golder associates ltd. - british...

Golder Associates Ltd. 220 - 1755 Springfield Road Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1Y 5V5 Telephone (250) 860-8424 Fax (250) 860-9874

OFFICES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, ASIA AND AUSTRALIA

REPORT ON

STATUS ASSESSMENT AND REHABILITATION OF

FAULDER COMMUNITY WELL FAULDER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Submitted to:

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen 101 Martin Street

Penticton, BC V2A 5J9

Attention: Mr. Andrew Reeder

DISTRIBUTION: 3 Copies - Regional District Okanagan Similkameen 1 Copy - Golder Associates Ltd. August 2008 08-1440-0029 (2000)

August 2008 - i - 08-1440-0029 (2000)

Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of an initial assessment status, followed by rehabilitation efforts completed on the Faulder Community Well. The well efficiency for the Faulder Community Well had declined dramatically over the last year, possibly due to clogging of the well screen and surrounding aquifer with sediment or encrustation. As such, a status and well rehabilitation program was implemented, the results of which are presented herein.

Well Summary

The Community Well is completed to a depth of 63.7 mbgs within a semi-confined/confined sand and gravel aquifer. The screen assembly is set from approximately 59.1 mbgs to 63.7 mbgs. Currently, the water level within the Community Well is recorded to be approximately 53 mbgs, resulting in a safe available drawdown for the well of approximately 3.7 m.

Well Rehabilitation

The total drawdown observed in the Community Well during the pre-rehabilitation short-duration pumping test was approximately 3.4 m, resulting in a short-term specific capacity for the well of 2.8 L/s/m. The total drawdown observed during the post-rehabilitation short-duration pumping test was approximately 2.8 m, resulting in a specific capacity for the well of 3.4 L/s/m. This represents an increase in well efficiency of approximately 20 percent as a result of well rehabilitation efforts.

The video inspections indicated that much of the sediment build-up within the well screen had been dislodged from the screens. In addition, some biofouling was observed both pre- and post-rehabilitation within the well screen.

Conclusion

Physical well rehabilitation efforts (AirBursting) has improved the efficiency of the well by approximately 20 percent. The observed decrease in well yields for the Community well is likely due to past periods of low precipitation (recharge), and/or increased groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer.

Recommendations

• Accurate and up-to-date records of well performance (total flow, well drawdown while pumping, static water level in the well) should be maintained by the well operator.

August 2008 - ii - 08-1440-0029 (2000)

Golder Associates

• Water samples should be collected from the wells at least once per year to assess changes in inorganic water quality.

• Any changes in the water chemistry and operating characteristics of the well should be closely monitored and dealt with promptly, as both the well and pump can deteriorate beyond repair if problems are left unattended.

• Monitoring data should be periodically reviewed by a qualified professional.

• A monitoring well should be drilled and completed in the area to the west of the Faulder Community Well, to monitor groundwater flows and static water levels in the area hydraulically upgradient of the Community Well.

• Regular monitoring of static (non-pumping) water levels in several observations wells near the Faulder Community Well is recommended in order to delineate the limits of the aquifer in which the well is located, to ascertain the groundwater flow direction and gradient, and to track trends in water levels over time.

• In order to aid in the determination of the recharge area for the semi-confined/confined aquifer underlying the Community of Faulder, it is recommended that age dating of a collected water sample be completed.

• Other private water well users within the Faulder area should be approached in regards to collecting water level information for their private wells.

Should water levels continue to drop within the Faulder Community Well, such that the well becomes inoperable, the RDOS could consider the following options:

• Operating the nearby Gibbs Well as a community water supply source for the residents of Faulder.

• Drilling a new well at one or more of the following locations:

o In the area of the Gibbs

o In an area to the east of the Gibbs Well, nearer to the centre of the aquifer (to the east/southeast).

August 2008 - iii - 08-1440-0029 (2000)

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Site Location and Hydrogeology ................................................................ 1 2.2 Review of Well Construction and Historic Pumping Test Information ..... 2 2.3 Previous Investigations ............................................................................... 3 2.4 Existing Conditions at Faulder Well ........................................................... 4

3.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Pre-Rehabilitation ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Rehabilitation .............................................................................................. 6 3.3 Post-Rehabilitation ...................................................................................... 7

4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Pre-Rehabilitation Inspection and Testing Results ..................................... 7

4.1.1 Short Duration Pumping Test ......................................................... 7 4.1.2 Water Quality Testing ..................................................................... 8 4.1.3 Down-hole Video Camera Survey .................................................. 8

4.2 Post-Rehabilitation Inspection and Testing Results ................................... 9 4.2.1 Down-hole Video Camera Survey .................................................. 9 4.2.2 Short Duration Pumping Test ......................................................... 9 4.2.3 Water Quality Testing ..................................................................... 9

4.3 Aquifer Water Levels ................................................................................ 10 5.0 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Specific Capacity ...................................................................................... 11 5.2 Wellhead Adjustment, Pump Setting Depths and Available Drawdown . 12 5.3 Declining Well Yields and Water Levels ................................................. 13 5.4 Water Quality ............................................................................................ 14

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 15 7.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT .................................................. 18

August 2008 - iv - 08-1440-0029 (2000)

Golder Associates

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Pre- and Post- Rehabilitation Water Quality Data Table 2 Comparison of Specific Capacities (In-Text) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Key Plan Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Pre-Rehabilitation Pumping Test Data Figure 4 Post-Rehabilitation Pumping Test Data Figure 5 Trends in Water Levels LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I Well Logs Appendix II Short Duration Pumping Test Data Appendix III Water Quality Analytical Results Appendix IV Video Camera Inspection Appendix V Photographs Appendix VI Aquatech Well Pump Sketch

August 2008 - 1 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Golder Associates Ltd. (“Golder”) is pleased to provide this report to the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen (“RDOS”), presenting the results of an initial assessment status, followed by rehabilitation efforts completed on the Faulder Community Well (the Community Well), located at 133 Kettle Place, in Faulder, BC (Figure 1). Based on conversations with Mr. Andrew Reeder of RDOS, it is understood that the well efficiency for the Faulder Community Well had declined dramatically over the last year, possibly due to clogging of the well screen and surrounding aquifer. As such, a status and well rehabilitation program was implemented, the results of which are presented herein. In conjunction with the well rehabilitation program, a preliminary assessment of historical water levels within the Community Well has also been conducted.

Authorization to proceed with this work was provided by Mr. Andrew Reeder of RDOS on February 22, 2008.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Site Location and Hydrogeology

Faulder is a small rural community located within the RDOS boundary, approximately 7 km to the west of Summerland, BC, at the junction of Trout Creek and Darke Creek (Figure 1). Trout Creek enters Faulder from the west, originating approximately 27 km to the northwest from the area of Headwaters Lakes. The creek discharges into Okanagan Lake, located approximately 12.5 km to the east of Faulder. Darke Creek originates approximately 14 km to the northwest of Faulder, in the area of Munro Lake and Darke Lake, and traverses south through Meadow Valley and Faulder, eventually discharging into the ground directly north of the Fish Lake Road and Princeton-Summerland Road junction. Darke Creek is assumed to be a losing creek, likely recharging the local shallow aquifer.

The topography in the Faulder area ranges from relatively flat to undulating within the Trout Creek Valley, to steep bedrock slopes along the edges of the Valley. Elevation in the area of Faulder ranges from approximately 670 m above sea level (“masl”) at the junction of Trout Creek and Darke Creek to upwards of 760 masl.

Due to the various periods of glaciation within the Faulder area, the surficial geology is considered to be very complex and consists of lacustrine, glacial and glacial-fluvial deposits of till, clay, silty sand, and sand and gravel overlying bedrock.

August 2008 - 2 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

Based on available information, there are three aquifers located in the Faulder area, including the following:

• a shallow, unconfined aquifer;

• a deeper, semi-confined to confined aquifer; and

• a bedrock aquifer.

The Community Well is completed within the semi-confined/confined sand and gravel aquifer present at depths generally greater than 50 metres below ground surface (mbgs). Currently, the water level within the Community Well is recorded to be approximately 53 mbgs.

2.2 Review of Well Construction and Historic Pumping Test Information

The Community Well was completed by Robbins Water Well Drilling and Pump Services on July 4, 1993. The well is 200 mm (8 inch) in diameter and was drilled to a depth of 71.7 mbgs, with bedrock encountered at a depth of 66.5 mbgs. According to Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd. (“PHCL”) (PHCL, 1993), the well was completed with the screen assembly set from approximately 59.1 mbgs to 63.7 mbgs. The screen assembly consists of three well screen sections of 1 mm, 1.5 mm, and 2 mm (0.040, 0.060 and 0.080 in) slot size Johnson stainless steel screen, with each section approximately 1.5 m in length. The well log for the Community Well is provided in Appendix I.

Following drilling, a pumping test was conducted on the Community Well on July 27 and 28, 1993. The static water level in the well prior to testing was 47 mbgs, resulting in a total available drawdown (height of water in the well above the screens) of 11.8 m. The pumping rate averaged 13.3 L/s (210 USgpm) for the first 120 minutes of the test, after which time the rate was increased to 18.3 L/s (290 USgpm) for the remainder of the test. The drawdown after 120 minutes of pumping was approximately 4.8 m and the drawdown at the completion of the test was approximately 6.8 m. The specific capacity of the well at the time of testing was reported to be 2.7 L/s/m. This value was calculated by PHCL using the maximum measured drawdown achieved at a pumping rate of 18.3 L/s.

August 2008 - 3 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

2.3 Previous Investigations

In 2005, Golder completed a preliminary hydrogeological assessment for the development of an aquifer monitoring program in the Faulder Area, the results of which were presented in our report entitled “Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment for the Development of an Aquifer Monitoring Program, Faulder, British Columbia”. The assessment was initiated as a result of concerns by local residents over the volume of water being extracted from aquifers in the Faulder area, and over proposed residential subdivision developments in the area. Specifically, Faulder residents had noted a decrease in water levels within their shallow domestic wells, and were concerned with potential impacts that proposed developments would have on water levels within the aquifer.

