...... , . .- . ., . , .,......
5 ,*' EBA Engineermgr3 Ltd, t -,
TWIN LAKES BASIN HYDROGEOLOGICAL STUDY
EBA FILE NO: 0808-88654
I J e e.1420 Hunter Court, Kelowna. B.C. V1X 6E6 em Telephone (604) 8624832 FAX (604) 862-2941 TWIN LAKES BASIN
HYDROGOLOGICAL STUDY
KALEDEN, B.C.
Submitted to:
TWIN LAKES GOLF & COUNTRY RESORT KALEDEN, B.C.
Submitted by:
I EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD. Kelowna, B.C.
October, 1994
0808-88654 em EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I Twin Lakes Golf Resort is proposing a residential ,development on slopes overlooking the golf course, The proposal calls for approximately 256 single family residential units. Historically, development proposals in the Twin Lakes basin have raised objections primarily because of the concerns that water resources in the basin will be depleted. Recognizing the need to have water resource concerns addressed, Twin Lakes Golf Resort retained the services of EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd (EBA) of Kelowna, B.C. to undertake a hydrogeological study of the Twin Lakes basin. The purpose of the study being to determine whether water of adequate quantity and quality is available in the Twin Lakes basin to support the proposed development without causing unacceptable impacts.
After a review of available information it became clear that detailed water basin and hydrogeological studies had not been completed for previous developments and should be done to properly assess the feasibility and potential impacts of the current development proposal. Further, it was clear that sufficient information on water chemistry in the Twin Lakes area was not available to meet the objectives of the study. Therefore, EBA embarked on a study aimed at investigating the water balance of the Twin Lakes basin, the hydrogeology in the vicinity of the golf course, and the water chemistry of ground and surface water in the study area.
The study has concluded that groundwater of sufficient quantity is available to support the proposed development and further if certain design assumptions and concepts are applied to the proposed development, little or no increase in net water withdrawal from the basin can be accomplished. Twin Lakes Golf Resort has indicated that they intend to apply such designs and concepts in order to achieve, as a development objective, little or no increase in net water withdrawal.
With regard to water quality, the study has concluded that there is a need for water treatment to reduce levels of mineralization and also prevent unacceptable impac'ts to vegetation and the groundwater regime when the water is returned to the golf course via a spray irrigation concept.
It is further concluded that in order to reduce the level of hardness, total dissolved solids and certain dissolved species, community water treatment must be implemented rather than allow individual household treatment techniques such as water softening which exchange rather than reduce dissolved constituents.
c em TABLE OF CONTENTS I i
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... , ...... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 2
3.0 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT ...... 2 i
3.1 Proposed Residential Concept ...... 3 3.2 Proposed Servicing Concepts ...... , ...... 3
4.0 SCOPEOFWORK ...... 4
5.0 WATERBALANCE ...... 4
5.1 General ...... , ...... 4 5.2 Description of Twin Lakes Basin ...... 5 5.3 Estimation of Climatic Data ...... , ...... , . , ...... 6 5.4 Precipitation, Evapotranspiration and the Basin Water Balance . . . . . 8
6.0 AQUIFER TRANSMISSIVITY AND ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER FLOW ...... , ...... 11
6.1 Aquifer Geometry and Gradient . . . . . , . , ...... 11 6.2 Estimation of Aquifer Transmissivity ...... 12 6.3 Estimated Groundwater Flux and Seepage Velocity ...... 15
i -4
-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (con%)
PAGE
7.0 PRESENT AND PROPOSED WATER USAGE ...... 16
7.1 Present Water Usage in the Twin Lakes Basin ...... 16 7.1.1 Domestic Water Use ...... 16 7.1.2 Irrigationusage...... 17 7.1.3 Total Present Water Usage ...... 19 7.2 Effects of Proposed Development ...... 19
1 8.0 EVALUATION OF C1 WELL ...... 21 9.0 EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ...... 24
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 25
11.0 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ...... 28
APPENDICES
TABLES
FIGURES
I APPENDIX A - Water Balance Analysis J APPENDIX B - Water Well Logs 1 I APPENDIX C - Pump Test Data and Analysis I - C-1 - Main Well I - C-2 - New Highway Well I - C-3 - C1 Well I I
I APPENDIX D - Water Chemical Analysis Reports 1 et3a . 0808-88654 f Page 1 October 31, 1994
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a hydrogeological investigation of the Twin Lakes area. Twin Lakes is an area, located approximately 25 kilometres south-west of Penticton, B.C., which is characterized by two nearby lakes. The lakes appear to be known by more than one name however, for the purposes of this report, the southern lake will be referred to as Upper Twin Lake (also Horn Lake), while the northern lake will be referred to as Lower Twin Lake. Historically, the area was used for ranching. More recently, residential development near and adjacent to Lower Twin Lake, and golf Course development (Twin Lakes Golf Resort) north of the lakes has gradually changed the land use characteristics of the area.
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA) were retained in February, 1994, by Twin Lakes Golf Resort to investigate the hydrogeology of the Twin Lakes area. The purpose of the investigation is to determine groundwater feasibility and impacts of a proposed residential development, which is planned to be located on the property immediately east of the golf course. The history of development in the Twin Lakes area has always involved groundwater and water supply issues. Therefore, it is necessary that the groundwater conditions in the Twin Lakes basin, see Figure 1, be studied and understood in order to determine if the proposed development can proceed without causing unacceptable groundwater impacts. The hydrogeological investigation proposed by EBA was undertaken in two stages. The first stage involved a review of available information, some limited soils investigation and identification of critical issue related to the proposed development. A Stage 1 Report was prepared and submitted in May, 1994. That report included recommendations for a detailed Stage 2 investigation which would address the identified critical issues, analyze the hydrogeological regime and quantify any groundwater impacts of the proposed development. The Stage 2 investigation began in June, 1994, and was completed in October, 1994. This report presents the findings of the investigation and provides a quantitive assessment of groundwater issues related to the proposed development.
c eDa t ‘ 0808-88654 Page 2 October 31, 1994
4a 2.0 BACKGROUND i The Twin Lakes area was historically a ranching area, largely controlled by three ranches. The location of Twin Lakes Golf Resort was at one time cultivated for hay production by the lower of the three ranches. During the 196O’s, recreational use of the area increased as subdivision took place around Lower Twin Lake. Subdivision around the lake has continued to present day resulting in a large number of rural zoned residential lots surrounding the lake, except for a large portion of the western side of the lake. Some large holding lots and multi-residence land use contract areas have also been created adjacent to Lower Twin Lake. The Twin Lakes Golf Resort was initially developed as a nine hole course in 1975, on the lower portion of the existing course adjacent to Highway 3A. A second development expanding the course to 18 holes occurred in 1985. A five lot subdivision occurred at the southern boundary of the golf course in 1991. An additional six lot subdivision at the southern edge of the golf course was completed in July of this Year.
It is clear from review of available documents that concerns and disputes over the use of water in the Twin Lakes basin have dated back to the 1940’s and possibly earlier. Higher and lower lake levels appear to have resulted from periods of greater and lesser than normal precipitation. Available documents indicate that concerns and objections have consistently been raised with each development proposal including the subdivisions around Lower Twin Lake and the development of the Twin Lakes Golf Resort. The common theme to the concerns and objections has been the opinion that water resources will be depleted and that a detailed and thorough water basin analysis is required to assess the feasibility of any proposed development.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
9 i I The development which is being planned and proposed by Twin Lakes Golf Resort is located on the eastern slopes overlooking and bordering the golf course. A layout of the development is illustrated in Figure 2. ' 0808-88654 i Page 3 October 31, 1994
3.1 Proposed Residential Concept
The proposed development is entirely residential with a mixture of single family homes and townhomes. We understand the current configuration involves 172 homes, 48 two bedroom townhomes and 36 three bedroom townhomes. The 172 homes will include two, three and possibly four bedroom units. We further understand that the development will be a strata title development. It became clear very early in the hydrogeological investigation that any proposed development should incorporate water conservation measures to minimize or prevent impacts on the groundwater regime of the Twin Lakes basin. The underlying objective of the proposed development is to use little or no additional water (ie. little or no greater net withdrawal) than is currently occurring with the golf resort. To accomplish this objective the proposed residential development will incorporate water conservation fixtures in the housing design but more importantly will prevent the outside use of water for lawn and garden watering. Therefore, only domestic or indoor water use will occur and this water will return to the golf course via sewer service for spray irrigation purposes.
3.2 Proposed Servicing Concepts
Water supply for the proposed residential development will be delivered from an existing water well on the golf course property. Water will be pumped up to the development through water distribution mains and as discussed above, the same water will return to the golf course via a piped sewer system. It is proposed that the wastewater be retained in a pond and used to spray irrigate the golf course. During the hydrogeological investigation discussions with regulatory agencies were held to present the proposed concepts. Based on comments received, it was concluded that treatment of both the water supply and the wastewater should be incorporated in the i proposed infrastructure, with disinfection being a component of both treatment i ? systems. Improvements to the golf course irrigation system are also proposed in- conjunction with the residential development. These improvements are aimed at reducing water use and evaporation loss. The underlying objective of no greater net water withdrawal could therefore be accomplished if the losses associated with domestic use in the proposed development are off-set by gains made through improvements to the irrigation system. Analysis of this and other aspects of the Twin Lakes water basin was undertaken as part of the hydrogeological investigation. em 0808-88654 / Page 4 October 31, 1994
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
EBA was retained to undertake only the hydrogeological aspects of the project. The work involved review of available information, information and data collection, field investigations, interviewing local residents, pumping tests, water sampling, discussions with regulatory agencies, analysis and reporting. The primary objective of the hydrogeological work undertaken by EBA, is to determine whether sufficient water of adequate quality is available to support the proposed development. Work related to water treatment, sewage treatment, irrigation system design, storm water handling, water and sewer servicing and the planning and design of the residential development is not within the scope of work undertaken by EBA. These aspects are being addressed by others.
5.0 WATER BALANCE
5.1 General
The water balance equation is a quantitative method of describing the water budget in a watershed or drainage basin. If the surface water divides and groundwater divides of a basin coincide, the water balance equation for an annual period is:
P = Q + E + dS, + dSG
where P is the average annual precipitation over the basin, Q is the total of surface runoff and groundwater discharge, E is the average annual evapotranspiration (evaporation plus plant transpiration), dSs is the change in storage of the surface water reservoirs and dSG is the change in groundwater storage.* J f If the water balance is averaged over many years of records, it can be assumed that the change in storage is zero, and that precipitation is balanced by evapotranspiration and runoff. If average basin precipitation and evapotranspiration are then estimated from available climatic records, the available water resources of the basin can be estimated using the water balance.
1 Freeze, Rk and J.A Cheny, 1979. Groundwater Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersey. P.205. e erxl ~ .>. > '
0808-88654 Page 5 f I October 31, 1994
5.2 Description of Twin Lakes Bash
The Twin Lakes drainage basin is a north-south trending catchment approximately nine km long and one km to 3.5 km wide (see Figure 1). It rises to several mountain peaks in excess of 1,500 m elevation at the south end of the catchment.
The basin is drained by several tributaries of Horn Creek, which flows into Upper Twin Lake during spring freshet, and infiltrates to the ground south of Upper Twin Lake during drier periods. In high runoff years, water flows from Upper Twin Lake to Lower Twin-Lake for a period of several weeks, while during low runoff years, there is no surface flow between the lakes. There is no surface outlet from Lower Twin Lake.
i The major outlet from the Twin Lakes Basin is an infiled bedrock valley 300 m to 400 m wide which leads north, beneath the Twin Lakes Golf Resort, toward Trout Lake. There is no evidence of surface water flow within this valley, which is infilled with hummocky glacial outwash sands and gravels. From Trout Lake, the drainage basin follows a valley northeast to Marron Lake. Marama Creek occupies the lower portion of the valley, and is presumably fed by groundwater springs.
Two other potential outlets from the Twin Lakes drainage basin were identified. The first would be potential groundwater seepage eastwards from Lower Twin Lake to Park Rill Creek. Park Rill Creek drains a catchment located directly east of the Twin Lakes basin. The catchment of Park Rill Creek is substantially larger than the catchment of Twin Lakes.
Discussions with the former manager of the Twin Lakes Ranch indicated that the drilling of wells in the hay field directly east of Lower Twin Lakes had been attempted but was unsuccessful, and one abandoned 20 cm (eight inch) diameter well casing was located to confirm that drilling had occurred. An examination of Park Rill Creek in June 1994 did not locate any springs near Lower Twin Lake, and no apparent increase in stream flow was observed. (Several small springs totalling one L/s or less were located in a cow pasture approximately 1.5 km east of the lake, but were not thought to be related to the Twin Lakes drainage basin.) Therefore, in our opinion, eastward seepage to the Park Rill Catchment is either not occurring or is not a significant discharge route from the Twin Lakes Basin. ' 0808-88654 Page 6 October 31, 1994 c
The second potential outlet for seepage from Twin Lakes Basin is through an infUed valley located one km southwest of Upper Twin Lake. This valley, which is occupied by the Double SS Ranch, runs west for several kilometres, where it forms a hanging valley above Keremeos Creek near the Keremeos Forks Indian Reserve N0.s 12 and 12A.
Horn Creek passes through the upper end of this valley for a distance of a few dozen metres before it passes through a bedrock gap towards Upper Twin Lake. Freshet flows from Horn Creek have been diverted into this valley at least once to prevent flooding around Twin Lakes. A test hole drilled approximately 120 m southwest of Horn Creek indicated that the groundwater table in the valley was located at least 18 m below the creek bed elevation. This indicates that Horn Creek is not directly hydraulically connected to the groundwater system within this valley.
Some seepage through the creek bed likely infiltrates to the groundwater table within the valley, but given the short length and small width of the portion of the creek bed within the valley, and probable silting of the creek bed, seepage losses, if any, from Horn Creek to this valley are likely to be small. The bedrock gap between this valley and Upper Twin Lake will prevent any seepage losses from Twin Lakes to the valley.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the area of the Twin Lakes drainage basin by elevation. For purposes of this study, Highway 3A, which crosses the basin just above Trout Lake and forms the northern boundary of the golf course, is taken as the limit of the basin. Table 1 indicates that the catchment area of the basin is approximately 23 km2 (5,700acres), at an average elevation of 1,200 m (3,940 ft). Ninety per cent of the catchment is tributary to Twin Lakes, with only ten per cent tributary to the valley between Twin Lakes and Highway 3A. An additional f catchment area of approximately 14 km2, the Marama Creek catchment, is tributary to the drainage basin between Highway 3A and Marron Lake, Figure 1.
5.3 Estimation of Climatic Data
In order to carry out a basin water balance, it is necessary to estimate average precipitation and evapotranspiration. Climatological records provide data on historical precipitation at nearby weather station sites, however, available site data &E eDa / 0808-88654 I Page 7 October 31, 1994
is generally outside the basin of interest and provides data for one location, not the overall basin. Actual evapotranspiration is estimated from temperature and . precipitation records as well as, depending on the method of estimation selected, sunlight, wind velocity, humidity and/or pan evaporation data. Much of this data is only available at key weather stations (generally airports).
For the present study, the empirical Thornethwaite method2 was used to estimate potential and actual evapotranspiration. This method has been verified by basin studies, is used by Environment Canada, and requires only mean temperature and total precipitation data, which is widely available.
In order to estimate the average evapotranspiration for the basin, it was first necessary to estimate mean temperature and total precipitation data for the basin location and average elevation. Within a given geographic area, temperature decreases relatively constantly with elevation. Precipitation is more complicated, varying with factors such as direction of exposure and wind conditions, but generally increases with increasing elevation within the Okanagan region.
