Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley

1

Groundwater Contamination Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk GIS Mapping for Seven Municipalities in

the Jordan Valley

Prepared by

Samer A. Talozi, Ph.D.

With contributions from

Hani Hijazi, Eng.

Revised by

Baha' Afane

For the

Groundwater Protection Project Friend of the Earth, Middle East

Amman, Jordan

December 2013

2

Samer Talozi, Ph.D. Holds a Ph.D. in Water Resources Engineering from the University of California, Davis with a minor in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and a B.Sc. in Irrigation Engineering from the Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST). Currently, he works as an Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at JUST where he teaches courses in Water Resources Management and Geographic Information Systems. He has over 10 years of research experience in water resources management in the Middle East. (Contact: [email protected])

Hani Hijazi, Eng. Holds a B.Sc. in Applied Geology from the Damascus University. Over 30 years of experience in the Jordan water sector. Senior Hydrogeologist, director of Green Sahara, a water, geology and environment studies and consulting Company. Domain of work includes supervision of water wells drilling, water resources studies and protection. (Contact: [email protected])

Baha' Afaneh Project Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Middle East.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 8

1.1. Rationale ................................................................................................... 9

1.2. Objectives................................................................................................ 10

1.3. Study Area ............................................................................................... 11

2. GROUNDWATER POLLUTION........................................................................ 13

2.1. Groundwater in the Jordan Valley .............................................................. 13

2.2. Sources of Pollution .................................................................................. 15

2.3. Classifying Groundwater Hazards ............................................................... 17

2.4. Types of Hazards ............................................................................... 20

2.4.1. Industrial Hazards .............................................................................. 22

2.4.2. Urban Hazards ................................................................................... 32

2.4.3. Agricultural Hazards ........................................................................... 41

2.4.4. Combined (Total) Hazards ................................................................... 49

3. GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY ................................................................. 54

3.1. DRASTIC Approach .................................................................................... 54

3.1.1. Depth to Water Table ......................................................................... 60

3.1.2. Net Recharge .................................................................................... 65

3.1.3. Aquifer Media ................................................................................... 72

3.1.4. Soil Media ......................................................................................... 80

3.1.5. Topography....................................................................................... 88

3.1.6. Impact of the Vadose Zone Media ....................................................... 96

3.1.7. Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity .......................................................... 104

3.1.8. DRASTOC Vulnerability Maps ............................................................ 112

3.2. Assumptions of the DRASTIC .................................................................... 117

3.3. Potential Uses of the DRASTIC .................................................................. 117

4. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINCATION RISK ................................................. 119

5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 126

References ............................................................................................................... 127

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 129

4

List of Tables

Number Title Page

1 The seven municipalities within the Jordan Valley participating in the Groundwater Protection project 11

2 Potential sources of groundwater contamination and mode of emplacement 15

3 Weights and categories of different groundwater hazards 18

4 The classification system used to classify Hazard Index values 19

5 Classification of the Industrial Hazards within each municipality 24

6 Description of the three main types of cesspits found in the Jordan Valley 32

7 Rates and types of major organic and chemical fertilizers used in some municipalities of the Jordan Valley 41

8 Rates and types of major herbicides and pesticides used in some municipalities in the Jordan Valley 41

9 The percentage of irrigated agricultural areas in each of the seven municipalities 42

10 Assigned weights for the seven DRASTIC features 55

11 Spatial data sources used to derive the DRASTIC features 56

12 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Depth to Water feature 60

13 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Net Recharge feature 65

14 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Aquifer Media feature 72

15 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Soil Media feature 80

16 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Topography (% slope) feature 88

17 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Impact of Vadose Zone Media feature 96 18 Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Impact of Hydraulic Conductivity feature 104

19 The area distribution (km2) of the different Vulnerability Levels in the seven

municipalities 116

20 Classification of risk values using the equal interval method 119

21 The area distribution (km2) of different Risk Levels in the seven municipalities

120

List of Figures

Number Title Page

1 Schematic diagram of groundwater contamination from a waste disposal site 16

2 Schematic illustration of the seven DRASTIC factors 55

List of Appendices

Number

Title

Page

A Hazard Mapping Forms 130

B Industrial Hazards 134

C Urban Hazards 141

D Agricultural Hazards 143

5

LIST OF MAPS

Number Title Page

1 The seven municipalities within the Jordan Valley participating in the Groundwater Protection project

12

2 Geological Units of the Jordan Valley Floor basin 13

3 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Khaled Bin Al Waleed and classified according to the Hazard Index value

25

4 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal and classified according to the Hazard Index value

26

5 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified according to the Hazard Index value

27

6 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna and classified according to the Hazard Index value

28

7 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified according to the Hazard Index value

29

8 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Middle Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

30

9 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

31

10 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Khaled Ben Al Waleed and classified according to the Hazard Index value

34

11 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal and classified according to the Hazard Index value

35

12 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified according to the Hazard Index value

36

13 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and classified according to the Hazard Index value

37

14 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified according to the Hazard Index value.

38

15 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Middle Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

39

16 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value.

40

17 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal and classified according to the Hazard Index value

43

18 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified according to the Hazard Index value

44

19 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and classified according to the Hazard Index value.

45

20 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified according to the Hazard Index value

46

21 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Mid Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

47

22 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

48

23 Combined hazard map for the municipality of Khaled Bin Al Waleed 49

24 Combined hazard map for the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal 50

25 Combined hazard map for the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel 50

26 Combined hazard map for the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna 51

27 Combined hazard map for the municipality of Deir Alla 51

28 Combined hazard map for the municipality of Middle Ghor 52

29 Combined hazard map for the municipality of South Ghor 53

6

30 Elevation map of the Jordan Valley 57

31 The spatial distribution of groundwater wells in the Jordan Valley 58

32 Geological outcrops in the Jordan Valley 59

33 DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

60

34 DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

61

35 DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Tabeqet Fahel Municipality 62

36 DRASTIC rating values for Depth to Water Table in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

62

37 DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Deir Alla Municipality 63

38 DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Mid Ghor Municipality 63

39 DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Mid Ghor Municipality 64

40 DRASTIC rating values for the Net Recharge in Khaled Bin Waleed Municipality 66







47 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Khaled Bin Waleed Municipality 73

48 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality 74

49 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality 75

50 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality 76

51 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Deir Alla Municipality 77

52 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Mid Ghor Municipality 78

53 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in South Ghor Municipality 79

54 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality 81

55 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality 82

56 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality 83

57 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality 84

58 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Deir Alla Municipality 85

59 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Mid Ghor Municipality 86

60 DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in South Ghor Municipality 87

61 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

89

62 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality 90

63 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality 91

64 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

92

65 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Deir Alla Municipality 93

66 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Mid Ghor Municipality 94

67 DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in South Ghor Municipality 95

68 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

97

69 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

98

70 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

99

71 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

100

72 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Deir Alla Municipality 101

73 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Mid Ghor Municipality 102

74 DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in South Ghor Municipality

103

7

75 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

105

76 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

106

77 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

107

78 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

108

79 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Deir Alla Municipality

109

80 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Mid Ghor Municipality

110

81 DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in South Ghor Municipality

111

82 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Khalid Bin Al Waleed 113

83 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal 113

84 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel 114

85 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna 114

86 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Deir Alla 115

87 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Middle Ghor 115

88 Vulnerability Map for the municipality of South Ghor 116

89 Risk Map for the municipality of Khaled Bin Al Waleed 120

90 Risk Map for the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal 121

91 Risk Map for the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel 121

92 Risk Map for the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna 122

93 Risk Map for the municipality of Deir Alla 123

94 Risk Map for the municipality of Middle Ghor 124

95 Risk Map for the municipality of South Ghor 125

8

1. INTRODUCTION Groundwater contamination is a widespread problem. When pollution of groundwater aquifer takes places, it is persistent, difficult to remediate, sometimes irreversible and excessive costs may limit efforts to improve the groundwater condition (Foster and Chilton, 2003; Causape et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2010). Groundwater contamination might occur as a result of various human activities; such as urbanization, agriculture practices and industrialization.

In Jordan, 11 groundwater basins provide an estimated annual safe yield of 276 mcm (Salameh, 2001). The quality of groundwater in Jordan is under threat as a result of salinisation and the increasing use of agrochemicals (Millington 2001, MWI 2002). Limited water availability in Jordan highlights the urgent need for rapid reconnaissance techniques that allow an assessment of groundwater vulnerability over large areas despite the fact that there may be only limited available data (Al-Adamat et al., 2003).

Mapping groundwater aquifer vulnerability through spatial hydrogeological assessment can pave the way for enhanced understanding of the sensitivity of natural systems to anthropogenic activities. This mapping is used to draw attention of decision makers and stakeholders to particular vulnerable areas. The advancement of the geographic information systems and the global positioning systems has facilitated this endeavor. The Jordan Valley, characterized by sandy gravel soils, gentle slopes, shallow groundwater aquifers and intensive agricultural practices, might enfold areas highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination (Alraggad et al., 2012).

The focus of this project1 is on Jordan Valley and the enabling of municipalities to identify and map groundwater pollution hazards, evaluate groundwater aquifers vulnerability and risk of contamination. This report outlines the procedures, tools and methodologies followed to achieve these goals. It also outlines the results and findings of the study.

