Vulnerability and Risk Mapping to Strengthen the Link Be- Tween Waste Water Treatment and Groundwater Protection in the Hot Spot Area Wadi Shueib

Integrated Water Resources Management in the Lower Jordan Rift Valley

Sustainable Management of Available Water Resources with Innovative Technologies

BMBF IWRM R&D Programme Funding No.: 02WM1355C

SMART – IWRM

WP3: Waste Water management toward Groundwater Protection (Cluster East)

Task 3.2.4: Vulnerability and risk mapping to strengthen the link between waste water treatment and groundwater protection in the hot spot area Wadi Shueib

Editors

Anna Ender1) Authors

Niels Hoppe1), Julian Xanke1), Jochen Klinger1), Nico Goldschieder1) Contributors and Institution

1)KIT-HYD = Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute of Hydrogeology

Karlsruhe 15.02.2018

Acknowledgements

In the name of the SMART research team the authors would like to acknowledge the Ger- man Federal Ministry of Education & Research (BMBF) for the sponsoring of the extensive studies in the SMART-Move Project. Funding no: 02WM1355C.

The German Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources (BGR), the Jordan Ministry for Water and Irrigation (MWI) and the German Center for Environmental Research (UFZ) are acknowledged for providing data and literature. http://www.iwrm-smart2.org/ http://www.iwrm-smart-move.de/

Page | i

CONTENT Acknowledgements ...... i Introduction...... 1 1.1 General context ...... 1 1.2 Geographical setting ...... 1 Wastewater infrastructure ...... 2 Water demand and supply ...... 3 Case One: Rehabilitation concept of sewer system ...... 4 Case Two: Irrigation with treated wastewater ...... 4 Methods...... 5 Existing vulnerability mapping methods ...... 5 General vulnerability approach for the Wadi Shueib ...... 6 Case One – Rehabilitation concept of sewer system ...... 6 Case Two - Irrigation with treated wastewater ...... 7 Input variables ...... 8 Overlying layers (O factor) - topsoil, geological layers, fault zones ...... 8 Infiltration conditions (C factor) – risk of bypassing ...... 14 Spring catchment ranking ...... 15 SC vulnerability map - Case One ...... 17 SC vulnerability map - Case Two ...... 19 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 22 Conclusions ...... 22 General recommendations ...... 23 References ...... 24

Page | ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Geographic overview of the test site...... 2 Figure 2 Schematic overview of the potential contamination risks of leaky sewer pipes and irrigation with TWW ...... 4 Figure 3 a) Outline of the groundwater distribution zones of the major springs and the surface drainage catchment of in the Wadi Shueib b) Hazzir spring, c) Baqqpuria spring and d) Shoreia spring...... 6 Figure 4 Simplified processing scheme for Case One. The O-factor is directly translated into the groundwater vulnerability. The SC vulnerability map is obtained by combing the vulnerability map with the catchment map...... 7 Figure 5 Simplified scheme for Case Two showing the parameters which influence the SC vulnerability. The SC vulnerability is defined as groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of spring catchments...... 7 Figure 6 Protective function of top soil layers in the study area...... 9 Figure 7 Wadi as Sir Formation with Epikarst and thin topsoil layer in the northeastern part of Salt...... 10 Figure 8 Geological setup of the merged surface and groundwater catchment of Wadi Suheib...... 11 Figure 9 O-Map: protective function of the geological layers in the groundwater contribution zone of the four major springs in the Wadi Shueib...... 12 Figure 10 distribution of fault zones and fault density in the study area...... 13 Figure 11 C-Map: Risk of bypassing the protective layers in the study area...... 14 Figure 12 Spring catchment ranging as it is applied for Case Two. In Case One there is only distinguished between inside (Area 1) and outside (Area 2) of the delineated spring catchment...... 16 Figure 13 The SC vulnerability map (SC = spring catchment) for Case One is obtained by combining the O-map, the Spring catchments map and the main wadi course. The SC vulnerability is defined as groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of spring catchments...... 17 Figure 14 SC vulnerability and rehabilitation concept for sewer network in the Wadi Shueib...... 18 Figure 15 Proposed methodology for mapping the SC vulnerability in the Wadi Shueib area (case two). The SC vulnerability serves as a planning tool for irrigation with treated wastewater and is defined as the groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of infiltration conditions, fault zones and spring catchments...... 20 Figure 16 SC vulnerability map of the upper Wadi Shueib catchment area as a planning tool for irrigation with treated wastewater. The SC vulnerability is defined as groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of spring catchments...... 21 Figure 17 Typical agricultural land use in the study area in close vicinity to the Hazzir spring ...... 23

Page | iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sewer connections in the municipalities Fuheis, Mahis and Salt (Trappe 2007)...... 3 Table 2 Characteristics of the Wadi Shueib springs (modified after Margane et al. (2010))...... 3 Table 3 Summary of the main considered parameters of some methods assessing the vulnerability of groundwater in karst areas. Here, the EPIK method was developed by Doerfliger et al. (1998). The PI method (Goldscheider et al. 2000), VULK (Jeannin et al. 2001), LEA (Dunne 2003) and COP (Vias et al. 2002) methods are discussed in the final report of COST Action 620 (Zwahlen 2004)...... 5 Table 4 Classification of the topsoil layers ...... 8 Table 5 Overlying layers for Case One and Case Two: Classification and description of parameters. Characterisation of the Topsoil Cover (modified after the pedological mapping instruction (AG Boden, KA5, Table 74)) ...... 9 Table 6 Characterization of the aquifers and aquitards occurring in Wadi Shueib, Jordan. The description of the lithology was done by Werz (2006). A: Margane et al. (2002), B: Geyh et al. (1985), C: Parker (1970), D: Salameh and Udluft (1985), E: JICA (1995), F: Abu-Ajamieh (1998), G: Al-Kuisi (1998) (modified after Riepl (2012) and Werz (2006))...... 10 Table 7 Infiltration conditions (Case Two): Classification and description of parameters...... 15 Table 8 Categorization of springs and their catchment for Case One...... 15 Table 9 Infiltration conditions (Case Two): Classification and description of parameters ...... 16

Page | iv

Introduction

1.1 General context In order to preserve the groundwater and spring water quality, it is important to implement protection zones, reduce pollution and detect the source of the contaminants (Grimmeisen et al. 2016). Typically, karst aquifers are characterized by a wide range of variation in flow velocity and rock porosity. Therefore, defining protection zones is a major challenge. Flow velocities differ strongly depending on the type of porosity, i.e. large conduits generate velocities from tens or hundreds of meters per hour, whereas the flow velocity generated from ma- trix porosity is typically in the range of centimeters per day (Goldscheider and Drew 2007; Xanke et al. 2016). By combining existing methods of vulnerability mapping in karst environments, the objective of this study is to assess the risk of groundwater contamination in different areas within the Wadi Shueib catchment, which is based on geological and hydrogeological maps as well as soil maps and digital elevation models (DEMs). At the interface between groundwater protection and land use planning, two aspects are discussed considering the hazard potential of wastewater infiltration into the underground: Case One considers subsurface infiltration of wastewater caused by leaky sewer systems and Case Two focuses on the impact of irrigation with treated wastewater on groundwater or spring water, respectively. 1.2 Geographical setting The Wadi Shueib catchment is located in the northwest of Jordan, about 20 km northeast of the Dead Sea at the eastern graben shoulder of the Jordan Valley, between the capital city Amman and the Jordan River. The total area is about 198 km² and is characterized by a steep valley and dense drainage network discharging to the southwest. The local climate is defined as semiarid with a long dry summer and a rainy winter. The annual rainfall ranges from approximately 500 to 700 mm (Grimmeisen et al. 2016). Within the Wadi Shueib the city As-Salt is home to about 90,000 people and extends over much parts of the northern catchment. East and South of the city some smaller villages count another thousand to ten thousand inhabitants (e.g. Fuheis).