Table A-1 in Appendix A summarizes the available Environment Canada climate -- I 7 stations in the southern Okanagan region. Eleven stations within of the site I 64 km provide temperature data, while fifteen provide precipitation data. Figure A-1 in Appendix A shows the relationship between elevation and mean annual temperature for these climate stations. A linear regression (shown) provided a good fit to the data (goodness of fit coefficient R=0.99) for the relationship:
T2 = TI - 0.0061 deg C/m x (h2 - h,)
where: T is the mean temperature at a location in degrees Celsius and h is the i elevation of the location in metres. i I
2 Thornethwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1957. Instructions and tables for computing evapotranspiration and the water balance. Drexel Institute of Technology, Laboratory of Climatology, Publications in Climatology Vol. X No. 3, pp. 185-311. c em 0808-88654 i/ Page 8 October 31, 1994 <
The relationship between elevation and precipitation was found to be more complex. Based on 30 year climate normal mean monthly total precipitation values, the precipitation at a higher climate station was found to be related to the precipitation at a lower station and the difference in elevation between the stations. Based on linear regressions, the following relationship was derived:
P2 = Pi x [I + C x (h2 - h,)]
where: P is total monthly precipitation in millimetres; C is a proportionality constant equal to approdmately 0.0012 mm/m in winter and 0.0010 mm/m in summer, and; h is elevation in metres. This relationship is illustrated for wet, normal and dry conditions in January on Figure A-2 and in July on Figure A-3.
The Canadian Department of Agriculture (CDA) research station near Summerland was selected as the nearest climate station with a long, continuous period of record. Monthly mean temperature and total precipitation data for Summerland CDA, obtained from the Environment Canada computerized data, provide continuous temperature data from 1916 to 1990 (75 years) and precipitation data from 1916 to 1993 (78 years). This data is presented on Tables A-2 and A-3 in Appendix A.
5.4 Precipitation, Evapotranspiration and the Basin Water Balance
Mean monthly temperature and total precipitation data for the entire period of record at Summerland CDA was corrected to the average elevation of the Twin Lakes basin above Highway 3A (1,200 m) and used to conduct a Thornethwaite climate water balance (Table A-4). The basin climate water balance indicates that the estimated total precipitation at the average basin elevation of 1,200 m is approximately 530 mm/year (21 in/yr).
A soil retention value of 100 mm of water is used in estimating actual evapotranspiration. This may be in excess of the actual moisture-holding capacity of the soil in the root zone, given the fact that much of the basin is rocky, with very little soil cover. A high value of soil moisture retention will overestimate evapotranspiration and underestimate runoff, (recharge) so this value is considered somewhat conservative for estimating basin runoff (basin recharge).
0 . eDa 0808-88654 1: Page 9 October 31, 1994
The climate water balance (Table A-4) indicates that the estimated average basin actual evapotranspiration is 375 mm/yr (15 in/yr), with a moisture deficit of an additional 140 mm/yr (5.5 in/yr) occurring in summer. Excess precipitation accumulates primarily as snow during the winter. Surface runoff and groundwater recharge (runoff) occur only once per year, during freshet ("spring melt"). This occurs in April for the average basin elevation, although also likely in March at the elevation of Twin Lakes and the golf resort, and later at high elevations.
Based on the mean data for the period of record at the Summerland CDA station, interpolated to the average basin elevation, the Thornethwaite climate water balance estimates that the combined volume of surface runoff and groundwater recharge in the basin is approximately 156 mm/yr (6.2 in/yr). Over the basin area of 23.1 km2, this would equal an average estimated basin runoff (recharge) of 3,600,000 m3/yr, or 2,900 acre-ft/yr, or 114 L/s, or 1,500 Igpm.
The climatic records for Summerland CDA were reviewed to establish the worst-case one, three and five-year drought conditions within the 78 year period covered by the precipitation records. From the Thomethwaite climate water balance described above, it was evident that total runoff (basin recharge) was dependent on the amount of winter precipitation and snowpack; excess precipitation during summer is available for plant use, but does not run off (it does not recharge the groundwater system). Therefore, the precipitation for the period November to April was totalled and averaged over one, three and five-year periods (Table A-3).
The periods with the highest and lowest average total precipitations are highlighted on Table A-3. The driest winter period on record was 1930-31. The driest winters over a three-year period occurred from 1928 to 1931 and over a five-year period from 1952 to 1957. Conversely, the wettest winter on record was 1949-1950, which i would be expected to have caused high lake levels in the Twin Lakes in the spring of 1950. Other recent years with very high spring run-off would have been 1972, 1978 and 1983.
Thomethwaite climate water balance calculations were carried out over the periods of the worst one, three and five-year drought periods identified above. The results and calculated basin runoff for those periods are summarized on Table 2. For the driest year on record (1930-31), essentially no runoff (recharge) would have c em 0808-88654 ( (- Page 10 October 31, 1994
occurred, and water demands within the basin would have to be met by groundwater and surface water storage. Over the driest three-year period, the average basin runoff (recharge) is estimated to have been 1,000,OOO m3/yr. Over the driest five- year period, the average basin runoff (recharge) is estimated to have been 1,500,000 m3/yr.
Based on the dimensions of the valley aquifer from above Upper Twin Lakes to Highway 3A and an assumed long-term specific yield of 0.3, groundwater storage is estimated to be 300,000 m3 per metre of water-table change in elevation. Surface water storage i;n the combined Twin Lakes is approximately 500,000 m3 per metre change in lake level. Historic changes in the level of Lower Twin Lake are in excess of 3 m, with the higher extremes limited by diversion of water out of the i basin.
If runoff during drought periods is assumed to include a change in storage of 2,400,000 m3 (3 m change in surface and groundwater levels) during that period, then the total runoff during the worst-case droughts would be: one year, 2,400,000 m3/yr; three year, 1,800,000 m3/yr, and; five year, 2,000,000 m3/yr. It appears that minimum basin runoff would occur over a three-year drought, and i would average about 50% of normal basin runoff. This assumes, however, that the change in storage occurs over the entire period of drought, which may not be the case for long drought periods. It would be more conservative for planning purposes, however, to use the five-year values of runoff, which neglect changes in storage (1,500,000 m3/yr or 42% of normal runoff).
Therefore, for the purposes of this report, the basin runoff (and therefore total groundwater flux beneath the Twin Lakes Golf Resort) is assumed to be the estimated runoff during the worst historical five-year drought period, neglwting changes in surface and groundwater storage. This value is 1,500,000 m3/yr or 1,200 acre-ft/yr or 48 Wsor 630 Igpm.
i I 0808-88654 (' Page 11 October 31, 1994
6.0 AQUIFER TRANSMISSMTY AND ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER FLOW
The water balance, described in Section 5.0 above, provided an estimate of total basin runoff. As described, the entire basin runoff occurs as groundwater flux within the valley aquifer beneath the golf course. Therefore, measurement or estimation of the aquifer geometry, transmissivity and gradient provide a comparative and independent estimation on the quantity of groundwater flux out of the basin at the time of the field investigation (September 1994). Existing water wells on the golf course property were used for this calculation. A summary of existing wells on the golf course is provided in Table 3. Well logs are included in Appendix B.
6.1 Aquifer Geometry and Gradient
The aquifer beneath the golf course consists of coarse-grained sand and gravel glacial outwash within a glacial-carved, "U"-shaped bedrock valley. Reported depths to bedrock vary between 22 m and 76 my however, the known saturated thickness of sand and gravel beneath the golf course varied between 10.4 m at the i South well to 19.6 m at the C1 well at the time of the investigation. The valley walls average approximately 400 m apart at ground surface, but, due to the slope of the walls, the average width of the saturated aquifer is estimated to be 300 m.
The water table gradient was evaluated by surveying wells and surface water bodies, and then monitoring water levels within the wells. A level survey was carried out on June 7, 1994 and referenced to Geodetic bench mark 1456J, near the intersection of Highway 3A and Twin Lake Road. Staff gauges have been established by B.C. Ministry of Environment in Lower Twin Lakes, so the surveyed water level could 3 be related to present and ''normal" water levels within the lake. There is no staff -! gauge in Trout Lake, so the water level in the lake was monitored only on June 7.
The results of the survey and water level monitoring are presented on Table 4. Monitoring data is presented for both June 7 and September 23, 1994. The approximate distances between monitoring points along the centreline of the aquifer are indicated, and the hydraulic gradient between observation points are calculated.
-i V & eba 0808-88654 ( Page 12 October 31, 1994 (--
Lower Twin Lake has a water level 13 m above the water table elevation in the nearest observation well. This suggests that Lower Twin Lake receives its inflow primarily from surface runoff from Upper Twin Lake and Horn Creek, and discharges by vertical leakage through the lake bed to the aquifer. A component of groundwater seepage likely occurs from infiltration of surface water from Horn Creek, south of Upper Twin Lake, and from leakage from Upper Twin Lake. This portion of groundwater seepage would be expected to underflow Lower Twin Lake.
The water table between the South Well and Trout Lake declines 16.3 m over a distance of approximately 1,600 m (one mile). This is an average gradient of 0.010 (1.0%). Local gradients vary between 0.003 and 0.022, with the steepest gradient occurring between C1 well and the Domestic/Main wells near the end of a dry irrigation season.
The water level in Lower Twin Lake declined 0.33 m between June 6 and September 23. This period was very dry, with irrigation of the golf course occurring essentially continuously. The water table declined between 0.45 m and 0.58 m during this period at the South, C1 and New Highway wells. The water table at the Domestic well declined 2.5 m during this time. Although the Main and Domestic wells were off at the time of monitoring, the decline of the water table at the Domestic well reflects the drawdown cone of the Main well after over three months of continuous pumping.
6.2 Estimation of Aquifer Transmissivity
The transmissivity of the aquifer was estimated by conducting pumping and recovery tests of the Main and New Highway golf course irrigation wells using the installed pumps. Pumping test data, well hydrographs and semi-log plots of drawdown and recovery data are included in Appendix C. The results of a pump test of the C1 well was also analysed and assessed.
e eba ’ 0808-88654 Page 13 October 31, 1994
The pumping test of the Main well was conducted on September 22, 1994. The well was allowed to recover for 20 hours, after pumping continuously for over three months. A 4.6 hour pumping test was conducted, then recovery was monitored for 15 hours. As there is no provision for measuring water levels in the well, a 50 mm diameter PVC piezometer was installed 11.3 m west of the well using a hollow stem auger drilling rig.
Discharge was to the sprinklers of the golf course irrigation system. There is no provision for measuring discharge, so well discharge pressure was monitored and, once stabilized, the flow at each sprinkler head was measured with a pail and stop watch. Allowing for a 10% loss due to domestic consumption during the test and to leakage within the irrigation piping, the flow rate was estimated to be 25 L/s (330 Igpm). As the system back pressure was lower than during normal sprinkling, due to more sprinkler heads operating, this flow rate is thought to be somewhat in excess of the normal flow rate during irrigation.
Pump testing of the New Highway well was conducted later on September 22, during recovery testing of the Main well. The well, which had been off for several days, was pumped for a period of 5.5 hours, then recovery was monitored for 8.5 hours. Water levels were measured in the Old Highway well, 2.9 m northwest, after sounding indicated that only the lower half of the screens within the old well had collapsed.
Discharge was again to the irrigation system, with the flow rate estimated in a similar manner as 16 Ws (210 Igpm). As the New Highway well normally operates at the -same time as the Main well in order to boost pressures at the south end of the irrigation system, the New Highway well was operating at much lower discharge pressures than during irrigation. As the pump is thought to be relatively low head (20 HP, 210 Igpm), it is thought that the well discharge during irrigation is much less than that measured during pump testing. ' 0808-88654 ( Page 14 October 31, 1994
Analysis of the drawdown and recovery data was conducted using the methods of Jacob Semi-Log and Theis Recovery, as described in Kruseman and de Ridder (1976)3. Initially, the valley aquifer acts as an infinite aquifer, however, when the expanding cone of depression intersects bedrock valley walls boundary effects influence drawdown. The effect of the nearer bedrock wall is analyzed by assuming that there is an "image" well located an equal distance on the other side of the wall. The effect of a perfect barrier boundary is to double the slope of semi-log drawdown rate, and can be analyzed by doubling the discharge rate. When the further valley wall is intersected by the drawdown cone, image wells of both the real and the first image wells are required for analysis, and the slope of the semi-log drawdown curve again doubles.
The results of analysis of the three pumping tests are summarized on Table 5. The drawdown data from the C1 Well (Appendix C-3) does not provide a good estimate of the aquifer transmissivity due to well losses, and the absence of a nearby observation well. The recovery data does however provide a good estimate.
The first leg of drawdown in the Main well was lost due to decreasing flow rates for the first fifteen minutes of the test. The straight-line segments of the drawdown curve all provide good estimates of the aquifer transmissivity, as do four segments in the recovery data. (Note that the third barrier boundary would be the reflection of the second bedrock wall by the first bedrock wall; a pumping test of infinite duration would require, in theory, an infinite number of image wells for analysis.)
The first leg of the drawdown curve for the New Highway well is quite steep, indicating that the local soils near the well are less permeable than the overall aquifer. The second leg of the drawdown curve provides a consistent estimate of aquifer transmissivity, while the second leg of recovery appears to provide an inconsistently high estimate. No effects of bedrock walls were noted during the 5.5 hour test of the New Highway well; this is likely due to the reduced hydraulic connection between the well and the overall aquifer.
3 Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. de Ridder, 1976. Analysis and Evaluation of PumDing Test Data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Waginingen, The Netherlands, Bulletin 11, pp. 59-68, 115-120. 8. 0808-88654 I\ i Page 15 October 31, 1994
The average transmissivity of the aquifer, based on the results of the three pump tests (Table 5), is estimated to be approximately 4,000 m2/day (270,000 IgaVday/ft).
The storativity estimates based on early-time pump test data, indicated on Table 5, are representative of a confined or semi-confined aquifer. Over a period of hours to days, the aquifer storativity value would be expected to increase to a typical specific yield for a coarse sand and gravel (say, 0.3).
6.3 Estimated Groundwater Flux and Seepage Velocity
I I The aquifer geometry, gradient and average transmissivity have been assessed in the I above two sections. Using these values, the flux of groundwater through the aquifer 1 beneath the golf course can be estimated from D’Arcy’s law of groundwater flow by:
Q=T*w*i
where: Q is the flux in m3/day; T is the average transmissivity in m2/day; w is the average width of the saturated aquifer in m, and; i is the hydraulic gradient (dimensionless). Substituting the parameters estimated above:
Q = 4,000 m2/day * 300 m * 0.010 ,I
Q = 12,000 m3/day = 140 L/s = 1,800 Igpm
This value is slightly in excess of the average basin runoff estimate from the water balance of 114 L/s (1,500 Igpm). Climate conditions over the last few years have been near average, and lake levels are very slightly above normal. This agreement between independent estimates of basin runoff and, therefore, groundwater flow, provides additional confidence in the estimates of normal and drought runoff conditions derived from water balance calculations for the basin.
Assuming an average saturated thickness of 15 metres and an effective porosity of I .3, the average groundwater seepage velocity beneath the golf course is calculated to be approximately 9 metredday. i 0808-88654 (r Page 16 October 31, 1994 c-
7.0 PRESENT AND PROPOSED WATER USAGE
7.1 Present Water Usage in the Twin Lakes Basin
7.1.1 Domestic Water Use
Based on Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen draft legal plans, there are approximately 130 residential and large holding lots within the Twin Lakes basin above Highway 3A and around Trout Lake. This includes multi-residence larip use contract areas adjacent to Lower Twin Lake (the former Twin Lakes Dude Ranch). There is approximately ten additional lots on the valley floor between Trout Lake and Manon Lake. These are not included in our calculations, as the catchment area for this valley has also not been included in the water balance calculations.
Present potable water consumption has been estimated based on the following assumptions, which are intended to be somewhat conservative:
0 all presently subdivided lots have a residence 0 each residence is occupied by an average of four people 0 each residence is occupied year-round 0 each resident uses an average of 50 Igal of water per day e the 38 golf course RV site uses 100 Igpd for 180 days/yr 0 the golf course restaurant and locker rooms uses 3,000 Igpd for 180 days/yr the golf course offices, shop and two residences use 600 Igpd for 365 days/yr
Based on the above assumptions, the estimated withdrawal rate for domestic water usage is 31,000 Igpd (21 Igpm, 1.6 L/s).
