dam was managed by an elected committee comprising a Chairman and executive members which is a good approach for sustainable use of the dam water. However, it was threatened by siltation due to catchment (forest) degradation as a result of livestock trampling and inappropriate human activities which made the soils highly erodible. Further, due to high usage by livestock, water pollution through faecal matter is highly probable.

Plate 4- 17: Baawa dam

Plate 4- 18: Baawa dam is an important livestock watering point

Plate 4- 19: Small scale greenhouse irrigation facility at Baawa dam 88

Habitat Planners

2015

2. Prison dam (N 01.063920, E 036.718750) is located in Ng’ari Group Ranch, and was constructed by Prisons Department in 1981 (Plate 4-20). It was designed for a water holding capacity of 48,000m3. It’s an important water source for locals, livestock and wildlife species like elephant and zebra. Local community members estimated that it served about 400 bomas or 2,000 households with a population of 14,000 people, 2,000 herds of cattle, 5,000 shoats, 50 camels and a few donkeys (about 5 donkeys). However, its threatened by siltation due to environmental degradation in it’s environs and the rest of its catchment.

Plate 4- 20: Prison Dam 3. Morijoi Dam (N 01.050200, E 036.726260) is situated close to the Prison dam (Plate 4-21). It provides water to locals, wildlife and livestock, and served approximately; 200 local bomas comprising of approximately 600 households and a population of 4,800 people, 1,000 herds of cattle and 5,000 shoats. Nonetheless, it’s threatened by eutrophication arising from deposition of large amounts of livestock dung and siltation from sediments carried by run-off in its catchment. During the survey, the water volume was quite low and clumps of algae were prevalent especially at the edge of the dam. The local community indicated the need for financial assistance to de-silt and fence out the dam.

Plate 4- 21: Morijoi Dam 4.2.4. BOREHOLES Boreholes offer a more reliable source of water in the absence of surface water especially in dry periods. In most cases, their water quality is good and assured unless for cases in of salinity and high fluoride levels. Generally, boreholes with high water discharge can serve more people and cover larger areas, and are essential water sources especially in dry areas where water resources are scarce in space and time. The boreholes evaluated and documented in the study are shown on Figure 4-6. 89

Habitat Planners

2015

Figure 4- 7: Spatial distribution of sampled boreholes

90

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2.4.1: Northern watershed zone 1. Ngorika borehole (N 01.274120, E 036.659090) is communal borehole which was installed by the Samburu County Government in January 2015, and was the main source of water for a large population of local people (about 300 households equivalent to 2,100 people) and their livestock (Plate 4-22). The borehole had a management committee (Chair, secretary and treasurer), and water was sold to community members at Kshs. 50.00 per month per household and Kshs.100.00 per household per month for livestock.

Plate 4- 22: Ngorika community borehole and livestock water trough 4.2.4.2: Central watershed zone 1. Partuk 1 borehole (N 01.122490, E 036.628010) is located in Partuk area and was owned and operated by SAWASCO to supply water for the Maralal town (Plate 4-23). It had an estimated daily water yield of 1080 m3 and was considered as the most reliable water source for the town at the time.

Plate 4- 23: Partuk 1

91

Habitat Planners

2015

2. Partuk 2 borehole (N 01.122120, E036.628010) is situated about 10 m from the Partuk 1 borehole and was drilled to supplement water supply from Partuk 1, though it’s yield turned up to be relatively lower than anticipated (Plate 4-24). At the time of this survey, it was not operational.

Plate 4- 24: Partuk 2 4.2.4.3: Southern watershed zone 1. Baawa borehole (N 01.027800, E 036.811810): This communal and institutional borehole was situated in the Baawa Group Ranch, near Baawa Primary School and Catholic Church (Plate 4-25). This heavy duty borehole supplied water to a number of institutions including the KWS Outpost in Baawa, Baawa Primary School, Baawa Catholic Church and St. Peter and Paul Secondary School as well as a large population of local communities. It was managed by a committee comprising of a Chair, secretary and treasurer.

Plate 4- 25: Baawa Borehole 2. Leirr borehole (N 01.010650, E 036.784660) is used by locals for domestic uses as well as by livestock; approximately 200 bomas, 600 households and a population of 3,000 people; about 6,000 cattle, 14,000 shoats and over 100 donkeys. The borehole is also the source of water for Leirr Primary School which has 92

Habitat Planners

2015

a total of 700 pupils (Plate 4-26). The borehole is connected to electricity and has a standby generator in place, and was operated by an elected committee. During the 2015 survey, the water charges for the borehole were as follows; i) domestic water – Kshs. 3.00 per 20 litre container, ii) watering shoats – Kshs.150 per month for 1-50 shoats and Kshs.300 per month for 51-300 shoats, and, iii) watering cattleKshs. 3.00 per cow for a 20 litre container.

Plate 4- 26: Leirr borehole 3. Lchoro borehole (N 01.034590, E 036. 749810) is a community borehole installed in November, 2000, and is located in Ledero Village within Ledero sub-location and Kirisia Division (Plate 4-27). It provides water to locals and their livestock. During the 2015 survey, it was used by about 150 bomas, 246 households with a population of about 984 people, over 500 cattle, over 600 shoats, 20 camels and about 40 donkeys. It was also the source of water for Lcoro Primary and Lcoro Dispensary, and was operated by a regularly elected management committee comprising of a chairman, secretary and treasurer. The borehole water price rates were as follows: i) Ksh.100/household/month, and, ii) 1-10cows at Ksh. 200/month. The charge of 200Ksh/month was paid for herds of 10 cows per person, and was managed by a committee comprising of a Chair, secretary and treasurer. 1-50 shoats at Ksh. 100/month while a charge of 100Ksh/month is paid for herds of 50 shoats per person.

Plate 4- 27: Lchoro borehole 93

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2.5. SHALLOW WELLS 4.2.5.1: Northern watershed zone 1. Lonkutukie shallow well (N 01.345510, E 036.712980) is located in Engata Nanyukie area in a relatively rugged terrain. It provides water to a large population of livestock throughout the year (Plate 428). The community organizes themselves to periodically desilt the well but nonetheless observations showed that was susceptible to contamination by livestock dung.

Plate 4- 28: Lonkutukie shallow well 2. Ntonlol shallow well (N 01.286390, E 036.660940) is located below the Ntontol water pan and is predominantly fed by the under seepage and was therefore a key water source of domestic water for the local community (Plate 4-29).

Plate 4- 29: Ntonlol shallow well 94

Habitat Planners

2015

4.2.5.2: Central watershed zone 1. Lorok shallow wells (1, 2 & 3) (N 01.137540, E 036.709200) are a series of wells situated along the Lorrok stream-bed to the west of Mararal town. The shallow wells are extremely useful to locals and their livestock in regards to provision of water for most of the year. (Plate 4-30).

Plate 4- 30: Lorok shallow wells 2. Loikas shallow wells Loikas Shallow Well (N 01.137540, E 036.709200) are frog infested wells are located in Kirisia forest to the north of Mararal town which serve as the only source of domestic and livestock water for the local people. The people usually suffer from stomach disorder and diarrhea after using the water from this source (Plate 4-31).

Plate 4-31: Loikas shallow well 95

Habitat Planners

2015

4.5.3: Southern watershed zone 1. Ngablo (N 01.001090, E 036.851050) is an important livestock watering point inside the southern section of Kirisia forest (Plate 4-32). However, livestock watering the forest is a major cause of forest degradation because trampling and widespread chopping of woody vegetation for livestock fodder.

Plate 4- 32: Ngablo shallow well 2. Naingolie dry well 1 (N 01.051020, E 036.746870) is an old private user well located within the Ng’ari Group Ranch but was dry at the time of the 2015 survey (Plate 4-33). This is a worrisome situation which could be attributed to forest destruction in the catchment. There site evidence showing that it was also used to provide water for small scale drip irrigation for cabbages and tomatoes as a means of enhancing food security strategy as a climate change adaptation strategy.

Plate 4- 33: Naingolie dry shallow well and abandoned drip irrigation pipes 3. Naingolie shallow well 2 (N 01.042320, E 036.742770) is privately owned by a member of Ng’ari Group Ranch and was close to the dry Naingolie well, and was well secured to keep-off other users including livestock Plate 4-34). The owner mentioned that at certain times of the year, he uses the water for small scale drip irrigation for household vegetables.

96

Habitat Planners

Plate 4- 31: Naingolie shallow well

97

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

4.3. WATER QUALITY The active water sources in Kirisia forest were tested against the WHO and NEMA standards for drinking water (Table 4-2). Thirteen (13) or 37% of the 35 water sources evaluated for the state of water quality were established to be non-compliant with the WHO and NEMA water quality standards for drinking water (Table 4.3). Almost half of the contaminated water sources were associated with dams probably as a result of:- a) high siltation levels as a result of rapid forest degradation, and b) direct livestock watering in the reservoirs which leads to the accumulation of animal waste. The only polluted spring within the forest was Soit-Ngablo in the Baawa area which was directly accessible to the livestock in the dry season and may not last very long due to the high level of interference. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the polluted water sources while Table 4-5 shows the human health implications of the water contamination. # 1 2 3 4 5

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 4- 2: WHO and NEMA water quality standards Parameter WHO Standards KEBS & NEMA Standards (International) (Kenya) pH 6.5-9.5 6.5-8.5 Conductivity (µS/cm) 800 1000 Total Solids (mg/l) 1200 1200 Salinity (PSU) ≤ 0.5 ≤ 0.5 ORP (mV) -100 to 100 -100 to 100

Table 4- 3: Summary of water quality status in the Kirisia Forest water sources Name of Location Type of water source water source Salinity Ec TDS ORP Baawa 1 N01.019520 Dam 0.16 337 169 68.3 E036.812470 Baawa 2 N01.019520 Dam 0.20 423 212 60.5 0 E036.81247 Baawa 3 N01.019020 Dam 0.30 423 212 E036.811660 133.2 0 Baawa 4 N01.01973 Dam 0.20 423 211 0 E036.81117 133.2 Baawa 5 N01.020860 Dam 0.20 415 207 128.2 E036.810920 Baawa N 01.027480 River 0.30 613 306 -49 0 E 036.81950 Nangaro N 01.023760 Spring 0.34 705 353 64.4 E 036.816570 Soit Ngablo N 01.004740 Spring 0.27 560 281 177.7 E 036.852410 Naingolie 2 N 01.042320 Shallow well 0.08 1690 85 E 036.742770 Prison Dam N 01.063920 Water pan 0.17 355 177 -46 98

pH 9.3 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 7.5 7.0 6.3 8.3

Habitat Planners

11 No. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22

E 036.718750 Morijoi N 01.050200 E 036.726260 Name of Location water source Lonkutukie N 01.345510 E 036.712980 Ntontol N 01.285970 E036.661530 Ntonlol N 01.286390 E 036.660940 Nashunda N 01.274120 E 036.659090 Ngorika N 01.274120 E 036.659090 Porro N. 01.250130 E 036.628840 Lorok 1 N 01.171070 E 036.776070 Lorok 2 N 01.171920 E 036.775700 Lorok 3 N 01.174150 E 036.775440 Su-en N 01.161610 E036.744280

Suen-

N 01.159810

Water pan

Type of Salinit water source y Shallow well 0.28

Ec

7.9 50.29 TDS ORP pH

638

319

11.9

7.9

Dam

0.11

227

114

60.3

9.4

Shallow well

0.27

568

284

-8.1

6.9

Stream

0.19

442

221

51.6

7.6

Borehole

0.19

443

221

54.2

8.5

Shallow well

0.34

697

346

-110

7.0

Shallow well

0.58

1228

614

Shallow well

0.72

1519

760

7.7 170.0 7.5

Shallow well

0.73

1566

783

14.2

7.3

Dam

0.30

670

334

-16.3

8.1

0.32

710

355

8.3

8.2

Dam 99

0.08

219

109

-

2015

Habitat Planners

23

Lkidoroto Lonyonyi

24

Nontoto 1

25

Nontoto 2

26

Nontoto 3

27

Nontoto 4

28

Loikurukul

29

Kirisia

30

Loikas

31

Ngonyeki

E036.745400 N 01.122150 E 036.627970 N 01.057470 E 036.676380 N 01.057130 E 036.675580 N 01.057130 E 036.675580 N 01.057130 E 036.675580 N 01.052930 E 036.679290 N 01.086430 E 036.711540 N 01.137540 E 036.709200 N 01.173560 E 036.706350

