geotechnical investigation report - clarington · 2019. 3. 1. · recommendations are provided in...

1801 Wentworth Street Whitby Ontario L1N 8R6 Canada | 11177238 | 01 | Report No 1 | January 9 2019

Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Residential Development 3 Lawson Road Courtice, Ontario

Report for Lynstrath Developments Inc.

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, 3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario | 11177238 (01) | Page i

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation that was conducted in support of the design and construction of a planned residential townhouse development being considered for a site situated near the southeast corner of the intersection between Lawson Road and Townline Road North in Courtice, Ontario (herein referred to as “the Property” and “the Site”). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 0.69 hectares (1.7 acres) and is currently undeveloped. The planned development will consist of six (6) three-storey townhouse buildings, paved access and parking areas. The development will be municipally serviced with piped potable water (water main) and sanitary sewer. GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by Lynstrath Developments Inc. (the Client) to complete this investigation which includes a hydrogeologic component.

The study has included a site inspection, advancement of test holes, soil sampling, water level monitoring, a well survey to compliment a review of available Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (now known as Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) well records, hydraulic conductivity testing and a water balance evaluation based upon conceptual information.

In summary, the Site is generally underlain by topsoil and then silty sand / sandy silt till. A permanent shallow groundwater table was not observed. It is our opinion that there will not be significant constraints for the proposed residential development from the seasonal variations of groundwater as the water can be handled with appropriate engineering techniques. It is expected that groundwater will generally be below the depth of the future development, although seepage may be encountered in deeper excavations or foundations. Seepage is expected to be seasonal in nature. If short-term pumping of groundwater at volumes greater than 50,000 L/day and less than 400,000L/day is required during the construction stage, the Environmental Activity Sector Registry (EASR) must be completed. In summary, the proposed residential development is suitable from a hydrogeologic perspective.

There were no drinking water wells located within 250m of the Site from the MECP well records or from the supplemental well survey conducted by GHD. There are minor impacts expected to groundwater and surface water as a result of the future development provided that appropriate planning (i.e. incorporation of LIDs as supported by the water balance calculations), mitigation measures and proper construction techniques are considered.

From a geotechnical perspective, the Site is suitable for construction of the proposed development including three-storey townhouse buildings, associated servicing and pavement areas. Detailed recommendations are provided in subsequent sections of this report.

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, 3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario | 11177238 (01) | Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Scope of Investigation .................................................................................................................. 1

3. Project Details .............................................................................................................................. 2

4. Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 2

4.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 2

4.2 Subsurface ......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2.1 Regional Physiography and Geology ............................................................... 3 4.2.2 Local Geology ................................................................................................... 3 4.2.3 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 4 4.2.4 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 5 4.2.5 Hydraulic Conductivity ...................................................................................... 6 4.2.6 Infiltration Testing ............................................................................................. 7

5. Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Existing Local Water Supplies ........................................................................................... 8

5.2 Source Water Protection Considerations ........................................................................... 9

6. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 10 6.1 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................... 11

6.1.1 Water Balance Evaluation .............................................................................. 11 6.1.2 Impact on Groundwater Baseflow .................................................................. 13 6.1.3 Impact on Surface Water Bodies .................................................................... 14 6.1.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 14 6.1.5 Servicing ......................................................................................................... 14 6.1.6 Dewatering for Construction ........................................................................... 14

6.2 Geotechnical .................................................................................................................... 15

6.2.1 Site Preparation and Excavation .................................................................... 15 6.2.2 Service Installation.......................................................................................... 16 6.2.3 Foundation Design ......................................................................................... 16 6.2.4 Slab on Grade ................................................................................................. 18 6.2.5 Basement Retaining Walls ............................................................................. 19 6.2.6 Pavement Design ........................................................................................... 19 6.2.7 General Recommendations ............................................................................ 21

6.3 Summary Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 22

7. References ................................................................................................................................. 24

8. Statement of Limitations ............................................................................................................. 25

Table Index

Table 4.1 Grain Size Distribution Summary ...................................................................................... 4

Table 4.2 Summary of Monitoring Well/Piezometer Information ....................................................... 5

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, 3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario | 11177238 (01) | Page ii

Table 4.3 Potentiometric Water Level Summary ............................................................................... 5

Table 4.4 Water Quality Summary .................................................................................................... 6

Table 5.1 Summary of MECP Water Well Data ................................................................................ 9

Table 6.1 Pre Development Summary ............................................................................................ 12

Table 6.2 Post Development Summary (No Enhancements).......................................................... 12

Table 6.3 Post Development Summary (With Enhanced Infiltration) .............................................. 13

Table 6.4 Depth to Competent Bearing Native Soil ......................................................................... 17

Table 6.5 Preliminary Bearing Pressures for Foundation Design ................................................... 17

Table 6.6 Access Roadway Pavement Structure ............................................................................ 20

Enclosures Vicinity Plan . . . . . . . . . Figure 1

Property Plan . . . . . . . . . Figure 2

Plot Plan . . . . . . . . . Figure 3

Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . Figure 4

Test Hole Plan . . . . . . . . . Figure 5

Groundwater Elevation . . . . . . . . Figure 6

Physiography . . . . . . . . . Figure 7

Surficial Geology . . . . . . . . Figure 8

Quaternary Geology . . . . . . . . Figure 9

Source Water Protection Map . . . . . . . Figure 10

Appendix Index Appendix A Soil Exploration Data

Appendix B MECP Well Records and Well survey

Appendix C Hydraulic Conductivity Data

Appendix D Analytical Data

Appendix E Water Balance Calculations

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, 3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario | 11177238 (01) | Page 1

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation that was conducted in support of the a proposed residential development being considered for a site situated near the southeast corner of the intersection between Townline Road North and Lawson Road in Municipality of Clarington, Ontario (herein referred to as “the Property” and “the Site”). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 0.69 hectare (1.7 acres) and is currently undeveloped. The planned development will consist of six (6) three-storey townhouse buildings, paved access and parking as depicted by the Concept Plan, Figure 4. The development will be municipally serviced with piped potable water (water mains) and sanitary sewers. GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by Lynstrath Developments Inc. (the Client) to complete this geotechnical investigation which includes a hydrogeologic component.

The general location of the Site is illustrated on the Vicinity Plan, Figure 1. The location with respect to surrounding roads and land use is depicted on the Property Plan, Figure 2. Specific details of the Site and surrounding properties based on recent aerial photography is presented on the Plot Plan, Figure 3. A preliminary plan of the proposed development is provided on the Concept Plan, Figure 4. The borehole and test pit locations are illustrated on the Test Hole Plan, Figure 5. These plans and other figures can be reviewed in the Enclosures section.

2. Scope of Investigation

The purpose of the investigation was to define the prevailing hydrogeologic and geotechnical conditions at the Site. The hydrogeologic aspects of the study were completed to investigate the subsurface soil stratigraphy, groundwater movement, to assess groundwater supplies and evaluate potential impacts from the proposed development and related construction. The geotechnical investigation was conducted to provide recommendations relevant to earthwork construction, dewatering, foundation and slab on grade design, buried service installation and pavement structure. The following scope of work was performed to accomplish the foregoing purposes.

1. Reviewed available background information relevant to the Site such as geologic, physiographic and water resources reports and maps.

2. Carried out an inventory of available well record data on file with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), now known as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for the immediate area to evaluate the physical characteristics of the aquifer complexes that underlie the region. A field survey of the general area was carried out to supplement the MECP data.

3. A walkover inspection was conducted to review surficial ground characteristics.


4. The subsurface conditions were explored by advancing, sampling and logging a total of ten (10) boreholes and three (3) test pits. The subsurface conditions were recorded and are summarized in detail in Appendix A. The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 1.8 to 4.8m. The test pits were excavated to depths that varied from 1.9 to 2.4m. Monitoring wells/piezometers were installed in five (5) of the test holes for the geotechnical investigation to facilitate water level measurements, i.e. a monitoring well in four (4) of the boreholes and a piezometer in one (1) of the test pits.

5. Rising and/or falling head (slug) tests were completed at all four (4) monitoring well locations to evaluate hydraulic conductivity of the subsoils. The infiltration rate of the upper vadose zone was evaluated based on the soil type observed and in-situ testing.

6. Carried out laboratory analyses of materials encountered including grain size testing and moisture content determinations of representative soil samples.

7. Obtained representative groundwater samples that were submitted for chemical testing to determine background chemistry.

8. Completed a water balance that considers pre- and post-development conditions and evaluates groundwater baseflow conditions based on a preliminary conceptual plan.

9. Prepared a detailed report using engineering analyses of the acquired data outlining our conclusions and recommendations presented herein.

3. Project Details

The conceptual plan is provided as Figure 4 (based on a Site Plan prepared by The Biglieri Group Ltd. dated October 18, 2018). The plan indicates that the overall area of the Site is 0.69 ha (1.7 acres). It is GHD’s understanding, the proposed development will consist of six (6) three-storey townhouse buildings, paved access and parking. An allowance has been made to permit the widening of adjacent Townline Road North to the west. As a result, the Site has a net area of 0.63 ha (1.6 acres). GHD has assumed that the structures will have one-level basements. The development will be municipally serviced for potable water and sanitary sewers.

4. Site Conditions

4.1 General

The field program consisted of a site inspection, soils investigation, hydraulic testing, and measurement of water levels in the monitoring wells. The soils investigation (boreholes and then test pits) was conducted on June 14 and July 11, 2018, respectively. Borehole records and physical test results of representative soil samples are presented in Appendix A. A site reconnaissance was conducted by GHD prior to the subsurface investigation to observe the general surficial characteristics of the Site. The southern portion of the Site was noted to be covered with a dense growth of trees and bush at the time of the reconnaissance.


The Property is of rectangular shape and is bounded by residential lots to the east and south, Lawson Road to the north and Townline Road North to the west. Topography in the area is relatively flat with an overall gentle incline towards the southeast. Harmony Creek exists approximately 0.3km to the southeast. Storm sewer catch basins were observed along both Lawson Road and Townline Road North. There are no structures present on the Property. The northern portion of the Site supports maintained grass. The southern portion supports a dense growth of trees and bush.

4.2 Subsurface

4.2.1 Regional Physiography and Geology

The Property is situated in the physiographic region known as the Iroquois Plain (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). As illustrated on the Figure 7, the Site straddles two (2) distinct depositional features: clay plain to the west; and sand plain to the east. The Ontario Geological Survey information (Figure 9) indicates that the Quaternary geology for the area is glaciolacustrine deposits. The surficial geology (Figure 8) is comprised of stone poor carbonate derived silty to sandy till. Based on water well records, the subsurface materials are silty clay with variable amounts of sand and gravel.

A review of available MECP well records identified zero (0) well records on the Site and a total of twelve (12) well records within 0.25km (including two (2) abandonment records). The well records indicate the presence of clay with sand, gravel and stones (inferred to be till of low permeability) as the predominant shallow soil over shale bedrock. The well records considered are provided and shown in Appendix B. Physical and hydraulic data are presented on the MECP well records. The records include seven (7) dug/bored wells, four (4) drilled overburden wells and one (1) drilled bedrock well. The water well information is discussed in further detail in Section 5.1.

4.2.2 Local Geology

This section of the report discusses the subsurface soil conditions observed during the subsurface exploration program. The subsurface stratigraphy was investigated by drilling ten (10) boreholes on June 14, 2018. Monitoring wells were installed in five (4) of these boreholes to facilitate water level measurements. Three (3) shallow test pits were excavated on July 11, 2018 in areas that were inaccessible with the drill rig due to existing trees and bush that occupy the southern portion of the Site. A piezometer was installed in a representative test pit for water level measurements. The locations of the test holes are illustrated on the Test Hole Plan, Figure 5. Details of the subsurface conditions encountered are graphically presented in Appendix A. It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been inferred from the test hole observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another, and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of geological change. Further, conditions may vary between and beyond the test holes. The soils encountered generally consisted of topsoil underlain by glacial till which extended to the full depth of this investigation. The surficial layer of surficial topsoil was encountered in all thirteen (13) test holes and ranged in thickness from 76 to 305mm. This soil was observed to be in a damp, loose state, with a silty, highly organic content. As such, it is expected to be devoid of any structural engineering properties.


The glacial till was encountered directly beneath the topsoil in the boreholes. In comparison, the test pits encountered a thin layer of reddish brown silty sand below the topsoil. The silty sand averaged 0.20m in thickness. A grain size distribution analysis was conducted on a representative sample of the silty sand. The results are graphically presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table 4.1. The results of the testing indicate the following compositional range: 4% gravel, 42% sand, and 54% silt and clay-sized particles by weight (Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)). Hydrometer analyses conducted on this sample suggest that the soil contains 39% particles between 5 and 75 µm in size.

The till observed appeared brown to grey in colour and consisted of sandy silt/silty sand with varying amounts of clay and gravel. In addition, occasional cobbles were encountered during the drilling operations. Three (3) samples of the till were subjected to grain size distribution analyses and indicate the following compositional range: 4 to 24% gravel, 35 to 47% sand, and 29 to 61% silt and clay-sized particles (USCS). Hydrometer analyses conducted on these samples suggest that the till contains 18 to 38% particles between 5 and 75 µm in size. Results of standard penetration tests (SPT’s) are reported as “N” values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths.

The SPT N values varied from 3 blows/300mm to in excess of 100 blows/300mm, indicating a very loose to very dense in-situ state of relative density. Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the till yielded values ranging from 5 to 19% moisture by weight. A 1.3m thick layer of grey sand was encountered by BH-2 within the till at a depth of 2.1m. The sand layer was noted to exist in a very dense state of relative density (based on SPT N values in excess of 100 blows/300mm).

Table 4.1 Grain Size Distribution Summary

Location Depth (m)

Grain Size Distribution

Observed Soil Unit %Gravel %Sand

%Fines

%Silt %Clay BH-2, SS-4 4.6 – 5.2 24 47 18 11 Sandy Silt Till BH-5, SS-2 0.8 – 1.4 4 35 38 23 Sandy Silt Till BH-9, SS-4 2.3 – 2.9 7 42 31 20 Sandy Silt Till TP-3, GS-1 0.3 – 0.5 4 42 39 15 Silty Sand

Notes: %Fines indicates silt and clay particles; grain size distribution based on Unified Soil Classification System.

4.2.3 Groundwater

Groundwater seepage was reported in four (4) boreholes (BH-2, BH-4, BH-9 and BH-10) at depths ranging from 3.0 to 4.3m during drilling operations. When encountered, seepage was generally noted within the till. Monitoring wells were installed in four (4) boreholes (BH-2, BH-3, BH-4 and BH-10) in order to facilitate monitoring of groundwater levels. In addition, a standpipe piezometer was installed within test pit TP-2. A summary of the monitoring well details is provided in Table 4.2.


Table 4.2 Summary of Monitoring Well/Piezometer Information

Location Depth of Well (m) Pipe Stick-Up (m) Effective Well

Screen Interval (m)

Water Seepage Depth (m)

BH-2 4.6 0.88 3.1 – 4.6 ~ 3.0 BH-3 1.5 0.90 0.5 – 1.5 Not observed BH-4 4.6 0.86 3.1 – 4.6 ~ 4.0 BH-10 4.6 0.86 3.1 – 4.6 ~ 4.1 TP-2* 1.9 1.19 0.4 – 1.9 Not observed (*) represents standpipe piezometer.

Groundwater potentiometric levels were measured on August 2, 2018 in the installed monitoring wells. The data has been plotted on Figure 6 and summarized in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Potentiometric Water Level Summary

Location Ground Elevation (m)*

Water Level (m) August 2, 2018

GW Elevation (m) August 2, 2018

BH-2 98.370 2.07 96.300 BH-3 98.735 dry dry BH-4 99.090 2.83 96.260 BH-10 99.544 3.11 96.434 TP-2 98.335 1.75 96.585

Notes: m = metres; GW = groundwater; (*) Elevations referenced to a temporary benchmark established on top of a fire hydrant along north side of Lawson Road across from site. The elevations provided are for the purposes of evaluating groundwater elevation and flow direction and should not be relied upon as a legal survey or topographic elevation survey.

The potentiometric elevations range from approximately 96.26 to 96.58m indicating a relatively flat horizontal gradient. Based on the water level data collected and the surrounding topography, the overall shallow groundwater flow direction is to the north towards Lawson Road. It is interpreted that the municipal servicing along Lawson Road and Townline Road North may be impacting the direction of groundwater movement. The overall flow would be towards Harmony Creek. The direction of shallow groundwater movement is illustrated on the Potentiometric Elevations plan, Figure 6. It is expected that groundwater seepage will be encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 4m (similar to what encountered during the subsurface explorations). It should be noted that groundwater levels are transient and tend to fluctuate with the seasons, periods of precipitation and temperature.

4.2.4 Water Quality

Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells installed in BH-2 and BH-10 for the purpose of determining background water quality. Certificates of chemical analyses are presented in Appendix D. The water quality data are summarized and compared with the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) in Table 4.4.


Table 4.4 Water Quality Summary

PARAMETER

Monitoring Well ODWS

BH-2 BH-10 MAC IMAC AO/OG

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 246 249 -- -- 30 to 500

Ammonia - Total 0.077 0.08 -- -- -- Calcium 95.4 63.0 -- -- -- Chloride 38.2 13.7 -- -- 250

Colour (T.C.U.) <2 <2 -- -- 5

Conductivity (mS/cm) 632 633 -- -- -- Copper <0.002 <0.002 -- -- 1.0 Fluoride <0.1 0.2 1.5 -- -- Hardness (as CaCO3) 309 320 -- -- 80 to 100 Iron 0.252 0.031 -- -- 0.3

Magnesium 17.1 39.5 -- -- --

Manganese 0.03 0.021 -- -- 0.05 Nitrite (N) <0.1 <0.1 1.0 -- -- Nitrate (N) <0.1 <0.1 10 -- -- pH (units) 8.05 8.15 -- -- 6.5 to 8.5 Potassium 9.9 10.3 -- -- -- Sodium 28.2 15.4 -- -- 200 Sulphate 30 56 -- -- 500 Turbidity (N.T.U.) 25.8 2.2 1 -- 5 Zinc 0.007 <0.005 -- -- 5.0 Notes: All units in mg/L (i.e. parts per million) unless otherwise noted. MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health related); IMAC =

Interim MAC (insufficient data to establish MAC or not feasible to establish MAC to desired level); AO/OG = aesthetic objective or operational guideline (not health related). Bolded value exceeds ODWS.

The groundwater beneath the Site is relatively hard which is common in Southern Ontario due to overburden materials containing calcium. Turbidity is related to the monitoring wells which may require further development to lower this parameter. In general, the water quality is relatively good with no indication of organic pollution.

4.2.5 Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity (K) testing was completed at monitoring wells installed in boreholes BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, and BH-10 on July 17, 2018. The testing consisted of rising and falling head testing and (with the exception of BH-3 which only involved a falling head test) was completed by introducing a one-metre long slug or adding a known quantity of water within the well, and then measuring the water levels using a data logger programmed to record readings at three (3) or one (1) second intervals. The data was analyzed using AQTESOLV and the Bouwer-Rice solution for each rising and falling head test (Appendix C for solution data).


The K values for the hydraulic conductivity testing are on the order of 10-4 to 10-6 cm/sec. The K values from the slug test data indicate that the monitoring wells were screened within low to medium hydraulic conductivity units. The hydraulic conductivity testing suggests that excavations within these soils are expected to yield little water. However, increased amounts of water may be expected when pockets or layer of sand and gravel are intersected.

4.2.6 Infiltration Testing

For purposes of Low Impact Development strategies, infiltration data of the shallow site soils is presented in this section. An in-situ constant head permeameter test was completed at a central area of the site between boreholes BH-5 and BH-7 to evaluate hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soil zone. The importance of infiltration is for the implementation of low impact development strategies to recharge precipitation into the ground at pre-development or near pre-development values. Infiltration testing was completed of the shallow vadose zone soil using an ETC Pask (constant head well) permeameter.

Based upon the infiltration testing, the upper vadose zone has a field saturated hydraulic conductivity ranging from 10-4 cm/sec (Appendix C). The infiltration test results provide preliminary infiltration values for the Site and are indicative of silty sand / sandy silt material. Although LIDs can be applied to any soil type, additional testing should be considered at the detailed design stage when infiltration areas are known.

Based on the Supplementary Guidelines to the Ontario Building Code 2012, this correlates to an infiltration rate in the order of 30 to 50 mm/hr and percolation times (T) in the order of 12 to 20 min/cm. It is noted, however, that slight variations in the soil stratigraphy may cause variations in the permeability of the soil in both vertical and horizontal orientations.

5. Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of the area is characterized by flat to rolling topography of soils that generally consisted of sandy silt till with a few pockets of clay below sandy silt till. Seasonal water is expected to flow within the loose to very loose sandy silt till layer. Limited vertical migration is expected within the till. Only a minor portion of the existing infiltration is expected to recharge the deeper aquifers that are confined below the till.

Information regarding groundwater characteristics of the immediate area was obtained from an inventory of well records. A total of fifteen (15) well records were found to be available within 0.25km of the Site. The well records indicate the presence of clay with sand, gravel and stones (inferred to be till of low permeability) as the predominant shallow soil over limestone bedrock. The well records considered are provided and shown in Appendix B. Physical and hydraulic data are presented on the MECP well records. The records include one (1) dug/bored well, eight (8) drilled overburden wells and six (6) drilled bedrock well. One (1) of the well records (for well abandonment) contained no information and will not be considered in our evaluation of local wells. The MECP well records and their locations are provided in Appendix B.


5.1 Existing Local Water Supplies

Nearby surrounding lands are generally residential, with some undeveloped lands to the north across Lawson Road. Surrounding lands as well as the proposed development are municipally serviced. Physical and hydraulic data are presented on MECP well records (Appendix B) and the information indicates the presence of two (2) principal aquifer systems:

1. An unconfined shallow water table system within the till tapped by shallow dug/bored wells; and

2. Deeper overburden of sand and gravel within the till tapped by the majority of the drilled wells.

GHD notes that normally the deeper bedrock fractures are a separate aquifer complex. However, in this situation, the single water well record reports that the bedrock was dry. Other than the bedrock well, the groundwater was generally described as “fresh” in the well records reviewed. The reviewed MOECP data included seven (7) well records for dug/bored wells with an average depth of 7.4m (24.4 feet). The dug/bored wells encountered water at depths that ranged from 1.8 to 8.5m. The pumping rates yielded an average of 13.8 L/min. Shallow dug/bored wells are generally difficult to seal at the surface and are considered to be susceptible to shallow sources of contamination. From a quantity perspective, shallow dug/bored wells are susceptible to large seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater and are more prone to becoming dry in the winter and summer months. This is further demonstrated by two (2) of the records which reported abandonment of shallow wells.

The drilled overburden wells comprised 33% of the well records reviewed and extend to an average depth of 26.1m (85.8 feet). The average depth at which groundwater was encountered was 17.3m. The drilled overburden wells reportedly produce test yields that averaged of 29.2 L/min. Only one (1) drilled well was reportedly advanced to bedrock which was encountered at a depth of 48.8m. The depth of the well was 49.4m. The driller indicated that the bedrock was shale and the well was dry. The MECP well data has been summarized in Table 5.1.


Table 5.1 Summary of MECP Water Well Data

Total Number of Wells Inventoried: Dug/Bored Wells:

Drilled Wells (Overburden): Drilled Wells (Bedrock):

12 7 (58%) 4 (33%) 1 (8%)

Parameters Statistical Summary Statistical Summary Statistical Summary

Dug / Bored Wells Drilled – Overburden Drilled – Bedrock WELL YIELDS

Range

Average

7.6 to 26.3

L/min 13.8 L/min

1.67 to 5.8

Igpm 3.0 Igpm

7.6 to 68.1

L/min 29.2 L/min

1.7 to 15.0

Igpm 6.4 Igpm

N/A

N/A

REPORTED YIELDS

Frequency Frequency Frequency

Not Reported Dry

0 to 1 Igpm 2 to 4 Igpm 5 to 9 Igpm ≥10 Igpm

4 0 2 0 1 0

57% 0% 29% 0% 14% 0%

0 0 1 1 1 1

0% 0% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0 1 0 0 0 0

0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

STATIC WATER LEVELS Range

Average

4.6 to 6.1 m 5.5 m

15.0 to 20.0 ft 18.1 ft

4.6 to 5.5 m 5.0 m

15.0 to 18.0 ft 16.3 ft

N/A

N/A

WATER ENCOUNTERED

Range Average

1.8 to 8.5 m 5.3 m

6.0 to 28.0 ft 17.3 ft

14.6 to 27.1m 19.7 m

48.0 to 89.0 ft 64.8 ft

N/A

N/A

WELL DEPTH Range

Average

3.0 to 12.2 m

7.4 m

10.0 to 40.0 ft

24.4 ft

14.9 to 50.3m

26.1 m

49.0 to 165 ft

85.8 ft

49.4 m 49.4 m

162 ft 162 ft

Notes: Data based on MECP well record information (see Appendix B). L/m represents litres per minute, Igpm indicates Imperial gallons per minute and m is metres.

The well records are also generally consistent with the information gathered during GHD’s field investigation. The well records indicate that the overburden soils are generally comprised of till with varying amounts of clay, sand, gravel. To supplement the MECP well records reviewed, GHD staff conducted a well survey of the area to investigate where private wells may still be in use (Appendix B). Eight (8) locations were surveyed as outlined in Appendix B.2. There were no drinking water wells identified in the survey of the area. Hydrogeological concerns are not anticipated based on the review of MOECP water well records and the supplemental well survey.

5.2 Source Water Protection Considerations

Where proposed developments are being planned, it is important to determine the presence of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs) and Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVAs) in the area. These areas are protected under the Clean Water Act (2006). In general, SGRAs are defined as areas where water seeps into an aquifer from rain and melting snow, supplying water to the underlying aquifer. An HVA aquifer occurs where the subsurface material offers limited protection from contamination resulting from surface activities.


GHD considered the potential for SGRAs and HVAs by reviewing the “Source Protection Information Atlas” that is currently available through the MOECP website. The published information is dated March, 2018. In general, there are no HVAs in close proximity to the Site. Small zones of SGRAs are located approximately 0.15km to the north (see Figure 10).

The susceptibility of an aquifer to contamination is a function of the susceptibility of its recharge area to the infiltration of contaminants. As defined in the Clean Water Act (2006), the vulnerability of groundwater within a source protection area shall be assessed using one or more of the following groundwater vulnerability assessment methods:

• Intrinsic susceptibility index (ISI).

• Aquifer vulnerability index (AVI).

• Surface to aquifer advection time (SAAT).

• Surface to well advection time (SWAT).

The Director’s rules will permit the use of various methods, such as the ISI, to determine those aquifers that are highly vulnerable. An ISI is a numerical indicator that helps to indicate where contamination of groundwater is more or less likely to occur as a result of surface contamination due to natural hydrogeological features based upon an indexing approach of the existing provincial Water Well Information System (WWIS) database. The scores are determined using a combination of the saturated thickness of each unit and an index number related to the soil type, and as such, the scores reflect the susceptibility of the aquifer to contamination. As defined in the MECP’s 2008 Technical Rules,

• an area having an ISI score of less than 30 is considered to be an area of high vulnerability;

• an area having an ISI score greater than or equal to 30, but less than or equal to 80, is considered to be an area of medium vulnerability; and,

• an area having an ISI score of greater than 80 is considered to be an area of low vulnerability.

The Source Protection Committee for this region has indicated the Site is not within an HVA. Further, the subsurface investigation by GHD has indicated that the existing glacial till exhibits low hydraulic conductivity such that it has a relative lower contribution to underlying aquifer complexes.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered at the Site and assume that they are representative of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the Site should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like.


Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as instructions to the contractor. Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, it is our professional opinion that the Site is suitable for the proposed residential townhouse development and there is low potential for groundwater impact as a result of developing the Site. It is recommended that good construction and mitigation techniques must be used to minimize the potential for impact. Detailed conclusions and recommendations are presented in the following sections regarding the water balance and potential impacts to groundwater and surface water resources.

6.1 Hydrogeology

6.1.1 Water Balance Evaluation

An evaluation of the water balance was completed to compute the potential impacts that may occur in the recharge/discharge characteristics related to the proposed development. This evaluation is based upon a preliminary conceptual plan at this time. The objective of the water balance is to illustrate that post-development infiltration within the developable area can meet or be close to pre-development values. The computations have used detailed parameters such as precipitation (Oshawa WPCP from 1981 to 2010 was used), regional evapotranspiration, infiltration and runoff. Weather data from Oshawa WPCP was selected as it was the closest weather station to the Site (5.6km to the southwest). The detailed calculations can be reviewed in Appendix E. The calculations are based on a Site area of 0.69 ha (1.7 acres). Below is a summary of the expected pre-development water balance values for the proposed residential development based on the current information.

Pre development Water Balance

The pre-development water balance incorporated the existing soils, slope and ground cover areas. The infiltration factor for the area was calculated from the table of values presented in the “Land Development Guidelines” (MOEE, 1995). It is based on three sub-factors which are:

• Topography sub-factor; • Soil sub-factor; and • Cover sub-factor.

The slopes will be considered as “rolling” (slope of 2.8 to 3.8m per km). The soils are generally comprised of silty sand / sandy silt till material and will be considered a medium combination of clay and loam and impervious clay as per the water balance calculations. The existing vegetation was considered as partly cultivated lands and woodland. Table 6.1 summarizes the expected pre-development water balance values for the Site.


Table 6.1 Pre Development Summary

Total Precipitation (Oshawa WPCP): - 872 mm/year Regional Evapotranspiration: - 594 mm/year Recharge Available: - 278 mm/year Area of Recharge Available (Site): - 6,923 m2

Total Water Surplus: - 1,926 m3/year Total Estimated Infiltration: - 995 m3/year Total Estimated Runoff: - 931 m3/year

Based upon these values, the Site infiltrates on the order of 995 m3 per year or about 144 mm/year.

Post Development Water Balance (No Enhancements)

The computation of the water budget was repeated for the proposed development assuming no mitigation techniques, that is, runoff from impervious surfaces is unrecoverable and not infiltrated into the ground. The anticipated impact of the development is related to increased runoff from imperious surfaces such as asphalt surface for the proposed widening of Townline Road North, private access roadway, proposed parking spaces, sidewalks and the building rooftops. These are assumed to be impervious surfaces with zero infiltration capacity in this model. A summary of the computations is provided in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Post Development Summary (No Enhancements)

Area of Site: - 6,923 m2

Impervious Surfaces: - 4,786 m2

Area Available for Infiltration: - 2,137 m2

Total Water Surplus: - 3,933 m3/year Total Estimated Infiltration: - 297 m3/year Infiltration % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - (-70%) (decrease) Total Estimated Runoff: - 3,636 m3/year Runoff % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - 291% (increase)

The impermeable surface area of proposed paved areas, sidewalks and building rooftops was estimated based on the concept plan presented in Figure 4. Under this scenario, the total infiltration volume decreased by 70% and runoff volume increased by 291%. Within the areas evaluated, the infiltration has reduced and the runoff increased versus the pre-development values. Groundwater base flow would be expected to decrease over time in this scenario. However, recharge via infiltration through the underlying till to the lower aquifer from these lands is expected to be minor. Based upon this scenario, mitigative strategies are required to minimize infiltration losses and reduce storm water runoff. The following section discusses the water balance after considering enhanced infiltration options.


Post Development Water Balance (Enhanced Infiltration)

The post-construction water budget computations were repeated considering enhanced infiltration options which are also known as Low Impact Development (LID) technologies. These technologies include and are not restricted to rainwater harvesting, downspout disconnection, infiltration trenches, vegetated filter strips, bioretention, permeable pavement, enhanced grass swales, dry swales and perforated pipe systems in order to balance the water budget and maintain any wetland features including nearby creeks. The shallow subsurface soils are topsoil underlain by silty clay / sandy silt till material. It is noted that LIDs can work in any soil type. The primary enhancement for this Site is to promote infiltration and to move water from impervious surfaces to areas where infiltration can occur.

The post-development water balance was modelled to include the disconnection of downspouts from storm sewers and directing water from the buildings roof top to sodded areas or undeveloped grass areas which can be enhanced with increased topsoil depths. A summary of the post-construction water budget with enhancements for infiltration is presented in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Post Development Summary (With Enhanced Infiltration)

Area of Site: - 6,923 m2

Total Water Surplus: - 3,933 m3/year Total Estimated Infiltration: - 995 m3/year Infiltration % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - (0%) (nil) Total Estimated Runoff: - 2,938 m3/year Runoff % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - 216% (increase)

Under this scenario, the total infiltration volume is maintained and runoff volume increased by 216% compared to pre development values. Within the areas evaluated, the infiltration and runoff amounts have improved compared to post development (no mitigation) numbers, however a runoff volume increase of 216% is still present. Runoff increase compared with the pre-development conditions will need to be managed as per the storm water management plan.

It is expected that recharge via infiltration through the till to the lower aquifers is a small component and impacts to the groundwater aquifer are expected to be insignificant. It is our professional opinion that there would be minimal impact to the local groundwater regime and minimal impact to the down-gradient surface water regime from a quantity perspective due to the proposed development.

6.1.2 Impact on Groundwater Baseflow

The importance of the groundwater baseflow is that it provides discharge to water bodies, wells and may have some hydraulic functionality with the on-site features. Water balance calculations suggest that the infiltration to the subsurface can be kept near pre-development values if appropriate LID technologies are used. It is GHD’s professional opinion that there is not expected to be a significant impact to the shallow groundwater baseflow that may be supplying baseflow to the down-gradient Harmony Creek.


6.1.3 Impact on Surface Water Bodies

The impacts to surface water bodies are related to the reduction of the groundwater baseflow and water quality concerns related to human activities such as salting of paved areas, minor fuel and oil leaks, fertilizer application, etc. It is expected that there will be minor impacts to groundwater and neighbouring surface water bodies. Runoff from the development will be collected by an internal storm sewer system and treated using a stormwater management pond or other LID strategies. Further details are provided within the Functional Servicing Report regarding the stormwater management of the Site.

6.1.4 Mitigation Measures

Several mitigative techniques have been recommended in order to address concerns relating to the potential for impact to the base flow. The impact and mitigation measures can be arranged into two (2) distinct categories: construction phase and operational phase. Prior to construction, storm water management techniques should be incorporated to control additional surface water runoff and permit enhanced infiltration into the surrounding ground. Storm water management techniques will minimize the potential for groundwater impact and also minimize the amount of silt or other fine-grained soil particles becoming mobile and entering into down gradient areas. The installation of strategically placed silt fences will filter any excess storm water runoff prior to entering the infiltration areas.

During the operational phase of the development, it is expected that storm water excess will be controlled as indicated in the Functional Servicing Report. It is recommended that all roof leader drains of the future buildings be allowed to drain onto the ground surface for infiltration. Swales may be required in some areas to divert the runoff water from parking lot or other structures. Other LIDs will be required to reduce storm water runoff and will be evaluated by the detailed design.

6.1.5 Servicing

Private services for water and septic disposal are not considered as the Site will be connected to municipal services. However, any wells at the Site (including monitoring wells) are recommended to be decommissioned in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 prior to development of the Site.

6.1.6 Dewatering for Construction

Based on groundwater-related observations and the depth of excavations expected for this development, it is generally anticipated that groundwater seepage will be encountered. It is expected that pumping from collection sumps to an acceptable outlet will control this expected groundwater infiltration. However, should any excavations require more intensive dewatering or groundwater control, the use of filtered sumps, or other suitable method of dewatering and/or sheet piling is recommended.

For dewatering purposes, hydraulic conductivities on the order of about 10-4 to 10-5 cm/sec may be expected for the subgrade soils encountered in our boreholes. It should be noted that hydraulic conductivities can vary over a vertical and horizontal extent, and may be outside the stated range if pockets or seams of soils with different grain size (e.g. sand seams) are encountered.


If short-term pumping of groundwater at volumes greater than 50,000 L/day and less than 400,000 L/day is required during the construction stage, the Environmental Activity Sector Registry (EASR) must be completed. The EASR streamlines the process and water pumping may begin once the EASR registration is completed, the fee paid and supporting document prepared. If water taking in excess of 400,000 litres/day is required, a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) must be obtained in advance. PTTW applications may take up to 90 working days for the MECP to review and approve. The actual rate of groundwater taking performed during construction will be a function of the final design, time of year, and the contractor’s schedule, equipment, and techniques.

6.2 Geotechnical

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered and assume that they are representative of the overall Site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the Site should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as instructions to the contractor. It should be noted that where the Municipality has design standards that apply to specific aspects of this project, such standards shall take precedence over any corresponding dissimilar recommendations contained herein.

The soils encountered generally consisted of topsoil over very loose to very dense native till soils generally consisting of silty sand to sandy silt extending to the full depth of this investigation ranging from 1.8 to 4.8m. Groundwater seepage was reported in four (4) boreholes (BH-2, BH-4, BH-9 and BH-10) at depths ranging from 3.0 to 4.3m during drilling operations. When encountered, seepage was generally noted within the till. Ground water level measurements obtained from the installed monitoring wells on August 2, 2018, ranged from 1.8 to 3.1m.

6.2.1 Site Preparation and Excavation

Any and all topsoil, vegetation, fill, disturbed earth, organic and organic-bearing material is to be stripped and removed from the building envelope areas (including floor slab areas) prior to commencing earthwork construction. In proposed pavement areas, the materials described above should also be removed full-depth to achieve maximum pavement performance. As an alternative to full-depth removal in the proposed pavement areas, the Client may instead consider removing these materials to a minimum depth to allow for the new pavement structure, at which point an assessment of the exposed soils by a member of GHD will deem whether further removal and/or placement of suitable geotextile material or other treatment is required.

Overly loose, organic, or otherwise deleterious materials will require removal and replacement with an approved backfill material. The subexcavated surface must be proof rolled and/or approved by a member of GHD prior to placement of fill or foundations. Excavations should be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation 213/91 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects (OHSA).


All excavations above the water table not exceeding 1.2 m in depth may be constructed with vertical, unsupported slopes. The soils encountered during this investigation are generally classed by OHSA as Type 3. As such, unsupported / unshored walls of excavations in these soils must be sloped to the bottom of the excavation, with a slope having a gradient of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) or flatter, or be retained using a suitably designed shoring system. The soils located beneath the groundwater table should be considered Type 4 soils, requiring unsupported / unshored walls of excavations to be sloped at 3H:1V or flatter to the base of the excavation.

It is expected that some of the excavation spoils may be suitable for reuse as trench and/or pavement subgrade backfill provided they are free of organics and at a moisture content that will permit adequate compaction (may require prior processing such as aeration to lower the moisture content). A final review and approval to reuse any soils should be made at the time of construction.

6.2.2 Service Installation

The materials encountered during this investigation at the anticipated service invert elevations (2 to 4 mbeg) typically consist of silty sand/sandy silt till material. As such, normal compacted bedding material, placed in the Class “B” or Class “C” arrangement, is recommended for all underground services. The recommended bedding material is Granular “A” or 19 mm crusher run (angular) stone, as per Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS). The minimum recommended bedding thickness for the underground services is 150mm. All bedding materials should be compacted to 98% of their Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).

It is recommended that cover backfilling of the underground services be accomplished using Granular “A”, sand, or other suitable material as allowed by the Municipality’s standards, to a minimum of 300mm above the pipe. Compaction of this material should attain 100% SPMDD. It is expected that some of the excavated soils may be suitable for reuse as trench backfill, conditional upon suitable moisture content (within 2% of optimum), final review and approval by an experienced geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, and regular monitoring and inspection of such reuse throughout construction. Compaction of any native soil in service trenches is recommended to be a minimum of 98% of its SPMDD. The soils observed may require processing (such as aeration) to lower the moisture content to appropriate levels prior to being considered as backfill material.

6.2.3 Foundation Design

Relevant information for final design purposes including proposed final grades, finished floor elevations, and proposed underside of foundations were not available to GHD at the time of writing this report. As such, the recommendations contained in this Foundations section must be reviewed by GHD’s geotechnical engineers once such development design parameters become available. Structural loading for the proposed buildings may be supported on either strip and spread footings, or on a raft slab. The footings or raft slab should be placed on the undisturbed, compact to very dense native soils or on engineered fill place directly on the undisturbed, compact to very dense native soils. The following Table 6.4 summarizes the depths to suitably competent native soil encountered within each borehole.


Table 6.4 Depth to Competent Bearing Native Soil

Borehole ID Depth (mbeg) to Competent Native Soil

Borehole ID Depth (mbeg) to Competent Native Soil

BH-1 0.9 BH-6 1.5

BH-2 1.5 BH-7 0.8

BH-3 1.0 BH-8 1.0

BH-4 0.8 BH-9 1.0

BH-5 0.8 BH-10 1.0

For preliminary design purposes, it is recommended that footings or raft foundation constructed on the dense to very dense native soils or engineered fill be proportioned and designed using the following bearing capacities:

Table 6.5 Preliminary Bearing Pressures for Foundation Design

Parameter

Bearing Pressure

Compact to Very Dense Undisturbed Native Soils

Engineering Fill

Rock-based Fill(2) Granular Fill(3) Earth Borrow Fill(3)

Factored Bearing Capacity at ULS (1) 210 kPa 215 kPa 170 kPa 135 kPa

Bearing Capacity at SLS 140 kPa 150 kPa 120 kPa 95 kPa

Notes: (1) Resistance factor Φ =0.5 applied to the ULS bearing pressure for design purposes. (2) At least 1m of Rock-based fill. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill. (3) At least 0.3m of Granular or Earth Borrow fill. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill.

Any engineered fill upon which foundations are placed must be a minimum thickness corresponding to the notes that accompany the above table. Rock-based fill must be completely encapsulated with suitable filter fabric to minimize any migration of fine-grained particles from surrounding soils into the voids within the rock fill.

The following is recommended for the construction of any engineered fill for the foundations.

1. Remove any and all existing vegetation, topsoil, fill, organics, and organic-bearing soils to the competent, undisturbed native soil from within the area of the proposed engineered fill.

2. The area of the engineered fill should extend horizontally 1m beyond the outside edge of the building foundations and then extend downward at a 1:1 slope to the competent native soil.

3. The base of the engineered fill area must be approved by a member of GHD prior to placement of any fill, to ensure that all unsuitable materials have been removed, that the materials encountered are similar to those observed, and that the subgrade is suitable for the engineered fill.


4. All engineered fill material is to be approved by GHD at the time of construction. Place approved engineered fill, in maximum 300 mm lifts, compacted to 100% of its SPMDD. Any fill material placed under sufficiently wet conditions should consist of an approved, rock-based fill, with the inclusion of appropriate geotextile fabric around the rock-based fill should the rock fill contain enough voids to warrant.

5. Full time testing and inspection of the engineered fill will be required, to ensure compliance with material and compaction specifications.

All exterior foundations and/or foundations in unheated areas, should be founded at least 1.2 m below the final adjacent grade for frost protection. Foundations and walls exposed to frost action should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible granular material, and positive drainage away from the structure should be ensured.

Under no circumstances should the foundations be placed above organic materials, loose, frozen subgrade, construction debris, or within ponded water. Prior to forming, all foundation excavations must be inspected and approved by a member of GHD’s geotechnical group. This will ensure that the foundation bearing material has been prepared properly at the foundation subgrade level and that the soils exposed are similar to those encountered during this investigation.

For design purposes this site is conservatively classed as Site Class C for Seismic Site Response, in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.

For drainage purposes, it is recommended that perimeter drains be installed about the structures. The subdrains would serve to drain seepage water that infiltrates the backfill, intersect the groundwater, and help relieve hydrostatic pressures due to high groundwater levels. The drains should consist of a perforated pipe, at least 150 mm in diameter, surrounded by clear, crushed stone and suitable filter protection. The drain should discharge to a positive sump or other permanent frost free outlet. It is also strongly recommended that the building’s foundation walls be sealed and waterproofed.

For foundations constructed in accordance with the foregoing manner, total and differential settlements are estimated to be less than 25mm (if footing foundations used) or 50mm (if raft slab foundation used).

6.2.4 Slab on Grade

The ground floor of any proposed building may be constructed as a normal slab-on-grade, on clear stone fill over native, inorganic subsoils, prepared in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of this report. The floor slab of the basement should be formed over a base course consisting of at least 150 mm of 19mm angular clear stone material, compacted to a minimum of 100 % of its SPMDD. All grade increases or infilling below the clear stone should be constructed in accordance with the engineered fill steps provided in this report. All clear stone must be surrounded on bottom and sides by appropriate filter fabric to control the migration of fine-grained particles from surrounding soils. All fill placed as engineered fill must be inspected, approved and compaction verified by personnel from GHD.


If basements are considered, it is recommended that under floor drains consisting of 100 mm diameter, perforated, filter-wrapped pipe at maximum 3m centres be installed below the clear stone. These pipes should be led into a header placed in the middle of the drainage system. The header should consist of a 150 mm diameter, filter-wrapped, perforated pipe. The drainage system should appropriately drain into a positive sump or other permanent frost free outlet.

6.2.5 Basement Retaining Walls

It is recommended that free draining backfill to walls (basement) be provided. Such walls located above the groundwater table may be designed for lateral earth pressures using the following equation:

p = k (w h + q), where:

• the lateral earth pressure in kPa acting on the subsurface wall at depth h;

• ka = the coefficient of active earth pressure;

( = 0.3 for walls restrained from the bottom only);

( = 0.5 for walls restrained at the top and bottom*);

• kp = the coefficient of passive earth pressure, ( = 3.0);

• w = the granular or native soil bulk density in kN/m3;

( = 21.0 kN/m3 for well compacted, OPSS-approved Granular "B");

( = 20.0 kN/m3 for native soils);

• h = the depth (in metres) below the exterior grade at which the earth pressure is being calculated; and

• q = the equivalent value of any surcharge (in kN/m3) acting adjacent to the walls. (*) This value is recommended for rigid walls retaining compacted backfill.

The recommended value for the coefficient for sliding friction between the soil and the concrete is 0.4. In addition to the above, hydrostatic forces must be taken into account in the design where the walls extend below the groundwater table. Also, any additional surcharge loading that will influence the wall must be taken into account in its design. It is additionally recommended that the basement walls be water-proofed.

6.2.6 Pavement Design

As the preferred method, it is recommended that the existing fill be fully removed full-depth from beneath all proposed pavement areas, and replaced with an approved backfill material. This will maximize the long-term performance of the pavement structure throughout. As an alternative to this (to minimize the quantity of subexcavation and corresponding backfill), the Client may instead consider removing these materials to a minimum depth to allow for the new pavement structure at which point an assessment of the exposed soils by a member of GHD will deem whether further removal and/or placement of suitable geotextile material or other treatment is required. Overly loose, organic, or otherwise deleterious materials will require removal and replacement with an approved backfill material.


Based on the results of this investigation, we would recommend the following procedures be implemented to prepare the proposed asphalt paved access way and parking areas for its construction.

1. Remove all asphalt, topsoil, fill, organics, organic-bearing materials and other deleterious materials from the planned pavement areas either full depth (preferred), or alternatively to at least the subgrade required to allow the new pavement structure.

2. Inspect and proof roll the subgrade for the purpose of detecting possible zones of overly wet or soft subgrade. Any deleterious areas thus delineated should be replaced with approved granular material compacted to a minimum of 98 % of its SPMDD.

3. If further stabilization of the pavement subgrade is deemed necessary, either subexcavate to suitable soils and backfill with approved granular material compacted to 98% SPMDD, or place woven geotextile such as Terrafix 200W or Mirafi HP270 on the exposed pavement subgrade surface, after its approval and prior to placement of any subsequent fill.

4. Contour the subgrade surface to prevent ponding of water during the construction and to promote rapid drainage of the sub-base and base course materials.

5. To maximize drainage potential, 150 mm diameter perforated pipe subdrains should be installed below any curb lines. The pipe should be encased in filter fabric and surrounded by clear stone aggregate. It is recommended that the subdrains discharge to a suitable, frost-free outlet.

6. Construct transitions between varying depths of granular base materials at a rate of 1:25 minimum.

The subgrade materials in the proposed pavement areas will generally consist of fill or native till, depending on the preferred method of construction and corresponding depths of subexcavation. The frost susceptibility of these soils is assessed as being generally moderate to high. In this regard, the following minimum flexible pavement structures are recommended for the construction of the new access road and parking areas.

Table 6.6 Access Roadway Pavement Structure

Profile Material Thickness (mm) In Conformance with OPSS

Form Light Duty Heavy Duty

Asphalt Surface H.L.3 40 40 1150

Asphalt Base H.L.8 50 50

Granular Base Granular “A” 150 150 1010

Granular Subbase Granular “B” 300 450

The following steps are recommended for optimum construction of paved areas:

1. The Granular “A” and “B” courses should be compacted to a minimum 100 percent of their respective SPMDD’s.


2. All asphaltic concrete courses should be placed, spread and compacted conforming to OPSS Form 310 or equivalent. All asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum 92.0 percent of their respective laboratory Maximum Relative Densities (MRD’s).

3. Adequate drainage should be provided to ensure satisfactory pavement performance.

It is recommended that all fill material be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness before compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ moisture content within 2 percent of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials should be compacted to 100 percent SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular “A” and “B” conforming to the requirements of OPSS Form 1010 or equivalent.

The performance of the pavement structure is highly dependent upon the subgrade support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure that uniform subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as practically possible. It is noted that the above recommended pavement structures are for the end use of the project. The most severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. As such, during construction of the project the recommended granular depths may not be sufficient to support loadings encountered. Consequently, special provisions such as restricted lanes, half-loads during paving, etc. may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavorable weather.

6.2.7 General Recommendations

Test Pit During Tendering

It is strongly recommended that test pits be excavated at representative locations of this Site during the tendering phase, with mandatory attendance of interested contractors. This will allow them to make their own assessments of the groundwater and soil conditions at the Site and how these will affect their proposed construction methods, techniques and schedules.

Subsoil Sensitivity

The native subsoils are susceptible to strength loss or deformation if saturated or disturbed by construction traffic. Therefore, where the subgrade consists of approved soil, care must be taken to protect the exposed subgrade from excess moisture and from construction traffic.

Winter Construction

The subsoils encountered across the site are frost-susceptible and freezing conditions could cause problems for the following reasons.

1. During winter construction, exposed surfaces intended to support foundations must be protected against freezing by means of loose straw and tarpaulins, heating, etc.

2. Care must be exercised so that any sidewalks and/or asphalt pavements do not interfere with the opening of doors during the winter when the soils are subject to frost heave. This problem may be minimized by any one of several means, such as keeping the doors well above outside grade, installing structural slabs at the doors, and by using well-graded backfill and positive drainage, etc.


3. Because of the frost heave potential of the soils during winter, it is recommended that the trenches for exterior underground services be excavated with shallow transition slopes in order to minimize the abrupt change in density between the granular backfill, which is relatively non-frost susceptible, and the more frost-susceptible native soils.

Design Review and Inspection

Due to the preliminary nature of the design details at the time of this report, we recommend that our firm be retained to review the foundation design and grading proposals when they are available. Geotechnical inspection and compaction testing must be carried out to ensure compliance with our recommendations.

6.3 Summary Conclusions

In summary, the proposed development area is generally comprised of topsoil underlain by sandy silt / silty sand till. A permanent shallow groundwater table was not observed. It is our opinion that there will not be significant constraints for the proposed residential development area from the seasonal variations of groundwater as the water can be handled with appropriate engineering techniques. It is expected that groundwater will generally be below the depth of the future development, although seepage may be encountered in deeper excavations or foundations. Seepage is expected to be seasonal in nature. If short-term pumping of groundwater at volumes greater than 50,000 L/day and less than 400,000L/day is required during the construction stage, the EASR must be completed. In summary, the proposed residential townhouse development is suitable from both a hydrogeologic and geotechnical perspective.

There are minor impacts expected to groundwater and surface water as a result of the future development provided that appropriate planning (i.e. incorporation of LIDs as supported by the water balance calculations), mitigation measures and proper construction techniques are considered.

From a geotechnical perspective, the Site is suitable for construction of the proposed development including three-storey townhouse buildings, associated servicing, paved access roadway and parking areas. Detailed recommendations are provided in previous sections of this report.


7. References

Chapman and Putnam, 1966. The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 2nd Edition. University of Toronto Press.

Chapman and Putnam, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Ministry of Natural Resources.

City of Toronto, November 2006. Wet Weather Flow Management Guidelines.

Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. Version 1.0. 2010.

Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A. 1979. Groundwater.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, March, 2018. Source Protection Information Atlas, available online at www.ontario.ca.


8. Statement of Limitations

This report is intended solely for Lynstrath Developments Inc. in assessing the hydrogeologic and geotechnical aspects of the lands situated at 3 Lawson Road in Courtice, Ontario and is prohibited for use by others without GHD’s prior written consent. This report is considered GHD’s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of GHD. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to GHD. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold GHD harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client’s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices.

The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of hydrogeological engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties.

All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a hydrogeological or geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, GHD will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design.

It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the test hole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the test hole locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by the construction activities on site (ex. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our assessment. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by GHD is completed.

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, 3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario | 11177238 (01)

Enclosures

Base map complied from Energy, Mines and Resources Canada Map 30M/15 published 1999. Air photography boundaries current as of 1996.

Lynstrath Developments Inc. 11177238-013 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario July 2018Geotechnial Investigation

Vicinity Plan FIGURE 1

Scale:1:50000

Coordinate SystemNAD 1983 UTM

Zone 17

SITE

Source: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2018.

Lynstrath Developments Inc.3 Lawson Road, Courtice, OntarioGeotechnial Investigation

11177238-01July 2018

Property Plan FIGURE 2

Scale: Refer to Scale Bar

Coordinate System:NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17

Legend:

Site

SITE



11177238-01July 2018

Plot Plan FIGURE 3



Legend:

Site

SITE

Source: Site Plan by The Biglieri Group Ltd., Dated October 18, 2018.


11177238-01January, 2019

Concept Plan FIGURE 4



SITE



11177238-01July 2018

Test Hole Plan FIGURE 5

Scale: ND


Legend:

Borehole Location

Monitoring Well Location

BH-4

Borehole Location


Testpit Location

BH-3 BH-2

TP-2TP-1

BH-5BH-8

TP-3

BH-6

BH-7 BH-9

BH-10

BH-1

Map source: MNRF. © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2018. Groundwater based on measurements conducted August 2, 2018. Elevations based on assumed datum.


11177238-01August, 2018

Groundwater Elevations FIGURE 6

Scale: ND


96.434 m

Legend:


Groundwater Elevation

Groundwater Flow Direction

BH-4

BH-2

TP-2

BH-1096.260 m

96.300 m

96.585 m

xx.xxx m


11177238-01July 2018

Physiography FIGURE 7


11177238-01July 2018

Surficial Geology FIGURE 8


11177238-01July 2018

Quaternary Geology FIGURE 9

Base map complied from Source Protection Information Atlas from MOECC (now known as MOECP) website (information dated March, 2018).

Lynstrath Developments Inc.Scale: 3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario

As Shown Geotechnial Investigation

11177238-01July 2018

Source Water Protection Map FIGURE 10

SITE

222


Appendix A Soil Exploration Data

80

65

75

50

25

0.3

0.9

1.5

4.6

Borehole openand dry uponcompletion ofdrilling operations.

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

44

100+

100+

100+

100+

102222

2950=5"

2650=4"

50=6"

50=3"

8

9

5

6

6

TOPSOIL (280mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt,Some Gravel, Moist,Compact

Dense

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)

Shear test (Cu)Sensitivity (S)

Water content (%)

"N" Value

wp wlAtterberg limits (%)

N

ELEVATION: 98.417 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-1

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE

AS - AUGER SAMPLEST - SHELBY TUBE

- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018

METHOD: Soild Stem Augers and Split-Spoons

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

DRILLING COMPANY: Strong Soil Search Inc.

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-1

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

REFERENCE No.: 11177238-01

LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%

Lynstrath Developments Inc.

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD

Elevation referenced to temporary benchmark established ontop of hydrant along northside ofLawson Road assigned at 100.00 m for this investigation.

3 Lawson Road, Courtice, ON

CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

100

100

65

55

50

0.2

1.8

2.1

3.4

4.7

GRAIN SIZEANALYSES(SS-5)24% Gravel47% Sand29% Silt and Clay18% between5 - 75 µm

WL - 2.07 m8/2/2018

Groundwaterseepage firstencountered at3.0 m.

50 mm diametermonitoring wellinstalled to 4.6 m.

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

23

37

100+

100+

100+

81112

91324

2650=5"

50=6"

50=5"

9

7

6

6

12

TOPSOIL (230mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt,Some Gravel, OccasionalCobbles, Moist to Wet,Compact

Dense

SAND Light Grey, Sand, some Gravel, Trace Silt, Occasional Cobble, Moist, Very Dense

TILL - Brown, Silty Sand,Some Gravel, Moist to Wet,Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

m0.88 m

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 98.370 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-2

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-2

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

WL - 1.8 m7/11/2018

100

75

80

0.2

1.5

2.0


WL - dry7/11/2018WL - dry7/11/2018

50 mm diametermonitoring wellinstalled to 1.5 m.

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

12

27

47

10666

101314

151730

6

8

8

TOPSOIL (180mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt, Some Gravel, Moist, Compact

Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0.9 m

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 98.735 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-3

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-3

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

100

85

75

75

50

0.2

0.8

4.7

WL - 2.68 m

Groundwaterseepage firstencountered at4.0 m.

WL - 4.1 m

6/14/2018

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

60

73

100+

100+

100+

203030

202548

3650=5"

2650=5"

50=4"

7

6

6

6

13

TOPSOIL (205mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt,Some Gravel, OccasionalCobble, Moist, Compact

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

m0.86 m

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 99.090 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-4

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-4

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

WL - 2.83m

7/11/2018

50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 4.6 m.

8/2/2018

85

100

80

75

65

50

0.2

0.8

4.6


GRAIN SIZEANALYSIS (SS-2)4% Gravel35% Sand61% Silt and Clay38% between5 - 75 µm

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

4

54

100+

100+

100+

100+

0134

192430

2250=5"

2450=5"

50=4"

50=3"

19

8

7

7

6

6

TOPSOIL (180mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt, Trace Gravel, Moist, Very Loose

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 98.634 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-5

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-5

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

85

100

75

75

65

0.2

1.5

3.4

4.7


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

15

52

100+

100+

100+

569

162428

1234

50=4"

1650=5"

50=5"

11

7

6

6

5

TOPSOIL (205mm)


Very Dense

Light Grey

END OF BOREHOLE

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 99.044 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-6

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-6

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

100

75

0.2

0.8

1.5

1.8

Borehole openand dry uponcompletion ofdrillingsoperations.

SS-1

SS-2

70

100+

263436

3550=5"

7

7

TOPSOIL (180mm)


Dense

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 98.825 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-7

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-7

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

100

85

85

75

75

60

0.2

0.9

1.5

2.3

4.8


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

5

25

43

100+

100+

100+

2234

3916

61627

2650=5"

3050=5"

2250=4"

17

11

6

6

7

7

TOPSOIL (150mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt,Some Gravel, Moist, Loose

Compact

Dense

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 99.260 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-8

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-8

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

85

100

85

75

60

55

0.2

0.8

1.5

3.7

4.7

GRAIN SIZEANALYSIS (SS-4)7% Gravel42% Sand51% Silt and Clay31% between5 - 75 µm

Groundwaterseepage firstencountered at4.3 m.WL - 4.4 m inopen boreholeupon completionof drillingoperations.

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

3

31

64

100+

100+

100+

2212

71120

183430

2750=4"

50=5"

50=5"

16

16

8

6

5

8

TOPSOIL (150mm)

TILL - Brown, Sandy Silt, Some Gravel, Occasional Cobble, Moist, Very Loose

Compact

Very Dense, Trace Gravel

Light Grey

END OF BOREHOLE

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 99.085 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-9

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-9

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

90

100

85

75

60

60

0.1

1.5

4.6

WL - 2.40 m7/11/2018

WL - 3.11 m8/2/2018

GroundwaterSeepage firstencountered at4.1 m.

50 mm diametermonitoring wellinstalled to 4.6 m

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

13

25

52

100+

100+

100+

5856

91213

222230

5050=2"

50=4"

50=3"

10

10

7

7

6

7

TOPSOIL (130mm)


Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

m0.86 m

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

ELEVATION: 99.544 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-10

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 14 June 2018


CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-10

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt


LOGGED BY: W. Moore

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

RQD



CONE

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

06-1

5, G

INT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

7/

8/18

WL - 2.9 m7/11/2018

TOPSOIL (280mm)

SILTY SAND - Light Red Brown, Silty Sand, Moist, Compact

TILL - Light Grey Brown, Sandy Silt,Trace Gravel, Occassional Cobble,Damp, Dense

Very Dense

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

GS-4

Testpit open and dryupon completion ofexcavating operations.

0.3

0.5

1.8

2.4

6

6

7

7

END OF TEST HOLE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)

DATE: 11 July 2018

CLIENT:

TEST HOLE No.: TP-1

Eleveation referenced to temporary benchmark established on top of hydrant along north side of Lawson RoadAssigned at 100.00 m for this investigation.

0.0

PROJECT:



LOGGED BY: D. Workman

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3 Lawson Road, Courtice, Ontario

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-11

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:

Sensitivity (S)Water content (%)


GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

EXCAVATION COMPANY: Les Brown Excavating Ltd. METHOD: Tractor Mounted Excavator

ELEVATION: 98.690 mTEST HOLE REPORT

TE

ST

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

08-0

7, G

INT

LO

GS

FO

R T

ES

T P

ITS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

8/

8/18

TOPSOIL (76mm)

SILTY SAND - Light Red Brown, SiltySand, Trace Gravel, Moist, CompactTILL - Light Grey Brown, Sandy Silt,Trace Gravel, Occassional Cobble,Damp, Dense

Very Dense

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

GS-4

GS-5

GRAIN SIZEANALYSIS (GS-1)4% Gravel42% Sand54% Silt and Clay40% between5 - 75 µm

WL - Dry

7/11/2018

50 mm diameter standpipe piezometer installed to 1.93 m.

0.1

0.2

1.4

1.9

10

14

6

7

7

END OF TEST HOLE

0.4 m

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)

DATE: 11 July 2018

CLIENT:

TEST HOLE No.: TP-2


0.0

PROJECT:




0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-12

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r



TE

ST

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

08-0

7, G

INT

LO

GS

FO

R T

ES

T P

ITS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

8/

8/18

WL - 1.75 m

8/2/2018

Testpit open and dry upon completion of excavating operations

TOPSOIL (305mm)

SILTY SAND - Light Red Brown, SiltySand, Moist, Compact

TILL - Light Brown Grey, Silty Sand,Trace Gravel, Occassional Cobble,Moist, Dense

Very Dense

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

GS-4

Testpit open and dryupon completion ofexcavating operations.

0.3

0.6

1.4

2.1

14

9

8

8

END OF TEST HOLE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)

DATE: 11 July 2018

CLIENT:

TEST HOLE No.: TP-3


0.0

PROJECT:




0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-13

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r



TE

ST

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1117

7238

-01,

18-

08-0

7, G

INT

LO

GS

FO

R T

ES

T P

ITS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

8/

8/18

GHD FO-930.103-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D422) - Rev. 0 - 07/01/2015

Client: Lab no.:

Project/Site: Project no.:

Borehole no.: Sample no.:

Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 7, 2018

August 7, 2018

J. Sullivan

SS-5

A-14

BH-2

SandGravel Clay & Silt Soil Description

4.6-5.2m

BH-2 SS-5 24 47 29

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical)

Lynstrath Developments Inc. SS-18-54

3 Lawson Road, Courtice 11177238-01

(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)

Unified Soil Classification System

Clay & SiltSand Gravel

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse


Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 7, 2018

August 7, 2018

J. Sullivan

SS-2

A-15

BH-5


0.8-1.4m

BH-5 SS-2 4 35 61




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 7, 2018

August 7, 2018

J. Sullivan

SS-4

A-16

BH-9


2.3-2.9m

BH-9 SS-4 7 42 51




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:


Lynstrath Developments Inc. SS-D-18-29


(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0.3-0.46m

4 42 54

GS1

A-17

TP3


July 16, 2018

July 19, 2018

T.Watkins

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Appendix B MECP Well Records and Well Survey

Source: Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change online Well Records Map (2018)

Lynstrath Developments Inc.3 Lawson Road, Courtice, OntarioGeotechnical Investigation

11177238-01June 2018

Well Inventory Map Appendix B.1



1907322

1901465

19014631901473

19014757177139

1901478

1907690

1904014

19086641901477

7185507

Legend:

Site

250 m Radius

MOECC Well ID

MOECC Well

1908664

APPENDIX B.1.1: WELL SUMMARY - DUG/BOREDWell Record Summary - 3 Lawson RoadProject No.: 11177238-01Courtice, Ontario

MOECC Well Water Found Static Level Test Rate Well Depth CommentsLot. No. Well No. Use Feet Metres Feet Metres Igpm L/min Feet Metres(Conc. 2 Whitby)

Lot 1 7185507 Abandonment -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 3.0 Well abandonment record.(Conc. 3 Darlington)

Lot 35 7177139 Abandonment -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.33 4.4 Well abandonment record.Lot 35 1901463 Domestic 6 1.8 -- -- -- -- 11.5 3.5 Water at 6', no static level or test rate recorded, black loam/topsoil to 2', sand to 3', sand Lot 35 1901465 Domestic 28 8.5 20 6.1 -- -- 30 9.1 Fresh water at 28', no test rate recorded, clay loam to 1', subsoil to 2', clay to 28', gravel to 30'.Lot 35 1901477 Domestic 20 6.1 20 6.1 1.67 7.6 40 12.2 Fresh water at 20', sand to 4', clay to 12', clay w/ stones to 20', sandy clay to 40'.Lot 35 1901478 Domestic 15 4.6 15 4.6 1.67 7.6 39 11.9 Fresh water at 15', clay & stones to 15', sandy clay & stones to 39'.Lot 35 1908664 Domestic 17.5 5.3 17.5 5.3 5.8 26.3 26 7.9 Fresh water at 17.5', sand to 17.5', sand & gravel to 26'.

Number of wells= 7Water Found Static Level Test Rate Well Depth

Feet Metres Feet Metres Igpm L/min Feet Metres

AVERAGE 17.3 5.3 18.1 5.5 3.0 13.8 24.4 7.4

MAXIMUM 28.0 8.5 20.0 6.1 5.8 26.3 40.0 12.2

MINIMUM 6.0 1.8 15.0 4.6 1.67 7.6 10.0 3.0

APPENDIX B.1.2: WELL SUMMARY - DRILLED OVERBURDENWell Record Summary - 3 Lawson RoadProject No.: 11177238-01Courtice, OntarioLocation MOECC Well Water Found Static Level Test Rate Well Depth CommentsLot No. Well No. Use Feet Metres Feet Metres Igpm L/min Feet Metres(Conc. 3 Darlington)

Lot 35 1901475 Domestic 48 14.6 15 4.6 5.8 26.3 49 14.9 Fresh water at 48', topsoil to 1', clay & boulders to 30', clay & stones to 48', gravel to 49'.

Lot 35 1904014 Domestic 89 27.1 17 5.2 1.67 7.6 165 50.3Water at 89' & 159', topsoil to 1', clay w/ sand to 9', clay w/ boulders to 89', sand w/ gravel & silt to 117', clay to 148', sand w/ gravel to 154', sand to 165'.

Lot 35 1907322 Domestic 52 15.8 15 4.6 3.3 15.0 52 15.8 Water at 52', sand w/ stones to 10', clay w/ stones to 25', clay w/ gravel to 45', gravel w/ clay & sand to 50', gravel w/ sand to 52'.Lot 35 1907690 Domestic 70 21.3 18 5.5 15 68.1 77 23.5 Fresh water at 70', topsoil to 1', clay w/ stones to 49', clay w/ boulders to 70', gravel w/ sand to 77'.

Number of wells= 4

Water Found Static Level Test Rate Well DepthFeet Metres Feet Metres Igpm L/min Feet Metres

AVERAGE 64.8 19.7 16.3 5.0 6.4 29.2 85.8 26.1

MAXIMUM 89.0 27.1 18.0 5.5 15.0 68.1 165.0 50.3

MINIMUM 48.0 14.6 15.0 4.6 1.7 7.6 49.0 14.9

APPENDIX B.1.3: WELL SUMMARY - DRILLED BEDROCKWell Record Summary - 3 Lawson RoadProject No.: 11177238-01Courtice, Ontario

MOECC Well Water Found Static Level Pump Rate Well Depth Depth to Bedrock CommentsLot No. Well No. Use Feet Metres Feet Metres Igpm L/min Feet Metres Feet Metres(Conc. 3 Darlington)

Lot 35 1901473 Domestic -- -- -- -- -- -- 162 49.4 160 48.8 Hole dry. Previous dug well to 19', clay to 56', gravel to 60', clay to 160', shale to 162'.Number of wells= 1

Water Found Static Level Pump Rate Well Depth Depth to BedrockFeet Metres Feet Metres Igpm L/min Feet Metres Feet Metres

AVERAGE -- -- -- -- -- -- 162.0 49.4 160.0 48.8

MAXIMUM -- -- -- -- -- -- 162.0 49.4 160.0 48.8

MINIMUM -- -- -- -- -- -- 162.0 49.4 160.0 48.8


Lynstrath Developments Inc.3 Lawson Road, Courtice, OntarioGeotechnical Investigation

11177238-01July, 2018

APPENDIX B.2WELL SURVEY LOCATIONS



Legend:

Site

Well Survey Location

L-4

L-1 L-2 L-3

L-5

L-7

L-8

L-6

WATER WELL INFORMATION SURVEYPROJECT: 11177238-01 July 17, 2018LOCATION: Courtice, Ontario Appendix B.2.1

AddressWell ID for Map

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Well Type

Top of Well (m)

Water Level (m)

Depth (m) Quality Quantity Comments

15 Lawson Road L-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- No one available at time of survey.

19 Lawson Road L-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Home owner indicated they are on municipal water and doesn't have a well.

23 Lawson Road L-3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Home owner indicated that the site is municipally serviced since they moved in and there is no well on the property.

24 Lawson Road L-4 No one available at time of survey.26 Lawson Road L-5 No one available at time of survey.

361 Townline Road L-6Home owner indicated that the property is municipality serviced. There is a well on site but has not been in use for years.

323 Townline Road L-7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- No one available at time of survey.315 Townline Road L-8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- No one available at time of survey.

Notes: Area is serviced by municipal water as indicated by numerous fire hydrants.


Appendix C Hydraulic Conductivity Data

0. 400. 800. 1.2E+3 1.6E+3 2.0E+30.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)

BH-2 FALLING HEAD TEST

Data Set: I:\...\11177238-01, 18-08-09, Falling Head BH-2.aqtDate: 08/09/18 Time: 08:21:37

PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: GHDClient: Lynstrath Development Inc.Project: 11177238-01Location: 3 Lawson Road, CourticeTest Well: BH-2Test Date: July 17, 2018

AQUIFER DATA

Saturated Thickness: 2.8 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.

WELL DATA (BH-2)

Initial Displacement: 0.7378 m Static Water Column Height: 2.8 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 4.6 m Screen Length: 1.5 mCasing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.025 m

SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice

K = 0.0001871 cm/sec y0 = 0.2629 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)

BH-2 RISING HEAD TEST

Data Set: I:\...\11177238-01, 18-08-09, Rising Head BH-2.aqtDate: 08/09/18 Time: 08:25:26

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-2)


SOLUTION


K = 5.619E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.5055 m

0. 4.0E+3 8.0E+3 1.2E+4 1.6E+4 2.0E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-3)


SOLUTION


K = 2.893E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.5249 m

0. 4.0E+3 8.0E+3 1.2E+4 1.6E+4 2.0E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-4)


SOLUTION


K = 3.389E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.5259 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-4)


SOLUTION


K = 1.116E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.3997 m

0. 1000. 2.0E+3 3.0E+3 4.0E+3 5.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-10)


SOLUTION


K = 1.937E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.5355 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-10)


SOLUTION


K = 1.159E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.4463 m

CONSTANT HEAD INFILTRATION TEST Client: Lynstrath Development Inc. Project No.: 11177238-01 Project: 3 Lawson Road, Courtice ON Location Central Location Date: July 17, 2018 Test Performed by: JC

TEST PARAMETERS

Well hole diameter c(m) = 8.3 Selected sat/unsat flow ratio (cm-1) = 0.12 Height of water in well (cm) = 15 Shape factor = 1.36

RESULTS

R- quasi steady-state rate of fall = 0.5 cm/min

Ksf – field saturated hydraulic conductivity = 2.7E-04 cm/sec


Appendix D Analytical Data

Lawson Rd/11177238-01

16-Jul-18DATE REPORTED:

Caduceon Environmental Laboratories

289-562-1963

110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14

Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9

289-475-5442Tel:

Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B18-20354

GHD Limited

651 Colby Drive,

Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2 Canada

Report To:

Attention: David Workman

11-Jul-18DATE RECEIVED:

73512012P.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.GroundwaterSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G74543

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Parameter Units R.L.Reference

Method

Date/Site

Analyzed

BH - 2 BH - 10Client I.D.

B18-20354-1 B18-20354-2Sample I.D.

11-Jul-18 11-Jul-18Date Collected

pH @25°C 8.05 8.15pH Units SM 4500H 12-Jul-18/O

Conductivity @25°C 632 633µmho/cm 1 SM 2510B 12-Jul-18/O

Alkalinity(CaCO3) to pH4.5 246 249mg/L 5 SM 2320B 12-Jul-18/O

Hardness (as CaCO3) 309 320mg/L 1 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Chloride 38.2 13.7mg/L 0.5 SM4110C 13-Jul-18/O

Fluoride < 0.1 0.2mg/L 0.1 SM4110C 13-Jul-18/O

Nitrite (N) < 0.1 < 0.1mg/L 0.1 SM4110C 13-Jul-18/O

Nitrate (N) < 0.1 < 0.1mg/L 0.1 SM4110C 13-Jul-18/O

Sulphate 30 56mg/L 1 SM4110C 13-Jul-18/O

Colour < 2 < 2TCU 2 SM 2120C 16-Jul-18/O

Turbidity 25.8 2.2NTU 0.1 SM 2130 16-Jul-18/O

Ammonia (N)-Total 0.07 0.08mg/L 0.01 SM4500-NH3-H

12-Jul-18/K

o-Phosphate (P) < 0.01 < 0.01mg/L 0.01 PE4500-S 13-Jul-18/K

Potassium 9.9 10.3mg/L 0.1 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Sodium 28.2 15.4mg/L 0.2 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Calcium 95.4 63.0mg/L 0.02 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Magnesium 17.1 39.5mg/L 0.02 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Iron 0.252 0.031mg/L 0.005 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Copper < 0.002 < 0.002mg/L 0.002 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Manganese 0.030 0.021mg/L 0.001 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Zinc 0.007 < 0.005mg/L 0.005 SM 3120 13-Jul-18/O

Anion Sum 6.63 6.54meq/L Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

Cation Sum 7.67 7.33meq/L Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

% Difference 7.28 5.73% Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

Page 1 of 2.

Christine Burke

Lab Manager

R.L. = Reporting Limit

The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories.

Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill,B-Barrie

Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Lawson Rd/11177238-01

16-Jul-18DATE REPORTED:

Caduceon Environmental Laboratories

289-562-1963

110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14

Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9

289-475-5442Tel:

Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B18-20354

GHD Limited

651 Colby Drive,

Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2 Canada

Report To:

Attention: David Workman

11-Jul-18DATE RECEIVED:

73512012P.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.GroundwaterSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G74543

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Parameter Units R.L.Reference

Method

Date/Site

Analyzed

BH - 2 BH - 10Client I.D.

B18-20354-1 B18-20354-2Sample I.D.

11-Jul-18 11-Jul-18Date Collected

Ion Ratio 0.864 0.892AS/CS Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 0.698 0.375- Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

TDS(ion sum calc.) 367 348mg/L 1 Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

Conductivity (calc.) 681 641µmho/cm Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

TDS(calc.)/EC(actual) 0.581 0.550- Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

EC(calc.)/EC(actual) 1.08 1.01- Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

Langelier Index(25°C) 0.968 0.892S.I. Calc. 16-Jul-18/O

Page 2 of 2.

Christine Burke

Lab Manager

R.L. = Reporting Limit

The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories.

Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill,B-Barrie

Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *


Appendix E Water Balance Calculations

Appendix E.1Water Budget (Thornthwaite Method) - Average Values*

Oshawa WPCP Elevation: 84 masl Distance Away: ~ 5.6 km Month Mean Heat Potential Daylight Adjusted Total Surplus Deficit

Temperature Index ET Correction ET Precipitation(oC) (mm) Factor (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

January -4.8 0 0 0.82 0 65.6 65.60February -3.6 0 0 0.82 0 56.6 56.60March 0.4 0 0 1.03 0 54.2 54.20April 6.6 1.52 29.29 1.1 32.22 72.7 40.48May 12.3 3.91 57.94 1.25 72.42 78.9 6.48June 17.6 6.72 85.80 1.27 108.96 73.9 0.00 35.06July 20.6 8.53 101.95 1.29 131.52 73.1 0.00 58.42August 20 8.16 98.70 1.15 113.51 77.4 0.00 36.11September 15.9 5.76 76.76 1.04 79.83 94.0 14.17October 9.5 2.64 43.66 0.94 41.04 70.1 29.06November 4.2 0.77 17.85 0.8 14.28 84.8 70.52December -1.2 0 0 0.78 0 70.7 70.70TOTAL 8.1 38.0 511.9 593.8 872.0 407.8 129.6

TOTAL WATER SURPLUS: 278.2 mm

Notes:Oshawa WPCP weather station utilized: 43o 52' N, 78o 50' W*Average values of precipitation were used. Average values of temperature were also used.Water budget adjusted for latitude and daylightTotal Water Surplus is calculated as total precipitation minus adjusted potential evapotranspirationTotal Moisture Surplus is calculated as total precipitation minus actual evapotranspirationFormulas utilized:I = (Ti/5)1.514

E=0 when Ti<0 oCE=16(10Ti/Itot)

a when 0<Ti<26.5 oCE=-415.85+32.24Ti-0.43Ti

2 when Ti>26.5 oCa=6.7x10-7I3-7.71x10-5I2+1.79x10-2I+0.49a = 1.09581249

Appendix E.2Water Budget Pre-Development

Catchment Designation Undeveloped SiteTreed Pasture Total

Area (m2) 2308 4615 6923Pervious Area (m2) 2308 4615 6923% Pervious 33% 67% 100%Impervious Area (m2) 0 0 0% Impervious 0% 0% 0%

INFILTRATION FACTORSTopography Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.2Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.2Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.15MOE Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.55Actual Infiltration Factor 0.55 0.5Runoff Coefficient 0.45 0.5Runoff from Impervious Surfaces* 0 0

INPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation (mm/yr) 872 872 872Run On (mm/yr) 0 0 0Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 872 872 872

OUTPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 278 278 278Net Surplus (mm/yr) 278 278 278Evaportranspiration (mm/yr) 594 594 594Infiltration (mm/yr) 153 139 144Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 153 139 144Runoff Pervious Areas 125 139 134Runoff Impervious Areas 0 0 0Total Runoff (mm/yr) 125 139 134Total Outputs (mm/yr) 872 872 872Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0

INPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation (m3/yr) 2012 4025 6037Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0Total Inputs (m3/yr) 2012 4025 6037

OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 642 1284 1926Net Surplus (m3/yr) 642 1284 1926Evaportranspiration (m3/yr) 1370 2741 4111Infiltration (m3/yr) 353 642 995Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 0Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 353 642 995Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 289 642 931Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 0 0Total Runoff (m3/yr) 289 642 931Total Outputs (m3/yr) 2012 4025 6037Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0

Appendix E.3Water Budget Post-Development - No Mitigation Strategies

Catchment Designation

Landscaping Rooftops TotalArea (m2) 1895 620 2137 2272 6923Pervious Area (m2) 0 0 2137 0 2137% Pervious 0% 0% 31% 0% 31%Impervious Area (m2) 1895 620 0 2272 4786% Impervious 27% 9.0% 0% 33% 69%

INFILTRATION FACTORSTopography Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Soil Infiltration Factor 0 0 0.2 0Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0 0 0.15 0MOE Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.2 0.55 0.2Actual Infiltration Factor 0 0 0.5 0Runoff Coefficient 1 1 0.5 1Runoff from Impervious Surfaces* 0.8 0.8 0 0.8

INPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation (mm/yr) 872 872 872 872 872Run On (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 872 872 872 872 872

OUTPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 698 698 278 698 568Net Surplus (mm/yr) 698 698 278 698 568Evaportranspiration (mm/yr) 174 174 594 174 304Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 139 0 43Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 139 0 43Runoff Pervious Areas 0 0 139 0 43Runoff Impervious Areas 698 698 0 698 482Total Runoff (mm/yr) 698 698 139 698 525Total Outputs (mm/yr) 872 872 872 872 872Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0 0

INPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation (m3/yr) 1652 540 1864 1981 6037Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (m3/yr) 1652 540 1864 1981 6037

OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 1322 432 595 1585 3933Net Surplus (m3/yr) 1322 432 595 1585 3933Evaportranspiration (m3/yr) 330 108 1269 396 2104Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 297 0 297Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 297 0 297Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 0 297 0 297Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 1322 432 0 1585 3339Total Runoff (m3/yr) 1322 432 297 1585 3636Total Outputs (m3/yr) 1652 540 1864 1981 6037Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0 0

Notes:*Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20% of precipitation.

Access Road, Parking, Driveways, Sidewalks

Road Widening

SITETownhomes

Appendix E.4Water Budget Post-Development - Rooftop Infiltration Mitigation Strategy

Catchment Designation

Landscaping Rooftops TotalArea (m2) 1895 620 2137 2272 6923Pervious Area (m2) 0 0 2137 0 2137% Pervious 0% 0% 31% 0% 31%Impervious Area (m2) 1895 620 0 2272 4786% Impervious 27% 9.0% 0% 33% 69%

INFILTRATION FACTORSTopography Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Soil Infiltration Factor 0 0 0.2 0Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0 0 0.15 0MOE Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.2 0.55 0.2Actual Infiltration Factor 0 0 0.5 0Runoff Coefficient 1 1 0.5 1Runoff from Impervious Surfaces* 0.8 0.8 0 0.8

INPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation (mm/yr) 872 872 872 872 872Run On (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 872 872 872 872 872

OUTPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 698 698 278 698 568Net Surplus (mm/yr) 698 698 278 698 568Evaportranspiration (mm/yr) 174 174 594 174 304Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 139 0 43% Rooftop Runoff to balance infiltration 0 0 0 44%Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 307 101Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 139 307 144Runoff Pervious Areas 0 0 139 0 43Runoff Impervious Areas 698 698 0 390 381Total Runoff (mm/yr) 698 698 139 390 424Total Outputs (mm/yr) 872 872 872 872 872Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0 0

INPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation (m3/yr) 1652 540 1864 1981 6037Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (m3/yr) 1652 540 1864 1981 6037

OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 1322 432 595 1585 3933Net Surplus (m3/yr) 1322 432 595 1585 3933Evaportranspiration (m3/yr) 330 108 1269 396 2104Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 297 0 297Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 0 698 698Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 297 698 995Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 0 297 0 297Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 1322 432 0 887 2641Total Runoff (m3/yr) 1322 432 297 887 2938Total Outputs (m3/yr) 1652 540 1864 1981 6037Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0 0

Notes:*Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20% of precipitation.

SITEAccess Road, Parking, Driveways, Sidewalks

Road Widening

Townhomes

Appendix E.5Summary: Pre-Development vs Post-Development

SITE Post-Development Difference Post-Development Difference

No Mitigation Pre- vs. Post- Mitigation Pre- vs. Post-INPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation (m3/yr) 6037 6037 0% 6037 0%Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0% 0 0%Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0% 0 0%Total Inputs (m3/yr) 6037 6037 0% 6037 0%

OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 1926 3933 104% 3933 104%Net Surplus (m3/yr) 1926 3933 104% 3933 104%Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 4111 2104 -49% 2104 -49%Infiltration (m3/yr) 995 297 -70% 297 -70%Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 0% 698 --Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 995 297 -70% 995 0%Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 931 297 -68% 297 -68%Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 3339 -- 2641 --Total Runoff (m3/yr) 931 3636 291% 2938 216%Total Outputs (m3/yr) 6037 6037 0% 6037 0%

PARAMETER Pre-Development

David Workman, P.Geo [email protected] 905-728-1500

Nyle McIlveen, P.Eng [email protected] 705-749-3317

geotechnical investigation report - clarington · 2019. 3. 1. · recommendations are provided in...

Documents