See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317582270

Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability in Kaduna Metropolis, Northwest

Nigeria

Article  in  Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · June 2017

DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.56011

CITATION READS

1 1,063

4 authors:

Murtala Shehu Ahmed A. I. Tanko

Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company Limited (KRPC/NNPC), Nigeria Bayero University, Kano
6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    20 PUBLICATIONS   298 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Obada Eduvie Mohammed Ahmed

National Water Resources Institute, Mando Road Kaduna Nigeria, Ni Bayero University, Kano
16 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of groundwater vulnerability and risk of hydrocarbon contamination in Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria View project

Characterization of fractured rock aquifers in Cameroon View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Ahmed on 29 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 2017, 5, 97-115
http://www.scirp.org/journal/gep
ISSN Online: 2327-4344
ISSN Print: 2327-4336

Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability in

Kaduna Metropolis, Northwest Nigeria

Murtala Shehu Ahmed1*, Adamu Idris Tanko2, Martin Obada Eduvie3, Mohammed Ahmed2
1
Department of Health, Safety and Environment, Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company Limited, Kaduna, Nigeria
2
Department of Geography, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria
3
National Water Resources Institute, Kaduna, Nigeria

How to cite this paper: Ahmed, M.S., Abstract

Tanko, A.I., Eduvie, M.O. and Ahmed, M.
(2017) Assessment of Groundwater Vulne- DRASTIC index model was employed in the assessment of the intrinsic
rability in Kaduna Metropolis, Northwest groundwater vulnerability to contamination in Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria.
Nigeria. Journal of Geoscience and Envi-
The model evaluates the contribution of seven environmental parameters
ronment Protection, 5, 97-115.
https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2017.56011
(Depth to water level, Net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography,
Impact of vadose zone, and Hydraulic Conductivity) in the protection of
Received: April 4, 2017 groundwater against contamination. The mapping was conducted within the
Accepted: June 11, 2017
framework of Geographical Information System. The study area has very low,
Published: June 14, 2017
low to slightly moderate vulnerability with highest and lowest DRASTIC val-
Copyright © 2017 by authors and ues of 131 and 77 respectively. To have better understanding of the spatial
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. vulnerability of groundwater in the area, the DRASTIC map was reclassified
This work is licensed under the Creative
into five (very high, high, moderate, low and very low) vulnerability zones.
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0).
Generally, the distribution of the vulnerability classes indicated the low to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ moderate vulnerability status of the majority parts of the study area, with high
Open Access vulnerability at the center. Strict control measures should be put in place
when locating land uses with high potential hazards in the high and very high
vulnerability areas.

Keywords
Groundwater, Vulnerability Mapping, Contamination, Geographic
Information Systems, Nigeria

1. Introduction
Urban centers in many developing countries such as Nigeria, lack adequate
supply of potable water for various activities from the municipal water supply
agencies. In Kaduna metropolis, water supply consists of intakes of water from
River Kaduna and backs up from Kangimi reservoir [1] which is not adequate to

