REPUBLIC OF YEMEN

Ministry of Water and Environment

National Water Resources Authority

Amran Basin
GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING RECORDS: 2008‐2010
(PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED DATA)

National Water Resources Authority (NWRA)

Water Sector Support Program (WSSP)

Sana’a, January 2011

1

Tel: 01334022 Fax: 01334023 E‐Mail: NWRA‐HQ@Y.NET.YE Web Site:WWW.NWRAYEMEN.ORG

 Amran Basin

GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING RECORDS: 2008‐2010

(PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED DATA)

National Water Resources Authority (NWRA)

Water Sector Support Program (WSSP)

Compiled by: Victor Rybakov

Sana’a, January 2011

i
SUMMARY

In 2005, a total of 20 wells suitable for groundwater‐level monitoring were selected in the Amran
Basin for manual collecting of groundwater level measurements. In November 2008 a first set of
automatic GERO dataloggers have been installed that allowed collecting records of groundwater
level continuously with 1‐hour interval between measurements.

Automatic groundwater level records are currently collected from a total of seven dataloggers
installed in different parts of the Amran Basin. In the context of this report, the original hourly
measurements have been processed and average monthly values are calculated. Based on the
calculated monthly averages of a depth to groundwater level, a set of seven well’s hydrographs are
constructed for the period from November 2008 until October 2010 in order to compare automatic
records with previous manual measurements and to analyze on this basis the seasonal and long‐
term trends in groundwater level.

Two different long‐term trends are evident in different parts of the Amran Basin: a continuing
decline in groundwater level and continuing elevation of water table, respectively. This phenomenon
can be explained by different patterns of local indirect recharges, various hydraulic properties of
water‐bearing formations and various intensities of agricultural practices.

A total of some 20 additional groundwater level monitoring stations should be established in various
parts of the Amran Basin and equipped with automatic dataloggers in order to provide a uniform
and rather dense coverage of the target area.

ii
Table of Contents

SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. v

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. HYDROGEOLOGICAL OUTLINE .............................................................................................................. 2

3. MAJOR OUTPUTS OF THE MANUAL MONITORING CAMPAIGN (2005‐2007)....................................... 5

4. AUTOMATIC MONITORING STATIONS: CURRENT STATUS ................................................................... 8

5. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF AUTOMATIC MONITORING RECORDS (2008‐2010)................................... 10

6. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................... 14

7. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 15

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 16

ANNEX 1: Average Monthly Records of Groundwater Level (2008‐2010) ................................................. 17

iii
List of Tables

Table 1. Location of automatic monitoring stations..................................................................................... 8

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location Map of the Amran Basin.................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2. Geological W‐E cross‐section......................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Distribution of manual monitoring wells with different temporal changes in groundwater
level (2005‐2007) ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4. Automatic groundwater level monitoring stations........................................................................ 1

Figure 5. Hydrograph from well E‐921........................................................................................................ 10

Figure 6. Hydrograph from well E‐943........................................................................................................ 11

Figure 7. Hydrograph from well W‐668 ...................................................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Hydrograph from well W‐270 ...................................................................................................... 12

Figure 9. Hydrograph from well S‐174........................................................................................................ 12

Figure 10. Hydrograph from well W‐378 .................................................................................................... 13

Figure 11. Hydrograph from well W‐852 .................................................................................................... 14

iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

BGR Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources ,Hannover/ Germany

GERO German producer of automatic dataloggers, Braunsweig/Germany

GSCP Groundwater and Soil Conservation Project/Yemen

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management Project/Yemen

mbrp Meters below reference point

NWRA National Water Resources Authority/ Yemen

Q Groundwater abstraction (yield)

S Drawdown of groundwater level

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

v
 1. INTRODUCTION

Water resources in Yemen are imperiled in many critical basins by overexploitation and pollution due to
insufficient knowledge of available groundwater resources and limited availability of proper monitoring
stations. For the sustainable management of water resources a sound data basis is crucial, comprising
information on hydrology, hydrogeology, geology as well as meteorology, topography and other
relevant disciplines. In this context, regular monitoring of groundwater level is essential for the
assessment of available resources and provides the basis for a professional data interpretation and
subsequent actions. It is evident that drilling of specific monitoring wells is currently very limited in the
country mainly because of financial constraints. Therefore, in reality a routine monitoring campaign in
Yemen is focused now on the properly selected available wells which meet some basic criteria in order
to collect representative information.