1 Protecting Ground Water.

9

1.1. Rationale (Original Proposal)

Various forms of human activity threaten ground water quality; taking a car to the garage, manufacturing a consumer product in a factory and fumigating crops are just a few examples. All of these activities have side effects; oil leaks and untreated chemicals find their way into nearby streams or chemicals can accumulate and seep into groundwater sources over time. Pollution caused by human activity is countered by a system of infrastructure intended to alleviate different hazards. Sewage is collected in a line system, if it exists, and treated in a sewage treatment plant, solid wastes of various kinds are gathered into transfer stations and pesticides are regulated by both laws and by-laws. However the management of infrastructure, both physical and legal, constitutes a major challenge. In addition, lack of sewage collection and treatment infrastructure, in some cases such as the East Jordan Valley, represents a challenge. Population growth, the large variety of human activities that generate waste and infrastructure development costs create a gap between the volume of the hazards that require treatment and the ability of the system to cope. Unsorted solid waste is illegally dumped and unregulated agricultural activities cause organic overload to the soil. Industrial, commercial and various human activities generate a wide array of minerals that might, if not disposed, collected and treated properly, end up as a hazard to groundwater. An imbalance between the cycle of contaminating activity on the one hand and the treatment activity on the other, constitutes an ever increasing threat to groundwater resources.

FoEME's experience working with groundwater issues in Jordan, Palestine and Israel has shown that most human activity with the potential to pollute groundwater takes place within the jurisdiction of a local authority. Among their many activities, local authorities supply water, collect sewage and waste, promote urban development and collect taxes. Establishing a balance between contamination and preventative measures can take place within defined physical and judicial boundaries. Therefore in FoEME's evaluation, local authorities can play a decisive role in the alleviation of pollution sources that threaten groundwater.

The Pro-Aquifer2 pilot project demonstrated that the task municipalities face in addressing threats to groundwater is significant. In many municipalities environmental protection has not been a priority for the municipal staff and addressing these challenges will require significant changes within their organisation. However, these conditions present an opportunity to create change. Moreover, these conditions present an opportunity for cooperation – both within various departments of the municipality, as well as across political boundaries – to begin working toward achieving common solutions to the common need of protecting vital groundwater resources.

2 Protecting Trans-boundary Groundwater Sources from Pollution: Research, Training and Guidelines for

Palestinian and Israeli Municipalities, 2008. Final Report. House of Water and Environment (HWE), Palestine.

10

1.2. Objectives

The general objective of the Ground Water Protection project is to enable the municipalities in the Jordan Valley with the tools and knowledge required to identify and map potential hazards to groundwater contamination, understand and assess the vulnerability of groundwater aquifers to contamination due to anthropogenic impacts, and determine the risk of contamination due to existing hazards. Ultimately, the goal of this project is to integrate the concept of groundwater protection into the daily tasks of municipalities in the Jordan Valley.

The specific objectives of this study can be divided into 3 main categories:

1- The identification, classification and mapping of the existing urban, industrial and agricultural hazards in the Jordan Valley. The technologies of GPS (Global Positioning System) and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) will be used to create a geodatabase of the hazards, calculate the hazard index and map the results in the form of Hazard Maps (section 2.4). This activity involves site visits and the collection of data to identify the potential threats to groundwater.

2- The assessment of groundwater vulnerability (sensitivity) to

contamination. Groundwater is vulnerable to pollution. However, this vulnerability varies from one location to another depending on the hydrogeological and climatic factors. Using GIS, this spatial variability can be mapped in the form of a Vulnerability Maps. The focus of this task is on the collection of data on topography, soil, geology and precipitation. The DRASTIC method will be used to assess and quantify vulnerability (section 3).

3- The evaluation and mapping of groundwater contamination risk in the

form of Risk Maps. Risk also varies from one location to another since it is a function of both hazards and vulnerability (section 4).

11

1.3. Study Area

The groundwater within the East Jordan Valley is the focus of this study. Within the Jordan Valley, 7 municipalities are participating in this project. Table 1 lists the names in Arabic and English of these municipalities and the major town in each. The study area extends from the Yarmouk River in the north to the area border the South East coast of the Dead Sea as seen in Map 1.

Table 1: The seven municipalities within the Jordan Valley participating in the Groundwater Protection project

Name

(English) Name

(Arabic) Major Town

(English) Major Town

(Arabic)

1 Khaled ben Waleed خالد بن الوليد Malka ملكا

2 Muath ben Jabal معاذ بن جبل North Shouneh الشونة الشمالية

3 Tabaqet Fahel طبقة فحل Tabaqet Fahel طبقة فحل

4 Sharhabeel Ben Hasna شرحبيل بن حسنة Kraymeh كريمة

5 Deir Alla دير عال Deir Alla دير عال

6 Middle Ghor األغوار الوسطى South Shouneh الشونة الجنوبية

7 South Ghor األغوار الجنوبية Fifa فيفا

12

Map 1: The seven municipalities within the Jordan Valley participating in the Groundwater Protection project

13

2. GROUNDWATER POLLUTION

2.1. Groundwater in the Jordan Valley

The study area spans over two main groundwater basins; The Jordan Valley floor basin and the Dead Sea basin. Following is a general description of each basin.

2.1.1. Jordan Valley Floor Basin

The Jordan Valley Floor Basin is located in the floodplain of the Jordan River south of Lake Tiberius. The entire basin is contained in the Jordan Rift Valley, a geologic depression in which elevations range from 210 to 400 m below sea level. The basin is underlain by alluvial deposits of soil, sand, and gravel of geologic units Q1 and Q2 , and marl, clay.

Map 2: Geological Units of the Jordan Valley Floor basin. Source: Water Data

Banks Project.

14

Groundwater is recharged by precipitation at an average volume of 21 MCM/yr. About 80% of the fresh groundwater is present in the alluvial fans of the major side Wadis (geologic unit Q1). Potential freshwater aquifers occur mainly as lenses of sand and gravel within marl of the Lisan Formation (unit Q2), or as sand and gravel deposits in the alluvial fans. The remaining 20% of freshwater sources are withdrawn from sand, sandstone, and limestone of geologic units Kk and Ja, particularly in areas where these units are recharged along the foothills of the eastern and western escarpments.

Groundwater levels vary greatly in the Jordan Valley Floor Basin, with depths ranging from 5 m in the central part of the valley to 150 m at the escarpment foothills.

Groundwater quality in the basin is variable. In the southern part of the basin, water is slightly brackish with chloride concentrations ranging from 700 to 1,850 mg/L; whereas, in the northern part of the basin, the water is somewhat fresher.

2.1.2. Dead Sea Basin

The Dead Sea Basin covers an area of about 1,525 square kilometers and lies within three physiographic divisions— the Jordan Rift Valley, Jordan Highland and Plateau and the escarpments of the Jordan Rift Valley. The Jordan Rift Valley is a geologic depression formed by downward movement of faults, that is underlain by 900 m thick sediments of the Belqa and Ajlun Groups (geologic units Kj, Ks, and Ta), and sandstones of the Kurnub Group (geologic unit Kk).

Groundwater is recharged by precipitation at an average volume of 57 MCM/yr, and generally flows toward the Dead Sea.

15

2.2. Sources of Pollution Ground-water contamination is caused by a variety of substances originating from many different activities. The contaminants generated through the variety of human activities can be categorized according to the way they enter the groundwater. Table 2 below illustrates the three pathways and relevant activities. The three main pathways are as following: 1) The placing or spreading of liquids or water soluble products on the land surface, 2) The burial of substances in the ground above the water table, or 3) The emplacement or injection of materials in the ground below the water table (Lehr et al., 1976). Table 2: Potential sources of groundwater contamination and mode of emplacement

On the land surface

In the ground above the water table

In the ground below the water table

Land disposal of either solid or liquid waste materials

Leaching tile fields, cesspools Waste disposal in wet excavations

Disposal of sewage and water-treatment plant sludge

Holding ponds and lagoons Drainage wells and canals and Water supply wells

Animal feed lots Sanitary landfills Abandoned improperly constructed wells

Fertilizers and pesticides Leakage from underground storage tanks

Mines

Accidental spills of hazardous materials

Leakage from underground pipelines

Salt water Intrusion

Source: (Lehr et al., 1976)

Groundwater contamination is a very dynamic process. The contamination source can be in one place, but the hydrologic cycle can result in the transfer of contaminants through the soil, groundwater aquifer and/or surface water streams in different directions as is illustrated in figure 1 below.

16

Figure 1: Schematic diagram illustrating groundwater contamination from a waste disposal site. Source: Environment Canada

In this study, an array of different pollution sources (hazards) in the Jordan Valley is identified. Hazards are classified into 3 main groups; industrial, urban and agricultural sources. Pollution sources are identified, mapped, classified according to their type, weight, severity and protection measures. As is illustrated in the following sections, a hazard index value (HI) is then computed for each hazard.

http://www.google.jo/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=vMkhqVAWQMGMtM&tbnid=2PPPg_4mYVCJBM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=6A7FB7B2-1&ei=A67lUebfM8iCOJHogcgO&psig=AFQjCNHqETsbrEvrvt9D_OqPUJScABKnig&ust=1374093187894912

http://www.google.jo/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=vMkhqVAWQMGMtM&tbnid=2PPPg_4mYVCJBM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=6A7FB7B2-1&ei=A67lUebfM8iCOJHogcgO&psig=AFQjCNHqETsbrEvrvt9D_OqPUJScABKnig&ust=1374093187894912

17

2.3. Classifying Groundwater Hazards

Hazards vary in nature and can be classified in different ways; in this study hazards are divided into 3 categories: Industrial, Urban and Agricultural. Hazards of the same nature (or weight) might vary in size (or severity); hazards with same nature and size might be subject to different protection practices or measures. As a result, each hazard has a unique impact and contribution to any possible contamination of groundwater. This variability in hazards nature, size and protection is measured by the Hazard Index as is explained in the following paragraphs.

The Weight (W)

The weighting value grades from 20 to 80 the potential hazard to groundwater. These weight values are given based on the chemical composition of the hazard (See Table 3).

