Appendix F Hydrogeology - Barrie Hall/Planning-and-Development/Engineerin… · Water Act, 2006 and...

Appendix F Hydrogeology

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures ESGRA/SGRA Map (LSRCA) and Review Hydrogeologic Framework – Technical Memorandum #2

FIGURES

ESGRA/SGRA MAP (LSRCA) AND REVIEW

BIG BAY PT RD

LOCKHART RD

10TH LINE

9TH LINE

VETERANS DR

400 HWY N

HURONIA RD

YONGE ST

SIDERD 20

INNISFIL BEACH RD

7TH LINE

Kempenfelt Bay

BarrieCreeks

LoversCreek

HewittsCreeks

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Kilometres K

ESGRA and SGRA in the Barrie Annexed Lands

Legend

This product was produced by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and some information depicted on this map may have been compiled from various sources.While every effort has been made to accurately depict the information, data / mapping errors may exist. This map has been produced for illustrative purposes only.LSRCA GIS Services DRAFT DC created April 2012. © LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, 2012. All Rights ReservedThe following datasets roads and municipal boundaries are © Queens Printer for Ontario, 2012. Reproduced with Permission

Legend Road

WatercourseMunicipal Boundary

Barrie Annexed LandsESGRA

Current Regulation Limit

Subwatershed

SGRALand Use

Natural Cover

Aggregate

Rural

Golf Course

Urban

Review of Draft Proposed Recharge Area Policies (LSRCA, May 23, 2012) Additional polices have been proposed (LSRCA, October 23, 2012) under LSPP 6.38DP as guidance for the protection and restoration of recharge areas (ref. Appendix ‘A’). The application of these policies relates directly to the LSRCA study of the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA’s), as required for the Source Water Protection Program, and Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRA’s). Areas designated within an SGRA or ESGRA are expected to comply with the outlined policies. The ESGRA/SGRA map (LSRCA, April 2012) for the annexed lands can be found in Appendix F. Blackport & Associates has reviewed these policies and related maps. The draft discussion relating to SGRA’s and ESGRA’s which is presented in “The Barrie Creeks, Lover’s Creek, and Hewitts Creek Subwatershed Plan” (Draft 2012) has also been reviewed by Blackport & Associates. It is recognized that SGRA maps have been prepared as a requirement of Clean Water Act, 2006 and that SGRA’s along with ESGRA’s provide insight into potential sensitivity of the groundwater flow system and the ecosystem linkages. This in turn aids in the assessment of changes to the groundwater flow system and groundwater/surface water connections as a result of land use change or climate change. The guidance that is provided by these maps must be qualified though given the modelling limitations previously discuss. In particular, caution must be used, in part, due to the data gaps relating to temporal and spatial scale of the hydrostratigraphy, groundwater levels, hydraulic gradients, and groundwater discharge. Additionally, knowledge and data gaps related to ecosystem characterization are also limiting factors in considering endpoints for groundwater discharge. On a larger scale the SGRA and ESGRA mapping generally reflects (1) the recharge potential of the more permeable surficial soils and (2) the potential groundwater flowpaths from any recharge area (i.e. recharge volume independent) to a potential discharge area. The overall accuracy of these maps is greatly dependent on the limitations described above and although they may be considered as one of many preliminary knowledge sets to be integrated into future site specific studies they should not necessarily give definitive direction to the location and extent of future site specific hydrogeologic studies. Future more site specific phased studies would add to the current larger scale understanding and refine the hydrogeologic sensitivity on both local and larger scales. Additional discussion on future groundwater study requirements is provided in Section 5.4. Aside from the limitations described above the methodology to develop these maps is part of an ongoing scientific process, as noted in Policy #1 (ref. Appendix ‘A’). The following are additional comments related to the draft policies: • Policy 2 – post development recharge should be related to functional dependency. If it is

the expectation that the SGRA’s and ESGRA’s are presenting the functional dependency then the discussion related to the limitations of the map application must be considered.

• Policy 4 – the accuracy of the surficial soil mapping and the potential accuracy of the SGRA’s and ESGRA’s are, in part, limiting factors in applying this policy.

• Policy 11 – the recharge area mapping and the current level of understanding of the hydrogeologic system can be used as a preliminary tool but salt management plans should be refined as further hydrogeologic characterization is carried out.

HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2

HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2

Submitted to: The City of Barrie

Submitted by: Blackport & Associates

7839 County Road 45 Wallenstein, ON N0B 2S0

Tel: 519-698-0134

May 2013

City of Barrie Hydrogeologic Framework Technical Memorandum #2 May 2013

Project Number: TP110135 i

TABLE OF CONENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW ................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Previous Studies ................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Scoped Groundwater Characterization and Impact Assessment Approach .......... 2

3.0 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 4

3.1 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Quaternary Geology .............................................................................................. 4

4.0 HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Conceptual Groundwater Flow System ................................................................. 5 4.2 Geologic and Hydrostratigraphic Units .................................................................. 5 4.3 Hydrogeologic System and Groundwater Flow ..................................................... 7 4.4 Recharge ............................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Groundwater Quantity and Quality ........................................................................ 8

5.0 NUMERICAL MODELLING ............................................................................................... 9

5.1 Surface Water Model Overview and Update ......................................................... 9 5.2 Groundwater Model Overview and Update ......................................................... 10 5.3 Future Land Use Simulation ................................................................................ 11

5.3.1 Simulated Impacts to Potential Groundwater Contribution to Streams .... 12 5.3.2 Simulated Impacts to Groundwater Levels .............................................. 14

6.0 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ 16


Project Number: TP110135 ii

Figures

Figure 1 Surficial Geology and Cross-Section Locations Figure 2 Cross Section A-A’ Figure 3 Cross Section B-B’ Figure 3b Model Surface Cross Section B-B’ Figure 4 Cross Section C-C’ Figure 5 Cross Section D-D’ Figure 6 Cross Section E-E’ Figure 7 Cross Section F-F’ Figure 8 Cross Section G-G’ Figure 9 Cross Section H-H’ Figure 10 Cross Section I-I’ Figure 11 Upper Aquifer Water Table Figure 12 Depth to Upper Aquifer Water Table Figure 13 Potential Groundwater Discharge - West Figure 14 Potential Groundwater Discharge – East Figure 15 Current Conditions Recharge Distribution Figure 16 FEFLOW Model Cross Section B-B’ Figure 17 Land Use Change Recharge Figure 18 Simulated Impacts to Streams Figure 19 Simulated Groundwater Impacts Below Wetlands Figure 20 Impacts to Perched Aquifer Conditions Figure 21 Impacts to Deep Water Table

Appendices

Appendix A Model Limitations Appendix B ESGRA/SGRA Map


Project Number: TP110135 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective

The objective of this Technical Memorandum is to provide an overview of the groundwater characterization of the Barrie annexation lands. The understanding of the groundwater flow system and its ecosystem linkages will determine the hydrogeologic sensitivity to land use change at the study area scale through numeric groundwater modelling. The results of the groundwater modeling will be presented and will provide input into future stormwater management strategies. In addition, the hydrogeologic characterization will provide general direction for the scope of future, more site specific groundwater studies to protect the groundwater resources. 1.2 Study Area

The groundwater characterization is mainly focused on the annexed lands but the groundwater study considers adjacent lands as the groundwater flow system within the annexed lands and adjacent lands are interconnected. The annexed lands form two blocks separated by Huronia Road in the centre; the western and eastern blocks extend the previous urban boundary south beyond McKay Road to Lockhart Road, respectively. The annexed lands span five subwatersheds regulated by two conservation authorities, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). The westerly end of the western annex block is within the headwaters of Bear Creek and Thornton Creek both are tributaries of the Nottawasaga River and are regulated by the NVCA. The easterly end of the western annex block and eastern annex block cut through the middle reaches of Lover’s Creek and Hewitt’s Creek, as well as the headwaters of Sandy Cove Creek, all tributaries to Lake Simcoe and regulated by the LSRCA.



2.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW

2.1 Previous Studies

The background studies which were reviewed in support of the groundwater characterization were focused on source water protection. These were larger scale studies including: Updated Assessment Report: Lake Simcoe and Couchiching-Black River Source Protection Area Part 1: Lake Simcoe Watershed, South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee, 2011

Updated Assessment Report: Nottawasaga Valley Source Protection Area, Lake Simcoe Watershed, South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee, 2011 These reports provided large scale watershed characterization but were mainly focused on municipal water supplies, more specifically wellhead protection areas (WHPA), water budget and water quantity risk assessment and groundwater vulnerability. Large scale conceptual groundwater characterization was presented which supported the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Water Budget modeling. South Simcoe Groundwater Study WHPA-City of Barrie, Golder Associates, August 2004 This study was carried out for the South Simcoe Groundwater partnership of which the City of Barrie is a member. The study focused on determining capture zones for various wells, estimated aquifer yields, presented Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) mapping for aquifer vulnerability and carried out a groundwater contaminant source inventory. City of Barrie Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment- Conceptual Understanding Memorandum, AquaResource Inc., December 2010 The Tier 3 study was carried out as a result of the Tier 2 study findings, indicating the Barrie Creeks subwatershed demonstrated a significant potential for water quantity stress. The Tier 3 study had a number of groundwater components including developing a more detailed three-dimensional conceptual geologic/hydrogeologic model, developing a three-dimensional groundwater flow model, developing a water budget and incorporating the most recent/local knowledge. 2.2 Scoped Groundwater Characterization and Impact Assessment Approach

It was presented in the proposed hydrogeologic work plan, to incorporate, if available, the Tier 3 Water Budget model into the groundwater characterization for the annexation lands. The Tier 3 study has incorporated the most recent data and has provided the most refined groundwater model for the study area. Utilization of this model base has been judged to be the best tool to provide the groundwater characterization related to the annexation lands. To this end AquaResource (A Division of Matrix Inc.) was added to the project to refine the local hydrogeologic characterization related to the annexed lands, more specifically to refine the local hydostratigraphy and hydrogeologic setting. In addition, AquaResource carried out the local updates on the models for the base case characterization and impact assessment. The hydrogeologic cross-sections and the majority of the mapping presented in this report has been



developed from the Tier 3 model and database. The characterization and mapping as presented is limited to the extent of hydrogeologic data available and, as such, represents the larger scale conditions. These refinements and results were reviewed by Blackport and Associates and incorporated into this report. Select information from the above noted studies and the concurrent annexation land studies has also been incorporated into this characterization.



3.0 GEOLOGY 3.1 Bedrock Geology The predominant bedrock in the annexation lands and to the south is the limestone and shale of the Lindsay Formation. In the very eastern portion of the annexation lands, the bedrock is comprised of Veralum Formation which consists of a muddy to coarse grained limestone with shale interbeds. 3.2 Quaternary Geology The annexation lands and adjacent area lie within the Peterborough Drumlin Field physiographic region. The overburden deposits are a result of repeated advances and retreats of the Simcoe glacial ice lobe. Throughout, and adjacent to the annexation lands, the surficial deposits (Figure 1) consist of laterally discontinuous till sheets, which are more predominant east of Lovers Creek, and stratified sand and gravel units (ice contact deposits, coarse grained glaciolacustrine deposits) in the western and north-eastern area and along the main branch and tributaries of local reaches of Lovers Creek. Organic deposits are predominant in the Lovers Creek Swamp to the south but within the annexation lands these deposits are associated with the St. Paul’s wetland and an area along Lover’s Creek south of Lockhart Road and adjacent to Highway 400. The Surficial Geology map created for the Tier 3 study was based on data from the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS, 2003. Surficial Geology of Southern Ontario) The overburden thickness varies but can be up to 200 metres in the area of the Innisfil Highlands.



4.0 HYDROGEOLOGY 4.1 Conceptual Groundwater Flow System

Water from precipitation percolates or infiltrates into the ground until it reaches the water table. Areas where water moves downward from the water table are known as recharge areas. These areas are generally in areas of topographically high relief. Areas where groundwater moves upward to the water table are known as discharge areas. These generally occur in areas of topographically low relief, such as stream valleys. Groundwater that discharges to streams is the water that maintains the baseflow of the stream. Wetlands may be fed by groundwater discharge. There are different types and rates of recharge and discharge. Water percolating into the ground at a specific location may discharge to a small stream a short distance away. This is local recharge and local discharge. Some water may recharge a certain area and discharge to a larger river basin a long way from the source of recharge. This is known as regional recharge and regional discharge. Permeable geologic materials through which groundwater moves are known as aquifers. Aquifers are "water bearing" formations meaning that water can be easily extracted from these units. The less permeable units are known as aquitards, and although water can move through these units, it moves slowly and it is difficult to extract water from these units. How these aquifers are connected within a hydrogeologic setting is what controls much of the movement of groundwater. A delineation of the flow system(s) in this way will identify where groundwater originates, where it discharges and the most prominent paths it travels between these points (e.g. the aquifer pathways or more permeable hydrostratigraphic units). Having done this, one can assess the relative sensitivity of the linkage from the groundwater system to the aquatic or terrestrial systems. Knowing the level of sensitivity of the receptor one can determine the potential impacts of particular types and scales of land uses or land use changes on the groundwater flow system and other linked ecosystem components. 4.2 Geologic and Hydrostratigraphic Units

The quaternary deposits are the basic control for the study area groundwater flow system. The overburden consists of alternating sequences of coarser grained permeable units and finer grained less permeable units. These units have been interpreted as a sequence of aquifers and aquitards of varying thicknesses. A hydrostratigraphic unit layer structure was developed in the Conceptual Understanding Report for the Tier 3 study. The hydrostratigraphic units developed throughout the South Simcoe and Source Water Protection studies utilized borehole geology derived mainly for the Water Well Information System database. The larger scale hydrostratigraphy consists of eight major overburden units. Of the overburden units there are four main aquifer units (A1-A4) and four main aquitards (C1-C4) which constitute the numerical model layers within those studies. Furthermore, a confining layer (UC) over the uppermost aquifer A1, is present throughout the



larger Barrie study area but exists in smaller thin pockets in the vicinity of the annexation lands study area. The following is a summary of the hydrostratigraphic units associated with the study area: UC – represents smaller areas of less permeable surficial material A1 – Represents the uppermost aquifer. Frequently exists as a surficial unconfined aquifer and is stratigraphically equivalent to the Oak Ridges Moraine. It is generally associated with coarse grained glacial and interglacial sediments mapped as ice contact stratified drift. The majority of the local domestic wells are within this unit. C1 – Upper aquitard. A2 – Intermediate aquifer which is stratigraphically equivalent to units within the Northern Till. This unit is used for Innisfil Heights water supply. C2 – Intermediate aquitard. A3 – This unit constitutes the main Barrie municipal aquifer and is the source of the Stroud water supply. C3 – Lower aquitard. A4 – Lower aquifer, thin and sometimes combined with A3 where C3 is thin or absent. C4 – Lower aquitard but may also represent weathered bedrock (ie modeled with a higher permeability). Through a review of the Tier 3 hydrogeologic characterization and the preliminary groundwater characterization in this study it was determined that a more detailed hydrostratigraphic understanding of the upper aquifer (A1) and the surficial less permeable unit (UC) within the annexed lands was warranted. More specifically, given the multi-aquifer setting described above and the potential high levels of recharge it is expected that the more dominant groundwater flow paths, within an ecosystem groundwater functional context, will be within the upper aquifer. In addition, perched water table conditions had been noted in the Tier 3 study. These perched conditions will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.3. Local refinements to the hydrostratigraphic layer structure were made to better represent the complexity of shallow sediments supporting the local hydrogeologic system. Hydrostratigraphic picks were selected along sections that were interpreted to represent the top of each local hydrostratigraphic sub-layer found within the regional uppermost aquifer unit (A1) using lithological data captured in high quality borehole logs and lesser quality data contained in the Water Well Information System (WWIS). Descriptions of surficial sediment (OGS, 2010), ground surface topography as captured in a 5 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and depth to bedrock data (Golder, 2009) provided supplemental information to better constrain interpretation. Continuous surfaces representing the top of each local hydrostratigraphic sub-layer were generating from hydrostratigrpahic picks using a natural neighbour algorithm to a



25 m resolution. The natural neighbour algorithm as creates zones of influence around each data point that are used to estimate the values at surrounding locations. From the generated surfaces, the vertical and lateral distribution of local hydrostratigraphic units was inspected to ensure consistency with the established geologic history of the area and no violations of the established hydrostratigraphic framework exist. This updated local hydrostratigraphic structure was incorporated into the existing regional conceptual hydrostratigraphic model to provide the basis for the layer structure of the numerical groundwater flow model developed as part of this study. The interpreted distributions of shallow subsurface sediment are shown along cross-sections in Figure 2 -Figure 10. The well logs on the cross-sections also show the screened interval and the static groundwater level. The locations for these cross-sections can be found on Figure 1. The more regional, large scale hydrostratigrpahic units described above are demonstrated on cross-section B-B’ in Figure 3b. 4.3 Hydrogeologic System and Groundwater Flow

Observed water table elevation contours where refined on a local scale from the Tier 3 database for the annexation lands and are presented in Figure 11. These refinements were made by refining the contour intervals and including locations of permanent surface water. The contours reflect groundwater flow moving from the topographic high recharge areas of the Innisfil Highlands on the west annexation lands towards Lovers Creek. Groundwater flow appears to be focused on the main branch of Lovers Creek and a number of tributaries which are classified as coldwater streams (Natural Heritage Systems Framework report, September 2012). Groundwater flow from a water table high in the vicinity of Stroud also appears to be focused around the coldwater portion of Hewitts Creek which is also classified as a coldwater stream. It is possible that this system also provides a limited amount of groundwater discharge to Bear Creek and Sandy Cove Creek. In addition, it is expected that these same shallow groundwater flow systems supply groundwater discharge to the local wetlands including the lower portion of the Lovers Creek Swamp and the St. Pauls Swamp. A map of the depth to the water table in the Upper Aquifer is presented in Figure 12. This map is created by subtracting the water table from the ground surface elevations and is another way of presenting possible recharge and discharge areas. The areas of deeper water table tend to reflect more significant larger scale recharge in the upland areas. It should be noted that significant recharge in the more local groundwater flow systems may not be as evident in a depth to water table map of this scale. Figure 12 also shows areas of a “perched water table”. A perched water table is a larger zone that contains water saturated sediments overlying an unsaturated zone. The less permeable surficial sediments can hold or perch the very shallow groundwater above the deeper water table in the Upper Aquifer. This is evident on a number of the cross-sections by comparing the water levels between wells in the shallow aquitard material to adjacent wells in the underlying aquifer material. These areas of perched water can provide shallow, local groundwater flow which may support local wetlands or stream reaches to a limited extent. There is insufficient observational data to confirm the potential for groundwater discharge in the perched upland wetlands. The groundwater hydraulic gradients which would control potential groundwater discharge within the perched system are expected to be more



local and relatively low. Generally upland areas usually demonstrate downward hydraulic gradients and act to recharge the underlying hydrstratigraphic unit. Figure 13 and Figure 14 provide a qualitative graphic of general areas for potential groundwater discharge which were interpreted within this study based on a combination of the following factors: Interpreted coldwater reaches Permeable streambed sediments Shallow water table

Within these areas groundwater discharge is likely restricted to small spatial areas usually within or immediately adjacent to the stream. Within the wetlands the discharge is likely also spatially restricted. In all cases the amount of discharge will vary depending on the seasonal changes in local groundwater levels. 4.4 Recharge

The permeability of the surficial deposits allows for various amounts of infiltration and subsequent recharge to the lower hydrostratigraphic units. The recharge values from the updated MIKE-SHE model are presented in Figure 15. Further discussion on the MIKE-SHE model and update is provided in Section 5.1. The higher recharge values can be readily correlated with the more permeable surficial sediments presented in Figure 1. The spatial recharge distribution shows relatively high recharge throughout a large portion of the annexed lands. 4.5 Groundwater Quantity and Quality

The extent and permeability of the various aquifers provides for large quantities of available groundwater. The majority of individual groundwater supply usage is for private domestic wells. The majority of private domestic wells within the study area are screened in the upper aquifer. This can be readily seen on the cross-sections. The upper aquifer may have slightly less groundwater quantity when compared to the lower aquifers as a result of less saturated thickness or areas where there are inclusions of finer grained material. Innisfil Heights to the south obtains its water from the intermediate aquifer (A2). The Stroud water supply obtains water from the lower aquifer (A3). Golf course irrigation is another major water use but the local water takings appear to be sourced in ponds. Depending on how the ponds are constructed these sources may act as large shallow dug wells. The aquifer vulnerability or intrinsic susceptibility index commonly reflects the contaminant potential to an aquifer. Within the South Simcoe Groundwater Study the contaminant susceptibility is considered low for the municipal aquifer because the overlying protective low permeability aquitards. The contaminant potential for the shallow unconfined aquifer is high and as discussed above this is correlated with the high permeability surficial sediments. Groundwater quality data within the annexation area was not found during the background review. It is expected there may some local quality degradation resulting from agricultural practices, road salting or historical spills.



5.0 NUMERICAL MODELLING Previously developed surface water and groundwater models were applied to assess the impacts of the proposed land use changes on the groundwater flow systems within the vicinity of the City of Barrie annexed lands. The models were developed based on the conceptual understanding of the groundwater and surface water systems, as supported by available data. The models were calibrated both transiently and on a steady state basis to represent both groundwater water levels and stream baseflows, with the purpose of representing regional flow conditions on an average annual basis. The models were initially developed as part of the Source Water Protection Tier Three Risk Assessment framework to help assess the sustainability of the municipal water sources and impacts on other uses such as streams, wetlands and other water takers. The modelling approach was designed to be a semi-coupled approach, wherein the models were calibrated simultaneously, and exchanged information between them, such as recharge, baseflow, and groundwater interflows. The surface water model was constructed, calibrated, and validated using MIKE SHE (DHI, 2011), and the groundwater model was constructed and calibrated using the FEFLOW code (DHI-WASY, 2009). AquaResource (2012) describes the development and calibration of the surface water model and AquaResource et al. (2012b) describes the development and calibration of the groundwater model in detail. The modeling process is an invaluable and necessary tool in understanding hydrogeologic settings. It is important to consider the limitations within the modeling process including but not limited to the following: The quality and spatial extent of the physical data used to build and calibrate the model and The discretization or scale of the model used to represent the physical surface/subsurface

structure, wetlands and streams A detailed discussion of limitations for the models described above can be found in Appendix ‘A’. 5.1 Surface Water Model Overview and Update

A three dimensional, integrated hydrologic model was constructed for the Barrie Tier Three Study Area using the MIKE SHE software. A complete modelling report can be found in AquaResource 2012a. The model was calibrated using available streamflow data for three streamflow monitoring gauges: Willow Creek above Little Lake (1990-1995) Willow Creek at Midhurst (1990-1998) Lovers Creek at Tollendal (2001-2004)



The model was then verified using streamflow data from a fourth stream gauge: Willow Creek near Minesing (2006-2008) An investigation of additional streamflow data at the Barrie Creeks gauges (2004-2009), the Lovers Creek gauge (2005-2009), and at spot flow measurement locations led to the conclusion that these data were not appropriate for model calibration. Additional calibration targets included groundwater elevations throughout the Barrie model area and snow depths from a snow survey in the southern portion of the model area (NVCA Colwell Snow Course Survey, 1972-2010). The calibration resulted in a reasonable match between simulated and observed data, which provided confidence that the model output (i.e., groundwater recharge) is appropriate to use in the FEFLOW groundwater model. The surface water model was updated during the initiation of the Innisfil Tier Two study. In that study, the model was expanded to include the entire Innisfil Creeks subwatershed and reviewed to ensure that calibration with the Lover’s Creek observed data was still valid. The recharge resulting from this expanded version of the model was then used as the ‘current conditions’ for this study. The overall water budget and key hydrologic processes were computed and mapped. The mean annual groundwater recharge for the 1990-2005 period was used as input to the steady state FEFLOW groundwater model, the recharge distribution over the Study Area is shown in Figure 15. The average recharge within the annexed lands is approximately 300 mm/yr. 5.2 Groundwater Model Overview and Update

During the City of Barrie Tier Three Risk Assessment study, a detailed conceptual model of the geologic, hydrogeologic, and hydrologic systems was developed. A FEFLOW groundwater flow model was constructed based on this conceptualization to represent the groundwater system and the interaction with the surface water system and, as such, was calibrated to hydraulic head measurements, as well as surface water data. A transient model verification step was also undertaken to confirm the performance of the model under transient conditions. Output of the surface water model was used as input (groundwater recharge) into the groundwater flow model, while the surface water model received hydraulic conductivity and interbasin flow estimates from the groundwater model, in an iterative manner, until both models were satisfactorily calibrated. This coupling was used within the Tier Three study to examine the impact of future land development on water levels in aquifers and reductions in discharge to streams and surface water features and to examine the potential response of aquifers to long-term drought conditions. A complete overview of the FEFLOW model can be reviewed in AquaResource et al 2012. Insight on the nature of groundwater levels and the local and regional hydrogeological setting was gained throughout the Tier Three study. Several perched aquifer systems were found to exist along the southern extent of the Tier Three numerical groundwater flow model domain within the Innisfil Uplands. Through the calibration of the Tier Three numerical groundwater flow model, some of these perched conditions were represented; however, the depth and extent of



these perched conditions were generalized due to the regional representation of the hydrostratigraphic layer structure. Representing these perched aquifer systems was not necessary for the purposes of the Tier Three study as they are distant from the Barrie municipal water supply and the exclusion facilitated a more conservative estimate of headwater baseflows for the streams that lead into the City of Barrie. For this study, representing the perched aquifer systems was essential to accurately simulate groundwater discharge to the creeks and groundwater levels related to the wetlands. The refinement of the hydrostratographic representation within the upper groundwater flow system was described in detail in Section 4.2. This refinement was incorporated into the FEFLOW model. The model update facilitated the representation of the two water table surfaces in the numerical groundwater flow model and the groundwater discharge to local surface water features to be better represented. Figure 16 shows model Cross-Section B-B’ which correlates to hydrostratigraphic Cross-Section B-B’ (Figure 3).The simulated water table shown on Figure 16 provides a reasonable representation of the potential upland perched water table conditions. 5.3 Future Land Use Simulation

To evaluate impacts to groundwater levels and groundwater discharge to surface water, the land use that is currently represented in the model was updated to reflect the proposed future land use option within the annexed lands. At present, the area within these boundaries is a mixture of forests, pasture and agricultural lands within the MIKE SHE model. The planned future land use for this region is a mixture of low and high density urban regions as well as some naturalized regions (wetlands and parks), as such, an increase in impervious surfaces is expected. The land use change simulation does not account for storm water management practices for maintaining or enhancing recharge. The potential for additional groundwater recharge within the annexed lands due to leaky municipal infrastructure (sanitary or storm sewers, municipal water mains), irrigation etc. from ‘imported water’ (ie. municipal groundwater or surface water supplies) was not simulated in the groundwater flow model. The accuracy of the overall groundwater modeling exercise and the quantification of the potential impacts to the groundwater flow system are dependent, in part, on the limitations and assumptions presented above. The relative hydrogeologic sensitivity to land use change better describes the following results. Land use types correspond to specific vegetation parameters (root depth and leaf area index) which vary throughout the year. These parameters in turn influence the evapotranspiration which occurs within these areas. Land use also dictates the overland flow characteristics of a region in terms of surface roughness, depression storage and imperviousness. As such, these parameters were updated to reflect values appropriate for the future land use planned for this region. In general, the urbanization of the region will reduce surface roughness and depression storage and increase imperviousness which increases overland flow. It should be noted that imperviousness in the context of MIKE SHE represents regions with directly connected runoff systems (storm water conveyance systems. To remain consistent with the representation of imperviousness previously applied in the Tier 3 MIKE-SHE model, imperviousness was only applied to the high density urban areas.



A map of average annual groundwater recharge (Figure 17) for the period of 1996-2005 was generated from the future land use version of the MIKE SHE model. This provides a spatially distributed evaluation of the effects of the land use change within the region. The average recharge within the annexed lands after the proposed land use change is approximately 270 mm/yr; the total reduction of groundwater recharge is approximately 10%. 5.3.1 Simulated Impacts to Potential Groundwater Contribution to Streams

The simulated impact on groundwater discharge to streams was assessed by comparing the simulated groundwater discharge under decreased recharge due to proposed land use changes to groundwater discharge simulated under current conditions. Figure 18 delineates the areas within the model where impacts to groundwater discharge were assessed under each model scenario. The stream network is based on coldwater stream mapping provided by the LSRCA (2010) and NVCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2009), however this mapping has been simplified for the incorporation into the model for two reasons: 1) Streams that are intermittent, i.e. not flowing year round were removed from the model because the model represents average annual conditions and cannot account for seasonal flow; and 2) small tributaries or tributaries that are close in proximity to one another were combined as one unit for calculation purposes to avoid rounding errors in the case of small baseflow volumes. It should be noted that this elimination of small tributaries does not discount discharge to these tributaries, they are simply included in the next closest modelled stream. In many cases, the combination of these tributaries is also justified by the resolution of the model (i.e. grid cell size) and the inability to differentiate flow destined for two separate streams, if those streams are represented within the same model cell. For this reason small tributaries along stream reaches are considered as one distinct unit for calculation purposes Streams were assessed on a reach by reach basis, based on the simplified stream network mapping provided within the Tier Three study. Although each stream reach is characterized according to thermal regime, local detail in terms of groundwater/surface water interaction is not well characterized. The groundwater model’s estimate of average annual groundwater discharge under both current and proposed land use is contained by Reach ID in Table 1. The percentage reduction in groundwater discharge, as compared to current conditions is also contained in this table. Figure 18 illustrates the model simulated reduction in groundwater discharge relative to current conditions by stream reach. This figure indicates that reductions in baseflow occur, mainly within the immediate study area.



TABLE 1: CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER CONTRIBUTION TO STREAMS

Watercourse Reach ID

Groundwater Contribution to

Streams (m3/day) % Change

Notes (LSRCA Coldwater Mapping, 2010)

Present Future

Thornton Creek 122 4 4 0 120 22 22 0 148 -18 -21 -17

Total Entire watercourse not in model Bear Creek 109 6 5 17

Total Entire watercourse not in model Hewitts Creek 24 105 93 11

123 115 100 13

125 69 67 3 F - Intermittent or ephemeral (dry for more than two consecutive months)

145 28 23 18 64 63 59 6 126 10 10 0 143 25 21 16 144 46 44 4 146 58 50 14

Total 518 467 10 Lovers Creek 9 23 20 13

12 1136 797 30 114 21 18 14 115 2439 2251 8 6 195 183 6 7 282 251 11 8 317 290 9

11 35 24 31 149 18995 18170 4

10 282 212 25 D - Permanent flow; Cold/cool; Sensitive species and/or communities present



15 512 506 1 17 379 369 3

116 2894 2875 0.7 D - Permanent flow; Cold/cool; Sensitive species and/or communities present

142 7 7 0 Total 32574 30657 6

Whiskey Creek 31 34 33 3 32 108 107 1

Total 142 140 1 Sandy Cove Creek 20 8411 8011 5 D - Permanent flow; Cold/cool; Sensitive

species and/or communities present Total 9126 8721 4



Stream reaches that are impacted the most are the small tributaries feeding into Lovers Creek from the west and a portion of the main branch of Hewitt’s creek. Although these percentages are relatively large, it should be noted that the decrease represents a small percentage (less than 10%) of the entire water course. 5.3.2 Simulated Impacts to Groundwater Levels

Wetland mapping was obtained from the ELC Land Use Classification mapping (MNR, 2012). This mapping included any geometry that was designated as a wetland, regardless of wetland classification or function. The mapping includes both ephemeral and intermitted wetlands, as well as wetlands that may not be groundwater fed. In addition, not all wetlands within this layer are field verified. Because there is insufficient data regarding the year-round presence and function of the wetlands, all wetlands were included for analysis. The lack of data regarding groundwater discharge to the wetlands, indicates that groundwater discharge to the wetlands should not be used as an indicator of impact, as it is unknown if the wetland is primarily fed by groundwater contributions or if it is surface water fed. This is especially true within this study area, where the primary surficial geology relates to the Peterborough Drumlin field, in which small depressional and intermittent wetlands over the hummocky terrain can often result from ponded drainage and snowmelt. Alternatively, water levels below the wetland are a better indicator of the potential impacts due to land use change, especially if discharge occurs only seasonally. As stated above, the water levels within the groundwater system are considered the most appropriate indicator of measuring impacts of land use on wetland features. Because the ELC mapping includes any areas that may have saturated conditions at surface, whether they are year round or seasonal, examining water levels below the wetlands gives a better picture of the change in potential for discharge to wetland, even if the wetland is not groundwater fed on an average annual basis. Figure 19 illustrates the water level reduction below the wetlands under the proposed land use changes as compared to the water table levels under current conditions. It should be noted that the water level elevations represent saturated conditions (as opposed to any perched systems) within the top Aquifer (A1), which may be confined in some places, and are not necessarily reflective of potential for discharge to the wetland features. However, this figure gives an indication of any potential changes in saturation below the wetlands and their ability to either sustain groundwater discharge from this unit or leak recharge into this unit. Within this aquifer, the increase in impervious area is predicted to cause a maximum water level reduction of 6 m in the area immediately next to Side Road 5 and Highway 400. Although these reductions are relatively large, it should be noted that wetland function may be still be sustained either by surface driven contributions or from perched water table conditions. Therefore, Figure 20 and Figure 21 have been included to differentiate between potential changes in water table elevations both in perched aquifers and the deep regional aquifer. Figure 20 illustrates the simulated change in elevations and extents of the perched systems, as this reflects a measure of the simulated impact to the perched water table as it relates to any



wetland features that may be fed from these systems. Figure 21 illustrates the simulated change in elevation of the water table for the deep regional aquifer. This figure shows that the proposed land use change may also have a significant impact to the deep water table surface, particularly along the slopes of the valley lands leading to Lovers Creek, where the deep water table may be intersecting a shallow system (as can be seen in Cross Section C, Figure 4). This in part, may also contribute to the decreased simulated stream baseflow to Lovers Creek via its tributaries, as shown in Section 5.3.1.



6.0 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT The management of groundwater quantity primarily focuses on the maintenance of groundwater levels where those levels are functionally significant to provide water to terrestrial units, provide the necessary hydraulic gradient to maintain groundwater discharge to stream and wet terrestrial features and to maintain water levels in the upper aquifer for local water wells and potentially to the deeper aquifer. The potential changes to groundwater levels and groundwater discharge due to unmitigated reduction in recharge from the proposed land use change (Section 3.5) provides a basis for the need for appropriate water quantity management practices to protect the overall groundwater balance. The primary management practices to maintain recharge involve stormwater management and the ability under various levels of development to maintain the spatial and possibly temporal nature of infiltration. Where the groundwater levels control a more intermediate or regional system the spatial and temporal infiltration characteristics may only have to be considered on a large areal scale and time frame so that averages are met. Within the perspective of locally driven groundwater flow systems the infiltration practices may have to emulate the shorter term local infiltration. Storm water management addresses the issue of groundwater quality protection as it relates to infiltrating stormwater. Groundwater quality protection can also be addressed, for example, through policies and bylaws. Basic groundwater quality management should be considered which would include: • Spills management plans, • Location consideration for underground storage tanks and mandatory groundwater

quality monitoring associated with underground storage tanks, • The appropriate abandonment of unused water wells and maintenance of existing water

wells (Regulation 903, Ontario Water Resources Act) • Effectively manage road de-icing and locations of snow dumps, • Keep an ongoing contaminant threats inventory, • Minimize application of lawn chemicals. As discussed, this study refined the hydrogeologic understanding on a more local scale related to the annexed lands. The quantitative results of the baseline characterization and impact assessment provides additional insight into the hydrogeologic sensitivity to land use but it should be noted this assessment is based on existing data which does have spatial gaps. The hydrogeologic characterization and land use impact assessment will be confirmed and/or refined at a smaller scale through more detailed hydrogeologic studies carried out further along in the planning and development process. In particular these smaller scale studies will assess the site specific surficial geology, hydrostratigrpahy, groundwater flow pathways and potential connections to wetlands and stream reaches. These site specific hydrogeologic studies would also be integrated with coincident terrestrial and aquatic assessments and give additional input into the stormwater management design and related groundwater quantity and quality



management. It is understood that guidelines for hydrogeological assessment to support development applications are currently being prepared by LSRCA. It is important to have agreed upon technical guidelines to direct and facilitate future field work and assessment. The City of Barrie may decide to utilize these guidelines and, if so should actively participate in the guideline development. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) presents general direction for hydrogeologic characterization, maintenance of the water balance and protection of groundwater resources. Relevant hydrogeological policies include: Policy 6.36DP – Definition of groundwater recharge area Policy 6.37SA – Develop guidance for protecting, improving and restoring significant

groundwater recharge areas Policy 6.38DP – Incorporate significant groundwater recharge areas into Official Plan Policy 6.40DP – Outside Oak Ridges Moraine area application for major development

within a significant groundwater recharge area shall be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study on groundwater.

Policies related to providing additional input for the characterization of groundwater linkages to other ecosystem components include: Policy 6.21DP – Define key natural heritage features Policy 6.22DP – Define key hydrological features Additional polices have been proposed (LSRCA ,October 23, 2012) under LSPP 6.38DP as guidance for the protection and restoration of recharge areas (Table 2). The application of these policies relates directly to the LSRCA study of the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA’s), as required for the Source Water Protection Program, and Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRA’s). Areas designated within an SGRA or ESGRA are expected to comply with the outlined policies. The ESGRA/SGRA map (LSRCA, April 2012) for the annexed lands can be found in Appendix B. Blackport & Associates has reviewed these policies and related maps. The draft discussion relating to SGRA’s and ESGRA’s which is presented in “The Barrie Creeks, Lovers Creek, and Hewitt’s Creek Subwatershed Plan” (Draft 2012) has also been reviewed by Blackport & Associates. It is recognized that SGRA maps have been prepared as a requirement of Clean Water Act, 2006 and that SGRA’s along with ESGRA’s provide insight into potential sensitivity of the groundwater flow system and the ecosystem linkages. This in turn aids in the assessment of changes to the groundwater flow system and groundwater/surface water connections as a result of land use change or climate change. The guidance that is provided by these maps must be qualified though given the modelling limitations previously discuss. In particular, caution must be used, in part, due to the data gaps relating to temporal and spatial scale of the hydrostratigrpahy, groundwater levels, hydraulic gradients, and groundwater discharge. Additionally, knowledge and data gaps related to ecosystem characterization are also limiting factors in considering endpoints for groundwater discharge.



On a larger scale the SGRA and ESGRA mapping presented in Appendix B generally reflects (1) the recharge potential of the more permeable surficial soils and (2) the potential groundwater flowpaths from any recharge area (ie recharge volume independent) to a potential discharge area. The overall accuracy of these maps is greatly dependent on the limitations described above and although they may be considered as one of many preliminary knowledge sets to be integrated into future site specific studies they should not necessarily give definitive direction to the location and extent of future site specific hydrogeologic studies. Future more site specific phased studies would add to the current larger scale understanding and refine the hydrogeologic sensitivity on both local and larger scales. This refined understanding could in turn change the level of recharge significance. Additional discussion on future groundwater study requirements are provided in Section 7. Aside from the limitations described above the methodology to develop these maps is part of an ongoing scientific process, as noted in Policy #1 (Table 2).



TABLE 2 DRAFT PROPOSED ADDITIONAL POLICIES RELATED POLICY 6.38DP

Policy # Tool Implementer Existing\

Future Recommendation

1 Science and research

Authority F The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority continue to delineate recharge areas throughout the watershed, and update mapping as the science is improved.

2 LUP Municipality E/F Municipalities shall only permit new development or redevelopment in recharge areas, where it can be demonstrated through the submission of a hydrogeological study and water balance, that the existing groundwater recharge will be maintained (i.e. there will be no net reduction in recharge).

3 LUP Municipality F Municipalities should amend their planning documents to require the treatment of all contaminated runoff, prior to it being infiltrated. The treated runoff must meet the enhanced water quality criteria outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Guidance Document, 2003, as amended from time to time.

4 By-Law Municipality E/F That municipalities incorporate the requirement for diversion of roof top runoff (clean water diversion) from all new development away from storm sewers and infiltrated to maintain the pre-development water balance within recharge areas in their municipal engineering standards.

5 Prescribed Instruments

MOE F The MOE should only issue Environmental Compliance Approvals for new storm water management facilities within recharge areas that maintain the pre-development groundwater recharge rates and meet the enhanced water quality criteria outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Guidance Document, 2003, as amended from time to time.

6 Prescribed Instruments

MOE E The MOE shall only issue Environmental Compliance Approvals for Stormwater Management Facility retrofits within recharge areas, that attempt to improve, maintain or restore the pre-development water balance, and meet the enhanced water quality criteria outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Guidance Document, 2003, as amended from time to time.

7 Education and outreach

Municipality / LSRCA

E/F Municipalities in collaboration with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority shall undertake an education and outreach program focusing on the importance of recharge areas, and the actions residents and businesses can take to maximize infiltration from impervious surfaces while minimizing contamination such as salt.

8 Stewardship LSRCA F The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority should create eligibility for stormwater management retrofits and infiltration projects under the LEAP program within recharge areas.

9 Stewardship Municipality/ LSRCA

E Municipalities shall collaborate with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to promote infiltration of clean water in recharge areas, and prioritize stormwater retrofits utilizing water quality controls, and ultimately infiltration devices for treated stormwater runoff.

10 Incentives MOE E/F The MOE should consider providing financial assistance to implement stormwater management facility retrofits and infiltration projects within recharge areas.

11 Salt management

Municipality F Municipalities should include recharge areas in their assessment of areas vulnerable to road salt, and modify their municipal Salt Management Plans and snow disposal plans as necessary



The following are additional comments related to the draft policies found in Table 2: Policy 2 – post development recharge should be related to functional dependency. If it is the

expectation that the SGRA’s and ESGRA’s are presenting the functional dependency then the discussion related to the limitations of the map application must be considered.

Policy 4 – the accuracy of the surficial soil mapping and the potential accuracy of the SGRA’s and ESGRA’s are, in part, limiting factors in applying this policy.

Policy 11 – the recharge area mapping and the current level of understanding of the hydrogeologic system can be used as a preliminary tool but salt management plans should be refined as further hydrogeologic characterization is carried out.

The following should also be considered for future groundwater management planning: Bringing municipal water from outside subcatchment areas or the subwatersheds can

increase local recharge and potential groundwater discharge. The installation of infrastructure should not intercept critical groundwater flow which may

discharge to local receptors. It is expected that very local shallow groundwater flow systems may be reoriented but not at the expense of discharge or an unacceptable lowering of water levels. The same issue holds for construction dewatering. Prior to dewatering or the expectation of infrastructure drainage, an assessment should be carried out as to the potential for unacceptable impacts on the groundwater flow system and its linkages to determine what mitigative practices may be necessary.

Although not always practical the compaction of the surficial till should be minimized. Compaction will reduce infiltration. Over time as the water table goes through the seasonal variations the original weathered nature would be expected to return. Removal of the upper active zone would likely be more significant and this should be minimized where possible.

Subtle hummocky topography contains local runoff and promotes a level of infiltration. Maintaining this topography would therefore be recommended where practical. Additional soil depth and the development of a hummocky topography would add to the natural infiltration.



7.0 MONITORING AND FUTURE STUDY REQUIREMENTS Groundwater Monitoring Specific locations for groundwater related monitoring, the location-specific frequency of monitoring and the location-specific parameters would be determined based on the future refinement of the hydrogeologic sensitivity and ecological connections within and adjacent to the annexed lands. Future more site specific groundwater studies integrated with any additional more local scale terrestrial and aquatic assessment are expected to provide this refined characterization. Future groundwater monitoring should consider the following: • A spatially representative number of water table monitors will be needed to assess any

potential change to the water table and larger scale groundwater flow direction. • A number of multilevel piezometers should be included to assess vertical gradient

trends. • An increased spatial level of groundwater monitoring should be carried out where

groundwater discharge provides a significant function. • Spot baseflow measurements throughout reaches within and adjacent to the annexation

lands The spot baseflow measurements are to be taken during periods when only groundwater is expected to be providing flow to the stream such as in between rainfall events, or subsequent to spring runoff.

• Spatial discretization to represent functional linkages and potential hydrostratigraphic variation.

• Seasonal measurements are recommended with selected sites considered for the installation of data loggers to monitor more detailed shorter and longer term trends.

• Annual water quality monitoring of selected well and spot baseflow sites. Chemical analysis should include inorganic parameters, nitrogen species, and metals.

• Pre-development monitoring of spot baseflow and groundwater levels for a minimum amount of time to obtain a seasonal baseline trend.

• Need for local climate data. • Post-development monitoring for a minimum amount of time beyond build out. Efforts should be made in obtaining and assessing historical and ongoing monitoring data from developed sites in a similar hydrogeologic setting for comparative purposes. Future Groundwater Studies Future groundwater studies are expected to be carried out at a more site specific scale to refine the hydrogeologic understanding, potential groundwater impacts and mitigation in support development applications.



These studies would typically include but not be limited to the following tasks:

Review geological and hydrogeological information from other relevant studies. Drill boreholes to determine the site-specific geology and overburden stratigraphy..

Excavation of test pits may also be conducted to investigate the shallow soil and groundwater conditions.

Collect soil samples from selected boreholes and/or test pits and test for grain-size to characterize the soil types and to assist in determining soil hydraulic conductivity.

Establish a network of groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers across the study area. The monitoring network must include sufficient number and distribution of shallow and deep monitors to determine the depth to the water table and measure vertical and horizontal groundwater gradients. The number of monitors to be installed will depend upon the size of the proposed development area, the complexity of drainage, the number, location and significance of environmental features, the locations of groundwater divides, and the background data available.

Survey all monitoring locations for coordinates and geodetic elevation. Conduct bail-down, slug, or other appropriate field tests to confirm monitoring well

function and assess the hydrogeological characteristics of stratigraphic units (e.g. in situ hydraulic conductivity).

Carry out spot baseflow measurements. Coordinate with other ecosystem studies to assess groundwater discharge areas and

seeps. Inventory existing groundwater users and water supply wells, and carry out a private

well survey within 500 m of the proposed development. Collect groundwater and surface water (baseflow) samples to establish background

water quality and aid in groundwater flow system characterization. Monitor groundwater levels in all monitoring wells (site specific data should be related to

the regional groundwater elevation data and be sufficient to document the response of the shallow groundwater to seasonal climatic conditions throughout the year), Selected monitoring wells should be equipped with a dataloggers to automatically record detailed water levels.

Assess the seasonally high water table and consider potential construction impacts and mitigation.

In addition to an overall refinement of the groundwater characterization of annexation lands the future site specific studies should consider the following:

The reach specific groundwater/surface water interaction. The hydrogeologic assessment should be integrated with any future aquatic habitat assessment to aid in determining discharge locations.

A local scale understanding of the potential perched groundwater flow systems to assess whether they are basically surface water driven.

The existence and potential removal of tile drainage should be recognized. Removal may increase the local water table and could potentially reduce short term groundwater discharge to local surface features.



The overall approach to future groundwater studies is expected to receive input and/or guidelines from various agencies including LSRCA, NVCA, MOE and MNR.

Bill Blackport, M.Sc., P.Geo. Blackport & Associates



References DHI‐WASY DHI. 2011. MIKE SHE Volume 1: User Guide. (2011 Edition). 230p.

DHI‐WASY. 2009. FEFLOW 5.4 – Finite Element Subsurface Flow and Transport Simulation System, User’s Manual. WASY GmbH. Berlin, Germany.

AquaResource Inc. 2012. City of Barrie Tier Three Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment Recharge Estimation Report (Draft). Submitted to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

AquaResource Inc., Golder Associates and International Water Supply. 2012c. City of Barrie Tier Three Groundwater Model Report (Draft). Submitted to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Ontario Geological Survey (OGS). 2010. Surficial geology of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release‐Data 128‐REV.

Golder Associates Inc 2009. Simcoe County Municipalities (Tiny, Springwater, Clearview, Adjala‐Tosorontio, Essa, New Tecumseth, Bradford, Innisfil, Oro‐Medonte, Severn, Ramara and Orillia) Capture Zone and Equipotential Surface Review.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2010. Fish Habitat Mapping NVCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009. Fisheries Habitat Management Plan.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Element Summary Report for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. Accessible at: http://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of the Environment, 2011. Water Budget and Risk Assessment Guide.

Appendix F Hydrogeology - Barrie Hall/Planning-and-Development/Engineerin… · Water Act, 2006 and...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix F Hydrogeology - Barrie Hall/Planning-and-Development/Engineerin… · Water Act, 2006 and...