The Hydrogeological Behaviour of Flooded Sand and Gravel

Pits and its Implications for the Functioning of the Enclosing

Aquifers

Mineral Industry Sustainable Technology (MIST)

Programme

Catherine J Gandy
Paul L Younger
John Henstock (Symonds Group)
Toby Gill (Symonds Group)
Duncan Wardrop (Lafarge Aggregates Ltd)

Hydrogeochemical Engineering
Research and Outreach (HERO)
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

March 2004
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction

1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives of Study

2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Hydrogeological behaviour of flooded sand and gravel pits
2.3 The issue of ‘blinding’
2.4 Conclusions

3 Sources of Silt in Flooded Sand and Gravel Pits

4 Study Sites

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Selected Sites
4.3 Stonecastle Quarry
4.4 Panshanger Quarry
4.5 Spade Oak Quarry

5 Data Collection

5.1 List of Data provided by Symonds Group and Lafarge Aggregates Ltd
5.2 Creation of Database

6 Water level data

7 Hydrochemistry at Stonecastle Quarry

8 Groundwater modelling

8.1 Introduction
8.2 Model Development
8.2.1 Aquifer Characteristics
8.2.2 Boundary Conditions
8.2.3 Rivers
8.2.4 Pumping Wells
8.2.5 Restored Lakes
8.2.6 Model Properties
8.3 Model Calibration

9 Field testing

9.1 Present Stage

9.1.1 Introduction
9.1.2 Piezometer Head Levels, Stonecastle Quarry
9.1.3 Chemical Sampling
9.2 Next Stage

10 Conclusions and recommendations for future work

11 Reference
1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The axes of many of England’s major river valleys host a large number of abandoned
former sand-and-gravel operations, which have invariably flooded up to the local
water table level, suggesting the existence of hydraulic connectivity with the
enclosing aquifers. Although they are widely appreciated as recreation amenities, for
e.g. fishing and water sports, very little work has been carried out on the water
resources implications of the presence of these large pit lakes. A literature review has
revealed that the only paper in the open literature which deals specifically with the
hydrological effects of sand-and-gravel extraction is that of Morgan-Jones et al
(1984), which is now 20 years old. Recent opposition to proposed extraction
developments, particularly the restoration of sand and gravel pits to open water
bodies, has claimed that blinding of the floors and walls of these pits (erosion and
subsequent deposition) with silt and / or organic sediment has effectively isolated
them from the enclosing aquifers, so that they may represent isolated blocks of water
effectively lost to the regional resource. Given the increasing pressures on water
resources in the rapidly urbanising valleys of southern England, this allegation has
direct implications on the likelihood of obtaining planning approval for future
aggregate operations. It is therefore essential to assess the connectivity between
flooded sand and gravel pits and the enclosing aquifers and to determine the extent of
blinding, if any, taking place.

1.2 Objectives of study

The overall objective of this work was defined as “to investigate the connectivity
between flooded sand and gravel pits and the surrounding aquifers, in order to make a
robust assessment of the claim that blinding of the floors and walls of these pits with
silt and / or organic sediment has effectively isolated them from the enclosing
aquifers”.

To meet this purpose, a number of key objectives have been pursued, as follows:

− to collate all previous data and reports concerning the selected sites, collating the
information into a Microsoft Access database
− to analyse available data in order to determine the likely presence of blinding of
the floors and walls of abandoned sand and gravel pits
− to use physically-based groundwater modelling of selected sites to help investigate
the relationship between the pits lakes and enclosing aquifers
− to directly measure the permeability of pit floors and walls using specially
designed mini-piezometers

1
2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

A literature review has been carried out on the connection between flooded sand and
gravel pits and the enclosing aquifers. Initially, the hydrogeological behaviour of
flooded sand and gravel pits and pit lakes in general is investigated which leads onto
the issue of potential blinding of the floors and walls of pit lakes, including the effect
of siltation in other open water bodies on recharge.

2.2 Hydrogeological behaviour of flooded sand and gravel pits

The hydrogeological behaviour of a flooded sand and gravel pit depends essentially
on the elevation of its floor in relation to the local water table. Two main scenarios
can occur (Younger et al., 2002):

− Where there is no connection between the base of the pit and the water table, the
pit is likely to behave as a focus for groundwater recharge. Surface runoff will
collect in the pit floor from where it will infiltrate as groundwater recharge.
Additional processes, including evaporation and overspill, contribute to the loss of
water from the pit. Erosion of the walls and floor of the void can lead to a build up
of fine-grained silt in the base of the pit, producing a low permeability layer which
can locally perch water so that infiltration can only occur through the side walls
when the water level rises above the silt layer. This process of restricting
infiltration through the pit floor is termed ‘blinding’ and is illustrated in Figure
2.1.

Figure 2.1 Abandoned pit above the water table showing ‘blinding’ of the pit floor
with silt to produce locally perched water (after Younger et al., 2002).

− Where excavation of sand and gravel has taken place to a depth below the water
table, the cessation of dewatering will lead to a gradual filling of the pit until the
water level equals that of the surrounding aquifer, forming a ‘pit lake’ (Figure
2.2). Many of these pit lakes are ‘through flow’ lakes since all the water entering
the lakes (by lateral groundwater inflow or precipitation / surface runoff) at their
up-gradient margins is delivered back to the subsurface by lateral groundwater
outflow at their down-gradient margins (Figure 2.3). Through-flow configurations
of this type are to be expected in the sand-and-gravel aquifers of central and
southern England (Morgan-Jones et al., 1984).
2
Figure 2.2 Pit lake formed where the floor of the pit lies below the water table (after
Younger et al., 2002).

Figure 2.3 Drainage into and out of a pit lake by lateral groundwater flow (after
Younger et al., 2002).

Effectively, pit lakes represent net sinks for groundwater. Since they represent the
replacement of what was previously solid ground by expanses of open water, loss of
water to evaporation can be expected to greatly exceed the actual evapotranspiration
which would have occurred from the undisturbed, soil covered ground. This
represents a loss of water from the groundwater system. Evaporation also serves to
increase the concentrations of all solutes (pollutants included) in pit lakes (Younger et
al., 2002). In addition, water pumped out of the aquifer is usually discharged into a
surface water course and is therefore likely to be lost from the local groundwater
system, drying up water supplies and possibly changing the overall direction of
groundwater flow (Hobbs and Gunn, 1998). Winter (1999) also notes that, due to the
shallow depth of groundwater near surface water found in most landscapes,
transpiration directly from groundwater to nearshore vegetation can intercept
groundwater that would otherwise discharge to surface water. Hatva (1994), on the
other hand, claims that in Finland the removal of vegetation for gravel extraction
leads to an increase in recharge due to a decrease in evapotranspiration. He states that
at gravel extraction sites groundwater amounts to 60–70 % of precipitation, whereas
in natural groundwater areas it amounts to approximately 50-60 %. This may be a
direct result of different climatic conditions. For example, in Florida lake evaporation
is typically on the order of 1270 mm/year while evapotranspiration is considered to be
insignificant in comparison (Garlanger and Shrestha, 1991).

3
Pit lakes also represent zones of ‘infinite permeability’ within an aquifer (Younger et
al., 2002) which affects the hydraulic balance of the local area and causes a
permanent shift in regional piezometric patterns so that flow lines tend to converge on
them (Hobbs and Gunn, 1998). In theory, the water level will attain a level midway
between the groundwater levels that existed at the upstream and downstream ends of
the pit before the gravel was extracted. To satisfy this condition, groundwater levels
must fall upgradient of the pit and rise downgradient of it (Morgan-Jones et al., 1984).
Therefore, if the pre-extraction water table profile is compared with the long-term
profile once a pit lake is established, it will be found that the latter is steeper than the
pre-mining water table immediately up-gradient from the pit lake and gentler down-
gradient of it (Figure 2.4). According to Darcy’s Law, the steeper water table feeding
into the pit lake means that a greater volume of water feeds into that zone of the
aquifer than before mining, therefore creating a zone of ‘infinite permeability’ and
high unit storativity (Younger et al., 2002). However, according to Dudgeon (1985),
non-Darcy flow can cause significant reductions in groundwater flows into open-pit
mines in highly permeable aquifers with significant non-Darcy head losses observed
at considerable distances from the pit boundary.

Figure 2.4 Pre-extraction and post-pit lake formation water table profiles around a
pit lake in flooded sand-and-gravel workings (after Younger et al.,
2002).

As mentioned in Section 1.1, a review of the open literature has revealed that little
work has been undertaken on the water resources implications of pit lakes with the
most detailed paper that written by Morgan-Jones et al. (1984). Schanen et al. (1998)
estimated groundwater flow and permeabilities for a five gravel-pit lake system
situated near the Seine river, upstream of Paris, using water balance modelling
parameter optimisation. Their results were compared to available information on the
studied material and were found to agree. They assumed that the total water input to
each lake equals the total water output plus the net change in storage in the basin. The
total water inputs are precipitation, groundwater inflows and external discharge, and
the outputs are evaporation, groundwater outflows and pumped storage. Schanen et al.