As a result of the assessment, two private wells, inferred to be completed within the same aquifer as the Faulder Community Well, were identified in the area of the Community Well. These wells are the Mearns Well, located approximately 80 m to the northwest, and the Gibbs Well, located approximately 50 m to the east of the Community Well (Figure 2). The Mearns Well is completed between a depth of 52.4 m and 53.6 m within a sand aquifer. Bedrock was not encountered at the Mearns Well. The static water level within the Mearns Well was reported to be 47.5 mbgs at the time the well was drilled (1951). The Gibbs Well is completed between approximately 79.9 m and 83.5 m, within a sand aquifer. Bedrock was not encountered at the Gibbs Well. The static water level within the Gibbs Well was reported to be approximately 50.1 mbgs at the time the well was drilled (1992). Well logs for the Mearns Well and Gibbs Well are provided in Appendix I.

A preliminary water balance for the aquifer was developed as part of the 2005 investigation, indicating that an average of approximately 10,000,000 m3/yr of water recharges the Faulder area through the infiltration of precipitation (Golder, 2005). Of this, it was estimated that approximately 1,650,000 m3/yr was being pumped from the aquifer in the Faulder area, representing approximately 17 percent of the available groundwater within the aquifer.

The 2005 investigation also concluded that the decreasing water levels observed within some of the private wells completed within the Faulder area was in part due to the lower than normal precipitation experienced in the Okanagan Valley in the years immediately preceding the study. Many of the wells experiencing low water levels were inferred to be completed in the shallow aquifer, which generally exhibits greater seasonal fluctuations due to precipitation than the deeper semi-confined/confined aquifer.

August 2008 - 4 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

2.4 Existing Conditions at Faulder Well

In January 2008, RDOS provided Golder with preliminary data on static (non-pumping) and pumping water levels for the Community Well, along with discharge data for selected periods between 2006 and 2007. It is understood that long-term, historical water level data for the Community Well does not exist. A review of the 2006 and 2007 data suggested that the pumping water level in the well had declined to a point within 1 m of the elevation of the intake of the submersible pump that was installed in the well. In addition, a comparison of pumping water levels with discharge suggested that the specific capacity (efficiency) of the well had decreased since the well was completed in 1993. It was suspected that the drop in specific capacity was the result of chemical or biological encrustation on the well screens or due to the migration of fine-grained sand in the aquifer towards the well screens.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

The initial well status assessment and rehabilitation was completed in a phased approach which consisted of completing the following tasks:

Pre-rehabilitation

• Short-duration pumping test and collection of water sample for chemical analyses; and,

• Removal of pump and video camera inspection of well screen.

Rehabilitation

• Use of AirBurst technology to rehabilitate the well; and,

• Conventional development of the well screen assembly.

Post-rehabilitation

• Video camera inspection of well screens and reinstallation of pump;

• Chlorination of well and discharge of chlorinated water to waste;

• Short-duration pumping test and collection of water sample for chemical analyses; and,

• Analyses of data to determine influence of rehabilitation on the specific capacity of the well.

The following provides a detailed methodology for the tasks listed above.

August 2008 - 5 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

3.1 Pre-Rehabilitation

In order to provide baseline data by which to evaluate the effectiveness of well rehabilitation efforts, a short-duration (two hours) pumping test was conducted on the Well prior to the removal of the pump. The short-duration pumping test commenced on February 26, 2008. The static water level in the Well prior to testing was 53 mbgs, resulting in a total available drawdown of 6.1 m which was considerably less than the 12.2 m available indicated in the PHCL report for the 1993 testing.

The target pumping rate for the pre-rehabilitation pumping test was 18.3 L/s (290 USgpm), which is the same pumping rate used for the initial testing in 1993. Testing commenced at this rate, however the rate of drawdown was too rapid and it was determined that there was not enough available drawdown to sustain the desired pumping rate for two hours. Therefore, the pumping rate was reduced to a rate of approximately 9.5 L/s (150 USgpm). Water levels throughout the pumping test were recorded by collecting hand measurements using a water level meter at preselected time intervals.

At the conclusion of the pre-rehabilitation pumping test, a water sample was collected from the well according to standard sampling procedures. The sample was submitted to Caro Analytical Services of Kelowna, BC for analysis of standard potability parameters.

At the conclusion of the pumping test and water quality sampling, the pump, riser pipe and wiring were removed from the Community Well by Aqua Tech Services (Aquatech), of Kelowna, BC. The pump and associated materials were subsequently removed from the Site for disinfection. Water from a tap source in the community distribution system was then added to the Well for approximately 30 minutes to aid in the settling of any suspended solids in the water column such that the video camera inspection could be conducted.

A down-hole video camera survey of the Well was conducted to assess the status of the steel casing, casing weld joints and screen assembly of the well prior to the completion of well rehabilitation efforts. The well was inspected using a high resolution, dual-lens camera which allowed viewing in both axial and radial directions (down-hole and side-view), as well as 360º panorama views.

The camera survey was completed by Golder Associates Innovative Applications (GAIA) Inc., a Golder-owned subsidiary that provides contracting and project management services for environmental remediation and ground engineering projects. A continuous video log was generated and copies made in DVD format. One copy of the video log disk has been included as a supplement to this report.

August 2008 - 6 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

3.2 Rehabilitation

Working closely with Golder, GAIA utilized AirBurst® Technology to enhance conventional rehabilitation of the well. Recent research has shown that the introduction of high energy shock waves into the aquifer formation (through the screen openings) significantly enhances the removal of encrustation on well screens and clogging of the filter pack surrounding the screens, without the use of acid or base chemicals. AirBurst® utilizes a small volume of high pressure inert gas (oxygen or nitrogen) to generate high intensity "pressure-pulses" in the well. The pulses initially create high frequency acoustic waves that break up and remove mineral scales and bio-films the well screen, or in the aquifer immediately surrounding the well screens.

The gas released by this method also creates air bubbles which expand and then collapse within the aquifer formation. Expansion and collapse of the bubble produces an intense surging action that displaces fine sediment, mineral scale and bio-mass within the formation and pulls the debris into the well bore for eventual removal during development.

The AirBurst® tool was lowered into the Faulder Community Well to generate pressure-pulses through the well screen assembly and out into the formation. Multiple passes throughout the well screen assembly were made with the AirBurst® tool, to remove potential encrustations adhering to the well screens and to unclog the filter pack. A total of two complete passes (from the top to the bottom of the well screens and then back to the top again) were made with the AirBurst® tool in the Community Well, at increasing pressure frequencies on each pass of the entire well screen. Additional bursting was completed for the upper 1.5 m section of screen, as a subsequent video inspection of this area revealed that clogging of the open space within the well screen was still present. In conjunction with the AirBurst® Technology, the pump contractor (Aquatech) utilized a pump and suction vacuum to air-lift/remove the released encrustations and sediment from the well. The air-lifting compressor was turned on and off to allow the lifted water to surge within the formation surrounding the screen, thereby moving the fine sediments from within the well casing. Water from the air-lifting was discharged within a natural depression on a neighbouring property, located on the south side of Trout Creek.

August 2008 - 7 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

3.3 Post-Rehabilitation

Following the well rehabilitation, a down-hole video camera survey was completed for comparison with the pre-rehabilitation video log. The down-hole video survey is also intended to represent baseline conditions for comparative assessment in the future.

Subsequent to the rehabilitation, the well was redeveloped by Aquatech for a period of approximately six hours using the previously described airlifting method. Traditional well development using surging and bailing methods with a cable tool rig was not possible at the Community Well due to the presence of overhead electrical wires.

Prior to pump re-installation, Aquatech cleaned and disinfected the pump and all related equipment. Upon installation of the pump, the well was chlorinated using approximately 65 percent of calcium hypochloride. Following a period of approximately 30 minutes, the chlorine waste water was discharged to a tanker truck for discharge off-site.

Subsequent to the pump being re-installed in the well, a short-duration (two hours) post-rehabilitation specific capacity test was completed on March 3, 2008. The test was completed to allow for comparison with pre-rehabilitation specific capacity data, such that the effectiveness of the well rehabilitation program could be determined.

At the conclusion of the well rehabilitation program, the Community Well was again tested for routine potability. The sampling and analysis methods were the same as those for the pre-rehabilitation water quality sample. The sample was submitted to Caro Analytical Services of Kelowna, BC for analysis of standard potability parameters.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Pre-Rehabilitation Inspection and Testing Results

4.1.1 Short Duration Pumping Test

The static water level in the Community Well prior to the beginning of the short-duration pumping test was approximately 53 mbgs, resulting in a total available drawdown of 6.1 m. The maximum drawdown observed in the well after 130 minutes of pumping at a rate of 9.5 L/s (150 USgpm) was approximately 3.4 m, resulting in a short-term specific capacity for the well of 2.8 L/s/m.

A semi-log plot of the drawdown data for the well is shown on Figure 3. Water level measurements and pumping rates for the specific capacity testing completed on the Well are presented in Appendix II.

August 2008 - 8 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

4.1.2 Water Quality Testing

Results of the pre-rehabilitation water quality testing indicated that the water sample collected from the Community Well met the Health Canada Drinking Water Quality Guideline maximum allowable concentration (MAC), aesthetic objective (AO) or operational guideline (OG) for all parameters except for dissolved uranium. The dissolved uranium concentration was reported to be 0.027 mg/L, which is slightly higher than the MAC of 0.02 mg/L. The results of the water quality analyses are provided in Table 1 and Appendix III.

4.1.3 Down-hole Video Camera Survey

The pre-rehabilitation down-hole video camera survey of the Community Well was completed on February 28, 2008. The video survey was used as a baseline to assess the effectiveness of the well rehabilitation efforts performed. The datum or reference measuring point (0.0 m) for the video camera survey was set to the height of the ground surface.