The fate of most water used for potable (domestic) purposes in the basin is discharge to septic fields, where it is renovated and eventually infiltrates down to the aquifer. Leakage from distribution piping would also infiltrate to the aquifer. Thus, most water is used, then recirculated to the aquifer. To assess the aquifer water balance, we have assumed that 90% of the water returns to the aquifer and 10% is lost to evaporation, plant watering et cetera. The net average withdrawal rate for potable (domestic) water is then estimated to be 0.16 L/s or 2.1 Igpm. 0808-88654 I Page 17 October 31, 1994 (.-
7.1.2 Irrigation Usage
Irrigation usage has been estimated in terms of ranch, private residence and golf course irrigation usage.
According to a review of water licenses at the Kelowna office of the B.C Water Management Branch, there are currently two irrigation water licenses totalling 54.5 acre-ft/yr (67,200 m3/yr) on Horn Creek and 218.42 acre-ft/yr (269,430 m3/yr) on Horn Lake. These licenses, which total approximately 10%of the estimated average basin runoff and 22% of the estimated 5-year drought runoff, are thought to be held by Twin Lake Ranch.
We understand through discussions with the then manager of the Twin Lakes Ranch that, due to lack of water in Horn Creek, no irrigation water is taken from the creek. We further understand that, due to direct impacts on the level of Horn Lake, irrigation water is only taken from the lake during high runoff years. We verified that the present irrigation water intake can only draw water down to a level 0.6 m above the level set as "normal" (13.5 feet on the staff gauge) by the Water Management Branch.
The Lower Nipit Improvement District has a license to divert up to 200 acre-ft/yr (247,000 m3/yr) from Horn Creek for flood control purposes. This water would be used for irrigation outside of the basin limits. This diversion last occurred in approximately 1983.
We therefore assume that no irrigation of ranch land occurs under normal or drought conditions.
Some private residences were observed to irrigate their land, while others were not. However, for purposes of estimating the basin water balance, it was assumed that all 130 existing lots are irrigated with a garden house running at 5 Igpm for an average of 4 hours/day for the entire 180 day irrigation season. The average withdrawal rate for the purposes of lawn and garden watering at private residences is therefore assumed to be 54 Igpm (4.0 Us) on an annual average basis. It is further assumed that no overwatering takes place, so that this entire amount of water
I is lost to the aquifer. Quite likely some of this water does reinfiltrate to the water 3 0808-88654 Page 18 October 31, 1994
table, however for the purposes of our analysis we assume that all water is lost due to evapotranspiration.
The golf course irrigates continuously using a manual and an automatic system for much of the irrigation season. The pumping rates and operating periods of the two irrigation wells at the course cannot be accurately defined, but it is estimated that the wells pump an average of 380 Igpm, 24 hours a day, for an average of 180 days each year. This corresponds to a withdrawal rate of 188 Igpm (14.3 L/s) on an average annual basis.
The majority of irrigation water is used by the grass to offset the moisture deficit, which is estimated to be 0.4 m/yr. Another significant portion of the water is lost to direct evaporation; this portion is thought to be much higher on the manual system, which uses less controlled sprinkling during daylight hours, than the automatic system, which uses highly controlled sprinkling during the cool night period. It is assumed that 30% of the water sprayed is lost to direct evaporation.
A portion of the irrigation water on the golf course must infiltrate in order to prevent build-up of alkali salts in the shallow soil. This portion is assumed to be the difference between the amount pumped, the assumed losses to evaporation and the plant usage. Based on an irrigated area of approximately 150 acres (60 hectares), the fate of irrigation water is estimated as follows:
Volume pumped: 450,000 m3/yr Evaporation losses: 30% * 450,000 135,000 m3/yr Plant Uptake: 0.4 m * 600,000 m2 240.000 m3/yr Infiltration to Aquifer: 75,000 m3/yr
75,000 m3/irrigation season equals 2.4 L/s (31 Igpm) on an annual average basis. 1 Therefore, total irrigation usage is estimated on an average annual basis as:
em I. ~ ' 0808-88654 i'.' Page 19 October 31, 1994
- PumDed Re-infiltrated Net Withdrawal -1 Ranch: 0 0 0 Residential: 54 Igpm 0 54 Igpm Golf Course: 188 Imm 31 Imm 157 Imm Total: 242 Igpm 31 Igpm 211 Igpm
7.1.3 Total Present Water Usage
The total present water usage, assuming full development of all presently subdivided lots in the basin, is estimated as follows:
Pumped Re-infiltrated Net Withdrawal
Domestic: 21 Igpm 19 Igpm 2.1 Igpm Irrigation : 242 Imm 31 IgDm 211 Imm Total: 262 Igpm 50 Igpm 213 Igpm
The estimated average basin runoff is 1,500 Igpm under average conditions and 630 Igpm under five-year drought conditions. Therefore, net withdrawal is estimated to be 14% of average basin runoff and 34% of basin runoff during worst historic five- year drought conditions.
7.2 Effects of Proposed Development
The proposed development plan consists of constructing 48 two bedroom townhouses, 36 three bedroom townhouses and 172 detached residences (assumed to average three bedrooms each). For purposes of estimating domestic water usage, it is assumed that the two bedroom townhouses will be occupied by an average of three persons each, while the three bedroom townhouses and detached residences will be occupied by four persons each. This would be a total of 976 residents. As with assumptions throughout this study, these values are intended to be slightly conservative (overestimate water supply requirements).
8 ' 0808-88654 i Page 20 October 31, 1994
The domestic water supply requirements are therefore estimated as 976 persons times 50 Igpd equals 48,800 Igpd (34 Igpm or 2.6 LIS). Again, it is assumed that 90% of the potable water enters the sewage system and 10% is lost.
It is proposed that the wastewater from the development would be treated, held in a storage lagoon, disinfected, and used to spray irrigate the northern portion of the golf course. Some of the wastewater would therefore be lost as evaporation from the lagoon, while the remainder would directly offset pumping for irrigation requirements. Based on year-round evaporation from a 2 acre sewage lagoon, it is conservatively estimated that 3,400 Igpd (2.4 Igpm) would be lost to evaporation. Any leakage from the lined lagoon would re-enter the groundwater system. The domestic water requirement of the proposed development would be 34 Igpm minus 10% loss minus 2.4 Igpm evaporation equals 28 Igpm (2.2 L/s). Golf course irrigation pumping would therefore be reduced by the same 28 Igpm on an annual average basis (57 Igpm over the 180 day imgation season), resulting in an increase to the net basin withdrawal rate of 6 Igpm (the above estimated losses), or 3% of estimated present usage.
The golf course plans to upgrade the manual portion of their irrigation system to a more efficient automatic system, which irrigates during the night. This will have the effect of reducing evaporation losses during irrigation, resulting in decreased net withdrawals from the basin. For example, if it is assumed that evaporation losses can be reduced from 30 % of total water sprayed to 25 % of total water sprayed, the decrease in the net basin withdrawal would be 9 Igpm. This would more than offset the domestic water supply net requirements of 6 Igpm estimated above.
It is recognized that, if allowed, lawn and garden watering will cause the greatest I increase in net basin withdrawals. Therefore, we understand that Twin Lakes Golf Resort propose to restrict the residential development to dryland landscaping with 7 no outside watering. Based on the assumption of 1,500 Igpd for individual lot lawn and garden watering, a development of this size could use an estimated 105 Igpm (8.0 L/s) on an annual average basis for sprinkling, which would be a net I withdrawal (loss) from the basin. This could increase total basin withdrawal to 1 327 Igpm (25 L/s), or 52% of the estimated historic worst five year drought basin runoff. This would be an increase of 54% over present estimated water usage
I (assuming full development of existing subdivided lots). Given that the objective of ! 0808-88654 jl.2 i' Page 21 October 31, 1994
- the proposed development is to cause no net increase of present estimated water f usage, it is clear that preventing lawn and garden watering will be essential to achieving the objective. Further, a significant increase in water usage as calculated above could potentially cause significant, changes in basin storage and chemical equilibrium and we therefore, do not recommend permitting any significant net increase in water usage. A summary of estimated present and proposed water usage is presented in Table 6.
8.0 EVALUATION OF C1 WELL
Twin Lakes Golf Resort propose to use an existing but unused well, the C1 well, as the source of water for the proposed development. The C1 well has not ever been - i I tested for well yield nor has the water been sampled for chemical analysis. The C1 well has remained unused since it was constructed in 1984.
The C1 well is located approximately 200 m south of the RV park within the Twin Lakes Golf Resort (see Figure 2). It is located in a dry depression, and is constructed with 168 mm outside diameter steel casing, which was slotted and bent over to seal the well.
The driller's log (Appendix B) indicates that this well was drilled in 1984 by Capri Drilling of Kelowna. The well is 46.6 m in total depth, with 2.4 m of 50 slot screen set between 44.2 m and 46.6 m below ground surface. The lithology log indicates that soils encountered were sands and gravels from surface to 46.6 m. This is consistent with other borehole logs for wells south of and within the Twin Lakes Golf Resort.
In order to evaluate the safe yield of the C1 well and to obtain arepresentative water I sample for laboratory analysis, a 24 hour pumping test was conducted by Moores i Well and Pump Service of Vernon, B.C. on September 28 and 29, 1994. The well was pumped at four increasing discharge steps over the first 100 minutes of the test, with a constant rate of 9.5 L/s (125 Igpm) maintained for the duration of the test. Well discharge was piped to a second dry depression approximately 150 m northwest (125 m downgradient) and allowed to infiltrate to the ground.
* em 0808-88654 i' Page 22 October 31, 1994
- The static water level was reported to be 25.0 m below ground surface at the time <1 of drilling. Static water level was measured at 26.46 m below ground surface on June 7, 1994, 27.04 m below ground surface on September 23, 1994 and 27.07 m below ground surface (27.64 m below datum) at the time of the pump test on September 28, 1994.
Water levels were monitored in the pumping well throughout the test and for a period of 60 minutes after termination of pumping. In order to evaluate potential well interference, water levels in the nearest well, a six-lot subdivision well not yet in service located 150 m south of C1 well and referred to as the South well, were monitored periodically throughout the test. Water levels and drawdown throughout the pumping and recovery period are tabulated in Appendix C-3. A pump test -1 hydrograph as well as semi-log drawdown and recovery plots are also included in Appendix C-3. No data is tabulated for the South well, as the variation of water levels in the well were less than the accuracy of measurement (0.01 m) throughout the test.
The total drawdown at the end of the pumping test was 5.30 m, and was nearly stabilized (0.03 m decline in the last eight hours of the test). The step test indicated that the specific capacity of the well declined with increasing flow rates (see plot in Appendix C-3). This suggests that the well is relatively inefficient, and that the drawdown in the aquifer was much less than the drawdown within the well. Monitoring of recovery confirmed this, as water levels recovered 96% within the first minute and 97% after one hour.
Based on an assumed pump intake setting 3 m above the screen (41 m below ground surface), 38% of the available drawdown was used after 24 hours of pumping at 9.5 Lls, and drawdown was essentially stabilized. The maximum yield of the-well is therefore in excess of this pumping rate, however, well capacity has been shown '1d to decrease with increasing pumping rate. Therefore, we recommend that the maximum long-term safe yield of the C1 well be considered 9.5 L/s (125 Igpm) unless confirmed by a pumping test at higher flow rates. The diameter of the casing (168 mm O.D.) will also impose practical limits on the size of pump which can be installed in this well.
i
-4 ' 0808-88654 i Page 23 October 31, 1994
-7 A sample of discharge water was obtained near the end of the pumping test and d - submitted within 24 hours to J.B. Laboratories of Victoria B.C. for chemical and bacteriological testing. The laboratory report is included in Appendix D. The results indicate that the water is hard (total hardness 257 mg/L as CaCOJ and moderately highly mineralized (total dissolved solids 410 mg/L). The sample contained total iron and manganese in excess of the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines for these parameters (iron 0.76 mg/L, limit 0.30 mg/L, manganese 0.35 mg/L, limit 0.05 mg/L). All other measured parameters were below the drinking water guidelines. No total or faecal coliform bacteria were detected.
The limits for iron and manganese are based on aesthetic rather than health considerations. High iron and manganese concentrations may cause objectionable - staining, taste and odour problems. The water would therefore be considered safe to drink but would likely require treatment to meet aesthetic objectives for hardness, iron and manganese. Treatment systems are available for these parameters.
The C1 well is located approximately 100 m from the nearest subdivided lot upgradient. It is located in excess of 150 m from the nearest existing septic system upgradient to the south, and approximately 200 m from the R.V. park septic system downgradient to the north. The large thickness of unsaturated sand and gravel soils in the area of the well (25 m to 40 m) makes the probability of septic impacts on the aquifer very slight.
The C1 well is not equipped with a surface seal or surface casing. It is doubtful that a surface casing would be effective, given the coarse-grained nature of the soil between ground surface and the water table. Therefore, we recommend that a surface seal which directs water away from the ground surface around the well casing be constructed when the well is put into service. The well casing should also be equipped with a sanitary seal.
Although the water sample contained no detectable coliform bacteria, the pump test contractor reported evidence of surface material in the bottom of the well. Therefore, we recommend that the well be cleaned and chlorinated before being placed in service as a potable water supply.
eDa * 0808-88654 I (- Page 24 October 31, 1994
7- 9.0 EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY -: In order to evaluate the present quality of groundwater and potential impacts of development on groundwater in the basin, samples were collected from on-site wells, Lower Twin Lake and Trout Lake on two occasions. The results of analyses of selected parameters are summarized on Table 7. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix D.
Groundwater chemistry in the valley is consistently hard and moderately highly mineralized. Total dissolved solids increase from approximately 300 mg/L in Lower Twin Lake to approximately 500 mg/L in the New Highway well, then decrease sightly to approximately 420 mg/L in Trout Lake. The trend of increasing mineralization is due primarily to increases in calcium, alkalinity (together hardness), and sulphate down the valley. The increase is relatively steady down the valley, suggesting that the groundwater is dissolving minerals as it goes. Alternately, re- infiltrating septic and irrigation water may be carrying increased mineralization to the aquifer.
Manganese occurred at concentrations above the Drinking Water Guidelines’ aesthetic objectives in all wells except the South (new six lot subdivision) well. Iron was less consistent, exceeding the aesthetic objective at the C1 well and the Domestic well, but not at the nearby Main well nor the Highway well.
There were no significant changes in major chemical parameters between samples collected in June and those collected in September. Nutrient concentrations were low in all samples, suggesting that the aquifer is not currently being impacted by septic disposal or leaching of nutrients from fertilized agricultural (if any) or the golf course.
Total coliform bacteria, an indicator of contamination by surface seepage, was detected in the Domestic well sample and one of two samples from the New Highway well. The first sample from the Main well had high total coliforms, but this was likely due to sampling from a new and improperly flushed water line; the September sample did not contain detectable coliforms.
J . .:...... 1... .: ...... : !. .. :-:.,.I_ ,..,
0808-88654 Page 25 October 31, 1994
1 Total and faecal coliforms were detected in both samples from Lower Twin Lake i l and Trout Lake. The June sample from Trout Lake exceeded bathing standards, while all samples exceeded drinking water guidelines. It is not clear based on this limited sampling whether the coliform bacteria are due to septic disposal impacts, agricultural runoff or wildlife. As the sampling was done at one location on the shoreline of each lake, it is not clear how widespread the contamination is within the lakes.
1 The results of the chemical analyses indicate that the groundwater beneath the site is highly mineralized, and any further increase in mineralization would likely deteriorate its quality for down-gradient users. The high hardness, iron and 1 manganese concentrations indicate the need for treatment for aesthetic purposes prior 4 to use as a municipal water supply. I
Given the existing level of mineralization of groundwater in the Twin Lake basin, and an expected increase in total dissolved solids (TDS)of wastewater returning from domestic use, a high TDS and salt level of spray irrigated wastewater would be unacceptable to grass and plant growth and to groundwater quality.
Any household or individual ion-exchange treatment, such as water softeners, would result in higher total concentrations of minerals and disposal of salt-rich treatment brines within the basin. Wastewater disposal by spray irrigation would result in further concentration of minerals returning to the aquifer due to evaporation and plant uptake of moisture. Therefore, a community water treatment option that would reduce total mineralization as well as hardness, iron and manganese prior to domestic use is recommended to prevent impacts to irrigated grasses and plants and to groundwater quality in the basin. Any brines or waste solutions from water treatment should be properly disposed of outside the basin.
