Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An evaluation of the state of nitrate/nitrogen contamination of the Abbotsford-Sumas acquifer Ryan, Patrick J. 1994

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0232.pdf [ 8.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087439.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087439-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087439-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087439-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087439-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087439-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087439-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087439-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087439.ris

Full Text

AN EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF NITRATE / NITROGEN CONTAMINATION OF THE ABBOTSFORD-SUMAS AQUIFER by Patrick J Ryan Bachelor of Engineering (Hons.) (Civil) University of Melbourne, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES We accept this degree as conforming to the required standard April 1994 Patrick J Ryan, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of / f e U ? £ / ^ / ^ y ^ a ^ ^ ^ / ~*&S £ t t s , w * * * ' The University of British Columbia J+v^s-e^? . Vancouver, Canada Date 2^ /)/>"'/ /7?fr ^ DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This thesis concerns groundwater quality with a detailed study of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer and the high nitrate-nitrogen values that have been occurring for the past 20 or so years. Groundwater is becoming an increasingly scarce resource, both in terms of quantity and quality, worldwide. Aquifers are generally poorly understood, dynamic and are an integral part of the hydrological cycle. Aquifer contamination by land use activities threatens their utility as potable sources of water. The literature suggests that one useful measure of the effects of land use on water contamination is nitrate-nitrogen. This substance may be traced to such activities as agricultural practices and septic systems, two major concerns in the area above the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer in southwestern British Columbia. The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer was examined in detail with a review of the history, geology, hydrogeology, stakeholders, groundwater use and the current identified contamination. Based on the hydrogeology and land use of the aquifer, a representative study area was selected as a case study. With a focus on nitrate-nitrogen the principle objectives were: to determine land use effects on groundwater contamination, assess the contributions of various nitrogen sources and assess the overall impact of intensive land use on the groundwater contamination. This was investigated by a temporal land use evaluation, a nitrogen / nitrate balance and a review of water quality changes. The major land use change in the study area over the period 1969 to 1992 has been the increase in land used for raspberry production which now accounts for over half of the study area. The nitrogen balance revealed a large quantity of nitrogen unaccounted for which is potentially available for leaching. The predominate source of this excess nitrogen is attributed to the high levels of poultry manure fertilizer applied to the soils supporting raspberry crops. Calculations of the nitrogen sources suggest over 90 percent of the excess nitrogen comes from this source. ii This was well above the other nitrogen sources such as mineralisation, aerial deposition, septic systems, corn crops and pasture land. Although a minor overall nitrogen source, septic tanks appeared to have the potential for high local loadings of nitrate-nitrogen. The water quality data showed increases in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater over the last 40 years. Seventy percent of the water samples showed nitrate-nitrogen values above the Canadian Drinking Water Guideline maximum value allowed in drinking water. The data however displayed significant variability. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Acknowledgements viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer 3 1.2 Objectives of Thesis 7 Chapter 2 Water Resources and the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer 9 2.1) Water Resources 9 2.2) Hydrological Cycle 13 2.3) Aquifer Terminology and Types 14 2.4) Groundwater Contamination 18 2.5) Nitrogen Cycle and Nitrates 32 Chapter 3 Environmental Setting of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer 39 3.1) History 39 3.2) Geology 41 3.3) Hydrogeology 44 3.4) Stakeholders and Responsible Authorities 47 3.5) Aquifer Use 50 3.6) Aquifer Contamination 51 Chapter 4 Methods / Analysis 52 4.1) Selection of the Study Area 53 4.2) Detailed Study Area Land Use 58 4.3) Nitrogen / Nitrate Assessment 60 4.4) Groundwater Data 74 4.5) Limitations of Data 77 Chapter 5 Results and Discussion 79 5.1) Land Use 79 5.2) Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance 87 5.3) Water Quality 107 5.4) Land Use, Water Quality and Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance 123 iv Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1) Thesis Results 6.2) Land Use, Water Quality and Nitrogen 6.3) Present and Future Implications 6.4) A Workable Management Option Reference List Appendix 3.4.1 Chronology of Major Events Appendix 5.1.1 Study Area - Property Data Base Appendix 5.3.1 Study Area - Groundwater Data Study Area Map Set v LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1.1 Sources of Land Use Information 55 Table 4.3.1 House Size versus Number of Bedrooms 64 Table 4.3.2 Home Average Septic Tank Flows 64 Table 4.3.3 Picker Cabin Average Septic Tank Flows 65 Table 4.3.4 Church Average Septic Tank Flow 66 Table 4.3.5 Septic Tank Flow Assumptions 67 Table 4.4.1 Aquifer Water Quality Sources 76 Table 5.1.1 Study Area Land Use Change 82 Table 5.1.2 Study Area 1992 Land Use Change 86 Table 5.2.1 Septic Tank Numbers and Flow Rates 90 Table 5.2.2 Land Fertilized and Inorganic Fertilizer Rates 96 Table 5.2.3 Study Area Poultry Manure Production 98 Table 5.3.4 Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance 105 VI LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1.1 Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer 6 Figure 2.1.1 Groundwater Use Across Canada 10 Figure 2.1.2 Estimated 1981 Provincial Groundwater Use 11 Figure 2.2.1 The Hydrological Cycle 13 Figure 2.3.1 Aquifer Terminology 14 Figure 2.3.2 Aquifer Flow Terminology 16 Figure 2.4.1 Waste Discharge for Disposal / Treatment 20 Figure 2.4.2 Storage or Dumping of Potential Contaminants 22 Figure 2.4.3 Transport of Potential Contaminants 25 Figure 2.4.4 Contamination as a Result of Other Activities 27 Figure 2.4.5 Accidental Contamination Conduits and Overpumping 29 Figure 2.5.1 The Nitrogen Cycle 33 Figure 2.5.2 Septic Tank System 37 Figure 3.2.1 Fraser Lowland 41 Figure 3.3.2 Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Geology 43 Figure 3.3.1 Typical Aquifer Cross section & Recharge Mechanism 45 Figure 3.4.1 Responsible Authorities and Main Players 49 Figure 4.2.1 Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Groundwater Flow Net 56 Figure 4.2.2 Study Area 57 Figure 4.3.1 Study Area Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis 61 Figure 4.3.2 Land Use and Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis Methodology 62 Figure 5.1.1 Study Area Land Use Change-Raspberry Crops 83 Figure 5.1.2 Study Area Land Use Change-Homes and Other Buildings 84 Figure 5.2.1 Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis 88 Figure 5.2.2 Study Area Net Nitrogen Loading 106 Figure 5.3.1 Nitrate - Nitrogen Values 110 Figure 5.3.2 Long Term Well Records 111 Figure 5.3.3 Study Area Water Quality Breakup Zones 112 Figure 5.3.4 Northwest Section 1 114 Figure 5.3.5 Northwest Section 1-Well 308 115 Figure 5.3.6 Northeast Section 2 116 Figure 5.3.7 Southwest Section 3 117 Figure 5.3.8 Southwest Section 3-Well 233 118 Figure 5.3.9 AC Research Station 119 Figure 5.3.10 AC Research Station - Approximate Well Locations 120 Figure 5.3.11 Southeast Section 4 121 Figure 5.3.12 Southeast Section 4-Well 249 122 vii "In the entire water pollution problem, there is nothing more disturbing than the threat of widespread contamination of groundwater" Rachel Carson, Silent Spring. 1962 Acknowledgements First and foremost to Karin, whom I met before I started this Degree and married before I finished. Thank you for your love, support and help throughout this epic. Secondly, to Dr. Les Lavkulich for starting me on this degree and for his encouragement, advice and commendable work as my advisor. Thirdly, to the Aussie connections, John and Marie Ryan, Mick, Terry, Chris and Tim for their love, support and interest. Fourthly, to Heinrich and Paula Raschke, Theresia Rieder and Silvia for welcoming me into the fold. Lastly, thanks to the RMS gang, especially Sue, for making this a load of fun (most of the time!). "In our opinion, the problems of groundwater contamination will soon eclipse those of surface water contamination. This will be the Canadian aquatic resource issue of the twenty first century." M.CHealey, R.R.Wallace, "Canadian Aquatic Resources", 1987 viii Chapter 1 Introduction Compared with much of the world Canada is a nation richly supplied with water with large lakes, rivers and wetlands. Despite this abundance of surface water one of the important sources of water used by over a quarter of all Canadians is groundwater. This ranges from complete reliance on groundwater in Prince Edward Island to insignificant groundwater use in the Northwest Territories. In British Columbia approximately a fifth of the provinces population relies on groundwater, (EC 1990 No.5). This water supply is not without its problems as indicated by the book "Silent Spring" by Carson (1962) which made water contamination problems, including groundwater, a public issue. This has led to considerable work on the study of groundwater, aquifers and groundwater protection programs in the United States. This has happened much later and to a lesser degree in Canada. To this date the Province of British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not have any groundwater legislation. One of the most well known and publicized aquifers in British Columbia is the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is the largest aquifer in the Lower Fraser Valley and a valuable source of groundwater in both British Columbia, Canada, and Washington, United States, (see Figure 1.1.1). This water is used for industrial, agricultural, municipal and domestic purposes. The aquifer is roughly equal in areal extent in the two countries although the groundwater flow is mostly south into the United States from Canada, (Liebscher et al. 1992, Gartner Lee 1992). This water has been documented as being contaminated with nitrate as well as trace levels of a variety of pesticides. High nitrate levels are potentially lethal to infant children, and some adults, while slightly lower levels may affect the health and normal development of infants, (MoH Health Files 1990; OECD 1986). The effect on human health of long term exposure to low levels of a variety of pesticides is unknown and of concern, (Coon 1987; Cogger & MacConnell 1991). 1 This thesis provides an overview of water resources with a focus on groundwater, groundwater contamination and the contaminent nitrate. Following this is a review of the environmental setting of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. This framework leads to a land use and nitrogen / nitrate analysis in a representative study area of the aquifer. 2 1.1 The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer In 1986 the Washington township of Lynden, south of the Canadian - United States border, drilled test wells to tap into the large quantity of groundwater available in the area. As surface water rights are totally allocated, the only source of water for any new development is from groundwater. Water quality tests of this new water supply showed the water failed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State water quality standards. This source of fresh water turned out to be contaminated with high levels of nitrates and trace levels of pesticides, (Liebscher et al. 1992; Blake 1992; Silvas 1993). The source of the contamination appeared to be from across the border in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. The issue was brought to the attention of Canadian External Affairs who then contacted Environment Canada (EC). Adding legal weight to this issue was a 1909 Boundary Water's Treaty which could be applied to shared water resources, (Liebscher 1992; DoEA and DoNANR Feb. 1964). As early as the mid 1950's, Halstead of the Hydrological Survey of Canada expressed concern over improperly handled sewage from septic tanks and farmyard activities which he indicated could be impacting on groundwater quality, (Armstrong 1984; Halstead 1986). In 1984, Armstrong, the major expert on geology in the Fraser Valley, warned of the potential pollution of groundwater supplies unless proper disposal of sewage and waste were undertaken, (Armstrong 1984). The British Columbia Ministry of Environment, now Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MoELP) have written several reports on nitrate problems within the aquifer and suggested probable causes, (Kwong 1986; Kohut 1987, 1990; Zimmerman 1990, 1991). Since 1986 many government departments, both federal and provincial, industry and universities have been involved in research into the aquifer. Committees have been formed, reports written, newer committees formed and old committees dissolved. 3 Public groups have also become involved, mostly over health issue concerns. Much of this reached a climax in 1991 and 1992 with the identification of a possible neurological disease dubbed SCIDS (Scomatic Chemically Induced Dysfunction Syndrome) in the Fraser Valley, (Sweeting 1992; Beyak 1991; Wigod 1991). A 1992 Environment Canada report confirmed high levels of nitrates and trace levels of at least 12 pesticides in sampled wells in the aquifer, with at least one above United States standards, (Liebscher et al. 1992). The provincial response was an epidemiology study on one aspect of the SCIDS issue, which appears to have led to general studies on groundwater quality in the Fraser Valley and establishment of a community environmental health committee, (MoH News Release May 1992; Project Enviro-Health 1993; Gartner Lee 1993; Gartner Lee 1992; Mathias & Archibald 1992). The most recent report on the aquifer found trace levels of 15 pesticides and some volatile organic compounds, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993, Gartner Lee 1993). The groundwater, or aquifer, of concern is the 200 km2 aquifer that straddles the Canadian - United States border, (See Figure 1.1.1). Approximately half of the aquifer lies in the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia, predominately in the District of Matsqui and partially in the bordering District of Abbotsford. It is the largest aquifer in the Lower Fraser Valley and is commonly referred to as the Abbotsford Aquifer. The United States portion of the aquifer lies in Whatcom County in the State of Washington and is called the Sumas Aquifer, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993; Liebscher et al. 1992; Armstrong 1986; Geological Survey of Canada 1980). The aquifer lies in the Fraser Valley adjacent to the Fraser River and underlies the largest area of quality agricultural soils in the province and country. Sixty percent of the province's poultry industry is located on or near the aquifer. The area is also a prime raspberry growing region utilising the poultry waste. Apart from the urban areas (20 percent) at the north end of the aquifer, several industries lie on or near the aquifer, the most significant being a fish hatchery, (Liebscher et al. 1992). 4 The aquifer, formed by shallow glacial marine deposits, is a shallow unconfined aquifer recharged by precipitation and surface water flow. Although there is some uncertainty over the flow regimes and direction in Canada, it is believed that the aquifer flows primarily south into the United States, (Liebscher et al. 1992; Kohut 1987; Gartner Lee 1992). The aquifer comes under the jurisdiction of many government authorities but no overall management strategies are in place. At present British Columbia is the only province in Canada (and one of the few States or Provinces in North America) without groundwater legislation. Groundwater extraction is also totally unregulated, (Foweraker et al. 1993; BC State of the Environment Report 1993; Kohut Feb. 1993a; MoELP 1993 No. 1). Draft groundwater legislation is anticipated to be released sometime in 1994 as part of the provincial rewrite of its water legislation and policy, (Kohut 1993b; MoELP 1993; MoELP 1993 No. 1). Literature on groundwater indicates that a shallow unconfined aquifer is very prone to contamination by a large number of substances from a wide variety of surface activities, (Cherry 1987; Kohut 1992). Up to now only segmented studies have been done on the aquifer mostly on the contamination by nitrogen and pesticides. 5 ON 1.2 Objectives of Thesis This thesis focuses on an understanding of the relationship between land use, nitrogen loadings and nitrate concentrations in groundwater of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. As a background to the case study or study area research, this thesis will address the issue within the following framework: 1) A brief review of water resources with a focus on groundwater and groundwater contamination. 2) A review of the environmental setting of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. The case study chosen for this thesis uses a representative study area to achieve the following objectives: i) Determine land use effects on potential groundwater contamination by nitrogen / nitrate. ii) Assess the contributions of various nitrogen sources in a nitrogen / nitrate balance. iii) Assess the overall impact of intensive land use on nitrogen / nitrate contamination. Much is known about selected groundwater contaminants such as nitrates and some of their potential sources (eg. farming and septic tanks) but little is known about the overall range of sources and potential loadings that the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is prone to, or currently suffering from. Also unknown is the carrying capacity of the aquifer land base to deal with the range and quantity of contaminants. One of the major problems with the aquifer is the consistently high nitrate levels in the groundwater which have developed over the last 40 years. Nitrates, aside from health concerns, can serve as a good indicator of susceptibility to contamination. Research to date has concentrated mostly on water analysis with less emphasis on the sources of inputs of nitrogen. 7 A representative study area was chosen for detailed analysis of the complex environmental features and the temporal scale of land use activities. The study area provides an attempt to understand the general conditions affecting nitrogen / nitrate and the aquifer but does not pretend to solve the nitrate contamination problems perceived to be at issue. The study also attempts to identify a possible management scenario that may lead to mitigation of the problem. 8 Chapter 2 Water Resources and the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Prior to investigating the more detailed aspects of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer it is useful to look at water resources from a global and regional perspective. This will be achieved through a brief literature review of general water resources, the hydrological cycle, aquifer terminology and types of aquifers. A more extensive review of literature on groundwater contamination will follow. 2.1 Water Resources World Water Resources The world's supply of water is contained within the hydrosphere which is water of the Earth including surface, ground and atmospheric water. Various estimates have been made as to the quantity of this water. Most estimates are in the order of 1.5 hundred million kilometres3 (150,000,000 km3) with 2 to 3 percent of this total comprising freshwater, (Lvovich 1971; Nace 1967; Baumgartner 1975; Laycock 1987). More recent estimates indicate fresh water makes up 2.5 percent of the total world water supply of which 68.4 percent of the fresh water is groundwater, (EC 1990 No.2 & No.5). Fresh water that is available for human use in lakes, stream channels, swamps, and groundwater is around 0.05 percent of total fresh water, (United Nations 1978b). Overall, on a global scale as identified by Saha (1981), water supplies are available in sufficient quantities for human use and consumption but problems arise when looking at the temporal and spacial distribution of this water. 9 Canadian Water Resources Canada is a nation richly supplied with water, ranking third among nations in river flow, first in water availability per person which is estimated to be twice that of any other country, (Laycock 1987; Healey et al. 1987). Lake cover ranks Canada first with nearly 8 percent of the country covered and with the inclusion of wetlands increases this figure to 20 percent. Canadians on average withdraw only two percent and consume one percent of the available fresh water in Canada, (Pearse et al. 1985). Groundwater, across Canada in 1981, was utilised by 26 percent of the population (or 6,000,000 people). The use by individual provinces is shown in Figure 2.1.1 and varies from complete reliance on groundwater in Prince Edward Island (100 percent) to minor use in the Northwest Territories (one percent). The uses of groundwater across Canada are shown in Figure 2.1.2, (EC 1990 No.5). Percentage of population reliant on groundwater, 1981 64% Nova Scotia 45% Figure 2.1.1 Groundwater Use Across Canada (Reproduced from Environment Canada Water Fact Sheet No. 5) 10 P.E.I. Nfld. N.W.T.Yukon Industrial Agricultural Rural Municipal * ^ Figure 2.1.2 Estimated 1981 Provincial Groundwater Use (Reproduced from Environment Canada Water Fact Sheet No. 5) On the Canadian West Coast, water supply is closely associated with precipitation, which is in excess of 1000 mm per year, indicating a very large and abundant source of renewable water supply, (Hydrological Atlas of Canada 1978; Pearse et al. 1985; Laycock 1987). Water supply can basically be maintained by present day precipitation. Despite this, groundwater is utilized by 600,000 people (or 22 percent) of the British Columbia population (Foweraker 1993). This is approximately 12 percent (630,000,000 L/day) of water use in the province, (APEBC 1985; Foweraker et al. 1993) Overall, Canada uses a small fraction of its immense water resource but national trends can disguise important regional and local exceptions. The most serious problems, however, appear to arise from degraded water quality and disrupted flow regimes (Pearse et al. 1985). In Canada, there appears to be a relatively large amount of information about surface water but information on the quality and quantity of much of the groundwater in Canada is lacking (Pearse et al. 1985). 11 Canadian Water Consumption A brief review of literature on water use quickly reveals that Canadians use and waste large quantities of water. Only the United States, on average, uses more. Compared to Europeans, Canadians use twice as much water (Brooks et al. 1988; Environment Canada 1990). This may in part be due to the large quantities available to Canadians . In British Columbia, water use is higher than the Canadian and United States average. This may be a reflection of the price of water being the lowest in Canada. Currently there is a recognition of economically inefficient pricing leading to undervaluing water and subsequent overuse (McNeill 1991; Pearse et al. 1991; Brooks et al. 1988). The price of water is also not covering the costs of administering water to meet the province's increasing demands, (MoELP 1993). 12 2.2 Hydrological Cvcle To understand water contamination, an understanding of the movement of water through the hydrological cycle is required. This is the process whereby water moves between the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and through the ground in a continuous cycle, (Ponce 1989; Healey et al. 1987; Hamblin 1989), (see Figure 2.2.1). Of note is literature on renewal or turnover times of water estimated to be as much as 5,000 years for ground water compared with 3,000 for the oceans and much smaller times for other water sources (Lvovich 1971). Figure 2.2.1 The Hydrological Cvcle (Reproduced from Environment Canada Water Fact Sheet No. 5) Basically groundwater is part of a dynamic interconnected system, thus activities in other parts of the cycle can affect groundwater. This indicates that no one water source is independent from the rest. Also, in some situations, groundwater can be considered a nonrenewable resource due to the large renewal times. 13 2.3 Aquifer Terminology and Types Groundwater is water occupying openings, cavities and spaces in rocks and unconsolidated sediments. There are two main sources, juvenile water which rises from a deep magmatic source and meteoric water which is due to rainfall entering the ground. The technical definition of an aquifer is a water bearing bed or strata due to porosity or permeability, (Whitten et al. 1985). A more accepted definition for an aquifer is a geologic formation that is permeable enough for useful or economic water well yields, low yield formations are called aquicludes or more commonly aquitards, (Freeze & Cherry 1979). There are two basic types of aquifers, one being a confined aquifer and the other being an unconfined aquifer. The confined aquifer is an aquifer overlain by a geological layer which is relatively impermeable. Generally these aquifers are deep and pressurised and may have unconfined aquifers above. An unconfined or water table aquifer has no impermeable layer above and is usually shallow and open to infiltration from the surface (Wei 1993; Freeze & Cherry 1979; Pearse et al. 1985), (see Figure 2.3.1). Pressure Head of Confined Aquifer Water Table Impermeable Layer Confined Aquifer . « • i ' i ' « i Figure 2.3.1 Aquifer Terminology 14 An unconfined aquifer has two major zones, the saturated zone and the unsaturated zone. The top of the saturated zone forms the water table, above which is a small layer of saturated material called the capillary fringe or tension saturated zone. This is where water is held above the water table by surface tension on the materials individual grains. Above the capillary fringe is the remaining aerated unsaturated zone, (Wei 1993; Bowen 1986; Freeze & Cherry 1979). Shallow aquifers that are less than 50-100 m deep generally contain fresh water with deeper aquifers generally containing higher natural dissolved constituents making them unsuitable for human consumption (Cherry 1987). Aquifer flow is dependent on the type of liquid flowing (generally water) and the medium it is flowing through. A good approximation for the specific discharge (Flow per unit area) comes from Darcy's Law. This is an empirical equation that shows the relationship between flow and the liquid, material, hydraulic head (energy available to liquid) and distance travelled. v=Q/A=-kdH/dl v = specific discharge Q = inflow rate (volume per unit time) A = area of flow H = head difference 1 = length of flow k = hydraulic conductivity - high for sands and gravels, low for silts and clays This formula applies to flow in one direction in a homogeneous isotropic (same material and same properties in each direction) material. For more complex situations such as heterogeneous and anisotropic materials (different material and different properties in each direction), flow can be looked at in three different axis with varying values of hydraulic conductivity. Darcy's law begins to break down as flows move from laminar or smooth to turbulent or rough, (Wei 1993; Freeze & Cherry 1979). 15 A basic tool for calculating laminar groundwater flow are flow nets where hydraulic head is drawn (equipotential lines) with flow lines indicating flow directions. The area between the flow lines is called a stream tube to which Darcy's Law may be applied. Important assumptions are made about the boundary conditions which affect the groundwater flow, such as aquifer edges and discharge areas. Both Darcy's Law and flow nets provide the basis for modelling of groundwater, (Wei 1993; Freeze & Cherry 1979), (see Figure 2.3.2). Hydraulic Head, (hi > h2 > h3) Figure 2.3.2 Aquifer Flow Terminology 16 Flow of contaminates occur in four main ways; advection, dispersion, diffusion and retardation, (Freeze et al. 1993, Freeze and Cherry 1979). * Advection is where the contaminant is moved along by the flow of the groundwater. * Dispersion is hydraulic mixing and spreading of the contaminant due to local variations in groundwater flow velocity. * Diffusion is where the contaminant moves from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentration. * Retardation or reaction is transport due to geochemical and / or biochemical processes. Contaminants in groundwater move at varying speeds dependent upon the aquifer type. Unconfined sand or gravel aquifers are most susceptible to contamination due to shallow water tables and high hydraulic conductivity. Rates of groundwater flow can be between 0.1 m/day to 3 m/day in sand and gravel, (Mackay et al. 1985; Cherry 1987). 17 2.4 Groundwater Contamination In North America contamination of groundwater, and water in general, became a public issue after the work of Carson (1962). Following that publication considerable work resulted in the United States, and to a lesser degree in Canada, on contamination of aquifers and groundwater in general. This has been partly a response to increased public attention to contamination problems which has led to development of groundwater protection programs in the United States at all levels of government (EPA 1990; King County 1986). An extensive overview of groundwater contamination in the United States has been compiled, and a brief overview for Canada is also available (Beak 1986; Pye et al. 1983). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a Citizens Guide to Groundwater Protection which also lists groundwater contamination sources. A similar guide is available in Canada, 'The Groundwater Pollution Primer', from a non-government group, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. Some of the most progressive action and high public profile of groundwater issues come from the Maritimes (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, New Foundland and Price Edward Island) mostly through the work of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, (Gorrie 1992; Edgett & Coon 1986; Coon 1987). Generally the sources of groundwater contamination in Canada are similar to the United States and Europe, although the relative importance of the sources can vary, (Cherry 1987). The Federal Water Policy document of Environment Canada summarises groundwater contamination problems in Canada as pesticide contamination in the East, leaking chemical dumps in central Canada and subsurface waste disposal and toxic chemical spills in the West (Pearse et al. 1985). 18 A good breakdown of potential contamination sources comes from the United States EPA which has divided contamination sources and activities into groups according to the nature of the release, (Palmquist 1991; EPA 1989; Patrick et al. 1987; King County 1986). These are as follows: Group 1) Waste Discharge on/into the Ground for Disposal/Treatment, Group 2) Storage or Dumping of Potential Contaminants, Group 3) Transport of Potential Contaminants, Group 4) Contamination as a Result of other Activities and Group 5) Accidental Contamination Conduits and Overpumping. A sixth category which can be used is the discharge of naturally occurring contaminates which is created or exacerbated by human activity, the most common example being overpumping in coastal areas which draws in salt water. 19 Group 1) Waste Discharge on/into the Ground for Disposal/Treatment. This group includes such common activities as land application of wastewater and sludge and discharge to septic tanks or fields. Remediation of these depends upon bacteriological treatment that would occur naturally in good soil types. In the United States, this group is cited as causing the most groundwater contamination, (Figure 2.4.1). Land Appl icat ion of Wastewater or Sludge Wastewater Figure 2.4.1 Waste Discharge for Disposal / Treatment (Reproduced from Ground Water Resource Protection, 1986 and Palmquist, 1991) Septic Tanks Septic tanks and cesspools in the United States are the most commonly reported causes of groundwater contamination. It is estimated that nearly 60 percent of all septic tanks in the United States are not operating satisfactorily, (Canter & Knox 1985). High densities of septic tank systems have led to groundwater contamination in many areas of the United States. Attention has been given generally to bacterial, viral and nitrate contamination, although other contaminants are now becoming important, (Carter et al. 1985). 20 A study of raw domestic sewage in the United States showed the presence of many hazardous volatile organic compounds (EPA 1985). This has resulted in a list of common household products and their toxic or hazardous components (EPA 1990). One important consideration with this source is its cumulative nature. Although a relatively small contaminant source, there is potential for large scale contamination due to the large number of septic tanks, (Freeze & Cherry 1987). Above the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer septic fields are a major concern as only 20 percent of the aquifer (on the Canadian side) comprises urban areas with sewerage service, (Gartner Lee 1992). The aquifer generally has a free draining shallow soil layer overlying gravel and sands, so effluent treatment is limited, thus enabling contaminants to enter the groundwater. Very permeable and shallow soil enables effluent to flow too quickly, resulting in insufficient time for biological treatment, (Scalf et al 1977; Canter & Knox, 1985). Canadian guidelines for septic fields only require a minimum drainage time all year round and do not consider fast drainage a problem. This type of failure has largely been ignored until recently and is considered of more significance than the typical septic tank failure where effluent flows to the surface, (Scalf et al. 1977). Animal Waste Farming practices rely on field application of manure waste to dispose of excess waste which can cause or contribute to contamination problems. Application of manure during the winter when no crop is actively utilizing nutrients from the manure adds to the potential contamination problem, (OECD 1986; Dakin 1991). In British Columbia this practice may now have been reduced or eliminated by new agricultural guidelines established in 1992 for poultry farming, (MoAFF 1992). However contamination from previous years could still be in the groundwater until contaminants breakdown or are flushed through the aquifer, (APEBC 1985; Dakin 1991). 21 Group 2) Storage or Dumping of Potential Contaminants This group of potential contaminants is reasonably obvious and includes storage facilities like fuel tanks, lagoons, waste piles, stockpiles and disposal facilities such as landfills. With a thin soil layer there is practically no protection for an unconfined aquifer, (Figure 2.4.2). Waste Pile Figure 2.4.2 Storage or Dumping of Potential Contaminants (Reproduced from Ground Water Resource Protection, 1986 and Palmquist, 1991) Petroleum Products and Underground Storage Tanks Review of literature indicates a potentially large problem which has been ignored until recently. Petroleum products, while not very soluble in water, contain toxic components that will dissolve to a limited degree in water. Examples are toluene and benzene (a carcinogen) which are considered hazardous contaminants by the United States EPA, (Sittig 1985; Cherry 1987; APEBC 1989). A small quantity of a petroleum product has the capacity to contaminate large quantities of water with one litre of petrol able to contaminate one million litres of water. Using the United States recommended limit for benzene of 5 /ig/L, one litre of United States petrol with 2 percent benzene, can contaminate 4 million litres of water, (APEBC 1989; Beak 1986; Cherry 1987). To protect human health a zero concentration level is preferable, (Sittig 1985). 22 Canada has approximately 200,000 underground storage tanks of which 70,000 are for retail petroleum outlets. The remainder are owned by industry and private users. In limited surveys conducted in Canada, 20 to 25 percent of the tanks were found to be leaking, (Cherry 1987). The United States EPA estimates that 10 percent of the underground fuel tanks are leaking, although studies from the State of Maine indicate that up to half of all underground petrol tanks leak after 15 years, (Maine Department of the Environment 1985; Cherry 1987; Edgett & Coon 1986). With up to 60,000 underground storage tanks in British Columbia there is potential for similar problems. In 1988 it was estimated that 125 to 250 tanks of these storage tanks were leaking petrol, 500 to 2000 abandoned tanks could leak heating oil and 50 to 200 tanks were leaking other toxic chemicals, (APEBC 1989). Storage Lagoons As with landfills, storage lagoons have the potential to leach and have been recognised as a major source of groundwater contamination, (Devinny & Lu 1990). Two lagoon associated problems are known to have impacted the aquifer, one in the United States and one in Canada. The United States lagoon problem is due to a poorly constructed large effluent lagoon for a dairy farm which is currently being studied by the Washington Department of Ecology, (Abbotsford-Sumas International Task Force, Field Trip, July 20, 1993). The Canadian example relates to a sludge lagoon which, apparently, temporarily stored waste until it leaked into the groundwater. From discussions with MoELP staff this was currently being investigated, (MoELP Personal Communication, 1992). 23 Manure Dumps Manure stored uncovered on a farm can easily leach contaminants such as nitrates, (Freeze & Cherry 1979; MoAFF 1992). Manure storage piles were considered a large problem on the aquifer but new poultry waste guidelines have supposedly altered practices. However the effects of old practices may still be impacting the groundwater, (Sands 1991; MoAFF 1992). Landfills Disposal of waste by burial has provided potent sources of groundwater contamination as many items in the past, which are now considered hazardous, were disposed of in landfills. Both the construction and operation of these facilities often failed to allow for contaminant movement, (Devinny and Lu 1990; Freeze et al. 1993). Leachate that is produced from a landfill can be more polluted than sewage effluent and can contain every conceivable organic and inorganic material, (Freeze et al. 1993). With this in mind landfills should be built in low permeability soils or sealed artificially, as well as have the leachate treated, (Stegman 1992). 24 Group 3) Transport of Potential Contaminants This group includes the transport of contaminants by pipelines, rail, road and other forms of transport. This includes such common examples as sewer systems and spillage from road accidents, (Figure 2.4.3). Surface Spills Figure 2.4.3 Transport of Potential Contaminants (Reproduced from Ground Water Resource Protection, 1986 and Palmquist, 1991) Sewer Systems Sanitary and storm sewers can leak due to their design, age, tree roots, poor construction and differential settling, (Patrick et al. 1987; Cherry 1987). With roughly 20 percent of the aquifer in British Columbia covered by serviced urban areas this could be a definite source of contamination. This need not only be sewerage but also a wide range of toxic compounds due to common misuse of sewer systems compounded by a general lack of suitable disposal facilities for toxic chemicals, (EPA 1985). N 25 Pipelines General pipeline leaks at chemical plants have been responsible for many examples of groundwater contamination such as the PCB contamination above the Regina Aquifer in 1976, (Cherry 1987; Gorrie 1992). The extent of plants and related pipelines above the aquifer area are unknown at present. Transport Routes Transport routes by rail and road have enormous potential for contamination and almost routinely result in chemical releases to the environment, (Freeze et al. 1993; Devinny & Lu 1990). The Trans Canada Highway and rail links pass over the aquifer. A local example occurred in Fort Langley, British Columbia in 1986, when several tanker cars from a train derailed spilling over 200,000 litres of ethylene dichloride (EDC), a suspected carcinogen, and 70,000 litres of sodium hydroxide. The cleanup, which may continue indefinitely, has produced controversy over how it was initially conducted and the degree of risk to the public. An air stripping process was adopted that sent low concentrations of EDC down into the Fraser Valley, (MoELP Waste Management Files; Sittig 1985; Foweraker et al. 1993). From discussions with University Endowment Land Fire Prevention Officers, the realm of hazardous material response is still developing in British Columbia and emergency services are generally unable to take fast action to prevent groundwater contamination from large chemical spills or fires, (University Endowment Lands Fire Department 1992). Thus the potential exists for a large chemical spill to contaminate the groundwater and render the water supply unfit for any use. 26 Group 4) Contamination as a Result of other Activities This group of sources involves contamination from such activities as agricultural fertilizing and chemical use, irrigation, animal feedlots, urban runoff and mining activities, (Figure 2.4.4). Agricultural Chemical Irrigation Animal Feedlot Mine Urban Runoff Drainage Figure 2.4.4 Contamination as a Result of Other Activities (Reproduced from Ground Water Resource Protection, 1986 and Palmquist, 1991) Agriculture This source is one of the most recognized and obvious and was brought to widespread public attention by Carson (1962). Contamination of groundwater, particularly by nitrate from organic and inorganic fertilizer and pesticide residue, is widespread in the United States. Due to this, changes in farming practices and regulations are being instituted, (Bouwer, 1990; Jones & Bostian 1990). This range of contamination sources was only recently seriously investigated in Canada (Dakin 1981). The problems can be exacerbated by activities such as irrigation which result in more water being applied to the surface thereby increasing the potential for leaching, (Pye et al. 1983). Pesticide use in the berry industry in the Fraser Valley is fairly extensive and appears to be poorly managed and carelessly carried out, (CFU 1992). 27 Urban Runoff A newly identified source of contamination is urban sprawl through poor methods of disposal of household products and overutilization of pesticide and fertilizers on gardens and lawns. According to the United States EPA, homeowners can use up to four to six times more pesticide per acre than farmers. Storm water runoff is a major carrier of contaminants which can include untreated pet manure, automobile deposits (including petroleum and oils) and road salt. Road salt chemicals in particular have the ability to cause groundwater contamination as well as other damage, (D'ltri 1992; King County 1986; EPA 1990; Coon 1987). In addition, urea application on airport runways can result in nitrate contamination, (Freeze et al. 1993). Airborne Pollution Rainfall can contain polluting materials and compounds (usually acids) which leach into the groundwater as well as cause leaching of metals such as aluminium, lead and cadmium from the soil, (Coon 1987; State of the Environment Report for British Columbia 1993). The Lower Fraser River Basin has numerous sources of air pollution, mostly from automobiles and other sources of transportation. The bulk of these air contaminant loadings originate in the Greater Vancouver Region and move up the Fraser Valley over the aquifer. There can however be high local loadings Ammonium due to fertilizer volitilization, (SoE 92-1). 28 Group 5) Accidental Contamination Conduits and Overpumping Accidental contamination refers to any activity that can cause a break in the surface or aquifer base strata and allow direct contamination, or pumping induced contamination. Conduits can easily occur at poorly constructed wells, excavated areas and gravel pits. This effectively removes the soil's ability to breakdown or trap contaminants. Overpumping can alter watertable levels and induce recharge by contaminated water, (Patrick et al. 1987; King County 1986; Figure 2.4.5). Water Supply Well Figure 2.4.5 Accidental Contamination Conduits and Overpumping (Reproduced from Ground Water Resource Protection, 1986 and Palmquist, 1991) 29 Chemical Contaminants Of the contaminants that impact groundwater, the least understood and fastest growing type of contaminants are human made chemicals. First publicly identified by Carson in the 1960's, chemical contaminants represent a great threat to groundwater (and other water sources), (Carson 1962; Freeze & Cherry 1979). In 1977 the number of human made compounds totalled nearly 2 million with an annual increase of 250,000 new formulations of which 300 to 500 reach production, (Freeze & Cherry 1979). In 1987 it was estimated that there were 100,000 distinct compounds in commercial use with 1000 new chemicals being introduced each year. 1000 of these were basic pesticide ingredients which were available in more than 30,000 commercial formulations (Cote 1991). One of the recently introduced types of chemicals, first developed in the 1940's, is the halogenated organic chemicals which are widely used in industry. Commonly referred to as DNAPL's (Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquids) many of them are considered hazardous to human health. These chemicals are denser than water and insoluble but can dissolve sufficiently into water to produce unacceptable levels of contamination. If these chemicals enter an aquifer they settle to the bottom of the aquifer contaminating the groundwater as they go and continuously while they remain there. This makes clean up a very difficult if not impossible process, (Cherry 1987; Feenstra 1982; Schwille 1984; Villaume 1985). A sobering thought is that the variety of human made compounds entering and accumulating in our water resources has outpaced our ability to monitor and understand the results on humans and the ecosystem (Healey 1987). 30 An Indicator of Contamination A shallow unconfined aquifer, such as the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer, is susceptible to contamination from a wide variety of contaminants from a wide variety of sources. The dynamic nature of the land use and wide variety of potential contaminants used above the aquifer would make monitoring for these contaminants difficult if not impossible. For this reason, monitoring of one contaminant or chemical can provide an indication of potential susceptabilty to contamination. A good contaminant to monitor is nitrate, a soluble form of nitrogen, which is a simple inorganic ion, very mobile and easy to measure, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993). Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (N03) is by far the most common contaminant in groundwater, (Freeze & Cherry 1979). It is also the most documented and long term contaminate in the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer with concentrations consistently above the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (CDWG), (Liebscher et al. 1992; Gartner Lee 1992). Nitrate contamination can result from any of the five listed sources. Examples are: Group 1) Septic Tanks and Animal Waste, Group 2) Storage Lagoons, Manure Dumps and Landfills, Group 3) Sewer Systems, Group 4) Agricultural Activities, Urban Runoff and Airborne Pollution and Group 5) Contamination Conduits such as Gravel Pits. 31 2.5 Nitrogen Cycle and Nitrates Nitrogen Cycle An understanding of the nitrogen cycle enables a better understanding of nitrate contamination. The nitrogen cycle is the interaction of the various forms of nitrogen in soils, plants, animals and the atmosphere. The basic nitrogen cycle is shown in Figure 2.5.1. The final products only are shown as the chemical equations are quite complex. Nitrogen in the soil is broken up into two basic forms, organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen. Organic nitrogen is nitrogen tied up as organic matter while inorganic nitrogen comprises nitrate (N03) and ammonium (NH4+). The conversion of organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen with nitrate as the final product is called mineralisation while the reverse reaction is called immobilisation, (Brady 1990; Freeze & Cherry 1979). Nitrates Nitrates, because of their negative charge, are not held readily in the soil which is generally negatively charged. The relative mobility of nitrates and ease of detection can provide an early indicator of susceptibility to contamination from surface activities, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993). In addition to direct nitrate movement into groundwater another more indirect form of leaching is other forms of nitrogen moving through the soil zone, such as ammonia dissolved in percolating water, which through nitrification can form nitrates, (Dakin 1991). Concentrations of nitrate are generally expressed in milligrams of nitrogen as nitrate per litre of water, (mg/L (N03"-N)), (although it can be expressed as milligrams of nitrate ion (N03) per litre of water (mg/L N03"). This thesis will use mg/L (N03"-N) as this measure provides ready comparison with other forms of nitrogen. The Canadian Drinking Water guideline for maximum nitrate concentrations in water is 10 mg/L (N03-N), (or 45 mg/L N03), (H&WC 1989). 32 Nitrogen Sources Crop Removal f Nitrogen j I Rxation J Organic N Ammonia NH3 (Ammonium NH4+) (5 Decomposition Ammonium NH4+ (^Adsorption Nitrification N03" *i*J*i*l*t*7*!*i*3*3*3*3*3*3*: *:*!*:*;*: ' • » " V » y » " y ' . . yyy «. w • - V " W ''•»«• ^&&&&&^&Ground Water K g g g g j ^ K g j - ^ • ^ • s ^ . W t o V ^ i ^ i V M ^ i V ^ . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . Ji>t*t>i^i>i*t*:>i>i^i%i>i>?>i% *3*3*3*i*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*!*3*P*3*3*3*3*3*3*f*3*3*3*3*--,'-*3*3*f*-*'-'m-'m-'m-,--'--m-Figure 2.5.1 The Nitrogen Cycle (Adapted from Freeze & Cheny 1979, Brady 1990) 33 Health Concerns Health concerns over nitrates revolve around two issues, methaemoglobinaemia and cancer, and both result from a nitrate product, nitrite. Methaemoglobinaemia or "blue baby syndrome" can occur in infants due the formation of nitrite (N02) from nitrate which can inhibit oxygen uptake by the bloodstream. In some cases this can result in an infant turning blue, anoxia, and in extreme cases, death. Concentrations in water for this condition have generally been accepted as over 20 mg/L (N03"-N), although a few cases have been reported below 11 mg/L (N03-N), (OECD 1986; Addiscott et al. 1991). Ten mg/L (N03"-N) appears to be the maximum concentration limit for which no health effects are observed. This value, which is the Canadian Drinking Water Guideline maximum, appears to leave little margin for safety, (Sittig 1985; H&WC 1989). Concern has also been expressed over the effects of non-acute levels of nitrates on the health and normal development of infants, (OECD 1986). While much of the literature focuses on infants, it is also possible for some non-infants to also be seriously affected by high levels of nitrates, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993). Cancer concerns occur over the conversion of nitrate to N-nitroso compounds such as nitrosamines. N-nitroso compounds have been shown to be cariogenic in a wide variety of animal species, although considerable uncertainty, and differing opinions, exist over the degree of risk to humans, (OECD 1986; Addiscott et al. 1991; Hill 1991; Sittig 1986). 34 Major Nitrate Sources Septic Tank System The basic components of a septic tank system are a septic tank which is connected by a distribution box to a drainage tile field, (see Figure 2.5.2). The septic tank itself provides some storage of household waste with baffles to collect solids, oils and greases while discharging a sewage effluent waste. The sewage effluent is then distributed amongst the tile field, which consists of perforated pipes set in gravel filled trenches. This is designed to distribute the sewage effluent into the surrounding soils for natural biological treatment and disposal, (Canter & Knox 1985; MoH Health Act; Sewage Disposal Regulation, BC Reg. 411/85, O.C. 2398/85). The septic tank design size is based on the number of people loading the system which for houses is based on the number of bedrooms. This gives an estimate of the tank size required and flow rate which is discharged into the tile field. The size of the tile field is dependent upon the permeability of the soil in which it is placed and the discharge flow rate, (MoH Health Act, Sewage Disposal Regulation, BC Reg. 411/85, O.C. 2398/85). Nitrogen, in effluent, comprises 80 percent inorganic nitrogen, mostly ammonium (NH4+), with the remainder being organic nitrogen, (Kristiansen 1981; Walker et al. 1973a; Robertson et al. 1991). The septic tank itself provides anaerobic conditions (no oxygen) which assist organic nitrogen being converted to ammonium but does not allow nitrification to occur and hence nitrate concentrations are low. Once the effluent leaves the tile field in a sandy and hence free draining soil (assumed a good approximation to the shallow and well draining study area soils) predominately aerobic reactions occur allowing nitrification. Up to 80 percent or more of the ammonium (NH4+) can be removed from the effluent resulting in increases in nitrate, (Canter & Knox, 1985; Robertson et al. 1991). However this is dependent upon soil type, percolation rate, loading rate, distance to impervious strata and distance to groundwater, (Peavy, 1978 in Canter & Knox, 1985). 35 An aerated sandy soil is likely to allow complete nitrification of the ammonium in the effluent. It also appears that once nitrates are produced in a sand, the only way to lower their concentration is by dilution with uncontaminated groundwater, (Walker et al. 1973b). This is because denitrification requires anaerobic conditions and a suitable energy source which is generally not available in sandy soils, (Canter & Knox 1985; Kristiansen 1981). One of the best estimates of nitrate in a typical family septic tank for a sandy soil comes from studies on a shallow unconfined sand aquifer in Ontario, Canada, using an exceptionally well detailed groundwater monitoring network. This gave a value of 33 mg/L N03"-N at the plume origin at the groundwater surface, (Robertson et al. 1991). Other literature with values on groundwater impacted by nitrates are difficult to find, however earlier studies have shown values that were similar to 33 mg/L N03"-N with a range from 10-50 mg/L N03-N, (Walker et al. 1973; Robertson et al. 1991). 36 Septic Tank Tile field Sept ic Tank System - Layout Production Pretreatment Disposal Evapotranspiration iTile field CZ> Soil Absoption Septic Tank J Biological Treatment I Water Table I l i l L Polluted Groundwater Septic Tank System - Efflent Flow Figure 2.5.2 Septic Tank System 37 Agricultural Crop Production Nitrogen is essential to the growth of plants and one of the basic constituents of cells. Nitrogen, mostly in the form of nitrates, has the greatest effect on increasing crop growth for most crops, especially cereal crops and can also have beneficial effects on crop quality. For these reasons nitrogen is added either as a organic or inorganic fertilizer to crops. Organic fertilizer, such as poultry manure in the Fraser Valley, is often a waste product produced on a small area and requiring disposal. Inorganic fertilizer however has the advantage of providing nitrates at a more predictable and controlled rate compared to organic fertilizer, although the potential leaching is greater. Generally the price of fertilizer is low enough compared with other inputs for crop production, that adding fertilizer is cost effective, (Addiscott et al. 1991; Dakin 1991; Brady 1990; OECD 1986). Aside from fertilizer applications, other farming activities can affect the potential for leaching of nitrates, such as ploughing and cultivation of the soil which can increase mineralisation and nitrification while decreasing denitrification. Also crop residue worked into the soil, cropless periods and irrigation (or rainfall) can allow for nitrates to leach, (Addiscott et al. 1991; OECD 1986). 38 Chapter 3 Environmental Setting of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer This section introduces the environmental setting, geology and hydrogeology of the aquifer to enable an understanding of the physical nature of the aquifer. This is followed by a brief review of stakeholders and responsible authorities, aquifer use and a review of currently identified contamination. 3.1 Background The Lower Fraser Valley region contains one of the province's largest rivers, the Fraser River, and some of Canada's most important agricultural land. Although only accounting for 7 percent of British Columbia's prime agricultural land, the climate and access to markets allow it to produce at least 55 percent of the dollar value of provincial agricultural production. This does not include the associated agricultural industries such as food processing, (Moore 1990). Over 50 percent of the provinces population and industry are in or near the Lower Fraser Valley. This figure is growing as a result of the increasing growth rate of the region, the highest in Canada, (Moore 1990). Over 80 percent of the eggs, poultry, berries and dairy products consumed in the Lower Mainland are produced in the Central Fraser Valley (DoM 1991). The province's largest poultry population is located on the aquifer and the area is also a prime raspberry growing region utilising poultry waste, (Liebscher et al. 1992). 39 The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is the largest aquifer in the Lower Fraser Valley and provides all or part of the drinking water supplies for nearly 100,000 Canadians and 10,000 Americans as well as base flow for tributary streams of the Fraser, Nooksack and Sumas Rivers, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993). From field trips, both guided and unguided, the United States portion of the aquifer appears to have larger scale farming with an emphasis on dairy farming and berry production. Whatcom County has the largest dairy industry in Washington State and ranks 10th largest in the United States. Whatcom County also produces 70 percent of the raspberries in the State which is the United States's leading raspberry producer, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force Field Trip, July 20, 1993). Now a publicly recognised resource management problem, the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer has been documented as suffering from contamination by high levels of nitrates and trace levels of at least 15 pesticides (with at least one above United States standards and four above guidelines set for Canadian freshwater aquatic life), (State of the Environment Report for B.C. 1992; Liebscher et al. 1992, Gartner Lee 1993, Abbotsford Aquifer International Task Force 1993). 