Water Stewardship

Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program Work Term Methodology

By
Dalia Hull
Camosun College
ENVR 201

January 8, 1994

Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Health

July - December 1993

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

Maps

Well Record Search

Production of a New Well Record

SEAM

Quality Assurance / Quality Control

Sampling

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A. Well Record Search on CGDS

B. Entering of a New Well Record onto CGDS

C. CGDS Well Record Page 1

D. CGDS Well Record Page 2

E. Creating a SEAM Number

F. Quality Assurance Checklist For Phase II Sampling

G. Sampling Techniques

Executive Summary

The risk of ground water contamination in the Fraser Valley has become more evident in recent history. To learn more about the quality of the water the Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program (FMGMP) was implemented. The FVGMP is a joint project consisting of two phases, that includes the Ministries of Health, Environment, Lands and Parks, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. My position as a ground water technician was a Camosun College cooperative education work term. The work term involved correlating the information from Phase I of the FVGMP to the Ministry of Environment ground water database. I also did a quality assurance check on the Norecol, Dames & Moore ground water samplers involved in Phase II of the project and some sample collecting. All of the methodology for the tasks done during the six month work term are described in this report. There are also a number of recommendations explained at the end of the report that could be helpful for future programs.

Introduction

Ground water is an extremely important resource. We cannot survive without clean water and for many people in British Columbia and world wide, ground water is the only source of potable drinking water. Ground water can be defined as "the subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated" (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The amount and usability of ground water depend on the lithology of the geologic formation, amount of recharge and human activities. Lithology is defined as "the systematic description of rocks in terms of mineral assemblage and texture".(Skinner and Porter, 1987) Lithology can also decide how ground water is contaminated. Another definition that must be defined to understand this is aquifer. This is a "porous layer of underground rock that contains ground water" (Miller, 1990) When the material in an aquifer is porous, such as sand, it increases the risk of contamination. In some cases there may be an impermeable layer of clay which could protect an aquifer from contamination.

Most of the wells in the Fraser Valley are completed in sand and gravel aquifers and are susceptible to contaminants such as nitrates and pesticides. The increasing population and urbanization of the valley, coupled with intensive agricultural and industrial activity increase risks of ground water contamination.

Upon review of the documented ground water contamination in the Fraser Valley, a monitoring program was recommended by Gartner Lee Ltd (1992) to assess the quality of the resource in this area. It was recommended that all community wells and selected private wells in high risk, medium - high risk, and low risk areas be sampled for inorganics, volatile organic compounds and pesticides. The risk areas were determined using information on water supply, susceptibility to contamination, historical water quality and land use. (Gartner Lee Limited, 1992) The Ministries of Health, Environment, Lands and Parks, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods all participated in this project. The Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program (FVGMP), initiated in 1992, involved sampling a total of 251 wells, including 71 private wells and 180 of the community wells in the valley (see Figure 1 for location map). The private well locations were chosen in the different risk areas.

The FVGMP was separated into two phases and completed by two different consulting firms. The Phase I sampling was done by Gartner Lee Limited between November 1992 and February 1993. Phase II occurred in August and September 1993 and was carried out by Norecol, Dames & Moore. The sampling occurred twice to compare seasonal variations in concentration.

In Phase I, information on the wells and land use was collected during sampling. This well survey information needed to be correlated with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Park Computerized Ground Water Database System (CGDS). CGDS is a database consisting of well records with data on each well. This information exists because well owners or drillers have informed the Ministry of Environment Ground Water Section that a well exists and provided the necessary information. Only 50 of all the wells in the FVGMP were matched with an actual CGDS well records. All the unmatched wells were searched for or had well records produced. All this updated information was incorporated into an Excel spreadsheet for the FVGMP. For the Phase II report, which will be completed by spring of 1994, wellhead protection guidelines for all the community wells will be developed. This involves determining the capture zone of each community well. The capture zone is the area surrounding a pumping well where ground water (and any contaminants) would reach the well within a specified time. To do this as much information as possible is required, especially lithology. Once the capture zone is determined using lithology, pumping data and topography, suggestions can be made for protection.

This report was written to describe the tasks completed during my work term as a Camosun College Cooperative Education student. The time period was July 5 1993 to December 31 1993 and the position was as a ground water technician. The methodology is listed first with references to appendices following the report. At the end is a list of recommendations to help with all future projects.

