HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological...
Transcript of HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological...
![Page 1: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS
PROPOSED ERWIN SOUTH PIT
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession (Formerly West Oxford Township)
Township of South-West Oxford, County of Oxford, Ontario
JOHNSTON BROS. (BOTHWELL) LIMITED
Prepared for: Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited
21220 Johnston Line, RR1, Wardsville, Ontario
N0L 2N0
Prepared by:Novaterra Environmental Ltd.
39 Winship Close London, Ontario
N6C 5M8
October 11, 2016
![Page 2: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS
PROPOSED ERWIN SOUTH PIT
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession (Formerly West Oxford Township) Township of South-West Oxford, County of Oxford, Ontario
JOHNSTON BROS. (BOTHWELL) LIMITED
Prepared for: Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited
21220 Johnston Line, RR1, Wardsville, Ontario
N0L 2N0
Prepared by:
Novaterra Environmental Ltd. 39 Winship Close London, Ontario
N6C 5M8
October 11, 2016
______________________________ Cover page photograph: Aerial photograph showing the Site and surrounding area, obtained from
Google Earth. Imagery date: September 27, 2013. Eye altitude 2.43 km.
![Page 3: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................11.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 11.2 Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................. 11.3 The Current Use of the Site ............................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE PHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................................................22.1 Location .......................................................................................................................... 22.2 Site Description ............................................................................................................... 22.3 Topography and Drainage ............................................................................................... 22.4 Natural Heritage Features ............................................................................................... 32.5 Adjacent Land Use .......................................................................................................... 32.6 Field Investigation and Instrumentation ......................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................................43.1 Bedrock Geology ............................................................................................................ 43.2 Quaternary Deposits........................................................................................................ 43.3 Subsurface Condition at the Site ..................................................................................... 5
3.3.1 Aggregate Material Thickness .............................................................................. 53.3.2 Structure Contours on Clayey Silt Till.................................................................. 6
4.0 HYDROGEOLOGY ..........................................................................................................64.1 Regional Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 64.2 Site Hydrogeology and Water Table Aquifer ................................................................. 64.3 Shallow Groundwater Flow and Hydraulic Gradients .................................................... 74.4 Water Level Fluctuations ................................................................................................ 74.5 Surface Water Courses and Water Bodies ...................................................................... 84.6 Relationship between Groundwater and Local Watercourses ........................................ 84.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Use ............................................................................. 84.8 Groundwater Temperature Profiles ............................................................................... 104.9 Chemical Quality of Groundwater ................................................................................ 11
5.0 PROPOSED OPERATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACT .........................................115.1 Proposed Mining of Aggregate Deposits ...................................................................... 115.2 Final Land Use .............................................................................................................. 125.3 Water Budget and Assessment of Potential for Groundwater Impact .......................... 135.4 Thermal Condition of Local Watercourses ................................................................... 145.5 Potential for Thermal Impact on Watercourses ............................................................ 145.6 Potential for Cumulative Impact ................................................................................... 14
6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN AND MITIGATION MEASURES......................................16
7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM ..........................................................................................17
8.0 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................17
![Page 4: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
iii
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................18
10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Subject site, well locations, topography and hydrology map .................................... 23
Figure 2 Existing features and cross-section locations ............................................................. 24
Figure 3 Regulation limit map by UTRCA .............................................................................. 25
Figure 4 Quaternary geology map ............................................................................................ 26
Figure 5 Regional cross-section A-A� ...................................................................................... 27
Figure 6 Local cross-sections B-B� and C-C� .......................................................................... 28
Figure 7 Thickness of sand and gravel ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 8 Surface elevations of silt and clayey silt till .............................................................. 30
Figure 9 Inferred depth to groundwater below ground surface ................................................ 31
Figure 10 Thickness of saturated sand and gravel ...................................................................... 32
Figure 11 Inferred groundwater table configuration .................................................................. 33
Figure 12 Depth groundwater hydrograph and precipitation ..................................................... 34
Figure 13 Water level elevation hydrographs and precipitation ................................................ 35
Figure 14 Groundwater temperature profiles for MW1 and MW2 ............................................ 36
Figure 15 Groundwater temperature profiles for MW3 and MW4 ............................................ 37
Figure 16 Groundwater temperature profiles for MW5 ............................................................. 38
Figure 17 Surface water temperature in local watercourse ........................................................ 39
Figure 18 Final rehabilitation plan ............................................................................................. 40
Figure 19 Aggregate extraction pits adjacent to Erwin South Pit .............................................. 41
![Page 5: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of information on local domestic wells obtained during door-to-door survey at Erwin South Pit ............................................................................... 43
Table 2 Well construction data and water levels in monitoring wells and at staff gauges at Erwin South Pit ........................................................................................ 44
Table 3 Water level elevations in monitoring wells and at staff gauge at Erwin South Pit ............................................................................................................................. 45
Table 4 Geological and hydrogeological data at monitoring wells and at Erwin South Pit used to construct five figures ................................................................... 46
Table 5 Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit ......................... 47
Table 5.1 Thermal Condition in watercourse at Erwin South Pit ............................................ 14
Table 6 Temperature and water level measurements in watercourses near Erwin South Pit .................................................................................................................. 50
Table 7 Groundwater quality analyses in MW3 and MW5 .................................................. 51
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Figure 7 from Natural Environment Report ..................................................... 53
APPENDIX B Borehole and Instrumentation Logs ................................................................. 55
APPENDIX C Water Well Records Printout from MOECC Files ........................................... 62
APPENDIX D Water Budget Calculations ............................................................................... 67
APPENDIX E Laboratory Certificate of Analysis ................................................................... 73
![Page 6: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The proposed application call for the extraction of sand and gravel deposits from above and below the established groundwater table in Part of Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, in the Township of South-West Oxford (Formerly West Oxford Township), County of Oxford, Ontario. In this report, the proposed licensed area is referred to as the Erwin South Pit or the Site.
Novaterra Environmental Ltd. (hereinafter Novaterra) was authorized by Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) Limited to carry out a hydrogeological evaluation of the Site.
This report shall form part of a submission to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to comply with the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act.
1.2 Scope and Methodology
The purpose of this report is to assess geological and hydrogeological conditions at the Site, and the potential for adverse effects of the proposed operation on water resources in the area and their uses.
Considering the hydrogeological conditions, groundwater use in the area, the amount of collected field data, and subsequent interpretation, this report should be regarded as a Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment. According to the Ontario Provincial Standards, this report includes the requirements for Category 1, Class �A� license for a pit which intends to extract aggregate material from above and below the established groundwater table.
The scope of work includes a review of published geological and water resources maps, air photographs, and water well records on file with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Reconnaissance of the Site and the adjacent lands was carried out during the summer and autumn of 2015. Water level monitoring and groundwater temperature profiling began in April 2015 on a monthly basis and is ongoing.
The information contained in this report has been prepared in accordance with accepted professional standards.
1.3 The Current Use of the Site
The Site consists of one rhomboidal parcel of land which is currently used for agriculture to grow cash crops.
There is an unoccupied residence, along with other non-residential buildings, in the north central portion of the Site (Figure 1).
![Page 7: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
2
2.0 SITE PHYSICAL FEATURES
2.1 Location
The Site location is shown on Figures 1 and 2. Entrance to the Site is from the northern boundary which abuts Oxford County Road 9 (also known as Hamilton Road). The 911 address is 583218 Hamilton Road.
2.2 Site Description
The proposed sand and gravel extraction area is roughly rhomboidal in shape and elongated in a north-south direction. The western boundary is 537 m long while the eastern boundary is 700 m long. The northern boundary is 589 m long while southern is 562 m long (see Figure 2).
2.3 Topography and Drainage
The regional topography and drainage are shown on Figure 1 with contour intervals of 5 m. It can be seen from this map that the highest elevation within this map area is 276 m above sea level (a.s.l.), located 250 m northeast of the Site. A topographic divide which generally follows Hamilton Road, oriented in the southwest to northwest direction, exists along the northern portion of the site. From this divide, ground surface decreases in the northerly direction towards the South Thames River, and in the south-southeasterly direction. The topographic contour of 270 m a.s.l. encompasses small southern area of the Site and extends to some distance in the northeasterly direction from the Site (Figure 1).
Detailed site topography is shown on Figure 2 or Drawing 1 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015) with 1 m contour intervals. The highest elevation on the Site occupies eastern-northeastern section of the Site where the ground surface elevation is 275 m a.s.l. From here a minor topographic ridge extends in the westerly direction for two thirds of the Site where the elevation drops by 4 m. South of this small ridge the ground surface decreases to an elevation of 270 m a.s.l. where the contour encompasses an area in the central and southern portion of the Site (Figure 2).
There is no drainage ditch or open water body on the site. The nearest permanent watercourse is located approximately 170 m south of the proposed licensed boundary and runs as a roadside ditch along the south side of Thomas Road (Figure 1). This watercourse is identified on the Township Drainage Map as Michael Sheahan Drain. Interestingly, on a topographical map, scale 1:10,000, the Drain is identified to be located along north side of Thomas Road which is not the case now.
Approximately 300 m southwest from the proposed licensed boundary, the Michael Sheahan Drain joins Five Points Creek to form the Alex Wallis Drain which flows in the southwesterly direction to enter Reynolds Creek approximately 2 km from the Site.
The natural surface drainage direction from the Site is in the southwesterly and southerly direction, towards the Michael Sheahan Drain.
![Page 8: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
3
It should be noted that on Figure 3 that another drain is shown to flow into the Michael Sheahan Drain from the north. During field reconnaissance in the summer and fall of 2015 this other Drain was not flowing and likely is a much smaller, intermittent, drainage feature.
2.4 Natural Heritage Features
Figure 3 shows that the subject site is located outside of the regulation limits as established by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), except for a very small area in the southeastern corner of the subject site.
Natural environment including vegetation communities in the adjacent area to the subject site was assessed by Biologic Incorporated in their report (Biologic, 2015). Vegetation Communities in the adjacent area are depicted by Figure 7 given in Appendix A.
The closest provincially significant wetland (PSW) to the license boundary is the Five Points Woods Wetland Complex which is identified on Biologic�s Figure 7 (Appendix A). The Thames Talbot Land Trust Nature Preserve is located approximately 450 m away, on the south side of Robinson Road and is part of Five Point Woods Wetland (Figure 7 in Appendix A).
2.5 Adjacent Land Use
The proposed area is currently zoned agricultural. The zoning designations for adjacent lands are shown on Figure 2.
The lands immediately to the west, south, and a good portion to the east, are zoned �A2: agriculture use, agricultural�. One third of the subject Site to the east abuts the land zoned �A2: agri-business use: agri business�. The parcel of land northeast of the Site is occupied by Bonduelle North America which is a facility that processes vegetables for freezing and distribution.
The lands to the north and across Hamilton Road are zoned �ME: aggregate industrial: gravel pit� involving 5 different parcels of land and MNRF licenses (Figure 2). These parcels of land are ongoing aggregate extraction operations. A small parcel of land to the north across Hamilton Road is zoned �RE: residential�.
2.6 Field Investigation and Instrumentation
Field work and associated instrumentation work was carried out as part of the assessment of aggregate resources at the Site (LVM, 2015). The field investigation and instrumentation work was described by LVM (2015) and it is summarised below:
�The fieldwork, consisting of six (6) sampled boreholes and eight (8) test pits, was carried out on April 8 and 9, 2015, at the locations shown on Drawing 2 in Appendix 1.Fifty millimetre diameter monitoring wells were installed in five (5) of the boreholes and they are identified as MW01-15 to MW05-15.
![Page 9: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
4
Geodetic top of pipe and ground surface elevations and a site plan were provided by Wm. Bradshaw, P. Eng�.
Boreholes and test pits locations are shown in Figure 2 of this report.
Field investigations performed by Novaterra at the Site are summarized below:
Initial Site reconnaissance work was done on December 10, 2014 when the existence of the onsite domestic well was investigated and the locations of the local watercourses were established;
Groundwater monitoring wells were developed, and water level and temperature measurements were initiated on April 25, 2015;
Staff gauges were installed at two locations in Michael Sheahan Drain on May 13, 2015;
Surface water temperatures were measured on August 17, 2015 to assess thermal conditions in the nearest watercourse;
Water samples from monitoring wells MW3 and MW5 were obtained on October 26, 2015 and submitted for chemical analyses;
Water level monitoring and groundwater temperature profiling in the five monitoring wells and two staff gauges is ongoing. Groundwater temperature profiling in five monitoring wells, and stream water levels and temperature at two staff gauges will continue for a full year.
Field data collected during the monitoring periods, mentioned above, are summarized in Tables 1 to 7.
3.0 GEOLOGY
3.1 Bedrock Geology
The Lucas Formation of the Detroit River Group of formations constitutes the bedrock under the Site (Sanford, 1969). The Lucas Formation is of Middle Devonian age and consists of brown and tan microcrystalline and sublithographic limestone. The Site is located east of the contact with the Dundee Formation which overlies the Lucas Formation further to the south.
Based on the information from the nearest bedrock well located approximately 40 m north of the Site (MOECC water well record 4706129 on Figure 1), bedrock is found at a depth of 25.91 m below ground surface.
3.2 Quaternary Deposits
According to the Quaternary Geology Map for the subject area, the Site is underlain by glacial fluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand frequently overlain by several feet of sand and silt
![Page 10: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
5
(Cowan, 1975). The Quaternary Geology at the subject site and the surrounding area is depicted in Figure 4.
The driller�s log for the nearest bedrock well located 40 m north of the site across Hamilton Road indicates that the thickness of glacial drift is 25.91 m. This water well record (number 4706129) indicates that the glacial deposits consist of sand and gravel deposits, which are underlain by grey gravel and clay.
Regional cross-section A-A� illustrates the geology at the subject site and the surrounding area (Figure 5).
3.3 Subsurface Condition at the Site
A detailed description of glacial deposits at the Site is given in the report on the subsurface investigation which consisted of eight test pits and six boreholes, prepared by LVM Inc. (2015).
The subsurface layers intercepted during recent test drilling are given in borehole logs for five monitoring wells and one borehole contained in Appendix B of this report. These borehole logs were completed in April 2015 by LVM Inc. (2015).
The subsurface conditions at the subject site are described in the LVM (2015) report and they are discussed below.