The results of the inspection indicated that the well casing and screen assembly appeared structurally intact. A significant volume of rust build-up was noted inside the well casing, both above and below the water level in the well. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 53 mbgs. The top of the well screen was first observed at a depth of approximately 59.6 mbgs, while the bottom of the well was recorded at a depth of approximately 63.7 mbgs. This is similar to the well construction details provided in Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd.’s (PHCL’s) August 1993 report, which indicated that the bottom of the well screen is at 63.7 mbgs.

The video inspection of the well screens identified sediment clogging within the open space of the screen, throughout the entire length, with the heaviest clogging noted in the upper and lower portions of the screen. The DVD results of the pre-rehabilitation video camera inspection are provided in Appendix IV.

August 2008 - 9 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

4.2 Post-Rehabilitation Inspection and Testing Results

4.2.1 Down-hole Video Camera Survey

Following application of the AirBurst Technology, a video camera inspection of the well was completed. The post-rehabilitation video survey indicated that much of the sediment build-up within the well screen had been dislodged from the screens. Some fine-grained sediment was still noted to exist within the well screen; however, this is likely a result of the video-camera inspection being conducted prior to completion of the well development portion of the rehabilitation efforts. It can be inferred that the fine grained materials were removed during the well redevelopment (conventional well development using via air lifting/surging) conducted by Aquatech.

In addition, some biofouling was observed within the well screen at a depth of approximately 60.3 mbgs (see Photo 1 in Appendix V). Biofouling is the deterioration of a well or aquifer formation surrounding the well screen due to microbiological activity within the well. The DVD results of the post-rehabilitation video camera inspection are provided in Appendix IV.

4.2.2 Short Duration Pumping Test

The static water level in the well prior to the beginning of the post-rehabilitation test was at 52.7 mbgs. The maximum drawdown observed in the well after 130 min of pumping at a rate of 9.5 L/s (150 USgpm) was approximately 2.8 m, resulting in a specific capacity for the well of 3.4 L/s/m.

A semi-log plot of the drawdown data for the well is shown in Figure 4. Water level measurements and pumping rates for the specific capacity testing completed on the Well are presented in Appendix II.

4.2.3 Water Quality Testing

Results of the post-rehabilitation water quality testing indicated that the water sample taken from the Community Well met the Health Canada Drinking Water Quality Guideline maximum allowable concentration (MAC), aesthetic objective (AO) or operational guideline (OG) for all parameters except for dissolved uranium. The dissolved uranium concentration was 0.025 mg/L, which is slightly higher than the MAC of 0.02 mg/L.

The post-rehabilitation turbidity level in the well was 0.7 NTU, which is an acceptable level for a groundwater source that is not under the direct influence of surface water. Furthermore, this turbidity level is 65 percent less than that of the pre-rehabilitation water

August 2008 - 10 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

sample, which reported a turbidity of 2 NTU. A summary of the water quality analyses is presented in Table 1, and a copy of the original laboratory report provided by Caro Labs is presented in Appendix III.

4.3 Aquifer Water Levels

As part of this investigation, Golder completed a preliminary review of historical water levels for the Community Well and a nearby private well, known as the Mearns Well, which is no longer in use. Both the Community Well and the Mearns Well are inferred to be completed within the same aquifer, which is the deeper, semi-confined/confined aquifer in the area. The Mearns Well is located approximately 80 m to the northwest of the Community Well and is screened at a depth between 52.4 mbgs and 53.6 mbgs. The owner of the Mearns Well has provided historical water level data for the period between 1993 and 1995, and between 2003 and the present. The temporal trend in water levels is graphically presented on Figure 5. In addition, Figure 5 also presents water level data for the Community Well for a period between 2006 and 2008.

Based on a review of the available information, the following observations can be made regarding the Mearns Well:

• Seasonal low groundwater levels are recorded in spring (April/May), and that seasonal high groundwater levels are recorded in the late summer (June/July/August).

• The highest recorded water level within the Mearns Well is recorded for September 1993 at approximately 45.7 mbgs. The current water level within the Mearns Well is approximately 52.4 mbgs (March 2008).

• Recharge to the aquifer in the area of the Mearns Well generally occurs between the spring and summer, following spring freshet, with seasonal water levels rising as much as 6.1 m by the summer of 1993, 4.6 m by the summer of 2005 and 3.5 m by the summer of 2006. This trend suggests that recharge to the aquifer has been declining.

• Minimal recharge to the aquifer was observed between the spring and summer of 1994, which recorded a rise in water levels of 1.2 m, and during the spring and summer of 2004, which recorded a rise in the water level of 0.3 m.

• No significant recharge to the aquifer was noted during the spring/summer of 2007, with only a slight decrease observed in the rate of declining water levels. Between August 2006 and March 2008, the water level within the Mearns Well has declined from 47.3 mbgs to 52.5 m, a total drop of 5.2 m.

August 2008 - 11 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

Water level data for the Community Well is limited to the period between February 2006 and June 2008. However, based on the available water level trends observed in the Mearns Well and Faulder Well over the same period of time, it can be inferred that both wells are likely completed in the same aquifer, as similar trends were observed. An exception to the similarity in water level trends is observed in July 2007, when the rate of declining water levels in the Mearns Well slows down, while the rate of declining water levels within the Community Well remains the same (Figure 5).

Recharge to the aquifer in the area of the Community Well was observed between May and July 2006, with water levels rising from 52.1 mbgs to 48.6 mbgs, an increase of approximately 3.5 m. However, no increase in water levels was noted between the spring/summer of 2007, and rather, water levels continued to steadily drop between August 2006 and June 2007. Between July 2006 and June 2008, the water level within the Community Well has declined from 48.5 mbgs to 53.5 m, a total drop of 5 m. Currently, the water level within the Community Well is reported to be approximately 53 mbgs (June 2008).

A review of historical precipitation data between 1981 and the present, for the nearby Summerland Research Station (located approximately 11 km to the east of the Faulder Community Well) indicates that two periods of low precipitation were noted between 1992 and 1995, and between 2000 and 2003. Water level data within the confined aquifer is too limited to be able to correlate precipitation information with aquifer water levels. However, it may be possible that the declining water levels currently being realized within the aquifer are a result of one or more of these past periods of low precipitation (i.e., a lag-time effect between the past low precipitation period and current water levels).

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 Specific Capacity

The total drawdown observed in the Community Well during the pre-rehabilitation short-duration pumping test was approximately 3.4 m, while the total drawdown during the post-rehabilitation pumping test was 2.8 m. In comparison with the estimated pre-rehabilitation specific capacity of 2.8 L/s/m, the post-rehabilitation specific capacity for the Community Well increased to 3.4 L/s/m. This represents an increase in well efficiency (defined as specific capacity) of approximately 20 percent as a result of well rehabilitation efforts. In addition, when compared to discharge and water level information provided by RDOS for May 2006, the specific capacity has increased by approximately 30 percent. A comparison of the specific capacity results for the Community Well is summarized in the Table below.

August 2008 - 12 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

Table 2. Comparison of Specific Capacities

Pumping Test Elapsed Time (min)

Pumping Rate Drawdown Specific Capacity

(USgpm) (L/s) (m) (L/s/m) May 2006 130 152 9.2 3.6 2.6 Pre-Rehabilitation 130 150 9.46 3.4 2.8 Post-Rehabilitation 130 150 9.46 2.80 3.4

5.2 Wellhead Adjustment, Pump Setting Depths and Available Drawdown

Aquatech made some modifications to the electrical connections at the well head to ensure compliance with the BC Electrical Code and the BC Groundwater Protection Regulations. This included the relocation of the electric box associated with the well. The electric box formerly was located outside of the wellhead, within a depression surrounding the well. It was observed that ponded water could accumulate around the electric box. Photographs of the modified wellhead are provided in Appendix V.

A visual assessment of the integrity and verification of dimension, as well as depth of placement, was completed for the dedicated pumping equipment in the well by Aquatech (Appendix VI). According to Aquatech, the pump and associated equipment appeared to be in good condition. The submersible pump and motor assembly for the Well has a total length of approximately 3 m, with the base of the motor on the submersible pump set at a depth of approximately 59.6 mbgs. The top of the pump intake is set at a depth of approximately 58.25 mbgs, while the bottom of the pump intake is set at a depth of approximately 58.4 mbgs and approximately 59.6 m below the top of the wellhead. The bottom of the pump intake is approximately 0.7 m above the top of the well screen assembly (as identified within the PHCL report).

The pump and motor assembly should never be set inside the well screen, as this may reduce the proper cooling of the pump motor and/or create turbulent flow patterns, which can lead to premature pump failure and well screen deterioration.

Based on the static water level noted during the pumping tests (53 mbgs), the current total available drawdown (static water level to the top of the pump intake) in the well is approximately 5.3 m. By convention, using only 70 percent of the total available drawdown provides a “safe” available drawdown that accounts for seasonal water level fluctuations and pump submergence requirements. Thus, the safe available drawdown for the well is approximately 3.7 m, to a depth of 56.7 mbgs.

August 2008 - 13 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

5.3 Declining Well Yields and Water Levels

Available information suggests that the well yield and water levels within the Community Well have declined over the past several months. Declining well yields are inferred to be a result of a loss of well efficiency observed over time. This has likely resulted from the migration of fine grained sediments into the natural filter pack surrounding the well screen, as well as biofouling on the well screen and likely within the surrounding aquifer formation. Physical well rehabilitation efforts (AirBursting) has improved the efficiency of the well by approximately 20 percent; however, some evidence of biofouling was still observed on the well screen at a depth of approximately 60.3 mbgs.

Although the water level within the Community Well directly influences the available drawdown, the declining water level is not likely due to the observed decline in well efficiency. Although recharge to the aquifer is generally observed on an annual basis (between spring and summer), no recharge to the aquifer was observed this past year (June/July 2007). As such, the water level within the aquifer which hosts the Community Well has declined to approximately 53 mbgs, and is now near the top of the pump, thus reducing available drawdown, and in turn, well yield. This lack of recharge to the aquifer in June/July 2007 was also noted within the nearby Mearns Well.

