Presented by Eng. Safa Mazahreh

NCARE

Advanced training course on digital soil mapping for the near east and north africa region (NENA)

6 Dec , 2015

Site selection and Water

harvesting suitability analysis

in Badia of Jordan

Community – Based Optimization of the

Management of Scarce Water Resources in

Agriculture in West Asia and

North Africa Badia Water Benchmark Site(Options for coping with increased water scarcity in

Agriculture in WANA)

Badia benchmark site in Jordan with satellite sites

in Saudi Arabia and Libya

Team:

Team Leader: Dr. Feras Ziazdat: UOJ

NCARE Team:

Eng. Safa Mazahreh

Eng. Lubna Al-Mahasneh

Eng. Doaa Abuhamoor

The study consists of three

components:

1- Site selection

2- Biophysical Characterization of

Muhareb watershed\

3- Suitability for water harvesting

The main activity :

•Develop methods for the identification of

potential sites and suitable techniques for water

harvesting using remote sensing, GIS and

ground data.

• The whole approach demonstrates how GIS can

be used at different scales, using whatever data are

available, to help select fields that are suitable for

implementing new land-use alternatives.

Site selection

Objective

The aim of the siteselection process is tochoose therepresentative site(watershed) for theBadia zone in Jordan tocarry out the project

activities and outscalethe results to othersimilar areas withinJordan and outside thecountry.

Badia Zone:

100-250

mm

226 watersheds

The site selection process has been

undertaken in three stages using

remote sensing, GIS and ground

data.

First stage

CommentsScore*

Criteria 151050

Rainfall Isohyets150-199200-250100-149<100 or

>250Rainfall

No. of Villages> TwoTwoOneNoneCommunity

Dominant SoilOthersCalcic

Lithic

and/or

Psamment

Lithic,

Calcic

Psamment

,

Soil Type

Watershed Area70-11030-70110-150< 30Area (km2)

Relative Relief< 50m50-100m100-200m>200mTopography

* If the score is zero, the watershed should be excluded.

Scoring of selection criteria

Rainfall Criterion

Rainfall

distribution

over the

watershedsAverage rainfall for

each watershed.

Watershed

scoring

according

to average

annual

rainfall.

Watershed scoring according to

community.Distribution of villages over the

watersheds

Soil AssociationDescriptionSoil Map

Unit

70% Xerochreptic

Calciorthid and

Camborthid

5% Calcixerollic

Xerochrept 5%

Lithic (Xerochreptic)

Camborthid

5% Lithic Xeric

Torriorthent

Gently undulating deposition

plains of Quaternary alluvium and

loess overlying Al Hisa

Phosphorite and Muwaqqar chalk

and Marl formations: weakly

incised by wadis: colluvial upper

slopes merge into alluvial lower

slopes: occasional depositional

(Qa') basins, and low rounded

rocky interfluves: gradients

<10%: altitude 750 to 950 m:

relative relief < 10m: steppe

grassland.

ABY11

An example of the soil mapping unit description

used to apply the soil scoring criteria.

Relationship between soil mapping

units boundaries and watershed

boundaries.

Watershed scoring according to soil type.

Watershed scoring according to area.

Relationship between soil mapping units boundaries

(scored according to relative relief) and watershed

boundaries.

Watershed scoring according to topography.

Final Scoring

Topogr

aphy

Scorin

g

Soil

Scorin

g

Comm

unity

Scorin

g

Rainfal

l

Scorin

g

Area

Scorin

g

Watersh

ed

Number

00150005

0515100106

0515150107

0515150108

0105101009

010151010010

01015010011

01015510012

60101515101013

01015015014

5510151510515

6015155101516

60101510151017

70101515151518

Scores appended to all watersheds for the five

selection criteria (example data).

Final scores range between zero and 70. Final scores for all watersheds

Final selection of potential watersheds (first stage).

The result was 26 watersheds out of 226

were selected that satisfied the five

criteria of the first stage

Excluded watersheds due to

sharing boundaries with

other countries.

