phase 1 pumping test report pttw - stop the quarry - · pdf filephase 1 pumping test report...

Phase 1 Pumping Test Report PTTW # 8461-7CFLG5 –Condition 4.22

Prepared for St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc.

Submitted by Gartner Lee Limited

August, 2008

Phase 1 Pumping Test Report PTTW # 8461-7CFLG5 –Condition 4.22

Prepared for St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc.

August, 2008

Reference: GLL 60-702

Distribution: 2 St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. 2 Ministry of the Environment 1 City of Hamilton Combined Aggregate Review Team1 City of Hamilton Public Health Services Department 1 Conservation Halton 1 The Hamilton/Halton Source Protection Committee 1 The Regional Municipality of Halton 1 Stantec Consultanting Ltd. 1 Worthington Groundwater 1 S.S. Papadopulous & Associates, Inc. 1 Golder Associates 1 Gartner Lee Limited

August 27, 2008 Ms. Melanie Horton Director, Lands and Resources St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. 55 Industrial Street Toronto, ON M4G 3W9 Dear Ms. Horton: Re: GLL 60-702 – Phase 1 Pumping Test Report – PTTW 8461-7CFLG5 - Condition 4.22 Please find enclosed the Phase 1 Pumping Test Report for submission to the Director, Ministry of Environment. The report fulfills Condition 4.22 of Permit to Take Water Pumping Test Number 8461-7CFLG5. This phase is the first of three phases defined under the Permit. The Phase 1 Pumping Test Report presents the data, results of the testing, and interpretations drawn from the pumping test observations. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours very truly, GARTNER LEE LIMITED

Stephen C. Hollingshead, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. Senior Geological Engineer, Hydrogeologist Chief Operating Officer

SCH:pc Attach.

Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal

Page 1. Background .................................................................................................. 1

2. Project Team................................................................................................. 2

3. Pumping Test Description........................................................................... 2 3.1 Overview of Pumping Test ............................................................................... 2 3.2 Monitoring Wells............................................................................................... 3 3.3 Private Well Monitoring .................................................................................... 3 3.4 Surface Water Monitoring Stations................................................................... 3 3.5 Test Set Up ...................................................................................................... 3 3.6 Step Test .......................................................................................................... 4 3.7 Constant Rate Pumping Test ........................................................................... 4 3.8 Water Level Monitoring Instrumentation........................................................... 5

3.8.1 Instrument Error Range ....................................................................................5 3.8.2 Verification of Diver Calibration.........................................................................5 3.8.3 Manual Water Level Readings..........................................................................6

3.9 Daily Data Review and Reporting .................................................................... 6

4. Water Level Monitoring Results.................................................................. 7 4.1 Target Monitoring Wells ................................................................................... 8 4.2 Bedrock Monitoring Wells................................................................................. 8 4.3 Overburden Monitoring Wells and Mini-Piezometers ....................................... 8 4.4 Private Well Monitoring .................................................................................... 8 4.5 Surface Water Hydrographs............................................................................. 8

5. Water Quality Sampling Results ................................................................. 9 5.1 Groundwater..................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Surface Water .................................................................................................. 9

6. Interpretation of Monitoring Data.............................................................. 10 6.1 Groundwater Response during Pumping of TW14......................................... 10

6.1.1 Hydrograph Response ....................................................................................10 6.1.2 Zone of Influence in the Bedrock ....................................................................12 6.1.3 Zone of Influence in the Overburden ..............................................................13

6.2 Water Level Response in Private Wells ......................................................... 13 6.3 Surface Water Response during Pumping of TW14....................................... 13 6.4 Water Quality.................................................................................................. 14

6.4.1 Background Groundwater Quality...................................................................14 6.4.2 Discharge Water Chemistry ............................................................................17

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08)

Table o f Contents

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08)

6.4.3 Post-Pumping Test Groundwater Chemistry ..................................................17 6.4.4 Quality Control and Assurance .......................................................................18

6.5 Surface Water Quality .................................................................................... 18

7. Interference Complaints – Documentation .............................................. 20

8. Summary of Findings................................................................................. 20 8.1 Summary Observations on Groundwater Response ...................................... 21 8.2 Summary Observations on Groundwater Quality Observations..................... 21

8.2.1 Background Water Quality ..............................................................................21 8.2.2 Discharge Water Quality .................................................................................22

8.3 Summary Observations on Surface Water Response.................................... 22 8.4 Summary Observations on Surface Water Quality Observations................... 23 8.5 Summary of Interference Complaints ............................................................. 23

9. References .................................................................................................. 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Location Plan Figure 2. Site Plan Showing Monitoring Locations Figure 3. Site Plan Showing Sentinel Monitoring Wells and Test Well TW14 Figure 4. Pumping History and Hydrograph for Test Well TW14 and Precipitation Data Figure 5. Hydrograph - MWB22-II-D Figure 6. Hydrograph - MWB3-B Figure 7. Hydrograph - MWB8-II-C Figure 8. Hydrograph - MWB19-A/B Figure 9. Hydrograph - MWB20-A/B/C Figure 10. Hydrograph - MWB23-A/B/C Figure 11. Static Water Level, Shallow Zone – July 21st, 2008 @ 6:00 Figure 12. Static Water Level, Intermediate Zone – July 21st, 2008 @ 6:00 Figure 13. Static Water Level, Deep Zone – July 21st, 2008 @ 6:00 Figure 14. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 22nd, 2008 @16:20 Figure 15. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 22nd, 2008 @16:20 Figure 16. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 22nd, 2008 @16:20 Figure 17. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 23rd, 2008 @16:20 Figure 18. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 23rd, 2008 @16:20 Figure 19. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 23rd, 2008 @16:20 Figure 20. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 24th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 21. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 24th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 22. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 24th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 23. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 25th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 24. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 25th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 25. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 25th, 2008 @16:20

Table o f Contents

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08)

Figure 26. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 26th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 27. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 26th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 28. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 26th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 29. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 27th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 30. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 27th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 31. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 27th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 32. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 28th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 33. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 28th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 34. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 28th, 2008 @16:20 Figure 35. Water levels During Pumping Test - Shallow Zone - July 29th, 2008 @12:00 Figure 36. Water levels During Pumping Test - Intermediate Zone - July 29th, 2008 @12:00 Figure 37. Water levels During Pumping Test - Deep Zone - July 29th, 2008 @12:00 Figure 38. Water level Recovery - Shallow Zone – July 30th, 2008 @12:00 Figure 39. Water level Recovery - Intermediate Zone – July 30th, 2008 @12:00 Figure 40. Water level Recovery - Deep Zone – July 30th, 2008 @12:00 Figure 41. Water level Recovery - Shallow Zone – August 2nd, 2008 @12:00 Figure 42. Water level Recovery - Intermediate Zone – August 2nd, 2008 @12:00 Figure 43. Water level Recovery - Deep Zone – August 2nd, 2008 @12:00 List of Tables Table 1. Sentinel Wells Table 2. Nature of Water Level Response Observed in Hydrographs during Pumping Test Appendices A. Permit to Take Water Number 8461-7CFLG5

B. Pre-Test Activities

B.1. Notice of Pumping Test B.2. Calibration Record for Flow Meter B.3. March 2008 Work Plan Table 4 and Table 5

C. Well Construction Details

C.1. TW14 Well Record and Construction Details C.2. Lotowater Letter dated August 22, 2008 C.3. Construction Details for Wells

D. Private Well Monitoring Results

E. Groundwater Hydrographs

E1. Hydrographs for Target Wells E2. Hydrographs for Remaining Bedrock Wells E3. Hydrographs for Overburden Wells and Mini-Piezometers

Table o f Contents

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08)

F. Groundwater Chemistry

F1. Pre-Test Groundwater Chemistry F2. Discharge Water Chemistry F3. Post-Test Groundwater Chemistry F4. Laboratory Certificate of Analysis F5. Quality Control and Assurance

Phase 1 Pumping Test ReportPTTW # 8461-7CFLG5 – Condit ion 4 .22

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 1

1. Background

St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. [St Marys], a wholly owned subsidiary of Votorantim Cimentos, is intending to develop the property it acquired from Lowndes Holdings Corp in June 2006 as a quarry site. This property is located on Part of Lot 1, and Lots 2 and 3, Concession 11, geographic Township of Flamborough, now The City of Hamilton (Figure 1). The site is located between Regional Road 508 (Centre Road) and Milburough Line, and is about 3.5 km north of the community of Carlisle. The property covers an area of about 158 ha (390 acres). As part of the site investigations required in order to submit an application under the Ontario Aggregate Resources Act, groundwater testing is being undertaken at the site. A Permit to Take Water [PTTW] was issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment on July 8, 2008 (Permit No. 8461-7CFLG5; Appendix A) for the most recent testing, consisting of a three-phase pumping test. Phase 1 of the test was carried out between July 21 and July 29, 2008 in accordance with the requirements of the PTTW, including the required pre-test monitoring starting on July 14, and post-test monitoring continuing until August 5. The purpose of this report is to address the specific reporting requirements of the PTTW, detailed in Condition 4.22 (Reporting) of the PTTW, which is provided in full below.

“Within 30 days of the completion of each phase of the testing program, the Permit Holder shall submit to the Director a report, with the geoscientific portions prepared by a hydrogeological consultant, qualified under the Ontario PGA or PEA and the surface water portions prepared by a qualified hydrologist, or appropriate discipline related to surface water science, which includes but is not limited to:

a) Hydrographs showing water level changes with time at all target

wells. b) Hydrographs showing water level changes with time for all private

wells monitored as part of the water taking. c) A figure, or set of figures, showing contoured water level elevation

data which indicates the interpreted area of impact of pumping for each day the test was running.

d) Detailed documentation of all interference complaints and how they were resolved.

e) Interpretation of findings of the groundwater monitoring program. f) Hydrographs for each of the surface water data-logger stations

identified in condition 4.18. g) Interpretation of the surface water monitoring program. h) Identification and interpretation of any erosion or sedimentation

identified under conditions 4.20 and 4.21.


i) Compilation and analysis of water quality data collected from the test wells, the on-site wells, the off-site wells and the surface water sampling points.”

A general overview of the work program for this test was presented in the document titled “Hydrogeologic Work Plan St Marys Flamborough Quarry Site” (Gartner Lee Limited, March 2008). Surface water elements of the test addressed by Stantec are summarized herein; however, the reader is directed to the companion report prepared by Stantec titled “Proposed Flamborough Quarry PTTW Surface Water Monitoring” dated August, 2008 for additional details.

2. Project Team

A Project Team consisting of professional technical staff with appropriate credentials and certification completed the testing. The work was undertaken under the general direction of Gunther H. Funk, P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist (Gartner Lee Limited) with field supervision provided by Dennis German, P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist. Chris Neville P.Eng., with S.S. Papadopulos & Associated, Inc. participated as an internal technical reviewer and Steve Worthington, Worthington Groundwater, undertook a tracer study during pumping. Staff from Lotowater Technical Services Inc., provided the physical set up of the pumping test, monitored pumping of the test well (TW14), instrumented and documented water level response at private wells and undertook the investigation and documentation of interference complaints. This work was performed under the direction of Bill Beaton P.Eng. with technical support provided by Greg Padusenko P.Eng., and Boyd Pendleton P.Geo. Staff from Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec), under the direction of Jim Perrone, P.Eng., undertook and documented the surface water monitoring program, and the geomorphic and wetland assessment.

3. Pumping Test Description

3.1 Overview of Pumping Test

Under PTTW Number 8461-7CFLG5, Condition 3, the Permit Holder [St Marys] was authorized to take water from test well TW14 (Figure 1) during three independent pumping tests to be completed between July 8th, 2008 and the expiration date of the PTTW on June 30th, 2009. The duration of each test is to be for 6-days, but could be extended by the Director to 8-days on request of the Permit Holder.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 2


The maximum taking specified in the PTTW is 3,125 litres/minute, with a maximum taking of 3,000,000 litres/day during Test 1 [Phase 1; this test] and 4,500,000 litres/day for Test 2 and Test 3. The PTTW authorizes the Permit Holder to proceed with Test 1 only, with written approval from the Director required prior to proceeding with each subsequent test (i.e., Test 2 and Test 3). 3.2 Monitoring Wells

Sixty nine (69) bedrock wells and 16 overburden wells were monitored during the testing program. The well locations are shown in Figure 2 and well construction details are presented in Appendix C.3. Thirty eight (38) wells were referred to as ‘sentinel’ monitoring wells and were equipped with pressure transducers/data loggers for recording water levels. The locations of the sentinel wells are shown in Figure 3, and the instrumentation and trigger water levels for these wells are specified in Table 1. 3.3 Private Well Monitoring

Monitoring of private residential wells off-site included water sampling and the installation of pressure transducers in the wells for monitoring purposes. The wells were sampled on three occasions (pre-test, following installation of the data loggers and post-test). The off-site residential well monitoring program was voluntary and included 5 private wells. A description of the private well monitoring program is presented in the August 13th, 2008 letter report prepared by Lotowater titled “Private Well Monitoring Results for Test #1, Proposed Flamborough Quarry”, a copy of which is provided in Appendix D. 3.4 Surface Water Monitoring Stations

The surface water monitoring program was managed by Stantec and documented in a separate report. The surface water monitoring was conducted at 13 locations, which included various surface water stations along Mountsberg and Flamboro creeks and at various ponds and seeps observed on the property. A detailed description of the surface water monitoring stations is provided in the Stantec report, which is presented under separate cover. 3.5 Test Set Up

The Permit to Take Water allowed for pumping from a single well during the test, TW14. The location of this well is shown in Figure 2. Well construction details for TW14 are provided in Appendix C.1

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 3


A Goulds 6DHHC 6-stage submersible test pump equipped with a 50 hp motor was installed in test well TW14 with the pump intake set at a depth of about 43 m, or about 3 m above the base of the well. Discharge was through a 125 mm column pipe which enlarges to 150 mm at the well head. A flow control valve and instrument sampling port was installed along on the discharge header immediately downstream of the well head. A 100 mm Rockwell flow meter, calibrated to AWWA Specification C704 for propeller-style meters, was installed downstream of the control valve. A discharge line, consisting of about 700 m of 150 mm PVC ‘layflat’ tubing was installed between the well head and a discharge structure placed above the Mountsberg wetland complex. A detailed presentation of the monitoring conducted at TW14 is provided in the Lotowater August 22nd, 2008 letter report titled “Pumping Test #1 at TW14, proposed Flamborough Quarry” presented in Appendix C.2. A brief summary of the step and constant rate tests, which were undertaken, follows. 3.6 Step Test

A step drawdown test was conducted at TW14 on July 21st, 2008, beginning at 11:35. Three short-term tests were conducted at increasing rates of 5 L/s, 10 L/s and 15 L/s to identify a suitable constant pumping rate. The static water level at the start of the test was 8.33 mbtc (metres below top of casing). At 15 L/s, the water level was drawn down to about 31.6 mbtc. Earlier geophysical logging established that the primary water producing fractures were above this depth. The test rate was then reduced to 12 L/s, which resulted in the level stabilizing at about 27 mbtc after 60 minutes. The test was terminated the same day at 13:35. The water level had recovered to 8.51 mbtc at 16:20. 3.7 Constant Rate Pumping Test

Based on the drawdown response, a constant rate (10 L/s) test was started on July 21st at 16:20. The water level was drawn down to 20 mbtc about 30 minutes into the test, with minor fluctuations in the flow rate between about 9 L/s and 12L/s before stabilizing at about 22 mbtc at a rate of 10 L/s after 1200 minutes (20 hours). Minor adjustments to the flow rate were made as needed to maintain continuous pumping at 10 L/s. Groundwater samples were collected daily at the well head during pumping in accordance with Condition 4.17 of the PTTW. The samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories for analysis of the parameters in the modified Table 4 of the March 2008 Work Plan (Appendix B.3), VOCs, copper and PCBs. Turbidity, conductivity, temperature and pH were measured at the time the samples were collected and the results are provided in the Lotowater report provided in Appendix C.2. The chemistry analysis results are described in Section 6.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 4


3.8 Water Level Monitoring Instrumentation

Pressure transducers, specifically Schlumberger Micro-Divers (Divers) manufactured by Van Esse Instruments of Holland, were installed in the majority of the on-site and off-site bedrock groundwater monitoring wells to obtain continuous water level measurements. Mini-Divers and Micro-Divers were installed in the private wells off-property. The overburden wells were instrumented with Solinst Leveloggers. Most of the wells were equipped with the data loggers shortly after the wells installations. Some of the target wells were not initially equipped with Divers, but such instruments were installed in the wells about three weeks prior to test start up. A barometric pressure recorder (Baro-Diver) used for compensating water level measurements for barometric pressure effects, was placed within the Carriage House. Pressure transducers read total pressure at their sensor (air pressure plus the pressure exerted by the water head on top of the sensor). The barometric pressure needs to be subtracted from the readings in order to obtain the ‘water head’ above the sensor. 3.8.1 Instrument Error Range

The Divers have an error range (established by the manufacturer) of approximately ± 0.1% of the pressure range. Various ranges of Divers were used at the site depending on the expected drawdown at each well. The accuracy and error ranges for each Diver Micro-Diver type are listed below:

Type of Diver DI601 DI602 DI605

Range 10 m H20 20 m H20 50 m H20 Accuracy ± 1 cm H20 ± 2 cm H20 ± 5 cm H20 Resolution 0.2 cm H20 1 cm H20 2 cm H20

Notes: Range, accuracy and resolution data provided by Schlumberger Water Services 3.8.2 Verification of Diver Calibration

Each Diver is calibrated by the manufacturer prior to delivery. The calibration of the Divers installed in the designated target wells was verified between July 15th and 20th, 2008 (prior to the initiation of the initial pumping test). The verification was completed by measuring the current water level below the measuring point on the well riser pipe. This measurement was then transferred to the Direct Data Cable (DDC) by measuring from the sensor on the Diver back along the DDC cable. Once this measurement was established on the DDC the Diver was lowered into the well to a depth of one (1) metre below the measured water level and real time measurements made via a laptop and Schlumberger’s LDM software. The real time measurements (once stable) were compared to the known air pressure in order to establish if the Diver sensor was reading the one metre water column.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 5


3.8.3 Manual Water Level Readings

Water levels were measured manually on a daily basis when the Divers were downloaded to a laptop using Schlumberger’s LDM software. These manual levels were converted to water level elevations and compared to the recorded Diver level at the time the manual measurement was obtained. The manual measurements were used to determine if the Diver readings were within the established error range of the Diver instrumentation, and if a discrepancy was established, the manual measurements could be used to compensate the Diver data between measured water level elevations. Note: The manual water levels are included along with the Diver readings in the hydrographs (Appendix E). 3.9 Daily Data Review and Reporting

Daily technical meetings were convened between the Permit Holder’s Qualified Persons, the independent (3rd party) consultants and the Ministry in accordance with Condition 4.11 of the PTTW. During each meeting, the testing progress was presented, hydrographs for selected wells were reviewed and any interference or related complaints were identified and any follow-up actions discussed. The following is a summary of the specific conditions within the PTTW, related to the daily review: Condition 4.11 required daily review of monitored private well and on-site monitoring well water

level data during the water taking period. The data (actual drawdown levels observed at the target monitoring wells) were plotted on hydrographs and compared to the modelled ‘target drawdown levels’. In addition, the water level data under Conditions 4.7 and 4.8 were tabulated. Following the data compilation, plotting and tabulation, the Permit Holder convened a daily meeting.

Condition 4.12 required the Permit Holder provide make the daily data from on-site monitoring

wells publicly available through a method suitable to the Director. These data and other information summarizing the testing were uploaded to a web site maintained by St Marys for public viewing.

Condition 4.13 required the Permit Holder make daily data from the private wells available to the

private well owner upon request of that private well owner. In consultation with the well owners, the data were downloaded and presented at the end of the test. A summary report will also be provided to the private well owners following the third phase of the testing.

Condition 4.14 required the Permit Holder to sample monitoring wells for groundwater quality in

accordance with Table 5 of the report “Hydrogeological Work Plan St. Marys Flamborough Quarry Site” compiled March 2008 by Gartner Lee Limited This work was undertaken prior to the start of the testing program and the results provided in Section 6.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 6


Condition 4.15 required the Permit Holder to sample monitoring wells MWB21, MWB7, MWB10, MWO14 and MWO10 for PCBs prior to the start-up of each phase of the testing, and at the end of each phase of the testing. With the exception of the two overburden wells (MWO14 and MWO10) where the water table was below the screened interval (i.e., in the bedrock), the work was completed and the results provided in Section 6.

Condition 4.16 required the Permit Holder to sample monitoring wells MWB10, MWB21 and

MWO14 for Copper prior to the start-up of each phase of the testing and at the end of each phase of the testing. With the exception of the overburden well (MWO14) where the water table was below the screened interval (i.e., in the bedrock), the work was completed and the results provided in Section 6.

Condition 4.17 required the Permit Holder to sample the discharge water once per day during

each test for the parameters outlined in Table 4 of Report “Hydrogeological Work Plan St. Mary’s Flamborough Quarry Site” compiled March 2008 by Gartner Lee Limited In addition to the parameters outlined in Table 4, the Permit Holder was required to sample the discharge water daily for a full suite of volatile organic compounds copper, and for PCBs. Table 4 containing the full list of parameters is provided in Appendix B.3

4. Water Level Monitoring Results

Water level monitoring was conducted at the test well TW14, and at each of the existing monitoring wells and piezometers shown in Figure 2. The majority of the wells are equipped with data loggers to facilitate data collection and processing of the collected data. Wells identified as ‘target’ monitoring wells were downloaded on a daily basis. The loggers in the remaining wells were downloaded or manual measurements were completed every two to three days. The pressure transducers/data loggers installed in the test well TW14 and monitoring wells within a 100 metre radius of the pumping well were configured to collect water level information at 1 minute intervals. The loggers in the monitoring wells beyond the 100 metre zone were configured to collect water levels at 5 minute intervals. Water levels at the piezometers were collected through manual measurements, with the intervals between measurements varying between two to three days. The water level data collected at the test well TW14, and the various monitoring wells and piezometers by either or both manual measurement and electronic data collection, were complied and graphed to generate ‘hydrographs’. The test interval covered in the hydrographs extends

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 7


between July 14th, 2008 and August 8th, 2008. A separate hydrograph was prepared for each well (Appendix E). Included in each hydrograph is a record of the precipitation at a rain gauge (Hydrology Services Model TB-3) installed near St. Marys’ field office at the southeast corner of the site and the water level drawdown response observed at TW14, starting about two days prior to the test on July 19th, 2008. 4.1 Target Monitoring Wells

Hydrographs for each of the target wells for the full test duration including pre-test data collection, active pumping, and the recovery period are provided in Appendix E.1. These hydrographs were compiled daily for review with the MOE and the independent consultant. 4.2 Bedrock Monitoring Wells

Hydrographs for the bedrock monitoring wells not included as Target Monitoring Wells for the full test period are provided in Appendix E.2. 4.3 Overburden Monitoring Wells and Mini-Piezometers

Hydrographs for the overburden monitoring wells and mini-piezometers for the full test period are provided in Appendix E.4. 4.4 Private Well Monitoring

Hydrographs for each of the private wells are presented in the summary report prepared by Lotowater and are included in Appendix D. 4.5 Surface Water Hydrographs

Surface water hydrographs for those surface water stations monitored during this test are presented under separate cover by Stantec.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 8


5. Water Quality Sampling Results

5.1 Groundwater

The water quality sampling program involves sampling of each of the target monitoring wells prior to the initiation of the pumping test, sampling of the discharge from the pumping well (TW14) at a frequency of 24-hours, and sampling of a subset of wells for analysis of PCBs and copper. Specifically, samples collected from monitoring wells MWB21, MWB7 and MWB10 were analyzed for PCBs prior to the start up of the pumping test and at the end of the test. Samples collected from monitoring wells MWB10 and MWB21 were submitted for analysis of copper at the same frequency. The pre-test samples collected from the target monitoring wells were submitted for the analysis of the parameters listed in Table 4 (Appendix B.3). The discharge samples were also analyzed for the list of parameters in Table 4, as well as PCBs and copper. 5.2 Surface Water

Stantec undertook monitoring of surface water quality in accordance with Condition 4.19 of the PTTW at the prescribed frequency. Specifically, Stantec reports that:

“during the pumping test(s), the water quality at SWT3, SWMC and SWMC3 was monitored daily in the field, for pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and turbidity. Water samples were collected at these stations prior to the initiation of pumping, on day 2 and day 6 of the pumping test, and once again within one week of the end of the pumping test. The water samples from each of these stations were submitted to Maxxam Analytical for analysis of general chemistry, and metals. Sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was also undertaken. VOC analysis was performed for samples collected prior to the pumping test. In compliance with the PTTW, since the variability of in situ water quality parameter concentrations was not attributable to the pumping test discharge, subsequent VOC samples were not submitted for laboratory analysis.”

The analytical results and an interpretation of the results are provided in the Stantec report, which is presented under separate cover.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 9


6. Interpretation of Monitoring Data

6.1 Groundwater Response during Pumping of TW14

6.1.1 Hydrograph Response

As indicated, step and constant rate pumping tests were completed at test well TW14. The step test was undertaken on July 21st, 2008 between 11:35 and 13:35 at rates varying between 5 L/s and 15 L/s. The constant rate test was completed at an approximate rate of about 10 L/s, between 4:20 p.m. July 21st, 2008 and 12:10 p.m. July 29th, 2008, a period of approximately 188 hours. Figure 4 shows the water level response at test well TW14 to the step and constant rate testing, which was undertaken between July 21st, 2008 and July 29th, 2008. A datum of 292.75 mASL was assigned to the measuring point (based on the initial casing elevation of 292.39 mASL and the extension header added by Lotowater, which raised the height by 0.36 m). The water level data were adjusted to this revised datum. Included in Figure 4 are the pumping rate for TW14 and the precipitation recorded from the rain gauge located on-site over this interval. The initial oscillations in the water level at TW14 shown in this Figure 4 for July 21st, 2008 were induced during the step testing. As shown, the water level was initially drawn down to an elevation of about 261 mASL within a few minutes of the start of the test and on test termination was allowed to recover to just below the pre-step test static level of about 284 mASL. During the constant rate test the water level was drawn down within about 60 minutes of the start of the test to about 272 mASL and declined gradually to about 270 mASL. As noted in Figure 4, a precipitation event of 48 mm was observed during the morning of July 20th, 2008 prior to the pumping test and a second event of 44 mm occurred one day into the test (afternoon through evening of July 22nd, 2008). The effect of the precipitation on the water level at test well TW14 was largely overwhelmed by the pumping and is evident in the stepped pattern to the drawdown during the early stages of pumping in comparison to a more gradual decline later during the test under dry conditions. Additional precipitation (≤2 mm) occurred during four of the 8 days of the pumping test. The water level recovery curve is uniform. A minor precipitation event of about 8 mm occurred one day into recovery (July 29th, 2008) and two additional events of ≤2mm occurred on subsequent days July 31st and August 1st. The hydrographs prepared for the various monitoring wells and piezometers are presented in Appendix E. Included in each hydrograph are the precipitation recorded at the rain gauge located on-site and the water level drawdown response observed at the test well TW14.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 10


Figure 5 through Figure 7 illustrate three typical water level responses observed at the wells that make up the monitoring well network. The observed responses vary between the monitoring wells depending on the distance from test well TW14. The wells closest to the test well, such as the representative well sample well MWB22-II-D (Figure 5) exhibit a water level response that is very similar to the pattern of response at TW14. MWB22-II-D is located about 23 m from TW14. Water level influence due to precipitation is muted in these wells indicating that the pumping influence is over-riding natural precipitation influences. Therefore, the water level is controlled primarily by the pumping well with less interference from natural rain fall recharge. Wells further removed, such as MWB3-B (hydrograph in Figure 6), located about 360 m from TW14, also exhibit a response to pumping but the response is reversed to a varying degree by the July 22nd, 2008 precipitation event. Initially the groundwater level declines in response to pumping at TW14 and exhibits a characteristic drawdown typical for pumping tests. Infiltrating water from the precipitation events on July 22nd is clearly observed, with a water level rise of about 0.2 m. The effects of this precipitation event gradually dissipated over the balance of the pumping test. The third pattern of water level response is evident in Figure 7, which is the hydrograph for well MWB8-II-C located at the south property boundary about 600 m from TW14. This well is outside of the zone of influence of TW14 as the water level at this well did not respond to pumping. This deep well exhibited a response to the precipitation events, with an increase in the water level of about 0.4 m following the July 20th event of 48 mm and an increase of 0.3 m following the July 22nd event. The water level following each precipitation event exhibits a typical recession curve. Table 2 provides a listing of the monitoring wells and the nature of water level response observed at each of the wells. Generally the hydrographs for wells located within about 400 m of the TW14 show a distinctive response to pumping of this well, whereas the response is muted or overwhelmed by precipitation recharge in those wells located beyond this distance. Flow profiling and packer testing of test well TW14 (Lotowater, 2007a; 2007b) identified one main water producing feature at a depth of approximately 30.5 mbtc (260 mASL). It is reasonable to expect and was subsequently confirmed during the test, that there would be greater connectivity between the TW14 and the monitoring wells completed at similar depths. This is evident in the hydrographs for wells MWB19-A and MWB19-B (Figure 8), with the shallower well (MWB19-A) exhibiting a response to precipitation but not to pumping, whereas the deeper well responding both to pumping and to precipitation. This well nest is located about 250 m northeast of TW14. A similar response is observed at well nest MWB20 (about 260 m southeast of TW14), with the water level in the shallow well responding to precipitation and the intermediate depth and deep well to pumping and precipitation (Figure 9). At well nests, such as MWB23 located close to the pumping well, the water level response to pumping is apparent in all three wells, with a similar pattern and magnitude of drawdown response observed in all three wells (Figure 10).

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 11


6.1.2 Zone of Influence in the Bedrock

A series of figures were prepared showing the observed drawdown with distance from the test well TW14. Each figure (water level map) represents a single ‘snap-shot in time’, starting with the pre-pumping static water level or Day 1 (Figure 11) and progressing through Day 8 of the pumping test, immediately prior to test termination. A separate series of figures were prepared for each day and each depth horizon in the aquifer. The depth horizons were established during the initial field program and were assigned as follows: shallow zone (>276 mASL), intermediate zone (265 mASL to 276 mASL), and deep <265mASL). Figure 14 through Figure 37 presents the water levels observed starting with July 22nd, 2008 @16:20 (24 hours after the start of the test) running out to July 28th, 2008 @16:20 (168 hours after the start of the test). The elongation in a north–south direction is an artefact of contouring and is related to sparseness of data points in those directions. In viewing the water level maps prepared for the three well depths, the apparent zone of influence ZOI), which reflects the superposition of the effects of drawdown and precipitation, remained relatively stable from July 22nd, onward, albeit some shrinkage of the ZOI is evident due to the precipitation influence. The greatest initial response is at the intermediate depth in the bedrock. The response continues to enlarge for the first 48 hours of the test, stabilizes at about 96 hours and then starts to shrink, presumably in response to precipitation. The response at shallow depths in the bedrock is slower to develop for the initial 24 hours. At 48 hours the response equals or exceeds that for the intermediate depth. It then remains relatively stable through to 168 hours and subsequently shows some shrinkage. The response in the deep bedrock is similar to the shallow depth in that it is slow to develop for the first 24 hours. The response remains less than that for the intermediate depth until 168 hours into the test, at which time it exceeds that for the intermediate depth, although this is primarily due to shrinkage in the intermediate depth. By the end of the test, the response pattern at all three depth horizons is relatively similar. These different responses indicate that there is slightly more lateral connectivity at the intermediate depth in the bedrock, but the equalization by the end of the test demonstrates that there is also good vertical hydraulic connectivity throughout the bedrock profile. Figure 38 through Figure 43 depict the water level recovery (rebound) in the three depth horizons on July 30th, 2008 @12:00 (24 hours after pumping of TW14 ceased) and August 2nd, 2008 @12:00 (96 hours after testing ceased). As contoured, the recovery effect is most pronounced in the intermediate and deeper bedrock, and the apparent ZOI, as depicted with the 0.05 m contour, extends about 500 m from TW14. The elongation in a north–south direction is a contouring artefact.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 12


6.1.3 Zone of Influence in the Overburden

There is no apparent response to pumping of TW14 in the hydrographs for the overburden and mini-piezometers installed on-site. The hydrographs do however exhibit responses to the precipitation events. 6.2 Water Level Response in Private Wells

A description of the private well monitoring program is presented in the August 13th, 2008 letter report prepared by Lotowater titled “Private Well Monitoring Results for Test #1, Proposed Flamborough Quarry”, a copy of which is provided in Appendix C.2. As reported, there does not appear to be any measurable drawdown recorded at the private wells that can be attributed to pumping of the test well TW14. The hydrographs for the private wells exhibit a typical drawdown response that is attributed to the normal usage pattern for the wells and ranges from about 1.3 m (Private Well C) to 19 m (Private Well B). At Private Well B, the water level was being drawn down to the pump intake in this well. 6.3 Surface Water Response during Pumping of TW14

Surface water monitoring observations are presented in the Stantec Consulting Ltd. report titled “Proposed Flamborough Quarry PTTW Surface Water Monitoring” dated August 2008. This report describes the monitoring network, outlines the methodology employed and presents an interpretation of the surface water quantity and quality data collected in support of the PTTW, as well as geomorphic, and terrestrial ecology monitoring efforts. Only a summary of the surface water level observations are incorporated herein and the reader is directed to the Stantec Report for additional detail. Surface water monitoring (continuously recorded water depth and flow) was conducted at seven surface water stations within the Mountsberg Creek tributary network. These stations are referred to as SWT3, SW-MC, SW-MC2, SW-MC3, SW-M2, SWTD, and SW-MC4. In addition, monitoring occurred at three on-site surface water features as well as three active seepage areas, specifically:

Pond 1 an off-line pond located within the Flamboro Creek watershed, which has been observed to hold water throughout the year; Pond 2 a dug-out pond located within the Mountsberg Creek watershed, which

has been observed to dry out during late summer/early fall; SWF-1 a large off-line surface water feature located within the Mountsberg

Creek watershed (referred to as Pond 3 in the PTTW), which has been observed to contain water during late winter and spring; and, Seeps S3, S3a, and S5a, which are the most active seepage areas on the

subject lands and were monitored to observe the variability and nature of seepage activity in the northern portion of the subject lands.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 13


It is concluded in the Stantec Report that the water level and flow monitoring results were strongly influenced by the surface runoff that occurred during the pumping test (as a result of rainfall events). Specifically, there was an increase in water levels and flows at the monitoring stations. Stations situated in Mountsberg Creek (SW-MC, SW-MC2, SW-MC3, SW-MC4, and SW-M2) were characterized by flows above 1 m3/s during most of the 8-day pumping test duration. Tributaries to Mountsberg Creek (stations SW-T3 on Tributary A and SW-TD on Tributary D) also experienced an increase in water levels and flows, with the flow increases occurring in direct response to the timing of rainfall events. No response was discernable in the streams related to the pumping test. In the days prior to the start of the pumping test, there was no recorded water level or flow, reflecting dry weather conditions. The rainfall experienced on July 20th and July 22nd resulted in renewed activity at these seeps. Fluctuations of 2 cm to 3 cm were observed at seeps S3a and S5a during the test interval, which can be attributed to pumping of TW14. The influence of the pumping was not discernible at Pond 1 or Pond 2, and SWF-1 remained dry (i.e., no ponding of water) throughout the pumping test. 6.4 Water Quality

6.4.1 Background Groundwater Quality

Condition 4.14 of PTTW number 8461-7CFLG5 requires sampling and analysis of monitoring wells prior to the test. The samples were analyzed for the list of parameters included in the amended Table 4 from the March 2008 Work plan provided in Appendix B.3. A discussion of the results follows: Overburden Wells:

Groundwater samples were collected from seven (7) of the sixteen (16) overburden monitoring wells on July 15th, 16th and 17th, 2008 prior to the initiation of the pumping test. The remainder of the overburden monitoring wells were dry at the time of sampling. Analytical results for the seven overburden monitors sampled are summarized in Tables F1.1 and F1.2, Appendix F.1. Copies of the laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix F.4. The results were compared to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards [(ODWS), MOE, 2006]. The following parameters were detected in the samples at levels/concentrations that fall outside of the ODWS:

Monitor Date Parameter (and Applicable Ontario Drinking Water Standard)

Reported Value/Concentration

MWO1-I-A 15-Jul-08 Temperature (15˚C, AO) Total Dissolved Solids [(TDS) 500 mg/L, AO] Turbidity (5 NTU, AO) Total Coliform (non-detectable, MAC)

16.6˚C 518 mg/L 15 NTU

2,200 CFU/100mL MWO1-I-B 15-Jul-08 Turbidity (5 NTU, AO)

Total Coliform (non-detectable, MAC) 39 NTU

4 CFU/100 mL

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 14


(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 15

Monitor Date Parameter (and Applicable Ontario Drinking Water Standard)

Reported Value/Concentration

MWO1-II-C 16-Jul-08 Turbidity (5 NTU, AO) 30 NTU MWO2 15-Jul-08 Temperature (15˚C, AO)

Total Coliform (non-detectable, MAC) 15.7˚C CGTC

MWO5 15-Jul-08 Turbidity (5 NTU, AO) Total Coliform (non-detectable, MAC)

17 NTU CGTC

MWO8 15-Jul-08 Temperature (15˚C, AO) Escherichia coli (non-detectable, MAC)

15.3˚C 300 CFU/100 mL

MWO12 17-Jul-08 Escherichia coli (non-detectable, MAC) Total Coliform (non-detectable, MAC)

CGEC CGTC

Notes: ODWS – Ontario Drinking Water Standards, MOE 2006. MAC – Maximum Allowable Concentration; AO – Aesthetic Objective; mg/L – milligrams per litre. NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units. CFU/100 mL – colony forming units per 100 mililitres. CGTC – Confluent Growth Total Coliform. Indicates the bacteria present other than Escherichia coli, fecal coliform or fecal streptococcus were too numerous to count. CGEC – Confluent Growth Escherichia coli. Indicates that the Escherichia coli was too numerous to count.

The overburden samples were also submitted for analysis of Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs). The VOC toluene was detected above the method detection limit in the July 15th, 2008 samples from MWO1-I-A (0.32 μg/L), MWO1-I-B (0.47 μg/L) and MWO2 (0.28 μg/L). The ODWS for toluene is 24 μg/L. The results are summarized in Table F1.1, Appendix F.1. Bedrock Wells:

Bedrock groundwater samples were collected from 61 monitoring wells on July 15th, 16th and 17th, 2008 prior to the initiation of the pumping test. The analytical results for the bedrock monitoring wells are summarized in Tables F1.1 and F1.2, Appendix F.1.

The laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix F.4. The results were compared to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards [(ODWS), MOE, 2006]. For the most part, the samples exhibited values that were within the ODWS. The exceptions are noted in the following Table:

Parameter ODWS

(Type of Objective)

Number of Exceedances/ Wells

Monitored

Range of Concentration Exceedance(s)

pH, laboratory 6.5 – 8.5 (OG) 1 of 61 8.54 Temperature 15˚C (AO) 2 of 61 15.5˚C – 16.1˚C Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500 mg/L (AO) 6 of 61 522 mg/L – 2,200 mg/L Turbidity 5 NTU (AO) 5 of 61 5.3 NTU – 13 NTU Sulphate 500 mg/L (AO) 1 of 61 1,390 mg/L Nitrate 10.0 mg/L(MAC) 8 of 61 10.5 mg/L – 21.9 mg/L


(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 16

Parameter ODWS

(Type of Objective)

Number of Exceedances/ Wells

Monitored

Range of Concentration Exceedance(s)

Arsenic 0.025 mg/L (IMAC) 2 of 61 0.043 mg/L – 0.062 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L (AO) 8 of 61 0.319 mg/L – 0.867 mg/L Escherichia coli non-detectable (MAC) 5 of 61 2 - CGEC Total coliform non-detectable (MAC) 26 of 61 1- CGTC

Notes: ODWS – Ontario Drinking Water Standards, MOE 2006. MAC – Maximum Allowable Concentration; AO – Aesthetic Objective; mg/L – milligrams per litre. NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units. CFU/100 mL – colony forming units per 100 mililitres. CGTC – Confluent Growth Total Coliform. Indicates the bacteria present other than Escherichia coli, fecal coliform or fecal streptococcus were too numerous to count. CGEC – Confluent Growth Escherichia coli. Indicates that the Escherichia coli was too numerous to count.

The VOCs Methyl ethyl ketone (at TW15-B, TW15-C and MW22-I-B), toluene (at TW15-C) and acetone (at MWB22-I-C) were detected at concentrations above the reportable method detection limit. The concentrations are below their respective ODWS. These three VOCs are common laboratory contaminants. The VOC results are summarized in Table F1.2, Appendix F.1. PCBs were not detected in the samples analyzed for these parameters. The results are presented in Table F1.2, Appendix F.1. Table F1.3 represents a summary of the bedrock water quality for the three depth horizons at which the bedrock monitoring wells were installed. Include in this table are the average and minimum and maximum values/concentrations observed in the sample analyses. In general, the water is more mineralized with depth, as reflected by the increasing conductivity and TSS. The concentrations of the primary anions (chloride, sulphate, fluoride) and cations (calcium, sodium and potassium), and the metals (arsenic, boron and iron) increase with depth. Of note, arsenic concentrations exceeded the ODWS in the two wells completed at the base of the Amabel Formation (screened against the lower Amabel and the underlying units). Arsenic is a common constituent in sulphide minerals (sphalerite and pyrite), which are endemic to bedrock. Its occurrence in the deep groundwater at the site is not unexpected and has been observed in previous sampling of the deep wells Total coliform is elevated above the ODWS throughout the Amabel Formation. E. coli and nitrate concentrations are generally higher in the shallow bedrock, with concentrations in various wells exceeding the ODWS. It is noted that the property is actively farmed and irrigation is practiced with water drawn from Mountsberg Creek. The nitrate and bacteria are most likely associated with the property use.


6.4.2 Discharge Water Chemistry

A baseline sample was collected from pumping well TW14 on July 18th, 2008 and submitted to the laboratory for analysis of the parameters listed in the Table 4, Appendix B.3. Daily samples were collected from the sampling port on the discharge line from TW14 during the pumping test between July 22nd and July 29th, 2008. The results are summarized in Tables F2.1 and F2.2 in Appendix F.2. The laboratory certificates of analysis are presented in Appendix F.4. The analytical results were compared with the Provincial Water Quality Objectives [(PWQO), Ministry of Environment (MOE), 1999] and also assessed to determine if there were any changes in parameter concentrations over the duration of the test period. The parameter concentrations met the applicable PWQO criteria with the following exceptions:

Parameter PWQO Date Concentration Free Cyanide 0.005 mg/L 23-Jul-08

24-Jul-08 0.016 mg/L 0.016 mg/L

Zinc 0.03 mg/L 18-Jul-08 22-Jul-08 23-Jul-08 24-Jul-08 25-Jul-08 26-Jul-08 27-Jul-08 29-Jul-08

0.056 mg/L 0.037 mg/L 0.098 mg/L 0.052 mg/L 0.039 mg/L 0.032 mg/L 0.035 mg/L 0.037 mg/L

The VOC toluene (1.3 μg/L) was detected above the PWQO (0.8 μg/L) in the baseline sample collected on July 18th, 2008 but not in the discharge samples collected on subsequent days. This would suggest that this parameter may have been introduced on equipment installed in this well. The results are summarized in Table F2.2, Appendix F.2. PCBs were not detected. The results are presented in Table F2.2, Appendix F.2. For the most part, the chemistry from TW14 remained consistent over the duration of the pumping test, with only minor changes in concentration noted. 6.4.3 Post-Pumping Test Groundwater Chemistry

Samples were collected from select wells following the completion of the pumping test and submitted for analysis of copper and PCBs. The results of the post-pumping test chemistry are summarized in Table F3.1, Appendix F.3. The laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix F.4. Concentrations of copper ranged from below the reportable limit of 0.002 mg/L to 0.004 mg/L. The ODWS of 1 mg/L was not exceeded in the samples.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 17


No PCBs were detected in the post-pumping test samples collected for PCBs 6.4.4 Quality Control and Assurance

Blind duplicate samples were obtained during groundwater sampling completed on July 15th, 16th and 17th, 2008 to assess intra-laboratory precision. The determination of precision on the groundwater duplicates was conducted by applying guidance criteria for duplicate results provided in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documentation on laboratory validation, (USEPA, 1988). The precision control limit also known as the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of reported concentrations, was calculated using the following formula:

%1002/)(

)( xDS

DSRPD+−

=

where, S = first sample value (original),

D = second sample value (duplicate), If the concentration is more than 5 times the method detection limit, a RPD value within ±20% is considered to represent good precision. If the concentration is less than 5 times the method detection limit, the RPD value is set to the method detection limit. The RPD calculations for each groundwater sample and duplicate for each monitoring event are presented in Appendix F.5 with the results presented in Table F5.2, Appendix F.5. The results indicate acceptable intra-laboratory precision. VOC Trip Blanks prepared by AGAT Laboratories, were submitted with groundwater samples collected on July 15th, 16th and 17th, 2008, respectively. VOCs were not detected in the trip blank samples. The results are presented in Table F5.1, Appendix F.5 and the certificates of analysis are presented in Appendix F.4. 6.5 Surface Water Quality

Surface water quality data for the various surface water stations is presented in the Stantec Consulting Ltd. report titled “Proposed Flamborough Quarry PTTW Surface Water Monitoring” dated August 2008. The following discussion is from this report. Per Condition 4.19 of the PTTW, the parameters pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and turbidity were monitored daily during the pumping test at surface water stations SWT3, SWMC and SWMC3 along Mountsberg Creek. Water samples were also collected at these stations at the following frequency: prior to the initiation of pumping; on Day 2 and Day 6 of the pumping test; and, within one week of the end of the pumping test.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 18


The samples were submitted to Maxxam Analytical for analysis of general chemistry, and metals. Sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was also undertaken. VOC analysis was performed for samples collected prior to the pumping test. In compliance with the PTTW (Condition 4.19), since the variability of in situ water quality parameter concentrations was not attributable to the pumping test discharge, subsequent VOC samples were not submitted for laboratory analysis. Measured in situ water quality parameters at stations SW-MC, SW-MC3, and SW-T3 were characterized by the influence of surface water runoff. Conductivity increased at stations SW-MC and SW-MC3 during periods of runoff from July 21st to August 1st, 2008 in comparison to observations prior to the pumping test. This was likely due to the transport of particulate and dissolved matter from areas upstream of the pumping test discharge into Mountsberg Creek. This observation is based on the fact that the measured in situ conductivity was generally higher at SW-MC3 located upstream of the pumping test discharge point, whereas the in situ conductivity at SW-MC, located downstream of the discharge point was lower. The change in conductivity between SW-MC and SW-MC3 is therefore not related to the pumping test discharge. Considering the small volume of the pumping test discharge (0.010 m3/s) in comparison to creek flows of greater than 1 m3/s, the pumping test discharge had no discernible effect on creek water quality. In contrast, conductivity at SW-T3 decreased in response to the surface runoff events. The decrease in conductivity at this station is likely the result of lower proportional groundwater contributions to flow during the runoff events. Surface runoff resulted in greater turbidity at the monitoring stations. Patterns in dissolved oxygen (DO) content reflect diurnal DO concentration fluctuations, which would typically be depressed during morning hours due to algal respiration cycles. As observed prior to the pumping test on July 17th, and in previous years of monitoring, temperatures at SW-T3 are lower than at SW-MC and SW-MC3. The low temperatures observed at the seep locations (particularly S3a and S5a) are suggestive of a groundwater influence. No trends in pH levels could be discerned from the data. Water quality samples submitted for laboratory analysis are consistent with the results of in situ water quality monitoring. Prior to the start of the pumping test, the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) for total phosphorus (0.03 mg/L), aluminum (0.075 mg/L), iron (0.3 mg/L), and zinc (0.02 mg/L) were exceeded at stations SW-MC and SW-MC3 in Mountsberg Creek. The PWQOs for total phosphorus and iron were exceeded at SW-T3. Increases in these water quality parameter concentrations between station SW-MC and SW-MC3 were also noted prior to the pumping test. This trend in water quality parameter concentrations remained consistent at stations SW-MC and SW-MC3 during and after the pumping test. Total phosphorus and iron levels at SW-T3 decreased below their respective PWQOs during the pumping test (July 22nd and July 26th), and increased above their PWQOs following the end of the pumping test (August 1st). [Note: the pumping test discharge was located downstream of station SW-T3. The changes in total phosphorus and iron levels at T3 were therefore unrelated to the pumping test discharge and can be attributed to changes in surface runoff conditions.]

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 19


7. Interference Complaints – Documentation

A discussion of the private well complaints and their resolution is presented in the letter report prepared by Lotowater titled “Private Well Monitoring Results for Test #1, Proposed Flamborough Quarry”, a copy of which is provided in Appendix D. Residents experiencing water supply problems were directed to contact a “call centre”, which provided 24-hour call monitoring. The calls were recorded and details summarized with the summary forwarded to St Marys and Lotowater. All complaints were forwarded onto the MOE local District office (as required by Condition 5.1 in the PTTW). A total of seven calls were received at the call centre. Four of these calls were not related to the testing (two were requests for delivery of aggregate, one was related to purchase of a property in the general vicinity of the St Marys property area and one was related to an employment opportunity). One complaint was received on July 21st prior to the start of the pumping test began. The individual, who lives in the community of Carlisle, indicated that their residence was experiencing low water pressure. The City of Hamilton was contacted as the property the municipal water supply was available at the property in question. The second call was received immediately after the start of the step test on July 21st, with the individual reporting that their well pump was not operating. On investigation it was determined that the problem was with the pressure switch and was entirely unrelated to the pumping test. The pressure switch was replaced at St Marys’ expense and the pump functioned properly after this work was completed. The third complaint was not related to a water supply but rather the observance of a ‘gas odour’ along Milburough Townline. The individual was contacted, details collected and the information was passed onto the MOE, since it was not related to the pumping test.

8. Summary of Findings

The primary goal of this initial phase of testing was to characterize the aquifer properties. This objective was met. In response to comments and discussion following the previous pumping tests on the property, instrumentation and monitoring was intensified. This area of the property was extensively instrumented, water samples were collected and analyzed from 68 wells and various surface water

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 20


stations, water levels were monitored frequently and reliably, and pumping rate and the discharge of groundwater to Mountsberg Creek was carefully measured. Consequently, the reliability of the interpretation is not compromised by the precipitation, which occurred during the testing program. 8.1 Summary Observations on Groundwater Response

The water level responses in the proximity of the test well TW14 were definitive and provide useful information on how the groundwater system responds to controlled, sustained pumping. Specifically, the drawdown and recovery portion of the hydrograph, observed in the monitoring wells in the general proximity (<150 metres) to TW14, can be analyzed for the estimation of aquifer hydraulic properties. The preliminary results of the analyses conducted to date, are consistent with the interpretations derived from previous hydraulic tests (packer tests, slug tests and transmissivities estimated from specific capacities inferred during flow meter profiling). This indicates that the properties at the property are characterizable and predicable in a bulk average sense. This is the scale that is significant with respect to quarry water balance analysis and the prediction of potential off-site impacts. The ZOI from the drawdown and recovery response appears to extend out about 500 m from the TW14. Recharge from the precipitation events during the testing may have masked any minor drawdown response beyond this distance. The effects of precipitation are important to the assessment of groundwater responses. Variations in climate induce significant changes in the groundwater system. This is evident in the extremes of the last two years, with an atypical dry year in 2007 and the above normal precipitation experienced in 2008. The differences are reflected in ambient water levels observed over these two years. Note: The long-term trend analysis in water levels and the hydraulic properties that have been determined are not required to be provided in this report and have therefore not been included herein. This information will however be presented in full in the Hydrogeological Level 2 Report. 8.2 Summary Observations on Groundwater Quality Observations

8.2.1 Background Water Quality

A number of naturally occurring parameters were observed in groundwater samples collected from various monitoring wells installed on-property at concentrations exceeding ODWO. Specifically, pH, temperature, TDS, turbidity, sulphate, and iron detected in one or more of the 68 groundwater samples, exceeded applicable aesthetic and operational guidelines within the ODWS.

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 21


The Maximum Allowable Concentration for nitrate was exceeded in 8 samples, Escherichia Coli in 6 samples and total coliform in 31 samples. Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration Limits for arsenic was exceeded in two samples collected from deep wells on the property. It is noted that the property is actively farmed and irrigation is practiced with water drawn from Mountsberg Creek. The nitrate and bacteria are most likely associated with the property use. Arsenic is a common constituent in sulphide minerals (sphalerite and pyrite), which are endemic to bedrock. Its occurrence in the deep groundwater at the site is not unexpected and has been observed in previous sampling of the deep wells. Trace level concentrations of the VOCs, Toluene, Methyl Ethyl Ketone and Acetone were detected in one or more samples. Possible sources of these VOCs are incidental contamination in handling/processing of the samples either in the field or laboratory. The concentrations are slightly above the method detection limit and significantly below the below the ODWS. Copper was detected slightly above the method detection limit but significantly below the ODWS. PCBs were not detected. 8.2.2 Discharge Water Quality

Free Cyanide and zinc were detected in samples of the discharge from pumping well TW14 at concentrations exceeding the PWQO. Cyanide is common to various insecticides and fumigants in soil. It is possible its occurrence is related to the farm use of the property. Zinc is common to limestone/dolostone bedrock occurring naturally as a sulphide mineral (sphalerite) in the rock. Toluene was observed in a sample from the test well just above the method detection limit, prior to pumping of this well but was not detected in the discharge. The toluene may have been introduced on the equipment installed in the well to conduct the pumping test. Copper was detected above the method detection limit but significantly below the ODWS. PCBs were not detected. 8.3 Summary Observations on Surface Water Response

The following conclusions are drawn from the Stantec Report:

The pumping test and associated discharge did not have an adverse effect to the wetland receiving the discharge. Given the high water stage and flows (>1 m3/s) observed in Mountsberg Creek during the testing in response to

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 22


precipitation events, the effects of discharging 10 L/s from the pumping test were effectively non-detectable.

In the days prior to the start of the pumping test, there was no recorded water level or flow at the seeps, reflecting dry weather conditions. The rainfall experienced on July 20th and July 22nd resulted in renewed activity at these seeps. Fluctuations of 2 cm to 3 cm were observed at seeps S3a and S5a during the test interval, which can be attributed to pumping of TW14.

The influence of the pumping was not discernible at Pond 1 or Pond 2, and SWF-1 remained dry (i.e., no ponding of water) throughout the pumping test.

8.4 Summary Observations on Surface Water Quality Observations

As concluded in the Stantec Report, the water quality data collected prior to, during, and after the pumping test do not demonstrate any influence attributable to the pumping test discharge. 8.5 Summary of Interference Complaints

A total of seven calls were received at the call centre. Four of these calls were not related to the testing, whereas three could be construed as being related to the testing program and were investigated in full either by the Lotowater, the MOE or the City of Hamilton. All three calls, which were investigated, were determined not to be related to the testing program. Report Prepared By:

Stephen C. Hollingshead, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. Senior Geological Engineer, Hydrogeologist Chief Operating Officer

(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 23


(1ra0827/60702/f-rpts-08) 24

9. References

Gartner Lee Limited, 2008: Hydrogeologic Work Plan St Marys Flamborough Quarry Site. March 2008.

Lotowater Technical Services Inc., 2007: Proposed Mountsberg Quarry Project, 2006/2007 Packer Testing and Depth Specific Water Quality Sampling Results. July 5, 2007.

Lotowater Technical Services Inc., 2007: Proposed Mountsberg Quarry Project, Geophysical logging and Testing Results for Monitoring and Test Wells. July 5, 2007.

Ontario Ministry of Environment, 1996: Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO)

Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2006: Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS)

Figures

(1AppTiPgs/60702-f-rpts-08)


Tables

Appendix A

Permit to Take Water Number 8461-7CFLG5


Appendix B

Pre-Test Activities

B.1. Notice hand delivered by St. Marys staff on July 14, 2008.

B.2. Calibration Record for Flow Meter B.3. March 2008 Work Plan Table 4 and Table 5


Appendix C

Well Construction Information

C.1 TW14 Well Record and Construction Details C.2 Lotowater Letter dated August 22, 2008 C.3 Construction Details for Wells


Appendix D

Private Well Monitoring Results


Appendix E

Groundwater Hydrographs

E1. Hydrographs for Target Wells E2. Hydrographs for Remaining Bedrock Wells E3. Hydrographs for Overburden Wells and Mini-

Piezometers


Appendix F

Groundwater Chemistry

F1. Pre-Test Groundwater Chemistry F2. Discharge Water Chemistry F3. Post-Test Groundwater Chemistry F4. Laboratory Certificate of Analysis F5. Quality Control and Assurance


phase 1 pumping test report pttw - stop the quarry - · pdf filephase 1 pumping test report...

Documents