Page | 1

Figure 1 Geographic overview of the test site. Wastewater infrastructure It is generally known that the sewer system in Wadi Shueib is incomplete and partly inappro- priate (Margane et al. 2010). Wolf et al. (2009) underlines the necessity of a rehabilitation concept of existing sewer pipes in the settled areas in Wadi Shueib, especially in Salt. The major problem regarding groundwater contamination is the high losses in the water infrastructure. In addition to the loss of water in sewer systems, large amounts of recharge are generated by water supply and storm drainage systems (Grimmeisen et al. 2016). Currently, there are two wastewater treatment plants within the test area, by which wastewater from Salt, Fuheis and Mahis is treated (Margane et al. 2010). The annual discharge is 2.1 MCM (year 2003). After treatment wastewater is mixed with the baseflow of the wadis and finally discharges to the Wadi Shueib Dam reservoir (Wolf et al. 2009). Because of ongoing micro- bial contamination problems at the Shorea spring, a micro filtration plant with chlorination was implemented to purify the water before entering the main system of Salt(Margane et al. 2010). The number of buildings in Salt ist estimated to 9,077, based on the population density and an average household size of five capita. According to Wolf et al. (2009), only 65 – 79 % of the households are connected to the sewer system, meaning 1,000 buildings are not yet connected. Trappe (2007) estimated that in Salt, 19 % and in Mahis 33 % of the inhabitants are living in housholds that have no connections to the sewers (Table 1). For the majority of these households the use of conventional septic tanks or cesspits is common (Wolf et al. 2009). Cesspits are often used by farmers in rural areas. Normally, these cesspits have to be emptied monthly or at least yearly. However, many of them are leaky because of permeable bottoms and porous walls, causing a further problem with regard to groundwater pollution (Werz 2006). It is estimated that 58 % of the above mentioned farmers do not empty

Page | 2

their cesspits at all, which indicates a very high groundwater contamination risk (BGR-MWI 2008).

Table 1 Sewer connections in the municipalities Fuheis, Mahis and Salt (Trappe 2007).

City Population Households not connected to sewer system [%] Fuheis 4,657 22 Mahis 6,198 33 Salt 30,559 19 Water demand and supply The four major springs in Wadi Shueib (Baqqouria, Hazzir, Shorea, Azraq) supply most of the water for the cities Salt, Fuheis and Mahis. They have an average discharge of around 8 MCM/a (Table 2). Water is currently delivered to different supply zones in intermittent time intervals (24 to 60 hours per week) (Grimmeisen et al. 2016). So far, only 50 % of the discharge amount is used (Margane et al. 2010) due to several reasons, e.g. the contamination of the Hazzir spring and high drinking water losses in the supply system of 50-60 % (Grimmeisen et al. 2016). The MWI report from 2004 (MWI, GTZ 2004) investigated an average municipal water consumption from 86 liters/capita/day (3.5 MCM/capita/a). Consider- ing the high losses within the water infrastructure, the provided water amounts are significantly higher with, in fact, 151 liters/capita/day (6 MCM/capita/a) (Wolf et al. 2009). However, the National Water Master Plan provides rates of 100 liters/capita/day (MWI, GTZ 2004). The discharge rates and water quality at the springs that are used for water supply, varies strongly dependent on discharge and quality. It is reported that more than 2 MCM/a water were abstracted at Baqqouria spring between 2007 – 2009. The water abstraction of the Azraq spring has to be halted yearly for three months during the winter season due to contamination problems after heavy rainfall events (Margane et al. 2010). The Hazzir spring was used as a drinking water supply for many years but due to frequent contamination problems, the spring was disconnected from the supply system in 2012 (Grimmeisen et al. 2016).

Table 2 Characteristics of the Wadi Shueib springs (modified after Margane et al. (2010)).

Size of Size of topo- Average Average Average Aquifer groundwater graphic rainfall vol- Name of spring groundwater discharge system contribution catchment ume recharge [%] [MCM/a] zone [km²] area [km²] [MCM/a] Hazzir A7/B2 14.2 17.6 7.19 18 1.28 Azraq A7/B2 17.0 12.0 8.94 20 1.81 Shorea A7/B2 15.3 24.4 8.02 16 1.27 Baqqouria A1/A2 71.7 61.95 12.65 29 3.66 Total 71.7 -1) 36.8 22 8.02

1) as the catchments of Hazzir, Azraq and Shorea springs do intersect with the catchment of Baqquouria spring, the total area is equal to the catchment of Baqqouria spring.

Page | 3

Case One: Rehabilitation concept of sewer system

One of the most important contamination sources of the drinking water in the study area is seen in the high loss of wastewater in the sewer systems. Additionally, leakage in septic tanks, cesspits and from dumping sites are seen as major pollution sources in the Wadi Shueib catchment area (Werz 2006). Leaky sewer systems are also a huge problem world- wide and especially in water scarce countries. Due to the population growth it is necessary to find solutions for future generations to ensure the drinking water supply (Grimmeisen et al. 2016). In order to avoid contamination by leaky sewer pipes, a rehabilitation concept has to be implemented. Here, the delineation of high priority areas for rehabilitation is helpful, whereby vulnerability maps are a useful tool Therefore, the vulnerability of the groundwater has to be assessed for different areas, based on the site characteristical geology and its natural protective function against contamination from both the surface and subsurface.

Case Two: Irrigation with treated wastewater In Case Two, the focus lies on the impact of treated wastewater (TWW), reused for field irrigation, and the evaluation of the associated potential hazard of groundwater contamination (Figure 2). It is necessary to designate highly vulnerable areas to avoid contamination of the groundwater. Wastewater reuse in small communities is one of the aims defined in the “Wa- ter Strategy 2009-2022” by the Jordanian government (Van Afferden et al. 2010). In Jordan, 42 % of the available freshwater resources are used by the agricultural sector for irrigation (Vallentin et al. 2009). Semi-arid climate poses a challenge for agriculture, since it is characterized by hot and dry summers and rainy and cold winters. These extremes are suboptimal for the agriculture(Nunes et al. 2007). Irrigation with treated wastewater can be a chance for sustainable water management in terms of a continuous irrigation, but it also enhances the contamination risk to groundwater resources. Therefore, potential irrigation areas should be carefully assessed, whereby vulnerability maps are a useful tool to support recommendations.