Second Stage

More detailed criteria were applied on the selected

watersheds (26) resulted from the first stage and

consequently, proposing the most potential watershed

to carry out project activities.

Potential for

water harvesting4th (lowest score) 3rd 2nd 1st (highest score)

Soil Depth < 50 cm 50-100 cm 100-200 cm > 200 cm

Slope Steepness <1% or >10% 8 – 10 % 5 – 8 % 1 – 5 %

Community Upper and/or mid Lower and/or mid Upper & lower Upper, mid & lower

Rangeland-Based

system

Dominant Irrigated

agriculture

Lack of Native

vegetation and

Barley

Dominant Native

Vegetation and

Barley

Dominant Native

Vegetation

Land Use Field crop land Bare

Range-barley-

livestock based

system

Range-livestock-based

system

Area (km2) < 30 110 – 150 30 – 70 70 – 110

Accessibility &

visibility

Not connected to

roads

Connected only on

one part

One road passing

through watershed

Road network inside

and main road passing

through

Land tenure Government Private Private & Government

Basic dataNot available & no

previous studies

Not enough &

previous studies

Available &

previous studiesAvailable

Scoring of criteria for the second stage of the site selection.

•Most of the information

required for the criteria scoring

were extracted from the field

observations that were collected

and recorded from the

“National Soil Map and Land

Use Project” (NSMP), MOA.

• Within the 26 watersheds,

3047 observations were

recorded and utilized in the

analyses.

Source of Data

Example: Distribution of field

observations within a watershed.

Average soil depth and soil depth scoring for different watersheds.

Soil DepthAverage SoilWatershedSoil DepthAverage SoilWatershed

ScoringDepth (cm)ScoringDepth (cm)

358.516443.2173

359.328444.1103

361.417444.3174

362.236445.062

365.6108447.058

366.818448.213

366.930448.379

367.359350.3199

368.9122350.654

371.9123353.019

379.4128354.851

380.6125355.629

388.531358.335

Watershed scoring according to soil depth.

Average slope steepness and scoring for different watersheds.

Slope Average SlopeWatershedSlope Average SlopeWatershed

ScoringSteepnessScoringSteepness

25.812211.831

26.02811.962

26.112312.351

26.31612.736

26.42912.830

26.41812.9125

26.51713.379

26.617414.1103

26.75814.435

27.41914.9128

38.71314.959

39.319925.354

410.617325.8108

Watershed scoring according to slope steepness

Distribution of villages with respect to watershed boundaries

Watershed scoring according to community distribution

An example illustrating the scoring of a watershed according to the criteria

rangeland-based system.

Watershed Number 13

Summary

Percentage

CountClassificationVegetation type

PercentClass1710NativeGrasses

73Native 127NativeYenton

8Barley106NativeThistle

18Irrigated85NativeAdo

85BarleyBarley

1Score85NativeKhurfaish

74IrrigatedOlives

53NativeShia

32NativeGaisum

32NativeSerra

32NativeSheih

21IrrigatedBarseem

21IrrigatedCabbage

21IrrigatedCauliflow.

21IrrigatedClover

21IrrigatedFlowers

21NativeJarger

21NativeKheiss

21IrrigatedMaize

21IrrigatedPeach

Watershed scoring according to rangeland system criteria.

Land use classes recorded for each field observation.

ClassificationLand Use TypeClassificationLand Use Type

field cropMixed tree/annualsBarleyCereals

rangeNat.browse + grazingBarleyFallow

rangeNat.grazingRangeForage

barleyOther field cropsfield cropGreenhouse

rangePlanted forestfield cropHorticulture

barleyTilledRangeImprov.browse + grazin

field cropTree crops, orchardsRangeImprov.grazing,pasture

bareUnvegetated, bareRangeMix forest/grazing

bareUrbanrange and barleyMixed cropping

An example illustrating the scoring of a watershed according to land use.

