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: samer_talozi@yahoo.com)
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: hani@hijazi.cc)
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 (km
2
) 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 (km
2
) 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
27
6 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna and
28
7 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified
29
8 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Middle Ghor and classified
30
9 Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified
31
10 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Khaled Ben Al Waleed and
34
11 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal and classified
35
12 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified
36
13 Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and
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
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
43
18 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified
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
46
21 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Mid Ghor and classified
47
22 Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified
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 ‫الوليد‬ ‫بن‬ ‫خالد‬ Malka ‫ملكا‬
2 Muath ben Jabal ‫جبل‬ ‫بن‬ ‫معاذ‬ North Shouneh ‫الشمالية‬ ‫الشونة‬
3 Tabaqet Fahel ‫فحل‬ ‫طبقة‬ Tabaqet Fahel ‫فحل‬ ‫طبقة‬
4 Sharhabeel Ben Hasna ‫حسنة‬ ‫بن‬ ‫شرحبيل‬ Kraymeh ‫كريمة‬
5 Deir Alla ‫عال‬ ‫دير‬ Deir Alla ‫عال‬ ‫دير‬
6 Middle Ghor ‫الوسطى‬ ‫األغوار‬ South Shouneh ‫الجنوبية‬ ‫الشونة‬
7 South Ghor ‫الجنوبية‬ ‫األغوار‬ 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.

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 GroundwaterWeight
Value
1Infrastructural development
1.1Waste Water
1.1.1Leaking sewer pipes and sewer systems66
1.1.2Urbanization without sewer systems06
1.1.3detached houses without sewer systems55
1.1.4septic tank, cesspool, latrine35
1.1.5Over-flow (spills) of sewage to drainage system in extreme rain events40
1.1.6Over-flow (spills) of treated effluents from Waste Water Treatment
Plant
25
1.1.7Leisure facilities without sewer system (hotel, camping…)40
1.1.8Others (any hazard of Waste Water)
1.1Solid Waste dump sites (with possible leaks of leaches to GW)
1.2.1Garbage dump, rubbish bin, litter bin (with possible Leaks)30
1.2.2Waste loading station and scrap yard46
1.2.3Sanitary landfill66
1.2.4spoils and building rubble depository35
1.2.5Depository hazardous waste (e.g. Pharmacological Waste)80
1.2.6Deposit of dead animals40
1.2.7Others (any hazards of waste)
1.1Fuels
1.3.1storage tank, above ground56
1.3.2storage tank, underground55
1.3.3Gasoline station76
1.3.4Others (any hazard of fuel)
1.1Transport And Traffic
1.4.1Road, unsecured30
1.4.2Road tunnel, unsecured parking lot36
1.5Others
1.5.1Cemetery40
1.5.2Golf course35
1.5.3Military installations and dereliction70
1Industrial Activities
1.1Mining (in operation and abandoned) ׂ
2.1.1Outdoor stock piles of NON hazardous raw material20
2.1.2Outdoor stock piles or depository of hazardous raw material (e.g:
Radioactive residues martial)
80
2.1.3Sand quarry25 - 40*
2.1.4Gravel quarry (pits) in river beds40 - 60*
2.1.5.1Limestone or Dolomite quarry (Wight as function of Karst features and
fractures intensity + '*')
46-60*
2.1.5.2Quarry in Hard insoluble rocks (Chalks, Metamorphic or Igneous Rocks ;
Wight as function of fissures and fractures intensity and density)
20 - 45*
2.1.5.3Salt, marls, clays, or gypsum Mines (open sallow mines)20 - 40*
2.1.6Salt or gypsum Mines (deep underground mines);50-60*
2.1.7Metals, Coals and Mines (deep underground mines);50-75*
2.1.8Oil, Gas and Tar-sand Drillings80

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
1.1Industrial plants (non mining)Ico
n
2.2.1Iron and steel works56
2.2.2Electroplating works80
2.2.3Oil refinery75
2.2.4Rubber and tire industry46
2.2.5Paper and pulp manufacture46
2.2.6Leather tannery76
2.2.7Food industry (need further refining since olive oil press is not similar to soft
drinks factory
30-
70
2.2.8Arm Industry80
2.2.2Others (any hazards of industrial activity)
3Livestock and Agriculture
3.1LivestockIco
n
3.1.1Animal barn (cows shed, cote, sty)56
3.1.2Manure heap55
3.1.3Slurry storage tank or pool65
3.1.4Area of intensive pasturing25-
30
3.1.5Chicken Coop35
3.1.6Fish farm (in fresh water pools)40
3.1.7Saline water Fish farm55
3.1.8Others (any hazard of livestock activity)
3.2Veg. Agriculture
3.2.1Open silage (cultivated fields)/ depends on type and level of usage with
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
20-
40
3.2.2Stockpiles of fertilizers and pesticides55
3.2.3Greenhouse40
3.2.4Irrigation with Waste water or effluents at low treatment levels66
3.2.5Irrigation with effluents at - 1-2nd level treatment (20/30)45
3.2.6Irrigation with treated waste water at 3nd level treatment (10/10)30
3.2.7Irrigation with effluents stream rehabilitation standards (< 5/5)20
3.2.8Others (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

26
Map 4: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal and classified

27
Map 5: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified

28
Map 6: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Bin Hasna and

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

31
Map 9: Industrial hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified

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

35
Map 11: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Muath Ben Jabal and classified

36
Map 12: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified

37
Map 13: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and classified

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

40
Map 16: Urban hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified according

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

44
Map 18: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Tabaqet Fahel and classified

45
Map 19: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Sharhabeel Ben Hasna and

46
Map 20: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Deir Alla and classified

47
Map 21: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of Mid Ghor and classified

48
Map 22: Agricultural hazards identified in the municipality of South Ghor and classified

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.