Geological Layers

Figure 2 Schematic overview of the potential contamination risks of leaky sewer pipes and irrigation with TWW.

Page | 4

Methods

Existing vulnerability mapping methods Many authors outline the necessity of specific models for vulnerability mapping, which take into account the characteristic nature of karst. Since every karst system has its individual characteristics, each system has to be investigated in detail. Nevertheless, it is useful to define a framework for the assessment of vulnerability such as COST Action 620, which was developed in order to improve protection of water in karst aquifers in Europe (Nguyet and Goldscheider 2006). COST is an acronym for “Cooperation in Science and Technology”. The project was initiated by the “Directorate General for Science, Research and Development” of the European Commission and is aimed at “vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers” (Goldscheider 2005). There is a range of existing methods for the assessment of groundwater vulnerability. Table 3 summarizes parameters considered by different authors in several studies to assess groundwater vulnerability in karst areas.

Table 3 Summary of the main considered parameters of some methods assessing the vulnerability of groundwater in karst areas. Here, the EPIK method was developed by Doerfliger et al. (1998). The PI method (Goldscheider et al. 2000), VULK (Jeannin et al. 2001), LEA (Dunne 2003) and COP (Vias et al. 2002) methods are discussed in the final report of COST Action 620 (Zwahlen 2004).

Method Considered parameters  Epikarst features (morphology, karst features, fracture density)  Protective cover (permeability of geological layers, thickness of soil and subsoil) EPIK  Infiltration conditions (concentrated or diffuse),

 runoff as a function of slope and vegetative cover  Karst network development  Topsoil – effective field capacity, recharge Protective cover  Type of subsoil, lithology, fracturing degree PI Method  Dominant flow process

 Runoff as a function of slope and vegetative cover Infiltration conditions  Surface karst features  Transfer time, concentration level at target, duration of contamination at target VULK  Vertical layer thickness (Flow distance)  Horizontal distance to spring/well (flow distance)  Dilution, coefficient of dispersivity, porosity  Overlying layers (soil type and thickness)  Soil classification with HOST factor for deriving a standard percentage runoff val- LEA ue

 runoff as a function of slope and vegetative cover  Surface karst features (swallow holes, sinking streams and dolines)  Overlying layers (soil type, lithology) COP  Infiltration conditions (swallow hole, recharge area, rest of catchment)

 Precipitation (quantity and intensity) The basic concept of the present study follows mainly the PI method after Goldscheider et al. (2000), groundwater protection concepts after Hölting et al. (1995), and the EPIK method after Doerfliger et al. (1998). These approaches were developed considering European conditions. Due to different climatic and environmental conditions in the Middle East, these approaches were adjusted as described below. A short summary of some applications con- ceived for karst environments, which are important for the proposed assessment schemes for vulnerability mapping in this report, is presented in the following chapter.

Page | 5

General vulnerability approach for the Wadi Shueib The assessment of groundwater vulnerability depends primarily on the input parameters, which define the protective function of the layers between the point of infiltration of the contaminant and the groundwater surface or spring outlets, respectively. Therefore, the characteristics of topsoil layers, geological layers and fault zones are assessed based on existing field data. Furthermore, spring catchments and typical infiltration conditions in karst environments are considered. A very important aspect for assessing the protective function of natural barriers is the depth of the groundwater table. However, due to data scarcity and a complex hydrogeology, groundwater levels are not known for wide parts of the test area and therefore the thickness of the unsaturated zone cannot be considered. Due to the importance of the four main springs for the drinking water supply, only the total groundwater catchments (Figure 3) are considered for the both uses cases.

Figure 3 a) Outline of the groundwater distribution zones of the major springs and the surface drainage catchment of in the Wadi Shueib b) Hazzir spring, c) Baqqpuria spring and d) Shoreia spring.

Case One – Rehabilitation concept of sewer system A generalized and simplified processing scheme for Case One is displayed in Figure 4. To set up a rehabilitation concept of sewer systems and for planning future settlements and

Page | 6

infrastructure, the proposed method considers natural geological barriers (O-factor), high vulnerable karst geomorphological features, including the main wadi courses, fault zones and groundwater contribution zones (spring catchments). The spring catchment (SC) vulnerability for Case One is obtained by combining the groundwater vulnerability map with the spring catchment map.

Figure 4 Simplified processing scheme for Case One. The O-factor is directly translated into the groundwater vulnerability. The SC vulnerability map is obtained by combing the vulnerability map with the catchment map.

Case Two - Irrigation with treated wastewater A generalized and simplified processing scheme for Case Two is displayed in Figure 5. In addition to the protective cover of geological layers, the main wadi courses and fault zones, Case Two considers the protective function of the topsoil layer (O-factor) and karst specific infiltration conditions and karst geomorphological features (C-factor). Furthermore, the SC vulnerability map in Case Two takes into account topographic catchment areas and groundwater contribution zones of springs. The SC vulnerability results from the combination of O- factor, C-factor and spring catchment ranking as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Simplified scheme for Case Two showing the parameters which influence the SC vulnerability. The SC vulnerability is defined as groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of spring catchments.

Page | 7

Input variables

Overlying layers (O factor) - topsoil, geological layers, fault zones

Topsoil The protective function of the topsoil layers is only considered in Case Two. Its assessment is a result of the combination of the soil thickness and the effective field capacity (eFC). The classification of the soil thickness follows mainly the EPIK method after Doerfliger et al. (1998), but is modified according to the present data. The maximum soil thickness in the test area is 250 cm with an average of 65 cm. The protective function of the topsoil layer is defined as a function of thickness and effective field capacity (eFC). In the test area, both parameters were measured by Kuntz (2003) and partly estimated based on previous soil investigations of the Federal Institute of Geoscience and Natural Resources (BGR). Following Hölting et al. (1995), the effective field capacity is defined as the capability of soils for storing water that is available to plants. High eFC-values indicate a long duration of percolating water. There are a series of further parameters that help to describe the protective function of soils. For instance, in order to calculate the retention potential of soils, Kuntz (2003) considered in addition to the soil thickness and eFC-values, the pH-values and the cation exchange capacity (CEC). However, due to limited input parameters, the method is simplified to make the vulnerability assessment user friendly and easy transferable to other areas in Jordan. The classification of the eFC considers five classes according to the German Pedological Mapping Instruction (AG Boden KA 5 2005). Due to the high uncertainty of the present data, the author decided to take into account only two classes (Table 4). The measured eFC values were corrected upwards by Kuntz (2003), since a strong discrepancy was found between the measured and the estimated values according to the AG Boden KA 5 (2005). Generally, in the test area, the soil cover is very sparse, but there is a large variation of soil types over comparatively small distances. Therefore, the soil map shows areas with a certain combination of soil types. Due to the complex relief, the soil types were extrapolated between the sampling locations by Kuntz (2003). However, regarding the vulnerability of groundwater, a topsoil cover can be assumed in case of irrigation with treated wastewater, as planned for agriculturally used areas.. Furthermore, in some parts of the test area, the soil cover is completely missing, but due to the extrapolation of soil types, this is not considered in the resulting map (Figure 6).

