89 BEECHWOOD AVE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM...

89 BEECHWOOD AVE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE

CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT

Scoped Hydrogeological Characterization Study

Project Location: 89 Beechwood Ave

City of Guelph County of Wellington, Ontario

Prepared for:

89 Beechwood Inc. c/o Acorn Developments 80 Southgate Drive

Guelph, ON N1G 4P5

Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc.

520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9

May 30, 2017

MTE File No.: 42186-200

M:\42186\200\Reports\MTE Reports\Water Resources\42186-200 89 Beechwood Ave Scoped Hydrogeological Characterization Study_updated June 13 MXL.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Scope and Methodology .................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Adjacent Land Use ............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Surface Water and Drainage .............................................................................. 2 2.3 Private Wells ...................................................................................................... 2

3.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY.................................................................... 3

3.1 Quaternary Geology ........................................................................................... 3 3.2 Paleozoic Geology ............................................................................................. 3 3.3 Geological Cross-Section ................................................................................... 3

4.0 FIELD PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 4

4.1 Monitoring Well Installations............................................................................... 4 4.2 Mini-Piezometer Installation ............................................................................... 5 4.3 Groundwater Levels and Elevations ................................................................... 5

4.3.1 Water Table Elevation ................................................................................. 5 4.4 Groundwater Flow .............................................................................................. 6

4.4.1 Howitt Creek ................................................................................................ 6 4.5 Hydraulic Response Testing .............................................................................. 6 4.6 Groundwater Velocity ......................................................................................... 8 4.7 Infiltration Testing ............................................................................................... 8

4.7.1 Testing Methodology ................................................................................... 8 4.7.2 Infiltration Testing Results ........................................................................... 9

5.0 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION ...................................................................... 10

5.1 Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) ............................................................... 10 5.1.1 Intrinsic Aquifer Vulnerability (IAV) ............................................................ 11 5.1.2 WHPA Vulnerability ................................................................................... 11

5.2 Groundwater Recharge Areas.......................................................................... 12 5.3 Issue Contributing Areas (ICA) ......................................................................... 12

6.0 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 13 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 15

FIGURES FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA MAP FIGURE 3 SITE MAP FIGURE 4 QUATERNARY MAP FIGURE 5 GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION A-A’ FIGURE 6 GROUNDWATER FLOW MAP FIGURE 7 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS (WHPA) FIGURE 8 INTRINSIC AQUIFER VULNERABILITY FIGURE 9 WHPA VULNERABILITY FIGURE 10 SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AREAS FIGURE 11 ISSUE CONTRIBUTING AREAS

TABLES TABLE 1 WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS TABLE 2 GROUNDWATER LEVELS (MBTOP) TABLE 3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (MAMSL) TABLE 4 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY SUMMARY TABLE 4-7a INFILTRATION RATES – PERMEAMETER TEST TABLE 4-7b INFILTRATION RATES – GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TABLE 5 MUNICIPAL WELL DETAILS

HYDROGRAPHS HYDROGRAPH 1 MW1A: GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (NOV. 2016 TO MAY

2017) HYDROGRAPH 2 MW1B: GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (NOV. 2016 TO MAY

2017) HYDROGRAPH 3 MW5: GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (NOV. 2016 TO MAY



2017) HYDROGRAPH 6 MP1-17: GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (MAR. 2017 TO MAY

2017)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MOECC WELL RECORDS APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG APPENDIX D CLIMATE NORMALS (1971-PRESENT) APPENDIX E AQUIFERTEST© DATA SHEETS APPENDIX F GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

89 Beechwood Ave, Guelph -1- MTE File No: 42186-200 Scoped Hydrogeological Characterization Study May 30, 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) has been retained by 89 Beechwood Inc. c/o Acorn Developments to conduct a Scoped Hydrogeological Characterization Study at the property located at municipal address 89 Beechwood Avenue in the City of Guelph, Ontario (hereby referred to as the ‘Site’). The results of this investigation establish background conditions and will be used to support a proposed future residential condominium development at the Site. Refer to Figure 1 for the Site location. 1.1 Scope and Methodology The purpose of this report is to assess the geological, hydrogeological, and hydrological conditions at the Site, including sensitive nearby features. MTE developed the scope of work to include the following:

• A review of published geological and water resources maps; • A review of information provided in the Grand River Conservation Authority

online GIS mapping tool; • A review of the Grand River Assessment Report for the Grand River Source

Protection Plan; • A review of the County of Wellington Official Plan; • A review of the City of Guelph Official Plan; • A review of the Groundwater and Surface Water Vulnerability Report for the City

of Guelph Source Protection Project; • An examination of water well records on file with the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment and Climate Change (MOECC); • Site specific field work that included:

o Site Reconnaissance; o Construction of two overburden and three bedrock groundwater

monitoring wells; o Installation of a mini piezometer into nearby Howitt Creek; o In-situ single well hydraulic response testing; o Infiltration testing; and o Collection of groundwater levels.

• Establishment of the water table elevation beneath the Site; • Determination of groundwater flow patterns beneath the Site; • Establishment of the relationship between current Site conditions and the

characteristics of the surrounding Study Area, which includes: o Locations and descriptions of private wells; o Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) and aquifer vulnerability; o Groundwater recharge/discharge zones; and o Issue Contributing Areas in the City of Guelph.


2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Site is approximately 0.4 hectares (ha), which includes one building structure (formerly the Guelph Optimist Club) and its associated asphalt parking lot, an existing asphalt basketball court, and green space. The Study Area includes the Site, as well as the locations of private water supply wells and the nearby Membro, Edinburgh, Water Street, and Dean Avenue City of Guelph municipal supply wells (Figure 2). For the purposes of this investigation, the Study Area is defined as the area within 500 metres of the Site boundary. 2.1 Adjacent Land Use Surrounding lands are mainly zoned as Low or High Density Residential, with areas designated as “Open Space and Park” to the southwest. Approximately 300 m north of the Site, lands part of the Guelph Junction are designated as “Industrial”. Howitt Creek and its surrounding natural areas located adjacent to the southwest Site boundary are shown to be within a “Significant Natural Area” (City of Guelph, 2014). 2.2 Surface Water and Drainage An investigation into the surface water features within or intersecting the Study Area revealed Howitt Creek to be located approximately 35 m southwest of the Site, and the Speed River approximately 450 m southeast of the Site (GRCA, 2017) (Figure 3). During the 2017 field investigations, MTE observed Howitt Creek to be flowing in a southeasterly direction toward the Speed River, which ultimately flows south through Guelph and merges with the Grand River in northwest Cambridge. Topography at the Site slopes from north to south, with an approximately 4.0 m difference in elevation from the north corner to the south corner of the Site (Figure 3). Precipitation falling on-Site is interpreted to primarily infiltrate into the existing overburden, where surface runoff leaving the Site is interpreted to follow the local topography, draining southeast toward the corner of the Site and into Howitt Creek. 2.3 Private Wells A review of the MOECC water well data sheets from the Groundwater Information Network (GIN) online database identified eight wells within the 500 m Study Area. MOECC water well data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Based on MOECC well records, two wells (MOECC ID: 6700838, 6700864) are completed in bedrock as industrial supply wells, while all other wells are completed within the overburden; five wells are listed as observation wells, and one well is not described.


Native soil stratigraphy was generally described as sand and gravel or boulders encountered between approximately 0 and 1.5 metres below ground surface (mbgs) to a maximum depth of 6.4 mbgs, underlain by silty sand/sandy silt encountered between depths of approximately 2.3 and 6.4 mbgs to a maximum depth of 8.2 mbgs. Bedrock was typically encountered between 2.7 and 5.8 mbgs. 3.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 3.1 Quaternary Geology Based on available Quaternary geology maps, the Site is located within Late Wisconsonian glaciofluvial deposits of outwash gravel (Figure 4) (P.F. Karrow, 1968). Meltwaters from the Ontario ice-lobe fed the outwash plain, which extends southward into the Galt area as an enlarged spillway along the Speed River (P.F. Karrow, 1968). 3.2 Paleozoic Geology Bedrock beneath the Site has been described as a buff to cream coloured crystalline dolomite of the Silurian-age Guelph Formation (P.F. Karrow, 1968). Also present in the area is sandstone, shale, dolostone, and siltstone belonging to the Gasport (formerly Amabel) Formation. 3.3 Geological Cross-Section Lithologic and geological data used to create the geological cross-section were obtained from information gathered during the drilling and installation of on-Site monitoring wells. A geological cross-section (Figure 5) was constructed along A-A’, shown on Figure 3 to run from the north to south corners of the Site. At point A, a layer of sand and gravel fill material is illustrated underlying the existing asphalt parking lot at MW1A. Fill material was also observed further south at BH4, and has been interpreted to extend from MW1A southward through the existing asphalt basketball court (as a result of historical Site grading during development). The fill material was encountered at each location beneath the asphalt surfaces to maximum depths ranging from approximately 316.5 and 315.5 metres above mean sea level (mAMSL), with an interpreted thickness in the range of approximately two to four metres. The fill material is underlain by silt till at the north portion of the Site (between MW1A and BH4), which is interpreted to decrease in thickness southward, and is not subsequently encountered south of MW9. The till material is observed to be overlain by outwash sand and gravel deposits after BH4, which are interpreted to increase in thickness south toward Howitt Creek which has a creek bed elevation of approximately 313.5 mAMSL. The till material and the outwash deposits sit atop the dolostone


bedrock of the Guelph Formation, for which the interface along the southern portion of the cross section (MW9 to MW10) occurs between approximately 314.0 and 312.5 mAMSL. Overburden thickness atop the bedrock is interpreted to thin south of the Site. The interpreted water table elevation on Figure 5 is based on water levels collected by MTE on April 26, 2017. 4.0 FIELD PROGRAM 4.1 Monitoring Well Installations All on-Site drilling activities were commissioned by Chung and Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. (CVD) between November 2, 2016, and April 4, 2017. During this time, ten boreholes were advanced on-Site by London Soil Test Ltd. of London, Ontario using a Diedrich D-50T hollow stem auger rig. Subsequently, five of the boreholes were constructed as monitoring wells and include MW1A, MW1B, MW5, MW9, and MW10 (see Figure 3). A CVD technical representative was present during the drilling activities to record field and soil conditions. Soil samples were collected using a split spoon sampler, and were used in addition to observations of soil cuttings to construct borehole logs for each of the monitoring wells (Appendix B). Monitoring wells were constructed using 50 mm schedule 40 PVC risers and equipped with 3.05 m long Slot 10 PVC screens. All monitoring wells were installed with cemented flushmount casings, with the exception of MW9, which was constructed with a lockable steel stick-up casing. A photographic log of Site conditions is provided in Appendix C. Monitoring well screen depths were based on the presence of saturated conditions within the overburden material at each monitoring well location. If saturated conditions were not encountered in the overburden during drilling, the well screen was installed into bedrock. All on-Site monitoring wells were installed within saturated conditions as observed during the time of drilling. MW1A was installed into the saturated overburden, MW5 was installed completely into bedrock, and the remaining wells (MW9 and MW10) were installed to straddle the overburden and bedrock interface. Following installation, all on-Site monitoring wells were developed with a WaterraTM inertial pump system to remove any remaining sediment within the well and outside the well screen which may have been generated by drilling activities. Table 1 provides a summary of well construction details.


4.2 Mini-Piezometer Installation On March 17, 2017, MTE installed a stainless steel mini piezometer (MP1-17) into Howitt Creek, approximately 45 m southwest of the Site boundary (see Figure 3). MP1-17 was installed as a drive-point piezometer, consisting of a 250 mm long stainless steel screen and riser pipe to a depth of 1.39 m below the creek bed. The mini-piezometer is designed to allow for the collection of groundwater level measurements below the bed of Howitt Creek. 4.3 Groundwater Levels and Elevations Continuous monitoring of groundwater levels in monitoring wells was accomplished using dedicated pressure transducers (data loggers) installed on March 17, 2017, programmed to measure groundwater levels every hour. In addition to data logger measurements, manual groundwater levels were measured by CVD between November 2016 and January 2017, and by MTE between March and May 2017. Groundwater levels measured manually in MW1A, MW1B, MW5, MW9, MW10 and MP1-17 are shown in Table 2 and their corresponding groundwater elevations are shown in Table 3. Water levels measured using data loggers in on-Site wells are shown in Hydrographs 1 through 6. MTE notes that the data logger installed in MW1B in March 2017 was removed and installed into MW10 after its construction in April 2017. Based on the data presented in the hydrographs, there has been an increase in groundwater levels in all wells between November 2016 and May 2017 which is interpreted by MTE to be attributed to a seasonal increase in precipitation and snowmelt from winter to spring. MTE will continue to conduct ongoing monitoring in on-Site wells and the mini-piezometer in support of the proposed future residential development at the Site.

4.3.1 Water Table Elevation Based on groundwater levels obtained from on-Site monitoring wells, the highest water table elevation observed in the overburden was approximately 316.3 mAMSL at the north corner of the Site, and 314.3 at the south corner. Precipitation data from the Kitchener-Waterloo Airport and Guelph Arboretum monitoring stations (see Appendix D) suggests that above average amounts of precipitation were observed between winter 2016 and spring 2017, relative to previous years (Figures D-1 and D-2). Based on three months of continuous data logger monitoring and seven months of manual groundwater level measurements (presented in Hydrographs 1 through 6), it is interpreted by MTE that measured on-Site groundwater levels are generally representative of composite high groundwater conditions. MTE will continue to conduct ongoing monitoring of the on-Site wells over the next year.


