Hydrogeological Assessment, 1888 Gordon Street, …...Hydrogeological Assessment, 1888 Gordon...

Hydrogeological Assessment,

1888 Gordon Street, City of

Guelph, Ontario

Version 3

Prepared for:

Tricar Developments Inc.

3800 Colonel Talbot Road

London, ON N6P 1H5

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

100-300 Hagey Blvd.

Waterloo, ON N2L 0A4

January 11, 2017

Revised: September 7, 2017

Revised: January 10, 2018

161401285

HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1

2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ......................................................................................................2.1

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER FEATURES ..................................................... 2.1

2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY ................................................... 2.2

2.3 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2.3

3.0 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................3.1

3.1 DRILLING AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS ................................................... 3.1

3.2 DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETER INSTALLATIONS ................................................................... 3.2

3.3 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING ......................................................................... 3.2

3.4 SOIL INFILTRATION TESTING ............................................................................................ 3.3

4.0 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................4.1

4.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY ...................................................................... 4.1

4.2 HYDROGEOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2.1 Groundwater Levels .................................................................................... 4.1 4.2.2 Groundwater Flow ....................................................................................... 4.2 4.2.3 Infiltration Potential ...................................................................................... 4.3 4.2.4 Water Balance ............................................................................................. 4.4

5.0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................5.1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................6.1

7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................7.1

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Plan

Figure 2 Surficial Geology

Figure 3 Topography

Figure 4 Hydrographs

Figure 5 Cross-Section A-A’

Figure 6 Cross-Section B-B’

APPENDIX B TABLES

Table 1 Well Construction Details

Table 2 Groundwater Level Data – Monitoring Wells

Table 3 Groundwater Level Data – Drive-point Piezometers

Table 4 Infiltration Testing Results


APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E UPPER HANLON CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

HYDROGEOLOGY REPORT: FIGURE NO. 6.6.1 – GROUNDWATER

CONTOURS (WATER TABLE)

APPENDIX F DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE CALCULATIONS


Introduction

January 10, 2018

bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 1.1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Tricar Developments Inc. to complete a

hydrogeological assessment of the lands located at 1888 Gordon Street in the City of Guelph,

Ontario (Site) in support of a proposed residential development. The Site covers an area of

approximately 3.4 ha and is bounded to the northwest by Brock Road Nursery, to the northeast

by former open space (now in the process of being converted to residential subdivision), to the

southwest by a combination of agricultural lands and rural residential properties, and to the

southwest by Gordon Street (Figure 1, Appendix A).

The focus of the hydrogeological assessment is to evaluate whether a small onsite wetland area

located near the southeastern corner of the Site is hydrogeologically connected to the nearby

Halls Pond Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex, a provincially significant wetland

situated to the east of the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A). If the decision is made not to complex the

onsite wetland, the City of Guelph (City) requires that the feature be evaluated against the

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) policy framework for small wetlands (specifically

whether the onsite wetland is a discharge feature or a notable contributor to a greater

groundwater recharge area), as this will provide guidance on whether the onsite wetland can

potentially be removed for development purposes.

To evaluate whether the onsite wetland should be retained, the scope of work for the

hydrogeological assessment included:

1. characterizing geological and hydrostratigraphic conditions near the onsite wetland

2. evaluating the hydrogeological (i.e., groundwater) function of the onsite wetland

3. assessing whether a hydrogeological connection exists between the onsite wetland and

nearby Halls Pond PSW Complex

4. evaluating the hydrogeological characteristics of the onsite wetland against the GRCA

policy framework for small wetlands.

This report is arranged into eight (8) sections, including this introduction. Section 2 provides

background information on the physical setting of the Site from a regional perspective. Section 3

discusses the methods used to complete the site-specific hydrogeological assessment of the

onsite wetland, with Section 4 presenting the results of this assessment. Section 5 evaluates the

hydrogeological characteristics of the onsite wetland against the GRCA policy framework for

small wetlands and discusses whether the wetland should be complexed with the Halls Pond

PSW Complex. Section 6 provides the conclusions of the report, with Section 7 providing a listing

of cited references.


Introduction

January 10, 2018


All figures and tables referenced in this report are presented in Appendices A and B,

respectively. Appendices C to F provide Borehole Logs, Site Photographs, Groundwater Flow

Mapping, and Design Infiltration Rate Calculations, respectively.


Physical Setting

January 10, 2018


2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER FEATURES

The Site is situated within physiographic region classified by Chapman and Putnam (1984) as the

Horseshoe Moraines. This region consists of a series of moraines arranged in the shape of a

horseshoe, extending northward from Huron County to the toe of the “horseshoe” in Grey

County near Georgian Bay, and then southward along the edge of the Niagara Escarpment

into the Town of Caledon. From the Town of Caledon, the moraines trend west of the Niagara

Escarpment and form a belt of moderately hilly relief passing to the east of Acton and Guelph

and onward into Cambridge and Paris. In general, the section of the Horseshoe Moraines

covering the lands from Caledon to Paris consists of irregular knobs and ridges of stony glacial till

(i.e., end moraines), kames (an end moraine consisting of steep-sided mounds of irregularly

bedded sand and gravel deposited by the melting of an enclosed ice block) and broad

meltwater channel deposits (sand and gravel).

The Paris and Galt moraines are the most dominate features of the Horseshoe Moraines

physiographic region. In the City of Guelph, these two moraines range from being positioned

directly adjacent to each other to being separated by up to 10 km of outwash plains and

spillways. The ice-contact depositional processes that formed the moraines resulted in the

formation of several topographically depressed areas containing kettle lakes and wetlands, with

these features acting as receivers of surface water runoff generated from the hummocky terrain

(Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et al., 2009). The Wentworth Till (stony, silty sand or sandy silt-

textured till) typically caps both moraines, although kame deposits (i.e., sand and silt lenses and

discontinuous sand and gravel deposits interspersed with till units) commonly define the internal

structure of these features (particularly the Paris Moraine) through the Guelph-Cambridge area.

As shown in Figure 2 (Appendix A), the Site lies within the interpreted boundaries of the

Paris Moraine.

As shown in Figure 3 (Appendix A), hummocky terrain is prevalent around the Site, with the onsite

topography generally sloping in a north to northwest direction towards Poppy Drive East.

However, in the southern area of the property where the onsite wetland resides, the existing

grade gradually slopes towards this feature from all directions before coming to the edge of the

wetland, where the ground surface then drops in elevation by approximately two to three

meters. Ground surface elevations at the base of the onsite wetland tend to be in the range of

344 m AMSL. In comparison, ground surface elevations across the Site range from roughly

346 m AMSL (BH6-14) to 352 m AMSL (BH9-14).

The Site is located within the eastern limits of the Upper Hanlon Creek Watershed (Gamsby &

Mannerow, 1993), with the overall topography of the watershed sloping in a westerly to

northwesterly direction towards Hanlon Creek (Golder, 2006). The onsite wetland covers an

approximate area of 0.135 hectares and is characterized by mixed mineral meadow marsh


Physical Setting

January 10, 2018


habitat (Stantec, 2018a). The nearest offsite surface water feature to the Site is a wetland area

associated with the Halls Pond PSW Complex, with this area being located approximately 100 m

to the southeast of the Site (Figure 2, Appendix A).

2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY

Geological conditions throughout the study area have been mapped and described by the

Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee (LERSPC, 2015), Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et

al. (2009), Golder (2006), the Grand River Conservation Authority (2001), and Banks (1993). In

summary, the subsurface throughout the region containing the Site consists of the following key

geological formations, listed from youngest to oldest:

Spillway Deposits: Glaciofluvial outwash and glaciolacustrine deposits of sand and gravel

with minor silt and clay associated with the spillway channels (Figure 2,

Appendix A; Unit 7).

Wentworth Till: Deposit of brown to reddish brown stony, silty sand or sandy silt-textured

till that largely covers the surface of the Paris Moraine. Generally, less

than 10 m thick, the glacial till generally consists of finer-grained deposits

(i.e., fine sand and silt) that are characterized by low permeability.

However, the till can also be coarser-grained in those areas where more

permeable kame or outwash deposits became reworked into the matrix

because of minor glacial re-advances. Overall, this till unit represents a

leaky aquitard or poor aquifer (Figure 2, Appendix A; Unit 5b).

Ice-Contact Deposits: Predominantly sand and gravel containing lenses of silt and clay left

behind by the melting of enclosed ice blocks (i.e., kames) (Figure 2,

Appendix A; Unit 6).

Port Stanley Till: A clay to silt-textured till unit deposited during a glacial advance from

the southeast following the Erie Interstadial. This till unit is considered to

act as a fair to good aquitard and is often found directly overlying the

bedrock surface beneath the Paris Moraine.

Bedrock: The Guelph Formation, representing the uppermost bedrock unit

throughout the region is described as a light brown/beige coloured

fossiliferous dolostone and an important aquifer in the Guelph area

(Brunton, 2009). Local well records indicate the bedrock surface

beneath the Paris Moraine around the Site is located at elevations

ranging from 303 to 306 m above mean sea level (AMSL).


Physical Setting

January 10, 2018


2.3 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY

Mapping of the regional water table surface presented by the LERSPC (2015), developed from

an interpolation of reported static water levels in wells less than 25 m deep, indicates that

groundwater flow through the overburden deposits beneath the Site is in a westerly direction

towards Hanlon Creek, with a similar groundwater flow pattern being interpreted for the deep

overburden and bedrock (developed from an interpolation of reported static water levels in

wells greater than 40 m deep).

Regional mapping provided by the GRCA (2001) indicates that weak downward hydraulic

gradients are present beneath the Site and that the area is characterized by low groundwater

discharge potential.

Localized groundwater production zones are found in the overburden deposits of the Paris

Moraine and are associated with the hydraulic connections that occur between discrete sand

lenses within this feature (Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et al. (2009). However, most private wells

located within the Paris Moraine tend to draw their water from the major aquifers associated

with the underlying bedrock unit (LERSPC, 2015).


Methodology

January 10, 2018


3.0 METHODOLOGY

Section 3 provides the methodology Stantec used in collecting the data required to complete

the hydrogeological assessment of the Site, focusing mainly on evaluating the hydrogeological

form and function of the onsite wetland. The major components of the investigation included:

• drilling and installing monitoring wells

• installing drive-point piezometers

• performing groundwater level monitoring

• performing soil infiltration testing.