Table 4 Classification of the topsoil layers Characterization of the Topsoil Cover (modified after the pedological mapping instruction (AG Boden, KA5, Table 74)) High effective field capacity (efc > 14 Vol-%) and therefore a longer residence time Type A of percolating water Low effective field capacity (efc < 14 Vol-%) and therefore a shorter residence time Type B of percolating water Classification of the Soil Thickness Protective function Soil thickness Low < 50 cm Medium 50-200 cm High > 200 cm

Page | 8

Figure 6 Protective function of top soil layers in the study area.

Geological layers The Wadi as Sir Formation (A7) is considered to have a low protective function (Table 5) due to a well karst development, high hydraulic conductivities and a high degree of fracturing (Werz 2006; Ta'any 1992; Riepl 2012), which results in a high recharge. Moreover, typical karst characteristics like high flow velocities, fast hydraulic reactions, short residence times and a poor contaminant retention potential makes the A7 Aquifer very vulnerable to contamination. Wide ranges of the aquifer are only sparsely covered with shallow soils and runoff typically infiltrates immediately. A well connected karst network is assumed. (Werz 2006).

Table 5 Overlying layers for Case One and Case Two: Classification and description of parameters. Characteri- sation of the Topsoil Cover (modified after the pedological mapping instruction (AG Boden, KA5, Table 74)) Attributes of Geological Layers Protective function Formation Description (modified after Doerfliger et al. 1998) Presence of a well-developed karst Low A7 (Wadi as Sir) network (network with decimeter to meter sized channels that are rarelyplugged and are well connected) Presence of a moderately developed A7-B1-B2, A4, A1-A2 karst network (conduits network, (Wadi as Sir-Wadi Um Medium or moderately connected or filled network, Ghudran-Amman Al or network with decimetre or smaller Hisa, Hummar, Na'ur) sized openings) A3, A5-A6 No significant karstification, low High (Fuheis, Wadi Shueib) permeability layer

Page | 9

Figure 7 Wadi as Sir Formation with Epikarst and thin topsoil layer in the northeastern part of Salt. In some areas the A7 Aquifer is covered by the B1 (Wadi Um Ghudran) and B2 (Aman Al Hisa) Formations. These areas are considered to have a moderate protective function due to lower hydraulic conductivities and a lower degree of karstification. Layers of massive marls and chalk within the B1 Formation and on the top of the A7 Formation decreases the permeability. Additionally, massive limestone, dolomite and silicified dolomite of the Amman Al Hisa Formation act as a protective cover. The outcrops of the B1 and B2 Formation are assessed as moderate protective. Nevertheless, B1 and B2 are locally completely eroded or shows rather thin sequences of only 20 m thickness (Werz 2006). The protective function of the Hummar Formation (A4) and Na’ur Formation (A1-A2) is also seen as moderate protective. The Na’ur Formation is characterized by a sequence of glau- conitic sandstone with dolomitic sand- and siltstone at its base with interstratified layers of marl and marly limestone (Moh'd and Muneiezel 1998). At the top of this formation, also dolomitic limestones occur with chert nodules. Following Werz (2006) the Na’ur Formation is characterized by a moderate karst development containing caves and only few surface mi- croforms such as karren. Hydraulic conductivities collected by Riepl (2012) range between 10-5 - 3∙10-5 m/s (Table 6). Dissolution features along joints, angular cave formations and bedding planes are typical for the Hummar Formation (Werz 2006). These karst features and hydraulic conductivities between 4∙10-4 and 2∙10-5 m/s (Riepl 2012) leads to a moderate assessment of the protective function. A high protective function is considered for the Fuheis (A3) and Wadi Shueib (A5-A6) Formations which are seen as aquitards with hydraulic conductivities in the range of 10-9 m/s (Riepl 2012; Ta'any 1992). These aquitards consist of thin layers of marls and dolomitic thinly bedded limestones or siltstones. However, due to a high degree of fracturing it has to be assumed that leakage in some parts is probable (Werz 2006).

Table 6 Characterization of the aquifers and aquitards occurring in Wadi Shueib, Jordan. The description of the lithology was done by Werz (2006). A: Margane et al. (2002), B: Geyh et al. (1985), C: Parker (1970), D: Salameh and Udluft (1985), E: JICA (1995), F: Abu-Ajamieh (1998), G: Al-Kuisi (1998) (modified after Riepl (2012) and Werz (2006)). Thickness in the Aquifer Characteristics Hydraulic conductivity [m/s] Vulnerability test area [m] Well-developed karst -3 -5 A7-B2 ̴ 140 10 - 2∙10 (*A, B, C) High aquifer (caves, karren),

Page | 10

high recharge, most productive aquifer in test area A5-A6 ̴ 30 Aquitard 10-9 (*A) Low Karstified limestone, good aquifer potential, -4 -5 A4 ̴ 45 4∙10 - 2∙10 (*A, C, D, F) Moderate lowest discharge in the test area A3 ̴ 70 Aquitard 10-9 (*A) Low

Discharges more springs -5 -5 A1-A2 ̴ 110 10 - 3∙10 (*A, B) Moderate in the test area than A4 2∙10-5 (*A, D, E, F) Sandstone, no significant -4 -6 K1-K2 ̴ 250 5∙10 - 7∙10 (*C) Moderate spring in test area -4 -5 5∙10 - 5∙10 (*G)

Figure 8 Geological setup of the merged surface and groundwater catchment of Wadi Suheib. As the infiltration of wastewater is situated in the subsurface, the protective function of the topsoil layer can be ignored for use Case One. The major problem in assessing the protective function of geological layers in the test area is seen to be the missing data of groundwater table depth or hydraulic characteristics of the fault zones. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the thickness of protective layers between the point of infiltration and the groundwater surface. Based on well data and by using the topography and the elevation of discharging springs, Werz (2006) estimated the thickness of the unsaturated zone to 50 to 75 m. Since the tectonic situation is very complex and there is no conclusive contour map of the water table, the author focuses on the protective function of different outcropping series

Page | 11

of strata based on the attributes of the geological layers in general. Figure 9 shows the protective function of the overlying layers using three different colours. Red areas show mainly low protective function of the outcropping A7 Formation, whereas green areas point out layers with low permeabilities and low degree of karstification, e.g. the Wadi Shueib (A5-A6) and Fuheis (A3) Formation. Orange areas display outcropping layers with moderate karstification and permeabilities, e.g. the series of strata Wadi as Sir (A7) – Wadi Um Ghudran (B1) – Amman Al Hisa (B2), Hummar (A3) and Na’ur (A1-A2).