Based on the water level elevations measured in MP1-17, Howitt Creek appears to be the surface expression of the water table in the vicinity of the Site (i.e. it is marginally a gaining stream, where groundwater contributes to the surface water). 4.4 Groundwater Flow A groundwater flow direction map was constructed for the Site using April 27, 2017 groundwater elevation data (interpreted groundwater contours and flow patterns have been illustrated on Figure 6). Groundwater flow was interpreted by MTE to be southerly across the Site, toward the Speed River, with a horizontal hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.043. Groundwater flow appears to be generally consistent with Site topography and the flow direction and elevation of Howitt Creek.

4.4.1 Howitt Creek A vertical hydraulic gradient between MP1-17 and Howitt Creek were calculated from manual water level data collected April 26, 2017. Vertical hydraulic gradients are calculated using the following equation:

𝑖𝑣 =∆ℎ∆𝐿

Where: iv = vertical hydraulic gradient (m/m) Δh = change in groundwater elevation (m) ΔL = change in elevation between screen mid-point (m) The vertical hydraulic gradient at MP1-17 was calculated to be approximately 0.10, indicating a potential for upward vertical migration of groundwater and that Howitt Creek is recharged by groundwater. 4.5 Hydraulic Response Testing Single well hydraulic response tests (otherwise referred to as slug tests) were conducted on MW1A, MW5, MW9, and MW10 on April 26, 2017 to estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the geologic materials in which the monitoring wells were constructed. During the hydraulic response test, a “slug” (a solid length of PVC of known displacement) was rapidly introduced into the well, causing the water level within the well to instantaneously rise. This was followed by a gradual decrease in the water level back to static conditions (the water level within the well prior to slug introduction) as a result of the nature of the flow of groundwater back into the well (“falling head” test). Once the water level had returned to static conditions, the slug was quickly removed, resulting in an instantaneous drop in the water level within the well, followed by a subsequent rise in the water level back to the static conditions (“rising head” test). The


recovery – or return to the static water level – during each “falling” and “rising” test was recorded using dedicated pressure transducers (data loggers) which were programmed to collect water level measurements at half-second or one second intervals. A fully submerged well screen (where the static water level is measured to be above the top of the screen) is preferred for hydraulic response testing. Where the well screen straddles the static water level, the resultant hydraulic conductivity values are influenced by the surrounding sand pack and the open portion of the well screen above the water level. Static groundwater levels measured at MW1A and MW5 were above their well screens, whereas the water levels at MW9 and MW10 were measured to be within their respective screens. As monitoring well characteristics and subsurface lithology at MW1B were not provided at the time of this report, slug testing was not performed in MW1B. Slug and recovery test data from MW1A, MW5, MW9, and MW10 was analyzed to estimate overburden hydraulic properties. During slug testing at MW9 and MW10 (located at the south portion of the Site), water levels were observed to rapidly return to static conditions, thus indicating that the wells are screened within permeable material (across the overburden-weathered bedrock interface). Hydraulic response tests at MW5 revealed a relatively gradual recovery period of between one and two minutes, which is interpreted to be representative of the weathered dolostone bedrock underlying the Site. The hydraulic response at MW1A (north corner of the Site) was much slower, where the time to return to the static water level was approximately three minutes. This was found to be consistent with the subsurface lithology reported at MW1A, which indicates that the screened unit consists of a fine, less permeable silt till. The hydraulic conductivity of the units surrounding each well was calculated using the Bouwer & Rice method in AquiferTest© software. AquiferTest© data sheets have been presented in Appendix E. Calculated hydraulic conductivities have been summarized in Table 4 and range from 4.83 x 10-6 m/sec (MW5 – weathered bedrock) to 4.56 x 10-4 m/sec (MW10 – sand and gravel/weathered bedrock). MTE notes that MW9 and MW10 were constructed with screens installed into the overburden and partially penetrating the bedrock, and that static groundwater levels were observed to be situated within each well screen. As such, hydraulic conductivity values generated from MW9 and MW10 may overestimate the hydraulic conductivity of these units at the Site. Therefore, hydraulic conductivity values obtained from MW9 and MW10 were omitted from the determination of a representative average hydraulic conductivity value for the Site.


On-site hydraulic conductivities at MW1A and MW5 are consistent with published values for materials of similar nature (Freeze & Cherry, 1979), and thus a geometric mean of 8.38 x 10-6 m/sec was calculated from the generated hydraulic conductivity values for MW1A and MW5. 4.6 Groundwater Velocity Based on the calculated horizontal hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.043 and assuming an average horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 8.38 x 10-6 m/sec (derived from the geometric mean of hydraulic conductivity values generated for MW1A and MW5 in Section 4.4), the average linear groundwater velocity was calculated using:

q = (-Ki)/n Where:

q = groundwater flux (m3/m2/time) K = effective hydraulic conductivity (8.38x10-6 m/sec) i = horizontal hydraulic gradient (0.043m/m) n = soil porosity (0.2 typical for a silty sand, Freeze and Cherry, 1979)

With respect to the above values, the average linear groundwater velocity at the Site has been estimated as 1.80 x 10-6 m/sec (56.8 m/year). 4.7 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was conducted by MTE on April 26, 2017 in the south corner of the Site at the approximate location and depth of the proposed infiltration gallery (see Figure 3). Infiltration tests were conducted at three test pit locations (TP1, TP2, and TP3) which were dug manually using a shovel to depths of approximately 0.6 and 1.0 mbgs. A Riverside/Bucket auger was used to auger an 80 mm diameter and 0.3 m deep permeameter hole to the desired testing depth. The two methods used to estimate infiltration rates included the Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. (ETCL) Constant Head Well Permeameter Test, and grain size distribution analyses.

4.7.1 Testing Methodology ETCL Constant Head Well Permeameter Test To perform the permeameter test, a Riverside/Bucket auger is used to auger a 80 mm diameter hole to the required depth in which the permeameter is to be placed. The permeameter is subsequently filled with water and inserted into the augered hole where the rate of fall (water exiting the permeameter and infiltrating into the ground) over time is recorded.


Grain Size Analyses CVD was retained by MTE to conduct a grain size distribution analysis of a soil sample collected from 1.5 to 2.0 mbgs during the drilling of on-Site monitoring well MW10 in April 2017 at the proposed location of the infiltration gallery. The results of the grain size distribution analysis were used to estimate infiltration rates based on the comparison to published figures and data.

4.7.2 Infiltration Testing Results ETCL Permeameter Testing Infiltration testing at TP1 was conducted at a depth of approximately 0.6 mbgs whereas infiltration testing at both TP2 and TP3 were conducted at a depth of approximately 1.0 mbgs. Calculations of field saturated hydraulic conductivity using the permeameter were completed through the use of equations and values provided in the ETCL manual. This was in turn converted into an infiltration rate using the supplementary guideline to the Ontario Building Code Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH, 1997). A summary of the infiltration rates determined by MTE using the permeameter is provided in the following table: TABLE 4-7a: INFILTRATION RATES – PERMEAMETER TEST

Location Depth (mbgs) Dominant Soil Type Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)

TP1 0.6 Sandy silt, some boulders 43

TP2 1.0 Sandy silt 37

TP3 1.0 Silty sand 70 mbgs – meters below ground surface Grain Size Distribution Analysis The soil sample collected by CVD for grain size analysis was taken from a depth between 1.5 and 2.0 mbgs within the approximate location of the proposed infiltration gallery. Grain size distribution results can be found in Appendix F. An infiltration rate was calculated based on the Hazen method using grain size distribution results.


A summary of the infiltration rate determined by MTE using grain size distribution analysis is provided in the table below. TABLE 4-7b: INFILTRATION RATES – GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Location Depth (mbgs) Dominant Soil Type Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)

Approximate location of proposed

infiltration gallery 1.5-2.0 Silty sand 36

mbgs – meters below ground surface 5.0 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION The Hazen method is intended for sand with a d10 between 0.1 and 3.0 mm (Freeze & Cherry, 1979), however the analyzed soil sample reported a d10 of 0.014. Therefore, results achieved using the Hazen method – based on the grain size distribution testing appear to conservatively estimate the permeability value for the soil tested. 5.1 Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) The City of Guelph acquires most of its potable water from municipal supply wells installed into the Gasport formation bedrock aquifer, which is found within the city limits at a depth of up to 50 mbgs (AquaResource Inc., 2010). With respect to source water protection, Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) are established for each municipal supply well through the delineation of well “capture zones.” The March 2010 City of Guelph Source Protection Project Groundwater and Surface Water Vulnerability Report defines a capture zone as:

“the projection onto the land surface of the portion of the three-dimensional volume through which groundwater travels towards a water supply well within a defined period of time.” (AquaResource Inc., 2010)

WHPAs are divided into four categories based on travel time to the well, and are summarized in the table below.

Category Description WHPA-A A radius of 100 m from the outer boundary of the well WHPA-B Time-of-travel to the well ≤2 years (not including WHPA-A) WHPA-C Time-of-travel to the well is >2 years, but ≤ 5 years WHPA-D Time-of-travel to the well is >5 years, but ≤ 25 years


Four municipal supply wells were identified to be located close to the Site:

• Membro Well (approximately 750 m southeast of the Site); • Edinburgh Well (approximately 950 m east of the Site); • Water Street Well (approximately 1.1 km east of the Site); and • Dean Avenue Well (approximately 1.4 km southeast of the Site).

Table 5 provides a summary of each of the nearby municipal supply wells. Figure 7 shows the Site in relation to these municipal supply wells, along with their associated WHPAs. Based on the available data, the Site is located within WHPA-B (≤ 2 year travel time) of multiple municipal supply wells.

5.1.1 Intrinsic Aquifer Vulnerability (IAV) Intrinsic vulnerability of an aquifer is based on the idea that the natural environment (i.e. properties of the surface and subsurface including the unsaturated zone material, topography, depth to water table or depth to aquifer, preferential pathways, etc.) can provide some degree of protection against groundwater contamination from the surface, but does not take into consideration the properties of the contaminant itself (Liggett, Lapcevic, & Miller, May 2011). A map of intrinsic vulnerability is generated based on interpolating data between associated wells to generate a numerical score or index, with consideration given to observed static water levels, the overburden soil type, and the thickness of the unit above the aquifer. The generated maps are based on contaminant travel time from the ground surface through the subsurface and to the underlying contributing aquifer (AquaResource Inc., 2010). Figure 8 illustrates the Site in relation to the City of Guelph with respect to intrinsic vulnerability. According to the GRCA, the intrinsic vulnerability of the aquifer at the Site has been designated a score of medium, which represents the susceptibility of the aquifer to contamination.

5.1.2 WHPA Vulnerability Based on the category of the WHPA and the characterization of the aquifer in terms of its susceptibility to surface/near surface sources of contamination, a vulnerability score is calculated within a WHPA and ranges from 2 to 10 (where 10 represents the highest vulnerability) (AquaResource Inc., 2010). Preferential pathways are also taken into consideration during the establishment of vulnerability scores, as they can allow contaminants to bypass natural features which protect the aquifer. Both the vertical movement (intrinsic vulnerability) and horizontal movement (WHPA time-of-travel) of groundwater were incorporated into the establishment of the WHPA vulnerability score. Usually, the most vulnerable areas in a WHPA (score of 8 to 10) are in WHPA-B (≤2 year time-of-travel) (Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee, 2015).


The Site is illustrated in Figure 9 to be located within an area with a WHPA vulnerability score of 10, which represents the highest vulnerability. 5.2 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA) Groundwater recharge occurs where precipitation and snowmelt infiltrate into the ground to feed aquifers, watercourses and wetlands. Significant recharge areas are typically associated with coarse-grained soils (i.e. sands and gravels) covering upland areas on the landscape. Based on the available GRCA online GIS data, the Site itself is not depicted within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) however it is observed to be located between two SGRAs. GRCA mapping has indicated that a portion of Howitt Creek, approximately 250 m southwest of the Site, and the area southeast of the Speed River have each been assigned an SGRA vulnerability score of 4 (Figure 10) (GRCA, 2017). Because the Site is located within zones of Low/High Density Residential properties, it is included within the “built-up” areas of the City of Guelph, and is thus not shown in the GRCA mapping to be within an SGRA. The Quaternary geology of the Study Area (Figure 4) generally coincides with the SGRA mapping, indicating that the Site is situated in a region of outwash deposits within which groundwater recharge occurs. Furthermore, field investigations have demonstrated that the Site is underlain by deposits of outwash sand and gravel, and that an upward vertical gradient is observed at MP1-17 in Howitt Creek. 5.3 Issue Contributing Areas (ICA) According to the Grand River Source Protection Plan, the analysis of the historical raw groundwater chemistry in each municipal well system for the City of Guelph has been used to determine whether any contaminants are present, and whether they have contributed to a decline in drinking water quality (Grand River Conservation Authority, 2015). Subsequently, zones of Issue Contributing Areas (ICA) were developed to define areas where past or current activities have or are likely to adversely affect the quality of drinking water in a given municipal well in which contaminants have already been measured at elevated levels. An ICA is defined by the Grand River Source Protection Plan as:

“The area within which activities have or are likely to contribute to the elevated contaminant at the well...in most cases, an ICA is the 25 year time-of-travel capture zone.” (Grand River Conservation Authority, 2015)

Figure 11 shows the Site location relative to nearby municipal supply wells in the City of Guelph provided by the GRCA online GIS mapping tool. The Site is located within an ICA identified for the nearby Membro municipal supply well, at which elevated levels of


trichloroethylene (TCE) have been measured to be approximately half of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard (ODWSQ) of 5 µg/L, with an increasing trend (Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee, 2015). 6.0 SUMMARY Based on the above background hydrogeological characterization study, MTE offers the following conclusions:

• Three private wells in the Study Area were identified to obtain groundwater from the deep bedrock aquifer, and five were identified to obtain groundwater from the overburden.

• The ground surface at the Site generally slopes north to south with an approximately elevation difference of 4.0 m from the north corner to the south corner of the Site.

• Surface runoff leaving the Site is interpreted to follow local topography in a southern direction toward Howitt Creek.

• Groundwater elevations indicate that local groundwater flow is southerly across the Site, toward the Speed River. The horizontal hydraulic gradient was calculated to be 0.043 m/m, and the average linear groundwater velocity has been estimated as 1.80 x 10-6 m/sec (56.8 m/year).

• High water table elevations were observed to be approximately 316.3 mAMSL and 314.3 mAMSL in the north and south corners of the Site, respectively.

• The vertical hydraulic gradient calculated at MP1-17 within Howitt Creek is approximately 0.10, indicating a potential for upward vertical migration of groundwater into Howitt Creek.

• Hydraulic conductivity across the Site was found to range from 4.83 x 10-6 m/sec to 4.56 x 10-4 m/sec. A geometric mean of 8.38 x 10-6 m/sec was calculated from hydraulic conductivites generated from MW1A and MW5, which are considered to be the most representative of the units at the Site.

• Infiltration rates determined using permeameter testing were 43 mm/hr at a depth of 0.6 mbgs (TP1), and 37mm/hr (TP2) and 70 mm/hr (TP3) at a depth of 1.0 mbgs. The infiltration rate estimated from the grain size analysis of a soil sample taken from between 1.5 and 2.0 mbgs was determined to be 36 mm/hr.

• The Site is located within WHPA-B (less than two year time-of-travel), with a WHPA vulnerability score of 10.

• The aquifer at the Site is designated with an intrinsic vulnerability score of medium, which represents its susceptibility to contamination.

• The Site is not located within a SGRA, however a portion of Howitt Creek southwest of the Site has been assigned an SGRA vulnerability score of 4.

• The Site is located within the Issue Contributing Area identified for the Membro municipal supply well (east of the Site), at which elevated levels of TCE have been measured.


7.0 REFERENCES AquaResource Inc. (2010). City of Guelph Source Protection Project - Final Groundwater and Surface Water Vulnerability Report. City of Guelph. (2014). City of Guelph Official Plan, September 2014 Consolidation. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from City of Guelph: http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/OPConsolidation-September2014.pdf Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Grand River Conservation Authority. (2015). Grand River Source Protection Area Approved Source Protection Plan. Cambridge, ON: On Behalf of the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee. GRCA. (2017). Grand River Conservation Authority Web GIS Map Your Property Tool. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from Grand River Conservation Authority: https://maps.grandriver.ca/web-gis/public/?theme=MYP&bbox=554384,4813716,568443,4827064 Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee. (2015). Grand River Source Protection Area Approved Assessment Report. Cambridge, Ontario. Liggett, J., Lapcevic, P., & Miller, a. K. (May 2011). A Guide to the Use of Intrinsic Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2014). Make a Map: Matural Heritage Areas. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry: http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNR/NHLUPS/NaturalHeritage/Viewer/Viewer.html P.F. Karrow. (1968). Map 2153, Scale: 1:63,630. Pleistocene Geology of the Guelph Area, Southern Ontario . Ontario Department of Mines. P.F. Karrow. (1968). Pleistocene Geology of the Guelph Area. Toronto: Ontario Department of Mines. Ontario Geological Survey, 1991: Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2544, scale 1:1,000,000. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2003: 1983 Ontario Base Map 10 17 5550 48200

FIGURES

TABLES

Table 1: Well Construction DetailsWell ID BH1A BH1B BH5 BH9 BH10 MP1-17

Type Flush Flush Flush S/U Flush S/U

GS Elevation

(mAMSL)319.45 319.41 317.80 317.34 316.99 313.05*

T/Pipe Elevation

(mAMSL)319.33 319.27 317.70 318.19 316.88 313.83

Stickup (m) - - - 0.85 - 0.78

Depth (mBGS) 8.19 5.99 7.48 6.18 5.30 1.39*

Top of Screen

Elevation (mAMSL)314.13 - 313.16 315.26 314.43 311.91

Bottom of Screen

Elevation (mAMSL)311.13 - 310.11 312.21 311.39 311.66

Logger Serial W3427 - W3480 W3500 V3986 -

Notes: - no data/not applicable

mAMSL metres above mean sea level

mBGS metres below ground surface

MP mini piezometer

S/U stickup

* reference point is creek bed

in out

28-Nov-16 6.09 - 5.76 4.8 - - -

18-Jan-17 5.81 - 5.02 4.04 - - -

17-Mar-17 4.47 4.34 4.59 4.76 - 1.885 0.67

5-Apr-17 4.19 4.02 4.35 4.44 3.10 0.575 0.655

26-Apr-17 3.51 3.20 4.12 4.28 2.97 0.60 0.635

29-May-17 3.29 2.95 3.96 4.17 2.88 0.60 0.67


mBTOP metres below top of pipe (PVC or steel)

MP mini piezometer

Table 3: Groundwater Elevations (mAMSL)

in out

319.33 319.27 317.70 318.19 316.88

28-Nov-16 313.24 - 311.94 313.39 - - -

18-Jan-17 313.52 - 312.68 314.15 - - -

17-Mar-17 314.86 314.94 313.11 313.43 - 311.95 313.16

5-Apr-17 315.14 315.26 313.35 313.75 313.78 313.26 313.18

26-Apr-17 315.82 316.07 313.58 313.91 313.92 313.23 313.20

29-May-17 316.04 316.32 313.745 314.02 314.00 313.23 313.16


mAMSL metres above mean sea level

MP mini piezometer

313.83 top of pipe elevation

Groundwater Elevation (mAMSL)

Date

MP1-17BH10

313.83

BH1A BH1B BH5 BH9

Table 2: Groundwater Levels (mBTOP)

Water Level (mBTOP)

MP1-17BH1ADate BH1B BH5 BH9 BH10

89 Beechwood Ave, Guelph

Scoped Hydrogeological Study TablesMTE File No.: 42186-200

5/30/2017

Table 4: Hydraulic Conductivity Summary

Well ID

MW1A 9.47E-06 1.08E-05

MW5 4.83E-06 1.00E-05

MW9 1.18E-04 1.03E-04

MW10 4.56E-04 4.04E-04

MIN (SLOW) MW5

MAX (FAST) MW10

GEO MEAN from MW1A and MW5

Notes: K hydraulic conductivity

m/s metres per second

Table 5: Municipal Well Details

Notes: * significant water quality threats (elevated TCE concentrations) have been

identified at the Membro Well, for which an Issue Contributing Area has

been established

City of Guelph

QuadrantWell Name Depth (m) Bedrock Formation

Southwest

Water St. 60.0

Upper-Middle

Gasport

Dean Ave.

Edinburgh

Membro* 73.2

57.2

69.5

K (m/s) Screened Material

Overburden &

Bedrock

Overburden &

Bedrock

4.83E-06

4.56E-04

8.38E-06

Sand and Silt Till

Weathered

Carbonate Bedrock

Screen Submerged?

Yes

Yes

No

No


Scoped Hydrogeological Study TablesMTE File No.: 42186-200

5/30/2017

HYDROGRAPHS

89 Beechwood Avenue, Guelph, ON

Hydrogeology Study HydrographsMTE File No.: 42186-200

5/30/2017

305.00

306.00

307.00

308.00

309.00

310.00

311.00

312.00

313.00

314.00

315.00

316.00

317.00

318.00

319.00

320.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

MS

L)

Date

Hydrograph 1 - MW1A: Groundwater Elevations (November 2016 to May 2017)

MW1A - Manual MW1A

GROUND SURFACE

TOP OF SCREEN

BOTTOM OF HOLE

MIN: 314.89 MAX: 316.13 AVG: 315.62



5/30/2017

305.00

306.00

307.00

308.00

309.00

310.00

311.00

312.00

313.00

314.00

315.00

316.00

317.00

318.00

319.00

320.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

MS

L)

Date

Hydrograph 2 - MW1B: Groundwater Elevations (November 2016 to May 2017)

MW1B - Manual MW1B

GROUND SURFACE

BOTTOM OF HOLE

MIN: 314.93 MAX: 316.32 AVG: 315.21

Logger Removed (moved to MW10)



5/30/2017

305.00

306.00

307.00

308.00

309.00

310.00

311.00

312.00

313.00

314.00

315.00

316.00

317.00

318.00

319.00

320.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

MS

L)

Date

Hydrograph 3 - MW5: Groundwater Elevations (November 2016 to May2017)

MW5 - Manual MW5

GROUND SURFACE

TOP OF SCREEN

BOTTOM OF HOLE

MIN: 311.94 MAX: 313.94 AVG: 313.55



5/30/2017

305.00

306.00

307.00

308.00

309.00

310.00

311.00

312.00

313.00

314.00

315.00

316.00

317.00

318.00

319.00

320.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

MS

L)

Date

Hydrograph 4 - MW9: Groundwater Elevations (November 2016 to May 2017)

MW9 - Manual MW9

GROUND SURFACE

TOP OF SCREEN

BOTTOM OF HOLE

MIN: 313.39 MAX: 314.30 AVG: 313.88



5/30/2017

305.00

306.00

307.00

308.00

309.00

310.00

311.00

312.00

313.00

314.00

315.00

316.00

317.00

318.00

319.00

320.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

MS

L)

Date

Hydrograph 5 - MW10: Groundwater Elevations (November 2016 to May 2017)

MW10 - Manual MW10

GROUND SURFACE

TOP OF SCREEN

BOTTOM OF HOLE

MIN: 313.78 MAX: 314.21 AVG: 313.98



5/30/2017

311.00

312.00

313.00

314.00

315.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

MS

L)

Date

Hydrograph 6 - MP1-17: Groundwater Elevations (March 2017 to May 2017)

MP1-17 (IN) - Manual MP1-17 (OUT) - Manual

CREEK BED

MIN: 311.94 MAX: 313.25

APPENDIX A

MOECC WELL RECORDS

APPENDIX B

BOREHOLE LOGS

28

64

21

43

26

24

- cemented flushmountcasing

- bentonite seal

- silica sand pack

- slotted filter screen

water level measured at5.81 m depth on January18, 2016water level measured at6.09 m depth onNovember 28, 2016

319.37

315.45

314.85

311.83

25mm ASPHALT50mm GRANULAR BASE

compact to very dense

dark brown to brown

SAND AND GRAVEL(possible fill)

frequent cobblessome silt

damp

compact brownFine to Medium SAND

damp

compact

brown

SAND AND SILT (Till-like)some graveltrace clay

damp to saturated

End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.08

4.00

4.60

7.62

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL

Enclosure No.: 1Sheet 1 of 1

20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA

Machine:Method:Size:

Diedrich D-50THollow Stem Auger105 mm I.D.

FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W

311 Victoria Street NorthKitchener, Ontario N2H 5E1

ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE

PENETRATION RESISTANCESTANDARD DYN. CONE

Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY

CHUNG & VANDER DOELENENGINEERING LTD.

89 Beechwood Avenue, Guelph, Ontario

SAMPLE

Proposed Townhouse Development

50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 1

10 20 30319.45 m

Nov 02 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID

89 Beechwood Inc. c/o AcornDevelopments

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

FIELD VANE: Peak Rem. LAB TEST: Unc. P.P.

Nov 02 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

28

64

21

43

borehole open and dry to3.96 m bgs upon drillingcompletion

317.09

315.69

314.63


-----

compactdark brown

sand and gravel FILLsome silt layers/pockets

damp to moist

compact to very denseorangy brown to brown

SAND AND GRAVELtrace silt to silty

some to frequent cobbles

damp to moist

dense, brown

SILTY SANDsome gravel

damp

Auger refusal at 3.96 m depth

1

2

3

4

5

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1.50

2.90

3.96

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 2

10 20 30318.59 m

Nov 02 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 02 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

5

5

18

63

50/125mm

58

water level at 5.8 m bgsupon drilling completion

borehole open to 6.71 mbgs upon drillingcompletion

318.85

317.28

315.98

313.78

312.27


looseTOPSOIL

loose to compactbrown

SAND AND SILTsome graveltrace clay

moist

very dense

brown

SAND AND GRAVELfrequent cobbles

some silt

damp to moist

beige/tan

WEATHERED CARBONATEBEDROCK

End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.13

1.70

3.00

5.20

6.71

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 3

10 20 30318.98 m

Nov 02 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 02 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

32

10

6

14

33

50/100mm

water level and cave-in at5.2 m bgs upon drillingcompletion

318.30

316.35

315.55

314.55

312.10


compact to dense

dark brown to brown

silty sand and gravel FILLsome cobbles and organics

damp to moist

Buried TOPSOIL

compactmottled, orangy brown

SILTY SAND AND GRAVELsome cobblestrace organics

moist to wet

dense to very dense

brown

SAND AND SILT (Till-like)some gravel, trace clay

occ. gravelly seams

moist to saturated

End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.15

2.10

2.90

3.90

6.35

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA


Diedrich D-50TSolid Stem Auger150 mm O.D.

FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 4

10 20 30318.45 m

Nov 03 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 03 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

17

8

11

44

water level measured at5.02 m depth on January18, 2016

water level measured at5.76 m depth onNovember 28, 2016

317.60

316.40

314.60

314.00

310.18


compactbrown to dark brown

sand and gravel FILLsome cobbles and silt

damp

loose, brown

SAND AND SILT

-----compact

some gravel (Till-like)

damp to moist

dense, brownSAND AND GRAVEL

frequent angular rock fragmentsmoist

beige/tan


End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.20

1.40

3.20

3.80

7.62

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 5

10 20 30317.80 m

Nov 25 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 03 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

29

8

8

21

9

50/125mm

50/75

mm

water level at 5.95 m bgsupon drilling completionborehole open to 6.23 mbgs upon drillingcompletion

318.53

317.88

316.88

315.78

314.68

312.78

312.45


compact, brownsand and gravel FILL

occ. cobblesdamp

loose, dark brownsand and silt FILL

some organics and brickfragments

moistcompact, brown

SAND AND GRAVEL(possible fill)

some silt

damp

loose, brown

SAND AND SILTtrace to some gravel

moist

very dense

SAND AND SILT (Till-like)some gravel, trace clay

occ. gravelly seams

damp to wet

beige/tanWEATHERED CARBONATE

BEDROCKEnd of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.15

0.80

1.80

2.90

4.00

5.90

6.23

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 6

10 20 30318.68 m

Nov 03 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 03 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

9

40

91

45

31

50/125mm

50/75

mm

water level and cave-in at5.2 m bgs upon drillingcompletion

317.41

315.46

312.66

311.38

150mm TOPSOIL

loose to very dense

dark brown to brown

SAND AND GRAVELfrequent cobbles

some silt and organics

moist to damp

dense to very dense

brown

SAND AND SILT (Till-like)some graveltrace clay

moist

beige/tan


End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.15

2.10

4.90

6.18

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 7

10 20 30317.56 m

Nov 03 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 03 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

10

60

50/100mm

59

50/125mm

50/75

mm

water level at 4.1 m bgsupon drilling completion

borehole open to 4.65 mbgs upon drillingcompletion

317.90

314.65

313.50

250mm TOPSOIL


brown

SAND and GRAVELfrequent cobblestrace to some siltocc. silty seams

damp

beige/tan


End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.25

3.50

4.65

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 8

10 20 30318.15 m

Nov 03 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 03 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

- cemented raised wellcasing

- bentonite seal

- silica sand pack


water level measured at4.04 m depth on January18, 2016

water level measured at4.8 m depth on November28, 2016

317.14

313.99

312.31

200mm TOPSOIL

Overburden Soil

beige/tan


End of Borehole

1

2

3

AS

AS

AS

0.20

3.35

5.03

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA



FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 9

10 20 30317.34 m

Nov 03 / 16

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Nov 03 / 16

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

4

24

31

50/76mm

71

- cemented flushmountcasing

- bentonite seal

- silica sand pack


316.79

313.03

311.50

250mm TOPSOIL


brown

SAND and GRAVELfrequent cobblestrace to some siltocc. silty seams

damp

beige/tan


End of Borehole

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.20

3.96

5.49

EQUIPMENT DATA

SY

MB

OL


20 40 60 80

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

DE

PT

H(m

)

WE

LL

DA

TA


Diedrich D-50THollow Stem Auger200 mm O.D.

FILE No: G16357

N-V

AL

UE

DESCRIPTION W


ph. (519) 742-8979, fx. (519) 742-7739

TY

PE


Date: TO

REMARKS

DE

PT

H(m

)

Client:

Project:

Location:

EL

EV

./D

EP

TH

(m)

SOIL LITHOLOGY



SAMPLE


50 100 150 200

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

Ground Elevation:

WP

WATERCONTENT

(%)

WL

EYC

BOREHOLE No. 10

10 20 30316.99 m

Apr 04 / 17

PROJECT MANAGER:

SA

MP

LE

ID




Apr 04 / 17

CV

D B

OR

EH

OL

E (

2015

) E

1631

8 U

PD

AT

ED

BH

LO

GS

(M

TE

EL

EV

AT

ION

S).

GP

J C

VD

_EN

G.G

DT

29/

5/17

APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

-1- MTE File No. 42186-200

Photographic Log 89 Beechwood Avenue, Guelph, ON

Photograph No. 1

(a) Left: South-facing view of the location of the Guelph Optimist Club building, located south of the asphalt parking lot in the east corner of the Site.

(b) Centre: Southwest-facing view of the overall Site, including the basketball court. (c) Right: West facing view of the overall Site, including the full extent of the asphalt parking lot. The locations of MW1A and

MW1B are indicated by the arrow.

Photograph No. 2 (a) Left: North-facing view of the locations of MW1A and MW1B, in the north corner of the Site. (b) Centre: Southwest-facing view of the location of MW5, east of the on-Site building in the back laneway. (c) Right: Southeast-facing view of the location of MW9, south of the on-Site building, in the southern corner of the Site.

MW1B MW1A

MW9

MW5

-2- MTE File No. 42186-200

Photograph No. 3

(a) Left: Northeast-facing view of the location of MW10, and test pit locations (TP1, TP2, and TP3) for infiltration testing. MW9 and the existing on-Site building are seen in the background.

(b) Right: South-facing view of MW10 and the test pits from photograph 3a. An asphalt path is observed south of the Site, beyond which is Howitt Creek.

Photograph No. 4

(a) Left: Southeast-facing view of the off-Site asphalt path and adjacent property. Howitt Creek and its associated natural area are shown on the right side of the photo. The location of a weir-like structure is indicated by the arrow.

(b) Right: Northwest-facing view of the off-Site asphalt path and playground southwest of the Site. Howitt Creek and its associated natural area are shown on the left side of the photo.

MW10

TP1

TP2

TP3

TP1 TP2 TP3

MW10

MW9

-3- MTE File No. 42186-200

Photograph No. 5 (a) Left: South-facing view of the weir-like structure at Howitt Creek, southeast of the Site.

The creek was observed to flow in a southeasterly direction through the weir. (b) Right: Southwest-facing view of Howitt Creek from the weir.

Photograph No. 6

(a) Left: Northeast-facing view of MP1-17 installed into Howitt Creek. (b) Right: North-facing view of MP1-17. The playground is located in the background

of the photo.

MP1-17 MP1-17

APPENDIX D

CLIMATE NORMALS (1971-PRESENT)

Appendix D - Precipitation Summary

Job Number: 42186-200

Print Date: 6-Jun-17

Guelph Arboretum Weather Station Kitchener-Waterloo Airport Weather Station

Lat: 43°33'00.000" N Lat: 43°27'39.000" N

Long: 80°13'00.000" W Long: 80°22'43.000" W

Elevation: 327.7 mAMSL Elevation: 321.60 mAMSL

Month (mm) Month (mm) Month (mm) Month (mm)

Jan - Jan 21.1 Jan 41.9 Jan 77.9

Feb - Feb 30.1 Feb 22.9 Feb 47.8

Mar - Mar 80.8 Mar 29.6 Mar 26.1

Apr - Apr 60.0 Apr 29.3 Apr 99.2

May 67.1 May 160.0 May 11.3 May 68.7

Jun 130.7 Jun 66.0 Jun 111.1 Jun 121.7

Jul 129.3 Jul 19.5 Jul 31.9 Jul 137.6

Aug 27.7 Aug 64.2 Aug 58.7 Aug 52.4

Sep 112.6 Sep 101.5 Sep 101.2 Sep 71.0

Oct 76.2 Oct 124.7 Oct 140.0 Oct 128.4

Nov 33.2 Nov 110.6 Nov 13.7 Nov 32.9

Dec 14.2 Dec 84.1 Dec 63.9 Dec 50.0

Grand Total 591.0 Grand Total 922.6 Grand Total 655.5 Grand Total 913.7


Jan 25.8 Jan 21.5 Jan 27.8 Jan 82.3

Feb 28.3 Feb 7.5 Feb 35.7 Feb 56.4

Mar 14.0 Mar 4.6 Mar 130.4 Mar 63.7

Apr 88.9 Apr 73.7 Apr 56.6 Apr 145.3

May 20.0 May 66.1 May 68.0 May 107.6

Jun 46.7 Jun 124.3 Jun 39.7 Jun -

Jul 154.3 Jul 0.6 Jul 77.8 Jul -

Aug 65.1 Aug 83.9 Aug 101.3 Aug -

Sep 179.0 Sep 55.9 Sep 58.9 Sep -

Oct 64.7 Oct 92.0 Oct 35.8 Oct -

Nov 29.9 Nov 49.5 Nov 59.0 Nov -

Dec 17.6 Dec 57.0 Dec 56.0 Dec -



Jan 36.0 Jan 65.2 Jan 64.4 Jan 56.4

Feb 28.7 Feb 54.9 Feb 51.5 Feb 50.8

Mar 47.6 Mar 61.0 Mar 69.9 Mar 72.1

Apr 68.0 Apr 74.5 Apr 76.9 Apr 78.3

May 65.9 May 82.3 May 78.3 May 79.9

Jun 91.5 Jun 82.4 Jun 81.3 Jun 76

Jul 78.7 Jul 98.6 Jul 91.8 Jul 88.5

Aug 64.8 Aug 83.9 Aug 86.3 Aug 95.9

Sep 97.2 Sep 87.8 Sep 85.8 Sep 92.1

Oct 94.5 Oct 67.4 Oct 65.6 Oct 69.2

Nov 47.0 Nov 87.1 Nov 82.7 Nov 86.3

Dec 49.0 Dec 71.2 Dec 73.6 Dec 77.7


2010 2011 2012 2013

2010-2016 Average

20172014 2015 2016

1981 - 2010 Normals 1971 - 2000 Normals 1971 - 2000 Normals


Scoped Hydrogeological Characterization Study Appendix DMTE File No.: 42186-200

6/6/2017



6/6/2017

67.1

352.0

135.0

319.7

177.0 173.4

318.5

455.3

246.1

275.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010-2016 Average**

2010-2017 Average**

Pre

cip

itati

on

(m

m)

Figure D-1: Precipitation 2010-present (January-May)

** = Kitchener-Waterloo Airport



6/6/2017

337.5 341.0 337.9

246.1

455.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1971-2000 Normals* 1971-2000 Normals** 1981-2010 Normals** 2010-2016 Average** 2017

Pre

cip

itati

on

(m

m)

Figure D-2: Historical Precipitation Averages vs. 2017 (January - May)

* = Guelph Arboretum Station ** = Kitchener-Waterloo Airport

APPENDIX E

AQUIFERTEST DATA SHEETS

Slug Test Analysis Report

Project: 89 Beechwood Ave

Number: 42186-200

Client: Acorn Developments

Location: Guelph, ON Slug Test: MW1A (Rising 3) Test Well: MW1A

Test Conducted by: MXL Test Date: 5/8/2017

Analysis Performed by: MXL MW1A (Rising 3) Analysis Date: 5/8/2017

Aquifer Thickness: 8.12 m

0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0

Time [s]

0.0

0.1

1.0

h/h

0

Calculation using Bouwer & Rice

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity

[m/s]

MW1A 9.47 × 10-6



Number: 42186-200


Location: Guelph, ON Slug Test: MW1A (Rising 4) Test Well: MW1A


Analysis Performed by: MXL MW1A (Rising 4) Analysis Date: 5/8/2017


0 20 40 60 80 100

Time [s]

0.0

0.1

1.0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW1A 1.06 × 10-5



Number: 42186-200


Location: Guelph, ON Slug Test: MW5 (Rising 2) Test Well: MW5


Analysis Performed by: MXL MW5 (Rising 2) Analysis Date: 5/8/2017


0.0 70.0 140.0 210.0 280.0 350.0

Time [s]

0.0

0.1

1.0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW5 4.83 × 10-6



Number: 42186-200




Analysis Performed by: MW5 (Rising 3) Analysis Date: 5/8/2017


0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0

Time [s]

1E-3

1E-2

1E-1

1E0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW5 1.00 × 10-5



Number: 42186-200






0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0

Time [s]

1E-2

1E-1

1E0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW9 1.18 × 10-4



Number: 42186-200






0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0

Time [s]

1E-2

1E-1

1E0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW9 1.03 × 10-4



Number: 42186-200






0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Time [s]

1E-2

1E-1

1E0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW10 4.56 × 10-4



Number: 42186-200






0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Time [s]

0.0

0.0

0.1

1.0

h/h

0



[m/s]

MW10 4.04 × 10-4

APPENDIX F

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Date post:	07-Feb-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongthien
View:	234 times
Download:	0 times

89 BEECHWOOD AVE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM...

Documents