Bronte Green Witness Statement J Thompson August 26 2015

PL141318

WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNE THOMPSON, P.GEO.

Submitted on behalf of Bronte Green Corporation (Applicant and Appellant)

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision Property Address/Description: 1401 Bronte Road Municipality: Town of Oakville OMB Case No.: PL141318

Date: August 26, 2015

OMB CASE NO. PL141318 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNE THOMPSON, P.GEO. PAGE 2 OF 13

Qualifications 1. I am a Professional Geoscientist (P.Geo.) as designated by the Association of

Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO). I have more than 25 years of experience as a groundwater scientist and consulting hydrogeologist and have been registered as a practicing member of the APGO since June 2002.

2. I am currently employed as a Senior Hydrogeologist at R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (17345 Leslie Street, Suite 200, Newmarket, Ontario, L3Y 0A4) and my consulting work focuses on hydrogeological site assessments, groundwater and surface water characterization and monitoring, and land development impact analyses.

3. I obtained my Bachelor of Science degree from McMaster University in 1984, specializing in geology. I obtained my Master of Science degree from University of Alberta in 1989, specializing in hydrogeology.

4. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix “A”.

5. A copy of my Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty is attached as Appendix “B”.

Retainer

6. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) was retained by Bronte Green Corporation (Bronte Green) in August 2012 to complete a hydrogeology study of the former Saw Whet golf course lands (referred to herein as the subject lands). The subject lands are located at the southeast corner of Bronte Road and Upper Middle Road in the Town of Oakville, Ontario. Burnside’s scope of work was subsequently expanded to include a broader study of the Merton Tertiary Planning Area (TPA) based on available information. The TPA includes the Bronte Green lands (also referred to as the Saw-Whet golf course); the Enns property to the west of Bronte Road, as well as lands owned by Infrastructure Ontario including the Deerfield Golf Course lands and a property in the southwest corner referred to as the Third Line lands, an Ontario Hydro right-of-way, the Mid-Halton Pollution Control Plant, an existing designated heritage cemetery, and the Region of Halton Offices and Halton Regional Policy Headquarters. The findings are presented in the Burnside report entitled “Hydrogeological Study, Merton Tertiary Planning Area, Town of Oakville, Ontario”. This report was originally completed in March 2013 as part of the Merton Study process, revised in response to peer review/agency comments in December 2013, and then revised a second time in response to further peer review/agency comments, with the final submission dated October 2014.

7. Refined water balance calculations specific to the subject lands were subsequently completed in support of Bronte Green’s private rezoning and draft plan applications and the findings were presented in the Burnside report entitled “Water Balance Assessment, Saw Whet (Bronte Green) Property, Oakville, Ontario, February 2014, Revised April, 2015”. The groundwater balance findings were provided to David Schaeffer Engineering Limited (DSEL) as input to their assessment of the surface water conditions and stormwater management for the subject lands presented in the report entitled


“Functional Servicing Report for the Bronte Green Property, February 2014, Revised April 2015”.

8. I was retained by Bronte Green to prepare a witness statement for this hearing, and to provide evidence as necessary, with respect to this appeal.

Documents Referenced / Work Undertaken

9. Documents relied upon for the preparation of my evidence include:

9.1. Triton Engineering Services Limited, et al., Town of Oakville Fourteen Mile Creek/McCraney Creek Watershed Planning Study, Final Report, February 1992.

9.2. Fourteen Mile Creek East Branch Scoped Subwatershed Plan East of Regional Road 25, Philips Engineering Limited, May 2000.

9.3. Hydrogeologic Investigation, Bronte Creek Development, Richview Phase1, Blackport & Associates, April, 2003.

9.4. Merton (QEW/Bronte Road) Tertiary Planning Study, Terms of Reference, draft December 2012; Final May 2013.

9.5. Hydrogeological Study, Merton Tertiary Planning Area, Town of Oakville, Ontario. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, December 2013; Revised October 2014.

9.6. Area Servicing Plan for Merton Tertiary Plan Area in the Town of Oakville, DSEL, December 2013, Revised October 2014.

9.7. Soil Investigation for Proposed Residential Development, Bronte Green Corporation, Soil Engineers Ltd., January 2013.

9.8. Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Residential Subdivision (Saw-Whet Golf Course), 1401 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario, Soil Probe Ltd., April 17, 2012.

9.9. Draft Peer Review of Hydrogeological Study (R.J. Burnside), Merton Tertiary Planning Area, prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, January 22, 2015.

9.10. Draft Peer Review of Area Servicing Plan for Merton Tertiary Plan Area (DSEL, October 2014), Third Submission, Stormwater Management Component prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, January 26, 2015.

9.11. Water Balance Assessment, Saw Whet (Bronte Green) Property, Oakville, Ontario. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, February 2014, Revised April, 2015.

9.12. Functional Servicing Report for the Bronte Green Property, David Schaeffer Engineering Limited (DSEL), February 2014, Revised April 2015.


10. The scope of the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014) was designed to meet the requirements of the Merton (QEW/Bronte Road) Tertiary Planning Area Terms of Reference (TOR draft December 2012; final May 2013) and involved a review of regional information as well as the completion of site-specific investigations. The TOR acknowledged the additional level of study being completed for the Saw Whet (Bronte Green) lands in support of the draft plan application as input to the Tertiary Planning Studies and included detailed work requirements for the additional level of study.

11. Water balance calculations for the TPA were completed and reported in Section 7 of the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014) to assess potential development impacts to the groundwater conditions and provide target infiltration volumes for stormwater management measures to maintain groundwater functions. Subsequently, more detailed water balance calculations specific to the subject lands were completed based on the selected land use concept, again to assess potential development impacts to the groundwater conditions and provide target infiltration volumes for the stormwater management measures. The work included feature-based groundwater balance calculations for the Tributary 14W-W1 catchment area to provide an infiltration target for the catchment such that groundwater infiltration and subsequent discharge to the watercourse will be maintained. The findings were presented in the Burnside report entitled Water Balance Assessment, Saw Whet (Bronte Green) Property, Oakville, Ontario, April 24, 2015.

12. I participated in a hydrogeology experts site walk on June 23, 2015 to observe the drainage conditions and attended a meeting on July 17, 2015 to discuss the hydrogeology related issues. A copy of the July 30, 2015 hydrogeology experts agreed statement of facts is attached in Appendix C to this witness statement.

13. Burnside has been continuing to monitor the groundwater and surface water conditions on the subject lands since the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014) was prepared. The groundwater elevation table (Table E-1) and hydrographs (Figures E-1 through E-13) as presented in Appendix E (Groundwater Elevations) of the October 2014 Study have been updated to include all available information to date and are attached in Appendix D to this witness statement. Similarly, the surface water flow Table F-1 from Appendix F (Surface Water) of the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014) has been updated to provide the most recent data and is attached in Appendix D of this witness statement. In addition, the water balance tables as presented in the Water Balance Assessment (Burnside, April 24, 2015) have been updated to include the most recent long term climate data available from the Hamilton RBG Climate Station and again, the tables are included herein in Appendix D.

14. The Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014) interpretations and figures covered the TPA. Several have been edited for clarity and the edited figures are attached as Appendix E of this witness statement. In the case of the October 2014 Figures 5 and 10, the figures have been ‘zoomed in’ to more clearly show the Bronte Green subject lands in support of discussions in this witness statement and these figures are referred to herein as Figures 5A and 10A. Minor corrections have been made to the schematic geological cross-section Figures 6, 7 and 8 as presented in the Burnside, October 2014 Hydrogeology Study; these edits do not significantly change the interpretations as presented in the Hydrogeology Study and the figure numbers remain the same on the copies provided in Appendix E of this witness statement.


15. There are two figures that have been prepared in support of this witness statement that present additional information for the subject lands and both are provided in Appendix E of this witness statement. An interpretation of areas where there potentially may be higher rates of infiltration has been added to Figure 11 from the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014) and this revised figure is referred to herein as Figure 11A. A new Figure 12 has also been prepared to illustrate the depth from proposed grade to the water table.

Issues to be Addressed

16. My evidence will address hydrogeology-related aspects of Issues #38, #39, and #42 on the Consolidated Issues List (Attachment 3 to the Procedural Order; May 14, 2015). These three Issues are listed below:

Issue #38. Has the surficial geology been adequately characterized across the application lands?

Issue #39. Has the shallow water table been adequately mapped to define areas where groundwater infiltration issues may arise with new development?

Issue #42. Has the proponent developed an adequate strategy to maintain the water balance to existing wetlands and watercourses such that features continue to function in their current capacity without being negatively impacted?

17. As noted in Item 7 of the hydrogeology experts agreed statement of facts (Appendix C), it was agreed that Issues #40 and #43 on the Consolidated Issues List are covered by Issue #42, and as such, are addressed by the response to Issue #42.

Summary of Evidence and Opinions

For each issue, I provide my opinion followed by my reasoning.

18. Issue #38. Has the surficial geology been adequately characterized across the application lands?

Opinion:

18.1 The surficial geology has been adequately characterized across the Draft Plan

application lands. The nature of the surficial soils across the subject lands has been established through a site-specific drilling program supported by regional information and the findings related to the soil type and stratigraphy are consistent with published mapping.

Reasoning:

18.2 There is a wealth of geology information available for the subject lands. The Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014) included Ontario Geological Survey


mapping of the surficial geology (on Figure 4) illustrating the surficial geology across the subjects lands is predominantly silty to clayey till. This regional-scale published mapping was confirmed for the subject lands by site-specific drilling investigations that included soil information from 38 boreholes. The boreholes were located to provide good spatial coverage across the subject lands (refer to Figure 5A in Appendix E of this witness statement), and included drilling to a variety of depths ranging from 4.6 m to 12.5 m below ground level. Copies of the borehole drilling records with detailed soil descriptions were provided in Appendix B of the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014). Schematic cross-sections were also provided in the Study to illustrate the interpreted stratigraphy and four of these sections cross the subject lands (refer to Figure 5A for section locations and Figures 6, 7 and 8 for Sections A-A’, B-B’, C-C’ and D-D’ in Appendix E of this witness statement). The geological interpretations also relied on regional water well record data available from the MOECC water well database and 12 soil grain-size analyses to characterize the sediments. These data were provided in Appendices A and C of the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014), respectively.

18.3 The scope of work completed to characterize the surficial geology for the subject lands is consistent with the TOR and hydrogeological studies completed by Burnside and others in support of other development applications that have been approved in the Town of Oakville.