Figure 9 O-Map: protective function of the geological layers in the groundwater contribution zone of the four major springs in the Wadi Shueib.

Fault zones The spring catchment vulnerability is also influenced by structural properties of the carbonate body (fault zones and fractures). The faults in the study area Figure 8(Figure 10) show displacements up to 100 m allowing hydraulic flow and contact between different aquifer systems (Werz 2006). The dominating tectonic element in the study area is the Wadi Shueib structure, which is seen as a fold belt of approximately 25 km length and 1 – 4 km width. A detailed description of the tectonic situation is given in Werz (2006).

Page | 12

Figure 10 distribution of fault zones and fault density in the study area. Several vulnerability studies like Kavouri et al. (2011) (PaPRIKa method) and Denny et al. (2006) (DRASTIC-Fm method) consider fault zones within the unsaturated zone as highly vulnerable. Both studies point out that fault zones act as primary conduits for flow at the regional scale. Furthermore, Denny et al. (2006) and Kavouri et al. (2011) outline the degree of fracturing as an assessment parameter for the vulnerability in the unsaturated zone. Werz (2006), Shawabkeh (2001), Moh'd &Muneizel (1998), MacDonald &Partners (1963) and Sawarieh & Barjous (1993) point out the importance of normal faults in the test area. It is assumed that different aquifers of the test area are connected through these zones and therefore, these areas are rated with a high vulnerability. Hydraulic characteristics of fault zones in the study area are not known yet and therefore, it was not possible to assess the vulnerability of fault zones individually. The fault zones, including a buffer of 25 m at each side, are assessed as highly vulnerable to contamination. Moreover, the density of fault zones was taken into account (Figure 10). Denny et al. (2006) mentioned that fracture density tends to increase by at least a factor of ten in the presence of a regional-scale fault. A high fault zone density can be observed in the North West and in the central part of the study area. In contrast, in the central northern part the density is less.

Page | 13

Infiltration conditions (C factor) – risk of bypassing It is generally known that the infiltration conditions play an important role in the assessment of groundwater vulnerability in karst environments. Surface or subsurface runoff occurs typically on low permeability layers. Therefore, the C-factor was introduced. Following Gold- scheider et al. (2000) the C-factor (in the PI method: I-factor) is defined as a semi quantita- tive tool to assess the vulnerability of the bypassing risk of a protective layer. For the examined Case Two, two parameters are considered: The dominant flow process and the surface catchment areas. The surface catchment map (Figure 11) shows areas with different risk levels of bypassing the protective layers due to geomorphological features. A high risk is associated with the main wadi course, since these wadis are deeply incised into the aquifers, leading to a reduc- tion of the distance between ground surface and groundwater table (Werz 2006). A moderate risk of bypassing is assigned to the spring catchments and to steep slopes with more than 30° steepness in the direction of the main wadi course. These areas are characterized by fast surface flows and small hydraulic conductivities, or limited infiltration possibilities. No significant bypassing risk is dedicated to highly permeable layers outside the spring catchments, where the dominant flow process is infiltration.

Figure 11 C-Map: Risk of bypassing the protective layers in the study area. With regard to the dominant flow process, two types of recharge are distinguished: (1) autogenic recharge through diffuse or concentrated infiltration on high permeable layers and (2) allogenic recharge from low permeable layers as a consequence of bypassing a potential protective cover. The assessment of the dominant flow process in the present study is based on the soil cover above low permeability layers, e.g. the Wadi Shueib and the Fuheis Formation. With regard to massive clogging due to high evaporation rates, the depth to low permeable layers was corrected upwards for generating subsurface flow. Type A (Table 7)

Page | 14

describes direct infiltration on high permeable layers, where the protection of groundwater depends only on the overlying layers. Subsurface flow occurs where precipitation can infil- trate in soils that overlie low permeable geological layers with hydraulic conductivities < 10- 6 m/s (Goldscheider 2005). For Type B, a soil thickness of more than 50 cm is assumed for generating subsurface flow. Type C describes saturated overland flow during rainfall events for a soil thickness of less than 50 cm overlying a low permeable layer. Thus, the protective cover is completely bypassed.

Table 7 Infiltration conditions (Case Two): Classification and description of parameters.

Surface Catchment Zone 1 Main wadis with springs that contribute to water supply + buffer zone 50m on each side Zone 2 Slopes with steepness > 30° in Wadi direction. At least 350 m buffer zone around main wadi Zone 3 Within topographic catchment areas of main springs Zone 4 Rest of groundwater basin Dominant Flow Process (modified after Doerfliger et al. 1998) Type A Autogenic recharge: Direct infiltration on high permeable layers Type B Intermediate situation: Soil cover > 50 cm on low permeable layers Type C Allogenic recharge: Soil cover < 50 cm on low permeable layers. Bypassing risk high

Spring catchment ranking It must be distinguished whether springs are relevant for drinking water supply or not. There- fore, springs are classified with regard to their discharge into four categories (Table 8). The four major springs in the test area are assigned to category 1. In addition, there are several springs with category 2, 3 or 4. However, these springs were not considered due to missing data on extended groundwater contribution zones (GWCZ). Moreover, the discharge of these springs is significantly lower. For Case One, only the GWCZ of Baqqouria spring (Area 1) is considered. The remaining area (Area 2) represents the area outside the GWCZ and is not displayed in Figure 12.

Table 8 Categorization of springs and their catchment for Case One.

Spring Categories Category 1 High perennial discharge of > 40 L/s Category 2 Low perennial discharge < 40 L/s Category 3 Intermittent discharge Category 4 No significant discharge Spring Catchments Area 1 Within GWCZ of at least one major spring Area 2 Outside GWCZ of major springs For Case Two, 4 different spring catchment areas were distinguished, as displayed in Table 9. The highest probability for contamination of a spring catchment is seen to be at the intersections of GWCZ with topographic catchment areas. These intersections were calculated for each of the four main springs and were summarized as Area 1. It is assumed that the influence of GWCZ (Area 2) on springs is higher than the influence of topographic catchment areas (Area 3). Areas outside of spring catchments are delineated as Area 4 (similar to Area 2 of Case One). The spring catchment ranking, which describes the relevance of the catchments regarding to the protection of important springs, is obtained by combining “Spring Categories” and “Spring Catchments” (Table 9).

Page | 15

Table 9 Infiltration conditions (Case Two): Classification and description of parameters

Spring Categories Category 1 High perennial discharge of > 40 L/s Category 2 Low perennial discharge < 40 L/s Category 3 Intermittent discharge Category 4 No significant discharge Spring Catchments Area 1 Intersection surface catchment/groundwater contribution zone Area 2 Groundwater contribution zone of at least two springs Area 3 Only topographic catchment area or GWCZ of one spring Area 4 Rest of groundwater basin Within the catchment of the four major springs there are additionally five smaller springs. However, catchments of major springs (used for drinking water supply) override catchments of less important springs. Furthermore, several smaller springs are outside of the GWCZ of the four major springs. Since GWCZ of these springs are not investigated yet, they were not considered.