The main objective of a water‐level monitoring campaign is to provide accurate and continuous long‐
term records as a basis for:

1. Establishment of spatial and temporal trends in groundwater level that reflect temporal changes
in the resource availability.
2. Measuring the effects of any man‐made activity which may result in water level changes (e.g.
abstraction, irrigation, artificial recharge practices, etc.).
3. Correlation between seasonal and long‐term variations in climate, runoff and groundwater level
fluctuations.
4. Developing and supporting forecasts of expected changes in water level in response to various
scenarios of groundwater development.
5. Establishment of groundwater protection zones because changes in a water level may seriously
affect groundwater flow patterns and thus quality in the surrounding of operating wells.

In this framework, the BGR‐IWRM project supported NWRA in the establishment of groundwater‐level
monitoring network in the Amran Basin. At the initial stage of the project, a total of 20 wells suitable for
groundwater‐level monitoring were selected in 2005 based on the outputs of the comprehensive well

1
inventory. Since June 2006, the responsibility for further continuing measurements has been transferred
to NWRA.

During the first stage of the routine monitoring campaign (2005‐2008) the measurements of water level
have been collected manually on the monthly or bimonthly basis. In November 2008 a first set of 11
automatic GERO dataloggers have been installed that allows collecting records continuously with 1‐hour
interval between measurements.

2. HYDROGEOLOGICAL OUTLINE

The Amran Basin comprises the intermountain plain (Amran Valley) and its mountain catchment area.
The area is located about 50 km north‐west of Sana’a and lies between the UTM coordinates 1690000
and 1770000 N, and 370000 and 410000 E (Figure 1). The total area of the basin is about 1,620 km2,
some 270 km2 of which form the plain floor. Agriculture is concentrated in the central part of the Amran
Valley.

The Amran Valley was formed by a northeast‐southwest tending graben structure. The graben was filled
with Quaternary alluvial deposits intercalated with Quaternary basaltic layers. The Quaternary sequence
is underlain in the valley by the block‐faulted Amran Limestone. The thickness of the alluvium reaches
more than 300m along the main axis of the plain. The Quaternary Volcanics outcrop to the east and
south‐east of the graben. Outcrops of the Amran Limestone border the graben in the west and north.
The Tawilah Sandstone of the Cretaceous age outcrops to the south‐west of the main valley at the
margin of the project area.

The main supply of water to the intermountain plain originates from infiltration of occasional floods in
tributary wadis flowing from the surrounding plateaus. Generally great depth to a water table in the
alluvial plain restricts the potential for any direct recharge. The mountain catchment area contributing
runoff and indirect recharge to the main valley comprises approximately equal outcropping areas of the
Amran Limestone in the west and Quaternary Volcanics in the east of the main plain.

2
Figure 1. Location Map of the Amran Basin

3
Unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial sediments, intercalated with basaltic layers, form the principal
aquifer system in the intermountain plain. Quaternary Volcanics and the Tawilah Sandstone are not
considered (where elevated and outcrop) to be a significant aquifer, but they may have an important
role in enabling recharge to reach the underlying formations. The Amran Limestone is generally not
karstified and considered to be a poor aquifer because the overall permeability of the formation is low
but enhanced locally by fracturing and decomposed dykes.

Although the aquifer system in the study area is in general hydraulic continuity, it does not behave as a
single unconfined aquifer, but rather as a stratified system comprising layers with distinct hydraulic
properties (Figure 2).

West East

Figure 2. Geological W‐E cross‐section (Adopted from: [3])

4
The three geological units are hydraulically connected in three ways:

1. A vertical connection within the saturated thickness of alluvium with intercalated basaltic flows
and the underlying Amran Limestone within the main valley. This connection allows vertical flow
between different layers with the direction controlled by local head differences.

2. A vertical connection in the mountain plateaus between the outcropping Quaternary Volcanics
and the underlying Amran Limestone. Groundwater flow in the basalts occurs through
secondary porosity generated by fissures, fractures and faults. The vertical gradient is
downward, allowing recharge to the underlying limestone.

3. A horizontal connection between the Amran Limestone under surrounding plateaus and the
aquifer system beneath the Amran Valley through the erosional contact with the saturated
limestone along the entire valley border. In the eastern part of the valley the limestone is
overlain by the Quaternary Volcanics which built the elevated plateaus. The base of the
volcanics is situated below the bottom of the main valley. Therefore this formation has no a
horizontal hydraulic connection to the alluvium, but it provides downward recharge to
underlying limestone.