DOI: 10.4236/gep.2017.56011 June 14, 2017

M. S. Ahmed et al.

cater for the growing population. Households in these areas normally augment
the epileptic supply by drilling boreholes and hand dug wells. Groundwater
therefore, plays an important role in supporting both human livelihood and
ecological balance in these areas. Numerous anthropogenic activities threatened
groundwater quality globally. In some parts of the world, groundwater quality
has deteriorated and seems unfit for human consumption without prior treat-
ment [2]-[14].
Although groundwater has a natural protection against contamination, once
its quality is impaired, it proves difficult, costly and sometimes practically im-
possible to remediate. A proactive measure against groundwater contamination
is therefore the basis for sustainable groundwater quality management. Natural
protection of groundwater varies spatially dependent upon the intrinsic hy-
drogeological characteristics of areas, and this is coined as groundwater vul-
nerability. It is a measure of the degree of protectiveness of groundwater sys-
tem against possible contamination, which depends on the intrinsic hydro-
geological properties of an area. Groundwater vulnerability according to [15], is
the intrinsic property of groundwater system that depends on the sensitivity of
that system to human and/or natural impacts.
The term vulnerability of groundwater to contamination was first intro-
duced in France by Margat in late 1960s [16]. The idea was conceived in order
to create awareness about the danger of groundwater contamination (Albinet
and Margat in [16]), variability of natural protection and identification of
areas where protections are needed. Methods of assessing groundwater vulne-
rability to contamination are numerous, [17] however, they can be grouped
into three, hydogeological complex and setting methods (HCSM), parametric
system methods consisting of matrix, rating and point count system models, as
well as analogical relations and numerical models. Parametric system models
such as the DRASTIC index model [18], GOD model [19], EPIK model [20], PI
model [21] and COP model [22] are the most widely used vulnerability models
in the world. Among the parametric, DRASTIC index model [18] is the most
widely used vulnerability model throughout the world because of its relative
simplicity, applicability at all scale and dependence on the existing data. It has
been used by several researchers in different parts of the world such as [11]-[33]
among others. The model was however, criticised by different scholars for its
under estimation of the vulnerability of fractured aquifer (Rosen in [34]), lack of
detail on Karstic aquifer [20] [35], and non flexibility enough to be customized
to specific needs [17]. It was also criticised by [34] for the production of vulne-
rability index whose meaning are rather obscure and whose significance is un-
clear. Other criticisms include that it uses so many variables, which may cause
some non-critical variables to subdue the influence of the critical parameters in
some settings [35]. These notwithstanding, the advantages of the model were
adjudged to have outweighed its shortcomings [36].
Several researches have reported the deterioration of groundwater quality in
parts of Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. The deteriorations

98
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

were mostly attributed to poor sanitations and inappropriate land use planning
occasioned by weak oversight functions of the agencies charged with environ-
mental protection and planning. Proper documentations of the various conta-
minants sources as well as the spatial variations of aquifer vulnerability to con-
taminations were however, not conducted in the area. To bridge this gap, this
paper assessed and mapped out the vulnerability of groundwater to contamina-
tion in Kaduna metropolis using DRASTIC Index model [18]. The choice of the
model was informed by the availability of the required input data and the as-
sumptions of the model. This model was developed by [18] in the United States
for Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). It is an acronym of seven fac-
tors considered relevant in assessing and mapping the intrinsic groundwater
vulnerability. The factors are Depth to water level, Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil
media, Topography, Impact of vadose zone and (hydraulic) Conductivity. The
model is a point count system where each of the seven parameters is assigned a
weight according to its relative importance in influencing groundwater vulnera-
bility. Each parameter also has its own range, weight (W) and rating (R) (see
appendix 1). DRASTIC Index is computed using the following formula:
Di = DR ∗ W + RR ∗ RW + AR ∗ AW + SR ∗ SW + TR ∗ TW + IR ∗ IW + CR ∗ CW (1)
Final vulnerability map shows different classes (recent use normally five) in-
dicating very high to very low vulnerability.
Since it is practically impossible to monitor all groundwater sources in Kadu-
na metropolis, the vulnerability map will guide in designing groundwater moni-
toring programme in the area. Fewer monitoring wells may be located in the less
vulnerable areas with greater number in the highly vulnerable areas. This will
reduce the overall cost of groundwater monitoring in Kaduna metropolis. It will
also guide the authority charged with the urban planning to make an informed
decision on future land use planning and the need for modifications of the
present land uses where necessary. The maps, being in a Geographical informa-
tion System (GIS) format, can easily be updated and incorporated into the envi-
ronmental database of the study area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area
Kaduna metropolis, the capital of Kaduna state, is located in north-western Ni-
geria between latitude 10˚18'40'' - 10˚40'48'' north of the equator and longitude
7˚11'6'' - 7˚36'18'' east of the Greenwich meridian (Figure 1) on an altitude of
about 643 m above sea level. Administratively, it comprises the whole of Kaduna
North and South, and parts of Igabi and Chikun local government areas. The
climate of Kaduna is Aw as coded by Koppen with rainfall of about 1200 mm
annually which typically last between 5 to 6 months (April to September). The
rainy season is preceded by a short hot dry spell with mean monthly temperature
of between 35˚C and 40˚C [42]. Temperature is generally hot throughout the
year with the exception of slight period of cold and dry season (November to
February).

99
M. S. Ahmed et al.

Figure 1. Map of the Study Area. Source: Geographical Information System (GIS) Analysis.