Figure 12 Spring catchment ranging as it is applied for Case Two. In Case One there is only distinguished between inside (Area 1) and outside (Area 2) of the delineated spring catchment.

Page | 16

SC vulnerability map - Case One The SC vulnerability map is obtained by combining the O-map with the Spring catchments map. Additionally, the main wadi course which contains all four major springs is displayed as highly vulnerable (Figure 13). In Case One the O-map is directly translated into a vulnerability map. The SC Vulnerability Map (Figure 13) of Case One is subdivided into four different colours symbolizing four different vulnerability levels. To underline its importance, high vulnerability is only delineated within groundwater contribution zones of the major springs. Are- as, located outside the GWCZ of springs with a high groundwater vulnerability were down- graded to a moderate vulnerability in the SC vulnerability map. Nevertheless, to offer the possibility of planning future rehabilitation concepts or settlements outside the spring catchments a moderate and a low vulnerability were distinguished. Red areas within the groundwater contribution zones of the major springs are mainly associated with the highly karstified Wadi as Sir Formation (A7).

Case 1 O-Factor (Geological Layers) Formation Protective function

Legend A3, A5-A6 H H High (Fuheis, Wadi Shueib) M Moderate A7-B1-B2, A4, A1-A2 L Low (Wadi as Sir-Wadi Um M Ghudran-Amman Al Hisa, Hummar, Na'ur) A7 (Wadi as Sir) L

Fault zone density High fault zone density H Fault Protective Function Geological Layers Low fault zone density L Density H M L H H M L L M M L

Fault zones Main Wadis (50 m buffer) L Fault Fault zone (20 m buffer) M Zones H M L Rest of catchment H L H H H M L M M H L L M Groundwater vulnerability

Spring Within gwcz* Outside gwcz* Spring Groundwater Vulnerability Category (Area 1) (Area 2) Ranking H M L Cat 1 H H E H M Cat 2 M L M H M L Cat 3 M L M L L Cat 4 L SC Vulnerability Spring Catchment Ranking

* Groundwater Contribution Zone Figure 13 The SC vulnerability map (SC = spring catchment) for Case One is obtained by combining the O-map, the Spring catchments map and the main wadi course. The SC vulnerability is defined as groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of spring catchments. Rehabilitation of the sewer pipes in red areas consist a higher priority than in others, for example outside the groundwater catchment zone of the springs (Figure 14). Red areas visualize the outcropping A7 Aquifer within the groundwater contribution zone of the springs. Yel- low areas represent moderate vulnerability, wherefore the use of cesspits or septic tanks should be avoided. In these areas, households should be connected to a tight sewer net-

Page | 17

work. The groundwater contribution zones of the major springs are dominated by high and moderate vulnerability levels. Outside the catchment zones, vulnerability is mainly low to moderate (not displayed here). The highly vulnerable main wadi course overrides the “Over- lying layers map” and the “spring catchments map”. As the spring catchment of the Baqqou- ria spring overlap with the catchments of the Hazzir, Shorea and Azraq spring, the rehabilitation of sewer pipes should probably be a priority north of the latter springs since the groundwater flow follows basically the dipping of strata of the three main aquifers in southerly direction. Therefore, it is possible that one leaky sewer pipe can generate a contamination risk for two springs at the same time.

Figure 14 SC vulnerability and rehabilitation concept for sewer network in the Wadi Shueib. Vulnerability maps can be also applied as planning tool for new settlement areas. Generally, the development for new areas for settlements is less critical outside the groundwater contribution zone of the Baqqouria spring. However, even inside the catchment, yellow and orange areas are preferable to red ones, but should meet stringent requirements in terms of the connection to the local sewer system. Yellow areas symbolize a moderate vulnerability and thus, several restrictions are suggested, for example avoiding cesspits or septic tanks. Furthermore, it must be ensured, that new households are connected to a tight sewer system.

Page | 18

SC vulnerability map - Case Two Generally, the assessment of the contamination risk in Case Two is based on three major factors: The protective function of the overlying layers (O-factor), the infiltration conditions (C-factor) and the spring catchment ranking. A low eFC implicates a short residence time of percolating water. Therefore, thin soil covers with a low eFC are assessed as having a low protective function. Thin soil covers with an eFC > 14 Vol-% (Type B) have a moderate protective function due to longer residence time of percolating water. Generally, protection function is considered moderate for soil thick- nesses between 30 cm and 200 cm and high for soil covers of more than 200 cm. The O-factor is obtained by combing the protective function of topsoil layers (Figure 6) and geological layers (Figure 8). Margane and Steinel (2011) pointed out the significance of the topsoil layer as the most important factor for assessing groundwater vulnerability. Therefore, the influence of the protective function of the topsoil layers is higher. Nevertheless, since the thickness of geological layers is significantly larger than the thickness of topsoil layers, low protectiveness of geological layers downgrade the O-factor, even if there are high protective topsoil layers. For porous and fissured aquifers the O-factor can directly be translated into the groundwater vulnerability. The C-factor (Figure 11) describes the concentration of flow, expressed as risk of bypassing, and is obtained by combining the type of infiltration (allogenic and autogenic) with the four zones of the surface catchment with the dominant flow process. Generally, catchment zone 1 (main wadis with springs with 50 m buffer each side) is higher weighted than the dominant flow process (Type A,B or C). High flow concentration is also considered for overland surface flow (Type C) occurring on wadi slopes. Combination of Type C (allogenic recharge) with zone 3 (topographic catchment area of springs) as well as catchment zone 4 (rest of groundwater basin) results in a moderate concentration of flow based on a low risk for runoff generation in these areas. Direct infiltration (Type A) within catchment zone 3 or 4 and subsurface flow within catchment zone 4, results in a low risk of generating runoff and therefore in a low C-factor. For areas with a low C-factor the O-factor can directly be translated into the groundwater vulnerability. Groundwater vulnerability is obtained by overlying the O-map and C-map. Zone 1 in the catchment map includes main wadis containing springs which contribute to water supply. The main wadi course overrides the O-factor, i.e. the vulnerability is always high in such areas. Low vulnerabilities are assigned to areas with low concentration of flow, even if the protective functions of the overlying layers are low or moderate. The spring catchment ranking is obtained by combing the spring catchment map and the classification of spring categories. It describes the importance of springs depending on their potential to be used as a drinking water supply. The combination of area 1 and spring category 1 is considered as extreme, since these springs are very important for the drinking water supply. Catchments of springs with category 4 are classified as low vulnerable in areas 1 to 4. Area 4 has no relevance for drinking water supply and are therefore, generally assessed as low vulnerable. Finally, the risk of contamination is obtained by combining the groundwater vulnerability with spring catchments (SC), called the SC vulnerability. As the spring catchment ranking contains four different subdivisions, the resulting SC vulnerability is classified into four classes as well. The combination of an extreme spring catchment ranking with high groundwater vulnerability is considered to have an extreme SC vulnerability, for instance at the outcrop-

Page | 19

ping A7 formation north of the Baqqouria spring. To underline the necessity of the protection of spring catchments, in order to improve the spring water quality, the SC vulnerability is at least moderate by combining the groundwater vulnerability with extreme or high spring catchment rankings. Since the SC vulnerability is aimed to assess aspects for the protection of both groundwater and spring water, there are also areas with a moderate SC vulnerability outside the spring catchment zones, i.e. in areas with a high groundwater vulnerability. Low SC vulnerabilities occur outside the spring catchment zones within areas with low or moderate groundwater vulnerability.

