GIZA NORTH POWER PLANT

GIZA NORTH POWER PLANT Ground Water and Agriculture Monitoring Report April 2013 1 Table of Contents Pag Executive Summary (Arabic) 3 Executive Summary (English) 9 1 Part1: Groundwater Related Issues- Data Analysis and Groundwater Modeling 14 2 Part 2 Land use/change of Giza North Station 69 3 Part 3 Monitoring of the water quality of irrigation wells and Air Quality of the North Giza Plant and surrounding farms 83 4 Part 4 Decrees related to compensation fees for farmers to cover damages by public works 99 5 Part 5 Field Visit Report of Officials to explore the Farms surrounding North Giza Plant 101 2 ‫اﻟﻣﻠﺧص اﻟﺗﻧﻔﻳذي‬ ‫اﻟﻌرﺑﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺟزء اﻷوﻝ؛ ﺗﻘﻳﻳم ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻧظﺎم اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻵﺑﺎر اﻟﻣﺣﻳطﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ‬ ‫أوﻻً‪ :‬اﻟﺧﺻﺎﺋص اﻟﻬﻳدروﺟﻳوﻟوﺟﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺧزان اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ‬ ‫‪ .١‬ﻳوﺟد طﺑﻘﺗﻳن ﺣﺎﻣﻠﺗﻳن ﻟﻠﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﻣﺷروع‪ .‬اﻟطﺑﻘﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ وﻫﻲ طﺑﻘﺔ ﺳطﺣﻳﺔ ذات‬ ‫إﻣﻛﺎﻧﺎت ﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻣﺣدودة وﻏﻳر ﻣﺳﺗﻐﻠﺔ ﻣن ﻗﺑﻝ اﻷﻫﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ أﻏراض اﻟري اﻟداﺋم‪ .‬أﻣﺎ اﻟطﺑﻘﺔ اﻟﺛﺎﻧﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﺑﻣﺛﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻣﺻدر اﻟرﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ اﻟﻣﺳﺗﺧدﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟري وذﻟك ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺑﻌد ﻣﺳﺎﻓﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻘدر ﺑﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٥٠٠-٤٠٠‬ﻣﺗر ﻋن اﻟرﻳﺎح اﻟﺑﺣﻳري ﻓﻲ ﺟﻬﺔ اﻟﻐرب وﻓرع رﺷﻳد ﻓﻲ ﺟﻬﺔ اﻟﺷرق‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .٢‬ﻳﺗراوح ﻋﻣق ﺳطﺢ اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺧزان اﻟﻌﻣﻳق ﺑﻳن أﻗﻝ ﻣن ‪ ٤‬أﻣﺗﺎر ﺑﺎﻟﻘرب ﻣن ﻧﻬر اﻟﻧﻳﻝ‬ ‫وﻳزﻳد اﻟﻌﻣق ﻛﻠﻣﺎ اﺑﺗﻌدﻧﺎ ﺟﻬﺔ اﻟﻐرب ﻟﻳﺻﻝ إﻟﻰ أﻛﺛر ﻣن ‪ ١٠‬أﻣﺗﺎر‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .٣‬ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ اﻟﺳﺣب ﻣن اﻵﺑﺎر اﻹﻧﺗﺎﺟﻳﺔ واﻻﺗﺻﺎﻝ اﻟﻣﺑﺎﺷر ﺑﻳن اﻟﺧزان اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ وﻧﻬر اﻟﻧﻳﻝ )ﻣﺻدر‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻐذﻳﺔ اﻟرﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺧزان اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻣﻳق(‪ ،‬ﻟذا ﻳﺣدث ﺗذﺑذب ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﻌدﻝ ﻳﺻﻝ‬ ‫إﻟﻰ ﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٢‬ﻣﺗر ﻛﻣﺎ ورد ﻓﻲ اﻟدراﺳﺎت اﻟﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .٤‬ﺗم ﺣﺻر ‪ ١٤٦‬ﺑﺋر ﻋﻣﻳق ﻣﻣﻠوﻛﺔ ﻟﻸﻫﺎﻟﻲ وذﻟك ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟواﻗﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘرب ﻣن ﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﻣﺷروع‬ ‫ﺣﻳث ﻳﺗراوح ﻋﻣق اﻟﺑﺋر ﺑﻳن ‪ ٣٠‬و ‪ ١٢٠‬ﻣﺗر وﻳﺗم اﺳﺗﻐﻼﻝ اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻋن طرﻳق اﻟطﻠﻣﺑﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺳطﺣﻳﺔ واﻟﺗﻲ ﻳﺗﺄﺛر أداؤﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺗذﺑذب ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪ .٥‬أﺷﺎرت ﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺣﺻر إﻟﻰ أن ﺗﺻرف اﻟطﻠﻣﺑﺔ ﻳﺗراوح ﺑﻳن ‪ ٤٠‬و ‪ ١٤٠‬م ‪/‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ وﻳﺧﺗﻠف ﻋدد‬ ‫ﺳﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ اﻟﻳوﻣﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺑﺋر ﺣﺳب اﻻﺣﺗﻳﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻣﺎﺋﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻧﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺻوﻝ اﻟﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣدار‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺎم‪.‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻧﻳﺎً‪ :‬ﺗﻘﻳﻳم ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻧظﺎم اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻵﺑﺎر اﻟﻣﺣﻳطﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ‬ ‫‪ .٦‬ﺗم اﺳﺗﺧدام اﻟﻧﻣﺎذج اﻟرﻳﺎﺿﻳﺔ اﻟﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺗﻘﻳﻳم ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻧظﺎم اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .٧‬ﻗﺑﻝ ﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ آﺑﺎر اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﺗﺳﺑﺑت آﺑﺎر اﻷﻫﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺣدوث ﻫﺑوط ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﺻﻝ ﻣداﻩ اﻷﻗﺻﻰ إﻟﻰ ﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٥٠‬ﺳم وﺗﺣدث ﻫذﻩ اﻵﺑﺎر ﻫﺑوط ﻳﻘدر ﺑﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٢٨‬ﺳم ﺑﻣﻧطﻘﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻣﺷروع‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .٨‬أﺷﺎرت ﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻧﻣوذج اﻟرﻳﺎﺿﻲ إﻟﻰ أن ﻧظﺎم اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﻟﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻋﻠﻰ اﻧﺧﻔﺎض ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وﻣن ﺛم ﺗم اﻟﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻋﻠﻰ إﻧﺗﺎﺟﻳﺔ ﺑﻌض آﺑﺎر اﻷﻫﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ اﺳﺗﺧدام اﻟطﻠﻣﺑﺎت اﻟﺳطﺣﻳﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫‪3 ‬‬ ‫‪ .٩‬ﺗﻘدر اﻟﻘﻳﻣﺔ اﻟﻘﺻوى ﻟﻠﻬﺑوط ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﺑﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٩‬ﻣﺗر ﻋﻧد ﻣرﻛز ﺛﻘﻝ ﺣﻘﻝ آﺑﺎر‬ ‫اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ داﺧﻝ ﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﻣﺷروع وﻳﻘﻝ ﻣﻘدار اﻟﻬﺑوط ﺗدرﻳﺟﻳﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺷﻛﻝ ﺑﻳﺿﺎوي )‪ (Oval‬ﻛﻠﻣﺎ‬ ‫اﺑﺗﻌدﻧﺎ ﻋن ﺣﻘﻝ آﺑﺎر اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .١٠‬ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ اﻧﺧﻔﺎض ﻣﻌدﻻت اﻟﺳﺣب ﻣن آﺑﺎر اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﻓﻘد أدى ذﻟك إﻟﻰ اﻧﺧﻔﺎض ﻣﻘدار اﻟﻬﺑوط‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻋﻧد آﺑﺎر اﻷﻫﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .١١‬أﺷﺎرت ﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻧﻣوذج اﻟرﻳﺎﺿﻲ إﻟﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻋﻧد إﻳﻘﺎف ﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﺣﻘﻝ آﺑﺎر اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﺳرﻋﺎن ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌود‬ ‫ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟوﺿﻊ اﻻﺑﺗداﺋﻲ ﻗﺑﻝ اﻟﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﻣﻊ وﺟود ﻫﺑوط ﺷﺑﻪ داﺋم ﻳﻘدر ﺑﺄﻗﻝ ﻣن‬ ‫‪ ٥‬ﺳم ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ اﺳﺗﻧزاف اﻟﻣﺧزون اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺗرة ﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﻧظﺎم اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .١٢‬ﺗﻘدر اﻟﻔﺗرة اﻟزﻣﻧﻳﺔ ﻻﺳﺗﻌﺎﺿﺔ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﺑﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٢٠-١٠‬ﻳوم ﺑﻌد إﻳﻘﺎف اﻟﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ‬ ‫وﺗﺳﺗﻣر اﻻﺳﺗﻌﺎﺿﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟزﻣن ﺣﺳب اﻟﺗذﺑذب ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب ﻣﻳﺎﻩ ﻧﻬر اﻟﻧﻳﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻓرع رﺷﻳد واﻟرﻳﺎح‬ ‫اﻟﺑﺣﻳري وﻛذﻟك ﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﻵﺑﺎر اﻷﻫﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .١٣‬ﻳﻌﺗﺑر اﻧﺧﻔﺎض ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻧظﺎم اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ ظﺎﻫرة ﻣؤﻗﺗﺔ وﻣرﺗﺑطﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻷﻋﻣﺎﻝ اﻹﻧﺷﺎﺋﻳﺔ اﻟﻣطﻠوﺑﺔ ﻻﺳﺗﻛﻣﺎﻝ ﻣﺣطﺔ ﻛﻬرﺑﺎء ﺷﻣﺎﻝ اﻟﺟﻳزة أﺣد اﻟﻣﺷروﻋﺎت اﻟﻘوﻣﻳﺔ اﻟﻌﻣﻼﻗﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗؤﺗﻲ ﺑﺛﻣﺎرﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺷﻌب اﻟﻣﺻري ﺑﺄﻛﻣﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻫذا وﺳوف ﻳزوﻝ اﻟﺿرر ﺑﻌد ﺗوﻗف ﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ آﺑﺎر‬ ‫اﻟﻧزح اﻟﺟوﻓﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫‪ .١٤‬ﻟﺗﺄﻛﻳد اﻟﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻳوﺻﻰ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﻣرار ﻣراﻗﺑﺔ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﻳب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ وﺗﺣﻠﻳﻝ اﻟﺑﻳﺎﻧﺎت ﻻﺗﺧﺎذ‬ ‫اﻹﺟراءات اﻟﻣﻼﺋﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺣدوث اﺧﺗﻼف ﺑﻳن ﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻧﻣوذج اﻟرﻳﺎﺿﻲ واﻟﺑﻳﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻣﻘﺎﺳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺟزء اﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘــﻊ ﻣﺣطــﺔ ﺷــﻣﺎﻝ اﻟﺟﻳـزة ﻟﻠطﺎﻗــﺔ اﻟﻛﻬرﺑﺎﺋﻳــﺔ ﻋﻠــﻰ ﻣﺳــﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ٧٣‬ﻓــدان ﻣــﺎﺑﻳن ﺧــط ﻋــرض ‪٠٩ ،٣٠ ١٤ ٣٥‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٠ ١٥‬ﺷﻣﺎﻝ وﺧط طوﻝ ‪ ٣٠ ٥٦ ٥٩ ، ٣٠ ٥٦ ٣٩‬ﺷرق‪ .‬وذﻟك ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺟﺎﻧب اﻟﺷـرﻗﻲ ﻟﻠرﻳـﺎح اﻟﺑﺣـري‬ ‫اﻟﻧﺎﺑﻊ ﻣن ﻓرع رﺷﻳد ﻣن ﻧﻬر اﻟﻧﻳﻝ ﻓﻲ اﻗﺻﻰ ﺷﻣﺎﻝ ﻣﻧﺷﺄة اﻟﻘﻧـﺎطر داﺧـﻝ ﻛـردون ﻣﺣﺎﻓظـﺔ اﻟﺟﻳـزة‪ .‬وﻫـﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻣﻧطﻘــﺔ ﺗــم ﺗﻧﻣﻳﺗﻬــﺎ ﻟﻠز ارﻋــﺔ ﺑﻌــد اﻧﺷــﺎء اﻟرﻳــﺎح اﻟﻧﺎﺻــري )ﻣﻧطﻘــﺔ اﻟﻘطــﺎ( وﻫــﻲ اﻻﻣﺗــداد اﻟﺷـرﻗﻲ ﻟــدﻟﺗﺎ ﻧﻬــر‬ ‫اﻟﻧﻳﻝ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﺑدراﺳﺔ اﻟﺻور اﻟﺟوﻳﺔ ﻟﺗﻠك اﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ اﻟﻔﺗرة ﻣن ‪ ٢٠٠٣‬ﺣﺗﻰ ‪ ٢٠١٠‬اﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳوﺟد أي ﺗﻐﻳر ﻓـﻲ‬ ‫اﺳﺗﺧداﻣﺎت اﻻراﺿﻲ وﻟﻛن ﺧﻼﻝ اﻟﻔﺗرة ﻣن ﻣـﺎرس ‪ ٢٠١١‬إﻟـﻰ ﻳوﻟﻳـو ‪ ٢٠١١‬ﻟـوﺣظ ﺗواﺟـد ﺗﻐﻳـر ﻓـﻲ‬ ‫اﺳﺗﺧدام ﻣﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٧٠‬ﻓدان وﻫﻲ ﻣوﻗﻊ ﻣﺣطﺔ ﺗوﻟﻳد اﻟﻛﻬرﺑﺎء ﺷﻣﺎﻝ اﻟﺟﻳزة‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﻫﻧــﺎك اﺧــﺗﻼف ﻓــﻲ ﻣﻧﺳــوب اﻻ ارﺿــﻲ ﻓــﻲ ﺗﻠــك اﻟﻣﻧطﻘــﺔ ﻣــﺎ ﺑــﻳن ‪ ١٦ +‬إﻟــﻰ ‪ ١٩ +‬ﻣﺗــر ﻓــوق ﺳــطﺢ‬ ‫اﻟﺑﺣــر وﻫــذا ﻳــؤدي اﻟــﻰ زﻳــﺎدة ﺗﺳــرب اﻟﻣﻳــﺎة ﻣــن اﻟﻣﻧــﺎطق اﻟﻣرﺗﻔﻌــﺔ إﻟــﻰ اﻟﻣﻧــﺎطق اﻟﻣﻧﺧﻔﺿــﺔ‪ .‬وزﻳــﺎدة‬ ‫‪4 ‬‬ ‫اﺣﺗﻣﺎﻝ ﺗﺳرب ذات اﻟﻣﻠوﺣﺔ اﻟﻣرﺗﻔﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﻣﻧﺧﻔﺿـﺔ واﻟﺗـﻲ ﻳﻣﻛـن أن ﺗﺗﺑﺧـر وﺗﺗـرك اﻷﻣـﻼح‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺳطﺢ‪ .‬‬ ‫ـﺄﺛر ﺑﺈرﺗﻔــﺎع‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﺗوﺟــد ﻣﻧطﻘﺗــﻳن ﻓــﻲ ذﻟــك اﻟﻣوﻗــﻊ وذاﺗــﺎ ﺳــطﺢ ﻣــﻧﺧﻔض ﻋــن ﺗﻠــك اﻟﻣﻧطﻘــﺔ اﻟﻣﺣﻳط ـﺔ وﺗﺗـ ا‬ ‫ﻣﻧﺳوب اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ وﻫﻲ‪ :‬‬ ‫أ‪ -‬ﻣﺳﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ٢٢.٧‬ﻓدان داﺧﻝ ﻣوﻗﻊ اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ب‪ -‬ﻣﺳﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ٦.٤‬ﻓدان ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﺟﻧوﺑﻳﺔ ﻣن اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ ﺧﺎرج ﻧطﺎق اﻟﻣوﻗﻊ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٤‬ﻣﺷﻛﻠﺔ اﻟﻣﻠوﺣﺔ اﻧﻬﺎ ﺗؤدي إﻟﻰ ﺧﻔض اﻹﻧﺗﺎﺟﻳـﺔ ﻟﻸ ارﺿـﻲ اﻟزراﻋﻳـﺔ ﻹرﺗﻔـﺎع اﻟﺿـﻐط اﻹزﻣـوزي ﺧـﺎرج‬ ‫اﻟﺟذور ﻋن داﺧﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٥‬اﻟﻣﺷــﻛﻠﺔ اﻷﺧــرى ﺣــﻳن ﻳﻛــون ﻫﻧــﺎك ارﺗﻔــﺎع ﻓــﻲ ﺗرﻛﻳــز ﻋﻧﺻــر اﻟﺻــودﻳوم ﻣــﻊ ﺧﻔــض ﺗرﻛﻳــز اﻻﻳوﻧــﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺛﻧﺎﺋﻳــﺔ ) ﻛﺎﻟﺳــﻳوم‪ ،‬ﻣﻐﻧﺳــﻳوم ( ﻣــﻊ ﺗواﺟــد ﻧﺳــﺑﻪ ﻣﺗوﺳــطﺔ ﻣــن اﻻﻣــﻼح اﻟﻛﻠﻳــﺔ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﺗرﺑــﺔ ﺣﻳــث ﺗــؤدي‬ ‫إﻟﻰ ﺗدﻣﻳر اﻟﻧظﺎم اﻟﺣﺑﻳﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ وﻋدم ﺣرﻳﺔ ﺣرﻛﺔ ﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟري ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع اﻻرض‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٦‬وﻗف واﻟﺗﺣﻛم ﻓﻲ ﺗﺳرب اﻻﻣﻼح‪ .‬‬ ‫أ‪ -‬ﺗﺣﺗﺎج ﺗﻠك اﻻﺟراءات أن ﺗﻛون ذات طﺎﺑﻊ إﻗﻠﻳﻣﻲ وﻟﻳس ﻟﻠﻠﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﻣﺗﺄﺛرة ﻓﻘط‪.‬‬ ‫ب‪ -‬وﺗﺗﻠﺧص ﺗﻠك اﻻﺳﺗراﺗﻳﺟﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﺳﺗﺧدام طرق ري ﺣدﻳﺛﺔ ﺗؤدي اﻟﻰ ﺧﻔـض ﻛﻣﻳـﺔ اﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ اﻷرﺿـﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻣﺗﺳرﺑﻪ واﻟﺗﺣﻛم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻠوﺣﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫ج‪ -‬اﻟزراﻋﺎت اﻟﻛﺛﻳﻔﻪ ﺗرﻓﻊ ﻣن ﻣﻌدﻻت اﺳـﺗﺧدام اﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ ﻓـﻲ اﻟﻣﻧـﺎطق اﻟﻣرﺗﻔﻌـﺔ وﺗﺧﻔـض ﻣـن ﻣﻌـدﻻت‬ ‫اﻟﺗﺳرب‪ .‬‬ ‫د‪ -‬اﻟﺻــرف اﻟﺳــطﺣﻲ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﻣﻧ ــﺎطق اﻟﻣﻧﺧﻔﺿــﻪ ﻫــﻲ وﺳــﻳﻠﻪ رﺧﻳﺻــﺔ ﻣــﻊ اﻣﻛﺎﻧﻳــﺔ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻳــﺔ اﻟﺻ ــرف‬ ‫اﻟﻣﻐطﻰ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﻣرﺗﻔﻌﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫ه‪ -‬ﻓــﻲ ﺣﺎﻟــﺔ ﺧﻔــض ﻧﺳــﺑﺔ اﻟﻣﻠوﺣــﺔ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳــﺔ ﻓــﺈن اﺳــﺗﺧدام ﺗﻠــك اﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ ﻣــن ﺧــﻼﻝ اﺳــﺗﺧدام‬ ‫اﻟطﻠﻣﺑﺎت اﻟﻌﻣﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺳﺎﻫم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺣﻔﺎظ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗوى اﻟﻣﺎء اﻷرﺿﻰ‪ .‬‬ ‫و‪ -‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗواﺟد ﻋدد ﻛﺑﻳر ﻣن اﻵﺑﺎر اﻟﻌﻣﻳﻘﺔ واﻟﺗﻲ ﺗؤدي إﻟﻰ ﺧﻔـض ﻣﺳـﺗوى اﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳـﺔ ﻓـﺈن‬ ‫ﻗـ ــوة ﺳـ ــﺣب اﻟﻣﻳـ ــﺎﻩ واﻟﻔﺗ ـ ـرة ﺑـ ــﻳن اﻟرﻳـ ــﺎت ﻗـ ــد ﺗـ ــؤﺛر ﺑﺎﻟﺳـ ــﻠب ﻋﻠـ ــﻰ اﻧﺗﺎﺟﻳـ ــﺔ اﻟﻣﺣﺎﺻـ ــﻳﻝ ﺣﻳـ ــث أن‬ ‫اﻻﺳﺗﺧدام اﻟﻛﺛﻳف ﻟﻠﻣﻳﺎﻩ ﻓـﻲ اﻻ ارﺿـﻲ اﻟﻣرﺗﻔﻌـﺔ ﻓـﻲ ﻋﻧﺻـر اﻟﺻـودﻳوم ﺗﺧﻔـض ﻣـن ﻗـدرة اﻟﺗرﺑـﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠــﻰ اﻻﺣﺗﻔــﺎظ ﺑﺎﻟرطوﺑــﺔ وﺗﺳــﺎﻋد ﻋﻠــﻰ ﺗﺳــرب ﺗﻠــك اﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ اﻟ ازﺋــدة واﻟﻣرﺗﻔﻌــﺔ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﺻــودﻳوم اﻟــﻰ‬ ‫اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﻣﻧﺧﻔﺿﺔ وﺑﺎﻟﺗﺎﻟﻲ ﺧﻔض ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﻣﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﻼﻣﺗﺻﺎص ﺑواﺳطﺔ اﻟﻧﺑﺎﺗﺎت اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻣﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ ‬‬ ‫‪ ‬‬ ‫اﻟﺻرف‪:‬‬ ‫‪5 ‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﻫﻧﺎك ﻣﺳـﺗوى ﻟﻠﻣﻳـﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳـﻪ )ﻣـﺎﺑﻳن ‪ ٣ -١.٥‬ﻣﺗـر( واﻟـذي ﻋﻧـد ارﺗﻔﺎﻋـﻪ ﻳـؤدي اﻟـﻰ زﻳـﺎدة اﻟﺑﺧـر ﻣـن‬ ‫ﺳـطﺢ اﻟﺗرﺑـﺔ وارﺗﻔـﺎع اﻟﻣﻠوﺣـﺔ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻟﺗـﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﺧﻔـض اﻟﻣﻠوﺣـﺔ ﻓـﻲ اﻟﻘطـﺎع اﻻرﺿـﻲ ﻻﺑـد ﻣـن اﻟﺣﻔـﺎظ ﻋﻠــﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﺳﺗوى اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗوى أﻗﻝ ﻣﻣﺎ ﻫو ﻣذﻛور‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -٢‬اﻟﺻرف اﻟﺳطﺣﻲ أﺣد اﻟوﺳﺎﺋﻝ اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺳﺗﺧدم ﺑﻛﺛرة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺑﻳﺋﺔ اﻟزراﻋﻳﺔ اﻟﻣﺻرﻳﺔ وﻣـن ﻧﺎﺣﻳـﺔ اﻟﺗﺻـﻣﻳم‬ ‫ﻻﺑد وأن ﺗﻛون ﻟﻬﺎ اﻟﻘدرة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺻرﻳف ‪ ٥‬ﺳم ﻣن اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ ﻓـﻲ ﺧـﻼﻝ ‪ ٢٤‬ﺳـﺎﻋﺔ وﻳﻌﺗﻣـد ﻓـﻲ ذﻟـك ﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﻌدﻻت وﻛﺛﺎﻓﺔ اﻟري‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﺗوﺟد اﻟﻌدﻳد ﻣن اﺷﻛﺎﻝ اﻟﻣﺻﺎرف اﻟﺣﻘﻠﻳﺔ واﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻌﺗﻣد ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧوﻋﻳﺔ اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ وﻋﻣق اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﻪ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٤‬اﻟﺻـرف اﻟﻣﻐطـﻰ ﻳﺳــﺗﺧدم ﻓـﻲ ﺣﺎﻟـﺔ أن ﻳﻛــون ﻟﻠﻣـﺎء اﻟﺟـوﻓﻲ اﻷﺛــر اﻟﺳـﻠﺑﻲ ﻋﻠـﻰ زﻳــﺎدة اﻟﻣﻠوﺣـﺔ وﻋــدم‬ ‫اﻟﻘدرة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻرف اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟزاﺋدة ﻋن اﻻﺣﺗﻳﺎج‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٥‬اﻟﺻـرف ﺑﺈﺳـﺗﺧدام اﻟطﻠﻣﺑـﺎت ﻓــﻲ ﺣﺎﻟـﺔ ﺗواﺟـد ﻣــﺎء أرض ﻣرﺗﻔـﻊ وﻳﻌﺗﻣـد ﻓـﻲ ذﻟــك ﻋﻠـﻰ اﺳـﻌﺎر اﻟطﺎﻗــﺔ‬ ‫وﺗﻛــﺎﻟﻳف اﻧﺷــﺎء ﺗﻠــك اﻵﺑــﺎر ﻟﻠﺻــرف واﻟﻣﺳــﺎﺣﺔ ﺑــﻳن ﻛــﻝ ﺑﺋــر وﻧﻔﺎذﻳــﺔ اﻟﺗرﺑــﺔ ﻟﻠﻣﻳــﺎﻩ وﻣﺳــﺗوى اﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻵﺑﺎر اﻟﻣﺣﻳطﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٦‬اﻟﺻرف اﻟﻣﻐطـﻰ ﻻ ﻳﺣﺗـﺎج إﻟـﻰ ﻋﻣﻠﻳـﺎت ﺻـﻳﺎﻧﺔ وﻟﻛـن ﻻﺑـد ﻣـن ﺗواﺟـد ﺧرﻳطـﺔ ﺗﺣـدد اﻟﻣﺳـﺎر وﻣواﻗـﻊ‬ ‫ﻛﻝ اﻟﻣﺻﺎرف اﻟﻣﻔﺗوﺣﺔ وﺟﻣﻳﻊ اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت اﻟﺗﺻﻣﻳﻣﻳﺔ‪ .‬وﻫﻧﺎك اﻟﻌدﻳد ﻣن اﻟطرق اﻟﻔﻧﻳـﺔ اﻟﺗـﻲ ﺗﺳـﺗﺧدم‬ ‫ﻟﺟﻌﻝ ﻣﺳﺎر اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﺻﺎرف اﻟﻣﻐطﺎﻩ ﺑدون أي ﻣﺷﺎﻛﻝ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٧‬اﻟزراﻋﺔ ﺑﺈﺳﺗﺧدام اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ ذات اﻟﻣﻠوﺣﺔ‪ :‬‬ ‫ﻫﻧﺎك اﻟﻌدﻳد ﻣن اﻻﺻﻧﺎف اﻟﻧﺑﺎﺗﻳﺔ ﻣﺗﺎﺣـﺔ وذات ﻗـدرة ﻋﻠـﻰ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣـﺔ اﺳـﺗﺧدام اﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ ذات اﻟﻣﻠوﺣـﺔواﻟﺗﻲ‬ ‫ﻗد ﺗﺧﺗﻠف ﺣﺳب ﻓﺗرة اﻟﻧﻣو وﻧوﻋﻳﺔ اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻣﻛن ﻣن ﺧﻼﻝ اﻟﻌرض اﻟﺳﺎﺑق وﺿﻊ اﻟﺗوﺻﻳﺎت اﻷﺗﻳﺔ‪ :‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﻻ ﻳوﺟــد اﺧــﺗﻼف ﻓــﻲ اﺳــﺗﺧداﻣﺎت اﻻ ارﺿــﻲ ﻣــن ﺧــﻼﻝ ﻓﺣــص اﻟﺻــور اﻟﺟوﻳــﺔ ﺑــدءا ﻣــن ﻋــﺎم‬ ‫‪ .٢٠٠٣‬‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﻣــن ﻓﺣــص اﻟطﺑﻳﻌــﺔ اﻟطﺑوﻏ ارﻓﻳــﻪ ﻟﻣﻧطﻘــﺔ اﻟﻣﺣطــﺔ أﻣﻛــن ﺗﺣدﻳــد ﻣــوﻗﻌﻳن ﻫﻣــﺎ أﻛﺛــر ﺗــﺄﺛ اًر ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﺟوﻓﻳﻪ‪ .‬اﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻻوﻟﻰ ﺣـواﻟﻲ ‪ ٢٧‬ﻓـدان داﺧـﻝ اﻟﻣﻧطﻘـﺔ اﻟﻣﺧﺻﺻـﺔ ﻹﻧﺷـﺎء اﻟﻣﺣطـﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻣﻧطﻘـﺔ‬ ‫اﻻﺧرى ﺣواﻟﻲ ‪ ٦.٤‬ﻓدان ﺗﺗواﺟد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺣدود اﻟﺷرﻗﻳﺔ ﻟﻣوﻗﻊ اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﻻﺑد وأن ﺗﺗﺧذ اﻟﻌدﻳد ﻣن اﻹﺟراءات ﻟﻣواﺟﻬﺔ ارﺗﻔﺎع ﻣﺳﺗوى اﻟﻣﺎء اﻷرﺿﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﺷﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ‬ ‫داﺧــﻝ اﻟﻣﺣطــﺔ واﻟﺗــﻲ ﺗﺗﻣﺛــﻝ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﺻــرف اﻟﻣﻐطــﻰ ﺑﺈﺳــﺗﺧدام طﻠﻣﺑــﺎت اﻟﺳــﺣب ﻓــﻲ ﻣــوﻗﻌﻳن ﻣــن‬ ‫اﻟﺷرق إﻟﻰ اﻟﻐرب‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٤‬اﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟﺛﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺧﺎرج اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ ﻳﻘﺗرح أن ﺗﺳﺗﺧدم ﺑﻬﺎ اﻟﻣﺻﺎرف اﻟﻣﻛﺷوﻓﺔ ﺣﻳث ﺗـرﺗﺑط ﺑﺎﻟﻣﺻـرف‬ ‫اﻟﻣوﺟود ﻓﻲ اﻟﺷﻣﺎﻝ ﻣن اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺗﺄﻛﻳد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻫﺗﻣﺎم ﺑﺻﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺗﻠك اﻟﻣﺻﺎرف‪ .‬‬ ‫اﻟﺟزء اﻟﺛﺎﻟث‪ :‬دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻧوﻋﻳﺔ ﻣﻳﺎﻩ أﺑﺎر اﻟري‪ ،‬اﻟظﻝ‪ ،‬اﻹﺿﺎءة اﻟﺻﻧﺎﻋﻳﺔ واﻷﺗرﺑﺔ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪6 ‬‬ ‫‪ -١‬ﻟد ارﺳــﺔ ﺗــﺄﺛﻳر ﻋﻣﻠﻳــﺎت اﻹﻧﺷــﺎءات ﻟﻠﻣﺣطــﺔ ﻋﻠــﻰ ﻧوﻋﻳــﺔ اﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳــﺔ ٕواﺗﺎﺣﺗﻬــﺎ ﻟﻠــري ﻓــﻲ ﻣﻧطﻘــﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺣط ــﺔ ﺷـ ــﻣﺎﻝ اﻟﺟﻳـ ـزة وﻛـ ــذﻟك اﻟﻣﻧطﻘ ــﺔ اﻟزراﻋﻳـ ــﺔ اﻟﻣﺣﻳط ــﺔ ﺑﻬـ ــﺎ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻣ ــت اﻟﺷـ ــرﻛﺔ اﻟﻣﺳ ــﺋوﻟﺔ ﻋـ ــن‬ ‫اﻹﻧﺷﺎءات ﺑﺄﺧذ ﻋﻳﻧﺎت ﺷﻬرﻳﺔ ﻣن ‪ ١١‬ﺑﺋر ﺧﻼﻝ اﻟﻔﺗرة ﻣن أﻏﺳطس‪ ،‬ﺳﺑﺗﻣﺑر‪ ،‬أﻛﺗوﺑر‪ ،‬ﻧـوﻓﻣﺑر‬ ‫ﻋــﺎم ‪ ٢٠١٢‬وﺗــم اﺟـراء اﻟﻔﺣــص اﻟﻛﻳﻣــﺎوي ﻟﺗﻠــك اﻟﻌﻳﻧــﺎت ﻓــﻲ اﻟﻣﻌﺎﻣــﻝ اﻟﻣرﻛزﻳــﺔ ﻟﻠﺷــرﻛﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺑﺿــﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻛﻬرﺑــﺎء‪ ،‬وﻋرﺿــت اﻟﻧﺗــﺎﺋﺞ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﺟــداوﻝ ‪ ٥-٢‬ﺟــدوﻝ)‪ ،(٦‬ﺟــدوﻝ)‪ (٧‬ﻟﻌــرض ﺗوﺻــﻳﺎت ﻣﻧظﻣــﺔ‬ ‫اﻷﻏذﻳﺔ واﻟزراﻋﺔ ﻟﻸﻣم اﻟﻣﺗﺣدة ﻟﺗﺣدﻳد اﻟﺣد اﻷﻗﺻﻰ ﻟﻧوﻋﻳﺔ اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ اﻟﻣﺳﺗﺧدﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟزراﻋﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٢‬ﺑﻔﺣص ﺗﻠك اﻟﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻣﻌﻣﻠﻳﺔ ﻧﺟد اﻷﺗﻲ‪ -:‬‬ ‫أ‪ .‬ﺧــﻼﻝ ﺷــﻬر اﻏﺳــطس ‪ ٢٠١٢‬اﻟﻣﻳــﺎﻩ اﻟﺟوﻓﻳــﻪ ﻓــﻲ اﻟﺑﺋــر ‪ ) Pz9‬ﻓرﺣــﺔ ( وﻛــذﻟك اﻟﺑﺋــر‬ ‫‪ Pz11‬ﻓﺈﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺻﻧف ﻋﻠﻰ اﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻳﺎﻩ ﻏﻳر ﻣﺎﻟﺣﺔ ﺣﻳث أن ‪ EC 0.7 ds/m‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻳن أن‬ ‫اﻟﺑﺋر ‪ ) Pz10‬اﻟﻣﺻري ( ﺗﺻـﻧف ﺗﻠـك اﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ ﻋﻠـﻰ إﻧﻬـﺎ ذات ﻣﻠوﺣـﺔ ﻣﻧﺧﻔﺿـﺔ وأن ‪EC‬‬ ‫ﻟﺗﻠك اﻟﻣﻳﺎﻩ ‪ 0.7‐ 3.0 ds/m ‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻳن ان ‪ pH‬ﻟﺟﻣﻳﻊ ﺗﻠك اﻵﺑﺎر ﻓﻲ اﻟﺣـدود اﻟﻣﻧﺎﺳـﺑﺔ‬ ‫)‪ pH 6.5‐ 8.4‬‬ ‫ب‪ .‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﻬر ﺳﺑﺗﻣر ‪ ٢٠١٢‬ﻧﺟد أن ﺟﻣﻳﻊ اﻟﻘراءات ﻣن ‪ Pz11, Pz10, Pz9‬ﻫـﻲ أﻋﻠـﻰ‬ ‫ﻣن ﺟﻣﻳﻊ اﻵﺑﺎر داﺧﻝ ﻛردون اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ وﻟﻛﻧﻬﺎ ﻣـﺎ ازﻟـت ﻓـﻲ ﺣـدود اﻟﻣﻣﺳـﻣوح )ﻣـﻧﺧﻔض‬ ‫إﻟﻰ ﻣﺗوﺳط( ﻓﻲ ﻗﻳﻣﺔ‪ .(0.7‐ 3.0 ds/m) EC ‬‬ ‫ج‪ .‬ﻓــﻲ ﺧــﻼﻝ ﺷــﻬر أﻛﺗــوﺑر ‪ ٢٠١٢‬ﻧﺟــد أن ﺟﻣﻳــﻊ اﻟﻘــرءات ﻣــن اﻵﺑــﺎر‬ ‫‪Pz11, ‬‬ ‫‪ Pz10, Pz9‬وﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻓـﻲ ﺣـدود ﻋدﻳﻣـﺔ اﻟﻣﻠوﺣـﺔ ﺣﻳـث أن ﻗـﻳم ‪ EC‬أﻗـﻝ ﻣـن ‪٠.٧ ds/m ‬‬ ‫ﻣــﻊ اﻟﻣﻼﺣــظ أن ﻗﻳﻣــﺔ ‪ EC‬ﻫــﻲ أﻗــﻝ ﻣــن ﺗﻠــك اﻟﻘــﻳم اﻟﻣــﺄﺧوذة ﻣــن اﻵﺑــﺎر اﻷﺧــرى داﺧــﻝ‬ ‫اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ‪ .‬وﻳﻼﺣظ ﻫﻧﺎ ارﺗﻔـﺎع ﻗـﻳم‪ pH ‬ﻟﻶﺑـﺎر ‪ Pz11, Pz10, Pz9‬إﻟـﻰ ‪ pH 9.2 ‬وﻟﻛـن‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬر ﻧوﻓﻣﺑر ﻣن ‪ ٢٠١٢‬وﻣﻊ اﻟﻘراءات ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗوى اﻟﻣﻠوﺣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠك اﻵﺑﺎر ﻣـﺎ زاﻝ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺣدود اﻟﻣﺳﻣوح ﻧﺟد أن ﻗراءات اﻟـ ‪ pH ‬ﻗد ﻋﺎدت إﻟﻰ طﺑﻳﻌﺗﻬﺎ اﻷوﻟـﻰ ﻣـﺎ ﺑـﻳن ‪pH ‬‬ ‫‪ 7.2 – pH 7.6 ‬وﻳﻔﺳر ذﻟك أﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬر أﻛﺗـوﺑر ﺗـم إﺿـﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﻌـض اﻷﻣـﻼح )اﻟﻧﺗـرات(‬ ‫أو اﻟﺟــﺑس اﻟز ارﻋــﻲ ﻗﺑــﻝ أﺧــذ اﻟﻌﻳﻧــﺎت وﻫــو اﻷﻣــر اﻟــذي أدى إﻟــﻰ ارﺗﻔــﺎع ﻗ ـراءة اﻟـ ـ ‪pH‬‬ ‫وﻓﻲ ﺗﻠك اﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﺈن اﻟـ‪pH ‬ﻟﺗﻠـك اﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ ﺳـوف ﻳﻌـود إﻟـﻰ ﻣﻌدﻻﺗـﻪ اﻟطﺑﻳﻌﻳـﺔ ﺧـﻼﻝ أﺳـﺑوع‬ ‫ﻣن أﺧذ اﻟﻌﻳﻧﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬ﻗﻳم اﻻﻣﻼح اﻟذاﺋﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻵﺑﺎر ‪ Pz11, Pz10, Pz9‬ﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺣدود إﻧﻬﺎ"‪ "none‬ﺣﻳث‬ ‫أن ﻗﻳم ‪ TDS‬أﻗﻝ ﻣن ‪ ٤٥٠‬ﻣﻠﺟم‪/‬اﻟﻠﺗر ﺧﻼﻝ أﺷﻬر اﻟﻘﻳﺎس‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٣‬ﺟﻣﻳ ــﻊ ﻗ ــﻳم اﻟﻌﻧﺎﺻ ــر اﻟﺻ ــﻐرى ﻣ ــن ﺟﻣﻳ ــﻊ اﻵﺑ ــﺎر ﻻ ﺗﻣﺛ ــﻝ أي ﻣﺻ ــدر ﻟﻠﺳ ــﻣﻳﺔ طﺑﻘـ ـﺎً ﻟﻠﻣﺳ ــﺗوى‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻳﺎﺳﻲ اﻟﻣﺣدد ﻣن ﻫﻳﺋﺔ ‪ .FAO‬‬ ‫‪ -٤‬إن اﻟظﻝ اﻟذي ﺳوف ﻳﻧﺷﺄ ﻣن ﺑﻧﺎء اﻟﺳور ﺑﺎرﺗﻔﺎع ‪ ٤.٥‬ﻣﺗر ﻟن ﻳﻛون ﻟﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻣﻌﻧوي ﻋﻠـﻰ ﻧﻣـو‬ ‫ٕواﻧﺗﺎﺟﻳ ــﺔ اﻷﺷ ــﺟﺎر ﻓ ــﻲ اﻟﻣـ ـزارع اﻟﻣﺣﻳط ــﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻣﺣط ــﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺣﻳ ــث أن ﺗﻠ ــك اﻷﺷ ــﺟﺎر )ﻣـ ـواﻟﺢ‪ ،‬ﻣ ــﺎﻧﺟو‪،‬‬ ‫‪7 ‬‬ ‫ﻗﺷطﺔ( أن ﻣوﺳم اﻟﻧﻣو واﻟﺗزﻫﻳر واﻧﺗﺎج اﻟﺛﻣـﺎر ﻳﻛـون ﻣـن ﺷـﻬر أﺑرﻳـﻝ ﺣﺗـﻰ ﺳـﺑﺗﻣﺑر وﻫـﻲ ﻣوﺳـم‬ ‫اﻟﺻﻳف ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻر ﺣﻳث ﺗﻛون اﻟﺷﻣس ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠك اﻟﻔﺗرة ذات زاوﻳﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻣﺔ وﺑﺎﻟﺗﺎﻟﻲ ﻓـﺄن اﻟظـﻝ اﻟﻧـﺎﺗﺞ‬ ‫ﻋــن اﻟﺳــور ﻳﻛــون ﻓــﻲ ﺣــدﻩ اﻷدﻧــﻰ ﻓــﻲ ﺣــﻳن أن ﻣوﺳــم اﻟﺧرﻳــف واﻟﺷــﺗﺎء ﻫــﻲ ﻣواﺳــم ﺣﺻــﺎد ﻟﺗﻠــك‬ ‫اﻟﺛﻣﺎر ‪،‬وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟرﻏم ﻣن ذﻟك ﻓﺈن اﻟظﻝ ﻟن ﻳﻛون ﻟﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟك اﻟﻧﺷﺎط‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٥‬اﻹﺿـﺎءة اﻟﺻـﻧﺎﻋﻳﺔ اﻟﺗــﻲ ﺳـوف ﺗﻧﺷـﺄ ﻋﻠــﻰ اﻷﺳـوار اﻟﺧﺎرﺟﻳـﺔ ﻟﻠﻣﺣطــﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﻳرﻫـﺎ ﺿـﻌﻳف ﺣﻳــث أن‬ ‫ﻫﻧــﺎك ﻣﺳــﺎﻓﺔ ﺑــﻳن اﻟﺳــور وأﻗــرب ﺧــط أﺷــﺟﺎر ﻻ ﻳﻘــﻝ ﻋــن ﺧﻣﺳــﺔ ﻣﺗــر وﻫــﻲ ﻣﺳــﺎﻓﺔ ﺗــؤدي إﻟــﻰ‬ ‫ﺧﻔض ﺗﺄﺛﻳر ﺷدة اﻹﺿﺎءة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺷﺟﺎر‪ ،‬وﻟﻛن ﻳﻘﺗـرح أن ﺗﻛـون اﻹﺿـﺎءة اﻟﻣﺳـﺗﺧدﻣﺔ ﻣـن اﻟﻧـوع‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻠورﺳﻧت ذو اﻟﻣﺣﺗوى اﻷزرق أﻛﺛر ﻣن اﻷﺣﻣر‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ -٦‬اﻷﺗرﺑــﺔ ﺗﺗواﺟــد ﺑﺻــورة طﺑﻳﻌﻳــﺔ ﻓــﻲ ﺟﻣﻳــﻊ ﻣ ـزارع اﻷﺷــﺟﺎر ﻓــﻲ ﻣﺻــر وﻫــﻲ ﺗﺗ ـراﻛم ﻋﻠــﻰ أﺳــطﺢ‬ ‫اﻷوراق‪ ،‬وﺣﻳث أن ﻫـذﻩ اﻷﺷـﺟﺎر ﺗﻣـر ﺑﻌدﻳـد ﻣـن اﻟﻣﻌـﺎﻣﻼت اﻟزراﻋﻳـﺔ اﻟﺗـﻲ ﺗﺳـﺗﻠزم اﻟـرش ﻣـن ‪٨‬‬ ‫إﻟﻰ ‪ ٩‬ﻣرات ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم اﻷﻣر اﻟـذي ﻳﺳـﺎﻋد ﻋﻠـﻰ ﻏﺳـﻳﻝ ﺗﻠـك اﻷﺗرﺑـﺔ‪ .‬إذا ﻛﺎﻧـت اﻷﻧﺷـطﺔ داﺧـﻝ‬ ‫اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ ﺳواء ﻓﻲ ﻣرﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺑﻧﺎء أو ﻣرﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﺳوف ﺗزﻳـد ﻣـن ﺗـ ارﻛم اﻷﺗرﺑـﺔ ﻋﻠـﻰ ذﻟـك اﻟﺧـط‬ ‫ﻣن اﻷﺷﺟﺎر اﻟﻘرﻳب ﻣن اﻟﻣﺣطﺔ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳوﺻـﻲ ﺑﻌﻣـﻝ رش ﻟـذﻟك اﻟﺧـط ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻳـﺎﻩ ﻣـرة أو اﺛﻧـﺎن ﺳـﻧوﻳﺎ‬ ‫اﻷﻣر اﻟذي ﺳوف ﻳﺳﺎﻋد ﻋﻠﻰ إزاﻟﺔ ﺗﻠك اﻷﺗرﺑﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫اﻟﺟزء اﻟراﺑﻊ ‪ :‬اﻟﻘ اررات اﻟوزارﻳﺔ اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺣدد أﺳﺎﻟﻳب اﻟﺗﻌوﻳﺿﺎت ﻟﻠﻣزارﻋﻳن‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .١‬ﻳﺷﻣﻝ ذﻟك اﻟﻘرار اﻟوزاري ‪ ١٩٩٦/٤٠٢‬اﻟذي ﻳﺣدد أﺳﺎﻟﻳب اﻟﺗﻌوﻳض ﻟﻠﻣزارﻋﻳن ﻣـن اﻟﻣﺷـروﻋﺎت‬ ‫اﻟوطﻧﻳﺔ اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻘﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺟﺎﻝ اﻷراﺿﻲ اﻟزراﻋﻳﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫‪ .٢‬اﻟﻘرار اﻟوزاري ‪ ١٤٨٣٧‬ﻟﻌﺎم ‪ ١٩٩٠‬اﻟذي ﻳﺣدد ﺗﻛﺎﻟﻳف اﻟري ﻟﻸراﺿﻲ اﻟزراﻋﻳﺔ ﺑﺈﺳـﺗﺧدام طـرق‬ ‫اﻟري اﻟﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬‬ ‫اﻟﺟزء اﻟﺧﺎﻣس ‪ :‬ﻳﻌرض ﺗﻘرﻳر زﻳﺎرة اﻟﺳﺎدة اﻟﻣﺳؤﻟﻳن ﻣن وزارة اﻟزراﻋﺔ ﻟﻔﺣص اﻟﻣزارع اﻟﻣﺣﻳطﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻣﺣطﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪8 ‬‬ Executive Summary English Part 1: The North Giza Electric Power Plant is located at 1500 meter to the west of Rosetta Branch of the Nile River and bounded from West by El Beheiry main feeding Canal. The land use around the plant site is mainly agriculture. The main source of the irrigation water is the Nile water as well as the groundwater from the Quaternary aquifer. A groundwater dewatering system was implemented for civil since February 2012. Shortly after operating the dewatering system, some farmers from the neighboring areas around the plant site complained from the following impacts: Complete depletion and/or increase in the groundwater depth of their wells Reduction in the groundwater discharge rates from their private wells; and/or An increase in the groundwater depth from the ground surface (lowering of the groundwater levels). The field survey was conducted to collect data and information about the existing groundwater wells. The survey revealed no evidence of drying up of wells or lack of irrigation water. The farmers’ complains are limited to lowering the groundwater levels with no visible drought signs on the trees. A comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation for the project site and the surrounding areas was carried out. The available data is compiled and analyzed using the groundwater modeling techniques. The proposed model is developed to simulate the following conditions: Baseline hydrogeologic conditions before the implementation of the dewatering system; Impact of the dewatering system on the regional groundwater levels in general and the affected farmers in particular; and Groundwater conditions after the cease of the dewatering system. The model results revealed that before the start-up of the dewatering system, the pumping from the farmers' wells causes a mutual impact on each other. As 9 a result of the dewatering system, the depth to groundwater increased at some wells and hence the discharge rate from these wells has decreased. The developed model indicated that the groundwater levels will be recovered in less than one month (10-20 days) with some minor residual drawdown of less than 5 cm. The comparison of field survey with the model results showed an agreement between the two values for most of the wells. However, some farmers reported higher drawdown values which are not scientifically reliable to the impact of the dewatering system. The damages related to lowering the groundwater level have been evaluated based on the maximum possible increase in pumping operational hours using the annual energy price per feddan for irrigation as used by the Ministry of Electricity and Energy. In conclusion, we could consider that the change in the water level within an average value of one-two meters is natural due to the change in the River stage. Any additional drawdown could be referred to the impact of the operation of the farmers' wells as well as the dewatering system. The project owner substituted the impacted farmers to recover the damage through providing these farmers with water through pipe lines from the dewatering system to their irrigated lands. Some other farmers were also substituted to compensate their loss by drilling new wells. The developed model was successful in simulating the hydrogeologic conditions and the level of damage at each well. It is highly recommended to continue monitoring the groundwater levels through the existing observation wells. From the data analysis and the understanding of the hydrogeologic system, the developed model should be recalibrated and verified to account for the fluctuation of the water level in the Nile River and the accurate representation of the operation schedule of the Part 2: Regarding the land-use and land-use changes within and around Giza North Power Plant, it could be concluded that: 10 1. Crops around the Plant don’t show any changes as seen from satellite images since 28 February, 2003, till the latest image obtained on July 2011. 2. There are two areas are historically affected by high ground water level and need special drainage systems. The first area, 27 Feddans inside the Plant site, and second area, 6.4 Feddans right on the East border of the Plant 3. It is recommended that appropriate precautions should be taken to deal with anticipated increased water level inside the plant on the far North side as shown in Map (4) in the report. A subsoil covered drain with two pumping points from East to West could be one option if this was not considered during the implementation and construction. 4. Regarding the second area, it is recommended to have an open drainage canal connected to the main drain on the north side of the plant and to make sure that the drainage system is well maintained all the time. Part 3 1. Examining the wells within the premises of Faraga well (Pz9), Elmasry well (Pz10), and Hamza well (Pz11), respectively, the following conclusions could be drawn: a. During August 2013, the electrical conductivity (ECw in dS/m) of Faraga well (pz9), and Hamza well (pz11) are in the range of “none saline” as ECw < 0.7 dS/m, while it is in the range Slight to Moderately saline as ECw ranges from 0.7 to 3.0 dS/m in August 2012 for Elmasry well (Pz10). The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to 8.4. b. During Septmber 2012, ECw in Faraha well (Pz9), Elmasry well (Pz10), and Hamza well (Pz11), respectively are in range “Slight to Moderately” saline as ECw ranges from 0.7 to 3.0 dS/m with the note that ECw values are higher than the other wells. c. During October 2012, for ECw: Faraha well (Pz9), Elmasry well (Pz10), and Hamza well (Pz11), respectively are in the range none saline as ECw < 0.7 dS/m in October 2012 with note that ECw values are lower than ECw values in all other wells in August and September 2012, 11 with higher pH values ranged from 9.1 to 9.2 than normal range. This indicates an abnormal event caused such increase in pH or a problem with the measuring devise. One of the causes could be attributed to the addition of nitrate salts or agricultural gypsum directly into these wells just before the sampling. It is likely that pH will go down within few weeks. The problem could be overcome faster by running these wells for a period of 3 hours for 3 days. d. The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to 8.4 in May, June and July of (pz1, pz2, pz3, pz4, pz5, pz6, pz7 and pz8) wells, respectively e. TDS reported in milligrams per litre (mg/l): Faraga well (pz9), Elmasry well (pz10) and Hamza well (pz11) are in the range of “none” where total dissolved solids TDS < 450 mg/l in August 2012, September 2012 and October 2012. 1. The values of Cd (cadmium), Cr (chromium), Ni (nickel) and Zn (zinc) mg/l in the groundwater in August 2012, September 2012 and October 2012 of (pz1, pz2, pz3, pz4, pz5, pz6, pz7, pz8, pz9, pz10 and pz11) wells respectively are not represent toxicity according to FAO recommendation of maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water shown in table (5). 2. All air parameters are much below the maximum allowed as they are air pollutants that mostly generated by the burning of fossil fuels and consequently all measurements were much below the maximum allowed level. 3. In conclusion, no impact of the Giza North Power plant on air pollution levels, and consequently on crop productivity. 4. The main growing season of the trees farms in the area is summer. Winter and early spring months are the harvest season. The trees flower in the spring, and fruit is set shortly afterward. Fruit begins to ripen in fall or early winter months. The shading effect of walls may appears minimal in April to September. Sometimes it is a trade off between casting a shadow and protecting the tree from the winds. The wall will provide an effective windbreak for around ten times it's height. 12 5. Artificial light doesn’t emit as much energy in the red and blue region of the light spectrum as sunlight does. Standard fluorescent light provides large amounts of blue light. Light intensity decreases rapidly as you move away from the source of light. Because the distance between the wall and the nearest line of trees (North and South) the artificial lighting around the outer wall of NGS will be decreased rapidly as long as it is spotted to the wall or to ground 6. Because tangerine and mango trees have broadleaved, they are evergreen and do not drop leaves the dust accumulation will be more intense and required 12 times of water spray per season. One spray in spring and other in the beginning of fall will be enough. 