The Severity (S)

The Severity (or the size) of the identified hazard is measured on a scale from 1 - 10. For example, a small leaking garbage bin has a different S value from a big garbage dump site, even though both have the same W value.

The Protection (P)

Hazard protection value grades the level of protection measures on the hazards (form 0.5 to 2). For example, if a gasoline station is well protected and no leakages were identified, then the real potential hazard will be given a high protection value such as 2. While, a gasoline station with leaking tanks is given a protection value of 0.5

The Hazards Index (HI)

The real total hazard evaluation is called the hazard index and it combines the weight, severity and protection according to the following formula:

……………… (1)

This equation will be used to calculate Hazard Index values for Industrial, Urban and Agricultural hazards.

Hazard index values when computed using the previous equation might range from 10 – 1600. Table 4 below summarizes the method used in this study to classify the hazard index value into five categories ranging from very low hazard (blue) to very high hazard (red). This system follows the "equal interval" classification system and this will be used to classify Industrial, Urban and Agricultural hazard index values.

18

Table 3: Weights and categories of different groundwater hazards Sub-

Category

HAZARDS to Groundwater Weight Value

1 Infrastructural development

1.1 Waste Water

1.1.1 Leaking sewer pipes and sewer systems 66

1.1.2 Urbanization without sewer systems 06

1.1.3 detached houses without sewer systems 55

1.1.4 septic tank, cesspool, latrine 35

1.1.5 Over-flow (spills) of sewage to drainage system in extreme rain events 40

1.1.6 Over-flow (spills) of treated effluents from Waste Water Treatment Plant

25

1.1.7 Leisure facilities without sewer system (hotel, camping…) 40

1.1.8

Others (any hazard of Waste Water)

1.1 Solid Waste dump sites (with possible leaks of leaches to GW)

1.2.1 Garbage dump, rubbish bin, litter bin (with possible Leaks) 30

1.2.2 Waste loading station and scrap yard 46

1.2.3 Sanitary landfill 66

1.2.4 spoils and building rubble depository 35

1.2.5 Depository hazardous waste (e.g. Pharmacological Waste) 80

1.2.6 Deposit of dead animals 40

1.2.7 Others (any hazards of waste)

1.1 Fuels

1.3.1 storage tank, above ground 56

1.3.2 storage tank, underground 55

1.3.3 Gasoline station 76

1.3.4

Others (any hazard of fuel)

1.1 Transport And Traffic

1.4.1 Road, unsecured 30

1.4.2

Road tunnel, unsecured parking lot 36

1.5 Others

1.5.1 Cemetery 40

1.5.2 Golf course 35

1.5.3 Military installations and dereliction 70

1 Industrial Activities

1.1 Mining (in operation and abandoned) ׂ

2.1.1 Outdoor stock piles of NON hazardous raw material 20

2.1.2 Outdoor stock piles or depository of hazardous raw material (e.g: Radioactive residues martial)

80

2.1.3 Sand quarry 25 - 40*

2.1.4 Gravel quarry (pits) in river beds 40 - 60*

2.1.5.1 Limestone or Dolomite quarry (Wight as function of Karst features and fractures intensity + '*')

46 -60*

2.1.5.2 Quarry in Hard insoluble rocks (Chalks, Metamorphic or Igneous Rocks ; Wight as function of fissures and fractures intensity and density)

20 - 45*

2.1.5.3 Salt, marls, clays, or gypsum Mines (open sallow mines) 20 - 40*

2.1.6 Salt or gypsum Mines (deep underground mines); 50-60*

2.1.7 Metals, Coals and Mines (deep underground mines); 50-75*

2.1.8 Oil, Gas and Tar-sand Drillings 80

19

* Weight depends on the depth of the quarry, depth of GW and the hydrological conductivity of the layer underneath the mined layer. So we need to examine this categories according to the sensitivity map resolution

1.1 Industrial plants (non mining) Icon

2.2.1 Iron and steel works 56

2.2.2 Electroplating works 80

2.2.3 Oil refinery 75

2.2.4 Rubber and tire industry 46

2.2.5 Paper and pulp manufacture 46

2.2.6 Leather tannery 76

2.2.7 Food industry (need further refining since olive oil press is not similar to soft drinks factory

30-70

2.2.8 Arm Industry 80

2.2.2 Others (any hazards of industrial activity)

3 Livestock and Agriculture

3.1 Livestock Icon

3.1.1 Animal barn (cows shed, cote, sty) 56

3.1.2 Manure heap 55

3.1.3 Slurry storage tank or pool 65

3.1.4 Area of intensive pasturing 25-30

3.1.5 Chicken Coop 35

3.1.6 Fish farm (in fresh water pools) 40

3.1.7 Saline water Fish farm 55

3.1.8

Others (any hazard of livestock activity)

3.2 Veg. Agriculture

3.2.1 Open silage (cultivated fields)/ depends on type and level of usage with fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

20-40

3.2.2 Stockpiles of fertilizers and pesticides 55

3.2.3 Greenhouse 40

3.2.4 Irrigation with Waste water or effluents at low treatment levels 66

3.2.5 Irrigation with effluents at - 1-2nd level treatment (20/30) 45

3.2.6 Irrigation with treated waste water at 3nd level treatment (10/10) 30

3.2.7 Irrigation with effluents stream rehabilitation standards (< 5/5) 20

3.2.8 Others (any hazard of agricultural activity)

Table 4: The classification system used to classify Hazard Index values

Hazard Index (HI) Hazard Class Hazard Level Color

10 – 320 1 No or very low Blue

320 - 640 2 Low Green

640 - 960 3 Moderate Yellow

960 - 1280 4 High Orange

1280 - 1600 5 Very high Red

20

2.4. Types of Hazards

Hazards in this study are divided into 3 major categories; Industrial Hazards, Urban Hazards and Agricultural Hazards. Municipality staff surveyed and collected information about existing hazards within their municipalities. In addition, the coordinates of each hazard location is recorded to facilitate the task of mapping these hazards. The forms used to conduct these surveys can be seen in Appendix A. They contain information about the nature, quantity and management of pollutants produced which are needed to determine the weight, severity and protection values respectively; this in order to facilitate the computation of the hazard index (HI).

Following are the specific objectives of the survey conducted by municipality staff:

1- Identify the different sources of pollution to groundwater within each municipality.

2- Divide the sources into three categories; Industrial, Urban and Agriculture.

3- Collect information about each source based on the provided forms (Appendix A).

4- Classify each source within each category based on its nature (weight), size (severity) and management (protection) measures using weight values from table 3.

5- Create a geodatabase of hazards, calculate the hazard index for each source using equation 1 and map the results in the form of Hazard Maps using the methodology described in table 4.

This report recaps the major stops during the field tour, the findings, the discussions, and the field data collection forms that are designed based on information gathered during the tour.

The tour was conducted as part of the GIS training course. The participants from the different municipalities and FoEME field researchers participated in the tour accompanied by Samer Talozi (GIS Expert) and Baha' Afaneh (Project Director).

The tour included visiting a landfill site in the northern Jordan Valley which serves the northern Jordan valley and few additional nearby communities. The landfill, established in 1987, receives an average of 100 ton/day of solid waste, of which nearly 75% is transferred to a larger landfill site (Al Akider) outside the Jordan Valley. The total area of the landfill is 76,400 square meters and it is one of 3 landfills in the Jordan Valley. Liquid waste generated from pressing the solid waste is collected in a concrete-lined reservoir (cesspit), and transferred frequently out of the valley to be treated.

In addition, the tour included visiting a surface water stream running across the Jordan valley and through a community (Al Mashare' (المشارع)). The stream is subject, on and off, to pollution with domestic sewage from houses along its

21

banks. Municipality staff discussed the efforts that they take to prevent sewage being discharge directly into the stream.

The tour also included a visit to the municipality of (insert name), during which the participants discussed with the municipality staff methods used to manage solid waste collection and disposal, and the role that the municipality plays in environmental protection under their jurisdiction.

During the tour, the participants investigated the different methods used in the Jordan Valley for the collection and disposal of domestic sewage. Three different types of cesspits were identified throughout the Jordan Valley. These are summarized in table 6.

Following is a detailed description of each category of hazards and the findings of this study in this regard.

22

2.4.1. Industrial Hazards

The East Jordan River Valley is predominantly an Agricultural area; large scale industry does not exist with only few exceptions. Following is a brief description of the industrial hazards identified in the study area (Figure. 1) along with a description of the procedure followed in calculating the hazards index.

2.4.1.1. Automotive Service Shops

Hazard Category Hazard

Subcategory 1 Hazard

Subcategory 2

Hazard Weight Value

Hazard Severity

H_Cat H_subcat_1 H_subcat_2 Wt_20_80 S_1_10

1 3 4 50 5

For Automotive service shops, the hazard category, sub-category 1, sub-category 2 and the hazard weight (W) are shown in the table above. The size of these shops throughout the valley is for the most part the same. Therefore, all these shops were given an equal severity value (S=5). Protection measures, however, changed from one shop to another. Thus, different protection values (P) were given to each shop based on the protection measures taken as is explained in the table below. The total number of shops surveyed in the 7 municipalities is 33.

Treatment/Protection P_value

None 0.5

Liquid waste flows in the street or nearby wadis. Used oil is collected and transported.

1

Liquid waste is collected in cesspits with earth floors and concrete walls. Used oil is collected and transported.

1.5

All waste is collected, treated and transported. 2

Solid waste, which is for the most part empty plastic oil containers, is collected in all shops. It is either transported as solid waste (50%) or sold for recycling companies (50%). Liquid waste is divided into 2 parts; oils and water. Oils are collected from all shops and transported. While water is either collected in cesspits, or allowed to flow in the streets and/or nearby wadis.