18.4 All boreholes drilled on the subject lands encountered clayey silt or silty clay till at surface to depths ranging from 1.4 m to 7.0 m, with the exception of several boreholes where earth fill materials were found at surface. The fill was likely placed for golf course construction. Sandy deposits were found to underlie fill in the southwest corner of the subject lands consistent with the published mapping of the ‘coarse-textured glaciolacustrine deposits’ shown on the surficial geology map (Figure 4 of the Hydrogeological Study, Burnside, October 2014). The approximate area of these sandy deposits is illustrated on Figure 11A (Appendix E). The borehole data show the till overburden overlies relatively shallow (generally < 4 m) shale bedrock in the eastern portions of the subject lands. The approximate area of shallow bedrock is illustrated on Figure 11A (Appendix E). Thicker overburden deposits are found in the northwestern portions of the subject lands, consistent with the interpretation of a bedrock valley infilled with layers of sand and till which has been identified in previous studies in the area (e.g., Triton Engineering Services Limited, et al., 1992, Philips Engineering Limited, May 2000 and Blackport & Associates, 2003) and published bedrock topography mapping (Karrow, 1964). The interpreted stratigraphy is illustrated on Figures 6, 7 and 8 in Appendix E of this witness statement.

18.5 Given the substantial amount of background geology data and regional interpretation available and the consistency of the site-specific geology data gathered for the subject lands, any further borehole drilling information would not be expected to significantly change the interpretation/characterization of the surficial geology as described above in Item 15.4 and in the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014).

18.6 With respect to the characterization of the overall TPA, as noted on page 2 (last bullet) of the Draft Peer Review of Area Servicing Plan for Merton Tertiary Plan Area (DSEL, October 2014), Third Submission, Stormwater Management Component prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, January 26, 2015, “the characterization provided by


R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited is considered to adequately characterize the surficial geology”. The Draft Peer Review of Hydrogeological Study (R.J. Burnside), Merton Tertiary Planning Area, prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, January 22, 2015, also concludes (on page 2) that “the comments raised by Amec Foster Wheeler in April, 2013 related to hydrogeology have been satisfactorily addressed”.

18.7 Based on the amount of data available to support the interpretations as presented in this witness statement and the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014), as well as the comments received from the Town of Oakville peer reviewers (Amec Foster Wheeler), it is my understanding that the surficial geology has been adequately characterized across the TPA and the application lands.

19. Issue #39. Has the shallow water table been adequately mapped to define areas where groundwater infiltration issues may arise with new development?

Opinion:

19.1 The shallow water table has been adequately mapped to support the Bronte Green applications and no areas have been identified where groundwater infiltration issues would be anticipated.

Reasoning:

19.2 Burnside began monitoring the groundwater levels across the site in September 2012 and the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014) presented two years of data. Mapping to illustrate the interpreted groundwater flow directions across the TPA was provided on Figure 10 of the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014). The flow directions are topographically controlled with groundwater interpreted to move towards the watercourse valleys. As noted in paragraph 13 of this witness statement, monitoring has continued on the subject lands. The updated groundwater elevation data and hydrographs are provided in Appendix D of this witness statement and illustrate the seasonal groundwater level variations and range of groundwater elevations across the subject lands. The groundwater levels in the monitoring wells are generally found more than 2 m below the existing ground surface in the topographically higher areas. The groundwater levels are shallower (i.e., within 1 m of ground surface) in the topographically lower areas along the watercourse valleys. Mapping to illustrate the interpreted groundwater elevations and flow directions on the subject lands is provided on Figure 10A in Appendix E of this witness statement.

19.3 The Draft Peer Review of Hydrogeological Study (R.J. Burnside), Merton Tertiary Planning Area, prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, January 22, 2015, noted (on page 2) that “identification of areas where a high water table may be present and flooding of basements may be a concern; and mapping of the overburden cover particularly with respect to the areas that potentially provide higher recharge to groundwater and therefore are potentially important for preserving the baseflow in the creek” are recommendations that “should be considered for the water management strategy of the Tertiary Plan”. Based on these comments and discussion with the hydrogeological peer reviewer at the experts meeting on July 17, 2015, I interpret the “groundwater infiltration issues” in the context of Issue #39 as referring to two potential concerns:


19.3.1. Areas where shallow water table conditions may be problematic for construction of basements; and,

19.3.2. Areas where shallow water table conditions may restrict the use of subsurface Low Impact Development (LID) measures for infiltration.

19.4 With respect to paragraph 19.3.1, DSEL has advised that basements are typically constructed less than 2 m below grade (generally 1.8 m below the road centerline grade). As noted above in paragraph 19.2, monitoring at the subject lands has found that the groundwater levels are generally found more than 2 m below the existing ground surface in the areas to be developed, so it is not anticipated that the water table conditions would be problematic for construction of basements. A conceptual grading plan for the subject lands was included as Drawing 1 in the Functional Servicing Report for the Bronte Green Property (DSEL, February 2014, Revised April 2015). Review of Drawing 1 shows that cut greater than 1 m is only proposed in small areas in the northwestern portion of the subject lands and in the west central portion. Areas of cut are generally associated with existing berms/hills created on the golf course that will be removed. The central portion of the subject lands show no significant cut or fill, and fill greater than 1 m is proposed for the remaining portion of the northwestern area and the southern and eastern areas of the subject lands.

19.5 To investigate the potential for basement/groundwater construction concerns in more detail, we have completed additional analyses of the proposed grades with respect to the interpreted seasonally high water table conditions. These data were used to produce a schematic contour map to illustrate the depth to the seasonally high water table below future grades (Figure 12 in Appendix E of this witness statement). This figure shows that in the residential areas across the majority of the subject lands, the depth to the seasonally high water table will be more than 2 m below grade (areas shaded in yellow and green on Figure 12), i.e., basements (1.8 m deep) will be constructed above the water table. There is an area in the central portion of the subject lands, as well as a small area along the southwest boundary of the subject lands where the data indicate that the seasonally high water table may rise within 2 m of the proposed grades (areas shaded in brown on Figure 12; Appendix E). Much of the central area is within the hydro easement and park, however, several basements along the west side of Streets R and C and along the east side of Street L in this area may intersect the high water table. Basements on the west side of Street B along the southwest boundary of the subject lands also have the potential to intersect the seasonally high water table. It is noted that the water table elevation varies seasonally by 1 m to 2 m with lower elevations typically occurring in the summer and fall months. As such, the water table would be expected to be below the basements for much of the year.

19.6 In cases where the water table may be intersected, groundwater seepage will be collected by foundation drains as described in the geotechnical report (Soil Engineers, 2013). The nature of the till deposits on the subject lands is expected to limit the volume of groundwater moving through the shallow subsurface. As such, for construction excavations that may encounter the water table in such soils, the groundwater seepage is expected to be controllable by the use of sump pumps. If sandier or heavily fractured layers of overburden are locally encountered, there may be more appreciable water seepage, but as the overall flow will be governed by the surrounding lower permeability


sediments, it would not be anticipated that higher permeability layers would sustain high volumes of seepage for long enough to significantly affect construction activities or sump pump usage. Flows into building foundation weepers may be affected by other factors such as the building design and the nature of the backfill materials; however, in this setting, it is expected that for building basements, traditional foundation weepers will be sufficient to handle any water inputs that may occur from the surrounding native material (i.e., water seeping down along foundation walls or through fractures in the till).

19.7 It is concluded that there are no areas on the subject lands where shallow water table conditions are anticipated to be problematic for the construction of basements.

19.8 With respect to paragraph 19.3.2, very shallow water table conditions may restrict the use of subsurface LID measures for infiltration, for example by resulting in flooded trenches and overflow to surface water systems. The MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (March, 2003) recommends that subsurface infiltration methods (i.e., subsurface LID measures such as basins, trenches, and pervious pipes) should be greater than 1 m above the seasonally high water table to function effectively. As discussed above in paragraph 19.5, Figure 12 (in Appendix E of this witness statement) has been prepared to show the interpreted depth of the seasonally high groundwater levels below the proposed grades. Figure 12 shows that the high water table will be more than 1 m below the existing ground surface throughout the developed area, and in the majority of the area, the water table will be considerably deeper, leaving ample room to accommodate LID measures.

19.9 As discussed in Section 5.4 of the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 14), the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial sandy layers and till materials has been estimated to be moderate to low, but is considered sufficient to accommodate lot level as well as subsurface infiltration LID measures. Fracturing within the till material may locally improve infiltration capacity, particularly in areas where the till is thin (area highlighted on Figure 11A in Appendix E). The area where shallow sand underlies fill on the site is also highlighted on Figure 11A as an area that may have slightly higher infiltration capacity. Burnside has considered the proposed raising of grades and the potential effect associated with the placement of engineered fill in relation to the amount of water that may infiltrate into the soils. It is noted that the native silty till materials that dominate the site have been compacted by glacial ice and settlement and are described as firm to hard (Soil Engineers, 2013). The final nature of the fill will not be established until earthworks are underway, but given the nature of the soils typically available in the area, it is reasonable to assume that the fill will have a comparable consistency as the existing native soil and that the permeability and infiltration capacity would be similar as well.

19.10 It is concluded that the water table has been adequately mapped to support the Bronte Green applications. The findings demonstrate that groundwater should not be problematic for the construction of basements or restrict the use of LID infiltration measures within the new development area.


20. Issue #42. Has the proponent developed an adequate strategy to maintain the water balance to existing wetlands and watercourses such that all features continue to function in their current capacity without being negatively impacted?

Opinion:

20.1 With respect to maintaining the groundwater infiltration and related discharge functions, the incorporation of LID measures for infiltration into the stormwater management plans is considered an appropriate strategy to ensure continued groundwater infiltration. There is sufficient soil permeability and depth to the water table (as discussed above for Issue #39) to permit the effective use of surface as well as subsurface LID measures for promotion of infiltration on the subject lands, and there is no evidence to suggest that the target infiltration volumes could not be maintained. The proposed development grading respects the overall topographical conditions that drive the groundwater flow systems such that the flow directions and resulting groundwater discharge to the natural features is expected to be maintained.

Reasoning:

20.2 The wetlands and watercourses are supported by both surface water and groundwater inputs. The term ‘baseflow’ used herein is interpreted to refer to the groundwater contributions, and my evidence is provided with respect to infiltration and related groundwater discharge to the features. The analysis of how surface water contributions to the features will be maintained and wetland functions will be preserved will be addressed by hydrology and natural heritage experts.

20.3 As discussed in Section 6.3 of the Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014), the shallow groundwater flow pattern across the TPA is interpreted to be topographically driven. As illustrated on Figure 10A in Appendix E of this witness statement, on the subject lands, the shallow flow moves generally towards the east converging upon the Fourteen Mile Creek and tributary valleys. There is an interpreted groundwater flow divide that roughly corresponds to the surface drainage divide between Fourteen Mile Creek and Bronte Creek and shallow groundwater in the southwestern corner of the subject lands is interpreted to flow to the south and west, towards Bronte Creek (Figure 10A in Appendix E of this witness statement). The shallow groundwater movement is considered as a local flow system. Infiltration moving downward to recharge deeper underlying sediment layers and the bedrock will follow more intermediate to regional scale flow systems driven by larger scale topographic variations in the watershed.