2015

River

0.06

124

61

77.6

7.7

Dam

0.17

396

198

-46.0

7.5

Dam

0.12

253

127

-86

7.2

Dam

0.12

255

128

-91.4

7.3

Dam

0.10

210

105

-50.3

7.3

Dam

0.13

314

157

-14.7

8.1

River

2.22

4166

-

Shallow wells Springs

0.70

1395

208 0 698

-

545

500

-58.0

7.6 889.2 -86.2 7.2 6.9

Table 4- 4: Summary of WHO and NEMA non-compliant water sources in Kirisia Forest Watershed No. Name of Location Type of water source water source Salinity Ec TDS ORP pH 0 1 Baawa 1 N01.01952 Dam 0.16 337 169 68.3 9.3 E036.812470 2 Baawa 2 N01.019520 Dam 0.20 423 212 60.5 9.2 0 E036.81247 3 Baawa 3 N01.019020 Dam 0.30 423 212 -133.2 9.0 E036.811660 4 Baawa 4 N01.019730 Dam 0.20 423 211 -133.2 9.1 0 E036.81117 5 Baawa 5 N01.020860 Dam 0.20 415 207 128.2 9.1 E036.810920 6 Soit Ngablo N 01.004740 Spring 0.27 560 281 177.7 6.3 E 036.852410 7 Naingolie 2 N 01.042320 Shallow well 0.08 1690 85 0 E 036.74277 8 Ntontol N 01.285970 Dam 0.11 227 114 60.3 9.4 E036.661530 9 Lorok 1 N 01.171070 Shallow well 0.58 1228 614 -170.0 7.7 E 036.776070 10 Lorok 2 N 01.171920 Shallow well 0.72 1519 760 7.5 E 036.775700 11 Lorok 3 N 01.174150 Shallow well 0.73 1566 783 14.2 7.3 E 036.775440 12 Kirisia N 01.086430 River 2.22 4166 208 -889.2 7.6 100

Habitat Planners

13

#

1

2

3

4

5

Loikas

E 036.711540 N 01.137540 E 036.709200

Shallow wells

0.70

1395

0 698

-86.2

2015

7.2

Table 4- 5: Summary of human health implications of the water contamination in Kirisia Forest Watershed Non-compliant water quality Human health Implications parameter Extremes in pH can cause serious health effects. Exposure to extreme pH values results in irritation to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Eye irritation and exacerbation of skin disorders have pH been associated with pH values greater than 11. In addition, solutions of pH 10–12.5 have been reported to cause hair fibres to swell. In sensitive individuals, gastrointestinal irritation may also occur. However, the presence of high levels of TDS in drinking-water (greater than 1200 mg/litre) may be objectionable to consumers. Water with extremely low concentrations of TDS may also be Total dissolved solids (TDS) unacceptable because of its ﬂat, insipid taste. High TDS in drinking water may cause stiffness in the joints, hardening of the arteries, kidney stones, gall stones and blockages of arteries, microscopic capillaries and other passages in which liquids flow through our entire body. A number of health problems can occur where the EC exceeds 370 mS/m including a) disturbance of the salt and water balance in Electrical conductivity (Ec) children, b) negative effects on the blood pressure of heart patients and renal patients, and c) laxative effects when sulphate concentrations are high. High salinity levels in drinking water may have numerous direct and indirect impacts on health. High salinity in drinking water can cause Salinity high blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases to the population and gestational hypertension among pregnant women. High or low ORP affects the level of natural water disinfection against biological contaminants. and viral activation. At a level of Oxidation reduction potential 650 mV of ORP, bacteria such as E. coli are killed on contact or within a few seconds. Tougher organisms such as listeria, salmonella, yeasts and molds may require 750 mV or higher in order to be killed.

101

Habitat Planners

2015

5. KIRISIA WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFICIARIES 5.1. INTRODUCTION Watersheds have a defined geographical spatial coverage in which their waters are distributed either as surface, ground water or both, and the water supply services they provide can be confined to their boundaries or even beyond. Accordingly, identifying the main and subsidiary watershed service beneficiaries is important in effective water use management, and enlisting their support and participation. In 2002, the Kenya Government revised the Water Act (2002) in an attempt to promote wise, inclusive and participatory water management in the country, and WRMA which is the current government lead agency in the management of water resources has used the watershed service provision approach throughout the country (WRMA, 2014). This in recognition on the importance and contribution of beneficiaries who depend on the water provision services accrued from watershed, as well as the negative socio-economic ramifications that would arise as a result of decline in water supply. 5.2. WATERSHED BENEFICIARIES The Kirisia watershed ecosystem is the only source of domestic and livestock water supply for over 20 sub-locations in Kirisia and Lorroki Sub Counties. According to the 2009 national population census, the total population in the two areas which includes Mararal town was 92,695 people who can be considered as the watershed beneficiaries. This number is expected to increase to approximately 11, 6427 people in 2020 and 142,954 people in 2030 based on the 2009 annual growth rate for Samburu County which was 2.1%. Table 5-1 shows the population statistics for the watershed beneficiary sub locations. Table 5- 1: Population estimate and projection in the Kirisia Forest Watershed beneficiary sublocations Sub location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Angata Nanyukie Barsaloi Loibashai Loosuk Malaso Opiroi Sukuta Marmar Mabati Mbukoi Nkejemueny Seketet Siambu Sirata Oirobi Ledero Lpartuk Lolmolok Langatolia Mugur Milimani Nkuroto

2009 population estimate 2388 1525 1239 2756 2214 3115 4173 1042 1112 924 2560 745 1346 1822 3452 3758 1729 990 4468 3407

2020 population projection 2999 1917 1556 3462 2781 3912 5241 1309 1397 1161 3215 936 1691 2288 4336 4720 2172 1243 5612 4279

102

2030 population projection 3694 2359 1916 4263 3425 4818 6455 1611 1720 1429 3960 1152 2082 2818 5340 5381 2674 1531 6911 5270

Habitat Planners

21. Ngari 22. Shabaa 23. Maralal Town Total

5027 6148 36755 92,695

6314 7722 46164 116,427

2015

7776 9510 56859 142,954

5.2.1.Domestic and urban water use Table 5-1 shows that the overall total number of water sources in Samburu County is approximately 152 sources (RoK, 1991). These are dominated by earth dams and boreholes but the major supply in terms of abstraction levels are the boreholes. Figure 5-1 shows the distribution of domestic and urban water sources in Samburu County including the Kirisia region. Figure 5-1 clearly shows the heavy concentration of water sources in the Kirisia forest ecosystem (RoK, 1991). Table 5- 2: Summary of water sources in the Kirisia watershed Type of water source

Earth dams & water pans Boreholes Wells Springs Total

Approximate number 55 43 42 12 152

Approximate daily water abstraction (m3) 432 1921 1915 1512 5,780

Figure 5- 1: Distribution of water sources in the Kirisia watershed 103

Habitat Planners

2015

5.2.2.Water abstraction levels for the sampled sources Table 5-2 shows the findings of the estimated number of beneficiary and approximate water abstraction levels for the water sources which were sampled during the 2015 survey. The findings showed that although the water pans had the highest number of dependents in terms of both people, livestock and wildlife, the highest water abstraction was taking place in the earth dams followed by the boreholes. These can be considered as the most valued water sources in the area. Table 5- 3: Summary of utility levels in selected water sources in Kirisia watershed

Type of water source

Name of water source

Approximate number of beneficiaries

1. Shallow wells

1. Loikas 2. Ntontol 3. Lorok 1, 2 & 3

2. Earth dams

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

3. Water pans

1. Ngorika

50,000 Mean =50000

4. Boreholes

1. Lpartuk 2. Leirr 3. Ngorika 4. Lchoro 5. Baawa

30000 3,000 420 948 5062 Mean =7886

6. Springs

1. Ngablo 2. Ngonyeki

7. Streams

1. Nachuda

Ntontol Suen 1 & 2 Baawa Prisons Nondoto Morijoi

Total abstraction (liters/day)

Total abstraction (m3/day)

No of livestock

9800 350 1000 Mean = 3,717

Total abstraction (jerry cans per day) 4200 300 1200 Mean = 1900

38000

38

12,200 9320 2610 Mean =8043

350 6,000 4000 14,000 1800 4800 Mean = 4421

150 7200 10,800 6000 1040 2400 Mean = 4598

91960

91.96

9320 12,500 28,020 7055 40,000 6000 Mean =17149

-

-

5060 Mean =5060

25000 750 420 1476 3311 Mean =6192

30957

30.96

20,000 5060 1160 Mean =6555

420 4900 Mean =2660

2100 Mean =1050

21000

21

5060 11,180 Mean =8120

210 Mean = 210

120 Mean =120

2400

2.4

6100 Mean =6100

104

Habitat Planners

2015

5.2.3.Water abstraction levels and valuation for the sampled sources Table 5-3 shows the estimated water abstraction levels and monetary value for the sampled sources. The monetary value was estimated at the rate Ksh 3 per Jerri can (20 litres) as an average price based on the information provided by the consumers on the ground. Table 5- 4: Approximate abstraction levels and monetary value for the sampled water resources a) Abstraction levels

Type of water source 1. Shallow wells

2. Earth dams and water pans

3. Boreholes

4. Springs 5. Streams


1. 2. 3.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 1.

b) Monetary valuation

Type of water source 1) Shallow wells

2) Earth dams

3) Water pans 4) Boreholes

5) Springs 6) Streams

Loikas shallow wells Ntontol shallow well Lorok wells 1, 2 & 3 Ntontol dam Suen Dam 1 & 2 Baawa earth dam Prison dam Nondoto dam Morijoi dam Ngorika water pan Lpartuk borehole Leirr borehole Ngorika borehole Lchoro borehole Baawa borehole Ngorika springs Ngonyeki springs Nachuda stream


1) 2) 3) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 1) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 1) 2) 1)

Loikas shallow wells Ntontol shallow well Lorok wells 1, 2 & 3 Ntontol dam Suen Dam 1 & 2 Baawa earth dam Prison dam Nondoto dam Morijoi dam Ngorika water pan Lpartuk borehole Leirr borehole Ngorika borehole Lchoro borehole Baawa borehole Ngorika springs Ngonyeki springs Nachuda stream

Approximate No of domestic users 9800 350 1000 350 6,000 4000 14,000 1800 4800 50,000 40,000 3,000 420 948 5062 420 4900 210 Approximate number of beneficiaries 9800 350 1000 350 6,000 4000 14,000 1800 4800 50,000 40,000 3,000 420 948 5062 420 4900 210 105

Approximate No of livestock 12,200 9320 2610 9320 12,500 28,020 7055 40,000 6000 5060 20,000 5060 1160 5060 11,180 6100

Total abstraction (jerry cans per day) 4200 300 1200 150 7200 10800 6000 1040 2400 25000 750 420 1476 3311 2100 120

Total abstraction (jerry cans/day) 4200 300 1200 150 7200 10800 6000 1040 2400 25000 750 420 1476 3311 2100 120

Monetary Value (KSh.) 12600 900 3600 450 21600 32400 18000 3120 7200 75000 2250 1260 4428 9933 6300 360

Habitat Planners

2015

5.2.4.Overall human water use in Kirisia watershed ecosystem Table 5-4 shows the approximate level of human water use in Kirisia Forest watershed based on the mean values computed in Table 5-2.The table shows that the highest water demand areas were Mararal town, Ledero, Lpartuk, Loosuk and Opiroi based on the 2009 national population census figures. Table 5- 5: Approximate human water demand in Kirisia watershed Population Approximate daily Approximate Sub location 2009 census water use (liters) daily water use (m3) 1. Angata Nanyukie 2388 954300 954.3 2. Barsaloi 1525 127800 127.8 3. Loibashai 1239 381700 381.7 4. Loosuk 2756 3075300 3075.3 5. Malaso 2214 1558300 1558.3 6. Opiroi 3115 2138700 2138.7 7. Sukuta Marmar 4173 1133100 1133.1 8. Mabati 1042 183400 183.4 9. Mbukoi 1112 350000 350 10. Nkejemueny 924 604300 604.3 11. Seketet 2560 976800 976.8 12. Siambu 745 1186200 1186.2 13. Sirata Oirobi 1346 1645000 1645 14. Ledero 1822 49339000 49339 15. Lpartuk 3452 3632600 3632.6 16. Lolmolok 3758 2647100 2647.1 17. Langatolia 1729 5070720 5070.72 18. Mugur 990 5070720 5070.72 19. Milimani 4468 5070720 5070.72 20. Nkuroto 3407 5070720 5070.72 21. Ngari 5027 5070720 5070.72 22. Shabaa 6148 5070720 5070.72 23. Marala town 36755 81880600 81880.6 Total 92695 182238520 182238.5