2.4.1.2. Tiles and Marble Plants

The total number of plants surveyed in the study area is 12. Liquid waste from these plants is a mix of water and lime, which is collected in cesspits or ponds to allow water to evaporate and/or percolate. However, cesspits vary from one plant to another; some of them are concrete from all sides (%), others have earth bottoms (%). Solid waste from these plants is two folds; cement paper bags and dried lime (called in local language Kamakh). Cement paper bags are either

23

burned (%) or transferred as solid waste (%). Kamakh is collected and transferred away from plants, but the final destination of this solid waste is not clear from survey results. Most likely a portion of it ends up in side wadis though since a few plants have indicated that.


2 2 9 35 5

The category selected for these plants is shown in the table above. A severity level of 5 is assigned for all plants. Protection value varied according to the table below.

Treatment/Protection P_value

Earth ponds; transferred after drying 1

Earth_bottom cesspits; transferred after drying 1.5

Fully concrete cesspits; transferred after drying 2

2.4.1.3. Gasoline Stations

The total number of gas stations surveyed in the study is 13. Only few of them reported solid waste that consists of empty plastic bottles, which are transferred as solid waste. Liquid waste reported consists of different types of gasoline that spill on the surface of the station during operation. No protection measures exist for this portion of liquid waste. Most of it runs off during rain events into the streets and eventually side wadies. No information has been collected so far about the age, number and design of ground storage tanks. However, all these stations are licensed through the appropriate authorities and no reason to believe that there are differences in the standards followed in the design and installation of tanks (to be discussed with Hani Hijazi).

The hazard category, sub-category 1, sub-category 2 and the hazard weight value are summarized in the table below. The severity of each gasoline station is a function of its size. This information is not available yet, therefore all stations are given 5 as the severity rating. This might be altered when additional information about the size of each station becomes available (to be discussed with Baha Afaneh). A protection value of 1 is given to all gas stations pending the availability of additional data.

H_Cat H_subcat_1 H_subcat_2 Wt_20_80 S_1_10 P_0.5_1

1 3 3 70 5

2.4.1.4. Animal Slaughter Shops

Participants in this study, all of whom are municipality staff, viewed this as a major pollution source. The category, subcategories, hazard weight and severity are summarized below. All (29) of these shops, except 2, are small scale private

24

owned shops; these are given a severity level of 5. The 2 larger ones are large scale operations and are given a severity level of 10.


3 1 8 30 5 / 10

Solid waste generated from these facilities is transferred to the solid waste station (90%), sold to be re-used or burned (10%). Liquid waste consists mainly of water and blood, and for the most part is collected in cesspits and later on transferred (check to which destination). A protection value of 1.5 is given since most of these cesspits have earth bottoms.

2.4.1.5. Solid Waste Stations

There are 2 solid waste stations in the study area. The main one is in the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal, and a smaller one is in the municipality of Deir Alla. Both are significantly large and receive significant loads of solid waste daily. Almost 3/4 of the waste received is transferred out of the area to the main solid waste station in the governorate of Irbid. What remains is potentially hazardous to ground water since no protection measures are taken to prevent percolation. The category, subcategories, weight and severity of this hazard are shown below.


1 2 2 40 10

2.4.1.6. Industrial Hazards Geodatabase

A total of 93 industrial hazards have been identified throughout the study area. For the full list, check Appendix B. Following is a table the shows the distribution, type and number of industrial hazards for each municipality.

Table 5: Classification of the Industrial Hazards within each municipality

Automotive Service Shops

Animal Slaughter/ Chicken Shops

Gas Stations

Tile & Marble Cutting

Factories

Khaled Bin Al Waleed - - 1 -

1

Muath Bin Jabal 5 1 3 3 -

Tabaqet Fahl 3 0 2 4 -

Sharhabeel Bin Hasna 12 5 2 4 -

Deir Alla 13 23 2 0 -

Mid Shuneh 0 0 4 1 -

South Ghor 1 0 3 0 3

Total 33 29 13 12 4

25

As described in the previous section, the hazard weight, severity and protection were assigned. Following that, the hazard index was calculated. Computed hazard index values for each industrial hazard are tabulated in Appendix B for the 7 municipalities.

The results of industrial hazards mapping for the 7 municipalities are displayed in maps 3 through 9.

In the following next 2 sections (2.4.2 and 2.4.3), the urban and agricultural hazards will be evaluated and mapped. Finally, in section 2.4.4, a combined hazard map will be computed for each municipality.

Map 3: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Khaled Bin Al Waleed and classified according to the Hazard Index value

26

Map 4: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal and classified according to the Hazard Index value

27

Map 5: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified according to the Hazard Index value

28

Map 6: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna and classified according to the Hazard Index value

29

Map 7: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified according to the Hazard Index value

30

Map 8: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Middle Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

31

Map 9: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

32

2.4.2. Urban Hazards

Urban hazards can be divided into two main categories; residential solid waste and waste water (sewage).

Residential solid waste is collected by municipalities and transferred to 2 landfills in the Jordan Valley. The first in the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal, and the second in the municipality of Deir Alla. The hazard from these 2 landfills is quantified as part of the industrial hazard; assuming that a land fill is an establishment that receives, transfers, presses, and store underground solid waste. Data on any potential inadequate residential solid waste disposal is not available as is information about the potential untimely collection of waste by municipalities.

Waste water in the Jordan Valley is collected in cesspits. The design of these pits varies but 3 main types can be identified as seen in table 6. The frequency of pumping-out of these cesspits also varies from one household to another. According to the conducted surveys, this frequency ranges from few times per year to one time every several years.

Table 6: Description of the three main types of cesspits found in the Jordan Valley

Types Name Description Risk to Groundwater

Type 1 Concrete walls and base

This can be either an individual cesspit per a household or a community cesspit serving a group of houses. Fully concrete lined cesspits are emptied frequently and sewage is transferred out of the valley to the nearest wastewater treatment plant.

Low

Type 2 Concrete walls and earth base

This type of cesspits requires less pumping out of the sewage and might be favored for this reason. However, its risk on the environment is much higher than type 1.

High

Type 3 No cesspit Houses close to surface running water or valleys might not even use a cesspit, and instead connect its waste water to these natural conduits. Some houses do this only for graywater (kitchen sink water), while others do this for all wastewater.

Very High

It is beyond the scope of this study to survey each household to inquire about the type, size and pumping frequency of cesspits. Instead, the following methodology is used to map and quantify the urban hazards to groundwater pollution due to waste waster collected in cesspits:

33

- Urban areas are mapped using Google Earth. - Houses within each community are counted /estimated using Google

Earth. - Using table 3, the category of "others / 1.1.8" is selected as the hazard

type; and a hazard weight value of 70 is assigned. This is a value that is above 55 which is used for detached houses without sewer systems / 1.1.3, and lower than 80 which is a value used for urbanization without sewer systems / 1.1.2. Communities in the Jordan Valley are categorized by being urban to some extent but detached from each other.

- The value of severity is given for each community based on the number of houses and according to following methodology:

Number of Houses Severity

Less than 200 1

200 – 300 2

300- 400 3

400- 500 4

500 – 600 5

600 – 700 6

700 – 800 7

800 – 900 8

900 – 1000 9

More than 1000 10

- An average protection value of 1 is given. It is true according to the table 6

that cesspits have different designs and different pumping frequency, but it is beyond the capacity of this study to survey that.

H_Cat H_subcat_1 H_subcat_2 Wt_20_80 S_1_10 P 0.5_2

1 1 8 70 1- 10 1

- Using equation 1, the Urban Hazard Index value is calculated. Hazard Index values are then classified according to the table below.

Hazard Index (HI) Hazard Class Hazard Level Color

0 – 320 1 No or very low Blue

320 – 640 2 Low Green

460 – 960 3 Moderate Yellow

960 – 1280 4 High Orange

1280 – 1600 5 Very high Red

The results of urban hazards mapping of the 7 municipalities are displayed in maps 10 through 16.

34

Map 10: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Khaled Ben Al Waleed and classified according to the Hazard Index value

35

Map 11: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal and classified according to the Hazard Index value

36

Map 12: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified according to the Hazard Index value

37

Map 13: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and classified according to the Hazard Index value

38

Map 14: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified according to the Hazard Index value

39

Map 15: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Middle Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

40

Map 16: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

41

2.4.3. Agricultural Hazards

The risk of groundwater pollution due to unwise agricultural practices was also discussed during the project. However, very little is the involvement of municipalities in the supervision and monitoring of the agricultural sector in the Jordan Valley. The ministry of Agriculture is primarily in charge. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticides were collected for sample farm units and are presented in tables 8 and 9. A comprehensive survey of the agricultural areas was not conducted.

Table 7: Rates and types of major organic and chemical fertilizers used in some municipalities of the Jordan Valley

Municipality Organic Chemical Name

(kg/dunum) (kg/dunum)

Muath Bin Jabal 1400 - 1875 25 Nitrogen

4 - 8 Magnesium Sulfate

6 - 8 Calcium Nitrate

8 - 15 Phosphorous

15 - 25 Potassium Sulfate

50 - 70 NPK

Sharhabeel Bin Hasna 1300 - 1500 3 Potassium Sulfate

7 Potassium Nitrate

Deir Alla 500 5 Urea, Ammonic

South Ghor 500 - 750 40 - 80 NPK

Table 8: Rates and types of major herbicides and pesticides used in some municipalities in the Jordan Valley

Municipality Herbicide Pesticide Name

(g/dunum) (g/dunum)

Muath Bin Jabal 500 Gly Seet

350 - 700 Ground Up

80 - 100 Sweeper

50 - 100 Attack

Sharhabeel Bin Hasna 500 Gly Seet

500 Ground Up

200 Hard Roll

200 Comfidor

Deir Alla 200 500 Maspillan

50 Daizin

South Ghor 100 - 300 Fungicides

42

The following procedure is used to calculate the Agricultural Hazard Index value:

- Agricultural areas are identified and mapped using Google Earth - Category 3.2.1, from table 3, is selected to be the most representative of

agriculture in the Jordan Valley. - A value for Hazard Weight (W=20) is given to the entire agricultural area.