Based on the historical water levels observed within the Mearns Well, it can be inferred that recharge to the semi-confined/confined aquifer is influenced annually by precipitation, as generally observed within the seasonal fluctuations of the water levels within the wells (i.e., significant, relatively quick recharge observed in the spring/summer, with a slow decline in water levels throughout the remainder of the year until the next spring freshet). However, it is unclear why limited recharge to the aquifer was observed in 2007.

Generally, a decline in water levels within an aquifer can be attributed to i) low periods of recharge to the aquifer (possibly due to low precipitation); ii) increased groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer; or iii) a combination of both. As noted previously, two periods of low precipitation have been evident in the early to mid 1990s and the early 2000s. However, as water level data within the aquifer is limited, it is unclear whether the current declining water levels in the aquifer are related to these periods of low precipitation.

In addition to the precipitation information, it should also be noted that construction on Thirsk Reservoir and Dam have been underway since early 2007. It is understood that the water level within the Reservoir was lowered dramatically in 2007 to allow for adding to the height of the dam. Water levels within the Reservoir were lowered by releasing larger amounts of water into Trout Creek. It is possible that lower water levels within the

August 2008 - 14 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

Reservoir, as well as higher surface water gradients within Trout Creek, have had an effect on the recharge rates to the Faulder semi-confined/confined aquifer.

In general, groundwater withdrawals from the Faulder area are limited to private water well owners who pump water for irrigation and drinking water purposes. As stated within Golder’s 2005 investigation, withdrawal rates were estimated to be approximately 1,650,000 m3/yr. However, it is possible that groundwater withdrawals may be greater than this. In addition, it is also possible that some unlicensed extractions from Darke Creek exist during the dry summer months, thereby reducing potential recharge to the semi-confined/confined aquifer.

Golder made inquiries to the District of Summerland regarding their groundwater usage over the last several years. Based on conversations with Mr. Shawn Hughes of the Municipality of Summerland, it is understood that the Summerland Rodeo Ground Wells have not been used in the last several years, and are only turned on intermittently for brief periods to ensure that the pump is still in operating condition. In addition, it is understood that there has not been any pumping of the wells located on the Proposed Golf Course (yet to be approved), proposed to be located to the west of the Summerland Rodeo Grounds. Both the Rodeo Ground Wells and the Proposed Golf Course Wells are located approximately 5 km hydraulically downgradient of the Faulder Community Well.

5.4 Water Quality

The dissolved uranium concentrations in both the pre- and post-rehabilitation water quality samples from the Community Well were slightly higher than the MAC of 0.02 mg/L. The observed concentrations are consistent with past uranium levels within groundwater collected from the Community Well. It is understood that the RDOS is aware of the uranium issue for the Community Well and is currently undertaking studies to address this issue.

All other parameter concentrations analyzed for were well below acceptable guidelines.

August 2008 - 15 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Available information regarding water levels within the semi-confined/confined aquifer is limited. As such, the following recommendations are provided to aid in determining the cause of the declining water level within the aquifer, thereby allowing RDOS to make informed decisions regarding the future of the Community Well and Faulder water supply system.

• Accurate and up-to-date records of well performance (total flow, well drawdown while pumping, static water level in the well) should be maintained by the well operator. In addition to recording flow rates and pressure transducer readings of water levels, both static and pumping water levels should be manually measured with an electric well sounder for comparison. The flow meters and pressure transducers that the wells are equipped with should be maintained and serviced to ensure that the readings are correct. This information should be collected on a monthly basis, at a minimum, and more frequently, if possible.

• Water samples should be collected from the wells at least once per year to assess changes in inorganic water quality. This testing does not preclude routine testing that may be recommended by the Interior Health Authority for any other parameters (including biological) or at different frequencies.

• Routine well inspection and maintenance are mandatory in order to prolong the life of a well. Any changes in the water chemistry and operating characteristics of the well should be closely monitored and dealt with promptly, as both the well and pump can deteriorate beyond repair if problems are left unattended.

• Monitoring data should be periodically reviewed by a qualified professional. Typically, if the specific capacity of the well decreases by 15 to 20 percent, this is indication that a well rehabilitation program may be required. For non-domestic (municipal) wells, the typical frequency for major well maintenance is usually every 5 to 10 years. Down-hole video camera inspection should be completed every 3 to 5 years, or at the same time when down-hole pumping equipment is removed for scheduled inspection.

• A monitoring well should be drilled and completed in the area to the west of the Faulder Community Well, farther along Trout Creek, to monitor groundwater flows and static water levels in the area hydraulically upgradient of the Community Well. This well would be useful in assessing water levels under non-pumping conditions.

August 2008 - 16 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

• Regular monitoring of static (non-pumping) water levels in several observations wells near the Faulder Community Well is recommended in order to delineate the limits of the aquifer in which the well is located, to ascertain the groundwater flow direction and gradient, and to track trends in water levels over time. It is recommended that water levels within the Mearns Well continue to be measured, and that water levels for additional wells completed within the same aquifer (such as the Gibbs Well) also be monitored on a regular basis. Also, in order to accurately compare the water levels from the Mearns Well, Faulder Community Well and Gibbs Well, it is recommended that these well elevations be surveyed.

• In order to aid in the determination of the recharge area for the semi-confined/confined aquifer underlying the Community of Faulder, it is recommended that age dating of a collected water sample be completed. It is recommended that a water sample be collected for submission to the University of Waterloo, for the analyses of tritium and helium, which will provide an approximately date for the water sample (± several months to a year). Once the approximate age of the water is known, estimates of the distance to recharge areas can be determined based on several assumptions, including direction of groundwater flow and groundwater velocity. This will allow for a closer examination of the possible ongoing development within the recharge areas and other possible water extractions that may be impacting water levels in the area of the Faulder Community Well. In addition, age dating the water can also provide some correlation for the time-lag for precipitation to reach (recharge) the aquifer.

• Other private water well users within the Faulder area should be approached in regards to collecting water level information for their private wells. It is recommended that a detailed survey be developed for the Faulder residents to accurately determine how many private wells are located in the Faulder area, water levels within these wells and potential pumping rates. This could be conducted by completing a door-to-door survey carried out by a member of the RDOS. In addition, several private wells could be selected to have a dedicated pressure transducer installed within their well, such that water levels can be recorded on an ongoing basis.

Should water levels continue to drop within the Faulder Community Well, such that the well becomes inoperable, the RDOS could consider the following options:

• Operating the nearby Gibbs Well as a community water supply source for the residents of Faulder. The Gibbs Well is located approximately 50 m to the east of the Faulder Community Well and is inferred to be completed within the same aquifer. However, the total depth of the Gibbs Well is significantly deeper than the Faulder Community Well, with the well screen located at a depth of

August 2008 - 17 - 08-1440-0029

Golder Associates

approximately 79.9 mbgs to 83.5 mbgs, compared with the Faulder Community Well screen completed between approximately 59.1 mbgs and 63.7 mbgs.

• Drilling a new well at one or more of the following locations:

o In the area of the Gibbs Well – the Gibbs Well was drilled to a maximum depth pf 83.5 mbgs. However, it is unclear why the well was not drilled to greater depths, as it does not appear that bedrock or fine grained materials were encountered at the end of the borehole.

o In an area to the east of the Gibbs Well, nearer to the centre of the aquifer (to the east/southeast) such that a new well could be completed to a greater depth than the Faulder Community Well, maximizing the total available drawdown.

It is understood that the RDOS is considering the drilling of a well in the shallow aquifer in the area of the Faulder Community Well, adjacent to Trout Creek, to supplement their existing water supply system. Information regarding the shallow aquifer in this area is limited. However, in general, information on other shallow groundwater wells in the Faulder area indicates that the volume of water available from the shallow aquifer is limited, with minimal available drawdown.

August 2008 Table 1Pre- and Post- Rehabilitation Water Quality Data

Faulder Community WellFaulder, BC

08-1440-0029

SCN Pre-Rehabilitation Post-RehabilitationLocation Health Canada Health Canada Faulder Well Faulder Well

CARO ID Drinking Water Guideline Drinking Water Guideline K8B0604 K8C0027Date MAC AO or OG 26-Feb-2008 3-Mar-2008

Notes Notes

Dissolved Metalsaluminum 0.1 / 0.2 a <0.050 <0.050antimony 0.006 b <0.0030 <0.0030arsenic 0.01 <0.005 <0.005barium 1 0.092 0.091beryllium <0.0020 <0.0020bismuth <0.0005 <0.0005boron 5 <0.020 <0.020cadmium 0.005 <0.00010 <0.00010calcium 36.4 36.1chromium 0.05 <0.005 <0.005cobalt <0.0005 <0.0005copper <= 1.0 b 0.0314 0.0056iron <= 0.3 <0.200 <0.200lead 0.01 b <0.0010 <0.0010lithium 0.0042 0.0035magnesium 11.4 11.6manganese <= 0.05 <0.005 <0.005mercury 0.001 <0.00030 <0.00030molybdenum 0.0209 0.0212nickel <0.005 <0.005phosphorus <0.200 <0.200potassium 2.87 2.98selenium 0.01 <0.005 <0.005silicon 8.54 8.72silver <0.00040 0.00073sodium <= 200 d 11.6 11.6strontium 0.630 0.606thallium <0.0005 <0.0005titanium <0.100 <0.100uranium 0.02 0.0266 0.0248vanadium <0.010 <0.010zinc <= 5.0 b 0.052 0.038