106

Habitat Planners

2015

5.2.5.Overall livestock water use in Kirisia Forest watershed ecosystem Table 5-5 shows the approximate level of livestock water use in Kirisia Forest watershed based on the mean values computed in Table 5-2. The table shows that the highest water demand areas were Sukuta Marmar, Loosuk, Malaso and Opiroi based on the available livestock population records. Table 5- 6: Approximate livestock water demand in Kirisia Forest Watershed Approximate Approximate daily livestock Sub location livestock water consumption (litres) population 1. Angata Nanyukie 2800 28000 2. Barsaloi 1500 15000 3. Loibashai 10750 107500 4. Loosuk 62100 621000 5. Malaso 59950 599500 6. Opiroi 55330* 553300* 7. Sukuta Marmar 98700 987000 8. Mabati 55330* 553300* 9. Mbukoi 1100 11000 10. Nkejemueny 21050 210500 11. Seketet 33850 338500 12. Siambu 55330* 553300* 13. Sirata Oirobi 261500 2615000 14. Ledero 55330* 553300* 15. Lpartuk 55330* 553300* 16. Lolmolok 55330* 553300* 17. Langatolia 55330* 553300* 18. Mugur 55330* 553300* 19. Milimani 55330* 553300* 20. Nkuroto 55330* 553300* 21. Ngari 55330* 553300* 22. Shabaa 55330* 553300* Total 1,217,260 1,217,2600 *calculated average number of livestock as a result of no livestock data *approx. 20 liters for a cow and 5 liters for a shoat per day

5.3. KIRISIA WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUE The total monetary value of the Kirisia watershed ecosystem service based on the consumptive use of water alone was estimated Kenya Shillings 32,667,963 (or USD 326,680) exclusive of the wildlife water consumption (Table 5-6).

107

Habitat Planners

2015

Table 5- 7: Summary of the approximate valuation of the Kirisia watershed ecosystem service

Sub location 1. Angata Nanyukie 2. Barsaloi 3. Loibashai 4. Loosuk 5. Malaso 6. Opiroi 7. Sukuta Marmar 8. Mabati 9. Mbukoi 10. Nkejemueny 11. Seketet 12. Siambu 13. Sirata Oirobi 14. Ledero 15. Lpartuk 16. Lolmolok 17. Langatolia 18. Mugur 19. Milimani 20. Nkuroto 21. Ngari 22. Shabaa 23. Marala town

Total

Population 2009 census

Domestic water demand (jerry cans/day)

Water demand (liters)

Water demand (m3)

Monetary value (Ksh) at Ksh. 3 per jerry can

Total livestock population estimate (2013)+

2388 1525 1239 2756 2214 3115 4173 1042 1112 924 2560 745 1346 1822 3452 3758 1729 990 4468 3407 5027 6148 36755 92,695

47715 56390 19085 153765 77915 106935 566550 9170 17500 30215 48840 59310 82250 2466950 181630 132355 253536* 253536* 253536* 253536* 253536* 253536* 4094030 8,150,605

954300 127800 381700 3075300 1558300 2138700 1133100 183400 350000 604300 976800 1186200 1645000 49339000 3632600 2647100 5070720 5070720 5070720 5070720 5070720 5070720 81880600 182,238,520

954.3 127.8 381.7 3075.3 1558.3 2138.7 1133.1 183.4 350 604.3 976.8 1186.2 1645 49339 3632.6 2647.1 5070.72 5070.72 5070.72 5070.72 5070.72 5070.72 81880.6 182,238

143145 169170 57255 461295 233745 320805 1699650 27510 52500 90645 146520 177930 246750 7400850 544890 397065 760608 760608 760608 760608 760608 760608 12282090 29,015,463

2800 1500 10750 62100 59950 55330* 98700 55330* 1100 21050 33850 55330* 261500 55330* 55330* 55330* 55330* 55330* 55330* 55330* 55330* 55330*

108

1,217,260

Water consumption by livestock (litres) 28000 15000 107500 621000 599500 553300* 987000 553300* 11000 210500 338500 553300* 2615000 553300* 553300* 553300* 553300* 553300* 553300* 553300* 553300* 553300*

Monetary Value (Ksh) at Ksh. 3 per jerry can 8400 4500 32250 186300 179850 166050 296100 166050 3300 63150 101550 166050 784500 166050 166050 166050 166050 166050 166050 166050 166050 166050

12,172,600 Grand total

3,652,500 32,667,963

Habitat Planners

2015

6. ECOSYSTEM SERVICE WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” AND THEIR APPLICATION IN KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED 6.1. RATIONALE FOR USE OF WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” Sustainable use of natural resources is a complex issue and in most situations, it’s characterized by mismanagement and general over-exploitation with total disregard to the environmental and socioeconomic implications. Nonetheless, it’s a practice which humanity must embrace and engrain in their day to day livelihoods, policy formulation and development plans since it’s the foundation of sustainable socioeconomic development. To achieve this, long-term data and information on natural resources is needed to help inform and guide the best approach of sustainable management. From this perspective, it’s envisioned that water management “tools” will provide a good and effective platform for generating data and information on trends on the status of water yield and use within the Kirisia Forest Watershed. This will be used by communities, WRMA and Samburu County to make decisions on the best interventions that will safeguard water recharge in the catchment whilst promoting its sustainable by different users. In essence, this approach will help generate data and information to develop an effective roadmap to ensure that the forest or the catchment is conserved so as to continue to replenish water resources while the users embrace sustainable water use practices. It’s worth noting that, monitoring of water resources in the Kirisia Forest Watershed is non-existent, and it’s therefore rather hard to have an understanding on trends in water discharge from the catchment and it use in the entire watershed. To correct this problem, this survey strived to test the suitability and application of Chulyu Hills Watershed water management “tools”, and eventually install them in suitable monitoring sites. Further, relevant stakeholders or field based personnel were to be trained on how to use the “tools” to not only help generate the desired data but also ensure they are mainstreamed in understanding and appreciating the need to conserve the forest and embrace sustainable use of water resources. This would also partly help create a bottom-top approach to water resources management as articulated in the Water Act of 2002 and WRMA 2007 guidelines. 6.2. IDENTIFICATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ‘TOOLS” As stated earlier, water management “tool” were developed in mid-2015 for the Chyulu Hills Watershed, and these are being used by different stakeholders most of whom are community members. From this background, the following steps or approach was used to test and identify the most suitable and applicable ‘tools”:Comprehensive documentation and field survey on water resource types found in the watershed. This included, assessment of any exiting water management “tools” and the kind of data they were recording 2. Holding on-site discussions with water or hydrology experts to evaluate the suitability of the “tools” developed for the Chula Hills Watershed. This was then followed by testing the identified “tools” in selected sites and collecting some data which was used to training the data collectors coupled by group discussions on the suitability of the tested “tools” 3. A final session comprising of the consultants of this survey and water monitoring experts was held during which the most suitable “tools” to be installed were identified including sites for monitoring purposes, data to be collected and the frequency of recording the required data and information 1.

From this background, two (2) types of “tools” i.e. water use meters for boreholes and staff gauge were recommended as the most applicable for monitoring purposes. The former will be used to document and track ground water use or abstraction from boreholes, while the later will be used to document and track 109

Habitat Planners

2015

surface water discharge and use in earth dams, springs and streams. The consultants in consultation with other stakeholders like SAWASCO, WRMA, Kirisia Forest Community Forest Association and Samburu County Government under the guidance of the Director of Environment and Natural Resources identified the most suitable field personnel for training in the use of the installed “tools”. The data for each monitoring station or site will be handed over to WRMA office in Rumuruti and copies left with the data recorders. It was collectively agreed that this is the best data management framework since WRMA is the lead government agency in the water use and monitoring sector. 6.3. WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” FOR SPRINGS AND STREAMS Table 6-1 shows the identified monitoring sites/stations, water management “tools” for springs and streams in the watershed, as well as the kind of data that will be collected. Plate 6-1 shows staff gauge installation works at Nachuda Springs. Table 6- 1: Water management “tools” and sites for springs and streams #

Point of monitoring

Existing Type of Water “Tool’)

Type of monitoring “tool” fitted during this survey

Type of data to be collected for monitoring purposes

1

Nachuda Stream

None

Staff gauge

Water level and discharge

2

Nangaro Springs

None

Staff gauge


3

Ngonyeki Springs

None

Staff gauge


110

Remarks

The stream was observed to be rather permanent but had a low amount of water whose movement was slow Water discharge and flow fluctuates seasonally, though a section of it is permanent A rather permanent series of springs though the water flow fluctuates seasonally

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 6- 1: Installation of a weir at Nachuda Stream for staff gauge installation 6.4. WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” FOR EARTH DAMS Only 2 dams were found to be suitable for monitoring purposes and these were fitted with suitable staff gauges (Table 6-2) which will help to track status and trends in water collection from their catchments an water use or abstraction.. Plate 6-2 and Plate 6-3 show staff gauge installation works at Baawa and Nondotol dams respectively.

111

Habitat Planners

2015

Table 6- 2: Water management “tools” and sites for earth dams #

Point of monitoring

Existing Type of Water “Tool’)

Type of monitoring “tool” fitted during this survey

Type of data to be collected for monitoring purposes

1

Baawa Dam

None

Staff gauge

Water level and volume

2

Nontotol Dam

None

Staff gauge

Water level and volume

112

Remarks

This is a permanent dam which serves a large population of locals and their livestock as well as a variety of wildlife species This dam is a key water source for Maralal town and is managed by SAWASCO. However, its water volume fluctuates dramatically in response to seasonal rain-water availability

Habitat Planners

Plate 6- 2: Installation of a low water level staff gauge at Baawa Dam

Plate 6- 3: Installation of a high water level staff gauge at Baawa Dam 113

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 6- 4: Installation of a low water level staff gauge at Nontotol Dam

Plate 6- 5: Installation of a low water level staff gauge at Nontotol Dam 6.5. WATER MANAGEMENT “TOOLS” FOR BOREHOLES Boreholes are commonly used to abstract ground water and tracking water rest level and use is important for effective water management. Due to the nature of the facilitated in the pipe systems of the boreholes identified for monitoring purposes, it’s hard to document trends in their water rest level. In this regard, only water use “tools” were fitted to document and track waster use (Table 6-4, Plates 6-4 and 6-5). 114

Habitat Planners

# 1 2 3 4 5

2015

Table 6- 3: Water monitoring sites and “tools” for selected boreholes in the Kirisia Forest Watershed General Locality Point of Existing Type Type of monitoring Type of data to be monitoring of Water “tool” “tool” fitted during collected for monitoring this study purposes Ngorika, Angata Ngorika Water use meter Water abstraction and use Nanyukie Area Community None Borehole Baawa Area in Baawa Baawa None Water use meter Water abstraction and use G. Ranch, Baawa Community Village Borehole Leirr Village, Baawa Leirr None Water use meter Water abstraction and use Sub-location Community Borehole Ledero Village, Lchoro None Water use meter Water abstraction and use Ledero Sub-location Community Borehole Partuk Area, Maralal Partuk 1 Water use meter Water use meter Water abstraction and use Urban

Plate 6- 6: Water use monitoring “tool” for Ngorika borehole

115

Habitat Planners

2015

Plate 6- 7: Installation of a water use monitoring “tool” for Baawa community borehole 6.6. KEY STAKEHOLDERS TRAINED IN USE OF WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS 6.6.1.Field data collectors Like in the Chyulu Hills Watershed water management “tools, the Kirisia Forest Watershed “tools” are expected to be used in a participatory manner to partly increase their degree of acceptability. The training and workshop sessions were used to training the identified data collectors as well as other key stakeholders in the water sector e.g. management of the Kirisia Forest Community Forest Association, local women self-help groups, Samburu County staff and the youth (Plate 6-6). Specifically the trainees were drawn from:a) SAWASCO staff b) Government institutions e.g. Baawa Primary School c) Community water resources users e.g. management of Leirr, Baawa, Lchoro and Ngorika boreholes d) Management and scouts of Kirisia Forest Community Conservation Association

Plate 6- 8: Training sessions for water “tools” data collectors and other stakeholders at Maralal Town 116

Habitat Planners

6.6.2.Training materials use and data collection procedures Given the diverse composition of the identified data collectors, the training focus simplified yet effective in preparing them to proceed on their own in collecting the information (Table 6-5). This was supplemented with carefully designed and demonstrations on how to use and maintain the monitoring “tools”, as well as data recommended time schedule and frequency. #

1.