Values above 20 are used when irrigation completely depends on treated waste water, which is not the case in the Jordan Valley; significant parts of the Jordan Valley still receives fresh surface water and treated brackish groundwater.

- A value of Severity (S=10) is given to the northern Jordan Valley, and a value of (S=8) is given to the middle and southern Jordan Valley. A higher severity value is given to the northern part of the valley because it receives more water per unit area than the middle and southern part of the valley. This is because the northern part is predominately grown with citrus and other orchards, while the middle and southern parts of the valley are grown with vegetables and cereals mainly and thus receive lower quantities of water per unit area.

- A value of protection (S=1) is given to the entire agricultural area. This is an average value assuming the same protection measures are practiced by the ministry of Agriculture throughout the Jordan Valley.

- The above parameters are summarized in the table below.

Hazard Category

Hazard Subcategory 1

Hazard Subcategory 2

Hazard Weight

Hazard Severity

Protection Value

H_Cat H_subcat_1 H_subcat_2 Wt_20_80 S_1_10 P_0.5_2

3 2 1 20 10, 8 1

- Accordingly, the Agricultural Hazard Index Value range from 200 in the

northern part of the Jordan to 160 in the middle and southern part of the Jordan Valley; both of which are classified as Very Low according the classification methodology described for hazards earlier.

Table 9: The percentage of irrigated agricultural areas in each of the seven municipalities

Municipality Name Total Area Agricultural Land Area Percentage

(km2) (km2) (%)

Khalid Ben Waleed No Irrigated Agriculture

Tabqet Fahel 81.6 38.1 47%

Muath Ben Jabal 93.8 43.7 47%

Sharhabeel Ben Hasna 76.7 14.0 18%

Deir Alla 59.6 31.6 53%

Mid Shouneh 260.9 87.1 33%

South Ghor 897.8 71.1 8%

43

The results of agricultural hazards mapping are presented in maps 17 through 22. Agriculture in the municipality of Khaled Ben Waleed is mainly rain-fed. Therefore, no agricultural hazard map was prepared for this municipality.

Map 17: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal and classified according to the Hazard Index value

44

Map 18: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified according to the Hazard Index value

45

Map 19: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and classified according to the Hazard Index value

46

Map 20: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified according to the Hazard Index value

47

Map 21: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Mid Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

48

Map 22: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according to the Hazard Index value

49

2.4.4. Combined (Total) Hazards

The industrial, urban and agricultural hazard index values calculated in the previous sections are combined to produce total hazard maps. The results are displayed in maps 23 through 29. In these maps, the hazard index value of industrial, urban and agricultural hazards are summed together. Following that, the total hazard index values are classified using the equal interval classification method. Five categories are use, very low, low, moderate, high and extreme.

Map 23: Combined hazard map for the municipality of Khaled Bin Al Waleed

50

Map 24: Combined hazard map for the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal

Map 25: Combined hazard map for the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel

51

Map 26: Combined hazard map for the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna

Map 27: Combined hazard map for the municipality of Deir Alla

52

Map 28: Combined hazard map for the municipality of Middle Ghor

53

Map 29: Combined hazard map for the municipality of South Ghor

54

3. GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY

Groundwater vulnerability is a cornerstone in evaluating the risk of groundwater contamination and developing management options to preserve the quality of groundwater. Vulnerability assessment has been recognized for its ability to delineate areas that are more easily to be contaminated than others as a result of anthropogenic activities (Wen et al., 2009). Vulnerability assessment of groundwater is not a characteristic that can be directly measured in the field. It is an idea based on the fundamental concept "that some land areas are more vulnerable to groundwater contamination than others" (Verba and Zaporozec, 1994). Mapping the degree of groundwater vulnerability to contaminants, as a function of hydrogeological conditions, shows that effective protection provided by the natural environment may vary drastically from one place to another (Gogu and Dassargues, 1999).

Several methods are available to calculate groundwater vulnerability such as DRASTIC (Aller et al., 1987), GOD (Foster, 1987), and AVI (Van Stempvoort et al., 1993), which are used for porous aquifers. Other methods such as the EPIK (Doerfliger and Zwahlan, 1998), PI (Goldscheider et al., 2000), and COP (Vias et al., 2006) are used for karstic aquifers. The DRASTIC method is selected for the purposes of this study.

3.1. DRASTIC Approach

Inherent in each hydrogeologic setting are the physical characteristics which affect the groundwater vulnerability to pollution. The most important factors that control vulnerability are listed below. These factors have been arranged to form the acronym DRASTIC for ease of reference. A complete description of the significance of each factor is included in section (3.1.1 – 3.1.7).

D Depth to Water R (Net) Recharge A Aquifer Media S Soil Media T Topography (Slope) I Impact of the Vadose Zone C Conductivity (Hydraulic) of the Aquifer

55

Figure 2: Schematic illustration of the seven DRASTIC factors. (Source: http://frakturmedia.net/oswp/drastic/ : Accessed: December 1, 2013)

The DRASTIC uses a numerical ranking system to assess groundwater pollution potential in hydrogeologic settings. The system contains three significant parts: weights, ranges and ratings.

1) Weights

Each DRASTIC factor has been evaluated with respect to the other to determine the relative importance of each factor. Each DRASTIC factor has been assigned a relative weight ranging from 1 to 5 (Table 10). The most significant factors have weights of 5; the least significant, a weight of 1. This methodology was accomplished by using a Delphi (consensus) approach. These weights are a constant and may not be changed.

Table 10: Assigned weights for the seven DRASTIC features

Symbol Feature Weight (W)

DW Depth to Water 5

RW (Net) Recharge 4

AW Aquifer Media 3

SW Soil Media 2

TW Topography (Slope) 1

IW Impact of the Vadose Zone 5

CW Conductivity (Hydraulic) of the Aquifer 3

56

2) Ranges

Each DRASTIC factor has been divided into either ranges or significant media types which have an impact on pollution potential.

3) Ratings

Each range for each DRASTIC factor has been evaluated with respect to the others to determine the relative significance of each range with respect to pollution potential. The range for each DRASTIC factor has been assigned a rating which varies between 1 and 10 (Tables 12-18). The factors of D, R, S, T, and C have been assigned one value per range. A and I have been assigned a "typical" rating and a variable rating. The variable rating allows the user to choose either a typical value or to adjust the value based on more specific knowledge.

The seven DRASTIC parameters are derived from four sources of data; namely they are maps of: Elevation, Groundwater wells, Geology and Soil (See maps 30 – 32). Following is a table that summarizes the relationship between source data and the DRASTIC parameters:

Table 11: Spatial data sources used to derive the DRASTIC features

DRASTIC Parameter Source Data

D Groundwater wells

R Computed from Multiple sources

A Groundwater wells

S Soil Map

T Elevation Map

I Groundwater wells

C Groundwater wells

57

Map 30: Elevation map of the Jordan Valley

58

Map 31: The spatial distribution of groundwater wells in the Jordan Valley

59

Map 32: Geological outcrops in the Jordan Valley

A comprehensive explanation of methodologies used to derive the DRASTIC parameters and the processes of contaminant movement are explained in the following section.

60

3.1.1. Depth to Water Table

Depth to water is important primarily because it determines the depth of material through which a contaminant must travel before reaching the groundwater aquifer, and it may help to determine the contact time with the surrounding media. Depth to groundwater table in the Jordan Valley was determined from a number of groundwater wells throughout the valley. Depth values were then interpolated using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst to create a raster map of the value of groundwater table depth. Following that, the groundwater depth values were classified and appropriate DRASTIC rating values (R) were assigned according to table 12. Maps 33 – 39 show the depth to water table DRASTIC rating maps created for each municipality.

Table 12: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Depth to Water feature

Depth to water Range (feet) Range (m) Drastic Rating (R)

0-5 0-1.5 10

5-15 1.5-5 9

15-30 5-10 7

30-50 10-15 5

50-75 15-25 3

75-100 25-35 2

100+ 35+ 1

Map 33: DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

61

Map 34: DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

62

Map 35: DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Tabeqet Fahel Municipality

Map 36: DRASTIC rating values for Depth to Water Table in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

63

Map 37: DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Deir Alla Municipality

Map 38: DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Mid Ghor Municipality

64

Map 39: DRASTIC rating values for the Depth to Water Table in Mid Ghor Municipality

65

3.1.2. Net Recharge

The primary source of ground water typically is precipitation which infiltrates through the surface of the ground and percolates to the water table. Net recharge represents the amount of water per unit area of land which penetrates the ground surface and reaches the water table. This recharge water is thus available to transport a contaminant vertically to the water table and horizontally within the aquifer. In addition, the quantity of water available for dispersion and dilution of the contaminant in the vadose zone and in the saturated zone is controlled by this parameter. Recharge water, therefore, is a principal vehicle for leaching and transporting solid or liquid contaminants to the water table. The greater the recharge, the greater the potential for ground-water pollution is. This general statement is true until the amount of recharge is great enough to cause dilution of the contaminant, at which point the ground-water pollution potential ceases to increase and may actually decrease. For purposes of this document, this phenomena has been acknowledged but the ranges and associated ratings do not reflect the dilution factor.

In the Jordan Valley, infiltration from precipitation is not the only contribution factor to the net recharge. Irrigation and treated wastewater application is also considered, because, these sources of recharge significantly affect the amount of water available to carry a pollutant into the aquifer especially in arid to semi arid areas.

