UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Local groundwater management for British Columbia: linking data to protection practices Berardinucci, Julia Frances 1997

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-0123.pdf [ 8.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099143.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099143-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099143-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099143-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099143-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099143-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099143-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099143-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099143.ris

Full Text

L O C A L GROUNDWATER M A N A G E M E N T FOR BRITISH C O L U M B I A : L INKING D A T A TO PROTECTION PRACTICES by JULIA FRANCES BERARDINUCCI B .Sc , Concordia University, 1991 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF SCIENCE in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Resource Management and Environmental Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A March 1997 © Julia Frances Berardinucci, 1997 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 The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date , , — ^ DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Groundwater management decisions are continuously made under conditions of incomplete data and information. The hidden nature of groundwater resources makes detection of contamination and depletion of supply difficult to anticipate. However, neglecting to monitor groundwater resources can lead to consequences which are difficult or impossible to rectify. Changing trends in the governance of water resources in Canada indicate that greater responsibility for groundwater management is being shifted to local levels of government. This however requires information and expertise traditionally maintained at senior levels of government. The purpose of this thesis is to develop an analytical framework for use by local governments in B.C. planning for sustained, multipurpose groundwater use and quality protection. Analysis for this framework focusses on three-areas of concern for local governments facing increasing responsibility for groundwater management: data requirements, land use management and groundwater protection practices. Of the various approaches surveyed, georeferenced analysis is suggested to be one of the more flexible and useful analytical tools for use in groundwater management. The framework suggested consists of four components: 1) a list of parameters required for land use management for the purpose of groundwater protection, 2) an analysis of groundwater protection measures and required data, 3) a prioritized list of data collection activities based on the ease of collection of information, the time required to collect a critical mass of data and the relative importance to present groundwater concerns in B.C. and 4) a procedure for integrating land use classification with groundwater data collection and protection measures. Hatzic Valley, situated in the Lower Fraser Basin is used to illustrate the suggested framework and to investigate the extent of existing data for an area which has not previously been ii intensely studied. Available data for the area, while limited, is found to be sufficient for initial delineation of land areas which should be protected to reduce the likelihood of groundwater contamination in the area. However, groundwater quality data, used as a primary indicator of change in groundwater resources, is largely lacking. Groundwater management is an iterative process within which communication of uncertainty and consultation with the public allow for effective and flexible groundwater protection planning. Community involvement in data collection is a cost effective alternative to expenditures on groundwater remediation or developing alternative sources of water should contamination occur. Uncertainty in all aspects of groundwater management can be reduced by clearer expression of where and what the limitations are in the available data. Decision makers should address issues of community development and values to most efficiently resolve community and groundwater resource use conflict. T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Acknowledgements viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Groundwater in the Environment 6 1.2 Groundwater Resources in Canada and British Columbia 7 1.3 Groundwater Concerns in British Columbia 7 1.4 Groundwater Regulation in British Columbia 9 1.5 Groundwater Stewardship in British Columbia 11 1.6 Thesis Research 16 1.7 Thesis Organization 17 2.0 D A T A C O L L E C T I O N FOR GROUNDWATER M A N A G E M E N T 19 2.1 Conceptual and Analytical Approaches to Data Collection 21 2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Georeferenced Analyses 27 2.1.2 Frameworks for Parameter Selection 28 3.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF L A N D USE FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 33 3.1 A Framework for Land Use Assessment 35 3.2 Categorizing Land Resources 37 3.2.1 Land Use Capability 38 3.2.2 Land Use Classification 39 3.2.3 Rating Land Use Potential for Contamination 40 3.2.4 Wellhead Protection and Land Use Vulnerability 41 3.2.5 Cause and Consequence Land Use Descriptions 43 4.0 PROPOSED F R A M E W O R K ,46 4.1 Data Compatibility with Georeferenced Approaches 46 4.2 Data Worth 50 4.3 Components of the Proposed Framework 52 4.3.1 Component 1: List of Suggested Parameters 52 4.3.2 Component 2: Groundwater Protection Measures 58 4.3.3 Component 3: Integrating Data Collection and Protection Practices . . .65 4.3.4 Component 4: Integrating Land Use with Groundwater Analysis and Protection 69 4.4 Summary of Proposed Framework 74 iv 5.0 ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATION OF THE F R A M E W O R K : HATZIC V A L L E Y . . .78 5.1 Historical and Physical Context of Hatzic in the Lower Fraser Basin 79 5.1.1 McConnell Creek - Hatzic Prairie History 81 5.1.2 Physical Description 82 5.1.3 Land Use 83 5.1.4 Aquifers . 84 5.1.5 Groundwater Resources 88 5.1.6 Concerns for Water Quality 91 5.2 Data Compilation and Analysis 93 5.2.1 Process and Background 93 5.3 Hatzic and the Data / Policy Timeline 97 5.4 Hindsight - Applying the Proposed Parameter List 106 5.5 Suggestions for Future Action I l l 6.0 S U M M A R Y A N D CONCLUSIONS 114 6.1 Summary 115 6.2 Discussion 116 6.3 Conclusions 120 6.4 Suggested Implementation 129 6.5 Recommendations for Further Research 130 L I T E R A T U R E CITED 133 APPENDIX 1: DRASTIC and AVI : Tools for Intrinsic Vulnerability Assessment. . . 146 APPENDIX 2: Integrating Intrinsic Vulnerability into Aquifer Classification 149 APPENDIX 3: Geological History of the Lower Fraser and Hatzic Valleys 155 APPENDIX 4: Surficial Deposits of Hatzic Valley 159 APPENDIX 5: Summary of Events Concerning Stave Lake Road Quarry 163 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Legislation Pertaining to Water Resources by Jurisdiction 12 Table 3.1: Example of Land Use Task Force Hierarchy of Land Use Classification 39 Table 3.2: Land-use Effects on Groundwater Quality and Quantity 44 Table 4.1: Recommended Map Scales Based on Data Complexity and Reliability 49 Table 4.2: Suggested Parameter List for Local Groundwater Quality Management 53 Table 4.3: Non-regulatory Groundwater Protection Measures 59 Table 4.4: Regulatory and Non-regulatory Groundwater Protection Measures 62 Table 4.5: Regulatory Groundwater Protection Measures 63 Table 4.6: Advantages and Applications of Land Use Designations 70 Table 5.1: Aquifer Classification for Hatzic Prairie and Miracle Valley 85 Table 5.2: Community Well Water Quality (Inorganics) in Hatzic Valley 89 Table 5.3: Summary Notes for Hydrogeologic Assessments of Lot 13361 94 Table 5.4: Available Data for Groundwater Protection Planning in Hatzic Valley 98 vi LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 4.1: Prioritized Data Collection Related to Groundwater Quality Protection Practices66 Fig. 4.2: Prioritized Data Collection in Relation to Land Use Designations 73 Fig. 4.3: Proposed Framework Summary Figure 75 Fig. 5.1: McConnell Creek - Hatzic Prairie Plan Area Location 80 vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the guidance, suggestions and time offered by the members of my committee, Roger Beckie, Tony Dorcey, Les Lavkulich and Hans Schreier. Warmest regards are extended to Nancy Dick for her kindness and assistance. Great appreciation and thanks are extended to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council for their generous support of this research. Leah Lehmann, Heather Morlacci and Shari Conroy were always very helpful and encouraging and their zeal infectious. Hatzic will continue to be a wonderful place under their care. Thank-you to Mike Wei at B.C. MoELP for getting me pointed in the right direction in the files and for being as excited about groundwater as I am, and Mike Gallo for surfing me through the groundwater database. Much appreciation is extended to Siri Bertelsen and Georgina Gallant at the Fraser Valley Regional District for being so generous with their time and documentation. Much thanks is owed to those professors who during my undergraduate studies at Concordia, encouraged me to pursue graduate school and supported my enquiries; Michael Marsden, James Young, Robert Aiken and Robert Frost. I have met many great friends at Resource Management as well as at Green College and appreciate the fun, the conversation and the comradeship. Many thanks are extended to Rosalind Moad, Andra Smith, Joanna McGrenere, Kriztina Zadjo and Frances Diepstraten who were and are very supportive roommates and friends, and made burning the midnight oil fun. Jessy Kurias, Gaby Spuria and Toni Vitale have always offered such constant encouragement, great insight and support that I feel they are right in Vancouver with me instead of across the country. Stephane Gagne, Kuniko Oyama, Chris Radunz and Deanna Clark have been wonderful to laugh with and to know. Last but certainly not least, Heather, Frank and Laura Berardinucci, and Lyle Walker have had the dubious honour of being there for me through thick and thin. Thank-you for keeping things in perspective and for being so supportive -1 do not know how I will ever return the favour. viii 1 Introduction Important resource management decisions are continuously made under conditions of incomplete data and information. To make the best decisions possible under such conditions, a framework is required whereby data requirements are assessed, weaknesses or limitations of the data identified, and uncertainty stated explicitly during the decision making process. This thesis addresses the need to make decisions and set priorities for the protection of an unseen resource, groundwater, despite inherent uncertainties and given incomplete or non-existent data. The purpose of this thesis is to develop and illustrate, through use of an illustrative example, an analytical framework for use by local governments and community groups involved in planning for sustained multipurpose groundwater management within federal and provincial mandates. Emphasis will be placed on prioritizing and selecting data for use in developing a local groundwater quality protection strategy and making scientific uncertainty and information more understandable to the community. Groundwater supplies a significant proportion of potable water supplies world wide. Fresh water constitutes an estimated 3% to 6% of water supplies around the globe1 (Freeze and Cherry 1979; Black 1991; Bachmat 1994). Of that fresh water, groundwater is estimated to constitute about 25% of the supply (Black 1991). If icecaps and glaciers are not included, that proportion jumps to 95% (Freeze and Cherry 1979). Though it is known that groundwater is essential for maintaining water supplies for human populations, ecosystem functions and surface water base flows, management of the resource is still undeveloped in many regions. In many cases, local surface water supply, while not necessarily more abundant, is more accessible and thus more manageable than 1The parameters chosen for this estimate vary between sources. Freeze and Cherry (1979) include oceans and seas, lakes and reservoirs, swamps, river channels, soil moisture, groundwater, icecaps and glaciers, atmospheric water and biospheric water in their estimate of the world water balance. With the exception of oceans and seas, these are considered to be sources of fresh water. 1 groundwater resources. Groundwater's "hidden" nature makes detection of contamination and depletion of supply difficult to anticipate and even harder to rectify. Groundwater users must often share water resources for domestic, industrial and agricultural use. In many areas, groundwater extraction is accompanied by surface and subsurface practices such as septic system use or agricultural and industrial waste disposal. This is often the case in regions where groundwater is the sole source of water (Environment Canada 1993 c, Piteau and Turner 1993). For communities relying on such groundwater supplies, improper management of the resource can profoundly affect community growth and development. The detection of contaminants in groundwater lags behind its introduction at the land's surface. Thus even areas enjoying satisfactory groundwater quality must be concerned with the possible consequences of their present land and water use on future water supplies (Bachmat and Collin 1987). Furthermore, the complexity and sometimes slow rate of groundwater flow mean that the effects on water supply of contamination can last far into the future, compromising community development. As a result, groundwater management is shifting from traditional reactive measures to proactive actions such as resource and land use planning. Required data for such approaches however is often limited or unavailable. Data usefulness often falls short of needs because of the limited time available for data collection, restrictions on the monetary expenditures and resources necessary to maintain continuous data collection, the difficulty of collecting data appropriate to a range of unique circumstances and the uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of point data to larger areas. It is impossible to accurately model existing natural systems to the point that the impact of human actions can be perfectly anticipated. Thus choosing data which best characterizes the hydrologic system in question and serves to answer groundwater quality and flow questions is a priority for all organizations looking for solutions to resource management decisions. 2 Regardless of the data available, decisions on'development proposals affecting groundwater resources must still be made. Negative outcomes may arise from data users placing more confidence in existing data than is warranted, coming to a conclusive decision before sufficient data can be collected or considering an overly narrow selection of data. In all cases, determining whether data is adequate for a given decision and how to make decisions which do not preclude future uses of the resources are central factors in all groundwater management plans. The collection of more data however does not necessarily answer the aforementioned questions. Data, defined here as recorded observations, requires interpretation to be made into useful information. Information describes generalizations made on the basis of observed data, and is further utilized to formulate conclusions or courses of action. The extent to which information truly reflects existing conditions depends on the quality of the data from which it is interpreted. Consequently, the utility of information has to be assessed relative to the questions to be answered. "The value of information is not intrinsic; rather, it is entirely dependent on the usefulness of the information for decision making," (Flockhart, Sham and Xiao 1993, 957). While the utility of data is assessed relative to the decision to be made, that decision determines what data is considered. As a result, a possible solution to a problem may be the most technically, economically, or mechanically feasible choice given the data analyzed. However, it may be the least feasible option in relation to other data which has not been incorporated into the decision, such as community goals. For example, a decision to install a well may be a suitable solution to the question, "How should water be supplied to this property?" but not necessarily in response to the question, "How should water be supplied to this property such that surrounding properties are not afFected?" In such cases, consideration of community values assists in conflict avoidance and greater agreement and compliance with regulations (Libby and Kovar 1987). There is a need to balance 3 technical solutions with community goals and values as well as the ecological needs of other organisms. In Canada, the institutional structure which governs water resources is changing. There has been a devolution of responsibility for water management to lower levels of government and a change in focus from large regional inventories to more community specific groundwater protection strategies, coupled with the emergence of a new trend towards participatory management encouraging greater community involvement in decision making processes (Karvinen and McAllister 1994; Pearse 1994; Thomson 1994; Letvak 1996). Though both the federal and provincial governments have jurisdiction over groundwater management, which in many cases overlap, the provinces hold most of the responsibility (Karvinen and McAllister 1994). British Columbia however is the only province not to have enacted legislation governing the resource. It has been suggested that in the absence of provincial groundwater legislation, the municipal level of government is the most effective level from which to implement groundwater protection plans (Golder 1995). They have the potential to determine and regulate land and water use which are fundamental factors in protecting groundwater resources. Groundwater management at the municipal level however is challenged by limited information, time, funds and experience. The cost of implementing resource management schemes is an important factor for all levels of government as it sets limits on the amount and precision of the data which can be collected, the expertise which can be hired and the time duration allowed for planning and management. Likewise, the cost and value of data collection is considered in relation to ultimate impact on decision making as suggested by Reichard (1990). The up-front costs of purchasing equipment and training staff are added to by the cost of ongoing research. In turn the cost of research rises with increased accuracy and precision in data collection and with increased areal coverage or density of data samples. The 4 problem being studied is also a factor in cost as, for example, different contaminants require different lab analyses which entail various costs. For example, the laboratory cost of detecting pesticides is greater than that of coliform analysis or mineral profiling. In addition, the social and actual costs incurred in the future as a result of the money invested in the present are also elements of the cost equation. Many analyses of groundwater protection and monitoring address the issue of cost of data gathering and the implications of choosing between available alternatives (Everett 1980; American Society of Civil Engineers 1987; Jaffe and DiNovo 1987). Decision support systems encompassing geological and parameter uncertainty as well as cost benefit analysis are being developed which allow for the quantification and reduction of uncertainty and the assessment of the cost of various sampling schemes and management alternatives in relation to multiple sets of criteria (Lee and Nielsen 1987; Freeze et aL 1990; Reichard et al. 1990; Davis 1991; James, Gow and Torin 1996; James, Huff et al. 1996). Though relative cost is a central component of prioritizing data collection activities and protection policies, costs will not be discussed in this thesis. This is because costs vary considerably on a case by case basis and incremental cost is dependent on previous investments. To address the issues discussed in this section, a rural valley located in the Lower Fraser Basin of B.C. will be used to illustrate a common occurrence, the initiation of a land use activity which has the potential for conflicting with community concerns for groundwater quality and quantity. Local residents and officials are concerned with the impact of land use on water resources and have expressed an interest in planning for sustainable resource use in the valley. At present, the ability to determine the potential impact of land use activities on local groundwater supplies in the area is hampered by data limitations. Investigating efficient use of existing data and the collection of additional data are ways in which the aforementioned limitations of information, time, funds and experience can be reduced to facilitate local groundwater protection. 5 1.1 Groundwater in the Environment Groundwater resources are increasingly relied upon to meet the growing water supply needs of communities. Its generally good quality, low cost and reliable supply for domestic, agricultural and industrial use has encouraged its greater use and exploitation in North America and many regions of the world (Cherry 1987; Willis and Yeh 1987; Kenski 1990). As an intrinsic part of the hydrological cycle, groundwater is part of a dynamic and constant flow of water from the atmosphere, to land as precipitation which percolates through the soil or runs over the land surface to surface water bodies and back to the atmosphere. It is recharged through precipitation and on occasion through interflow from surface water bodies. Conversely, groundwater often maintains surface stream baseflow during dry periods. Protecting groundwater supplies therefore maintains both subsurface and surface water quality and supply (Freeze and Cherry 1979; Pearse, Bertrand and MacLaren 1985; Environment Canada 1993c). Groundwater's subsurface location however is both advantageous and problematic. Land protects the resource from surface contaminants while making it extremely difficult to access. Concerns for groundwater generally fall into categories of quality and quantity. Well interference, intermittent water supply, and quality changes which affect potability and use are common concerns. Groundwater for the most part flows more slowly than surface water thus contamination is often not readily apparent until after a potentially contaminating activity has begun. Once a contaminant reaches an aquifer, it is more difficult and expensive to detect, immobilize and remove than from a surface water supply (B.C. M O E L P - #1 Groundwater Management 1993). This characteristic necessitates a preventative approach to groundwater management to offset the very costly and often ineffective task of remediation. 6 1.2 Groundwater Resources in Canada and British Columbia Reliance on groundwater in Canada is increasing. In 1981, over 6 million Canadians (26% of the population) relied on groundwater for domestic use, up from 10% in the 1960's (Science Council of Canada 1988). Approximately two thirds of Canadian groundwater users live in rural areas while the remaining third are largely located in small municipalities which use groundwater as their primary source of water (Pearse, Bertrand and MacLaren 1985; Hess 1986). The national trend in increasing groundwater use is mirrored in British Columbia. Use of groundwater in the province is such that 22% of the population uses approximately 25% of all the groundwater extracted in Canada. At present, 20 percent of the province's population relies on groundwater for drinking water and increased consumption is expected outside of major metropolitan areas (B.C. M O E L P - #1 Groundwater Management 1993; Golder 1995). Primary users vary by district but in general, industry uses 55% of the groundwater extracted in B.C. , the agricultural sector uses 20%, municipalities use 18% and rural domestic use constitutes the remaining 7% (B.C. M O E L P - #1 Groundwater Management 1993). Excluding the water supplies of Greater Victoria and Vancouver, approximately 25% of the total municipal water demand is supplied by groundwater (Foweraker 1994). It is noteworthy that a majority of water supply wells in British Columbia are single-residence domestic wells (B.C. M O E L P - #1 Groundwater Management 1993) and thus are most likely to be located in smaller communities which lack public sewage collection and treatment facilities. Thus those who rely most on groundwater for domestic use are also more likely to experience contamination from local septic systems. 1.3 Groundwater Concerns in British Columbia Groundwater supplies in British Columbia are considered to be, in general, very good 7 (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). However, increasing population and incidents of water quality problems in the Fraser Valley and on the Gulf Islands are drawing more attention to the need for monitoring and protection of groundwater resources in the last Canadian province without groundwater legislation (Halstead 1986; H J P P C 1994; PIPPC 1994; Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995; Bohn 1996). Incidents of contamination of water supply resulting from agricultural, waste disposal, mining, industrial processing , product storage and transportation activities as well as salt water intrusion have been recorded across the province (Freeze, Atwater and Liebscher 1994). Amongst the 153 aquifers classified and mapped in the British Columbia, 15 were identified as having associated health-related concerns due to water quality, 4 have quantity concerns and 14 aquifers warrant concern on both counts (FBMB 1996). Elevated levels of Nitrate-N are the primary concern though there has been evidence of fluoride, arsenic, lead, total dissolved solids, chloride, sodium, pH, zinc, iron, manganese and copper levels exceeding established Canadian drinking water guidelines though in selected cases, these elevated levels are believed to be natural for the region. Other compounds such as pesticides, trihalomethanes and volatile organic compounds have been detected but not at levels of health concern (Gartner Lee 1992, 1993; Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). While overall water quality in the Fraser Valley was good, some of the levels set in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality were exceeded by some of the constituents. Several important water supplies are located in unconfined sand and gravel aquifers which are highly susceptible to contamination from the land surface (Gartner Lee 1993). These problems are the result of land use or land based activities which are inappropriate for the soil system involved and surpass its attenuative capacity or exceed the rate of replenishment of the resource. Increasing efforts are being made in the province to further investigate, test and classify groundwater and source materials as demonstrated in the 2-phase evaluation of groundwater quality in 192 community wells 8 and 75 selected private wells in the Fraser Valley carried out in 1992 and 1993 (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). In addition, research into groundwater mapping, assessment and protection practices (Piteau and Turner 1993; Golder 1995) and the inventory and classification of groundwater sources in the province (Kreye and Wei 1994) have been conducted. To date, these findings have encouraged the suggestion for adoption of guidelines in sectors which impact groundwater resources such as agriculture or waste disposal but have not been translated into legislative or regulatory measures. 1.4 Groundwater Regulation in British Columbia The Canadian constitution assigns provinces jurisdiction over "property and civil rights" and the "management and sale of public lands" within which water is regarded as a form of property and "public lands" is taken to include water. Thus while the federal government retains certain powers with relation to water and works jointly with the provinces on many issues, the provinces have primary authority over both surface and groundwater within their jurisdictional areas (Pearse, Bertrand and MacLaren 1985; Bruce and Mitchell 1995). Each province has approached the responsibility of groundwater management in different ways, largely within the frameworks of regional groundwater studies, integrated watershed studies and groundwater protection plans (Karvinen and McAllister 1994; Thomson 1994). In British Columbia, Freeze, Atwater and Liebscher (1994, 5.25) state the existing status of groundwater resources to be the following: Groundwater as a resource has no status in British Columbia. No rights to its usage, nor charge for its use exist, and as such, the Province does not at this time have a vested interest in protecting the resource for its own sake. In the long term, there is a need for an Act that protects the resource. In contrast, a licence and approval are required to withdraw surface water but no such requirements are set for groundwater, regardless of the amount extracted (Karvinen and McAllister 1994). To the Government's credit, action has been taken in the past to remedy this situation. In 9 British Columbia, the Water Act was first enacted in 1909 and a bill was put forward to extend the legislation to include groundwater in 1960. This amendment however was never proclaimed, leaving British Columbia as the only province in Canada without groundwater legislation. This was due in part to extensive changes required to the rest of the existing Act in order to integrate groundwater policy. Proposals for a new water act since that time have included discussion of groundwater management plans being developed in combination with surface water and land use plans (B.C. M O E L P - #1 Groundwater Management 1993) of which the latter is a municipal concern within municipal boundaries. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has primary responsibility for managing water quality, allocation and protection at the provincial level and is accompanied by the B.C. Ministry of Health which oversees health issues related to water. At present, groundwater issues at the provincial level are addressed through environmental impact assessments and the referral process used for evaluating projects which fall under provincial jurisdiction. While no federal or provincial legislation relates directly to the prevention of groundwater contamination, there are government acts and programs which provide standards, guidelines and regulations for water management (Freeze, Atwater and Liebscher 1994). It has been suggested that municipal or local levels of government are better suited to the planning of groundwater resources protection (Golder 1995) than higher levels of government. If so, collection of relevant data will need to be tailored to the planning goals, temporal and monetary constraints of municipal governments. However, at present, the mandate for water management is not completely in the hands of municipalities and decisions affecting water resources fall under the jurisdiction of various levels of government. In addition to the jurisdictional confusion, water users and managers rely on very limited guidelines when excavating new wells and are not subject to 10 integration of their water use with surrounding community members. A list of acts and governing measures which can potentially be used for groundwater management and use in British Columbia is provided in Table 1.1. There exist a wide variety of means of interpretation and potential applications of existing regulations. To date however, they pertain solely to surface water as none of the provincial Acts or regulations have been proclaimed to apply to groundwater. The exceptions are the standards for drinking water quality which apply to both surface and groundwater. It is clear from the following list that should an attempt be made to manage groundwater within the existing regulatory structure, it would be hindered by unclear overlapping of jurisdictions and fragmented regulation. While the present structure may precipitate conflict and uncertainty, efforts are being made to integrate groundwater and surface water management. The B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks' (1993) "Stewardship of the Water in British Columbia" initiative is one of the most complete visions of how water resource management can be harmonized with other sustainability initiatives in the province. Also noteworthy are suggestions for voluntary practices outlined in the various "Guidelines" listed in Table 1.1. In the absence of a restructuring effort at the provincial level and enforceable regulations, local governments may choose to utilize existing regulations available to their level of government to bring about more timely implementation of groundwater protection measures which effectively integrate local community values and goals for sustainable water use. 1.5 Groundwater Stewardship in British Columbia As discussed earlier, the rising use of groundwater in British Columbia and incidents of contamination in the Lower Fraser Basin (Freeze, Atwater and Liebscher 1994) have prompted a 11 Table 1.1: Legislation Pertaining to Water Resources by Jurisdiction Responsible Jurisdiction Legislation or Regulation Pertaining to Water Resources Federal Government •Drinking Water Quality Standards •Canadian Environmental Protection Act •Fisheries Act Provincial Government •Agriculture: Pesticide Control Act, Agricultural Land Use Act •Environment: Environment Management Act, B .C. Environment Protection Act •Forestry: Forest Act •Health: Health Act •Infrastructure: Dyking Act, Utilities Commission Act •Jurisdiction: Municipal Act, Islands Trust Act •Land: Lands Act, Land Title Act, Environment and Land Use Act, Condominium Act •Pollution: published Pollution Control Objectives •Waste: Waste Management Act •Water: Water Act, Water Utility Act, B.C. Drinking Water Quality Standards •Guidelines: (a) Pollution Control Guidelines for Municipal Effluent Application to Land - Disposal With and Without Significant Groundwater Recharge) (b) Guidelines for Minimum Standards in Water Well Construction (c) Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management (d) Land Development Guidelines (e) Design Guidelines for Rural Residential Community Water Systems. Local Government •Within the Municipal Act: Official Community Plans, Zoning Bylaws, Development Permit Areas, Subdivision and Servicing Standard Bylaws, Tree Management Bylaws, Soil Removal and Deposition Bylaws, Water Conservation Bylaws, Landscaping and Screening Bylaws, Sewers and Storm Drains, Highways, Gifts of Lands, Enforcement of Bylaws •Within the Land Title Act: Covenants, Statutory Rights of Way, Powers of the Approving Officer •Within the Condominium Act: Strata owners can direct the corporation to grant an easement or covenant to protect sensitive areas. Sources: B.C. M O E L P - #9 Background Report (1993); Freeze, Atwater and Liebscher (1994); HTPPC (1994); Karvinen and McAllister (1994), PIPPC (1994) and Webb (1996)2. 2This document outlines provisions of the Municipal Act, Land Title Act and Condominium Act available to local governments in B.C. for fish habitat protection. It has been included here as the author believes these provisions hold significant potential for groundwater protection. 12 closer look at the interdependence of water, land and resource activities. Recently, joint federal and provincial government research, under the auspices of The Fraser River Action Plan has been carried out on groundwater mapping and assessment (Piteau and Turner 1993) and quality protection practices (Golder 1995) which suggest ways in which data collection and planning for groundwater protection can be carried out by local governments. An aquifer classification system for British Columbia has been suggested by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (Kreye and Wei 1994), and groundwater monitoring programs are being initiated in the Fraser Valley (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). The provincial government has taken the initiative to investigate and review its water management policies in "Stewardship of the Water in British Columbia" which reviews policies for and supports integrated management of all resources coupled with greater public participation (B.C. M O E L P 1993; Karvinen and McAllister 1994). While these goals were established through processes encouraging public participation and collective management of resources, translating these goals into implementable policies has been a difficult challenge (Karvinen and McAllister 1994). The questions of how such principles should be implemented, how technical managers, administrators and the public can work together to achieve water management goals, and how the provincial and federal governments can encourage municipalities to sustain local water resources when faced with multiple use demands are the next crucial steps in effective groundwater management (Karvinen and McAllister 1994). Pilot projects have been conducted on Hornby and Pender Islands to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of suggestions made in the aforementioned "Stewardship" discussion paper (HJPPC 1994; PIPPC 1994). Conclusions and recommendations for management on islands experiencing both groundwater quality and quantity dilemmas centred on two objectives: 1) to ensure that the rate of groundwater use does not exceed the rate of replenishment and 2) to ensure that human activity 13 does not negatively impact the quality of groundwater resources. The reports recommend where groundwater management may be deemed appropriate as well as regulatory measures which may be entrenched in legislation. In both cases, the island communities felt strongly that some form of land management was necessary to ensure groundwater protection. These pilot projects clarified many of the administrative questions surrounding the Stewardship proposals and made public consultation in groundwater management a reality. However, action on these issues still requires extensive change to the Water Act. In the absence of such legislative action, local governments may well be asking how the aforementioned "tools" can be practically translated into management of their own groundwater resources. The challenge for local government therefore is to determine which of all the measures suggested fall within their jurisdiction. In the first working document of the Stewardship report entitled Groundwater Management, twenty proposals pertaining to groundwater management are suggested primarily for inclusion in a new Water Act (B.C. M O E L P 1993). The report concludes that new policies and legislation in the area of groundwater management must 1) confirm the vesting of groundwater in the Crown, 2) address legitimate rights to groundwater use, equalize the privileges and responsibilities of groundwater users with those of surface water users, foster and enhance groundwater protection and conservation and 3) improve the knowledge of groundwater as a resource. The proposals most closely related to groundwater protection by local government are: 1) The designation of Groundwater Management Areas (GMAs) (proposal 1). 2) The enabling of regulation regarding the reporting of well records, water quality, introduction of hazardous substances into groundwater, proposed withdrawal, groundwater capacity and other data and documents pertaining to groundwater resources (proposals 4, 5). 3) The enhancement of inventory and data collection as well as the establishment of programs for 14 classifying and mapping aquifers and the designation of sensitive recharge/discharge areas, particularly in GMAs (proposal 6). 4) The regulation of land-based activities in and around wells and above water bearing strata for groundwater protection should be enacted under the new Water Act or the proposed B.C. Environmental Protection Act, and the development of aquifer and well management plans which are associated with surface water and land use plans (proposals 11, 12, 13, 16). 5) The classification of surface and groundwater resources according to availability such as "water available", "sensitive", "fully allocated" and "water short" should be used to determine when or if further wells should be built, or when substitution or conservation measures need to be encouraged or imposed (proposal 16). As mentioned in the Pender and Hornby Island pilot projects and outlined above (#4), the regulation of land based activities is a significant component of groundwater protection planning. Under the Municipal Act (Municipal Act 1996), zoning and designation of sensitive areas within Official Community Plans is within the jurisdiction of municipal governments. While municipal governments interested in protecting groundwater resources may have the capability to orchestrate land use, the collection of data as outlined in #3 above may require more time, money and expertise than available to this level of government. Thus the organizational and technical implications of these proposals requires further investigation before becoming factual components of existing water management plans. Throughout its history, the province has functioned in the absence of groundwater legislation and in all likelihood will face further years without it. It is anticipated therefore that local governments will need to assess and collect data on groundwater resources with the goal of producing effective management schemes. However, data collection is often a labour intensive and expensive activity and must be carried out 15 with an understanding of how the data can best be used, its reliability and its relation to the decisions to be made. In most cases there are three possible courses of action for decision making: 1) make a decision with available data, 2) refrain from making a decision until more data is available 3) make a decision based on existing data but with the possibility of amending the decision once more information becomes available. In this work it is assumed that cases 1 and 2 occur frequently and that there exists a minimum amount of information which should be collected prior to the making of land use decisions. The goal however is to encourage the implementation of case 3 as an approach to groundwater management at the municipal level. It assumes, in agreement with the "precautionary principle", that initial decisions should be conservative such that they do not foreclose alternate decisions and include planning for monitoring programs which will eventually contribute to greater understanding of the system in question (Perrings 1991). 