Aim of the Kirisia Forest  Watershed water management “tools” 

2.

Overview of the Kirisia Forest  Watershed       

3.

Staff gauge

     Monitoring of water resources  using a staff gauge  

5.

Staff gauge data recording and storage

6.

Staff gauge data interpretation and information management framework Staff gauge management

7.

and content were required data and effective practical recording and the

Table 6- 4: Content covered in the training and workshop sessions for the data collectors Broad topic Specific content covered

 

4.

2015

reading,  

The role of water resources in sustaining livelihoods in the Kirisia Forest Watershed Relationship of Kirisia Forest and availability of local water resources Purpose and objectives of the water resources survey Use of “tools” for sustainable use of water in the Kirisia Forest Watershed Approach and methodology used in the survey and identification of appropriate water management “tools Drainage network Water resource types and their spatial location Status of the watershed land cove Spatial distribution and trends in rainfall Water discharge Human population trends and water demand trends Contribution of AWF in supporting installation of water management “tools” in the watershed What is a staff gauge and how does it look like? Who invented the staff gauge? Types and sizes of staff gauges When and how is a staff gauge used? How do they work and what kind of water data do they record, Suitable installation sites for a staff gauge Site suitability factors to consider when installing a staff gauge What kind of readings or data does a staff gauge provide and how can the data be used in the management of water resources? How to read a staff gauge Time and frequency (reading schedule) of reading a staff gauge, recording and use of data sheets

 

Data processing and interpretation Information management and communication

 

Staff gauge protection Staff gauge maintenance and replacement

117

Habitat Planners

2015

8.

What is a water use meter?

9.

Groundwater water use  monitoring using a water meter   

Suitable installation sites Site suitability factors What kind of readings does it provide? What is the meaning of the readings recorded?

10.

Water meter data recording and  storage  

Monitoring frequency Required tools Data recording schedule (time of the day)

11.

 

Data processing and interpretation Information management and communication

12.

Water meter data interpretation and information management framework Water meter management

 

Water use gauge protection Water use gauge, repair and replacement

13.

Practical demonstrations



Demonstration on how to use installed water management “tool” (i.e. staff gauge and water use meters) Demonstration on data reading and recording (on data sheets) Demonstration on safe data archiving and conveyance Demonstration on protection of the installed “tools”

    

  

How does a water use meter look like? Who invented the water use gauge? Types of water gauges When are they used? How do they work?

6.6.3.Field water data conveyance, storage and sharing system Data and information is management is an important aspect of natural resources management and there’s need to ensure the following:- i) consistency in data gathering and updating the data basis, ii) correct data and information is collected and clearly documented before its forwarded to the end users, and, iii) there a clear and effective system for data conveyance and storage. The consultants noted with concern that data and on key water issues in the Kirisia Forest Watershed like water yield and use was not available making it very difficult to do trend analysis on these aspects since they are important in sustainable water management. Further, there was no system on data conveyance and storage even at WRMA offices in Rumuruti, SAWASCO offices in Maralal as well as the Samburu County offices. This is a major impending in helping the government especially WRMA, SAWASCO and Samburu County government craft interventions aimed at promoting sustainable use of water in the Kirisia Forest Watershed. To correct this set-back, the consultants developed in data documentation system and its conveyance to WRMA office in Rumuruti in recognition that this is the lead government agency in water resources management in the country. Nonetheless, the data collectors and other present stakeholders were sensitized on the need to share the data and the value of having a data capture and storage system. The platform will be forwarded to AWF since they it funded this work, after which it will consult the other stakeholders mainly SAWASCO, WRMA in Rumuruti; KWS, KWTA, KFS and Kirisia Forest Community Forest Association on how to use the platform.

118

Habitat Planners

119

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

7. ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED 7.1: CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO FOR SAMBURU COUNTY The risk of climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing humans in the 21st century including Kenya, and a lot of human and financial resources coupled by technical, policy and institutional frameworks have been used to understand the effects of this new environmental challenge and develop adaptive strategies. According to Nater et al. (2008), most of the 20th Century has been characterized by widespread droughts in regions such as the Sahel, Southern Africa, Central America and South Asia. At the same time, these droughts have had tremendous impacts in dry-lands which are home to nearly 34% of the world’s population and home to eight (8) of the world’s twenty five (25) key biodiversity hotspots. Climate change studies have shown that the African continent is among the regions of the world which will seriously be affected by climate change, and, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is evidence showing that Africa is warming faster than the global average (IPCC, 2007). This report presents a grim future with an expected increase in global surface temperature by 0.6±0.2°C in the 20th Century. Global climatic models predict that climate change in Kenya is likely lead to increased temperatures by about 4°C and also cause rainfall variability by up to 20% by the year 2100 (IPCC, 2007). Interest in climate debates in Kenya has risen in realization that environmental aridity is increasing especially in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALS) which over the years have provided new fallbacks for human settlements and source of livelihoods. The Fourth Assessment Report by IPCC (2007) recognizes the threat posed by climate change to the developing world. Specifically, the climate change elements that are important for Kenya are rainfall (distribution and amount) and temperature especially the minimum and maximum. A times series plots of minimum temperature conditions at some meteorology stations in the country have indicated a general tendency towards warming and decrease in rainfall which is likely to result in increased aridity especially in the ASALS. In Kenya, climate change has become a common feature and their impacts on local and national economies have been devastating particularly in the arid and semi-arid regions such as Samburu County. In spite of the numerous efforts by the government, development partners and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the negative effects of climate change are still widespread, and this has continued to frustrate government efforts to alleviate poverty and improve the socio-economic aspirations of the nation. Samburu County is one of the many counties situated in the dry regions of Kenya, and due to its geographical location, its receives inadequate rainfall and this has serious implications on the livelihood foundation of its inhabitants. Ther e fore , surface water sources are scarce and unreliable in some parts and this gets aggrevated during times of drought. In this regard groundwater is the only permanent a n d r e l i a b l e source of water. Drought occurrence in the county is a common feature, and successive droughts through the 1980s and 1990s have had long-last impacts on community livelihoods including massive livetsock mortality. Figure 7.1 shows the predicted short term climate change scenario for Kenya including the Samburu County (USGS and USAID, 2010). According to this scenario, the temperature levels in the county could rise by up to 1.1 0C by the year 2030 while rainfall could reduce by up to 100 mm. These changes could have tremendous impacts on the Kirisia Forest watershed ecosystem vegetation, ecological integrity, the number of available water sources and quantity of water supplied from it.

120

Habitat Planners

2015

Samburu County

Figure 7.1: Predicted short term climate change scenario for Kenya and Samburu County (Source: USGS/USAID, 2010). 7.2: EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER RESOURCES AND LOCAL LIVELIHOODS In Samburu County and most parts of Kenya, the livelihoods of rural communities are supported by natural resources and activities dependent on rainfall such as pastoralism and farming. Therefore, any significant changes in climatic conditions such as reduction in the amount of rainfall or occurrence of drought have a direct impact on livelihood activities and ultimately food security and household income. Generally, drylands are more likely to be negatively affected by climate change especially reduced rainfall and drastic climate variability compared to the high potential areas. In the context of Samburu landscape, significant reduction in the expected annual rainfall due to climate change will create a serious water deficit making it hard for households and entire communities to have sufficient water for their livestock and to meet basic sanitation and domestic needs. Production of adequate food resources for livestock will also be comprised and this can lead to massive mortality. The Samburu landscape community dependent majorly on either livestock or agriculture that heavily relies on rainfall to generate pasture and water for crops, and hence a very sensitive livelihood foundation. The long-term effect of persistent dry conditions is reduction in pastoralism, subsistence farming and water availability which them comprises the livelihoods of the communities, and their endeavor to enhance their socio-economic wellbeing. In essence climate change will make communities in Samburu County extremely vulnerable to climate change, and this calls for mainstreaming of climate change adaptive and coping mechanisms in their livelihood strategies. The 2015 survey established that a large number of the water sources recorded in the 2013 survey by (Nyaligu, 2013) were inactive or dry. These included springs such as; Ndandapo Elki’leku, Soit Enkaiwieli, Soit Enkaiwieli, Margweet, Soit Naibor, Loomunyi, Lare Loltominka, Lolpoor, Lolkondo and shallow wells such as Naingolie. The reason for this was the fact that the 2013 survey was undertaken in the wet season and that year, the rains were reasonably substantial while the 2015 survey was undertaken during 121

Habitat Planners

2015

the dry season before the short rains. Table 7.1 shows a comparative analysis of selected water sources in 2013 and 2015 and the likely impact of climate change on these sources based on their recent trends. The overall scenario for most of the water sources is expected to be negative thereby leading to increased water scarcity in the area against an increasing demand as projected in Section 5. This negative changes requires implementation of suitable climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in order to confront a future associated with heightened water scarcity.

#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Table 7-1: Comparative status of water sources in Kirisia Forest watershed and likely impact of climate change Water production status in 2013 Water production Expected impact Name of water source (Nyarigu 2013) status in 2015 of climate change (this field survey) Active Inactive Active Inactive (Dry) (Dry) Nangaro (Ngong) springs Yes Yes Heavy abstraction Ng’ablo springs Yes Yes Drying Ng’ablo springs Yes Yes Drying Soit Baawa dam Yes Yes Heavy abstraction Lechoro Lenanguya springs Yes Dry Dry Ntontol dam Yes Yes Shrinking Longutukie (Lonkutukie) Yes Yes Shrinking shallow well Ngabaai water pan Yes Dry Dry Nachuda stream Yes Yes Shrinking Suen dam Yes Yes Shrinking Suen-Lkidoroto Dam Yes Yes Stable Yes Dry Dry Ndikir Elngwesi water pan Lorok 1 shallow well Yes Yes Drying Lorok 2 shallow well Yes Yes Drying Lorok 3 shallow well Yes Yes Drying 7.3: ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER SUPPLY AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS Although this study focused on documenting the water resource types and application of water management ‘tools”, there’s need to also sensitize and equip communities with skills and ability to utilize water resource sustainably linked to climate change situation in the area. Water drives the day to day activities and livelihoods of households and the entire community and its reduced availability due to climate change will have immediate and lasting negative impacts on their socio-economic welfare. In this regard, adaptation to climate change can consist of strategies which will specifically take climate change and variability into account (planned adaptation) or those with goals that are not specifically climate related, but that improve resilience to climate change as an additional effect (autonomous adaptation) (Wilk and Wittgren, 2009). Specifically, the climate change adaptation that is needed in the Kirisia Forest Watershed should be guided by the principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM).

122

Habitat Planners

2015

In 2010, the Government of Kenya developed a National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) which provides clear guidelines on the strategies to be used around the country in order to deal with the expected challenges of climate change from one sector to another (RoK 2010). The vision of the NCCRS is to ensure a prosperous and climate change resilient country in the years to come. The key mission of the national strategy is the strengthening nationwide actions towards adapting to and mitigating climate change. Based on the NCCRS strategy of 2010, a number of climate change adaptation actions should be explored for the various water sources in the Kirisia Forest watershed as highlighted in Table 7.2. However, before any adaptation strategies are implemented in the watershed to reduce community vulnerability to reduced water availability as a result of climate change, we recommend that a comprehensive survey is done to understand who is vulnerable to its effects and why. Other key issues that should also be assessed include :i) how does climate change affect availability and quality of water resources, and how does this impact on communities? ii) existence of any coping and adaptation strategies in the community in regards to water resources availability, iii) how can adaptation decrease impacts of climate change, iv) how can the community adapt and cope with challenges arising from climate change?, and, v) what institutional support is available in the community to enhance adaptation to climate change? The Samburu County government and ddevelopment partners will then use the findings to design and implement effective, realistic and sustainable climate sensitive interventions or strategies. Table 7.2: Potential climate change adaptation strategies for the water sources in Kirisia Forest watershed Name of water Climate change Potential climate change adaptation strategy** source challenge Springs Ngonyeki Drying Develop and implement a spring conservation plan Nangaro Heavy abstraction Develop and implement sustainable water abstraction plan Soit Ngablo Drying up due to heavy Develop and implement spring conservation plan grazing and trampling Lechoro Dry Develop and implement spring catchment Lenanguya rehabilitation and recharge enhancement plan Streams Nashunda Drying Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Naadapo Elkileku Dry Develop and implement spring catchment rehabilitation and recharge enhancement plan Lonyonyi Shrinking Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Lorok Dry Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Kirisia Drying Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Baawa Drying Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Earth dams and water pans Ngabai Dry Improve the rainwater harvesting infrastructure Ntontol Shrinking Desiltation Su-en Shrinking Develop and implement a reservoir grouting plan Suen-Lkidoroto Stable Develop and implement a reservoir management plan Ndikir Elgwesi Dry water pan Nontoto Dam Shrinking and heavily Develop and implement a reservoir management plan polluted 123