Methodology

Maps

As part of Phase I of the FVGMP, all wells were first plotted by Gartner Lee Limited (1992) onto a 1:50 000 scale map. This map had topography and main city streets indicated, along with the aquifer boundaries. There were some errors made on the location of wells on the original Mylar map that had to be corrected. This was discovered and corrected by matching the address of the wells on a cadastral map and comparing this to the Gartner Lee map. The corrected map will be used in the final Phase II report.

Well Record Search

Each of the community FVGMP wells had to be correlated with a well record in the CGDS. The private wells were double checked to make sure the correct ones were matched. This was necessary for the placement of all the final chemistry results and for the wellhead protection assessment of the community wells. To accomplish this, the well civic and/or legal addresses were pinpointed on the Ministry of Environment well location maps, which use the BCGS mapping system. Most of these maps can be found on microfiche. Once the well record number was determined from the map, the actual well record could be found using microfiche or CGDS, located on the VAX. See Appendix A for instructions on using CGDS.

There were some difficulties that required more intensive effort than was described previously. Unless the well location map is a cadastral map and the legal address of the well is known, it is more difficult to find and verify the well record number. To find the legal address of a property the British Columbia Assessment Authority had to be used. The Assessment Authority can be found on microfiche and on the VAX. The computer version of the Assessment Authority will not be covered in this report because I did not have access to it. To use the assessment role, the school district number was determined by referring to a school district map. Then the proper area code was found in the corresponding Assessment Authority book. Under the correct area codes the assessment role number was figured out by using the property address index (there are also plan numbers, and property owner indexes if the address is unknown). When the number on the assessment role list was found, the full legal address is available and can be located on a cadastral map. Using this map, the general location on a well location map can be established. The legal description can also be used to verify if the selected well record is the correct one.

When the legal address could not be used to find the location of a well, it was estimated. The only way to positively identify the well record was by matching information such as depth, diameter, year of construction, and drilling contractor. Sometimes there were various clues that were used to verify a well record. These clues included the name of a previous owner, company name and pump names for district wells. Contacting the owners of the well was the best way to accumulate the necessary data. If the current owner did not know anything about the well they sometimes knew of someone who could give the information. Sometimes an actual field visit was done to verify the location on the property, especially if there was more than one well.

Production of a New Well Record

When a well record did not exist, a new well record was created. To do this, a driller's log (if it was drilled) was required along with as much information as possible including the legal address of the property, a location map and chemistry identification number. All the information is written onto a well record card (see Figure 2) and photocopies of the Gartner Lee survey form, drillers log, and legal map, if necessary, are inserted in the card. To find out the well record number there is a menu selection in CGDS that will give the last well record number for that area. The records were then entered into CGDS (see Appendix B for detailed instructions).

While gathering the data for the well records, other pertinent information was collected where possible. For example pumping tests are very important for determining the aquifer characteristics for the capture zone assessment. Sometimes the results of a pumping test were found on the actual driller's log. If not the well owner sometimes knew if a pumping test has been done and where to find it, for example consulting firms.

The completed well records were then taken to the Ground Water Section in Victoria so they could be plotted on the original well location maps. They were then sent to be microfiched along with all the information enclosed in the well record (i.e. survey forms and drillers logs). Since all well records are kept in Victoria the new ones had to be filed with all the other well records.

SEAM

When all the wells had a corresponding well record the chemistry identification numbers from the System Environmental Assessment and Management (SEAM) database were entered into CGDS. SEAM is a database that consists of ambient and discharge monitoring results for specific sites. Almost all of the wells had a SEAM number which were listed in the Phase I report. If a well did not have a SEAM number, one was created. This is only necessary if there are chemical results that will be produced. See Appendix E for instructions on using SEAM.

Quality Assurance / Quality Control

In any situation where samples of any type are being taken, the integrity of that sample is extremely important. The methodology for collecting a sample can be crucial, because contamination can occur very easily. To ensure the quality of the ground water samples taken by Norecol, Dames & Moore, field inspections were carried out. I produced a checklist to meet the necessary requirements given by Vicki Carmichael from Environmental Health Protection Service (See Appendix F for checklist). The on site checks occurred in August and in September.

Sampling

During the Phase II sampling by Norecol, Dames and Moore, nine of the wells were found to have lead concentrations higher than the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (1989). Further field sampling was needed to verify the results and I was asked to collect them. There was also a well that the samplers were unable to have access too. For this well a full inorganic analysis was needed. In total there were 10 wells sampled. These wells were located throughout the Fraser Valley. For details on the sampling methodology see Appendix G.

Results

Well Records

Over four months of the six month work term was spent on finding or creating well records for the wells in the FVGMP. Finding the well records for the private wells was very easy since the CGDS well record numbers were already identified in the Phase I report. A small number of the wells were matched incorrectly and had to be changed. I also had to produce four well records for the private wells. It took approximately six days to find these well records and photocopy the well survey forms from the Gartner Lee Phase I report.

The community wells were a completely different situations. Only two community wells had been matched to a well record, all the others had to be searched or produced. The main difficulty was trying to contact people for information on the wells. Many wells were drilled a long time ago, so information was not readily available if known at all. Another problem that made things difficult was poor location diagrams on the original well survey forms. Many lacked indications of property locations to the nearest intersection which was crucial when legal addresses could not be used. I worked on the community wells for approximately four months. The actual transcribing of a well record, once all the information required was received, took approximately 20 minutes. There were a total of 96 out of a total of 180 community wells that required the creation of a well record.

Quality Assurance Check

The quality assurance check on the Norecol, Dames & Moore samplers was done for a total of three days. There were three samplers and each person was checked at least twice for their methods. A short report was produced that listed all problems encountered.

Sampling

The nine wells that had high lead results and the well that needed a full inorganic sample, were sampled over a three day period. There were some problems that I encountered. One of the problems that occurred was well owners not being present at the appointed time. At one location the sample was taken at the house next to the pumphouse because the owner did not arrive. Also at one site the well cover was too difficult for me to remove so the sample had to be taken at the house instead. Fortunately there was only one site that I could not collect a sample. On the third day I delivered the samples to Zenon Environmental Laboratories Inc. in Burnaby for the analysis.

Conclusions and Recommendations

During this work term there were some problems found, especially for well records. The search and production of well records was much more time consuming than originally thought. It was difficult contacting well owners and trying to match the wells with the database. Outlined below are some suggestions that may help prevent such problems from occuring in the future.

• Well survey forms should be more complete. The drawing of the location of a well must be specific. It should include all surrounding street names and approximate distance, even if not in close proximity. All landmarks should be indicated. For instance, barns, houses and even neighboring houses can be very useful. This will save time for the person searching well records.
  
  
• Another recommendation I can make is to have all wells in a project correlated to a well record before any sampling is done. This is very important because specific locations must be known by the people who are collecting ground water samples. This is especially the case when more than one well is located on the property. If a project is to include a wellhead protection plan and there is an option to select the wells then it is best to select those for which there is a drillers log available. Detailed information is needed and this usually requires a driller's log. Not all wells have drillers' logs, especially if they were not drilled. So finding well records in advance will allow more to be chosen that have all the necessary information.
  
  
• Correlation of CGDS and Ministry of Health databases is also necessary. Community wells are continually sampled and cross- referencing of databases allows more thorough analysis of results. Ministry of Health, for example, has a different system for numbering wells and a different database than the Ministry of Environment Ground Water Section. This can cause problems when trying to find, communicate or compare information.
  
  
• The next suggestion, which is very important, is to update CGDS. There are many drill logs on file that have not yet been processed. Drillers send drill logs on a volunteer basis and to encourage continued submissions the logs should be processed and entered into the database as soon as possible. The local drilling companies often enquire about other drill logs to help with estimations and choosing a location to drill a well. They have expressed concern about the information not being up to date. If this problem is not solved it may cause some difficulties at a later date for everyone concerned.
  
  
• It would also be helpful if the drillers logs from some companies were more detailed. They need to include detailed diagrams of the well locations on the property. Currently many of the wells have to be located in the field and this is one more thing that delays the processing of drill logs.
  
  
• Another recommendation for the future is to improve the present computer systems for well
  records. This includes "scanning" the actual well record into CGDS or making certain changes in the fields. There is some information on a well record that cannot be put into CGDS. This includes drawings, and some comments that do not presently have a field. Also, the Ministry of Environment well location maps should be digitized into a Geographical Information System (GIS). This will improve the efficiency of a well record search and allow a detailed map of a well location to be produced, along with other wells in a selected area.

Ground water is extremely important and risks of contamination will probably increase as the population grows. In the future more projects of this nature should be done in other areas of British Columbia and a complete and usable database, along with good planning will be crucial.

References

Freeze, R. Allen and John A. Cherry. Ground Water. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall, Inc., 1979.

Gartner Lee Limited. The Fraser Valley Ground Water Monitoring Program. Victoria, British Columbia, 1993. Gartner Lee Limited. 1992

Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California 94002, 1990

Skinner, Brian J. and Stephen C. Porter. Physical Geology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1987.

Appendix A: Well Record Search on CGDS

CGDS can be accessed through the MAC340, VAX JUNO on a Macintosh.

1. At the VAX ENVM prompt type WEll and press Enter.

2. A CGDS menu will appear. In most cases option #1 is the correct choice.

3. At the next menu choose option #2.

4. You will then type in F for find at the prompt.

5. Next the prompt will be at the BCGS field this is were you will enter the well record BCGS number. See Appendix C.

6. At the next field enter the actual well record number. If you would like to search through all the well records in this area you can leave it blank or put in a wild card (@). Then press enter twice and the records will appear.

7. Press enter to search through the records selected in the area.

8. To view the well information in a well record type 25 at the Mode prompt. A new screen will appear listing data on the well. See Appendix D.

9. To return to the first screen type U for update or press * on the keypad.

10. To view available information on the well type 26 at the mode prompt in the original screen.

There are some basic keys which should be known:

• Double slash // or ^ is to return to the top of the screen.
  
  
• U at the mode prompt is to update the information and go to previous screen. It will also return to previous menu

* on the number keypad will go to previous screen or menu.

Appendix B: Entering of a New Well Record on CGDS

After the well record is produced it is ready to enter in the database. After accessing CGDS, as described previously, proceed with the following:

1. At the first CGDS menu select option #1.

2. Select option #1 at the next menu to determine the well record number.

3. Enter the BCGS number and press enter twice. The number of the last well record for this location will appear in the second column. Add one to this number and that will be the well record number. This can be done for more than one BCGS number;just hit enter once and type next BCGS number.

4. Press enter twice to get back to the menu.

5. Select option #2 at the menu.

6. Type E to enter information into the database.

7. Enter the BCGS map number and press enter. See Appendix C.

8. Type the well record number determined previously and press enter.

9. To determine Land District code consult the list in the CGDS user manual. The code for New Westminster is 37 which was used for all the wells in the FVGMP.

10. Enter the legal descriptions as available.

11. It is not necessary to enter UTM or old coord.

12. Type in the Owner and address of the well as shown.

13. Continue to press enter until the next screen appears which is for detailed well information. See Appendix C.

14. Press enter until #4 which is for the drilling contractor. To determine the code for the driller consult the Drillers Table Report which can be obtained from the Data Management Selection Menu by selecting the support file maintenance option. If the driller is unknown type UNK. (When a driller is not found on the list there is an option in the Data Management Selection Menu which will allow you to enter the new driller)

15. Under the construction method field type DUG or DRI for drilled.

16. The date of drilling must be entered as follows: DD/MM/YY. If the date is not known, type 01/01/01.

17. For the well use field the user manual must be consulted. For the FVGM only CWS (for community use) or DOM (for domestic use) was needed.

18. For the well depth, depth to water, screen location and depth to bedrock the unit of measure must be in feet. The well diameter is in inches.

19. The well yield must have the unit of measure indicated. There is a list of abbreviations in the user manual. Most of the time GPM was used.

20. Aquifer lithology is either UNC (unconsolidated) or BED (bedrock). This is determined by studying the drillers logs or the area the well is located.

21. Press enter to return to the top of the page. Then type U to update this information. The next screen for Available Information will appear. See Appendix D.

22. Enter Y if there is the indicated information available. / will return cursor to the top of the screen if none is available.

23. The SEAM number must be entered at the Chemistry Site ID if there is one.

24. Any other information which may be important can be entered in field 9. This could be the name of the location. An example could be the school name or a restaurant name. This information is very helpful when searching for a well record.

25. If the lithology of the well is available type 10 at the mode prompt.

26. Lithology can now be entered (see Appendix D). Press enter to get to the first blank field. Enter the feet where the lithology starts (usually 0).