7. Knowing the fact that the dust effect is decreasing with distance from the plant site, the damages for the four farmers have been evaluated. Part 4 Ministerial decrees have been issued to both farmers’ compensation for damage caused by public works (Decree 402/2996) and decree 14837/1990 to determine the cost for irrigation of one land unit of feddan (4200SQM) Part 5 1. The construction activities of North Giza Electrical Station do not represent a source of problems to the trees of the farms surrounding of the station site. The accumulated dust is very minor and with simple water shower it will be washed off. On the hand, citrus trees need not less than 10 times of different sprays for disease protection, insect control, and trace elements requirement, and all of these sprayings could be useful for leafs washing. 2. The committee recommended to these farm owners to take care of their farms management by running periodical pruning, balanced fertilization, diseases protection and insect control. 3. The committee recommend that the current construction activities of North Giza Electrical Station do not represent any source if harm on the trees within the surrounding farms 13 Ministry of Water Resources & Irrigation National Water Research Center Water Resources Research Institute GIZA NORTH POWER PLANT Neighborhood Complaints – Groundwater Related Issues Data Analysis and Groundwater Modeling 14 List of Contents Page 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19 2. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 3. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Main Aquifer Systems …………………………………………… 20 4. Groundwater Levels ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22 a. Groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer …………………………………………………………….. 22 b. Groundwater levels in the deep aquifer …………………………………………………………………. 24 c. Relation between groundwater levels in the shallow and deep aquifers ………………… 28 5. Recharge‐Discharge Sources of the Aquifer Systems ……………………………………………………… 29 a. Recharge........................................................................................................................... 29 b. Discharge …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………. 30 6. Aquifer Hydraulic Properties ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31 a. Analysis of the Pumping test data in the shallow aquifer ……………………………………… 31 b. Analysis of the Pumping test data in the deep aquifer …………………………………………… 32 7. Impact of the Dewatering System on the Groundwater Levels ………………………………………… 43 a. Calculation of the drawdown at any point in the shallow aquifer ………………..………… 43 b. Calculation of the drawdown at any point in the deep aquifer ………………………………. 46 8. Numerical Simulation Using MODFLOW ……………………………………………………….……………….. 49 a. Model Design ………………………………………………………………………………………..……….... 49 b. Model Calibration ……………………………………………………………………………………………….... 52 c. 55 Model Scenarios ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. I. Effect of the farmers' wells on the project site................................................ II. Effect of the dewatering system on the farmers' wells…………………………….… III. IV. Overall impact of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells on the deep aquifer Groundwater response when stopping the dewatering system………………… 55 56 58 62 9. Negative Impact on Farmer's Income…………………………………………………………………………….. 64 10. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65 11. Recommendation ………………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 66 12. Annex (A): Farmers' Wells Inventory ……………………………………………………………………………… 67 15 List of Figure Page Figure (1) Loca on map of the project site with the main land use features ……………….……… 19 Figure (2) Base of the Quaternary Aquifer …………………………………………………………………….……. 21 Figure (3) Loca on map of the shallow observa on wells in the study area …………………..…… 22 Figure (4) Fluctua on in the depth to groundwater level at some shallow observation wells………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………….… 23 Figure (5) Fluctuation in the depth to groundwater level at some shallow observation wells…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Figure (6) Fluctuation in the groundwater level in a deep observation well ………………………. 25 Figure (7) Piezometric head map of the deep Quaternary aquifer …………………………………..… 26 Figure (8) Location map of the deep observation wells in the study area ……………………….... 27 Figure (9) Fluctuation in the groundwater level in the deep aquifer ……………………………….… 28 Figure (10) Depth to water in the shallow and the deep aquifers …………………………………….…. 29 Figure (11) Depth to water in the shallow and the deep aquifers …………………………………..…. 29 Figure (12) Well location map in the vicinity of the project site ……………………………………….…. 30 Figure (13) Irrigation schedule during the year and the monthly extracted groundwater……. 31 Figure (14) Analysis of Pumping test data performed on the deep aquifer.…………………….… 32 Figure (15) Location of the shallow pumping and observation wells inside the construction sites …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 34 Figure (16) Typical design of the shallow pumping wells ……………………………………………….……. 36 Figure (17) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the shallow piezometer SPZ‐1 ………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 37 Figure (18) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the shallow piezometer SPZ‐2 ………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 37 Figure (19) Location of the deep pumping and observation wells inside the construction site ………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………… 39 Figure (20) Typical design of the shallow pumping wells ………………………………….………………. 41 Figure (21) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the deep piezometer DPZ‐2‐B …………………………………………………………………………..……………… 42 Figure (22) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the deep piezometer DPZ‐3‐A ……………………………………………………………………………..…………… 42 Figure (23) Center of gravity of the shallow dewatering system …………………………….…………… 45 Figure (24) Calculated drawdown with time at different radial distance in the shallow aquifer ………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….. 46 Figure (25) Center of gravity of the deep dewatering system ………………………………..…………. 47 Page Figure (26) Calculated drawdown with me at different radial distance in the deep aquifer…………………………………………………………………………………………….…….... 48 Figure (27) East‐West cross section in the aquifer…………………………………………… 49 Figure (28) Space discre za on of the modeled area……………………………………… 50 Figure (29) Loca on map of the farmers' wells located in the vicinity of the project area………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Figure (30) Calculated head (in red color) vs observed head (in black color) in the deep aquifer ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 52 53 Figure (31) Distribution of the Farmers' wells included in the developed model …………….… 53 Figure (32) Calculated drawdown vs observed drawdown at piezometer DPZ‐A …………….… 54 Figure (33) Calculated drawdown vs observed drawdown at piezometer DPZ‐B …………….… 54 Figure (34) Calculated drawdown vs observed drawdown at piezometer DPZ‐C …………….… 55 Figure (35) Annual maximum drawdown in the deep aquifer …………………………………………... 56 Figure (36) Calculated drawdown a er 23 days since the dewatering system started with a total pumping rate of 1500 m3/hr since 1‐Feb‐2012 ll 25‐Mar‐2012 ………..… 57 Figure (37) Calculated drawdown a er 53 days since the dewatering system started with a total pumping rate of 1250 m3/hr during 25‐3‐2012 ll 28‐5‐2012 ………………. 57 Figure (38) Calculated drawdown a er 365 days since the dewatering system started with a total pumping rate of 1000 m3/hr during 28‐5‐2012 ll 1‐3‐2012 …................ 58 Figure (39) Total drawdown a er 23 days since the dewatering system started with farmers' wells operational ……………………………………………………………….……………… 59 Figure (40) Total drawdown a er 53 days since the dewatering system started with farmers' wells operational ……………………………………………………………….……………… 59 Figure (41) Total drawdown a er 365 days since the dewatering system started with farmers' wells operational ……………………………………………………………….……………… 60 Figure (42) Time‐Drawdown relationship at Piezometer DPZB due to the effect of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells ……………………………………….…………….. 61 Figure (43) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 2 (Faraga El Sayed) due the effect of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells …………………………….……………… 61 Figure (44) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 3‐D (Said El Masry) due the effect of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells ……………………………………….…… 62 Figure (45) Time‐Drawdown relationship at Piezometer DPZB when the dewatering system is completely stopped …………………………………………………………………….…… 63 Figure (46) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 2 (Faraga El Sayed) when the dewatering system is completely stopped …………………………………………………..….. 63 Figure (47) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 3‐D (Said El Masry) when the dewatering system is completely stopped …………………………………………………….... 64 List of Tables Page Table (1) Coordinates of the shallow pumping wells inside the construction site ……………… 35 Table (2) Coordinates of the shallow observation wells inside the construction site …………. 35 Table (3) Coordinates of the deep pumping wells inside the construction site ………………….. 40 Table (4) Coordinates of the deep observation wells inside the construction sit………………… 40 Table (5) Operational pumping schedule of the dewatering system …………………………………. 56 1. Introduction The North Giza Electric Power Plant is located at 1500 meter to the west of Rose a Branch of the Nile River and bounded from West by El Beheiry main feeding Canal, Figure (1). The land use around the plant site is mainly agriculture. The main source of the irrigation water is the Nile water as well as the groundwater from the Quaternary aquifer. Due to the shallow groundwater depth at the plant site, the construction of the infrastructures requires lowering the groundwater level to a predefined depth below the ground surface. Therefore, a groundwater dewatering system was implemented and it is opera onal since February 2012. Figure (1) Location map of the project site with the main land use features The dewatering system was designed to lower the groundwater level to a depth of 15 meters below the ground surface. This objective was successfully achieved and the civil works and the plant foundations were almost completed. However, shortly after operating the dewatering system, some farmers from the neighboring areas around the plant site complained from the following impacts: I. Complete depletion of the groundwater from their wells; 19 II. III. Reduction in the groundwater discharge rates from their private wells; and/or An increase in the groundwater depth from the ground surface (lowering of the groundwater levels). In order to evaluate the farmers' complains, a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation for the project site and the surrounding areas is required. Having said that, the available hydrogeologic data is compiled and analyzed using the groundwater modeling techniques. The proposed model is developed to simulate the following conditions: (a) Baseline hydrogeologic conditions before the implementation of the dewatering system; (b) Impact of the dewatering system on the regional groundwater levels in general and the affected farmers in particular; and (c) Groundwater conditions after the cease of the dewatering system. 2. Methodology The proposed methodology for this study is based on the comparative analysis between the hydrogeologic conditions before and after the installation of the dewatering system. The hydrogeologic data and information were obtained from the following sources: (1) Hydrogeologic map of the Nile Delta aquifer which was published in 1992; (2) Previous studies "safe yield of the groundwater in the Nile Delta aquifer" which was published in 1978; and (3) Recent collected data during the design and installation of the dewatering system. The available hydrogeologic data includes the aquifer thickness, base of the Quaternary aquifer, piezometric water level map, hydraulic conductivity values, historical water level measurements at some observation wells located near the project area; pumping rates and groundwater levels in the vicinity of the project area. In addition, the hydrologic characteristics of the farmers pumping wells located nearby the project site were collected within the framework of this study. 3. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Main Aquifer Systems On the basis of geomorphology and the hydrogeological features of the Nile Delta, the study area is located in the Western Nile Delta fringes. The main geologic unit in the area is the Nile Flood Plain deposits. These deposits belong to the Nile Quaternary aquifer which is divided into two aquifers, namely the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer. The top boundary of the flood plain deposits is made up of a semi‐pervious clay and silt. It acts as a cap for the main deep Quaternary aquifer. It is generally heterogeneous and anisotropic. This unit consists of Nile silt, 20 sandy clay, clayey sand, occasionally with fine sand intercala ons (RIGW 1982). The thickness of this top layer (shallow aquifer) reaches up to 20 meters. The water in this layer is in contact with the main underlying aquifer through downward leakage. An extensive irrigation and drainage network break through this layer to serve the agricultural development. According to laboratory experiments, the average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the shallow aquifer is 2.5 mm/day, and the average horizontal hydraulic conduc vity varies between 50 and 500 mm/day (RIGW 1982). The groundwater in this aquifer tends to flow horizontally and vertically from and to canals, drains and the main underlying Quaternary aquifer. The groundwater utilization from such aquifer is rare due to its low potential and high salinity. The main Quaternary aquifer consists of coarse sand and gravel with occasionally clay lenses intercalations. It underlies the top clay layer and overlies the lower marine clay deposits of Neogene impervious clay (RIGW 1982). The saturated thickness of this deep aquifer within the study area varies between 100 meters and less than 200 meters as shown in Figure (2). The aquifer is under semi‐confined conditions and the aquifer receives its recharge from the Rosetta Branch of the main Nile River. The hydraulic conductivity of the Quaternary aquifer varies between 50 and 100 m/day (RIGW 1982) and the aquifer storage coefficient varies between 0.2 and 10‐4 (Farid, 1985). The groundwater is extensively utilized from such aquifer especially in the areas located away from the Nile River and the existing irrigation canals. Figure (2) Base of the Quaternary Aquifer 21 4. Groundwater Levels a. Groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer Groundwater in the shallow aquifer is not of any importance due to its limited quantity and high salinity. Therefore, at the national level, there is no groundwater monitoring network for such aquifer. The design of the dewatering system includes an installation of a series of shallow observation wells. In addition and in response to the farmer's complains, two shallow piezometers were installed inside their farms to monitor the impact of the dewatering system on the water table. The monitoring of the water table at these two piezometers commenced on June 30, 2012 and it is con nual ll the me of this report. Figure (3) shows the location map of the existing shallow observation wells. Figure (3) Location map of the shallow observation wells in the study area 22 The depth to groundwater was recorded for almost 140 days before the start‐up of the dewatering system as shown in Figures (4) and (5). It is worth mentioning that the recording period started from September 2011 where the water level in the Nile River and the main irrigation canals is at its maximum level. On the contrary, the recording period ended on January 31st 2012 where the water level in the Nile River and the irrigation canal is at its lowest level (winter closure period). From these hydrographs, it is quite evident that the depth to the shallow groundwater level varies between 2.6 and 7.1 meters from the ground surface. On the other hand, there is gradual increase in the depth to groundwater level with time. The continuous decline in the static water level might be referred to the reduction in the level in El Beheiry main feeding canal which is located directly next to the southern boundary of the project site. Figure (4) Fluctuation in the depth to groundwater level at some shallow observation wells 23 Figure (5) Fluctuation in the depth to groundwater level at some shallow observation wells (Coordinates are not available and not posted on the map) b. Groundwater levels in the deep aquifer Groundwater in the deep aquifer is considered the sole source of water for the irrigated areas located away from the Nile River and the irrigation canals. Therefore, the water levels in the aquifer are being observed at the na onal level since the early 1970's. Figure (6) shows the hydrograph of one of the deep observa on wells during the period Jan 1974 and December 1977. This well is located at 6 km in the South East direction from the power plant as shown in Figure (7). The historical records indicate that the groundwater level fluctuates seasonally by more than two meters. Also, during the recorded period, there is a slight decline in the maximum groundwater levels by a rate of 36 cm/year. 24 Figure (6) Fluctuation in the groundwater level in a deep observation well Figure (7) shows the piezometric head map of the Quaternary aquifer as depicted from the hydrogeologic map of the Nile Delta. It is obvious that the groundwater level decreases gradually towards the west direction. Within the study area, the groundwater head is slightly less than 10 meters above mean sea level. 