OMB Rockfort Hearing for January 25th, 2010

Andy Hims and Dr. Trevor Carter formed a panel on Hydrology and the Grout Curtain. 

Mr. Garrod (Region) was to lead questioning and Mr. Barnett (Town) indicated that the views expressed by the Panel represented the views of the Town of Caledon as well.

• Mr. Garrod led both through their qualifications and both were qualified as expert witnesses. During his qualification, Dr. Carter referred to several projects that he had worked on that encountered similar rock formations as those at Rockfort  mostly in the construction of grout curtains at the base of dams but he was careful to point out that in most of the examples they were dealing with installation in non-flow conditions and only had to deal with the water table.  He also pointed to challenges that could be encountered where you find clay seams.
• Mr. Hims was retained by the Region of Peel in 1998 to undertake an independent 3rd party review with no instructions as to the direction that his findings were to take. Similarly Dr. Carter was retained in 1998 by undertake an independent review and report primarily to the Town of Caledon.
• Mr. Hims reviewed the existing reports available at that time and met the proponents and their consultants on site on at least two occasions and met members of the Coalition to view off site features. After his review he issued a report in April of 1999 and expressed some concern primarily with the modeling. He was informed that more work was being done and results would be forthcoming.
• Dr. Carter did his review in December 1998 after reviewing the same documents as Mr Hims and visiting the site and reviewing core samples on site from drill test holes. He expressed similar concerns as Mr. Hims and in fact thought there was additional information available that was not incorporated in the reports. He was informed that a grout test demonstration was going to be done and there was some discussion about how it should be done. He heard nothing more and was not invited to view the test. At that time he was waiting for more information to be provided.
• The reports and information that had been reviewed was provided by Hardin Environmental  but when new reports surfaced in 2000 they were provided by Conestoga Rovers.
  

Evidence in Chief of Andy Hims (of Jagger Hims) and Dr. Trevor Carter (of Golder) for the Town and Region led by Mr. Garrod (Region lawyer):

Mr. Hims: Lets' look at your 2001 peer review work.

• In 2000 when Conestoga Rovers (CRA) submitted their new reports, they had used the information from Harden Environmental report of 1999, and had substantially changed the approach and plans of earlier work. Hims, peer reviewed that work and concluded the following:
  
• The majority of the mitigation is based on hydro-geologic modeling approach--a simplified version was given to a very complex setting--limestone has preferred pathways and the ground and surface water is highly interrelated in the area.
  Hims had the following concerns at that time:
  
• That there will be water impacts (quality and quantity) in the surrounding local area:
  
• There were assumptions made about the permeability of the rock mass and that the hydro conductivity was equivalent throughout. The Amabel has bedding planes with different fractures horizontally and vertically and is not equivalent.
  
• The assumptions re the underlying Reynales i.e. it is not assumed to be of different permeability when it usually is.
  
• 2-D model does not consider the complexity of the rock mass
  
• The recharge levels are assumed to the same throughout.
  
• Areas of discharge have not been established in detail, neither have the conditions off-site, nor what are the connections to the off-site features.
  
• Assumptions about the availability of water and requirements towards the latter part of extraction; there is little room for error. There has to be a bigger comfort level
  
• It will be very difficult to maintain groundwater discharges in springs and creeks in adjacent lands.
  
  
• In July 2001 a letter was sent from CRA to DFO and made comments about the Hims peer review. Hims was not sent a copy of this letter. CRA claimed that Hims didn't understand the mitigation and the modeling. Mr. Hims was not satisfied with the comments in the letter about the AMP regarding that there would not be enough water to run the mitigation and maintain lake levels. When the grout curtain is put in place it will completely change the groundwater flow pattern--and it may change the flow to the offsite features after extraction is complete.

In Harden's report about the resources to the South of the site:

• Looking at a cross-section of south of the site (Sutherland Pond), at OW10-D and OW 10S is a good area to look at. When you look at the two wells right beside each other, the water levels are different and OW 10D (deep) has water levels higher than the Shallow well right beside. The deeper zone is under greater hydrostatic pressure so there is a high head at lower depths because somewhere in there is a confining level in the rock. We know that because we have different levels and different Hydrostatic pressure right next to each other. We also know that there is some horizontal movement in this rock as it is connected to the Zaichuk well. The Ziachuk well water level was measured near the ground surface in 1997.
• Because this is a groundwater discharge pond right beside the well, we don't know how much is coming to the pond from each water-bearing zone. The point is, we know that the pond and downstream creek are a cold-water habitat for the trout because of perennial discharge from lower gradients. It is questionable that those gradients can be replicated when the lakes are in place.
• The grout curtain in place will be a physical feature in the ground--relatively consistent and relatively impermeable. But when the lakes are in place the curtain will smooth out the groundwater distribution and pattern. Will that be adequate to feed the coldwater fish habitat? It's a question as to whether you can protect it if you don't know all the detailed conditions off-site.
• OW13 and OW19 also have upward gradients on site. OW 19 is to the north and is confined under the Eramosa. OW 13 is not confined.  If it is a layered system, then the model needs to represent that. These are not issues of design; these are issues of fundamental characterization.
• The data is listed but CRA did not fully analyze and incorporate them into their plans.
• In a letter from Hims to CRA in 2001 Hims says that although it meets the min. requirements of the ARA--he was not satisfied with the water characterization nor the model which doesn't show interaction between ground and surface water.
• The AMP is basically a "try it and see approach" in a hydro-geologically complex area. Their assessment of off-site characterization is severely limited at the local scale.
  The new 2000 computer modeling had a significantly more simplified approach and did not take into consideration the complex fractured limestone planes and Tran missive zones.
• Harden started to work with a 3-D model but CRA changed that to 2-D and a more simplified approach. The model doesn't simulate close to the features that need to be protected, nor the discrete layers, nor the interaction of ground and surface water.
• Looking at the simulated Hydraulic Conductivity Zone, , Hims questioned what was the basis of the different hydraulic zones and is it representative of the field information? Hims feels that some of it is not representative of what they find in the field. Example: around PW2 the 3 day test gave one value (high value) and the 36 day test showed quite a lower value response and Hims wanted to know what was the basis for that. There was no response.
• Letter of Dec 2001 to DFO from CRA regarding the Hims letter: It again states that Hims didn't understand what was being proposed and Hims disagrees with this characterization. They also say that the detailed information Hims asks for is not required. Hims feels that their response is inadequate. By 2003 they are acknowledging to DFO that it should be done--and it still hasn't been done to this day.

Mr. Carter's 2001 work:

• He reviewed the same suite of reports that Hims did. They peer reviewed and noted that Harden is no longer involved and that CRA has taken over the mitigative aspects:
• There were missing pieces of the reports: Volume 2 data results were not submitted; the submissions fracture detail was not provided. The rock reserves had been re-worked; the recharge system more organized; the setbacks and rock barriers had been improved. In the peer review report, it looked as though the data of recently drilled holes were not being used. Some of the cores showed vertical and angular fractures plus vuggy areas and bedding plane striations
  He has concerns for example looking at the core hole sample data and photos: The three holes we are looking at are C7, C9 and C5 and the grouting holes are of OW32.
  
  
  Hole C7 shows the vertical, the horizontal and the other vertical--it's like a rubrics cube of faults and joints.
  
  
  Hole C5 shows vuggy-ness (heavily weathered and full of connected holes) and areas of high transmissivity.
• What they saw in the site visit to the core samples; there are several zones that are vuggy and several zones are distinctly bedded. Some of the bedding has fractures between the beds and some doesn't. In this test, from all over the site it shows vuggy zones, then bedded zones and the vuggy zones like a layer cake.
  
• None of the cores from the grout test were provided for examination, --still true today. We told about them in 1999 but only got the ACT test report in Nov of 2008 along with the video logs.
  
• Issues still outstanding at this stage were around characterization and how much of the new geological information was listed but not taken into account by JDCL. The clay in-filled seams have still not been addressed. C4 and OW 7--clay seams up to 5 cm thick are mentioned (there are 8 core holes with clay seams mentioned) Dr Bruce (for JDCL) later in 2009 addressed this, in that he will design his curtain with this in mind. All the jointing and clay seams (they wash out) really put in question whether the grout curtain will work as planned. There are two layers of high conductivity; one is near the surface that is weathered, a highly "vuggy" area of high permeability. Then there is a deeper zone, which seems the same. It is a layered environment with a few discrete reef-like units.
• Until the area is properly characterized, the credibility of the technical solutions is in question. The credibility of the model is in question.
  
• Concerned about the costing implications of the project and they think it's still an issue.
• Harden seemed to be going in the right direction in their discussions of 1999, but then it all changed with CRA taking over the project.
  
• Hims was present at the hearing for hydro G-engineering and AMP panels.
  
• Carter was present at the hearing for hydro G, the engineering and AMP panels except for the cross exam of Murphy.