December 2, 2010 – Hearing Day 7

4:35 pm

We hear from Mr. Beaman that, at least until January 28th, the hearing will continue to be held at the Quality Inn Suites, 754 Bronte Road, Oakville, Ontario (where we’ve been thus far). The proceedings are public, so feel free to come observe if you’re in the area!

The hearing is now adjourned until next Monday, December 6th, when Mr. Northey will continue to cross-examine Mr. McFarland.

4:10 pm

Mr. McFarland explains that some of Golder’s data is based on calibration done in 2003 and 2004. If their estimates turned out close to reality, they decided the model could serve to project into the future for 2010 data. It is always valuable to distinguish between numbers based on actual data collection and projections.

3:28 pm

The feature that would result if this new quarry is dug and then filled with water is being shown in a cross-sectional diagram. It is interesting that we’ve heard it called a “lake” so far in the hearing. Mr. McFarland refers to it as the “filled quarry”. The ecology evidence to come in future weeks will be very interesting regarding the comparison between a filled quarry and a natural lake. Do they serve the same environmental functions?

3:15 pm

The difficulty of working with a variety of different maps, photos, diagrams, and figures is becoming apparent this afternoon. Some of the contours (lines showing elevation or depth) on the diagrams being referenced are too small to make out. Under a magnifying glass, the details are blurry (due to the resolution they were printed at). More detailed versions are not available in the hearing room today. Counsel, the witness, and the Board are attempting to use a small scale (less detailed) map with some difficulty. While the importance of diagrams with sufficient detail is apparent to everyone preparing evidence, it is not always easy to anticipate exactly what will be needed and ensure it is available, especially in a case like this one.

2:25 pm

After lunch, Mr. Northey resumes cross-examination with groundwater flow monitoring. He asks Mr. McFarland how the thickness of the overburden relates to the location of a wetland over bedrock. Mr. McFarland confirms that: Ground Surface – Overburden Thickness = Bedrock Surface.

Mr. McFarland says that Golder did not build the local wetlands, overburden thickness, or hydraulic connectivity into their model because they are small compared to the regional scale of the model. Mr. Northey asked if, when they found out that the wetlands would be excavated, they considered revising their model. Mr. McFarland said no – their model was geared to understanding water flow on the whole of Mount Nemo and the wetlands were not classified (as Provincially Significant) when they were making this model. Later, when wetlands came up, Golder looked at the low water conductivity at the site and decided to switch to a water balance approach. Their approach focused on wells, not wetlands.

Mr. Northey clarified that this means that the wetlands were too small to be picked up by Golder’s scale of model. Mr. McFarland said this is correct. Mr. Northey asked how this could be when the size of a well is smaller than a wetland? If a regional scale model can deal with a small point of a well, why can’t it deal with a larger wetland? Mr. McFarland said they could have incorporated the wetlands, but chose not to because they are “surface water driven” (i.e. not fed significantly by groundwater).

1:00 pm

The issue of hearing schedule has come up. Mr. Northey has indicated that his cross-examination will continue for the afternoon today and throughout Monday, ending before the end of the day. After lunch, we’ll hear a general indication of how the schedule is going to go, based on how long the lawyers believe they will be crossing for.

We are going to break for lunch now.

12:50 pm

Mr. Northey has turned now to questions about karst on the Nelson site. He asks Mr. McFarland about evidence showing sudden large changes in flow rate. He is told that these represent water-bearing fractures in the rock.

12:30 pm

Mr. Northey notes that Golder conducted these tests in February. He asks what impact the weather had? Mr. McFarland says Golder planned to test during frozen conditions to keep surface water from entering the pump test borehole. Mr. Northey asks what the effect of freezing water is on surface water? Does it slow the responsiveness that might otherwise occur during warmer weather? Mr. McFarland says not if the water was not frozen.

Mr. Northey asks about a particular well; Mr. McFarland says that Golder has no data for that well, possibly due to an installation problem or a malfunction.

12:15 pm

We returned from a quick break, eager to hear Mr. McFarland’s answer to Mr. Northey’s question about hydraulic conductivity and water movement.

Mr. McFarland says he disagrees with Mr. Northey’s answer because, while the math is correct, Mr. Northey’s calculation did not account for hydraulic gradient or porosity, which both need to be accounted for in calculating how fast groundwater moves.

Mr. McFarland says that during the pump tests, Golder used a model, including a consideration of infiltration, to calculate the drawdown. Mr. Northey tries to clarify what Mr. McFarland was measuring during the pump test. Mr. McFarland says they measured groundwater levels, looking for a decrease in the levels during pumping.

Golder applied a gradient across the soil samples to find a hydraulic conductivity value. To assess movement in the wells, they used a pressure transducer (instrument that converts pressure into an electrical signal).

11:30 am

Mr. McFarland explains that a pumping test will give different results depending on the type of material in the overburden. If you pump groundwater out from a permeable substrate, like sand, you’ll see drawdown (a decline) in the surface water level. If the material is not very permeable, like clay, you won’t see that kind of drawdown at the surface.

Mr. Northey wants Mr. McFarland to interpret the results of the pumping tests, in plain language, with respect to the movement of water. He asks how far water will travel through a material each day at a specific “K Value” – a measure of conductivity. On a portion of the Nelson site, Mr. Northey’s calculations show that water will move 0.0086 cm each day. He has asked Mr. McFarland to confirm or contradict that result.

We’ve taken a break – we await Mr. McFarland’s answer on our return!

11:07 am

Mr. Northey is questioning Mr. McFarland on the relationship between figures on a hydrograph and connectivity. Mr. McFarland submits that the information on the hydrograph does not indicate anything about connectivity. Mr. Northey wants the witness to clarify what hydrographs are for and if they can ever show connectivity. After repeating this question a number of times, the Board asks Mr. Northey to move on from this line of questioning.

10:55 am

Mr. Northey is questioning Mr. McFarland in detail about the diagrams and figures in the documentary evidence he referred to in his testimony. These show where groundwater was tested on the site and where it was not tested.

Mr. Northey suggests that, where there is a large degree of overlap between two points, it indicates a high degree of hydraulic connectivity. Mr. McFarland disagrees, saying that the points Mr. Northey referred to are areas where there is hydraulic connection, but that it is very low. He says that the testing they have done does not include the full site. He suggests the bedrock water levels might also be influencing the wells.

Mr. Northey confirms that yesterday, the Board heard that this monitoring data is one of the ways that connectivity is tested. He again questions Mr. McFarland: Are these points connected?

Mr. McFarland says there is connectivity between all the points on the site; the issue is whether that connection is low or high. He says if there was a high connectivity level, the groundwater levels in the overburden would not be maintained as they are.

Mr. Northey points out that, while his question was about connectivity, Mr. McFarland’s answers refer to conductivity. Mr. McFarland says they are basically the same thing – at least, they are related.

Mr. McFarland says the groundwater levels would rise and fall in concert throughout the year if they were connected. He clarifies that the overburden layer here is clay.

10:25 am

The hearing commenced this morning with continuation of cross-examination of Mr. McFarland, Nelson’s witness on hydrogeology. Mr. Northey, representing Burlington, is conducting the cross.

Mr. McFarland is giving the Board a definition of the “slug test” or a “well response test”, which involves displacing water in a well using a “slug” or a certain volume of water.

There are a number of hydrogeologists in the room – experts retained by other Parties who are here to listen to Mr. McFarland’s evidence. This allows them to know the case they will be questioned on when their turn to testify comes.