130
Appendix A
Hazard Mapping Forms

131
FORM 1: Industrial Facilities
(‫الصناعية‬ ‫)المؤسسات‬ ‫نموذج‬3:
Name of Facility
‫المؤسسة‬ ‫إسم‬
Municipality Name
‫البلدية‬ ‫إسم‬
Longitude - X
‫الطول‬ ‫خط‬
Latitude – Y
‫العرض‬ ‫خط‬
Altitude – Z
‫اإلرتفاع‬
Solid Waste
‫الصلبة‬ ‫النفايات‬
Liquid Waste
‫السائلة‬ ‫النفايات‬
Description
‫الوصف‬
Quantity
‫الكمية‬
‫طن/سنة‬
Treatment
‫أو‬ ‫تعالج‬ ‫هل‬
‫تنقل‬
Description
‫الوصف‬
Quantity
‫الكمية‬
‫طن/سنة‬
Treatment
‫أو‬ ‫تعالج‬ ‫هل‬
‫تنقل‬

132
FORM 2: Urban Areas
‫نموذج‬2‫السكنية‬ ‫المناطق‬ :
Name of Area
‫المنطقة/التجمع‬ ‫إسم‬
‫السكني/القرية/الحي‬
Municipality
Name
Table 1.
Cesspit type
‫اإلمتصاصية‬ ‫الحفرة‬ ‫نوع‬
Number of
House Units
‫المنازل‬ ‫عدد‬
How many times/year is the
cesspit pumped out?
‫بالسنة؟‬ ‫اإلمتصاصية‬ ‫الحفر‬ ‫نضح‬ ‫معدل‬ ‫ما‬
Point Number
‫النقطة‬ ‫رقم‬
Longitude - X
‫خط‬‫الطول‬
Latitude – Y
Altitude – Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

133
FORM 3: AGRICULTURE UNITS
‫نموذج‬1‫الزراعية‬ ‫الوحدات‬ :
Farm Unit Number
‫الزراعية‬ ‫الوحدة‬ ‫رقم‬
Area of the Farm Unit
‫الوحدة‬ ‫مساحة‬‫بالدونم‬ ‫الزراعية‬
Municipality Name
Longitude - X
‫الطول‬ ‫خط‬
Latitude – Y
Altitude – Z
Plants (‫)المزروعات‬ Fertilizers (‫)األسمدة‬ Pesticides (‫)المبيدات‬
Species
‫الصنف‬
Area
)Donums)
‫المساحة‬
‫من‬ ‫المزروعة‬
‫بالدونم‬ ‫الصنف‬
Type/Name
‫النوع‬ ‫أو‬ ‫اإلسم‬
Quantity
(ton/donum)
‫المستخدمة‬ ‫الكمية‬
)‫دونم‬ / ‫)طن‬
Type/Na
me
‫أو‬ ‫اإلسم‬
‫النوع‬
Quantity
(liter/donu
m)
‫الكمية‬
‫المستخدمة‬
)‫دونم‬ /‫لتر‬ )

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
Waleed Car service
shop 1 3 4 50 5 1 250
Khaled Ben
Waleed Car service
shop 1 3 4 50 5 1 250
Khaled Ben
Waleed Car service
shop 1 3 4 50 5 1 250

136
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
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 1.0 250
Muath Bin
Jabal
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 1.0 250
Muath Bin
Jabal
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 1.5 167
Muath Bin
Jabal
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 1.5 167
Muath Bin
Jabal
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 2.0 88
Muath Bin
Jabal
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 2.0 88
Muath Bin
Jabal
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.5 117
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
Gasoline
Station 1 3 3 70 5 1.0 350
Muath Bin
Jabal
Gasoline
Station 1 3 3 70 5 1.0 350

137
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
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.5 117
Tabaqet
Fahel
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.5 117
Tabaqet
Fahel
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.5 117
Tabaqet
Fahel
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.5 117
Tabaqet
Fahel
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 2.0 125
Tabaqet
Fahel
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 2.0 125
Tabaqet
Fahel
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 50 5 2.0 125
Tabaqet
Fahel
Gasoline
Station 1 3 3 70 5 1.0 350
Tabaqet
Fahel
Gasoline
Station 1 3 3 70 5 1.0 350
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
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 40 5 2.0 100
Sharhabeel
Bin Hasna
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 40 5 2.0 100
Sharhabeel
Bin Hasna
Automotive
Service
Shop 1 3 4 40 5 2.0 100
Sharhabeel
Bin Hasna
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.0 175
Sharhabeel
Bin Hasna
Tiles and
Marble
Plant 2 2 9 35 5 1.0 175
Sharhabeel
Bin Hasna
Gasoline
Station 1 3 3 70 5 1.0 350

138
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
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
Deir Alla
Automotive
Service Shop 1 3 4 50 5.0 2.0 125
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
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100

139
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
Deir Alla
Chicken
Shop 3 1 8 30 5.0 1.5 100
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

Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley

Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley

Ähnlich wie Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley (9)

Vulnerability of Groundwater Aquifers in the Jordan Valley