sATTACHMENT B Final USDA Report 2021.02.02 re.pdf

NATIONAL COLD WATER MARINE AQUACULTURE CENTER (NCWMAC)

25 Salmon Farm Road Franklin, Maine 04634

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

PHASE 1 WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION

Technical Memorandum - Final Phase 1 Water Supply Evaluation February 2021

ETEGRA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 NCWMAC FACILITY •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. 4

1.2 CONTRACT SCOPE OF WORK•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.5

1.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•. 5

2.0 DATA REVIEW

2.1 DATA REQUEST •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.•.•.•.•.7

2.2 FACILITY WELLS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. 7

2.3 BEDROCK GEOLOGY •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.7

2.4 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. 8

2.5 SOILS AND WETLANDS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. 8

2.6 TOPOGRAPHY •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.8

2.7 2003 GROUNDWATER RESOURCE INVESTIGATION •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.•.8

2.8 WELL OPERATIONAL RECORDS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. 8

2.9 INTERVIEWS •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.10

2.9.1 Mr. Bart Cushing, Cushing & Sons Drilling

2.9.2 Mr. Haig Brochu, Hydrogeologist, Maine Geological Survey

2.9.3 Mr. Davin O'Connell, USDA Biological Science Technician

3.0 FACILITY VISIT

3.1 FACILITY WATER DEMAND •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.12

3.1.1 Estimated Current Water Use by Water Type

3.1.2 Desired Increases in Production by Water Type

3.1.3 Water Storage

3.2 CONFIRMATION OF WELL NAMES AND LOCATIONS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.14

3.3 WELL ACCESSIBILITY FOR PUMP REMOVAL AND WELL INSPECTION •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•14

3.4 WELL ACCESSIBILITY FOR AQUIFER TESTS•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.14

3.5 USE OF EXISTING PUMPS AND WELLS FOR AQUIFER TESTS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.15

3.6 WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.15

3.7 MONITORING POINTS FOR ANTICIPATED AQUIFER TESTS •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•15

3.8 WATER DISCHARGE LOCATIONS FOR THE AQUIFER TESTS •.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.•15

3.9 WATER QUALITY TESTING PARAMETERS FOR AQUIFER TESTS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.16

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•.19

5.2 INSTALLATION OF WATER LEVEL AND FLOW MONITORING EQUIPMENT

5.3 SURVEY OF ALL MONITORING WELLS

5.4 WETLANDS DELINEATION IN ANTICIPATION OF NEW WELLS

5.5 LOCATION OF NEW WELLS

5.6 TEST DRILLING OF NEW WELLS

6.0 REFERENCES

FIGURES

Figure 1, Site Location Map .................................................................................................................................... Following Text

Figure 2, Well Location Map ............................................................................................................................ Following Text

Figure 3, Bedrock Geologic Map ............................................................................................................................ Following Text

Figure 4, Surficial Geologic Map ............................................................................................................................ Following Text

Figure 5, Soils and Wetlands Map ......................................................................................................................... Following Text

Figure 6, Topographic Map from LIDAR Data.............................................................................................Following Text

Figure 7, Geophysical Survey Lines from 2003 Report ....................................................................................... Following Text

Figure 8, Proposed New Well Locations ................................................................................................................ Following Text

TABLES

Table 1, Available Information on USDA Wells .........................................................................................Following Text

Table 2, Available Information on CCAR and Nearby Residential Wells ....................................................Following Text

APPENDIX

Appendix A, System Layout, 2020 Water Analyses, and 2020 Effluent Discharge .......................................... Following Text

February 2021

11 Pa ge

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Etegra, Inc. (Etegra) has prepared this Technical Memorandum with Leidos, Inc. (Leidos). The purpose of this work is to evaluate the groundwater supply at the National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center (NCWMAC), referred to in this document as the "Facility", and determine feasible methods to optimize and increase the Facility's water supply.

The NCWMAC is staffed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and support personnel who manage a national research program to address the cold-water marine aquaculture industry's highest priority research needs.

The NCWMAC Facility cultures all life stages of the Atlantic salmon. Research program areas address genetic improvement, growth and development, health, and sustainable production systems for Atlantic salmon and for cold water marine finfish species.

The NCWMAC is situated adjacent to the University of Maine's Center for Cooperative Aquaculture Research (CCAR).

The CCAR was founded in 1999 as an aquaculture research and development Facility to address industry needs at industry scale. CCAR's facilities include marine hatcheries, where juvenile fish, invertebrates, and sea vegetables are propagated for research and industry. Though the two facilities are owned and operated by separate entities, they share resources and infrastructure including a permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge, water supply infrastructure, holding tanks, and an access road. Both facilities are dependent on groundwater for their water supply which is supplemented by a seawater intake from Taunton Bay.

The following are the principal conclusions of this evaluation:

1) The NCWMAC and adjacent Center for Cooperative Aquaculture Research (CCAR) sites are underlain by

Devonian granite, based on the mapping by the Maine Geological Survey (MGS). This granite is part of the Lucerne Pluton, which is documented to produce elevated concentrations of uranium, radon, and arsenic in groundwater. Groundwater development at NCWMAC may encounter elevated uranium, radon, and arsenic concentrations that may require groundwater treatment, particularly in deeper wells. Treatment prior to use as drinking water is common in this part of Maine and is reportedly not cost-prohibitive, depending on the requirements of the end user.

2) There are currently 12 wells are at NCWMAC, labeled USDA-1 through USDA-12. USDA wells 1 through 8 are six inch diameter, open-rock boreholes and are reported to be drilled to a maximum of 500 feet. Each well has carbon steel casing installed to depths of approximately 20 feet. The depths of USDA wells 9 through 12 are not available, but they were observed to be 6 (six) inch diameter wells with similar surface completion as wells USDA-1 through USDA-8. Although the 12 wells were installed in or after 2002, none are included in the MGS well database. No construction or geologic logs are available for the NCWMAC wells, therefore it is not possible, without further testing, to determine the depth, orientation, and/or yield of water-bearing zones in the wells. In addition, topographic survey data is not available for the NCWMAC, therefore their physical locations are estimated.

3) NCWMAC currently obtains freshwater from wells USDA-1 and USDA-7, with USDA-6 available for emergency use. This freshwater is used for both potable water and process water for blending. Brackish water is supplied by withdrawals from USDA-12, CCAR-1, CCAR-2 and/or produced by mixing fresh water and salty water. Salty water is obtained via wells USDA-8, USDA-9, and USDA-1 O. USDA Wells 6 and 11 are equipped with pumps, wired, and plumbed, but are not generally used. USDA Wells 2, 3, 4, and 5 did not produce sufficient yield at the time of drilling and were never equipped with pumps or plumbed to NCWMAC, however they remain open and may be suitable for monitoring and testing if needed.

4) Geologic and well construction logs are not available for the nine CCAR wells. CCAR-1 and CCAR-2 are brackish water wells, CCAR-S2 and CCAR-Salt are saltwater wells, and CCAR-3, 4, 5, 6, and CCAR-House are reportedly fresh water wells. Two wells in the MGS database are listed as "University of Maine" wells

February 2021

2 1 Pa ge but only one is mapped on the CCAR property. The second well is mapped to the south, which indicates they are likely not accurately located in the database. These wells are each reported to be 405 feet deep with well yields of 2 and 10 gpm.

5) NCWMAC requires a constant supply of water and there is negligible storage and insufficient alternative supply, therefore it will be difficult to take any wells offline for borehole surveying, well maintenance, inspection, treatment, and/or aquifer testing. Any aquifer testing will need to be coordinated in advance with NCWMAC and may likely require abbreviated testing durations.

6) The Facility does not have equipment capable of monitoring groundwater withdrawals, either individually or collectively, and does not have the equipment to monitor water levels in wells. The Facility currently reportedly replaces pumps on an annual basis, due to pump failure. Excessive pump wear/tear is likely caused by a combination of over-pumping, under-sized pumps, wells that may not be plumb (exactly vertical), pumps placed at wrong interval, excessive drawdown causing cavitation and cascading water leading to increased oxidation.

7) The Facility has insufficient water storage and is not currently able to monitor storage levels or the amount of water pumped to waste via overflow.

8) Wells USDA 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not produce enough water to justify further development as groundwater supplies. Of these wells, well 4 was hydrofracked, but this did not increase the yield enough to justify making it a production well. These wells were installed near the northern and eastern boundaries of the NCWMAC property. The ground surface elevation is significantly higher compared to the elevation at the active production wells. Better groundwater yield may be obtained through new wells in the lower elevations of the property in the broad valley between the Facility and the eastern property boundary.

9) Wetlands do not appear to be mapped accurately on the property. The United States Forest Services

(USFS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps show that USDA-1 is located in wetlands, and mapping by Woodard and Curran (2003) shows significant portions of NCWMAC property is wetlands. Site observations indicate that portions of the variously mapped wetlands may be woodlands. No records were available to indicate that a site-specific wetlands delineation has been conducted at NCWMAC.

10) Water quality testing in 2003 indicated that wells USDA-1, 2 and 6 exceeded the MCL for arsenic. While water quality samples collected in 2020 from well USDA-1 are below the MCL for arsenic, arsenic may still be an issue for permitting the use of new potable groundwater supplies for the Facility.

11) Regional information suggests that deeper (greater than 500 feet) wells may provide higher yields.

However, there is increased potential to encounter higher arsenic concentrations and elevated radionuclides if the wells are installed to greater depths than 500 feet. Water with elevated arsenic or radionuclides may require treatment prior to use. Potable water at the Facility is not treated.

Based on these conclusions, the Etegra team has developed the following recommendations:

1) The Etegra team recommends completing borehole geophysical surveys for temperature, fractures (caliper tool), natural gamma radiation, resistance, resistivity, fluid resistivity, spontaneous potential, and optical televiewer on production wells USDA-1, 7, and 8. The same surveys, minus the optical televiewer, should be complete on non-production wells USDA-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12. Completing the optical televiewer surveys on only the production wells will save considerable time and expense. Consideration may be given to borehole geophysical surveys of the CCAR wells as well at a later date. Key information from this work, such as well depths and water bearing zones, should be provided to the MGS to update their database.

February 2021

3I Pa g e

1) Existing wells should be equipped with water level monitoring equipment, shut-off valves, Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) with Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), and flowmeters. The storage tank should also be equipped with a level sensor and linked to the pumps so that the pumps are turned off prior to overflow. Such equipment will help control and optimize pumping rates and reduce wear and tear on pumps and motors. Any new wells that are installed should be equipped with similar equipment.

2) A topographic survey should be conducted to map the wells and their elevations with respect to the buildings and other key features. Publically available LIDAR topography could be utilized to supplement the topographic survey and reduce the overall cost of the survey.

3) A wetlands survey should be completed at NCWMAC prior to final siting of any new production wells. A wetlands survey is necessary to ensure that local wetlands are managed in accordance with state and federal regulations. Furthermore, wetlands delineation and mapping will be critical for permitting any new wells. This survey should be completed in conjunction with the well survey so wetlands boundaries can be incorporated into the survey map. The survey must also take into account any additional piping infrastructure that may need to be installed.

4) While several measures may be implemented to enhance existing wells, installation of new wells is required to meet the requested Facility demands. Increased production is likely to be best obtained by installing larger diameter wells (8 to 12 inches in borehole diameter) to greater depths (up to approximately 1,000 feet). Based on site topography, estimated wetlands areas, proximity to the primary NCWMAC Facility, prior geophysical surveys, and siting requirements, proposed locations (Figure 8) for new wells are just east of USDA-1 for freshwater and northwest of the main USDA building for salty water.

Final locations should also consider findings from proposed borehole surveys, wetlands delineation, and topographic mapping.

5) The Etegra Team recommends completing the additional wells as small diameter (6") test wells to confirm sufficient water yield and quality prior to development as a larger diameter (8"-12") production well.

Drilling should be completed by an air rotary drilling rig and overseen by an experienced geologist. Rock types and blown yields should be recorded on well logs during drilling to document productive zones and to assist with further groundwater development. If the small diameter test wells are not favorable, then the borings should be left open for borehole surveying and/or monitoring during subsequent aquifer tests.

Additional test drilling locations should be planned prior to drilling so the rig can be quickly mobilized to new locations if the initial sites are not favorable. This will save considerable time and expense in mobilization costs.

February 2021

4 1 Pa g e

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

This chapter summarizes the Facility, the Scope of Work, and the Limitations and Exceptions of this report.

1.1 NCWMAC Facility

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) completed construction of the National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center (NCWMAC). This Facility is located along the Atlantic coast, on the east side of Taunton Bay near Franklin, Maine. A Site Location Map is provided as Figure 1.

The NCWMAC is staffed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and support personnel who manage a national research program to address the cold-water marine aquaculture industry's highest priority research needs.

Approximately eight (8) scientists and support staff are at the Facility. The NCWMAC Facility cultures all life stages of the Atlantic salmon. Research program areas address genetic improvement, growth and development, health, and sustainable production systems for Atlantic salmon and for cold water marine finfish species.

The NCWMAC is situated adjacent to the University of Maine's Center for Cooperative Aquaculture Research (CCAR).

This Facility is also shown on Figure 2. The CCAR was founded in 1999 as an aquaculture research and development Facility, to address industry needs at industry scale. CCAR's facilities include marine hatcheries, where juvenile fish, invertebrates, and sea vegetables are propagated for research and industry. Though the two facilities are owned and operated by separate entities, they share some resources and infrastructure including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste-water discharge, water supply infrastructure, holding tanks, and an access road.

Both facilities are dependent on groundwater for their water supply which is supplemented by a sea-water intake from Taunton Bay. In 2003, prior to construction of the NCWMAC Facility, a groundwater resource investigation was completed by Woodard and Curran, Inc. (WCI) to support the development of water supplies from bedrock wells to meet the estimated requirements of the proposed NCWMAC Facility. The objective of the investigation was to develop a sufficient water supply to meet the projected demand and to assess the risk of salt water intrusion from NCWMAC wells.

Eight (8) groundwater wells were installed at the site prior to the construction of the NCWMAC in 2002. Seven (7) of the wells were drilled for fresh water supply (USDA-1 through USDA-7) and one was drilled as a salt water supply (USDA-Salt1). Five (5) of the eight (8) test wells produced enough water when drilled to warrant further testing (USDA-1, USDA-4, USDA-6, USDA-7 and USDA-Salt1). Additional wells (USDA-9 through 12) were installed afterwards but the installation dates and drilling records were not available.

A Facility assessment conducted in 2018 (USDA, 2018) of the Facility found that the NCWMAC freshwater wells do not supply enough freshwater for research purposes. Currently, freshwater is obtained primarily from USDA-1 and USDA-7. The building assessment also reported that the saltwater wells used for research purposes exhibit declining output. A 2020 Solar Array and Groundwater Pumping Assessment at the Facility, also recommended improvements to the groundwater supply (USDA, 2020).

The USDA commissioned this current Phase I Water Supply Evaluation to address the groundwater supply issues.

The purpose of this evaluation is to confirm the capacity and quality of the existing wells, evaluate the current and future water supply requirements for NCWMAC, and develop recommendations for subsequent work.

1.2 Contract Scope of Work

This Technical Memorandum (Tech Memo) is intended to fulfill the Scope of Work (SOW) outlined in the agreement between USDA and Etegra. In general the SOW consists the following:

1) Attend all project meetings;

2) Submit a data request to USDA for all available reports and data on the subject project. The data request will include, at a minimum, the following:

a. Previous water resource reports;

b. Confirmation of what wells are currently used to supply the Facility;

c. Confirmation of current well names and locations;

d. Operational records including pumping rates, water depths, and water quality reports;

e. Well maintenance records;

f. Well logs and construction details; and

g. Pump information, including pump models, horsepower, piping, and sizes;

h. Past inspection reports;

i. Invoices from work done by water well contractors (including pump replacement);

j. Water treatment equipment warranties, invoices, and manuals

Following the review of the data, the SOW includes one field visit to collect the following information:

1) Documentation and understanding of the Facility's water demand including

a) Current storage volume

b) Daily water usage per water source

c) Desired water supply in gallons per day

d) Physical location and coordinates for each well;

e) Current names and locations of existing supply wells and drilled wells that are not currently used;

f) Well head accessibility for pump removal and well inspection;

g) Well accessibility for aquifer testing;

h) Confirmation if the existing pumps can be used for the anticipated aquifer testing;

i) Confirmation that no flow constrictors or other features are present on any of the wells;

j) Location of water supply piping infrastructure;

k) Identification of monitoring points for anticipated aquifer tests;

I) Water discharge locations for the aquifer tests (to storage or to ground);

m) Determination of water quality testing parameters for anticipated aquifer tests; and

n) Potential locations for new wells, if needed.

The final portion of the SOW entails preparation of this Tech Memo to summarize the investigation

1.3 Limitations and Exceptions

This report is intended to be used in its entirety. Taking or using excerpts in any way from this report is not permitted. Excerpts which are taken out of context run the risk of being misinterpreted and are, therefore, not representative of the findings of this report. Opinions and recommendations presented in this report apply only to Facility conditions and features as they existed at the time of the Etegra Team's Site visit on October 22, 2020 and those inferred from information observed or available at that time. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report cannot be applied to conditions and features of which Etegra is unaware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate.

S I P age

February 2021

6I Pa ge

The results of this hydrogeologic assessment are based on interviews with local government officials and Facility personnel; a walkover of the subject Facility; review of acquired environmental regulatory agency documents and Facility information obtained from the client, Facility personnel, and other related sources. Etegra has not made, nor has it been asked to make, any independent investigation concerning the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of such information.

All sources of information on which Etegra has relied in making its conclusions are identified in the References (Section 6.0). Any information, regardless of source, not listed in the References has not been evaluated or relied upon by Etegra in the context of this report. The conclusions, therefore, represent our professional opinion based solely and exclusively on the sources of information described in the References and the assessment described herein.

February 2021

7 1 Pa g e

2.0 Data Review

This section presents the results of a data request and information that has been provided to and obtained by the Etegra Team during this evaluation.

2.1 Data Request

A formal data request was sent by email on September 25, 2020. However, all available Facility data was previously provided to the Etegra Team in conjunction with USDA's Request for Proposal (RFP); therefore no additional data was provided. The Etegra Team reviewed the data and conducted interviews with NCWMAC staff, state and local government officials. Available Facility data were supplemented by a review of hydrogeologic information available through the Maine Geological Survey (MGS) and other federal, state, and local resources. The following sections describe the information obtained through the data request and review.

2.2 Facility Wells

The approximate locations of the current Facility wells are shown in Figure 2. NCWMAC obtains water supplies from groundwater wells and seawater. The USDA and adjacent CCAR Facilities have twenty-one (21) wells in total. The USDA property has twelve (12) wells, and the CCAR property has nine (9) wells.

USDA Wells 1, 7, 8, 9, 1O, and 12 are the main wells used for NCWMAC' s supply. Water is also partially supplied by CCAR wells 1 and 2 and a seawater intake from Taunton Bay. USDA Wells 6 and 11 are equipped with pumps, wired, and plumbed, but are not generally used. During the 2003 Hydrogeologic Assessment, well USDA-6 was observed to cause excessive drawdown in neighboring residential wells and is therefore used for emergencies only. According to USDA personnel, USDA Well 11 has production issues that are likely due to mechanical problems.

At the time of the site visit, well USDA-12 was not operational due to pump failure. This was likely caused by over-pumping that drew water levels down to the pump intake. USDA personnel indicated that well USDA-12 is scheduled to be equipped with a variable frequency drive (VFD) to enable control of the pumping rate. Wells USDA- 2, -3, -4, and -5 are not equipped with pumps, power, or plumbing. These four wells remain open for monitoring and testing if needed and they have not been abandoned.

Well USDA-8 was previously called USDA Salt-1 and well USDA-9 was called USDA Salt-2. These well names shown in Figure 2 are the current well names. Wells USDA-8 and USDA-10 are situated on the CCAR property based on maps provided by the USDA.

2.3 Bedrock Geology

A bedrock geologic map is provided as Figure 3. This map was developed with information from MGS (Osberg et al., 1985, and MGS Digital Bedrock Geologic Map, 2019), and indicates that the entire area is underlain by Devonian granite. This granite is described as a muscovite-biotite granite with abundant metasedimentary inclusions.

This Devonian granite is likely part of the Lucerne Pluton, which is one of the largest granitic bodies in Maine. The Lucerne Pluton is known to contain high background concentrations of uranium, radon, and arsenic in groundwater (Thurston et al., 2016).

February 2021

BI Pa g e

Surficial Geology

A surface geologic map is provided as Figure 4. This map was developed with information from MGS (Hildreth, 2012a; 2012b) and indicates that the entire area is covered with thin glacial till. According to this map bedrock exposures are also present in the area.

2.5 Soils and Wetlands

A soils and wetlands map is provided a Figure 5. The soils information was obtained from Ferwald et al. (1997), and the wetlands information was obtained from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (NWI, 2020).

The site soils identified on the Facility are as follows:

1) Lamoine-Scantic-Buxton complex,

2) Lamoine Silt Loam

3) Buxton Silt Loam, and

4) Scantic Silt Loam.

The Lamoine series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in glaciolacustrine or glaciomarine deposits on coastal lowlands and river valleys. The Buxton series soils are similar but are moderately drained.

Scantic series soils are poorly drained, clayey soils underlain by clayey sediments at about 16 inches. None of these soils are described as hydric soils in their descriptions. Hydric soils, if present, may indicate the presence of wetlands. Information from the site visit (Section 4.0) indicated that the area has scattered boulders indicative of glaciation. The site visit also indicated areas of bedrock outcropping at a very small old quarry on the NCWMAC property.

The NWI mapped wetlands are limited to the northern section of the NCWMAC property. However, well USDA-1 is shown in these wetlands, thus NWI wetlands maps may not be accurate. The satellite photo of this area also shows that the wetlands are mapped in an area that appears to be a field, which further indicates that the NWI maps are not accurate. The WCI report (2003) also showed significant portions of the NCWMAC property as wetlands, but there was no documentation to indicate that a formal wetlands delineation was conducted.

2.6 Topography

An updated topographic map (Figure 6) was developed using Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) obtained from the MGS (https:/ / www.maine.gov/ geolib/ programs/ lidar/ index.html ). The map shows the topography of both the USDA and CCAR properties. The western side of the USDA property is on a ridge, and the eastern side of the property is also higher than the central part of the USDA property. The overall relief in the area ranges from approximately 0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the coast to approximately 80 feet AMSL on the eastern end of the USDA Facility.

2.7 2003 Groundwater Resource Investigation

Prior to site construction, USDA commissioned a groundwater resources investigation by WCI (2003). This investigation included the installation of eight (8) wells on the USDA property and testing and pumping CCAR-1 and https://www.maine.gov/geolib/programs/lidar/index.html

February 2021

9I Pa g e

CCAR-2, which were existing wells at the time of the investigation No other site-specific water resources studies have been conducted at the Facility. The following key information is presented in this report.

1) Three (3) of the eight (8) wells were considered to offer sufficient yield for use as production wells. These wells were USDA 1 and USDA-7 (fresh water) and USDA Salt-1 (now USDA-8). Estimated well yields were reported as follows:

a. USDA-1 = 40 gallons per minute (gpm),

b. USDA-4 = 33 gpm

c. USDA-6 = 50 gpm

d. USDA-7 = 50 gpm

e. USDA-8 = >100 gpm

Aquifer testing indicated that wells USDA-4 and USDA-6 may cause issues with drawdown and potential saltwater intrusion into nearby residential wells. Those wells are not currently being used for production but well USDA-6 is equipped with a pump and piping in the event it is needed for emergency water supply.

2) Four phases of aquifers testing were completed. During the Phase 1 pumping test, USDA-1 and existing supply wells CCAR-1 and CCAR-2 were pumped. For Phase 2, USDA-1, USDA-4 and USDA-6 were pumped.

Phase 3 was a pumping test of USDA-Salt1. The Phase 4 pumping test included USDA-6 and USDA-7.

During the pumping tests, one or both of the CCAR supply wells (CCAR-1 and CCAR-2) were operating, during and after the pumping of the USDA test wells because the CCAR Facility needed to use their wells.

3) The water quality analyses completed after the aquifer tests indicated that arsenic exceeded the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.01 mg/L in wells USDA-1 (0.01 on 8/8/2002 and 0.013 on 10/26/2002), USDA-4 (0.019 on 10/26/2002), and USDA-6 (0.014 mg/Lon 10/26/2002). USDA-7, USDA Salt-1 (later renamed USDA-8), and CCAR-1 had detectable arsenic but it was below the MCL. Uranium and radon were not analyzed during these tests. No water treatment is conducted on any of the wells.

4) The wells were all reported to be installed to a depth of 500 feet, but the report did not include well construction logs or lithological logs for any of the wells. Tables 1 and 2, which were developed by The Etegra Team, summarize the available construction and pump information obtained from the WIC 2003 report and the site visit. While the MGS maintains a database of wells, none of the USDA wells are listed in the database. The MGS database does list two wells belonging to University of Maine, but the exact location and name of these wells cannot be confirmed from the information in the database.

5) The report included geophysical surveys that were conducted by Northeastern Geophysical Services of

Bangor, Maine. The geophysical surveys consisted of the following:

a) A geophysical well log of CCAR-1. The log noted that the well was 349.8 feet deep with casing installed to 20 feet, a nominal borehole diameter of six (6) inches, and a water level of 28.7 feet.

b) Two electrical resistivity surveys. These were completed to identify areas of low resistivity indicative of fracture zones. Some areas of low resistivity were identified but they were limited to approximately 200 feet in depth and some areas may have been the result of salt water intrusion, especially near the coastline.

c) A Very Low Frequency (VLF)-Electromagnetic (EM) survey: This was combined with a photolineament (fracture trace) analysis. The results indicated some VLF anomalies but they were inconclusive and some were considered to be caused by background issues including power lines, February 2021

10I Pa g e fences, and wetlands. The fracture trace analysis identified three (3) lineaments but The Etegra Team was not able to discern them on aerial photos or topographic/LIDAR maps of the area.

2.8 Well Operational Records

Well maintenance records were provided by USDA and scanned by the Etegra Team and incorporated into Tables 1 and 2. Operational records and information obtained during the site visit indicate that none of the wells or the seawater intake are equipped with flow meters or totalizers. The wells are also not outfitted with equipment capable of measuring the water level. Water levels are/were measured sporadically for limited periods, however the ability to accurately measure levels is complicated by cascading water and obstructions from pumping equipment. Water quality samples were collected from some of the wells after installation, but routine sampling is not conducted at individual wells, with the exception of sampling the potable water from USDA-1. Sampling results from February 2020 (Appendix A) for the water from USDA-1 (collected from the kitchen tap of the Facility) indicate the following parameters are below regulatory screening values: pH, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, arsenic, lead, uranium, chloride, nitrate, nitrite, total coliform, and hardness. While individual well pumping rates are not measured, the Facility discharge is measured via an NPDES wastewater discharge permit. The NPDES discharge consists of operational discharge related to aquaculture research, but does not include sewage from Facility restrooms and kitchen areas. Sewage is routed to a septic tank and leach field. NCWMAC discharges treated operational waste water from their Effluent Building into a pipe which eventually combines with the treated waste water from CCAR. CCAR has a flow meter on their waste stream and NCWMAC has a flowmeter on its waste stream. There is no combined flow meter. NCWMAC discharge records for January to October 2020, indicate an average discharge of approximately 230 gallons per minute (gpm), with a low of 199 (May) and a high of 251 (August). Recent flow records are in Appendix A. The NPDES discharge rates provide a general quantification for the total system withdrawal (freshwater, seawater, and salty water). Section 4.1.1 provides additional details and discussion related to water use.

Maintenance records indicate that the wells are visually inspected when the pumps are removed for service, but there is no regular ongoing maintenance program. Invoices for some of the work completed are provided in Appendix A. The Facility previously used a local drilling firm to inspect the pumps, but since 2010 NCWMAC has largely handled inspection and maintenance themselves.

The groundwater that is pumped from the wells is not treated. All of the process water used at the Facility is either untreated groundwater or seawater, and no process water from any water utilities is provided to the Facility.

2.9 Interviews

The Etegra Team conducted three interviews as part of the Phase I Water Supply Evaluation. Key findings of the interviews are presented below.

2.9.1 Mr. Bart Cushing, Cushing & Sons Drilling

On November 5 and 25, 2020, Mr. Robert Beard of the Etegra Team interviewed Mr. Bart Cushing of Cushing & Sons Drilling (Cushing & Sons) by telephone (603-352-8866). Cushing and Sons is water well drilling company based in Keene, New Hampshire. Mr. Cushing was contacted as part of a search for regional drilling firms that specialize in water supply wells and pumping equipment.

Mr. Cushing indicated that additional well yield, at sites such as NCWMAC, could likely be obtained with larger diameter and deeper wells. He suggested installing 8 or 10 inch diameter wells to depths of 1000 to 1200 feet. He said the current wells on site may be too shallow to provide the water needed. In addition, he indicated that the

February 2021

111 Pa g e short longevity of NCWMAc' s pumps may be caused by the wells not being plumb (exactly vertical). When drilling in hard crystalline bedrock, such as is encountered at NCWMAC, it is important to drill at appropriate speed and pressure to ensure a straight borehole. Boreholes that are not plumb inhibit proper flow to the pump and may damage pumps over time, particularly in high-use wells such as NCWMAC. Mr. Cushing indicated that regional drillers may often drill too fast and advance boreholes that are not sufficiently plumb. Mr. Cushing was contacted again on November 25, 2020 to discuss potential costs for drilling and concerns about water quality, specifically with radon, uranium, radium, and arsenic. Mr. Cushing noted that arsenic, uranium, and radon are common in many of the area wells but that treatment costs are generally manageable. He also mentioned that iron and manganese were also typical issues but they could also be solved by treatment. Mr. Cushing indicated that drilling a well would cost approximately $25-$30 foot, so a 1,200 foot well would likely cost approximately $30,000-$36,000 but this value includes drilling only and does not include any associated infrastructure, permitting, or geologist oversight of the installation.

He also noted that since NCWMAC is near the coast, the protective casing should be constructed with galvanized steel or stainless steel, not carbon steel, as the carbon steel would likely corrode quickly.

2.9.2 Mr. Haig Brochu, Hydrogeologist, Maine Geological Survey

Mr. Haig Brochu, Hydrogeologist with the Maine Geological Survey, was interviewed by Mr. Robert Beard of The Etegra Team on November 4, 2020 by telephone (207) 592-3190. Mr. Brochu's contact information was provided by Ms. Terri West-Perkins of Juniper Environmental (Juniper). Ms. Perkins had previously spoken with Mr. Brochu, and he informed Ms. Perkins that wells deeper than 500 feet in this region will likely encounter elevated levels of radionuclides (uranium, radium, and radon) and that arsenic is also a common concern.

During the call with Mr. Beard, Mr. Brochu said that Maine regulators will not prohibit installing a deeper well, but in his experience the granite bedrock gets much tighter below 500 feet, and that fractures may not be encountered. He said that naturally occurring arsenic, uranium, radium, and radon would likely be elevated. He recommended collection of water samples and analysis of a complete inorganic testing suite, including arsenic and uranium. He said it is likely that water treatment would be required, and also noted that aquifer testing of new wells would need to address treatment and discharge of elevated concentrations of arsenic, uranium, radium, and/or other related compounds.

2.9.3 Mr. Davin O'Connell, USDA Biological Science Technician

Mr. Davin O'Connell, USDA Biological Science Technician, was interviewed numerous times by telephone (207-664- 6024) by Mr. Robert Beard and Ms. Terri West-Perkins of the Etegra Team. Mr. O'Connell was also interviewed at length in person by Matthew Machusick during the site visit on October 22, 2020 (Section 4.0).

Mr. O'Connell provided much of the key information on the wells and the water infrastructure system and this is referred to throughout this report. Mr. O'Connell also provided the following documents in an email dated December 1, 2020:

1) USDA ARS NCWMAC Intake and Effluent Discharge Layout;

2) Well #1 Potable Water Test 2020; and

3) 2020 NCWMAC Effluent Discharge

Copies of this information is provided in Appendix A.

February 2021

12 1 Pa g e

3.0 FACILITY VISIT

Mr. Matthew Machusick, Hydrogeologist with the Etegra Team, conducted a site visit on October 22, 2020. Mr.

Davin O'Connell, USDA Biological Science Technician, escorted Mr. Machusick to the wells and provided information on the Facility. The purpose of this visit was to gain a better understanding of NCWMAC' s water supply issues, to collect sufficient information to address questions included in the SOW and to assess the physical features of the Facility in anticipation of installation of additional wells and/or aquifer testing. The following sections present the findings of the site visit and sequentially address the questions included in the SOW

3.1 Facility Water Demand

NCWMAC's mission requires water of varying salinity. USDA staff refer to three "flavors" of water: fresh water, brackish water, and salty water. As indicated above, NCWMAC' s water supply is derived from groundwater and is supplemented by a salt-water intake from Taunton Bay. The Facility manages the blending of water for the operation of the fish tanks and maintaining the proper salinity is critical. The supply and demand for each flavor of water is different and is discussed in more detail below.

3.1.1 Estimated Current Water Use by Water Type

Wells USDA-1, -6, and -7 provide fresh water and are equipped with pumps and are plumbed to the NCWMAC Facility. However, USDA-6 is only used for emergencies, since withdrawals from this well lead to rapid drawdown at neighboring residential wells. Wells USDA-2, -3, -4, and -5 are all fresh water. However during drilling, the wells indicated minimal yield and therefore have not been equipped with pumps or plumbed to NCWMAC. While these wells are not in use, they have been equipped with caps and secured, and are being kept in reserve as potential monitoring points and sampling points for future aquifer and water quality testing. These wells should not be considered to be abandoned.

Wells USDA-8 through 11 are considered salty water wells and USDA-12 is considered brackish. The following is the reported salinity of these wells.

• USDA #8 Salty Well Water: 10-20 parts per thousand (ppt)

• USDA #9 Salty Well Water: 10-20 ppt

• USDA #10 Salty Well Water: 10-20 ppt

• USDA #11 Salty Well Water: 10-20 ppt

• USDA #12 Brackish Water: 2-5 ppt

For comparison, seawater, which is also used at NCWMAC, generally averages about 35 ppt.

The wells are not equipped with flow monitoring equipment and NCWMAC does not have a method to accurately determine the daily water usage on a well by well basis. However, total water use can be estimated based on the measured wastewater discharge via the NPDES permitted discharge. The NPDES discharge does not include septic waste. Septic waste is conveyed by sanitary sewer piping to a septic tank and leach field.

The NPDES discharge into Taunton Bay is located on CCAR property but consists of USDA equipment and the permit is facilitated by the USDA. The location is shown on the USDA ARS NCWMAC Intake and Effluent Discharge Layout in Appendix A.

Based on general pump capacity, Facility discharge and information provided by Mr. O'Connell, the current daily water use is approximately 230 gallons per minute (gpm). Flow rates by water type are estimated as follows:

Fresh Water: 40 gpm Brackish Water: 40 gpm Salty Water: 125 gpm Seawater: 25 gpm (according to the USDA, this usage is capped at 25 gpm) Total daily water usage: 230 gpm

This is consistent with recent discharge records which indicate approximately 230 gpm is discharged from the Facility. In general, salty water is produced from a continual and combined operation of USDA-8, USDA-9, and USDA-

10. USDA-11 is generally not used due to mechanical issues. Brackish water is supplied by USDA-12 and/or produced by mixing fresh water (from USDA-1 and/or USDA-7) with salty water. At the time of the site visit, USDA- 12 was not operational due to pump failure reportedly caused by excessive drawdown and subsequent cavitation. USDA-12 is planned to be equipped with a variable frequency drive (VFD) to facilitate flow control and restriction.

3.1.2 Desired Increases in Production by Water Type

As indicated in the Contract Scope of Work, the USDA would like to increase the water production at NCWMAC as follows:

Fresh Water 40 15 55

Brackish Water 40 30-50 70-90

Salty Water 125 so 175

Seawater 25 0 25

Total, all types 195-230 95-105 325-345

The freshwater wells, while they supply potable water to both the USDA and CCAR facilities, are also used for blending water for maintaining the fish tanks. Although the wells supply water that is used for drinking to the Facility, the Facility does not have a permit as a public water supply.

3.1.3 Water Storage

There is no storage for fresh/potable water from USDA-1 or USDA-7. These wells operate on demand via pressure tanks. Brackish water from USDA-12 is combined with withdraws from CCAR-1, CCAR-2, and/or seawater. CCAR-1 and CCAR- 2 are pumped to a large holding tank. The holding tank has a connection that leads to NCWMAC. Withdrawals from USDA-12 enter the system after the holding tank and prior to NCWMAC. It is possible that this configuration may add additional demands to the USDA-12 pump and motor which may contribute to the pump burn-out at USDA- 12, since the pump may be working harder against higher pressures than its designed range.

H I P age

February 2021

14 1 Pa g e

Withdrawals from USDA-8, 9, 1O, and 11 are manifolded together and conveyed to a storage tank with 11,749 gallon capacity. USDA-11 is combined with flow from USDA-10 prior to where USDA-8, -9, and -10 are manifolded together. The Facility has a high demand (approximately 125 gpm) relative to the storage volume in this tank. For example, assuming a demand of 125 gpm, the storage tank offers approximately 94 minutes of storage. Thus, the tank is only used to maintain a consistent head pressure and the pumps are operated continuously to maintain the water level in the tank. The head tank is not monitored and there is an unmonitored overflow from the head tank.

Therefore, the wells operate continually to fill the tank, but the amount of overflow is not known or monitored, nor is the discharge to the Facility.

3.2 Confirmation of Well Names and Locations

The USDA and CCAR facilities have a combined total of twenty-one (21) wells. Some of the well names have changed over time; Figure 2 presents the well locations for both facilities and utilizes the current well names. The primary wells at NCWMAC include USDA-1 and USDA-7 (fresh water); USDA-12 (brackish water); USDA-8, USDA-9, and USDA-10 (salty water). Unused wells include USDA-2, USDA-3, USDA-4, and USDA-5 (these wells are not plumbed or equipped with pumps/power). USDA-6 is equipped and ready to use, but is only used for emergency supply due to impacts on neighboring well. In addition, USDA-11 is a salty water well that is not currently in use due to mechanical issues.

Mr. O'Connell stated that survey data for the wells is not available and does not believe that the wells were ever surveyed by a professional land surveyor. The locations shown on Figure 2 are based on the best available information available in the reports and confirmation of their approximate locations obtained during the site visit.

3.3 Well Accessibility for Pump Removal and Well Inspection

All of the USDA wells that were observed in the site visit are readily accessible by standard vehicles with sufficient ground clearance. The CCAR wells were not checked during the site visit, but they are likely also accessible if needed but this has not been confirmed. The USDA wells that are equipped with pumps have pitless adaptors and are plumbed underground. Well heads are secured with locking caps and water resistant gaskets. Pumps could be removed with a pump puller (e.g. Up-Z-Dazy ®), pump hoist, and/or tripod and winch. Pumps are 4" diameter with 2" HDPE discharge pipe, and all of the wells have 6 inch diameter steel casing installed to bedrock. Below the casing the wells are open boreholes. The length of casing for each well is not documented, however based on the shallow depth to bedrock and information provided in the WCI report, it is estimated that the well casings extend approximately 20 feet below ground surf ace.

3.4 Well Accessibility for Aquifer Tests

Wells are accessible for testing, but advance planning will be required to shut-off any wells.