25 Figure (7) Piezometric head map of the deep Quaternary aquifer The design of the dewatering system includes an installation of a series of deep observation wells as shown in Figure (8). At the same locations of the shallow farmers' piezometers, two deep piezometers were installed to monitor the impact of the dewatering system on the deep groundwater table. Furthermore, another deep piezometer was drilled. Monitoring of groundwater levels commenced also on June 30, 2012. The depth to groundwater in the deep aquifer was recorded for 140 days before the start‐up of the dewatering system as shown in Figure (9). From these hydrographs and from the field observation of the farmers' wells, the depth to the deep groundwater level varies between 6 and 10 meters from the ground surface. Also, the fluctuation of the groundwater levels is not directly influenced by the change in the water levels in the Nile River or the irrigation canals. However, this fluctuation could be a result of the effect of groundwater utilization by the dewatering system. 26 Figure (8) Location map of the deep observation wells in the study area 27 Figure (9) Fluctuation in the groundwater level in the deep aquifer c. Relation between groundwater levels in the shallow and deep aquifers To understand the hydraulic interaction between the shallow and the deep aquifer, a graphical representation of the shallow and the deep water levels was constructed as show in Figures (10) and (11). From these two figures, it is obvious that the shallow groundwater levels are higher than the deep groundwater levels. These head differences could allow a downward flow from the shallow aquifer to the deep aquifer. The rate of the vertical leakage depends on the thickness of the semi‐confining layer as well as its vertical hydraulic conductivity value. The trend of the water level with time in the shallow aquifer is not matching the trend of the deep aquifer. This observation could justify the appropriateness of the assumption that the two aquifers are not hydraulically connected. 28 Figure (10) Depth to water in the shallow and the deep aquifers Figure (11) Depth to water in the shallow and the deep aquifers 5. Recharge‐Discharge Sources of the Aquifer Systems a. Recharge Recharge of groundwater is taking place by five processes: (1) Infiltra on of rainfall; (2) Downward leakage of the excess irriga on; (3) Seepage from the irriga on canals and drains; (4) Inter‐aquifer flow of groundwater; and (5) Ar ficial recharge. Within the study area, the shallow groundwater is recharged by the direct seepage from the Nile River and El Beheiry main feeding canal. The deep groundwater aquifer is recharged by the direct seepage of the Nile River and the inter‐aquifer flow of groundwater. 29 b. Discharge Discharge of groundwater takes place by three components: (1) outflow into the drainage system; (2) direct evaporation and (3) groundwater extraction. The available data revealed that groundwater from the shallow Quaternary aquifer is not utilized due to its limited potential. However, groundwater from the deep aquifer is heavily utilized through the farmers' wells. During this study, 146 wells located in the vicinity of the project area were surveyed as shown in Figure (12). It is worth to mention that the pumping rates from these wells vary according to the crop requirement. The survey indicated that the crop pattern served by these wells is mostly orange trees. Furthermore, the farmers indicated that the irrigation schedule of that type of trees is shown in Figure (13) where the y‐axis indicates the irrigation rotation during the month. On the other hand, the labels indicate the total volume of groundwater abstracted by the 146 wells during the month. The total annual volume of abstracted groundwater from the 146 wells is 1.5 million cubic meter compared to 12.5 million cubic meter extracted from the dewatering wells during the period Feb 2012 ll January 15, 2013. The high pumping rates from the dewatering wells would definitely impact the groundwater storage and hence reducing the groundwater levels. Figure (12) Well location map in the vicinity of the project site 30 Figure (13) Irrigation schedule during the year and the monthly extracted groundwater 6. Aquifer Hydraulic Properties The aquifer hydraulic properties include the hydraulic conductivity and the storage coefficient. The determination of these two parameters is essential to evaluate the aquifer response under any development scenarios. To estimate these parameters, the most practical and commonly used method is the long duration pumping test analysis. 6.1 Analysis of the pumping test data used in the design of the dewatering system Prior to the design of the existing dewatering system, pumping tests were performed separately on the shallow aquifer as well as the deep aquifer. For the deep aquifer, the test was performed in December 2011 by pumping for 24 hours from one well and recording the drawdown with me at three deep piezometers located at 25, 40 and 60 meters from the pumping well. The data was analyzed using the steady state equation which determines only the hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, the value of the storage coefficient has not been identified. The results of the pumping test data revealed that the hydraulic conductivity for the shallow aquifer is 34.5 m/day while for the deep groundwater aquifer is 74.3 m/day. These results were indicated in the technical report "C.W. Pump house and intake culvert dewatering plan and procedures". In the current study, the same pumping test data is analyzed again using the unsteady state analysis techniques. The objective of doing such is to compare the results of the steady state with the unsteady state analysis. 31 It is worth to mention that the deep well is perforated in the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer. Also, the existence of the sand‐gravel pack in the annular of the pumping wells ensures the complete connectivity between the shallow and the deep aquifers as well as the clay layer between the two aquifers. Therefore, the calculated transmissivity and the storage coefficient represent the equivalent property of the entire thickness from the shallow water table till the bottom of the deep well. Figure (14) shows the time‐drawdown data and the best fit using Theis curve for the three deep piezometers. The analysis revealed that the aquifer transmissivity varies between 831 and 948 m2/day. If the screen length of the pumping well is 18 meters, then the hydraulic conductivity value varies between 46 and 53 m/day. However, if the screen length represents the deep aquifer only, which is 12 meters, then the deep aquifer hydraulic conduc vity value varies between 70 and 79 m/day. This later value is very close to the es mated value which is used in the design of the dewatering system. Also, this range is close to the published values of the hydraulic conductivity in the region which varies between 50 and 100 m/day. Furthermore, the analysis of the pumping test data indicated that the aquifer storage coefficient varies between 0.012 and 0.00355 which also represents an equivalent value for the entire saturated thickness of the two aquifers. 0.10 1 10 Tim e [m in] 100 1000 10000 PZ- 1 PZ- B Drawdown [m] PZ- C 1.00 10.00 Figure (14) Analysis of Pumping test data performed on the deep aquifer 6.2 Analysis of the time‐drawdown data after operation of the dewatering system After the dewatering system started, the continuous records of the water levels in the deep piezometers have been analyzed to determine the aquifer transmissivity and the storage coefficient. The data analysis is based on the actual operation schedule of the pumping wells. However, the effect of the farmers' wells on the dewatering system has not been considered in the analyses. The analysis was done using the Theis solution and according to the following assumptions: (1) The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic; 32 (2) The pumping wells are fully penetrating the aquifer; (3) There is no leakage between the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer; (4) No recharge from the Nile River or the irrigation canals; and (5) When the shallow aquifer is dry, the full pumping rates are assigned to the deep aquifer. Although the above assumptions are sever and don't represent the actual hydrologic conditions, this exercise is still valuable to estimate the hydraulic parameters (T and S) using different approaches. Therefore, the calculated values of the hydraulic parameters are still questionable. a. Analysis of the pumping test data in the shallow aquifer For the shallow aquifer, the aquifer response under the effect of the dewatering system is influenced by the recharge boundary conditions at Beheiry canal. Therefore, the application of the Theis method to determine the aquifer hydraulic properties without including the effect of the recharge boundary will definitely lead to an underestimated value of the aquifer transmissivity. Furthermore, the assumption of having constant discharge from the shallow pumping wells is not practical and leads to fluctuation in the water table especially with the connection of deep and shallow aquifer through the sand filter and the variation of the water levels in Beheiry canal. Figure (15) shows the distribution of the shallow wells and the shallow piezometers in the study area. The pumping rate from each of the shallow pumping wells is 20 m3/hr. Tables (1) and (2) illustrate the coordinates of the shallow pumping wells and piezometers respectively. Figure (16) shows the typical design of the shallow pumping wells. 33 Figure (15) Location of the shallow pumping and observation wells inside the construction sites 34 Table (1) Coordinates of the shallow pumping wells inside the construction site Point Easting Northing SW1 4751.447 10094.731 SW2 4766.889 10079.685 SW3 4780.220 10066.539 SW4 4804.284 10056.929 SW5 4852.323 10059.063 SW6 4854.544 10116.924 SW7 4839.813 10131.785 SW8 4804.612 10121.627 SW9 4788.260 10132.650 SW10 4773.601 10163.325 Table (2) Coordinates of the shallow observation wells inside the construction site Point Easting Northing SPZ‐1‐A 4826.607 10099.388 SPZ‐2‐B 4777.709 10097.979 SPZ‐3‐A 4753.426 10154.651 35 Figure (16) Typical design of the shallow pumping wells Using the trial and error procedures, the observed drawdown in the shallow piezometer SPZ‐1 was matched using the Theis Type‐Curve with transmissivity value 680 m2/day and storage coefficient 0.08 as shown in Figure (17). It is worth to indicate that the reduction in the drawdown at me 72 days might be due the effect of recharge from the El Beheiry main feeding canal or due to the stoppage of some shallow pumping wells. Following the same procedures with the shallow piezometer SPZ‐2, the matching Transmissivity is 960 while the storage coefficient is 0.07 as shown in Figure (18). In summary, the average transmissivity and storage coefficient values for the shallow aquifer are 820 and 0.075 respec vely. The hydraulic conductivity of the shallow aquifer is equal to the transmissivity divided by the saturated thickness which is assumed to be about 6 meters. Therefore, the average hydraulic conduc vity (K) is about 136 m/day. Comparing the hydraulic conductivity value with the value used in the design of the dewatering system (K = 34 m/day), it is found that the two values are not close to each other. 36 Figure (17) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the shallow piezometer SPZ‐1 Figure (18) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the shallow piezometer SPZ‐2 37 b. Analysis of the pumping test data in the deep aquifer Figure (19) shows the distribution of the deep wells and the deep piezometers. The pumping rate from each of the deep pumping wells is 100 m3/hr. Tables (3) and (4) illustrate the coordinates of the deep pumping wells and piezometers respectively. Figure (20) shows the typical design of the deep pumping wells. 38 Figure (19) Location of the deep pumping and observation wells inside the construction site 39 Table (3) Coordinates of the deep pumping wells inside the construction site Point Easting Northing W1 4736.688 10110.209 W2 7460.941 10102.362 W3 4775.009 10088.294 W4 4789.672 10073.631 W5 4811.409 10070.378 W6 4833.024 10067.227 W7 4844.771 10074.813 W8 4844.771 10104.933 W9 4814.982 10111.367 W10 4791.992 10111.344 W11 4777.368 10126.238 W12 4763.216 10144.367 W13 4761.779 10161.259 W14 4771.482 10184.183 W15 4747.432 10159.042 W16 4811.249 10137.691 Table (4) Coordinates of the deep observation wells inside the construction site Point Easting Northing DPZ‐1 4828.263 10086.668 DPZ‐2 4793.871 10091.762 DPZ‐3 4750.258 10133.620 40 Figure (20) Typical design of the deep pumping wells Similar to the approach used for the shallow aquifer, the observed drawdown in the deep piezometer DPZ‐2‐B indicated that he Transmissivity value is 3670 m2/day and the storage coefficient is 0.0293 as shown in Figure (21). The drawdown for the deep piezometer DPZ‐3‐A, matches Theis Curve at transmissivity value of 4500 and storage coefficient of 0.12 as shown in Figure (22). In summary, the average transmissivity and storage coefficient values for the deep aquifer are 4085 and 0.075 respectively. 41 Figure (21) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the deep piezometer DPZ‐2‐B Figure (22) Matching the Theis Type Curve for the observed drawdown in the deep piezometer DPZ‐3‐A The hydraulic conductivity of the deep aquifer is equal to the Transmissivity divided by the saturated thickness which is assumed to be about 100 meters. Therefore, the average hydraulic conductivity (K) is about 40.85 m/day. 42 7. Impact of the Dewatering System on the groundwater levels Having the hydraulic parameters calculated from the pumping and head observation data, we can easily evaluate the impact of the dewatering system on the regional water level in the two aquifers. The drawdown caused by the dewatering system will be calculated at different radial distances from the center of gravity of the dewatering system. Assuming that the aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic with an infinite boundary, the groundwater flow equation was solved by Theis such as: s= Q W (u ) 4π T Where Q is the well discharge, (T) is the aquifer Transmissivity and W(u) is the well function defined as follows: W (u ) = − 0.5772 − ln(u ) + u − r2 S u2 u3 u4 un and u = + − + .... + n . n! 2.2! 3.3! 4.4! 4T t In case of having recharge boundary such as the Nile River and El Beheiry Canal, the theory of image is applied to account for the effect of these boundaries. a. Calculation of the drawdown at any point in the shallow aquifer The shallow dewatering system consists of 10 wells and the expected maximum drawdown of these wells will occur at the center of gravity of the well field. Therefore, the radial distance from the dewatering system will be measured from the center of gravity which is shown in Figure (23). Using the hydrologic parameters of the shallow aquifer, the Theis solution was applied to calculate the drawdown at any time for different radial distances from the center of gravity of the dewatering system such as: Number of wells = 10 Well discharge = 20 m3/hr Aquifer Transmissivity (T) = 820 m2/day Storage coefficient (S) = 0.075 Radial distance (r) = 100, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 meters Time (t) = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…, 390 days 43 Figure (24) illustrates the calculated drawdown with time for different radial distance (r). It is obvious that the shallow dewatering system has an impact on the shallow groundwater levels. The drawdown magnitude varies between less than 0.5 meters away from the site and 3 meters inside the project boundaries. It is obvious from Figure (24) that the drawdown at different distances from the dewatering area continues to increase. On the contrary, this is not the case in reality since the water levels in the shallow aquifer stabilized after two months from the start‐up of the dewatering system. This might be explained as follows: (i) The rate of change in the water levels after two months from the start‐up of the dewatering system is small and steady state condition might prevail; (ii) Most of the shallow wells turned to be dry and pumping rate from the shallow aquifer has been reduced; and (iii) The direct recharge from the Beheiry Canal into the shallow aquifer is not simulated accurately in the Theis analytical solution. 