Accordingly, in the Jordan Valley, areas receiving irrigation resulted in a higher net recharge rate because that was combined with precipitation, than areas receiving only precipitation. Drastic rating (R) values were given based on the criterion presented in table 13. Results of the net recharge calculations are presented in maps 40 – 46.

Table 13: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Net Recharge feature

Net Recharge Range (in) Range (mm) Drastic Rating (R)

0-2 0-50 1

2-4 50-100 3

4-7 100-180 6

7-10 180-250 8

10+ 250+ 9

66

Map 40: DRASTIC rating values for the Net Recharge in Khaled Bin Waleed Municipality

67


68


69


70



71


72

3.1.3. Aquifer Media

Aquifer media refers to the consolidated or unconsolidated rock which serves as an aquifer. An aquifer is defined as a subsurface rock unit which will yield sufficient quantities of water for use. Water is contained in aquifers within the pore spaces of granular and clastic rock and in the fractures and solution openings of non-clastic and non-granular rock. Rocks which yield water from pore spaces have primary porosity; rocks where the water is held in fractures and solution openings which were created after the rock was formed have secondary porosity.

The flow system within the aquifer is affected by the aquifer medium. The route and path length which a contaminant must follow are governed by the flow system within the aquifer. The path length is an important control (along with hydraulic conductivity and gradient) in determining the time available for attenuation processes such as sorption, reactivity and dispersion to occur. The aquifer medium also influences the amount of effective surface area of materials with which the contaminant may come in contact within the aquifer. The route which a contaminant will take can be strongly influenced by fracturing or by an interconnected series of solution openings which may provide pathways for easier flow. In general, the larger the grain size and the more fractures or openings within the aquifer, the higher the permeability and the lower the attenuation capacity of the aquifer media is.

For purposes of this study, aquifer media have been designated by descriptive names and each medium is listed in table 14 along with its associated typical drastic rating.

Table 14: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Aquifer Media feature

Aquifer Media Range Typical Rating (R)

Massive Sandstone 4-9 6

Massive Limestone 4-9 7

Sand and Gravel 4-9 8

Basalt 2-9 9

Karst Limestone 9-10 10

Bedded Sandstone and Limestone 5-9 6

Massive Shale 1-3 2

The results for the seven municipalities are presented in maps 47 through 53.

73

Map 47: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Khaled Bin Waleed Municipality

74

Map 48: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

75

Map 49: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

76

Map 50: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

77

Map 51: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Deir Alla Municipality

78

Map 52: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in Mid Ghor Municipality

79

Map 53: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Media in South Ghor Municipality

80

3.1.4. Soil Media

Soil media refers to that uppermost portion of the vadose zone characterized by significant biological activity. Soil has a significant impact on the amount of recharge which can infiltrate into the ground and hence on the ability of a contaminant to move vertically into the vadose zone.

The presence of fine-textured materials such as silts and clays can decrease relative soil permeabilities and restrict contaminant migration. For certain land surface practices, such as agricultural applications of pesticides, soil may have the primary influence on pollution potential.

A description of the soil media in order of decreasing pollution potential follows in table 15.

Table 15: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Soil Media feature

Soil Media Range Typical Rating (R)

Thin or Absent 10-9 10

Gravel 10-9 10

Sand 9-8 9

Peat 8-9 8

Shrinking and/or Aggregated Clay 6-8 7

Sandy Loam 5-6 6

Loam 4-6 5

Silty Loam 4-5 4

Clay Loam 2-4 3

Muck 1-3 2

Non-shrinking and Non-aggregated Clay 1-2 1

Spatial soil data was compiled from a number of sources (Bani Hani, 1995). Results are presented in maps 54 through 60.

81

Map 54: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

82

Map 55: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

83

Map 56: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

84

Map 57: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

85

Map 58: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Deir Alla Municipality

86

Map 59: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in Mid Ghor Municipality

87

Map 60: DRASTIC rating values for the Soil Type in South Ghor Municipality

88

3.1.5. Topography

In the DRASTIC method, topography refers to the slope of the land surface. Topography helps control the likelihood that a pollutant will run off or remain on the surface in one area long enough to infiltrate. Slopes which provide a greater opportunity for contaminants to infiltrate will be associated with a higher ground-water pollution potential, see table 16. Topography influences soil development and therefore has an effect on contaminant attenuation. Topography is also significant because gradient and direction of flow often can be inferred for water table conditions from the general slope of the land. Typically, steeper slopes signify higher ground-water velocity.

Table 16: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Topography (% slope) feature

Topography (Percent slope) Typical Rating (R)

0-2 10

2-4 9

4-6 8

6-8 7

8-10 6

10-12 5

12-14 4

14-16 3

16-18 2

18+ 1

Results of the slope feature are presented in maps 61 through 67.

89

Map 61: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

90

Map 62: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

91

Map 63: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

92

Map 64: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

93

Map 65: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Deir Alla Municipality

94

Map 66: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in Mid Ghor Municipality

95

Map 67: DRASTIC rating values for the Topography (Slope) in South Ghor Municipality

96

3.1.6. Impact of the Vadose Zone Media

The vadose zone is defined as that zone above the water table which is unsaturated or discontinuously saturated. The type of vadose zone media determines the attenuation characteristics of the material below the typical soil horizon and above the water table, see table 17. Biodegradation, neutralization, mechanical filtration, chemical reaction, volatilization and dispersion are all processes which may occur within the vadose zone. The amount of biodegradation and volatilization decreases with depth. The media also controls the path length and routing, thus affecting the time available for attenuation and the quantity of material encountered. The routing is strongly influenced by any fracturing present. The materials at the top of the vadose zone also exert an influence on soil development.

Table 17: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Impact of Vadose Zone Media feature

Impact of the Vadose Zone Media Rating Typical Rating (R)

Confining Layer 1 1

Silt /Clay 2-6 3

Shale 2-5 3

Limestone 2-7 6

Sandstone 4-8 6

Bedded Limestone, Sandstone, Shale 4-8 6

Sand and Gravel with significant Silt & Clay 4-8 6

Metamorphic/ Igneous 2-8 4

Sand and Gravel 6-9 8

Basalt 2-10 9

Karst Limestone 8-10 10

The impact of the vadose zone analysis results are presented in maps 68 through 74.

97

Map 68: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

98

Map 69: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

99

Map 70: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

100

Map 71: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

101

Map 72: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Deir Alla Municipality

102

Map 73: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in Mid Ghor Municipality

103

Map 74: DRASTIC rating values for the Impact of the Vadose Zone in South Ghor Municipality

104

3.1.7. Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity refers to the ability of the aquifer materials to transmit water, which in turn, controls the rate at which ground water will flow under a given hydraulic gradient. The rate at which the ground water flows also controls the rate at which a contaminant moves away from the point at which it enters the aquifer. Hydraulic conductivity is controlled by the amount and interconnection of void spaces within the aquifer which may occur as a consequence of intergranular porosity, fracturing and bedding planes. For purposes of this study, hydraulic conductivity is divided into ranges where high hydraulic conductivities are associated with higher pollution potential and higher rating values as seen in table 18.

Table 18: Ranges and DRASTIC ratings for the Impact of Hydraulic Conductivity feature

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/day) Typical Rating (R)

0-1 1

1-5 2

5-10 4

10-15 5

15-25 6

25-50 7

50-100 8

100+ 10

Results of the aquifer hydraulic conductivity are presented in maps 75 through 81.

105

Map 75: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Khaled Ben Waleed Municipality

106

Map 76: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Muath Ben Jabal Municipality

107

Map 77: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Tabaqet Fahel Municipality

108

Map 78: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Sharhabeel Ben Hasna Municipality

109

Map 79: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Deir Alla Municipality

110

Map 80: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in Mid Ghor Municipality

111

Map 81: DRASTIC rating values for the Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity in South Ghor Municipality

112

3.1.8. DRASTIC VULNERABILITY MAPS

DRASTIC vulnerability maps are a result of combining the maps of each of the DRASTIC seven parameters which were developed for each municipality and are presented in sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.7 previously.

The DRASTIC model uses a numerical additive model as presented in equation 2 below for determining the DRASTIC Index:

…... (2)

Where:

D = Depth to Water Table R = Net Recharge A = Aquifer Media S = Soil Media T = Topography I = Impact of Vadose zone C = Hydraulic Conductivity R = Drastic Rating value as described in Tables xx- xxx W = DRASTIC weight value as described in Table xx

Once a DRAST IC Index has been computed, it is possible to identify areas which are more likely to be susceptible to ground water contamination relative to one another. The higher the DRASTIC Index, the greater the groundwater pollution potential is. The DRASTIC Index provides only a relative evaluation tool and is not designed to provide absolute answers.

113

Map 82: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Khalid Bin Al Waleed

Map 83: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal

114

Map 84: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel

Map 85: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna

115

Map 86: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Deir Alla

Map 87: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of Middle Ghor

116

Map 88: Vulnerability Map for the municipality of South Ghor

Table 19: The area distribution (km2) of the different Vulnerability Levels in the seven municipalities

Municipality Name

Vulnerability Level

Very Low

Low Moderate High Extreme Total area

Percentage (%) (km2)

Khaled Ben Waleed 17.7 46.7 29.3 5.4 0.9 73.60

Muath Ben Jabal 1.9 4.6 62.7 14.8 16.0 93.80

Tabaqet Fahel 0.0 7.1 27.6 26.5 38.8 81.57

Sharhabeel Ben Hasna 12.6 12.6 46.8 21.1 6.9 76.70

Deir Alla 14.3 14.8 15.8 49.5 5.5 59.60

Mid Shouneh 3.0 27.5 18.4 41.2 9.9 260.90

South Ghor 6.6 17.4 45.9 26.4 3.6 897.80

117

3.2. Assumptions of the DRASTIC

DRASTIC has been developed using four major assumptions: 1) The contaminant is introduced at the ground surface; 2) The contaminant is flushed into the ground water by precipitation; 3) The contaminant has the mobility of water; and 4) The area evaluated using DRASTIC is 100 acres or larger.