1.6 Thesis Research The goal of this research is to suggest an analytical framework which relates data collection to groundwater protection practices and land use planning to facilitate groundwater quality protection at the local 3 level. This involves determining what parameters are effective descriptors of groundwater activity in a system which changes over time, is perturbed regularly by human activity and is heterogeneous in almost every way and to indicate what priority should be assigned to the collection of appropriate data. The specific objectives of this study are: 1) to assess minimum data requirements for land use management with regards to groundwater quality protection and 2) to develop an analytical framework which communities can employ for data collection and decision 3The "local" level in this thesis is defined as the level of administration which is most immediate to the community impacted by a given development. Examples would be municipal, regional or aboriginal governments or councils. 16 making related to land use and management decisions for groundwater quality protection. This thesis is based on collection of existing field data and information related to Hatzic Valley situated in the Lower Fraser Basin and a literature review of the following areas relating to groundwater management: 1) conceptual and analytical tools for groundwater management, 2) suggestions for data collection discussed in case studies and generalized approaches to watershed analyses, aquifer specific studies, modelling exercises and land use studies related to groundwater, 3) the identification and characterization of contaminants to groundwater and related land uses and activities, 4) practices associated with groundwater quality protection and 5) georeferenced based resource management methods. 1.7 Thesis Organization Chapter 1 describes the physical and political context from which the concept of local groundwater protection has emerged and the regulatory environment within which it would have to operate. In Chapters 2 and 3, the theoretical background to data collection and land use planning is discussed. A synthesis of the literature is presented in Chapter 4, as a framework which prioritizes and relates parameters, groundwater protection practices and land use for the protection of groundwater quality within the context of georeferenced analysis. In Chapter 5, the analytical framework suggested is applied to a specific region. Hatzic Valley, a predominantly rural area located in the Lower Fraser Basin, serves to illustrate how existing information and guidelines can be integrated to guide data collection and land use choices for groundwater protection at the local level of government. Hatzic Valley's situation represents a typical groundwater management problem to be dealt with at the municipal level. A conflict has arisen in the Valley over a choice of land use and assessment of its related impact on water (both surface and groundwater) quality and quantity 17 in the area. This situation is employed to illustrate typical results anticipated from similar activities carried out in other local communities in the province. Conclusions and recommendations for further research are the subject of Chapter 6. 18 2 Data Collection for Groundwater Management The need for data collection to guide groundwater management and land use decisions at the local level is motivated by changing trends in government policy, jurisdictional responsibilities and physical realities. In Canada, the Federal Government has been pursuing a deficit reduction program which has involved staff and advisory organization downsizing and the phasing out of services such as water monitoring and other water related activities, the responsibility for which has fallen to lower levels of government (Pearse 1994; Bruce and Mitchell 1995). This decentralization of management has been accompanied by a second trend, that of broadening participation in policy generating processes and harmonization of administrative responsibilities (Bruce and Mitchell 1995). In considering the implementation aspects of groundwater management, municipal governments are responsible for one of the potentially most effective tools available for groundwater protection, that of land use allocation and zoning (Webb 1996, Municipal Act 1996). Thus for groundwater protection, the aforementioned trends coupled with the proximity local governments have to local residents has led some to designate the municipal level of government as the most appropriate level at which to develop groundwater protection plans with the assistance of the federal and provincial governments and private groundwater consultants (Golder 1995). The absence of groundwater legislation in British Columbia and the relatively good quality of groundwater in the province (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995) however may lead local governments to forego costly and long term groundwater protection research in order to deal with more pressing local concerns. Experience from other regions however may offer an incentive for local governments to give groundwater management greater priority. Financially, remediation of groundwater resources is a costly activity (Kenski 1990). Remedial costs of waste management sites can reach $10,000 to $50,000 per household (Freeze, 19 Atwater and Liebscher 1994). Bruce and Mitchell (1995) estimate that total costs for pump and treat remediation of contaminated groundwater sites in the U.S.A. is $760 billion. Recent experience and findings from U.S. Superfund remediation projects have indicated that not all contaminated sites can be remediated to drinking water standards with existing methods, of which "pump and treat" is the most widely used (Macdonald and Kavanaugh 1994). Thus remediation following contamination is not guaranteed to be effective in rejuvenating water supplies to potable quality even i f affordable. Since the 1980'S; research has made evident the finite capacity of soils and subsurface materials to filter contaminants and protect groundwater supplies (NRC 1993). While groundwater quality may be good in British Columbia over all, local reports of groundwater contamination in the areas of Agassiz, Abbotsford-Sumas and Langley have alerted the public to potential health and environmental impacts of unmitigated land and water use (Bonn 1996), signalling the need to consider potential problems in the future, particularly in a province where groundwater use and protection is as of yet unregulated. The physical and financial alternatives to pollution remediation measures and evidence of contamination in neighbouring areas coupled with the shift in responsibility for water resource data collection and management suggest a need for increased local government involvement in groundwater protection planning. It is assumed however that most local governments do not at present have sufficient finances, time or expertise to fully conduct data collection activities and management planning formerly carried out at higher levels of government. In order to bring about long term sustainable management of groundwater resources, local governments must be both informed of the data needed to carry out effective planning and policy activities and be ready and able to assign various priorities to data collection activities. 20 2.1 Conceptual and Analytical Approaches to Data Collection Suggestions for data collection in this thesis are influenced by three factors: conceptual approach, analytical tools used and the uncertainty or reliability of the data employed which influences analytical outcomes. The manner and scale at which we consider aspects of groundwater management has, as described by Jones (1986) evolved from an aquifer system approach to a groundwater flow system or even groundwatershed approach (Haitjema 1995). The aquifer system model considers water flow through specific confined and unconfined aquifers and relies on analysis of pumping wells. The flow system model in contrast employs a three dimensional construction of hydraulic heads, hydraulic conductivities and storage properties throughout a system without the focus on specific aquifers (Golder 1995). Jones states that initially, hydrologists focussed their attention on quantitative aspects of individual aquifers as a result of a focus on research of water flow towards wells. Thinking then developed to consideration of individual aquifers as entities unto themselves, then to their consideration in relation to regional aquifer systems. As a consequence, emphasis shifted to aquifer system responses to multi-point abstraction and then to complex regional systems which consider surface, groundwater and anthropologically induced changes to the system. Jones refers to Domenico's (1972) introduction of the systems concept to groundwater hydrology and its relevance to the different points of view of science, engineering and management. While science is said to be concerned with the understanding of scientific phenomena, engineering seeks to attain certain objectives and management attempts to control the existing situation. The common and unique problems seen in each approach are shared by all within the context of a "system". Thus a modern systems approach to groundwater flow systems would, according to Jones, show the interrelationships within an area of aspects such as groundwater occurrence, flow and quality in the context of groundwater as a resource and with particular emphasis on responses to short and long 21 term changes. It would also demonstrate an understanding of the degree of interrelationship between surface and sub-surface features of hydrology. The need to relate land use activities and zoning to groundwater protection supports this systems approach to analysis and thus data collection. The application of a systems approach in groundwater involves the development of models starting with the conceptual model, then to static descriptive models such as maps and culminating in dynamic simulation models which are used for predictive purposes (Jones 1986). Maps may be static in that they represent a snapshot of a given situation in time, but the development of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) allows for updating of the displayed information such that change over time can be expressed, analyzed and redisplayed continuously. While simulation or process-based models are a logical progression as presented by Jones, calibration, data volume and worth and system complexity may require much more time to implement and use for management purposes than, for example, a georeferenced approach. Georeferenced analysis is emerging as the tool of choice for groundwater assessments. It is designed to store, process, retrieve and display spatially referenced data (Evans and Myers 1990) and can also link that spatial data with tabular data in a relational database (Flockhart, Sham and Xiao 1993). The ability to rapidly process large amounts of data, to present the information in graphical form, to easily update information and to model alternative scenarios (Piteau and Turner 1993) is making georeferenced analysis an increasingly appropriate tool for groundwater analysis and decision making (Flockhart, Sham and Xiao 1993). A growing application of that approach is the use of vulnerability or sensitivity assessment. Vulnerability mapping has been suggested as the method most suited to the protection of groundwater at a regional scale where numerous wells are present, such as in the Fraser Basin (Colder 1995). Mapping aquifer vulnerability as a tool for planning development and human activities is considered to be a cost-effective approach to protecting water 22 quality (Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo 1995). The concept of groundwater vulnerability to contamination, first introduced by the French hydrogeologist J. Marchat in the late 1960's, is based upon the concept that the physical environment provides some protection to groundwater against natural and human impacts particularly those involving the introduction of contaminants into the subsurface (Vrba and Zoporozec 1994). Since then the definition of vulnerability assessment has taken on a range of descriptions in the literature (NRC 1993) though comparison of the U.S. National Research Council's (NRC 1993) work and that of Vrba and Zoporozec (1994) suggests an emerging consistency of functional definition. The definition of groundwater vulnerability to contamination offered by the U.S. National Research Council (1993, 1) is: The tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the ground water system after introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer. Thus vulnerability assessment attempts to predict the likelihood of contamination based upon a variety of factors determined by the type of assessment carried out. Both works recognize two types of vulnerability assessment: 1) intrinsic vulnerability which is a function of hydrogeological factors determined without reference to the behaviour of particular contaminants or land use activities, and 2) specific vulnerability, which integrates potential impacts of specific land uses and contaminants with intrinsic vulnerability into an assessment. Discussion of two particular methods used to assess intrinsic vulnerability, referred to as A V I and DRASTIC, are presented in Appendix 1. This is followed in Appendix 2 by an example of the use of intrinsic vulnerability assessment in the derivation of aquifer classification systems. Vulnerability assessments are subjective and time-dependent, requiring updating and readjustment with the collection of more data. Earlier literature referred to single value maps (referring to intrinsic vulnerability as described above), management, protection and pollution maps (referring to specific vulnerability) and aquifer sensitivity maps (defined 23 both as intrinsic and specific) for which the central concepts have largely remained unchanged but the diversity in definition confused the issues being analyzed (Cramer and Vrba 1987; Foster 1987; N R C 1993; Kreye and Wei 1994). While both the N R C (1993) and Vrba and Zoporozec (1994) conclude that there is no standardized approach to vulnerability mapping it is suggested that there is one aspect of vulnerability assessment which is not encompassed by the definitions of intrinsic or specific vulnerability. Intrinsic vulnerability refers to rather time-independent, hydrogeologic characteristics of a groundwater system while specific vulnerability considers potential contaminants to the system. However, what appears to be lacking is the altering of intrinsic vulnerability based on existing land use or contaminants both within and above the groundwater system. Vulnerability assessment should ideally reflect the potential for a contaminant or land use to have a negative impact on the groundwater system given the existing state of the system to attenuate or protect the water resource at the time of assessment (Barrocu and Biallo 1993). This assumes that there are cumulative and threshold responses at work which determine what the vulnerability of a system will be to future activities based upon the degree of contamination to which the system is being subjected at present. Envisioned this way, vulnerability assessment indicates where the hydrological system is along a continuous scale of attenuating capacity. Thus it is suggested that the intrinsic vulnerability of an area should be made more dynamic and representative of existing conditions by including the effect of land use and population density reflected in existing levels of contamination and the influence of subsurface sources of contaminants. When considering the desired qualities of aquifer vulnerability for groundwater management, Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo (1995) suggest a number of goals. The main value of vulnerability assessment is as a screening tool for the management and protection of groundwater, which includes guiding land use activities and land use planning, growth management and identifying areas that need 24 protection. It should also be recognized as a good learning tool for communication with the public and policy makers about the vulnerability of the groundwater resource in specific areas and the need to rninimize human impacts. Thus vulnerability assessments need to be scientifically robust, yet the methodology to construct them, simple enough to be cost effective. They should be used only to the limits of their accuracy (though dependable methods of doing so have not yet been sufficiently developed) meaning they should be used in the relative rather than absolute sense, particularly when data is obtained through estimation. In order to successfully carry out vulnerability assessment, it is imperative to have good, accurate, large scale surficial geological mapping, maps showing delineated aquifer boundaries, and the most current and widest possible coverage of accurately located water wells with accompanying lithologic and water level information (Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo 1995). Two of the greatest barriers to designing an effective groundwater management system using a georeferenced approach such as vulnerability assessment is the lack of available data on a water system and the reliability of the data that is available. This contributes to uncertainty in groundwater management which is compounded by uncertainty related to choice of analytical approach, the parameters selected and choice between alternative actions. Uncertainty is inherent in all analysis of the environment because our methods are based upon abstractions of reality stemming from limited knowledge further influenced by limitations in the databases used to make assessments (NRC 1993). Thus uncertainty describes a state of doubt or limited understanding and is often left unexpressed and unaddressed. There are many forms of uncertainty; that which stems from the inability to know future developments, uncertainty arising from our imperfect understanding of what we observe and how well it represents reality, uncertainty arising from how information is interpreted by those who receive it, and uncertainty surrounding how to transform that information into decisions. 25 The problem of uncertainty is further compounded by the resultant lack of communication between researchers and members of the community regarding the uncertainties of data available. It can cause mistrust if predicted outcomes do not materialize while an overstatement of uncertainty may seem evasive and non-committal (Carpenter 1995). A lack of expression of uncertainty also gives the false impression that the problem is better understood than it actually is, an aspect that is particularly significant when considering the outputs of modelling studies (McLaughlin and Johnson 1987). While it is necessary to explain the uncertainties inherent in a particular analysis, researchers themselves may be hard pressed to determine the degree of confidence of, for example, a vulnerability assessment where data of various degrees of resolution have been combined for the final analysis. Scientific research generally attempts to falsify null hypotheses in the goal of moving toward a more strongly accepted description of reality. This can be confusing in the case of ecosystem problems where there is often more than one possibly correct hypothesis (Carpenter 1995). In essence, as suggested by Carpenter (1995), each opinion holder can claim uncertainty as a reason for dismissal of alternative interpretations. Uncertainty in vulnerability assessment arises from errors in data collection, natural and spatial variability, in computerization, data processing and storage, modelling and conceptualization (NRC 1993). The U.S. National Research Council (1993, 3) explicitly states that in their,"... Second Law of Ground Water Vulnerability: Uncertainty is inherent in all vulnerability assessments." With reference to the technique of vulnerability mapping, divisions between levels of vulnerability are often subjective. Furthermore, depending on the confidence interval calculated from the numerical data, lines drawn between neighbouring cells and polygons on a map are likely to be areas of overlapping characteristics on land. Thus subtle distinctions which differentiate areas of vulnerability may not in fact be valid or be clearly transferable to the land surface where land use policies must be 26 implemented. However, vulnerability assessment is iterative and very useful information is derived from it. Its utility as a tool however lies in the recognition of these limitations and the margin of caution subsequently added to results. 2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Georeferenced Analyses Criticism of georeferenced analyses and specifically vulnerability assessment include that it is not as objective, scientific and accurate a tool as first suggested and limited by the lack of appropriate data and by scientific unknowns (NRC 1993). According to Hoffer (1986), traditional hydrogeological mapping techniques are effective tools and necessary sources of information for groundwater assessment but their complexity creates a barrier to use by planners, government officials and members of the public. As vulnerability assessment builds upon these fundamental building blocks, the same barrier may be an important factor in the effectiveness of georeferenced analysis as well. In some ways, specific well head protection zones, which can be implemented prior to extensive multi-parameter georeferenced analysis may well be the current most effective approach to groundwater protection as suggested by Hoffer (1986) because it translates directly into land use decisions which can be implemented by local governments. However, further analysis is eventually required to tailor the wellhead delineation. Collecting and mapping groundwater information that describes the physical system, requires further interpretation to be transformed into actual groundwater protection practices. As a result, such approaches are often put aside unless directly linked to land-use plans or specific regulation. Although georeferenced analysis has been around for quite some time, the high initial investment in equipment and personnel training required has discouraged its use. One alternative for overcoming the traditional inaccessibility of georeferenced analysis has been to develop graphic user interfaces which allow non-computer oriented users to 27 access information for a wide range of activities (Flockhart, Sham and Xiao 1993). To its credit, georeferenced analysis facilitates the integration of spatial and non-spatial information, offers a consistent framework for data collection and analysis for a specific area, can allow for the connection of factors based on relative proximity (important for analyses of non-point source pollution), allows for timely updating and analysis of databases, can be integrated with more advanced modelling applications and facilitates the manipulation and presentation of data for different purposes in a variety of formats (Maidment 1993; Tim and Jolly 1994). Use of georeferenced analysis has been growing (NRC 1993) and most agencies responsible for the management of resource data use or are in the process of implementing geographical information systems (Piteau and Turner 1993). As personal computers become more powerful and less expensive, georeferenced analysis becomes more suitable for resource management at the local level. The high initial investment costs are attenuated over time by the wide range of resource management applications a georeferenced database can be used to address. While it is clear that georeferenced analysis is growing in use, the selection and quality of appropriate data, rather than the approach itself, is still the main limitation to effective groundwater assessment for management purposes (Flockhart, Sham and Xiao 1993). 2.1.2 Frameworks for Parameter Selection The U.S. National Research Council (1993, 5) states that, "The factors that affect ground water vulnerability vary from place to place, as does their relative importance. Therefore, it is important that the attributes included in an assessment be appropriate for the specific situation and, if they are to be weighted, that their weights reflect the particular physical setting. No single set of factors or weights are suitable for all situations." In addition to all locations being unique, attributes 28 vary temporally with different frequencies of variation. The literature, on the one hand, places emphasis upon the uniqueness of each situation and the relative importance of the individual parameters to any individual analysis. On the other hand, efforts are being made to identify a minimum set of data to be collected for groundwater management. The one factor that is common to all groundwater assessments is that some parameters must be chosen over others because it is presently impossible to accurately model a groundwater system in its entirety (Piteau and Turner 1993). Though a good grasp of the operational factors for individual parameters may exist, the linkages between them are largely unknown. This poses the double challenge to a local community which must decide whether to collect information for the immediate problem and case at hand or to collect data from a recommended list which will allow for comparison with other regions and perhaps serve future decisions beyond the needs presently identified. A number of groundwater protection initiatives, guidelines and case studies have been reviewed for this thesis in order to identify and prioritize parameters for data collection which would allow local governments and their communities to make policy decisions for groundwater protection. Aspects which differed between sources reviewed included geographic location, scale of application, assessment goal, analytical method, data availability and parameters used thus making synthesis of an all encompassing list of parameters difficult to conduct. Through this literature review it was found that the issue of establishing guidelines for data collection for groundwater management has recently been addressed by different organizations and expert panels, namely, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988 a,b, 1994), Environment Canada's Federal Provincial Groundwater Working Group (1993a) and specific to British Columbia, Piteau and Turner (1993) for Environment Canada. In 1995, efforts to suggest guidelines for data collection in British Columbia were complemented by an extensive list of groundwater quality protection practices compiled by Golder (1995) for 29 Environment Canada. From the standpoint of users of these documents, the transition between data collection and protection implementation may not be readily apparent. Some measures may only be implemented once certain data sets have been collected and the time at which this data is collected will impact the protection practice applied. The reports reviewed each had different purposes but were all generally oriented towards groundwater management objectives. The outcome of these activities was rather similar in that they each identified minimum data sets. The U.S. E P A (1988a) defined their minimum set of data elements as those necessary for use of data from wells and springs across various groundwater related programs while a second report in the same year focussed on hydrogeologic mapping needs for groundwater protection and management. The Federal Provincial Groundwater Working Group (Environment Canada 1993 a,b) took a wider reaching approach in stating that the purpose of their databases was the storage and retrieval of hydrogeologic and other data related to managing groundwater effectively. Piteau and Turner (1993) focussed on establishing a minimum list of parameters with respect to groundwater mapping in British Columbia for use in situations of development, use, management and protection of groundwater resources. In each report reviewed, the minimum data lists were not recommended as absolute requirements but rather as guidelines. This arose from a recognition by each group of the difficulty involved in enumerating a minimum data set which adequately addresses the wide range of groundwater issues to be considered. In this thesis, it is suggested that a minimum data set be established not as a dictum but to allow for comparative analysis between groundwater regions and to aid in the prioritization of future data collection activities in areas where available data is limited in relation to present and future decision to be made. Despite the aforementioned emphasis on data collection, groundwater management is not 30 strictly a technical endeavour. Questions of equity, health, cost and goals make water decisions inherently value laden. This does not mean though that decisions can be made with the exclusion of technical data. Though physical data alone cannot guarantee successful management outcomes, a lack of information will lead to poorer decisions (Bradley 1986). For the purposes of a local government or municipality, the characterization of the hydrogeologic system will not fully provide the information needed for the management decisions to be made, thus additional data concerning anthropogenic influences on groundwater resources also will be included in the recommended data set for local groundwater management presented in Chapter 4. Piteau and Turner (1993) summarize the minimum set of data elements suggested by the U.S. E P A (1988 a,b), Environment Canada's Federal-Provincial Working Group on Groundwater (1993 a), as well as data fields presently available in the Computerized Groundwater Data System (CGDS) maintained by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and also suggest their own set of minimum data elements. While the original sources were considered in the analysis, Piteau and Turner's summary tables have been substituted for the purpose of ease of discussion. A parameter by parameter comparison of Piteau and Turner's (1993) suggested list with the Federal and Provincial Working Group (1993a) and U.S. EPA's (1988a) data list indicates that requirements for statements of accuracy, precision or confidence, physiographic and aquifer description, water use and derived parameters were excluded from Piteau and Turner's data recommendations. While some of this information may be included in pump and other existing tests and reports associated with a given well or spring, requiring the inclusion of this information would facilitate the translation of data into information for water management. A discussion of the inclusion of precision/accuracy indicator of locational parameters (Environment Canada 1993a) and of confidence factors (U.S. E P A 1988a) suggested that different uses of the information in question would require varying levels of precision 31 and accuracy and should therefore be included for the benefit of multiple users. Parameters such as physiographic or aquifer description would aid in locating point data relative to recognized regions, water use is required for analyses of both quality and quantity of groundwater resources, and derived parameters such as hydraulic conductivity are important for various vulnerability and flow analyses. In this chapter, other things being equal, georeferenced analysis is presented as the analytical tool of choice for groundwater management and the context within which data collection should take place. Data collection is an integral part of any such analysis and key reports outlining suggestions for hydrogeologic data collection have been reviewed. Land use however, can be utilized by local governments to protect groundwater resources and thus must be considered as part of the data collection activity. In the next chapter, various approaches to the analysis of land use will be discussed. Suggestions for hydrogeologic and land use data collection presented in this chapter and the next will be compiled and summarized in the form of a groundwater management tool in Chapter 4. 32 3 Significance of Land Use for Groundwater Protection Evidence of the significant impact of land use on groundwater supplies can be traced to early cultures who recorded events of water damage such as salinization and contamination of water resources as one of the first effects of intensive land use (Hahn 1991). The detection of contaminants in groundwater supplies and attempts to identify their origins has led to the categorization of pollutants into point and non-point sources and their association with human activities which can be directly related to land use activities (Rice and Viste 1994). Studies comparing the impact of different land uses on groundwater resources have confirmed the cause and effect relationship between land use and groundwater quality (Loague 1991). The relationship between land use and groundwater contamination however is complicated by the fact that groundwater is, by Jacobs' (1993) definition, a public good. This public good is a transient resource which can be extracted through a given parcel of land but which cannot readily be partitioned from the larger supply of the resource. It is an open access resource available to anyone who can capture its services. This can lead to changes in water quality brought about through particular uses which are incompatible with other water uses (Libby and Kovan 1987). These characteristics of transience and open access make associating a given change in groundwater quality or quantity with a given land use difficult because there is a constant migration of the substance from beneath one delineated parcel of land to another. Furthermore, groundwater resources flow through complex subsurface materials such that the amount and quality available for use is always in flux. As groundwater resources exist across natural and political divisions, locating the source of change to groundwater quality can be problematic. Despite the difficulties of linking groundwater resources to a specific point on the earth's surface, many groundwater analysts and users feel strongly that, "...some form of management of the 33 land [is] necessary to ensure that neither the quality nor the quantity of the groundwater [is] adversely impacted by land use activities" (HIPPC 1994, 39) and that this "... will inevitably require land use control which many communities and groups may find burdensome and controversial" (Kenski 1990, 2). Land use and its management for the purposes of maintaining groundwater resources figures in many groundwater management plans (Purnell and Thomas 1986; Jaffe and DiNovo 1987; Dean and Wyckoff 1991; Golder 1995). As in the American context where land use and zoning is a state or local responsibility (Jaffe and DiNovo 1987; Kenski 1990; Dean and Wyckoff 1991), Canadian land use planning or zoning is carried out primarily at the provincial and municipal levels (Golder 1995; Municipal Act 1996; Webb 1996). Programs administered by other levels of government outlined in Table 1.1, such as the Agricultural Land Use Act (provincial government), or the Fisheries Act (federal government) will have a significant influence on land use as well. Zoning for groundwater protection involves the regulation of land use and / or hazardous materials in vulnerable areas and is one of the most common forms of regulation for groundwater protection (Golder 1995). As it is implemented by local governments it can be adapted to the needs of the local community as a preventive measure against pollution and overuse. Land and its use can thus be used as a management tool to mitigate anthropogenic impacts on groundwater resources at the local or regional level. While activities associated with given land uses are ultimately what needs management for effective groundwater protection, land use regulation or zoning is more easily administered and most effective if implemented in the early planning stages before significant development occurs and can guide more detailed management efforts in the future. At present however there is an incomplete understanding of the effects of land use decisions on surrounding areas, resources and people. This often results in conflicting land use choices as a result of different goals, values and perceived impact by individuals of a given land use. How to make 34 the process of allocating land uses and regulating people's actions to be compatible with the sustenance of the environment is the central challenge. Communities such as the Hatzic Valley may refer to a variety of approaches to land use choices presently in use in other regions for groundwater protection. 3.1 A Framework for Land Use Assessment In order to associate land with groundwater management, one must both define and categorize existing land areas in order to arrive at the cause-effect relationship required for making land use decisions. A designation of what "land" encompasses is suggested by Pumell and Thomas (1986, 26) who define land as that which, "embraces all stable or cyclic attributes of the earth's surface including the atmosphere, soil, geology, hydrology, plant and animal populations and human activity, insofar as they affect present and future use." They also suggest that land use planning is related to groundwater protection management in two main ways. First, in that the best use and protection of groundwater is an essential part of land use planning and second, that a groundwater specialist needs to know how planned changes in land use will affect the quality and quantity of groundwater. Land use planning therefore, "... concerns land resources, including water and the methods of planning their use for the greatest benefit of the people who use them." For the purposes of a community seeking to sustain not only themselves but the environment in which they live, land use planning should be expanded to also consider the use of water by other organisms. This encourages activities such as the maintenance of fish habitat or marshes which, in addition to their aesthetic and intrinsic value, contribute to the maintenance and protection of groundwater systems. Groundwater protection is highly dependent upon understanding past, present and future land use in addition to vulnerability to contamination (Miller 1991). According to Miller, data contributing 35 to this understanding can be framed within four activities: A) Existing Land Use Mapping: Involves the collection, recording and frequent updating of present land use for plotting on maps and the determination of their potential impacts on the groundwater resource (requiring knowledge of vulnerability of the local system); B) Long-Term Development Plan: Future land use is anticipated from results of inventory of existing land use and reserve areas (for protection or resource development) that are set aside; C) Best Land-Use: During the course of land use planning, a potential best-use for each tract of land can be outlined based on factors such as soil fertility or resource richness for use in the future; and D) Past Land-Use and Future Groundwater Supplies: For the long-term maintenance of groundwater quality, future groundwater supplies should be anticipated and past quality and quantity compared to anticipated future needs. A record of past land use is useful to avoid the installation of a well in a contaminated aquifer. Miller (1991, 36) states in C) above that, "During the course of land-use planning, it will become obvious that there is a best-use for each tract of land." It is suggested that conflicting values regarding land development and the potential for mixed use of land parcels will arise in every area. The choice of appropriate land use for both the land type and groundwater resource protection will likely be less than obvious. If very conservative development practices are used, then many otherwise 36 inappropriate land uses can be rendered compatible for all intents and purposes. As will become obvious in the following, suggestions for land use classifications and rankings are complex issues which are dependent upon community goals, previous experience and availability of mitigative measures. To assist in these complex issues, a useful addition to Miller's four activities would be the incorporation of local expertise and community values into what is primarily a biophysical analysis as outlined above. Lui (1995) discusses the importance of soliciting local knowledge and expert opinion in relation to land and resource planning within forest districts in B.C. and addresses the issues of data reliance and use. Local expertise both supplements existing information, and guides further research and though its collection is not discussed extensively in this thesis, it is considered to be integral to the collection of data for land use categorization as outlined in the following and the framework for local groundwater protection discussed in Chapter 4. 