44 Figure (23) Center of gravity of the shallow dewatering system 45 Figure (24) Calculated drawdown with time at different radial distance in the shallow aquifer b. Calculation of the drawdown at any point in the deep aquifer The deep dewatering system consists of 16 wells and the expected maximum drawdown of these wells will occur at the center of gravity of the well field. Therefore, the radial distance from the dewatering system will be measured from the center of gravity which is shown in Figure (25). Using the hydrologic parameters of the deep aquifer, the Theis solution was applied to calculate the drawdown at any time for different radial distances from the center of gravity of the dewatering system. Number of wells = 16 Well discharge = 100 m3/hr Aquifer Transmissivity (T) = 4085 m2/day Storage coefficient (S) = 0.075 Radial distance (r) = 100, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 meters Time (t) = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…, 390 days Figure (26) illustrates the calculated drawdown with me for different radial distance (r). It is obvious that the deep dewatering system has an impact on the groundwater levels. The drawdown magnitude varies between less than 1 meter away from the project site and 6 meters inside the project boundaries. 46 Figure (25) Center of gravity of the deep dewatering system 47 Figure(26) Calculated drawdown with time at different radial distance in the deep aquifer Similar to the shallow aquifer, it is obvious that the drawdown in the deep aquifer at different distances from the dewatering area continues to increase and never reaches steady state. One fact that may explain these is that the total volume abstracted since the start of the dewatering has gradually been reduced with time and not considered in the Theis solution. To simulate the variation in the pumping rates with time using the Theis Equation is tedious and needs a lot of effort and hence, numerical models are recommended. To summarize the aforementioned results, it is quite clear that the dewatering system has an impact on the groundwater aquifer, specially the deep aquifer which is utilized by farmers. The cone of depression for the dewatering system extends to several hundreds of meters. it should be highlighted that the dewatering system is not continuously operation and the actual operational plan should be simulated to pick up the variation in the measured water levels. Also and with no doubt, the farmers' wells have a positive impact on lowering the groundwater levels at the project site. From the above it is necessary to develop a numerical model to simulate the complicity of the hydrogeologic conditions near the project site. This complicity is related to the effect of the Nile River on the groundwater levels, the operational schedule for the dewatering system as well as the farmers' wells and finally the heterogeneous nature of the aquifer. The developed model will be used to predict the recovery of the groundwater levels after the dewatering system is completely stopped. The MODFLOW software is used to simulate this problem and the results are shown in the following sections. 48 8. Numerical Simulation Using MODFLOW As described earlier, the deep aquifer is considered the main aquifer within the study area. Therefore, our emphasis in this study is to investigate the impact of the dewatering system on the farmers' wells which utilize groundwater from the deep aquifer. a. Model Design a.1 Space discretization Groundwater flow in the confined deep aquifer was simulated in an area of 15 km by 11 km. The aquifer thickness is variable as shown in Figure (27). A simple finite difference grid with one layer was designed with 10,000 cells. The confining layer and the shallow aquifer are set to be inactive throughout the simulation. This means that there is no flow contribution between the shallow and the deep aquifers. When water level in the deep aquifer declines to a level below the bottom elevation of the confining layer, the deep aquifer is converted from confined conditions to unconfined conditions. The cell size is constant with a value of 100×100 meters. Figure (28) shows the finite difference grid and the uniform cell size. Figure (27) East‐West cross section in the aquifer 49 Figure (28) Space Discretization of the modeled area a.2 Boundary conditions In order to solve the flow equation and to obtain a unique solution, boundary conditions should be specified. There are three types of boundary conditions that might be used and defined as follows: (I) First type or Dirichlet, where the head is prescribed on the boundary. The head may be a constant or a function of space and/or time. Rivers and lakes are common examples of constant head boundary. (II) Second type or Neumann, where the groundwater flow is specified on the boundary. The flux is defined as a volumetric flow rate per unit area. A special case of the second type is the no flow boundary conditions which occur at ground water divides and impervious boundaries. (III) Third type, mixed or Cauchy, where it is a combination of the first and second types. This type of boundary is used to simulate leakage across semi‐pervious layers. With the definition of the boundary conditions, it is preferable to use the natural boundaries that exist in the study area for accuracy. If there are no natural hydrologic features in the study area, the model area has to be extended far enough to avoid the effect of the artificial boundaries on the solution. In the present problem, there is only one natural boundary which is the constant head boundary represented by the Nile River. The other boundaries are open boundaries and specified as constant head boundary which is variable in space but fixed in time. It is a necessary step to check during simulation that the effect of hydrologic stresses does not reach the model boundary. If this happens, the model area should be enlarged. In the vertical 50 direction, the top and bottom of the deep aquifer are designated a no flow boundary because vertical leakages through the confining deposits were considered negligible. a.3 Aquifer Properties, hydraulic conductivity and storativity The aquifer properties which have been obtained from pumping test analysis are used in the present model. These properties are considered heterogeneous. Since there is no enough data to represent the spatial distribution of the hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficients within the study area, the model has to be calibrated to adjust these two parameters. a.4 Initial conditions For the steady state calibration, initial head distribution does not affect the results. On the contrary, the transient calibration which is performed to adjust storage parameters relies mainly on the initial conditions. The head distribu on in 1992 was assumed as the steady state head distribution. This assumption is reliable since the decline in the water level is small compared to the aquifer thickness. a.5 Aquifer recharge and discharge Due to the existence of the clay layer between the shallow and the deep aquifer, it was assumed that the deep aquifer is confined and receives no recharge from the applied irrigation or the limited rainfall in the area. The only recharge source to the deep aquifer is the leakage from the Nile River which is simulated as a constant head boundary. For El‐Beheiry Canal, it has no effect on the water levels in the deep aquifer. For the farmers' pumping wells, they are designed to utilize water from the deep aquifer. The farmers' wells are not perforated in the shallow aquifer and they are completely isolated. The farmers' wells were simulated taking into consideration the seasonal variation in the pumping rates. The hydraulic connection between the shallow and the deep aquifer at the dewatering site was not considered in the model simulation. The deep wells were considered as fully penetrating wells in the deep aquifer. Figure (29) shows the location of some farmers' wells located in the vicinity of the project area within a radius of 1100 meters from the center of the dewatering system. 51 Figure (29) Location map of the farmers' wells located in the vicinity of the project area b. Model Calibration The steady state calibration was performed first in order to accurately determine the aquifer transmissivity and to adjust the boundary conditions. Figure (30) shows the calculated head distribution which matches the available head map of Year 1992. Although, this map is old and may not be accurately represent the current situation, it is still reliable to be used in evaluating the aquifer response under the effect of groundwater pumping scenarios. Having the model calibrated for steady state conditions, the model is calibrated next for the transient conditions to identify the most appropriate distribution for the storage coefficient. It is worth to mention that the transient calibration considered some of the farmers' wells which are located mostly to the East and South East of the project site as shown in Figure (31). More wells exist to the North and West of the project site but have not been included in the model. This has an effect on the accuracy of the model where the calculated drawdown is less than the observed drawdown as shown in Figures (32), (33) and (34) for PZA, PZB and PZC respectively. From the calculated drawdown, it is quite clear that the drawdown is not increasing from year to another. This observation proves the fact that the deep aquifer has reached a state of hydrodynamic equilibrium. 52 Figure (30) Calculated head (in red color) vs observed head (in black color) in the deep aquifer Figure (31) Distribution of the Farmers' wells included in the developed model 53 Figure (32) Calculated drawdown vs observed drawdown at piezometer DPZ‐A Figure (33) Calculated drawdown vs observed drawdown at piezometer DPZ‐B 54 Figure (34) Calculated drawdown vs observed drawdown at piezometer DPZ‐C c. Model Scenarios The calibrated model was used to answer four ques ons such as: (1) what is the effect of the farmers' wells on the project site? (2) what is the effect of the dewatering system on the farmers' wells? (3) what is the overall impact of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells on the deep aquifer? and (4) what will happen to the groundwater levels when stopping the dewatering system?. The calculated drawdowns were compared with the actual observed drawdowns in the deep piezometers located within and near the construction site as explained in the following sections. 2. Effect of the farmers' wells on the project site Figure (35) shows the maximum annual drawdown in the deep aquifer. At the project site, the annual maximum drawdown that might occur due to pumping from the farmers' wells is equal to 0.28 meters and the annual minimum drawdown is less than 0.03 meter or zero. On the other hand, the maximum annual drawdown at the two observation wells outside the project site reaches up to 0.2 meters due to the effect of the farmers' wells. 55 Figure (35) Annual maximum drawdown in the deep aquifer 3. Effect of the dewatering system on the farmers' wells To assess the impact of the dewatering system on the farmers' wells, the farmers' wells are assumed idle. The pumping rates from the dewatering system were simulated according to the rates shown in Table (5). It is assumed that the number of concurrent operational wells is 16 and the total extraction is distributed evenly among them. For the three stress periods, the model results indicated that a maximum drawdown of 9 meters occurs inside the project and decreased gradually towards the farmers' wells as shown in Figures (36), (37) and (38). Table (5) Stress Period Operational pumping schedule of the dewatering system Start Time End Time Total Extraction Rates (day) (day) (m3/hr) 1 1‐Feb‐2012 25‐Mar‐2012 1500 2 25‐Mar‐2012 7‐Aug‐2012 1000 3 7‐Aug‐2012 1‐Mar‐2012 900 56 Figure (36) Calculated drawdown a er 23 days since the dewatering system started with a total pumping rate of 1500 m3/hr since 1‐Feb‐2012 ll 25‐Mar‐2012 Figure (37) Calculated drawdown after 53 days since the dewatering system started with a total pumping rate of 1250 m3/hr during 25‐3‐2012 ll 28‐5‐2012 57 Figure (38) Calculated drawdown after 365 days since the dewatering system started with a total pumping rate of 1000 m3/hr during 28‐5‐2012 ll 1‐3‐2012 The maximum drawdown at the two observa on wells 2 and 3‐D are 2.2 and 1.6 meters respectively. As a result of this impact, the project owner substituted the impacted farmers to recover the damage. Some farmers' wells went dry and the project provided these farmers with water through pipe lines from the dewatering system to their irrigated lands. Some other farmers complained of reducing the discharge rates from their wells due to lowering the groundwater levels. These farmers were also substituted to compensate their loss. In summary the effect of the dewatering system extends beyond the boundaries of the project site. The drawdown propagates away from the center of the dewatering system in an oval fashion. The drawdown of one meter extends about 1335 m to the East, 2450 m to the west, 2550 m to the North and 2155 m to the South. 4. Overall impact of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells on the deep aquifer In this scenario which represents the real situation, the farmers' wells, as well as, the dewatering wells will be considered to calculate the drawdown at any point in the aquifer. It is worth mentioning that the farmers' wells which are temporarily out of service will not be considered in the simulation. Figures (39) through (41) show the drawdown distribution in the aquifer at the end of each stress period. For the three stress periods, the model results indicated that a maximum drawdown of 8 meters occurs inside the project and decreased gradually towards the farmers' wells. 58 Figure (39) Total drawdown a er 23 days since the dewatering system started with farmers' wells operational Figure (40) Total drawdown a er 53 days since the dewatering system started with farmers' wells operational 59 Figure (41) Total drawdown a er 365 days since the dewatering system started with farmers' wells operational The time‐drawdown relationships for the deep piezometers DPZB, 1 (Faraga El Sayed) and 3‐D (Said El Masry) are shown in Figures (42), (43) and (44) respectively. It is obvious that there is a lag between the calculated drawdown and the observed values for the deep piezometer DPZB. This could be due to the delay response of the aquifer or due to errors in simulating the pumping schedule in the model. The model assumed that all the dewatering wells started at the same time on February 1st 2011. However, from the graphical representation of the observed and calculated drawdown data, I would expect that the dewatering wells started as a step wise function and the matching between the model results and the observed data could be maintained if we accurately simulated the operation of the dewatering system. For the farmers' deep piezometers, the model results match the observed drawdown with a good fit. Generally speaking and for the purpose of this study, the little deviation between the observed and the calculated drawdown has no significant effect on the model accuracy and reliability. 60 Figure (42) Time‐Drawdown relationship at Piezometer DPZB due to the effect of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells Figure (43) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 2 (Faraga El Sayed) due the effect of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells 61 Figure (44) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 3‐D (Said El Masry) due the effect of the dewatering system and the farmers' wells 5. Groundwater response when stopping the dewatering system The last concern of operating the dewatering system is to predict the response of the aquifer when the system is at complete stop. It is planned to finalize the infrastructure by March 1st 2013. On that day, the dewatering system will be completely stopped. The developed model was used to simulate this scenario taking into consideration that the farmers' wells are operational. Figures (45), (46) and (47) indicate that the groundwater level at the three observa on points DPZB, 2 (Faraga El Sayed) and 3‐D (Said El Masry) will be recovered with some minor residual drawdown of less than 5 cm (about 98% recovery). The recovery time is less than 30 days (almost 10‐20 days). 