In assuming areas of 100 acres or larger, DRASTIC attempts to evaluate ground-water pollution potential from a regional perspective rather than a site specific focus. For example, in an area of fractured rock, ground water generally flows in a regional direction. However, ground-water flow at anyone site will be directly controlled by fracture orientation. In this scenario, exact direction of contaminant movement is controlled by a site specific characteristic. Generally, however, the contaminant would still flow in the regional direction.

DRASTIC can be a very useful tool when the assumptions of the methodology are met. However, the user needs to exercise caution and consider special conditions when deviations from the assumptions occur. To further assist the user in understanding the criteria upon which DRASTIC was created, a description of each DRASTIC feature is contained in the following sections.

3.3. Potential Uses of the DRASTIC

The DRASTIC methodology is neither designed nor intended to replace on-site investigations. DRASTIC does not reflect the suitability of a site for waste disposal or land use activities. The suitability of a waste disposal site is based not only on the groundwater Vulnerability of an area, but also on other design criteria. DRASTIC provides the user with a measure of relative groundwater vulnerability to pollution and therefore, may be one of many criteria used in siting decisions, but should not be the sole criteria. An example of the correct use of DRASTIC would be to use the system as a screening tool to ascertain whether such a facility is/may be sited in an area which is generally vulnerable to the release of contaminants at the surface. Thus, the area around the facility might be the focus of a region where DRASTIC is determined. High DRASTIC scores indicate that the site is located in a generally sensitive or vulnerable area. An additional site specific evaluation would still be necessary for determining site suitability for waste disposal or land use activities. The primary charge of DRASTIC is to provide assistance in resource allocation and prioritization of many types of groundwater related activities as well as to provide a practical educational tool.

Many other beneficial applications of DRASTIC have also been recognized. For example, DRASTIC may be used for preventative purposes through the prioritization of areas where groundwater protection is critical. The system may also be used to identify areas where special attention or protection efforts are warranted. For example, DRASTIC might be used as part of a strategy to identify

118

areas where either additional or less stringent protection measures are advisable. DRASTIC coupled with other factors such as application methods may help delineate areas where pesticides may pose a greater threat to ground water.

Another application of DRASTIC includes the prioritization of areas for monitoring purposes. In this situation a denser monitoring system might be installed in areas where pollution potential is higher and land use suggests a potential source. The efficient allocation of resources for clean-up and restoration efforts after contamination has occurred is one more possible use of DRASTIC. Although DRASTIC cannot be used to identify areas where pollution has occurred. It may be desirable to focus clean-up efforts in those areas with the highest pollution potential.

DRASTIC may be employed in the evaluation of land use activities with respect to the development of pollution liability insurance and assessment of the economic impacts of disposal costs in highly vulnerable areas. The methodology may be used as a textbook in university courses to teach the fundamentals of pollution potential and resource protection. Finally, DRASTIC may be used to identify data gaps which affect pollution potential assessment. For example, justification could be provided for further reconnaissance of the hydrogeologic parameter which would subsequently form a better data base for future resource assessments or another DRASTIC analysis.

119

4. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINCATION RISK

Groundwater contamination risk assessment is a useful tool for groundwater management. These assessments could help to screen out potentially harmful hazards and areas threatened by groundwater contamination, which could be an important basis for decision making, such as land planning and groundwater monitoring (Wang et al., 2012). The concept of assessing groundwater contamination risk is based on the "origin-pathway-target" model. The risk of contamination of groundwater depends on three elements (Nobre et al., 2007):

(1) The hazard posed by a potentially polluting activity (origin) (2) The intrinsic vulnerability of groundwater to contamination (pathway) (3) The potential consequences of a contamination event upon groundwater

(target)

Groundwater risk/sensitivity represents the sensitivity of the location to contamination. There are different methodologies (models) to evaluate ground water risk, and thus the values of Ground water Sensitivity should be normalized to 1-5 (integers) regardless of the sensitivity model used. Pollution potential (Risk) is a combination of hydrogeologic factors (represented by the DRASTIC vulnerability values and map computed earlier), anthropogenic influences and sources of contamination in any given area (represented by the Hazards Index values and map computer earlier). Groundwater contamination risk is calculated from the above by multiplying the Hazard Index value by the groundwater vulnerability value (classified from 1 - 5) and divided by 80 to normalize to a 1 - 100 scale.

……………….. (4)

Table 20: Classification of risk values using the equal interval method

Risk Value Risk Class Risk Level Color

1 – 20 1 Very Low Blue

21 – 40 2 Low Green

41 – 60 3 Moderate Yellow

61 – 80 4 High Orange

81 - 100 5 Extreme Red

120

Table 21: The area distribution (km2) of different Risk Levels in the seven municipalities

Municipality Name

Risk Level

Very Low

Low Moderate High Extreme Total area

Percentage (%) (km2)

Khaled Ben Waleed 94.6 3.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 73.60

Muath Ben Jabal 98.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 93.80

Tabaket Fahel 85.2 10.8 1.7 0.9 1.0 81.57

Sharhabeel Ben Hasna 94.4 1.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 76.70

Deir Alla 92.1 3.1 2.0 2.7 0.0 59.60

Mid Shouneh 67.6 24.9 0.7 4.1 2.8 260.90

South Ghor 92.5 1.0 6.1 0.4 0.0 897.80

Risk maps for the 7 municipalities are shown below. Risk levels ranged from very low to moderate in all municipalities, with the municipality of Middle Ghor having the highest risk levels.

Map 89: Risk Map for the municipality of Khaled Bin Waleed

121

Map 90: Risk Map for the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal

Map 91: Risk Map for the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel

122

Map 92: Risk Map for the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna

123

Map 93: Risk Map for the municipality of Deir Alla

124

Map 94: Risk Map for the municipality of Middle Ghor

125

Map 95: Risk Map for the municipality of South Ghor

126

5. CONCLUSIONS

Hazards in the Jordan Valley are identified by this study and are categorized

into industrial, agricultural and urban hazards. A geodatabase of these hazards is created and is presented in the appendix B. The hazard index value for each hazard is computed and mapped. Thematic hazard maps are created, in addition to combined hazard maps for each municipality. Hazard index values ranged from 75 – 800 for industrial hazards, 70 – 700 for urban hazards and 160 – 200 for agricultural hazards.

Vulnerability of groundwater for contamination is also assessed using the

DRASTIC method. Vulnerability level is calculated, classified and mapped for each municipality. The land area of each municipality is classified according to the vulnerability level; five classes are used, namely: very low, low, moderate, high and extreme. Groundwater in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel is found to be the most vulnerable; 26.5% of the area is classified as high and 38.8% is classified as extreme. In addition, 49.5% of the area of the municipality of Deir Alla is classified as highly vulnerable. Finally, the municipality of Middle shouneh came third with 41.2% of its land area classified as highly vulnerable. A detailed presentation of these results are found in table 19.

Risk of groundwater contamination, a product of existing hazards and

groundwater vulnerability, is computed, classified and mapped for each municipality. In general, the risk of groundwater contamination is very low in all municipalities. The municipality of Mid Shouneh, however, has the greatest tendency for an increased risk. The detailed results are presented in table 22.

The Jordan Valley is mainly an agricultural area with a very minimal industrial

sector and no major population centers. This probably explains the moderate levels of existing hazards which are identified in this study and the low levels of risk that are computed. However, it is important to take notice of the extreme and high vulnerability of groundwater pollution, which is identified in a number of municipalities as explained earlier. This entails careful planning and decision making into the future by the different authorities acting on the ground. This also highlights the significant role that the municipality must play to insure that the results presented in this study are integrated into their decision making process. This document is prepared to assist planners and municipality staff to direct resources and land-use activities to the appropriate areas. The methodology may also assist in helping to prioritize protection, monitoring or clean-up efforts.

127

References Al-Adamat R., Foster I., Baban S., 2003. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the

Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, Remote sensing and DRASTIC. Applied Geography, 23: 303–324.

Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr J, and Petty R, 1987. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Alraggad, M., Al-Saleh, S., Al-Amoush, H., Jasem, H., Isied, D., 2012. Vulnerability of Groundwater System in Central Jordan Valley/Pollution Indicators and Decontamination Process.

Journal of Water Resource and Protection: 4, 133-139. Bani Hani, Nabeel, 1995. Assessment of boron availability and mobility in selected soil samples

from the Jordan Valley. Thesis. Jordan University. Causape J, Quilez D, and Aragues R, 2006. Groundwater quality in CR-V irrigation district

(Bardenas I, Spain): alternative scenarios to reduce off-site salt and nitrate contamination. Agriculture Water Management, 84:281–9.

Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1998) Groundwater vulnerability mapping in karstic regions (EPIK): application to groundwater protection zones. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), Bern, Switzerland.

Foster S., (1987). Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague, pp 69–86.

Foster S, Chilton P, 2003. Groundwater: the processes and global significance of aquifer degradation. Philos Trans R Soc London, 358:1957–72.

Gogu, R.C. and Dassargues, A., 2000. Current trends and future challenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods. Environmental Geology, 6: 549-559.

Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Hotzl H (2000) The PI method: a GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of karst aquifers. Zeitschrift fu¨r Angewandte Geologie 46(3):157–166.

Millington, A. (2001). Introduction: Water and development in Jordan’s Badia, turning off the sustainability tap?. In S. M. J. Baban, & N. A. Al-Ansari (Eds.), Living with water scarcity: Water resources in the Jordan Badia region, the way forward (pp. 5–17). Jordan: Al Al-Bayt University.