Other Inorganicschloride <= 250 1.70 1.71nitrate as N 45 0.114 0.115nitrite as N <0.010 <0.010sulfate <= 500 e 15.7 15.6alkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 153 155alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 <1.0 <1.0alkalinity, Hydroxide as CaCO3 <1.0 <1.0alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 153 155Other Parameterscolour, true <= 15 <5 <5pH 6.5 - 8.5 c 7.0 7.4total dissolved solids <= 500 180 189turbidity 0.3/1.0/0.1 NTU f 2.0 0.7

Microbiological ParametersBacteriological

E. coli 0 per 100 mL <1 <1coliforms, total 0 per 100 mL <1 <1

Notes:All concentrations in milligrams per litre (mg/L), unless otherwise noted.Guidelines from the Health Canada document "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - Summary Table", March 2006.MAC = Maximum Allowable Concentration; AO = Aesthetic Objective; OG = Operational Guideline.P = Proposed Guideline.<= signifies less than or equal toa. This is an operational guidance value, designed to apply only to drinking water treatment plants using aluminum-based coagulants. The operational guidance values of 0.1 mg/L applies to conventional treatment plants, and 0.2 mg/L applies to other types of treatment systems.b. Faucets should be thoroughly flushed before water is taken for consumption or analysis.c. No units.d. It is recommended that sodium be included in routine monitoring programmes, as levels may be of interest to authorities who wish to presecribe sodium-restricted diets for their patients.e. There may be a laxative effect in some individuals when sulphate levels exceed 500 mg/L.f. Based on conventional treatment / slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration / membrane filtration.

http://capws/P824015wellRehabilitation/Phases and Tasks/Analytical Results/\Water Quality Data.xls Golder Associates 1 of 1

Site Location

KEY PLAN

RDOSFAULDER WELL REHABILITATION

FAULDER, B.C.

FIGURE: 11.) COORDINATE REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 11n, NAD83MAP REFERENCE: PRODUCED UNDER LICENSES GRANTED BY HER MAJESTYTHE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENTOF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND BY SOFTMAP TECHNOLOGIES INC.

REFERENCES

GIBBS WELL

MEARNS WELL

FAULDERCOMMUNITY WELL

T R O U T C R E

EK

TROUT CREEK

DAR

KE C

REE

K

AGUR CT.

FIS

H L

AK

E R

D.

KET

TLE

PL.

PRINCETON-SUMMERLAND RD.

PR

INC

ETO

N-S

UM

MER

LAND

RD

.

SITE PLAN


FAULDER, B.C.

FIGURE: 21.) BASEMAP DATA PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT OF SUMMERLAND.

REFERENCES

LEGENDWELL LOCATION

CREEK/RIVER

PROPERTY LINE

ROAD

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.500 1 10 100 1,000

Time (min)

Draw

dow

n (m

)

Pumping Rate = 9.46 L/s (150 USgpm)

PRE-REHABILITATION PUMPING TESTDATA


FAULDER, B.C.

FIGURE: 3

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.500 1 10 100 1,000

Time (min)

Dra

wdo

wn

(m)

Pumping Rate = 9.46 L/s (150 USgpm)

POST-REHABILITATION PUMPING TESTDATA


FAULDER, B.C.

FIGURE: 4

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

31-D

ec-8

0

31-D

ec-8

3

31-D

ec-8

6

31-D

ec-8

9

31-D

ec-9

2

31-D

ec-9

5

31-D

ec-9

8

31-D

ec-0

1

31-D

ec-0

4

31-D

ec-0

7

Date

Dep

th to

Wat

er (m

bgs)

Mearns Static Water Level

Faulder Static Water Level-Hand

Faulder Static Water Level-Logger

Mearns Well Dry(Depth of Well from Log

Mearns Well Drilled

Faulder Well Drilled

APPENDIX I

WELL LOGS

APPENDIX II

SHORT DURATION PUMPING TEST DATA

Pre-Rehabilitation Pumping TestFaulder Community Well

Faulder, BCFebruary 26, 2008

08-1440-0029

10:55 AM 0.00 176.8 0 0.00 Pumping rate at 150 Usgpm0.32 182.2 5.4 1.650.57 186 9.2 2.80

10:56 AM 1.0 187.4 10.6 3.231.5 187.43 10.63 3.24

10:57 AM 2.0 187.43 10.63 3.242.5 187.65 10.85 3.31

10:58 AM 3.0 187.7 10.9 3.323.5 187.7 10.9 3.32

10:59 AM 4 187.7 10.9 3.3211:00 AM 5 187.7 10.9 3.3211:01 AM 6 187.71 10.91 3.33

8.5 187.75 10.95 3.3411:05 AM 10 187.76 10.96 3.3411:07 AM 12 187.75 10.95 3.3411:09 AM 14 187.73 10.93 3.3311:11 AM 16 187.73 10.93 3.3311:15 AM 20 187.74 10.94 3.3311:20 AM 25 187.74 10.94 3.3311:25 AM 30 187.74 10.94 3.3311:30 AM 35 187.75 10.95 3.3411:40 AM 45 187.76 10.96 3.3411:55 AM 60 187.78 10.98 3.3512:10 PM 75 187.76 10.96 3.3412:25 PM 90 187.76 10.96 3.3412:40 PM 105 187.76 10.96 3.3412:55 PM 120 187.78 10.98 3.351:05 PM 130 187.78 10.98 3.35 Pump off at 130 min

130.17 185 8.2 2.50 0.167130.5 179 2.2 0.67 0.5

1:06 PM 131.0 176.4 -0.4 -0.12 1131.5 176.1 -0.7 -0.21 1.5132.5 175.98 -0.82 -0.25 2.5133.5 175.93 -0.87 -0.27 3.5

1:10 PM 135 175.88 -0.92 -0.28 51:11 PM 136 175.87 -0.93 -0.28 61:12 PM 137 175.87 -0.93 -0.28 71:13 PM 138 175.86 -0.94 -0.29 81:14 PM 139 175.85 -0.95 -0.29 91:15 PM 140 175.84 -0.96 -0.29 101:17 PM 142 175.82 -0.98 -0.30 121:19 PM 144 175.82 -0.98 -0.30 141:21 PM 146 175.82 -0.98 -0.30 161:44 PM 169 175.76 -1.04 -0.32 391:53 PM 178 175.74 -1.06 -0.32 481:55 PM 180 175.74 -1.06 -0.32 50

Time since

pump off (min)Time Comments

Elapsed Time since

pumping started (min)

Depth to water

(ft btoc)Drawdown

(ft)Drawdown

(m)

http://capws/P824015wellRehabilitation/Phases and Tasks/Pumping Tests/Pre AirBurst Pumping Test_Feb 26.xls Golder Associates 1 of 1

Post-Rehabilitation Pumping TestFaulder Community Well

Faulder, BCMarch 3, 2008

08-1440-0029

0 177.52 0 0.00 Pumping rate at approx. 190 USgpm0.25 185.6 8.08 2.46 Pumping rate at approx. 130 USgpm0.50 186.7 9.18 2.801.00 186.7 9.18 2.801.5 186.7 9.18 2.802.0 186.7 9.18 2.80 150 Usgpm flow stabilizing2.5 186.7 9.18 2.803.0 186.7 9.18 2.80

11:45 AM 4.0 186.71 9.19 2.805.0 186.71 9.19 2.80 150.5 US gpm

8 186.71 9.19 2.8010 186.71 9.19 2.8015 186.71 9.19 2.80 150 US gpm

20.0 186.71 9.19 2.8012:06 PM 25 186.71 9.19 2.80

30 186.71 9.19 2.8045 186.71 9.19 2.80

12:41 PM 60 186.71 9.19 2.8012:56 PM 75 186.71 9.19 2.80

90 186.71 9.19 2.80110 186.71 9.19 2.80

1:51 PM 130 186.71 9.19 2.80 Pump off at 130 min130.5 184 6.48 1.98 0.5

131 178.3 0.78 0.24 1131.25 178 0.48 0.15 1.25131.5 177.9 0.38 0.12 1.5

131.75 177.85 0.33 0.10 1.75132 177.8 0.28 0.09 2

132.5 177.75 0.23 0.07 2.5133 177.73 0.21 0.06 3134 177.7 0.18 0.05 4135 177.68 0.16 0.05 5138 177.64 0.12 0.04 8140 177.62 0.1 0.03 10

2:06 PM 145 177.6 0.08 0.02 15150 177.59 0.07 0.02 20160 177.57 0.05 0.02 30165 177.56 0.04 0.01 35

Time since

pump off (min)Time Comments

Elapsed Time since pumping

started (min)

Depth to water

(ft btoc)Drawdown

(ft)Drawdown

(m)

http://capws/P824015wellRehabilitation/Phases and Tasks/Pumping Tests/Post AirBurst Pumping Test_Mar3.xls Golder Associates Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX III

WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

CARO Analytical Services employs methods which are based on those found in “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater”, 21st Edition, 2005, published by the American Public Health Association (APHA); US EPA protocols found in

“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846”, 3rd Edition; and protocols published by the

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE).

Methods not described in these publications are conducted according to procedures accepted by appropriate regulatory agencies,

and/or are done in accordance with recognized professional standards using accepted testing methodologies and quality control

efforts except where otherwise agreed to by the client.

The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report

must be reproduced in its entirity. CARO is not responsible for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from error or

omission in the conduct of testing. Liability is limited to the cost of analysis. Samples will be disposed of 30 days after the test

report has been issued unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

• All solids results are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted

• Units: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

mg/L = milligrams per litre, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

ug/L = micrograms per litre, equivalent to parts per billion (ppb)

ug/g = micrograms per gram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

• "RDL" Reported detection limit

• "<" Less than reported detection limit

Please call the lab if you need more information.

Page 1 of 4

General Comments:

Final Review Per:

REPORTED

RECEIVED / TEMP

COC #(s)

WORK ORDER #

PROJECT NAME

102 - 3677 Highway 97N Kelowna, BC Canada V1X 5C3

Tel: (250) 765-9646 Fax: (250) 765-3893 Web: www.caro.ca

CARO Analytical Services

04-Mar-08

PROJECT NUMBER

26-Feb-08 16:00 / 7 °C

Jennifer Shanko

Lab Manager

K8B0604

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

CLIENT Golder Associates Ltd.