62 Figure (45) Figure (46) Time‐Drawdown relationship at Piezometer DPZB when the dewatering system is completely stopped Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 2 (Faraga El Sayed) when the dewatering system is completely stopped 63 Figure (47) Time‐Drawdown rela onship at Piezometer 3‐D (Said El Masry) when the dewatering system is completely stopped 9. Negative Impact on Farmer's Income 9.1 Evaluation of the farmers' reported drawdown During the field survey of the farmers' wells, the farmers reported the drawdown that had happened inside their wells since the start up of the dewatering system. The reported drawdown values indicated that farmers located close to the project site within a radius of 1200 meters were affected. Comparing the reported drawdowns with the calculated values, some farmers located away from the project site reported higher drawdown which is not reliable in relation to the impact of the dewatering system. It is indicated previously that the groundwater levels fluctuate within a range of 2 meters due to the change in the water levels in the Nile River. The wells located close to the Nile River are more sensitive to the water level in the Nile than the other wells located away. Starting from this fact, we could consider that the change in the water level within an average value of one‐ two meters is natural due to the change in the River stage. Any additional drawdown could be referred to the impact of the operation of the farmers' wells as well as the dewatering system. These hydrogeologic conditions would have an impact on the farmers' income due to the extra cost associated with the increased energy costs (longer pumping times) or potential additional investments (well equipment or pump replacement). 64 As a result of this impact, the project owner substituted the impacted farmers to recover the damage. Some farmers' wells went dry and the project provided these farmers with water through pipe lines from the dewatering system to their irrigated lands. Some other farmers complained of reducing the discharge rates from their wells due to lowering the groundwater levels. These farmers were also substituted to compensate their loss by drilling new wells. 9.2 Theoretical basis of the impact on the farmers' well discharge In order to evaluate the impact on each farmer, a comprehensive field survey has to be conducted to get more accurate data and information about the characteristics of the pumps which are used in each well. The pump characteristics include the pump horsepower, total dynamic head and pump discharge. Even though, we will not be able to accurately evaluate the reduction in the pumping discharge as a result of lowering the water levels at the farmers' wells. Hence, in the absence of the baseline data of the static water levels and the discharge rates for each farmer's well, a theoretical based approach is used instead to evaluate the impact of the dewatering system on the farmers. The Pump horsepower is calculated using the following equation: HP = γ Q H (1) Where HP denotes the pump horsepower, ɣ is the water specific gravity, Q is the pump discharge and H is the total dynamic water level. For the centrifugal pumps, Figure (48) shows the different components of the total dynamic head (e). In response to the dewatering system, the dynamic water level will change due to change in the water level (a) which is the drawdown (s). The other components of the total head (H) are independent of the dewatering system. Therefore, the total dynamic water level is expressed mathematically as follows: H =K ±s Where K is constant. 65 Figure (48) Components of the total dynamic water head (H), Groundwater and wells (1992) Using the aforementioned hypothesis and assuming that all the concerned wells in the area have the same pump's characteristics (Pump horsepower and pump efficiency), then the discharge rate from the farmer's well is mainly a function of the change in the groundwater level (s). For simplicity, the previous equation could be expressed as shown in the following relationship: Qα 1 s 1+ K (2) The former relationship indicates that the discharge from the well is inversely proportional to the drawdown. The reduction in the pumping discharge is also affected by the other components of the total head such as the lifting head and the depth to static water level. In the project area, the sta c total head before pumping (K) varies between 6 and 10 meters. Using this range, along with the average value, the reduction in the pump discharge was calculated for different drawdown values as shown in Figure (49). 9.3 Estimation of the dewatering system impact on the farmers' well discharge Figure (50) shows the calculated drawdown from the model along with the loca on of the farmers' wells. Using the rela onship in Figure (49) and the calculated drawdown in Figure (50), we can evaluate the percentage of decrease in the discharge rate for the different affected zones as shown in Figure (51). Consequently and to fulfill the water requirements for the cultivated area, the increase in the fuel consumption would be evaluated based on the extra working hours for the pumps. It is worth indicating that the increase in the percentage of fuel consumption rate is equal to the percentage of reduction in the discharge rate. 66 Figure (49) Relationship between the drawdown and the percentage of reduction in the pumping discharge for different static total head values 3350000 3348000 3 2 3346000 1 3344000 3342000 296000 298000 300000 302000 304000 306000 308000 Figure (50) Calculated drawdown in meter along with the loca on of the farmers' wells 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 67 Percentage of decrease in the discharge rate 3350000 30 25 3348000 20 3346000 15 10 3344000 5 3342000 0 296000 298000 300000 0 Figure (51) 1000 302000 2000 3000 304000 306000 308000 4000 Percentage of decrease in the discharge rate from the farmers' wells Table (6a) shows the compensation rate for the well owners based on the calculated drawdown. There are four farmers who complained of water shortage problems due to the effect of the dewatering system. The annual charge for electricity to irrigate one feddan used by the Ministry of electricity and Energy is LE 135.2. Assuming that the four complainers were affected by a maximum of 25% decrease in their wells’ discharge, the total damage cost was calculated for each farmer as shown in Table (6b). In comparison with using the personal power supply (Diesel Generators) or metered electricity, the estimated cost will be much less. Out of these four farmers, two farmers were supplied with water through a pipe network operated by the CEPC. Therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation related to lowering the groundwater levels. Table (6a) Guidelines for the compensation rate to the well owners Calculated Drawdown (m) 0‐1 1‐2 2‐3 3‐4 4‐5 5‐6 6‐8 % of reduction in discharge rate 0‐5 5‐10 10‐15 15‐20 20‐25 25‐30 30‐45 68 Table (6b) Estimated damage cost for lowering groundwater levels Area (Fedan) Normal Electricity bill per one year (LE) 1 Saeed Masry Mohamed 11 135.2 1487 372 1859 2 Mohamed Mabrouk 4 135.2 541 135 676 3 Emad Abdelhalim Harbi 0.5 135.2 68 Direct supply of Water 4 Khaled Mahoumd Harbi 1.0 135.2 135 Direct supply of Water Farmer Increase in Electricity bill (estimated at 25%) Total Electricity bill with possible 25% increase Electricity tariff per fadan per year (LE) 69 Part 2 Land use/change of Giza North Station Contents: Page Abstract 70 1 Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from 2008 to 2010 70 2 Elevation Differences 73 3 Sodicity (alkali) hazard 76 4 Prevention and management of saline seeps 76 5 Drainage 77 6 Cropping with saline water 80 7 Conclusions and recommendations 81 Figures: Fig. (1_a): Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from 2003 to 2007 71 Fig. (1_b): Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from 2008 to 2010. 72 Fig. (2): Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from March to July 2011. 73 Fig. (3): Schematic diagram of a recharge and a seepage area 74 Fig. (4): The areas of low elevation than the surroundings. 75 70 Abstract: Giza North power plant covers around 70 Feddans and is delimited by: Latitudes 30 14 35 & 30 15 09 N; and Longitudes 30 56 39 & 30 56 59 E. The power plant site is located on the eastern bank of the El-Rayyah (Canal) El-Beheiry, a main branch of the Rosetta Branch of the River Nile, approximately 40 km northwest of Cairo City, and km 20 southeast of El-Khatatba along the immediate northeast side of the Menshat ElQanater/Itay El-Baroud Road, which runs parallel to the El-Rayyah El-Beheiry. The site is within the administrative boundary of the Giza governorate, the Markaz of Imbaba and Menshat El-Qanater. The site, also, is situated about 5-6 km from El-Kata agricultural complex, an area being developed for agricultural use. The area surrounding the site is locally known as the El-Kata area. The site is situated in the heart of the new cultivated lands. It forms the flat area which is a part of the Western extension of Nile Delta plain. Many small villages (Ezzab /Kafr) are littered around the area. The site is located a small distance to the north of the existing poultry farm at km 22 El-Khatatba and 5 km north west of Ezbet Sayyed Ibrahim, the nearest residential community to the site. The project site is owned by the Cairo Electrcity Production Company (CEPC), an affiliate company to the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company (EEHC), and consists of flat land measuring approximately 337m x 876m with a total allocated area of 294,000 m2. The Giza North Power Plant is intended to be operational by the year 2012/2013. Land cover / Land use of the study area in the period from 28 February, 2003 to 11 May, 2010. while Note there is change in Land cover / Land use of the study area in the period from 19 March, 2011 to 28 July, 2011 As shown in Fig. (2), about 70 Feddans in Land cover / Land use of the study changed from agricultural land to Giza North power plant. 1. Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from 2008 to 2010 As shown in Fig. (1-a and b), a rectified images of multispectral quick bird high resolution acquired on 28 February 2003, 21 May 2005, 6 September 2005, 7 February 2007, 3 January 2008, 14 July 2008, 17 October 2009, and 11 May, 2010 were prepared using Interpretation Techniques in order to identify boundaries that are correlated with the differences of the land cover/land use. This 71 method is called the “genetic approach”, which is based on the dynamic processes rather than the static ones. There is no change in Land cover /Land use of the. 28 February, 2003 21 May, 2005 6 September, 2005 7 February, 2007 Fig. (1_a): Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from 2003 to 2007 72 study area in the period from 28 February, 2003 to 11 May, 2010, while there is change in the period from 19 March, 2011 to 28 July, 2011. As shown in Fig. (2), about 70 Feddans changed from agricultural land to Giza North power plant 3 January, 2008 14 July, 2008 17 October, 2009 11 May, 2010 Fig. (1_b): Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from 2008 to 2010. 73 19 March, 2011 28 July, 2011 Fig. (2): Land cover / Land use map of the study area in the period from March to July 2011. 2. Elevation differences: ‐ ‐ As seen in the digital elevation maps that the elevation difference is about three meters (ranges from 16 to 19 meters). The two suggested areas that could face water/salinity problems both below 16m. Although the project activities did not change the elevation, the changes in water quantities and qualities in the reservoir has changed. During the construction, large quantities of water has been discharged that may lead to increased salinity of the water. Irrigation with the slightly higher salinity water could lead to higher salinity of top soil as salt accumulates on the surface. In addition, as farmer’s attitude is to use larger pumps, the quantity of discharged water from the aquifer is likely to be larger than used to be. Water logging causes salinity problems in case of poor drainage system. In the first area under the construction, as a precaution, as elevation is 3 m lower than the surroundings, water level is likely to be increased if no sufficient drainage system in place. Before the start of the project, or historically, there might have been a drainage system in this area that was not clear from the satellite images. 74 ‐ ‐ In the area outside the plant with low elevation, it rather important to have a drain canal and make sure that drainage system is maintained. (We believe that it worth to have a drain canal beside the south wall of the plant to improve the farmer concerns, and not to waste efforts whether the drainage system was working before or not). Land productivity could be reduced by 10-50% in most crops, and could reach 100% loss in case of citrus trees under high water table. Fig. (3): Schematic diagram of a recharge and a seepage area (zone of salt accumulation). As shown in Fig. (4), the presence of the two areas that could be affected, due to elevation differences not to salinization of the ground water, are: one inside Giza North power plant that covers around 22.7 Feddans; and the second area is outside Giza North power plant that covers around 6.4 Feddans. 75 Fig. (4): The areas of low elevation than the surroundings 76 3- Sodicity (alkali) hazard: This is another problem often confronting longterm use of certain water for irrigation and relates to the maintenance of adequate soil permeability so that the water can infiltrate and move freely through the soil. The problem develops when irrigation water contains relatively more sodium ions than divalent calcium and magnesium ions while the total concentration of salts is generally not very high. Accumulation of sodium ions on to the exchange complex results in a breakdown of soil aggregates responsible for good soil structure needed for free movement of water and air through the soils. As in the case of sodic soils, accumulation of sodium on the exchange complex can be reduced by applying appropriate quantities of amendments. 4- Prevention and management of saline seeps: Any long-term solutions to the problem must include regional land use changes with the objective of at least partly restoring the original hydrological state. Apart from measures to restore the hydrologic equilibrium, site specific treatments of salt-affected land are required to restore their productivity. As far as the project is concerned, this issue is directly linked to the elevation section discussed earlier. a. Salt leaching: The amount of crop yield reduction depends on such factors as crop growth, the salt content of the soil, climatic conditions, etc. In extreme cases where the concentration of salts in the root zone is very high, crop growth may be entirely prevented. To improve crop growth in such soils the excess salts must be removed from the root zone. The term reclamation of saline soils refers to the methods used to remove soluble salts from the root zone. Methods commonly adopted or proposed to accomplish this include the following Scraping: Removing the salts that have accumulated on the soil surface by mechanical means has had only a limited success although many farmers have resorted to this procedure. Although this method might temporarily improve crop growth, the ultimate disposal of salts still poses a major problem. 77 b. Flushing: Washing away the surface accumulated salts by flushing water over the surface is sometimes used to desalinize soils having surface salt crusts. Because the amount of salts that can be flushed from a soil is rather small, this method does not have much practical significance. 