Information from onsite borehole logs were used to construct vertical cross-sections B-B� and C-C� which are shown on Figure 6.
Subsurface conditions at the Site are also illustrated on Figures 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Information used to construct these figures was derived from borehole logs and water level monitoring results. This information is summarized in Table 4. It should be noted that the depths of the eight test pits excavated at the Site were insufficient to provide information to be used in the construction of these figures.
The near surface deposits at the Site are described as sand and gravel with trace of silt, fine sand, and sandy silt. As described in the borehole logs, these deposits are underlain by silty clay, and grey sandy clayey silt till (Appendix B).
Five of the boreholes were completed as monitoring wells and are designated in this report as: MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5. The sixth borehole is identified as BH6 in this report, but it was not completed as a monitoring well. The monitoring wells and borehole are identified in the LVM (2015) report as borehole numbers MW-01-12, MW-02-12, MW-03-12, MW-04-12, MW-05-12 and BH-06-15.
3.3.1 Aggregate Material Thickness
Using information from the six borehole logs and eight test pits, together with site topography as shown on Drawing 1 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015; see Figure 2), the thickness of aggregate material was delineated and is shown on Figure 7.
![Page 11: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
6
Five of the boreholes clearly penetrated the entire thickness of sand and gravel, while MW5 was terminated at 12.70 m in grey silt and some sandy silt. Although MW5 did not appear to reach the silty clay, it is assumed that this is the depth at which the silty clay would be found at MW5. Based on this, the thickness of aggregate deposits at the Site varies between 4.50 m at MW2 and 13.70 m at MW4 (Figure 7).
The depths of the eight test pits varied between 4.3 m and 6.0 m below ground surface. None of the test pits penetrated the full thickness of the sand and gravel deposits, and therefore could not be used to estimate thicknesses of the sand and gravel at the Site.
It can be seen from Figure 7 that the thickest area of sand and gravel is in the area of MW4 and MW5. In general, there appears to be thicker deposits in the central area of the site, with thickness of sand and gravel deposits becoming smaller towards the southwest.
3.3.2 Structure Contours on Clayey Silt Till
Although MW5 did not reach the underlying silty clay, it was assumed that the bottom of it is close to such depth. Therefore all six reference holes drilled at the Site reached underlying glacial silty clay or, clayey silt till which is found beneath the sand and gravel deposits.
Information from the six referenced boreholes was used to construct representative structure contours of the glacial silty clay and clayey silt till surface. This is shown on Figure 8.
It can be seen from Figure 8 that there exists an ancient valley incised into the grey silty clay, which stretches from southeast to the northwesterly direction. There is a drop in elevation from 265 to 259 m a.s.l. across the site. The existing valley, incised into silty clay, has greatly influenced the thickness of aggregate deposits as shown on Figure 7 by the increased deposits thickness in the centre of the Site.
4.0 HYDROGEOLOGY
4.1 Regional Hydrogeology
Vertical cross-section A-A� illustrates regional hydrogeological conditions in the study area (Figure 5). This cross section together with information shown on Figure 1 indicate that the majority of domestic wells obtain water from wells completed into overburden but there are domestic wells which were constructed into limestone bedrock and can be taken to represent a regional aquifer.
4.2 Site Hydrogeology and Water Table Aquifer
Vertical cross-sections B-B� and C-C� illustrate hydrogeological conditions in the shallow subsurface at the Site (Figure 6). They show that the deeper portions of the sand and gravel deposits are saturated, thus constituting a water table aquifer. The depth to water table from ground surface is depicted in Figure 9 while the thickness of the saturated portion of sand and gravel (i.e. the aquifer) is illustrated in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows that the aquifer thickness
![Page 12: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
7
varied between 2.40 m and 4.09 m in three onsite monitoring wells on May 16, 2015. The thickest portion of the aquifer is centered at MW4 in the western area of the Site where it is 4 m thick (Figure 10).
Existence of the shallow water table aquifer at the Site and surrounding area is also documented on Sheet 6 of the Thames River Basin Study (MOE, 1981).
We acknowledge that Map 4-3-2 in the Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Report prepared by Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee (2015) identifies Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVA). This map indicates that the Site is located in a HVA (Vulnerability Score of 6.0). At this point in time there are no Policies or Source Protection Plans as to which human activities may be restricted in such areas.
4.3 Shallow Groundwater Flow and Hydraulic Gradients
Water table configuration in the water table aquifer for May 16, 2015 is depicted in Figure 11. This figure shows that the prevailing direction of shallow groundwater flow is in a westerly direction. Ultimately, the groundwater discharge coming from the Site is into the South Thames River, located 750 m from the northern boundary of the Site.
Groundwater gradients in the water table aquifer shown on Figure 11 are relatively uniform. They are 0.0096 m/m in the westerly direction toward MW4.
4.4 Water Level Fluctuations
Depths to water levels in five monitoring wells were measured on a monthly basis from April 25, 2015 to December 19, 2015, inclusive, and are ongoing. In addition, water level stages in the local watercourse � Michael Sheahan Drain (staff gauges SG1 and SG2) � were also monitored on a monthly basis for the same time period as the monitoring wells. The collected depth to water level data are summarized in Table 2, water level elevations in Table 3, and surface water in Table 6.
Depths to water level data given in Table 2 were used to produce depth to water level hydrographs which are shown on Figure 12. The shallowest depth to groundwater is in MW2, followed by MW1, MW3, MW5, and MW4. In the first two wells, depth to water level varies between 0.42 and 1.33 m below the ground surface, while in MW4 it varies between 9.49 and 10.18 m below the ground surface (Figure 12). The deepest groundwater is in MW4, consistent with the clayey silt till elevation which is lowest in that area.
Water level elevation data given in Table 3 were used to produce water level elevation hydrographs which are shown on Figure 13. The highest water level elevation occurred in mid-May, while the lowest was in October, 2015. The influence of precipitation, which is also plotted on Figures 12 and 13, on water level elevation is evident. For example, there was a significant amount of precipitation in late June, 2015 prior to the hydrograph attaining relatively high water level elevations.
![Page 13: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit – Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
8
4.5 Surface Water Courses and Water Bodies
The nearest watercourse is Michael Sheahan Drain which is located south of the subject site with its nearest portion approximately 160 m from the Site (Figure 1). In this portion the Drain occupies the roadside ditch on south side of Thomas Road and flows in the southwesterly direction. After crossing Robinson Road, then Five Points Line, it is joined by Five Points Creek to form Alex Wallis Drain which empties into Reynolds Creek approximately 2.3 km from the Site.
It is also noted that UTRCA identifies a watercourse located a short distance east of the subject site, flowing in the southerly direction. According to UTRCA map, this watercourse appears to be of the same significance as Michael Sheahan Drain (Figure 3). Field observation during summer and autumn of 2015 indicate that this surface water feature was dry during this time period suggesting it is an intermittent stream.
The South Thames River is the major watercourse in the area and is located, at its nearest potion, approximately 750 m north of the subject site. According to groundwater table configuration map (Figure 11), the South Thames River is the eventual groundwater discharge location.
There is no open water body or watercourse on the Site itself. There is no proposed water diversion or storage, nor any proposed construction of drainage facilities on the Site.
There are no groundwater springs on the subject site or within 120 m of the site.
4.6 Relationship between Groundwater and Local Watercourses
There are two temporary staff gauges installed in Michael Sheahan Drain, and they are designated as SG1 and SG2. The staff gauges were installed across from monitoring wells MW1 and MW2 in order to assess interaction between groundwater at the Site and surface water of the Drain. In this regard, stream water elevation at SG1 is compared with groundwater elevation in the nearest monitoring (MW2) and stream water elevation at SG2 is compared with water level elevation in MW1. In both cases, the Drain water elevation is higher than the groundwater elevation in the monitoring wells. This condition indicates that Michael Sheahan Drain is an effluent stream with the hydraulic gradient from the stream being toward these monitoring wells (Figure 13).
The flow in Michael Sheahan Drain was measured on October 21, 2015 to be approximately 77 L/sec and it is classified as coldwater stream (see Table 5.1 in Section 5.0).
4.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Use
Water well records on file with the MOECC were obtained and analyzed. Available water well records within approximately 600 m east and west, and 400 m due north and south from the site, were plotted on Figure 1. There are 25 water well records plotted on Figure 1 and summarized in Appendix C. The wells are mainly located along Hamilton, Thomas, and Robinson Roads. Of these water well records, 17 wells were completed in overburden and 8 wells were completed into bedrock. The existence of the wells plotted on Figure 1 was not field verified except for the nearest domestic wells located south, north and east of the subject Site. However, the exact
![Page 14: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
9
water well record numbers for other locations cannot be confirmed because the wells were all completed prior to 2003 when the Ontario Well Tag requirement was instituted.
Door-to-door survey was performed which identified existence of additional wells along Robinson Road, south of the Site. The survey results are shown on Table 1, and the survey locations are also identified on Figure 1.
The overburden wells vary in depth between 9.14 m and 29.87 m below ground surface. They do supply tap water from a shallow water table aquifer but the water mainly comes from the confined sand and gravel aquifer. There are two 5 cm diameter monitoring wells located near the site: one approximately 350 m north of the Site with water well record 7155322 and a second near the eastern corner of the Site with water well record 4704223. The first monitoring well was completed in connection with the operation of a sand and gravel pit and the second well is assumed to be used to monitor the operation of the spray irrigation system connected with the nearby vegetable processing plant.
The bedrock wells vary in depth between 21 m and 38 m below ground surface. The bored well, which is located south of the Site, along Robinson Road, is 4.3 m in depth.
The nearest well is located about 40 m north and across Hamilton Road from the subject Site. MOECC water well record for this domestic well is 4706129. This well obtains water from the bedrock aquifer found at 27.13 m depth (Appendix C).
There is another domestic well located approximately 150 m due west from the subject site with screen interval placed into gravel between 14.33 m and 15.24 m below ground surface (water well record 4110696). This domestic well is owned by the applicant.
Approximately 200 m south-southeast from the subject site, on the south side of Thomas Road, there are three residences which rely on well water supply. Two of these residences obtain water from shallow drilled wells: 10.36 m and 9.14 m in deep completed into sand and gravel which are overlain by clay, silt and stones. The third residence obtains water from a 30 m deep drilled well completed into bedrock. The existence of the four above-described domestic wells was field verified.
Other residences in the area are located at distances greater than 300 m and obtain water from drilled wells completed into sand and gravel found within glacial deposits at various depths.
The residence on the subject Site is unoccupied and was supplied by now unused drilled well. The wellhead of this well is located at the bottom of 1.10 m deep, 1.5 m by 1.0 m concrete well pit. The well is 12.7 cm in diameter, 12.32 m deep and it was originally equipped with jet pump. The depth to water level in this well was measured on October 21, 2015 to be 10.10 m below ground surface.
There are two bedrock wells located approximately 150 m north of the site (water well record numbers 4703331 and 4707243). Both of these wells are authorised by MOECC Permit to Take Water Number 2662-9F7QAX to supply vegetable processing plant with water (Bonduelle North America plant). The approximate locations of these wells are indicated on Figure 1. The PTTW
![Page 15: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
10
authorizes Bonduelle to pump well 4703331 a maximum of 1,309,248 litres per day and well 4707243 a maximum of 981,936 litres per day.
4.8 Groundwater Temperature Profiles
During the period from April 25, 2015 to December 19, 2015, inclusive, a Temperature/ Level/Conductivity (TLC) instrument (made by Solinst Canada Ltd.) was used to measure depths to water levels, and temperatures at depth in five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, MW5). The obtained temperatures at depths in five monitoring wells are given in Table 5. These data are presented graphically for each monitoring well on Figures 14, 15, 16.
Temperature monitoring was done on a monthly basis with the first temperature measurement at each location being within 0.1 m below the top of the groundwater. Subsequent measurements were at 0.5 m depth increments. Thus, the top of temperature profiles are a reasonable indicator of the depth to the groundwater table below the ground surface at the time of measurement.
Examination of Figures 14, 15 and 16 indicates that the shape and position of the temperature profiles depends on the time of year, the depth to water level below ground surface, and the depth at which measurement was taken. Significantly, shallow groundwater exhibits relatively wide temperature differences, while deeper groundwater has a much narrower range of temperature fluctuations.
The widest fluctuation rage was found in MW1 and MW2 (Figure 14) where the depth to water level was between 0.5 and 1.5 m below ground surface. In these two wells, groundwater temperature ranged between 5°C and 16°C with coldest groundwater found when depth to water level is shallowest. This is expected because the shallower groundwater is greatly influenced by ambient air temperature since there is less ground cover to act as insulation for the groundwater.
As the depth to the saturated zone increases, the temperature spread becomes significantly narrower, as observed in wells MW3, MW4, and MW5 (Figures 15 and 16). In MW3 the coldest groundwater temperatures were measured during the months of May and June, and the overall temperature range was between 7.5°C and 11.5°C (Figure 15). The narrowest temperature spread is in MW4 where the measured groundwater temperature profile was at a depth interval between 9.5 m and 14.5 m below ground surface (Figure 15). The temperature spread in this well was between 9°C and 10.5°C, with the warmest groundwater temperatures in April, then in May, and the coldest in September. Similar temperature profiles were exhibited in MW5 with the warmest temperature during the month of April and the coldest temperature in June (Figure 17). Temperature spread in MW5 was between 8.5°C and 10°C.
As the air and ground surface cools off in the fall, the colder air temperatures progressively move into the subsurface. Consequently, temperature profiles start shifting to the left, beginning in November. We could think of it as a transient cool wave, slowly moving into the subsurface. This continues until the spring snowmelt in late February, March, and early April, when large quantities of cold water infiltrate into the ground, reaching the saturated zone of the water table and then mixing with groundwater. This is applicable for the shallow saturated zone when the depth to water table is less than 1.5 m, but as we move deeper into the aquifer the temperature spread becomes narrower. Typical examples to be observed and compared for shallow
![Page 16: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
11
groundwater are in MW1 and MW2 where the temperature spread is between 5°C and 16°C and the depth to water levels are between 0.5 and 1.5 m below ground surface. At monitoring wells MW4 and MW5 the depth to water is greater than 9 m and temperature spread is between 1.0°C and 1.5°C (Figure 15) with different temperature pattern from shallow water table.
