Adaptive Management Plan. Highland Quarry. Prepared for: M.A.Q. Aggregates Inc. Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc.

Transcription

1 Adaptive Management Plan Highland Quarry Prepared for: M.A.Q. Aggregates Inc. Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. December 2009 AEC g

2 December 2, 2009 AEC g Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 4th Floor, South Tower 300 Water Street Peterborough ON K9J 8M5 Attention: Mr. David N. Webster, P.Geo Regional Hydrogeologist RE: Adaptive Management Plan: Highland Quarry M.A.Q. Aggregates Inc. Dear Sir: Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. is please to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) with the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) for the Highland Quarry. The overall goal and objective of the AMP is to design a program that will allow for an evaluation of the local effects in fractured media that form this site setting and facilitate insightful and strategic decision-making to mitigate any potential impacts resulting from Highland Quarry development. Of particular importance is to ensure that this program is regulated under the Aggregate Resources Act and is enforceable until the license has been surrendered. As a result, this document and all future revisions will become a Schedule to the Site Plan. Furthermore, to address the concern of the responsibility for monitoring and trigger responses, as well as investigative, mitigative, and financial responsibilities a Memorandum of Understanding has been agreed upon by M.A.Q. Aggregates, Inc., Walker Industries, and the MNR. This agreement legally binds M.A.Q. Aggregates, Inc to ensuring the surface water and associated features within the Beaver River watershed are protected from any potential impact resulting from the cumulative impact from the Highland Quarry and the Duntroon Quarry expansion.

3 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. David R. Ketcheson, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineer DRK:tlw Attach: cc: Mr. Quinn Moyer (M.A.Q. Aggregates, Inc.) Mr. David White, Q.C. Mr. Hugh Geurts (Surface Water Evaluator: MOE Southwest Regional Office) Mr. Jeff Markle (Hydrogeologist MOE Southwest Regional Office) ii

4 FOREWORD Adaptive management is by definition the linking of new data to actions and measures in order to achieve the overall project goals. In essence, new information affects subsequent decisions. The project goal is to operate a quarry without creating any adverse impacts to the natural environment through adaptive management. The Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) for the Highland Quarry has been developed with the overall goal and objective to design a site monitoring program that will allow for an evaluation of the local effects and facilitate insightful and strategic decision-making to mitigate impacts resulting from quarry development, which is legally binding. The complexity in developing and enforcing an AMP for a quarry site in the Province of Ontario is the involvement of both the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), both of which have legislative authority in the operational requirements of an aggregate operation. Recently, An Agreement to Address the Roles and Responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment Regarding Aggregate Extraction Operations within the Province of Ontario (May, 2008) was developed. This AMP will follow the general guidelines presented in this document. The above-noted Agreement provides a clear and concise description of roles and responsibilities of the MOE and MNR and where there may be questions as to who has legislative authority for various elements including, but not limited to; site operations, monitoring, compliance, complaints received by the public. Although this Agreement has been formulated to address the review process under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA), the legislative mandates presented in this Agreement have been adopted to define the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies throughout the life of the aggregate operation. In summary, the legislative mandate under the ARA requires a Level 2 Hydrogeological Report, which must address the potential for adverse effects of the operation on the natural environment. The MNR (ARA regulatory agency) is required to review the potential impacts related to surface water features and other natural heritage features. Consideration to the ground water regime also must be given for this evaluation. The MNR must also review the recommended mitigation measures (including trigger mechanisms), contingency plan, and monitoring plans for the proposed operation. To conform to the understanding of the above mentioned mandate, the MNR would be responsible for ensuring impacts to surface water and other natural heritage features (predicted or unforeseen) can be effectively mitigated. iii

5 The MOE governs the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA); a piece of legislation that has also has an impact on the aggregate industry. Specifically, quarries that extract material from below the ground water table requires an OWRA Section 34 Permit to Take Water (PTTW) for the incidental water ingress and an OWRA Section 53 Certificate of Approval (CofA) for the discharge of this taking. The MOE's mandate is to ensure that the water taking does not cause any adverse effects to existing water well supplies (or impact to ground water system as a whole), as well as nearby surface water features. Therefore, to eliminate duplication of legislative authority (surface water and ground water impacts), the MOE's primary role in regulating aggregate operations is to ensure that the ground water regime is not compromised as a result of quarry dewatering. All potential impacts to the ground water regime and its potential receptors (i.e., existing water supply wells) are currently protected under the OWRA. Details of the mitigation measures and monitoring plans for the taking of ground water will be stipulated in the Special Conditions of the PTTW. Furthermore, as stipulated in the General Conditions of all OWRA Section 34 PTTW, if the water ingress at the Highland Quarry is predicted to cause any negative impact, or is observed to cause any negative impact; to other water supplies obtained from any proven adequate sources that were in use prior to initial issuance of a Permit for this taking, the Permit Holder shall take such action necessary to make available to those affected, a supply of equivalent in quantity and quality to their normal takings. If the water taking at the Highland Quarry causes permanent interference, the Permit Holder shall restore the water supplies of those permanently affected. The MOE is satisfied with the mitigative strategy, which has been recommended for potable water supply replacement (letter dated August 31, 2009 and addressed to Mr. Bill Armstrong [MOE]). Therefore, there is no question as to the how mitigation to potential impacts to the ground water will be undertaken and enforced. In this regard, ground water triggers and description of proposed mitigation measures will not be duplicated in the AMP. The MNR has also noted special emphasis should be given to the water budget which describes the Central and Northern Wetlands located on the subject property. On a 5-year cycle (or more frequently if required) the water balance regarding these wetlands should be reviewed in detail and commented on specifically with respect to the impact that has / has not occurred at these wetlands and a justification for the impacts. This review should be distinct from the ground water model but should be linked to it such that the two reviews (and conclusions and recommendations) mesh seamlessly. Recommendations regarding the impact to these wetlands will be clear and meaningful with concrete direction as to what is required to mitigate impact to the wetlands. This review must be comprehensive and not simply a review of water levels and flows. iv

6 Since the implementation mechanism of an AMP has not been formally established in law, it is important that the AMP be included by reference on the Site Plan under the ARA in order to be enforceable under the Act. v

7 Table of Contents page Letter of transmittal... i Foreword... iii 1.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Cumulative Impact: Monitoring Responsibilities Alternative AMP Identification of Potential Receptors Trigger Limits and Management Actions Domestic Water Well Monitoring Program Surface Water Monitoring Program Surface Water Investigative and Mitigation Triggers Wetland Investigative and Mitigation Triggers Management System Reporting Requirements vi

8 1.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Adaptive management is by definition the linking of new data to actions and measures in order to achieve the overall project goals. In essence, new information affects subsequent decisions. The project goal is to operate a quarry without creating any adverse impacts to the natural environment. This will be possible because of a sound understanding of the environmental setting (i.e., site conceptual model) and an iterative approach to the refinement of this model through continued assessment and monitoring. The understanding permits the prediction of cause & effect relationships associated with the quarry operations such that the outcome is reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, appropriate actions can be taken to prevent or mitigate adverse influences. This is the concept behind the proposed Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) for performance monitoring at the Highland Quarry (Figure 1). This initial AMP would be ineffective if considered in isolation of the other quarry. In order to ensure a comprehensive program and to eliminate redundancy in the AMPs for the two quarries, M.A.Q. Aggregates (Highland Quarry) and Walker Aggregates (Duntroon Quarry) have established and agreed upon monitoring, trigger, investigative, and mitigative responsibilities. These responsibilities were developed primarily upon the proximity of potential receptors to the two aggregate operations. To ensure that the potential receptors are effectively monitored and protected, Walker Aggregates, MAQ Aggregates and their hydrogeological consultants will continue to collaborate throughout the duration of the quarry operations, including the rehabilitation stages. The overall goal and objective of the AMP is to design a site program that will allow for an evaluation of the local effects and facilitate insightful and strategic decision-making to mitigate any potential impacts resulting from quarry development. The AMP is to evaluate the quarry influence on the surrounding environment with the intent to determine the difference between symptoms and outcomes. An assessment of outcomes as opposed to the symptoms will result in an evaluation for the long-term issues that may be associated with the impacts associated with quarry development. Therefore, a fundamental component of the AMP is the evaluation of the trends and understanding of the estimated lag / reaction time before an impact occurs (i.e., surface water baseflow is reduced). Understanding why changes or trends (i.e., symptoms) are occurring is paramount in a proper assessment. The AMP is not merely about developing methods to analyze data, but deriving insightful knowledge (throughout meaningful interpretation) to use in making strategic decisions. The AMP is a quasi quality assurance / quality control program. The quality assurance segment deals with the performance monitoring aspect to evaluate the extent of the quarry influence on the surrounding environment. All relevant flow pathways will be monitored to determine the extent of the quarry influence on each system. The degree of this influence is ultimately to be compared with the predictive estimate. 1

9 The key components to the AMP are as follows: Potential Effects: (Receptor / Pathway Identification) Review of the extensive hydrogeological assessment to describe how the quarry operations may impact the ground and surface water regimes. This evaluation is intended to identify potential receptor sites (i.e., locations where the quarry influence is significant enough to affect the receptor and those pathways which connect the quarry to the receptor site). Performance Monitoring Plan: A monitoring plan to observe how the environmental system responds to the development of the Highland Quarry relative to key indicator variables. Monitoring would be performed in the appropriate pathway to measure the actual response relative to the estimated value. Pathway monitoring locations are premised upon a lag / reaction time to ensure that the identified mitigation strategy can be fully implemented prior to any adverse impact at the receptor site. Trigger Limits and Management Actions: For each management action there is a trigger or level of the relevant indicator that would lead to a change in the operation of the quarry or monitoring program. To effectively set triggers for each receptor, an understanding of the observed trend in relation to the simultaneous development of the quarries is required. Beyond the performance monitoring requirements, the management actions are designed to limit the potential impacts of the Highland Quarry on the local environmental receptors. Management System: The management system is a predetermined protocol for the evaluation of the data collected. Developing an understanding of how data, which deviates from the predicted response for each key indicator variable, is to be evaluated is fundamental in the AMP process. Therefore, the AMP will follow a sequence of predetermined evaluation steps. The sequence of steps that is followed is dependent on the data results. Furthermore, the process can be refined since the AMP is considered an iterative process subject to continual updating as the site data interpretation reveals through the various routine monitoring programs. Reporting Requirements: Through this initial evaluation process sensitive receptors have been identified. Reporting will be required to compile, present and evaluate the performance monitoring data, including the trend analysis. Annual reports will be prepared and contain all the 2

10 required documentation to ensure the AMP is effectively monitoring the site conditions. On a 5-year cycle, the AMP shall be updated and a revised draft document will be provided to the government agencies (MOE and MNR) for comment prior to implementation. The first revised document, which will be completed 5 years after licensing, will include: 1. a transient ground water flow model, which has been developed based on the historical database as well as the data collected during the sinking cut; 2. a revised water balance for the North and Central Wetlands, which shall denote and address any influence to the current functionality of these features; 3. the wetland monitoring will include an assessment of the hydroperiod, ecology, and drainage patterns. Specifically, any changes to the epikarstic system that flows from the Central to the Northern Wetland is to be clearly described and field checked/validated, and correlated to the quarry depth; and 4. recommendations regarding any influence to these wetlands should be clear and meaningful with concrete direction as to what is required to mitigate impact to the wetlands, if required. In addition to revision of the AMP on a 5-year cycle, an annual monitoring report will be required to summarize and evaluate the on- and off-site ground and surface water monitoring program. This annual monitoring report will be submitted to comply with conditions under the ORWA and ARA. Additional details are provided in Section Cumulative Impact: Monitoring Responsibilities Simulated impacts as defined by the numerical modeling (Azimuth, 2006) suggest that there is a need to assess the impacts under actual quarry operating conditions. The numerical ground water flow model is an essential tool for interpreting the results of the monitoring program presented in this AMP. Based on these results, periodic updating, including calibration, of the ground water model will occur. The impact assessment for the numerical ground water flow model was completed to account for the cumulative influence of both the Highland Quarry and the Duntroon Quarry expansion. The cumulative area of influence includes the head water areas of the Beaver, Pretty, Mad, and Batteaux Rivers. The collaborative effort between Walkers Aggregate and MAQ Aggregates will include: 1. the sharing of all ground and surface water monitoring data, including but not limited to: water levels, flow rates, water quality, and pumping records; 2. the exchange of all draft reporting, including but not limited to annual compliance reports and responses to investigative triggers, and domestic water well complaints; and 3

11 3. the opportunity to review and comment on exchanged reporting prior to submission to the agencies. An important component of the collaborative efforts made between MAQ and Walker is the establishment of agreed upon monitoring, investigative, and mitigative responsibilities during their operational lifespans. These responsibilities will be regulated under the ARA as the AMP is a schedule of the Site Plan. The note on the Highland Quarry Site Plan is: MAQ Aggregates, Inc. shall be responsible for monitoring, trigger responses, investigative and mitigative (including financial) responsibilities for both ground water and surface water to the west of Grey Road 31 (County of Grey, MOE South Western Region jurisdiction). A similar note will be incorporated in the Duntroon Quarry Site Plan, with the exception that it will reference the area east of Grey Road 31 (County of Simcoe, MOE Central Region jurisdiction). Recognizing that there is a potential for any unforeseen adverse impacts to being a result of the cumulative impact of the two quarries, the two operators have developed a mechanism to deal with such circumstances. As stated above, the operator responsible for the area in which the unforeseen impact occurred would be required to implement an effective mitigative strategy immediately. However, if compensation from the adjacent operator is requested after mitigation has been successfully implemented and a disagreement results, the parties agree to pay for a mediator / reviewer to determine level of responsibility. It is proposed that the Terms of Reference for this review be written and tendered by the MNR. The operators agree to pay equally all expenses (within reason) to have an unbiased review to assist in resolving the issue. The final decision of who was responsible for part, or in whole, of the adverse impact will be made by the MNR and based on the findings of the mediator/reviewer. Details of the responsibilities accepted by MAQ Aggregates are provided in the following sections. 1.2 Alternative AMP This initial Highland Quarry AMP has been prepared with the assumption that the Walker Industries application for the expansion of the adjacent Duntroon Quarry will be approve. In this regard, the AMP takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of the two operations and incorporates the agreed upon monitoring, investigative, and mitigative responsibilities. However, consideration for implementing an AMP that protects the potential receptors if the Highland Quarry is the only successful applicant in obtaining and ARA license must be given. In essence, an AMP for a single new quarry operation, (which is adjacent to an 4

12 existing quarry that is nearing completion and in preparation for rehabilitation), limits the complexity of the AMP. A new single operation (i.e., Highland Quarry) has a considerably less stress on the ground and surface water regimes in the area away from the quarry face. Without a cumulative impact from an adjacent quarry, the Highland Quarry would be responsible for all monitoring, investigative, and mitigative responsibilities, within the predicted area of influence. This includes the area that extends to the east of Grey Road 31. It should be noted that the hydrogeological reports and numerical models prepared for the both the Highland Quarry and the Duntroon Expansion predict that the influence from the Highland Quarry, either as a single operator or with the cumulative influence, has a negligible influence on the baseflow in the springs along the base of the Niagara Escarpment. Furthermore, it has been reported by Dr. Worthington (Worthington and Buck, 2007), that the majority of the catchment area for the spring identified as SW2 is within the Duntroon expansion lands. Impact to this feature by the operation of only the Highland Quarry is limited. Therefore, the only new potential receptors, which would require protection, are the domestic water wells located east of Grey Road 31 before the brow of the escarpment. These wells will be protected under the OWRA. It has not been deemed appropriate at this time to prepare an AMP that only considers the operation of the Highland Quarry. The first revision of the Highland AMP is to occur 5 years after the commencement of operations (i.e., sinking cut). During this time initial 5-year period, no adverse impacts are anticipated. If by the end of this initial 5-year period the Duntroon expansion has not been approved, the revised AMP will be designed to include the monitoring, investigative and mitigative requirements for the sole operation of the Highland Quarry. 1.3 Identification of Potential Receptors Prior to the developing an AMP, it is essential to identify potential receptors in the natural environment, which need to be protected. In the longer term, the estimated cumulative impacts on the functionality of the ground and surface water flow systems will be minimal. The most significant influences are seen immediately adjacent to the proposed quarry and are reasonably dissipated within 500 m from the quarry face. The potential receptors that may experience an impact associated with quarry development are those that have a direct hydraulic connection to the fracture network, which is intercepted by the quarry face or features which receive discharge water from the dewater operation. Potential effects resulting from the operation of the Highland Quarry specific to surface water receptors include: 1. North Wetland (RR4) 5

13 2. Central Wetland (RR5) 3. Beaver River and Rob Roy Wetland (RR6 and RR7) Locations of potential receptors are presented on Figure Trigger Limits and Management Actions The primary focus of the AMP is the identification of management actions, which are associated with the predicted impacts associated with the development of the Highland Quarry. Triggers are the criteria, which are set to identify the potential of a negative deviation from the predicted impact to the natural environment as a result of the Highland Quarry operation. For each management action there exists a trigger or level of the relevant indicator that would lead to a change in the site management. An optimal situation exists when both an investigative and a response trigger can be established. At the outset of the Highland Quarry development it is important to identify that the correct pathways are being effectively monitored. In the longer-term it is these monitoring points that will be used to define an acceptable level of influence created by the quarrying operations. As such it is important to gain a sense of the trend that develops over the initial operational phase (i.e., the initial five years). There is no anticipation that there will be an adverse impact during the initial years of the Highland Quarry development but the trends should be realized, and thus represent the initial conditions that can be used to predict future impacts and hence verify / refine the site numerical model. Once this program is established, then if the monitoring data and trend analysis support the predicted impacts to the natural environment as a result of the Highland Quarry operation, the monitoring plan and quarrying continue unabated (green light). The investigative or yellow light trigger represents a situation where the hydrogeologic environment is not responding as expected, but is not so severe as to warrant the implementation of a mitigative strategy. An acceptable implementation timeframe still exists and affords the opportunity to explore the cause(s) associated with the measured deviation. The purpose of the trigger would be to initiate an investigation that would adequately explain the deviation from the predicted response. This investigation would need to be completed within a predetermined period of time to allow for the change in quarry operations. The red light trigger represents a situation where the mitigation strategy must be implemented in order to avoid an adverse impact at the receptor site. The premise is that there has been a deviation from the predicted response of a potential size such that it has the potential to create an adverse impact at the receptor site. Beyond these predictable response 6

14 levels is a final operational trigger representing the immediate call for contingency measures. GREEN OPERATIONAL TRIGGER Normal operating condition. Continue routine monitoring as per ARA site plans. INVESTIGATIVE TRIGGER One or more of the monitored parameter values falls below (or above, as is applicable) its Seasonal Early Warning value. YELLOW RED Verify parameter value and if required, investigate possible causes. If quarry related then: alter monitoring program, (where applicable) to obtain required data; review/modify operational components; data evaluation; implement appropriate operational modifications; and document and report. RESPONSE TRIGGER One or more of the monitored parameter values falls below (or above, as is applicable) its Seasonal Mitigation Threshold Trigger Value: if measured parameter does not recover to at or above (or below if applicable) the Seasonal Mitigation Threshold Trigger value within one week of hitting this level of response, the quarry shall adapt operations in the quarry (move extraction area, move to a different lift or suspend quarrying in the area causing the impact); notify appropriate agencies and appropriate receptor(s) (if applicable); assess reason for the unpredicted response and implement appropriate mitigative strategy; and resume extraction once specified set of conditions has been achieved The investigative and mitigative trigger levels have two tiers: Tier 1: a numerical value, or trigger level for each monitoring parameter (surface water flow and temperature); and Tier 2: a time during for which the trigger level can be exceeded for each parameter. 7

15 The theory supporting this framework is two-fold being: 1. it is statistically possible that individual parameter values (surface water flow and temperature) will naturally exceed the mitigative trigger values at the time of monitoring, which should not trigger management action; and 2. the potential impact from the quarry operation stabilizes at or just above the red zone, with a trend evaluation which suggests the measure will not increase (or decrease) further, increasing the sensitivity of the surface water system without requiring mitigation. 1.5 Domestic Water Well Monitoring Program As a component of the joint monitoring program, it was agreed that MAQ will be responsible for the wells located to the west of Grey Road 31, while residents to the east of Grey Road 31 will fall within the area covered under the responsibilities of Walker Aggregates Inc. Ontario Water Resources Act As stipulated in the General Conditions of all Ontario Water Resource Act (OWRA) Section 34 Permit to take Water (PTTW), if the taking of water at the Highland Quarry is predicted to cause any negative impact, or is observed to cause any negative impact to other water supplies obtained from any proven adequate sources that were in use prior to initial issuance of a Permit for this taking, the Permit Holder shall take such action necessary to make available to those affected, a supply of equivalent in quantity and quality to their normal takings. If the water taking at the Highland Quarry causes permanent interference, the Permit Holder shall restore the water supplies of those permanently affected. MAQ acknowledges and endorses this responsibility under Section 34 of the OWRA for the replacement of the water supply, which must be of equivalent quality and quantity. To ensure a cooperative and fair treatment with all concerns, MAQ will work diligently with their neighbours on these issues. Typically, the MOE requires that all PTTW holders take such action(s) necessary to make available to those home owners affected a supply of water equivalent in quantity and quality to their normal takings. To be proactive and to alleviate the complaint driven process, MAQ Aggregates shall implement a voluntary domestic water well monitoring program to those residents located within 1 km of the Highland Quarry extraction area. This program will be designed to act as an early warning system, and would identify any potential adverse interference that may compromise the integrity of the domestic water supply. Quantitative triggers will not be set for domestic water wells. The cumulative impact assessment for the Highland Quarry did not identify any domestic water wells west of Grey Road 31 as potential receptors. However, to ensure the security of the potable water supply 8

16 to the local residences west of Grey Road 31, a detailed monitoring program will be implemented immediately upon licensing. As recommended in the Level 2 Hydrogeological Assessment report (Azimuth, 2006), it has been proposed that pre-construction monitoring program be completed on selected domestic water wells within estimated cumulative area of influence by a qualified well technician (as is required by law [Ontario Regulation 903/00 as amended]). This program is designed to baseline the current conditions of existing domestic water wells. Domestic water wells need to be determined case-by-case as the physical characteristics of well will need to be evaluated and documented to provide an understanding of the current conditions, including water quality, well yield and the available drawdown. The domestic water well monitoring program will consist of monthly manual readings and continuous water levels in up to a total of ten representative wells by a licensed well technician, as is required by law. This program is offered to residents within the area of influence who will grant permission for the initial and long-term monitoring. Furthermore, the domestic water wells, which will be incorporated into the AMP shall be constructed in the Amabel Formation, and be constructed to comply with Ontario Regulation 903/00, (as amended). 1.6 Surface Water Monitoring Program Similar to the joint monitoring responsibilities covered under the domestic water well monitoring program, MAQ Aggregates shall be responsible for monitoring, trigger responses, investigative, and mitigative responsibilities to the west of Grey Road 31. The surface water monitoring program has both on-site and off-site components, which allows for a thorough understanding of any impacts associated with quarry development and the discharge of incidental waters. The potential impact(s) from the extraction of aggregate on surface water systems are the reduction of baseflow to the stream, the change in water quality (i.e., temperature) and/or the reduction of the hydroperiod in a wetland. A controlling factor in the regulation of the surface water conditions across and west of Grey Road 31 is the pumping operations of the Duntroon Quarry. If changes to the permitted pumping conditions occur at this site, MAQ may be responsible for conducting an investigative trigger along either the South Tributary or the North Wetland. A key component of the collaboration between MAQ Aggregates and Walker Aggregates is the ability to work together on determining the responsibility of an unforeseen impact. If the above situation were to occur, the simple and immediate response would be for Walker Aggregates to adjust the discharge from the Duntroon Quarry. Therefore, although MAQ Aggregates is responsible for monitoring, trigger response, and investigative response, 9

17 Walker Aggregates would be responsible for the mitigative action. However, it is recognized that the investigation may also lead to the conclusion that the mitigative responsibility is that of MAQ Aggregates. The potential receptors that have been identified through previous studies (Azimuth, 2006; Jagger Hims, 2005 and 2007) and the potential impact(s) are provided on Table 1 and Figure 1. The surface water monitoring program is outlined in Table 2. Table 1: Surface Water Trigger Locations Monitoring Location 1) Rob Roy Wetland Complex (North Wetland) RR4; Standpipe locations SP1 and SP2 2) Rob Roy Wetland Complex (Central Wetland) RR5; SW4 (Sink #1) and SW5 (Seep #1) 3) Beaver River Headwaters (South Tributary) RR6; Walker Aggregates property SW02 RR7; Highland Quarry SW6A Concern an increased in vertical flux from surface water features into the extraction area maintaining hydroperiod in wetland maintaining hydrologic connection to North Wetland a reduction in ground water flux changes in water quality which may impact downstream cold water fish habitat (i.e., temperature) Table 2: Surface Water and Wetland Monitoring Program Surface Water Flow Monitoring Location Water Level Monthly Manual Continuous Data 1 Measurements Surface Water SW4 SW5 SW02 SW6A Wetland SP1 SP2 Notes: 1 Surface Water Temperature Data would be evaluated monthly for trigger levels under normal conditions Surface Water Investigative and Mitigation Triggers Numeric standards, or trigger levels, established in the AMP (i.e., two-tiered trigger-level framework) are based on examination of the baseline surface water flow conditions. Implementation and enforcement of the triggers is dependent on monthly reviews of surface water flow and quality monitoring data collected by the both MAQ Aggregates and Walker Industries. 10

18 For the Highland Quarry, the surface water monitoring stations where trigger levels have been established are SW02 and SW6A. Currently, flows at SW02 are highly dependent on existing Duntroon Quarry discharge flow and prevailing climatic conditions. The discharge from the Duntroon Quarry is regulated under OWRA, Section 34 PTTW program, which would represent the upper threshold limit. At the time of preparation of this AMP, Walker Aggregates was in the process of working with Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), as well as the MOE on establishing a more natural approach to the discharge conditions than those stipulated in the PTTW. These flows are monitored at SW1 (Figure 1). During most of the late spring, summer, fall and winter, this flow does not necessarily exit the portion of RR6 upstream of Grey Road 31, unless the Duntroon Quarry is discharging water into the wetland. Flow that does occur at SW1 during lower flow periods of the year is due to discharge of quarry pump waters through the discharge system (Stantec, 2008: Technical Memorandum from David Charlton of Stantec to Dave Gibson, Department of Fisheries and Oceans). Impact to surface water flows at SW1 from the Highland Quarry is not anticipated. It has been reported that fish habitat is extremely limited immediately downstream of SW1 due to the nominal flow conditions (Stantec, 2008; Gartner Lee Limited, 2006; C. Wren and Associates, 2005). Recognizing that there is a potential to improve the surface water conditions to promote fish habitat, the PTTW and Water Management Plan for the Duntroon Quarry has been designed to maintain baseflow to this system. The following discussion is meant to demonstrate that the ground water contribution to the Beaver River at the Highland Quarry study boundary is very small. The numerical modelling results indicate that the baseflow at SW6A (model area boundary) will decrease by 16%. Therefore, a baseflow of between 15 and 53 L/s (Jagger Hims, 2007) would be reduced to between 12.6 and 44.5 L/s. To put this into perspective, the Beaver River Watershed area covers an approximate area of 377,000 ha (152,500 acres). The portion that drains to the Beaver River from our study area covers an area of 1,640 ha (0.4% of the Beaver River watershed). Thus, we are looking at 16% reduction within 0.4% of the watershed (a total reduction of approximately 0.06% of the total watershed flow). During the course of the quarry operations there will likely be times when drought conditions naturally occur. The AMP allows for an opportunity to assist, (where possible), in improving stream conditions during these drought periods. Surface water flow rates in the South Tributary are controlled currently by the discharge from the Duntroon Quarry. A Water Management Plan can be implemented to augment flow conditions in the stream system 11

19 during drought conditions or as a result of quarrying operations 1. Similarly, if the water retained within the Central and North Wetland needs to be supplemented, the Water Management Plan will be adapted to allow for assistance in the natural recovery of the wetlands, which will reduce stress on the wetland ecosystem during the operational lifespan. The protection of the baseflow levels in the streams and the water levels in the wetlands can easily be mitigated through the Water Management Plan (Tatham, 2009), which allows for the controlled pumping into the identified receptors (i.e., North Wetland (RR4); Central Wetland (RR5); and Beaver River and Rob Roy Wetland (RR6 and RR7) 1. The surface water monitoring station (SW6A), which has been reported as being coldwater fish habitat, is located along Osprey Sideroad 30 (Figure 1). If surface waters are being diverted from the South Tributary into the quarry, then the Water Management Plan developed by Tatham (2009) will replace this baseflow volume during the operational lifespan. However, if the quarry is not influencing the tributary, then it may not be possible to influence the surface water baseflow with the available water volume at the quarry. This is noted since reportedly the Duntroon Quarry operated dry for the first 20 years of their operation. Assuming there is available extraneous water at the Highland Quarry, the proposed trigger levels for surface water flow rates at this location are: Investigative Trigger if the baseflow drops below the seasonal low flow for the Summer or Fall, (which has been measured during the historical monitoring program). Once detected, this new period of record seasonal low baseflow would be augment (to the extent possible) by available ponded waters, if the low baseflow conditions have persisted for a period greater than one week. Mitigative Trigger if the investigative trigger is exceeded for a monitoring period (i.e., one month) and is directly attributable to the volume of water ingress into the existing quarry. The investigative and mitigative trigger levels have been set based on the annual low baseflow value, which typically occurs in the Summer or Fall. It is during this time that surface water temperatures are at the highest risk of being affected by the ambient air temperatures and represent the time which is most critical for the protection of coldwater fish habitat. 1 Assuming there is available water to be diverted. 12

20 These triggers also presume that the Highland Quarry while in active use is influencing this baseflow. Even then, discharge into the large wetland area upstream and supplying baseflow to SW6A (i.e., RR6) may have little effect since the quarry cannot be expected to replenish this large surface water feature which could scavenge a portion of all of the contribution supplied from the Highland Quarry discharge. It will be important to distinguish whether influences by other factors is resulting in the low flow conditions. SW02 is located upstream from SW6A on the western property boundary of the Osprey Quarry (Figure 1). This location generally only supports surface water flow during wet periods, or during times when the existing Duntroon Quarry discharges water from the quarry sump. Therefore, there is opportunity to improve the quality of the conditions in this portion of the stream, by maintaining baseflow during the dry periods. During the Summer and Fall, the surface water flow is typically in the range of 3 to 5 L/s. During dry periods, when the existing Duntroon Quarry isn t discharging, the flow ceases. As a result, it is proposed to try to ensure the low flow conditions are maintained between 3 to 5 L/s, assuming there is available water to be discharged and the large wetland area (i.e., RR6) upstream of SW6A does not nullify this contribution. Temperature triggers have been set based on the coldwater fish habitat, which generally requires water with a maximum summer temperature of <22ºC. Although coldwater fish habitat is not present at RR6, a cautionary trigger is being implemented at this location to ensure that downstream fish habitat SW6A is protected. Surface water temperature triggers are effective between June 1 to November 1 of each year. Assuming there is available extraneous water at the Highland Quarry at an ambient temperature below that to be mitigated, the proposed trigger levels for surface water temperature at these locations are: Investigative Trigger if the highest temperature ever recorded at the designated surface water monitoring station 2 minus 1.5 C for the Summer or Fall is detected for over a week based on the routine monitoring program; then baseflow would be augment (to the extent possible) by available ponded waters. Mitigative Trigger if the highest temperature ever recorded plus 0.5 C for the Summer or Fall is detected based on the routine monitoring program and is directly attributable to the volume of water ingress into the existing quarry. 2 Assuming that water flow is occurring at the designated location. 13

21 Table 3: Surface Water Triggers 1 Beaver River Watershed SW02 SW6A Flow (L/s) Temp (ºC) Flow (L/s) Temp (ºC) Summer (June Aug) Investigative 3 >1 (>1 week) (>1 week) Mitigative >1 (>1 month) 2, , (>1 month) 2, ,4 Fall (Sept Nov) Investigative 3 >1 (>1 week) (>1 week) Mitigative >1 (>1 month) 2, , (>1 month) 2, ,4 Notes: 1. If mitigative actions for the surface water flow rates and / or temperature show no effect on downstream fisheries, then the trigger value may have to be reassessed. 2. Based on routine monthly monitoring program. 3. Over the operational lifespan of the quarry, baseflow would be augment (to the extent possible) by available ponded waters. 4. Influence directly attributable to the volume of water ingress into the Highland Quarry Wetland Investigative and Mitigation Triggers An important variable that determines a wetland s suitability as an amphibian breeding habitat is its hydroperiod 3. Wetlands vary in their hydroperiod from very short time period (i.e., holding water for less than a few weeks each year) to very long or permanent time periods (i.e., lakes and ponds). Each wetland has its own hydroperiod. The North and Central Wetlands have a relatively short hydroperiod. Based on the vegetation community in the North and Central Wetland no changes in the plant species are expected to occur. The primary tree species in the community are facultative in their soil moisture requirements, being able to grow in both wetland and upland conditions. Based on the wetness index of the plant species present, it is clear that this community is regularly exposed to soil moisture gradients from saturated to dry, as would be expected given the ephemeral nature of the wetland. Based on the soil moisture requirements of the primary plants species of the wetland community, soil saturation conditions are achieved through the Spring (April-May) and drying of soils occurs through the Summer (August-September). A significant shift in the plant community is not expected to occur. Water level monitoring data from these wetlands indicates that over the past two years, the wetlands have remained wet until mid-june as a result of runoff from the spring freshet. Water level data from the three monitoring locations will be reviewed on a monthly basis during the spring period to ensure that the there are no adverse changes to the hydroperiod. 3 the length of time and portion of the year the wetland holds water. 14

22 2.0 Management System The management system is the process, which begins with the collection and evaluation of the monitoring data for the reporting. Although the process is iterative and on-going, there are several variations in the sequencing of steps that may be followed to ensure that the monitoring program collects the most representative data to allow for a representative impact assessment. An important aspect of this proposed management system is a comparison of actual and simulated data within acceptable limits. Philosophically, it is being suggested that all information collected for this site operation can be rationalized and would conform to hydrogeological norms (i.e., the hydrogeologic system conforms to set patterns of response that are predictable and repetitive). The ability to rationalize the site data provides all reviewing agencies with a level of comfort that the environmental setting is well understood to the point of being predictable. It is this predictability that provides the opportunity to continue with the site development without undue apprehension 4,5. The first step is the establishment of the baseline ground and surface water conditions and an understanding of the mechanisms that influence this system. This has been completed at a regional scale since the implementation of the monitoring program in The AMP calls for the on-going use of the numerical ground water model to assist in the prediction of impacts on the local ground water flow system. At the outset of the site monitoring program, it is important to realize that the numerical model has been calibrated for a conservative regional evaluation. Local variations in the geologic setting will be incorporated into the model as site information is obtained through the initial sinking cut and site operations. As recommended, the numerical model will be reevaluated after five years of aggregate extraction. 3.0 Reporting Requirements The results of the on- and off-site ground and surface water monitoring program are to be analyzed immediately upon compilation into the MAQ database. Of particular importance is 4 5 A deviation from this predictability is a situation where there is no influence (i.e., despite the prediction of an influence created by the quarry, no influence occurs). This non-response must be distinguished from a false negative due to a non-responsive monitoring location. For example, a significant dewatering activity that cannot be detected may represent a false negative versus a situation where no water ingresses into the quarry (i.e., no influence). The same can be stated for a significant influence when the prediction of no influence by the quarry was made. It may be necessary to account for longer-term trends in the database such as global climate change as it applies to Southern Ontario. 15

23 the inclusion of all correspondence, details of work completed, and results of all private well complaints, if any. Beyond the immediate response requirements, it is proposed that an Annual Assessment Report be provided with the following information: 1. Compilation of water level monitoring data. This data shall be presented graphically as hydrographs and available upon request in an electronic data format. The hydrographs should include, if possible, the background water level data, recent water level data collected during the extraction process, and the corresponding trigger levels. Data will be presented for each monitoring well nest and surface water monitoring location. 2. All hydrographs should be plotted against precipitation and relevant pumping records. 3. Water quality data are to be compiled to allow for evidence of geochemical trends to be identified over time (i.e., hydrographs and piper plots) and provincial guidelines / standards. 4. Confirm that observed water level or water quality impacts are consistent with those predicted (Azimuth, 2006). Where observed conditions vary from predicted, these will be assessed and where necessary, further analysis will be conducted including the re-calibration of the numerical ground water flow model and the revision of estimated drawdown impacts. It is proposed that the numerical modelling simulations be reevaluated after five years of aggregate extraction. This five-year period is considered sufficient to collect ground water information on the on-site impacts associated with the quarry development and provide a basis for model calibration. 5. Prior to quarry operations, the pre-construction monitoring program shall be completed on the local domestic water wells. This information will be provided in a Baseline Domestic Water Well Condition Survey report. 6. All private water well complaint records, response actions, and conclusions are to be documented in the Annual Monitoring report. All domestic water well complaints must refer to the findings of the Baseline Domestic Water Well Condition Survey report. If it is determined that there is a need to revise the AMP prior to the five year timeline for model calibration; then a recommendation will be provided in the Annual Assessment Report. All monitoring program changes whether recommended in the annual report (or otherwise) shall be approved prior to implementation by the MOE and MNR. Once approval has been granted to modify the AMP, a revised AMP document will be prepared and circulated to the abovementioned agencies. 16