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A hydrogeological investigation of the Twin Lakes area has been completed by EBA I Engineering Consultants Ltd. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether there is adequate quantity and quality of groundwater to support a residential development, being proposed by Twin Lakes Golf Resort, without causing unacceptable impacts. The investigation studied and analyzed the Twin Lakes water
I. em 5 0808-88654 (" Page 26 October 31, 1994 <
basin; the hydrogeology of the aquifer underlying the Twin Lakes Golf Resort; and the surface and groundwater chemistry in the study area. Based on investigations carried out, the following conclusions have been reached:
e The Twin Lakes water basin (catchment) occupies an area of approximately 23 km2.
e Based on analysis of climatological data over a period of 75 years, it is concluded that annual recharge to the water basin is equivalent to 1500 Igpm for normal years and 630 Igpm for worst case 5 year extended dry periods.
e Water flow through the basin is from south to north and is entirely groundwater flow beneath the Twin Lakes Golf Resort. The average hydraulic gradient of the groundwater table from Lower Twin Lake to Trout Lake is .01. The average transmissivity of the aquifer beneath the golf course is approximately 4000 m2/day. The saturated thickness of the aquifer ranges from about 10 to 20 m. Assuming an effective porosity of .3 the average seepage velocity of groundwater flowing from Lower Twin Lake to Trout Lake is calculated to be approximately 9 m/day.
e Current water losses in the Twin Lakes basin caused by domestic and irrigation water use is estimated to be equivalent to 213 Igpm or 34%of the 630 Igpm annual recharge flow through the basin for the worst case 5 year extended dry period.
e Assuming certain design assumptions and concepts, including preventing lawn and garden watering, it is estimated that total water basin losses will be reduced to 209 Igpm with the addition of the proposed residential development. This assumes that domestic water (wastewater) is returned to ...3 the golf course where it will be used for spray irrigation, and that improvements to the existing golf course irrigation system will more than off- set losses which occur through domestic use and pond evaporation.
I em 0808-88654 Page 27 October 31, 1994
e If some outside watering of selected and limited areas in the proposed development is desired, there is some capacity to do this.. A very minor increase in net basin withdrawal would not create unacceptable impacts. Any significant increase however, would likely cause changes in water levels and water chemistry that would be unacceptable. A scheme that involves selected areas of timed, drip irrigation, for example, could result in little or no increase in net basin withdrawal and therefore, would be consistent with development objectives. However, unless there is a mechanism to control and restrict such a scheme and prevent abuses by individuals, it is recommended that no outside watering be permitted at all.
e Twin Lakes Golf Resort propose to use a currently unused water well, the i C1 well, to supply water for the proposed development. Groundwater quality from the C1 well is characterized by high hardness and total dissolved solids (TDS) as well as concentrations of iron and manganese which are above limits for aesthetic considerations. If this water is used untreated or treated by household ion-exchange type treatment the resulting wastewater quality will likely have levels of dissolved solids and certain salts which will impact vegetation and ultimately groundwater quality when the wastewater is spray irrigated on the golf course. Community water treatment is required to prevent these impacts and to bring the water to within acceptable levels for use as a potable supply.
e The long term safe yield of the C1 well is currently estimated to be 125 Igpm. This yield estimate can be re-evaluated if higher rate pumping and drawdown data demonstrate increased yield potential. The 6 inch nominal I diameter of the well will limit the size of pump which can be used in the well. Surface protection, a sanitary seal and chlorination of the well are required before the well can be used as a potable source.
e Storm water runoff from the proposed development should remain within the basin. It is recommended that the runoff be directed to infiltration basins, where the water can percolate though the large thickness of unsaturated sand and gravel, before recharging the groundwater flow system. This would cause a net benefit to basin recharge by limiting evaporation losses in the development area. em ' 0808-88654 Page 28 October 31, 1994 c-
11.0 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILXIY 7- -I Recommendations and data presented herein are based on a Hydrogeological Investigation as described in Section 4.0. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Twin Lakes Golf and Country Resort and those whom Twin Lakes Golf and Country Resort take party to the information, in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. No other warranty is made, either expressed or implied. Hydrogeological judgement has been applied in developing the recommendations in this report.
Respectfully submitted, EBA ENGINEEFUNG CONSULTANTS LTD.
1 RG/bi
P Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd.
TABLE 1 TWIN LAKES BASIN DRAINAGE CATCHMENT BY ELEVATION
Elevation Range (m asl) I Catchment Area (km "2)
840 775 900 2.8 1.2 4.0 950 900 1,000 1.9 0.5 2.4 1,050 1,000 1,100 2.4 0.2 2.6 1,150 1 ,100 1,200 2.2 0.3 2.5 1,250 1,200 1,300 2.4 0 2.4 1,350 1,300 1,400 2.2 0 2.2 1,450 1,400 1,500 3.7 0 3.7 1,550 1,500 1,625 3.3 0 3.3 TOTALS: 20.9 2.2 23.1 4verage Elevation (m asl): 1,230 930 1,200
,
1 b Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE 2 Water Balance Under Averaqe And Drought Conditions
Driest Winter 92 301 299 0 0 0 0 (1 930-1931) Worst 3-year Drought 162 336 292 44 1,016,400 32 430 (1 928-1931) Worst 5-year Drought 21 4 457 386 72 1,663,200 53 700 (1928-1 933)
Note: Precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff values do not balance due to changes in soil moisture storage. Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF GOLF COURSE WELLS *
Abandoned near creek bed Brown Rpt. Old Highway Well Abandoned
C1 Well 6 153 50 Slot 143'-153' 82 95-100 1984 Capri Drilling Log Never put into service Kelowna New Highway Well 8 85 50/40/30/30/18/18 35 280 1985 JMS l-1; 1 Standby irrigation w1 Slot 59'-85' O.K. Falls 250 USgpm pump installed Domestic Well 8-1 75 25 slot 65'-75' Sweetwater Ait lift 10 hrs 1 -i l4 280 1988 Penticton 280 aDm. 1 ' drawdown ~ I I I I Main Well 8 80 80 Slot 60'-80' 10 500+ 1989 S.land Drilling (?) Main irrigation well; $.land 450 USgpm pump installed i South Well 6 170 20130 slot 136 35 1993 Quality Well Drilling Tested but not yet in service 1 (6 Lot Subdivision Well) 161 '-1 70' Okanagan Falls ,. .
2 i I Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF WATER LEVELS and HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS
A) June 7,1994
Lower Twin Lake NA 792.95 0 792.95 Staff guage reads 14.725' 300 0.042 "Normal" is 13.5' South Well 821.77 821.09 41.45 780.32 New subdivision well 150 0.003 C1 Well 806.85 806.29 27.03 779.82 300 0.01 6 Domestic Well 780.87 780.38 5.76 775.11 Main and domestic wells off 850 0.01 2 New Highway Well 775.73 775.73 10.47 765.26 Well off 280 0.004 Trout Lake NA 764.04 0 764.04 Lake near maximum
B) September 23,1994
r......
...... Lower Twin Lake NA 792.62 0 792.62 Staff guage reads 13.65' 300 0.043 "Normal" is 13.5' South Well 821.77 821.09 42.00 779.77 New subdivision well 150 0.004 C1 Well 806.85 806.29 27.61 779.24 300 0.022 Domestic Well 780.87 780.38 8.24 772.63 Main and domestic wells off 850 0.009 New Highway Well 775.73 775.73 11.01 764.72 Well off 280 NA Trout Lake NA NA 0 NA Lake near maximum
Notes: Elevations surveyed relative to Geodetic Survey Bench Mark 1456JJ,elevation 773.717 m Distances are approximate. Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd.
TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF WELL PUMP TEST RESULTS
Purn ping C1 Well 1 9.3 0.033 0 4,500 Recovery Main Well 2 25 0.25 1 3,200 0.1 0.004 P umpi ng 3 25 0.51 2 3,100 4 25 1.00 3 3,200 Main Well 1 25 0.1 4 0 2 ,800 Recovery 2 25 0.24 1 3,300 3 25 0.48 2 3,300 4 25 0.98 3 3,200 New Highway 1 20 0.81 0 390 0.25 0.01 8 Well Pumping 2 16 0.049 0 5 ,200 NewHighway 1 16 0.64 0 400 Well Recov. 2 16 0.024 0 10,600
Note: 1) Drawdown data evaluation by the Jacob Semi-Log method and recovery data evaluation by the Theis Recovery Method; see text for references. , 2) Ideal barrier boundaries, such as bedrock valley walls, have the effect of doubling the drawdown rate. Transmissivity values are estimated by i doubling the flow rate for each barrier encountered.
I I Twin Lakes Gdf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE 6 PRESENT AND PROPOSED WATER USAGE
Private Residences
No Outside Usage
Assumptions: 1) Existing residences average 4 persons per residence at 50 lgpd per person 2) Existing residences water an average of 4 hours per day with a hose running at 5 lgprn 3) All existing subdivided lots will be built upon 4) desidential watering does not return to aquifer 5) 90% of potable water use discharges to septic system or sewage system; 10% lost to evaporation, outside usage, etc. 6) Present golf course irrigationaverages 380 lgpm over irrigation season and irrigates 150 acres 7) Fate of irrigationwater: 30% loss to evaporation, plants use 16 inches per season to offset moisture deficit, remainder infiltrates to aquifer 6) Proposed development will average four persons per detached house or 3 bedroom townhouse, three persons per two bedroom townhouse 9) Built-in, cmputerized irrigation system on lower gdf course will reduce evaporation from 30% to 25% Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF SELECTED WATER CHEMISTRY
...... __.._.._.. Date 94 06 06 94 09 21 I 94 04 12 94 09 29 Units I 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 8.5 8.3 6.5-8.5 Conductivity umholcm 61 0 663 624 675' 723 I 579 61 2 Colour TCU <5 <5 :w55:qgp...... <5 <5 <5 15 Turbidity NTU 0.83 0.80 1.6 :.:.!<.!<.!.:.:.:.:...... ,..: ..... 5 0.83 5 -. Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 356 41 0 454 471 463 41 1 41 8 500 Total Hardness ng/L CaCO 240 257 308 302 303 Total Suspended Solid mg/L BOD, 5 day mg1L <5 <5 Anions & Nutrlents Alkalinity nglL CaCC 236 244 281 309 330 335 209 203 Chloride mg/L 4 4 13.5 5 7 6 30 33 750 Sulphate mg/L 19 21 41 46 88 113 101 99 90 500 Fluoride mg/L 0.60 0.7 0.52 0.61 0.63 0.52 0.47 1.5 Phosphorus, total mg/L P 0.009 0.012 0.03 <0.13 0.035 0.12 0.050 0.023 0.011 Phosphorus, ortho- mg/L P <0.003 <0.003 0.003 0.049 0.037 0.015 <0.003 Nitrate mg1L N <0.01 0.08 <0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 10 Nitrite mg1L N <0.002 <0.01 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 1 Nitrate+ nitrite mg1L N 0.062 0.019 0.42 0.01 1 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg1L N 0.77 0.81 0.10 0.65 0.56 0.24 0.1 8 0.54 0.60 Total Nitrogen mg/L N 0.77 0.87 0.1 8 0.65 0.24 0.60 0.54 0.61 Bacteria Total Coliform :Full 00 ml <1
NOTES: 1) South Well sample collected April 12, 1994 and analyzed by Chemac Environmental Services, as reported by Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd, April 22, 1994 2) Samples collected June 6,1994 and September 21, 1994 analyzed by JB Laboratories Ltd. 3) Guidelines as specified by Health and Welfare Canada (1993)and B.C. Ministry of Health (1982) 4) Shaded cells indicate exceedence of Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines .-.,- -- L. ..I
0 Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE A- 1 SUMMARY OF SOUTHERN OKANAGAN CLIMATE STATIONS
