proposed crain’s construction quarry 7731 fernbank road

Proposed Crain’s Construction Quarry

7731 Fernbank Road, Ottawa

Hydrogeology Study (Final)

Prepared for:

Crain’s Construction1800 Maberly Elphin RoadMaberly, OntarioK0H 2B0

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.115 Walgreen RoadCarp, ONK0A 1L0

CP-10-8260Date: December, 2015

7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

1

CP-10-8260Hydrogeology Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a hydrogeological assessment for evaluating the siting of a proposedquarry in the geographic township of Goulbourn, located in Ottawa, Ontario. The proposed quarry property isowned by Crain’s Construction and is located at 7731 Fernbank Rd. in the Township of Goulbourn, Ontario.The legal description of the property is Lot 11, Concession 10, Geographic Township of Goulbourn, now in theCity of Ottawa, Ontario. The total area of the property is 72.9 ha, with a license area of 66.8 ha. The proposedextraction area for the quarry is approximately 56.2 ha.

Overall, the hydrogeological testing and modelling indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed quarrywith respect to potential groundwater and surface water impacts. Most of the proposed extraction area is aslightly elevated parcel that is designated ‘rural countryside’ in the City of Ottawa Official Plan. Theoverburden consists of sand and gravel. This material is suitable for the use as aggregate for construction,concrete production, and other related purposes. Hence, the proponent is applying for both a pit and quarrylicence.

The hydrogeological testing involved primarily long-term groundwater level monitoring to determine thedepth to water. Water well data for nearby water supply wells and extraction operations were also obtainedand evaluated as part of this assessment.

The proposed pit footprint has few constraints from a hydrogeological perspective. It is relatively isolatedfrom any provincially significant wetlands, and although it is approximately 200 metres (m) from the Huntleywetland (located in an Environmental Protection Zone), this wetland is in close proximity to another quarryand a shooting range, which has resulted in it being drained and degraded. Hydrogeological modelling alsosuggests that the effect of the proposed development on the Huntley wetland will be negligible with respectto its overall calculated water balance. As of 2014, satellite imagery suggests that extraction operations aretaking place between this protection zone and the proposed quarry.

The closest municipal drain is located approximately 600 m southwest from the proposed quarry, at itsclosest point. On-site surface water flow was measured to be 1.8 m3/minute, and is highly ephemeral. Theestablished groundwater table varies from 127.7 m above sea level (asl) to 141.3 m asl within the proposedextraction area, depending upon the season and the location on the property. Surface and groundwater ispresumed to flow northwest off the property, then southwest towards the municipal drain.

The site is suitable for both a Category 3, Class “A” pit (above water, >20,000 tonnes/year) and a Category 2,Class “A” quarry (below water, >20,000 tonnes/year) from a hydrogeological perspective. Since accessing thematerial below the water table will require dewatering, estimated volumes and drawdown radii have beenmodeled. The cumulative impact of this and other quarries in the area have been assessed.


2


The results of the groundwater modelling study indicate that the proposed development is unlikely to havesignificant, widespread effects on the area’s hydrogeology; some drawdown was observed in a small numberof wells under ‘worst-case’, cumulative modelling scenarios.


3


Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Site Setting ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Neighbouring Properties and Land Uses ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology........................................................................................................................................... 7

2.4.1 Recharge/Discharge Areas ................................................................................................................................... 7

2.4.2 Hydrogeologically Sensitive Features .................................................................................................................. 8

2.4.3 Potential Sources of Contamination .................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.4 Watercourse Measurements ............................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.5 Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................10

3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Overburden Assessment..................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Water Level Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.4 Hydrology............................................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.5 Water Well Record Review ................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.6 Groundwater Modelling ..................................................................................................................................... 14

4.0 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................17

4.1 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

4.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................18

6.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES ....................................................................................................................20


4


7.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................21

8.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................................22

TABLESTable 1 – Monitoring Well Information Summary

Table 2 – Manual Water Level Readings

Table 3 – Summary of Groundwater Quality Results

Table 4 – Summary of Surface Water Quality Results

Table 5 – Summary of Surface Water Flow

FIGURESFigure 1 – Site Location

Figure 2 – Surrounding Land Uses

Figure 3 – Topography and Drainage Catchments

Figure 4 – On-Site Borehole and Test Pit Locations

Figure 5 – On-Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Locations

Figure 6A – Groundwater Elevation Contours: Shallow Bedrock (Spring, 2013)

Figure 6B – Groundwater Elevation Contours: Shallow Bedrock (Fall, 2013)

Figure 6C – Groundwater Elevation Contours: Intermediate Bedrock (Spring, 2013)

Figure 6D – Groundwater Elevation Contours: Deeper Bedrock (Spring, 2013)

Figure 7 – MOE Well Records

Figure 8A – Existing Bedrock Surface Sketch

Figure 8B – Interpreted Overburden Thickness

APPENDICESAppendix A – City of Ottawa Zoning Information

Appendix B – Site Photographs

Appendix C – MOE Well Records

Appendix D – Hydrogeologic Modelling Results

Appendix E – Laboratory Certificates of Analysis (Water Quality Results)

Appendix F – Draft Pit/Quarry Plans


5


1.0 INTRODUCTION

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (McIntosh Perry) was retained by Crain’s Construction to conduct ahydrogeological study in the City of Ottawa, at 7731 Fernbank Road (Figure 1). An approximate outline of thesubject property is presented on an air photo showing the surrounding area and zoning (Figure 2 andAppendix A). This study has been prepared in support of an application for the approval of a proposed (open)quarry in the former Geographic Township of Goulbourn, now the City of Ottawa, Ontario. Based on theestimated amount of material to be extracted per year, a Category 1 license is being sought.

This work was conducted in general accordance with Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) AggregateResources Act and pit/quarry licensing program.

The following report describes the hydrogeology studies that were undertaken. This work was initiated byMcIntosh Perry in 2010, but it includes the use of data collected and works installed by others. It involved thefollowing:

Hydrogeological study.

Groundwater and surface water sampling.

Groundwater elevation monitoring.

Environmental and geotechnical data review.

Topographic survey.

Impact Assessment.

The work presented herein also includes background information pertaining to the following:

General site setting information.Geological and hydrogeological background.Hydrology.Site-specific conditions.

The legal description of the property, which is owned by the proponent, is Lot 11, Concession 10, GeographicTownship of Goulbourn, now in the City of Ottawa, Ontario. The total area of the property is 72.9 ha. Theproposed extraction area for the quarry is approximately 56.2 ha.


6


2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Site Setting

The subject property is located at 7731 Fernbank Road, Ottawa, Ontario (Figure 1).

The subject property covers an area of approximately 72.9 ha and is comprised of mainly agricultural land(Appendix B – Photos 2 and 3) with one (1) on-site residential dwelling (Photo 8). The proposed extractionarea covers approximately 56.2 ha.

The climate is classified as humid continental, with cool winters and warm summers. The mean annualprecipitation is approximately 943 mm, with ~223 cm as snow. The mean daily temperature is approximately6oC (Environment Canada Weather “Normals” (1981-2010) for Ottawa, 2013).

On-site elevation ranges from 134 to 145 m above sea level (asl). The lowest point is located at the westerncorner of the subject property, along the Trans Canada Trail. Although most of the subject property slopesgently down towards the west, a ridge bisects the northern boundary and runs to the on-site dwelling, thusisolating the eastern corner of the property.

2.2 Neighbouring Properties and Land Uses

The site is located on Rural Countryside zoned land (City of Ottawa, 2008), southwest of the City of Ottawa(Figure 1). Adjacent properties are also zoned as Rural Countryside. The site is bordered to the southeast byFernbank Road, to the northwest by the Trans Canada Trail, and to the northeast and southwest byagricultural properties (Rural Countryside). Other surrounding land zonings include significant MineralReserve and Mineral Extraction areas, as well as Rural Residential and Environmental Protection Zones(2008). Although there are several Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) located within approximately 1kilometre (km) of the subject property boundaries, it should be noted that there are at least five (5) activepits or quarries located within 2 km of 7731 Fernbank Road. One of the existing extraction operations,located approximately 1.8 km northeast of the subject property, is directly adjacent to a PSW (OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources [MNR], 2014). Additionally, 2014 satellite imagery suggests that extractionoperations are taking place between the proposed quarry and the closest environmental protection zone,directly to the north of the subject property (Figure 2); this new development serves to furtherhydrogeologically isolate the proposed quarry (Google Earth, 2014).

The surrounding area appears to have no municipal services. Surrounding land uses are shown on Figure 2.

2.3 Hydrology

The subject site occurs within the Rideau River watershed. Surface water exits the property from the low-lying western corner, where it appears to flow southwest towards the Jock River. The subject property lies on


7


the border of two catchment areas: the Hobbs Municipal Drain and the Jenkinson Municipal Drain (Figure 3).Although this is noteworthy, the drainage boundary bisecting the subject property does not translate to anysignificance in practice, in that there are no significant watercourses or ditches in the eastern corner of theproperty.

For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that a majority of the flowing surface water in the proposedquarry leaves the subject property as part of the Jenkinson Drain Catchment (any surface water that isisolated to the eastern corner of the property is presumed to infiltrate at a high rate such that no overlandflow, Hortonian or saturated, can occur). The Jenkinson Municipal Drain itself is the only significant surfacewater feature in the area, and is located approximately 600 m southwest from the subject propertyboundaries, at its closest point.

2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology

The subject site is characterized by sand and gravel deposits, with sporadic ancient beach ridges and near-shore sand/gravel bars (Houle Chevrier Engineering, 2003; Ontario Geological Survey [OGS], 2014). The site isunderlain primarily by Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock, namely limestone (OGS, 2014). McIntosh Perrypersonnel have observed this bedrock to be quite shallow in some areas, particularly in the eastern corner ofthe property where it can be found at the surface. The site is located within the Limestone Plainsphysiographic region of Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines [MNDM], 1980).

An aggregate gradation analysis was completed for the subject property on August 27, 2003 by Morey HouleChevrier Engineering Ltd. (now Houle Chevrier Ltd.). Based on the results of the analysis, an average of 3.1%of the sample was passed through a 0.075 mm sieve, and 100% of the sample passed through a 150 mmsieve. This defines the aggregate as ‘Granular B Type I’ (Houle Chevrier, 2003). Boreholes were put down byGolder Associates Ltd. in 2004 (Table 1), showing that the subject site is dominated by sand and graveldeposits up to 3.4 m below ground surface (bgs), with some areas of silt (Golder Associates, 2004). Test pitsdug by McIntosh Perry support Golder Associates’ 2004 findings, in that loose rock, gravel, and shallowbedrock were identified within the first 1-2 m of overburden at the site (MPCE, c. 2001). Finally, boreholeswere drilled by Geofirma in October, 2013 for the purpose of installing three (3) new piezometer nests andone (1) open hole monitoring well. Borehole logs from these wells identified a thin layer of overburden,consistent with previous findings, followed by alternating layers of limestone and dolostone up to 35.05 mbgs (Geofirma, 2013). Borehole and test pit locations are denoted on Figure 4.

Water supply for domestic purposes in the area is provided predominantly from drilled wells completed inlimestone or shale bedrock. Water level measurements from these on-site wells are presented in Table 2.

2.4.1 Recharge/Discharge Areas

Information from topographic/geological maps and field observations indicates that much of the subject siteis probably a groundwater recharge zone. Recharge occurs via precipitation and infiltration, and is of a


8


dispersed nature, in that it is controlled primarily by the thickness and type of overburden atop the shallowbedrock. It is assumed that infiltration occurs in the western portion of the site is through shallow coarse-grained soils (<one metre in thickness) and near surface fractured bedrock. Over the remainder of the siteinfiltration is by means of diffuse inter-granular flow through the coarse-grained soils. While some saturatedand Hortonian overland flow has been observed on-site during the spring and summer months, goodgroundwater recharge was observed to occur over much of the property at most times of the year.

The proposed quarry is not expected to negatively impact any groundwater seepage or natural springs, as thesubject area has limited relief, and no bedrock outcrops or artesian conditions have been observed on site orin the vicinity.

2.4.2 Hydrogeologically Sensitive Features

The primary factors that determine the relative ‘hydrogeological sensitivity’ of an area are the type ofrecharge and the characteristics of subsurface groundwater movement. The rate of groundwater recharge iscontrolled by seasonal variations in precipitation and infiltration. Recharge in the area is dispersed over awide area (i.e. precipitation infiltrates over a given zone at differing rates via several mechanisms). The rateof infiltration is moderately high due to the coarse-grained overburden material and the few instances wherefractured bedrock is present near the surface. This being said, about one-third of the property has a thin (<1.5m) layer of overburden which controls infiltration to some extent; the ‘sensitivity’ associated with this type ofrecharge area is relatively low compared to areas where infiltration is controlled more heavily by structuralelements such as sinkholes, karst features, or large open faults.

Although the western corner of the property is an ephemerally saturated area, McIntosh Perry personnelobserved significant surface flow in this area during the falling limb of storm events throughout 2013 and2014. This periodic surface flow thus suggests that the even more sensitive areas of the property do notheavily limit or promote infiltration, in that they effectively drained surface water during storm events.

Off-site wetlands are unlikely to experience any significant impacts or degradation as a result of the proposedquarry. New extraction areas being developed on the north side of the Trans Canada Trail will reduce thehydrogeological impact of the proposed development. Additionally, the subject property is bound bysignificant agricultural land to the southwest and northeast, which provides a natural setback from the otherEnvironmental Protection Zones of at least 400 m at the closest point. Therefore, no additional impacts areanticipated with regards to the quality or quantity of downstream surface water resources.

Since many of the wetlands in the area, including the Huntley wetland, are immediately adjacent to, or inclose proximity to, existing pits and quarries, any additional degradation of these lands from activities on thesubject property will be insignificant or minimal. Hydrogeologic modelling suggests that the cumulativeimpacts of the proposed development on the Huntley wetland are negligible, given the magnitude and natureof the water balance for a wetland of this size.


9


2.4.3 Potential Sources of Contamination

Detailed field surveys of the area were conducted in combination with a review of maps, zoning information,and the completion of multiple geotechnical investigations for the subject property. The site and theadjacent land is located in a rurally zoned area that consists mainly of either agricultural fields or unusedforested/wetland area. Several residential dwellings are located on and in the vicinity of the subject property.

Potential sources of contamination on the subject property are as follows:

Farming operationsProbable septic system and the subject property.

The change from agricultural to extractive use will remove nutrient sources from the site (i.e. inherently highlevels of nitrates in soil and groundwater will be removed). Thus, neither of these potential sources ofcontamination is significant with respect to potential water well impacts or long-term groundwater impact.

2.4.4 Watercourse Measurements

McIntosh Perry personnel have completed field measurements in the unnamed ditch (referred to asWatercourse A for the purposes of this assessment) that runs parallel to the southwest property boundary.Flow was measured several times throughout 2013 – 2014 (Table 3), and water samples taken at the outlet ofthe subject property were analyzed for general chemistry, metals, and nutrients in the spring and fall of 2013and 2014, respectively (Table 4). Flow was observed to be ephemeral, and closely correlated withprecipitation. At many times, the ditch was observed to be either dry or stagnant. Flow was averaged overseveral locations along the southwest border of the property (Photos 5 and 7), and surface water quality wasanalyzed at two (2) locations along Watercourse A (Figure 5).

2.4.5 Groundwater Measurements

McIntosh Perry personnel have completed field measurements pertaining to groundwater elevations andchemistry. Water elevations were measured at 20 monitoring well locations (Figure 5). A complete set ofwater level data is presented in Table 2, and the estimated flow directions of shallow depth (spring/fall),intermediate depth (spring), and deep (spring) groundwater are presented in Figures 6 A, B, C, and D,respectively.

Groundwater quality was analyzed at seven (7) of the on-site monitoring wells. The overall groundwaterquality was assessed to be moderate to fair, as there were elevated levels of turbidity, iron, and manganese,among other parameters. Groundwater chemistry is summarized in Table 3, and monitoring well informationis summarized in Table 1. MOE Well Record locations are noted on Figure 7.


10


3.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

McIntosh Perry conducted this hydrogeological assessment in support of an application for a Quarry License,as required by the Aggregate Resources of Ontario, Provincial Standards, Version 1.0; Category 1 – Class “A”Quarry Below Water. The objective of this assessment was to determine the requirements for the operationof a pit at this site in accordance with the Aggregate Resources Act (1990, amended 2009). In particular, thefollowing were evaluated:

Impact on water resources.Depth to water table.Setback requirements (property boundaries, waterways, etc.).

In addition to this report, the following investigations have either taken place or been initiated at the subjectsite:

Boundary Survey and Topographic Survey – Completed in 2013 by McIntosh Perry Surveying Inc.staff. Data were used for preparation of site plans.Archaeological Study.Access Study – Submitted to the City of Ottawa with regards to the potential use of the MunsterRoad Allowance for site access.Natural Environment Study (Level 2) – Completed in 2013 by McIntosh Perry.Noise Study – Currently in progress.

This hydrogeological assessment includes a review of the estimated effect of the quarry operation ongroundwater flow and yield, nearby water supply wells, surface water flow, and subsurface to surfaceinteractions.

3.1 Methodology

Crain’s Construction Ltd., under the supervision of McIntosh Perry staff, dug 20 test pits in c. 2001.Subsequently, 11 additional boreholes were completed by Golder Associates (c. 2004) and GeofirmaEngineering Ltd. (2013-14) in two stages, to a maximum depth of 35.05 m bgs. These boreholes wereinstrumented with a combined total of 20 monitoring wells. Historical test pit and currentborehole/monitoring well locations are illustrated on Figures 4 and 5. MOE Well Records are presented inAppendix C.

Information on the wells used as part of this hydrogeology study is noted in Table 1. Well instrumentation ofthe on-site boreholes is varied as several different drilling companies installed monitoring wells at differenttimes. Wells installed in c. 2004 under supervision from Golder Associates (A001591, A001592, A001593,A001594, A001595, BH-04-3/C, and BH-04-5/E) contain six inch steel casings instrumented, in some cases,


11


with 1.5 inch PVC pipes and corresponding caps. Where PVC instrumentation exists, wells are protected byflip-top square casings. Where there are no PVC pipes, wells are capped with a screw-on steel top. Regardlessof instrumentation, all c. 2004 wells are protected by large circular concrete barriers to avoid damage fromfarming equipment. Newer wells, installed in 2013 by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (TW13-01, TW13-02, TW13-03, and TW13-04), contain ten inch steel casings instrumented with four, one inch PVC intervals (A, B, C, andD, respectively shallowing) that range from approximately 8 to 35.5 m bgs. These wells are protected by a sixinch O-ring steel cap. Note that TW13-04 is not instrumented, but consists only of a ten inch open hole andwas used for a pumping test (Geofirma, Appendix D).

Data from the drilling and test pitting activities were used to prepare an existing bedrock surface sketch(Figure 8A) and an interpreted overburden thickness plan (Figure 8B).

McIntosh Perry’s groundwater elevation monitoring program began in June, 2004. Manual water levels weremeasured at the wells intermittently, and then approximately every 2-3 weeks beginning in May, 2013. Waterlevel measurements are included in Table 2.

Seven (7) monitoring wells and two (2) surface water locations were sampled and analyzed for generalchemistry, metals, and nutrients. All wells were purged to at least three times their volume or 60 litres (L),whichever came first. Samples were collected (unfiltered and unchlorinated) directly into clean bottlessupplied by Exova Laboratories Ltd. (Exova) of Ottawa, Ontario. Samples were kept on ice and shippeddirectly to Exova. Water quality results are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Finally, surface water flow was measured near the outlet of the subject property, in the western corner of thesite (Table 3). This information served as a baseline for hydrogeologic modelling done by Geofirma (AppendixD).

3.2 Results

3.2.1 Overburden Assessment

The bedrock surface beneath the site ranges from less than 133 m asl (western corner) to just over 143 m aslat a point along the northeast property boundary (Figure 8A). The investigation of the overburden material atthe site showed that the overburden thickness ranges from approximately 0.5 m to 6.0 m (Figure 8B). Thematerial is general sand with some gravel and silt. It is estimated that there is 1.3 million m3 of overburdenmaterial with the proposed extraction area.

3.2.2 Water Level Monitoring

Manual water level readings were collected between June 2004 and May 2014 in all on-site monitoring wells.TW13-01, 02, 03, and 04 were installed between November, 2013 and May, 2014, while the remainder of thewells were available for the full water level monitoring program. On-site groundwater elevations ranged


12


between 127.65 m to 141.33 m asl, with the average water level at 135.85 m asl. Manual water levelmeasurements are included in Table 2.

Paired with the results of two surveys completed by McIntosh Perry Surveying Inc. (MPSI) in 2014, the waterlevel data show that both shallow and deeper groundwater probably flow in a general westerly direction,towards the ephemeral on-site ditch (Figures 6A, B, C, and D).

3.2.3 Water Quality

Laboratory Certificates of Analysis for groundwater and surface water testing conducted at the site arepresented in Appendix E. Results from the testing of surface water and groundwater (monitoring wells) arepresented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.

Based on test results from the water supply well on the property, the groundwater quality is moderate to fair.There were no Maximum Acceptable Concentrations (MACs) exceeded in any of the wells sampled. The onlyexceedances were found to be either aesthetic objectives (AOs) or operational guidelines (OGs), and are asfollows:

Hardness exceeded the OG of 100 mg/L in all sampled wells.Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) exceeded the AO of 500 mg/L in all sampled wells.Colour exceeded the AO of 5 TCU in TW13-01A, TW13-02A, and TW13-03A.Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) exceeded the AO of 5 mg/L in TW13-02A and TW13-03A.Turbidity exceeded the AO of 5 NTU in all sampled wells except the ‘House Well’.Iron exceeded the AO of 0.3 mg/L in all sampled wells except the ‘House Well’.Manganese exceeded the AO of 0.05 mg/L in TW13-01D, TW-13-02A, TW13-02D, TW13-03A, andTW13-03D.Sodium exceeded the AO of 200 mg/L in TW13-01A and TW13-02A.

Surface water was sampled twice at two (2) locations near the outlet of the subject property; on November 7,2013 and again on May 6, 2014. Based on test results from these samples, water exiting the proposed quarryis of high quality. The only exceedence is as follows:

Ammonia exceeded the PWQO of 20 µg/L at CQ1 and CQ2.

It should be noted that an ammonia exceedance was only observed in one of the two samples taken at theabove-noted surface water locations.

Figure 5 shows the location of the monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations.


13


3.2.4 Hydrology

The subject site is located within the Lower Ottawa drainage area, more specifically in the Jock River portionof the Rideau River watershed (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority [RVCA], 2010). RVCA mapping showsstreams running parallel along the southwest and northwest property lines. During site visits, McIntosh Perrypersonnel determined that stream flow was only measurable along the most westerly areas of the property;on-site hydrology is closely tied to relief, which is defined by lowlands in the western corner of the propertyand a ridge through the centre (Photos 4 – high elevation, and 6 – low elevation). The main surface waterflow on the property is via a ditch (Watercourse A) that runs along the southwest side of the property. Thedominant surface flow direction is generally to the northwest, towards a small saturated area on the cornerof the property, where water then flows southwest (Figure 3).

Surface water flow in Watercourse A (along the southwest property line) has been observed to beintermittent and tied closely to precipitation events (see contrasting Photos 1 and 5). The on-site waterdischarge was measured in-situ on May 13 and June 11, 2013, during the falling limb of two separateprecipitation events. Discharge (Q) was measured with the velocity-area method (flow= 0.031 m3/s, May 13,2013) and a calibrated 15 L container (flow=0.029 m3/s, June 11, 2013). The velocity-area measurement wasperformed with a floating marker and a survey rod to measure depth and wetted width. To measuredischarge from the subject property with a 15 L container, individual discharges from four representativerills/gullies feeding the southwest property line ditch were measured, averaged, and multiplied by the totalnumber of rills/gullies found to be contributing to the ditch. Sample flow calculations and data are presentedin Table 5.

A mechanical velocimeter (FP111 Global Water Flow Probe) and a fully contracted weir were implemented toconfirm flow, however measurements from the velocimeter were taken before ice-out, and the structuralintegrity of the weir was questionable. Thus, only data from the velocity-area method and the summation offlows were considered usable.

Regional flow is defined by the Jinkinson drain and adjacent Hobbs drain catchments, which are both part ofthe Jock River watershed. The proposed development would occur in the Jinkinson catchment. Regional flowis generally to the south (RVCA, 2010b).

3.2.5 Water Well Record Review

McIntosh Perry requested a search of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)well record database (i.e. the Water Well Information System) for wells in the vicinity of the subject property.19 well records that occur within 500 m of the subject property were identified (Appendix C and Figure 7).There are nine (9) wells drilled for domestic purposes, and one (1) each for public, livestock, monitoringpurposes. Seven (7) wells have either no listed use, or were listed as ‘not in use’. The records show that thewells in the area generally have good yields (average of ~27 imperial gallons per minute, or ~123 litres per


14


minute), and depths ranging from 7.43 m to 85.65 m bgs. All wells were completed in bedrock, which wasencountered between approximately 0 m to 11 m bgs. The average depth to bedrock was 7.34 m bgs.

One well record for domestic use was confirmed in the field.

3.2.6 Groundwater Modelling

1.1.1.1 Cumulative Impacts

Geofirma created a hydrogeologic model (Appendix D) of the proposed development and surrounding areasthat was used to establish baseline and operational conditions for the proposed quarry. The hydrogeology ofthe proposed area was characterized by running a model, which included all surrounding extraction processesand topographic features, without the proposed quarry. The estimated impacts of the proposed developmentwere then modelled by introducing the additional drawdown potentially caused by the proposed extraction.

Cumulative impacts were estimated using a steady-state model, based on the maximum/full extraction ratefor the proposed development and all surrounding extraction areas. It was assumed that all quarries and pitswere fully excavated and simultaneously discharging water. This represents a ‘worst-case’, improbablescenario as many of the surrounding operations will be either scaled back or closed by the time the proposedquarry reaches its full extraction capacity (Appendix D).

It should be noted that based on historical hydrogeological investigations completed at the site (Golder,2004), as well as McIntosh Perry’s groundwater monitoring program, no significant groundwater resourcesare present in the overburden unit.

The hydrogeologic model suggested that the proposed development will cause a drawdown of the watertable, with a 1 m contour that extends approximately 750 m beyond the property boundaries. Within thisarea, the current static water level is estimated to be approximately 5-10 m bgs. Of the nine wells listed in theMOECC WWIS for this area, three wells may be significantly impacted (ID 1531664, 1519378, and 1517393).Well 1531664 is not a supply well, and can thus be ignored for this assessment. Well 1519738 has a predicteddrawdown of 5.8 m, but the MOECC well record suggests that the location of this well may be incorrect. Well1517393 has a predicted drawdown of 4.2 m, but inconsistencies in the MOECC well record suggest that thisanalysis may be inaccurate. Based on the above analyses, it is improbable that the water supply ofneighbouring homeowners will be noticeably affected by the proposed development (Appendix D).

Modelling further suggests that wetlands in the area, particularly the Huntley wetland that is located west-northwest of the proposed quarry, will experience little to no negative impacts from the proposeddevelopment. The 1 m drawdown contour from the proposed quarry extends approximately 50 m into theHuntley wetland, at the west corner of the property. This is expected to cause only minor drainage of a localportion of the wetland; it is further expected that low permeability glacial till (approximate hydraulicconductivity of 1.0 x 10-7 m/s) underlying the wetland will mitigate this drainage and prevent any large-scale


15


impacts. It should be noted that Geofirma’s model is based on a more conservative hydraulic conductivityvalue of 10-5 m/s. Based on modelling results, the proposed quarry will reduce the net groundwater inflowbeneath the wetland by approximately 32,800 m3/year (6,800 m3/year via reduction in seepage from thequarry property, 20,300 m3/year in increased seepage toward the proposed quarry from the wetland, and theremainder from changes in local seepage flows). This being said, given the magnitude and nature of the waterbalance seen for a wetland of this size, the fact that the wetland sits on a low permeability till unit, and thattreated water from the quarry will be discharged back to the wetland during the dewatering process, theactual impact seen on the water balance will be negligible (Appendix D; Golder, 2013).

To ensure that the proposed development’s impact to the Huntley wetland will be negligible, McIntosh Perrycompleted a water balance for the proposed quarry site. Of main concern was that overburden groundwatermay be crossing the Trans-Canada Trail and contributing to the wetland’s shallow groundwater (i.e. above thelow permeability till unit). Areal and hydrological analyses of the area concluded that the proposed quarrywill have a <3% impact on the Huntley Wetland.

1.1.1.2 Pit/Quarry Impact Assessment

The proposed pit/quarry development is presented in Appendix F. The proposed extraction area of the quarrywill be 31 m in depth (maximum below original ground surface) and will extend over an area of 56.77 ha. Theproposed floor elevation is 112 m asl.

Modelling has shown that during the operational period when the quarry base lies below the groundwatertable, dewatering of the quarry will cause a drawdown of the groundwater surface surrounding the quarry.As previously mentioned, the modelling results in combination with MOECC WWIS records show that ninewells may be impacted by a drawdown of at least 1 m. This drawdown is not expected to impact water usagein any way.

The aquifer beneath the Huntley wetland, which lies to the north and northwest of the proposeddevelopment, may be subject to a net loss of 32,800 m3 of groundwater influx each year. Because of the sizeof the wetland, its robust water balance, relatively impermeable underlying material, and other mitigatingfactors, the impact to the actual wetland is considered to be negligible (Appendix D). It is also noted thattreated water from dewatering of the quarry will be discharged to the wetland, further mitigating thispotential impact.

The hydrogeologic modelling results are included in Appendix D.

With regard to the on-site water balance, it was found that the proposed quarry will have a <3% impact onthe Huntley Wetland from both an areal and hydrologic point of view.


16



17


4.0 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS

McIntosh Perry conducted a hydrogeological assessment at 7731 Fernbank Road, Ottawa, Ontario. Theproponent is seeking a license for an open quarry. Based on the amount of material estimated to beextracted per year, a Category 1 license is being sought. The subject property covers an area of approximately72.9 ha and is comprised of mainly agricultural land with a residential dwelling on site. The proposedextraction area covers approximately 56.2 ha.

4.1 Hydrogeology

The surficial geology at the site has been defined as a relatively thin layer of coarse textured glaciomarinedeposits, described as sand and gravel with minor silt deposits. The subject property also has severalelevated, ancient beach ridges and near shore bars. (OGS, 2014; Geofirma, 2013; Golder Associates, 2004;Houle Chevrier, 2003; MPCE, c. 2001)

The bedrock beneath the site consists of alternating layers of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, namely limestoneand dolostone. These rocks are of the Ottawa and Simcoe Groups, specifically the Shadow Lake formation.Based on geotechnical investigations, bedrock was encountered in on-site monitoring wells between 0 – 2.4m bgs. MOE Water Well Records for the on-site water supply/domestic well show that bedrock wasencountered at approximately 11 m bgs; this is consistent with surrounding stratigraphic data (see Section3.2.3). The above-noted overburden and bedrock formations are considered of high economic value forextraction. (MNR, 2014; OGS, 2014; Geofirma, 2013)

Results from McIntosh Perry’s groundwater monitoring program are consistent with previous on-sitehydrogeological investigations, in that the overburden was not observed to contain significant groundwater.Much of the shallow groundwater is located in the upper weathered bedrock unit. This finding suggests thatoverburden groundwater does not significantly contribute to the Huntley wetland, located immediately northof the proposed development. As such, McIntosh Perry did not complete a feature-specific water budget forthis wetland; the cumulative, quantified impacts to the bedrock groundwater have been deemedinsignificant, and there appears to be little to no surface water or overburden groundwater flow between theproposed development and the wetland.

4.2 Water Quality

Based on test results from the water supply well on the property, the groundwater and surface water qualityis high in terms of health-related parameters. There were no Maximum Acceptable Concentrationexceedances in any well or surface water location sampled. Several on-site monitoring wells and one (1)surface water sample exhibited moderate exceedences of Aesthetic Objectives or Operational Guidelines forhardness, TDS, colour, DOC, turbidity, iron, manganese, sodium, and ammonia, as set out in the OntarioDrinking Water Standards (MOE, 2003, amended 2006) and the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (MOE,


18


2013) (see Section 3.2.2). It should be noted that this water will be removed, treated appropriately, andreturned to the natural environment as part of the quarry dewatering process, thereby improving the overallsurface and groundwater quality.

None of the above-noted parameters represent health-related hazards. Thus, with continued water qualitymonitoring paired with proper sediment filtration and/or treatment, water quality should not be considereda barrier to the proposed quarry development.

4.3 Impact Assessment

Modelling has shown that during the operational period when the quarry base lies below the groundwatertable, dewatering of the quarry will cause a drawdown of the groundwater surface surrounding the quarry.Water Well records show that nine wells may be impacted by a drawdown of at least 1 m, based on themodelling. This drawdown is not expected to noticeably impact water usage in any way. The aquifer beneaththe Huntley wetland, which lies to the north and northwest of the proposed development, may potentially besubject to a cumulative net loss of 32,800 m3 of groundwater influx each year. Because of the size of thewetland, its robust water balance, relatively impermeable underlying material, and other mitigating factors,the actual impact to the wetland will probably be negligible.

The existing on-site monitoring wells should be kept in place for as long as practically possible for monitoringduring excavation. As work progresses, additional monitoring wells should be installed in the setbacks of theproperty, upgradient and down gradient of the quarry, as noted on the Operations Plan. Quarterlygroundwater level monitoring should take place in at least two monitoring wells during the course ofoperations. Quarterly flow and surface water chemistry should be analyzed on a quarterly basis as well.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This hydrogeological assessment has been prepared to support the development of a quarry on a ruralproperty located in in the City of Ottawa. The proposal is for a Class “A”, Category 1 quarry below water,estimated to extract >20,000 tonnes per year.

This assessment shows that a pit can be developed under the following conditions:

It is developed, operated, and rehabilitated as per site plans (Figure 8).

A 200 m separation exists between the extraction area and permanent water bodies.

No consumptive water taking or transfer occurs without a valid Permit to Take Water.

McIntosh Perry has made the following recommendations to ensure ongoing compliance should the site bedeveloped:


19


Quarterly water level and temperature monitoring is to be conducted at a minimum of two bedrockmonitoring wells during the course of operations.

Quarterly surface water flow and chemistry is to be analyzed at the site’s outlet, near the westerncorner of the property.

The need for additional hydrologic characterization (e.g. a feature-specific water budget) of the siteand/or surrounding wetlands will be reassessed based on the results of quarterly monitoring.

In order to protect groundwater:

There will be no storage of liquid fuels at the site within 30 m of water.

Mobile equipment will be serviced off-site.

All petroleum waste liquids generated on-site will be collected and transported off-site by a licensedliquid waste transportation and disposal contractor.

The immediate reporting of any fuel and lubricant spills to the Ministry of the Environment andClimate Change in mandatory.

If a Permit to Take Water is obtained, the operator is to participate in the Voluntary Groundwater Monitoringprogram associated with the Goulbourn Quarries.

The data are to be reviewed annually by a qualified professional (P.Geo. or P.Eng.) to assess possible impactsto the groundwater/surface water regime. Water supply and/or monitoring wells within the extraction areaare to be abandoned as per O.Reg. 903 when extraction at the water table occurs within 15 m of them, orthey otherwise interfere with aggregate extraction.


21


7.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared, and the work referred to in this report has been undertaken by, McIntoshPerry Consulting Engineers Ltd. for Crain’s Construction. It is intended for the sole and exclusive use of Crain’sConstruction, any affiliated companies and partners and their respective financial institutions, insurers,agents, employees and advisors (collectively, ‘Crain’s Construction’). The report may not be relied upon byany other person or entity without the express written consent of McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.(in the form of a Reliance Letter).

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions made based on it, without aReliance Letter are the responsibility of such third parties. McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. acceptsno responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actionsbased on this report.

The investigation undertaken by McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. with respect to this report and anyconclusions or recommendations made in this report reflect McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.’sjudgment based on the site conditions observed at the time of the site inspection on the date(s) set out inthis report and on information available at the time of the preparation of this report.

This report has been prepared for specific application to this site and it is based, in part, upon visualobservation of the site, subsurface investigation at discrete locations and depths, and specific analysis ofspecific chemical parameters and materials during a specific time interval, all as described in this report.Unless otherwise stated, the findings cannot be extended to previous or future site conditions, portions ofthe site which were unavailable for direct investigation, subsurface locations which were not investigateddirectly, or chemical parameters, materials or analysis which were not addressed. Substances other thanthose addressed by the investigation described in this report may exist within the site, substances addressedby the investigation may exist in areas of the site not investigated and concentrations of substancesaddressed which are different than those reported may exist in areas other than the locations from whichsamples were taken.

If site conditions or applicable standards change or if any additional information becomes available at afuture date, modifications to the findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report may be necessary.Some of the information presented in this report was provided through maps, air photographs, andinterviews. Although attempts were made, whenever possible, to obtain a minimum of two confirmatorysources of information, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd., in certain instances, has been required toassume that the information provided is accurate.

Should additional information become available, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. requests that thisinformation be brought to our attention so that we may re-assess the conclusions presented herein.


22


8.0 REFERENCES

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM), 2012. 2226561 Ontario Inc.: Hydrogeological Level 1 and 2 Report – ProposedFernbank Quarry.

Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. (1990, amended 2009), c. A.8. Queen’s Printer for the Province of Ontario.

City of Ottawa, 2008. Zoning information for The City of Ottawa accessed through<http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/>.

Crain’s Construction Ltd. and McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (MPCE), c. 2001. “Leblanc Property”test pit logs.

Environment Canada, 2011. Weather ‘Normals’ for Ottawa (1971-2000).

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (Geofirma), 2013. Borehole Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log – Crain’sConstruction Ltd.

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (Geofirma), 2015. Hydrogeological Investigation and Modelling Study – ProposedCrain’s Pit and Quarry: Township of Goulbourn, City of Ottawa, Ontario. Revision 0B (Draft). January 9, 2014.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder Associates), 2004. Hydrogeological Investigation, Goulbourn Pit Lot 11,Concession 10, Geographic Township of Goulbourn, City of Ottawa, Ontario.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder Associates), 2013. Level 1 and Level 2 Hydrogeological and HydrologicalAssessments in Support of Site Plan License Application for a Category 2 Class "A" Quarry Below WaterProposed Henderson II Quarry Ottawa, Ontario, prepared for Thomas Cavanagh Construction, June 2013.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), 2010a. Jock River Subwatershed Report 2010: Hobbs DrainCatchment Data Sheet.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), 2010b. Jock River Subwatershed Report 2010: Jenkinson DrainCatchment Data Sheet.

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), 1980. Physiological Land Classifications of EasternOntario.

Morey Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. (Houle Chevrier), 2003. Aggregate Gradation Analysis: ProposedFernbank Rd. Pit.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2003. Ontario Drinking Water Standards, as amended (2006).Table 2 and Table 4.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2013. Provincial Water Quality Objectives.


23


Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2013. Water Well Information System GIS data.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2014. Evaluated Wetlands GIS data.

Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), 2014 – Google EarthTM (2014) accessed through <http://www.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mines/ogs_earth_e.asp>.

7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario CP-10-8260Hydrogeology Report

TABLES

Table 1: Monitoring Well Information SummaryHydrogeology Report7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

A001591 Shallow A001591 142.82 141.95 6.1A001592 Shallow A001592 135.97 135.17 6.4A001593 Shallow A001593 140.28 139.48 6.4A001594 Shallow A001594 141.04 140.11 6.2A001595 Shallow A001595 142.66 141.89 6.2

BH-04-2/B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/KBH-04-3/C Shallow N/A 143.66 142.94 N/KBH-04-5/E Shallow N/A 141.37 140.64 N/KHouse Well Shallow N/A 143.63 143.29 N/K

A - Deep 140.77 140.357 35.5B - Intermediate 140.76 140.357 28.5C - Shallow 140.77 140.357 20.5D - Shallow 140.77 140.357 13A - Deep 135.83 135.282 31B - Intermediate 135.89 135.282 23.5C - Shallow 135.89 135.282 15.5D - Shallow 135.88 135.282 8A - Deep 139.61 139.232 35.5B - Intermediate 139.6 139.232 28C - Shallow 139.57 139.232 19.5D - Shallow 139.52 139.232 12.5

TW13-04 N/A A147444 143.14 143.1 15.5

A147469

Monitoring WellID

Interval DepthMOE Well Tag

#

TW13-03

TW13-02

TW13-01

Top of CasingElevation (m asl)

Ground SurfaceElevation (m asl)

Approximate Well Depth(m bgs)

A001591

A147468

Crain Quarry & Pit_19-Nov-2013.xlsx

Table 2: Manual Water Level ReadingsHydrogeology Report7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

TOC Elevation Stickup Height GS Elevation WL Water Elevation

(m asl, top of casing) (m) (m asl, ground surface) (m bTOC) (m asl)

06-May-14 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.422 135.39306-May-14 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.057 134.9106-May-14 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 2.313 137.96306-May-14 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 1.95 139.09206-May-14 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 6.798 135.86406-May-14 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 2.328 141.3306-May-14 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 2.12 139.24506-May-14 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.413 140.357 7.87 132.906-May-14 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.403 140.357 5.765 134.99506-May-14 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.413 140.357 5.318 135.45206-May-14 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.413 140.357 5.121 135.64906-May-14 TW13-02A PVC 135.83 0.548 135.282 8.179 127.65106-May-14 TW13-02B PVC 135.89 0.608 135.282 6.225 129.66506-May-14 TW13-02C PVC 135.89 0.608 135.282 0.49 135.406-May-14 TW13-02D PVC 135.88 0.598 135.282 0.475 135.40506-May-14 TW13-03A PVC 139.61 0.378 139.232 3.681 135.92906-May-14 TW13-03B PVC 139.6 0.368 139.232 3.718 135.88206-May-14 TW13-03C PVC 139.57 0.338 139.232 3.874 135.69606-May-14 TW13-03D PVC 139.52 0.288 139.232 1.623 137.89706-May-14 TW13-04 Steel 143.135 0.035 143.1 8.23 134.90526-Mar-14 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.45 134.36526-Mar-14 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.677 134.2926-Mar-14 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 4.235 136.04126-Mar-14 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 3.361 137.68126-Mar-14 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.198 135.46426-Mar-14 A147468A PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 No Data No Data26-Mar-14 A147468B PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 No Data No Data26-Mar-14 A147468C PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 1.765 140.89726-Mar-14 A147468D PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 1.549 141.11326-Mar-14 A147469A PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 5.289 137.37326-Mar-14 A147469B PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 5.543 137.11926-Mar-14 A147469C PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 4.69 137.97226-Mar-14 A147469D PVC 142.662 0.429 142.233 3.427 139.23526-Mar-14 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data26-Mar-14 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry26-Mar-14 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry26-Mar-14 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 8.283 132.48726-Mar-14 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 6.67 134.0926-Mar-14 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 6.41 134.3626-Mar-14 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 6.326 134.44426-Mar-14 TW13-04 Steel 143.135 0.339 143.1 8.767 134.36821-Jan-14 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.362 134.60521-Jan-14 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.679 136.59721-Jan-14 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.822 138.2220-Jan-14 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.825 134.9920-Jan-14 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.199 135.46320-Jan-14 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data20-Jan-14 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 3.115 140.54320-Jan-14 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry20-Jan-14 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 8.02 132.7520-Jan-14 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 6.72 134.0420-Jan-14 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 5.761 135.00920-Jan-14 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 5.615 135.15520-Jan-14 TW13-04 Steel 143.135 0.339 143.1 8.115 135.0206-Dec-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.144 134.67106-Dec-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.248 134.71906-Dec-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.953 136.32306-Dec-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.99 138.05206-Dec-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.206 135.45606-Dec-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data06-Dec-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry06-Dec-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry06-Dec-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 8.208 132.56206-Dec-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 6.33 134.4306-Dec-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 6.115 134.65506-Dec-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 6.204 134.56606-Dec-13 TW13-04 Steel 143.135 0.339 143.1 8.475 134.6628-Nov-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.145 134.6728-Nov-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.539 134.42828-Nov-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.974 136.30228-Nov-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 3.023 138.01928-Nov-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.19 135.47228-Nov-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data28-Nov-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry

Casing TypeWell IDDate




(m asl, top of casing) (m) (m asl, ground surface) (m bTOC) (m asl)Casing TypeWell IDDate

28-Nov-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry28-Nov-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 8.212 132.55828-Nov-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 6.3 134.4628-Nov-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 6.1 134.6728-Nov-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 5.993 134.77728-Nov-13 TW13-04 Steel 143.135 0.339 143.1 8.451 134.68421-Nov-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.021 134.79421-Nov-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.46 134.50721-Nov-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.838 136.43821-Nov-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.994 138.04821-Nov-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.208 135.45421-Nov-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data21-Nov-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry21-Nov-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry21-Nov-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 8.163 132.60721-Nov-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 6.235 134.52521-Nov-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 6.042 134.72821-Nov-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 5.874 134.89621-Nov-13 TW13-04 Steel 143.135 0.339 143.1 8.328 134.80715-Nov-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 8.79 134.8415-Nov-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.975 134.8415-Nov-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.405 134.56215-Nov-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.784 136.49215-Nov-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.944 138.09815-Nov-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.203 135.45915-Nov-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data15-Nov-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry15-Nov-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry15-Nov-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 8.152 132.61815-Nov-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 6.18 134.5815-Nov-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 5.932 134.83815-Nov-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 5.803 134.96706-Nov-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 2.57 141.0606-Nov-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.971 134.84406-Nov-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 2.862 133.10506-Nov-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.759 136.51706-Nov-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 1.398 139.64406-Nov-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.21 135.45206-Nov-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data06-Nov-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 3.2 140.45806-Nov-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry06-Nov-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -06-Nov-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -06-Nov-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -06-Nov-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -03-Oct-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -03-Oct-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.01 134.80503-Oct-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.514 134.45303-Oct-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.762 136.51403-Oct-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 No Data No Data03-Oct-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.247 135.41503-Oct-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 No Data No Data03-Oct-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 No Data No Data03-Oct-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 No Data No Data03-Oct-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -03-Oct-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -03-Oct-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -03-Oct-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -30-Aug-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -30-Aug-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.565 135.2530-Aug-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.205 134.76230-Aug-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 Dry Dry30-Aug-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 No Data No Data30-Aug-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.207 135.45530-Aug-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 3.801 -3.80130-Aug-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 3 140.65830-Aug-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry30-Aug-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -30-Aug-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -30-Aug-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -30-Aug-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -14-Aug-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -14-Aug-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.549 134.26614-Aug-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.731 134.236





14-Aug-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 4.392 135.88414-Aug-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 No Data No Data14-Aug-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.207 135.45514-Aug-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 Dry Dry14-Aug-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry14-Aug-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry14-Aug-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -14-Aug-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -14-Aug-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -14-Aug-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -05-Jul-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -05-Jul-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.991 134.82405-Jul-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.475 134.49205-Jul-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 4.755 135.52105-Jul-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.563 138.47905-Jul-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.413 135.24905-Jul-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 3.87 -3.8705-Jul-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 3.11 140.54805-Jul-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry05-Jul-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -05-Jul-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -05-Jul-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -05-Jul-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -20-Jun-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -20-Jun-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 7.67 135.14520-Jun-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.286 134.68120-Jun-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.195 137.08120-Jun-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.24 138.80220-Jun-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.085 135.57720-Jun-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 3.67 -3.6720-Jun-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 2.82 140.83820-Jun-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 2.418 138.94720-Jun-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -20-Jun-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -20-Jun-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -20-Jun-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -05-Jun-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -05-Jun-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.335 134.4805-Jun-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.685 134.28205-Jun-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.855 136.42105-Jun-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.77 138.27205-Jun-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.471 135.19105-Jun-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 3.921 -3.92105-Jun-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 3.177 140.48105-Jun-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry05-Jun-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -05-Jun-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -05-Jun-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -05-Jun-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -24-May-13 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -24-May-13 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.045 134.7724-May-13 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 1.436 134.53124-May-13 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 3.47 136.80624-May-13 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 2.67 138.37224-May-13 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.153 135.50924-May-13 BH-04-2 PVC 0 4.02 -4.0224-May-13 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 3.195 140.46324-May-13 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 2.575 138.7924-May-13 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -24-May-13 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -24-May-13 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -24-May-13 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -29-Jun-04 *House Well* Steel 143.63 0.339 143.291 -29-Jun-04 A001591 Steel 142.815 0.867 141.948 8.98 133.83529-Jun-04 A001592 Steel 135.967 0.8 135.167 No Data No Data29-Jun-04 A001593 Steel 140.276 0.797 139.479 4.75 135.52629-Jun-04 A001594 Steel 141.042 0.933 140.109 3.84 137.20229-Jun-04 A001595 Steel 142.662 0.768 141.894 7.91 134.75229-Jun-04 BH-04-2 PVC 0 Dry Dry29-Jun-04 BH-04-3 PVC 143.658 0.72 142.938 Dry Dry29-Jun-04 BH-04-5 PVC 141.365 0.73 140.635 Dry Dry29-Jun-04 TW13-01 A PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -29-Jun-04 TW13-01 B PVC 140.76 0.429 140.357 -29-Jun-04 TW13-01 C PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -





29-Jun-04 TW13-01 D PVC 140.77 0.429 140.357 -


Table 3: Summary of Groundwater Quality ResultsHydrogeology Report7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

Hardness Ion Balance TDS (cond-calc) Alkalinity Cl Colour Cond. DOC F NO2 NO3 pH SO4 TSS Turbidity Ca Fe K Mg Mn Na Ammonia PhenolsTannin and

LigninTKN

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L TCU µS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L log(H) mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

ODWS: 80-100 (OG) 500 (AO)30-500

(OG)250(AO)

5 (AO) 5 (AO)1

(MAC)10

(MAC)6.5-8.5

(OG)500(AO)

5 (AO)0.3

(AO)0.05(AO)

200(AO)

PWQO: >25% 6.5-8.5 Narrative Narrative 0.30 0.02May 6, 2014 GW - DUP 454 1.04 734 326 138 2 1130 1.90 - <0.10 2.57 7.86 34.0 n/a >100 124 6.20 3 35 0.04 61 0.16 - - -May 6, 2014 House Well 522 0.98 676 300 47 <2 1040 1.40 - <0.10 <0.10 7.82 223.0 n/a 1.4 138 0.04 5 43 <0.01 28 0.16 - - -May 14, 2014 TW13-01 A 133 0.91 962 392 169 14 1480 2.20 0.65 <0.10 <0.10 8.1 95.0 - >100 27.0 0.53 7.00 16.0 0.010 239 0.26 <0.001 <0.1 0.32May 6, 2014 TW13-01 D 439 1.03 663 327 106 3 1020 3.00 - <0.10 3.05 7.88 37.0 n/a >100 118 7.00 3 35 0.06 46 0.09 - - -May 6, 2014 TW13-2 A 544 1.07 1290 402 272 13 1990 7.60 - <0.10 <0.10 7.71 180.0 n/a >100 152 12.00 9 40 0.41 222 0.25 - - -May 6, 2014 TW13-2 D 461 1.01 767 337 14.4 3 1180 1.80 - <0.10 <0.10 7.91 52.0 n/a >100 117 27.40 5 41 0.15 61 0.09 - - -May 6, 2014 TW13-3 A 472 1.06 748 323 14 19 1150 7.60 - <0.10 <0.10 7.88 281.0 n/a 55.1 118 3.20 7 43 0.14 90 0.33 - - -May 6, 2014 TW13-3 D 462 1.01 593 203 7 3 912 <0.5 - <0.10 <0.10 7.68 299.0 n/a >100 114 40.7 5 43 0.84 28 0.21 - - -

Nutrients

LOCATIONDATE

Calculations General Chemistry Metals


Table 4: Summary of Surface Water Quality ResultsHydrogeology Report7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

Hardness Ion Balance TDS (cond-calc) Alkalinity Cl Colour Cond. DOC F NO2 NO3 pH SO4 TSS Turbidity Ca Fe K Mg Mn Na Ammonia PhenolsTannin and

LigninTKN

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L TCU µS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L log(H) mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

ODWS: 80-100 (OG) 500 (AO)30-500

(OG)250(AO)

5 (AO) 5 (AO)1

(MAC)10

(MAC)6.5-8.5

(OG)500(AO)

5 (AO)0.3

(AO)0.05(AO)

200(AO)

PWQO: >25% 6.5-8.5 Narrative Narrative 0.30 0.02November 7, 2013 CQ1 278 1.01 338 234 10 23 520 6.70 - <0.10 4.78 8.26 13 6 6.1 85 0.09 2 16 <0.01 <2 0.07 - - -November 7, 2013 CQ2 256 0.96 323 226 12 24 497 7.40 - <0.10 3.80 8.42 13 3 4.0 76 0.07 2 16 <0.01 <2 0.03 - - -May 6, 2014 CQ1 277 0.98 309 252 5 12 476 5.60 - <0.10 2.95 8.26 11 n/a 0.4 86 <0.03 <1 15 <0.01 <2 0.03 - - -May 6, 2014 CQ-DUP 277 1.01 309 246 5 12 476 4.40 - <0.10 2.91 8.24 10 n/a 0.6 86 <0.03 <1 15 <0.01 <2 0.03 - - -May 6, 2014 CQ2 294 1.01 320 261 6 16 492 5.70 - <0.10 2.49 8.32 12 n/a 1.1 88 <0.03 1 18 <0.01 <2 0.08 - - -

Nutrients

DATE LOCATION

Calculations General Chemistry Metals


Table 5: Summary of Surface Water FlowHydrogeology Report7731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

m3/s L/s

Velocity-Area 0.031 31

15 L Calibration 0.029 29

Q = velocity(stream width(stream length))

Q = Q1, Q2 … Qn

RationaleMethodFlow



FIGURES

Highway 7

Highway 417

Fernbank Road

Conley Road

Carp Road

Fallowfield Road

Eagleson Road

Huntley Road

Dwyer Hill Road

Richardson Sideroad

Huntmar Drive

Franktown Road

Munster Road

Flewellyn Road

Fernbank Road

Hazeldean Road

Upper Dwyer Hill Road

Highway 417

Fallowfield Road

REFERENCE

LEGEND

³Do

cume

nt Pa

th: H

:\01 P

rojec

t - Pr

opos

als\20

10 Jo

bs\0P

P-10

-826

Crai

n Qua

rry-P

it Gou

lbourn

\GIS

\10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

1_Sit

eLoc

ation

.mxd

1FIGURE:

CRAIN'S CONSTRUCTION

ED

PP-10-826

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:

DateGISChecked By115 Walgreen Rd., RR#3, Carp, ON K0A1L0

Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

SITE LOCATION

JULY 23, 2014

JB

HYDROGEOLOGY STUDYCRAIN'S QUARRY

Site1:100,000 KILOMETERSSCALE

2 0 2 41

Base data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014.

City ofOttawa

Hydro Corridor

Main Road

Local Road WatercourseWaterbody

Wetland Area

RailroadHighway / Freeway

Richmond

Stittsville

Kanata

TransCanadaTrail

Jin kinsonR oad

Site

Flewe

llyn R

oad

Fernb

ank R

oad

Jinkinson Road

Munster Road

Lucas Lane

REFERENCEDigital Data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, July 7, 2014.Zoning Data and Imagery provided by maps.ottawa.ca, geoOttawa, 2011

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

2_Su

rroun

dingL

andu

se.m

xd

1:13,000Scale

³

SURROUNDING LAND USES

2FIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826

Meters

Watercourse

RU

RU

RU

RR

MEMR

MR

MR

ME

EP

01A

EP

01A

RURR

RU

RU

RRRR

RU

RU

RU

Environmental Protection

Wetland

MEEP

01ARR

MRMineral ExtractionMineral Aggregate Reserve w/Detached Dwelling

Rural CountrysideRural ResidentialParks and Open Space - Golf Course

RR

RU

RURU

RC

ME

RC Rural Commercial

Approximate Site Boundaries

Mineral / AggregateAgriculturalResidential

Road

Zoning Boundary

Landuse

Zoning ( City of Ottawa - 2011 )

250 0 250 500125

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

((

Fernb

ank R

oad

Lucas Lane

Munster Road

139

140

138

141

137

142

136

135

143

134

144145

142

138

134

143

143

144

143

138

137

143

137

143

139

141

142

143

136135

134

138

135

134

140

139

139

143

143

144

134

139138

143

144

141

135

140

145

140

145

140

140

135

140

140

REFERENCEDigital Data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, July 7, 2014.

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

3_To

pogra

phyD

raina

geCa

tchme

nts.m

xd

1:5,000Scale Meters

³

Interpreted direction of Surface Water Flow

Sitepolygon

Wetland

Off-Site Building

100 0 100 20050

Drainage Boundary

ContourSurface Water Drainage

( Point Elevation

On-Site Building

Road

Jenkinson Drainage

Hobbs Drainage

TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE CATCHMENTS

3FIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826

Client:

Project:

Drawing Title:

ON-SITE BOREHOLE & TEST PIT LOCAITONS

HYDROGEOLOGY STUDY

Project Number:

Figure:

PP-10-826

4

Drawn By:

Date:

Paper Size:

ED

11" x 17" 1:2500(metric)

Checked By: JB

Scale:

JULY 23, 2014

115 Walgreen Rd., R.R. #3, Carp ON. K0A 1L0

Tel.: (613) 836-2184Fax: (613) 836-3742


Do not scale drawingsbefore proceeding with the workCheck and verify all dimensions

Amendment DateNo.

DESCRIPTIONNo. ELEVATION

Client:

Project:

Drawing Title:ON-SITE SURFACE AND

GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

HYDROGEOLOGY STUDY

Project Number:

Figure:

PP-10-826

5

Drawn By:

Date:

Paper Size:

ED

11" x 17" 1:2500(metric)

Checked By: JB

Scale:

JULY 23, 2014

115 Walgreen Rd., R.R. #3, Carp ON. K0A 1L0

Tel.: (613) 836-2184Fax: (613) 836-3742


Do not scale drawingsbefore proceeding with the workCheck and verify all dimensions

Amendment DateNo.

DESCRIPTIONNo. ELEVATION

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

"HOUSE WELL"

Fernb

ank R

oad

A001591

A001595

A001594

A001592

A001593

134.8

135.4

138.9

140.6

138.5

134.5

136.3

BH04-05/E

BH04-03/C

134136

138

139

140

138

141

137

142

136135

143

134

144

145

140

139

142

134

137

143

141

142

138

144

143

145

143

137

143

143

138

143


Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

6A_G

round

water

Eleva

tionC

ontou

rs._S

PRIN

G.mx

d

1:4,000Scale Meters

³

50 0 50 10025

Road

Groundwater Elevation Contour ( masl ) *Interpreted direction of Groundwater Flow

Approximate Site Boundaries

Contour ( masl )!A Monitoring Well

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURSSHALLOW BEDROCK ( SPRING ) 2013

6AFIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826

NOTE* Groundwater Elevations represent an average of data collected in Spring, 2013

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

! A

"HOUSE WELL"

136

Fernb

ank R

oad

A001591

A001595

A001594

A001592

A001593

BH04-05/E

BH04-03/C

139

134

138.0134.8

135.5

140.5

138.5

134.2

136.5

139

140

138

141

137

142

136135

143

134

144

145

140

139

142

134

137

143

141

142

138

144

143

145

143

137

143

143

138

143


Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

6B_G

round

water

Eleva

tionC

ontou

rs_FA

LLl.m

xd

1:4,000Scale

6BFIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826

Meters

³

50 0 50 10025

RoadApproximate Site Boundaries

Contour ( masl )!A


Monitoring Well

NOTE* Groundwater Elevations represent an average of data collected in Fall, 2013.

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURSSHALLOW BEDROCK ( FALL ) 2013

! A

! A

! A

Fernb

ank R

oad

136

135

133

132

131

130

134

134.5

129.7

136.5

TW13-01 B

TW13-02 B

TW13-03 B

139

140

138

141

137

142

136135

143

134

144

145

140

139

142

134

137

143

141

142

138

144

143

145

143

137

143

143

138

143


Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

6C_G

round

water

Elev

ation

Conto

urs_IN

T.mxd

1:4,000Scale Meters

³

50 0 50 10025



GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURSINTERMEDIATE BEDROCK ( SPRING ) 2014

6CFIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826


NOTE* Groundwater Elevations represent an average of data collected in Spring, 2014.

! A

! A

! A

134

132

136

Fernb

ank R

oad

132.7

127.7

136.7

TW13-01 A

TW13-02 A

TW13-03 A

131

139

140

138

141

137

142

136135

143

134

144

145

140

139

142

134

137

143

141

142

138

144

143

145

143

137

143

143

138

143


Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

6D_G

round

water

Elev

ation

Conto

urs_D

EEP.m

xd

1:4,000Scale Meters

³

50 0 50 10025



GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURSDEEPER BEDROCK ( SPRING ) 2014

6DFIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826

128


NOTE* Groundwater Elevations represent an average of data collected in Spring, 2014.

7131704 7139893

7127905

7101731

1535704

1534437

15344361534435

1534434

1532697

1521748

1521384

1519378

151863415180111517393

1502595

Fernb

ank R

oad

Jinkinson Road

Lucas Lane

Munster Road

Links Drive

Sawgrass Circle

Links

Drive


Docu

ment

Path:

H:\0

1 Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2010

Jobs

\0PP-

10-82

6 Cra

in Qu

arry-P

it Gou

lbour

n\GIS\

10-82

60\m

xd\0P

P108

26_0

7_MO

EWell

Reco

rds.m

xd

MOE WELL RECORD LOCATIONS

7FIGURE:


ED

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:


Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742


July 23, 2014

JB

PP-10-826

³

1:10,000Scale

250 0 250 500125

Meters

Jenkinson DrainWatercourse

Off-site BuildingOn-Site BuildingRoad

Approximate Property BoundariesBuffer ( 250 m )Buffer ( 500 m )

Wetland ( Evaluated ) Wetland ( Not evaluated )

MOE Well Record


APPENDIX ACity of Ottawa Zoning Information


APPENDIX BSite Photographs

Hydrogeology ReportPhotograph Log

0CP-10-82607731 Fernbank Rd., Ottawa, Ontario

Photograph 1. Looking southeast along southwest property line; ephemeral watercourse (Spring,2013).

Photograph 2. Looking north across property from on-site residential dwelling (Fall, 2013)



Photograph 3. Looking north-northeast across property from on-site residential dwelling (Fall, 2013).

Photograph 4. Looking north from monitoring well (A001595); high elevation area on east corner ofproperty.



Photograph 5. Looking southeast along southwest property line; ephemeral watercourse (Summer,2013).

Photograph 6. Looking northeast across property from weir location/ephemeral watercourse; lowelevation area on west corner of property.



Photograph 7. Weir (Summer, 2013).

Photograph 8. Looking southeast at on-site residential dwelling.


APPENDIX CMOE Well Records

Public 59 15 5 10 GRAVEL 10 -Public 59 15 5 10 GRAVEL 10 -Public 59 15 5 10 LIMESTONE 59 GREYPublic 59 15 5 10 LIMESTONE 59 GREY

Domestic 47 20 6 8 SAND 8 BROWNDomestic 47 20 6 8 SAND 8 BROWNDomestic 118 20 6 8 SAND 8 BROWNDomestic 118 20 6 8 SAND 8 BROWNDomestic 118 20 6 8 LIMESTONE 123 GREYDomestic 118 20 6 8 LIMESTONE 123 GREYDomestic 47 20 6 8 LIMESTONE 123 GREYDomestic 47 20 6 8 LIMESTONE 123 GREY

Domestic 102 55 30 3 CLAY 3 GREYDomestic 102 55 30 3 LIMESTONE 105 GREY

Livestock 95 13 10 3 SAND 3 BROWNLivestock 95 13 10 3 SAND 3 BROWNLivestock 95 13 10 3 SAND 3 BROWNLivestock 95 13 10 3 LIMESTONE 6 GREYLivestock 95 13 10 3 LIMESTONE 6 GREYLivestock 95 13 10 3 LIMESTONE 6 GREYLivestock 95 13 10 3 LIMESTONE 100 GREYLivestock 95 13 10 3 LIMESTONE 100 GREYLivestock 95 13 10 3 LIMESTONE 100 GREY

Domestic 50 18 20 - SAND 7 BROWNDomestic 81 18 20 - SAND 7 BROWNDomestic 81 18 20 - SAND 7 BROWNDomestic 50 18 20 - SAND 7 BROWNDomestic 50 18 20 - LIMESTONE 85 GREYDomestic 81 18 20 - LIMESTONE 85 GREYDomestic 81 18 20 - LIMESTONE 85 GREYDomestic 50 18 20 - LIMESTONE 85 GREY

Domestic 96 16 15 8 GRAVEL 5 BROWNDomestic 42 16 15 8 GRAVEL 5 BROWNDomestic 42 16 15 8 GRAVEL 5 BROWNDomestic 96 16 15 8 GRAVEL 5 BROWNDomestic 96 16 15 8 GRAVEL 8 BROWNDomestic 42 16 15 8 GRAVEL 8 BROWNDomestic 42 16 15 8 GRAVEL 8 BROWNDomestic 96 16 15 8 GRAVEL 8 BROWNDomestic 96 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 60 GREYDomestic 42 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 60 GREYDomestic 42 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 60 GREYDomestic 96 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 60 GREYDomestic 96 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 100 BLACKDomestic 42 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 100 BLACKDomestic 42 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 100 BLACKDomestic 96 16 15 8 LIMESTONE 100 BLACK

Domestic 112 6 80 8 FILL 2 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 FILL 2 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 CLAY 8 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 CLAY 8 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 25 WHITEDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 25 WHITEDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 50 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 50 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 110 WHITEDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 110 WHITEDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 120 GREYDomestic 112 6 80 8 GRANITE 120 GREY

Domestic 109 25 7 6 CLAY 6 BROWNDomestic 109 25 7 6 CLAY 6 BROWN

Static WaterDepth (ft)

WaterEncounter

Water UseWell IDFormation

DescriptionFormation

Thickness (ft)Formation

Depth toBedrock (ft)

Pumping_ra

1502595

1515420

1517393

1518011

1518634

1519378

1521384

Domestic 109 25 7 6 GRANITE 80 GREYDomestic 109 25 7 6 GRANITE 80 GREYDomestic 109 25 7 6 GRANITE 115 GREYDomestic 109 25 7 6 GRANITE 115 GREY

75 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN60 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN60 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN23 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN23 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN47 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN47 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN75 - - 11 TOPSOIL 11 BROWN75 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY47 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY47 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY23 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY23 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY60 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY60 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY75 - - 11 LIMESTONE 120 GREY

Not Used - - - - GRAVEL 1 BROWNNot Used - - - - LIMESTONE 30 GREY

1534435 Not Used - - - LIMESTONE 30 GREY


1534437 Not Used - - - - LIMESTONE 30 GREY


Domestic 20.42 - 45 11 GRAVEL 3.35 -Domestic 20.42 - 45 11 GRAVEL 3.35 -Domestic 14.63 - 45 11 GRAVEL 3.35 -Domestic 14.63 - 45 11 GRAVEL 3.35 -Domestic 14.63 - 45 11 LIMESTONE 24.38 BLACKDomestic 14.63 - 45 11 LIMESTONE 24.38 BLACKDomestic 20.42 - 45 11 LIMESTONE 24.38 BLACKDomestic 20.42 - 45 11 LIMESTONE 24.38 BLACK

7101731 - 0 - - - - 0 -

Monitoring 9.14 - - - STONES 1.21 BROWNMonitoring 19.81 - - - STONES 1.21 BROWNMonitoring 27.43 - - - STONES 1.21 BROWNMonitoring 33.52 - - - STONES 1.21 BROWNMonitoring 33.52 - - - LIMESTONE 2.74 GREYMonitoring 27.43 - - - LIMESTONE 2.74 GREYMonitoring 19.81 - - - LIMESTONE 2.74 GREYMonitoring 9.14 - - - LIMESTONE 2.74 GREYMonitoring 9.14 - - - LIMESTONE 39.92 GREYMonitoring 19.81 - - - LIMESTONE 39.92 GREYMonitoring 27.43 - - - LIMESTONE 39.92 GREYMonitoring 33.52 - - - LIMESTONE 39.92 GREY

Domestic 275 65 16 0 LIMESTONE 117 GREYDomestic 275 65 16 0 LIMESTONE 117 GREYDomestic 275 65 16 0 LIMESTONE 143 REDDomestic 275 65 16 0 LIMESTONE 143 REDDomestic 275 65 16 0 LIMESTONE 281 GREYDomestic 275 65 16 0 LIMESTONE 281 GREY

Domestic 42.66 21.06 54.6 0 SHALE 1.52 BROWNDomestic 42.66 21.06 54.6 0 LIMESTONE 27.43 GREYDomestic 42.66 21.06 54.6 0 SHALE 45.1 GREEN

Average: 77.38 20.57 27.31 7.34 49.01Min: 0.00 6.00 5.00 0.00 0.00Max: 275.00 65.00 80.00 11.00 281.00

1534436

1521748

1532697

1534434

1534438

1535704

7127905

7131704

7139893


APPENDIX DHydrogeologic Modelling Results (Geofirma)


APPENDIX ELaboratory Certificates of Analysis (Water Quality Data)

ooxul

ffi?. G-r' r{. L.

voice to the same as

'ient:)ntact:Cdress:

Purchase Order #:Exova Quote # *:

lndicates a required field

Please note that incomplete information may result in turnaround time delays.Samples should be kept cool (4-10'C) from sampling time through drop-off at the laboratory.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY'146 Colonnade Rd., Unit B, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Ph: (613)727-5692 Fax'. (613)727-5222608 Norris Court, Kingston, ON K7P 2Rg Ph: (613) 634-9307 Fax: (613) 634-9308380 Vansickle Rd., Unit 630, St. Catharines, ON L2R 6P7 Ph: (905)680-8887 Fax: (905) 680-42562395 Speakman Drive, Mississauga, ON, LsK 183 Phone: (905)822-4111 Fax:(905)823-1446

1,7 4252In!!

qoove@ / No, or:

1. Email:2. Email.3. Email:

Fax:

tsmarl/l-ax:'--,tu "F ;JJ&€ i.-, ;^LsAF.",,- "r- * .ODWSOG

PWQOOnt. Reg.558CCME

Sanitary Sewer, City:Storm Sewer, City:

Ont. Reg 153104Table # _, Coarse/Fine, Surface/Subsurface

: Com-lnd / Res-Park I Aori IGW / Other

rt Format:PDF €Excel n Other, S

Turnaround Time (rush surcharges may apply)*:ffi Business Days (Standard)r 3 Business Days (Rush)n 2 Business Days (Rush)n 1 Business Day (Rush)r Other (specifiy date):

sample results from this submissionI form part of a formal Record of Site

(RSC) under O.Reg5(53104 *:

,/1L+^15,^,i L-, Irt (; l{*-*A.,

":,:).n; )t,-!'i-'i ,-,',^s-.".,1 9:r

s this a drinking water sample? YESthe drinkinq water

Date/Time Sampled*

z.lv/lt L7

- 2 o)tt/ tt:i a

-2n/y'/u:it-2ot y f ,l;2,,-

-4a- -7,ty/li.z(-4,-- -?'lf / t{:'.i(

les Relinquished By:

inquished By: ate/Time: ples Received By:

EXOVA OTTAWA Certificate of Analysis

Dear Jordan Bowman:

Please find attached the analytical results for your samples. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call (613-727-5692).

Report Number: 1408209 Date Submitted: 2014-05-07Date Reported: 2014-05-14Project: CP-10-826COC #: 174252

APPROVAL:

Laboratory Supervisor, Inorganics

Lorna Wilson

Page 1 of 9

Exova (Ottawa) is certified and accredited for specific parameters by:CALA, Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (to ISO 17025), OMAFRA, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (for farm soils), Licensed by Ontario MOE for specific tests in drinking water.

Exova (Mississauga) is accredited for specific parameters by:SCC, Standards Council of Canada (to ISO 17025)

Please note: Field data, where presented on the report, has been provided by the client and is presented for informational purposes only.

Client: McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. 115 Walgreen Rd., R.R. #3 Carp, ON K0A 1L0Attention: Mr. Jordan BowmanPO#: Invoice to: McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Report Comments:




Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline

294

1.01

320

261

6

16

492

5.7

<0.10

<0.10

2.49

8.32

<0.01

12

1.1

88

<0.03

1

18

<0.01

<2

0.08

<0.001

0.1

0.42

522

0.98

676

300

47

<2

1040

1.4

0.50

<0.10

<0.10

7.82

<0.01

223

1.4

138

0.04

5

43

<0.01

28

0.16

<0.001

<0.1

0.17

277

1.01

309

246

5

12

476

4.4

<0.10

<0.10

2.91

8.24

<0.01

10

0.6

86

<0.03

<1

15

<0.01

<2

0.03

<0.001

<0.1

0.36

277

0.98

309

252

5

12

476

5.6

<0.10

<0.10

2.95

8.26

<0.01

11

0.4

86

<0.03

<1

15

<0.01

<2

0.03

<0.001

0.2

0.49 mg/L0.10 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Nutrients

mg/L0.1 Tannin & LigninPWQO-0.001 mg/L0.001 Phenols

mg/L0.02 N-NH3 mg/L2 Na

Metals

mg/L0.01 Mn mg/L1 Mg mg/L1 K

PWQO-0.30 mg/L0.03 Fe mg/L1 Ca NTU0.1 Turbidity

General Chemistry

mg/L1 SO4PWQO-0.002 mg/L0.01 S2-

6.5-8.5 1.00 pH mg/L0.10 N-NO3 mg/L0.10 N-NO2 mg/L0.10 F mg/L0.5 DOC uS/cm5 Conductivity TCU2 Colour mg/L1 Cl mg/L5 Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L1 TDS (COND - CALC)

Calculations 0.01 Ion Balance mg/L1 Hardness as CaCO3

1101943Surfacewater

2014-05-06SW1

1101942Surfacewater

2014-05-06SW-DUP

1101941Surfacewater

2014-05-06House Well

1101940Surfacewater

2014-05-06SW2



Page 2 of 9146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1

** = Analysis completed at Mississauga, Ontario.Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted.Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request.

Guideline = PWQO - Ontario * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range






544

1.07

1290

402

272

13

1990

7.6

0.22

<0.10

<0.10

7.71

<1.00

180

>100

152

12.0*

9

40

0.41

222

0.25

<0.001

0.2

0.54

462

1.01

593

203

7

3

912

<0.5

0.37

<0.10

<0.10

7.68

<1.00

299

>100

114

40.7*

5

43

0.84

28

0.21

0.001

0.2

0.50

454

1.04

734

326

138

2

1130

1.9

0.19

<0.10

2.57

7.86

<1.00

34

>100

124

6.2*

3

35

0.04

61

0.16

<0.001

0.3

0.18

439

1.03

663

327

106

3

1020

3.0

0.21

<0.10

3.05

7.88

<1.00

37

>100

118

7.0*

3

35

0.06

46

0.09

<0.001

0.1


Nutrients



Metals



General Chemistry




1101947Surfacewater

2014-05-06TW13-01-D

1101946Surfacewater

2014-05-06GW - DUP

1101945Surfacewater

2014-05-06TW 13-3-D

1101944Surfacewater

2014-05-06TW 13-2-A











472

1.06

748

323

14

19

1150

7.6

0.77

<0.10

<0.10

7.88

<1.00

281

55.1

118

3.2*

7

43

0.14

90

0.33

0.001

0.6

0.46

461

1.01

767

337

144

3

1180

1.8

0.18

<0.10

<0.10

7.91

<1.00

52

>100

117

27.4*

5

41

0.15

61

0.09

<0.001

0.1

<0.10 mg/L0.10 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Nutrients



Metals



General Chemistry




1101949Surfacewater

2014-05-06TW13-2-D

1101948Surfacewater

2014-05-06TW13-3-A









QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits

0Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-14 Method C SM2340B

Hardness as CaCO3

Ion Balance

TDS (COND - CALC)

268674Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-08 Method SM 4110C

100 90-110Cl <1 mg/L

110 90-110SO4 <1 mg/L

268680Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-08 Method C SM4500-NH3D

100 85-115N-NH3 <0.02 mg/L

268692Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-08 Method C SM4500-Norg-C

99 77-123Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen <0.10 mg/L

268723Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-08 Method M SM3120B-3500C

100 80-120Ca <1 mg/L

97 80-120K <1 mg/L

99 80-120Mg <1 mg/L







QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits

96 80-120Na <2 mg/L



268743Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-09 Method C SM2120C

100 80-120Colour <2 TCU


100 95-105Conductivity <5 uS/cm

99 90-110F <0.10 mg/L

100 90-110pH 5.75

268748Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-09 Method C SM5530D

97 73-127Phenols <0.001 mg/L


91 80-120Tannin & Lignin <0.1 mg/L


97 73-127Turbidity <0.1 NTU


93 85-115N-NH3 <0.02 mg/L







QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits


106 84-116DOC <0.5 mg/L

268866Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-09 Method SM 4110

105 90-110SO4 <1 mg/L

268873Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-12 Method C SM4500-NO3-F

97 80-120N-NO2 <0.10 mg/L

95 80-120N-NO3 <0.10 mg/L

268879Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-12 Method EPA 200.8

97 90-110Fe <0.03 mg/L

103 90-110Mn <0.01 mg/L

268923Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-13 Method C SM4500-S2-D

79S2- <0.01 mg/L


99 70-130Fe <0.1 mg/L

111 70-130Mn <0.01 mg/L

269040Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-14 Method SM 2320B

99 95-105Alkalinity as CaCO3 <5 mg/L







Sample ID: 1101940 SW2 Holding time for Turbidity analysis was exceeded for the entire report.

Sample ID: 1101944 TW 13-2-A Metals analysis performed on aqua-regia digest of sample material. S2 MRL elevated due to sample turbidity.

Sample ID: 1101945 TW 13-3-D Metals analysis performed on aqua-regia digest of sample material. S2 MRL elevated due to sample turbidity.

Sample ID: 1101946 GW - DUP Metals analysis performed on aqua-regia digest of sample material. S2 MRL elevated due to sample turbidity.

Sample ID: 1101947 TW13-01-D Metals analysis performed on aqua-regia digest of sample material. S2 MRL elevated due to sample turbidity.

Sample ID: 1101948 TW13-3-A Metals analysis performed on aqua-regia digest of sample material. S2 MRL elevated due to sample turbidity.

Sample ID: 1101949 TW13-2-D Metals analysis performed on aqua-regia digest of sample material. S2 MRL elevated due to sample turbidity.

Sample Comment Summary





Dear Jordan Bowman:

Please find attached the analytical results for your samples. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call (613-727-5692).


APPROVAL:

Laboratory Supervisor, Inorganics

Lorna Wilson

Page 1 of 6

Exova (Ottawa) is certified and accredited for specific parameters by:CALA, Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (to ISO 17025), OMAFRA, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (for farm soils), Licensed by Ontario MOE for specific tests in drinking water.

Exova (Mississauga) is accredited for specific parameters by:SCC, Standards Council of Canada (to ISO 17025)

Please note: Field data, where presented on the report, has been provided by the client and is presented for informational purposes only.


Report Comments:






133*

0.91

962*

392

169

14*

1480

2.2

0.65

<0.10

<0.10

8.10

<2

95

>100

27

0.53*

7

16

0.01

239*

0.26

<0.001

<0.1


Nutrients

mg/L0.1 Tannin & Lignin mg/L0.001 Phenols mg/L0.02 N-NH3

AO-200 mg/L2 Na

Metals

AO-0.05 mg/L0.01 Mn mg/L1 Mg mg/L1 K

AO-0.3 mg/L0.03 Fe mg/L1 Ca

MAC-1.0 NTU0.1 Turbidity

General Chemistry

AO-500 mg/L1 SO4AO-0.05 mg/L2 S2-6.5-8.5 1.00 pH

MAC-10.0 mg/L0.10 N-NO3MAC-1.0 mg/L0.10 N-NO2MAC-1.5 mg/L0.10 F

AO-5 mg/L0.5 DOC uS/cm5 Conductivity

AO-5 TCU2 ColourAO-250 mg/L1 ClOG-500 mg/L5 Alkalinity as CaCO3AO-500 mg/L1 TDS (COND - CALC)

Calculations 0.01 Ion Balance

OG-100 mg/L1 Hardness as CaCO3

1104023Water

2014-05-14TW13-01-A





Guideline = ODWSOG * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range




QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits


Hardness as CaCO3

Ion Balance

TDS (COND - CALC)


95 70-130Turbidity <0.1 NTU

269320Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-20 Method SM 4110C

100 90-112Cl <1 mg/L

105 90-110SO4 <1 mg/L




101 85-115N-NH3 <0.02 mg/L


100 90-110Colour <2 TCU







QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits


92 80-120Tannin & Lignin <0.1 mg/L

269332Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-20 Method C SM5530D

83 73-127Phenols <0.001 mg/L

269367Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-20 Method M SM3120B-3500C

100 80-120Ca <1 mg/L

97 80-120K <1 mg/L

98 80-120Mg <1 mg/L

98 80-120Na <2 mg/L


101 84-116DOC <0.5 mg/L

269394Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-20 Method C SM4500-NO3-F

100 80-120N-NO2 <0.10 mg/L

107 80-120N-NO3 <0.10 mg/L

269403Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-20 Method SM 2320B

97 95-105Alkalinity as CaCO3 <5 mg/L

99 95-105Conductivity <5 uS/cm







QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits

100 90-110F <0.10 mg/L

99 90-110pH 5.69


97 92-107Fe <0.03 mg/L

105 94-106Mn <0.01 mg/L

269562Run No Analysis Date 2014-05-22 Method C SM4500-S2-D

90S2- <0.01 mg/L







Sample ID: 1104023 TW13-01-A S2- MRL was increased due to sample turbidity.

Sample Comment Summary





APPENDIX FDraft Pit/Quarry Plans

Mark Priddle, P.Geo., Senior Geoscientist / Aggregate Specialist

Page 1

Mark Priddle has been involved in managing environmental and resource projects ineastern Canada since 1985. This work has involved the development or redevelopmentof dozens of aggregate properties. These assignments have ranges from small privately-owned pits to large industrial quarries. Mark is very familiar with the AggregateResources Act (ARA) and all facets of approvals for such properties.

Mark is the Senior Geoscientist in the Environmental Sciences and Engineering Groupproviding direction to specialists in the fields of Aggregate Resources, EnvironmentalScience (i.e., biology, ecology and hydrology/hydrogeology) and EnvironmentalEngineering. Mark is a Professional Geoscientist with 30+ years of experience and sitson the Council of the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO).Mark’s expertise includes aggregate assessments, hydrology/hydrogeology,environmental remediation, environmental site assessment, environmental monitoringand designated substances.

Mark manages projects in the fields of pit/quarry development, aggregate resourcesand environmental site assessment. He also provides review services for municipalitiesin these fields and manages similar projects for individuals, corporations and all levelsof government. Mark is responsible for managing staff and, as project manager, foroverseeing budgets and timelines.

Relevant Project Experience

The following are brief descriptions of relevant projects that Mark Priddle hasundertaken. Mark is approved by the Ontario MNR to Sign Class ‘A’ Site Plans under theAggregate Resources Act

Aggregate Resource Projects

Project Manager for an aggregate assessment and resource evaluation for aproposed property in North Dundas, ON. Reviewed test pit and drill data, preparedassessment and a valuation. Licence and Site Plan application approved and now inprogress. Dealt with 20+ objections and prepared responses.

Project manager for preparation of Class ’A’ Quarry Plans for a proposed quarry inLanark County. Responsible for hydrogeological assessment, preparation of summaryreport, MNR, client and neighbourhood liaison. Draft plans submitted to MNR and allapproval authorities. Assisted with OP and zoning amendments for the property.Conducted public consultation. Approval in 2012.

Project Manager for preparation of major amendment to a Class ‘B’ Pit Plan toallow extraction below the water table. Responsible for hydrogeological assessment,preparation of summary report, MNR, client and neighbourhood liaison. Draft planssubmitted to MNR and all approval authorities. Conducted public consultation.Submitted final plans with OLS for MNR approval (2010).

Experience30 Years Total, 8+ Years withMcIntosh Perry ConsultingEngineers Ltd.

Aggregate Resource Projects

15+ pit/quarry plans

Several aggregate resourceassessments for prospectivepits/quarries

15+ pit/quarry assessments forfurther extraction, rehabilitation,development for other uses

EducationMaster of Science in Engineering(Civil), University of NewBrunswick, Fredericton, NB, 1992

Bachelor of Science Degree,University of Waterloo, 1985

AffiliationsP.Geo (Ontario), since 2002(currently President of APGO)

Member, InternationalAssociation of Hydrogeologists

Member, Canadian GeotechnicalSociety

Approved by MNR to sign Class ‘A’Site Plans (under ARA)


Page 2

Project Manager for preparation of Class ’A’ Quarry Plans for a proposed quarry in Hastings County. Responsible forhydrogeological assessment, preparation of summary report, MNRF and client liaison. Draft Plans prepared – in progress 2015.

Project specialist for preparation of Class ’A’ Quarry Plans for a proposed quarry in rural Ottawa. Responsible forhydrogeological assessment, preparation of summary report, MNR, Conservation Authority and client liaison. Draft plansprepared – in progress 2015.

Project Manager for preparation of major amendment to a Class ‘A’ pit plan to allow extraction below the water table beforeclosure. Responsible for hydrogeological assessment, preparation of summary report, MNR and client liaison. Draft planssubmitted to MNR and all approval authorities. Amendment pending.

Project Manager for an aggregate assessment and Phase I and II ESA of large pit (almost worked out) east of Ottawa; evaluatedremaining resources through a drilling and aggregate testing program; assessed environmental conditions and reviewed licenceissues.

Assisted several clients with assessment and review of aggregate properties prior to purchase. Assessed compliance withlicences and plans, determined remaining resources and possible need for amendment to plans.

Project Manager for amendment of a small pit to a large pit and quarry near Bancroft.

Senior hydrogeologist: conducted and reviewed groundwater assessments for pits and quarries (above and below water table);conducted monitoring well installation and long-term monitoring (water levels) and background data review as part of a“rollover” program.

o City of Ottawa

o Lanark County

o Renfrew County

o Lennox and Addington County

o Hastings County

Prepared Hydrogeological Assessments (Level 1 and 2) for a quarry and two pits near Ottawa, in support of licence applications.

Senior Advisor for hydrogeological issues pertaining to pit and quarry approvals.

Senior Hydrogeologist for preparation of a hydrogeological assessment for a proposed subdivision in a worked out pit. Oversawfield activities, reviewed remaining aggregate resources, conducted hydrogeologic testing and prepared report.

Project Manager for a detailed assessment of peat resources over several hundred hectares near Casselman. Drilling andinvestigation to determine peat thicknesses and degree of saturation followed by topographical survey to develop quantityestimates and volumes above and below the water table. Assisted with property transaction.

Project Manager for aggregate assessment and environmental site assessment of sand pit near Trail Road landfill in Ottawa.Provided a report on quality and uses of aggregate and environmental conditions in groundwater.

Senior Hydrogeologist responsible for evaluating the effect of quarrying (two sites in eastern Ontario) on water quality andquantity. Provided advice on treatment of discharge water.

Senior Hydrogeologist responsible for preparation of a Hydrogeological Assessment Report for proposed subdivision in a workedout pit; assessed conditions and prepared report on remaining aggregate.


Page 3

Review of pit/quarry monitoring programs; provided advice pertaining to approval requirements and impact assessments.

Water quality monitoring and assessment of peat mining areas in New Brunswick.

Assessment of tailings quality in lakes near Sudbury, ON. Conducted sampling and assessment of lake-bottom sludges.

Professional Experience

Manager- Environmental Science & Engineering. McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (2007 – Present)

Senior Hydrogeologist/Environmental Geoscientist. Franz Environmental Inc. (1996-2007)

Senior Hydrogeologist. Water and Earth Science Associates Limited. (1992-1996)

Hydrogeologist. Gemtec Ltd. (1991-1992)

Lab technician. Environment Canada. (1991)

Graduate Research Assistant. University of New Brunswick. (1990-1992)

Groundwater Chemist. Environment Canada (National Water Research Institute). (1986-1990)

Relevant Training

Project Management Training (PSMJ Resources)

Instructor – Short Course on Groundwater Contamination (UNB)

Workshops on professional liability, technical writing and management

Guest Lecturer in Hydrogeology (University of Ottawa and Queen’s University)

Facilitator for several CGS and APGO short courses, seminars and networking sessions

Project Management Training (PSMJ Resources)

Attended Short Courses on hydrogeology, environmental remediation, risk assessment and field methods in the

environment

Attended Workshops on professional liability, technical writing and management

proposed crain’s construction quarry 7731 fernbank road

Documents