3.2 Categorizing Land Resources To conduct land use mapping and planning, many organizations utilize land classification systems. The following land use classifications fall into two categories: 1) classification systems designed for land use inventories and 2) classifications systems which associate land use with a potential for contamination. The first two examples are from the land use management literature and suggest possibilities for how the detailed categories of land use inventories can be organized and harmonized with other land use planning goals. The subsequent three examples are from the groundwater management and protection literature. These examples suggest ways in which land use and its associated potential for contamination of groundwater can be ranked, zoned or described by cause and consequence. Elements of these methods can be combined to produce a land use scheme for use in groundwater protection which links the data collected with the local land use decisions to 37 be made. 3.2.1 Land Use Capability The Canadian Land Inventory (CLI), while not originally carried out for groundwater protection, is a useful source of information and can be applied in a variety of ways to groundwater protection in Canada. This inventory was initiated in 1961 as a co-operative federal-provincial program to provide a basis for resource and land use planning across the country and was one of the first georeferenced analyses projects to be initiated at such a scale. The inventory included assessments of land capability for agriculture, forestry, recreation, wildlife, present land use and pilot land use planning projects of settled rural areas and adjoining areas which were felt to be important to the income and employment opportunities of rural residents (Department of Regional and Economic Expansion [DREE] 1970). The classification was designed primarily for planning as opposed to management and covered areas of the country where decisions between alternative uses of land would have a large impact on rural development. The advantage of this classification system is that soil capability is qualified by environmental parameters such as surficial geology, climate, texture, topography and chemistry amongst others to identify capability for a given land use and utilizes subclasses to describe the limitations of the soil relative to a selected number of uses. For example, the soil capability of a land area for agriculture classed as 2 has moderate limitations that restrict the range of crops or require moderate conservation practices. This classification serves several purposes, first as a source of information in rural areas where the described data may be difficult to locate, second, for anticipating future land development based upon the determined capability, fulfilling Miller's suggestions, and third, the existing soil capability classes can possibly be rated relative to suitability for groundwater protection. Thus certain 38 soils, while capable of supporting a given land use, may generally not be suitable for groundwater protection or vise versa. This classification is considered exemplary as it evaluates land capability for both wildlife and human use (Land Use Task Force [LUTF] 1993). Direct use of the CLI for local land use management and groundwater protection is limited by scale of resolution (data input at 1: 50 000, published at 1: 250 000, recommended for planning but not management) and by the possibility of the maps becoming outdated. However, it offers an example of how soil capability could be applied to groundwater management and demonstrates a method for combining the needs of people with protection of the environment. 3.2.2 Land Use Classification The Land Use Task Force (1993) in contrast, sought to outline land use categories which describe the existing land use at time of classification to serve as a baseline for potential future changes. One particularly useful aspect of this classification for community groundwater management is the hierarchical approach to land classification suggested. The Land Use Classification is described at three scales; Provincial, Regional and Local levels, for which the land use categories increase in number (and likewise detail of description) from the provincial to local level. Table 3.1 illustrates the hierarchy using agricultural land use as an example. The one agricultural category at the provincial level is divided into 4 regional categories and 19 local categories. Table 3.1 Example of Land Use Task Force Hierarchy of Land Use Classification (LUTF 1993, excerpt from Table 12, 57) L E V E L I: PROVINCIAL L E V E L II: REGIONAL L E V E L III: L O C A L A000 Agricultural A100 Annual Crop Production A l 10 Grains, A120 Vegetable Crops, A130 Seed Crops, A140 Flowers and bulbs, A150 Other 39 The classification also outlines existing alternative land use classifications for reference. This classification highlights the importance of scale in the compiling and combining of data in land use analyses for groundwater protection. Identifying each land plot as agricultural for example would not be useful for the specification of agricultural practices for groundwater protection if it was the only land use in the region studied. In Loague's (1991) study of pesticide leaching potential, it was concluded that regulation of agricultural chemicals should include consideration of changing land use as the type of crop and degree of irrigation were felt to be significant factors in determining potential for groundwater contamination. The Land Use Task Force's classification is useful in this regard because it increases in detail in relation to the information available and can provide insight into the potential sources of contaminants to groundwater. The aforementioned land classifications suggested methods of collecting data on existing and potential land use by describing capability mapping and an existing hierarchical land use classification which could be applied to A and B of Miller's categorization (§3.1) of land use information. Best land uses for both the soil and groundwater protection both in the present and the future requires the analysis of the effect of given land uses on groundwater resources. This is usually based upon many factors, namely previous experience and an understanding of the potentially harmful substances employed with a given land use. The following sections are examples of land use designations which refer specifically to potential contamination of groundwater resources. 3.2.3 Rating Land Use Potential for Contamination Local officials and groundwater specialists concerned with community planning and zoning for groundwater protection have derived a list of land uses felt to have a potential for contamination 40 to groundwater (Dean and Wyckoff 1991). An element common to many of the land uses listed is the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. The land uses outlined were ranked by State and County groundwater protection specialists according to their potential for groundwater contamination along a range of moderate to high potential. In 1991, Michigan was in a similar situation as British Columbia is today in that private drinking water supplies were not protected through any state wide regulatory program. Some of the land uses listed however were already regulated for practices related to groundwater resource protection through state programs. A similar situation exists in B.C. where for example, waste management is regulated though groundwater is not. While this approach succeeds in linking land use to groundwater management, the significant variation in operation practices of each land use makes generalization problematic. When mapped, the lines drawn to delineate land uses, and by association, hazards, affect property values and invite confrontation if groundwater specialists are not able to support the accuracy of the detailed outlining of vulnerable land areas (Dean and Wyckoff 1991). Conflict or challenge of opinion however is likely to accompany any characterization of land use. Categorizations which alter a ranking based on more conservative operation practices may alleviate this situation but would require a more detailed description of each land use. In the interim, this approach would be useful for generating a first cut analysis of what the potential vulnerability of groundwater to contamination is in an area. 3.2.4 Wellhead Protection and Land Use Vulnerability Wellhead protection zoning is a method of designating land use which in its simplest form first designates a capture zone around a well and then assigns land use activities to it which pose no threat or only very limited contamination potential. Thus the vulnerability of an area can be determined 41 based on collected data or simply assumed based on proximity to the wellhead, prior to the designation of a land use. The assumed vulnerability applies to wellhead areas which are determined by the arbitrary fixed radius method (U.S. E P A 1987; Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995; Golder 1995). However, when more information is collected, wellhead areas can be adjusted to reflect the actual flow characteristics surrounding the well. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987) has outlined five wellhead protection area delineation methods: arbitrary fixed radii, calculated fixed radii, simplified variable shapes, analytical methods, hydrogeologic mapping and numerical flow/transport models. One example of this approach was carried out in Acton, Massachusetts in 1982 (Jaffe and DiNovo 1987). Their zoning amendment designated four areas; 1) Well buffer area, 2) Recharge protection area, 3) Aquifer protection area and 4) Elsewhere in entire town. For each land use and activity listed, a designation of not permitted, permitted with conditions, or not regulated was indicated for each area. For example, while residential land use was not permitted in the well buffer area, a minimum lot size was regulated for residential development in the recharge protection area. A similar method has been applied to the North Tyndal well serving the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia. The Amherst wellhead protection area is based upon a European model which defines protection zones which expand outward form the wellhead and are based upon the amount of time it takes a contaminant to reach the well from any point on the land surface (Sponagle 1993). Three zones are designated at the North Tyndall site for which the restriction of activities increases as one moves from the outer limits to the wellhead. The innermost zone is based on a 10 year delay time; the second zone, a 50 year delay time is used; and the third zone represents the long term capture area of the well (Golder 1995). Advantages of the wellhead protection zone include the ability to designate protection areas 42 prior to extensive data collection or following analysis of the local flow system or a vulnerability assessment. This ease of areal designation however sharply contrasts with the potential difficulty of settling agreemients with land owners over resource use or appropriation of an area for groundwater protection purposes. 3.2.5 Cause and Consequence Land Use Descriptions The aforementioned approaches have largely considered land use as parcels which can be identified by a unique land use classification. Except in cases where very detailed land use classification is available however, most land use designations in reality involve multiple activities which could possibly be designated as different land use activities. In that case, determining which land use has caused a particular contamination event can be difficult. Various authors have compiled lists of the possible consequences of different land uses on groundwater quality and quantity (Hahn 1991; Morris and Biggs 1995). This is useful for the aforementioned problem because one can then work backwards through effects, consequences and causes to determine the source of the problem. For example, if groundwater quality has been degraded, and the general land use (such as agriculture) is known, then the observer can trace the effect to possible consequences and then possibly identify the main causes of the problem. This adds a level of detail of information which can be used to tailor land use decisions to the scale of inquiry and existing local conditions. Knowing the actual potential impact of a given land use allows for selection from amongst various land use options and more latitude for evaluating synergies between activities. Hahn (1991) presents a 3-columned table of land-use effects on groundwater quality and quantity in which various "causes" of changes to ground and surface water are identified, related "consequences" outlined and designation of qualitative or quantitative effect is given. The table 43 combines both land uses such as agriculture and land use activities such as construction, waste disposal and energy production. A section of Hahn's description of land-use effects on groundwater quality and quantity follows in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Land-use Effects on Groundwater Quality and Quantity (Hahn 1991, excerpt from Table 2.1, 15) CAUSES CONSEQUENCES EFFECTS Agriculture -irrigation, drainage, alteration of crop growth -river regulation -fertilizers, slurry disposal, use of insecticides, storage of potential water pollutants -alteration of established run-off, increase in seepage -rapid water removal -introduction of: pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and inorganic ions like CL-, N03-A A B A: Quantitative effect on ground and surface water B: Qualitative effect on ground and surface water This equating of land use to effect on groundwater is also suggested by Morris and Biggs (1995) for use in environmental impact assessments. They present two tables which outline the potential impacts of activities on the hydrological cycle resulting from direct, and indirect, manipulation or utilization of hydrological systems. Examples of activities which involve direct manipulation of hydrological systems and impact groundwater are water abstraction or reservoirs and dams. Landfill, forestry and intensive agriculture are listed as projects which do not involve direct manipulation of hydrological systems but do have a resulting impact on groundwater resources. Hahn, Morris and Biggs raise two points for consideration. First, land use and related activities can be categorized at various scales and in many different ways which may make comparison very difficult and obscure details of what information has been included. Second, there may be a number of contrasting site specific land uses which are difficult to combine for categorization or are rendered invisible by more generalized categories (eg. agricultural land may 44 include residential land use, waste disposal and drinking water supply). It is significant that the authors have further detailed their analysis to indicate whether there is a qualitative or quantitative effect on water. This sort of approach can be used to anticipate future land development scenarios and in the planning of monitoring programs. The five aforementioned approaches to land use categorization can be combined to produce a more flexible tool guiding land use management for groundwater protection, than if used separately. This issue is revisited in the next chapter in relation to data collection and groundwater protection practices. 45 4 Proposed Framework In this chapter, the theoretical basis for data collection and land use management presented in Chapters 2 and 3 are developed into an analytical tool which guides the user through data collection, groundwater protection practices and land use planning for local groundwater quality protection. The framework is suggested for use by groundwater managers, planners, community members and others involved in land and water use decisions at the local level. The following sections outline what data should be collected, how it can be prioritized, the relationship between parameter sets and possible protection practices and approaches for the integration of land use planning. As was suggested in Chapter 2, georeferenced analysis offers many benefits for organizing and analyzing data for groundwater management. However, there are difficulties associated with such analysis which should be considered during data collection for georeferenced analysis, namely the synthesis of dissimilar data and the quality or worth of the data used. These two aspects are discussed in the next two sections and are followed by discussion of the four components of the proposed framework for groundwater management suggested by this work. 4.1 Data Compatibility with Georeferenced Approaches Groundwater management and related georeferenced analyses involve the integration of data which is dissimilar in both scale and data quality. With regards to selecting a scale of analysis, two options are to base the scale on that of existing data or to choose a scale at the onset and to tailor data collection accordingly. In practice, choosing an acceptable scale of analysis is influenced by the extent of the problem considered, the decisions to be made, the scale of existing data and existing conventions in the field - a combination of the aforementioned options. 46 Analysis of the area or scale of influence of human activity on water resources is at present, commonly conducted within or across watersheds, which are physical units typically delimited in relation to surface topography. While this delineation on the land surface can clearly be related to political boundaries, the overlapping of the watershed and the groundwater sources beneath the surface are harder to distinguish. Thus the term groundwatershed has been used by a few authors to highlight the inclusion of groundwater contributing areas to standard definitions of watersheds. Haitjema (1995) uses groundwatershed as opposed to watershed because the term conveys the inclusion of the groundwater catchment area which may or may not coincide with the surface delineation of the related watershed. Hoffer (1986) mentions how Connecticut relies extensively on a groundwater classification system based on the joint ground water/surface watershed concept. This forms the basis of the State's hazardous and non-hazardous waste management programs. In the case of groundwater management, the term groundwatershed is preferable to watershed as it evokes the image of existing conjunctive use of groundwater/surface water resources by both the human and animal population in the area and in this case, reflects the lack of certainty as to the extent of the groundwater system past the visible topographic watershed. Having defined a physical context within which data will be integrated for groundwater protection, the questions of accuracy and scale of combined data should be considered. Baker and Panciera (1990) raise two interrelated issues in discussing accuracy of source data. First, data accuracy can depend on the type of feature, age of the data and the time the feature was observed. Surface features such as roads and land use can be expected to be more accurately located than subsurface features. Information such as water tables and land use which as mentioned, change over time, render a previous analysis less accurate for use in the present. Second, accuracy can be influenced by the mismatching of scales where data of different 47 scales is combined or applied to a scale which does not match the accuracy with which the data was collected. An example offered was the presentation of aquifer recharge areas at a base scale of 1:24 000 being overlain on a property map of scale 1:2 400 with the erroneous assumption that it increased the accuracy of the recharge line when in fact it should be drawn as an area at the larger scale rather than a line. A similar activity carried out by Pfannkuch, Hunt and Burman (1993) illustrates the difference between increasing or decreasing scale. Sensitivity ratings at the scale of 1:20 000 were photo reduced to 1:100 000 and simplified due to the resultant line density. Photoreduction is not uniform over an entire surface and may distort map scales. However, in this case, because there was an increase in generalization of the information contained, the scale change is likely to be acceptable. With regards to mapping scale for groundwater protection measures, Piteau and Turner (1993) indicate that while there is a lack of consensus on appropriate mapping scales, many users surveyed favoured maps at 1:50 000 to 1:20 000 for site specific information. The N R C (1993) categorizes scales of 1:100 000, 1:24 000 and 1:12 000 appropriate for use at the county, hydrologic unit and field scales respectively, for which a 3 acre plot was displayed at each scale to illustrate relative increase in resolution. Similarly, the U.S. E P A (1988b) suggests 1:100 000 to 1:24 000 for identification of water supply/ground-water withdrawal locations, vulnerability to contamination and aquifer flow systems, and 1:24 000 or larger scale for definition of wellhead protection areas and potential sources of contamination. The Land Use Task Force (1970) categorizes map scales of 1:100 000 to 5 000 as scales for use at local or site levels. As was discussed previously, map scale can depend in large part on the scale of existing data at the onset of a groundwater protection planning. This issue will be readdressed in relation to the illustrative example of Hatzic Valley. There are few obvious answers to the dilemma of the accuracy and scale of combined data, but some solutions have been suggested. UNESCO (1977) suggests a scheme which relates 48 hydrologic map scale to areal coverage, data complexity and data reliability which is summarized for local areal coverage in Table 4.1. Complexity is arbitrarily ranked according to number of elements mapped and reliability is determined on set percentages of two descriptors; % of data reliability and % of data approximation. Limits of usefulness for each map scale are then related to the reliability of the information presented and the number of elements to be displayed. These limitations on number of data sets to be displayed at a given map scale applies to the final presentation of the analysis but not to the georeferenced analysis, where an unlimited number of parameters can be combined for analysis at the discretion of the user. The approach however offers a suggestion for how guidelines may be established for the combining of data within a georeferenced approach. Table 4.1 Recommended Map Scales Based on Data Complexity and Reliability (UNESCO 1977, 23) Complexity Reliability Local Scale A) Display one element only (ex. water table) B) Display two elements (ex. geology and water table) C) Display three elements (ex. geology, water table, aquifer thickness) D) Display more than three [Increasing complexity from A to D] 1) Based entirely on estimates 2) 10% R, 90% Ap 3) 25% R, 75 % Ap 4) 50 % R, 50 % Ap 5) 75 % R, 25 % Ap 6) 90 % R, 10 % Ap 7) 100 % R [Increasing Reliability from 1 to 7] 1:100 000 D - 2 1:50 000 D - 3 1:20 000 D - 4 1:10 000 C-5 1:1000 B - 6 1:200 A - 7 [ A - D = Complexity] [1 - 7 = Reliability] R = Reliable Ap = Approximated (estimated, generalized or unknown) A second approach utilized for the production of the 1993 Soil Landscapes of Canada map ranked map reliability as low, medium or high dependent on the survey method used and the timeliness of the data. Map reliability was then indicated through the use of graded shading of polygons outlining areas of low, medium and high reliability. 49 4.2 Data Worth The accuracy of an analytical outcome such as vulnerability assessment depends on the accuracy of the parameters considered, some of which have greater influence on results than others. The literature discusses the usefulness or data worth of parameters chosen for groundwater assessment (Loague 1994; Zaltsberg 1995). Some authors have discussed the worth and uncertainty of individual parameters used within their case studies. In many cases, hydraulic conductivity (K) is considered to be one of the most sensitive parameters. Zaltsberg (1995) offers that hydraulic conductivity can be in error by as much as 5 to 10 times and thus a similar range of uncertainty could be expected in the calculation of pollution plume attenuation distance. Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo (1995) indicate that there is uncertainty involved in assigning K-values to well lithologic descriptions since hydraulic conductivity data is not normally available and measured K values are almost never available in water well databases. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil has been found to vary significantly with change in season, location and measuring device (Gupta et al. 1994). In the above cases it was suggested that hydraulic conductivity estimates or values, be used with caution. It is central to most hydrological studies but in fact the potential range in values is large and thus introduces considerable uncertainty into hydrologic analysis. With reference to the observation of water contamination from well sampling, Richards et al. (1996) raise the issue of representation of data. They offer that contamination of well water does not necessarily reflect generalized contamination of local or regional aquifers. Likewise, the absence of a contaminant from well samples pumped from a few meters below the water table does not rule out the presence of the contaminant in the shallowest part of the aquifer. Thus consistent local patterns of contamination most likely indicate local contamination whereas consistent patterns of no contamination likely indicates minimal or no contamination. Not only can the data show great 50 variability but its interpretation may introduce further inaccuracy. A number of considerations relating to data collection and worth and georeferenced analysis discussed in this and the previous section are summarized in the following. The term groundwatershed effectively conveys the integration of surface and subsurface water management in a single term and may draw greater usage in the future given growing concerns over groundwater resources. In groundwatershed and georeferenced analysis, data of various scales, resolutions and reliabilities are combined, leading to problems of generalization and rigour of the concluding results. It is suggested that, whenever possible, indication of scale of resolution and minimum detection limits should accompany data. Likewise, data can be generalized to a smaller scale, but not to a larger scale from the original. Data should be maintained in its original form and not synthesized with other data so that translation into information can be based on recent data for which the user can identify the original scale and resolution. For groundwatershed assessment, though analysis will depend on the scale of existing data, a scale of 1:50 000 and larger appears to be of standard practice. Prior to conducting analysis, an indication or ranking of analytical accuracy based on method of data collection or degree of estimation should be produced. This should then be related visually to data presentation. Attempts should be made in mapping exercises to visually alert the reader of resolution through the use of colour, size of point location markers or thickness of boundary limits so that there is a given degree of uncertainty in the appropriateness of the data used at a given scale. The previously mentioned examples of data worth are samples of what literature exists concerning data reliability. It is clear that each parameter chosen has a different degree of variability and reliability which should be considered with every analytical result. However, locating sources of error when multiple sets of data have been combined is difficult. A common analytical practice demonstrated by Loague (1994) is to note how much analytical results change in response to changes 51 to each parameter considered. An alternative for local groundwater managers and planners may be to rate the relative data worth of each parameter considered and to total that rating for each analysis thus expressing a generalized reliability. While the overall accuracy and reliability of data may not be changeable, the manner in which decisions are made is highly dependent on the perception of accuracy and reliability. 4.3 Components of the Proposed Framework The framework suggested in the following represents a synthesis of information from various sources which have been presented in four sections; 1) a list of parameters for which data should be collected, 2) a listing of measures and practices which contribute to groundwater protection based primarily on a report by Golder (1995), 3) a prioritized list of data collection activities which offers a stepped approach to data collection and related protection measures, and 4) analysis of the way in which land use classification can be integrated with the aforementioned components of the framework. 4.3.1 Component 1: List of Suggested Parameters The following Table 4.2 lists parameters pertinent to local groundwater management. The list builds upon the final recommendations for data collection for groundwater mapping and assessment made by Piteau and Turner (1993) which is included in its entirety. Parameters from the original sources of the U.S. E P A (1988 a,b), Environment Canada (1993a) and the Computerized Groundwater Data System (CGDS) upon which Piteau and Turners's list is based have also been included. These parameters have been reintroduced to Piteau and Turner's list because they are felt to be useful to the goal of local groundwater management. These sources have been chosen to 52 Table 4.2 Suggested Parameter List for Local Groundwater Quality Management. PARAMETERS Notes USE/APPLICATION Basic Well/ Spring Site Information * Unique Well/Sprine I.D.. No. * General Information * BCGS Map Area No. and Well No. + * L Well/Spring/Piezometer Description Code + * Water source characterization Physiographic/Watershed Region L Aquifer name L Owner Name + * L Legal Location/ Street Address/City/Town + * L Postal Code * L, often used to link population data Verbal description of Well/Spring Location * L for field survey, inspection etc. U T M Easting/Northing Coordinates * L Method of Determining Coordinates * Reliability of analysis Accuracy of Coordinate Measurement * Appropriate scale of use Collar Elevation * L Method of Determining Elevation * Reliability of analysis Accuracy of Elevation Appropriate scale of use Construction Driller Number or Name + * Responsibility Construction Date and Method + * Indication of potential for failure Present Status + * Pollution potential, degree of use S E A M / E M S Site No. Code + * S E A M has been replaced by E M S Purpose of Well/Borehole + * Pollution potential Construction Method + * Disruption, reliability, contaminants Total Depth + * Water source Depth to Bedrock + * Construction of lithologic section Accuracy of Depth measurements Appropriate scale of use Diameter + * Hydraulic calculations Type of Surface Seal * Contaminant potential and prevention Number of Screened Intervals * Depth of water sources Screened Intervals + * Area from which water is extracted Screen Slot Size(s) + * Contaminant migration, extraction Description of Completion Interval + * Source of water Lithology logged by * L Estimated Yield + * Water use Method of Yield Estimation * Appropriate level of reliance Information Verified by * All changes or verifications of Date Verified * information in this and other categories Comments + * should be recorded. 53 Lithology * Lithology is necessary for identifying Unique Well/Spring I D . No. * subsurface water sources, determining Depth + * potential water yield, migration Precision of Depth measurement pathways and possible interaction with Materials Description + * contaminants. It should be used in Lithology logged by * conjunction with well data listed above. Water Quality Information Water Quality information establishes Unique Well/Sprine I.D. No. * a baseline against which to monitor Agency/Individual Responsible for Samples * historic changes over time and to Date Sampled * identify deviations from established Time Sampled water quality standards. It can be Purpose of Sample * targeted for specific contaminants or Laboratory and Reference No. * generalized, but should attempt to Water Sampling Method * monitor contaminants which are Constituent or Parameters measured * commonly associated with the land Concentration/V alue * uses in the region. Detection Limit Comments * Note deviations from water quality standards Water Levels, Yield, Field Chemistry * These define aquifer units, flow Unique Well/Spring I D . No. * directions, changes in storage, effects Agency/Individual Responsible for Sampling * of pumping and aquifer discharge. Date Observed * Time Observed Depth to Water Level (unconfined) + * determine water table (unconfined) or Hydraulic head potentiometric surface (confined) for horizontal flow Spring/Artesian Flow * Field pH, Conductivity, Temperature * Comments * Note variations and relations to seasonal or anthropogenic factors 54 Aquifer Pumping Test Information * Unique Well/Spring I.D. No. * Agency/Individual Responsible for test * Test * Test Duration * Maximum Pumping Rate During Test * Reference No. of test report * Derived Parameters: Hydraulic Conductivity Ease of water flow through formation Specific Storage or Storativity Water released with decline hyd. head Specific Capacity (well) Well productivity Transmissivity (confined) Indicates Transmissibility Specific Yield (unconfined) Indicates storage Comments * Water Use Unique Well/SprineID. No. Monthly water use (volume, rate) C Water budget Purpose(s) of use C Sources of conservation, indication of present and potential sectoral uses (domestic, commercial, industrial, municipal) Water use (other than for specific well) Ex. baseflow to surface water bodies Comments Supportive Data Base map Boundaries: political, watershed etc. Topographic Map Slope, recharge/discharge, flow paths Roads, rails C Source of hazardous materials Ditches, dykes, pipelines, sewers C Hazardous materials, water source Land use C Pollution potential and density Land use activities C Pollution potential Surface water bodies and wetlands Recharge/discharge, pollution path Wildlife habitat Water qual./quant potentially harmful Precipitation record Recharge potential Population / Animal density C Water use, pollution potential Soil map Assimilation and attenuation capacity Surficial geology map Location, type, protection of water Recharge and discharge areas/sources High potential for contamination Artificial Ex. Irrigation, seepage pond, stream Natural Ex. High elevation, marsh Additional Reports + Comments * 55 Contaminant Inventory (Municipal, Agricultural, Industrial) Location above/below ground storage tanks Septic field location Waste disposal (landfill, seepage ponds) Household hazardous materials Industrial hazardous materials Municipal hazardous materials Transported Hazardous Materials Storm drainage Comments The purpose of the contaminant inventory is primarily to locate point-sources of contaminants to groundwater. Non-point sources of pollution could be located through the use of land use mapping. For example, fertilizer application (associated with a particular land use) may be considered hazardous in a recharge area. Piteau and Turner for Environment Canada (1993) Available in the Computerized Groundwater Data System (CGDS) data base managed by the Groundwater Section, British Columbia M O E L P <http://wtrwww.env.gov.bc.ca> Parameter which can be altered for implementation of groundwater protection practices Locational data Note: Many parameters are subject to change over time, thus noting of date and time of update is important in all cases. constitute the basis of the parameter list over individual case studies because they encompass a wide range of experience brought together through panel discussion, specifically relate to data collection in North America and British Columbia, and are likely to serve as templates for data collection by local governments in this province. Additional parameters from various sources have likewise been added with the goal of meeting local groundwater management data needs and the implementation of protection practices suggested by Golder (1995). As the aforementioned data lists referred primarily to describing the hydrogeologic environment and excluded anthropogenic information, these additions involve a survey of the following references for additional suggestion of what parameters to include specifically for the goal of groundwater management. Detailed information pertaining to contaminant transport and characterization were not included here as the specific goal of this data list is contamination avoidance and it is assumed further information will be sought following the identification of specific local 56 contaminants or discovery of contamination. The sources reviewed include: Baker and Panciera (1990), Barrocu and Biallo (1993), Brassington (1988), Everett (1980), Freeze and Cherry (1979), Golder (1995), Jaffe (1987), Jaffe and DiNovo (1987), Kreye and Wei (1994), Lemme et al. (1990), Meij (1990), Miller (1991), Pfannkuch, Hunt and Burman (1993), U.S. National Research Council (1994), Vrba and Balek (1986), Vrba and Zoporozec (1994) and Zhang (1996). While this is by no means an exhaustive list of possible sources of such information, there was considerable similarity between the parameter suggested in the various works. The author, on the basis of the similarity and the degree of repetition from the literature, derived a set of parameters based on the aforementioned works. Parameters are arranged in sets, some of which are suggested by Piteau and Turner (1993) and prioritized in relation to relative ease of collection, temporal considerations, degree of complexity and utility for various protection practices. The use / application category describes the individual parameters or suggests the utility of the information listed and summarizes pertinent explanations from the sources listed above and the author's experience. In many cases the information is primarily locational and is designated simply by L. The data sets listed above may be organized into a variety formats, usually in the form of maps. The U.S. E P A (1988b) conducted its analysis within the framework of four map types for hydrogeologic analysis; 1) hydrogeologic maps which present the physical framework, hydraulic/hydrologic properties and geochemistry, 2) supportive data maps showing the location of facilities, land use, topography, and other cultural or natural features, 3) geologic maps which show geologic information such as the location and nature of rock units and sediments, and 4) derivative maps which aggregate information from the various categories for the purposes of interpretation and prediction such as water availability, pollution potential or vulnerability to contamination. These 57 correspond in part with Piteau and Turner's (1993) suggestion for 1) definition of the hydrogeologic setting, 2) the flow system and 3) preparation of a water budget. The flow system map referred to by Piteau and Turner is included in the U.S. EPA's hydrogeologic map, whereas hydrogeologic setting as defined by Piteau and Turner incorporates the U.S. EPA's hydrogeologic and geologic maps. It is clear that there are many different ways in which to organize information and that no one right way exists. However, for the purposes of repeated and diverse uses, it would appear that organizing the information into self-contained components which leave the analysis of data from various parameter sets to the user, would make the data accessible for analysis for a wide range of purposes. Thus as an example of the organization of the above data for use by local government into maps, the following categories are suggested; a) hydrogeologic - featuring physical components of water bearing strata only, b) geologic, c) water flow, indicating direction of flow, areas of recharge and discharge, d) water use, and f) landscape and anthropogenic features listed in the aforementioned table as supportive data, from which maps or analyses depicting water budget which combines water flow and water use, vulnerability to contamination aquifer system definition, flow system definition, well-head protection areas etc. can be derived. 