Habitat Planners

Loikurukul Baawa Prison Dam Morijoi Boreholes Ngorika Partuk 1 Baawa borehole Leirr Lechoro Shallow wells Lonkutukie Ntonlol Loikas Ngablo

2015

Shrinking Increased pollution due to heavy utilization Shrinking and heavily polluted Shrinking

Develop and implement a reservoir management plan Develop and implement a reservoir management plan

Falling water table due to heavy abstraction Falling water table due to heavy abstraction Falling water table due to heavy abstraction Falling water table due to heavy abstraction Falling water table due to heavy abstraction

Enforce the Kirisia PFMP

Increased pollution and shrinking Shrinking and increased contamination Shrinking and increased contamination Drying

Improve the rainwater harvesting and water cleansing infrastructure Establish a water cleansing infrastructure

Develop and implement a reservoir management plan Develop and implement a reservoir management plan

Establish a PES program to support forest conservation and recharge enhancement plan Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Enforce the Kirisia PFMP Enforce the Kirisia PFMP

Establish a water cleansing infrastructure

Develop and implement catchment rehabilitation and recharge enhancement plan Naingolie Dry Develop and implement catchment rehabilitation and recharge enhancement plan Naingolie Drying Develop and implement catchment rehabilitation and recharge enhancement plan **Note: The potential climate change adaptation strategies recommended here should be augmented by undertaking a comprehensive climate change vulnerability analysis within the watershed

124

Habitat Planners

2015

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Water is a key driver of livelihoods and socio-economic development of developing and developed countries. However, its availability in a useable state is rapidly declining, and this is partly attributed to rampant mismanagement and pollution among other causes. Approximately 80% of Kenya is dry–land, and water resources are therefore scarce in most regions of Kenya including Samburu Landscape where this study was carried out. This has profound influence on livelihoods and socio-economic activities of communities living in these dry zones. Another notable aspect is that the country’s economy is heavily dependent on natural resources, and water is one such resource which determines productivity, local livelihoods and the nature economy. In spite of the enormous investment in human, financial and infrastructure investments in the water sector, water mismanagement is widespread and continues unabated, and if this is not effectively mitigated, it will slow down the pace of attaining the objectives of Kenya’s Vision 2030 socio-economic development blue print as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study was done in the Kirisia Forest Watershed, Samburu County as a follow-up of work done early 2015 in the Chyulu Hills Watershed where water management “tools” were installed to help monitor and track water dynamics (discharge and abstraction). The main focus of the work was to; identify and install appropriate water management “tools” in the Kirisia Forest watershed to enhance sustainable management of water resources. In the process, the following objectives were addressed; i) document water sources types and the state of their water quality, ii) test and evaluate the applicability of the Chyulu water “tools” for the Kirisia Forest Watershed, iii) install water monitoring “tools” within the watershed and train suitable field personnel to be engaged in data and information gathering using the installed “tools”, and, iv) create a suitable data storage and processing framework for the data obtained using the installed “tools”. The findings of this work showed that:The findings of this survey have revealed that Kirisia Forest is the life-line of livelihoods of communities living in its watershed and other parts of Samburu County. Given that water use and demand is projected to escalate in response to population increase, key interventions are urgently required to ensure sustained water supply from the catchment. These include but not limited to the following:a) Enhance protection and conservation of Kirisia Forest which is the main water replenishment power house for the watershed. This is not an easy undertaking given the political implications of removing illegal settlers and regulating livestock grazing by local communities but it holds the key to ensuring long-term water provision in the entire watershed. b) Create an independent and inclusive oversight taskforce to oversee sustainable protection of Kirisia Forest. Currently, the management of all water towers in the country including Kirisia Forest is under different government lead agencies (i.e. Kenya Water Towers Agency, Kenya Forest Service, Kenya Wildlife Service and more recently community forest associations). But this institutional arrangement creates confusion and duplication of oversight responsibility at the expense of ensuring that water towers are effectively protected since they are the main water power houses which drives the local and national economies. c) Create awareness among the communities living within the watershed on the impacts of climate change on water resources, and train them on how to cope with this change so as to reduce adverse effects on their livelihoods. However, before this is done, we recommend that 125

Habitat Planners

d)

e) f) g)

h) i)

2015

a comprehensive survey is done to understand; (i) who is vulnerable to climate change and why, ii) how climate change affects availability and quality of water resources, and its impact on the communities, iii) existence of any coping and adaptation strategies in the community in regards to water resources availability iv) how can the community adapt and cope with challenges arising from climate change, and, how this will decrease the effects of climate change, and, v) what institutional support is available in the community to enhance adaptation to climate change in regards to water availability Develop and implement short and long-term climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies within the watershed so as to reduce the impacts arising from reduced water availability. These include; i) development of springs/streams/wells conservation, water recharge enhancement and catchment rehabilitation plans, ii) enforcement of the Kirisia Forest Management Plan, and, iii) de-siltation of water pans and earth dams Document and monitor water yield and abstraction in the watershed, and use the data to make informed decisions on effective and sustainable water management. Educate and create awareness among different water users and stakeholders on the association between water availability and the environmental state of the Kirisia Forest, and the importance of embracing sustainable water use ethics. Educate and train communities dependent on earth dams, shallow wells and water pans on how to secure their waters so ensure year round availability of suitable water for domestic uses especially for drinking and cooking purposes. It’s also important to have designated watering points for livestock to reduce water contamination by dung. Explore opportunities for exploiting ground water resources by sinking boreholes in strategic locations in the watershed. Nonetheless, there’s a need to ensure they are functional and are not stalled by mismanagement and local politics among the beneficiaries. Ensure the four (4) rainfall recording stations within the watershed (i.e. Baawa Catholic School, Maralal Regional Commissioner’s Office, Porro private station and Lodokejek Chief’s Office) are functional and there’s regular and consistent data capture. This will provide reliable data that will help track rainfall dynamics in the watershed.

126

Habitat Planners

2015

REFERENCES Adams, M., J. Berkoff, and E. Daley. 2006. Land-water interactions: opportunities and threats to water entitlements of the poor in Africa for productive use. Human Development Report 2006, pp. 144. Africa Wildlife Foundation (AWF). 2004. Community Based Natural Resource Management: Environmental Impact Assessment, Samburu Water Project. Report No. 04/1015. Groundwater Survey (Kenya) Ltd, Nairobi, September 2004 Africa Wildlife Foundation (AWF). 2006. Kirisia Forest Study: Chapter 2 Ecological characterization of Kirisia Forest Reserve. Draft Report Compiled by Humphrey Kisioh, July 2006. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi. Anne, P. 2009. Preliminary ecological survey of Kirisia Forest Reserve, Samburu District. Report to Laikipia Wildlife Forum for Conservation Enterprise Development Program Bates, B.C., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Wu, S. & Palutikof, J.P. (eds) (2008). Climate Change and Water, Technical Paper VI of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva. Beentje H.J. 1990. The forests of Kenya. Mitteilungen aus dem Institut für 14 Allgemeine Botanik in Hamburg 23a: 265-286. de Groot, R, S., Matthew A. W., and Roelof, M.J. B.(2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 393–408 Evans, M. I. and Fishpool, L. D. C. 2001. Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated Islands: Priority Sites for Conservation. Pisces Publications; Cambridge: Birdlife International, 2001. Government of Kenya (GoK). 2007. Vision 2030: a competitive and prosperous Kenya. Graeme and Spiesman. 2006. Regional problems need integrated solutions: Pest management and conservation biology in Agro-ecosystems. Biological Conservation, 131: 533-543 Gunilla Björklund, Håkan Tropp, Joakim Harlin, Alastair Morrison and Andrew Hudson. 2009. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-the United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, Dialogue Paper. Published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7 place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France © UNESCO 2009-ISBN 978-92-3-104108-2 Hitimana, Joseph, James Ole Kiyiapi, Hamphrey Kisioh, Fiesta Warinwa, Philip Lenaiyasa, Pauline Kibugi, Rose Mayienda and Daudi Sumba. 2005. Linking socio-economic significance and 127

Habitat Planners

2015

conservation for Kirisia Forest, Samburu, Kenya. Technical Paper to African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Nairobi, Kenya. Hitimana, J., James Legilisho Ole Kiyiapi, Pauline Wambui Kibugi, Hamphrey Kisio4, Rose Mayienda, Fiesta Warinwa, Philip Lenaiyasa and Daudi Sumba.2011.Challenges of Linking SocioEconomic Significance and Conservation Value of Forests in Drylands of Kenya: Case Study of Kirisia Forest-Samburu Pastoralists Coexistence, Biological Diversity and Sustainable Resources Use, PhD. Oscar Grillo (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-706-2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Glossary available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg2.pdf Locatelli B. and Vignola R., 2009. Managing watershed services of tropical forests and plantations: Can meta-analyses help? Forest Ecology and Management, 258(9): 1864-1870. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.015 Okoye, G. K, M. Amimo and I.A. Nyandega. 2015. Geophysical investigations of Suyien Earthdam in Maralal, Samburu County, Kenya. Africa Journal of Physical Sciences, 2 (1) 33-49. Mogaka, H., S. Gichere, R. Davis, and R. Hirji. 2006. Climate Variability and Water Resources Degradation in Kenya: Improving Water Resources Development and Management. World Bank Working Papers Number 69, pp. 1-105. Nater, T., Duchrow, A. & Sörensen, L. (eds) (2008). Desertification: Coping with Today’s Global Challenges in the Context of the Strategy of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, High-Level Policy Dialogue, Bonn, May 27, 2008, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany. Nyaligu, M.O. 2013, Water resourcs inventory and assessment, Kirisia Forest National Reserve. Final report to AWF, Kenya Powys, A., 2009: A preliminary ecological survey of Kirisia Forest Reserve, Samburu District for Conservation Enterprise Development Program, 2009. Unpublished report, AWF, NairobiKenya. Jaetzold, R. & Schmidt, H. 1983. Farm management Handbook vol II- Natural conditions and Farm management information, Part B Central Kenya (Rift Valley and Central Provinces). Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya, in cooperation with the German Agricultural Team (GAT) of the GTZ, Nairobi King, D.M., 2005. Beekeeping around Kirisia Forest: A baseline survey of their income, production systems and perceptions. Prepared for AWF. 128

Habitat Planners

2015

Lambrechts, C. Woodley, B. Gachanja, M. 2005. Aerial survey of the of the Threats to Leroghi (Kirisia) Forest Reserve Ndolo, J.N. (2004). Survey on the apiculture status of Kirisia Forest and the three adjacent Group Ranches of Milimani, Baawa and Mbaringon. Prepared for AWF.45pp. Kenya Forest Service (KFS). 2012. Leroghi /Kirisia Forest management plan (2012 – 2016).The Kenya Forest Service, Nairobi – Kenya. Kiringe, J. W., Okello, M. M., Tome, S.R. and Seno, S.K. 2009. The water situation analysis in Kimana area: causes and consequences of water quality, quantity, and distribution dynamics. Final water situation analysis report: prepared for project implementation committee (PIC) Kimana water resourcesconservation project Powys, A., 2009: A preliminary ecological survey of Kirisia Forest Reserve, Samburu District for Conservation Enterprise Development Program, 2009. Unpublished report, AWF, Nairobi Kenya. Republic of Kenya (RoK). 1991. Samburu District water development study (193-2013); Part I-Water demand and water resources, Ministry of Water Development, Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (RoK). 2007. Vision 2030: a competitive and prosperous Kenya. Republic of Kenya. 2007. The National Water Services Strategy (NWSS) 2007-2015. Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya (RoK). 2009. Samburu District environment action plan (2009-2013). Report by the National Environment Authority (NEMA). Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources Republic of Kenya (RoK). 2010. National climate change response strategy (NCCRS). Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Nairobi Republic of Kenya (RoK). 2013. National climate change action plan (2013 -2017). Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Nairobi

Republic of Kenya (RoK). 2013. Samburu CIDP 2013-2017 Schuster-Wallice, C., Grover, V., Adeel, Z., Confalonieri, U. and Elliot, S. 2008. Safe water as the key to global health. United Nations University International Network on Water, Environment, and Health (UNU-INWEH). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2008. UNICEF Handbook on Water Quality. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). New York. USGS and USAID. 2010. A climate trend analysis of Kenya, August, 2010 129

Habitat Planners

2015

Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA). 2014. Catchment management strategy for Ewaso Ng’iro North Catchment Area (2014-2022). Report by WRMA, Rumuruti Office Watai, M.K. and Gachathi, F. 2003. Conservation for sustainable utilization of biodiversity through enhanced access and benefit sharing with forest adjacent communities in Kirisia forest Samburu District. Unpublished report. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Nairobi – Kenya. Wilk, J. and Wittgren, H.B. (eds). Adapting Water Management to Climate Change. Swedish Water House Policy Brief Nr. 7. SIWI, 2009.