Okanagan Falls 2s 49 19'N 119 33'W 335 12 281.4 10 Keromeos 49 12'N 119 47'W 430 15 9.6 63 242.3 65 Penticton A 49 28'N 119 36'W 344 18 8.9 39 282.9 39 Oliver 49 1O'N 119 33'W 305 20 8.9 42 290.7 26 Oliver STP 49 11'N 119 33'W 297 20 10.0 43 297.8 55 Penticton STP 49 30'N 119 36'W 344 22 264.9 14 Hedley 49 21 'N 120 04'W 51 8 26 7.9 69 303.8 70 Summerland CDA 49 34'N 119 39'W 454 28 8.9 65 291.1 65 Summerland CDA E 49 34'N 119 38'W 346 28 9.3 14 276.5 15 osoyoos 49 04'N 11931'W 331 35 9.7 26 335.7 26 Osoyoos West 49 02'N 119 26'W 297 37 10.0 13 304.2 12 Kirton 49 40'N 1 19 57'W 884 45 401.5 32 Carmi 49 30'N 119 05'W 1,245 47 3.8 30 560.8 31 Beaverdell 49 26'N 119 05'W 768 48 472.2 31 Beachland Brenda N 49 52'N 120 OO'W 1,463 64 2.7 12 638.3 12
Reference: * "Canadian Climate Normals 1951-1 980 Temperature and Precipitation British Columbia", Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service. Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE A-2 RECORD OF JONTHLY TEMPER ,TURES AT SUMMERLAND
STATION 112-7800. SUMMERLAND CDA 10Nl LY MEAN TEI 'ERA JRE ( <.:...:.v<:fi:., $<. ',..(<<.. . zqgp $@@& $%&?4 q iy@jj &&#R$$x<:$ *..*& &&e. -.._...... : * 1916 .11.6 9.6 12.9 20.6 15.4 8.2 0.2 -4.7 1917 -4.8 7.1 12.7 21 .o 15.4 10.0 5.2 -1.7 8.2 1918 -1.4 9.2 12.4 18.2 17.4 10.6 3.6 -0.2 9.2 1919 -0.6 9.0 12.4 20.5 14.2 - 0.2 -4.4 7.9 -1920 --4.1 -6.5 -12.0 -20.8 -14.2 -7.2 -3.5 -0.9 -8.5 1921 -1.7 7.2 13.5 20.0 12.9 9.4 1.6 -4.4 8.3 1922 -6.2 7.3 12.6 19.9 15.6 9.4 1.4 -5.5 7.6 1923 -1.2 9.1 13.2 20.6 15.9 9.5 4.1 -0.8 9.0 1924 -4.5 8.8 16.5 20.2 16.4 9.6 1.4 -5.8 9.2 1925 -2.5 10.1 15.5 19.7 15.5 8.4 2.9 2.5 10.2 11.5 13.1 20.0 g@$ 10.1 1926 -1.3 -z.:...... b ..:. 9.7 4.3 -1.5 1927 -4.2 8.2 12.1 20.9 14.4 9.2 1.5 -5.7 8.4 1928 -2.3 7.7 15.6 20.6 16.7 8.3 3.7 -1.6 9.6 1929 -8.6 7.7 14.6 21 -8 15.0 10.3 2.5 -1.3 8.3 -1930 --11.9 -11.0 -12.6 -20.9 -15.8 -10.3 -1.9 --1.3 -8.5 1931 0.6 9.7 15.4 20.3 14.7 9.0 0.4 -1.7 9.4 1932 -4.6 9.7 13.7 20.5 14.8 9.5 4.4 -3.0 8.6 1933 -1.4 8.8 11.7 21.7 13.6 8.9 4.3 -0.6 8.6 1934 0.9 - 15.1 20.4 13.8 9.8 5.2 -1.1 10.2 1935 -4.5 6.7 13.1 18.2 16.3 8.0 0.7 -0.2 8.1 1936 -1.1 10.2 15.6 21.1 14.4 10.7 1.o -1.2 8.4 1937 -11.7 8.4 13.4 18.2 17.0 10.7 2.7 -0.3 8.0 1938 -1.4 9.8 14.9 18.9 18.0 10.3 1.7 -1.4 9.7 1939 0.4 10.9 14.2 21.4 16.2 9.7 4.6 ggjgjj 9.9 -i- -1940 --1.2 -10.9 -15.0 -20.4 -18.4 -11.5 -0.1 -1.o -10.5 1941 0.3 11.9 14.0 20.4 13.1 9.3 4.8 0.5 10.3 1942 -3.7 10.2 13.2 21.4 16.7 10.2 1.7 -1.1 9.4 1943 -8.4 10.1 12.4 20.0 16.4 9.7 3.8 -1.3 8.6 9.5 9.8 1944 -2.0 9.6 13.9 19.2 16.6 10.3 3.1 -2.8 9.2 9.1 9.6 1945 -1.2 7.7 13.9 20.9 13.9 9.3 1.2 -0.6 9.0 8.9 9.3 1946 -0.9 8.9 15.4 20.1 15.4 7.3 -0.3 -2.0 8.8 9.0 9.0 1947 -4.4 10.5 15.8 18.7 15.0 9.6 2.6 0.4 9.2 9.0 9.0 1948 -2.2 7.6 12.8 18.0 14.4 7.9 2.7 -5.0 8.0 8.6 8.8 1949 -9.4 10.6 15.4 19.3 15.5 7.4 4.5 -3.2 7.9 8.3 8.6 -1950 -7.8 -12.7 -20.3 -17.0 -8.2 -1.9 -1.2 -7.9 @@ 8.3 1951 -3.8 8.9 14.7 20.2 16.3 8.5 2.1 -5.3 8.3 1952 -6.5 10.1 14.1 20.5 17.1 - 2.2 1.2 9.2 8.5 8.3 1953 - 8.3 13.6 19.5 15.2 9.8 4.9 1.6 9.8 9.1 8.6 1954 -5.5 7.2 13.7 18.3 15.0 7.9 -fgg@ 0.1 8.5 9.2 8.8 1955 -2.0 6.9 10.8 19.6 15.2 8.5 -2.6 -3.9 8.5 8.6 1956 -2.1 10.1 15.2 21.1 16.0 8.7 1.0 -1.7 8.6 8.1 8.7 1957 -9.9 9.3 16.1 17.7 17.0 7.4 2.5 1.5 8.0 8.5 1958 1.o 9.0 -a 23.1 14.9 9.2 1.o -0.3 - 9.1 8.6 1959 -2.8 9.1 11.8 18.4 13.9 8.2 -0.2 0.4 8.3 9.0 8.6 1960 -2.6 9.2 12.1 19.4 14.6 9.9 2.8 -1.7 9.2 9.4 9.0 ------7 - * i
Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE A-2 RECORD OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURES AT SUMMERLAND
STATION 112-7800: SUMMERLAND CDA g@@ IRE (C p @@A Igg 1961 -0.4 3.2 5.1 8.7 13.8 -1.8 9.6 5.4 6.5 1962 -3.7 -0.2 1.8 10.4 15.1 1.8 8.9 5.5 6.6 1963 -5.1 1.9 5.4 8.5 17.8 -1.4 9.4 9.3 6.5 1964 -0.1 0.8 4.1 8.5 13.2 -4.5 8.6 8.9 6.5 1965 -1.4 1.o 1.7 9.5 13.4 -0.6 9.4 9.1 9.2 1966 -1.9 1.9 5.2 8.8 [email protected] 1.9 9.5 9.2 9.2 1967 0.8 3.4 3.6 7.0 - -1.2 10.2 9.7 9.4 1968 -1.3 1.3 5.7 8.3 15.2 -4.4 8.9 9.5 9.3 1969 -10.3 -2.8 3.9 9.3 15.3 0.0 8.5 9.2 9.3 -1970 --3.5 -1.7 -4.5 -7.7 -13.0 --2.6 -8.9 -8.8 -9.2 1971 -2.6 0.7 2.2 8.6 13.7 -5.7 8.5 8.6 9.0 q$g/\.. 1972 -6.4 -1.1 4.9 -.:.:.:.:.. ,5.. .:3 13.0 -3.2 8.0 8.5 8.6 1973 -4.0 0.0 5.3 9.2 16.1 1.6 9.2 8.6 8.6 1974 -2.2 2.6 4.2 9.5 18.7 19.1 16.1 0.7 9.5 8.9 8.8 1975 -3.8 -4.8 1.7 6.9 16.3 22.4 15.6 -0.5 8.0 8.9 8.6 1976 -1.2 0.6 2.2 8.2 15.1 19.3 15.5 -0.1 8.5 8.7 8.6 1977 -4.9 1.4 4.4 9.9 19.8 13.7 -2.6 8.7 8.4 8.8 1978 -2.8 0.6 5.1 8.2 18.0 21.9 1 13.7 -4.5 8.4 8.5 8.6 1979 -9.3 -1.3 5.5 8.2 Wi 18.4 21.7 21.0 16.1 1.9 9.0 8.7 8.5 1980 -5.7 0.4 4.1 11.2 14.2 16.0 20.3 18.4 15.1 -0.8 8.9 8.8 8.7 - - - - - 13,3 j$$*&# ,9.3 - - 1981 1.5 1.4 5.5 8.2 c.:.:...... >.. ..A 22.4 15.2 -1.2 9.4 9.1 8.9 1982 -3.3 0.0 3.8 7.0 13.1 IJ 20.0 18.8 14.8 -0.9 8.4 8.9 8.8 1983 1.1 3.2 6.1 8.5 14.5 16.6 20.7 13.1 -6.2 9.1 9.0 9.0 1984 -0.5 1.6 5.9 7.9 10.9 15.8 20.0 13.1 ;&@$ 8.3 8.6 8.8 1985 -3.9 -1.9 3.6 9.0 14.2 17.8 19.3 12.4 -5.0 7.7 8.4 8.6 1986 -0.2 -1.3 6.6 7.9 13.5 19.1 22.3 13.7 -0.5 9.2 8.4 8.5 1987 -0.9 2.4 6.5 11.3 14.8 20.1 20.8 19.7 17.5 -0.9 10.5 9.1 9.0 1988 -2.3 1.3 5.4 10.7 13.6 17.6 20.7 19.5 15.3 -1.3 9.6 9.8 9.0 1989 -1.3 -5.5 3.7 10.4 13.8 18.9 20.7 19.2 15.8 0.8 9.2 9.7 9.2 -1990 -0.7 --1.4 -5.2 -10.4 12.7 16.4 21.5 21.2 -17.3 --5.8 -9.3 -9.3 -9.5 Mean -3.3 -0.6 4.0 8.8 13.1 17.3 20.4 19.9 15.0 -1.5 8.7 8.6 8.5 -3d. 0 -3.6 -2.8 -1.7 -2.2 3.3 3.2 4.3 3.5 -2.8 -2.3 -1.6 =1.6 =1.6 1991 -5.3 4.2 NA 9.0 NA NA NA 21.1 16.5 NA NA 1992 NA NA NA 10.1 NA 20.7 20.2 20.4 13.8 -5.0 NA -1993 -NA --2.4 -NA -8.3 NA NA NA NA -15.1 -0.3 -NA
NOTE 1) Source: Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service 2) NA indicates incomplete record for month 3) ndicates low value for period of record 4) ndicates high value for period of record i
Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE A-3 RECORD OF MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT SUMMERLAND
STATION 112-7800: SUMMERLAND CDA 10N’I ,Y TC 4L PRECIPI’I TlON nm H: 1 z.:.:.:.q$p e<% kv*$%, && @#$$$#
g&g .I_. _.I 1916 24.4 43.7 9.1 15.0 10.7 39.6 45.7 3.6 14.2 39.6 266.2 1917 8.6 15.2 9.9 24.9 46.7 31.8 8.4 2.0 2.5 82.0 259.2 12.4 1918 27.9 11.7 7.6 2.0 7.1 4.8 29.5 23.9 25.7 15.5 202.4 33.7 1919 20.8 29.5 22.1 13.7 18.0 14.7 8.6 16.8 53.3 4.3 235.8 27.3 124.5 -1920 -41.7 -11.7 -41.4 -24.9 -21.3 -42.2 -17.8 -13.7 -260.0 -53.2 -138.1 1921 25.7 2.8 19.1 28.7 33.0 48.3 8.6 6.4 40.9 38.4 286.7 07.8 129.4 126.9 1922 10.2 14.2 41.1 19.1 6.6 5.1 3.8 38.1 10.7 25.1 239.8 ,63.9 141.6 137.2 1923 20.3 6.6 1.8 32.8 23.6 85.6 31.5 20.6 12.4 50.3 332.5 97.3 123.0 129.9 @@ 1924 16.8 6.1 2.8 _.. 2.0 10.2 8.9 24.6 25.1 44.5 176.6 89.2 116.8 122.3 1925 42.9 8.6 7.4 13.7 14.7 23.6 1.8 21.3 28.2 44.2 224.4 142.2 109.6 120.1 I926 17.3 18.3 15.7 21.1 24.9 17.5 4.1 18.5 18.3 24.6 215.4 144.8 125.4 127.5 1927 23.1 17.8 4.8 7.1 20.8 22.9 13.7 34.0 - 65.3 364.7 95.7 127.6 113.8 1928 28.4 3.6 22.9 39.9 29.5 37.6 41.9 9.9 8.9 19.3 248.0 !25.4 155.3 139.5 @@@ 1929 15.2 14.0 14.0 6.6 4.1 25.9 0.5 20.6 9.1 40.1 .._.._.. 78.0 133.0 137.2 -1930 -17.0 -5.3 34.5 24.6 -32.5 -21.6 -4.3 -23.4 -17.8 @@ -207.7 130.6 144.7 134.9 1931 8.4 3.6 11.2 5.1 11.2 42.2 6.6 18.3 20.3 17.3 185.9 115.7 @gg 20.1 16.8 57.7 27.9 287.0 157.4 112.2 128.0 1932 16.5 9.9 __y 24.1 7.4 5.3 1933 21.6 23.9 17.0 5.1 40.6 22.1 5.3 48.0 29.0 95.0 346.0 153.2 119.7 113.6 1934 17.5 1.3 29.7 4.3 30.2 4.3 4.6 15.0 27.4 36.6 217.6 176.8 162.5 133.3 1935 49.0 7.6 10.4 8.1 9.9 51.1 52.6 24.4 10.2 22.6 267.5 139.1 156.4 135.0 1936 42.7 52.1 11.4 20.6 30.2 55.4 35.6 3.8 24.4 305.4 159.6 158.5 157.2 pp1IFpr: 1937 58.7 16.0 16.0 20.8 54.4 25.1 17.0 60.2 59.2 415.0 174.8 157.8 160.7 _y;%Pi 1938 16.3 47.8 9.4 6.4 1.8 16.5 11.4 21.1 15.2 35.1 237.6 199.3 177.9 169.9 1939 18.5 15.5 15.2 1.8 30.0 30.7 9.7 16.5 17.5 20.3 193.5 101.3 158.5 154.8 1940 18.5 31.2 30.5 15.2 55.4 $g., ,a2 14.0 48.3 24.1 17.0 283.2 133.2 144.6 153.6 - - - - ._L.... ------1941 22.9 14.0 14.7 44.5 48.3 66.3 42.2 12.2 13.7 25.9 408.1 137.2 123.9 149.2 1942 26.4 17.0 5.6 37.1 61.7 33.3 55.4 15.2 39.9 52.6 350.0 125.7 132.0 139.3 1943 35.3 2.8 17.3 25.7 16.0 17.0 13.0 30.7 5.3 3.0 196.3 173.6 145.5 134.2 1944 16.0 25.1 10.7 37.3 47.8 21.3 12.7 8.1 41.4 42.9 320.2 97.4 132.2 133.4 1945 26.2 36.8 11.4 2.5 38.1 42.9 9.7 - 38.4 20.3 348.5 161.2 144.1 139.0 1946 18.0 9.7 13.0 8.4 22.6 49.5 18.5 26.7 25.9 16.0 235.5 107.8 122.1 133.1 1947 9.7 13.2 16.0 7.1 2.0 67.6 45.0 31.5 18.5 16.5 259.1 87.9 119.0 125.6 1948 8.4 25.9 12.2 56.6 46.2 65.8 49.0 4.6 12.2 23.1 396.5 138.1 111.3 118.5 1949 17.8 52.3 27.4 24.1 15.0 13.7 34.0 9.7 34.8 -&gjq ‘406.8 156.9 127.6 130.4 a 1950 22.9 18.5 27.7 32.3 9.4 21.1 45.2 44.7 35.6 356.1 ggg 187.7 -151.7 I ------1951 29.5 27.9 26.2 6.1 29.2 17.8 36.3 63.8 17.0 40.6 333.2 170.0 164.2 1952 50.0 16.5 13.5 15.2 19.8 56.6 20.1 1.8 6.1 13.2 236.6 152.8 196.9 177.2 22.6 46.5 9.7 19.6 15.0 19.1 301.9 120.4 147.7 173.6 1953 50.3 14.2 13.2 23.4 qj 45.7 30.0 31 .O :&$: .? ;, : 18.8 14.7 277.1 96.6 123.3 161.6 1954 39.9 10.4 10.7 1.5 _L 1955 25.1 16.0 8.1 13.2 20.8 29.5 35.3 29.7 43.9 35.8 289.4 95.9 104.3 127.1 1956 43.2 7.1 20.3 1 .e 5.6 60.2 33.0 12.7 7.4 10.9 233.4 152.1 114.9 123.6 1957 32.0 22.1 15.2 11.9 46.5 33.5 22.6 11.9 14.7 11.7 245.0 99.5 115.8 a...... 1958 20.6 27.9 25.7 43.2 16.0 31.8 13.5 48.0 48.3 35.1 334.2 143.8 131.8 117.6 1959 60.2 25.9 7.9 5.1 32.5 32.0 5.6 28.2 31.5 4.6 283.5 182.5 141.9 134.8 @#@ 7.1 ...... < 8.9 33.3 12.4 194.3 92.7 139.7 134.1 -1960 -18.5 -7.6 -13.7 -16.E -35.1 -.... - - - 7 i I * / i
Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. 1 TABLE A-3 RECORDOF MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT SUMMERLAND
STATION 112-7800: SUMMERLAND CDA SIPITATION (
1961 31 .O 25.1 31.8 25.7 47.8 29.0 29.0 18.0 5.3 41.9 296.8 159.3 62.1 75.3 1962 40.9 32.3 16.5 23.6 21 .l 19.1 15.2 47.0 13.5 10.9 278.2 160.5 58.9 82.1 1963 25.1 13.0 22.1 10.4 48.5 22.9 26.4 33.8 64.0 381.6 142.0 153.9 81.9 -yy_ 1964 26.2 4.3 9.7 3.0 5.3 57.2 59.2 25.9 41.9 37.1 311.0 141.0 147.8 77.3 @$@ 1965 50.3 7.4 37.8 30.7 16.8 13.7 57.7 21.8 36.8 283.7 175.5 152.8 155.7 1966 30.7 5.6 7.9 17.8 9.7 26.9 37.1 39.6 47.0 33.0 289.8 120.6 145.7 147.9 1967 22.1 10.7 9.4 * 6.6 26.4 15.7 7.9 0.3 17.8 43.7 203.0 128.8 141.6 141.6 1968 22.1 21.6 22.4 6.6 33.3 55.4 18.3 43.2 11.9 56.4 314.5 134.2 127.9 140.0 1969 39.9 12.4 6.6 55.9 17.3 14.7 11.9 1.5 7.6 45.0 278.0 183.1 148.7 148.4 -7.9 -4.6 -8.4 14.7 25.7 7.4 39.1 35.6 231.8 -131.9 149.7 139.7 i 1 11.7 13.7 45.0 52.3 11.9 30.2 11.9 78.0 347.1 159.5 158.2 147.5 1972 47.2 31.5 32.8 34.0 28.4 47.5 20.1 13.5 11.4 32.5 323.8 235.4 75.6 168.8 1973 9.7 34.0 16.3 4.6 17.8 23.1 1.3 11.4 62.2 27.4 303.1 108.5 67.8 163.7 1974 32.0 16.0 26.4 18.8 37.3 5.1 27.7 20.3 25.7 26.7 244.4 182.8 75.6 163.6 1975 40.6 53.6 18.5 11.4 18.8 23.1 19.8 35.3 50.0 29.5 317.9 176.5 55.9 172.5 1976 38.9 12.7 8.4 15.5 25.4 10.4 15.5 315.8 155.0 71.4 171.6 15.3 13.9 46.5 10.1 20.1 13.5 37.0 60.5 291.6 98.2 43.2 144.2 9.1 57.7 35.0 20.6 20.3 40.6 21.6 15.0 362.7 264.0 72.4 1 75.3 4.9 13.4 16.6 21.3 1 19.7 I 53.3 9.0 22.6 253.0 85.1 49.1 155.8 -1980 17.8 1 34.5 10.6 -27.4 70.6 32.5 28.6 11.3 27.6 73.2 361.2 -121.9 157.0 144.8 1981 17.0 42.8 27.9 11.3 58.8 18.8 32.0 350.6 199.8 135.6 153.8 1982 46.3 15.0 24.8 10.8 17.4 30.2 30.2 394.8 147.7 156.5 163.7 1983 50.4 48.2 40.6 40.8 20.6 45.6 50.0 471.0 240.4 196.0 159.0 36.6 21.2 40.4 37.0 15.4 311.6 181.8 190.0 gggj!gJ 9.5 7.8 28.8 17.4 9.8 205.8 85.2 169.1 171.0 15.4 39.6 34.8 20.0 13.7 325.0 141.5 136.2 159.3 1987 24.6 16.1 14.0 33.5 23.9 17.2 30.4 231.3 121.9 116.2 154.2 1988 13.0 8.6 18.8 56.6 47.6 27.2 42.8 362.2 144.6 136.0 135.0 1989 10.0 19.4 24.4 17.8 39.2 141.6 136.0 127.0 1990 30.4 -12.8 -27.6 -& -116.0 -134.1 133.1 1991 1 27.6 1 24.4 12.8 21 .o 45.4 190.4 149.3 142.9 i 1992 12.2 20.6 6.0 25.4 8.0 51.1 34.8 301.6 98.2 134.9 138.2 1993 25.6 10.6 51.2 38.6 6.4 31.4 359.7 180.1 156.2 145.3 - - - 7 Mean 27.9 18.7:.: 16.4 20.3 -27.1 25.2 32.8 288.6 136.5 138.0 136.7 3td. D. 14.4 13.8 -10.9 -15.7 -17.6 15.8 22.5 74.6 -51.7 34.5 31.9
NOTE 1) Source: Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service
I 21 lncomdete monthlv records estimated using- scaled data from Keromeos 3) indicates low value for period of record 4) indicates high value for period of record 5) Winter values defined as total from previous November to April of current year - i --. ~ ...... I...U i... .. -.I......
Twin Lakes Golf Resort EBA Engineering Ltd. TABLE A-4 CLIMATIC BALANCE FOR TWIN LAKES BASIN ABOVE HIGHWAY 3A - MEAN DATA
Temperature Means: 1916-1 990 - Summerland CDA - 454 m Elev. - 75 Years of Records Precipitation Means: 1916-1 993 - Summerland CDA - 454 m Elev. - 78 Years of Records Assumed Soil Moisture Retention Capacity: 100 mm Average Elevation: 1,200 m
Mean Temperature And Precipitation Data - Corrected for Average Basin Elevation
...... q$ @&@ $$y$&@ ::<>&$&&.# :::;?:.>> q&a?>...... e $j3&::#g :,$&y.x ..... :.. $$.@.@ W*23$&$ @$$.& -&gg8, Fv.,. .$ g&Qg! - YYY .__._...... Temperature (Deg. C) -3.3 -0.6 4.0 9.0 13.6 17.5 20.9 20.1 15.2 9.1 2.6 -1.6 8.9 Temp @ 1,200 m Elev. (C) -7.8 -5.1 -0.5 4.5 9.1 13.0 16.4 15.6 10.7 4.6 -1.9 -6.1 4.3 Station Heat Index I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.5 4.2 6.0 5.6 3.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 23.0 Unadjusted Daily P. E. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.0 1 .o 0.0 0.0 Potential Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.7 69.6 96.6 119.2 105.7 64.4 26.7 0.0 0.0 514.9 97.0Y Precipitation 28.2 18.9 16.6 20.8 27.4 33.1 24.6 23.6 19.8 20.3 25.5 33.2 292.0 Ppt. @ 1,200 m Elev. 53.4 35.8 31.4 39.4 47.8 57.8 42.9 41.2 34.6 35.4 48.3 62.9 530.9 100.0% Snow Storage 164.6 200.4 174.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.3 111.2 Snow Melt 0.0 0.0 25.8 174.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 39 76 64 30 1 P.E. - (Ppt.+ Melt) -53 -36 -57 -181 -9 -48 -63 -21 6.4 Acc. Pot. WL 22 61 137 201 23 1 Soil Moisture Storage 18 18 75 100 80 53 24 13 9 18 18 18 Change in Storage 0 0 57 25 -20 -27 -29 -1 1 -4 9 0 0 1 Actual Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.7 67.8 84.8 71.9 52.2 38.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 374.6 Moisture Deficit - - 1.8 11.8 47.3 -53.5 25.9 - -140.3 Total Runoff -0.0 0.0 0.0 156.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 156.3
Note: All values except temperature in millimeters.
Reference: Thornethwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1957. "Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance." Drexel Institute of Climatology, Publications in Climatology, Volume X, No. 7. Climate data from the Digital Archive of Canadian Climatological Data (Surface), provided by Atmospheric Environment Service, Pacific Region, Environment Canada Mean Temperature Vs. Elevation Southern Okanagan Climate Stations
12.
10 Elevation Range of Twin Lakes Basin 4 8
-... *-.. 6 I Linear Regression: R = 0.99 4
2
0 I I I 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Elevation (m) .L..l_.
January Precipitation Vs. Elevation Southern Okanagan Climate Stations
140
120
100
80.
60-
40-
20-
i I
0- I I I I I I 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Elevation (m) WELL LOGS
C-1 Land -6 518" casing' 95-100 gal. pm. Highway Well -8" casing 280 gal. pm. Main Well -8" casing 500+U. S . gal. - pm . Domes tic -8" casing 280 U.S.ga1. pm.
: 1-
. Province of Brltisti Columbl Wistry of Envimnment and Parks ( !!y~-..I WAI ER WELL
...... __-______-___ ...... --c ---...... -.,:*iptive Location ...- ...... -_ ...... ' TYPE . 1 @New Well 2 0 Reconditioned 9. CASING: 1 [et'eel 2 [J Golvonired 3 1.3 h,--' LlF WORK 30Deepened 4 0 Ahandoned Materials 4 [J PloGtic 5 1.1 Concrete
TP 16: WELL' LOG OESCRIPTION
_- - ...... - ...... ____ -...... __-. .... -...... , ,.. -_. -...... -...... ;-- lf._-._ , : :,: ...... - ...... ANKS , _I ._...... - _.-
. - --.-I , -__ ...... - - .- - . . _. - - --- ...... I ...... - .. .-;-.-p1'.:.. ... --t . -... .-...... c .bo1 tbmd*...drI;I Gravel Pock ___ - . I. ' .. , - .-I.-.- ....,: ..' -.-_ ...... I I. DEVELOPED BY: 1 [.I Siirginq 2 [dttinq I...... :-I:-. :-I:-. --.- ...... I -4 ..--.-i Y __---_ .- ...... ::-. ::-. ... '- I: f-'- __- ......
L -
... .* ...... ':;ELL Lotiitit&* SKI~CH [SITE; I D NO 1 16. FINAL WELL COMPLETION DATA ,A1-,,n--.&I' I I I Irt ,1,^11 \.^,A I I I I I I e 11 *, I.'. ..
-<- . WELL/ LOG CONSTRUCTIONRECORD
PH: (604) 497-5777 I Signed t
LOG OF FORMATIONS IU CASING RECORD Depth Dia.&ins. Wt2: Ta/ft. Fromztda Ilia.-ins. Wt. #/ft. From to- Ilia.-ins. Wt. #/ft. From -to- Shoe /' Welded Cemented SCREEN RECORD
Make& d i 173 I i Materia Slot openinfb- -to - 32-c'to 77' -/ to - 77 to88/
ROCK WELL DATA ins. ft.
PRODUCTION DATA Static Level Measured from C- Y-/ -.c//J3/ ft. atGPM -to - ft. aa.y-ICf3~~~ /'to /38/ Bail Test ft. at GPH ft. at GPH Recommended Pump Setting /6/' ft. -to - Recommended Max. Pump Output GPM /c/ to&' 35 GfR
Duration of Test . HIs.
GENERAL REMARKS . .L
WATER WELL RECORO [TIWELLNO. -1 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH VICTORIA, BfUTlSH COLUWIA [ I I I1 I IE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT I SEC. -TP.- R.- D.L2a:AND D,SlR,CTa PLAN.- 5 - I 1 I I I t I I&. A- DESCillPTlVE LOCATION LICENC Tu,%% L\Le s 2.x I - -a Ito. OWNER'S NAME 7Wlnl hLc5 b+Lf-luLY AOOR 5s f&k/lUi lbtk7nQ DRILLER'S HAME 5 *H-5. AOOR€SS o*!L- T-0 lfs ' 0 A' NhT. TWO. SHEET NO.' ELEVAT10N ~OESTIUATED aE pin= OF- ~-JSURYEYEO CASING DIAY. L EMGTH S'![ k METHOO OF COMSTRUCTI~&J-L. fslol USING DlAH LENGTH SCREEN LOE~TION58-9 - %5'SCREEN a SlZEQedt sb-Y6-30 LENGTH-&'. 7, " TIP€ &dLU SAHllAR1 SEAL YES a NDO SCREENd SIZE& 37 -1t-dh' LENGTH TYPE PERFORnTED CAStHC CI LEHGTH- PCRFORAT)OH5 F RON TO GRAVEL PACK 0 LENGTH 016M. SIZE GffAV€L.ETC. 7Sl DISTANCE TO WAT ER 3 0 ESTIMATED WATER LEVEL FROM OUEASUREO ELEVATION RECOMMENDED P DATE OF WATER LEVEL M€ASVREMCNT WATER USE
CHEMISTRY TEST my DATE
TOT&L DISSOLVE0 SOLIDS -rn@ TEMPERANRE-% pH SILICA (SIOnl mqlI N,rrhos/an CONOUCTANCE-6T ZS'C TOTAL RON IFd-mgll TOTAL HaRONESS IbCql m o/l TOTAL ALXdLlNlTY fCmC0,) mp/l PHEN. ALHALlNI TY [Co COr)-mfl MAHG&HESEIMnl ncp/l COLOUA - ODOUR TURRlOlTY
*NIOHS mpll rpm ChTlOHS mp/l pm
CARBONATE {COS) CALCIUM lCol HKARBONATE IMCO,) MAGNESIUM (UP) EULPIllTE (50.1 SODIUWIUO)
CHLORIDE IC1 ) POfASSIUM 1K1 ~ HOt NO, IHTROGEN) I RONIOISSOLVEO) 0 TKL tNITROCEW T PHOSPnORUf {P) L TXN - TOTAL KIELDAHL NlTROGtN CHEMISTRY SIT€ HO. HO,. MlTRlT E NO3 NITRATE
CHEMISTRI FIELD TESTS TEST BY DATE EOUtPMEHT USED - SONrEMT5 OF FOLDER &ILL LOG DPUMPTLSI OATA OCHEMICAL ANALYSIS DSIEVE AMALYSIS OCEOPMISICAL LOGS OREPDRT
OTHER MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ANOPAAKS. WAER MANAGEMENT BRANCH VICTORIA. BAITlSH COLUMBA LEGAL DESCRIPT13M: LOT 1 SE :. -TP. - R. -D-LWLAhO DISTRICT S>VD PLAN ~XZ h
TOTAL DISSOLVLO SOLIOS-rnarr :EMPERNURE- -C pH SILICA (SIOal mp/ I I mhmh CONDUCTANC€-IIT 25.C TOTAL lPOh [FdmglI TOTllL HARONESS (bC0,l wW .. TOTAL ALKALINIT I (COCO,) mpn PHEM. ALKALINITY (to COB) me/l UAHGhNESE(Mnl mg/ I COLOUR - ODOUR TURBLDI TY
ANIONS mqll
CARBONATE (EO,) CALCIUM fCn1 BICARBONII rE IMCO,) MAGNESIUM IUg) SULPHATE {so,) SODIUM #No) CHLORbOE tCl) NOS NO, WITf4QCEN~ I R OW lDl SSOLVEO) TKN. (NI'ROGEN) PHOSPHOR IS (P) I TUN - TOTAL WUELDAHL NlTRDG!td CHEMLSTRY SITE HO
NO* 9 WI'RITE koa .NITRATE
CHLMISTRY FIELO TESTS BY-. TEST BY-. EQIIIPMENT USED
a PUMP TEST DATA P CHWlCAL ANALYSIS os €W ANALYSIS OGEOOPHYSFCAL LOGS 0 REPORT
OTHER - - SOURCES W INFORMATION '~~/~Lfl~ .- I.. !. I. I I( 5 ..I. 22 , E -k :f b JI ;+ / 1
.-, f ,a
WEST
SOUTH
"\, ' * i' 'he attached information has DWI suppiiea gratuitous19 to thz Pro:ince of British Columbia and has not been iclepeyrfen!ly confirmed. Those persons reiyinp on it do so at iheir awn risk. and all persons to whom it is supplied shx!:!be cautiowd against ik us! in making hnancial mi xzr commitments. Comments on the well recards may !x obtained on request by contacting the drillers -om- - -ned."
I
D UT- -, - Yr-&- , .-./ - WATER WELL RECORD - WELL NO. -1 EPT. -OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER. RESOURCES SERVICE, WATER INVESTIGATIONS BRANCH VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA [ 11I I1 14
IL DESCRIPTION: LOT PLAN IN
RIPTIVE LOCATION LICENCE NO.- X 7 Y 27 NO./ 4- NAME-- NAME-- - -6 LER'S NAM~ a*A/ Pd&WA/C DATE COMPLETED NAT. TOPO. SHEET NO. 'h ez ELEVATION UEESTIMATED n H OF- QSURVEYED CASING DIAM. PRODUCTION TEST SUMMARY 1 100 Of CONSTRUCTION CASING OlAM lENGTH SCREEN 0 SIZE LENGTldV3 153 TYPE TEST BY :EN LOCATION 9 - BIlL TESTO PUMPTESTO DURATION OF TEST TARI SEAL YES0 NO0 SCREEN0 SIZE LENGTH TYPE DRAWDOWN PERFORATIONS FROM TO OR 3 CASING 0 I.ENGTH WATER LEVEL AT COMPLETION OF TEST AVAI UBLE ORAWOOWN SPECIFIC CAPACITY EL LENGTH DIAM. SIZE GRAVEL. ETC. )K 0 PERMEABILITY STORAGE COEFF. ANCL TO WATER eL 0 ESTIMATED WATER LEVEL TRANSMISSIVITY 4 6hoUdo Lf&a OMEASUREO ELEVATION ARTESIAN PRESSURE- WATER USE -Ks;r /L ! OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT
UISTRY FROM TO DESCRIPTION DATE . r BY 0 fq G&JX + Smfo kL DISSOLVED SOLIDS mgll TEMPERATURE *c PH SILICA (SIOz) mg/ I NCTANCE %? TOTAL IRON (Fd mq/I TOTAL HARDNESS (CaCO,) m eft PHEN. ALKALINITY (Co COS) MANGANESE(Mn) mg/l tL ALKALINITY COCO^) mgA mgA OUR ODOUR TURBl DlTY
ANIONS mo/l pm CATIONS mol1 , pm 'BONATE (COS) , CALCIUM (Cd I )WONATE (HCO,~ MAGNESIUM(M9) SULPHATE (SO,) SODIUM (Na) CHLORIDE (CI) POTASSIUM (K) -- NOS Nh(NITROCEN) IRON (01SSOLVED)- e TKN. (NITROCEN) PHOSPHORUS (P) TKN - TOTAL WELDAHL NITROGEN CHEMISTRY SITE NO. , NOI- NITRITE NOS*NITRATE
YISTRY FIELD TESTS BY- 1 BY- DATE EOUIPMENT USED -
0 PVMP TEST DATA 0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS . ir
Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd.
