HomeMy WebLinkAboutGroundwater Interference Investigation
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
u
o
~~
Schneider
/<0:EIIc_2'/'-.,
GROUNDWATER INTERFER~NeE ~ -(<:;~\
S G 0 r--,7 ~ \,-/\
INVE TI ATI N ~)' ~~~ \;~
~ ~\\\"Sfd1 tJ
Martin Marietta Aggrega~~ \)Qcs j!J
Carmel Sand and North Indianapolis Lim~qt;!! Plant-(~
East 1 oath Street & Hazel Dell ParkWaY~JT\~
Carmel, Indiana
TSC Job # 3940.001
The Schneider Corporation
Historic Fort Harrison
8901 Otis Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46216
3178267100
THE SCHNEIDER CORPORATION
Historic Fort Harrison 8901 Otis Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46216-1037 317-826-7100 Toll free 800-898-0332 Fax 317-826-7200
www.schneidercorp.com
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
'-~
Schneider
April 8, 2002
Mr. D. Max Williams
Martin Marietta Aggregates
1980 E 116th Street, Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: Groundwater Interference From Mining Operations Expansion
E. 1 oath Street and Hazel Dell Parkway
TSC Job # 3940.001
Dear Max,
Attached is an abbreviated summary of the groundwater modeling activities
associated with the above referenced site. Although far from complete, the
summary should give the reader a good overview of the variables and
conditions considered in this investigation. The attached model exhibits and
related ensuing discussion should convey an understanding about the factors
that went into developing the output of the mathematical groundwater model.
There will undoubtedly be questions upon completion of reading the attached
summary and abbreviated report. I will continue toward completion of the
report.
Please call me at your convenience to discuss your concerns or questions. I
will be available to meet with a reviewing body if needed. Thank you for
providing the opportunity to be of assistance with this phase of work.
~/J~~
Thomas A. Kallio, M.S., L.P.G.
Senior Project Manager
T AK/cgb
S:\3k\3940\001\docs\Reports\Spector Draft Report.doc
~
THE SCHNEIDER CORPORATION
Historic Fort Harrison 8901 Otis Avenue Indianapolis. Indiana 46216-1037 317-826-7100 Toll free 800-898-0332 Fax 317-826-7200
www.schneidercorp.com
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Martin Marietta Aggregates requested an evaluation of the potential groundwater
effects that planned surface aggregate and open pit mining operations may have
on water resources in south east Carmel. The proposed areas of expansion are
located north (Carmel Sand surface aggregate) and south (North Indianapolis
open pit) of East 10Sth Street and west of Hazel Dell Parkway. An evaluation of
possible present and long term affects on the water surface elevation of the
resultant Carmel Sand aggregate pond by groundwater drawdown interference
from the City of Carmel wells located in close proximity to the southwest
(Northeast corner of E. 10Sth Street and Hazel Gray Road). In addition, an
opinion was sought for potential effects the underground mining may also have
on the local area groundwater and Carmel Sand pond.
The dynamics of this investigation involved several considerations.
. As the Carmel Sand aggregate pond, located north of E. 10Sth Street, is
expanded south and west it will ultimately lower the relative groundwater
table by a few feet. This is due to a disruption of the hydraulic gradient.
. Seasonal and climatic variations are responsible for water level
fluctuations of 5 feet or more in this area.
. The City of Carmel Plant No.4 water wells (No.'s 10, 11 & 12) are located
adjacent to the southwest corner of the pond. These well have historically
had average dry weather water withdrawal rates approximating 1.9 to 2.4
million gallons of water per day from the aquifer (5.3 to 7.3 acre feet of
water per day or up to 219 acre feet per month).
. The hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel deposit typically varies
across the site because the flow and depositional characteristics varied
over time as glaciers receded from the area.
. Aquifer thickness also varies across the area, as indicated by the Martin
Marietta Aggregates exploration borings, thinning to the northeast of the
planned North Indianapolis expansion.