The geology of Kaduna metropolis is predominantly metamorphic rocks of

the Nigerian basement complex rock composing mostly of migmatite-gneiss
complex and meta-sedimentary series. The area lies largely within the lower
Kaduna catchment. Groundwater occurrence is predominantly in the wea-
thered/fractured basement complex and river alluvium [43]. The weathered me-
tamorphic and magmatic rocks produced weathered products known as regolith,
saprolite or alterite composing of a mixture of sands and clays of varying thick-
ness overlaying the altered or fractured parent rock [43]. Typical layers in the
saprolite profile are top lateritic soil, clay alterite layer, granuler sandy zone and
bed rock (Jones in [43]). The relief is mostly undulating plains with isolated high
plains in some parts. The soils are red brown to red yellow ferruginous soils. The
vegetation of the area is northern guinea savannah with predominant grassland
and scattered trees.
Kaduna is mostly populated by Hausa, Gbagyi, Katab, Bajjuu and 20 other
ethnic communities, with Hausa and English as the most commonly spoken
languages [1]. Nearly all Nigerian ethnic groups can be found in the metropolis.
Urban agglomeration is put at 1,422,000 by UN estimate for 2007 [1].

2.2. Data Type and Sources

All most all the data used for this research were from the documentary sources,

100
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

first-hand survey was also conducted. A total of about 198 Vertical Electrical
Sounding (VES) data and borehole completion report (BCR) were secured and
their coordinates determined in the field using the Global Positioning System
(GPS) GARMIN GPSmap 76CSx model. Over 90% 0f the VES and BCR were
secured from the MEV Hydrosearch Engineering, Kaduna, others were secured
from the Kaduna State Ministry of Water Resources and Kaduna State Rural
Water Supply and Sanitation Agency. Additional 42 locations were sourced from
[43]. Groundwater level measurement was conducted in some areas to augment
the existing information. Table 1 summarizes the data sources.

2.3. Drastic Index Model

Detail on this model can be found in [18]. Preparation of the seven DRASTIC
layers was conducted as prescribed by the authors with modification of the net
recharge component. Geographical information system (GIS) was employed in
the assessment.

2.3.1. Depth to Water Level

Most parts of the study area have groundwater level within 5 - 30 feet, it reaches
up to about 50 - 75 feet in some locations such as Sabon Gayan. In some loca-
tions around Badiko and Tudun Wada, groundwater level is found within 5 feet
above mean sea level. A thematic layer of this parameter for the study area was
created using the spatial analyst function of Arc GIS 10.0 according to the model
rating (Figure 2).

2.3.2. Net Recharge

In the study area, there was no readily available data on recharge from docu-
mentary sources, as such a simple formula proposed by [44] was used to deter-
mine the net recharge:
Recharge value=Slope%+Rainfall+Soil permeability (2)
Slope was generated by reclassifying the thematic layer of topography which
was secured from the Digital Elevation Model of the area (section 2.3.6). Soil

Table 1. Data Type and Sources.

Parameters Data Type Data Sources

Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) data,

Depth to water level (as Survey and
Borehole Completion Report (BCR), literature
Static water level) documentary data
and groundwater level measurement
Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Soil map of
Recharge Documentary
Nigeria, Literature
Aquifer media Documentary VES data, BCR, Literature
Soil map of Nigeria by Federal
Soil Documentary
Department of Agricultural Land Resources
Topography Documentary Satellite imagery, DEM
Vadose zone Documentary VES data, BCR, Literature
Conductivity Documentary BCR, Literature

101
M. S. Ahmed et al.

Figure 2. Thematic Layer of Depth to Water Level (ft) in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

permeability as used in the formula, is a qualitative value given to the three soil
types in the area (section 2.3.4). Sandy soils was rated 5, sandy loam 3 and loamy
sand 4. Rainfall is expectedly uniform in the whole study area and exceeded 1000
mm according to literature, a uniform rating of 4 which signifies rainfall greater
than 850 mm was adopted. Thematic layer of net recharge was produced using
Equation 3. Recharge pattern is somewhat uniform in the whole study area and
follows the pattern of topography. Using the model builder of Arc GIS 10.0, the
qualitative classification of recharge was achieved (Figure 3).

2.3.3. Aquifer Media

According to literature and VES report, the study area is completely overlaid by
uniform aquifer media, the weathered metamorphic/igneous rock which has the
DRASTIC rating between 3 - 5. Typical rating of 4, as suggested by [18] was
adopted in most parts of the study area. The value was adjusted in some areas to
reflect the degree of consolidation of the aquifer materials. In some areas around
Malali and Unguwan Rimi, where the materials are highly consolidated accord-
ing to the VES reports, a rating of 3 was adopted. A rating of 5 was adopted in
some areas such as Unguwan Pama, Romi and Barnawa due to the extreme
weathering of the aquifer media. The result is depicted on Figure 4.

2.3.4. Soil Media

A scanned copy of Soil map of Nigeria produced by [45] was georefrenced, digi-

102
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

Figure 3. Qualitative Classification of Net Recharge in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

Figure 4. Thematic Layer of Aquifer Media in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

103
M. S. Ahmed et al.

tized and the study area was extracted and vectorized. From the map and its ac-
companying report, two major soil textural classes were present in the area, the
sandy loam and loamy sand. The third soil group which is the recent alluvium
soil found within the course and the flood plain of River Kaduna, Rivers Tubo,
Chidawaki, Rumana among others was described as sandy soil in the report, as
such a rating of 9 was adopted for the category. Sandy loam which can be seen in
the north, northeast, and eastern tips of the study area, was rated 6 according to
the model. Loamy sand which occupies most parts of the study area, but not
considered by the model was adjusted to 6.5. A thematic soil map of the area
(Figure 5) was produced according to this rating using Arc GIS 10.0.

2.3.5. Topography
Topography of the area was generated using Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of
Arc GIS 10.0. Slope percent was then calculated using the slope function of the
same software. It was classified according to the DRASTIC rating as can be seen
on Figure 6.

2.3.6. Impact of Vadose Zone

The vadose zone media of the study area is metamorphic/igneous formation
which has the theoretical rating of between 2 - 8. A typical rating of 4 was
adopted for most parts of the area according to the DRASTIC rating. The rating

Figure 5. Thematic Layer of Soil Media in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

104
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

was also adjusted to 2 and 3 for massive igneous around Malali and partially
weathered formation around Malali, Unguwan Rimi and the like. Using the
same software, the vadose zone map of the area was produced (Figure 7).

2.3.7. Hydraulic Conductivity

Information on this parameter appeared scanty in the study area. However, al-
most all the available information documented through pumping test of some
boreholes in the area, indicated that the conductivity falls within the range of 1 -
100 gallon per day per square feet, thus, a rating of 1 was adopted for the para-
meter throughout the study area (Figure 8).

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Drastic Index Vulnerability Mapping
Using the model builder of Arc GIS 10.0, Equation (1) was inputted and the
model runs to produce the final DRASTIC vulnerability map of Kaduna metro-
polis (Figure 9).
The highest DRASTIC value obtained in the whole study area was 131 while
the lowest was 77. Theoretically, the highest value of normal DRASTIC is 223
while the lowest is 65. The values can thus be graded into five qualitative classes
(Table 2).

Figure 6. Thematic Layer of Slope in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

105
M. S. Ahmed et al.

Figure 7. Thematic Layer of Vadose Zone Media in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

Figure 8. Thematic Layer of Hydraulic Conductivity in Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

106
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

Figure 9. Unclassified DRASTIC Vulnerability Map of Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

Table 2. Classification and Description of DRASTIC Index Values.

DRASTIC Index Score Description

65 - 96 Very Low

96 - 127 Low

127 - 158 Moderate

158 - 189 High

189 - 223 Very High

Source: Discerned from [18] based on the theoretical values.

Putting this in mind, it is noticeable that, the groundwater vulnerability to

contamination of the entire study area falls within very low, low and slightly
moderate vulnerability (Figure 10). However, the essence of this study is to de-
termine which area is more vulnerable to groundwater contamination than oth-
ers, as such, the obtained values were retained and reclassified (via “reclass”
function of ArcGIS) into five classes of very low, low, moderate, high and very
high vulnerability to contamination (Figure 11) as suggested by [15].
From the classified DRASTIC vulnerability map, one can rightly see that, ma-
jority of the study area falls within very low, low and moderate vulnerability to
groundwater contamination. Very low vulnerability areas can be seen in the
northern part around Turunku and Sabon Gida, in the northeast around Rinagi,

107
M. S. Ahmed et al.

Figure 10. Classified DRASTIC Vulnerability Map of Kaduna Metropolis Based on Total DRASTIC Scores. Source: Data Analysis
(2016).

Figure 11. Classified DRASTIC Vulnerability Map of Kaduna Metropolis. Source: Data Analysis (2015).

108
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

and in the southwest around Kasewa Hill. The same vulnerability class occurred
in the southern part of the study area around Bakin Kasuwan Gwari and south-
eastern tip.
Low vulnerability areas can be seen in the northwest around Rumana and Za-
to, and southwest around Jimmu, Nima and Kasewa Hill. In the south and
southeast, low vulnerability class is predominant as can be seen around Kukau,
Kakau and Kankomi respectively, the same class can be found in the north
around Afaka and Rigachikun, in the northeast around Butonu and in the center
at Babban Saura and Kamazo.
Moderate vulnerability happens to be the most dominant class in the study
area. Encircling the high vulnerability areas, moderate vulnerability occurs to the
north around Rigachikun Forest Reserve, Afaka and Kawo. It can also be seen
around Gwogote and Tagwaye in the west, as well as most eastern and southern
parts of the study area.
High groundwater vulnerability areas occupied most of the central parts of
Kaduna metropolis especially within the township, Tudun Nupawa and Ungu-
wan Shanu. It also occupies the northern part of the metropolis stretching from
NDC, Rigachikun, Maraban Jos and Birnin Yero. The same class occurs in Ka-
duna south around Kakuri, Makera and Sabon Tasha, and in the southeast
around Chidunu and Anguwan Tanko. Other areas belonging to this category
are Kwane and Kadi in the west as well as Gwarso in the north-western part of
the study area.
Very high vulnerability class occupies very small portion of the study area. It
can be seen as an encircled area in the east, and in scattered form in the west,
south-west, as well as southern part of the study area. Fewer areas also occurred
at the center around River Mashi and north-western part of the area.

3.2. Map Production, Data Quality and Reliability

It is generally believed that, the quality of any map is determined by the quality
of the input data used in map production. In this research, several types and
sources of data were consulted, extracted, gathered and synthesized for the pro-
duction of the thematic layers used in the production of the final DRASTIC vul-
nerability map. Its believed that, the data used for the task and at this scale,
represent the best quality information which is available at the moment. How-
ever, with improved data quality, the map quality will also be greatly improved.
Mapping and models in general, are simplifications of the complex reality.
Groundwater vulnerability assessments and mapping as put forward by [46] are
“a means to synthesize complex hydrogeological information into a form useable
by planners, decision and policy makers, geoscientists and the public”.

4. Conclusions
From the previous section, it can be concluded that groundwater system in most
parts of Kaduna metropolis is low to moderately vulnerable to contamination.
However, this does not preclude the occurrence of real pollution incidence in the

109
M. S. Ahmed et al.

area which may be tight to the potential or actual contaminants sources (ha-
zards) present. In view of this, a low vulnerability area with very high hazards
may be exposed to higher risk of groundwater contamination than a highly vul-
nerable area with low or very low hazards. Conversely, contamination incidence
may be low in a highly vulnerable area with high hazards, but with adequate
control measures to safeguard the groundwater system. The vulnerability map
will serve as screening tool and guide the administrators where to direct re-
sources (more vulnerable areas) when there is limited resources. It may be used
for preventive purposes through prioritization of areas where groundwater pro-
tection is critical. This will help in reducing the cost of groundwater monitoring
in the area.
That notwithstanding, it is recommended that land use(s) with high ground-
water potential hazards be located in the low vulnerability areas. Where an ex-
isting land use with higher contamination hazard is already located on a highly
vulnerable area, more sophisticated control measures should be put in place.
Proper documentation of potential and existing groundwater contaminants
sources in the area, will therefore, be vital for sustainable groundwater quality
management in Kaduna metropolis.

References
[1] Max Lock Consultancy Nig. Ltd. and Partners (2008) Kaduna Master Plan Interim
Report, Kaduna.
[2] Yidana, S.M., Yakubo, B.B. and Akabzaa, T.M. (2010) Analysis of Groundwater
Quality Using Multivariate and Spatial Analyses in the Keta Basin, Ghana. Journal
of African Earth Sciences, 58 , 220-234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2010.03.003
[3] Yerima, F.A.K., Daura, M.M. and Gambo, B.A. (2008) Assessment of Groundwater
Quality in Bama Town, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Agriculture
and Environment, 3, 128-137.
[4] Raja, G. and Venkatesan, P. (2010) Assessment of Groundwater Pollution and Its
Impact in and around Punnam Area of Karur District, Tamilnadu, India. E-Journal
of Chemistry, 7, 473-478. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/782134
[5] Mohammed, S.A.S., Naik, M., Fakruddin, S.P., and Nazeer, Z.A.M. (2008) Studies of
Contaminant Transport at an Industrial Waste Dumpsite of Bangalore, India. Am-
biente e Agua An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Sciences, 3, 55-66.
https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.61
[6] Galadima, A., Garba, Z.N., Leke, L., Almustapha, M.N. and Adam, I.K. (2011) Do-
mestic Water Pollution among Local Communities in Nigeria—Causes and Conse-
quences. European Journal of Scientific Research, 4, 592-603.
[7] Foster, S.S.D. and Chilton, P.J. (2003) Groundwater: The Processes and Global Sig-
nificance of Aquifer Degradation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B, 358, 1957-1972. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1380
[8] Asadi, S.S., Vuppala, P. and Reddy, M.A. (2007) Remote Sensing and GIS Tech-
niques for Evaluation of Groundwater Quality in Municipal Corporation of Hy-
derabad (Zone-V), India. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 4, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2007010008
[9] Sagnak, C. (N.D) Groundwater pollution originated from geological formation,

110
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

example of Konya-Cumra-Karapinar Plain with GIS application. Department of

Geotechnical Services and Groundwater, State Hydraulics Works, Ankara, Turkey.
[10] Berg, M., Tran, H.C., Nguyen, T.C., Pham, H.V., Schertenleib, R. and Giger, W.
(2001) Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater and Drinking Water in Vietnam: A
Human Health Threat. Environmental Science and Technology, 35, 2621-2626.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es010027y
[11] Castillejos, K.M. (2010) Assessing Integrated Watershed Management and Spatial
Groundwater Vulnerability to Pollution in Priority Watersheds of the Yacyreta
Dam in Paraguay. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wales (Bangor
University) and Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center
(CATIE).
[12] Mukherjee, S. and Nelliyat, P. (2007) Groundwater Pollution and Emerging Envi-
ronmental Challenges of Industrial Effluent Irrigation in Mettupalayam Taluk,
Tamil Nadu. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture,
Discussion Paper 4, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri
Lanka.
[13] Singh, C.K., Shashtri, S. and Mukherjee, S. (2010) Integrating Multivariate Statisti-
cal Analysis with GIS for Geochemical Assessment of Groundwater Quality in Shi-
waliks of Punjab, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 62, 1387-1405.
[14] Atlantic Environmental Services, Inc. (1996) Task 210: Surficial Site Investigation,
Improvements to Routes 82&85 Salem and Montville. Project No. 1178-075-210,
Prepared for Environmental Compliance Division, Department of Transportation,
Newington, State of Connecticut.
[15] Vrba, J. and Zaporozec, A. (1994) Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulner-
ability, Vol. 16. International Contribution to Hydrogeology, Hannover, 131 p.
[16] Zaporezec, A. (1994) Concept of Groundwater Vulnerability. In: Vrba, J. and
Zaporezec, A., Eds., Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability, Vol. 16.
International Contribution to Hydrogeology, Hannover.
[17] Vrba, J. and Civita, M. (1994) Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability. In: Vrba,
J. and Zaporezec, A., Eds., Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability, Vol.
16, International Contribution to Hydrogeology, Hannover, 31-48.
[18] Aller, A., Lehr, J.H., Petty, R. and Bennet, T. (1987) DRASTIC: A Standardized Sys-
tem to Evaluate Groundwater Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings.
National Water Well Association, Wethington, OH.
[19] Foster, S.S.D. (1987) Fundamental Concepts in Aquifer Vulnerability, Pollution
Risk and Protection Strategy. In: Duijvenbooden, W. and Waegeningh, H.G., Eds.,
Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants, TNO Committee on Hydro-
logical Research, The Hague, Proceedings and Information 38, 69-86.
[20] Doerfliger, N., Jeannin, P.Y. and Zwahlen, F. (1999) Water Vulnerability Assess-
ment in Karst Environments: A New Method of Defining Protection Areas Using a
Multiattribute Approach and GIS Tools (EPIK Method). Environmental Geology,
39, 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050446
[21] Goldscheider, N., Klute, M., Sturm, S. and Hotzl, H. (2000) The PI Method—A
GIS-Based Approach to Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability with Special Consid-
eration on Karst Aquifers. Zeitschrift für angewandte Geologie, 46, 157-166.
[22] Vıas, J.M., Andreo, B., Perles, M.J. and Carrasco, F. (2005) A Comparative Study of
four Schemes for Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping in a Diffuse Flow Carbonate
Aquifer under Mediterranean Climatic Conditions. Environmental Geology, 47,
586-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1185-y

111
M. S. Ahmed et al.

[23] Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Groundwater Susceptibility Analysis

Process Manual. Division of drinking and Ground Waters, Source Water Assess-
ment and Protection Programme, Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio.
[24] Ahmed, A.A. (2007) Using Contamination and Pesticide DRASTIC GIS-Based
Models for Vulnerability Assessment of Quaternary Aquifer at Sohag, Egypt. Paper
presented at the 5th International Conference on the Geology of Africa, Assiut,
Egypt, October 2007.
[25] Dickerson, J.R. (2007) A Modified DRASTIC Model for Siting Confined Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in Williams County, Ohio. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,
Graduate College of Bowling Green State University, Ohio.
[26] Jasrotia, A.S. and Singh, R. (2005) Groundwater Pollution Vulnerability Using the
DRASTIC Model in a GIS Environment, Devak-Rui Watershed, India. Journal of
Environmental Hydrology, 13, 1-10.
[27] Babiker, I.S., Mohamed, A.A.M., Hiyama, T. and Kato, K. (2005) A GIS-Based
DRASTIC Model for Assessing Aquifer Vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights,
Gifu Prefecture, Central Japan. Science of the Total Environment, 345, 127-140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.11.005
[28] Al-adamat, R.A.N., Foster, I.D.L. and Baban, S.M.J. (2003) Groundwater Vulner-
ability and Risk Mapping for the Basaltic Aquifer of the Azraq Basin of Jordan Us-
ing GIS, Remote Sensing and DRASTIC. Applied Geography, 23, 303-324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2003.08.007
[29] Lobo-Ferreira J.P. (2000) GIS and Mathematical Modelling for the Assessment of
Groundwater Vulnerability to Pollution: Application to Two Chinese Case Study
Areas. Ecosystem Service and Sustainable Watershed Management in North China,
International Conference, Beijing, 23-25 August 2000, 69-90.
[30] Sekhar, M.C. and Kumar, K.K. (1999) The Use of DRASTIC Modelling Indices for
the Assessment of Groundwater Pollution Potential. Proceedings of IUGG 99 Sym-
posium on Impacts of Urban Growth on Surface Water and Groundwater Quality,
HS5, IAHS Publ. No. 259, Birmingham, 18-30 July 1999, 111-113.
[31] Webb, T.H. and Lilburne, L.R. (1999) Use of the LEACHM Model and the
DRASTIC Index to Map Relative Risk of Groundwater Contamination by Pesticide
Leaching. Journal of Hydrology (NZ), 38, 271-288.
[32] Engel, B., Navulur, K. and Cooper, B. (1996) Estimating Groundwater Vulnerability
to Nonpoint Source Pollution from Nitrates and Pesticides on a Regional Scale.
Proceedings of the Vienna Conference, IAHS Publ. No.2 35, April 1996.
[33] Barber, D.J. (1994) Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Report No. 4, Department of Natural Resources, Ohio.
[34] Foster, S.S.D. and Skinner, A.C. (1995) Groundwater Protection: The Science and
Practice of Land Surface Zoning, Groundwater Quality: Remediation and Protec-
tion. Proceedings of the Prague Conference, IAHS Publ. No. 225, May 1995.
[35] Zwahlen, F. (2004) Vulnerability and Risk Mapping for the Protection of Carbonate
(Karst) Aquifers. Final Report (COST Action 620), European Commission, Direc-
torate XII Science, Research and Development, Report EUR 20912, Brussels, 297 p.
[36] Wang, J., He, J. and Chen, H. (2012) Assessment of Groundwater Contamination
Risk Using Hazard Quantification, a Modified Drastic Model and Groundwater
Value, Beijing Plain, China. Science of the Total Environment, 432, 216-226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.005
[37] Amadi, A.N., Okoye, N.O., Alabi, A.D., Tukur, A. and Angwa, E.M. (2014) Quality
Assessment of Soil and Groundwater near Kaduna Refinery and Petrochemical

112
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

Company, Northwest Nigeria. Journal of Scientific Research & Reports, 3, 884-893.