PUMP TEST D -TA - IAIN WELL
Observation Well: Piezometer Pl, 11.3 m west Date: Sept. 22, 1994 Test Contractor: None Pump Type: Goulds 40 HP submersible turbine, model unknown Pump Intake: Depth unknown Discharge: To golf course irrigation system Discharge Measurement: Pail and stopwatch for all sprinkler heads Pump Test Datum: Rim of PI: 0.05 rn below ground surface Static Water Level (m): 7.65
94-09-22 08:08 0 7.65 0.00 Pump on 94-09-22 38:08:30 0.5 8.01 0.36 60 94-09-22 08:09 1 8.1 4 0.49 94-09-22 38:lO:OO 2 8.25 0.60 94-09-22 08:l 0 2.5 8.27 0.62 94-09-22 08:ll 3 8.29 0.64 94-09-22 08:12 4 8.30 0.65 94-09-22 08:13 5 8.31 0.66 94-09-22 08:14 6 8.32 0.67 94-09-22 08:l 5 7 8.32 0.67 94-09-22 08:16 8 8.33 0.67 94-09-22 08:18 10 8.33 0.67 80 94-09-22 08:23 15 8.32 0.67 95 94-09-22 08:28 20 8.34 0.69 94-09-22 08:33 25 8.36 0.71 94-09-22 08:38 30 8.39 0.73 95 94-09-22 08:48 40 8.43 0.78 94 94-09-22 0858 50 8.47 0.81 95 Flow rate at 95 psi 94-09-22 09:08 60 8.50 0.85 95 is 25 L/s (330 Igpm) 94-09-22 09:38 90 8.59 0.94 98 94-09-22 10:08 120 8.66 1.01 100 94-09-22 11 :01 173 8.79 1.14 100 94-09-22 11 :42 21 4 8.87 1.22 99 94-09-22 13:42 334 9.01 1.36 94-09-22 15:19 43 1 9.12 1.47 95 94-09-22 16:45 51 7 9.20 1.55 Pump off
Notes: Main well had been run constantly for 3 months; allowed to recover for 20 hours prior to starting pump test Pump ran at higher flow rate initially to fill irrigation lines P1 screened 10 rn to 13 rn below ground surface . Main Well screened 18 m to 24 m below ground surface 10 j i
Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd.
RECOVERY TEST DATA - MAIN WELL I Observation Well: Piezometer Pi, 11.3 m west Pump On At: 08:08 22-Sep-94 Pump Off At: 16:45 22-Sep-94 Total Pumping Tim 517 min. Average Flow Rate: 25 L/s (330 Igpm) Static Water Level: 7.65 rn
94-09-22 1 6:45 51 7 0 9.20 1.55 94-09-22 16:45:15 51 7.25 0.25 2,069 9.05 1.40 94-09-22 16:45:30 51 7.5 0.5 1,035 8.91 1.26 94-09-22 16:45:45 51 7.75 0.75 690 8.85 1.20 94-09-22 16:46 51 8 1 51 8 8.82 1.17 94-09-22 16:46:30 51 8.5 1.5 346 8.80 1 .I4 94-09-22 16:47 51 9 2 260 8.78 1.13 94-09-22 16:48 520 3 173 8.76 1.11 94-09-22 16:49 521 4 130 8.74 1.08 94-09-22 16:50 522 5 104 8.72 1.06 94-09-22 16:51 523 6 87.2 8.71 1.06 94-09-22 16:53 525 8 65.6 8.68 1.03 94-09-22 16:55 527 10 52.7 8.66 1.01 94-09-22 17:OO 532 15 35.5 8.62 0.97 94-09-22 17:05 537 20 26.9 8.59 0.94 94-09-22 17:lO 542 25 21.7 8.56 0.91 i 94-09-22 17:15 547 30 18.2 8.53 0.88 94-09-22 18:09 601 84 7.1 5 8.33 0.68 94-09-22 18:37 629 112 5.62 8.24 0.58 94-09-22 19:25 677 160 4.23 8.1 3 0.47 94-09-22 20:41 753 236 3.1 9 7.99 0.34 94-09-22 22: 30 862 345 2.50 7.84 0.1 8 94-09-23 0O:lO 962 445 2.16 7.72 0.07 94-09-23 07:22 1,394 877 1.59 7.51 -0.14
V Main Well Pump Test Hydrograph- Twin Lakes Golf Resort
1.6.
Pumping late 25 L/s np Off at 50t min. 1.4 (330 1.2 7 1.o Data From Piezometer P1 located 11.3 m west of Main Well I t 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-- 0.0 We continuing 1 recover from i igation seas n pumping -0.2 2 10 4 0 E ‘0 800 1( 10 1io0 11 30 Elapsed Time t (m nutes) Main Well Pump Test Twin Lakes Golf Resort
I I 1.8 -- I I -4- I, Ir **Or Data from Piezometer PI ' --1 I__-.- 1 1 1.6--- 11.3 m west of Mian Well 1 1 1 1 1.4 I I i-t------/-l Leg 4: slope = I .OO m 1- -E W cn 1.2 S 1.0 -*I 03 U -I- a3 0.8 15 -I- 0.6--- 0.4 - i 0.2
0.0 iT 0.1 Elapsed Time t (minutes) .. .,
t
Main Well Recovery Test Twin Lakes Golf Resort
J
-I //1 i 10 - io0 1000 Recoverv Ratio t/t' c' Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd.
PUMP TEST DATA - NEW HIGHWAY WELL
Observation Well: Old Highway Well, 2.9 m NW Date: Sept. 22, 1994 Test Contractor: None Pump Type: Berkeley 20 HP line shaft turbine, model 3K4H Pump Intake: Depth unknown Discharge: To golf course irrigation system Discharge Measurement: Measure selected sprinkler heads and estimate from previous measurements during Main Well test Pump Test Datum: Rim of fitting 0.23 m above ground surface elevation 775.98 m Geodetic Static Water Level (m): 11.165
...... 94-09-22 17:33 0 11.17 0.00 Pump on 94-09-22 17:33:30 0.5 11.43 0.27 94-09-22 17:34 1 11.63 0.47 94-09-22 17:34:30 1.5 11.80 0.64 94-09-22 17:35 2 11.91 0.75 94-09-22 17:36 3 12.06 0.90 94-09-22 17:37 4 12.1 3 0.97 94-09-22 17:38 5 12.14 0.98 Irrigation system starting 94-09-22 17:39 6 12.1 2 0.96 to pressurize 94-09-22 17:41 8 12.07 0.90 94-09-22 17:43 10 12.02 0.86 2 more sprinklers shut off 94-09-22 17:48 15 11.97 0.81 94-09-22 17:53 20 11-93 0.77 Irrigation system fully 94-09-22 1758 25 11.93 0.77 pressurized 94-09-22 18:03 30 11.93 0.77 94-09-22 18:13 40 11-93 0.77 94-09-22 18:23 50 11.94 0.77 94-09-22 18:33 60 11.94 0.78 94-09-22 1853 80 11-95 0.78 Flow rate 16 L/s . 3 94-09-22 19:14 101 11.95 0.78 (210 Igpm) 94-09-22 2053 200 11.96 0.80 94-09-22 21 :37 244 11-97 0.80 94-09-22 23:OO 327 11.98 0.82 Pump Off
Notes: Well had not been run for several days prior to test Pump ran at higher flow rate initially to fill irrigation lines Old Highway Well screened 22 m to 25 m below ground surface; screen 25 m to 28 m has collapsed New Highway Well screened 18 m to 26 m below ground surface * Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd.
RECOVERY TEST DATA - NEW HIGHWAY WELL
Observation Well: Old Highway Well, 2.9 m northwest Pump On At: 17:33 22-Sep-94 Pump Off At: 23:OO 22-Sep-94 Total Pumping Tim 327 min. Average Flow Rate: 16 L/s (210 Igpm) Static Water Level: 11.1 65 m
i
94-09-22 23:OO 327 0 11.98 0.82 94-09-22 23:OO: 30 327.5 0.5 655 11.69 0.53 94-09-22 23:Ol 328 1 328 11.54 0.38 94-09-22 23:01:30 328.5 1.5 21 9 11.43 0.27 94-09-22 23:02 329 2 165 11.34 0.1 8 94-09-22 23:02: 30 329.5 2.5 132 11-29 0.1 3 94-09-22 23: 03 330 3 110 11.27 0.1 0 94-09-22 23: 04 331 4 83 11.24 0.08 94-09-22 23: 05 332 5 66 11.24 0.07 94-09-22 23:06 333 6 55.5 11.23 0.07 94-09-22 23: 08 335 8 41.9 11.23 0.07 94-09-22 23:lO 337 10 33.7 11.23 0.07 94-09-22 23:15 342 15 22.8 11.23 0.07 94-09-22 23:20 '347 20 17.4 11.23 0.07 94-09-22 23:25 352 25 14.1 11.23 0.06 94-09-22 23:30 357 30 11.9 11.22 0.06 94-09-22 23: 40 367 40 9.1 8 11.22 0.06 94-09-23 00: 00 387 60 6.45 11.22 0.06 94-09-23 07: 28 835 508 1.64 11.19 0,03
t New Highway Well Pump Test Hydrograph Twin Lakes Golf Resort
1.o Initial flow rate ' est. 20 L/s (270 Igy 0.8 F Amp off a1 Flow Rate 16 L/s 0.7 n (210 Ig E U 0.6
Data from Old Highway Well .- 2.9 m northwest of New Highway Well n __.I-- 1
0.0 I ! 0 100 2 0 3 10 4 560 660 760 860 c 3 Elapsed Time t (minutes) New Highway Well Pump Test e Twin Lakes Golf Resort 1.o !
0.8
Leg 2: flow rate 16 L/s 0.7 l1 slope = 0.049 m ----
Leg 1: Est. flow rate 20 L/s --- +I- slope = 0.81 m 0.4 I-
Om3 -'-.-I- II Data from Old Highway Well 0.2--- I----,----/--' I 2.9 m norhtwest of New Highway Well i-bl] I i-bl] --- / 0.1 / --- 0.0 I I1 II i I 0.1 1 10 100 Elapsed Time t (minutes) . New Highway- Well Recovery Test Twin Lakes Golf Resort
1.o
0.9
0.8------
0.7 0 6-.----- Data from Old Highway Well l----+- 2.9 m northwest of New Highway Well I I 0.5----
0.4----
0.3--- -1 Leg 1: slope = 0.64 m Iz- 0.2
0.1 -----
0.o A- I I IIIII i 1 100 Recovery Ratio t/t' (- Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd. PUMP TEST DATA - C1 WELL
ObservationWell: C1 well Date: Sept. 28. 1994 Test Contractor: Moore Pump Service Pump Type: Submersible turbine Pump Intake: Discharge: To depression 150 m northwest Discharge Measurement: Pump Test Datum: Rim of C1 casing Static Water Level (m): 27.64
13:OO 0 27.64 0.00 3.8 50 Pump on 13:Ol 1 29.43 1.79 3.8 50 Step 1 13:02 2 29.25 1.61 3.8 50 13:03 3 29.14 1.50 3.8 50 13:04 4 29.13 1.49 3.8 50 13:06 6 30.74 3.10 6.4 84 Increase flow rate 13:08 8 30.68 3.04 6.4 84 Step 2 13:lO 10 30.64 3.00 6.4 84 13:13 13 30.64 3.00 6.4 84 13:16 16 30.92 3.28 6.4 84 Increase flow rate? 13:20 20 30.92 3.28 6.4 84 13:25 25 30.94 3.30 6.4 84 13:30 30 30.94 3.30 6.4 84 Increase flow rate 13:40 40 31.45 3.81 7.6 100 Step 3 13:50 50 31.41 3.77 7.6 100 14:OO 60 31.41 3.77 7.6 100 14:20 80 31.40 3.76 7.6 100 14:40 100 32.60 4.96 9.5 125 Increase flow rate 15:OO 120 32.64 5.00 9.5 125 Step 4 15:30 150 32.69 5.05 9.5 125 16:lO 190 32.68 5.04 9.5 125 17:OO 240 32.72 5.08 9.5 125 18:OO 300 32.72 5.08 9.5 125 19:20 380 32.77 5.13 9.5 125 21:oo 480 32.80 5.16 9.5 125 23:OO 600 32.85 5.21 9.5 125 02:oo 780 32.87 5.23 9.5 125 05:OO 960 32.91 5.27 9.5 125 a +I 09:oo 1200 32.95 5.31 9.5 125 13:OO 1440 32.94 5.30 9.5 125 PumD off
I STEP TEST RESULTS I
3.8 1.49 2.54 6.4 3.00 2.15 7.6 3.76 2.01 9.5 5.30 1.79 e c Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd. PUMP TEST DATA - C1 WELL
Observation Well: C1 well Date: Sept. 28, 1994 Test Contractor: Moore Pump.Service Pump Type: Submersible turbine Pump Intake: Discharge: To depression 150 m northwest Discharge Measurement: Pump Test Datum: Rim of C1 casing Static Water Level (m): 27.64
‘<>,*,.W s..A ....A .,. .... 94-09-28 13:OO 0 27.64 0.00 3.8 50 Pump on 94-09-28 13:Ol 1 29.43 1.79 3.8 50 Step 1 94-09-28 13:02 2 29.25 1.61 3.8 50 94-09-28 13:03 3 29.14 1.50 3.8 50 94-09-28 13:04 4 29.13 1.49 3.8 50 94-09-28 13:06 6 30.74 3.10 6.4 84 Increase flow rate 94-09-28 13:08 8 30.68 3.04 6.4 84 Step 2 94-09-28 13:lO 10 30.64 3.00 6.4 84 94-09-28 13:13 13 30.64 3.00 6.4 84 94-09-28 13:16 16 30.92 3.28 6.4 84 Increase flow rate? 94-09-28 13:20 20 30.92 3.28 6.4 84 94-09-28 13:25 25 30.94 3.30 6.4 84 94-09-28 13:30 30 30.94 3.30 6.4 84 Increase flow rate 94-09-28 13:40 40 31.45 3.81 7.6 100 Step 3 94-09-28 13:50 50 31.41 3.77 7.6 100 94-09-28 14:OO 60 31.41 3.77 7.6 100 94-09-28 14:20 80 31.40 3.76 7.6 100 94-09-28 14:40 100 32.60 4.96 9.5 125 increase flow rate 94-09-28 15:OO 120 32.64 5 .OO 9.5 125 Step 4 94-09-28 15:30 150 32.69 5.05 9.5 125 94-09-28 16:lO 190 32.68 5.04 9.5 125 94-09-28 17:OO 240 32.72 5.08 9.5 125 94-09-28 18:OO 300 32.72 5.08 9.5 125 94-09-28 19:20 380 32.77 5.13 9.5 125 94-09-28 21:oo 480 32.80 5.16 9.5 125 94-09-28 23:OO 600 32.85 5.21 9.5 125 94-09-29 02:oo 780 32.87 5.23 9.5 125 94-09-29 05 :00 960 32.91 5.27 9.5 125 94-09-29 09:oo 1200 32.95 5.31 9.5 125 94-09-29 13:OO 1440 32.94 5.30 9.5 125 Pump off ~ . .. c
Twin Lakes Golf Course EBA Engineering Ltd.