Case 2 Soil Protective Potential thickness Type A Type B 0-50 cm L M 50-200 cm M M > 200 cm H H Protective Function Topsoil

Geological Layers Protective function Formation Geological Protective Function Topsoil Low A 7 Layer H M L Intermediate A7-B2, A4, A1-A2 H H M M High A3, A5-A6 M H M L L M M L Protective Function Overlying Layers

Fault zone density High fault zone density H Fault Protective Function Overlying Layers Low fault zone density L Density H M L H H M L L M M L

Fault zones (protective function) Main Wadis (50 m buffer) L Fault Fault zone (20 m buffer) M Zones H M L Rest of catchment H L L L L M H M M H H H M Protective Function OL + Faultzones

*Karst specific Dominant Flow Process Protective Function OL + Faultzones Catchment Type A Type B Type C C Factor H M L Zone 1 H H H H H H H Zone 2 M M H M M M H Zone 3 L M M L L L H Zone 4 L L L Groundwater Vulnerability C-factor (Concentration of flow)

Spring Catchment Ranking Spring Groundwater Vulnerability E H M L Ranking H M L E E H M H H M M M M M L L M L L SC Vulnerability Figure 15 Proposed methodology for mapping the SC vulnerability in the Wadi Shueib area (case two). The SC vulnerability serves as a planning tool for irrigation with treated wastewater and is defined as the groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of infiltration conditions, fault zones and spring catchments. The suggested SC vulnerability map for Case Two (Figure 16) is aimed at finding suitable agricultural areas for irrigation with treated wastewater. The map is obtained by combining the overlying layers map (O-map), infiltration map (C-map), fault zones, fault zone density, spring catchment map and the main wadi course (Figure 15). Four different colours, ranging

Page | 20

from red to green, symbolize four vulnerability levels. For a wide extend, red areas are located within the catchments of the main drinking water springs. Additionally, the outcrops of the Wadi as Sir Formation (A7) within the intersection of groundwater contribution zone and topographic catchment area of the Baqqouria spring are categorized as extreme vulnerable. Areas of low vulnerability can be found outside the spring catchments, where the overlying layers have a high protective function. Moderate to high vulnerable areas are mainly associated with steep wadi slopes and can be found inside and outside of spring catchments.

Figure 16 SC vulnerability map of the upper Wadi Shueib catchment area as a planning tool for irrigation with treated wastewater. The SC vulnerability is defined as groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of spring catchments.

Page | 21

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions Identification and localization of potential pollution sources are necessary to sustainably improve the water quality of the springs. Generally, one of the major problems regarding the contamination of groundwater or springs is ascribed to the wastewater management. Vul- nerability maps can neither identify, nor localize pollution sources, which are responsible for the contamination of springs. However, these maps offer the opportunity to point out areas, where the risk of groundwater or spring contamination is increased. They are based on an evaluation of the protective function of geological layers and the typical infiltration conditions in karst environments with special consideration of spring catchments. The SC vulnerability maps prepared in this thesis are a useful and user-friendly tool for planning rehabilitation concepts of sewer systems, new settlements and to give recommendations for areas, where the use of treated wastewater for irrigation is less critical. Rehabilitation of the local sewer pipes is necessary to reduce the high loss of wastewater in the infrastructure. Due to the massive population growth of almost 3 %, the establishment of an effective wastewater system should have a high priority. Decision makers can use vulnerability maps to minimize the probability of groundwater and spring water contamination by implementing reasonable measures. Further measures should contain the replacement or disposal of septic tanks and cesspits. Moreover, the vulnerability map should be combined with hazard maps, considering further contamination sources such as wastewater treatment plants or chemical factories, which should have a maximum distance to wadis or other highly vulnerable structures. Special hazard maps are already worked out by Storz (2004). In addition to planning scenarios, vulnerability maps can be helpful for defining new protection zones with special consideration of karst environments. The two discussed cases in this thesis outlined the necessity of adjust- ing vulnerability maps depending on different issues. How far the approaches developed in COST Action 620 are applicable in the test area, is difficult to assess since they focus on European karst environments. Nevertheless, COST Action 620 is a useful and important frame as a basis for defining protection parameters in karst environments in other climatic zones. Since the considered parameters are still subject to high uncertainty, the most important aspect in assessing the vulnerability is a good data basis. There is still a lack of understand- ing the hydrogeological situation in the test area and therefore, a validation of the results with tracing approaches or isotope analysis would be useful. As the proposed method should be transferable to other areas, approaches should be applicable with a limited number of input parameters. Contamination problems due to irrigation with treated wastewater depend on the amount and quality of wastewater, which is not considered in vulnerability maps. However, quantity and quality aspects are important for planning. Finally, in which way vulnerability maps are useful as a planning tool in the test area is not known, yet. But there is still a demand to sustainably improve the water quality and therefore, vulnerability maps offer the chance for decision makers to implement useful measures.

Page | 22

General recommendations Considering Case One, it is recommended to prefer rehabilitation of local sewer pipes in extreme vulnerable (red) areas to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. In addition, in these areas new households need to be properly connected to the local sewer system. Recommendations for irrigation areas for Case Two are based on the SC vulnerability map. Since red areas are delineated as highly vulnerable to contamination, irrigation with treated wastewater is suggested to be avoided. However, the use of treated wastewater for irrigation implicates already an improvement of the situation since it has a better water quality com- pared to direct infiltration of wastewater (see Case One). Since the quality of treated wastewater increases up to a certain level (depending on the type of treatment), the red areas could also be displayed in a different colour in order to symbolize a reduced vulnerability when high quality water is irrigated. However, this might also depend on the rate of water (mm/m²/time) used for irrigation, since the infiltration or risk of bypassing is also controlled by evaporation. In conclusion, the colours have to be seen as recommendations to look at certain areas more carefully than others. This applies for both cases as the different colours are only tools to visualize areas of different vulnerability. For example, to avoid further contamination, it is strongly recommended to not irrigation with treated wastewater on crop fields within the spring catchments and near the main wadi course as displayed in Figure 17, where a crop field is directly located upstream of the perennial Hazzir spring. Green areas should be preferred for irrigation, since there is a very low risk for contamination of the groundwater or a low risk to the springs, respectively. Irrigation in orange areas should be limited to a certain quantity, in order to prevent surface runoff. However, the limit for the amount of treated wastewater is not defined yet. Yellow areas could be seen as alternative sites for irrigation with treated wastewater or diluted treated wastewater.