20.4 Perennial groundwater discharge occurs along the incised valley of Tributary 14W-W1 (in the area highlighted in yellow on Figure 11A in Appendix E of this witness statement), supporting the tributary and associated wetlands. The flows have been quantified by monitoring at flow stations SS6 and SS7 (refer to the locations of SS6 and SS7 on Figure 11A), and flow rates ranging from <0.5 L/s to 13 L/s have been recorded (the flow data are provided in Table F-1 in Appendix D of this witness statement). The monitoring data show that the groundwater discharge or baseflow volume is generally relatively low (<0.5 L/s), the gain in baseflow volume between these two stations is often limited and at times, the groundwater discharge volume is only sufficient to support standing water along the feature. This is due to the relatively low hydraulic conductivity of the overburden layers that limit groundwater movement through the local groundwater flow


system. The Hydrogeological Study (Burnside, October 2014) also concluded that groundwater discharges along the 14W-M1 and 14W-E1 watercourse valleys are limited even in these more intermediate and regional flow systems by the relatively low hydraulic conductivity of the shale bedrock.

20.5 It is acknowledged that the proposed development has the potential to reduce infiltration and that this, in turn, may affect the baseflow contribution to the watercourses. Water balance calculations were provided for the TPA based on three possible land use options (Section 7 of the Hydrogeology Study, Burnside, October 2014). More specific calculations for the subject lands were completed based on the proposed land use concept (Water Balance Assessment, Burnside, April 24, 2015). The calculations were made to assess pre-development and potential post-development infiltration volumes. The difference between the two values provides target infiltration volumes for the use of stormwater management (LID) measures to maintain the groundwater conditions such that baseflow will be maintained. The MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) methodology for calculating infiltration based on topography, soil type and land cover was used. The April 2015 analysis (and the updated water balance tables in Appendix D of this witness statement) included feature-based groundwater balance calculations for the Tributary 14W-W1 catchment area to provide an infiltration target for the catchment such that groundwater infiltration and subsequent discharge to the wetlands and watercourse will be maintained.

20.6 It is acknowledged that the infiltration rates and volumes presented in the water balance calculations are estimates. Single values are used for the water balance calculations, but it is important to understand that infiltration rates are dependent upon the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial soils which may vary over several orders of magnitude. As such, the margins of error for the calculated infiltration volumes are potentially quite large. These margins of error are recognized, but for the purposes of development impact assessment, the numbers used in the water balance calculations are considered reasonable estimates based on the site-specific conditions and are useful for comparison of pre- to post-development conditions.

20.7 To address the potential deficit in infiltration that could occur with urban development, the incorporation of LID measures into the stormwater management strategy was recommended to promote infiltration. Maintaining the infiltration will ensure that the resulting groundwater discharge conditions in the wetlands and watercourses will be maintained. Section 7.7 of the Hydrogeology Study (Burnside, October 2014) noted a variety of LID measures that may be considered for infiltration in the TPA including directing roof runoff to pervious areas with increased topsoil thickness, bioswales, perforated pipe systems, permeable pavements, and tree boxes. The Area Servicing Plan (DSEL, December 2013, Revised October 2014) identified the proposed storm servicing strategy and targets in the post development condition that would be applicable to both the Fourteen Mile Creek and Bronte Creek watersheds within the TPA. The storm servicing strategy identified a combination of end of pipe stormwater management facilities together with LID techniques. The Functional Servicing Report prepared by DSEL (February 2014, Revised April 2015) for the Bronte Green development built upon the stormwater management strategies outlined within the ASP and proposed increasing topsoil thickness, reducing lot grading, directing roof runoff from low and medium density residential areas to pervious areas such as lawns, side and rear yard swales and other


open areas, and disconnecting roof leaders to mitigate the reductions in infiltration that may occur with land development.

20.8 To assess the potential effectiveness of these LID measures for the proposed development of the subject lands, water balance calculations were completed assuming that half of the runoff from the roofs in the low density and medium density residential areas would be directed to pervious areas and that the average topsoil depth is increased to assist with water retention. These calculations were provided in the Water Balance Assessment (Burnside, 2015; Table 5 for the overall subject lands and Table 7 for the Tributary 14W-W1 catchment, and updated in Appendix D of this witness statement). The calculations suggest that the use of such LID measures could maintain approximately 90% of the pre-development infiltration volume. Again it is acknowledged that the calculations are based on assumptions with high margins of error, but they are considered to provide a reasonable indication that the infiltration can be maintained. The overall groundwater contribution to the watercourses is very small in relation to the surface water contributions. As such the overall impact of a remaining 10% deficit in the infiltration volume would not be anticipated to have a significant impact on the tributary flows. Nevertheless, it was noted in the Water Balance Assessment (Burnside, 2015) that additional LID measures may be considered at the detailed design phase to meet the infiltration target. There are more opportunities for additional LID use including, but not limited to, directing more than 50% of the roof areas to pervious areas and also applying LIDs within other land use areas such as boulevards, parks, and stormwater management pond blocks. The Area Servicing Plan (DSEL, 2014) noted that additional measures that may be incorporated into the design of the Bronte Green development at the detailed design stage may also include infiltration trenches, galleries, and bioretention planters to provide additional infiltration. As discussed above for Issue 39 (paragraphs 19.8 and 19.9), the soil and groundwater conditions on the subject lands are considered suitable for the use of these infiltration techniques and it is concluded that the infiltration targets can be achieved through the implementation of these commonly used LID techniques.

20.9 Comment xix) on page 16 of the Draft Peer Review of Area Servicing Plan for Merton Tertiary Plan Area (DSEL, October 2014), Third Submission, Stormwater Management Component prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, January 26, 2015, noted that “the information presented in the hydrogeology report [Burnside, October 2014] is nevertheless considered sufficient to guide the planning and design of LID infiltration BMP’s [Best Management Practices]”. The final sizing, specific location and design of the LID infiltration measures will be determined at the detailed design stage for the subject lands.


Summary Opinion

21. I believe the surficial geology and groundwater conditions have been adequately characterized across the subject lands to support the Bronte Green applications. The hydrogeological conditions do not present unique or significant challenges for development construction activities and are suitable to accommodate infiltration. The proposed LID strategy will promote infiltration within the developed area to address the water balance and there are opportunities for additional LID measures to be incorporated during final design.

Dated this 26 day of August, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________________

Joanne Thompson, P.Geo.

OMB CASE NO. PL141318 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNE THOMPSON, P.GEO.

Appendix A

Curriculum Vitae for Joanne Thompson, M.Sc., P.Geo.

of 4 | Joanne Thompson

Joanne Thompson, M.Sc., P.Geo.

Joanne is a Senior Environmental Consultant with more than 25 years of

experience for a variety of public and private sector clients. As a

hydrogeologist, Joanne’s technical experience includes all aspects of

hydrogeological assessments such as water supply development, water

quality assessments, groundwater and surface water characterization and

monitoring, and contaminant transport studies. Joanne also has considerable

experience with municipal water supply projects and has been involved in

water use assessments, wellhead protection area mapping, aquifer

vulnerability assessments, well capacity and sustainable yield evaluations,

contaminant inventories and threats evaluations for source water protection.

Joanne is responsible for all aspects of project management including

proposal preparation, client liaison, subcontractor control, communications,

budget control, liaison with regulatory agencies, attendance at public

meetings and hearings, data evaluation, interpretation and report writing.

Joanne is one of the relatively few Canadian graduates of the international

Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD) training program

(Cohort 7), and is a Fellow in this unique network of professionals working in

all areas of sustainable development. With this background, much of

Joanne’s work for the past 15 years has been focused on land development

impact analysis and working with multi2disciplinary teams to lessen the

environmental ‘footprint’ of urban development in southern Ontario. Joanne is

involved in the design of sustainable technologies including Low Impact

Development (LID) measures for stormwater management and infiltration and

aerobic landfill technologies to control greenhouse gas emissions in landfills.

She is also active in the hydrogeological community and serves on the Board

of the International Association of Hydrogeologists – Canadian National

Chapter Inc., as well as the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Committee.

Hydrogeological Studies and Land Development Assessments

Hydrogeological Assessments in Support of Secondary Plans, Various

Clients, Greater Toronto Area, Ontario (2000'Ongoing)

Completed numerous hydrogeological studies to characterize groundwater

conditions (e.g., depth to water table, recharge and discharge areas) and

calculate pre2development water balance. Potential development constraints

have been identified at numerous ‘greenfield’ sites in Durham, York, Peel and

Halton Regions, Barrie, Innisfil and other areas of southern Ontario.

Post2development water balance assessments have been completed based

on land development concepts. Working with multi2disciplinary teams,

responsible for the hydrogeological reporting components of subwatershed

studies and master environmental servicing plans and advising on LID

methods to maintain and/or enhance groundwater balance and functions.

Hydrogeological Assessments in Support of Draft Plans, Various

Clients, Greater Toronto Area, Ontario (2000'Ongoing)

Completed numerous detailed hydrogeological assessments as components

of Environmental Impact Reports. This type of work has involved detailed

characterization of depth to water table and groundwater flow conditions,

recharge and discharge areas, water quality, and monthly pre2development

and post2development water balance calculations. Development impact

analysis is a key component of this work along with recommendations for LID

mitigation strategies to maintain and/or enhance groundwater balance and

protect recharge/discharge functions.

Profession

Senior Hydrogeologist

Education

M.Sc. (Petroleum Hydrogeology), University of Alberta, 1989

B.Sc. (Honours Geology), McMaster University, 1984

Professional Societies

Association of Professional

Geoscientists of Ontario (P.Geo. 0187)

International Association of

Hydrogeologists – Canadian National

Chapter Inc. (Director, Communications)

Leadership for Environment and

Development (LEAD), Cohort 7, Fellow

National Ground Water Association

Employment Record

Senior Group Leader, Development Hydrogeology, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (20062Present)

Vice President, Senior Hydrogeologist, W.B. Beatty & Associates Limited (200022006)

Senior Hydrogeologist, Project Manager, Beatty Franz & Associates Limited (199621999)

Senior Hydrogeologist, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (199321996)

Hydrogeologist, Dames & Moore Canada (199121993)

Hydrogeologist, Morrison Beatty Limited (198921991)

Petroleum Hydrogeologist, Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd. (1987)

Research Assistant, Groundwater Research Group, University of Toronto (198421985)

Citizenship

Canadian

Languages

English


Hydrogeology Study in Support of North Brooklin Natural Heritage Assessment and Secondary Plan (2008'Present)

Senior Hydrogeologist responsible for the 2008 hydrogeological assessment on behalf of the Brooklin North Landowners

Group to characterize the surface water and groundwater conditions in the North Brooklin area. The work program focused

on the shallow soil and groundwater conditions and the assessment of groundwater recharge and discharge conditions. In

2011, Burnside initiated a hydrogeological monitoring program for baseline conditions, and in 2012, expanded the work

program in support of the Secondary Plan to include water balance calculations and address recommendations of the Lynde

Creek Watershed Plan. Regional background or ‘baseline’ monitoring is continuing.

Hydrogeology Studies in Support of the Hewitt's and Salem Secondary Plan Areas, Barrie (2013'Ongoing)

Senior hydrogeologist responsible for the development of Terms of Reference and implementation of hydrogeological

assessments for two large areas in the Barrie/Innisfil area (annexation lands). The studies are designed to characterize the

local geological and hydrogeological conditions, determine the relevance and implications of the regional groundwater flow

modelling results for proposed developments, and to identify groundwater related constraints for development as well as

opportunities for infiltration. The study results provide input to the stormwater management plans and design of Low Impact

Development (LID) measures to maintain, where possible, the key hydrogeological functions.

Hydrogeology, Seaton Community Development Lands, Pickering (2009'2013)

Senior Technical Advisor for the hydrogeological assessments to characterize the surface water and groundwater conditions

in the proposed Seaton Community development area. Key focus of work was to characterize groundwater/surface water

interactions with wetland features, integrate site specific data into regional 3D groundwater flow models, and provide input

into the selection and design of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management techniques for the maintenance of

the groundwater regime. Contributing author to the Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment, 2013.

Stormwater Management Pond Assessment and Monitoring, Runnymede Development, Ajax, Ontario (2005'2013)

Project Manager responsible for completing a detailed site assessment and hydrogeological evaluation of a proposed

stormwater management pond expansion along Carruthers Creek in Ajax and negotiation with review agencies for pond

design approvals. The pond was constructed in 2009, and monitoring of the groundwater and surface water conditions in

the vicinity of the pond continued through 2013 to assess post2development conditions. Annual monitoring reports were

submitted to the TRCA.

Hydrogeological Assessment, North West Brampton Heritage Heights Landscape Scale Analysis Update and

Subwatershed Study, West Huttonville Creek and Credit River Tributaries, City of Brampton/Region of Peel/CVC

(2011'Ongoing)

Senior Hydrogeologist responsible for the field work and monitoring programs designed to characterize the existing

hydrogeologic conditions and provide input data to the groundwater modeling hydrogeological assessment in collaboration

with the groundwater study team of Blackport Associates, Burnside and AquaResource Inc.

Hydrogeological Studies, Mt. Pleasant Landowners, Northwest Brampton, Ontario (2007'Ongoing)

Project Manager responsible for the hydrogeological assessment of a large area in Northwest Brampton to characterize the

surface water and groundwater conditions and complete detailed feature2based water balance assessments for woodlots,

wetlands and watercourses. The project included assessment and design input for a new constructed channel and NHS

system. Projects included pre2development and post2development water balance assessments and the identification of

opportunities and constraints for the use of LID stormwater management techniques, as well as Permit to Take Water

applications and construction monitoring.

Hydrogeological Assessments, Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area, Aurora, Ontario (2007'Ongoing)

Project Manager responsible for the hydrogeological assessment of the Aurora 2C planning area to characterize the surface

water and groundwater conditions, with a focus on characterizing the groundwater/surface water interactions with perennial

cold2water streams and assessing surface water quality in the sensitive Lake Simcoe headwater area. Designed an

extensive site instrumentation and hydrogeological monitoring program and collected more than three years of data to

complete a comprehensive baseline assessment. Project manager for six more detailed hydrogeological studies on

individual parcels of land within Aurora 2C as development plans proceeded to assess site specific development impacts

and design appropriate LID and water balance mitigation strategies.

Hydrogeological Studies, North Oakville East Subwatersheds, Ontario (2001'Ongoing)

Responsible for the regional hydrogeological assessment of the North Oakville area involving drilling, soil testing, surface

water and groundwater monitoring, hydraulic conductivity testing, flow mapping, water balance calculations and water quality


sampling to characterize the existing subwatershed conditions, and then evaluated the potential impacts of land

development on the water resources of the study area. The work was carried out as part of a multidisciplinary team to

complete detailed subwatershed studies for six subwatersheds in the North Oakville area east of Sixteen Mile Creek in

support of secondary plan development. Subsequent work has involved more detailed studies as part of Environmental

Impact Reports in support of draft plan applications.

Groundwater Supply and Permitting

Groundwater Supply Development, Various Clients, Southern Ontario (1989'Ongoing)

Completed groundwater exploration and testing of numerous water supply wells for municipal supplies, private residential

supplies, golf courses, subdivisions and commercial/industrial developments in southern Ontario. Projects typically involve

well siting, supervision of drilling, test pumping, water sampling, evaluation of well interference and potential impacts on local

ground and surface water resources, water quality assessment and completion of detailed reports in support of permit to

take water applications. Examples of the range of project scope include exploration and testing for large municipal supplies

in the Port Perry area for the Regional Municipality of Durham, and completion of 15 individual supply wells for a privately

serviced residential development located in the City of Vaughan.

Permits to Take Water, Various Clients, Southern Ontario, Ontario (1996'Ongoing)

Obtained Permits to Take Water from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change for temporary well testing,

permanent water supply development, and dewatering at numerous sites in southern Ontario. Experience has included

testing of high2capacity groundwater wells for municipal and private potable water supplies, irrigation water for golf courses

as well as low volume pumping for construction dewatering.

Unique Projects

Aerobic Landfill Technology, Innisfil Landfill (2007'Ongoing)

Project Manager responsible for the testing, operation and maintenance of an innovative aerobic landfill gas control system

in place at the closed Innisfil landfill site in Simcoe County, Ontario. The system comprises of two air injection wells with an

extensive gas probe monitoring network and operates continuously to reduce methane emissions and migration of landfill

gas from the waste site. The project is conducted in association with SPL Consultants Limited.

Water Quality Management Plan for Mine Sites (2009'2011)

Project Manager for the development of a comprehensive, GIS2based water quality assessment and management plan for

nickel mining operations. The project involves the assessment of surface water and groundwater quality and flow data, and

the building of a decision2support system to assist with the management of environmental risks related to base2metal mining.

A Sustainability Planning Toolkit for Municipalities in Ontario, AMO (2008)

Contributing author to a guide prepared to encourage and empower municipalities in Ontario to realize enhanced economic,

environmental, social, and cultural sustainability, and to demonstrate progress towards enhanced sustainability planning by

2010 in return for Federal Gas Tax funds. The guide was prepared for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) by

Blackstone Corporation in association with R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. The guide provides a set of Sustainability

“Tools” to assist municipalities to move in a positive direction towards greater sustainability that incorporate some of the

latest in best practice as well as “lessons learned” from municipal sustainability planning experience in Ontario and other

parts of Canada.

Infiltration Technologies – Various Sites (1999'Ongoing)

Sustainable watershed development requires innovative infiltration techniques to minimize development impacts on

groundwater and surface water conditions. Conducted extensive hydrogeological investigations to assess shallow

subsurface groundwater flow conditions, infiltration capacity of soils and recharge conditions at several sites on the Oak

Ridges Moraine including the Yonge West Development in Richmond Hill and the Wyndance Estates and Golf Course

development in Uxbridge, Ontario. Designed and pilot tested innovative constructed infiltration facilities (rapid infiltration

basins, rapid infiltration columns and infiltration trenches) for both subsurface effluent disposal and stormwater management

infiltration facilities. Involved in the design, construction, permitting and implementation of rapid infiltration basins for on2site

effluent disposal at the former Innisfil landfill in Simcoe County and responsible for ongoing performance monitoring and

maintenance of the infiltration facilities.


Landfill Projects

Innisfil Landfill, Ministry of the Environment, Simcoe County, Ontario (2007'Ongoing, Joint Project with SPL

Consultants Limited)

Project Manager responsible for detailed hydrogeological monitoring to assess leachate and landfill gas migration, as well as

system operation, performance monitoring, purge well rehabilitation and maintenance of the leachate collection and gas

control systems. The systems include 26 purge wells, a gravity drain trench collector, effluent infiltration basins and an

aerobic landfill gas system. Annual monitoring of over 70 groundwater observation wells, five surface water stations and a

series of landfill gas probes is also completed along with the submission of annual monitoring reports in compliance with site

approvals.

Flyash Landfill Redevelopment, Mississauga Highland Club, Mississauga, Ontario (1989'Ongoing)

Completed detailed hydrogeological investigations at a closed flyash waste disposal site in Mississauga. The work included

long2term water quality and landfill gas monitoring and the design and testing of a groundwater containment well system.

Received Section 46 approval for landfill site redevelopment as a golf course from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

and Climate Change. Responsible for ongoing site monitoring and annual reporting to the Ministry of the Environment and

Climate Change.

Publications

Papers/Proceedings

Beck, Paul and Thompson, Joanne. 2009. Water Balance – Understanding Infiltration. Proceedings of New Directions ’09 in

Stormwater Management Conference hosted by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and Housing, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities, and Ryerson University, Vaughan, Ontario,

November 2009.

Thompson, Joanne and Golas, Beata. 2009. Buried Valley Aquifer – Promising New Water Supply for Port Perry, Ontario.

GeoHalifax 2009. Proceedings of the 62nd Canadian Geotechnical Conference and 10th Joint CGS/IAH2CNC Groundwater

Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, September, 2009.

Beatty, Brian and Thompson, Joanne, “75 km of Drilling for Thermal Energy Storage”, GeoQuebec 2004, Proceedings of the

57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference and 5th Joint CGS2IAH Conference, Quebec, October 2004.

Beatty, Brian and Thompson, Joanne, “On2site Landfill Leachate Management in a Headwater Catchment”, Proceedings of

the IAHS Groundwater Quality 2004 Conference, Waterloo, Ontario, July 2004.

Thompson, Joanne, Beatty, Brian and DiBiase, Stephen, Urban Stormwater Infiltration and Groundwater Quality,

Proceedings of the Ground and Water: Theory to Practice, 55th Canadian Geotechnical and 3rd Joint IAH2CNC and CGS

Groundwater Specialty Conference, Niagara Falls, Ontario. October 2002.

Howard, K.W.F., Beatty, B, Thompson, M.J. and Motkaluk, S.D., 2000. “Advancing technologies in the hydrogeological

design of urban subdivisions”. In Sililo, O. et al., Groundwater: Past Achievements and Future Challenges. Proceedings of

the XXX Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists. Cape Town, South Africa, November 26 to

December 1, 2000, Balkema, Rotterdam, 9472952.

Beatty, Brian and Thompson, Joanne. “Maintaining Groundwater Recharge in Urban Areas via Stormwater Infiltration”.

Proceedings of the 1st Joint IAH2CNC and CGS Groundwater Specialty Conference, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical

Conference, Montreal, October 2000.


Appendix B

Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXPERT’S DUTY

Case Number Municipality

PL141318 Town of Oakville

1. My name is��Joanne Thompson�� (name)

I live at the ��Town of Richmond Hill ��.. (municipality)

in the�Regional Municipality of York ��..(county or region)

in the �Province of Ontario��.�.(province)

2. I have been engaged by or on behalf of�Bronte Green Corporation��(name of party/parties) to provide evidence in relation to the above*noted Board proceeding.

3. I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide evidence in relation to this proceeding

as follows:

a. to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non*partisan;

b. to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within my area of expertise; and

c. to provide such additional assistance as the Board may reasonably require,

to determine a matter in issue.

4. I acknowledge that the duty referred to above prevails over any obligation which I may owe to any party by whom or on whose behalf I am engaged.

Date��August 26, 2015� ��.

Signature

15225873.1

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario


Appendix C

Hydrogeology Experts Agreed Statement of Facts

OMB Case No. PL141318 Hydrogeology Experts – Agreed Statement of Facts, July 30, 2015

1

OMB Case No. PL141318 – Bronte Green Corporation

Town of Oakville, Ontario

HYDROGEOLOGY EXPERTS - AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS This agreed statement of facts is focussed on hydrogeology-related aspects of Issues 38, 39, 40, 42 and 43 on the Consolidated Issues List (Attachment 3 to the Procedural Order; May 14, 2015). A meeting of experts was convened on Friday, July 17th, between 9:00am and 1:00 pm at the Oakville Town Hall to discuss these issues. Key Background Information

1. The hydrogeological data available for the Bronte Green lands include information from MOECC

water well records; soil information from 38 boreholes; groundwater information from 9 monitoring wells and 8 drive point piezometers; hydraulic conductivity test data from 4 wells; water quality data for 2 groundwater and 2 surface water samples; and monitoring of groundwater levels and surface water flows in Fourteen Mile Creek and its tributaries monthly from September 2012 to July 2013 and quarterly since then to date.

2. The calculations performed for the water balance (pre- development) are consistent with the methodology in the MOE 2003 Storm Water Management and Planning and Design Manual.

Site Conditions

3. Using the existing monitoring network, the seasonally high groundwater levels are generally found more than 2 m below ground surface in the proposed development areas. Higher groundwater levels (within 1 m of ground surface) are found along the watercourse valleys. Groundwater recharge conditions are generally found in the upland areas and discharge conditions are found along the tributary valleys. Based on the available data, the interpretation is that the water table generally reflects the surface topography, i.e., the shallow groundwater flow patterns mimic the surface water flow patterns with flow moving towards the northeast and converging upon the Tributary 14W-W1 and 14W-E1 valleys.

4. The undersigned experts participated in a site walk on June 23, 2015 to observe the flow conditions

in the watercourses are tributary to the 14 Mile Creek that drain the northwestern portion of the Bronte Green lands. Tributary 14W-W1 is a perennial watercourse and the three smaller watercourses and swales (14W-W1-1, 14W-W1-2 and 14W-W1-3) which converge to form Tributary 14W-W1 are intermittent. A small gain in flow was apparent along 14W-W1 between flow station SS6 (east of the golf cart path) and where 14W-W1 flows into 14 Mile Creek and it was agreed this increase represents minor groundwater inputs along this watercourse section. The sediments in the base of the channel of 14W-W1 appear to be till-derived.

OMB Case No. PL141318 Hydrogeology Experts – Agreed Statement of Facts, July 30, 2015

2

Water Balance and Low Impact Development Measures

5. Urban development is expected to affect the natural water budget and has the potential to reduce recharge and lower the water table. This in turn may affect the baseflow contribution to the watercourses.

6. A number of LID techniques to mitigate the reductions in infiltration that may occur with land development have been proposed for use in the Functional Servicing Report for the Bronte Green development (DSEL, 2015). It is agreed that Low Impact Development (LID) measures should be implemented in the development to promote infiltration.

Specific Issues

7. It is agreed that Issue #40 (Is there sufficient analysis of how base flows will be maintained?) and Issue #43 (Are the mitigative measures proposed to meet the infiltration/water balance target appropriate?) are covered by Issue #42 (Has the proponent developed an adequate strategy to maintain the water balance to existing wetlands and watercourses such that features continue to function in their current capacity without being negatively impacted?) and that Issues #40 and #43 can be removed from the issues list.

Signatures below indicate agreement with the facts as outlined in this statement.

Date: July 30, 2015

___________________________ ___________________________ Martin Shepley, D.Phil, M.Sc., P.Geo. Jacek Strakowski, M.Sc., P.Eng. Associate Hydrogeologist Hydrogeologist Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure Halton Region Conservation Authority ___________________________ Joanne Thompson, M.Sc., P.Geo. Hydrogeologist, Senior Group Leader Development Hydrogeology R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited


Appendix D

Updated Data

Table E-1

Bronte Green

Groundwater Elevation

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

BH2 10.56 0.83 129.77 7.29 122.48 7.30 122.47 7.24 122.53 7.15 122.63 7.17 122.60 - -

BH5 7.39 0.80 125.61 3.17 122.44 3.19 122.42 3.12 122.50 2.99 122.63 2.97 122.64 - -

BH6A(d) 11.25 0.82 126.37 3.57 122.80 3.58 122.79 3.49 122.88 3.32 123.05 3.36 123.01 - -

BH6B(s) 7.53 0.88 126.31 3.63 122.68 3.63 122.68 3.55 122.77 3.38 122.93 3.43 122.89 - -

BH13 9.39 0.68 124.63 4.28 120.35 4.33 120.30 4.45 120.18 3.88 120.75 4.14 120.50 - -

BH17 3.53 0.74 126.07 3.14 122.94 3.19 122.88 3.24 122.83 2.99 123.08 3.02 123.05 - -

BH19 5.30 0.81 123.54 2.74 120.80 2.71 120.84 2.78 120.76 2.24 121.31 2.48 121.06 - -

BH21 5.34 0.95 126.41 3.47 122.94 3.48 122.94 3.46 122.95 3.21 123.21 3.25 123.17 - -

BH25 11.93 0.67 126.99 11.10 115.89 11.10 115.89 11.06 115.93 11.02 115.97 10.98 116.02 - -

PZ1 1.27 0.63 126.34 0.99 125.35 0.88 125.46 0.77 125.58 0.60 125.74 0.54 125.81 0.49 125.85

PZ2s 1.30 0.60 124.83 0.49 124.35 0.38 124.46 0.33 124.50 0.20 124.64 0.27 124.57 0.25 124.58

PZ2d 1.78 1.04 124.83 1.08 123.76 0.97 123.87 0.83 124.00 0.61 124.22 0.59 124.24 0.56 124.27

PZ3 0.81 1.08 124.66 0.80 123.87 dry dry 0.78 123.88 0.34 124.32 0.35 124.31 0.31 124.36

PZ4s 1.21 0.67 122.82 0.39 122.44 0.33 122.50 0.26 122.56 0.19 122.63 0.23 122.59 0.20 122.63

PZ4d 1.75 1.08 122.82 0.36 122.47 0.29 122.53 0.24 122.59 0.14 122.68 0.15 122.67 0.12 122.71

PZ5s 1.10 0.80 118.58 0.68 117.91 0.57 118.01 0.49 118.09 0.37 118.21 0.35 118.23 0.33 118.26

PZ5d 1.21 1.28 118.58 0.41 118.18 0.49 118.09 0.39 118.19 0.37 118.22 0.29 118.30 0.27 118.31

Well Depth

(m)

Stick-up

(m)

Ground Surface

Elevation (masl)

December 17, 2012September 10, 2012 September 27, 2012 October 17, 2012 November 15, 2012 December 5, 2012

'-' denotes data which are unavailable

'mbgs' - meters below ground surface

'masl' - meters above sea level

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

300031495 Page 1 of 4 Table E-1

Table E-1

Bronte Green


BH2 10.56 0.83 129.77

BH5 7.39 0.80 125.61

BH6A(d) 11.25 0.82 126.37

BH6B(s) 7.53 0.88 126.31

BH13 9.39 0.68 124.63

BH17 3.53 0.74 126.07

BH19 5.30 0.81 123.54

BH21 5.34 0.95 126.41

BH25 11.93 0.67 126.99

PZ1 1.27 0.63 126.34

PZ2s 1.30 0.60 124.83

PZ2d 1.78 1.04 124.83

PZ3 0.81 1.08 124.66

PZ4s 1.21 0.67 122.82

PZ4d 1.75 1.08 122.82

PZ5s 1.10 0.80 118.58

PZ5d 1.21 1.28 118.58

Well Depth

(m)

Stick-up

(m)

Ground Surface

Elevation (masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

7.17 122.60 7.04 122.73 6.86 122.91 - - 6.83 122.95 7.00 122.77

2.98 122.63 2.71 122.90 2.24 123.37 - - 2.59 123.03 2.56 123.05

3.36 123.02 3.03 123.34 2.98 123.39 - - 2.91 123.46 3.17 123.20

3.41 122.90 3.09 123.22 3.04 123.27 - - 2.97 123.34 3.23 123.08

3.65 120.98 3.20 121.43 2.18 122.46 - - 2.21 122.43 3.61 121.02

2.85 123.22 2.17 123.90 1.69 124.38 - - 1.76 124.31 2.46 123.61

1.98 121.56 1.65 121.90 0.75 122.79 - - 0.76 122.78 1.83 121.71

3.10 123.31 2.75 123.66 2.41 124.00 - - 2.37 124.04 2.86 123.55

10.92 116.08 10.67 116.32 10.27 116.72 - - 10.36 116.63 10.93 116.06

0.40 125.94 0.30 126.04 0.27 126.07 - - 0.16 126.18 0.13 126.21

0.25 124.58 frozen frozen 0.28 124.55 0.18 124.65 0.10 124.73 0.14 124.69

0.51 124.32 0.43 124.40 0.37 124.46 0.33 124.50 0.30 124.54 0.43 124.40

0.30 124.36 0.23 124.43 0.23 124.43 - - 0.29 124.38 0.38 124.28

0.20 122.62 0.15 122.67 0.14 122.68 0.20 122.62 0.16 122.67 0.22 122.61

0.12 122.70 frozen frozen 0.02 122.80 0.09 122.73 0.02 122.80 0.10 122.72

0.29 118.29 frozen frozen 0.05 118.53 0.17 118.41 0.12 118.46 0.13 118.46

0.31 118.28 frozen frozen -0.10 118.68 0.23 118.36 0.20 118.38 0.24 118.34

February 13, 2013 March 14, 2013 April 23, 2013 June 3, 2013January 10, 2013 April 4, 2013





