hydrogeological level 1 and level 2 assessments … report... · 2017-03-23 · hydrogeological...

HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS

PROPOSED ERWIN SOUTH PIT

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession (Formerly West Oxford Township)

Township of South-West Oxford, County of Oxford, Ontario

JOHNSTON BROS. (BOTHWELL) LIMITED

Prepared for: Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited

21220 Johnston Line, RR1, Wardsville, Ontario

N0L 2N0

Prepared by:Novaterra Environmental Ltd.

39 Winship Close London, Ontario

N6C 5M8

October 11, 2016

HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS

PROPOSED ERWIN SOUTH PIT

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession (Formerly West Oxford Township) Township of South-West Oxford, County of Oxford, Ontario

JOHNSTON BROS. (BOTHWELL) LIMITED

Prepared for: Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited

21220 Johnston Line, RR1, Wardsville, Ontario

N0L 2N0

Prepared by:

Novaterra Environmental Ltd. 39 Winship Close London, Ontario

N6C 5M8

October 11, 2016

______________________________ Cover page photograph: Aerial photograph showing the Site and surrounding area, obtained from

Google Earth. Imagery date: September 27, 2013. Eye altitude 2.43 km.

Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................11.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 11.2 Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................. 11.3 The Current Use of the Site ............................................................................................ 1

2.0 SITE PHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................................................22.1 Location .......................................................................................................................... 22.2 Site Description ............................................................................................................... 22.3 Topography and Drainage ............................................................................................... 22.4 Natural Heritage Features ............................................................................................... 32.5 Adjacent Land Use .......................................................................................................... 32.6 Field Investigation and Instrumentation ......................................................................... 3

3.0 GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................................43.1 Bedrock Geology ............................................................................................................ 43.2 Quaternary Deposits........................................................................................................ 43.3 Subsurface Condition at the Site ..................................................................................... 5

3.3.1 Aggregate Material Thickness .............................................................................. 53.3.2 Structure Contours on Clayey Silt Till.................................................................. 6

4.0 HYDROGEOLOGY ..........................................................................................................64.1 Regional Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 64.2 Site Hydrogeology and Water Table Aquifer ................................................................. 64.3 Shallow Groundwater Flow and Hydraulic Gradients .................................................... 74.4 Water Level Fluctuations ................................................................................................ 74.5 Surface Water Courses and Water Bodies ...................................................................... 84.6 Relationship between Groundwater and Local Watercourses ........................................ 84.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Use ............................................................................. 84.8 Groundwater Temperature Profiles ............................................................................... 104.9 Chemical Quality of Groundwater ................................................................................ 11

5.0 PROPOSED OPERATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACT .........................................115.1 Proposed Mining of Aggregate Deposits ...................................................................... 115.2 Final Land Use .............................................................................................................. 125.3 Water Budget and Assessment of Potential for Groundwater Impact .......................... 135.4 Thermal Condition of Local Watercourses ................................................................... 145.5 Potential for Thermal Impact on Watercourses ............................................................ 145.6 Potential for Cumulative Impact ................................................................................... 14

6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN AND MITIGATION MEASURES......................................16

7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM ..........................................................................................17

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................17


iii

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................18

10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Subject site, well locations, topography and hydrology map .................................... 23

Figure 2 Existing features and cross-section locations ............................................................. 24

Figure 3 Regulation limit map by UTRCA .............................................................................. 25

Figure 4 Quaternary geology map ............................................................................................ 26

Figure 5 Regional cross-section A-A� ...................................................................................... 27

Figure 6 Local cross-sections B-B� and C-C� .......................................................................... 28

Figure 7 Thickness of sand and gravel ..................................................................................... 29

Figure 8 Surface elevations of silt and clayey silt till .............................................................. 30

Figure 9 Inferred depth to groundwater below ground surface ................................................ 31

Figure 10 Thickness of saturated sand and gravel ...................................................................... 32

Figure 11 Inferred groundwater table configuration .................................................................. 33

Figure 12 Depth groundwater hydrograph and precipitation ..................................................... 34

Figure 13 Water level elevation hydrographs and precipitation ................................................ 35

Figure 14 Groundwater temperature profiles for MW1 and MW2 ............................................ 36

Figure 15 Groundwater temperature profiles for MW3 and MW4 ............................................ 37

Figure 16 Groundwater temperature profiles for MW5 ............................................................. 38

Figure 17 Surface water temperature in local watercourse ........................................................ 39

Figure 18 Final rehabilitation plan ............................................................................................. 40

Figure 19 Aggregate extraction pits adjacent to Erwin South Pit .............................................. 41


iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of information on local domestic wells obtained during door-to-door survey at Erwin South Pit ............................................................................... 43

Table 2 Well construction data and water levels in monitoring wells and at staff gauges at Erwin South Pit ........................................................................................ 44

Table 3 Water level elevations in monitoring wells and at staff gauge at Erwin South Pit ............................................................................................................................. 45

Table 4 Geological and hydrogeological data at monitoring wells and at Erwin South Pit used to construct five figures ................................................................... 46

Table 5 Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit ......................... 47

Table 5.1 Thermal Condition in watercourse at Erwin South Pit ............................................ 14

Table 6 Temperature and water level measurements in watercourses near Erwin South Pit .................................................................................................................. 50

Table 7 Groundwater quality analyses in MW3 and MW5 .................................................. 51

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Figure 7 from Natural Environment Report ..................................................... 53

APPENDIX B Borehole and Instrumentation Logs ................................................................. 55

APPENDIX C Water Well Records Printout from MOECC Files ........................................... 62

APPENDIX D Water Budget Calculations ............................................................................... 67

APPENDIX E Laboratory Certificate of Analysis ................................................................... 73


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The proposed application call for the extraction of sand and gravel deposits from above and below the established groundwater table in Part of Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, in the Township of South-West Oxford (Formerly West Oxford Township), County of Oxford, Ontario. In this report, the proposed licensed area is referred to as the Erwin South Pit or the Site.

Novaterra Environmental Ltd. (hereinafter Novaterra) was authorized by Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) Limited to carry out a hydrogeological evaluation of the Site.

This report shall form part of a submission to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to comply with the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act.

1.2 Scope and Methodology

The purpose of this report is to assess geological and hydrogeological conditions at the Site, and the potential for adverse effects of the proposed operation on water resources in the area and their uses.

Considering the hydrogeological conditions, groundwater use in the area, the amount of collected field data, and subsequent interpretation, this report should be regarded as a Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment. According to the Ontario Provincial Standards, this report includes the requirements for Category 1, Class �A� license for a pit which intends to extract aggregate material from above and below the established groundwater table.

The scope of work includes a review of published geological and water resources maps, air photographs, and water well records on file with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Reconnaissance of the Site and the adjacent lands was carried out during the summer and autumn of 2015. Water level monitoring and groundwater temperature profiling began in April 2015 on a monthly basis and is ongoing.

The information contained in this report has been prepared in accordance with accepted professional standards.

1.3 The Current Use of the Site

The Site consists of one rhomboidal parcel of land which is currently used for agriculture to grow cash crops.

There is an unoccupied residence, along with other non-residential buildings, in the north central portion of the Site (Figure 1).


2

2.0 SITE PHYSICAL FEATURES

2.1 Location

The Site location is shown on Figures 1 and 2. Entrance to the Site is from the northern boundary which abuts Oxford County Road 9 (also known as Hamilton Road). The 911 address is 583218 Hamilton Road.

2.2 Site Description

The proposed sand and gravel extraction area is roughly rhomboidal in shape and elongated in a north-south direction. The western boundary is 537 m long while the eastern boundary is 700 m long. The northern boundary is 589 m long while southern is 562 m long (see Figure 2).

2.3 Topography and Drainage

The regional topography and drainage are shown on Figure 1 with contour intervals of 5 m. It can be seen from this map that the highest elevation within this map area is 276 m above sea level (a.s.l.), located 250 m northeast of the Site. A topographic divide which generally follows Hamilton Road, oriented in the southwest to northwest direction, exists along the northern portion of the site. From this divide, ground surface decreases in the northerly direction towards the South Thames River, and in the south-southeasterly direction. The topographic contour of 270 m a.s.l. encompasses small southern area of the Site and extends to some distance in the northeasterly direction from the Site (Figure 1).

Detailed site topography is shown on Figure 2 or Drawing 1 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015) with 1 m contour intervals. The highest elevation on the Site occupies eastern-northeastern section of the Site where the ground surface elevation is 275 m a.s.l. From here a minor topographic ridge extends in the westerly direction for two thirds of the Site where the elevation drops by 4 m. South of this small ridge the ground surface decreases to an elevation of 270 m a.s.l. where the contour encompasses an area in the central and southern portion of the Site (Figure 2).

There is no drainage ditch or open water body on the site. The nearest permanent watercourse is located approximately 170 m south of the proposed licensed boundary and runs as a roadside ditch along the south side of Thomas Road (Figure 1). This watercourse is identified on the Township Drainage Map as Michael Sheahan Drain. Interestingly, on a topographical map, scale 1:10,000, the Drain is identified to be located along north side of Thomas Road which is not the case now.

Approximately 300 m southwest from the proposed licensed boundary, the Michael Sheahan Drain joins Five Points Creek to form the Alex Wallis Drain which flows in the southwesterly direction to enter Reynolds Creek approximately 2 km from the Site.

The natural surface drainage direction from the Site is in the southwesterly and southerly direction, towards the Michael Sheahan Drain.


3

It should be noted that on Figure 3 that another drain is shown to flow into the Michael Sheahan Drain from the north. During field reconnaissance in the summer and fall of 2015 this other Drain was not flowing and likely is a much smaller, intermittent, drainage feature.

2.4 Natural Heritage Features

Figure 3 shows that the subject site is located outside of the regulation limits as established by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), except for a very small area in the southeastern corner of the subject site.

Natural environment including vegetation communities in the adjacent area to the subject site was assessed by Biologic Incorporated in their report (Biologic, 2015). Vegetation Communities in the adjacent area are depicted by Figure 7 given in Appendix A.

The closest provincially significant wetland (PSW) to the license boundary is the Five Points Woods Wetland Complex which is identified on Biologic�s Figure 7 (Appendix A). The Thames Talbot Land Trust Nature Preserve is located approximately 450 m away, on the south side of Robinson Road and is part of Five Point Woods Wetland (Figure 7 in Appendix A).

2.5 Adjacent Land Use

The proposed area is currently zoned agricultural. The zoning designations for adjacent lands are shown on Figure 2.

The lands immediately to the west, south, and a good portion to the east, are zoned �A2: agriculture use, agricultural�. One third of the subject Site to the east abuts the land zoned �A2: agri-business use: agri business�. The parcel of land northeast of the Site is occupied by Bonduelle North America which is a facility that processes vegetables for freezing and distribution.

The lands to the north and across Hamilton Road are zoned �ME: aggregate industrial: gravel pit� involving 5 different parcels of land and MNRF licenses (Figure 2). These parcels of land are ongoing aggregate extraction operations. A small parcel of land to the north across Hamilton Road is zoned �RE: residential�.

2.6 Field Investigation and Instrumentation

Field work and associated instrumentation work was carried out as part of the assessment of aggregate resources at the Site (LVM, 2015). The field investigation and instrumentation work was described by LVM (2015) and it is summarised below:

�The fieldwork, consisting of six (6) sampled boreholes and eight (8) test pits, was carried out on April 8 and 9, 2015, at the locations shown on Drawing 2 in Appendix 1.Fifty millimetre diameter monitoring wells were installed in five (5) of the boreholes and they are identified as MW01-15 to MW05-15.


4

Geodetic top of pipe and ground surface elevations and a site plan were provided by Wm. Bradshaw, P. Eng�.

Boreholes and test pits locations are shown in Figure 2 of this report.

Field investigations performed by Novaterra at the Site are summarized below:

Initial Site reconnaissance work was done on December 10, 2014 when the existence of the onsite domestic well was investigated and the locations of the local watercourses were established;

Groundwater monitoring wells were developed, and water level and temperature measurements were initiated on April 25, 2015;

Staff gauges were installed at two locations in Michael Sheahan Drain on May 13, 2015;

Surface water temperatures were measured on August 17, 2015 to assess thermal conditions in the nearest watercourse;

Water samples from monitoring wells MW3 and MW5 were obtained on October 26, 2015 and submitted for chemical analyses;

Water level monitoring and groundwater temperature profiling in the five monitoring wells and two staff gauges is ongoing. Groundwater temperature profiling in five monitoring wells, and stream water levels and temperature at two staff gauges will continue for a full year.

Field data collected during the monitoring periods, mentioned above, are summarized in Tables 1 to 7.

3.0 GEOLOGY

3.1 Bedrock Geology

The Lucas Formation of the Detroit River Group of formations constitutes the bedrock under the Site (Sanford, 1969). The Lucas Formation is of Middle Devonian age and consists of brown and tan microcrystalline and sublithographic limestone. The Site is located east of the contact with the Dundee Formation which overlies the Lucas Formation further to the south.

Based on the information from the nearest bedrock well located approximately 40 m north of the Site (MOECC water well record 4706129 on Figure 1), bedrock is found at a depth of 25.91 m below ground surface.

3.2 Quaternary Deposits

According to the Quaternary Geology Map for the subject area, the Site is underlain by glacial fluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand frequently overlain by several feet of sand and silt


5

(Cowan, 1975). The Quaternary Geology at the subject site and the surrounding area is depicted in Figure 4.

The driller�s log for the nearest bedrock well located 40 m north of the site across Hamilton Road indicates that the thickness of glacial drift is 25.91 m. This water well record (number 4706129) indicates that the glacial deposits consist of sand and gravel deposits, which are underlain by grey gravel and clay.

Regional cross-section A-A� illustrates the geology at the subject site and the surrounding area (Figure 5).

3.3 Subsurface Condition at the Site

A detailed description of glacial deposits at the Site is given in the report on the subsurface investigation which consisted of eight test pits and six boreholes, prepared by LVM Inc. (2015).

The subsurface layers intercepted during recent test drilling are given in borehole logs for five monitoring wells and one borehole contained in Appendix B of this report. These borehole logs were completed in April 2015 by LVM Inc. (2015).

The subsurface conditions at the subject site are described in the LVM (2015) report and they are discussed below.

Information from onsite borehole logs were used to construct vertical cross-sections B-B� and C-C� which are shown on Figure 6.

Subsurface conditions at the Site are also illustrated on Figures 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Information used to construct these figures was derived from borehole logs and water level monitoring results. This information is summarized in Table 4. It should be noted that the depths of the eight test pits excavated at the Site were insufficient to provide information to be used in the construction of these figures.

The near surface deposits at the Site are described as sand and gravel with trace of silt, fine sand, and sandy silt. As described in the borehole logs, these deposits are underlain by silty clay, and grey sandy clayey silt till (Appendix B).

Five of the boreholes were completed as monitoring wells and are designated in this report as: MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5. The sixth borehole is identified as BH6 in this report, but it was not completed as a monitoring well. The monitoring wells and borehole are identified in the LVM (2015) report as borehole numbers MW-01-12, MW-02-12, MW-03-12, MW-04-12, MW-05-12 and BH-06-15.

3.3.1 Aggregate Material Thickness

Using information from the six borehole logs and eight test pits, together with site topography as shown on Drawing 1 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015; see Figure 2), the thickness of aggregate material was delineated and is shown on Figure 7.


6

Five of the boreholes clearly penetrated the entire thickness of sand and gravel, while MW5 was terminated at 12.70 m in grey silt and some sandy silt. Although MW5 did not appear to reach the silty clay, it is assumed that this is the depth at which the silty clay would be found at MW5. Based on this, the thickness of aggregate deposits at the Site varies between 4.50 m at MW2 and 13.70 m at MW4 (Figure 7).

The depths of the eight test pits varied between 4.3 m and 6.0 m below ground surface. None of the test pits penetrated the full thickness of the sand and gravel deposits, and therefore could not be used to estimate thicknesses of the sand and gravel at the Site.

It can be seen from Figure 7 that the thickest area of sand and gravel is in the area of MW4 and MW5. In general, there appears to be thicker deposits in the central area of the site, with thickness of sand and gravel deposits becoming smaller towards the southwest.

3.3.2 Structure Contours on Clayey Silt Till

Although MW5 did not reach the underlying silty clay, it was assumed that the bottom of it is close to such depth. Therefore all six reference holes drilled at the Site reached underlying glacial silty clay or, clayey silt till which is found beneath the sand and gravel deposits.

Information from the six referenced boreholes was used to construct representative structure contours of the glacial silty clay and clayey silt till surface. This is shown on Figure 8.

It can be seen from Figure 8 that there exists an ancient valley incised into the grey silty clay, which stretches from southeast to the northwesterly direction. There is a drop in elevation from 265 to 259 m a.s.l. across the site. The existing valley, incised into silty clay, has greatly influenced the thickness of aggregate deposits as shown on Figure 7 by the increased deposits thickness in the centre of the Site.

4.0 HYDROGEOLOGY

4.1 Regional Hydrogeology

Vertical cross-section A-A� illustrates regional hydrogeological conditions in the study area (Figure 5). This cross section together with information shown on Figure 1 indicate that the majority of domestic wells obtain water from wells completed into overburden but there are domestic wells which were constructed into limestone bedrock and can be taken to represent a regional aquifer.

4.2 Site Hydrogeology and Water Table Aquifer

Vertical cross-sections B-B� and C-C� illustrate hydrogeological conditions in the shallow subsurface at the Site (Figure 6). They show that the deeper portions of the sand and gravel deposits are saturated, thus constituting a water table aquifer. The depth to water table from ground surface is depicted in Figure 9 while the thickness of the saturated portion of sand and gravel (i.e. the aquifer) is illustrated in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows that the aquifer thickness


7

varied between 2.40 m and 4.09 m in three onsite monitoring wells on May 16, 2015. The thickest portion of the aquifer is centered at MW4 in the western area of the Site where it is 4 m thick (Figure 10).

Existence of the shallow water table aquifer at the Site and surrounding area is also documented on Sheet 6 of the Thames River Basin Study (MOE, 1981).

We acknowledge that Map 4-3-2 in the Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Report prepared by Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee (2015) identifies Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVA). This map indicates that the Site is located in a HVA (Vulnerability Score of 6.0). At this point in time there are no Policies or Source Protection Plans as to which human activities may be restricted in such areas.

4.3 Shallow Groundwater Flow and Hydraulic Gradients

Water table configuration in the water table aquifer for May 16, 2015 is depicted in Figure 11. This figure shows that the prevailing direction of shallow groundwater flow is in a westerly direction. Ultimately, the groundwater discharge coming from the Site is into the South Thames River, located 750 m from the northern boundary of the Site.

Groundwater gradients in the water table aquifer shown on Figure 11 are relatively uniform. They are 0.0096 m/m in the westerly direction toward MW4.

4.4 Water Level Fluctuations

Depths to water levels in five monitoring wells were measured on a monthly basis from April 25, 2015 to December 19, 2015, inclusive, and are ongoing. In addition, water level stages in the local watercourse � Michael Sheahan Drain (staff gauges SG1 and SG2) � were also monitored on a monthly basis for the same time period as the monitoring wells. The collected depth to water level data are summarized in Table 2, water level elevations in Table 3, and surface water in Table 6.

Depths to water level data given in Table 2 were used to produce depth to water level hydrographs which are shown on Figure 12. The shallowest depth to groundwater is in MW2, followed by MW1, MW3, MW5, and MW4. In the first two wells, depth to water level varies between 0.42 and 1.33 m below the ground surface, while in MW4 it varies between 9.49 and 10.18 m below the ground surface (Figure 12). The deepest groundwater is in MW4, consistent with the clayey silt till elevation which is lowest in that area.

Water level elevation data given in Table 3 were used to produce water level elevation hydrographs which are shown on Figure 13. The highest water level elevation occurred in mid-May, while the lowest was in October, 2015. The influence of precipitation, which is also plotted on Figures 12 and 13, on water level elevation is evident. For example, there was a significant amount of precipitation in late June, 2015 prior to the hydrograph attaining relatively high water level elevations.

Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit – Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016

8

4.5 Surface Water Courses and Water Bodies

The nearest watercourse is Michael Sheahan Drain which is located south of the subject site with its nearest portion approximately 160 m from the Site (Figure 1). In this portion the Drain occupies the roadside ditch on south side of Thomas Road and flows in the southwesterly direction. After crossing Robinson Road, then Five Points Line, it is joined by Five Points Creek to form Alex Wallis Drain which empties into Reynolds Creek approximately 2.3 km from the Site.

It is also noted that UTRCA identifies a watercourse located a short distance east of the subject site, flowing in the southerly direction. According to UTRCA map, this watercourse appears to be of the same significance as Michael Sheahan Drain (Figure 3). Field observation during summer and autumn of 2015 indicate that this surface water feature was dry during this time period suggesting it is an intermittent stream.

The South Thames River is the major watercourse in the area and is located, at its nearest potion, approximately 750 m north of the subject site. According to groundwater table configuration map (Figure 11), the South Thames River is the eventual groundwater discharge location.

There is no open water body or watercourse on the Site itself. There is no proposed water diversion or storage, nor any proposed construction of drainage facilities on the Site.

There are no groundwater springs on the subject site or within 120 m of the site.

4.6 Relationship between Groundwater and Local Watercourses

There are two temporary staff gauges installed in Michael Sheahan Drain, and they are designated as SG1 and SG2. The staff gauges were installed across from monitoring wells MW1 and MW2 in order to assess interaction between groundwater at the Site and surface water of the Drain. In this regard, stream water elevation at SG1 is compared with groundwater elevation in the nearest monitoring (MW2) and stream water elevation at SG2 is compared with water level elevation in MW1. In both cases, the Drain water elevation is higher than the groundwater elevation in the monitoring wells. This condition indicates that Michael Sheahan Drain is an effluent stream with the hydraulic gradient from the stream being toward these monitoring wells (Figure 13).

The flow in Michael Sheahan Drain was measured on October 21, 2015 to be approximately 77 L/sec and it is classified as coldwater stream (see Table 5.1 in Section 5.0).

4.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Use

Water well records on file with the MOECC were obtained and analyzed. Available water well records within approximately 600 m east and west, and 400 m due north and south from the site, were plotted on Figure 1. There are 25 water well records plotted on Figure 1 and summarized in Appendix C. The wells are mainly located along Hamilton, Thomas, and Robinson Roads. Of these water well records, 17 wells were completed in overburden and 8 wells were completed into bedrock. The existence of the wells plotted on Figure 1 was not field verified except for the nearest domestic wells located south, north and east of the subject Site. However, the exact


9

water well record numbers for other locations cannot be confirmed because the wells were all completed prior to 2003 when the Ontario Well Tag requirement was instituted.

Door-to-door survey was performed which identified existence of additional wells along Robinson Road, south of the Site. The survey results are shown on Table 1, and the survey locations are also identified on Figure 1.

The overburden wells vary in depth between 9.14 m and 29.87 m below ground surface. They do supply tap water from a shallow water table aquifer but the water mainly comes from the confined sand and gravel aquifer. There are two 5 cm diameter monitoring wells located near the site: one approximately 350 m north of the Site with water well record 7155322 and a second near the eastern corner of the Site with water well record 4704223. The first monitoring well was completed in connection with the operation of a sand and gravel pit and the second well is assumed to be used to monitor the operation of the spray irrigation system connected with the nearby vegetable processing plant.

The bedrock wells vary in depth between 21 m and 38 m below ground surface. The bored well, which is located south of the Site, along Robinson Road, is 4.3 m in depth.

The nearest well is located about 40 m north and across Hamilton Road from the subject Site. MOECC water well record for this domestic well is 4706129. This well obtains water from the bedrock aquifer found at 27.13 m depth (Appendix C).

There is another domestic well located approximately 150 m due west from the subject site with screen interval placed into gravel between 14.33 m and 15.24 m below ground surface (water well record 4110696). This domestic well is owned by the applicant.

Approximately 200 m south-southeast from the subject site, on the south side of Thomas Road, there are three residences which rely on well water supply. Two of these residences obtain water from shallow drilled wells: 10.36 m and 9.14 m in deep completed into sand and gravel which are overlain by clay, silt and stones. The third residence obtains water from a 30 m deep drilled well completed into bedrock. The existence of the four above-described domestic wells was field verified.

Other residences in the area are located at distances greater than 300 m and obtain water from drilled wells completed into sand and gravel found within glacial deposits at various depths.

The residence on the subject Site is unoccupied and was supplied by now unused drilled well. The wellhead of this well is located at the bottom of 1.10 m deep, 1.5 m by 1.0 m concrete well pit. The well is 12.7 cm in diameter, 12.32 m deep and it was originally equipped with jet pump. The depth to water level in this well was measured on October 21, 2015 to be 10.10 m below ground surface.

There are two bedrock wells located approximately 150 m north of the site (water well record numbers 4703331 and 4707243). Both of these wells are authorised by MOECC Permit to Take Water Number 2662-9F7QAX to supply vegetable processing plant with water (Bonduelle North America plant). The approximate locations of these wells are indicated on Figure 1. The PTTW


10

authorizes Bonduelle to pump well 4703331 a maximum of 1,309,248 litres per day and well 4707243 a maximum of 981,936 litres per day.

4.8 Groundwater Temperature Profiles

During the period from April 25, 2015 to December 19, 2015, inclusive, a Temperature/ Level/Conductivity (TLC) instrument (made by Solinst Canada Ltd.) was used to measure depths to water levels, and temperatures at depth in five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, MW5). The obtained temperatures at depths in five monitoring wells are given in Table 5. These data are presented graphically for each monitoring well on Figures 14, 15, 16.

Temperature monitoring was done on a monthly basis with the first temperature measurement at each location being within 0.1 m below the top of the groundwater. Subsequent measurements were at 0.5 m depth increments. Thus, the top of temperature profiles are a reasonable indicator of the depth to the groundwater table below the ground surface at the time of measurement.

Examination of Figures 14, 15 and 16 indicates that the shape and position of the temperature profiles depends on the time of year, the depth to water level below ground surface, and the depth at which measurement was taken. Significantly, shallow groundwater exhibits relatively wide temperature differences, while deeper groundwater has a much narrower range of temperature fluctuations.

The widest fluctuation rage was found in MW1 and MW2 (Figure 14) where the depth to water level was between 0.5 and 1.5 m below ground surface. In these two wells, groundwater temperature ranged between 5°C and 16°C with coldest groundwater found when depth to water level is shallowest. This is expected because the shallower groundwater is greatly influenced by ambient air temperature since there is less ground cover to act as insulation for the groundwater.

As the depth to the saturated zone increases, the temperature spread becomes significantly narrower, as observed in wells MW3, MW4, and MW5 (Figures 15 and 16). In MW3 the coldest groundwater temperatures were measured during the months of May and June, and the overall temperature range was between 7.5°C and 11.5°C (Figure 15). The narrowest temperature spread is in MW4 where the measured groundwater temperature profile was at a depth interval between 9.5 m and 14.5 m below ground surface (Figure 15). The temperature spread in this well was between 9°C and 10.5°C, with the warmest groundwater temperatures in April, then in May, and the coldest in September. Similar temperature profiles were exhibited in MW5 with the warmest temperature during the month of April and the coldest temperature in June (Figure 17). Temperature spread in MW5 was between 8.5°C and 10°C.

As the air and ground surface cools off in the fall, the colder air temperatures progressively move into the subsurface. Consequently, temperature profiles start shifting to the left, beginning in November. We could think of it as a transient cool wave, slowly moving into the subsurface. This continues until the spring snowmelt in late February, March, and early April, when large quantities of cold water infiltrate into the ground, reaching the saturated zone of the water table and then mixing with groundwater. This is applicable for the shallow saturated zone when the depth to water table is less than 1.5 m, but as we move deeper into the aquifer the temperature spread becomes narrower. Typical examples to be observed and compared for shallow


11

groundwater are in MW1 and MW2 where the temperature spread is between 5°C and 16°C and the depth to water levels are between 0.5 and 1.5 m below ground surface. At monitoring wells MW4 and MW5 the depth to water is greater than 9 m and temperature spread is between 1.0°C and 1.5°C (Figure 15) with different temperature pattern from shallow water table.

4.9 Chemical Quality of Groundwater

Water quality sampling of groundwater was undertaken at two of the onsite monitoring wells: MW3 and MW5. The purpose of the groundwater sampling was to determine if the vegetable processing plant adjacent to the Site has had any influence on groundwater quality at the site. The neighbouring plant processes vegetables and uses a spray irrigation system at the back of the property to dispose of the �waste water�. It is likely that a groundwater quality monitoring program is in place at the plant, as evidenced by the presence of monitoring wells on the adjacent property.

Sampling procedures consisted of pumping three volumes of water from each well, allowing water levels to stabilize, and then taking samples using bailers. Collected samples were immediately placed into sampling bottles obtained from the sampling laboratory, and storing them in a cooler with ice packs to preserve sample temperature and quality.

The rationale for selecting the sampling locations was that one sample would be taken from the well located closest to the processing plant (i.e. MW5), and another sample would be taken from further away, so as to be considered background (i.e. MW3). The results of the chemical quality analysis of groundwater in these two wells are given in Table 7 while the Laboratory Certificate of Analysis is given in Appendix E.

Comparison of the concentrations of chemical parameters given in Table 7 in MW5 with those obtained in MW3 shows the higher concentrations of several chemical parameters in MW5. These include: alkalinity, ammonia, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, hardness, total kjeldahl nitrogen, chloride, sulphate, potassium and sodium. The results of groundwater quality from MW5 suggests that land use practices on the property immediately east of the subject site might have caused the elevated concentrations of several chemical parameters in MW5.

5.0 PROPOSED OPERATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACT

5.1 Proposed Mining of Aggregate Deposits

The field investigations have revealed that the site contains considerable quantities of sand and gravel with commercial value as indicated in LVM, 2015 report which among other things states:

�The investigation has revealed that the property contains significant quantities of aggregate of commercial value. The granular deposit has an estimated average thickness of 8.3 m and covers the entire 30.7 hectares (ha) extraction area. All but the southwest portion of the extraction area contains high quality of sand and gravel. The southwest portion of the site contains mostly fine to medium sand below more


12

fine grained surface materials. The thickness of the deposit increases from south to north across the site.

The granular material with higher commercial value covers an area of approximately 23.0 ha within the proposed extraction area of 30.7 ha. With an average thickness of 8.3 m, it is estimated that 1.9 million cubic metres of sand and gravel could be extracted, which would translate to approximately 3.8 million metric tonnes by weight.�

The thickness of the potential aggregate deposits, including topsoil, can be observed on Figure 7. A portion of these deposits are saturated, as shown by the inferred depth to water table on Figure 9 and the thickness of saturated sand and gravel on Figure 10. Extraction of saturated sand and gravel material requires mining below the water table. Therefore the approximate areal distribution and thickness of aggregate deposits that would be mined from below water table is shown on Figure 10.

It is proposed to extract sand and gravel from above and below the water table by using a hydraulic excavator or dragline. Where possible, sand and gravel will be completely removed until the clayey silt till is reached. The elevation of the clayey silt till, which underlies the aggregate deposits, is delineated on Figure 8.

Based on the above information, the approximate depth of sand and gravel extraction is shown on Drawing 2 of 3 and Drawing 3 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015). This is also illustrated on cross-sections B-B� and C-C�, as shown on Figure 6 in this report, where the aggregate extraction would take place relative to the underlying clayey silt till.

5.2 Final Land Use

The proposed mining of sand and gravel would result in the creation of a pond, 25.1 hectares in size. The pond depths will be influenced by the topography of silty clay and the clayey silt till which is shown on Figure 8. Final rehabilitation configurations showing the shape, size, and bottom elevation of the future ponds are shown on Drawing 3 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015) as well as Figure 18 of this report.

It can be seen from Figure 18 that the lowest elevation of the clayey silt till which underlies the sand and gravel deposits is in the north central portion of the site. That is, in the area of monitoring well MW4 where the pond bottom have an elevation of 260 m. There is a drop in elevation of clayey silt till across the Site from south to north (from MW1 to MW4) of 5 m (Figure 8). Accordingly, the depth of the future pond would vary between 1 and 6 metres across south to north direction (Figure 18).

Based on the groundwater level data it is surmised that the elevation of the future pond water would be in the range of (+/-) 266 m a.s.l. This value was obtained by taking the average of the water level elevation in all three on-site monitoring stations MW3, MW4 and MW5) throughout the monitoring period (Figure 18).


13

5.3 Water Budget and Assessment of Potential for Groundwater Impact

The proposed mining of sand and gravel from below the water table could theoretically cause temporary lowering of the water table in the vicinity of the proposed operation. This can be caused in two ways:

1. The potential change in water budget due to the increase in evaporation from an open water body and increased surface runoff into the pond.

2. The removal of sand and gravel may initially and temporarily generate water level lowering near the outside edges of the pond when the pond is small.

Both aspects were examined, and subsequent calculations were made to see if these aspects have any realistic chances of having any negative impacts. A detailed description of the calculations is given in Appendix D and is summarized in this Section.

Annual water budget for the site in its current state indicates that: of the 952 mm of annual precipitation, 564 mm is lost to evapotranspiration, 271.6 mm infiltrates into the ground, and 116.4 mm leaves the site as runoff (Table D1 in Appendix D). After rehabilitation, evapotranspiration would be replaced by lake evaporation which is 634.5 mm, runoff would not exist and instead the remaining precipitation which is 364.5 mm would remain onsite and eventually contribute to the groundwater system (Table D3 in Appendix D). This means that final site conditions would have more water lost to evaporation but runoff would not exist and there would be an overall gain in the groundwater system of 45.9 mm.

Removal of aggregate material may cause a small lowering of the water level in the pond as the extraction progresses. Water level in the pond during the early phase of extraction may show daily lowering of 0.110 m but is expected to be temporary and recover between workdays. During late phase of extraction when the pond approaches its final size of 25.1 ha, this lowering is expected to be even smaller, reaching less than 0.01 m daily (see Appendix C). This value is insignificant and would not cause any groundwater drawdown for any significant distance outside of the immediate pond area.

Five domestic wells nearest to the Site are located approximately between 50 and 250 m from the future pond. Although three of them obtain water from the water table aquifer, lowering water levels in the pond due to the proposed operation is inconsequential to water quantity in these domestic wells. They are too far away from the pit to show any measurable effect.

Water in the future pond will warm up during the summer months. The expected highest pond water temperatures could be up to 30°C based on field measurements at a site located 1 km west of Erwin Pit. These measurements were collected in the summer of 2013 as part of the assessment report for a proposed pit (Novaterra, 2014) which is identified as Pit 1 on Figure 19. Water from the future pond at Erwin Pit would move downgradient which is the northerly direction and away from the water courses. Therefore there will not be any effect to adjacent water courses and the natural environment by the proposed operation.


14

5.4 Thermal Condition of Local Watercourses

A method developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996) was used to establish the thermal condition in the nearest water course which is Michael Sheahan Drain. The results are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Thermal Condition in Michael Sheahan Drain.

Monitoring station August 17, 2015

Temperature ˚C Time Thermal status * Water Air 1)

SG1 Michael Sh. Drain 17.3 29.4 16:00 Coldwater stream

SG2 Michael Sh. Drain 17.6 29.4 16:08 Coldwater stream * Based on criteria developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996);1) As recorded at London Airport Climate Station.

As it can be seen from Table 5.1, the assessment of the thermal condition of the nearest neighbouring watercourse was done at two locations a relatively short distance apart. At both locations measurements indicate that this watercourse is considered a coldwater stream.

5.5 Potential for Thermal Impact on Watercourses

Figure 11 depicts groundwater flow at the subject site on May 16, 2015, and it indicates that it is in the northwesterly direction � away from the local watercourses. Considering that such condition in groundwater flow direction exists throughout the year (Figure 13) it is concluded that there is no potential that the proposed operation would have any effect including thermal impact on the local watercourses and the natural environment.

5.6 Potential for Cumulative Impact

There are four licenced aggregate extraction pits in the local area and the fifth soon to be licensed which all might eventually have ponds as the final land use. Therefore all five pits plus newly proposed Erwin South Pit might potentially have cumulative thermal impact on the natural environment after their rehabilitation is completed. These pits are located along left (south) bank of the South Thames River as identified on Figure 19.

The proposed Erwin South Pit is also identified on Figure 19 and it is located up-gradient from pit numbers 3, 4, and 5. Therefore the direction of groundwater flow from Erwin South Pit is towards pit numbers 3, 4, and 5. Water temperature in this future pond would be identical as in the other neighbouring ponds and therefore it would not influence water quality (T) or quantity at the lower limit or groundwater exits from any of the future pond shown on Figure 19. For this reason the future presence of Erwin South Pit pond was not considered in the following discussion and subsequent calculations.


15

Also shown on Figure 19 is the approximate width that the potential ponds would have along the South Thames River. In the event that such ponds are created, pond water would enter the groundwater and travel towards the River, eventually discharging into it. Groundwater gradients in this area are towards the South Thames River, and they would not have any influence on groundwater upgradient, or across Hamilton Road.

To create a worst-case scenario, we have assumed that all of the gravel pits shown on Figure 19 will be rehabilitated into ponds, and that they will cover the entire area of extraction. A 25 m setback between the licensed areas and adjacent properties was also used, with the exception of Pit No. 3 which has a 60 m setback along its east boundary because of a road allowance. It should be noted that these areas are approximate and the proposed ponds may not be as large as they are shown on Figure 19. Nevertheless, these areas provide us with an idea of what the cumulative impacts might be.

The following paragraphs were adapted from the recent hydrogeological assessment report for the proposed Hamilton Road pit which is shown as pit 1 in Figure 19 (or Figure 22 in Novaterra, 2014).

If we assume that the groundwater flow velocity leaving each of the adjacent four gravel pits is the same as that of the Hamilton Road Pit, we can estimate the amount of groundwater that will enter the South Thames River. Based on this information it is estimated that the combined groundwater flux of all five gravel pit ponds, including the proposed Hamilton Road Pit, towards the South Thames River is 40.9 L/s. The average minimum annual flow of the South Thames River from 1957 to 2009 was 1190 L/s, measured at the Water Survey of Canada gauging station in Ingersoll (Station Number 02GD016). In comparison to the flow of the South Thames River, the potential groundwater discharge from the adjacent gravel pit ponds is very small.

Furthermore, due to the meandering nature of the South Thames River, travel distances of groundwater will vary significantly and some areas will have more time to cool. In the worst-case scenario, we assumed that groundwater entering the River would have a temperature of 17.6°C (Novaterra, 2014). This value was chosen from a previous investigation at Pit 1 (Figure 19), where Novaterra observed that the maximum groundwater temperature in the vicinity of the pond in Pit 2 was 17.6°C. Using this assumption along with the mass-preservation equation, we can estimate the influence on the South Thames River (see Section 5.5 in Novaterra, 2014). Because the South Thames River was classified as a warmwater stream, the groundwater temperatures of 17.6°C entering the River would actually have a cooling effect on the River. For example, if we choose a date in the summer when potential for thermal stress to the River is greatest (i.e. 27.7°C on July 18, 2013, see Table 6 in Novaterra, 2014), the mass-preservation equation shows that temperature in the River would decrease to 27.3°C � a change of 0.4°C.

This change is very small, and inconsequential to water quality in the South Thames River.

The above discussion and associated calculation is applicable even with the addition of the future pond to be located at the proposed Erwin South Pit. Understandably, groundwater flow from the Erwin South Pit pond would enter ponds identified as pond 3, 4 and 5 on Figure 19 without causing any increase in volume discharging into the South Thames River.


16

Based on the information discussed above, it is concluded that there would not be any negative cumulative impacts on the South Thames River resulting from future pit ponds at adjacent gravel pits, including the Erwin South Pit.

6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The proposed sand and gravel operation calls for aggregate extraction above and below the water table. In such a situation, the use of equipment for Site operations may pose a potential risk of petroleum hydrocarbons such as fuels, oil and grease to enter the exposed groundwater system unless the proper operation and refuelling procedures are followed. To address these potential risks a Spills Plan shall be incorporated into the Site Plans.

The following water well interference complaint shall be incorporated into the site plans:

Water Supply Interference Complaint Response Procedures:

This response applies to domestic and farm water supplies for properties located within 120 m of the licensed boundary.

1. Owners of domestic and farm water supplies experiencing disruption or quality problems shall immediately notify the Licensee. The Licensee shall, upon receipt of any water supply disruption complaint, notify the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

2. Should the owner of domestic and farm water supplies experience a significant disruption in their supply of water, or should they experience significant adverse effects upon their water supply; and if the operation of the pit cannot obviously and definitively be excluded as the cause, the licensee shall supply such resident with a temporary water supply within 24 hours and thereafter until such time as the cause of the disturbance can be determined and the situation addressed. The Licensee shall investigate the cause of the water supply disturbance and shall report to the MNRF, MOECC and the resident.

3. If, after consultation with the affected resident and the Licensee, the MNRF and/or the MOECC determine that the operation of the pit has caused a domestic or farm water supply to be adversely affected, the Licensee shall, at the Licensee�s expense, either restore or replace the water supply to ensure that historic water supply and quality are restored for such a resident.

4. If MNRF and/or MOECC have determined that the operation of the pit has not caused any domestic or farm water supply to be adversely affected the Licensee shall maintain the temporary water supply provided for under Item 2 for an additional 24 hours to allow the resident to make alternate water supply arrangements.


17

7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM

There is no proposed dewatering of the gravel pit. Aggregate extraction is proposed for excavation below the water table using an excavator or a drag line. Changes to water balance are small and inconsequential. As such, measurable interference with local water supplies is highly unlikely.

A monitoring program is in place which includes five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5), and two staff gauges (SG1 and SG2). The monitoring program commenced on April 25, 2015 on a monthly basis and included water levels and groundwater temperature profiles in monitoring wells, and water levels and water temperatures at two staff gauges. Monitoring will continue as noted in the Recommendations Section.

Water samples were obtained from monitoring well MW3 and MW5 and were analyzed for pH, conductivity, alkalinity, anions, cations, four nitrogen types and dissolved organic carbon. Groundwater quality from MW3 is used as background on-site groundwater quality with which water quality obtained from MW5 is compared with. This is because there is a potential that groundwater quality in MW5 might have been influenced by the operation of spray irrigation system on the adjacent property to treat wastewater originating from the vegetable processing plant also located on the adjacent property to the east.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information collected in the field and analysis of available data, the following conclusions are made:

1. There exists a substantial quantity of sand and gravel at the proposed site.

2. The thickness of sand and gravel deposits varies between 4.50 m and 13.7 m. The deeper portion of these deposits is saturated with the depth to water table varying between 3.0 m and 9.66 m as measured on May 16, 2015. The saturated zone constitutes a water table aquifer with flow in the northwesterly and westerly, directions.

3. There are three nearby residences with shallow domestic wells which are located approximately 150 to 200 m one due west and the other two due south from the proposed extraction boundary. All three residences are supplied with drilled wells between 9.14 m and 15.24 m deep. There is no potential that water quantity or quality in these domestic wells would be affected by the proposed operation; two of the wells are located upgradient and the third downgradient but at a considerable distance to the proposed operation and it is owned by the applicant.

4. It is proposed to have aggregate extraction from above and below the water table. The Site will be rehabilitated, resulting in the creation of a pond with the 25.1 hectare in size and up to 6 m in depth.

5. After site rehabilitation, evapotranspiration will be replaced by lake evaporation due to the creation of a 25.1 hectare pond. Water budget calculations show that, although lake

Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit – Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016

18

evaporation is higher than evapotranspiration, there would be a gain in the water budget of 45.9 mm. This is because once the pond is created, there would be no more runoff generated at the site, and any precipitation remaining at the site will be retained by the pond and eventually recharging groundwater.

6. Groundwater quality analyses from monitoring wells MW3 and MW5 indicates that there are increases of several chemical non-health related parameters in MW5. It is surmised that such increases are related to the spray irrigation of vegetable washing water originating from the vegetable processing plant both located on the adjacent land to the east of the subject site.

7. The hydrogeological site assessment and associated calculations indicate that the proposed mining of sand and gravel deposits will not have any adverse effect on water resources, including the natural environment in the area and domestic water wells.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the conclusions drawn from the work described herein, the following recommendations are made and should be incorporated into the site plans:

1. Fuel storage onsite shall be in compliance with the Technical Standards and Safety Act 2000 and the Liquid Fuels Handling Code 2001, as may be amended.

2. Maintenance and refueling of mobile excavation equipment and other vehicles shall take place in the fuel storage area. Crushers, stackers and screening plants shall be refueled and maintained on the pit floor during daylight hours. Any minor drips or spills shall be immediately cleaned up and properly disposed of.

3. A “Spills Plan” shall be incorporated into the Site Plans.

4. The operational condition would not require that the onsite unused drilled well be decommissioned according to O. Reg. 903, Amended to Reg. 128/03. This is because the measured well depth is 12.32 m and depth of aggregate extraction would be 13 m at this well location which is deeper than the well casing. Therefore, the entire well casing would be removed by the proposed aggregate extraction. In this regard, no extra work would be required

5. Water levels in five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5) and at two staff gauges (SG1 and SG2) were measured on a monthly basis since the inception of the monitoring program and are ongoing. Water level monitoring shall change to a quarterly basis after the site is licensed and continue until extraction is completed and the site has been rehabilitated.

6. Groundwater temperature profiles were measured in five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5) and two staff gauges (SG1 and SG2) from April to December,


20

10.0 REFERENCES

BioLogic Incorporated, 2015. Natural Environment Assessment Report, Level 1 & 2 Assessment Report, 583218 Hamilton Road-Erwin Pit Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited. December 2015.

Barnett, P. J. 1982. Quaternary Geology of the Tillsonburg Area, Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey Report 220, Ministry of Natural Resources.

Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. and Golder Associates, 2006. Applied Research on source water protection issues in the aggregate industry phase 1 findings: Prepared for: The Ministry of Natural Resources: November, 2006.

Bradshaw, W. L 2015. Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited, Erwin South Pit, Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, Township of South-West Oxford, County of Oxford, Drawings: Existing Features, Operational Plan, Consultants Recommendations and Progressive Rehabilitation and Final Rehabilitation Plans. Scale 1:2000. September, 2015.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F., 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ministry of Natural Resources.

Cowan, W.R. 1975. Quaternary Geology of the Woodstock Area Southern Ontario. Geological Report 119, Map 2473. Ministry of Natural Resources

Delleur, J. W. (Editor), 1999. The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering, CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton.

Environment Canada, 2015. Canadian Climate Normals, Volume 9, Soil Temperature, Lake Evaporation, Days with Blowing Snow, Hail, Fog, Smoke or Haze, Frost, 1981 -2010.

LVM 2015. Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. 583218 Hamilton Road, Municipality of South West Oxford, Oxford County, Aggregate Assessment Report. May 28, 2015.

Novaterra Environment Ltd. 2014. Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments, Proposed Hamilton Road Pit Part Lot 3, Concession A., S.R.T. and Part Lot 3, Concession B, Municipality of Thames Centre (Formerly the Township of North Dorchester) County of Middlesex, Ontario. April 30, 2014.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1981. Thames River Basin, Water Management Study, Technical Report, Groundwater Resources. Water Resources Report 14.


21

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 1995. MOEE Hydrogeological Technical information requirements for land development application, April 1995.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1997. Aggregate Resources of Ontario, Provincial Standards, Version 1.0. Queen�s Printer for Ontario.

Sanford, B.V., 1969. Geology of Toronto-Windsor Area, Ontario. Geol. Surv. Canada, Map 1263A, scale 1:250,000

Stoneman, C. and M. L. Jones, 1996. A simple method to classify stream thermal stability with single observations of daily maximum water and air temperatures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 728-737

Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee, 2010. Thames-Sydenham & Region, Tier 1 Water Budget, Version 1.0 (Draft Accepted), September 15, 2010.

Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee, 2015. Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee, Upper Thames River Source Protection Area, Assessment Report, Approved September 17, 2015.


22

FIGURES

Figures 1 to 19 inclusive

MW5

MW4

MW3

MW2

MW1

SG1

SG2

A�

A

2662-9F7QAX

7001-9KWLBG

4110253

4102934

41070104706246

47061594708039

4704630

4706528

4704050

4706883

4108211

4102933

4110696

4113092

7155322

47022734706129

4709223

4707243

4703331

4703400

4109861

4706583

4706549

4703042

4707181

7208471

4R

RR

R R

R RR

R

1

R

R

R

RR

R

R

R2

3

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession,(Formerly West Oxford), Township ofSouth-West Oxford, Oxford County

OBM: 10 17 5000 47600OBM: 10 17 5050 47600NAD 1983Contour Interval 5 metres

LEGEND

Proposed license boundary

Residence

Water well record number - recordon file with Ontario MOECC

Door-to-door survey designation

Drilled well in overburden

Bored well

Drilled well in bedrock

Monitoring well

Staff gauge

Cross-section location

Existing Permit to Take Waterlocation and permit number

4706129

R

September 25, 2015

Figure 1

Subject site, well locations,topography and hydrology map

SCALE 1:10,0000 500250 Metr se

Erwin South PitJohnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited

A A�

505000 mE 506000 mE

1

INGERSOLL

45

119

9

30

29

401

SITE

N

Hamilton Road

Five

Poi

nts

Line

R R R

Michael Sheahan Drain

R

RCNRkeF eriv Ce P stoin

Base map adaptedfrom Bradshaw (2015)

Thomas Road

C

C’

B

B’

MW5

MW4

MW3

MW2

MW1

SG1

SG2

Figure 2

September 24, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County

Erwin South PitJohnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited

EXISTING FEATURES

0

SCALE

50 100 150 Metres

Proposed licensed boundary

Residence

Barn

Shed

Monitoring well

Borehole

Test pit

Staff gauge

Location of cross-section

R

B

S

LEGEND

A A’

The UTRCA disclaims explicitly any warranty, representation or guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness, fitness for a particular purpose, merchantability or completeness of any of the data depicted and provided herein.

This map is not a substitute for professional advice. Please contact UTRCA staff for any changes, updates and amendments to the information provided.

The UTRCA assumes no liability for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies in the information provided herein and further assumes no liability for any decisions made or actions taken or not taken by any person in reliance upon the information and data furnished hereunder.

Sources: Base data, 2010 Aerial Photography used under licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Copyright © Queen's Printer for Ontario; City of London.

Legend

Copyright © UTRCA.

Lot 29 Broken Front Concession

October 14, 2015

Notes:

cr

Regulation LimitRegulation under s.28 of the

Development, interference with wetlands, and alterationsto shorelines and watercourses. O.Reg 157/06, 97/04.

The Regulation Limit depicted on this map schedule is a representation of O.Reg 157/06 under O.Reg 97/04.The Regulation Limit is a conservative estimation of the hazard lands within the UTRCA watershed. Depending on the specific characteristics of the hazard land and the land use proposed, the Regulation Limit may be subject to change.

2015

Conservation Authorities Act

800200 400 0

Created By: 10,0001:metres

* Please note: Any reference to scale on this map is only appropriate when it is printed landscape on legal-sized (8.5" x 14") paper.

This document is not a Plan of Survey.

WatercourseOpen

Tiled

Wetland HazardFlooding HazardErosion HazardRegulation Limit 2015Middlesex NHSS (2014)

No Criteria Met

1+ Criteria Met

Lot and ConcessionAssessment Parcel (MPAC)

Figure 3

October 15, 2015

REGULATION LIMIT MAP BY UTRCA

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford) Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County

Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited

SUBJECT SITE

N

SUBJECTSITE

Figure 4QUATERNARY GEOLOGY MAP

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County


September 28, 2015

Adapted from: Upper map: Cowan, 1975 Lower map: Barnett, 1982

13127

6

54

2

Modern alluvium: clay, silt, sand, muckBog deposits: muck, peat or marlGlaciolacustrine deepwater deposits: massive tolaminated clay, minor siltGlaciofluvial outwash and deltaic deposits: graveland gravelly sandGlaciofluvial outwash and deltaic deposits: sandGlaciofluvial ice-contact stratified drift: morainic orkame sand and gravelly sandPORT STANLEY TILL: silt to silty clay till

1 CATFISH CREEK TILL: stony sandy silt till

141211109

8

7

6

52

Modern alluvium, unsubdivided: silt, sand, gravelBog deposits: peat, muck, marlFine-grained glaciolacustrine or pond deposits: silt and clay

Glaciolacustrine or pond deposits: sand and silty fine sand9 Glaciofluvial outwash sand, unsubdivided9a Glaciofluvial outwash sand including some gravel9b Glaciofluvial outwash sand frequently underlain by gravelGlaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand frequentlyoverlain by several feet of sand or silt7 Ice-contact stratified drift, unsubdivided: sand and gravel including some till or silt7a Ice-contact stratified drift, mainly gravel7b Ice-contact stratified drift, mainly sand6a Silt till (Port Stanley Till or fine-grained Zorra till, or older till)6b Sandy silt till (Catfish Creek Till or Zorra till)Zorra till: yellowish brown silt to sand silt tillCATFISH CREEK TILL: stony, sandy silt till; may include olderdrift in valley walls

LEGEND

UPPER MAP LOWER MAP

0 2000 metres

SCALE1:50 000

Figure 5

September 29, 2015

REGIONAL CROSS-SECTION A-A�



A�A

Sand, gravelstones

Blue Clay

Gravel

Grey gravel

Gravel and clay

Grey gravel

Gravel clay

Limestone

Gravel

Brown clay

Grey clay

Grey clay

ShaleLimestone Limestone

Hardpan

Medium sand,gravel

Grey clay

Black muckTopsoilSand and gravel

Silty clay

4703400

4706129 MW3 Thomas Rd.

Drain

47080394703042

Robinson Rd.275

270

265

260

255

250

245

240

270

260

250

240

Proposed License boundary

Monitoring wellMW3

Lithologic contact - observed

Lithologic contact - inferred

Water levelMeasured on May 16, 2015

Well screen

Backfilled with drill cuttings

Domestic well,MOECC well record number4706129

Lithologic contact - observed **

Static water level

Screen

Open hole

Water found 0 200 metresSCALE

Location of cross-section shown on Figure 1

** Lithologic description from driller�s log

Figure 6

September 29, 2015

LOCAL CROSS-SECTIONS B-B� AND C-C�



Monitoring wellMW3

Lithologic contact - observed

Lithologic contact - inferred

Water levelMeasured on May 16, 2015

Well screen

Backfilled with drill cuttings

0 200 metresSCALE

Location of cross-section shown on Figure 2

LEGEND

275

270

265

B�B

260

275

270

265

260

C�C


MW5 BH6 MW3 TP3 MW2 MW1


MW4MW5

Sand

Sand and gravel,trace of silt

Clayey silt


Sand

Silt withsand seams

Sand and grave,trace of silt

Sand with silty sand seams

Grey silt

Medium to coarsesand and gravel

Silty clay

Topsoil

Topsoil

Sand, trace gravel


Silty clay

TopsoilSand, some clay

Fine to coarse sand

Brown silt

Sand

Topsoil

Sandy silt


Silty clay

Sandy silt

Sand and gravel

Silty clay

275

270

265

260

255

275

270

265

260

255

R

G

B

G

Hamilton Road

R R R

R

FactoryBonduelleNorthAmerica

RBase map adapted

from Bradshaw (2015)

11.50

13.70

7.20

13.70

5.60

4.50

Figure 7



THICKNESS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

0

SCALE

50 100 150 Metres


Residence

Barn

Shed

Monitoring well *

Borehole

Test pit **

Staff gauge

Thickness of aggregatedeposits at monitoring wellsand borehole (in metres)

Inferred isopack line ofaggregate deposits(including topsoil; metres)Contour interval 1.0 m

R

B

S

LEGEND

7.20

8.0

* MW5 did not reach the top of silty claytill, but it was assumed that the grey siltfound at MW5 represents the top ofsilty clay till.

** None of the test pits reached the top of silty clay till

R

G

B

G

Hamilton Road

R R R

R


RBase map adapted


265.56

265.67

263.73

259.50

258.94

263.07

Figure 8



SURFACE ELEVATION OF SILTY CLAY TILL

0

SCALE

50 100 150 Metres


Residence

Barn

Shed

Monitoring well

Borehole

Test pit

Staff gauge

Elevation of silty clay till atmonitoring well (in metres)

Inferred contour line of silty claytill (in metres)Contour interval 1.0 m

R

B

S

LEGEND

263.73

263

R

G

B

G

Hamilton Road

R R R

R


RBase map adapted


3.0

5.0

4.80

8.18

9.66

0.74

1.18

Figure 9



INFERRED DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER BELOW GROUND SURFACE

0

SCALE

50 100 150 Metres


Residence

Barn

Shed

Monitoring well

Borehole

Test pit

Staff gauge

Measured depth to water levelbelow ground surface (inmetres) on May 16, 2015

Inferred depth to water table(metres) on May 16, 2015Contour interval 1.0 m

R

B

S

LEGEND

4.80

4.0

R

G

B

G

Hamilton Road

R R R

R


RBase map adapted


4.09

3.32

2.40

3.79

4.42

4.0

Figure 10



THICKNESS OF SATURATED SAND AND GRAVEL

0

SCALE

50 100 150 Metres


Residence

Barn

Shed

Monitoring well

Borehole

Test pit

Staff gauge

Measured thickness ofsaturated sand and gravel(metres) on May 16, 2015

Inferred thickness ofsaturated zone (metres) asobserved on May 16, 2015Contour interval 1.0 m

R

B

S

LEGEND

2.40

3.0

R

G

B

G

Hamilton Road

R R R

R


RBase map adapted


262.98

266.13

266.39

269.32

269.99270.09

270.50

Figure 11



GROUNDWATER TABLE CONFIGURATION

0

SCALE

50 100 150 Metres


Residence

Barn

Shed

Monitoring well

Borehole

Test pit

Staff gauge

Measured groundwater elevationm a.m.s.l. on May 16, 2015

Inferred water level contourm a.m.s.l. on May 16, 2015Contour interval 1.0 m

Direction of groundwater flow

R

B

S

LEGEND

266.13

266

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER HYDROGRAPHS AND PRECIPITATION Figure 12

Erwin South Pit Johnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited.Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,

Oxford County December 21, 2015

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Dept

h to

wat

er le

vel,

met

res b

elow

top

of c

asin

g

MW1

MW2

MW3

MW4

MW5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l dai

ly p

reci

pita

iton

(mm

)*

* Precipitation measured at Dorchester Climate Station (http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca)

LEGEND

WATER LEVEL ELEVATION HYDROGRAPHS AND PRECIPITATION Figure 13

Erwin South Pit Johnston Bros.(Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,


260.0

262.0

264.0

266.0

268.0

270.0

272.0W

ater

leve

l ele

vatio

n, m

a.m

.s.l. MW1

MW2

MW3

MW4

MW5

SG1

SG2


LEGEND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l dai

ly p

reci

pita

iton

(mm

)*

GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR MW1 AND MW2 Figure 14

Erwin South Pit Johnston Bros.(Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.03.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0

Dept

h Be

low

Gro

und

(m)

Groundwater Temperature (C)

23-Apr-2015 16-May-2015 13-Jun-2015

11-Jul-2015 17-Aug-2015 19-Sep-2015

17-Oct-2015 7-Nov-2015 19-Dec-2015

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.03.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0

Dept

h Be

low

Gro

und

(m)

Groundwater Temperature (C)

23-Apr-2015 16-May-2015 13-Jun-2015

11-Jul-2015 17-Aug-2015 19-Sep-2015

17-Oct-2015 7-Nov-2015 19-Dec-2015

MW1 MW2

GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR MW3 AND MW4 Figure 15

Erwin South Pit Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford), Township of South-West Oxford,


3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.56.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dept

h Be

low

Gro

und

(m)

Groundwater Temperature (°C)

23-Apr-2015

16-May-2015

13-Jun-2015

11-Jul-2015

17-Aug-2015

19-Sep-2015

17-Oct-2015

7-Nov-2015

19-Dec-2015

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.56.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dept

h Be

low

Gro

und

(m)

Groundwater Temperature (°C)

23-Apr-2015

16-May-2015

13-Jun-2015

11-Jul-2015

17-Aug-2015

19-Sep-2015

17-Oct-2015

7-Nov-2015

19-Dec-2015

MW3 MW4

GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR MW5 Figure 16

Erwin South Pit Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,


7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.58.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

Dept

h Be

low

Gro

und

(m)

Groundwater Temeprature (°C)

23-Apr-2015

16-May-2015

13-Jun-2015

11-Jul-2015

17-Aug-2015

19-Sep-2015

17-Oct-2015

7-Nov-2015

19-Dec-2015

MW5

SURFACE WATER TEMPERATURE IN MICHAEL SHEAHAN DRAIN Figure 17

Erwin South Pit Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0Te

mpe

ratu

re (°C)

SG1(downstream)

SG2 (upstream)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l dai

ly p

reci

pita

iton

(mm

)*


LEGEND

FINAL REHABILITATION PLANErwin South PItJohnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedOctober 19, 2015

Figure 18

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford)Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County

Adapted from Bradshaw (2015)

0 400 800

Figure 19

October 14, 2015

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION PITS ADJACENT TO ERWIN SOUTH PIT

Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford) Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County

Erwin South PitJohnston Brothers (Bothwell) Limited

Approximate potential future ponds(worst-case scenario)

Pit No.

Pit No.

12345

LengthalongRiver(m)

5276021843671059

TOTAL

Approx.flow

contribution(m /s)

0.007860.008980.002750.005470.01580

0.0409

3

1

2

34

5

1

61

(Adapted from Figure 22 in Novaterra, 2014)

Erwin South Pit


42

TABLES

Tables 1 to 7 inclusive


43

Table 1. Summary of Information on Door-to-Door Well Survey in the vicinity of Erwin South pit.

Location: Part of Lot 29A Brocken Front Concession, South West Oxford Township (Formerly West Oxford Township), Oxford County Date of survey: October 21 and 26, 2015 Surveyed by: Blagy Novakovic and Sasha Novakovic

Location*)Well

designation- assigned *)

MOE well record number

Type of well; Date

complete

Well diameter (O.D. cm)

Casing above ground

(m)

Well depth (m)

top of concrete

pit =ground

Depth to water level top casing

(m)

Well use; geology (m) and comments

Lot 29A Broken Front

Concession SW Oxford

1 Not available drilled 12.7 1.1m below gr. 12.38 10.01 1)

Well owned by applicant: Not in use. Residence unoccupied. Well located in concrete 1.1m deep well pit 1.5 by 1 m in size. We pulled out jet pump from the well.

As above 2 Not available drilled Pitless adapter unknown Drilled well casing above ground

observed from driveway

As above 3 Not available bored 90 Slightly above

ground

Nobody at home

Nobody at home to let us do measurements of water level, depth

As above 4 Not available Drilled Pitless adaptor

Nobody at home; observation made form driveway

*) Well location is indicated on Figure 1; 1) Measured on October 21, 2015.


44

Table 2. Wells construction data and depths to water level in monitoring wells and staff gauges at Erwin South Pit.

Station

Elevation, m a.m.s.l. Casing

stick-up (m)

Well diameter

(cm)

Borehole Depth

(m)

Screen Interval (m)

Date, water level BTC (m)

Ground Top of

well casing 25

-Apr

-15

13-M

ay-1

5

16-M

ay-1

5

13-Ju

n-15

11-Ju

l-15

17-A

ug-1

5

19-S

ep-1

5

17-O

ct-1

5

14-N

ov-1

5

19-D

ec-1

5

MW1 271.27 271.91 0.64 5.0 6.6 1.5 - 4.5 1.47 1.66 1.82 1.70 1.67 1.87 1.97 1.96 1.78 1.74 MW2 270.06 270.80 0.74 5.0 5.0 1.2 - 4.2 1.16 1.33 1.48 1.34 1.40 1.48 1.55 1.58 1.42 1.45 MW3 270.93 271.81 0.88 5.0 8.1 4.2 - 7.2 5.50 5.55 5.68 5.70 5.34 5.50 5.71 5.86 5.88 5.91 MW4 272.64 273.25 0.61 5.0 14.5 11.0 - 14.0 10.10 10.11 10.27 10.30 10.30 10.51 10.79 11.16 11.17 10.84 MW5 274.57 275.53 0.96 5.0 12.7 9.2 - 12.2 9.09 9.12 9.14 9.20 9.00 8.97 9.12 9.21 9.25 9.28 SG1 N/A 270.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A - 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.60 0.60 SG2 N/A 270.86 N/A N/A N/A N/A - 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.32 0.39 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 BTC � Below top of casing; N/A � Not applicable;


45

Table 3. Water level elevation in monitoring wells and staff gauges at the proposed Erwin South Pit.

Station

Water level elevation (m a.s.l.)

25-A

pr-1

5

13-M

ay-1

5

16-M

ay-1

5

13-Ju

n-15

11-Ju

l-15

17-A

ug-1

5

19-S

ep-1

5

17-O

ct-1

5

14-N

ov-1

5

19-D

ec-1

5

MW1 270.44 270.25 270.09 270.21 270.24 270.04 269.94 269.95 270.13 270.17 MW2 269.64 269.47 269.32 269.46 269.40 269.32 269.25 269.22 269.38 269.35 MW3 266.31 266.26 266.13 266.11 266.47 266.31 266.10 265.95 265.93 265.90 MW4 263.15 263.14 262.98 262.95 262.95 262.74 262.46 262.09 262.08 262.41 MW5 266.44 266.41 266.39 266.33 266.53 266.56 266.41 266.32 266.28 266.25 SG1 - 270.00 269.99 270.02 269.95 269.98 269.98 270.00 269.97 269.97 SG2 - 270.53 270.50 270.51 270.54 270.47 270.55 270.54 270.54 270.53

a.s.l. � Above sea level; N/A � Not applicable;


46

Table 4. Geological and hydrogeological data at monitoring wells and at Erwin South Pit used to construct five figures. *)

Well and test pit designation

Elevation, m a.s.l. Water level (m) 16 May, 2015 Water level

elevation, m a.s.l. on

16 May,2015

Depth to water

table (m) on 16

May, 2015

Thickness of sand

and gravel1)

(m)

Elevation of clayey silt

till, m a.s.l.

Thickness of saturated sand and gravel (m)

on 16 May, 2015 Ground Top of casing

Below ground

Below top of casing

MW1 271.27 271.91 1.18 1.82 270.09 1.18 5.60 265.67 4.2 MW2 270.06 270.80 0.74 1.48 269.32 0.74 4.50 265.56 3.76 MW3 270.93 271.81 4.80 5.68 266.13 4.80 7.20 263.73 2.40 MW4 272.64 273.25 9.66 10.27 262.98 9.66 13.70 258.94 4.04 MW5 274.57 275.53 8.18 9.14 266.39 8.18 11.50 263.07 3.32 BH6 273.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.70 259.50 N/A SG1 N/A 270.57 N/A 0.58 269.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A SG2 N/A 270.86 N/A 0.36 270.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A

*) Figures 6 to 10 inclusive; BH- designates borehole; MW- designates monitoring well; SG- designate temporary staff gauge; TP-test pit designation; G-refers to greater than; L- refers to lower than; 1) Includes top soil up to 0.40 m;

Table 5. Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit.

BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG**1.47 0.83 1.72 1.08 1.70 1.06 1.67 1.031.60 0.96 6.4 1.82 1.18 9.0 1.80 1.16 12.3 1.77 1.13 14.62.00 1.36 5.9 2.50 1.86 7.8 2.00 1.36 12.0 2.00 1.36 14.12.50 1.86 5.5 3.00 2.36 7.0 2.50 1.86 10.8 2.50 1.86 13.23.00 2.36 5.3 3.50 2.86 6.3 3.00 2.36 10.0 3.00 2.36 12.43.50 2.86 5.1 4.00 3.36 6.1 3.50 2.86 9.5 3.50 2.86 11.74.00 3.36 5.0 4.50 3.86 5.8 4.00 3.36 8.9 4.00 3.36 11.24.50 3.86 5.0 5.00 4.36 5.6 4.50 3.86 8.6 4.50 3.86 10.85.00 4.36 5.0 5.20 4.56 5.5 5.00 4.36 8.2 5.00 4.36 10.45.20 4.56 5.1 5.20 4.56 8.0 5.20 4.56 10.3

1.16 0.42 1.38 0.64 1.34 0.60 1.40 0.661.26 0.52 6.7 1.48 0.74 11.7 1.44 0.70 14.1 1.50 0.76 15.71.50 0.76 6.4 2.00 1.26 9.5 2.00 1.26 12.4 2.00 1.26 14.02.00 1.26 6.2 2.50 1.76 8.2 2.50 1.76 10.8 2.50 1.76 13.22.50 1.76 5.9 3.00 2.26 7.2 3.00 2.26 9.7 3.00 2.26 11.83.00 2.26 5.6 3.50 2.76 6.5 3.50 2.76 8.4 3.50 2.76 10.73.50 2.76 5.6 4.00 3.26 6.2 4.00 3.26 7.8 4.00 3.26 9.74.00 3.26 5.9 4.50 3.76 6.3 4.50 3.76 7.3 4.50 3.76 8.9

4.70 3.96 6.4 4.70 3.96 7.1 4.70 3.96 8.7

5.50 4.62 5.58 4.70 5.70 4.82 5.34 4.465.60 4.72 9.3 5.68 4.80 7.9 5.80 4.92 8.4 5.44 4.56 10.46.00 5.12 8.6 6.00 5.12 7.8 6.00 5.12 7.8 6.00 5.12 9.06.50 5.62 8.6 6.50 5.62 7.8 6.50 5.62 7.8 6.50 5.62 8.47.00 6.12 8.6 7.00 6.12 7.8 7.00 6.12 7.8 7.00 6.12 8.17.50 6.62 8.7 7.50 6.62 7.9 7.50 6.62 7.8 7.50 6.62 8.18.00 7.12 8.9 8.00 7.12 8.0 8.00 7.12 7.9 8.00 7.12 8.1

8.20 7.32 8.2 8.50 7.62 8.0 8.20 7.32 8.1

10.10 9.49 10.27 9.66 10.30 9.69 10.30 9.6910.20 9.59 10.7 10.37 9.76 9.8 10.40 9.79 9.6 10.40 9.79 9.710.50 9.89 10.4 11.00 10.39 9.6 11.00 10.39 9.3 11.00 10.39 9.311.00 10.39 10.3 11.50 10.89 9.6 11.50 10.89 9.3 11.50 10.89 9.311.50 10.89 10.3 12.00 11.39 9.6 12.00 11.39 9.4 12.00 11.39 9.312.00 11.39 10.2 12.50 11.89 9.6 12.50 11.89 9.4 12.50 11.89 9.312.50 11.89 10.2 13.00 12.39 9.6 13.00 12.39 9.4 13.00 12.39 9.413.00 12.39 10.2 13.50 12.89 9.6 13.50 12.89 9.4 13.50 12.89 9.413.50 12.89 10.2 14.00 13.39 9.6 14.00 13.39 9.4 14.00 13.39 9.414.00 13.39 10.0 14.50 13.89 9.6 14.50 13.89 9.4 14.50 13.89 9.414.20 13.59 10.0 14.70 14.09 9.6

9.09 8.13 9.14 8.18 9.20 8.24 9.00 8.049.20 8.24 9.9 9.24 8.28 9.5 9.30 8.34 9.0 9.10 8.14 10.99.50 8.54 9.6 9.50 8.54 8.9 9.50 8.54 8.9 9.50 8.54 9.1

10.00 9.04 9.5 10.00 9.04 9.0 10.00 9.04 8.7 10.00 9.04 8.910.50 9.54 9.5 10.50 9.54 8.9 10.50 9.54 8.6 10.50 9.54 8.911.00 10.04 9.5 11.00 10.04 8.9 11.00 10.04 8.6 11.00 10.04 8.911.50 10.54 9.5 11.50 10.54 9.0 11.50 10.54 8.7 11.50 10.54 8.812.00 11.04 9.6 12.00 11.04 9.0 12.00 11.04 8.8 12.00 11.04 8.912.50 11.54 9.6 12.50 11.54 9.0 12.50 11.54 8.9 12.50 11.54 8.912.70 11.74 9.6 12.70 11.74 9.1 12.70 11.74 8.9 12.70 11.74 8.9

BTC * - Below top of casingBG ** - Below ground

MW4

temp (C)

Depth (m) temp (C)

23-Apr-2015 16-May-2015 13-Jun-2015 11-Jul-2015

MW5

MW1

MW2

MW3

Monitoring Well Depth (m) temp

(C)Depth (m) temp

(C)Depth (m)

Table 5.

BTC *BG **

MW4

MW5

MW1

MW2

MW3

Monitoring Well

Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit.

BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG**1.87 1.23 1.97 1.33 1.96 1.32 1.78 1.142.00 1.36 16.0 2.07 1.43 15.4 2.06 1.42 12.2 1.88 1.24 10.42.50 1.86 14.9 2.50 1.86 14.9 2.50 1.86 12.9 2.00 1.36 10.53.00 2.36 14.3 3.00 2.36 14.5 3.00 2.36 13.0 2.50 1.86 10.83.50 2.86 13.8 3.50 2.86 14.1 3.50 2.86 12.9 3.00 2.36 10.94.00 3.36 13.2 4.00 3.36 13.8 4.00 3.36 12.8 3.50 2.86 11.04.50 3.86 12.8 4.50 3.86 13.5 4.50 3.86 12.6 4.00 3.36 11.25.00 4.36 12.4 4.70 4.06 13.2 4.70 4.06 12.6 4.50 3.86 11.25.20 4.56 12.3 5.00 4.36 12.8 5.00 4.36 12.3 5.00 4.36 11.2

5.20 4.56 12.7 5.20 4.56 12.2 5.20 4.56 11.2

1.48 0.74 1.55 0.81 1.58 0.84 1.42 0.681.60 0.86 16.7 1.65 0.91 16.0 1.68 0.94 12.2 1.52 0.78 10.72.00 1.26 15.6 2.00 1.26 15.4 2.00 1.26 13.2 2.00 1.26 11.22.50 1.76 14.6 2.50 1.76 14.9 2.50 1.76 13.5 2.50 1.76 11.53.00 2.26 13.3 3.00 2.26 14.0 3.00 2.26 13.5 3.00 2.26 11.73.50 2.76 12.3 3.50 2.76 13.3 3.50 2.76 13.3 3.50 2.76 11.84.00 3.26 11.4 4.00 3.26 12.5 4.00 3.26 13.0 4.00 3.26 12.04.50 3.76 10.5 4.50 3.76 11.7 4.50 3.76 12.5 4.50 3.76 12.04.70 3.96 10.2 4.70 3.96 11.4 4.70 3.96 12.3 4.70 3.96 12.0

5.50 4.62 5.71 4.83 5.86 4.98 5.88 5.005.60 4.72 10.8 5.81 4.93 11.2 5.96 5.08 10.8 5.98 5.10 10.96.00 5.12 10.0 6.00 5.12 10.7 6.50 5.62 10.6 6.50 5.62 10.86.50 5.62 9.5 6.50 5.62 10.2 7.00 6.12 10.4 7.00 6.12 10.77.00 6.12 9.1 7.00 6.12 9.8 7.50 6.62 10.2 7.50 6.62 10.57.50 6.62 8.8 7.50 6.62 9.5 8.00 7.12 9.8 8.00 7.12 10.28.00 7.12 8.7 8.00 7.12 9.3 8.20 7.32 9.6 8.20 7.32 10.08.20 7.32 8.6 8.50 7.62 9.1

10.51 9.90 10.79 10.18 11.16 10.55 11.17 10.5610.60 9.99 10.2 10.89 10.28 9.8 11.26 10.65 9.4 11.27 10.66 9.111.00 10.39 9.5 11.00 10.39 9.5 11.50 10.89 9.3 11.50 10.89 9.411.50 10.89 9.3 11.50 10.89 9.3 12.00 11.39 9.3 12.00 11.39 9.412.00 11.39 9.1 12.00 11.39 9.1 12.50 11.89 9.3 12.50 11.89 9.312.50 11.89 9.1 12.50 11.89 9.1 13.00 12.39 9.3 13.00 12.39 9.313.00 12.39 9.2 13.00 12.39 9.1 13.50 12.89 9.3 13.50 12.89 9.313.50 12.89 9.3 13.50 12.89 9.3 14.00 13.39 9.3 14.00 13.39 9.314.00 13.39 9.3 14.00 13.39 9.3 14.50 13.89 9.314.50 13.89 9.3

8.97 8.01 9.12 8.16 9.21 8.25 9.25 8.299.10 8.14 9.9 9.22 8.26 9.9 9.31 8.35 9.5 9.35 8.39 9.49.50 8.54 9.4 9.50 8.54 9.3 9.50 8.54 9.4 9.50 8.54 9.5

10.00 9.04 9.0 10.00 9.04 9.1 10.00 9.04 9.3 10.00 9.04 9.410.50 9.54 8.9 10.50 9.54 9.0 10.50 9.54 9.1 10.50 9.54 9.311.00 10.04 8.9 11.00 10.04 9.0 11.00 10.04 9.1 11.00 10.04 9.111.50 10.54 8.9 11.50 10.54 8.9 11.50 10.54 9.0 11.50 10.54 9.112.00 11.04 8.9 12.00 11.04 8.9 12.00 11.04 9.0 12.00 11.04 9.012.50 11.54 8.9 12.50 11.54 8.9 12.50 11.54 9.0 12.50 11.54 9.012.70 11.74 8.9 12.70 11.74 8.9 12.70 11.74 9.0 12.70 11.74 9.0

- Below top of casing- Below ground

Depth (m) temp (C)

temp (C)

Depth (m) temp (C)

Depth (m) temp (C)

Depth (m)

17-Aug-2015 7-Nov-201517-Oct-201519-Sep-2015

Table 5.

BTC *BG **

MW4

MW5

MW1

MW2

MW3

Monitoring Well

Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit.

BTC* BG**1.74 1.101.84 1.20 7.62.00 1.36 8.12.50 1.86 8.53.00 2.36 8.63.50 2.86 8.74.00 3.36 8.94.50 3.86 8.95.00 4.36 9.15.20 4.56 9.1

1.45 0.711.55 0.81 7.02.00 1.26 8.82.50 1.76 9.13.00 2.26 9.73.50 2.76 10.04.00 3.26 10.34.50 3.76 10.54.70 3.96 10.7

5.91 5.036.00 5.12 10.26.50 5.62 10.87.00 6.12 10.87.50 6.62 10.78.00 7.12 10.58.20 7.32 10.4

10.84 10.2310.94 10.33 9.111.50 10.89 9.512.00 11.39 9.612.50 11.89 9.513.00 12.39 9.513.50 12.89 9.514.00 13.39 9.514.50 13.89 9.5

9.28 8.329.38 8.42 8.79.50 8.54 9.3

10.00 9.04 9.410.50 9.54 9.311.00 10.04 9.311.50 10.54 9.312.00 11.04 9.312.50 11.54 9.3

- Below top of casing- Below ground

Depth (m) temp (C)

19-Dec-2015


50

Table 6. Water level and temperature measurements in surface water bodies at Erwin South Pit.

Date SG1 (downstream) SG2 (upstream)

Water level (m BTC)

Temperature (°C)

Water level (m BTC)

Temperature (°C)

25-Apr-15 n/m n/m n/m n/m 13-May-15 0.57 n/m 0.33 n/m 16-May-15 0.58 13.3 0.36 13.2 13-Jun-15 0.55 12.3 0.35 12.4 11-Jul-15 0.63 15.4 0.32 14.8

17-Aug-15 0.59 17.3 0.39 16.7 19-Sep-15 0.59 14.0 0.31 14.0 17-Oct-15 0.57 8.0 0.32 8.1 14-Nov-15 0.60 6.4 0.32 6.5 19-Dec-15 0.60 3.0 0.33 3.3


51

Table 7. Analytical Results of Groundwater at Monitoring Wells MW3 and MW5. (*)

Parameters MDL/Units

Source: Monitoring Wells Ontario Drinking Water Standards

MW3 MW5 Chemical Standards Objectives and Guides

MAC (mg/L) AO mg/L OG mg/L

General Inorganics

Alkalinity, total 5 mg/L 266 805 - 30-500

Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 0.06 0.37 -

Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.5 mg/L 2.7 5.1 - 5

Conductivity 5 uS/cm 806 2320 -

Hardness 1.0 mg/L 266 428 - 80-100

pH 0.1pH Units 7.6 7.2 - 6.5-8.5

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.1 mg/L 0.3 0.9 -

Anions

Chloride 1 mg/L 75 244 250

Flouride 0.1 mg/L 0.2 <0.1 1.5

Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/L 0.4 .<01 10

Nitrite as N 0.05 mg/L <0.05 <0.05 1.0

Phosphate as P 0.2 mg/L <0.2 <0.2

Sulphate 1 mg/L 58 132 500

Metals

Calcium 200 ug/L 73100 131000 -

Magnesium 200 ug/L 20200 24600 -

Potassium 200 ug/L 23660 124000 -

Sodium 200 ug/L 18200 102000 - 200

Date sampled: 26 October 2015. (*) Analysed by Paracel Laboratories Ltd.

MDL �Method Detection Limit

MAC �Maximum Acceptable Concentration

AO �Aesthetic Objective; OG �Operational Guidelines.


52

APPENDIX A

Figure 7 from Natural Environment Report

ïîð³ß¼¶¿½»²¬

Ú·¹«®» éæ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·±² Ý±³³«²·¬·»øîðïí Ù±±¹´» ß·® Ð¸±¬±÷

Í½¿´» ïæëðððÜ»½»³¾»® îðïë

ï ÓßÓîóî Î»»¼ó½¿²¿®§ Ù®¿ Ó·²»®¿´ Ó»¿¼±© Ó¿®¸ Ì§°»øðòí¸¿÷ï¿ ÝËÓï Ó·²»®¿´ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Ó»¿¼±© Û½±·¬» ·²½´«·±² øðòï¸¿÷

î ÓßÓîóîñÍÉÌîóç Î»»¼ó½¿²¿®§ Ù®¿ Ó·²»®¿´ Ó»¿¼±©Ó¿®¸ Ì§°»ñÙ®¿§ Ü±¹©±±¼ Ó·²»®¿´ Ì¸·½µ»¬ Í©¿³° Ì§°»øðòèç¸¿÷

í ÍÉÝíóï É¸·¬» Ý»¼¿® Ñ®¹¿²·½ Ý±²·º»®±« Í©¿³° Ì§°»øëòí¸¿÷

ð

Ð®·²¬ ±² ïïÈïéô Ô¿²¼½¿°» Ñ®·»²¬¿¬·±²

ïðð

Í½¿´» ïæëðôðððÕ»§ Ð´¿²

ïôðððð

Ô·½»²½»Þ±«²¼¿®§

ïîð³ß¼¶¿½»²¬

Ô·½»²½»Þ±«²¼¿®§

í

ï¿

î

ï

Û°¸»³»®¿´ Ú´±© Ü·¬½¸

Ð»®³¿²»²¬ Ú´±© Ü·¬½¸ øÓ·½¸¿»´ Í¸»¿¸¿² Ü®¿·²÷

ÓÒÎÚ ³¿°°»¼ Ú·ª» Ð±·²¬ É±±¼ É»¬´¿²¼


54

APPENDIX B

Borehole and Instrumentation Logs


62

APPENDIX C

Water Well Records Printout from MOECC Files

WWaatteerr wweellll rreeccoorrdd pprriinnttoouutt ffrroomm wwaatteerr wweellll rreeccoorrddss oonn ffiillee wwiitthh MMOOEECCCC Printout generated on 25/09/2015Project: Erwin South Pit

Search Criteria Easting (m): Northing (m): Radius (m):505335 4761259 1000

Obtained from WWIS database, last updated July 2, 2014

Location: Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County

WaterWell

RecordNo.

Audit No.(Well Tag)

TownshipConcession (Lot)

UTM ZoneEastingNorthing

WaterFound(m)

Pumping TestSTAT / PUMP

RATE / HR:MINWaterUse

Screen depth

interval (m)

Lithology (m)Date WorkCompleted

Casing diameter

(cm)

4102933 ()

NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP

TR SA (001)

17 5047194760835

21/11/1953 FR 5.5 5.5 / 6.7 22.7 / 4:0

STDO

GRVL 6.1, HPAN STNS 12.19, GRVL 13.4110.2

4102934 ()


TR SA (002)

17 5045644760623

27/09/1962 FR 12.5 10.1 / 11.6 18.2 / 4:0

DO GRVL 12.512.7

4107010 ()


TR SA (001)

17 5046814760823

29/10/1974 FR 18.3 9.8 / 11.6 54.6 / 8:0

DO 20.42-21.64 STNS SAND GRVL 6.1, GRVL CLAY BLDR 7.92, BRWN SAND 14.33, GRVL STNS 15.54, GREY CLAY SAND GRVL 16.46, GRVL CLAY 18.29, SAND 21.95, GREY CLAY 22.25

12.7

4108211 ()


TR SA (001)

17 5046964760833

22/09/1977 FR 13.7FR 15.2

11 / 12.8 31.8 / 3:0

STDO

BRWN GRVL 12.19, GRVL CLN 15.2412.7

4109861 ()


TR SA (002)

17 5045744760622

11/07/1983 FR 12.2 8.5 / 8.8 54.6 / 1:30

DO 13.41-14.33 BRWN GRVL 14.33, UNKN 14.6312.7

4110696 ()


TR SA (001)

17 5048144761263

12/03/1986 FR 15.2 11.3 / 11.3 45.5 / 1:30

DOST

14.33-15.24 BRWN CGVL STNS HARD 14.33, GREY GRVL LOOS 15.54

12.7

4112043 ()

NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIPTR SB (B)

17 5059414760550

30/04/1990 FR 20.4 5.5 / 10.7 54.6 / 2:0

DO 19.51-20.42 BRWN SAND 5.18, BRWN CSND 17.07, GREY GRVL 20.42

12.7

4113092 120000 ()


TR SA (001)

17 5047954761329

30/06/1994 MN 12.2 4.9 / 9.1 90.9 / 2:0

CO 12.19-13.11 BRWN SILT 1.22, GRVL HARD STNS 13.41, GREY HPAN 14.02

15.215.2

4702273 ()

WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIPBF (030)

17 5049844761403

24/11/1962 FR 25.9 9.1 / 12.2 27.3 / 4:0

DO GRVL STNS 25.6, GRVL 25.9110.2

4703042 ()

WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP

CON 01 (029)

17 5058144760873

19/06/1970 FR 31.4 5.2 / 13.4 22.7 / 2:0

DO BLCK MUCK 0.91, GREY CLAY 13.11, MSND GRVL 23.16, HPAN 29.57, GREY LMSN 31.39

12.7

Page 1 of 4

WaterWell

RecordNo.

Audit No.(Well Tag)



WaterFound(m)



Screen depth

interval (m)


Casing diameter

(cm)

4703331 ()


17 5053344761843

30/11/1971 FR 32.3FR 36

FR 49.4

9.1 / 14.3 977.4 / 24:0

IN BLCK LOAM 0.3, BRWN GRVL MSND CLAY 9.45, BRWN GRVL MSND 11.89, BRWN GRVL CLAY MSND 20.73, BRWN GRVL MSND 24.38, BRWN CLAY MSND 24.99, BRWN GRVL CLAY MSND 26.52, BRWN LMSN 55.17

30.530.5

4703400 ()


17 5051144761773

26/04/1972 FR 16.8 13.7 / 13.7 27.3 / 2:0

DO BRWN LOAM 0.3, BRWN SAND 0.91, GRVL STNS 11.28, BLUE CLAY 14.63, GRVL 16.76

12.7

4704050 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5056424760947

30/10/1974 FR 8.5 1.2 / 3.7 27.3 / 2:0

DO BRWN CLAY STNS 4.57, BRWN SAND 6.71, GRVL 9.14

12.7

4704630 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5056344760803

25/08/1977 FR 6.1 1.8 / 3 31.8 / 1:30

DO BRWN SAND 4.57, GRVL 10.0612.7

4705014 ()


CON 01 (028)

17 5062344760963

19/06/1979 FR 29.6 3 / 13.7 45.5 / 1:30

DO BRWN GRVL SAND 7.62, BLUE CLAY STNS 28.65, GREY LMSN STNS 29.57

12.712.7

4706129 ()


17 5050194761443

15/09/1987 SU 26.5 10.4 / 16.8 45.5 / 1:30

DO GREY GRVL 14.33, GREY GRVL CLAY 21.95, GREY GRVL 23.47, GREY GRVL CLAY 25.91, GREY LMSN 27.13

12.7

4706159 ()


CON 01 (030)

17 5055144760828

12/11/1987 FR 32.3 8.2 / 27.4 36.4 / 1:30

ST BRWN FILL 1.22, GREY CLAY SAND STNS 2.13, GREY GRVL 6.4, GREY CLAY SAND STNS 31.39, BRWN LMSN 32.31

12.712.7

4706246 ()


CON 01 (030)

17 5054944760808

18/05/1988 5.8 / 6.1 54.6 / 2:0

DO 9.45-10.36 BRWN SAND GRVL 3.66, GREY CLAY SILT 9.45, CGVL STNS 10.36, GREY CLAY 13.41

12.7

4706528 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5056464760833

13/06/1989 FR 29.3 2.7 / 10.7 45.5 / 1:30

DO SAND 4.57, GRVL SAND 8.23, GREY CLAY STNS 28.65, SHLE 29.26

12.7

4706549 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5058044760820

19/06/1989 FR 35.4 7.9 / 22.9 31.8 / 1:30

DO GREY CLAY STNS 14.33, GREY CLAY 20.73, GREY HPAN 28.96, GREY SHLE 29.26, BRWN LMSN 35.36

12.712.7

4706583 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5057344760850

15/08/1989 FR 29.6 9.1 / 10.7 68.2 / 1:30

DO BRWN CLAY GRVL 2.44, GRVL SAND 9.75, GRVL CLAY 28.65, SHLE 28.96, BRWN LMSN 29.57

12.7

4706883 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5059724761313

07/05/1991 FR 29.9 1.8 / 9.1 31.8 / 2:0

DO 28.96-29.87 BRWN SAND 4.27, GREY CSND 15.85, GREY HPAN 28.35, GREY GRVL 29.87

12.712.7

4707243 122695 ()


17 5055284761759

23/06/1993 FR 29FR 34.4FR 36.6FR 53.6

9.8 / 20.7 909.2 / 24:

IN BRWN GRVL SAND 9.14, GREY GRVL SAND 18.29, GREY GRVL STNS CMTD 27.13, BRWN SHLE 27.74, BRWN LMSN 53.64

25.4

Page 2 of 4

WaterWell

RecordNo.

Audit No.(Well Tag)



WaterFound(m)



Screen depth

interval (m)


Casing diameter

(cm)

4708039 204077 ()


CON 01 (029)

17 5055454760861

12/08/1999 FR 32.3 9.8 / 15.2 68.2 / 2:0

DO BRWN GRVL 2.44, BRWN CLAY 4.57, GREY CLAY 22.86, GREY CLAY 28.35, BRWN SHLE 28.96, BRWN LMSN 32.31

15.215.212.7

4709223 Z46038

(A041406)


()

17 5052624761574

29/05/2006 2.1-3.65

7155322 Z103997

(A105874)


()

17 5047044761490

02/11/2010 UT 4.9 MO 3.81-9.915.1

Number of records within search area: 26

Page 3 of 4

1. Core Material and Descriptive terms

Code Description � Code Description � Code Description � Code Description � Code Description

BLDR BOULDERS FCRD FRACTURED IRFM IRON FORMATION PORS POROUS SOFT SOFT

BSLT BASALT FGRD FINE-GRAINED LIMY LIMY PRDG PREVIOUSLY DUG SPST SOAPSTONE

CGRD COARSE-GRAINED FGVL FINE GRAVEL LMSN LIMESTONE PRDR PREV.

DRILLED STKY STICKY

CGVL COARSE GRAVEL FILL FILL LOAM TOPSOIL QRTZ QUARTZITE STNS STONES

CHRT CHERT FLDS FELDSPAR LOOS LOOSE QSND QUICKSAND STNY STONEY

CLAY CLAY FLNT FLINT LTCL LIGHT-COLOURED QTZ QUARTZ THIK THICK

CLN CLEAN FOSS FOSILIFEROUS LYRD LAYERED ROCK ROCK THIN THIN

CLYY CLAYEY FSND FINE SAND MARL MARL SAND SAND TILL TILL

CMTD CEMENTED GNIS GNEISS MGRD MEDIUM-GRAINED SHLE SHALE UNKN UNKNOWN

TYPE

CONG CONGLOMERATE GRNT GRANITE MGVL MEDIUM GRAVEL SHLY SHALY VERY VERY

CRYS CRYSTALLINE GRSN GREENSTONE MRBL MARBLE SHRP SHARP WBRG WATER-BEARING

CSND COARSE SAND GRVL GRAVEL MSND MEDIUM SAND SHST SCHIST WDFR WOOD FRAGMENTS

DKCL DARK-COLOURED GRWK GREYWACKE MUCK MUCK SILT SILT WTHD WEATHERED

DLMT DOLOMITE GVLY GRAVELLY OBDN OVERBURDEN SLTE SLATE

DNSE DENSE GYPS GYPSUM PCKD PACKED SLTY SILTY

DRTY DIRTY HARD HARD PEAT PEAT SNDS SANDSTONE

DRY DRY HPAN HARDPAN PGVL PEA GRAVEL SNDY SANDY

2. Core Color

Code Description

WHIT WHITE

GREY GREY

BLUE BLUE

GREN GREEN

YLLW YELLOW

BRWN BROWN

RED RED

BLCK BLACK

BLGY BLUE-GREY

3. Water Use

Code Description Code Description

DO Domestic OT Other

ST Livestock TH Test Hole

IR Irrigation DE Dewatering

IN Industrial MO Monitoring

CO Commercial

MN Municipal

PS Public

AC Cooling AndA/C

NU Not Used

4. Water Detail

Code Description Code Description

FR Fresh GS Gas

SA Salty IR Iron

SU Sulphur

MN Mineral

UK Unknown

Notes on columns:

Column 1. Water well record number of the well, as shown on MOECC files.

Column 2. Audit Number and Well Tag in brackets as given on MOECC files; Well Tag number available for wells

drilled in 2003 or later.Column 3. Geographic Township, Concession, and Lot in brackets.Column 4. UTM Zone, Easting, and Northing (Datum is NAD83).

Cannot be field verified unless Well Tag is affixed to well casing which can be cross-referenced.

Column 5. Casing diameter, in centimetres.Column 6. Date work completed (construction, alteration,

abandonment etc.).

Notes on column:

Column 7. Depth water found (metres) and water type - see Table 4 for meaning of code.

Column 8. Results of pumping test performed at time of well construction. STAT is static level before test (metres); PUMP is pumping level at end of test (metres); RATE is pumping rate (L/min); HR:MIN is duration of test in hours and minutes.

Column 9. Water use - see Table 3 for meaning of code.Column 10. Depth interval of screen (metres).Column 11. Lithology as described by well driller - see Table 1 and

Table 2 for meaning of code. Units in metres.


67

APPENDIX D

Water Budget Calculations


68

APPENDIX D

CALCUALTIONS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES

D.1 Potential Changes in Water Balance

The methods for calculating groundwater recharge involve the use of a climatic water budget and applying it to the area proposed for sand and gravel extraction. A method developed by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy was used (MOEE, 1995).

First, the water balance for existing site conditions (Drawing 1 of 3 from Bradshaw, 2015) is determined then it is compared to the water balance of the site after rehabilitation (Drawing 3 of 3 from Bradshaw, 2015).

The following data were taken from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Assessment Report prepared by Thames-Sydenham and Region (2010). For the Reynolds River/Thames River/Above Ingersoll subwatershed, the following data were given in the report:

Table D1. Actual site water budget for existing conditions.

Parameter Value Description

Yearly precipitation 952 Table 21 in Thames-Sydenham and Region Tier 1 Water Budget, Version 1.0 (2010)

Evapotranspiration 564 Table 23 in Thames-Sydenham and Region Tier 1 Water Budget, Version 1.0 (2010)

Actual water balance 388 Using method shown in Section 4.5, Table 1, of MOEE (1995)

The following infiltration factors were used for current/existing site conditions:

Table D2. Infiltration factors for existing conditions.

Parameter Value DescriptionTopography 0.2 Rolling land, average slope of 2.8 m to 3.8 m per km

Soil 0.4 Open sandy loam

Cover 0.1 Cultivated lands

TOTAL 0.7 Estimated total infiltration factor

Note: Taken from (Table 2 in Section 4.5 of MOEE, 1995)


69

Infiltration at the site is calculated by multiplying the actual water balance with the infiltration factor (388 mm x 0.7 = 271.6 mm). Therefore the amount of infiltration is 271.6 mm, and the remaining amount, 116.4 mm, is runoff.

It is proposed to have one pond with a maximum size of approximately 25.1 ha as the final land use. Therefore lake evaporation would replace evapotranspiration. According to Environment Canada Climate Normals from 1981 to 2010, average value of lake evaporation measured at Delhi Climate Station (located 40 km to the southeast), is 634.5 mm (Environment Canada, 2015). Subtracting this value from the average annual precipitation gives 317.5 mm, which is the amount of precipitation that will remain in the pond. In a crude sense, we can consider this as groundwater recharge or infiltration because it will not be possible for water to leave the pond area as runoff.

The Table D3 provides a comparison of the water budget for current site conditions and rehabilitated conditions.

Table D3. Comparison of water budget at Erwin South Pit before and after gravel extraction.

Parameter Current conditions (mm)

Rehabilitated conditions (mm) Change (mm)

Precipitation 952 952 0Evapotranspiration 564 n/a n/aEvaporation n/a 634.5 n/aGroundwater recharge or infiltration 271.6 317.5 + 45.9

Runoff 116.4 0 - 116.4

In a stricter sense of water budget, there is a gain of groundwater recharge of 45.9 mm, when compared to existing conditions (317.5 mm � 271.6 mm = 45.9 mm). However, the overall water budget is expected to decrease by 70.5 mm because more water is being lost due to direct evaporation from the pond, and there is no runoff in the area of the pond (45.9 mm � 116.4 mm = 65 mm).

If we consider that the pond area would be 25.1 ha, gaining 45.9 mm of groundwater recharge per annum would translate into an increase in base flow of 0.368 L/s from the pond area. This is in addition to the base flow of current conditions which is estimated as 2.179 L/s. Naturally, the theoretical increase in base flow is due to the removal of runoff from the area where the pond will be created.

Furthermore, by assuming that the calculated base flow contributes to the nearest watercourse (TSRSPC, 2010), we estimate that the base flow contribution from the rehabilitated pond to the local watercourse is 2.547 L/s. In a broader sense this is valuable gain because the base flow would reach the local watercourse during drier periods of the year when stream recharge is much needed.


70

D.2 Potential for Water Level Lowering Due to Removal of Aggregate

D.2.1 Background

The removal of sand and gravel from the proposed extraction area theoretically has a potential to create a cone of depression around the pond. As excavation proceeds in the proposed extraction area, the size of the pond and volume of water stored will proportionally increase. The effects of daily extraction on the water table are presented in this section.

When a given volume of aquifer material (sand and gravel plus pore water) is removed, most of the water in the excavator bucket drains back into the pond. Additionally, the removed sand and gravel is placed near the pond so that the remaining water drains back into the pond. A volume of water equal to the volume of excavated sand and gravel flows from the existing pond, and groundwater, into the void created by sand and gravel removal.

The overall water level drops slightly as the void space is filled. The effect of this marginal drawdown can instantly be observed at the pond edge. The temporary hydraulic gradient across the pond edge increases in proportion to the drawdown, and flow from the adjacent aquifer into the pond increases.

The aquifer material captured in each bucket consists of saturated sand and gravel. Assuming a porosity of the granular material of 0.35, the volume of aquifer solids removed in a 1 m3 scoop is 0.65 m3. When an excavated pond is small, the change in volume caused by the removal of granular material has the greatest effect on the water level in the pond. As pond size increases, there is more water available in relation to the extraction of one bucket of material, so the effects of extraction become increasingly subdued.

The following calculation show the maximum possible drawdown created around the pond at its smallest and largest extents under conservative and most adverse conditions. These conservative conditions are based on assumptions which overestimate factors which could cause drawdown in the pond.

A volume of water required to replace solid extracted volume was calculated by using a daily tonnage of 3,000 tonnes. This value is representative of the average amount of granular material that can be removed with a drag line excavator in a 10 hour work day (300 tonnes/hour). Because a drag lines are expensive to run, they will typically only be on site for a 2 or 3 week period, operating 10 hours a day, which means that the daily tonnage of 3,000 tonnes is the maximum amount of aggregate that will be removed in a single day.

Typically, the material removed with the drag line will be piled along the shoreline so that water present in the aggregate will drain back into the pond because wet material is heavy and undesirable to customers.

Based on the above-mentioned tonnage, the volume of water required to replace the extracted materials is calculated as follows:


71

The input parameters:

Maximum daily tonnage = 3,000 tonnes/day Density of aggregate = 1766 kg/ m3 (MNDM, 1991) Porosity = 0.35 Solids ratio = 0.65

Calculated volume of sand and gravel being excavated per day:

�� 3,000,000 ��/��1,766 ��/� � 0.65�� 1,104 �/��

This is the approximate volume of water that will need to flow into the excavated area to replace the sand and gravel.

D.2.2 Scenario A: Early Phase of Extraction

The potential effect on water table is considered to be the greatest when the pond is small in size. We will assume the pond size to be 1 hectare, and the average thickness of saturated sand and gravel to be 4.5 m (Drawing 3 of 3 in Bradshaw, 2015). The banks of the pond area assumed to be vertical for simplicity. At this stage the maximum volume of water in the pond is given by:

�� 10,000 � 4.5 �� 45,000 �

Where, A = area of the pond b = depth of the pond

The maximum daily drawdown caused by the removal of aggregate was calculated as follows:

�� /�� 4.5 � �45,000 � � 1,104 �/�� 10,000 �⁄�� 0.110

Where, dd(1) = Reduction of hydraulic head in pond, (m) ho = Initial head in pond, (m) V1 = volume of water in the pond, (m3) Vw = The effective calculated pumping rate, (m3/day) A = Area of the pond (m2)


72

Given the size of the pond of 1 hectare, and assuming no water level recovery during the daily extraction, the calculated drawdown would be 0.110 m at the end of 10-hour extraction day. In reality, water level will recover over the remaining 14 hours of day because there is a constant groundwater flux from the up gradient area of the adjacent land which flows into the Site. So, the drawdown caused by removal of the solid phase of the aquifer will be replenished quickly even before the next extraction day begins.

D.2.3 Scenario B: Near Completion of Extraction

When the extraction of sand and gravel is near completion, the size of the proposed pond would be close to 25.1 ha, and the pond depth is assumed to be an average of 2.5 m (Drawing 3 of 3 in Bradshaw, 2015). At this stage, the maximum volume of water in the pond is given by:

�� 251,000� 2.5�� 632,500�

The drawdown caused by the removal of aggregate below water table was calculated to be:

�� /�� 2.5 � �632,500� � 1,104�/�� 251,000�⁄�� 0.00436

Given the pond size of 25.1 ha, and assuming no water level recovery during the daily extraction, the calculated drawdown would be 0.00436 m at the end of a 10-hour extraction day. In reality, water level will recover over the remaining 14 hours of day because there is a constant groundwater flux from the up gradient area of the adjacent land which flows into the Site. So, the drawdown caused by removal of the solid phase of the aquifer will be replenished quickly even before next extraction day begins.


73

APPENDIX E

Laboratory Certificate of Analyses

www.paracellabs.com1-800-749-1947

Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd

Attn: Sasha NovakovicLondon, ON N6C5M839 Winship CloseNovaterra Environmental

Certificate of Analysis

This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:

Paracel ID Client ID

Order #: 1544109Order Date: 26-Oct-2015

Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Client PO:

Custody: 25127 Project:

1544109-01 MW31544109-02 MW5

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.

Lab SupervisorMark Foto, M.Sc.

Approved By:

Page 1 of 7

Order #: 1544109

Certificate of AnalysisClient:

Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015

Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental

Analysis Summary TableAnalysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 310.1 - Titration to pH 4.5 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15Alkalinity, total to pH 4.5EPA 351.2 - Auto Colour 29-Oct-15 30-Oct-15Ammonia, as NEPA 300.1 - IC 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15AnionsEPA 9050A- probe @25 °C 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15ConductivityMOE E3247B - Combustion IR, filtration 28-Oct-15 29-Oct-15Dissolved Organic CarbonHardness 30-Oct-15 30-Oct-15HardnessEPA 200.8 - ICP-MS 28-Oct-15 28-Oct-15Metals, ICP-MSEPA 150.1 - pH probe @25 °C 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15pHEPA 351.2 - Auto Colour, digestion 28-Oct-15 28-Oct-15Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Page 2 of 7

Order #: 1544109




Client ID: MW3 MW5 - -Sample Date: --26-Oct-1526-Oct-15

1544109-01 1544109-02 - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Water Water - -

General InorganicsAlkalinity, total --8052685 mg/L

Ammonia as N --0.370.060.01 mg/L

Dissolved Organic Carbon --5.12.70.5 mg/L

Conductivity --23208065 uS/cm

Hardness --4282661.0 mg/L

pH --7.27.60.1 pH Units

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen --0.90.30.1 mg/L

AnionsChloride --244751 mg/L

Fluoride --<0.10.20.1 mg/L

Nitrate as N --<0.10.40.1 mg/L

Nitrite as N --<0.05<0.050.05 mg/L

Phosphate as P --<0.2<0.20.2 mg/L

Sulphate --132581 mg/L

MetalsCalcium --13100073100200 ug/L

Magnesium --2460020200200 ug/L

Potassium --1240002660200 ug/L

Sodium --10200018200200 ug/L

Page 3 of 7

Order #: 1544109




Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result

ReportingLimit Units

SourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride ND 1 mg/LFluoride ND 0.1 mg/LNitrate as N ND 0.1 mg/LNitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/LPhosphate as P ND 0.2 mg/LSulphate ND 1 mg/L

General InorganicsAlkalinity, total ND 5 mg/LAmmonia as N ND 0.01 mg/LDissolved Organic Carbon ND 0.5 mg/LConductivity ND 5 uS/cmTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen ND 0.1 mg/L

MetalsCalcium ND 200 ug/LMagnesium ND 200 ug/LPotassium ND 200 ug/LSodium ND 200 ug/L

Page 4 of 7

Order #: 1544109




Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result

ReportingLimit Units

SourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 74.7 1 mg/L 74.8 100.1Fluoride 0.18 0.1 mg/L 0.18 101.9Nitrate as N 0.42 0.1 mg/L 0.41 202.3Nitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/L ND 20Phosphate as P ND 0.2 mg/L ND 20Sulphate 59.0 1 mg/L 58.5 100.9

General InorganicsAlkalinity, total 283 5 mg/L 286 141.0Ammonia as N ND 0.01 mg/L ND 8Dissolved Organic Carbon 4.1 0.5 mg/L 3.6 3711.7Conductivity 1070 5 uS/cm 1080 111.6pH 8.0 0.1 pH Units 8.0 100.0Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 144 5.0 mg/L 139 103.7

MetalsCalcium 24100 200 ug/L 21900 209.3Magnesium 7950 200 ug/L 7320 208.2Potassium 1480 200 ug/L 1460 201.0Sodium 13600 200 ug/L 12700 207.1

Page 5 of 7

Order #: 1544109




Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Result

ReportingLimit Units Source

Result %REC %RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 82.5 74.8 77.1 78-112 QC-021 mg/LFluoride 1.05 0.18 86.9 73-1130.1 mg/LNitrate as N 1.46 0.41 105 81-1120.1 mg/LNitrite as N 1.02 ND 102 76-1170.05 mg/LPhosphate as P 6.47 ND 129 72-1310.2 mg/LSulphate 67.4 58.5 88.8 75-1111 mg/L

General InorganicsAmmonia as N 0.234 ND 93.4 81-1240.01 mg/LDissolved Organic Carbon 13.7 3.6 101 60-1330.5 mg/LTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.76 ND 88.2 81-1260.1 mg/L

MetalsCalcium 3000 2190 80.8 80-120ug/LMagnesium 1580 732 84.6 80-120ug/LPotassium 965 146 81.9 80-120ug/LSodium 2110 1270 83.5 80-120ug/L

Page 6 of 7

Order #: 1544109




QualiÞer Notes:

QC QualiÞers :

SCV result is outside the accepted range, sample data accepted based on other QA/QC data within the sequence.

QC-02 :

Sample Data RevisionsNone

Work Order Revisions / Comments:

None

Other Report Notes:

MDL: Method Detection Limit

n/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples%REC: Percent recovery.RPD: Relative percent difference.

ND: Not Detected

Page 7 of 7

hydrogeological level 1 and level 2 assessments … report... · 2017-03-23 · hydrogeological...

Documents