The sections below provide detailed descriptions of these study components.

3.1 DRILLING AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS

From April 4 to 5, 2016 Stantec directed the drilling of boreholes at two locations along the edge

of the onsite wetland for installing multi-level monitoring wells to identify the positioning of the

groundwater table and evaluate seasonal fluctuations in vertical hydraulic gradients

(i.e., identify groundwater recharge and/or discharge conditions) near this feature. The drilling of

a shallow (S) and deep (D) borehole occurred at each location, with each borehole being

equipped with a single monitoring well. Figure 1 (Appendix A) provides the locations of the two

multi-level monitoring wells: MW1-16(S/D) and MW2-16(S/D).

Stantec retained Aardvark Drilling Inc. (Aardvark) to complete the borehole drilling and

monitoring well installations. Aardvark drilled the boreholes using a CME 75 track-mounted

drilling rig equipped with a hollow stem auger drilling system, with soil samples being collected

using a 0.6 m long stainless steel split spoon sampler at 0.75 m intervals. The shallow boreholes

were advanced to depths of 3.9 m to 4.1 m below ground surface (BGS), with the deep

boreholes terminating at depths of 8.2 m to 8.3 m BGS. Stantec personnel logged the borehole

stratigraphy using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for the

description and identification of soils (ASTM International, 2009). The borehole logs contained

descriptions (where relevant and possible) of soil type, texture, colour, structure, consistency,

plasticity, moisture content, and other visual and olfactory observations. Copies of the borehole

logs are provided in Appendix C. Stantec Geomatics surveyed the ground surface and top-of-

pipe elevations at each borehole location to a geodetic benchmark using the Can-Net GPS

Survey system, having a spatial accuracy of +/- 0.03 m and +/- 0.02 m in the vertical and

horizontal plane, respectively.

Aardvark installed the monitoring wells adhering to the construction requirements as outlined

under Ontario Regulation 903 (O. Reg. 903) (MOE, 1990). Installation details for each of the

monitoring wells are summarized in Table 1 (Appendix B) and on the borehole logs provided in


Methodology

January 10, 2018


Appendix C. Each monitoring well is constructed of 50 mm inside diameter, Schedule 40

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, having a No. 10 slot screen (0.01-inch slot) measuring 1.5 m in

length. Aardvark backfilled the annular space between the monitoring well pipe and

surrounding soil to a height of 0.3 to 1.0 m above the top of screen using No.3 grade silica sand,

followed by granular bentonite (which was gradually hydrated through the pouring of water

down the annular space throughout the installation process) to ground surface prevent a

hydraulic connection from occurring between the screened formation and overlying soils. The

completion of each monitoring well involved encasing the pipe stick-up within a lockable steel

casing, with the base of this casing being cemented into place to a depth of approximately

0.3 m BGS.

3.2 DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETER INSTALLATIONS

From April 20 to 21, 2016 Stantec installed three (3) multi-level drive-point piezometers (consisting

of a shallow and deep pipe) within the onsite wetland [DP1-16(S/D) to DP3-16(S/D)] and one (1)

multi-level drive-point piezometer into the portion of the Halls Pond PSW Complex located

approximately 100 m to the southeast of the Site [DP4-16(S/D)] (Figure 1, Appendix A). The drive-

point piezometer installations are designed to assess the hydrogeological form and function of

the onsite wetland and evaluate its potential hydraulic connection to the Halls Pond PSW

Complex.

Each drive-point piezometer is constructed of a 0.42 m long steel screen (19 mm diameter) that

is connected to 25 mm diameter steel riser pipes. Stantec personnel drove the drive-point

piezometers into the substrate using a fence post driver, with shallow and deep pipes being

constructed within one (1) meter of each other and their screens being separated by a vertical

distance ranging from 0.8 m to 0.9 m. Construction details for the drive-point piezometers are

summarized in Table 1 (Appendix B).

3.3 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING

Stantec personnel recorded groundwater levels in the previously mentioned monitoring wells

and drive-point piezometers using a combination of automated and manual measurement

techniques. The automated measurement of water levels occurred using a Solinst Edge

Levelogger® (Levelogger), a device consisting of a pressure transducer and datalogger

suspended in the water column of each monitoring well and drive-point piezometer. The

Leveloggers record total pressure (atmospheric + height of water column) and required

correcting using atmospheric pressure data collected from a Solinst Barologger® (suspended in

the air of one of the onsite monitoring wells). Hydrographs presenting the corrected Levelogger

data obtained from April 2016 to April 2017 are presented in Figure 4 (Appendix A).

Stantec personnel manually measured water levels in the previously mentioned monitoring wells

and drive-point piezometers from April to August 2016, April 2017 and August 2017, with the

results of this monitoring being presented in Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix B), respectively. Manual

measurements were obtained using a battery operated HeronTM water level meter. Equipped


Methodology

January 10, 2018


with an electrode connected to a graduated polyethylene tape, Stantec personnel used the

meters to measure the depth to water by slowly lowering the electrode into the well until the

buzzer sounded. Stantec personnel recorded the water level measurements in meters to the

nearest 0.01 m and converted to elevations above mean sea level (AMSL) using surveyed

elevation data. The manual water level data were also used to calibrate and check the

accuracy of the data recorded by the Leveloggers.

Stantec Geomatics surveyed the ground surface and top-of-pipe elevations at each drive-point

piezometer location to a geodetic benchmark using the Can-Net GPS Survey system, having a

spatial accuracy of +/- 0.03 m and +/- 0.02 m in the vertical and horizontal plane, respectively.

3.4 SOIL INFILTRATION TESTING

On July 25, 2017 TDC Excavating (TDC) excavated eight (8) test pits (TP1-17 to TP8-17) throughout

the Site using a rubber-tired backhoe under the supervision of Stantec personnel. Stantec

strategically placed the test pits in areas of the Site where post-development stormwater

infiltration facilities were being considered for construction. The test pit depths ranged from 1.0 m

to 2.5 m BGS (coinciding with the anticipated base elevation of the infiltration facilities), with

their locations at the Site being shown on Figure 1 (Appendix A). Stantec personnel classified the

excavated soils using the ASTM guideline for visual-manual description and identification of soils

(ASTM D2488-00), providing descriptions (where relevant and possible) of soil type, texture,

colour, structure, moisture content, and other observations. Once the test pit was no longer

required, TDC backfilled the test pits, returning each location to its original condition. Field logs

for the test pits are provided in Appendix C.

From November 16 to 17, 2017 Lockhart Excavation (Lockhart) excavated two (2) additional test

pits (TP101-17 and TP102-17) within the finalized location of Infiltration Gallery 1 and three (3)

additional test pits (TP103-17 to TP105-17) within the finalized location of Infiltration Gallery 3

(Figure 1, Appendix A). Under the supervision of Stantec personnel, the test pit excavations

extended to the projected base elevation of each gallery for the performing of soil infiltration

testing. Once completing the soil infiltration testing at this base elevation, the test pits were

excavated an additional 1.2 to 1.6 m below this elevation, with the soils at this depth also being

subjected to infiltration testing. Stantec personnel classified the excavated soils using the ASTM

guideline for visual-manual description and identification of soils (ASTM D2488-00) and once the

test pit was no longer required, Lockhart backfilled the excavations to the existing grade. Field

logs for TP101-17 to TP105-17 are provided in Appendix C.

No test pits were excavated within the footprint of Infiltration Gallery 2, given that ground

surface elevations at this location occur at least 1.2 m (GP1, GP2) to 4.0 m (GP4) below the

projected base elevation of the gallery. Subsequently, Stantec personnel completed infiltration

testing of the native soils at depths ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 m below the existing grade at GP1,

GP2 and GP4 (Figure 1, Appendix A). Stantec personnel also completed infiltration testing in an

area located approximately 20 m to the northeast of the gallery footprint [i.e., GP3(1), GP3(2)],


Methodology

January 10, 2018


where the existing grade was approximately equal to the projected base elevation of the

galley.

Assessment of the infiltration potential for the onsite soils involved the use of a Guelph

Permeameter (a constant head permeameter designed to measure in-situ vertical hydraulic

conductivities of a given substrate). At the various excavated depths of the test pits (or existing

grades at GP1 to GP4), Stantec personnel used a hand auger to drill an approximately 0.2 to

0.5 m deep, 50 mm diameter cylindrical hole into the native soil to be tested. The Guelph

Permeameter was then filled with water, inserted into the hole while making a concerted effort

to avoid knocking debris into the excavation, and stabilized against the substrate. Stantec

personnel then proceeded to record the eventual steady-state rate of water recharge into the

soil. The infiltration rate for each soil tested was converted from the measured vertical hydraulic

conductivity using the established relationship between vertical hydraulic conductivity and

infiltration rate presented in the Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region

Conservation (2010) Low Impact Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guideline.

Table 4 (Appendix B) presents the results of this soil infiltration testing.


Local Geology and Hydrogeology

January 10, 2018


4.0 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

4.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY

According to Figure 2 (Appendix A), the surficial deposits encountered throughout the Site

consist of stone-poor, silt to silty sand-textured till, representing the Wentworth Till, which is

understood to cap the Paris Moraine (Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et al., 2009). However, soils

information obtained from onsite drilling logs (Appendix C) indicate that the surficial deposits

consist largely of coarser-grained sand and gravel with silt and are likely associated with the

more permeable ice-contact (kame) or outwash deposits that lie to the northwest of the Site

(i.e., Figure 2, Appendix A, Units 6 and 7b). As reported by MMM/LGL (1990), outwash and/or

kame deposits located in the areas immediately to the north of the Paris Moraine typically range

from 10 m to 15 m in thickness and sometimes extend down to the bedrock surface.

Figure 1 (Appendix A) shows the locations of Cross Section A-A’ (Figure 5, Appendix A) and B-B’

(Figures 6, Appendix A), constructed using geological information presented in the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) well water records and results obtained from the

onsite drilling completed as part of previous geotechnical investigation completed by V.A.

Wood (Guelph) Incorporated (2010) and LVM (2014), and the current hydrogeological

investigation (Appendix C). Results of the onsite drilling indicate that a 0.2 m to 0.6 m layer of

sandy silt topsoil covers the Site, which in turn is underlain by ice-contact deposits of silty sand

and gravel to sandy gravelly silt up to the termination depth at most of the boreholes (i.e., from

5.0 to 14.2 m BGS; 332.9 to 347.1 m AMSL). At BH03-14 and BH04-14, drilling encountered a

deposit of clayey silt till (potentially the Port Stanley Till) at a depth of 14.2 m BGS, translating to

elevations of 334.7 m AMSL and 337.2 m AMSL, respectively. According to the MOECC water

well records for offsite Wells 6702483 and 6702639 (located roughly 300 m and 150 m to the

southwest and southeast of the Site, respectively; Figure 1, Appendix A), the bedrock surface is

located at an elevation of approximately 303 to 306 m AMSL near the Site (Appendix D).

4.2 HYDROGEOLOGY

4.2.1 Groundwater Levels

Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix B) provide a summary of manual groundwater level measurements

obtained from the onsite monitoring wells and drive-point piezometers, respectively, with results

of the continuous water level monitoring completed from late April 2016 to early April 2017 being

presented on the hydrographs provided in Figure 4 (Appendix A). As shown in Figure 4

(Appendix A), water levels recorded in the drive-point piezometers installed in the base of the

onsite wetland [i.e., DP1-16(S/D) to DP3-16(S/D)] were above the existing grade from April to

mid-May 2016, coinciding with the presence of standing water within this feature (Photos 1 to 3,

Appendix D). From mid-May 2016, water levels in each of the previously mentioned multi-level

drive-point piezometers dropped below the existing grade, declining past the screened intervals

of the piezometers (i.e., the pipes went dry) by the end of the same month. A similar trend in



January 10, 2018


water level declines occurred in MW1-16(S/D) and MW2-16(S/D) (Figure 4, Appendix A) with the

water table reaching a depth of 8.0 m BGS at these locations by early August 2016 (Figures 5

and 6, Appendix A; Table 2, Appendix B), equating to an average water table depth of 5.6 m

below the base elevation of the onsite wetland substrate (i.e., 338.7 m AMSL). As shown in Photo

4 (Appendix D), standing water was absent from the interior of the onsite wetland in early June

2016, with this condition remaining unchanged throughout the summer as noted during the field

visits completed by Stantec personnel in July and August 2016 (Table 3, Appendix B) (Stantec,

2018a). Groundwater levels continued to remain below the wetland substrate until late February

to early March 2017 Figure 4 (Appendix A), with the water table rising in response to the

infiltration of water from the melting snowpack, which is reported to be a common occurrence

in kettle depressions located throughout the watershed (MMM/LGL, 1990). Based on the

information presented above, it appears that water levels within the onsite wetland are largely

controlled by the positioning of the water table, with this feature becoming hydraulically

separated from the local groundwater system (i.e., does not receive groundwater inputs from

the surrounding landscape) starting in the late spring and continuing into the late winter.

Unlike the trends observed in the onsite wetland where the water table dropped notably below

the wetland substrate, groundwater levels measured within the Halls Pond PSW Complex to the

southeast of the Site remained relatively unchanged throughout the monitoring period, with

levels remaining above ground surface (i.e., water table intercepting wetland) and fluctuating

between 344.74 m AMSL to 345.46 m AMSL (Figure 4, Appendix A; Table 2, Appendix B).

4.2.2 Groundwater Flow

Regional groundwater flow mapping presented by the LERSPC (2015; Map 2-13, Page 2-32)

suggests that the direction of horizontal flow through the shallow overburden near the Site is to

the west and northwest towards the Main Branch of Hanlon Creek. At the local scale, historical

groundwater elevations recorded in offsite monitoring wells immediately to the west of the Site

[i.e., MW4-10 to MW6-10; V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated, 2010] together with groundwater

elevations recorded during the current investigation (Tables 2 and 3, Appendix B) also suggest

that groundwater moves in a westerly direction across the Site. Specifically, groundwater

elevations recorded within the Halls Pond PSW Complex at DP4-16(S/D) are consistently higher

than corresponding groundwater elevations measured within the onsite wetland at DP1-17(S/D)

to DP3-17(S/D), indicating that groundwater flows from the PSW towards this feature (Table 2,

Appendix B). The previously mentioned flow interpretations are further supported by

groundwater flow modeling completed by Banks (1993), in which the model incorporated

hydrogeological data obtained from 150 boreholes/monitoring wells completed into the shallow

overburden aquifer system to delineate flows within the model area as presented in Appendix E.

The modeling results confirm that groundwater flow near the Site travels in a west to northwest

direction towards the Main Branch of Hanlon Creek.

Data available on the Grand River Information Network (GRIN, 2016) indicates that downward

vertical hydraulic gradients occur beneath the Site, suggesting that these lands represent a

groundwater recharge area. Along the perimeter of the onsite wetland, vertical hydraulic



January 10, 2018


gradients recorded at MW1-16(S/D) and MW2-16(S/D) between late April to late May 2016

ranged from -0.01 m/m to -0.53 m/m, for an average of -0.23 m/m (i.e., recharge condition),

before the water table dropped below the screen of the shallow well and, subsequently, made

for the calculation of vertical gradients at these locations no longer possible (Table 3, Appendix

B). A similar pattern in vertical hydraulic gradients occurred at the monitoring wells in February

and March 2017.

Although periodically characterized by upward vertical hydraulic gradients in the early spring,

the mean vertical hydraulic gradients calculated at the drive-point piezometers located within

the interior of the onsite wetland ranged from -0.01 m/m to -0.03 m/m (i.e., weak downward)

over the monitoring period (Figure 4, Appendix A). Overall, these data suggest the onsite

wetland predominantly acts as a groundwater recharge feature. In comparison, vertical

hydraulic gradients recorded beneath the nearby Halls Pond PSW Complex [i.e., DP4-16(S/D)]

were consistently upward (i.e., mean vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.03; discharge condition)

(Figure 4, Appendix A).

4.2.3 Infiltration Potential

Table 4 (Appendix B) presents calculated infiltration rates associated with the various soil horizons

tested within and near the footprints of the three finalized infiltration gallery locations (Figure 1,

Appendix A). Overall, vertical hydraulic conductivities in the upper overburden (i.e., from 0.2 to

5.1 m BGS) range from 1.4 x10-4 m/s to 2.0 x10-7 m/s, for a geometric mean vertical hydraulic

conductivity of 4.3 x10-6 m/s. Using the equation derived from the established relationship

between vertical hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate presented in the Credit Valley

Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Low Impact Stormwater Management

Planning and Design Guideline (Guideline) (2010), the calculated vertical hydraulic

conductivities for the upper overburden deposits convert to infiltration rates ranging from

30 mm/hour to 172 mm/hour (average rate of 67 mm/hour for the Site).

The soils encountered at the projected base elevation of Infiltration Gallery 1 consisted of silty

fine sand (fill) to gravelly fine sand. Testing results indicate that vertical hydraulic conductivities in

these fine sand deposits range from 1.4 x10-4 m/s to 7.5 x10-7 m/s, for a geometric mean vertical

hydraulic conductivity of 7.8 x10-6 m/s. The calculated vertical hydraulic conductivities for the

fine sand deposits convert to infiltration rates ranging from 43 mm/hour to 172 mm/hour

(average rate of 80 mm/hour). For the gravelly fine sands located approximately 1.5 m below

the projected base of this gallery, vertical hydraulic conductivities range from 5.3 x 10-5 m/s

(134 mm/hour) to 4.7 x10-7 m/s (38 mm/hour), for a geometric mean of 3.2 x10-6 m/s

(63 mm/hour). As per the Guideline, the ratio of the previously mentioned geometric infiltration

rates is 1.3 (ratio = 80/63), equating to a safety correction factor of 3.5. In applying the safety

correction factor to the geometric infiltration rate calculated at the base elevation of the

infiltration gallery (i.e., 80 mm/hour divided by 3.5), the resulting infiltration design rate for the

gallery is 23 mm/hour (Appendix F).



January 10, 2018


At Infiltration Gallery 2, the constructed base of the gallery is expected occur in deposits of silty

fine sand intermixed with gravel having a geometric vertical hydraulic conductivity of

4.3 x10-6 m/s (69 mm/hour). The deposits of silty fine sand located approximately 1.5 m below the

projected base of this gallery ranges from 4.7 x10-6 m/s (69 mm/hour) to 3.9 x10-7 m/s

(36 mm/hour), for a geometric mean of 1.4 x10-6 m/s (51 mm/hour). The ratio of the previously

mentioned geometric infiltration rates is 1.4 (ratio = 69/51), equating to a safety correction factor

of 3.5. In applying the safety correction factor to the geometric infiltration rate calculated at the

base elevation of the infiltration gallery (i.e., 69 mm/hour divided by 3.5), the resulting infiltration

design rate for the gallery is 20 mm/hour (Appendix F).

The silty fine sand with gravel and cobbles that will directly underlie Infiltration Gallery 3 has

vertical hydraulic conductivities ranging from 6.3 x10-5 m/s (140 mm/hour) to 5.5 x10-7 m/s

(39 mm/hour), for a geometric mean vertical hydraulic conductivity of 6.7 x10-6 m/s

(77 mm/hour). For the silty fine sand with gravel, cobbles and clay located from 1.2 to 1.5 m

below the projected base of this gallery, vertical hydraulic conductivities range from

1.3 x10-5 m/s (91 mm/hour) to 2.0 x10-7 m/s (30 mm/hour), for a geometric mean of 1.7 x10-6 m/s

(53 mm/hour). The ratio of the previously mentioned geometric infiltration rates is 1.5 (ratio =

77/53), equating to a safety correction factor of 3.5. In applying the safety correction factor to

the geometric infiltration rate calculated at the base elevation of the infiltration gallery

(i.e., 77 mm/hour divided by 3.5), the resulting infiltration design rate for the gallery is 22 mm/hour

(Appendix F).

4.2.4 Water Balance

A monthly-based pre- and post-development water balance assessment was completed for the

Site utilizing the methodology of Thornthwaite and Mather (1955, 1957), with the results of these

assessments being provided in the accompanying Stantec (2018b) Functional Servicing Report

(FSR). In summary, the analyses indicate the following:

• Under the pre-development condition, the predicted annual volume of water that infiltrates

to the shallow groundwater system via the onsite wetland (0.135 ha) is 551 m3, equating to

an infiltration rate of 408 mm/year. For the remaining area of the Site (3.058 ha), the

predicted annual infiltration volume is 12,486 m3, representing an infiltration rate of 408

mm/year. Overall, the total area of the Site (3.2 ha) under pre-development conditions

contributes 13,037 m3 of infiltration to the subsurface, equating to a rate of

408 mm/year. Based on these calculations, the total volume of water infiltrating to the

subsurface via the wetland represents approximately 5% of the total annual infiltration

occurring across the Site.

• Under the post-development condition, impervious surfaces are expected to cover 70% of

the Site area, which will result in an annual water volume of 2,542 m3 infiltrating to the

subsurface via the remaining onsite pervious areas and a predicted annual infiltration deficit

of 10,495 m3. However, to address this infiltration deficit, post-development infiltration

augmentation measures in the form of subsurface infiltration galleries and bioretention will be

employed across the property, which is predicted to enhance the pre-development

infiltration function of the Site. Overall, an annual infiltration surplus of 4,737 m3 is expected to

occur under the mitigated post-development condition.


Wetland Assessment

January 10, 2018


5.0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT

Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) must first

provide permission for any proposed alteration of, or interference with, a wetland to occur as

part of a land development project. The GRCA will permit development to occur within, or result

in the removal of, a naturally occurring wetland of less than 0.5 ha or an anthropogenic wetland

covering an area less than 2 ha, if the wetland is not:

1. part of a Provincially Significant Wetland

2. located within a floodplain or riparian community

3. part of a Provincially or municipally designated natural heritage feature, a significant

woodland, or hazard land

4. a bog or fen

5. fish habitat

6. significant wildlife habitat

7. confirmed habitat for a Provincially or regionally significant species as determined by the

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry or as determined by the municipality

8. part of an ecologically functional corridor or linkage between larger wetlands or natural

areas

9. part of a groundwater recharge area

10. a groundwater discharge area associated with any of the above

The hydrogeological information previously presented in this report will be used to address GRCA

Criteria 1), 9) and 10), with the remaining criteria being addressed in Stantec’s accompanying

Environmental Impact Study (Stantec, 2018a) report.

In the opinion of Stantec, the onsite wetland is a candidate for removal to accommodate

development at the Site based on the reasons presented below.


Wetland Assessment

January 10, 2018


1) The onsite wetland is not part of a Provincially Significant Wetland

As discussed in Stantec’s (2018a) Environmental Impact Study report, the onsite wetland is not

considered to be a PSW for the following reasons:

• The onsite wetland is less than 2 ha in size.

• The onsite wetland does not occur in a site district where wetlands are rare.

• The onsite wetland is not a wetland type that is not well represented in the area or in nearby

complexes.

• The onsite wetland does not sustain significant species/communities (rare or priority species

or habitat).

• The onsite wetland does not provide significant wildlife habitat including: amphibian

breeding habitat, turtle overwintering habitat, marsh breeding bird habitat, waterfowl

stopover areas.

• The onsite wetland is not a headwater contributing to watercourse baseflow.

• The onsite wetland is not a groundwater discharge feature (see discussion below).

• The onsite wetland does not provide a unique recharge function across the landscape (see

discussion below).

• There is no evidence of a hydrogeological connection between the onsite wetland and the

Halls Pond PSW Complex, given that water levels within the onsite wetland are largely

controlled by the positioning of a localized water table. In the late spring and continuing into

the winter months, the onsite wetland becomes hydraulically separated from the local

groundwater system (i.e., water table drops below the wetland substrate and, subsequently,

the feature does not receive groundwater inputs from the surrounding landscape), whereas

the adjacent Halls Pond PSW Complex remains connected to the shallow groundwater

system over the same period (refer to Section 4.2.1).

9) The onsite wetland is not a notable groundwater recharge area

Under the pre-development condition, the predicted annual volume of infiltration provided to

the shallow groundwater system by the onsite wetland only represents 5% of the total annual

volume of infiltration that occurs across the Site (refer to Section 4.2.4), noting that the

subsurface deposits found beneath the onsite wetland are also present throughout the entire

Site (i.e., the permeable soils underlying the wetland are not unique to the Site) (Figures 5 and 6,

Appendix A; Appendix C). As noted by MMM/LGL (1990), the outwash and/or kame deposits

present in the areas located immediately to the north of the Paris Moraine represent an area of

notable groundwater recharge within the watershed. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that


Wetland Assessment

January 10, 2018


the loss of recharge function associated with the onsite wetland will not detrimentally impact the

overall groundwater recharge function provided by the Site or the physiographic region (i.e.,

Paris Moraine) in which the Site resides.

10) The onsite wetland is not a groundwater discharge feature

As discussed in Section 4.2.2, weak downward vertical hydraulic gradients (i.e., recharge

condition) are largely present beneath the onsite wetland in the spring, followed by the water

table dropping below the wetland substrate (up to 5.6 m BGS by August) and remaining in that

position until the late winter. Subsequently, the onsite wetland experiences the loss of a direct

hydraulic connection to the shallow groundwater system over most of a given year (i.e., there is

no opportunity for groundwater to flow into this feature from the surrounding landscape over this

period). Consequently, the onsite wetland is not considered to function as a groundwater

discharge feature.


Conclusions

January 10, 2018


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the hydrogeological assessment, using the existing data collected at the Site and

information obtained from a background review of regional data, the following conclusions are

provided:

1. Geological conditions beneath the onsite wetland and throughout the Site consist

predominantly of ice-contact stratified deposits of silty sand and gravel to sandy gravelly silt

that extend from the existing grade to the termination depth of onsite boreholes (i.e., from

5.0 to 14.2 m BGS).

2. The water table drops below the wetland substrate in the early spring, with groundwater

levels remaining notably below the substrate into the late winter, resulting in the loss of a

direct hydraulic connection between the wetland and the shallow groundwater system over

this period (i.e., does not receive groundwater inputs from the surrounding landscape).

3. The Site lies within the boundaries of the Paris Moraine, which is understood to act as an area

of groundwater recharge. Weak downward vertical hydraulic gradients (i.e., recharge

condition) are present beneath the onsite wetland, which agrees with regional groundwater

recharge mapping presented by the GRCA (2001). As such, the onsite wetland is not a

groundwater discharge feature.

4. Over the monitoring period, the nearby Halls Pond PSW Complex maintained a connection

to the water table, whereas the onsite wetland lost its direct hydraulic connection to the

shallow groundwater system (i.e., local water table dropped and remained below the

wetland substrate), suggesting that no hydrogeological interaction likely occurs between

these two wetland features.

5. Under the pre-development condition, the predicted annual volume of infiltration provided

to the shallow groundwater system by the onsite wetland only represents 5% of the total

annual volume of infiltration that occurs across the Site, noting that the subsurface deposits

found beneath the onsite wetland are also present throughout the entire Site. Overall, the

loss of recharge function associated with the removal of the onsite wetland will not

detrimentally impact the overall groundwater recharge function provided by the Site or the

physiographic region in which the Site resides (i.e., Paris Moraine).

6. The implementation of proposed post-development infiltration augmentation measures is

expected to enhance the pre-development infiltration function of the Site, resulting in an

annual infiltration surplus of 4,737 m3.


References

January 11, 2017


7.0 REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. 2009. ASTM D2488-09a,

Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).

West Conshohocken, PA.

Banks, William D. 1993. Upper Hanlon Creek Watershed Management Strategy Hydrogeology

Report. In Volume 3: A Watershed Management Strategy for The Upper Hanlon Creek

and Its Tributaries, Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, June 1993.

Blackport Hydrogeology Inc., Blackport and Associates Ltd. and AquaResource Inc. 2009.

Review of the State of Knowledge for the Waterloo and Paris/Galt Moraines. Prepared for

Land and Water Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment. February 2009.

Brunton, F.R., 2009. Update of Revisions to the Early Silurian Stratigraphy of the Niagara

Escarpment: Integration of Sequence Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Hydrogeology to

Delineate Hydrogeologic Units. In Summary of Field Work and Other Activities 2009,

Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6240, p. 25-1 to 25-20.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario

Geological Survey Special Volume 2, 270 pp.

Gamsby and Mannerow Ltd. 1993. A Watershed Management Strategy for the Upper Hanlon

Creek and its Tributaries. June 1993.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2006. Guelph-Puslinch Groundwater Protection Study. Report to

the Grand River Conservation Authority, City of Guelph, and Township of Puslinch.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2001. Grand River Regional Groundwater Study,

Technical Report. June 2001.

Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee (LERSPC). 2015. Approved Assessment Report for

the Grand River Source Protection Area within the Lake Erie Source Protection Region.

November 25, 2015.

LVM (a division of EnGlobe Corp.). 2014. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Residential

Development, 1888 Gordon Street, Guelph, Ontario. January 14, 2014.

Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited and LGL Limited (MMM/LGL). 1990. Hanlon Creek

Watershed Study Background Report.

Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1990. Wells. Regulation under the Ontario Water Resources

Act. Regulation 903 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990.


References

January 11, 2017


Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018a. 1888 Gordon Street Environmental Impact Study. January

2018.

Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018b. Functional Servicing Report for 1888 Gordon Street, Guelph,

ON. January 2018.

V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated. 2010. Additional Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed

Residential Development, 1897 Gordon Street, City of Guelph, Ontario. December 2010.

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

_̂

BrantfordLondon Niagara

Falls

Stratford

OshawaSiteLocation

Ontario

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́"́"́ "²"²"²"²

"²"²

"²"²

"²

"²

%

*

*

%

*

*%

**

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

%

*

*

"L "L

"L

"L"L

"¹ "¹ "¹

"¹

"¹

"¹"¹

"¹

"¹

"¹

"¹

A

BA'

B'

Poppy Drive

East

Gordon Street

71572846710049 6702638

6707721

721927067026397157282

6702483

6710383

6702486

7238744

%

InfiltrationGallery 2

%


%


BH1-14

BH2-14

BH3-14

BH4-14

BH5-14

BH6-14

BH7-14

BH8-14

BH9-14

BH10-14

MW1-16S/DMW2-16S/D DP1-16S/DDP2-16S/D

DP3-16S/D

DP4-16S/D

MW5-10

MW6-10

MW1-04

TP2-17

TP1-17TP8-17

TP7-17

TP6-17

TP5-17

TP4-17

TP3-17

TP101

TP102

TP103TP104

TP105

GP1 GP4

GP2

GP3(1)GP3(2)

Client/Project

Figure No.

TitleSite Plan1

Tricar Development Inc. 1888 Gordon Street, GuelphHydrogeological Assessment

December 2017161401285

Notes

Legend

0 30 60m

1:1,500

Subject Property"¹ MOECC Water Well"́ Monitoring Well (Stantec, 2016)"² Monitoring Well (V.A. Wood Inc., 2010)"́ Borehole (LVM, 2014)

%

*

* Test Pit (Stantec, 2017)"² Drive-Point Piezometer (Stantec, 2016)

"L Guelph Permeameter (Stantec, 2017)RoadCross-Section LocationWetland - Evaluated (Provincial)Wetland - Not evaluated per OWESSite DetailInfiltration GalleryBuildingDelineated Wetland Boundary

(Stantec and GRCA, 2017)

\\cd

1004

-f01\

work_

grou

p\01

609\

activ

e\16

1401

285\

plann

ing\d

rawi

ng\M

XD\H

ydro

geolo

gy\H

ydro

G_As

sess\

1614

0128

5_HG

_Fig0

1_Sit

ePlan

.mxd

Revis

ed: 2

017-1

2-04 B

y: CC

oghla

n

±

KEY MAP

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.3. Orthoimagery Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Imagery flown in 2012.4. MOECC Water Well Records have been positioned based onpublished UTM coordinates and should be consideredapproximate.

_̂

Brantford

LondonNiagara

Falls

Stratford

Oshawa

SiteLocation

LakeHuron

LakeOntario

LakeErie

Ontario

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́�"́�"́�"́� "²"²"²"²"²"²

"²"²

"²�

"²�

"²�

Meltwater Channel

ParisMoraine

Meltwater Channel

7b

6

6

5b

6

5b

7b

7b

6

Goodw

in D

rive

FarleyDrive H

awkins D

rive

Cla

ir R

oad E

ast

Cla

irRoa

dW

est

Poppy

D

rive

East

Gordon S

treet

Halls PondWetlandComplex




BH1-14

BH2-14

BH3-14

BH4-14

BH5-14

BH6-14

BH7-14

BH8-14

BH9-14

BH10-14

MW1-16S/DMW2-16S/D

DP1-16S/DDP2-16S/D

DP3-16S/D

DP4-16S/D

MW4-10

MW5-10

MW6-10

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Surficial Geology

2

Tricar Development Inc.

1888 Gordon Street, Guelph

Hydrogeological Assessment

October 2016

161401285

Notes

Legend

0 80 160m

1:3,500

Subject Property

"́� Monitoring Well (Stantec, 2016)

"²� Monitoring Well (V.A. Wood Inc., 2010)

"́ Borehole (LVM, 2014)

"² Drive-Point Piezometer (Stantec, 2016)

Interpreted Boundaries of the Paris Moraine

Road

Wetland - Evaluated (Provincial)

Wetland - Not evaluated per OWES

Surficial Geology

7b: Glaciofluvial deposits (Gravelly deposits)

6: Ice-contact stratified deposits

5b: Stone-poor, carbonate-derived silty to

sandy till (Wentworth Till)

\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig02_SurficialGeology.m

xd

Revised: 2016-10-21 By: pmoser

±

KEY MAP

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.

3. Ontario Geological Survey 2010. Surficial geology of Southern

Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release--Data 128-

REV ISBN 978-1-4435-2483-4

_̂

Brantford

LondonNiagara

Falls

Stratford

Oshawa

SiteLocation

LakeHuron

LakeOntario

LakeErie

Ontario

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́�"́�"́�"́� "²"²"²"²"²"²

"²"²

"²�

"²�

"²�

Goodw

in D

rive

FarleyDrive H

awkins D

rive

Cla

ir R

oad E

ast

Cla

irRoa

dW

est

Poppy

D

rive

East

Gordon S

treet





3543

50

34834

6

340

344

342

338

334

352

348

340

338

340

338

354

352

35

0

348

346

356

354

352

350

348

34

4

34

2

346

342

346

34

4

350

348

350

348

350

34

8

34

8

34

6

348

346

346344

346344

342

340

344

342

34834

6

34

6

34

4

344

342

344

342

344

342

34

2

34

0

342

340

342

340

336

334

344

34

2

356

350

34

6

342

354

352

34

6348

346

354

35

2

350

352

350

348348

346 346

348

348

348

344

346

346

346

346

344

344

342

344

34

4

342

344

344

342

342

342

342

342

342

340

338

338

338

334

334

344

342

334

BH1-14

BH2-14

BH3-14

BH4-14

BH5-14

BH6-14

BH7-14

BH8-14

BH9-14

BH10-14

MW1-16S/DMW2-16S/D

DP1-16S/DDP2-16S/D

DP3-16S/D

DP4-16S/D

MW4-10

MW5-10

MW6-10

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Topography

3




October 2016

161401285

Notes

Legend

0 80 160m

1:3,500

Subject Property

"́� Monitoring Well (Stantec, 2016)

"²� Monitoring Well (V.A. Wood Inc., 2010)

"́ Borehole (LVM, 2014)

"² Drive-Point Piezometer (Stantec, 2016)

Topographic Contour (mAMSL) - 2m Interval

Road

Wetland - Evaluated (Provincial)

Wetland - Not evaluated per OWES

\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig03_Topography.m

xd


±

KEY MAP

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.

3. Topography derived from the Southwestern Ontario

Orthophotography Project (2010) - Digital Elevation Model © Queen’s

Printer for Ontario, 2010.

Ground Surface Elevation (mAMSL)

359

353

347

342

336

330

Client/ProjectTricar Developments Inc.1888 Gordon StreetHydrogeological Assessment

Figure No.4

Title HYDROGRAPHSMW1-16(S/D), MW2-16(S/D) and DP1-15(S/D) to DP4-15(S/D)

337338339340341342343344345346347

16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17

Gro

und

wa

ter E

leva

tion

(m

AM

SL)

MW1-16(S) - Levelogger MW1-16(S) - Manual MW1-16(D) - Levelogger MW1-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Temp

erature (deg. C

elsius)To

tal P

reci

pita

tion

(mm

)

London Climate Station

Precipitation Mean Daily Air Temperature Zero Degrees Celsius

337338339340341342343344345346347


Gro

und

wa

ter E

leva

tion

(m

AM

SL)

MW2-16(S) - Levelogger MW2-16(S) - Manual MW2-15(D) - Levelogger MW2-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface

MW1-16(S/D)

MW2-16(S/D)

338339340341342343344345346347


Gro

und

wa

ter E

leva

tion

(m

AM

SL)

DP1-16(S) - Levelogger DP1-16(S) - Manual DP1-16(D) - Levelogger DP1-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface

DP1-16(S/D)

338339340341342343344345346347


Gro

und

wa

ter E

leva

tion

(m A

MSL

)

DP2-16(S) - Levelogger DP2-16(S) - Manual DP2-16(D) - Levelogger DP2-16(D) - Manual Surface Water Ground Surface

DP2-16(S/D)

338339340341342343344345346347


Gro

und

wa

ter E

leva

tion

(m

AM

SL)

DP3-16(S) - Levelogger DP3-16(S) - Manual DP3-16(D) - Levelogger DP3-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface

DP3-16(S/D)

DRY

DRYDRY

DRY

DRY

342

343

344

345

346

347

16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17Gro

und

wa

ter E

leva

tion

(m A

MSL

)

DP4-16(S) - Levelogger DP4-16(S) - Manual DP4-16(D) - Levelogger DP4-16(D) - Manual Surface Water Ground Surface

DP4-16(S/D)

DRY DRY

DRY

DRY DRY

DRYDRY

DRY

DRY DRY

DRY

Water level dropped below base of the shallow piezometer pipe from May 23, 2016 to February 25, 2017

Water level dropped below base of deep piezometer pipe from May 18, 2016 to February 24, 2017

Water level dropped below base of shallow piezometer pipe from May 16, 2016 to March 1, 2017

DRY DRY

Water level dropped below base of the shallow monitoring well (S) from May 23, 2016 to February 24, 2017

Water level dropped below base of the shallow monitoring well (S) from May 17, 2016 to February 28, 2017

b

b

bJ

#*

bJ

#*

bbb J

#*

J

#*J

#*

E

TOPSOIL

CLAYEY SILT FILL

SAND &GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND& GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SANDY SILT

SILTY SAND& GRAVEL

SANDYGRAVELLY SILT

SAND & GRAVEL

SILTY SAND

& GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

SAND & GRAVEL (FILL)

SAND &GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

SILTFILL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILTY SAND& GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

SAND &GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND

& GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND

& GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND& GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND& GRAVEL

SANDYSILT

SILTY SAND

& GRAVEL

SILTYSAND

SANDY GRAVELLYSILT

SAND

SILTY SANDSAND

May 2016

August 2016

Go

rdo

n S

tre

et

BH

1-1

4 (

OS

0 m

)

BH

2-1

4 (

OS

41

m)

BH

5-1

4 (

OS

41

m)

BH

7-1

4 (

OS

7 m

)

MW

1-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 0

m)

MW

2-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 0

m)

DP

1-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 0

m)

DP

2-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 0

m)

DP

3-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 2

7 m

)

BH

5-1

0 (

OS

0 m

)

324 324

326 326

328 328

330 330

332 332

334 334

336 336

338 338

340 340

342 342

344 344

346 346

348 348

350 350

352 352

354 354

356 356

358 358

360 360

362 362

Legend

October 2016

161401285

Client/Project




Figure No.

5Title

Cross-Section A-A'

0 20 40m

\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig05_xsecAA.mxd


MOECC water well groundwater elevations obtained

at time of their installation.

Groundwater elevations measured in MW1-16(S/D),

MW2-16(S/D), DP1-16(S/D) to DP3-16(S/D) by

Stantec on May 5, 2016.

Interpreted water table elevation shown for August 2016

based on groundwater levels measured in MW1-16 (S/D)

and MW2-16 (S/D) on August 9, 2016.

Groundwater elevation measured in BH5-10 by V.A. Wood

on December 10, 2010.

Notes1.

2.

3.

4.

4x Vertical Exaggeration

Elevation (mAMSL)

Elevation (m

AMSL)

A

WEST

A'

EAST

1:750

Interpreted Groundwater Table (May 2016)

Interpreted Groundwater Table (August 2016)

Ice-Contact Stratified Deposits

(Sand and Gravel with Sand and Silt Lenses)

Fill (Sand, Gravel and/or Silt)

Sand

2807874 (OS m)

Well ID (Offset)

Stratigraphy

Groundwater Level (Shallow Pipe)Surface

Water

Level J

#*

b

b

Groundwater Level (Deep Pipe)

Well Screen

bbJ

#*

bJ

#*

bb b

b

J

#*

J

#* J

#* J

#*

E EE E

August 2016

May 2016

Halls Pond Wetland Complex1888 Gordon Street

TOPSOIL

CLAYEYSILT FILL

SAND &GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND& GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND& GRAVEL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILT, SAND& GRAVEL

67

02

63

9 (

OS

6 m

)

BH

1-1

4 (

OS

13

m)

BH

5-1

4 (

OS

32

m)

BH

7-1

4 (

OS

11

m)

MW

1-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 1

9 m

)

MW

2- 1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 0

m)

DP

1-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 2

3 m

)

DP

2-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 1

0 m

)

DP

3-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 1

4 m

)

DP

4-1

6 (

S/D

) (O

S 0

m)

PREVIOUSLYDUG

CLAY,BOULDERS

CLAY,MEDIUMSAND

TOPSOIL

SILTFILL

SAND &GRAVEL

SILTY SAND& GRAVEL

SANDYSILT

SILTY SAND& GRAVEL

SANDYGRAVELLY SILT

SAND & GRAVEL

SILTY SAND& GRAVEL

SANDYSILT

SILTY SAND& GRAVEL

SILTYSAND

SANDYGRAVELLY

SILT

SAND

SILTY SANDSAND

322 322

324 324

326 326

328 328

330 330

332 332

334 334

336 336

338 338

340 340

342 342

344 344

346 346

348 348

350 350

352 352

354 354

356 356

358 358

360 360

October 2016

161401285

Client/Project




Figure No.

6Title

Cross-Section B-B'

0 20 40m

\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig06_xsecBB.mxd


MOECC water well groundwater elevations obtained

at time of their installation.

Groundwater elevations measured in MW1-16(S/D)

MW2-16(S/D) and DP1-16(S/D) to DP4-16(S/D)

by Stantec on May 5, 2016.

Interpreted water table elevation shown for August 2016

based on groundwater levels measured in MW1-16 (S/D)

and MW2-16 (S/D) on August 9, 2016.

Notes1.

2.

3.

4x Vertical Exaggeration

Elevation (mAMSL)

Elevation (m

AMSL)

B

NORTHWEST

B'

SOUTHEAST

1:750

Legend

Interpreted Groundwater Table (May

Interpreted Groundwater Table (August 2016)

Ice-Contact Stratified Deposits

(Sand and Gravel with Sand and Silt Lenses)

Fill (Sand, Gravel and/or Silt)

Sand

2807874 (OS m)

Well ID (Offset)

Stratigraphy

Groundwater Level (Shallow Pipe)

J

#*

b

b

Groundwater Level (Deep Pipe)

Well Screen

Surface

Water

Level

APPENDIX B: TABLES

TABLE 1WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Well Well Screened Northing Easting Top of Ground Well Well Depth Base Material Description (a)

Casing Surface Stick-up Depth Elevation(m AMSL) (m AMSL) (m) (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (m AMSL)

4816479 565890 347.50 346.68 0.82 4.75 3.93 342.75 2.41 344.27 3.93 342.75 Silty SAND / Sandy Gravelly SILT4816479 565891 347.53 346.75 0.78 8.97 8.19 338.56 6.67 340.08 8.19 338.56 Silty SAND and GRAVEL4816479 565852 347.28 346.69 0.59 4.67 4.08 342.61 2.56 344.13 4.08 342.61 Silty SAND / Sandy Gravelly SILT4816478 565851 347.46 346.75 0.71 8.99 8.28 338.47 6.76 339.99 8.28 338.47 SAND / Silty SAND

Stantec Drive-Point Piezometers4816467 565903 345.46 344.15 1.31 2.64 1.33 342.82 0.91 343.24 1.33 342.82 -4816468 565903 345.55 344.15 1.40 3.56 2.16 341.99 1.74 342.41 2.16 341.99 -4816476 565863 345.41 344.04 1.37 2.64 1.27 342.77 0.85 343.19 1.27 342.77 -4816476 565863 345.50 344.04 1.46 3.56 2.10 341.94 1.68 342.36 2.10 341.94 -4816438 565877 345.27 344.17 1.10 1.70 0.60 343.57 0.18 343.99 0.60 343.57 -4816438 565877 345.42 344.17 1.25 2.64 1.39 342.78 0.97 343.20 1.39 342.78 -4816397 566036 345.57 344.70 0.87 1.70 0.83 343.87 0.41 344.29 0.83 343.87 -4816397 566036 345.74 344.70 1.04 2.64 1.60 343.10 1.18 343.52 1.60 343.10 -

Notes: (a) Refer to Appendix C for borehole and well construction logs

m AMSL = meters above mean sea levelm BGS = meters below ground surface

m BTOC = meters below top of well casing - = data not available

DP4-16(D)

MW2-16(D)MW2-16(S)

Well ID

DP4-16(S)

DP1-16(S)DP1-16(D)DP2-16(S)DP2-16(D)DP3-16(S)DP3-16(D)

UTM Coordinates Elevations

Stantec Monitoring WellsMW1-16(S)MW1-16(D)

Screened IntervalTop Bottom

Elevation Elevation

TABLE 2GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA - MONITORING WELLS

Well ID Date Time Screen Length

Screen Separation (1)

Top of Casing Elevation(m AMSL)

Ground Surface

Elevation(m AMSL)

Pipe Stick-up

(m)

Vertical Hydraulic Gradient (3)

(+) = UpwardNorthing Easting (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (m) (m) (-) = Downward

MW1-16(S) 4816479 565890 20-Apr-16 2:59 PM 4.75 3.93 343.57 1.52 347.50 346.68 0.82 1.57 2.39 345.115-May-16 11:10 AM 1.85 2.67 344.8327-Jun-16 1:39 PM - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:29 AM - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:13 PM 1.76 2.58 344.9222-Aug-17 8:24 AM - DRY -

MW1-16(D) 4816479 565891 20-Apr-16 3:02 PM 8.97 8.19 339.34 1.52 2.74 347.53 346.75 0.78 1.67 2.45 345.08 -0.015-May-16 11:12 AM 1.95 2.73 344.80 -0.0127-Jun-16 1:38 PM - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:29 AM - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:14 PM 1.76 2.54 344.99 0.0322-Aug-17 8:25 AM - DRY - -

MW2-16(S) 4816479 565852 20-Apr-16 2:06 PM 4.67 4.08 343.20 1.52 347.28 346.69 0.59 1.85 2.44 344.845-May-16 10:49 AM 2.31 2.90 344.3827-Jun-16 1:16 PM - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:34 AM - DRY -17-Apr-17 2:54 PM 2.06 2.65 344.6322-Aug-17 8:05 AM - DRY -

MW2-16(D) 4816478 565851 20-Apr-16 2:02 PM 8.99 8.28 339.18 1.52 2.68 347.46 346.75 0.71 3.14 3.85 343.61 -0.465-May-16 10:51 AM 3.74 4.45 343.01 -0.5127-Jun-16 1:15 PM - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:34 AM - DRY - -17-Apr-17 2:53 PM 3.45 4.16 343.30 -0.5022-Aug-17 8:04 AM - DRY - -

Notes:(1) Distance between the top of the screen in the deep well and the bottom of screen in the shallow well.(2) A negative value indicates that the water level measured within the pipe is located above ground surface(3) Negative and positive values indicate downward and upward gradients, respectively.

m BGS = meters below ground surfacem BTOC = meters below top of casingDRY = no groundwater or surface water was observed in the piezometer or watercourse, respectively

UTM Coordinates Well Depth Groundwater Level

(m BGS) (2) (m BTOC) (m AMSL)

TABLE 3GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA - DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETERS

Piezometer Screen Screen Pipe Ground Top of Date Time Vertical HydraulicID Length Separation (1) Stick-up Surface Casing Gradient(4)

Elevation Elevation(+) = Upward

Northing Easting (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m) (m) (m) (m AMSL) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (2) (m BTOC) (m AMSL) (m BTOC) (3) (m AMSL) (-) = Downward

DP1-16(S) 4816467 565903 2.64 1.33 0.42 1.31 344.15 345.46 5-May-16 11:47 AM -0.62 0.69 344.77 0.57 344.8927-Jun-16 12:16 PM - DRY - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:26 AM - DRY - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:26 PM -0.90 0.41 345.05 0.43 345.0322-Aug-17 8:14 AM - DRY - DRY -

DP1-16(D) 4816468 565903 3.56 2.16 0.42 0.83 1.40 344.15 345.55 5-May-16 11:50 AM -0.78 0.62 344.93 0.64 344.91 0.1927-Jun-16 12:10 PM - DRY - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:26 AM - DRY - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:26 PM -0.90 0.50 345.05 0.51 345.04 0.0022-Aug-17 8:14 AM - DRY - DRY - -

DP2-16(S) 4816476 565863 2.64 1.27 0.42 1.37 344.04 345.41 5-May-16 1:11 PM -0.83 0.54 344.87 0.50 344.9127-Jun-16 12:34 PM - DRY - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:22 AM - DRY - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:06 PM -1.11 0.26 345.15 0.37 345.0422-Aug-17 8:11 AM - DRY - DRY -

DP2-16(D) 4816476 565863 3.56 2.10 0.42 0.83 1.46 344.04 345.50 5-May-16 1:12 PM -0.84 0.62 344.88 0.61 344.89 0.0127-Jun-16 12:31 PM - DRY - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:22 AM - DRY - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:06 PM -0.94 0.52 344.98 0.47 345.03 -0.2022-Aug-17 8:10 AM - DRY - DRY - -

DP3-16(S) 4816438 565877 1.70 0.60 0.42 1.10 344.17 345.27 5-May-16 1:49 PM -0.62 0.48 344.79 0.35 344.9227-Jun-16 1:15 PM - DRY - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:18 AM - DRY - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:40 PM -0.81 0.29 344.98 0.33 344.9422-Aug-17 8:16 AM - DRY - DRY -

DP3-16(D) 4816438 565877 2.64 1.39 0.42 0.79 1.25 344.17 345.42 5-May-16 1:20 PM -0.97 0.28 345.14 0.47 344.95 0.4427-Jun-16 1:00 PM - DRY - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:18 AM - DRY - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:40 PM - - - - - -22-Aug-17 8:15 AM - DRY - DRY - -

UTM Coordinates Total Depth Groundwater Level Surface WaterLevel

TABLE 3GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA - DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETERS

Piezometer Screen Screen Pipe Ground Top of Date Time Vertical HydraulicID Length Separation (1) Stick-up Surface Casing Gradient(4)

Elevation Elevation(+) = Upward

Northing Easting (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m) (m) (m) (m AMSL) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (2) (m BTOC) (m AMSL) (m BTOC) (3) (m AMSL) (-) = Downward

UTM Coordinates Total Depth Groundwater Level Surface WaterLevel

DP4-16(S) 4816397 566036 1.70 0.66 0.42 0.87 344.70 345.57 5-May-16 2:10 PM -0.55 0.32 345.25 0.37 345.2027-Jun-16 11:26 AM -0.33 0.54 345.03 0.54 345.039-Aug-16 9:56 AM -0.11 0.76 344.81 0.75 344.8217-Apr-17 2:40 PM -0.70 0.17 345.40 0.21 345.3622-Aug-17 8:31 AM -0.35 0.52 345.05 0.53 345.04

DP4-16(D) 4816397 566036 2.64 1.60 0.42 0.94 1.04 344.70 345.74 5-May-16 2:10 PM -0.64 0.40 345.34 0.45 345.29 0.1127-Jun-16 11:26 AM -0.38 0.66 345.08 0.66 345.08 0.069-Aug-16 9:56 AM -0.15 0.89 344.85 0.89 344.85 0.0517-Apr-17 2:40 PM -0.68 0.36 345.38 0.37 345.37 -0.0322-Aug-17 8:31 AM -0.35 0.69 345.05 0.71 345.03 0.00

Notes:(1) Distance between the mid-point of the screened intervals of the shallow and deep piezometer.(2) A negative value indicates that the water level measured within the pipe is located above ground surface(3) A negative value indicates that the surface water level is above the top of the piezometer(4) Vertical hydraulic gradient between the surface water feature substrate and the piezometer screened interval.

m BGS = meters below ground surfacem BTOC = meters below top of casingDRY = no groundwater or surface water was observed in the piezometer or surface water feature, respectively

TABLE 4INFILTRATION TESTING RESULTS

Infiltration Soil Substrate TestedRate (2)

(cm/s) (m/s) (mm/hr) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (3)

Infiltration Gallery 1 (projected base elevation of 344.50 m AMSL)3.3E-04 3.3E-06 64 2.5 344.00 FILL: Silty SAND, trace gravel and bounders, bricks, glass, rebar

TP101-17 (Test 1) 1.0E-04 1.0E-06 47 2.2 344.30 Silty Fine SAND (FILL)TP101-17 (Test 2) 7.0E-04 7.0E-06 78 2.2 344.30 Silty Fine SAND (FILL)TP101-17 (Test 3) 7.5E-05 7.5E-07 43 2.2 344.30 Silty Fine SAND (FILL)TP102-17 (Test 1) 9.0E-03 9.0E-05 154 2.2 344.30 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 2) 1.4E-02 1.4E-04 172 2.2 344.30 Gravelly Fine SAND

Geomean = 7.8E-04 7.8E-06 80TP101-17 (Test 1) 1.9E-04 1.9E-06 55 3.7 342.80 Gravelly Fine SANDTP101-17 (Test 2) 4.7E-05 4.7E-07 38 3.7 342.80 Gravelly Fine SANDTP101-17 (Test 3) 1.1E-04 1.1E-06 47 3.7 342.80 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 1) 5.3E-03 5.3E-05 134 3.4 343.10 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 2) 5.4E-04 5.4E-06 73 3.8 342.70 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 3) 3.6E-04 3.6E-06 65 3.5 343.00 Gravelly Fine SAND

Geomean = 3.2E-04 3.2E-06 63Infiltration Gallery 2 (projected base elevation of 347.50 m AMSL) GP1 3.9E-05 3.9E-07 36 0.5 346.23 Silty Fine SAND, some cobblesGP2 4.7E-04 4.7E-06 69 0.4 346.32 Silty SAND with gravel (TILL)GP3(1) 7.3E-05 7.3E-07 42 0.5 347.47 Silty Fine SAND with gravel (TILL)GP3(2) 2.5E-03 2.5E-05 109 0.2 347.77 Silty SAND and COBBLESGP4 2.4E-04 2.4E-06 58 0.6 343.53 Silty Fine SAND with gravel (TILL)Infiltration Gallery 3 (projected base elevation of 347.10 m AMSL)TP103-17 (Test 1) 5.5E-05 5.5E-07 39 3.5 347.00 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP103-17 (Test 2) 1.4E-04 1.4E-06 51 3.5 347.00 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP103-17 (Test 3) 4.5E-04 4.5E-06 69 3.5 347.00 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP104-17 (Test 1) 6.3E-03 6.3E-05 140 3.8 346.70 Silty SAND with gravelTP105-17 (Test 1) 2.6E-03 2.6E-05 111 3.6 346.90 Silty SAND and COBBLESTP105-17 (Test 2) 1.6E-03 1.6E-05 97 3.6 346.90 Silty SAND and COBBLES

Geomean = 6.7E-04 6.7E-06 77TP103-17 (Test 1) 6.7E-04 6.7E-06 42 4.9 345.60 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP103-17 (Test 2) 2.0E-05 2.0E-07 30 4.9 345.60 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP104-17 (Test 1) 2.7E-05 2.7E-07 33 4.9 345.60 Silty SAND and CLAYTP104-17 (Test 2) 6.5E-05 6.5E-07 41 5.0 345.50 Silty SAND and CLAYTP105-17 (Test 1) 1.3E-03 1.3E-05 91 5.0 345.50 Silty SAND and COBBLESTP105-17 (Test 2) 7.4E-04 7.4E-06 79 5.1 345.40 Silty SAND and COBBLES

Geomean = 1.7E-04 1.7E-06 53Other Onsite Testing Locations

6.5E-03 6.5E-05 142 1.0 344.50 Silty SAND, some gravel8.1E-03 8.1E-05 150 2.5 343.50 Fine SAND, trace gravel and boulders

TP4-17 3.4E-05 3.4E-07 35 2.0 347.50 Sandy SILT, trace gravelTP5-17 1.8E-03 1.8E-05 100 1.5 347.50 SAND, trace gravelTP7-17 8.3E-04 8.3E-06 81 2.0 344.00 Fine SAND, some silt, trace gravel and bouldersTP8-17 1.7E-04 1.7E-06 53 1.0 345.20 Silty SAND, trace gravel and boulders

Notes:(1) As per Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation (2010) Low Impact Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guideline - Version 1.0,

a minimum of two test pits are required for excavation in the proposed infiltration gallery area, or within 10 m of this area, for galleries sized between 50 and 900 m2.

Testing the infiltration potential of soils within this area is to occur at the gallery base elevation and within 1.5 m below this elevation.(2) Infiltration rate calculated based on established relationship between vertical hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate presented in Credit

Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation (2010) Low Impact Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guideline - Version 1.0, (3) Estimated based on available topographic mapping.

Testing DepthVertical Hydraulic Location ID (1) Conductivity

TP2-17TP3-17

Testing

TP1-17

APPENDIX C: BOREHOLE LOGS

Ground SurfaceSANDY SILTfirm, dark brown, trace organic material, moistSILTY SAND AND GRAVELloose, brown (10 yr 5/3), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, sub-angular to sub-rounded, moist, well graded/poorly sorted

compact

SANDY GRAVELLY SILTstiff, brown (10yr 5/3), fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, sub-angular to subrounded, moist

moist to wet at 3.8 mSAND AND GRAVELcompact, brown, some silt, moist to wet, poorly sorted

SILTY SAND AND GRAVELcompact, brown (10ys 5/3), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subangular to sub rounded, moist

alternating layers of sand/silty sand and gravel

sand layers at 5.31, 5.94, 6.86, 7.62 mthickness (0.10 - 0.28 m)

silty sand and gravel at 4.75, 5.41, 6.22, 6.99, 7.87 mthickness (0.53 - 0.64 m)

End of Borehole

347.53

346.750.00

346.620.13

343.703.05

342.843.91

342.184.57

338.528.23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12" 50%

3" 13%

15" 63%

4" 17%

14" 58%

9" 38%

11" 46%

9" 38%

12" 50%

9" 38%

13" 54%

2-3-3-3(6)

1-2-2-1(4)

1-2-2-3(4)

4-5-9-6(14)

3-5-6-8(11)

5-10-13-8(23)

3-5-7-4(12)

4-6-6-6(12)

5-7-22-18(29)

2-5-3-4(8)

2-3-5-3(8)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Above groundcasing.

203 mm diameterborehole.

Water Level2.48 m BTOC20-Apr-2016.

HydratedBentonite holeplug0 to 5.8 m.

No. 03 Silica sand 5.8 to 8.2 m.

No. 10 slotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter6.7 to 8.2 m.

Above groundcasing.


HydratedBentonite holeplug0 to 2.1 m.Water Level2.42 m BTOC20-Apr-2016.

No. 03 silica sand2.1 m to 3.9 m.

No.10 slotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter2.4 to 3.9 m.

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment


Guelph, ON

161401285

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacem BTOC - metres below top of casingSS - split-spoon samplen/a - not available/applicable

Monitoring Well: MW1-16 (S/D)

Depth

Screen Interval:Sand Pack Interval:Well Seal Interval:

6.70 - 8.23; 2.44 - 3.96 m BGS5.79 - 8.23 m BGS0.00 - 2.13 m BGS

Field Investigator:

Contractor:

Drilling method:

Date started/completed:

Angela Mason

Aardvark Drilling Inc. Paul/Tyler

Track Mount CME 75 203 mm OD HSA

04-Apr-2016

Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/GW

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

Graphic Log

(ft)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Lithologic Description

ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL -

MA

ST

ER

17X

11 1

614

012

85_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_E

NV

S_C

A_1

4072

5.G

DT

8/2

2/16

CY

DA

VIS

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

ampl

eN

umbe

r

Rec

over

y

N V

alue

Sam

ple

Typ

e

SAMPLE DETAILS WELL DETAILS

Name: MW1-16(S)GS Elev: 346.68 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.50 m AMSLEasting: 565890Northing: 4816479Stick-up: 0.82 m

Name: MW1-16(D)GS Elev: 346.75 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.53 m AMSLEasting: 565891Northing: 4816479Stick-up: 0.78 m

Ground SurfaceSANDY SILTfirm, dark brown (10 yr 3/3), trace organics, frozen to moist

SILTY SAND AND GRAVELloose, brown (10 yr 4/3), well graded sand and gravel, subangular to subrounded, moist

SILTY SANDloose, yellowish brown (10 yr 5/4), fine grained, some fine to coarse gravel, subangular, moist to wet

SANDY GRAVELLY SILTsoft to firm, yellowish brown (10 yr 5/4), fine sand, little to some medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subangular to subrounded, moist to wet

very stiff

SANDloose to compact, fine to medium sand, wet

SILTY SANDcompact, fine sand, little medium to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, wet

SANDfine grained, dry, homogenousEnd of Borehole

347.46

346.750.00

346.140.61

344.462.29

343.703.05

340.046.71

339.137.62

338.648.11

338.458.30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

15" 63%

10" 42%

3" 13%

8" 33%

15" 63%

15" 63%

17" 71%

9" 38%

8" 33%

4" 17%

14" 52%

1-2-6-6(8)

1-1-2-1(3)

2-2-2-3(4)

1-1-1-1(2)

0-1-2-4(3)

1-1-6-8(7)

2-5-6-5(11)

5-17-12-10(29)

3-5-12-8(17)

2-4-6-7(10)

3-9-13-16(22)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Above groundcasing.



Water level3.81 m BTOC 20-Apr-2016.

No. 03 sand5.8 to 8.3 m.

No. 10 SlotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter6.8 to 8.3 m.

Above groundcasing.



No.03 silica sand2.1 to 4.1 m.

Water Level2.99 m BTOC20-Apr-2016.No.10 slotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter2.6 to 4.1 m.

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:



Guelph, ON

161401285

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacem BTOC - metres below top of casingSS - split-spoon samplen/a - not available/applicable

Monitoring Well: MW2-16 (S/D)

Depth

Screen Interval:Sand Pack Interval:Well Seal Interval:

6.80 - 8.30; 2.60 - 4.10 m BGS5.79 - 8.30 m BGS0.00 - 2.13 m BGS

Field Investigator:

Contractor:

Drilling method:


Ryan Dong

Aardvark Drilling Inc. Paul/Tyler

Track Mount CME 75 203 mm OD HSA

05-Apr-2016

Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/GW

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

Graphic Log

(ft)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL -

MA

ST

ER

17X

11 1

614

012

85_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_E

NV

S_C

A_1

4072

5.G

DT

8/2

2/16

CY

DA

VIS

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

ampl

eN

umbe

r

Rec

over

y

N V

alue

Sam

ple

Typ

e

SAMPLE DETAILS WELL DETAILS

Name: MW2-16 (S)GS Elev: 346.69 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.28 m AMSLEasting: 565852Northing: 4816479Stick-up: 0.59 m

Name: MW2-16 (D)GS Elev: 346.75 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.46 m AMSLEasting: 565851Northing: 4816478Stick-up: 0.71 m

Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND FILLdark brown (10 YR 3/3), fine sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles and boulders, moist

GRAVELLY SANDloose, dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4), fine sand, some medium to coarse sand, trace to some cobbles and boulders, moist

End of Test Pit

0.00

3.40

3.80

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

Test Pit: TP101-17



Guelph, ON

161401285

Ryan Dong

Lockhart Excavation

Drilling method:


Ground surface elevation:

Top of casing elevation:

Easting:

Northing:

John Deere 200 DLC

16-Nov-2017

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available

Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/

ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL V

2 1

6140

128

5_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

ST

AN

TE

C -

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

1/9

/18

HB

LUM

EN

TH

AL

Depth(m BGS)

Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILloose, very dark brown (10 YR 2/2), organics, roots, grass, moist

GRAVELLY SANDloose, dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4), fine sand, some medium to coarse sand, trace to some cobbles and boulders, moist

End of Test Pit

0.00

0.38

3.30

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

Test Pit: TP102-17



Guelph, ON

161401285

Ryan Dong

Lockhart Excavation

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

John Deere 200 DLC

16-Nov-2017

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL V

2 1

6140

128

5_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

ST

AN

TE

C -

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

1/9

/18

HB

LUM

EN

TH

AL

Depth(m BGS)

Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILdark browmn (10 YR 3/3), some coarse gravel, organicsSILTY SAND WITH GRAVELyellowish brown (10 YR 5/2), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, some cobbles, sub-angular, trace boulders, trace organics throughout

End of Test Pit

0.000.15

6.00

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

Test Pit: TP103-17



Guelph, ON

161401285

A.Healey

Lockhart Excavation

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

John Deere 200 DLC

16-Nov-2017

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL V

2 1

6140

128

5_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

ST

AN

TE

C -

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

1/9

/18

HB

LUM

EN

TH

AL

Depth(m BGS)

Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILdark brown (10 YR 3/3)SILTY SAND WITH GRAVELbrown (10 YR 5/3), fine to coarse gravel, cobbles, sub-angular

clay content increasing, in pockets, some oxidation

SILTY SAND AND CLAYbrown (10 YR 5/3)

seams of fine to medium sand, 5.5 to 6.0 m

End of Test Pit

0.00

0.20

4.70

6.00

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

Test Pit: TP104-17



Guelph, ON

161401285

A.Healey

Lockhart Excavation

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

John Deere 200 DLC

17-Nov-2017

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL V

2 1

6140

128

5_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

ST

AN

TE

C -

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

1/9

/18

HB

LUM

EN

TH

AL

Depth(m BGS)

Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILdark brown (10 YR 3/3), topsoil horizon varies from 0.15 to 1.52 m (angled horizon)

SILTY SAND AND COBBLESbrown (10 YR 3/3), fine to coarse gravel, cobbles

End of Test Pit

0.00

1.83

4.70

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

Test Pit: TP105-17



Guelph, ON

161401285

A.Healey

Lockhart Excavation

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

John Deere 200 DLC

17-Nov-2017

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OL

E A

ND

WE

LL V

2 1

6140

128

5_B

OR

EH

OL

ELO

GS

_CD

_201

6041

9.G

PJ

ST

AN

TE

C -

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

1/9

/18

HB

LUM

EN

TH

AL

Depth(m BGS)

APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX

D TITLE

Site Photographs PAGE

1 of 2 gw w:\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\final\appendices\appendix_d_photos\appendix_d_site_photographs_1888.gordon.street.docx

Photo 1. Looking northeast towards wetland piezometer DP1-16(S/D) – May 5, 2016.

Photo 2. Looking southeast towards wetland piezometer DP2-16(S/D) – May 5, 2016. Note that the wetland piezometer is constructed at the base of slope and is not visible in the photo.

DP1-16(S/D)

DP2-16(S/D)

APPENDIX

D TITLE

Site Photographs PAGE

2 of 2 gw w:\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\final\appendices\appendix_d_photos\appendix_d_site_photographs_1888.gordon.street.docx

Photo 3. Looking northeast towards wetland piezometer DP3-16(S/D) – May 5, 2016. Note that the view of the wetland piezometer is obstructed by the vegetation cover and is subsequently not visible in the photo.

Photo 4. Interior of the onsite wetland (note absence of any standing water) – June 8, 2016.

APPENDIX E: UPPER HANLON CREEK WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY HYDROGEOLOGY REPORT: FIGURE NO. 6.6.1 – GROUNDWATER

CONTOURS (WATER TABLE)

APPENDIX F

DESIGN INFILTRATION

RATE CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX F - DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE CALCULATIONS

Infiltration Gallery 1Calculated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivities (m/s) Geomean Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)

Base (2.0-2.2 m BGS) 3.3E-06 1.0E-06 7.0E-06 7.5E-07 9.0E-05 1.4E-04 7.8E-06 80~1.5 m below Base 1.9E-06 4.7E-07 1.1E-06 5.4E-06 3.6E-06 5.3E-05 3.2E-06 63Ratio (Base / 1.5 m) 1.3Safety Factor 3.5

23


Base (0 m BGS) 7.3E-07 2.5E-05 4.3E-06 69~1.5 m below Base 3.9E-07 4.7E-06 1.4E-06 51Ratio (Base / 1.5 m) 1.4Safety Factor 3.5

20


Base (3.3-3.6 m BGS) 5.5E-07 1.4E-06 6.3E-05 2.6E-05 1.6E-05 4.5E-06 6.7E-06 77~1.5 m below Base 6.7E-06 6.5E-07 2.7E-07 1.3E-05 2.0E-07 7.4E-06 1.7E-06 53Ratio (Base / 1.5 m) 1.5Safety Factor 3.5

22

Design Infiltration Rate



Hydrogeological Assessment, 1888 Gordon Street, …...Hydrogeological Assessment, 1888 Gordon...

Documents

Transcript of Hydrogeological Assessment, 1888 Gordon Street, …...Hydrogeological Assessment, 1888 Gordon...