#220 - 1755 Springfield Road

KELOWNA BC, V1Y 5V5

V1Y 5V5

TEL (250) 860-8424

FAX (250) 860-9874

ATTENTION Melissa Holt

15930

Golder Enhanced Potability

08-1440-0029

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME

Golder Associates Ltd.


WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

K8B0604

04-Mar-08

Analyte RDL Units AnalyzedResult

Faulder Well (K8B0604-01) Matrix: Water Sampled: 26-Feb-08 13:00

Notes

Dissolved Metals by ICPMS

mg/LAluminum 0.050 29-Feb-08< 0.050

"Antimony 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Arsenic 0.005 "< 0.005

"Barium 0.005 "0.092

"Beryllium 0.0020 "< 0.0020

"Bismuth 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Boron 0.020 "< 0.020

"Cadmium 0.00010 "< 0.00010

"Calcium 0.500 "36.4

"Chromium 0.005 "< 0.005

"Cobalt 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Copper 0.0030 "0.0314

"Iron 0.200 "< 0.200

"Lead 0.0010 "< 0.0010

"Lithium 0.0020 "0.0042

"Magnesium 0.200 "11.4

"Manganese 0.005 "< 0.005

"Mercury 0.00030 "< 0.00030

"Molybdenum 0.0010 "0.0209

"Nickel 0.005 "< 0.005

"Phosphorus 0.200 "< 0.200

"Potassium 0.200 "2.87

"Selenium 0.005 "< 0.005

"Silicon 0.250 "8.54

"Silver 0.00040 "< 0.00040

"Sodium 0.200 "11.6

"Strontium 0.005 "0.630

"Tellurium 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Thallium 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Thorium 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Tin 0.0020 "< 0.0020

"Titanium 0.100 "< 0.100

"Uranium 0.0005 "0.0266

"Vanadium 0.010 "< 0.010

"Zinc 0.030 "0.052

"Zirconium 0.005 "< 0.005

General Inorganic Parameters

mg/LAlkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 1.0 28-Feb-08153

"Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 1.0 "< 1.0

"Alkalinity, Hydroxide as CaCO3 1.0 "< 1.0

"Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 1.0 "153

Page 2 of 4Caro Analytical Services (Kelowna)

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

K8B0604

04-Mar-08



Notes

General Inorganic Parameters, Continued

mg/LChloride 0.10 27-Feb-081.70

Colour UnitsColour, True 5 29-Feb-08< 5

uS/cmConductivity (EC) 5 04-Mar-08306

mg/LFluoride 0.10 27-Feb-080.18

"Hardness (CaCO3 equiv) 1.65 04-Mar-08132

"Nitrate as N 0.010 27-Feb-080.114

"Nitrite as N 0.010 "< 0.010

pH UnitspH 0.1 27-Feb-087.0

mg/LSulfate 1.0 27-Feb-0815.7

"Total Dissolved Solids 5 03-Mar-08180

NTUTurbidity 0.1 03-Mar-082.0

Microbiological Parameters

CFU/100mLColiforms, Total 1 26-Feb-08< 1

"E. Coli 1 "< 1

Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS

mg/LAluminum 0.10 04-Mar-08< 0.10

"Antimony 0.0060 "< 0.0060

"Arsenic 0.010 "< 0.010

"Barium 0.010 "0.085

"Beryllium 0.0040 "< 0.0040

"Bismuth 0.0010 "< 0.0010

"Boron 0.040 "< 0.040

"Cadmium 0.00020 "< 0.00020

"Calcium 1.0 "34.1

"Chromium 0.030 "< 0.030

"Cobalt 0.0010 "< 0.0010

"Copper 0.0060 "0.0335

"Iron 0.40 "< 0.40

"Lead 0.0020 "< 0.0020

"Lithium 0.0040 "< 0.0040


"Manganese 0.010 "< 0.010

"Mercury 0.00060 "< 0.00060

"Molybdenum 0.0020 "0.0193

"Nickel 0.010 "< 0.010

"Phosphorus 0.40 "< 0.40


"Selenium 0.010 "< 0.010

"Silicon 2.0 "6.4

"Silver 0.00160 "< 0.00160


SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

K8B0604

04-Mar-08



Notes

Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS, Continued

mg/LSodium 0.40 "11.4

"Strontium 0.010 "0.566

"Tellurium 0.0060 "< 0.0060

"Thallium 0.0010 "< 0.0010

"Thorium 0.0060 "< 0.0060

"Tin 0.0040 "< 0.0040

"Titanium 0.20 "< 0.20

"Uranium 0.0010 "0.0255

"Vanadium 0.020 "< 0.020

"Zinc 0.060 "< 0.060

"Zirconium 0.010 "< 0.010


QUALITY CONTROL DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

RPD%RECSourceSpikeReporting

Analyte Notes LimitRPDLimits%RECResultLevelUnitsLimitResult

General Inorganic Parameters , Batch K800590

Blank (K800590-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 27-Feb-08

pH pH Units0.1<


pH pH Units0.1<


pH pH Units0.1<

LCS (K800590-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 27-Feb-08

pH pH Units0.1 98-102<





Duplicate (K800590-DUP1) Prepared & Analyzed: 27-Feb-08Source: K8B0553-01

pH pH Units0.1 517.5 7.6


pH pH Units0.1 507.6 7.6


pH pH Units0.1 50.26.6 6.6

Reference (K800590-SRM1) Prepared & Analyzed: 27-Feb-08

pH pH Units0.1 7.00 98-1021007.0


pH pH Units0.1 7.00 98-1021007.0


pH pH Units0.1 7.00 98-1021007.0



Chloride mg/L0.10<

Fluoride "0.10<

Nitrite as N "0.010<

Nitrate as N "0.010<

Sulfate "1.0<


Chloride mg/L0.10<

Fluoride "0.10<



Sulfate "1.0<


Chloride mg/L0.10 4.00 85-115953.78

Fluoride "0.10 4.00 85-115993.94

Nitrite as N "0.010 4.00 85-115983.91

Nitrate as N "0.010 4.00 85-115993.97



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED



General Inorganic Parameters , Batch K800591 (Continued)


Sulfate mg/L1.0 4.00 85-115983.9


Chloride mg/L0.10 4.00 85-115953.79

Fluoride "0.10 4.00 85-1151004.00

Nitrite as N "0.010 4.00 85-115983.91

Nitrate as N "0.010 4.00 85-1151003.98

Sulfate "1.0 4.00 85-115973.9


Chloride mg/L0.10 2036.98 6.78

Fluoride "0.10 200.18 0.17

Nitrite as N "0.010 20< <

Nitrate as N "0.010 200.70.097 0.096


Chloride mg/L0.10 2044.43 4.60

Fluoride "0.10 20< <


Nitrate as N "0.010 200.50.285 0.287

Sulfate "1.0 200.214.5 14.5



Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L1.0<

Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 "1.0<

Alkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 "1.0<

Alkalinity, Hydroxide as CaCO3 "1.0<

















Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L1.0 2016168 143

Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 "1.0 20< <

Alkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 "1.0 2016168 143

Alkalinity, Hydroxide as CaCO3 "1.0 20< <


Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L1.0 20390.0 87.0



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED





Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 mg/L1.0 20< <

Alkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 "1.0 20390.0 87.0



Blank (K800635-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 03-Mar-08

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L5<

Duplicate (K800635-DUP1) Prepared & Analyzed: 03-Mar-08Source: K8B0604-01

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L5 2016154 180

Reference (K800635-SRM1) Prepared & Analyzed: 03-Mar-08

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L5 240 85-11590216



Turbidity NTU0.1<


Turbidity NTU0.1<


Turbidity NTU0.1<

LCS (K800636-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 03-Mar-08

Turbidity NTU0.1 40.0 85-1159940


Turbidity NTU0.1 40.0 85-11510040


Turbidity NTU0.1 40.0 85-1159940


Turbidity NTU0.1 20< <


Turbidity NTU0.1 2038.0 8.3

Duplicate (K800636-DUP3) Prepared & Analyzed: 03-Mar-08Source: K8C0008-02




Colour, True Colour Units5<




Colour, True Colour Units5 15.0 80-12010015




CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED







Colour, True Colour Units5 20< <


Colour, True Colour Units5 20< <


Blank (K800638-BLK1) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 04-Mar-08

Conductivity (EC) uS/cm5<







LCS (K800638-BS1) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 04-Mar-08

Conductivity (EC) uS/cm5 1410 90-110981390







Duplicate (K800638-DUP1) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 04-Mar-08Source: K8B0603-01

Conductivity (EC) uS/cm5 2014288 331





Duplicate (K800638-DUP4) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 04-Mar-08

Conductivity (EC) uS/cm5 20<

Microbiological Parameters , Batch K800558


Coliforms, Total CFU/100mL1<

E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED



Microbiological Parameters , Batch K800558 (Continued)



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<


Coliforms, Total CFU/100mL1 40< <

E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <


Coliforms, Total CFU/100mL1 40< 8

E. Coli "1 40< 1



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <

Dissolved Metals by ICPMS , Batch R800552



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED



Dissolved Metals by ICPMS , Batch R800552 (Continued)