4.9 Chemical Quality of Groundwater
Water quality sampling of groundwater was undertaken at two of the onsite monitoring wells: MW3 and MW5. The purpose of the groundwater sampling was to determine if the vegetable processing plant adjacent to the Site has had any influence on groundwater quality at the site. The neighbouring plant processes vegetables and uses a spray irrigation system at the back of the property to dispose of the �waste water�. It is likely that a groundwater quality monitoring program is in place at the plant, as evidenced by the presence of monitoring wells on the adjacent property.
Sampling procedures consisted of pumping three volumes of water from each well, allowing water levels to stabilize, and then taking samples using bailers. Collected samples were immediately placed into sampling bottles obtained from the sampling laboratory, and storing them in a cooler with ice packs to preserve sample temperature and quality.
The rationale for selecting the sampling locations was that one sample would be taken from the well located closest to the processing plant (i.e. MW5), and another sample would be taken from further away, so as to be considered background (i.e. MW3). The results of the chemical quality analysis of groundwater in these two wells are given in Table 7 while the Laboratory Certificate of Analysis is given in Appendix E.
Comparison of the concentrations of chemical parameters given in Table 7 in MW5 with those obtained in MW3 shows the higher concentrations of several chemical parameters in MW5. These include: alkalinity, ammonia, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, hardness, total kjeldahl nitrogen, chloride, sulphate, potassium and sodium. The results of groundwater quality from MW5 suggests that land use practices on the property immediately east of the subject site might have caused the elevated concentrations of several chemical parameters in MW5.
5.0 PROPOSED OPERATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACT
5.1 Proposed Mining of Aggregate Deposits
The field investigations have revealed that the site contains considerable quantities of sand and gravel with commercial value as indicated in LVM, 2015 report which among other things states:
�The investigation has revealed that the property contains significant quantities of aggregate of commercial value. The granular deposit has an estimated average thickness of 8.3 m and covers the entire 30.7 hectares (ha) extraction area. All but the southwest portion of the extraction area contains high quality of sand and gravel. The southwest portion of the site contains mostly fine to medium sand below more
![Page 17: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
12
fine grained surface materials. The thickness of the deposit increases from south to north across the site.
The granular material with higher commercial value covers an area of approximately 23.0 ha within the proposed extraction area of 30.7 ha. With an average thickness of 8.3 m, it is estimated that 1.9 million cubic metres of sand and gravel could be extracted, which would translate to approximately 3.8 million metric tonnes by weight.�
The thickness of the potential aggregate deposits, including topsoil, can be observed on Figure 7. A portion of these deposits are saturated, as shown by the inferred depth to water table on Figure 9 and the thickness of saturated sand and gravel on Figure 10. Extraction of saturated sand and gravel material requires mining below the water table. Therefore the approximate areal distribution and thickness of aggregate deposits that would be mined from below water table is shown on Figure 10.
It is proposed to extract sand and gravel from above and below the water table by using a hydraulic excavator or dragline. Where possible, sand and gravel will be completely removed until the clayey silt till is reached. The elevation of the clayey silt till, which underlies the aggregate deposits, is delineated on Figure 8.
Based on the above information, the approximate depth of sand and gravel extraction is shown on Drawing 2 of 3 and Drawing 3 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015). This is also illustrated on cross-sections B-B� and C-C�, as shown on Figure 6 in this report, where the aggregate extraction would take place relative to the underlying clayey silt till.
5.2 Final Land Use
The proposed mining of sand and gravel would result in the creation of a pond, 25.1 hectares in size. The pond depths will be influenced by the topography of silty clay and the clayey silt till which is shown on Figure 8. Final rehabilitation configurations showing the shape, size, and bottom elevation of the future ponds are shown on Drawing 3 of 3 (Bradshaw, 2015) as well as Figure 18 of this report.
It can be seen from Figure 18 that the lowest elevation of the clayey silt till which underlies the sand and gravel deposits is in the north central portion of the site. That is, in the area of monitoring well MW4 where the pond bottom have an elevation of 260 m. There is a drop in elevation of clayey silt till across the Site from south to north (from MW1 to MW4) of 5 m (Figure 8). Accordingly, the depth of the future pond would vary between 1 and 6 metres across south to north direction (Figure 18).
Based on the groundwater level data it is surmised that the elevation of the future pond water would be in the range of (+/-) 266 m a.s.l. This value was obtained by taking the average of the water level elevation in all three on-site monitoring stations MW3, MW4 and MW5) throughout the monitoring period (Figure 18).
![Page 18: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
13
5.3 Water Budget and Assessment of Potential for Groundwater Impact
The proposed mining of sand and gravel from below the water table could theoretically cause temporary lowering of the water table in the vicinity of the proposed operation. This can be caused in two ways:
1. The potential change in water budget due to the increase in evaporation from an open water body and increased surface runoff into the pond.
2. The removal of sand and gravel may initially and temporarily generate water level lowering near the outside edges of the pond when the pond is small.
Both aspects were examined, and subsequent calculations were made to see if these aspects have any realistic chances of having any negative impacts. A detailed description of the calculations is given in Appendix D and is summarized in this Section.
Annual water budget for the site in its current state indicates that: of the 952 mm of annual precipitation, 564 mm is lost to evapotranspiration, 271.6 mm infiltrates into the ground, and 116.4 mm leaves the site as runoff (Table D1 in Appendix D). After rehabilitation, evapotranspiration would be replaced by lake evaporation which is 634.5 mm, runoff would not exist and instead the remaining precipitation which is 364.5 mm would remain onsite and eventually contribute to the groundwater system (Table D3 in Appendix D). This means that final site conditions would have more water lost to evaporation but runoff would not exist and there would be an overall gain in the groundwater system of 45.9 mm.
Removal of aggregate material may cause a small lowering of the water level in the pond as the extraction progresses. Water level in the pond during the early phase of extraction may show daily lowering of 0.110 m but is expected to be temporary and recover between workdays. During late phase of extraction when the pond approaches its final size of 25.1 ha, this lowering is expected to be even smaller, reaching less than 0.01 m daily (see Appendix C). This value is insignificant and would not cause any groundwater drawdown for any significant distance outside of the immediate pond area.
Five domestic wells nearest to the Site are located approximately between 50 and 250 m from the future pond. Although three of them obtain water from the water table aquifer, lowering water levels in the pond due to the proposed operation is inconsequential to water quantity in these domestic wells. They are too far away from the pit to show any measurable effect.
Water in the future pond will warm up during the summer months. The expected highest pond water temperatures could be up to 30°C based on field measurements at a site located 1 km west of Erwin Pit. These measurements were collected in the summer of 2013 as part of the assessment report for a proposed pit (Novaterra, 2014) which is identified as Pit 1 on Figure 19. Water from the future pond at Erwin Pit would move downgradient which is the northerly direction and away from the water courses. Therefore there will not be any effect to adjacent water courses and the natural environment by the proposed operation.
![Page 19: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
14
5.4 Thermal Condition of Local Watercourses
A method developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996) was used to establish the thermal condition in the nearest water course which is Michael Sheahan Drain. The results are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Thermal Condition in Michael Sheahan Drain.
Monitoring station August 17, 2015
Temperature ˚C Time Thermal status * Water Air 1)
SG1 Michael Sh. Drain 17.3 29.4 16:00 Coldwater stream
SG2 Michael Sh. Drain 17.6 29.4 16:08 Coldwater stream * Based on criteria developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996);1) As recorded at London Airport Climate Station.
As it can be seen from Table 5.1, the assessment of the thermal condition of the nearest neighbouring watercourse was done at two locations a relatively short distance apart. At both locations measurements indicate that this watercourse is considered a coldwater stream.
5.5 Potential for Thermal Impact on Watercourses
Figure 11 depicts groundwater flow at the subject site on May 16, 2015, and it indicates that it is in the northwesterly direction � away from the local watercourses. Considering that such condition in groundwater flow direction exists throughout the year (Figure 13) it is concluded that there is no potential that the proposed operation would have any effect including thermal impact on the local watercourses and the natural environment.
5.6 Potential for Cumulative Impact
There are four licenced aggregate extraction pits in the local area and the fifth soon to be licensed which all might eventually have ponds as the final land use. Therefore all five pits plus newly proposed Erwin South Pit might potentially have cumulative thermal impact on the natural environment after their rehabilitation is completed. These pits are located along left (south) bank of the South Thames River as identified on Figure 19.
The proposed Erwin South Pit is also identified on Figure 19 and it is located up-gradient from pit numbers 3, 4, and 5. Therefore the direction of groundwater flow from Erwin South Pit is towards pit numbers 3, 4, and 5. Water temperature in this future pond would be identical as in the other neighbouring ponds and therefore it would not influence water quality (T) or quantity at the lower limit or groundwater exits from any of the future pond shown on Figure 19. For this reason the future presence of Erwin South Pit pond was not considered in the following discussion and subsequent calculations.
![Page 20: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
15
Also shown on Figure 19 is the approximate width that the potential ponds would have along the South Thames River. In the event that such ponds are created, pond water would enter the groundwater and travel towards the River, eventually discharging into it. Groundwater gradients in this area are towards the South Thames River, and they would not have any influence on groundwater upgradient, or across Hamilton Road.
To create a worst-case scenario, we have assumed that all of the gravel pits shown on Figure 19 will be rehabilitated into ponds, and that they will cover the entire area of extraction. A 25 m setback between the licensed areas and adjacent properties was also used, with the exception of Pit No. 3 which has a 60 m setback along its east boundary because of a road allowance. It should be noted that these areas are approximate and the proposed ponds may not be as large as they are shown on Figure 19. Nevertheless, these areas provide us with an idea of what the cumulative impacts might be.
The following paragraphs were adapted from the recent hydrogeological assessment report for the proposed Hamilton Road pit which is shown as pit 1 in Figure 19 (or Figure 22 in Novaterra, 2014).
If we assume that the groundwater flow velocity leaving each of the adjacent four gravel pits is the same as that of the Hamilton Road Pit, we can estimate the amount of groundwater that will enter the South Thames River. Based on this information it is estimated that the combined groundwater flux of all five gravel pit ponds, including the proposed Hamilton Road Pit, towards the South Thames River is 40.9 L/s. The average minimum annual flow of the South Thames River from 1957 to 2009 was 1190 L/s, measured at the Water Survey of Canada gauging station in Ingersoll (Station Number 02GD016). In comparison to the flow of the South Thames River, the potential groundwater discharge from the adjacent gravel pit ponds is very small.
Furthermore, due to the meandering nature of the South Thames River, travel distances of groundwater will vary significantly and some areas will have more time to cool. In the worst-case scenario, we assumed that groundwater entering the River would have a temperature of 17.6°C (Novaterra, 2014). This value was chosen from a previous investigation at Pit 1 (Figure 19), where Novaterra observed that the maximum groundwater temperature in the vicinity of the pond in Pit 2 was 17.6°C. Using this assumption along with the mass-preservation equation, we can estimate the influence on the South Thames River (see Section 5.5 in Novaterra, 2014). Because the South Thames River was classified as a warmwater stream, the groundwater temperatures of 17.6°C entering the River would actually have a cooling effect on the River. For example, if we choose a date in the summer when potential for thermal stress to the River is greatest (i.e. 27.7°C on July 18, 2013, see Table 6 in Novaterra, 2014), the mass-preservation equation shows that temperature in the River would decrease to 27.3°C � a change of 0.4°C.
This change is very small, and inconsequential to water quality in the South Thames River.
The above discussion and associated calculation is applicable even with the addition of the future pond to be located at the proposed Erwin South Pit. Understandably, groundwater flow from the Erwin South Pit pond would enter ponds identified as pond 3, 4 and 5 on Figure 19 without causing any increase in volume discharging into the South Thames River.
![Page 21: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
16
Based on the information discussed above, it is concluded that there would not be any negative cumulative impacts on the South Thames River resulting from future pit ponds at adjacent gravel pits, including the Erwin South Pit.
6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed sand and gravel operation calls for aggregate extraction above and below the water table. In such a situation, the use of equipment for Site operations may pose a potential risk of petroleum hydrocarbons such as fuels, oil and grease to enter the exposed groundwater system unless the proper operation and refuelling procedures are followed. To address these potential risks a Spills Plan shall be incorporated into the Site Plans.
The following water well interference complaint shall be incorporated into the site plans:
Water Supply Interference Complaint Response Procedures:
This response applies to domestic and farm water supplies for properties located within 120 m of the licensed boundary.
1. Owners of domestic and farm water supplies experiencing disruption or quality problems shall immediately notify the Licensee. The Licensee shall, upon receipt of any water supply disruption complaint, notify the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
2. Should the owner of domestic and farm water supplies experience a significant disruption in their supply of water, or should they experience significant adverse effects upon their water supply; and if the operation of the pit cannot obviously and definitively be excluded as the cause, the licensee shall supply such resident with a temporary water supply within 24 hours and thereafter until such time as the cause of the disturbance can be determined and the situation addressed. The Licensee shall investigate the cause of the water supply disturbance and shall report to the MNRF, MOECC and the resident.
3. If, after consultation with the affected resident and the Licensee, the MNRF and/or the MOECC determine that the operation of the pit has caused a domestic or farm water supply to be adversely affected, the Licensee shall, at the Licensee�s expense, either restore or replace the water supply to ensure that historic water supply and quality are restored for such a resident.
4. If MNRF and/or MOECC have determined that the operation of the pit has not caused any domestic or farm water supply to be adversely affected the Licensee shall maintain the temporary water supply provided for under Item 2 for an additional 24 hours to allow the resident to make alternate water supply arrangements.
![Page 22: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
17
7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM
There is no proposed dewatering of the gravel pit. Aggregate extraction is proposed for excavation below the water table using an excavator or a drag line. Changes to water balance are small and inconsequential. As such, measurable interference with local water supplies is highly unlikely.
A monitoring program is in place which includes five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5), and two staff gauges (SG1 and SG2). The monitoring program commenced on April 25, 2015 on a monthly basis and included water levels and groundwater temperature profiles in monitoring wells, and water levels and water temperatures at two staff gauges. Monitoring will continue as noted in the Recommendations Section.
Water samples were obtained from monitoring well MW3 and MW5 and were analyzed for pH, conductivity, alkalinity, anions, cations, four nitrogen types and dissolved organic carbon. Groundwater quality from MW3 is used as background on-site groundwater quality with which water quality obtained from MW5 is compared with. This is because there is a potential that groundwater quality in MW5 might have been influenced by the operation of spray irrigation system on the adjacent property to treat wastewater originating from the vegetable processing plant also located on the adjacent property to the east.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected in the field and analysis of available data, the following conclusions are made:
1. There exists a substantial quantity of sand and gravel at the proposed site.
2. The thickness of sand and gravel deposits varies between 4.50 m and 13.7 m. The deeper portion of these deposits is saturated with the depth to water table varying between 3.0 m and 9.66 m as measured on May 16, 2015. The saturated zone constitutes a water table aquifer with flow in the northwesterly and westerly, directions.
3. There are three nearby residences with shallow domestic wells which are located approximately 150 to 200 m one due west and the other two due south from the proposed extraction boundary. All three residences are supplied with drilled wells between 9.14 m and 15.24 m deep. There is no potential that water quantity or quality in these domestic wells would be affected by the proposed operation; two of the wells are located upgradient and the third downgradient but at a considerable distance to the proposed operation and it is owned by the applicant.
4. It is proposed to have aggregate extraction from above and below the water table. The Site will be rehabilitated, resulting in the creation of a pond with the 25.1 hectare in size and up to 6 m in depth.
5. After site rehabilitation, evapotranspiration will be replaced by lake evaporation due to the creation of a 25.1 hectare pond. Water budget calculations show that, although lake
![Page 23: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit – Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
18
evaporation is higher than evapotranspiration, there would be a gain in the water budget of 45.9 mm. This is because once the pond is created, there would be no more runoff generated at the site, and any precipitation remaining at the site will be retained by the pond and eventually recharging groundwater.
6. Groundwater quality analyses from monitoring wells MW3 and MW5 indicates that there are increases of several chemical non-health related parameters in MW5. It is surmised that such increases are related to the spray irrigation of vegetable washing water originating from the vegetable processing plant both located on the adjacent land to the east of the subject site.
7. The hydrogeological site assessment and associated calculations indicate that the proposed mining of sand and gravel deposits will not have any adverse effect on water resources, including the natural environment in the area and domestic water wells.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions drawn from the work described herein, the following recommendations are made and should be incorporated into the site plans:
1. Fuel storage onsite shall be in compliance with the Technical Standards and Safety Act 2000 and the Liquid Fuels Handling Code 2001, as may be amended.
2. Maintenance and refueling of mobile excavation equipment and other vehicles shall take place in the fuel storage area. Crushers, stackers and screening plants shall be refueled and maintained on the pit floor during daylight hours. Any minor drips or spills shall be immediately cleaned up and properly disposed of.
3. A “Spills Plan” shall be incorporated into the Site Plans.
4. The operational condition would not require that the onsite unused drilled well be decommissioned according to O. Reg. 903, Amended to Reg. 128/03. This is because the measured well depth is 12.32 m and depth of aggregate extraction would be 13 m at this well location which is deeper than the well casing. Therefore, the entire well casing would be removed by the proposed aggregate extraction. In this regard, no extra work would be required
5. Water levels in five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5) and at two staff gauges (SG1 and SG2) were measured on a monthly basis since the inception of the monitoring program and are ongoing. Water level monitoring shall change to a quarterly basis after the site is licensed and continue until extraction is completed and the site has been rehabilitated.
6. Groundwater temperature profiles were measured in five monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, and MW5) and two staff gauges (SG1 and SG2) from April to December,
![Page 24: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
20
10.0 REFERENCES
BioLogic Incorporated, 2015. Natural Environment Assessment Report, Level 1 & 2 Assessment Report, 583218 Hamilton Road-Erwin Pit Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited. December 2015.
Barnett, P. J. 1982. Quaternary Geology of the Tillsonburg Area, Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey Report 220, Ministry of Natural Resources.
Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. and Golder Associates, 2006. Applied Research on source water protection issues in the aggregate industry phase 1 findings: Prepared for: The Ministry of Natural Resources: November, 2006.
Bradshaw, W. L 2015. Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited, Erwin South Pit, Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, Township of South-West Oxford, County of Oxford, Drawings: Existing Features, Operational Plan, Consultants Recommendations and Progressive Rehabilitation and Final Rehabilitation Plans. Scale 1:2000. September, 2015.
Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F., 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ministry of Natural Resources.
Cowan, W.R. 1975. Quaternary Geology of the Woodstock Area Southern Ontario. Geological Report 119, Map 2473. Ministry of Natural Resources
Delleur, J. W. (Editor), 1999. The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering, CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton.
Environment Canada, 2015. Canadian Climate Normals, Volume 9, Soil Temperature, Lake Evaporation, Days with Blowing Snow, Hail, Fog, Smoke or Haze, Frost, 1981 -2010.
LVM 2015. Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. 583218 Hamilton Road, Municipality of South West Oxford, Oxford County, Aggregate Assessment Report. May 28, 2015.
Novaterra Environment Ltd. 2014. Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments, Proposed Hamilton Road Pit Part Lot 3, Concession A., S.R.T. and Part Lot 3, Concession B, Municipality of Thames Centre (Formerly the Township of North Dorchester) County of Middlesex, Ontario. April 30, 2014.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1981. Thames River Basin, Water Management Study, Technical Report, Groundwater Resources. Water Resources Report 14.
![Page 26: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
21
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 1995. MOEE Hydrogeological Technical information requirements for land development application, April 1995.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1997. Aggregate Resources of Ontario, Provincial Standards, Version 1.0. Queen�s Printer for Ontario.
Sanford, B.V., 1969. Geology of Toronto-Windsor Area, Ontario. Geol. Surv. Canada, Map 1263A, scale 1:250,000
Stoneman, C. and M. L. Jones, 1996. A simple method to classify stream thermal stability with single observations of daily maximum water and air temperatures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 728-737
Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee, 2010. Thames-Sydenham & Region, Tier 1 Water Budget, Version 1.0 (Draft Accepted), September 15, 2010.
Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee, 2015. Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee, Upper Thames River Source Protection Area, Assessment Report, Approved September 17, 2015.
![Page 27: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
22
FIGURES
Figures 1 to 19 inclusive
![Page 28: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
MW5
MW4
MW3
MW2
MW1
SG1
SG2
A�
A
2662-9F7QAX
7001-9KWLBG
4110253
4102934
41070104706246
47061594708039
4704630
4706528
4704050
4706883
4108211
4102933
4110696
4113092
7155322
47022734706129
4709223
4707243
4703331
4703400
4109861
4706583
4706549
4703042
4707181
7208471
4R
RR
R R
R RR
R
1
R
R
R
RR
R
R
R2
3
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession,(Formerly West Oxford), Township ofSouth-West Oxford, Oxford County
OBM: 10 17 5000 47600OBM: 10 17 5050 47600NAD 1983Contour Interval 5 metres
LEGEND
Proposed license boundary
Residence
Water well record number - recordon file with Ontario MOECC
Door-to-door survey designation
Drilled well in overburden
Bored well
Drilled well in bedrock
Monitoring well
Staff gauge
Cross-section location
Existing Permit to Take Waterlocation and permit number
4706129
R
September 25, 2015
Figure 1
Subject site, well locations,topography and hydrology map
SCALE 1:10,0000 500250 Metr se
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited
A A�
505000 mE 506000 mE
1
INGERSOLL
45
119
9
30
29
401
SITE
![Page 29: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
N
Hamilton Road
Five
Poi
nts
Line
R R R
Michael Sheahan Drain
R
RCNRkeF eriv Ce P stoin
Base map adaptedfrom Bradshaw (2015)
Thomas Road
C
C’
B
B’
MW5
MW4
MW3
MW2
MW1
SG1
SG2
Figure 2
September 24, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited
EXISTING FEATURES
0
SCALE
50 100 150 Metres
Proposed licensed boundary
Residence
Barn
Shed
Monitoring well
Borehole
Test pit
Staff gauge
Location of cross-section
R
B
S
LEGEND
A A’
![Page 30: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
The UTRCA disclaims explicitly any warranty, representation or guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness, fitness for a particular purpose, merchantability or completeness of any of the data depicted and provided herein.
This map is not a substitute for professional advice. Please contact UTRCA staff for any changes, updates and amendments to the information provided.
The UTRCA assumes no liability for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies in the information provided herein and further assumes no liability for any decisions made or actions taken or not taken by any person in reliance upon the information and data furnished hereunder.
Sources: Base data, 2010 Aerial Photography used under licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Copyright © Queen's Printer for Ontario; City of London.
Legend
Copyright © UTRCA.
Lot 29 Broken Front Concession
October 14, 2015
Notes:
cr
Regulation LimitRegulation under s.28 of the
Development, interference with wetlands, and alterationsto shorelines and watercourses. O.Reg 157/06, 97/04.
The Regulation Limit depicted on this map schedule is a representation of O.Reg 157/06 under O.Reg 97/04.The Regulation Limit is a conservative estimation of the hazard lands within the UTRCA watershed. Depending on the specific characteristics of the hazard land and the land use proposed, the Regulation Limit may be subject to change.
2015
Conservation Authorities Act
800200 400 0
Created By: 10,0001:metres
* Please note: Any reference to scale on this map is only appropriate when it is printed landscape on legal-sized (8.5" x 14") paper.
This document is not a Plan of Survey.
WatercourseOpen
Tiled
Wetland HazardFlooding HazardErosion HazardRegulation Limit 2015Middlesex NHSS (2014)
No Criteria Met
1+ Criteria Met
Lot and ConcessionAssessment Parcel (MPAC)
Figure 3
October 15, 2015
REGULATION LIMIT MAP BY UTRCA
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford) Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
SUBJECT SITE
![Page 31: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
N
SUBJECTSITE
Figure 4QUATERNARY GEOLOGY MAP
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
September 28, 2015
Adapted from: Upper map: Cowan, 1975 Lower map: Barnett, 1982
13127
6
54
2
Modern alluvium: clay, silt, sand, muckBog deposits: muck, peat or marlGlaciolacustrine deepwater deposits: massive tolaminated clay, minor siltGlaciofluvial outwash and deltaic deposits: graveland gravelly sandGlaciofluvial outwash and deltaic deposits: sandGlaciofluvial ice-contact stratified drift: morainic orkame sand and gravelly sandPORT STANLEY TILL: silt to silty clay till
1 CATFISH CREEK TILL: stony sandy silt till
141211109
8
7
6
52
Modern alluvium, unsubdivided: silt, sand, gravelBog deposits: peat, muck, marlFine-grained glaciolacustrine or pond deposits: silt and clay
Glaciolacustrine or pond deposits: sand and silty fine sand9 Glaciofluvial outwash sand, unsubdivided9a Glaciofluvial outwash sand including some gravel9b Glaciofluvial outwash sand frequently underlain by gravelGlaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand frequentlyoverlain by several feet of sand or silt7 Ice-contact stratified drift, unsubdivided: sand and gravel including some till or silt7a Ice-contact stratified drift, mainly gravel7b Ice-contact stratified drift, mainly sand6a Silt till (Port Stanley Till or fine-grained Zorra till, or older till)6b Sandy silt till (Catfish Creek Till or Zorra till)Zorra till: yellowish brown silt to sand silt tillCATFISH CREEK TILL: stony, sandy silt till; may include olderdrift in valley walls
LEGEND
UPPER MAP LOWER MAP
0 2000 metres
SCALE1:50 000
![Page 32: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Figure 5
September 29, 2015
REGIONAL CROSS-SECTION A-A�
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
A�A
Sand, gravelstones
Blue Clay
Gravel
Grey gravel
Gravel and clay
Grey gravel
Gravel clay
Limestone
Gravel
Brown clay
Grey clay
Grey clay
ShaleLimestone Limestone
Hardpan
Medium sand,gravel
Grey clay
Black muckTopsoilSand and gravel
Silty clay
4703400
4706129 MW3 Thomas Rd.
Drain
47080394703042
Robinson Rd.275
270
265
260
255
250
245
240
270
260
250
240
Proposed License boundary
Monitoring wellMW3
Lithologic contact - observed
Lithologic contact - inferred
Water levelMeasured on May 16, 2015
Well screen
Backfilled with drill cuttings
Domestic well,MOECC well record number4706129
Lithologic contact - observed **
Static water level
Screen
Open hole
Water found 0 200 metresSCALE
Location of cross-section shown on Figure 1
** Lithologic description from driller�s log
![Page 33: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Figure 6
September 29, 2015
LOCAL CROSS-SECTIONS B-B� AND C-C�
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
Monitoring wellMW3
Lithologic contact - observed
Lithologic contact - inferred
Water levelMeasured on May 16, 2015
Well screen
Backfilled with drill cuttings
0 200 metresSCALE
Location of cross-section shown on Figure 2
LEGEND
275
270
265
B�B
260
275
270
265
260
C�C
Proposed license boundary
MW5 BH6 MW3 TP3 MW2 MW1
Proposed license boundary
MW4MW5
Sand
Sand and gravel,trace of silt
Clayey silt
Sand and gravel,trace of silt
Sand
Silt withsand seams
Sand and grave,trace of silt
Sand with silty sand seams
Grey silt
Medium to coarsesand and gravel
Silty clay
Topsoil
Topsoil
Sand, trace gravel
Sand and gravel,trace of silt
Silty clay
TopsoilSand, some clay
Fine to coarse sand
Brown silt
Sand
Topsoil
Sandy silt
Sand and gravel,trace of silt
Silty clay
Sandy silt
Sand and gravel
Silty clay
275
270
265
260
255
275
270
265
260
255
![Page 34: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
R
G
B
G
Hamilton Road
R R R
R
FactoryBonduelleNorthAmerica
RBase map adapted
from Bradshaw (2015)
11.50
13.70
7.20
13.70
5.60
4.50
Figure 7
September 28, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
THICKNESS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
0
SCALE
50 100 150 Metres
Proposed licensed boundary
Residence
Barn
Shed
Monitoring well *
Borehole
Test pit **
Staff gauge
Thickness of aggregatedeposits at monitoring wellsand borehole (in metres)
Inferred isopack line ofaggregate deposits(including topsoil; metres)Contour interval 1.0 m
R
B
S
LEGEND
7.20
8.0
* MW5 did not reach the top of silty claytill, but it was assumed that the grey siltfound at MW5 represents the top ofsilty clay till.
** None of the test pits reached the top of silty clay till
![Page 35: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
R
G
B
G
Hamilton Road
R R R
R
FactoryBonduelleNorthAmerica
RBase map adapted
from Bradshaw (2015)
265.56
265.67
263.73
259.50
258.94
263.07
Figure 8
September 28, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
SURFACE ELEVATION OF SILTY CLAY TILL
0
SCALE
50 100 150 Metres
Proposed licensed boundary
Residence
Barn
Shed
Monitoring well
Borehole
Test pit
Staff gauge
Elevation of silty clay till atmonitoring well (in metres)
Inferred contour line of silty claytill (in metres)Contour interval 1.0 m
R
B
S
LEGEND
263.73
263
![Page 36: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
R
G
B
G
Hamilton Road
R R R
R
FactoryBonduelleNorthAmerica
RBase map adapted
from Bradshaw (2015)
3.0
5.0
4.80
8.18
9.66
0.74
1.18
Figure 9
September 28, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
INFERRED DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER BELOW GROUND SURFACE
0
SCALE
50 100 150 Metres
Proposed licensed boundary
Residence
Barn
Shed
Monitoring well
Borehole
Test pit
Staff gauge
Measured depth to water levelbelow ground surface (inmetres) on May 16, 2015
Inferred depth to water table(metres) on May 16, 2015Contour interval 1.0 m
R
B
S
LEGEND
4.80
4.0
![Page 37: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
R
G
B
G
Hamilton Road
R R R
R
FactoryBonduelleNorthAmerica
RBase map adapted
from Bradshaw (2015)
4.09
3.32
2.40
3.79
4.42
4.0
Figure 10
September 28, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
THICKNESS OF SATURATED SAND AND GRAVEL
0
SCALE
50 100 150 Metres
Proposed licensed boundary
Residence
Barn
Shed
Monitoring well
Borehole
Test pit
Staff gauge
Measured thickness ofsaturated sand and gravel(metres) on May 16, 2015
Inferred thickness ofsaturated zone (metres) asobserved on May 16, 2015Contour interval 1.0 m
R
B
S
LEGEND
2.40
3.0
![Page 38: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
R
G
B
G
Hamilton Road
R R R
R
FactoryBonduelleNorthAmerica
RBase map adapted
from Bradshaw (2015)
262.98
266.13
266.39
269.32
269.99270.09
270.50
Figure 11
September 28, 2015Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited
GROUNDWATER TABLE CONFIGURATION
0
SCALE
50 100 150 Metres
Proposed licensed boundary
Residence
Barn
Shed
Monitoring well
Borehole
Test pit
Staff gauge
Measured groundwater elevationm a.m.s.l. on May 16, 2015
Inferred water level contourm a.m.s.l. on May 16, 2015Contour interval 1.0 m
Direction of groundwater flow
R
B
S
LEGEND
266.13
266
![Page 39: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER HYDROGRAPHS AND PRECIPITATION Figure 12
Erwin South Pit Johnston Bros.(Bothwell) Limited.Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,
Oxford County December 21, 2015
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Dept
h to
wat
er le
vel,
met
res b
elow
top
of c
asin
g
MW1
MW2
MW3
MW4
MW5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tota
l dai
ly p
reci
pita
iton
(mm
)*
* Precipitation measured at Dorchester Climate Station (http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca)
LEGEND
![Page 40: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
WATER LEVEL ELEVATION HYDROGRAPHS AND PRECIPITATION Figure 13
Erwin South Pit Johnston Bros.(Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,
Oxford County December 21, 2015
260.0
262.0
264.0
266.0
268.0
270.0
272.0W
ater
leve
l ele
vatio
n, m
a.m
.s.l. MW1
MW2
MW3
MW4
MW5
SG1
SG2
* Precipitation measured at Dorchester Climate Station (http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca)
LEGEND
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tota
l dai
ly p
reci
pita
iton
(mm
)*
![Page 41: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR MW1 AND MW2 Figure 14
Erwin South Pit Johnston Bros.(Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,
Oxford County December 21, 2015
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.03.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0
Dept
h Be
low
Gro
und
(m)
Groundwater Temperature (C)
23-Apr-2015 16-May-2015 13-Jun-2015
11-Jul-2015 17-Aug-2015 19-Sep-2015
17-Oct-2015 7-Nov-2015 19-Dec-2015
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.03.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0
Dept
h Be
low
Gro
und
(m)
Groundwater Temperature (C)
23-Apr-2015 16-May-2015 13-Jun-2015
11-Jul-2015 17-Aug-2015 19-Sep-2015
17-Oct-2015 7-Nov-2015 19-Dec-2015
MW1 MW2
![Page 42: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR MW3 AND MW4 Figure 15
Erwin South Pit Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford), Township of South-West Oxford,
Oxford County December 21, 2015
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.56.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Dept
h Be
low
Gro
und
(m)
Groundwater Temperature (°C)
23-Apr-2015
16-May-2015
13-Jun-2015
11-Jul-2015
17-Aug-2015
19-Sep-2015
17-Oct-2015
7-Nov-2015
19-Dec-2015
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.56.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Dept
h Be
low
Gro
und
(m)
Groundwater Temperature (°C)
23-Apr-2015
16-May-2015
13-Jun-2015
11-Jul-2015
17-Aug-2015
19-Sep-2015
17-Oct-2015
7-Nov-2015
19-Dec-2015
MW3 MW4
![Page 43: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
GROUNDWATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR MW5 Figure 16
Erwin South Pit Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,
Oxford County December 21, 2015
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.58.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Dept
h Be
low
Gro
und
(m)
Groundwater Temeprature (°C)
23-Apr-2015
16-May-2015
13-Jun-2015
11-Jul-2015
17-Aug-2015
19-Sep-2015
17-Oct-2015
7-Nov-2015
19-Dec-2015
MW5
![Page 44: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
SURFACE WATER TEMPERATURE IN MICHAEL SHEAHAN DRAIN Figure 17
Erwin South Pit Johnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedPart Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford,
Oxford County December 21, 2015
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0Te
mpe
ratu
re (°C)
SG1(downstream)
SG2 (upstream)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tota
l dai
ly p
reci
pita
iton
(mm
)*
* Precipitation measured at Dorchester Climate Station (http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca)
LEGEND
![Page 45: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
FINAL REHABILITATION PLANErwin South PItJohnston Brothers (Bothwell) LimitedOctober 19, 2015
Figure 18
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford)Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Adapted from Bradshaw (2015)
![Page 46: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
0 400 800
Figure 19
October 14, 2015
AGGREGATE EXTRACTION PITS ADJACENT TO ERWIN SOUTH PIT
Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford) Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
Erwin South PitJohnston Brothers (Bothwell) Limited
Approximate potential future ponds(worst-case scenario)
Pit No.
Pit No.
12345
LengthalongRiver(m)
5276021843671059
TOTAL
Approx.flow
contribution(m /s)
0.007860.008980.002750.005470.01580
0.0409
3
1
2
34
5
1
61
(Adapted from Figure 22 in Novaterra, 2014)
Erwin South Pit
![Page 47: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
42
TABLES
Tables 1 to 7 inclusive
![Page 48: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
43
Table 1. Summary of Information on Door-to-Door Well Survey in the vicinity of Erwin South pit.
Location: Part of Lot 29A Brocken Front Concession, South West Oxford Township (Formerly West Oxford Township), Oxford County Date of survey: October 21 and 26, 2015 Surveyed by: Blagy Novakovic and Sasha Novakovic
Location*)Well
designation- assigned *)
MOE well record number
Type of well; Date
complete
Well diameter (O.D. cm)
Casing above ground
(m)
Well depth (m)
top of concrete
pit =ground
Depth to water level top casing
(m)
Well use; geology (m) and comments
Lot 29A Broken Front
Concession SW Oxford
1 Not available drilled 12.7 1.1m below gr. 12.38 10.01 1)
Well owned by applicant: Not in use. Residence unoccupied. Well located in concrete 1.1m deep well pit 1.5 by 1 m in size. We pulled out jet pump from the well.
As above 2 Not available drilled Pitless adapter unknown Drilled well casing above ground
observed from driveway
As above 3 Not available bored 90 Slightly above
ground
Nobody at home
Nobody at home to let us do measurements of water level, depth
As above 4 Not available Drilled Pitless adaptor
Nobody at home; observation made form driveway
*) Well location is indicated on Figure 1; 1) Measured on October 21, 2015.
![Page 49: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
44
Table 2. Wells construction data and depths to water level in monitoring wells and staff gauges at Erwin South Pit.
Station
Elevation, m a.m.s.l. Casing
stick-up (m)
Well diameter
(cm)
Borehole Depth
(m)
Screen Interval (m)
Date, water level BTC (m)
Ground Top of
well casing 25
-Apr
-15
13-M
ay-1
5
16-M
ay-1
5
13-Ju
n-15
11-Ju
l-15
17-A
ug-1
5
19-S
ep-1
5
17-O
ct-1
5
14-N
ov-1
5
19-D
ec-1
5
MW1 271.27 271.91 0.64 5.0 6.6 1.5 - 4.5 1.47 1.66 1.82 1.70 1.67 1.87 1.97 1.96 1.78 1.74 MW2 270.06 270.80 0.74 5.0 5.0 1.2 - 4.2 1.16 1.33 1.48 1.34 1.40 1.48 1.55 1.58 1.42 1.45 MW3 270.93 271.81 0.88 5.0 8.1 4.2 - 7.2 5.50 5.55 5.68 5.70 5.34 5.50 5.71 5.86 5.88 5.91 MW4 272.64 273.25 0.61 5.0 14.5 11.0 - 14.0 10.10 10.11 10.27 10.30 10.30 10.51 10.79 11.16 11.17 10.84 MW5 274.57 275.53 0.96 5.0 12.7 9.2 - 12.2 9.09 9.12 9.14 9.20 9.00 8.97 9.12 9.21 9.25 9.28 SG1 N/A 270.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A - 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.60 0.60 SG2 N/A 270.86 N/A N/A N/A N/A - 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.32 0.39 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 BTC � Below top of casing; N/A � Not applicable;
![Page 50: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
45
Table 3. Water level elevation in monitoring wells and staff gauges at the proposed Erwin South Pit.
Station
Water level elevation (m a.s.l.)
25-A
pr-1
5
13-M
ay-1
5
16-M
ay-1
5
13-Ju
n-15
11-Ju
l-15
17-A
ug-1
5
19-S
ep-1
5
17-O
ct-1
5
14-N
ov-1
5
19-D
ec-1
5
MW1 270.44 270.25 270.09 270.21 270.24 270.04 269.94 269.95 270.13 270.17 MW2 269.64 269.47 269.32 269.46 269.40 269.32 269.25 269.22 269.38 269.35 MW3 266.31 266.26 266.13 266.11 266.47 266.31 266.10 265.95 265.93 265.90 MW4 263.15 263.14 262.98 262.95 262.95 262.74 262.46 262.09 262.08 262.41 MW5 266.44 266.41 266.39 266.33 266.53 266.56 266.41 266.32 266.28 266.25 SG1 - 270.00 269.99 270.02 269.95 269.98 269.98 270.00 269.97 269.97 SG2 - 270.53 270.50 270.51 270.54 270.47 270.55 270.54 270.54 270.53
a.s.l. � Above sea level; N/A � Not applicable;
![Page 51: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
46
Table 4. Geological and hydrogeological data at monitoring wells and at Erwin South Pit used to construct five figures. *)
Well and test pit designation
Elevation, m a.s.l. Water level (m) 16 May, 2015 Water level
elevation, m a.s.l. on
16 May,2015
Depth to water
table (m) on 16
May, 2015
Thickness of sand
and gravel1)
(m)
Elevation of clayey silt
till, m a.s.l.
Thickness of saturated sand and gravel (m)
on 16 May, 2015 Ground Top of casing
Below ground
Below top of casing
MW1 271.27 271.91 1.18 1.82 270.09 1.18 5.60 265.67 4.2 MW2 270.06 270.80 0.74 1.48 269.32 0.74 4.50 265.56 3.76 MW3 270.93 271.81 4.80 5.68 266.13 4.80 7.20 263.73 2.40 MW4 272.64 273.25 9.66 10.27 262.98 9.66 13.70 258.94 4.04 MW5 274.57 275.53 8.18 9.14 266.39 8.18 11.50 263.07 3.32 BH6 273.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.70 259.50 N/A SG1 N/A 270.57 N/A 0.58 269.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A SG2 N/A 270.86 N/A 0.36 270.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*) Figures 6 to 10 inclusive; BH- designates borehole; MW- designates monitoring well; SG- designate temporary staff gauge; TP-test pit designation; G-refers to greater than; L- refers to lower than; 1) Includes top soil up to 0.40 m;
![Page 52: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Table 5. Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit.
BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG**1.47 0.83 1.72 1.08 1.70 1.06 1.67 1.031.60 0.96 6.4 1.82 1.18 9.0 1.80 1.16 12.3 1.77 1.13 14.62.00 1.36 5.9 2.50 1.86 7.8 2.00 1.36 12.0 2.00 1.36 14.12.50 1.86 5.5 3.00 2.36 7.0 2.50 1.86 10.8 2.50 1.86 13.23.00 2.36 5.3 3.50 2.86 6.3 3.00 2.36 10.0 3.00 2.36 12.43.50 2.86 5.1 4.00 3.36 6.1 3.50 2.86 9.5 3.50 2.86 11.74.00 3.36 5.0 4.50 3.86 5.8 4.00 3.36 8.9 4.00 3.36 11.24.50 3.86 5.0 5.00 4.36 5.6 4.50 3.86 8.6 4.50 3.86 10.85.00 4.36 5.0 5.20 4.56 5.5 5.00 4.36 8.2 5.00 4.36 10.45.20 4.56 5.1 5.20 4.56 8.0 5.20 4.56 10.3
1.16 0.42 1.38 0.64 1.34 0.60 1.40 0.661.26 0.52 6.7 1.48 0.74 11.7 1.44 0.70 14.1 1.50 0.76 15.71.50 0.76 6.4 2.00 1.26 9.5 2.00 1.26 12.4 2.00 1.26 14.02.00 1.26 6.2 2.50 1.76 8.2 2.50 1.76 10.8 2.50 1.76 13.22.50 1.76 5.9 3.00 2.26 7.2 3.00 2.26 9.7 3.00 2.26 11.83.00 2.26 5.6 3.50 2.76 6.5 3.50 2.76 8.4 3.50 2.76 10.73.50 2.76 5.6 4.00 3.26 6.2 4.00 3.26 7.8 4.00 3.26 9.74.00 3.26 5.9 4.50 3.76 6.3 4.50 3.76 7.3 4.50 3.76 8.9
4.70 3.96 6.4 4.70 3.96 7.1 4.70 3.96 8.7
5.50 4.62 5.58 4.70 5.70 4.82 5.34 4.465.60 4.72 9.3 5.68 4.80 7.9 5.80 4.92 8.4 5.44 4.56 10.46.00 5.12 8.6 6.00 5.12 7.8 6.00 5.12 7.8 6.00 5.12 9.06.50 5.62 8.6 6.50 5.62 7.8 6.50 5.62 7.8 6.50 5.62 8.47.00 6.12 8.6 7.00 6.12 7.8 7.00 6.12 7.8 7.00 6.12 8.17.50 6.62 8.7 7.50 6.62 7.9 7.50 6.62 7.8 7.50 6.62 8.18.00 7.12 8.9 8.00 7.12 8.0 8.00 7.12 7.9 8.00 7.12 8.1
8.20 7.32 8.2 8.50 7.62 8.0 8.20 7.32 8.1
10.10 9.49 10.27 9.66 10.30 9.69 10.30 9.6910.20 9.59 10.7 10.37 9.76 9.8 10.40 9.79 9.6 10.40 9.79 9.710.50 9.89 10.4 11.00 10.39 9.6 11.00 10.39 9.3 11.00 10.39 9.311.00 10.39 10.3 11.50 10.89 9.6 11.50 10.89 9.3 11.50 10.89 9.311.50 10.89 10.3 12.00 11.39 9.6 12.00 11.39 9.4 12.00 11.39 9.312.00 11.39 10.2 12.50 11.89 9.6 12.50 11.89 9.4 12.50 11.89 9.312.50 11.89 10.2 13.00 12.39 9.6 13.00 12.39 9.4 13.00 12.39 9.413.00 12.39 10.2 13.50 12.89 9.6 13.50 12.89 9.4 13.50 12.89 9.413.50 12.89 10.2 14.00 13.39 9.6 14.00 13.39 9.4 14.00 13.39 9.414.00 13.39 10.0 14.50 13.89 9.6 14.50 13.89 9.4 14.50 13.89 9.414.20 13.59 10.0 14.70 14.09 9.6
9.09 8.13 9.14 8.18 9.20 8.24 9.00 8.049.20 8.24 9.9 9.24 8.28 9.5 9.30 8.34 9.0 9.10 8.14 10.99.50 8.54 9.6 9.50 8.54 8.9 9.50 8.54 8.9 9.50 8.54 9.1
10.00 9.04 9.5 10.00 9.04 9.0 10.00 9.04 8.7 10.00 9.04 8.910.50 9.54 9.5 10.50 9.54 8.9 10.50 9.54 8.6 10.50 9.54 8.911.00 10.04 9.5 11.00 10.04 8.9 11.00 10.04 8.6 11.00 10.04 8.911.50 10.54 9.5 11.50 10.54 9.0 11.50 10.54 8.7 11.50 10.54 8.812.00 11.04 9.6 12.00 11.04 9.0 12.00 11.04 8.8 12.00 11.04 8.912.50 11.54 9.6 12.50 11.54 9.0 12.50 11.54 8.9 12.50 11.54 8.912.70 11.74 9.6 12.70 11.74 9.1 12.70 11.74 8.9 12.70 11.74 8.9
BTC * - Below top of casingBG ** - Below ground
MW4
temp (C)
Depth (m) temp (C)
23-Apr-2015 16-May-2015 13-Jun-2015 11-Jul-2015
MW5
MW1
MW2
MW3
Monitoring Well Depth (m) temp
(C)Depth (m) temp
(C)Depth (m)
![Page 53: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Table 5.
BTC *BG **
MW4
MW5
MW1
MW2
MW3
Monitoring Well
Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit.
BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG** BTC* BG**1.87 1.23 1.97 1.33 1.96 1.32 1.78 1.142.00 1.36 16.0 2.07 1.43 15.4 2.06 1.42 12.2 1.88 1.24 10.42.50 1.86 14.9 2.50 1.86 14.9 2.50 1.86 12.9 2.00 1.36 10.53.00 2.36 14.3 3.00 2.36 14.5 3.00 2.36 13.0 2.50 1.86 10.83.50 2.86 13.8 3.50 2.86 14.1 3.50 2.86 12.9 3.00 2.36 10.94.00 3.36 13.2 4.00 3.36 13.8 4.00 3.36 12.8 3.50 2.86 11.04.50 3.86 12.8 4.50 3.86 13.5 4.50 3.86 12.6 4.00 3.36 11.25.00 4.36 12.4 4.70 4.06 13.2 4.70 4.06 12.6 4.50 3.86 11.25.20 4.56 12.3 5.00 4.36 12.8 5.00 4.36 12.3 5.00 4.36 11.2
5.20 4.56 12.7 5.20 4.56 12.2 5.20 4.56 11.2
1.48 0.74 1.55 0.81 1.58 0.84 1.42 0.681.60 0.86 16.7 1.65 0.91 16.0 1.68 0.94 12.2 1.52 0.78 10.72.00 1.26 15.6 2.00 1.26 15.4 2.00 1.26 13.2 2.00 1.26 11.22.50 1.76 14.6 2.50 1.76 14.9 2.50 1.76 13.5 2.50 1.76 11.53.00 2.26 13.3 3.00 2.26 14.0 3.00 2.26 13.5 3.00 2.26 11.73.50 2.76 12.3 3.50 2.76 13.3 3.50 2.76 13.3 3.50 2.76 11.84.00 3.26 11.4 4.00 3.26 12.5 4.00 3.26 13.0 4.00 3.26 12.04.50 3.76 10.5 4.50 3.76 11.7 4.50 3.76 12.5 4.50 3.76 12.04.70 3.96 10.2 4.70 3.96 11.4 4.70 3.96 12.3 4.70 3.96 12.0
5.50 4.62 5.71 4.83 5.86 4.98 5.88 5.005.60 4.72 10.8 5.81 4.93 11.2 5.96 5.08 10.8 5.98 5.10 10.96.00 5.12 10.0 6.00 5.12 10.7 6.50 5.62 10.6 6.50 5.62 10.86.50 5.62 9.5 6.50 5.62 10.2 7.00 6.12 10.4 7.00 6.12 10.77.00 6.12 9.1 7.00 6.12 9.8 7.50 6.62 10.2 7.50 6.62 10.57.50 6.62 8.8 7.50 6.62 9.5 8.00 7.12 9.8 8.00 7.12 10.28.00 7.12 8.7 8.00 7.12 9.3 8.20 7.32 9.6 8.20 7.32 10.08.20 7.32 8.6 8.50 7.62 9.1
10.51 9.90 10.79 10.18 11.16 10.55 11.17 10.5610.60 9.99 10.2 10.89 10.28 9.8 11.26 10.65 9.4 11.27 10.66 9.111.00 10.39 9.5 11.00 10.39 9.5 11.50 10.89 9.3 11.50 10.89 9.411.50 10.89 9.3 11.50 10.89 9.3 12.00 11.39 9.3 12.00 11.39 9.412.00 11.39 9.1 12.00 11.39 9.1 12.50 11.89 9.3 12.50 11.89 9.312.50 11.89 9.1 12.50 11.89 9.1 13.00 12.39 9.3 13.00 12.39 9.313.00 12.39 9.2 13.00 12.39 9.1 13.50 12.89 9.3 13.50 12.89 9.313.50 12.89 9.3 13.50 12.89 9.3 14.00 13.39 9.3 14.00 13.39 9.314.00 13.39 9.3 14.00 13.39 9.3 14.50 13.89 9.314.50 13.89 9.3
8.97 8.01 9.12 8.16 9.21 8.25 9.25 8.299.10 8.14 9.9 9.22 8.26 9.9 9.31 8.35 9.5 9.35 8.39 9.49.50 8.54 9.4 9.50 8.54 9.3 9.50 8.54 9.4 9.50 8.54 9.5
10.00 9.04 9.0 10.00 9.04 9.1 10.00 9.04 9.3 10.00 9.04 9.410.50 9.54 8.9 10.50 9.54 9.0 10.50 9.54 9.1 10.50 9.54 9.311.00 10.04 8.9 11.00 10.04 9.0 11.00 10.04 9.1 11.00 10.04 9.111.50 10.54 8.9 11.50 10.54 8.9 11.50 10.54 9.0 11.50 10.54 9.112.00 11.04 8.9 12.00 11.04 8.9 12.00 11.04 9.0 12.00 11.04 9.012.50 11.54 8.9 12.50 11.54 8.9 12.50 11.54 9.0 12.50 11.54 9.012.70 11.74 8.9 12.70 11.74 8.9 12.70 11.74 9.0 12.70 11.74 9.0
- Below top of casing- Below ground
Depth (m) temp (C)
temp (C)
Depth (m) temp (C)
Depth (m) temp (C)
Depth (m)
17-Aug-2015 7-Nov-201517-Oct-201519-Sep-2015
![Page 54: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Table 5.
BTC *BG **
MW4
MW5
MW1
MW2
MW3
Monitoring Well
Groundwater temperature in monitoring wells at Erwin South Pit.
BTC* BG**1.74 1.101.84 1.20 7.62.00 1.36 8.12.50 1.86 8.53.00 2.36 8.63.50 2.86 8.74.00 3.36 8.94.50 3.86 8.95.00 4.36 9.15.20 4.56 9.1
1.45 0.711.55 0.81 7.02.00 1.26 8.82.50 1.76 9.13.00 2.26 9.73.50 2.76 10.04.00 3.26 10.34.50 3.76 10.54.70 3.96 10.7
5.91 5.036.00 5.12 10.26.50 5.62 10.87.00 6.12 10.87.50 6.62 10.78.00 7.12 10.58.20 7.32 10.4
10.84 10.2310.94 10.33 9.111.50 10.89 9.512.00 11.39 9.612.50 11.89 9.513.00 12.39 9.513.50 12.89 9.514.00 13.39 9.514.50 13.89 9.5
9.28 8.329.38 8.42 8.79.50 8.54 9.3
10.00 9.04 9.410.50 9.54 9.311.00 10.04 9.311.50 10.54 9.312.00 11.04 9.312.50 11.54 9.3
- Below top of casing- Below ground
Depth (m) temp (C)
19-Dec-2015
![Page 55: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
50
Table 6. Water level and temperature measurements in surface water bodies at Erwin South Pit.
Date SG1 (downstream) SG2 (upstream)
Water level (m BTC)
Temperature (°C)
Water level (m BTC)
Temperature (°C)
25-Apr-15 n/m n/m n/m n/m 13-May-15 0.57 n/m 0.33 n/m 16-May-15 0.58 13.3 0.36 13.2 13-Jun-15 0.55 12.3 0.35 12.4 11-Jul-15 0.63 15.4 0.32 14.8
17-Aug-15 0.59 17.3 0.39 16.7 19-Sep-15 0.59 14.0 0.31 14.0 17-Oct-15 0.57 8.0 0.32 8.1 14-Nov-15 0.60 6.4 0.32 6.5 19-Dec-15 0.60 3.0 0.33 3.3
![Page 56: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
51
Table 7. Analytical Results of Groundwater at Monitoring Wells MW3 and MW5. (*)
Parameters MDL/Units
Source: Monitoring Wells Ontario Drinking Water Standards
MW3 MW5 Chemical Standards Objectives and Guides
MAC (mg/L) AO mg/L OG mg/L
General Inorganics
Alkalinity, total 5 mg/L 266 805 - 30-500
Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 0.06 0.37 -
Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.5 mg/L 2.7 5.1 - 5
Conductivity 5 uS/cm 806 2320 -
Hardness 1.0 mg/L 266 428 - 80-100
pH 0.1pH Units 7.6 7.2 - 6.5-8.5
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.1 mg/L 0.3 0.9 -
Anions
Chloride 1 mg/L 75 244 250
Flouride 0.1 mg/L 0.2 <0.1 1.5
Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/L 0.4 .<01 10
Nitrite as N 0.05 mg/L <0.05 <0.05 1.0
Phosphate as P 0.2 mg/L <0.2 <0.2
Sulphate 1 mg/L 58 132 500
Metals
Calcium 200 ug/L 73100 131000 -
Magnesium 200 ug/L 20200 24600 -
Potassium 200 ug/L 23660 124000 -
Sodium 200 ug/L 18200 102000 - 200
Date sampled: 26 October 2015. (*) Analysed by Paracel Laboratories Ltd.
MDL �Method Detection Limit
MAC �Maximum Acceptable Concentration
AO �Aesthetic Objective; OG �Operational Guidelines.
![Page 57: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
52
APPENDIX A
Figure 7 from Natural Environment Report
![Page 58: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
ïîð³ß¼¶¿½»²¬
Ú·¹«®» éæ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·±² ݱ³³«²·¬·»øîðïí Ù±±¹´» ß·® 豬±÷
ͽ¿´» ïæëðððÜ»½»³¾»® îðïë
ï ÓßÓîóî λ»¼ó½¿²¿®§ Ù®¿ Ó·²»®¿´ Ó»¿¼±© Ó¿®¸ ̧°»øðòí¸¿÷ï¿ ÝËÓï Ó·²»®¿´ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Ó»¿¼±© Û½±·¬» ·²½´«·±² øðò︿÷
î ÓßÓîóîñÍÉÌîóç λ»¼ó½¿²¿®§ Ù®¿ Ó·²»®¿´ Ó»¿¼±©Ó¿®¸ ̧°»ñÙ®¿§ ܱ¹©±±¼ Ó·²»®¿´ ̸·½µ»¬ Í©¿³° ̧°»øðòè縿÷
í ÍÉÝíóï ɸ·¬» Ý»¼¿® Ñ®¹¿²·½ ݱ²·º»®±« Í©¿³° ̧°»øëòí¸¿÷
ð
Ю·²¬ ±² ïïÈïéô Ô¿²¼½¿°» Ñ®·»²¬¿¬·±²
ïðð
ͽ¿´» ïæëðôðððÕ»§ д¿²
ïôðððð
Ô·½»²½»Þ±«²¼¿®§
ïîð³ß¼¶¿½»²¬
Ô·½»²½»Þ±«²¼¿®§
í
ï¿
î
ï
Û°¸»³»®¿´ Ú´±© Ü·¬½¸
л®³¿²»²¬ Ú´±© Ü·¬½¸ øÓ·½¸¿»´ ͸»¿¸¿² Ü®¿·²÷
ÓÒÎÚ ³¿°°»¼ Ú·ª» б·²¬ ɱ±¼ É»¬´¿²¼
![Page 59: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
54
APPENDIX B
Borehole and Instrumentation Logs
![Page 60: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
![Page 61: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
![Page 62: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
![Page 63: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
![Page 64: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
![Page 65: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
![Page 66: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
62
APPENDIX C
Water Well Records Printout from MOECC Files
![Page 67: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
WWaatteerr wweellll rreeccoorrdd pprriinnttoouutt ffrroomm wwaatteerr wweellll rreeccoorrddss oonn ffiillee wwiitthh MMOOEECCCC Printout generated on 25/09/2015Project: Erwin South Pit
Search Criteria Easting (m): Northing (m): Radius (m):505335 4761259 1000
Obtained from WWIS database, last updated July 2, 2014
Location: Part Lot 29A, Broken Front Concession, (Formerly West Oxford),Township of South-West Oxford, Oxford County
WaterWell
RecordNo.
Audit No.(Well Tag)
TownshipConcession (Lot)
UTM ZoneEastingNorthing
WaterFound(m)
Pumping TestSTAT / PUMP
RATE / HR:MINWaterUse
Screen depth
interval (m)
Lithology (m)Date WorkCompleted
Casing diameter
(cm)
4102933 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (001)
17 5047194760835
21/11/1953 FR 5.5 5.5 / 6.7 22.7 / 4:0
STDO
GRVL 6.1, HPAN STNS 12.19, GRVL 13.4110.2
4102934 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (002)
17 5045644760623
27/09/1962 FR 12.5 10.1 / 11.6 18.2 / 4:0
DO GRVL 12.512.7
4107010 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (001)
17 5046814760823
29/10/1974 FR 18.3 9.8 / 11.6 54.6 / 8:0
DO 20.42-21.64 STNS SAND GRVL 6.1, GRVL CLAY BLDR 7.92, BRWN SAND 14.33, GRVL STNS 15.54, GREY CLAY SAND GRVL 16.46, GRVL CLAY 18.29, SAND 21.95, GREY CLAY 22.25
12.7
4108211 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (001)
17 5046964760833
22/09/1977 FR 13.7FR 15.2
11 / 12.8 31.8 / 3:0
STDO
BRWN GRVL 12.19, GRVL CLN 15.2412.7
4109861 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (002)
17 5045744760622
11/07/1983 FR 12.2 8.5 / 8.8 54.6 / 1:30
DO 13.41-14.33 BRWN GRVL 14.33, UNKN 14.6312.7
4110696 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (001)
17 5048144761263
12/03/1986 FR 15.2 11.3 / 11.3 45.5 / 1:30
DOST
14.33-15.24 BRWN CGVL STNS HARD 14.33, GREY GRVL LOOS 15.54
12.7
4112043 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIPTR SB (B)
17 5059414760550
30/04/1990 FR 20.4 5.5 / 10.7 54.6 / 2:0
DO 19.51-20.42 BRWN SAND 5.18, BRWN CSND 17.07, GREY GRVL 20.42
12.7
4113092 120000 ()
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
TR SA (001)
17 5047954761329
30/06/1994 MN 12.2 4.9 / 9.1 90.9 / 2:0
CO 12.19-13.11 BRWN SILT 1.22, GRVL HARD STNS 13.41, GREY HPAN 14.02
15.215.2
4702273 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIPBF (030)
17 5049844761403
24/11/1962 FR 25.9 9.1 / 12.2 27.3 / 4:0
DO GRVL STNS 25.6, GRVL 25.9110.2
4703042 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5058144760873
19/06/1970 FR 31.4 5.2 / 13.4 22.7 / 2:0
DO BLCK MUCK 0.91, GREY CLAY 13.11, MSND GRVL 23.16, HPAN 29.57, GREY LMSN 31.39
12.7
Page 1 of 4
![Page 68: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
WaterWell
RecordNo.
Audit No.(Well Tag)
TownshipConcession (Lot)
UTM ZoneEastingNorthing
WaterFound(m)
Pumping TestSTAT / PUMP
RATE / HR:MINWaterUse
Screen depth
interval (m)
Lithology (m)Date WorkCompleted
Casing diameter
(cm)
4703331 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIPBF (028)
17 5053344761843
30/11/1971 FR 32.3FR 36
FR 49.4
9.1 / 14.3 977.4 / 24:0
IN BLCK LOAM 0.3, BRWN GRVL MSND CLAY 9.45, BRWN GRVL MSND 11.89, BRWN GRVL CLAY MSND 20.73, BRWN GRVL MSND 24.38, BRWN CLAY MSND 24.99, BRWN GRVL CLAY MSND 26.52, BRWN LMSN 55.17
30.530.5
4703400 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIPBF (029)
17 5051144761773
26/04/1972 FR 16.8 13.7 / 13.7 27.3 / 2:0
DO BRWN LOAM 0.3, BRWN SAND 0.91, GRVL STNS 11.28, BLUE CLAY 14.63, GRVL 16.76
12.7
4704050 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5056424760947
30/10/1974 FR 8.5 1.2 / 3.7 27.3 / 2:0
DO BRWN CLAY STNS 4.57, BRWN SAND 6.71, GRVL 9.14
12.7
4704630 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5056344760803
25/08/1977 FR 6.1 1.8 / 3 31.8 / 1:30
DO BRWN SAND 4.57, GRVL 10.0612.7
4705014 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (028)
17 5062344760963
19/06/1979 FR 29.6 3 / 13.7 45.5 / 1:30
DO BRWN GRVL SAND 7.62, BLUE CLAY STNS 28.65, GREY LMSN STNS 29.57
12.712.7
4706129 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIPBF (029)
17 5050194761443
15/09/1987 SU 26.5 10.4 / 16.8 45.5 / 1:30
DO GREY GRVL 14.33, GREY GRVL CLAY 21.95, GREY GRVL 23.47, GREY GRVL CLAY 25.91, GREY LMSN 27.13
12.7
4706159 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (030)
17 5055144760828
12/11/1987 FR 32.3 8.2 / 27.4 36.4 / 1:30
ST BRWN FILL 1.22, GREY CLAY SAND STNS 2.13, GREY GRVL 6.4, GREY CLAY SAND STNS 31.39, BRWN LMSN 32.31
12.712.7
4706246 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (030)
17 5054944760808
18/05/1988 5.8 / 6.1 54.6 / 2:0
DO 9.45-10.36 BRWN SAND GRVL 3.66, GREY CLAY SILT 9.45, CGVL STNS 10.36, GREY CLAY 13.41
12.7
4706528 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5056464760833
13/06/1989 FR 29.3 2.7 / 10.7 45.5 / 1:30
DO SAND 4.57, GRVL SAND 8.23, GREY CLAY STNS 28.65, SHLE 29.26
12.7
4706549 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5058044760820
19/06/1989 FR 35.4 7.9 / 22.9 31.8 / 1:30
DO GREY CLAY STNS 14.33, GREY CLAY 20.73, GREY HPAN 28.96, GREY SHLE 29.26, BRWN LMSN 35.36
12.712.7
4706583 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5057344760850
15/08/1989 FR 29.6 9.1 / 10.7 68.2 / 1:30
DO BRWN CLAY GRVL 2.44, GRVL SAND 9.75, GRVL CLAY 28.65, SHLE 28.96, BRWN LMSN 29.57
12.7
4706883 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5059724761313
07/05/1991 FR 29.9 1.8 / 9.1 31.8 / 2:0
DO 28.96-29.87 BRWN SAND 4.27, GREY CSND 15.85, GREY HPAN 28.35, GREY GRVL 29.87
12.712.7
4707243 122695 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIPBF (028)
17 5055284761759
23/06/1993 FR 29FR 34.4FR 36.6FR 53.6
9.8 / 20.7 909.2 / 24:
IN BRWN GRVL SAND 9.14, GREY GRVL SAND 18.29, GREY GRVL STNS CMTD 27.13, BRWN SHLE 27.74, BRWN LMSN 53.64
25.4
Page 2 of 4
![Page 69: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
WaterWell
RecordNo.
Audit No.(Well Tag)
TownshipConcession (Lot)
UTM ZoneEastingNorthing
WaterFound(m)
Pumping TestSTAT / PUMP
RATE / HR:MINWaterUse
Screen depth
interval (m)
Lithology (m)Date WorkCompleted
Casing diameter
(cm)
4708039 204077 ()
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
CON 01 (029)
17 5055454760861
12/08/1999 FR 32.3 9.8 / 15.2 68.2 / 2:0
DO BRWN GRVL 2.44, BRWN CLAY 4.57, GREY CLAY 22.86, GREY CLAY 28.35, BRWN SHLE 28.96, BRWN LMSN 32.31
15.215.212.7
4709223 Z46038
(A041406)
WEST OXFORD TOWNSHIP
()
17 5052624761574
29/05/2006 2.1-3.65
7155322 Z103997
(A105874)
NORTH DORCHESTER TOWNSHIP
()
17 5047044761490
02/11/2010 UT 4.9 MO 3.81-9.915.1
Number of records within search area: 26
Page 3 of 4
![Page 70: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
1. Core Material and Descriptive terms
Code Description � Code Description � Code Description � Code Description � Code Description
BLDR BOULDERS FCRD FRACTURED IRFM IRON FORMATION PORS POROUS SOFT SOFT
BSLT BASALT FGRD FINE-GRAINED LIMY LIMY PRDG PREVIOUSLY DUG SPST SOAPSTONE
CGRD COARSE-GRAINED FGVL FINE GRAVEL LMSN LIMESTONE PRDR PREV.
DRILLED STKY STICKY
CGVL COARSE GRAVEL FILL FILL LOAM TOPSOIL QRTZ QUARTZITE STNS STONES
CHRT CHERT FLDS FELDSPAR LOOS LOOSE QSND QUICKSAND STNY STONEY
CLAY CLAY FLNT FLINT LTCL LIGHT-COLOURED QTZ QUARTZ THIK THICK
CLN CLEAN FOSS FOSILIFEROUS LYRD LAYERED ROCK ROCK THIN THIN
CLYY CLAYEY FSND FINE SAND MARL MARL SAND SAND TILL TILL
CMTD CEMENTED GNIS GNEISS MGRD MEDIUM-GRAINED SHLE SHALE UNKN UNKNOWN
TYPE
CONG CONGLOMERATE GRNT GRANITE MGVL MEDIUM GRAVEL SHLY SHALY VERY VERY
CRYS CRYSTALLINE GRSN GREENSTONE MRBL MARBLE SHRP SHARP WBRG WATER-BEARING
CSND COARSE SAND GRVL GRAVEL MSND MEDIUM SAND SHST SCHIST WDFR WOOD FRAGMENTS
DKCL DARK-COLOURED GRWK GREYWACKE MUCK MUCK SILT SILT WTHD WEATHERED
DLMT DOLOMITE GVLY GRAVELLY OBDN OVERBURDEN SLTE SLATE
DNSE DENSE GYPS GYPSUM PCKD PACKED SLTY SILTY
DRTY DIRTY HARD HARD PEAT PEAT SNDS SANDSTONE
DRY DRY HPAN HARDPAN PGVL PEA GRAVEL SNDY SANDY
2. Core Color
Code Description
WHIT WHITE
GREY GREY
BLUE BLUE
GREN GREEN
YLLW YELLOW
BRWN BROWN
RED RED
BLCK BLACK
BLGY BLUE-GREY
3. Water Use
Code Description Code Description
DO Domestic OT Other
ST Livestock TH Test Hole
IR Irrigation DE Dewatering
IN Industrial MO Monitoring
CO Commercial
MN Municipal
PS Public
AC Cooling AndA/C
NU Not Used
4. Water Detail
Code Description Code Description
FR Fresh GS Gas
SA Salty IR Iron
SU Sulphur
MN Mineral
UK Unknown
Notes on columns:
Column 1. Water well record number of the well, as shown on MOECC files.
Column 2. Audit Number and Well Tag in brackets as given on MOECC files; Well Tag number available for wells
drilled in 2003 or later.Column 3. Geographic Township, Concession, and Lot in brackets.Column 4. UTM Zone, Easting, and Northing (Datum is NAD83).
Cannot be field verified unless Well Tag is affixed to well casing which can be cross-referenced.
Column 5. Casing diameter, in centimetres.Column 6. Date work completed (construction, alteration,
abandonment etc.).
Notes on column:
Column 7. Depth water found (metres) and water type - see Table 4 for meaning of code.
Column 8. Results of pumping test performed at time of well construction. STAT is static level before test (metres); PUMP is pumping level at end of test (metres); RATE is pumping rate (L/min); HR:MIN is duration of test in hours and minutes.
Column 9. Water use - see Table 3 for meaning of code.Column 10. Depth interval of screen (metres).Column 11. Lithology as described by well driller - see Table 1 and
Table 2 for meaning of code. Units in metres.
![Page 71: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
67
APPENDIX D
Water Budget Calculations
![Page 72: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
68
APPENDIX D
CALCUALTIONS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES
D.1 Potential Changes in Water Balance
The methods for calculating groundwater recharge involve the use of a climatic water budget and applying it to the area proposed for sand and gravel extraction. A method developed by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy was used (MOEE, 1995).
First, the water balance for existing site conditions (Drawing 1 of 3 from Bradshaw, 2015) is determined then it is compared to the water balance of the site after rehabilitation (Drawing 3 of 3 from Bradshaw, 2015).
The following data were taken from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Assessment Report prepared by Thames-Sydenham and Region (2010). For the Reynolds River/Thames River/Above Ingersoll subwatershed, the following data were given in the report:
Table D1. Actual site water budget for existing conditions.
Parameter Value Description
Yearly precipitation 952 Table 21 in Thames-Sydenham and Region Tier 1 Water Budget, Version 1.0 (2010)
Evapotranspiration 564 Table 23 in Thames-Sydenham and Region Tier 1 Water Budget, Version 1.0 (2010)
Actual water balance 388 Using method shown in Section 4.5, Table 1, of MOEE (1995)
The following infiltration factors were used for current/existing site conditions:
Table D2. Infiltration factors for existing conditions.
Parameter Value DescriptionTopography 0.2 Rolling land, average slope of 2.8 m to 3.8 m per km
Soil 0.4 Open sandy loam
Cover 0.1 Cultivated lands
TOTAL 0.7 Estimated total infiltration factor
Note: Taken from (Table 2 in Section 4.5 of MOEE, 1995)
![Page 73: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
69
Infiltration at the site is calculated by multiplying the actual water balance with the infiltration factor (388 mm x 0.7 = 271.6 mm). Therefore the amount of infiltration is 271.6 mm, and the remaining amount, 116.4 mm, is runoff.
It is proposed to have one pond with a maximum size of approximately 25.1 ha as the final land use. Therefore lake evaporation would replace evapotranspiration. According to Environment Canada Climate Normals from 1981 to 2010, average value of lake evaporation measured at Delhi Climate Station (located 40 km to the southeast), is 634.5 mm (Environment Canada, 2015). Subtracting this value from the average annual precipitation gives 317.5 mm, which is the amount of precipitation that will remain in the pond. In a crude sense, we can consider this as groundwater recharge or infiltration because it will not be possible for water to leave the pond area as runoff.
The Table D3 provides a comparison of the water budget for current site conditions and rehabilitated conditions.
Table D3. Comparison of water budget at Erwin South Pit before and after gravel extraction.
Parameter Current conditions (mm)
Rehabilitated conditions (mm) Change (mm)
Precipitation 952 952 0Evapotranspiration 564 n/a n/aEvaporation n/a 634.5 n/aGroundwater recharge or infiltration 271.6 317.5 + 45.9
Runoff 116.4 0 - 116.4
In a stricter sense of water budget, there is a gain of groundwater recharge of 45.9 mm, when compared to existing conditions (317.5 mm � 271.6 mm = 45.9 mm). However, the overall water budget is expected to decrease by 70.5 mm because more water is being lost due to direct evaporation from the pond, and there is no runoff in the area of the pond (45.9 mm � 116.4 mm = 65 mm).
If we consider that the pond area would be 25.1 ha, gaining 45.9 mm of groundwater recharge per annum would translate into an increase in base flow of 0.368 L/s from the pond area. This is in addition to the base flow of current conditions which is estimated as 2.179 L/s. Naturally, the theoretical increase in base flow is due to the removal of runoff from the area where the pond will be created.
Furthermore, by assuming that the calculated base flow contributes to the nearest watercourse (TSRSPC, 2010), we estimate that the base flow contribution from the rehabilitated pond to the local watercourse is 2.547 L/s. In a broader sense this is valuable gain because the base flow would reach the local watercourse during drier periods of the year when stream recharge is much needed.
![Page 74: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
70
D.2 Potential for Water Level Lowering Due to Removal of Aggregate
D.2.1 Background
The removal of sand and gravel from the proposed extraction area theoretically has a potential to create a cone of depression around the pond. As excavation proceeds in the proposed extraction area, the size of the pond and volume of water stored will proportionally increase. The effects of daily extraction on the water table are presented in this section.
When a given volume of aquifer material (sand and gravel plus pore water) is removed, most of the water in the excavator bucket drains back into the pond. Additionally, the removed sand and gravel is placed near the pond so that the remaining water drains back into the pond. A volume of water equal to the volume of excavated sand and gravel flows from the existing pond, and groundwater, into the void created by sand and gravel removal.
The overall water level drops slightly as the void space is filled. The effect of this marginal drawdown can instantly be observed at the pond edge. The temporary hydraulic gradient across the pond edge increases in proportion to the drawdown, and flow from the adjacent aquifer into the pond increases.
The aquifer material captured in each bucket consists of saturated sand and gravel. Assuming a porosity of the granular material of 0.35, the volume of aquifer solids removed in a 1 m3 scoop is 0.65 m3. When an excavated pond is small, the change in volume caused by the removal of granular material has the greatest effect on the water level in the pond. As pond size increases, there is more water available in relation to the extraction of one bucket of material, so the effects of extraction become increasingly subdued.
The following calculation show the maximum possible drawdown created around the pond at its smallest and largest extents under conservative and most adverse conditions. These conservative conditions are based on assumptions which overestimate factors which could cause drawdown in the pond.
A volume of water required to replace solid extracted volume was calculated by using a daily tonnage of 3,000 tonnes. This value is representative of the average amount of granular material that can be removed with a drag line excavator in a 10 hour work day (300 tonnes/hour). Because a drag lines are expensive to run, they will typically only be on site for a 2 or 3 week period, operating 10 hours a day, which means that the daily tonnage of 3,000 tonnes is the maximum amount of aggregate that will be removed in a single day.
Typically, the material removed with the drag line will be piled along the shoreline so that water present in the aggregate will drain back into the pond because wet material is heavy and undesirable to customers.
Based on the above-mentioned tonnage, the volume of water required to replace the extracted materials is calculated as follows:
![Page 75: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
71
The input parameters:
Maximum daily tonnage = 3,000 tonnes/day Density of aggregate = 1766 kg/ m3 (MNDM, 1991) Porosity = 0.35 Solids ratio = 0.65
Calculated volume of sand and gravel being excavated per day:
�� � �3,000,000 ��/��1,766 ��/� � 0.65�� � 1,104 �/��
This is the approximate volume of water that will need to flow into the excavated area to replace the sand and gravel.
D.2.2 Scenario A: Early Phase of Extraction
The potential effect on water table is considered to be the greatest when the pond is small in size. We will assume the pond size to be 1 hectare, and the average thickness of saturated sand and gravel to be 4.5 m (Drawing 3 of 3 in Bradshaw, 2015). The banks of the pond area assumed to be vertical for simplicity. At this stage the maximum volume of water in the pond is given by:
�� � � � �������� �������� ����� �� ��������������� � 10,000 � 4.5 �� � 45,000 �
Where, A = area of the pond b = depth of the pond
The maximum daily drawdown caused by the removal of aggregate was calculated as follows:
����� � �� � ��� � ���/������ � 4.5 � �45,000 � � 1,104 �/��� 10,000 �⁄����� � 0.110
Where, dd(1) = Reduction of hydraulic head in pond, (m) ho = Initial head in pond, (m) V1 = volume of water in the pond, (m3) Vw = The effective calculated pumping rate, (m3/day) A = Area of the pond (m2)
![Page 76: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
72
Given the size of the pond of 1 hectare, and assuming no water level recovery during the daily extraction, the calculated drawdown would be 0.110 m at the end of 10-hour extraction day. In reality, water level will recover over the remaining 14 hours of day because there is a constant groundwater flux from the up gradient area of the adjacent land which flows into the Site. So, the drawdown caused by removal of the solid phase of the aquifer will be replenished quickly even before the next extraction day begins.
D.2.3 Scenario B: Near Completion of Extraction
When the extraction of sand and gravel is near completion, the size of the proposed pond would be close to 25.1 ha, and the pond depth is assumed to be an average of 2.5 m (Drawing 3 of 3 in Bradshaw, 2015). At this stage, the maximum volume of water in the pond is given by:
�� � � � �������� �������� ����� �� ��� ���� �������� � 251,000� 2.5�� � 632,500�
The drawdown caused by the removal of aggregate below water table was calculated to be:
����� � �� � ��� � ���/������ � 2.5 � �632,500� � 1,104�/��� 251,000�⁄����� � 0.00436
Given the pond size of 25.1 ha, and assuming no water level recovery during the daily extraction, the calculated drawdown would be 0.00436 m at the end of a 10-hour extraction day. In reality, water level will recover over the remaining 14 hours of day because there is a constant groundwater flux from the up gradient area of the adjacent land which flows into the Site. So, the drawdown caused by removal of the solid phase of the aquifer will be replenished quickly even before next extraction day begins.
![Page 77: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit � Municipality of South-West Oxford October 11, 2016
73
APPENDIX E
Laboratory Certificate of Analyses
![Page 78: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
www.paracellabs.com1-800-749-1947
Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd
Attn: Sasha NovakovicLondon, ON N6C5M839 Winship CloseNovaterra Environmental
Certificate of Analysis
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:
Paracel ID Client ID
Order #: 1544109Order Date: 26-Oct-2015
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Client PO:
Custody: 25127 Project:
1544109-01 MW31544109-02 MW5
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.
Lab SupervisorMark Foto, M.Sc.
Approved By:
Page 1 of 7
![Page 79: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Order #: 1544109
Certificate of AnalysisClient:
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015
Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental
Analysis Summary TableAnalysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date
EPA 310.1 - Titration to pH 4.5 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15Alkalinity, total to pH 4.5EPA 351.2 - Auto Colour 29-Oct-15 30-Oct-15Ammonia, as NEPA 300.1 - IC 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15AnionsEPA 9050A- probe @25 °C 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15ConductivityMOE E3247B - Combustion IR, filtration 28-Oct-15 29-Oct-15Dissolved Organic CarbonHardness 30-Oct-15 30-Oct-15HardnessEPA 200.8 - ICP-MS 28-Oct-15 28-Oct-15Metals, ICP-MSEPA 150.1 - pH probe @25 °C 27-Oct-15 27-Oct-15pHEPA 351.2 - Auto Colour, digestion 28-Oct-15 28-Oct-15Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Page 2 of 7
![Page 80: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Order #: 1544109
Certificate of AnalysisClient:
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015
Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental
Client ID: MW3 MW5 - -Sample Date: --26-Oct-1526-Oct-15
1544109-01 1544109-02 - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Water Water - -
General InorganicsAlkalinity, total --8052685 mg/L
Ammonia as N --0.370.060.01 mg/L
Dissolved Organic Carbon --5.12.70.5 mg/L
Conductivity --23208065 uS/cm
Hardness --4282661.0 mg/L
pH --7.27.60.1 pH Units
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen --0.90.30.1 mg/L
AnionsChloride --244751 mg/L
Fluoride --<0.10.20.1 mg/L
Nitrate as N --<0.10.40.1 mg/L
Nitrite as N --<0.05<0.050.05 mg/L
Phosphate as P --<0.2<0.20.2 mg/L
Sulphate --132581 mg/L
MetalsCalcium --13100073100200 ug/L
Magnesium --2460020200200 ug/L
Potassium --1240002660200 ug/L
Sodium --10200018200200 ug/L
Page 3 of 7
![Page 81: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Order #: 1544109
Certificate of AnalysisClient:
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015
Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental
Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result
ReportingLimit Units
SourceResult %REC
%RECLimit RPD
RPDLimit Notes
AnionsChloride ND 1 mg/LFluoride ND 0.1 mg/LNitrate as N ND 0.1 mg/LNitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/LPhosphate as P ND 0.2 mg/LSulphate ND 1 mg/L
General InorganicsAlkalinity, total ND 5 mg/LAmmonia as N ND 0.01 mg/LDissolved Organic Carbon ND 0.5 mg/LConductivity ND 5 uS/cmTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen ND 0.1 mg/L
MetalsCalcium ND 200 ug/LMagnesium ND 200 ug/LPotassium ND 200 ug/LSodium ND 200 ug/L
Page 4 of 7
![Page 82: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Order #: 1544109
Certificate of AnalysisClient:
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015
Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental
Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result
ReportingLimit Units
SourceResult %REC
%RECLimit RPD
RPDLimit Notes
AnionsChloride 74.7 1 mg/L 74.8 100.1Fluoride 0.18 0.1 mg/L 0.18 101.9Nitrate as N 0.42 0.1 mg/L 0.41 202.3Nitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/L ND 20Phosphate as P ND 0.2 mg/L ND 20Sulphate 59.0 1 mg/L 58.5 100.9
General InorganicsAlkalinity, total 283 5 mg/L 286 141.0Ammonia as N ND 0.01 mg/L ND 8Dissolved Organic Carbon 4.1 0.5 mg/L 3.6 3711.7Conductivity 1070 5 uS/cm 1080 111.6pH 8.0 0.1 pH Units 8.0 100.0Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 144 5.0 mg/L 139 103.7
MetalsCalcium 24100 200 ug/L 21900 209.3Magnesium 7950 200 ug/L 7320 208.2Potassium 1480 200 ug/L 1460 201.0Sodium 13600 200 ug/L 12700 207.1
Page 5 of 7
![Page 83: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Order #: 1544109
Certificate of AnalysisClient:
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015
Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental
Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Result
ReportingLimit Units Source
Result %REC %RECLimit RPD
RPDLimit Notes
AnionsChloride 82.5 74.8 77.1 78-112 QC-021 mg/LFluoride 1.05 0.18 86.9 73-1130.1 mg/LNitrate as N 1.46 0.41 105 81-1120.1 mg/LNitrite as N 1.02 ND 102 76-1170.05 mg/LPhosphate as P 6.47 ND 129 72-1310.2 mg/LSulphate 67.4 58.5 88.8 75-1111 mg/L
General InorganicsAmmonia as N 0.234 ND 93.4 81-1240.01 mg/LDissolved Organic Carbon 13.7 3.6 101 60-1330.5 mg/LTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.76 ND 88.2 81-1260.1 mg/L
MetalsCalcium 3000 2190 80.8 80-120ug/LMagnesium 1580 732 84.6 80-120ug/LPotassium 965 146 81.9 80-120ug/LSodium 2110 1270 83.5 80-120ug/L
Page 6 of 7
![Page 84: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Order #: 1544109
Certificate of AnalysisClient:
Report Date: 30-Oct-2015Order Date:26-Oct-2015
Client PO: Project Description:Novaterra Environmental
QualiÞer Notes:
QC QualiÞers :
SCV result is outside the accepted range, sample data accepted based on other QA/QC data within the sequence.
QC-02 :
Sample Data RevisionsNone
Work Order Revisions / Comments:
None
Other Report Notes:
MDL: Method Detection Limit
n/a: not applicable
Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples%REC: Percent recovery.RPD: Relative percent difference.
ND: Not Detected
Page 7 of 7
![Page 85: HYDROGEOLOGICAL LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS … Report... · 2017-03-23 · Hydrogeological Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Proposed Erwin South Pit Municipality of South-West](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060300/5f0817e47e708231d4204d56/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)