https://doi.org/10.9734/JSRR/2014/6579
[38] Al-Amin, M.A. (2013) Energy Production and Environmental Concerns in Nigeria:
The Case of Kaduna Petroleum Refinery on Its Host Communities. Journal of En-
ergy Technologies and Policies, 3, 69-77.
[39] Eduvie, M.O. and Olaniyan, I.O. (2013) Groundwater Quality Appraisal in South-
ern Parts of Kaduna State, Nigeria. American Journal of Environmental Engineer-
ing, 3, 77-83. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajee.20130301.11
[40] Muhammad, M.N. (2012) Assessment of Groundwater Quality in Low Income High
Density Areas of Kaduna Metropolis. Academic Research Journal, 2.
[41] Yabaya, A. and Aliyu, A. (2012) Microbial Quality Assessment of Well Water in
Kaduna North Local Government. Journal of Biological Science and Bioconserva-
tion, 4, 1-6.
[42] Mallo, I.Y. (2001) Morphometric Characteristics of Barnawa River Catchment in
Kaduna Metropolis, Northern Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4, 22-28.
[43] Eduvie, M.O. (2003) Exploration, Evaluation and Development of Groundwater in
Southern Kaduna State. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geology,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
[44] Piscopo, G. (2001) Groundwater Vulnerability Map Explanatory Notes, Macquarie
Catchment, Parramatta. Centre for Natural Resources, NSW Department of Land
and Water Conservation.
[45] Federal Department of Agricultural Land Resources (1990) The Reconnaissance Soil
Survey of Nigeria, Soils Report Vol. 2. Scanned Map and Report downloaded from
soil.isric@wur.nl
[46] Ligget, J.A. and Talwar, S. (2009) Groundwater Vulnerability Assessments and In-
tegrated Water Resources Management. Streamline Watershed Management Bulle-
tin, 13, 18-29.

113
M. S. Ahmed et al.

Appendix 1
Rating of Drastic Index Model (Aller et al. 1987).

Aquifer Media (A) Impact of Vadose zone (I)

Typical Typical
Range Rating Range Rating
Rating Rating
Massive shale 1-3 2 Silt/Clay 1-2 1
Metamorphic/Igneous 2-5 3 Shale 2-5 3
Wethered
3-5 4 Limestone 2-7 6
metamorphic/Igneou

Thin bedded sandstone,

5-9 6 Sandstone 4-8 6
limestone shale sequences

Bedded limestone,
Massive sandstone 4-9 6 4-8 6
sandstone, shale

Sand and gravel with

Massive Limestone 4-9 6 4-8 6
significant silt & clay
Sand and gravel 4-9 8 Metamorphic/Igneous 2-8 4
Basalt 2 - 10 9 Sand and gravel 6-9 8
Karst Limestone 9 - 10 10 Basalt 2 - 10 9
Karst Limestone 8 - 10 10

Soil Media (S)

Range Rating
Thin or absent 10
Gravel 10
Sand 9
Peat 8
Shrinking and/or aggregated clay 7
Sandy loam 6
Loam 5
Silty loam 4
Clay loam 3
Muck 2
Non-shrinking and non-aggregated clay 1

Net Recharge (inches) (R)

Range Rating
0-2 1
2-4 3
4-7 6
7 - 10 8
10+ 9

114
 M. S. Ahmed et al.

Topograpy (% slope) (T) Hydraulic Conductivity (GPD/ft2) (C)

Range Rating Range Rating

0-2 10 1 - 100 1
2-6 9 100 - 300 2
6 - 12 5 300 - 700 4
12 - 18 3 700 - 1000 6
18+ 1 1000 - 2000 8
2000+ 10

Depth to Water Level (ft ) (D)

Range Rating
0-5 10
5 - 15 9
15 - 30 7
30 - 50 5
50 - 75 3
75 - 100 2
100+ 1

Submit or recommend next manuscript to SCIRP and we will provide best

service for you:
Accepting pre-submission inquiries through Email, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.
A wide selection of journals (inclusive of 9 subjects, more than 200 journals)
Providing 24-hour high-quality service
User-friendly online submission system
Fair and swift peer-review system
Efficient typesetting and proofreading procedure
Display of the result of downloads and visits, as well as the number of cited articles
Maximum dissemination of your research work
Submit your manuscript at: http://papersubmission.scirp.org/
Or contact gep@scirp.org

115

View publication stats