COMPLETION REPORT

EVALUATION OF KITLEY LAKE VALLEY AQUIFER

ON THE R.W. PORTER PROPERTY

Prepared for Mr. R. Little

105 - 650 Lexington Drive KELOWNA, B.C. V1W 3B6

Prepared by

PACIFIC HYDROLOGY CONSULTANTS LTD. 204 - 1929 West Broadway VANCOUVER, B.C. V6J 123

February 27,1992

E. LIVINGSTON. P. Eng A. BADRY

U

PACIFIC HYDROLOGY CONSULTANTS LTD. CONSULTING GROUNDWATER GEOLOGISTS

204 - 1929 WEST BROADWAY VANCOUVER, B.C. V6J 123 TELEPHONE (604) 738-9232

February 27, 1992

Mr. R. Little 105 - 650 Lexington Drive KELOWNA, B.C. V1S 3B6

Subject: Completion Report Evaluation of Kitley Lake Valley Aquifer on the R.W. Porter Property

Dear Sir :

Enclosed herewith is our Report which discusses the results of the recent pump test carried out to assess the groundwater resource available in Kitley Lake Valley to supply Mr. R. (Bob) Porter’s proposed Kitley Lake Subdivision.

Please call if you wish to discuss any aspect o f the contents of the Report.

Yours truly, PACIFIC HYDROLOGY CONSULTANTS LTD.

E. Livingston, P. E&.

- 1 -

COMPLETION REPORT

EVALUATION OF KITLEY LAKE VALLEY AQUIFER

ON THE R.W. PORTER PROPERTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sect ion

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Subject Page

i

-

1 .o

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

APPENDI X APPEND I X APPENDI X

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1

RECOMMENDATIONS 3

INTRODUCTION 5 3.1 Purpose and Scope 5 3.2 Background Information 5 3.3 Construction of Observation Well No. 1-1991 5

PUMP TESTING FOR AQUIFER EVALUATION 4.1 Test Procedure 4.2 Test Results 4.3 Analysis o f Results

CAPACITY OF KITLEY LAKE VALLEY AQUIFER AND ALTERNATIVES FOR EXPLOITATION 10

APPENDICES

A AREA AND WELL LOCATION MAP

B LITHOLOGS AND WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C WATER LEVEL DATA AND HYDROGRAPHS

APPENDIX D PUMPING TEST DATA AND PLOTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont 'd 1

FIGURES

Number Title

Figure 1 Area and Well Location Map - R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Subdivision

Page

A - 1

Figure 2 Construction Details o f R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake B - 2 Test Well No. 1-1991

Figure 3 Construction Details o f R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Observation Well No. 1-1992 B - 4

Figure 4 Hydrograph o f Water Levels in R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Well During the Summer and Fall o f 1991 and Early 1992 c - 2

Figure 5 Hydrograph of Water Levels in R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Well No. 1-1991 from mid January to mid February 1992 c - 3

Figure 6 Semi-logarithmic Plot o f Drawdown in R.W. Porter's D - 6 Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991

Figure 7 Semi-logarithmic Plot o f Drawdown in R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 Between 100 and 7200 Minutes D - 7

Figure 8 Semi-logarithmic Plot of Interference Drawdown in Observation Well No. 1-1992 During Pump Testing of R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 D - 8

Figure 9 Semi-logarithmic Plot of Interference Drawdown in Observation Well No. 1-1992 Between 1000 and 7200 Minutes o f Test Pumping o f R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 D - 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

iki Number

FIGURES

Title Page

Figure 10 Log-log Plot of Interference Drawdown in Observation Well No. 1-1992 During Test Pumping of R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 D - 10

Figure 1 1 Semi-logarithmic Plot o f Recovery o f Water Levels in R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 and Observation Well No. 1-1992 D - 1 1

TABLES

Number Title Page

Table 1 Dimensions o f R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 and Observation Well No. 1-1992 6

Table 2 Water Levels in Test Well No. 1-1991 on R.W. Porter's Ki tl ey Lake Val 1 ey Property c - 1

- iv -

1.0 SLIMMARY

From the recent long-duration pumping test carried out on the R.W. Porter Well constructed in an aquifer in the Kitley Lake Valley, the situation concerning hydrogeological conditions and groundwater potential may best be summarized as follows:

1. Observation Well No. 1-1992, which was constructed to monitor water levels during pump testing of Test Well No. 1-1991, encountered a thicker and deeper part of the aquifer contained in the Kitley Lake Valley than did the Test Well. The bottom of the aquifer at the Observation Well is at a depth of 12.8 m (42 ft), in contrast to 9.1 m (30 ft) at Test Well No. 1-1991.