300031495 Page 2 of 4 Table E-1

Table E-1

Bronte Green


BH2 10.56 0.83 129.77

BH5 7.39 0.80 125.61

BH6A(d) 11.25 0.82 126.37

BH6B(s) 7.53 0.88 126.31

BH13 9.39 0.68 124.63

BH17 3.53 0.74 126.07

BH19 5.30 0.81 123.54

BH21 5.34 0.95 126.41

BH25 11.93 0.67 126.99

PZ1 1.27 0.63 126.34

PZ2s 1.30 0.60 124.83

PZ2d 1.78 1.04 124.83

PZ3 0.81 1.08 124.66

PZ4s 1.21 0.67 122.82

PZ4d 1.75 1.08 122.82

PZ5s 1.10 0.80 118.58

PZ5d 1.21 1.28 118.58

Well Depth

(m)

Stick-up

(m)

Ground Surface

Elevation (masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

7.14 122.63 7.11 122.66 7.24 122.53 7.07 122.70 6.86 122.92 7.14 122.63

3.54 122.07 3.37 122.24 3.16 122.45 2.94 122.68 2.16 123.45 2.60 123.01

3.30 123.07 3.29 123.08 3.56 122.81 3.25 123.12 2.93 123.45 3.34 123.03

3.35 122.96 3.37 122.94 3.57 122.74 3.31 123.00 2.98 123.33 3.39 122.92

3.88 120.75 3.65 120.98 3.71 120.92 3.47 121.16 2.73 121.90 3.20 121.43

2.74 123.33 2.84 123.23 2.95 123.12 2.81 123.26 1.95 124.12 2.33 123.74

2.17 121.37 2.22 121.32 2.47 121.07 1.93 121.61 1.13 122.42 2.37 121.17

3.09 123.32 3.23 123.18 3.36 123.05 3.05 123.36 2.54 123.88 2.76 123.65

11.00 115.99 11.06 115.93 11.17 115.82 10.96 116.03 10.48 116.51 10.74 116.25

0.51 125.84 0.58 125.76 0.49 125.85 0.37 125.97 0.13 126.21 0.19 126.16

0.20 124.64 0.21 124.62 0.28 124.55 0.20 124.64 0.31 124.52 0.30 124.53

0.61 124.22 0.50 124.33 0.65 124.18 0.70 124.13 0.45 124.38 0.45 124.38

0.69 123.97 0.62 124.05 0.51 124.16 0.36 124.30 0.23 124.43 0.48 124.18

0.37 122.45 0.45 122.37 0.35 122.47 0.22 122.61 0.15 122.67 0.32 122.50

0.25 122.57 0.34 122.48 0.29 122.53 0.13 122.69 0.02 122.80 0.22 122.60

0.20 118.38 0.61 117.97 0.59 117.99 0.35 118.24 0.14 118.44 0.43 118.15

0.22 118.37 0.58 118.00 0.53 118.05 0.39 118.19 0.19 118.39 0.50 118.08

July 18, 2014July 4, 2013 July 31, 2013 November 11, 2013September 27, 2013 April 24, 2014





300031495 Page 3 of 4 Table E-1

Table E-1

Bronte Green


BH2 10.56 0.83 129.77

BH5 7.39 0.80 125.61

BH6A(d) 11.25 0.82 126.37

BH6B(s) 7.53 0.88 126.31

BH13 9.39 0.68 124.63

BH17 3.53 0.74 126.07

BH19 5.30 0.81 123.54

BH21 5.34 0.95 126.41

BH25 11.93 0.67 126.99

PZ1 1.27 0.63 126.34

PZ2s 1.30 0.60 124.83

PZ2d 1.78 1.04 124.83

PZ3 0.81 1.08 124.66

PZ4s 1.21 0.67 122.82

PZ4d 1.75 1.08 122.82

PZ5s 1.10 0.80 118.58

PZ5d 1.21 1.28 118.58

Well Depth

(m)

Stick-up

(m)

Ground Surface

Elevation (masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

Water

Level

(mbgs)

Water

Elevation

(masl)

7.21 122.56 7.12 122.65 - - 6.88 122.89 7.12 122.65

3.03 122.58 2.98 122.63 - - 2.65 122.96 - -

3.44 122.93 - - 3.40 122.97 3.05 123.33 3.32 123.05

3.50 122.81 - - 3.46 122.85 3.11 123.20 3.38 122.94

4.11 120.52 4.58 120.05 - - 3.33 121.30 3.76 120.87

2.89 123.18 - - - - 1.75 124.32 2.46 123.61

2.27 121.28 2.73 120.81 - - 1.48 122.06 2.50 121.05

3.19 123.22 3.30 123.11 - - 2.61 123.80 3.27 123.14

11.06 115.93 11.05 115.94 - - 10.85 116.15 10.83 116.16

0.22 126.12 0.29 126.05 1.05 125.29 0.19 126.15 0.55 125.79

0.40 124.43 0.39 124.44 0.59 124.25 0.46 124.37 0.31 124.52

0.79 124.04 0.92 123.91 1.13 123.71 0.83 124.01 0.79 124.04

0.66 124.01 dry dry - - 0.20 124.46 dry dry

0.26 122.56 0.26 122.57 frozen frozen 0.21 122.61 0.37 122.45

0.18 122.64 0.19 122.63 frozen frozen 0.09 122.73 0.24 122.58

0.41 118.18 0.40 118.19 - - 0.21 118.37 0.38 118.20

0.45 118.13 0.30 118.28 - - 0.20 118.38 0.54 118.04

July 23, 2015March 11, 2015September 24, 2014 April 10, 2015November 17, 2014





300031495 Page 4 of 4 Table E-1


300031495 Figure E-1

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Pre

cip

ita

toin

(m

m)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH2

Bronte Green

Groundwater Elevations

Precipitation BH2 Datalogger Reading BH2 Manual Reading Ground Surface Bottom of Well

Ground Elevation (129.77masl)

Bottom of Well

(119.22masl)


300031495 Figure E-2

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH5

Bronte Green


BH5 Manual Reading Ground Surface Bottom of Well


Bottom of Well (118.22masl)


300031495 Figure E-3

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH6A/B

Bronte Green


Precipitation BH6B Datalogger Reading BH6A Manual Reading BH6B Manual Reading

Ground Surface Bottom of BH6A Bottom of BH6B

Hydraulic

Conductivity

Test


Bottom of 6B

(118.78masl)

Bottom of 6A

(115.12masl)


300031495 Figure E-3a

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

121.0

121.5

122.0

122.5

123.0

123.5

124.0

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH6A/B

Bronte Green


Precipitation BH6B Datalogger Reading BH6A Manual Reading BH6B Manual Reading

Ground Surface Bottom of BH6A Bottom of BH6B

Hydraulic

Conductivity

Test


300031495 Figure E-4

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH13

Bronte Green




Bottom of Well

(115.24masl)


300031495 Figure E-5

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH17

Bronte Green






300031495 Figure E-6

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH19

Bronte Green



Hydraulic

Conductivity

Test


Bottom of Well

(118.24masl)


300031495 Figure E-7

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH21

Bronte Green






300031495 Figure E-8

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

BH25

Bronte Green






300031495 Figure E-9

123

123.5

124

124.5

125

125.5

126

126.5

127

127.5

128

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

PZ1

Bronte Green


PZ1 Manual Reading Ground Surface Bottom of Piezometer


Bottom of PZ (125.07masl)


300031495 Figure E-10

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

121

121.5

122

122.5

123

123.5

124

124.5

125

125.5

126

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

da

wte

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

PZ2s/d

Bronte Green


Precipitation PZ2s Datalogger Reading PZ2s Manual Reading PZ2d Manual Reading

Ground Surface Bottom of PZ2s Bottom of PZ2d

Datalogger removed

for the winters

PZ2s frozen


Bottom of 2s

(123.53masl)

Bottom of 2d

(123.05masl)


300031495 Figure E-11

121

121.5

122

122.5

123

123.5

124

124.5

125

125.5

126

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

PZ3

Bronte Green


PZ3 Manual Reading Ground Surface Bottom of Piezometer

Dry


Bottom of PZ (123.85masl)

DryDry


300031495 Figure E-12

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

119

119.5

120

120.5

121

121.5

122

122.5

123

123.5

124

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

PZ4s/d

Bronte Green


Precipitation PZ4s Datalogger Reading PZ4d Datalogger Reading PZ4s Manual Reading

PZ4d Manual Reading Ground Surface Bottom of PZ4s Bottom of PZ4d

Dataloggers removed

for the winters

PZ4d frozen


Bottom of 4s

(121.59masl)

Bottom of 4d

(121.07masl)

Both PZ's

frozen


300031495 Figure E-13

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

115

115.5

116

116.5

117

117.5

118

118.5

119

119.5

120

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

lev

ati

on

(m

asl

)

Date

PZ5s/d

Bronte Green


Precipitation PZ5d Datalogger Reading PZ5s Manual Reading PZ5d Manual Reading

Ground Surface Bottom of PZ5s Bottom of PZ5d

Datalogger removed

for the winters

Both PZ's

frozen


Bottom of 5s

(117.48masl)

Bottom of 5d

(117.37masl)

Table F-1

Merton TPA

Surface Water Flows

10-Sep-12 27-Sep-12 17-Oct-12 15-Nov-12 5-Dec-12 17-Dec-12 10-Jan-13 13-Feb-13

2 5 3 3 1 1 11 2

SS1 61 24 20 19 93 104 135 49

SS2 <0.5 drywater pooled along

watercourse, no flow2 27 44 22 25

SS3 dry dry drywater pooled along

watercourse, no flow<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 frozen

SS4 dry dry 2standing water, up

to 10 cm deep

standing water, up

to 10 cm deep21

standing water, up

to 10 cm deep

partially frozen,

no flow

SS5 dry dry drystanding water, up

to 2 cm deep

water pooled along

watercourse, no flow

standing water, up

to 8 cm deep<0.5 frozen

SS6water pooled along


water pooled along

watercourse, no flow8 <0.5 <0.5 12 6 6

SS7 <0.5 <0.5 7 <0.5 <0.5 13 4 frozen

SS8 104 20 29 46 115 180 145 128

SS9 - - - - - 27 17partially frozen,

unable to measure

SS10 - - - - - 170 164partially frozen,

unable to measure

Days since rain:

Flow Rate (L/s)

Note:

"<0.5" denotes minimal flow not measurable with equipment (estimated)



300031495 Page 1 of 3 Table F-1

Table F-1

Merton TPA

Surface Water Flows

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

Days since rain:

14-Mar-13 23-Apr-13 3-Jun-13 4-Jul-13 31-Jul-13 27-Sep-13 11-Nov-13 24-Apr-14

1 4 1 same day same day 6 same day 2

247 31 66 59 32 21 47 45

105 7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2 6

partially frozen,

unable to measure<0.5

standing water, up

to 10 cm deep

standing water,

up to 15 cm deep

standing water,

up to 5 cm deepdry <0.5

standing water,

up to 20 cm deep

partially frozen,

unable to measure<0.5

standing water, up

to 20 cm deep

standing water,

up to 20 cm deep

standing water, up

to 10 cm deepdry 11 <0.5

frozenstanding water, up

to 10 cm deep

standing water, up

to 8 cm deep

standing water,

up to 5 cm deepdry dry

water pooled along


standing water,

up to 10 cm deep

17 4 5 <0.5 <0.5standing water,

up to 5 cm deep9 4

partially frozen,

unable to measure4 <0.5 <0.5

standing water, up

to 10 cm deep

standing water,

up to 5 cm deep<0.5 9

447 45

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

48 69

130 37 73 132 88 57 26 44

477 95

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

97 155

Flow Rate (L/s)

Note:




300031495 Page 2 of 3 Table F-1

Table F-1

Merton TPA

Surface Water Flows

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

Days since rain:

18-Jul-14 24-Sep-14 2-Dec-14 24-Apr-15 23-Jul-15

same day 3 same day 2 4

28 19 20 82 -

dry drywater pooled along

watercourse, no flow19

water pooled

along watercourse,

no flow

standing water standing water <0.5standing water,

up to 15 cm deepdry

dry dry dry <0.5 dry

dry dry drystanding water,

up to 10 cm deepdry

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 11 dry

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 11 <0.5

39 28 19 142

too shallow to

measure with

equipment

26 17 9 79 5

84 39 43 246 38

Flow Rate (L/s)

Note:




300031495 Page 3 of 3 Table F-1

WATER BALANCE CALCULATIONS

Saw Whet (Bronte Green) PropertyOakville, Ontario

PROJECT No.300031495

Potential Evapotranspiration Calculation JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR

Average Temperature (Degree C) +4.69 +3.89 0.5 7.05 13.26 18.86 22.04 20.86 16.27 10.03 4.06 +1.38 8.6 <++From Environment Canada

Heat index: i = (t/5)1.514 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.68 4.38 7.46 9.45 8.69 5.97 2.87 0.73 0.00 41.3

Unadjusted Daily Potential Evapotranspiration U (mm) 0.00 0.00 1.43 29.54 60.86 91.08 108.85 102.21 76.91 44.21 15.71 0.00 531

Adjusting Factor for U (Latitude 43o 17' N) 0.81 0.82 1.02 1.12 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.20 1.04 0.95 0.81 0.77 <++From J. M. Lorente (1961). pp. 206

Adjusted Potential Evapotranspiration PET (mm) 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

COMPONENTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR

Precipitation (P) 57 57 64 73 85 73 83 90 81 72 91 72 897 <++From Environment Canada

Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

P + PET 57 57 62 40 9 +44 +58 +33 1 30 79 72 272

Change in Soil Moisture Storage 0 0 0 0 0 +44 +56 0 1 30 70 0 0

Soil Moisture Storage max 100 mm 100 100 100 100 100 56 0 0 1 30 100 100

Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) 0 0 1 33 77 117 139 90 80 42 13 0 591

Soil Moisture Deficit max 100 mm 0 0 0 0 0 44 100 100 99 70 0 0

Water Surplus + available for infiltration or runoff 57 57 62 40 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 72 306

Potential Infiltration (based on MOE metholodogy*;

independent of temperature)23 23 25 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 29 122

Potential Surface Water Runoff (independent of temperature)34 34 37 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 43 184

IMPERVIOUS AREA WATER SURPLUS

Precipitation (P) 897 mm/year

Potential Evaporation (PE) from impervious areas (assume

15%)135 mm/year

P+PE (surplus available for runoff from impervious areas) 763 mm/year

Assume January storage is 100% of Soil Moisture StorageSoil Moisture Storage 100 mm <++ See "Water Holding Capacity" values in Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

*MOE SWM infiltration calculations

topography + rolling to hilly land 0.15 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

soils + relatively tight silty clay materials 0.15 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

cover + golf course fairways and greens 0.1 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003Infiltration factor 0.4

Latitude of site (or climate station) 43O N.

TABLE 1

Pre0 and Post0Development Monthly Water Balance Components

Based on Thornthwaite's Soil Moisture Balance Approach with a Soil Moisture Retention of 100 mm (urban lawns in clayey soils)

Precipitation data from Hamilton RBG Climate Station (1981 0 2010)

Table 1






Heat index: i = (t/5)1.514 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.68 4.38 7.46 9.45 8.69 5.97 2.87 0.73 0.00 41.3




COMPONENTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR


Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

P + PET 57 57 62 40 9 +44 +58 +33 1 30 79 72 272

Change in Soil Moisture Storage 0 0 0 0 0 +44 +58 +33 1 30 79 26 0

Soil Moisture Storage max 400 mm 400 400 400 400 400 356 298 265 266 296 374 400

Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

Soil Moisture Deficit max 400 mm 0 0 0 0 0 44 102 135 134 104 26 0

Water Surplus + available for infiltration or runoff 57 57 62 40 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 272

Potential Infiltration (based on MOE metholodogy*; independent

of temperature)26 26 28 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 122

Potential Surface Water Runoff (independent of temperature) 31 31 34 22 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 149

IMPERVIOUS AREA WATER SURPLUS

Precipitation (P) 897 mm/year

Potential Evaporation (PE) from impervious areas (assume

15%)135 mm/year

P+PE (surplus available for runoff from impervious areas) 763 mm/year

Assume January storage is 100% of Soil Moisture StorageSoil Moisture Storage 400 mm <++ See "Water Holding Capacity" values in Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003


topography + rolling to hilly land 0.1 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

soils + relatively tight silty clay materials 0.15 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

cover + wooded lands 0.2 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003Infiltration factor 0.45


TABLE 2

Pre0 and Post0Development Monthly Water Balance Components

Based on Thornthwaite's Soil Moisture Balance Approach with a Soil Moisture Retention of 400 mm (wooded areas in clayey soils)


Table 2

Land Use Description

Approx.

Land Area

(m2)

Estimated

Impervious

Fraction for

Land Use

Estimated

Impervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Impervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume

from

Impervious

Area (m3/a)

Estimated

Pervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume from

Pervious

Area (m3/a)

Infiltration in

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Infiltration

Volume in

Pervious Area

(m3/a)

Total Runoff

Volume

(m3/a)

Total

Infiltration

Volume

(m3/a)

Golf Course/Landscaped areas 496,900 0.02 9,938 0.763 7,578 486,962 0.184 89,462 0.122 59,641 97,040 59,641

Wooded Area 54,100 0.00 0 0.763 0 54,100 0.149 8,079 0.122 6,610 8,079 6,610

TOTAL PRE0DEVELOPMENT 551,000 9,938 7,578 541,062 97,541 66,251 105,119 66,251

Low Density Residential 249,900 0.64 159,936 0.763 121,957 89,964 0.184 16,528 0.122 11,018 138,484 11,018

Medium Density Residential 33,700 0.79 26,623 0.763 20,301 7,077 0.184 1,300 0.122 867 21,601 867

High Density Residential 9,200 0.86 7,912 0.763 6,033 1,288 0.184 237 0.122 158 6,270 158

Mixed Use 7,000 1.00 7,000 0.763 5,338 0 0.184 0 0.122 0 5,338 0

Road/ROW 125,400 0.79 99,066 0.763 75,541 26,334 0.184 4,838 0.122 3,225 80,379 3,225

SWM Facility 35,300 0.50 17,650 0.763 13,459 17,650 0.184 3,243 0.122 2,162 16,701 2,162

Open Space, Buffer, Easement,

Enhancement Area8,800 0.00 0 0.763 0 8,800 0.184 1,617 0.122 1,078 1,617 1,078

Parks 25,100 0.00 0 0.763 0 25,100 0.184 4,611 0.122 3,074 4,611 3,074

NHS 56,600 0.00 0 0.763 0 56,600 0.149 8,452 0.122 6,915 8,452 6,915

TOTAL POST0DEVELOPMENT 551,000 318,187 242,629 232,813 40,825 28,497 283,454 28,497

270 57

2.7 times

increase in

runoff

57% reduction

of infiltration

** figures from Table 1 and 2 To balance pre+ to post+,

the infiltration target (m3/a)= 37,754

Water Balance for Saw Whet (Bronte Green) Property

With No LID Mitigation Measures for Stormwater Management

Exising Land Use

Post0Development Land Use (with No LID Measures in Place)

% Change from Pre to Post

Effect of development (with no mitigation)

TABLE 3




Table 3






Heat index: i = (t/5)1.514 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.68 4.38 7.46 9.45 8.69 5.97 2.87 0.73 0.00 41.3




COMPONENTS 0 Pervious Areas in Low Density Residential Areas with

MitigationJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR


Potential Evaporation (PE) from impervious areas (assume up to 15% of P) 9 9 10 11 13 11 12 13 12 11 14 11 135

P+PE (surplus water from impervious areas, e.g., roof runoff capture) 48 49 54 62 73 62 70 76 69 61 78 61 763

Roof runoff directed over pervious area (see Note 1) 36 36 41 47 54 46 53 57 52 46 58 46 572

Total water supply directed to pervious areas (rain plus total roof runoff) 93 94 104 120 140 119 135 147 133 117 149 118 1469

Potential Evapotranspiration from pervious areas (PET) 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

Total water available to pervious areas + PET = total potential surplus on pervious

areas93 94 103 87 63 2 +5 24 53 75 137 118 843

Change in Soil Moisture Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 +5 5 0 0 0 0 0

Soil Moisture Storage (max 100 mm) 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 100 100 100

Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) = PET 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

Soil Moisture Deficit (max 100 mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

Total water surplus available for infiltration or runoff on pervious areas 93 94 103 87 63 2 +5 24 53 75 137 118 843

Potential Infiltration (based on MOE metholodogy*; independent of temperature) 46 47 51 43 32 1 +3 12 26 38 68 59 422

Potential Surface Water Runoff (independent of temperature) 46 47 51 43 32 1 +3 12 26 38 68 59 422

COMPONENTS 0 Pervious Areas in Medium Density Residential Areas with

MitigationJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR


Potential Evaporation (PE) from impervious areas (assume up to 15% of P) 9 9 10 11 13 11 12 13 12 11 14 11 135

P+PE (surplus water from impervious areas, e.g., roof runoff capture) 48 49 54 62 73 62 70 76 69 61 78 61 763

Roof runoff directed over pervious area (see Note 1) 69 70 77 89 104 88 100 109 98 87 111 87 1089