. Water from the "Open Pit" mining operation, south of E. 10Sth Street, and
underground limestone mining operation is pumped to a former sand and
gravel pond to the west. Some of this water reenters the groundwater
resulting in a positive up gradient flow of the groundwater to the southwest
of the municipal water wells (No.' s. 10, 11 & 12). Thus sustaining or
elevating local groundwater in this area.
. Northward expansion of the North Indianapolis open pit mine to within
approximately 250 feet of E. 10Sth Street is anticipated to drop the water
table by a few additional feet in response to the increased hydraulic
gradient.
. Mine dewatering will increase proportional to the expanded area, pushing
more water in to the retention pond to the west. In consideration of the
sediment stream observed from the air, it may be necessary to incorporate
1
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
Q
o
the pond to the north into the retention program as well. This intern is
anticipated to maintain a positive recharge flow toward the nearby
municipal water wells and across the north end of the open pit mine.
. The decreased aquifer thickness to the east of the open pit mine is
anticipated to shift some of the deep mine dewatering flow component
toward the Carmel Sand pond, north of E. 106th Street, as well as back to
the pit for repumping.
. Underground mining, based upon current on-site observation, is not
anticipated to result in significant leakance from the overlying sand and
gravel aquifer, situated a few 100 feet above. The joints appear to be
comparatively tight in this area. The observation is consistent with the
relatively low estimated rate of water pumped, when compared to the
open pit and underground mine active surface area available for inflow.
Numerical values for water conductivity within the aquifer, aquifer thicknesses,
top and bottom aquifer elevation data, municipal pumping rates and a
dimensioned model of the physical setting were all entered into various data
coverage's within the GMS software. From this information sequence of model
stages were created and analyzed under the ModFlow format. The model stages
progressed from a base model devoid of mining activity and water withdrawal by
the nearby City of Carmel water well toward the completion of Carmel Sand and
North Indianapolis open pit expansion. At each stage data conflicts were
identified and corrected.
The results suggest that under dry weather conditions the elevation of the
Carmel Sand pond should approximate 722.:t feet. Variables to this
determination are increased need by the City of Carmel for water resulting in
pumping changes at Plant NO.4 and interception of an open joint pattern during
future underground mining that has not been anticipated. In the case of the latter,
grout injection would probably be used or the mine closed. At the future time of
mine closure, groundwater levels are anticipated to gradually rise to a dry
weather level approximating 726.:t feet, assuming like pumping activity by City of
Carmel.
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
GROUNDWATER INTERFERENCE
INVESTIGATION
Martin Marietta Aggregates
Carmel Sand and North Indianapolis Limestone Plant
East 10Sth Street & Hazel Dell Parkway
Carmel, Indiana
INTRODUCTION
The findings from the hydro geologic study commissioned by Martin Marietta
Aggregates, Inc. suggests that water will remain in the pond resulting from the
proposed Carmel Sand surface mining site as operations progress toward E.
10Sth Street. The extent of pond level lowering appears to approximate about 5:t
feet below present elevations (EI. 727:1:. ft.). This assumption is based upon a
review of several factors and assumption that the City of Carmel will continue
approximately the same withdrawal rates at Plant No.4.
When evaluating a potential impact on groundwater by usage or dewatering,
there is almost never one single factor responsible for the projected or observed
changes that may develop. In the case of evaluating the potential decrease in
groundwater and related pond water level of the planned Carmel Sand surface
mining expansion there are several factors. Some of the factors that may
adversely impact a projected water level determination are:
. orientation and extent (horizontal and vertical) of pond construction,
. extended period of limited rainfall (drought),
. low or high point in groundwater level related to natural climatic cycles,
. reduced recharge from infiltration related to development,
. extended municipal water well pumping to meet dry weather customer
demands,
. distribution, gradation and thickness of water bearing granular soil
. artificial recharge of aquifer by injection of water associated with a deeper
aquifer and discharge to a shallow one.
. extensive mining or construction dewatering in close proximity,
. presence of preferential hydraulic flow paths related to depositional
patterns when the sediments were initially deposited.
The report discussion and conclusions attempt to bring these factors into
perspective of this evaluation.
In addition to the Carmel Sand and North Indianapolis stone plants, another part
of this study has been directed toward understanding groundwater affects that
could be anticipated from withdrawal by nearby City wells. Based upon test data
3
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
relative to the nearby municipal well, it is assumed that drawdown affects should
be anticipated at distances of at least 1500 feet from the wells. Our efforts to
construct a 3-D groundwater model of the area have been greatly aided by data
obtained from the City of Carmel. The City has made their detailed field
exploration and accurate pumping records readily available.
The development of the groundwater model simulated steady state groundwater
flow conditions as determined from historical municipal well pumping rates. The
model has not been calibrated to actual operating conditions. The hydraulic
conductivity values use in this model are equivalent to those obtained from the
1965 Keck (Plant No.4) and 1995 Jones & Henry (Plant No.5) studies
contracted by the former Indianapolis Water Company and City of Carmel,
respectively.
Results from modeling generally re~eat the steady state drawdown affects
projected for the area north of E.116 Street at the time of the East Well Field
investigation. Other features imposed upon this model include the
. sharp gradient increase related to the northward shift of open pit mining
operations and southward extension of the surface aggregate pond;
. extension of similar hydraulic transmissivity southward, as illustrated by
prior Indianapolis Water Co. investigations at Carmel Plant No.4 (located
west of the proposed pond);
. allowance for reduced flow characteristics observed in areas located west
of the subject area.
. aggregate and cohesive soil thickness and gradation trends observed in
borings;
. allowance for reduced conductivities observed in recharge area located up
gradient to the post-glacial alluvial valley that the site is located in.
. groundwater recharge effects from limestone pit dewatering;
. aside from not being calibrated, the combined affects from multiple well
pumping supported past findings.
. assumption of an average water level flow gradient along the White River,
located on the east margin of the site.
Field observations along the White River indicate that shallow flow gradients in
close proximity to the White River can be quite variable. These variations are
apparent when water levels are compared between low water demand periods
and those in dry weather periods. The City, as a major source of water, relies
upon Wells 10, 11 and 12 (Plant No.4) for area residents. Therefore they are
operated in nearly continuous mode during large demand periods.
A review of historical groundwater patterns across the area indicates that natural
water level fluctuations of about 6.5 feet have occurred in this area. The water
elevations projected in the model have been derived from records of low
conditions. Although the base groundwater elevation values imposed on the
4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
model may not represent an ultimate low natural condition, they do reflect
historical consistency.
The results of this study should provide helpful incite to nearby residents, the City
of Carmel as well as the Martin Marietta Aggregates planning teams relate to
some aspect of the impacts observed.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Existing Groundwater Conditions
The above referenced factors and variables were imposed upon a hydraulic
groundwater model in a sequential pattern of development. Progressing from a
basic groundwater surface reflective of observed historical flow patterns and
gradients. The limits of the groundwater investigation area are from Kelstone
Avenue to the White River and from E. 96th Street northward to E. 126 Street
(approximately 3 miles). Around the perimeter from north, west and south the
model provides what ever groundwater the operation of the system requires or
basically limitless flow in to the model. Coverage areas were defined to give
hydraulic conductivities commensurate to the trends observed in IDNR water well
records.
With the base groundwater model debugged,
. area ponds that are connected to the shallow aquifer were activated with
general head conditions that were either observed or interpolated from
aerial photographic data.
e The present open pit mining operation is seen as major sink in the area.
e Blue Woods Creek as a contributor to the shallow aquifer.
e The dewatering discharge pond, located southwest of the Gray Road and
E. 106th Street intersection, was given a fixed head condition
commensurate to the Blue Woods Creek outfall elevation.
e City of Carmel water well No.'s 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 were activated at
rates equivalent to those recorded for dry weather operation. The
operational rates were projected to "steady state" conditions, reflective of
a worst case scenario.
Prior to progressing further, the model was checked for discrepancies and
conflicts. It was then compared with historical models prepared for the Plant
NO.5 well field investigation. The benefit of the additional data
enhancements to prior work was confirmed as a reasonable projection of
anticipated current dry weather conditions.
5
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
Proposed Limestone Pit Expansion Groundwater Elevations
Although the greatest impact from the proposed mining operations will be the
completed excavation of Carmel Sand and North Indianapolis Plants,
modeling prudence calls for staged introduction of variables. The next step
added the effects on the groundwater surface imposed by the North
Indianapolis Plant expansion to its proposed limits and resultant sink.
Leakage from the planned re-routing of Blue Woods Creek along the north
extend of the open pit mine operation was also factored in to the resultant
groundwater model.
After checking for data conflicts and resolving those, the model was ready for
the final factor related to the proposed mining operation. The planned final
pond excavation from the Carmel Sand Plant operation was interjected in to
the model.
Proposed Aggregate Pond and Limestone Pit Expansion
In the final phase of modeling, the limits of the Carmel Sand Plant excavation
were expanded from their approximate present limits to the proposed final
extent. The results of this final variable clearly illustrate the reduced
groundwater elevation effects caused by the north and west mining extension.
Although the Plant NO.4 wells are drawing from the northeast, the close
proximity of the pond is certainly seen in the drawdown pattern reflected by
the model. The City of Carmel Well No. 11 is anticipated to draw much of its
water from the pond. Flow analysis of this well field suggests that Well No. 10
may have been interfering with an effective flow pattern for Well No. 11 during
high use periods. Thus the later well is anticipated to develop a strong flow
net toward the future pond excavation. The projected low water elevation of
722 feet is anticipated to allow for this state of withdrawal.
6
()
o ~.
,I ".
". \ .~
Proposed Limestone Pit Expansion Groundwater Elevations
I "'"
~ s;~\ l\ \'l) No- ~;--~ " :J/ n /}(/
l~ R'~ t ","", In '~fl~~'P-AYX: (!j V / 'f-.
4 ~ r {'Ii: 1 T-I- 'Tr V)! ~~V ~~.z .'~ el,' 15 L--( I
,:! WiJ 1~~:.r...,l I - Y ~ .
/-J....~ N ~ . ( . -/- [J ~ /"OClhW~ "". 4
-) .j. ~L ~ ,\\\~\" " "'''91'~ M ~~~iIlS ~"bI'
, I . ~\ :\'J, I , !1r~ 6 '"
) 7 "j- - ~ ,~~\J.( '! J" """oklo'" ~ - ~ .
7 I >>- <E ~6th St ~\ \~f\".,~ I 11 I I ve--.......... / jO\ -----
~ ~ I V ~, >:Y~~f~\\i1~jjlf JI~ r~$7~ :
) II b I~ ~~~iv-- ~ ; II/~ ~ ~l 'r Well ~~~ber P
J - I / I ~, I / :! 11 I
~ : (/) H tf-j7111 ,,....... I ~ I t\.J ~rv / t 12 I
-,~ ;) 7 / Y I , ;v, A \ 15 I
--1/ ~ 1\ I( ~J V/1J {, '0 /?,j.. \ 16 ,
-\ ,/ /'~t....~/V~ f/i"l~/~~~.' / (~ .
r 7 i/ ~~ ~ J J \' ~ '\'!f}\12 ~, -' / )I) I
/ ~,// '.1. ! / 7 ",," IC10(lfu''!'0~-'''~;r ,,/' f ~ Proposed Stream Realignment
~ I I' \J./ IX
~~ '''i ii'
~. z .... rtJ: 'I ff' Proposed Limestone At Expansion
~I\,~~/r ~~ ,~J/
~ /m//~"V~ /' ~----, V '-;:;;jV '~~ .
/ ;~----~ al;~\~ J Existing Mining Operation
\ 'h'96thS~t-=:~ ~ ./ / I
..
