hydrogeologic assessment report - amazon s3hydrogeologic assessment report proposed residential...

Hydrogeologic Assessment Report

Proposed Residential DevelopmentPart Lot 25 Concession 9Perry Township, OntarioVista Investments Muskoka Inc.

347 Pido Road Unit 29 Peterborough Ontario K9J 6X7 Canada

11139308 | 01 | Report No 1 | June 29, 2017

GHD | Hydrogeological Assessment Letter, Perry Township, ON | 11139308 (01) | Page ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Purpose and Scope 1

3. Project Details 2

4. Field Methodology 2

General ..............................................................................................................................2

Surface Conditions.............................................................................................................3

Subsurface Conditions.......................................................................................................3

4.3.1 Regional Geography..........................................................................................34.3.2 Soil Stratigraphy ................................................................................................44.3.3 Local Groundwater ............................................................................................4

5. Hydrogeology 4

General ..............................................................................................................................4

Existing Local Water Supplies ...........................................................................................4

Background Groundwater Quality......................................................................................6

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 8

General ..............................................................................................................................8

Service Options..................................................................................................................8

Water Supply .....................................................................................................................8

6.3.1 Groundwater Availability....................................................................................86.3.2 Production Well Requirements ..........................................................................9

Septic Waste Disposal .....................................................................................................10

6.4.1 General ............................................................................................................106.4.2 Septic Impact Evaluation .................................................................................106.4.3 Waste Disposal Requirements ........................................................................12

Summary Conclusions .....................................................................................................13

Signatures ........................................................................................................................14

7. Statement of Limitations 15

EnclosuresFigure No.

Vicinity Plan 1

Property Plan 2

Plot Plan 3

GHD | Hydrogeological Assessment Letter, Perry Township, ON | 11139308 (01) | Page iii

Tables

Table 5.1: Summary of Water Well Information .................................................................................... 6

Table 5.2: Water Quality Summary ....................................................................................................... 7

Appendices

Appendix A Test Hole Logs and Grain Size AnalysisAppendix B Well Survey and Well RecordsAppendix C Certificates of Analysis, Nitrate CalculationsAppendix D Qualifications of Site Assessors

GHD | Hydrogeological Assessment Letter, Perry Township, ON | 11139308 (01) | Page 1

1. Introduction

This GHD report presents the results of a hydrogeological investigation that was completed for aproposed plan of subdivision. The proposed residential development, herein referred to as “theSite”, is currently a rural parcel of land located on Birchdale Road, south of County Road 518, eastof the Village of Emsdale, Ontario. The work was conducted for Vista Investments Muskoka Inc.represented by Mr. Larry Ross, as per our proposal dated February 9, 2017. The work wasconducted to assess suitability of the Site for the development of eight (8) single-family residentialproperties.

The Site is rectangular and has an approximate area of 26.29 ha. The Site is geographicallylocated on Part of Lot 25, Concession 9, in the Township of Perry, in the District of Parry Sound.Eight (8) individual residential lots are proposed and as municipal servicing is not available in thearea, the lots will be required to be privately serviced for water and septic wastes.

The location of the Site relative to nearby roads and water courses is illustrated on the Vicinity Plan,Plate 1, compiled from Energy, Mines and Resources' map 31 E/1, dated 1990. More specific groundsurface characteristics are illustrated on the Site Plan, Plate 2 which has been produced from Ministryof Natural Resources Land Information Mapping. The general layout of the Site indicatingsubsurface exploration locations on site is depicted on the Plot Plan, Plate 3, provided by LarryRoss of Vista Investments Muskoka Inc.

The Site exists in a rural setting with sporadic rural residential properties to the north and south withundeveloped woodlands in all directions. The property is described as rolling with overall relief fromnorth to south.

2. Purpose and Scope

The investigation was conducted to determine the hydrogeological conditions of the Site and thepotential for eight (8) lots for single-family residential properties. The lots are to be individuallyserviced for water and sanitary services. The purpose of the hydrogeological study was four-fold:

1. Define prevailing hydrogeological conditions at the Site, including subsurface soilstratigraphy, groundwater movement, and local hydrochemistry;

2. Assess the availability of groundwater supplies based on local water well records on filewith the Ministry of the Environment (MOE);

3. Evaluate the suitability of the planned land use and assess anticipated impacts of theseptic systems on existing and adjacent groundwater resources within the study area;and

4. Carry out engineering analyses to assess the potential impacts in regards to nitrateloading from the planned septic systems.


To accomplish the foregoing purposes, the following scope of work was carried out:

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

2. Carried out an inventory of available well record data on file with the MOE to evaluate thephysical characteristics of the aquifer complexes that underlie the region;

3. Surveyed representative existing private wells adjacent to the Site regarding their physicalfeatures and history of water supply in order to confirm and supplement the compiled well recorddata from the MOE. Representative samples of groundwater from a neighbouring drilled welltapping the bedrock and a neighbouring dug well tapping the shallow overburden was obtainedfor laboratory testing to determine the baseline water quality of the tapped aquifer complexes;

4. Investigated and defined the existing overburden and hydrogeological conditions by excavating,sampling and logging five (5) test holes to a maximum depth of 3.0 metres.

5. Engineering analyses was performed of the acquired data to determine the suitability of the Sitefor a potable source of groundwater and sewage waste disposal. The results are presented inthis report, outlining our conclusions and recommendations.

3. Project Details

The proposed development entails an approximate area of 26.29 hectares (ha) that will be privatelyserviced for water and individual septic systems. It is GHD’s understanding that the developmentwill be comprised of 8 single, detached residential lots with six larger lots ranging in size from 3.19ha to 5.78 ha and 2 smaller lots around 1.4 ha in size, as depicted on the Plot Plan, Plate 3.

4. Field Methodology

General

The field methodology consisted of a site inspection, a soils exploration program and a water wellsurvey of nearby properties. The Site Plan, Plate 2 illustrates the locations of the wells included inthe survey.

A site inspection and soils exploration was conducted on May 25, 2017 by GHD to observe thegeneral surficial characteristics of the Site. The Site was observed to be heavily wooded with arolling topography. Based on mapping there are elevation increases of approximately 7 metres inthe central portion of the property while north and southern portions are relatively the sameelevation. The soil generally appeared to be of relatively good drainage toward the low-lying areas.

A soils exploration investigation consisted of subsurface exploration through advancement of five(5) test holes. The test hole logs are presented in Appendix A. Two (2) the test holes wereadvances with a shovel and three advanced with a 0.6m long 50mm diameter split spoon to amaximum depth of 3m. The locations of the test holes are illustrated on the Plot Plan, Plate 3.


A detailed log of each test hole was maintained and representative samples of the materialsencountered in the test holes were collected. Soil samples obtained were inspected in the field forsoil type, texture, colour and relative moisture content.

The test holes were backfilled immediately upon completion. Soil samples collected from the testholes were transported to GHD laboratory sealed in clean plastic bags for further visual-tactileexamination. Physical laboratory testing was completed on a representative soil sample consistingof moisture content and grain size gradation analysis. The gradation analysis are presentedgraphically in Appendix A.

GHD staff conducted a door-to-door well survey of local homes adjacent to the Site on May 25 and26, 2017 to obtain information regarding existing wells in the area. The details of the survey areprovided in Appendix B. The area is sparsely populated and few responses were obtained fromproperties surrounding the site.

A resident along Hall’s Road (367 Hall’s Road), reported their well drilled to a depth of 20m. Thewell was reported to have an adequate yield for residential usage. A water sample was obtainedfrom this residence. A neighbour to the west (419 Hall’s Road) was reported to have a drilled well-constructed in 2010. Neither owner reported any water issues.

Surface Conditions

As depicted by the Vicinity Plan and Site Plan, the surrounding topography can be described asrolling with elevation changes of up to 7 metres with bedrock outcroppings depicted on themapping. The property is heavily forested with lower lying areas in the central portion of the site.The Site exists in a rural setting with rural residential properties to the north and south withundeveloped woodlands.

Rainfall is inferred to infiltrate into the ground or overland flow to the low-lying area to the north viathe gentle sloping topography. The weather was 10oC and raining on May 25, 2017. The Siteexhibited relatively good drainage characteristics.

Subsurface Conditions

4.3.1 Regional Geography

The Site is situated on rolling terrain in the physiographic region known as the Number 11 Strip(Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The Number 11 Strip exists as a narrow strip from Gravenhurst toNorth Bay that once existed just below the shoreline of glacial Lake Algonquin. Streams enteringthis lake deposited sands, as deltas, with silt and clay settlements occurring deeper offshore. Thisis consistent with the lacustrine sandy silt layers with intermittent clay seams encountered duringthe subsurface exploration program. Bedrock beneath the site consists of Precambrian granite at adepth of approximately 20 metres below grade based on local MOE well records.


4.3.2 Soil Stratigraphy

Five (5) test holes were excavated on May 25, 2017. Based on the exploration work, thesubsurface soil conditions are generally comprised of a surficial layer of topsoil underlain by sand tosilty sand.

Each of the test holes encountered a surficial layer of topsoil to a depth of about 5 cm. The topsoilobserved in the test holes contains an appreciable amount of organic matter and thus considered tobe devoid of any structural engineering value.

A layer of sand to silty sand was encountered beneath the topsoil to the base of all test holes. Thematerial will be generally suitable beneath the tile bed.

Grain size analyses were performed on seven (7) samples samples of the sand. The results of thegrain size distribution testing indicate the soil ranges in size from sand (51 to 95%) and silt and claysize material (1-30%) with some gravel. The field and laboratory data indicate an estimated hydraulicconductivity of approximately 10-4 cm/sec and a related percolation rate (T-time) of 8 to 20 min/cm.

Groundwater seepage was encountered between 0.7 and 0.9 metres below grade.

4.3.3 Local Groundwater

Groundwater levels was similar across the property. Generally, the water level data from theshallow test holes indicates that relatively shallow groundwater exists across the Site. It isanticipated that shallow surface infiltration water levels would generally drop off during the driersummer months and undergo seasonal fluctuations over time.

It is inferred that the contours of the shallow groundwater table normally approximate the groundsurface topography with groundwater generally flowing perpendicular to those contours.Groundwater is inferred to be southeasterly direction.

5. Hydrogeology

General

Information regarding groundwater characteristics of the immediate area was obtained from aninventory of well records on file with the MOE (Appendix B) and from the well survey. In total, four(4) water wells were identified within close proximity to the Site with the data summarized on Table2 (the details of the data are also provided in Appendix B).

Existing Local Water Supplies

Physical and hydraulic data are presented on MOE well records (Appendix B) and the informationfrom the well survey indicates the presence of two (2) principal aquifer systems:

1. A deep unconfined water table system within the buried sand and gravel layerstapped by drilled overburden wells; and,


2. A deep aquifer within the water bearing fracture networks of the granite bedrocktapped by drilled wells.

A summary of the MOE data is presented in Table 5.1. The compiled information indicates four (4)well records with two (2) records indicating an aquifer system within the granite bedrock tapped bydrilled bedrock wells, and two (2) deep overburden wells reported. Bedrock was encountered atvarying depths with one at 3.6metres and a second at 44 metres. All wells were reported to have“fresh” water.

The drilled bedrock wells generally yield relatively average residential yields of groundwater(average 14.6 L/min – 3.2 igpm) while the overburden wells (average 20.0 L/min – 4.4 igpm).Based on the average values, the bedrock and overburden wells of the area provide suitablegroundwater yields of generally fresh groundwater.

Although no shallow bored / dug wells were recorded in the well records, one was encountered inthe well survey. In general, from a quality perspective, shallow dug/bored wells are generally difficultto seal at the surface and therefore considered susceptible to shallow sources of contamination.From a quantity perspective, shallow dug/bored wells are susceptible to large seasonal fluctuationsin the groundwater table and may encounter low seasonal yields. The result is that shallow wellsare more prone to becoming dry in the winter and summer months.

Based on the subsurface exploration program, the MOE well data and well survey, thehydrogeology of the area is characterized by deeper overburden and bedrock aquifers. Only aminor portion of the existing infiltration is expected to recharge the deeper confined overburdenaquifer and bedrock aquifer that is confined within the fracture networks. Surface water is expectedto infiltrate into the shallow overburden that supports the local river. Based on the data it is inferredthat there is suitable groundwater resources for the proposed development and will likely consist ofdrilled wells completed in the overburden or bedrock.


Table 5.1: Summary of Water Well Information

Total Number of Wells Inventoried:Drilled Wells (Overburden):

Drilled Wells (Bedrock):

42 (50%)2 (50%)

ParametersStatistical Summary Statistical Summary

Drilled – Overburden Drilled – BedrockWELL YIELDS

RangeAverage

13.6 – 19.9 L/min16.8 L/min

3.0 - 4.4 Igpm3.7 Igpm

9.1 – 19.9 L/min14.6 L/min

2 – 4.4 Igpm3.2 Igpm

REPORTED YIELDS Frequency Frequency

Not ReportedDry

0 to 1 Igpm2 to 4 Igpm5 to 9 Igpm10 Igpm

000200

0%0%0%

100%0%0%

000110

0%0%0%50%50%0%

STATICWATER LEVELSRange

Average5.5 – 9.1 m

7.3 m18.0 – 30.0 ft

24 ft9.1 – 10.1 m

9.6 m30 - 33 ft

31.5 ftWATER ENCOUNTERED

RangeAverage

27.7 – 36.9 m32.3 m

91 - 121 ft106 ft

51.8 – 60 m55.9 m

170 - 197 ft183.5 ft

WELLDEPTHRange

Average27.7 – 37.1 m

32.4 m91 – 121.6 ft

106.2 ft54.9 – 85.3 m

70.1 m180 - 280 ft

230 ftNotes: Data based on MOECC well record information (see Appendix B). L/m represents litres per minute, Igpm indicatesImperial gallons per minute and m is metres.

Background Groundwater Quality

The well records reviewed for this investigation generally reported fresh water supplies from all thewells. A door-to-door well survey was performed form residences surrounding the Site. Agroundwater sample was obtained from a drilled well to evaluate the background water quality fromthe wells in the area. The location of the wells is depicted on the Site Plan, Plate 2.

The drilled well was reported to be 19.7m in depth and the water sample was obtained prior to anywater treatment system.

The water samples were delivered to SGS Environmental Laboratories (SGS) in Lakefield forchemical analyses. The Certificates of Analysis are presented in Appendix C. The data issummarized and compared with the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) in Table 5.2.

In general, the majority of parameters tested for from the wells are within the ODWS. The parametersnot within the ODWS for aesthetic parameters are:

Alkalinity and Hardness;

Alkalinity and Hardness below the aesthetic objective of the ODWS would be normal for the watersources along the Number 11 Strip and surrounding Algonquin Highlands physiographic regionsdue to the lack of calcareous soils to buffer the alkalinity of the surrounding soils and associatedgroundwater.


The low hardness may lead to the water being slightly corrosive to plumbing but should not poseany problems to the potability of the on-site water supply. The remaining parameters indicate goodwater quality. There are no parameters exceeding health related standards.

Table 5.2: Water Quality Summary

Parameter367 Halls Road ODWS

Drilled Well MAC AO /OGUV Transmittance 98.4 --- ---Alkalinity 22 --- 30-500Colour 4 --- 5Conductivity 66 --- ---pH 7.04 --- 6.5-8.5Total Suspended Solids < 3 --- ---Turbidity 0.68 1 5Organic Nitrogen < 0.05 --- 0.15Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.05 --- ---Ammonia+Ammonium (N) 0.07 --- ---Total Organic Carbon < 1 --- 5Chloride 1.1 --- 250Fluoride < 0.06 1.5 ---Nitrite (as N) 0.003 <MDL 1 ---Nitrate (as N) 0.305 10 ---Sulphate 5.3 --- 500Hardness 17.9 --- 80-100Aluminum < 0.001 --- 0.1Arsenic < 0.0002 0.025 ---Boron 0.006 5 ---Barium 0.00383 1 ---Calcium 4.78 --- ---Cadmium 0.000007 0.005 ---Copper 0.697 --- 1Chromium 0.00068 0.05 ---Iron 0.052 --- 0.3Potassium 1.05 --- ---Magnesium 1.45 --- ---Manganese 0.00616 --- 0.05Sodium 2.07 20* 200Phosphorus < 0.003 --- ---Lead 0.00131 0.01 ---Antimony < 0.0002 0.006 ---Selenium 0.00006 0.01 ---Uranium 0.000084 0.02 ---Zinc 0.009 --- 5Notes:Units are mg/L unless otherwise stated; “<” indicates concentrations are less than laboratory reporting limits.Bold indicates the concentration not within the ODWS.


6. Conclusions and Recommendations

General

Supporting data, upon which our recommendations are based, have been presented in the previoussections of this report. Based on the results of this hydrogeological investigation, it is ourprofessional opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development. The followingrecommendations are provided based on the physical properties of the subsurface materials thatwere observed at the Site. It is recommended that the planned water systems utilize drilled wellsthat are properly constructed, sealed and tested. Five (5) test holes were advanced on the Site aspart of this study. Based on the soils data and the groundwater conditions observed it isrecommended that the on-site septic waste disposal can be accomplished using conventional bedseither in-ground or raised leaching beds depending on water table elevations. The calculatedimpact of the proposed land use on the off-site groundwater regime meets current MOE guidelines.Detailed conclusions and recommendations are presented in the following sections.

Service Options

Eight (8) lots are proposed for development. No municipally, services are available within 5km ofthe site. Based on the number of residential lots, proposed for development, and the distance tothe nearest municipally serviced community providing municipally serviced water and sewer to theproposed development would not be a cost effective or feasible option. As such, GHD recommendsthat each lot be privately serviced with water and as well as a private septic waste disposal system.

Water Supply

6.3.1 Groundwater Availability

Minimum well yield requirements are defined in MOE Procedure D-5-5 with a per personrequirement of 450L/day/person. The minimum well yield is equivalent to a total flow of 18,000L/day for the total proposed 8-lots based on 450L/day/person. This figure equates to a continuousflow of 12.5L/min for the 8-lot development. For peak demand, the wells for the individualseverances should be capable of supplying water at a rate of 18.75 L/min for a period of 120mins.These values tends to overly conservative with typical households using on the order of 1,000L/day, equaling to 8,000 L/day or 5.6 L/min continuous for the entire proposed development.

The MOE water well information indicates drilled wells generally yield relatively average residentialyields of groundwater. The data indicates the drilled overburden wells average 16.8 L/min (3.7igpm) and the drilled bedrock wells average 14.6 L/min (3.2 igpm). Based on the average well yieldvalues reported in the MOE records it appears that a drilled bedrock or overburden well is capableof providing suitable groundwater yields in this area.


Based on the average size of the lots (3.3 ha) and the available data, it is our opinion that suitablewells can be positioned on the lots without interference to surrounding septic systems, to providewater resources for the residences. As such, we conclude that ample groundwater supplies areavailable to meet the needs of the proposed development.

6.3.2 Production Well Requirements

Based on the results of this investigation, it is recommended that the proposed development beserviced by properly constructed drilled wells. The wells should be extended into the deeper buriedgranular water source or into the water bearing fracture network of the bedrock. Large diameter(300 mm or greater) wells are not considered suitable as a source of water supply for this Site.

Each well installed should meet the following design criteria:

1. It is recommended that the residential lots be serviced by drilled wells tapping the deeper buriedconfined overburden aquifer, or tapping the water bearing fracture network of the underlyingbedrock and must be at least 6 m in depth (in accordance with Regulation 903 of the OntarioWater Resources Act).

2. Drilled wells tapping into the overburden aquifer should be appropriately screened over the waterbearing formation so as not to allow the infiltration of fine-grained particulate to enter the wellupon completion of the well development process.

3. For this Site, new wells within a weathered bedrock zone must be cased to the bedrock and thatthe casing of new wells in a bedrock zone that is not weathered must be sealed into the bedrockwith suitable sealant to prevent impairment of the quality of the groundwater and the water in thewell (i.e. the upper zone of the annulus space between the borehole wall and the casing must beproperly sealed).

4. Bedrock wells do not require well screens and may be constructed as open hole wells afterfollowing the protocol outlined in Item 1 above.

5. Each well must be developed by conventional techniques to obtain a minimum of 70% efficiency.It is recommended that a statement be provided that indicates the well is essentially sand-free(i.e. less than 5 mg/L sand). In addition, the statement should also include that the totaldrawdown in the well, comprising the pumping level plus the mutual interference from the otherwells, is within a reasonable tolerance of the available drawdown.

6. A water sample must be collected from each new well and analyzed for the following minimumtest parameters to meet the ODWS

- Iron - Manganese - Nitrate

- Sodium- Hardness - Turbidity

- Total Coliform - E. coli

- Fecal coliform - Chloride


7. It is recommended that each properly constructed well be pump tested by qualifiedhydrogeological personnel prior to issuance of a building permit. The well should be pumptested to determine a safe long-term yield and short-term capacity to ensure uninterrupted watersupply for the development and to ensure that adjacent properties will not be impacted.

8. A report should be prepared by a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist withexpertise in the requirements of Ontario Regulation 903 and water well tests for water quantityand quality. The appropriate representatives (i.e. local municipality) should review the report.

The use of properly constructed drilled wells that are adequately sealed and certified by qualifiedhydrogeological personnel should be sufficient to provide ample quantities of potable water whilepreserving the long term water quality of the existing aquifer complexes.

Septic Waste Disposal

6.4.1 General

Based on the results of this assessment, it is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for theconstruction of septic waste disposal systems. Based on the field observations the lots can supportconventional in ground or fully raised leaching fields depending on water table condition on theindividual lots. The primary impact of the proposed land use is related to the potential increase innitrate concentration due to septic effluent loading. A detailed review of the expected wastedisposal impacts and recommendations are presented in the following sections.

6.4.2 Septic Impact Evaluation

For the purposes of calculating the potential impact of the planned residential development, 1,000L/day/household is considered to be an acceptable septic effluent loading rate. Therefore, theproposed development is expected to generate about 8,000 L/day (8 m3/day) of septic effluentbased on eight lots.

While most constituents in septic effluent are usually removed within a short distance of movementwithin soil, mobile constituents such as nitrates will require sustained dilution to meet the drinkingwater standards of 10 mg/L N for nitrate. The MOE normally considers sewage from a Class 4waste disposal system will contain 40 mg/L of nitrate. For the purpose of assessing the impact ofprojected nitrate loading, the dilution requirement of 4:1 was utilized in the impact computations.

A summary of the applicable parameters that were considered in the waste disposal evaluation andthe computation of the projected nitrate concentration are presented below. The calculations usedan estimated recharge rate on the order of about 250 mm/year based on exploratory test holes andinfiltration factors computed in the water balance evaluation. Using dilution only, the nitrateconcentration generated from sewage at the Site is calculated to be 3.07 mg/L. The proposeddevelopment meets the 10 mg/L drinking water standard for nitrate.


A summary of the septic impact parameters for the proposed development is presented below:

Septic Impact Parameters

1. Total Precipitation (Huntsville 1981-2010): - 1034 mm/year

3. Recharge Available (Thornwaite Method*): - 473.6 mm/year

4. Recharge Available for Dilution: - 150 mm/year

5. Area Available for Dilution: - 26.29 ha

6. Total Available Dilution: - 108 m3/day

7. Background Nitrate (drilled well water sample) - 0.308mg/L

8. Nitrate Loading (40 mg/L x 8,000 L/day) - 320,000 mg/day

9. Projected Nitrate Concentration - 3.07 mg/L

The water quality of the nearby drilled water well indicates that the existing background nitrate levelfor the study area is negligible (<0.31mg/L).

The projected nitrate concentration along the down-gradient boundary of the site is computed asfollows:

Projected sewage nitrate

Nitrate = background nitrate + Level (on-site dilution + effluent) / (onsite dilution + effluent)

Level = (40 mg/L x 8,000 L/day) / (108,000 L/day + 8000 L/day)

Nitrate = <0.31mg/L + 2.76

= 3.07 mg/L

Based on the aforementioned parameters and computation, the projected long term resultant nitratelevel will be 3.07 mg/L, which is below the ODWS of 10 mg/L. Therefore, the projected impactevaluation meets with current MOE criteria. The proper location of the well and septic system isessential to prevent cross contamination.

Note: * - See Appendix C for calculations


6.4.3 Waste Disposal Requirements

Based on the results of this assessment, it is our professional opinion that the Site is suitable for aprivate septic waste disposal system. The design and location of an individual leaching bed systemshould be adjusted to suit local Site conditions. It is recommended that the septic systems useconventional in-ground or fully raised leaching beds. The waste disposal systems should meetOntario Regulation 350/06 made under the Building Code Act, 1992 and incorporate the followingdesign features:

1. All organics should be stripped from the area of the leaching beds and down-gradient mantle.

2. The exposed subgrade below the tile beds should be trimmed and scarified, and providedwith a gentle slope of 0.5% in the direction of the mantle.

3. The tile beds should be constructed as fully raised leaching type beds to the full height of atleast 1 m above existing grade. A minimum of 0.9 m is required between the high water tableand/or shallow bedrock. The raised beds should consist of clean, granular fill capable ofproviding an in-place percolation rate (T-time) of 4 to 8 min/cm.

4. A mantle should be constructed along the downgradient margin of the raised beds. Eachmantle should extend along the full width of the bed and for a minimum of 15 m downgradientfrom the bed. The mantle should consist of similar granular fill raised to a minimum of 250mm above the surrounding grade. All surface runoff should be diverted away from theleaching beds by means of proper site drainage.

5. The waste disposal systems should be kept clear of surface drainage swales, roof leaderdrains, and other sources of surface water.

6. The tile beds should be kept away from shade trees and a healthy cover of vegetation shouldbe developed and maintained over the beds to promote evapotranspiration.

7. When sighting tile beds on sloping ground, it is recommended that procedures outlined in theBuilding Code be followed closely.

8. Minimum set back distances from septic tank (plus 2 times height raised):a) Building – 1.5 m b) Site line – 3 mc) Drilled well – 15 m d) Open water course – 15 m

9. Minimum set back distances from septic tile bed (plus 2 times height raised):a) Building – 5 m b) Site line – 3 mc) Drilled well, properly sealed – 15 m d) Shallow well – 30 me) Open watercourse – 15 m

10. The layout, design and construction of the waste disposal bed should be subject to inspectionby experienced hydrogeologic personnel.


Summary Conclusions

In summary, an eight (8) lot residential development, to be serviced by individual wells and septicsystems, is proposed on a 26.29 ha parcel of land located east of Birchdale Road and west ofEmsdale, Ontario. The Site is located on Part Lot 25, Concession 10, in the Perry Township, in theDistrict of Muskoka.

The following conclusions and recommendations are made in support of this report:

A water sample from the neighbouring drilled well exhibits water quality that is generally goodwith a slight acidity but generally meets with the ODWS. With the use of commerciallyavailable treatment systems the residences can be supplied with a suitable source of potablewater at the Site;

The Site can be serviced by drilled wells tapping the deeper confined overburden aquifer orthe underlying bedrock aquifer;

Based on the MOE dilution model, the projected post-development nitrate concentrationmeets the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L for nitrate. The calculated projected post-development nitrate concentration was 3.07 mg/L;

The Site is generally characterized by lacustrine deposits of sand and silt that do not allow verticalinfiltration but rather promotes site drainage through the shallow surficial silt. The underlyingbedrock of the area is granite;

The Site was observed to be well draining with shallow groundwater encountered near the surfacewithin a silty sand layer;

Groundwater is inferred to be migrating in a south-easterly direction.

The Site can be serviced by constructing conventional in ground or raised tile beds;

Provided that the waste disposal system is properly constructed, no significant impact isanticipated on down gradient baseline water quality functions. The proposed development isexpected to have a negligible impact on the existing base flow conditions and on the waterquality of the shallow and deeper aquifer systems; and

The use of properly constructed drilled wells that are certified and adequately sealed, should be

sufficient to provide ample quantities of potable groundwater while preserving the long-term water

quality of the aquifer complex.


Signatures

The following signatures are provided of GHD staff that prepared and conducted the

Hydrogeological Assessment.

Following the References section of this report is the Statement of Limitations. These limitations

are an integral part of this report.

Should questions arise regarding any aspect of our report, please contact the undersigned or our

office.

Sincerely,

GHD

Steve Gagne, H.B.Sc.

Nyle McIlveen, P.Eng.

/gb/sg/nmc/01


7. Statement of Limitations

This report is intended solely for Larry Ross of Vista Investments Muskoka Inc. in assessing thehydrogeological concerns of the property identified as Part Lot 25, Concession 9, Perry Township,within the District of Muskoka and is prohibited for use by others without GHDs prior written consent.This report is considered GHD professional work product and shall remain the sole property of GHD.Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient’ssole risk, without liability to GHD. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold GHD harmless from anyliability arising from or related to Client’s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of thisreport may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supportingdrawings and appendices.

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

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

Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontallyand vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparentduring construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Shouldany conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, werequest that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations.If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendationsin this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of saidconditions by GHDis completed.

GHD | Vista Investments, Birchdale Road, Hydrogeological Assessment, 11139308-01 (01)

Enclosures

Source: Ontario Base Map Series 31 E/11 Published 1990

Vista InvestmentsBirchdale RoadEmsdale, Ontario

11139308-01June 2017

Vicinity Plan FIGURE 1

Scale:See Scale Bar

Coordinate System:NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17

SITE

Source: Google Earth on-line. Imagery date 2012/7/27.

Vista InvestmentsBirchdale RoadEmsdale, Ontario

11139308-01June 2017

Site Plan FIGURE 2

Scale:NTS

Coordinate System:NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17

n,nnn

Property

Vista InvestmentsBirchdale RoadEmsdale, ON

Base plan based on CST Canada Inc., Preliminary Site Plan, dated 16-10-13

11139308-01May 2017

Sampling Plan FIGURE 3

Scale:See Scale Bar

Coordinate SystemNAD 1983 UTM

TP-1

TP-2

BH-2

BH-3

BH-1

LEGENDTest Pit

Bore Hole


Appendix ATest Hole Logs and Grain Size Analysis

TOPSOILSAND - Brown Sand, moistand compact

SAND - Light Brown Sand,moist and compact to dense

END OF BOREHOLE

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

0.05

0.61

3.05

Water seepageencounteredduring drilling

End of hole wet

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

0.0 ppm

RQD

Vista Investments, Ross Birchdale Ave, Emsdale

CONE

REFERENCE No.: 11139308-01

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOREHOLE No.: BH-1

ft

Stra

tigra

phy

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE

AS - AUGER SAMPLEST - SHELBY TUBE

- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 25 May 2017

METHOD: Jack Hammer w/splitspoons

CLIENT:

Vap

ours

ELEVATION: Existing Grade

NOTES:

(blows / 12 in.-30 cm)

Shear test (Cu)Sensitivity (S)

Water content (%)wp wl

Atterberg limits (%)

N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Type

and

Num

ber

DRILLING COMPANY: GHD

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-1

of 1Page: 1

FieldLab

LOGGED BY: K. Geraldi

%

Larry Ross

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Rec

over

y COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

UTM: 17T 0635708E 5043272N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O 1

1139

308-

01, 1

7-05

-29,

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S K

G.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T 1

6/6/

17

TOPSOILSAND - Brown Sand, moistand compact to dense

END OF BOREHOLE

SS-1A

SS-1B

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

0.05

3.05

Water SeepageEncounteredDuring Drilling

End of hole wet


0.0 ppm

RQD


CONE


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOREHOLE No.: BH-2

ft

Stra

tigra

phy

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 25 May 2017


CLIENT:

Vap

ours


NOTES:





N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Type

and

Num

ber


PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-2

of 1Page: 1

FieldLab


%

Larry Ross

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Rec

over

y COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

UTM: 17T 0635633E 5042662N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O 1

1139

308-

01, 1

7-05

-29,

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S K

G.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T 1

6/6/

17

TOPSOIL

SAND - Brown Sand, moistand compact

END OF BOREHOLE

SS-1A

SS-1B

SS-2

0.30

0.91

Water SeepageEncounteredDuring DrillingSpoon Refusal


0.0 ppm

RQD


CONE


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOREHOLE No.: BH-3

ft

Stra

tigra

phy

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 25 May 2017


CLIENT:

Vap

ours


NOTES:





N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Type

and

Num

ber


PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-3

of 1Page: 1

FieldLab


%

Larry Ross

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Rec

over

y COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

UTM: 17T 0635768E 5043151N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O 1

1139

308-

01, 1

7-05

-29,

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S K

G.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T 1

6/6/

17

TOPSOILSAND - Brown Sand, moist

END OF BOREHOLE GS-1

0.05

0.30


0.0 ppm

RQD


CONE


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOREHOLE No.: TP-1

ft

Stra

tigra

phy

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 25 May 2017


CLIENT:

Vap

ours


NOTES:





N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Type

and

Num

ber


PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-4

of 1Page: 1

FieldLab


%

Larry Ross

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Rec

over

y COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

UTM: 17T 0635662E 5043385N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O 1

1139

308-

01, 1

7-05

-29,

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S K

G.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T 1

6/6/

17

TOPSOILSAND - Brown Sand, moistand compact

END OF BOREHOLE GS-1

0.05

0.30


0.0 ppm

RQD


CONE


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BOREHOLE No.: TP-2

ft

Stra

tigra

phy

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 25 May 2017


CLIENT:

Vap

ours


NOTES:





N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Type

and

Num

ber


PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-5

of 1Page: 1

FieldLab


%

Larry Ross

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Rec

over

y COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

UTM: 17T 0635825E 5042938N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O 1

1139

308-

01, 1

7-05

-29,

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S K

G.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T 1

6/6/

17

Client: Lab no.:

Project/Site: Project no.:

Borehole no.: Sample no.:

Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

SS-2BH-1

SandGravel Clay & SiltSoil Description

BH-1 SS-2 0 82 18

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical)

Vista Investments SS-17-43

Birchdale Road, Emsdale 11139308-01

(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)

Unified Soil Classification System

Clay & SiltSand Gravel

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse

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

Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

BH-1 SS-4 13 57 30

SS-4BH-1


June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

SS-2BH-2


BH-2 SS-2 9 87 4




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

SS-2BH-3


BH-3 SS-2 28 51 21




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

BH-2 SS-4 4 95 1

SS-4BH-2


June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

TP-2 GS-1 9 73 18

GS-1TP-2


June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

J. Sullivan

GS-1TP-1


TP-1 GS-1 0 86 14




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

Diameter (mm)






Appendix BWell Survey and Well Records

Well IDWell ID Number: 4810395Well Audit Number: Z44742Well Tag Number: A028967

This table contains information from the original well record and any subsequent updates.

Well Location

Address of Well Location 250 BIRCHDALE ROADTownship PERRY TOWNSHIPLot 025Concession 10County/District/Municipality PARRY SOUNDCity/Town/VillageProvince ONPostal Code n/a

UTM CoordinatesNAD83 — Zone 17Easting: 635280.00Northing: 5044390.00

Municipal Plan and Sublot NumberOther

Overburden and Bedrock Materials Interval

General Colour Most Common Material Other Materials General Description DepthFrom

DepthTo

BRWN SAND 0 m 4.6 mGREY SAND SLTY 4.6 m 27.4 mGREY GRVL 27.4 m 27.7 m

Annular Space/Abandonment Sealing Record

DepthFrom

DepthTo

Type of Sealant Used(Material and Type)

VolumePlaced

0 m 27.7 m BENTONITE

Method of Construction & Well Use

Method of Construction Well UseRotary (Air)

Domestic

Status of WellWater Supply

Construction Record - Casing

InsideDiameter Open Hole or material Depth

FromDepthTo

16 cm STEEL -40 m 27.7 m

Construction Record - Screen

OutsideDiameterMaterial Depth

FromDepthTo

Page 2 of 5Map: Well records | Ontario.ca

3/23/2017https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-well-records

Well Contractor and Well Technician InformationWell Contractor's Licence Number: 3678

Results of Well Yield Testing

After test of well yield, water was CLEARI f pumping discontinued, give reasonPump intake set at 18.3 mPumping Rate 20 LPMDuration of Pumping 1 h:0 mFinal water level 7.9 mI f flowing give rateRecommended pump depth 18.3 mRecommended pump rate 20 LPMWell Production PUMPDisinfected? Y

Draw Down & Recovery

Draw Down Time(min) Draw Down Water level Recovery Time(min) Recovery Water levelSWL 5.5 m

1 5.6 m 1 5.9 m

2 5.7 m 2 5.5 m

3 5.8 m 3

4 5.9 m 4

5 6 m 5

10 6.2 m 10

15 6.4 m 15

20 6.6 m 20

25 6.8 m 25

30 7 m 30

40 7.3 m 40

45 45

50 7.6 m 50

60 7.9 m 60

Water Details

Water Found at Depth Kind27.7 m

Hole Diameter

DepthFrom

DepthTo Diameter

0 m 27.7 m 22.23 cm

Audit Number: Z44742

Date Well Completed: May 09, 2006

Date Well Record Received by MOE: August 18, 2006

Updated: March 20, 2017RateRateSharefacebook twitter PrintTags



Well IDWell ID Number: 7248089Well Audit Number: Z211005Well Tag Number: A170180

This table contains information from the original well record and any subsequent updates.

Well Location

Address of Well Location 600 SUPER SIGN ROADTownship PERRY TOWNSHIPLot 024Concession CON 09County/District/Municipality PARRY SOUNDCity/Town/VillageProvince ONPostal Code n/a

UTM CoordinatesNAD83 — Zone 17Easting: 635280.00Northing: 5042535.00

Municipal Plan and Sublot NumberOther

Overburden and Bedrock Materials Interval

General Colour Most Common Material Other Materials General Description DepthFrom

DepthTo

BRWN SAND GRVL BLDR 0 m 43.9 mBLCK ROCK 43.9 m 54.9 m

Annular Space/Abandonment Sealing Record

DepthFrom

DepthTo

Type of Sealant Used(Material and Type)

VolumePlaced

0 m 45.1 m BENTONITE

Method of Construction & Well Use

Method of Construction Well UseAir Percussion

Domestic

Status of WellWater Supply

Construction Record - Casing

InsideDiameter Open Hole or material Depth

FromDepthTo

16 cm STEEL 40 m 45.1 m16 cm OPEN HOLE 45.1 m 54.9 m

Construction Record - Screen

OutsideDiameterMaterial Depth

FromDepthTo

Well Contractor and Well Technician InformationWell Contractor's Licence Number: 7508



Results of Well Yield Testing

After test of well yield, water was CLEARI f pumping discontinued, give reasonPump intake set at 30.5 mPumping Rate 20 LPMDuration of Pumping 1 h:0 mFinal water level 16.8 mI f flowing give rateRecommended pump depth 30.5 mRecommended pump rate 20 LPMWell ProductionDisinfected? Y

Draw Down & Recovery

Draw Down Time(min) Draw Down Water level Recovery Time(min) Recovery Water levelSWL 9.1 m

1 9.3 m 1 15.1 m

2 9.5 m 2 13.5 m

3 9.7 m 3 11.1 m

4 9.9 m 4 9.1 m

5 10.1 m 5

10 10.9 m 10

15 11.9 m 15

20 12.5 m 20

25 13.2 m 25

30 14 m 30

40 14.5 m 40

45 45

50 15.8 m 50

60 16.8 m 60

Water Details

Water Found at Depth Kind51.8 m Untested

Hole Diameter

DepthFrom

DepthTo Diameter

0 m 45.1 m 22.23 cm45.1 m 54.9 m 16 cm

Audit Number: Z211005

Date Well Completed: August 11, 2015

Date Well Record Received by MOE: September 14, 2015

Updated: March 20, 2017RateRateSharefacebook twitter PrintTags

Environment and energy,Drinking water,Environment maps,Well water



WATER WELL INFORMATION SURVEY

PROJECT: Hydrogeologic InvestigationLOCATION: Birchdale RoadDATE: May 2017

Well Well DataAddress No. Type Stick Up Water Level Depth Comments

(m) (m) (m)

651 birchdale Rd No answer

419 Hall's Road Drilled Installed 2010, No problems

367 Hall's Road Drilled 65 feet No Problems,

Water Sample W-1

Drilled approx. 1989

651 Birchdale Road Owner does not want questions

NOTE: Water level and depth referenced to top of wellN/A - Well was not accessibleN/L - Well not located or observed on propertyWP - Drilled well located inside of well pitG.L. - Top of well referenced to ground level* - Information from M.O.E Well Record*.* - Information reported by owner or neighbour


Appendix CCertificates of Analysis

GHD Attn : Steve Gagne

347 Pido Rd., Unit #29Peterborough, ONK9J 6Z8,

Phone: 705-749-3317Fax:

02-June-2017

Date Rec. : 26 May 2017 LR Report: CA14803-MAY17 Reference: 11139308-01 Birchdale Rd

Copy: #1

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Final Report Analysis 1:

AnalysisStart Date

2:Analysis Start

Time

3:AnalysisApproval

Date

4:AnalysisApproval

Time

5:MAC

6:AO/OG

7:NR 367 Halls

Rd.

Sample Date & Time 25-May-17Temperature Upon Receipt [°C] --- --- --- --- --- --- 10.0UV Transmittance [%] 29-May-17 13:15 29-May-17 15:02 --- --- 98.4Alkalinity [mg/L as CaCO3] 29-May-17 08:53 31-May-17 10:30 --- 30-500 22Colour [TCU] 29-May-17 12:25 29-May-17 15:26 --- 5 4Conductivity [µS/cm] 29-May-17 08:53 31-May-17 10:30 --- --- 66pH [no unit] 29-May-17 08:53 31-May-17 10:30 --- 6.5-8.5 7.04Total Suspended Solids [mg/L] 28-May-17 14:42 30-May-17 13:20 --- --- < 3Turbidity [NTU] 26-May-17 20:45 29-May-17 12:51 1 5 0.68Organic Nitrogen [mg/L] 26-May-17 18:00 30-May-17 13:05 --- 0.15 < 0.05Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen [mg/L] 26-May-17 18:00 30-May-17 13:05 --- --- 0.05Ammonia+Ammonium (N) [mg/L] 29-May-17 22:00 29-May-17 10:37 --- --- 0.07Total Organic Carbon [mg/L] 26-May-17 20:00 30-May-17 11:56 --- 5 < 1Chloride [mg/L] 29-May-17 19:03 30-May-17 14:13 --- 250 1.1Fluoride [mg/L] 29-May-17 12:50 30-May-17 11:07 1.5 --- < 0.06Nitrite (as N) [mg/L] 26-May-17 22:38 29-May-17 11:54 1 --- 0.003 <MDLNitrate (as N) [mg/L] 26-May-17 22:38 29-May-17 11:54 10 --- 0.305Sulphate [mg/L] 29-May-17 19:03 30-May-17 09:57 --- 500 5.3Hardness [mg/L as CaCO3] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- 80-100 17.9Aluminum (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- 0.1 < 0.001Arsenic (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.025 --- < 0.0002Boron (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 5 --- 0.006Barium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 1 --- 0.00383Calcium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- --- 4.78Cadmium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.005 --- 0.000007Copper (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- 1 0.697Chromium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.05 --- 0.00068Iron (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- 0.3 0.052Potassium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- --- 1.05Magnesium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- --- 1.45Manganese (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- 0.05 0.00616

SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box 4300 - 185 Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2HO Phone: 705-652-2000 FAX: 705-652-6365

OnL

ine

LIM

S 0001019888

Page 1 of 2 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS

General Conditions of Services located at http://www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions_service.htm. (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. “Temperature Upon Receipt” is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

Analysis 1:Analysis

Start Date

2:Analysis Start

Time

3:AnalysisApproval

Date

4:AnalysisApproval

Time

5:MAC

6:AO/OG

7:NR 367 Halls

Rd.

Sodium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 20* 200 2.07Phosphorus (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- --- < 0.003Lead (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.01 --- 0.00131Antimony (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.006 --- < 0.0002Selenium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.01 --- 0.00006Uranium (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 0.02 --- 0.000084Zinc (dissolved) [mg/L] 31-May-17 21:32 01-Jun-17 13:09 --- 5 0.009Cation sum [meq/L] --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.47Anion Sum [meq/L] --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.58Anion-Cation Balance [% difference] --- --- --- --- --- --- 10.0Ion Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.82Total Dissolved Solids (calculated) [mg/L] --- --- --- --- --- --- 29Conductivity (calculated) [µS/cm] --- --- --- --- --- --- 53Langelier's Index [@4°C] --- --- --- --- --- --- -2.79Saturation pH [pHs @ 4°C] --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.83

MAC - Maximum Acceptable ConcentrationAO/OG - Aesthetic Objective / Operational GuidelineNR - Not reportable under applicable Provincial drinking water regulations as per client.

__________________________

Brian Graham B.Sc.Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical

SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box 4300 - 185 Concession St. LR Report : CA14803-MAY17

Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2HO Phone: 705-652-2000 FAX: 705-652-6365

OnL

ine

LIM

S 0001019888

Page 2 of 2 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS

General Conditions of Services located at http://www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions_service.htm. (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. “Temperature Upon Receipt” is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

Nitrate Calculations - Birchdale Road

Appendix DRecharge Calculations for Nitrate Assessment

Recharge CalculationsWorst Case Average Best Case

Total Area Considered 26.29 ha 26.29 ha 26.29 haRecharge rate based on excavation* 150 mm/yr 175 mm/yr 200 mm/yrAverage recharge volume 108041.1 L/day 126047.9 L/day 144054.8 L/day

Nitrate Assessment Calculations

Background nitrate - worst case 0.31 mg/L From analytical testing of existing wellNitrate 40 mg/L ConstantEffluent 8000 L/day ConstantLots 8 lots Number of lots proposedOnsite dilutionworst case 108041.1 L/day Daily recharge volumeOnsite dilutionaverage 126047.9 L/day Daily recharge volumeOnsite dilutionbest case 144054.8 L/day Daily recharge volumeNitrate in precipitation recharge 0.0 mg/L

Projected Nitrate Level = Background + (Sewage Nitrate+Dilution Nitrate)/(Onsite Dilution+Effluent)Where: Sewage = Nitrate * Effluent

Dilution Nitrate = Onsite Dilution * Nitrate in precipitation recharge (assumed to be zero)

Projected Nitrate Levelworst case = 3.07 mg/L Nitrate 0.31Projected Nitrate Levelaverage = 2.70 mg/L Nitrate 0.31Projected Nitrate Levelbest case = 2.41 mg/L Nitrate 0.31

Background nitrate samples: [Nitrate]Drilled well Hall's Road 0.308

mg/LWorst Case 0.31 mg/L

Average 0.31 mg/LBest Case 0.31 mg/L

Note: *GHD completed 5 test holes where silty sand was observed across the Site.The annual recharge rate for silty sand is approximately 150 to 200 mm. For worstcase scenario, select 150 mm. For average recharge rate, select 175 mm.


Appendix DQualifications of Site Assessor

Nyle McIlveen, P.Eng.Principal/Senior Engineer

1

Nyle has accumulated a broad range of expertisefrom geotechnical and hydrogeologicalinvestigations, environmental site assessments toconstruction materials testing and inspectionservices. He has acted as a site representative,project coordinator and project manager onnumerous development projects throughoutOntario. His experience includes conventionalconstruction projects such as roads, bridges andbuildings. In addition, he has worked on severallandfill monitoring projects for municipal andprivate clientele. He has also been involved intailings management projects at several miningsites in Northern and Southern Ontario, andSaskatchewan.

Nyle has coordinated, supervised and reported onmore than 1,000 environmental site assessments(ESAs). He is a Qualified Person (QP) capable ofsubmitting Records of Site Condition (RSC) to theMinistry of the Environment and Climate Change(MOECC). His experience includes over 100clean-up projects related to petroleum accidentsand spills. He is also experienced with Permits toTake Water (PTTW) and has provided expertwitness testimony for the Ontario Municipal Board.

Phase One and Two Environmental SiteAssessmentsPrivate Companies and Individuals, FinancingInstitutions, City of Peterborough, City of Toronto,City of Oshawa, City of Pickering, Town of Whitby,City of Kingston, City of Belleville, City of QuinteWest, York Region, City of Kawartha Lakes, RenfrewCounty, Hastings County, Haliburton County,Peterborough County, Northumberland County,Durham Region (1989 – present)

Experience has included all levels of involvement with ESAprojects for property owners, purchasers and financialinstitutions with field and agency data collection andreporting in order to meet with current legislation andguidelines outlined by the Ministry of the Environment (nowO. Reg. 153) including client liaison, project management,and submission of Records of Site Condition. Meet requirements of financial institutions for financing

of industrial, commercial, residential includingproperties of environmental sensitivity

Establishing environmental status of properties forowners and prospective purchasers

Submitting Record of Site Condition to comply withproposed land use changes

Spill Response and Site RemediationInsurance Agencies, City of Peterborough, City ofToronto, City of Oshawa, CFB Trenton, CFB Petawawa,City of Quinte West, York Region, City of KawarthaLakes, Renfrew County, Hastings County, HaliburtonCounty, Peterborough County, NorthumberlandCounty, Durham Region (1989 – present)Response to reported spills involving establishingremediation protocol and monitoring, in order to meet withcurrent legislation and guidelines outlined by the Ministry ofthe Environment and the Technical Standards and SafetyAuthority Fuels Safety Division. Compliance with MOECC or TSSA issued Orders Site remediation to meet with MOECC Standards for

O. Reg 153 Phase Two ESAs Remediation to meet with MOECC Standards related

to the removal of underground storage tanks Providing interim and final reports to establish

environmental status of properties relative tocontaminant of concern

Qualified (Education): B.Sc. (Life Sciences), 1982; B.Sc. (Civil Engineering), 1985. Queen’s University.

Connected (professional affiliations): Professional Engineers of Ontario, Qualified Person for Environmental SiteAssessments in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04Professional Summary: Nyle has over 30 years of practical hydrogeologic, geotechnical, environmental, andmaterial testing experience throughout Ontario. He is a Principal / senior engineer / hydrogeologist with GHD (formerlyGeo-Logic, an affiliate company of Inspec-Sol, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates and GHD group of companies). Nyle hascompleted a variety of hydrogeological design reports (all phases including investigation, implementation, and reportpreparation), environmental projects (Phase 1, 2, 3 site assessments and various remedial works) and constructionmanagement for large private corporations as well as hydrogeological (water supply) projects for various municipalgovernments and private/industrial sector clients.

Nyle McIlveen, P.Eng.Principal/Senior Engineer

2

Hydrogeologic AssessmentsPrivate Companies and Individuals, PeterboroughCounty, Northumberland County, Durham Region,York Region, City of Kawartha Lakes, SimcoeCounty, Renfrew County, Hastings County, Countyof Lennox and Addington, Frontenac County, PrinceEdward County, Haliburton County, Town of Whitby,City of Quinte West, District of Muskoka, District ofParry Sound, District of Nipissing, Ontario Parks(1989 – present)Experience has included all levels of involvement withinvestigations and assessments in areas privatelyserviced with water wells and septic systems,groundwater monitoring programs, water system designand preparing reports for Regional, Township, MOE andConservation Authority review. Proposed residential developments relative to MOE

and Conservation Authority compliance Aquifer performance testing and groundwater

modeling pertaining to proposed groundwatersources

Assessment of water treatment systems regulatedunder the Safe Drinking Water Act

Septic system assessment and compliance Submission of applications for PTTW for large

groundwater takings and dewatering activities Submission of applications for ECAs pertaining to

sewage works and waste disposal sites

Designated Substance Surveys, ACM,Mold and Fungi InspectionsPrivate Companies, Public Institutions, City ofPeterborough, City of Toronto, City of Oshawa, Cityof Pickering, City of Quinte West, CFB Trenton, YorkRegion, City of Kawartha Lakes, Renfrew County,Haliburton County, Peterborough County,Northumberland County, Durham Region (1989 –present)Experience has included building inspections andtesting including air monitoring and report preparationfor industrial, commercial and residential sites. Proposed renovation and demolition projects.

Flood and fire damage assessment. Material identification for existing work space

conditions. Confirmation of remediation or post renovation

assessments.

Work history1989 – 2015

2015 – present

Principal Geo-Logic Inc.Peterborough, ONPrincipal GHDPeterborough, ON

Other related areas of interestRecognized (Certifications/Trainings) Registered Engineer in Ontario (PEO)

Qualified Person for Record of Site Condition Member of Canadian Geotechnical Society

Standard First Aid with CPR Level A, 2013 WSIB Joint Health and Safety Management Chair and

Committee Certified Member, 2006

Steven GagneAssociate

1

Phase One and Two Environmental SiteAssessmentsPrivate Companies and Individuals, FinancingInstitutions, City of Peterborough, City of Toronto,City of Oshawa, City of Pickering, Town of Whitby,City of Kingston, City of Belleville, City of QuinteWest, York Region, City of Kawartha Lakes,Renfrew County, Hastings County, HaliburtonCounty, Peterborough County, NorthumberlandCounty, Durham Region (1994 – present)Experience has included all levels of involvement withESA projects for property owners, purchasers andfinancial institutions with field and agency datacollection and reporting in order to meet with currentlegislation and guidelines outlined by the Ministry of theEnvironment (now O. Reg. 153) including client liason,project management, and submission of Records of SiteCondition. Meet requirements of financial institutions for

financing of industrial, commercial, residentialincluding properties of environmental sensitivity

Establishing environmental status of properties forowners and prospective purchasers

Submitting Record of Site Condition to comply withproposed land use changes

Spill Response and Site RemediationInsurance Agencies, City of Peterborough, City ofToronto, City of Oshawa, CFB Trenton, CFBPetawawa, City of Quinte West, York Region, City ofKawartha Lakes, Renfrew County, Hastings County,Haliburton County, Peterborough County,Northumberland County, Durham Region (1994 –present)Response to reported spills involving establishingremediation protocol and monitoring, in order to meet

with current legislation and guidelines outlined by theMinistry of the Environment and the TechnicalStandards and Safety Authority Fuels Safety Division. Compliance with MOE or TSSA issued Orders Site remediation to meet with MOE Standards for

O. Reg 153 Phase Two ESAs Remediation to meet with MOE Standards related

to the removal of underground storage tanks Providing interim and final reports to establish

environmental status of properties relative tocontaminant of concern

Hydrogeologic AssessmentsPrivate Companies and Individuals, PeterboroughCounty, Northumberland County, Durham Region,York Region, City of Kawartha Lakes, SimcoeCounty, Renfrew County, Hastings County, Countyof Lennox and Addington, Frontenac County, PrinceEdward County, Haliburton County, Town of Whitby,City of Quinte West, District of Muskoka, District ofParry Sound, District of Nipissing, Ontario Parks(1989 – present)Experience has included all levels of involvement withinvestigations and assessments in areas privatelyserviced with water wells and septic systems,groundwater monitoring programs, water system designand preparing reports for Regional, Township, MOE andConservation Authority review. Proposed residential developments relative to MOE

and Conservation Authority compliance Aquifer performance testing and groundwater

modeling pertaining to proposed groundwatersources

Assessment of water treatment systems regulatedunder the Safe Drinking Water Act

Qualified (Education): B.Sc. (Environmental Science), 1996

Professional Summary: Steve has over 15 years experience in the hydrogeologic, geotechnical and environmentalfields on a wide range of sites throughout Ontario. Project Management for environmental projects including design ofproject scopes and estimates, preparation of technical reports, proposals and budgets. Studies include Phase I andPhase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), Designated Substance Surveys, Asbestos Surveys and HydrogeologicAssessments.

Steven GagneAssociate

2

Septic system assessment and compliance Submission of applications for PTTW for large

groundwater takings and dewatering activities Submission of applications for ECAs pertaining to

sewage works and waste disposal sites

Designated Substance Surveys, ACM,Mold and Fungi InspectionsPrivate Companies, Public Institutions, City ofPeterborough, City of Toronto, City of Oshawa, Cityof Pickering, City of Quinte West, CFB Trenton, YorkRegion, City of Kawartha Lakes, Renfrew County,Haliburton County, Peterborough County,Northumberland County, Durham Region (1996 –present)Experience has included building inspections andtesting including air monitoring and report preparationfor industrial, commercial and residential sites.

Proposed renovation and demolition projects. Flood and fire damage assessment. Material identification for existing work space

conditions. Confirmation of remediation or post renovation

assessments.

Work history2000 – present Associate GHD (formerly Geo-

Logic Inc.), Peterborough, ON

Other related areas of interestRecognized (Certifications/Trainings) OSHA 40 hour Hazardous Waste Worker, 2006 –

Annual Refreshers 2007 – Present Standard First Aid with CPR Level A and AED,

2015 WSIB Joint Health and Safety Management Chair

and Committee Certified Member

Training courses through employee trainingprograms (Construction, Hazardous Waste,Subcontractor Management, WHMIS, fallprotection, negotiation training, confined spacetraining etc.)

2009 Workplace Safety Certification

2008 WSIB Basic Certification Training

2008 Hydro One, Grounding and Bonding

2007 Asbestos Control in Buildings and Industry

hydrogeologic assessment report - amazon s3hydrogeologic assessment report proposed residential...

Documents