27. Press enter and type in bottom of first layer.

28. Next enter in lithological description. Press / to move cursor to next line and continue sequentially with the layers.

29. If there is not enough space press enter until the cursor is at the very start of the next line and type 0 and 0 again at the next field. Then continue with the description. Press enter 4 times to get to the last field in the line. In most systems this will not be visible Here you will enter the layer number which will be the same as the above line. You can determine this just by counting the different layers from 0.

30. After all lithology has been entered go to next line and type // to return to the top of the page. ***

31. Type U to update.

*** When entering lithology you must be careful not to make a mistake. It is impossible to correct. If an error is made the complete well record must be deleted and re- done. To deleted a well record go to the second menu and select the lithology option. Type in BCGS number and well record number. Type D for delete and the entire well record will be removed.

Appendix E: Creating a SEAM Number

SEAM is located in the VAX. After accessing the ENVR menu type SEAM at the prompt. Then select option #2 at the first menu. The next option chosen should be #1 to add a new site. Now a SEAM site data form will appear. Fill in the fields as follows:

1. Enter the site address at Site Name.

2. Enter the legal address as indicated.

3. For Site Desc. enter the name of the location (i.e. company or building name)

4. Tab down to EST. Agency. Here you will enter GW for ground water section.

5. At the next field enter the region code which in this case is 02 for Lower Mainland. (refer to user manual for the other region codes)

6. The type of site is 33 for well in this case (Refer to manual for other codes).

7. In this case the Site Category was 5 for none of the above.

8. Tab through to the end unless you must enter other information. What you have just entered will appear in detail and you will be asked to accept, change or reject. If everything is correct select accept.

9. At the next screen the SEAM # will appear. This must be recorded because it would be very difficult to find again.

Appendix F: Quality Assurance Checklist

August 10 1993

Pre-sampling Information

• verified that the well is the correct one
• talk to well owner if possible
• any other wells on property?
• is this the well sampled by Gartner Lee?
• compared all well information with Gartner Lee Survey form
• if the well survey is missing information, fill in blanks where possible
• if the owner is not the resident get name and address of actual resident
• what type of well
• check pumphouse for any treatment
• samples taken before any treatment is done
• asked owner what kind of treatment and where
• samples taken as close to the wellhead as possible
• asked owner about use of water before purging to prevent running well "dry"

Sampling

• possible contamination of samples taken care of, e.g. tarp if raining, water sampling area is clean
• well was purged for at least 5 - 10 minutes (depending on yield) before sampling
• bottles are labeled before sampling
• recorded time of sample collection and time preservative is added
• samples taken directly from tap not hose
• gloves are worn for all sampling
• bottles were not in contact with tap
• lids of containers are placed on clean surfaces facing up
• bottles are rinsed with sample water first before sample collected when necessary
• VOC containers do not have air bubbles
• samples are inverted 5 - 10 times after preservative is added
• coolers kept in shade
• sufficient amount of ice packs available
• all wastes are properly taken care of
• site is left as it was found

Field Observations

• diagram indicates proper well location
• if necessary distance to landmark is given
• all cross streets are indicated
• any changes to land use as noted by Gartner Lee
• possible pollution sources are shown, e.g. septic field, farm, manure piles, gas stations, industrial sources
• owner thanked, good public relations practiced

Appendix G: Sampling Techniques

Nine wells were sampled for lead only. The following is the methodology used:

1. The well was first purged for a period of time depending on previous use (5- 10 minutes).

2. The bottles were labelled with the date, sample number and with one of the following specification:

a) P (preserved), F (filtered)

b) P, UF (unfiltered)

c) NP (not preserved), UF

d) NP, F

*c) and d) are for the one well which was being sampled for a full inorganic analysis and are treated as indicated on their labels.

3. With gloves on, the first 250 ml bottle was filled straight from the source (which was the closest to the well) and the time was recorded.

4. For the NP, UF sample it was filled with unfiltered water.

5. The filter was then filled with a small amount of the well water which was pumped through the filter to rinse it out.

6. The same filter was refilled with the sample water and the water was pumped through. This water was then transferred to the other 250 ml bottles (with gloves on) and the time was recorded.

6. Preservative (Nitric acid) is then added to the bottles marked with P and inverted 5 to 10 times. The time is then recorded.