3. MAJOR OUTPUTS OF THE MANUAL MONITORING CAMPAIGN

(2005­2007)

A set of hydrographs (water‐level time series) constructed from routine manual measurements of
groundwater level together with a summary of available field measurements can be found in the BGR‐
IWRM technical report [1]. On this basis, the following major conclusions have been formulated as a
result of hydraulic analysis of available monitoring records:

1. A relatively stable groundwater level prevailed in the plateaus made by the Amran Limestone
and Quaternary Volcanics located in the northern and eastern parts of the basin (wells S‐042, S‐
180,
2. S‐305 and S‐480). This pattern could be explained by the fact that these elevated terrains
receive higher rainfall and contribute indirect recharge to the main valley, while only very
5
 limited groundwater abstraction takes place on the plateaus. However, three wells (S‐300, S‐
351and E‐943) located in this area showed a continuing decline in groundwater level that likely
might be explained by a growing rate of the local abstraction in conditions of generally low
transmissivity of water‐bearing formations.

3. No uniform temporal trend was reported in the western part of the main valley and in Qa' Al‐
Qumamah plain located west of the City of Amran: well W‐159 showed a general decline in
groundwater level, while well W‐008 revealed significant seasonal fluctuations without
predominant annual trend that could be explained by fluctuating abstractions in surrounding
wells.

4. A general trend of a decline in groundwater level (wells E‐022 and W‐270) prevailed in the
central part of the main valley, between the City of Amran and town of Raidah (Qa' Al‐Boun
plain). This pattern can be explained by the intensive groundwater abstraction in this major
agricultural area that also can result in significant seasonal fluctuations of groundwater level
without predominant annual trend (well E‐368). At the same time, however, well W‐378 showed
a stable groundwater table over time. This phenomenon might be explained by the proximity of
an elevated plateau which receives higher rainfall and contributes indirect recharge to the main
valley.

5. A general trend of a decline in groundwater level (wells W‐668, W‐783, E‐773 and E‐693)
prevailed in the northern part of the main valley, west of the town of Raidah (Qa' Al‐Hamidah)
and at the northern outlet from the Amran Basin to Wadi Attaf. This pattern can be explained by
the intensive groundwater abstraction in this agricultural area that also can result in significant
seasonal fluctuations without predominant annual trend (wells W‐569 and E‐782). At the same
time, however, well W‐710 showed a stable groundwater table that is difficult to explain.

Figure 3 shows a distribution of monitoring wells with different patterns of temporal trends in
groundwater level in 2005‐2007 throughout the Amran Basin.

6
Figure 3. Distribution of manual monitoring wells7 with different temporal changes in groundwater
level (2005‐2007)
 4. AUTOMATIC MONITORING STATIONS: CURRENT STATUS

In November 2008 a first set of 11 dataloggers produced by GERO has been installed in the Amran Basin. It
was planned by BGR‐IWRM to increase the number of dataloggers by at least 15 additional loggers until the
beginning of 2010. Later on, however, some of the wells equipped with automatic loggers were found to be
damaged or dry and currently only seven automatic monitoring stations are functioning in the target area.
The location of these stations is shown in Table 1 and Figure 4.

Table 1. Location of automatic monitoring stations

Well ID UTM N UTM E Altitude, m Depth, m Diameter, inch

E‐921 1732384 387959 2246 245 12

E‐943 1742074 401758 2477 475 12

S‐174 1728951 391181 2415 375 12

W‐270 1738579 388533 2232 230 12

W‐378 1742376 387445 2255 150 12

W‐668 1750476 391979 2214 170 12

W‐852 1743984 382996 2646 200 14

Obviously, the current number of functioning monitoring stations is not enough to provide a uniform
coverage of the Amran Basin and, accordingly, a proper control over the changes in groundwater level.

8
 9
Figure 4. Automatic groundwater level monitoring stations
 6. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF AUTOMATIC MONITORING RECORDS
(2008­2010)

Automatic groundwater level records are currently collected on hourly basis from a total of seven GERO
dataloggers installed in different parts of the Amran Basin (Figure 4). The original hourly measurements
have been processed and average monthly values are calculated In order to evaluate the seasonal and
long‐term trends in groundwater level. The calculated monthly values are summarized in Annex 1 while
the original hourly records can be found in the NWRA HQ’s database.

A set of seven well’s hydrographs (i.e. graphs showing changes in depth to water over time) are
constructed based on the calculated average monthly values of a depth to groundwater level (expressed
in meters below fixed reference point)for the period from November 2008 until October 2010 as
presented in Figures 5 to 11.