4
(1998) calculated interface discharges using Darcy’s law while all other parameters of
the water balance were measured or estimated.

Hatva (1994) studied the effect of gravel extraction on groundwater in Finland over a
five year period. He concluded that the impact of a gravel extraction site on the
surroundings depends on the following factors:

− Extent of the gravel extraction site and thickness of unsaturated zone

− Location of the gravel extraction site in the groundwater system
− Direction and velocity of groundwater flow
− Effect of water withdrawal on the flow pattern of groundwater
− Natural quality of groundwater and its variation
− Geological structure of the aquifer and its geographic location
− Other activities affecting groundwater quality such as application of salt for dust
control, burying or dumping of wastes etc.

He explains how gravel extraction in Finland is limited by tight controls related to

groundwater protection such that no changes to groundwater are caused that make it
hazardous to human health or otherwise impair its quality. In this way, it is
recommended that gravel extraction only takes place in areas where the adverse
effects and risks are as small as possible. This is managed through a zoning system.
No gravel extraction below the water table is allowed in groundwater areas classified
as important.

Although a sparse amount of literature exists on pit lakes created from flooded sand-
and-gravel pits, other pit lakes, i.e. those formed by the flooding of final voids
following other types of open pit mining, have been studied in greater detail. Several
authors have noted the difference in physical characteristics of pit lakes compared to
natural lakes (Castro and Moore, 2000; Miller et al., 1996). One such characteristic is
relative depth; pit lakes have markedly higher relative depths than natural lakes. A
typical natural lake has a relative depth of less than 2 %, although some may exceed
5%. Pit lakes, on the other hand, commonly have relative depths between 10 and 40 %
(Castro and Moore, 2000). In the same way, natural lakes are much wider than they
are deep, whereas pit lakes are usually deep with small diameter-to-depth ratios
(Miller et al., 1996). In the case of flooded sand and gravel pits, however, a more
close approximation to the relative depths of natural lakes can be expected.

The relationship between pit lakes and aquifers has wide implications for the water
resources of an area, not least since there is the potential for saline water to move out
of the pit lake into surrounding aquifers, impacting on local and regional water
quality. Hall (2000) studied salinity issues relating to decommissioned open pits in
Western Australia. In regions where annual evaporation significantly exceeds annual
rainfall, as is the case for all of Western Australia’s mining provinces, following
cessation of mining and the recovery of water levels in the final voids, evaporation
from the pit water surface leads to an increase in pit water salinity. These evaporative
losses become a major component of the pit water balance and the pit becomes, to
some degree, a groundwater sink (Hall, 2000). The same can apply where pits are in
good hydraulic connection with aquifers if the surface area of the final void is large
enough for evaporative loss to exceed groundwater inflow. If, on the other hand,
groundwater inflows exceed evaporative losses there will be some groundwater

5
outflow, thereby creating a ‘throughflow’ pit (Figure 2.3). Finally, where pit inflows
exceed evaporation the final void becomes a source of groundwater recharge.

In the Pilbara region of Western Australia, extensive investigations have been carried
out before the granting of approval for new mine operations in order to assess the
impacts on surrounding aquifers (Hall, 2000). At one such site, investigations have
been directed at developing mine closure plans to restrict impacts on the local
groundwater system and reduce the impacts on the local surface water flow system
and reliant vegetation. This work has involved many years of data collection and
predictive modelling of future impacts, using both regional scale numerical flow
models and mine site-specific analytical models to assess the interaction between the
final pits and the local aquifers. This work has taken over 10 years to complete (Hall,
2000).

Similarly, in the UK, planning authorities must, by law, consult external bodies for
comment on different aspects of planning applications for mineral developments, e.g.
the Environment Agency in respect of the impact of quarrying on ground and surface
water (Wardrop et al., 2001). In order to predict any interaction between a mineral
working and the water environment, an understanding is required of the local
hydrogeology and geology. Any mitigation measures, if required, can be designed
from the beginning of the planning process until after the life-time of the site.

Shevenell (2000) developed a simple analytical model for predicting filling rates of
mining pit lakes. To determine the timing of lake filling, the volumes of water in the
pit at discrete times and the potential inflow and outflow rates into and out of the pit
lakes, a simple water balance was constructed for the lakes:

∆S = P − E + R + GWi − GWo [1]

where:

∆S is the change in storage in the pit lake

P is the precipitation
E is the evaporation
R is the runoff
GWi is the groundwater inflow to the pit
GWo is the groundwater outflow from the pit

This was tested against known water level rises through time and was found to
compare favourably with observed water levels. The model was used to investigate
the general flow conditions and the temporal characteristics of flow into pit lakes.

According to Winter (1999), the interactions of lakes with groundwater are affected
by several factors, all of which need to be taken into account for thorough
understanding of their hydrology. Such interactions are affected by: the positions of
the lakes with respect to groundwater flow systems; geologic characteristics of their
beds; climatic settings. He also demonstrates, by the use of many examples, that
where groundwater moves to or from a lake underlain by isotropic and homogeneous
porous media, the flux is greatest near the shoreline and decreases approximately
exponentially away from the shoreline.

6
2.3 The issue of ‘blinding’

Although very little literature exists on the process of blinding of the floors of pit
lakes with sediment, similar conditions have been observed in artificial recharge
trenches (e.g. Bouwer et al., 1999). Watson and Whisler (1977) compared flow rates
calculated through a profile of sand for conditions of “no air access” and “adequate air
access” and concluded that the significance of the changes in groundwater level in
relation to the intake rate depends on whether air is able to enter the pores of the
saturated porous material beneath the trench.

Similarly, sedimentation of prairie wetlands can have the same effects as blinding in
pit lakes. In fact, sediment is the major pollutant of wetlands, lakes, rivers and
estuaries in the United States (Gleason and Euliss, 1998). Wetland sedimentation has
been found to alter local groundwater flow patterns. Precipitation that was once lost
through evapotranspiration or infiltration to groundwater before entering wetlands in
grassland catchments may now enter wetlands via spates of surface runoff from tilled
catchments. In addition, siltation reduces the water storage capacity and flood
attenuation benefits of wetlands while also increasing turbidity which reduces the
depth of the photic zone and increases sediment fallout which may cover primary
producers and invertebrates (Gleason and Euliss, 1998).

According to Weisser (1978), the prevailing winds play a major role in the erosion
and siltation pattern in shallow lakes whereby wind driven water turbulence erodes
the lake floor so that silt is resuspended and transported by means of waterdrift into
the littoral vegetation. Due to the resistance of the vegetation, the turbulence is
reduced and the silt deposited. The larger the surface, the greater the amount of fetch,
and the more effective the siltation system. A similar problem concerning
sedimentation has been observed in the hydro-electric storage lakes of South Island,
New Zealand (Pickrill, 1987).

2.4 Conclusions

In conclusion, it can be seen that, despite suggestions that pit blinding is a common
and frequently encountered phenomenon, the literature review has revealed that in
fact this is not the case. Documented instances are very rare which may mean either
the process is rare or else that instances have not been researched. However, it is clear
that the hydrogeological behaviour of a flooded sand and gravel pit depends on the
connectivity of the pit lake with the water table. Erosion of the walls and floor of the
pit lake can in principle lead to ‘blinding’, which can restrict infiltration and may
isolate the pit lake from the underlying aquifer, or at least reduce the hydraulic
connection between them. This is a similar process to that observed in artificial
recharge trenches and prairie wetlands.

7
3 Sources of Silt in Flooded Sand and Gravel Pits

Sources of fine grained low permeability materials in flooded sand and gravel pits
may include some or all of (Duncan Wardrop, pers. comm.):

− Soil, overburden and clay cast back into the working during excavation
− Fines washed out of the in-situ deposit
− Biogenic sources, such as leaves, tree debris, animal waste from fish, birds,
invertebrates etc, and plant growth in or under the water
− Transported sediment from watercourses or erosion of surrounding land
In the case of material cast back into the workings, the volume, and therefore
thickness, of low permeability material available is strongly influenced by the age of
the excavation. Older excavations, prior to the 1970’s, were often worked wet using
draglines while modern restoration techniques were rare. It was not uncommon for
soil and overburden to be cast sideways back into the water, a problem which does not
occur in modern excavations, those worked both wet and dry, where the soils and
overburden are kept aside for formally designed restoration. Interleaved clays or silt,
or basal clays excavated for drainage purposes, will still legitimately be left in the
excavation. This factor also governs the condition of the sediment in-situ on the base
of the excavation.

Observations made by diving in several flooded sand and gravel pits (Duncan
Wardrop, pers. comm.) has yielded some qualitative information on the nature of low
permeability materials when they have been underwater for a number of years. Cast
back overburden and clay can tend to remain relatively solid, and exist on parts of a
pit floor as a reasonably consolidated layer. Cast back soils, on the other hand, remain
extremely unconsolidated underwater.

The other sources of sediment, particularly that washed out of the in-situ deposit and
biogenic sources, seem to remain extremely soft, ranging from fines which are
effectively in suspension in water to a very soft jelly-like consistency. The fate of
transported sediment is highly dependent upon its mineralogy and particle size.

Blinding potential differs strongly between the walls of an excavation and its floor
(Duncan Wardrop, pers. comm.). The walls, particularly in older excavations, are
usually quite steep and do not tend to silt up, apart from perhaps a superficial layer (1
to 2 cm thick) of very soft material. The floor of an excavation is strongly influenced
in shape by the method of excavation, wet or dry worked. In the older, wet-worked,
pits there will commonly be a marked ridge and furrow topography with a relief
typically of one to one and a half metres. In these circumstances, the silt will tend to
concentrate in the furrows and arguably reduce permeability by a small amount.
Where the ridges are of granular material, they may still maintain a good hydraulic
connection with an underlying aquifer. In fact, modern planning conditions, where a
gravel overlies a solid geology aquifer, such as chalk or sherwood sandstone, will
usually require a metre or so of sand and gravel to remain on the floor of the working
in order to prevent migration of fines into the aquifer.

Vegetation within flooded sand and gravel pits usually comprises various plants
growing on the substrate or on the excavation walls. Clearly, this is strongly
influenced by the nature of the substrate, nutrient input to the water system, and light.
8
According to Duncan Wardrop (pers. comm.), in reasonably clear water, vegetation is
usually present down to a depth of approximately 4.5 m, but rarely deeper than this.
Sometimes, however, algalmats or filament-like organic material may be seen
throughout the entire depth.

4 Site Selection

4.1 Introduction

Three sites have been selected to examine the behaviour of flooded sand and gravel
pits. The sites were chosen to represent the widest variety of geological and
hydrogeological conditions that could influence ‘blinding’ the bed of the flooded sand
and gravel pits. These conditions range from variations in the underlying geology
(whether an aquifer or non-aquifer), the length of time that the pit lakes have been
established, the sand and gravel extraction method (wet or dry worked), variations in
the topography of the local water table and hydraulic gradient, and differences as to
sources of fine material that may act to blind the pit lakes.

The three selected sites are:

− Stonecastle Farm Quarry, East Peckham, Kent;

− Panshanger Quarry, near Hertford, Hertfordshire;
− Spade Oak Quarry, Marlow, Buckinghamshire.
More detailed descriptions of the three quarry sites and their environments are
described below; however, the following brief discussion demonstrates the wide
variety of conditions available from the three sites. Both Stonecastle Farm Quarry and
Panshanger Quarry are active workings which contain pit lakes that have only
recently been restored. Spade Oak Quarry, however, provides an example of a well-
established pit lake where the quarry workings have been completed and the site
restored. Spade Oak and Panshanger quarries provide examples where the deposit is
underlain by the Chalk major aquifer, and their pit lakes have been ‘wet worked’. In
the case of Stonecastle, the sand and gravel deposit is underlain by Weald Clay non
aquifer, and was ‘dry worked’. The hydraulic gradient at Panshanger quarry is
comparatively steep, representing the upper reaches of a hillside catchment, whereas
conversely, the hydraulic gradient at Stonecastle is relatively flat reflecting its low
lying, flat, surface topography. Groundwater at Spade Oak is strongly influenced by
the adjacent River Thames. Natural introduction of fines into the aquifer system at
Stonecastle may be further aided by cultivation of the surrounding arable land and its
tendency to be flooded by the River Medway.

Each of these quarry sites have been or are currently operated by Lafarge Aggregates
Ltd, while the Symonds Group have had involvement in the Stonecastle Farm Quarry
and the Panshanger Quarry. This report provides a brief description of the quarry
workings and justification for the selection for each of these sites.

4.2 Stonecastle Farm Quarry, East Peckham, Kent

Stonecastle Farm Quarry is an active working, situated on the floodplain of the River
Medway. The area is low lying, flat arable land which is cultivated annually. The site

9
contains two pit lakes that have recently been restored and one large un-restored pit
lake where excavation was completed in 2002.

The mineral deposit comprises shallow sand and gravel deposits, which form a minor
aquifer, and is overlain by alluvium and brickearth. The Weald Clay, a non-aquifer,
underlies the sand and gravel.

The extraction of material began mid 1982, with the initial extraction areas infilled in
a sealed cell landfill with no significant water areas. Further planning consent was
obtained in 1993, which led to the creation of the pit lakes on the site beginning in
1994. The material has been extracted by dry working the quarry, involving
dewatering in the extraction phase. The extraction of material is now proceeding over
a 20 year, 6 phase program. The excavation of material from the most recent lake was
completed in 2002, with the material extracted using a cutter suction dredger.

The River Medway is controlled by a series of sluice gates along the reach adjacent to
the quarry site, which are designed to flood this low-lying section of the floodplain
during flood conditions. The flooding of the area, combined with the presence of
loose soil within the fissures in the overlying brickearth, are potential sources for fine
alluvial material that could be drawn to aid ‘blinding’ the bed of the pit lakes. As part
of the extension scheme for the current excavation, Symonds have been monitoring
the groundwater levels monthly and have groundwater loggers installed in four
primary monitoring boreholes.

4.3 Panshanger Quarry

Panshanger Quarry is situated in the valley of the River Mimram and excavates the
fluvial glacial sands and gravels. Underlying the glacial deposits is the Upper Chalk,
which is classified as a major aquifer. There is likely to be hydraulic continuity
between the Glacial deposits and the Chalk.
The quarry is an active workings with the present extraction beginning in 1977. The
material has been largely wet worked due to the sensitivity of the site. The site
contains three pit lakes, the first two of which have been fully excavated and restored.
The first and most easterly lake was restored in 1992 and the second, to the south of
the River Mimram, was completed early 2003. The third lake forms the current
extraction area, with extraction of material beginning in 2002. This third lake will
form the eastern extremity of a final bigger lake once the extraction of material has
been completed.
The valley of the River Mimram comprises relatively steep hillside, compared to the
low-lying area at Stonecastle Farm Quarry, and consequently the groundwater has a
locally steep hydraulic gradient. The River Mimram is a highly sensitive Chalk stream
that has been the subject of a low flow study. Symonds Group hold groundwater level
data from on-site monitoring boreholes and detailed relative levels between two
abstraction lagoons at the quarry site and the adjacent River Mimram, taken over a
month long investigation.

10
4.4 Spade Oak Quarry

Spade Oak Quarry has the longest established pit lake of the three sites. The quarry
workings extracted Thames Valley Gravels, which are directly underlain by the
Middle Chalk, which is classified as a major aquifer.

The original large pit lake had already been completed when Redland Aggregates
acquired the quarry site in 1991. The original planning consents for this pit lake were
granted in 1958 and 1961 and the work was completed in the mid-1980’s. The
excavation of material is thought to have been completed by wet working. The
planning consent on the area to the north of the pit lake was granted in 1988 and the
area has been worked and restored by infilling the excavation. The current excavation
obtained consent in 1993 and has been dry worked and is being restored by infilling
with inert material.
The groundwater in the sands and gravels is controlled by the River Thames and has
an element of artificial level control due to Teddington lock, some miles downstream
of the quarry site.

5 Data Collection

5.1 List of Data provided by Symonds Group and Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Symonds Group supplied groundwater level data for 39 monitoring boreholes at

Stonecastle Quarry, with records dating from January 1990 to January 2004. The full
range of data is not available for each borehole, with additional boreholes added over
time and older ones discontinued. However, approximately monthly groundwater
levels are available for 24 boreholes for the past 2 years and borehole logs were
supplied for 18 boreholes. Hydrochemical data was also provided by Symonds Group
for 3 sampling occasions (February 2002, August 2002 and November 2002) for 3
locations on the River Medway, an un-restored lake, a restored lake, 2 drainage
ditches and 8 monitoring boreholes, along with meteorological data in the form of
monthly rainfall and potential evapotranspiration. A variety of reports were also made
available, including a preliminary desk study of the site (2000), a groundwater
modelling report (2001) and a background chemical sampling report (2003). Lafarge
Aggregates Ltd provided the latest site plans.

For Panshanger Quarry, Symonds Group supplied approximately monthly

groundwater level data for 22 monitoring boreholes for the period December 1997 to
October 2000 while Lafarge Aggregates Ltd supplied more recent groundwater level
data, up to September 2003. Additional data was made available from January 1983
until December 1997 for 4 of the boreholes. In addition, Symonds Group provided
surface water level data, from the results of groundwater loggers installed in the River
Mimram, an abstraction lagoon and a top-up lagoon, from 4th July 2001 to 25th
September 2001, as well as meteorological data, comprising daily rainfall and
potential evapotranspiration. Additional monthly surface water level data was
provided for 4 locations sampled between December 1997 and September 2003. A
variety of reports were also made available, including a desk study associated with an
application for an increased abstraction licence (2001), a water abstraction

11
investigation report (2001) and a background hydrogeology report (1999). Lafarge
Aggregates Ltd again supplied the latest site plans.

Very little data exists for Spade Oak Quarry, Marlow, but Lafarge Aggregates Ltd
provided approximately monthly groundwater level data for 17 monitoring boreholes
for the period March 1994 to January 2004. An incomplete record exists for several of
these boreholes.

5.2 Creation of Database

A Microsoft Access database has been created to process all available data (as
detailed in Section 5.1) into a consistent, usable format to support further work. This
comprises groundwater level data for the three study sites (Stonecastle Quarry,
Panshanger Quarry and Spade Oak Quarry) and surface water levels for Stonecastle
Quarry and Panshanger Quarry. The limited hydrochemical data for Stonecastle
Quarry is also included within the database.

6 Water Level Data

Analysis of groundwater levels across the site of Stonecastle Quarry has revealed that
groundwater levels in the vicinity of the pit lakes are generally lower than those near
to the River Medway. The water levels across the entire site are shown in Figure 6.1
for the period March 2002 to July 2003. Further water level data for Stonecastle
Quarry following the installation of mini-piezometers around the restored lakes is
given in Section 9.

The groundwater levels at Panshanger Quarry are shown in Figure 6.2 for the period
March 2002 to September 2003. These are relatively constant with little variation
between boreholes, apart from borehole 11b where groundwater levels are
significantly higher.

Similarly, the groundwater levels at Spade Oak Quarry, shown in Figure 6.3 for the
period January 2002 to December 2003, are relatively constant with little difference
between boreholes.

12
 18

BH A
BH G
17 BH Q
WM 1
WM 2
WM 3
16 WM 4
Water Level (mAOD)

WM 5
WM 6
WM 7
15
WM 8
WM 9
WM 10
WM 11
14
WM 12
WM 13
WM 14
WM 15
13
WM 16
WM 17
WM 18
12 WM 19
WM 20
02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

03

03

03

03

03

03

03
WM 21
3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/

9/

0/

1/

2/

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/
/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/1

/1

/1

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0
01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01
Date

Figure 6.1 Groundwater levels across Stonecastle Quarry

13
 80

BH1
70
BH2
BH3
60 BH4
WM1
Water Level (mAOD)

50 WM2
WM3
WM5
40
WM6
WM7
30 WM8
WM9
20 WM10
WM11a
WM11b
10
WM12
WM13
0 WM14
21.03.02

24.04.02

29.05.02

25.07.02

21.10.02

17.12.02

14.04.03

05.06.03

02.08.03
3.03.03
WM15
WM16

Date

Figure 6.2 Groundwater levels across Panshanger Quarry

14
 35

30 BH2
BH3
BH4
25
BH5
Water Levels (mAOD)

BH7
20 BH8
BH9
BH10
15 BH11
BH12
BH13
10
BH15
BH16
5 BH17

0
16.01.02

18.04.02

11.06.02

26.08.02

24.09.02

23.10.02

18.12.02

17.03.03

24.04.03

18.06.03

09.10.03

02.12.03
Date

Figure 6.3 Groundwater levels across Spade Oak Quarry

15
7 Hydrochemistry at Stonecastle Quarry

Water quality data for both groundwater and surface waters at Stonecastle Quarry
show the un-restored worked area and a restored lake to have different chemical
characteristics. While the un-restored area shows similar chemistry to that of the
groundwater (Figure 7.1), suggesting groundwater inflow induced by either
dewatering or through flow, the restored lake area shows a more distinctive chemistry,
more influenced by surface run-off. It is possible this could reflect limited continuity
with the groundwater due to a build-up of silt around the base of the lake (i.e.
blinding) but further data and analysis is required before any conclusions can be
made.

80.0

70.0

60.0
Concentration (mg/l)

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
Calcium Sodium Sulphate Chloride Bicarbonate Magnesium

Typical Groundwater Un-Restored Worked Area Restored Lake

Figure 7.1 Chemical characteristics of selected groundwater and surface waters at

Stonecastle Quarry

Following analysis of this data (both water levels and hydrochemical data), a decision
was made to concentrate our efforts on Stonecastle Quarry due to a greater supply of
data being available for that site. We are currently awaiting results of further
hydrochemical sampling at Stonecastle Quarry which will be included in the final
version of this report.

8 Groundwater Modelling

8.1 Introduction

A groundwater modelling study has been carried out for Stonecastle Quarry which
focuses on the area around the restored lakes and uses the collated data detailed in
Section 5.1. The general hydrogeological background to the area is described in the
various reports supplied by Symonds Group which includes a preliminary
hydrogeological desk study (Symonds Group, 2000) and a groundwater modelling
study of the proposed western extension to the site (Symonds Group, 2001a). The aim
of the groundwater modelling study is to assess the relationship between water loss
from the lakes and the local groundwater levels.
16
8.2 Model Development

The model was set up using GMS, a powerful groundwater modelling package which
uses MODFLOW, one of the most widely used 3D groundwater flow models.

8.2.1 Aquifer Characteristics

As described in Section 4.3, Stonecastle Quarry is situated on a shallow alluvial sand

and gravel aquifer on the River Medway floodplain. These alluvial, sub-alluvial and
river terrace sand and gravels are typically 2.5 to 4 metres in thickness and are
overlain by finer grained alluvium and ‘brickearth’ deposits, typically 1 to 2 metres in
thickness. The gravels are underlain by the relatively impermeable Lower Cretaceous
Weald Clay and it is assumed that there is no significant groundwater flow across the
gravel / Weald Clay interface. The areal extent of the aquifer was determined from the
published geology maps (both solid and drift) of the area (British Geological Survey
Sheet 287) and generally corresponds to the areas shown as alluvium, river terrace
and brickearth deposits on the drift map. It was decided to use a single layer model to
represent the sand and gravel aquifer with the upper surface taken to be the boundary
between the sand and gravel deposits and the finer grained alluvium and brickearth
deposits while the lower surface was taken to be an impermeable boundary between
the gravels and the Weald Clay. Borehole logs were used to define the top and bottom
of the sand and gravel aquifer, with GMS interpolating in areas with sparse data,
while the local Ordnance Survey Landranger map (Sheet 188) was used to define the
land surface. With limited borehole data available away from the area surrounding the
quarry and estimates having to be made based on typical drift thicknesses and ground
elevations, this could be construed as a potential source of error within the model.

8.2.2 Boundary Conditions

A section of the Ordnance Survey map was imported into GMS and used as a base
from which to set up the model (Figure 8.1). The model boundaries were defined as
follows:

Northern Boundary

The northern boundary of the conceptual model was generally taken as the
northernmost edge of the sand and gravels outcrop which was taken to be a no-flow
boundary.

Southern Boundary

The southern boundary of the conceptual model was taken as the southernmost
mapped extent of the sand and gravels. Again, this was taken to be a no-flow
boundary.

Western Boundary

The western boundary was defined as a general head boundary with a head of 21.5
mAOD specified at a distance of 400 m from the western edge of the model and a
permeability to the boundary of 200 m/d (Symonds Group, 2001a).
Eastern Boundary

17
The northernmost part of the eastern boundary was defined by the line taken by the
River Bourne until its confluence with the River Medway and is represented by river
cells. From the confluence to the southern boundary, the eastern boundary was
defined as a general head boundary with a head varying from 12.77 to 13.2 mAOD at
a distance of 100 m from the eastern edge of the model.

8.2.3 Rivers

A number of surface water features exist in the area defined by the conceptual model.
The River Medway itself flows adjacent to Stonecastle Farm Quarry, where it is
controlled by a series of sluice gates along its reach, designed to flood this low lying,
lowly populated section of the valley during flood conditions. Hammer Dyke is a
minor surface water channel which divides from the River Medway to the east of
Tonbridge and flows south then east, crossing the site, before dividing again, part
rejoining the River Medway and part joining Alders Stream (Figure 8.1). Alders
Stream, a tributary of the River Medway, flows to the south of Stonecastle Quarry and
joins the River Medway beyond the eastern boundary of the model. Both Hammer
Dyke and Alders Stream are said to always contain flow (Symonds Group, 2001a) and
are therefore represented in the model as rivers.

Rivers are represented in MODFLOW by the river package, which allows for the
specification of a fixed head and a conductance term relating to the hydraulic
connection of the river to the underlying aquifer. The conductance term is calculated
from the area of the river within the model cell mulitplied by the permeability of the
riverbed sediments and divided by the thickness of the sediments. In GMS, the
conductance term is input as a per unit length value and GMS automatically computes
the appropriate cell conductance value when the rivers are assigned to the grid cells.

The maintained levels of the River Medway, as well as measured levels of the River
Bourne, Hammer Dyke and Alders Stream, are given in the groundwater modelling
report of Symonds Group (2001a). These were used as river head levels in the model
(Table 1). The conductance term for the River Medway was calculated using an
average channel width of 10 m, hydraulic conductivity of 0.05 m/d and a river bed
thickness of 0.5 m. For Hammer Dyke and Alders Stream, conductance was
calculated using an average channel width of 2 m, hydraulic conductivity of 0.001
m/d and a default bed thickness of 0.3 m. These are represented as having a lower
degree of connection with the gravels than the River Medway since their channels are
more silty and less deep, lying within the alluvial layer overlying the gravels
(Symonds Group, 2001a).

18
Table 1 River levels in model (after Symonds Group, 2001a)

Grid Level Base of

River Reach River
References (mAOD)
(mAOD)
Western model GR 569150,
River Medway boundary to 462090 to 21.09 19.5
Town Lock GR 592240,
464030
GR 592240,
River Medway Town Lock to 464030 to 19.51 18
Eldridges Lock GR 613530,
471630
GR 613530,
Eldridges Lock to 471630 to
River Medway 17.91 16.4
Porters Sluice GR 621410,
469970
GR 621410,
River Medway Porters Sluice to 469970 to 16.61 15.1
East Lock GR 640770,
471910
GR 640770,
River Medway East Lock to Old 471910 to 14.78 13.25
Weir Lock GR 652390,
469830
GR 652390,
Old Weir Lock to
River Medway 469830 to 12.67 11.25
Eastern model
GR 664690,
boundary
476610
Northern model GR 650450,
River Bourne boundary to 481860 to 13.0 - 12 - 11.25
River Medway GR 664690, 12.77
confluence 476610
Southern model GR 645060,
Alders Stream boundary to 447850 to 14.87 – 14.5 –
Eastern model GR 667180, 12.9 12.4
boundary 472180
Upstream
division from GR 621410,
Hammer Dyke River Medway to 469970 to 17.86 – 17.75 –
downstream GR 652390, 12.75 12.25
confluence with 469830
River Medway

19
8.2.4 Pumping Wells

A number of pumping wells are represented within the model. Southeast Water
Company operates the Hartlake source (GR 625310, 471660), which is located just to
the west of Stonecastle Quarry. The maximum licensed abstraction limit of 915000
m3/year was divided by 365 calendar days to get a maximum rate of 2500 m3/day
which was input into the model.

Abstraction by Lafarge for gravel washing purposes at Stonecastle Quarry is

represented by wells around GR 655860, 464830, at the eastern end of the site. The
licensed abstraction is 3061.4 m3/day but most of this water is recycled so only 20 %
of the licensed abstraction is modelled, with a value of 600 m3/day input into the
model.

RMC Aggregates (Southern) Ltd abstracts groundwater at Postern Park, Tonbridge,

where the total daily licensed abstraction of 4364 m3/day was input into the model.

Abstraction also takes place at Stonecastle Quarry to allow dry working of the current
excavation area. This is represented within the model by a series of wells which pump
a total of 2100 m3/day.

8.2.4 Restored Lakes

Initially, the restored lakes at Stonecastle Quarry (Figure 8.1) were represented by
general head boundary cells, but since pit lakes, unlike natural lakes, can be
effectively part of the groundwater system (i.e. ‘through-flow’ lakes, Section 2.2) it
was decided to model the restored lakes by a series of wells around the perimeter of
each, to represent losses due to evaporation. The average yearly open water
evaporation rate for the area is 677.45 mm. This equates to 47421.5 m3/year and
34931.02 m3/year of lake water lost to evaporation from the two restored lakes. In
terms of average daily evaporation rates, there is an estimated 129.92 m3/day and 95.7
m3/day water lost to evaporation from the restored lakes for steady state simulation.
Obviously rates will be higher than average in summer and lower than average in
winter, though until transient simulations are run this detail can not be incorporated.
These totals are divided between the number of wells surrounding the respective lakes
and input into the model as pumping rates.

8.2.5 Model Properties

The aquifer thickness and the top and base of the gravel aquifer were described in
Section 8.2.1.

The hydraulic conductivity for the gravels was taken from the report by Symonds
Group (2001a), following estimates by a number of methods using data from various
sources. A value of hydraulic conductivity of 160 m/d was used over the majority of
the model, with higher zones representing the restored lakes. Higher values were also
input into the cells containing abstraction wells to account for the increased hydraulic
conductivity due to pumping out of fines. The various zones and their hydraulic
conductivities are shown in Figure 8.2.

The recharge input into the model varied between the winter and summer calibrations.
In winter, a value of 7x10-4 m/day was used and, in summer, a value of 4.2x10-6
20
m/day. Over the restored lakes recharge was assumed to be zero since the lakes are
assumed to be ‘outcrops’ of the water table. A comparison of the total annual rainfall
and the total annual open water evaporation showed very little rainfall to be recharged
through open water so this assumption is felt to be justified.

21
Figure 8.1 Conceptual model showing boundary conditions, rivers, restored lakes and active working area

22
Figure 8.2 Hydraulic conductivity zones

23
8.3 Model Calibration

The model was calibrated against available data for February 2003, as a winter
scenario, and June 2003, as a summer scenario. Measured groundwater levels in 21
boreholes across the Stonecastle Quarry site were imported into GMS and compared
with the modelled predictions. In general, the model shows a good correlation
between observed and predicted groundwater levels. Figure 8.3 shows a plot of
computed versus observed heads for the winter scenario while Figure 8.4 shows
computed versus observed heads for the summer scenario. The summer scenario
proved more difficult to calibrate than the winter scenario, as can be seen from Figure
8.4. This is likely because of the lower saturated thickness in summer making the
model more sensitive to local variations in hydraulic conductivity (since T = K.b).

Figure 8.3 Computed versus observed groundwater heads (mAOD) for winter
scenario (February 2003)

24
Figure 8.4 Computed versus observed groundwater heads (mAOD) for summer
scenario (June 2003)

Similarly, Figure 8.5 shows a plot of the observed groundwater level against residual
(observed minus modelled head) for the winter scenario and Figure 8.6 shows the
same plot for the summer scenario. Positive residuals represent points where the
groundwater level in the model is lower than the observed while negative residuals are
points where the predicted groundwater level is higher than that observed. Both
scenarios have an equal number of observation points where the model either under-
predicts or over-predicts, showing a lack of systematic bias in the model. The residual
in any case is less than 0.75 m, which, given the available data, this degree of
correspondence is satisfactory.

Figure 8.5 Observed groundwater head versus residual (mAOD) for winter scenario
(February 2003)
25
Figure 8.6 Observed groundwater head versus residual (mAOD) for summer
scenario (June 2003)

Figures 8.7 and 8.8 show the modelled groundwater levels across the entire model for
the winter and summer scenarios respectively. Calibration targets are shown next to
each observation point. The centre of the target, adjacent to the observation point,
corresponds to the observed value. The top of the target corresponds to the observed
value plus the interval (the estimated error in the observed value, in this case set at 0.5
m) while the bottom corresponds to the observed value minus the interval (i.e. 0.5 m).
The coloured bar meanwhile represents the error. If the bar lies entirely within the
target, then the colour bar is green. If the bar is outside the target but the error is less
than 200 % (i.e 1 m), the bar is yellow, and if the error is greater than 200 %, the bar
is red. In the case of the winter scenario, only one target is coloured yellow, the rest
are green which means the predicted groundwater levels are within 0.5 m of the
observed groundwater levels. In the summer scenario, six of the targets are coloured
yellow which means that these predicted groundwater levels are between 0.5 m and 1
m different to the observed groundwater levels while the remaining targets are all
coloured green so are within 0.5 m of the observed heads.

It can be seen again from Figure 8.8 that there is not such a good correlation for the
summer calibration as the winter calibration. A small amount of drying out occurred
during the summer calibration, towards the southern boundary. This was also noted in
the previous report by Symonds (2001a) and was rectified by moving the southern no-
flow boundary further north to exclude areas of slightly higher river terrace deposits
which could possibly dry out as the water table falls during the summer months. In
order for the summer scenario to be calibrated successfully, the pumping rates at
several wells were reduced slightly. This is felt to be realistic since the rates used in
the winter scenario are average annual abstraction limits divided by 365 calendar
days. It is possible that pumping rates will be lower during the summer months due to
the lower groundwater levels. The amount of water lost to evaporation (represented by
pumping wells around the perimeter of the restored lakes) was also reduced slightly

26
for the summer scenario. Although evaporation rates may be expected to be higher
during the summer months, the lower rainfall totals could result in less surface area of
open water for evaporation to take place on.

27
Figure 8.7 Modelled groundwater levels for winter scenario (February 2003)

28
Figure 8.8 Modelled groundwater levels for summer scenario (June 2003)

29
In addition to the model calibrations, the mass balance for each scenario was
investigated. The results are set out in Tables 2 (winter scenario) and 3 (summer
scenario) below. The most striking difference between the two scenarios is the
recharge with, as expected, recharge being the predominant input to the groundwater
regime during the winter. In summer, the recharge is much lower. The other major
difference between the winter and summer mass balance summaries is that more
water is lost from the rivers during the summer months. This is probably attributable
to the pumping at the groundwater abstractions close to the River Medway.

Table 2 Mass balance summary for winter scenario (February 2003)

Sources / Sinks Flow In Flow Out

Recharge 19949
PumpingWells -8564
Pit Lake Evaporation -990
Rivers 158 -4706
General Heads 25.79 -4990
TOTAL 20132.79 -19250

Table 3 Mass balance summary for summer scenario (June 2003)

Sources / Sinks Flow In Flow Out

Recharge 1197
Pumping Wells -3800
Pit Lake Evaporation -550
Rivers 2183 -772
General Heads 1680 -142
TOTAL 5060 -5264

The imbalances between flows in and out are not very great (~ 4 %), and no doubt
reflect the ‘cold start’ of the simulations with unavoidable mismatches between real
and observed hydraulic conductivities. The amount of water lost to evaporation from
the pit lakes can be clearly seen. In this way, pit lakes represent a net sink to the
groundwater system, as mentioned in Section 2.2. In the absence of pit lakes, the flux
due to recharge over the areas covered by the pit lakes would be expected to be 85
m3/day in winter and 0.5 m3/day in summer.

9 Field Testing

9.1 Present Stage

9.1.1 Introduction

Piezometers have been used in this stage of the project for the purposes of
investigating the continuity between surface waters and groundwater. This in
particular is to investigate the depth at which an interface or a blinding effect is
evident. Piezometers have been installed in ‘clusters’ within up-gradient and down-
gradient margins of a pit lake at Stonecastle Quarry. At this stage, pre-made standard
piezometers have been used and installed at progressively deeper depths. This will

30
allow the piezometers response zones to pick up information from increasing depths,
which will allow a depth profile of information to be attained. Pre-made drive in
piezometers have the advantage of being solid enough to be removed and reinstated at
a number of other pit lakes in all of the selected quarries. Health and Safety Risk
Assessment and Method Statements have been undertaken for carrying out this work.

9.1.2 Piezometer Head Levels, Stonecastle Quarry

Installation

Eight mini piezometers were installed through the bed sediments of a restored pit lake
at Stonecastle Farm Quarry. The piezometers were arranged in two multi-level
clusters. One cluster of four piezometers (P1 to P4, Figure 9.1) were installed on the
western side of the lake (which under natural conditions would represent the up-
gradient bank of the lake), with the other cluster (P5 to P8, Figure 9.1) located on the
eastern side (which under natural conditions would represent the down-gradient
bank). The piezometers in each cluster were installed to a different depth horizon, to
represent a depth profile across which increased levels of blinding could potentially
be evident. The position of the each of the eight piezometers is shown in Figure 9.1.

WM19

P3
P2
P1 N
O

P8
P6
P7
P5

Figure 9.1 Location of mini-piezometers at Stonecastle Quarry

The water levels in the piezometers were measured at different times and the levels
were compared to recorded lake level to examine whether any differences existed
between head levels at different depths, directly below the lakebed, and the ambient

31
groundwater. The datum for each of the levels was taken as the lake level that was
recorded during the first round of measurements (02/04/2004).
It should be noted that level data within the piezometers could be affected by a
number of different factors, particularly those influencing the local groundwater table
at the time. A groundwater monitoring round taken across the entire site on 02/04/04,
the first day of monitoring piezometers, indicated that: groundwater levels were
particularly high close to the River Medway, located approximately 400 m to the
north of the lake; and the local groundwater gradient was being influenced by active
dewatering, undertaken approximately just under 1 km from the study lake. Pumping
from the dewatering phase was intermittent and the area of influence from the phase
cannot be accurately estimated. These factors highlight how data taken from the lake
and piezometers should just be used as a relative guide, and not analysed in terms of
up and down-gradient lake edges.
As the drive-in piezometers were temporarily installed to be moved between different
pit lakes on the three sites, they were not surveyed in. Consequently, how these levels
tie in with the other levels from the ambient groundwater mAOD levels can only be
estimated. However, the lake level can be estimated from the surveyed cover level of
the boreholes N and O, which are not known to be screened across the sand and gravel
aquifer. Borehole WM 19, located just to the north west of the lake and screened
across the sand and gravel aquifer is used as a guide to ascertain the groundwater
elevation within the enclosing aquifer.
It is noted that water level in the study lake is estimated to be approximately 1 – 1.5 m
above that of the surrounding aquifer on the dates of all piezometer dip rounds, which
in itself indicates that: this lake has some degree of sealing from the enclosing aquifer;
and the lake level is strongly influenced by recharge in the form of surface run-off.
Based on this assertion, it could reasonably be expected that water levels in the multi-
level piezometers would indicate levels lower than the lake level, varying between
lake level and the lower groundwater level of the sand and gravel aquifer.

Data

Head levels are tabulated below.

Table 4 Head Levels

Piezometer
Depth of Lake Level,
water level,
Date and Time Piezometer piezometer above datum*
above datum*
response zone (m)
(m)
02/04/2004
P1 10-40 cm 0 0
11:00
P2 40-70 cm 0 0.01
P3 70-100 cm 0 -0.18
P4 100-130 cm 0 -0.68
15/04/2004
P1 10-40 cm -0.04 -0.03
10:00
P2 40-70 cm -0.04 -0.21

32
 P3 70-100 cm -0.04 -0.81
P4 100-130 cm -0.04 -1.64
15/04/2004
P1 10-40 cm -0.03 0.03
12:00
P2 40-70 cm -0.03 -0.20
P3 70-100 cm -0.03 -0.80
P4 100-130 cm -0.03 -1.63

Piezometer
Lake Level,
water level,
Date and Time Piezometer Depth above datum*
above datum*
(m)
(m)
02/04/2004
P5 10-40 cm 0 0
11:00
P6 40-70 cm 0 0
P7 70-100 cm 0 0
P8 100-130 cm 0 -0.65
15/04/2004
P5 10-40 cm -0.04 -0.04
10:00
P6 40-70 cm -0.04 -0.01
P7 70-100 cm -0.04 0.01
P8 100-130 cm -0.04 -0.15
15/04/2004
P5 10-40 cm -0.03 -0.02
12:00
P6 40-70 cm -0.03 -0.03
P7 70-100 cm -0.03 0.01
P8 100-130 cm -0.03 -0.13
*Datum taken as lake level 02/04/2004

The following diagram shows the comparison in the water levels measured in the lake
and in the piezometers.

33
Figure 9.2 Comparison of water levels between the lake and piezometers

Recorded water levels in the piezometers generally indicate a difference to that of the
lake level, however small (Figure 9.2). The data also generally indicates bigger
differences between depth horizon and the lake level.

Head levels from the eastern piezometer cluster were generally a few cm below the
lake level. These results were consistent for all dip rounds, with the exception of the
level from P8 (the deepest piezometer) which indicated fluctuating, lower head levels.

Head levels from the western piezometer cluster showed consistently decreasing head
level with increased depth.

Inferences
The elevation of the lake level on all monitoring rounds is estimated to be
approximately 1-1.5m greater than the groundwater level of the surrounding sand and
gravel aquifer. This indicates that the lake will generally not act as a flow-through
lake and there is a significant degree of hydraulic sealing or blinding across the lake
bed sediments.
The level results from the eastern cluster indicate that the piezometers with response
zones installed up to 1 m below the lake bed are still in reasonable hydraulic
continuity with the lake. This may be due to a relative high permeability of sediments
below the lake at this particular locality or may indicate a poor seal between
piezometer and sediments. The levels from P8 indicate that at this level the
piezometer has achieved a reasonable seal and the head at this interval is not in strong
continuity with the lake water.
The level results from the western cluster indicate that the degree of hydraulic
continuity with the lake, and therefore the blinding effect, are steady throughout the

34
depth profile. At this location there is no single low permeability depth horizon
effectively sealing lake heads from groundwater heads. It is estimated that head level
of the deepest piezometer (P4) recorded on the 15/04/04, in m AOD, is very similar to
the known m AOD elevation of groundwater from WM 19 representing the
surrounding aquifer. It is likely that this lower level is at that of the surrounding sand
and gravel aquifer.

35
9.1.3 Chemical Sampling

Previous background chemical sampling at Lafarge’s Stonecastle Quarry site

identified different water chemistry between the sand and gravel aquifer water and the
surface water lakes. Chemical sampling of the multi-level piezometers should allow
qualitative identification of the interface between the two, and provide an estimate as
to whether the interface (and therefore possible blinding) between water types is short
or gradual.

Water samples were taken from each of the 8 drive-in piezometers that were installed
at Stonecastle Farm Quarry, in order to compare their chemistry to the water quality
of the groundwater and surface water at the site. Waterra inertial pumps were used to
partially purge the piezometer standpipe, before the samples were taken from the
water that slowly recharged back into the standpipes.

It is acknowledged that due to the nature of the screw-thread standpipe sections of the
piezometers, small quantities of lake water could potentially enter the standpipe and
mix with the contained water, which could potentially skew the chemical results to
that of the lake chemistry. This possible mixing of water would be eliminated with
specifically made permanent piezometers comprising single sections of tubing, which
are proposed for the following stage.

Results
Piezometer/Borehole WM19 Lake P1 P2 P3 P4 Lake P5 P6 P7 P8
West West West West West East East East East East
Date Sampled 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04 07/04/04

Aluminium (µg/l) 12 <10 <10 15 <10 <10 <10 11 <10 <10 <10
Copper (µg/l) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 <5 <5 <5
Zinc (µg/l) <50 <50 5393 4756 5905 2075 <50 24966 3303 53114 17339
Boron (µg/l) 173 77 746 897 559 380 75 610 761 428 811
Barium (µg/l) 87 <20 120 128 148 159 <20 118 91 117 166
Iron (µg/l) 279 196 210 209 346 322 196 309 199 419 446
Manganese (µg/l) 2560 147 9780 8311 27997 20369 <1 28900 16572 49694 71058

Calcium (mg/l) 49.1 28.2 30.5 30.1 62.5 51.6 29.8 52.2 32.5 81.3 84.6
Potassium (mg/l) 1.1 2.6 2.1 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.7
Magnesium (mg/l) 5.8 3.7 4.1 4.1 8.2 6.9 3.9 8.2 5.1 14.7 14.7
Sodium (mg/l) 23.9 15.7 16.3 16.6 18.3 18.3 16.3 19.4 17.6 19.2 20.0

pH (value) 6.6 7.4 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.6 6.9 7.0 6.7 7.0
Sulphate (mg/l) 76 54 52 52 54 48 55 126 69 178 93
Chloride (mg/l) 36 21 22 23 26 24 21 29 23 14 31
Ammonium (mg/l) <0.1 <0.1 0.9 1.1 1.7 5.9 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.3
Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) 475 383 422 404 534 497 383 533 418 628 619
Suspended Solids (mg/l) 427 21 44796 30994 281188 57164 20 25106 39072 5519 14629
Bicarbonate (mg/l) 69 44 63 63 135 94 41 88 63 147 197
Carbonate (mg/l) <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

Groundwater (Borehole)
Lake
Piezometers

The following pages contain concentration vs depth profiles for various determinands.
The mean elevation of the screened section in m bgl has been plotted against the
determinand concentration. Lake concentrations and groundwater concentrations
(assumed to be as that of WM19) are shown at the top and the base of the depth
profile respectively.

36
Calcium Western Piezometer Cluster Calcium
Eastern Piezometer Cluster
mg/l
mg/l
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Lake 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
Lake 0
20
20
Depth below lake bed (cm)

40

Depth below lake bed (cm)

40
60
60
80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19160 WM19 160

Sodium Western Piezometer Cluster Sodium

Eastern Piezometer Cluster
mg/l mg/l

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lake 0 Lake 0

20 20
Depth below lake bed (cm)

Depth below lake bed (cm)

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19 160 WM19160

37
Sulphate Sulphate
Western Piezometer Cluster Eastern Piezometer Cluster

mg/l mg/l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Lake 0 Lake 0

20 20

Depth below lake bed (cm)

Depth below lake bed (cm)

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19 160 WM19 160

Chloride Chloride
Western Piezometer Cluster Eastern Piezometer Cluster
mg/l mg/l
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Lake 0 Lake 0

20 20
Depth below lake bed (cm)

Depth below lake bed (cm)

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19 160 WM19 160

38
Bicarbonate Bicarbonate
Western Piezometer Cluster Eastern Piezometer Cluster
mg/l mg/l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 50 100 150 200

Lake 0 Lake 0

20 20
Depth below lake bed (cm)

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19160 WM19160

Magnesium Western Piezometer Cluster Magnesium

Eastern Piezometer Cluster
mg/l mg/l
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Lake 0 Lake 0

20 20

40
Depth below lake bed (cm)

40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19160 WM19160

39
Manganese Western Piezometer Cluster Manganese
Eastern Piezometer Cluster
ug/l ug/l
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Lake 0 Lake 0

20 20
Depth below lake bed (cm)

Depth below lake bed (cm)

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19 160 WM19 160

Boron Boron
Western Piezometer Cluster Eastern Piezometer Cluster
ug/l ug/l
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Lake 0 0
Lake
20 20
Depth below lake bed (cm)

40

Depth below lake bed (cm)

40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

WM19160 WM19160

40
Description of Results

Calcium showed a weak relationship between concentration and depth of piezometer

response zone, with a general trend of calcium concentrations increasing with depth.
Groundwater sampled from WM19 and plotted as the deepest depth horizon on all
depth profile graphs shows a lower concentration than that found at depth in the
deepest piezometers.

Sodium concentrations showed a more consistent depth to concentration ratio,

although concentration changes were much more gradual in both the piezometers in
the west side and the east side of the lake. Concentrations were found to progressively
increase with depth from the lake concentrations, towards the concentration of the true
groundwater sample (WM19) and progressively increased in concentration through
the water sampled from increasing piezometer response zone depth.

Concentrations of sulphate in the water samples from the two clusters showed
different profiles with depth, however, groundwater concentrations were found to be
slightly higher than the concentrations in the lake for both clusters. Water samples
from the piezometers installed on the western side of the lake showed sulphate
concentrations to remain similar to the lake water concentrations. However, the
samples from P5 and P7 from the eastern cluster were found to greatly exceed the
concentrations that were found in the groundwater.

Chloride concentrations from piezometers installed in the western cluster again

displayed a general increase with increase in depth. However, samples from the
eastern cluster displayed a different pattern, with a very lower chloride concentration
evident within the P7 sample, which was significantly lower than any of the others
water samples.

The concentrations of bicarbonate, magnesium and manganese all showed similar

relationships to that of the chloride. Again, the results indicated slightly higher
concentrations of these determinands in the lake water than the “true” groundwater,
with an elevated peak in concentrations from waters sampled in the 70 to 130 cm
depth horizon. The samples from the western side piezometers showed bicarbonate
and magnesium concentrations in P1 and P2 to be between the lake and groundwater
concentrations, however, in both cases the concentrations in the water samples from
P3 and P4 showed concentrations exceeding those in the groundwater. Water sampled
from piezometers in the eastern cluster showed P5 (the shallowest piezometer) to have
showed a relatively high concentration of both magnesium and bicarbonate. This
concentration reduced at the P6 depth horizon where it is found to be between the
groundwater and lake water concentrations. Again P7 and P8 showed concentrations
that greatly exceeded the groundwater. Manganese concentrations showed a similar
general trend with depth.

The concentrations of boron also showed high peaks that exceed the concentration of
the groundwater, although these high concentrations were generally present in water
sampled from the shallowest piezometers in both the western and eastern piezometer
clusters (P1, P2, P3 and P4). In the western cluster the concentration declined towards
groundwater concentrations in the two deep piezometers (P5 and P6), while in the

41
eastern piezometers a second elevated concentration peak was evident from water
sampled from P8.

Summary

Generally the chemical determinands displayed a trend whereby groundwater

concentrations were higher than concentrations within the overlying lake, however,
the highest concentrations were shown to be in peaks within the lake bed sediments. It
is possible that this is due to a number if chemical compounds favouring locally
reducing conditions which are commonly present within lake bed sediments. This is
commonly true of sulphate and manganese ions. These determinand concentrations
are often controlled through microbially mediated redox reactions which
progressively occur in environments of increasing redox potential and decreasing
levels of dissolved oxygen.

Exceptions to this generalised trend were the trends of sodium and possibly chloride
concentrations, which generally progressively increased in concentrations from the
lake to the groundwater. These two determinands may represent the increased
influence of groundwater chemistry at depth throughout the depth profiles.

Comparison with Previous Hydrochemistry at Stonecastle Quarry

These results can be compared to the groundwater chemistry results previously

undertaken at Stonecastle Quarry, of which the key determinands which exhibited
discernable differences between water types are bar-graphed above (Figure 7.1).

The previous chemical concentrations from the restored lake water type are
remarkably similar to those of the two lake samples from this sample round. The only
key determinand showing different concentrations during this round is sulphate, with
a concentration of 76 mg/l which is approximately double the typical restored lake
concentration during the previous sample round.

As with water quality of the restored lakes, concentrations of the key determinands
within the groundwater of WM19 and a typical groundwater from the previous
chemical sampling, indicate very similar elevations. Sodium is the determinand within
the groundwater which differs the most. However, even this difference is minimal,
with a concentration of 23.9 mg/l from the recent sampling, compared to a
concentration of approximately 10 mg/l higher for a typical groundwater recorded in
the previous study.

9.2 Next Stage

9.2.1 Piezometer Design

The next stage of the project involves installing custom made piezometers, following
the specified design described below.

− 25mm internal diameter tubing to allow data loggers to be positioned within. This
will allow long term water level monitoring, and falling head tests to be conducted
to give localised permeability estimates.

42
− Acrylic – type translucent tubing material, which will allow small head
differences between head level and lake level to be accurately observed and
measured.
− Custom made length of response zone, to target small depth horizons (~10 cm).
The piezometers has been designed and a mock up has been made, however,
insufficient time is available in the remainder of this stage to make the required
numbers for permanent installation into pit lakes at the various sites. The piezometer
tip has been built following the design shown below.

Wire Tie Material fixed by nuts

screwed over the top
Fine meshed gauze material

~10 cm
Acrylic - 25mm
25mm threaded
Inside Diameter
Response Zone – holes Studding screwed
drilled through PVC into PVC material
Washer

Figure 9.1 Design of mini-piezometers

Falling head tests can easily be carried out on the newly manufactured piezometers,
which will allow permeability estimates for particular depth horizons. This
information can also be used to make a more representative accurate groundwater
model.

9.2.2 Piezometer Location

The piezometers are to be installed in up and down-gradient sides of earmarked pit

lakes across the three sites. The arrangement of multi-level piezometers within the
clusters are planned to be arranged as shown in the diagram below.

43
 LAKE

~1+ m

Figure 9.2 Proposed location of mini-piezometers

Long term monitoring of the pit lakes at their margins will allow estimates of
temporal head differences to be recorded. This information can be interpreted in
conjunction with temporal evaporation estimates within a numerical mass balance
model. The relationship between water loss, permeability and head difference across
the pit lake beds can together be used to quantitatively estimate the extent of flow
through the pit lakes. This relationship can be studied for lakes across all of the
selected sites, thereby consolidating information collated to date. This will form the
basis of a generic relationship, which can be used to calculate the hydraulic continuity
for pit lakes across an entire range of sites.

10 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work

In summary, the work carried out so far, particularly the literature review which
revealed very little previous work carried out on the subject of hydrogeology of
flooded sand and gravel pits, has shown that further work is necessary to confirm the
hydrogeological effects of flooded pit lakes. From this work, it is clear that the
occurrence of blinding is a distinct possibility but, as set out in the initial proposal, a
single 12-month programme of work is insufficient to realise the overall objectives of
the project. In particular, further field testing, such as the installation and testing of
purpose-drilled boreholes and the conduction of tracer tests at the evaluation sites is
required to analyse seasonal variations in both water levels and water quality. The
results of the limited field testing carried out during this initial stage have been very
promising with the studied lake at Stonecastle Quarry appearing not to be in good
continuity with the surrounding groundwater. However, longer term monitoring may
reveal a flow through lake in dryer months.

44
11 References

Bouwer, H., Back, J.T., and Oliver, J.M., 1999, Predicting infiltration and
groundwater mounds for artificial recharge. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 4, pp
350-357.

Castro, J.M., and Moore, J.N., 2000, Pit lakes: their characteristics and the potential
for their remediation. Environmental Geology, 39(11), pp 1255-1260.

Chaulya, S.K., Chakraborty, M.K., Ahmad, M., Singh, K.K.K., Singh, R.S., Tewary,
B.K., and Gupta, P.K., 1999, Environmental Geology, 39(10), pp 1155-1162.

Dudgeon, C.R., 1985, Unconfined non-Darcy flow near open-pit mines. Mine Water,
Granada, Spain, pp 443-454.

Garlanger, J.E., and Shrestha, R.K., 1991, Ground water restoration in mined areas.
Mining Engineering, 43, pp 1159-1164.

Gleason, R.A., and Euliss, N.H.,Jr, 1998, Sedimentation of Prairie wetlands. Great
Plains Research, 8(1), pp 97-107.

Hall, J.W., 2000, Salinity issues relating to decommissioned open pits in Western
Australia. In Sililo, O. et al. (eds), Groundwater: Past Achievements and Future
Challenges, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1113-1118.

Hatva, T., 1994, Effect of gravel extraction on groundwater. Future Groundwater

Resources at Risk Proceedings of Helsinki Conference, June 1994, IAHS Publication
No. 222, pp 427-434.

Hobbs, S.L., and Gunn, J., The hydrogeological effect of quarrying karstified
limestone: options for prediction and mitigation. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 31, pp 147-157.

Miller, G.C., Lyons, W.B., and Davis, A., 1996, Understanding the water quality of
pit lakes. Environmental Science and Technology, 30(3), pp 118A-123A.

Morgan-Jones, M., Bennett, S., and Kinsella, J.V., 1984, The hydrologic effects of
gravel winning in an area west of London, United Kingdom. Groundwater, 22, pp
154-161.

Pickrill, R.A., 1987, Sedimentation problems and management implications in hydro-

electric storage lakes of South Island, New Zealand. Proceedings of 8th Australasian
conference on coastal and ocean engineering, Launceston, Tasmania, December 1987,
pp 405-409.

Schanen, O., Bendjoudi, H., Levassor, A., and Fustec, E., 1998, Estimation of
groundwater gravel pit lake interface flows by water balance optimisation. Earth and
Planetary Sciences, 326, pp 107-112 (in french).

45
Shevenell, L., 2000, Analytical method for predicting filling rates of mining pit lakes:
example from the Getchell Mine, Nevada. Mining Engineering, 52(3), pp 53-60.

Symonds Group Ltd, 2000, Preliminary hydrogeological findings concerning the

proposed extension to Stonecastle Farm Quarry, Whetsted. Report commissioned by
Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd, 11 pp.

Symonds Group Ltd, 2001a, Groundwater modelling of the Proposed Western

Extension to Stonecastle Farm Quarry, Whetsted. Report commissioned by Lafarge
Aggregates Ltd, 50 pp.

Symonds Group Ltd, 2001b, Desk Study for Environmental Appraisal associated with
the application for an Increased Abstraction Licence for Panshanger Mineral Washing
Plant. Report commissioned by Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd, 5 pp.

Symonds Group Ltd, 2001c, Panshanger Quarry Investigation of Water Abstraction at

the Plant Site. Report commissioned by Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd, 16 pp.

Symonds Group Ltd, 2003, Background Chemical Sampling of Surface and

Groundwaters at the Whetsted Site / Hadlow Estate, Stonecastle Quarry, Kent. .
Report commissioned by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 11 pp.

Wardrop, D.R., Leake, C.C., and Abra, J., 2001, Practical techniques that minimize
the impact of quarries on the water environment. Transactions of the Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, 110, pp B5-B14.

Watson, K.K., and Whisler, F.D., 1977, Profile desaturation during sediment
deposition in a groundwater recharge trench. Journal of Hydrology, 33, pp 397-401.

Weisser, P.J., 1978, A conceptual model of a siltation system in shallow lakes with
littoral vegetation. Journal of the Limnological Society of South Africa, 4(2), pp 145-
149.

Winter, T.C., 1999, Relation of streams, lakes, and wetlands to groundwater flow
systems. Hydrogeology Journal, 7, pp 28-45.

WSP Environmental Ltd, 1999, Panshanger Park Development Groundwater Study.

Report commissioned by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 6 pp.

Wu, F.-C., and Huang, H.-T., 2000, Hydraulic resistance induced by deposition of
sediment in porous medium. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126(7), pp 547-551.

Younger, P.L., Banwart, S.A., & Hedin, R.S., 2002, Mine Water: Hydrology,
Pollution, Remediation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 464pp.

Zlotnik, V.A., and Murashko, M.G., 1983, Calculations of seepage losses of water
bodies under the effect of infiltration intakes. Water Resources, 9(2), pp 172-176.

46