UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Assessment of on-site sewage disposal system impacts to ground and surface waters in an unconfined aquifer Goble, Heather Marie 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-0449.pdf [ 30.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0063323.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0063323-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0063323-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0063323-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0063323-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0063323-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0063323-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0063323-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0063323.ris

Full Text

ASSESSMENT OF ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM IMPACTS TO GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS IN AN UNCONFINED AQUIFER by HEATHER M A R I E G O B L E BTech., British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A September 2005 © Heather Marie Goble, 2005 ABSTRACT The objective of this project was to determine if on-site sewage disposal systems are contributing to degradation of water quality in the Brookswood aquifer, Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River through the use of environmental monitoring and assessment methods that can be used as a template for similar investigations within other unconfined aquifers. This is a case study to provide an integrated mapping and monitoring protocol to assess nitrate contamination levels in unconfined aquifers and make recommendations for projected on-site sewage disposal system densities The Brookswood aquifer, located in South Langley, B.C., is largely unconfined and considered highly susceptible to contaminants due to its excellent storage capacity and high infiltration/percolation rates. The Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek are important spawning habitats for salmonids and thus sensitive to flow variations and nutrient loading. Groundwater (one hundred wells) and surface water quality (2 streams) were monitored in the aquifer area for nutrients (nitrate-nitrogen, phosphate), general water quality (chloride, conductivity, metals) and pathogen presence (fecal coliforms, bacterial source tracking) from July 2003 to April 2004. An analysis was also made of land use and septic system location and their relationship to the groundwater and surface water quality conditions. Six percent of wells had a maximum nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 10 mg/L or greater, the recommended guideline for Canadian drinking water quality. Groundwater nitrate concentrations were positively correlated with residential land use in unserviced areas and sewage disposal system densities. Management strategies for small septic systems to prevent unconfined aquifer deterioration are discussed. Further studies are recommended to determine i f a link exists between greenhouse land use activities and surface or ground water quality. Little Campbell River nitrate concentrations were positively correlated to residential and greenhouse land use in the dry season. Anderson Creek nitrate concentrations were associated with crop land-use in the wet season. Surface waters exceeded recommended criteria for dissolved oxygen and temperature in both the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek for the protection of aquatic life. Further studies were recommended to determine the cause of the low dissolved oxygen concentrations and potential remedial actions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT II TABLE OF CONTENTS Ml LIST OF TABLES Vlll LIST OF FIGURES XVII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XXII 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Study Goals and Objectives 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2.1 Water Protection Legislation 3 2.2 Study Area 5 2.3 Dissolved Oxygen 6 2.4 Optical Brighteners 7 2.5 Nitrate 11 2.5.1 Sources 11 2.5.2 Transport 16 2.5.3 Health Implications 19 2.5.4 Source Identification 23 ii i 2.6 Chloride 23 2.7 Electrical Conductance 24 2.8 Historical Groundwater Quality 24 2.8.1 Fraser Valley Groundwater Studies 25 2.8.2 Brookswood Groundwater Studies 27 2.9 Historical Surface Water Quality 28 2.9.1 Fraser Valley Surface Water Studies 28 2.9.2 Brookswood Surface Water Studies 30 3 METHODOLOGY 31 3.1 Study Area 31 3.2 Well Sample Collection 34 3.3 Stream Sample Collection 36 3.4 Sample Analysis 37 3.4.1 Temperature and dissolved oxygen 37 3.4.2 Optical brighteners 38 3.4.3 Nitrate analysis 39 3.4.4 Orthophosphate analysis 39 3.4.5 Chloride analysis 40 3.4.6 Electrical conductivity analysis 40 3.4.7 Metal analysis ; 41 3.4.8 Coliform Analysis 41 3.4.9 Bacterial Source Tracking 42 3.5 Land Use Survey 43 3.6 Well Buffer Zone Design 45 3.7 Surface Water Catchment Areas 49 iv 3.8 Sewage Disposal System Densities 52 3.8.1 Community Sewage System Densities 52 3.8.2 Sewage Disposal System Enumeration 53 3.9 Statistics 54 3.9.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 54 3.9.2 Spearman's Rank 54 3.9.3 Mann-Whitney U-test 55 3.9.4 Boxplots 56 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 57 4.1 Well Water Quality 57 4.1.1 Outliers 59 4.1.2 SDS Enumeration 66 4.1.3 Optical brighteners 68 4.1.4 Nitrate 70 4.1.5 Orthophosphate 71 4.1.6 Chloride 72 4.1.7 Electrical conductance 74 4.1.8 Metals 76 4.1.9 Coliform Bacteria 81 4.1.10 Bacterial Source Tracking in Wells 82 4.1.11 Well Depth 82 4.2 Well Water Quality & Land Use Interactions 88 4.2.1 Residential 89 4.2.2 Uncultured vegetation 91 4.2.3 Crops 92 4.2.4 Livestock 93 4.2.5 Greenhouses 95 4.2.6 Paved Areas ; 97 4.2.7 Buffer Zone Design 98 v 4.3 SDS Densities and Well Water Quality 99 4.3.1 Nitrate and SDS Densities 99 4.3.2 Analysis of SDS Density Categories 101 4.3.3 SDS Densities and Aquifer Protection 103 4.4 Surface Waters 104 4.4.1 Precipitation 105 4.4.2 Statistics 106 4.4.3 Little Campbell River Water Quality 107 4.4.4 Little Campbell River Land Use 123 4.4.5 Anderson Creek Water Quality 127 4.4.6 Anderson Creek Land Use 141 4.4.7 Comparison of two watersheds 144 4.4.8 Ground and surface water interactions 148 5 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF WATER QUALITY 150 5.1 Groundwater Use 151 5.2 Impacts on Streams 152 5.3 Water Quality Perception 153 5.4 Land Use 157 5.5 Groundwater Management 160 5.6 Well & septic maintenance 163 5.7 Risk perception 164 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 166 REFERENCES 170 vi APPENDIX A QUALITY CONTROL 180 APPENDIX B WELL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 213 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 226 APPENDIX D LAND USE DATA 233 APPENDIX E SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM ENUMERATION 235 APPENDIX F GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 237 APPENDIX G SURFACE WATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 265 APPENDIX H MAPS OF PARAMETER CONCENTRATIONS 276 APPENDIX I BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM 282 vii LIST OF TABLES T A B L E 2-1: CROP APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER A N D M A N U R E IN SOUTH L A N G L E Y F R O M 1991-2001 15 T A B L E 2-2: SURPLUS OF NITROGEN APPLIED TO CROPS IN SOUTH L A N G L E Y IN 1991, 1996 & 2001 15 T A B L E 2-3: S U M M A R Y OF FRASER V A L L E Y W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R RANGES 26 T A B L E 2-4: S U M M A R Y OF FRASER V A L L E Y SURFACE W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R RANGES 29 T A B L E 2-5: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT SURFACE W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R CONCENTRATION M E D I A N A N D RANGES FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K A N D THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER 1973 - 2002 30 T A B L E 3-1: STATIC L E V E L S IN TOWNSHIP OF L A N G L E Y WELLS 7, 9, A N D 10 (BROOKSWOOD) 33 T A B L E 3-2: YSI DISSOLVED O X Y G E N M E T E R SPECIFICATIONS 38 T A B L E 3-3: DETECTION LIMITS FOR W E L L W A T E R M E T A L A N A L Y S I S 41 T A B L E 3-4: DESCRIPTION OF L A N D USE CATEGORIES 45 T A B L E 3-5: SIZE COMPARISON OF THE FIVE W E L L BUFFER ZONES 49 T A B L E 3-6: P R I M A R Y SOIL TYPES OF THE A N D E R S O N C R E E K 51 T A B L E 3-7: DOMINATING SOIL TYPES WITHIN THE C A T C H M E N T A R E A S OF.... 52 T A B L E 3-8: STRENGTH OF S P E A R M A N ' S R A N K STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS 55 T A B L E 4-1: S U M M A R Y OF P A R A M E T E R GUIDELINES, RANGES A N D 57 T A B L E 4-2: COMPARISON OF SAMPLING EVENTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN P A R A M E T E R CONCENTRATIONS IN BROOKSWOOD WELLS USING THE KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST 58 T A B L E 4-3: SDS E N U M E R A T I O N USING VARIOUS S E A R C H CRITERIA 66 viii T A B L E 4-4: E N U M E R A T I O N OF ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (SDS) WITH WEIGHTED C O M M U N I T Y SDS USING IMPROVEMENT V A L U E S AS A S E A R C H CRITERIA 67 T A B L E 4-5: OPTICAL BRIGHTENER CORRELATION WITH LIVESTOCK L A N D USE WITHIN W E L L BUFFER ZONES IN SEPTEMBER A N D D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 68 T A B L E 4-6: OPTICAL BRIGHTENER CORRELATION WITH RESIDENTIAL L A N D USE WITHIN W E L L BUFFER ZONES IN SEPTEMBER A N D D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 69 T A B L E 4-7: COMPARISON OF BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER W E L L NITRATE CONCENTRATION STUDIES 70 T A B L E 4-8: S U M M A R Y OF HISTORICAL BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER W E L L CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS 72 T A B L E 4-9: COMPARISON OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN THREE W E L L DEPTH CATEGORIES 73 T A B L E 4-10: CORRELATION OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS TO W E L L DEPTH 74 T A B L E 4-11: CORRELATION OF E L E C T R I C A L C O N D U C T A N C E V A L U E S WITH M E T A L CONCENTRATION IN BROOKSWOOD WELLS 76 T A B L E 4-12: S U M M A R Y STATISTICS FOR M E T A L S IN PARTICIPATING BROOKSWOOD W E L L S 77 T A B L E 4-13: NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN E A C H OF THREE W E L L DEPTH CATEGORIES WERE C O M P A R E D FOR STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES IN D A T A DISTRIBUTION 84 T A B L E 4-14: COMPARISON OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE TO THREE W E L L DEPTH CATEGORIES 86 T A B L E 4-15: CORRELATION OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATIONS TO W E L L DEPTH 87 T A B L E 4-16: CORRELATION OF W E L L DEPTH TO M E T A L CONCENTRATION IN BROOKSWOOD WELLS C O M P A R E D TO A L L 90 WELLS S A M P L E D WITHIN THE STUDY A R E A 87 ix T A B L E 4-17: CORRELATION OF NITRATE L E V E L TO RESIDENTIAL L A N D USE IN W E L L BUFFER ZONES 90 T A B L E 4-18: CORRELATION OF NITRATE L E V E L TO U N C U L T U R E D VEGETATION IN W E L L BUFFER ZONES 92 T A B L E 4-19: CORRELATION OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE, TOTAL PHOSPHATE, POTASSIUM A N D SODIUM WITHIN BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER W E L L S TO LIVESTOCK L A N D USE IN F E B R U A R Y 2004 93 T A B L E 4-20: CORRELATION OF NITRATE L E V E L TO A L L LIVESTOCK IN W E L L BUFFER ZONES 94 T A B L E 4-21: CORRELATION OF NITRATE CONCENTRATION IN BROOKSWOOD WELLS TO SURROUNDING GREENHOUSE L A N D USE ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING OUTLIERS) 96 T A B L E 4-22: CORRELATION OF NITRATE CONCENTRATION IN BROOKSWOOD WELLS TO SURROUNDING GREENHOUSE L A N D - U S E ACTIVITIES WITH OUTLIERS #73 & #102 R E M O V E D 97 T A B L E 4-23: STRENGTH OF CORRELATIONS B E T W E E N NITRATE A N D 5 L A N D USE ACTIVITIES WITHIN 500 M A N D 200 M C I R C U L A R A N D 500 M A N D 200 M FAN-SHAPED BUFFER ZONES 98 T A B L E 4-24: CORRELATION OF NITRATE TO N U M B E R OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (WEIGHTED FOR C O M M U N I T Y SDS) 100 T A B L E 4-25: STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THREE SAMPLING EVENTS 100 T A B L E 4-26: NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR SDS DENSITY CATEGORIES WITHIN 500 M FAN-SHAPED BUFFER ZONES 102 T A B L E 4-27: A N A L Y S I S TO DETERMINE STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES B E T W E E N SEWAGE DISPOSAL S Y S T E M DENSITY CATEGORIES WITHIN 500 M F A N -SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONES 102 T A B L E 4-28: CONVERSION OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL S Y S T E M DENSITIES WITHIN 500 M FAN-SHAPED BUFFER ZONES 103 T A B L E 4-29: S U M M A R Y OF P A R A M E T E R GUIDELINES, RANGES A N D 105 T A B L E 4-30: PRECIPITATION PRIOR TO S T R E A M SAMPLING EVENTS 106 x T A B L E 4-31: S U M M A R Y STATISTICS FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER IN THE D R Y SEASON 107 T A B L E 4-32: S U M M A R Y STATISTICS FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER IN THE WET SEASON 107 T A B L E 4-33: S U M M A R Y STATISTICS FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K IN THE D R Y SEASON 127 T A B L E 4-34: S U M M A R Y STATISTICS FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K IN THE WET SEASON ! 128 T A B L E 4-35: COMPARISON OF A N D E R S O N C R E E K A N D LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER PERCENTAGE L A N D USE WITHIN SAMPLING SITE C A T C H M E N T A R E A S TO SIX W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S 144 T A B L E 4-36: NUTRIENT APPLICATION TO CROPS B Y F A R M SIZE IN SOUTH L A N G L E Y IN 2001 146 T A B L E 4-37: COMPARISON OF LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER (LCR) A N D A N D E R S O N C R E E K (AC) CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS WITH PERCENTAGE OF P A V E D SURFACES WITHIN SAMPLING SITE C A T C H M E N T A R E A S DURING THE D R Y A N D WET SEASONS 147 T A B L E 4-38: COMPARISON OF S T R E A M A N D W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITHIN LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER SAMPLING SITE C A T C H M E N T A R E A S USING S P E A R M A N ' S R A N K CORRELATIONS 149 T A B L E 4-39: COMPARISON OF S T R E A M A N D W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITHIN A N D E R S O N C R E E K SAMPLING SITE C A T C H M E N T A R E A S USING S P E A R M A N ' S R A N K CORRELATIONS 150 T A B L E 5-1: W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R A N A L Y S E S ON W E L L S A N D S T R E A M W A T E R SAMPLES 158 T A B L E 5-2: PERCEPTION OF RISK A N D CONTROL O V E R E N V I R O N M E N T A L EVENTS 164 T A B L E A - l : METHOD DETECTION L E V E L A N D STANDARD DEVIATION OF M E T A L A N A L Y S E S IN WELLS 185 x i T A B L E A-2: M E T A L A N A L Y S E S RESULTS A N D E X C E E D A N C E S IN 90 S A M P L E D WELLS 211 T A B L E B - l : BROOKSWOOD W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S 213 T A B L E B-2: W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR WELLS L O C A T E D IN OTHER AQUIFERS 219 T A B L E B-3: COLIFORM A N A L Y S I S RESULTS FOR PARTICIPATING W E L L S IN 2003 222 T A B L E B-4: FLUOROMETER READINGS EXPRESSED AS PARTS-PER-MILLION WISK TO DETECT OPTICAL BRIGHTENERS IN W E L L W A T E R IN SEPTEMBER A N D D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 223 T A B L E C - l : B.C. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT SAMPLING RESULTS FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K A T COLEBROOK R O A D DURING THE WET SEASON 1973 - 2002 226 T A B L E C-2: B.C. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT SAMPLING RESULTS FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K A T C O L E B R O O K R O A D DURING THE D R Y SEASON 1973 - 2002 226 T A B L E C-3: B.C. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT SAMPLING RESULTS FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER A T 216™ STREET DURING THE WET SEASON 1973 - 2002 227 T A B L E C-4: B.C. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT SAMPLING RESULTS FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER A T 216™ STREET DURING THE D R Y SEASON 1973 - 2002 227 T A B L E C-5: SURFACE W A T E R SAMPLING RESULTS FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K A N D THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER F R O M AUGUST 2003 TO M A R C H 2004 228 T A B L E C-6: FLUOROMETER READINGS EXPRESSED AS PARTS-PER-MILLION WISK TO DETECT OPTICAL BRIGHTENERS IN S T R E A M W A T E R IN SEPTEMBER A N D D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 232 T A B L E D - l : L A N D USE CATEGORIES 233 T A B L E D-2: A N I M A L E Q U I V A L E N T UNITS FOR SOUTH L A N G L E Y IN 2001 234 xii T A B L E E - l : N U M B E R OF SINGLE F A M I L Y (OR EQUIVALENT) ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PER 500 M FAN-SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONE 235 T A B L E F - l : ONE-SAMPLE KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST FOR N O R M A L DISTRIBUTION OF W E L L D A T A IN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 237 T A B L E F-2: CORRELATIONS B E T W E E N FIVE W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S 238 T A B L E F-3: CORRELATION OF M E T A L S TO FIVE W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S IN PARTICIPATING BROOKSWOOD WELLS 241 T A B L E F-4: M E T A L CORRELATIONS TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 500 M CIRCULAR W E L L BUFFER ZONE 243 T A B L E F-5: M E T A L CORRELATIONS TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 200 M C I R C U L A R W E L L BUFFER ZONE 245 T A B L E F-6: M E T A L CORRELATIONS TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 100 M C I R C U L A R W E L L BUFFER ZONE 247 T A B L E F-7: M E T A L CORRELATIONS TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 500 M FAN-SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONE 248 T A B L E F-8: M E T A L CORRELATIONS TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 200 M FAN-SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONE 251 T A B L E F-9: CORRELATION OF DEPTH A N D FOUR W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 500 M C I R C U L A R BUFFER ZONE 252 T A B L E F-10: CORRELATIONS OF FOUR W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 200 M C I R C U L A R BUFFER ZONE 254 T A B L E F - l 1: CORRELATION OF FOUR W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S TO FIVE L A N D U S E CATEGORIES WITHIN A 100 M C I R C U L A R BUFFER ZONE 256 T A B L E F-12: CORRELATION OF FOUR W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 200 M E T R E FAN-SHAPED BUFFER ZONE 257 xiii T A B L E F-13: CORRELATION OF FIVE W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S A N D FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 500 M E T R E FAN-SHAPED BUFFER ZONE 259 T A B L E F-14: FLUOROMETER READINGS EXPRESSED AS PARTS-PER-MILLION WISK TO DETECT OPTICAL BRIGHTENER CONCENTRATION CORRELATION WITH M E T A L S (N=60) IN F E B R U A R Y 2004 260 T A B L E F-15: FLUOROMETER READING CORRELATION TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 500 M RADIUS W E L L BUFFER ZONE IN SEPTEMBER & D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 261 T A B L E F-16: FLUOROMETER READING CORRELATION TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 200 M RADIUS W E L L BUFFER ZONE IN SEPTEMBER & D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 262 T A B L E F-17: FLUOROMETER READING CORRELATION TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 100 M RADIUS W E L L BUFFER ZONE IN SEPTEMBER & D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 262 T A B L E F-18: FLUOROMETER READING CORRELATION TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 200 M FAN-SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONE IN SEPTEMBER & D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 263 T A B L E F-19: FLUOROMETER READING CORRELATION TO FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN A 500 M FAN-SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONE IN SEPTEMBER & D E C E M B E R 2003 A N D F E B R U A R Y 2004 263 T A B L E F-20: COMPARISON OF BROOKSWOOD W E L L CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS TO HISTORICAL SAMPLING RESULTS USING KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV STATISTICAL A N A L Y S I S 264 T A B L E F-21: CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION CORRELATION TO P E R C E N T A G E OF IMPERVIOUS (PAVED) SURFACES WITHIN FIVE W E L L BUFFER ZONES.. . . 264 T A B L E G - l : ONE-SAMPLE KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST FOR N O R M A L DISTRIBUTION OF S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y D A T A IN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 265 xiv T A B L E G-2: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K DURING THE D R Y SEASON 267 T A B L E G-3: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K DURING THE D R Y SEASON 267 T A B L E G-4CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K DURING THE WET SEASON 268 T A B L E G-5: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K DURING THE WET SEASON 269 T A B L E G-6: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER DURING THE D R Y SEASON 270 T A B L E G-7: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER DURING THE D R Y SEASON 271 T A B L E G-8: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER DURING THE WET SEASON 271 T A B L E G-9: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER DURING THE WET SEASON 272 T A B L E G-10: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER TRIBUTARIES DURING THE D R Y SEASON 273 T A B L E G - l 1: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER TRIBUTARIES DURING THE D R Y SEASON , 273 T A B L E G-12: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S WITH FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER TRIBUTARIES DURING THE WET SEASON 274 xv T A B L E G-13: CORRELATION OF SIX S T R E A M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S FOR THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER TRIBUTARIES DURING THE WET SEASON 275 xvi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2-1: LOCATION OF THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER WITHIN THE FRASER V A L L E Y 5 FIGURE 2-2: WATERSHEDS IN THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE LOWER FRASER V A L L E Y 6 FIGURE 2-3: C H E M I C A L STRUCTURE OF DISSOLVED DSBP (SODIUM REMOVED) 8 FIGURE 2-4: C H E M I C A L STRUCTURE OF DAS 1 8 FIGURE 2-5: E - Z ISOMERIZATION OF STILBENE (POIGER, 1994) 10 FIGURE 3-1: BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER DELINEATION WITHIN THE STUDY A R E A 32 FIGURE 3-2: M O N T H L Y A V E R A G E R A I N F A L L D A T A AUGUST 2003 TO M A R C H 2004 33 FIGURE 3-3: LOCATION OF PARTICIPATING WELLS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA34 FIGURE 3-4: SURFACE W A T E R SAMPLING SITES FOR A N D E R S O N 36 FIGURE 3-5: M A P OF FIVE L A N D USE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 44 FIGURE 3-6: 100M, 200M A N D 500M RADII W E L L BUFFER ZONES 46 FIGURE 3-7: FAN-SHAPED BUFFER ZONES FOR PARTICIPATING WELLS 48 FIGURE 3-8: C A T C H M E N T A R E A S FOR SAMPLING SITES ON A N D E R S O N CREEK, THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER A N D TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 50 FIGURE 3-9: W A G E COMPARISON FOR OFFICE A N D HOSPITAL NURSES 56 FIGURE 4-1: BOXPLOT OF W E L L NITRATE CONCENTRATION D A T A OUTLIERS 60 FIGURE 4-2: CHLORIDE BOXPLOT WITH OUTLIERS 62 FIGURE 4-3: E L E C T R I C A L C O N D U C T A N C E BOXPLOT WITH OUTLIERS FOR BROOKSWOOD WELLS 65 xvii FIGURE 4-4: CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION BOXPLOT FOR THREE W E L L DEPTH CATEGORIES 73 FIGURE 4-5: SEASONAL E L E C T R I C A L C O N D U C T A N C E BOXPLOT OF BROOKSWOOD GROUNDWATER WITHOUT OUTLIERS 75 FIGURE 4-6 76 FIGURE 4-7: RELATIONSHIP OF W E L L DEPTH TO NITRATE CONCENTRATION IN BROOKSWOOD W E L L S 83 FIGURE 4-8: NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S H A L L O W (< 10 M), M E D I U M (10 - 20 M), A N D DEEP (> 20 M) WELLS WITHIN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 84 FIGURE 4-9: ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATIONS A T THREE W E L L DEPTHS 86 FIGURE 4-10: FIVE L A N D USE CATEGORIES WITHIN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 89 FIGURE 4-11: BOXPLOT OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL S Y S T E M DENSITY GROUPS RELATIONSHIP TO W E L L NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS WITHIN 500 M F A N -SHAPED BUFFER ZONES 101 FIGURE 4-12: COMPARISON OF M E D I A N NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS A N D M E D I A N N U M B E R OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (SDS) WITHIN DENSITY GROUPINGS OF 1-10, 10-25, A N D 25-40 SDS WITHIN 500 M FAN-SHAPED W E L L BUFFER ZONES 104 FIGURE 4-13: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE D R Y SEASON 108 FIGURE 4-14: NITRATE CONCENTRATION BOXPLOT OF THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER DURING THE WET SEASON (OCT 2003 - M A R 2004, N = 5) 109 FIGURE 4-15: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER M E D I A N NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS DURING WET SEASON 110 FIGURE 4-16: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATIONS DURING THE D R Y SEASON (AUGUST A N D SEPTEMBER 2003) 112 FIGURE 4-17: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATIONS DURING THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 2003 TO M A R C H 2004) 113 FIGURE 4-18: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS DURING THE WET SEASON 115 xviii FIGURE 4-19: TEMPERATURES FOR LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER SAMPLING SITES IN THE D R Y SEASON 117 FIGURE 4-20: TEMPERATURES FOR LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER SAMPLING SITES IN THE WET SEASON 118 FIGURE 4-21: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER % DISSOLVED O X Y G E N SATURATION IN THE D R Y SEASON 120 FIGURE 4-22: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER % DISSOLVED O X Y G E N SATURATION IN THE WET SEASON 121 FIGURE 4-23: PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLING SITES ON THE LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER EXCEEDING DISSOLVED O X Y G E N FRESH W A T E R Q U A L I T Y CRITERIA FOR AQUATIC LIFE (AUG 2003 - M A R 2004) 122 FIGURE 4-24: NITRATE BOXPLOT FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K IN THE WET SEASON 129 FIGURE 4-25: A N D E R S O N C R E E K M E D I A N ORTHOPHOSPHATE DURING THE WET SEASON 131 FIGURE 4-26: A N D E R S O N C R E E K CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS DURING THE WET SEASON 133 FIGURE 4-27: TEMPERATURES FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K SAMPLING SITES IN THE D R Y SEASON (AUGUST A N D SEPTEMBER 2003) 135 FIGURE 4-28: TEMPERATURES FOR A N D E R S O N C R E E K SAMPLING SITES IN THE WET SEASON 137 FIGURE 4-29: A N D E R S O N C R E E K DISSOLVED O X Y G E N % SATURATION IN THE D R Y SEASON (AUGUST A N D SEPTEMBER 2003) 138 FIGURE 4-30: A N D E R S O N C R E E K DISSOLVED O X Y G E N % SATURATION IN THE WET SEASON 139 FIGURE 4-31: P E R C E N T A G E OF SAMPLING SITES ON A N D E R S O N C R E E K EXCEEDING DISSOLVED O X Y G E N FRESH W A T E R Q U A L I T Y CRITERIA FOR AQUATIC LIFE (AUG 2003 - M A R 2004) 140 FIGURE 4-32: LITTLE C A M P B E L L RIVER A N D A N D E R S O N C R E E K RELATIONSHIP TO H O B B Y F A R M S , RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES A N D A G R I C U L T U R A L L A N D USE IN THE BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER 145 xix FIGURE 5-1: ANSWERS TO G E N E R A L QUESTIONS ON F A R M ACTIVITIES A N D USE OF W E L L W A T E R 150 FIGURE 5-2: APPROPRIATENESS OF INCREASING G R O U N D W A T E R USE 151 FIGURE 5-3: RATING OF GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STREAMS 152 FIGURE 5-4: PERCEPTION OF W A T E R Q U A L I T Y B Y W E L L OWNERS 154 FIGURE 5-5: A C T U A L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y FOR WELLS R A T E D B Y OWNERS AS H A V I N G M O D E R A T E TO POOR W E L L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y 155 FIGURE 5-6: A C T U A L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y FOR WELLS RATED B Y OWNERS AS H A V I N G E X C E L L E N T - G O O D W A T E R Q U A L I T Y 156 FIGURE 5-7: L A N D USE ACTIVITIES WITHIN 100 M OF PARTICIPATING WELLS 158 FIGURE 5-8: W E L L OWNER RATING OF ACTIVITIES A T RISK OF AQUIFER CONTAMINATION 159 FIGURE 5-9: R A T E D IMPORTANCE OF GROUNDWATER M A N A G E M E N T STRATEGIES 161 FIGURE 5-10: F R E Q U E N C Y OF SEPTIC S Y S T E M SERVICING B Y W E L L OWNERS 163 FIGURE 5-11: F R E Q U E N C Y OF W E L L MONITORING B Y OWNERS 164 FIGURE A - l : FLUOROMETER READINGS FOR THREE L A U N D R Y DETERGENT STANDARDS 180 FIGURE A-2: WISK STANDARD C U R V E FOR FLUOROMETER EMITTANCE UNITS A T 400-500 N M 181 FIGURE A-3: PERCENT R E C O V E R Y OF NITRATE L A B O R A T O R Y FORTIFIED B L A N K S A N D M A T R I C E S (MATRIX SPIKES) SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 183 FIGURE H - l : M A P OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S A M P L E D WELLS IN SEPTEMBER 2003 276 FIGURE H-2: M A P OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S A M P L E D WELLS IN D E C E M B E R 2003 277 FIGURE H-3: M A P OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S A M P L E D WELLS IN F E B R U A R Y 2004 278 xx FIGURE H-4: M A P OF NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S A M P L E D WELLS IN SEPTEMBER 2003 279 FIGURE H-5: M A P OF NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S A M P L E D WELLS IN D E C E M B E R 2003 280 FIGURE H-6: M A P OF NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR S A M P L E D WELLS IN F E B R U A R Y 2004 281 xxi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank Ken Hall for his hard work and expert guidance with my thesis work. Ken has an excellent reputation in the environmental field. When I began this Environmental Engineering program, researchers, environmentalists, regulators and educators recommended I approach Ken Hall to be my thesis advisor. I have yet to see them so agreeable on any other subject. It was a great honour to have the opportunity to work with Ken on this thesis project. The Greater Vancouver Regional District made this project possible by provided funding under its Liquid Waste Management Plan commitments. Much appreciation goes to Paula Parkinson, a very talented chemist with U B C Environmental Engineering Laboratory in the Civi l Engineering Department. Paula carried out most of the sample analysis required for this project. Thank you to Susan Harper , the Env. Eng. Laboratory Head, without whom I would never find equipment or PSEs necessary to carry out my project. J.R. Laboratories for their assistance in carrying out the total and fecal coliform analyses at a greatly reduced cost for this research project. A very big 'thank you' goes to my husband, Gordon Goble who accompanied me on many sampling events and helped deliver information to well owner volunteers. Gord picked up the household chore deficit created by my hectic thesis schedule. Without his hard work and support this thesis could not have been completed. M y son, Christopher John Slater worked many sampling days with short notice to ensure samples were collected and preserved in a timely manner. His hard work collecting well and stream samples is much appreciated. Many thanks to the Kwantlen Environmental Protection Technology program students who assisted with the land survey and March 2004 stream sampling event. Special thanks to: Johanna, Kathleen, Kathy, Kevin, Hanna, Kari-Lynn, Maria, Val, Dave, Tammy, Michelle, Jenny, Cecile, Ying, Laura, and Jason. Last but definitely not least appreciated is Shendra Brisdon, my friend and confidant, who donated her time on several occasions to collect well samples and deliver information to volunteer well owners. Thank you Shendra!! xxi 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1.1 Background Water is our most precious resource. A l l life forms require water and most can live far longer without a food source than without water. Streams and rivers are surface waters that support life in many forms: wildlife, aquatic life, domestic animals and people. Private and municipal wells tap into groundwater to supply drinking water to 23% of British Columbians. Rapid development in the Fraser Valley has increased the risk of non-point source contamination to ground and surface waters. Historically we have not been always proactive in protecting our water supplies here in British Columbia. Actions to protect ground and surface waters are usually in reaction to an identified contaminant source within a watershed or an increase in contaminant concentration. New additions to the BC Water Act and implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Regulations address protection of wells and distribution systems but does little to protect groundwater from common sources of contamination. Sewage disposal systems and agricultural practices are the most common sources of groundwater contamination. However the new B.C. Sewerage System Regulation (2004) no longer requires sewage disposal system installations (under 22,700 litres) to be inspected or have environmental / public health risks assessed by a government agency. In addition, Ministry of Environment staffing cuts have resulted in a decrease in environmental monitoring of agricultural practices, a proactive and reactive program to protect ground and surface waters. The B.C. Ministry of Environment has classified five aquifers in the lower mainland, including the Brookswood aquifer as "heavily used and vulnerable to contamination". Kreye and Wei (1994) ranked 73 aquifers in the Fraser Valley using seven risk-based criteria. They ranked the Brookswood aquifer as third highest priority for watershed protection. Thus the impact of agricultural practices and increasing sewage disposal densities over this unconfined aquifer is of great interest. 1 One of the most common measures of surface and ground water quality is nitrate concentration. Nitrate can travel long distances over extended periods of time in the environment and is therefore a very good tracer of contamination. Nitrate is an excellent indicator of both agricultural and urban sources of contamination to ground and surface waters. Therefore nitrate concentrations in ground and surface waters were used as the primary indicator of land use impacts in this study. Other potential contaminant indicators / tracers used in this study for environmental monitoring and assessment are: optical brighteners chloride, orthophosphate, electrical conductance, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen, trace metals, and bacteria. 1.2 Study Goals and Objectives This project was developed to assist the Greater Vancouver Regional District in meeting its Liquid Waste Management Plan commitments C-43 to C-46 (GVRD, 2001). These commitments involve proactive water protection actions such as water quality monitoring and on-site sewage disposal system performance evaluation and mapping. The objective of this project was to determine i f on-site sewage disposal systems are contributing to degradation of water quality in the Brookswood aquifer, Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River through the use of environmental monitoring and assessment methods that can be used as a template for similar investigations within other unconfined aquifers. This is a case study to provide an integrated mapping and monitoring protocol to assess nitrate contamination levels in unconfined aquifers and make recommendations for projected on-site system densities. 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Environmental monitoring parameters for tracking anthropogenic impacts to ground and surface waters are discussed in this section. This study uses several water quality parameters to assess potential impacts from on-site sewage disposal systems including nitrate, orthophosphate, chloride, 22 trace elements, dissolved oxygen and electrical conductance. However the primary focus is on nitrate due to its highly mobile nature in groundwater and well-established association with both agricultural and urban sources of contamination. 2.1 Water Protection Legislation New drinking water and groundwater protection legislation in the province of British Columbia concentrates on well construction but does not address other potential contaminant conduits to groundwater. Under these new regulations, well purveyors are legislated to protect water supplies at the source and throughout the distribution system. Unfortunately, these legislative tools are non-specific to ground and surface water protection. Thus control of contaminant sources outside the water purveyors' jurisdiction relies on other legislative tools. The Agricultural Waste Control Regulation under the B.C. Environmental Management Act provides tools to protect ground and surface waters from contamination by agricultural wastes. However the B.C. Ministry of Environment has suffered cuts to staff responsible for investigating agricultural practices and enforcing ground and surface water protection measures. Proactive monitoring and surveying of potential contaminate sources of ground and surface waters has, in turn, decreased. Sewage disposal systems (SDS) are a common source of groundwater contamination. In the past health authorities have approved small (< 22,700 litres) on-site SDS design and installations. Environmental health officers would review plans and inspect soils, groundwater tables, and installations of SDS to protect environmental and public health. 3 However the 2004 sewage disposal regulations have reduced the role of health authorities to record keeping with respect to new sewage disposal systems under 22,700 litres. Although health inspectors are still authorized to investigate complaints of sewage disposal system failures they no longer have the legislative support to oversee the planning and installation of new SDS. The Ministry of Health was happy to eliminate inspections of new sewage disposal systems since much time and effort was required by Environmental Health staff to ensure compliance with accepted SDS standards. Fortunately, the majority of contractors and engineering firms consistently proposed and installed SDS with consideration for the environment. However the few irresponsible contractors and firms who frequently proposed systems likely to contaminate ground and surface waters required extensive "hand holding" by Health Authorities. In many of these cases less costly systems were proposed in areas of high groundwater, clay soils, bedrock or susceptible environments (e.g. unconfined aquifers, recreational and / or shellfish growing waters). Such systems could easily release sewage on the ground surface and /or contaminate ground and surface waters. The Ministry of Health welcomed the 2004 sewage disposal regulations as a way of reducing Health Authority staff and preventing "hand holding" of industry. The small portion of this industry that required "hand holding" was elated by this legislation. Some industry members had worked closely with Health Ministry staff on the 2004 SDS regulation development and strongly supported this deregulation of new SDS installations. A large portion of responsible contractors and engineering firms are now concerned with unchecked competition from unscrupulous members of their industry. Under this legislation there are no incentives for a previously unscrupulous contractor or engineer to mend their ways. Hence the reasoning behind the belief that the 2004 SDS regulation is making industry more accountable is fundamentally flawed. 4 2.2 Study Area The Brookswood aquifer, located in South Langley, B.C., is largely unconfined and considered highly susceptible to contaminants due to its excellent storage capacity and high infiltration/percolation rates. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of the Brookswood aquifer within the Fraser Valley in southwestern British Columbia. Scale =1:1,600,000 This aquifer provides a continuous supply of cool water to the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek during periods of low flow. The Little Campbell River is an important spawning habitat for salmonids and thus sensitive to flow variations and nutrient loading. This aquifer is recharged mainly by precipitation supplemented by infiltration from Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River. (Piteau Associates 1995). Figure 2-2 illustrates the location of the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek watersheds within the south portion of the Lower Fraser Valley. 5 2.3 Dissolved Oxygen There are two criteria for oxygen concentrations based on the current life cycle stage of fish living in the surface waters. The recommended minimum concentration for dissolved oxygen has been set at 5 mg/L for the protection of aquatic life. This criteria has been set for all aquatic life except buried embryo/alevin life stages for which more restrictive criteria has been set. For the buried embryo/alevin life stages the criteria for dissolved oxygen concentrations is a minimum of 9 mg/L O2. The criteria of 9 mg/L is intended for application to in-stream concentrations from the time of spawning to the point of yolk sac absorption or 30 days post-hatch for fish (MWLAP, 1998). 6 Dissolved oxygen is a good indicator of stream health and suitable fish habitat. If oxygen concentrations are too low there will be no fish presence but it is certainly not the only indicator of stream health. Fish also need the appropriate physical habitat to be able to feed, reproduce and escape predators to properly survive in their aquatic environment. 2.4 Optical Brighteners Optical brighteners are also called fluorescent whitening agents (FWAs). They have been used for many years in laundry products such as soaps and detergents to give white clothing that "whiter than white" look and coloured clothing a brighter appearance. Optical brighteners create this look by absorbing light in the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the spectrum (300 - 400 nm), and emitting light in the blue portion of the visible spectrum (400 - 500 nm) (SDA, 2002). Since they emit blue light, adding an OB to a material that has a slight yellowish cast can impart a much whiter appearance to the material. The brightness is also increased since non-visible U V light is being absorbed and re-emitted as visible light. This fluorescence is also why white clothing will glow a violet-blue colour under a black light. Fluorescent whitening agents are easy to detect under a U V light when they are in concentrated forms. However it is best to use a fluorometer for environmental samples because the FWAs may not be concentrated enough to be detected by U V (Frauchiger, 2003). Two of the most used FWAs in laundry detergents are DAS 1, a diaminostilbene (Figure 2-4), and DSBP, distyrylbiphenyl (Figure 2-3). The average mass in laundry detergents is 0.1% of the total detergent (Stoll and Giger 1998). Both DAS 1 and DSBP absorb UV-light at 350 nm with a molar extinction coefficient of 60,000-70,000 M - l cm-1 (Kramer et al. 1996) and emit a blue visible light at a maximum wavelength of 430 nm. 1) Tinopal CBS (DSBP) 4,4'-di(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl disodium salt (excitation at 360 nm and emission at 430 nm) 7 Figure 2-3: Chemical structure of dissolved DSBP (sodium removed) 2) Tinopal A M S - G X (DAS 1) 4,4 ,-Bis[(4-anilino-6-morpholino-l, 3, 5-triazin-2yl) amino]stilbene-2,2'-disulfonate (excitation at 362 nm and emission at 440 nm) Figure 2-4: Chemical structure of DAS 1 Several studies have shown that fluorescent whitening agents (FWAs) are not easily biodegradable. Guglielmetti (1975) found FWAs in activated sludge were slowly biodegraded after an adaptation period of 10 -15 days. Adsorption to sludge is the most important method of removal in sewage treatment plants. Poiger (1994) noted FWAs removed during wastewater treatment were quantitatively recovered in anaerobically digested sewage sludge. Poiger et al (1996) noted average sewage treatment plant removal rates of 50% for DSBP (distyrylbiphenyl) F W A and 90% for DAS 1 (diaminostilbene) FWA. Zinkernagel (1980) describes an experiment by Esser et al in which 97.3% of the FWAs in 40 ml detergent solution was retained by a 50 cm column of soil (200 ml of soil in the column). However a description of the types of F W A or soil(s) used in the experiment was not given 8 DSBP is degraded faster photochemically (Kramer et al. 1996) while DAS 1 sorbs more strongly to particulate matter (Stoll 1997). Information on removal in on-site septic tanks, soils and/or groundwater is very limited. Stilbene-based FWAs are light sensitive especially in dilute solutions. Exposure to sunlight causes reversible E-Z isomerization of the stilbene portion of DAS 1 (diaminostilbene) FWAs (Figure 2-5). Those F W A with one stilbene component occur in two isomeric forms, (E) and (Z). Those FWAs with two stilbene components occur in 3 isomeric forms, (EE), (EZ), and (ZZ). FWAs are produced and added to laundry detergents in there fluorescent (E) or (EE) isomeric forms. Fluorescence is lost when conversion to (Z), (EZ) and (ZZ) isomers occurs during exposure to sunlight (photoisomerization) (Poiger et al. 1993). Photoisomerization is a reversible process and the photostationary state depends on the spectrum of the irradiated light, F W A concentration (except for dilute solutions) and individual FWAs. If a dilute solution is irradiated sufficient time to reach the photostationary state the resulting (E)/(Z) ratios will vary for individual F W A and are independent of the original isomeric concentration (Poiger et al. 1993). The high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method of analysis captures all photoisomers thereby measuring total FWAs (Poiger et al. 1996). Isomerization half lives are in the range of a few minutes while photochemical degradation half life is several hours and the half life due to biodegradation is several days (Dojlido, 1979). Sunlight potentially influences the fate of FWAs by transforming FWAs into isomeric forms with less affinity to for suspended solids (Poiger et al, 1996). 9 jure 2-5: E - Z isomerization of stilbene (Poiger, 1994' H H / = = \ H :*==^ ) \ \ (E) - Stilbene (Z)- Stilbene FWAs in their (E) form absorb U V light with an absorbance maximum in the range of 340-360 nm with a molar extinction coefficient of over 50, 000 M-lcm-1. The absorbed light is partly re-emitted as blue fluorescence with a maximum at wavelength 430 nm. Detergents contain DAS FWAs in (E) or (EE) isomeric forms since these are the fluorescent isomeric forms. The following information was supplied by Ciba Specialty Chemicals (Wilzer, personal communication, 2004): The selection of optical brightener for laundry detergents is based on the ingredients in the laundry product, the type of fabrics it will be used on and the laundry conditions. For ultra powder detergents with or without color-safe bleach, typically TINOPAL CBS or TINOPAL A M S will be used in the detergent. For ultra liquid laundry detergents without bleach, TINOPAL UNPA, TINOPAL CBS or TINOPAL 5 B M may be used. For liquid laundry detergents containing bleach such as hydrogen peroxide, TINOPAL CBS is used because it will be stable in the bleach system. The level of F W A in a detergent depends upon the performance requirement for whiteness delivery, and the type of detergent. For compact liquid laundry detergents, the level of F W A 10 may range from 0.05 - 0.3 wt% and for powder detergents the levels may range from 0.05 -0.5 wt% based on the weight of the finished product (Wilzer, personal communication). 2.5 Nitrate Nitrate is the pollutant most commonly identified in groundwater and contributes to nutrient loading and subsequent water quality degradation (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The average concentration of nitrate in pristine rivers worldwide is 0.1 mg/L as NO3 -N (Meybeck, 1982). The primary concern of nitrate in ground and surface waters is the undetected pollutants that may also be present. Analyzing waters for all harmful chemicals is impossible with many analytical methods being expensive, impractical and /or non-existent. When discussing the nitrate concentrations it would be wise to consider other pollutants that may be present but not detected. Therefore lowering nitrate levels addresses the symptom but not the underlying problem(s). In general nitrate is becoming a widespread concern due to agricultural activities and development of rural areas that utilize sewage disposal systems (Burt et al, 1993). Actions taken to reduce nitrate concentrations in water supplies include: combining or substituting the water source with a low-nitrogen source; or nitrate removal through chemical treatment or storage. These solutions rarely address problems at the source and generally ignore the environmental impacts of ground and surface water contamination. 2.5.1 Sources Nitrate is a naturally occurring ion that is ubiquitous in the environment. Because of the relative stability of the nitrate ion in groundwater, most nitrogenous materials in aerobic environmental media tend to be converted to nitrates. Sources of nitrogen in groundwater include decaying plant or animal material, agricultural fertilizers, manure and domestic sewage. In surface waters, nitrate can be readily assimilated by algae and other aquatic plants. Nitrates may be produced from excess ammonia in drinking water distribution 11 systems that use chloramines as a disinfectant (Health Canada 1996). However there are two primary sources of nitrate in ground and surface waters: on-site sewage disposal systems and agricultural practices. 2.5.1.1 Natural Sources Natural sources of nitrate can exist below the surface of the land such as organic rich soils. In general natural sources of nitrate are considered insignificant contributors to nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Madison and Brunett (1984) examined nitrate data for approximately 124,000 wells throughout the United States. They concluded nitrate concentrations: 1. Less than 0.2 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen are "assumed to represent natural background concentration" 2. Greater than 0.2 and less than 3.0 mg/L nitrate-N "may or may not represent human influence" 3. Greater than 3.0 mg/L "may indicate elevated concentrations resulting from human activities" The Brookswood aquifer is primarily composed of sands and gravels and therefore subsurface organically rich soils are scarce. Brookswood aquifer nitrate concentrations in the category of greater than 0.2 and less than 3.0 mg/L are likely due to anthropogenic influences. 2.5.1.2 Sewage Disposal Systems On-site sewage disposal systems represent the highest total volume of wastewater discharged directly to groundwater and are the most frequently recorded source of contamination of ground and surface waters (US EPA, 1980). Legislation governing the installation of on-site sewage disposal systems in British Columbia encourages high density and compact systems in areas with highly permeable, sand and gravel soils. These soils postpone the failure of hydraulically overloaded septic systems. However sand and gravel soils have a reduced adsorption and purifying capacity due to the large pore spaces and increased permeability. 12 This reduced retention time within sand and gravel soils means pollutants can migrate downward to contaminate the groundwater. While the conventional septic tank / soil-absorption system provides for a reduction in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS), nitrogenous compounds are only nitrified to nitrate. Complete nitrification is typically achieved in seepage fields located in well-drained soils and the mobile nitrate (NO3") is able to move into groundwater zones. A study by Andreoli et al. (1979) demonstrated that more than 20% of the total nitrogen contribution from subsurface disposal systems leached as nitrate-N into groundwater. Fetter (1988) found that septic tanks are most likely to contribute to groundwater contamination when any of the following conditions prevail: 1) High density of homes on septic systems 2) Thin soil layer over bedrock 3) Sand - gravel soils 4) Shallow water table (1 meter or less) It stands to reason that on-site systems located in permeable soils over unconfined aquifers are at risk of contaminating groundwater. Other parameters found in wastewater that could migrate to the groundwater table include: bacteria, viruses, synthetic organics, and metals. The U.S. EPA (1980) states the use of manmade organic chemical additives to prolong the life or improve the function of on-site systems has resulted in organic contamination of groundwater. The design life of a septic system is typically 10 to 15 years so many systems have now exceeded their functional lifespan (Novotny and Olem, 1994) 2.5.1.3 Agricultural Sources A certain amount of nitrogen can be lost or gained from the atmosphere. Schreier et al. (2003) calculated atmospheric losses of nitrogen from agricultural practices in South Langley. In 2001 the input of nitrogen from the atmosphere to cropland in South Langley was 117 tonnes. This was outweighed by the losses to the atmosphere of 319 tonnes. The net atmospheric nitrogen loss in 2001 was 202 tonnes for South Langley croplands. Schreier et 13 al. (2003) calculated atmospheric nitrogen losses for fourteen Fraser Valley areas with an average net atmospheric nitrogen loss of 443 tonnes per area. Although virgin lands rich with vegetation originally contained high amounts of N , on cultivation the natural supply of N is depleted and fertilization may be needed to supplement soil loss of N . Nitrification will occur when ammonium is applied to aerated, microorganism-rich soil such as farmland. Over 90% of the fertilizer used in the United States (US) is in the form of ammonium salts (Novotney and Olem, 1994). Most organic N originating from manure application or from septic tanks can be quickly decomposed to ammonia. In addition, urea is readily hydrolysed to ammonium. In aerated soils the nitrification process in the upper layer of soil is as follows: Organic N -> N H / X T U + , Nitrosomonas . NH4 + O 2 - > N 0 2 X I A - . r\ . Nitrobacter N O 2 + V2 O 2 + - » N O 3 The conversion of N H 4 to N O 2 " is the rate-limiting step (slowest conversion) in the nitrification process so very little nitrite accumulates in soils and sediments (Novotney and Olem, 1994). Hence nitrification in soils is slow and the highly mobile nitrate ions arc quickly leached from these soils and sediments. The rate of nitrification is dependent on many factors including pH, temperature and moisture content. Most of the reactions of the N cycle (with the exception of NLlV" fixation and NH3 volatilization) are microbial, and thus their rates are sensitive to temperature, pH, moisture, and oxygen content. Optimal soil conditions for nitrification have been reported as warm (32°C) and partially moist soils (80% saturated soil voids) by Stewart et al. (1975). While others have reported optimal conditions as pH 8.5, temperature 20°C and saturated soils (percentage saturation not specified) (Heathwaite, 1993; Novotny and Olem 1994). 14 There has been a rapid increase in the quantities of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer used over the last few decades (USGS, 2001; Vinten and Smith, 1993; Burt and Trudgill, 1993; FADINAP, 2001). While fertilizer and manure applied to crops in the South Langley area has decreased from 1991 to 2002 the amount applied per hectare actually increased during this time (Table 2-1). This is the direct result of a decrease in South Langley cropland area. Ta^jle^^^ropayrjpjica^ Fertilizer applied to cropped lands Manure applied to cropped lands Year Tonnes Kg/Ha Tonnes Kg/Ha 1991 361 231 364 257 1996 311 235 309 257 2001 278 312 257 415 Schreier et al. (2000) calculated the surplus nitrogen from fertilizer and manure applied to crops in South Langley from 1991 to 2001. Surplus nitrogen is the amount of nitrogen that would not be used by crops, or lost to denitrification. Surplus nitrogen applied to crops can pose a danger to groundwater (infiltration) and streams (run off). From 1996 to 2001 an overall decrease in the surplus of nitrogen applied to crops was noted. This decrease was solely due to a decrease in nitrogen application by small farms (average size = 6.12 Ha). Nitrogen application by large farms (average size = 17.3 Ha) actually increased from 1996 to 2001 (Table 2-2). Table 2-2: Surplus of nitrogen applied to crops in South Langley in 1991,1996 & 20011 Year Large farms (Kg/Ha) Small farms (Kg/Ha) Total surplus (Kg/Ha) 1991 159 22 (not calculated) 1996 148 21 62 2001 200 -52 79 Mineralization is the process by which organic compounds in the soil break down to release ammonium ions (NH4+) and carbon as CO2. Losses of mineralizable nitrogen from soils are primarily the result of: crop uptake vs. crop residues; soil disturbance by cultivation; and intensified livestock-based agriculture. Kreitler and Jones (1975) determined 80% of nitrate in groundwater below irrigated fields was attributed to native nitrogen leaching from the soil 1. 'Data from Schreier et al. 2003 15 Bergstrom and Brink (1986) found moderate nitrate leaching until fertilizer application exceeded 100 K g N ha"1, then the rate of nitrate leaching increased rapidly. Barrachlough et al. (1983) demonstrated nitrate-nitrogen leaching increased in direct proportion to the application of fertilizer to crops. However Vinten et al. (1992) found that as fertilizer application increased above the calculated optimum rate for crop uptake, losses only slightly increased on both sandy loam and clay soils. In any case, there is strong evidence to stay within the optimum fertilizer application rate for crops in all types of soils i f excess leaching of nitrates to groundwater is to be avoided. The primary agricultural activities that have been implicated as nitrate sources are improper animal waste storage and the application of fertilizer and animal waste to crops. As mentioned in the section below, nitrates can be transported easily within the soil moisture front and in groundwater. Until animal wastes are applied to crops or transported off site it is recommended they be covered and stored on an impermeable surface to prevent leaching of nitrates. 2.5.2 Transport The behaviour and transformation of Nitrogen (N) in soils, sediments of surface waters and substrates of wetlands is complex and the pathways from the soil to surface waters are numerous and not well defined. In soils and sediments, N exists in four basic forms: 1) ammonium, 2) nitrate, 3) organic phytonitrogen in plants and plant residues, and 4) protein nitrogen in bacteria and small soil creatures. The various forms of nitrogen are present in or introduced to soils or added as fertilizer but only the nitrate ion is leached out in appreciable amounts by water passing through the soil profile. This is because nitrates are soluble and there is no significant absorption of nitrate within North American soils (Wild, 1988). Therefore nitrogen delivery to surface and groundwater occurs primarily as nitrate owing to the high solubility of this ion. As a result, it 16 is intimately linked with the hydrological pathways controlling nutrient transport from the land to the stream (Burt et al, 1993). Nitrogen delivery is primarily controlled by: 1) soil structure and type 2) rainfall 3) the amount of nitrate supplied in fertilizers or animal wastes applied to the land 4) plant cover and root activity Since nitrate is very soluble and is in an anionic form, NO3", it is very mobile in groundwater. Many cations form complexes with natural organic matter but anions will not and these complexes will have different solubility and mobility properties. Clays have negative surfaces that readily adsorb cations and provide an active media for cation exchange. Hence anions are generally more mobile in soils than cations. The ability of nitrate to act as a tracer with little to no transformation and retardation makes it a very useful tool in identifying impacts of nitrogen sources to groundwater. Very shallow groundwater in highly permeable sediment commonly contains considerable dissolved O2 and so NO3" is the stable form of dissolved nitrogen. In this hydrogeologic environment NO3" commonly migrates large distances (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). In the presence of oxygen, nitrifiers will oxidize reduced forms of nitrogen to nitrate. They live best in a neutral or slightly alkaline environment; so low pH (acidic) soils could slow down or inhibit the nitrifying process. Denitrification is the reduction of nitrate to nitrite, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, or nitrogen gas (N2 (g)). Denitrification can occur i f there is a decline in the redox potential of groundwater. For example: NO3" -> N 2 O or N 2 . Ideal conditions for this reaction are a redox potential (Eh) of 250 mv at pH 7 and 25°C (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). If groundwater then travels through an unsaturated zone the N 2 and N 2 O products of this reaction may be lost to off-gassing within the soil pores. Bacteria responsible for the denitrification process require a carbon source for respiration and growth, and low dissolved oxygen levels (decline in redox potential) so that nitrate becomes the preferred electron acceptor (Laretei, 1998). The limiting factor for denitrification rates in groundwater is a source of organic material to support the 17 growth of denitrifying bacteria. However a slow rate of denitrification may be significant with respect to the nitrate budget within the aquifer because of the low velocity flows commonly found in groundwater (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Part of the soil or sediment nitrogen is dissolved and can move readily with soil moisture and groundwater. A large portion of soil nitrogen content and almost all of organic N can be immobilized. On the other hand NO3" is always dissolved and mobile. Nitrogen immobilization in soils results from physical-chemical attractions, biochemical reactions, and nitrogen uptake by soil organisms and plants. Since the mobile components (NH4+and NO3") are carried by soil water, downward movement of nitrogen occurs only i f the moisture content is above that for gravitational water. Gravitational water is less than 0.1 bar tension (Pidwirny, 2004). Maximum movement occurs when soil moisture content is near saturation, and decreases rapidly with decreasing moisture content. Thus between rains or irrigation, mobile N movement is slow or nonexistent (Novotny and Olem, 1994). Unlike phosphorus, most of which is adsorbed on soil particles and may be controlled by erosion prevention and soil conservation, NO3" is mobile in soils, and may leach to groundwater and reappear with groundwater discharge in the base flow of streams. Seepage represents the major pathway for nitrogen loss from agricultural and pervious urban areas. Nitrate migration in aquifers can extend to years and even decades. The conversion of organic nitrogen to NH44" (ammonia) is known as ammonification. Nitrification is the process of NH4+ conversion to NO3" by oxidation. It is suspected that nitrate fertilizers instead of the less mobile ammonia caused the heavy contamination of waters in central Europe by nitrates. (Heathwaite et al. 1993). Since most nitrate sources are at the land surface or in the soil column, we expect shallow unconfined aquifers to be more susceptible to contamination. Nitrate contamination of deeper ground water can occur where a hydraulic connection and downward hydraulic gradient exist 18 between shallow and deep aquifers and where sufficient time has elapsed for the contaminants from shallow sources to migrate to deeper zones (Perlmutter and Koch, 1972). Burt and Trugill (1993) describe the following general pattern of nitrogen migration to the groundwater table in a typical unconfined aquifer within a temperate climate zone: Nitrate concentrations in groundwater increase immediately and rapidly with the first infiltration of soil drainage water into the aquifer in the fall season. Both groundwater levels and nitrate concentration rise to a peak in late winter; thereafter both decline through the spring and summer until further recharge takes place. Such marked seasonal fluctuations tend to happen even in aquifers with a generally deep unsaturated zone, indicating that rapid recharge to the saturated zone must take place locally (Burt and Trudgill, 1993). A more rapid progression of Burt and Trugill's observed pattern of nitrate groundwater concentrations would be expected in the rainy south coast of British Columbia. The Brookswood aquifer is shallow and unconfined with precipitation being the primary source of recharge during the wet season (winter). Therefore the initial nitrate concentration increase should occur at the beginning of heavy rainfall events in early fall, followed by a decrease in mid-winter due to dilution. 2.5.3 Health Implications In terms of water quality, denitrification of groundwater is a desirable process. Concentrations of dissolved N2 and N2O are not considered harmful in drinking water while concentrations of NO3" above 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen exceed the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) for nitrates in the "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality" (Health Canada 2003). These guidelines were based on a study by Walton (1951) for the American Public Health Association (APHA). Walton reported on 214 cases of 19 methemoglobinemia in infants in the United States for which nitrate drinking-water levels were known. No cases were observed with drinking-water concentrations < 10 mg/L NO3 -N (nitrate-nitrogen). Nitrate concentrations are expressed as nitrate (NO3) or nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) where 50 mg/L NO3 is equivalent to 11.3 mg/L NO3 -N. This value is based on the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for infantile methaemoglobinaemia of 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen. This M A C does not include a safety factor since the N O A E L applies to the most sensitive subgroup of the population (infants less than 3 months of age) and most infants exhibit no signs of toxicity until the L O A E L (approximately twice the N O A E L ) is reached (Health Canada, 1996). Although the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality for nitrates is based on methaemoglobinaemia, Health Canada (1996) considers it prudent to minimize exposure to people of all ages due to suggestive evidence of an association between gastric cancer and moderate levels of nitrate in drinking water. Therefore this guideline applies to both children and adults. Methaemoglobinaemia is characterized by a reduced ability of the blood to carry oxygen because of reduced levels of normal haemoglobin (Hb). In the body, nitrates are converted to nitrites (e.g. endogenous bacterial conversion of nitrate from drinking water). Nitrites then react with haemoglobin in the red blood cells (oxidizes ferrous iron in Hb to ferric) to form methaemoglobin (MetHb). MetHb cannot bind oxygen so eventually the blood cannot carry enough oxygen to the cells of the body. Methaemoglobinaemia is characterized by cyanosis (blue skin), stupor, and cerebral anoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) (Fan et al., 1987). Infants less than 3 months of age are at most risk for methaemoglobinaemia. This condition is rare in developed countries but when it does occur, it is almost inevitably linked to a drinking water source with high nitrate concentrations. Affected individuals may seem healthy but show signs of blueness around the mouth, hands, and feet, hence the common term for this condition "blue baby syndrome". They may also have vomiting, diarrhoea, and trouble breathing. In extreme cases, there is marked lethargy, an increase in the production of saliva, loss of consciousness and seizures (WHO, 2003). 20 Some cases may be fatal. Two cases of blue baby syndrome in Wisconsin involved well water nitrate concentrations of 22.9 and 27.4 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen (Knobeloch et al., 2000). The World Health Organization (2003) states bottle-fed infants less than three months of age are particularly at risk and older people may also be at risk because of decreased gastric acid secretion. However a recent study (Gupta et al., 2000) of communities with average nitrate concentrations of 6, 10, 21, 49, and 102 mg/L found the communities with higher nitrate concentrations in drinking water were associated with a higher incidence of severe methaemoglobinaemia (7%-27% of Hb) in all age groups, especially in the age group of less than 1 year and above 18 years. Most cases of infant methaemoglobinaemia are associated with exposure to nitrate in drinking water used to prepare infants' formula at levels >20 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen (Bosch et al., 1950; Walton, 1951; Sattelmacher, 1962; Simon et al., 1964; ECETOC, 1988). According to the US EPA methaemoglobinaemia associated with drinking water concentrations of 11-20 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen are usually associated with concomitant exposure to bacteria contaminated water or excess intake of nitrate from other sources. According to a National Academy of Science study (1995), the incidents of Blue Baby Syndrome usually occur when nitrate-nitrogen concentrations exceed 11 ppm and when coliform bacteria contamination is also present in the water. Bosch et al. (1950) evaluated 129 cases of methaemoglobinaemia and associated drinking water data. A l l were 8 days to 5 months old (90% < 2 months) with greater than 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen in their drinking water sources. Two wells (1.5%) had 10- 20 mg/L (methaemoglobinaemia diagnosis questionable); 25 wells (19%) had 21-50 mg/L, 53 (41%) had 51-100 mg/L, and 49 (38%) had >100 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen. Almost all wells were shallow with inadequate wellhead protection. Coliform bacteria were detected in 45 of 51 samples (88%) tested. This is worth noting since the presence of coliform bacteria is not statistically correlated with nitrate contamination in well water and hence makes poor indicators of nitrate (Bickford et al, 1996; Bourne 1991; Entry and Farmer 2001; Goss et al. 1998; Kross et al. 1990; Reid et al. 2002; Rudolf 1998). 21 Comblath and Hartmann (1948) supplied nitrate-containing water to eight healthy infants aged 2 days to 11 months at doses of 11 or 23 mg nitrate-nitrogen/kg/day (equivalent to water source of 70 - 140 mg nitrate- nitrogen/L). No cyanosis was evident and the highest concentration of methemoglobin was 7.5%. These authors also administered doses of 22 mg/kg of nitrate-nitrogen to four healthy infants (2 days to 6 months old) and to two infants (age 6 and 7 weeks) who had been admitted to the hospital for cyanosis. Cyanosis occurred only in the infants with a prior history of cyanosis. Analysis of the saliva, gastric juice and stools of the infants with cyanosis demonstrated the presence of bacteria that readily reduced nitrate to nitrite (gastric pH was >4 in both cases). Given the strong association between the occurrence of methaemoglobinaemia with the presence of both nitrate and bacteria this author is concerned with the potential risk to public health of in situ biological denitrification. Incomplete denitrification near a drinking water source may result in nitrate, nitrite and / or reducing bacteria in the drinking water. The public health safety of these potential nitrate/ bacteria combinations should be studied before in situ biological denitrification is implemented near drinking water sources. In an ecological study Weisenburger (1991) found that counties in Nebraska characterized by high fertilizer usage and significant groundwater contamination by nitrates also had a high incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Of the 25 counties Weisenburger studied, the counties with high commercial fertilizer usage had a significantly higher incidence of N H L . Similarly he found a significantly increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Nebraska counties with 20% or more of wells contaminated by nitrates in excess of 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen. In the same study, pesticide use did not correlate with the occurrence of N H L . Isacson (1988) found a 60% increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in small communities (less than 1000 persons) with nitrate contamination of drinking water in excess of 5 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen. 22 2.5.4 Source Identification Once nitrate contamination has been detected in surface or groundwater, the next step is to find and remediate the source. This may be difficult considering the nitrate ion is ubiquitous and potential sources are usually plentiful. Land use activities must be compared with the ground and surface water flows and nitrate concentration patterns. Distinguishing between agricultural and sewage nitrate sources is becoming a very important tool in areas that have both urban and rural land use activities. Since the nitrate ion is difficult to distinguish from source to source we tend to rely on other constituents present in the water that may have been leached with the nitrate from a common source. In the past few years stable N isotope ratios have been used to help differentiate nitrate sources with some success (Widory et al, 2005). 2.6 Chloride In freshwater, natural background concentrations of chloride are on the order of 1 to 100 mg/L, with maximum observed surficial concentrations in B.C. in the range of 13 to 140 mg/L (Bright and Addison 2002). Natural sources of chloride are usually associated with deep wells set into marine deposits or water originating from hydrothermal sources. Common anthropogenic sources of chloride include urban (septic systems) and agricultural (fertilizer and manure) sources. Agricultural fertilizers may contain high levels of chloride. Potassium chloride (potash) is often used in the production of fertilizers. Another very common anthropological source is the application of road salt. The application of road salt has raised environmental concerns among municipalities that apply road salt to prevent motor vehicle accidents on icy roads. The application of road salt for winter accident prevention represents the single largest use of salt in British Columbia and serves as the primary anthropogenic source of chloride to the environment (MWLAP, 1998). Road salt and fertilizer applications are likely to impact surface water quality due to runoff. After road salt or chloride-containing fertilizer is applied, it dissociates into chloride and 23 usually sodium since sodium chloride is the predominant type of road salt. Chloride ions enter surface water, soil, and ground water after the snow melts. Its impact on the environment depends on temperature, exposure time, and the presence of other contaminants. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality recommends chloride concentrations not exceed 250 mg/L as an aesthetic objective. No national Canadian water quality guideline for chloride has been developed for the protection of freshwater organisms. To protect freshwater aquatic life from acute and lethal effects, the maximum concentration of chloride (mg/L as NaCl) at any time should not exceed 600 mg/L (MWLAP 1998). To protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic effects, the average concentration of chloride (mg/L as NaCl) should not exceed 150 mg/L ( M W L A P 1998). 2.7 Electrical Conductance Almost all of the dissolved constituents in groundwater are present in ionic form. A good estimate of the total dissolved solids can be obtained by measuring the ability of groundwater to carry an electrical current, a property called electrical conductance. Conductance is expressed in terms of the conductance on one side of a 1-centimetre cube of water. This is the reciprocal of electrical resistance and has the units of microsiemens per centimetre (u,S/cm) (SI units). The conductance of groundwater ranges from several tens of microsiemens for rainwater to hundreds of thousands of microsiemens (u.S/cm) for brine water in deep sedimentary basins (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Electrical Conductance is affected by temperature so it is normalized by correcting data to 25 °C. This corrected value is called specific conductance (i.e. conductivity at 25 °C). 2.8 Historical Groundwater Quality Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Water Management Branch, Groundwater Section has identified and classified 262 aquifers (as of 1998) according to a system developed by Kreye et al. (1994). The classification system uses two components to categorize aquifers: 1) 24 level of development and 2) degree of vulnerability to contamination. Designations are assessed as high (I), moderate (II), or low (III) based on the level of development. The vulnerability of an aquifer to contamination from surface sources is assessed according to the type of aquifer, thickness and extent of geologic materials overlying the aquifer, depth of water (or top of confined aquifers), and the type of aquifer material. Designations are high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) vulnerability. Thus the combination of the two variables yields nine classes of aquifers, from IA that is heavily developed with a high vulnerability to contamination, to IIIC with low development and vulnerability. Five aquifers in the Lower mainland have been classified as "heavily used aquifers vulnerable to contamination" (at greatest risk, IA Aquifers): 1) Hopington Aquifer 2) Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer 3) Langley/Brookswood Aquifer 4) Vedder River Fan Aquifer 5) Belcarra 2.8.1 Fraser Valley Groundwater Studies Kreye and Wei (1994) ranked 73 aquifers in the Fraser Valley using seven risk-based criteria. They ranked the Brookswood aquifer as third highest priority for watershed protection. Thus the impact of agricultural practices and increasing residential development over this unconfined aquifer is of great interest. Table 2-3 summarizes historical groundwater study data for several aquifers in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. The highest nitrate concentrations listed in this table were for our study area, the Langley/Brookswood aquifer. Table 2-3 illustrates the location of the Brookswood aquifer within the Fraser Valley. No drinking water guidelines have been developed for groundwater for orthophosphate or total phosphorus. 25 Table 2-3: Summary of Fraser Valley well water quality parameter ranges Watershed Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Electrical Conductance (uS/cm) Abbotsford Aquifer1 0.00-21 5.3 - 7.4 Agassiz 2 0.01-25 Hatzic Valley3 0.05 - 12 0.05-0.542 17-3290 Fraser Valley4 23-3730 Abbotsford/ Sumas* ND-30 Not specified Hopington * ND-15 Not specified Langley / Brookswood ND-72.7 85 - 792 Nicomen Slough * 0.03-4 3.4-40.5 Not specified $ 1 1 ' Concentrations estimated from graph N D - non-detectable concentrations A l l aquifers in Table 2-3 had wells that exceeded the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (Health Canada, 2003) for nitrate except those located in the Nicomen Slough. The highest nitrate concentration was from a well located in the Langley / Brookswood aquifer. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration can be estimated from electrical conductance measurements. The maximum total dissolved solids concentration recommended for drinking water (aesthetic concerns only) is 500 mg/L and is roughly equivalent to an electrical conductance (EC) of 3200 uS/cm. Out of the three studies for which electrical conductance values were available in Table 2-3, two had wells that exceeded our estimated equivalent value to the TDS guideline. The Langley / Brookswood aquifer had electrical conductance measurements that were comparatively low and did not exceed the equivalent EC value to 500 mg/L TDS. 2. 1 Laretei, 1996 3. 2 Schreier 4. 3 Maywood, 2004 5. 4 Carmicheal et al, 1995 26 A l l wells participating in the studies listed in Table 2-3 were far below the recommended drinking water guidelines (CDWQG, 2003) for chloride concentrations (250 mg/L). 2.8.2 Brookswood Groundwater Studies Robertson et al (1991) and Piteau Associates (1995) examined nitrate migration patterns of plumes from on-site sewage disposal systems (SDS). These studies were specific to the Brookswood aquifer and provided valuable information on SDS impacts to groundwater. Piteau Associates (1995) concluded nitrate concentrations in the Brookswood aquifer are expected to increase in the fall. Aerated rainwater infiltrates the soil, oxidizes the nitrogen into mobile nitrate, and flushes it into the groundwater table (Piteau Associates, 1995). The septic plume studied by Piteau Associates tended to sink below the water table as it migrated in the direction of groundwater flow. Robertson et al. (1991) noted similar downward movement when analyzing the plumes from 2 septic systems in an unconfined aquifer. When modelling the dispersion pattern of the septic plume, Piteau Associates (1995) found a good fit to measured data by applying a longitudinal value of 100 and vertical and lateral dispersivities of 0.1. Robertson and Cherry (1995) suggest hydrodynamic dispersion in sand aquifers is much less than previously thought and dilution models used to attenuate NO3" are probably physically unrealistic. In 1983 Piteau Associates demonstrated a positive correlation between septic tank density and elevated nitrate concentrations in municipal wells drawing water from the Brookswood aquifer. They found nitrate concentration increased in shallow wells in the fall and in deeper wells in May. Piteau Associates suggested it takes only a few weeks for nitrogen accumulated in the soil over the summer to be flushed down to the water table while it may take several months for nitrate to be drawn down to the deep wells. A 1995 study by Piteau Associates proposed an on-site sewage disposal system density of 2.5 units per hectare (1 per acre) within the Brookswood aquifer. This recommendation for SDS 27 densities was based on a study of an effluent plume from an on-site sewage disposal system in the Brookswood aquifer at 194 th Street and 36 t h Avenue. 2.9 Historical Surface Water Quality Streams within the Fraser Valley are under pressure by rapid development and modern agricultural practices. Pressures to produce higher yields from smaller land parcels has resulted in greater applications of pesticides and fertilizer (MacDonald, 2005). Runoff from agricultural lands can contribute to contaminant and sediment loading. In addition, contaminated stormwater runoff is recognized as a leading source of water quality problems in urban areas. Hydrological impacts from stormwater runoff in residential developments can often be more harmful than the contaminant content (MacDonald, 2005). 2.9.1 Fraser Valley Surface Water Studies Table 2-4 summarizes surface water quality studies in the Fraser Valley. No guidelines for orthophosphate or phosphate are recommended for streams. Nitrate concentrations exceeded guidelines (10 mg/L) in the Hatzic Valley streams for drinking water (Health Canada, 2003), recreational water and aesthetics (MWLAP, 1998). A l l other streams in Table 2-4 were within the guidelines for nitrate concentrations. A l l streams listed in Table 2-4 had chloride concentrations well below the recommended criteria for streams 600 mg/L (instantaneous measurement). Most streams in Table 2-4 exceed BC Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection (MWLAP, 1997) recommended criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations although the frequency and extent of these exceedances is unknown. The minimum instantaneous criteria for DO concentration are 5 and 8 mg/L depending on life stage of fish (seasonal). Abbotsford 28 aquifer streams sampled in 1996 and Coghlan Creek may not exceed these criteria for DO i f only adult fish were present at the time of sampling. Watershed Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Electrical Conductance (liS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Temperature (°C) Agassiz / Harrison Hot Springs 0.000-2.65 0.002 -1.908 10-516 0.2-16.7 2.1-21.5 Salmon a b ' 2 Salmon River 1.0-5.0 Coghlan Creek 1.0-6.0 Salmon River 1-12 Coghlan Creek 7- 12 Salmon River 8-21 Coghlan Creek 8-21 Sumas8'3 0.05-5.5 0.02 - 0.5 4- 10 Abbotsford4 1.4-4.6 4.8-16.2 5.9-12.5 5.1-13.9 Hatzic Valley5 N D - 12 8-17 a Concentrations estimated from graph b Average of 1994 - 1995 sampling events N D - non-detectable concentrations Criterion for maximum daily temperatures for fresh surface waters (15 °C or 18°C) was exceeded by all streams in Table 2-4 except those in the Abbotsford aquifer 1996 study (and possibly the Hatzic Valley study). The lower temperature criteria for fish spawning or incubation (10 °C or 12 °C) may have been exceeded by these streams i f the high range of temperatures occurred during these fish life-cycle stages. 6. 'Addah, 1998 7. 2 Schreier et al., 1997 8. 3Berkaetal., 1997 9. 4 Laretei, 1996 10. 5 Magwood, 2004 29 2.9.2 Brookswood Surface Water Studies The British Columbia Ministry of Environment (MOE) has monitored water quality in the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek for over 30 years. The Ministry of Environment from 1973 to 2002 is summarized in APPENDIX C, Table C - l to Table C-4. Table 2-5: Ministry of Environment surface water quality parameter concentration jnedianan<lrain»e^io^ Watershed Parameter concentration ranges (mg/L) Temp and season [median concentrations mg/L] (°C) sites were Nitrate PH Ortho- Chloride Electrical Dissolved [med] sampled phosphate Conductance Oxygen Anderson 0.87- 7.1 - 0.007- 2.8-6.3 68 - 229 10.4-13 3.5-Creek (wet 4.61 7.9 0.036 [5] [147] [11.4] 12 season) [1.7] [7.5] [0.015] [7] Anderson 0.49- 7.0- 0.005 - 3.1-5.6 95-218 10-13.5 10.5-Creek (dry 3.89 8.0 0.025 [5] [150] [10.7] 12.3 season) T1.761 [7.7] [0.014] n n Little 0.002 - 6.2- 0.006 - 2 . 2 - 48-167 4-13.1 0 .3 -Campbell 2.14 7.7 0.054 10.5 [7] [8.5] 10.5 River (wet season) [0.243] [7] [0.022] [5.2] [5.2] Little 0.002 - 5.5- 0.008 - 1.9-9.3 61 - 1000 2.3-8.8 6.5-Campbell River (dry season) 0.98 [0.041] 7.3 [6.9] 0.101 [0.022] [5] [109] [5] 19.2 [14] The M W L A P sampling site on the Little Campbell River was located at 216 Street near sampling site #9. Anderson Creek sampling site monitored by M O E was located close to sampling site #21. Ranges for M O E water quality parameters were listed in Table 2-5. Ministry of Environment water quality data for Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River were similar to water quality data for other Fraser Valley surface waters in terms of criteria exceedances and absolute values (Table 2-4). 30 3 METHODOLOGY This section describes the study area location, soils, aquifer delineation, and sampling sites. Sample collection and analysis methods for surface and groundwater are detailed. Buffer zone design and correlation of these well buffer zones with common land use categories are also discussed in detail. 3.1 Study Area The Brookswood aquifer is located in the Lower portion of the Fraser Valley within the Langley Township and Surrey municipalities as shown in Figure 2-1. The Brookswood aquifer is largely unconfined and considered highly susceptible to contaminants due to its excellent storage capacity and high infiltration/percolation rates. The BC Ministry of Environment has classified the Brookswood Aquifer as 1A for vulnerability to contamination from surface sources and rapid development (section 2.8). Figure 3-1 delineates the Brookswood aquifer within the highlighted area shown in Figure 2-1. This aquifer provides a continuous supply of cool water to the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek during periods of low flow. The Little Campbell River is an important spawning habitat for salmonids and thus sensitive to flow variations and nutrient loading. This aquifer is recharged mainly by precipitation supplemented by infiltration from Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River (Piteau Associates 1995). 31 Scale = 1:70,000 Monthly precipitation (Environment Canada, 2004) from August 2003 to March 2004 is illustrated in Figure 3-2. Although precipitation recording stations are located in and near the Brookswood aquifer, the data was incomplete for this period of time. Therefore the rainfall data in Figure 3-2 is collected from the Environment Canada precipitation recording station at the Vancouver airport. 32 ;ure 3-2: Monthly average rainfall data August 2003 to March 2004 300 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 M o n t h a n d y e a r o f s t r e a m s a m p l i n g Groundwater tables in unconfined aquifers such as the Brookswood aquifer vary seasonally in response to rainfall. Wells were sampled in September, December and February. These three sampling events represented low, moderate, and high degrees of soil saturation and groundwater table (well) levels. The static level in the Township of Langley's Brookswood wells 7, 9, and 10 are listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Static levels in Township of Langley wells 7,9, and 10 (Brookswood) Month TOL Well #7 Depth (m) TOL Well #9 Depth (m) TOL Well #10 Depth (m) September 2004 -8.84 -13.1 (Oct) -4.57 December 2004 -9.14 -12.0 -3.99 February 2004 -8.32 -11.2 -4.24 Range of static level Sept 03 to Sept 04 -10 to-6 .7 - 13 to-8.38 -4.88 to-4.02 The occurrence of maximum static levels in these wells varies from year to year but usually occurs in March and / or April . 33 3.2 Well Sample Collection One hundred and two drinking water wells were examined in this study as shown in Figure 3-3. Of these wells, seventy were located in the Brookswood aquifer and thirty-two were located in other aquifers with little or no hydrologic connectivity with the Brookswood aquifer. Well drilling records obtained from the well owners or the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection were used to determine i f wells were situated within the Brookswood aquifer. When the source aquifer was difficult to determine using well records then well water quality data was compared to Brookswood aquifer wells. Participating households were sampled September 23 and December 2, 2003 and February 10, 2004. Scale = 1:160,000 34 A few days before each sampling event well owners were given a plastic bottle with sampling instructions. Sample bottles were cleaned in the U B C laboratory, rinsed with distilled water and labelled with an identifying site number. The day of the sampling event well owners would fill the water sample bottle at a tap in which the water was not treated (although treatment by sediment filters was accepted). Sample well water was collected after allowing water to run at the tap for 1 minute and rinsing the bottle with tap water. Filled sample bottles would be placed in the well owner's mailbox or on the doorstep between 6 am and 10 am for same day collection. When samples were collected from the wells, two test tubes were filled from the water sample. One tube was treated with one drop of phenol mercuric acetate to preserve the sample for nitrate analysis. This same sample was also analyzed for orthophosphate. The well water sample placed in the second test tube with no preservative was analyzed for chloride. Additional sampling of selected wells was carried out October 14, December 9,10 and 18. In addition to the well sample collection in a plastic water sample bottle and 2 test tubes other containers and preservatives were used as appropriate for specific analysis. Sterilized plastic water sample bottles were used to collect samples for bacteriological analysis. Collection of samples for bacteriological testing was carried out by the author and delivered to the laboratory to initiate the analytical procedure the same day the sample was collected. Samples for metal analysis were collected in plastic water sample containers that had been cleaned in the U B C laboratory and rinsed twice with distilled water. Samples were preserved in 2 % nitric acid (made up from concentrated nitric acid in sample water) so that the resulting pH was less than 2. Samples were transported and stored at 4 °C until delivered to the U B C Agroecology laboratory for analysis. 3 5 3.3 Stream Sample Collection Surface waters were sampled in August, September, October, November 2003 and February and March 2004. Twenty sampling sites on Anderson Creek (10 sites) and the Little Campbell River (10 sites) were sampled and shown on Figure 3-4. In addition 6 sites on Little Campbell River tributaries were sampled (Figure 3-4). Figure 3-4: Surface water sampling sites for Anderson Creek, the Little Campbell River and tributaries Scale = 1:140,000 36 Surface water data were categorized into dry and wet seasons. Those months with less than 50 mm of precipitation were considered dry seasonal months (August and September sampling events). Sampling events occurred in wet seasonal months (greater than 50 mm precipitation) were October, November, December, February, and March. Surface waters were analysed for nitrate, orthophosphate, total dissolved solids (TDS) (as estimated from conductivity), and chloride with the same analytical methodology used for wells. The only difference in the collection methods was the use of a plastic bucket and rope to initially collect water from the stream. The surface water was then placed in plastic sample bottles and 2 test tubes as described for the collection of well water samples. On-site measurements were made for dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature. A l l samples were transported to the laboratories in coolers that were maintained at 0°C to 4°C. Quality control measures are detailed in Appendix A . 3.4 Sample Analysis Quality control measures, including method detection levels, for the chemical water quality parameters were listed in APPENDIX A Results less than the method detection level (MDL) are reported as an average between zero and the M D L . Since laboratory results less than the method detection limit will fall between zero and the M D L , an average of these two values will provide a reasonable estimate of the actual value for statistical analysis of the data. If results less than the M D L are treated as zero they will statistically bias the data to a lower value. This method is recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Geological Survey (Oblinger Childress et al. 1999). 3.4.1 Temperature and dissolved oxygen Stream sampling sites were tested for dissolved oxygen concentrations and temperature using the YSI dissolved oxygen meter model 58 with standard probe. The temperature and 37 dissolved oxygen concentration were displayed in a L C D on the YSI meter. The instrument was calibrated prior to each sampling session and at least every four hours thereafter. Calibration was performed by adjusting the L C D reading to instrument specifications for saturation DO and temperature using a wet cloth to cover the probe (wet air saturation method). Table 3-2: YSI dissolved oxygen meter specifications Component measured Accuracy Resolution Concentration ± 0.03 mg/L ± 0.01 mg/L Air ± 0.3 % ±0.1 % Temperature ± 0.3 0 C ±0.1 ° C The dissolved oxygen meter specifications are shown in Table 3-2. Measurements were made directly from this instrument. An extension cord for the probe allowed dissolved oxygen and temperature to be read in situ at the stream sampling sites. Percent saturation could then be calculated for the surface waters as follows: Measured dissolved oxygen in surface water (mg/L dissolved oxygen) X 100% 100% saturation at measured temperature (mg/L dissolved oxygen) 3.4.2 Optical brighteners A Model 10-AU Fluorometer manufactured by Turner Designs, Sunnyvale, California (UBC #010556) was used to detect optical brighteners in well and stream water samples. This 10-A U fluorometer was equipped with a near U V mercury vapour lamp (350 nm wavelength), an excitation filter with 310 - 390 nm wavelength, an emission filter with 400 - 500 nm wavelength and a 10 - 300 reference filter (>300). Well and stream samples were collected in white plastic sample containers. Samples were tested for optical brighteners within 36 hours of collection. A portion of each sample was placed in a glass test tube and into the fluorometer. Readings are averaged by the fluorometer and displayed in L C D . 38 Well and stream samples were collected in white plastic sample containers and stored in the dark at 4° C. Samples were tested for optical brighteners within 36 hours of collection. A portion of each sample was placed in a glass test tube and into the fluorometer. Readings are averaged by the fluorometer and displayed in L C D . Readings are relative to prepared standards. Standards were prepared from the following laundry detergents: Wisk (liquid), Purex (liquid), and Presidents' Choice (liquid) (see APPENDIX A , section A - l ) . The Hellige Aqua tester manufactured by Hellige Incorporated was used to measure colour in well and stream water samples. Colour measurements were conducted at the same time as the fluorescence readings. 3.4.3 Nitrate analysis The method used for detection of nitrate in samples is described in the Standard Methods for Analysis of Water and Wastewater (American Public Heath Association, 2001) Part 4500-N03-1 (Cadmium reduction flow injection method). A Lachat instruments Quick Chem 8000 auto-analyser was used to determine nitrate. Results are given as nitrate-nitrogen values. The Quick Chem 8000 calibrates with standard nitrate solution every 10 samples. 3.4.4 Orthophosphate analysis The method used for detection of orthophosphate in samples is described in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Association, 2001) Part 4500-PG Flow injection analysis for orthophosphate. A Lachat instruments Quick Chem 8000 auto-analyser was used to determine orthophosphate. The Quick Chem 8000 calibrates with standard phosphate solution every 10 samples. 39 3.4.5 Chloride analysis The method used for detection of chloride in samples is described in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Association, 2001) Part 4500-C1" G Mercuric thiocyanate flow injection analysis. A Lachat instruments Quick Chem 8000 auto-analyser was used to determine chloride. The Quick Chem 8000 calibrates with standard chloride solution every 10 samples. 3.4.6 Electrical conductivity analysis Electrical conductivity was measured directly from the plastic sampling containers in the U B C Environmental Engineering laboratory. A Fisher Scientific Accumet meter 50 was used to measure specific electrical conductivity. The readings from this instrument were verified before each use with a 0.01 potassium chloride (KC1) solution. For example this instrument operated at a cell constant of 0.95 (based on a theoretical reading of 1.332 u.S / the actual reading of 1.40 u,S for a 0.01 N KC1 solution at 22.0 ° C) then readings were adjusted to reflect the cell constant. Electrical conductivities in this study were specific conductivities and reported in microsiemens / centimetre (uS/cm). The total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration of well and stream samples was estimated from the electrical conductance reading. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (2002) state the criterion for the ratio of TDS to EC is: calculated total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration (mg/L) = 0.55 to 0.7 electrical conductance (EC) value (uS/cm) Therefore total dissolved solid content of the samples was estimated from the electrical conductivity values using: TDS (mg/L) = EC (uS/cm) X 0.64 (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003) 40 3.4.7 Metal analysis Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) was used to analyse 91 well water samples for 22 metals. The samples were processed by Carol Dyke of the Agroecology Department on a Varian VistaPro ICP-AES with a radial torch using a water method. This ICP-AES trace metal method in water was developed by Carol Dyke and Karen Ferguson of the Agroecology Department, University of British Columbia. Samples were not filtered so values reflect acid solubilized metals. Although the samples were not digested, the direct aspiration of the acidified sample results in the detection of acid solubilized metals. Detection limits for the 22 metals are listed in Table 3-3. The standard and relative standard deviations are listed with the metal analysis results in APPENDDC A . Table 3-3: Detection limits for well water metal analysis Metal Detection Limit (mg/L) Metal Detectio n Limit (mg/L) Metal Detection Limit (me/L) Metal Detectio n Limit (ma/L) Aluminu m (Al) 0.05 Cobalt (Co) 0.055 Manganes e(Mn) 0.005 Selenium (Se) 0.2 Arsenic (As) 0.2 Chromiu m(Cr) 0.025 Molybden um (Mo) 0.05 Silicon (Si) 0.15 Boron (B) 0.05 Copper (Cu) 0.05 Sodium (Na) 0.25 Strontiu m(Sr) 0.002 Barium (Ba) 0.01 Iron (Fe) 0.05 Nickel (Ni) 0.1 Zinc (Zn) 0.01 Calcium (Ca) 0.1 Potassiu m(K) 0.5 Potassium (P) 0.2 Cadmium (Cd) 0.025 Magnesi um (Mg) 0.01 Lead (Pb) 0.2 3.4.8 Coliform Analysis J.R. Laboratories carried out total and fecal coliform testing for both well and stream samples. The methodology was identical for both well and stream samples. 41 The method used for the detection of fecal coliform in well (79) and stream (4) samples is described in the Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Association, 2001) Part 9222-D Fecal coliform membrane filter procedure. The method used for the detection of total coliform in well and stream samples is described in the Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Association, 2001) Part 9222-B Standard total coliform membrane filter procedure. 3.4.9 Bacterial Source Tracking Environment Canada Environmental Toxicology Group at the Pacific Environmental Science Centre performed the bacterial source tracking analysis. Bacteroides- Prevotella was used as the indicator of human or ruminant impacts to water quality. The source tracking method used to detect bacteroides was developed by Dr. Katherine Field at Oregon State University (Field, 2001; Bernhard and Field, 2000 ). Two well samples and two stream samples were tested for bacterial source tracking. In addition to the above referenced methodology, the following QC samples are run with each BST batch: • Filtration equipment blank (called B L E ; negative control), which is a filter of lab-prepared, sterile, buffered water so that it is treated exactly like a sample but the filtrate is sterile water. • D N A extraction blank (called B L X ; negative control), which is treated with the extraction buffers and columns from the Qiagen DNeasy kit except for there is not a filter from an environmental sample. • PCR blank (called B L L ; negative control), which is prepared with all of the reagents for PCR but no sample DNA. • A positive control (called REF) that has human, ruminant animal and pig D N A in it so that it proves that the method is working properly. So at each step in the procedure, a negative control is introduced and carried all of the way through the rest of the procedures (first the B L E , then the B L X , then the B L L ) . For example, 42 i f a contamination band showed up in the B L X but it was not present in the B L E , then the contamination occurred at the second step (the B L X step) during the D N A extraction. If a contamination band is noticed at any step then the entire set of samples is evaluated and re-run i f deemed necessary. Results are based upon sample matching to 2 ruminant and/or 2 human markers. If the sample matches to 2 out of the 2 marker types then the sample is considered positive for ruminant and / or human fecal bacterial source(s). If the sample matches one out of the 2 marker types then the source of fecal bacterial in the sample is in question. This usually means the amount of fecal matter in the sample was low so the technique was at the limit of its detection capacity. Where samples had high fecal coliform counts (> 100 CFU/100 ml) the lab concludes the source of fecal bacteria is potentially from the marker type (i.e. human or ruminant animals), and fecal bacterial from other organisms are likely present in the sample. Where samples have low fecal coliform counts (< 50 CFU/100 ml) the lab concludes that human fecal matter is likely the problem but further source investigation is required. 3.5 Land Use Survey Maps of land use data collected in 2001 was obtained from the Resource Management Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF). Further information on how this land use data was originally collected by M A F F can be found at http://www.agfgov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/800series/830110-3.pdf. This M A F F land use data was updated March 2004 through an on-site survey of the properties within the study area. Digital maps and orthophotos of the Brookswood study area were obtained from the Langley and Surrey municipalities. Municipal digital map layers included roads, properties, sewer and water connections, improvement values, storm drainage features and streams. Aerial photographs (1:4000) showing properties and road layers were overlain with clear mylar to facilitate recording of land features. The locations of on-site sewage disposal systems, 43 participating wells and stream sampling sites were recorded using digital maps and information from the Langley and Surrey municipalities. A l l data on these mylar overlays were transferred to digital form using Arcview GIS. Digital maps were created of the locations of on-site sewage disposal systems, wells, participating wells and stream sampling sites. 44 A n inventory of 41 common land use activities that may impact groundwater quality was recorded for the study area. With the help of volunteers from the Kwantlen University College Environmental Protection Program an on-site survey was conducted. Volunteers travelled all roadways within the study area recording land use observations on aerial photographs. Updated land use data for each property within the study area was incorporated into digital land use maps. The original 41 land use categories recorded on the digital map were reclassified under the 34 land use categories used in the Brookswood land use survey by the Ministry of Agriculture then grouped into the 5 land use categories described in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-5. Table 3-4: Description of land use categories Land use category Description of land uses Residential Primary use is for single or multiple family dwellings Uncultured vegetation Abandoned /unused land, parkland, forest, wetland, pasture and forage. Crops Agricultural and hobby farm field-grown vegetation, berries, nurseries, and other uses typically involving application of nutrients Livestock Non-domestic animals including cattle, horses, sheep, poultry, pigs, goats, other. Greenhouses Indoor culturing of vegetation Mushroom farms were counted as separate categories but were omitted due to lack of data. The largest (500 m) buffer zone for participating wells located in the Brookswood aquifer contained only 2 mushroom farms. Land use categories in Table 3-4 were compared to water quality within the respective wells for 100 m, 200 m, 500 m radius and the fan-shaped 200 m and 500 metre buffer zones. 3.6 Well Buffer Zone Design The buffer function of the GIS software, buffer zones (circles) with a radius of 100, 200 and 500 m were created around each participating well as shown in Figure 3-6. Five hundred 45 metre buffer zones include the 100 and 200 m buffer zones for each respective well. Similarly the 200 m buffer zone includes the 100 m buffer zone for each well. Scale = 1: 140,000 The 100 m and 200 m circular zones have been used in other Fraser Valley groundwater studies (Magwood, 2004; Addah 1998). The use of the 100 and 200 m circular buffer zones may allow for comparison to water quality in other studies if parameters and land use categories are similar. 46 The 500 m circular buffer zone was created to capture a two-year time of travel for nitrates given a conservative flow estimate. A two-year time of travel is frequently used when conducting groundwater contaminant surveys. Piteau Associates estimated the groundwater flow at 194 th St. and 36 Ave in the Brookswood aquifer to be 248 to 876 m / year. Land use activities were inventoried within the circular buffer zones of 100 m, 200 m and 500 m radius around participating wells. However for typical domestic wells the conventional circular shaped buffer zone may also include locations of land use activities that do not impact the well water quality (i.e. those located outside the well water contaminant capture zone). For example, land use activities located near the well buffer zone perimeter in the direction of groundwater flow may not have contributed contaminants to the sampled well water. This is especially true of the relatively large 200 m and 500 m buffer zones. To refine the land use activities most likely to impact the typical domestic wells the 200 m and 500 m buffer zones were reshaped to account for groundwater flow direction. Fan-shaped buffer zones were created to reflect the low ratio of lateral to longitudinal septic plume dispersivities noted by Robertson et al. (1991) and Robertson and Cherry (1995). These new fan-shaped buffer zones were applied to each well as shown in Figure 3-7. The zones of surface water influence were estimated for 10 wells in the Brookswood aquifer using topographic contour maps, soil maps (Luttmerding, 1980) and fence diagrams (Halstad, 1979). The shape and size of the new buffer zones were based on the average estimated zone of surface water influences for these 10 wells. The 200 m and 500 m buffer zones were reconfigured to a fan-like shape made by a 100 m radius around each participating well connecting at a 30° & 150° angle to the 200 m and 500 m buffer zone boundaries. 47 Scale = 1: 70,000 Direction of flow for all participating wells was estimated through the use of fence diagrams (Halstad, 1979), soil (Luttmerding, 1980) maps, and Township of Langley and City of Surrey digital maps including topographic contour and water feature maps. The fan shaped 200 m and 500 m buffer zones were applied to each well and rotated so the narrow part of the fan points with the groundwater flow direction. Wells with buffer zones falling outside the study area or very shallow wells with localized flows were not included in this portion of the land use inventory. 48 Size of area within each of the five well buffer zones is compared in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Size comparison of the five well buffer zones Buffer Zone [Radius (m)] Meter 2 Kilometre Hectare Acre 100 31,420 0.03 3.14 7.7 200 125,650 0.13 12.5 31.0 500 785,400 0.79 78.5 194 200 Fan 71,000 0.07 7.1 17.6 500 Fan 196,350 0.20 19.6 48.5 3.7 Surface Water Catchment Areas The surface water equivalent to the well buffer zones were the catchment areas for 24 sampling sites on Anderson Creek, the Little Campbell River and a few tributaries (Figure 3-8). Watersheds for Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River were sectioned into individual catchment areas for each of the stream sampling sites. Catchment areas were determined using watershed, sewer infrastructure and topographic maps obtained from the Township of Langley and City of Surrey. Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River flow in a westerly direction through most of the study area. Therefore catchment areas for the individual sampling sites are generally located to the south-east of the sampling sites as shown in Figure 3-8. Land use activities were mapped utilizing the same methodology as was used to create the well buffer zones. Land use activity within the catchment areas was calculated as a percentage of the total catchment area for each sampling site. Analytical parameters were compared to land use activities using Spearman's rank correlation and box plots. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and probabilities correlating land uses and analytical parameters for Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River are listed in APPENDIX G. 49 Figure 3-8: Catchment areas for sampling sites on Anderson Creek, the Little Campbell River and Tributaries within the Brookswood Aquifer Scale = 1:140,000 Twenty-four stream catchment areas were inventoried for land use activities and compared to water quality at the corresponding stream sampling site. Catchment areas falling outside the study area were not evaluated in terms of land use. Description of soil types found within the stream sampling site catchment areas is summarized in Table 3-6. 50 Table 3-6: Primary soil types of the Anderson Creek and Little Campbell River watersheds Name of soil type Soil material Drainage Cloverdale (CD) Moderately fine to fine-textured marine deposits Poor; perched water table Capilano (CP) Gravelly glacial outwash deposits Well to rapid Columbia (CL) Gravelly glacial outwash deposits Well to rapid Heron (HN) Coarse-textured littoral deposits over moderately coarse textured glacial till or moderately fine textured glaciomarine deposits Poor; perched water table Lynden (LY) Coarse-textured glacial outwash deposits Well to rapid Nicholson (N) Moderately fine textured glaciomarine deposits Moderately well Scat (SC) Moderately fine textured glaciomarine deposits Poor; perched water table Summer (SR) Less than 100 cm of coarse-textured littoral and glacial outwash deposits over moderately fine or fine-textured glaciomarine and marine deposits Imperfect; perched water table Sunshine (SS) Sandy littoral and glacial outwash deposits Well to moderately well Whatcom (W) Moderately fine textured glaciomarine deposits Moderately well; telluric seepage Table 3-7 lists predominant soil types for each of the stream sampling site catchment areas along Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River. Catchment areas along the Little Campbell River are made up primarily of Columbian, Nicholson, and Scat soil types (Luttmerding, 1980). Anderson Creek catchment area soils were predominantly Lynden. A l l information in Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 was derived from soil maps and descriptions in "Soils of the Langley-Vancouver Map Area" by H.A. Luttmerding (1980). 51 Table 3-7: Dominating soil types within the catchment areas of Anderson Creek am the Little Campbell River sampling sites Sampling Site Dominant soil type(s) Overall drainage Slope 1,2 CD Poor Gently undulating 3,4,5 CL Well to rapid Gently undulating 6,7 W, CL Moderately well Undulating 8 CL, N , SC Moderately well Gently undulating 9 N , W, CI Moderately well Undulating 21 LY, SR Well to rapid Undulating 22,23,24 LY Well to rapid Undulating 25,26 Gravel Pit, CL Rapid Gently undulating 27 C P , L Y Well to rapid Undulating 28 HN, SS Variable Undulating 29 W, HN, SS Moderately well Undulating 3.8 Sewage Disposal System Densities 3.8.1 Community Sewage System Densities Community sewage disposal systems consist of individual septic tanks connected to a common sewage absorption field. Thus community sewage disposal systems have the potential to contribute more contaminants to groundwater (loading capacity) than an absorption field serving a single residential unit. The loading capacity of a sewage disposal system is greatly increased by the size of the population it serves. When calculating the relationship of the number of sewage disposal systems within a well buffer zone to well water quality parameters, community sewage disposal systems were weighted in terms of the equivalent number of single-family sewage disposal systems. The number of sewage disposal systems (SDS) were counted within each of the five buffer zones for all sampled wells in the Brookswood aquifer. Community sewage disposal systems were then weighted according to how many residential dwellings were serviced by the sewage disposal systems. Properties with community SDS that fall partially within the boundary of a buffer zone were weighted according to the number of residential units within the buffer zone. 5 2 If the location of the community sewage absorption field on the property was known, then a weighted number of SDS within a buffer zone was calculated as follows: a) One-half of a SDS unit was assigned for residential units (septic tanks) that fall within a buffer zone and b) One-half of a SDS unit was assigned for each residential unit served by the percentage of absorption field falling within a buffer zone. This method of weighting community sewage disposal systems was designed to account for potential leakage from septic tanks, sewage lines and effluent from sewage absorption fields. 3.8.2 Sewage Disposal System Enumeration The number of septic systems within the 100, 200, and 500 metre circular buffer zones and 200 m and 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones for each well were counted. In these calculations, community on-site sewage disposal systems (SDS) were counted as one SDS. However the volume of effluent increases in direct proportion to the number of residential units serviced by the system. Community systems are usually made up of individual septic tanks connected to a shared absorption field. Properties with community SDS were weighted in terms of the number of single-family residential units serviced. The numbers of septic systems within the five buffer zones were recounted and the weighted values for community SDS applied. To determine the density of sewage disposal systems that impact nitrate levels in groundwater sampling results were subgrouped into densities of 1 - 10, 10 - 25, 25 —40 SDS per 500 m fan-shaped buffer zone. The 500 m buffer zone was used to capture a two year time of travel for nitrate and the fan-shape estimated the contaminant capture zone. 53 3.9 Statistics The SPSS computer program was used in this study to perform statistical analysis on all data collected from wells and streams and the relationship of water quality to land use activity. 3.9.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test The two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is similar to an unpaired student t-test but actually tests for any difference between two sample distributions. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z-value and resulting two-tailed p-value is used to determine if a significant difference exists. A significant difference (p = or < 0.05) could indicate the medians, variances, and/or shapes of the distributions are different for the 2 populations being compared. Many parametric tests require normally distributed variables. The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test can be used to test that a variable is normally distributed. This test was used in this study to compare the cumulative distribution of variables with a theoretical normal distribution. To determine i f a variable is normally distributed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z was computed from the largest difference (in absolute value) between the observed and theoretical cumulative distribution functions. The resulting Z-value and two-tailed p-value were used to determine if the observed distribution could have come from the theoretical normal distribution. A p-value of equal to or less than 0.05 indicates a significant difference in the populations (95% chance the observed variable population does not have a normal distribution). 3.9.2 Spearman's Rank Paired data sets were compared by using Spearman's rank correlation statistical analysis. Spearman's rank is a non-parametric version of Pearson's product moment correlation. However, unlike Pearson's correlation coefficient, a significant result may indicate a straight line association or a curved association, as long as the relationship is monotonia This test 54 determines whether higher ranks of X are consistently associated with higher (or lower) ranks o f Y . Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rs) was used to determine strength of correlation as suggested by Morton and Hebel (1984) and outlined in Table 3-8. The strength of correlation is a measure of how closely data points are scattered along a straight or curved line on a scatter graph. A negative rs-value indicates two data sets are inversely proportional while a positive rs-value indicates a directly proportional relationship. The correlation probability (p-value) was used to determine the correlation's statistical significance as described by Graphpad Software (2002). TaMe^8^ltrengtJ^>fjmea^^ Degree of Association & Significance for Spearmans Correlation rs & p values rs - value 0-0.2 0.2 - 0.5 0.5-0.8 0.8 - 1.0 Strength Negligible Weak Moderate Strong p-value >0.05 = or < 0.05 = or < 0.01 = or < 0.001 Significance Not significant Significant Very significant Extremely significant Environmental factors rarely demonstrate strong correlation strength due to numerous influences present in natural environments. For example groundwater flow, precipitation, bacteria, soil types and structures will all influence nitrate migration within an unconfined aquifer. 3.9.3 Mann-Whitney U-test The Mann-Whitney C/-test is a non-parametric alternative to an unpaired student t-test. It is based on the theory that similar populations will have approximately equal mean ranks. The Mann-Whitney U test places two sets of data in rank order and compares the mean ranks from the 2 populations. The resulting test statistic U is used to obtain an appropriate two-tailed p-value. The p-value is the statistical probability the difference in mean ranks is due 55 solely to chance. A significant difference in the medians o f the two populations is determined to exist i f the p-value is less than or equal to 0.05. 3.9.4 Boxplots Boxplots illustrate the distribution of points within a data set. A n example o f a boxplot using hypothetical data can be seen in Figure 3-9. The dark line in the middle of each box illustrates the data median. The box length shows the interquartile range of data distribution (25% on either side o f the median for a total of 50% of the data distribution). The whiskers of the box are limited to 1.5 times the length of the box to illustrate data outside of the interquartile range. Outliers are values between 1.5 and 3 times the box length and are illustrated with a '0'. Extreme outliers are data points with values greater than 3 times the box length and are illustrated in boxplots with an asterisk. 56 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the results of the chemical and bacterial analysis performed on samples of ground and surface water sampling sites within the Brookswood aquifer. Each section has a discussion of the results and comparisons to other related published findings. Land use and on-site sewage disposal system impacts to ground and surface water quality are discussed. This integrated mapping and monitoring method was created to assess contamination in unconfined aquifers and make recommendations for projected on-site sewage disposal densities. These mapping and monitoring results are discussed in this section. 4.1 Well Water Quality A summary of groundwater water quality guidelines and sampling results for well water quality parameters are listed in Table 4-1 and. Groundwater nitrate (6% of wells), chloride (1% of wells) and total dissolved solids (7% of wells) exceeded the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines. The following sections will focus primarily on the parameters that exceeded surface water quality criteria and drinking water guidelines. Table 4-1: Summary of parameter guidelines, ranges and exceedances for participating Brookswood wells Parameter Range (mg/L) [median] n = 70 CDWQG* (mg/L) Percent of wells exceeding guidelines Nitrate1 0.00175-49.7 [1.69] < 10 mg/L 9 Ortho-phosphate2 0.005-0.88 [0.01] None -Chloride3 0.72-260 [6.0] <250 1 Total Dissolved Solids 45.5-2362 [1311 <500 7 Temperature - 15 °C -Dissolved Oxygen - None -*Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 'Method detection limit = 0.0035 mg/L 2Method detection limit = 0.01 mg/L 3Method detection limit = 0.07 mg/L Water quality guidelines and exceedances for metals are listed in Table A-2. Table A - l details results for well waters analyzed for metals and quality control measures. 57 To determine i f non-parametric statistical tests should be used for statistical analysis, Brookswood well water quality parameters were tested for normal distribution using the one-sample Kolmosgrov-Smirnov non-parametric test. The resulting Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z and p-values are listed in Table F - l . The following parameters had normal distribution of data: electrical conductance (and TDS); total coliform; calcium; magnesium; silicon; strontium; residential land use; uncultured vegetation land use; and nitrate. Only nitrate concentrations for December and February were normally distributed. September nitrate concentrations were not considered to be normally distributed (P = 0.049). Therefore non-parametric tests were used to analyze well water quality data. Reporting well chemical analysis results for the three sampling events (September, December and February) can be quite cumbersome. It is done this way to illustrate seasonal differences that may exist. Seasonal differences in these water quality parameters are likely due to levels of agricultural practices, soil saturation and depth to groundwater. Sampling events were compared for nitrate, orthophosphate, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS) (as estimated from conductance values) using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. A significant difference in population was assumed if the resulting two-tailed p-value was less than 0.05 and the populations assumed to be similar i f the Kolmogorov p-value was greater than 0.05. Table 4-2: Comparison of sampling events for differences in parameter concentrations in Brookswood wells using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Sampling events compared Nitrate Chloride Orthophosphate Total Dissolved Solids Sept. 23 and Dec. 3 Z= 0.691 p-value = 0.726 Z= 0.518 p-value = 0.951 Z= 2.588 p-value = 0.001 Z=-1.945 p-value = 0.052 Dec. 3 and Dec. 9 Z= 0.571 p-value = 0.900 Z= 0.433 p-value = 0.992 Z= 1.780 p-value = 0.004 N/A Dec. 9 and Feb 10 Z= 0.669 p-value = 0.762 Z= 0.675 p-value = 0.753 Z= 1.608 p-value = 0.011 Z= -2.422 p-value = 0.015 Sept. 23 and Feb 10 Z= 0.786 p-value = 0.567 Z= 0.525 p-value = 0.946 Z= 1.061 p-value = 0.210 Z= -4.014 p-value = 0.001 Analytical results for sampling events in September, December and February did not demonstrate a significant difference (Table 4-2) for nitrate or chloride. However orthophosphate and total dissolved solid concentrations were different in September, 58 December, and February. Seasonal variations (e.g. soil saturation, agricultural practices and groundwater levels) appeared to impact nitrate and chloride concentrations less than orthophosphate and TDS concentrations in wells. 4.1.1 Outliers Outliers are values 1.5 to 3 times the interquartile range of the data set. The interquartile range includes 25% of the data points on either side of the median value (totalling 50% of the total data set). Extreme outliers are values more than 3 times the interquartile range of the data set. Outliers are important to note when correlating data since they may skew the data to favour the outlier characteristics (e.g. high nitrate concentrations). This is especially true of extreme outliers since their influence is even greater. Since outliers have not been removed from calculations or correlations in this study, it is important to note the potential influence they may have on the results. Therefore this section discusses outlier data for nitrate, chloride, orthophosphate, electrical conductance and metal concentrations. 4.1.1.1 Nitrate outliers A boxplot was created using nitrate concentrations to observe outlying data points as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Of all 102 wells sampled for nitrate concentrations 6 were statistical outliers, site numbers 35, 65, 69, 73, 89 and 102. A l l six wells producing outlier data had nitrate concentrations above 10 mg/L. Sites #73 and #102 had nitrate concentrations 3 and 5 times the C D W G maximum acceptable concentration of 10 mg/L. A wellhead protection survey was carried out on all wells with outlier nitrate concentration data. 59 Figure 4-1: Boxplot of well nitrate concentration data outliers CD E m 50 H 40 H 30 H 20 10 o i 102 73 89 '69 September 102 69 065 O 1 December 102 35 69 8 ,65 February Five of the six outliers were located within a one-kilometre radius. The well located outside the one-kilometre radius had compromised wellhead protection. Moles had entered the concrete riser protecting the well and covered the screened wellhead with loose soil. Mole hair was noted in the washer / dryer by the well owners indicating the animals had entered the well. Once repairs were implemented and wellhead protection measures reinstated the nitrate levels dropped to 2.5 - 3.4 mg/L (considered typical of nitrate concentrations in this area). The remaining five sites that produced outlier data are located within one kilometre of a large dairy farm and five large greenhouses. Soil types are predominantly Heron (HN) overlaying Sunshine (SS) and are described in Table 3-6. This results in poorly draining soils with perched water tables overlying well-draining coarse sandy soils. Both extreme outliers, site numbers 73 and 102, are located within 100 m of large greenhouse operations and 500 m of a large dairy operation. The inclusion of outliers skewed the data for 60 approximately 60 paired data sets to favour correlations with land use activities within the buffer zones of the outlier wells. 4.1.1.1.1 Orthophosphate in NO3 Outlier Wells Orthophosphate concentrations within the six NO3 outlier wells (well numbers 35, 65, 69, 73, 89, and 102) were compared with all wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer. The six NO3 outlier wells all had maximum nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of 10 mg/L or greater and contributed nitrate outlier data. The orthophosphate concentration for these 6 wells ranged from non-detectable (ND) to 0.01 mg/L with a mean of 0.006 mg/L and median of 0.005 mg/L. The range of orthophosphate concentrations in all wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer was N D to 0.88 mg/L with a mean of 0.0656 mg/L and median of 0.01 mg/L (ND). Orthophosphate in the six nitrate outlier wells were compared to orthophosphate in all sampled Brookswood wells using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. There was a significant difference (z = 0.1.536, p = 0.004) in the distribution of orthophosphate concentration in the six outlier wells compared to all sampled wells in the Brookswood aquifer. The Mann-Whitney U (M-W) test was used to test for a difference in population means. There was a significant difference in the population means of orthophosphate concentration in the six outlier wells and other wells (z = -2.847, p = 0018). Both K-S and M -W probability values were two-tailed. The concentrations of orthophosphate in the well water with high nitrate concentrations (6 nitrate outliers) were significantly lower than in other participating wells. 4.1.1.1.2 Chloride in NO3 Outlier Wells A chloride boxplot illustrating outliers for the Brookswood wells is illustrated in Figure 4-2. There are 11 wells contributing outlying data and they range in depth from 6.7 m to 28.3 m with a median depth of 9.5 m. Eight wells (31, 35, 41, 64, 73, 75, 89, and 102) contributed extreme outlying data. Depth of wells with extreme data range from 6.7 m to 13.4 m. with a median depth of 8.8 m. 61 Four of the eight wells contributing extreme outlying data for chloride concentration were also contributors of nitrate concentration outlier data. Chloride concentrations were mapped for all wells sampled in September, December and February. The chloride concentration maps for all wells in September, December, and February are illustrated in Figure H - l to Figure H-3. Well water nitrate concentration maps are also located in Figure H-4 to Figure H-6. A cluster of wells with high chloride concentrations can be seen in the area of the high nitrate concentrations. The range of chloride concentrations for the six nitrate outlier wells were 3.4 - 53.4 mg/L with sites 89 and 102 having the highest concentrations (greater than 20 mg/L). Figure 4-2: Chloride boxplot with outliers 200 -75 75 •* 150 _ Ie (mg/L) 100 31 * 73 O y 50 -89 * 6 7 4 O , 1 , 64 3 5 @ 4 8 2 ™889 1 102 6 3 089 I 0 -1 September 1 December 1 February The distribution of chloride concentration in the 6 nitrate outlier wells was compared to that of all Brookswood wells using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. There was a significant difference in the distribution of chloride concentration in the six outlier wells in September 2003 (z = 1.455, p = 0.029) and February 2004 (z = 1.377, p = 0.045) but no significant difference was noted in December 2004 (z = 0.764, p = 0.604). 62 To test for a difference in population means, chloride concentrations in the 6 nitrate outlier wells were compared to the chloride levels in 54 other wells completed in the Brookswood aquifer using the Mann-Whitney U test. There was a significant difference in the population means of chloride concentration in the six outlier wells and other wells in September 2003 (U - 67, z = -2.405, p = 0.016) and February 2004 (U = 70, z = -2.267, p = 0.023) but no significant difference was noted in December 2003 (U = 147, z = -0.622, p = 0.543). Water in the area where 5 of the 6 nitrate outlier wells are located is of the HCCV + CF type with total dissolved solids less than 200 mg/L. No historical data on chloride concentrations in this small area of interest could be located. Therefore it cannot be determined if the source of elevated chloride was anthropogenic in this area. However it is interesting to note that shallow wells (6.7 - 13.4 m depth) contributed extreme outlier data for chloride concentrations. Non-anthropogenic chloride is commonly associated with deep wells. 4.1.1.1.3 Sodium in N03 Outlier Wells Sodium concentration within the 6 wells exceeding the Canadian drinking water quality nitrate guidelines were compared with all wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer. The sodium concentration for the 6 wells ranged from 3.68 mg/L to 25.4 mg/L with a mean of 13.1 mg/L and median of 12.8 mg/L. The range of sodium concentrations in all wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer was 2.5 mg/L to 93.7 mg/L with a mean of 11.6 mg/L and median of 6.3 mg/L. Sodium concentrations in the six outlier wells were compared to sodium in all sampled Brookswood wells using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. There was no significant difference (z = 0.990, p = 0.281) in the distribution of sodium concentration in the six outlier wells compared to all sampled wells in the Brookswood aquifer. 4.1.1.1.4 Metals in N03 Outlier Wells The six wells contributing nitrate outlier data were sampled for 22 metals and then compared to the metal concentration in 54 wells in the Brookswood aquifer. Distributions of metal concentrations in the 2 populations were compared using Mann-Whitney U-Test to test for a 63 difference in medians and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for a difference in medians, variances and/or shape of distribution. Strontium was the only metal that demonstrated a significant difference (U = 60, p = 0.012; Z = 1.764, p = 0.004) between the 6 nitrate outlier wells and the 54 wells tested for metal concentrations. The 54 wells sampled in the Brookswood Aquifer had strontium concentrations ranging from 0.002 mg/L to 0.365 mg/L while the 6 nitrate outlier wells had strontium concentrations ranging from 0.058 to 0.365 mg/L. 4.1.1.2 Electrical Conductance outliers Electrical conductance (EC) is used as an estimate of total dissolved solids. It is sometimes referred to as total salt content since electrical conductance measures ion content in water. Electrical conductivity had a range of 70 - 3690 u.S/cm in the Brookswood aquifer wells. Electrical conductance values are not evenly distributed within this range as illustrated by Figure 4-3. Well numbers 80, 75, 36 and 20 contributed electrical conductivity outlier data. None of the electrical conductance outlier wells contributed nitrate outlier data. Well #80 was an extreme outlier in terms of electrical conductance data. This well is 3 m deep and had a dramatic decrease in electrical conductance as saturated conditions prevail. It had a sodium concentration of 93 mg/L, the highest noted for sampled Brookswood wells, while the mean sodium concentration was 11 mg/L. No well drilling records were available for well #80. 64 Figir^-3M£le«tr ica lcoj^ 2 5 0 0 2000H E o 55 O 1500" c ns <-> o 3 TJ C O o 1000H u 0) a) 500 o.oH 80 75 "102 6 36 j ? " Sept. 2003 80 75 *20 102^36 Dec. 2003 80 * 20 Feb.2004 Well #75 also had an unusual EC pattern by rising from 537 uS/cm in September to 790 uS/cm in December before falling to 356 uS/cm in February. This well is 9.7 m deep and located close to Anderson Creek which was dry in September but flowing in December and February. Sodium levels were higher (36 mg/L) than the mean value of 11 mg/L for Brookswood wells tested. Well drilling records indicated screen was at 7.6 to 9 m and blue clay at 9 to 10.4 m. Well drilling records for #36 indicated the screen was placed at a 18 m depth in sandy clay soils. The close proximity of clay soils may contribute to the increase in total dissolved solids found in these wells. Decreasing electrical conductance values in Brookswood wells (Figure 4-3) from September until February is likely due to dilution by rainfall infiltration. 65 4.1.2 SDS Enumeration The Greater Vancouver Regional District operates water and wastewater treatment facilities in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. As a direct result, they must oversee the development and operation of water and sewer infrastructures that connect to G V R D treatment facilities. To respond appropriately to infrastructure requirements within a community it is important to know how many structures are being serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. Counting the number of inhabited structures on each property within areas not serviced by sewer infrastructure would be too labour intensive. The current method approximates the number of sewage disposal systems by counting the number of properties with greater than $30,000 of improvements in non-serviced (sewer) areas. This computer computation can be carried out within minutes, but how closely does the value represent the actual number of on-site sewage disposal systems in use? Within an area of Langley bounded by 196 th St to 216 t h St and 0 Ave. to 50 t h Ave. the number of sewage disposal systems were counted. Aerial maps and on-site land-use surveys were used to record the number of inhabitable structures currently not serviced by sewer infrastructure. Total number of on-site sewage disposal systems counted within this area was 3653. Based on this finding, the accuracy of various computer search criteria is shown in Table 4-3. The current method used by the G V R D to approximate the number of sewage disposal systems captured 99.3 % of the on-site sewage disposal systems enumerated by our survey methods. Table 4-3: SDS enumeration using various search criteria Sewer infrastructure Improvements ($) Result % Actual value Non-serviced 0 4675 128 % Non-serviced >3000 3925 107.4 % Non-serviced > 20,000 3794 103.9% Non-serviced > 30,000 3627 99.3 % Non-serviced > 40,000 3469 95% 66 The above method of SDS enumeration counts community sewage disposal systems as one system. Relative loading from community sewage disposal systems can be calculated by estimating usage and assigning a weighted value to the system. Within the area bounded by 196 th St to 216 t h St and 0 Ave. to 50 t h Ave there are 12 community sewage disposal systems with a total weighted value of 625 SDS serving single-family residence. Total sewage disposal loading within this area is equivalent to 4270 on-site sewage disposal systems. Table 4-4: Enumeration of on-site sewage disposal systems (SDS) with weighted community SDS using improvement values as a search criteria Sewer infrastructure Improvements ($) Result % Actual value Non-serviced 0 4675 109.5 % Non-serviced >3000 3925 92% Non-serviced > 20,000 3794 89% Non-serviced > 30,000 3627 85% Non-serviced > 40,000 3469 81 % Table 4-4 illustrates the inaccuracy of estimating on-site SDS loading by using land improvement values within this area of interest. The number of on-site community sewage disposal systems will vary greatly from region to region. The following is recommended to estimate loading from on-site sewage systems: 1) Count properties with greater than $30,000 of improvements in non-serviced (sewer) areas 2) Add the weighted value of community sewage disposal systems (equivalence to single family SDS) within the area of interest. Municipalities should have information on the location of community SDS as well as population served. 67 4.1.3 Optical brighteners A fluorometer was used to detect optical brighteners in well (Table B-4) water samples in September and December 2003 and February 2004. Due to difficulties obtaining standards of optical brighteners used in Canada, laundry detergents were diluted and used as standards (see APPENDIX A , section A - l ) . Fluorescence readings were converted to optical brightener concentration equivalents and expressed in parts-per-million (ppm) Wisk laundry detergent. Colour was measured in December and February well water samples (Table B-4). Colour was correlated with fluorescence detection in both December (rs = 0.486, p = 0.006, n = 30) and February (rs = 0.681, p = 0.000, n = 60). This was expected since fluorescence detection was in the visible wavelengths. The filters used in the fluorometer to specify these fluorescence wavelengths can also detect the chromophoric or coloured fraction of dissolved organic matter. Hall and Lee (1974) found organic compounds in lake water had different colour and fluorescence properties. Many of these compounds would be detected using this fluorometer technique (e.g. 310-390 nm excitation filter and 400 - 500 nm emission filter). Table 4-5: Optical brightener correlation with livestock land use within well buffer zones in September and December 2003 anc February 2004 Spearman's 500 m radius 200 m radius 100 m radius 200 m Fan - 500 m Fan -rank Livestock Livestock - Livestock Livestock Livestock September rs 0.627(**) .621(**) .482(**) .5.17(**) .551(**) p-value 0.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 n 52 52 52 51 51 December rs 0.479(**) .468(**) .314(*) .424(**) .406(**) p-value 0.000 .000 .015 .001 .001 n 60 60 60 59 59 February rs 0.479(**) .468(**) .314(*) .424(**) .406(**) p-value 0.000 .000 .015 .001 .001 n 60 60 60 59 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tai ed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Land use activities within five buffer zones were compared to fluorescence readings in September, December and February 2004 (Table F-15 to Table F-19). Fluorescence readings in well water samples had a significant positive correlation to livestock land use (Table 4-5) and a significant negative correlation to residential land use (Table 4-6) within all well buffer 68 zones. This was not expected since optical brighteners are found in laundry detergent and should be positively correlated to residential land use. These results indicate this optical brightener detection method is rendered useless by interference from coloured fractions of dissolved organic matter. Although this method appears to be suitable for the detection of the coloured fraction of dissolved organic matter it is not recommended for the detection of optical brighteners in ground or surface waters. Table 4-6: Optical brightener correlation with residential land use within well buffer zones in September and Decern ber 2003 and February 2004 Spearman's rank 500 m radius Residential 200 m radius Residential 100 m radius Residential 200 m Fan Residential 500 m Fan Residential September rs -0.507(**) -.526(**) -.335(*) -.498(**) -.526(**) p-value 0.000 .000 .015 .000 .000 n 52 52 52 51 51 December rs -0.292(*) -.317(*) -.192 -.334(**) -.415(**) p-value 0.024 .014 .141 .010 .001 n 60 60 60 59 59 February rs -0.292(*) -.317(*) -.192 -.334(**) -.415(**) p-value 0.024 .014 .141 .010 .001 n 60 60 60 59 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Optical brighteners in environmental samples should be eluted from the sample and separated using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The separated components can then be analysed using a fluorometer. This technique requires standards of the specific optical brighteners used in US and Canadian laundry detergents. The type of optical brightener used in laundry detergents in Canada and the US is proprietary and the optical brightener content would not be released by laundry detergent manufacturers. Therefore DAS 1 (Figure 2-4) and DSBP (Figure 2-3) standards were difficult to identify and obtain. Unfortunately these standards could not be purchased until the sampling phase of this project had concluded. These standards were given to another U B C Civi l Engineering graduate student who will incorporate HPLC detection of optical brighteners into a M A S C thesis. 69 4.1.4 Nitrate Well water nitrate concentrations were mapped for September (Figure H-4), December (Figure H-5), and February (Figure H-6). Those wells exceeding the Canadian guidelines for drinking water quality of 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen are discussed in section 4.1.1.1 as outlier nitrate data. Of the 103 wells tested in this study, 22 percent had maximum nitrate-N concentrations higher than 3 mg/L, and 6 percent exceeded 10 mg/L nitrate-N. Water quality parameters for wells located outside of the Brookswood aquifer are listed in Table B-2. Of the 70 wells located in the Brookswood aquifer, approximately 35% (24 wells) had a maximum nitrate-nitrogen concentration greater than 3 mg/L, and approximately 9 % (6 wells) had maximum nitrate-nitrogen concentrations greater than 10 mg/L. A l l wells in this study with greater than 3 mg/L nitrate-N were located within the Brookswood aquifer. A comparison of historical data is shown in Table 4-7. A l l previous studies listed in Table 4-7 had non-detectable values (sometimes reported as 0 mg/L nitrate concentration) so a minimum nitrate value was omitted. Table 4-7: Comparison of Brookswood Aquifer well nitrate concentration studies Date # wells Max Mean Median %<3 % 3 - 5 %5-9 % > 10 (n) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Aug 12 73 13.6 2.06 58 0 8 33 1993* Nov 75 10.3 2.03 1.41 79 9 11 1 1996** Feb 74 8.2 1.85 1.19 82 9 8 0 1997** Sept 60 48 3.1 1.29 73 13 10 5 2003 Dec 3, 60 37 3.0 1.38 65 17 12 5 2003 Dec8& 47 50 3.6 1.96 57 28 6 6 9,2003 Feb 61 42 , 2.9 1.76 67 16 11 2 2004 * Carmicheal et al. (1995) ** Schreier and Scales (1997) 70 The higher median nitrate concentration for December 8 & 9 may be the result of selective sampling. The December 8th & 9th sampling event to test for fecal coliform concentrated on wells with 3 mg/L nitrate or higher. In addition, owners of deep wells were less interested in having their wells tested for fecal coliform (less risk of fecal coliform presence). In the 1993 Fraser Valley groundwater study (Carmicheal et al, 1995), private wells were selected so 90 to 75% were located in areas with medium to high risk of aquifer contamination. Six private and 6 community wells were sampled in the Brookswood aquifer in 1993. A higher percentage of wells in 1993 had nitrate levels greater than 10 mg/L and the median nitrate concentration was higher than the sampling results from the 2003 dry season. On the other hand, the mean and median nitrate concentrations increased since 1996 when wet season sampling events are compared. However it is difficult establish a trend in nitrate concentrations since different wells were sampled in the 1993, 1996/7 and 2003/4 study. Of nearly 124,000 wells tested in the U.S. (Madison and Brunett, 1984) 20 percent had maximum nitrate-N concentrations higher than 3 mg/L nitrate and 6 percent exceeded 10 mg/L nitrate-N. The Brookswood aquifer demonstrated 34% of wells had maximum nitrate-N concentrations higher than 3 mg/L. However the percentage of wells that exceeded 10 mg/L nitrate-N were similar. Nitrate had a significant positive correlation to copper (rs = 0.321, p = 0.002) and zinc (rs = 0.378, p < 0.001). The presence of copper enhances corrosion of zinc in galvanized plumbing pipes so they are commonly associated (Health Canada, 1992). Nitrate had a significant negative association to orthophosphate (rs = -0.733, p < 0.001), potassium (rs = -0.622, p < 0.001), and total dissolved solids (rs = -0.297, p = 0.004). 4.1.5 Orthophosphate The range of orthophosphate concentrations in all wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer was N D to 0.01 mg/L with a mean of 0.006 mg/L and median of 0.005 mg/L (ND). Orthophosphate had a significant positive correlation to total dissolved solids (TDS) (rs = 71 0.384, p < 0.001), potassium (rs = 0.662, p < 0.001), and sodium (rs = 0.671, p < 0.001). Total dissolved solid concentration is sometimes referred to as the total salt content. The following ions are the most commonly associated with TDS in ground and surface waters: CO3", Cf , SO4"2, N0 3 " , K + , M g + 2 , Ca + 2 , and Na + . 4.1.6 Chloride Well water chloride concentrations are summarized in Table 4-8 for Brookswood water quality studies. Maps of well chloride concentration in September, December, 2003 and February, 2004 are illustrated by Figure H - l to Figure H-3. It is recommended (Health Canada, 2003) that the total concentration of chloride in drinking water should not exceed 250 mg/L. The Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (MWLAP) in British Columbia recommends a maximum of 600 mg/L in guidelines for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. Irrigation water guidelines (MWLAP, 1998) limit chloride concentrations to 100 mg/L or less Table 4-8 summarizes chloride concentrations for Brookswood groundwater studies. Well water chloride concentrations are well within recommended water quality guidelines. Table 4-8: Summary of historical Brookswood Aquifer well chloride concentrations Date # wells (n) Min (mg/L) Max (mg/L) Mean (mg/L) Median (mg/L) % > 100 mg/L % >250 mg/L Aug 1993* 12 2.4 40.5 12.6 7.4 0 0 Nov 1996** 75 0.022 105.4 13.6 7.5 3 0 Feb 1997** 74 0.03 176.5 16.3 7.2 5 0 Sept 2003 60 1.01 189 13.5 6.2 2 0 Dec 3, 2003 60 1.13 260 16.6 6.1 3 2 Dec8& 9,2003 47 0.72 124.4 11.2 5.7 3 2 Feb 2004 61 1.56 94.9 10.6 6.0 0 0 * Carmicheal et al. (1995) ** Schreier and Scales (1997) 72 When the chloride results were compared for the various sampling events listed in Table 4-8 no significant difference was noted (Table F-20). Therefore chloride concentrations in Brookswood groundwater appear to have remained relatively stable. Of all well water quality parameters in this study only sodium had a significant correlation to chloride concentrations (rs = 0.315, p = 0.003). Figure 4-4: Chloride concentration boxplot for three well depth categories E s p '-£» 58 la | 150 B O u a> •c XI o 300 - \ 250 H 200 H 100 1 50 H 0 H o o 4 < 10 m depth 10-20 m depth > 20 m depth Chloride concentrations at three well depths were plotted in Figure 4-4. Chloride concentrations demonstrated a significant difference between shallow (<10 m), medium (10 -20 m), and deep (>20 m) well depths (Table 4-9). Table 4-9: Comparison of chloride concentrations in three well depth categories Chloride concentrations grouped according to well depth Mann-Whitney U test Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test Well depth 1 Well depth 2 Z-value p-value Z-value p-value < 10m >20m -3 749*** 0.001 1.850** 0.002 < 10m 10-20 m -1.935 0.053 1.361** 0.049 73 10-20 m >20m -2.156* 0.031 1.510s1 0.021 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Median chloride concentrations were higher in shallow wells (8.334 mg/L) compared to medium depth (5.95 mg/L) and deep (5.43 mg/L) wells. If the chloride were solely from natural sources, a significant positive correlation to well depth would have been expected (e.g. marine deposits). Since chloride concentrations are higher in shallow wells, anthropogenic sources are contributing chloride to the groundwater in Brookswood Table 4-10: Correlation of chloride concentrations to well depth Sampling Event Spearman's rho (rs) p-value Number of wells (n) September -0.332* 0.012 57 December -0.247 0.059 59 February -0.120 0.367 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed Chloride concentrations had a significant negative correlation to well depth in September (Table 4-10). In other words, chloride concentrations were higher in shallow wells in September with correlation strength decreasing dramatically in December and February. This pattern may indicate agricultural sources and/or dilution during vertical migration in saturated soils. Of all well water quality parameters in this study only sodium had a significant correlation to chloride concentrations (rs = 0.315, p = 0.003). 4.1.7 Electrical conductance Electrical conductance was used to estimate total dissolved solids content. Total dissolved solids (TDS) are a measure of dissolved minerals (e.g. salts) in the water. The total concentration of six major ions normally comprises more than 90% of the total dissolved solids in groundwater regardless of whether the water is dilute or has salinity greater than seawater. These six major ions are: Na + , M g 2 + , Ca 2 + , CI", HCO3", and SO42". 74 High TDS can make drinking water unpalatable (>500 mg/L) and agricultural waters unsuitable for livestock watering (> 3000 mg/L) or irrigation (> 500 - 3500 mg/L). Excluding outliers, all participating wells in the Brookswood aquifer were below 500 mg/L TDS. Figure 4-5: Seasonal electrical conductance box plot of Brookswood groundwater without outliers 500H September December February Figure 4-5 illustrates an electrical conductivity boxplot without outliers from well numbers 80, 75, 36, and 20. Brookswood sampled well waters generally declined in electrical conductance from September (median = 226 uS/cm) to December (median =197 uS/cm) and February (median = 180 uS/cm). As expected saturated soil conditions prevailed and electrical conductance generally decreased. This response was likely due to dilution. Parameters that had significant correlations to electrical conductance (and thus TDS) in Brookswood wells are listed in Table 4-11. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and strontium demonstrated the strongest correlations to conductance. This is not surprising since calcium and magnesium are major soil constituents, usually found in 1 - 1000 mg/1 range in natural 75 groundwater (Harter, 2003). In addition, potassium and strontium are secondary constituents, usually present in groundwater in the 0.01-10 mg/1 range (Harter, 2003). Figure 4-6 Table 4-11: Correlation of electrical conductance values with metal concentration in Brookswood wells Metal Spearman's rho (rs) p-value Metal Spearman's rho (rs) p-value B 0.255* 0.042 Mn 0.354* 0.004 Ba 0.287* 0.021 Na 0.375** 0.002 Ca 0.704*** 0.001 Si 0.338** 0.006 K 0.517*** 0.001 Sr 0.494*** 0.001 Mg 0.593*** 0.001 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). 4.1.8 Metals Sixty wells in the Brookswood aquifer and 30 wells in other aquifers were tested for the 22 metals listed in Appendix A , Table A - l . Summary statistics for metals detected in groundwater are illustrated in Table 4-12. Metal concentrations in well water and the water quality guideline exceedances are discussed in this section. Guidelines, criteria and sampling results for metal analysis of well water are summarized in Appendix A , Table A-2. No statistics were carried out for As, B, Cd, Co, Cr, Mo, N i , Pb, and Se due to the lack of detectable concentrations in the 60 sampled wells. Lead was detected in one well within the Brookswood aquifer (2.5 mg/L) and one well located within a deeper, confined aquifer (1.2 mg/L). Chromium was detected in one well (0.190 mg/L) located in the Brookswood aquifer. These lead and chromium concentrations exceeded guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. No concentrations of As, Cd, Co, Mo, N i , and Se were detected in any of the wells sampled in this study. The most common metals to exceed the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality aesthetic objectives were iron and manganese. The concentration ranges found for iron and 76 manganese in the study wells are thought to be harmless to human health (Health Canada 2003). Other parameters exceeding the aesthetic objectives were sodium, and copper. These are considered harmless to health in the concentrations ranges found in this study. The main concerns with all parameters that exceeded aesthetic objectives are objectionable taste and/or staining of fixtures and clothing. TaWej4-L2^mn^nary^to Metal # Above detection % Above detection Minimum (mg/L) Maximum (mg/L) Median (mg/L) Mean (mg/L) Std. Deviation Aluminum (Al) 14 23.333 0.025 0.375 0.025 0.048 0.057 Boron (B) 5 8.333 0.025 0.110 0.025 0.031 0.019 Barium (Ba) 12 20.000 0.005 0.172 0.005 0.013 0.025 Calcium (Ca) 60 100.000 4.265 63.850 13.225 16.142 10.753 Copper (Cu) 53 88.333 0.025 2.992 0.136 0.342 0.497 Iron (Fe) 54 90.000 0.025 18.755 0.178 1.235 3.416 Potassium (K) 52 86.667 0.025 7.391 1.110 1.535 1.531 Magnesium (Mg) 60 100.000 1.015 24.065 4.797 5.607 4.287 Manganese (Mn) 45 75.000 0.006 1.604 0.048 0.115 0.243 Sodium (Na) 60 100.000 2.499 93.684 6.338 11.671 14.709 Phosphorus (P) 7 11.667 0.100 0.786 0.100 0.135 0.114 Silicon (Si) 60 100.000 3.276 18.246 8.127 8.442 2.742 Strontium (Sr) 60 100.000 0.042 0.365 0.086 0.100 0.061 Zinc (Zn) 38 63.333 0.005 2.962 0.017 0.093 0.385 The Canadian drinking water guidelines for As, Cd, P, Pb, and Se are well below the metal analysis detection limits. Therefore the method used in this study was inadequate for making comparisons to these drinking water quality guidelines. It is unknown i f any of the well water samples meet or exceed Health Canada's guidelines for As, Cd, P, Pb and Se in drinking water. The same is true for British Columbia ambient aquatic guidelines for Co, Cu, P, Pb, and Se. Although ambient aquatic guidelines do not apply to groundwater, it is interesting to compare concentrations since the Brookswood aquifer supplements water levels in fish-77 bearing streams during periods of low flows. Groundwater also helps regulate stream temperatures by supplying cool water in summer and warm water in winter months. The results of the metals analysis were correlated with February well water quality parameters (including other metals) and land use. Some of the significant correlations are discussed in the following sections. Relationships between metals detected in Brookswood wells were defined using spearman's rank correlation coefficient and probabilities as listed in Table F-4 to Table F-8. 4.1.8.1 Aluminium The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality have no criteria for aluminium concentrations in drinking water. The B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's recommended guideline of 0.2 for aluminium concentrations in drinking water is based on aesthetic considerations. This guideline was exceeded by 2 wells, one of which was located in the Brookswood aquifer. Since pH was not measured in our samples, it is unknown how many wells exceeded M W L A P aluminium criteria for aquatic life. 4.1.8.2 Copper The aesthetic drinking water quality guideline for copper was exceeded in four of the 70 participating wells in the Brookswood aquifer. When Brookswood wells were mapped in terms of copper concentrations, no clustering pattern was noted. The four wells demonstrating guidelines exceedances were located several kilometres from each other. Depths of these wells ranged from 2 to 27 m. Dissolved copper can have a detrimental effect on galvanized products as it enhances corrosion of aluminium and zinc (Health Canada, 2003). Copper concentrations in Brookswood wells demonstrated a significant positive correlation to aluminium (rs = 0.432, p = 0.001), zinc (rs = 0.403, p = 0.001) and barium (rs = 0.270, p = 0.037). Copper concentrations had a significant negative correlation to calcium (rs = - 0.421, p = 0.001), magnesium (rs = - 0.312, p = 0.015), and silicon (rs = - 0.336, p = 0.009). 78 4.1.8.3 Iron Of the 70 wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer, 33 % exceeded the aesthetic limit of 0.3 mg/L recommended in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Thirty-seven percent of the 30 sampled wells located in other aquifers exceeded the aesthetic GCDWQ limit of 0.3 mg/L. Iron concentrations had a significant positive correlation to manganese (rs = 0.418, p = 0.001) and silicon (rs = 0.277, p = 0.032). These results were higher than found by two other studies conducted in 1992 and 1993 throughout the Fraser Valley. Gartner Lee (1993) found 16 % of wells sampled exceeded 0.3 mg/L while Carmichael et al (1995) found 13 % of sampled wells exceeded 0.3 mg/L. When Carmichael (1995) examined both the 1993 and 1995 water quality data sets, no apparent relationship between iron exceedances and well depth, well age or aquifer(s) were noted. When Brookswood wells were mapped in terms of iron concentrations those wells with greater than 0.3 mg/L iron were evenly distributed throughout the aquifer, No clustering in terms of high iron concentration was noted. Well depth ranged from 6 to 58 m with a mean of 20 m for those wells with greater than 0.3 mg/L iron. Those wells with less than 0.3 mg/L iron had a well depth range of 2 to 49 m with a mean of 15.5 m. The potential for high iron in drinking water supplies appears to exist throughout the Brookswood aquifer. When well depth and iron concentrations were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test no significant difference was noted (z = - 1.65, p = 0.99). This indicates well depth is not related to exceedances of the drinking water guidelines for iron. Carmichael et al (1995) found no relationship to iron exceedances and well depth while studying groundwater quality in the Fraser Valley. 4.1.8.4 Manganese Of the 70 wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer 31.4 % exceeded the aesthetic limit for manganese of 0.05 mg/L recommended in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Of the 30 sampled wells located in other aquifers 36.7 % exceeded the aesthetic GCDWQ limit of 0.05 mg/L. Manganese concentrations had a significant positive correlation to barium (rs = 0.417, p = 0.001), calcium (rs = 0.333, p = 0.009), iron (rs = 0.418, p = 0.001), 79 potassium (rs = 0.440, p < 0.001), magnesium (rs = 0.422, p = 0.001), sodium (rs = 0.446, p < 0.001), silicon (rs = 0.336, p = 0.009), and strontium (rs = 0.333, p = 0.009). The percentage of wells that exceeded GCDWQ for manganese was higher than in two other Fraser Valley groundwater studies. Gartner Lee (1993) found 23 % of wells sampled exceeded 0.05 mg/L manganese while Carmichael et al (1995) found 24 % of sampled wells exceeded 0.05 mg/L. When Carmichael (1995) examined both the 1993 and 1995 water quality data sets, no apparent relationship between manganese exceedances and well depth, well type or aquifer(s) were noted. As with iron, when Brookswood wells were mapped in terms of manganese concentrations, those wells with greater than 0.05 mg/L manganese were evenly distributed throughout the aquifer. Well depth ranged from 3 to 58 m with a mean of 19.5 m for those wells with greater than 0.05 mg/L manganese. Those wells with less than 0.05 mg/L manganese had a well depth range of 2 to 49 m with a mean of 16 m. The potential for high manganese in drinking water supplies appears to exist throughout the Brookswood aquifer and is independent of well depth. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the means of well depths for manganese concentrations greater than 0.05 and less than 0.05. There was no significant difference (Z = -1.24, p = .215) in the means of these two populations suggesting no relationship between well depth and exceedances of the aesthetic drinking water guidelines for manganese. 4.1.8.5 Sodium Ten percent of wells (3 wells of 30 sampled) that were completed in (drawing water from) other aquifers within the study area had sodium concentrations exceeding Health Canada's recommended aesthetic guideline of 200 mg/L. Well numbers 62, 81, and 105 had concentrations over 200 mg/L and depths of 12, 58.5, and 66 m respectively. These three wells the Brookswood aquifer. None of the sampled wells within the Brookswood aquifer exceeded the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. The range of sodium concentrations in the Brookswood aquifer was 2.5 mg/L to 93.7 mg/L. 80 4.1.9 Coliform Bacteria Bacterial content is an important indicator of water quality. In terms of public health, the most useful bacterial water quality indicators are those associated with fecal contamination of water. Selected Brookswood aquifer wells were tested for coliform and bacterial source tracking analysis. Total and fecal coliform counts are common measures of bacterial water quality. The presence of total coliform is a general measure of bacterial water quality indicating plant and animal sources. Fecal coliform is closely associated with fecal contamination while bacterial source tracking attempts to specify the source of fecal contamination. Total coliform test was used an indicator of general contamination and to assess the suitability for bacterial source tracking (BST) analysis. Four wells were selected for total coliform testing: two for BST assessment (#02 & #2); one for previous fecal coliform counts (#87); and one at the request of the well owner (#15). Only wells #87 (4 cfu/100 ml) and #2 (103 cfu/100 ml) were positive for total coliform A l l participating wells with nitrate concentrations of 3 mg/L or higher were tested for fecal coliform on October 15, 2003. Of the 20 wells tested, only 4 were positive for fecal coliform: #19 (39 cfu/100 ml); #46 (3 cfu/100 ml); #65 (5 cfu/100 ml); and #102 (13 cfu/100 ml). Fifty-five wells were sampled for fecal coliform December 8 & 9, 2003. Three out of the 55 wells were positive for fecal coliform; well #2 (39 cfu/100 ml), well #8 (3 cfu/100 ml), and well #87 (2 cfu/100 ml). No correlation was noted between fecal coliform counts and nitrate (rs = 0.058, p = 0.697) or chloride (rs = -0.088, p = 0.551). Other Fraser Valley studies have also shown a lack of correlation between fecal coliform counts and nitrate concentrations in groundwater (Magwood, 2004). A significant positive correlation was noted with orthophosphate concentrations and fecal coliform in wells (rs = 0.322, p = 0.026). However this correlation should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of wells that were positive for fecal coliform (n = 4). 81 4.1.10 Bacterial Source Tracking in Wells Two wells (site #102 and #2) were sampled for bacterial source tracking. Since bacterial source tracking differentiates types of bacteroides, the water sample must contain bacteria. Although bacteroides are not related to coliform or E.coli (not even closely), they are the most numerous bacteria found in the intestine of warm-blooded animals. Therefore an inexpensive coliform test was used as a screening tool prior to selecting wells for fecal coliform testing. Site #102 had a fecal coliform count of 0 cfu/100 ml on December 9 and 18 t h. This site was submitted for bacterial source tracking on December 18 t h because multiple sources were suspected for the high nitrate concentrations in this well (36 - 50 mg/L). Bacterial source tracking analysis was not successful due to the lack of bacteroides in the well #102 water sample. Well #2 had a total coliform count of 103 cfu/100 ml and fecal coliform count of 0 cfu/100ml at the time of bacterial source tracking analysis (December 18, 2003). The pre-screening fecal coliform test on December 9 showed 39 cfu/100 ml for well #2. Bacterial source tracking was not successful possibly because of the low amount of fecal matter in the water sample from well #2. 4.1.11 Well Depth Participating wells that were completed in the Brookswood aquifer had a well depth range of 1.8 m to 57.6 m with a median depth of 13.4 m. The relationship of well depth to nitrate and orthophosphate concentrations are described below. 4.1.11.1 Nitrate Nitrate concentrations were compared to the depth of participating wells within the Brookswood aquifer. Figure 4-7 illustrates the relationship between well depth and nitrate concentrations. 82 FJgjLn-e4-7Mielat^  50 45 40 S 35 BR s c c u S o U 9J H 15 30 25 20 0.0 • • 2 3 - S e p - 0 3 • 3 - D e c - 0 3 10 -Feb -04 • r i 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Well Depth (m) 50.0 60.0 Well depths were categorized as shallow (< 10 m), medium (10 - 20 m) and deep (> 20 m). Nitrate concentrations for these three well depth categories were plotted as shown in Figure 4-8. Nitrate concentrations greater than 10 ppm were found in shallow or moderate depth wells. Using Mann-Whitney U test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test for differences in the populations, nitrate concentrations within the three well depth categories were compared (Table 4-13). 83 Figure 4-8: Nitrate concentrations for shallow (< 10 m), medium (10 - 20 m), and deep f^-vZjljn^veHs^rithu^h Nitrate concentrations in medium depth wells were higher than those in shallow and deep wells. However no significant difference in nitrate concentration was noted for shallow and deep wells (Table 4-13). Table 4-13: Nitrate concentrations in each of three well depth categories were compared for statistical differences in data distribution Nitrate concentrations grouped according to well depth Mann-Whitney U test Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test Well depth 1 Well depth 2 Z-value p-value Z-value p-value < 10m >20m -1.211 0.226 1.224 0.100 < 10m 10 -20 m -2.005* 0.045 1.379* 0.045 10-20m >20m -3.151** 0.002 1 924*** 0.001 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). 84 Nitrate contamination will migrate vertically over time. Long-term nitrate loading results in nitrate contamination at greater depths within an aquifer (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Nitrate sources that have been active over an extended period of time will result in nitrate contamination of deeper wells. The lack of shallow well depth correlation to nitrate concentration in the Brookswood aquifer suggests nitrate contamination has occurred over a period of many years. In an attempt to determine background nitrate concentration the Mann-Whitney statistical calculation was used to compare the mean depth of wells with nitrate-nitrogen concentrations greater and less than 0.036, 0.1, 0.2 and 3 mg/L to the mean depth of all wells sampled in the Brookswood aquifer. There was no significant difference in the mean depths of wells for any of these categories. This agrees with the previous suggestion of long-term nitrate contamination to this shallow aquifer. 4.1.11.2 Orthophosphate Orthophosphate concentrations within three well depth categories were plotted as shown in Figure 4-9. The distribution of orthophosphate data in deep wells (> 20 m) significantly differed from that in medium (10 - 20 m) or shallow (< 10 m) wells (Table 4-14). 85 F J g u r e 4 - 9 ^ 0 r t h o r j b ^ 11 i 0.8 H ft a 0.6 a o X i a o X i t O 0.4 i 0.2 H 0 1 I o o § 4 < 10 m depth 10 - 20 m depth > 20 m depth No difference in orthophosphate data distribution was noted between shallow and medium depth wells. The concentration of orthophosphate in deep wells was higher than that for shallow or medium depth wells (Figure 4-9). Orthophosphate concentrations grouped according to well depth Mann-Whitney U test Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test Well depth 1 Well depth 2 Z-value p-value Z-value p-value < 10m >20m -3.093** 0.002 1 947*** 0.001 < 10m 10-20 m -1.645 0.100 0.901 0.392 10-20m >20m -4.630*** 0.001 2.777*** 0.001 *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Porcella et al. (1974) demonstrated that phosphorus from fertilizer applied in the spring was confined to the top 5 cm of soils after a normal growing season. Sandy (and peat) soils are 86 the exception to the restricted mobility of phosphorus in soils. Even though the Brookswood aquifer is predominantly sands and gravels, this correlation between well depth and orthophosphate concentration was unexpected. The correlation strength increases during the wet season indicating orthophosphate is vertically mobile in interstitial water (Table 4-15) Table 4-15: Correlation of orthophosphate concentrations to well depth Sampling Event Spearman's rho (rs) p-value Number of wells (n) September 0.220 0.89 61 December 0.246 0.060 59 February 0.345(**) 0.007 60 4.1.11.3 Metals In the Brookswood Aquifer, well depths had a significant positive correlation to: calcium; iron; magnesium; and silicon. Well water quality demonstrates substantial differences when compared to all 90 wells sampled in the study area (Table 4-16). Table 4-16: Correlation of well depth to metal concentration in Brookswood wells compared to all 90 wells sampled within the study area Brookswood Aquifer wells All wells (inc. Brookswood Aquifer) Metal r s Metal r s Calcium 0.34** Aluminium -0.369*** Iron 0.251* Boron 0.546*** Magnesium 0.349** Copper -0.317** Silicon 0.502*** Potassium 0471*** Magnesium 0.272* Sodium 0.531*** Phosphate 0.647*** Silicon 0.419*** Zinc -0.411*** * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Only twenty of the 90 wells were completed in aquifers other than the Brookswood Aquifer. However different correlations of metals to well depth were demonstrated when the 20 wells from a variety of other aquifers and depths were added to the Brookswood wells. 87 When the 90 wells are grouped together the well depths had a significant negative correlation to aluminium copper, and zinc while showing significant positive correlations with boron, potassium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate, and silicon. This demonstrates the difference in water quality within the Brookswood aquifer when compared to other aquifers in the area. Water quality in other aquifers varies with depth more so than the fairly uniform water quality within the Brookswood aquifer water column. 4.2 Well Water Quality & Land Use Interactions Five land use categories were compared to water quality parameters within 5 buffer zones of participating wells. These five land use categories were residential, uncultured vegetation, crops, livestock, greenhouse (Figure 4-10). The percentage of each land use category was calculated for 5 buffer zones and applied to participating Brookswood wells. Both the circular and fan shaped buffer zones gave a good estimate of land use activities within a stated distance from a well. However when comparing data sets, the fan-shaped buffer zones were able to condense the land use activities potentially impacting the water quality in each well. In general the redesigned buffer zones helped define relationships in terms of correlating land use and water quality data. Buffer zones could be further improved if groundwater flows were more accurately measured (e.g. piezometers) and the buffer zone designed for each individual well. This could not be achieved in this study due to budget and time constraints. 88 Figure 4-10: Five land use categories within the Brookswood Aquifer Residential Greenhous Scale: 1:130,000 4.2.1 Residential The residential land use activity category was made up of properties primarily used for single-family homes and residential landscaping. Residential land use includes homes serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. Those areas serviced by municipal sewer infrastructure were included in the residential land use category but rarely fell within the 5 89 well buffer zones. Nutrient application to lawns was expected to be variable for this land use category. Significant correlations between nitrate and the percentage of residential land use were noted for all buffer shapes and sizes except the 100 m radius buffer zone (Table 4-17). There were few sewage disposal systems located within the 100 m radius buffer zone due to large lot sizes found throughout the Brookswood Aquifer. This may account for the lack of correlation between nitrate concentrations and residential land use within a 100 m radius of participating wells. Table 4-17: Correlation of nitrate level to residential land use in well buffer zones Buffer Zones September Nitrate Correlation December Nitrate Correlation February Nitrate Correlation 100 m r = 0.186, p = 0.151 r = 0.14, p = 0.153 r = 0.237, p = 0.068 200 m r = 0.299*, p = 0.019 r = 0.338***, p < 0.001 r = 0.355**, p = 0.005 200 m fan shaped r = 0.316*, p = 0.015 r = 0.289**, p = 0.003 r = 0.373**, p = 0.004 500 m r =.335**, p = 0.008 r =.309**, p = 0.001 r =.370**, p = 0.004 500 m fan shaped r = .292*, p = 0.025 r= .281**, p = 0.004 r = .405***, p = 0.001 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Increased percentage of residential land use activities were correlated to higher nitrate levels during all sampling events. In addition, an increase in correlation strength between nitrate concentration and residential land use was noted when all six outlier well data were removed Correlation strength was similar whether or not the direction of groundwater flow was estimated and accounted for within the 200 m and 500 m circular and fan-shaped buffer zones. These correlations indicate residential land use influences nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Nitrate concentrations had stronger correlations to residential land use in February, when saturated soil conditions prevailed. Nitrate is very mobile with interstitial and groundwater flow (horizontal and vertical) in saturated soils. This increased correlation strength is likely due to the ease of nitrate migration from on-site SDS in residential areas to the groundwater table. 90 Magwood (2004) found septic systems to be the likely source of nitrate in urban areas within the Hatzic Valley in British Columbia. In this study nitrate concentrations were compared to the percentage of urban residential land use within a 100 m well buffer zone using boxplots. Municipal water or sewer did not service this urban residential land use category. These urban residential areas had high seasonal groundwater tables and high sewage disposal system densities. Magwood (2004) correlated nitrate concentrations and the percentage of urban residential land use within well buffer zones of 50 m, 100 m and 200 m radii. Significant correlations were r s = 0.240 (p at 0.05 level) at the 100 m buffer zone and r s = 0.327 and 0.298 (p at 0.01 level). Correlation strength increased when wells > 15 m in depth were eliminated from the calculations. Nitrate correlations to urban residential land use found by Magwood (2004) were very similar to those found between nitrate and residential land use in this study of Brookswood wells. 4.2.2 Uncultured vegetation Uncultured vegetation land-use activities included government designated parks and naturally forested lands. In general, lands with minimal to no human activity and non-agricultural vegetation were categorized as native vegetation. Little to no nutrient application for properties in this category was expected. A l l buffer zones demonstrated significant negative correlation to the uncultured vegetation land use category. In other words, wells located close to parks and naturally forested areas generally had lower nitrate concentrations. A study in the Hatzic Valley, British Columbia, found significant negative correlations (rs = -0.277 to -0.349 with two tailed p at 0.01 level) between nitrate levels in groundwater and the percentage of forested land in well 50 m , 100 m, and 200 m radii buffer zones (Magwood, 2004). The range and strength of these correlations are very similar to those demonstrated in Table 4-18. 91 Table 4-18: Correlation of nitrate level to uncultured vegetation in well buffer zones Buffer Zone September December February 100 m r = -0.307*, p = 0.016 r =-0.361***, p< 0.001 r =-0.363**, p = 0.004 200 m r =-0.37**, p = 0.003 r =-0.347***, p< 0.001 r = -0.276*, p = 0.033 200 m fan r =-0.408**, p = 0.001 r =-0.468***, p< 0.001 r =-0.475***, p< 0.001 500 m r =-.354**, p = 0.005 r =-.335***, p< 0.001 r = -.321 *,p = 0.012 500 m fan r = -0.16, p = 0.225 r =-.196*, p = 0.047 r = -.265*, p = 0.042 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). In general, close proximity to the uncultured vegetation category had a significant negative correlation to nitrate concentrations especially in the winter months as illustrated in Table 4-18. This correlation is not surprising since the uncultured vegetation land uses provide permeable surfaces that facilitate the cleansing of aquifer recharge waters. Plants facilitate the uptake of nitrates within the soil root zone and soils beneath this zone act as a natural water filter. The land use activities associated with the uncultured vegetation category involved little to no fertilizer application to these properties. Parks and naturally forested areas should be encouraged to protect groundwater resources. 4.2.3 Crops This land use category included all sizes of crop growing operations (e.g. hobby and agricultural). A l l crop cultivation is included in this land use category except mushroom farms and greenhouse operations. A separate land use category could not be created for mushroom farms due to the lack of this land use within the buffer zones of participating wells. Properties that appeared to grow crops as the primary land use activity (inc. large pasture areas) were included in this category. No significant correlations between nitrate concentrations and crop land use were noted within any of the 5 buffer zones. 92 4.2.4 Livestock This land-use category included all animal land use categories (e.g. sheep, cattle, horses, other) and operation sizes (e.g. agricultural and hobby farm). Fields used to graze animals were also included in this category. Animal units are an index of potential pollution problems (Kenney et al. 2000). Animal equivalent densities are calculated by surveying the type and number of animals within a specified area then equating to one type of animal (e.g. 3 sheep or 20 chickens may equal one cow) (Table D-2). Many European countries recommend a maximum of 2.5 animal equivalent units (AEU) to reduce the risk of contamination to ground and surface waters. Animal equivalents were calculated based on University of Illinois (2000) and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (2005) recommended animal equivalency guidelines. Based on 2001 Census data in Schreier et al. (2003) South Langley had a total of 12984 animal equivalents (Table D-2) for 3787 farm acres. This equals a total livestock density of 3.4 AEU/hain 2001. Table 4-19: Correlation of orthophosphate, total phosphate, potassium and sodium within Brookswood aquifer wells to livestock land use in February 2004 Buffer zone (# wells) Spearman's rho (probability (p) value) Orthophosphate Total phosphate Potassium Sodium 100 m circle (n = 60) 0.18(0.169) 0.228 (0.0.79) 0.413*** (0.001) 0.22 (0.092) 200 ni circle (n = 60) 0.397** (0.002) 0.308* (0.017) 0.513*** (0.001) 0.402*** (0.001) 200 m fan-shape (n = 59) 0.2 (0.13) 0.302* (0.02) 0.411*** (0.001) 0.285* (0.029) 500 m circle (n = 60) 0.390** (0.002) 0.464*** (0.001) 0.490*** (0.001) 0.375** (0.003) 500 m fan-shape (n = 59) 0.336** (0.009) 0.338** (0.002) 0.424*** (0.001) 0.229 (0.081) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Orthophosphate, total phosphate, potassium and sodium concentrations in wells were significantly positively correlated with livestock land use (Table 4-19). These water quality parameters are components of inorganic fertilizers and manure. Orthophosphate is not very 93 mobile when compared to nitrate, which is very mobile in groundwater and interstitial water in soils. Orthophosphate tends to be retained by soils while nitrate is very soluble and tends to migrate with the direction of vertical and horizontal water flow. A l l buffer zones demonstrated a significant negative correlation between well nitrate concentrations and livestock land use in September as illustrated in Table 4-20. The number of buffer zones with these significant negative correlations decreased in December (3) and February (2). As saturated soil conditions prevail nitrate will migrate vertically from the upper layers of soil. Increasing nitrate concentrations during December and February would cause this decrease in significant negative correlations to livestock land use. Table 4-20: Correlation of nitrate evel to all livestock in well buffer zones Buffer Zones September Nitrate Correlation December Nitrate Correlation February Nitrate Correlation 100 m r = -0.274*, p = 0.032 r = -0.131,p = 0.182 r = -0.211,p = 0.105 200 m r =-0.364**, p = 0.004 r =-0.256**, p = 0.008 r =-0.31*, p = 0.016 200 m fan shaped r = -0.289*, p = 0.026 r =-0.185, p = 0.061 r = -0.227, p = 0.084 500 m r =-.284*, p = 0.026 r =-.215*, p = 0.027 r =-0.251, p = 0.053 500 m fan shaped r = -.271*, p = 0.038 r =-.295**, p = 0.002 r = -.297*, p = 0.022 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). In general, those wells located near livestock land use activities were less likely to have high nitrate concentrations. This negative correlation was not expected but may be due to the large property sizes per animal. The Brookswood Aquifer area of South Langley has a lack of intensive animal husbandry operations when compared with the many hobby farm / estate land use. Small farms with animals and crops would have been included in this livestock land use category since only one land use was assigned per property. When nutrient application was compared to crop requirements, small farms in South Langley produced a nitrogen deficit in 2001 (Table 4-36) (Schreier et al, 2003). This would explain the lack of livestock land use correlation to nitrate while maintaining significant positive correlations to orthophosphate, phosphorus, potassium, and sodium. 94 To more accurately define the association between livestock land use and nitrate groundwater concentrations, animal equivalent densities should be considered within the well buffer zones. However animal type and density can vary greatly over the period of time nitrate contributions to groundwater have occurred. Calculation of relevant animal equivalent densities for specific buffer zones can be complicated and could not be addressed within the time constraints of this project. Five of the six wells with maximum nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mg/L were located within one kilometre of a large dairy farm operation. A separate category for dairy farms could not be created due to the lack of dairy farms within the participating well buffer zones. Therefore relationships between well water nitrate concentration and dairy operation land use could not be explored in this study. The dairy operation located within the buffer zones of five wells with nitrate outlier data was classified as pasture land use activity. Further investigation of dairy farm land use impacts to water quality is strongly recommended. 4.2.5 Greenhouses Infrequent significant negative correlations between orthophosphate and total dissolved solids and greenhouse land use were noted. Greenhouse land use correlations to metals and 5 other water quality parameters are listed in Table F-4 to Table F-8. When the nitrate concentrations for all sampled wells (including outliers) in the Brookswood aquifer were correlated with the land use categories significant positive correlations were noted for greenhouse operations (Table 4-21). Well sampling sites #73 and #102 had nitrate concentrations 3 and 5 times the CDWQG maximum acceptable concentration of 10 mg/L. These very high nitrate concentrations skewed correlations to produce associations with land uses within the buffer zones of these wells. 95 Table 4-21: Correlation of nitrate concentration in Brookswood wells to surrounding ^^^^^^^^^^reenhmis^and^isj^ic^ Parameter Spearman's rho Sept. 23,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Dec 3 & 9,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10,2004 Nitrate (mg/L) 500 m radius -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient -0.235 -0.168 -0.169 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.068 0.087 0.196 N 61 105 60 200 m radius -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient .258(*) 0.172 0.178 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045 0.079 0.174 N 61 105 60 100 m radius -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient .258(*) 0.136 0.144 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.044 0.165 0.274 N 61 105 60 200 m Fan -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient .337(**) .250(*) 0.232 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009 0.011 0.077 N 59 103 59 500 m Fan -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient 0.141 0.102 0.051 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.286 0.303 0.702 N 59 103 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) When the two extreme outliers (#73 & 102) are excluded from the data set, no correlation with greenhouse land use was noted in September as illustrated in Table 4-22. 96 Table 4-22: Correlation of nitrate concentration in Brookswood wells to surrounding ^^^^^^reenihouseja^id-us^ Parameter Spearman's rho Sept. 23,2003 Nitrate Dec 3,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10,2004 Nitrate (mg/L) 500 m radius -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient -0.214 -0.161 -0.154 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.104 0.102 0.249 N 59 104 58 200 m radius -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient 0.134 0.131 0.095 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.313 0.184 0.477 N 59 104 58 100 m radius -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient 0.06 0.074 0.017 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.65 0.457 0.902 N 59 104 58 200 m Fan -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient 0.196 .210(*) 0.159 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.144 0.034 0.239 N 57 102 57 500 m Fan -Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient 0.067 0.109 0.05 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.621 0.275 0.713 N 57 102 57 * Cor re la t ion is s igni f icant at the 0 .05 level (2-tailed). Given the relationship between greenhouse land use and wells with greater than 10 mg/L nitrate further investigation of greenhouse land use impacts to water quality is strongly recommended. 4.2.6 Paved Areas If the source of chloride was road salt no correlation with these 5 land use activities would be expected. To determine i f the chloride concentrations found in Brookswood groundwater were related to road salt (usually NaCl), the percentage of paved surfaces within each of the five well buffer zones was calculated. When the percentage of paved surface was compared to chloride concentrations, none of the 5 buffer zones demonstrated a significant correlation 97 (Table F-21). Chloride had a significant negative correlation to well depth in September (rs = -0.354, p = 0.006) and December (rs = -0.270, p = 0.037), indicating anthropogenic source(s).The lack of correlation to land use or impervious surfaces indicates multiple sources are likely responsible for the chloride concentrations found in Brookswood wells. 4.2.7 Buffer Zone Design Both the circular and fan shaped buffer zones will give a good estimate of land use activities within a stated distance from a well. However when comparing data sets, the fan-shaped buffer zones were able to condense the land use activities potentially impacting the water quality in each well. The redesigned 500 m fan-shaped buffer zone reduced or eliminated 78% of the 18 significant correlations between 6 well water quality parameters and 5 land use categories found within the 500 m circular buffer zone. The difference was less noticeable between the 200 m circular and fan-shaped buffer zone. Only 58% of the 24 significant correlations noted in the 200 m circular buffer produced weaker correlations when the 200 m buffer zone was applied. Table 4-23 summarizes the correlation differences for well nitrate concentrations. Table 4-23: Strength of correlations between nitrate and 5 land use activities within 500 m and 200 m circular and 500 m and 200 m fan-shaped buffer zones Buffer Zone Residential land use Uncultured vegetation land use Crops land use Livestock land use Greenhouses land use 500 m radius circle 0.309" to 0.370" -0.354" to -0.321* -0.09 to -0.284 -0.215* to -0.284* -0.168 to -0.235 500 m fan-shaped 0.281" to 0.405" -0.16 to -0.265* -0.015 to -0.097 -0.271* to -0.297** 0.051 to 0.141 200 m radius circle 0.299* to 0.355" -0.276* to -0.370** -0.093 to -0.197 -0.256" to -0.364** 0.172 to 0.258* 200 m fan-shaped 0.289" to 0.373** -0.408" to -0.475*** -0.033 to -0.163 -0.185 t o -0.289* 0.232 to 0.337" * Correlation is significant at the 0.( )5 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). 98 Buffer zones could be further improved if groundwater flows were more accurately measured (e.g. piezometers) and the buffer zone individually shaped and sized for each well. This could not be achieved in this study due to budget and time constraints. Differences in correlation strength for all parameters can be seen in Table F-10 to Table F- l3 . These tables list water quality parameter correlations to land use activities and are categorized according to buffer zone shape and size. 4.3 SDS Densities and Well Water Quality Community sewage disposal systems within the buffer zones were weighted in terms of sewage disposal system size based on population served. The number of septic systems within the 100, 200, and 500 metre circular buffer zones and 200 m and 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones for each well were compared to the nitrate concentrations for individual wells in September, December and February. 4.3.1 Nitrate and SDS Densities Nitrate concentrations had significant positive correlation (p < 0.01) to the number of septic systems within all sizes and shapes of buffer zones for all sampling events (Table 4-24). When the 200 m and 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones were applied to account for groundwater flow direction the correlation strength increased for all three sampling events. This indicates household septic system densities influence the nitrate concentrations in wells. It also shows that approximating the flow direction is even more important than land area since the 200 m fan-shaped buffer zone encompasses a smaller area than the 200 m circular buffer zone. 99 Table 4-24: Correlation of nitrate to number of sewage disposal systems (weighted for ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Buffer Zones September Nitrate Correlation December Nitrate Correlation February Nitrate Correlation 100 m r = 0.344, p = 0.008** r = 0.382, p = 0.003** r = 0.445, p< 0.001*** 200 m r = 0.427, p = 0.001*** r = 0.396, p = 0.002** r = 0.447, p< 0.001*** 200 m fan shaped r = 0.471, p< 0.001*** r = 0.511,p<0.001*** r = 0.539, p< 0.001*** 500 m r = 0.438, p = 0.001*** r = 0.401, p = 0.002** r = 0.504, p< 0.001*** 500 m fan shaped r = 0.457, p< 0.001*** r = 0.421, p = 0.001*** r = 0.553, p< 0.001*** * Correlation is signi ficant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). The nitrate concentrations for September, December, and February were compared for differences in the population distributions by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. These populations were compared using the Mann-Whitney f/-test to test for differences in the population means. No significant difference in the populations were detected by either statistical test as illustrated in Table 4-25. Therefore the three main sampling events were grouped together. Table 4-25: Statistical comparison of nitrate concentrations for three sampling events Sampling Event Mann-Whitney U-test Kolmogorov-Smirnov Date n U Z P Z P Feb & Dec 55&55 1489.500 -0.138 0.890 .572 0.899 Sept & Feb 51&55 1263.5 -0.883 0.377 0.737 0.649 Dec & Sept 55&51 1244 -1.006 0.314 0.646 0.799 Therefore February, December and September nitrate concentrations were combined to increase data points within each SDS density category for wells within the Brookswood aquifer. The weighted sewage disposal system numbers were grouped into the following categories: 1-10; 10 - 25; and 25 - 40 sewage disposal systems within a 500 m fan-shaped buffer zone. Only 3 wells had more than 40 sewage disposal systems within the 500 m fan-shaped buffer zone (equal to 2 SDS/hectare). 100 Figure 4-11: Boxplot of sewage disposal system density groups relationship to well nitrate concentrations within 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones 5<H 40-H i a 30H cs 20H 10H OH 1-10 S D S o o o Outlier data point * Extreme outlier 10-25 S D S 25-40 S D S These categories were compared to nitrate concentrations within the respective 500 m fan buffer zones. Nitrate concentrations were then compared to the number of sewage disposal systems within each 500 m fan-shaped buffer zone using boxplots. Nitrate concentrations increased with the number of sewage disposal systems within the buffer zone as illustrated in Figure 4-11. 4.3.2 Analysis of SDS Density Categories Table 4-26 lists the sample size (n) and summarizes nitrate concentration data for the categories of SDS numbers with community SDS weighted for estimated effluent quantity. These categories were applied to numbers of SDS within the 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones for sampled wells in the Brookswood aquifer as shown in Figure 3-7. 101 Table 4-26: Nitrate concentrations for SDS density categories within 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones # SDS within Number of Range of nitrate Median nitrate Mean nitrate 500 m of well wells (n) concentrations concentration concentration (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 1-10 67 0-48.3 0.11 2.77 10-25 68 0 - 20.98 1.12 2.72 25-40 43 0.04-11.46 3.30 3.47 The mean nitrate concentration for the "1-10 # SDS" category was inflated due to the 5 extreme outliers in this data set. Only one extreme outlier was present in the nitrate concentration data for the "10 - 25 # SDS" category and no extreme outliers were present in the "25 - 40 # SDS" category. Outliers had little effect on the median values for the SDS density categories. Therefore median nitrate concentrations are more representative of the SDS density categories than the mean nitrate concentrations. Table 4-27 summarizes the analyses undertaken to determine i f a statistical difference exists between the sewage disposal system categories shown in Table 4-26. The two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z demonstrated a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the categories that may be due to medians, variances and/or shape of the distributions. Table 4-27: Analysis to determine statistical differences between sewage disposal system ^^^^^clensit^ate^orje^virt^ SDS Numbers within 500 m Fan-shaped Buffer Zone Mann-Whitney U Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Category 1 Category 2 Z P Z P 1 - 10 SDS 10-25 SDS -3.783 0.000 2.109 0.000 1 -10 SDS 25-40 SDS -5.849 0.000 2.876 0.000 10-25 SDS 25-40 SDS -2.719 0.007 1.801 0.003 A significant difference in the medians (p > 0.05) for each category was demonstrated by the Mann-Whitney U test and is also shown in Table 4-27. Therefore it is highly unlikely the differences between the SDS categories shown in Table 4-26 are due simply to chance. 102 4.3.3 SDS Densities and Aquifer Protection The area included in a 500 m fan-shaped buffer zone is equal to one-quarter of the area covered by the 500 m circular buffer zone. In turn the 500 m circular buffer zone covers 0.78 of one square kilometre and 78 hectares. Conversions of the sewage disposal system numbers within the 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones are listed in Table 4-28. Table 4-28: Conversion of sewage disposal system densities within 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones 500 m fan 500 m radius 1 square km 1 hectare 1-10 4 - 4 0 5-51 0.05 - 0.5 10-25 40-100 51 - 127 0.5-1.3 25-40 100-160 127-203 1.3-2 The relationship between aquifer nitrate concentrations and on-site sewage disposal system densities could not be examined for densities greater than 2 household septic systems per hectare due to the lack of participating wells in highly developed residential areas. Median nitrate concentrations are below 3 mg/L in areas with less than 1.3 sewage disposal systems per hectare. Nitrate is a good indicator of contamination from on-site sewage disposal systems and / or agricultural activities. Sewage may contain contaminants that will migrate in water and soils as well as, i f not better than, nitrates [e.g. chloride, boron, sodium (GWMAP 1999), rust inhibitors (Giger 2004), etc.]. Tests for harmful sewage contaminants are often very expensive, labour intensive, or non-existent. Therefore migration and retention rates of most contaminants found in sewage system effluents are unknown. Routine monitoring is usually limited to convenient, inexpensive tests such as nitrate or coliform analysis. If nitrates are being used as an indicator of sewage contamination it is wise to provide a margin of safety. Figure 4-12 compares the median nitrate-nitrogen concentrations to the median SDS density for each of the three SDS density categories: 1 - 10; 10 - 25; and 25 - 40 SDS per 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones. As the number of sewage disposal systems increase within 500 m of the well so does the nitrate concentration in the corresponding wells. 103 Figure 4-12: Comparison of median nitrate concentrations and median number of sewage disposal systems (SDS) within density groupings of 1-10,10-25, and 25-40 SDS within 500 m fan-shaped well buffer zones 3.5 0 -I . , 6 15 2 8 Median # SDS within density grouping Based on the above data it is recommended the density of sewage disposal systems in the Brookswood aquifer are limited to 1 - 1.5 (single family or equivalent) on-site sewage disposal system(s) or less per hectare. This recommendation is specific to the study area and may not apply to other unconfined aquifers. 4.4 Surface Waters Surface waters were sampled in August, September, October, November 2003 and February and March 2004. Twenty sampling sites on Anderson Creek (10 sites) and the Little Campbell River (10 sites) were sampled (Figure 3-4). In addition 6 sites on Little Campbell River tributaries were sampled. Surface waters were analysed for nitrate, orthophosphate, total dissolved solids (TDS), dissolved oxygen (DO), and chloride with the analytical 104 methodology described in section 3.4. A summary of surface water quality guidelines and sampling results for water quality parameters are listed in Table 4-29. Table 4-29: Summary of parameter guidelines, ranges and exceedances for Brookswood stream sampling sites Parameter Range (mg/L) [median] n = 45 Freshwater guidelines for aquatic life* (mg/L) Percent of sites exceeding guidelines per month Nitrate1 0.009-4.25 [2.4] 200 (100 for wildlife & livestock) 0 Ortho-phosphate2 0.008 - 0.633 [0.02] None -Chloride3 8.54-44 [12.25] 600 (100-irrigation) 0 Total Dissolved Solids 74.1 -374 [122] None -Temperature 6.4-19 [14] 18 °C (12 °C in spring & fall) 13-Aug 70 - Sept 0 -Oct -Mar Dissolved Oxygen 1 - 13.7 [9.5] < 5 mg/L (< 9 mg/L for buried embryo/ alevin stage) 33 & (81) Aug 15 & (55) Sep 24 & (40) Oct 0 & (40) Nov 0 & (0) Feb 0 & (25) Mar * British Columbia Ministry of Environment fresh water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life 'Method detection limit = 0.0035 mg/L 2Method detection limit = 0.01 mg/L 3Method detection limit = 0.07 mg/L Surface water quality parameters, dissolved oxygen and temperature, exceeded the criteria for freshwater aquatic life. No legislation has been developed for total dissolved solids (TDS) or orthophosphate in streams for the protection of aquatic life, livestock watering, or wildlife. A l l concentrations for chloride in wells and streams were far below the maximum recommended concentrations of 150 mg/L (30 day mean) or 600 mg/L (individual sample) (MWLAP, 1998). 4.4.1 Precipitation Surface water data were categorized into dry and wet seasons. Those months with less than 50 mm of precipitation were considered dry seasonal months (August and September 105 sampling events). Sampling events in wet seasonal months (greater than 50 mm precipitation) were October 26, November 25, (2003), February 17, and March 30 (2004). Figure 3-2 graphs the monthly precipitation data from August 2003 to March 2004. Table 4-30 lists precipitation data for 24, 48, 72, and 96-hour periods prior to each stream sampling event. Although no precipitation was recorded 72 hours prior to the October sampling event, this month received over 50 mm of precipitation and therefore was considered to be part of the wet season data set. Table 4-30: Precipitat tion prior to stream sampling events Surface Water Sampling Date 24 hours prior (mm) 48 hours prior (mm) 72 hours prior (mm) 96 hours prior (mm) Aug. 10, 2003 0.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 Sept. 21, 2003 0 0 0 0 Oct. 26, 2003 0 0 0 5.6 Nov. 25, 2003 2.8 10.4 10.4 10.4 Feb. 17, 2004 6.9 13.7 17.3 26.9 March 30, 2004 6.1 6.1 6.1 9.4 4.4.2 Statistics The use of parametric statistical tests assumes data is normally distributed. To determine i f non-parametric statistical tests should be used instead, stream parameters were tested for normal distribution using one-sample Kolmosgrov-Smirnov non-parametric test. The resulting Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z and p-values are listed in Table G - l . Most stream sampling data was normally distributed with all temperature and dissolved oxygen data being normally distributed. Since some of the stream data was not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were used to analyze parameter and land use relationships. Non-parametric tests are also suitable for normally distributed data. 106 4.4.3 Little Campbell River Water Quality Within the study area the Little Campbell River (LCR) flows from 224th Street through agricultural lands to Campbell Valley Park. Two sampling sites (sites 10 and 9) are located before the park and two within the park(sites 8 & 7). Four sampling sites are located in the residential area through which the L C R flows after exiting Campbell Valley Park (sites 6 -3). Two more sampling sites (sites 2 -1) are located in the agricultural area between 184th Street and 196th Street as the river flows toward Semiahmoo Bay. See Figure 3-4 for sampling site locations. Statistics of the analytical results for the dry season sampling of the Little Campbell River are summarized in Table 4-31. TaWte^3L^S^^ Parameter Min Max Med Mean Std. Dev. Nitrate (mg/L) 0.009 1.17 0.885 0.537 0.518 Orthophosphate (mg/L) 0.008 0.633 0.02 0.091 0.160 Chloride (mg/L) 8.6 44 9.96 16.0 13.9 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 74.1 231 112 124 42.1 Temperature (°C) 6.4 18.8 15.5 14.2 3.22 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 1 13.7 8.25 7.84 4.30 Statistics of analytical results for the Little Campbell River are summarized in Table 4-32 for the wet season sampling events (Oct 03 to Mar 04). Table 4-32: Summary statistics for the Little Campbell River in the wet season Parameter Min Max Med Mean Std. Dev. Nitrate (mg/L) 0.135 8.1 0.742 0.875 1.29 Orthophosphate (mg/L) 0.006 0.048 0.017 0.0186 0.007 Chloride (mg/L) 5.53 10.7 6.71 6.92 1.14 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 44.2 94.2 69.2 72.2 11.4 Temperature (°C) 3.9 11.7 7.05 7.18 2.84 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 2.71 13.4 9.75 9.18 2.67 Statistical correlations between the 6 stream water quality parameters for the Little Campbell River are shown in Table G-2 (dry season) and Table G-3 (wet season). 107 4.4.3.1 Nitrate Median nitrate concentrations were less than 1.2 mg/L and were far below the criteria set for recreation and asthetics (10 mg/L nitrate-N) and livestock watering and wildlife (100 mg/L nitrate-N) (MWLAP, 1998). 4.4.3.1.1 Dry season Nitrate concentrations in the Little Campbell River during the dry season (August and September, n = 2) are illustrated in Figure 4-13. Figure4-13jBIJttk^ LCR Sampling Sites (river flows from left to right) The catchment areas for sampling sites 6 to 3 are primarily residential land use. These residential areas are not serviced by municipal sewer infrastructure. Two tributaries drain to the L C R between sites 3 & 2. Sampling sites on these tributaries had median nitrate concentrations of 0.601 and 0.339. Flows from these tributaries were approximately one-quarter that of the flow rate at sampling site #3. Dilution by these tributaries during the dry season may contribute to the slightly lower nitrate concentrations at sampling sites 2 and 1. Sampling site #9 had a nitrate-nitrogen concentration range of 0.009 - 0.02 mg/L and an average of 0.015 mg/L (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1980 to 2002 during the dry season (Table C-4). The M O E found 108 nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 0.98 mg/L with a median of 0.041 mg/L (n = 11). The difference in concentrations is most likely due to the number of samples (n) comprising these data sets than a difference in nitrate concentrations at sampling site #9. 4.4.3.1.2 Wet season A nitrate boxplot for the Little Campbell River during the wet season is illustrated in Figure 4-14. The median nitrate concentrations at the tributaries during the wet season were as follows: 2.3 mg/L for site 51; 0.85 mg/L for site 71; and 1.7 mg/L for site 72. Site 71 samples a small stream draining to the tributary from which site 72 samples. The elevated nitrate concentration in these two tributaries may contribute to the rise in median nitrate concentrations at sampling sites #1 and #2 in the Little Campbell River. Figure 4-14: Nitrate concentration boxplot of the Little Campbell River during the wet season (Oct 2003 - Mar 2004, n = 5) 8.0-6.0-i S ^ 4 . 0 -2 . 0 -o.o-i i i i i i i i i 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sampling sites (LCR flow from left to right) Nitrate concentrations had a maximum value of 8.1 mg/L at sampling site #4 which receives drainage from a catchment area comprised of 45 % residential and 40% uncultured vegetation land use categories. This maximum concentration occurred in February and 109 appears to be a one-time occurrence since all other measurements at this site are consistent with other sampling sites on the Little Campbell River. While this value is close to the criteria for recreation and asthetics (10 mg/L nitrate-N) it is far below the criteria set for livestock watering and wildlife (100 mg/L nitrate-N) (MWLAP, 1998). Figure 4-15 graphs the median nitrate concentrations for the Little Campbell River sampling sites during the wet season as the river flows from left to right. The sampling site numbers decrease as the river approaches Semiahmoo Bay to which it drains. The median nitrate concentration for sampling site #10 is 6.76 mg/L (mean = 28.55 mg/L) and would be located outside Figure 4-15 graph limits i f included in the data set. Sampling site number 4 is located by a large storm water culvert that may have been responsible for occasional high nitrate concentrations found at this site. Figurej4-l&IJt^ 0.4 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sampling sites (river flow from left to right) Nitrate levels during the wet season were much lower than the recommended criteria for stream nitrate concentrations. Nitrate concentrations were higher for areas with agricultural activities. Concentrations of nitrate decreased as the Little Campbell River flowed through the Campbell River Regional Park (sampling sites 7 and 8) 110 In the wet season nitrate concentrations had a positive correlation to orthophosphate (rs = 0.381, p = 0.015). Since orthophosphate is not very mobile in soils (and nitrate is very mobile), surface runoff was the likely source of these two nutrients. Little Campbell River nitrate concentrations were correlated positively with dissolved oxygen (rs = 0.829, p = 0.01; r s = 0.520, p = 0.001) and negatively with temperature (rs = -0.532, p = 0. 05; r s = -0.802, p = 0.01) in the dry and wet seasons respectively. Areas with groundwater inputs have low oxygen and cooler temperatures in summer and warmer in winter. This may simply mean nitrate was found more often in sampling sites not located near groundwater inputs. In the wet season sampling site #9 had a nitrate-nitrogen concentration range of 0.4 -1.24 mg/L and median of 0.78 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) wet season sampling data at site #9 from 1979 to 2002 ( Table C-3) showed nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 2.14 mg/L with a median of 0.243 mg/L (n = 9). As with the dry season, this difference in nitrate concentration ranges and medians was likely due to the difference in the number of samples (n) collected from site #9. 4.4.3.2 Orthophosphate Little Campbell River orthophosphate concentrations were low during both the dry and wet seasons. Recommended water quality criteria for total phosphorus in lakes has been set at 0.005 - 0.0015 mg/L for the protection of aquatic life (where salmonids are the predominant species). 4.4.3.2.1 Dry season Dry season median orthophosphate concentrations are graphed in Figure 4-16. Ill Orthophosphate concentrations sharply increased at sampling site #8. This sampling site had no flow during the September sampling event. Therefore only the August sampling event contributed sampling data for site # 8 in the dry season. A small tributary drained into the L C R between sampling sites # 9 and 8. Sampling site # 82 was located on this tributary and had an orthophosphate concentration of 2.35 mg/L in August. This may have created the spike in orthophosphate concentrations noted at sampling site #8 in the dry season. The catchment area for site #82 includes 20 % residential land use, 35 % horse, and 30 % berry farm land use. In the dry season sampling site #9 had an orthophosphate concentration range of 0.064 - 0.15 mg/L and an average of 0.107 mg/L (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1980 to 2002 during the dry season (Table C-4). The M O E found orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.008 to 0.101 mg/L with a median of 0.022 mg/L (n = 11). The orthophosphate concentration is higher in the 2003 dry season than in samples collected from 1980 to 2002. This difference was likely due to a change in agricultural practices since the catchment area for sampling site #9 has been dominated by agricultural activities. 112 4.4.3.2.2 Wet season Orthophosphate concentrations were much less during the wet season than in the dry season, with a range of undetectable (< 0.01 mg/L) to 0.048 mg/L. Figure 4-17: Little Campbell River orthophosphate concentrations during the wet season (October 2003 to March 2004) 0.025 o .c t O 0.005 0 4 , , , , 1 10 8 6 4 2 0 LCR sampling sites (stream flow from left to right) The median orthophosphate concentrations for the Little Campbell River during the wet season were between 0.01 and 0.025 mg/L (Figure 4-17). Sampling sites located in residential land use areas had lower median orthophosphate concentrations than those sites located in agricultural land use areas. In the wet season sampling site #9 had an orthophosphate concentration range of 0.016 - 0.025 mg/L and median of 0.021 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 for orthophosphate from 1979 to 2002 during the wet season ( Table C-3). The M O E found orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.006 to 0.054 mg/L with a median of 0.022 mg/L (n = 9). The orthophosphate concentration range and 113 medians were very similar for the 2003-4 and M O E data sets. Any difference in orthophosphate concentrations noted in the wet season was likely due to the difference in the number of samples (n) collected from site #9. No correlations between orthophosphate and other water quality parameters was noted in the dry season. In the wet season orthophosphate was correlated with chloride (rs = 0.519, p = 0.001). Chloride is mobile in groundwater while orthophosphate has limited mobility in saturated soils. Chloride and orthophosphate are components of fertilizer and septic system effluent, likely carried by stormwater or agricultural runoff to the L C R in the wet season. 4.4.3.3 Chloride Ambient chloride concentration recommended for surface waters (Nagpal, 2003) is 250 mg/L (maximum acceptable for a single sample) for drinking water and 600 mg/L (or 30 day mean of 150 mg/L) for protection of aquatic life. A l l chloride concentrations for the Little Campbell River were well within these recommended criteria. Chloride concentrations were recorded for September during the dry season. August data was lost due to analytical problems. Dry season chloride concentrations in the Little Campbell River ranged between 5.7 and 14.4 mg/L with a median of 8.9 mg/L. The highest concentration occurred at site #1 (44 mg/L) in the dry season. Sampling site #9 had a chloride concentration of 14.4 mg/L in the dry season. Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 for chloride from 1974 to 1982 during the dry season (Table C-4). The M O E found chloride concentrations ranged from 1.9 - 9.3 mg/L with a median of 5 mg/L (n = 12). The chloride concentration is much higher in the 2003 dry season than in samples collected from 1974 to 1982. This difference could be due to a change in agricultural practices or road salt application over time. However caution must be used in interpreting this data since only one sample was collected during the 2003 dry season. 114 Chloride concentrations in the Little Campbell River ranged from 5.5 mg/L to 10.7 mg/L in the wet season with a median of 6.7 mg/L. Figure 4-18 illustrates median chloride concentrations in the Little Campbell River during the 2003-4 wet season. In the wet season sampling site #9 had a chloride concentration range of 6.51 - 7.63 mg/L and median of 6.87 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1974 to 1982 for chloride during the wet season ( Table C-3). The M O E found chloride concentrations ranged from 2.2 to 10.5 mg/L with a median of 5.2 mg/L (n = 13). The median chloride concentration was higher in 2003-4 wet season than the in the M O E historical data set. However the range of chloride concentrations were similar for both data sets considering the larger sampling size of the M O E data was likely to produce a wider range of chloride concentrations for sampling site #9. 4.4.3.4 Electrical Conductance (Total Dissolved Solids) There are no recommendations for total dissolved solids (TDS) in streams for the protection of aquatic life, livestock watering, or wildlife. Specific conductance values ranged from 48 to 167 u.S/cm in the wet season and from 68 to 1000 uS/cm in the dry season. No correlations were noted for TDS in the dry season and only temperature had a significant correlation (rs = 115 0.446, p = 0.004) to TDS in the wet season. This correlation with temperature may indicate TDS is associated with organic loading or groundwater inputs. Lower TDS concentrations were expected for the wet season due to higher stream flows and dilution by rainfall. In the dry season sampling site #9 had an average specific conductance range of 204 - 206 uS/cm with an average of 205 pS/cm (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 for conductance from 1974 to 2002 during the dry season (Table C-4). M O E found specific conductance ranged from 61 - 1000 uS/cm with a median of 109 pS/cm (n = 19). The median specific conductance is higher in the 2003 dry season than in samples collected from 1974 to 2002. This difference could be due to the difference in the number of samples collected for each data set. The M O E data set consisted of almost 10 times the number of samples and resulted in a wider range of conductance values for the dry season. In the wet season sampling site #9 had a specific conductance range of 94-145 uS/cm and median of 105 pS/cm (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Little Campbell River at site #9 for conductance from 1974 to 2002 during the wet season ( Table C-3). The historical data by M O E found specific conductance concentrations ranged from 48 to 167 uS/cm with a median of 103.5 uS/cm (n = 18) during the wet season. The wet season electrical conductance range and medians were very similar for the 2003-4 and M O E historical data sets considering the difference in the number of samples (n) collected from site #9. 4.4.3.5 Temperature Groundwater will contribute cool water and supplement flows during the dry season (summer). Cool waters contain more dissolved oxygen essential to fish and other aquatic organisms. Thus groundwater contributions are very important to the aquatic life. 4.4.3.5.1 Dry season Average temperatures at sampling sites in the Little Campbell River during the dry season are shown in Figure 4-19. Recommended criteria for maximum temperatures in streams for 116 the protection of aquatic life are as follows: 15°C for bull trout; 12°C for spring and fall seasons; and 19°C daily temperature (MWLAP, 1998). Figur^^9^e^nj>erjatu^ 2 0 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LCR sampling sites (flow from left to right) Maximum temperature values for the Little Campbell River occurred in August at site #6 (18.5°C) and site #7 (18.8°C). The maximum temperature recorded in September was 14.2°C at station #8. In the dry season sampling site #9 had a temperature range of 12.7°C to 16.4°C with an average of 14.5°C (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured temperatures in the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1974 to 1983 during the dry season (Table C-4). M O E found temperatures ranged from 6.5 - 19.2°C with a median of 14°C (n = 13). At site #9 the median temperature is almost identical in data sets for 2003 and M O E temperature measurements from 1974 to 1983 in the dry season. The difference in the range of temperatures could be due to the difference in the number of samples collected for each data set. The M O E dry season data set consisted of over 6 times the number of samples and resulted in a wider range of conductance values for the dry season. 117 4.4.3.5.2 Wet season Figure 4-20 illustrates wet season temperature for the Little Campbell River sampling sites. Fisjir£4^2j(h^rjen^ 7.6 -, 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 L C R sampling sites (flow from left to right) By comparing dry and wet season temperatures at each sampling site we can see where groundwater inputs are occurring. Sampling site #7 shows a decrease in temperature during the summer and a warming trend in the winter. This indicates groundwater inputs to the Little Campbell River are occurring just upstream and around sampling site number seven. In the wet season sampling site #9 had a temperature range of 3.9 to 9.9°C and median of 6.8°C (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured temperatures in the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1974 to 1982 during the wet season ( Table C-3). This sampling effort by the M O E found temperatures ranged from 0.3 to 10.5°C with a median of 5.2°C (n = 13). Although the minimum temperatures in both data sets were almost identical, the maximum and median temperatures were lower for the M O E historical data set. The median air temperature in Vancouver during the wet season was 5.7°C for 1974-118 1982 and 5.3°C in 2003 so higher ambient temperatures during the 2003 sampling period could not be blamed for the differences noted. These temperature differences may be due to the difference in the number of samples (n) collected for each data set in the wet season. Another explanation for increased temperatures in recent years could be a surplus in nutrient application to crops on large farms in the South Langley area as noted in the 2002 census and discussed in section 4.4.7.1. The catchment area for site #9 was dominated by agricultural land use and effects of agricultural runoff are more evident during the wet season. Consequences of excess nutrient loading to streams include increased temperature and lower dissolved oxygen due to stream eutrophication. 4.4.3.6 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen concentration is dependent on temperature. Temperatures can vary greatly at sampling sites due to many factors including water depth and groundwater inputs. Percent saturation is calculated as actual DO concentration divided by theoretical saturated DO concentration at the measured temperature. By using percent saturation, dissolved oxygen content at stream sampling sites can be compared. 4.4.3.6.1 Dry season Figure 4-21 shows the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen for each sampling site on the Little Campbell River during the dry season. Oxygen saturate is low as the L C R enters the study area at site #10 and is lower at site #9 where the catchment area is primarily agricultural land use. Sites 8 and 7 are located in Campbell Valley Regional Park where the percent dissolved oxygen increases. The sampling sites 6 - 3 (residential land use catchment areas) initially demonstrate a drop in dissolved oxygen then a steady increase. Sample sites #2 and 1 have catchment areas with primarily agricultural land use. 119 Fh*ure^21^Li t t le^a^njr^^ Sampling sites (flow left to right) Sampling site #9 had dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2.7 mg/L in August and 1 mg/L in September rising downstream to 1.9 mg/L at site #8 (September sampling). In the dry season sampling site #9 had a dissolved oxygen concentration range of 1 mg/L to 2.7 mg/L with an average of 1.9 mg/L (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured dissolved oxygen in the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1974 to 1983 during the dry season (Table C-4). M O E found dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 2.3 - 8.8 mg/L with a median of 5 mg/L (n = 13). The lower dissolved oxygen concentration in the 2003 dry season may be due to sampling size differences since the M O E dry season data set consisted of over 6 times the number of samples. However the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration was much lower in 2003 than in the 1974 - 1983 M O E data set. Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations may be the result of increased groundwater inputs. The Brookswood aquifer supplements flow in the LCR. If groundwater inputs are the cause of the low dissolved oxygen then the temperature should also be lower but this is not the case (Table 4-19). Sampling sites #10 (range 3 - 3.75 mg/L) and #8 (range 1.9 - 6.2 mg/L) were also quite low in dissolved oxygen content during the dry season. The catchment areas for 120 sampling sites #9 and #10 were dominated by agricultural land use and located upstream from site #8. It was likely a combination of factors was causing low dissolved oxygen concentrations at these sampling sites. Since these oxygen concentrations pose a potential threat to fish habitat health further study is recommended. 4.4.3.6.2 Wet season Dissolved oxygen is a serious concern to aquatic life with concentrations at sampling sites 6 through 9 demonstrating concentrations below 5 mg/L in October, spawning season. During the wet season the dissolved oxygen concentration at sampling sites 9 through 6 were consistently lower than that at other Little Campbell River sampling sites (Figure 4-22). ^Fhrure4-22^Littk 50 "I I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sampling site (flow from left to right) In the wet season sampling site #9 had a dissolved oxygen concentration range of 2.7 to 9.5 mg/L and median of 6.8 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Little Campbell River at site #9 from 1974 to 1982 during the wet season ( Table C-3). This M O E sampling found dissolved oxygen ranged from 4 to 13.1 mg/L with a median of 8.5 mg/L (n = 13). The wet season dissolved oxygen concentrations were lower in 2003-4 than in the M O E historical data set. The lower oxygen concentrations may be partly 121 due to higher temperatures in the 2003-4 wet season when compared to the M O E temperature and DO data set. Sampling site #9 had a catchment area dominated by agricultural activities. Agricultural runoff in the wet season can lead to organic and nutrient loading in streams resulting in lower DO and higher temperatures. This is consistent with the higher chloride concentrations that may be associated with agricultural runoff noted in section 4.4.3.3. 4.4.3.6.3 Wet and dry seasons Figure 4-23 illustrates the percentage of sampling sites on the Little Campbell River that exceeded freshwater criteria for dissolved oxygen. Both the 5 mg/L and 9 mg/L criteria can be applicable during portions of October and March depending on aquatic life cycle stage. Dissolved oxygen content within the Little Campbell River is a concern with approximately 30% of sampling sites exceeding dissolved oxygen criteria in August and September; 50-64% in October; and 45% in November. Figure 4-23: Percentage of sampling sites on the Little Campbell River exceeding Date of Sampling 122 Sampling sites on Little Campbell River tributaries exceeded dissolved oxygen criteria only in August (40%) and October (33% < 9 mg/L) despite being subject to lower flows. Dissolved oxygen in Little Campbell River sampling sites had a positive correlation to nitrate (rs = 0.829, p = 0.01) and a negative correlation to TDS (rs = -0.626, p = 0.17). Sampling sites receiving surface water runoff with organic matter would be expected to demonstrate a negative correlation between TDS and oxygen while downstream recovery areas would be associated with nitrification. These very low dissolved oxygen concentrations are a concern with respect to aquatic life within the Little Campbell River. Low flows, high temperatures, and infiltration of groundwater may contribute to the low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the dry season. Further studies to determine causes of the low dissolved oxygen content at these sampling sites and potential remedial actions are strongly recommended. 4.4.4 Little Campbell River Land Use Figure 3-4 illustrates Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek sampling site locations and catchment areas for these sampling sites. Little Campbell River sampling data for the dry season (Aug & Sept) was combined for each sampled site and compared to percentage of each land use activity within the catchment area for individual sampling sites. Statistical correlations between water quality parameters and land use activities for the Little Campbell River are listed in Appendix G, Table G-6 to Table G-9. No significant correlations between nitrate concentrations and land use activities were noted during the wet season. Nitrate contributions from residential and greenhouse land use (or decreases associated with uncultured vegetation) land would be primarily through groundwater inputs to the Little Campbell River. In the dry season groundwater supplements flows in the Little Campbell River. However, in the wet season, flows from the Little Campbell River supplement the groundwater table. The Brookswood aquifer is recharged mainly by precipitation supplemented by infiltration from Anderson Creek and the Little 123 Campbell River (Piteau Associates 1995). Thus nitrate impacts from groundwater would be difficult to detect during the wet season in the Little Campbell River. This same principle applies to nitrate decreases associated with uncultured vegetation land use. In addition, small farms predominate in L C R sampling site catchment areas. Small farms applied less nitrogen than crops could uptake in 2001 (Schreier et al. 2003). This nitrogen deficit in L C R sampling site catchment areas may have caused the lack of correlation between stream nitrate concentrations and agricultural land use. This relationship is detailed in section 4.4.7. 4.4.4.1 Residential 4.4.4.1.1 Dry season In the dry season Residential land use had a significant positive correlation (rs = 0.700, p = 0.004) to nitrate concentrations and a significant negative correlation with orthophosphate (OP) (rs = -0.776, p = 0.001). Residential land use within the stream catchment areas was primarily serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. McDonald (2005) also found a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05, one-tailed) between nitrate and residential land use (rs = 0.47) in the Chilliwack Creek watershed during the dry season. Groundwater contributes cool water to the Little Campbell River during periods of low flow (dry season). Lower temperature water can contain higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO). Hence the positive correlation of dissolved oxygen concentrations (rs = 0.675, p = 0.011) with residential land use may be due to lower stream water temperatures. Residential land use had a significant negative correlation with temperature (rs = -0.640, p = 0.018). Residential areas may be associated with upstream groundwater inputs. 4.4.4.1.2 Wet season In the wet season, dissolved oxygen was positively correlated (rs = 0.502, p = 0.002) with residential land use. No other correlations were noted for residential land use during the wet season. 124 McDonald (2005) also demonstrated a significant positive correlation of nitrate to residential land use in the dry season (rs = 0.47, p < 0.05, one-tailed) but did not demonstrate significant correlations in the wet season (rs = -0.28, p > 0.05, one tailed). 4.4.4.2 Uncultured Vegetation Addah (2002) found significant negative correlations between nitrate and forest cover during both the dry (rs = -0.39, p < 0.05, two-tailed) and wet (rs = 0.49, p < 0.05, two-tailed) seasons in the Agassiz / Harrison Hot Springs wateshed. In addition, McDonald (2005) found a significant negative correlation between natural forest and open spaces and nitrate concentrations (rs = -0.48, p < 0.05, one-tailed) in the Chilliwack Creek watershed. This same study showed natural forest and open spaces had a significant positive correlation to dissolved oxygen in both the dry (rs = 0.39, p < 0.05, one-tailed) and wet (rs = 0.53, p < 0.05, one-tailed) seasons. 4.4.4.2.1 Dry season Figure 4-21 demonstrates the value of natural park habitats in sustaining our natural resources. As the Little Campbell River flows through Campbell Valley Regional Park the percent dissolved oxygen saturation rises from 10% to 110% (super-saturation). The median dissolved oxygen concentration just before the L C R flows into Campbell Valley Park (sampling site #9) was 1.9 mg/L during the dry season. Smith and Schreier (2005) found nitrate concentrations in the Sumas River watershed had significant negative correlations to percent forest cover (rs = -0.533, p = 0.001, two tailed) within 100 m of the stream sampling sites. 4.4.4.2.2 Wet season Figure 4-15 demonstrates the need for buffer zones of uncultured vegetation (e.g. parks) and in-stream vegetation to improve stream water quality and fish habitat. Sites #8 and #7 are located in a large uncultured land use area, Campbell Valley Regional Park. Nitrate levels decrease as the river flows through Campbell Valley Regional Park (sites 8 & 7) from agricultural land use areas (sites 9 & 10). The slower flows, parkland buffer zone and in-stream vegetation in this area appear to help lower stream nitrate concentrations. As the Little 125 Campbell River flows through residential areas (unserviced by municipal sewer) the nitrate levels rise (sites 6 - 3). This demonstrates the need to create parkland and other buffer zones of uncultured vegetation. Percent dissolved oxygen saturation is shown in Figure 4-22 with sampling sites listed from upstream to downstream locations. The percent dissolved oxygen saturation is low (less than 60%) as the Little Campbell River enters the Campbell Valley Regional Park (uncultured vegetation land use) from agricultural lands. As the L C R flowed through Campbell Valley Regional Park (sites 8 & 7) the dissolved oxygen percent saturation increased from 10 to 110 % (super saturation). 4.4.4.3 Crop In the wet season crop land use had significant positive correlations with orthophosphate (OP) (rs = -0.354, p = 0.034) and chloride (rs = -0.369, p = 0.027) concentrations in the Little Campbell River. Figure 4-18 illustrates the chloride concentrations in the Little Campbell River during the wet season. Chloride concentrations in the Little Campbell River appeared higher in sampling sites located in agricultural land use areas than those in areas dominated by residential land use. 4.4.4.4 Livestock Livestock land use categories had significant negative correlations with orthophosphate (OP) (rs = -0.695, p = 0.001) and chloride (rs = -0.428, p = 0.009) concentrations in the Little Campbell River during the wet season. 4.4.4.5 Greenhouse In the dry season greenhouse land use activities were positively correlated (rs = 0.585, p = 0.022) with nitrate concentrations. In other words, nitrate concentrations at the L C R sampling sites increased as the percentage of residential and greenhouse land use activity increased within the catchment areas. 126 Greenhouse and residential land use in Little Campbell River catchment were positively correlated with dissolved oxygen in the wet season. This may be a result of aeration from runoff over impervious surfaces associated with developed areas. 4.4.5 Anderson Creek Water Quality Anderson Creek flows from southeast to northwest through the study area. This creek enters the study area in agricultural lands with the first sampling site (#31) at 224th Street. The first three sampling sites (#31, 29, and 28) were located in agricultural lands. Sampling sites 21-22 and 25-27 were located in rural residential areas while sites 22 - 25 were surrounded by urban residential land use (see Figure 3-4). 4.4.5.1 Dry Season No flow was present at sites 25 - 31 during August and September sampling events so dry season data is not available for these sites. Other sites in Anderson Creek were sampled during the months of August and September for the parameters listed in Table 4-33. Statistics for the analytical results are summarized in this table for Anderson Creek in the dry season. Table 4-33: Summary statistics for Anderson Creek in the dry season Parameter Min Max Med Mean Std. Dev. Nitrate (mg/L) 2.17 4.25 3.98 3.54 0.73 Orthophosphate (mg/L) 0.013 0.147 0.015 0.036 0.037 Chloride (mg/L) 8.5 33.3 10.2 14.5 7.5 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 104 374 133 161 59 Temperature (°C) 11.5 17.8 12.4 13 1.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 4.4 11.4 10.4 8.9 2.3 4.4.5.1.1 Wet Season During the wet season (Oct 03 - Mar 04) Anderson Creek was sampled for the parameters listed in Table 4-34. Statistics for the stream sampling analysis results are summarized in this table. 127 Table 4-34: Summary statistics for Anderson Creek in the wet season Parameter Min Max Med Mean Std. Dev. Nitrate (mg/L) 1.45 3.47 2.37 2.34 0.49 Orthophosphate (mg/L) 0.045 0.352 0.107 0.124 0.063 Chloride (mg/L) 7.2 9.8 7.9 8.2 0.8 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 88 142 106 110 17 Temperature (°C) 4.9 11 8.1 8.0 2.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 3.3 12.8 11.0 10.8 1.8 Statistical correlations between the 6 stream water quality parameters for Anderson Creek are shown in Appendix G, Table G-2 & Table G-3 (dry season) and Table G-4 & Table G-5 (wet season). 4.4.5.2 Nitrate Concentrations of nitrate detected in Anderson Creek did not exceed the guidelines for recreation and asthetic (10 mg/L nitrate-N) water quality and were far below the criteria set for livestock watering and wildlife (100 mg/L nitrate-N) (MWLAP, 1998). No water quality parameters were correlated with nitrate in the dry season. Sampling site #21 had a nitrate-nitrogen concentration range of 4.25 - 4.03 mg/L and an average of 4.14 mg/L (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1980 to 2002 during the dry season ( Table C-2). The M O E found nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.49 to 3.89 mg/L with a median of 1.76 mg/L (n = 11). The 2003 dry season had higher nitrate concentrations than the M O E historical nitrate data set. The catchment area for site #21 and those catchment areas immediately upstream (for sites #22 and #23) include both high-density urban residential, parkland, and agricultural land use. The most dramatic change in land use over the past 20 years is the population increase in residential areas. A boxplot of nitrate concentrations for Anderson Creek in the wet season is shown in Figure 4-24. 128 Figure 4-24: Nitrate boxplot for Anderson Creek in the wet season 3.5 H 3.0 - i (J 2.5 H HD E 1 1 _I_ J L g 2.0 1.5 r i i.o H 31 "2V 28 27 26 25 Anderson Creek sampling sites (flow fro I  8 I  ~I 24 22 left to right) "T" 21 Sampling site #31 is located upstream of our study area in agricultural land use. The sampling site numbers decrease as the creek approaches the Nicomekl River to which it discharges. Site numbers 28 to 21 are located in or next to developed residential areas as shown on the sampling site map (Figure 3-4). Nitrate was positively correlated with chloride (rs = 0.773, p = 0.001), TDS (rs = 0.750, p = 0.001), and temperature (rs = 0.516, p = 0.001). Nitrate was negatively correlated with dissolved oxygen (rs = -0.334, p = 0.50) in the wet season in the wet season. These parameters are commonly associated with groundwater inputs to streams (i.e. low DO, higher water temperature in winter). However organic loading from agricultural runoff will also result in low DO and higher water temperatures. Thus the nitrate may be associated with agricultural runoff and /or groundwater inputs to Anderson Creek. 129 In the wet season sampling site #21 had a nitrate-nitrogen concentration range of 2.4 to 2.9 mg/L and median of 2.5 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) wet season sampling data for Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1979 to 2002 ( Table C- l ) showed nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.87 to 4.61 mg/L with a median of 1.7 mg/L (n = 9). This difference in nitrate concentration ranges and medians may have been due to the difference in the number of samples (n) collected from site #21. The median nitrate concentration was higher in the 2003-4 wet season than in the M O E historical data set indicating a change in land use has impacted water quality. Residential densities have increased in the catchment areas of sampling site #21 and sampling sites #22 and #23 upstream of sampling site #21. 4.4.5.3 Orthophosphate Recommended water quality criteria for total phosphorus in lakes has been set at 0.005 -0.0015 mg/L for the protection of aquatic life (where salmonids are the predominant species). No phosphorus criterion has been set for streams. In the dry season orthophosphate had a positive association to total dissolved solids (rs = 0.579, p = 0.01). No other correlations with orthophosphate were noted during the dry season. In the dry season sampling site #21 had an orthophosphate concentration range of 0.014 - 0.015 mg/L and an average of 0.015 mg/L (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1980 to 2002 during the dry season ( Table C-2). The M O E found orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.025 mg/L with a median of 0.014 mg/L (n = 11). The orthophosphate concentration medians were almost identical in the 2003 and M O E dry season data. The difference in OP concentration range is expected considering the difference in the number of samples (n) comprising each data set. In the wet season, orthophosphate had a significant positive correlation to chloride (rs = 0.428, p = 0.01) and TDS (rs = 0.579, p = 0.01) and a significant negative correlation to dissolved oxygen (rs = -0.416, p = 0.01). Figure 4-25 shows the median orthophosphate concentrations during the wet season for all sites sampled on Anderson Creek. 130 Figure 4-25: Anderson Creek median orthophosphate during the wet season 0.06 -0.04 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 Sampl ing Sites (Creek flow from left to right) Stormwater runoff from agricultural lands may contain elevated levels of chloride, TDS and orthophosphate (e.g. from surplus applications of fertilizers and manure). A n increase in organic loading resulting from agricultural runoff may also decrease dissolved oxygen content in Anderson Creek. In the wet season, sampling site #21 had an orthophosphate concentration range of 0.045 - 0.145 mg/L and median of 0.069 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled Anderson Creek at site #21 for orthophosphate from 1979 to 2002 during the wet season ( Table C-l ) . The M O E found orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.007 to 0.036 mg/L with a median of 0.015 mg/L (n = 9). The orthophosphate concentration range and medians were higher for the 2003-4 wet season than the corresponding M O E historical sampling data for site #21 in the wet season. This increase in orthophosphate concentrations may be due to an increase in agricultural practices or residential densities within sampling site #21 catchment areas or those located immediately upstream of site #21. 4.4.5.4 Chloride Chloride concentrations in Anderson Creek ranged from 3.1 to 5.6 in the dry season and from 2.8 to 6.3 mg/L in the wet season. These chloride concentrations are well below the 131 recommended criteria for aquatic life (150 mg/L - 30 day geometric mean) and drinking water guidelines (250 mg/L). 4.4.5.4.1 Dry season Chloride concentrations were recorded for only four Anderson Creek sampling sites during the dry season (in September). August data was lost due to analytical problems. Chloride had significant positive correlations to TDS (rs = 0.900, p = 0.037) in the dry season. Chloride concentration for sampling site #21 in the dry season (September) was 11.0 mg/L. This is higher than the range (3.1 to 5.6 mg/L) or median (5 mg/L) chloride concentrations found in M O E sampling of site #21 from 1974 to 2002. Sources of chloride include agricultural activities and residential densities and both had increased within the sampling site catchment area since 1980. 4.4.5.4.2 Wet season Figure 4-26 illustrates the median chloride concentrations during the wet season for Anderson Creek. Chloride concentrations appear to rise in the agricultural areas at sampling sites 28 and 27. Another peak in chloride concentrations occur at sampling sites 22 & 21 as the creek approaches the Nicomekl river. The land use in this catchment area (#21 & 22) is primarily agricultural to the west of Anderson Creek and residential to the east. The catchment area for sampling site #21 includes approximately 30 % park, 16 % residential and 30 % pasture / forage land use categories. In the wet season chloride had significant positive correlations to the following water quality parameters: nitrate (rs = 0.773, p = 0.001); orthophosphate (rs = 0.428, p = 0.01); TDS (rs = .791, p = 0.001); and temperature (rs = 0.765, p = 0.001). Chloride had a significant negative correlation to dissolved oxygen (rs = -0.606, p = 0.001) during the wet season. Chloride may make up a portion of the TDS in groundwater and / or surface runoff from stormwater or agricultural lands. 132 Figure 4-26: Anderson Creek chloride concentrations during the wet season 8.8 -r 7.6 -I , , , , , , , , , , , 1 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 Sampling site (flow from left to right) In the wet season sampling site #21 had a chloride concentration range of 7.8 - 9.5 mg/L and median of 8.7 mg/L (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled the Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1974 to 1982 for chloride during the wet season ( Table C- l ) . The M O E found chloride concentrations ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 mg/L with a median of 5 mg/L (n = 12). The median chloride concentration and range of values were higher in 2003-4 wet season than the in the M O E historical data set. This indicates an increase in agricultural, road salt application or residential land use impacts to surface waters have occurred over time. As discussed for the dry season chloride comparison of data sets both agricultural and residential land use activities have increased in catchment areas impacting stream water quality at sampling site #21. 4.4.5.5 Electrical Conductance (Total Dissolved Solids) Specific conductance values ranged from 95 to 218 in the dry season and from 68 to 229 US/cm in the wet season. Higher conductance values were expected during the dry season than in the wet season. Surface runoff typically has less TDS due to dilution with the exception of first flush effects. Only four stream sites were sampled during the summer months (August and September) due to low flows in Anderson Creek. It is likely not enough data was collected during the dry season to be representative of dry season conditions. 133 In the dry season sampling site #21 had an average specific conductance range of 204 -206 uS/cm with an average of 205 pS/cm (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled Anderson Creek at site #21 for conductance from 1974 to 2002 during the dry season ( Table C-2). M O E found specific conductance ranged from 95-218 uS/cm with a median of 150 pS/cm (n = 19). The median specific conductance is higher in the 2003 dry season than in samples collected from 1974 to 2002. This difference could be due to the difference in the number of samples collected for each data set. The M O E data set consisted of almost 10 times the number of samples (n) and resulted in a wider range of conductance values for the dry season. Site #21 is located near the mouth of Anderson Creek and the catchment area is subject to agricultural impacts (Figure 4-32). Total dissolved solids concentrations at Anderson Creek sampling sites had significant positive correlations to orthophosphate (rs = 0.986, p = 0.001) and chloride (rs = 0.900, p = 0.037) concentrations in the dry season (Table G-3). A n increase in TDS, OP and chloride are commonly associated with agricultural runoff. Irrigation and animal pasturing practices can contribute to TDS loading to streams (McDonald, 2005). In the wet season sampling site #21 had a specific conductance range of 146 - 170 pS/cm and median of 157 pS/cm (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) sampled Anderson Creek at site #21 for conductance from 1974 to 2002 during the wet season ( Table C- l ) . The historical data by M O E found specific conductance concentrations ranged from 68 to 229 pS/cm with a median of 147 pS/cm (n = 18) during the wet season. Wet season electrical conductance range and medians were very similar for the 2003-4 and M O E historical data sets considering the difference in the number of samples (n) collected from site #21. In the wet season TDS had significant positive correlations to all parameters [nitrate (rs = 0.750, p = 0.001); chloride (rs = .719, p = 0.001); orthophosphate (rs = 0.579, p = 0.001); and temperature (rs = 0.717, p = 0.001)] except dissolved oxygen (rs = -0.595, p = 0.001), which had a significant negative correlation to TDS (Table G-5). Due to the difference in mobility between orthophosphate and nitrate (and chloride) in saturated soils, agricultural runoff would be more suspect than groundwater inputs to Anderson Creek. 134 4.4.5.6 Temperature Recommended criteria for maximum temperatures in streams for the protection of aquatic life are as follows: 15 °C for bull trout; 12 °C for spring and fall seasons; and 19 °C daily temperature. 4.4.5.6.1 Dry season Figure 4-27 shows temperatures for Anderson Creek sampling sites during the dry season (August and September 2003). No correlations were noted for temperature during the dry season. Maximum temperatures for Anderson Creek occurred in August and ranged from 12.3 °C to 17.8 °C. The temperature range in September was 11.5 to 12.1 °C for sampling sites 21 - 24. No other sites could be sampled during the dry season on Anderson Creek due to lack of flow. Figure 4-27: Temperatures for Anderson Creek sampling sites in the dry season ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(Augus^imiS^^ 161 2 : 0 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 3 0 29 28 27 26 2 5 24 2 3 22 21 Anderson Creek sampling sites 135 In the dry season sampling site #21 had a temperature range of 12.1 °C to 13.4 °C with an average of 12.8 °C (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured temperatures in Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1974 to 1983 during the dry season ( Table C-2). M O E found temperatures ranged from 10.5 - 12.3 °C with a median of 11 °C (n = 13). At site #21 the temperature median and range was higher for 2003 than the M O E temperature measurements from 1974 to 1983 in the dry season. It appears that Anderson Creek dry season temperatures have increased over time. This may be a result of organic loading from agricultural operation or urban development impacts to the stream 4.4.5.6.2 Wet season In the wet season temperature was correlated with all parameters [nitrate (rs = 0.516, p = 0.001); chloride (rs = .765, p = 0.001); dissolved oxygen (rs = -0.612, p = 0.001); and TDS (rs = 0.717, p = 0.001)] except orthophosphate. The negative correlation between DO and temperature is expected since DO is temperature dependent. However the positive correlation of nitrate, chloride and TDS indicates higher temperatures may be the result of groundwater inputs, organic loading and /or low flows in Anderson Creek. In the wet season sampling site #21 had a temperature range of 5.8 to 10.6 °C and median of 8.1 °C (n = 4). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured temperatures in Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1974 to 1982 during the wet season ( Table C- l ) . This sampling effort by the M O E found temperatures ranged from 3.5 to 12 °C with a median of 7 °C (n = 13). The lower median temperatures for the M O E historical data set may have been related to the larger number of samples (n) that resulted in a wider range of temperatures during the wet season. The median air temperature in Vancouver during the wet season was 5.7 °C for 1974-1982 and 5.3 °C in 2003 so higher ambient temperatures during the 2003 sampling period could not be blamed for the differences noted. Increased organic loading from land use activities can result in higher stream temperatures. 136 8.25 -r 7.75 -! 1 , 1 1 , 1 1 1 ! 1 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 Anderson Creek sampling sites (flow from left to right) Groundwater contributes cool water and supplements flow in Anderson Creek during the summer and adds warm water in the winter months. By comparing Figure 4-27 with Figure 4-28 we can see sampling site #22 may be located near groundwater input areas. Groundwater inputs during the dry season could not be determined as many of the sampling sites were dry and could not be sampled (sites 25 - 30). 4.4.5.7 Dissolved Oxygen 4.4.5.7.1 Dry Season Figure 4-29 illustrates the percentage of dissolved oxygen saturation at Anderson Creek sites during dry season sampling. No flow at sites 30 -25 during the dry season sampling resulted in a lack of data for this time period. Turbulent flows may contribute to the high percent oxygen saturation at sampling sites 2 4 - 2 1 . 137 Figure 4-29: Anderson Creek dissolved oxygen % saturation in the dry season (August and September 2003) 120 T SB 5 o- l , , , , , , , , , , , 1 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 Sampling sites (flow from left to right) The average recommended dissolved oxygen concentrations of 8 mg/L (for all life stages) and 11 mg/L (for buried embryo/alevin) are much higher than the instantaneous concentrations recommendations of 5 and 11 mg/L. Further study is recommended to ensure oxygen concentrations are not exceeding recommended criteria more frequently than indicated by this study data. 4.4.5.7.2 Wet Season Median dissolved oxygen percent saturation values for each sampling site in Anderson Creek during the wet season are illustrated (Figure 4-30). Percent saturation is 62 % at sampling site #31 then rises to above 88 % dissolved oxygen saturation at the remaining sampling stations on Anderson Creek. This percentage saturation for dissolved oxygen is to raise the dissolved oxygen concentration above the recommended criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Dissolved oxygen was low at sampling site #31, then elevated at site 29 and then fell slightly at sites 28 and 27. As Anderson Creek flows through residential areas (site 26 - 21) the dissolved oxygen content was maintained between 10.4 - 12.7 mg/L with a median of 11 -138 11.5 mg/L. The turbulent flow of Anderson Creek likely contributed to the increase in dissolved oxygen in this area. In the dry season sampling site #21 had a dissolved oxygen concentration range of 10.4 mg/L to 11.1 mg/L with an average of 10.8 mg/L (n = 2). Ministry of Environment (MOE) measured dissolved oxygen in Anderson Creek at site #21 from 1974 to 1983 during the dry season ( Table C-2). M O E found dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 10-13.5 mg/L with a median of 10.7 mg/L (n = 13). Median dissolved oxygen concentrations in 2003 were almost identical to the median DO concentrations in the M O E data set. The wider range of temperatures in the M O E historical data is likely due to sampling size differences since the M O E dry season data set consisted of over 6 times the number of samples. 4.4.5.7.3 Wet and dry seasons Figure 4-31 illustrates the percentage of sampling sites on Anderson Creek that exceeded the freshwater criteria for minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations. A l l sampling events demonstrated exceedances of the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration criteria except September and February. Both the 5 mg/L and 9 mg/L dissolved oxygen concentration 139 criteria for the protection of aquatic life may apply at different times during March and October depending on the aquatic life cycle stage. The dissolved oxygen concentrations in Anderson Creek are a concern with sampling sites exceeding freshwater criteria as follows: 25% in August; 11% - 40 % in October; 24% in November; and 0% - 25% in March. The degree of criteria exceedance for dissolved oxygen in October and March is dependant on the aquatic life cycle stage present at the time of sampling. Figure 4-31: Percentage of sampling sites on Anderson Creek exceeding dissolved oxj^e^Hresh^wjiito I I 45 • I I Sampling Date Dissolved oxygen is a concern with concentrations dropping to 4.4 mg/L at sampling station #31 in August, 5.5 mg/L in September and 5.25 mg/L in October. The dissolved oxygen concentration at sampling site #31 was consistently lower than that at other Anderson Creek sampling sites. 140 Dissolved oxygen was negatively correlated to all water quality parameters in the wet season [nitrate (rs = -0.334, p = 0.05); chloride (rs = -0.606, p = 0.001); orthophosphate (rs = -0.595, p = 0.001); TDS (rs = -0.595, p = 0.001) and temperature (rs = -0.612, p = 0.001)]. As with the parameter correlations to temperature, organic loading, groundwater inputs and/or low flows are the likely cause of low dissolved oxygen in Anderson Creek. 4.4.5.8 Bacterial Parameters Two stream sampling sites, #21 and #29, were tested for fecal coliform and bacterial source tracking on December 18, 2003. These sites were located on Anderson Creek immediately upstream and downstream of the cluster of 5 wells with maximum nitrate concentrations of 10 mg/L or higher. It was determined through bacterial source tracking (BST) the source of fecal bacteria at these stream sampling sites was likely human. The BST results were positive for a match with one human marker but not the second human marker. This usually means the amount of fecal matter is low so the BST technique is at the limit of its detection. The fecal coliform counts at sites #21 (36 CFU/100 ml) and site #29 (33 CFU/100 ml) were less than 50 CFU/100 ml. Given only one positive out of two human markers and that the fecal coliform content was less than 50 C F U /100 ml the laboratory concludes human fecal matter is likely the problem but more work is needed. Therefore further investigation to confirm the source of fecal contamination is recommended. 4.4.6 Anderson Creek Land Use Anderson Creek sampling data for the dry (Aug - Sept 03) and wet (Oct 03 - Mar 04) seasons was compiled for each sampling site and compared to land use activities within the corresponding catchment areas. Statistical correlations between Anderson Creek water quality parameters and land use activities are listed in Appendix G, Table G-2 (dry season) to Table G-5 (wet season). 141 Anderson Creek sampling data for the dry season (Aug & Sept) was combined for each sampling site and compared to land use activities within the catchment area. Anderson Creek dry season data is limited due to low flows in summer and fewer sampling events. Correlations are based on data sets with 5 to 7 data points as shown in Appendix G. Therefore caution is advised when interpreting dry season data correlations for Anderson Creek. 4.4.6.1 Residential In the dry season chloride (rs = -1.000, p = 0.01) and orthophosphate (rs = -0.759, p = 0.048) concentrations had significant negative correlations with residential land use but only 4 data points contributed to this correlation. Anderson Creek chloride concentrations may be from a variety of sources. Chloride contributions from residential and agricultural sources may have been such that correlations to either source could not be made. For example, chloride concentrations in groundwater were from a variety of sources (see section 4.1.6) and could not be correlated to the five land use categories. No other correlations were noted between residential land use and water quality parameters in Anderson Creek during the dry or wet seasons. 4.4.6.2 Uncultured Vegetation No correlations were noted for uncultured vegetation and land use parameters in either the wet or dry season. 4.4.6.3 Crop 4.4.6.3.1 Dry season Crop land usage had significant positive correlations to total dissolved solids (TDS) (rs = 0.871, p = 0.011, n = 7) and orthophosphate concentrations (OP) (rs = 0.947, p = 0.014, n = 5). It is not unusual for groundwater inputs and runoff from cropland to contain OP and TDS. 142 Surplus applications of nutrients will cause soils to release OP and TDS not utilized by the plants. The lack of correlation to nitrate concentrations does not mean nitrate was not present in the stream samples. It may mean nitrate from more than one source combined to form a unique pattern of nitrate loading throughout the Anderson Creek sampling sites. This would prevent clear statistical correlations between nitrate concentration patterns along Anderson Creek and land use within the sampling site catchment areas. This is especially true given the limited data available for Anderson Creek in the dry season. 4.4.6.3.2 Wet season Nitrate concentrations in Anderson Creek during the wet season had a significant positive correlation to crop land-use activities (rs = 0.360, p = 0.047). Magwood (2004) noted an association between nitrate concentrations in surface water and increasing agricultural activities in the Hatzic Valley, British Columbia. Similar observations were noted in the Abbotsford aquifer (Wassenaar, 1995). Wassenaar suggested nitrification occurred primarily in the summer months with flushing of nitrate into the aquifer during fall recharge. In other words, as the percentage of crop growing activities increase within a catchment area so does the nitrate concentrations at the corresponding sampling site in Anderson Creek. No other significant correlations were noted between the 6 stream water quality parameters and 5 land use categories. 4.4.6.4 Livestock No correlations were noted between livestock land use and stream water quality parameters in Anderson Creek for either the wet or dry season. 4.4.6.5 Greenhouse Greenhouse land use had negative correlations to TDS (rs = -0.796, p = 0.032, n= 7) and OP (rs = -0.947, p = 0.014, n = 5) during the dry season. 143 Although a significant positive correlation between nitrate concentrations and greenhouse land use was noted for the Little Campbell River during the dry season, no such correlation for Anderson Creek was noted for either the wet or dry season. The presence of large greenhouse operations within Anderson Creek catchment areas had significant positive correlations with increased nitrate concentrations in groundwater. The groundwater flow direction in these catchment areas is away from the Anderson Creek sampling sites. This groundwater flow direction may have contributed to the lack of correlation between the greenhouse land use categories and nitrate concentrations in Anderson Creek. 4.4.7 Comparison of two watersheds Land uses within stream sampling site catchment areas were compared to water quality parameters within Anderson Creek and Little Campbell River (Table 4-35). Table 4-35: Comparison of Anderson Creek and Little Campbell River percentage land use within sampling site catchment areas to six water quality parameters Land use Little Campbell River Anderson Creek categories Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season Residential N(+) DO (+) CI (-) OP(-) TDS (-) T(-) DO((+) Crop OP(+) OP)(+) N(+) Cl(+) TDS (+) Livestock OP(+) OP(+) Cl(+) Uncultured vegetation Greenhouses N(+) OP(-) OP(-) OP(-) DO(+) TDS (-) T(-) CI = chloride N = nitrate T = temperature DO = dissolved oxygen OP = orthophosphate TDS = total dissolved solids 4.4.7.1 Farm Size and Nutrient Applications The Little Campbell River sampling site catchment areas had fewer intensive farming operations than the Anderson Creek sampling site catchment areas. Figure 4-32 shows the distribution of agricultural land use and hobby farm land use within the Brookswood aquifer 144 in relation to the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek. Hobby farms included estates and small (less than 10 acres) farming operations while agricultural land use included large-scale crop and livestock operations. Figure 4-32: Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek relationship to hobby farms, ^^^^resjdentiaddens^tie^ Scale = 1:145,000 The following nutrient calculations are based on 2001 census data for South Langley found in Schreier et al. (2003). In 2001 the nutrient application on small farms was 64 % fertilizer and 36 % manure while large farms applied 33 % fertilizer and 67 % manure (census data in Schreier et al. 2003). In terms of nitrogen requirements the application of inorganic fertilizer 145 was similar for small farms and large farms (Table 4-36). However the application of fertilizer was much greater for large farms and resulted in a nutrient surplus. Small farms applied less nutrients than crops required in 2001, resulting in a nutrient deficit. The land use categories of crop and livestock land use included both small and large farming operations. Table 4-36: Nutrient application to crops by farm size in South Langley in 2001 Size of farm operation Percentage of crop requirements met by nutrient application to crops Nutrient surplus (deficit) Kg/ha Fertilizer Manure Nitrogen Phosphorus Small farm 42.0 % 23.5 % (-52 Kg/ha) (-5 Kg/ha) Large farm 48.2 % 98.5 % 200 Kg/ha 103 Kg/ha In the wet season, crop and livestock land use in the L C R sampling site catchment areas had significant positive correlations to chloride and orthophosphate but no correlation to nitrate concentrations. At the same time cropland in Anderson Creek catchment areas had a significant positive correlation to nitrate but not to chloride or orthophosphate. Small farming operations predominate in the L C R sampling site catchment areas (see Figure 4-32) and small farming operations carried a nitrogen deficit in 2001. In general, plants would utilize nitrogen in nutrient applications to cropland on small farms. Therefore no correlation between nitrate and agricultural land use would be expected in the L C R sampling site catchment areas. Backing this explanation is the fact that nitrate concentrations were higher in Anderson Creek than the Little Campbell River. Anderson Creek sampling site catchment areas included intensive agricultural operations (Figure 4-32). In the wet season, croplands were correlated to nitrate concentrations (rs = 0.360, p = 0.047) but not orthophosphate ((rs = -0.316, p = 0.084) or chloride (rs = 0.209, p = 0.258). However 67 % of the nutrient application on large farms in South Langley in 2001 was manure. Manure releases phosphorus (P) slower than inorganic fertilizer. Gaudreau et al. (2001) found runoff losses of dissolved P were 58% less for manure than inorganic fertilizer P shortly after equal P rates were applied to turfgrass. Similarly, runoff losses of dissolved P totalled for eight rain events were 44% less for manure than for fertilizer applied at equal P rates (Gaudreau et al, 2001). 146 4.4.7.2 Soil Types In addition, Anderson Creek sampling site catchment areas had soil types with well to rapid drainage while L C R catchment areas had predominantly moderate to well draining soils (Table 3-7). Rapidly draining soils would encourage vertical movement of nutrients through soils with infiltrating rainfall. The limited mobility of orthophosphate in soils combined with decreased groundwater inputs during the wet season may have contributed to the lack of correlation of OP concentrations to crops and /or livestock land use categories in Anderson Creek during the wet season. 4.4.7.3 Chloride Chloride was correlated to crop and livestock land use in Little Campbell River but not Anderson Creek during the wet season. Manure contains variable amounts of chloride ranging from 10 to 150 Kg-Cl / ha at an application rate of 250 Kg-N/ha (Potash Development Association, 2002). The chloride content in manure depends on animal diet, species, etc. The chloride content for inorganic fertilizers is also variable with muriate of potash containing the most (76 Kg-Cl / 100 K g potash). Table 4-37: Comparison of Little Campbell River (LCR) and Anderson Creek (AC) chloride concentrations with percentage of paved surfaces within sampling site catchment areas during the dry and wet seasons. Watershed and Spearman's rho (rs) Probability (p-value) Number of samples season (n) Anderson Creek in - 0.500 0.667 3 the dry season Anderson Creek in - 0.035 0.856 30 the wet season Little Campbell River 0.300 0.624 5 in the dry season Little Campbell River -0.117 0.570 26 in the wet season The difference in small and large farm fertilizer and manure application may account for the difference in L C R and A C chloride correlations to land use activities. Anderson Creek sampling site catchment areas have more large farms and manure comprised 67% of nutrient 147 applications in large farming operations. Manure comprised only 36 % of all nutrients applied on small farms and smaller farms were more abundant in the L C R sampling site catchment areas. No correlations were noted when chloride concentrations were compared with the percentage of paved surfaces within the sampling site catchment areas for the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek (Table 4-37). Chloride contributions from road salt would not be expected to correlate to any of the five land use categories in this study. 4.4.7.4 Dissolved Oxygen Both streams demonstrated dissolved oxygen concentrations below the recommended criteria for surface waters. The recommended minimum concentration for dissolved oxygen has been set at 5 mg/L for the protection of aquatic life. This criteria has been set for all aquatic life except buried embryo/alevin life stages for which more restrictive criteria has been set. For the buried embryo/alevin life stages the criteria for dissolved oxygen concentrations is a minimum of 9 mg/L O2. The criteria of 9 mg/L is intended for application to in-stream concentrations from the time of spawning to the point of yolk sac absorption or 30 days post-hatch for fish. The Little Campbell River exceeded the dissolved oxygen criteria more often than Anderson Creek. Although these exceedances are not as frequent as those seen in the Little Campbell River, dissolved oxygen concentrations in Anderson Creek still present a threat to aquatic life, especially in the late fall. 4.4.8 Ground and surface water interactions Wells were grouped according to the individual stream sampling site catchment areas they were located in. Stream and well water quality data within each catchment area was separated into wet and dry seasons. The wet and dry season median concentrations were calculated for nitrate, orthophosphate, chloride and total dissolved solids. Median concentrations in wells 148 were compared to median concentrations in streams for each catchment area using spearman's rank correlations (Table 4-38). Interactions between ground and surface waters is occurring within Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River watershed. However, correlating well and stream water quality parameters was difficult due to the limited data for catchment areas in Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River, especially during the dry season. Well and stream interactions would likely be more evident (greater correlation of water quality parameters) i f a greater number of paired well and stream data sets were available. Table 4-38: Compar ison of stream and wel l water qual i ty parameters wi th in L i t t le CampJ>eini iver jsajmp^^ Stream and well median concentrations Season Spearman's rho (rs) Probability (p-value) Number of stream sampling sites with well data in catchment area Nitrate Dry 0.29 0.957 6 Orthophosphate Chloride Dry Dry 0.68 0.800 0.899 0.200 6 4 Total dissolved solids Dry 0.800 0.200 4 Nitrate Wet 0.143 0.787 6 Orthophosphate Chloride Wet Wet 0.334 -0.371 0.518 0.468 6 6 Total dissolved solids Wet 0.543 0.266 6 The only significant correlation for well and stream water quality parameters was orthophosphate concentrations in Anderson Creek sampling site catchment areas during the wet season (Table 4-39). However only 4 data points were used in this calculation. Given the limited mobility of orthophosphate in soils it is not surprising ground and surface water orthophosphate concentrations were correlated during the wet season. Saturated soil conditions and high groundwater table would encourage the migration of orthophosphate. Caution is urged when interpreting these well and stream correlations since the number of paired well and stream data sets for each stream sampling site catchment area is very limited. 149 Table 4-39: Comparison of stream and well water quality parameters within Anderson Creek sampling site catchment areas using Spearman's Rank correlations Stream and well median concentrations Season Spearman's rho (rs) Probability (p-value) Number of stream sampling sites with well data in catchment area Nitrate Dry 1.00 — 2 Orthophosphate Chloride Dry Dry — — 2 2 Total dissolved solids Dry -1.00 1.00 2 Nitrate Wet - 0.800 0.200 4 Orthophosphate Chloride Wet Wet 1.00 0.400 0.01 0.600 4 4 Total dissolved solids Wet 0.400 0.600 4 It is interesting to note that greenhouse operations associated with wells having greater than 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen were located in the Anderson Creek watershed. However greenhouse land use was correlated with nitrate in the Little Campbell River. In addition, no correlation between nitrate and greenhouse land use was demonstrated for Anderson Creek. 5 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF WATER QUALITY In August 2003, 111 residents within the Brookswood aquifer completed a 4-page questionnaire on well water quality. This represents an 85% response from 20 residents requesting the survey form in response to a newspaper ad and a 24% response from 400 residents receiving survey forms randomly distributed in mailboxes. Figure 5-1 summarizes the well use data and farm activity for well owner respondents. Figjujre5-^  Years of well use Average: 19 Range: 1 - 48 Depth of wells (feet) Average: 99 Range: 6-310 Use well water for drinking Always: 80 % Sometimes: 12 % Treat well water 65 % Filter: 27 %; Other: 21 % Combination: 17% Sufficient supply of water Homeowners: 93 % Farmers: 93 % Farming activities Full time: 23 % Part time: 37 % 150 The purpose of the questionnaire was to: 1. collect data on participating wells to help interpret well water quality results and 2. provide well owner perspectives of risks to water quality and 3. acquire suggestions for protecting ground and surface water quality. 5.1 Groundwater Use Most respondents (67%) feel more information is required before groundwater use in Brookswood is increased. In a 1996 survey approximately 12 % of respondents agreed with limited use and only 5 % said "no" to increased groundwater use (Figure 5-2). Figjire^5-2^pj>ropj^ Y e s Limited u s e More info N o If an aquifer is over used the groundwater table may be lowered endangering fish bearing surface waters. Less commonly, under use of an aquifer can result in flood conditions as the groundwater table rises. For example, in areas where high capacity wells have been discontinued flood control measures (e.g. extensive ditching) must be implemented. A n evaluation of the Brookswood aquifer response to historical, current, and projected groundwater use is recommended before an increase in groundwater use takes place. 151 5.2 Impacts on Streams As shown in Figure 5-3 only 20 % of residents feel groundwater has a significant impact on river flow and river water quality. However groundwater can improve fish habitat by supplying cool water to rivers in summer and supplement flows. The Hopington Aquifer/Salmon River study showed groundwater to be the dominant source of water for streams in late summer (Schreier, 1996). Fish habitat in the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek depends on groundwater to supplement stream flows during the dry season and provide cool water to lower temperatures. The Brookswood Aquifer supplements flows in the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek during the dry season and is recharged by these same streams in the wet season (Piteau Associates, 1995). Figure 5-3: Rating of groundwater influence on streams None In Hatzic Valley, Magwood (2004) found 27 to 39 % of survey respondents thought groundwater had a significant impact on groundwater quality. However, most respondents in 152 both surveys were aware that ground and surface waters interact with each other. Schreier and Scales (1997) found 20% of Brookswood respondents in 1996 felt groundwater had a significant impact on stream water quality and flow. This is very similar to the results of the 2003 Brookswood survey. When asked i f the risk of aquifer contamination to humans is greater than fish, flora, and fauna 70 % of respondents said no. Pollution will usually affect the fish, flora, and fauna first since they are more sensitive and have greater exposure than humans to most environmental contaminants. Most respondents were aware that humans would be less sensitive than most species. They were also aware that groundwater interacts with and impacts the health of fish, flora, and fauna. 5.3 Water Quality Perception In 1996 approximately 1/3 of respondents (n = 74) rated the water quality in the Brookswood aquifer as moderate to poor (Schreier and Scales, 1997) while in 2003 approximately 1/5 of respondents thought water quality was moderate to poor (Figure 5-4). Water quality was rated as good or excellent by 88 % of well owners in 2003. In the past 8 years 22 % more Brookswood well owners rated water quality as good or excellent. Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 compares the well owner perception of their water quality to the actual water quality as indicated by sampling respondent's wells. Well water quality was assessed in terms of both health and aesthetic water quality concerns. Approximately 100 wells were tested for nitrate in September and December 2003 and February 2004. Those wells demonstrating nitrate levels above 3 ppm were re-tested in October and December. Fecal coliform testing was conducted in early December 2003 with selected wells being retested for fecal and total coliform in mid-December. Metals (e.g. chromium, lead) analysis was conducted on samples collected in February 2004. 153 Fh*ure5-4jJ|ercerjt^ Exce l len t G o o d Moderate P o o r Aesthetic concerns were based on aesthetic objectives set for parameters in the GCDWQ. Aesthetic objectives apply to parameters that pose no threat to human health at the recommended concentrations. Waters can be classified as excellent in terms of health-related parameters yet exceed aesthetic guidelines. The most common parameters to exceed GCDWQ aesthetic objectives were iron, total dissolved solids (TDS), and manganese. Other parameters exceeding the aesthetic objectives were chloride, sodium, and copper. These were considered harmless to health in the concentrations ranges found in this study. The main concern with all parameters that exceeded aesthetic objectives are objectionable taste and/or staining of fixtures and clothing. Well owners rating their well water as moderate-poor had a greater number of wells exceeding GCDWQ aesthetic objectives (Figure 5-5). Aesthetic parameters may cause staining and/ or an objectionable taste leading the well owner to rate the drinking water quality as poor. However, in moderation, some aesthetic parameters may have health benefits (e.g. iron) despite the inconvenience of staining. 154 Wells rated as excellent or good by their owners had less exceedances of aesthetic objective than wells rated as having moderate to poor water quality (Figure 5-6). However well waters rated as excellent or good exceeded health related parameters more often. This demonstrates how colour, taste and staining are not good measures of a healthy water source. Well water may look and taste excellent but be poor drinking water quality. Figure 5-5: Actual water quality for wells rated by owners as having moderate to poor well water quality 100 90 o 80 SS | 70 | I 60 | £ 50 )- = 40 1 J 30 5 5 20 u > I 10 0 • Health excellent-good • Health moderate-poor • Aesthetic excellent-good • Aesthetic moderate-poor Actual water quality as indicated by test parameters Health concerns were based on maximum acceptable concentrations for parameters in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) (Health Canada, 2003). Health related parameters that exceeded the maximum acceptable concentrations in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality were nitrate (6 wells), chromium (1 well), lead (2 wells), fecal coliform (3 wells), and total coliform (2 wells). Wells with nitrate levels of 6 -10 mg/1 were rated as having moderate water quality and wells with greater than or equal to 10 mg/1 were rated as poor water quality. None of these health related parameters changed the look, smell, or taste of the well drinking water. 155 Figure 5-6: Actual water quality for wells rated by owners as having excellent-good • Health excellent-good • Health moderate-poor El Aesthetic excellent-good • Aesthetic moderate-poor Water Quality as Indicated by T e s t Parameters When asked to rate importance of several items as a guide for indicating water quality all had an average rating of very important. The average ratings ranged from 2 - 3 on a scale of 1 being very important and 7 being not very important. These items are listed in order of descending importance with the first being the most important (although all were rated overall as very important). • Visible abnormalities • Smell and taste • Colour • Cloudiness • Visible particulate matter • Depth to water table 156 • Local newspaper reports on the quality of nearby bodies of water • Multiple gastrointestinal illnesses in the community Individually these are not good indicators of groundwater quality although all should be considered when assessing drinking water quality. Any changes to these items should be monitored. For example multiple gastrointestinal illnesses in the community could be the flu, or from food or recreational water (e.g. swimming pool). However it would be foolish to ignore the drinking water supply as a possible source. Water may not be clear or taste very good but still be a very healthy source of drinking water. The opposite may also be true. There is no substitution for regular water quality monitoring. A l l wells should be tested when contamination is suspected. Eighty-three percent of respondents thought filters do not eliminate most water quality risks. This is correct since many health-related parameters are not captured by water filtration devices. However water treatment devices such as distillation and reverse osmosis will eliminate most water quality risks and are often combined with activated carbon filters. Respondents were referred to Health Canada's website on water quality for additional information on recommended water treatment devices. 5.4 Land Use One of the most important elements in the Brookswood aquifer study is the evaluation of land use activity impacts to groundwater quality. Land use activities were mapped throughout the Brookswood aquifer study area. Land use activities were placed into five categories: residential, uncultured vegetation, crops, livestock, and greenhouse land use. These land use activities were compared to water quality parameters (Table 5-1) in wells and streams within the Brookswood Aquifer (see sections 4.2, 4.4.4, and 4.4.5) 157 Fecal coliform Fluorescence Cobalt (wells) Nickel (wells) Total coliform Flow rate (streams) Chromium (wells) Phosphate (wells) Bacterial source tracking (bacteroides) Dissolved oxygen (streams) Copper (wells) Lead (wells) Temperature (streams) Aluminium (wells) Iron (wells) Selenium (wells) Electrical conductance Arsenic (wells) Potassium (wells) Silicon (wells) Ortho-phosphate Boron (wells) Magnesium (wells) Strontium (wells) Chloride Barium (wells) Manganese (wells) Zinc (wells) Nitrate Calcium (wells) Molybdenum (wells) Caffeinejwdls) Cadmium (wells) Sodium (wells) Fifty-eight percent of survey respondents conduct risk-associated activities within 100 metres of their well (Figure 5-7). The EPA "Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas" recommends a sanitary zone of 30.5 m and a two-year time-of-travel (TOT) for porous soils. Dasika (1996) states the groundwater velocities within the Brookswood aquifer have been estimated to be between 250 m/year and 875 m/year. Based on this range of groundwater velocities the two-year TOT for sandy soils in the Brookswood aquifer can be estimated at 500 m to 1750 m. In this study 100 m, 200 m, and 500 m buffer zones were used to evaluate land use impacts (see section 4.2). JFigjire^7^a^id^is^ictiv^ 5 o E o (0 20 40 Percentage of respondents • hobby farms • agricultural animals • agricultural crops • gardening • roads (runoff) • septic field 60 158 The rated importance of land use activities at risk of contaminating groundwater is summarized in Figure 5-8. Ratings of 0 to 5 determined importance of land use activities considered at risk for contaminating the aquifer. A land use activity rated 4 to 5 was considered very important while a rating of 0 to 1 was considered not important. ^__^igjire5-8^JWdlow^ • other • Lawn fertilization • hobby farms • Golf course management • Aggregate extraction 11 Septic system • Farm manure • Industrial activities Farm fertilizer • Farm chemicals Farming and industrial activities were thought to pose greater risk to water quality than lawn fertilization, golf course management, hobby farms and septic systems. However many recent studies in North America and Europe point out that non-agricultural land uses are having a significant impact on water quality particularly in the rural/urban fringe areas (Schreier, 1996). When asked i f pesticides were only harmful if exposure were over a long period of time 75% of respondents said no. This is correct since toxic effects of pesticides are categorized as 0 1 2 3 4 Respondent average rating of risk 159 chronic (long term exposure) and acute (short term exposure). Therefore pesticides can be harmful during short-term exposures (usually high dosages). Fifty-seven percent of respondents thought people panic over small amounts of contaminants. Some contaminants are toxic in small amounts so panic in some cases may be justified. In other cases a small amount of a contaminant may be a harmless natural occurrence. Both 'yes' and 'no' answers may be correct depending on how this question was interpreted by the respondent. Over 60 % percent of respondents rated manure, inorganic fertilizer, and lawn chemicals as most at risk for contaminating groundwater. In 2003, over 50 % of respondents to a similar survey in the Hatzic Valley rated agricultural chemical, manure, fertilizers as very important in causing water quality problems (Magwood, 2004). In the 1996 over 60 % of Brookswood survey respondents rated fertilizers, manure and chemicals as very important in causing water quality problems (Schreier and Scales, 1997). Brookswood well owner ratings of activities at risk for aquifer contamination has not changed much since 1997. 5.5 Groundwater Management When compared to well owners rating of risk perception (Figure 5-8) most land use activities rated as likely to cause contamination were also rated as important to manage in protecting groundwater resource (Figure 5-9). Well owners were asked to rate the importance of various groundwater management strategies. Figure 5-9 demonstrates rating by well owners of the importance of various groundwater management strategies. The rated strategies for managing groundwater showed the majority of respondents feel restricting the use of manure, fertilizers, and chemicals on the aquifer is very appropriate (Figure 5-9). Septic system monitoring and servicing are generally perceived to be less important, yet they contribute to groundwater contamination (see section 4.3). The introduction of a sewer was suggested as important for groundwater protection by 60% of respondents. It should be noted 160 that the introduction of a sewer infrastructure would not necessarily improve the water quality of the aquifer unless most of the contaminants were coming from septic systems that would be eliminated by the sewer system. Since the Brookswood aquifer supplements stream flows in the Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek the introduction of centralized sewage disposal system may affect the aquifer recharge rate and reduce supplemental flows to these streams. Figure 5-9: Rated importance of groundwater management strategies c £ © O) re c | c .2 s ra S £ ro 2 "5 M o o e I o a E £ re B 20 40 60 % Respondents I agriculture fertilizer restriction I manure application restriction • lawn & garden chemical restriction • introduction of municipal sewer system • restrict industrial development • S D S monitoring & servicing regulations • restrict urban development • regulate land use ^control of road runoff • other Urbanization contributes to water contamination particularly when the aquifers are unconfined. Non-point sources of urban land use (transportation and storm water run-off) produce extensive metal and hydrocarbon pollution as shown in the recent Brunette River study (Hall et al. 1997). However, most respondents felt restricting urban development, controlling road runoff and regulating land use on the aquifer is significantly less important than restricting industrial development and agricultural use of nutrients and chemicals. 161 In 2003, 75% of Brookswood respondents favoured a combination of voluntary and regulated management approaches to protect groundwater. While in the 1996 Brookswood survey the same number of respondents (74%) favoured a combined approach. Well owners were asked to make suggestions for actions to arrive at a sustainable use of groundwater resources. Individual actions suggested by respondents included: • Conserve water (29%) • Reduce chemical use (21 %) • Implement farm best management practices (20%) • Improve storage practices for chemicals and manure (16%) Suggested actions for municipalities included: • Water quality monitoring (22%) • Regulatory enforcement (19%) • Water quality improvement and protection planning (19%) • Water and sewer services (13%) • Conserve water (11%) • Public education and awareness (8%) Provincial and Federal Government actions suggested by respondents included: • Regulatory enforcement (25%) • Water quality monitoring (21 %) • Water quality improvement and protection planning (20%) • Funding grants and subsidies for B M P (10%) • Public education and awareness (8%) • Conserve water (7%) • No involvement (6%) 162 5.6 Well & septic maintenance The frequency of septic system servicing is shown in Figure 5-10. The results show that many septic system owners do not service their system on a regular basis. Depending on use, it is generally recommended that septic systems be serviced every three to five years (EHFC, 1995). Figjir^5^0^rajruency^)^^ 30 " i — 1 yr 2 y r s 3 yrs 5 y r s 1 0 y r s N e v e r Twenty-six percent reported to service their systems every 5 years, 10 % service every 10 years while 7 % never serviced their systems. Seventeen percent of respondents service their septic system less than that recommended by health authorities (EHFC, 1995). However the vast majority of on-site sewage disposal system owners service their systems within the recommended time periods. About the same number of well owners monitored their wells for bacteria every year (13%), every 2 years (14%) and every 3 years (12%) (Figure 5-11). However the vast majority of well owners (67%) monitor their water quality less than once every 3 years (Figure 7.2). Results for chemical monitoring frequency were very similar with well owners testing once every: 1 year (13%), 2 years (11%), 3 years (11%), and less than 3 years (65%). 163 70 £ 60 c <D 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs Other Health Canada (2004) recommends monitoring wells 2-3 times a year for coliform bacteria and whenever chemical contamination is suspected. Testing for both chemical and bacterial parameters is always recommended after well construction (initial or repairs). 5.7 Risk perception Well owners were asked how likely they were to suffer from the effects of five environmentally related events. Then they were asked how much control they had over these events. The average ratings for each category are illustrated in Table 5-2. TjjiMeJ5-2j^Per^^ Environmental Event Risk suffering effects of Control over any risks from Natural disasters Unlikely No control Outdoor air quality Likely No control Pesticide residue in air or water Somewhat likely Some control Downstream effects of pollution Somewhat likely No control Fecal coliform in drinking water SomewhaUikely Some control Environmental events considered likely or somewhat likely to cause effects to an individual are also perceived as events that are difficult or impossible to control. This may foster apathy 164 toward environmental protection measures (e.g. "it will happen and there is little anyone do about it so why bother trying"). However the implementation of pollution control measures by individuals can drastically improve water and air quality. 165 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This project determines i f on-site sewage disposal systems are contributing to water quality degradation in the Brookswood Aquifer, Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River. Environmental monitoring and assessment methods were used that can be used as a template for similar investigations within other unconfined aquifers. This case study has provided integrated mapping and monitoring tools to assess nitrate contamination in unconfined aquifers and make recommendations for projected on-site sewage disposal system densities. Enumerating sewage disposal systems by searching land title and municipal property records using criteria of properties with greater than $30,000 of improvements was found to be 99.3% accurate. However community systems were counted as one SDS. As a result, this method was approximately 85% accurate for estimating overall SDS loading. When correlating data sets, the fan-shaped buffer zones (designed to account for estimated groundwater flows) were able to condense the land use activities potentially impacting the water quality in each well. In general the redesigned buffer zones helped improve correlation accuracy over the circular buffer zones. Wells that were 10 to 20 metres in depth had a higher median nitrate concentration than those less than 10 m or greater than 20 m in depth. Nitrate migrates vertically in groundwater over time although horizontal movement with groundwater flow predominates. The increased nitrate concentrations in wells of moderate depth indicate nitrate contamination has occurred over many years. The number of sewage disposal systems within the five well buffer zones was positively correlated with nitrate levels in corresponding wells. As the number of sewage disposal systems located within 200 and 500 m of a well increased the probability of higher nitrate concentrations also increased. Sewage disposal system densities at 1 to 1.5 SDS per hectare had a median nitrate concentration of less than three mg/L nitrate. It is generally accepted that nitrate concentrations greater than 3 mg/L are the result of anthropogenic impacts. 166 Residential land use was associated with an increase in well nitrate concentrations in both wet and dry seasons. Significant correlations between nitrate and the percentage of residential land use were noted for all buffer shapes and sizes except the 100 m radius buffer zone where there were few sewage disposal systems. A n increase in uncultured vegetation (e.g. parks, forested lands) was associated with a decrease in well nitrate concentrations. A decrease in nitrate concentrations was associated with livestock land use. This may be due to large property to animal ratios and a nutrient deficit associated with small farms in the Brookswood area. Brookswood well nitrate concentrations were correlated to greenhouse land use. This association was strong in the dry season and weak to non-existent in the wet season. Five out of six wells with high nitrate concentrations (>10 mg/L) were located within a one-kilometre radius of several greenhouses and an intensive dairy farm operation. Little Campbell River dissolved oxygen concentrations exceeded freshwater criteria in all months except February. Dissolved oxygen in the Little Campbell River exceeded the recommended freshwater criteria in up to 64% of sampling sites during sampling events. A n increase in dissolved oxygen content in the Little Campbell River was associated with residential land use categories in the dry and wet seasons. Since the Little Campbell River is an important fish bearing habitat, further study to determine the cause of the low dissolved oxygen concentrations and potential remedial action(s) is strongly recommended. Anderson Creek exceeded the recommended criteria for dissolved oxygen in all months except September and February with up to 40% of sampling sites exceeding the criteria during sampling events. Anderson Creek temperatures in September ranged from 11.5 °C to 12.1 °C where the recommended criterion is 12 °C for spring and fall seasons. 167 The Little Campbell River and Anderson Creek exceeded criteria for dissolved oxygen and temperature at some sampling sites. Dissolved oxygen concentration is a concern for sampling sites 6 to 9 on the Little Campbell River and sampling site #31 on Anderson Creek. Crop and livestock land uses were associated with increased orthophosphate and chloride in the Little Campbell River during the wet season. Crop land use was associated with orthophosphate and total dissolved solids during the dry season and nitrate during the wet season in Anderson Creek. Anderson Creek has both intensive agricultural and urban areas within the watershed. Agricultural best management practices should be implemented within these watersheds. Residential and greenhouse land use categories had a significant correlation with increased nitrate concentrations in the Little Campbell River during the dry season but not in the wet season. Groundwater supplements flows to the Little Campbell River during the dry season and the river helps recharge the aquifer in the wet season. No correlation was noted between Anderson Creek nitrate concentrations and greenhouse land use in either the wet or dry season. However only four sampling sites could be sampled in the dry season due to low flows in Anderson Creek. Recommendations: 1. When developing an integrated mapping and monitoring protocol to assess nitrate contamination levels in unconfined aquifers: • Enumerate SDS by using the existing method of counting properties greater than $30,000 of improvements in non-serviced (sewer) areas • Estimate SDS loading by using the existing method above and add the number of community sewage disposal systems. Municipalities should have information on trailer parks and schools in unserviced areas as well as population served. 168 • Improve correlations between land use and water quality by more accurately measuring groundwater flow directions (e.g. piezometers) and the buffer zone designed for each individual well. If this cannot be achieved (e.g. budget and/or time restraints) the application of 200 m fan-shaped and especially 500 m fan-shaped buffer zones to estimated groundwater flow directions for each participating well is recommended. 2. When making recommendations for land development and on-site sewage disposal system densities in areas of unconfined aquifers similar to the Brookswood Aquifer: • Limit development in areas unserviced by municipal sewer to 1 to 1.5 or less on-site sewage disposal systems per hectare. • Plan for naturally forested areas and parkland and protect existing parks and forests. 3. When planning for ground and surface water protection: • Implement watershed management study to determine the cause of high stream temperatures and low dissolved oxygen. This study should address the potential effects on aquatic life and recommend potential remedial actions. • Determine if an association exists between greenhouse operations and water quality and assess the potential impacts (if any) to ground and surface waters. • Educate owners of crop and livestock operations on best management practices with respect to nutrient application and water protection (fencing, maintaining natural buffer zones, manure storage, etc.). Implement incentive programs for those operations that comply with best management practices or exceed expected standards. 169 REFERENCES Addah, J. 1998. The impact of agricultural land uses on water and sediment quality in the Agassiz / Harrison Hot Springs watershed, B.C. MASc thesis. University of British Columbia Dept. of Civi l Engineering. Vancouver, British Columbia. A P H A (American Public Health Association), American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation. 2001. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC Andreoli, A . , N . Bartilucci, R. Forgione, R. Reynolds. 1979. Nitrogen removal in a subsurface disposal system. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation Vol 51: 841-4 Bergstrom, L. , N . Brink. 1986. Effects of differentiated applications fo fertilizer N on leaching losses and distribution of inorganic N in the soil. Plant and Soil. Vol . 93: 333-45 Berka, C , S. Brown, A . Kenney, W. Tamagi and H . Schreier. 1997. Relationships between agriculture land use and surface water quality in the sumas watershed, Abbotsford, B.C. in Integrated Watershed Management. Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Bernhard, A.E. , K . G . Field. 2000. A PCR assay to discriminate human and ruminant feces on the basis of host differences in Bacteroides-Prevotella genes encoding 16S rRNA. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Vol . 66: 4571 - 4574 Bickford, T., B. Lindsey, M . Beaver. 1996. Bacterial quality of ground water used for household supply, lower Susquehenna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Water Resources Investigation Report. U.S. Geological Survey, US Dept. of the Interior. Report 96-4212. http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir 96-4212/20718 s3.html Bosch, H . M . , A . B . Rosefield, R. Huston, H.R. Shipman and F.L. Woodward. 1950. Methemoglobinemia and Minnesota well supplies. Journal of American Water Works Association. Vol . 42: 161-170. Bourne, A . 2001. Assessing the contamination risk of private well water supplies in Virginia. MSc thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia Bright, D.A. and J. Addison. 2002. Derivation of matrix soil standards for salt under the British Columbia Contaminated Sites Regulation. Prepared for BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways, BC Buildings Corp., and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Victoria, BC. Royal Roads University. 170 Burt, T.P., S.T. Trudgill. 1993. Nitrate in Groundwater in Part 2: Spatial and temporal Patterns of Nitrate Transfer. Nitrate: Processes, Patterns, and Management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England. Carmichael, V . , M . Wei, L . Ringman. 1995. Fraser Valley groundwater monitoring program final report. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. City of Surrey. 2005. Stormwater and Rainfall Data. Rainfall data on-line. http://www.kwl.bc.caWsurreyWsfm.htm Kerrwood Leidal Associates Limited. British Columbia (accessed February 2004 - June 2005) Cornblath, M . and A.F. Hartmann. 1948. Methemoglobinemia in young infants. Journal of Pediatrics 33: 421-425. Dasika, R.K. 1996. Investigations into the distribution of non-point source nitrate in two unconfined aquifers & the role for carbon addition in the control of nitrate concentrations in groundwater. PhD thesis, Department of Civi l Engineering University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Dojlido, J.R.. 1979. Investigations ofbiodegradability and toxicity of organic compounds, EPA - Report 600/2-72/163. U.S. EPA, Springfield, V A ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals). 1988. Nitrate and drinking water. Technical Report N 27. Brussels, Belgium. Entry, J. and N . Farmer. 2001. Movement of coliform bacteria and nutrients in ground water flowing through basalt and sand aquifers. Journal of Environmental Quality Vol . 30:1533-1539 Environment Canada. 2004. National climate data and information archive. Climate data online. http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/Welcome e.html and http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/monthlydata e.htm^timeframe^l &Prov=XX&StationID-889&Year-2003&Month-12&Dav-2 Environment and Lands Headquarters Division. 1997. On-line report. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Updated February 18, 1997. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/DO.html EHFC (Environmental Health Foundation of Canada). 1995. Septic System Maintenance: Pure and Simple. Public Health Protection, British Columbia Ministry of Health Services. http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/protect/pdf/sep english.pdf Fan A M , C.C. Willhite, S.A. Book. 1987. Evaluation of the nitrate drinking water standard with reference to infant methemoglobinemia and potential reproductive toxicology. Regulatory Toxicology, and Pharmacology. Vo l 7(2): 135-148. 171 FADINAP (Fertilizer Advisory, Development and Information Network for Asia and the Pacific). 2001. Agro Chemical Report. On-line version. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. January - March 2001. Vol . 1 No. 1. pp. 22, 28-9 http://www.fadinap.org/nib/nib2001 1 l/jan2001full.PDF Fetter, C W . 1988. Applied Hydrogeology. Second edition. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio. Field, K . G . 2001. Fecal source tracking with bacteroides. Oregon State University, Department of Microbiology, 220 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331 Frauchiger, D. 2003. E-mail message to author December 12, 2003. Laboratory Manager, Battelle Geneva Research Centres, Environment and Analytical Chemistry Department 7, Route de Drize C H - 1227 Carouge-Geneva, Switzerland Freeze, R.A., J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 84-85: pp.412-16 Gartner Lee Limited. 1993. Fraser Valley groundwater monitoring program phase one report. Report. British Columbia Ministry of Health Giger, W. 2004. Personal communication: Anticorrosive benzotriazoles as contaminants in wastewaters and rivers. Research project by Christian Schaffner and Walter Giger. E A W A G , CH-8600 Dubendorf, Switzerland. Gaudreau, J., D. Vietor, R. White, T. Provin and C. Munster. 2002. Response of turf and quality of water runoff to manure and fertilizer. Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol . 31:1316-1322. http://ieq.sciiournals.Org/cgi/content/full/31/4/1316 Graphpad Quick Calcs. 2002. Free on-line calculators for scientists. Graphpad Software Inc. http://graphpad.com/quickcalcs/PValue 1 .cfm Goss M.J. , D.A.J. Barry and D.L. Rudolph. 1998. Contamination in Ontario farmstead domestic wells and its association with agriculture: 1. Results from drinking water wells. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology Vol . 32: 267-293. Guglielmetti, L . 1975. Fluorescent Whitening Agents in Environmental Quality and Safety, Supplement Vol . IV. Ed. By F. Coulston and F. Korte, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart and Academic Press, New York/London. P. 180 -190 Gupta, S.K., R.C. Gupta, A . K . Seth, A . B . Gupta, J.K. Bassin, A . Gupta. 2000. Methaemoglobinaemia in areas with high nitrate concentration in drinking water. National Medical Journal of India. M a r - A p r . 2000: 13(2): pp 58-61 172 G V R D (Greater Vancouver Regional District). 2001. Liquid waste management plan. Policy and Planning Department, Greater Vancouver Regional District. Burnaby, B.C. G W M A P (Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program). 1999. The effects of septic systems on ground water quality - Baxter, Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota. May 1999 pp. 24 - 26 Halstad, E.C. 1979. Hydrogeological fence diagram and well location map. Township 7, Surrey and Langley district municipalities, British Columbia. Drafting Division, EMS Department of the Environment. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Hall, K.J . , G.F. Lee. 1974. Molecular size and spectral characterization of organic matter in a meromictic lake. Water Research. Vol . 8: pp. 239-251. Health Canada. 2004. What's in your well? - A guide to well water treatment and maintenance. Health Canada website last updated October 10,2004. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/well water-eau de_puits_e.html Health Canada. 2003. Summary ofguidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. Federal -Provincial - Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal - Provincial -Territorial Committee on Environmental and Occupational April 2003. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/water/dwgsup.htm Health Website last updated November 21,2003. Health Canada. 1996. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality, sixth edition. Federal - Provincial - Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal - Provincial -Territorial Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. Health Canada pp. 58-9 Health Canada. 1992. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality - supporting documents. Copper. Webpage last updated October 1, 2004. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/doc sup-appui/copper-cuivre/indexe.html Heathwaite, A . L . , T.P. Burt, S.T. Trudgill. 1993. Overview - the nitrate issue in Part 1: nitrogen cycling and nitrate production in catchment ecosystems. Nitrate: processes, patterns, and management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England. Heathwaite, A . L . 1993. Nitrogen cycling in surface waters and lakes in Part 1: Nitrogen cycling and nitrate production in catchment ecosystems. Nitrate: processes, patterns, and management.. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England, pp, 103-5 Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS). 1982. Evaluation of data for acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans, maximum residue levels (MRL) and supervised trials median residue (STMR) values. 2002 Codex Committee on Pesticide Residue. http://www.fsc.go.ip/senmon/nouyaku/n-dail/sankou/2002acephate.pdf 173 \ Isacson, P. 1988. Proceedings of technical workgroup, agricultural occupational and environmental health: policy strategies for the future. Iowa City, Iowa, Sept. 1988, pp. 18 - 2 1 . Harter, T. 2003. Groundwater quality and groundwater pollution division of agriculture and natural resources. University of California. Publication 8084. Farm Water Quality Planning Reference Sheet 11.2. Kenney, A. , B. Wernick, S. Brown, W. Thompson, W. Tamangi, K . Hall and H . Schreier. 2000. Puzzling times in the Salmon River Watershed in Assessing non-point sources (NPS) of pollution in watersheds. Knobeloch, L. , B. Salna, A . Hogan, J. Postle, H . Anderson. 2000. Blue babies and nitrate-contaminated well water. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol.108, No.7, July 2000. Kramer J.B., S. Canonica, J. Hoigne, and J. Kaschig. 1996. Degradation of fluorescent whitening agents in sunlit natural waters. Env. Sci. Technol. Vo l 30 (7) p. 2227-2234 Kreye, R., K . Ronneseth, and M . Wei, 1994. An aquifer classification system for groundwater management in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Management Division, Hydrology Branch. Victoria B.C. Kreye, R., and M . Wei, 1994. A proposed aquifer classification system for groundwater management in British Columbia.. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Management Division. Victoria, British Columbia. Kreitler, C.W., D.C. Jones. 1975. Natural soil nitrate: The cause of the nitrate contamination in groundwater in Runnels County, Texas. Groundwater. Vol . 13: 53-61 Kross, B.C., G.R. Hallberg, D.R. Bruner, R.D. Libra, K . D . Rex, L . M . B . Weih. M.E . Vermace, L.F. Burmeister, N . H . Hall, K . L . Cherryholmes, J.K. Johnson, M.I. Selim, B .K. Nations, L.S.Seigley, D.J.Quade, A . G . Dudler, K . D . Sesker, M . A . Culp, C F . Lynch, H.F.Nicholson, and J.P. Hughes. 1990. The Iowa state-wide rural well-water survey: water-quality data: initial analysis. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 19 1990 142p. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/pubs/abstract/tis 19.htm Laretei, K . L . Oct. 1998. Demtrification in the Abbotsford aquifer and the influence of a stream environment. Master's thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Luttmerding, H.A. 1980. Soils of the Langley-Vancouver map area. Ministry of Environment. Kelowna, British Columbia. R A B Bulletin 18. Report No. 15. Volume 1. 174 MacDonald, J.R. 2005. Impacts of Urban Hillslope Development and Agriculture on Hydrology and Water Quality in the Chilliwack Creek Watershed, British Columbia. MSc thesis. Resource Management and Environmental Studies. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Macdonald, R., K.J . Hall, and H . Schreier. May 1997. Water Quality and Stormwater Contaminants in the Brunette River Watershed, British Columbia 1994/95 A research report prepared for the Fraser River Action Plan, Madison, R.J. and J.O. Brunett. 1984. Overview of the occurrence of nitrate in groundwater of the United States. USGS Water Supply Paper 2275 pp 93-105 http://onlinepubs.er.usgs.gov/divu/WSP/wsp2275.divu Magwood, S.B. 2004. Drinking water quality in the Hatzic Valley, British Columbia. MSc thesis. University of British Columbia Dept. of Resource Management and Environmental Studies. Vancouver, British Columbia. Meybeck, M . , D. Chapman, P. Helman. 1989. Global freshwater quality: a first assessment. Global Environmental Monitoring System, UNEP/WHO M W L A P (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection). 1997. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, overview report. Water Management Branch, Government of British Columbia M W L A P (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection). 1998. Water quality guidelines (criteria) report. Government of British Columbia. Sept. 11,1998. Updated Aug. 24, 2001. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/#guidelines Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 1999 Ambient water quality guidelines (criteria) for zinc. Government of British Columbia. March 19, 1999. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/zinc.html Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Headquarters Division. April 24, 2003. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/DO.html Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2005. Animal calculation worksheet. Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/feedlots/dmt/aucalcws.htm Morton and Hebel. 1984. A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics. Aspen Publishers. Rockville, Maryland, USA. Nagpal, N . K , D.A. Levy, and D.D. MacDonald. 2003. Ambient water quality guidelines for chloride: Overview report. Water Management Branch, Environment and Lands Novotny, V . and H. Olem. 1994. Water quality: prevention, identification, and management of diffuse pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, N Y . pp. 362-79: 415-19 175 National Academy of Science. 1995. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press Oblinger Childress, C.J., W. T. Foreman, B.F. Connor and T.J. Maloney. 1999. New reporting procedures based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-quality data Provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. http://water.usgs.gov/owq/OFR 99-193/ofr99 193.pdf Perlmutter, N . M . , and Koch, E. 1972. Preliminary hydrogeologic appraisal of nitrate in ground water and streams, southern Nassau County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-B, p. B225-B235 Pidwirny, M . 2004. Fundamentals of physical geography. Chapter 8: Introduction to the hydrosphere. Physical Geography.net. Updated August 22, 2004. http ://www. physical geo graphv.net/fundamental s/81 .html Piteau Associates. 1995. Impact assessment of sewage effluent on groundwater quality in an unconfined aquifer: Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia. North Vancouver, B.C. April 1995. p. 10. Poiger,T., J.A. Field,., T . M Field, and W. Giger. 1996. Occurrence of fluorescent whitening agents in sewage and river water determined by solid-phase extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography. Environmental Science & Technology 30, no. 7 p.2220-2226 Poiger, T. 1994. Behavior and fate of detergent-derived fluorescent whitening agents in sewage treatment. Dissertation, ETH-Zurich, Swiss Feral Institute of Technology. 83. http://librarv.eawag.ch/EAWAG-Publications/pdf/EAWAG 01921.pdf Poiger, T., J.A. Field, T. M . Field, W. Giger. 1993. Determination of detergent-derived fluorescent whitening agents in sewage sludges by liquid chromatography. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation. Vol 1 No. 2, p. 104-113 Porcella, D. B., A . B . Bishop, J.C. Andersen, O.W. Asplund, A . B . Crawford, W.J. Greeney, D.I. Jenkins, J.J. Jurinak, W.D. Lewis, E.J. Middlebrooks, R . M . Walkingshaw. 1974. Comprehensive management of phosphorus water pollution. EPA-600/5-74-010. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington D.C. Potash Development Association. 2002. Chlorine in soils and plants. York, U K . Potash Development Association, http://www.pda.org.uk/notes/tnl3.asp Rehm, G., M . Schmitt, J. Lamb, G. Randall, and L . Busman. 2002. Understanding phosphorus fertilizers: Phosphorus in the agricultural environment. College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Science. Communication and Educational 176 Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension Service. FO-06288-GO http://wvvw.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsvstems/DC6288.html Reid, D., A . Edwards, D. Cooper, E. Wilson and B. Megrew (2002). The quality of drinking water from private water supplies in Aberdeenshire, U K . Water Research 37: 245-254 Rudolph, D.L., D . A J . Barry, and M.J . Goss. 1998. Contamination in Ontario farmstead domestic wells and its association with agriculture: 2. Results from multilevel monitoring well installations. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 32(3-4); 295-311 Robertson, W.D., Cherry J.A. and Sudicky, E.A., 1991. Groundwater contamination from two small septic systems on sand aquifers: Ground Water 29: 82-92. Robertson, W.D., and Cherry J.A., 1995. In situ denitrification of septic system N O 3 using reactive porous media barriers; field trials: Ground Water 33: 99-111 Sattelmacher P.G. 1962. Methemoglobinemia from nitrates in drinking water. Schriftenreiche des Vererins fur Wassar Boden und Lufthygiene. no. 21. Schreier, H. , K. Hall, S. Brown, L . Lavkulich, P. Zandbergen. 1997. Case study #3: Salmon Watershed in Integrated watershed management. Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Schreier, H , P. Scales. 1997. Summary of the Brookswood groundwater quality analysis in Langley, B.C. Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Schreier, H. , R. Bestbier, G. Derksen. 2003. Agricultural nutrient management trends in the Lower Fraser Valley, B.C. (Based on Agricultural Census 1991-2001). Multi-media CD-R O M . Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Schreier, H. , K. Hall, K . L i , J. Addah. 2003. Groundwater and surface water issues in Agassiz, B. C. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Schreier, Hans. 1996. Preliminary survey results from groundwater questionnaire: Brookswood Aquifer. Institute of Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC. SDA, Soap and Detergent Association. 2002. Cleaning products in household wastewater. http://69.25.26.100/welcome.html 177 Simon, et al. 1964. Uber vorkommen, pathogenese, und moglichkeiten zur prophylaxe der durch nitrit verursachten methamoglobinamie. Zeitschrift fur Kinderheilkunde. 91. 124-138. Smith, I., H. Schreier. 2005. Linking agricultural intensification to water quality in the sumas river watershed: Nutrient and trace element dynamics 1970 - 2004. Multi-media CD-R O M . Institute for Resources and Environment. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Stewart, B. A. , D. A . Woolhiser, W. H . Wischmeier, J. H . Caro, and M . H . Frere. 1975. Control of water pollution from croplands. Vols. I and II. EPA-600/2-75-026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Stoll, J .M.A. 1997. Fluorescent whitening agents in natural waters. PhD. Thesis No. 12355, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland Tchobanoglous, G., F.L. Burton, H.D. Stensel. 2003. Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 4 t h Edition. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. New York, N Y . pp. 1404. Townend, J. 2003. Practical statistics for environmental and biological scientists. John Wiley and Sons Canada Ltd. Ontario, Canada. University of Illinois. 2000. How environmental regulation affects livestock production in Illinois: How to calculate animal units. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Illinois, USA. http://il-traill.outreach.uiuc.edu/SOWM/regs/Resources/cal-au.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Microbial source tracking: 2002 Workshop proceedings, www.sccwrp.org/tools/workshops/source_tracking agenda U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Design manual - onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. EPA 625/1-81-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati U.S.G.S. (United States Geological Survey). 2001. National Water-Quality Assessment Program: What are the Sources of Nutrients in Water? Circular 1136. U.S. Department of the Interior, http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/circ-1136/h7.html Vinten, A.J .A. and K . A . Smith. 1993. Nitrogen cycling in agricultural soils in Part 1: Nitrogen cycling and nitrate production in catchment ecosystems. Nitrate: processes, patterns and management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex P019 1UD, England Vinten, A.J.A., B.J. Vivian, R.S. Howard. 1992. The effect of nitrogen fertilizer on the nitrogen cycle of two upland arable soils of contrasting textures. Proceedings of the Fertilizer Society. Proceeding 329 178 Walton G. 1951. Survey of literature relating to infant methemoglobinemia due to nitrate-contaminated water. American Journal of Public Health 41: 986-996. Wassenaar, L . I., 1995. Evaluation of the origin and fate of nitrate in the Abbotsford Aquifer using the isotopes of N and O in NO3". Applied Geochemistry, Journal of the International Association of Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, Vol . 10: Issue 4: July 1995: pp. 391-405. Elsevier Science Ltd. Weisenburger, D.D. 1991. Potential health consequences of ground-water contamination by nitrates in Nebraska in Nitrate contamination: exposure, consequence, and control eds. Bogardi, I and Kuzelka, R.D. N A T O ASI Series, Vol . G. 30. pp. 390-315 Widory, D., E. Petelet-Giraud, P. Negrel, and B. Ladouche. 2005. Tracking the sources of nitrate in groundwater using coupled nitrogen and boron isotopes: A synthesis. Environmental Science Technology. 39(2): 539-548 Wild, A . 1988. Plant nutrients in soil: nitrogen in Russell's Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, ed. Wild, A . , 11 ed. Longman, Harlow, pp. 652-94 Wilzer, K . 2004. Personal communication May 27, 2004. Director of Technical Services. Ciba Specialty Chemicals 4090 Premier Drive, High Point, N C 27265. WHO, World Health Organization. 2003. Water related diseases: Methaemoglobinemia. www.who.int/water sanitation health/diseases/methaemoglob/en/ Zinkernagel, R. 1980. Fluorescent whitening agents in the environment: Fluorescent brightening agents, Textile Science and Technology. Vo l 4. Ed. By R. Williamson, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, the Netherlands p. 129-141 179 APPENDIX A QUALITY CONTROL A- l Optical Brighteners The type of optical brightener used in laundry detergents is proprietary and would not be stated by laundry detergent manufacturers in Canada or the USA. Therefore DAS 1 and DSBP standards were difficult to obtain and could not be purchased until the sampling phase of this project had concluded. Optical brightener standards were prepared from liquid laundry detergents; Wisk, Purex and Presidents' Choice (Figure A - l ) . ^FigjareA-LnFh^oroD^ 1000 100 0.1 0.0001 • W i s k • P u r e x • P r e s i d e n t s ' C h o i c e 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Laundry detergent (ppm) 10 100 The Wisk standard produced the most consistent readings over a wider range of concentrations. Thus Wisk was used to compare the fluorometer readings of well and stream water samples. Therefore optical brightener concentrations are expressed as ppm Wisk. 180 Figure A-2: Wisk standard curve for fluorometer emittance units at 400-500 nm Replicate sampling was performed randomly on 10% of all samples tested for fluorescence. The average percent difference for replicate values was 0.96%, indicating very good analytical precision. A-2 Nitrate The method detection level (MDL) for nitrate was 3.5 pg/L (0.0035 mg/L). Reagent blanks were prepared by mixing one drop of phenol mercuric acetate (preservative) with distilled water in a 9 ml test tube. Reagent blanks made up 5% of each batch of samples for nitrate analysis. The average concentration for the reagent blanks was 4.0 ±3 .6 ug/L. The reagent blanks demonstrated a greater concentration than the M D L but less than the minimum quantitation level (MQL) of 36 pg/L. Nitrate was detected in reagent blanks at concentrations equal to or less than 8 ug/L. This detection of low nitrate concentrations in the reagent blanks did not provide a source of interference in this study. 181 Replicate sampling was performed randomly on a minimum of 10% of all samples tested for nitrate. The average relative percent difference for replicate values greater than the M Q L (0.036 mg/L) was 0.7% indicating very good analytical precision. Duplicate field samples were collected at the same time from the same sampling source. Duplicates were either split between two bottles or two test tubes during field sampling. Five percent of all samples for nitrate analysis were duplicates. The average relative percent difference for duplicate sample values greater than the M Q L was 4.6% indicating good field sample collection procedures. A field blank of distilled water in a sampling bottle was placed in the sample cooler during collection of well and stream samples. Field blanks demonstrated nitrate concentrations below the M D L (3.5 p,g/L) and M Q L (22 ug/L). Field blank values ranged from 0 to 3 ug/L and were comparable to the reagent blanks. Sample coolers maintained a temperature range of 0 - 10°C during sample collection and delivery to the laboratory. Lab Fortified Blank (LFB) is reagent water sample to which a known concentration of analytes has been added. Laboratory fortified blanks were used to evaluate laboratory performance and analyte recovery in a blank matrix as illustrated in Figure A-3. Standard additions of 1, 2, 5 and 10 mg/L NO3 were added to reagent blanks on September 24, 2003. Percent recovery in the L F B were evaluated using: % Recovery (LFB - Blank result) X 100 percent Known L F B added concentrate 182 Figure A-3: Percent recovery of nitrate laboratory fortified blanks and matricies (matrix spikes) September 24, 2003 1 06.6H 104.eH > o j * 102.e 05 at ** 05 I 100 . O J 98.6H 96 . eH L a b F o r t i f i e d B l a n k S p i k e d S a m p l e Matr ix 1 0 1 5 20 A c t u a l C o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) A laboratory fortified matrix (LFM) is an additional portion of sample to which known amounts of the analytes of interest are added before sample preparation. The L F M is used to evaluate analyte recovery in a sample matrix. Known additions of 5 and 10 mg/L NO3 were added to sample # 69 on September 23, 2003. Duplicate samples of 69 were processed with results of 9.82 and 9.83 mg/L. The L F M results are illustrated in Figure A-3. Percent recovery was calculated as follows: % Recovery = ( L F M sample result — sample result) X 100 percent known L F M added concentration A-3 Orthophosphate The method detection level (MDL) for orthophosphate was 10 ug/L (0.01 mg/L). Reagent blanks were prepared by mixing one drop of phenol mercuric acetate (preservative) with distilled water in a 9 ml test tube. Reagent blanks made up 5% of each sample batch for orthophosphate analysis. The standard deviation and average concentrations for the reagent 183 blanks were 2.217 and 1.863 (xg/L respectively with a maximum concentration of 7 ug/L. The reagent blanks demonstrated orthophosphate concentrations less than the M D L (10 p.g/L) and minimum quantitation level (MQL) of 22 ug/L. Therefore no orthophosphate was detected in the reagent blanks. Replicate sampling was performed randomly on a minimum of 10% of all samples tested for orthophosphate. The average relative percent difference for replicate values greater than the M Q L (22 ug/L) was 4.2% indicating good analytical precision for orthophosphate. Duplicate field samples were collected at the same time from the same sampling source. Duplicates were either split between two bottles or two test tubes during field sampling. Five percent of all samples for orthophosphate analysis were duplicates. The average relative percent difference for duplicate sample values greater than the M Q L was 5.1% indicating good field sample collection procedures. A field blank of distilled water in a sampling bottle was placed in the sample cooler during collection of well and stream samples. Field blanks demonstrated orthophosphate concentrations below the M D L (0.01 mg/L) and M Q L (0.022 mg/L). Field blank values ranged from 0 to 4 ug/L and were comparable to the reagent blanks. Sample coolers maintained a temperature range of 0 - 10°C during sample collection and delivery to the laboratory. A-4 Chloride The method detection limit (MDL) for chloride was 70 ug/L (0.07 mg/L). Reagent blanks were prepared of distilled water made up 5% of each sample batch for chloride analysis. The standard deviation and average concentrations for the reagent blanks were 0.140 and 0.109 mg/L respectively. The reagent blanks demonstrated a greater concentration than the M D L (0.07 mg/L) but less than the minimum quantitation level (MQL) of 1.4 mg/L. Chloride was detected in the reagent blanks at concentrations equal to or less than 0.491 mg/L. This detection of low chloride concentrations in the reagent blanks did not provide a source of interference in this study. 184 Replicate sampling was performed randomly on a minimum of 5% of all samples tested for chloride. The average relative percent difference for replicate values greater than the M Q L (1.4 mg/L) was 1.7% indicating good analytical precision for chloride. Duplicate field samples were collected at the same time from the same sampling source. Duplicates were either split between two bottles or two test tubes during field sampling. Five percent of all samples for chloride analysis were duplicates. The average relative percent difference for duplicate sample values greater than the M Q L was 4.4% indicating good field sample collection procedures. A field blank of distilled water in a sampling bottle was placed in the sample cooler during collection of well and stream samples. Field blanks demonstrated chloride concentrations below the M D L (0.07 mg/L) and M Q L (1.4 mg/L). Field blank values ranged from 0 to 0.069 mg/L and were comparable to the reagent blanks. Sample coolers maintained a temperature range of 0 - 10°C during sample collection and delivery to the laboratory. A-5 Metals Table A - l : Method detection level and standard deviation of metal analyses in wells Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site# Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 1 Al 167.019 0.016604 0.000923 5.6 0.05 1 As 188.980 0.012431 0.002896 23.3 0.2 1 B 249.678 0.018202 0.000666 3.7 0.05 1 Ba 493.408 0.000915 0.000191 20.9 0.01 1 Ca 317.933 13.9392 0.035427 0.3 0.1 1 Cd 226.502 0.008813 0.000263 3 0.025 1 Co 228.615 -0.00252 0.000667 26.5 0.055 1 Cr 267.716 0.006813 0.000327 4.8 0.025 1 Cu 327.395 0.053776 0.000693 1.3 0.05 1 Fe 238.204 0.038159 0.000689 1.8 0.05 1 K 766.491 1.24063 0.001194 0.1 0.5 1 Mg 279.553 6.278 0.013782 0.2 0.01 1 Mn 257.610 0.036886 0.000124 0.3 0.005 185 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 1 Mo 202.032 0.015881 0.000478 3 0.05 1 Na 588.995 6.0523 0.027135 0.4 0.25 1 Ni 231.604 0.005676 0.000943 16.6 0.1 1 P 213.618 0.131673 0.003151 2.4 0.2 1 Pb 220.353 0.004078 0.003654 89.6 0.2 1 Se 196.026 0.012483 0.008352 66.9 0.2 1 Si 288.158 10.0436 0.028681 0.3 0.15 1 Sr 407.771 0.086133 0.000344 0.4 0.002 1 Zn 213.857 -0.000698 0.00022 31.4 0.01 2 Al 167.019 0.028891 0.000747 2.6 0.05 2 As 188.980 0.024837 0.003889 15.7 0.2 2 B 249.678 0.041571 0.000827 2 0.05 2 Ba 493.408 0.006925 0.000074 1.1 0.01 2 Ca 317.933 16.706 0.005458 0 0.1 2 Cd 226.502 0.00868 0.000382 4.4 0.025 2 Co 228.615 -0.0034 0.00048 14.1 0.055 2 Cr 267.716 0.006451 0.000183 2.8 0.025 2 Cu 327.395 0.088395 0.000299 0.3 0.05 2 Fe 238.204 0.123705 0.000257 0.2 0.05 2 K 766.491 5.28847 0.019151 0.4 0.5 2 Mg 279.553 5.95813 0.007656 0.1 0.01 2 Mn 257.610 0.027266 0.000069 0.3 0.005 2 Mo 202.032 0.016226 0.000704 4.3 0.05 2 Na 588.995 12.3149 0.040108 0.3 0.25 2 Ni231.604 0.004754 0.000351 7.4 0.1 2 P213.618 0.358843 0.006189 1.7 0.2 2 Pb 220.353 0.006218 0.002766 44.5 0.2 2 Se 196.026 0.011786 0.004848 41.1 0.2 2 Si 288.158 9.94709 0.015887 0.2 0.15 2 Sr 407.771 0.096214 0.000073 0.1 0.002 2 Zn 213.857 -0.000526 0.000358 68.2 0.01 3 Al 167.019 0.025948 0.000262 1 0.05 3 As 188.980 0.013006 0.000845 6.5 0.2 3 B 249.678 0.025653 0.000928 3.6 0.05 3 Ba 493.408 0.056072 0.000328 0.6 0.01 3 Ca 317.933 52.1773 0.206729 0.4 0.1 3 Cd 226.502 0.008505 0.000183 2.2 0.025 3 Co 228.615 -0.003211 0.000514 16 0.055 3 Cr 267.716 0.005975 0.000229 3.8 0.025 3 Cu 327.395 0.05971 0.000527 0.9 0.05 3 Fe 238.204 2.13971 0.007487 0.3 0.05 3 K 766.491 1.77816 0.024364 1.4 0.5 186 Site# Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 3 Mg 279.553 9.8877 0.032698 0.3 0.01 3 Mn 257.610 0.743935 0.003674 0.5 0.005 3 Mo 202.032 0.012605 0.000875 6.9 0.05 3 Na 588.995 9.25197 0.018413 0.2 0.25 3 Ni231.604 0.004436 0.000486 11 0.1 3 P213.618 0.089893 0.006098 6.8 0.2 3 Pb 220.353 0.002922 0.00081 27.7 0.2 3 Se 196.026 0.014808 0.006732 45.5 0.2 3 Si 288.158 11.4953 0.04692 0.4 0.15 3 Sr 407.771 0.177766 0.000895 0.5 0.002 3 Zn 213.857 0.00935 0.000371 4 0.01 4 Al 167.019 0.020138 0.000507 2.5 0.05 4 As 188.980 0.01091 0.00215 19.7 0.2 4 B 249.678 0.015199 0.000085 0.6 0.05 4 Ba 493.408 0.00161 0.000047 2.9 0.01 4 Ca 317.933 20.7133 0.050848 0.2 0.1 4 Cd 226.502 0.008272 0.000221 2.7 0.025 4 Co 228.615 -0.003585 0.000457 12.7 0.055 4 Cr 267.716 0.005542 0.000396 7.1 0.025 4 Cu 327.395 0.167493 0.000629 0.4 0.05 4 Fe 238.204 0.228161 0.000787 0.3 0.05 4 K 766.491 1.15717 0.003675 0.3 0.5 4 Mg 279.553 7.95275 0.019555 0.2 0.01 4 Mn 257.610 0.142434 0.000261 0.2 0.005 4 Mo 202.032 0.013762 0.000716 5.2 0.05 4 Na 588.995 4.60343 0.015968 0.3 0.25 4 Ni231.604 0.004861 0.00104 21.4 0.1 4 P 213.618 0.028857 0.003797 13.2 0.2 4 Pb 220.353 0.008617 0.004521 52.5 0.2 4 Se 196.026 0.012894 0.003343 25.9 0.2 4 Si 288.158 9.53911 0.023628 0.2 0.15 4 Sr 407.771 0.080626 0.000185 0.2 6.002 4 Zn 213.857 0.302744 0.001022 0.3 0.01 5 Al 167.019 0.066109 0.000419 0.6 0.05 5 As 188.980 0.020704 0.004389 21.2 0.2 5 B 249.678 0.078517 0.001569 2 0.05 5 Ba 493.408 0.013146 0.000078 0.6 0.01 5 Ca 317.933 17.3278 0.065094 0.4 0.1 5 Cd 226.502 0.008185 0.000225 2.7 0.025 5 Co 228.615 -0.002747 0.000202 7.4 0.055 5 Cr 267.716 0.005801 0.00026 4.5 0.025 5 Cu 327.395 0.038706 0.000453 1.2 0.05 187 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 5 Fe 238.204 1.16231 0.003777 0.3 0.05 5 K 766.491 2.40225 0.005273 0.2 0.5 5 Mg 279.553 6.57684 0.023787 0.4 0.01 5 Mn 257.610 0.130076 0.001005 0.8 0.005 5 Mo 202.032 0.017635 0.000285 1.6 0.05 5 Na 588.995 42.427 0.163265 0.4 0.25 5 Ni 231.604 0.005115 0.00118 23.1 0.1 5 P213.618 0.372877 0.003571 1 0.2 5 Pb 220.353 0.000233 0.003432 1476.1 0.2 5 Se 196.026 0.00702 0.00405 57.7 0.2 5 Si 288.158 8.16578 0.031022 0.4 0.15 5 Sr 407.771 0.101989 0.00044 0.4 0.002 5 Zn 213.857 0.013967 0.000123 0.9 0.01 700 Al 167.019 0.023187 0.000937 4 0.05 700 As 188.980 0.013628 0.002667 19.6 0.2 700 B 249.678 0.026476 0.000297 1.1 0.05 700 Ba 493.408 0.00862 0.000088 1 0.01 700 Ca 317.933 15.92 0.047241 0.3 0.1 700 Cd 226.502 0.008158 0.000276 3.4 0.025 700 Co 228.615 -0.004239 0.000686 16.2 0.055 700 Cr 267.716 0.00597 0.000414 6.9 0.025 700 Cu 327.395 0.074632 0.000845 1.1 0.05 700 Fe 238.204 0.178649 0.000773 0.4 0.05 700 K 766.491 1.44318 0.010591 0.7 0.5 700 Mg 279.553 4.38819 0.009723 0.2 0.01 700 Mn 257.610 0.066583 0.000254 0.4 0.005 700 Mo 202.032 0.013689 0.001159 8.5 0.05 700 Na 588.995 12.2195 0.001049 0 0.25 700 Ni 231.604 0.006056 0.000931 15.4 0.1 700 P213.618 0.075053 0.004805 6.4 0.2 700 Pb 220.353 0.005132 0.006161 120.1 0.2 700 Se 196.026 0.012717 0.007211 56.7 0.2 700 Si 288.158 11.1797 0.024671 0.2 0.15 700 Sr 407.771 0.096891 0.000267 0.3 0.002 700 Zn 213.857 0.010359 0.000241 2.3 0.01 8 Al 167.019 0.041505 0.000077 0.2 0.05 8 As 188.980 0.008488 0.000612 7.2 0.2 8 B 249.678 0.019168 0.000312 1.6 0.05 8 Ba 493.408 0.021295 0.000143 0.7 0.01 8 Ca 317.933 7.16079 0.02243 0.3 0.1 8 Cd 226.502 0.008143 0.000131 1.6 0.025 8 Co 228.615 -0.002608 0.000294 11.3 0.055 188 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 8 Cr 267.716 0.00614 0.000244 4 0.025 8 Cu 327.395 0.70908 0.002949 0.4 0.05 8 Fe 238.204 0.032035 0.000484 1.5 0.05 8 K 766.491 1.61426 0.009576 0.6 0.5 8 Mg 279.553 2.34462 0.006858 0.3 0.01 8 Mn 257.610 -0.00061 0.000046 7.5 0.005 8 Mo 202.032 0.013065 0.000304 2.3 0.05 8 Na 588.995 3.85904 0.013093 0.3 0.25 8 Ni 231.604 0.006116 0.001135 18.6 0.1 8 P213.618 0.013124 0.003845 29.3 0.2 8 Pb 220.353 0.006559 0.005068 77.3 0.2 8 Se 196.026 0.01192 0.00284 23.8 0.2 8 Si 288.158 4.08228 0.012999 0.3 0.15 8 Sr 407.771 0.058516 0.000186 0.3 0.002 8 Zn 213.857 0.030079 0.000283 0.9 0.01 900 Al 167.019 0.022795 0.000903 4 0.05 900 As 188.980 0.0118 0.000976 8.3 0.2 900 B 249.678 0.02356 0.000573 2.4 0.05 900 Ba 493.408 0.00545 0.000067 1.2 0.01 900 Ca 317.933 17.3618 0.042662 0.2 0.1 900 Cd 226.502 0.008038 0.000239 3 0.025 900 Co 228.615 -0.003275 0.000549 16.8 0.055 900 Cr 267.716 0.007448 0.000307 4.1 0.025 900 Cu 327.395 0.042048 0.000535 1.3 0.05 900 Fe 238.204 0.348267 0.00092 0.3 0.05 900 K 766.491 1.86366 0.002252 0.1 0.5 900 Mg 279.553 5.61727 0.014404 0.3 0.01 900 Mn 257.610 0.064754 0.000056 0.1 0.005 900 Mo 202.032 0.012403 0.000591 4.8 0.05 900 Na 588.995 7.94554 0.033791 0.4 0.25 900 Ni 231.604 0.006634 0.00094 14.2 0.1 900 P213.618 0.063478 0.004051 6.4 0.2 900 Pb 220.353 0.006233 0.001415 22.7 0.2 900 Se 196.026 0.004596 0.003122 67.9 0.2 900 Si 288.158 11.578 0.032468 0.3 0.15 900 Sr 407.771 0.084968 0.000231 0.3 0.002 900 Zn 213.857 -0.002237 0.000219 9.8 0.01 1000 Al 167.019 0.03083 0.000477 1.5 0.05 1000 As 188.980 0.011249 0.002022 18 0.2 1000 B 249.678 0.02359 0.000796 3.4 0.05 1000 Ba 493.408 0.008168 0.000102 1.3 0.01 1000 Ca 317.933 22.8702 0.04477 0.2 0.1 189 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 1000 Cd 226.502 0.008283 0.000226 2.7 0.025 1000 Co 228.615 -0.00293 0.000804 27.4 0.055 1000 Cr 267.716 0.005395 0.000415 7.7 0.025 1000 Cu 327.395 0.048309 0.001072 2.2 0.05 1000 Fe 238.204 0.069885 0.000311 0.4 0.05 1000 K 766.491 1.08339 0.011163 1 0.5 1000 M g 279.553 4.847 0.009511 0.2 0.01 1000 Mn 257.610 0.113671 0.000549 0.5 0.005 1000 Mo 202.032 0.013214 0.000023 0.2 0.05 1000 Na 588.995 6.50281 0.023544 0.4 0.25 1000 Ni 231.604 0.005543 0.000949 17.1 0.1 1000 P 213.618 0.023088 0.000633 2.7 0.2 1000 Pb 220.353 0.011492 0.001189 10.3 0.2 1000 Se 196.026 0.013809 0.005822 42.2 0.2 1000 Si 288.158 8.72998 0.025668 0.3 0.15 1000 Sr 407.771 0.107137 0.000234 0.2 0.002 1000 Zn 213.857 -0.00234 0.000138 5.9 0.01 10 Al 167.019 0.020853 0.000619 3 0.05 10 As 188.980 0.028944 0.000962 3.3 0.2 10 B 249.678 0.15599 0.000272 0.2 0.05 10 Ba 493.408 0.008615 0.000088 1 0.01 10 Ca 317.933 13.6357 0.007214 0.1 0.1 10 Cd 226.502 0.008169 0.000384 4.7 0.025 10 Co 228.615 -0.00383 0.000708 18.5 0.055 10 Cr 267.716 0.005944 0.000673 11.3 0.025 10 Cu 327.395 0.070865 0.000218 0.3 0.05 10 Fe 238.204 0.102812 0.000022 0 0.05 10 K 766.491 5.45383 0.016971 0.3 0.5 10 M g 279.553 7.7722 0.010281 0.1 0.01 10 Mn 257.610 0.020099 0.000132 0.7 0.005 10 Mo 202.032 0.018553 0.000896 4.8 0.05 10 Na 588.995 55.4473 1.14015 2.1 0.25 10 Ni231.604 0.00667 0.000986 14.8 0.1 10 P 213.618 0.677615 0.005182 0.8 0.2 10 Pb 220.353 -0.00022 0.004758 2160.3 0.2 10 Se 196.026 0.010013 0.006097 60.9 0.2 10 Si 288.158 8.30061 0.012532 0.2 0.15 10 Sr 407.771 0.109823 0.000461 0.4 0.002 10 Zn 213.857 -0.001869 0.000027 1.5 0.01 11 Al 167.019 0.018147 0.000276 1.5 0.05 11 As 188.980 0.025856 0.002963 11.5 0.2 11 B 249.678 0.228997 0.000478 0.2 0.05 190 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 11 Ba 493.408 0.002369 0.000085 3.6 0.01 11 Ca 317.933 6.9371 0.012756 0.2 0.1 11 Cd 226.502 0.008224 0.000151 1.8 0.025 11 Co 228.615 -0.002446 0.000466 19.1 0.055 11 Cr 267.716 0.00653 0.000725 11.1 0.025 11 Cu 327.395 0.049816 0.000371 0.7 0.05 11 Fe 238.204 0.093334 0.000823 0.9 0.05 11 K 766.491 5.18865 0.020401 0.4 0.5 11 Mg 279.553 4.92986 0.011083 0.2 0.01 11 Mn 257.610 0.010151 0.000109 1.1 0.005 11 Mo 202.032 0.027064 0.000232 0.9 0.05 11 Na 588.995 91.2809 0.470817 0.5 0.25 11 Ni 231.604 0.007083 0.00146 20.6 0.1 11 P 213.618 0.767172 0.001829 0.2 0.2 11 Pb 220.353 0.001984 0.003668 184.9 0.2 11 Se 196.026 0.004262 0.005451 127.9 0.2 11 Si 288.158 9.70987 0.013067 0.1 0.15 11 Sr 407.771 0.060808 0.000118 0.2 0.002 11 Zn 213.857 -0.002203 0.000229 10.4 0.01 12 A Al 167.019 0.079618 0.000597 0.7 0.05 12 A As 188.980 0.011743 0.000534 4.5 0.2 12 A B 249.678 0.014925 0.000577 3.9 0.05 12 A Ba 493.408 0.008631 0.000085 1 0.01 12 A Ca 317.933 16.0858 0.037206 0.2 0.1 12 A Cd 226.502 0.00829 0.000331 4 0.025 12 A Co 228.615 -0.002864 0.000134 4.7 0.055 12 A Cr 267.716 0.006649 0.000472 7.1 0.025 12 A Cu 327.395 0.067255 0.000245 0.4 0.05 12 A Fe 238.204 0.285793 0.000721 0.3 0.05 12 A K 766.491 1.35382 0.008909 0.7 0.5 12 A Mg 279.553 3.6846 0.005543 0.2 0.01 12 A Mn 257.610 0.000725 0.000075 10.3 0.005 12 A Mo 202.032 0.013326 0.000591 4.4 0.05 12 A Na 588.995 5.18418 0.028547 0.6 0.25 12 A Ni 231.604 0.006191 0.001647 26.6 0.1 12 A P213.618 0.05746 0.004203 7.3 0.2 12 A Pb 220.353 -0.00225 0.002101 93.4 0.2 12 A Se 196.026 0.009735 0.002591 26.6 0.2 12 A Si 288.158 3.13401 0.014028 0.4 0.15 12 A Sr 407.771 0.064682 0.00016 0.2 0.002 12 A Zn 213.857 0.000265 0.000367 138.6 0.01 12 B Al 167.019 0.350209 0.003344 1 0.05 191 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 12 B As 188.980 0.014292 0.003352 23.5 0.2 12 B B 249.678 0.01701 0.000663 3.9 0.05 12 B Ba 493.408 0.029849 0.000197 0.7 0.01 12 B Ca 317.933 13.7245 0.053779 0.4 0.1 12 B Cd 226.502 0.008987 0.000049 0.5 0.025 12 B Co 228.615 -0.001026 0.000287 28 0.055 12 B Cr 267.716 0.007149 0.000217 3 0.025 12 B Cu 327.395 0.040047 0.000305 0.8 0.05 12 B Fe 238.204 1.49677 0.006086 0.4 0.05 12 B K 766.491 2.45167 0.00646 0.3 0.5 12 B Mg 279.553 3.54693 0.010313 0.3 0.01 12 B Mn 257.610 0.171561 0.001095 0.6 0.005 12 B Mo 202.032 0.013506 0.000201 1.5 0.05 12 B Na 588.995 6.65818 0.017314 0.3 0.25 12 B Ni231.604 0.0086 0.000507 5.9 0.1 12 B P 213.618 0.155646 0.004395 2.8 0.2 12 B Pb 220.353 0.003661 0.005313 145.1 0.2 12 B Se 196.026 0.015071 0.003523 23.4 0.2 12 B Si 288.158 4.35661 0.014152 0.3 0.15 12 B Sr 407.771 0.065107 0.000309 0.5 0.002 12 B Zn 213.857 0.008867 0.000175 2 0.01 13 Al 167.019 0.03094 0.000613 2 0.05 13 As 188.980 0.029037 0.001035 3.6 0.2 13 B 249.678 0.196788 0.000575 0.3 0.05 13 Ba 493.408 0.000727 0.000084 11.6 0.01 13 Ca 317.933 6.18366 0.003481 0.1 0.1 13 Cd 226.502 0.0081 0.000173 2.1 0.025 13 Co 228.615 -0.002722 0.000591 21.7 0.055 13 Cr 267.716 0.006039 0.000302 5 0.025 13 Cu 327.395 0.061098 0.000384 0.6 0.05 13 Fe 238.204 0.093761 0.000307 0.3 0.05 13 K 766.491 3.02088 0.015122 0.5 0.5 13 Mg 279.553 1.91546 0.003007 0.2 0.01 13 Mn 257.610 0.026147 0.000096 0.4 0.005 13 Mo 202.032 0.028211 0.000503 1.8 0.05 13 Na 588.995 89.1415 0.228779 0.3 0.25 13 Ni231.604 0.00686 0.000833 12.1 0.1 13 P213.618 1.272 0.005039 0.4 0.2 13 Pb 220.353 0.000504 0.002276 451.3 0.2 13 Se 196.026 0.012634 0.001361 10.8 0.2 13 Si 288.158 7.44063 0.011814 0.2 0.15 13 Sr 407.771 0.048862 0.000059 0.1 0.002 192 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 13 Zn 213.857 -0.003184 0.000136 4.3 0.01 14 Al 167.019 0.031943 0.000984 3.1 0.05 14 As 188.980 0.011347 0.005236 46.1 0.2 14 B 249.678 0.020126 0.000558 2.8 0.05 14 Ba 493.408 0.016356 0.000067 0.4 0.01 14 Ca 317.933 15.283 0.030426 0.2 0.1 14 Cd 226.502 0.008453 0.00024 2.8 0.025 14 Co 228.615 -0.002705 0.000295 10.9 0.055 14 Cr 267.716 0.005736 0.000125 2.2 0.025 14 Cu 327.395 0.261227 0.000504 0.2 0.05 14 Fe 238.204 4.13187 0.007051 0.2 0.05 14 K 766.491 1.80428 0.009524 0.5 0.5 14 Mg 279.553 7.51194 0.015465 0.2 0.01 14 Mn 257.610 0.063191 0.000242 0.4 0.005 14 Mo 202.032 0.014955 0.000654 4.4 0.05 14 Na 588.995 6.68812 0.023866 0.4 0.25 14 Ni 231.604 0.006706 0.000595 8.9 0.1 14 P 213.618 0.022285 0.003884 17.4 0.2 14 Pb 220.353 0.003598 0.006744 187.4 0.2 14 Se 196.026 0.012427 0.002909 23.4 0.2 14 Si 288.158 9.49276 0.02104 0.2 0.15 14 Sr 407.771 0.065907 0.000155 0.2 0.002 14 Zn 213.857 0.018585 0.000362 1.9 0.01 15 Al 167.019 0.135533 0.001816 1.3 0.05 15 As 188.980 0.01427 0.001879 13.2 0.2 15 B 249.678 0.028349 0.000275 1 0.05 15 Ba 493.408 0.002249 0.000058 2.6 0.01 15 Ca 317.933 6.21101 0.016132 0.3 0.1 15 Cd 226.502 0.008815 0.000193 2.2 0.025 15 Co 228.615 -0.002592 0.000579 22.4 0.055 15 Cr 267.716 0.007631 0.000236 3.1 0.025 15 Cu 327.395 0.443289 0.001148 0.3 0.05 15 Fe 238.204 0.178256 0.00067 0.4 0.05 15 K 766.491 0.985636 0.010695 1.1 0.5 15 Mg 279.553 2.39298 0.004983 0.2 0.01 15 Mn 257.610 0.02062 0.000103 0.5 0.005 15 Mo 202.032 0.013167 0.001378 10.5 0.05 15 Na 588.995 6.31496 0.024537 0.4 0.25 15 Ni 231.604 0.005882 0.000642 10.9 0.1 15 P213.618 0.033612 0.005555 16.5 0.2 15 Pb 220.353 0.107079 0.004589 4.3 0.2 15 Se 196.026 0.016172 0.011128 68.8 0.2 193 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 15 Si 288.158 5.18687 0.016541 0.3 0.15 15 Sr 407.771 0.065247 0.000186 0.3 0.002 15 Zn 213.857 0.011008 0.000078 0.7 0.01 17 Al 167.019 0.015792 0.000943 6 0.05 17 As 188.980 0.023864 0.003484 14.6 0.2 17 B 249.678 0.277739 0.000668 0.2 0.05 17 Ba 493.408 0.004071 0.000042 1 0.01 17 Ca 317.933 5.39575 0.007038 0.1 0.1 17 Cd 226.502 0.008213 0.000217 2.6 0.025 17 Co 228.615 -0.003015 0.000627 20.8 0.055 17 Cr 267.716 0.006179 0.000466 7.5 0.025 17 Cu 327.395 0.042792 0.001099 2.6 0.05 17 Fe 238.204 0.076875 0.000144 0.2 0.05 17 K 766.491 2.28546 0.007751 0.3 0.5 17 Mg 279.553 1.57126 0.0018 0.1 0.01 17 Mn 257.610 0.012759 0.000113 0.9 0.005 17 Mo 202.032 0.033089 0.00184 5.6 0.05 17 Na 588.995 130.027 0.432198 0.3 0.25 17 Ni231.604 0.004768 0.000716 15 0.1 17 P213.618 0.670231 0.009917 1.5 0.2 17 Pb 220.353 -0.000067 0.002959 4402.1 0.2 17 Se 196.026 0.006412 0.003527 55 0.2 17 Si 288.158 9.06436 0.008834 0.1 0.15 17 Sr 407.771 0.047112 0.000013 0 0.002 17 Zn 213.857 0.003197 0.00021 6.6 0.01 18 Al 167.019 0.375215 0.001986 0.5 0.05 18 As 188.980 0.012244 0.001872 15.3 0.2 18 B 249.678 0.016917 0.000503 3 0.05 18 Ba 493.408 0.00736 0.000077 1 0.01 18 Ca 317.933 14.5707 0.022001 0.2 0.1 18 Cd 226.502 0.00828 0.00041 5 0.025 18 Co 228.615 -0.003026 0.000975 32.2 0.055 18 Cr 267.716 0.006714 0.000419 6.2 0.025 18 Cu 327.395 1.2621 0.001967 0.2 0.05 18 Fe 238.204 0.27535 0.002122 0.8 0.05 18 K 766.491 0.764468 0.00703 0.9 0.5 18 Mg 279.553 4.69252 0.006138 0.1 0.01 18 Mn 257.610 0.006294 0.000084 1.3 0.005 18 Mo 202.032 0.01394 0.000581 4.2 0.05 18 Na 588.995 6.36159 0.027866 0.4 0.25 18 Ni 231.604 0.005259 0.000775 14.7 0.1 18 P213.618 0.44928 0.003966 0.9 0.2 194 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 18 Pb 220.353 2.50272 0.007639 0.3 0.2 18 Se 196.026 0.007907 0.006159 77.9 0.2 18 Si 288.158 9.56601 0.013414 0.1 0.15 18 Sr 407.771 0.108509 0.000153 0.1 0.002 18 Zn 213.857 0.128936 0.000643 0.5 0.01 19 A l 167.019 0.047681 0.0015 3.1 0.05 19 As 188.980 0.011107 0.001559 14 0.2 19 B 249.678 0.040367 0.00063 1.6 0.05 19 Ba 493.408 0.005773 0.000069 1.2 0.01 19 Ca 317.933 12.7412 0.045173 0.4 0.1 19 Cd 226.502 0.007848 0.000173 2.2 0.025 19 Co 228.615 -0.003453 0.000057 1.6 0.055 19 Cr 267.716 0.005792 0.000427 7.4 0.025 19 Cu 327.395 2.99152 0.010146 0.3 0.05 19 Fe 238.204 0.16637 0.000463 0.3 0.05 19 K 766.491 1.61818 0.0189 1.2 0.5 19 Mg 279.553 4.59592 0.011338 0.2 0.01 19 Mn 257.610 0.038073 0.000199 0.5 0.005 19 Mo 202.032 0.014669 0.000294 2 0.05 19 Na 588.995 11.5557 0.041948 0.4 0.25 19 Ni 231.604 0.006574 0.001111 16.9 0.1 19 P213.618 0.078698 0.00815 10.4 0.2 19 Pb 220.353 0.011358 0.002456 21.6 0.2 19 Se 196.026 0.010398 0.008379 80.6 0.2 19 Si 288.158 6.46558 0.013558 0.2 0.15 19 Sr 407.771 0.086369 0.000166 0.2 0.002 19 Zn 213.857 0.074662 0.000415 0.6 0.01 20 A l 167.019 0.023384 0.000519 2.2 0.05 20 As 188.980 0.012824 0.00189 14.7 0.2 20 B 249.678 0.046475 0.001362 2.9 0.05 20 Ba 493.408 0.171653 0.000618 0.4 0.01 20 Ca 317.933 63.8496 0.141809 0.2 0.1 20 Cd 226.502 0.008427 0.000346 4.1 0.025 20 Co 228.615 -0.003201 0.000978 30.6 0.055 20 Cr 267.716 0.005444 0.00009 1.7 0.025 20 Cu 327.395 0.076334 0.000468 0.6 0.05 20 Fe 238.204 0.444093 0.000707 0.2 0.05 20 K 766.491 4.73042 0.010615 0.2 0.5 20 Mg 279.553 24.065 0.033144 0.1 0.01 20 Mn 257.610 1.60404 0.00443 0.3 0.005 20 Mo 202.032 0.01322 0.000409 3.1 0.05 20 Na 588.995 11.2737 0.03226 0.3 0.25 195 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 20 Ni 231.604 0.006265 0.001568 25 0.1 20 P 213.618 0.083854 0.004456 5.3 0.2 20 Pb 220.353 0.006439 0.001502 23.3 0.2 20 Se 196.026 0.012887 0.002988 23.2 0.2 20 Si 288.158 12.0356 0.032983 0.3 0.15 20 Sr 407.771 0.365099 0.000939 0.3 0.002 20 Zn 213.857 0.23657 0.000616 0.3 0.01 21 Al 167.019 0.022637 0.000523 2.3 0.05 21 As 188.980 0.013875 0.001871 13.5 0.2 21 B 249.678 0.020997 0.000876 4.2 0.05 21 Ba 493.408 -0.000616 0.000024 3.8 0.01 21 Ca 317.933 11.817 0.020658 0.2 0.1 21 Cd 226.502 0.008223 0.000292 3.6 0.025 21 Co 228.615 -0.002243 0.00103 45.9 0.055 21 Cr 267.716 0.006638 0.000149 2.2 0.025 21 Cu 327.395 0.127628 0.000761 0.6 0.05 21 Fe 238.204 0.053446 0.000747 1.4 0.05 21 K 766.491 0.828472 0.004532 0.5 0.5 21 Mg 279.553 4.74742 0.009714 0.2 0.01 21 Mn 257.610 0.001458 0.000124 8.5 0.005 21 Mo 202.032 0.013566 0.000945 7 0.05 21 Na 588.995 6.44543 0.032222 0.5 0.25 21 Ni 231.604 0.012362 0.001395 11.3 0.1 21 P213.618 0.01885 0.005001 26.5 0.2 21 Pb 220.353 -0.000209 0.001495 716.1 0.2 21 Se 196.026 0.01201 0.004541 37.8 0.2 21 Si 288.158 8.1949 0.010289 0.1 0.15 21 Sr 407.771 0.056491 0.000134 0.2 0.002 21 Zn 213.857 0.00021 0.00031 147.3 0.01 22 Al 167.019 0.02785 0.001853 6.7 0.05 22 As 188.980 0.010233 0.002846 27.8 0.2 22 B 249.678 0.01669 0.000343 2.1 0.05 22 Ba 493.408 -0.002265 0.000081 3.6 0.01 22 Ca 317.933 6.60401 0.001966 0 0.1 22 Cd 226.502 0.007964 0.000043 0.5 0.025 22 Co 228.615 -0.003628 0.00054 14.9 0.055 22 Cr 267.716 0.006361 0.00028 4.4 0.025 22 Cu 327.395 0.086358 0.000782 0.9 0.05 22 Fe 238.204 0.064207 0.000832 1.3 0.05 22 K 766.491 0.371546 0.012361 3.3 0.5 22 Mg 279.553 2.31417 0.004228 0.2 0.01 22 Mn 257.610 -0.000095 0.000051 53.5 0.005 196 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 22 Mo 202.032 0.012969 0.000307 2.4 0.05 22 Na 588.995 6.01573 0.027379 0.5 0.25 22 Ni 231.604 0.005242 0.000388 7.4 0.1 22 P 213.618 0.014048 0.003645 25.9 0.2 22 Pb 220.353 0.003984 0.004747 119.1 0.2 22 Se 196.026 0.012408 0.004164 33.6 0.2 22 Si 288.158 5.05486 0.010016 0.2 0.15 22 Sr 407.771 0.048276 0.000059 0.1 0.002 22 Zn 213.857 0.01878 0.000217 1.2 0.01 23 Al 167.019 0.086624 0.009857 11.4 0.05 23 As 188.980 0.011086 0.000853 7.7 0.2 23 B 249.678 0.014927 0.000696 4.7 0.05 23 Ba 493.408 0.003637 0.000013 0.4 0.01 23 Ca 317.933 12.8214 0.004895 0 0.1 23 Cd 226.502 0.008337 0.00036 4.3 0.025 23 Co 228.615 -0.003122 0.000906 29 0.055 23 Cr 267.716 0.006387 0.000131 2.1 0.025 23 Cu 327.395 0.480937 0.011466 2.4 0.05 23 Fe 238.204 0.094487 0.001069 1.1 0.05 23 K 766.491 0.552842 0.021193 3.8 0.5 23 Mg 279.553 5.12571 0.005971 0.1 0.01 23 Mn 257.610 0.00328 0.000069 2.1 0.005 23 Mo 202.032 0.012868 0.000887 6.9 0.05 23 Na 588.995 3.48849 0.01324 0.4 0.25 23 Ni 231.604 0.00623 0.000815 13.1 0.1 23 P213.618 0.016648 0.004324 26 0.2 23 Pb 220.353 0.004646 0.004745 102.1 0.2 23 Se 196.026 0.010132 0.003991 39.4 0.2 23 Si 288.158 7.54938 0.008306 0.1 0.15 23 Sr 407.771 0.066772 0.000061 0.1 0.002 23 Zn 213.857 0.00578 0.004203 72.7 0.01 24 Al 167.019 0.029052 0.001032 3.6 0.05 24 As 188.980 0.014196 0.002786 19.6 0.2 24 B 249.678 0.048609 0.000441 0.9 0.05 24 Ba 493.408 0.00198 0.000087 4.4 0.01 24 Ca 317.933 18.042 0.039926 0.2 0.1 24 Cd 226.502 0.008248 0.000161 1.9 0.025 24 Co 228.615 -0.004122 0.000604 14.7 0.055 24 Cr 267.716 0.005984 0.000115 1.9 0.025 24 Cu 327.395 0.069154 0.001256 1.8 0.05 24 Fe 238.204 0.330103 0.000921 0.3 0.05 24 K 766.491 2.46922 0.011838 0.5 0.5 197 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 24 Mg 279.553 6.70123 0.011728 0.2 0.01 24 Mn 257.610 0.198746 0.001075 0.5 0.005 24 Mo 202.032 0.015882 0.000718 4.5 0.05 24 Na 588.995 19.093 0.032599 0.2 0.25 24 Ni231.604 0.00504 0.001177 23.3 0.1 24 P 213.618 0.151007 0.001397 0.9 0.2 24 Pb 220.353 0.007865 0.006147 78.2 0.2 24 Se 196.026 0.008094 0.010821 133.7 0.2 24 Si 288.158 7.61098 0.016832 0.2 0.15 24 Sr 407.771 0.088276 0.000162 0.2 0.002 24 Zn 213.857 -0.000031 0.000009 31 0.01 25 A l 167.019 0.022623 0.000587 2.6 0.05 25 As 188.980 0.016737 0.006404 38.3 0.2 25 B 249.678 0.027401 0.000938 3.4 0.05 25 Ba 493.408 0.002683 0.000059 2.2 0.01 25 Ca 317.933 10.9601 0.018558 0.2 0.1 25 Cd 226.502 0.008593 0.000167 1.9 0.025 25 Co 228.615 -0.002342 0.001105 47.2 0.055 25 Cr 267.716 0.006095 0.000186 3.1 0.025 25 Cu 327.395 0.067599 0.000308 0.5 0.05 25 Fe 238.204 0.168363 0.000634 0.4 0.05 25 K 766.491 1.52573 0.013001 0.9 0.5 25 Mg 279.553 5.70544 0.005958 0.1 0.01 25 Mn 257.610 0.033624 0.000195 0.6 0.005 25 Mo 202.032 0.016667 0.000656 3.9 0.05 25 Na 588.995 13.1143 0.020995 0.2 0.25 25 Ni 231.604 0.004841 0.000594 12.3 0.1 25 P213.618 0.12069 0.004943 4.1 0.2 25 Pb 220.353 0.006103 0.004536 74.3 0.2 25 Se 196.026 0.012236 0.004412 36.1 0.2 25 Si 288.158 8.56547 0.007381 0.1 0.15 25 Sr 407.771 0.062583 0.000143 0.2 0.002 25 Zn 213.857 -0.001013 0.000109 10.7 0.01 26 Al 167.019 0.035236 0.000845 2.4 0.05 26 As 188.980 0.022723 0.001793 7.9 0.2 26 B 249.678 0.029838 0.001204 4 0.05 26 Ba 493.408 0.011425 0.000038 0.3 0.01 26 Ca 317.933 24.1055 0.081966 0.3 0.1 26 Cd 226.502 0.008346 0.000234 2.8 0.025 26 Co 228.615 -0.003655 0.000295 8.1 0.055 26 Cr 267.716 0.006174 0.00016 2.6 0.025 26 Cu 327.395 0.076775 0.000265 0.3 0.05 198 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 26 Fe 238.204 0.034554 0.000422 1.2 0.05 26 K 766.491 4.24727 0.025375 0.6 0.5 26 Mg 279.553 8.62793 0.028708 0.3 0.01 26 Mn 257.610 0.063885 0.00022 0.3 0.005 26 Mo 202.032 0.015476 0.000764 4.9 0.05 26 Na 588.995 11.1533 0.038191 0.3 0.25 26 Ni 231.604 0.00446 0.00065 14.6 0.1 26 P213.618 0.160157 0.003286 2.1 0.2 26 Pb 220.353 0.007085 0.003959 55.9 0.2 26 Se 196.026 0.011625 0.001701 14.6 0.2 26 Si 288.158 15.0413 0.051401 0.3 0.15 26 Sr 407.771 0.104568 0.000388 0.4 0.002 26 Zn 213.857 -0.002629 0.000121 4.6 0.01 28 Al 167.019 0.076316 0.000684 0.9 0.05 28 As 188.980 0.012308 0.00499 40.5 0.2 28 B 249.678 0.030289 0.000664 2.2 0.05 28 Ba 493.408 0.007727 0.0001 1.3 0.01 28 Ca 317.933 14.4542 0.035131 0.2 0.1 28 Cd 226.502 0.008262 0.000182 2.2 0.025 28 Co 228.615 -0.003166 0.000327 10.3 0.055 28 Cr 267.716 0.007271 0.00016 2.2 0.025 28 Cu 327.395 0.167575 0.001322 0.8 0.05 28 Fe 238.204 0.647182 0.002927 0.5 0.05 28 K 766.491 0.977612 0.017921 1.8 0.5 28 Mg 279.553 7.29346 0.035899 0.5 0.01 28 Mn 257.610 0.050015 0.000146 0.3 0.005 28 Mo 202.032 0.013426 0.000368 2.7 0.05 28 Na 588.995 6.76871 0.016832 0.2 0.25 28 Ni231.604 0.01173 0.001867 15.9 0.1 28 P213.618 0.022018 0.00103 4.7 0.2 28 Pb 220.353 0.003815 0.004802 125.9 0.2 28 Se 196.026 0.013673 0.000765 5.6 0.2 28 Si 288.158 11.4322 0.02867 0.3 0.15 28 Sr 407.771 0.07187 0.00026 0.4 0.002 28 Zn 213.857 0.006528 0.000105 1.6 0.01 29 Al 167.019 0.040499 0.001154 2.8 0.05 29 As 188.980 0.023646 0.002306 9.8 0.2 29 B 249.678 0.165586 0.001414 0.9 0.05 29 Ba 493.408 0.001227 0.000074 6 0.01 29 Ca 317.933 7.10814 0.01205 0.2 0.1 29 Cd 226.502 0.008459 0.000385 4.5 0.025 29 Co 228.615 -0.003115 0.001508 48.4 0.055 199 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 29 Cr 267.716 0.011384 0.000284 2.5 0.025 29 Cu 327.395 0.296448 0.000644 0.2 0.05 29 Fe 238.204 0.166523 0.000673 0.4 0.05 29 K 766.491 1.77248 0.007835 0.4 0.5 29 Mg 279.553 3.17559 0.005073 0.2 0.01 29 Mn 257.610 0.01625 0.000125 0.8 0.005 29 Mo 202.032 0.025545 0.000732 2.9 0.05 29 Na 588.995 136.23 0.502244 0.4 0.25 29 Ni231.604 0.004902 0.000691 14.1 0.1 29 P213.618 0.771835 0.010684 1.4 0.2 29 Pb 220.353 1.17279 0.004002 0.3 0.2 29 Se 196.026 0.013011 0.004388 33.7 0.2 29 Si 288.158 9.67031 0.011611 0.1 0.15 29 Sr 407.771 0.05946 0.000051 0.1 0.002 29 Zn 213.857 0.003677 0.000078 2.1 0.01 30 Al 167.019 0.041985 0.000795 1.9 0.05 30 As 188.980 0.023083 0.001885 8.2 0.2 30 B 249.678 0.184899 0.001573 0.9 0.05 30 Ba 493.408 0.000957 0.000013 1.3 0.01 30 Ca 317.933 8.69667 0.013201 0.2 0.1 30 Cd 226.502 0.008456 0.000297 3.5 0.025 30 Co 228.615 -0.00303 0.000476 15.7 0.055 30 Cr 267.716 0.006318 0.000314 5 0.025 30 Cu 327.395 0.126389 0.001262 1 0.05 30 Fe 238.204 0.347629 0.001495 0.4 0.05 30 K 766.491 2.06774 0.011857 0.6 0.5 30 Mg 279.553 4.33673 0.015346 0.4 0.01 30 Mn 257.610 0.020667 0.000122 0.6 0.005 30 Mo 202.032 0.025274 0.000857 3.4 0.05 30 Na 588.995 151.872 0.312193 0.2 0.25 30 Ni231.604 0.00578 0.000286 5 0.1 30 P213.618 0.496094 0.002392 0.5 0.2 30 Pb 220.353 0.007985 0.007469 93.5 0.2 30 Se 196.026 0.015348 0.003579 23.3 0.2 30 Si 288.158 9.74849 0.027245 0.3 0.15 30 Sr 407.771 0.071885 0.000191 0.3 0.002 30 Zn 213.857 0.002378 0.000187 7.9 0.01 31 Al 167.019 0.017728 0.000631 3.6 0.05 31 As 188.980 0.014149 0.003499 24.7 0.2 31 B 249.678 0.021906 0.000775 3.5 0.05 31 Ba 493.408 0.003473 0.000058 1.7 0.01 31 Ca 317.933 20.537 0.030868 0.2 0.1 200 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 31 Cd 226.502 0.008179 0.000208 2.5 0.025 31 Co 228.615 -0.002964 0.000336 11.3 0.055 31 Cr 267.716 0.006772 0.000259 3.8 0.025 31 Cu 327.395 0.033669 0.000711 2.1 0.05 31 Fe 238.204 0.043153 0.00064 1.5 0.05 31 K 766.491 0.646949 0.007404 1.1 0.5 31 Mg 279.553 6.43029 0.012957 0.2 0.01 31 Mn 257.610 -0.002271 0.000055 2.4 0.005 31 Mo 202.032 0.012772 0.000678 5.3 0.05 31 Na 588.995 6.13664 0.023804 0.4 0.25 31 Ni231.604 0.006393 0.001078 16.9 0.1 31 P213.618 0.015758 0.005302 33.6 0.2 31 Pb 220.353 0.000887 0.001267 143 0.2 31 Se 196.026 0.013663 0.002048 15 0.2 31 Si 288.158 11.0891 0.01077 0.1 0.15 31 Sr 407.771 0.110823 0.000178 0.2 0.002 31 Zn 213.857 0.000811 0.000154 19 0.01 32 A l 167.019 0.084117 0.00039 0.5 0.05 32 As 188.980 0.012606 0.003132 24.8 0.2 32 B 249.678 0.030161 0.000817 2.7 0.05 32 Ba 493.408 0.004137 0.00005 1.2 0.01 32 Ca 317.933 4.26525 0.009591 0.2 0.1 32 Cd 226.502 0.008399 0.000454 5.4 0.025 32 Co 228.615 -0.00261 0.000862 33 0.055 32 Cr 267.716 0.006033 0.000353 5.9 0.025 32 Cu 327.395 0.266257 0.001557 0.6 0.05 32 Fe 238.204 0.116224 0.000367 0.3 0.05 32 K 766.491 2.18362 0.015411 0.7 0.5 32 Mg 279.553 1.01464 0.003714 0.4 0.01 32 Mn 257.610 -0.000648 0.000035 5.4 0.005 32 Mo 202.032 0.012623 0.000255 2 0.05 32 Na 588.995 4.83055 0.046947 1 0.25 32 Ni 231.604 0.006954 0.002172 31.2 0.1 32 P213.618 0.026421 0.005086 19.2 0.2 32 Pb 220.353 0.008976 0.003746 41.7 0.2 32 Se 196.026 0.006539 0.004159 63.6 0.2 32 Si 288.158 5.39819 0.015366 0.3 0.15 32 Sr 407.771 0.058079 0.000216 0.4 0.002 32 Zn 213.857 0.045388 0.000508 1.1 0.01 33 Al 167.019 0.024165 0.000279 1.2 0.05 33 As 188.980 0.01289 0.00372 28.9 0.2 33 B 249.678 0.01972 0.000262 1.3 0.05 201 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 33 Ba 493.408 -0.001243 0.000064 5.2 0.01 33 Ca 317.933 12.0212 0.022511 0.2 0.1 33 Cd 226.502 0.008082 0.000419 5.2 0.025 33 Co 228.615 -0.003627 0.000346 9.5 0.055 33 Cr 267.716 0.005942 0.00035 5.9 0.025 33 Cu 327.395 0.50317 0.001702 0.3 0.05 33 Fe 238.204 0.195798 0.00095 0.5 0.05 33 K 766.491 0.471914 0.006491 1.4 0.5 33 Mg 279.553 2.08345 0.00419 0.2 0.01 33 Mn 257.610 0.029836 0.000129 0.4 0.005 33 Mo 202.032 0.012793 0.000707 5.5 0.05 33 Na 588.995 6.06683 0.004173 0.1 0.25 33 Ni 231.604 0.007141 0.001436 20.1 0.1 33 P213.618 0.022782 0.003638 16 0.2 33 Pb 220.353 0.06453 0.00448 6.9 0.2 33 Se 196.026 0.014996 0.006656 44.4 0.2 33 Si 288.158 6.86064 0.015887 0.2 0.15 33 Sr 407.771 0.101673 0.000319 0.3 0.002 33 Zn 213.857 0.147537 0.000263 0.2 0.01 34 Al 167.019 0.034822 0.001075 3.1 0.05 34 As 188.980 0.008927 0.001033 11.6 0.2 34 B 249.678 0.028671 0.000319 1.1 0.05 34 Ba 493.408 0.002891 0.000045 1.6 0.01 34 Ca 317.933 8.83024 0.008949 0.1 0.1 34 Cd 226.502 0.008384 0.000234 2.8 0.025 34 Co 228.615 -0.003703 0.000766 20.7 0.055 34 Cr 267.716 0.006973 0.000322 4.6 0.025 34 Cu 327.395 0.234372 0.000501 0.2 0.05 34 Fe 238.204 0.178308 0.000766 0.4 0.05 34 K 766.491 0.605339 0.005635 0.9 0.5 34 Mg 279.553 1.71312 0.001698 0.1 0.01 34 Mn 257.610 0.01304 0.00007 0.5 0.005 34 Mo 202.032 0.014095 0.000946 6.7 0.05 34 Na 588.995 11.4903 0.017172 0.1 0.25 34 Ni 231.604 0.004768 0.000345 7.2 0.1 34 P 213.618 0.008869 0.002493 28.1 0.2 34 Pb 220.353 -0.000159 0.007135 4500.2 0.2 34 Se 196.026 0.012887 0.008312 64.5 0.2 34 Si 288.158 5.41189 0.00162 0 0.15 34 Sr 407.771 0.108287 0.000061 0.1 0.002 34 Zn 213.857 0.024167 0.000207 0.9 0.01 35 A l 167.019 0.026082 0.00088 3.4 0.05 202 Site# Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 35 As 188.980 0.010027 0.001028 10.3 0.2 35 B 249.678 0.027385 0.000295 1.1 0.05 35 Ba 493.408 0.003604 0.000095 2.6 0.01 35 Ca 317.933 22.6373 0.04693 0.2 0.1 35 Cd 226.502 0.008231 0.00014 1.7 0.025 35 Co 228.615 -0.002768 0.000825 29.8 0.055 35 Cr 267.716 0.006087 0.000228 3.7 0.025 35 Cu 327.395 0.123875 0.000467 0.4 0.05 35 Fe 238.204 0.139886 0.000741 0.5 0.05 35 K 766.491 0.679551 0.008165 1.2 0.5 35 Mg 279.553 5.56696 0.011283 0.2 0.01 35 Mn 257.610 0.011323 0.000013 0.1 0.005 35 Mo 202.032 0.013394 0.00122 9.1 0.05 35 Na 588.995 5.71281 0.027698 0.5 0.25 35 Ni 231.604 0.012284 0.002066 16.8 0.1 35 P213.618 0.01235 0.005927 48 0.2 35 Pb 220.353 0.003075 0.006669 216.8 0.2 35 Se 196.026 0.012178 0.007098 58.3 0.2 35 Si 288.158 9.95571 0.022812 0.2 0.15 35 Sr 407.771 0.119521 0.000316 0.3 0.002 35 Zn 213.857 0.031709 0.000245 0.8 0.01 37 A l 167.019 0.025091 0.000279 1.1 0.05 37 As 188.980 0.026738 0.004178 15.6 0.2 37 B 249.678 0.028593 0.000851 3 0.05 37 Ba 493.408 0.00289 0.00004 1.4 0.01 37 Ca 317.933 16.7728 0.02041 0.1 0.1 37 Cd 226.502 0.008143 0.000084 1 0.025 37 Co 228.615 -0.00361 0.000567 15.7 0.055 37 Cr 267.716 0.006168 0.000314 5.1 0.025 37 Cu 327.395 0.11684 0.000674 0.6 0.05 37 Fe 238.204 0.130617 0.000616 0.5 0.05 37 K 766.491 4.96269 0.005549 0.1 0.5 37 Mg 279.553 6.00121 0.001907 0 0.01 37 Mn 257.610 0.014332 0.000172 1.2 0.005 37 Mo 202.032 0.014032 0.000674 4.8 0.05 37 Na 588.995 5.85168 0.009701 0.2 0.25 37 Ni231.604 0.00584 0.001664 28.5 0.1 37 P213.618 0.102873 0.00502 4.9 0.2 37 Pb 220.353 0.001393 0.003535 253.8 0.2 37 Se 196.026 0.006786 0.000864 12.7 0.2 37 Si 288.158 5.55 0.003124 0.1 0.15 37 Sr 407.771 0.079507 0.000042 0.1 0.002 203 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 37 Zn 213.857 0.000348 0.000194 55.8 0.01 39 Al 167.019 0.035325 0.001276 3.6 0.05 39 As 188.980 0.013691 0.002048 15 0.2 39 B 249.678 0.015891 0.000184 1.2 0.05 39 Ba 493.408 0.002251 0.000039 1.7 0.01 39 Ca 317.933 27.0594 0.010048 0 0.1 39 Cd 226.502 0.008008 0.000391 4.9 0.025 39 Co 228.615 -0.003051 0.000299 9.8 0.055 39 Cr 267.716 0.008647 0.000549 6.3 0.025 39 Cu 327.395 0.076057 0.000778 1 0.05 39 Fe 238.204 1.02763 0.00088 0.1 0.05 39 K 766.491 1.13674 0.011931 1 0.5 39 Mg 279.553 6.49623 0.004629 0.1 0.01 39 Mn 257.610 -0.002563 0.000026 1 0.005 39 Mo 202.032 0.013598 0.000369 2.7 0.05 39 Na 588.995 5.33393 0.008909 0.2 0.25 39 Ni 231.604 0.006278 0.000515 8.2 0.1 39 P 213.618 0.018296 0.002102 11.5 0.2 39 Pb 220.353 -0.00501 0.002579 51.5 0.2 39 Se 196.026 0.012597 0.005718 45.4 0.2 39 Si 288.158 8.05851 0.002714 0 0.15 39 Sr 407.771 0.096109 0.000166 0.2 0.002 39 Zn 213.857 0.000347 0.000147 42.3 0.01 40 Al 167.019 0.049436 0.001072 2.2 0.05 40 As 188.980 0.014275 0.004217 29.5 0.2 40 B 249.678 0.022532 0.001349 6 0.05 40 Ba 493.408 -0.001246 0.000027 2.1 0.01 40 Ca 317.933 6.7544 0.059155 0.9 0.1 40 Cd 226.502 0.008063 0.000084 1 0.025 40 Co 228.615 -0.003957 0.000215 5.4 0.055 40 Cr 267.716 0.007513 0.000203 2.7 0.025 40 Cu 327.395 0.612726 0.002736 0.4 0.05 40 Fe 238.204 0.138134 0.000988 0.7 0.05 40 K 766.491 0.466045 0.02285 4.9 0.5 40 Mg 279.553 1.55485 0.002795 0.2 0.01 40 Mn 257.610 0.006168 0.000098 1.6 0.005 40 Mo 202.032 0.012058 0.00067 5.6 0.05 40 Na 588.995 8.54567 0.056779 0.7 0.25 40 Ni 231.604 0.018001 0.001338 7.4 0.1 40 P213.618 0.03542 0.002436 6.9 0.2 40 Pb 220.353 0.011451 0.005398 47.1 0.2 40 Se 196.026 0.011129 0.005973 53.7 0.2 204 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 40 Si 288.158 8.33192 0.012268 0.1 0.15 40 Sr 407.771 0.065009 0.000227 0.3 0.002 40 Zn 213.857 0.118893 0.000431 0.4 0.01 41 A l 167.019 0.190169 0.000553 0.3 0.05 41 As 188.980 0.010387 0.003309 31.9 0.2 41 B 249.678 0.017742 0.00053 3 0.05 41 Ba 493.408 0.037035 0.00011 0.3 0.01 41 Ca 317.933 4.89869 0.005085 0.1 0.1 41 Cd 226.502 0.007933 0.000074 0.9 0.025 41 Co 228.615 -0.00373 0.000492 13.2 0.055 41 Cr 267.716 0.005873 0.000274 4.7 0.025 41 Cu 327.395 0.847206 0.00054 0.1 0.05 41 Fe 238.204 0.087384 0.001129 1.3 0.05 41 K 766.491 1.77806 0.005431 0.3 0.5 41 Mg 279.553 1.50535 0.001001 0.1 0.01 41 Mn 257.610 0.034579 0.000071 0.2 0.005 41 Mo 202.032 0.013374 0.000636 4.8 0.05 41 Na 588.995 6.2224 0.007193 0.1 0.25 41 Ni 231.604 0.007818 0.00341 43.6 0.1 41 P 213.618 0.011859 0.003212 27.1 0.2 41 Pb 220.353 0.030669 0.002434 7.9 0.2 41 Se 196.026 0.016614 0.003627 21.8 0.2 41 Si 288.158 4.16452 0.007076 0.2 0.15 41 Sr 407.771 0.043735 0.000028 0.1 0.002 41 Zn 213.857 0.034644 0.000289 0.8 0.01 42 A l 167.019 0.190242 0.002062 1.1 0.05 42 As 188.980 0.014159 0.001871 13.2 0.2 42 B 249.678 0.019272 0.000588 3.1 0.05 42 Ba 493.408 0.015155 0.000049 0.3 0.01 42 Ca 317.933 5.54402 0.008647 0.2 0.1 42 Cd 226.502 0.007891 0.000143 1.8 0.025 42 Co 228.615 -0.003685 0.000852 23.1 0.055 42 Cr 267.716 0.006271 0.000054 0.9 0.025 42 Cu 327.395 0.044162 0.000335 0.8 0.05 42 Fe 238.204 0.109761 0.000553 0.5 0.05 42 K 766.491 0.736454 0.010889 1.5 0.5 42 Mg 279.553 2.00854 0.002289 0.1 0.01 42 Mn 257.610 0.022948 0.000032 0.1 0.005 42 Mo 202.032 0.013469 0.000417 3.1 0.05 42 Na 588.995 7.54731 0.01647 0.2 0.25 42 Ni231.604 0.007758 0.000886 11.4 0.1 42 P 213.618 0.029447 0.003739 12.7 0.2 205 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 42 Pb 220.353 0.001312 0.001547 117.9 0.2 42 Se 196.026 0.002836 0.00337 118.8 0.2 42 Si 288.158 4.71044 0.009827 0.2 0.15 42 Sr 407.771 0.047366 0.000046 0.1 0.002 42 Zn 213.857 0.002888 0.000245 8.5 0.01 43 A l 167.019 0.020664 0.000481 2.3 0.05 43 As 188.980 0.01357 0.004855 35.8 0.2 43 B 249.678 0.011862 0.000355 3 0.05 43 Ba 493.408 0.004754 0.000049 1 0.01 43 Ca 317.933 11.7515 0.029376 0.2 0.1 43 Cd 226.502 0.008459 0.000354 4.2 0.025 43 Co 228.615 -0.004017 0.000581 14.5 0.055 43 Cr 267.716 0.005948 0.000384 6.5 0.025 43 Cu 327.395 0.082633 0.000234 0.3 0.05 43 Fe 238.204 3.02102 0.004042 0.1 0.05 43 K 766.491 0.90131 0.008802 1 0.5 43 Mg 279.553 3.85267 0.008967 0.2 0.01 43 Mn 257.610 0.127685 0.000331 0.3 0.005 43 Mo 202.032 0.013308 0.000418 3.1 0.05 43 Na 588.995 2.4988 0.007413 0.3 0.25 43 Ni 231.604 0.004594 0.000585 12.7 0.1 43 P213.618 0.025468 0.003953 15.5 0.2 43 Pb 220.353 0.004873 0.004782 98.1 0.2 43 Se 196.026 0.010708 0.002978 27.8 0.2 43 Si 288.158 9.24474 0.017718 0.2 0.15 43 Sr 407.771 0.041859 0.000088 0.2 0.002 43 Zn 213.857 0.025095 0.000069 0.3 0.01 45 A l 167.019 0.022553 0.000046 0.2 0.05 45 As 188.980 0.037361 0.002105 5.6 0.2 45 B 249.678 0.228004 0.000443 0.2 0.05 45 Ba 493.408 0.004223 0.000056 1.3 0.01 45 Ca 317.933 7.07339 0.033383 0.5 0.1 45 Cd 226.502 0.00808 0.000346 4.3 0.025 45 Co 228.615 -0.003684 0.000476 12.9 0.055 45 Cr 267.716 0.006244 0.000039 0.6 0.025 45 Cu 327.395 0.048149 0.000401 0.8 0.05 45 Fe 238.204 0.04964 0.00058 1.2 0.05 45 K 766.491 3.16178 0.008205 0.3 0.5 45 Mg 279.553 4.27611 0.015956 0.4 0.01 45 Mn 257.610 0.019663 0.000069 0.4 0.005 45 Mo 202.032 0.018456 0.00035 1.9 0.05 45 Na 588.995 64.5193 0.14807 0.2 0.25 206 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 45 Ni231.604 0.006023 0.000729 12.1 0.1 45 P213.618 1.01394 0.00219 0.2 0.2 45 Pb 220.353 0.008822 0.002095 23.7 0.2 45 Se 196.026 -0.001347 0.003603 267.5 0.2 45 Si 288.158 7.75395 0.020592 0.3 0.15 45 Sr 407.771 0.060838 0.000147 0.2 0.002 45 Zn 213.857 -0.001278 0.000178 13.9 0.01 46 Al 167.019 0.088223 0.002345 2.7 0.05 46 As 188.980 0.011431 0.001912 16.7 0.2 46 B 249.678 0.026237 0.000679 2.6 0.05 46 Ba 493.408 0.048146 0.000187 0.4 0.01 46 Ca 317.933 32.6162 0.050538 0.2 0.1 46 Cd 226.502 0.008186 0.000279 3.4 0.025 46 Co 228.615 -0.003353 0.000168 5 0.055 46 Cr 267.716 0.006294 0.000414 6.6 0.025 46 Cu 327.395 0.192708 0.000695 0.4 0.05 46 Fe 238.204 0.159606 0.00078 0.5 0.05 46 K 766.491 2.03203 0.010505 0.5 0.5 46 Mg 279.553 4.88891 0.013155 0.3 0.01 46 Mn 257.610 0.010826 0.000135 1.2 0.005 46 Mo 202.032 0.013567 0.00036 2.7 0.05 46 Na 588.995 5.58 0.004506 0.1 0.25 46 Ni231.604 0.005809 0.001358 23.4 0.1 46 P213.618 0.02217 0.001649 7.4 0.2 46 Pb 220.353 0.000458 0.002876 628.1 0.2 46 Se 196.026 0.018511 0.002043 11 0.2 46 Si 288.158 3.8514 0.011242 0.3 0.15 46 Sr 407.771 0.175695 0.000487 0.3 0.002 46 Zn 213.857 0.011597 0.00025 2.2 0.01 48 A l 167.019 0.022527 0.000247 1.1 0.05 48 As 188.980 0.012545 0.00168 13.4 0.2 48 B 249.678 0.017329 0.000806 4.7 0.05 48 Ba 493.408 0.00007 0.000036 50.8 0.01 48 Ca 317.933 13.284 0.064373 0.5 0.1 48 Cd 226.502 0.008425 0.000292 3.5 0.025 48 Co 228.615 -0.003246 0.001084 33.4 0.055 48 Cr 267.716 0.006618 0.000471 7.1 0.025 48 Cu 327.395 0.732491 0.003076 0.4 0.05 48 Fe 238.204 1.51028 0.005952 0.4 0.05 48 K 766.491 0.786639 0.023356 3 0.5 48 Mg 279.553 5.43658 0.028078 0.5 0.01 48 Mn 257.610 0.005508 0.000014 0.2 0.005 207 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 48 Mo 202.032 0.013437 0.000773 5.8 0.05 48 Na 588.995 9.47765 0.031091 0.3 0.25 48 Ni 231.604 0.00658 0.001447 22 0.1 48 P 213.618 0.021161 0.001756 8.3 0.2 48 Pb 220.353 0.038381 0.001927 5 0.2 48 Se 196.026 0.007602 0.003246 42.7 0.2 48 Si 288.158 8.48811 0.029866 0.4 0.15 48 Sr 407.771 0.103401 0.000313 0.3 0.002 48 Zn 213.857 0.474267 0.002153 0.5 0.01 50 A l 167.019 0.031534 0.001843 5.8 0.05 50 As 188.980 0.009738 0.000962 9.9 0.2 50 B 249.678 0.021421 0.000434 2 0.05 50 Ba 493.408 0.002035 0.000021 1 0.01 50 Ca 317.933 13.9538 0.014711 0.1 0.1 50 Cd 226.502 0.007925 0.000239 3 0.025 50 Co 228.615 -0.003017 0.000513 17 0.055 50 Cr 267.716 0.007429 0.000142 1.9 0.025 50 Cu 327.395 0.096752 0.000546 0.6 0.05 50 Fe 238.204 0.46111 0.000557 0.1 0.05 50 K 766.491 0.773134 0.008818 1.1 0.5 50 Mg 279.553 7.3543 0.071373 1 0.01 50 Mn 257.610 0.001442 0.00003 2.1 0.005 50 Mo 202.032 0.012419 0.000551 4.4 0.05 50 Na 588.995 5.35935 0.055928 1 0.25 50 Ni 231.604 0.007613 0.001907 25 0.1 50 P 213.618 0.020097 0.009445 47 0.2 50 Pb 220.353 -0.001837 0.003672 199.9 0.2 50 Se 196.026 0.002179 0.00445 204.2 0.2 50 Si 288.158 10.7506 0.013193 0.1 0.15 50 Sr 407.771 0.070396 0.000252 0.4 0.002 50 Zn 213.857 0.006121 0.00009 1.5 0.01 51 A l 167.019 0.021123 0.000964 4.6 0.05 51 As 188.980 0.008382 0.001609 19.2 0.2 51 B 249.678 0.016985 0.000565 3.3 0.05 51 Ba 493.408 -0.001005 0.000003 0.3 0.01 51 Ca 317.933 10.5673 0.02584 0.2 0.1 51 Cd 226.502 0.008226 0.000332 4 0.025 51 Co 228.615 -0.002638 0.000235 8.9 0.055 51 Cr 267.716 0.007484 0.000221 3 0.025 51 Cu 327.395 0.16926 0.000808 0.5 0.05 51 Fe 238.204 0.244063 0.002308 0.9 0.05 51 K 766.491 0.46065 0.010917 2.4 0.5 208 Site # Element Solution Cone, mg/L Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation Method Detection Level 51 Mg 279.553 3.11589 0.010262 0.3 0.01 51 Mn 257.610 0.015712 0.000052 0.3 0.005 51 Mo 202.032 0.013377 0.000596 4.5 0.05 51 Na 588.995 6.16298 0.025503 0.4 0.25 51 Ni231.604 0.005724 0.000358 6.2 0.1 51 P213.618 0.027438 0.007846 28.6 0.2 51 Pb 220.353 0.016658 0.004029 24.2 0.2 51 Se 196.026 0.006749 0.002925 43.3 0.2 51 Si 288.158 7.93342 0.027121 0.3 0.15 51 Sr 407.771 0.085945 0.000247 0.3 0.002 51 Zn 213.857 0.019157 0.000116 0.6 0.01 52 A l 167.019 0.018765 0.001248 6.7 0.05 52 As 188.980 0.009998 0.003884 38.8 0.2 52 B 249.678 0.018077 0.000479 2.6 0.05 52 Ba 493.408 -0.001672 0.000061 3.7 0.01 52 Ca 317.933 9.24423 0.060143 0.7 0.1 52 Cd 226.502 0.007991 0.000184 2.3 0.025 52 Co 228.615 -0.003377 0.000658 19.5 0.055 52 Cr 267.716 0.006387 0.000138 2.2 0.025 52 Cu 327.395 0.115791 0.000673 0.6 0.05 52 Fe 238.204 0.030139 0.000307 1 0.05 52 K 766.491 0.423897 0.007903 1.9 0.5 52 Mg 279.553 2.22759 0.010915 0.5 0.01 52 Mn 257.610 -0.001829 0.000052 2.8 0.005 52 Mo 202.032 0.012115 0.000425 3.5 0.05 52 Na 588.995 5.33306 0.016161 0.3 0.25 52 Ni 231.604 0.005567 0.000972 17.5 0.1 52 P 213.618 0.018952 0.00522 27.5 0.2 52 Pb 220.353 0.007076 0.002304 32.6 0.2 52 Se 196.026 0.005195 0.004264 82.1 0.2 52 Si 288.158 6.8811 0.032657 0.5 0.15 52 Sr 407.771 0.082101 0.000167 0.2 0.002 52 Zn 213.857 0.033125 0.000606 1.8 0.01 53 A l 167.019 0.018096 0.000986 5.5 0.05 53 As 188.980 0.012807 0.001875 14.6 0.2 53 B 249.678 0.029341 0.000142 0.5 0.05 53 Ba 493.408 -0.000794 0.000014 1.8 0.01 53 Ca 317.933 8.39899 0.007623 0.1 0.1 53 Cd 226.502 0.008125 0.000123 1.5 0.025 53 Co 228.615 -0.003115 0.000829 26.6 0.055 53 Cr 267.716 0.006222 0.00067 10.8 0.025 53 Cu 327.395 0.043952 0.00078 1.8 0.05 209 Relative Method Solution Cone, Standard Standard Detection Site # Element mg/L Deviation Deviation Level 53 Fe 238.204 0.197175 0.000893 0.5 0.05 53 K 766.491 0.51805 0.00915 1.8 0.5 53 Mg 279.553 1.9593 0.003879 0.2 0.01 53 Mn 257.610 0.000364 0.000065 17.8 0.005 53 Mo 202.032 0.013534 0.000445 3.3 0.05 53 Na 588.995 5.57276 0.024441 0.4 0.25 53 Ni 231.604 0.015645 0.002201 14.1 0.1 53 P213.618 0.034976 0.004247 12.1 0.2 53 Pb 220.353 0.002128 0.006067 285.1 0.2 53 Se 196.026 0.016937 0.007751 45.8 0.2 53 Si 288.158 7.89189 0.010087 0.1 0.15 53 Sr 407.771 0.055671 0.000092 0.2 0.002 53 Zn 213.857 0.019009 0.000006 0 0.01 55 Al 167.019 0.025924 0.000886 3.4 0.05 55 As 188.980 0.06268 0.002691 4.3 0.2 55 B 249.678 0.752589 0.004372 0.6 0.05 55 Ba 493.408 0.001305 0.000077 5.9 0.01 55 Ca 317.933 1.97515 0.003306 0.2 0.1 55 Cd 226.502 0.008122 0.000076 0.9 0.025 55 Co 228.615 -0.002877 0.000532 18.5 0.055 55 Cr 267.716 0.005906 0.000499 8.4 0.025 55 Cu 327.395 0.060444 0.000188 0.3 0.05 55 Fe 238.204 0.048661 0.000599 1.2 0.05 55 K 766.491 3.04144 0.024885 0.8 0.5 55 Mg 279.553 2.09664 0.003116 0.1 0.01 55 Mn 257.610 0.003096 0.00003 1 0.005 55 Mo 202.032 0.024906 0.000692 2.8 0.05 55 Na 588.995 176.192 1.55766 0.9 0.25 55 Ni 231.604 0.006426 0.000896 13.9 0.1 55 P 213.618 1.94135 0.013288 0.7 0.2 55 Pb 220.353 0.003435 0:004059 118.2 0.2 55 Se 196.026 0.011843 0.002208 18.6 0.2 55 Si 288.158 7.41086 0.014567 0.2 0.15 55 Sr 407.771 0.036177 0.00006 0.2 0.002 55 Zn 213.857 -0.001445 0.000036 2.5 0.01 210 Table^-^^letaljmajy^^ Para- CDWG* Drinking Aquatic Aquatic Method Concentration meter (mg/L) Guidelines life (fresh) Guidelines Detection Range (mg/L) Exceeded ** (mg/L) Exceededb Limit Detected (MDL) [median cone] (mg/L) Al 0.2** % (B) pH Unknown 0.05 0 to 0.38 3 % (0) dependent [0.09] As 0.025 Unknown - - 0.2 0 B 5.0 None 1.2 1.4 %(B) 0.05 Oto 1.23 [0.09] Ba 1.0 None Under - 0.01 0.01-0.17 review [0.03] Ca - - - - 0.1 2 to 63.8 [13.23] Cd 0.005 Unknown - - 0.025 0 Co - - 0.0009 Unknown 0.055 0 Cr 0.05 1.4 %(B) - - 0.025 0 Cu 1.0a 5.7 %(B) 0.002 Unknown 0.05 Oto2.99 [0.17] Fe 0.3 a 33 % (B) - - 0.05 Oto 18.75 [0.20] 37 % (O) K - - - - 0.5 0.1-18.75 [1.22] Mg - - - - 0.01 0.98 - 24.07 [4.8] Mn 0.05 a 31.4 %(B) 0.7-3.8 Unknown 0.005 0-1.604 [0.05] 36.7 % (O) hardness (hardness dependent not tested) Mo 0.25 None 2 None 0.05 0 Na 200 a 10 % (O) - - 0.25 2.5-472.5 [6.34] Ni In - - - 0.1 0 develop ment P 0.01 Unknown 0.005 - Unknown 0.2 0-1.9 [0.36] (lakes)** 0.015 Pb 0.01 Unknown 0.003 Unknown 0.2 0-2.5 [only one value above MDL] Se 0.01 Unknown 0.002 Unknown 0.2 0 Si - - - - 0.15 3.13-19.47 [8.13] Sr - - - - 0.002 0.036 - 0.365 [0.09] Zn 5.0 a None 0.033 26 % (B) 0.01 0 - 2.96 [0.03] (hardness 3.3 %(0) dependent) (hardness not tested) 211 * Heath Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality ** BC Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection guidelines a Guideline is based on aesthetic considerations only b Aquatic guidelines are not applicable to groundwater (not actual exceedances) (B) Percentage of 70 sampled wells located within the Brookswood aquifer (O) Percentage of 30 sampled wells located within other aquifers A-6 Coliform Analysis Fecal coliform analysis was performed on 79 well and 4 stream samples. Five percent of all samples were duplicate samples. A l l duplicate samples were labelled with a randomly assigned number not known to the analytical laboratory. The average relative percent difference of duplicate samples was 4% for the fecal coliform analysis. Total coliform analysis was carried out on 5 well and 2 stream samples. Two samples were duplicate samples with an average relative percent difference of 0% due to the small sample size. 212 APPENDIX B WELL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Table B- Brookswood Well Water Quality Parameters Site Number Depth (m) Sept. 23, 2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Sept. 23,2003 O-Phosphate (mg/L) Sept. 23,2003 Chloride (mg/L) Sept. 23,2003 Specific conductance (uS/cm) Sept. 23,2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Dec 3, 2003 Nitrate (mg/L) 1 20.4 0.31 0.092 1.5 161 103 0.39 2 44.8 0.005 0.349 1.4 222 142 0.01 4 18.3 0.048 0.014 4.0 291 186 0.04 6 4.6 0.022 0.012 39.7 305 195 7 42.4 0.006 0.095 1.6 198 127 0.01 8 3.7 5.038 0.005 3.9 126 81 4.47 15 9.1 1.91 0.005 3.9 132 84 2.19 18 27.4 4.759 0.015 6.0 209 134 5.66 19 2.1 0.065 0.217 4.3 306 196 0.33 20 19.8 0.084 0.049 11.6 603 386 0.17 21 48.8 1.847 0.005 10.8 204 131 2.21 22 13.4 0.973 0.005 12.8 143 92 0.9 23 8.2 1.909 0.005 21.7 232 148 0.34 27 0.01 0.005 18.5 389 249 0.08 28 17.4 2.594 0.005 6.0 233 149 2.79 31 12.8 6.457 0.005 8.4 330 211 6.49 32 10.7 1.774 0.005 3.5 94 60 1.35 33 11.6 5.168 0.005 10.5 131 84 5.44 34 8.5 5.086 0.005 12.7 139 89 4.68 35 11.0 4.254 0.005 13.0 148 95 8.76 36 7.9 0.133 0.695 18.3 594 380 0.16 37 29.3 0.002 0.045 1.0 216 138 0.002 39 24.4 4.274 0.015 6.3 242 155 4.96 40 18.3 2.176 0.005 6.0 131 84 2.09 41 7.6 1.698 0.005 39.1 316 202 4.3 43 15.2 0.006 0.108 1.1 140 90 0.002 46 10.7 3.062 0.005 6.6 194 124 5.54 47 15.2 0.005 0.005 2.3 301 193 48 24.4 3.512 0.005 14.1 193 124 3.68 50 30.5 1.435 0.005 6.2 175 112 3.82 51 12.5 4.453 0.005 4.8 134 86 4.96 52 12.2 2.889 0.005 5.2 121 77 3.35 53 12.2 2.069 0.005 5.2 105 67 2.42 57 48.8 0.002 0.381 1.5 322 206 58 18.3 4.452 0.005 4.8 155 99 5.36 213 Table B-l: Brookswood Well Water Quality Parameters (cont'd) Site Number Depth (m) Sept. 23, 2003 Nitrate Sept. 23,2003 O-phosphate Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride Sept. 23, 2003 Elec. Cond (dS/m) Sept. 23,2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Dec 3,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) 59 13.7 2.058 0.005 18.5 226 144 2.46 60 6.7 0.903 0.013 6.5 159 102 0.51 63 29.3 0.02 0.016 8.7 482 308 0.05 64 11.6 0.687 0.005 21.8 243 155 0.61 65 12.2 8.97 0.005 8.0 208 133 11.39 67 13.4 1.288 0.005 8.0 360 230 69 9.8 9.46 0.005 11 213 136 12.79 73 7.6 20.98 0.01 17 317 203 74 9.8 0.002 0.018 26 288 184 0.07 75 9.8 0.007 0.016 189 840 538 0.09 77 19.8 0.006 0.706 1.8 298 191 0.002 79 18.3 4.872 0.005 26.0 222 142 3.76 80 3.0 0.2 0.02 3690 2361 1.39 82 1.8 0.072 0.32 2.6 280 179 0.13 83 3.4 0.002 0.005 8.0 220 141 4.21 85 12.2 0.1 0.112 1.4 245 157 0.002 86 6.1 0.38 0.005 3.1 456 292 0.38 87 24.4 0.008 0.141 4.2 237 152 0.44 88 29.6 0.322 0.095 1.5 109 70 0.002 89 6.7 11.38 0.005 53.4 146 93 9.38 90 18.3 2.54 0.005 2.53 91 21.3 2.526 0.005 1.38 101 29.0 0.011 0.138 4.4 309 198 0.05 102 8.8 48.3 0.005 36.5 652 4 1 7 36.55 103 0.0 0.007 0.2 2.6 267 171 0.002 104 46.0 0.01 0.371 5.4 316 202 0.02 201 15.8 202 12.2 0.28 204 6.1 2.18 205 13.7 0.46 211 15.2 700 57.6 900 37.5 1000 31.7 214 Table B-l: Brookswood Well Water Quality Parameters (cont'd) Dec 3,2003 Site number Dec 3,2003 Dec 3,2003 Total Dec 9, Dec 9 2003 Dec 9, Ortho- Dec 3, Electrical Disolved 2003 O- 2003 Phosphate 2003 Conductance Solids Nitrate phosphate Chloride (mg/L) Chloride (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 1 0.15 2.2 185 118 0.31 0.13 1.7 2 0.43 1.6 211 135 0.002 0.38 1.7 4 0.01 4.2 253 162 0.04 0.01 4.3 6 7 0.16 1.6 192 123 8 0.01 4.0 105 67 3.89 0.005 3.9 15 0.01 4.1 109 70 1.82 0.005 4.0 18 0.02 5.5 219 140 4.94 0.02 5.8 19 0.06 3.5 90 58 0.06 0.02 0.7 20 0.09 10.5 627 401 21 0.01 10.2 141 90 1.84 0.01 10.3 22 0.01 10.4 105 67 23 0.01 2.4 116 74 0.26 0.01 3.1 27 0.02 17.3 371 237 28 0.01 5.6 185 118 2.17 0.005 5.5 31 0.01 7.6 281 180 5.32 0.01 7.3 32 0.01 3.8 101 65 33 0.005 10.4 127 81 4.8 0.005 10.4 34 0.005 12.0 126 81 4.01 0.005 11.4 35 0.01 25.2 251 161 7.43 0.005 21.2 36 0.86 18.9 536 343 0.14 0.76 17.3 37 0.08 1.3 210 134 39 0.02 6.6 238 152 4.37 0.01 6.2 40 0.01 5.3 104 67 1.85 0.01 4.6 41 0.005 10.0 118 76 3.27 0.005 8.1 43 0.01 1.1 122 78 46 0.005 8.3 195 125 3.81 0.005 7.9 47 173 111 0.002 0.01 2.6 48 0.005 20.1 195 125 3.38 0.005 20.3 50 0.01 6.6 130 83 3.01 0.01 7.0 51 0.01 4.7 134 86 3.86 0.005 4.9 52 0.01 4.6 117 75 2.6 0.005 4.6 53 0.01 5.9 105 67 2.06 0.01 6.6 57 58 0.01 4.4 137 88 4.67 0.01 5.1 59 0.01 14.3 214 137 2.31 0.005 17.3 60 0.02 8.2 157 100 63 0.01 8.9 388 248 215 Table B-l: Brookswood Well Water Quality Parameters (cont'd) Dec 3,2003 Site number Dec 3,2003 Dec 3,2003 Total Dec 9, Dec 9 2003 Dec 9, Ortho- Dec 3, Electrical Disolved 2003 Ortho- 2003 phosphate 2003 Conductance Solids Nitrate phosphate Chloride (mg/L) Chloride (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 64 0.01 36.6 250 160 65 0.01 7.4 202 129 11.19 0.005 8.1 67 69 0.01 13.4 230 147 11.03 0.005 12.7 73 69 0 1.27 0.005 3.4 74 0.01 25.2 287 184 75 0.01 179.0 790 506 0.002 0.005 124.4 77 0.88 1.8 280 179 79 0.04 22.3 180 115 3.57 0.01 12.7 80 0.04 259.8 1740 1114 82 0.39 2.8 337 216 83 0.01 5.4 217 139 1.68 0.005 5.6 85 0.11 2.6 213 136 0.01 0.17 1.8 86 0.01 2.9 92 59 0.34 0.005 2.9 87 0.15 1.7 153 98 0.34 0.12 1.7 88 0.27 1.7 247 158 0.02 0.23 1.9 89 0.01 22.2 280 179 9.48 0.005 33.1 90 0.02 5.1 242 155 91 0.02 7.8 262 168 101 0.18 4.8 289 185 0.04 0.11 4.6 102 0.01 27.5 504 323 49.7 0.01 29.3 103 0.19 4.3 267 171 104 0.47 5.1 314 201 0.01 0.41 4.9 201 96.3 0.08 0.15 3.1 202 0.01 3.8 250 160 204 0.01 6.3 95 61 205 0.01 6.2 197 126 0.37 0.01 6.2 211 3.09 0.005 4.7 700 96 0.2 0.05 14.3 900 156 0.41 0.04 8.8 1000 216 Table B-l: Brookswood Well Water Quality Parameters (cont'd) Site number Dec 9 2003 Fecal coliform (CFU/100 ml) Dec 18 2003 Fecal coliform resampling (CFU/100 ml) Dec 18 2003 Total Coliform Dec 10 (CFU/100 ml) Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10 Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Chloride (mg/L) Feb 10 2004 Elec. Cond. (uS/cm) Feb 10 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) 1 0 0.346 0.082 1.7 184 119 2 39 0 103 0.002 0.332 1.8 208 135 4 0 0.062 0.005 4.2 227 147 6 7 8 3 2.531 0.005 2.9 96 62 15 0 0 0 2.144 0.005 4.6 106 68 18 0 5.126 0.005 6.2 169 109 19 0 0.702 0.005 4.6 165 107 20 0.01 0.026 8.6 607 394 21 0 3.052 0.005 9.1 0 22 0.82 0.005 8.3 0 23 0 0.347 0.005 3.2 142 92 27 28 0 2.792 0.005 4.8 193 125 31 0 5.113 0.005 89.8 230 149 32 1.18 0.005 5.5 74.9 48 33 0 4.891 0.005 11.5 141 91 34 0 5.454 0.005 10.1 154 100 35 0 11.464 0.005 20.9 265 172 36 0 37 0.005 0.035 2.3 192 124 39 0 4.551 0.005 5.5 242 157 40 0 1.923 0.005 3.3 107 69 41 0 2.444 0.005 4.8 91 59 43 0.007 0.005 1.5 106 68 46 0 3.302 0.005 5.1 267 173 47 0 48 0 4.371 0.005 15.9 186 120 50 0 3.174 0.005 7.1 176 114 51 0 4.807 0.005 4.8 133 86 52 0 3.323 0.005 4.2 113 73 53 0 2.177 0.005 7.9 105 68 57 58 0 5.029 0.005 4.4 135 87 59 0 2.599 0.005 12.0 206 133 60 0.258 0.005 5.0 133 86 63 0.004 0.005 28.1 139 90 217 Table E 1-1: Brookswood Well Water Qua ity Parameters (cont'd) Dec 18 Dec 9 Fecal Dec 18 Fecal 2003 Feb 10, Feb 10 Feb 10 Chloride (mg/L) Feb 10 Feb Total Site coliform coliform Total 2004 Ortho- Elec. Disolved number (CFU/100 ml) resampling (CFU/100 ml) Coliform (CFU/100 ml) Nitrate (mg/L) phosphate (mg/L) cond. (uS/cm) Solids (mg/L) 64 0.631 0.005 12.4 141 91 65 0 8.654 0.005 7.3 163 105 67 69 0 9.38 0.005 8.2 184 119 73 0 2.48 0.005 6.7 70 45 74 0.005 0.005 15.7 0 75 0 0.019 0.02 24.8 356 231 77 0.002 0.785 5.4 154 100 79 0 6.86 0.005 0 SO 2.69 0.005 94.9 824 535 82 0.11 0.274 8.3 0 83 0 1.605 0.005 5.3 168 109 85 0 86 0 0.443 0.005 3.9 0 87 2 0 1 0.346 0.065 2.0 0 88 0 0.002 0.153 2.0 250 162 89 0 2.584 0.005 25.5 272 176 90 2.072 0.005 4.8 228 148 91 1.062 0.005 7.3 245 159 101 0 0.025 0.089 5.4 289 187 102 0 0 0 41.8 0.005 31.6 0 103 0.002 0.091 5.6 223 144 104 0 0.01 0.345 4.5 305 198 201 0.861 0.005 22.5 0 202 0.047 0.005 2.2 0 204 205 0 0.342 0.005 5.9 173 112 211 0 3.08 0.01 8.0 116 75 700 0 0.173 0.027 12.6 195 126 900 0.417 0.018 8.3 190 12 1000 3.01 0.005 6.5 198 128 218 Table B - 2 : Wate r qual i ty parameters for wells located in other a Site number Depth (m) Sept 2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Sept O-phosphate (mg/L) Sept Chloride (mg/L) Sept Elec. Cond (uS/cm) Sept TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Dec 3, 2003 Nitrate (mg/L) 3 22.9 0.002 0.018 4.8 349 223 0.07 5 67.1 0.009 0.273 10.4 381 243 0.01 10 50.3 0.017 0.652 1.9 246 157 0.05 11 45.7 0.007 0.764 30.5 548 350 0.002 12 0.3 0.014 0.005 9.9 213 136 0.78 12B 3.7 0.872 0.021 25.9 466 298 0.14 13 36.6 0.004 1.161 4.0 500 320 0.01 14 57.9 0.023 0.012 14.0 235 150 0.002 16 24.4 0.038 0.031 1.1 348 222 0.002 17 48.8 0.005 0.675 22.5 652 417 0.01 24 49.4 0.006 0.094 4.4 260 166 0.002 25 39.3 0.002 0.074 1.6 181 115 0.002 26 56.4 0.017 0.125 1.4 295 188 0.002 29 70.7 0.006 0.654 71.7 738 472 0.002 30 71.6 0.007 0.49 117 955 611 0.01 42 3.7 1.087 0.005 12.9 195 124 1.4 44 58.5 0.172 1.091 5.3 529 338 0.2 45 57.6 0.01 0.997 2.1 422 270 0.01 55 91.4 0.013 1.637 17.1 809 517 0.002 56 59.7 0.006 0.192 1.1 287 183 0.01 61 33.5 0.137 0.173 2.6 155 99 0.13 62 87.2 0.72 0.562 405 2100 1344 0.73 66 91.4 0.002 0.697 1.8 384 245 0.002 68 60.0 0.006 0.294 3.4 276 176 0.002 70 32.0 0.042 0.059 1.6 176 112 0.05 71 44.8 0.059 0.03 1.6 138 88 0.04 76 51.8 0.004 0.19 1.3 242 155 0.002 81 58.5 0.018 1.365 124 2480 1587 0.07 84 94.5 0.004 0.535 11.7 375 240 0.02 105 66.4 0.002 0.255 413 1600 1024 0.1 208 64.6 0.01 209 64.9 0.002 210 73.2 0.38 219 Table B-2: Water Quality Parameters for Wells Located in Other Aquifers (con't) Site number Dec 3 Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Dec 3 2003 Chloride (mg/L) Dec 3 Electrical Conductance (uS/cm) Dec 3 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Dec 9 Nitrate (mg/L) Dec 9 2nd O-P (mg/L) Dec 9 2nd Chloride (mg/L) 3 0.03 4.3 436 279 5 0.35 10.0 370 237 0.01 0.21 10.0 10 0.8 1.9 386 247 11 0.005 158 101 0.002 0.81 29.1 12 0.01 22.8 161 103 0.57 0.01 21.9 12B 0.67 10.8 165 106 13 1.54 4.1 1150 736 0.002 1.34 4.2 14 0.02 14.5 253 162 16 0.005 169 108 0.06 0.04 1.4 17 0.82 20.2 598 383 0.002 0.83 21.2 24 0.21 4.3 243 156 0.002 0.11 4.4 25 0.12 1.7 178 114 26 0.18 1.7 262 168 29 0.77 79.0 713 456 0.01 0.66 79.7 30 0.59 107.5 839 537 0.01 0.5 107.0 42 0.02 20.6 187 120 0.93 0.01 19.4 44 1.35 5.6 591 378 45 1.24 2.3 395 253 55 2.37 14.3 755 483 56 0.25 1.1 209 134 61 0.22 3.2 175 112 62 0.65 375.5 1980 1267 66 0.74 1.9 358 229 68 0.38 2.9 265 170 70 0.1 1.5 181 116 0.04 0.09 2.3 71 0.05 1.7 169 108 0.03 0.05 1.9 76 0.26 1.4 245 157 81 1.89 121.8 1940 1242 84 0.65 12.2 368 236 105 0.31 396 1520 973 0.002 0.27 373.5 208 0.62 6.0 335 214 209 0.81 5.2 340 218 210 0.17 75.9 498 319 73.8 220 Table B-2: Water Quality Parameters for Wells Located in Other Aquifers (con't) Site number Dec 9 Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 ml) Feb 10,2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10,2004 O-phosphate (mg/L) Feb 10,2004 Chloride (mg/L) Feb 10, Elec. Cond (dS/m) Feb 10, TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) 3 0.002 0.005 4.3 394 256 5 0 0.007 0.172 8.9 344 223 10 0.035 0.655 2.2 420 273 11 0 0.002 0.801 26.2 530 344 12 0 0.616 0.005 14.2 159 103 12B 0.024 0.041 8.9 148 96 13 0 0.002 1.36 4.3 450 292 14 0.034 0.005 13.1 210 136 16 17 0 0.002 0.696 19.1 638 414 24 0 0.009 0.081 4.9 255 165 25 0.004 0.061 2.0 170 110 26 0.002 0.108 1.7 272 176 29 0 0.015 0.628 67 730 474 30 0 0.002 0.479 90.2 840 546 42 0 2.95 0.005 6.2 96 62 44 45 0.01 1.05 2.3 340 221 55 0.002 2.12 14.5 769 499 56 0.005 0.165 2.1 0 61 0.153 0.143 3.0 173 112 62 0.492 0.529 346 0 66 0.002 0.517 2.4 242 157 68 0.005 0.244 3.0 0 70 0 0.052 0.046 2.1 153 99 71 0 0.04 0.022 1.8 136 88 76 0.006 0.135 2.8 202 131 81 1.59 102 2130 1384 84 0.002 0.502 9.1 0 105 0 0.01 0.189 349 0 208 209 0.008 0.643 4.8 0 210 0 0.171 0.087 79.4 500 325 221 Table B-3: Coliform analysis results for participating wells in 2003 October 15 December 9 December 10 December 18 Well Fecal Well Fecal Well Fecal Well Fecal Total # coliform # coliform # coliform # coliform coliform (cfu/100 (cfu/100 ml (cfu/100 (cfu/100 (cfu/100 ml) ml) ml) ml) 8 < 1 1 < 1 17 < 1 2 0 103 18 < 1 2 39 29 < 1 15 0 0 19 39 4 < l 30 < 1 87 0 4 31 < 1 5 < l 31 < 1 102 0 0 32 < 1 8 < l 33 < 1 33 < 1 11 < l 34 < 1 34 < 1 12 < l 35 < 1 35 < 1 13 < l 36 < 1 39 < 1 15 < l 39 < 1 46 3 18 < l 40 < 1 48 < 1 19 < l 41 < 1 51 < 1 21 < l 42 < 1 52 < 1 23 < l 53 < 1 58 < 1 24 < 1 58 < 1 65 5 28 < l 59 < 1 69 < 1 46 < l 65 < 1 73 < 1 47 < 1 69 < 1 79 < 1 48 < l 73 < 1 89 < 1 50 < l 75 < 1 102 13 51 < l 79 < 1 52 < l 85 < 1 70 < l 89 < 1 71 < 1 101 < 1 83 < 1 102 < 1 86 < l 211 < 1 87 2 88 < 1 104 < l 105 < l 205 < 1 210 < l 222 Table B-4: Fluorometer readings expressed as parts-per-million Wisk to detect optical ^Ibrightamerj^ Well sampling site number September fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) December colour December fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) February colour February fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) 1 0.06 5 0.00 5 0.00 2 2.50 5 2.57 7.5 2.57 4 0.19 5 0.08 5 0.08 6 1.78 7 0.45 5 8 1.37 5 1.34 5 1.34 15 0.43 5 6.01 30 6.01 18 0.04 0.39 5 0.39 19 7.5 15.55 25 15.55 20 1.47 5 0.02 7.5 0.02 21 0.11 5 0.42 5 0.42 22 0.73 5 1.26 5 1.26 23 0.27 10 1.42 5 1.42 27 0.04 5 28 5 -0.05 5 -0.05 31 1.15 5 -0.04 5 -0.04 32 0.01 5 0.12 5 0.12 33 -0.05 <5 -0.08 5 -0.08 34 0.00 5 -0.03 5 -0.03 35 -0.08 5 -0.07 5 -0.07 36 1.02 20 37 0.35 <5 0.40 5 0.40 39 0.08 <5 -0.04 5 -0.04 40 0.01 5 -0.07 5 -0.07 41 0.97 1.26 5 1.26 43 0.05 20 0.15 50 0.15 46 0.76 5 1.15 10 1.15 47 0.15 48 0.07 5 0.08 5 0.08 50 0.11 5 0.09 5 0.09 51 0.06 5 0.02 5 0.02 223 Well sampling site number September fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) December colour December fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) February colour February fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) 52 0.09 5 0.07 5 0.07 53 -0.03 5 0.02 5 0.02 57 1.92 58 -0.03 <5 -0.06 5 -0.06 59 -0.02 5 2.69 10 2.69 60 0.36 10 0.64 5 0.64 63 0.08 5 0.10 5 0.10 64 0.59 5 1.35 5 1.35 65 0.12 0.22 5 0.22 67 0.29 69 0.23 0.53 5 0.53 73 0.66 0.04 5 0.04 74 5.03 10 5.03 75 56.00 50 56.00 77 1.68 0.81 5 0.81 79 1.83 5 1.83 80 20.04 1.81 10 1.81 82 3.11 1.90 10 1.90 83 0.12 5 0.12 85 1.19 86 -0.05 5 -0.05 87 0.71 0.19 5 0.19 88 0.99 5 0.99 89 0.06 1.05 7.5 1.05 90 -0.04 -0.03 5 -0.03 91 0.06 0.04 5 0.04 101 1.89 14.13 20 14.14 102 0.24 2.69 10 2.69 103 0.40 7.5 0.40 104 1.82 1.90 10 1.90 201 3.72 15 3.72 202 0.00 5 0.00 204 205 0.01 5 0.01 211 0.33 5 0.33 224 Well sampling site number September fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) December colour December fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) February colour February fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) TOL 7 0.32 5 0.32 TOL 9 0.46 10 0.46 TOL 10 0.02 5 0.02 225 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Table C- l : B.C. Ministry of Environment sampling results for Anderson Creek at Colebrook Road during the wet season 1973 - 2002 Nitrate O-P D.O. EC Temp (°Q Chloride Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PH (uS/cm) (mg/L) Oct 31 2002 4.23 0.013 7.7 220 Nov 6 2002 3.98 0.008 7.6 236 Oct 12 2000 3.96 0.017 7.3 220 Oct 14 1999 4.562 0.015 7.7 229 Oct 25 1999 4.612 0.014 7.5 226 Nov 11 1987 2.8 0.011 7.4 188 Feb 16 1977 1.49 0.007 11.6 7.6 121 7.5 5.2 Nov 14 1977 1.98 0.015 10.4 7.2 124 9.5 6.3 Feb 51976 1.92 0.016 13 7.2 117 3.9 4.9 Oct 12 1976 1.54 0.011 10.2 7.9 147 12 5.3 Dec 1 1976 1.69 0.018 11.4 7.7 145 5.2 5.6 Feb 41975 1.51 0.015 12.6 7.4 180 3.5 4.9 Nov 13 1975 0.87 0.026 10.9 7.3 111 7 5 Feb 19 1974 0.88 0.036 12.15 7.1 68 5.5 2.8 Oct 9 1974 1.18 0.014 10.4 7.5 135 12 4.9 Nov 13 1974 1.29 0.012 11.4 7.7 154 8 6.1 Feb 71973 1.33 11.5 7.5 120 3.5 4.3 Oct 2 1973 0.97 0.012 10.6 7.8 150 10 4.8 Nov 19 1973 2.1 0.024 13.1 7.6 129 3.5 5.3 Table C-2: B.C. Ministry of Environment sampling results for Anderson Creek at Colebrook Road during the dry season 1973 - 2002 Nitrate O-P D.O. EC Temp Chloride Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PH (uS/cm) CC) (mg/L) Apr 3 2000 3.35 0.021 7.3 190 Aug 30 2000 4 0.02 7.8 218 July 6 1999 3.32 7.7 206 Aug 23 1999 3.89 0.018 7.8 217 Aug 13 1987 3.1 0.019 7.6 188 May 3 1977 1.45 0.005 13.5 7.7 135 12.3 5.3 May 25 1977 1.76 0.005 10.2 7.9 146 10.5 5.6 Sept 15 1977 1.78 0.005 10.6 8 156 11 5.6 May 13 1976 1.69 0.012 10 7.6 128 9.1 5.1 May 26 1975 1.3 0.012 10.5 7.7 100 11 4.9 Sept 17 1975 1.33 0.014 10.8 7.6 110 12 5 226 Nitrate O-P D.O. EC Temp (°C) Chloride Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PH (uS/cm) (mg/L) May 8 1974 0.49 0.025 11 7 95 11 3.1 May 9 1973 1 11 7.5 150 9.5 4.4 Table C-3: B.C. Ministry of Environment sampling results for the Little Campbell River at 216th Street during the wet season 1973 - 2002 Nitrate O-P D.O. EC Temp (°Q Chloride Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PH (uS/cm) (mg/L) Oct 31 2002 0.01 0.015 7 160 Nov 6 2002 0.017 0.039 7.6 167 Oct 12 2000 0.002 0.022 6.6 148 Oct 13 1999 0.025 0.006 7.2 156 Oct 25 1999 0.243 0.013 6.8 159 Nov 25 1982 1.86 0.022 7.3 6.5 124 0.3 9.2 Feb 18 1981 1.88 0.033 8.5 6.9 74 7.5 4.3 Nov 26 1981 1.87 0.054 8.4 6.8 78 2.9 4.4 Feb 13 1979 2.14 0.032 10.2 6.5 78 2 6.7 Feb 1 1977 10 7.7 82 5.2 Feb 21977 7.9 7.1 78 10 4.3 Oct 27 1977 4 6.8 136 10.5 10.5 Feb 51976 10.6 6.2 68 0.5 3.6 Oct 07 1976 4.5 7.1 115 14 7.3 Nov 41976 5.5 6.7 92 8.5 6.6 Feb 41975 9.9 7 115 1 3.8 Feb 26 1974 13.1 7.3 48 2 2.2 Nov 21 1974 10.3 7.6 80 6.1 6 Table C-4: B.C. Ministry of Environment sampling results for the Little Campbell River at 216™ Street t during t he dry season 1973 - 2002 Date Nitrate (mg/L) O-P (mg/L) D.O. (mg/L) pH EC (uS/cm) Temp (°C) Chloride (mg/L) Apr 3 2000 0.564 0.022 6.8 105 Aug 30 2000 0.002 0.008 7.3 154 Aug 25 1999 0.041 0.009 6.9 146 July 18 1983 0.1 0.101 2.7 6.9 102 19.2 Aug 29 1983 0.02 0.013 4.5 7 156 18.8 May 111982 0.98 0.023 7 7 109 11 4.4 Sept 2 1982 0.06 0.023 4.6 6.6 174 13.5 9.3 May 28 1981 0.86 0.051 5 6.9 101 17.5 4.5 227 Nitrate O-P D.O. EC Temp Chloride Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) PH (uS/cm) (°Q (mg/L) Aug 27 1980 0.02 0.019 6.8 116 7.2 May 25 1977 4.9 7.3 108 18 5.3 Sept 13 1977 5.6 7.1 143 17 9 May 13 1976 3.4 6.4 1000 12.8 3 May 25 1975 5.5 7.1 70 14 3 Aug 17 1975 2.3 5.5 100 14 5.6 Sept 17 1975 7 6.5 73 6.5 4.7 May 9 1974 8.8 6.6 61 10.5 1.9 Sept 9 1974 6.5 6.8 109 16.5 6.4 Table C-5: Surface water sampling results for Anderson Creek and the Little Campbell River from August 2003 to March 2004 Site Date Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Temp (°C) DO (mg/L) 1 10-Aug-03 0.943 0.088 180 15.6 8.0 2 10-Aug-03 1.06 0.011 3 10-Aug-03 1.158 0.009 104 15.4 9.5 4 10-Aug-03 0.331 0.009 5 10-Aug-03 1.154 0.008 6 10-Aug-03 0.013 0.026 74 18.5 6.5 7 10-Aug-03 0.096 0.02 109 18.8 8.0 8 10-Aug-03 0.034 0.633 102 16.1 6.2 9 10-Aug-03 0.009 0.064 108 16.4 2.7 10 10-Aug-03 0.012 0.022 107 18 3.7 21 10-Aug-03 4.25 0.014 132 13.4 11.1 22 10-Aug-03 23 10-Aug-03 104 14.6 7.7 24 10-Aug-03 104 14.6 7.7 25 10-Aug-03 26 10-Aug-03 27 10-Aug-03 28 10-Aug-03 29 10-Aug-03 31 10-Aug-03 214 17.8 4.4 41 10-Aug-03 3.91 0.009 134 12.3 9.8 42 10-Aug-03 51 10-Aug-03 1.16 0.01 123 12.4 8.8 71 10-Aug-03 339 16.6 8.1 72 10-Aug-03 82 10-Aug-03 0.382 2.35 1839 16.6 2.8 228 Site Date Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Temp (°C) DO (mg/L) 1 21-Sep-03 0.885 0.119 44 231 13 10.3 2 21-Sep-03 1.055 0.016 8.8 117 12.8 11.3 3 21-Sep-03 1.168 0.031 8.9 115 12 11.5 4 21-Sep-03 0.114 0.013 10.9 139 12.8 8.5 5 21-Sep-03 6 21-Sep-03 7 21-Sep-03 0.016 0.177 8.6 114 16.5 6.4 8 21-Sep-03 14.2 1.9 9 21-Sep-03 0.02 0.149 14.4 98 12.7 1 10 21-Sep-03 0.07 0.171 8.8 94 11.7 3 21 21-Sep-03 4.03 0.015 11.0 134 12.1 10.4 22 21-Sep-03 4.14 0.016 10.2 135 1.1.8 11.4 23 21-Sep-03 3.9 0.013 9.7 131 12.1 11.2 24 21-Sep-03 2.70 0.013 8.5 122 11.5 10.5 26 21-Sep-03 27 21-Sep-03 28 21-Sep-03 29 21-Sep-03 31 21-Sep-03 2.17 0.147 33.2 374 12.4 5.2 41 21-Sep-03 0.051 0.027 9.3 160 12.5 10.5 42 21-Sep-03 0.113 0.033 8.0 233 13 5 51 21-Sep-03 0.038 0.022 11.0 133 14.1 8.3 71 21-Sep-03 0.339 0.098 18.3 218 14 7.3 72 21-Sep-03 0.147 0.046 8.9 106 12 8.3 82 21-Sep-03 0.098 0.891 95.2 405 12.7 5.1 1 26-Oct-03 0.697 0.021 9.1 79 9.4 10.6 2 26-Oct-03 0.675 0.02 7.3 77 9.5 12 3 26-Oct-03 0.331 0.013 7.1 72 9.9 9.6 4 26-Oct-03 0.224 0.017 7.1 64 11.7 8.0 5 26-Oct-03 0.215 0.032 6.9 62 9.8 7.3 6 26-Oct-03 0.162 0.015 6.9 63 10.8 4.9 7 26-Oct-03 0.158 0.017 7.1 63 9.8 3.6 8 26-Oct-03 0.218 0.021 7.3 63 9.1 4.2 9 26-Oct-03 0.399 0.024 7.6 68 9.3 2.7 10 26-Oct-03 0.57 0.018 7.0 65 9.7 3.8 21 26-Oct-03 2.88 0.085 9.2 133 10.6 10.5 22 26-Oct-03 3.08 0.086 8.9 133 10.5 11.2 23 26-Oct-03 24 26-Oct-03 2.57 0.112 9.1 133 10.6 10.6 25 26-Oct-03 2.55 0.167 9.8 134 10.8 11.1 26 26-Oct-03 2.72 0.176 9.5 131 10.6 10.6 27 26-Oct-03 2.84 0.172 9.6 134 11 9.3 229 Site Date Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Temp (°C) DO (mg/L) 28 26-Oct-03 2.92 0.162 9.2 136 10.3 9.2 29 26-Oct-03 3.46 0.141 9.4 135 10.5 9.6 31 26-Oct-03 3.35 0.192 9.2 142 10.3 3.2 41 26-Oct-03 2.66 0.023 9.1 118 10 9.9 42 26-Oct-03 2.58 0.015 6.8 96 9.4 8.5 51 26-Oct-03 3.3 0.007 10.2 99 10.4 9.1 71 26-Oct-03 0.91 0.054 11.2 106 9 11.4 72 26-Oct-03 2.38 0.017 7.3 63 10.4 9.4 82 26-Oct-03 2.115 0.039 6.5 71 10.5 8.8 1 25-Nov-03 1.08 0.048 10.6 87 4.5 11.9 2 25-Nov-03 1.06 0.026 6.9 84 4.7 12.1 3 25-Nov-03 0.998 0.016 6.7 68 4.5 11.9 4 25-Nov-03 0.981 0.014 6.4 66 4.2 10.4 5 25-Nov-03 0.997 0.017 6.6 59 4 10.1 6 25-Nov-03 0.985 0.017 6.3 58 4 8.8 7 25-Nov-03 1.14 0.019 6.5 44 4 8.0 8 25-Nov-03 1.087 0.019 6.6 64 4 8.0 9 25-Nov-03 1.242 0.025 7.0 61 3.9 7.1 10 25-Nov-03 1.345 0.026 6.9 67 4.2 8.0 21 25-Nov-03 2.604 0.145 8.0 110 5.8 11.7 22 25-Nov-03 2.629 0.149 8.0 115 5.9 11.8 23 25-Nov-03 24 25-Nov-03 2.387 0.165 7.8 117 5.7 11.5 25 25-Nov-03 2.352 0.186 7.8 103 5.4 11.6 26 25-Nov-03 2.36 0.184 7.8 107 5.3 11.4 27 25-Nov-03 2.366 0.187 7.7 103 5.6 10.9 28 25-Nov-03 2.319 0.107 8.0 99 5.3 11.1 29 25-Nov-03 2.312 0.116 7.4 97 5.3 11.5 31 25-Nov-03 2.333 0.097 7.8 113 5.8 7.1 41 25-Nov-03 2.079 0.038 10.0 115 6 11.0 42 25-Nov-03 2.465 0.027 359 1222 6.8 10.3 51 25-Nov-03 2.707 0.114 11.8 127 6.4 10.7 71 25-Nov-03 0.95 0.076 8.1 78 5.1 12.3 72 25-Nov-03 1.703 0.034 6.9 64 5.6 9.8 82 25-Nov-03 2.274 0.022 5.3 65 6.1 10.9 1 17-Feb-04 1.021 0.022 8.6 84 4.8 13.4 2 17-Feb-04 1.114 0.022 7.1 79 4.8 13.3 3 17-Feb-04 0.844 0.013 6.1 73 4.6 12 4 17-Feb-04 8.1 0.013 5.9 69 5 11.9 5 17-Feb-04 0.807 0.016 5.75 63 4.8 11.6 6 17-Feb-04 0.787 0.014 5.6 63 4.9 10.9 2 3 0 Site Date Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Temp (°C) DO (mg/L) 7 17-Feb-04 0.888 0.018 5.7 63 4.4 9.8 8 17-Feb-04 1.07 0.019 6.1 65 4.2 9.8 9 17-Feb-04 1.061 0.018 6.7 68 4.3 9.5 10 17-Feb-04 0.992 0.022 6.5 65 4.8 10.3 21 17-Feb-04 2.369 0.052 7.8 102 6.2 12.6 22 17-Feb-04 2.387 0.057 7.6 100 6.2 12.2 23 17-Feb-04 24 17-Feb-04 2.022 0.065 7.6 95 6 12.2 25 17-Feb-04 1.909 0.075 7.2 90 5.3 12.7 26 17-Feb-04 1.9 0.079 7.3 90 5.3 12.7 27 17-Feb-04 1.913 0.077 7.3 89 5.3 12.7 28 17-Feb-04 1.818 0.064 7.5 89 5.2 12.6 29 17-Feb-04 1.743 0.065 7.1 87 5.3 12.8 31 17-Feb-04 1.687 0.066 7.3 87 4.9 10.9 41 17-Feb-04 2.364 0.039 12.3 113 4.8 13.3 42 17-Feb-04 2.44 0.016 7.4 91 5.1 11.6 51 17-Feb-04 1.893 0.03 14.5 105 5 12.7 71 17-Feb-04 0.792 0.069 10.3 81 4.3 13.5 72 17-Feb-04 1.869 0.034 6.7 63 4.7 11.5 82 17-Feb-04 2.152 0.021 3.0 57 5.7 13.7 1 30-Mar-04 0.581 0.025 9.9 73 10 10.2 2 30-Mar-04 0.564 0.021 6.7 85 10.2 10.4 3 30-Mar-04 0.458 0.01 6.6 73 10.1 10.1 4 30-Mar-04 0.265 0.013 6.0 73 10 9.7 5 30-Mar-04 0.207 0.016 5.7 85 10.1 9.1 6 30-Mar-04 0.135 0.012 7.3 90 9.9 7.6 7 30-Mar-04 0.189 0.006 5.5 85 9.7 6.4 8 30-Mar-04 0.248 0.016 5.7 92 9.8 6.4 9 30-Mar-04 0.491 0.016 6.5 94 9.9 6.5 10 30-Mar-04 0.335 0.021 6.1 94 10.5 6.4 21 30-Mar-04 2.479 0.045 9.4 94 10 10.4 22 30-Mar-04 2.53 0.05 7.8 105 10.2 10.5 23 30-Mar-04 24 30-Mar-04 1.807 0.09 7.4 100 10.4 10.6 25 30-Mar-04 10.6 11.3 26 30-Mar-04 1.823 0.175 7.9 118 10.3 10.9 27 30-Mar-04 1.938 0.187 8.3 105 10.4 10.1 28 30-Mar-04 1.451 0.106 7.6 106 10.4 10.1 29 30-Mar-04 1.452 0.095 7.9 104 10.4 10.3 31 30-Mar-04 2.444 0.352 8.2 105 10.9 7.4 41 30-Mar-04 42 30-Mar-04 1.128 0.01 6.0 122 9.8 9.3 231 Site Date Nitrate (mg/L) Ortho-phosphate (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Temp (°C) DO (mg/L) 51 30-Mar-04 0.742 0.028 9.9 124 9.7 9.1 71 30-Mar-04 0.294 0.074 7.3 79 10.6 9.6 72 30-Mar-04 0.752 0.029 9.2 69 10.2 9.9 82 30-Mar-04 0.688 0.024 2.9 111 10 9.9 Table C-6: Fluorometer readings expressed as parts-per-million Wisk to detect optical iteners in stream water in Septem >er and December 20 )3 and February \ sampling site number September fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) December colour December fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) February colour February fluorometer readings (ppm wisk) S-l 80 16.2 50 5.1 60 S-2 50 6.5 60 S-3 45 7.3 50 S-4 50 11.6 60 S-5 50 11.3 70 S-6 80 25.7 50 11.6 60 S-7 80 18.2 60 8.4 70 S-8 100 2.4 60 13.8 60 S-9 50 15.0 70 S-10 50 7.8 60 S-21 80 17.5 70 15.5 40 S-22 80 16.8 70 8.2 50 S-24 80 22.0 80 S-25 80 14.7 S-26 100 3.7 80 14.1 100 S-27 100 15.2 100 S-28 80 42.1 100 40.2 100 S-29 80 27.0 80 19.0 100 S-31 100 25.8 100 S-41 80 9 50 11.6 S-42 30 9.6 40 S-51 30 12.7 50 S-71 70 17.9 100 S-72 40 10.3 50 S-82 40 11.0 100 232 APPENDIX D LAND USE DATA Ta^k^D-l^LajDui^seCateeork Land Use Code All Land Use Categories Summarized Land Use Categories 80 Residential Residential 90 Uncultured vegetation Uncultured vegetation 92 Gravel pit omitted (lack of data within well buffer zones) 99 Commercial development omitted (lack of data within well buffer zones) 110 Horses - unknown agricultural intensity Livestock 111 Horses - low agricultural intensity 112 Horses - medium agricultural intensity 113 Horses - high agricultural intensity 122 Sheep - low agricultural intensity 123 Sheep - high agricultural intensity 130 Cattle - unknown agricultural intensity 131 Cattle - low agricultural intensity 132 Cattle - medium agricultural intensity 134 Cattle - high agricultural intensity 135 Cattle - Dairy farms 150 Poultry 162 Other livestock (alpacas, pigs, ostrich, etc) 210 Hobby farms - horse - unknown intensity 211 Hobby farms - horse - low intensity 212 Hobby farms - horse - medium intensity 220 Hobby farms - sheep /goats - unknown intensity 221 Hobby farms - sheep /goats - low intensity 222 Hobby farms - sheep / goats - medium intensity 231 Hobby farms - cattle low intensity 232 Hobby farms - cattle medium intensity 250 Hobby farms - Poultry 260 Hobby farms - other livestock (alpacas, pigs, etc) 270 Hobby farms - crops - unknown intensity Crops • 271 Hobby farms - crops - low intensity 170 Nursery - agricultural operation 171 Berries - agricultural operation 172 Vegetables - agricultural operation 174 Other Crops (golf courses, sports fields, unknown) 175 Pasture and Forage 177 Abandoned farmland 173 Greenhouses Greenhouses 176 Mushroom farms omitted (lack of data within well buffer zones) 233 Table D-2: A n i m a l equivalent units for South Langley in 2001 Category of animal husbandry Animal type # of animals on large farms #of animals on small farms Equivalent value for animal type AUE totals Dairy bulls 19 39 1 58 cows 1255 42 1.4 1815.8 heifers 483 72 0.7 388.5 calves 720 355 0.2 215 Poultry chickens 779280 33290 0.02 3250.2 (meat) turkeys 95010 1410 0.02 1427.2 other 224050 451 0.01 2245.0 Poultry pullets 75230 1367 0.02 382.9 (layers) layers 106599 3297 0.02 549.4 Swine boars 0 0 0.4 0 sows 0 0 0.4 0 other 0 0 0.3 0 Beef bulls 0 0 1 0 cows 167 419 1 586 heifers 79 159 0.7 166.6 steers 31 121 1 152 calves 0 0 0.2 0 Horses 111 834 1 1611 0 Sheep rams 13 29 0.1 4.2 ewes 580 0 0.1 58 lambs 570 0 0.1 57 Goats 168 0 0.1 16.8 Total AUE 12983.9 234 APPENDIX E SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM ENUMERATION Table E - l : Number of single family (or equivalent) on-site sewage disposal systems per 500 m fan-shaped well buffer zone 1-10 SDS Category 10 - 25 SDS Category 25 - 40 SDS Category Well # SDS in Nitrate Well # SDS in 500 Nitrate wells # SDS in Nitrate site# 500 m fan (mg/L) site # m fan (mg/L) site # 500 m fan (mg/L) 77 1 0 67 10 4 26 0.062 90 1 2.072 65 11 8.654 21 26 3.052 91 2 1.062 87 11 0.346 52 26 3.323 36 3 0.133 18 14 5.126 4 26 0.04 101 3 0 48 14 4.371 21 26 2.21 37 4 0 63 14 0 52 26 3.35 75 4 0.019 69 14 9.383 4 26 0.048 82 4 0.11 79 14 6.863 21 26 1.847 88 4 0 205 14 0.342 52 26 2.889 202 4 0.047 900 14 0.417 31 27 5.113 1 5 0.346 15 15 2.144 32 27 1.18 89 5 2.584 19 15 0.702 39 27 4.551 43 6 0 64 15 0.631 31 27 6.49 41 7 2.444 7 16 32 27 1.35 57 7 8 17 2.531 39 27 4.96 74 7 0 22 18 0.82 31 27 6.457 83 7 1.605 33 18 4.891 32 27 1.774 86 7 0.443 50 19 3.174 39 27 4.274 104 7 0 700 19 0.173 34 28 5.454 6 8 103 20 0 46 28 3.302 80 8 2.69 201 20 0.861 34 28 4.68 2 9 0 20 21 0 46 28 5.54 85 9 47 21 34 28 5.086 67 10 27 22 46 28 3.062 77 1 0 40 22 1.923 51 29 4.807 90 1 2.53 204 22 51 29 4.96 91 2 1.38 67 10 51 29 4.453 36 3 0.16 65 11 11.39 58 30 5.029 101 3 0.05 87 11 0.44 58 30 5.36 37 4 0 18 14 5.66 58 30 4.452 75 4 0.09 48 14 3.68 23 32 0.347 82 4 0.13 63 14 0.05 23 32 0.34 88 4 0 69 14 12.79 23 32 1.909 202 4 0.28 79 14 3.76 60 33 0.258 1 5 0.39 205 14 0.46 60 33 0.51 89 5 9.38 900 14 0.41 60 33 0.903 43 6 0 15 15 2.19 35 36 11.4 41 7 4.3 19 15 0.33 211 36 3.08 57 7 64 15 0.61 35 36 8.76 235 Table E - l : Number of Single Family (or Equivalent) On-site Sewage Disposal Systems 1 - 10 SDS Category 10 - 25 SDS Category 25 - 40 SDS Category Well tt SDS in Nitrate Well tt SDS in 500 Nitrate wells tt SDS in Nitrate site # 500 m fan (mg/L) site# m fan (mg/L) site# 500 m fan (mg/L) 74 7 0.07 7 16 0 211 36 83 7 4.21 8 17 4.47 35 36 4.254 86 7 0.38 22 18 0.9 211 36 104 7 0 33 18 5.44 28 39 2.792 6 8 50 19 3.82 28 39 2.79 80 8 1.39 700 19 0.2 28 39 2.594 2 9 0 103 20 0 85 9 0 201 20 67 10 20 21 0.17 77 1 0 47 21 90 1 2.54 27 22 0.08 91 2 2.526 40 22 2.09 36 3 0.133 204 22 2.18 101 3 0 67 10 1.288 37 4 0 65 11 8.97 75 4 0 87 11 0 82 4 0.072 18 14 4.759 88 4 0.322 48 14 3.512 202 4 63 14 0.02 1 5 0.31 69 14 9.464 89 5 11.383 79 14 4.872 43 6 0 205 14 41 7 1.698 900 14 57 7 0 15 15 1.91 74 7 0 19 15 0.065 83 7 0 64 15 0.687 86 7 0.38 7 16 0 104 7 0 8 17 0.321 6 8 0 22 18 0.973 80 8 0.2 33 18 5.168 2 9 0 50 19 1.435 85 9 0.1 700 19 67 10 1.288 103 20 0.007 102 10 48.3 201 20 102 10 36.55 20 21 0.084 102 10 41.815 47 21 0 27 22 0 40 22 2.176 73 11 20.978 73 11 1.27 73 11 2.485 236 APPENDIX F GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table F-l: One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normal distribution of well data in the Brookswood Aquifer Sampling data N Mean Std. Deviation (Absolute) Positive Negative Kolmogorov -Smirnov Z (2-tailed) P-value Depth* 68 17.423 12.604 0.164 0.164 -0.93 1.351 0.052 Sept Nitrate 45 2.292 2.760 0.203 0.156 -0.203 1.362 0.049 Sept O-Phosphate 45 0.037 0.072 0.404 0.404 -0.304 2.711 0.000 Sept Chloride 43 13.569 29.003 0.334 0.306 -0.334 2.188 0.000 Sept Elec. Cond * 43 230.860 129.483 0.201 0.201 -0.152 1.316 0.063 Sept TDS * 43 147.751 82.869 0.201 0.201 -0.152 1.316 0.063 Dec Nitrate * 47 2.712 3.135 0.193 0.174 -0.193 1.320 0.061 Dec Ortho-Phosphate 47 0.040 0.077 0.409 0.409 -0.304 2.803 0.000 Dec Chloride 47 12.206 25.984 0.335 0.298 -0.335 2.296 0.000 Dec Elec. Cond.* 51 197.280 111.971 0.169 0.148 -0.169 1.207 0.109 Dec TDS * 48 129.521 72.531 0.162 0.160 -0.162 1.123 0.161 Dec 9 Nitrate * 38 2.733 3.009 0.182 0.175 -0.182 1.121 0.162 Dec 9 2nd O-P 38 0.034 0.074 0.389 0.389 -0.324 2.398 0.000 Dec 9 2nd Chloride 38 10.739 20.037 0.309 0.302 -0.309 1.902 0.001 Dec Fecal Coliform 36 1.222 6.503 0.491 0.491 -0.425 2.947 0.000 Dec Total Coliform * 3 34.667 59.181 0.382 0.382 -0.279 0.662 0.774 Feb Nitrate 48 2.396 2.681 0.186 0.154 -0.186 1.287 0.073 Feb Ortho-Phosphate 48 0.018 0.051 0.397 0.397 -0.363 2.749 0.000 Feb Chloride 47 10.092 13.579 0.275 0.275 -0.265 1.884 0.002 Feb Elec. Cond.* 41 179.876 60.826 0.099 0.099 -0.060 0.635 0.815 Feb TDS* 48 99.868 55.402 0.110 0.110 -0.097 0.763 0.606 Aluminium 48 0.025 0.046 0.456 0.456 -0.294 3.162 0.000 Boron 48 0.002 0.014 0.537 0.537 -0.443 3.717 0.000 Barium 48 0.005 0.016 0.485 0.485 -0.369 3.359 0.000 Calcium * 48 14.475 6.190 0.168 0.168 -0.070 1.166 0.132 Copper 48 0.349 0.528 0.256 0.256 -0.255 1.770 0.004 Iron 48 1.418 3.783 0.360 0.360 -0.354 2.494 0.000 Potassium 48 1.360 1.498 0.228 0.228 -0.182 1.581 0.014 Magnesium * 48 4.824 2.155 0.100 0.100 -0.076 0.691 0.726 Manganese 48 0.062 0.085 0.238 0.238 -0.232 1.648 0.009 237 Sampling data N Mean Std. Deviation (Absolute) Positive Negative Kolmogorov -Smirnov Z (2-tailed) P-value Sodium 48 8.354 6.087 0.246 0.246 -0.188 1.704 0.006 Phosphorus 48 0.015 0.071 0.539 0.539 -0.419 3.736 0.000 Silicon * 48 8.427 2.724 0.082 0.082 -0.047 0.567 0.905 Strontium * 48 0.092 0.032 0.131 0.131 -0.099 0.904 0.387 Zinc 48 0.104 0.430 0.404 0.382 -0.404 2.800 0.000 Residential * 53 47.745 22.626 0.119 0.068 -0.119 0.864 0.445 Uncultured vegetation * 53 11.789 11.184 0.148 0.148 -0.146 1.081 0.193 Crops 53 7.210 16.455 0.331 0.321 -0.331 2.407 0.000 Livestock 53 21.282 20.615 0.219 0.219 -0.151 1.593 0.013 Greenhouses 53 0.721 1.293 0.365 0.365 -0.289 2.657 0.000 *Test distribution is Normal. Table F-2: Correlations between Parameter Spearman's rho Depth Nitrate Ortho-Phosphate Chloride Total Disolved Solids Aluminum Nitrate Correlation Coefficient -0.548*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 Significant correlations are highlighted N 90 Ortho-Phosphate Correlation Coefficient 0.680*** -0.733*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 N 90 90 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -0.043 0.191 -0.057 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.690 0.073 0.598 N 89 89 89 Total Disolved Solids Correlation Coefficient 0.301** -0.297** 0.384*** 0.152 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.155 N 90 90 90 89 Aluminum Correlation Coefficient -0.369*** 0.189 -0.328** -0.076 -0.218* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.075 0.002 0.479 0.039 N 90 90 90 89 90 Boron Correlation Coefficient 0.546*** -0.486*** 0.715*** 0.260* 0.316** -0.235* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.002 0.026 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Barium Correlation Coefficient -0.130 -0.038 -0.055 0.167 0.109 0.147 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.222 0.725 0.603 0.118 0.308 0.167 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 238 Parameter Spearman's rho Depth Nitrate Ortho-Phosphate Chloride Total Disolved Solids Aluminum Calcium Correlation Coefficient 0.005 0.004 0.043 -0.082 0.272** -0.110 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.966 0.973 0.685 0.444 0.009 0.303 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Copper Correlation Coefficient -0.317** 0.321** -0.506*** 0.006 -0.222* 0.250* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.954 0.036 0.018 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Iron Correlation Coefficient 0.033 -0.050 -0.165 0.055 -0.077 0.163 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.756 0.637 0.120 0.608 0.470 0.126 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Potassium Correlation Coefficient 0.471*** -0.622*** 0.662*** -0.004 0.427*** -0.154 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.970 0.000 0.147 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Magnesium Correlation Coefficient 0.272* -0.224* 0.273** 0.003 0.343** -0.185 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.010 0.034 0.009 0.980 0.001 0.081 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Manganese Correlation Coefficient 0.089 -0.327** 0.149 -0.044 0.186 0.006 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.404 0.002 0.160 0.683 0.079 0.955 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Sodium Correlation Coefficient 0.531*** -0.463*** 0.671*** 0.315** 0.388*** -0.233* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.027 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Phosphorus Correlation Coefficient 0.647*** -0.606*** 0.806*** 0.019 0.293** -0.138 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.858 0.005 0.195 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Silicon Correlation Coefficient 0.419*** -0.331** 0.361*** -0.011 0.214* -0.398*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.920 0.043 0.000 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Strontium Correlation Coefficient •0.017 0.213* -0.084 0.145 0.176 -0.093 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.874 0.044 0.429 0.176 0.097 0.383 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 Zinc Correlation Coefficient •0.411*** 0.378*** -0.458*** 0.056 -0.226* 0.184 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.601 0.032 0.082 N 90 90 90 89 90 90 239 Parameter Spearman's rho Boron Barium Calcium Copper Iron Potassium Barium rs -0.007 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.945 Significant correlations are highlighted N 90 Calcium rs -0.275** 0.301** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009 0.004 N 90 90 Copper -0.338** 0.134 -0.154 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.209 0.146 N 90 90 90 Iron rs -0.240* 0.216* 0.183 0.248* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.023 0.040 0.084 0.019 N 90 90 90 90 Potassium rs 0.533*** 0.380*** 0.250* -0.239* -0.059 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.024 0.578 N 90 90 90 90 90 Magnesium rs 0.004 0.317** 0.733*** -0.174 0.219* 0.420*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.971 0.002 0.000 0.100 0.038 0.000 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 Manganese rs -0.051 0.474*** 0.420*** 0.059 0.468*** 0.386*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.000 0.000 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 Sodium rs 0.743*** 0.182 -0.079 -0.206 -0.031 0.648*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.087 0.457 0.051 0.775 0.000 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 Phosphorus r s 0.817*** -0.044 -0.177 -0.242* -0.110 0.621*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.683 0.095 0.022 0.301 0.000 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 Silicon rs 0.048 -0.035 0.327** -0.196 0.207 0.164 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.657 0.740 0.002 0.064 0.050 0.121 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 Strontium rs -0.148 0.384*** 0.697*** 0.037 0.207 0.153 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.727 0.050 0.151 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 Zinc rs -0.380*** 0.159 -0.025 0.541*** 0.148 -0.289** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.134 0.815 0.000 0.163 0.006 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 240 Parameter Spearman's rho Magnesium Manganese Sodium Phosphorus Silicon Strontium Manganese Correlation Coefficient 0.437*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 90 Sodium Correlation Coefficient 0.221* 0.295** ^lgnuicaiu correlations aic highlighted Sig. (2-tailed) 0.036 0.005 N 90 90 Phosphorus Correlation Coefficient 0.074 0.057 0.723*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.487 0.594 0.000 N 90 90 90 Silicon Correlation Coefficient 0.525*** 0.321** 0.225* 0.192 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.002 0.033 0.070 N 90 90 90 90 Strontium Correlation Coefficient 0.578*** 0.352* 0.146 -0.115 0.167 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.170 0.280 0.115 N 90 90 90 90 90 Zinc Correlation Coefficient -0.157 -0.001 -0.328** -0.351** -0.224* 0.108 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.140 0.996 0.002 0.001 0.034 0.312 N 90 90 90 90 90 90 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-3: Correlation of metals to five water quality parameters in participating Brookswood wells Parameter Spearman's rho Depth Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Chloride Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Aluminum Correlation Coefficient -0.075 0.12 -0.002 -0.119 -0.121 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.559 0.347 0.99 0.353 0.34 N 63 64 64 63 64 Boron Correlation Coefficient 0.128 -0.097 0.552 0.163 0.255* 241 Parameter Spearman's rho Depth Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Chloride Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.319 0.447 0 0.202 0.042 N 63 64 64 63 64 Barium Correlation Coefficient -0.242 0.142 0.094 0.275* 0.287* Sig. re-tailed) 0.056 0.263 0.461 0.029 0.021 N 63 64 64 63 64 Calcium Correlation Coefficient 0.34** 0.012 0.239 0.246 0.704*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.006 0.924 0.057 0.052 0 N 63 64 64 63 64 Copper Correlation Coefficient -0.222 0.202 -0.151 0.018 -0.064 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.08 0.109 0.234 0.891 0.613 N 63 64 64 63 64 Iron Correlation Coefficient 0.251(*) 0.009 0.063 0.175 0.077 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.047 0.944 0.619 0.17 0.546 N 63 64 64 63 64 Potassium Correlation Coefficient 0.199 -0.297 0.566*** -0.009 0.517*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.118 0.017 0 0.942 0 N 63 64 64 63 64 Magnesium Correlation Coefficient 0.349** -0.125 0.321** 0.21 0.593*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.323 0.01 0.099 0 N 63 64 64 63 64 Manganese Correlation Coefficient 0.161 -0.27* 0.303* 0.214 0.354* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.206 0.031 0.015 0.092 0.004 N 63 64 64 63 64, Sodium Correlation Coefficient 0.194 0.026 0 5*** 0.429*** 0.375** 242 Parameter Spearman's rho Depth Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Chloride Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Sig. en-tailed) 0.128 0.84 0 0 0.002 N 63 64 64 63 64 Phosphorus Correlation Coefficient 0.371** -0.259* 0.743*** -0.108 0.206 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.039 0 0.4 0.103 N 63 64 64 63 64 Silicon Correlation Coefficient 0.502*** -0.149 0.446*** 0.274* 0.338** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.239 0 0.03 0.006 N 63 64 64 63 64 Strontium Correlation Coefficient 0.085 0.402** -0.004 0.509*** 0.494*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.509 0.001 0.976 0 0 N 63 64 64 63 64 Zinc Correlation Coefficient -0.216 0.221 -0.149 0.158 -0.03 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.09 0.079 0.239 0.217 0.811 N 63 64 64 63 64 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-4: Metal correlations to five land use categories within a 500 m circular well buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses Correlation Coefficient 0.04 0.103 -0.026 0.127 0.048 Aluminium (Al) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.759 0.434 0.844 0.334 0.715 N 60 60 60 60 60 Barium Correlation Coefficient -.396(**) -0.125 .497(***) .392(**) -0.106 243 Parameter Spearman's rho 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses Sig. re-tailed) 0.002 0.342 0.000 0.002 0.418 N 60 60 60 60 60 Calcium (Ca) Correlation Coefficient -0.244 -0.052 0.118 0.056 -0.013 Sig. re-tailed) 0.061 0.694 0.369 0.668 0.921 N 60 60 60 60 60 Copper (Cu) Correlation Coefficient 0.004 -0.103 0.09 0.239 -0.03 Sig. re-tailed) 0.975 0.435 0.493 0.065 0.823 N 60 60 60 60 60 Iron (Fe) Correlation Coefficient 0.131 0.011 0.014 0.004 0.031 Sig. re-tailed) 0.32 0.932 0.915 0.973 0.815 N 60 60 60 60 60 Potassium (K) Correlation Coefficient -.534(***) 0.02 .369(**) .490(***) 0.201 Sig. re-tailed) 0.000 0.882 0.004 0.000 0.124 N 60 60 60 60 60 Correlation Coefficient -0.251 -0.176 0.096 0.151 0.03 Magnesium (Mg) Sig. re-tailed) 0.053 0.18 0.467 0.248 0.823 N 60 60 60 60 60 Manganese (Mn) Correlation Coefficient -.312(*) -0.006 .347(**) .278(*) 0.06 Sig. re-tailed) 0.015 0.964 0.007 0.031 0.648 N 60 60 60 60 60 Sodium (Na) Correlation Coefficient -.259(*) -0.125 0.236 .375(**) -0.015 Sig. re-tailed) 0.046 0.342 0.069 0.003 0.906 N 60 60 60 60 60 Phosphorus (P) Correlation Coefficient -.329(*) -0.015 -0.007 .464(***) -0.034 Sig. re-tailed) 0.01 0.911 0.96 0.000 0.794 N 60 60 60 60 60 244 Parameter Spearman's rho 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses Silicon (Si) Correlation Coefficient 0.023 -0.06 -0.154 -0.041 -0.029 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.859 0.649 0.239 0.756 0.828 N 60 60 60 60 60 Strontium (Sr) Correlation Coefficient -0.205 -0.224 .274(*) 0.155 0.053 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.117 0.085 0.034 0.236 0.688 N 60 60 60 60 60 Zinc (Zn) Correlation Coefficient -0.013 0.072 0.006 -0.053 -0.15 Sig. re-tailed) 0.922 0.583 0.962 0.686 0.253 N 60 60 60 60 60 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-5: Metal correlations to five land use categories within a 200 m circular well buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m radius - Residential 200 m radius -Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius -Crops 200 m radius -Livestock 200 m radius -Greenhouses Aluminium (Al) Correlation Coefficient 0.113 0.049 -0.022 -0.066 0.145 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.39 0.711 0.866 0.616 0.268 N 60 60 60 60 60 Barium (Ba) Correlation Coefficient -0.174 -0.216 0.168 .341(**) 0.068 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.184 0.097 0.2 0.008 0.604 N 60 60 60 60 60 Calcium (Ca) Correlation Coefficient -.326(*) 0.015 0.205 0.247 0.003 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.907 0.117 0.057 0.981 N 60 60 60 60 60 245 Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m radius - Residential 200 m radius -Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius -Crops 200 m radius -Livestock 200 m radius -Greenhouses Copper (Cu) Correlation Coefficient 0.25 -0.072 -0.032 -0.041 0.073 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.054 0.583 0.811 0.755 0.58 N 60 60 60 60 60 Iron (Fe) Correlation Coefficient 0.098 -0.029 -0.045 0.036 -0.101 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.456 0.828 0.734 0.783 0.443 N 60 60 60 60 60 Potassium (K) Correlation Coefficient -.477(***) 0.058 .353(**) .513(***) 0.076 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.658 0.006 0.000 0.565 N 60 60 60 60 60 Magnesium (Mg) Correlation Coefficient -0.212 -0.044 0.205 0.192 -0.041 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.104 0.738 0.115 0.143 0.758 N 60 60 60 60 60 Manganese (Mn) Correlation Coefficient -.312(*) -0.021 0.236 .438(***) -0.233 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.015 0.874 0.069 0.000 0.073 N 60 60 60 60 60 Sodium (Na) Correlation Coefficient -.294(*) -0.029 0.221 .402(**) -0.005 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.023 0.828 0.089 0.001 0.968 N 60 60 60 60 60 Phosphorus (P) Correlation Coefficient -0.215 0.111 -0.007 .308(*) -0.02 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.099 0.398 0.957 0.017 0.877 N 60 60 60 60 60 Silicon (Si) Correlation Coefficient -0.041 0.014 -0.039 0.148 -0.134 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.754 0.915 0.766 0.26 0.307 N 60 60 60 60 60 Strontium (Sr) Correlation Coefficient -.281(*) -0.165 .315(*) 0.234 0.081 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.03 0.207 0.014 0.072 0.539 N 60 60 60 60 60 Zinc (Zn) Correlation Coefficient 0.187 0.113 -0.094 -0.204 0.045 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.152 0.389 0.473 0.117 0.735 246 Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m radius - Residential 200 m radius -Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius -Crops 200 m radius -Livestock 200 m radius -Greenhouses N 60 60 60 60 60 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-6: Metal correlations to five land use categories within a 100 m circular well buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 100 m radius Residential 100 m radius Uncultured vegetation 100 m radius Crops 100 m radius Livestock 100 m radius Greenhouses Aluminium (AI) Correlation Coefficient 0.039 0.081 -0.085 0.085 0.165 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.769 0.538 0.519 0.519 0.207 N 60 60 60 60 60 Barium (Ba) Correlation Coefficient -0.233 -0.031 -0.077 0.425*** 0.038 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.073 0.814 0.56 0.001 0.77 N 60 60 60 60 60 Calcium (Ca) Correlation Coefficient -0.245 0.013 0.063 0.067 -0.209 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.059 0.92 0.633 0.61 0.108 N 60 60 60 60 60 Copper (Cu) Correlation Coefficient 0.141 -0.081 -0.155 0.146 0.121 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.282 0.537 0.238 0.266 0.358 N 60 60 60 60 60 Iron (Fe) Correlation Coefficient 0.168 -0.164 -0.193 -0.038 -0.07 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.2 0.211 0.14 0.773 0.593 N 60 60 60 60 60 Potassium (K) Correlation Coefficient -0.471*** 0.318 0.16 0.413 -0.01 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.013 0.223 0.001 0.937 N 60 60 60 60 60 Magnesium (Mg) Correlation Coefficient -0.18 -0.069 0.037 0.107 -0.153 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.168 0.601 0.778 0.415 0.242 N 60 60 60 60 60 247 Parameter Spearman's rho 100 m radius Residential 100 m radius Uncultured vegetation 100 m radius Crops 100 m radius Livestock 100 m radius Greenhouses Manganese (Mn) Correlation Coefficient -0.218 0.008 -0.043 0.321* -0.153 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.095 0.949 0.742 0.012 0.242 N 60 60 60 60 60 Sodium (Na) Correlation Coefficient -0.194 0.142 0.021 0.22 -0.08 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.137 0.279 0.872 0.092 0.546 N 60 60 60 60 60 Phosphorus CP) Correlation Coefficient -0.1 0.096 -0.02 0.228 -0.112 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.446 0.465 0.877 0.079 0.395 N 60 60 60 60 60 Silicon (Si) Correlation Coefficient 0.09 -0.036 -0.167 -0.035 -0.204 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.496 0.785 0.201 0.788 0.117 N 60 60 60 60 60 Strontium (Sr) Correlation Coefficient -0.185 -0.115 0.074 0.025 -0.133 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.157 0.383 0.573 0.849 0.309 N 60 60 60 60 60 Zinc (Zn) Correlation Coefficient -0.06 -0.037 -0.156 0.159 0.124 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.648 0.779 0.235 0.224 0.346 N 60 60 60 60 60 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-7: Metal correlations to five land use categories within a 500 m fan-shaped well buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 500 m Fan Residential 500 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 500 m Fan - Crops 500 m Fan Livestock 500 m Fan Greenhouses Aluminium (Al) Correlation Coefficient 0.032 0.083 -0.037 0.073 0.2 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.808 0.533 0.78 0.58 0.13 N 59 59 59 59 59 2 4 8 Parameter Spearman's rho 500 m Fan Residential 500 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 500 m Fan - Crops 500 m Fan Livestock 500 m Fan Greenhouses Barium (Ba) Correlation Coefficient -.394(**) -0.225 .474(***) .323(*) -0.021 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.086 0.000 0.013 0.873 N 59 59 59 59 59 Calcium (Ca) Correlation Coefficient -0.175 -0.137 0.11 0.053 -0.15 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.184 0.3 0.409 0.69 0.258 N 59 59 59 59 59 Copper (Cu) Correlation Coefficient 0.042 -0.193 0.123 0.201 0.005 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.752 0.144 0.352 0.127 0.972 N 59 59 59 59 59 Iron (Fe) Correlation Coefficient -0.004 -0.012 0.033 -0.002 -0.096 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.975 0.928 0.805 0.987 0.469 N 59 59 59 59 59 Potassium (K) Correlation Coefficient -.470(***) -0.06 .283(*) .424(**) 0.004 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.652 0.03 0.001 0.977 N 59 59 59 59 59 Magnesium (Mg) Correlation Coefficient -0.201 -0.202 0.084 0.151 -0.152 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.127 0.126 0.526 0.254 0.252 N 59 59 59 59 59 Manganese (Mn) Correlation Coefficient -.321(*) -0.088 .292(*) .296(*) -0.161 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.013 0.508 0.025 0.023 0.222 249 Parameter Spearman's rho 500 m Fan Residential 500 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 500 m Fan - Crops 500 m Fan Livestock 500 m Fan Greenhouses N 59 59 59 59 59 Sodium (Na) Correlation Coefficient -0.242 -0.199 0.217 0.229 -0.135 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.065 0.13 0.099 0.081 0.307 N 59 59 59 59 59 Phosphorus (P) Correlation Coefficient -.331C*) -0.103 -0.094 .388(**) -0.142 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.436 0.479 0.002 0.284 N 59 59 59 59 59 Silicon (Si) Correlation Coefficient 0.034 -0.121 -0.173 -0.008 -0.189 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.796 0.363 0.191 0.952 0.151 N 59 59 59 59 59 Strontium (Sr) Correlation Coefficient -0.124 -.368(**) .305(*) 0.087 -0.052 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.348 0.004 0.019 0.513 0.696 N 59 59 59 59 59 Zinc (Zn) Correlation Coefficient 0.064 -0.013 0.034 -0.063 -0.021 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.63 0.925 0.796 0.637 0.875 N 59 59 59 59 59 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 leve (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). 250 Table F-8: Metal correlations to five land use categories within a 200 m fan-shaped well buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m Fan Residential 200 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 200 m Fan Crops 200 m Fan Livestock 200 m Fan Greenhouses Aluminium (Al) Correlation Coefficient 0.066 0.005 0.031 0.074 0.2 Sig. re-tailed) 0.621 0.973 0.817 0.575 0.13 N 59 59 59 59 59 Barium (Ba) Correlation Coefficient -.321(*) -0.2 0.018 .482(**) 0.121 Sig- re-tailed) 0.013 0.128 0.892 0.000 0.36 N 59 59 59 59 59 Calcium (Ca) Correlation Coefficient -.268(*) 0.102 0.062 0.127 -0.049 Sig. re-tailed) 0.04 0.441 0.641 0.338 0.71 N 59 59 59 59 59 Copper (Cu) Correlation Coefficient 0.142 -0.224 -0.05 0.208 0.053 Sig. re-tailed) 0.282 0.089 0.707 0.114 0.69 N 59 59 59 59 59 Iron (Fe) Correlation Coefficient 0.039 0.049 -0.001 0.151 -0.158 Sig. re-tailed) 0.769 0.714 0.993 0.252 0.231 N 59 59 59 59 59 Potassium (K) Correlation Coefficient -.531(**) 0.203 0.147 .411(**) 0 Sig. re-tailed) 0.000 0.123 0.268 0.001 0.998 N 59 59 59 59 59 Magnesium (Mg) Correlation Coefficient -0.239 -0.037 0.06 0.225 -0.089 Sig. re-tailed) 0.068 0.782 0.654 0.087 0.5 N 59 59 59 59 59 Manganese (Mn) Correlation Coefficient -.264(*) 0.122 0.067 .415(**) -0.234 251 Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m Fan Residential 200 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 200 m Fan Crops 200 m Fan Livestock 200 m Fan Greenhouses Sig. (2-tailed) 0.043 0.357 0.612 0.001 0.074 N 59 59 59 59 59 Sodium (Na) Correlation Coefficient -.261 (*) -0.08 0.089 .285(*) -0.118 Sig. en-tailed) 0.046 0.549 0.505 0.029 0.374 N 59 59 59 59 59 Phosphorus (P) Correlation Coefficient -.307(*) 0.029 0.024 .302(*) -0.142 Sig. en-tailed) 0.018 0.825 0.857 0.02 0.284 N 59 59 59 59 59 Silicon (Si) Correlation Coefficient -0.012 0.034 -0.151 0.034 -0.207 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.926 0.796 0.254 0.8 0.116 N 59 59 59 59 59 Strontium (Sr) Correlation Coefficient -0.173 -0.188 0.173 0.167 0.017 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.19 0.154 0.19 0.207 0.898 N 59 59 59 59 59 Zinc (Zn) Correlation Coefficient 0.091 0.05 -0.127 -0.027 0.048 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.492 0.708 0.34 0.842 0.717 N 59 59 59 59 59 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-9: Correlation of depth and four well water quality parameters to five land use categories within a 500 m circular buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho Depth 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses Sept. 23, 2003 R s -.154 .335(**) -.354(**) -0.026 -.284(*) -0.235 252 Parameter Spearman's rho Depth 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses Nitrate Sig- re-tailed) .236 0.008 0.005 0.841 0.026 0.068 N 61 61 61 61 61 61 Sept. 23, 2003 O-Phosphate R s .220 -.481(***) 0.216 0.167 .445(***) 0.079 Sig. (2-tailed) .089 0.000 0.095 0.199 0.000 0.546 N 61 61 61 61 61 61 Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride R s -.354(**) 0.105 -0.155 0.061 -0.108 -0.256 Sig. re-tailed) .006 0.434 0.247 0.65 0.418 0.053 N 58 58 58 58 58 58 Sept. 23, 2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) R s -.124 -.452(***) 0.078 0.16 .334(**) -0.186 Sig. re-tailed) .350 0.000 0.559 0.227 0.01 0.159 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) R s -.183 .309(**) -.335(***) -0.09 -.215(*) -0.168 Sig. re-tailed) .164 0.001 0.000 0.363 0.027 0.087 N 59 105 105 105 105 105 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Rs .246 -.380(***) 0.168 0.171 .285(**) 0.004 Sig. re-tailed) .060 0.000 0.086 0.081 0.003 0.969 N 59 105 105 105 105 105 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Chloride R s -,270(*) 0.091 -0.08 0.083 -0.14 -0.183 Sig. re-tailed) .037 0.352 0.415 0.398 0.154 0.06 N 60 106 106 106 106 106 Dec 3 2003 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) R s .096 _.454(***) 0.073 .258(*) 0.242 -0.118 Sig. re-tailed) .462 0.000 0.576 0.044 0.06 0.367 N 61 61 61 61 61 61 253 Parameter Spearman's rho Depth 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) R s -.158 .370(**) -.321(*) -0.182 -0.251 -0.169 Sig. en-tailed) .227 0.004 0.012 0.163 0.053 0.196 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) R s .345(**) -.287(*) 0.09 0.107 .390(**) 0.091 Sig. (2-tailed) .007 0.026 0.495 0.415 0.002 0.491 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Chloride R s -.120 0.033 -0.003 -0.002 -0.054 -0.065 Sig. (2-tailed) .367 0.807 0.979 0.987 0.685 0.623 N 59 59 59 59 59 59 Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) R s .250 -0.099 0.019 0.082 -0.003 -0.015 Sig. en-tailed) .054 0.451 0.883 0.536 0.979 0.907 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). Table F-10: Correlations of four well water quality parameters to five land use categories within a 200 m circular buffer zone Parameters Spearman's rho 200 m radius Residential 200 m radius Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius Crops 200 m radius Livestock 200 m radius Greenhouse Sept. 23, 2003 Nitrate Correlation Coefficient 0.299* -0.37** -0.093 -0.364** 0.258* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.019 0.003 0.477 0.004 0.045 N 61 61 61 61 61 Sept. 23, 2003 O-Phosphate Correlation Coefficient -0.471*** 0.367** 0.169 0.489*** -0.158 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.004 0.194 0.000 0.223 N 61 61 61 61 61 254 Parameters Spearman's rho 200 m radius Residential 200 m radius Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius Crops 200 m radius Livestock 200 m radius Greenhouse Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.108 -0.301* 0.01 -0.098 0.021 Sig. en-tailed) 0.42 0.022 0.938 0.463 0.875 N 58 58 58 58 58 Sept. 23, 2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Correlation Coefficient -0.361** 0.156 0.067 0.267* -0.034 Sig. en-tailed) 0.005 0.238 0.615 0.041 0.798 N 59 59 59 59 59 Dec 3, 9 & 10,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient 0.338*** -0.347*** -0.188 -0.256** 0.172 Sig. en-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.008 0.079 N 105 105 105 105 105 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.454*** 0279** 0.315* * 0.355*** -0.165 Sig. e2-tailed) 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.092 N 105 105 105 105 105 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.068 -0.139 -0.051 -0.087 0.055 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.49 0.156 0.603 0.376 0.574 N 106 106 106 106 106 Dec 3 2003 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.401** 0.155 0.185 0.359** -0.091 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 o.n3n 0.154 0.004 0.488 N 61 61 61 61 61 Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient 0.355** -0276* -0.197 -0.31* 0.178 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.033 0.132 0.016 0.174 N 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.327* 0.164 0.128 0.397** -0.091 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.211 0.329 0.002 0.491 N 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -0.074 -0.031 -0.122 0.085 0.078 Sig. en-tailed) 0.579 0.814 0.356 0.522 0.559 N 59 59 59 59 59 255 Parameters Spearman's rho 200 m radius Residential 200 m radius Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius Crops 200 m radius Livestock 200 m radius Greenhouse Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -0 .123 0.07 0.168 0.13 -0 .05 S i g . en-ta i led) 0 .349 0.595 0.2 0.321 0.702 N 60 60 60 60 60 * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i can t at the 0.05 leve l (2- ta i led) . * * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i cant at the 0.01 leve l (2- ta i led) . * * * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i cant at the 0.001 leve l (2- ta i led) . Table F - l l : Correlation of four well water quality parameters to five landuse categories within a 100 m circular buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 100 m radius Residential 100 m radius Uncultured vegetation 100 m radius Crops 100 m radius Livestock 100 in radius Greenhouses Sept. 23, 2003 Nitrate Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t 0.186 - 0 . 3 0 7 * -0 .029 - 0 . 2 7 4 * 0 . 2 5 8 * S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.151 0.016 0.823 0.032 0.044 N 61 61 61 61 61 Sept. 23, 2003 O-Phosphate Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -0 .232 0 . 2 9 5 * 0.055 0 . 3 2 1 * -0 .152 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.072 0.021 0.673 0.012 0.242 N 61 61 61 61 61 Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t 0.002 -0.181 -0 .004 -0.031 0.051 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.99 0.173 0.977 0.819 0.706 N 58 58 58 58 58 Sept. 23, 2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -0.251 0.143 0.126 0 . 2 6 * -0 .017 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.055 0.281 0.343 0.046 0.898 N 59 59 59 59 59 Dec 3 ,9 & 10,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t 0.14 - 0 . 3 6 1 * * * -0 .115 -0.131 0.136 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.153 0.000 0.243 0.182 0.165 N 105 105 105 105 105 Dec 3, 9 & 10,2003 Ortho-Phosphate Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - 0 . 1 9 9 * 0 . 3 7 6 * * * 0.071 0.111 -0 .142 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.042 0.000 0.475 0.258 0.148 256 (mg/L) N 105 105 105 105 105 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -0.018 -0.146 -0.052 -0.054 0.048 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.858 0.136 0.598 0.58 0.627 N 106 106 106 106 106 Dec 3 2003 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.347** -0.021 0.033 0.316* -0.183 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.006 0.875 0.801 0.013 0.159 N 61 61 61 61 61 Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient 0.237 -0.363** -0.116 -0.211 0.144 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.068 0.004 0.379 0.105 0.274 N 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.151 0.324* 0.001 0.18 -0.152 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.25 0.012 0.993 0.169 0.246 N 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.027 0.001 -0.09 -0.083 0.063 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.84 0.995 0.499 0.532 0.634 N 59 59 59 59 59 Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.087 0.001 0.024 0.077 -0.3* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.511 0.993 0.858 0.558 0.02 N 60 60 60 60 60 *** Q orrelation is significant at the 3.001 level (2-tai ed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table F-12: Correlation of four well water quality parameters with five land use categories within a 21 0 metre fan-s taped buffer zone Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m Fan Residential 200 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 200 m Fan Crops 200 m Fan Livestock 200 m Fan Greenhouses Sept. 23, 2003 Nitrate Correlation Coefficient 0.316* -0.408** -0.033 -0.289* 0.337** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.015 0.001 0.802 0.026 0.009 N 59 59 59 59 59 Sept. 23, 2003 O-Phosphate Correlation Coefficient -0.448*** 0.402** 0.103 0.35** -0.205 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.002 0.438 0.007 0.12 257 Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m Fan Residential 200 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 200 m Fan Crops 200 m Fan Livestock 200 m Fan Greenhouses N 59 59 59 59 59 Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.173 -0.358** 0.112 -0.084 0.088 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.202 0.007 0.41 0.538 0.52 N 56 56 56 56 56 Sept. 23, 2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Correlation Coefficient -0.323* 0.145 0.124 0.232 0.021 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.014 0.282 0.359 0.082 0.879 N 57 57 57 57 57 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient 0.289** -0.468*** -0.163 -0.185 0.25* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.000 0.1 0.061 0.011 N 103 103 103 103 103 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.361*** 0 379*** 0.211* 0.205* -0.213* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.038 0.03 N 103 103 103 103 103 Dec 3, 9 & 10,2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.105 -0.127 0.037 -0.098 0.084 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.287 0.199 0.71 0.325 0.399 N 104 104 104 104 104 Dec 3 2003 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.403** 0.145 0.107 0.3* -0.123 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.269 0.416 0.02 0.347 N 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10, 2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient 0.373** -0.475*** -0.125 -0.227 0.232 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.000 0.347 0.084 0.077 N 59 59 59 59 59 Feb 10, 2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -0.29* 0.231 0.032 0.2 -0.193 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.026 0.078 0.808 0.13 0.142 N 59 59 59 59 59 Feb 10, 2004 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.099 -0.069 -0.106 -0.064 0.111 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.458 0.606 0.427 0.634 0.405 N 58 58 58 58 58 Feb 10, 2004 Total Disolved Correlation Coefficient -0.092 0.083 0 0.063 -0.126 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.489 0.534 0.998 0.636 0.34 258 Parameter Spearman's rho 200 m Fan Residential 200 m Fan Uncultured vegetation 200 m Fan Crops 200 m Fan Livestock 200 m Fan Greenhouses Solids (mg/L) N 59 59 59 59 59 *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table F-13: Correlation of five well water quality parameters and five land use Parameters Spearman's rho 500 m Fan Residential 500 m Fan uncultured vegetation 500 m Fan Crops 500 m Fan Livestock 500 m Fan Greenhouses Sept. 23, 2003 Nitrate Correlation Coefficient .292(*) -0.16 -0.056 -.271(*) 0.141 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.025 0.225 0.674 0.038 0.286 N 59 59 59 59 59 Sept. 23, 2003 O-Phosphate Correlation Coefficient -.424(**) 0.127 0.085 .358(**) -0.111 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.339 0.524 0.005 0.404 N 59 59 59 59 59 Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.091 -0.115 0.23 -0.196 0.08 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.505 0.397 0.088 0.148 0.556 N 56 56 56 56 56 Sept. 23, 2003 TDS (mg/L) (Approx. value) Correlation Coefficient -.385(**) -0.038 0.19 0.175 -0.038 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.78 0.158 0.193 0.781 N 57 57 57 57 57 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient .281(**) -.196(*) -0.015 -.295(**) 0.102 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.047 0.884 0.002 0.303 N 103 103 103 103 103 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -.330(**) 0.104 0.057 .238(*) -.219(*) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.294 0.57 0.015 0.026 N 103 103 103 103 103 Dec 3,9 & 10,2003 Chloride Correlation Coefficient 0.05 -0.006 0.187 -.223(*) 0.034 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.613 0.954 0.057 0.023 0.733 N 104 104 104 104 104 259 Parameters Spearman's rho 500 m Fan Residential 500 m Fan uncultured vegetation 500 m Fan Crops 500 m Fan Livestock 500 m Fan Greenhouses Dec 3 2003 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -.407(**) -0.084 .265(*) 0.124 -0.144 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.521 0.041 0.345 0.274 N 60 60 60 60 60 Feb 10,2004 Nitrate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient .405(**) -.265(*) -0.097 -.297(**) 0.051 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.042 0.463 0.002 0.702 N 59 59 59 59 59 Feb 10,2004 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/L) Correlation Coefficient -.284(*) -0.007 -0.021 .336(**) -0.193 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.029 0.959 0.872 0.009 0.142 N 59 59 59 59 59 Feb 10, 2004 Chloride r s 0.055 -0.007 0.08 -0.064 0.087 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.957 0.55 0.634 0.518 N 58 58 58 58 58 Feb 10,2004 Total Disolved Solids (mg/L) r s -0.009 -0.121 0.165 0.114 -0.126 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.943 0.361 0.211 0.39 0.34 N 59 59 59 59 59 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table F-14: Fluorometer readings expressed as parts-per-million Wisk to detect optical brightener concentration correlation with metals (n=60) in February 2004 Metals Spearman's rank Optical brightener Colour Aluminum (Al) Correlation Coefficient 0.156 -.088 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.234 502 Barium (Ba) Correlation Coefficient 0.286(*) .211 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.027 .106 Calcium (Ca) Correlation Coefficient -0.047 .146 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.719 .265 Copper (Cu) Correlation Coefficient 0.142 -.050 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.285 .709 Iron (Fe) Correlation Coefficient 0.058 .183 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.66 .161 Pottasium (K) Correlation Coefficient 0.387(**) .434(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 .001 Magnesium (Mg) Correlation Coefficient 0.113 .236 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.39 .070 Manganese (Mn) Correlation Coefficient 0.274(*) .346(**) 260 Metals Spearman's rank Optical brightener Colour S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.034 .007 Sodium (Na) Cor re l a t i on Coe f f i c i en t 0 . 4 5 4 ( * * ) . 4 6 6 ( * * ) S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.000 .000 Silicon (Si) Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -0 .052 .143 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0.691 .274 Strontium (Sr) Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -0 .029 .084 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0 .828 .522 Zinc (Zn) Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -0.1 -.041 S i g . (2- ta i led) 0 .449 .756 * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i can t at the 0.05 leve l (2- ta i led) * * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i can t at the 0.01 leve l (2- ta i led) Table F-15: Fluorometer reading correlation to five land use categories within a 500 m Spearman;s rank 500 m radius Residential 500 m radius Uncultured vegetation 500 m radius Crops 500 m radius Livestock 500 m radius Greenhouses September r s - 0 . 5 0 7 ( * * ) 0 .244 0.168 0 . 6 2 7 ( * * ) -0 .029 p-va lue 0.000 0.081 0.234 0.000 0.836 n 52 52 52 52 52 December rs - 0 .292 ( * ) -0.051 0.213 0 . 4 7 9 ( * * ) 0 .106 p-va lue 0.024 0.698 0.102 0.000 0.419 n 60 60 60 60 60 February rs -0 .292 ( * ) -0.051 0.213 0 . 4 7 9 ( * * ) 0 .106 p-va lue 0.024 0.698 0.102 0.000 0.419 n 60 60 60 60 60 * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i can t at the 0.05 leve l (2- ta i led) * * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i can t at the 0.01 leve l (2- ta i led) 261 Table F-16: Fluorometer reading correlation to five land use categories within a 200 m radius wel buffer zone in September & December 2003 and February 2004 Spearman ;s rank 200 m radius Residential 200 m radius Uncultured vegetation 200 m radius Crops 200 m radius Livestock 200 m radius Greenhouses September r s -.526(**) .130 .084 .621(**) .121 p-value .000 .358 .552 .000 .392 n 52 52 52 52 52 December rs -.317(*) -.142 .189 .468(**) .116 p-value .014 .280 .148 .000 .377 n 60 60 60 60 60 February rs -.317(*) -.142 .189 .468(**) .116 p-value .014 .280 .148 .000 .377 n 60 60 60 60 60 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table F-17: Fluorometer reading correlation to five land use categories within a 100 m Spearman;s rank 100 m radius -Residential 100 m radius -Uncultured vegetation 100 m radius -Crops 100 m radius - Livestock 100 m radius -Greenhouses September rs -.335(*) .283(*) .086 .482(**) -.021 p-value .015 .042 .546 .000 .884 n 52 52 52 52 52 December rs -.192 .182 .061 .314(*) .121 p-value .141 .164 .645 .015 .356 n 60 60 60 60 60 February r s -.192 .182 .061 .314(*) .121 p-value .141 .164 .645 .015 .356 n 60 60 60 60 60 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) 262 Table F-18: Fluorometer reading correlation to five land use categories within a 200 m Spearman;s rank 200 m Fan -Residential 200 m Fan -Uncultured vegetation 200 m Fan-Crops 200 m Fan -Livestock 200 m Fan -Greenhouses September r s -.498(**) .110 .150 .517(**) .099 p-value .000 .442 .293 .000 .489 n 51 51 51 51 51 December rs -.334(**) -.071 .177 424(**) .077 p-value .010 .594 .179 .001 .562 n 59 59 59 59 59 February rs -.334(**) -.071 .177 .424(**) .077 p-value .010 .594 .179 .001 .562 n 59 59 59 59 59 Table F-19: Fluorometer reading correlation to five land use categories within a 500 m fan-shaped well buffer zone in September & December 2003 and February 2004 Spearman;s rank 500 m Fan -Residential 500 m Fan -Uncultured vegetation 500 m Fan-Crops 500 m Fan -Livestock 500 m Fan -Greenhouses September r s -.526(**) .132 .206 .551(**) .103 p-value .000 .357 .148 .000 .470 n 51 51 51 51 51 December rs -.415(**) -.057 .205 .406(**) .086 p-value .001 .667 .119 .001 .519 n 59 59 59 59 59 February rs -.415(**) -.057 .205 .406(**) .086 p-value .001 .667 .119 .001 .519 n 59 59 59 59 59 263 Table F-20: Comparison of Brookswood well chloride concentrations to historical sampJing^ s^^ R i^sin^Kolniogoro Dates September 2003 December 2003 February 2004 August 1993 November 1996 August 1993 Z = .633 P = .818 Z = .615 P = .844 Z = .769 P = .595 November 1996 Z = .442 P = .990 Z = .950 P = .328 Z= 1.009 P = .260 Z = .688 P = .731 February 1997 Z = .800 P = .544 Z = .890 P = .407 Z= 1.042 P = .227 Z = .934 P = .348 Z = .688 P = .731 Sept 2003 Z = .503 P = .962 Z = .737 P = .649 Dec 2003 Z = .597 P = .869 Table F-21: Chloride concentration correlation to percentage of impervious (paved) surfaces within five well buffer zones Buffer Zone Shape Surrounding Well Spearman's rho Sept. 23, 2003 Chloride Dec 3, 2003 Chloride Dec 9,2003 Chloride (mg/L) Feb 10, 2004 Chloride 100 m circle Correlation Coefficient .212 .189 .253 .266 Sig. (2-tailed) .189 .226 .163 .089 N 40 43 32 42 200 m circle Correlation Coefficient .151 .177 .182 .038 Sig. en-tailed) .272 .184 .248 .787 N 55 58 42 54 500 m circle Correlation Coefficient .082 .109 .094 .121 Sig. (2-tailed) .542 .408 .542 .373 N 57 60 44 56 200 m Fan Correlation Coefficient .210 .143 .023 -.047 Sig. (2-tailed) .172 .337 .895 .757 N 44 47 35 46 500 ni Fan Correlation Coefficient -.048 -.047 -.051 .044 Sig. (2-tailed) .730 .727 .744 .747 N 54 57 44 56 264 APPENDIX G SURFACE WATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table G-l: One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normal distribution of stream Stream Para-meters N Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative Kolmogorov -Smirnov Z (2-tailed) P-value Sept Chloride 16 17.8995 22.39213 0.374313 0.374313 -0.33073 1.497253 0.022587 Oct Chloride * 23 8.386652 1.336728 0.210426 0.210426 -0.19128 1.009165 0.260304 Nov Chloride 23 22.96426 73.26782 0.517044 0.517044 -0.40503 2.479657 9.13E-06 Feb Chloride * 23 7.48287 2.324347 0.263674 0.263674 -0.17652 1.264537 0.081673 Mar Chloride * 21 7.258905 1.677765 0.103773 0.091684 -0.10377 0.475548 0.977474 Aug DO 13 7.461538 2.463168 0.230869 0.123814 -0.23087 0.832411 0.492419 Sept DO * 17 8.767647 3.837192 0.184591 0.179387 -0.18459 0.761089 0.608534 Oct DO 23 8.815652 2.58306 0.196324 0.115056 -0.19632 0.941535 0.33799 Nov DO * 23 10.6613 1.427777 0.175081 0.119849 -0.17508 0.839661 0.481159 Feb DO * 23 12.13043 1.19104 0.17504 0.10524 -0.17504 0.839463 0.481465 Mar DO * 22 9.472727 1.44393 0.216937 0.126581 -0.21694 1.017524 0.251687 Aug OP 14 0.233786 0.630759 0.448535 0.448535 -0.36019 1.678264 0.007155 Sept O-P * 18 0.110944 0.203945 0.317456 0.317456 -0.31553 1.34685 0.053137 Oct O-P 25 0.06584 0.06453 0.261632 0.261632 -0.18093 1.308161 0.065255 Nov O-P * 25 0.07496 0.063354 0.240185 0.240185 -0.16797 1.200923 0.111753 Feb O-P * 25 0.03944 0.024194 0.244498 0.244498 -0.16498 1.222489 0.100667 Mar O-P * 23 0.061783 0.08121 0.26547 0.26547 -0.24608 1.273151 0.07818 Aug Nitrate * 14 1.036786 1.375607 0.320302 0.320302 -0.22749 1.198459 0.113082 265 Stream Para-meters N Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative Kolmogorov -Smirnov Z (2-tailed) P-value Sept Nitrate * 18 1.171222 1.524646 0.26297 0.26297 -0.22432 1.115686 0.165806 Oct Nitrate * 25 1.7606 1.261514 0.214782 0.200418 -0.21478 1.073911 0.199008 Nov Nitrate * 25 1.79052 0.672968 0.243754 0.192767 -0.24375 1.218769 0.102511 Feb Nitrate 25 1.83768 1.426993 0.29648 0.29648 -0.23078 1.482398 0.024678 Mar Nitrate * 23 1.000043 0.811034 0.228831 0.228831 -0.14308 1.097434 0.179729 Aug EC 15 387.4 683.1563 0.400729 0.400729 -0.3445 1.552017 0.016174 Aug TDS 15 251.81 444.0516 0.400729 0.400729 -0.3445 1.552017 0.016174 Sept EC * 18 262.1289 139.279 0.302207 0.302207 -0.20083 1.282155 0.074665 Sept TDS* 18 170.3838 90.53133 0.302207 0.302207 -0.20083 1.282155 0.074665 Oct EC * 25 150.756 48.734 0.218145 0.195505 -0.21815 1.090727 0.185071 Oct TDS * 25 97.9914 31.6771 0.218145 0.195505 -0.21815 1.090727 0.185071 Nov EC 25 203.376 351.181 0.468379 0.468379 -0.34994 2.341893 3.45E-05 Nov TDS 25 132.1944 228.2676 0.468379 0.468379 -0.34994 2.341893 3.45E-05 Feb EC 25 125.844 24.01057 0.143721 0.143721 -0.12852 0.718604 0.680084 Feb TDS * 25 81.7986 15.60687 0.143721 0.143721 -0.12852 0.718604 0.680084 Mar EC * 23 147.1826 24.74311 0.09035 0.09035 -0.08908 0.433305 0.991898 Mar TDS * 23 95.6687 16.08302 0.09035 0.09035 -0.08908 0.433305 0.991898 Aug Temp * 15 15.81 2.063129 0.099283 0.084151 -0.09928 0.38452 0.99845 Sept Temp * 19 12.83684 1.184722 0.234705 0.234705 -0.12958 1.023056 0.2461 Oct Temp * 25 10.156 0.65643 0.146818 0.089398 -0.14682 0.734092 0.653984 Nov Temp * 25 5.104 0.882931 0.16705 0.16705 -0.14784 0.83525 0.487995 Feb Temp * 25 5.032 0.545985 0.151764 0.151764 -0.09545 0.758821 0.612338 Mar Temp * 24 10.17083 0.311349 0.125057 0.125057 -0.10248 0.612649 0.847103 2 6 6 Table G-2: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters with five land use ^^^^^^^categoriesforAniderson^ Parameter Spearman's Rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouse Nitrate Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t -.821 .205 .821 .718 - .718 S i g . (2- ta i led) .089 .741 .089 .172 .172 N 5 5 5 5 5 Ortho-phosphate Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - .632 - .105 . 947 ( * ) .632 - .947( * ) S i g . (2- ta i led) .253 .866 .014 .253 .014 N 5 5 5 5 5 Chloride Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - 1 . 0 0 0 ( * * ) .200 .800 .800 - .600 S i g . (2- ta i led) .000 .800 .200 .200 .400 N 4 4 4 4 4 TDS Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - .759( * ) .019 . 871 ( * ) .685 - .796 ( * ) S i g . (2- ta i led) .048 .969 .011 .089 .032 N 7 7 7 7 7 Temp Cor re la t i on C o e f f i c i e n t .019 .150 - .187 - .206 .374 S i g . (2- ta i led) .968 .749 .688 .658 .409 N 7 7 7 7 7 DO Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - .352 - .352 .574 .204 - .426 S i g . (2- ta i led) .439 .439 .178 .661 .341 N 7 7 7 7 7 * * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i cant at the 0.01 l eve l (2- ta i led) . * Co r re l a t i on is s ign i f i can t at the 0.05 leve l (2- ta i led) . Table G-3: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters for Anderson Creek during the dry season Parameters Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp Ortho-phosphate Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - .058 S i g . re-ta i led) .913 N 6 Chloride Cor re l a t i on C o e f f i c i e n t - .100 .872 S i g . re-ta i led) .873 .054 N 5 5 267 Parameters Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp TDS Correlation Coefficient -.029 .986(**) .900(*) Sig. re-tailed) .957 .000 .037 N 6 6 5 Temp Correlation Coefficient .232 .309 .821 -.059 Sig. re-tailed) .658 .551 .089 .880 N 6 6 5 9 DO Correlation Coefficient .600 -.319 -.600 -.176 -.709(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .208 .538 .285 .650 .033 N 6 6 5 9 9 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2 tailed). Table G-4Correlation of six stream water quality parameters with five land use categories for Anderson Creek during the wet season Parameter Spearman's Rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses Nitrate Correlation Coefficient -.035 .185 .360(*) -.284 -.101 Sig. (2-tailed) .850 .318 .047 .122 .589 N 31 31 31 31 31 Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient .282 .021 -.316 .191 .239 Sig. (2-tailed) .124 .911 .084 .302 .195 N 31 31 31 31 31 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -.115 .136 .209 -.068 -.015 Sig. (2-tailed) .537 .466 .258 .718 .935 N 31 31 31 31 31 TDS Correlation Coefficient .077 .067 .025 -.120 -.036 Sig. (2-tailed) .681 .720 .894 .519 .847 N 31 31 31 31 31 Temp Correlation Coefficient .115 .166 .032 -.194 .153 Sig. (2-tailed) .532 .364 .861 .287 .405 N 32 32 32 32 32 268 Parameter Spearman's Rho Residentia Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses DO Correlation Coefficient .097 .264 -.085 -.177 .075 Sig. (2-tailed) .598 .145 .643 .331 .682 N 32 32 32 32 32 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table G-5: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters for Anderson Creek during the wet season Parameter Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient .304 Sig. (2-tailed) .076 N 35 Chloride Correlation Coefficient .773(** ) .428(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .010 N 35 35 TDS Correlation Coefficient .750(** ) .579(**) .791(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 35 35 35 Temp Correlation Coefficient .516(** ) .319 .765(**) .717(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .062 .000 .000 N 35 35 35 35 DO Correlation Coefficient .334(*) -.416(*) -.606(**) -.595(**) -.612(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .050 .013 .000 .000 .000 N 35 35 35 35 36 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 269 Table G-6: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters with five land use Parameter Spearman's rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses Nitrate Correlation Coefficient .700(**) -.334 -.208 -.442 .585(*) Sig. en-tailed) .004 .224 .456 .099 .022 N 15 15 15 15 15 Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient -.776(**) .286 .386 •557(*) -.694(**) Sig. en-tailed) .001 .302 .155 .031 .004 N 15 15 15 15 15 Chloride Correlation Coefficient .143 -.314 .086 .486 .029 Sig. en-tailed) .787 .544 .872 .329 .957 N 6 6 6 6 6 TDS Correlation Coefficient .412 .081 -.067 .060 -.137 Sig. en-tailed) .183 .802 .836 .853 .670 N 12 12 12 12 12 Temp Correlation Coefficient -.640(*) .537 .191 -.022 -.562(*) Sig. en-tailed) .018 .058 .532 .943 .045 N 13 13 13 13 13 DO Correlation Coefficient .675(*) -.111 -.133 -.487 .382 Sig. en-tailed) .011 .719 .665 .092 .198 N 13 13 13 13 13 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 evel (2-tailed). level (2-tailed). 270 Table G-7: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters for the Little Campbell Parameter Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient -.515(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .034 N 17 Chloride Correlation Coefficient .286 -.429 Sig. (2-tailed) .535 .337 N 7 7 TDS Correlation Coefficient .508 -.196 .536 Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .503 .215 N 14 14 7 Temp Correlation Coefficient -.532(*) -.106 .036 -.123 Sig. (2-tailed) .050 .719 .939 .675 N 14 14 7 14 DO Correlation Coefficient .829(**) -.521 .071 .626(*) -.134 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .056 .879 .017 .634 N 14 14 7 14 15 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table G-8: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters with five land use Parameter Spearman's rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses Nitrate Correlation Coefficient -.017 -.069 .054 .232 -.050 Sig. (2-tailed) .924 .688 .755 .173 .773 N 36 36 36 36 36 Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient -.152 -.253 .354(*) .695(**) -.420(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .375 .137 .034 .000 .011 N 36 36 36 36 36 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -.022 -.190 .369(*) .428(**) -.170 Sig. (2-tailed) .900 .268 .027 .009 .322 N 36 36 36 36 36 TDS Correlation Coefficient .091 -.144 .201 .237 .018 Sig. (2-tailed) .597 .402 .240 .163 .916 271 Parameter Spearman's rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses N 36 36 36 36 36 Temp Correlation Coefficient .234 -.059 -.025 -.165 .211 Sig. (2-tailed) .170 .734 .883 .335 .218 N 36 36 36 36 36 DO Correlation Coefficient .502(**) -.258 .076 -.096 .333(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .128 .661 .578 .048 N 36 36 36 36 36 v * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tai ed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table G-9: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters for the Little Campbell River during the wet season Parameter Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient .381(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .015 N 40 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -.019 .519(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .909 .001 N 40 40 TDS Correlation Coefficient -.184 -.061 .072 Sig. (2-tailed) .257 .711 .660 N 40 40 40 Temp Correlation Coefficient -.802(**) -.261 .102 .446(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .103 .531 .004 N 40 40 40 40 DO Correlation Coefficient .520(**) .062 .021 .224 -.258 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .704 .899 .165 .108 N 40 40 40 40 40 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 evel (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 2 7 2 Table G-10: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters with five land use categories for the Little Campbell River tributaries during the dr y season Parameter Spearman's rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses Nitrate Correlation Coefficient .000 .017 -.135 .118 -.051 Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 .966 .729 .762 .897 N 9 9 9 9 9 Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient .025 -.194 -.160 .464 -.700(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .948 .617 .680 .208 .036 N 9 9 9 9 9 Chloride Correlation Coefficient .714 -.771 .314 .543 -.429 Sig. (2-tailed) .111 .072 .544 .266 .397 N 6 6 6 6 6 TDS Correlation Coefficient -.147 -.356 .074 .417 -.233 Sig. (2-tailed) .685 .313 .840 .230 .517 N 10 10 10 10 10 Temp Correlation Coefficient .387 -.227 .166 -.104 -.423 Sig. (2-tailed) .270 .528 .647 .774 .223 N 10 10 10 10 10 DO Correlation Coefficient .003 .114 -.102 -.052 .483 Sig. (2-tailed) .993 .754 .780 .886 .157 N 10 10 10 10 10 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table G - l l : Correlation of six stream water quality parameters for the Little Campbell River tributaries during the dry season Parameter Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp DO Nitrate Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.167 -.086 -.067 -.300 .033 Sig. (2-tailed) .668 .872 .865 .433 .932 N 9 9 6 9 9 9 Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient -.167 1.000 .486 .667(*) .483 -.778(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .668 .329 .050 .187 .014 N 9 9 6 9 9 9 Chloride Correlation Coefficient -.086 .486 1.000 .371 .314 -.029 273 Parameter Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp DO Sig. (2-tailed) .872 .329 .468 .544 .957 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 TDS Correlation Coefficient -.067 .667(*) .371 1.000 .673(*) -.723(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .865 .050 .468 .033 .018 N 9 9 6 10 10 10 Temp Correlation Coefficient -.300 .483 .314 .673(*) 1.000 -.584 Sig. (2-tailed) .433 .187 .544 .033 .077 N 9 9 6 10 10 10 DO Correlation Coefficient .033 -.778(*) -.029 .723(*) -.584 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .932 .014 .957 .018 .077 . N 9 9 6 10 10 10 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table G-12: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters with five land use Parameter Spearman's rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses Nitrate Correlation Coefficient -.281 -.075 .318 -.159 .594(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .194 .735 .139 .469 .003 N 23 23 23 23 23 Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient .423(*) -.058 -.270 .172 -.434(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .045 .793 .213 .432 .039 N 23 23 23 23 23 Chloride Correlation Coefficient .216 .084 .051 -.423(*) .201 Sig. (2-tailed) .321 .703 .817 .045 .357 N 23 23 23 23 23 TDS Correlation Coefficient -.047 -.204 .450(*) -.44 !(*) .626(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .831 .351 .031 .035 .001 N 23 23 23 23 23 Temp Correlation Coefficient .050 -.097 .114 .052 -.027 Sig. (2-tailed) .819 .658 .604 .814 .903 N 23 23 23 23 23 274 Parameter Spearman's rho Residential Park Crops Livestock Greenhouses DO Correlation Coefficient .080 -.096 -.130 .186 -.100 Sig. (2-tailed) .718 .662 .554 .394 .651 N 23 23 23 23 23 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 evel (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table G-13: Correlation of six stream water quality parameters for the Little Campbell River tributaries during the wet season Parameter Spearman's rho Nitrate Ortho-phosphate Chloride TDS Temp Ortho-phosphate Correlation Coefficient -.392 Sig. (2-tailed) .064 N 23 Chloride Correlation Coefficient .207 .367 Sig. (2-tailed) .344 .085 N 23 23 TDS Correlation Coefficient .159 .036 .541(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .470 .872 .008 N 23 23 23 Temp Correlation Coefficient -.016 -.274 -.244 .088 Sig. (2-tailed) .943 .207 .261 .691 N 23 23 23 23 DO Correlation Coefficient -.050 .358 .279 -.127 -.805(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .819 .094 .197 .565 .000 N 23 23 23 23 23 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 275 APPENDIX H MAPS OF PARAMETER CONCENTRATIONS 276 277 Scale =1:60,000 278 Scale = 1:60,000 279 280 281 APPENDIX I BROOKSWOOD AQUIFER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM G R O U N D W A T E R S U R V E Y August 2003 U B C and the Greater Vancouver Regional District are collaborating on a comprehensive groundwater study and we would appreciate your collaboration in filling in this questionnaire. The completion of this questionnaire is voluntary and your response will remain confidential, but your input would significantly improve our understanding of water quality in the area. Please answer by placing an X in the appropriate box or by filling in the space. 1. How many years have you been using your well? serve? Years How many people does your well People 2. How deep is your well? Feet or Metres 3. Do you drink your well water? YES NO SOMETIMES 4. Do you filter your well water? Y E S N O If YES, what kind of filter to you use? 5. Do you treat you water in any other way? 282 Y E S N O If YES, how do you treat your water? | ALWAYS |" ] |OFTEN 1 | SOMETIMES] ] NEVER | 6. Do you drink bottled water at home? 7. Does your well provide sufficient water throughout the year? Y E S N O 8. Are you engaged in: (Please place an X in the boxes that best represent the amount of Occupation Full-time Part-time Never Farming/ Agriculture Other professional service 9. What is your perception of the water quality from your well? |EXCELLENT I GOOD MODERATE | POOR | 10. Do you think an increase in groundwater aquifer use is appropriate? |YES | | | LIMITED USE ONLY | ~ | | NEED MORE INFO | ~~| [NO 11. How important is each of the following activities in causing water quality problems? (Please circle the number that best represents the importance of each activity) STRATEGY Extremely Important Moderately Not appropriate Farming (fertilizer) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Farming (manure) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Farming (chemicals) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Hobby farms 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lawn fertilization 5 4 3 2 1 0 Golf course 5 4 3 2 1 0 management 283 Septic systems 5 4 3 2 1 0 Industrial activities 5 4 3 2 1 0 Aggregate extraction 5 4 3 2 1 0 Other 5 4 3 2 1 0 12. To what extent do you think use of the groundwater aquifer affects the local rivers? IMPACTS Significant Moderate No impact River flow Water quality 13. What type of management approach do you favour? V O L U N T A R Y R E G U L A T I O N A C O M B I N A T I O N 14. How appropriate do you think the following strategies are for managing groundwater resources? (Please circle the number that best represents the importance of each activity) STRATEGY Extremely Important Moderately Not appropriate Restriction on fertilizer use in agriculture 5 4 3 2 1 0 Restrictions on manure applications 5 4 3 2 1 0 Restrict lawn & garden use of chemicals 5 4 3 2 1 0 Introduce septic system monitoring & servicing regulations 5 4 3 2 1 0 Control road runoff 5 4 3 2 1 0 Introduction of a municipal sewer system 5 4 3 2 1 0 Regulate land use 5 4 3 2 1 0 Restrict industrial development 5 4 3 2 1 0 Restrict urban development 5 4 3 2 1 0 Other 5 4 3 2 1 0 15. What type of land use activity occurs within 100 metres of your well? 284 16. Have you had any problems with your well? 17. How often do you test your well? (Please check the appropriate box) Once a Year Every 2 Years Every 3 Years Other Bacteria Chemical 18. Have you had any chemical and bacterial exceedances in your well water? If YES, please explain. Y E S NO 19. Do you have a septic system? If Y E S , how close is your septic system to your well (in metres)? Y E S NO metres 20. When was your septic system installed? Y E A R 21. How often do you service your system? (Please circle the correct response) Once / Year Once / 2 Years Once / 3 Years Once / 5 Years Once /10 Years Never 22. How likely is it that you or someone in your family will suffer the effects of: Highly likely Likely Very Unlikely Natural Disasters (e.g. 5 4 3 2 1 0 flooding/ earthquakes) Air Quality in the Region 5 4 3 2 1 0 285 Pesticide Residue in Air or Water 5 4 3 2 1 0 Downstream Effects of Pollution 5 4 3 2 1 0 Fecal Coliform in Drinking Water 5 4 3 2 1 0 23. How much control do you see yourself as having over any risks posed by the following: No Control Some Much Control Control Natural Disasters (e.g. flooding/ 5 4 3 2 1 0 earthquakes) Air Quality in the Region 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pesticide Residue in Air or Water 5 4 3 2 1 0 Downstream Effects of Pollution 5 4 3 2 1 0 Fecal Coliform in Drinking Water 5 4 3 2 1 0 24. How important are the following as a guide for indicating the quality of your water? Not Import ant Very Import ant Smell / Taste 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cloudiness 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Colour 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Visible abnormalities (e.g. colour change) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Depth of Water Table 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Amount of visible particulate matter in a glass of water 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Local newspaper reports on the quality of nearby bodies of water 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Multiple incidents of gastrointestinal Illness in the community 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Questions 25 to 29 - Circle the answer that you feel is most correct: 25. If you are exposed to even the smallest amount of a water-borne pathogen such as E-coli or Giardia, you are likely to suffer adverse health effects. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 286 26. Your health will not be negatively affected by pesticides unless you are exposed to a lot of the chemical over a long period of time. Agree Disagree 27. A common household filter can eliminate most water quality risks. Agree Disagree 28. People are unnecessarily frightened about very small amounts of contaminants found in groundwater. Agree Disagree 29. On the whole, the risks to human health posed by water quality problems are far greater than the risks posed to the local fish, flora and fauna. Agree Disagree In order to arrive at a sustainable use of groundwater resources.... 30. What do you think you can do as an individual? 31. What should the municipality do to improve the situation? 32. What actions are needed by the provincial and federal governments? Please provide us with your preferred contact information: Name: Telephone^ or E-mail: Well location (address or approximate cross-roads) 287 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0063323/manifest

Comment

Related Items