Evidence derived from the constructed hydrographs shows the two different patterns of long‐term
changes in groundwater level. These patterns include:

1) A continuous trend of a decline in groundwater level is reported at five wells: E‐921, E‐943, S‐174,
W‐270 and W‐668 (Figures 5‐9):

Figure 6. Hydrograph from well E‐921

10
Figure 7. Hydrograph from well E‐943

Figure 8. Hydrograph from well W‐668

11
 Figure 9. Hydrograph from well W‐270

Figure 10. Hydrograph from well S‐174

This pattern of hydrographs indicates that the local recharge and discharge rates are out of balance
through two‐year period of time in several parts of the Amran Basin: downstream part of Qa’ Al Boun
(city of Amran, wells E‐921 and S‐174), middle part of Qa’ Al Hamidah (wells W‐270 and W‐668) and on
the eastern plateau (well E‐943). The trend of continuing decline in groundwater levels is the same for

12
wells E‐943, W‐270 and W‐668 as that observed at these wells during the course of the manual
monitoring campaign (2005‐2007). Wells E‐921 and S‐174 have not been monitored manually.

It is evident from the above hydrographs that periods of falling water levels are interrupted by brief and
irregular periods of recharge at wells E‐921, S‐174, W‐270 and W‐668. Note that the recovery of water
levels is not complete in any of the recharge episodes because these wells are located in the areas of
intensive pump‐irrigated agriculture. Since November 2009, however, a relatively stable average
position of groundwater table is reported at monitoring stations W‐270 and S‐174.

No evidence of even brief recharge can be seen at well E‐943 situated on the eastern plateau that may
likely be a result of poor hydraulic conductivity of the compact Quaternary basalts.

A similar total decline in groundwater level of around 4 m is reported at four monitoring stations (E‐921,
E‐943, W‐270 and W‐668). This total value of a decline corresponds to an average rate of 2 m/year.
More dramatic average rate of around 5 m/year is reported at well S‐174.

2) A continuous trend of an elevation of water level is reported at two wells: W‐378 and W‐852
(Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 11. Hydrograph from well W‐378

13
 Figure 12. Hydrograph from well W‐852

An average rate of elevation ranges from 0.5 m/year (well W‐378) to 5 m/year (well W‐852). Both
monitoring stations are located in the western plateau composed of the Amran Limestone. The
observing trend of an elevation of groundwater level can be explained by the local patterns of indirect
recharge contributing from the occasional flood events in conditions of relatively good hydraulic
conductivity and very limited groundwater development in the western plateau. Original hourly records
show that the automatic datalogger installed at well W‐852 is likely out of order since June 2010. This
issue should be checked during the next trip to the project area.

6. CONCLUSIONS

¾ Two different long‐term trends are evident in different parts of the Amran Basin: a continuing
decline in groundwater level and continuing elevation of water table, respectively. This
phenomenon can be explained by different patterns of local indirect recharges, various
hydraulic properties of water‐bearing formations and various intensities of agricultural
practices.

¾ The existing groundwater‐level monitoring stations should be considered as a pilot network

because none of the observation wells were drilled in a proper manner to meet the specific

14
 monitoring purposes. Moreover, the essential technical details are almost completely unknown
(except for NWSA well), including screened interval, lithological sequence, hydraulic head, etc.

¾ Only seven groundwater level monitoring stations are currently available in the Amran Basin.
One datalogger (well W‐852) is likely out of order since June 2010. Obviously, the total quantity
of monitoring wells is not enough to provide a proper and uniform control over the changes in
groundwater levels in different parts of the project area.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A total of some 20 additional groundwater level monitoring stations should be established in

various parts of the Amran Basin and equipped with automatic dataloggers in order to provide a
uniform and rather dense coverage of the target area. The required number of new stations is in
agreement with the BGR‐IWRM’s Work Program.

2. The officials of the Groundwater and Soil Conservation Project (GSCP) which own several
automatic water‐level dataloggers in the Amran Basin should be consulted to provide a regular
exchange of monitoring data between GSCP and NWRA.

3. A number of specifically designed small‐diameter monitoring wells should be drilled in the

future at critical sites (depending on the individual purpose of a monitoring station) and
incorporated in the network when required funds have become available.

4. Water‐quality monitoring stations should be established in the Amran Basin and incorporated
into the integrated water‐level/water‐quality monitoring network. The number and location of
the water‐quality monitoring wells should be considered based on the following major criteria:

a) Monitoring stations should be permanently operating wells intended mainly for drinking
purpose;

b) several stations should be established in the surroundings of the public/NWSA wells in

order to control quality of the water moving to the production wells and to support in
establishing water‐quality protection zones; and

15
 c) several stations would be established downstream of the main pollution sources (e.g.
Wastewater Treatment Plant) in order to control the development of the contaminated
plume.