Blank (R800552-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 29-Feb-08

Aluminum mg/L0.05<

Antimony "0.003<

Arsenic "0.005<

Barium "0.005<

Beryllium "0.002<

Bismuth "0.0005<

Boron "0.02<

Cadmium "0.0001<

Calcium "0.5<

Chromium "0.005<

Cobalt "0.0005<

Copper "0.003<

Iron "0.2<

Lead "0.001<

Lithium "0.002<

Magnesium "0.2<

Manganese "0.005<

Mercury "0.0003<

Molybdenum "0.001<

Nickel "0.005<

Phosphorus "0.2<

Potassium "0.2<

Selenium "0.005<

Silicon "0.2<

Silver "0.0004<

Sodium "0.2<

Strontium "0.005<

Tellurium "0.003<

Thallium "0.0005<

Thorium "0.003<

Tin "0.002<

Titanium "0.1<

Uranium "0.0005<

Vanadium "0.01<

Zinc "0.03<

Zirconium "0.005<

Reference (R800552-SRM1) Prepared & Analyzed: 29-Feb-08

Aluminum mg/L0.05 0.550 80-1201040.6

Antimony "0.003 0.110 80-1201100.1

Arsenic "0.005 1.03 80-1201071

Barium "0.005 8.26 80-120958

Beryllium "0.002 0.530 80-1201120.6

Boron "0.02 4.07 80-1201074

Cadmium "0.0001 0.510 80-1201080.55

Calcium "0.5 13.9 80-12011115

Chromium "0.005 0.980 80-1201031

Cobalt "0.0005 0.300 80-1201100.3

Copper "0.003 1.99 80-1201122.2

Iron "0.2 3.02 80-1201063

Lead "0.001 0.330 80-1201120.4

Lithium "0.002 0.250 80-1201150.3

Magnesium "0.2 9.11 80-120999

Manganese "0.005 0.790 80-120980.8

Molybdenum "0.001 1.03 80-1201121.2

Nickel "0.005 2.01 80-1201032



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED




Reference (R800552-SRM1) Prepared & Analyzed: 29-Feb-08

Potassium mg/L0.2 6.45 80-120986

Selenium "0.005 0.0770 80-1201090.08

Sodium "0.2 43.3 80-12010144

Strontium "0.005 2.53 80-1201013

Thallium "0.0005 0.104 80-1201030.1

Uranium "0.0005 0.490 80-1201030.5

Vanadium "0.01 2.02 80-1201012

Zinc "0.03 2.00 80-1201122

Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS , Batch R800566

Blank (R800566-BLK1) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 04-Mar-08

Aluminum mg/L0.05<

Antimony "0.0030<

Arsenic "0.005<

Barium "0.005<

Beryllium "0.0020<

Bismuth "0.0005<

Boron "0.020<

Cadmium "0.00010<

Calcium "0.5<

Chromium "0.015<

Cobalt "0.0005<

Copper "0.0030<

Iron "0.20<

Lead "0.0010<

Lithium "0.0020<

Magnesium "0.20<

Manganese "0.005<

Mercury "0.00030<

Molybdenum "0.0010<

Nickel "0.005<

Phosphorus "0.20<

Potassium "0.20<

Selenium "0.005<

Silicon "1.0<

Silver "0.00080<

Sodium "0.20<

Strontium "0.005<

Tellurium "0.0030<

Thallium "0.0005<

Thorium "0.0030<

Tin "0.0020<

Titanium "0.10<

Uranium "0.0005<

Vanadium "0.010<

Zinc "0.030<

Zirconium "0.005<

Reference (R800566-SRM1) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 04-Mar-08

Aluminum mg/L0.05 0.920 80-1201111.03

Antimony "0.0030 0.210 80-1201130.237

Arsenic "0.005 0.400 80-1201110.444

Barium "0.005 2.01 80-120951.91

Beryllium "0.0020 0.160 80-1201020.164

Boron "0.020 9.88 80-12011611.5



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8B0604

04-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED



Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS , Batch R800566 (Continued)


Cadmium mg/L0.00010 0.200 80-1201080.216

Calcium "0.5 22.1 80-12010924.0

Chromium "0.015 0.680 80-1201070.726

Cobalt "0.0005 0.0950 80-1201140.108

Copper "0.0030 0.500 80-1201130.567

Iron "0.20 1.48 80-1201191.77

Lead "0.0010 0.630 80-1201140.715

Lithium "0.0020 0.710 80-1201050.749

Magnesium "0.20 4.83 80-1201095.26

Manganese "0.005 0.340 80-1201100.372

Molybdenum "0.0010 0.520 80-1201180.613

Nickel "0.005 0.830 80-1201080.895

Potassium "0.20 12.8 80-12011014.1

Selenium "0.005 0.320 80-1201010.323

Sodium "0.20 21.6 80-12010723.2

Strontium "0.005 0.950 80-1201050.998

Thallium "0.0005 0.260 80-1201150.298

Uranium "0.0005 0.0970 80-1201130.109

Vanadium "0.010 0.990 80-1201051.04

Zinc "0.030 5.01 80-1201004.99

Definitions: LCS = Laboratory Control Sample

RPD = Relative Percent (Note: RPD values not calculated where either duplicate or source result < 5X RDL)


CARO Analytical Services employs methods which are based on those found in “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater”, 21st Edition, 2005, published by the American Public Health Association (APHA); US EPA protocols found in

“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846”, 3rd Edition; and protocols published by the

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE).

Methods not described in these publications are conducted according to procedures accepted by appropriate regulatory agencies,

and/or are done in accordance with recognized professional standards using accepted testing methodologies and quality control

efforts except where otherwise agreed to by the client.

The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report

must be reproduced in its entirity. CARO is not responsible for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from error or

omission in the conduct of testing. Liability is limited to the cost of analysis. Samples will be disposed of 30 days after the test

report has been issued unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

• All solids results are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted

• Units: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

mg/L = milligrams per litre, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

ug/L = micrograms per litre, equivalent to parts per billion (ppb)

ug/g = micrograms per gram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

• "RDL" Reported detection limit

• "<" Less than reported detection limit

Please call the lab if you need more information.

Page 1 of 4

General Comments:

Final Review Per:

REPORTED

RECEIVED / TEMP

COC #(s)

WORK ORDER #

PROJECT NAME

102 - 3677 Highway 97N Kelowna, BC Canada V1X 5C3

Tel: (250) 765-9646 Fax: (250) 765-3893 Web: www.caro.ca

CARO Analytical Services

10-Mar-08

PROJECT NUMBER

03-Mar-08 16:00 / 8 °C

Jennifer Shanko

Lab Manager

K8C0027

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

CLIENT Golder Associates Ltd.

#220 - 1755 Springfield Road

KELOWNA BC, V1Y 5V5

V1Y 5V5

TEL (250) 860-8424

FAX (250) 860-9874

ATTENTION Melissa Holt

09566


08 1440 0029

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

K8C0027

10-Mar-08


Faulder Post Air Burst (K8C0027-01) Matrix: Water Sampled: 03-Mar-08 13:30

Notes

Dissolved Metals by ICPMS


"Antimony 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Arsenic 0.005 "< 0.005

"Barium 0.005 "0.091

"Beryllium 0.0020 "< 0.0020

"Bismuth 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Boron 0.020 "< 0.020

"Cadmium 0.00010 "< 0.00010

"Calcium 0.500 "36.1

"Chromium 0.005 "< 0.005

"Cobalt 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Copper 0.0030 "0.0056

"Iron 0.200 "< 0.200

"Lead 0.0010 "< 0.0010

"Lithium 0.0020 "0.0035


"Manganese 0.005 "< 0.005

"Mercury 0.00030 "< 0.00030

"Molybdenum 0.0010 "0.0212

"Nickel 0.005 "< 0.005

"Phosphorus 0.200 "< 0.200


"Selenium 0.005 "< 0.005

"Silicon 0.250 "8.72

"Silver 0.00040 "0.00073

"Sodium 0.200 "11.6

"Strontium 0.005 "0.606

"Tellurium 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Thallium 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Thorium 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Tin 0.0020 "< 0.0020

"Titanium 0.100 "< 0.100

"Uranium 0.0005 "0.0248

"Vanadium 0.010 "< 0.010

"Zinc 0.030 "0.038

"Zirconium 0.005 "< 0.005

General Inorganic Parameters

mg/LAlkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 1.0 04-Mar-08155

"Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 1.0 "< 1.0

"Alkalinity, Hydroxide as CaCO3 1.0 "< 1.0

"Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 1.0 "155


SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

K8C0027

10-Mar-08



Notes

General Inorganic Parameters, Continued

mg/LChloride 0.10 03-Mar-081.71

Colour UnitsColour, True 5 07-Mar-08< 5

uS/cmConductivity (EC) 5 10-Mar-08311

mg/LFluoride 0.10 03-Mar-080.17

"Hardness (CaCO3 equiv) 0.82 06-Mar-08154

"Nitrate as N 0.010 03-Mar-080.115

"Nitrite as N 0.010 "< 0.010

pH UnitspH 0.1 04-Mar-087.4

mg/LSulfate 1.0 03-Mar-0815.6

"Total Dissolved Solids 5 05-Mar-08189

NTUTurbidity 0.1 10-Mar-080.7

Microbiological Parameters

CFU/100mLColiforms, Total 1 03-Mar-08< 1

"E. Coli 1 "< 1

Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS


"Antimony 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Arsenic 0.005 "< 0.005

"Barium 0.005 "0.097

"Beryllium 0.0020 "< 0.0020

"Bismuth 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Boron 0.020 "< 0.020

"Cadmium 0.00010 "< 0.00010

"Calcium 0.5 "40.1

"Chromium 0.015 "< 0.015

"Cobalt 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Copper 0.0030 "0.0684

"Iron 0.20 "< 0.20

"Lead 0.0010 "0.0027

"Lithium 0.0020 "0.0041


"Manganese 0.005 "0.006

"Mercury 0.00030 "< 0.00030

"Molybdenum 0.0010 "0.0194

"Nickel 0.005 "< 0.005

"Phosphorus 0.20 "< 0.20


"Selenium 0.005 "< 0.005

"Silicon 1.0 "9.3

"Silver 0.00040 "0.00059


SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

K8C0027

10-Mar-08



Notes

Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS, Continued

mg/LSodium 0.20 "12.7

"Strontium 0.005 "0.649

"Tellurium 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Thallium 0.0005 "< 0.0005

"Thorium 0.0030 "< 0.0030

"Tin 0.0020 "0.0086

"Titanium 0.10 "< 0.10

"Uranium 0.0005 "0.0283

"Vanadium 0.010 "< 0.010

"Zinc 0.030 "0.081

"Zirconium 0.005 "< 0.005



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED





Chloride mg/L0.10<

Fluoride "0.10<



Sulfate "1.0<


Chloride mg/L0.10<

Fluoride "0.10<



Sulfate "1.0<


Chloride mg/L0.10 4.00 85-115943.77

Fluoride "0.10 4.00 85-115993.97

Nitrite as N "0.010 4.00 85-115953.81

Nitrate as N "0.010 4.00 85-1151004.01

Sulfate "1.0 4.00 85-115953.8


Chloride mg/L0.10 4.00 85-115943.75

Fluoride "0.10 4.00 85-1151014.03

Nitrite as N "0.010 4.00 85-115953.79

Nitrate as N "0.010 4.00 85-115993.95

Sulfate "1.0 4.00 85-115963.8


Fluoride mg/L10.0 20< <

Duplicate (K800642-DUP3) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 05-Mar-08Source: K8C0011-01

Chloride mg/L0.10 20< <



Nitrate as N "0.010 200.60.072 0.071

Sulfate "1.0 20< <


Chloride mg/L0.10 200.51.72 1.71

Fluoride "0.10 200.17 0.17


Nitrate as N "0.010 200.50.115 0.115

Sulfate "1.0 200.115.6 15.6

Duplicate (K800642-DUP6) Prepared: 03-Mar-08 Analyzed: 05-Mar-08Source: K8C0039-02

Chloride mg/L0.10 20< <


Nitrate as N "0.010 200.111.0 11.0

Sulfate "1.0 20< <








CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED





Alkalinity, Hydroxide as CaCO3 mg/L1.0<

pH pH Units0.1<






pH pH Units0.1<


pH pH Units0.1 50.17.8 7.8


Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L1.0 202152 155

Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 "1.0 20< <

Alkalinity, Bicarbonate as CaCO3 "1.0 202152 155


pH pH Units0.1 527.2 7.4


pH pH Units0.1 7.00 98-102996.9


pH pH Units0.1 7.00 98-102996.9



Total Dissolved Solids mg/L5<


Total Dissolved Solids mg/L5 203272 281


Total Dissolved Solids mg/L5 240 85-11593223







Colour, True Colour Units5 2013 14








CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED









Conductivity (EC) uS/cm5 200.6313 311


Conductivity (EC) uS/cm5 20< <



Turbidity NTU0.1<


Turbidity NTU0.1<


Turbidity NTU0.1 40.0 85-11510140


Turbidity NTU0.1 40.0 85-11510140




Turbidity NTU0.1 200.5990 990

Microbiological Parameters , Batch K800629



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1<



E. Coli "1 40< <



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED



Microbiological Parameters , Batch K800629 (Continued)



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <



E. Coli "1 40< <

Dissolved Metals by ICPMS , Batch R800602

Blank (R800602-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06-Mar-08

Aluminum mg/L0.05<

Antimony "0.003<

Arsenic "0.005<

Barium "0.005<

Beryllium "0.002<

Bismuth "0.0005<

Boron "0.02<

Cadmium "0.0001<

Calcium "0.5<

Chromium "0.005<

Cobalt "0.0005<

Copper "0.003<

Iron "0.2<

Lead "0.001<

Lithium "0.002<

Magnesium "0.2<

Manganese "0.005<

Mercury "0.0003<

Molybdenum "0.001<

Nickel "0.005<

Phosphorus "0.2<

Potassium "0.2<

Selenium "0.005<

Silicon "0.2<

Silver "0.0004<

Sodium "0.2<

Strontium "0.005<

Tellurium "0.003<

Thallium "0.0005<

Thorium "0.003<

Tin "0.002<

Titanium "0.1<

Uranium "0.0005<

Vanadium "0.01<

Zinc "0.03<

Zirconium "0.005<

Reference (R800602-SRM1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06-Mar-08



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED




Reference (R800602-SRM1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06-Mar-08

Aluminum mg/L0.05 0.550 80-1201110.6

Antimony "0.003 0.110 80-1201160.1

Arsenic "0.005 1.03 80-120981

Barium "0.005 8.26 80-120918

Beryllium "0.002 0.530 80-1201040.6

Boron "0.02 4.07 80-1201084

Cadmium "0.0001 0.510 80-1201110.57

Calcium "0.5 13.9 80-12011716

Chromium "0.005 0.980 80-1201061

Cobalt "0.0005 0.300 80-1201160.3

Copper "0.003 1.99 80-1201062.1

Iron "0.2 3.02 80-1201163

Lead "0.001 0.330 80-1201090.4

Lithium "0.002 0.250 80-1201030.3

Magnesium "0.2 9.11 80-12011310

Manganese "0.005 0.790 80-1201020.8

Molybdenum "0.001 1.03 80-1201071.1

Nickel "0.005 2.01 80-120962

Phosphorus "0.2 1.12 70-1301011

Potassium "0.2 6.45 80-1201037

Selenium "0.005 0.0770 80-1201000.08

Sodium "0.2 43.3 80-12011550

Strontium "0.005 2.53 80-120912

Thallium "0.0005 0.104 80-1201090.1

Uranium "0.0005 0.490 80-120970.5

Vanadium "0.01 2.02 80-1201042

Zinc "0.03 2.00 80-120992

Total Recoverable Metals by ICPMS , Batch R800596


Aluminum mg/L0.05<

Antimony "0.0030<

Arsenic "0.005<

Barium "0.005<

Beryllium "0.0020<

Bismuth "0.0005<

Boron "0.020<

Cadmium "0.00010<

Calcium "0.5<

Chromium "0.015<

Cobalt "0.0005<

Copper "0.0030<

Iron "0.20<

Lead "0.0010<

Lithium "0.0020<

Magnesium "0.20<

Manganese "0.005<

Mercury "0.00030<

Molybdenum "0.0010<

Nickel "0.005<

Phosphorus "0.20<

Potassium "0.20<

Selenium "0.005<

Silicon "1.0<

Silver "0.00040<



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED





Sodium mg/L0.20<

Strontium "0.005<

Tellurium "0.0030<

Thallium "0.0005<

Thorium "0.0030<

Tin "0.0020<

Titanium "0.10<

Uranium "0.0005<

Vanadium "0.010<

Zinc "0.030<

Zirconium "0.005<

Matrix Spike (R800596-MS1) Prepared: 05-Mar-08 Analyzed: 06-Mar-08Source: K8C0027-01

Antimony mg/L0.0030 0.400 80-1201120.450 <

Arsenic "0.005 0.200 80-1201050.209 <

Barium "0.005 1.00 70-1301031.13 0.097

Beryllium "0.0020 0.400 70-1301280.510 <

Cadmium "0.00010 0.100 80-1201120.112 <

Chromium "0.015 0.400 70-1301210.489 <

Cobalt "0.0005 0.400 MS180-1201240.498 <

Copper "0.0030 0.400 70-1301020.478 0.0684

Iron "0.20 2.00 70-1301112.22 <

Lead "0.0010 0.200 70-1301160.234 0.0027

Manganese "0.005 0.400 70-1301130.458 0.006

Nickel "0.005 0.400 80-1201070.432 <

Selenium "0.005 0.100 80-1201120.112 <

Silver "0.00040 0.100 60-1401000.101 0.00059

Thallium "0.0005 0.100 80-120980.0984 <

Vanadium "0.010 0.200 80-1201160.231 <

Zinc "0.030 1.00 80-1201031.11 0.081


Aluminum mg/L0.05 0.920 80-1201101.01

Antimony "0.0030 0.210 80-1201140.240

Arsenic "0.005 0.400 80-1201160.465

Barium "0.005 2.01 80-120981.97

Beryllium "0.0020 0.160 80-1201200.192

Boron "0.020 9.88 80-12011010.9

Cadmium "0.00010 0.200 80-1201120.225

Calcium "0.5 22.1 80-12011024.3

Chromium "0.015 0.680 80-1201140.779

Cobalt "0.0005 0.0950 80-1201200.114

Copper "0.0030 0.500 80-1201090.543

Iron "0.20 1.48 80-1201121.65

Lead "0.0010 0.630 80-1201090.686

Lithium "0.0020 0.710 80-1201150.819

Magnesium "0.20 4.83 80-1201135.44

Manganese "0.005 0.340 80-1201120.380

Molybdenum "0.0010 0.520 80-1201090.566

Nickel "0.005 0.830 80-1201100.911

Potassium "0.20 12.8 80-12010813.9

Selenium "0.005 0.320 80-1201070.342

Sodium "0.20 21.6 80-12011224.1

Strontium "0.005 0.950 80-1201091.04

Thallium "0.0005 0.260 80-1201140.296

Uranium "0.0005 0.0970 80-1201120.108



CLIENT

PROJECT NAME



K8C0027

10-Mar-08

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED





Vanadium mg/L0.010 0.990 80-1201121.11

Zinc "0.030 5.01 80-120984.91

Definitions: LCS = Laboratory Control Sample

RPD = Relative Percent (Note: RPD values not calculated where either duplicate or source result < 5X RDL)

QC Qualifiers

MS1 The recovery was outside of QC acceptance limits for the Matrix Spike. Data accepted based on acceptable performance

of other batch QC.


APPENDIX IV

VIDEO CAMERA INSPECTION (DVD)

APPENDIX V

PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTOGRAPHS

COMMUNITY OF FAULDERWELL REHABILITATION

FAULDER, B.C.

APPENDIX: V

PHOTO 1: BIOFOULING OBSERVED WITHIN THE WELL SCREEN AT A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 60.3 m.(FEBRUARY 29, 2008)

PHOTO 1: MODIFIED WELLHEAD.(MARCH 3, 2008)

APPENDIX VI

AQUATECH WELL PUMP SKETCH

golder associates ltd. - british...

Documents