hydrogeological assessment, 1888 gordon street, …...hydrogeological assessment, 1888 gordon...
Post on 02-Jun-2020
15 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Hydrogeological Assessment,
1888 Gordon Street, City of
Guelph, Ontario
Version 3
Prepared for:
Tricar Developments Inc.
3800 Colonel Talbot Road
London, ON N6P 1H5
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
100-300 Hagey Blvd.
Waterloo, ON N2L 0A4
January 11, 2017
Revised: September 7, 2017
Revised: January 10, 2018
161401285
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1
2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ......................................................................................................2.1
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER FEATURES ..................................................... 2.1
2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY ................................................... 2.2
2.3 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2.3
3.0 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................3.1
3.1 DRILLING AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS ................................................... 3.1
3.2 DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETER INSTALLATIONS ................................................................... 3.2
3.3 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING ......................................................................... 3.2
3.4 SOIL INFILTRATION TESTING ............................................................................................ 3.3
4.0 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................4.1
4.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY ...................................................................... 4.1
4.2 HYDROGEOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2.1 Groundwater Levels .................................................................................... 4.1 4.2.2 Groundwater Flow ....................................................................................... 4.2 4.2.3 Infiltration Potential ...................................................................................... 4.3 4.2.4 Water Balance ............................................................................................. 4.4
5.0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................5.1
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................6.1
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................7.1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Plan
Figure 2 Surficial Geology
Figure 3 Topography
Figure 4 Hydrographs
Figure 5 Cross-Section A-A’
Figure 6 Cross-Section B-B’
APPENDIX B TABLES
Table 1 Well Construction Details
Table 2 Groundwater Level Data – Monitoring Wells
Table 3 Groundwater Level Data – Drive-point Piezometers
Table 4 Infiltration Testing Results
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOGS
APPENDIX D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX E UPPER HANLON CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
HYDROGEOLOGY REPORT: FIGURE NO. 6.6.1 – GROUNDWATER
CONTOURS (WATER TABLE)
APPENDIX F DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE CALCULATIONS
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Introduction
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 1.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Tricar Developments Inc. to complete a
hydrogeological assessment of the lands located at 1888 Gordon Street in the City of Guelph,
Ontario (Site) in support of a proposed residential development. The Site covers an area of
approximately 3.4 ha and is bounded to the northwest by Brock Road Nursery, to the northeast
by former open space (now in the process of being converted to residential subdivision), to the
southwest by a combination of agricultural lands and rural residential properties, and to the
southwest by Gordon Street (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The focus of the hydrogeological assessment is to evaluate whether a small onsite wetland area
located near the southeastern corner of the Site is hydrogeologically connected to the nearby
Halls Pond Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex, a provincially significant wetland
situated to the east of the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A). If the decision is made not to complex the
onsite wetland, the City of Guelph (City) requires that the feature be evaluated against the
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) policy framework for small wetlands (specifically
whether the onsite wetland is a discharge feature or a notable contributor to a greater
groundwater recharge area), as this will provide guidance on whether the onsite wetland can
potentially be removed for development purposes.
To evaluate whether the onsite wetland should be retained, the scope of work for the
hydrogeological assessment included:
1. characterizing geological and hydrostratigraphic conditions near the onsite wetland
2. evaluating the hydrogeological (i.e., groundwater) function of the onsite wetland
3. assessing whether a hydrogeological connection exists between the onsite wetland and
nearby Halls Pond PSW Complex
4. evaluating the hydrogeological characteristics of the onsite wetland against the GRCA
policy framework for small wetlands.
This report is arranged into eight (8) sections, including this introduction. Section 2 provides
background information on the physical setting of the Site from a regional perspective. Section 3
discusses the methods used to complete the site-specific hydrogeological assessment of the
onsite wetland, with Section 4 presenting the results of this assessment. Section 5 evaluates the
hydrogeological characteristics of the onsite wetland against the GRCA policy framework for
small wetlands and discusses whether the wetland should be complexed with the Halls Pond
PSW Complex. Section 6 provides the conclusions of the report, with Section 7 providing a listing
of cited references.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Introduction
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 1.2
All figures and tables referenced in this report are presented in Appendices A and B,
respectively. Appendices C to F provide Borehole Logs, Site Photographs, Groundwater Flow
Mapping, and Design Infiltration Rate Calculations, respectively.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Physical Setting
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 2.1
2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER FEATURES
The Site is situated within physiographic region classified by Chapman and Putnam (1984) as the
Horseshoe Moraines. This region consists of a series of moraines arranged in the shape of a
horseshoe, extending northward from Huron County to the toe of the “horseshoe” in Grey
County near Georgian Bay, and then southward along the edge of the Niagara Escarpment
into the Town of Caledon. From the Town of Caledon, the moraines trend west of the Niagara
Escarpment and form a belt of moderately hilly relief passing to the east of Acton and Guelph
and onward into Cambridge and Paris. In general, the section of the Horseshoe Moraines
covering the lands from Caledon to Paris consists of irregular knobs and ridges of stony glacial till
(i.e., end moraines), kames (an end moraine consisting of steep-sided mounds of irregularly
bedded sand and gravel deposited by the melting of an enclosed ice block) and broad
meltwater channel deposits (sand and gravel).
The Paris and Galt moraines are the most dominate features of the Horseshoe Moraines
physiographic region. In the City of Guelph, these two moraines range from being positioned
directly adjacent to each other to being separated by up to 10 km of outwash plains and
spillways. The ice-contact depositional processes that formed the moraines resulted in the
formation of several topographically depressed areas containing kettle lakes and wetlands, with
these features acting as receivers of surface water runoff generated from the hummocky terrain
(Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et al., 2009). The Wentworth Till (stony, silty sand or sandy silt-
textured till) typically caps both moraines, although kame deposits (i.e., sand and silt lenses and
discontinuous sand and gravel deposits interspersed with till units) commonly define the internal
structure of these features (particularly the Paris Moraine) through the Guelph-Cambridge area.
As shown in Figure 2 (Appendix A), the Site lies within the interpreted boundaries of the
Paris Moraine.
As shown in Figure 3 (Appendix A), hummocky terrain is prevalent around the Site, with the onsite
topography generally sloping in a north to northwest direction towards Poppy Drive East.
However, in the southern area of the property where the onsite wetland resides, the existing
grade gradually slopes towards this feature from all directions before coming to the edge of the
wetland, where the ground surface then drops in elevation by approximately two to three
meters. Ground surface elevations at the base of the onsite wetland tend to be in the range of
344 m AMSL. In comparison, ground surface elevations across the Site range from roughly
346 m AMSL (BH6-14) to 352 m AMSL (BH9-14).
The Site is located within the eastern limits of the Upper Hanlon Creek Watershed (Gamsby &
Mannerow, 1993), with the overall topography of the watershed sloping in a westerly to
northwesterly direction towards Hanlon Creek (Golder, 2006). The onsite wetland covers an
approximate area of 0.135 hectares and is characterized by mixed mineral meadow marsh
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Physical Setting
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 2.2
habitat (Stantec, 2018a). The nearest offsite surface water feature to the Site is a wetland area
associated with the Halls Pond PSW Complex, with this area being located approximately 100 m
to the southeast of the Site (Figure 2, Appendix A).
2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY
Geological conditions throughout the study area have been mapped and described by the
Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee (LERSPC, 2015), Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et
al. (2009), Golder (2006), the Grand River Conservation Authority (2001), and Banks (1993). In
summary, the subsurface throughout the region containing the Site consists of the following key
geological formations, listed from youngest to oldest:
Spillway Deposits: Glaciofluvial outwash and glaciolacustrine deposits of sand and gravel
with minor silt and clay associated with the spillway channels (Figure 2,
Appendix A; Unit 7).
Wentworth Till: Deposit of brown to reddish brown stony, silty sand or sandy silt-textured
till that largely covers the surface of the Paris Moraine. Generally, less
than 10 m thick, the glacial till generally consists of finer-grained deposits
(i.e., fine sand and silt) that are characterized by low permeability.
However, the till can also be coarser-grained in those areas where more
permeable kame or outwash deposits became reworked into the matrix
because of minor glacial re-advances. Overall, this till unit represents a
leaky aquitard or poor aquifer (Figure 2, Appendix A; Unit 5b).
Ice-Contact Deposits: Predominantly sand and gravel containing lenses of silt and clay left
behind by the melting of enclosed ice blocks (i.e., kames) (Figure 2,
Appendix A; Unit 6).
Port Stanley Till: A clay to silt-textured till unit deposited during a glacial advance from
the southeast following the Erie Interstadial. This till unit is considered to
act as a fair to good aquitard and is often found directly overlying the
bedrock surface beneath the Paris Moraine.
Bedrock: The Guelph Formation, representing the uppermost bedrock unit
throughout the region is described as a light brown/beige coloured
fossiliferous dolostone and an important aquifer in the Guelph area
(Brunton, 2009). Local well records indicate the bedrock surface
beneath the Paris Moraine around the Site is located at elevations
ranging from 303 to 306 m above mean sea level (AMSL).
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Physical Setting
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 2.3
2.3 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY
Mapping of the regional water table surface presented by the LERSPC (2015), developed from
an interpolation of reported static water levels in wells less than 25 m deep, indicates that
groundwater flow through the overburden deposits beneath the Site is in a westerly direction
towards Hanlon Creek, with a similar groundwater flow pattern being interpreted for the deep
overburden and bedrock (developed from an interpolation of reported static water levels in
wells greater than 40 m deep).
Regional mapping provided by the GRCA (2001) indicates that weak downward hydraulic
gradients are present beneath the Site and that the area is characterized by low groundwater
discharge potential.
Localized groundwater production zones are found in the overburden deposits of the Paris
Moraine and are associated with the hydraulic connections that occur between discrete sand
lenses within this feature (Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et al. (2009). However, most private wells
located within the Paris Moraine tend to draw their water from the major aquifers associated
with the underlying bedrock unit (LERSPC, 2015).
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Methodology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 3.1
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Section 3 provides the methodology Stantec used in collecting the data required to complete
the hydrogeological assessment of the Site, focusing mainly on evaluating the hydrogeological
form and function of the onsite wetland. The major components of the investigation included:
• drilling and installing monitoring wells
• installing drive-point piezometers
• performing groundwater level monitoring
• performing soil infiltration testing.
The sections below provide detailed descriptions of these study components.