REFERENCES

1. BGR‐IWRM, 2007. Groundwater Level Monitoring Campaign in the Amran Basin (2005‐2007):
General Layout and results. Authors: Victor Rybakov and Hamoud I. Al‐Eryani.

2. BGR‐IWRM, 2005‐2010. Advisory Services on Development and Use of Geo‐Environmental

Information. Project database.
3. DHV, 1993. Groundwater Resources and Use in the Amran Valley. Final Report.

4. WRAY‐35, 1995. The Water Resources of Yemen: A Summary and Digest of Available Information.
Authors: Jac A.M. van der Hun and A.A.Ahmed.

16
 ANNEX 1:

Average Monthly Records of Groundwater Level (2008­2010)

<Calculated Values from Automatic Hourly Measurements>

17
 Average Monthly Records of Groundwater Level (2008‐2010): Calculated Values from Automatic
Hourly Measurements

Date Well E‐921 Well E‐943 Well S‐174 Well W‐270 Well W‐378 Well W‐668 Well W‐852
Nov‐08 ‐135.96 ‐358.17 ‐257.77 ‐110.47 ‐122.88 ‐141.58 ‐76.94
Dec‐08 ‐135.85 ‐358.22 ‐257.58 ‐111.01 ‐122.86 ‐141.44 ‐78.18
Jan‐09 ‐136.21 ‐358.34 ‐257.27 ‐110.98 ‐122.85 ‐141.35 ‐79.53
Feb‐09 ‐135.93 ‐358.50 ‐257.20 ‐111.34 ‐122.79 ‐141.40 ‐80.93
Mar‐09 ‐136.11 ‐358.63 ‐262.34 ‐111.47 ‐122.78 ‐141.66 ‐82.02
Apr‐09 ‐136.62 ‐358.78 ‐259.19 ‐111.40 ‐122.79 ‐141.92 ‐83.04
May‐09 ‐136.88 ‐358.91 ‐264.20 ‐111.29 ‐122.79 ‐142.17 ‐83.86
Jun‐09 ‐137.27 ‐359.05 ‐267.59 ‐112.66 ‐122.73 ‐142.33 ‐84.61
Jul‐09 ‐137.56 ‐359.18 ‐266.93 ‐112.99 ‐122.69 ‐142.38 ‐84.84
Aug‐09 ‐137.83 ‐359.32 ‐266.13 ‐113.05 ‐122.69 ‐142.48 ‐76.53
Sep‐09 ‐137.97 ‐359.46 ‐267.67 ‐113.27 ‐122.77 ‐142.83 ‐68.63
Oct‐09 ‐137.98 ‐359.59 ‐268.98 ‐113.47 ‐122.72 ‐142.91 ‐67.40
Nov‐09 ‐138.20 ‐359.71 ‐268.91 ‐113.35 ‐122.65 ‐142.76 ‐69.63
Dec‐09 ‐138.15 ‐359.84 ‐266.13 ‐112.43 ‐122.65 ‐142.52 ‐72.90
Jan‐10 ‐138.16 ‐359.97 ‐267.21 ‐112.64 ‐122.67 ‐142.61 ‐75.29
Feb‐10 ‐138.25 ‐360.10 ‐268.09 ‐112.77 ‐122.62 ‐142.78 ‐77.06
Mar‐10 ‐138.37 ‐360.24 ‐268.26 ‐112.44 ‐122.66 ‐143.63 ‐78.69
Apr‐10 ‐138.57 ‐360.39 ‐266.67 ‐111.84 ‐122.66 ‐144.00 ‐77.87
May‐10 ‐138.73 ‐360.53 ‐266.58 ‐112.50 ‐122.59 ‐143.96 ‐64.55
Jun‐10 ‐138.70 ‐360.67 ‐266.35 ‐111.99 ‐122.53 ‐144.82 ‐62.24
Jul‐10 ‐138.56 ‐360.81 ‐266.23 ‐112.07 ‐122.42 ‐144.55 ‐62.24
Aug‐10 ‐138.41 ‐360.96 ‐262.68 ‐113.05 ‐122.34 ‐144.48 ‐62.24
Sep‐10 ‐138.78 ‐361.10 ‐265.20 ‐112.93 ‐122.19 ‐145.43 ‐62.24
Oct‐10 ‐139.98 ‐361.17 ‐267.38 ‐112.37 ‐122.14 ‐145.84 ‐62.24

Note: Records are expressed as a depth to groundwater level below reference point.

18