2 . As expected for such a bounded local aquifer, drawdown was continuing at a constant rate when testing was terminated, in response to the'removal o f water in storage and the conveying of it out of the basin.

3. At the constant rate of 2.34 L/sec (31 igpm) of the test, and with projection of the natural water table decline, the decline in the water level in the Kitley Lake Valley aquifer over a period of 200 days with no recharge is projected to be about 4.7 m (15.4 ft), including the 3.5 m (113 ft) of natural decline.

4. Taking into account the natural decline and drawdown due to pumping, the recent long-duration pumping test shows that the capacity o f the aquifer at the site of Test Well No. 1-1991 is approximately the pump testing rate o f 2.34 L/sec (31 igpm). A well at the site of the Observation Well would have an higher capacity.

5. There are insufficient data to make a detailed quantitative water balance for the Kitley Lake Valley but the main inflow factors are fairly obvious, as are the outflow factors. There is no obvious economical way to increase any of the inputs, such as direct precipitation or groundwater flow from the sides o f the bedrock Val ley, but it may be possible to decrease some of the outflows by, for example, removing selected vegetation and/or instal 1 ing control structures to limit overflow out of the basin.

- I -

6. Under the prevailing conditions, where there are a large number of variables which affect the groundwater/surface water system in the Kitley Lake Valley, exploitation of the groundwater resource must be based on a careful management plan involving conservation and data collection, along with surface water control and storage facilities.

7. The construction and long-duration testing of an additional well in a deeper part of the aquifer would provide additional information about the capacity of the groundwater resource but such a course of action would still not answer all of the questions about how the Kitley Lake Valley aquifer will perform over the long term. Conservatively, the capacity of the aquifer is at least the test pumping rate of 2 . 3 4 L/sec (31 igpm).

- 2 -

2.0 RECCMMENDATIONS

If a decision is made to proceed with development of R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Property, the following course of action is recommended:

1.

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6.

7.

8.

Check for any existing water licenses on streams that run into the Kitley Lake Valley and also on Kitley Lake, which was once used as a source o f irrigation water.

Apply for surface water licenses on Kitley Lake to permit future construction of a control structure at the south end of the Lake.

Discuss, with the local Water Manager of B.C. Environment, the construction of a control structure on the man-made overflow ditch located southeast of Test Well No. 1-1991.

At least monthly, except in deep snow, continue water level observations on the Observation Well, along with readings of staff gauges in Kitley Lake and the pond at the south end of the Valley. Observe flow (or no flow) out of Kitley Lake and through the overflow ditch southeast o f the wells; make rough estimates of flow if possible.

Determine the difference in elevation between the top of the Observation Well and a staff gauge in the pond at the south end of the Valley.

Locate the nearest meteorologic station. There may be station at the Radio Telescope; however, if there is no station at a similar elevation in the area, consider installing a simple rain gauge at St. Andrews. Records from such a station are part of a groundwater management plan.

When water is required, install a pump with a capacity about 2 . 3 L/sec ( 3 0 igpm) in the existing Test Well No. 1-1991. The well head instrumentation should include a totalizing water meter and an hour meter; in addition, a 19 mm ( 3 / 4 " ) diameter PVC tube should be installed t o facilitate the measurement o f pumping and non-pumping water levels.

When water is being pumped, increase to weekly the frequency of water level observations in the Observation Well and the staff gauge in the south pond.

- 5 -

L-

9. Review all data at least once, and preferably twice, each year and modify data collection schedules as required.

10. As the demand for water increases, upgrade the data collection facilities by constructing simple control structures on Kitley Lake and on the overflow ditch including, if possible, weirs or other devices to measure water flows.

11. Depending on analyses of data and on increasing demand for water, institute further measures of water conservation and control. These may include controls of flows at the control structures mentioned in 10. above, and possible removal of some water-using vegetation around bodies of water and swamp areas.

12. It goes without saying that water conservation should be kept in mind in development of housing. All connections should be metered and meters should be read a minimum of three times each year. Charges for water should be based on a minimum charge for an essential amount of water, say 2.27 m3/day (500 igal/day) and high charges for use above this amount.

- 4 -

3.0 INTRODUCTION

3.1 Purpose and Scope

t.

The purpose of this Report is to describe and discuss the recent long-duration pumping test of Test Well No. 1-1991 which was constructed on R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Property in the Spring o f 1991, and to estimate the long term capacity of the aquifer in which the Well is constructed. This Report also presents the water level data collected over the Summer and Autumn and discusses the implications of the water level decline during the summer drought period.