Watershed Number 174

SummaryPercentCountClassificationLand Use Class

36%range22barleyCereals

62%barley2725barleyFallow

2%bare65rangeNat.browse + grazing

0field crop3027rangeNat.grazing

3330barleyTilled

2score22bareUnvegetated, bare

Watershed scoring according to land use.

Scoring according to watershed area

Distribution of roads within some watersheds and relevant scoring.

Watershed scoring according to accessibility and visibility.

ScorePercent GovernmentPercent PrivateDLS_Village

201002609

201002618

210905129

201002606

201005133

201005139

201002402

201005136

201005130

28922506

201002612

25955124

213872611

214865112

201005104

28925126

21995119

223775113

201005120

21992202

201005101

29915123

201002402

Scoring of the DLS based on the dominant type of ownership.

Example of the relationship between DLS villages classified

according to land tenure and watershed boundaries.

Watershed scoring according to land tenure.

Final scores for the second stage selection.

Final*LandLanduse RangelandWatershedAccessibilityCommunity SlopeSoilWatershed

ScoresTenure System Area & Visibility SteepnessDepth Number

122111112319

122211111336

1212211113128

1312121123108

142221112328

142213111330

142212121335

142113121351

142411111359

152111142318

152412111331

152111141479

1522221123123

1522121133199

162212113413

162212132317

162421112354

162222112458

162421111462

1622111414103

172211242316

172121332329

* Low scores indicate higher

potential for water harvesting.

Distribution of watersheds with different

final scores (second stage).

The result:

9 watersheds out of 26

(scoring12, 13, 14) were

selected which satisfied

the criteria of the 2nd

stage

Inter-disciplinary discussion

• The final results were exposed for discussion. Experts, from various

relevant disciplines, contributed and enriched the decision for the

final selection of the potential watersheds especially those who have

long experience in the Badia.

•The decision was to select the 9 watersheds based on the discussion

and to expose these watersheds for field visits.

•A multi-disciplinary team, including land use planning specialists,

agronomists, water harvesting specialists, rangeland specialists,

hydrologists and socio-economists, were involved in these visits.

•The main aims of these visits were: first, to verify the selection

process, since all activities were undertaken using maps within GIS

environment, and secondly, to record any relevant features that were

not considered in the selection process.

Field visits and outcomes

A detailed map were prepared for each of the nine

watersheds and distributed for the whole team

Example of maps prepared for field visits (Watershed Number 59).

a form was prepared and distributed for each member of the team.

The aim of filling this form is to organize the collection of relevant information in

structured way according to different disciplines, which facilitate the utilization of this

information.

Furthermore, the team members were asked to synthesis a final decision based on

group discussion in the field. This is because the integration between different

disciplines is an important part of the selection process.

Evaluation form used during field visits.

Watershed No.

Evaluator

Discipline / Specialty

Advantages of the watershed

Disadvantages

Include for further investigations OR

Exclude

Group decision

(choose one option)

Any other comments

Revision the scoring with respect to the community criterion

and come up with additional watersheds to be added for the

existing 9 watersheds. The final score for the first stage was

recalculated to exclude the community score.

Watersheds that still have high scores and were excluded from

the first stage because of the community were highlighted. This

presents the scoring without taking into account the community

criterion.

The following watersheds were added because the scores

without the community were high and there were a fair

distribution of communities close to these watersheds: 104, 118,

119, 126 and 127.

Watersheds selected after revising the community criterion.

The total number of the watersheds that were evaluated during the field

visits was 14 watersheds.

This table presents the watersheds (8)that were eliminated from further

discussions due to the respective obvious limitation. These judgments

were reached by revising the notes taken in the field by each expert

Limitation(s)Watershed Number

- closed area, not allowed for public.19

- Intensive irrigation.

- Very limited community.

- Dominated by flat topography.

36

- Very steep and stony watershed.

- Industrial and urban activities.