I I / I I / I "..~ ____ \./ I
'\
'\
"
""
'~,
"
""'""
Mine Recirculation Ponds
c
o
",
~
""
Proposed Aggregate Pond and Limestone Pit,Expansion
,
,
..J ~~ \ ,),_~_~Y ___ - , '~ '-_. I 1-' . I
, 'ri~ ~ ~~2/0~~ ) ..----"/>(vYI-/ J
~~ ~ \ ~\1.... \'V)(;iJ:. // 7Zv ,.t;;j "/ /. .-/ ~"
L~ 'J~ tJ D ~~ e~~~~"
I'). r/J!t.~ ~ Il~~~ J)- V/Y7~
r< K\ ~ "~ /;:7 7 /. -;l./l "" '" / /
\ I / h~ ~ \ '. r7 7Z /i
I "~ ". )<J) dyr/ /W~/IJ'
. fl{/:~' J:~A~~~.I\llz-~/LM ~~~ dJv ,
: .:Lrl 1 ,~ t \ \ \->~\'\\I) ':-~ 7 I~ j JcJ\ -::=--::::: _ '"\
-;', .~~J/Vld y ~'<rc~L\./~~~ /~)~ \ 1~~ ---,Y/U --.
. . ~ LL!rf J /6~ 11/- 'b - ~ ~ ~
I' . t~lFr- ; J:: <6
/ A-oposed Aggregate Pond
~ 1~7 0' ~~d ~ (~~ :"11 Jl/\)\ ,;/~ Proposed Stream Realignment
r /'....---~ ~h .} 'i/ / I r '- '" " _ ~" .J .AL
~~J~~t ~~ n ; ~ I\~) i\'/
-7 ~{2> J f-. I \ ",,- r;(
- T ~ 0 A-oposed Limestone Pit Expansion
~~., jv--7 C Y I~ - 1: .. 1. r;
~ \ ~.... ~/ 7 I~:y
-r/~___ /~ - '~=W~~f
:::::::II / ~:::~ ~ ~ '\j: I /', Existing Mning Operation
",
1111111...--- _ _ \/ I
Mine RecircLlation Ponds
Well Number Pumpinq Rate (GPO)
10 1,096,000
11 624,000
12 104,700
15 1,901,020
16 431,000
~~
'-.
.'"
"'"
"
~
x
o
o
'"
'"
"
,
~
"
. I ~
Existing Groundwater Conditions
-' ~ ~~~::l _ --.l \_ _,1'}_ -:J _\.L2Y. I
I~. ~~T/~~:d?~~~l0 ~~ I
<( ~~\ ,\ \1~ Nlj~ 0~ /' /..
Q) {2>1 /..- /}2A A ~
-41 'I~,,)t- Vn ~.fiv~~~ '~1I15 .~~- ,
~ Ji~ :~ 17'-.,. r/'1 v'
H V! ,~~~ '/ /2 l " '1 "'.. / 1/ I
I ( / II; 1; m '\\ \ / --r , III:
"'-It ~ ,\ \ ( )<J:. 00/ NO<thW~ " ) ,
. fl ~H~ I~~ t\~~, \ ",j ~~ _Ck~ ~~' ~ v:
- 7 I trl "E116th\~~\\\<<\'~~ I T~/ \ ~)Q\ ~
~~~J ji/, ~f;~~'\\ '1~j/j/~ \~VIJ ~W'
if, t / J I p~~tJ;; J~ ~ ~I 'f(
/' 7 7 ~ ( !fZ ~ C) ~
~/ ~
- ~ ,c I / .
/ k"a, \. ' ,. 0:: ) ....---, \
.......... ~, II / \ \1\
1/ J~ ~ ',. ~Yff1; / ~ ~~eIl11 ,') ~'
(> 7~3y-/ y.. ,jrl / ~ J \ iE" ",-,kL _ Ii / / fJ "'- R-oposed Stream Realignment
~~J//' 1 ~ :~ /// 1
~~~/ ~ J \~~~Vrii~~r::
~ 0. ~ .... 'if' :\\ ~ ~.,... R-oposed Limestone Pit Expansion
\ ~-r~ "'~ Wh 'l \ Y l
, ~'/ \ :1\G '/
\ / : .rj~~ ~/ {, Existing Mining Operation
E!96thSt.r-::~ ~...-/ ~ .,/ (
",{I,I/I__ ___ ~ \/ I.
Well
,
'"
'"",
"
"'"
"
"
'"
" ,
'~
Mine Recirculation Ponds