3.2 Backaround Information

Background information concerning groundwater exploration and potential on the subject Porter Property in the Kitley Lake Valley is contained in Pacific Hydrology's Report to Mr. R. Little dated July 2 , 1991 and titled "Progress Report Test-Production Drilling Program Concerning R.W. Porter's Proposed Kitley Lake Subdivision", and in a subsequent Letter of December 19, 1991 on the subject "Evaluation o f Capacity of Aquifer on R.W. Porter's Proposed Kitley Lake Subdivision". In the Report and Letter, a recommendation was made to monitor the water level in the Test Well (No. 1-1991) during the Summer and Autumn o f 1991 to determine the natural decline of the water table during the summer drought period of no recharge, and then to carry out a long-duration pump test followed by careful observations o f water level recovery.

3.3 Construction o f Observation Well No. 1-1992

In order to permit very careful monitoring of the water table response to long-duration pumping of Test Well No. 1-1991, an observation well was constructed at a site about 19.8 m' (65 ft) east o f the Well. Observation Well No. 1-1992 was drilled using 150 mm (6") diameter steel casing but it was completed by installing 50 mm ( 2 " ) diameter PVC casing and removing the steel casing. The PVC casing of the Observation Well i s slotted from 9.1 m (30 ft) to the bottom at 14.6 m (48 ft) t.o expose the aquifer for accurately measuring the groundwater level. Included in Appendix B are the driller's litholog and construction details o f this Observation Well.

- 5 -

U

The Observation Well, which was constructed by Robbins Water Well Drilling, is in a thicker part of the aquifer then the Test-Production Well. The details of conditions at the two Wells are compared in Table 1 below.

, Table 1. Dimensions o f R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 and Observation Well No. 1-1992

P a r a m e t e r T e s t W e l l O b s e r v a t i o n Well N O . 1 - 1 9 9 1 N O . 1 -1992

m ( f t ) m ( f t )

D i s t a n c e t o b o t t o m o f a q u i f e r

D i s t a n c e t o b e d r o c k

S t a t i c w a t e r l e v e l o n J a n u a r y 2 2 , 1992

a t s t a r t o f f i v e - d a y p u m p i n g t e s t

9.1 ( 3 0 )

9 .8 ( 3 2 )

3 .09 (10.15)

12.8 ( 4 2 )

14 .6 ( 4 8 )

3.15 ( 1 0 . 3 3 )

It is clear from Table 1 above that the aquifer is thicker at the Observation Well than at the Test Well because the bedrock valley is deeper at that site. A production well constructed at the site of Observation Well No. 1-1992 would probably have a slightly higher capacity than the existing Test Well and would be a more suitable site for a permanent production well.

- 6 -

w w

4.0 PUMP TESTING FOR AQUIFER EVALUATION

4.1 Test Procedure

L

The long-duration pumping test o f R.W. Porter’s Kitley Lake Valley Test Well No. 1-1991 was carried out by Robbins Water Well Drilling Ltd. using a submersible test pump driven by a diesel-electric power unit. The pumping rate was measured by timing the filling o f a container of known volume. Water levels in Test Well No. 1-1991 and in Observation Well No. 1-1992 were measured with an electric water level indicator. To ensure that the discharge water could not return to the aquifer, the water was conveyed away from the Test Well and over a low rock ridge by 50 mm ( 2 ” ) diameter pipe.

After pumping stopped, the water level recovery was measured for several weeks.

4.2 Test Results

The data collected during the pumping test, the data on semi-logarithmic graph paper, are included

along with plots of in Appendix D. The

data are plotted according to standard straight line methods o f analyzing pumping test data, with drawdown versus log o f time in minutes since pumping started and, in the case o f the recovery data, residual drawdown versus

time in minutes since pumping started - time in minutes since pumping stopped. The interference log of the ratio,

drawdown in the Observation Well is also plotted on log-log graph paper to use curve-matching techniques o f data analysis.

As expected in a bounded aquifer of limited size, the data plots show that drawdown continued to the end o f the test (Figures 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Pages D - 6, D - 7, D - 8, D - 9 and D - 10). The drawdown in the Pumped Well (No. 1-1991) was much greater than the drawdown in the Observation Well because of well losses and also because o f the cone of depression in the aquifer near the pumped Well. The drawdown in Observation Well No. 1-1992 shows the actual drawdown in the aquifer. Perhaps the best indication o f the overall drawdown in the aquifer is the residual drawdown

- 7 -

of 0.61 m (2.00 ft) in the Observation Well one hour after the pumping of Test Well No. 7-1991 was terminated. At the end of the five-day test, the water level was drawing down at a rate about 0.58 m (1.90 ft) per log cycle of the straight line plot. This means that the drawdown increases 0.58 m during each tenfold increase in time; for example, projection of the drawdown for the period beyond 5 and up to 50 days, shows that pumping at the test rate of 2.34 L/sec (31 igpm) would cause an increase in the total drawdown of 0.58 rn (1.90 ft). Thus, during the long period (approximately 200 days) of very low recharge, the water level in the aquifer would be expected to decline by 1.16 m ( 2 x 0.58 m) if water was being removed from the aquifer at a constant rate of 2.34 L/sec. This decline in the water level would be in addition to the natural decline in the water table, which is shown by the Observation Well data to be about 33 m (112 ft) over the same period.

The natural fluctuation in the groundwater table at Test Well No. 1-1991 has been discussed in Pacific Hydrology’s progress letter of December 19, 1991, previously mentioned. Additional observations have been added to the Hydrograph which was included with the December 19. 1991 Letter and a copy of the extended plot (Figure 4) is included in Appendix C (Page C - 2). In addition, an expanded hydrograph has been plotted to include the period from mid January to the end of February in order to show the effect of the pump test carried out during this period (Figure 5, Page C - 3). Figure 4 shows that the water level decline was linear at a rate about 0.54 m (1.77 ft) per month, from early June when the water table was very close to surface until about November 1, when the rate declined to only about 0.2 m (0.68 ft) per month. At this time, there are no data from late January to early June but, all things considered, the natural rise is likely to start at the beginning of March. The decrease in the rate of decline which occurred about November 1 is probably due to the termination of transpiration at the end of the growing season. The expanded Hydrograph (Figure 5 ) shows the drawdown in Observation Well No. 1-1992 during the five-day pump test and the recovery of the water level following the test.

The second Hydrograph (Figure 5) shows that the water level recovered within about fifteen days to assume again the rate of the natwal water table decline which was in effect before pumping started. If the pump test had caused significant depletion o f the stored water in the aquifer system, the natural decline would have been expected to resume along a line lower than a projection of the pre-pumping test line. Thus the test rate of 2.34 L/sec (31 igpm) is at or less than the natural rate of recharge at the time of minimum groundwater conditions.

- 8 -

4.3 Analvsis o f Results

The maximum groundwater rise at Test Well No. 1-1991 is obviously limited by the ground surface and the rise is controlled by a small man-made overflow ditch located southeast of Test Well No. 1-1991. This condition also dictates the groundwater resource available for exploitation in the Kitley Lake Valley. There are no data on the amount or timing of the overflow; all that is known i s that the ditch does not carry any flow from mid summer until some time the following spring.

There are insufficient data available to make a detailed quantitative water balance for the Kitley Lake Valley but the main factors in such a balance are the following:

Inflou Outf 1 ON

1. direct precipitation in the Valley; 1. e v a p o t r a n s piration; 2. inflow from intermittent streams; 2. evaporation from open waters; 3. grounddater flow from bedrock. 3. surface water overflou;

4 . groundwater flow at :he south end o f t h e Val ley.

There is no apparent economical way to increase any of the inflows but it may be possible to decrease some of the outflows. Transpiration can be decreased to some extent by removal of selected vegetation which is known to consume large quantities of water; an example is the dense willow thickets around Kitley Lake and around the small pond south of the Wells. It should be possible to put a control structure on the overflow ditch to limit the overflow by that route to the minimum required to prevent flooding.

It may be possible to conserve a small amount of additional water by installing a proper control structure on Kitley Lake and operating it to:

1. Store water in spring to minimize overflow from the lower (south) end of the Valley.

2. Release water in early summer to a groundwater recharge area to minimize evaporation from the surface of the Lake and from surrounding vegetation.

Such operation would require a water license and possible approval of Fish and Game Department of B.C. Environment.

- 9 -

L F==

5.0 CAPACITY OF KITLEY LAKE VALLEY AQUIFER AND ALTERNATIVES FOR EXPLOITATION

It is clear that the long term capacity of a well or wells in the Kitley Lake Valley aquifer is not limited by the permeability of the aquifer. Rather, the long term limit is imposed by the amount of water which can be removed from the Kitley Lake Valley each year without resulting in a long term decline in the water table in the south end of the Valley.

The recent five-day pump test at a rate of 2.34 L/sec (31 igpm) indicates that pumping at that rate over a summer demand period would add a little more than one metre to the natural decline of water level which, based on one summer’s data, appears to be about 35 m (113 ft). Allowing for 2 m (6.6 ft) of drawdown due to pumping, the water table in the vicinity of the wells would fluctuate about 53 m (18 ft). This would, of course, affect the capacity of wells by reducing the total available drawdown; however, the drilling of the Observation Well shows that production wells can be constructed in a deeper part of the aquifer where they would be less affected by the natural lowering of the water table. Any speculation about aquifer capacity must also consider the effects of unusual weather, particularly years of low winter and spring precipitation. Summer losses may be increased by unusually high temperature and strong wind.

From this discussion, it is clear that there are many uncertainties in the Kitley Lake Valley groundwater/surface water system and that even additional extensive testing would not eliminate more than a few of them. If water from this system is to be used as a permanent community supply, it should be operated under a management plan. There are three main objectives in using a management plan:

1. To obtain the maximum amount of water without causing unacceptable effects.

2. To obtain data which can be used to show more precisely how much water can be obtained and which can assess the effects of water use.

3 . To indicate, after several seasons of water use, a more precise estimate of the capacity of the surface water/groundwater system.

- 10 -

i

Obviously, an ideal procedure for utilizing the groundwater potential of the Kitley Lake Valley would be to construct houses at a gradual rate, while keeping careful records of water production, groundwater levels, etc., with occasional revisions to the estimates of the capacity of the system. However, we realize that this is not probably realistic under existing economic and administrative conditions and that a firm capacity estimate is required in order to plan orderly development of the Porter Property.

From the information on hand, we estimate that the Kitley Lake Valley aquifer has a long term capacity of at least 2.27 L/sec (30 igpm). This is based on the following conditions:

1. A long term management plan is in place with regular collection of necessary data.

2. The Kitley Lake Valley is not modified in any way which endangers or decreases the water resource.

3. There are no other users of surface or groundwater in the Valley and surface water now reaching the Valley will not be diverted in future.

- 1 1 -

APPENDIX A

AREA AND WELL LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 1 AREA AND WELL LOCATION MAP - R.W. PORTER'S

KITLEY LAKE SUBDIVISION

Notes:

1. The base map i s 1:50,000 sca le topographic map N.T.S. 82E/5, Penticton, enlarged t o an approximate scale o f 1:23,500.

2. Boundary o f R.W. Po r te r Property.

3. 9 Approximate (unsurveyed) l o c a t i o n o f a Test Hole or Test Well, as i d e n t i f i e d .

A - 1

APPENDIX B

LITHOLOGS AND WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

TEST WELL NO. 1-1991 ON R. PORTER'S PROPOSED KITLEY LAKE SUBDIVISION

L

Location: In the waterlogged area in the valley south of Kitley Lake.

Date of construction: May 1991.

Contractor: Robbins Water Well Drilling Ltd.

Litho 1 og :

0 - 0.15 m ( 0 - $ ft) 0.15 - 1.8 m ( 3 - 6 ft) 1.8 - 2.4 m ( 6 - 8 ft) 2.3 - 3.0 m ( 8 - 10 ft) 3.0 - 3.7 m (10 - 12 ft)

3.7 - 4.3 m (12 - 14 ft) 4.3 - 7.3 m (14 - 24 ft) 7.3. - 7.9 m (24 - 26 ft) 7.9 - 9.1 m (26 - 30 ft) 9.1 - 9.8 m (30 - 32 ft) 9.8 - 16.8 m (32 - 55 ft)

black organic soil brown sandy clay brown clay brown sand dark brown sand and small gravel becoming

c 1 eaner brown coarse sand with cobbles brown coarse sand, cleaner at bottom clean coarse sand with cobbles brown coarse sand with sharp stones sand with clay; tighter but making water red soft bedrock.

Diameter: 150 mm (6").

Static water level: On June 14, 1991, 0.165 m (0.54 ft) below the well casing stickup cut off almost at ground surface.

c Completion:

Test-Production Well No. 1-1991 is completed with the following assembly of 150 mm ( 6 " ) nominal size Johnson stainless steel well screen: at top at 6.63 m (21.75 ft) 1.2 m (4 ft) of 2.54 mm (O.l0Ola) slot screen 1.2 m (4 ft) of 3.05 mm (0.120") slot screen at bottom at 9.39 m (30.8 ft) flat bottom.

Measurements are below the well casing.

type K packer

Well performance: On June 14, 1991, after constant rate of 9.1 L/sec was 7.343 m (24.085 ft) 1.24 L/sec/m (4.98 igpm/ft)

five hours of pumping at a 120 igpm), the total drawdown for a specific capacity of

B - 1

FIGURE 2 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF R.W. PORTER'S

KITLEY LAKE TEST WELL NO. 1 -1 991

- 150 mm (6") diameter well casing approximately a t surface.

v, e'//

S t a t i c water level on June 14, 1991 = 0.165 m (0.54 f t ) ? s t a t i c level on January 22, 1992, pr ior t o t h e s t a r t of a f ive-day pumping test = 3.094 m (1 0.1 5 f t ) .

Type K packer a t top of screen assembly = 6.63 m (21.75 f t ) .

1.2 m (4 f t ) of 2.54 rnm (0.100") s l o t screen.

1.2 rn (4 f t ) of 3.05 mm (0.120") s l o t screen.

F l a t steel p la te bottom = 9.39 m (30.8 f t ) .

Notes:

1. The sketch is not t o scale. 2. 3.

The screen is 150 rnm (6") nominal diameter Johnson s t a in l e s s steel. A l l measurements a re below the top of t h e 150 mm diameter well casing.

B - 2

OBSERVATION WELL NO. 1-1992

ON R.W. PORTER'S KITLEY LAKE VALLEY PROPERTY

Location: In the Kitley Lake Valley, at a distance about 20 m (65 ft) east of Well No. 1-1991.

Date o f construction: January 1992.

Contractor: Robbins Water Well Drilling Ltd.

Litho log : 0 - 1.5 m ( 0 - 5 ft) 1.5 - 2.7 m ( 5 - 9 ft) 2.7 - 4.0 m ( 9 - 13 ft) 4.0 - 5.8 m (13 - 19 ft) 5.8 - 11.0 rn (19 - 36 ft)

11.0 - 12.8 m (36 - 42 ft) 12.8 - 14.0 m (42 - 46 ft) 14.0 - 14.6 m (46 - 48 ft) 14.6 - 15.2 m (48 - 50 ft)

black soil brown clay brown fine sand brown sand with pebbles, cleaner at bottom .

brown sand with sharp stones, cleaner with interbeds of clay between 9.1 and 11.0 m (30 and 36 ft)

brown loose sand with stones brown sand becoming dirty brown sand with clay soft bedrock.

Diameter: 50 rnm ( 2 " ) .

Static water level: On January 22, 1992, 3.15 m (10.33 ft) below the top of the casing cut off 0.28 m (0.92 ft) above ground.

Completion: Observation Well No. 1-1992 is completed with 50 m ( 2 " ) diameter PVC casing, slotted between 9.1 m (30 ft) and the bottom at 14.6 m (48 ft).

B - 3

i

. . .. . .-. _ _ ._ .. .. _ .

FIGURE 3

- S t a t i c wa te r l e v e l on Janua ry 22 , 1992, p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t of pump t e s t i n g o f Test Well No. 1-1991 = 3.15 m (10.33 f t )

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF R.W. PORTER'S KITLEY LAKE OBSERVATION WELL NO. 1-1992

I WL *:..

e.. 4.. . . . .. /r .. .' . .

I * . *.

..: - . .. . . .. .. ..:- ... . ., * . 1:;: ..

I!:.; . .. . . . ,

' a

I .

e . . . ., * . ' . a . . .. .. ... -. .. ... .. . . .- .. ., '. *, . . . . .. . . : .. ::

. * f .

. I . . . a

,. .. .. 1:;

T j-

- 150 mm (6") d iame te r s teel c a s i n g e x t e n d s 0.28 m (0.92 f t ) above

1 50 mm (2") PVC o b s e r v a t i o n well c a s i n g e x t e n d s 0.25 m (0.83 f t ) g rade .

above g rade . m/.s - 150 mm d iame te r p r o t e c t i v e o u t e r s teel c a s i n g e x t e n d s t o 0.6 m

( 2 f t ) below grade .

. . . .. - . '. . -. .. .. .. :. . . . . .. I::: .. I

50 mm d iame te r 9.1 and 14.6

PVC o b s e r v a t i o n well m (30 and 48 f t ) .

c a s i n g is s l a t t e d between

.*

Bottom of o b s e r v a t i o n well c a s i n g = 14.6 m; bottom of o r i g i n a l - 150 mm d iame te r h o l e = 15.2 m (50 f t ) .

Notes:

1 . The s k e t c h is not t o s c a l e . 2. 3.

A l l measurements a r e below ground u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d . The d r i l l e r ' s l i t h o l o g of sed imen t s encoun te red du r ing t h e d r i l l i n g o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n well a r e c o n t a i n e d on Paoe B - 3.

APPENDIX C

WATER LEVEL DATA AND HYDROGRAPHS

Table 2. Hater Levels in T e s t Yell N o , 1-1991 on R.Y. Porter's Kitley Lake Valley Property

R e m a i n i n g T o t a l

D a t e D i s t a n c e t o W a t e r A v a i l a b l e Drawdown R e m a r k s

m ( f t ) m ( f t )

1991

J u n e 14

J u l y 15 A u g u s t 9 S e p t e m b e r 01 S e p t e m b e r 15 S e p t e m b e r 24 O c t o b e r 08 O c t o b e r 31 November 01

0.16 ( 0 . 5 4 ) 6.47

0.69 ( 2 . 2 5 ) 5.945 1 .oo ( 3 . 2 9 ) 5.63 1.55 (5 .08) 5.08 1.81 ( 5 . 9 4 ) 4.82 1.97 ( 6 . 4 6 ) 4.66

4.515 4.06 4.06

2.12 (6.94 2.57 (8.42 2.57 ( 8 . 4 2

(21 .21) S t a t i c w a t e r l e v e l

p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t o f

t h e p u m p i n g t e s t ;

p r o b a b l y r e p r e s e n t s a

maximum.

(19 .50) (18 .46) ( 1 6 . 6 7 ) ( 1 5 . 8 1 ) (15 .29)

( 1 4 . 8 1 ) (13 .33) (13 .33) S e c o n d r e a d i n g t a k e n

t h e n e x t d a y f o r

c o n f i r m a t i o n .

November 09 2.61 ( 8 . 5 6 ) 4.02 (13.19 November 17 2.67 ( 8 . 7 5 ) 3.96 (13.00 December 02 2.71 (8 .90) 3 .92 (12.85

1992

J a n u a r y 22 3.09 (10 .15) 3 .54 (11 .60) A t t h e s t a r t o f t h e

p u m p i n g t e s t .

F e b r u a r y 10 3.29 (10 .79) 3.34 (10.96) T w e l v e d a y s a f t e r t h e

t e r m i n a t i o n o f f i v e -

d a y p u m p i n g t e s t .

F e b r u a r y 17 3.27 (10 .73) 3 .30 (10 .83)

c - 1

Figure 4.

1 ' .

I I . . . !

S top. i 1 !

Hydrograph of Water Levels in R.W. Porter's Kit ley Lake Valley Well During the Surmer

0 LD

0 L? N

9 M

c - 2

v U Figure 5. Hydrograph of Water Levels in R.W. Porter's Kitley Lake a l l e y Well No. 1-1991 from

mid January to mid February 1992

? cu

4 PCI

"! M

? r-l

4 M

c - 3

APPENDIX D

PUMPING TEST DATA AND PLOTS

U w PUMP TEST - DRAWDOWN DATA

09

09

09

10

CONTRACTOR Robbins Water Well Ori l l inq Ltd.

30 60 18.19 8.04 11.21 0.88

40 70 18.17 8.02 11.23 0.90

50 80 18.19 8.04 11.25 0.92

0 0 90 18.17 8.02 11.25 0.92

1 22 I January 11992 1 DAY MONTH YEAR

%MI' TEST - DRAWDOWN DATA

ELAPSED DISTANCE DISTANCE TIME TO DRAWDOWN TO TIME

HR. MIN. t (MIN.) WATER ( f t ) WATER

10 10 100 18.17 8.02 11.25

10 20 110 18.17 8.02 11.31

10 30 1 20 18.21 8.06 11.29

10 45 135 18.21 8.06 11.31

5 PAGE 2 OF -

ORAWoOWN PUMPING REMARKS RATE ( f t )

0.92 (igprn)

0.98

0.96

0.98

PROJECT

well T e s t Wel l NO. 1-1991

R.U. PORTER - KITLEY LAKE SUBDIVISION PW - 10.15 f t (3.094 rn) OW - 10.33 ft (3.149 rn) Static Water Level

11

11

11

1 1 1 1

00 150 18.25 8.10 11.31 0.98

15 165 18.23 8.08 11.33 1 .oo 30 I 180 18.25 8.10 11.33 1 .oo

22/23 I January I 1992 DAY I MONTH 1 YEAR

12

13

13

14

14

30 240 18.33 8.18 11.375 1 .045

00 270 18.375 8.225 11.40 1.07

30 300 18.375 8.225 11.44 1.11

00 330 18.42 8.27 11.44 1 .ll

30 360 18.48 8.33 11.46 1.13

15

16

12 1 00 1 210 1 18.27 I 8.12 I 11.35 I 1.02 I 1 1

30 420 18.48 8.33 11 S O 1.17

30 480 18.50 8.35 11.50 1.17 -

17

18

30 540 18.54 8.39 11.54 1.21

30 600 18.60 8.45 11.54 1.21

20

21

22

19 I 30 I 660 I 18.625 I 8.475 I 11.58 I 1.25 I 1 1 30 720 18.625 8.475 11.625 1.295

30 780 18.65 8.50 11.625 1.295

30 840 18.65 8.50 11.625 1.295

23

2 3 / ~ ~

01

02

03

30 900 18.67 8.52 11.67 1.34

30 960 18.71 8.54 11.71 1.38

30 1020 18.73 8.58 11.73 1.40

30 1080 18.77 8.62 11.77 1.44

30 1140 18.81 8.66 11.79 1.46

04 30 1200 18.83 8.68 11.81 1.48

05

D - 2

30 1260 18.83 8.68 11.81 1.48

06

07

08

09

30 1320 18.85 8.70 11.83 1.50

30 1380 18.875 8.725 11.85 1.52

30 1440 18.92 8.77 11 .875 1.545 31 M e t e r = 7220 ft'.

30 1500 18.90 8.75 11 .875 1.545

w PUMP TEST - DRAWDOWN DATA w

ELAPSED DISTANCE TIME TO TIME

HR. MIN. t (MIN.) WATER

l o 30 1560 18.90

1 1 30 1620 18.90

13 30 1740 18.96

15 30 1860 18.98

5 PAGE 3 OF __

DISTANCE ORAWoOWN PUMPING REMARKS

RATE DRAWDOWN TO

( f t ) WATER ( f t )

8.75 11.90 1.57

8.75 11.90 1.57

8.81 11.94 1.61

8.83 11.98 1.65

(igpm)

r I I I PROJECT

PW - 10.15 f t (3.094 rn) Well Test Well No. 1-1991 Static Water Level OW - 10.33 f t (3.149 rnl

R.W. WRTER - KITLEY SUBDIVISION 12:;: January :lR I MONTH

10 20 731 0 110 66.45 12.23 2.08 12.21 1.88

W M P TEST - RECOVERY DATA PAGE -%.- OF

RESIDUAL *ISTANCE RESIDUAL DRAWDOWN To DRAWDOWN

WATER (m) (m)

Well Test Well NO. 1-1991 PW - approximately a t ground surface

Datum Point

Static Water Level OW - 10.33 ft (3.149 m) Total Drawdown Ow - 2*67 ft

Tops o f well casinqs Elevation of Datum Point Ow - 0.92 ft above Qround PW - 10.15 f t (3.094 m)

REPNRKS

ELAPSED ELAPSED

PUMPING PUMPING Wt') T,ME TIME SINCE T IME SINCE

STARTED STOPPED HR. I MIN. t (min.) t' (rnin.1

I

DISTANCE T O

WATER

10

10

11

30 7320 120 61 .O 12.19

45 7335 135 54.3 12.15

00 7350 150 49.0 12.125

11 15

11 30

12 00

12 30

13 30

7365 165 44.6 12.08

7380 180 41 .O 12.06

741 0 21 0 35.3 12.00

7440 240 31 .O 11.98

7500 300 25.0 11.90

14 30

15 30

16 30

17 30

7560 360 21 .o 11.85

7620 420 18.1 11.81

7680 480 16.0 11.77

7740 540 14.3 11.75

1.41

1.29

1.06

0.95

0.93

11.67 1.34

11.54 1.21

11.29 0.96

11.21 0.88

11.19 0.86

0.75

23

08 ?8/

0.70

0.64

30 81 00 900 9.0 11.56

30 8640 1440 6.0 11.44

2 9 / ~ 8

30/08

D - 5

30 10080 2880 3.5 11.21

30 11520 4320 2.7 11.10

Feb

I3/O8

I7/OS

"'08

17'09

30 17280 10080 1.7 10.90

30 23040 15840 1.45 10.85

30 27360 201 60 1.4 10.79

00 37470 30270 1.24 10.73 ~~

0.58 10.83 0.50

5- - NO. --.- L 4 1 L . -TZGE .APH - R

SEM I-LOGARITHM I C 4 CYCLES X 1 0 DIVISIONS PER INCH

1 10 100

31ETL,, . COI . . , . .ATIC 1

M A O C I N U 9 A

1 - 7 1 I

N o P UI m d m c o o w c UI m < m a -

I000 10000

- II

N O 3 4 0 - L Z Z O D I E T Z G E N GRAPH PAF'EK SEMI - L O G A R I T H M I C

2 CYCLES X 20 DIVISIONS PER I N C H

I - 1

100 1000 10000

AB NO. 3 4 0 R - L 1 I U DIETZGEN CiRAPH PAPER

S E M I - L O G A R I T H M I C 1 C Y 2 L F S X l f l n l V I 5 I O N S PFR I N C l i

Figure 10, L o g - l w t o f Interference Orawdolln in Well No. 1-1992 hring Test Punping of R.W. Porter’s Kitley t Well No. 1-1991

3

Z

0 0 0 0 7

0 0 0 7

0 0 7

0 7

9 0

D - 10 7

-- - -_ -~

NL L3 I '

SE M I -i.Oi> AR I T H M I C 3 C Y C L E S Y 1 0 D I V I S I O N S PER I N T H

--mi _ - I --r , . , .

I ' . . I .

. . . , I : . : 1 . :

1 I I

I I

, * , . . ! . .

i I

I , . .

1 . . .

! ' : I

.

I

.... - --I--- I . -

I 1.5

0

I

d

d

2.0

2.5

3.0

I . - I %I1 I &

. / .

-- , i

1 100 1000