20 m to Hazzir Spring

Figure 17 Typical agricultural land use in the study area in close vicinity to the Hazzir spring

Page | 23

References

Abu-Ajamieh, M.M. (1998) Water Quality Improvement and Conservation Project: Assess- ment of Brackish Groundwater in Jordan: USAID. AG Boden KA 5 (2005) Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung, 5. verbesserte und erweiterte Auf- lage, 438 p., Hannover. Al-Kuisi, M. (1998) Effects of irrigation water with special regards to biocides on soils and groundwater in the Jordan Valley area, Jordan. Verein der Geologie-Studenten. BGR-MWI (2008) Borgstedt, A. & Subah, A. (2008): Groundwater Protection and Sanitation - Practical Experiances in Jordan - Presented at International Symphosium on Cou- pling Sustainable Contamination & Groundwater Protection. Denny, S.C., Allen, D.M., and Journeay, J.M. (2006) DRASTIC-Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL, 2007, 483–493. Doerfliger, N., Jeannin, P.Y., and Zwahlen, F. (1998) Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS toos (EPIK method). Environmental Geology (39 (2)), 165–176. Dunne, S. (2003) Vulnerability mapping for the protection of UK karst aquifers. Submitted PhD thesis, corrections ongoing, Geography Dept., Trinity College Dublin. Geyh, M.A., Rimawi, O., and Udluft, P. (1985) Environmental isotope study in the Hamad region Natural water groups and their origin of the shallow aquifers complex in Az- raq-depression, Jordan. Goldscheider, N. (2005) Karst groundwater vulnerability mapping: Application of a new method in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Hydrogeology Journal, 13 (4), 555–564, DOI: 10.1007/s10040-003-0291-3. Goldscheider, N., and Drew, D. (2007) Methods in Karst Hydrogeology: IAH International Contributions to Hydrogeology. CRC Press, p. 26. Goldscheider, N., Klute, M., Sturm, S., and Hötzl, H. (2000) The PI method - a GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of karst aquifers. Zeitschrift für angewandte Geologie (46 (2000) 3), 157–166. Grimmeisen, F., Zemann, M., Goeppert, N., and Goldscheider, N. (2016) Weekly variations of discharge and groundwater quality caused by intermittent water supply in an ur- banized karst catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 537, 157–170, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.045. Jeannin, P.Y., Cornaton, F., Zwahlen, F., and Perrochet, P. (2001) VULK: A tool for intrinsic vulnerability asseessment and validation 7th Conference on Limestone Hydrology and Fissured Media, Besançon 20– 22 Sep. 2001, Sci. Tech. Envir., Mém. H ., 185–190. JICA (1995) The Study of Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Jordan.: Japan International Cooperation Agency. Japan International Cooperation.

Page | 24

Kavouri, K., Plagnes, V., Tremoulet, J., Dörfliger, N., Rejiba, F., and Marchet, P. (2011) PaPRIKa: a method for estimating karst resource and source vulnerability - application to the Ouysse karst system (southwest France). HYDROGEOLOGY JOUR- NAL, 2011, 339–353. Margane, A., Subah, A., Hamdan, I., Hajali, Z., and Almomani, T. (2010) Groundwater Re- cources Management - Technical Report NO. 14: Delineation of Groundwater Pro- tection Zones for the Springs in Wadi Shuayb. Moh'd, B., and Muneiezel, S. (1998) The geology of Al Salt area-Map sheet No 3154III. Bul- letin No 41.- NRA, Geology Directorate Subsurface Geology Division, 67. MWI, GTZ (2004) National Water Master Plan. Ministery of Water and Irrigation (MWI) & German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Amman. Nguyet, V.T.M., and Goldscheider, N. (2006) A simplified methodology for mapping groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk, and its first application in a tropical karst area, Vietnam. Hydrogeology Journal, 14 (8), 1666–1675, DOI: 10.1007/s10040- 006-0069-5. Nunes, J.M., López-Piñeiro, A., Albarrán, A., Muñoz, A., and Coelho, J. (2007) Changes in selected soil properties caused by 30 years of continuous irrigation under Mediter- ranean conditions. Geoderma, 139 (3-4), 321–328, DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.02.010. Parker, D.H. (1970) Investigations of the Sandstone Aquifers of East Jordan: The Hydroge- ology of the Mesozoic-cainozoic Aquifers of the Western Highlands and Plateau of East Jordan. F.A.O. Documentation Centre. Quassem, J.M. (1997) Tectonics along the Wadi Shueib structure: Master Thesis University of Jordan, Amman (unpublished), 110. Riepl, D. (2012) Knowledge-Based Decision Support for Integrated Water Resources Man- agement with an application for Wadi Shueib, Jordan. KIT Scientific Publishing, 241. Salameh, E., and Udluft, P. (1985) The hydrodynamic pattern of the central part of Jordan (Vol. c38). Ta'any, R.A.A. (1992) Hydrological and Hydrochemical Study of the Major Springs in Wadi Shu'eib Catchment Area, 302. Trappe, J. (2007) Delineation of Groundwater Protection Zones for Baqqouria Spring Ac- cording to Jordanian Guidelines. MSc Thesis, 85. Vallentin, A., Schlick, J., Klingel, F., Bracken, P., and Werner, C. (2009) Use of treated wastewater in agriculture Jordan Valley, Jordan - Case study of sustainable sanitation projects. Sustaiable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA). Van Afferden, M., Cardona, J.A., Rahman, K.Z., Daoud, R., Headley, T., Kilani, Z., Subah, A., and Mueller, R.A. (2010) A step towards decentralized wastewater management in the Lower Jordan Rift Valley. Water Science and Technology, 3117–3128. Vias, J.M., Andreo, B., Perles, M.J., Carrasco, F., Vadillo, I., and Jiménez, I. (2002) Prelimi- nary proposal of a method for vulnerability mapping in carbonate aquifers. Karst and Environment (F. Carrasco, J.J. Durán and B. Andreo, Eds), 75–83.

Page | 25

Werz, H. (2006) The use of remote sensing imagery for groundwater risk intensity mapping in the Wadi Shueib, Jordan. Wolf, L., Borgstedt, A., Subah, A., Van Afferden, M., Jabarin, A., Riepl, D., and Hötzl, H. (2009) Combined cost-benefit assessment of groundwater protection measures and improved sanitation concepts in Jordan. 7th International Conference of the Euro- pean Water Resource Association. Xanke, J., Jourde, H., Liesch, T., and Goldscheider, N. (2016) Numerical long-term assessment of managed aquifer recharge from a reservoir into a karst aquifer in Jordan. Journal of Hydrology, 540, 603–614, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.058. Zwahlen, F. (ed) (2004) Vulnerability and Risk Mapping for the Protection of Carbonate (Karst) Aquifers: Final report COST action 620. European Commission, Directorate- Genral for research, EUR 20912:297.

Page | 26