130

Habitat Planners

2015

ANNEXES PART I: DATA COLLECTORS TRAINING INFORMATION AND CONTENT 1. Key stakeholders associated with the Kirisia Forest watershed  KWS  KFS  WRMA  KWTA  Nondotol WRUA (Maralal)  Water Service Providers i.e. SAWASCO  Water Service Beneficiaries i.e. livestock, tour operators, wildlife, urban and rural households 2. Linkage of Kirisia Forest and availability of local water resources 3. The role of water resources in sustaining local livelihoods in the Kirisia Forest Watershed  Domestic or household’s water supply (cooking, bathing, washing clothes and drinking)  Watering Livestock and Wildlife  Tourism Industry  Rain-fed Agriculture  Creation of employment opportunities through water sales by Sawasco 4. Purpose of the water resources survey and management tools  Identify and install appropriate water management “tools” in the Kirisia Forest watershed to enhance sustainable management of water resources 5. Objectives  Test and evaluate the applicability of the Chyulu water tools for the Kirisia Forest Watershed  Install water monitoring “tools” within the Kirisia Forest Watershed  Sensitize and training key people who will be engaged in data and information gathering using the “tools” installed within the watershed  Create a suitable data storage and processing framework for the data obtained using the installed water monitoring “tools”  Assess the quality of water resources within the Kirisia Forest Watershed 6. Approach and methodology (explain data collection process) a) Landscape analysis: Was done using four (4) inspection transects i.e. i) Maralal-Engata-Nanyukie transect (a total of 45 Km) ii) Mararal-Ngari–Baawa transect (a total of 31Km) iii) Maralal-Opiroi transect (a total of 16 Km) iv) Maralal – Ngonyeki transect (a total of 10Km)

131

Habitat Planners

The Maralal-Engata-Nanyukie transect

132

2015

Habitat Planners

The Mararal-Ngari–Baawa transect

133

2015

Habitat Planners

The Maralal-Opiroi transect

134

2015

Habitat Planners

The Maralal – Ngonyeki transect

135

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

b) Land cover analysis: Was done using satellite imageries as shown below

c) Types of water resources in the watershed: This inventory was done in the field for both surface and ground water resources and supplemented with secondary data and information sources. The following information was recorded for each water source:- i) type of surface water source, ii) geographic location (GPS coordinates using a hand held GPS), iii) water source ownership, and, iv) state of the water source in terms of whether it was dry or inactive or if it was active and functional d) Surface water discharge: The float method was used to estimate discharge for

Nachuda stream, Ngonyeki and Nangaro springs where water discharge and flow were present. The steps used to measure water discharge were as follows:Step 1: Identify a suitable section of a channel with minimal flow obstruction and turbulence (ideally at least 3 channel widths long), and measure its width and depth where it is safe to wade Step 2: Mark the start and end point of your section, and preferably the “travel” time for the floating object should exceed 20 seconds.

136

Habitat Planners

2015

Step 3: Drop your object or floater into the upstream of your selected channel section, then activate a stop-watch when the object crosses the upstream marker and stop it when it crosses the downstream marker, and take note of the time taken. Repeat this process at least 3 times and use the average to calculate water discharge.

Water discharge is then calculated as; Cross-section area of the channel = width x depth, Velocity = distance (length)/time, and, Q (m3/sec) = AV (0.85), where 0.85 is a correction factor. e) Water quality assessment: This water attribute was assessed in; springs, streams, shallow wells, selected boreholes, water pans and earth dams using the Hanna multi-parameter meter model HI 9828. The following attributes were measured on site; i) water pH, ii) total dissolved solids (TDS), iii) electrical conductivity, iv) salinity, and, v) oxidation reduction potential. A total of 35 water sources within the watershed environment were tested and the suitability of the water evaluated against WHO and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) standards for human consumption.

137

Habitat Planners

2015

f) Rainfall pattern and trends in the watershed: Spatial and temporal rainfall analysis in the watershed was done using secondary data obtained from the Kenya Meteorological Department database in Nairobi for the following meteorological stations: i) Poro (a private residential station), ii) Maralal Regional County Office, iii) Baawa Catholic Primary School, and, iv) Lodokejek Chief’s office. Forest Zone

Rainfall station

Code

Active period

Poro (Private Residential Station)

8836022

1996-2014 (11 yrs)

Central

Maralal Regional County Office

8836000

1970-2003 (33 yrs)

South


8936079

1975-1993 (9 yrs)

Lodokejek Chiefs Camp

8836015

1974-1993 (10 yrs)

North

g) Human population trends in the watershed: The human population growth in the Samburu Central Sub County in which the Kirisia Forest Watershed ecosystem is located was based on the 2009 national population census records. The projection was based on the overall growth rate for Samburu County in 2009 which was 2.1%. Projections on the expected increase in the population overtime were undertaken according to the following formula:-

Where:t=Number of years of census period, for example from 19842000  P2=Population at the end of the census period, for example 200000  P1= Population at the start of the census period, for example 150000  r=Growth annual rate (in %, = 2.1) 

138

Habitat Planners

2015

h) Water use analysis and monetization: Various approaches were used to assess this component as herein outlined: Water use, beneficiaries and demand: Primary data was obtained by through interviews with various stakeholders including the following; locals communities, the Director of Samburu Water and Sanitation Company Ltd (SAWASCO), Chair of Kirisia Forest Community Forest Association, Samburu Director of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Chair of Baawa Dam Management Committee, officers in the Rumuruti WRMA office, and chairs of the management committees of Leirr, Lchoro, Ngorika and Baawa community boreholes. Secondary data water was gathered from reports and records for instances from the WRMA offices at Rumuruti, AWF office in Nairobi, Samburu County Water and Works Department in Mararal and SAWASCO office in Mararal. Some of the key data and information obtained included; water source types in the Kirisia forest watershed, typology of water uses, water beneficiaries and their numbers, water abstraction levels, water service providers and water use charges. The primary and secondary data and information was used to obtain the following information: i) types of water sources, monetary value of water resources, ii) approximate water economy for the watershed, iii) water resources threats and challenges, and, iv) water source monetary value among others.  Kirisia Forest Watershed Ecosystem Monetization: The Market Price Method (MPM) method was used to estimate the monetary value of water in the Kirisia Forest watershed ecosystem, and it involved gathering information on water sale prices by different water services providers especially SAWASCO and communal water sources especially boreholes. Water monetary estimation or Gross Value of Water was done by multiplying the total raw water discharge from a given source with the local current market price. 7.Key Findings a) Landscape analysis  Rugged terrain  Scattered plateaus

b)

Land-cover analysis (1973-2015) 139

Habitat Planners

2015

Landcover change statistics for the Kirisia Forest Watershed (1973-2015): (Make key deductions from the table for the workshop paraticipants Area in km2

1

#

Land Cover Type Indigenous forest

430.60

346.68

322.95

338.75

Overall change (1973-1986) -83.92

1973

1986

2000

2015

Overall change (1986-2000) -23.73

Overall change (2000-2015) 15.80

% Change -21.33

2

Plantation forest

0.00

1.57

3.24

2.94

-1.57

1.68

-0.30

100.00

3

Open woodland

23.02

52.36

60.78

55.53

-29.34

8.43

-5.26

58.55

4

1.07

1.01

1.07

0.89

0.06

0.06

-0.18

16.98

5

Open wooded shrubland Closed shrubland

416.42

18.17

19.29

19.10

398.25

1.12

-0.19

95.41

6

Open shrubland

67.08

35.24

35.18

35.42

31.84

-0.06

0.18

47.19

7

Open wooded bushland Open wooded grassland Grassland

70.63

152.11

151.29

151.49

-81.47

-0.81

0.20

53.37

0.00

1.75

1.92

1.75

-1.75

0.17

-0.17

100.00

72.86

91.58

91.41

92.97

-18.72

-0.17

1.57

21.64

29.95

209.93

218.62

209.97

-179.98

8.69

-8.65

85.74

11

Closed wooded bushland Closed bushland

339.97

451.70

454.92

455.82

-111.73

3.22

0.90

25.42

12

Open bushland

290.61

323.09

323.34

322.35

-32.48

0.25

-1.00

9.85

13

Scattered bushland

17.26

52.30

52.64

49.79

-35.04

0.34

-2.85

65.34

14

Crop fields

0.00

19.52

20.17

19.43

-19.52

0.65

-0.74

100.00

15

Water body (dams)

0.11

0.25

0.25

0.28

-0.14

0.00

0.02

60.36

16

Built up area

2.51

4.83

5.00

5.62

-2.33

0.17

0.62

55.38

1762

1762

1762

1762

-

-

-

8 9 10

Total

c)

Rainfall pattern in the Kirisia Forest Watershed (1970-2014) 140

Habitat Planners

2015

Spatial rainfall variation in the Kirisia Forest Watershed

Overall rainfall trend in the Kirisia Forest Watershed d)

Kirisia Forest watershed drainage and water sources  Drainage network: The Kirisia watershed lies within the Ewaso Ngiro North Catchment, the watershed has a very limited number of permanent rivers and laggas are the main feature. It also contains a limited number of active springs

141

Habitat Planners

2015

 Water sources found in the Kirisia Forest Watershed  Dams and water pans  Boreholes  Wells  Springs and Streams

142

Habitat Planners

2015

Type and spatial location of water sources in the Kirisia Forest Watershed and its environs

e)

Water users 143

Habitat Planners

2015

Kirisia Forest Watershed ecosystem service beneficiaries: Kirisia & Lorroki Sub Counties

Water use demand in Kirisia & Lorroki Sub Counties

144

Habitat Planners

2015

Overall estimate of Kirisia Forest watershed water economy (livestock and human use only) 145

Habitat Planners

f)

State of water quality in water sources Southern zone of the watershed 146

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

Note: Highlighted areas indicate water attributes which are beyond the recommended WHO and NEMA water quality standards for human use

Central and northern zone

147

Habitat Planners

148

2015

Habitat Planners

#

1

2

3

4

5

2015

Summary of human health implications of the water contamination in Kirisia Forest Watershed Non-compliant water quality Human health Implications parameter Extremes in pH can cause serious health effects. Exposure to extreme pH values results in irritation to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Eye irritation and exacerbation of skin disorders have pH been associated with pH values greater than 11. In addition, solutions of pH 10–12.5 have been reported to cause hair fibres to swell. In sensitive individuals, gastrointestinal irritation may also occur. However, the presence of high levels of TDS in drinking-water (greater than 1200 mg/litre) may be objectionable to consumers. Water with extremely low concentrations of TDS may also be Total dissolved solids (TDS) unacceptable because of its ﬂat, insipid taste. High TDS in drinking water may cause stiffness in the joints, hardening of the arteries, kidney stones, gall stones and blockages of arteries, microscopic capillaries and other passages in which liquids flow through our entire body. A number of health problems can occur where the EC exceeds 370 mS/m including a) disturbance of the salt and water balance in Electrical conductivity (Ec) children, b) negative effects on the blood pressure of heart patients and renal patients, and c) laxative effects when sulphate concentrations are high. High salinity levels in drinking water may have numerous direct and indirect impacts on health. High salinity in drinking water can cause Salinity high blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases to the population and gestational hypertension among pregnant women. High or low ORP affects the level of natural water disinfection against biological contaminants. and viral activation. At a level of Oxidation reduction potential 650 mV of ORP, bacteria such as E. coli are killed on contact or within a few seconds. Tougher organisms such as listeria, salmonella, yeasts and molds may require 750 mV or higher in order to be killed.

8. Conclusions

149

Habitat Planners

       

2015

Kirisia Forest plays a vital role in water production and supply in a landscape characterized by poor and unreliable rainfall. It’s therefore an important local socio-economic pillar Dams and wells are 2 key water sources in the Kirisia Forest watershed BUT these are not effectively managed (Explain) Water discharge and use data is scanty or lacking in some cases within the watershed making it difficult to track changes and trends in these 2 important water dynamic attributes Water discharge ability of the Kirisia Forest catchment appears to have declined (or is declining) leading to drying of some water sources like pans, rivers, springs and wells There lacks a clear system or framework of capturing data on water discharge and abstraction among the water sector stakeholders operating within the watershed making it hard to track water dynamics Water use in the watershed is rather unregulated and there’s rampant mismanagement and its management is not effectively coordinated by different stakeholders (Explain) Water quality in surface water sources especially wells and earth dams are increasingly declining posing a big danger to access to clean water and public health Trends in water demand in the Kirisia Forest watershed will exceed the available water resources and in the long-term this might stagnate socioeconomic development

9. Some key recommendations  There’s an urgent need to secure and conserve the Kirisia Forest which is the water recharge power house for the watershed  Create awareness among various water users and stakeholders on the linkage between water discharge and availability with the environmental state of the Kirisia Forest….and on the need to embrace sustainable water use practices (Explain)  Create and nurture a strong and sustainable partnership between; local communities, WRMA, CFA, Sawasco and KWTA to enhance sustainable management of water resources whilst creating the much needed synergy between them  Develop a watershed management plan (SCMP) and a water allocation plan (WAP) as defined in the Water Act 2002 and in the Catchment Management Strategy (CMS) for the ENNCA…..in order to ensure there is effective water consumption and catchment monitoring  The current monitoring system of water discharge and abstraction in the watershed should be reviewed and replaced with a more reliable and effective system

150

Habitat Planners

2015

 Patterns of water yield, recharge and abstraction in the watershed should be documented for effective and sustainable management of water resources (Explain) 10. Staff gauges use & monitoring, data recording, interpretation and management

What does it look like? Type of staff gauges  Metallic  Plastic  Concrete

151

Habitat Planners

2015

 Who invented the staff gauge?  Water engineers  Hydrologists  Water Resources Managers  Types   

and sizes of staff gauges 0-0.5m 0-1m, 1-2m, 2-3m, 3-4m, 4-5m, 5-6m 0-1.5m,1.5-3m, 3-4.5m, 4.5-6m, 6-7.5

 Where is a staff gauge used? They are usually used or installed on; rivers, springs, lakes, oceans, dams, water reservoirs and river channels to help measure and monitor water levels  How does a staff gauge work and what kind of water data do they record? Staff gauges are normally used for measure water level also known as Gauge heights (GHT). What is the meaning of the readings?; It indicates the water level (Depth) at that particular time.  Suitable installation sites for staff gauges  The control factors: Is there a stable control or can such one be established? Is there a proper natural control – or is it necessary to construct / rehabilitate an artificial control? To which extent does the station location fulfill the criteria for an ideal gauging site?  Water discharge measurements: Is the site a satisfactory reach for measuring water discharge at all stages available?, soil type, slope, river bends, and, river flow  Site suitability factors: i) accessibility. Is there a good accessibility throughout the year to the staff gauges, water-level recorder as well as the discharge measuring location?  Duties and responsibilities of staff gauge readers  Inspect station and clear overgrown grass or thicket  Check if gauge plate is legible and clean  After every rainy season, check the cross – section for any changes  Maintain hydro-meteorological networks / stations  For Meteorology stations, check if there are any obstructions close to the station – should be at least 5 times their height away. Grass should be short  Check level of rain gauge, whether inner bottle is there and clean, state of measuring cylinder and records  Be alert against risks  Take reading and enter in recording sheet, and finally submit the data at the end of month at the recommended ofiice

152

Habitat Planners

2015

 Staff gauge reading or monitoring frequency: Twice daily depending on remoteness of station, and data recording schedule (time of the day) is normally 9am and 4pm  Required tools and data sheets: Pen, data sheets, watch and gum boots  Data processing and interpretation  Gauge reader submit to WRMA Office  SWO enter into data entry  SWO send the data to RO  RO use the data to draw and update rating curve  Information management and communication  Rating curves  Water situation reports  Alert people on floods and droughts  Regulate or even ban irrigated agriculture  Staff gauge protection and management  Inspect station and clear overgrown grass or thicket  Check if gauge plate is legible and clean  For weirs, check if zero of gauge is corresponding to crest. Also check if crest is corroded/eroded/undermined  After every rainy season, check the cross – section for any changes (e.g. bed scouring, bank shifting). These will affect the station rating  Remove any debris and silt which have been deposited  De-silt recorder stilling wells every dry season  Check for flood marks  Nuts and bolts to be tightened regularly  Any blockage should be cleared to avoid pool forming  Staff gauges repair and replacement. The equipment are normally damaged by: vandalism, human activities, floods, wildlife and livestock. Following the following procedure:      

Clearing sites and developing access pathways Assess and compile a report Report to WRMA Office Uprooted station may require reinstallation Damaged equipment may be replaced In case the strut is bend can be straighten Construction and installation of weirs, gauges and benchmarks

153

Habitat Planners

2015

11. Water meter use, ground water monitoring data interpretation & information management framework

 What does a water use meter look like? Water meter is an instrument for recording the quantity of water passing through a particular outlet either consumed or abstracted from a source (Master meter)

 Who invented the water meter? It was invented by water managers to assist them determine water consumed or used by their clients, and, to estimate the amount of water abstracted from a water source

 Types of water meters  Raw water meters  Waste water meters 154

Habitat Planners

2015

 Master meters  Flow meters (Sensors)  Consumer meters  When is water meters used?  Raw water meter-At source  Master meter-Before distribution to consumers.  Flow meters- Outside of pipelines.  Consumer meters-At house/unit level  Waste Water meter – outlet  How does water use meter work? All of them are calibrated to register water passing through them  Suitable installation sites for a water use meter  At the top of a borehole before water distribution is done  After a water controlling device  Site suitability factors for fitting water use meter: In a lockable chamber to safeguard against vandalism, theft, tempering, accidental damage and weather elements

 What kind of information does a water use meter provide?  Serial No.  Make and size  Amount or volume of water consumption/abstraction/effluent volume in Cubic meters (M3). The data/readings can also be converted to litres  Day/ month/ year water use or abstracted  What is the meaning of the readings recorded by a water meter? It shows the amount of water abstracted/ consumed within a given period

155

Habitat Planners

2015

PART II: PROCEEDINGS OF WORKSHOP AND TRAINING ON WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE AND WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR THE KIRISIA FOREST ECOSYSTEM IN THE SAMBURU LANDSCAPE (24TH – 25TH NOVEMBER 2015 AT THE SEASONS HOTEL, MARALAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. WORKSHOP OPENING REMARKS BY PROF. KIRINGE (HABITAT PLANNERS) ........................... 157 2. OVERVIEW OF THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED BY PROF. KIRINGE (HABITAT PLANNERS) 158 2.1. REACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 158 3. STAFF GAUGE USE & MONITORING, DATA RECORDING, INTERPRETATION AND MANAGEMENT BY KIMEU MUSAU, JOHN KINYUA, & INOTI MBURUGU (HABITAT PLANNERS) .............................. 159

156

Habitat Planners

2015

4. WATER METER USE, GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA INTERPRETATION & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK BY JOHN KINYUA, KIMEU MUSAU, &INOTI MBURUGU (HABITAT PLANNERS).............................................................................................................................................. 161 5. CLOSING REMARKS ........................................................................................................................... 162 5.1. REMARKS BY JOSEPHINE LESILAMPA- VICE CHAIRPERSON KIRISIA CFA ............................................. 162 5.2. REMARKS BY WILLIAM LELESHEP- CHAIRPERSON KIRISIA CFA .......................................................... 162 5.3. REMARKS BY EVANS NAPWORA- PROGRAM OFFICER AWF ................................................................ 162 5.4. REMARKS BY PROF. KIRINGE- HABITAT PLANNERS ............................................................................ 162 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................ 163 DAY 1 1. WORKSHOP OPENING REMARKS BY PROF. KIRINGE (HABITAT PLANNERS) Prof. Kiringe welcomed all the participants to the workshop. He gave apologies for Mr. Benson Lengalen, Samburu County Director of Environment and Natural Resources who was unable to attend due to unavoidable circumstances. Prof. Kiringe explained water is an important resource for all especially for livestock the region being in an ASAL. WHO recommends a minimum of 20 liters per day as basic water supply per person. WHO projects increased waterborne diseases due to poor access to water and sanitation services. He emphasized the workshop is not the first forum in the county on water and sanitation therefore water is deemed important for the local community. If the Kirisia water catchment is not protected the water will diminish. Many communities leave water conservation to other actors such as donors, national and county government whereas this should not be the case. The task of safeguarding Kirisia forest primarily falls on the community. The objective of the workshop is to discuss the status of the Kirisia forest with focus on monitoring the water sources with regard to data collection at water points. He informed the participants a large number of those attending are drawn from water source points. Prof. Kiringe notified the participants the project was sponsored by AWF, which contracted Habitat Planners to carry out the assessment. A similar water assessment study has been done for the Chyulu Hills. Kirisia forest is located in Ewaso Ngiro North Catchment Area. The Water Act of 2002 has divided Kenya into catchment areas managed by WRMA. Ewaso Ngiro is the largest with his headquarters in Rumuruti. The stakeholders of Kirisia forest were identified as,

157

Habitat Planners

   

    

KWS KFS WRMA KWTA WRUA

2015

Service water providers Tour operators Wildlife Urban and Rural Users

The most important use of the Kirisia forest is it’s a source of water for domestic uses. Most water sources are drying up as evidenced by the increased distances women and young girls cover o access water. The quality of water is deteriorating for instance at Baawa dam which is undrinkable for the livestock. Challenges facing the watershed listed by the participants were:a) Deforestation especially of indigenous trees b) Forest fires c) Soil erosion d) Poor well maintenance rendering them unfit for consumption e) Contamination from livestock faecal matter f) Encroachment g) Human wildlife conflict 2. OVERVIEW OF THE KIRISIA FOREST WATERSHED BY PROF. KIRINGE (HABITAT PLANNERS) Prof. Kiringe began his presentation by stating the approach and methodology of the water assessment study followed as landscape analysis, land cover analysis, surface water discharge, water quality assessment, human population trends and water use analysis and monetization. On land cover, the study assessed transects versus satellite imageries obtained from Regional Center. This was to determine the land cover changes which have occurred. This transects covered 4 areas, namely: a) Maralal-Engata-Nanyukie transect (45 km) b) Mararal-Ngari – Baawa transect (31km) c) Maralal-Opiroi transect (16 km) d) Maralal – Ngonyeki transect (10km) Prof. Kiringe showed pictures of the experts carrying out surface water assessment and explained for water quality they were to determine the pH, salinity, TDS, EC and ORP of the water sources to see whether they are fit for consumption. The finding showed there are 13 out of 31 water sources that are unusable for example Baawa and Loikas dams. To show the rainfall patterns for the area data was obtained from the Kenya meteorological Department for a spun of 45 years, 1970-2015. This was to help the experts plot the rainfall range and variance of different sections of the forest. Also, to find out how much recharge takes place. Population census for 2009 was used to project increase by 2020 and 2030, which was used to determine the anticipated water demand for Kirisia and Lorroki sub locations. 

2.1. Reactions

Evans Napwora (AWF) – clarified there are no plantations in Samburu except in Poro, which has 150 trees. Tree planting is done in schools with support from AWF. He recommended the community take initiative and plant trees. 158

Habitat Planners

2015

William Leleshep (Chairman Kirisia CFA) – Informed Mr. Napwaro the community had already initiated tree planting but none have been planted in the forest since the 1979s.  Evans Napwora (AWF)- AWF has sponsored the some groups to visit CFAs in different areas to learn tree planting in the shamba system, this is what is being seen at Poro. He requested the experts to explain land cover threats displayed in the table showing land cover analysis. The biggest threat is built up areas. It was noted that Maralal Town is located in the middle of the forest and with is expansion more forest land will be taken up.  Prof. Kiringe (Habitat Planners)- explained that the north- Poro contributed receives the most rainfall hence should be the most safe guarded. 