3.1 DRILLING AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS
From April 4 to 5, 2016 Stantec directed the drilling of boreholes at two locations along the edge
of the onsite wetland for installing multi-level monitoring wells to identify the positioning of the
groundwater table and evaluate seasonal fluctuations in vertical hydraulic gradients
(i.e., identify groundwater recharge and/or discharge conditions) near this feature. The drilling of
a shallow (S) and deep (D) borehole occurred at each location, with each borehole being
equipped with a single monitoring well. Figure 1 (Appendix A) provides the locations of the two
multi-level monitoring wells: MW1-16(S/D) and MW2-16(S/D).
Stantec retained Aardvark Drilling Inc. (Aardvark) to complete the borehole drilling and
monitoring well installations. Aardvark drilled the boreholes using a CME 75 track-mounted
drilling rig equipped with a hollow stem auger drilling system, with soil samples being collected
using a 0.6 m long stainless steel split spoon sampler at 0.75 m intervals. The shallow boreholes
were advanced to depths of 3.9 m to 4.1 m below ground surface (BGS), with the deep
boreholes terminating at depths of 8.2 m to 8.3 m BGS. Stantec personnel logged the borehole
stratigraphy using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for the
description and identification of soils (ASTM International, 2009). The borehole logs contained
descriptions (where relevant and possible) of soil type, texture, colour, structure, consistency,
plasticity, moisture content, and other visual and olfactory observations. Copies of the borehole
logs are provided in Appendix C. Stantec Geomatics surveyed the ground surface and top-of-
pipe elevations at each borehole location to a geodetic benchmark using the Can-Net GPS
Survey system, having a spatial accuracy of +/- 0.03 m and +/- 0.02 m in the vertical and
horizontal plane, respectively.
Aardvark installed the monitoring wells adhering to the construction requirements as outlined
under Ontario Regulation 903 (O. Reg. 903) (MOE, 1990). Installation details for each of the
monitoring wells are summarized in Table 1 (Appendix B) and on the borehole logs provided in
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Methodology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 3.2
Appendix C. Each monitoring well is constructed of 50 mm inside diameter, Schedule 40
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, having a No. 10 slot screen (0.01-inch slot) measuring 1.5 m in
length. Aardvark backfilled the annular space between the monitoring well pipe and
surrounding soil to a height of 0.3 to 1.0 m above the top of screen using No.3 grade silica sand,
followed by granular bentonite (which was gradually hydrated through the pouring of water
down the annular space throughout the installation process) to ground surface prevent a
hydraulic connection from occurring between the screened formation and overlying soils. The
completion of each monitoring well involved encasing the pipe stick-up within a lockable steel
casing, with the base of this casing being cemented into place to a depth of approximately
0.3 m BGS.
3.2 DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETER INSTALLATIONS
From April 20 to 21, 2016 Stantec installed three (3) multi-level drive-point piezometers (consisting
of a shallow and deep pipe) within the onsite wetland [DP1-16(S/D) to DP3-16(S/D)] and one (1)
multi-level drive-point piezometer into the portion of the Halls Pond PSW Complex located
approximately 100 m to the southeast of the Site [DP4-16(S/D)] (Figure 1, Appendix A). The drive-
point piezometer installations are designed to assess the hydrogeological form and function of
the onsite wetland and evaluate its potential hydraulic connection to the Halls Pond PSW
Complex.
Each drive-point piezometer is constructed of a 0.42 m long steel screen (19 mm diameter) that
is connected to 25 mm diameter steel riser pipes. Stantec personnel drove the drive-point
piezometers into the substrate using a fence post driver, with shallow and deep pipes being
constructed within one (1) meter of each other and their screens being separated by a vertical
distance ranging from 0.8 m to 0.9 m. Construction details for the drive-point piezometers are
summarized in Table 1 (Appendix B).
3.3 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING
Stantec personnel recorded groundwater levels in the previously mentioned monitoring wells
and drive-point piezometers using a combination of automated and manual measurement
techniques. The automated measurement of water levels occurred using a Solinst Edge
Levelogger® (Levelogger), a device consisting of a pressure transducer and datalogger
suspended in the water column of each monitoring well and drive-point piezometer. The
Leveloggers record total pressure (atmospheric + height of water column) and required
correcting using atmospheric pressure data collected from a Solinst Barologger® (suspended in
the air of one of the onsite monitoring wells). Hydrographs presenting the corrected Levelogger
data obtained from April 2016 to April 2017 are presented in Figure 4 (Appendix A).
Stantec personnel manually measured water levels in the previously mentioned monitoring wells
and drive-point piezometers from April to August 2016, April 2017 and August 2017, with the
results of this monitoring being presented in Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix B), respectively. Manual
measurements were obtained using a battery operated HeronTM water level meter. Equipped
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Methodology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 3.3
with an electrode connected to a graduated polyethylene tape, Stantec personnel used the
meters to measure the depth to water by slowly lowering the electrode into the well until the
buzzer sounded. Stantec personnel recorded the water level measurements in meters to the
nearest 0.01 m and converted to elevations above mean sea level (AMSL) using surveyed
elevation data. The manual water level data were also used to calibrate and check the
accuracy of the data recorded by the Leveloggers.
Stantec Geomatics surveyed the ground surface and top-of-pipe elevations at each drive-point
piezometer location to a geodetic benchmark using the Can-Net GPS Survey system, having a
spatial accuracy of +/- 0.03 m and +/- 0.02 m in the vertical and horizontal plane, respectively.
3.4 SOIL INFILTRATION TESTING
On July 25, 2017 TDC Excavating (TDC) excavated eight (8) test pits (TP1-17 to TP8-17) throughout
the Site using a rubber-tired backhoe under the supervision of Stantec personnel. Stantec
strategically placed the test pits in areas of the Site where post-development stormwater
infiltration facilities were being considered for construction. The test pit depths ranged from 1.0 m
to 2.5 m BGS (coinciding with the anticipated base elevation of the infiltration facilities), with
their locations at the Site being shown on Figure 1 (Appendix A). Stantec personnel classified the
excavated soils using the ASTM guideline for visual-manual description and identification of soils
(ASTM D2488-00), providing descriptions (where relevant and possible) of soil type, texture,
colour, structure, moisture content, and other observations. Once the test pit was no longer
required, TDC backfilled the test pits, returning each location to its original condition. Field logs
for the test pits are provided in Appendix C.
From November 16 to 17, 2017 Lockhart Excavation (Lockhart) excavated two (2) additional test
pits (TP101-17 and TP102-17) within the finalized location of Infiltration Gallery 1 and three (3)
additional test pits (TP103-17 to TP105-17) within the finalized location of Infiltration Gallery 3
(Figure 1, Appendix A). Under the supervision of Stantec personnel, the test pit excavations
extended to the projected base elevation of each gallery for the performing of soil infiltration
testing. Once completing the soil infiltration testing at this base elevation, the test pits were
excavated an additional 1.2 to 1.6 m below this elevation, with the soils at this depth also being
subjected to infiltration testing. Stantec personnel classified the excavated soils using the ASTM
guideline for visual-manual description and identification of soils (ASTM D2488-00) and once the
test pit was no longer required, Lockhart backfilled the excavations to the existing grade. Field
logs for TP101-17 to TP105-17 are provided in Appendix C.
No test pits were excavated within the footprint of Infiltration Gallery 2, given that ground
surface elevations at this location occur at least 1.2 m (GP1, GP2) to 4.0 m (GP4) below the
projected base elevation of the gallery. Subsequently, Stantec personnel completed infiltration
testing of the native soils at depths ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 m below the existing grade at GP1,
GP2 and GP4 (Figure 1, Appendix A). Stantec personnel also completed infiltration testing in an
area located approximately 20 m to the northeast of the gallery footprint [i.e., GP3(1), GP3(2)],
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Methodology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 3.4
where the existing grade was approximately equal to the projected base elevation of the
galley.
Assessment of the infiltration potential for the onsite soils involved the use of a Guelph
Permeameter (a constant head permeameter designed to measure in-situ vertical hydraulic
conductivities of a given substrate). At the various excavated depths of the test pits (or existing
grades at GP1 to GP4), Stantec personnel used a hand auger to drill an approximately 0.2 to
0.5 m deep, 50 mm diameter cylindrical hole into the native soil to be tested. The Guelph
Permeameter was then filled with water, inserted into the hole while making a concerted effort
to avoid knocking debris into the excavation, and stabilized against the substrate. Stantec
personnel then proceeded to record the eventual steady-state rate of water recharge into the
soil. The infiltration rate for each soil tested was converted from the measured vertical hydraulic
conductivity using the established relationship between vertical hydraulic conductivity and
infiltration rate presented in the Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region
Conservation (2010) Low Impact Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guideline.
Table 4 (Appendix B) presents the results of this soil infiltration testing.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Local Geology and Hydrogeology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 4.1
4.0 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
4.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY
According to Figure 2 (Appendix A), the surficial deposits encountered throughout the Site
consist of stone-poor, silt to silty sand-textured till, representing the Wentworth Till, which is
understood to cap the Paris Moraine (Blackport Hydrogeology Inc. et al., 2009). However, soils
information obtained from onsite drilling logs (Appendix C) indicate that the surficial deposits
consist largely of coarser-grained sand and gravel with silt and are likely associated with the
more permeable ice-contact (kame) or outwash deposits that lie to the northwest of the Site
(i.e., Figure 2, Appendix A, Units 6 and 7b). As reported by MMM/LGL (1990), outwash and/or
kame deposits located in the areas immediately to the north of the Paris Moraine typically range
from 10 m to 15 m in thickness and sometimes extend down to the bedrock surface.
Figure 1 (Appendix A) shows the locations of Cross Section A-A’ (Figure 5, Appendix A) and B-B’
(Figures 6, Appendix A), constructed using geological information presented in the Ministry of
Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) well water records and results obtained from the
onsite drilling completed as part of previous geotechnical investigation completed by V.A.
Wood (Guelph) Incorporated (2010) and LVM (2014), and the current hydrogeological
investigation (Appendix C). Results of the onsite drilling indicate that a 0.2 m to 0.6 m layer of
sandy silt topsoil covers the Site, which in turn is underlain by ice-contact deposits of silty sand
and gravel to sandy gravelly silt up to the termination depth at most of the boreholes (i.e., from
5.0 to 14.2 m BGS; 332.9 to 347.1 m AMSL). At BH03-14 and BH04-14, drilling encountered a
deposit of clayey silt till (potentially the Port Stanley Till) at a depth of 14.2 m BGS, translating to
elevations of 334.7 m AMSL and 337.2 m AMSL, respectively. According to the MOECC water
well records for offsite Wells 6702483 and 6702639 (located roughly 300 m and 150 m to the
southwest and southeast of the Site, respectively; Figure 1, Appendix A), the bedrock surface is
located at an elevation of approximately 303 to 306 m AMSL near the Site (Appendix D).