5- Drainage: Irrigation is the most effective means of stabilizing agricultural production in areas where the rainfall is either inadequate for meeting the crop requirements or the distribution is erratic. Before the introduction to an area of large quantities of water through irrigation, there exists a water balance between the rainfall on the one hand and stream flow, groundwater table, evaporation and transpiration on the other. This balance is serously disturbed when additional quantities of water are artificially spread on the land to grow agricultural crops, introducing additional factors of groundwater recharge from seepage from canals, distributors and field channels, most of which are unlined, and from the irrigation water let on to the fields over and above the quantities actually utilized by the crops, etc. As a result of these, the groundwater table rises. a. There are numerous instances throughout the world, where consequent upon the introduction of canal irrigation, the water table has risen considerably within 10 years to less than 2 m. Once the groundwater table is close to the soil surface, due to evaporation from the surface, appreciable movement of the groundwater takes place resulting in the accumulation of salts in the root zone. b. Provision of adequate drainage measures is the only way to control the groundwater table. Subsurface drainage problems may also arise due to the presence, at some soil depth, of a clay barrier, a hardpan, bed rock, or even a subsoil textural change. In many areas drainage problems also arise because of the accumulation and stagnation of rainfall or excess irrigation water on the soil surface. Surface drainage problems usually arise due to 78 slopes that are too flat or to slow water penetration because of structural instability of the soils or to uneven land. c. Temporary water stagnation in standing crops results in problems of aeration, disease, weed control and nutrient supply. Proper land shaping and provision of surface drains are needed to solve the problems of surface water stagnation. The experience of some countries in tackling drainage problems and the nature and properties of various drainage materials are described in two FAO publications (FAO, 1971a; 1972). d. Open ditches: Open drainage ditches are advantageous for removing large volumes of either surface or subsoil water from land and for use where the water table is near the surface and the slope is too slight for proper installation of tile drains. Where subsurface tile drains are uneconomic or physically impossible, as in many heavy clay soils and where the topography is nearly flat, open drains may be the only practical means of draining the land. Open ditches also serve as outlets for tile drains where their depth is sufficient and other conditions are favorable. The chief disadvantage of open drains is that they occupy land that might otherwise be put to cultivation; open ditches across cultivated fields also obstruct farming operations and are a danger to the livestock and are more costly to maintain than the subsurface covered drains. Open drains become ineffective due to growth of weeds, collapse of banks resulting in partial filling with soil material, etc., and must be periodically cleaned. e. Pump drainage The chief drawback of gravity drainage systems is their inability to lower the water table to an adequate depth. Pumping groundwater in areas where a suitable permanent aquifer exists is often an effective means of lowering the water table. A decision to pump groundwater for drainage is generally favored by adequate depths and permeability of the water bearing formations, by high values of pumped water for irrigation and by low power costs. To determine if pumping would be effective, pumping tests have to be carried out in test wells to 79 determine the feasibility and area of influence by measuring water levels in adjacent observation wells or piezometers. Spacing, depth, and capacity of the pumped wells and other operational details also need to be evaluated from these tests. f. Maintenance of drainage systems: After a subsurface drainage system has been installed, a suitable map should be made and filed with the property deed. The map should show the location of all ditches and subsurface drains, tile size and grade, depth and spacing. Any subsequent changes should also be recorded on the map. The record is of considerable value to the present and future land owners when the drainage system might need repairs or maintenance. g. A subsurface drainage system normally requires little maintenance if it is properly designed and installed. The outlet ditch should be kept free of the sediment and the tile outlet should be protected against erosion and undermining. If a drain line becomes filled with sediment or roots the line should be uncovered at some point downstream to locate the obstruction. If the line is not completely clogged and water is available the sediment can sometimes be flushed out. A suitable plug, swab or a rigid rod can be used to remove the blockage. A high pressure water jet may be needed to clean out some lines. Often it is more economic to replace the entire plugged section. Roots of nearby trees can also block subsurface drains. For this reason shrubs and trees growing adjacent to a tile line should be removed. If the tile lines become filled with roots, it is best to dig up and replace the clogged section and remove the troublesome trees at the same time. The maintenance of open collecting ditches is most important and it is difficult. Weed growth must be controlled and the caving in of the sides requires continuous attention in order that the entire drainage system continues to work efficiently. 80 6- Cropping with saline water Crop plants differ a great deal in their ability to survive and yield satisfactorily when grown in saline soils. Information on the relative tolerance of crops to a saline soil environment is of practical importance in planning cropping schedules for optimum returns. There are situations where farmers have to live with salinity problems, for example, in areas having saline water as the only source of water for irrigation. In other situations where good quality water is available for reclamation of saline soils, it is often helpful to grow crops simultaneously with reclamation efforts to make reclamation economic. There is much literature on the relative tolerance of different crops to soil salinity obtained under a vast range of soil, climatic and salinity conditions. Tolerance to salinity is not a fixed property of a species but varies with the growth stage of the crop, climatic conditions and within the same species for different varieties of the crop. These factors render the task of evaluating crop salt tolerance data difficult. Also the methodologies adopted by different workers for studying tolerance have varied from water culture experiments on the one extreme to field studies with little control on the root zone salinity on the other. 81 7. Conclusions and recommendations: Regarding the land-use and land-use changes within and around Giza North Power Plant, it could be concluded that: 1. Crops around the Plant don’t show any changes as seen from satellite images since 28 February, 2003, till the latest image obtained on July 2011. 2. There are two areas with elevation lower than the surroundings, and has nothing to do with the Plant. An open drainage canal connected to the main drain on the north side of the plant could help if water table increases REFERENCES: Abrol, I.P., Dahiya, I.S. and Bhumbla, D.R. 1975. On the method of determining gypsum requirement of soils. Soil Sci. 120: 30-36. Acharya, C.L. and Abrol, I.P. 1978. Exchangeable sodium and soil-water behaviour under field conditions. Soil Sci. 125: 310-319. Acharya, C.L., Sandhu, S.S. and Abrol, I.P. 1979. Effect of exchangeable sodium on the rate and pattern of water uptake by Raya (Brassica juncea L.) in the field. Agron. J. 71: 936-941. Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29. Rev. 1. FAO, Rome. 174 p. FAO. 1971a. Drainage of heavy soils. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 6. FAO, Rome. 109 p. FAO. 1972. Drainage materials. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 9. FAO, Rome. 122 p. ILACO. 1981. Agricultural compendium for rural development in the tropics and subtropics. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam. 739 p. Maas, E.V. 1984. Salt tolerance of plants. In: The Handbook of Plant Science in Agriculture. B.R. Christie (ed). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 82 Maas, E.V. and Hoffman, G.J. 1977. Crop salt tolerance - current assessment. J. Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE 103 (IRI): 115-134. Proceeding Paper 12993. Manchanda, H.R. 1976. Quality of ground waters of Haryana. Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, India. 160 p. Narayana, V.V.D., Pandey,. R.N. and Gupta, S.K. 1977. Drainage of alkali soils. J. Indian Assoc. Hydrologists. 1: 21-28. Paliwal, K.V. 1972. Irrigation with saline water. Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India. 198 p. 83 Part 3 Monitoring of the irrigation water quality Air quality, Shadow, artificial light and Dust of the North Giza Plant Contents Pag 1 Irrigation water quality 84 2 Air Quality 94 3 Shadow effect 96 4 Artificial light effect 97 5 Dust 98 Tables: Table( 1) : Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples From North Giza Electrical Olant (August 28, 2012) 85 Table (2) : Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples From North Giza Electrical Olant (September 23, 2012) 86 Table (3) : Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples From North Giza Electrical Plant (October14, 2012) 87 Table( 4) : Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples November 2012 88 Table (5) FAO Guidelines for interpretations of water quality for irrigation. 89 Table (6) : FAO Recommendation for maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water. 91 Table (7) Air and GHG records of Air monitoring stations of North Giza Power Plant 95 84 1. Irrigation Water Quality In order to follow up the impacts of the North Giza Plant construction activities regarding the availability and the quality of the irrigation water in the area surrounding the plant site, we have received the chemical analyses of 11 wells during the months of August, September and October 2012. The water chemical parameters are illustrated in tables 2 through 5. Table (6) illustrates the FAO Guidelines for interpretations of water quality for irrigation. And Table (7) illustrates FAO Recommendation for maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water. 85 Table 1 : Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples From North Giza Electrical Olant (August 28, 2012) Tests Pz9 Pz10 Pz11 Farga Masry Hamza 7.1 7.3 7.2 EC(1) 694 708 604 Total Alkalinity 220 230 212.5 6.2 4.8 2 444 453 387 pH Oil and Grease Pz2 7.3 3.6 Pz3 6.7 4.4 Pz4 6.3 2.4 Pz5 6.6 1 Pz6 Pz7 7.1 6.7 4 3 Pz8 8.9 1 TDS Ni 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cr 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Pb 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cd 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Zn 0.001> 0.152 0.221 0.267 0.001> 0.238 0.073 0.021 0.009 0.032 1. EC (µs/cm). Total alkalinity, oil and grease, TDS, Ni, Cr, Pb, Cd, Zn (mg/L) 2. Chemical analyses have been provided by Water Analyses Dept, Central Chemical Lab, Holding Company for Electricity (Egypt). 86 Table 2 : Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples From North Giza Electrical Olant (September 23, 2012) Tests Pz9 Pz10 Pz11 Farga Masry Hamza 6.93 7.17 6.96 EC(1) 753 922 751 Total Alkalinity 225 285 205 2.2 4.1 4 489 599 490 pH Oil and Grease Pz1 6.93 10.1 Pz2 6.65 2.1 Pz3 6.98 2.3 Pz4 6.55 4.2 Pz5 Pz6 6.97 5.15 2.1 2.2 Pz7 6.79 2.6 Pz8 7.27 2.3 TDS Ni 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cr 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Pb 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cd 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Zn 0.001> 0.001> 0.144 0.099 0.04 0.017 0.371 0.001> 0.019 0.001> 0.009 1. EC (µs/cm). Total alkalinity, oil and grease, TDS, Ni, Cr, Pb, Cd, Zn (mg/L) 2. Chemical analyses have been provided by Water Analyses Dept, Central Chemical Lab, Holding Company for Electricity (Egypt). 87 Table 3: Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples From North Giza Electrical Plant November 2012 Tests Pz9 Pz10 Pz11 Farga Masry Hamza 9.2 9.1 9.2 EC(1) 521 630 532 Total Alkalinity 195 280 215 2.2 2.3 1.9 338 409 395 pH Oil and Grease Pz1 7.4 8.9 Pz2 6.9 5 Pz3 7 4.8 Pz4 6.9 2.4 Pz5 Pz6 6.8 7 4 4 Pz7 6.6 4 Pz8 7.2 3.8 TDS Ni 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cr 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Pb 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cd 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Zn 0.001> 0.001> 0.727 0.001> 1.3 0.111 0.737 0.358 0.041 0.011 0.014 1. EC (µs/cm). Total alkalinity, oil and grease, TDS, Ni, Cr, Pb, Cd, Zn (mg/L) 2. Chemical analyses have been provided by Water Analyses Dept, Central Chemical Lab, Holding Company for Electricity (Egypt). 88 Table 4: Chemical Analyses of Ground water samples November 2012 Tests Pz1 Pz9 Pz10 Pz11 Farga Masry Hamza 7.03 7.2 EC(1) 500 492 Total Alkalinity 295 220 1.8 2 pH Pz2 7.3 Oil and Grease Pz3 6.81 Pz4 6.87 Pz5 Pz6 7.4 2.2 3.2 4 4.8 Pz7 Pz8 7.03 2.6 TDS 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Ni 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cr 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Pb 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> Cd 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.001> 0.021 0.099 0.089 0.009 0.227 0.198 Zn 0.499 1. EC (µs/cm). Total alkalinity, oil and grease, TDS, Ni, Cr, Pb, Cd, Zn (mg/L) 2. Chemical analyses have been provided by Water Analyses Dept, Central Chemical Lab, Holding Company for Electricity (Egypt). 89 Table (5) FAO Guidelines for interpretations of water quality for irrigation. Potential Irrigation Problem Units Degree of Restriction on Use None Slight to Moderate Severe dS/m < 0.7 0.7 – 3.0 > 3.0 mg/l < 450 450 – 2000 > 2000 surface irrigation SAR <3 3–9 >9 sprinkler irrigation me/l <3 >3 surface irrigation me/l <4 4 – 10 sprinkler irrigation me/l <3 >3 mg/l < 0.7 0.7 – 3.0 > 3.0 mg/l <5 5 – 30 > 30 me/l < 1.5 1.5 – 8.5 > 8.5 Salinity(affects crop water availability) ECw (2) (or) TDS(3) Specific Ion Toxicity (affects sensitive crops) Sodium (Na)(4) Chloride (Cl) Boron (B) (5) > 10 Trace Elements Miscellaneous Effects (affects susceptible crops) Nitrogen (NO3 - N)(6) Bicarbonate (HCO3) (overhead sprinkling only) 90 pH Normal Range 6.5 – 8.4 1. Adapted from University of California Committee of Consultants 1974. 2. ECw means electrical conductivity, a measure of the water salinity, reported in deciSiemens per metre at 25°C (dS/m) or in units millimhos per centimetre (mmho/cm) = (dS/m), The conversion is relatively easy 1 dS/m = 1000 µS/cm. Likewise if you come across milli Siemens per cm (mS/cm) just remember that 1 mS/cm = 1000 µS/cm. Both are equivalent. 3. TDS means total dissolved solids, reported in milligrams per litre (mg/l). 4. For surface irrigation, most tree crops and woody plants are sensitive to sodium and chloride; use the values shown. Most annual crops are not sensitive; use the salinity tolerance For chloride tolerance of selected fruit crops, With overhead sprinkler irrigation and low humidity (< 30 percent), sodium and chloride may be absorbed through the leaves of sensitive crops. For crop sensitivity to absorption. 5. For boron tolerances. 6. NO3 -N means nitrate nitrogen reported in terms of elemental nitrogen (NH4 -N and Organic-N should be included when wastewater is being tested). 7. Definitions this Abbrev: a. mg/L = milligrams per liter b. meq/L = milliequivalents per liter c. ppm = parts per million d. dS/m = deciSiemens per meter e. µS/cm = microSiemens per centimeter f. mmho/cm = millimhos per centimeter g. TDS = total dissolved solids 91 Table (6) FAO Recommendation for maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water. Element Recommended Maximum Concentration2 (mg/l) Remarks Al(aluminium) 5.0 Can cause non-productivity in acid soils (pH < 5.5), but more alkaline soils at pH > 7.0 will precipitate the ion and eliminate any toxicity. As (arsenic) 0.10 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 12 mg/l for Sudan grass to less than 0.05 mg/l for rice. Be (beryllium) 0.10 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 5 mg/l for kale to 0.5 mg/l for bush beans. Cd (cadmium) 0.01 Toxic to beans, beets and turnips at concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/l in nutrient solutions. Conservative limits recommended due to its potential for accumulation in plants and soils to concentrations that may be harmful to humans. Co (cobalt) 0.05 Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/l in nutrient solution. Tends to be inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils. Cr (chromium) 0.10 Not generally recognized as an essential growth element. Con-servative limits recommended due to lack of knowledge on its toxicity to plants. Cu (copper) 0.20 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/l in nutrient solutions. F (fluoride) 1.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils. Fe (iron) 5.0 Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contribute to soil acidification and loss of availability of essential phosphorus and molybdenum. Overhead sprinkling may result in unsightly deposits on plants, equipment and buildings. 92 Li (lithium) 2.5 Tolerated by most crops up to 5 mg/l; mobile in soil. Toxic to citrus at low concentrations (<0.075 mg/l). Acts similarly to boron. Mn (manganese) 0.20 Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a few mg/l, but usually only in acid soils. Mo (molybdenum) 0.01 Not toxic to plants at normal concentrations in soil and water. Can be toxic to livestock if forage is grown in soils with high concentrations of available molybdenum. Ni (nickel) 0.20 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 mg/l to 1.0 mg/l; reduced toxicity at neutral or alkaline pH. Pd (lead) 5.