28

- Intensive industrial zone.35

- Intensive irrigation activities.51

- Intensive irrigation activities.126

- Dominated by flat topography.

- Very limited community.

127

- Intensive irrigation activities.118

Excluded watersheds according to an obvious limitation.

The remaining watersheds (6) were scaled according to their

fitness to certain criteria that were evaluated in the field. The

team worked together during the meeting to agree upon a scale

for each watershed .

The aim of this scaling is to summarize all what have been

seen and discussed in the field into rational items which is

relevant to the project. These items fall under three major

headings; bio-physical factors, water harvesting related and

socio-economical aspects.

Scale was from 1 (worst) to 3 (best).

Urbanization was scaled in negative figures, because as the

increase in urbanization represent a negative impact on the

project activities.

Scaling methodology.

Watershed Number

1191041085930+31128Criteria

332221

Production System (dominance of rangeland

system)

013333

Community (the size and distribution of the

communities)

-10-3-2-2-3

Urbanization (the intensity and distribution of

urbanization centres)

??????

Institutions (existence of institution or the

previous impact of development project.

??????Development Projects

333221

Scaling Out (to what extent the activities

undertaken within the watershed could be

extended outside the watershed

232221

Competitiveness( existing activities (e.g. industry

and/or irrigation) within the watershed that might

compete with water harvesting

7107773Total Scaling

Scaling of the potential watersheds.

Results

Watershed 128was excluded because of low

score.

5 watersheds were forwarded as an input for

further detailed evaluation in the third stage of

the selection process.

Third stage

Selection of the final watershed(s)

The third stage of site selection process included detailed

investigation of three main issues:

Socio-economy through RRA.

Hydrological assessment.

Environmental impact assessment.

226 watersheds

•Mhareb watershed was chosen

out of 226 watersheds to

represent the Badia zone in

Jordan to carry out the project

activities and outscale the

results to other similar areas

within Jordan and outside the

country.

Result of site selection

•Mahreb watershed is located in the north

middle parts of Jordan and occupies

around 60 Km2.

•The watershed lies within the xeric-aridic

transitional moisture regime.

•precipitation range is: from 100 to 150mm.

• lies within the grassland steppe vegetation

zone.

•Barley is grown in the valley bottom

alluvium where the moisture from the

limited rainfall is augmented by run-off

from the hillslopes.

•Dominant species are Anabasis and Poa .

•Frequent grazing keeps vegetation growth

close to the soil surface.

General information

Why ?

The purpose of the watershed characterization is to

select suitable areas for various water harvesting

interventions.

When planning such systems, appropriate data must be

available on the climate, soil, crops, topography, and

socioeconomics of the project area.

Biophysical Characterization

of Mhareb watershed

The main output:

provide a suitability map that indicates the

distribution of areas suitable for various

water harvesting techniques within the

watershed from a biophysical point of view.

Steps required to characterize Mahreb watershed.

1- Watershed sub-division

2- Data collection from existing, derived and

collected from the field.

3- Processing of cadastral maps

4- Data processing and suitability maps

5- Overlay cadastral maps and generate final

maps

Methodology:

Data Collection :The data were delivered from

various sources and various formats

Available Data

Derived data

Data collected in the field

Data from the Royal Jordanian Geographic Center

(RJGC)

AVIALABLE DATA

Digital Elevation Model

(DEM) (20 meter interval)

Contour map

elevation dataStreamlines map

Note :scale 1:50000

Cadastral map for Mhareb watershed

•Map sheets were joined together to generate one layer for the watershed.

•Using the DLS-Key as a common field, each land parcel was linked with its

owner name.

Data from the Department of Land and Surveying (DLS)

Cadastral Maps:

Cadastral data will be used for many purposes:

The area of each parcel was used to identifysuitable land for water harvesting as criteria forthe selections.

to identify the owner(s) of the land for thosesuitable land for each water harvestingintervention.

To provide the socio-economic team with thisinformation to approach the relevant owner(s) tostart the negotiation about the implementationstage.