40 3.2 Geology An understanding of the geology of the Abbotsford region provides an indication of the aquifer boundaries and the type of aquifer. The aquifer lies in the Fraser Lowland or Lower Fraser Valley which is bordered by the Coast, Cascade and Chuckanut mountain ranges and the Strait of Georgia. These mountains are dissected by deep U shaped glacial valleys, (Armstrong 1984), (see Figure 3.2.1). Figure 3.2.1 Fraser Lowland (adapted from Armstrong 1984) The Lower Fraser Valley geology represents an area of repeated periods of glaciation (Fraser, Semiahoo & Westlynn Glaciation) and nonglaciated (Olympia & Highbury Nonglacial) intervals. As glaciers formed, they extended and eroded a path to the sea. This was followed by ice buildup over the whole area up to depths of 1800 m. As the ice melted and the glacier retreated, various deposits of rocks, gravels and sands were laid down. Through repeated glaciations, with resultant erosion and deposition, the present complex geology of the valley was formed. The Fraser Lowland geology consists of roughly 5 percent bedrock (at or near the Surface) and 95 percent Quaternary deposits, (Armstrong 1984). 41 The aquifer consists of the deposits of sand and gravel left from these retreating glaciers which are part of the Holocene, or post- glacial period that followed the Fraser glaciation. These deposits are referred to as the Sumas Drift and contain recessional glaciolfluvial deposits of sand and gravel up to 70 m thick with an average depth of 5-30 m, (Liebscher et al. 1992; Halstead 1986; Gartner Lee 1992; Easterbrook 1976, 1973). Bounding this is pre-Tertiary bedrock to the northeast, poorly drained Holocene Salish sediments (swamp, bog and shallow lake deposits) to the west and Pleistocene glaciomarine deposits (marine sediments and minor till) to the north. These form part of the Fort Langley formation (Surficial Geology Map 1485A; Ott 1985; Kohut 1987; Hora & Basham 1980; Armstrong 1980), (see Figure 3.2.2). The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is basically stratified porous gravel and sand and bounded by bedrock, swamp and clay filled gravel and sand. Overlying the aquifer is a thin layer of good quality soil (predominately eolian deposits) which explains the immense agricultural use in the district but also the increased potential for contamination, (Dakin 1991, Luttmerding 1980). The aquifer is shallow and unconfined which, according to much of the available literature, indicates that it is very susceptible to contamination from surface activities particularly as recharge is through rainfall or surface flow, (Cherry 1987; Liebscher et al. 1992; State of the Environment Report for B.C. 1992). 42 Figure 3.2.2 Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Geology (Adapted from Liebscher et al. 1992) 43 3.3 Hydrogeologv Recharge of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer occurs by three means, (Gartner Lee 1992; Liebscher et al. 1992; Environment Canada 1993), (see Figure 3.3.1): 1) Rainfall The average rainfall in the region is 1486 mm/year (1562 mm/year including snowfall) of which 70 percent falls between October and March. The thin and well drained soil layer enables the precipitation to easily percolate through the soil to the groundwater. 2) Surface Runoff Closely linked with rainfall, the aquifer is partially recharged by runoff from higher areas with less permeable surficial geology. This indicates that areas outside the aquifer boundary can have an impact on groundwater quality. 3) Fishtrap Creek Fishtrap Creek is one of the major creeks running across the western side of the aquifer. During low rainfall periods the creek recharges part of the aquifer due to a low watertable while the creek is recharged by the aquifer during high rainfall periods and a high watertable. Although there is considerable uncertainty about exact flow regimes and direction, it is believed that the aquifer flows primarily south into the United States. Once south of the border the flow then fans out with most of the flow moving in a southwesterly direction. There is some flow in a easterly direction toward the Sumas Prairie Lowlands which is partially influenced by drawdown from the major industrial, municipal and town wells lying in the east of the aquifer. A small flow occurs in a northerly direction but is poorly documented. Flow velocities are thought to be anything from 4 to 450 m per year, (Liebscher et al. 1992; Kohut 1987). 44 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /X> Rainfa" NX, C c 1500 mm/year > - - * (75 % between October & March) Fishtrap Creek Surface Runoff Recharge Mechanisms Thin Soil (Eolian Deposits) Layer _ — .Water Table ± 3 m . \> 5-30 m (Average) 70 m (Maximum) Flow 4 - 4 5 0 m/year Clay Base Stratified Gravels and Sands Figure 3.3.1 Typical Aquifer Cross Section & Recharge Mechanism 45 Aquifer in Relation to Regional Environment The aquifer fits into the regional environment as follows, (GVRD 1992; Oke 1973; Steyn 1992): Pacific climate weather patterns, moving up or down the coast, generally move up the Fraser Valley as a result of the topography. The Pacific climate is generally warm rainy winters and dry cool summers. Water from rainfall enters the aquifer by the three methods described above and then flows generally south into the United States where it enters the local streams and rivers eventually flowing to the ocean. The northerly portion of the Canadian flow enters into the Fraser River and the easterly flow into the Sumas Prairie where flows via the Sumas River into the Fraser River. The easterly flow is influenced by the large capacity wells which draw groundwater into the urban and rural water system. Some of this flow is then disposed of in the storm and sewer system and discharged into the Fraser River. Through urban uses and septic tanks some of this water would be expected to recharge the aquifer. 46 3.4 Stakeholders and Responsible Authorities On both sides of the border, responsibility for the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is somewhat confusing and unclear with no one governing agency having complete jurisdiction over the aquifer. Figure 3.4.1 shows the major players, both government and non-government, concerned with the aquifer issues on both sides of the border. Appendix 3.4.1 shows the recent timeline of the main events concerning the aquifer. Canadian involvement by the federal government began in the 1950's with some recognition of pollution problems and sources with some work by provincial authorities. It was only in 1986 when test wells in Lynden (United States) found unacceptable water quality, that action seriously began, (Liebscher May 1992; Blake 1992; Silvas 1993). MoELP has written several reports and conducted sampling on groundwater in the aquifer as well as several other Fraser Valley aquifers, (Kwong 1986; Kohut et al. 1989). The Federal response to the United States concern over the aquifer was a study and report by Environment Canada which documented nitrate and pesticide contamination up to 1990, (Liebscher et al. 1992). Further research and reports are pending. Of note is a epidemiological study conducted in response to public concern over a variety of illnesses in the Lower Fraser Valley. This was used to refute the health concerns in the area. As a response to the media coverage and public concern over water quality and health problems in the Lower Fraser Valley (mostly centred around the aquifer) the MoH commissioned a Fraser Valley Groundwater / Drinking Water Study. This study compiled most of the available water quality data (aquifer locations, quality and landuse) and produced a potential risk map. The study was done with very tight timelines requiring the consultant to be very selective about the amount and type of data collected. Some culling of data was done for pre 1980 water quality samples and Water Quality Check Program (WQCP) samples under 1 mg/L (N03-N), (Gartner Lee 1992). 47 This study appeared to have caused the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to release guidelines for farming practices partly aimed at reducing groundwater pollution. Also following recommendations in the study, a new Fraser Valley Groundwater Monitoring Program (FVGMP) was established. This was a high profile $ 500,000 program designed as an expansion of existing groundwater monitoring programs, (MoH News Release may 21 1992, 119:094). This was to entail several phases starting with testing of a range of community and private wells either two or four times a year, (FVGMP, Request for Proposal Jan. 26, 1993). The first phase of the Program was severely restricted from its original scope, due to time and budget constraints, to only one testing of the wells. Some 25 wells were not tested as they were either abandoned, winterised or had nonworking pumps, (Gartner Lee 1993). Current government activities have focused on the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force, established in November, 1992. This was formed by the British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council as a MoELP initiative, (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council Meeting Minutes, Oct. 1, 1992, Seattle). The Task force recently completed its first status report which concluded there was no crisis in the current state of the aquifer, allowing time for a proactive role to be taken with longterm strategies developed, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993). 48 P R O V I N C I A L •MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS & PARKS •MINISTRY OF HEALTH •MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD MUNICIPAL •DISTRICT OF ABBOTSFORD •DISTRICT OF MATSQUI •CENTRAL FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT OTHER CLEARBROOK WATER DISTRICT CENTRAL FRASER VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP •PROJECT ENVIRO HEALTH POULTRY GROWERS ASSOCIATION SOIL CONSERVATION SOCIETY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FEDERAL •ENVIRONMENT CANADA •AGRICULTURE CANADA •HEALTH 6 WELFARE CANADA F I R S T NATIONS •STOtLO NATION OTHER •LYNDEN TOWNSHIP NOOKSACK TOWNSHIP EVERSON TOWNSHIP SUMAS TOWNSHIP WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY -COOPERATION EXTENSION SERVICE COUHTY •WHATCOM COUNTY FIRST NATIONS •NOOKSACK INDIAN NATION •LUMMI INDIAN NATION FEDERAL •U.S. E.P.A. •U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE •U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE STATE •WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY •WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH •WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Figure 3.4.1 Responsible Authorities and Main Players (* Member of Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force) 49 3.5 Aquifer Use In the Fraser Valley, there are in excess of 10,000 wells from which in 1987, 46 million m3 of water was estimated to have been used. This involved municipal use (33.3 percent), domestic wells in rural areas (17.2 percent), industrial (3.5 percent), aquaculture (31.4 percent) and irrigation (9.9 percent), (Piteau Associates 1990). Approximately 98,000 people in British Columbia and 9,800 people in the United States rely partially or totally on water from the aquifer, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993). The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer supplies water to the Municipality of Abbotsford, Clearbrook Water Board and backup supply to the Dewdney-Allouette Regional District, which supplies the District of Matsqui, (Lagan 1992; DoM 1991). From field inspection and a review of council utility records, households in the south western Matsqui region have groundwater wells as their water supply. The aquifer also supplies water for the United States towns of Nooksack, Sumas, two US rural water associations and industrial, agricultural and household users through private wells on both sides of the border, (Clearbrook Water District Water Key Plan W R-6 1992; DoA 1980; Lagan 1992; Silvas 1993). 50 3.6 Aquifer Contamination A lot is known on selected contaminants and some of their possible sources but very little is research has been undertaken for the overall range of contaminants and contamination sources that the aquifer is prone to or currently suffering from. Also, in relation to this is a lack of information and research relating land use changes to water quality problems. Nitrogen Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines state maximum allowable levels of nitrates in drinking water to be 10 mg/L as nitrate - nitrogen (N03"-N). In studies by Environment Canada and Washington State authorities, 60 percent of wells had concentrations above 10 mg/L (N03"-N) and 20 percent above 20 mg/L (N03~-N). Sources have been identified as septic tanks and animal waste, particularly from chicken manure which is used as raspberry fertilizer (Dakin 1991; Kwong 1986; Kohut et al. 1989, Liebscher et al. 1992). Pesticides Since 1984 Environment Canada, The National Hydraulic Research Institute and Agriculture Canada have been evaluating the distribution of a number of pesticides in the aquifer, particulary DCP (1,2 and 1,3 dichloropropane) which have been found in concentrations exceeding United States EPA limits, (Dakin 1991). Up to the present, 15 pesticides have been detected in the wells on the aquifer. Some of these pesticides are not covered by the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, (Liebscher et al. 1992, H&WC 1989). In addition, due to different assumptions, the allowed Canadian and United States maximum concentration levels for a public water system can differ by as much as factor of 20, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993; Liebscher et al. 1992). It is unknown what the pesticide levels have been in the last two years as recent Environment Canada data is not available to the public. Other Volatile organic compounds have also been detected in the aquifer although information on this is limited, (Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force 1993, Gartner Lee 1993). 51 Chapter 4 Methods / Analysis From the previous sections it can be seen that the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is an important water source for municipal, industrial and domestic use. The land use above the Aquifer is complex and varied ranging from urban to industrial to intensive agricultural use. These potentially expose the groundwater to an equally varied range of contaminants. To assess the state of contamination of the Aquifer, one contaminant, which represents a variety of sources was selected for study. This contaminant was nitrate. Nitrate can also serve as an indicator of other potential groundwater pollution. A study area representative of the Aquifer land use, was chosen to enable sufficient detail of the research and to make use of other research and studies on the Aquifer. The thesis methods and analysis enabled the following objectives to be addressed for the study area: 1 ) To determine the effect of land use on potential groundwater contamination by nitrogen / nitrate. 2 ) To assess the contributions of various nitrogen sources in a nitrogen / nitrate balance. 3 ) To assess the overall impact of intensive land use on nitrogen / nitrate contamination. The next section begins with the selection of the study area and is followed by the sequence of steps taken to achieve the objectives, including compilation of water quality data. It is concluded with brief comments on the reliability of the data. 52 4.1 Selection of the Study Area In order to assess the potential sources of nitrate contamination and to identify potential impacts, a case study area was selected. This study area was chosen to represent the major land uses and to be representative of the hydrologic and geologic attributes of the aquifer. The work of Liebscher et al. (1992) defined flow in the southern portion of the aquifer which enabled delineation of a hydrogeologic area, (see Figure 4.1.1). The detailed study area was based on a unidirectional flow from an urban - rural interface. This appears to be consistent with other work done on groundwater flow for the aquifer, (Gartner Lee 1992). The northern edge of the study area was selected on the criterion of non-urban (non-sewered) to urban (sewered) land use and was bordered by Marshall Road and Highway 1, (see Figure 4.1.2), (DoM Sanitary Key Plan Maps Q6 and Q7, Aug 1992). Townline Road was selected as the western boundary, as this makes a good boundary to the more complex hydrogeology in and south of the Abbotsford Airport. The work of Ott (1975) indicated a seasonal variation of groundwater flow around the Airport for which there is limited documentation, (Ott 1985). The boundary to the east was based roughly upon the groundwater flow grid and made use of property boundaries and roads. All the boundaries were kept as straight lines to aid calculations on land use impacts. The District of Matsqui has developed a digital (ie Computer Based) GIS (Geographic Information Systems) map from a scale of 1:2000 for the GIS programs AutoCad and Arclnfo. Although this GIS information database was available, the various scales of information and the objectives of this thesis made paper prints a more appropriate medium to use. The DoM GIS system did allow a set of base maps to be produced at any desired scale to enable documentation of the land use. A scale of 1:10,000 was chosen because of its suitability in terms of the accuracy of the available data and convenience of size. This enabled the detailed land use and nitrate investigation to be undertaken readily. 53 In order to obtain an appreciation of land use change over time, three time periods were selected. 1969 and 1981 were chosen to make use of previous research by Schreier from UBC on land under raspberry production, (Schreier 1983). 1980 aerial photographs were used to cover fringe areas not covered by the 1981 photo set. The Current Land use period was based on 1990 1:2000 Orthographic Photos upgraded by field inspection to show 1992/3 land use, (see Table 4.1.1). 54 Year 1969 1969 1980 1981 1981 1990 1992/93 1960's -1992 1992 Source Aerial Photographs Black/White Photos Berry Cultivation Land Use Maps* Aerial Photographs Colour Photos Aerial Photographs Colour Photos Berry Cultivation Land Use Maps* Orthographic Photographs Field Inspections Building Records Limited Agricultural Data Scale 1:12,000 (approx.) 1:25,000 1:6000 1:10,000 1:25,000 1:2,000 Reference Project 37/6912, Lower Fraser Valley Project - Water Resources Branch BC 5317 No.s 41-> 46, 85->90, 195-> 197. March 10, 1969 (UBC-Schreier 1983) OP 05/80 Clearbrook Abbotsford May, 1980 BCC 235 No.s 75, 77, 103, 105, 128 & 130. Integrated Resources Photography (Now Selkirk Remote Sensing) June 24, 1981 IRP2389NO. 6-> 10,27->32 (UBC-Schreier 1983) District of Matsqui, Planning Department District of Matsqui, Building Department SPFG, BCFOA " Information obtained from 1:10,000 and 1:12,000 aerial photographs and field inspection. Table 4.1.1 Sources of Land Use Information 55 Figure 4.1.1 Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Groundwater Flow Net (adapted from Liebscher et al. 1992) 56 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON U.S.A. Figure 4.1.2 Study Area 57 4.2 Detailed Study Area Land Use Previous Land Use. 1969 and 1981 Land use maps for 1969 and 1981 were prepared by air photographic interpretation and use of District of Matsqui (DoM) building records. The work of Schreier (1983) was used as a separate check, see Table 4.1.1). For the objectives of the study the land uses were broken into: - Raspberry Crops (including other berry crops) - Natural forest, (woodlot and wetlands) - Other Land Uses Quarries and other intensive, site specific land uses were also shown along with houses and larger farm buildings. Current Land Use. 1992 The current land use analysis was far more detailed than the previous 1969 and 1981 analysis due to the larger scale of the Orthographic Photographs (1:2,000) and the ability to do field inspection. Land Use was broken up in a similar although expanded manner to the previous time periods: - Raspberry Crops (including other berries) - Vegetable and Other Fruit Crops (Corn, Cole, Orchard & Mixed) - Pasture Land - Natural or Abandoned Land 58 Following land use mapping by air photo interpretation, field inspections were carried out to confirm land use. The field work was conducted using 1:4,000 DoM House Number Maps, which primarily functioned as a property address map for the District of Matsqui, (DoM House Assessment Roll Plan, Maps 05,6,7, P5,6,7, Q6,7 Aug 1992). Where necessary, and possible, land owners were used to confirm land or building use, (Contact with local owners was kept to the minimum possible with the majority of involvement at a Municipal level). In identifying building use, particular attention was paid to poultry farms, dairy farms and farm workers accommodations, predominately pickers cabins. Following completion of the Land Use Maps, a digital planimeter was used to calculate the areas of land used for each of the four land use categories in 1992 and for raspberry crops in 1969 and 1982. 59 4.3 Nitrogen / Nitrate Assessment The nitrogen assessment work is based on the major inputs, processes and outputs for the study area, (see Figure 4.3.1). Sources of nitrate loading were obtained from relevant literature, land use maps, and available data and research, (see Figure 4.3.2 and Chapter 3). The main nitrogen loadings and processes are listed below: - Septic Tanks - Homes - Pickers Cabins - Other - Agriculture - Raspberry Crops - Vegetable and Other Fruit Crops -Other - Natural Mineralisation - Aerial Deposition - Denitrification Using this information and nitrogen outputs, a nitrogen/ nitrate balance was calculated to determine the potential nitrogen available for leaching into the groundwater. 60 Aerial Deposition Agricultural Activities Vegetable and Other .Pasture Mortalities (Animals) Fruit Crops Raspberry Crops Other (Household Activities, Rubbish Dumps, Urban Runoff, Sewer Leakage, etc.) Septic tanks Crops Mineralisation f j Nitrification ]^ y ^ ~ X ] Nitrates in Soil j DenitrificationL „N2 Leaching to Groundwater - • 1 • * . • « _ • • > • Oytpyi* l lf l i /«.f i / l iy l i j l<.f l iV l i /«^ l i i^,»y l i j l i j , Figure 4.3.1 Study Area Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis 61 Other Research, Studies & Literature Septic Tank Data Base Agricultural Activities Septic tanks Aerial Deposition C Not Included J (Household Activities, Rubbish Dumps, Urban Runoff, Sewer Leakage, etc.) Crops Other Research, Studies & Literature Leaching to Groundwater Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance 0 Figure 4.3.2 Land Use and Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis Methodology 62 Septic Tanks In order to calculate nitrogen / nitrate loadings to the system, a compilation of the various septic tank disposal systems was carried out. A combination of municipal building records and field inspection were used to construct a combination property use and septic tank data base. This also had an additional benefit of identifying building use, some land uses and many associated problems on properties such as fires and illegal homes. Generally the building records had information only on properties from the early sixties. The property street number was used as a consistent reference for the data base, (DoM House Assessment Roll Plan, Maps 05,6 & 7, P5,6,7, Q6 & 7). Every property with a street number was listed with the exception of current new property development in the late 1993 period. To avoid potential concerns about privacy and the display of personal information, the addresses from the data base are not included. The detailed septic tank information came from the MoH "Application for a Permit to Construct a Sewage Disposal System" included with the DoM building files, (MoH, HLTH 135, REV 91/12). This form included the septic tank size, disposal field size and flow for many of the properties with homes or other buildings requiring a septic tank built since 1970. Homes For some older homes either a final inspection certificate was available or a building permit with the number of bedrooms or house size which enabled septic tank information to be derived. From discussions with DoM Building permit staff it was possible to accurately estimate the number of bedrooms of a home from the house size which determines the septic tank size and flow, (District of Matsqui Building Permit Staff Aug. 1993; MoH Health Act, Sewage Disposal Regulation, BC Reg. 411/85, O.C. 2398/85). The relationship between house size and number of bedrooms derived from this analysis is given in Table 4.3.1. 63 House Size (Square feet) & No. of Bedrooms (br.) < 1000 ft.2 - 2br. 1000 - 1200 ft.2 - 2 or 3 br. 1200 - 1400 ft.2 - 3 br. > 1400 ft.2 - 4 or more br. Note: Units are those of original documentation lm2 = 10.76 ft.2 Table 4.3.1 House Size versus Number of Bedrooms The above values were assessed to be a close approximation to those observed and verified in the field. To obtain estimates of the missing septic tank flows for the homes, the average flow for the existing homes in the 1969 time periods and new homes in the next two time periods, were calculated. These values are shown in Table 4.3.2 and are derived from Appendix 5.1.1. Home Flow No. of New Septic Tanks Average Flow (Flow -H- No. of Septic Tanks) Average Flow Used Pre 1969 17250 g/day 60 288 g/day 290 g/day 1981 40450 g/day 130 311 g/day 310 g/day 1992 14350 g/day 39 368 g/day 370 g/day Note: Units used are those of original documentation g/day = gallons per day 1 g = 4.546 litres Figures derived from Property and Septic Tank Data Base, Appendix 5.1.1 Table 4.3.2 Home Average Septic Tank Flows 64 Picker Cabins The data available was for a handful of accommodations that had been built and approved by MoH and DoM. These enabled an estimate of the missing flows to be obtained, (see Table 4.3.3). Flow No. of Septic Tanks Average Flow Average Flow Used Recent Picker Cabins 5675 g/day 7 810.7 g/day 800 g/day (Approx. 15 Pickers) Note: Units used are those of original documentation g/day = gallons per day 1 g = 4.546 litres Table 4.3.3 Picker Cabin Average Septic Tank Flows 65 Other Buildings For office and other non-accommodation septic tanks, flows were calculated using MoH Septic Tank Regulations, (MoH Health Act, Sewage Disposal Regulation, BC Reg. 411/85, O.C. 2398/85). Where possible the Municipality Personnel Department and School District (and if necessary or possible, local owners) were contacted to obtain numbers of people using the facility, so as to enable a loading to be calculated. Where only current 1992 figures were available, a conservative estimate of 70 percent of the current flow was allowed for earlier time periods. This was used as no better estimate was available. In a few instances a conservative estimate of loadings were made for some small businesses. A set of averages were used from the larger churches, with septic tank information to obtain an estimate for those churches for which there was no information, (see Table 4.3.4). Flow No. of Septic Tanks Average Flow Average Flow Used Recent Churches 3316g/day 3 1105 g/day (guide only) 1000 g/day Note: Units used are those of original documentation g/day = gallons per day 1 g = 4.546 litres Table 4.3.4 Church Average Septic Tank Flows 66 Septic Tank Nitrogen / Nitrate Loading The daily septic tank flows can be converted into yearly flows by allowing for the length of use of a septic tank, ie Home - 365 days a year. The assumptions used are shown in Table 4.4.6 Home - 365 days/year Picker Cabins - 7 weeks, late June - early August 50 days/year (Peters Oct. 1993) Other - 5 days / week 260 days/year Note: These assumptions simplify loading calculations. This is considered appropriate due the general accuracy of the available data. Table 4.3.5 Septic Tank Flow Assumptions From these flow figures, an estimate of the nitrate concentration in septic tank effluent from available research and literature enabled a nitrate loading on the aquifer study area to be determined. To aid in comparison of loadings between Septic Tanks and other sources of nitrates, a separate land use area measurement was used. This is for the average septic tank disposal area which allowed a loading rate to be calculated. This is considered to be a more accurate indication of the relative impact of septic tanks on the study area. The average area calculated for septic tank disposal was the area of a property used for the homestead or business. Use of the actual septic field size would give an unreasonably high loading as septic fields are not placed directly next to each other. There is a requirement to have a set minimum distance to the next septic tank, (MoH Health Act, Sewage Disposal Regulation, BC Reg. 411/85, O.C. 2398/85). Conversely, use of the total property size would underestimate the loading concentration as generally only a portion of the property will be available for effluent disposal. A sample area along Huntingdon Road between Columbia and Short Road was used to obtain a median Septic Tank disposal area. 67 Agricultural Sources Fertilizer Application Agricultural Loading that is considered in this work comes from the application of both organic (poultry manure) and inorganic (chemical) fertilizer. Information on fertilizer application was available from a MoELP sponsored study by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture (BCFOA) on manure piles over the southern portion of the aquifer. This incorporated questions on both organic and inorganic fertilizer application and so a general estimate of fertilizer use and inorganic fertilizer application rates could be obtained, (BCFOA 1993). Strict confidentiality was adopted by the BCFOA so no individual property could be identified from the data. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MoAFF) staff and fertilizer suppliers were contacted to enable calculation of the amount of nitrate in the inorganic fertilizer and to supplement missing data, (Green Valley Fertilizer / Buckerfields Oct 1993; Peters Oct. 1993). Information on organic fertilizer application rates was not available from this survey. 68 Poultry Manure Application To obtain the contribution of the organic or poultry manure fertilizer to the agricultural nitrogen / nitrate loading, an estimate of the quantity of poultry manure applied to the crops was required. With the use of MoAFF sponsored studies by the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group (SPFG) and MoAFF information, a data base of poultry numbers and resultant nitrogen / nitrate production was constructed. The calculation of the nitrogen / nitrate production in the data base was done in several stages: 1) Conversion of annual total figures for bird numbers to bird places - This is used to show average bird numbers. 