RECOVERY TEST DATA - C1 WELL
Observation Well: C1 well Pump On At: 13:OO 28-Sep-94 Pump Off At: 13:OO 29-Sep-94 Total Pumping Tim 1,440 min. Average Flow Rate 9.3 L/s (1 23 Igpm) Static Water Level: 27.64 m
94-09-29 16:45 1440 0 32.94 5.30 94-09-29 16:46 1441 1 1,441 27.86 0.22 94-09-29 16:47 1442 2 721 27.85 0.21 94-09-29 16:48 1443 3 481 27.84 0.20 94-09-29 16:49 1444 4 36 1 27-83 0.1 9 94-09-29 16:51 1446 6 241 27.82 0.1 8 94-09-29 16:53 1448 8 181 27.82 0.1 8 94-09-29 16:55 1450 10 145 27.82 0.1 8 94-09-29 16:57 1452 12 121 27.82 0.1 8 94-09-29 17:Ol 1456 16 91 27.82 0.18 94-09-29 17:05 1460 20 73 27.81 0.17 94-09-29 17:lO 1465 25 59 27.81 0.1 7 94-09-29 17:15 1470 30 49 27.81 0.1 7 94-09-29 17:25 1480 40 37 27.80 0.1 6 94-09-29 17:35 1490 50 30 27.80 0.1 6 94-09-29 17:45 1500 60 25 27.80 0.16 4 C1 Well Pump Test Hydrograph . Twin Lakes Golf Resort 6- I 1 . Pun I off at 1,YO Minutes - - 5- r ---I
4-- -' -' Step 3: 7.6 L/s
3- _I --
2- I
1-
0-t 30 1200 1400 1 (I 200 L IO 800 I( Elapsed Time t (minutes) C1 Well Pump Test Twin Lakes Golf Resort
1 Elapsed Time t (minutes) C1 Well Recovery Test Twin Lakes Golf Resort 6
5 n uE
Recovery Ratio t/t’ C1 Well Specific Capacity Versus Flow - Twin Lakes Golf Resort 4.0-
3.5-
,-- -..-.. 3.0- -._...... -...... -._._...... %.. -*.. -- 2.5- ...... -..- ...... -.-._
2.0- ...... -.-..... -.._ -.-._...... -.__-...... 1.5- -.._......
1.o-
0.5-
0.0- 0 2 4 10 Flow Rate (L/s) -_ r 827-FOGT Laboratories Ltt. VICTORIA, EL-C. V8W 1 H6 - weter/westewaters EL: [6041385-6112 JB - FAX: [-I 382-6364
DATE: June 23, 1994 JOB NO.: JB 1439D1620 -. 18078 LR NO.:
V3J 1J6 The sarrpiefslsubrmtted by the agent have been teated as requested and we report ee follows:
Twin Lakes golf Resort -.Kaleden, B. C. Domestic .Main- . New Highway Lower Twin Trout Sample: We1 1 We1 1 We1 1 Lake Lake Total Dissolved Sol ids mg/L 463 454. 503 29 1 41 1 Conductivity umhos/cm 624 610 675 404 579 Co 1 our TCU (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 Turbid f t y NTU 9.5X 1.6X 0.17 0.83 0.44 PH 7.4 7.6 7.4 8.5 8.5 A1 kal inity mg/LCaCOs 30 1 309 330 236 209 Hardness mg/LCaCOs 302 308 308 172 246 Chloride mg/L 5 5 7 4 30 Fluoride mg/L 0.63 0.61 0.52 0.60 0.47 Su 1 phat e mg/L 96 88 113 19 99
Phosphorus,Total mg/L P 0 -032 0.035 0.120 0.009 0.023 Ortho-phosphate mg/L P 0.003 0.003 0.049 ( 0.003 0.015 Nitrite mg/L N < 0.002 0.003 ( 0.002 ( 0 :002 ( 0.002 Nitrate - mg/L N < 0.01 ( 0.01 0.345 < 0.01 ( 0.01 Total Kjeldahl mg/L N 0-44 0.65 0.24 0.77 0.54 Nitrogen Total Suspended Sol ids mg/L ------3 1 ------BODS mg/L --- (5 ( 5-
I Total Coliform CFU/100mL 2x 20% (1 4** 8003cX Faecal Coliform CFW100rnL (1 (1 (1 13c 700s
1 4 ( = less than X Indicates Outside of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Mater Quality XX Significant growth of, bacteria other than coliform I I -
. .- I
Anah/sie performed according to “A Labarstory Manual for the Chemical Anelysm of Water. Wastewaters end Bmlogrcel Tiseuae‘: chemiuy Leboratory. We- Resource Service and/or “Standerd Methods/ Water and Westeweter’: Amencan Public Health Association. 58 ueoqA-’Ee~ i- . ,. Laboratoriae Lea. (- 827 FORT STREET, VICTORIA, B.C. V8W 1H6 - water /wastewaters EL: [604]385-61 12 FAX: [6041382-6364
DATE: June 23, 1994 JOB NO.: JB 1439D1620 LR NO.: 18078
SAMPLING DATE Jun 6/94 Client: Mr . Don Burnett 2956 Noel Drive SAMPLING AGENT C1 ient Burnaby , B . C . V3J The aernpla(el submitted by the agent 1J6 hew been tested e8 requested end. we report as follows:
Twin Lakes golf Resort - Kaleden, B. C. Sample: Domestic Main New Highway Lower Twin Trout We1 1 We1 1 We1 1 Lake Lake
A 1 umi num mg/L ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 Ant i mony mg/L ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.1s ( 0.15 Arsenic mg/L ( 0.001 ( 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 Barium mg/L 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.042 0.032 Beryl 1 iurn mg/L { 0.003 ( 0.003 < 0.003 C 0.003 ( 0.003
Boron mg/L 0.036 0 .Ob1 0.058 0.071 0.078 Cadm i urn ma/L < 0.001 ( 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 ( 0.001 Caicium mgiL 72.5 73.3 73.3 28.5 36.9 Chromium mg/L < 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 Coba 1 t mg/L ( 0.02 ( 0.02 ( 0.02 < 0.02 ( 0.02
Copper mg/L ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 Iron mg/L 0.5936 0.16 0.15 ( 0.03 0.034 Lead mg/L 0.002 0 -001 0.001 0.002 0.001 Magnes i um mg/L 29.5 30.3 30.4 24.6 37.4 Manganese mg/L 0.4636 0 SO36 0 SOX 0.006 0 -009
Mercury ug/L ( 0.05 ( 0.0s ( 0.05 ( 0.05 ( 0.05 ’ Molybdenum mg/L ( 0.04 ( 0.04 ( 0.04 < 0.04 .( 0.04 Nickel mg/L ( 0.025 ( 0.025 ( 0.025 ( 0.025 ( 0.025 Pot ass i um mg/L 2.67 2.77 3.04 2.26 3.60
Si 1 icon mg/L Si02 17.3 19.8 19.7 2.11 14.3 Silver mg/L ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 Sod i urn mg/L 43.7 45.1 45.3 44.5 55.6 Strontium mg/L 2.56 2.59 - 2-59 1.47 1.75 Tin mg/L ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03
Tit ani um mg/L ( 0.006 ( 0..006 ( 0.006 ( 0.006 ( 0.006 Vanad i um mg/L ( 0.01 ( 0.01 ( 0.01 ( 0.01 ( 0.01 Zinc mg/L 0.025 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 0 -021 Uranium mg/L 0 -007 -__ --- _. < = less than * Indicates Outside of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
John E. Evenoff, MS~. erbara M. Klassen, asc Anebysls performed according toeL **ALaboratory Manuel for the Chemcal Analysis of Water. Wastewetars and Eiologcal Tissues’: Chernlstry Laboratory. Water Resource Servtce and /or “Standard Methods / Water and Wsstewster‘: Americsn Fubllc Health Assocletlon. ... _......
.,. .. . , -.:. ' . (-- .. 827 FORTSTREET, .. . . '..- .. .' . ' .. ' ,:'Laboratories.. Ltb. c . VICTORIA. B.C. V8W 1H6 Iwater / yastekaters EL:.[604] 385-61 12 ...... FAX: (6041382-6364
DATE: , October 11, 1994 J08 NO.: . JB 1673K LR NU.: 18684 .
SAMPLING DATE: See Below Clint:- MY. R. Guibn SAMPLING AGENT C 1 i ent 2071 Floralyn Crescent The esmpl@s)submitted by ths agent N. Vancouver, B.C. have been teed ae requested and V7J 2w3 we report 08 followe: -
c Sample: Sample # 1: Twin Lakes,Kaleden: Main Well Sep 21/94 Sample # 21 Twin Lakes,Kaleden: New Highway Well Sample # 3: Twin lakes,Kaleden: Lower Twin Lake Sample # 4: Twin Lakes,Kaleden: Trout Lake
Sample I Sample 2 SamP.le 3 Sample 4 Tot Dissolved Sol ids mg/L 47 1 513% 296 418 Conduct i v i t y umhos/cm 663 723 436 612 PH 7.5 7.4 9.5 8.3 Alkalinity, Total mg/L CaC03 31 1 335 244 203 Chloride mg/L 6 6 4 33 Su 1phat e mg/L 84 101 21 90 Phosphorus, Total mg/L P 0.044 0.050 0 -012 0.011 Ortho-phosphate mg/L P 0 -017 0.037 ( 0.003 < 0.003 Nitrite t Nitrate mg/L N 0.019 0.424 0.062 0.011. T.Kjeldah1 Nitrogen mg/L N 0.56 0.18 0.81 0.60 .Total Caliform CFU/ loom 1 { 1 2* 24x 8X I Faecal Coliform CFU/ 1 oom 1 ( 1 { 1 3 3 Tot Suspended Solids mg/L 1 1 BODS mg/L (5 (5
i I .. 1
i j X Indicates Outside of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality and / or the BC Safe Drinking Water Regulation. I 1 j
Barbara M. Klassen, BSC. I Anawb perfu&d eccordig M "A Laboratory Manuel for the Chemical Analysis of Water. Wastewaters 7-46 ...:.;.: : Md Biologicel Tiieuee': Chemistry.Lsboratary, Wster Resource Service endlor "Standard Methods/ LAEORATORIE~~, '. Weter and Wasteweter': American Public Health Assmietion. je 4 A- -. x. __ r. cl 827 FORT STREET, Latioratoi-ies. Ita. VICTORIA, B.C. V8W 1H6 . - water /wastewaters EL: [604f 38561 12 FAX: (6041 382-6364
DATE! October 11, 1994 JOE NO.: JB 1673K - LR NO.: 18684 1
SAMPLING DATE: See Below Client: Mr . R. Guiton SAMPLING AGENT C 1 i en t 2071’ FIoralyn Crescent The swnple(e) submitted by tha agent N. Vancouver, B.C. have been tesced e8 rsquested and V7J 2W3 we report e8 follows.
# 1: 21/94 Sample: Sample Twin’Lakes,Kaleden: Main Well Sep Sample # 2: Twin Lakes,Kaleden: New Highway Well Sample # -3: Twin Lakes,Kaleden’: Lower Twin Lake Sample # 4: Twin Lakes,Kaleden: Trout Lake
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Alumi num mg/L ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 Ant imony mg/L ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 ( 0.15 Arsenic mg/L ( 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 -001 Bar ium mg/L 0.150 0.072 0.042 0.028 Beryl 1 ium mg/L { 0.003 0.003 ( 0.003 ( 0.003 Boron mg/L 0.040 0.050 0.030 0.070 Cadm i urn ug/L ( 0.20 ( 0.20 ( 0.20 0.30 Calcium mg/L 70.6 82.6 27 .O 32.3 Chr om ium mg/L ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 Coba 1t mg/L ( 0.02 ( 0.02 ( 0.02 ( 0.02
Copper mg/L ( 0,015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( ~ 0.015 Iron mg/L - 0.100 ( 0.030 ( 0.030 ( 0.030 Lead mg/L 0.001 ( 0.001 ( 0.001 0 .om Magnesium - mg/L 30.5 34.6 27 .O 40.2 Manganese mg/L 0.49036 0.07436 ( Q.003 0.007 Mu 1y bde nu rn- - mg/L ( 0.040 ( 0.040 ( 0.040 ( 0.040 Nickel mg/L ( 0.025 ( 0.025 ( 0.025 ( 0.025 Pot ass i um mg/L 2.7 3.2 2.4 4.1 Si 1ica mg/L Si02 19.6 20 .o 0 .so 14.8 Si lver mg/L ( 0.030 ( 0.030 ( 0.030 ( 0.030 Sod i um mg/L 44.1 47.8 47.2 58.3 Strontium mg/L 2.6 2.9 1.5 1.6 Tin mg/L ( 0.03 ( 0.03 ( 0.03 (. 0.03 Titanium mg/L ( 0.006 ( 0.006 ( 0.006 ( 0.006 Uanad ium mg/L ( 0.010 { 0.010 f 0.010 ( 0.010 Zinc mg/L ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015 ( 0.015
3~ Indicates Outside of Guidelines far Canadian Drinking Water Quality and / or the BC Safe Drinking Water Regulation. i g(ky3than ..
n E. Evan ,MSC. Barbara M. Klassen, RSC ’ Ar!&is performed according to “A taboretcry Menuel for the Chemical Anelysls of Water. WesteweGers end Biologicel Tiseuee’: Chernmtry Leboretory. Water Resource Service and/or ...“Stenderd Mathods / Weter end Westeweter’: Amarcen Publlc Health Asaccletlon. I- r + Laboratorie 827 FORT &Em. C VICTORIA. B.C. V8W 1H6 - water / wastewaters EL: (604138!56112 FAX: [604]382-6364 r-,
DATE: . October 17, 1994 .. JOB NO.: JB 1673K LR NO.: 18728
SAMPLING DATE: Sep 29/94 Client: Mr. R. Guiton SAMPLING AGENT 2071 Floralyn Crescent N . Vancouver, 8 .C The ewnple(s]submitted by the agent have been teated as r%quested end U7J 2W3 we report 8s follows:
# 29/94 Sample: Sample 1: Twin Lakes: C-1 We11 Sep Sample 1 Alum inum ' mg/L ( 0.15 Ant i mony mg/L ( 0.15 Arsenic mg/L ( 0.001 Bar i urn mg/L 0.001 Beryl 1 ium mg/L 0.15 Boron mg/L 0.040 Cadm i urn mg/L ( 0.00 Calcium mg/L 60.6 Chrom i um mg/L ./' ( 0.03 Coba 1 t mg/L ( 0.02 Copper mg/L ( 0.015 Iron mg/L 0.7603 Lead mg/L ( 0.001 Magnes ium mg/L 25.6 . Manganese mg/L 0.350% Molybdenum mg/L ( 0.040 Nickel mg/L ( 0.025 Phosphorus mg/L PO4 < 0.4 Pot assium mg/L 2.3 Si 1 ica mg/t Si02 18.9 Silver mg/L ( 0.030 Sod i urn mg/L 48.6 Stront iurn mg/L 2 .a Tin mg/L ( 0.03 Tit an ium mg/L, ( 0.006 Uanad i um mg/L ( 0.010 Zinc mg/L 0.020 Mercury ug/L { 0.05 Uranium ug/L 1.9 Cyanide, Total mg/L ( 0.010 Tot Dissolved Solids mg/L 410 Colour , True ' TCU (5 Turbidity NTU 0.80 PH 7.5 TotaI Hardness mg/L CaC03 257 Su lphat e mg/L 46
e . John E. Evanoff, M.SC Barbara M. Klassen, RSC. Aneh/slS Performed eccordlng to "A La-etory Manuel foc the Cherq~~alAneh/sis of Water. Westewatere and Blologlcel Tissues': Chem8eu-y Leboretory. Water Re-e Servlce and/or "Standard Mathode/ . Water end Westeweter': Arnerlcen Publ~cHealth Aseocmtlon. - - (" 827 FORT STFIEET. VICTORIA. 8.C, V8W 1H6 EL: (6041385-61 12 FAX: (604)382-6364
DATE: Oct'ober 17, 1994 JOE NO.: JB 1673K = 3 18728 i LR NO.. SAMPLINGDATE: Sep 29/94 Client: Mr . R. Guiton 2071 'Floralyn Crescent SAMPLING AGENT ne N. Vancouver, E.€. The eern@e[slsubrutted by the agent hew been tea& e6 requested end V7J 2W3 we report as follows.
,. Sample: Sample 1
F 1 u-o r i de mg/L 0.52 Nitrite + mg/L N ( 0.002 Nitrate mg/L N ( 0.04 Total Coliform CFU/ 1 oom 1 ( I- Faecal Coliform CFU/ 1 oom 1 ( 1
..
,
$ = less.. than I i .. ' ~. .. .- . John E. Evanoff, M.S~