Data derived from topographic information

Derived data

watershed was subdivided

into sub-watersheds visually

using contour lines and

stream lines

The purpose of this subdivision is :

to facilitate the selection of suitable watersheds within the whole watershed to undertake special water harvesting interventions, such as small dams and Hafair.

to be used extensively in the hydrological analysis for each watershed.

Slope map was derived from

the DEM. The slope units

were used as the basic units

to derive suitability map.

slope steepness is one of the most important criteria for the

selection and implementation of water harvesting interventions.

main limitation: detailed information about the

soil in the investigated area is absent.

The alternative was the collection of field

observations where only relevant soil and site

properties were recorded.

Data collected in the field

Sampling procedure

A grid of uniform sampling (500m) was used. One field

observation was taken for each grid.

Sampling procedure

Distribution of field observations sampled for

Muhareb watershed using GPS

the total number of observations was 160 observations

including the few observations available from the Ministry

of Agriculture survey, 1994

The field survey was basically designed to

provide information about the physical factors

in the watershed required to carry out the

suitability analysis for water harvesting

interventions.

The following parameters were recorded for each

field observation:

Slope steepness % :

Stoniness percentage: If the land is covered by

stone, gravels or boulders .

Vegetation type: Natural vegetation or

cultivated

Vegetation cover percent: Estimate the density of

coverage: poor, medium or dense

Texture of the surface horizon.

Limiting depth (cm): Depth to limiting feature;

rock, stones, etc. .

GPS coordinates: Easting, Northing and elevation

Limiting

Soil depth

cm

Stoniness

&garvels

%

Slop

e

%

Texture*V.

Cover

%

Vegetation Cover

(Dominant. Sp)

Elevatio

n

(GPS)

m

Coordination

(GPS)

Site Number,

Randomly

characterize

dNorthing

JTM

Easting/

JTM

29407g. Silty Loam10Anabasis syriaca79951410042532512

45206Silty Clay Loam30Rang Area78551426142378813

48359Silty Clay LoamPlowedBarley78351376142420514

44407Silty Clay30Anabasis syriaca80451439142324815

58353g. Silty Loam10Rang, Cultivated81551561542122516

423010Silty Clay Loam-Cultivated area82951524642082517

63202Silty Loam-Cultivated area82451467242033918

55203g. Silty Loam40Anabasis syriaca83551667141979819

45155g. Silty Clay

Loam

-Top of the

catchments

85551686641871020

5052Silty Loam20Cultivated, Rang 84951575341924321

38255Silty Clay Loam-Cultivated, Barley88250614242633022

40205Silty Loam-Rang Area87750543242581123

55257Silty Clay Loam-Cultivated, Barley87650782442489724

53158Silty Loam-Anabasis88750743442439025

28209Silty Loam40Anabasis, Poa84950570342573326

45156Silty Clay LoamRang, Cultivated78551083942238127

381010Silty Loam30Rang Area79851038642322628

Table 1: physical characterization recorded for field observations

SUITABILITY ANALYSIS FOR WATER

HARVESTING INTERVENTIONS of Muhareb

CATCHMENT

Methodology: cont..

The purpose of undertaking suitability analysis is

to provide information about the distribution of

areas that are suitable for each water harvesting

technique.

How suitable an area is for water harvesting

depends on whether the area meets the basic

technical requirements of the water-harvesting

system in question.

Steps of suitability analysis:

1- determine the physical requirements (guidelines)

for each water harvesting intervention using

published sources (Water Harvesting: Indigenous

Knowledge for the Future of the Drier

Environments)*.

The set of guidelines for selecting water-harvesting

techniques in the drier environments was reviewed and

modified according to the actual conditions of the Badia in

the region.

REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER HARVESTING:

using published sources (Water Harvesting: Indigenous Knowledge for the

Future of the Drier Environments, By Theib Oweis, Dieter Prinz and Ahmed

Hachum. Published by ICARDA)

2- characterization of each land unit in terms of its physical

conditions.

•slope units were the

base for the

characterization.

•The data recorded

at each field

observation was

used to

characterize each

slope unit.

The observations were used to run an interpolation (Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) using spatial analyst - GIS

Interpolated soil depth using field

observations and IDW method.Interpolated stone percent on the

surface using IDW method.

• Interpolation has been applied on soil depth and stone percent

associated with the observations. The classes in the figures represent the

reclassified values of each attribute according to WH criteria.

• LAYERS OVERLAY AND SUITABILITY ANALYSISThe interpolated grids were intersected with each others and with the slope unit map

(using the INTERSECT command)

Figure 11: classes indicating the various combinations

of land variables within slope units.

•The result of

intersection was a

physical characterization

of each slope unit.

•For each slope unit the

value of each variable

was defined accordingly.

Therefore, slope unit

might be divided into

more than one unit based

on the variation of the

other variables.

3- Matching the requirements for water harvesting interventions

with the land condition to identify areas suitable for that water

harvesting intervention.

Output: suitability map that indicates possible water harvesting option(s)

suitable for each mapping

water harvesting interventions/crop types/priority)

CROP INDEX:

r = range

f = field

t = tree

all = all crops

Priority

P1: Priority one: the best conditions

P2: Priority two: possible conditions

Water harvesting Techniques Index

WH techniqueIndividual

suitability

Group

suitability

Contour ridgesCRA

Semi circular bundSCBB

Small basins SBC

Runoff stripsRSD

Inter row system IRSE

Contour bench terracesCBTF

GradoniGG

Meskat trapezoidal bunds (cultivated area) MTBH

Meskat catchment area MCAI

Water spreadingW WSJ

JessourJK

Water spreading (diversion)Di DivL

Large bundsLBM

Hillside runoff systems (cultivated)HRCTN

Catchment ( hillside catchment )HcatO

Tanks & Hafirs THP

cisternsCSQ

Table 3:INDEX FOR WATER HARVESTING TECHNIQUES

UTILITY OF THE SUITABILITY RESULTS

Farm size as selection criterion

Suitability map overlaid with classified farming

units (according to the size of the land parcel).

Note: many options (especially those demanding

large farm size, Macro-Catchments systems) could

be dropped from the list.

cadastral map for Mhareb watershed.

Source: Department of Land and

Surveying (DLS)

SUITABILITY AND LAND OWNERS

This information is important to the socio-economic team to identify and

approach the owner(s) of each land where certain WH intervention is

suggested.

Suitability map overlaid with cadastral maps and

linked with owner’s information.

SUITABILITY AND WATERSHED SUBDIVISION

It is important to link thesuitability analysis withthe results of hydrologicalanalysis (small dams,water storage)

Outputs:

1. Improvement of skills and qualifications of the nationalteam in the application of the methodology of siteselection and watershed characterization -using GIS.

2. Methodology has been developed for the identification ofpotential sites and suitable techniques for waterharvesting using remote sensing, GIS and ground data.

3. Establishment of database for the project in the Badiaregion.

A GIS-based Approach for Assessing Water Harvesting Suitability in a

Badia Benchmark Watershed in Jordan. Feras M. Ziadat1, Safa S.

Mazahreh2, Theib Y. Oweis3, Adriana Bruggeman.

Selection and characterization of Badia Watershed Research Sites. Water

Benchmarks of CWANA PROJECT. ICARDA.F. Ziadat, T. Oeis, S.

Mazahreh, A. Bruggeman, N. Haddad, E. Karablieh, B. Benli, M. Abu Zanat,

J. Al Bakri, and A. Ali, 2006.

Publications:

Production of training manual:

Training Manual Application of GIS and land suitability analysis to

identify the potential for rainwater harvesting in the arid region of Jordan (Al-Badia)

An integrated biophysical and socio-economic approach

Safa Mazahreh, Lubna Al Mahasneh, Feras Ziadat

Thank you for attention