In conclusion, Prof. Kiringe made clear Kirisia is facing water challenges, SAWASCO cannot suppy water to suit the existing population and with the coming developments (i.e. murram road being constructed and the LAPSSET project) there is bound to be even more water demand. Therefore, efforts should be rejuvenated for conservation of the Kirisia forest by all stakeholders. Recommendations for conservations from the stakeholders entailed:a) Community to be the main stakeholders in forest and water conservation b) Create awareness on the water sector c) Ensure watershed management by formulating a management plan d) Monitoring of the different aspects of water (abstraction, quality, recharge etc.) 3. STAFF GAUGE USE & MONITORING, DATA RECORDING, INTERPRETATION AND MANAGEMENT BY KIMEU MUSAU, JOHN KINYUA, & INOTI MBURUGU Mr. Musau explained the staff gauge comes in three types, metallic, plastic, and concrete. The types vary in the range of 0-0.5m; 0-1m, 1-2m, 2-3m, 3-4m, 4-5m, 5-6m and 0-1.5m,1.5-3m, 3-4.5m, 4.5-6m, 6-7.5. Staff gauges were invented by Engineers, Hydrologist, and Water Resources Managers, which are used for measuring water level also known as Gauge heights (GHT). The gauges indicate the water level (depth) at a particular time. Mr. Kimeu showed the participants photos of how a staff gauge looks like and their installation procedure.

159

Habitat Planners

2015

Mr. Kinyua eplained the factors to consider when choosing suitable sites for staff gauge installation. The control:- the gauge reader should ensure there a stable control or can such one be established. Is there a proper natural control – or is it necessary to construct / rehabilitate an artificial control? To which extent does the station location fulfill the criteria for an ideal gauging site. Site suitability factors: Accessibility:- ensure there is good accessibility, throughout the year to the staff gauges, water-level recorder as well as the discharge measuring location.  Discharge measurements: ensure there is a satisfactory reach for measuring discharge at all stages available by looking at the type of soil, slope, river bends and the flow of the river.  The zero point of the staff gauge must be low enough to measure the lowest possible low in the stream  The gauge plate must be mounted firmly and vertically  The gauge plate are supplied in sections of 0-1.5, 1.5-3.0, 3.0-4.5m  The range of the gauge must be great enough to measure the maximum possible flood  A bench mark must be established to enable the elevation of the staves to be calculated and checked regularly Duties of staff gauge readers, a) Inspect station and clear overgrown grass or thicket b) Check if gauge plate is legible and clean c) After every rainy season, check the cross – section for any changes d) Maintain hydro-meteorological networks / stations e) For Met stations, check if there are any obstructions close to the station – should be at least 5 times their height away. Grass should be short f) Check level of rain gauge, whether inner bottle is there and clean, state of measuring cylinder and records g) Be alert against risks h) Take reading and enter in recording sheet i) And finally submit the return at the end of month On staff gauge data recording and storage, the following should be ascertain, monitoring frequency, required tools and data sheets and data recording schedule (time of the day). Required tools for recording are a pen, data sheet/paper, watch and gum boots. Monitoring should be done twice a day between 9am and 4pm depending on the remoteness of the site. Mr. Inoti Mburugu discussed staff gauge data interpretation and information management framework. He explained the process the data goes through after it is submtted to the WRMA office by the gauge reader. The SWO does data entry and sends the data to RO, who uses the data to draw and update rating curve. The information is used for the following purposes,  Ploting rating curves.  Preparing water situation reports.  Alerting people on floods.  Alerting people on drought.  Banning irrigation.  Determining water quality. 160

Habitat Planners

2015

Mr. Mburugu concluded the days presentations by notifying the participants the Ewaso Ngiro North Catchment Area covers five sub regions, Marsabit, Isiolo, Nanyuki, Rumuruti and Mandera. The headquarters is located at Rumuruti, therefore all data collected and rercorded will be submitted to the Rumuruti Office. DAY 2 4. WATER METER USE, GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA INTERPRETATION & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK BY JOHN KINYUA, KIMEU MUSAU, &INOTI MBURUGU Day two began with an opening prayer from Madam Josephine Lesilampa. Mr. Kinyua began the session by having a recap of the activities of the previous workshop day and informed the participants the agenda of the day was on water meters. A water meter is an instrument for recording the quantity of water passing through a particular outlet either consumed or abstracted from a source. They were invented by water managers to assist them determine water consumed by their clients and to estimate the amount of water abstracted from a water source. All meters are calibrated to register water passing through them. They have a serial number, make, and size. They register consumption/abstraction/effluent volume in cubic meters (m3) within a given period and the data/readings can be converted to liters. There are different types of water meters,  Raw water meters used at the source  Master meters used before distribution to consumers  Consumer meters used at house/unit level  Flow meters (Sensors) used outside of pipelines  Waste water meters used at the outlet Mr. Kinyua showed the participants photos of how a meter looks like.

Mr. Musau explained ground water monitoring using a meter requires one to determine a suitable installation site, which could be at the top of the borehole before distribution. Another suitability factor to consider is installing the meter in a lockable chamber to safeguard against vandalism, theft, tempering, accidental damage, and weather elements. Mr. Musau closes by letting the participants know if they own boreholes, they should have a water permit from WRMA. Before drilling a borehole they must have a hydro-geological report done by a hydro-geologist to survey and determine where and at which depth water can be found. He thanked the participants for their participation. The days presentation ended with practical demonstrations by Mr. Kinyua on how to measure water levels using different staff gauges. 161

Habitat Planners

2015

5. CLOSING REMARKS 5.1. Remarks by Josephine Lesilampa- Vice Chairperson Kirisia CFA Madam Lesilampa thanked Habitat Planners for the invitation; having learnt a lot she will ensure the information gets to the members of her CFA. Madam Josephine gave a self-quote “If I do and you do and we all do, all will be done.” She ended by requesting gender balance in the coming forums. 5.2. Remarks by William Leleshep- Chairperson Kirisia CFA Mr. Leleshep gave his apologies for coming in late, he had to attend a radio station meeting hence has already played his part in disseminating the knowledge earned at the workshop. He thanked Habitat Planners, AWF and all stakeholders involved for their good intentions for the community. Mr. Leleshep urged the participants to reflect on what has been said throughout the workshop so as to support conservation. Mr. Leleshep winded up by requesting all present to propagate what they have received from the workshop so as to promote conservation since the main responsibility falls to the community. 5.3. Remarks by Evans Napwora- Program Officer AWF Mr. Napwora stated AWF supports community groups, WRUAs, CBOs and CFAs. AWF has been working in Samburu for 15 years. He urged the community to diversify their livelihoods and not depend entirely on livestock. The community should welcome the suggestions such as opening saving accounts through Sacco’s. 5.4. Remarks by Prof. Kiringe- Habitat Planners Prof. Kiringe thanked AWF for sponsoring the project. He thanked the community because the research which was done was meant to help improve their lives. He requested the participants to circulate the information widely and emphasized natural resources belong to the community and they should not rely on other people to sort out their challenges. The community should take the front line in conservation. Prof. Kiringe officially closed the workshop at 12.30pm.

162

Habitat Planners

List of Participants

163

2015

Habitat Planners

164

2015

Habitat Planners

PART III: REGULAR GAUGE STATION (RGS) INSTALLATION REPORTS MONITORING SITE: NACHUDA STREAM

RGS No. NEW

River ………NACHUDA STREAM…………………………

GPS LOCATION: Latitude 02.15272 longitude 037.58462 ALT: 2125M LOCATION: INSIDE KIRISIA FOREST NEAR CHIEF CAMP ACCESS VIA: Maralah town -Baawa area Meter Reader’s Name: ................ ID/NO: ............ Mobile No:………………. Address: P.O BOX Administration Via: RUMURUTI Sub Region Office Officer responsible for routine inspection and repairs: SWO – Rumuuti Sub Region Date Established: 31/10/2015 Records will be sent in to: Rumuruti Sub Region Office R.L of Benchmark: 1839m ASL Position of Benchmark: RB, 7M RB of the gauge, R.L. of zero of (0-0.5) Gauge (1st Set): 2123.211m No. and type o gauge plates: 1NO of 0-0.5m R.L. of Zero of weir plate, if any: NONE Flood sticks installed: NONE R.L of zero of 2nd Set(1.5-3.0)- None Position of current-meter gauging site: Along the gauge Description of control, position and material: Loose soil Shape of river channel: Refer to cross section Material of river: Black cotton Material of river banks: Black cotton Cableway installed/to be installed: N/A 165

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

SPECIAL NOTES FOR STAFF STATIONS/OTHER DETAILS. River’s banks not stable therefore require gabions. 1. FOR STAFF STATION: Cross-section should be taken along the line of staves and at C/m gauging site: 2. SKETCH OF SITE/REACH OF RIVER/DIGITAL MAP: Showing bends, constrictions in the channels, falls, position of staff gauge, protective pitching or apron and position of benchmark. 3. TOPOSHEET: See Topo sheet Map below No. 174/1) Installed By: John Kinyua

Signature: Date:

31 October, 2015

Certified By: Kimeu Musau Signature:

Note: GHTs Was 0.04m MONITORING SITE: NONDOTOL DAM

RGS No. NEW

River ………NONDOTOL…………………………

GPS LOCATION: Latitude 02.15272 longitude 037.58462 ALT: 1931 LOCATION: At Maralal town water supply ACCESS VIA: Maralah town 166

Habitat Planners

2015

Meter Reader’s Name: ................ ID/NO: ............ Mobile No:………………. Address: P.O BOX Administration Via: RUMURUTI Sub Region Office Officer responsible for routine inspection and repairs: swo – Rumuuti Sub Region Date Established: 29/10/2015 Records will be sent in to: Rumuruti Sub Region Office R.L of Benchmark: 1931m ASL Position of Benchmark: LB, 54M LB of the gauge, R.L. of zero of (0-0.5) Gauge (1st Set): 1922.975m No. and type o gauge plates: 5NO of 0-1.5,1.5-3.0,3.0-4.5,4.5-6.0,6.0-7.5m R.L. of Zero of weir plate, if any: None Flood sticks installed: NONE R.L of zero of 2nd Set…….Align in the same strut Position of current-meter gauging site: along the gauge Description of control, position and material: Compacted wall Shape of river channel: Refer to cross section Material of river: Soil sandy wall Material of river banks: Soil supported Cableway installed/to be installed: N/A SPECIAL NOTES FOR STAFF STATIONS/OTHER DETAILS. River’s banks not stable therefore need to put up gabions. 1. FOR STAFF STATION: Cross-section should be taken along the line of staves and at C/m gauging site: 2. SKETCH OF SITE/REACH OF RIVER/DIGITAL MAP: Showing bends, constrictions in the channels, falls, position of staff gauge, protective pitching or apron and position of benchmark. 3. TOPOSHEET: See Topo sheet Map below No. 174/1) 167

Habitat Planners

Installed By: John Kinyua

Signature: Date:

29th October, 2015


168

2015

Habitat Planners

2015

MONITORING SITE BAAWA DAM RGS No. NEW

River ………BAAWA DAM…………………………

GPS LOCATION: Latitude 02.15272 longitude 037.58462 ALT: 1839M LOCATION: NEAR BAAWA PRIMARY SCHOOL ACCESS VIA: Maralah town -Baawa area Meter Reader’s Name: ................ ID/NO: ............ Mobile No:………………. Address: P.O BOX Administration Via: RUMURUTI Sub Region Office Officer responsible for routine inspection and repairs: swo – Rumuuti Sub Region Date Established: 30/10/2015 Records will be sent in to: Rumuruti Sub Region Office R.L of Benchmark: 1839m ASL Position of Benchmark: LB, 43M LB of the gauge, R.L. of zero of (0-1.5) Gauge (1st Set): 1838.469M No. and type o gauge plates: 2NO of 0-1.5,1.5-3.0 m R.L. of Zero of weir plate, if any: None Flood sticks installed: NONE R.L of zero of 2nd Set(1.5-3.0)- 1838.930M Position of current-meter gauging site: to be determined at the time of flow measurement Description of control, position and material: Compacted wall Shape of river channel: Refer to cross section Material of river: Soil sandy wall Material of river banks: Soil supported by over grown shrubs Cableway installed/to be installed: N/A SPECIAL NOTES FOR STAFF STATIONS/OTHER DETAILS. River’s banks stable therefore needs to be maintained. 169

Habitat Planners

2015

1. FOR STAFF STATION: Cross-section should be taken along the line of staves and at C/m gauging site: 2. SKETCH OF SITE/REACH OF RIVER/DIGITAL MAP: Showing bends, constrictions in the channels, falls, position of staff gauge, protective pitching or apron and position of benchmark. 3. TOPOSHEET: See Topo sheet Map below No. 174/1 Installed By: John Kinyua

Signature: Date:

30th October, 2015


Note: GHTs was; 0.19m on 1/11/2015 and 1.03m on 22/11/2015

170