MWI. (2002). Jordan’s Water Strategy and Policies. Amman, Jordan: Ministry of Water and Irrigation.

Nobre RCM, Rotunno OC, Mansur WJ, Nobre MMM, Cosenza CAN, 2007. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. J Contamination Hydrology, 94:277–92.

Salameh, E. (2001). Water shortages and environmental degradation. In S. M. J. Baban, & N. A. Al- Ansari (Eds.), Living with water scarcity: Water resources in the Jordan Badia Region, the way forward (pp. 71–87). Jordan: Al Al-Bayt University.

Van Stempvoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnerability index (AVI): a GI compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Canadian Water Resources Journal 18:25–37.

Vias JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F, Vadillo I, Jimenez P (2006). Proposed method for groundwater vulnerability mapping in carbonate (karstic) aquifers: the COP method. Application in two pilot sites in southern Spain. Hydrogeology Journal 14:912–925.

Vrba J., and Zaporozec A., 1994. Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. International Association of Hydrogeologists (International Contributions to Hydrogeology 16). Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover.

Wang J, He J, and Chen H, 2012. Assessment of groundwater contamination risk using hazard

quantification, a modified DRASTIC model and groundwater value, Beijing Plain, China. Science of the Total Environment 432 (2012) 216–226.

Wen, X., Wu, J., and Si, J., 2009. A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing shallow groundwater vulnerability in the Zhangye Basin, northwestern China. Environment Geology, 57:1435-1442.

128

Yu C, Yao YY, Hayes G, Zhang BX, Zheng CM, 2010. Quantitative assessment of groundwater vulnerability using index system and transport simulation, Huangshuihe catchment, China. Science of the Total Environment, 408:6108–16.

129

Appendices

130

Appendix A Hazard Mapping Forms

131

FORM 1: Industrial Facilities (المؤسسات الصناعية) : 3نموذج

Name of Facility إسم المؤسسة

Municipality Name إسم البلدية

Longitude - X خط الطول

Latitude – Y خط العرض

Altitude – Z اإلرتفاع

Solid Waste النفايات الصلبة

Liquid Waste النفايات السائلة

Description

الوصف

Quantity الكمية

طن/سنة

Treatment

هل تعالج أو تنقل

Description

الوصف

Quantity الكمية

طن/سنة

Treatment

هل تعالج أو تنقل

132

FORM 2: Urban Areas : المناطق السكنية2نموذج

Name of Area إسم المنطقة/التجمع السكني/القرية/الحي

Municipality Name

إسم البلدية

Table 1.

Cesspit type

نوع الحفرة اإلمتصاصية

Number of House Units

عدد المنازل

How many times/year is the cesspit pumped out?

ما معدل نضح الحفر اإلمتصاصية بالسنة؟

Point Number رقم النقطة

Longitude - X الطولخط



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

133

FORM 3: AGRICULTURE UNITS : الوحدات الزراعية1نموذج

Farm Unit Number رقم الوحدة الزراعية

Area of the Farm Unit الزراعية بالدونممساحة الوحدة

Municipality Name إسم البلدية

Longitude - X خط الطول



Plants (المزروعات)

Fertilizers (األسمدة) Pesticides (المبيدات)

Species الصنف

Area )Donums)

المساحة المزروعة من الصنف بالدونم

Type/Name اإلسم أو النوع

Quantity (ton/donum) الكمية المستخدمة

(طن / دونم(

Type/Name

اإلسم أو النوع

Quantity (liter/donu

m) الكمية

المستخدمةلتر/ دونم( )

134

Appendix B: Industrial Hazards

135

Table B-1: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of Khaled Ben Waleed.

M_Name

H_Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5_2

Hazard Value

Khaled Ben Waleed

Magnesium Factory 2 2 10 80 10 2 400

Khaled Ben

Waleed Potash Factory 2 2 10 80 10 2 400

Khaled Ben

Waleed Gas Station 1 3 3 70 5 1 350

Khaled Ben

Waleed Chicken Shop 3 1 8 30 5 1 150

Khaled Ben

Waleed Chicken Shop 3 1 8 30 5 1 150

Khaled Ben

Waleed Car service shop 1 3 4 50 5 1 250

Khaled Ben


Khaled Ben


Khaled Ben


136

Table B-2: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of Muath Ben Jabal.

Municipality Name

Hazard Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5-2

Hazard Value

Muath Bin Jabal

Automotive Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5 1.0 250

Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal

Tiles and Marble Plant 2 2 9 35 5 2.0 88

Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal

Animal Slaughter Shop 3 1 8 30 10 1.5 200

Muath Bin Jabal

Solid Waste Station 1 2 2 40 10 0.5 800

Muath Bin Jabal

Gasoline Station 1 3 3 70 5 1.0 350

Muath Bin Jabal


Muath Bin Jabal


137

Table B-3: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of Tabaqet Fahel.

Municipality Name

Hazard Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5-2

Hazard Value

Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Tabaqet Fahel


Table B-4: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna.

Municipality Name

Hazard Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5-2

Hazard Value

Sharhabeel Bin Hasna












138

Table B-5: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of Deir Alla.

M_Name

H_Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5_2

Hazard Value

Deir Alla Automotive Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125












Deir Alla Chicken Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100















139







Deir Alla

Animal Slaughter Shop 3 1 8 30 10.0 1.5 200

Deir Alla Gasoline Station 1 3 3 70 5.0 1.0 350

Deir Alla Gasoline Station 1 3 3 70 5.0 1.0 350

Deir Alla Solid Waste Station 1 2 2 40 10.0 0.5 800

140

Table B-6: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of Mid Ghor.

M_Name

H_Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5_2

Hazard Value

Mid Ghor

Tiles and Marble Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1 175

Mid Ghor

Factory Clothing 2 2 10 30 5 2 75

Mid Ghor

Gasoline Station 1 3 3 70 5 1 350

Mid Ghor


Mid Ghor


Table B-7: Computed Hazard Index Values for the Industrial Hazards in the Municipality of South Ghor.

M_Name

H_Type

H_Cat

H_subcat 1

H_subcat 2

W 20-80

S 1-10

P 0.5_2

Hazard Value

South Ghor

Magnesium Factory 2 2 10 80 10 2 400

South Ghor

Potash Factory 2 2 10 80 10 2 400

South Ghor Gas Station 1 3 3 70 5 1 350

South Ghor

Chicken Shop 3 1 8 30 5 1 150

South Ghor

Chicken Shop 3 1 8 30 5 1 150

South Ghor

Car service shop 1 3 4 50 5 1 250

South Ghor


South Ghor


South Ghor


141

Appendix C: Urban Hazards Table C-1: Weight (W), Severity (S), Protection (P) and Hazard Index (HI) values for the different urban communities identified in the Jordan Valley

Community Name No of

Houses H_Cat

H_SubCat

H_SubCat

2 W S P HI

Al-adasiyya 650 1 1 3 70 6 1 420

North Shouna 550 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Maath 400 1 1 3 70 4 1 280

As Sakhina 50 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Al-Manshiyya 550 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Al-Aramsha 70 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Al-Fiddiyyin 185 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Waqqas 1300 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Al-Quliaat 110 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Ash Shaykh Husayn 1480 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Busaila 1080 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Al-Harawiyya 960 1 1 3 70 9 1 630

Himmat Ghor Al-arbain 360 1 1 3 70 3 1 210

Al Midraj 1100 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Tabaqet Fahl 4730 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Al-Mashari 4920 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Wadi Al-Yabis 50 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Al Qusayb 67 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Abu Habil 75 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Sulakhat 75 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Abu Sido 400 1 1 3 70 4 1 280

Krayma 2500 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Alfaqeer 1500 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

AlBalawneh 630 1 1 3 70 6 1 420

Khazma 287 1 1 3 70 2 1 140

Dhirar 700 1 1 3 70 7 1 490

Ar Ruwaha 650 1 1 3 70 6 1 420

Attouf 540 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Um Hammad 140 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Alkatar Alsamra 70 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Maadi 1500 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Al mahatah 50 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Der Alla 900 1 1 3 70 9 1 630

Abu Zeghan 450 1 1 3 70 4 1 280

Alarda 600 1 1 3 70 6 1 420

Damiya 75 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Dhahrit Al-Ramil 750 1 1 3 70 7 1 490

Al-Karamih 2000 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Saknat Alshuna 600 1 1 3 70 6 1 420

Al-shuna Aljanoubiyya 750 1 1 3 70 7 1 490

Aljawasreh 500 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Jawfat Alkafrein 3000 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

AlKafreen 500 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Alrama 4000 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Alnahda 500 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Sweima 200 1 1 3 70 2 1 140

142

Ghor Alhadeitha 500 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

Almazraa 5000 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Potash arab Housing 750 1 1 3 70 7 1 490

Ghor Alsafi 3500 1 1 3 70 10 1 700

Alnaqa 200 1 1 3 70 2 1 140

Feifa 200 1 1 3 70 2 1 140

Almamoura 150 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Qureqra 150 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Um Mathla 50 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Sawaliha 450 1 1 3 70 4 1 280

Unknown 50 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Al-Baqoura 100 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

North Shuna 70 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Murshid 60 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Al Mallaha Alshamaliyya 500 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

At Tiwal 50 1 1 3 70 1 1 70

Al Mallaha Aljanoubiyya 500 1 1 3 70 5 1 350

143

Appendix D: Agricultural Hazards

Table D-1: Agricultural Hazards Weight, Severity, Protection and Index Values

Area

Annual Irrigation Depth

Weight

Severity

Protection

Hazard Index

North JV 34 20 10 1 200

Middle JV 33 20 8 1 160

South JV 30 20 8 1 160

Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley

Documents

Transcript of Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley