View
1.139
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A presentation by Golder Associates to Township of Langley Council on a proposed Aldergrove fish farm, Jan. 18, 2010.
Citation preview
Hydrogeological Assessment Phase 1 Information Review
PROPOSED GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND AQUA-FARMING OPERATION 753-264th STREET ALDERGROVE, BC
Matthew Munn
Jill Sacre
January 18, 2010
Introduction
Golder Associates Ltd. retained by Township (Sept. 2009) and prepared a Phase 1 Hydrogeological Assessment (Phase 1) report dated October 29, 2009:
Step #1 - Initial Data Review/Summary
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
Step #3 - Provide Recommendations for Phase 2
X
Step #1 - Initial Data Review/Summary
Step #1 - Data Summary
Property Development Plans
Application for Township Soil Removal Permit - January 2, 2009
Minutes of Owner’s Meeting with ALC - May 1, 2009
Step #1 - Data Summary
Step #1 - Data Summary
Property Development Plansx
Supplementary Owner Information (September 9, 2009) - Several hand-drawn figures - Written responses to Township questions - Copy of Piteau Associates Ltd. 1996 “hydrogeological assessment” report (confidential)
Step #1 - Data Summary
Owner’s Supplementary Information confirmed: the following property development plans/details:x
Multiple excavations ranging from 2.5 m to 6.2 m-bg Clay will be placed within the aquaculture pond excavation
to form four pond “cells” Base of aquaculture cells will be underlain by a sand layer
“drainage system” to intercept incidental leakage Buried geothermal array of unspecified depth and location
Step #1 - Data Summary
Owner’s Supplementary Information confirmed: the following property development plans/details: x
All facility ponds will initially be filled with water from an off-site source(s)
Groundwater will not be extracted on-site for facility use Waste management will include composting of fish and
worm waste at unspecified on-site locations, using clay pads to prevent leaching of compost product
Step #1 - Data Summary
Aquifer and Groundwater Information Sourcesx
Environment Canada (Halstead, 1986)
BC Ministry of Environment’s Water Resources Atlas
Township Groundwater Modelling (Golder, 2005)
Township Vulnerability Mapping (Golder, 2005)
Piteau Associates Ltd. (April 1996)
Levelton Consultants Ltd. (June 2009)
Step #1 - Data Summary (Aquifers)
Sand/gravel MoE Aquifer #15
High vulnerability to contamination (MoE)
Sand/gravel commonly exposed at ground surface
MoE Aquifer #34
Low vulnerability
Confined
Step #1 - Data Summary (Aquifers)
X
Golder groundwater vulnerability mapping (2005) concluded the entire Site and surrounding areas have a “Very High” vulnerability index
Step #1 - Data Summary (Receptors)
25 registered wells <500 m
Unregistered wells?
17 water licence POD’s in vicinity
14 licences on PH Creek
140,000 gal/day (irrigation and stockwatering)
Step #1 Data Summary – Piteau (1996)
Drilled seven exploration holes to max. 11 m-bg
Water table measured at 5 to 6 m-bg on Property (April 9, 1996)
“Radial” flow below Property
Step #1 Data Summary – Piteau (1996)
Drilled seven exploration holes to max. 11 m-bg
Water table measured at 5 to 6 m-bg on Property (April 9, 1996)
“Radial” flow below Property
Step #1 Data Summary - Levelton (June 2009)
Excavated three Test Holes to max. 7.3 m-bg
Water table not encountered in Test Holes (June 12, 2009)
No MW’s installed
Flow directions not confirmed
X
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
DATA GAP = Absence or deficiency of information required to satisfy impact assessment objectives
X
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
DATA GAP = Absence or deficiency of information required to satisfy impact assessment objectives
X
ALC objective: “determine precise location and depth of aquifer underlying the entire
extraction and aquaculture facilities”x
GAP = Site exploration to-date (Piteau & Levelton) lacks sufficient data to accurately estimate or confirm
either the thickness of the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer or current groundwater depths within the proposed
development areas.
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
DATA GAP = Absence or deficiency of information required to satisfy impact assessment objectives
X
ALC objective: Assess “potential risk to the aquifer or use of the aquifer on other agricultural lands” x
GAP = Risk assessment requires confirmation of current water table depths, local groundwater flow directions
and location of all local groundwater receptors/users,
including all registered and unregistered wells, water licences and watercourses.
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
Typical Aquifer/Groundwater Impact Assessment ObjectivesX
Characterize current groundwater resource: - Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer thickness - aquifer water table depths (seasonal high levels) - groundwater flow directions
Identify groundwater receptors: - confirm water licence intake field locations - confirm all water well locations and intake depths
Characterize development-groundwater interactions: - excavation depths relative to water table - drainage system depths relative to water table - locations of excavations and ponds - locations of geothermal array and compost pad
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
Typical Aquifer/Groundwater Impact Assessment ObjectivesX
Characterize current groundwater resource: - Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer thickness - aquifer water table depths (seasonal high levels) - groundwater flow directions
Identify groundwater receptors: - confirm water licence intake field locations - confirm all water well locations and intake depths
Characterize development-groundwater interactions: - excavation depths relative to water table - drainage system depths relative to water table - locations of excavations and ponds - locations of geothermal array and compost pad
UNKNOWN
X
Step #3 - Recommendations (Phase 2)
Step #3 - Phase 2 Recommendations
To address identified data gaps:X
Confirm the layout of all gravel excavation locations, secondary ponds, composting pad(s), wetlands and geothermal array
Determine which of Piteau’s 1996 MW’s are functional/viable
Drill four to eight additional on-site MW’s on Property perimeter and within confirmed gravel extraction areas, to confirm Aquifer thickness and facilitate groundwater
monitoring program Continuously monitor on-site groundwater levels to
evaluate water table response to rainfall, determine groundwater flow directions, confirm water table depths
and seasonal high water table position
Step #3 - Phase 2 Recommendations
To address identified data gaps:X
Confirm the location of groundwater receptors, including unregistered water supply wells and water licence
intakes
Estimate maximum allowable excavation depths, as per typical ALC requirements
Analyze combined Property development details and groundwater monitoring data and identify potential on-
site and off-site sources for groundwater hydraulic impacts and/or groundwater quality impacts
PRIMARY CONCLUSIONSXx
Property entirely underlain by Abbotsford-Sumas Aquiferx
Unconfined = highly vulnerable to surface contaminant sources
Second deeper aquifer = low vulnerability
Confirmed and projected water depths (Piteau, 1996) infer proposed excavation depths of 4.5 to 6.2 m will directly intercept the Aquifer water table
Historic groundwater flow directions (Piteau, 1996) infer that groundwater below the site potentially supplies registered and unregistered wells, water licences and a natural receptor(s)
PRIMARY CONCLUSIONSXx
Available data does not satisfy ALC requirements for provision of “conditional approval”
Available information is insufficient to characterize potential on-site or off-site groundwater impacts related to either the gravel extraction or aquaculture components of proposed development
PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONXx
Additional site groundwater exploration/monitoring and confirmation of development plans is required.
Without further investigation, potential impacts to local groundwater resources/aquifers cannot be confirmed to an acceptable degree of certainty.
This could be completed as Phase 2 of the Township’s “independent hydrogeology study”, or be required of others, to identify potential impacts to local groundwater flow, local groundwater quality and local groundwater users/receptors.
Hydrogeological Assessment Phase 1 Information Review
PROPOSED GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND AQUA-FARMING OPERATION 753-264th STREET ALDERGROVE, BC
Matthew Munn
Jill Sacre
Hydrogeological Assessment Phase 1 Information Review
PROPOSED GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND AQUA-FARMING OPERATION 753-264th STREET ALDERGROVE, BC
Matthew Munn
Jill Sacre
Introduction
Township resolution (July 20, 2009) commissioned an “independent hydrogeology study” to identify and evaluate potential impacts to groundwater resources resulting from gravel extraction and aqua-farming activities proposed for the property at 753 - 264th Street, Aldergrove BC.
ALC issued agreement-in-principle (May 7, 2009) with conditions the Owner assess “ … any potential risk to the aquifer or use of the aquifer on adjacent lands …(and) determine the precise location and depth of the aquifer underlying the entire extraction and aquaculture facilities …”
Introduction
Golder Associates Ltd. retained by Township (Sept. 2009) and prepared a Phase 1 Hydrogeological Assessment (Phase 1) report dated October 29, 2009:
Step #1 - Initial Data Review/Summary - Confirm Property development plans - Identify local groundwater resources and users/receptors
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps - Interpret local groundwater conditions - Identify additional data required to assess potential groundwater impacts and/or fulfill agency requirements
Step #3 - Provide Recommendations for Phase 2 - To address identified data gaps
Step #1 - Data Summary
GENERALINFORMATION
Approximately 16.6 acres
Entire property within ALR
Perry Homestead Ck.
Residence, outbuildings and barns/stock buildings
Step #1 - Data Summary
Property Development Plans
Application for Township Soil Removal Permit - January 2, 2009 - 147,000 m3 gravel removal from unspecified 5 acre area - Sketch identifies a single large aquaculture pond and three small ponds for overall facility water management
Step #1 - Data Summary
Step #1 - Data Summary
Property Development Plans
Minutes of Meeting with ALC - May 1, 2009 - Owner’s “proposed facility layout” identifies four 84 m x 23 m
aquaculture ponds, two ancillary ponds for water quantity management and a wetland area for managing water quality - Maximum excavation depth of 6.7 m noted
Step #1 - Data Summary
Step #1 - Data Summary
Property Development Plansx
Township Meeting with Owner (September 3, 2009) - Owner informed of independent hydrogeology study - Township requested information to confirm Owner’s development plans
Supplementary Owner Information (September 9, 2009) - Several hand-drawn figures, including scaled cross sections through each proposed pond area - Written responses to Township questions relating to facility water management and on-site waste management - Copy of Piteau Associates Ltd. 1996 “hydrogeological assessment” report (confidential)
Step #1 - Data Summary
Owner’s Supplementary Information confirmed the following property development plans/details:x
Multiple excavations are required with a combined plan area of approximately 190 m length and width
Excavation depths will vary: - aquaculture ponds: 6.2 m - water detention and overflow ponds: 4.5 m - wetlands area: 2.5 m deep - geothermal array: unspecified depth and location
Clay will be placed within the aquaculture pond excavation to form four pond “cells”
Base of aquaculture cells will be underlain by a sand layer “drainage system” to intercept incidental leakage
Step #1 - Data Summary
Owner’s Supplementary Information x
All facility ponds will initially be filled with water from an off-site source(s)
Facility operations will depend entirely on incident rainfall to satisfy water requirements
Groundwater will not be extracted on-site for facility use Waste management will include composting of fish and
worm waste at unspecified on-site locations, using clay pads to prevent leaching of compost product
Step #1 - Data Summary
Aquifer and Groundwater Information Sourcesx
Environment Canada (Halstead, 1986) - Regional-scale mapping of major geological units - Review of reports and MoE well records over ~20 years
BC Ministry of Environment’s Water Resources Atlas - Regional-scale aquifer mapping and classification - Registered water supply well summary - Surface water licence summary
Township Groundwater Modelling (Golder, 2005) - Township-wide 3D numerical hydrogeological model - Interpret the extent of Township aquifers - Interpret regional-scale groundwater characteristics
Step #1 - Data Summary
Aquifer and Groundwater Information SourcesX
Township Vulnerability Mapping (Golder, 2005) - Groundwater vulnerability mapping using AVI approach - Township-wide map constructed
Piteau Associates Ltd. (April 1996) - Examined geology and groundwater depths within a formerly proposed 35 acre gravel extraction area - Directly explored water table depths within central and western Property areas
Levelton Consultants Ltd. (June 2009) - Reviewed existing hydrogeology data (excluding Piteau) - Cursory examination of Property geology (3 Test Pits)
Step #1 - Data Summary (Aquifers)
Sand/gravel MoE Aquifer #15
High vulnerability to contamination (MoE)
Unconfined Sand/gravel
commonly exposed at ground surface
MoE Aquifer #34
Low vulnerability
Confined
Step #1 - Data Summary (Aquifers)
X
Golder modelling (2005) identified the “Abbotsford Aquifer” as being equivalent to MoE’s Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer
Modelling also identified a deeper aquifer (Aldergrove Quadra) below the Property that is separated from the Abbotsford- Sumas Aquifer by a 40 to 50 m thick silt/clay layer
Golder groundwater vulnerability mapping concluded the entire Site and surrounding areas have a “Very High” vulnerability index
Step #1 - Data Summary (Receptors)
25 registered wells <500 m
10 north of PH Creek
15 west or south of Property
Unregistered wells?
17 water licence POD’s in vicinity
14 licences on PH Creek
140,000 gal/day (irrigation and stockwatering)
Step #1 Data Summary – Piteau (1996)
Drilled seven exploration holes to max. 11 m-bg
Sand/gravel to full depths drilled at all locations
Five holes converted to MW’s
Water table measured at 5 to 6 m-bg on Property (April 9, 1996)
“Radial” flow below Property
Step #1 Data Summary - Levelton (June 2009)
Excavated three Test Holes to max. 7.3 m-bg
Primarily sand/gravel to full depths
Water table not encountered in Test Holes (June 12, 2009)
No MW’s installed
Flow directions not confirmed
Aquifer thick. estimated ~7 m
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
DATA GAP = Absence or deficiency of information required to satisfy impact assessment objectives
X
ALC objective: “determine precise location and depth of aquifer underlying the entire
extraction and aquaculture facilities”x
GAP = Site exploration to-date (Piteau & Levelton) lacks sufficient data to accurately estimate or confirm
either the thickness of the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer or current groundwater depths within the proposed
development areas.
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
DATA GAP = Absence or deficiency of information required to satisfy impact assessment objectives
X
ALC objective: Assess “potential risk to the aquifer or use of the aquifer on other agricultural lands” x
GAP = Risk assessment requires confirmation of current water table depths, local groundwater flow directions
and location of all local groundwater receptors/users,
including all including registered and unregistered wells, water licences and watercourses.
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
Aquifer/Groundwater Impact Assessment Data Gaps ObjectivesX
Characterize current groundwater resource: - Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer thickness - aquifer water table depths (seasonal high levels) - groundwater flow directions
Identify groundwater receptors: - confirm water licence intake locations - confirm all water well locations and intake depths
Characterize development-groundwater interactions: - excavation depths relative to water table - drainage system depths relative to water table - locations of excavations and ponds - locations of geothermal array and compost pad
Step #2 - Identify Data Gaps
Aquifer/Groundwater Impact Assessment Data Gaps ObjectivesX
Characterize current groundwater resource: - Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer thickness - aquifer water table depths (seasonal high levels) - groundwater flow directions
Identify groundwater receptors: - confirm water licence intake field locations - confirm all water well locations and intake depths
Characterize development-groundwater interactions: - excavation depths relative to water table - drainage system depths relative to water table - locations of excavations and ponds - locations of geothermal array and compost pad
UNKNOWN
Step #3 - Phase 2 Recommendations
To address identified data gaps:X
Confirm the layout of all gravel excavation locations, secondary ponds, composting pad(s), wetlands and geothermal array
Determine which of Piteau’s 1996 MW’s are functional/viable
Drill four to eight additional on-site MW’s on Property perimeter and within confirmed gravel extraction areas, to confirm Aquifer thickness and facilitate groundwater
monitoring program Continuously monitoring groundwater levels in all MW’s
to evaluate water table response to rainfall, determine groundwater flow directions, confirm water table depths
and seasonal high water table position
Step #3 - Phase 2 Recommendations
To address identified data gaps:X
Confirm the location of groundwater receptors, including unregistered water supply wells and water licence
intakes
Estimate maximum allowable excavation depths, as per typical ALC requirements
Analyze combined Property development details and groundwater monitoring data and identify potential on-
site and off-site sources for groundwater hydraulic impacts and/or groundwater quality impacts
PRIMARY CONCLUSIONSXx
Property entirely underlain by Abbotsford-Sumas Aquiferx
Unconfined = highly vulnerable to surface contaminant sources
Second deeper aquifer = low vulnerability
Confirmed and projected water depths (Piteau, 1996) infer proposed excavation depths of 4.5 to 6.2 m will directly intercept the Aquifer water table
Historic groundwater flow directions (Piteau, 1996) infer that groundwater below the site potentially supplies registered and unregistered wells, water licences and a natural receptor(s)
PRIMARY CONCLUSIONSXx
Available data does not satisfy ALC requirements for provision of “conditional approval”
Available information is insufficient to characterize potential on-site or off-site groundwater impacts related to either the gravel extraction or aquaculture components of proposed development
PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONXx
Additional site groundwater exploration/monitoring and confirmation of development plans is required.
This could be completed as Phase 2 of the Township’s “independent hydrogeology study”, or be required of others, to identify potential impacts to local groundwater flow, local groundwater quality and local groundwater users/receptors.
Without further investigation, potential impacts to local groundwater resources/aquifers cannot be confirmed to an acceptable degree of certainty.
Hydrogeological Assessment Phase 1 Information Review
PROPOSED GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND AQUA-FARMING OPERATION 753-264th STREET ALDERGROVE, BC
Matthew Munn
Jill Sacre
Recommended