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentrations. Se (selenium) 0.02 Toxic to plants at concentrations as low as 0.025 mg/l and toxic to livestock if forage is grown in soils with relatively high levels of added selenium. An essential element to animals but in very low concentrations. Ti (titanium) ---- Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance unknown. V (vanadium) 0.10 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentrations. Zn (zinc) 2.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying concentrations; reduced toxicity at pH > 6.0 and in fine textured or organic soils. 93 Interpretations of water quality and its suitability for irrigation 8. According to laboratory analysis data of wells water for months of August, September and October including wells within the premises of Faraga well (Pz9), Elmasry well (Pz10), and Hamza well (Pz11), respectively, the following conclusions could be drawn: f. During August 2013, the electrical conductivity (ECw in dS/m) of Faraga (Pz9), and Hamza (Pz11) are in the range of “none saline” as ECw < 0.7 dS/m, while it is in the range Slight to Moderately saline as ECw ranges from 0.7 to 3.0 dS/m in August 2012 for Elmasry well (Pz10). The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to 8.4. g. During Septmber 2012, ECw in Faraha (Pz9), Elmasry (Pz10), and Hamza l (Pz11), respectively are in range “Slight to Moderately” saline as ECw ranges from 0.7 to 3.0 dS/m with the note that ECw values are higher than the other wells. h. During October 2012, for ECw: Faraga well (Pz9), Elmasry well (Pz10), and Hamza well (Pz11), respectively are in the range none saline as ECw < 0.7 dS/m in October 2012 with note that ECw values are lower than ECw values in all other wells in August and September 2012, with higher pH values ranged from 9.1 to 9.2 than normal range. This indicates an abnormal event caused such increase in pH, and the most logical cause is either attributed to a problem with the measuring devise or tempering with the samples or adding urea to the wells prior sampling. The second one is more logic as long as all the samples from those three wells and other wells have been taken and measured at the same time using the same pH meter. i. The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to 8.4 have been detected in May, June and July of (Pz1, Pz2, Pz3, Pz4, Pz5, Pz6, Pz7 and Pz8) wells, respectively j. TDS reported in milligrams per liter (mg/l): Faraga well (pz9), Elmasry well (pz10) and Hamza well (pz11) are in the range of “none” where total dissolved solids TDS < 450 mg/l in August 2012, September 2012 and October 2012. 96 9. The values of Cd (cadmium), Cr (chromium), Ni (nickel) and Zn (zinc) mg/l in the groundwater in August 2012, September 2012 and October 2012 of (Pz1, through Pz11) wells respectively are not represent toxicity according to FAO recommendation of maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water shown in table (7). In conclusion, there is no visible negative impacts on groundwater quality from construction activities over the entire monitoring period. 2. The impact of Giza North power Station on air quality: As in table (8) three gases (nitrous oxide, NO2; sulfur dioxide, SO2; and carbon monoxide, CO) as well as two non-gaseous (Total Suspended Particulate, TSP; and particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less, PM10) air pollutants were measured before the start of operation, i.e. September 2011, by the National Research Center (NRC) and after the operation, i.e. September 2012, by the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA). The results shown in tables (8) reveal that TSP 8measured by the NRC in September 2009 was 508.2 μg/m3 ,which is more than double the maximum limit allowed. Two years later, the measured TSP was much lower than the first measurement. This means that the first case was measured during an unusual dusty weather conditions. This also means that the location is susceptible for high concentrations of suspended particulates, which explains the fluctuations of its later measurements after operation (144.7-165.1). The PM10, as another non-gaseous air pollutant, ranged from 119.67 to 161.29 μg/m3 , with an average of 148.93 μg/m3. Those values were close to or higher than the maximum limit of 150 μg/m3. As this is an indication of another form of dusty weather, before the start of operation in the site. All other parameters are much below the maximum allowed as they are air pollutants that mostly generated by the burning of fossil fuels and consequently all measurements were much below the maximum allowed level. In conclusion, there is no negative impact of the Giza North Power plant on air pollution levels, and consequently on crop productivity. 97 Table (7) Air and GHG records of Air monitoring stations of North Giza Power Plant Gaseous and Non‐Gaseous air pollutants September 2009(NRC) Site NO2 μg/m3 SO2 CO TSP PM10 μg/m3 mg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 1 center 10.32 1.94 1.18 525.46 156.45 2 North 11.06 1.69 1.16 539.73 156.67 3 South 11.48 1.02 1.15 433.34 119.67 4 East 13.66 1.85 1.17 500.74 150.56 5 West 8.36 2.0 1.15 541.71 161.29 Average 10.98 1.7 1.16 508.2 148.93 September 2011(EEAA) 1 center 12.6 22.7 3.2 133.1 88.4 2 North 11.7 15.6 2.9 127.6 94.2 3 South 14.9 17.1 2.4 139.5 93.6 4 East 16.3 25.8 3.5 131.4 99.8 5 West 13.5 19.4 2.7 128.8 128.8 Average 13.8 20.12 2.94 132.1 92.66 March 2012 (Shelter NO.1) South Average 33.0 5.4 1.1 112.0 101.1 Limit 150 150 10 230 150 98 3. Effect of Shadow The NGS is surrounding with a 4.5m height wall. Farms in the North, East and South are as follows: North: the distance between the wall and nearest trees is 5m East: there is a drainage ditch and the nearest trees at about 10m South: there is 5m distance between wall and tree line. All trees planted on the surrounding farms, their main growing season is summer. Winter and early spring months are the harvest season for all of them. The trees thrive in a consistently sunny, humid environment with fertile soil and adequate irrigation. Though broadleaved, they are evergreen and do not drop leaves except when stressed. The stems of many varieties have large sharp thorns. The trees flower in the spring, and fruit is set shortly afterward. Fruit begins to ripen in fall or early winter months, depending on cultivar, and develops increasing sweetness afterward. Some cultivars of tangerines ripen by winter. In April to September, there is likely sufficient light for plants to grow successfully. The problem of lack of light is most likely to occur in winter (December and January) when sun is in low angel in the sky. The shading effect of building (walls) may appear minimal in April to September, but when winter (December and January) comes along, they slightly reduce 99 the amount of available light at the edge of each farm quite close to station at the time of no fruit growth. As a role of them, in winter (December and January) an object (wall) will cast a shadow three times its height where in summer (April‐September), the same object will cast a very much reduced shadow which is just a bit more than its own height (diagram) Sometimes it is a trade off between casting a shadow and protecting the tree from the winds. The wall will provide an effective windbreak for around ten times it's height. This is a much greater distance than any shadow it will cast, even in winter. According to the above diagrams, NGS wall will not have an impact on citrus trees’ farms. In Egypt, during the months April‐September which considered the main growth season for citrus and mango fruits, the sun will be high angle and the shade from the wall (4.5m) will be minimal. 4. Artificial light Vastly more energy comes from the sun than from any artificial light. But artificial light doesn’t emit as much energy in the red and blue region of the light spectrum as sunlight does. Researchers can successfully grow plants using only artificial light in growth chambers. But sunlight is best for most plants. It’s generally more intense than artificial light, and it’s pretty equally distributed among the different wavelengths that earthly plants have evolved to like best. ( http://earthsky.org/human-world/artificiallight-plant-growth) Artificial light of certain types can compete with natural sunlight to provide the colors of light plants need to grow and thrive. Incandescent bulbs provide large amounts of red light but they're also very hot. 100 Standard fluorescent light, also known as cool, white light, provides large amounts of blue light. Plants grow hardily under blue light as long as a little red light is also included. The intensity problem is most conveniently addressed by mounting light sources far to plants to reduce available candle power of the lighting source. The intensity of light a plant receives depends upon the nearness of the light source to the plant (light intensity decreases rapidly as you move away from the source of light). (h p://www.gardenguides.com/88738‐effect‐artificial‐light‐ plants.html) Artificial light which will be fixed within the NGS or on the surrounding walls, it is recommended to use the standard fluorescent light.( Fluorescent lights tend to give off more ultraviolet light toward the "blue" end of the spectrum but they are very low in red light. Because the distance between the wall and the nearest line of trees (North and South) The light intensity which will omit from the artificial lighting around the outer wall of NGS will be decreased rapidly as long as it is spotted to the wall or to ground. 5. Dust As mentioned in the official visit report, moving tractors and other farm vehicles will develop a dust waves which could be settled on trees leaves. More activities within the NGS will make it happened more frequently. Because tangerine and mango trees have broadleaved, they are evergreen and do not drop leaves the dust accumulation will be more intense and required 1‐2 mes of water spray per season. One spray in spring and other in the beginning of fall will be enough. The spray will be applied only to those lands quite close (within 100 meters) to the power station. The station administration could provide such service directly to the farmers farms (with their acceptance) to avoid cash payment. The es mated cost will be LE100 per feddan/season. Regarding the damage cost due to the effect of the possible dust during the plant construction, the four farmers are located at different distances from the project site. The area potentially affected by dust has 101 been determined based on the distance to the plant. Table (8) indicates the damages based on this assessment. Table (8) Estimated damage cost related to dust effect Farmer Dust compensation in LE per Dust Area % area feddan per compensation (Feddan) affected year in LE per year (one time) =200 LE 1 Saeed Masry Mohamed 2 Mohamed Mabrouk 3 Emad Abdelhalim Harbi 11 4 0.5 200 200 200 50 0 50 1100 0 50 4 Khaled Mahoumd Harbi 1.0 200 50 100 102 Part 4 Decrees related to compensation fees for farmers to cover damages by public works Ministerial Decree 402/1996 1. A decree signed by Deputy Prime‐minister of Agriculture and Land reclamation 2. This Ministerial decree implementing the compensation fees system for farmers who their land and crops have been affected negatively by major public works or national projects in the areas surrounding their cultivated land. 3. The Decree mandates setup a committee from stakeholders and government officials 4. The committee will determine the area(s) affected negatively with the implementation of the public work and the compensations to be paid to the eligible farm(s) owners depending on the crops and the trees maturity. 5. A list of compensations fees should be declared to farmers. 6. The decree contains 7 compensation fees’ tables cover wither crops, summer crops, vegetables, medicinal and aromatic plants, horticulture trees, Date Palm trees, grapes, banana and others. 103 Ministerial Decree 14837/1990 1. A Ministerial Decree signed by Minister of Public Works and Water Resources 2. The decree determine the cost for irrigation of one time irrigation of one feddan of land (4200 SQM) 3. The cost is calculated depending on pumping system, the pump power, water level, the gasoline price, WATT/hr price and maintenance fees 4. The cost also is different from Delta area to Upper Egypt area. 104 Part 5 Field Visit Report of Officials to explore the Farms surrounding North Giza Plant Ministry Agriculture and Land reclamation Under Sectary for Horticulture and Agriculture Products Date Jan 1, 2013 To Dr Mohamed Eid A Megeed Dir Technology Management and Commercialization Office Agricultural Research Center According to your latter dated Dec 31, 2012 to explore the agriculture area surrounding the site of North Giza Electrical Station (under construction) within Masshaa’a El Qanater, Km 23 Manasy Road to verify the impacts of the construction activities on the productivity of the surrounding farms and spot any current and future damages could appeared. Enclosed our report of that mission Dr ElSayed Nader El Bana Under Secretary Horticulture and Agriculture Products Ministry Of Agriculture and Land Reclamation 105 Ministry Agriculture and Land reclamation Under Sectary for Horticulture and Agriculture Products Inspection Report Monday Dec 31, 2012 According to commissioning of Under Secretary for Horticulture and Agriculture Products to inspect the impact of construction activities of North Giza Electrical Station (at Qatta area, Minsha’a El Qanater, Giza), on the productivity of the surrounding farms and spot any current and future damages could appeared, a committee of: Eng El Sayed Belal Mohamed General Director of Horticulture Dr Salah Mostafa Ali Chief Expert of Horticulture Eng Ayman Hussein El Mofty Director Horticulture, Giza Governorate Eng Ibrahiem El Deeb Dept Head of Horticulture of Minsha’a EL Qanater Eng Maher Abdel Hamid El Sayed Supervisor of El Qaata and Abu Ghalib area The committee have been visited the following farms: 1. Saber Musba’h Farm 6 feddans Mandarin 2. Nasr Fathy Farm 5 fadddans Mandarin 3. Abdel latif Abou Mossa Farm 4 Faddans Mandarin 4. Mohamed El Massry family Farm 11 Faddans (7 Mandarin, 2 grape, 2 Anneal 106 General observations: 1. There are no any records or data regarding the productivity of these farms during the past years or even during the current season. All trees’ fruits have been collected with a very little still there ready to be collected 2. Mandarin tree yield normally not stable and you can not compare each tree yield from one season to other. 3. There are a minor dust cover over the leafs Technical observations: 1. The trees are over crowded and the branches of trees are overlapping with no open hole for both of light to pass and air for good aeration. 2. There are a lot of branches and roots due to vigorous green growth and high humidity. 3. Irrigation water has a direct contact with trees’ stem with no soil circle to prevent that. 4. Most of trees, the grafted area (the connection between fruiting part and rooting part ) have been underground and eliminate the source of virus and fungal resistant for the tree which comes from specific root materials resistant to those plant pathogens. 5. There are a lot of fallen infected fruits over the ground and became a source of fruit fly and root rotten diseases. 6. Still full matured fruits on the branches which could be fallen on the ground and became infected with fruit fly Committee conclusion: 4. The construction activities of North Giza Electrical Station do not represent a source of problems to the trees of the farms surrounding of the station site. The accumulated dust is very minor and with simple water shower it will be washed off. On the hand, citrus trees need not less than 10 times of different sprays for disease protection, insect control, and trace elements requirement, and all of these sprayings could be useful for leafs washing. 5. The committee recommended to these farm owners to take care of their farms management by running periodical pruning, balanced fertilization, diseases protection and insect control. 6. The committee recommend that the current construction activities of North Giza Electrical Station do not represent any source if harm on the trees within the surrounding farms Committee members Eng El Sayed Belal Mohamed Dr Salah Mostafa Ali 107 Eng Ayman Hussein El Mofty Study Team Dr Mohamed E Soil Scientist A Megeed Director, Technology Management abd Commercialization Office Team Leader Dr Eng Sameh Attia Sakr Hydrologist Director. water Resources Research Institute, Water Research Center 01223106007 Dr Mahmoud Medany Horticulture and Agric Climatic Expert Agricultural Research Center 01005287312 01005854306 Acknowledgment The report have been prepared in collaboration with Center of Energy Research, Collage of Engineering, Cairo University 108

GIZA NORTH POWER PLANT

Related documents

Products

Support

GIZA NORTH POWER PLANT

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib