Surface Water Monitoring Report CE4A Pumping Test ......day pumping test (maximum observed water...

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Surface Water Monitoring Report

CE4A Pumping Test

Caledon East, Ontario

Prepared for: Hatch Mott MacDonald

Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental

Consulting, Inc.

September 2013

AEC 09-016e

85 Bayfield Street, Suite 400, Barrie, Ontario L4M 3A7 telephone: (705) 721-8451 • fax: (705) 721-8926 • [email protected] • www.azimuthenvironmental.com

September 30, 2013

AEC 09-016e

Hatch Mott MacDonald 5420 North Service Road Burlington, Ontario L7L 6C7 Attention: Mr. Bill Andrews, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager Re: Surface Water Monitoring Report CE4A Pumping Test, Caledon East, Township of Caledon Dear Mr. Andrews: Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (AEC) was retained by the Region of Peel to conduct a short-term surface water monitoring program for a 7-day pumping test which took place in the town of Caledon East, Ontario. Two stations within Boyce’s Creek (Flow 1B and Flow 2B) and two stations within Walker Creek (Flow 1W and Flow 2W) were chosen to monitor flow, water levels, water temperature and water quality prior to and during the 7-day testing sequence. This report summarizes the scope of work, methodology and results of our surface water monitoring program which took place between July 18th and August 16th, 2013. Please contact the undersigned with any questions or comments. Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Mike Jones, M.Sc., P.Geo. Drew West, A.Sc.T. President Environmental Technologist

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. II

Table of Contents page Letter of transmittal i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................... 1

3.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Water Level/Temperature Monitoring .................................................................... 2

3.2 Flow Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Water Quality Monitoring....................................................................................... 3

4.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION ..................................................................... 3

4.1 Water Level/Temperature Monitoring .................................................................... 3

4.1.1 Boyce’s Creek ................................................................................................. 3 4.1.2 Walker Creek .................................................................................................. 4

4.2 Stream Flow Monitoring ......................................................................................... 5 4.2.1 Boyce’s Creek ................................................................................................. 5 4.2.2 Walker Creek .................................................................................................. 6

4.3 Water Quality Monitoring....................................................................................... 7

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 8

List of In-Text Tables Table 1 Boyce’s Creek Manual Stream Flow and Water Level Measurements Table 2 Walker Creek Manual Stream Flow and Water Level Measurements

List of Figures

Figure 1 Surface Water Monitoring Locations Figure 2 Boyce’s Creek Hydrograph Figure 3 Walker Creek Hydrograph Figure 4 Turbidity Graph Figure 5 Boyce’s Creek Temperature Graph Figure 6 Walker Creek Temperature Graph Figure 7 Boyce’s Creek Rating Curves Figure 8 Walker Creek Rating Curve

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. III

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis Reports

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (AEC) was retained by the Region of Peel to conduct a short-term surface water monitoring program for a 7-day pumping test which took place in the Village of Caledon East, Ontario. The pumping rate for the entire 7-day test was approximately 4165 L/min, which began August 7th, 2013 (9:00 am) and concluded August 14th, 2013 (10:00 am). The pumped discharge of ground water was split between two surface water receivers, with Walker creek receiving approximately 60% of the discharge and Boyce’s Creek receiving approximately 40%. Two stations within Boyce’s Creek (Flow 1B and Flow 2B) and two stations within Walker Creek (Flow 1W and Flow 2W) were chosen to monitor flow, water levels, water temperature and water quality before and during the 7-day testing sequence. The locations of the surface water monitoring stations are presented in Figure 1.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of the surface water monitoring program undertaken by AEC was decided upon by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Geo Kamp Limited and AEC. The program included the following elements: 1. The establishment of two separate surface water monitoring stations within Boyce’s

Creek and Walker Creek, one upstream of the discharge point (Flow 1B & 1W) and one downstream (Flow 2B & 2W). Each station included a stilling well/staff gauge equipped with a hydrostatic datalogger to allow for automatic water level measurements and temperature readings to occur on an hourly basis. Periodic surface water discharge rates were also taken at each monitoring station to establish a rating curve for each of the river monitoring locations;

2. A total of three water quality sample sets (one set taken before the test and two

taken during the test) were collected at each of the monitoring stations. Laboratory analysis included a wide range of inorganic, metals and nutrient parameters, along with analysis of total suspended solids levels. Turbidity levels were also measured manually in the field during each visit, including daily measurements during the 7-day testing sequence;


3. Each monitoring station was visited six times before the commencement of the 7-day pumping test to collect baseline data. Baseline monitoring visits were chosen based on times of varying climatic conditions (when available) to ensure the collection of data occurred during a wide range of flow/water level stages;

4. Each monitoring station was visited once per day during the 7-day pumping test to

measure and track any potential impacts the ground water pumping may have had on the surface water receivers; and

5. To analyze the data from each monitoring station, separate rating curves were

established using all water level and flow data collected prior and during the 7-day pumping test. The automatic water level data collected throughout the monitoring period allowed for the fluctuations of each monitoring station to be observed on an hourly basis.

3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Water Level/Temperature Monitoring

Between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, water levels at each of the surface water monitoring stations within Boyce’s and Walker Creeks were measured automatically and verified manually. Each monitoring station was equipped with a stilling well constructed of slotted PVC pipe and a steel “T” bar. Each stilling well contained a hydrostatic datalogger programmed to collect and record water level and water temperature measurements on an hourly basis throughout the duration of the monitoring period. Each datalogger also collected water temperature data at the same frequency. The stilling wells were removed from each station following the completion of the monitoring period. Manual water level measurements were also taken at each stilling well, which coincided with the manual flow measurements taken (described below) at each monitoring station. 3.2 Flow Monitoring

Between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, manual flow measurements were taken at each of the surface water monitoring stations using a Swoffer (Model 3000) Stream Flow Meter. To accurately measure stream flow, a measuring tape was extended from the wetted left bank to wetted right bank (facing upstream), and individual river measurements (water level depth and flow velocity) were taken at 0.20 metre intervals


across the extent of the wetted channel and then converted to a net stream flow estimated using a trapezoidal integration technique. The manual flow and water level measurements were used to create rating curves for each of the surface water monitoring stations. 3.3 Water Quality Monitoring

On the dates of August 1st, August 7th and August 13th, 2013, water quality samples were collected at each surface water monitoring station. One sample was taken approximately one week prior to the commencement of the pumping test to collect baseline water quality data for each watercourse. Two samples were taken during the pumping test, one just following the start of the test and one just prior to the completion. Samples taken from the river were immediately placed in a cooler containing ice to ensure that the sample temperature remained below 10°Celsius (°C). The samples were then stored in the AEC office refrigerator, and couriered to AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga, ON) within 48 hours of sampling. AGAT Laboratories is an analytical laboratory accredited by both the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (CALA) as well as the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). The laboratory analysis included a wide range of inorganic, metals and nutrient parameters, along with analysis of total suspended solids. Field turbidity measurements were also taken using a Hach Turbidimeter (model 2100P) during each field visit, including daily measurements during the 7-day pumping sequence.

4.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 4.1 Water Level/Temperature Monitoring

4.1.1 Boyce’s Creek

During the surface water monitoring period between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, water levels at Flow 1B station were measured within the range of 0.13 to 0.28 metres. Water levels at the Flow 2B station were measured within the range of 0.09 to 0.48 metres. Water levels at the Flow 1B station were generally higher than the water levels at the Flow 2B station during pre- and post-pumping conditions, with the exception of significant storm events. The TRCA examined the maximum flows to Walker Creek and Boyce’s Creek and suggested each of these watercourses could sustain discharge flows of up to 9000 L/min. Therefore, a guideline of 9000 L/min was used to assess flooding (at each creek).


Judging by the flow data collected, a discharge of 9000 L/min correlates to a water level of approximately 0.35 metres for Boyce’s Creek, which was not observed during the 7-day pumping test (maximum observed water level was 0.28 metres). During the surface water monitoring period, water temperature at the Flow 1B station was measured within the range of 9.1°C to 25.6°C. Water temperature at the Flow 2B station was measured within the range of 9.5°C to 25.2°C. As can be observed in Figure 5, water temperature at the Flow 2B station was generally 1 to 2°C colder than Flow 1B prior to and following the pumping sequence, although this temperature differential reversed during the pumping sequence. This may show that ground water contribution at Flow 2B is higher than at Flow 1B, which created colder water temperatures at the downstream location. The discharge water influenced the creek during the test, which naturally warmed as it flowed downstream from Flow 1B to Flow 2B. On average, the water temperature in Boyce’s Creek was lowered 7°C to 10°C during the 7-day pumping test when compared the baseline conditions. Water level graphs for each of the Boyce’s Creek monitoring stations are presented in Figure 2 (all figures presented in Appendix A). Water temperature graphs for each of the Boyce’s Creek monitoring are presented in Figure 5. 4.1.2 Walker Creek

Within the surface water monitoring period between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, water levels at Flow 1W station were measured within the range of 0.00 (this station was essentially dry for the entire baseline monitoring leading up to the aquifer performance test) to 0.15 metres. Water levels at the Flow 2W station were measured within the range of 0.06 to 0.38 metres. Water levels at the Flow 2W station were higher than the water levels at the Flow 1W station during the entire monitoring period. It should be noted that the Flow 1W station was not installed in a defined channel of Walker Creek. This discharge point was a low-lying wetland catchment area which eventually drained to the main Walker Creek channel. The TRCA examined the maximum flows to Walker Creek and Boyce’s Creek and suggested each of these watercourses could sustain discharge flows of up to 9000 L/min. Therefore, a guideline of 9000 L/min was used to assess flooding (at each creek). Judging by the flow data collected, a discharge of 9000 L/min correlates to a water level


of approximately 0.35 metres for Walker Creek, which was not observed during the 7-day pumping test (maximum observed water level was 0.26 metres). During the surface water monitoring period, water temperature at the Flow 1W station was measured within the range of 8.9°C to 16.5°C. Water temperature at the Flow 2W station was measured within the range of 12.2°C to 27.6°C. As can be observed in Figure 6, water temperature at the Flow 2W (downstream) station was warmer than the Flow 1W (upstream) station, as expected. Discharged water travelled approximately 1 km between the upstream and downstream stations (including through a series of 4 ponds), which explains the differential in water temperature. On average, the water temperature in Walker Creek was lowered 0°C to 6°C during the 7-day pumping test when compared the baseline conditions. No fish species that may be present in Boyce’s and Walker Creek are known to spawn during the time of the testing sequence (early to mid August). Therefore, the cooling of water as a result of the discharge water would have had no impact on fish spawning or egg incubation. Water level graphs for each of the Walker Creek monitoring stations are presented in Figure 3. Water temperature graphs for each of the Walker Creek monitoring are presented in Figure 6. 4.2 Stream Flow Monitoring

4.2.1 Boyce’s Creek

During the surface water monitoring period between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, stream flow at the Flow 1B station was measured within the range of 0.9 to 45.0 L/s. Stream flow at the Flow 2B station was measured within the range of 0.5 to 59.4 L/s. Baseflow levels were measured within the range of 0.5 to 3.4 L/s, with a peakflow measurement of 59.4 L/s recorded during a significant storm event on August 1st, 2013. With the exception of the significant storm event during baseline monitoring, the discharge from the CE4A pumping increased flow in Boyce’s Creek up to approximately 44 times the baseflow amount. Although this amount sounds significant, the creek was able to convey the discharge water without issue because the overall flow was less than the suggested TRCA flow capacity of 9000 L/min. The manual stream flow and water level measurements taken at each Boyce’s Creek monitoring station are presented in both tabular (Table 1) and graphical (Figures 7) form.


Figures 7 shows the rating curves which present and forecast the relationship between flow and water level at each of the monitoring stations. Table 1: Boyce’s Creek Manual Stream Flow and Water Level Measurements

Date of Measurement

Flow 1B Station Flow 2B Station Stream Flow

(L/s) Water Level

(m) Stream Flow

(L/s) Water Level

(m) July 18, 2013 0.9 0.145 0.5 0.105 July 20, 2013 3.4 0.155 2.9 0.14 July 23, 2013 2.6 0.15 1.8 0.125 August 1, 2013 45.0 0.23 59.4 0.31 August 2, 2013 6.3 0.17 8.3 0.175 August 6, 2013 2.2 0.15 1.6 0.125 August 7, 2013 36.2 0.215 44.1 0.28 August 8, 2013 34.1 0.21 35.0 0.255 August 9, 2013 28.8 0.21 31.5 0.25 August 10, 2013 30.4 0.21 31.9 0.245 August 11, 2013 26.4 0.205 28.1 0.24 August 12, 2013 27.4 0.205 28.7 0.245 August 13, 2013 26.6 0.205 27.9 0.245

4.2.2 Walker Creek

During the surface water monitoring period between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, there was no stream flow measured at the Flow 1W station (pumping discharge rate was already known), as there was no defined channel within the discharge area. Stream flow at the Flow 2B station was measured within the range of 0.7 to 58.9 L/s. Baseflow levels were measured within the range of 0.7 to 2.2 L/s, with a peakflow measurement of 58.9 L/s recorded near the beginning of the 7-day pumping test. With the exception of a significant storm event during baseline monitoring, the discharge from the CE4A pumping increased flow in Walker Creek up to approximately 59 times the baseflow amount. Although this amount sounds significant, the creek was able to convey the discharge water without issue because the overall flow was less than the suggested TRCA flow capacity of 9000 L/min. The manual stream flow and water level measurements taken at each Walker Creek monitoring station are presented in both tabular (Table 2) and graphical (Figures 8) form. Figures 8 shows the rating curve which presents and forecasts the relationship between flow and water level at each of the monitoring stations. It should be noted that only a


rating curve was created for the Flow 2W station, as the Flow 1W station did not have a defined channel. Table 2: Walker Creek Manual Stream Flow and Water Level Measurements

Date of Measurement

Flow 1B Station Flow 2B Station Stream Flow

(L/s) Water Level

(m) Stream Flow

(L/s) Water Level

(m) July 18, 2013 0 0 1.6 0.09 July 20, 2013 0 0 2.2 0.095 July 23, 2013 0 0 0.7 0.085 August 1, 2013 0 0 11.3 0.15 August 2, 2013 0 0 4.8 0.12 August 6, 2013 0 0 1.5 0.095 August 7, 2013 No defined channel 0.12 6.3 0.12 August 8, 2013 No defined channel 0.125 58.9 0.245 August 9, 2013 No defined channel 0.13 55.2 0.24 August 10, 2013 No defined channel 0.13 56.9 0.255 August 11, 2013 No defined channel 0.13 45.0 0.24 August 12, 2013 No defined channel 0.13 51.5 0.245 August 13, 2013 No defined channel 0.13 49.9 0.245

4.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality samples from each of the surface water monitoring stations were taken on August 1st, August 7th and August 13th, 2013. The analysis of water quality at upstream and downstream locations was intended to identify potential impacts from the ground water being discharged into Boyce’s and Walker Creek during the 7-day pumping test. One sample was taken approximately one week prior to the commencement of the pumping test to collect baseline water quality data for each watercourse. Two samples were taken during the pumping test, one just following the start of the test and one just prior to completion. Turbidity was also measured at all stations throughout the monitoring period, including daily measurements during the 7-day pumping test. Laboratory analysis showed no significant variance in any water quality parameter when comparing the baseline water quality data to the data from the sampling completed during the pumping test. Prior to the commencement of the 7-day pumping test, a minimum turbidity threshold of 8 NTU’s above baseline levels was suggested as a guideline by TRCA staff for Boyce’s


and Walker Creek. As can be observed in Figure 4, turbidity levels actually improved during the 7-day pumping test when compared to baseline levels. The average turbidity level for all stations during baseline monitoring was 3.3 NTU, and the average turbidity level during the 7-day pumping test was 1.4 NTU. Laboratory analysis reports for all sampling events are presented in Appendix B.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the surface water monitoring data collected between July 18th and August 16th, 2013, it is our opinion that the volume of ground water discharged from the 7-day pumping test for CE4A was not enough to negatively impact water levels, flow or water quality within Boyce’s Creek or Walker Creek. The quality and quantity of ground water pumped from CE4A did not have a negative impact on fish species which may have been present in Boyce’s and Walker Creek during the pumping sequence, as the temperature and turbidity levels were found to be significantly lower than baseline surface water levels within each creek. Also, no fish species are known to spawn during early to mid August, so the discharge water could not have any negative impact to fish spawning or egg incubation.


APPENDICES

Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis Reports


APPENDIX A

Figures

Figure 2: Boyce's Creek Hydrograph

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

Jul-16 Jul-19 Jul-22 Jul-25 Jul-28 Jul-31 Aug-3 Aug-6 Aug-9 Aug-12 Aug-15 Aug-18

Cre

ek W

ater

Lev

el (

m)

Flow 1B (at discharge area)

Flow 2B (at Airport Road)

Start of 7-day Test

End of7-day Test

Suggested Flooding Threshold (TRCA)

Figure 3: Walker Creek Hydrograph

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55


Cre

ek W

ater

Lev

el (

m)

Flow 2W (at Walker Road)

Flow 1W (at Grange Side Road)

Step Test

Start of 7-day Test

End of 7-day Test

Suggested Flooding Threshold (TRCA)

Figure 4: Turbidity Graph

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Jul-18-13 Jul-20-13 Jul-23-13 Aug-1-13 Aug-2-13 Aug-6-13 Aug-7-13 Aug-8-13 Aug-9-13 Aug-10-13 Aug-11-13 Aug-12-13 Aug 13-13

Tu

rbid

ity

(NT

U)

Flow 1B

Flow 2B

Flow 2W

Flow 1W

7-Day TestStarted

Suggested Minimum Threshold (TRCA)

Figure 5: Boyce's Creek Temperature Graph

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Wat

er T

empe

ratu

re (

oC

)

Flow 1B (at discharge area)

Flow 2B (at Airport Road)

Step Test

Start of 7-day Test End of 7-day Test

Figure 6: Walker Creek Temperature Graph

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Cre

ek W

ater

Lev

el (

m)

Flow 2W (at Walker Road)

Flow 1W (at Grange Side Road)

Start of 7-day Test End of 7-day Test

Step Test

Figure 7: Boyce's Creek Rating Curves

y = 0.0221Ln(x) + 0.1344

R2 = 0.9614

y = 0.0421Ln(x) + 0.1075

R2 = 0.9514

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Creek Discharge (L/s)

Wat

er D

epth

at S

taff

Gau

ge

(m)

Flow 1B Measurements

Flow 2B Measurements

Log. (Flow 1B Measurements)

Log. (Flow 2B Measurements)

Figure 8: Walker Creek Rating Curve

y = 0.0426Ln(x) + 0.0697

R2 = 0.9528

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Creek Discharge (L/s)

Wat

er D

epth

at

Sta

ff G

aug

e (

m)

Flow 2W Measurements

Log. (Flow 2W Measurements)


APPENDIX B

Laboratory Analysis Reports

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,85 BAYFIELD STREET, SUITE 400BARRIE, ON L4M3A7 (705) 721-8451

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Mike Muneswar, BSc (Chem), Senior Inorganic AnalystWATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 9

Aug 12, 2013

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

13T743649AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

PROJECT NO: 09-016e

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 9

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

VERSION 1:Dissolved Aluminum lab filtered and preserved as per client's request.

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested

FLOW - 2BFLOW - 1B FLOW - 2WSAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

WaterWaterWaterSAMPLE TYPE:

8/1/2013 8/1/20138/1/2013DATE SAMPLED:

4615594 4615598 4615602G / S RDLUnitParameter

32 <10 <10Total Suspended Solids 10mg/L

RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / StandardComments:


DATE RECEIVED: 2013-08-02

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Drew WestCLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

AGAT WORK ORDER: 13T743649

DATE REPORTED: 2013-08-12

PROJECT NO: 09-016e

TSS (water)




CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 9



8/1/2013 8/1/20138/1/2013DATE SAMPLED:


7.44 7.40 7.45Saturation pH

7.74 7.73 7.72pH NA6.5-8.5pH Units

0.30 0.33 0.27Langlier Index

152 164 139Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

152 164 139Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

<5 <5 <5Carbonate (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

<5 <5 <5Hydroxide (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

160 163 171Total Hardness (as CaCO3) 0.5mg/L

188 194 210Total Dissolved Solids 20mg/L

329 344 326Electrical Conductivity 2uS/cm

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05Fluoride 0.05mg/L

4.77 4.82 6.04Chloride 0.10mg/L

0.21 0.15 <0.05Nitrate as N 0.05mg/L

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05Nitrite as N 0.05mg/L

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05Bromide 0.05mg/L

14.4 14.5 20.0Sulphate 0.10mg/L

45.1 47.0 51.4Calcium 0.05mg/L

11.5 11.1 10.4Magnesium 0.05mg/L

4.06 3.86 3.67Sodium 0.05mg/L

0.91 0.92 1.59Potassium 0.05mg/L

0.07 0.03 <0.02Ammonia as N 0.02mg/L

<0.10 <0.10 <0.10Phosphate as P 0.10mg/L

0.03 0.03 0.05Total Phosphorus 0.020.03mg/L

14.6 14.7 11.1Reactive Silica 0.05mg/L

7.8 6.6 12.7Total Organic Carbon 0.5mg/L

24 29 83Colour 5TCU

9.8 1.7 3.0Turbidity 0.5NTU

0.016 0.019 0.016Aluminum-dissolved 0.0040.075mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003Arsenic 0.0030.1mg/L

0.032 0.040 0.052Barium 0.002mg/L

0.576 0.400 0.302Boron 0.0100.20mg/L







PROJECT NO: 09-016e

Water Quality Assessment








8/1/2013 8/1/20138/1/2013DATE SAMPLED:


<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Cadmium 0.00010.0002mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003Chromium 0.003mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003Copper 0.0030.005mg/L

0.205 0.401 0.206Iron 0.0100.3mg/L

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001Lead 0.0010.005mg/L

0.042 0.114 0.051Manganese 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002Molybdenum 0.0020.04mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003Nickel 0.0030.025mg/L

<0.004 <0.004 <0.004Selenium 0.0040.1mg/L

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Silver 0.00010.0001mg/L

0.131 0.133 0.156Strontium 0.005mg/L

<0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003Thallium 0.00030.0003mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002Tin 0.002mg/L

<0.002 0.004 0.003Titanium 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002Uranium 0.0020.005mg/L

0.003 0.002 <0.002Vanadium 0.0020.005mg/L

0.005 <0.005 0.019Zinc 0.0050.03mg/L

1.3 3.8 3.7% Difference/ Ion Balance 0.1

RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to PWQO (mg/L)Comments:







PROJECT NO: 09-016e

Water Quality Assessment










Mike Muneswar, BSc (Chem), Senior Inorganic AnalystWATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:


Aug 19, 2013

VERSION*: 1




PROJECT NO: 09-016E





Member of:

VERSION 1:Dissolved Aluminum lab filtered and perserved as per client's request.

*NOTES


Flow 2BFlow 1B Flow 1W Flow 2WSAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

WaterWaterWater WaterSAMPLE TYPE:

8/7/2013 8/7/2013 8/7/20138/7/2013DATE SAMPLED:

4631311 4631312 4631317 4631322G / S RDLUnitParameter

7.15 7.12 7.12 7.18Saturation pH

7.92 7.92 8.08 8.10pH NA6.5-8.5pH Units

0.77 0.80 0.96 0.92Langlier Index

207 220 220 202Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

207 220 220 202Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

<5 <5 <5 <5Carbonate (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

<5 <5 <5 <5Hydroxide (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

495 503 530 474Electrical Conductivity 2uS/cm

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Fluoride 0.05mg/L

11.3 11.5 12.7 19.6Chloride 0.10mg/L

0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Nitrate as N 0.05mg/L

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Nitrite as N 0.05mg/L

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Bromide 0.05mg/L

31.8 30.0 35.4 15.5Sulphate 0.10mg/L

68.2 70.6 67.5 61.9Calcium 0.05mg/L

19.2 18.4 19.8 15.8Magnesium 0.05mg/L

5.10 5.04 5.07 9.88Sodium 0.05mg/L

1.18 1.51 1.15 1.32Potassium 0.05mg/L

0.03 <0.02 0.04 <0.02Ammonia as N 0.02mg/L

<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Phosphate as P 0.10mg/L

0.03 0.10 <0.02 0.05Total Phosphorus 0.020.03mg/L

16.1 16.7 16.8 11.9Reactive Silica 0.05mg/L

2.1 4.8 0.8 6.7Total Organic Carbon 0.5mg/L

7 18 <5 34Colour 5TCU

0.9 1.2 4.8 1.9Turbidity 0.5NTU

0.012 0.012 0.011 0.017Aluminum-dissolved 0.0040.075mg/L

<0.003 0.004 <0.003 <0.003Arsenic 0.0030.1mg/L

0.137 0.080 0.161 0.061Barium 0.002mg/L

0.041 0.023 0.023 0.018Boron 0.0100.20mg/L

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Cadmium 0.00010.0002mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Chromium 0.003mg/L







PROJECT NO: 09-016E

Water Quality Assessment + TSS








8/7/2013 8/7/2013 8/7/20138/7/2013DATE SAMPLED:


<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Copper 0.0030.005mg/L

0.388 1.95 0.516 0.266Iron 0.0100.3mg/L

<0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001Lead 0.0010.005mg/L

0.033 0.275 0.018 0.083Manganese 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Molybdenum 0.0020.04mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Nickel 0.0030.025mg/L

<0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Selenium 0.0040.1mg/L

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Silver 0.00010.0001mg/L

0.249 0.215 0.277 0.207Strontium 0.005mg/L

<0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003Thallium 0.00030.0003mg/L

<0.002 0.008 <0.002 <0.002Tin 0.002mg/L

<0.002 0.007 <0.002 0.002Titanium 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Uranium 0.0020.005mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Vanadium 0.0020.005mg/L

0.010 0.006 0.009 0.008Zinc 0.0050.03mg/L

302 316 330 280Total Dissolved Solids 20mg/L

<10 17 <10 13Total Suspended Solids 10mg/L

249 252 250 220Total Hardness (as CaCO3) 0.5mg/L

1.1 0.5 2.3 0.6% Difference/ Ion Balance 0.1








PROJECT NO: 09-016E











Inesa Alizarchyk, Inorganic Lab SupervisorWATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:


Aug 22, 2013

VERSION*: 1




PROJECT NO: 09-016E





Member of:

*NOTES




8/13/2013 8/13/2013 8/13/20138/13/2013DATE SAMPLED:


7.07 7.07 7.09 7.07Saturation pH

7.79 7.87 7.79 8.12pH NA6.5-8.5pH Units

0.72 0.80 0.70 1.05Langlier Index

230 229 223 227Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

230 229 223 227Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

<5 <5 <5 <5Carbonate (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

<5 <5 <5 <5Hydroxide (as CaCO3) 5mg/L

550 547 553 541Electrical Conductivity 2uS/cm

<0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25Fluoride 0.25mg/L

17.0 16.8 17.7 16.8Chloride 0.50mg/L

<0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25Nitrate as N 0.25mg/L

<0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25Nitrite as N 0.25mg/L

<0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25Bromide 0.25mg/L

35.3 34.7 36.0 34.1Sulphate 0.50mg/L

72.6 73.0 71.9 76.5Calcium 0.05mg/L

20.8 20.4 20.8 19.4Magnesium 0.05mg/L

6.24 6.23 6.24 7.73Sodium 0.05mg/L

1.29 1.14 1.26 1.19Potassium 0.05mg/L

0.06 <0.02 0.04 <0.02Ammonia as N 0.02mg/L

<0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Phosphate as P 0.50mg/L

<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02Total Phosphorus 0.020.03mg/L

16.3 16.3 16.3 14.7Reactive Silica 0.05mg/L

0.9 1.1 0.6 2.1Total Organic Carbon 0.5mg/L

<5 <5 <5 11Colour 5TCU

2.6 0.9 3.7 <0.5Turbidity 0.5NTU

0.018 <0.004 0.007 0.008Aluminum 0.004mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Arsenic 0.0030.1mg/L

0.157 0.125 0.158 0.071Barium 0.002mg/L

0.023 0.020 0.020 0.017Boron 0.0100.20mg/L

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Cadmium 0.00010.0002mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Chromium 0.003mg/L







PROJECT NO: 09-016E









8/13/2013 8/13/2013 8/13/20138/13/2013DATE SAMPLED:


<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Copper 0.0030.005mg/L

0.500 0.135 0.482 <0.010Iron 0.0100.3mg/L

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Lead 0.0010.005mg/L

0.019 0.054 0.015 0.019Manganese 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Molybdenum 0.0020.04mg/L

<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003Nickel 0.0030.025mg/L

<0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Selenium 0.0040.1mg/L

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Silver 0.00010.0001mg/L

0.275 0.255 0.263 0.229Strontium 0.005mg/L

<0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003Thallium 0.00030.0003mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Tin 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Titanium 0.002mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Uranium 0.0020.005mg/L

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Vanadium 0.0020.005mg/L

0.024 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Zinc 0.0050.03mg/L

354 344 340 344Total Dissolved Solids 20mg/L

267 266 265 271Total Hardness (as CaCO3) 0.5mg/L

1.5 1.4 0.9 0.5% Difference/ Ion Balance 0.1

<10 <10 <10 <10Total Suspended Solids 10mg/L








PROJECT NO: 09-016E







Surface Water Monitoring Report CE4A Pumping Test ......day pumping test (maximum observed water...

Documents

Transcript of Surface Water Monitoring Report CE4A Pumping Test ......day pumping test (maximum observed water...