national feasibility study and roadmap for river bank ... · prof. dr. rifaat abdel wahab head...

NatandFiltr_______________

Cairo

ionadRoaratio___________________

o2018

lFeaadmaonin____________________

–revis

asibilapforEgyp

____________________

sed202

litySrRivpt___________________

20

StudyverBa

___________________

yank

__________________________

NationRiverFeasibili

PARTNE

Holding C

Prof. Dr. Head secNile CornCairo, AraTel.: +(20E‐mail: rifWebsite:

United N

Dr. SalmaProgrammEgypt Off1 Ismail ATel.: +(20E‐mail: saWebsite:

Project C

En

Dr. Hisha

(16) 288sCairo, AraTel.: +(20E‐mail: inWebsite:

Revision of Applie

COPYRICopyrightAll rights United NP.O. Box Tel: 254‐0www.ar.u

DISCLAIM

The desigany opinicounty, tregardingon conditthe Unite

nalFeasiBankFilityStudyRe

ERS COORD

Company for

Rifaat Abdel tor, Research niche, Al Sahelab Republic of02)24583596 –faat.abdelwahhttps://www

ations Huma

a Yousry me officer, Hofice Abaza St., Cair02) 27923086 [email protected]

Consultant

nviro‐Consult

am Abdel‐Hali

st., El‐Gazayerab Republic of02) 25202953‐[email protected]

in 2020 basedd Sciences Dr

GHT AND Dt © United Nareserved ations Human30030 00100 020‐7623120 unhabitat.org

MER

gnations empion whatsoevterritory, city g its economiction that the sed Nations Hu

ibilityStultrationinport

DINATORS

Water and W

Wahaab and Developml, Road al‐Faraf Egypt – 24583591 / [email protected]

n Settlements

ousing and Urb

ro, Egypt / Fax: +(202)

@un.org tat.org

for Infrastruc

im

r St. – New Maf Egypt ‐25166898 (+2nsult‐eg.com consult‐eg.com

d on commenesden, Germa

DISCLAIMERations Human

n SettlementsNairobi GPO (Central Offic

loyed and theer on the paror area or itc system or dsource is indicman Settleme

udyandRnEgypt

Wastewater

ment ag Water trea

Fax: +(202) 24rg eg/

s Programme

ban Upgradin

27923086

cture and Env

aadi

20) 12711107

m

nts by Prof. Drany

R n Settlements

Programme (KENYA ce)

e presentationt of the secres authorities, egree of devecated. Views eents Programm

i

Roadmap

tment plant

4583884

e (UN‐Habitat

ng

v. Studies

796 / Fax: +(20

r.‐Ing. Thoma

Programme (

(UN‐Habitat)

n of material etariat of the or concerninelopment. Excexpressed in tme, the Unite

pfor

)

02) 25170925

s Grischek, D

UN‐Habitat) 2

in this publicaUnited Nationng the delimitcerpts may bethis publicatioed Nations and

ivision of Wat

2018

ation do not ins concerningtation of its fe reproduced on do not neced its member

ter Sciences,

imply the expg the legal stafrontiers or b without authessarily reflecstates.

University

pression of tus of any oundaries horization, ct those of

National Feasibility Study and roadmap for River Bank Filtration in Egypt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. viii

1. UNDERSTANDING AND BACKGROUND OF RBF .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 SITING AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 PROCESSES DURING RBF ...................................................................................................................... 3

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. PROPOSED SELECTION METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5

3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCEDURE ...................................... 5

3.3 SCORING AND WEIGHTING OF SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................... 8

4. POTENTIAL ZONING FOR RBF POTENTIAL APPLICATION.................................................................................... 10

4.1 RIVER BASIN LEVEL – MAIN STREAM ................................................................................................. 10

4.2 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ............................................................................................................ 10

4.3 TOPOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 GEOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 11

4.5 HYDROGEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................. 17

4.6 HYDROCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................. 21

4.7 LITHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................... 22

4.8 WATER SUPPLY THREATS ................................................................................................................... 23

5. APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED SELECTION METHODOLOGY ‐ STEP 1: POTENTIAL RIVER BASIN LEVEL,

ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY THE RBF POTENTIAL AREAS IN THE RIVER NILE BASIN ‐ REGIONAL SCALE ..................... 25

6. POTENTIAL RBF AREAS BASED ON AREA LOCAL SCALE LEVEL AND POTENTIAL SITE LEVEL (STEPS 2 AND 3) ... 27

6.1 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN ASWAN GOVERNORATE ............................................................... 28

6.1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 28

6.1.2 WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES AND WATER BALANCE ................................................................. 28

6.1.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ ASWAN ................................................................................... 28

6.1.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ ASWAN .................................................................................. 30

6.1.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ ASWAN .......................................... 31

6.1.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ ASWAN .................................................. 31

6.1.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ ASWAN ...................................................................... 32

iii

6.2 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN LUXOR GOVERNORATE ................................................................. 34



6.2.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ LUXOR ..................................................................................... 34

6.2.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ LUXOR .................................................................................... 36

6.2.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ LUXOR ........................................... 36

6.2.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ LUXOR ................................................... 37

6.2.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ LUXOR ....................................................................... 38

6.3 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN QENA GOVERNORATE ..................................................................... 40



6.3.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ QENA ...................................................................................... 40

6.3.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ QENA ..................................................................................... 42

6.3.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ QENA ............................................. 42

6.3.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF‐ QENA ...................................................... 43

6.3.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ QENA ......................................................................... 44

6.4 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN SOHAG GOVERNORATE ................................................................... 46



6.4.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ SOHAG .................................................................................... 46

6.4.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ SOHAG ................................................................................... 48

6.4.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ SOHAG ........................................... 48

6.4.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ SOHAG .................................................. 49

6.4.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ SOHAG ...................................................................... 50

6.5 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN ASSIUT GOVERNORATE ................................................................... 52



6.5.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY – ASSIUT ................................................................................... 52

6.5.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ ASSIUT ................................................................................... 54

6.5.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ ASSIUT ........................................... 54

6.5.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ ASSIUT ................................................... 55

6.5.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS‐ ASSIUT ........................................................................ 56

6.6 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN MINYA GOVERNORATE ................................................................... 58




6.6.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ MINYA .................................................................................... 58

6.6.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ MINYA .................................................................................... 59

6.6.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ MINYA ........................................... 60

6.6.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ MINYA ................................................... 61

6.6.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ MINYA ....................................................................... 62

6.7 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN BENI‐SUIF GOVERNORATE ............................................................... 64



6.7.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ BENI‐SUIF ................................................................................ 64

6.7.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ BENI‐SUIF ............................................................................... 65

6.7.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ BENI‐SUIF ...................................... 66

6.7.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF‐ BENI‐SUIF ............................................... 67

6.7.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS‐ BENI‐SUIF ................................................................... 67

6.8 POTENTIAL RBF AREAS / SITES IN GIZA GOVERNORATE ....................................................................... 69



6.8.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ‐ GIZA ........................................................................................ 69

6.8.4 LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ‐ GIZA ....................................................................................... 71

6.8.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ GIZA ............................................... 71

6.8.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ GIZA ....................................................... 72

6.8.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ GIZA .......................................................................... 72

7. COST ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................... 74

7.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 74

7.2 BASIS OF COST CALCULATIONS AND ESTIMATES .................................................................................. 74

7.2.1 TYPICAL RBF SYSTEM COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 74

7.2.2 CAPITAL COSTS ....................................................................................................................... 78

7.2.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ................................................................................ 78

7.2.4 TYPICAL CAPITAL AND RUNNING COSTS FOR RBF UNIT ......................................................... 79

7.3 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR POTENTIAL RBF UNITS IN SELECTED GOVERNORATES ................................... 79

7.4 PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................................................... 80

7.4.1 OVERALL PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 80

7.4.2 FINANCING SCHEME ............................................................................................................... 80

LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 81

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Basic scheme of riverbank filtration and main attenuation processes [1] ............................................... 1

Figure 2: Overall procedures for the RBF site selection .......................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Alluvial Plain along Nile River valley ‐ from Southern Upper Egypt (Aswan – Qena) [11] ..................... 12

Figure 4: Alluvial Plain along Nile River valley ‐ Middle Upper Egypt (Sohag – Assiut) [11].................................. 13

Figure 5: Alluvial Plain along Nile River valley ‐ North Upper Egypt (Minya – B. Suif – Fayoum) [11] .................. 13

Figure 6: Alluvial Plains of the Nile Delta Zone [11] .............................................................................................. 14

Figure 7: Geological formations / sections under Quaternary Zone ‐ South Valley [11] ...................................... 15

Figure 8:Geological formations / sections under Quaternary Zone ‐ Nile Delta [11] ........................................... 16

Figure 9: Groundwater reservoir productivity – Quaternary reservoir (Aswan – Qena) [11] ............................... 17

Figure 10: Aquifer depth’ contour lines ‐ Upper Egypt [11] .................................................................................. 18

Figure 11: Aquifer piezometric contour lines ‐ Upper Egypt [11] ......................................................................... 19

Figure 12: Thickness of Quaternary reservoir in Delta [11] .................................................................................. 20

Figure 13: TDS in ppm in Upper Egypt ‐ South (Aswan – Qena) [11] .................................................................... 21

Figure 14: TDS in ppm in the Delta Area [11] ........................................................................................................ 22

Figure 15: Governorates of Egypt ......................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 16: Location map of Aswan Governorate .................................................................................................. 28

Figure 17: left: Alluvial Plain of Aswan, right: Topography of Aswan ................................................................... 29

Figure 18: Aquifer depth and Extent in Aswan Governorate [11] ......................................................................... 30

Figure 19: Lithological zoning of Aswan Governorate districts [11] ..................................................................... 30

Figure 20: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Aswan [12] ..................................................................................................... 33

Figure 21: Location map of Luxor Governorate [13] ............................................................................................. 34

Figure 22: left: Alluvial Plain of Luxor, right: Topography of Luxor [11] ............................................................... 35

Figure 23: Aquifer depth and extent in Luxor Governorate [11] .......................................................................... 35

Figure 24: Lithological zoning of Luxor Governorate districts [11] ....................................................................... 36

Figure 25: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Luxor [13] .............................................................................................. 39

Figure 26: Location map of Qena Governorate .................................................................................................... 40

Figure 27: left: Alluvial Plain of Qena, right: Topography of Qena [11] ................................................................ 41

Figure 28:Aquifer depth and extent in Qena Governorate [11] ........................................................................... 41

Figure 29: Lithological zoning of Qena Governorate districts [11]........................................................................ 42

Figure 30: Potential sites for RBF units – Qena [13] ............................................................................................. 45

Figure 31: Location map of Sohag Governorate ................................................................................................... 46


Figure 32: left: Alluvial Plain of Sohag, right: Topography of Sohag [11] .............................................................. 47

Figure 33: Aquifer depth and extent in Sohag Governorate [11] ......................................................................... 47

Figure 34:Lithological zoning of Sohag Governorate districts [11] ....................................................................... 48

Figure 35:Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Sohag [13] .............................................................................................. 51

Figure 36: Location map of Assiut Governorate ................................................................................................... 52

Figure 37: left: Alluvial Plain of Assiut, right: Topography of Assiut [11] .............................................................. 53

Figure 38: Aquifer depth and extent in Assiut Governorate [11] ......................................................................... 53

Figure 39: Lithological zoning of Assiut Governorate Districts [11] ...................................................................... 54

Figure 40: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Assiut [13] ............................................................................................. 57

Figure 41: Location map of Minya Governorate ................................................................................................... 58

Figure 42: left: Alluvial plain of Minya, right: Topography of Minya [11] ............................................................. 59

Figure 43: Aquifer depth and extent in Minya Governorate [11] ......................................................................... 59

Figure 44: Lithological zoning of Minya Governorate [11] .................................................................................... 60

Figure 45: Location map of RBF units at El Minya Governorate [13] .................................................................... 63

Figure 46: Location map of Beni‐Suif Governorate ............................................................................................... 64

Figure 47: left: Alluvial Plain of Beni‐suif, right: Topography of Beni‐suif [11] ..................................................... 65

Figure 48: Aquifer depth and extent in Beni‐suif Governorate [11] ..................................................................... 65

Figure 49: Lithological zoning of Beni‐suif [11] ..................................................................................................... 66

Figure 50: Location map of RBF units at Beni Suif Governorate [13] .................................................................... 68

Figure 51: Location map of Giza Governorate ...................................................................................................... 69

Figure 52: left: Alluvial Plain of Giza, right: Topography of Giza [11] .................................................................... 70

Figure 53: Aquifer depth and extent in Giza Governorate [11] ............................................................................ 70

Figure 54: Lithological zoning of Giza Governorate [11] ....................................................................................... 71

Figure 55: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Giza [13] ................................................................................................ 73

Figure 57: Typical hydraulic calculation sheet for RBF wells (a) ........................................................................... 75

Figure 58: Typical hydraulic calculation sheet for RBF wells (b) ........................................................................... 76

Figure 59: Typical well profile – Cross section, Levels provided as a rough guide ................................................ 77

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Proposed scoring and weighting of selection criteria – Detailed site investigation and prioritization level

................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Land topography of Nile valley governorates ......................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Width of Nile Valley (alluvial plain) in Nile valley governorates .............................................................. 11

Table 4: Thickness of sand/gravel aquifer in the Nile valley [11] .......................................................................... 17

Table 5: Selection matrix of governorates having high potential for RBF ............................................................. 26

Table 6: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF – Aswan .......................................................................... 31

Table 7: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Aswan Governorate ‐ Step 3 ............................................................................. 32

Table 8: Potential sites for RBF units – Aswan Governorate ................................................................................. 32

Table 9: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐ Luxor ............................................................................. 36

Table 10: Potential sites for RBF – Luxor Governorate ‐ Step 3 ............................................................................ 37

Table 11: Potential sites for RBF units – Luxor Governorate ................................................................................ 38

Table 12: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF‐ Qena ............................................................................ 42

Table 13: Potential sites for RBF‐ Qena Governorate ‐ Step 3 .............................................................................. 43

Table 14: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Qena Governorate ................................................................................. 44

Table 15: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐ Sohag .......................................................................... 48

Table 16: Potential sites for RBF‐ Sohag Governorate ‐ Step 3 ............................................................................. 49

Table 17: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Sohag Governorate ................................................................................ 50

Table 18: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐ Assiut .......................................................................... 54

Table 19: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Assiut Governorate ‐ Step 3 ............................................................................ 55

Table 20: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Assiut Governorate ................................................................................ 56

Table 21: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐ Minya .......................................................................... 60

Table 22: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Minya Governorate ‐ Step 3 ............................................................................ 61

Table 23: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Minya Governorate ................................................................................ 62

Table 24: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐ Beni‐Suif ..................................................................... 66

Table 25: Potential sites for RBF – Beni‐Suif Governorate ‐ Step 3 ....................................................................... 67

Table 26: Potential sites for RBF units – Beni‐Suif Governorate .......................................................................... 68

Table 27: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐ Giza ............................................................................. 71

Table 28: Potential sites for RBF‐ Giza Governorate ‐ Step 3 ................................................................................ 72

Table 29: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Giza Governorate ................................................................................... 73

Table 30: Estimated capital and O&M cost for potential RBF units ...................................................................... 79

Table 31: Financing plan over the implementation period ................................................................................... 80


LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARE Arab Republic of Egypt

BD Bidding Documents

BER Bid Evaluation Report

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand / Board of Directors

BOQ Bill of Quantity

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CSC Construction Supervision Consultant

CU Compact Unit

EEAA Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

EGP Egyptian Pound

EMP Environmental Management Plan

ERO Environmental Regional Officer

ESAF Environmental & Social Assessment Framework

ESIA Environmental & Social Impact Assessment

ESMMF Environmental & Social Management & Monitoring Framework

EU European Union

Fe Iron

FMS Financial Management System

g/l gram per litre

GHWSC Gharbyia Water and Sanitation Company

GIS Geographic Information System

GOE Government of Egypt

GWA Ground water aquifer

GWP Groundwater Plant

HCWW Holding Company for Water and Wastewater

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management

K Soil Permeability Coefficient, Hydraulic Conductivity

LA Land Acquisition

LAL Local Area Level

LAU Local Administrative Unit

LSC Local Supervision Consultant

LVU Local Village Unit

Markaz District

m asl meters above sea level

m bgl meters below ground level

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

ix

m/s meter per second

MIS Management Information System

Mn Manganese

MOE Ministry of Environment

MOH Ministry of Health

MOHUUC Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities

MOIC Ministry of International Cooperation

MOM Minutes of Meeting

MWRI Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation

NA Not Applicable

NCB National Competitive Bidding

NOPWASD National Organization for Potable Water and Sanitary Drainage

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OP Operational Policy

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PCU Project Co‐ordination Unit

PIU Project Implementation Unit

PMC Project Management Consultant

ppm Parts per million

PS Pump station

PSL Potential Site Level

RBF Riverbank Filtration

RBL River Basin Level

SSP Site Selection Procedure

TA Technical Assistance

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TOR Terms of Reference

UN‐HABITAT United Nation Human Settlement Program

WSC Water and Sanitation Company

SWTP Surface Water Treatment Plant

WW Wastewater

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

1. UND

1.1 INT

Alluvial a

producti

wells loc

hydrauli

(Figure 1

of pollut

surface w

The redu

microbia

contribu

and por

residenc

conditio

In addit

compou

flow thr

accident

DERSTAND

TRODUCTIO

aquifers are

ion potentia

cated in an

c gradient so

1). During th

tants is achie

water and gr

Figure

uction of pol

al degradatio

ute to the tre

osity of the

ce time in th

ns in the rive

tion to the

nds, etc.) th

rough the a

tal spills of

DING AND

ON

widely used

l, proximity t

alluvial pla

o that surfac

his process, k

eved by phys

roundwater,

1: Basic schem

lution levels

on, ion exch

eatment are:

riverbed m

e aquifer, te

erbed and aq

e removal o

ere are two

aquifer acts

pollutants o

D BACKGR

as a ground

to demand a

ain hydraulic

ce water is fo

known as riv

sical, chemic

and with th

me of riverban

is accomplis

hange, precip

the river wa

aterial and

emperature,

quifer.

of pollutant

additional a

as a barri

or stormwat

1

ROUND OF

dwater sourc

areas, their e

cally connec

orced to flow

verbank filtra

cal, and biolo

e substrate [

nk filtration a

shed by vario

pitation, sor

ater and gro

the adjacen

pH and oxyg

ts (particles

dvantages o

er against c

ter run‐off a

F RBF

ce in many co

ease, and eco

cted to a riv

w through th

ation (RBF),

ogical proces

[1‐3].

nd main atten

ous of proce

rption, and d

undwater qu

t aquifer, th

gen concent

s, microorga

of RBF. The fi

concentratio

and floods.

ountries, ma

onomy of ex

ver it is pos

he bed and t

a reduction

sses that take

nuation proce

sses includin

dilution. Oth

uality, the hy

he flow path

tration of riv

anisms, org

irst is relativ

on peaks th

The second

ainly due to t

xtraction. By

ssible to ge

the banks of

in the conce

e place, betw

esses [1]

ng physical fi

her factors t

ydraulic cond

h lengths an

ver water, an

ganic, and

ve to the fact

hat may res

d is the buf

their high

pumping

enerate a

the river

entration

ween the

iltration,

hat also

ductivity

nd water

nd redox

inorganic

t that the

sult from

ffering of


2

temperature variations in the river water: during winter, when air temperatures are low, the filtered

water is usually warmer than surface water, and in summer it is cooler. Lower variation in

temperature improves the quality of the bank filtrate and the operation of post‐treatment units.

Riverbank filtration technology has been a common practice in Europe for over 150 years,

particularly in countries such as Switzerland where 80 % of drinking water comes from RBF wells, 50

% in France, 48 % in Finland, 40 % in Hungary, 16 % in Germany, and 7 % in the Netherlands [4]. In

Germany, for example, 75 % of the city of Berlin depends on RBF, whereas in Düsseldorf RBF has

been used since 1870 as the main drinking water supply. In the United States, on the other hand, this

technique has been used for nearly half a century, especially in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana,

Illinois, among others. Other countries that have recently started implementing RBF for drinking

water supply are India, China, and South Korea [5].

All the aspects mentioned above make RBF a very appealing tool to be implemented in a country

like Egypt, especially for areas having no access to good quality drinking [6].

1.2 SITING AND DESIGN

Local factors such as river hydrology, hydrogeological site conditions (i.e., aquifer thickness and

hydraulic conductivity), and the aims of water withdrawal determine not only the capacity of the

wells, but also the travel time of the bank filtrate, and distance between the river and the well.

Riverbank filtration wells can be designed either vertically (as the most common practice) or

horizontally (for high extraction rates). Horizontal wells (commonly with a radial pattern), also known

as collector wells, are often directed toward the river and extract water also from beneath the

riverbed, whereas vertical wells extract water along the riverbed. Also, RBF wells can be distributed

parallel to the riverbank in galleries or groups.

Grischek et al. [5], Ray et al. [7] and Kruc et al. [8] compiled available information from RBF systems

in Europe and the United States, and concluded that the most important hydraulic parameters for

success during RBF are the flow path length, the thickness of the aquifer, and the infiltration area in

the river. Finally, it could be concluded that the siting and design of an RBF system does not only

depend on hydrogeological factors, but also on technical, economical, regulatory, and land‐use

factors [3, 7].

3

1.3 PROCESSES DURING RBF

Four processes which are involved in RBF: hydrodynamic, mechanical, biological, and

physicochemical Hydrodynamic processes include convective‐dispersive transport, and mixing. The

aquifer acts as a buffer for the temporal variation of pollutants in the river caused by accidental (or

intentional) spills. As a result, variations in the surface water quality are reduced in pumped bank

filtrate due to different flow paths in the aquifer and mixing of water which has been infiltrating at

different times and distances [3].

The most important mechanical process for the improvement of water quality is the natural filtration

of fine particles, particulate organic matter, and pathogens, especially in the first centimeters in the

riverbed and first few meters of the flow path in the aquifer [3].

The biological processes that occur during RBF are directly dependent on the type of microorganisms

that inhabit the aquifer. The metabolic processes of these microorganisms mainly determine the final

quality of filtered water.

Finally, physicochemical processes are associated with sorption, precipitation reactions, and

flocculation, coagulation, and redox reactions. All these processes govern the removal of dissolved

water constituents, affecting the concentration and the behaviour of trace organic compounds,

metals and other inorganic compounds, thus having implications for the chemical evolution of

water.

All previous studies and applied practices and above specific characteristics support the

implementation of RBF as an appropriate alternative to conventional surface water treatment

plants in Egypt. The alluvial aquifer which extends alongside the Nile River and the delta makes

almost all cities & villages physically and topographically applicable for RBF projects since they are

located in close proximity to the main river or branches, if the latter are hydraulically connected

with the aquifer and the natural groundwater gradient towards the river or branch is not too high.

Building on the successful implementation of RBF units in Egypt [9], and the recent endorsement of

the scale‐up plan by the Ministry of Housing, UN‐Habitat Egypt Office in cooperation with the

Holding Company for Water and Wastewater are planning to conduct a national feasibility

study to explore potential implementation sites for RBF in Egypt, which is the purpose of this report

[10].


4

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

At the beginning of the project the consultant is undertaking a comprehensive documents

investigation in cooperation with the concerned governorates and affiliated water companies for

initial data collection, and is giving an overview for the collection of additional data and information

required for the completion of the study. Documents to be taken into account in elaborating the

Project Methodology are: Requirements stated in the ToR, relevant Egyptian laws, and available data

resources and references including latest RBF application and similar site studies. In addition, the

general requirements set out in related directives and publications will be taken into consideration in

preparing the documentation under this assignment. The facts and findings of the different

investigations will be used by the project team to understand the project and to prepare the required

reports. Major activities as set forth in the ToR will be commenced and progressed in parallel to cope

with the project timetable.

Project Assumptions, Risks and Overarching Constraints

At this project stage, it is assumed that the consultant will perform services in accordance with the

ToR and guidance given by the concerned stakeholders. Potential risks to the project may be

determined as:

Institutional Setup: One of the cornerstones of the activities will be the institutional set up and

determination of responsibilities between the stakeholders. The consultant requires full support by

the client in order to organise the inputs from the stakeholders on schedule in order not to delay the

performance of services. The consultant expects full support from HCCWW and affiliated companies

in terms of providing the necessary data and following the demand driven approach for the eligible

areas for RBF implementation.

Costs against reasonable budget: It is the understanding of the consultant that we shall look for a

feasible solution respecting financial capability of the potential funding and the authority concerned

considering and respecting “lessons learnt”. These lessons learnt from the implemented RBF

applications are assumed to be handed over to the consultant whenever being available.

Delay in obtaining approvals and permits: The project preparation will be in accordance with the

contract, but nevertheless there might be some overarching constraints to keep on holding with the

time schedule foreseen such as: Late comments to reports submitted by the consultant. The

schedule of activities and the work program has been established in such a way that the time for

review and or approval is not included in the project contract period and as set in the consultant’s

works program.

5

Data Sources and References

A list of available / related documents which might be useful as preliminary source of data,

documents and references is prepared upon award to be handed over to the consultant. The list

includes, but is not limited to the following documents:

- Summary of water master plan for the potential governorates, to be provided by affiliated

water companies including the recently inserted updates.

- Identifying areas suffering from water shortage in terms of availability of service as well as

level of services. A water balance for each district and/or water system should be also

provided.

- For those areas having shortage in water or having low level of service, the water authority

should propose a tentative list of sites which can accommodate RBF facilities.

- Available water quality data should be provided for those identified sites including surface

water and groundwater quality.

3. PROPOSED SELECTION METHODOLOGY

3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCEDURE

The development of site selection criteria for RBF was initiated by reviewing and compiling existing

RBF case studies worldwide. The various site selection criteria from the available case studies were

focused upon the key performance indicators for RBF systems. Essential data clusters and necessary

specific parameters were identified and categorized. The site selection data groups reviewed and

compiled include hydrogeology, hydrology, water quality, water demand, land use, and

infrastructure. The data sets considered in this study include:

o Geology (Quaternary geology/alluvial plains),

o Hydrology,

o Hydrogeology such as conditions of groundwater sources, groundwater quality, and

groundwater wells data (if available),

o Land use,

o Water supply demand (Provincial water supply).

3.2 SITE SELECTION PROCEDURE

Based on previous international experiences, the selection procedure could be divided into 3 steps,

namely:


6

Step 1: Potential River Basin Level (RBL), attempts to identify potential RBF areas in the River Nile

basin (regional) scale;

Step 2: Potential Local Area Level (LAL), attempts to identify the RBF potential local areas (mainly

Governorates) within the potential river basins obtained from step 1;

Step 3: Potential Site Level (PSL), districts and communities, attempts to identify the RBF potential

sites and locations within the local areas obtained from step 2.

Then the potential sites and locations obtained from step 3 will be used for more detailed site

investigations to determine the RBF key performance parameters for the RBF system design and

construction. After a more detailed examination of existing available data was carried out, a new

adjustment and arrangement of data groups selection procedure were made as demonstrated in

Figure 2.

Considering the site selection procedures, steps and selection criteria in Figure 2, a series of thematic

maps was compiled or prepared for each selection step. Overlaying such maps helps to identify the

eliminated locations as well as the potential locations.

7

STEP 1: POTENTIAL AREAS AT RIVER BASIN SCALE LEVEL

Geology / Geomorphology

Quaternary Geology

Hydrogeology

Unconsolidated aquifers (New Alluvial Plains),

groundwater quality with TDS < 500 mg/l

Hydrology

Main river stream of River

Nile Basin

STEP 2: POTENTIAL AREAS LOCAL SCALE LEVEL

Hydrology

Rivers with river flow duration

not less than 12 months

period

Hydrogeology

‐ Aquifers with K > 1 m/day

‐ Riverbed cuts into the sandy aquifer

‐ Aquifer thickness greater than 10 m

Water Quantity / Quality

‐ Overall Water Balance

‐ Water Demand

‐ Surface water quality

STEP 3: POTENTIAL SITES AND LOCATIONS SCALE LEVEL

Hydrology

High river flow velocity

High river depth

Hydrogeology

‐ Aquifer permeability (higher)

‐ Aquifer thickness (higher)

Water supply production

‐ Water supply shortage

‐ Rate of water supply

‐ Level of Service LOS

Land use

(Availability, and

Ownership)

Potential areas/sites for RBF – Specific, detailed site investigation for technical design

of RBF scheme (Out of scope of this study)

Figure 2: Overall procedures for the RBF site selection

Initially, the Quaternary geologic map of Nile Valley regions was obtained. The map sheets were

combined to obtain the distribution of Quaternary deposits focusing on the alluvial plain deposits.

Groundwater quality map using total dissolved solids (TDS), chlorides, and sulphates was obtained

from the existing provincial groundwater availability maps published by the Department of

Groundwater Resources, included in the handbook of Description of Egyptian Soils, produced by

Cairo University.

Groundwater Quality (Low Fe, Mn, NH4+ and hardness/TDS)

Surface water quality – No sewage discharge upstream


8

The thematic map from hydrogeology was overlaid on the groundwater quality map to obtain the

RBF geologic and hydrogeologic suitability areas to identify the RBF potential areas at the river basin

scale level.

River hydrographs were examined to get the river flow duration. The river hydrograph information

showed that the river flow of the main river stream is 12 months flow duration over the year, which

makes this criterion equal for the potential areas driven from other criteria.

River water quality is considered nearly consistent along the main river stream, however, apart from

high level turbidity in seasonal precipitation periods, better quality is assumed for Upper Egypt

governorates.

The aquifer thickness and aquifer permeability were reviewed and compiled from the existing

literature and range of practical aquifer thickness and eligibility of aquifer permeability were

investigated in different regions along the main river stream. To prove the hydraulic connection

between the river and the alluvial aquifer was more difficult because this requires the normalized

level of the river bottom and geologic information about the location/level of the clay layer covering

the aquifer.

The expected main water user from the RBF system is the Provincial Water Supply Authority. Water

demand for provincial water supply is, therefore, considered as one of the important parameters for

RBF site selection. The demand driven approach has been followed in obtaining the water demand

and water balance for provincial water supply in order to be compiled and assessed.

3.3 SCORING AND WEIGHTING OF SELECTION CRITERIA

At the local and site suitability scale level, the considered site selection criteria include 5

components, namely, hydrology, hydrogeology, water quality, land use, and provincial water supply

production capacity as categorized, scored and weighted in Table 1.

Based on the scoring and weighting of the selection criteria illustrated in Table 1, the potential areas

at the site and location scale level can be identified and ranked to define priorities. The results from

the application of Table 1 should only be used as indicators for site selection, because there is no

proven scoring and weighting system available yet applicable to all types of potential RBF sites.

Indicators such aquifer permeability may have higher weight if the pumping rates should be high. The

hydraulic gradient of the groundwater towards the river is not yet included but has an impact.

Furthermore, operational aspects raised by the water companies are not yet included. Thus, Table 1

should be seen as a decision support tool but does not replace meetings of experts and local staff.

9

The identified potential sites will be used for further detailed site investigations to determine the RBF

system key performance parameters for preliminary RBF system design and construction.

The site investigation data determined from this stage of data acquisition will be used for final site

selection screening which will be carried out in a similar manner so as to obtain the sites for the RBF

pilot and full project development. It should be noted that scoring and weighting need detailed site

information and measurements which is not within the scope of this study. Accordingly, at this stage

the selection will be based on the elimination of areas which are not complying with the

requirements stated in Figure 2 based on macro scale data and information. The specific site

conditions will be assessed based on the available data and knowledge. No site measurements will be

performed during this study.

Table 1: Proposed scoring and weighting of selection criteria – Detailed site investigation and prioritization level

Type Selection Criteria Unit Score Weight

1 5 10 100

1

1.1

1.2

Hydrology

River flow velocity

River flow duration

m/s

months

0.5 ‐ 1

9

1‐1.5

>9 ‐ <12

>1.5

12

10

15

2

2.1

2.2

Hydrogeology

Aquifer thickness

Aquifer permeability

m

m/day

10 ‐ 15

1 ‐ 10

>15 ‐ 20

>10 ‐ 50

>20

>50

20

10

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

Water Quality

Surface water

Groundwater (TDS)

Others (chlorides,

sulphates, Fe, Mn)

type

g/l

poor

1 ‐ 1.5

good

0.5 ‐ 1

high

<0.5

5

5

5

4 RBF Construction Site Com/Industry Agricultural Public 5

5

5.1

5.2

Water Supply Production

Raw water shortage

Rate of water supply

production

months

LPCD

<1

>100

1 ‐ 3

50 ‐ 100

>3

<50

5

20

Max Score = 100 points


10

4. POTENTIAL ZONING FOR RBF POTENTIAL APPLICATION

4.1 RIVER BASIN LEVEL – MAIN STREAM

Based on the national zoning, Nile river valley can be geographically divided into three main zones as

the following:

- Nile Delta Zone

o Greater Cairo Zone

o North of Cairo Zone

- Nile Valley Zone

o Northern part of Upper Egypt Zone

o Middle part of Upper Egypt Zone

o Southern part of Upper Egypt Zone

- Fayoum Depression Zone

4.2 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Delta area starts at 23 km north to Cairo as reversed triangle with its base at North extending from

Rosetta at west to Damietta at the East for @ 220 km. The height of this triangle is @ 170 km.

Therefore, the total area of the Nile Delta zone is @ 22000 km2 representing almost double of the

Nile valley from Upper Egypt to Cairo. In other words, the Nile Delta area is almost two third of the

total Nile alluvial lands.

The Nile Valley extends from 7 km south of Aswan until Cairo with a total length of 965 km. The

length between southern borders with Sudan to Aswan is @ 320 km [11].

4.3 TOPOGRAPHY

The overall slope of the Nile valley is 1/12000 steeping from South to North. The width of alluvial

plains is very narrow at Aswan @ 2.8 km while in Beni Suif is 17.2 km with an overall average of @ 10

km. Two edges identifying the valley; eastern edge at 200 m level which is almost directly parallel to

the valley. The western edge also at level 200 m but moving little bit far from the Nile stream

representing the plains with average width of 10 km. The average levels of the valley from South to

North is illustrated in Table 2. Table 3 illustrates the Nile valley width in different governorates along

the Nile main stream.

As for Delta area levels starts at 16 m asl from Cairo and sloping to the North to the sea level with an

overall slope of 1:10000 [11].

11

Table 2: Land topography of Nile valley governorates

No. Governorate Ground Level at South in m asl Ground Level at North in m asl

1 Aswan + 120 + 85

2 Qena + 87 + 69

3 Suhag + 65 + 56

4 Assiut + 54 + 44

5 Minya + 44 + 32

6 Beni Suif + 31 + 26

7 Giza and Cairo + 23 + 16

Table 3: Width of Nile Valley (alluvial plain) in Nile valley governorates

No. Governorate Alluvial Plain Width in m

Max Min Average

1 Aswan 7500 200 2800

2 Qena 18000 2500 5800

3 Suhag 19000 9500 15000

4 Assiut 20000 9000 14700

5 Minya 20000 11000 15300

6 Beni Suif 22000 10000 17200

7 Giza 12000 5000 8300

4.4 GEOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY

A corner stone for RBF feasibility is to define the areas having alluvial plains which is somewhat,

comparatively, young and not consolidated. The following Figures 3 to 6 illustrate the alluvial plain

along the River Nile for different zones. It can be concluded that the Nile Delta Zone is reach zone in

terms of alluvial plain and extends form Rosetta Branch at west side until Damietta branch at east

side. The rest of Nile valley is comparatively narrow with narrowest part at Aswan. Major cross‐

sections are presented in Figures 7 & 8 in order to indicate the aquifer layers and formations along

the valley and Delta branches indicating the type of soil as well as the depth of aquifers [11].

Figure 3: Alluvial Plain along Nile Riv

N

ver valley ‐ fro

ational Feasibil

12

om Southern U

lity Study and ro

Upper Egypt (A

oadmap for Riv

Aswan – Qen

ver Bank Filtrati

na) [11]

on in Egypt

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Alluvial Plain

Alluvial Plain

along Nile Riv

along Nile Riv

ver valley ‐ Mi

ver valley ‐ No

13

iddle Upper E

orth Upper Eg

gypt (Sohag –

ypt (Minya –

– Assiut) [11]

B. Suif – Fayoum) [11]

Figure 6:

Alluvial Plainss of the Nile D

N

Delta Zone [11

ational Feasibil

14

1]

lity Study and rooadmap for Rivver Bank Filtration in Egypt

Figure 7:

Geological foormations / sections under Q

15

Quaternary Zoone ‐ South Vaalley [11]

Figure 8:G

Geological forrmations / sec

N

ctions under Q

ational Feasibil

16

Quaternary Zo

lity Study and ro

one ‐ Nile Delt

oadmap for Riv

a [11]

ver Bank Filtration in Egypt

4.5 HYD

The Nile

reservoi

thicknes

South an

layer wh

to North

river. Ac

Table 4: T

Location

Range o

layer dep

Figures 9

Figure 9:

DROGEOLO

e valley is hy

r is the mos

ss varying fro

nd Middle D

hich is suitab

h as shown i

cording to T

Thickness of sa

n

of sand/grave

pth (m)

9 to 12 illust

Groundwater

OGY AND H

ydrogeologic

st productive

om 1 to 15

Delta and up

ble for high R

in Table 4. T

able 1, all ar

and/gravel aq

Aswan

(Kom‐

Ombo)

el 25‐100

rate example

r reservoir pro

HYDROLOG

cally charact

e groundwat

m appear al

p to 60 m at

RBF well yield

Thus, aquifer

eas would ga

quifer in the N

Qena

25‐150

es of hydrog

oductivity – Qu

17

GY

terized by th

ter reservoir

long the Nile

t the North

d. Thickness

r thickness is

ain the highe

Nile valley [11]

Sohag

50‐250

geological an

uaternary rese

he existence

r in the valle

e main strea

Delta. This l

s of such san

s not a limit

est score for

]

Assiut/

Miya

50‐300

d hydrologic

ervoir (Aswan

e of a quate

ey. Semi‐perm

am, compare

ayer is follow

d/gravel laye

ing factor fo

aquifer thic

Beni

Suif

S

C

25‐200 5

cal character

n – Qena) [11]

ernary reserv

meable laye

ed to 1 ‐ 30

wed by a pe

er differs fro

or RBF along

ckness.

South

Cairo

De

50‐100 10

10

ristics of som

]

voir. This

rs with a

m at the

ermeable

om South

g the Nile

elta

00‐

000

me areas.

Figure 10

0: Aquifer deptth’ contour lin

N

nes ‐ Upper Eg

ational Feasibil

18

gypt [11]


Figure 11

1: Aquifer piezzometric contoour lines ‐ Upp

19

per Egypt [11]]

Figure 12

2: Thickness off Quaternary r

N

reservoir in De

ational Feasibil

20

elta [11]


4.6 HYD

Water q

Nile stre

- T

- C

- S

Other im

should b

Figures 1

Figure 13

DROCHEM

uality of the

eam. The foll

TDS

Chlorides

Sulphates

mportant pa

be identified

13 and 14 sh

3: TDS in ppm

MICAL CHAR

Quaternary

owing chem

Valley 50

Valley 10

Valley 25

rameters w

d during the

how the TDS

in Upper Egyp

RACTERIST

reservoir is

ical characte

00‐3000 ppm

00‐400 ppm

5‐150 ppm

ould be iron

detailed sit

levels in the

pt ‐ South (Asw

21

TICS

considered

eristics are ex

m

n and mang

te investigat

valley and D

wan – Qena) [

as good espe

xtracted from

Delta 500 pp

Delta 100 pp

Delta 25 ppm

anese as we

ion which is

Delta zones.

[11]

ecially in are

m previous s

pm at South

pm at South

m at South to

ell as organi

s out of the

eas closer to

studies [11]:

to 10000 at

to 5000 at N

o 1000 at No

ic compoun

scope of th

the River

North

North

orth

ds which

his study.

Figure 14

4.7 LITH

The alluv

with a th

up to 25

below gr

4: TDS in ppm

HOLOGICA

vial plain are

hickness 0.5‐

5 m and mor

round level (

in the Delta A

AL CHARAC

eas are ident

‐2 m, then a

re, dependin

(bgl) and rea

N

Area [11]

CTERISTICS

tified with a

silty clay har

ng on the loc

ches 8 m bg

ational Feasibil

22

S

typical soil f

rd layer with

cation. The g

l in Aswan.

lity Study and ro

formation of

h average de

groundwater

oadmap for Riv

f agriculture

pth of 9 m fo

r level is ran

ver Bank Filtrati

silty clay lay

ollowed by s

ging from 0.

on in Egypt

yer at top

sandy soil

.1 to 6 m

23

4.8 WATER SUPPLY THREATS

In Egypt, water supply based on the River Nile as surface water source is suffering in some cases

from water pollution events and low water levels. The Nile water level sometimes is lower than the

considered one during the design of the intake structures of surface water treatment plants. In such

cases, the water supply stops which is a real threat to any community. In case of high turbidity of Nile

water some surface water treatment units are overloaded and have to be taken out of operation for

a few days. At some locations oil spills are observed affecting appropriate surface water treatment

using conventional methods. Accordingly, having a backup water supply which cannot be affected

with such threats like RBF will help to avoid such situation which happens from time to time, or

seasonally.

Water pollution comes from many sources including pesticides and fertilizers that wash away from

farms, untreated human wastewater, sudden oil spills and industrial waste. Even groundwater is not

safe from pollution, as many pollutants can leach into underground aquifers. Some effects are

immediate, as when harmful bacteria from human waste contaminate water and make it unfit to

drink or swim in. In other instances—such as toxic substances from industrial processes—it may take

years to build up in the environment and food chain before their effects are fully recognized.

Climate change effects are also affecting water management in Egypt. Droughts will become more

common in some places, floods in others. Construction of new dams in the catchment of the River

Nile may compensate some changes if the management of storage and release of water will be

organized to take into account interests of all users.

From previous reports produced by HCWW concerning experienced threats for water supply

schemes based on surface water sources, major threats are briefly described below.

Sudden unexpected Pollution

Since the River Nile is used for transportation of products such as phosphates, oil, and pesticides,

occasionally happening accidents pose a risk for water supply. Pollutants might be released to the

Nile water affecting surface water quality and shut down of all downstream water treatment plant

intakes. In such cases the water supply to the related served communities is completely stopped until

removing the reason of the threat.

Severe unusual Climate Conditions

Heavy rainfall hardly affected the Upper Egypt region in 2014‐2016 and the floods were

hydrodynamically directed toward the valley and River Nile. The Nile water turbidity level was highly

affected and reached up to 100 NTU during the heavy rain times and continued for a few days. Such


24

high level of turbidity disturbed dramatically the operation of the surface water treatment plants

(SWTP) for at least 72 to 100 hours.

Silting

Sedimentation of deposits along the shore of the Nile River causes operation problems for the SWTP

intakes and deteriorate raw water quality. Moreover, such silting might prevent water to reach the

intake pipes either due to accumulation of deposits or due to low water level, especially in winter.

High Water Demand

High water demand is mainly due to two main factors:

1‐ The population growth has been increasing rapidly over the last few years which means an

extension of existing urban and rural areas. The water demand increases accordingly which leads

to rapid reduction in specific water availability reaching below 500 m3 per capita by the year 2025.

2‐ Groundwater deterioration: due to the fact that most of GW aquifers, away from the Nile main

stream, in Upper Egypt suffer from high concentration of iron and manganese, the only solution

to this problem is either to install iron and manganese removal plants or to stop using such

groundwater. Another factor affecting groundwater quality is the lack of sanitation services in

rural areas leading to potential risk of polluting groundwater in those areas.

5. APP

POTEN

AREAS

The pro

different

methodo

The map

will help

indicated

indicatin

meet a s

Based o

regardin

the follo

PLICATION

NTIAL RIVE

S IN THE R

posed selec

t scales are a

ology on rive

p of Egypt in

p in the selec

d in section

ng the select

single criterio

1‐ Matrouh

2‐ Alexandria

3‐ Beheira

4‐ Kafr Al She

5‐ Daqahleya

6‐ Damietta

7‐ Port Said

on the abov

ng the geolog

owing can b

N OF THE

ER BASIN

RIVER NILE

tion method

applied. The

er basin scale

n Figure 15 s

ction proces

3. This has

tion criteria

on is enough

a

eikh

a

e‐mentioned

gical, hydrog

be concluded

E PROPOS

LEVEL, A

E BASIN ‐ R

dology has b

following se

e, then on re

shows the lo

s of potentia

s been deve

as specified

h to exclude t

8‐ N Sinai

9‐ Gharbeya

10‐ Menoufeya

11‐ Qalubeya

12‐ Sharqeya

13‐ Isamailia

14‐ Giza

Figure 15

d survey an

geological, a

d: Main Sele

25

SED SELE

ATTEMPTS

REGIONA

been applied

ections prov

egional area

ocation and

al governora

loped by ov

above. It sh

the concerne

1

1

a 1

1

1

2

2

5: Governorate

nd the relate

nd hydrolog

ection criter

ECTION M

S TO IDEN

L SCALE

d as describ

ide the resu

scale, and fin

border limit

ates based o

verlaying wit

hould be no

ed governor

5‐ Fayoum

6‐ Cairo

7‐ Suez

8‐ S Sinai

9‐ Beni Suif

0‐ Minya

1‐ New Valley

es of Egypt

ed investiga

gy aspects as

ria are: Qua

METHODOL

TIFY THE

bed in sectio

lts of applica

nally on site

s of each go

n the propos

th other ma

ted that, at

ate.

22‐

23‐

24‐

25‐

26‐

27‐

ted data fro

s well as oth

aternary Geo

LOGY ‐ S

RBF POT

on 3. Three

ation of the

location sca

overnorate. T

sed criteria

aps presente

this stage, f

‐ Assiut

‐ Red Sea

‐ Sohag

‐ Qena

‐ Luxor

‐ Aswan

om previou

her indicated

ology, Young

STEP 1:

ENTIAL

steps on

selection

le.

This map

of Step‐1

ed earlier

failure to

s studies

d criteria,

g Alluvial


26

Plains, TDS <500 ppm, and being on the main stream of the Nile River. Accordingly, Table 5 is

concluded from Step‐1 to select the potential areas based on the river basin scale categorised by

governorates.

Table 5: Selection matrix of governorates having high potential for RBF

# Governorate Criterion 1 Quaternary Geology [11]

Criterion 2Hydrogeology (Alluvial Plain and GW TDS <500 ppm) [11]

Criterion 3 Hydrology (Main River Basin) [11]

Selection

1 Matrouh x x‐x x x

2 Alexandria √ √‐x x x

3 Beheira √ √‐x √ x

4 K Al Sheikh √ √‐x √ x

5 Daqahleya √ √‐x √ x

6 Damietta √ √‐x √ x

7 Port Said x x‐x x x

8 N Sinai x x‐x x x

9 Gharbeya* √ √‐x √ 2nd priority

10 Menoufeya* √ √‐x √ 2nd priority

11 Qalubeya* √ √‐x √ 2nd priority

12 Sharqeya √ √‐x x x

13 Ismailia x x‐x x x

14 Giza √ √‐√ √ √

15 Fayoum √ √‐x x x

16 Cairo √ √‐√ √ √

17 Suez x x‐x x X

18 S Sinai x x‐x x X

19 B. Suif √ √‐√ √ √

20 Minya √ √‐√ √ √

21 New Valley x x‐x x X

22 Assiut √ √‐√ √ √

23 Red Sea x x‐x x X

24 Sohag √ √‐√ √ √

25 Qena √ √‐√ √ √

26 Luxor √ √‐√ √ √

27 Aswan √ √‐√ √ √

* TDS levels more than 500 ppm but less than 1000 ppm

Based on the above selection matrix, there is a clear potential for RBF on the river basin scale in the

Nile valley governorates from Aswan to Giza and partially for Cairo. It is important to indicate that

certain areas in those governorates will be reconsidered and assessed in more detail on the level of

the area and then on the site level to finally conclude the final feasibility of RBF. As for Qalubeya,

Gharbeya, and Menoufeya governorates, although they have access to the main stream in some

districts, the potential is considered as second priority due to high TDS levels in groundwater.

27

6. POTENTIAL RBF AREAS BASED ON AREA LOCAL SCALE LEVEL AND

POTENTIAL SITE LEVEL (STEPS 2 AND 3)

In this part, step 2 of the proposed selection methodology has been performed in order to select the

most eligible areas on the level of the governorate level. Based on the river basin selection criteria

the Nile valley zone was identified as more eligible and suitable than the Delta zone. Moreover, Cairo

governorate was excluded due to the urban structure of Cairo community rather than rural which

encourage reliance on main SWTP dealing with complex water distribution system. Following the

proposed procedures of selection, the following governorates were identified to have more potential

for RBF. Eight governorates along the Nile valley from Aswan to Giza are selected based on data

presented in Table 5.

1‐ Aswan

2‐ Luxor

3‐ Qena

4‐ Sohag

5‐ Assiut

6‐ Minya

7‐ Beni Suif

8‐ Giza

The following sections will study and address the RBF potential districts (Markaz) in each of the

eligible governorates identified above. Moreover, potential locations will be also identified based on

the information provided by the concerned water company. It is important to indicate that no site

investigations have been done during this study. The available collected data and investigated

literature and studies plus accumulated experiences as well as the need assessment provided by

each water company form the main basis of developing this study.

Due to the fact that both Steps 2 and 3 are related geographically to the same area or governorate, it

is proposed to present the two selection steps to be governorate specific in order to avoid text

interruption and for the ease of following the selection results for each governorate. i.e. for each

affiliated water company.

It should be noted that the indicated lists for each governorate resulting from step 3 are considered

preliminary lists. Before starting any sort of construction, site specific detailed technical studies

would be needed. It is important to indicate that those detailed studies are beyond the scope of

current study. The detailed technical studies should include the following:

- Preliminary assessment of site: Potential sources of seasonal pollution of the River Nile,

groundwater characteristics, and site specific lithological description

- S

a

-

c

-

a

6.1 POT

6.1.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of dis

them an

Named:

Aswan.

6.1.2 W

Total wa

about 50

and Kom

6.1.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

Site specific

at the select

biological), a

Design and

coefficient o

Design and

production w

as well as co

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 879 km sou

ural Area ext

along the Riv

on: 1,431,48

stricts (Mark

d 3 of them

Al‐Sabaiya,

WATER SUPP

ater product

0000 m3/day

m‐Ombo, as r

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

hydrogeolo

ted site, wat

and bottom s

implement

of soil perme

constructio

well will be

onnection to

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

tent: 2‐16 km

ver Nile: 140

88 (42% urba

kaz) 5 (The N

by western s

Edfu, Kom‐O

PLY FACILIT

ion capacity

y are conside

reported by A

ND HYDROL

sed method

e made base

N

ogical studie

ter current v

sediments ch

tation of te

ability, dista

on of produ

designed in

the existing

/ SITES IN

ATION

(Figure 16)

m

km

n)

ile passes th

side of the N

Ombo, Naser,

IES AND WA

of water su

ered as wate

Aswan wate

LOGY ‐ ASW

ology for ar

d on the geo

ational Feasibil

28

s: Hydraulic

velocity, wat

haracterisati

est well: d

nce between

uction well(

detail includ

water distri

ASWAN G

hrough 2 of

Nile),

, and

F

ATER BALA

pplies in Asw

r shortage. S

r company.

WAN

rea / site sel

ology and hy

lity Study and ro

seepage lin

ter quality pa

on.

etailed soil

n the river a

s): based o

ding all comp

bution syste

GOVERNOR

Figure 16: Loca

ANCE

wan Governo

Such water s

ection, and

drology of A

oadmap for Riv

e between t

arameters (p

formation,

nd the test w

on the resul

ponents (scr

m.

RATE

ation map of A

orate is @ 50

hortage is m

Figures 17 a

swan:

ver Bank Filtrati

the river and

physico‐chem

grain size

well.

lts of the t

reens, pump

Aswan Govern

00000 m3/da

mainly in Asw

and 18, the f

on in Egypt

d the GW

mical and

analysis,

test well,

s, pipes),

norate

ay where

wan, Edfu,

following

- Only

strea

geote

- As fo

for RB

- Most

Aswa

Figure 17

in Al‐Sabaa

m is a very

echnical aspe

or the easter

BF.

t districts hav

an and Naser

7: left: Alluvial

iya and Edf

good poten

ects.

rn side, only

ve good pote

r districts.

l Plain of Aswa

u districts, w

ntial area fo

Kom‐Ombo,

ential for RB

an, right: Topo

29

western side

or the RBF i

, Al‐Sabaaiya

F implement

ography of As

e areas with

n terms of

a (east), and

tation in term

swan

h respect to

geological, h

d Edfu (east)

ms of defined

the River N

hydrogeolog

have good

d parameter

Nile main

gical, and

potential

rs, except

Figure 18

6.1.4 LIT

Figure

descript

formatio

2, or 4 a

existenc

8 to 15

10‐20 m

following

- The w

Mark

- Kom‐

- Aswa

8: Aquifer dept

THOLOGICA

19 indicate

ion is conv

on and chara

are consider

e of permea

m below gro

m. From Fig

g:

western and

kaz are eligib

‐Ombo distri

an has no pot

th and Extent

AL DESCRIP

es the area

venient for

acterisation.

red suitable

able sandy la

ound surface

ure 19, it is

eastern part

ble in terms o

ct is only elig

tential for RB

N

in Aswan Gov

TION ‐ ASW

as where

the RBF in

All areas un

for water ex

ayers at dept

e with a dep

s possible t

ts of Al‐Saba

of lithologica

gible for the

BF.

ational Feasibil

30

vernorate [11

WAN

the litholog

n terms of

nder categor

xtraction du

ths ranging f

pth ranging f

to conclude

aaiya and Edf

al formation.

eastern part

lity Study and ro

]

gical

soil

ry 1,

e to

from

from

the

fu

t.

Figure 19

Governor

oadmap for Riv

9: Lithologica

rate districts [

ver Bank Filtrati

al zoning o

[11]

on in Egypt

of Aswan

31

6.1.5 STEP‐2: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR RBF ‐ ASWAN

In order to select the potential areas for RBF on the district (Markaz) level, the criteria stated in step‐

2 have been applied on the Markaz level. The selection matrix of Aswan Governorate on the district

level is indicated in Table 6.

Table 6: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF – Aswan

# District Criterion 1

River Flow

Availability

(Located on River

Basin)

Criterion 2

Hydrogeology and

Lithology

Criterion 3 Good

Water Quality ‐

Urgent Water Need

Selection

1 Edfo √ √ √‐√ √

2 Al‐Sabaaiya √ √ √‐x 2nd priority

3 Kom Ombo √ √ √‐√ √

4 Aswan √ x √‐√ x

5 Nasr AlNoba x √ √‐x x

Based on the applied criteria in Table 6, it is concluded that only sites related to Edfu and Kom Obmo

have good potential for RBF. Other districts are excluded due to the following reasons:

1‐ Al‐Sabaaiya: No water shortage

2‐ Aswan: Lithological reasons

3‐ Nasr AlNoba: Not located on the Nile main stream

6.1.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ ASWAN

Based on the selection matrix indicated in Table 6, the following results could be concluded:

- Apart from Nasr AlNoba district case, where its location is not eligible, the only prevailing

parameter is then the water need assessment at each district to provide RBF facilities in those

areas, and Aswan due to lithological reasons. Based on water need assessment provided by

Aswan Water Company, it is concluded that mainly two districts will be suffering from water

shortage in near future. These districts are Kom Ombo and Edfo.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Aswan governorate the potential RBF

sites, indicated in Table 7, were identified for further detailed investigation in terms of soil

conditions and GW quality assessment. It is important to indicate that Aswan Water Company list

included some other areas which have not been selected (in Table 6. However, these locations

could be included later as second priority when water shortage will be observed. The priorities


32

can be categorised during the phase of detailed investigations to define level of priority as:

urgent, high, moderate, or low.

Table 7: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Aswan Governorate ‐ Step 3

# District Location Criterion 1

Hydrology

(River vel. &

duration)

Criterion 2

Hydrogeolo

gy

(Aquifer)

Criterion 3

Av. of land/

W shortage

Criterion 4

GWQ (TDS)

as indicator

Selection

1 Kom

Ombo

Al Tewesa √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Aswan Al‐Shalal √ X √‐√ √ x

3 Abo El‐Resh √ x √‐√ √ x

4 Edfo Al‐Hasaya √ √ √‐√ √ √

5 Wady El‐Saayda √ √ √‐√ √ √

6.1.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ ASWAN

Based on the selection process applied on the site level as indicated in Table 7, the final list of sites

has been developed in order to be investigated in terms of field measures. Based on the availability

of land and the current shortage in water supply, the number of RBF wells are identified as a step

ahead to the cost estimates either for investment or operation and maintenance costs. Table 8

shows the proposed number of RBF wells and capacitiesfor each eligible location.

Figure 20 provides a map of potential RBF sites in Aswan Governorate, as presented by Aswan Water

and Wastewater Company.

Table 8: Potential sites for RBF units – Aswan Governorate

# District Plant Location No. of wells Capacity in l/s

1 Kom Ombo Al Tewesa 3 90

2 Aswan Al‐Shalal ‐‐ ‐‐

3 Abo El‐Resh ‐‐ ‐‐

4 Edfo Al‐Hasaya 3 90

5 Wady El‐Saayda 3 90

Total 9 270

Figure 20

Locatio

0: Potential sit

n of potential

tes for RBF ‐ A

l RBF sites ‐ As

swan [12]

33

swan Governoorates

6.2 POT

6.2.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of d

side of

districts

Baiadeya

and Esna

6.2.2 W

Based o

governo

exists in

6.2.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

- Also,

- Most

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 635 km sou

ural Area ext

along the Riv

on: 1,147,05

istricts (Mar

the Nile and

are: East

a, and Al‐To

a.

WATER SUPP

on the infor

rate is suffe

4 districts: L

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

the eastern

t districts hav

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

tent: 2‐10 km

ver Nile: 110

58 (37.8% urb

rkaz) 7 (4 lo

d 3 on the

Side: Al‐Za

od; West side

PLY FACILIT

rmation pro

ering from w

Luxor, Al‐Tod

ND HYDROL

osed method

e made base

eas with resp

gical, hydrog

side district

ve good pote

N

/ SITES IN

ATION

(Figure 21)

m

km

ban)

ocated on th

western sid

ainia, Luxor

e: Al‐Qarana

IES AND WA

ovided from

water supply

d, Armant, an

LOGY ‐ LUXO

dology for a

d on the geo

pect to the R

geological, an

s have good

ential for RB

ational Feasibil

34

LUXOR GO

he eastern

de). These

city, Al‐

a, Armant,

F

ATER BALA

m Luxor Wat

y shortages

nd Esna.

OR

rea / site se

ology and hy

iver Nile ma

nd geotechn

potential fo

F implement

lity Study and ro

OVERNORA

Figure 21: Loca

ANCE

ter Compan

in different

election, and

drology of Lu

in stream ha

nical aspects.

r RBF.

tation in term

oadmap for Riv

ATE

ation map of L

ny, it was i

locations. S

d Figures 22

uxor:

ave a very go

ms of defined

ver Bank Filtrati

Luxor Govern

ndicated th

Such shortag

2 & 23, the f

ood potentia

d parameter

on in Egypt

orate [13]

at Luxor

ge mainly

following

al for RBF

rs.

FFigure 22: left:

Figure 23:

: Alluvial Plain

Aquifer depth

35

n of Luxor, righ

h and extent in

ht: Topograph

n Luxor Gover

hy of Luxor [11

rnorate [11]

1]

6.2.4 LIT

Figure 2

descript

formatio

1, 2, or

due to e

ranging

depth r

possible

- The w

lithol

- Some

6.2.5 ST

In order

2 have b

level is in

Table 9: S

# Di

1 Al

2 Lu

3 Es

4 Al

5 Al

6 Ar

7 Lu

THOLOGICA

24 indicates

ion is conve

on and chara

4 are consi

existence of

from 8 to 1

anging from

to conclude

western part

ogical forma

e areas on th

TEP‐2: SELEC

to select the

been applied

ndicated in T

Selection matr

istrict (Marka

Zaineya

uxor

sna

Bayadeya

Tod

rmant

uxor (Al‐Kara

AL DESCRIP

s the areas

enient for t

acterisation.

idered suita

f permeable

15 m below

m 10‐20 m.

e the followin

t of all Marka

ation.

he eastern pa

CTION OF P

e potential a

on the Mark

Table 9.

rix of potentia

z)

(L

anak)

N

TION ‐ LUX

where the

he RBF in t

All areas un

ble for wate

sandy laye

w ground su

From Figu

ng:

az is eligible i

art are eligib

POTENTIAL

reas for RBF

kaz level. The

al districts for

Criterion 1

River Flow

Availability

Located on Ri

Basin)

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ational Feasibil

36

XOR

e lithologica

terms of soi

nder category

er extraction

ers at depth

rface with a

ure 24, it i

in terms of

ble

DISTRICTS

F on the distr

e selection m

RBF ‐ Luxor

y

ver

Crit

Hydro

and L

lity Study and ro

al

il

y

n

s

a

s

Figure 24:

Governora

FOR RBF ‐ L

rict (Markaz)

matrix of Lux

terion 2

ogeology

Lithology

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

oadmap for Riv

Lithological zo

te districts [11

LUXOR

level, the cr

or Governor

Criterion

Good Wat

Quality‐ Urg

Water Nee

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

ver Bank Filtrati

oning of Luxor

1]

riteria stated

rate on the d

3

ter

gent

ed

Sele

Less p

Less p

on in Egypt

r

d in step‐

district

ection

priority

√

√

priority

√

√

√

37

Based on the applied criteria in Table 9, it is concluded that all districts have a more or less positive

potential for RBF application. Excluding the water need criterion, all 7 districts have good potential

for RBF implementation.

6.2.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ LUXOR


- The only prevailing parameter is the water need assessment at each district to provide RBF

facilities in those areas. Based on water need assessment provided by Luxor Water Company, it is

concluded that mainly five districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future. These

districts are: Luxor, Esna, Al‐Tod, Armant, Luxor (Al‐Karanak).

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Luxor Water Company, the potential

RBF sites indicated in Table 10, were identified for further detailed investigation in terms of soil

conditions and GW quality assessment. The priorities can be categorised during the phase of

detailed investigations to define level of priority as: urgent, high, moderate, or low. Figure (23)

provides an illustrative map for the potential RBF sites in Luxor Governorates, as presented by

Luxor Water and WW Company.

Table 10: Potential sites for RBF – Luxor Governorate ‐ Step 3


Hydrology (River vel. & duration)

Criterion 2

Hydrogeology

(Aquifer)

Criterion 3

Av. of land/ W shortage

Criterion 4

GWQ (TDS) as indicator

Selection

1 Luxor Luxor Gharbeya‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Al Tod Al‐Tod CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

3 Al‐Odaysat‐CU √ x √‐√ √ x

4 Nagaa Khames‐CU √ x √‐√ √ x

5 Esna Al‐Wehda CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

6 Al‐Admaya CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

7 Al‐Hanady CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

8 Al‐Gharera Cu √ √ √‐√ √ √

9 Al‐Der CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

10 Al‐Dbayba CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

11 Armant Gezeret Armant CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

12 Armant CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

13 El‐Karanak

Al Boayrat‐ CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

14 Al Akalta‐ CU √ √ √‐√ √ √


38

6.2.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ LUXOR

Based on the selection process applied on the site level as indicated in Table 10, the final list of sites

has been developed in order to be investigated in terms of field measures. Based on the availability

of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells is identified as a step

ahead to the cost estimates either for investment or operation and maintenance costs. Table 11

indicates the final list of identified RBF units for each eligible location.

Figure 25 provides a map of potential RBF sites in Aswan Governorates, as presented by Aswan

Water and Wastewater Company.

Table 11: Potential sites for RBF units – Luxor Governorate


1 Luxor Luxor Gharbeya‐ S 2 60

2 Al Tod Al‐Tod CU 1 30

3 Esna Al‐Wehda CU 1 30

4 Al‐Admaya CU 1 30

5 Al‐Hanady CU 1 30

6 Al‐Gharera Cu 1 30

7 Al‐Der CU 1 30

8 Al‐Dbayba CU 1 30

9 Armant Gezeret Armant CU 1 30

10 Armant CU 2 60

11 Luxor (El‐Karanak)

Al Boayrat ‐ CU 1 30

12 Al Akalta ‐ CU 1 30

Total 14 420

Figurre 25: Potenti

39

ial sites for RBBF units ‐ Luxor [13]

6.3 POT

6.3.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of d

through

side of

Farshoo

its bound

6.3.2 W

Based o

governo

exists in

6.3.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

- Also,

- Most

Farsh

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 600 km sou

ural Area ext

along the Riv

on: 2,657,66

districts (Ma

8 of them

the Nile a

ut Markaz h

daries.

WATER SUPP

on the infor

rate is suffe

6 districts: N

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

the eastern

t districts hav

hout.

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

tent: 2.5‐18 k

ver Nile: 180

69 (17% urba

arkaz) 9 (Th

and 6 of the

and 3 at t

as no access

PLY FACILIT

rmation pro

ering from w

Nagaa Hama

ND HYDROL

osed method

e made base

as with resp

gical, hydrog

side has ver

ve good pote

N

/ SITES IN

ATION

(Figure 26)

km

km

an)

he Nile pas

em by weste

he east sid

s to the Nile

IES AND WA

ovided from

water supply

di, Deshna, Q

LOGY ‐ QEN

dology for a

d on the geo

ect to the Ri

geological, an

ry good pote

ential for RB

ational Feasibil

40

QENA GO

sses

ern

de),

e at

ATER BALA

m Qena Wat

y shortages

Qena, Qeft, A

NA

rea / site se

ology and hy

ver Nile mai

nd geotechn

ntial for RBF

F implement

lity Study and ro

VERNORA

Figure 26: Lo

ANCE

ter Compan

in different

Al‐Waqf, and

election, and

drology of Q

n stream hav

nical aspects.

F.

tation in term

oadmap for Riv

TE

ocation map of

ny, it was i

locations. S

d Qos.

d Figures 27

Qena:

ve a very goo

ms of defined

ver Bank Filtrati

of Qena Gover

indicated th

Such shortag

7 & 28, the f

od potential

d parameter

on in Egypt

rnorate

hat Qena

ge mainly

following

for RBF

rs, except

FFigure 27: left

Figure 28:A

: Alluvial Plain

Aquifer depth

41

n of Qena, righ

h and extent in

ht: Topograph

n Qena Govern

hy of Qena [11

norate [11]

1]

6.3.4 LIT

Figure 29

lithologi

for the

and cha

category

suitable

existenc

depths r

ground

from 10

possible

- The w

eligib

forma

- Most

6.3.5 ST

In order

2 have b

level is in

Table 12:

# Di

1 Ab

2 Fa

3 Na

4 De

5 Qe

6 Qe

7 Al

8 Qo

9 Na

THOLOGICA

9 indicates t

cal descript

RBF in term

aracterisation

y 1, 2, or

for water

e of permea

ranging from

surface wit

0‐20 m. Fro

to conclude

western part

ble in term

ation.

t of the easte

TEP‐2: SELEC

to select the

been applied

ndicated in T

: Selection ma

istrict (Marka

bo Tesht

arshout

agaa Hamad

eshna

ena

eft

‐Waqf

os

akada

AL DESCRIP

he areas wh

tion is conv

ms of soil for

n. All areas

4 are con

extraction

able sandy la

m 8 to 15 m

h a depth

m Figure 2

e the followin

ts of all Mar

ms of litho

ern part is el

CTION OF P

e potential a

d on the Ma

Table 12.

atrix of potent

z) C

River Fl

(Loca

y

N

TION ‐ QEN

ere the

venient

rmation

s under

sidered

due to

ayers at

m below

ranging

9, it is

ng:

rkaz are

ological

igible.

Figu

POTENTIAL

areas for RBF

rkaz level. T

tial districts fo

Criterion 1

ow‐ Availabil

ated on River

Basin)

√

x

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ational Feasibil

42

NA

ure 29: Litholo

DISTRICTS

F on the dist

The selection

or RBF‐ Qena

lity

r

Crit

Hydro

and L

lity Study and ro

ogical zoning o

FOR RBF ‐ Q

rict (Markaz)

n matrix of Q

terion 2

ogeology

Lithology

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

oadmap for Riv

of Qena Gove

QENA

) level, the c

Qena Govern

Criterion

Good Wat

Quality ‐ Urg

Water Nee

√‐x

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

ver Bank Filtrati

ernorate distri

criteria stated

norate on th

3

ter

gent

ed

Sele

Less p

Less p

Less p

on in Egypt

icts [11]

d in step‐

he district

ection

priority

priority

√

√

√

√

√

√

priority

43

Based on the applied criteria in Table 12, it is concluded that half the districts have a positive

potential for RBF application. Excluding the water need criterion, 6 out of 9 districts, have good

potential for RBF implementation.

6.3.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF‐ QENA


- The only prevailing parameter is water need assessment at each district to provide RBF facilities in

those areas. Based on water need assessment provided by Qena Water Company, it is concluded

that mainly six districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future. These districts are:

Nagaa Hamady, Deshna, Qena, Qeft, Al‐Waqf, and Qos.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Qena governorate the following

potential RBF sites, indicated in Table 13, were identified for further detailed investigation in

terms of soil conditions and GW quality assessment. The priorities can be categorised during the

phase of detailed investigations to define level of priority as: urgent, high, moderate, or low.

Figure (27) provide an illustrative map for the potential RBF sites in Qena Governorates, as

presented by Qena Water and Wastewater Company.

Table 13: Potential sites for RBF‐ Qena Governorate ‐ Step 3


Hydrology

(River vel.

&

duration)

Criterion 2

Hydrogeol

ogy

(Aquifer)

Criterion 3

Av. of land/

W shortage

Criterion 4

GWQ (TDS)

as indicator

Selecti

on

1 Qena Al‐Tawabeya‐CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Nagaa AlDom‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

3 Al‐Kanaweya‐CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

4 Al Waqf Al Hamody‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

5 Qeft Kaft‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

6 Qos Kos‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

7 Nagaa

Hamady

Nagaa Salem‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

8 Nagaa Hamady‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

9 Alkasr & Alsayad

CU

√ √ √‐√ √ √

10 Deshna Al‐Helfaya K‐CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

11 Al‐Samata‐CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

12 Fawe B‐Compact √ √ √‐√ √ √


44

6.3.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ QENA

Based on the selection process applied on the site level as indicated in Table 13, the final list of

projects has been developed in order to be deeply investigated in terms of field measures. Based on

the availability of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells are

identified as a step ahead to the cost estimates either for investment or operation and maintenance

costs. Table 14 indicates the final list of identified RBF units for each eligible location.

Figure 30 provides a map of potential RBF sites in Qena Governorate, as presented by Qena Water

and WW Company.

Table 14: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Qena Governorate


1 Qena Al‐Tawabeya‐CU 1 30

2 Nagaa Al‐Dom‐S 2 60

3 Al‐Kanaweya‐CU 1 30

4 Al Waqf Al Hamody‐S 1 30

5 Qeft Kaft‐S 1 30

6 Qos Kos‐S 1 30

7 Nagaa

Hamady

Nagaa Salem‐S 2 60

8 Nagaa Hamady‐S 1 30

9 Alkasr & Alsayad CU 1 30

10 Deshna Al‐Helfaya K‐CU 1 30

11 Al‐Samata‐CU 1 30

12 Fawe B‐Compact 1 30

Total 14 420

Figur

re 30: Potentia

45

al sites for RBBF units – Qenaa [13]

6.4 POT

6.4.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of d

eastern

side)

6.4.2 W

The num

compact

a produc

Although

of Uppe

lead to s

Based o

problem

Gehena.

stream a

6.4.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 470 km sou

ural area ext

along the Riv

on: 4,600,00

districts (Ma

side of the

WATER SUPP

mber of conv

t unit SWTP

ction capacit

h the calcula

r Egypt gove

shortage in s

n the water

m is mainly co

. However, it

as indicated

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

ent: 15‐21 k

ver Nile: 120

00 (21% urba

arkaz) 11 (3

Nile and 8

PLY FACILIT

ventional SW

with a total

ty of 0.327 M

ated per cap

ernorates, is

ome areas a

r balance su

oncentrated

t should be n

on the relate

ND HYDROL

osed method

e made base

as with resp

gical, hydrog

N

/ SITES IN

ATION

(Figure 31)

m

km

an)

3 located on

on the we

IES AND WA

WTP is 11 pr

production o

Mm3/day. Tot

pita average

suffering fro

nd surplus in

urvey and th

in 4 districts

noted that G

ed maps.

LOGY ‐ SOH

dology for a

d on the geo

ect to the Ri

geological, an

ational Feasibil

46

SOHAG GO

n the

estern

Figu

ATER BALA

roducing abo

of 0.118 Mm

tal overall w

water consu

om unbalanc

n other area

he data rece

s namely: Al‐

Gehena Mark

AG

area / site s

ology and hy

ver Nile mai

nd geotechn

lity Study and ro

OVERNOR

re 31: Locatio

ANCE

out 0.314 M

m3/day. In ad

ater product

umption is a

ced distribut

s.

eived from H

‐Monshaa, El

kaz boundary

election, an

drology of So

n stream hav

nical aspects.

oadmap for Riv

ATE

n map of Soha

m3/day. Mo

ddition, there

tion capacity

bout 165 LP

ion of produ

HCWW, mos

l‐Maragha, S

y is not along

d Figures 32

ohag:

ve a very goo

ver Bank Filtrati

ag Governora

oreover, ther

e are 198 GW

y is 759,000 m

PCD, Sohag,

uction faciliti

st of water

Saqolta, Akhm

g the River N

2 &33, the f

od potential

on in Egypt

ate

re are 52

WTP with

m3/day.

like most

ies which

shortage

mim, and

Nile main

following

for RBF

- At th

- Most

e eastern sid

t districts hav

F

de only Saqu

ve good pote

Figure 32 left: A

Figure 33: A

lta, Akhmim

ential for RB

Alluvial Plain

Aquifer depth

47

, and Dar Al

F implement

of Sohag, righ

h and extent in

Salam distric

tation in term

ht: Topograph

n Sohag Gover

cts have goo

ms of defined

hy of Sohag [1

rnorate [11]

od potential f

d parameter

11]

for RBF.

rs.

6.4.4 LIT

Figure 3

lithologi

the RBF

characte

1, 2, or 4

extractio

sandy lay

m below

ranging f

possible

- The w

eligib

forma

- Some

are e

and D

6.4.5 ST

In order

2 have b

level are

Table 15:

# Di(M

1 Te

2 Ta

3 Ge

4 Al

5 Sa

6 So

7 Ak

8 El‐

9 Ge

10 El‐

11 Da

THOLOGICA

34 indicates

cal descript

F in terms

erisation. All

4 are consid

on due to e

yers at dept

w ground s

from 10‐20

to conclude

western part

ble in terms o

ation.

e areas on th

ligible in Saq

Dar Al Salam

TEP‐2: SELEC

to select the

been applied

e indicated in

: Selection ma

istrict Markaz)

ema

ahta

ehena

Maragha

aqolta

ohag

khmim

‐Monsha

erga

‐Baliana

ar El Salam

AL DESCRIP

the areas

tion is conv

of soil form

areas unde

ered suitable

existence of

hs ranging fr

surface with

m. From Fig

e the followin

t of all Marka

of lithologica

he eastern pa

qolta, Akhmi

Markaz.

CTION OF P

e potential a

on the Mark

n Table 15.

atrix of potent

CrRiver Flo(Located

N

TION ‐ SOH

where the

venient for

mation and

er category

e for water

permeable

rom 8 to 15

h a depth

ure 34, it is

ng:

az is

al

art

m,

F

POTENTIAL

reas for RBF

kaz level. The

tial districts fo

riterion 1ow Availabiliton River Basi

√

√

x

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ational Feasibil

48

HAG

Figure 34:Litho

DISTRICTS

F on the distr

e selection m

or RBF ‐ Sohag

ty in)

CritHydroand L

lity Study and ro

ological zoning

FOR RBF ‐ S

rict (Markaz)

matrix of Soh

g

terion 2ogeology Lithology

√

√

x

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

oadmap for Riv

g of Sohag Go

SOHAG

level, the cr

hag Governo

Criterion Good Wat

Quality‐ UrgWater Nee

√‐x

√‐x

x‐√

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

√‐x

√‐x

ver Bank Filtrati

overnorate dis

riteria stated

rate on the d

3 ter gent ed

Sele

Less p

Less p

Less p

Less p

Less p

Less p

on in Egypt

stricts [11]

d in step‐

district

ection

priority

priority

x

√

√ priority

√

√ priority

priority

priority

49

Based on the applied criteria in Table 15, it is concluded that all districts have positive potential for

RBF application. Excluding the water need criterion, almost 10 out of 11 districts, have good potential

for RBF implementation. Only Gehena district is not eligible due to its location.

6.4.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ SOHAG

Based on the selection matrix, the following results could be concluded:

- Apart from the Gehena district case, where RBF is not eligible, the only prevailing parameter is

then the water need assessment at each district to provide RBF facilities in those areas. Based on

water need assessment provided by Sohag Water Company, it is concluded that mainly four

districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future. These districts are: El Monsha,

Saqulta, Akhmim and Al Maragha.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Sohag governorate the following

potential RBF sites, indicated in Table 16, were identified for further detailed investigation in

terms of soil conditions and GW quality assessment. It is important to indicate that Sohag Water

Company list included some other areas which are not selected in Table 15. However, these

locations could be included later as second priority when water shortage is observed. The

priorities can be categorised during the phase of detailed investigations to define level of priority

as: urgent, high, moderate, or low.

Table 16: Potential sites for RBF‐ Sohag Governorate ‐ Step 3

# District Location Criterion 1Hydrology (River vel.

& duration)

Criterion 2Hydrogeo‐

logy (Aquifer)

Criterion 3Av. of land/ W shortage

Criterion 4 GWQ

(TDS) as indicator

Selection

1 Tema Al Seksaka ‐ S √ √ √‐x √ Less priority

2 Tahta Shatoura ‐ S √ √ √‐x √ Less priority

3 Shatoura ‐ CU √ √ √‐x √ Less priority

4 Khazendara ‐ CU √ √ √‐x √ Less priority

5 Maragha Shouranya ‐ CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

6 Maragha ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

7 Saqolta Mostamara ‐ CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

8 Z Sahrawy √ √ √‐√ √ √

9 Al Monshah

Gezeiret M CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

10 Tokh CU √ √ √‐√ √ √


50

6.4.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ SOHAG


projects has been developed in order to be investigated in terms of field measures. Based on the

availability of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells is identified

as a step ahead to the cost estimates either for investment or operation and maintenance costs.

Table 17 indicates the final list of identified RBF units for each eligible location.

Figure 35 provides a map of potential RBF sites in Sohag Governorate, as presented by Sohag Water


Table 17: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Sohag Governorate


1 El‐Monshaa

Saqoulta

Al Monsha WTP‐CU/ 180000 3 90

2 Tokh WTP‐CU/ 80000 3 90

3 Al Zaheer WTP/ 75000 3 90

4 Al‐Mostamara WTP/ 75000 3 90

5 El‐Maragha Al Shouranya‐ CU 2 60

6 S Maragha/ 70000 2 60

Total 16 480

Figurre 35:Potentia

51

al sites for RBFF units ‐ Sohagg [13]

6.5 POT

6.5.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of d

eastern

6.5.2 W

Based o

governo

exists in

6.5.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

- At th

- Most

- Only

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 375 km sou

ural area ext

along the Riv

on: 400,000

districts (Ma

side of the N

WATER SUPP

on the infor

rate is suffe

7 districts: A

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

e eastern sid

t districts hav

Al‐Ghanayem

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

ent: 9‐20 km

ver Nile: 100

(50% urban

arkaz) 11 (4

Nile and 7 on

PLY FACILIT

rmation pro

ering from w

Al‐Qouseya,

ND HYDROL

sed method

e made base

as with resp

gical, hydrog

de only Al fat

ve good pote

m has no acc

N

/ SITES IN

ATION

(Figure 36)

m

km

)

4 located o

the western

IES AND WA

ovided from

water supply

Manfalout, A

LOGY – ASS

ology for ar

d on the geo

ect to the Ri

geological, an

th, Sahil salim

ential for RB

cess to the N

ational Feasibil

52

ASSIUT GO

on the

n side)

Fig

ATER BALA

Assiut Wat

y shortages

Al‐Fath, Assiu

IUT

rea / site sel

ology and hy

ver Nile mai

nd geotechn

m, and Al Ba

F implement

Nile stream.

lity Study and ro

OVERNORA

gure 36: Locat

ANCE

ter Compan

in different

ut, Abu‐Tig, A

ection, and

drology of A

n stream hav

nical aspects.

dary district

tation in term

oadmap for Riv

ATE

tion map of As

y, it was in

locations. S

Al‐Badary, an

Figures 37 a

ssiut:

ve a very goo

s have good

ms of defined

ver Bank Filtrati

ssiut Governo

ndicated tha

Such shortag

nd Sedf.

and 38, the f

od potential

potential fo

d parameter

on in Egypt

rate

at Assiut

ge mainly

following

for RBF

r RBF.

rs.

Fiigure 37: left:

Figure 38: A

Alluvial Plain

Aquifer depth

53

of Assiut, righ

h and extent in

ht: Topograph

n Assiut Gover

hy of Assiut [1

rnorate [11]

11]

6.5.4 LIT

Figure 3

the li

convenie

formatio

areas un

consider

extractio

permeab

ranging

surface w

20 m. Fr

conclude

- The w

eligib

forma

- Some

are e

and A

6.5.5 ST

In order

2 have b

level is in

Table 18:

# Di

1 Da

2 Al

3 M

4 Ab

5 Al

6 As

7 Sa

8 Ab

9 Al

10 Sid

11 Al

THOLOGICA

39 indicates

ithological

ent for the R

on and ch

nder catego

red suitab

on due t

ble sandy

from 8 to 1

with a depth

rom Figure 3

e the followi

western par

ble in term

ation.

e areas on t

eligible in Al f

Al Badary Ma

TEP‐2: SELEC

to select the

been applied

ndicated in T

: Selection ma

istrict (Marka

ayrout

qusiya

Manfalut

bnoub

fath

ssiut

ahil Salim

bu Tig

Badary

dfa

Ghanayem

AL DESCRIP

the areas

descriptio

RBF in terms

aracterisatio

ory 1, 2, or

ble for

to existen

layers at

15 m below

h ranging fro

39, it is poss

ng:

rts of all Ma

ms of litho

the eastern

fath, Sahil sa

arkaz.

CTION OF P

e potential a

on the Mark

Table 18.

atrix of potent

z)

(L

N

TION ‐ ASS

where

on is

s of soil

on. All

r 4 are

water

ce of

depths

ground

om 10‐

sible to

arkaz is

ological

part

alim,

Figu

POTENTIAL

reas for RBF

kaz level. The

tial districts fo

Criterion 1River Flow Availability

Located on RiBasin)

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

x

ational Feasibil

54

IUT

ure 39: Litholo

DISTRICTS

F on the distr

e selection m

or RBF ‐ Assiut

y ver

CritHydroand L

lity Study and ro

ogical zoning

FOR RBF ‐ A

rict (Markaz)

matrix of Ass

t


√

√

√

x

√

√

√

√

√

√

x

oadmap for Riv

of Assiut Gove

ASSIUT

level, the cr

iut Governo

Criterion Good Wat

Quality ‐ UrgWater Nee

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

x‐x

ver Bank Filtrati

ernorate Distr

riteria stated

rate on the d

3 ter gent ed

Sele

Less p

Less p

on in Egypt

ricts [11]

d in step‐

district

ection

priority

√

√

x

√

√ priority

√

√

√

x

55

Based on the applied criteria in Table 18, it is concluded that all districts have positive potential for

RBF application. Excluding the water need criterion, almost 9 out of 11 districts, have good potential

for RBF implementation.

6.5.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ ASSIUT


- Apart from Al Ghanayem and Abanoub districts, where RBF is not eligible, the only prevailing

parameter is then the water need assessment at each district to provide RBF facilities in those

areas. Based on water need assessment provided by Assiut Water Company, it is concluded that

mainly seven districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future. These districts are: Al

Qusiya, Manfalut, Al Fath, Assiut, Abu Tig, Al Badary, and Sidfa.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Assiut governorate the following

potential RBF sites, indicated in Table 19, were identified for further investigation in terms of soil

conditions and GW quality assessment. It is important to indicate that Assiut Water Company list

included some other areas which are not selected in Table 19. However, these locations could be

included later as second priority when water shortage is observed. The priorities can be

categorised during the phase of detailed investigations to define level of priority as: urgent, high,

moderate, or low.

Table 19: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Assiut Governorate ‐ Step 3

# District Location Criterion 1Hydrology (River vel. & duration)


logy (Aquifer)


Criterion 4 GWQ (TDS) as indicator

Selection

1 Abu Tig Abu Tig ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Abu Tig ‐ CU √ √ √‐√ √ √

3 Al Fath El Wasaty ‐ GW

√ √ √‐√ √ √

4 Bany Mor √ √ √‐√ √ √

5 El Tawabeya √ √ √‐√ √ √

6 Manfalut Manfalut ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

7 Assiut Assiut ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

8 Assiut El Tesheky

√ √ √‐√ √ √

9 Nazlet Abdellah

√ √ √‐√ √ √

10 Menkebad‐CU

x √ √‐√ √ x

11 Elgamaa‐CU x √ √‐√ √ x

12 Sidfa Sidfa‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

13 Al Badary Al Badary‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

14 Al Qusiya Al Qusiya‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √


56

6.5.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS‐ ASSIUT


projects has been developed in order to be deeply investigated in terms of field measures. Based on

the availability of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells are

identified as a step ahead to the cost estimates either for investment or operation and maintenance

costs. Table 20 indicates the final list of identified RBF units for each eligible location.

Figure 40 provides a map of potential RBF sites in Assiut Governorate, as presented by Assiut Water


Table 20: Potential sites for RBF units ‐ Assiut Governorate


1 Abu Tig Abu Tig ‐ S 2 60

2 Abu Tig ‐ CU 1 30

3 Al Fath El Wasaty ‐ GW 1 30

4 Bany Mor 1 30

5 El Tawabeya 1 30

6 Manfalut Manfalut ‐ S 2 60

7 Assiut Assiut ‐ S 2 60

8 Assiut El Tesheky 1 30

9 Nazlet Abdellah 1 30

10 Sidfa Sidfa‐S 1 30

11 Al Badary Al Badary ‐ S 1 30

12 Al Qusiya Al Qusiya ‐ S 2 60

Total 16 480

Figur

re 40: Potentia

57

al sites for RBF units ‐ Assiuut [13]

6.6 POT

6.6.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of dis

through

6.6.2 W

Based o

governo

exists in

6.6.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

- The e

- Most

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 135 km sou

ural area ext

along the Riv

on: 5,564,00

stricts (Mark

9 of them).

WATER SUPP

on the infor

rate is suffe

5 districts: B

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

eastern side

t districts hav

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

ent: 8‐12 km

ver Nile: 10 k

00 (28.6% ur

kaz): 9 (The N

PLY FACILIT

rmation pro

ering from w

Beni mazar, M

ND HYDROL

osed method

e made base

as with resp

gical, hydrog

has also very

ve good pote

N

/ SITES IN

ATION

m

m

ban)

Nile passes

IES AND WA

vided from

water supply

Magag, Saml

LOGY ‐ MIN

dology for a

d on the geo

ect to the Ri

geological, an

y good poten

ential for RB

ational Feasibil

58

MINYA GO

ATER BALA

Minya Wat

y shortages

loat, Minya,

YA

rea / site se

ology and hy

ver Nile mai

nd geotechn

ntial for RBF

F implement

lity Study and ro

OVERNORA

Figure 41: Lo

ANCE

ter Compan

in different

Malwya.

election, and

drology of M

n stream hav

nical aspects.

.

tation in term

oadmap for Riv

ATE

ocation map of

y, it was in

locations. S

d Figures 42

Minya:

ve a very goo

ms of defined

ver Bank Filtrati

of Minya Gove

ndicated tha

Such shortag

2 & 43, the f

od potential

d parameter

on in Egypt

ernorate

at Minya

ge mainly

following

for RBF

rs.

6.6.4 LIT

Figure 44

formatio

extractio

ground s

following

Fi

THOLOGICA

4 indicates t

on and chara

on due to e

surface with

g:

igure 42: left:

Figure 43: A

AL DESCRIP

the areas wh

acterisation.

existence of

h a depth ra

Alluvial plain

Aquifer depth

TION ‐ MIN

here the litho

All areas un

permeable

nging from

59

of Minya, righ

h and extent in

NYA

ological desc

nder category

sandy layer

10‐20 m. Fr

ht: Topograph

n Minya Gover

cription is co

y 1, 2, or 4 a

s at depths

rom Figure 4

hy of Minya [1

rnorate [11]

onvenient fo

are considere

ranging fro

44, it is poss

11]

r RBF in term

ed suitable f

om 8 to 15

sible to conc

ms of soil

for water

m below

clude the

- The w

- Most

6.6.5 ST

In order

2 have b

level is in

Table 21

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

western part

t of the easte

TEP‐2: SELEC

to select the

been applied

ndicated in T

1: Selection m

District (Mar

Magaga

Beni Mazar

Samloat

Minya

Maloay

El‐Adwaa

Matay

ts of all Mark

ern part is el

Figure 4

CTION OF P

e potential a

d on the Mar

Table 21.

matrix of poten

rkaz)

(L

r

N

kaz are eligib

igible.

44: Lithologica

POTENTIAL

areas for RBF

rkaz level. Th

ntial districts f


Located on RiBasin)

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ational Feasibil

60

ble in terms o

al zoning of M

DISTRICTS

F on the dist

he selection

for RBF ‐Miny

y ver

CritHydroand L

lity Study and ro

of lithologica

Minya Governo

FOR RBF ‐ M

rict (Markaz)

matrix of M

ya


√

√

√

√

√

√

√

oadmap for Riv

l formation.

rate [11]

MINYA

) level, the c

Minya Govern

Criterion Good Wat

Quality ‐ UrgWater Nee

√‐√

√‐x

√‐√

√‐√

√‐x

√‐x

√‐x

ver Bank Filtrati

criteria stated

norate on th

3 ter gent ed

Sele

Less P

Less P

Less P

on in Egypt

d in step‐

he district

ection

√

x

√

√ Priority

Priority

Priority

61

Table 21: Selection matrix of potential districts for RBF ‐Minya

# District (Markaz) Criterion 1River Flow Availability

(Located on River Basin)

Criterion 2Hydrogeology and Lithology

Criterion 3 Good Water

Quality ‐ Urgent Water Need

Selection

8 Abo‐karkas √ √ √‐x Less Priority

Based on the applied criteria, it is concluded that half the districts have positive potential for RBF

application. Excluding the water need criterion, 6 out of 9 districts, have good potential for RBF

implementation.

6.6.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ MINYA



those areas. Based on water need assessment provided by Minya Water Company, it is concluded

that mainly four districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future: Maga, Beni mazar ,

Samloat, Minya.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Minya governorate the following


conditions and GW quality assessment. The priorities can be categorised during the phase of

detailed investigations to define level of priority as: urgent, high, moderate, or low. Figure 45

provides an illustrative map for the potential RBF sites in Minya Governorate, as presented by

Minya Water and Wastewater Company.

Table 22: Potential sites for RBF ‐ Minya Governorate ‐ Step 3



logy (Aquifer)

Criterion 3Av. of land W shortage


Selection

1 Magaga Shwarna‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Beni Mazar Beni mazar‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

3 Samloat Arab El‐zina ‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √

4 Minya Beni‐Ahmed ‐S √ √ √‐√ √ √


62

6.6.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ MINYA



availability of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells are identified



Minya Water Company did not submit any proposal for new sites of RBF units. All proposed units

have already been implemented or under construction. Figure 45 indicates the location map for

those units as provided by El‐Minya Water Company.

Table 23: Potential sites for RBF units ‐Minya Governorate


1 Magaga Shwarna ‐ S 2 60

2 Samloat Arab El‐zina ‐ S 2 60

3 Minya Beni‐Ahmed ‐ S 3 90

Total 7 210

Figure 45: Lo

ocation map of

63

f RBF units att El Minya Govvernorate [13]]

6.7 POT

6.7.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of dis

of them

the Nile

6.7.2 W

Based o

governo

exists in

6.7.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

- The e

- Most

Farsh

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: 124 km sou

ural area ext

along the Riv

on: 2,771,00

stricts (Mark

), Ahnsea, S

at its bound

WATER SUPP

n the inform

rate is suffe

5 districts: W

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

eastern side

t districts hav

hout.

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

uth to Cairo

ent: 2.5‐11 k

ver Nile: 10 k

00 (28.6% ur

kaz): 7 (The N

Samata Mark

aries.

PLY FACILIT

mation provi

ering from w

Wasta, Naser

ND HYDROL

osed method

e made base

eas with resp

gical, hydrog

has also very

ve good pote

N

/ SITES IN

ATION

(Figure 46)

km

m

ban)

Nile passes t

kaz has no a

IES AND WA

ded from Be

water supplie

r, El‐Fashen ,

LOGY ‐ BENI

dology for a

d on the geo

pect to the R

geological, an

y good poten

ential for RB

ational Feasibil

64

BENI‐SUIF

through 5

access to

F

ATER BALA

eni‐suif Wat

es shortages

, Samata and

I‐SUIF

rea / site se

ology and hy

iver Nile ma

nd geotechn

ntial for RBF

F implement

lity Study and ro

F GOVERNO

Figure 46: Loca

ANCE

ter Company

in different

d Ahnsea.

election, and

drology of B

in stream ha

nical aspects.

.

tation in term

oadmap for Riv

ORATE

ation map of B

y, it was ind

locations. S

d Figures 47

eni‐suif:

ave a very go

ms of defined

ver Bank Filtrati

Beni‐Suif Gov

dicated that

Such shortag

7 & 48, the f

ood potentia

d parameter

on in Egypt

ernorate

Beni‐suif

ge mainly

following

al for RBF

rs, except

6.7.4 LIT

Figure 4

formatio

extractio

ground s

following

- The w

- Most

Figu

THOLOGICA

9 indicates t

on and chara

on due to e

surface with

g:

western part

t of the easte

ure 47: left: All

Figure 48: A

AL DESCRIP

the areas wh

acterisation.

existence of

h a depth ra

ts of all Mark

ern part is el

luvial Plain of

quifer depth a

TION ‐ BEN

here the litho

All areas un

permeable

nging from

kaz are eligib

igible.

65

f Beni‐suif, righ

and extent in

NI‐SUIF

ological desc

nder category

sandy layer

10‐20 m. Fr

ble in terms o

ht: Topograph

Beni‐suif Gove

cription is co

y 1, 2, or 4 a

s at depths

rom Figure 4

of lithologica

hy of Beni‐suif

ernorate [11]

onvenient fo

are considere

ranging fro

49, it is poss

l formation.

f [11]

r RBF in term

ed suitable f

om 8 to 15

sible to conc

ms of soil

for water

m below

clude the

6.7.5 ST

To selec

been ap

is indicat

Table 24:

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TEP‐2: SELEC

t the potent

plied on the

ted in Table

: Selection ma

District

Al‐wasta

Naser

Beni‐suif

Ahnsea

Babba

Samata

Al‐Fashen

Fig

CTION OF P

tial areas for

e Markaz leve

24.

atrix of potent

(L

N

gure 49: Lithol

POTENTIAL

r RBF on the

el. The selec

tial districts fo


Located on RiBasin)

√

√

√

x

√

x

√

ational Feasibil

66

logical zoning

DISTRICTS

e district (Ma

ction matrix

or RBF ‐ Beni‐S

y ver

CritHydroand L

lity Study and ro

g of Beni‐suif [

FOR RBF ‐ B

arkaz) level,

of Beni‐suif

Suif


√

√

√

√

√

√

√

oadmap for Riv

[11]

BENI‐SUIF

the criteria s

Governorate

Criterion Good Wat

Quality‐ UrgWater Nee

√‐√

√‐√

√‐√

x‐x

√‐√

x‐x

√‐√

ver Bank Filtrati

stated in ste

e on the dist

3 ter gent ed

Sele

on in Egypt

ep‐2 have

trict level

ection

√

√

√

x

√

x

√

67

Based on the applied criteria in Table 24, it is concluded that half the districts have positive potential

for RBF application. Excluding the water need criterion, 5 out of 7 districts have good potential for

RBF implementation.

6.7.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF‐ BENI‐SUIF



those areas. Based on water need assessment provided by Beni‐suif Water Company, it is

concluded that mainly six districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future. These

districts are: Al‐wasta, Nasar, Beni‐suif, Babba, Samata, and El‐fashen.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Beni‐suif governorate the following

Potential RBF sites, indicated in Table 25, were identified for further deep investigation in terms

of detailed soil conditions and GW quality assessment at the installation sites. The priorities can

be categorised during the phase of detailed investigations to define level of priority as: urgent,

high, moderate, or low.

Table 25: Potential sites for RBF – Beni‐Suif Governorate ‐ Step 3



logy (Aquifer)



Selection

1 Al‐wasta Atwab ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Gazerat El‐Masada ‐ S

√ √ √‐√ √ √

3 Nasar Al Hamody ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

4 Beni‐suif El‐shanwaya ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

5 Babba Malahya Ali gomma ‐ S

√ √ √‐√ √ √

6 Al‐Fashen El‐kadabi ‐ S √ √ √‐√ √ √

6.7.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS‐ BENI‐SUIF



availability of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells are identified


Table 26 indicates the final list of identified RBF units for each eligible location. However, most of

these plants are under construction, no fund is required for the time being.

Beni Sui

been alr

units as

Ta

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

f Water Com

ready implem

provided by

ble 26: Poten

District

Al‐wasta

Nasar

Beni‐suif

Babba

Al‐Fashe

Total

mpany did n

mented or u

Beni Suif Wa

Figure 50: Lo

ntial sites for R

Pla

Atw

Gaz

El‐s

f El D

Ma

n El‐k

N

not submit a

under constr

ater Compan

ocation map of

RBF units – Be

nt Location

wab‐S

zerat El‐Masad

shanwaya ‐S

Dawea ‐S

lahya Ali gom

kadabi –S

ational Feasibil

68

ny proposal

ruction. Figu

ny.

f RBF units at

eni‐Suif Govern

da‐S

mma‐S

lity Study and ro

for new RB

ure 50 indic

t Beni Suif Gov

norate

No. of

1

1

1

1

1

1

6

oadmap for Riv

BF units. All

ates the loc

vernorate [13]

wells Cap

ver Bank Filtrati

proposed u

cation map f

]

pacity in l/s

30

30

30

30

30

30

180

on in Egypt

nits have

for those

6.8 POT

6.8.1 BA

Location

Agricultu

Length a

Populati

No of di

eastern

side), th

Nile.

6.8.2 W

Based on

is suffer

districts:

6.8.3 GE

Based o

conclusio

- West

in ter

- The e

- Near

param

TENTIAL R

ACKGROUN

n: Next to Ca

ural area ext

along the Riv

on: 7,486,36

stricts (Mark

side of the N

e others are

WATER SUPP

n the inform

ring from w

: Al‐Hawamd

EOLOGY AN

n the propo

ons could be

tern side are

rms of geolog

eastern side

ly half of d

meters.

BF AREAS

ND INFORM

iro

ent: 5‐12 km

ver Nile: 70 k

61 (50% urba

kaz) 10 (5 of

Nile and 1 of

e located awa

PLY FACILIT

ation provid

ater supply

deya and Al‐B

ND HYDROL

osed method

e made base

eas with resp

gical, hydrog

Al Saf distric

districts hav

/ SITES IN

ATION

m

m

an)

f them locate

them by we

ay from the

IES AND WA

ded from Giza

shortages i

Badrasheen.

LOGY ‐ GIZA

dology for a

d on the geo

pect to the R

geological, an

ct has good p

ve good po

69

GIZA GOV

ed by

estern

River

Figu

ATER BALA

a Water Com

n different

A

rea / site se

ology and hy

iver Nile ma

nd geotechn

potential for

otential for

VERNORAT

re 51: Locatio

ANCE

mpany, it wa

locations. S

election, and

drology of G

in stream ha

nical aspects.

RBF.

RBF implem

TE

n map of Giza

s indicated t

uch shortag

d Figures 52

iza:

ave a very go

mentation i

a Governorate

that Giza gov

ge mainly ex

2 & 53, the f

ood potentia

n terms of

e

vernorate

xists in 2

following

al for RBF

f defined

Figure 52: lef

Figure 53:

N

ft: Alluvial Plai

Aquifer depth

ational Feasibil

70

in of Giza, righ

h and extent i

lity Study and ro

ht: Topograph

in Giza Govern

oadmap for Riv

hy of Giza [11]

norate [11]

ver Bank Filtrati

]

on in Egypt

6.8.4 LIT

Figure 5

the li

convenie

formatio

areas un

consider

extractio

permeab

ranging

surface w

20 m. Fr

conclude

- The w

eligib

forma

- Mark

eligib

6.8.5 ST

In order

2 have b

level is in

Table 27:

# Di

1 Em

2 Os

3 Ke

4 Ab

5 Al

6 Gi

7 Al

8 Al

9 Al

10 At

11 Al

THOLOGICA

54 indicates

ithological

ent for RBF

on and cha

nder catego

red suitab

on due t

ble sandy

from 8 to 1

with a depth

rom Figure 5

e the followi

western part

ble in terms o

ation.

kaz Al Saf on

ble.

TEP‐2: SELEC

to select the

been applied

ndicated in T

: Selection ma

istrict (Marka

mbaba

sem

erdasa

bo El Nomro

‐Hawamdey

iza

‐Badrashen

l‐Ayat

Saf

tfih

‐Wahat Al‐B

AL DESCRIP

the areas

descriptio

F in terms

aracterisatio

ory 1, 2, or

ble for

to existenc

layers at

5 m below g

h ranging fro

54, it is poss

ng:

ts of all Mark

of lithologica

the eastern

CTION OF P

e potential a

d on the Ma

Table 27.

atrix of potent

z)

os

ya

Bahareya

TION ‐ GIZA

where

n is

of soil

on. All

4 are

water

ce of

depths

ground

om 10‐

sible to

kaz are

al

part is

Figu

POTENTIAL

areas for RBF

arkaz level. T

tial districts fo

CriterionRiver FloAvailabil

(Located onBasin)

√

√

x

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

x

71

A

ure 54: Litholo

DISTRICTS

F on the dist

The selection

or RBF ‐ Giza

n 1ow lity n River )

CHydand

ogical zoning

FOR RBF ‐ G

rict (Markaz)

n matrix of

riterion 2drogeology d Lithology

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

X

x

x

of Giza Gover

GIZA

) level, the c

Giza Govern

CriterionGood Wat

Quality ‐ UrWater Ne

√‐x

√‐x

√‐x

√‐x

√‐√

√‐x

√‐√

√‐x

√‐x

√‐x

x‐x

rnorate [11]

criteria stated

norate on th

n 3 ter rgent eed

Sele

Less p

Less p

Less p

Less p

Less p

d in step‐

e district

ection

priority

priority

x

priority

√

priority

√

priority

x

x

x


72

Based on the applied criteria in Table 27, it is concluded that around half the districts have positive

potential for RBF application. Excluding the water need criterion, 7 out of 11 districts have good

potential for RBF implementation.

6.8.6 STEP‐3: SELECTION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR RBF ‐ GIZA



those areas. Based on water need assessment provided by Giza Water Company, it is concluded

that mainly two districts will be suffering from water shortage in near future. These districts are:

Al‐Hawamdeya and Al‐Badrashen.

- Accordingly, and based on the preliminary list received from Giza governorate the following


conditions and GW quality assessment. It is important to indicate that Giza Water Company list

included some other areas which are not selected in Table 28. However, these locations could be

included later as second priority when water shortage is observed. The priorities can be

categorised during the phase of detailed investigations to define level of priority as: urgent, high,

moderate, or low.

Table 28: Potential sites for RBF‐ Giza Governorate ‐ Step 3


Hydrology (River vel. & duration)

Criterion 2

Hydrogeology (Aquifer)

Criterion 3

Av. of land/ W shortage

Criterion 4

GWQ (TDS) as indicator

Selection

1 AlHawamdeya AlHawamdeya √ √ √‐√ √ √

2 Masghona √ √ √‐√ √ √

3 Al‐Badrashen Al‐Shobak Al‐Gharby

√ √ √‐√ √ √

6.8.7 FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED RBF UNITS ‐ GIZA



availability of land and the current shortage in water supplies, the number of RBF wells is identified



Figure 5

Wastew

Table

#

1

2

3

5 provides a

ater Compan

29: Potential

District

Al‐Hawamd

Al‐Badrashe

Total

map of pot

ny.

Figu

sites for RBF u

Plant

deya Al‐Ha

Masg

en. Al‐Sh

ential RBF si

ure 55: Potent

units ‐ Giza Go

Location

awamdeya

ghona

hobak Al‐Gha

73

tes in Giza G

tial sites for RB

overnorate

arby

Governorate,

BF units ‐ Giza

No. of wells

2

1

2

5

, as presente

a [13]

s Capacit

6

3

6

15

ed by Giza W

ty in l/s

60

30

60

50

Water and

7. COS

7.1 INT

In order

unit rate

prevailin

well as o

total life

be noted

studies,

be consi

Neverth

existing

1‐ C

2‐ C

3‐ C

Section 7

7.2 BAS

7.2.1 TY

Typical

compose

of river

from a

compon

1‐ W

2‐ W

3‐ W

4‐

5‐ O

In orde

compon

typical

estimate

well com

ST ESTIMA

TRODUCTIO

to have a un

es of each co

ng prices of t

operation an

e cost of the

d that the c

test well, an

dered for de

eless, keepin

water facilit

Cost of land

Cost of main

Cost of conn

7.2 represen

SIS OF COS

YPICAL RBF

RBF syste

ed of a verti

bank filtrat

a shallow

ents of such

Well casing

Well screen

Well pump a

Electrical con

Operation ro

er to hav

ents, a typ

soil format

e at this stag

mponents.

ATES AND

ON

nified and re

omponent ha

the project a

nd maintenan

different op

cost unit rat

nd the RBF w

elivery lines,

ng in mind t

ies, the follo

acquisition

n power supp

nection to th

nts the basis

ST CALCULA

SYSTEM CO

m compon

cal well with

te and land

depth. Th

RBF well are

and associate

nnections

oom, installe

ve proper

pical well d

tion was c

ge. Figure 56

N

ESTIMAT

eliable base f

ave been de

rea. This wo

nce (O&M) c

ptions for pro

es should be

well including

valves, as w

hat almost a

wing items w

ply, transform

e main wate

for RBF syste

ATIONS AN

OMPONENT

nents are

hdrawing a m

‐side groun

e main p

e as the follo

ed pipes/ val

ed above the

sizing for

design follow

considered

6 illustrates

ational Feasibil

74

ES AND IM

for cost calc

veloped for

ould facilitate

cost. This wo

oper selectio

e considered

g drilling, cas

ell as electric

all proposed

will be exclud

mers, and ge

er distributio

em compone

ND ESTIMA

TS

mainly

mixture

dwater

physical

owing:

lves

e well

r such

wing a

as an

typical

Fig

lity Study and ro

MPLEMEN

ulations, cos

the RBF syst

e the cost ca

ould be a ste

on of the tec

d for land a

sing pipes, pu

cal connectio

RBF units a

ded from the

enerators

n system

ents.

ATES

gure 56: Typica

oadmap for Riv

NTATION P

st tables follo

tem compon

lculations fo

p ahead to t

chnically elig

cquisition, d

umps etc. Ot

ons and pane

re planned t

e RBF system

al RBF well co

ver Bank Filtrati

PLAN

owing the co

nents consid

or both inves

the calculati

gible option.

detailed inve

ther appurte

els.

to be installe

m costs:

omponents

on in Egypt

oncept of

ering the

stment as

on of the

It should

estigation

enant will

ed within

Figures 5

design o

57 & 58 illus

of typical RBF

strate the ma

F system.

Figure 56:

ain design da

Typical hydra

75

ata as well a

aulic calculatio

as the typical

on sheet for R

l soil formati

BF wells (a)

ion considerred in the

Commen

Before d

drilled a

river. Th

accordin

distribut

At sites

dependi

entrance

sufficien

To desig

pumped

nts:

drilling for th

nd used for

he drilling sh

ng to interna

tion curves a

with limited

ng on wate

e of the pu

nt or a lower

gn RBF system

water and

Figure 57:

he implemen

water level

hould also b

ational stand

are used to o

d aquifer thi

er level and

mp. Also, th

pumping co

ms with only

d higher Fe

N

Typical hydra

ntation of RB

assessment

be used to g

dard procedu

rder the app

ckness (<50

drawdown.

he screen le

uld be accep

16 working

and Mn co

ational Feasibil

76

aulic calculatio

BF wells, a te

to determin

get depth‐sp

ures. Parame

propriate filt

m), the len

. Not all pu

ength could

pted. The san

hours may r

oncentration

lity Study and ro

on sheet for R

est well havi

ne the groun

pecific sedim

eters gained

er sand or gr

gth of casin

umps requir

be shorter

nd trap lengt

result in a low

ns due to t

oadmap for Riv

BF wells (b)

ing a smaller

dwater flow

ment samples

d from the d

ravel.

g could be r

e 5 m wate

if the hydr

th could be 1

wer portion o

the higher

ver Bank Filtrati

r diameter s

w gradient to

s for sieving

determined g

reduced to

er level abov

raulic condu

1 – 2 m only.

of bank filtra

portion of

on in Egypt

should be

ward the

g analysis

grain‐size

15 ‐ 20 m

ve water

uctivity is

ate in the

land‐side

groundw

units in c

All RBF w

levels an

prevent

In contra

filter scr

water. Thus,

combination

wells should

nd potential

input of pat

adiction to F

een, not up

Figure

it is advised

n with water

be equippe

well cloggin

hogens via p

Figures 56 an

to the static

e 58: Typical w

d to run the

storage tank

ed with an in

g. Furtherm

preferential f

nd 59, the filt

water level.

well profile – C

77

pumps cont

ks.

nner and out

ore, proper

flow paths.

ter sand/gra

.

Cross section,

tinuously if

ter piezome

sealing arou

vel should o

Levels provid

possible and

ter to allow

und the well

nly filled up

ded as a rough

d to operate

monitoring

casing is req

to 2 – 4 m a

h guide

e the RBF

of water

quired to

above the


78

7.2.2 CAPITAL COSTS

- Well Casing

o Drilling: In order to install the well casing drilling should be done first in order to ensure the

soil formation as well as testing potential well productivity. Drilling diameter is 20 inches.

o Casing Pipes: HDPE pipes is assumed to be used as well casing due to its high durability for

corrosion due to salinity and other soil conditions. Moreover, it does not need any cathodic

protection in case of highly conductive soil conditions. Casing pipe diameter is 12 inches.

- Well Screen

o Based on the specific soil formation of each site, the length and depth of the well screen are

selected. Stainless steel 316 is proposed to be installed as a well screen to ensure high

durability and lifetime. Well screen is 12 inches in diameter.

- Well Pump

o A submersible well pump IP68 with a capacity of 30 l/s is employed to be installed at 5 m

depth below the min water level. The total head of pump is assumed to be between 30 ‐ 40 m,

depending on the requirements from the local water distribution network.

o UPVC delivery pipe 8 inches size and NP 10 bars is considered for cost estimates including

necessary fittings and valves as appropriate.

- Electric Components

o This item is mainly for operation / control panel and cabling as well as protection of well pump.

- Operation Room

o A small room 3 m x 3 m is considered as operation room for each group of wells at a site.

7.2.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The operation part assumed to be based on two main parameters, personnel and consumables costs

including power costs. Based on the organization of each facility, personnel structure can be defined

for each system component. Keeping in mind that all of RBF facilities will be installed within existing

water facilities, this part of personnel cost is ignored.

As for maintenance cost, the cost is based on the normal preventive maintenance programs, which is

not yet fully followed by the WSCs, as well available SOPs. An institutional support program is now

being implemented via HCWW programs to strength the capabilities WSCs operation team. To avoid

complicated procedures for calculation of O&M cost at this stage an overall average figure was

considered based on the system components and type of works; civil or electro‐mechanical. The

79

annual O&M costs for civil works were estimated by 5‐7% of the capital investments. Electro‐

mechanical is based on 10‐15% of the associated capital investments.

7.2.4 TYPICAL CAPITAL AND RUNNING COSTS FOR RBF UNIT

Based on the above described system components as well as the associated cost analysis the

following cost figures have been developed.

- Civil Works:

o Well drilling and casing EGP 150,000

o Well Operation Room EGP 25,000

- Electro‐mechanical Works:

o Pumps and accessories EGP 175,000

o Electrical Works EGP 50,000

In order to consider the geographical location effects on the related costs a multiplier factor will be

considered based on the distances from Cairo. An assumption of 5% for each 100 km from Cairo is

considered. Accordingly, the following multiplier cost factors are considered:

Giza, 1; Beni‐suif, 1.05; Minya, 1.15; Assiut, 1.2; Sohag, 1.3; Qena/Luxor, 1.4; Aswan, 1.5.

7.3 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR POTENTIAL RBF UNITS IN SELECTED GOVERNORATES

Based on the results of the selection procedure described in section 6 for each eligible governorate

and location, as well as the basis of cost estimates described above, the following cost estimates

have been developed and indicated in Table 30. It should be noted that a fixed figure of EGP 60,000

should be added to each site in order to cover the cost of detailed site investigation.

Table 30: Estimated capital and O&M cost for potential RBF units

Annual

Running Costs-

EGP

Cost of D

Investigation-

EGP

Civil Wks ME Works Total O & M

1 Aswan 9 3 2,475,000 3,037,500 5,512,500 427,500 270,000

2 Luxor 14 12 3,850,000 4,410,000 8,260,000 633,500 1,008,000

3 Qena 14 12 3,850,000 4,410,000 8,260,000 633,500 1,008,000

4 Sohag 16 6 3,835,000 4,680,000 8,515,000 659,750 468,000

5 Assiut 16 12 3,720,000 4,320,000 8,040,000 618,000 864,000

6 El Minya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 Beni-Suif 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 Giza 5 3 950,000 1,125,000 2,075,000 160,000 180,000

Total 74 48 18,680,000 21,982,500 40,662,500 2,923,625 3,798,000

# Governorate No. of Units No. of SitesCapital Cost EGP


80

7.4 PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

7.4.1 OVERALL PLAN

The following 3 years implementation plan is proposed for potential RBF projects:

- First year:

o Detailed site investigation at all locations

o Construction of urgent priority RBF units

- Second Year:

o Assessment of implemented RBF units and feedback whenever required

o Construction of high priority RBF units

- Third Year:

o Assessment of implemented RBF units and feedback whenever required

o Construction of moderate priority RBF units

7.4.2 FINANCING SCHEME

Based on the proposed overall implementation plan for the potential RBF units, the following

financing plan is expected over the 3 years implementation plan. It is important to state that the

priorities at each site will be defined later during the detailed investigation stage in order to

categorize the level of priority: urgent, high, or moderate. Table 31 illustrates the financing plan for

each governorate over the proposed 3 years implementation plan.

Table 31: Financing plan over the implementation period

- * year 1: 50% of detailed studies + 40% of Implementation Plan

- ** Year 2: 50% of detailed studies + 30% of Implementation Plan

- ***Year 3: 30% of Implementation Plan

# Governorate Year 1* Year 2** Year 3** Total

1 Aswan 2,340,000.00 1,788,750.00 1,653,750.00 5,782,500.00

2 Luxor 3,808,000.00 2,982,000.00 2,478,000.00 9,268,000.00

3 Qena 3,808,000.00 2,982,000.00 2,478,000.00 9,268,000.00

4 Sohag 3,640,000.00 2,788,500.00 2,554,500.00 8,983,000.00

5 Assiut 3,648,000.00 2,844,000.00 2,412,000.00 8,904,000.00

6 Giza 920,000.00 712,500.00 622,500.00 2,255,000.00

Total 18,164,000.00 14,097,750.00 12,198,750.00 44,460,500.00

81

LIST OF REFERENCES

[1] Hiscock, K., Grischek, T. (2002) Attenuation of groundwater pollution by bank filtration. J.

Hydrol. 266(3‐4), 139‐144.

[2] Ray, C., Grischek, T., Hubbs, S., Drewes, J., Haas, D., Darnault, C. (2008) Riverbank filtration for

drinking water supply. In: Anderson, M. G. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, J. Wiley

& Sons Ltd., 1‐16, doi: 10.1002/0470848944.hsa305.

[3] Grischek, T., Schoenheinz, D., Ray, C. (2003) Siting and design issues for riverbank filtration

schemes. In: Ray, C., Melin, G., Linsky, R. (eds.) Riverbank Filtration: Improving Source‐Water

Quality. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 291‐302. [4] Grischek, T., Schoenheinz, D.,

Worch, E., Hiscock, K. (2002) Bank filtration in Europe ‐ An overview of aquifer conditions and

hydraulic controls. In: Dillon, P. (ed.) Management of aquifer recharge for sustainability.

Balkema Publ., Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, 485‐488.

[5] Dillon, P., Stuyfzand, P., Grischek, T., Lluria, M., Pyne, R.D.G., Jain, R.C., Bear, J., Schwarz, J.,

Wang, W., Fernandez, E., Stefan, C., Pettenati, M., van der Gun, J., Sprenger, C., Massmann, G.,

Scanlon, B.R., Xanke, J., Jokela, P., Zheng, Y., Rossetto, R., Shamrukh, M., Pavelic, P., Murray, E.,

Ross, A., Bonilla Valverde, J.P., Palma Nava, A., Ansems, N., Posavec, K., Ha, K., Martin, R.,

Sapiano, M. (2018) Sixty years of global progress in Managed Aquifer Recharge. Hydrogeol. J.

27(1), 1‐30, doi: 10.1007/s10040‐018‐1841‐z.

[6] Ghodeif, K., Grischek, T., Bartak, R., Wahaab, R., Herlitzius, J. (2016) Potential of river bank

filtration (RBF) in Egypt. Environ. Earth Sci. 75:671, doi: 10.1007/s12665‐016‐5454‐3.

[7] Ray, C., Jaspers, J., Grischek, T. (2011) Bank filtration as natural filtration. In: Ray, C., Jain, R.

(eds.) Drinking water treatment. Focusing on appropriate technology and sustainability.

Springer, Dordrecht, 93‐158.

[8] Kruc, R., Dragon, K., Górski, J., Nagy‐Kovács, Z., Grischek, T. (2020) Geohydraulic conditions and

post‐treatment at riverbank filtration sites in Eastern Europe. Baltica 33(1), 97‐108.

[9] Wahaab, R.A., Salah, A., Grischek, T. (2019) Water quality changes during the initial operating

phase of riverbank filtration sites in Upper Egypt. J. Water 11, 1258, doi:10.3390/w11061258.

[10] UN‐HABITAT (2017) RBF case studies in Egypt. Wahab, R.A., HCWW, National Conference on

RBF projects in Egypt, July 2017.

[11] ـــــــــه الموســــوعه ــــة ‐1 مجلـــد ‐لمصر الجيوتقني ـــــه كلي ــــــاھرة جامعـــه ‐الھندس االبنيــــــــة ھيئـــة – القـــــــــة التعليميISBN: 977‐6079237

[12] ــــــة البيانـــــــــات ـــــــه – المعنيـــــــة الميـــــــاه شــركات من المقدم لميـــــاه القابضـــــة للشـــركة التابع .الصحى والصــرف الشــرب

[13] ـــــــا ــــــاج RBF النھـــــر لضــفاف الطبيعـــــى الترشــــيح تكنولوجي ــــاه النت ‐منخفضــه بتكلفــــــة الشــرب ميـــــــة حيـــاه مشروع ‐استرشـــادى دليـــل ــــــه للتنمي ــــــاھرة ‐UN‐HABITAT ‐المحلي .2017 مصر – الق

National Feasibil

82

lity Study and rooadmap for Rivver Bank Filtrati

on in Egypt