2) Nitrogen Produced by Birds - Dependent on bird type and use, (Chipperfield Aug. 1993) 3) Nitrogen Available from Manure - Allows for farm storage losses, (Poultry Guidelines MoAFF 1992, Appendix D). 4) Nitrogen Applied to Land - Allows for manure removed from the study area for other uses, (Chipperfield 1993). It is assumed that the remaining manure is disposed of within the study area. From discussions with the SPFG and MoAFF staff this appears to be a reasonable assumption. 5) Nitrogen Incorporated into Soil - Allows for nitrogen losses prior to and during incorporation into soil. A range of values is used from 24 hours to incorporation into the soil to no incorporation into the soil at all, (MoAFF 1992; Bertrand and Bulley 1985). From discussions with MoAFF staff (Van Kleeck 1993) it appears the Poultry Guidelines provide reasonably accurate estimations of nitrate content when compared to measured values. The nitrogen / nitrate loading was calculated by applying the range of nitrogen incorporated into the soil to the percentage of land fertilized with organic fertilizer. 69 Agricultural Loading The areas calculated for the agricultural land use were used to obtain total loadings from the application of organic and inorganic fertilizer. Raspberry Crops Raspberry plants consist of primocanes (new growth of plant), floricanes (older primocanes that produces fruit) and the fruiting cluster buds, (flowers, fruit and small stems). It is assumed that the canes are all recycled back into the soil which leaves only the fruiting cluster to remove nitrogen / nitrate from the system once the system is in a steady state, (Dean et al. 1993; Moon 1993). Vegetable Crops A similar approach to what is assumed for the raspberry crop is taken with the vegetable crops with the only loss from the system being the nitrogen / nitrate taken up by the harvested crop, (MoAFF 1992). It is assumed that the remaining plant is recycled into the soil. The category of vegetable crops includes corn and cole crops although each were treated separately. Other Agricultural Nitrogen Loadings Other agricultural loadings from non-berry fruit crops, pasture land and farm activities such as bird mortality disposal were investigated by use of the fertilizer information and available studies to determine whether sufficient information and loading potential exists. Another potential source is irrigation of the crops which can potentially add nitrogen / nitrate to the soil from contaminated groundwater. This is assumed to be mostly recycling of previously applied nitrate and would not be expected to add substantially to the nitrate of the system. 70 Other Nitrogen / Nitrate Sources and Processes Natural Mineralisation Discussions with AC research staff were held to review current AC research and studies on nitrates, (Zebarth Oct. 1992; Dean Oct. 1993). The work of Dean et al. (1993) has and continues to investigate nitrogen / nitrate movement and loadings on raspberry crops in the southern portion of the study area. This enabled a estimate of mineralisation in raspberry fields to be determined. This was assumed to be a suitable estimate for other cropped areas with similarly disturbed and intensively utilized soils within the study area. Air Deposition The study area is part of the airshed of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia which has documented problems of air quality degradation, (GVRD 1992). This indicates the potential of aerial deposition of contaminants as the air pollution moves down the Lower Fraser Valley from the population centres, (Steyn 1992; Oke 1973; GVRD 1992). The high annual rainfall in the region would help wash contaminants from the atmosphere and onto the land surface and eventually into the aquifer. A figure for deposition of nitrate and ammonia from rainfall and dry deposition for the area of Agazziz west of the aquifer is available from work by MoELP and EC. These figures are for nitrates and ammonia and are expressed in microgram equivalent weights requiring total rainfall to obtain a loading, (State of the Environment (SoE) Report No.92-1). The Agazziz figure is considered a good estimate for Abbotsford and the study area, (Steyn 1993). This aerial deposition of nitrogen / nitrate can be applied over the total study area to obtain the total contribution of this source. 71 Additional Nitrogen / Nitrate Sources A potential nitrogen / nitrate source is the Abbotsford Airport use of urea for deicing purposes. Urea is used as it is far less corrosive to airplanes than other more traditional deicers, (Gales et al. 1992). This source is, however, not a constant source depending upon the severity of the winter. In addition only a small portion of the runway system is in the study area. For these reasons as well as uncertainty over estimating the application of deicing material this source was not considered. Another airport source was runoff from the washing of fire retardant from water bombers. This source is outside the study area and has also diminished due to altered practices, (Ott 1983). Several other additional assumed minor sources of nitrate have not been included which are as follows: - Sewer System Leakage - Household Gardening Activities - Abandoned Rubbish Dump Leachate. - Cemeteries - Storm Drainage and Surface Runoff These items are either minor in nature or little information exists as to their impact. The loadings that were considered have been calculated as accurately as possible using the available data. The above items have little or no data and would add considerable uncertainty to the values obtained. Denitrification Denitrification information is generally difficult to obtain for the specific soil conditions above the aquifer. However research that has been done by AC at Agazziz on denitrification can be used to give an indication of how much denitrification may be occurring, (Kowalenko 1989). The soil studied by Kowalenko is considered similar enough to the study area soils to extrapolate the findings to the study area. Also investigated were the larger quantities of research on septic tanks set in similar soils with similar geology and the fate of nitrogen in the effluent, (see Chapter 3). 72 Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance The nitrogen / nitrate balance included the currently known main sources of nitrogen / nitrate in the study area. These are: septic tanks, agricultural poultry manure and inorganic fertilizer, natural mineralisation and air deposition. Sufficient data exists to allow a good estimate of the nitrate input, removal and leaching. The basic approach to the nitrate balance was as a set of inputs and outputs from the soil which will be treated as a simple system in steady state, (see Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). This is similar to nitrogen / nitrate balance studies done on specific crops, (Barry et al. 1993; Fried et al. 1976; Lund 1982). These nitrogen / nitrate balance studies required a steady state for nitrogen / nitrate inputs, outputs and mineralisation. Aside from the mineralisation, the study area can be assumed to be in a steady state. Lund (1982), however, suggested that even without steady state mineralisation, results can be useful in showing effects of certain soil and crop management practices. AC research provides an estimate of the nitrogen (nitrate (N03"-N) and ammonium (NH4+)) left in the soil profile after the winter rainfall period, when the majority of the leaching is believed to have taken place, (Dean et al. 1993; Kowalenko 1989). With this knowledge it was possible to assume steady state mineralisation and develop a reasonable nitrate balance. This will enable an estimate of the potential nitrate that is or can be leached to the groundwater. Use of the annual rainfall will give an approximate estimate of the nitrate content of the water recharging the aquifer. 73 4.4) Groundwater Data Water data for the aquifer is available from a variety of government organisations and databases. Much of this information is in a state of flux as databases are upgraded and the different institutions independently collect their own water data. Basic Well Information Basic well information is collected and entered into a spreadsheet database, CGDS, (Computerised Groundwater Database System), with a BCGS (British Columbia Geographical Numbering System) map reference and associated identification number for each well. This information is obtained mostly through a voluntary program where well drillers pass on well information following construction of a well. Approximately 70,000 wells are in the database, (Kohut Feb 25, 1993; Tiplady Feb 25, 1993; CGDS files:92G9 142.xls, 92GL142.xls, 92G 244.xls, 92GL244.xls). Information included in the database includes: BCGS Map & Well No. Owner and Site Address Coordinates Old Reference Maps and Numbers Property Legal References Well Depth, Water Level and Use (no elevations are available) Construction Details Availability of Chemical Analysis Other Reference Numbers Well Hydrologic Information Well Lithology 74 Only BCGS numbers and addresses are fully complete in this data base. The numbering system is tied in with a map set of over 900 maps for B.C. The Water Well Location map for the study area is a 1957 Department of Lands Forests and Water Resources Map at a scale of 1 to 1000. The map is not upto date, as it does not include the current road network or many of the houses in the study area, (Water Well Location Map, Lower Fraser Valley, Sheet 16). MoELP also have an Observation Well Network comprising 150 wells for which long term readings are taken for groundwater levels across B.C. The aquifer has 7 observation wells (No.'s 2, 8, 14, 15, 272, 273, 274) of which one No. 2) is inside the study area. Another well (No. 8) borders the study area. Four of the observation wells are either Abbotsford Municipal wells or Industrial wells for the Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery, (Kohut 1987). 75 Water Quality Information Water quality information is available from a number of different sources and institutions. Over time these data bases have been replaced, upgraded and sometimes combined. A summary of the sources of groundwater quality data is shown in Table 4.5.1. Water Quality Databases: - SEAM MoELP joint Provincial and Federal Digital Water Data Base, (1984 - Present) - EQUIS MoELP Microfiche Data Base, precursor to SEAM - (partially added to SEAM) - NAQUADAT EC Digital Data Base, (1954-1980) - WQCP, MoELP Water Quality Check Program (Subsidised homeowner testing through Zenon Environmental Laboratories), Paper File Data Base. - MoH Drinking Water Quality Testing - (MoH mandate of collection and monitoring of water quality from water supplies, mostly Municipal water testing). Not available to public, (Health Act, Safe Drinking Water Regulation, July 3, 1992, BC Reg. 230/92). Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Special Projects: - MoELP Nitrate Testing for Special Projects (Kwong 1986; Kohut et al. 1989; Zimmerman 1990 & 1991) - EC Inland Waters Directorate Testing of Pesticides and Nitrates, (Liebscher et al. 1992) Data Summaries: - MoH Fraser Valley Ground Water/Drinking Water Study (Gartner Lee 1992) Table 4.4.1 Aquifer Water Quality Sources The aquifer has been studied by both EC and MoELP as a special project with additional water sampling. Both organisations are continuing, to various degrees, their work on the aquifer. A data base from all this available water quality data was constructed to enable some analysis of trends in water quality over time. 76 4.5 Limitations of Data The following is a review of the limitation and problems over the availability and quality of the data used in this thesis. Government Sources A recurring problem with data collection was government ministries not allowing access to relevant information. This was partially due to the new freedom of information legislation which does not allow any access to information that contained personal information such as addresses. If the personal information was removed then access may be gained, (Ringham 1992, Koberstein 1993). Personal information, such as an address, is often the only way of locating where a groundwater sample was taken or the location of a septic tank. This resulted in some data being collected by more indirect means such as other records, field inspections and municipal records. The major impact that this had was on the collection of the septic tank information and to some degree water data. Septic Tank Data A summary of the septic tank data availability is shown in Appendix 5.1.1. Overall the availability of data at most only gave information on 50 percent of all the septic tanks. This resulted in a set of averages being used to fill in this missing information. By far the least data available was for pickers cabins, with no real way of estimating the loading on a septic tank, (if one was even present). As a result of the data available on picker cabins and other buildings, these figures cannot be relied on too heavily and serve as a first estimate and indicator. This has limited the degree to which the flows could be meaningfully broken down and analyzed. As many houses had no septic tank records available, the status of these septic fields is unknown. This information would only be available through the MoH and even then records may still not be available due to poor organisation and incompleteness of records, (Busch 1992). 77 Land Use Farm workers accommodations or pickers cabins were hard to identify due to the generally illegal nature of these structures, (see Discussion). Careful discrete observation as well as DoM records enabled many to be identified with occasional casual questions of local residents. Picker cabin inspections were not considered feasible. It has been a principle of this research to not upset or cause conflicts so as to not compromise future research or aquifer management. Fertilizer Information This BCFOA study was based on a written survey and interviews but appeared to have many gaps in the data collected. It was, however, the best set of estimates on fertilizer use available in this area. Water Data Numerous problems were caused by the edited data as the common link between all the well sample information is the well address. There are no unique well identifiers for wells in British Columbia and so linking data from separate studies is virtually impossible. Following review of the Gartner Lee data it was found that much of the information was EC work and wells could be readily located. The majority of the other data sources did not censor the data they had available, (Naquadat, MoELP Special Projects, SEAM) as this was already in the public domain. EC only made available older (1990 and before) data from the current EC Nitrate and Pesticide Study (Liebscher et al. 1992) and will not release new water sample data to outside organisations (including MoELP) or individuals, (Liebscher 1992; Ringham 1993). 78 Chapter 5 Results & Discussion 5.1 Land Use The three study area land use maps produced for 1969, 1981 and 1992 are shown on Map's 5.1.1a & b, 5.1.2a & b and 5.1.3a & b. This combined with the Property and Septic Tank data base enabled summaries of the study area land use to be created, (Table 5.1.1; Appendix 5.1.1). Land Use Change Agricultural The major land use change was the increase in land used for raspberry production. This land use, which in 1969 comprised only 17 percent of the study area now accounts for 52 percent, (Shown graphically in Figure 5.1.1). This land use change appears to have been accommodated by conversion of pasture land to raspberry crops. The most extreme change has occurred in the large areas of land associated with the Abbotsford Airport. Airport pasture land has been mostly converted to raspberry crops, while to the west of the study area, forested land has been converted to raspberry crops. Natural land was not measured directly as the areas are small and dispersed and thus were impossible to measure accurately. However from inspection of the land use maps, natural land appears to have been reduced quite noticeably since 1969. The exception has been the land around Laxton Lake which has remained basically untouched presumably due to the marginal nature of this land, (bog, swamp and lake deposit soils), (Geological Survey of Canada 1980). 79 Other Uses - Homes and Other Buildings From inspection of the land use maps, there was a 18 percent increase in the number of homes between 1969 and 1981 which reduced to about one percent between 1981 and 1992 in the study area, (Shown graphically in Figure 5.1.2). This is in contrast to the Lower Fraser Valley having one of the fastest growth rates in Canada, (9.1 percent between 1981 and 1986). This may be due to the implementation of the Agricultural Land Reserve in 1974 which has curbed development in agricultural areas inside the Land Reserve, (Moore 1990). An associated trend was the general increase in average house size over the three time periods. The following trends were also shown by the land use data: * The number of properties with poultry barns has stayed about the same rising slightly from 48 to 56 and back to 48. * An increase in the number of pickers cabins. * A decrease in cattle barns. * Green houses have started to make an appearance in the study area. The increase in pickers cabins and decrease in cattle barns would appear to be associated with the substantial increase in land under raspberry cultivation which has displaced previous uses of the land, such as pasture land for cattle. A consistent increase was in the Other Building category (Office, Factory, Church, Business, School, Hostel etc.). The changes occurred in the number of Offices, Factories and Business's and mostly in the north west of the study area. This appears due to the gradual change of this area from agricultural land use to Industrial, Institutional and Commercial use consistent with current land zoning. 80 One previous potential major nitrate source appeared to be land disposal of waste from a poultry processing plant. This was done prior to the connection to sewer service in the early 1970's, (Peters 1993; DoM Aug. 1993). From the aerial photographs, another dramatic change that occurred was the very rapid change of rural land use to urban residential use to the north of the study area which is consistent with the growth trend in the Lower Fraser Valley. Quarry Land As the aquifer is contained in glaciolfluvial sands and gravels, a large number of areas have been or continue to be quarried. Many of these quarry sites appear to have entered into the water table of the aquifer. These sites provide open access for contaminants to enter into the groundwater either from the quarrying process or adjacent land uses. An extreme example is a large quarry on Walmsley Road, which is over 30 metres deep and has exposed a large area of groundwater. This has introduced another contaminate source, birdlife, which is now using this lake with resultant contamination from their excrement. This quarry site is currently being landscaped to be turned over to the municipality for use as a lake and park, (Rex Little Memorial Reserve ,District of Matsqui, Planning Records, Land Use Contract 227). Discussions with UBC geology staff, indicate that detailed studies would be needed to determine the extent to which contaminants entering the lake would enter the surrounding groundwater, (Beckie 1993). From the District of Matsqui records it appears no environmental studies have been done regarding this human made lake. Other problems with the quarries arise from the traditional quarry site use as landfills. From discussions with MoAFF and DoM staff, some of the King Road quarries in the study area were used as landfills (and still are from field inspections), (Peters June 93; DoM Aug. 1993). It was confirmed by District of Matsqui staff (DoM Aug. 1993) that one of the King Road quarries was used for residential waste until 1971, (DoM Aug. 1993). 81 Raspberry Crop 1969 hectares 190.8 % of Total 17% 1981 hectares 396.3 % of Total 36% 1992 hectares 568.6 % of Total 52% Homes P/B P/C C/B G/H Other Office Factory Church Business Miscel. Total 1969 No. 0 1 3 3 3 270 48 8 8 0 10 344 1981 6 5 4 5 2 328 56 12 7 3 22 428 1992 9 8 4 8 4 332 48 23 3 4 33 443 Glossary: Homes - Includes House, Mobile Homes and Trailers P/B - Poultry Barn P/C - Pickers Cabin and Farm Workers Cabin C/B - Cattle Barn G/H - Green House Miscel. - Miscelaneous (School, Hostel etc.) Note: Based on Aerial Photo Interpretation, DoM Building Records & Field Inspection. Refer to text for discussion Study Area 11.0 km2 1101.2 hectares Raspberry Crop includes Strawberry & Blueberry Crops Table 5.1.1 Study Area Land Use Change 82 Hectares 600.0 500.0 -400.0 -300.0 -200.0 100.0 Land Use Change - Raspberry Crops 0.0 < Year 1969 1981 1992 Note: Raspberry Crop inludes Strawberry & Blueberry Crops Figure 5.1.1 Study Area Land Use Change - Raspberry Crops 83 Land Use Change - Homes 260 1969 Homes 1981 Year 1992 Land Use Change - Other Buildings 1969 1981 Year 1992 • — o- - -— o - -P/B P/C " C/B - G/H Other Figure 5.1.2 Study Area Land Use Change - Homes and Other Buildings 84 1992 Land Use The greater detail of the 1992 land use analysis enabled Table 5.1.2 to be created. Approximately 70 percent of the land base was quantified with the remaining land being roads, airport runway, quarries, natural or abandoned land and residential use. The predominate land use was the 52 percent of the study area under raspberry production (including about 3 percent strawberry production). The study area is predominately zoned agricultural by DoM with small areas of residential, commercial and institutional use in keeping with its setting within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The DoM community plan shows that the study area will not have any major changes in zoning. The adjacent areas around the Airport appear to be planned as a major industrial area, (DoM 1991). 85 1992 Land Use Raspberry Crops (incl. Strawberry & Blueberry) Vegetable Corn & Other Crops Cole Apple/Kiwi Other Pasture Land Remainder(Natural, Housing, Quarries Transport etc.) Total Hectares 567.2 14.9 9.75 10.73 14.52 146.9 337.1 1101.2 % of Total 52% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1% 13% 3 1 % 100% Remainder 31% Pasture 13% Raspberry 52% Vegetable & Fruit 4% Note: Total Study Area -> 11.0 km2 1101.2 hectares Raspberry inlude Strawberry Crops Other includes Multiple Crops, unidentified Crops and Nursery Schrubs Remainder includes Other Land Uses Based on DoM Orthographic Photographs and Field Inspection Table 5.1.2 Study Area 1992 Land Use 86 5.2 Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis The nitrogen / nitrate analysis involved investigation and quantifying of both inputs and outputs from septic tanks, agriculture and other sources as shown in Figure 5.2.1. Property and Septic Tank Data Base A summary of the compilation of septic tank disposal systems is shown in Table 5.2.1. This shows the number of septic tanks and estimated daily and yearly flows. Both daily and yearly flows are given as some sources do not occur all year round. The predominate septic tank loading has been and still is domestic septic tanks. Although domestic septic tanks currently comprise 86 percent of all the known septic tanks they produce 73 percent of the daily flow and 87 percent of the yearly flow from all of the septic tanks in the study area. Of the other septic tank sources, the pickers cabins contribute a seasonal loading while accounting for only six percent of the number of septic tanks produce 14 percent of daily flow. This seasonal flow is attenuated by the yearly figures to two percent. The remaining nine percent of septic tanks produce 13 percent of the daily flow and 11 percent of the yearly flow. 87 c 1992 Land Use Map I Average Septic Tank Disposal Area 1 Fertilizer Use and Inorganic Fertilizer Rates Crop Areas Poultry Manure Production Poultry Manure Production and Use Septic Tank Data Base Agricultural Activities Loading Septic Tank Rows and Loading Loading Rate Aerial Deposition / Loading Rate Other Research, Studies & Literature Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance Soil Nitroger Nitrogen left in Soil Crop Removal Rate Crops Removal Rate Nitrification Other Research, Studies & Literature Leaching to Groundwater figure 5.2.1 Nitrogen / Nitrate Analysis 88 Septic Tank Problems The compilation of septic tank data indicated many problems and inconsistencies concerning septic tank records, operation and loadings. Until recently the District of Matsqui did not require a septic tank to be upgraded when additional bedrooms were added to houses. As septic tank sizing is dependent upon the number of bedrooms, this appears inconsistent with the Health Act Sewage Disposal Regulations. This would indicate that some septic systems are operating above their design capacity. From discussions with District of Matsqui Building Permit staff, it is apparent that when some home owners add bedrooms to a house they do not include this in their building permit. This now receives some vigilance with septic tank replacement or upgrading occurring when needed. In line with problems of additional septic tank loading from bedroom increases are several records of trailers and mobile homes appearing on properties. It can only be assumed that these were connected to the existing septic tanks which would again cause overloading above their design flows. There was also documentation of a septic field that was constructed without any MoH approval, the field was subsequently approved. Only one septic field, outside of the study area, was documented to have failed in the traditional manner of sewage rising to the surface. Failure as a result of inadequate treatment and overloading is unlikely to show in the predominately high flow gravels and sands of the study area, (see Chapters 2 & 3). Another more minor problem that was apparent was inconsistencies in values that appeared on the MoH Septic Tank Approval forms such as incorrect values of sewage flow when compared against the sewage disposal regulations. 89 Dally Flow No. of Properties 394 Homes P/C Other Total 1969 No. & % of Total 270 94% 8 3% 10 3% 288 100% Flow (L/day) & % of Total 360,470 87% 29,090 7% 26,410 6% 415,970 100% 1981 No. & % of Total 328 91% 12 3% 22 6% (3-Sewer) 362 100% Flow (L/day) &% of Total 443,990 81% 61,100 11% 44,670 8% 549,760 100% 1992 No. & % of Total 332 86% 23 6% 33 9% (1-HST) 388 100% Flow (L/day) &% of Total 458,090 73% 87,850 14% 78,820 13% (4-Sewer) 624,760 100% Flow Assumptions: Home -> 365 days/year P/C -> Picking Season, June -> August, => 50 days/year, (Peters Oct. 1993) Other -> Assume 5 days/week => 260 days/year Yearly Flow No. of Properties 394 Homes P/C Other Total 1969 No. & % of Total 270 94% 8 3% 10 3% 288 100% Flow (L/year) & % of Total 131,571,600 94% 1,454,500 1% 6,866,600 5% 139,892,700 100% 1981 No. & % of Total 328 91% 12 3% 22 6% (3-Sewer) 362 100% Flow (L/year) & % of Total 162,056,400 92% 3,055,000 2% 11,614,200 7% 176,725,600 100% 1992 No. & % of Total 332 86% 23 6% 33. 9% (1-HST) 388 100% Flow (L/year) & % of Total 167,202,900 87% 4,392,500 2% 20,493,200 11% (4-Sewer) 192,088,600 100% Note: Homes - Includes House, Mobile Homes and Trailers P/C - Pickers Cabin and Farm Workers Cabin Other - Includes Office, Factory, Business, Church and Misselaneous (School, Hostel, etc.) See Text (Methods and Results/Discussion) for Qualifications (1-H ST) - refers to use of House Septic Tank ( - Sewer) - refers to connection to sewer service Table 5.2.1 Septic Tank Numbers and Flow Rates 90 Problems of a more general nature across B.C. have resulted in a 1989 report by the Office of the Ombudsman which has identified inconsistencies and problems with the septic tank permit process. This report however is concerned mostly with the permit process and traditional septic tank failures, (Office of the Ombudsman 1989). Pickers Cabins From the early 1980's to the present, it was required that a property owner obtain a occupancy certificate for each picking season, generally July to October. The last recorded entry for any certificate was in 1988. However from field inspections it was apparent that pickers cabins were currently being used for accommodation. DoM building records have many references to the existence of illegal pickers cabins. A few of these references were in the form of official letters requiring vacating of the premises. Other references were simply in the form of failed building inspections. Field inspections also showed the existence of many picker cabins. From discussions with District of Matsqui Planning officials (August 5, 1993) the District now only acts on Pickers Cabins following written complaints. The lack of response was cited as being the result of planning staff work loads and that the problem is considered more a MoH issue. Also from their perspective, the use of Pickers Cabins has declined with the trend toward bussing in pickers by labour contractors. Adding to the problem is difficulties in detecting Pickers accommodations. Examples were given of use of barns and other typical farm buildings as cabins, which do not appear as accommodations from the road. One example was a barn in which a number of pickers were living with only a hole in the floor for effluent disposal. 91 One tragic reference was recorded as a result of a death of an infant in one of these pickers cabins, a converted barn, where up to 84 people were living. From the Newspaper files (Vancouver Sun Wed, August 20 1980 Baby Dies 200 yards away from Luxury) it was apparent that even after notices were posted, requiring the building to be vacated, people were still living there. In the resulting Coroners inquest by Chief Coroner Dr. W J Mc Arthur regarding the death of Sukhdeep Madhar dated July 16, 1980, the Jury found the following: 1) The living conditions provided for farm workers is to be upgraded, 2) Legislation relating to agriculture work camps be initiated to lead authority to the medical health officers, 3) All known work camps be inspected by fire marshals, health officers and building inspectors on a regular basis. This appears to have led to the references to building inspections in the mid 1980's although references showing that regular inspections occurred were not apparent. From DoM files it appears that illegal pickers cabins may still be on this site. Of the legal cabins there was at least one blatant problem with inconsistencies between the septic tank design loading and the approved building permit. The septic tank was designed for 10 pickers but was actually built for 12 cabins with 4 people in each. 92 Septic Tank Density A broad measure of the potential for septic tanks to cause contamination problems is the density of septic tanks in a given area. The overall average septic tank density for the study area is 35 per km2 ranging from 10 to over 59 per km2. The United States EPA has designated areas with septic tank densities greater than 15 per square kilometre (40 per mile2) to be regions of potential groundwater contamination, (Yates 1985; Canter & Knox 1985). The high septic tank densities coupled with thin free draining soils and shallow groundwater levels would appear to place the aquifer at a severe risk of contamination. Septic Tank Loading For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the septic tanks basically are in a sandy soil (actually gravel and sand) and well aerated allowing rapid nitrification and minimal denitrification, (see Chapter 2). This is considered a very good assumption as the study area soils are well draining, shallow and overlie a gravel and sand outwash, (Armstrong 1984; Liebscher et al. 1992; Halstead 1986; Luttmerding 1980). The depth of the drainage field with the required gravel trenches would also place the effluent either in or just above the gravel and sand of the aquifer, (Liebscher et al. 1992). A loading of 33 mg/L N03-N was used for the septic tank nitrate-nitrogen loading, (see Chapter 2; Robertson et al. 1991). It was assumed that all the septic tanks will result in this concentration of nitrates. The average septic tank flow ranges from 504,000 L/year for a home to 621,000 L/year for the business/industry/institution category. Based on the nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 33 mg/L N03"-N this gives a average septic tank loading ranging between 16.6 kg to 20.5 kg per year. The overall study area loading is estimated to be 6340 kg. 93 Assuming that the effluent is actually discharged over a smaller area than the entire study area, then using the sample average septic tank area of approximately 0.3 ha. will give loading rates that range between 55 kg/ha. and 70 kg/ha. per year. However this could potentially reach a maximum of 270 kg/ha. per year for homes on the smallest (0.062 ha.) properties in the study area. Loadings for the pickers cabins could be potentially much higher but over a shorter time period during the picking season. Other larger non-domestic septic tanks are generally on larger properties. 94 Agricultural Sources Fertilizer Application Agricultural Loading that was considered in this work comes from the application of fertilizer, both organic (poultry manure) and inorganic (chemical fertilizers). From the BCFOA study, the following Table was constructed showing fertilizer application in the study area, (see Table 5.2.2.). Only a summary table is shown with weighted averages and ranges. This was to avoid individual farms being identified as requested by the BCFOA. The Study collected data on the types of fertilizer used (manure and / or organic fertilizer), the crops grown and the quantities used (for inorganic fertilizer only). This enabled a range of application rates to be calculated for each crop type. From discussions with the MoAFF Berry Specialist, strawberry crops require careful application of nitrates as excess nitrates are detrimental to the crop, (Peters 1993). It was expected from the survey that definite differences between practices for the two berry crops would be noticed, but the survey did not show any appreciable differences. It is assumed that this is due to the nitrates leaching out of the soil in sufficient quantities so as to not cause an oversupply of nitrates to the strawberry plants. With this assumption in mind, the strawberry crops were included with the raspberry acreage. The negligible amount of blueberry crops in the study area were included with the raspberry crops. 95 Crop Type Raspberry Vegetable - Com -Cole Other Fruit Pasture Fertilizer Use Manure & Inorganic 83 % 100% 0% 1 % 0% Manure Only 3 % 0 % 0% 0% 15 % (and Livestock) Inorganic Only 14 % 0 % 100% 99 % 0% Inorganic Fertilizer Range of Application kg/ha. 120-730 — — kgN/ha 12-73 — — Fertigation — Average Application "Weighted kg/ha 443* — — kgN/ha 43* 168 112 — — — Fertilizer Use Notes: Survey covers - 67 % of Raspberry acreage. - 31 % of Vegetable acreage. -100 % of Other Fruit acreage. - 70 % of Pasture acreage Inorganic Fertilizer Notes: Raspberry Vegetable Crop Other Fruit Pasture - Fertilizer rates cover 36 % of Raspberry acreage. - Fertilizer nitrogen content range 8 -> 16 %. - Average fertilizer nitrogen content is 10%, (Raspberry blend). - Fertilizer rates obtained from Green Valley Fertilizer (Buckerfields), Langley, B.C. - Fertilizer applied by fertigation (Irrigation with fertilizer added). - Fertilized by either poultry manure or livestock on farm. General Notes: - Vegetable is broken up into corn and cole crops. - Other Fruit refers to apple and kiwi fruit. - Weighted Average is calculated by raspberry acreage. - Manure refers to poultry manure. Table 5.2.2 Land Fertilized and Inorganic Fertilizer Rates 96 Poultry Manure Application The poultry manure data base contained the number and type of all poultry on the farms per year and enabled Table 5.2.3 to be constructed. This gives an estimate of a range of nitrogen applied to crops as poultry manure in the study area per year. Strict confidentiality was applied by the SPFG to ensure no farms could be located individually. A range of values was used to allow for volatilisation and other unknown losses of the ammonia in the manure, which is dependent upon how long the manure is left on the field before being worked or incorporated into the soil. The nitrogen from poultry manure is in both organic and inorganic form. Inorganic nitrogen, in the form of ammonia (NH4+), forms the bulk of the nitrogen and is readily converted to nitrates. AC research reports that nitrification, conversion of ammonium (NH4+) to nitrate (N03), occurs very quickly in a sandy soil, (Paul & Zebarth 1992). This would appear to be the result of aeration of the sandy soils which allows rapid nitrification. Overall 75 to 90 percent of the nitrogen in the manure is available for plant use in the same year, (MoAFF 1992). The remaining organic nitrogen is slowly broken down by bacteria in the soil and then converted to nitrates. Thus a time lag will occur for this portion of the remaining nitrogen to be converted to nitrates. Assuming long term constant applications of manure, it may be assumed that all the nitrogen in the manure is available as nitrates in the long term. 97 Category A B C D E Birds Produced & Housed 2,540,740 53,732 622,195 140,514 201,198 Bird Places 438,815 16,621 417,879 97,223 107,393 Nitrogen kg Produced 149,197 11,801 249,822 32,546 70,291 Nitrogen kg Available 114,882 9,087 150,090 25,061 45,327 Note: - Birds Produced and Housed shows annual total figures - Bird Places shows average numbers - Nitrogen figure based on Environmental Guidelines for Poultry Producers & SPFG Reports. (MoA 1992, Chipperfield Aug. 1993) Category A B C D E Total Nitrogen kg Available 114,882 9,087 150,090 25,061 45,327 344,447 Nitrogen kg Applied 75,822 9,087 150,090 25,061 42,608 302,667 Min. Nitrogen kg Into Soil 42,460 5,089 84,050 14,034 23,860 169,490 Max. Nitrogen kg Into Soil 68,240 8,178 135,081 22,555 38,347 272,400 Note: - Nitrogen Applied allows for Manure Used for Mushroom Industry (34% of Category A and 6% of Category E) (Chipperfield Aug. 1993) - Nitrogen into soil allows for losses prior to incorporation into soil based on 24 hours to incorporation and no incorporation into soil. (MoA 1992, Bertrand & Bulley 1985) - Total Max (Maximum) and Min. (Minimum) Nitrogen figure rounded to nearest 10. -Category A - Chicken Broiler Industry -Category B - Turkey Industry -Category C - Commercial Egg Industry -Category D - Broiler Hatching Egg Industry -Category E - Mixed Production of other Categories (Chipperfield Aug. 1993) Table 5.2.3 Study Area Poultry Manure Production 98 Agricultural Loading and Removal Raspberry Crops A brief understanding of raspberry crops is required to understand the movement of nitrogen in the soil system and to make appropriate assumptions. Raspberry plants consist of primocanes (new growth of plant), floricanes (older primocanes that produces fruit) and the fruiting cluster (buds, flowers, fruit and small stems). All take up nitrogen, but the canes are recycled into the soil recycling the nitrogen taken up into the cane. In the long term this results in only the Fruiting Cluster removing nitrogen from the system, approximately 15 kg N/ha, (Dean et al. 1993). It was assumed that the raspberry plantation is in a steady state and that the fruit is the only loss from the system. Discussions with AC staff support this assumption, (Moon 1993). A conservative value of 20 kg/ha. was used for the nitrogen / nitrate balance. Recent approaches to the nitrate problem have involved cover crops between the row of raspberry canes, which does reduce nitrate leaching, (Dean et al. 1993). This however only removes nitrate from the system if the cover crop is removed. The cover crops are worked into the soil making the nitrates removed by the crop available to the soil system, hence contributing to the assumed steady state. Vegetable Crops As with the raspberries it is assumed that the only loss from the soil is the nitrate taken up by the crop. It is also assumed that the remaining plant is recycled into the soil. Literature on nitrate-nitrogen uptake on the vegetable crops in the study area, corn and cole crops, indicate that for corn a maximum of 325 kg N/ha. and for cole crops 220 kg N/ha. is removed, (MoAFF 1992). The amounts of fertilizer applied to the cole crops appears to be in the range of the nitrate-nitrogen requirements of the crops (100 to 200 kg/ha) and so the potential for leaching is assumed minimal. 99 Pasture Pasture land appeared to be fertilized mostly by small numbers of livestock with a few examples of use of poultry manure, roughly 15 percent of the pasture land. This 15 percent was included in the balance. Literature on nitrate-nitrogen uptake for the pasture land in the study area indicate a range of uptake from 200 to 400 kg N/ha, (MoAFF 1992). This was adjusted to 300 to 400 to take into account the potentially high manure application rates. The BCFOA survey indicated an average animal density, or loading, for the study area of 1.4 cows / ha. and 1.5 horses / ha. This is well below the density of 2 animals / ha. that is considered a reasonable standard for sustainability of water quality, (Schreier et al 1991). The pasture nitrogen / nitrate loadings thus appear to be relatively small and were not included in the nitrogen / nitrate balance. Other The non-berry fruit crops are predominately fertilized by inorganic fertilizer through fertigation (fertilizer mixed in with irrigation water). It is assumed that the potential for nitrate leaching is minimal if fertigated properly. Also, as this area is a very small proportion of the total area it was not included in the nitrogen - nitrate balance. An additional nitrate-nitrogen source from farms is some disposal of farm mortalities by burial which is an accepted form of disposal, (MoAFF 1992). Information on this is very limited and this source will not be included in the nitrogen-nitrate balance. 100 Other Nitrogen Sources and Processes Natural Mineralisation From discussions with AC research staff and review of current AC studies on nitrates, it has been shown that the soil in the study area has a fair degree of natural mineralisation. This has been hypothesised to be due to natural changes in the soil profile as land use has changed from predominantly forested land to agricultural use, (Zabarth Oct. 1992; Dean Oct. 1993). Preliminary AC research results for sites within the study area have indicated that mineralisation was around 75 kg N/ha. for land with no history of manure application. Control sites with a manure application history show background mineralisation rates to be approximately 145 kg N/ha, (Dean et al. 1993). Discussion with Dean indicated this may be partly due to the manure added from previous years and recycling of raspberry canes into the soil, (Dean Oct. 1993). For the purposes of this study a rate of 35 kg N/ha. will be used as the natural mineralisation rate for the raspberry fields with manure application treated as a separate loading. This allows for the raspberry cane being worked into the soil. Literature on mineralisation rates to enable any kind of extrapolation to other land uses in the study area was not available. It was however assumed that a similar level of mineralisation would occur in other intensive use areas such as vegetable and other fruit crops. 101 Air Deposition Based on figures collected at Agazziz by EC and MoELP a figure of 24.8 fiEq/l (micro equivalent weight) for nitrates (N03) and 54.6 /tiEq/1 ammonia (NH4~) was reported, (SOE Report No. 92-1). This gives a loading of 4.8 kg/ha. of nitrate - nitrogen and 10.5 kg/ha. for ammonia - nitrogen. The loading of nitrate - nitrogen arising from the ammonia is difficult to estimate. The high levels of ammonia are thought to arise from agricultural activities and volatilisation of ammonia from fertilizer. This is equivalent to applying additional new fertilizer to the soil as ammonia lost from manure or inorganic fertilizer is again deposited on the land. This is not included so as to attempt to balance the losses from inorganic fertilizer. By way of comparison, research from Europe has identified and quantified nitrate contamination from aerial deposition. Values range from a minimum of less than 5 kg N/ha. to a maximum of over 50 kg N/ha., (Sullivan 1993). OECD research suggests an average value of 20 kg N/ha. of ammonia and nitrate deposition either by rainfall or dry deposition with higher figures for industrial areas, (OECD 1986). Denitrification Work by Kowalenko of AC has showed that, under Agazziz soils and weather conditions, denitrification was negligible, (Kowalenko 1989). The soil is considered similar enough to the study area soils to extrapolate the findings to the study area. To support this is research showing low denitrification potential in a coarse textured soil profile, (Devitt et al. 1976). Literature on septic tanks also appears to support the general lack of denitrification in these soils types and with the associated geology, (Canter & Knox 1985; Robertson et al. 1991). 102 Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance Using the system shown in Figure 5.2.1, a nitrogen / nitrate balance calculation can be completed by knowing how much nitrogen / nitrate remains in the soil profile. Most of the nitrate in the root zone will be leached out in the fall and winter, (Zebarth & Paul 1992). Further research by AC and UBC has shown that after the fall and winter rainfall, between 15 and 25 kg N/ha. of inorganic nitrogen remains in the soil profile to a depth of 60 cm. This was for both manured and non-manured sites with and without previous histories of manure application, (Dean et al. 1993). In some areas of the aquifer and study area this depth is practically the total depth of the soil profile. However, nitrates that are tied up in the soil profile are assumed to be in a steady state cycle. Table 5.2.4 was constructed to show the calculations for the nitrate balance. The nitrogen unaccounted for in the nitrogen balance is potentially available for leaching out from the soil system and into the groundwater. This resulted in a range of between 170,000 (169,243) and 300,000 (303,516) kg of nitrogen unaccounted for and potentially available for leaching in the study area. A breakdown of the final relative contributions of these nitrogen / nitrate sources is shown in Figure 5.2.2. The nitrogen /nitrate balance indicates that a large amount of nitrogen is unaccounted for. By far the most widespread and intense nitrate loading is that arising from raspberry crops and fertilization by poultry manure, see Figure 5.2.2. This accounts for approximately 91 to 94 percent of the nitrogen loading, (which is produced by approximately 52 percent of the land base in the study area). It appears that nitrogen is applied far in excess of that required and used by the raspberry crop. The inorganic fertilizer by itself would appear to be sufficient for the needs of the raspberry crop. By use of the annual rainfall for the study area of approximately 1500 mm per year, a rough estimate can be obtained of the potential nitrate concentration of the recharge water for the aquifer. 103 Conservatively assuming all of the rainfall enters the groundwater, the nitrogen / nitrate balance indicates that the recharge water could have a nitrate-nitrogen concentration of between 10 and 20 mg/L N03~-N. Land under intensively used crops, such as raspberry crops with both manure and inorganic fertilizer use, may have recharge concentrations of between 22 and 40 mg/L N03"-N. By way of comparison, the corn crop recharge concentrations may be between 12 and 25 mg/L NCy-N and pasture land up to 7 mg/L N03"-N. The value assumed for septic tanks was 33 mg/L N03~-N, although this is basically a point source. The nitrogen balance even with the range of assumptions and the exclusion of some land uses (making the balance if anything more conservative) still shows a large excess of nitrogen being added to the study area. One of the uncertainties is the dynamics of the soil nitrogen pool and the quantity of nitrogen that this accounts for. The nitrogen / nitrate balance does show that the major loading of nitrate-nitrogen appears to be as a result of raspberry crops and large quantities of added fertilizer, mostly organic. This land use has also been rapidly increasing and so it would appear that this has the potential to play a major role in groundwater contamination of the aquifer. From discussions with Agriculture Canada (AC) Research Staff, a similar methodology is being used in their nitrate loading work for the aquifer, (Moon Sept. 1993). Differences in the respective methods are the thesis work considers non-farming land uses and concentrates on a smaller area of the aquifer with resultant improvements in accuracy of inputs. AC also used a larger range of land uses although the degree of breakdown that will be used in the analysis has yet to be determined. The AC staff had several problems identifying crop type as well as land use for areas hidden from the main roads, (Ulansky 1993). This is similar to problems experienced in the thesis land use evaluation, although use was made of walking around the area, where possible, with a resultant potential increases in land use accuracy. 104 Nitrogen Source % Application Nitrogen Rate kg N/ha. Agriculture (excluding Cole and Other Fruit Crops) Manure Appln. Raspberry Crops 86% Vegetable ( Corn ) 100* Pasture Land 15% Total Fertilizer Appln Raspberry Crops 97% (Inorganic)* Vegetable - Corn 100% Total Total Agriculture Inputs Septic Tanks Aerial Deposition # 320 - 520 320 - 520 320 - 520 320 - 520 12-73 168 270 kg/ha. (maximum) 5 Area (hectares) 487.8 14.9 21.4 524.2 550.2 14.9 565.1 1101.2 Total Inputs Outputs Raspberry Crops Vegetable ( Corn ) Pasture 20 325 300 - 400 Total Outputs Total (Inputs - Outputs) Unaccounted Nitrogen or Leaching Potential 487.8 14.9 21.4 Nitrogen (Minimum) 157,738 4,818 6,934 169,490 6,603 2,503 9,106 178,596 6,340 5,506 190,442 9,756 4,843 6,433 21,032 169,410 169,410 Nitrogen (Maximum) 253,513 7,743 11,144 272,400 40,166 2,503 42,669 315,069 6,340 5,506 326,915 9,756 4,843 8,577 23,176 303,739 303,739 Note * Assuming no volatilisation until incorporation # Does not include ammonia deposition Table 5.2.4 Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance 105 Aerial Deposition 2 % - 3 % Septic Tanks 2 % - 4 % Corn Crops 1 % - 2 % Pasture < 1 % Raspberry Crops 91 % - 9 4 % Figure 5.2.2 Study Area Range of Net Nitrogen Loadings (refer to text for Discussion) 106 5.3 Water Quality Water Quality Data Base The Water Quality Data Base contains all the available nitrate water samples of which some reliance can be placed, (see Appendix 5.3.1). MoELP made available an edited (insisted by MoH personnel) version of the Fraser Valley Ground Water/Drinking Water Study. The edited version had all personal information removed. This study also did not have all the pre-1980 sampling data and omitted the lower nitrate concentration values (less than 1 mg/L N03"-N) from the nitrate data base. Well records from the Gartner Lee 1992 study were used as a base, and were supplemented with other available data for nitrate readings. This was done to make use of the Gartner Lee numbering system so as to try and provide some standardisation and common reference to a current data base. New well numbers were assigned for the additional well information added. Some information was not included as no reference location (ie address) could be properly identified. This included WQCP data, which also was of unknown sampling quality. This is because the samples are collected by home owners and so sample history is uncertain as well as sample location. It is possible that a homeowner may bring samples from another property and area for testing as well as alter the sample if they fear potential problems from government personnel. Overall an iterative process was adopted to construct the data base for this thesis. 107 Water Quality Results In all some 368 samples were available, these were taken from approximately 96 wells. The total number is not exact as the same well may be referenced from different sources, however all samples had different readings. The nitrate values for the study area are shown in Figure 5.3.1. with well locations shown on Map 5.3.2 a&b . Of note is the fact that 70 percent of the samples (253 of 368) lie above the allowable limit of 10 mg/L N03"-N for drinking water specified in the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines, (H&WC 1989). It must be noted that the data comes from many different sources over a large time period with potentially different sampling procedures and accuracies. This precludes any detailed sample analysis which is consistent with the previous studies (Liebscher et al. 1992) where no detailed statistical analysis were undertaken. Thus analysis of the group of samples at anything but a fundamental level is not considered meaningful. The results would be biased toward the high readings because most of the measurements were made over a short time period and in a concentrated area. With this in mind some further simple analysis and breakdown of the data was carried out. First, a large gap in the data appears for a five year period between 1982 and 1987. In this period only two samples were taken. The start of the new, very intense, water sampling programs, after 1988, appears to coincide with the increase in political and media attention on the aquifer. From initial inspection two distinct trends appear from 1972 to 1982. These trends are from three long term sets of well records taken by EC, (well records 233, 257 and 346, see Figure 5.3.2). Well 233 is on the AC experimental farm on Clearbrook Road (South of Huntingdon Road) with well 346 lying just south of the property. Well 257 is on Gladwin Road north of Huntingdon Road and is hydraulically isolated from the other two wells, although it does show a similar trend but at a lower set of nitrate readings. Well 233 and well 346 are on adjacent properties with almost identical nitrate readings, although well 233 is 49m deep and well 346 is 25m deep. 108 The overall trend appears to be an general increase in nitrate concentrations and decrease in water quality. To assist in water quality analysis the study area was broken up into 4 sections which were used to separate the water samples, see Figure 5.3.2. An initial summary graph was prepared for each section with closely spaced data expanded to show if any trends were detectable. 109 rq e n (A 05 e a. < 8 e 8 Nitrate - Nitrogen mg/L 45.00 Study Area Nitrate - Nitrogen Values 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 o 10.00 -H> 5.00 0.00 o EEC (Not Recommended Limit) CDWfi (maximum) EEC (Guide Limit) O 01-Jan-55 23-Jun-60 14-Dec-65 06-Jun-71 26-Nov-76 19-May-82 09-Nov-87 01-May-93 Date IS g n in » e a. < 3 K) 1 Nitrate - Nitrogen Long Term Well Records mg/L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Wells ° 233 D 257 o 346 CDWG (maximum) o • & T O ' D 01-Jan-55 23-Jun-60 14-Dec-65 06-Jun-71 26-Nov-76 19-May-82 09-Nov-87 01-May-93 Date CLEARBROOK Northwest Section 1 —-_TJ3 Southwest Section 3 Northeast Section 2 MONTGOMERY Southeast Section 4 M M HUNTINGDON DISTRICT OF MATSOUI, BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON U.S.A. Figure 5.3.3 Study Area Water Quality Breakup Zones 112 Northwest Section - 1 Figure 5.3.4 & 5 The nitrate-nitrogen readings in this area overall show an increase in values between 1976 and the 1990's. Figure 5.3.5 shows the detailed graph of well 308 which shows a decline in the nitrate readings although all values are above the Drinking Water Guidelines. Northeast Section - 2 Figure 5.3.6 The only notable point in this breakup of the water quality data is well 257 which had been below the 10 mg/L NO3--N limit for nitrate-nitrogen for much of the testing period. The latest reading however was above 10 mg/L N03"-N. Southwest Section - 3 Figure 5.3.7, 8 & 9. By far the most data collection has been in the areas of the aquifer with the higher nitrate readings, (Southwest Section - 3). Much of this work has been done and is still being done by EC. The site with the most intense sampling and most long term records is at the AC Research Station on the southern block of Clearbrook Road. The long term records from well 233 and 346 are in this area. Since well 346 does not include the present time period well, 233 was examined individually as shown in Figure 5.3.8. Despite some seasonal variation this well has shown a increase in nitrate readings to over 25 mg/L NCy-N. The other more recent well readings in and around the AC research station are shown in Figure 5.3.9 and the locations shown in Figure 5.4.10. Considerable variation appears even for wells 230 and 231 which are in close proximity and at the same depth (21 m). Well 232 is actually well 233 but with the sample taken after passing through a water filter. There was considerable variation between wells 233 and 232 which appears to be due to the water filter, (Hii 1993). Southeast Section - 4 Figure 5.3.11 & 12 All but two readings were above the Drinking Water guidelines in this section. One well (249) had a one and a half year set of samples which consistently showed very high nitrate readings. 113 Nitrate - Nitrogen Northwest Section 1 mg/L 45 21 § "i n <J\ (A) *>. 2 : 0 1 -^sr 3 £ 8 « • * • 0 s 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 01-. Wells 0 Assorted 0 308 nO 0 — 0 - CDWG (Maximum) — — l 1 o—_ O O 1 0 O 8 —KD 1— 1^  °o 8 0 1 1 Jan-55 23-Jun-60 14-Dec-65 06-Jun-71 26-Nov-76 19-May-82 09-Nov-87 01-May-93 Date Northwest Section 1 - Well 308 U\ a a In o £? I « « o 00 Nitrate - Nitrogen mg/L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 Ol-Jan-90 1l-Apr-90 20-Jul-90 28-Oct-90 05-Feb-91 16-May-91 24-Aug-91 02-Dec-91 Date Wells ° Assorted o 308 n 0 o o o o o CDWG (Maximum) O o o 0 <v> ^ V o o o u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — Nitrate - Nitrogen mg/L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Northeast Section - 2 Wells ° Assorted 0 257 o ° CDWG (Maximum) o h 1— <& * o^\m 1 1 o * * * * * > 1 o o o 1—o o 1 01-Jan-55 23-Jun-60 14-Dec-65 06-Jun-71 26-Nov-76 19-May-82 09-Nov-87 01-May-93 Date Nitrate - Nitrogen 45.00r 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 Southwest Section - 3 0.00 3 / L 0 Wells ° Assorted o 233 ^ j>*f*& v o®^ % & u j 1 o^ **&^ ^° n 1 1 ° n u CDWG (maximum) 1 1 © 0 —o-0 o -e-o 0 - H -o o % o ojB ma Q-^ ° 0 J? -o-o Q I O —o-O —a 01-Jan- 27-Sep- 24-Jun- 20-Mar- 14-Dec- 10-Sep- 06-Jun- 02-Mar- 27-Nov-70 72 75 78 80 83 86 89 91 Date o CO CO CM 0) c 0J o I! *4° o <?r O o ° o E 3 E 'x CO E o Q O D) 3 < i CsJ CM > O z 1 to CM i. re 2 CM O I C 3 - > I in O L <u CO 1 CD O I u 0J Q • * • *" iL re 2 en *" i c 3 —) I CO CsJ L <u 00 1 CM i c CO —) 1 CM en en CO rv 00 •<i-oo —^ oo v re Q oo r^ . to iv-CO I V . o i^ 00 to o CO in CM o CM i n m Figure 5.3.8 Southwest Section 3 - Well 233 118 AC Research Station Wells VO 13 § a c/i • so > n S-© s Nitrate - Nitrogen mg/L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 01-Jan-90 11-Apr-90 20-Jul-90 28-Oct-90 05-Feb-91 16-May-91 24-Aug-91 Date • • • • A CDWG (Maximum) KJ A " • " • A • O • -o-D Q a * • A. D O • o D • • • A • • • A r\ • • 1 1 - — \ - 1 O 0 1 1 Well (& Depth) A • • O 233 (49.1m) 230 (20.7m) 231 (20.7m) 232 Note: Well 232 is 233 filtered Clearbrook Road Well 230 \ L Well 231 Agriculture Canada Research Station Well 233 # (Well 232 is Well 233 filtered) Well 224 / 390m Note:- Not to Scale - Approximate Well Locations Only Figure 5.3.10 AC Research Station - Approximate Well Locations 120 to s la I1 GO I? 5* 3 Nitrate - Nitrogen mg/L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 01-Jan-70 Southeast Section-4 Wells ° Assorted O 249 n >^ o o 0 CDWG (Maximum) Q 8*> o o o o 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 27-Sep- 24-Jun- 20-Mar-72 75 78 14-Dec- 10-Sep- 06-Jun- 02-Mar- 27-Nov-80 83 86 89 91 Date is i (A CO o c CO I o 3 I to v© Nitrate - Nitrogen mg/L 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 o o o Southeast Section-4 - Well 249 "o~ o o 8 o o o o -o- iy o o o o CDWG (Maximum) + Wells ° Assorted O 249 01-Jan-90 11-Apr-90 20-Jul-90 28-Oct-90 05-Feb-91 16-May-91 24-Aug-91 02-Dec-91 Date 5.4 Land Use. Water Quality and Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance The following trends have been shown from the results for the study area: * Raspberry growing is the major land use change (with some increases in septic tank numbers and size) * Excess nitrogen is applied to the study area from raspberry cultivation, (with high septic tank densities in some areas) * Water quality data shows nitrate-nitrogen levels above Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines, (with a general increase and high variability). The majority of the research on the aquifer has been in the area of water quality. This produces a snapshot in time for a certain point at a certain depth. The aquifer appears to be very dynamic with a three dimensional flow network. Flow is dependent upon rainfall, other surface water flows as well as the aquifer depth and boundaries. In addition to this, the aquifer is an uneven mix of gravels and sands with clay lenses (ie not homogeneous) which adds uncertainties to flow patterns. The water sampling itself does not appear consistent nor continuous with large gaps in the historic data and a bias toward the areas which have shown higher nitrate-nitrogen values. The data appears to show considerable variability even for wells in close proximity to each other. The nitrogen / nitrate sources are both point (ie concentrated at a certain position) and non-point (ie concentrated over a larger area). The varied nitrogen / nitrate sources are dynamic and varied in nature. Such examples are: - Seasonal use of septic tanks which produce a concentrated loading over a certain time period, - previous poor agricultural farming practices for disposal or storage of manure, - Heavy rainfall following fertilizer application and washing nitrogen / nitrates in the groundwater and - different fertilizer types, application rates, methods and times of application. 123 In addition uncertainties exist over the nature of nitrogen / nitrate movement and processes such as the distance nitrates travel in groundwater before denitrification occurs or the fate of the excess nitrogen in the nitrogen / nitrate balance. The spatial and temporal uncertainty and variability over nitrogen / nitrate and groundwater movement make use of a set point in time measure, such as water quality, difficult, if not impossible, to relate to the land use above. Thus it is difficult to determine the area and properties which can affect the water quality of a particular well at a certain depth and time. The overall trends, however, show a decrease in water quality, increase in raspberry production coupled with an apparent excess use of nitrogen. Also of importance is the high nitrate-nitrogen levels which may indicate the potential for other contaminates. As the study area is representative of the general aquifer land use wider spread problems are possible. 124 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations First the conclusions of the research and their relationship to each other are presented. Following this, the present and future implications of these conclusions are examined in broader terms. The section is concluded with a suggested management and research approach to enable the aquifer issues to be addressed and acted upon. 6.1 Thesis Results Land Use Change The predominate land use change in the study area has been the conversion of land to raspberry production which now amounts to over half of the study area. This intensive land use appears to have been displacing pasture land and natural land. The most intensive land use changes have been the conversion of pasture land to raspberry production and the extensive urbanisation to the north of the study area. The other significant land use change has been an increase in residential land use. The current land use is dominated by the agricultural production of berry fruits (52 percent of study area), predominately raspberries. Other agricultural uses were significantly smaller with 4 percent of the study area comprising vegetable and other fruit crops and 13 percent comprising less intensively used pasture land. Other land uses of significance were several large working and abandoned quarries. Some of the abandoned quarry sites have been used for other purposes, such as land fills and business and industrial sites. 125 Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance The nitrogen / nitrate balance was done allowing for the majority of inputs and outputs to the soil system and assuming that nitrogen in the soil profile is in a steady state. This showed that a large quantity of nitrogen is unaccounted for in the balance and is potentially available for conversion to nitrates and leaching into the groundwater. The primary sources of this nitrogen is raspberry crops with high levels of applied mostly organic fertilizer (91-94 percent). Corn crops and pasture land are only a minor source of the excess nitrogen ( 1 - 2 percent and less than 1 percent respectively). It appears that the raspberry crop requires significantly less nitrogen / nitrate than is made available through current farming practices and even through industry guidelines. Although of lower total impact (2-4 percent), septic tanks have one of the higher potential nitrate contamination rates. Short term intense use accommodations such as Picker Cabins could have even higher nitrate loading rates. The other nitrogen source is aerial deposition (2-3 percent). On average, assuming all unaccounted nitrogen is converted to nitrates and all rainfall enters the groundwater, this is estimated to potentially contaminate recharge water with between 10 to 20 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen. Areas under more intense nitrogen application such as the predominately organically fertilized raspberry crops could have levels between 20 to 40 mg/L nitrate nitrogen. Water Quality The water quality of the study area over approximately a 40 year period has been observed to be deteriorating with high levels of nitrate-nitrogen present. The majority of groundwater testing results have indicated that nitrate concentrations are above the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines. Substantial gaps appear in the water sampling for a five year period in the mid 1980's with only two samples taken. Although trends in the water quality were observed, no distinct explanations were available to explain these as the groundwater sampling appears to exhibit a large amount of variability. 126 6.2 Land Use. Water Quality and Nitrogen / Nitrate Balance Spatial and temporal differences, uncertainty and variability over nitrogen / nitrate and groundwater movement make use of a "set point in time" water quality measure difficult to relate to the local land use. Thus it is difficult to determine the contributing area and properties which can affect the water quality of a particular well at a certain depth and time. Identification of properties whose land use practices are causing the high nitrate levels in certain wells is not considered possible or reliable. Any attempt to do this might well falsely identify practices or conditions that are not contributing to the high nitrate levels. However the following trends are evident: - Water Quality has been decreasing over the last 20 or so years, - Significant land changes have occurred over this period, - Certain land uses and practices appear to contribute significantly to nitrogen / nitrate loadings and - High nitrate-nitrogen levels indicate the potential for other contamination. Water quality has been the dominant focus of the majority of the research and studies on the aquifer. However the spatial and temporal characteristics of the aquifer and dynamic land use tend to bring into question the usefulness of the singularly heavy focus on water quality data and sampling. 127 6.3 Present and Future Implications Up to the present period of time, most of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer research and studies have focused on mostly nitrate-nitrogen water quality and selected agricultural activities as the source of the contamination with some recognition of contributions from septic tanks. A broader question is; to what degree are the high nitrate-nitrogen values a problem in themselves or are they a symptom of a larger problem of land management and infrastructure. Examples from the literature and studies around North America indicate that many other land uses have the potential to contaminate the groundwater. The basic resource management approach needed is an acknowledgement and understanding of the sensitive nature of the geology and soil layer and the direct link of all surface activities to the quality of highly utilised and valuable groundwater of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. Implications from the aquifer's actual and potential contamination are quite serious and far reaching and are partly summarised as follows: 128 Waste Disposal and Septic Tanks Waste disposal practices including landfills and septic tanks appear to be in need of revaluation and to allow consideration of alternative practices, as the current legislation and practices appear to be inappropriate for the area. It would appear that, from the literature on septic tanks, most of the aquifer is not suitable for traditional septic tank systems due to the shallow soil profile and gravel and sand nature of the geology. Alternative sewage disposal systems or modified septic field designs should be investigated for areas of the aquifer to reduce the nitrate loading and potential for spread of disease. In addition, unlined old landfills and open waste disposal areas set in the aquifer's porous materials provide a direct link between contaminates and groundwater and hence drinking water. Education and regulations in use of these facilities may be needed to change lifestyles, activities and attitudes of people living in areas that can impact the aquifer's water quality. Agriculture Agricultural activities are currently considered to be, and in this thesis indicated to be, a major source of contamination. This will result in the need for radical alteration of agricultural activities in light of the thin soil layer and high nitrate leaching potential. An additional issue identified by the Canadian Farmworkers Union is pesticide use which appears to require attention, (CFU 1990). The effect this will have on farming and currently fragile farm economics is hard to predict. While new guidelines have been recently published by the Ministry of Agriculture, it is uncertain to what extent the above issues have been addressed and the impact this will have on reducing contaminates entering the groundwater. For example the voluntary poultry set of guidelines appear to have overestimated raspberry uptake of nitrates and thus will still result in an excess of nitrogen available for leaching. In addition, it appears necessary to provide alternatives for disposal or use of poultry manure such as composting so as to remove the bulk of the additional nitrogen in the aquifer study area and adjacent areas. 129 Health At present health implications from exposure to low levels of various contaminants over long periods of time are generally unknown. It is also unknown what the implications are of nitrates at high levels for non-infants as well as the long term effects of nitrates at low levels for infants. Also of concern is exposure to various diseases through septic tank effluent in groundwater. Already one issue has emerged in the aquifer area. The reference to a disease called SCIDS (Scomatic Chemically Induced Disfunction Syndrome or MCS, (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) with possibly up to 250 people suffering from various levels of muscle function weakness. An Epidemiological Study conducted as a result of these concerns focused on a narrow aspect of the diagnosis and appears to have shown no medical link between all these affected people and that SCIDS does not exist. The typical response to contaminants in drinking water is to buy drinking water. This is not a total solution as water used for bathing can provide a more direct route of exposure for humans through water vapour entering the lungs and through direct skin contact, (Palmquist 1991; CFA 1988; WCB 1985). Water Supply As a result of the geology and soil types, the aquifer is particularly prone to contamination from a wide variety of sources. With the entire Abbotsford Municipality and Clearbrook Water District expanding and relying totally on the aquifer water, any actual or potential contamination is a serious threat. Inclusion of United States users and potential users raise this threat to an international level. Considering the number of the users of the aquifer it is surprising that water quality problems have been tolerated since the mid 1970's. 130 With several major transportation routes above the aquifer some form of emergency response should be planned for accidental spills of contaminants. The geology and free draining soils indicate that any large spill would quickly enter the groundwater. Also of concern is the risk of contaminated water as a result of fire fighting operations. For example, as some pesticides come in dissolvable bags (to eliminate waste), any water applied due to an accident or fire fighting operations could produce a highly concentrated pesticide runoff. The main alternative to using the aquifer as a water supply would appear to be expansion of the District of Matsqui water supply. This is part of the Dewdney-Allouette Regional District water supply from Norrish Creek and Water Reservoirs north of the Fraser River. This supply has inherent problems such as an unprotected water catchment and uses highly controversial chloramine as a water disinfectant, (Chloramine may also have an adverse affect on the natural biological treatment involved with septic tanks). The feasibility of using this water source is unknown and would depend upon the expansion capacity and cost of large trunk mains that would be required. Connection of the Clearbrook Water District, lying within the District of Matsqui water supply area, appears to be a more simple process. Recent developments such as a proposed amalgamation of the Districts of Abbotsford and Matsqui will most likely assist in solving some of the problems over water supply. Currently most of the aquifer lies in the District of Matsqui, but the aquifer supplies the District of Abbotsford with water. This has resulted in the District of Matsqui deciding land use with the resultant potential impacts on the District of Abbotsford water supply. This new change will put the land users and groundwater users under the same municipal government. 131 Water Standards / Guidelines Currently the United States EPA has set water quality standards which must be met by individual States. By contrast Canada has guidelines which have no strong legal backing. In addition to this, there are differences between contaminant levels allowed between the United States and Canada. Thus groundwater in Canada could pass all Canadian guidelines but fail United States standards once the groundwater has crossed the border. Some controversy also exists over what concentrations are allowed and how they are chosen, (Coon 1986). This particularly applies to some pesticides which appear to exhibit nonlinear health effects, such as aldicarb which is thought to be toxic at low levels then safe at higher levels then toxic at even higher concentrations, (CFA 88). International Responsibilities Any Canadian contamination of the aquifer could render the United States aquifer useless as a drinking water supply. The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and international law could require Canada to supply or compensate the affected United States areas. This could result in either immense infrastructure being required or large compensation costs. 132 Land Planning / Development The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is very prone to contamination by a wide variety of both common and occasional surface activities. The land use above the aquifer is very intensive ranging from urban use, with rapid growth rates, to agricultural use. Adjacent areas that drain over the aquifer or drain into Fishtrap Creek, which recharges the aquifer, also expose the groundwater to potential contamination. Current land planning has already been impacted in the United States as new development is hindered by a lack of access to clean water. Canadian land use planning may undergo dramatic change either to protect water quality or to allow for water supply difficulties. As real estate values appear to be highly speculative, water quality problems have the potential to have large impacts on real estate prices and present and future developments. The Abbotsford Airport lies above the aquifer and should be reviewed with respect to all airport procedures regarding spills, accidents and special events in light of susceptibility to groundwater contamination. In addition, the area to the north of the Airport is planned as a industrial area. As this is over the aquifer any development should be planned to minimise any contamination potential of the groundwater. Other potential problems are (older) petroleum product storage tanks sited in the gravel and sand of the aquifer. One additional potential problem is the proposed Rex Little Memorial Reserve, set in and around a soon to be abandoned Quarry. This should be reviewed to assess the potential of groundwater contamination from human use, wildlife use, adjacent landuse and aerial deposition. 133 6.4 A Workable Management Option Groundwater is a valuable resource that must be protected by preventative measures as once groundwater is contaminated it is incredibly difficult and expensive, if not impossible, to clean up. A good example is the 1986 train derailment and chemical spill of a suspected carcinogen in Langley which is still requiring clean up measures. At present, no management policy is in place for groundwater at any level of government, most notable at the provincial level where British Columbia is the only province in Canada with no groundwater legalisation. As the groundwater in parts of the aquifer is a health risk, actions are required as soon as possible to remove this risk even if it is not fully understood. The current approach of isolating the farming community as the primary source of pollution is only serving to make effective solutions more difficult and causing defensive behaviours from all concerned. In addition the lack of public access to information and involvement only serves to distance the government authorities from the people they serve. Although a great range of management options can be recommended and discussed, this thesis deals only with one management option that is considered most feasible in light of current activities. 134 The Consensus Based Approach Due to the wide range of potential and actual contaminants and associated sources as well as a lack of effective regulation, a consensual based community management approach would appear to be a viable and effective proposition. All the players or stakeholders involved (or potentially involved) as well as responsible authorities (including emergency services) could meet to discuss and plan protective measures as well as changes in practices. The process itself would aid in educating and informing those involved and allow a venue to encourage more widespread education. If necessary an independent organisation or person could assist in running the process. This would bring this issue in line with the current range of issues that are using community involvement in the decision making process. One major issue that can aid the process is that it can be shown that most users of the aquifer are to some degree responsible for actual or potential contamination of the aquifer. Another is the identification of actual problems such as over use of nitrogen and the resulting high levels of nitrates-nitrogen in the groundwater. The most obvious venue for this would be the current Abbotsford - Sumas Aquifer International Task Force. This task force was set up by the British Columbia Premier and Washington State Governor and appears to be a venue for the various government organisations to communicate. By reducing the number of multiple members from the same organisations and opening the process up to business, industry and the community, this could readily function as a community and government management organisation for the aquifer. The work already done by the Task Force would be invaluable in pushing the process along. A process such as this would also potentially open up much of the information that is currently unavailable due to privacy and other concerns. 135 Much of the technical material and available research could be easily brought together by this group. The Task Force could also coordinate and even fund the wide variety of independent research and studies currently being conducted on aspects of the aquifer. Of potential significance is the Agriculture Canada GIS database of the aquifer and land use. This could provide the basic technical tools for research and management of the aquifer. As the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer is one of many aquifers, with contamination problems the solutions reached for this aquifer could serve as a model for examining issues faced in other aquifers in similar biophysical settings such as the Hoppington Aquifer and Fort Langley Aquifers. 136 REFERENCES Addiscott, T.M. Whitmore, A.P. and Powlson, D.S. Farming. Fertilizers and the Nitrate Problem (pp 1-54) CAB International Oxon, UK. Aquifer Task Force (Nov. 1993). The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force Interim Status Report by Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Task Force. Armstrong, J.E. (1984). Environmental and Engineering Applications of the Surficial Geology of the Fraser Lowland British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada. Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia (APEBC) (1985). Preservation of Groundwater Quality A policy statement and accompanying brief in The B.C. Professional Engineer. Association of Professional Engineers of BC (APEBC) (1989). Control of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks A brief to the BC Government. Atwater, J. & Johnson, K. (1988,Feb). Roles of Saturated and Unsaturated Zone in Soil Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 15, (pp 709-716). Barry, D.A. Goorahoo, D. & Goss, M.J. (1993). Estimation of Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Using a Whole Farm Nitrogen Budget. Journal of Environmental Quality. 22, (pp 767-775). Baumgartner, A. & Reichel, E. (1975). The World Water Balance. Munich. BCFOA (1993), BCFOA Manure Pile Survey, Personal Communication with J Maar. BC SoE (1993) State of the Environment Report for British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Environment Canada, B.C. Beak Consultants (1986) Groundwater Contamination in Canada: Selected Cases. Potential Sources and Protection Strategy Report prepared for Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec. Beckie, Dr.R. (Aug 1993). Assistant Professor, Geological Science, University of British Columbia, BC, Personal Communications. 137 Bertrand, R. & Bulley, N.D. (1985) Manure Management Guidelines Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, BC. BeyakT. (Oct. 1991). Victim Told to Cool It Abbotsford/Matsqui News. October 23, 1991, Abbotsford, BC. Blake, S. (1992). Water Resource Protection Manager, Whatcom County Health Department, Bellingham, Washington, Personal Communication. Bowen, R. (1986). Groundwater pp 1-24, 49-130. Elservier Applied Science Publishers, New York, US. Bouwer, H. (1990). Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Quality. Ground Water Monitoring Review. 10(1), pp 71-80. Brady, N.C. (1990). The Nature and Property of Soils. (pp315-337). Macmillan Publishers, New York, US. Brooks, D.B. (1988). Water: The Potential For Demand Management in Canada. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada. Busch, R. (1992). Environmental Health Officer, Upper Fraser Valley Health Unit, Ministry of Health, Abbotsford, BC, Personal Communication. Canadian Farmworker's Union (CFU), (1990). Pesticide Use and Handling in the Fraser Valley Berry Industry. Report prepared for Labour Canada by the Canadian Farmworker's Union. Canter, L.W. &R.C. Knox. (1985). Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality (pp 1-11, 45-103). Chelsea, MI: Lew Publishers Inc. US. Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring (pp 39-51). Boston: Riverside Press, US. Cherry, J.A. (1987). Groundwater Occurrence and Contamination in Canada. In M.C. Healey & R.R. Wallace [Eds], Canadian Aquatic Resources (pp387-426). Ottawa: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans. Chipperfield, K. (1993, August). Fraser Valley Poultry Industry Waste Management Survey. Sustainable Poultry Farming Group, Abbotsford, BC. 138 Cogger, C. & MacConnell, C. (1991). Why the Concern about Agricultural Contamination in Groundwater EB 1632, Washington State Cooperative Extension, Washington University, Washington State, US. Conservation Council: New Brunswick, (1987, April) Preventing Petroleum Storage Tank Leaks: A Citizens Guide. New Brunswick Conservation Council. Coon, D. (1987). Groundwater Pollution Primer. New Brunswick Conservation Council. Coon, D. (1986). The Myth of a Safe Drinking Water Standard. New Brunswick Conservation Council. Country Fire Authority, Victoria. (1988) Understanding Chemical Toxicity. C.F.A. Operations, Monthly supplement to The Fireman provided by C.F.A. Victoria, Australia. Dakin, A. (1991). Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Sources in the Lower Fraser Valley, BC. The BC Professional Engineer, (pp 30-32). Dakin, R.A., R.N. Farvolden, J.A. Cherry, and P. Fritz. (1983). Origin of Dissolved Solids in Groundwater of Mayne Island, British Columbia. J. Hydrology. 63, (pp 122-270). Dean, D., Zebarth, B.J., Kowalenko, J.W., Paul, J.W., & Chipperfield, K. (1993). Manure and Nitrogen Management in Raspberry Production Proc. 16th BC Soil Science Workshop (in press). D'ltri, F.M. (1992). Preface & Prologue in Chemical Deicers and the Environment, Lewis Publishers, Michigan. DoA, (1980). Updating of 1978 Urban Water System Report. Recommended Improvements Map Sketch 7, Rev. J File 1461A/1, District of Abbotsford, Abbotsford, BC. DoEA and DoNANR (Feb. 1964). The Columbia River Treaty Protocol and Related Documents issued by Departments of External affairs and Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa. DoM (1991). Official Community Plan For the Municipality of Matsqui. District of Matsqui, Matsqui, British Columbia DoM (Aug. 1993). Works Yard Staff, District of Matsqui, 12 August, 1993. Personal Communication. 139 Easterbrook, D.J. (1973) Percolation Rates . Whatcom County. Washington. 1:62.500 Map 1-854 A USA Geological Survey Washington D.C. Easterbrook, D.J. (1976) Geologic Map. Whatcom County. Washington. 1:62.500 Map 1-854 B US Geological Survey, Washington D.C. Edgett, J. & Coon, D. (1986). Petroleum on Tap: The Legacy of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (p 45). Fredericton, N.B.: Conservation Council of New Brunswick. Environment Canada. (1990). WATER: NO TIME TO WASTE A Consumers Guide to Water Conservation (Catalogue Number En37-93/1990OE, pp. 1-23). Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Environment Canada. (1993). Canadian Climate Normals. 1961-1990. Vol.1. BC Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Environment Canada. (1988 No.2). Water - here, there and everywhere Water Fact Sheet No. 2. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Environment Canada. (1990 No.4). Water Works. Water Fact Sheet No. 4. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Environment Canada. (1990 No.5). Groundwater - Nature's Hidden Treasure. Water Fact Sheet No. 5. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa. EPA (1989). Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 440/6-89-002. EPA (1985). Determination of toxic chemicals in effluent from household septic tanks United States Environmental Protection Agency (Rep. PB85-196798/AS,NTIS). 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA. EPA (1990). Citizen's Guide To Ground-Water Protection. United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA Government Printing Office. Feenstra, S., R.D. Blair, J.A. Cherry, J.C. Chakravatti, and E. LaRocque. 1981. Hydrogeochemical Investigation of Two Inactive Tailings Areas in the Elliot Lake Uranium District. Ontario. Canada (pp 367-379). Fort Collins, CO.: Proceedings, Fourth Symposium On Uranium Mill Tailings Management. 140 Fisher, R. & Uri, W. (1983). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In New York, Penguin Books. Foweraker, J.C. Foster, H. and Kohut, A.P. (1993). Management of Groundwater resources in British Columbia in Groundwater Resources of British Columbia. Groundwater Section, Hydrology Branch, Water Management Division, BC Environment, Victoria, BC. Freeze, R.A., Attwater, J. & Liebscher, H. (1993) Groundwater Contamination: Occurrence, Sources and Transport of Contaminants in Groundwater in Groundwater Resources of British Columbia. Groundwater Section, Hydrology Branch, Water Management Branch, BC Environment, Victoria, BC. Freeze, R.A. & Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Freid, M. Tanji, K. & Van De Pol, R.M. (1976). Simplified Long Term Leaching of Nitrogen from Agricultural Land Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol 5, No. 2, (pp 197-200). Gales, J.E. and Van der Meulen, J. (1992). Deicing Chemical Use on the Michigan State Highway System, in Chemical Deicers and the Environment, Lewis Publishers, Michigan. Gartner Lee Limited, (March 1992). Final Report. Fraser Valley Ground Water/Drinking Water Study. prepared for Ministry of Health, Public Protection Branch, Victoria BC. Gartner Lee Limited, (April 1993). Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program. Phase 1 Report prepared for Ministry of Health, Environmental Health Protection, Victoria, BC. Geological Survey of Canada (1980). Map 1485A Surficial Geology. Mission. BC Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Gorrie, P. (1992). Water from the Ground. Canadian Geographic, Sept/Oct 1992. Greater Vancouver Regional District, (GVRD). Lets Clean the Air. Brochure, 1992. Halstead, E.C. (1986) Ground Water Supply - Fraser Lowland. British Columbia NHRI Paper No. 26, IWD Scientific Series No. 145, National Hydraulic Research Institute. Hamblin, W.K. (19891 The Earth's Dynamic Systems 5th Ed. pp20-33, MacMillan Publishing Co. USA. 141 Healey, M.C. & Wallace, R.R. (1987). Canadian Aquatic Resources, An Introduction, in M.C.Healey & R.R.Wallace (Eds.), Canadian Aquatic Resources Ottawa: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans. Health & Welfare Canada (1989). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. Minister of Supply and Services, Canada. Hora, Z.D. and Basham, F.C. (1980). Sands and Gravel Study British Columbia Lower Mainland Paper (Report #1980-10). Province of British Columbia: Geological Division. Hill, M.J. (1991) Nitrates and Nitrites in Food and Water Ellis Horwood Series in Food Science and Technology, (pp 32-37, 58-76, 162-192), New York Hydrological Atlas of Canada,(1978). Plate 24, Ottawa. Isaac, R.W. (1992) Design Technician, Engineering Department, District of Abbotsford, Personal Communication. Jones, R. L. & Bostian, A. L. (1989). Developing Management Practices for Preventing Residues of Agricultural Chemicals in Drinking Water. Ground Water Monitoring Review.9(4). (pp 75-78). King County Planning Division (1986). Ground Water Resource Protection: A Handbook for Local Planners and Decision Makers in Washington State. King County, Washington: Hall & Associates. Kristiansen, R. (1981). Sand Filter Trenches for Purification of Septic Tank Effluent: II. The Fate of Nitrogen, Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol. 10, No. 3, (pp 358-361) Koberstein, W.D. (1993). R.E.H.O. Deputy Chief Environmental Health Officer, Upper Fraser Valley Health Unit, Ministry of Health, Abbotsford, BC Written Communication May 28, 1993. Kohut, A. P., (Feb. 1993a). MoELP Presentation at Groundwater Mapping and Assessment Seminar Richmond, Feb 25, 1993 by Resource Inventory Commission, BC. Kohut, A.P. (Feb 1993b). Head, Groundwater Section, Hydrology Branch, Water Management Division, MoELP, BC Environment. Personal Communication. 142 Kohut, A.P., (1992), Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater. Abbotsford. BC. Proceedings of 34 th Annual Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association growers Short Course, Abbotsford BC. Kohut, A P, (1987), Groundwater Supply Capability Abbotsford Upland Ministry of Environment Land and Parks, Water Management Branch Victoria BC. Kohut, A P, Sather, S, Kwong, J and Chwoika, R. (1989). Nitrate Contamination of the Abbotsford Aquifer. British Columbia. Proceedings of the International Association of the Hydrogeology Symposium (pp 22), Saskatoon, Sask. Kowalenko C.G. (Nov. 1989). The Fate of Applied Nitrogen in a Fraser Valley Soil Using 1SN in Field Microplots Agriculture Canada Research Station, Agazziz, BC. Krone, R B, McGauhey P H and Gotaas, H B. (1957). Direct Discharge of Groundwater with Sewerage Effluents. American Society of Civil Engineers.,J Sank. Eng. 83 (SA4), ppl-25 Referenced in Freeze, R.A. & Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kwong, J C, 1986. Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program: The occurrence of nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater in the Langley-Abbotsford area fpp7) Ministry of Environment, Groundwater Section, Internal memorandum to A P Kohut. Lagan, K. (1992, January). Distribution And Treatment Of Water. Paper presented at Water Quality in the Fraser Valley: A Community Forum, Abbotsford, BC. Laycock, AH (1987). The Amount of Canadian Water and its Distribution. In M.C. Healey & R.R. Wallace (Eds.), Canadian Aquatic Resources (pp 1-11). Ottawa: Dept of Fisheries and Oceans. Liebscher, H. Hii, B. & McNaughton, D. 1992 July. Nitrates and Pesticides in the Abbotsford Aquifer. Southwestern British Columbia. Environment Canada. Liebscher, H. (1991, 1992) Regional Hydrologist, Pacific and Yukon Region, Inland Waters, Environment Canada, North Vancouver, BC, Personal Communication. Luttmerding, H.A. (1980). Soils of the Langley-Vancouver Map Area Report No. 15 BC Soil Survey, Volume 1. Soil Mosaics and Legend, Lower Fraser Valley, Kelowna, BC. Lund, L.J. (1982). Variations in Nitrate and Chloride Concentrations below Selected Agricultural Fields, Soil Science Society. American Journal Vol. 46, (pp 1062-1066). 143 Lvovich, M. (1971). The Worlds Water. Today and Tomorrow (pp. 18,70). Moscow: Mir Publishers. Maine Department of Environment (1985). Survey of Existing Underground Oil storage tanks (Report to the Maine legislature). Maine. Mathias, C.P. & Archibald, R.G. (1992). An Investigation into a Cluster of Muscle Weakness in the Fraser Valley. British Columbia. Report by U.BC Department of Health Care and Epidemiology for Ministry of Health, Victoria, BC. Mackay, D.M. & Robert,P.V. & Cherry, J.A. (1985). Transport of Organic Contaminants in Groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol.19. (pp 384-392). McNeill, R.C. (1991). Water Pricing and Sustainable Development in the Fraser River Basin. In Dorcey, H.J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin (pp.417-429). Vancouver, BC: Northburn Printers & Stationers Ltd. MoAFF, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1992). Environmental Guidelines for Poultry Producers in British Columbia Soils and Engineering Branch, Abbotsford, BC. MoELP (1993). A Vision for New Water Management Policy and Legislation, Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. MoELP (1993 No.l). 1 - Groundwater Management, Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. MoELP (1993 No.2). 2 - Water Pricing, Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. MoH News Release May 21, 1992. Fraser Valley Groundwater Testing Expanded- Community Environmental Health Committee Established Ministry of Health, Upper Fraser Valley Health Unit, Chilliwack, BC. MoH Health Files No. 5 (1990). Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater Ministry of Health, Victoria BC. Moon D. (Sept. 1993). Unit Head, British Columbia Land Resource Unit, Vancouver Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Personal Communication. 144 Moore, K.E. (1990). Urbanization in the Lower Fraser Valley Technical Report Series No. 120, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, BC. MoH (1985) Health Act. Sewage Disposal Regulation Ministry of Health, BC Reg. 411/85 O.C. 2398/85. Nace, R.L. (1967). Are we running out of Water? US Geological Survey Circular 530. Washington. OECD (1986). Water Pollution by Fertilizers and Pesticides (pp 1-30, 43-56) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. Oke, T. & Hay, J. The Climate of Vancouver BC Geographical Series, No. 23. Tantalus Research Ltd. Vancouver, BC. Office of the Ombudsman (July 1989). The On-Site Septic System Permit Process. Ombudsman Public Report No. 18, Vancouver BC. Ott, C.L. (1985). Groundwater and Surface Water Contamination By Fire Retardants At Abbotsford Airport. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Palmquist, R. (1991). Groundwater Assessment Series. Bellevue, WA: Applied Geotechnology Inc. Patrick, R. Quarles, J. & Ford, E. (1987). Groundwater Contamination in the USA (pps 513). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pearse, P.H.,Bertrand, F. & MacLaren, J.W. (1985). Currents of Change. Final Report. Enquiry on Federal Water Policy Canada. Pearse, P.H. & Tate, D.M. (1991). Economic Instruments for Sustainable Development of Water Resources. In Dorcey, H.J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin (pp 431-451). Vancouver, BC, Northburn Printers & Stationers Ltd. Peters, B. (1993) Berry Specialist, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Abbotsford, BC Personal Communication. 145 Piteau Associates Engineering Ltd. (1990). Groundwater Resources of the Lower Fraser Valley. Draft of chapter in 'Groundwater in British Columbia' being prepared by BC Environment (pp 22). Ponce, V.M. (1989). Engineering Hydrology. Principles and Practices (pp 2-5), Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Project Enviro-Health (Mar. 1993) Annual Report to Ministry of Health by The Upper Fraser Valley Health Services Society. Pye, V.I., Patrick,R. & Quarles, J. (1983). Groundwater Contamination in the USA (pp 315). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ringham, L. (1993) Hydrogeologist, Lower Mainland Region, Water Management, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Personal Communication. Robertson, W.D. Cherry, J.A. & Sudicky, E.A. (1991). Groundwater Contamination from Two Small Septic Tank Systems on Sand Aquifers, Ground Water. Vol. 29, No. 1, (pp 82-92). Saha, S.K. & Barrow, C.J. (1981). River Basin Planning: Theory and Practice. In L.W. Saha & C.J. Barrow (Eds), River Basin Planning: Theory and Practice (ppl8). Great Britain: University College of Swansea, John Wiley and Sons. Sands, D. (1991) Soil Engineer, BC Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Presentation at Water Quality in the Fraser Valley: A Community Forum. UCFV Abbotsford Campus, Abbotsford, B.C. Scalf, M.R. Dunlap, W.J. and Kreissl, J.F. (1977) Environmental Effects of Septic Tank Systems U.U. Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA-600/3-77-096. Schreier H, Brown S.J. and Hall K.J. (1991) The Land Water Interface in the Fraser River Basin, in Dorcey, H.J. & Griggs, J.R. (Eds) Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring out Common Future in the Fraser River Basin (pp77-106), Westwater Research Centre, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of British Columbia Schreier H. (1983). Soil Survey Data for Land Use Planning: A Case Study of Raspberry Cultivation in BC pp499-503 Journal of Soil & Water Conservation. November-December 1983. 146 Schwille, F. (1984). 3. Migration of organic fluids immiscible with water in the unsaturated zone, p. 28-48. In B. Yaron, G. Dagan, & J. Goldshmid [Eds.], Pollutants in Porous Media (pp 28-48). New York: Spinger-Verlag. Silvas, L. (1993). Chief Engineer, City of Sumas, Washington, Personal Communication. Sittig, M. (1985) Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Noyes Publications, New Jersey, US. SoE 92-1, (1992). State of the Environment for the Lower Fraser Basin. Report No. 92-1. Co-published by Environment Canada and BC Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks. Ottawa. Stegman R. (1992) The Pollution Potential of Sanitary Landfill, in Effects of Waste Disposal on Groundwater and Surface Water edited by R.Perry, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication No. 139, U.K. Steyn, D. (1992) Climatologist, UBC Geography Department. Personal communication. Steyn, D. (Nov. 1993) Climatologist, UBC Geography Department. Personal communication. Sullivan, T.J. (1993). Whole-EcosSystem Nitrogen Effects Research in Europe Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 27, No. 8, 1993. Surficial Geology (1976). (Map 1485A). Mission: British Columbia Geological Survey of Canada. Sweeting, R. (1992). F.R.C.S. (C) F.R.A.C.S. (ORTH) Orthopedic Surgeon, Abbotsford, B.C. Tate, D. (1987). Current And Projected Water Uses In Canada. In M.C. Healey & R.R. Wallace (Eds.), Canadian Aquatic Resources (pp 43-69). Ottawa: Dept of Fisheries and Oceans. Tiplady, D. (Feb. 1993). Presentation at Groundwater Mapping and Assessment Seminar Richmond, Feb 25, 1993 by Resource Inventory Commission, BC. Ulansky S. (Sept. 1993). GIS Technician, British Columbia Land Resource Unit, Vancouver Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Personal Communication. 147 United Nations (1978). Resources and Needs: Assessment of the World Water Situation. Summary and Main Documents presented at the UN Water Conference, Munich: Pergamon Press. University Endowment Lands Fire Department, (Nov. 1992). Personal Communication with Fire Prevention Captains. Van Kleeck, R. (1993). Waste Management Engineer, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Abbotsford, B.C. Personal Communication. Villaume, J.F. (1985). Investigations of sites contaminated with dense, non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS). Ground Water Monit. Rev.. Spring. 60-74. Walker, W.G. Bouma, and Magdoff (1973a). Nitrogen Transformations During Subsurface Disposal of Septic Effluent in Sands: I. Soil Transformations, Journal of Environmental Quality Vol. 2, No. 4, (pp475-480) Walker, W.G. Bouma, D.R Keeney, D.R. and Olcott, P.G. (1973b). Nitrogen Transformations During Subsurface Disposal of Septic Effluent in Sands: II. Ground Water Quality, Journal of Environmental Quality Vol. 2, No. 4, (pp521-525) Wei, M. (1993). Origin, Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater in Groundwater Resources of British Columbia. Groundwater Section, Hydrology Branch, Water Management Branch, BC Environment, Victoria, BC. Workers Compensation Board, (WCB),(1985, March) Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators BC Whitten, D.G.A. & Brooks, J.R.V. (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Geology. Great Britain: Penguin Books. Wigod, R. Sun Medical Reporter (Nov. 1991). Government Checks Claims of Mystery Ailment in Valley The Vancouver Sun, Thursday, November 28, 1991, Vancouver, BC. Yates, M.V. (1985). Septic Tank Density and Ground-Water Contamination. Groundwater pp 586-581, Vol. 23, No. 5. 148 Zebarth, B. & Paul, J. (1992). Influence of Time of Manure Application on Leaching and Denitrification.- 1991 Highlights. Technical Report No. 86. Agriculture Canada Agazziz Research Station. Zebarth, B. (Oct. 1992). Soil and Water Management, Agriculture Canada Research station, Agazziz, BC Personal Communication. Zimmerman, R. (June 1990) Groundwater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program: The occurrence of nitrate-nitrogen in Groundwater in the Langley-Abbotsford Area Ministry of Environment, Groundwater Section, Victoria, BC Internal memorandum to A P Kohut. Zimmerman, R. (Jan. 1991) January and June. 1990. Sampling of Piezometer Installation South of the Abbotsford Airport Ministry of Environment, Groundwater Section, Victoria, BC Internal memorandum to A P Kohut. 149 Appendix 3.4.1 Chronology of Major Events Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer - Chronology of Main Events (Established from information available to author) Geological Formation of Aquifer 1909 Boundary Water Treaty established between Canada and U.S. (DoEA and DoNANR 1964) 1920's First water drawn from Ground water supplies. 1950's First sampling of ground water, (Liebschier et al 1992, Gartner Lee 1992) 1955 E.C. Halstead of Geological Survey of Canada involved in ground water studies including pin pointing pollution sources in Abbotsford (manure & septic tanks), (Armstrong 1984, Halstead 1986). 1968 First Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives. (H&WC 1989). 1972 Focus begins on nitrate/nitrogen levels with readings above lOmg/L, (Ref) 1978 Agazziz Research Station of A.C. begin research on nitrates. 1978 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality supercede Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives, (H&WC 1989). 1984 E.C. begin pesticide analysis of groundwater of Aquifer. 1984 Environmental and Engineering Applications of the Surficial Geology for the Fraser valley. B.C. by GSoC, (Abbotsford Aquifer pollution sources identified as septic tank and manure handling practices) 1985 Groundwater and Surface Water Contamination by Fire Retardants at Abbotsford Airport. U.B.C. Masters Thesis by Ott, (No result possible as fire fighting practices altered) 1985 MoELP begin Groundwater Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program 1985 Federal-Provincial subcommittee on Drinking Water established and assumes responsibility for revising and updating Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality 1986 Groundwater Supply. Fraser Lowland. B.C. by E.C. Halstead of NHRI. (Abbotsford Aquifer -pollution potential recognised and causes identified) 1986 Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program: The occurrence of nitrate-nitrogen in Groundwater in the Langley-Abbotsford area. Internal memorandum by Kwong of MoELP, (Kwong 1986). 150 1986 FEB Ethylene Dichloride (250,000L) and Sodium Hydroxide (60,000L) spill in Fort Langley Aquifer. MAR Initial EDC recovery begins APR Air stripping of EDC from groundwater began. (54 months) (MoELP Waste Management Files) Lynden conduct test wells to expand water supply and find unacceptable water quality Environment Canada begin involvement LENS (Lynden,Everson,Nooksack,Sumas) Committee established to address water supply problems, (dissolved in 1992). U.S.G.S. begin study of U.S. portion of aquifer for LENS comm. 1987 Groundwater Supply Capability Abbotsford Upland by Kohut, MoELP, (Kohut 1987). 1987 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water (1978 Update), (H&WC 1989) 1989 JUNE Nitrate Contamination of the Abbotsford Aquifer. British Columbia. (Kohut et al 1989). 1990 NOV Airstripping completed from EDC spill but pumping of contaminated water to Fraser River to continue indefinitely. 1990 NHRI and Env. Can. begin 4yr study on pesticides E.C. begin report on nitrates and pesticides in Abbotsford Aquifer 1991 MoH has internal proposal for Septic Tank research with respec to groundwater 1991 E.C. - 4 Contracts/Studies for Abbotsford Aquifer: 1) Pesticide/Nitrate continuation 2) Fishtrap Creek Study 3) G/w hydrology 4) Septic Effluent, 1991 NOV Abbotsford orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Sweeting releases news of 60-70 people suffering from SCIDS (Scomatic Chemically Induced Dysfunction Syndrome) 1992 JAN Public Seminar on Water Supply and Quality in the Fraser Valley 1992 FEB Florida Toxicologist, Dr Richard Lipsey hired by SCIDS group and reports on Valley toxicology problems. 1992 FEB U.B.C. Epidemiology Study on Dr Sweetings diagnosis procedure, (Mathias 1992). 1992 Apr MoA and MoE release new environmental guidelines for farmers (MoAFF 1992) 151 1992 May Final Report, Fraser Valley Ground Water/Drinking Water Study released by MoELP and MoH, (Gartner Lee 1992). 1992 May MoH, MoE, MoA expand Fraser Valley Groundwater testing and form Community Environmental Health Committee, (MoH News Release May 21, 1992). 1992 MoA create new Hydrologist Position (Region 2) for groundwater problems. 1992 AUG E.C. release report on nitrate and pesticides in Abbotsford Aquifer, Research to continue as part of four studies/contracts 1992 Federal/Provincial Management Committee formed for Aquifer (includes MoE, MoH, MoA, EC, AC, H&WC). 1992 SEP MoH, MoELP, MoA award four contracts for Fraser Valley Groundwater Testing: l)Well Sampling 2)Data Assessment 3)Well Site Assessment 4)Analysis (Due to late start and finances scope is reduced) 1992 OCT Federal/Provincial Management Committee establishes Technical Committee. First meeting is closed to public and summarises all Aquifer Research, (Ringham 1992). 1992 NOV MoA Hydrologist position made permanent and applications accepted, (Ringham 1992) 1992 DEC MoH has broader septic tank review proposal under review, (Busch 1992). 1992 GSoC proposing constructing GIS groundwater map of Abbotsford Aquifer, (Ringham 1993) 1992 MoEMP proposing constructing GIS groundwater map of Abbotsford Aquifer, (Ringham 1993) 1992 AC, UBC Research Station conducting GIS mapping and agricultural nitrate loading of Aquifer, (Moon 1993). 1992 Nov. Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer International Taskforce 1993 Apr. Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program. Phase 1 Report (Gartner Lee 1993) 1993 Nov. International Taskforce First Report 152 Glossary of Abbreviations A.C. - Agriculture Canada BCFOA- British Columbia Federation of Agriculture DoM - District of Matsqui CDWG - Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines E.C. - Environment Canada EEC - European Economic Community GSoC - Geological Survey of Canada H&WC - Health & Welfare Canada MoA - Ministry of Agriculture MoELP- Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks MoH - Ministry of Health MoEMP- Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum. NHRI - National Hyrdaulic Research Institute UBC - University of British Columbia 153 Appendix 5 . 1 . 1 r S tudy Area - Property Data Base General Notes: 1992 Figure based on Aerial Photo Interpretation, DoM Building Records and Field Inspection Unless Noted, Units are those of Original Documentation. (Imperial gallons and square feet). 1 gallon (imperial) = 4.55 litres 1000 square feet = 92.9 square metres Glossary o f t e rms : Buildings: H - House '64 - Year of Construction (2br.) - 2 Bedroom 1000 sf - House Size -> 1000 square foot = 92.9 square metres (m) - Main floor (b) - Basement (1) -First floor dwel. - Dwelling M/H - Mobile Home T - Trailer P/B - Poultry Barn C/S - Chicken Shed (T) - Turkey C/B - Cattle Barn L/B - Loafing Barn Milk /H - Milk House P/C - Pickers Cabin (Predominately Raspberries) FW/C - Farm Workers Cabin (includes Pickers) G/H - Green House B - Business (Store etc.) Other - Includes Office, Factory, Business, Church and Misselaneous (School, Hostel etc.) General: (5p) - 5 person Appln. - Application Illegal - Indicates no Municipal approval was sought and / or given '64 - Consttuction or Installation Date 300 g U/G Fuel tank - 300 gallon Underground Fuel Tank ref - Indicates reference in Matsqui Municaple records water - Indicates connection to Municipal Water Supply sewer - Indicates connection to Municipal Sewer System demol.- Indicates Demolition of Building Septic Tank Notes: Date - Date of Septic Tank Approval Form Tank Size - Size of Septic Tank (gallons) Field Size - Lenth of Septic Tank Drainage Field (feet) Flow - Calculated Flow from Septic Tank st. - Septic Tank No st. alt. - No Septic Tank Alterations Number in Italics indicates a derived figure 154 Short St. No. of Prop. 13 Building P/C H(2br) P/C(5p) H H H P/B P/C H H(3br) H('64) H C/B H H C/B Homes P/B P/C Cattle B Other Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size '61 280sf H '67 1306sf H C/S H H H H H 8 1 1 0 0 800 290 300 290 290 300 290 290 290 Total Flow 3140 P/C Flow 800 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size .. 1/8/75 H H H C/S 440sf H 20/3/73 •70 1220sf Cattle Barn H Cow Barn 500g/150 600/200 '75 300 g gas tank 8 1 1 2 0 250 290 300 290 290 300 300 290 Total Flow 2310 P/C Flow 0 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size • H 5/10/84 H H P/C H C/S H H H H Cow Barn 8 1 2 1 0 1200/360 % 250 550 290 300 290 290 300 300 290 Total Flow 2860 P/C Flow 550 155 Gladwin Rd. House/ Building H(4br) H(4br) H H P/B H H H H H H G/H H H H(4br) H H H H H(3br) P/B H P/B(T) P/B H H Church H(2br) H Factory Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size H H C/S H H H H H H H H '68 1300sf H Church H 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 375 290 : : 700 250 : : Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size 3/11/73 : 2/8/73 H H C/S H H H H H 8/9/75 600/210 750/250 500/150 Green House 2/10/74 (4br) •71 1456sf 10/3/76 '70 1625sf •79 C/S H H H 28/3/74 C/S H P/B C/S • '71 2268sf '71 st appr. 750/210 750/240 600/210 300 375 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 250 375 375 375 375 290 290 375 300 290 450 WOO see 32910 Huntingdon Rd. H 19/3/79 Factory 600/180 assume 2p 250 300 20 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size 18/3/86 H H 25/8/83 C/S H H 25/2/83 H H H 750/250 750/300 750/250 Green House H H H H C/S H H H H C/S ST-11/85 P/B C/S 9/10/85 H : Church : H H Meat Proc. 750/300 375 -375 290 375 290 290 300 290 290 250 375 375 375 375 290 290 375 300 370 375 450 1000 250 300 20 156 Gladwin Rd. No. of Prop. 48 House/ Building H H C/S Milk/H H C/S H H H P/C H P/B H P/B H H H H H(3br) H M/H P/B H H H H M/H Homes P/B P/C Cattle B G/H Other Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size H H C/S Milk/House H C/S H H H H C/S H C/S H H 600sf est. '64 1040sf H H C/S H H 768sf H : 31 6 0 1 0 1 * 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 250 250 300 290 290 290 250 290 Total Flow 9625 P/C Flow 0 Other Flow 700 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size H H C/S Milk/House H C/S 290 290 290 '73 300g U/G Fuel Tank H ! :.. H H C/S H C/S H H + 400sf '72 300g Fuel Tank H H H ..........^ ...,,..., C/S '70 Garage Fire H water - '80 H H H '77 M/H - Farm Help 41 10 0 1 1 2 290 290 290 290 290 290 250 250 300 290 : v 290 290 250 290 250 Total Flow 13090 P/C Flow 0 Other Flow 1020 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size H H • " H C/S H 290 290 290 290 P/C Appln. - Rejected - mid 80's H 85 P/C-illegal H C/S H C/S H H H H H '87 st appr. '87 M/H 576sf C/S H H H H 41 9 1 0 1 2 290 800 290 290 290 290 250 250 300 370 250 290 290 250 290 Total Flow 14595 P/C Flow 800 Other Flow 1020 157 Columbia Street House/ Building H P/B H H(6br) P/B H H P/B H M/H M/H H P/C H H H H H P/B H H H P/C P/C H P/C H M/H P/B H P/C H P/B H(4br) Date pre 1969 H H C/S H H C/S H H H H H H C/S H H P/C P/C •69 1373sf H C/S H : H C/S Tank Size/ Field Size • • Flow 290 290 290 290 290 • 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 800 800 300 290 290 290 Date 1970-81 H '79 C/S H 22/9/77 C/S H Tank Size/ Field Size 1100/352 '74 300g Fuel Tank H C/S H 10/4/73 H '71 st appr. H H H H C/S H 500/150 '70 st appr. 1650sf H ? ? H 50 g Fuel Tank H C/S '70 st appr. 181 Is f P/C - old house H C/S 30/8/73 750/250 Flow 290 290 550 290 290 290 250 290 800 290 290 290 290 290 375 290 800 800 300 290 375 800 290 375 Date 1982-92 H C/S -H H C/S H H C/S 24/11/81 Tank Size/ Field Size 600/200 M/H - no records H P/C '91 5br+ nanny H H H H H H H H 5/5/88 -/500 17 CABINS observed H M/H -Illegal st appr. C/S H • H C/S H Flow 290 290 550 290 290 300 250 290 800 550 290 370 290 290 ' 290 375 290 300 780 290 250 375 290 375 158 Columbia St. (cont.) House/ Building H H H H H C/B H H P/C H H H H H H(3br) H(2br) H(2br) H H(2br) H H H(3br) H H H H H H H P/C H H H H H H H P/B H Date pre 1969 '69 1324st H H H H H P/C H H H •61 832sf H H H H H Tank Size/ Field Size '69 st appr. 1248sf '69 1228sf H H H H H H H '67 P/C H H H H '62 1030s1 H H ! H Flow 300 290 290 290 290 290 800 290 290 290 250 300 250 250 290 250 300 300 : 290 250 290 290 290 290 250 800 290 290 290 290 250 290 290 290 Date 1970-81 H Water '80 '72 st appr. H H H 1500sf Tank Size/ Field Size '73 Cattle barn H '80 Water H '71 stappr 1261 sf H+ 238sf H H H H H H H H H H H '71 st appr + 2br - no st alt. '80 965sf H H H H ? H H H H H H H H - water 500/180 Flow 300 330 290 290 375 290 290 300 290 290 290 250 300 250 250 290 250 300 300 290 375 250 290 290 290 250 800 290 290 290 290 250 290 290 290 Date 1982-92 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 19/6/86 H H H H H H Tank Size/ Field Size -/-H + 2 br. - no st alt. ' H H H - water H H H H C/S : '• Flow 300 330 290 290 375 290 290 300 290 290 290 250 300 250 250 290 250 300 300 300 290 375 250 290 290 290 375 290 290 290 290 250 290 290 159 Columbia St. (cont.) No. of Prop. 73 House/ Building H H H H H P/B H H(3br) H H P/B P/C H H H M/H H P/B H Homes P/B P/C Cattle B Other Date pre 1969 H H '67 lOOOsf H H C/S H H H H H H H H C/S Tank Size/ Field Size s 68 st appr. 1704sf 61 7 4 1 0 Flow 290 290 250 290 ", i l»"1 290 290 300 290 290 290 290 290 290 375 Total Flow 21005 P/C Flow 3200 Date 1970-81 H H •88 Fire 16/11/73 (3br) C/S Tank Size/ Field Size 600/210 '79 Shed Fire H +1b r -nos t alt. H '72 300 g Fuel Tank H : ' * " H H H 1/3/72 H C/S H 68 8 2 1 I o -600/160 Flow 290 290 300 290 375 290 290 290 290 290 300 290 375 Total Flow 24085 P/C Flow 4000 Date 1982-92 '81 3br H C/S H H H H C/S 88 P/C ref H H H H C/S H 68 8 3 0 0 Tank Size/ Field Size Flow 300 300 290 375 290 290 800 290 290 290 290 375 Total Flow 22910 P/C Flow 2380 160 Clearbrook Road House/ Building H M/H P/C H P/C H H H H M/H C/B,Dairy H(3br) H H P/B P/C H? H H H-1232sf H P/C H H H P/B H H-1355sf P/C Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size 740sf H H H '68 1064sf Dairy-10Ocows H '61 C/S 576sf '63 st H H H H H C/S H 250 290 290 290 250 % ; 290 800 290 250 290 290 290 290 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size 17/8/79 1750/250 375 (4br), 1540sf(m) 1590sf(1) M/H-P/C P/C - illegal -84 people H ? 11/4/74 (3br) H 600/210 •69stappr 1282sf H 31/7/77 Dairy-100 cows H C/S P/C QUARRY 250 2940 290 800 300 290 300 250 250 290 800 AGRICULTURE CANADA H 24/3/75 (2br) 15/5/81 H H H H C/S H '71 st appr. 500/150 600/250 290 250 300 290 290 290 290 290 : 300 i Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size H ? H P/C H H H H M/H Dairy-lOOcows '90 '87 st appr H C/S P/C '85 -permit H H H H P/C - illegal (Mult. Trailers as P/C) H H H C/S H H P/C (inspn.) 375 290 800 300 290 300 250 250 300 370 290 800 290 250 300 290 800 290 290 290 290 300 800 161 Clearbrook Road House/ Building H M/H P/C H M/H H'62 H H P/B H P/B H H P/B H H H H H P/C Hall Park H H M/H P/B H H T H H P/C H(4br) Date pre 1969 H •61 1092s1 H C/S H C/S '67 1300sl H C/S '67 1300s1 H Tank Size/ Field Size -'67 1248sf H Hall '69 st appr. H C/S H 1492sf : '64 1940s1 280sf Flow 290 250 290 290 300 290 300 290 300 290 290 290 250 375 375 800 Date 1970-81 H M/H-lllegal ' "J"" ***" H '85 M/H '86 H Fire H -: H C/S H C/S H H C/S H H H Tank Size/ Field Size -'71 stappr. 1300sf H Park H •71 stappr. 2187sf M/H C/S H H ? "75 2777sf H-water 14/8/75 750/280 Flow 290 250 330 250 250 290 290 300 290 300 290 300 300 290 0 290 450 250 250 375 450 375 375 Date 1982-92 H Tank Size/ Field Size , '85 P/C-lllegal 16/5/85 M/H(2br) 1200/400 uses H st . " -'86 st appr. M/H H C/S H C/S H H C/S H H H 86 st appr. H 81-85 appln.s, 85 illeg; Park H H M/H 8/7/87 H 500/250 '82 Trailer Fire H - water H Flow 290 800 550 250 370 250 290 290 300 290 300 290 300 300 290 800 0 290 ,. 450 250 250 375 llllitlll 450 375 162 Clearbrook Road No. of Prop. 64 House/ Building H H-1350sf H Factory H H H H H P/B H H H Factory P/B Business H H H H Homes P/B P/C Cattle B Other Date pre 1969 H Tank Size/ Field Size '68 st appr. H H H H 63 1144sf H C/S H H '64 1368sl C/S Cafe (assume 2p) H '61 440sf H •66 1820sf 43 8 2 1 2 Flow 290 300 290 , 290 290 290 300 290 290 290 300 40 290 250 290 375 Total Flow 14185 P/C Flow 1600 Other Flow 40 Date 1970-81 H '72 + 1 br -water H H H H'80 water H'80 water H C/S H H H'78 water RV SALES Cafe H '77 water H H H 54 7 3 1 2 Tank Size/ Field Size 5P Flow 290 375 290 290 290 290 300 290 290 290 300 50 40 290 250 290 375 Total Flow 21150 P/C Flow 4540 Other Flow 90 Date 1982-92 H H 21/4/84 Hatchery H H H H 29/1/88 H H RV SALES Cafe l l l l l l i l l!!! H 8/2/84 H 53 5 6 1 3 Tank Size/ Field Size 600/250 1100/420 5p i - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 600/250 Flow 290 375 300 500 290 290 290 300 550 290 300 50 40 IBIIIIII 250 300 375 Total Flow 21995 P/C Flow 4800 Other Flow 590 163 Laxton Road House/ Building H H P/C P/B H-1490sf P/B H H Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size H 3br H Date 1970-81 290 300 290 H 2/5/80 Tank Size/ Field Size 3000/700 Flow 290 1400 21 Units.Occpn. June-Oct C/S 25/4/77 P/B(T) H Feb-81 600/250 600/150 300 290 300 Date 1982-92 Tank Size/ Field Size 90 3br+suite H P/C C/S P/B(T) H H Flow 375 290 1400 300 290 300 Montgomery Avenue House/ Building H(3br) H H-960sf H H-1228sf H-1000sf H Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size H '68 st appr. H H •• 290 250 290 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size see 32424 Huntindon Rd. 8/3/77 H H H '69 st appr. '70 st appr. H 600/192 300 290 250 290 300 250 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size H H H H H H H 300 290 250 290 300 250 290 Boundary Road House/ Building Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size Hwy 1 REM 2 House/ Building Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size No. of Prop. 17 Homes P/B P/C Cattle B Other 7 0 0 0 0 Total Flow 2000 P/C Flow 0 11 2 1 0 0 Total Flow 4550 P/C Flow 1400 11 2 1 0 0 Total Flow 4925 P/C Flow 1400 164 Townline Road No. of Prop. 22 House/ Building H P/C H H P/C H H H P/B •66 520sf H H P/B H M/H H Factory H(3br) P/B H(3br) H G/H H H(3br) H H H Homes P/B P/C Cattle B G/H Other Date pre 1969 '67 1168s1 '67 988sf H H H 68C/S H H Tank Size/ Field Size % '66 10OOg Fuel Tank H H H H H H 13 1 0 0 0 0 Flow 250 250 -.. 290 290 290 290 290 300 290 . , x . . . . „ 290 290 290 250 Total Flow 3660 P/C Flow 0 Other Flow 0 Date 1970-81 H H H '• H H H C/S 7/2/94 8/6/76 C/S H Tank Size/ Field Size 500/180 600/270 M/H-1104sf Berry Proc. 8/3/75 C/S H H G/H H 26/3/76 H H-'80 water H 600/210 600/250 Flow 250 250 330 ' 290 290 290 f 250 300 330 250 7000 300 300 290 290 300 290 290 250 see 31216 Hungtingdon Rd. 18 3 0 0 1 1 Total Flow 6140 P/C Flow 0 Other Flow 1000 Date 1982-92 H P/C 320sf H 10/8/89 2509sf P/C(inspn) H H H H H C/S H Berry Proc. •84 Fire H C/S H H G/H H H H Tank Size/ Field Size -/200 '90 Illegal Dwel. H H+2br no st alt. and 1 Illegal Dwell. : 19 2 2 0 1 1 Flow 250 800 250 300 800 290 290 290 250 300 330 1000 300 300 290 290 300 290 290 375 Total Flow 7585 P/C Flow 1600 Other Flow 1000 165 Tracey Road House/ Building H P/C H M/H H FW/C H C/S H H H C/S Cattle/B H H C/S Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size H H H C/S H '69 llOOst H ? ? H C/S 290 -290 290 250 300 290 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size H 1/4/81 H '77 M/H 24/5/73 : H C/S 70 st appr. (1014sf) 3/6/76 H C/S Cattle barn H -water H C/S 600/250 600/200 500/150 290 300 290 250 300 290 250 250 290 330 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size 14/8/84 ? H -H 750/300 '86 st appr. H C/S H H pre '86 illegal M/H 88 H H C/S 900/250 Sewer 375 300 290 300 800 290 250 250 450 330 0 Foy Road No. of FTop. 15 House/ Building H H M/H H L/B H H H Homes P/B P/C Cattle B Other Date pre 1969 H H 9 2 0 0 0 Tank Size/ Field Size s Flow 290 290 Total Flow 2580 P/C Flow 0 Date 1970-81 H H 14/6/74 H Tank Size/ Field Size 600/150 Loafing Barn 14 3 1 2 0 Flow 290 290 300 290 Total Flow 4300 P/C Flow 300 Date 1982-92 H M/H H Tank Size/ Field Size Loafing Barn H H H 15 2 2 1 0 Flow 290 300 290 370 370 370 Total Flow 5625 P/C Flow 1100 166 Huntingdon Road House/ Building H H H H H H P/C H H.FW/C H(3br) Dairy P/B H P/B P/C H(4br) H H P/B H P/B H H(3br) H H P/B H P/B M/H H P/B Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size '64 1216sf H H '69+2br H H '67 P/C H H Dairy H C/S H •64 480sf C/S H C/S v '66 1264sf H H H C/S H C/S 300 290 290 375 290 290 800 290 800 : : 250 290 250 290 300 290 290 290 * 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size '80+3br no st alt. H H H H-demol. '84 H ? H-demol. '84 FW/C 11/2/74 600/210 H+2br no st alt. --10/11/72 H H C/S H C/S H 20/11/73 H H C/S H 750/200 600/180 C/S '86 demol. : H C/S '84 dosed 450 290 290 375 290 290 800 290 800 300 375 375 290 250 290 300 300 290 290 290 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size H H '88 st appr. 450 290 375 2750sf (m) 1400sf(1) H „ H FW/C H C/S H ' '89 st appr. H H H C/S H C/S H H H 12/4/85 1200/250 2615sf(m)848sf(1) C/S H : 1152sf : H i : 375 290 800 300 375 800 375 290 250 290 300 300 290 600 290 250 290 167 Huntingdon Road House/ Building H P/B H P/B H H H P/B H H M/H P/C H FW/C FW/C P/C T H Office H H B H Church Gym H H H H-1400sf Date pre 1969 H C/S Tank Size/ Field Size '64 300 g Fuel Tank H C/S H H H C/S H H H '67 960sf H H H Store? H Church H H H H '69 st appr. Flow 290 290 250 290 290 250 290 290 290 290 290 290 250 290 290 290 300 Date 1970-81 H C/S H C/S Tank Size/ Field Size '81+3br-nost alt. H H C/S '74 1296sf(enl.) no st alt. H '71 stappr.576sf P/C - no st? '70stappr.1424sf H 1 toilet H assume 2p •76 500 g Fuel Tank H 2 2000g U/G Fuel Tank H 13/6/79 H 4/10/76 H H 500/150 600/250 Flow 290 290 450 290 290 300 290 250 800 375 290 20 290 290 250 290 250 290 300 290 300 Date 1982-92 H H C/S H H-water? H C/S H H ? 2/4/81 Tank Size/ Field Size '"" '" 1000/325 Flow 290 s 290 450 290 290 300 290 1365 Design-lOp, actual 12 cabins(39p) Permits 81,83,85-88 H : •83 FW/Cref. 4 /1 /86 1800/400 16 rm, 8shwr, 7 t 83 T 1 Family-H st? 2/3/88 5br. Office H H Store/Gas H Church 20/8/86 H H H H 1100/250 1500/600 375 1120 250 450 20 290 290 250 290 250 860 290 300 290 300 168 Huntingdon Road House/ Building H H H H P/B P/C M/H H L/B H-2254sf P/B H-1200sf H P/C School H B H H B H T H H Milk/H H H H-1524sf Date pre 1969 H H H C/S H Tank Size/ Field Size Loafing Barn '69 st appr. C/S '69 st appr. H School 238 students, 10 staff H Gas Station H '69 1197sf H H H Milk House H H Flow 290 290 290 290 450 300 290 • 3770 290 250 290 250 ; 290 290 290 290 290 Date 1970-81 4/2/76 H H C/S Tank Size/ Field Size 600/210 '81-illegal(rem. ord.) H H C/S H 2/9/76 (5br) School 900/300 215 students, 10 staff H Gas Station H H H '70 st appr. H H H H '72 st appr. Flow 300 290 290 800 290 450 300 450 3425 290 250 290 250 290 250 290 290 290 290 375 Date 1982-92 Tank Size/ Field Size 2146sf(m)l47lsf(1) H H H C/S '86-illegal(Rem. ord.) H H C/S+(T) 23/9/89 H 11/5/81 (4-6p) School - /250 600/180 200 students, 9 staff H Body Shop (assume 1 p H H Gallery 18/10/84 , H H : H H H 600/250 s Flow 450 300 290 290 290 450 300 450 210 3180 290 20 290 250 300 290 290 290 290 375 169 Huntingdon Road No. of Prop. 66 House/ Building H H H M/H P/C H H H H Homes P/B P/C Cattle B Other Date pre 1969 H H H H H H 54 10 1 3 4 Tank Size/ Field Size Flow 290 290 290 290 290 290 Total Flow 21,325 P/C Flow 800 Other Flow 4,270 Date 1970-81 H H Tank Size/ Field Size '72 M/H- st? : H H H '71 new st 60 10 4 0 5 Flow 290 290 250 290 290 290 330 Total Flow 25,780 P/C Flow 3,200 Other Flow 3,945 Date 1982-92 19/3/87 H H Tank Size/ Field Size 600/250 '82-87 -no st? H H H H 61 8 4 0 7 Flow 300 290 290 800 290 290 290 330 Total Flow 28,545 P/C Flow 5,095 Other Flow 4,580 170 Walmesley Road No. of Prop. 11 House/ Building H H(3br) H H Quarry Office H H H P/B H G/H H(3br) Homes P/B P/C Cattle B G/H Other Date pre 1969 Tank Size/ Field Size +720sf-nosta l t . H H QUARRY H Airport Land '67 1353sf H 60C/S 6 1 0 0 0 5 Flow 300 290 290 290 300 290 Total Flow 1760 Other Flow 0 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size H '82 H fire 6/6/75 H H QUARRY 5/5/78 600/180 600/200 pre '78 M/H illegal 300 300 290 290 200 '79 10,000g U/G Fuel Tanks H Airport Land H H C/S '75 200g Fuel Tank •73 st Agriculture Canada 8 1 0 0 1 290 300 290 330 Total Flow 2590 Other Flow 200 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size 26/3/86 750/300 '91 st appr. H H QUARRY Office H Airport Land H H C/S Office(assume 5p) '81 G/H 15/1/92 8 1 0 0 1 2 750/300 300 290 290 200 290 300 290 100 375 Total Flow 2435 Other Flow 300 171 King Road House/ Building Church H H P/B H H H P/C H M/H P/C Quarry Office Factory Factory B H P/B H H ' H(3br) H P/B Date Tank Size/ Flow pre 1969 Field Size Church '64 11l8sf H C/S 67 1245sf H H H Quarry H C/S H C/S 70% -600 250 290 300 250 290 : : : 290 i. 290 • v ; 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1970-81 Field Size 15/10/75 '77 Hostel 1800/600 1872sf(m)1872(b) '77 Fire, '81 Fire 900 "Youth Hostel for Transients" H C/S H '72 st appr. 1200sf H H " Quarry '72 st (assume lOp) 7 7 7 above above 290 300 300 290 290 200 '73 1 OOOg U/G Petrol Tank '73 10OOg U/G Diesel Tank 16/8/78 C/S 950/300 '70 2 500g Fuel Tanks H 9/6/80 H C/S 600/250 450 330 300 290 Date Tank Size/ Flow 1982-92 Field Size Church & Pre School Treatment Centre 26/2/82 2200/848 Kitchen/Dining 26/2/82 30 beds 2160/812 900 1670 1500 "Alcohol Treatment Centre" 23/2/82 H H H P/C(inspn.) H 86 st appr. 576sf 750/300 '88 P/C-MoH Letter (inspn.) Land Fill? Office '84 Shake Mill (above) 375 300 300 290 800 290 250 800 200 Log House Constrn.(above) illlllitlill H C/S 14/12/84 H : H H C/S ^^^ • i ^ ^ l 400/250 450 300 330 300 290 172 King Road House/ Building Use Office H P/B Office H P/B H P/B H H H H H H M/H H H Church H P/B H H P/B H-768sf H Date pre 1969 Landfill '68 1482s1 '69 C/S '62 1144s1 C/S H C/S H '63 768sf H H H 800sf Church H C/S H H C/S->'77 Tank Size/ Field Size -'69 st appr. - not built H Flow 375 250 290 290 250 250 290 290 -250 800 290 290 290 1 290 Date 1970-81 Tank Size/ Field Size Matsqui Works Yard Office (assume 65p) '74 (4br) C/S •79 addn. 2t C/S H C/S 3/10/77 H H 70st appr. 2844sf 600/250 Flow 1300 375 300 290 300 250 250 300 see 1681 Clearbrook Rd. H H(no record) '76 H demol. Church 16/1/74 (3br) C/S 20/9/77 (3br) 72 st appr. 1236sf H 70% 600/210 600/210 290 330 0 800 300 300 300 : 290 Date 1982-92 Tank Size/ Field Size Matsqui Works Yard Office H C/S 14/12/84 (130p) 1790/300 "School District 34" H C/S '89 2074sf C/S H H '88 b/ment, 4br. - no st alt. 26/11/87 H H 24/12/87 H 3/12/81 1200/320 600/250 2200/110C '88 st appr. C/S H H H Flow 2600 375 1000 300 375 300 250 550 450 300 290 250 330 1208 300 300 300 290 173 King Road No. of Properties 48 House/ Building H P/B H H P/B H M/H P/B H-1344sf P/B H H H H H H H H/P Homes P/B P/C C/B Other Date pre 1969 H 1400sf '61 C/S H C/S 69 st appr. C/S H H 66 1478sf H 600sf H H Hog Pen 32 11 0 2 2 Tank Size/ Field Size Flow 290 300 290 300 290 290 375 290 250 250 290 Total Flow 10560 P/C Flow 0 Other 800 Date 1970-81 Tank Size/ Field Size 3/6/75 (3br) H C/S H 600/210 73->'74 M/H C/S H C/S H H H ; H +420sf-no st alt. '75 1276sf H 34 10 0 0 5 Flow 300 300 290 300 290 290 375 290 250 300 290 Total Flow 13190 P/C Flow 0 Other Flow 3200 Date 1982-92 H C/S H H C/S H C/S H C/S H H H H H H H 39 10 2 0 10 Tank Size/ Field Size Flow 370 300 300 290 300 290 290 375 290 250 300 290 Total Flow 22758 P/C Flow 1600 Other Flow 9078 174 Marshall Road No. of FTop. 17 House/ Building Office Business Studio H H M/H H Factory Office H(3br) H M/H H-1000sf Factory Factory H H M/H H M/H H H B.G/H H C/S Homes P/B P/C C/B G/H Other Date Tank Size Field Size pre 1969 -s -: H->77 demol. H H->'79 demol. F -land appln. of waste H '66 1050sf H C/S 6 1 0 0 0 1 .. -.. % •• 290 290 250 290 -; 250 290 Total Flow 1660 Other Flow 0 Date Tank Size Field Size 1970-81 25/6/75 (6p) 15/10/75 (10p) •70 1554sf •76 M/H 500/150 500/150 75 Proc.Plt.-'81 sewer 10/8/71 600/150 H->'88 Fire/Demol. M/H(ref) '79 '72 H '70 st appr. M/H 960sf '69 st appr. M/H 960sf H 11/9/77 B,G/H Sewer Sewer 500/100 assume 5p "Art Knapp" 78 C/S 12 1 0 0 1 6 500/160 120 200 375 250 0 300 250 0 0 290 330 250 330 250 250 250 50 250 Total Flow 3745 Other Flow 370 Date Tank Size Field Size 1982-92 Office Office 3/6/85 21/8/89 H 900/300 600/250 '89 st appr. (1 family) Factory '90 Office '88 H Factory F H H H '89 3br H B.G/H • 9 0 0 0 1 8 Sewer Sewer Sewer Sewer Sewer 120 200 400 300 375 250 0 0 0 -0 0 290 330 330 -300 250 50 Total Flow 3195 Other Flow 770 175 Study Area - SEPTIC TANK FLOW Summary No. of Properties 394 Homes P/B P/C Cattle B G/H Other Total No. 270 48 8 8 0 10 344 1969 Flow(g) 79,290 6,400 5,810 91,500 (g/day) Flow(l) 360,470 29,090 26,410 415,970 (l/day) No. 328 56 12 7 3 22 (3-Sewer) 428 1981 Flow(g) Flow(l) 97,665 13,440 9,825 120,930 (g/day) 443,990 61,100 44,670 549,760 (l/day) No. 332 48 23 3 4 33 (4-Sewer) (1-HST) 443 1992 Flow(g) 100,765 19,325 17,338 137,428 (g/day) Flow(l) 458,090 87,850 78,820 624,760 (l/day) Note: Imperial units are those of Original Documentation Metric Units Rounded to Nearest 10. Glossary: Homes - Includes House, Mobile Homes and Trailers P/B - Poultry Barn P/C - Pickers Cabin and Farm Workers Cabin Cattle B - Cattle Barn G/H - Green House Other - Includes Office, Factory, Business, Church and Miscelaneous (School, Hostel, etc.) 176 Septic Tank - Data Availability Summary Building Homes P/C O the r * To ta l 1 9 6 9 Data Tota l Available. 271 8 10 289 63 2 3 % 0 0 % 1 1 0 % 6 4 1 0 % 1981 Data Complete Data Available ST info. Tota l Available /new ST's /new ST's 329 12 19 3 6 0 138 4 2 % 4 3 3 % 7 3 7 % 149 4 1 % 8 3 / 9 4 8 8 % 4 / 1 0 4 0 % 6 / 1 2 5 0 % 9 3 / 1 1 6 8 0 % 4 6 / 9 4 4 9 % 2 / 1 0 2 0 % 5 / 1 2 4 2 % 5 3 / 1 1 6 4 6 % 1 9 9 2 Data Complete Data Available ST info. Available /new ST's /new ST's 332 23 28 383 162 4 9 % 6 2 6 % 13 4 6 % 181 4 7 % 4 4 / 5 6 7 9 % 4 / 1 8 2 2 % 7 / 1 2 5 8 % 5 5 / 8 6 6 4 % 3 1 / 5 6 5 5 % 4 / 1 8 2 2 % 6 / 1 2 5 0 % 4 1 / 8 6 4 8 % Note: Data Available - refers to both complete Septic Tank information and derived Flows new St's - Number of new Septic Tanks constructed in time period Complete ST info. - Complete Information about Septic Tank (from MoH Approval Form) Glossary: Homes - Includes House, Mobile Homes and Trailers P/C - Pickers Cabin and Farm Workers Cabin G/H - Green House Other* - Includes Office, Factory, Business, Church and Miscelaneous (School, Hostel, etc.) * - Buildings with Septic Tanks - Excludes Sewer and Connections to House Septic Tank 177 Study Area - Building Summary No. of Properties 394 Homes P/B P/C Cattle B G/H Other Total 1969 270 48 8 8 0 10 344 Office Factory Church Business Missel. 0 1 3 3 3 10 1981 328 56 12 7 3 22 428 Office Factory Church Business Missel. 6 5 4 5 2 22 1992 332 48 23 3 4 33 443 Office Factory Church Business Missel. 9 8 4 8 4 33 Glossary: Homes - Includes House, Mobile Homes and Trailers P/B - Poultry Barn P/C - Pickers Cabin and Farm Workers Cabin C/B - Cattle Barn G/H - Green House Missel. - Miscelaneous (School, Hostel etc.) Note: Based on Aerial Photo Interpretation, DoM Building Records and Field Inspection Figures for 1992 Refer to text for discussion 178 Appendix 5.3.1 Groundwater Data Based on: All values in mg/L Gartner Lee Ltd., March 13, 1992 *(With additional NAQUDAT, MoELP and FVGWM data) *(No.s 10-315 -Original Report No.s Gartner Lee , Apr. 1992) REF 16" 194 206 223 223 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 233 BCGS 092G.009.1.2.1 NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.2.1 No 0 6 0 025 023 TWP 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 SEC 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 WELL REFERENCE DATE ABBOTSFORD 902G 01-Mar-86 D04 D04 D04 D02 ABB-91-6-1 ABB-91-6-2 ABB-91-6-3 ABB-91-6-4 ABB-91-6-5 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA1 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 CDA2 D01A D01A D01A D01A D01A D01A D01A D01A D01A D01 30-Jan-89 01-Nov-89 17-May-90 13-Feb-89 16-Jul-91 16-Jul-91 16-Jul-91 16-Jul-91 16-Jul-91 24-Oct-90 22-Nov-90 31-Jul-91 18-Dec-90 03-Jul-91 21-Jan-91 16-May-91 19-Sep-90 20-Feb-91 18-Mar-91 20-Feb-91 03-Jul-91 31-JUI-91 16-May-91 17-May-90 18-Mar-91 21-Jan-91 18-Dec-90 20-Mar-90 19-Sep-90 14-Aug-90 18-Jul-90 24-Oct-90 22-Nov-90 19-Jan-90 31-Jul-91 21-Jan-91 18-Mar-91 16-May-91 20-Feb-91 18-Dec-90 22-Nov-90 24-Oct-90 18-Jul-90 14-Jan-81 SOURCE CFVHU BCRES IW/EP IW/EP BCRES IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP NHRI N03 19.80 6.30 2.15 7.91 15.10 13.40 13.00 11.10 9.85 8.59 18.10 16.20 17.70 16.90 17.90 19.10 17.20 19.10 18.65 18.55 25.75 26.95 32.90 27.00 33.50 27.50 26.80 10.50 34.25 23.20 24.70 36.25 22.55 23.30 42.30 20.10 14.00 0.71 1.99 22.75 22.60 25.10 26.40 24.90 18.40 179 081-szzz 089 V 0091. oem OlSt 0691-06 n 009I-oezi. 0 8 U 0^9V Ofr'8 0Z9I. 006 089I-oeu OO'Ql 029 V OVLV 98 8 696 0091-Ofr'6 OSfrl-0091 86-01. 0 2 m 906 0 9 H 0 9 H 098I-0L9V 009I-0982 0661. 96 6 V 00Z2 0881-£V6 £VQV 9Z6L 0922 0802 001-2 08'L2 089I-OOH 0022 OO'K ooet ooei. 009 V OOK OOH 08H2 OOZI-0802 01-22 d3/MI IUHN IHHN IUHN IHHN IHHN IUHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN d3/AAI d3/MI IHHN d3/MI d3/AAI d3/MI d3/MI S3H09 IHHN d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN IHHN d3/MI 68-AON-I-O u-^n-iz zz-uer-ei 9Z-Jdv-80 9Z-qej-2l-9Z-Ae^-Z2 gz-|nr-9|. ZZ-Aew-81. 9Z-AON-81-gz-AON-ei ZZ-qed-l-2 8Z-AON-12 9Z-|nr-22 irL-uvp-pz ZZ-unr-82 Pl-\0O-PZ QI-OOQ-90 9Z-Jdv-20 9Z-d9S-9|. 0Z-JBi^ |-Z0 ez-inr-zi. ZZ-6nv-U ez-PO-9i. gz-uep-zo ZZ-des-22 |7Z-unp-t70 fZ-Bnv-l-0 ez-des-90 9L-feVi-VZ gz-des-0t t6-JBlAJ-8l. |.6-qed-02 8Z-uer-2l. 68-AON- IO 06-ABIM-ZI-06-inr-8^ i-6-inr-i.e 68-qed-ei-frZ-idy-OI. 88-qed-Zl-I-6-ABIM-9I. 06-AON-22 |.6-uBfM2 06-des-6l-06-PO-fr2 t8-qed-92 8Z-|nr-02 VQ-oea-OV 8Z-q9d-S2 8Z-Jdv-90 8Z-ABIN-92 ZZ-AON-80 8Z-6nv-08 8Z-PO-6I-28-JBI«J-U t8-AB|Aj-82 (•8-des-fr2 06-O9Q-81. ZS-9-91-10Q voa voa voa voa t-oa toa voa voa voa toa i-oa toa i-oa toa i-oa i.oa i-oa toa i-oa toa voa voa 10Q i.oa 1.0a toa i-oa voa i.oa toa i-oa toa i-oa voa i.oa loa i.oa toa i-oa toa i-oa toa i.oa i.oa i.oa voa i-oa voa voa ^ a i-oa loa toa i-oa toa 9 9 s 9 9 9 9 9 9 s 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 i-oal 9 91. 91-9V 91-9V 91 91. 91. 91-9V 91-91 91-91 91-91 91-9V 91-9V 9V 9V 91. 91 91-9V 91-91-91-91-91-91-91-91-91-91-91-91-91-9V 91. 9V 91-91 91-91-91. 9V 9V 9V 9V 9V 91. 9V 9V 91-91. zeo 820 e?9 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 82Q 82Q 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 91. 820 L 21.-6009260 121600D260 V ZV'6003260 VZV '6009260 t2l.-600O260 1-21. 6009260 VZV 600 9260 V ZV -6003260 t 2'I. 6009260 VZV 600 9260 V ZV -6009260 V ZV '6009260 ( .2T6009260 VZV 6009260 V ZV-6009260 V ZV 6009260 | . '2 r6009260 1- ZV'6009260 |.'2'r600'9260 VZV '6009260 V ZV'6009260 VZV 6009260 1- ZV'6009260 V ZV'6009260 V ZV-6009260 VZV 6009260 1- ZV-6009260 VZV -6009260 t ZV'6009260 VZV 6009260 1- ZV 6009260 V ZV 6009260 1. ZV 6009260 V ZV'6009260 VZ V '6009260 I. ZV-6009260 1. ZV 6009260 V ZV 6009260 V ZV-6009260 V Z16009260 VZV -6009260 V ZV 6009260 1. ZV 6009260 V ZV'6009260 1. 2'L 6009260 1. ZV-6009260 VZV -6009260 VZV -6009260 1. ZV-6009260 VZ V'6009260 1. ZV 6009260 1. ZV 6009260 VZV -6009260 1. ZV'6009260 V ZV-6009260 1. ZV 6009260 1. 21.'6009260 *82 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 234 235 235 236 23? 237 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 239 239 240 240 241 241 242 242 243 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 250 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 092G.009.1.2.3 092G.009.1.2.3 092G.009.1.2.3 092G.009.1.2.3 NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer 092G.009.1.2.2 092G.009.1.2.2 NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 03? 047 047 003 020 020 042 17 050 031 031 031 031 031 031 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 031 16 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 16-6-37 D03 D03 16-6-3 D25 D25 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB3 ABB-91-1 ABB-91-1 ABB-91-2 ABB-91-2 ABB-91-3 ABB-91-3 ABB-91-4 ABB-91-4 ABB-91-7 ABB-91-7 F02 D34 BC78 D22 ABB34 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 ABB4 D46 G10 G10-NAQ9024 G10 G10 Glo G10 G10 19-Feb-88 01-Nov-89 30-Jan-89 01-Nov-89 13-Feb-89 01-Nov-89 16-May-91 18-Dec-90 19-Jun-91 20-Feb-91 18-Mar-91 19-Sep-90 22-Nov-90 20-Mar-90 17-May-90 18-Oct-90 19-Jan-90 15-NOV-89 14-Aug-90 18-JU-90 21-Jan-91 31-Jul-91 03-Jul-91 31-Jul-91 03-JUI-91 03-JUI-91 31-Jul-91 31-Jul-91 03-Jul-91 03-Jul-91 31-Jul-91 26-Jan-89 23-Feb-89 18-JUI-90 06-Feb-89 18-JUI-90 18-Dec-90 18-Mar-91 19-Jun-91 22-Nov-90 16-May-91 20-Feb-91 20-Mar-90 17-May-90 14-Aug-90 21-Jan-91 18-Jul-90 18-Oct-90 19-Sep-90 19-Jan-90 23-Feb-89 03-Sep-81 25-May-78 06-Apr-78 23-Feb-78 H-Aug-77 23-Jun-77 24-Sep-81 IW IW/EP BCRES IW/EP BCRES IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP BCRES BCRES IW/EP BCRES IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP BCRES NQ NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI 17.80 19.10 13.50 11.15 ?.?5 4.60 6.15 26.90 19.00 15.95 5.28 21.10 19.30 11.05 11.60 21.20 26.30 21.00 20.60 21.10 18.25 14.40 14.30 25.90 21.15 20.50 20.30 14.20 14.15 9.26 9.?4 10.20 16.00 25.70 16.80 26.30 28.50 23.75 27.40 28.85 23.40 24.45 26.85 25.75 23.50 26.50 22.80 29.35 24.90 35.65 16.10 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.10 6.90 6.60 6.60 181 257 257 267 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 264 264 265 283 284 285 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.4 092G.009.1.2.3 092G.009.1.2.3 092G.009.1.2.2 092G.009.1.2.2 092G.009.1.1.2 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 031 018 018 039 006 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 5 4 4 6 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ9024 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ9024 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ9024 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ9024 G10-NAQ 9024 G10-NAQ 9024 NAQ 1036 16-6-5 16-6-5 N1 16-4-63 16-4-63 A 16-6-1 08-Apr-76 12-Jan-78 31-Mar-77 22-Sep-77 28-May-81 19-Oct-78 01-Nov-89 10-Dec-81 20-JUI-78 30-Aug-78 21-Feb-77 25-Feb-81 14-Jan-81 03-NOV-77 11-Mar-82 13-May-77 16-Nov-73 18-Mar-73 10-Apr-74 30-Sep-71 13-Jan-77 24-Oct-74 12-Feb-76 01-Aug-74 04-Jun-74 17-Jul-73 24-Jan-74 10-Sep-75 02-Apr-75 21-May-75 07-Jan-75 18-Nov-76 27-May-76 13-Nov-75 05-Sep-73 15-Jul-75 16-Sep-76 22-Jul-76 06-Dec-78 22-Feb-79 05-Apr-79 24-May-79 12-Jul-79 23-Aug-79 18-Oct-79 13-Dec-79 05-Feb-80 24-Apr-80 12-Jun-80 07-Aug-80 08-Oct-80 30-Sep-71 01-Nov-89 19-Feb-88 OI-Nov-89 18-Jul-90 18-Jul-90 02-Nov-89 NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI IW/EP NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NHRI NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ IW/EP IW IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP 8.00 6.40 6.30 6.80 6.20 6.00 12.70 8.25 6.50 6.50 5.60 5.75 5.75 6.80 7.70 5.75 7.16 6.60 8.13 7.94 5.00 7.80 9.40 8.45 8.80 6.48 7.70 10.40 9.30 9.10 8.20 5.90 7.10 10.50 6.63 9.90 6.30 6.75 7.00 7.00 6.70 6.60 6.40 6.50 6.00 6.10 5.90 5.60 5.60 5.50 5.90 7.68 24.30 8.63 11.40 15.80 18.70 9.25 182 681-0281. 9zm 0881. 0091. 99n 96H Sfr'81-9I.9I-OZ'81-OLZi 909I-Ofr'91. OB'H oen 0991-029I-0661. QZLV 0981-920 i i&n 9881. 0981-009I-0L01 Z2'6 9601-OVVV 00 n. W8 Z9 6 9Z0I-0901-0801-898 0801 LL9 99 6 oen 986 09H OVVV 8I-8 OV£V Sfr"(H oroi. 29 8 09" IV 82Z 0fr22 02>8 1.802 9802 919 08-IV OV'BV 02*2 d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI S3yoa d3/MI d3/MI S3yoa d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI S3yoa Ml S3HOa d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI d3/MI S3yoa S3yoa 30IAJ d3/MI d3/MI HdHN S3yoa d3/MI 06-Bnv-frl. 06-PO-8t 06-d8S-6l. 06-AON-22 l-6-qe3-02 V6-teVi-9V 06-|nr-8t |.6-unr-6|. 06-JEIM-02 \-6-uvr-iz l.6-JB^-8l. 06-090-8 L 68-qe=l-Z2 i-6-inr-i.e 06-des-^2 68-uer-oe 68-AON-I.O 06-des-l2 06-teW-Ll 06-|np-8|. 06-JB|Aj-02 ^6-qed-02 68-AON-9t 06-uer-6l. 06-d8S-6l-l-6-unr-6t ^6-JB|AJ-8|. 06-0908 i-06-PO-8I-t6-Ae^-9J. 06-6nv-H l6-UBr-|.2 06-AON-22 68-UBP-82 88-qed-6l. 68-UBP-92 I.6-ABW-9I. 06-|nr-8l-06-AB^-zi-06-d9S-6l 06-uBp-6^ 06-JB|AJ-02 06-Bnv-fi-l.6-unr-6t 06-PO-81-06-090-81-06-AON-22 l.6-JBi^-8|. I.6-UBM.2 68-UBP-92 68-UBP-82 fr8-oea-n t6-unr-6l-06-AB|Aj-zt 28-JB|AJ-|.|. 68-uBr-92 68-AON-20 WO IdS 1-dO tdO id9 1-dO LdO tdO WO ld9 1-dO LdO zw 9V0-1-9V W-Z-9L 90a 90a 2VVM 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav 9aav eod u-v-ei 60a 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav 2aav frOd LVQ 801 9i.-t6-aav 66-9-91-OK] om ota z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 9 9 Z 1-V V V 1 I V V V (. 1-1. V I I V V 9 V I V I I V V I V I V V I V 9 9 V 9 9 9 9 91-91-91-91. 91-91-91-91. 91-9V 9V 91 91-91. 9V 9V 91-9t 81. 81-81-81 £i 81-81-£1 81-81-£1 81-£1 £1 £1 £1 £1 91-81-81-81-£1 £1 £1 £1 £1 £1 £1 £1 81-81-£1 9L gi-st 91-91 9L 91-t90 OZO oto 010 920 800 800 820 820 820 V.d I9ABJQ l!d I9ABJQ l!d I9ABJQ l!d I9ABJQ Ud I9ABJ9 Ud I9ABJQ l!d I9ABJQ Ud I9ABJQ V.d I9ABJQ »!d I9ABJQ V.d I9ABJO »!d I9ABJQ 821. •6003260 82^6000260 frTI-6000260 rn-6000260 uny\| inbs)B|Aj jejeaiozey lyHN jejeiuozey lyHN jeieuioz9!d lyHN jeieaiozey lyHN J9l9W0Z9!d lyHN J9}9tU0Z9y lyHN J9l9UU0Z9Jd |yHN J9J9LU0Z9!d lyHN J9}9UJ0Z9ld lyHN J9J9OI0Z9!d lyHN J9}9LU0Z9|d lyHN J9J9lU0Z9|d iyHN J9l9LU0Z9!d iyHN J9J9LU0Z9|d iyHN J9l9tU0Z9!d iyHN r LI-6000260 2I-I.-600O260 J9J9UJ0Z9!d iyHN J9l9aioz9|d iyHN jej9UJ0Z9!d iyHN J9J9UiOZ9!d iyHN J9J9UU0Z9!d iyHN j9l9aioz9!d iyHN J9J9UJ0Z9!d IOHN J9J9UJ0Z9!d iyHN J9J9W0Z9W iyHN J9J9lJU0Z9!d iyHN J9J9lJU0Z9!d iyHN J9»9LU0Z9!d iyHN jei9iuoz9jd iyHN 2l-l.-600O260 J9l9LU0Z9|d iyHN 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 Z08 908 908 662 662 862 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 Z62 962 962 ^62 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 862 262 V6Z 062 062 682 882 Z82 Z82 IZ82 308 308 309 316 311 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 340 341 342 342 343 344 345 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346j 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 Gravel Pit Gravel Pit NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer NHRI Piezometer 092G.009.1.3.2 092G.009.1.3.2 092G.009.1.2.1 092G.009.1.4.2 092G.009.1.1.4 036 040 003 002 014 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 9 6 6 GP1 GP1 ABB-91-8 ABB-91-9 ABB-91-10 16-7-47 16-7-60 C10 JUDSON D48 LAXTON D06 NAQ1213 NAQ 1542 NAQ1182 NAQ 1174 NAQ 1589 NAQ 1348 NAQ 1354 NAQ 1003 NAQ 1597 NAQ 1031 NAQ 1031 NAQ 1752 NAQ 1761 NAQ 1645 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 17-May-90 19-Jan-90 19-Jun-91 19-Jun-91 19-Jun-91 21-Sep-90 21-Sep-90 01-Nov-89 17-May-90 27-Feb-89 17-May-90 26-Jan-89 21-Oct-55 22-JUI-76 05-Jun-74 23-May-74 08-Jun-77 22-Oct-74 22-Oct-74 08-Jun-77 08-Jun-77 26-Mar-74 23-Jun-77 30-Apr-80 27-Jun-80 22-Oct-74 24-Oct-74 07-Jan-75 03-Apr-75 21-May-75 15-Jul-75 10-Sep-75 13-Nov-75 12-Feb-76 08-Apr-76 27-May-76 22-Jul-76 16-Sep-76 18-Nov-76 13-Jan-77 21-Feb-77 31-Mar-77 12-May-77 23-Jun-77 11-Auq-77 22-Sep-77 03-Nov-77 23-Feb-78 06-Apr-78 25-May-78 20-Jul-78 30-Aug-78 19-Oct-78 05-Dec-78 22-Feb-79 05-Apr-79 24-May-79 IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP IW/EP BCRES IW/EP WQCP BCRES NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ 18.03 21.00 18.10 11.40 30.85 15.20 30.50 0.24 0.03 0.05 1.60 2.38 2.90 2.30 6.42 3.30 0.21 2.90 9.40 10.40 1.79 17.40 9.93 0.00 10.50 11.00 6.00 11.30 14.20 15.20 14.60 14.90 14.50 14.80 15.10 15.30 15.90 16.70 17.40 17.30 16.00 16.40 16.80 16.00 15.80 16.00 15.00 16.00 14.00 13.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 14.00 12.00 13.00 184 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 360 361 362 364 365 366 366 367 368 369 370 369 (records) NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 NAQ 9023 16-5-043 16-9-45 16-7-52 S2 16-6-29 16-6-33 16-5-38(16-5-59) 16-5-1 16-6-8 13-9-9 16-6-12(16-6-35) 480E293N 475E301N 479E301N 509E285N 493E278N 501E283N MUNICIPAL WELL NAQ 1410 469E277N 485E286N 502E300N 473E292N 12-JUI-79 23-Aug-79 18-Oct-79 13-Dec-79 05-Feb-80 24-Apr-80 12-Jun-80 07-Aug-80 08-Oct-80 21-Oct-55 21-Oct-55 21-Oct-55 15-Feb-88 15-Mar-82 15-Mar-82 15-Mar-82 15-Mar-82 15-Mar-82 15-Mar-82 15-Mar-82 15-Dec-92 15-Dec-92 15-Dec-92 03-Feb-93 15-D6C-92 18-Jan-93 30-Nov-92 23-Jan-75 18-Jan-93 15-Dec-92 14-Dec-92 15-D6C-92 NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ NAQ EC EC EC EC MoE MoE MoE MoE MoE MoE MoE FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM NAQ FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM FVGWM Average Maximum Minimum 12.70 12.60 14.20 13.00 13.00 12.20 12.70 15.00 18.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 0.14 13.30 17.00 26.50 18.60 10.20 31.00 21.40 9.88 12.50 11.80 20.70 15.90 0.00 9.10 7.90 0.00 21.00 11.30 3.62 14.26 42.3 0 185 Study Area Map Set Map 5.1.1 a & b - 1969 Land Use Map 5.1.2 a & b - 1981 Land Use Map 5.1.3 a & b - 1992 Land Use Map 5.3.2 a & b - Water Quality Well Locations Map b Map a PISTRlCT OF MATSQUI, BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON USA Legend jtfO v - Raspberry Crop Strawberry Crop Vegetable Crop - Natural or Tree Coverage - Building H M/H S Q Ab. - Home - Mobile Home -Shed - Quarry - Abandoned - Groundwater Quality Sample 186 -gjr-ZTeoyffWZTo-^ tf^^W1—jrv/7/vr^Si^ Map 5.1.1 a 1969 Land Use 187 ' 6 3 ! fcl 5 0XK Map 5.1.1b 1969 Land Use 188 Map 5.1.2 a 1981 Land Use 189 Map 5.1.2 b 1981 Land Use 190 Map 5.1.3 a 1992 Land Use 191 I -I t c s* m Map 5.1.3 b 1992 Land Use 192 "®l ^r*** -:-^f*fc-i !®i ~ri ! H - T f~T... ~^y ->s v<>yi>y t/j 7T ( i m i E n r — y -• 1 L \m> W] "T" -®L (r£i. w mm xh •X" 1 V i s i te ••p m c h i1 i T - J T i ^ -^.-^^fa^M Map 5.3.2 a Water Quality Well Locations .<5> 193 Map 5.3.2 b Water Quality Well Locations 194 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087439/manifest

Comment

Related Items