4.2 HYDROGEOLOGY
4.2.1 Groundwater Levels
Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix B) provide a summary of manual groundwater level measurements
obtained from the onsite monitoring wells and drive-point piezometers, respectively, with results
of the continuous water level monitoring completed from late April 2016 to early April 2017 being
presented on the hydrographs provided in Figure 4 (Appendix A). As shown in Figure 4
(Appendix A), water levels recorded in the drive-point piezometers installed in the base of the
onsite wetland [i.e., DP1-16(S/D) to DP3-16(S/D)] were above the existing grade from April to
mid-May 2016, coinciding with the presence of standing water within this feature (Photos 1 to 3,
Appendix D). From mid-May 2016, water levels in each of the previously mentioned multi-level
drive-point piezometers dropped below the existing grade, declining past the screened intervals
of the piezometers (i.e., the pipes went dry) by the end of the same month. A similar trend in
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Local Geology and Hydrogeology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 4.2
water level declines occurred in MW1-16(S/D) and MW2-16(S/D) (Figure 4, Appendix A) with the
water table reaching a depth of 8.0 m BGS at these locations by early August 2016 (Figures 5
and 6, Appendix A; Table 2, Appendix B), equating to an average water table depth of 5.6 m
below the base elevation of the onsite wetland substrate (i.e., 338.7 m AMSL). As shown in Photo
4 (Appendix D), standing water was absent from the interior of the onsite wetland in early June
2016, with this condition remaining unchanged throughout the summer as noted during the field
visits completed by Stantec personnel in July and August 2016 (Table 3, Appendix B) (Stantec,
2018a). Groundwater levels continued to remain below the wetland substrate until late February
to early March 2017 Figure 4 (Appendix A), with the water table rising in response to the
infiltration of water from the melting snowpack, which is reported to be a common occurrence
in kettle depressions located throughout the watershed (MMM/LGL, 1990). Based on the
information presented above, it appears that water levels within the onsite wetland are largely
controlled by the positioning of the water table, with this feature becoming hydraulically
separated from the local groundwater system (i.e., does not receive groundwater inputs from
the surrounding landscape) starting in the late spring and continuing into the late winter.
Unlike the trends observed in the onsite wetland where the water table dropped notably below
the wetland substrate, groundwater levels measured within the Halls Pond PSW Complex to the
southeast of the Site remained relatively unchanged throughout the monitoring period, with
levels remaining above ground surface (i.e., water table intercepting wetland) and fluctuating
between 344.74 m AMSL to 345.46 m AMSL (Figure 4, Appendix A; Table 2, Appendix B).
4.2.2 Groundwater Flow
Regional groundwater flow mapping presented by the LERSPC (2015; Map 2-13, Page 2-32)
suggests that the direction of horizontal flow through the shallow overburden near the Site is to
the west and northwest towards the Main Branch of Hanlon Creek. At the local scale, historical
groundwater elevations recorded in offsite monitoring wells immediately to the west of the Site
[i.e., MW4-10 to MW6-10; V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated, 2010] together with groundwater
elevations recorded during the current investigation (Tables 2 and 3, Appendix B) also suggest
that groundwater moves in a westerly direction across the Site. Specifically, groundwater
elevations recorded within the Halls Pond PSW Complex at DP4-16(S/D) are consistently higher
than corresponding groundwater elevations measured within the onsite wetland at DP1-17(S/D)
to DP3-17(S/D), indicating that groundwater flows from the PSW towards this feature (Table 2,
Appendix B). The previously mentioned flow interpretations are further supported by
groundwater flow modeling completed by Banks (1993), in which the model incorporated
hydrogeological data obtained from 150 boreholes/monitoring wells completed into the shallow
overburden aquifer system to delineate flows within the model area as presented in Appendix E.
The modeling results confirm that groundwater flow near the Site travels in a west to northwest
direction towards the Main Branch of Hanlon Creek.
Data available on the Grand River Information Network (GRIN, 2016) indicates that downward
vertical hydraulic gradients occur beneath the Site, suggesting that these lands represent a
groundwater recharge area. Along the perimeter of the onsite wetland, vertical hydraulic
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Local Geology and Hydrogeology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 4.3
gradients recorded at MW1-16(S/D) and MW2-16(S/D) between late April to late May 2016
ranged from -0.01 m/m to -0.53 m/m, for an average of -0.23 m/m (i.e., recharge condition),
before the water table dropped below the screen of the shallow well and, subsequently, made
for the calculation of vertical gradients at these locations no longer possible (Table 3, Appendix
B). A similar pattern in vertical hydraulic gradients occurred at the monitoring wells in February
and March 2017.
Although periodically characterized by upward vertical hydraulic gradients in the early spring,
the mean vertical hydraulic gradients calculated at the drive-point piezometers located within
the interior of the onsite wetland ranged from -0.01 m/m to -0.03 m/m (i.e., weak downward)
over the monitoring period (Figure 4, Appendix A). Overall, these data suggest the onsite
wetland predominantly acts as a groundwater recharge feature. In comparison, vertical
hydraulic gradients recorded beneath the nearby Halls Pond PSW Complex [i.e., DP4-16(S/D)]
were consistently upward (i.e., mean vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.03; discharge condition)
(Figure 4, Appendix A).
4.2.3 Infiltration Potential
Table 4 (Appendix B) presents calculated infiltration rates associated with the various soil horizons
tested within and near the footprints of the three finalized infiltration gallery locations (Figure 1,
Appendix A). Overall, vertical hydraulic conductivities in the upper overburden (i.e., from 0.2 to
5.1 m BGS) range from 1.4 x10-4 m/s to 2.0 x10-7 m/s, for a geometric mean vertical hydraulic
conductivity of 4.3 x10-6 m/s. Using the equation derived from the established relationship
between vertical hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate presented in the Credit Valley
Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Low Impact Stormwater Management
Planning and Design Guideline (Guideline) (2010), the calculated vertical hydraulic
conductivities for the upper overburden deposits convert to infiltration rates ranging from
30 mm/hour to 172 mm/hour (average rate of 67 mm/hour for the Site).
The soils encountered at the projected base elevation of Infiltration Gallery 1 consisted of silty
fine sand (fill) to gravelly fine sand. Testing results indicate that vertical hydraulic conductivities in
these fine sand deposits range from 1.4 x10-4 m/s to 7.5 x10-7 m/s, for a geometric mean vertical
hydraulic conductivity of 7.8 x10-6 m/s. The calculated vertical hydraulic conductivities for the
fine sand deposits convert to infiltration rates ranging from 43 mm/hour to 172 mm/hour
(average rate of 80 mm/hour). For the gravelly fine sands located approximately 1.5 m below
the projected base of this gallery, vertical hydraulic conductivities range from 5.3 x 10-5 m/s
(134 mm/hour) to 4.7 x10-7 m/s (38 mm/hour), for a geometric mean of 3.2 x10-6 m/s
(63 mm/hour). As per the Guideline, the ratio of the previously mentioned geometric infiltration
rates is 1.3 (ratio = 80/63), equating to a safety correction factor of 3.5. In applying the safety
correction factor to the geometric infiltration rate calculated at the base elevation of the
infiltration gallery (i.e., 80 mm/hour divided by 3.5), the resulting infiltration design rate for the
gallery is 23 mm/hour (Appendix F).
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Local Geology and Hydrogeology
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 4.4
At Infiltration Gallery 2, the constructed base of the gallery is expected occur in deposits of silty
fine sand intermixed with gravel having a geometric vertical hydraulic conductivity of
4.3 x10-6 m/s (69 mm/hour). The deposits of silty fine sand located approximately 1.5 m below the
projected base of this gallery ranges from 4.7 x10-6 m/s (69 mm/hour) to 3.9 x10-7 m/s
(36 mm/hour), for a geometric mean of 1.4 x10-6 m/s (51 mm/hour). The ratio of the previously
mentioned geometric infiltration rates is 1.4 (ratio = 69/51), equating to a safety correction factor
of 3.5. In applying the safety correction factor to the geometric infiltration rate calculated at the
base elevation of the infiltration gallery (i.e., 69 mm/hour divided by 3.5), the resulting infiltration
design rate for the gallery is 20 mm/hour (Appendix F).
The silty fine sand with gravel and cobbles that will directly underlie Infiltration Gallery 3 has
vertical hydraulic conductivities ranging from 6.3 x10-5 m/s (140 mm/hour) to 5.5 x10-7 m/s
(39 mm/hour), for a geometric mean vertical hydraulic conductivity of 6.7 x10-6 m/s
(77 mm/hour). For the silty fine sand with gravel, cobbles and clay located from 1.2 to 1.5 m
below the projected base of this gallery, vertical hydraulic conductivities range from
1.3 x10-5 m/s (91 mm/hour) to 2.0 x10-7 m/s (30 mm/hour), for a geometric mean of 1.7 x10-6 m/s
(53 mm/hour). The ratio of the previously mentioned geometric infiltration rates is 1.5 (ratio =
77/53), equating to a safety correction factor of 3.5. In applying the safety correction factor to
the geometric infiltration rate calculated at the base elevation of the infiltration gallery
(i.e., 77 mm/hour divided by 3.5), the resulting infiltration design rate for the gallery is 22 mm/hour
(Appendix F).
4.2.4 Water Balance
A monthly-based pre- and post-development water balance assessment was completed for the
Site utilizing the methodology of Thornthwaite and Mather (1955, 1957), with the results of these
assessments being provided in the accompanying Stantec (2018b) Functional Servicing Report
(FSR). In summary, the analyses indicate the following:
• Under the pre-development condition, the predicted annual volume of water that infiltrates
to the shallow groundwater system via the onsite wetland (0.135 ha) is 551 m3, equating to
an infiltration rate of 408 mm/year. For the remaining area of the Site (3.058 ha), the
predicted annual infiltration volume is 12,486 m3, representing an infiltration rate of 408
mm/year. Overall, the total area of the Site (3.2 ha) under pre-development conditions
contributes 13,037 m3 of infiltration to the subsurface, equating to a rate of
408 mm/year. Based on these calculations, the total volume of water infiltrating to the
subsurface via the wetland represents approximately 5% of the total annual infiltration
occurring across the Site.
• Under the post-development condition, impervious surfaces are expected to cover 70% of
the Site area, which will result in an annual water volume of 2,542 m3 infiltrating to the
subsurface via the remaining onsite pervious areas and a predicted annual infiltration deficit
of 10,495 m3. However, to address this infiltration deficit, post-development infiltration
augmentation measures in the form of subsurface infiltration galleries and bioretention will be
employed across the property, which is predicted to enhance the pre-development
infiltration function of the Site. Overall, an annual infiltration surplus of 4,737 m3 is expected to
occur under the mitigated post-development condition.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Wetland Assessment
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 5.1
5.0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) must first
provide permission for any proposed alteration of, or interference with, a wetland to occur as
part of a land development project. The GRCA will permit development to occur within, or result
in the removal of, a naturally occurring wetland of less than 0.5 ha or an anthropogenic wetland
covering an area less than 2 ha, if the wetland is not:
1. part of a Provincially Significant Wetland
2. located within a floodplain or riparian community
3. part of a Provincially or municipally designated natural heritage feature, a significant
woodland, or hazard land
4. a bog or fen
5. fish habitat
6. significant wildlife habitat
7. confirmed habitat for a Provincially or regionally significant species as determined by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry or as determined by the municipality
8. part of an ecologically functional corridor or linkage between larger wetlands or natural
areas
9. part of a groundwater recharge area
10. a groundwater discharge area associated with any of the above
The hydrogeological information previously presented in this report will be used to address GRCA
Criteria 1), 9) and 10), with the remaining criteria being addressed in Stantec’s accompanying
Environmental Impact Study (Stantec, 2018a) report.
In the opinion of Stantec, the onsite wetland is a candidate for removal to accommodate
development at the Site based on the reasons presented below.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Wetland Assessment
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 5.2
1) The onsite wetland is not part of a Provincially Significant Wetland
As discussed in Stantec’s (2018a) Environmental Impact Study report, the onsite wetland is not
considered to be a PSW for the following reasons:
• The onsite wetland is less than 2 ha in size.
• The onsite wetland does not occur in a site district where wetlands are rare.
• The onsite wetland is not a wetland type that is not well represented in the area or in nearby
complexes.
• The onsite wetland does not sustain significant species/communities (rare or priority species
or habitat).
• The onsite wetland does not provide significant wildlife habitat including: amphibian
breeding habitat, turtle overwintering habitat, marsh breeding bird habitat, waterfowl
stopover areas.
• The onsite wetland is not a headwater contributing to watercourse baseflow.
• The onsite wetland is not a groundwater discharge feature (see discussion below).
• The onsite wetland does not provide a unique recharge function across the landscape (see
discussion below).
• There is no evidence of a hydrogeological connection between the onsite wetland and the
Halls Pond PSW Complex, given that water levels within the onsite wetland are largely
controlled by the positioning of a localized water table. In the late spring and continuing into
the winter months, the onsite wetland becomes hydraulically separated from the local
groundwater system (i.e., water table drops below the wetland substrate and, subsequently,
the feature does not receive groundwater inputs from the surrounding landscape), whereas
the adjacent Halls Pond PSW Complex remains connected to the shallow groundwater
system over the same period (refer to Section 4.2.1).
9) The onsite wetland is not a notable groundwater recharge area
Under the pre-development condition, the predicted annual volume of infiltration provided to
the shallow groundwater system by the onsite wetland only represents 5% of the total annual
volume of infiltration that occurs across the Site (refer to Section 4.2.4), noting that the
subsurface deposits found beneath the onsite wetland are also present throughout the entire
Site (i.e., the permeable soils underlying the wetland are not unique to the Site) (Figures 5 and 6,
Appendix A; Appendix C). As noted by MMM/LGL (1990), the outwash and/or kame deposits
present in the areas located immediately to the north of the Paris Moraine represent an area of
notable groundwater recharge within the watershed. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Wetland Assessment
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 5.3
the loss of recharge function associated with the onsite wetland will not detrimentally impact the
overall groundwater recharge function provided by the Site or the physiographic region (i.e.,
Paris Moraine) in which the Site resides.
10) The onsite wetland is not a groundwater discharge feature
As discussed in Section 4.2.2, weak downward vertical hydraulic gradients (i.e., recharge
condition) are largely present beneath the onsite wetland in the spring, followed by the water
table dropping below the wetland substrate (up to 5.6 m BGS by August) and remaining in that
position until the late winter. Subsequently, the onsite wetland experiences the loss of a direct
hydraulic connection to the shallow groundwater system over most of a given year (i.e., there is
no opportunity for groundwater to flow into this feature from the surrounding landscape over this
period). Consequently, the onsite wetland is not considered to function as a groundwater
discharge feature.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
Conclusions
January 10, 2018
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 6.1
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the hydrogeological assessment, using the existing data collected at the Site and
information obtained from a background review of regional data, the following conclusions are
provided:
1. Geological conditions beneath the onsite wetland and throughout the Site consist
predominantly of ice-contact stratified deposits of silty sand and gravel to sandy gravelly silt
that extend from the existing grade to the termination depth of onsite boreholes (i.e., from
5.0 to 14.2 m BGS).
2. The water table drops below the wetland substrate in the early spring, with groundwater
levels remaining notably below the substrate into the late winter, resulting in the loss of a
direct hydraulic connection between the wetland and the shallow groundwater system over
this period (i.e., does not receive groundwater inputs from the surrounding landscape).
3. The Site lies within the boundaries of the Paris Moraine, which is understood to act as an area
of groundwater recharge. Weak downward vertical hydraulic gradients (i.e., recharge
condition) are present beneath the onsite wetland, which agrees with regional groundwater
recharge mapping presented by the GRCA (2001). As such, the onsite wetland is not a
groundwater discharge feature.
4. Over the monitoring period, the nearby Halls Pond PSW Complex maintained a connection
to the water table, whereas the onsite wetland lost its direct hydraulic connection to the
shallow groundwater system (i.e., local water table dropped and remained below the
wetland substrate), suggesting that no hydrogeological interaction likely occurs between
these two wetland features.
5. Under the pre-development condition, the predicted annual volume of infiltration provided
to the shallow groundwater system by the onsite wetland only represents 5% of the total
annual volume of infiltration that occurs across the Site, noting that the subsurface deposits
found beneath the onsite wetland are also present throughout the entire Site. Overall, the
loss of recharge function associated with the removal of the onsite wetland will not
detrimentally impact the overall groundwater recharge function provided by the Site or the
physiographic region in which the Site resides (i.e., Paris Moraine).
6. The implementation of proposed post-development infiltration augmentation measures is
expected to enhance the pre-development infiltration function of the Site, resulting in an
annual infiltration surplus of 4,737 m3.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
References
January 11, 2017
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 7.1
7.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. 2009. ASTM D2488-09a,
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).
West Conshohocken, PA.
Banks, William D. 1993. Upper Hanlon Creek Watershed Management Strategy Hydrogeology
Report. In Volume 3: A Watershed Management Strategy for The Upper Hanlon Creek
and Its Tributaries, Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, June 1993.
Blackport Hydrogeology Inc., Blackport and Associates Ltd. and AquaResource Inc. 2009.
Review of the State of Knowledge for the Waterloo and Paris/Galt Moraines. Prepared for
Land and Water Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment. February 2009.
Brunton, F.R., 2009. Update of Revisions to the Early Silurian Stratigraphy of the Niagara
Escarpment: Integration of Sequence Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Hydrogeology to
Delineate Hydrogeologic Units. In Summary of Field Work and Other Activities 2009,
Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6240, p. 25-1 to 25-20.
Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario
Geological Survey Special Volume 2, 270 pp.
Gamsby and Mannerow Ltd. 1993. A Watershed Management Strategy for the Upper Hanlon
Creek and its Tributaries. June 1993.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2006. Guelph-Puslinch Groundwater Protection Study. Report to
the Grand River Conservation Authority, City of Guelph, and Township of Puslinch.
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2001. Grand River Regional Groundwater Study,
Technical Report. June 2001.
Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee (LERSPC). 2015. Approved Assessment Report for
the Grand River Source Protection Area within the Lake Erie Source Protection Region.
November 25, 2015.
LVM (a division of EnGlobe Corp.). 2014. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Residential
Development, 1888 Gordon Street, Guelph, Ontario. January 14, 2014.
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited and LGL Limited (MMM/LGL). 1990. Hanlon Creek
Watershed Study Background Report.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1990. Wells. Regulation under the Ontario Water Resources
Act. Regulation 903 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1888 GORDON STREET, CITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO
References
January 11, 2017
bk \\cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\ver.3\rpt_201801010_1888.gordon.street_hydrogeology_final_ver.3.docx 7.2
Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018a. 1888 Gordon Street Environmental Impact Study. January
2018.
Stantec Consulting Limited. 2018b. Functional Servicing Report for 1888 Gordon Street, Guelph,
ON. January 2018.
V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated. 2010. Additional Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed
Residential Development, 1897 Gordon Street, City of Guelph, Ontario. December 2010.
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
_̂
BrantfordLondon Niagara
Falls
Stratford
OshawaSiteLocation
Ontario
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́"́"́"́ "²"²"²"²
"²"²
"²"²
"²
"²
%
*
*
%
*
*%
**
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
%
*
*
"L "L
"L
"L"L
"¹ "¹ "¹
"¹
"¹
"¹"¹
"¹
"¹
"¹
"¹
A
BA'
B'
Poppy Drive
East
Gordon Street
71572846710049 6702638
6707721
721927067026397157282
6702483
6710383
6702486
7238744
%
InfiltrationGallery 2
%
InfiltrationGallery 3
%
InfiltrationGallery 1
BH1-14
BH2-14
BH3-14
BH4-14
BH5-14
BH6-14
BH7-14
BH8-14
BH9-14
BH10-14
MW1-16S/DMW2-16S/D DP1-16S/DDP2-16S/D
DP3-16S/D
DP4-16S/D
MW5-10
MW6-10
MW1-04
TP2-17
TP1-17TP8-17
TP7-17
TP6-17
TP5-17
TP4-17
TP3-17
TP101
TP102
TP103TP104
TP105
GP1 GP4
GP2
GP3(1)GP3(2)
Client/Project
Figure No.
TitleSite Plan1
Tricar Development Inc. 1888 Gordon Street, GuelphHydrogeological Assessment
December 2017161401285
Notes
Legend
0 30 60m
1:1,500
Subject Property"¹ MOECC Water Well"́ Monitoring Well (Stantec, 2016)"² Monitoring Well (V.A. Wood Inc., 2010)"́ Borehole (LVM, 2014)
%
*
* Test Pit (Stantec, 2017)"² Drive-Point Piezometer (Stantec, 2016)
"L Guelph Permeameter (Stantec, 2017)RoadCross-Section LocationWetland - Evaluated (Provincial)Wetland - Not evaluated per OWESSite DetailInfiltration GalleryBuildingDelineated Wetland Boundary
(Stantec and GRCA, 2017)
\\cd
1004
-f01\
work_
grou
p\01
609\
activ
e\16
1401
285\
plann
ing\d
rawi
ng\M
XD\H
ydro
geolo
gy\H
ydro
G_As
sess\
1614
0128
5_HG
_Fig0
1_Sit
ePlan
.mxd
Revis
ed: 2
017-1
2-04 B
y: CC
oghla
n
±
KEY MAP
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.3. Orthoimagery Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Imagery flown in 2012.4. MOECC Water Well Records have been positioned based onpublished UTM coordinates and should be consideredapproximate.
_̂
Brantford
LondonNiagara
Falls
Stratford
Oshawa
SiteLocation
LakeHuron
LakeOntario
LakeErie
Ontario
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́�"́�"́�"́� "²"²"²"²"²"²
"²"²
"²�
"²�
"²�
Meltwater Channel
ParisMoraine
Meltwater Channel
7b
6
6
5b
6
5b
7b
7b
6
Goodw
in D
rive
FarleyDrive H
awkins D
rive
Cla
ir R
oad E
ast
Cla
irRoa
dW
est
Poppy
D
rive
East
Gordon S
treet
Halls PondWetlandComplex
Halls PondWetlandComplex
Halls PondWetlandComplex
Halls PondWetlandComplex
BH1-14
BH2-14
BH3-14
BH4-14
BH5-14
BH6-14
BH7-14
BH8-14
BH9-14
BH10-14
MW1-16S/DMW2-16S/D
DP1-16S/DDP2-16S/D
DP3-16S/D
DP4-16S/D
MW4-10
MW5-10
MW6-10
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Surficial Geology
2
Tricar Development Inc.
1888 Gordon Street, Guelph
Hydrogeological Assessment
October 2016
161401285
Notes
Legend
0 80 160m
1:3,500
Subject Property
"́� Monitoring Well (Stantec, 2016)
"²� Monitoring Well (V.A. Wood Inc., 2010)
"́ Borehole (LVM, 2014)
"² Drive-Point Piezometer (Stantec, 2016)
Interpreted Boundaries of the Paris Moraine
Road
Wetland - Evaluated (Provincial)
Wetland - Not evaluated per OWES
Surficial Geology
7b: Glaciofluvial deposits (Gravelly deposits)
6: Ice-contact stratified deposits
5b: Stone-poor, carbonate-derived silty to
sandy till (Wentworth Till)
\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig02_SurficialGeology.m
xd
Revised: 2016-10-21 By: pmoser
±
KEY MAP
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.
3. Ontario Geological Survey 2010. Surficial geology of Southern
Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release--Data 128-
REV ISBN 978-1-4435-2483-4
_̂
Brantford
LondonNiagara
Falls
Stratford
Oshawa
SiteLocation
LakeHuron
LakeOntario
LakeErie
Ontario
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́
"́�"́�"́�"́� "²"²"²"²"²"²
"²"²
"²�
"²�
"²�
Goodw
in D
rive
FarleyDrive H
awkins D
rive
Cla
ir R
oad E
ast
Cla
irRoa
dW
est
Poppy
D
rive
East
Gordon S
treet
Halls PondWetlandComplex
Halls PondWetlandComplex
Halls PondWetlandComplex
Halls PondWetlandComplex
3543
50
34834
6
340
344
342
338
334
352
348
340
338
340
338
354
352
35
0
348
346
356
354
352
350
348
34
4
34
2
346
342
346
34
4
350
348
350
348
350
34
8
34
8
34
6
348
346
346344
346344
342
340
344
342
34834
6
34
6
34
4
344
342
344
342
344
342
34
2
34
0
342
340
342
340
336
334
344
34
2
356
350
34
6
342
354
352
34
6348
346
354
35
2
350
352
350
348348
346 346
348
348
348
344
346
346
346
346
344
344
342
344
34
4
342
344
344
342
342
342
342
342
342
340
338
338
338
334
334
344
342
334
BH1-14
BH2-14
BH3-14
BH4-14
BH5-14
BH6-14
BH7-14
BH8-14
BH9-14
BH10-14
MW1-16S/DMW2-16S/D
DP1-16S/DDP2-16S/D
DP3-16S/D
DP4-16S/D
MW4-10
MW5-10
MW6-10
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Topography
3
Tricar Development Inc.
1888 Gordon Street, Guelph
Hydrogeological Assessment
October 2016
161401285
Notes
Legend
0 80 160m
1:3,500
Subject Property
"́� Monitoring Well (Stantec, 2016)
"²� Monitoring Well (V.A. Wood Inc., 2010)
"́ Borehole (LVM, 2014)
"² Drive-Point Piezometer (Stantec, 2016)
Topographic Contour (mAMSL) - 2m Interval
Road
Wetland - Evaluated (Provincial)
Wetland - Not evaluated per OWES
\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig03_Topography.m
xd
Revised: 2016-10-21 By: pmoser
±
KEY MAP
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.
3. Topography derived from the Southwestern Ontario
Orthophotography Project (2010) - Digital Elevation Model © Queen’s
Printer for Ontario, 2010.
Ground Surface Elevation (mAMSL)
359
353
347
342
336
330
Client/ProjectTricar Developments Inc.1888 Gordon StreetHydrogeological Assessment
Figure No.4
Title HYDROGRAPHSMW1-16(S/D), MW2-16(S/D) and DP1-15(S/D) to DP4-15(S/D)
337338339340341342343344345346347
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17
Gro
und
wa
ter E
leva
tion
(m
AM
SL)
MW1-16(S) - Levelogger MW1-16(S) - Manual MW1-16(D) - Levelogger MW1-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17
Temp
erature (deg. C
elsius)To
tal P
reci
pita
tion
(mm
)
London Climate Station
Precipitation Mean Daily Air Temperature Zero Degrees Celsius
337338339340341342343344345346347
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17
Gro
und
wa
ter E
leva
tion
(m
AM
SL)
MW2-16(S) - Levelogger MW2-16(S) - Manual MW2-15(D) - Levelogger MW2-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface
MW1-16(S/D)
MW2-16(S/D)
338339340341342343344345346347
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17
Gro
und
wa
ter E
leva
tion
(m
AM
SL)
DP1-16(S) - Levelogger DP1-16(S) - Manual DP1-16(D) - Levelogger DP1-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface
DP1-16(S/D)
338339340341342343344345346347
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17
Gro
und
wa
ter E
leva
tion
(m A
MSL
)
DP2-16(S) - Levelogger DP2-16(S) - Manual DP2-16(D) - Levelogger DP2-16(D) - Manual Surface Water Ground Surface
DP2-16(S/D)
338339340341342343344345346347
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17
Gro
und
wa
ter E
leva
tion
(m
AM
SL)
DP3-16(S) - Levelogger DP3-16(S) - Manual DP3-16(D) - Levelogger DP3-16(D) - Manual Ground Surface
DP3-16(S/D)
DRY
DRYDRY
DRY
DRY
342
343
344
345
346
347
16-Apr-16 5-Jun-16 25-Jul-16 13-Sep-16 2-Nov-16 22-Dec-16 10-Feb-17 1-Apr-17 21-May-17Gro
und
wa
ter E
leva
tion
(m A
MSL
)
DP4-16(S) - Levelogger DP4-16(S) - Manual DP4-16(D) - Levelogger DP4-16(D) - Manual Surface Water Ground Surface
DP4-16(S/D)
DRY DRY
DRY
DRY DRY
DRYDRY
DRY
DRY DRY
DRY
Water level dropped below base of the shallow piezometer pipe from May 23, 2016 to February 25, 2017
Water level dropped below base of deep piezometer pipe from May 18, 2016 to February 24, 2017
Water level dropped below base of shallow piezometer pipe from May 16, 2016 to March 1, 2017
DRY DRY
Water level dropped below base of the shallow monitoring well (S) from May 23, 2016 to February 24, 2017
Water level dropped below base of the shallow monitoring well (S) from May 17, 2016 to February 28, 2017
b
b
bJ
#*
bJ
#*
bbb J
#*
J
#*J
#*
E
TOPSOIL
CLAYEY SILT FILL
SAND &GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND& GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SANDY SILT
SILTY SAND& GRAVEL
SANDYGRAVELLY SILT
SAND & GRAVEL
SILTY SAND
& GRAVEL
TOPSOIL
SAND & GRAVEL (FILL)
SAND &GRAVEL
TOPSOIL
SILTFILL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILTY SAND& GRAVEL
TOPSOIL
SAND &GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND
& GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND
& GRAVEL
TOPSOIL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND& GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND& GRAVEL
SANDYSILT
SILTY SAND
& GRAVEL
SILTYSAND
SANDY GRAVELLYSILT
SAND
SILTY SANDSAND
May 2016
August 2016
Go
rdo
n S
tre
et
BH
1-1
4 (
OS
0 m
)
BH
2-1
4 (
OS
41
m)
BH
5-1
4 (
OS
41
m)
BH
7-1
4 (
OS
7 m
)
MW
1-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 0
m)
MW
2-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 0
m)
DP
1-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 0
m)
DP
2-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 0
m)
DP
3-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 2
7 m
)
BH
5-1
0 (
OS
0 m
)
324 324
326 326
328 328
330 330
332 332
334 334
336 336
338 338
340 340
342 342
344 344
346 346
348 348
350 350
352 352
354 354
356 356
358 358
360 360
362 362
Legend
October 2016
161401285
Client/Project
Tricar Development Inc.
1888 Gordon Street, Guelph
Hydrogeological Assessment
Figure No.
5Title
Cross-Section A-A'
0 20 40m
\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig05_xsecAA.mxd
Revised: 2016-10-21 By: pmoser
MOECC water well groundwater elevations obtained
at time of their installation.
Groundwater elevations measured in MW1-16(S/D),
MW2-16(S/D), DP1-16(S/D) to DP3-16(S/D) by
Stantec on May 5, 2016.
Interpreted water table elevation shown for August 2016
based on groundwater levels measured in MW1-16 (S/D)
and MW2-16 (S/D) on August 9, 2016.
Groundwater elevation measured in BH5-10 by V.A. Wood
on December 10, 2010.
Notes1.
2.
3.
4.
4x Vertical Exaggeration
Elevation (mAMSL)
Elevation (m
AMSL)
A
WEST
A'
EAST
1:750
Interpreted Groundwater Table (May 2016)
Interpreted Groundwater Table (August 2016)
Ice-Contact Stratified Deposits
(Sand and Gravel with Sand and Silt Lenses)
Fill (Sand, Gravel and/or Silt)
Sand
2807874 (OS m)
Well ID (Offset)
Stratigraphy
Groundwater Level (Shallow Pipe)Surface
Water
Level J
#*
b
b
Groundwater Level (Deep Pipe)
Well Screen
bbJ
#*
bJ
#*
bb b
b
J
#*
J
#* J
#* J
#*
E EE E
August 2016
May 2016
Halls Pond Wetland Complex1888 Gordon Street
TOPSOIL
CLAYEYSILT FILL
SAND &GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND& GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
TOPSOIL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND& GRAVEL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILT, SAND& GRAVEL
67
02
63
9 (
OS
6 m
)
BH
1-1
4 (
OS
13
m)
BH
5-1
4 (
OS
32
m)
BH
7-1
4 (
OS
11
m)
MW
1-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 1
9 m
)
MW
2- 1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 0
m)
DP
1-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 2
3 m
)
DP
2-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 1
0 m
)
DP
3-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 1
4 m
)
DP
4-1
6 (
S/D
) (O
S 0
m)
PREVIOUSLYDUG
CLAY,BOULDERS
CLAY,MEDIUMSAND
TOPSOIL
SILTFILL
SAND &GRAVEL
SILTY SAND& GRAVEL
SANDYSILT
SILTY SAND& GRAVEL
SANDYGRAVELLY SILT
SAND & GRAVEL
SILTY SAND& GRAVEL
SANDYSILT
SILTY SAND& GRAVEL
SILTYSAND
SANDYGRAVELLY
SILT
SAND
SILTY SANDSAND
322 322
324 324
326 326
328 328
330 330
332 332
334 334
336 336
338 338
340 340
342 342
344 344
346 346
348 348
350 350
352 352
354 354
356 356
358 358
360 360
October 2016
161401285
Client/Project
Tricar Development Inc.
1888 Gordon Street, Guelph
Hydrogeological Assessment
Figure No.
6Title
Cross-Section B-B'
0 20 40m
\\Cd1004-f01\01609\active\161401285\planning\drawing\MXD\Hydrogeology\HydroG_Assess\161401285_HG_Fig06_xsecBB.mxd
Revised: 2016-10-21 By: pmoser
MOECC water well groundwater elevations obtained
at time of their installation.
Groundwater elevations measured in MW1-16(S/D)
MW2-16(S/D) and DP1-16(S/D) to DP4-16(S/D)
by Stantec on May 5, 2016.
Interpreted water table elevation shown for August 2016
based on groundwater levels measured in MW1-16 (S/D)
and MW2-16 (S/D) on August 9, 2016.
Notes1.
2.
3.
4x Vertical Exaggeration
Elevation (mAMSL)
Elevation (m
AMSL)
B
NORTHWEST
B'
SOUTHEAST
1:750
Legend
Interpreted Groundwater Table (May
Interpreted Groundwater Table (August 2016)
Ice-Contact Stratified Deposits
(Sand and Gravel with Sand and Silt Lenses)
Fill (Sand, Gravel and/or Silt)
Sand
2807874 (OS m)
Well ID (Offset)
Stratigraphy
Groundwater Level (Shallow Pipe)
J
#*
b
b
Groundwater Level (Deep Pipe)
Well Screen
Surface
Water
Level
APPENDIX B: TABLES
TABLE 1WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Well Well Screened Northing Easting Top of Ground Well Well Depth Base Material Description (a)
Casing Surface Stick-up Depth Elevation(m AMSL) (m AMSL) (m) (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (m AMSL)
4816479 565890 347.50 346.68 0.82 4.75 3.93 342.75 2.41 344.27 3.93 342.75 Silty SAND / Sandy Gravelly SILT4816479 565891 347.53 346.75 0.78 8.97 8.19 338.56 6.67 340.08 8.19 338.56 Silty SAND and GRAVEL4816479 565852 347.28 346.69 0.59 4.67 4.08 342.61 2.56 344.13 4.08 342.61 Silty SAND / Sandy Gravelly SILT4816478 565851 347.46 346.75 0.71 8.99 8.28 338.47 6.76 339.99 8.28 338.47 SAND / Silty SAND
Stantec Drive-Point Piezometers4816467 565903 345.46 344.15 1.31 2.64 1.33 342.82 0.91 343.24 1.33 342.82 -4816468 565903 345.55 344.15 1.40 3.56 2.16 341.99 1.74 342.41 2.16 341.99 -4816476 565863 345.41 344.04 1.37 2.64 1.27 342.77 0.85 343.19 1.27 342.77 -4816476 565863 345.50 344.04 1.46 3.56 2.10 341.94 1.68 342.36 2.10 341.94 -4816438 565877 345.27 344.17 1.10 1.70 0.60 343.57 0.18 343.99 0.60 343.57 -4816438 565877 345.42 344.17 1.25 2.64 1.39 342.78 0.97 343.20 1.39 342.78 -4816397 566036 345.57 344.70 0.87 1.70 0.83 343.87 0.41 344.29 0.83 343.87 -4816397 566036 345.74 344.70 1.04 2.64 1.60 343.10 1.18 343.52 1.60 343.10 -
Notes: (a) Refer to Appendix C for borehole and well construction logs
m AMSL = meters above mean sea levelm BGS = meters below ground surface
m BTOC = meters below top of well casing - = data not available
DP4-16(D)
MW2-16(D)MW2-16(S)
Well ID
DP4-16(S)
DP1-16(S)DP1-16(D)DP2-16(S)DP2-16(D)DP3-16(S)DP3-16(D)
UTM Coordinates Elevations
Stantec Monitoring WellsMW1-16(S)MW1-16(D)
Screened IntervalTop Bottom
Elevation Elevation
TABLE 2GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA - MONITORING WELLS
Well ID Date Time Screen Length
Screen Separation (1)
Top of Casing Elevation(m AMSL)
Ground Surface
Elevation(m AMSL)
Pipe Stick-up
(m)
Vertical Hydraulic Gradient (3)
(+) = UpwardNorthing Easting (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (m) (m) (-) = Downward
MW1-16(S) 4816479 565890 20-Apr-16 2:59 PM 4.75 3.93 343.57 1.52 347.50 346.68 0.82 1.57 2.39 345.115-May-16 11:10 AM 1.85 2.67 344.8327-Jun-16 1:39 PM - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:29 AM - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:13 PM 1.76 2.58 344.9222-Aug-17 8:24 AM - DRY -
MW1-16(D) 4816479 565891 20-Apr-16 3:02 PM 8.97 8.19 339.34 1.52 2.74 347.53 346.75 0.78 1.67 2.45 345.08 -0.015-May-16 11:12 AM 1.95 2.73 344.80 -0.0127-Jun-16 1:38 PM - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:29 AM - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:14 PM 1.76 2.54 344.99 0.0322-Aug-17 8:25 AM - DRY - -
MW2-16(S) 4816479 565852 20-Apr-16 2:06 PM 4.67 4.08 343.20 1.52 347.28 346.69 0.59 1.85 2.44 344.845-May-16 10:49 AM 2.31 2.90 344.3827-Jun-16 1:16 PM - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:34 AM - DRY -17-Apr-17 2:54 PM 2.06 2.65 344.6322-Aug-17 8:05 AM - DRY -
MW2-16(D) 4816478 565851 20-Apr-16 2:02 PM 8.99 8.28 339.18 1.52 2.68 347.46 346.75 0.71 3.14 3.85 343.61 -0.465-May-16 10:51 AM 3.74 4.45 343.01 -0.5127-Jun-16 1:15 PM - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:34 AM - DRY - -17-Apr-17 2:53 PM 3.45 4.16 343.30 -0.5022-Aug-17 8:04 AM - DRY - -
Notes:(1) Distance between the top of the screen in the deep well and the bottom of screen in the shallow well.(2) A negative value indicates that the water level measured within the pipe is located above ground surface(3) Negative and positive values indicate downward and upward gradients, respectively.
m BGS = meters below ground surfacem BTOC = meters below top of casingDRY = no groundwater or surface water was observed in the piezometer or watercourse, respectively
UTM Coordinates Well Depth Groundwater Level
(m BGS) (2) (m BTOC) (m AMSL)
TABLE 3GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA - DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETERS
Piezometer Screen Screen Pipe Ground Top of Date Time Vertical HydraulicID Length Separation (1) Stick-up Surface Casing Gradient(4)
Elevation Elevation(+) = Upward
Northing Easting (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m) (m) (m) (m AMSL) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (2) (m BTOC) (m AMSL) (m BTOC) (3) (m AMSL) (-) = Downward
DP1-16(S) 4816467 565903 2.64 1.33 0.42 1.31 344.15 345.46 5-May-16 11:47 AM -0.62 0.69 344.77 0.57 344.8927-Jun-16 12:16 PM - DRY - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:26 AM - DRY - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:26 PM -0.90 0.41 345.05 0.43 345.0322-Aug-17 8:14 AM - DRY - DRY -
DP1-16(D) 4816468 565903 3.56 2.16 0.42 0.83 1.40 344.15 345.55 5-May-16 11:50 AM -0.78 0.62 344.93 0.64 344.91 0.1927-Jun-16 12:10 PM - DRY - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:26 AM - DRY - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:26 PM -0.90 0.50 345.05 0.51 345.04 0.0022-Aug-17 8:14 AM - DRY - DRY - -
DP2-16(S) 4816476 565863 2.64 1.27 0.42 1.37 344.04 345.41 5-May-16 1:11 PM -0.83 0.54 344.87 0.50 344.9127-Jun-16 12:34 PM - DRY - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:22 AM - DRY - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:06 PM -1.11 0.26 345.15 0.37 345.0422-Aug-17 8:11 AM - DRY - DRY -
DP2-16(D) 4816476 565863 3.56 2.10 0.42 0.83 1.46 344.04 345.50 5-May-16 1:12 PM -0.84 0.62 344.88 0.61 344.89 0.0127-Jun-16 12:31 PM - DRY - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:22 AM - DRY - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:06 PM -0.94 0.52 344.98 0.47 345.03 -0.2022-Aug-17 8:10 AM - DRY - DRY - -
DP3-16(S) 4816438 565877 1.70 0.60 0.42 1.10 344.17 345.27 5-May-16 1:49 PM -0.62 0.48 344.79 0.35 344.9227-Jun-16 1:15 PM - DRY - DRY -9-Aug-16 10:18 AM - DRY - DRY -17-Apr-17 3:40 PM -0.81 0.29 344.98 0.33 344.9422-Aug-17 8:16 AM - DRY - DRY -
DP3-16(D) 4816438 565877 2.64 1.39 0.42 0.79 1.25 344.17 345.42 5-May-16 1:20 PM -0.97 0.28 345.14 0.47 344.95 0.4427-Jun-16 1:00 PM - DRY - DRY - -9-Aug-16 10:18 AM - DRY - DRY - -17-Apr-17 3:40 PM - - - - - -22-Aug-17 8:15 AM - DRY - DRY - -
UTM Coordinates Total Depth Groundwater Level Surface WaterLevel
TABLE 3GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA - DRIVE-POINT PIEZOMETERS
Piezometer Screen Screen Pipe Ground Top of Date Time Vertical HydraulicID Length Separation (1) Stick-up Surface Casing Gradient(4)
Elevation Elevation(+) = Upward
Northing Easting (m BTOC) (m BGS) (m) (m) (m) (m AMSL) (m AMSL) (m BGS) (2) (m BTOC) (m AMSL) (m BTOC) (3) (m AMSL) (-) = Downward
UTM Coordinates Total Depth Groundwater Level Surface WaterLevel
DP4-16(S) 4816397 566036 1.70 0.66 0.42 0.87 344.70 345.57 5-May-16 2:10 PM -0.55 0.32 345.25 0.37 345.2027-Jun-16 11:26 AM -0.33 0.54 345.03 0.54 345.039-Aug-16 9:56 AM -0.11 0.76 344.81 0.75 344.8217-Apr-17 2:40 PM -0.70 0.17 345.40 0.21 345.3622-Aug-17 8:31 AM -0.35 0.52 345.05 0.53 345.04
DP4-16(D) 4816397 566036 2.64 1.60 0.42 0.94 1.04 344.70 345.74 5-May-16 2:10 PM -0.64 0.40 345.34 0.45 345.29 0.1127-Jun-16 11:26 AM -0.38 0.66 345.08 0.66 345.08 0.069-Aug-16 9:56 AM -0.15 0.89 344.85 0.89 344.85 0.0517-Apr-17 2:40 PM -0.68 0.36 345.38 0.37 345.37 -0.0322-Aug-17 8:31 AM -0.35 0.69 345.05 0.71 345.03 0.00
Notes:(1) Distance between the mid-point of the screened intervals of the shallow and deep piezometer.(2) A negative value indicates that the water level measured within the pipe is located above ground surface(3) A negative value indicates that the surface water level is above the top of the piezometer(4) Vertical hydraulic gradient between the surface water feature substrate and the piezometer screened interval.
m BGS = meters below ground surfacem BTOC = meters below top of casingDRY = no groundwater or surface water was observed in the piezometer or surface water feature, respectively
TABLE 4INFILTRATION TESTING RESULTS
Infiltration Soil Substrate TestedRate (2)
(cm/s) (m/s) (mm/hr) (m BGS) (m AMSL) (3)
Infiltration Gallery 1 (projected base elevation of 344.50 m AMSL)3.3E-04 3.3E-06 64 2.5 344.00 FILL: Silty SAND, trace gravel and bounders, bricks, glass, rebar
TP101-17 (Test 1) 1.0E-04 1.0E-06 47 2.2 344.30 Silty Fine SAND (FILL)TP101-17 (Test 2) 7.0E-04 7.0E-06 78 2.2 344.30 Silty Fine SAND (FILL)TP101-17 (Test 3) 7.5E-05 7.5E-07 43 2.2 344.30 Silty Fine SAND (FILL)TP102-17 (Test 1) 9.0E-03 9.0E-05 154 2.2 344.30 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 2) 1.4E-02 1.4E-04 172 2.2 344.30 Gravelly Fine SAND
Geomean = 7.8E-04 7.8E-06 80TP101-17 (Test 1) 1.9E-04 1.9E-06 55 3.7 342.80 Gravelly Fine SANDTP101-17 (Test 2) 4.7E-05 4.7E-07 38 3.7 342.80 Gravelly Fine SANDTP101-17 (Test 3) 1.1E-04 1.1E-06 47 3.7 342.80 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 1) 5.3E-03 5.3E-05 134 3.4 343.10 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 2) 5.4E-04 5.4E-06 73 3.8 342.70 Gravelly Fine SANDTP102-17 (Test 3) 3.6E-04 3.6E-06 65 3.5 343.00 Gravelly Fine SAND
Geomean = 3.2E-04 3.2E-06 63Infiltration Gallery 2 (projected base elevation of 347.50 m AMSL) GP1 3.9E-05 3.9E-07 36 0.5 346.23 Silty Fine SAND, some cobblesGP2 4.7E-04 4.7E-06 69 0.4 346.32 Silty SAND with gravel (TILL)GP3(1) 7.3E-05 7.3E-07 42 0.5 347.47 Silty Fine SAND with gravel (TILL)GP3(2) 2.5E-03 2.5E-05 109 0.2 347.77 Silty SAND and COBBLESGP4 2.4E-04 2.4E-06 58 0.6 343.53 Silty Fine SAND with gravel (TILL)Infiltration Gallery 3 (projected base elevation of 347.10 m AMSL)TP103-17 (Test 1) 5.5E-05 5.5E-07 39 3.5 347.00 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP103-17 (Test 2) 1.4E-04 1.4E-06 51 3.5 347.00 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP103-17 (Test 3) 4.5E-04 4.5E-06 69 3.5 347.00 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP104-17 (Test 1) 6.3E-03 6.3E-05 140 3.8 346.70 Silty SAND with gravelTP105-17 (Test 1) 2.6E-03 2.6E-05 111 3.6 346.90 Silty SAND and COBBLESTP105-17 (Test 2) 1.6E-03 1.6E-05 97 3.6 346.90 Silty SAND and COBBLES
Geomean = 6.7E-04 6.7E-06 77TP103-17 (Test 1) 6.7E-04 6.7E-06 42 4.9 345.60 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP103-17 (Test 2) 2.0E-05 2.0E-07 30 4.9 345.60 Silty FINE SAND with gravelTP104-17 (Test 1) 2.7E-05 2.7E-07 33 4.9 345.60 Silty SAND and CLAYTP104-17 (Test 2) 6.5E-05 6.5E-07 41 5.0 345.50 Silty SAND and CLAYTP105-17 (Test 1) 1.3E-03 1.3E-05 91 5.0 345.50 Silty SAND and COBBLESTP105-17 (Test 2) 7.4E-04 7.4E-06 79 5.1 345.40 Silty SAND and COBBLES
Geomean = 1.7E-04 1.7E-06 53Other Onsite Testing Locations
6.5E-03 6.5E-05 142 1.0 344.50 Silty SAND, some gravel8.1E-03 8.1E-05 150 2.5 343.50 Fine SAND, trace gravel and boulders
TP4-17 3.4E-05 3.4E-07 35 2.0 347.50 Sandy SILT, trace gravelTP5-17 1.8E-03 1.8E-05 100 1.5 347.50 SAND, trace gravelTP7-17 8.3E-04 8.3E-06 81 2.0 344.00 Fine SAND, some silt, trace gravel and bouldersTP8-17 1.7E-04 1.7E-06 53 1.0 345.20 Silty SAND, trace gravel and boulders
Notes:(1) As per Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation (2010) Low Impact Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guideline - Version 1.0,
a minimum of two test pits are required for excavation in the proposed infiltration gallery area, or within 10 m of this area, for galleries sized between 50 and 900 m2.
Testing the infiltration potential of soils within this area is to occur at the gallery base elevation and within 1.5 m below this elevation.(2) Infiltration rate calculated based on established relationship between vertical hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate presented in Credit
Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation (2010) Low Impact Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guideline - Version 1.0, (3) Estimated based on available topographic mapping.
Testing DepthVertical Hydraulic Location ID (1) Conductivity
TP2-17TP3-17
Testing
TP1-17
APPENDIX C: BOREHOLE LOGS
Ground SurfaceSANDY SILTfirm, dark brown, trace organic material, moistSILTY SAND AND GRAVELloose, brown (10 yr 5/3), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, sub-angular to sub-rounded, moist, well graded/poorly sorted
compact
SANDY GRAVELLY SILTstiff, brown (10yr 5/3), fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, sub-angular to subrounded, moist
moist to wet at 3.8 mSAND AND GRAVELcompact, brown, some silt, moist to wet, poorly sorted
SILTY SAND AND GRAVELcompact, brown (10ys 5/3), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subangular to sub rounded, moist
alternating layers of sand/silty sand and gravel
sand layers at 5.31, 5.94, 6.86, 7.62 mthickness (0.10 - 0.28 m)
silty sand and gravel at 4.75, 5.41, 6.22, 6.99, 7.87 mthickness (0.53 - 0.64 m)
End of Borehole
347.53
346.750.00
346.620.13
343.703.05
342.843.91
342.184.57
338.528.23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12" 50%
3" 13%
15" 63%
4" 17%
14" 58%
9" 38%
11" 46%
9" 38%
12" 50%
9" 38%
13" 54%
2-3-3-3(6)
1-2-2-1(4)
1-2-2-3(4)
4-5-9-6(14)
3-5-6-8(11)
5-10-13-8(23)
3-5-7-4(12)
4-6-6-6(12)
5-7-22-18(29)
2-5-3-4(8)
2-3-5-3(8)
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Above groundcasing.
203 mm diameterborehole.
Water Level2.48 m BTOC20-Apr-2016.
HydratedBentonite holeplug0 to 5.8 m.
No. 03 Silica sand 5.8 to 8.2 m.
No. 10 slotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter6.7 to 8.2 m.
Above groundcasing.
203 mm diameterborehole.
HydratedBentonite holeplug0 to 2.1 m.Water Level2.42 m BTOC20-Apr-2016.
No. 03 silica sand2.1 m to 3.9 m.
No.10 slotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter2.4 to 3.9 m.
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacem BTOC - metres below top of casingSS - split-spoon samplen/a - not available/applicable
Monitoring Well: MW1-16 (S/D)
Depth
Screen Interval:Sand Pack Interval:Well Seal Interval:
6.70 - 8.23; 2.44 - 3.96 m BGS5.79 - 8.23 m BGS0.00 - 2.13 m BGS
Field Investigator:
Contractor:
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Angela Mason
Aardvark Drilling Inc. Paul/Tyler
Track Mount CME 75 203 mm OD HSA
04-Apr-2016
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/GW
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
(m)
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
Graphic Log
(ft)
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Lithologic Description
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL -
MA
ST
ER
17X
11 1
614
012
85_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E_E
NV
S_C
A_1
4072
5.G
DT
8/2
2/16
CY
DA
VIS
Elevation(m AMSL)
Depth(m BGS) S
ampl
eN
umbe
r
Rec
over
y
N V
alue
Sam
ple
Typ
e
SAMPLE DETAILS WELL DETAILS
Name: MW1-16(S)GS Elev: 346.68 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.50 m AMSLEasting: 565890Northing: 4816479Stick-up: 0.82 m
Name: MW1-16(D)GS Elev: 346.75 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.53 m AMSLEasting: 565891Northing: 4816479Stick-up: 0.78 m
Ground SurfaceSANDY SILTfirm, dark brown (10 yr 3/3), trace organics, frozen to moist
SILTY SAND AND GRAVELloose, brown (10 yr 4/3), well graded sand and gravel, subangular to subrounded, moist
SILTY SANDloose, yellowish brown (10 yr 5/4), fine grained, some fine to coarse gravel, subangular, moist to wet
SANDY GRAVELLY SILTsoft to firm, yellowish brown (10 yr 5/4), fine sand, little to some medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subangular to subrounded, moist to wet
very stiff
SANDloose to compact, fine to medium sand, wet
SILTY SANDcompact, fine sand, little medium to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, wet
SANDfine grained, dry, homogenousEnd of Borehole
347.46
346.750.00
346.140.61
344.462.29
343.703.05
340.046.71
339.137.62
338.648.11
338.458.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15" 63%
10" 42%
3" 13%
8" 33%
15" 63%
15" 63%
17" 71%
9" 38%
8" 33%
4" 17%
14" 52%
1-2-6-6(8)
1-1-2-1(3)
2-2-2-3(4)
1-1-1-1(2)
0-1-2-4(3)
1-1-6-8(7)
2-5-6-5(11)
5-17-12-10(29)
3-5-12-8(17)
2-4-6-7(10)
3-9-13-16(22)
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Above groundcasing.
203 mm diameterborehole.
HydratedBentonite holeplug0 to 5.8 m.
Water level3.81 m BTOC 20-Apr-2016.
No. 03 sand5.8 to 8.3 m.
No. 10 SlotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter6.8 to 8.3 m.
Above groundcasing.
203 mm diameterborehole.
HydratedBentonite holeplug0 to 2.1 m.
No.03 silica sand2.1 to 4.1 m.
Water Level2.99 m BTOC20-Apr-2016.No.10 slotSchedule 40PVC screen51 mm diameter2.6 to 4.1 m.
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacem BTOC - metres below top of casingSS - split-spoon samplen/a - not available/applicable
Monitoring Well: MW2-16 (S/D)
Depth
Screen Interval:Sand Pack Interval:Well Seal Interval:
6.80 - 8.30; 2.60 - 4.10 m BGS5.79 - 8.30 m BGS0.00 - 2.13 m BGS
Field Investigator:
Contractor:
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Ryan Dong
Aardvark Drilling Inc. Paul/Tyler
Track Mount CME 75 203 mm OD HSA
05-Apr-2016
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/GW
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
(m)
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
Graphic Log
(ft)
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Lithologic Description
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL -
MA
ST
ER
17X
11 1
614
012
85_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E_E
NV
S_C
A_1
4072
5.G
DT
8/2
2/16
CY
DA
VIS
Elevation(m AMSL)
Depth(m BGS) S
ampl
eN
umbe
r
Rec
over
y
N V
alue
Sam
ple
Typ
e
SAMPLE DETAILS WELL DETAILS
Name: MW2-16 (S)GS Elev: 346.69 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.28 m AMSLEasting: 565852Northing: 4816479Stick-up: 0.59 m
Name: MW2-16 (D)GS Elev: 346.75 m AMSLTOC Elev: 347.46 m AMSLEasting: 565851Northing: 4816478Stick-up: 0.71 m
Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND FILLdark brown (10 YR 3/3), fine sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles and boulders, moist
GRAVELLY SANDloose, dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4), fine sand, some medium to coarse sand, trace to some cobbles and boulders, moist
End of Test Pit
0.00
3.40
3.80
(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Depth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
(ft)
GraphicLog
Lithologic Description
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
Field investigator:
Contractor:
Test Pit: TP101-17
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
Ryan Dong
Lockhart Excavation
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Ground surface elevation:
Top of casing elevation:
Easting:
Northing:
John Deere 200 DLC
16-Nov-2017
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL V
2 1
6140
128
5_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
ST
AN
TE
C -
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E.G
DT
1/9
/18
HB
LUM
EN
TH
AL
Depth(m BGS)
Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILloose, very dark brown (10 YR 2/2), organics, roots, grass, moist
GRAVELLY SANDloose, dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4), fine sand, some medium to coarse sand, trace to some cobbles and boulders, moist
End of Test Pit
0.00
0.38
3.30
(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Depth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
(ft)
GraphicLog
Lithologic Description
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
Field investigator:
Contractor:
Test Pit: TP102-17
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
Ryan Dong
Lockhart Excavation
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Ground surface elevation:
Top of casing elevation:
Easting:
Northing:
John Deere 200 DLC
16-Nov-2017
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL V
2 1
6140
128
5_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
ST
AN
TE
C -
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E.G
DT
1/9
/18
HB
LUM
EN
TH
AL
Depth(m BGS)
Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILdark browmn (10 YR 3/3), some coarse gravel, organicsSILTY SAND WITH GRAVELyellowish brown (10 YR 5/2), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, some cobbles, sub-angular, trace boulders, trace organics throughout
End of Test Pit
0.000.15
6.00
(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Depth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
(ft)
GraphicLog
Lithologic Description
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
Field investigator:
Contractor:
Test Pit: TP103-17
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
A.Healey
Lockhart Excavation
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Ground surface elevation:
Top of casing elevation:
Easting:
Northing:
John Deere 200 DLC
16-Nov-2017
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL V
2 1
6140
128
5_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
ST
AN
TE
C -
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E.G
DT
1/9
/18
HB
LUM
EN
TH
AL
Depth(m BGS)
Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILdark brown (10 YR 3/3)SILTY SAND WITH GRAVELbrown (10 YR 5/3), fine to coarse gravel, cobbles, sub-angular
clay content increasing, in pockets, some oxidation
SILTY SAND AND CLAYbrown (10 YR 5/3)
seams of fine to medium sand, 5.5 to 6.0 m
End of Test Pit
0.00
0.20
4.70
6.00
(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Depth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
(ft)
GraphicLog
Lithologic Description
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
Field investigator:
Contractor:
Test Pit: TP104-17
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
A.Healey
Lockhart Excavation
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Ground surface elevation:
Top of casing elevation:
Easting:
Northing:
John Deere 200 DLC
17-Nov-2017
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL V
2 1
6140
128
5_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
ST
AN
TE
C -
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E.G
DT
1/9
/18
HB
LUM
EN
TH
AL
Depth(m BGS)
Ground SurfaceSILTY SAND TOPSOILdark brown (10 YR 3/3), topsoil horizon varies from 0.15 to 1.52 m (angled horizon)
SILTY SAND AND COBBLESbrown (10 YR 3/3), fine to coarse gravel, cobbles
End of Test Pit
0.00
1.83
4.70
(m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Depth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
(ft)
GraphicLog
Lithologic Description
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Project:
Client:
Location:
Number:
Field investigator:
Contractor:
Test Pit: TP105-17
1888 Gordon St. Hydrogeological Assessment
Tricar Developments Inc.
Guelph, ON
161401285
A.Healey
Lockhart Excavation
Drilling method:
Date started/completed:
Ground surface elevation:
Top of casing elevation:
Easting:
Northing:
John Deere 200 DLC
17-Nov-2017
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available
Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By: CDD/
ST
AN
TE
C B
OR
EH
OL
E A
ND
WE
LL V
2 1
6140
128
5_B
OR
EH
OL
ELO
GS
_CD
_201
6041
9.G
PJ
ST
AN
TE
C -
DA
TA
TE
MP
LAT
E.G
DT
1/9
/18
HB
LUM
EN
TH
AL
Depth(m BGS)
APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX
D TITLE
Site Photographs PAGE
1 of 2 gw w:\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\final\appendices\appendix_d_photos\appendix_d_site_photographs_1888.gordon.street.docx
Photo 1. Looking northeast towards wetland piezometer DP1-16(S/D) – May 5, 2016.
Photo 2. Looking southeast towards wetland piezometer DP2-16(S/D) – May 5, 2016. Note that the wetland piezometer is constructed at the base of slope and is not visible in the photo.
DP1-16(S/D)
DP2-16(S/D)
APPENDIX
D TITLE
Site Photographs PAGE
2 of 2 gw w:\active\161401285\planning\report\hydrogeology\final\appendices\appendix_d_photos\appendix_d_site_photographs_1888.gordon.street.docx
Photo 3. Looking northeast towards wetland piezometer DP3-16(S/D) – May 5, 2016. Note that the view of the wetland piezometer is obstructed by the vegetation cover and is subsequently not visible in the photo.
Photo 4. Interior of the onsite wetland (note absence of any standing water) – June 8, 2016.
APPENDIX E: UPPER HANLON CREEK WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY HYDROGEOLOGY REPORT: FIGURE NO. 6.6.1 – GROUNDWATER
CONTOURS (WATER TABLE)
APPENDIX F
DESIGN INFILTRATION
RATE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX F - DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE CALCULATIONS
Infiltration Gallery 1Calculated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivities (m/s) Geomean Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)
Base (2.0-2.2 m BGS) 3.3E-06 1.0E-06 7.0E-06 7.5E-07 9.0E-05 1.4E-04 7.8E-06 80~1.5 m below Base 1.9E-06 4.7E-07 1.1E-06 5.4E-06 3.6E-06 5.3E-05 3.2E-06 63Ratio (Base / 1.5 m) 1.3Safety Factor 3.5
23
Infiltration Gallery 2Calculated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivities (m/s) Geomean Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)
Base (0 m BGS) 7.3E-07 2.5E-05 4.3E-06 69~1.5 m below Base 3.9E-07 4.7E-06 1.4E-06 51Ratio (Base / 1.5 m) 1.4Safety Factor 3.5
20
Infiltration Gallery 3Calculated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivities (m/s) Geomean Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)
Base (3.3-3.6 m BGS) 5.5E-07 1.4E-06 6.3E-05 2.6E-05 1.6E-05 4.5E-06 6.7E-06 77~1.5 m below Base 6.7E-06 6.5E-07 2.7E-07 1.3E-05 2.0E-07 7.4E-06 1.7E-06 53Ratio (Base / 1.5 m) 1.5Safety Factor 3.5
22
Design Infiltration Rate
Design Infiltration Rate
Design Infiltration Rate
top related