4.3.2 Component 2: Groundwater Protection Measures The following is a list of groundwater protection measures outlined from Golder's (1995) report entitled "Groundwater Protection Practices". The protection measures are listed as per Golder, in order of the most simple and inexpensive to the more complex and costly. The list has two 58 components: a description of the protection measure as described by Golder, and the author's interpretation of what data from Table 4.2 would be required for implementation of that measure. Implementation of these protection measures is iterative in that some can be applied at earlier stages of data collection and adjusted upon collection of more information. For example, a wellhead protection measure can be arbitrarily determined with only information on the well location and further shaped when more information on water flow becomes available. The protection practices are categorized as non-regulatory (Table 4.3), regulatory and non-regulatory (indicating optional application) [Table 4.4] and regulatory (Table 4.5). The measures suggested encompass both political activities and data collection activities which in some cases overlap with the list of parameters. Table 4.3 Non-Regulatory Groundwater Protection Measures Public Involvement • This process is stated to be the most commonly used non-regulatory measure. It involves 2 components; public participation which involves the community in the development and implementation of protection plans and public education which is the dissemination of information to the public to create awareness and encourage greater participation in implementation of measures. * Public Involvement is possible at the earliest stage of a groundwater protection plan. Well head Protection Delineation • Well head protection involves the designation of an area immediately around a well or well field vvithin which activities deemed threatening to groundwater quality are restricted. The area is usually based upon characteristics such as distance, drawdown, travel time, flow boundaries and assimilative capacity (referring to subsurface capacity to attenuate the concentration of contaminants). * Well head protection areas can initially be arbitrarily determined then further refined depending on available information. It requires a well inventory before use and can be further modified once the groundwater flow system has been investigated. Vulnerability Mapping • This is a way of detemiining the sensitivity of groundwater resources to contamination on a regional scale through a variety of analytical means. Limitations are that it does not account for existing groundwater contamination and the assumption is made that future contamination will occur from surface sources. DRASTIC is one of the best known schemes for use at the regional scale but has limited capacity for site specific classification of true vulnerability. * This can be based on intrinsic information derived from hydrogeologic data or following the collection of anthropogenic data such as contaminant inventory, population density and land use. 59 Aquifer Classification • Aquifer classification determines susceptibility of groundwater resources to contamination with the inclusion of present use as a water supply source, potential future use and existing water quality. It is used as a means of establishing the degree of protection an aquifer may require. * It requires water monitoring (use, quality) information and hydrogeologic characterization. Contaminant Inventory • An inventory is made to identify existing or potential point and non-point sources of contamination usually prior to the implementation of a groundwater protection plan to allow for tailoring of the plan to specific contaminant sources. The cost of carrying out and maintaining an inventory can be quite high. * Is considered a basic data collection activity outlined in the aforementioned suggested minimum data list. Well Inventory • A well inventory identifies all water wells in the area of concern which can be combined with hydrogeologic information in order to define groundwater protection areas. Information for use in other regulatory and non-regulatory measures such as aquifer classification is derived from this inventory. * Is considered as part of the minimum data to be collected for groundwater protection. Requires the compilation of data filed with the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, a survey of the public to update existing knowledge of well locations and possible verification with Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) in order to improve mapping capabilities. Location of springs being used for potable water use would be particularly useful in mountainous areas. Groundwater Monitoring • Involves the collection of groundwater quality and quantity data on a regular basis. It should be carried out before the implementation of a protection plan to establish baseline conditions and direct the planning of protection measures and following implementation to monitor the impact of a protection plan. * Considered to be a basic data set to be collected for groundwater protection planning. Need to locate all wells and springs, to organize a sampling regime which considers seasonal variation and to harmonize sampling on temporal basis for comparison purposes. Compilation of existing data available from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Spill Response Planning • Involves the implementation of an emergency response plan in the event of a spill or accident which poses a threat to groundwater resources. * Requires a contaminant inventory, the determination of where a spill is most likely to occur, how transportation routes relate to groundwater contamination sensitive areas and what responses are possible. An interim plan could be devised prior to determining what the sensitive areas of the region are and should be coordinated with protection of surface water bodies. Contingency Plans • Contingency plans outline measures for the provision of short and long term alternative sources of drinking water and its distribution should existing well fields become unusable. * Requires knowledge of existing water sources both local and further afield, average consumption for planning of volume to have accessible and understanding of the divisions between adjacent and local water sources so that one goes far enough from contamination to obtain clean water and does not draw contamination to source through unusually excessive withdrawal. 60 Hazardous Waste Collection • This entails the collection of hazardous waste (as designated by existing regulation) within a groundwater protection area for safe disposal. The purpose is to avoid accidental or inappropriate disposal of household waste and hazardous materials into local water sources. * Possible prior to extensive data collection, but would be more effective following contaminant inventory which would identify variety and volume of contaminants and types of treatment required following collection. Technical Assistance • Technical assistance is offered to community members by a professional acquainted with particular threats to groundwater resources. It allows professionals to work directly with target groups to protect groundwater while serving to actively disseminate information. An example would be an agro-consultant working with farmers to determine the sequencing of chemical applications to reduce potential groundwater contamination due to inappropriate or over fertilization. * Implementable at early stages of protection planning if the professional is acquainted with a range of land use issues expertise but more likely to be useful once land uses have been outlined and contaminant inventories carried out to focus dominant need in the area. Land Acquisition • Already used for surface water protection, land acquisition involves the purchase, exchange or donation of land in order to reduce the likelihood of activities which may deteriorate water quality. It is most effective in rural areas where there is little existing development. * Possible once sensitive groundwater area has been delineated. Is more appropriate protection for community wells or for protection of recharge area of those wells than of individual wells. Purchase and Development of Rights • The right to develop land is purchased while the original owner retains ownership of the property. The current owner can continue to use the land at current use and receives compensation consisting of the difference between the current use and the development value of the land. * As in the case of land acquisition, requires the outlining of sensitive land area, or pending land development. Conservation Easements • This is a voluntary legal agreement made by a property owner to restrict development on their land. * Possible prior to delineation of sensitive areas though more easily justified following it. Prior to the completion of an aquifer evaluation, conservation easements can be employed in a manner similar to a moratorium until delineation of sensitive areas is made. Cluster Development • Cluster development promotes and concentrates development in areas outside of the groundwater protection zone which are less sensitive to contamination. Its many benefits include cost-effective installation of utilities, reduced need for road connection, restricts open lawns and maintains large tracts of land for natural vegetation. * Possible following delineation of sensitive areas and if proposed area of development is sufficiently known to not be a threat to water supplies in the region. Summary of Golder's (1995) description Author's analysis 61 Table 4.4 legulatory or Non-Regulatory Groundwater Protection Measures Storm Water and Sewage Control • Contaminant inventories in other areas have indicated that a significant percentage of groundwater contaminants can be traced to storm and sewage discharge. * Requires collection and monitoring of storm discharge, knowledge of sensitive areas and contaminant sources which could be identified from land use and vulnerability analysis. Septic System Controls • This involves the regulation of septic system use or installation through guidelines or permitting which can control the density or location of installation, prohibit installation in sensitive areas or even require the retrofitting of septic systems for future connection to public sewer systems. * Prior to characterizing the local aquifer system, septic system operation standards can be suggested for the purpose of avoiding system overflow. For controls on septic system density, restrictions on lot subdivision as well as characterization of the local subsurface material assimilative capacity as well as groundwater flow system would be necessary. Agricultural controls • Agricultural activities are often permitted in sensitive regions and subject to restrictions or guidelines for groundwater protection. Suggestion for alternative storage and use of agricultural chemicals and manure, the sequencing of application, self reporting of activities, control of livestock density are a few of the ways in which agricultural activities can be adapted to the protection of groundwater resources. * Existing guidelines for agricultural activities could be evoked prior to a hydrogeologic assessment but would be more usefully implemented following an inventory of agricultural practices, the location of hazardous materials and the designation of dominant land uses within the region in question. Roadsalt controls • In areas where road conditions require some sort of anti-skid application, the limiting or prohibition of road salt or its mixing with sand can be used to minimize the impact of contamination of both groundwater and surface water. * Water quality monitoring, potential frequency and volume of salt application, designation of sensitive groundwater areas and location of roads relative to those areas would be suggested prior to implementation. Transportation Controls • Limitations on transportation and the movement of hazardous materials over groundwater protection areas reduces the potential for contamination of storm water or spillage over a sensitive region. Alternative transportation routes for rail and road are suggested in this plan. * Designation of areas of sensitivity would be required prior to implementation as well as location of hazardous materials (contaminant inventory should include point-specific as well as transient sources of hazardous materials). Well Drilling and Abandonment • Improperly sited, constructed or abandoned wells can allow for a rapid transmission of contaminants to a water source. Guidelines for the construction and abandonment of wells in addition to the tracking of wells through an inventory program can reduce the possibility of such occurrences. * A well inventory would be necessary though generic operation controls used in other regions could be imposed on all new construction, prior to local well inventory. 62 Geotechnical Controls • Similar to well drilling and abandonment, test holes, piles excavation, ditching and trenching installed for geotechnical purposes may provide a pathway for contaminant migration to groundwater sources. Contamination can be avoided through proper installation and decommissioning of excavations. * As with well abandonment, installation practices on all new activities could be imposed at the early stages of a groundwater protection plan and further implemented following a well inventory. Forest Management • Removal of forest cover may alter the hydrologic regime of an area affecting groundwater recharge and quality. Restrictions on tree extraction methods and volume of removal can be used to minimize alteration of both surface and subsurface hydrologic regimes. * In areas where tree extraction is taking place, a model of the hydrologic cycle including a water budget and identification of discharge and recharge areas would be required prior to implementation. Market Approaches • Regulatory and non-regulatory use of taxes, subsidies, pollution permits and insurance bonds can be used to protect groundwater by offering incentives for pollution avoidance or change to alternative practices which pose less threat to groundwater resources in a region. * An option at any stage of a groundwater protection plan but more readily supported once a sensitive or management area has been identified. Groundwater Quality Guidelines/Regulations • Establishing site-specific thresholds for groundwater quality can be used to support non-degradation policies or maintain water quality above certain minimum standards. * Guidelines for potable water use exist in most regions. Groundwater monitoring would be necessary to establish baseline quality and to indicate changes to the existing groundwater system. Summary of Golder's (1995) descriptions Author's analysis Table 4.5 Regulatory Groundwater Protection Measures Zoning • One of the most common regulatory measures used by local governments for groundwater protection, zoning can be used to indicate what land use is allowed over a region or delineate where a hazardous activity is prohibited. Zoning is effective for the prevention of problems through the regulation of new developments but are difficult to change following implementation. * Zoning would require the delineation of sensitive areas, the planning of potential future land use in the region and a knowledge of deleterious materials or hazardous practices and potential impacts of land uses on groundwater resources. Facility Siting, Design and Operation Controls • Associated with zoning, the location of new facilities can be controlled for the purpose of groundwater protection either by choice of site or by mitigative measures or best management practices associated with development of a site. * As with zoning, this measure.necessitates knowledge of sensitive areas such as recharge and discharge zones, groundwater flow in the region, potential impact of certain activities or land uses on groundwater resources and potential contaminants to be introduced into the region. 63 Hazardous Materials Restrictions • Restricting the presence or use of hazardous materials is particularly useful in areas which have already been developed. * A contaminant inventory is required prior to implementation. An understanding of sensitive areas would benefit the planning of effective control of hazardous material use. Underground Storage Tanks and Pipelines • The prohibition of installation or implementation of standards for storage tank construction and maintenance protects groundwater supplies by averting leakage of hazardous substances. * Regulation concerning storage tanks and pipelines can be implemented for new installations in the early stages of a groundwater plan. Following a contaminant inventory and analysis of groundwater flow and conductive potential of subsurface prohibitions and other measures could be further implemented. Above-ground Storage Tanks • Above ground storage tanks may be more subject to corrosion and vandalism as opposed to below ground storage tanks. Groundwater protection through this mechanism involves regulation by way of prohibition, permitting, reinforcement or secondary containment is often more readily understood by non-professionals. * Storage tank standards can be implemented for new installations prior to a contaminant inventory and imposed for existing structures following it. Sensitive area designation determined from understanding of subsurface material and groundwater circulation in the region would be required for prohibitions. Sand and Gravel Mining • Restrictions or provisions of sand and gravel mining may be required in areas where sand and gravel constitute shallow productive aquifers and high groundwater yield or where the removal of such material overlying groundwater would remove protection of the resource. Where mining has been allowed, the rehabilitation of abandoned pits would reduce further threat of contamination and possibly reduce the impact of illegal dumping of wastes which is common at such sites. * Location of sand and gravel reserves, understanding of subsurface material and groundwater circulation from water monitoring would be required for implementation of this measure. Permitting • Permitting can be applied to many activities to control potential degrading threats to groundwater resources in a region given a case by case analysis. * Understanding of the sensitivity to contamination in the area and the potential impact of a given activity or land use on groundwater contamination is necessary prior to implementation. Inspection and compliance • Enforcement and implementation of regulatory and non-regulatory measures verifies the implementation a groundwater protection plan. Recommendation has been made for random inspection to encourage compliance. * Inspection and compliance can be effected following implementation of regulatory measures. Summary of Golder's description Author's analysis The reasoning for including this list is to suggest that choices are most often made between decision or policy options based on available data or pending data which has been interpreted into 64 information. However, different measures require different amounts of information and data accuracy. Thus, decisions can range between not taking action to complete implementation of land or water resource development, with various levels of activity in between. Different measures enacted often stem from different levels of confidence in the available data, though it is acknowledged there are many other factors which need to be considered for each situation. The key points are first, that one does not require "complete" data to carry out some protection and development of groundwater resources but must adjust the extent of the decisions made (extremely conservative decision to fully confident decision with regards to certainty of outcome) depending on the data and information available. Second, decisions made at an earlier stage of information availability must not preclude future decisions as more information becomes available. Implicit is the understanding that existing data and management decisions are always considered within the context and for the purpose of organizing further data collection. This perspective allows for the assessment of the utility of existing data, ie. if additional data was available, how would this decision be altered? 4.3.3 Component 3: Integrating Data Collection and Protection Measures In the following Figure 4.1, the data collection activities and related groundwater protection practices have been presented in relation to one another. The data collection activities outlined on the left have been prioritized from greatest to least priority by the author based upon: ease of collection of information, the time required for the accumulation of a critical mass of useful data for analysis and the priority of issues experienced in a typical local community in British Columbia (discussed further in Chapter 5). Protection measures are listed at the earliest stage possible for implementation with the understanding that the implementation of protection measures is iterative and subsequently adjusted following the collection of more pertinent information indicated above. Data 65 Figure 4.1 Prioritized Data Collection in Relation to Groundwater Quality Protection Practices Data Collection Groundwater Protection Practice1 Begin with step J, proceeding down the list to eventually delineating sensitive areas and protection zones. 1) Existing Data as per the Parameter List of Table 4-2 2) Water Quality 3) Well Inventory 4) Surficial Geology / Lithology Soils/ Water Levels 5) Contaminant Inventory 6) Land Use / Associated Activities 7) Well Yield, Field Chemistry Pump Tests 8) Water Use 9) Recharge / Discharge Areas Sensitive Areas and Protection Zones Public Involvement Geotechnical Controls Well Drilling and Abandonment Inspection and Compliance Above/Below Ground Storage Tank Control Septic System Controls Contingency Plans Groundwater Quality Guidelines/Regulation Well head Protection delineation Groundwater Monitoring Sand and Gravel Mining Hazardous Materials Restrictions Hazardous Waste Collection Spill Response Planning Roadsalt Controls Vulnerability Mapping (Intrinsic)2 Technical Assistance Agricultural Controls Vulnerability Mapping (Specific) Aquifer Classification Storm Water and Sewage Controls Zoning; Cluster Development Conservation Easements; Facility Siting, Design, Operation Controls; Land Acquisition; Purchase and Development Rights; Hazardous Materials Restriction; (Re: transport and sensitive zones) Transportation Controls; Forest Management; Permitting; Market Approaches ^ o t all protection practices listed are solely within the mandate of local governments. ^Intrinsic" and "Specific" not in Golder (1995) 66 collection culminates in the delineation of protection areas or zones of sensitivity where human activity requires restriction to avoid contamination. The designation of protection zones is presented as data collection and not a protection practice because it is considered an activity from which regulatory and non-regulatory measures will be implemented and not a means of protection in itself. The rationale for the time sequencing of data collection presented in Figure 4.1 is the following. In the early stages of a groundwater protection plarining, it is common practice to conduct an initial inventory of existing information. Piteau and Turner (1993) have produced an extensive outline of source agencies for data pertinent to groundwater mapping and assessment in British Columbia. Water quality data may be included in this initial survey but is designated as the next step for the purposes of identifying possible threats to human and environmental health at an early stage and because it requires more time than subsequent data collection activities, before revealing trends in water quality or changes to the groundwater system. Having obtained that snapshot of water quality and water sources in the region, a more extensive survey is made of existing wells and springs which may not have been previously recorded in order to be aware of all sources of monitoring and to construct the water sampling regime. Next, surficial geology and lithology information is revisited with the goal of identifying water sources and common sources of the resource. A contaminant inventory is carried out at this stage because an understanding of the aquifer system has emerged from the previous data collected so that the location of contaminants in relation to that system can be assessed. In addition, information from the contaminant inventory will indicate in part land use which is to be verified and expanded upon in the next stage of the analysis. Land use and associated activities can change considerably over time so this information is collected at the stage following the production of an overview of water quality and source. The impact of land use and land activities would be difficult to assess prior to an 67 understanding of sources of water and existing water quality in the area. Having defined the system within which groundwater exists and the baseline quality and potential impacts on the resource, an attempt is made to determine the flow system regime so that if needed, contaminant migration can be hypothesized and cause and effect on groundwater quality determined. Water flow in the region will be impacted by water use so identifying amount and location of withdrawal for all uses including outflow to surface water bodies is carried out next. The delineation of recharge and discharge areas can now include both natural and anthropogenic inputs and outputs creating a more complete picture of flow, potential for contaminant transport and assimilation, and sensitive areas or high input or output of water, based on environmental and human factors. Water use has been placed at a later stage of the above sequence as the groundwater concerns in the province have been largely qualitative to this point. In B.C. more urgency is required for actually locating water flow and protecting its quality than determining water supply where water deprivation occurs less often than contamination and where there is as of yet few ways of administering limitations on water extraction except in the case of it affecting the fisheries. At the final stage, sensitive areas and protection zones are determined which do not focus solely on intrinsic qualities of the groundwater system but have been determined on the basis of present day conditions influenced by both environmental and anthropogenic factors. Data collection for groundwater management must be adaptable to producing information for a wide variety of possible protection practices and reflect the existing state of the resource. By prioritizing parameters and then relating them to specific protection practices, local managers and community members can make the most of existing information while planning for future monitoring and protection practices. This reduces some of the uncertainty associated with relevancy of 68 information and determining available options. 4.3.4 Component 4: Integrating Land Use with Groundwater Analysis and Protection Applying land use restrictions for the purpose of groundwater protection is an iterative process which can be modified in relation to the information available for the area in question. Land use designation is compatible with georeferenced analysis and can be applied both before and after vulnerability analysis. Restricting land use however is a contentious issue and ideally involves a clear statement of the need to adopt conservative land use measures in the absence of more information in order not to preclude future water use by unknowingly inappropriate land use in the present. In many cases however, if conservative enough practices are used, many land uses which have been ranked as high potential sources of contaminants for groundwater can be rendered less so. Such "groundwater safe" land uses however may not be compatible with alternative community goals and values, necessitating a more comprehensive criteria for determining the compatibility of land uses. Suggested ways of approaching land management reviewed in chapter 3 are: 1) classifying land areas relative to capability for a set number of activities, 2) compiling a list of all possible land uses for the region which serves as a baseline for other analyses, 3) identifying only those land uses which pose a potential threat to groundwater quality and ranking them to indicate probability of contamination, 4) delimiting areas for protection based upon location of wellhead and/or vulnerability analysis, to which land use restrictions can then be applied, 5) outlining cause and effect relationships between land use activities and groundwater contamination which suggest possible modifications of land use activities. The advantages and applications of these approaches are presented in Table 4.6. For local governments hoping to establish land use restrictions specifically for groundwater protection in British Columbia, tools presently exist for delimiting land areas which can be applied 69 Table 4.6 Advantages and Applications of Land Use Designations Approach Advantage Application Land Use Capability (Capability of soil to support various land uses.) Allows for the integration of planning for land use for other purposes in addition to groundwater protection. Capability can be combined with groundwater vulnerability to determine suitable land uses which meet a variety of purposes. Land Use Classification (Categorization of land uses, primarily descriptive rather than representing a specific analysis.) -Establishes present day usage and lists all land uses appropriate to an area, offering more flexibility in planning -Can be carried out in conjunction with contaminant inventory - A generic land use list is generated which can be adapted to the scale of analysis and different tasks. Ranking Land Use Potential for Contamination (Relative indication of a given land use to contribute to a specified outcome or event.) -Focusses on land uses which have the potential to contribute to groundwater contamination. -Allows for choices between land uses prior to the land being developed. -Can be used to screen land uses based on ranking alone or relative to the vulnerability designation or arbitrary boundary (such as wellhead protection zone). -Can be adapted so that choices between alternatives can be outlined. Wellhead Protection (community wells) and Groundwater Vulnerability (Land delineation based on well location or characteristics of the subsurface, most often independent of existing land use.) -Can be applied both prior to and following vulnerability assessments and thus does not necessarily require extensive data collection prior to implementation. -Wellhead protection areas can guide land use zoning as it delimits from the onset the area to be protected. Cause and Consequence Land Use Descriptions (Describes land use through impact on water cycle.) -Explains why land uses may be threatening to groundwater quality within the context of changes to the hydrologic cycle. -Is particularly useful for explaining why a given land use has been rated high-low risk and can clarify the synergistic impacts of land uses in an area. 70 following a land use inventory and prior to the completion of a vulnerability assessment. Some groundwater management organizations have chosen simply to rank different land uses relative to their overall potential for groundwater contamination and in this way offer a ready-made categorization for other regions to use. Others have elected to categorize land uses in regard to whether they are appropriate for use in different zones outlined by arbitrary wellhead protection practices or the analysis of a vulnerability assessment. Wellhead protection programs therefore allow for the delimitation of land use restriction areas around a wellhead which can be implemented before, integrated into or modified following a vulnerability assessment. In British Columbia, The Fraser Valley Groundwater Monitoring Program has begun to delineate potential wellhead protection areas around community wells (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). However, in the absence of groundwater legislation and the discretionary nature of the Municipal Act (Webb 1996) land use for groundwater protection is presently limited to secondary guidelines and regulations such as waste management regulations and agricultural codes of practice. From the analysis of Chapter 3 and this section, three approaches to land use designation are suggested for use at the local level to be used together for groundwater management in the area: 1) an areal delineation of priority zones based on recharge, discharge and lack of information as discussed in § 3.2.4 (Jaffe and DiNovo 1987), 2) a listing of land uses and possible effects on the quality and quantity of water in the hydrological cycle and 3) a detailed land use and activity classification such as that of the Land Use Task Force (1993) described in § 3.2.2, divided possibly into high, medium or low risk of adverse impact on groundwater quality or quantity and which indicates through subclasses the reason for such a designation. A classification of land use into high, medium and low risk of contamination categories (Dean 71 and Wyckoff 1991) may not be useful for communities where a majority of the land use falls under one particular category such as agriculture, a land use which is considered to have a high groundwater contamination potential, in most regions. Communities may benefit from a more flexible approach which differentiates between, and ranks, land uses in the same category (such as industrial or agricultural land use) and allows for mitigative practices to change the status of a land use from a higher to a lower risk. Thus individual practices can be assessed and alternative land use practices within the same category can be chosen between for their relative impact on groundwater contamination. For example, different cropping measures need to be ranked along a scale of high to low contamination potential rather than all agricultural practices being ranked as high potential. Classifications such as those offered by Hahn (1991) and Morris and Biggs (1995) which outline cause and consequences of various land uses on water resources (discussed in § 3.2.5), are also useful. First, because they express what possible effects can be expected from a given land use. This is very useful as a tool for communication and education which is considered a priority for groundwater protection (B.C. MOELP 1993). Second, they do not alienate land users by classifying their land use as high risk without explanation or giving the impression they are problem free through a low risk designation. For local government planning to integrate groundwater protection and land use measures, the aforementioned three land designations (priority zones, cause and consequence, land use classification) are presented in a stepped procedure to be run concurrently with the data collection and protection practices outlined in Figure 4.1. The italicized steps correspond to steps outlined in the same figure and are presented in Figure 4.2 for ease of reference. 1) Locate community wells and identify likely recharge areas for groundwater sources. (Step 1) Delineate zones on the land surface which are sensitive to contamination based on arbitrary 72 Figure 4.2 Prioritized Data Collection in Relation to Land Use Designation Data Collection Land Use Designation 1) Existing Data as per the Parameter List of Table 4-2 2) Water Quality 3) Well Inventory 4) Surficial Geology / Lithology Soils/ Water Levels 5) Contaminant Inventory inventory 6) Land Use / Associated Activities 7) Well Yield, Field Chemistry Pump Tests Locate community wells and recharge areas Use well head protection areas Combine land use and hazardous materials Derive listing of land uses which outlines causes and consequences in subclasses such that land uses can be chosen between in order to reduce the potential for impact on water resources, rank accordingly. Determine intrinsic vulnerability to be combined with the ranked land uses outlined in previous step. 8) Water Use 9) Recharge /Discharge Areas Sensitive Areas and Protection Zones Attempt to reduce the vulnerability rating by choosing between alternative land uses. 73 designations (such as well head protection area), and/or through analysis of existing information (which identify areas of recharge, zones where no information is available or where contamination is possibly occurring, as indicated by water quality. (Step 3) In British Columbia, suggested wellhead protection areas have been mapped for community wells (defined as being used for commercial use or serving more than two dwellings) based on arbitrary fixed radius, calculated fixed radius and analytical equations contingent on available data (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). 2) Carry out a land use and hazardous materials inventory. This establishes a baseline against which changes in land use and potential for groundwater contamination can be measured and can be integrated into an assessment of specific vulnerability. (Steps 5 and 6) 3) Derive a "standard" list which outlines all land uses and establishes cause and effect which are expressed in subclasses, such that for a given land use, changes in practices can allow for alteration of risk for groundwater contamination. Rank land uses based upon potential for deterioration of water resources, both quality and quantity. An example of a product of this analysis is a table listing various cropping methods (agricultural practices), each accompanied by a description of the consequence of each method on groundwater quality and quantity, and an associated rank, serving to communicate the relative impacts of the different methods. 4) Carry out an intrinsic vulnerability assessment to which is added present day land uses which have subsequently been ranked in the previous step. (Step 7) 5) Attempt to reduce the vulnerability rating through suggestions for alternative land uses or enact prohibitions if required. Zone for the suitable land use. (Final step) 4.4 Summary of Proposed Framework In this chapter, parameters for data collection, related protection practices and methods of 74 integrating land use decisions have been presented as an analytical framework for groundwater protection by local government. The suggested framework is analyzed through application of an illustrative example, which is the subject of the next chapter. The proposed framework was presented in four components, which are presented in Figure 4.3. They are: 1) the parameter list, 2) protection practices, 3) the data / policy timeline and 4) the land use strategy. Components 1 and 2 enumerate data and policy choices whereas 3 and 4 suggest an action strategy. Figure 4.3 Proposed Framework Summary Figure Groundwater Management and Protection Parameter List Groundwater Protection Practices Data / Policy Timeline Land Use Strategy Parameter List This component addresses the question of what data is necessary to have at your disposal for groundwater protection decisions. It outlines in 8 categories what parameters should be considered when conducting groundwater assessments and when making protection policy decisions (Table 4.2). It is based upon minimum data lists suggested by the U.S. E P A (1988 a,b), the Federal Provincial 75 Groundwater Working Group (Environment Canada 1993a), Piteau and Turner (1993) and the Computerized Groundwater Data System (CGDS). Protection Practices The second component addresses the question of what can be done to protect groundwater resources. It consists of descriptions of 33 regulatory and non-regulatory groundwater protection measures outlined by Golder (1995), and the data requirements necessary for the implementation of each measure (Table 4.3, 4.4, 4.5). Data / Policy Timeline The third component links the first two by addressing what data should be collected and in what order (Figure 4.1). The data sets are then related to the policies which can be implemented once the related data is obtained. The process of sequentially following the steps in the timeline culminates in the designation of areas which are differentially sensitive to groundwater contamination. The prioritization is based upon the ease of collection of the data, the time required to collect a critical mass of information and the priority issues for groundwater management such as greater concern in the lower mainland for water quality as opposed to quantity. This component is designed to be iterative, requiring revisits of policies when more information becomes available. Land Use Strategy The last component related land use designations to the previous data/policy timeline. It is based on two areas of the literature that which a) relates to land use inventories such as capability mapping and land use classifications and b) relates land use to contamination potential, examples of 76 which are rating schemes, well head protection plans and cause / consequence descriptions of land use. From this literature, the suggestion was made to utilize well head protection zones, to conduct an inventory of present land use with that of hazardous waste materials, to describe the land uses based on their impact on water resources and to rank those impacts, to then integrate that ranked land use with an intrinsic vulnerability assessment and lastly to reduce the vulnerability rating by choosing land uses which pose less potential for contamination water resources. Each of these steps have been integrated with specific steps outlined in the data / policy timeline (Figure 4.2). In order to investigate the relevancy of the framework, the data / policy timeline is applied in Chapter 5 to Hatzic Valley to illustrate what data may be available to most communities in B . C. 77 5 Illustrative Application of the Framework: Hatzic Valley, B .C . The Hatzic Valley, located in the Fraser Basin of B.C. , has experienced a common occurrence, the initiation of a land use activity which conflicts with community concerns for groundwater quality and quantity. From investigation of the existing institutional structure of water management in British Columbia, the assumption made is that local communities and governments form an appropriate level of administration at which to enact groundwater protection measures. Local governments however, are assumed to have limited money, time and expertise to devote to the management activities surrounding groundwater protection. In order to assist local governments and community members with these challenges, a framework has been developed and is now applied to the Hatzic Valley to illustrate its potential. In Chapter 4, the framework developed is presented as four components: 1) a parameter list for groundwater protection analysis (Table 4.2), 2) a list of groundwater protection practices (Tables 4.3, 4.4, 4.5), 3) a data / policy timeline (Figure 4.1), and 4) a land use strategy (Figure 4.2). The first two components are reference tools which have been integrated in components 3 and 4. In this chapter, components 3 and 4 will be applied to Hatzic Valley to investigate what data may typically be available for a local community and government in B.C. which seeks to implement a groundwater protection plan. This assumes that the data available for Hatzic is representative of existing data for regions in the province which have not been previously identified as groundwater problem areas and therefore have not been intensively studied; The objectives of this discussion are; 1) to produce an inventory of existing data in Hatzic Valley and 2) to anticipate what future options the community has for protection practices and further data collection. This will be done by carrying 78 out the first step of the data / policy timeline which suggests compiling existing data and information for the area in question. The utility of the data / policy timeline will be discussed relative to the compiled existing data as well as further options for groundwater protection and data collection activities. To develop and set the context, a description of the physical and historical context of resource use in the Lower Fraser Basin and Hatzic Valley, including discussion of existing and anticipated land use and concerns for water resources, is presented in § 5.1 to better understand the circumstances and concerns surrounding groundwater resources in the Valley. In § 5.2, the aforementioned components 3 and 4 are discussed in relation to existing data for Hatzic Valley. 5.1 Historical and Physical Context of Hatzic in the Lower Fraser Basin The Fraser Lowland (Figure 5.1) is a region of incredible abundance of natural resources. The Fraser River itself is among 39 large rivers in the world to support salmonids and is home to a wide variety of species. The interior of the basin is a breeding area for waterfowl and the tidal marshes of the estuary are critical staging areas for migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway. Forestry and mining are the first two major industries followed closely by recreation and tourism which the natural environment attracts (Dorcey 1991). Human habitation of the region goes back at least 10 000 years with the First Nations peoples living amongst the forests and river tributaries of the region. Prior to the 1600's and European contact, it has been estimated that approximately 50 000 people lived in the Basin. This number was likely halved by the 1800's by the introduction of non-indigenous disease. Following the discovery of gold in the Thompson tributary in 1857, settlement in the region expanded raising the population to pre-contact levels and setting the stage for the resource use and community centres in existence 79 today. The Valley bottom was originally cleared to make room for agricultural land and to supply the growing forestry industry. Today, the Greater Vancouver economy continues to rely primarily on the resource based industries of forestry and mining, with the new sector of recreation and tourism competing with mining for second place. Agriculture still provides food from some of the most productive land in Canada in the Lower Fraser Valley (Dorcey 1991). The region, with all its abundance, must face greater partitioning of its resources amongst an increasing number of interests and never before seen problems. Much of the existing governance of water resources in the Lower Fraser Basin as outlined by Dorcey (1991) has been brought about in reaction to events or catastrophes which have highlighted the need for response mechanisms and preventative measures. In many ways, the same is occurring in the present with regard to provincial groundwater resources, though actual groundwater governance is still on the horizon. 5.1.1 McConnell Creek - Hatzic Prairie History The region referred to as Hatzic Valley in this study is comprised of two areas, the rolling uplands of McConnell Creek and the low lying farmlands of Hatzic Prairie (Figure 5.1). The valley is oriented north-south between Stave Lake to the north and Hatzic Lake to the south and covers approximately 45.5 km 2. The Hatzic Tribe, members of the Sto;Lo Nation, were the first inhabitants of the region but were no longer found to be living in the area by the first census in 1839. In the 1860's, settlement of the area began with Cariboo teamsters whose first wintering farms eventually became homesteads. Fanning, still the dominant activity in the area, started with cattle rearing and dairying in the 1870's. Frequent flooding of the lower end of the valley made it unsuccessful however until dyking was attempted and further subdivision of properties followed (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). 81 Flooding still occurs in the area and the Regional District has sought expertise in dealing with the problem (Associated Engineering 1992). In addition to farming, saw mills and gravel pit operations have also been a part of the development of the valley. Tall timber in the region fed mills producing cedar shakes, railway ties and finished lumber and attracted loggers such as Jack McConnell to the area, after which McConnell Creek is named. Settlers followed the loggers and by 1949, only one mill remained (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). More recently, a rock quarry was granted a permit for operation to the north west end of the valley (Conroy, Lehmann and Morlacci 1996). The 1986 census recorded 1025 people in the McConnell Creek - Hatzic Prairie area. More recent estimates are for 2000 residents (Conroy, Lehmann and Morlacci 1996). In 1988, approximately 23% of the population worked in the service industry, 20% worked in agriculture, 13% in manufacturing and 10% in construction. While there was a jump in population between 1971 to 1976, the population growth in 1988 was assessed to be relatively constant (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). 5.1.2 Physical Description Hatzic is located in the Fraser Lowland which is situated between the Coast Mountains to the north, the Cascade and Chuckanut Mountains to the south east and the Strait of Georgia to the west. The Coast Mountains feature many U-shaped glacial valleys and bedrock outcrops on their southern slopes, of which Hatzic Valley is an example (Armstrong 1984). The valley is approximately 11 km long and 2.5 km wide and is hemmed in to the east and west by ridges of 700 m and 610 m respectively. The ridges are steep sided and tend to be unstable and susceptible to landslides and other slope movements. The valley bottom of Hatzic Prairie is elevated 3.5 m to 5.5 m above sea 82 level while the McConnell Creek area reaches 130 m above sea level. The Stave Lake reservoir at the north end of the valley reaches a maximum of 82 m above sea level. The land forms and surficial geology in the area date from the last glaciation (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). 5.1.3 Land Use The region is bounded to the north and east by the Douglas Provincial Forest and its western border coincides in part with the District of Mission border. Local land use planning and zoning, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, is under the authority of the Fraser Valley Regional District which was formed by 1995. Land in the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Douglas Provincial Forest and Crown Land in the valley are subject to provincial policies (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). The McConnell Creek-Hatzic Prairie valley is primarily rural with most residences being widely spaced and reliant on individual wells and septic waste disposal systems. Some small lot subdivisions and cluster housing developments have occurred in the area and in 1988 approximately 15% of the 410 dwellings in the valley were mobile homes. The average lot size in the area is 7.2 ha with McConnell Creek to the north averaging 8.3 ha and Hatzic Prairie to the south averaging 5.4 ha. Farming is the predominant land use, producing beef, dairy, Christmas trees, berries, swine and turf commodities. Intensive agriculture, particularly hog farms and the related issue of manure waste management, has been the focus of some debate in the area. Such land use is permitted under the Agricultural Land Reserve and thus the activity cannot be prohibited under local zoning bylaws, but mitigative measures can be regulated under the responsibility of the regional district. Forestry has played a dominant role in the economic development of the valley in the past but is now limited to one active woodlot located east of Dale road and log salvaging on Stave Lake. 83 Forestry activities continue in the watersheds draining into Hatzic Prairie and Stave Lake primarily in the Mission Tree Farm west of the study area and in the Douglas Provincial Forest north of the plan area. Logging has been raised as an important issue amongst residents, particularly in relation to the potential contribution to debris flow and the visual integrity of the valley. Manufacturing is limited to portable sawmills and trading in the area consists of one retail store, a garage and various farms involved in produce sales. There are two water utility sites in the area and one refuse container site (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). Two surveys designed to help define planning issues and solicit resident input into the planning process of 1988 revealed that 51% of respondents favour slow growth and 25% favour no growth in the area. In addition, most residents favour larger (than 2 ha) parcel subdivisions, further supporting the overall objective of maintaining a rural way of life in the area. Suggestions for development of a community core resulted in an inconclusive even split of respondents for and against. Official Community Plan objectives therefore are focussed on preserving the rural nature of the area and the agricultural land for food production within a framework of historic slow to moderate growth rates. The Plan target for community growth in the valley was set in 1979 at 760 dwellings and 24 000 people. As of 1988, the number of dwellings and population was approximately half the plan allowance (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). Communication with the Regional District Office indicates that a revised plan and accompanying statistics are anticipated in the next few years. 5.1.4 Aquifers Within the Hatzic Valley, two major aquifers have been delineated according to the criteria of the aquifer classification system suggested by Kreye and Wei (1994) in a test project encompassing 84 the Lower Fraser Basin. The geological history which led to the creation of these aquifers and the resultant surficial geology and soils are presented in further detail in Appendix 3. The aquifer classification system was produced for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing aquifers for further investigation and management. It consists of a ranking component and classification component which consider both physical and anthropogenic factors. A more detailed description of the aquifer classification system proposed by Kreye and Wei can be found in Appendix 2. Hatzic Valley is Table 5.1 Aquifer Classification for Hatzic Prairie and Miracle Valley (After Kreye and Wei 1994; Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995) Hatzic Prairie NTS 92G/1 Southern valley Miracle Valley NTS 92G/1 & 92G/8 Northern valley Class and Rank IIIA (10) lightly developed high vulnerability IIIC (8) lightly developed low vulnerability Approximate size 10km2 10 km2 Productivity moderate moderate Vulnerability high low Demand and use type low, drinking water low, drinking water Quality concerns non-health risk, local (iron) N A Confinement unconfined confined Geologic formation Fraser R. sediments Fort Langley Depositional environment floodplain valley fill Depth to water or top of aquifer < 10 m 35-50m Type of source conjunctive conjunctive Material sand/gravel sand/gravel 85 primarily supplied by two water bearing structures, the Miracle Valley aquifer at the northern most end of the valley and the Hatzic Prairie aquifer at the southern end. Table 5.1 summarizes the key elements of the classification for the aquifers in question. In this classification, aquifers of higher ranking values have greater relative priority for management on a scale which, for the aquifers in the Fraser Lowland study area, ranges from 5 to 21. The vulnerability rating is based on a qualitative assessment of the nature, thickness and extent of geologic materials above the aquifer, the depth to the water table or the bottom of the confining layer (if confined) and porosity of the aquifer materials. This ranking was designed to prioritize groundwater mapping, management and protection activities initiated by the British Columbia provincial government operating within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks' Water Management Program (Kreye and Wei 1994). The classification ranking above indicates that the Hatzic Prairie aquifer is more likely to become contaminated from local land use activities than the northern Miracle Valley aquifer. Should this classification and ranking likewise be used for prioritizing groundwater management effort at the local level? It is suggested that for community planning for proactive groundwater protection, the classification is a very useful source of information. However reasons for why the ranking is not appropriate for local government use are discussed in the following. For both the provincial and local levels of government, the advantages of this classification are that: 1) it supports the notion that all groundwater is vulnerable (NRC 1993) by utilizing categories of low, medium and high vulnerability with the exclusion of a null category, 2) it is a comprehensive inventory of presently utilized groundwater supplies in the province which forms a basis for a comprehensive approach to groundwater protection, and 3) it compiles a considerable amount of information appropriate for use by different levels of government and community members. 86 However, this classification assigns greater priority for management effort to aquifers which are larger, more productive, support greater demand, are considered more vulnerable and which presently show evidence of quality and quantity concerns. This approach is both logical and practical particularly for the planning of future allocation of time, money and effort. Two issues however should be considered further; 1) should greater priority be given to investigating and protecting groundwater resources which are deteriorating or to those which are presently of high quality, and 2) should unconfined and confined aquifers be prioritized within the same ranking considering differences in recharge and contamination mechanisms? Referring to the first question, protecting presently clean and abundant groundwater supplies is decidedly proactive while directing effort to contaminated resources is clearly reactive. The ranking produced in this classification reflects a reactive response in that greater priority is given to more urgent needs. With reference to comparing confined and unconfined aquifers, the vulnerability assessment component assumes that a deeper, confined aquifer is less likely to become contaminated than an unconfined aquifer. In contrast, potentially contaminating activities centred in a recharge area of a confined aquifer in a sparsely populated area can render that aquifer as likely to become contaminated as an unconfined aquifer in a densely populated area. It may take longer for the contamination to become evident, but the likelihood of the occurrence remains comparable. For a confined aquifer, the rate of water flow and the location of land use relative to recharge areas have a more significant influence on contamination potential than depth below surface. While the vulnerability component of the proposed classification does not address this difference directly, the water demand, quality and quantity concerns integrated into the classification serve as partial substitutes for population density or land use in recharge zones which are significant factors in determining confined aquifer 87 contamination potential. It is clear from the existing condition of groundwater resources that all levels of government must operate under policy frameworks which integrate both proactive and reactive measures. However, if the classification system is used to prioritize activities across the province rather than to guide what action should be taken in all areas, then mitigation and remediation of deteriorated resources in all areas will likely be the eventual outcome. The aquifer classification system proposed would be more appropriately used to suggest what action should be taken at the local level and not / / action should be taken. In Hatzic Valley, the two aquifers, though ranked differently, are very likely to be interconnected aquifer systems which have different factors governing their potential for contamination as described above. Both aquifers should be managed concurrently and not sequentially. Thus within the existing mandate of the provincial government, the proposed classification and ranking is useful for anticipating contamination trends and for planning what share of the resources should be directed to remediation, mitigation and contamination prevention in the future. At the local level of government however, the classification system should be used to locate high quality groundwater resources to safeguard, to identify interconnected groundwater systems and to guide concurrent protection activities for all local groundwater resources. 5.1.5 Groundwater Resources Groundwater supplies are plentiful in the Lower Fraser Basin and vary according to precipitation and drainage of the geological material (Armstrong 1984). Water wells are estimated to be in excess of 10 000 in the Lower Fraser Valley with estimated total groundwater extraction in 1987 being 46 million m 3 (Piteau 1994a). Water quality in the Fraser Valley is generally very good 88 (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham, 1995). The granitic and metamorphic rock of the Coast Plutonic Complex are not otherwise easily dissolved or weathered allowing for very good quality water, the hardness of which rarely exceeds 10 ppm and total dissolved solids averaging 23 ppm (Armstrong 1990). A query of the Computerized Groundwater Database System (CGDS) maintained by the Groundwater Section of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks identified approximately 98 wells in the area of Hatzic Valley. Few of those wells have associated recent water quality data. The filing of data in this database is at present voluntary which may in part explain the discrepancy between the number of available well logs and number of dwellings in the area. The Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program sampled 5 wells in Hatzic Valley and 8 wells on Hatzic Island in 1992 and 1993 for inorganics (Gartner Lee 1993; Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). Results for Hatzic Valley from 1992 and 1993 are summarized in Table 5.2. Of the eight Hatzic Island wells, only one well sampled did not meet the guidelines by being below the recommended pH range in the summer of 1993. Table 5.2 Community Well Water Quality (Inorganics) in Hatzic Valley Well Number Winter 1992 Summer 1993 12 Within Manganese above 16 pH below pH below 17 Within Lead above 21 pH below pH below 26 Turbidity and Iron above Iron above ""Results refer to Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality at time of study. ""Community Wells refer to wells supplying two or more dwellings. 89 Well yield values are available for many of the drilled wells recorded in the CGDS and range from 1 gallon per minute (gpm) to 750 gpm. A September 1994 survey of springs and wells of five properties to the northern end of the valley along Stave Lake Road and adjacent to the quarry was carried out by Piteau Associates (1994a). The combined yields of springs on the first property visited were found to be in excess of 1000 gpm. A spring flow on the second property was in excess of 500 gpm at the time of visit and delivers a flow of at least 3 gpm year round. The third property recorded spring flow of 2 gpm and the remaining two properties, serviced by springs and a well respectively, indicated high water yields showing little seasonal variability as experienced at all the properties surveyed. Water quality results at the first property met current Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality and was described as being of rare or exceptionally good quality (Piteau 1994a). Overall, groundwater quality and quantity in Hatzic Valley appears to meet quality guidelines and to be of sufficient supply for present uses. This however is concluded on the basis of two factors; 1) very limited water quality data, and 2) indication from the Fraser Valley Groundwater Monitoring Program that (with the exception of lead) pH, manganese and iron have been indicated to be of little health concern or to be of aesthetic concern in the range of detection recorded. Four of the five groundwater supplies sampled by Gartner Lee (1993) and Carmichael, Wei and Ringham (1995) are not treated (information lacks for one well) prior to use. Water on one property is used to maintain a fish hatchery and a water bottling supply company (Piteau 1994a) and is not treated. Others rely on good quality water for livestock rearing and other agricultural practices. Community (Conroy, Lehmann and Morlacci 1996) and professional opinion (Piteau 1994a) concludes that based on survey results and experience in the northern end of the valley, groundwater quality is exceptional and will increase in value as other aquifers in the Lower Fraser Valley face the growing problem of contamination. 90 5.1.6 Concerns for Water Quality In response to potential intensification of land use in Hatzic Valley and specifically the initiation of an aggregate quarry, citizen concerns for water quality have grown, prompting various analyses of groundwater resources in the immediate region of the quarry development. Key concerns for water quality consist of nitrate and petrochemical contamination and increased turbidity. Interruption of water supply is the main water quantity concern. Cases of increased turbidity and interrupted spring supply have been noted on 4 properties bordering the quarry site (personal communication, L . Lehmann). There exist a variety of opinions as to the potential impact of the 13361 Stave Lake Road quarry on local water resources. These have been expressed in various consulting reports and letters written on the subject. Concern for water quality in part arises from the fact that a considerable number of residents who live in Hatzic Valley are dependent on groundwater for their water supply needs (B.C. M O E L P October 25, 1993). In addition, the subsurface sediments in the area are heterogeneous and there exist differing conceptualizations of the interconnectedness of the local groundwater flow system, making impact analysis difficult and controversial (Pacific Hydrology Consultants 1994; Piteau 1994a). The preliminary appraisal of the site by Golder Associates (1992), limited to geotechnical and geological properties, considered the site suitable for the production of quarried rock products but also suggested four other factors which may influence quarry development. One of these factors was the "... potential impact on adjacent water courses and marshy areas, including concerns related to water quality, sedimentation, aquatic life and wildlife habitat". Further recommendations were made for more detailed mapping of the bedrock, overburden, joint and fracture spacing, the development of a quarry design plan and planning for access routes (Golder 1992). As a result of the 91 aforementioned report and a letter from the Ministry of the Environment (B.C. M O E L P , Nov. 2 1993) both suggesting a more comprehensive hydrogeological site characterization of the property, Fillipone (1993) suggested a site characterization work plan which discussed the potential effects of the quarry development on local groundwater. Anticipated impact of the quarry on water in the area consisted of nitrate and petrochemical contamination from blasting activities of the marshy area adjacent to the site with the potential for infiltration into the groundwater. An assessment of the hydrogeologic impact of the quarry conducted by Pacific Hydrology Consultants (1994) anticipated no direct impact on the deep sand and gravel aquifer and the perched water table, some impact on the bedrock aquifer in which there were no wells present and potential impact on the lakes and ponds at the site perimeter which could be mitigated through conservative quarry practices such as a settlement pond and blast monitoring (Pacific Hydrology Consultants 1994) . Upon further investigation, Piteau Associates (1994a) suggested an increase in turbidity and degradation of water quality as potential effects of the quarry development. This may be due to the presence of coarser, more permeable deltaic sediments which extend up to the ground surface interfingering with low permeability sediments around the margin of the Valley, which in turn may provide a potential pathway for contaminants such as nitrate, generated from quarry operations, to seep from the quarry site to the confined aquifer. It was also suggested that shock waves from blasting may cause instability in the hill side where springs are located causing changes in turbidity or suspended solid content in the spring water as well as interruption or diversion of the existing spring flow. Ammonium nitrate from ANFO recommended for blasting was again suggested as a potential contaminant (Piteau 1994a). While the physical conditions governing water flow in the area have not been further investigated, Hatzic Valley residents living adjacent to the quarry development 92 have more recently experienced decreased water flow and increased turbidity of groundwater supplies (Conroy, Lehmann and Morlacci 1996). 5.2 Data Compilation and Analysis This research was initiated out of an interest in the potential impact of a quarry development on groundwater resources to the northern end of Hatzic Valley. Citizen concern for potential contamination and interruption of local groundwater supplies, and apparent disagreement over appropriate land use development in the area prompted further investigation of the possibilities for local groundwater management. Consulting reports and other data sources have been compiled within the guidelines of the data categories outlined in Chapter 4. The findings are discussed in the following sections. 5.2.1 Process and Background Table 5.3 presents summaries of available reports describing the hydrogeology in the area of 13362 Stave Lake Road from which further analysis was conducted for this research. Key developments surrounding the writing of these reports are presented here. A more detailed chronology of the events relating to the quarry development is presented in Appendix 4. In 1991, a proposal was submitted for the development of a seven-lot rural subdivision at 13361 Stave Lake Road in Hatzic Valley. A hydrogeologic assessment was conducted, and is summarized in Table 5.3. The following year, a geotechnical appraisal of the property was conducted and conditions deemed suitable for a quarry development. In 1993, the proposed quarry development plan was approved and a 25 year permit for operation granted by the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. During the permit application process, suggestions for more extensive 93 Table 5.3 Summary Notes from Hydrogeologic Assessments of Lot 13361 Pacific Hvdrologv Consultants July 26, 1991 "Hydrogeologic Conditions in Regard to Groundwater Supply Potential for a Proposed Seven-Lot Rural Subdivision at 13361 Stave Lake Road" "Groundwater is moving through fractures in the bedrock of the Valley side toward the Valley bottom, where discharge takes place into the valley fill sediments. Major underflow from Stave Lake is also moving through the permeable sediments filling the Valley to the discharge end at Hatzic Slough." -Specific comments refer to 13361 Stave Lake Road property. -Low area containing the pond on the property is underlain by post-glacial "SAe, upland peat up to 8+ m thick which overlies Pleistocene sediments of the Fort Langley Formation described as FLc, glaciomarine stony silt to loamy clay 8 to 100 m thick and Sumas Drift sediments described as Sg, sandy till and stratified drift 0.5 to 2 m thick in most places overlying Fort Langley glaciomarine sediments (FLC)." This is confirmed by well logs in the valley. -Deep static water level indicates that the pond and wetland along the west side of the Valley are perched above the main groundwater flow system of the Valley and is maintained by groundwater discharge from the sides of the Valley. -The main aquifer for all lots in question is fractured rock. -Capacity of sources should be evaluated at the end of summer drought period. -It is not possible to predict the distribution of water-bearing fractures in the subsurface and therefore of selecting one drilling site over another. Golder Associates Ltd. August 18,1992 "Preliminary Geotechnical Site Appraisal Potential for Rock Quarry Development 13361 Stave Lake Road, Mission, British Columbia" "From a geotechnical perspective, we consider the property to have significant deposits of hard and durable bedrock, inferred to have good resistance to abrasion and weathering, which would be suitable for the use in the production of quarried rock products. Preliminary geotechnical appraisal at the site for potential rock quarry development: - Western upland consists of shallow bedrock overlain by 1-5 m of mixed eolian, colluvial and glacial deposits, -Marshy area at foot of slope underlain by surficial peat and bog sediments, -Flat-lying area adjacent to Stave Lake road inferred to be underlain by glaciomarine to clayey silt and stratified glacial drift. -A stream channel originates at the steeply sloping terrain to the southwest of the site, and flows to the west where it connects to the streams and ponds at the toe of the hillside. Ministrv of Environment. Lands and Parks (B.C. MOELP). Reeional Hvdroeeologist October 25,1993 Internal referral memo to Planning and Assessment Office -Suggested hydrogeologic assessment of the area between the southern end of Stave Lake and Durieu Creek to include: Surficial and sub-surface geological setting, cross sections, hydrogeology (number of aquifers, potentiometric surfaces, groundwater flow directions, mapping of recharge and discharge areas, water chemistry and quality, location of wells and their use/yield, impacts of excavation on water quality and quantity, potential impacts of blasting and daily operations. -No impact recommended for 25 year permit duration. 94 Ministry of Environment. Lands and Parks (B.C. MOELPV November 2, 1993 -Reiterates MOE's suggestions and in addition, the suggestion that fisheries resources in local streams must not be impacted and specific attention given to setbacks/leave-strips (30 m) and silt control works. Jeff Fillipone. P.Geo. November 18,1993 "Draft Work Plan for Hydrogeologic Study of 13361 Stave Lake Road Proposed Quarry" -Plan focusses on conducting a comprehensive hydrogeological site characterization to assess the potential environmental effects of quarrying. -Identify possible contaminants (nitrates and petrochemicals could possibly be introduced to marshy area) -Detailed mapping of surficial deposits, bedrock, springs, seeps and streams (fractures may be chief flow mechanism) -Sample and analyze stream water on and around property (use private wells to detect changes, create baseline) -Install piezometers in surficial deposits -Install test holes or wells in bedrock for groundwater flow rates, hydraulic head and gradient in the area, detailed mapping of surficial deposits for characterization of hydrogeologic properties, lithology, cross-sections -Placement of culverts and catchments to avoid surface and groundwater contamination. Pacific Hvdrologv Consultants Ltd.. June 21,1994 "Hydrogeologic impact evaluation of Stave Lake Quarry at 13361 Stave Lake Road in Mission B.C." [Used surficial geology and bedrock maps, well logs (lithology, aquifer sediments, water levels)] •Surface water divide identified •No connection anticipated between deep sand and gravel aquifer and fractured bedrock aquifer. -2 distinct and separate water tables and 3 groundwater flow regimes identified A) perched water table supported by local E-W fractured rock discharge through fractured bedrock and S-N surface water flow. Surface water flow supported by groundwater discharge from fractured bedrock aquifer along the east side of the Stave Lake Valley. Surface flow to north into Stave Lake. Groundwater discharge in form of springflow along the base of the slope. B) Deep gravel and sand aquifer supported by regional underflow from Stave Lake and the discharge zone-bearing Hatzic Slough, water table reflective of water levels in Stave and Hatzic Lakes. C) W-E groundwater flow observed in fractured bedrock aquifer (well-spring line at base of lower rock slope. Flow in zone will vary with precipitation. -No direct impact from quarry operations anticipated. -Flow in deep aquifer determined by regional flow. Thick section of low permeability clay separates the deep aquifer from the perched water table. -Quarry in groundwater discharge zone as indicated by spring line. 95 Piteau Associates. September 1994 "Review Comments relating to groundwater supplies and hydrogeological impacts" [Used location of water sources from properties neighbouring the quarry site, bedrock and surficial geology, flow rates for each site offered.] •Potential connection between bedrock and confined aquifer. impact assessments were offered by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and hydrogeologic assessments were carried out by two different consulting firms. In 1994, concerned Valley residents launched a Judicial Review of the permit process followed by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources (personal communication, L . Lehmann). The first ruling was in favour of the Ministry and an appeal is pending at time of writing. This information raises two key points which are common to many cases of development proposals and resultant assessments. First, there are different interpretations of the hydrogeology of the site in question. In this case, there is disagreement as to the extent of the connection between the bedrock and the deeper regional aquifer in the area and thus the potential for groundwater contamination. Second, the community has made a clear statement that the proposal review process is not compatible with their values and views of reasonable evaluative process and public consultation. The development of a groundwater protection plan can play a key role in the mitigation of such conflict in the future. Recognition of the intrinsic value of water to a community will not be carried out through data collection alone. However a groundwater management plan can address the fear of losing present and future use of the resource through data collection which contributes to rational decision making. Rational decision making is here defined 96 -Judicial procedure review related to issuance of a permit for a sand and gravel/quarry operation 13361 Stave Lake Road -Hydrogeologist visited 5 sites. -Sun Valley Trout Farm's spring discharges from deep confined aquifer which underlies much of the valley -Springs in banks of upper reaches of Durieu Creek issue from a coarse sand and gravel unit which is exposed in the valley walls, rate of discharge and elevation suggests origin in deep confined aquifer -Joints in bedrock are vertically oriented, water can potentially flow through bedrock or colluvium/deltaic sediments possibly deposited between the bedrock and clay unit providing pathway to confined aquifer. -Ammonium nitrate possible contaminant as decisions which do not preclude options for future resource use. In the following section, data for the Hatzic Valley area will be compiled to illustrate the first stage of the process of data collection suggested in Chapter 4 (§ 4.3.3, Figure 4.1) and to indicate what data collection may remain to be carried out to make groundwater protection a reality in Hatzic Valley. 5.3 Hatzic and the Data / Policy Timeline A number of consulting reports and other correspondence relating to the quarry development at 13361 Stave Lake Road to the northern end of Hatzic Valley are outlined in Table 5.3. In order to build on that information to investigate possibilities for local groundwater protection management, data relating to the larger area of the Valley was collected and assessed for its utility in developing a groundwater protection plan for Hatzic Valley. Piteau and Turner's (1993) summary table of sources of data on wells, chemistry, water levels and groundwater reports was a useful starting point for locating relevant data. Table 5.4 serves to summarize information which is pertinent to investigating groundwater resources in Hatzic Valley. Data gathering was guided by the parameter list outlined in § 4.3.1 of Chapter 4. The table describes the data, the date of origin and the form in which it is obtainable. This information is accompanied by a description of the utility of the data and the specific step in the data/policy timeline § 4.3.3 to which the data relates. The data was obtained from various libraries, government offices and local residents. The available data compiled for Hatzic Valley and the recommended parameters listed in the previous chapter indicate that while there is data available which matches the parameters listed in 97 •S 3 •S §c v. S3 .5 « So c3 CU s E o U cu u h s e E o en S en" 00 3 a, iP 2 ^ B I i J CO 8 I 1 S .S3 IIS CD > co <D 3 - O fe g So £ i l l 111 . 3 >, co &.1 « 60 1 2 fe J2 S3 -g «i VO 2 ffi in '—^  o 3 • bo 8 .3 o a b u ° o S g r - H C/3 CO ~ - a cs o 2 o § 2 f % a .a 2 15 CM > « *i co . rv CQ "i —' S « s ^ o C n « o «3 co as Pu Q o o o o CO B -3 ID « co c c3 O CO u 31 eg 3 u U s o u 8 1 ° l .2 13 0 c §• § 1 c fe -g & S O 00 Is S o ov ^ c u .2 n Vi W o Us .23 5 O Q Q ffl o o o o in CO u CO a « t-- 00 cs as o o o tN as •—i >n as CO co .a •^8 o o o ^ a, i i J a J 8 2 8 « «« •8 I I s °rT C O o co g s | < a § •s e > o c .3 J I < a & « -§ § £ -5b Q t* 8 C O o Q. II-•2 &• 3 •- ^ < Q O o o o o »/-) o 00 ON o o o o >/"> oo O 2? « ON 3 7 3 © to T* OH C N O - o C N ON ON o 00 ON o o o o oo oa 3 1 C O OH o - o ON J£ © o o C N o o o o o in oo . ' . ON 00 00 ON r - H ( V ) - 1993 559-1' 1981 • 1988 000-Map o o o wNo. 000- o o o T f CL, C N U o C N yla o •<* C N ~ o *-« CQ *-< 3.8 S O <L> C U i s (L> C3 g 5b D 5 B s '3 <N a £ Sb2 "2 O ON •S i o N CQ D T 3 C o '•§ 11 o > C O 5 J2> Q g 60 8 Q 1 1 co cu CJ O o o o oo 8 I a cu 53 oo -g O T3 NO S NO NO ON ON oo o c3 CN CN ON ON NO f -ON I " NO S3 ON CS ON PU — co Pu .S3 "8 8-^ g 1? S "« '5b .2 '5b ° ^ -a co 8 U o CJ o ON ON O O O O >o C N J 2 o o O < W J ^ g .2 g 53 •2 '•S o 2 2 60 3 g S3 P I <3 JS £ CN m o (L> cS co •S J u CJ 53 O ON oo oo ND ND o o u o co co cS O CS « 'a. S « CO CS '8 11 u i T i i l l l . i § 3 a o u cs , cn « M «S ^ 2 6 g '5b is VP U cn > •s I 3 2 8 fe g "2 S ° I* 11 i I 21 ° ^  6 .a * g | "g '£, o S .cn S CO Q "8 o .52 H •5 « 2 2 I a IB 18  "3 '3 R1 > 6. cn b 1 « c n-O T 3 ° -S S S 8 3 «o « 3 g 8 .2 8 1 | f-• — H Q . E X N CS fe N£> c £ 8) 1 .2 •-« va ^3 l- > •I .8-1 cn 00 • I eB C N .3 cu .3 > < p o 0 1 W 3 cn C u CJ C3 T 3 C N 6 •g o tu o O W o o o o o o • •• CO ^ o\ o o o o IT) o o o >/-> C N e o Q 3 »> Q © 00 . ON C N — ' III 3 O Q 3 3 < -I o o o o « -ifl N 00 . . ON ON C«H O -cn -S O g 8" 5 a m d ca O e8 O l c Sr 1»& o g cn 3 ^ 0 C N > CS Q 3 O '•a & cu cn u cn ca 3 3 o •& 0 1 '3 § -8 8 co 3 <~ g o 1 g o O 2 w a, a, a ON f*) l  J3 — SP ON «N - g J ej 3 I - S B | .2 t i S £ A u b « ! i NO OO ON oo • 8 * . 2 55 H I* 2 ° =3 -9 E h 8'S © o o o ^ §3 0 8 00 1 CN O -a o .§ -3 53 £ £ a m w a, o o o 31 -o g < U 1 CS « M M o u - is .22 w •a It Wft<< CJ "(3 OT M CS CJ ** cs ^s; S -2 ao " s § £ a-S 2 b -° g §1 o g r>. o « - 1 ? -- S J2 « N i - • - S S ON • I 2 l l o a. a. s H § OH OT . 5 - t .22 O rS S •73 Os - r j . 3 O MM 1 2 1 B ~ a MM fe1 MM " i-1 CH o | o ^ ° & £ £ g 3 g £ C3 I 4 T 3 "OT - O o * £ "3 «8 3 o "3 > o . % .« IS C cs CJ ffi 3 O T 3 C/5 CO r. ON OT ON i ; CJ <M OH W O OH most categories in Table 4.2, the scale of resolution, availability or format of the information is not necessarily sufficient. Most data listed is presently available at a scale of 1:50 000. While this may be suitable for aquifer mapping, it may not be detailed enough for planning land use, zoning, or other site specific activities. Areas of particular concern requiring more detailed analysis should at least be indicated on a 1:10 000 map. Some data for the Valley is already available at that scale and can be used to produce an initial designation of sensitive land areas. While more information needs to be collected, the effort involved in collecting it would be better spent on activities which tend to change over time, serve as indicators of change in groundwater condition in the area and can be used to explain cause and effect should a contaminant event occur. Of all the data, water quality measurements are the most lacking. Placing emphasis on collecting water samples, determining where and what contaminants may occur in the region, and identifying recharge areas in the area are high priorities. The data collected suggests that groundwater quality protection may require different emphasis over the Valley area. While the vulnerability of the Miracle Valley aquifer to the north may be low primarily because it is confined, the overlying soil is moderately to well drained. In Hatzic Prairie to the south, the unconfined aquifer is considered to be highly vulnerable and is overlain by poorly draining soil. Contamination will likely be more rapidly detected and perhaps mitigated in the unconfined aquifer, but harder to trace in origin than for the confined aquifer. To the north, there may be a considerable time lag between contaminant input and detection at depth as well as a much longer aquifer renewal time than in the south. Thus in the south, groundwater contamination may be more rapidly detected after introduction and more readily remediated than in the north. Data collection and groundwater protection measures should therefore focus initially on regulating contaminant input over the entire unconfined area to the south rather than identifying recharge areas. 104 To the north however, locating recharge areas to the confined aquifer should be emphasized and those areas given priority for protection. In this case, though Kreye and Wei's (1994) analysis results in the southern aquifer being ranked with a greater priority than the northern aquifer, the urgency of protection practices should be assumed to be the same for both. This is because the probability of contamination for the two aquifers compares unlike things if the recharge areas in the north have not been identified but they are largely known for the unconfined aquifer. In addition, hydrogeologic investigation in the area has assessed groundwater flow to be from the north to the south of the valley and the two aquifers (Miracle Valley and Hatzic Prairie) to be connected (Carmichael, Wei and Ringham 1995). Given the significance of the aforementioned factors, a precautionary approach should assign equal priority to the two aquifers. Conflict over the presence of deltaic sediments along the valley walls should indicate to managers and planners that the land use zoning in the area should be as conservative as possible until greater understanding of recharge areas in the area is reached, particularly with the difficulty of remediation of a more deeply embedded water supply. The potential role of community participation and expertise in data collection should not be overlooked. For example, Hatzic Valley community members located 73 to 85 springs in the area and 33 well stratigraphy logs through a door to door survey. The information collected is extremely useful for determining potential connection between water sources and water flow in the area and expands upon the data available through the Computerized Groundwater Data System. The recording of local knowledge and observation of resource availability should be a significant component of data collection activities as it offers an historic perspective on resource use and supplies information which is often lacking in other forms (Lui 1994). 105 5.4 Hindsight - Applying the Proposed Parameter List Hatzic Valley is in the enviable position of being able to plan for maintaining a high quality and abundant water resource as opposed to planning for remediation of an ailing groundwater supply. One resident sells water from the area to a water bottling company, the valley has been recognized as part of B.C.'s agricultural land reserve and some citizens have expressed the desire to plan for long term sustainable land and water use while maintaining the rural landscape of the region. In the Hatzic Valley, the focus with regards to parameter selection should be on determining what parameters effectively describe a groundwater system which supplies water to users from both confined and unconfined aquifers, which shows great spatial and qualitative heterogeneity in source material over the region and which will most certainly experience cumulative change over time. As seen in consulting reports written for Hatzic Valley, various interpretations of the hydrogeology are possible from the limited data available, precipitating challenges of opinions and professional interpretations. This allows for, as Carpenter (1995) suggests, each opinion holder to claim uncertainty as a reason for dismissal of alternative interpretations. The differences in interpretation of the local groundwater flow system, the obvious heterogeneity of the surficial material and the lack of comprehensive well and water quality data indicate that there are a number of unknowns which remain to be investigated in the area. What is particularly intriguing about the Hatzic Valley quarry development is that the greatest uncertainty lies in the understanding of the connection between the faults in the valley walls and the possibility of inter-bedded water bearing sand which may be protruding into the clay unit protecting the confined aquifer (Piteau 1994 a,b). These, if present, would provide a potential pathway for contaminants to seep from the quarry site to the confined aquifer. At the time of writing, no research has been done to identify whether this connection actually exists. On July 15th, 1996, L . Lehmann, 106 a local resident, indicated that the marsh adjacent to the quarry appeared to have drained, a condition which had not been identified in preceding years. While this may be the result of many factors, including activity at the quarry, a greater knowledge of the movement of groundwater in the area may be the most important factor in determining whether the quarry is responsible for the recently observed changes in surface and groundwater supplies and if it is a reasonable land use decision for the area. It also offers support for dealing with water issues over a larger area than that involved directly with the land use development in question. However, because there exists such limited information on water quality in the area, and as it takes longer to collect water quality data from which trends can be interpreted, further extensive geological analysis, except in the case of disagreement at the quarry site, is a lesser priority. How therefore would the suggested parameter list and groundwater protection practices have contributed to the assessment of whether a quarry development should be approved at 13361 Stave Lake Road? Collecting existing data, the first step suggested in Figure 4.1, would have allowed for the identification of fish habitat, outlined the region as a possible groundwater recharge area and would have indicated that water circulation in the area was quite complicated as indicated by the numerous springs and streams in the area. The groundwater protection practice of public involvement would have encouraged public involvement not only in data collection but in the investigation of whether the quarry development is a suitable land use in the area regardless of whether the anticipated impacts on water resources materialize1. Next, the water quality tests suggested in the second step would have established existing water quality, which is generally thought to be excellent and to establish a baseline from which to monitor change, particularly in the event of *The groundwater protection practices listed in Figure 4.1 are intended to apply to groundwater protection for all land uses. Some of the practices are not directly relevant to the quarry development and are thus not referred to in this discussion. 107 an acceptance of a development proposal. An updated well inventory (step 3) in the area and the possible location of deltaic sediments (step 4) would have brought the evaluation of the proposed development to the level of information which was collected by the consulting firms involved but resulted in different interpretations of the local hydrogeology. Protection areas around well heads may have disallowed land development in such close proximity to water sources while sand and gravel mining regulation may have suggested mitigative measures for reducing potential contamination of surface and groundwater in the area. Further analysis of the existing data for the valley highlights the fact that with the exception of land use and well yield data, few of the remaining parameter sets have data relating specifically to the area, though approximated data could be substituted for the purpose of obtaining a rough estimate. The uncertainty resulting in differences in interpretation of the same set of data as seen in Hatzic Valley is well illustrated in the comparison of three modelling studies conducted for a water rights dispute in the San Juan basin of New Mexico (McLaughlin and Johnson 1987). While this thesis does not address the issue of more advanced hydrogeologic modelling for local groundwater protection, the San Juan case study highlights the importance of seeking alternative scenarios and in determining the primary factors influencing anticipated outcomes. The objective of the San Juan water supply study was to understand why the anticipated well drawdowns from the three models applied differed so greatly. The differences in model outcome were felt to be due primarily to subjective interpretation of aquifer parameters from limited and ambiguous field data. The authors noted that none of the modelling studies had attempted to estimate the effect of ambiguous data interpretation on their outcomes and that credibility of the results could be greatly improved if the factors that limit modelling accuracy could be explicitly expressed. Thus the primary differences did not stem from the model design or boundary conditions themselves but from the interpretation of the 108 field data which determined the primary input values to the model. Alternative scenarios and sensitivity analysis likewise could be applied in Hatzic Valley to alleviate conflict and generate multiple solutions for addressing issues of local resource use. In the case of Hatzic Valley, having arrived at a point of differing interpretation of subsurface stratigraphy and in consideration of possible damage to fish habitat, a conservative decision would be to a) either allow the quarry to be developed following public consultation but further into the property away from surface water sources and groundwater springs and with extremely conservative operating methods (detention ponds, screens etc.) at the same time regularly monitoring water quality in neighbouring properties, or b) produce a core in the location of the area of contention where deltaic sediment is postulated to be present to determine impact on water resources and work with community members to come to an acceptable agreement on whether the quarry should be allowed to operate or not. Prior to the implementation of either of these options, the question of whether a commercial operation should be allowed in such close proximity to residential and agricultural areas would need to be addressed through community consultations and local zoning bylaws. The utility of the proposed parameter list is that it outlines the data needed to assess land use developments both on a site specific basis and in a spatial manner on the surrounding environment, and relates the data to groundwater protection practices which can be used to mitigate detrimental impacts. Through the use of georeferenced analysis, the data can be used to investigate the interconnectedness and cumulative impacts of land use decisions rather than treating individual cases as potentially isolated impacts. Though information such as surficial geology and soil mapping are available in varying degrees of precision and reliability, they supply data which is applicable over an area against which point data such as water quality can be interpreted. The proposed parameter list also serves to reduce uncertainty related to what information to collect for given land use decisions 109 and what remains to be investigated. The parameter list and related groundwater protection measures also provide for an information backdrop against which both compatible and incompatible land uses can be evaluated. Compatibility here is comprised of two elements: 1) compatible in the sense of not causing the deterioration of the surrounding environment, and 2) compatible with community opinions and values. In Hatzic Valley, quarrying alerted the community as well as this researcher, to the possible impact of local land use on surface and groundwater resources. This prompted the creation of a framework for local groundwater data collection and protection planning. However, will this approach fully alleviate the concern and conflict which have arisen over the quarry development? Unfortunately, it will not because determining that the quarry has no impact on local groundwater resources will not allay the discomfort residents experience from the noise, blasting impacts and dust of the quarry operations. In this case, a more efficient approach to this land use conflict would be for local government to first and foremost address the issue of community values and perception of compatible land uses, particularly in light of the findings of the community survey conducted for the Official Community Plan on local land development. While this suggestion may seem to support the opinion that effectively considering community opinion overrides the need to go about gathering data and analyzing of local water resources, the issue of the impact of compatible (with reference to community values) land uses on water resources remains. Groundwater monitoring and protection and likewise, the suggested framework, are necessary to avoid reacting only to land uses which are potentially polluting to water resources but do not conflict with community opinion. For example, agricultural land is generally accepted as a compatible land use in the valley though intensive agricultural land use has been a concern (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). Groundwater contamination from agricultural activities observed 110 in other areas of B.C. such as the Abbotsford aquifer (Freeze, Atwater and Liebscher 1994) and concerns for onsite sewage disposal (Schreier et al. 1994) make it clear that even well accepted and established land uses can threaten water supplies. However, if concerted effort is not placed into monitoring for changes in water supply and quality, changes to water quality due to "compatible" land uses will largely go unnoticed unless obvious health effects are incurred. Thus local groundwater monitoring and protection supplies data which can be used to evaluate both compatible and incompatible land uses. In the first instance, it identifies trends in changes to water quality and justifies regulatory action of land uses which are not generally disagreeable to local residents. In the second case, it addresses the potential effects of a land use on a local environment, which, i f determined to be inconsequential, highlights the central issue of harmonizing land use choices with community goals. 5.5 Suggestions for Future Action Hatzic Valley is a region endowed with reasonably good groundwater resources and the public has fostered an interest in maintaining the agricultural landscape of the region as well as the existing natural environment. The community and local government must be prepared therefore to respond to proposals for land use development or land based activities which may be detrimental to the quality and supply of groundwater in the area. Such decisions though are not straight forward when one must consider the heterogeneity of the natural environment and the range of opinions and knowledge of local resources within the local community. While some residents of Hatzic Valley have experienced changes in their immediate surroundings and to their existing water supply, the connection between quarrying, observed environmental changes and possible long term effects on groundwater resources has not been clearly determined. In addition, though land use zoning is a 111 responsibility of the municipality, the Hatzic Valley community must work with the other levels of government such as the Provincial Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Factors considered in planning for groundwater protection in Hatzic Valley, as well as in other regions of the province, are; the existing physical environment of the Valley, the governmental and regulatory framework within which the community must operate, the role of uncertainty in data collection and potential tools for determining appropriate land use and decision making in the region, suggestions for priority of data collection, land use analysis and public involvement in the decision making process. A comparison of available data for Hatzic Valley with the parameters of Figure 4.1 indicates that even at early planning stages, the community and local governments can begin to enact protection measures, some of which will require cooperative action from senior levels of government. However, data often used as a primary indicator of change in water systems, that of water quality, is limited in the area. To be useful, water quality information must be recorded over time, usually at least for one full hydrologic year, before the data is useful for supplying information. In order to progress from approximate delineations of sensitive areas, further data collection will need to be carried out. If not, land use zoning restrictions and other measures may be difficult to justify in the long term with the data presently available. Prior to organization of further data gathering, local government could endeavour to inform the community of recommended agricultural and residential land use practices which have been recommended for groundwater protection while further information and analysis is being carried out for more detailed planning. Numerous examples and assessments of effective communication strategies are available for use by local governments (Golder 1995; UNESCO 1987). The community could become further informed of the impact of land use practices by participating with groundwater 112 specialists, planners and managers in the creation of an inventory of present land use practices and activities, the categorizing of the land uses relative to possible impact on groundwater resources and the choice of land uses which are compatible with community goals for development and land use. The organization and logic of the suggested framework and in particular the data/policy timeline was arrived at through many iterations both before and following collection of data specific to Hatzic Valley. The framework is presented as being equally valid for other regions of the province, however, it is recognized that the prioritization suggested for Hatzic will not necessarily be the same for other areas. While the content of the data/policy timeline will remain the same between regions, the prioritization and sequencing of the timeline will depend upon two factors: 1) existing data and 2) regional priorities resulting from both biophysical and community concerns. One of the more significant influences on the sequencing of further data collection is the choice between water quality or quantity. As a result of those two factors, data collection (left side of the data/policy timeline) may be resequenced. For example, water quality, more important in water rich areas, may be eclipsed by the issue of interrupted water supply as a result of an interfering activity in an area. Likewise, arid areas may choose water quantity to be of greater priority than quality, thus prompting the sequencing of further data collection to reflect that end. The related protection practices will likewise require resequencing. The reorganization of protection practices is simplified by reference to Tables 4.3 -4.5, which outline both the protection practices and the data required for implementation. The framework outlined is therefore not a rigid procedure but a series of tools and a methodology for producing a step by step course of action for groundwater resource protection which is locally relevant. 113 6 Summary and Conclusions Groundwater resources are valuable to many communities in British Columbia, warranting concern and effort to maintain both quality and quantity of supply. Trends in the governance of water resources indicate that municipal or local governments will very likely become increasingly responsible for groundwater protection and planning. The local level of government is considered to be the most appropriate level for groundwater protection because it has one of the strongest influences on groundwater quality and quantity, that of land use and specifically the ability to regulate it. This will require the maintenance of data and information which has, in the past largely been the responsibility of senior levels of government. Georeferenced analysis is a comprehensive and adaptable analytical tool which is well suited to groundwater management and associated land uses and is being used increasingly in the field of water management. However, uncertainty, which is implicit in all data collection, can be easily rendered less visible through georeferenced data which combines many sources of data. Thus more effort must be made to both identify and communicate the presence of uncertainty in analytical procedures and in view of that to make decisions which do not preclude alternative water uses in the future. Recognizing georeferenced analysis as the tool to be used for groundwater protection planning leads to the collection and organization of data. Data collection however is a costly and time consuming task. The community must therefore have the tools to decide what data will give them the best description of the local groundwater system for the decisions to be made, how much reliance can be put into that data to give a representative picture of the system, how to prioritize what data to collect in what order and lastly, how to convert data into information for use by concerned community members and municipal water resource managers. 114 6.1 Summary This research involves a literature review for the purpose of developing a framework and compiling a minimum list of parameters for groundwater protection for use by local government and community members. In Chapter 2, literature on data collection within the context of groundwater mapping and assessment, watershed management and groundwater monitoring is analyzed for suggestions of parameters to be considered for groundwater protection. Minimum data sets are suggested by three main organizations and for use as a basis for groundwater management at the local level. A local government however must have the capability to link subsurface water quality and quantity with surface land activity. A review of watershed management, groundwater monitoring and vulnerability assessment literature offers suggestions for data collection which links hydrogeologic assessment with the policy decisions to be made for groundwater protection practices and specifically land use allocation. Land use and methods of categorizing and associating land uses with potential for groundwater deterioration used in British Columbia and in other regions are reviewed in Chapter 3. Land use categorization and rating relative to potential risk to groundwater resources can be carried out both prior to the designation of sensitive areas for groundwater protection or following the delineation of zones of restriction. In the case of wellhead protection areas for community wells, zones of restriction are carried out first and land use determined subsequently. In general, possible contaminants to groundwater and their associated land uses are well recognized. Categorization requires different degrees of detail dependent upon the scale of analysis. Such a land classification is available for B.C. (LUTF 1993) but may need modification. In particular, various cropping methods are not listed in the agricultural land uses at the local level and have been indicated by Loague (1991) to be significant for pollution migration. 115 To address the issue of appropriate protection practices relative to available data, suggested protection practices are sequenced in conjunction with parameter sets to develop a framework in Chapter 4. This serves to indicate what information is required prior to the successful implementation of the protection measure. These measures are suggested at the earliest time in the sequence of data collection. However, it is understood that the implementation of protection practices is an iterative process and necessitates subsequent updating with greater understanding of the local hydrologic system. Hatzic Valley, located in the Lower Fraser Basin, serves to illustrate a typical land use conflict and data which is representative of what is presently accessible to rural regions in B.C. The groundwater resources of the region have not been extensively studied previously because the largely clean and abundant water supplies have not generated concern. This is however precisely the type of community which requires a groundwater protection strategy in order to maintain an excellent resource. Members of the community have expressed the desire to sustain the resource at the present level of quality both for present use and future generations in harmony with the rural lifestyle which they have endeavoured to create within the region. It is clear that community involvement in deciding resource allocation and use is an approach which is growing in popularity, particularly in the situation of an unregulated resource which requires more cooperation than enforcement to meet the intended goal of protection. Greater compliance among community members who in fact own the land and affect the activities which threaten their own resources will come with greater understanding and input into policy generation. 6.2 Discussion The goal of this research is to develop an analytical framework for local government use 116 which addresses the issues of data collection and protection practices within existing political mandates and the limitations of time, money and expertise commonly experienced by local government. Analysis focusses on three areas of concern for local governments facing increasing responsibility for groundwater management: data requirements, land use management and groundwater protection practices. Of the various approaches surveyed, georeferenced analysis is suggested to be one of the more flexible and useful analytical approaches for not only groundwater management but also for the management of other resources. This flexibility largely offsets the initial cost of implementing a georeferenced system. Data collection related to use of georeferenced analysis should, at the initial stages focus on identifying sensitive zones which require protection if groundwater quality is to be maintained. Further analysis involving modelling and risk analysis can be generated from the same data source at later stages of data collection. The products of this research for use by local government are: 1) a parameter list which enumerates data to be collected for the purposes of monitoring groundwater resources and assessing land use decisions for groundwater protection (Table 4.2), 2) an analysis of groundwater protection practices and the data requirements related to each practice (Tables 4.3, 4.4, 4.5), 3) a data collection and protection practice plan which prioritizes the aforementioned parameters based on ease of collection of information, the time required for data collection and the relative importance of issues being experienced by local governments in British Columbia. Suggestions for groundwater protection practices which can be implemented when certain data becomes available accompany the prioritized data list (Figure 4.1) and, 4) a five-step plan for categorizing and integrating land use with data collection and protection practices (Figure 4.2). 117 The first three components of this framework were applied to the study of the Hatzic Valley to investigate the utility of the approach. The following conclusions are based on the assumptions that all groundwater is vulnerable to contamination, that local governments have at their disposal the very useful tool of land use zoning for groundwater protection and that senior levels of government will continue to transfer to local levels of government greater jurisdiction over groundwater management in the future. The main findings of the analysis are: 1) Local governments have jurisdiction over one of the most effective groundwater protection devices in land use zoning. Complimenting land use regulation, there are many groundwater protection activities which can be implemented at the local level and/or in cooperation with senior levels of government, both prior to and following detailed data collection activities. 2) Groundwater monitoring and protection are essential for evaluating the potential and actual impacts of both compatible and incompatible land uses (compatibility relative to impact on the environment and community opinion) and for avoiding costly deterioration of a valuable resource. 3) Groundwater management is an iterative process within which communication of uncertainty and consultations with the public allow for effective and flexible groundwater protection planning. 4) Existing information for most regions in B.C. can be used for the implementation of selected groundwater protection practices but for regions without community wells, data pertaining to the main indicator of groundwater perturbation, water quality, is severely lacking. This is anticipated to hinder further development of groundwater protection planning if not addressed. 5) Though data collection is an expensive and time consuming task, there exist alternatives which are less costly and precise but which still allow for initial assessment of sensitive areas for groundwater protection. 118 6) Georeferenced analysis offers a flexible tool for groundwater management but is, however, a potentially expensive endeavour. Local governments should seek to share equipment and expertise, perhaps through regional district offices, or in the absence of the necessary equipment, reference data to unique well identifiers and geographic locations for future use in georeferenced analysis. 7) Community involvement in data collection and the recording of local expertise is a cost effective alternative to paying for groundwater remediation or alternative sources of water should resources become contaminated in the future. 8) Not all water resource conflicts have water as the focal issue. Decision makers should address issues of community development and values to most efficiently avoid or resolve community and resource use conflict. There are a number of strengths in the approach presented. The proposed framework relates groundwater monitoring to protection practices and land use management and suggests where to allocate time, money and effort in data gathering. It also presents an inventory of data which illustrates to interested parties both within and without the Hatzic Valley, typically existing information and gaps in available data. The framework likewise translates the objectives of sustainable water use and water resources stewardship into concrete actions tailored specifically to the jurisdictional responsibilities of local governments in British Columbia. In doing so, it offers a unique analysis of local groundwater protection in Canada. In considering its limitations, the suggested framework at this time does not indicate which parameters have greater influence in decision making related to groundwater protection and which therefore should be afforded more effort in regard to accuracy, resolution or research. It is however suggested that hydraulic conductivity is perhaps the most difficult parameter to determine with relative accuracy. While the suggested framework outlines a minimum parameter list, it does not 119 address the issue of minimum data requirements for the use of each parameter. Likewise, while the approach suggests the use of the precautionary principle in decision making, the decision of how much precaution to exercise in relation to the available data is left to be assessed by the parties involved on the basis of both physical data and community goals. As presented, the framework favours water quality over quantity as the primordial issue to be addressed. While this may be the primary groundwater concern in the Lower Fraser Basin, water quantity is also a concern in the province, particularly in the more arid interior regions of B.C. For such reasons, it is imperative that the framework be approached in an iterative manner, so that more immediate local concerns are given higher priority while the overall goal of developing a comprehensive groundwater protection plan is maintained. These issues must be addressed further, preferably through use of an applied case study and in cooperation with experts in water resources, planning and management from both the provincial and federal levels of government. 6.3 Conclusions Several conclusions may be drawn from the case study. These are discussed under the headings: uncertainty, methods, community involvement and policy implications. Uncertainty Identifying where data or processes involve a significant amount of inaccuracy or uncertainty is straightforward in comparison to quantifying, communicating or even reducing uncertainty. A lack of predictive ability of future developments and an incomplete understanding of the ecologic system creates error in outcome of analysis and decisions resulting from what is unknown and thus uncertain. Parameter selection involves uncertainty because important elements may be left out of an analysis, 120 the scale of observation maybe inappropriate, the interpretation of the results may be misinformed and the manner of presentation may be ambiguous. Will collecting more data reduce uncertainty? What has become apparent in the analysis is that each parameter differs in accuracy, number of observations and the manner of its collection and presentation. Consider Loague's (1994) work which concluded that the collection of more data can make for more reliable conclusions, but not in all cases. Loague investigated the impact of reducing data uncertainties for pesticide leaching assessments derived from GIS index methods expressed as vulnerability maps. His assessment of vulnerability mapping, "Without a doubt, these potentially useful maps are laced with both model and data errors," (Loague 1994, 615) led to the investigation of whether the collection of more data had a significant impact on reducing uncertainty of specific parameters and to the suggestion that an evaluation procedure forjudging model performance must be based on field observations, statistical and graphical methods. The collection of more field data (soil cores) in that case study greatly reduced uncertainty for one parameter but much less for another. In the case of the second parameter, the improvement of the data base by the same percentage as the first may not even be possible for the field data of that type even without any economic constraints on sampling. Loague's analysis suggests a means of reducing the uncertainty which arises from whether the existing data is sufficient, which is similar to sensitivity analysis used in numerical modelling. While this research did not discuss hydrologic modelling specifically, methods used to test numerical models are considered to be applicable to georeferenced analysis and decision making with reference to reducing uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis compares changes in analytical output which result from alteration or exclusion of a selected parameter integrated within a model. Likewise, georeferenced analysis can involve the systematic alteration or exclusion of input in order to identify 121 critical values and limits for minimal levels of data (Loague 1994). In applying this approach to the case study, it is not possible to suggest an absolute number of additional observation wells to be installed in Hatzic prior to evaluation of future developments. The recommendation can be made however to consider the spatial distribution of the data available, a measure of uncertainty to identify areas where observations are not available, and to experiment with conducting a vulnerability assessment with fewer or more data points. From this the related outcomes can be monitored for how sensitive both numerical and subjective analyses are to changes in data input. Sensitivity analysis as described above and the comparison of the three San Juan basin modelling studies by McLaughlin and Johnson (1987) discussed in § 5.4 suggest that the key to reducing uncertainty in groundwater management is having the flexibility to analyze alternative scenarios or interpretations of existing conditions. As stated by Cohen (1986, 49) on the subject of subsurface radioactive waste disposal: Predictions of contaminant safety and risk are an inherent part of the hydrogeologic screening and ranking process. However, the earth scientist cannot produce a single certain answer or prediction of the fate of radioactive wastes buried in geologic media because there will always be many unknowns (scientific, technical, and sociopolitical) that rule out unqualified predictions. Rather, the scientist may provide a spectrum of alternative outcomes, each based on available information coupled with a set of uncertain assumptions. Uncertainty about the future weigh most heavily. A similar approach, referred to as natural similarity, suggests comparing alternative scenarios to analogous cases from other regions which have occurred in similar physical environments and situations (Chaban 1986). This requires the identification of key descriptors which are used to evaluate the similarity and comparability of different scenarios. Though use of this approach is hindered by the great heterogeneity of the natural environment and case histories, it serves to remind decision makers of the need to become acquainted with past and analogous experience. Reducing uncertainty is a question of balance and communication. The choice to collect more 122 data related to one parameter over another usually represents the assigning of greater priority to the more intensely studied parameter. However, collecting more data on a previously studied parameter must be decided relative to what other data is lacking. For example, in the case of Hatzic Valley, if the number of well logs available is deemed insufficient for a reliable hydrogeologic assessment, yet there exists no water quality data to indicate changes to the hydrologic system, then water quality data should be collected prior to the compiling of more well logs. This is suggested for two reasons, 1) information on changes in water quality is likely to be more significant to decision making than knowing in greater detail where water is coming from and 2) the collection of water quality data must occur over a longer time period before meaningful trends and information can be interpreted from the data. Thus the relative significance of various parameters to decision making processes must be continually assessed through the data collection process. From the findings of this thesis, the following is suggested to reduce uncertainty, both in data collection and decision making. During data collection, resolutions and detection limits should accompany each parameter. In its simplest form, reducing data uncertainty should involve recording the smallest unit of measure to which the data was recorded (ex. mm or contaminant detection limit) or the original scale at which the data was recorded so that users can exercise judgement as to whether data resolution is appropriate for the desired use. Next, more effort should be made to express where lack of information may render an outcome less certain. Uncertainty must be stated explicitly wherever possible. Visual presentation should attempt to alert the user to imprecision by using such tools as line width or symbol size. Any analysis based on multiple parameters should include a listing of all information used and the source scale at which it was input. Point or line designations should be given fuzzy boundaries if presented at a scale which is larger than originally used. The Soil Landscapes of Canada classification ranked its map reliability based upon method of 123 data collection used and timeliness of information, and communicated those areal differences in data reliability through the use of shaded areas on a base map. Effort should be made to compare various combinations of data and the resultant translation into information in order to identify the sensitivity of the analysis to the quality and quantity of the data input. The derivation of alternative scenarios can also help to identify uncertain aspects and as a result direct further data collection to reduce uncertainty. For example, there were two possible scenarios for the connection between bedrock and confined aquifer flow in Hatzic Valley. The unknown factor between the two is the connection between those two systems. To reduce uncertainty, producing a core to indicate which interpretation is correct would be recommended. Lastly, consideration of previous experience and analogous situations can reduce the perception of great uncertainty and the tendency to reinvent strategies and solutions with every case study. Uncertainty in groundwater management cannot be completely eliminated. If communicated and investigated however, uncertainty can encourage more cautious analysis of potential outcomes and help community and government decision makers alike temper expectations and decisions accordingly. Methods The limited success of groundwater remediation and the cost to public funds, individuals and the environment of groundwater contamination necessitates a proactive approach to the protection of the resource. One of the most troubling aspects of data collection is the difficulty of resolving differences in scale and resolution between parameters. This difficulty is often used to discount the analysis which emerges because of the presence of uncertainty as described above. The perception then becomes that there is very little data available for use, that it is too time consuming to collect more and that under the circumstances no data is better than inappropriate data. To the opposite end 124 of the spectrum, decisions are made with very limited data but communicated with the impression of greater certainty. To address this, a minimum selection of parameters can be derived which are readily available or easily obtained and serves to establish comparability between management exercises. Likewise, the outlining of the data required to make use of various groundwater protection measures can allay that perception of non-existing data. In many cases a tentative decision to go ahead or restrict a project can be made with existing data as long as precaution is exercised so as not to preclude adjusting or reversing the decision in the future. What is needed is a clear expression of what is known, what is not known, what time frame is being considered and what questions alternative scenarios raise which could be directed towards reducing uncertainty. This must be relayed both verbally and graphically. Georeferenced analysis offers the flexibility for such alternative analysis, can be easily updated and uses as a basis of data organization, points on the land's surface. In view of the local jurisdiction over land use and zoning, the land based approach of georeferenced analysis is highly compatible with the information needs of groundwater protection practices. Community Involvement As discussed earlier (Chapter 4), Libby and Kovan (1987, 355) state, "[A clean water supply] is part of the general feeling of security associated with a well ordered society." Community concern for groundwater quality is both practical and emotional. On a practical level, concern stems from a tabulation of the consequences and costs of seeking alternative water supplies weighed against access to a free resource. Emotionally, concerns are attached to the perception of deterioration of the surrounding environment and of family health. While in some cases, data can be produced which, when translated into information, can allay some of those concerns, a scientific or technical response is not always appropriate nor adequate. For example, while technically, the quarry development in 125 Hatzic Valley may be acceptable or pose minimal risk to groundwater resources, it may not be an appropriate land use given the impact on the surrounding environment and the values of the local population. Groundwater management therefore must integrate science and values to be effective and self sustaining. To achieve this, the existing uncertainties and subjectiveness of groundwater system analysis, land use designations and data interpretation must be clearly expressed amongst decision makers. Though alternative scenarios have been suggested as a way of addressing the above issues of uncertainty and subjectivity of groundwater analysis, Cohen (1986, 49) offers that decision makers must keep in mind both the limitations which differentiate various proposals and existing societal policies and preferences, because in the final analysis, "...all water management issues hinge on societal choices." Another suggestion for reducing uncertainties and subjectivity is to clearly communicate what information is considered when making decisions on groundwater data. In doing so, more complicated concepts which govern water flow can be described by their components rather than by the writing of a formula. This serves to both to educate decision makers1 and to outline potential areas for participation. In Hatzic Valley, a considerable amount of data on well logs and well locations was collected by concerned community members in a door to door survey once community members became aware of the utility and application of that data. Having informed themselves of the significance of the data and that it was lacking, community members played a vital role in gathering local expertise. Local knowledge and involvement in data collection will continue to be a significant source of information in all communities, particularly in the absence of mandatory submission of hydrogeologic and related data. 'Decision makers in this context refers to local residents, local government planners and managers and others who have influence on both land use decisions and the implementation of land use practices. 126 Associating different parameters with groundwater protection practices highlights the iterative nature of groundwater protection and the necessity of making conservative decisions which do not preclude future options. Establishing a relationship between local land use practices and potential impact on water resources reinforces the need for compliance of protective measures when required. Above all, uncertainty should be expressed within the community so that expectations are understood and lack of data given equal status as what is unknown. Carpenter (1995) suggests expressing uncertainty through answers to such questions as: What do we know and how confident are we about out data? What don't we know and why are we uncertain? What could we know given more time money and talent? and What should we know in order to act in the face of uncertainty? The proposed parameter list addresses these questions. Thus in planning for land use and groundwater protection, the land users must be involved in the decision making processes in order to ensure support for change to existing practices (Purnell and Thomas 1986) and for addressing values such as economics, technology, benefits, politics, risk, uncertainty, trade-offs and impacts (Keith 1986). The community must be involved in deciding whether no damage is the goal or, if some alteration of the resource is tolerated, what the potential outcomes will be for community development both in the present and future. Hatzic Valley demonstrates the significant contribution which can be made by a community if uncertainties are expressed and the expertise of the community sought. Policy Implications Treatment of contaminated water supplies requires the coordinated effort of engineers, biologists and other scientists. But avoiding future contamination is first and foremost an institutional problem. (Libby and Kovan 1987, 352). 127 British Columbia is presently the last province in Canada to enact groundwater legislation. Local protection practices through "best management" practices and land use zoning are non-legislated measures which can be very effective in groundwater protection. There is however, still a lack of understanding about the groundwater resources available and the interconnection of groundwater systems. Uneven application of protection practices may in the end temporarily stave off the ills of groundwater contamination locally, but contribute to the deterioration of the resource across groundwatersheds and the province. Given the cost and relative difficulty of remediating contaminated groundwater resources, the province cannot afford to ignore the need to enact legislation designed to guide local governments in their efforts to produce groundwater protection plans. The "Stewardship of the Water" initiative and general recognition that the century-old Water Act is inadequate (Bohn 1996) must be translated into a concerted effort to manage activities leading to the deterioration of groundwater supplies, already evident in areas of the province. Likewise, the province must consider the overlapping of jurisdictions which may affect groundwater resources as seen in Hatzic Valley with the issuance of a permit from a provincial government ministry in absence of the involvement of the local community. Fragmentation of institutional decision making causes conflict. There is a need to develop interjurisdictional agreements. This can be brought about both with and without legislated change to water management in B.C. In anticipation of legislative change, the Municipal Act could be amended to require the inclusion of water supplies, both surface and groundwater, in the Official Community Plan and related land use inventory such that planning for land uses which are beneficial to maintaining water resources can be assessed. Municipalities should join efforts to collect data and analytical resources and focus on managing land use. The provincial level of government should direct effort to setting contaminant loading and data collection standards to guarantee compliance in all regions. 128 The cost of researching and enforcing restrictions on groundwater quality and quantity is more easily supported through joint effort at the federal and provincial levels of government than at the local level. Land use management and data collection is more appropriately applied at the regional and municipal levels where equipment and expertise can be shared in relatively close proximity to defer equipment costs. 6.4 Suggested Implementation Use of the framework suggested in Chapter 4 is an iterative process which involves simultaneous consultation with and education of local government and community members. Suggestion for how the framework is envisioned as being implemented as well as how it can be tested for further improvement, is outlined in the following steps. 1) Planning for groundwater management should begin with the bringing together of interested parties through local meetings to discuss what the central water issues are in the community and to communicate what data is usually collected for use in groundwater management. 2) Existing data as per the suggested parameter list should then be collected, and presented to the community. 3) Priority issues should be revisited and enumerated. The shortcomings and strengths of existing data for addressing the priority issues should be discussed. 4) The data collection activities outlined in Figure 4.2 should then be reordered to reflect the local priority issues for groundwater management and the shortcomings, and the protection practices realigned according to the data requirements listed in Tables 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. 5) Ways of integrating collection of further data, through community participation, collection of local knowledge and input of local researcher should be discussed and an action plan developed, 129 including a timeline for when data collection should take place. This is particularly important when considering the influence of the various seasons on groundwater recharge and use. 6) Data should be compiled within a georeferenced format and progress in data collection compiled and displayed at regular intervals for community education and resource planning. Use of georeferenced data should include regular sensitivity analysis. Reassessments of the appropriateness of protection practices also need to be revisited at regular intervals. 6.5 Recommendations for Further Research Through the course of this research, many questions have been raised concerning aspects of data collection, how institutions interact in decision making contexts and what role the public plays in collecting information and decision making. Further research questions which arise pertain to uncertainty, methods, community involvement and policy implications. Uncertainty Uncertainty is present in every aspect of groundwater management. Uncertainty can be tangible and thus calculable, or intangible in the form of a perception not necessarily supported by fact. Further research of both aspects is needed. Greater emphasis on how uncertainty in data influences the outcomes of multiparametric analyses would help identify key parameters to consider in vulnerability assessment and hydrologic modelling. Likewise, questions concerning how much data is reasonable to collect could be addressed through the application of sensitivity analysis to vulnerability assessments. While less uncertainty in data collection is certainly a goal, it may not result in a proportional reduction in uncertainty perceived by decision makers. The role of perception of uncertainty, its 130 connection to scientific uncertainty, and the resultant impact on decision outcomes needs to be investigated further. Methods This research suggests an analytical framework for local groundwater protection. The relevancy of the framework would be best evaluated by the intended users: community members, local planners and managers. Pilot projects for groundwater management have been carried out on Pender and Hornby Islands which allowed for further input and modification of Stewardship initiatives. It is suggested that the same two tiered approach be used to test this framework. It should first be presented to representatives of the aforementioned groups for critique and input. Next, should a community be willing, a pilot project should be organized with the goal of putting into practice the framework outlined. In order to test the assumption that land use regulation is an effective means of protecting groundwater resources, this case study should be applied to regions which are not presently zoned on the basis of environmental concerns. Specific questions such as whether the parameters outlined adequately address the information needs of decision makers, how data collection such as water quality monitoring can be organized to best reflect actual conditions and seasonal variations, and whether there are barriers to applying groundwater protection practices at the stages suggested, are practical and applied and best addressed through implementation. While this framework is suggested for protecting groundwater quality, a similar approach could be researched and integrated with the existing framework which addresses the issue of maintaining groundwater quantity. 131 Community Involvement Further research is needed to determine what motivates public participation in water resource management, how community members can become involved in management decisions, how best to integrate local knowledge of water resources into data collection activities and how to facilitate communication and education of both community members and professionals involved in groundwater management (Karvinen and McAllister 1994; Lui 1994; Syme 1991, 1996; UNESCO 1987,1991). Factors motivating public participation in regional water allocation planning have been investigate by Syme (1991, 1996) and could likewise be investigated for water quality protection planning. Key questions would focus on how community involvement in data collection contributes to public education on water supply issues, what role the community adopts in relation to data evaluation and land use decision making, what are the most effective modes of communication for maintaining contact with the larger community, whether public acceptance supports the precepts of the precautionary principle and if data collection influences public perception of a threat to groundwater quality in proportion to the volume of data collected. Policy Implications Given the present jurisdictional overlap of water management, research is needed to suggest how federal, provincial, regional and municipal mandates over water resources can be more clearly defined. Groundwater and surface water is simply the same resource at different stages of the hydrologic cycle. The harmonization of groundwater and surface water monitoring and management should be investigated as well as the institutional arrangements needed to administer it. 132 LITERATURE CITED Aller, L . , T. Bennett, J.H. Lehr, and R.J. Petty, and G, Hackett. 1987. Drastic: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. EP A -600/2-87-035. Ada, Oklahoma: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. American Society of Civil Engineers, Committee on Ground Water. 1987. Ground Water Management. A S C E Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 40. New York, N . Y . : American Society of Civil Engineers. Armstrong, J. 1980. Surficial Geology, Mission, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Map 1485A, Scale 1:50 000. Armstrong, J. 1984. Environmental and Engineering Applications of the Surficial Geology of the Fraser Lowland, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 83-23. Ottawa, Ont.: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Armstrong, J. 1990. Vancouver Geology. Vancouver, B.C.: Geological Association of Canada. Associated Engineering. 1992. Hatzic Prairie Drainage Study. 2 vols. Mission, B.C. : Fraser Valley Regional District. Bachmat, Y . 1994. Groundwater as part of the water system. In Groundwater Contamination and Control, ed. U . Zoller, 5-20. New York, N . Y . : Marcel Dekker Inc. Bachmat, Y . , and M . Collin. 1987. Mapping to assess groundwater vulnerability to pollution. In Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants, ed. W. van Duijvenbooden and H.G. van Waegeningh, Proceedings and Information No. 38, 297-307. The Hague, The Netherlands: TNO Committee on Hydrological Research. Baker C , and E. Panciera. 1990. A Geographinc Information System for groundwater protection planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. March-April: 246-248. Barrocu, G., and G. Biallo. 1993. Application of GIS for aquifer vulnerability evaluation. In Application of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resource Management, ed. K. Kovar and H . Nachtnebel, 571-579. Wallingford, United Kingdom: IAHS Press. Black, P. E. 1991. Watershed Hydrology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Bohn, G. 1996. Fraser Valley water contamination feared. The Vancouver Sun, July 16. A1-A2. Bradley, M . 1986. Introduction to "How to slant a ground-water investigation for political purposes". Ground Water, 24(3): 389-390. 133 Brassington, R. 1988. FieldHydrogeology. The Geological Society of London Handbook Series. New York, N . Y . : Halstead Press. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (B.C. MOELP) . 1993. Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Bruce, J., and B. Mitchell. 1995. Broadening Perspectives on Water Issues. Canadian Global Change Program Incidental Report Series No. IR95-1. Ottawa, Ont.: The Royal Society of Canada. Carmichael, V. , M . Wei, and L. Ringham. 1995. Fraser Valley Groundwater Monitoring Program Final Report. Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Carpenter, R. A. 1995. Communicating environmental science uncertainties. The Environmental Professional,!!: 127-136. Chaban, M . 1986. Impact of large agricultural ground water supply on adjacent areas, problems of hydrogeological substantiation. In Proceedings: Symposium on Integrated Land Use Planning and Ground-water Protection Management in Rural Areas. 19th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Karlovy Vary, September 8-15, Czechoslovakia, ed. J. Vrba and J. Svoma, 42-49. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Stavebni Geologie. Cherry, J. A. 1987. Groundwater occurrence and contamination in Canada. In Canadian Aquatic Resources, ed. M . Healey and R. Wallace, 387-426. Ottawa, Ont.: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Clague, J. 1994. Quaternary stratigraphy and history of south-coastal British Columbia. In Geology and Geological Hazards of the Vancouver Region, Southwestern British Columbia, ed. J. Monger, 181-192. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 481. Cohen, P. 1986. Groundwater protection - societal choices. In Proceedings: Symposium on Integrated Land Use Planning and Ground-water Protection Management in Rural Areas. 19th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Karlovy Vary, September 8-15, Czechoslovakia, ed. J. Vrba and J. Svoma, 42-49. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Stavebni Geologie. Computerized Groundwater Data System (CGDS), Groundwater Section, Water Management Division, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Internet address: <http://wtrwww.env.gov.bc.ca>. Conroy, S., L . Lehmann, and H . Morlacci. 1996. Death of a creek - a community's experience. Watercourses - Getting on Stream with Current Thinking, Conference Proceedings, 43-50. Vancouver, B.C.: Canadian Water Resources Association. 134 Couch, W., ed. 1989. Environmental Assessment in Canada: 1988 Summary of Current Practice. Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. Ottawa, Ont.: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Cramer W. and J. Vrba. 1987. Conclusions on topic #3: vulnerability mapping. In Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants, ed. W. van Duijvenbooden and H.G. van Waegeningh, Proceedings and Information No. 38., 45-47. The Hague, The Netherlands: TNO Committee on Hydrological Research. Davis, J., P. Nanninga, J Biggins, and P. Laut. 1991. Prototype decision support system for analyzing impact of catchment policies. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 117(4): 399-414. Dean, L.F., and M A . Wyckoff for the Office of Water Resources, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Community Planning and Zoning for Groundwater Protection in Michigan: A Guidebook for Local Officials. Rochester, MI: Michigan Society of Planning Officials. Department of Regional and Economic Expansion (DREE). 1970. The Canada Land Inventory: Objectives, Scope and Organization, Report No. 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Queen's Printer for Canada. Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, Development Services. 1988. McConnell Creek-Hatzic Prairie Official Community Plan and Background Report. Mission, B.C. : Fraser Valley Regional District. Domenico, P. A. 1972. Concepts and Models in Groundwater Hydrology. New York, N . Y . : McGraw-Hill. Dorcey, A . 1991. Water in the sustainable development of the Fraser River Basin. In Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin, ed. A. Dorcey and J. Griggs, 3-18. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Centre. Eisbacher, G. 1977. Vancouver Geology. Vancouver, B.C.: Geological Association of Canada. Environment Canada - Federal-Provincial Working Group on Groundwater. 1993a. Groundwater Data Management, December 1991. Ottawa, Ont.: Minister of Supply and Services. Environment Canada - Federal-Provincial Working Group on Groundwater. 1993b. National Survey on Priority Topics for the Development of Groundwater Guidelines, April 1, 1993. Ottawa, Ont.: Minister of Supply and Services. Environment Canada. 1993c. Groundwater - Nature's Hidden Treasure. Freshwater Series A-5. Ottawa, Ont.: Minister of Supply and Services. 135 Evans, B. , and W. Myers. 1990. A GIS-based approach to evaluating regional groundwater pollution potential with DRASTIC. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, April-May: 242-245. Everett, L . 1980. Groundwater Monitoring: Guidelines and Methodology for Developing and Implementing a Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program. Schenectady, N . Y . : General Electric Company. Flockhart, D., C.H. Sham, and Y . Xiao. 1993. Maximizing the value of information for groundwater protection: Three test cases. Water Resources Bulletin 29(6): 957-964. Foster, S. 1987. Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants, ed. W. van Duijvenbooden and H.G. van Waegeningh, Proceedings and Information No. 38, 69-86. The Hague, The Netherlands: TNO Committee on Hydrological Research. Foweraker, J. 1994. Introduction. In Groundwater Resources of British Columbia, ed. Atwater, J. et al., 1.1-1.3. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Environment and Environment Canada. Fraser Basin Management Board (FBMB). 1996. Board Report Card 1996. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser Basin Management Program. Freeze, R.A, J. Atwater, and H . Liebscher. 1994. Chapter 5. Groundwater contamination: Occurrence, sources, and transport of contaminants in groundwater. In Groundwater Resources of British Columbia, ed. Atwater J. et al., 5.1-5.26. Victoria, B.C. : B.C. Environment and Environment Canada. Freeze A., and J. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Freeze, R. A. , J. Massmann, L . Smith, T. Sperling and B. James. 1990. Hydrogeological decision analysis: 1. A framework. Groundwater, 28(5): 738-766. Gartner Lee Ltd. for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, Public Health Protection Branch. 1992. Final Report - Fraser Valley Ground Water /Drinking Water Study. Report No. G L L 91- 744. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Health. Gartner Lee Ltd. for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, Public Health Protection Branch. 1993. Fraser Valley Ground Water Moitoring Program Phase 1 Report. Report No. G L L 92- 749. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Health. Geological Survey of Canada, Canadian Geoscience information Centre. World Wide Web <http//geoinfo. gsc. emr. ca>. Golder Associates Ltd. for Environment Canada. 1995. Groundwater Quality Protection Practices. North Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser River Action Plan, Environment Canada. 136 Gupta, R., R. Rudra, W. Dickinson and G. Wall. 1994. Spatial and seasonal variations in hydraulic conductivity in relation to four determination techniques. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 19(2): 103-113. Hahn, J. 1991. Balancing the requirements of land-use and groundwater protection in rural areas. In Integrated Land-use Planning and Groundwater Protection in Rural Areas: A Comparative Study ofPlanning and Management Methodologies. IHP-III Proj ect 10.6, ed. J. Verba, 13-20. Paris, France: Project Working Group from the Groundwater Protection Commission of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Haitjema, H . M . 1995. On the residence time distribution in idealized groundwatersheds. Journal of Hydrology, 172: 127-146. Halstead, E.C. 1986. Groundwater Supply; Fraser Lowland, British Columbia. Paper # 26, JAVD Scientific Series # 146. Saskatoon, Sask.: National Hydrology Research Institute. Hess, P. 1986. Groundwater Use in Canada, 1981. Inland Waters Directorate Bulletin No. 140. Ottawa, Ont: Environment Canada. Hoffer, R. 1986. Techniques of hydrogeologic mapping and protection for water - table aquifers in the United States. In Proceedings: Symposium on Integrated Land Use Planning and Ground-Water Protection Management in Rural Areas. 19th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Karlovy Vary, September 8-15, Czechoslovakia, ed. J. Vrba, and J. Svoma, 42-49. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Stavebni geologic Hornby Island Pilot Project Committee (HIPPC) for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1994. The Hornby Island Groundwater Pilot Project Final Report. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer for British Columbia Jacobs, M . 1993. The Green Economy; Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future. Vancouver, B.C.: U B C Press. Jaffe, M . 1987. Data and organizational requirements for local planning. In Planning for Groundwater Protection, ed. G. Page, 125-156. Toronto, Ont.: Academic Press Inc. Jaffe, M . and F. DiNovo. 1987. Local Groundwater Protection. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association. James B . , J. Gow and L . Toran. 1996. Risk-cost decision framework for aquifer remediation design. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 122(6): 415-420. James, B. , D. Huff, J. Trabalka. R. Ketelle, and C. Rightmire. 1996. Allocation of environmental remediation funds using economic risk-cost-benefit analysis: A case study. Ground Water Management and Remediation, Fall: 95-105. 137 Jones, G. 1986. Introduction. In Developments in the Analysis of Groundwater Flow Systems, ed. G.B. Engelen and G.P. Jones, IAHS Publication No. 163, 3-10. Wallingford, U.K. : International Association of Hydrological Sciences Press. Karvinen, W. O., and M . McAllister. 1994. Rising to the Surface: Emerging Groundwater Policy Trends in Canada. Kingston, Ont.: Centre for Resource Studies, Queen's University. Keith, S. 1986. Science / facts versus perception in the public decision making process. Groundwater (24) 3: 298-302. Kenski, H . 1990. Saving the Hidden Treasure: The Evolution of Ground Water Policy. Claremont, California: Regina Books. Kreye, R., and M . Wei. 1994. A Proposed Aquifer Classification System for Groundwater Management in British Columbia. Victoria, B.C. , Canada: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Management Division, Hydrology Branch, Groundwater Section. Land Use Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee (LUTF). 1993. Corporate Land Use Classification System for British Columbia: Justification and Specification. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Resources Inventory Committee, Earth Sciences Task Force. Lee L . and E. Nielsen. 1987. The extent and costs of groundwater contamination by agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, July-August: 243-248. Lemme, G., C .G Carlson, R. Dean and B. Khakural. 1990. Contamination vulnerability indexes: a water quality planning tool. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 45(2): 349-351. Letvak, B . 1996. Present, past and future of partnerships in water monitoring - views on one provicial representative. In Compte rendu/Proceedings de la 49s Conf&ence annuelle de I'ACRH(CWRA), ed. C. Delisle and M . Bouchard, Quebec, 26-28 juin, 355-364. Montreal, Qc , Canada: Collection Environnement de l'Universite de Montreal, Vols. I (437 pages) et II (420 pages) (numero 6 hors serie). Libby, L . and J. Kovan. 1987. Rural groundwater contamination: impacts of and potential benefits from land use planning and zoning. In Rural Groundwater Contamination, ed. F. D'ltri and L . Wolfson, 351-366. Chelsea, MI, U.S.A. : Lewis Publishers Inc. Loague, K . 1991. The impact of land use on estimates of pesticide leaching potential: assessments and uncertainties. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, (8): 157-175. Loague, K . 1994. Regional scale ground-water vulnerability estimates: Impact of reducing data uncertainties for assessments in Hawaii. Ground Water 32 (4): 605-616. Lui, J. 1995. The Use of Local Knowledge and Expert Opinion in Resource Planning. Victoria, B.C. : B .C. Ministry of Forests. 138 Luttmerding, H.A. 1980. Soils of the Langley-Vancouver Map Area. R A B Bulletin 18, Vol 1,2, British Columbia Soil Survey Report No. 15. Kelowna, B.C. : B .C. Ministry of Environment. Macdonald, J. and M . Kavanaugh. 1994. Restoring contaminated groundwater: An achievable goal? Environmental Science Technology, 28(8): 363a-368a. Maidment, D. 1993. GIS and hydrologic modelling. In Environmental Modeling with GIS, ed. M . Goodchild, B. Parks and T. Steyaert, 147-167. New York, N . Y . , U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. McLaughlin, D. and W. Johnson. 1987. Comparison of three groundwater modeling studies. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 113 (3): 405-421. Meij, E. and C. Abdalla. 1990. A comprehensive approach to groundwater management for rural local governments. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, May-June: 226-229. Miller, J. 1991. Chapter 4: Data requirements and database management, and Chapter 5: Land-use planning and groundwater protection. In Integrated Land-use Planning and Groundwater Protection in Rural Areas: a Comparative Study of Planning and Management Methodologies, ed. J. Verba, IHP-III Project 10.6., 29-34, 35-41. Project Working Group from the Groundwater Protection Commission of the International Association of Hydrogeologists. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Morris, P. and J. Biggs. 1995. Chapter 10: Water. In Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, ed. P. Morris andR. Therivel, 161-196. Vancouver, B.C. , Canada: U B C Press. Municipal Act. 1996. Internet Web Site <http://www.marh.gov.be> National Research Council (U.S.A.), [NRC], Committee on Techniques for Assessing Ground Water Vulnerability, Water Science and Technology Board and Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. 1993. Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment: Predicting Relative Contamination Potential Under Conditions of Uncertainty. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (U.S.A.), [NRC], Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Pearse, P. 1994. Development of federal water policy: one step forward, two steps back. Calgary: Keynote address, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, National Management Seminar, February 3-4. 12 p. Pearse, P H . , F. Bertrand and J. MacLaren. 1985. Currents of Change: Final Report of the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. Ottawa, Ont.: Environment Canada. 139 Pender Islands Pilot Project Committee (PIPPC) for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1994. The Pender Islands Groundwater Pilot Project Final Report. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer for British Columbia. Perrings, Charles. 1991. Reserved rationality and the precautionary principle: Technological change, time and uncertainty in environmental decision making. In Ecological Economics: The Science andManagement of Sustainability, ed. R. Costanza, 153-166. New York, N . Y . : Columbia University Press. Pfannkuch H. , S. Hunt and S. Burman. 1993. Pilot project for determination of hydrogeologic sensitivity of Scott County, Minnesota. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Geographic Information Systems and Water Resources, ed. J. Harlin and K . Lanfear, 101-111. Bethesda, M D : Americal Water Resources Association. Piteau Associates and Turner Groundwater Consultants for Environment Canada and Earth Sciences Task Force. 1993. Groundwater Mapping and Assessment in British Columbia, Vol. 1: Review and Recommendations, Vol 2: Criteria and Guidelines^ Report No. D O E FRAP 1993-33. North Vancouver, B.C.: Environment Canada. Purnell, M . and R. Thomas. 1986. Integrated land use planning and groundwater protection management. In Proceedings: Symposium on Integrated Land Use Planning and Ground-water Protection Management in Rural Areas. 19th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Karlovy Vary, September 8-15, Czechoslovakia, ed. J. Vrba and J. Svoma, 26-34. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Stavebni geologie. Reichard, E. , C. Cranor, R. Raucher and Zapponi, G. 1990. Groundwater Contamination Risk Assessment: a Guide to Understanding and Managing Uncertainties. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, U.K. : International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Rice, J. and D. Viste. 1994. Major sources of groundwater contamination: assessing the extent of point and nonpoint conatmination in a shallow aquifer system. In Groundwater Contamination and Control, ed. U . Zoller, 21-35. New York, N . Y . : Marcel Dekker Inc. Richards, R., D. Baker, N . Creamer, J. Kramer, D. Ewing, B. Merryfield, L . Wallrabenstein: 1996. Well water quality, well vulnerability, and agricultural contamination in the midwestern states. Journal of Environmental Quality (25): 389-402. Ricketts, B. and D. Dunn. 1995. The groundwater database, Fraser Valley, B.C. Current Research 1995-A. Geological Survey of Canada: 7-10. Ricketts, B . and H . Liebscher. 1994. The geological framework of groundwater in the Greater Vancouver area. In Geology and Geological Hazards of the Vancouver Region, Southwestern British Columbia, ed. J. Monger, 287-298. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 481. 140 Ronneseth, K. , M . Wei and M . Gallo. 1995. Evaluating Methods of Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping for the Prevention of Groundwater Contamination in British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Management Division. Schreier, H . , C. Berka, K. Wreford and L. Lavkulich. 1994. Subdivision Standards for Onsite Sewage Disposal Coast Garibaldi Health Unit, Central Vancouver Island Health Unit, Upper Vancouver Island Health Unit and Capital Regional District. Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Soil Science and Resource Management Sciences, University of British Columbia. Science Council of Canada. 1988. Water 2020: Sustainable Use for Water in the 21st Century. Report 40. Ottawa, Ont.: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Sotornikova, R. and J. Vrba. 1987. Some remarks on the concept of vulnerability maps. In Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants: Proceedings of the International Conference on March 30 - April 3, 1987, ed. W. van Duijvenbooden and H.G. van Waegeningh, 471-476. The Hague, The Netherlands: The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO. Sponagle, J. 1993. From the groundwater up: The mangement plan and protection strategy for the North Tyndall groundwater supply for the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia. In Water and the Wilderness: Development, Stewardship and Management. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the Canadian Water Resource Association, June 16-19, Banff, Alberta, ed. D. Manz: 279-295. Cambridge, Ontario: Canadian Water Resources Association. Syme, G., D. Macpherson and C. Seligman. 1991. Factors motivating community participation in regional water-allocation planning: A test of an expectancy value model. Environment and Planning, 23: 1779-1795. Syme, G. and B. Nancarrow. 1996. Planning attitudes, lay philosophies, and water allocation: a preliminary analysis and research agenda. Water Resources Research, 32 (6): 1843-1850. Thompson, K . 1994. Groundwater protection and management in Canada. Water News -Supplement, Canadian Water Resources Association Newsletter, 13(4): 1-8. Tim, U . and R. Jolly. 1994. Evaluating agricultural nonpoint-source pollution using integrated Geographic Information Systems and hydrologic / water quality model. Journal of Environmental Quality (23): 25-35. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Meteorological Organization. 1977. Hydrological Maps: A Contribution to the InternationalHydrologicalDecade. Paris, France: UNESCO. 141 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Meteorological Organization. 1987. Communication Strategies for Heightening Awareness of Water. IHP JJ (International Hydrological Programme) Report 2, Project CI, B.S. Sadler (ed). Paris, France: UNESCO. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) - Office of Groundwater Protection. 1987. Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. EPAReportNo. 440/6-87-010. Washington, D.C., U.S.A: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) - Office of Ground-water Protection. 1988a. EPA Workshop to Recommend a Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water. E P A Report No. 440/6-88-005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) - United States Geological Survey. 1988b. Hydrogeologic Mapping Needs for Ground-water Protection and Management. E P A Report No. 440/6-90-002. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) - Office of Research and Development. 1994. Environmental Planningfor Small Communities - A Guide for Local Decision-Makers. E P A Report No. EPA/625/R-94/009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Valentive, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L . M . Lavkulich (eds.) 1978. The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia. Victoria, B . C : B.C. Resource Analysis Branch, Ministry of Environment. Van Stempvoort, D. L . , L . Ewert and L . Wassenaar. 1993. Aquifer Vulnerability Index: a GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 18(1): 25-37. Vrba, J. (ed). Project Working Group from the Groundwater Protection Commission of the International Association of Hydrogeologists. 1991. Integrated Land-use Planning and Groundwater Protection in rural Areas: a Comparative Study of Planning and Management Methodologies. fflP-III Project 10.6 ed. Paris, France: UNESCO United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization. Vrba, J. and J. Balek. 1986. General report: Data collection and monitoring systems for groundwater protection management within an integrated land use planning programme in rural areas. In Proceedings: Symposium on Integrated Land Use Planning and Ground-water Protection Management in Rural Areas. 19th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Karlovy Vary, September 8-15, Czechoslovakia, ed. J. Vrba and J. Svoma, 479-499. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Stavebni geologie.. Vrba J. and A. Zoporozec (eds.). 1994. Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability. International Contibutions to Hydrogeology Vol 16. Hannover, Germany: Verlag Heinz Heise. 142 Wallis, R. L. , and S.J. Robinson. 1991. Integrated catchment management: The Western Australian experience. Environment, 33:31-33. Webb, C. for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fraser River Action Plan. 1996. Environmental Stewardship in the Municipal Act - A Synopsis of Local Governments' Powers. Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Government of Canada. Willis R. and W. Yeh. 1987. Groundwater Sustems Planning and Management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Zaltsberg, E. 1995. Determination of groundwater attenuation distances for municipal landfill sites in Ontario. Canadian Water Resources Journal 20 (1): 39 - 47. Zhang, R., J. Hamerlinck, S. Gloss and L . Munn. 1996. Determination of nonpoint-source pollution using GIS and numerical methods. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 25:411-418. C O R R E S P O N D E N C E A N D R E P O R T S British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Regional Manager, Lower Mainland Region, Planning and Assessment: June 16, 1993, letter to District Manager and Engineer, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (MOE) November 2, 1993, letter to Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources July 12, 1994, letter to District Manager and Engineer, M O E British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BCMOELP), Water Management. October 25, 1993, Referral Memo A9303 - 15, from Hydrogeologist to Planning and Assessment Office, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Fillipone, J. 1993. Draft work plan for hydrogeologic study of 13351 Stave Lake Road Proposed Quarry. Golder Associates Ltd. August 18, 1992. Preliminary Geotechnical Site Appraisal potential for Rock Quarry Development 13361 Stave Lake Raod, Mission, British Columbia. Letter report E/92/0139 to B. Holmes, Abbotsford, B.C., Canada. 6 p. and 2 figures. Pacific Hydrology Consultants (PHC). July 26, 1991. Hydrogeologic Conditions in Regard to Groundwater Supply Potential for a Proposed Seven-Lot Rural Subdivision at 13361 Stave Lake Road. Letter to D. Avery, Mission, B.C. , Canada. 6 p. Pacific Hydrology Consultants (PHC). 1994. Hydrogeologic Impact Evaluations of Stave Lake Quarry at 13361 Stave Lake Road in Mission, B.C. 1994. Vancouver, B.C. Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd. 143 Piteau Associates. 1994a. Review Comments Relating to Groundwater Supplies and Hydrogeological Impacts. Prepared for John Conroy and Residents of Upper Hatzic Prairie/McConnell Creek Area, Mission, B.C. Judicial Procedure Review Related to Issuance of a Permit for a Sand and Gravel/Quarry Operation 13361 Stave Lake Road. Project 1281. Vancouver, B.C.: Piteau Associates. Piteau Associates. November 27, 1994b. Opinion on Hydrogeologic Impacts - Hatzic Valley, Mission, B.C. Letter 1281 to D. Davidson, Vancouver, B.C. , Canada. 2 p. and 2 figures. SRK-Robinson Inc. July 2, 1993. Recommendations for a Production Blast Design, Stave Lake Road Quarry, Mission, B.C. Letter-report to B. Vernon, West Coast Aggregates Ltd., Aldergrove, B.C. , Canada. 14 p. and 1 figure. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION Geoff Hughes-Games B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Leah Lehmann Hatzic Valley Resident ADDITIONAL REFERENCES Boudreau, E. 1986. How to Slant a Ground-water Investigation for Political Purposes. Ground Water, 24(3): 391-395. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (B.C. MoELP), Water Management Branch. 1988. Design Guidelines for Rural Residential Community Water Systems. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. British Columbia Ministry of Health, Public Health Protection. 1989. Safe Water Supply: Vital to Your Health. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Health. British Columbia Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. From the Health Files. Number 5, February 1996, "Nitrate Contamination in Well Water." Number 2la, September 1994, "Maintenance and Operation of Sewage Disposal Systems." Number 21b, February 1995, "On-Site Sewage Disposal System Permits for Undeveloped Lots." Number 45, June 1995, "Should I Get My Well Water Tested?" Number 48, September 1995, "Cryptosporidiosis" 144 Burkart, M . R., and D.W. Kolpin. 1993. Hydrologic and Land-use Factors Associated with Herbicides and Nitrate in Near-surface Aquifers. Journal of Environmental Quality, 22: 646-656. Chillibeck, B., G. Chislett, and G. Norris for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Government of Canada and the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1992. Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Victoria, B.C. : B.C. Environment. Freeze, R. 1988. Technical Analysis and Societal Decision Making - The Subsidence of Venice, Groundwater Contamination. Hagey Lectures; 1987-1988. Waterloo, Ont.: University of Waterloo Press. Furst, J. 1995. Sustainable Development of Aquifers in Narrow Alpine Valleys: Implications for Models to Support Scenario Simulation. In Modelling and Management of Sustainable Basin-Scale Water Resource Systems, IAHS Publication No. 231, ed. S. Simonovic, Z. Kundzewicz, D. Rosbjerg and K. Takeuchi, 21-30. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England: IAHS Press, Institute of Hydrology. Tourbier, J.T. and R. Westmacott. 1981. Water Resources Protection Technology: A handbood of measures to protect water resources from land development. Washington, D.C.: U L I -The Urban Land Institute. 145 APPENDIX 1 DRASTIC and AVI: Tools for Intrinsic Vulnerability Assessment Two intrinsic vulnerability assessment methods which have gained popularity are Aquifer Vulnerability Index (AVI) [Van Stempvoort, Ewert and Wassenaar 1993] and DRASTIC (Aller et aL 1987). A V I and DRASTIC are designed for use with geographic information systems and suggest a standard parameter list for determining intrinsic vulnerability of groundwater resources to contamination. These methods combine mappable parameters which are felt to most control the groundwater pollution potential of an aquifer by weighting and summating them (Piteau and Turner 1993). A V I incorporates thickness of each sediment layer and hydraulic conductivity (K) which are multiplied and then summated to produce a hydraulic resistance in years. DRASTIC incorporates seven parameters outlined in the following which are all ranked and summated to produce a numerical ranking value of relative as opposed to specific meaning. The two methods are: DRASTIC Incorporates: Feature Weight . -Depth to water 5 -net aquifer Recharge 4 -Aquifer media 3 -Soil media 2 -Topography 1 -Impact on vadose zone 5 -hydraulic Conductivity K 3 which are ranked and summated to produce a numerical ranking value of relative, not specific meaning. For each feature* a range of values has been produced and given a rating. The user identifies what range their data falls into, records the rating and multiplies it by the weight as indicated in the following formula: 146 D R W W + RR R w + A R A w + S R S w + T R T w + IRIW+ C R C w = Drastic Index where R= rating, W= weight AVI Incorporates: i) Thickness (d) of each sediment layer above the uppermost, saturated aquifer surface, ii) Estimated hydraulic conductivity K of each of the sediment layers, from which a hydraulic resistance (C) of an aquifer to vertical flow, in years, is calculated using the following formula: N i A V I and DRASTIC have recently been compared in British Columbia for the same geographic area by Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo (1995). The two methods were evaluated for their suitability for use in unconsolidated, glaciated, shallow aquifer terrains in Southern British Columbia. The field site was an area of 85km2 in size at the mapping scale of 1:20 000 in a region 50 km southeast of Vancouver and underlain by two adjacent unconsolidated aquifers, one confined, the other unconfined. The resulting vulnerability areas were compared to reported nitrate levels from wells on the area. The resultant A V I and DRASTIC vulnerability areas were compared to reported nitrate levels in the aquifers. The results indicated that water quality degradation (defined by elevated nitrate levels) corresponded to higher vulnerability areas. Low N 0 3 - N reported in high vulnerability areas reflected the absence of a contaminant source in the area. It was felt that A V I and DRASTIC were both suitable for use on shallow, unconsolidated, glaciated aquifer terrains where there is sufficient coverage of well record data. A V I was 147 recommended over DRASTIC where there is sufficient well record data for use in conjunction with available surficial geology information to help define vulnerability boundaries. Ease of use, data availability and objectivity of vulnerability values were main reasons of preference. An evaluation of the appropriateness of A V I and DRASTIC as analytical tools for groundwater management at the local community level should consider the conclusions of Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo (1995) outlined in the following: -Initial assumptions on nature of water movement are the same for both methods. -Locally, A V I and DRASTIC vulnerability areas are not readily comparable yet both methods show regional patterns which are consistent with the surficial geology in the area. - A V I creates a contour map which may suggest continuity in vulnerability which may not exist -DRASTIC creates polygons which can depict discrete breaks along geological and topographical boundaries. -There is uncertainty involved in assigning K-values to well lithologic descriptions since hydraulic conductivity data is not normally available. Measured K values are almost never available in water well databases. -Low and high ranges have comparatively more data points than the middle range of values. This raises the question of how resolution and appropriate parameters can be altered to depict a wider range of possibilities other than the categorization of data at opposite ends of a given spectrum. 148 A P P E N D I X 2 Integrating Intrinsic Vulnerability into Aquifer Classification An aquifer classification system for British Columbia has been suggested by Kreye and Wei (1994) for the purposes of identifying and categorizing aquifers in the goal of prioritizing them for mapping, management and protection activities. It is an initiative intended to guide future groundwater research in the province as it establishes priority of concern amongst major aquifers in the province. Aquifer classification is a resource management tool which can be used to identify and prioritize aquifers for management and help in establishing extent of use, vulnerability to contamination, level of protection and management strategies. Individual aquifers or parts of aquifers are separated into classes based on criteria which reflect the objectives of the classification. The primary motivations for groundwater management are to ensure a sustained water supply and to preserve quality. This method was derived to render more efficient groundwater management over the long-term through a systematic program of aquifer mapping and assessment. This program is to guide water resource allocation, assist with water management planning, and identify sensitive areas within an aquifer where protection measures might be required to maintain water quality. Kreye and Wei's classification system is not intended for the specification of legally-mandated groundwater activities though the approach is being used for such purposes in the U.S. nor is it meant to replace more detailed aquifer assessment required to manage the resource. This classification system can be described in part as a specific vulnerability assessment in that it incorporates intrinsic vulnerability, referred to in the classification as the vulnerability component, with data which reflects present day conditions of water use and quality concerns. For all of the potential uses of vulnerability and aquifer classification, there are some concerns. Kreye and Wei (1991, 38) state, "Groundwater classification systems are tools that can be used for 149 management of the resource, though as with all tools, they must be matched to specific purposes." In their review of existing literature, Kreye and Wei presented various analyses on the applications of classification systems. In one case, the opinion was expressed that multi-purpose classification systems involve too many unidentified uncertainties to be useful for local land use decision making. Though aquifer classification is a useful tool, problems can arise from inappropriate application and from a lack of understanding of the limitations of the analysis. Kreye and Wei (1994) further reviewed various jurisdictional approaches to classification of aquifers or groundwater and suggested an aquifer classification system for use in the province of British Columbia. Their aquifer classification includes consideration of physical parameters such as aquifer yield and anthropogenic factors such as water withdrawal. Similar work in other areas of Canada include, the use of A V I in Alberta which was developed for a pilot project for groundwater protection and vulnerability mapping in the prairie provinces of Canada. Numerous American states have developed their own classification systems which give between 3-8 classes of aquifers, based primarily on quality and use. Classification is often tied to anti-degradation policies (preferential protection). The goal of the proposed aquifer classification system for B.C. delineation was to rank, classify and create an inventory of provincial aquifers. Flow systems and complex stratigraphic boundaries at depth, as well as aquifer zones smaller than 1 km 2 were beyond the scope of Kreye and Wei's project. The data sets used in defining the aquifers are: 1) shallow aquifers; surficial geology, topography, well records, information from various reports. 2) deeper confined aquifers; delineated in the context of hydro-stratigraphic units as defined by Halstead (1986), well records and other reports, 3) bedrock and some deeper units, where areal extent is largely unknown, delineated on basis of 150 significant area of current development. Fraser Rivers fioodplain sediments where groundwater development was not found to be present were left undelineated. Groundwater in bedrock generally occurs in fractures which go across lithologic units thus the delineation of bedrock aquifers based on area of development was used in favour of lithology. The system has two components: * A CLAS SfFIC ATION component which catagorize aquifers based on their current level of development and vulnerability to contamination, * A R A N K I N G component indicating relative overall priority based on aquifer productivity, vulnerability, size, demand, type of use and known quality and quantity concerns. The classification system was applied at the 1:50 000 map scale. Classification and ranking are determined for whole aquifers and is time and scale dependent, making it responsive to changes in conditions such as population or degree of use. The system works within a provincial, regional or sub-regional context. Classification and ranking components generally express the same results. Aquifers which show greater levels of development and higher vulnerability generally have a higher ranking value. Of the aquifers identified, ranking values for fractured bedrock aquifers appear to be lower than ranking values for unconsolidated aquifers. The classification component and ranking component are summarized in the following table. 151 Classification ^Development [= demand and productivity in ranking] (demand in relation to productivity, withdrawal vs yield, use water budget) ""Vulnerability [potential of being contaminated by surface sources] (depth to water, nature, thickness porosity and extent of confining materials above aquifer/ (Categories used are high, medium and low for each, resulting in 6 possible categories and presented in the following table.) Ranking "'Demand or use (level of reliance) "•Productivity [abundance of resource] (transmissivity data, nature of aquifer materials, specific capacity of wells, well yields, obvious sources of recharge ex. rivers, lakes) "•Vulnerability (to contamination) ""Size ""Type of use ""Quality concerns(health risk) "•Quantity concerns/ (All criteria = weight, value of 1-3 obtainable except quality and quantity the range of which is 0-3. The ranking range resulting from Kreye and Wei's analysis in B.C. is from 5 to 21.) The classification component results in the categorization of aquifers into 6 possible categories. The development subclass (L-TSX) compares demand to productivity (ie. I - demand is heavy in relation to productivity) and the vulnerability subclass (A-C) describes vulnerability to contamination from surface sources. The resultant categories are: I II III A IA-heavily developed, high vulnerability aquifer IIA-moderately developed, high vulnerability aquifer IIIA-lightly developed, high vulnerability aquifer B IB-heavily developed, moderate vulnerability aquifer IIB-moderately developed, moderately vulnerability aquifer IIIB-lightly developed, moderately vulnerability aquifer C IC-heavily developed, low vulnerability aquifer HC-moderately developed, low vulnerability aquifer IHC-lightly developed, low vulnerability aquifer The ranking component assigns a point value of 1-3 for each criteria; productivity, vulnerability, size, demand, type of use, quality concerns, quantity concerns, which are then summated 152 and the results ranked in numerical order. Kreye and Wei conclude that although there was a large spread in ranking values, ranking appears to increase with increasing development and vulnerability. This is expected from the overlap of factors used in the classification and ranking and criteria are not mutually exclusive. Higher ranking values are generally attributable to higher use. As the basis for the classification is the management of groundwater (and by extension, human activity), human related criteria have a strong bearing on the ranking. Quality / quantity concerns skew the ranking values as they seem to affect only aquifers with the highest ranking values as these aquifers seem to be the only ones with concerns. The classification tends to give bedrock aquifers a lower ranking as they do not usually support multiple uses and the areal extent is limited to the area of development which may not reflect the true extent of the source of water. Also, the final results show comparatively few moderate vulnerability aquifers perhaps because the methodology is not sufficient to distinguish between different levels. Thus in choosing parameters for groundwater assessment, one must be aware of the possibility that the classification will identify aquifers as low and high priority but indicate with difficulty those aquifers which are in a transitional phase between low pollution and high pollution. Thus the classification system prioritizes aquifers and indicates why something has a particular priority. The ranking and classification should be used together. The interpretation of results should be done within the context of a group of aquifers within a certain geographic region (Kreye and Wei 1991). The classification can be used to recommend certain levels of assessment, such as more intensive mapping or modelling in heavily developed class I aquifers. The distribution of the results raises the question of whether differences between aquifers in this classification come down to use? These results would indicate, as in the comparison of A V I and DRASTIC by Ronneseth, Wei and Gallo (1995), that we must further consider which parameters 153 would render a vulnerability assessment more sensitive to identifying vulnerability along a range rather than the artificial low, medium, high classification. How vulnerability results should appear is another consideration. While it seems more reasonable that vulnerability for any given group of aquifers may be represented along a continuous range, perhaps a threshold effect is at play which would allow for a more abrupt delineation or explain why analysis shows a concentration of results at the opposing ends of the measures utilized. Do aquifer vulnerabilities range across a spectrum in the field or do the parameters we choose invoke a threshold effect where we have lows and highs and few in between? What sort of results therefore more closely reflect real conditions, allowing us to find some way of evaluating different methods? Considering the nature of groundwater flow and particularly increasing understanding of preferential pathways, it seems possible that aquifer deterioration in quality or quantity would occur rapidly past a given threshold of use or input and period of time such that aquifers surveyed at one point in time would appear as either polluted or not polluted (on either side of a subjective threshold) rather than evenly or normally distributed along a range of possibilities. Thus one needs to consider how the data chosen and the information generated therefrom will look to avoid predeciding the outcome, before it has been analysed, by virtue of the information chosen. 154 APPENDIX 3 Geological History of the Lower Fraser and Hatzic Valleys Geological History The Pacific seaboard's geologic evolution is the result of three main events; 1) intrusion and uplift of crystalline rocks in the Coast Mountains, 2) sedimentation and consolidation of river deposits and 3) the sculpting of the land by volcanoes, ice sheets and water (Eisbacher 1977). The Lower Fraser Basin has experienced at least three major glaciations alternated with nonglacial intervals. The present landscape results primarily from the last glaciation and postglacial processes. Unconsolidated Quaternary sediments lie 10 to 300 meters thick over approximately 95% of the Lower Fraser Basin and the bedrock lies within 10 m of the surface in the remaining area. The Fraser River flows in a late, post glacial valley up to 5 km wide and 225 m deep (Armstrong 1984). The Coast Mountain range is composed of granitic and other igneous and metamorphic rocks. The plutonic complex comprising this mountain range is 60 to 200 km wide stretching from the Fraser River 1700 km north to the Yukon border. The molten granitic rock of this range rose slowly through the earth's crust and became relatively fixed in place 100 million years ago. About 70 million years ago, the erosion of the Coast Mountains by streams carried gravel, sand, mud and plant material to the freshwater lake which occupied the area presently delineated by the Coast and Cascade Mountains. Erosional forces have worked since approximately 40 million years ago to remove the overlying material to expose the range visible today (Armstrong 1990). As the coast mountains began to be uplifted, they were cut into by rivers and streams creating valleys which were further eroded through the movement of glaciers during three major periods of 155 glaciation occurring between 11 000 to 100 000 years ago. The low sea level during the ice advances allowed the glaciers to cut below the present sea level. The coastal portions of many valleys then became fjords as the glaciers retreated and the sea level rose during the last 10 000 years. The glaciation of the Lower Fraser Valley resulted in the depression of the land surface to an estimated 80 m below current sea level. The Lower Mainland was raised 150 meters following glacial retreat (Eisbacher 1977). In Hatzic Valley, the sea-level prior to the last glaciation is estimated to have been 185 m and marine sands, gravels and clays were deposited up to this elevation (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). Following the last glacial advance, the valley became a meltwater channel during the subsequent glacial retreat 10 000 years ago (Pacific Hydrology Consultants 1991). Morainal till was uncovered along the valley floor and sides and then partially scoured by glacial retreat meltwater flowing down the valley. As the glaciers retreated, the tops of the ridges became free of ice prior to the valley floor. The flow of mountain creeks was hindered, causing fluvioglacial sands and gravels to be deposited along the valley sides. These sediments continue to be worked and redeposited in alluvial fans and creek beds, sometimes as a result of debris torrents (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). This old arm of the sea thus became filled in with layered deposits of glacial outwash (silts, sands and gravels) and glaciomarine sediments (clays and silts) [Armstrong 1990, Piteau 1994a]. Coarser and better washed sediments free of silt and clay formed aquifers and finer sediments formed barriers to water flow (Piteau 1994a). Permeable sediments such as sand, gravels and cobbles below the glaciomarine sediments are felt to carry underflow from Stave Lake to the south end of the Valley at Hatzic Slough (Pacific Hydrology Consultants 1991; Piteau 1994a). 156 Hatzic Prairie has been formed since the last glaciation as a result of the Fraser River cutting into the valley, reworking older sediments and depositing primarily sand and silt floodplain deposits. Organic deposits and lenses however are also associated with these Fraser River sediments (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). Surficial Deposits A map of the distribution of Quaternary deposits of the Hatzic Valley by Armstrong (1984) identifies two primary formations. To the north of the Valley from Stave Lake, Late Wisconsin Sumas Drift is found as one travels south to midway down the valley. From that midpoint, Salish and Fraser River Sediments predominate down to the region surrounding Hatzic Lake. The Valley is bordered by the Tertiary or older rock of the Coast Mountains which is found primarily within 10 m of the surface and is covered with surficial deposits. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of the Quaternary deposits is their lateral and vertical complexity at all scales of analysis resulting from sedimentation and erosion during the advance and retreat of ice sheets and the related fluctuation of sea levels and land subsidence and uplift resulting from isostatic readjustment (Ricketts and Liebscher 1994). The surficial geology of the valley displayed in the Geological Survey of Canada Map 1485A, and related drainage characteristics as given by Armstrong (1980, 1984) are summarized in Appendix 4. At present, a detailed description of the surficial geology of the most northern part o f the study area corresponding to topographic map 92 G/8, 1:50 000 is not available. Soil survey information is available however and will be discussed in the following section. The surficial geology of the northern part of the Valley is primarily glaciomarine Fort Langley Formation, while postglacial Salish 157 Sediments and Fraser River Sediments are predominant in the south. Landslide and fan Salish gravel and rubble overlies Sumas Drift and Fort Langley sediments in the geographic centre of the valley. Though groundwater drainage throughout the valley is limited, Fort Langley sediments to the north favour surface drainage but are accompanied by Sumas drift which improves the potential for groundwater drainage. In the south, Salish and Fraser River sediments allow for some groundwater drainage however the high water table favours surface drainage. These sediments can be related to specific geologic processes described by Clague (1994). Fort Langley Formation includes interbedded glacial-marine and glacial sediments deposited in the area of fluctuating ice margins. Till and glacio-fluvial Sumas Drift sediments found on top of the Fort Langley Formation were deposited during a minor glacial readvance near the end of the last (Fraser) glaciation. Salish sediments are the result of the formation and growth of the Fraser River which has occurred since the end of the Fraser Glaciation. Soil Description The soil classification for the area as described by Luttmerding (1980), is primarily fine to moderately fine textured, vertically accreted floodplain deposits to the south of Hatzic Valley which are considered to be poorly drained, grading to medium to moderately fine textured glaciomarine deposits to the north which are moderately well drained. While the soil is generally good for farming the water table is usually nearer the surface at the southern end of the valley which can negatively impact crop production and farming activities. Poor soil drainage in the McConnell Creek also causes water percolation problems (Dewdney-Alouette Regional District 1988). Soil drainage likewise affects the vulnerability rating (Kreye and Wei 1994) discussed in § 5.1.4. 158 APPENDIX 4 Surficial Deposits of Hatzic Valley Lithostratigraphic Units (Mappable Units) Description Natural Drainage Fraser River Sediments Postglacial (present to 9000 BP) Holocene -Postglacial (Time stratigraphic units - geologic climate units) Channel river and floodplain deposits. *Fluvial sand and gravel sediments; groundwater drainage, but most of year water table near surface and surface drainage is necessary *Interbedded silt, silty clay, sandy, silty and clayey loam, loam favours surface drainage *FR deposits occur in low lying areas - water table at or near surface. overlving and cutting estuarine sediments and commonlv overlain bv overbank sediments Fh may be in part Sumas outwash, channel deposits similar to fg but coarser textured, sandy loam and loamy sand [Fg = channelled deposits (expressed at surface ridges and swales), silty clay loam, silt loam, silty clay, minor organic sediments, up to 10 thick] Sumas Drift 11 000- 11 400 (?)BP Late Wisconsin -Fraser Glaciation Recessional ice-contact deposits Sb ice-contact gravel and sand containing till lenses and clasts of Fort Langley glaciomarine sediments, 2-5 m thick, overlying FLc (Ft. Langley glaciomarine) Sc ice-contact gravel and sand containing till lenses and clasts of Ft. Langley glaciomarine sediments, 2-5 m thick, overlying FLb,e Lodgement and minor till flow Sf sandy till and substratified drift, 2-10 m thick Sg sandy till and substratified drift 0.5-2 m thick, in most places overlies FLc * Sumas lodgement till offers mainly surface drainage and limited groundwater drainage. *Glaciofluvial gravel and sand offers excellent groundwater drainage. * Sumas glaciolacustrine, silt, clayey silt, silty clay, and sand favours surface drainage. 159 Salish Sediments Postglacial (present to 12500 BP) Late Wisconsin -Fraser Glaciation to Holocene -Postglacial Bog. swamp, shallow lake deposits SAb low. and peat, organic silt loam, silty clay loam 0.3 to 10+m thick overlying Fraser River Sediments SAe upland peat < 8+m thick Stream deposits, channel fill, floodplain and overbank sediments SAh lowland stream channel fill, overbank sandy loam, clay loam, in places contains disseminated organic material, up to 8m thick. Slope deposits, colluvial sediments * organic sediments - water is mainly absorbed by organics. * shore marine gravel and sand offers good groundwater drainage except where water table is at or near surface. * fluvial sand, gravel and lacustrine offers ground water drainage however most of year water table may be near surface. *fluvial and lacustrine interbedded silt, silty clay, sandy, silty and clayey loam and loam favours surface drainage. *colluvium: ground water, surface drainage deposited bv mass wasting processes SAo fan and landslide gravel, sand and rubble, <15+m thick, overlying Fraser River sediments and Salish Lacustrine deposits SAp landslide and fan gravel and rubble <. 10m thick, overlying Sumas Drift and Fort Langley Sediments Fort Langley Formation Probably >1 ice advance, originally called Everson Interstade 11 400-13000 BP Late Wisconsin -Fraser Glaciation Glaciomarine deposits, marine sediments "•lodgement till = good surface drainage, limited groundwater drainage *glaciomarine stony silt, silt and silty loam may offer poor surface, very poor groundwater drainage. and minor till FLc glaciomarine stony silt to loamy clay, 8-100 m thick Compiled from Armstrong 1980 and 1984. The northern half of Hatzic Valley is composed of Fort Langley Formation (FLc), Sumas Drift (Sb, Sc, Sf, Sg) and Salish Sediments (SAe). In the southern half of the valley, one can locate Fraser River Sediments (Fh) and Salish Sediments (SAb, SAh, SAo and SAp). A deposit of Salish Sediments (SAp) divides the two halves (Armstrong 1980). Drainage refers to natural drainage without the use of man-made drainage systems with permeability seen as the controlling factor for the determination of whether excess water dissipates by surface or subsurface drainage. Impervious 160 or low permeability sediments favour surface drainage, whereas pervious or partly pervious sediments favour some or complete subsurface drainage (Armstrong 1984). Halstead (1986) has related the surficial materials described by Armstrong with water bearing capacity by describing hydrostratigraphic units based on grain size and depositional environment. The hydrostratigraphic units present in the Hatzic Valley are outlined in the following table. Description of Hydrostratigraphic Units (Ricketts and Liebscher 1994; Halstead 1986) Lithostratigraphic Units Present in Hatzic Valley Unit A - Aquitard or Isolated Aquifers in Sands The proportion of clay is 10%-50%; silt, 35%-75%; sand, 5%-60%. Derived mainly from ice sheets ending in the sea during retreat of last Fraser Lowland ice. This unit is commonly less than 30 m thick. Fraser River Sediments Salish Sediments Unit B - Aquitard Of glaciomarine origin, this unit consists of stony clays and shells. Unit B is commonly less than 90 m thick. Fort Langley Formation Unit C - Unconfined Aquifer This unit consists of glaciofluvial sand and gravel deposited by meltwater streams which, where they met the sea, built deltas. Unit C is approximately 40 m thick. Sumas Drift Unit D - Small Confined Aquifers Unit D includes aggregates (till or diamictons) which have been combined through a variety of glacial processes and constitute heterogenous mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders of different sizes and shapes. Tills and till complexes constitute major confined aquifer systems in the Fraser Lowland. Unit D is commonly up to 90 m thick. Unit E - Aquifers and Aquitards Marine sediments interbedded with fine sand, silt and clayey silt, estuarine and fluvial deposits, comprise this unit. UnitF - Mostly Fractured Porosity Unit F consists of bedrock usually found at depths lower than 300 m. 161 Units A to D were deposited by processes related to retreating ice masses and sea level changes brought about by Fraser Glaciation glacioclimatic events. Unit E was deposited by estuarine and fluvial processes. The primary purpose of investigating surficial geology in groundwater management is to identify water bearing strata and determine the capacity for water yield and transmission. When using vulnerability assessment, surficial geology is particularly useful in determining the degree of confinement of water bearing strata and form there the related vulnerability to contamination. Using these units and well log stratigraphy, fence diagrams are produced which present hydrostratigraphic units as transects presented in a three dimensional grid. Ricketts and Dunn (1995) of the Geological Survey of Canada have linked well location data, technical information such as well depth, static level and flow rate, and drill log stratigraphy in digital format to allow for hydrostratigraphic modelling. While the area of the Fraser Valley this has been compiled for does not include Hatzic Valley, it offers a template and computers programming which can be used by local levels of government for groundwater assessment analysis. 162 APPENDIX 5 Summary of Events Concerning Stave Lake Road Quarry Development Citizen action for groundwater protection arose in response to the proposed development of 13361 Stave Lake Road Property. The following is a summary of events surrounding a quarry development in Stave Lake Road in Hatzic Valley, derived from documents referenced in this research and from personal communication with L . Lehmann, a Hatzic Valley Resident. The following outlines the process and actions taken in considering the appropriateness of the quarry development for Hatzic Valley. On July 26, 1991 Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd. submitted a letter to D. Avery owner of 13361 Stave Lake Road property, describing the hydrogeology of the location from existing data in response to a proposed seven-lot rural subdivision at 13361 Stave Lake Road. It was indicated that the main aquifer on all the proposed lots except for one would be fractured bedrock in which wells could be constructed but where more than one well may need to be drilled before adequate water is encountered. Another possibility was to develop springs or seepage, the capacity of which would have to be evaluated at the end of the summer drought period. Indications also suggested that the groundwater quality would be acceptable for domestic use. A year later on August 18, 1992, Golder Associates Ltd. conducted a preliminary geotechnical appraisal of the 13361 Stave Lake Road property for a potential rock quarry development. Conditions were deemed suitable for the development and suggestions for further assessment were offered. The following year on June 28, 1993 the Ministry of Mines approved a 25 year permit (#G-7-123) for the development of the proposed quarry site at 13361 Stave Lake Road (personal communication, L . Lehmann 1996). A hydrogeologist from Water Management at B.C. Environment forwarded a memo on 163 October 25,1993 in response to reviewing the quarry proposal through the project referral process. This process directs project proposals to associated ministries when a project of potential environmental impact is proposed. Referral procedures vary in detail between various legislated Acts, the general practice is as follows; a) A proponent submits an application to the Official of the Lead Agency including information on potential environmental impact, b) If information is inadequate for an effective review, more is requested. In addition, affected public may be informed of the proposal through local government, c) The proposal is referred for technical review and comment to all government agencies including those at local and regional levels with knowledge or interest in the proposal, d) The agencies receiving the referral may respond within a specified period of time, e) The Official when empowered approves or refuses the application or submits the proposal and recommendation to the deciding Authority, f) The proponent or the public may appeal the decision to a more senior government official, the responsible minister or the Environmental Appeal Board (Couch 1989). A complete hydrogeologic assessment of the area between Stave Lake and Durieu Creek was suggested prior to approval of the project. Approval for No Impact was suggested as the permit for the quarry was to be issued for a period of 25 years. This was echoed by B C Environment, Planning and Assessment, Lower Mainland region in a letter to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on November 2, 1993 with the suggestion that approval be conditional on a more comprehensive study of the area and proposal of a development plan guaranteeing no impact on the related water resources. In October of 1993, the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District (now the Fraser Valley Regional District) office called a public meeting to solicit community suggestions and concerns related to the quarry development (personal communication, L . Lehmann 1996). The following month on 164 November 18, JeffFillipone submitted a draft work plan for a hydrogeologic study of the quarry proposal to the Ministry of Mines Energy and Petroleum Resources based upon a geotechnical site appraisal report conducted by Golder and Associates (August 18, 1992) and suggestions made by the B . C . Ministry of Environment. In December of the same year (1993), the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District called a public hearing to discuss changing the definition of the R-3 (Rural-3) land use designation of which the quarry site was presently zoned, to exclude the activity of aggregate crushing. This proposal was later adopted as a bylaw (personal communication, L . Lehmann 1997). Seven months later on June 21, 1994, Pacific Hydrology Consultants (1994) were retained by the owner of the 13361 Stave Lake Road property 426969 B.C. Limited to conduct a hydrogeologic impact evaluation of the Stave Lake Quarry. Residents of the community launched a court case in the spring of 1994 and appeared in court in July for a Judicial review on procedure concerning the process followed by the Ministry of Mines in approving the permit for a quarry development on the 13361 Stave Lake Road property (personal communication, L . Lehmann 1996). In September, 1994 Piteau Associates was retained by the community to prepare review comments of preceding reports related to the groundwater supplies and hydrogeological impacts of the proposed quarry development. This was submitted to the Judicial Procedure Review related to the issuance of a permit for the sand and gravel / quarry operation at 13361 Stave Lake Road. The next month, quarry operation began at 13362 Stave Lake Road (personal communication, L . Lehmann 1996). November 27, 1994 Allan Dakin of Piteau Associates in a letter to Diana Davidson (lawyer representing residents) discussed the interpretation of the local hydrogeology based on the examination of the Morlacci well log, indicating the possibility of a permeable pathway through which contaminants could seep from the quarry site to the confined aquifer. 165 By January 1995, the B C court ruled in favour of the Ministry of Mines indicating that the Ministry was required to refer to other Ministries as per the Referral Process in place but was not bound to the suggestions made by the other Ministries. The residents of Hatzic Valley have appealed the decision and review is still pending at time of writing this thesis (personal communication, L . Lehmann 1996). 166 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099143/manifest

Comment

Related Items