Total water supply directed to pervious areas (rain plus total roof runoff) 126 127 141 162 189 161 183 199 179 158 202 159 1986

Potential Evapotranspiration from pervious areas (PET) 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

Total water available to pervious areas + PET = total potential surplus on pervious

areas126 127 140 129 113 44 43 76 99 116 189 159 1361

Change in Soil Moisture Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Soil Moisture Storage (max 100 mm) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) = PET 0 0 1 33 77 117 140 123 80 42 13 0 626

Soil Moisture Deficit (max 100 mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total water surplus available for infiltration or runoff on pervious areas 126 127 140 129 113 44 43 76 99 116 189 159 1361

Potential Infiltration (based on MOE metholodogy*; independent of temperature) 63 63 70 65 56 22 21 38 50 58 95 80 680Potential Surface Water Runoff (independent of temperature) 63 63 70 65 56 22 21 38 50 58 95 80 680

Post0Development Water Balance Inputs:

Assume January storage is 100% of Soil Moisture Storage

Soil Moisture Storage +Urban Lawns + Silt Loam 100 mm <++ See "Water Holding Capacity" values in Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003


topography + rolling land 0.2 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

soils + relatively tight silty clay materials + additional topsoil depth 0.2 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003

cover + urban lawns 0.1 <++ Infiltration Factors from the bottom section of Table 3.1, MOE SWMPDM, 2003Infiltration Factor 0.50


Note 1: Roof Runoff Capture x Ratio

Ratio of Roof Areas to Receiving Pervious Areas

Low Density Residenital + assume 1/2 roof (27% of lot area) directed to pervious area 0.75

(36% of lot area)

Medium Density Residential + assume 1/2 roof (30% of lot area) directed to pervious area 1.43

(21% of lot area)

TABLE 4

Post0Development Monthly Water Balance Components

Based on Thornthwaite's Soil Moisture Balance Approach with a Soil Moisture Retention of 100 mm (urban lawns in clayey soils)


Table 4


Approx.

Land Area

(m2)

Estimated

Impervious

Fraction for

Land Use

Estimated

Impervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Impervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume

from

Impervious

Area (m3/a)

Estimated

Pervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume from

Pervious

Area (m3/a)

Infiltration in

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Infiltration

Volume in

Pervious Area

(m3/a)

Total Runoff

Volume

(m3/a)

Total

Infiltration

Volume

(m3/a)

Golf Course/Landscaped areas 496,900 0.02 9,938 0.763 7,578 486,962 0.184 89,462 0.122 59,641 97,040 59,641

Wooded Area 54,100 0.00 0 0.763 0 54,100 0.149 8,079 0.122 6,610 8,079 6,610

TOTAL PRE0DEVELOPMENT 551,000 9,938 7,578 541,062 97,541 66,251 105,119 66,251


Medium Density Residential 33,700 0.79 26,623 0.763 20,301 7,077 0.680 4,815 0.680 4,815 25,116 4,815


Mixed Use 7,000 1.00 7,000 0.763 5,338 0 0.184 0 0.122 0 5,338 0

Road/ROW 125,400 0.79 99,066 0.763 75,541 26,334 0.184 4,838 0.122 3,225 80,379 3,225

SWM Facility 35,300 0.50 17,650 0.763 13,459 17,650 0.184 3,243 0.122 2,162 16,701 2,162

Buffer, Easement 8,800 0.00 0 0.763 0 8,800 0.184 1,617 0.122 1,078 1,617 1,078

Parks 25,100 0.00 0 0.763 0 25,100 0.184 4,611 0.122 3,074 4,611 3,074

NHS 56,600 0.00 0 0.763 0 56,600 0.149 8,452 0.122 6,915 8,452 6,915


293 10

2.9 times

increase in

runoff

10% decrease

in infiltration

** figures from Table 1, 2 and 4 To balance pre+ to post+,


TABLE 5




Water Balance for Saw Whet (Bronte Green) Property

With Direction of Roof Runoff to Pervious Areas in Low and Medium Density Residential Areas and Increased Topsoil Depth

Exising Land Use

Post0Development Land Use


Effect of development

Table 5


Approx.

Land Area

(m2)

Estimated

Impervious

Fraction for

Land Use

Estimated

Impervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Impervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume

from

Impervious

Area (m3/a)

Estimated

Pervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume from

Pervious

Area (m3/a)

Infiltration in

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Infiltration

Volume in

Pervious Area

(m3/a)

Total Runoff

Volume

(m3/a)

Total

Infiltration

Volume

(m3/a)

Golf Course/Landscaped areas 150,000 0.00 0 0.763 0 150,000 0.184 27,557 0.122 18,371 27,557 18,371

Wooded Area 68,900 0.00 0 0.763 0 68,900 0.149 10,289 0.122 8,418 10,289 8,418

TOTAL PRE0DEVELOPMENT 218,900 0 0 218,900 37,846 26,790 37,846 26,790


Medium Density Residential 10,200 0.79 8,058 0.763 6,145 2,142 0.184 394 0.122 262 6,538 262


Mixed Use 3,600 1.00 3,600 0.763 2,745 0 0.184 0 0.122 0 2,745 0

Road/ROW 40,000 0.79 31,600 0.763 24,096 8,400 0.184 1,543 0.122 1,029 25,639 1,029

SWM Facility 0 0.50 0 0.763 0 0 0.184 0 0.122 0 0 0

Open Space, Buffer, Easement 5,400 0.00 0 0.763 0 5,400 0.184 992 0.122 661 992 661

Parks 4,500 0.00 0 0.763 0 4,500 0.184 827 0.122 551 827 551

NHS 86,200 0.00 0 0.763 0 86,200 0.149 12,873 0.122 10,532 12,873 10,532


235 41

2.3 times

increase in

runoff

41% reduction

of infiltration

** figures from Table 1 and 2 To balance pre+ to post+,


TABLE 6




Water Balance for Tributary 14W0W1

With No LID Mitigation Measures for Stormwater Management

Exising Land Use



Effect of development (with no mitigation)

Table 6


Approx.

Land Area

(m2)

Estimated

Impervious

Fraction for

Land Use

Estimated

Impervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Impervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume

from

Impervious

Area (m3/a)

Estimated

Pervious

Area (m2)

Runoff from

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Runoff

Volume from

Pervious

Area (m3/a)

Infiltration in

Pervious

Area** (m/a)

Infiltration

Volume in

Pervious Area

(m3/a)

Total Runoff

Volume

(m3/a)

Total

Infiltration

Volume

(m3/a)

Golf Course/Landscaped areas 150,000 0.00 0 0.763 0 150,000 0.184 27,557 0.122 18,371 27,557 18,371

Wooded Area 68,900 0.00 0 0.763 0 68,900 0.149 10,289 0.122 8,418 10,289 8,418

TOTAL PRE0DEVELOPMENT 218,900 0 0 218,900 37,846 26,790 37,846 26,790


Medium Density Residential 10,200 0.79 8,058 0.763 6,145 2,142 0.680 1,457 0.680 1,457 7,602 1,457


Mixed Use 3,600 1.00 3,600 0.763 2,745 0 0.184 0 0.122 0 2,745 0

Road/ROW 40,000 0.79 31,600 0.763 24,096 8,400 0.184 1,543 0.122 1,029 25,639 1,029

SWM Facility 0 0.50 0 0.763 0 0 0.184 0 0.122 0 0 0

Open Space, Buffer, Easement 5,400 0.00 0 0.763 0 5,400 0.184 992 0.122 661 992 661

Parks 4,500 0.00 0 0.763 0 4,500 0.184 827 0.122 551 827 551

NHS 86,200 0.00 0 0.763 0 86,200 0.184 15,836 0.122 10,557 15,836 10,557


259 12

2.6 times

increase in

runoff

12% decrease

in infiltration

** figures from Tables 1 ,2 and 4 To balance pre+ to post+,


TABLE 7




Water Balance for Tributary 14W0W1

With Direction of Roof Runoff to Pervious Areas in Low and Medium Density Residential Areas and Increased Topsoil Depth

Exising Land Use



Effect of development

Table 7


Appendix E

Updated Figures

BH22

BH24

BH23

BH12

BH26

BH15

BH10

BH9

BH8

BH7

BH1

B

R

O

N

T

E

R

D

.

1

4

W

-

W

1

-

3

14W

-W1-2

1

4

W

-

M

1

14W

2804747

2804748

2803104

2807144

2802400

2802398

2804749

2802338

2807062

2807236

2802399

2803804

C

C'

1

4

W

-

W

1

-

1

14W

-W

1

B

D'

D

A'

A

1

4

W

-

E

1

BH18

BH20

BH14

BH16

BH11BH 4

BH3

BH2

BH3

BH4

BH5

BH6

BH12

BH11

BH8

BH7

BH9

BH10

BH1

BH6A/B

BH21

BH19

BH5

BH17

BH2

BH13

BH25

B

-

B

'

E

X

T

E

N

D

S

3

0

0

m

Scale: 1:6,000

August 2015

Project Number: 300031495

Projection: UTM Zone 17

Datum: NAD83

N

Prepared by: S. K. Verified by: J. S.

FIGURE 5A

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

BOREHOLE, WELL,

AND CROSS-SECTION

031495 BRONTE GREEN FIGURES AUGUST 2015.dwg

Air Photo Source:

Google Earth Pro 2006 satellite image.

MONITORING WELL (SOIL ENGINEERS, 2012)

MONITORING WELL NEST (SOIL ENGINEERS,

2012)

LOCATIONS

BOREHOLE (SOIL ENGINEERS, 2012)

PRIVATE WELL (MOE WELL RECORD)

CROSS-SECTION LOCATION KEY

BOREHOLE (SOIL PROBE, 2012)

LEGEND

WATERCOURSE

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

Metres

0 480120 240 320

A A'

MERTON TERTIARY PLANNING AREA

80

70

A

NW

A'

SE

0m 500 1000 1500

90

100

120

130

BH

1 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

140

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

asl)

2807144

BH

2 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

4 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

7 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

8 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

23 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

22 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

24 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

21 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

2802402 (offset 116m

S

)

2802404 (offset 119m

S

)

2804749

2802400 (offset 114m

S

)

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

grCL

grSA

80

70

90

100

110

120

130

140

2000

CLTS

CL

GR

LMSAgrSA

CL

SH SH

CL

BH

3 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

6A

/B

(S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

siCLT

siSAT

siCLT

siSATsiCLTsiCLTSA

siCLT

siCLTFill siCLT

siCLsiCLT siCLT

siSAT

saSisiCLTsiSAT

FillSA

saSisiCLTFillsiCLTsiSATSA

2802399

CL

GR

2804747

LM

SH


siSAT

SA

2807062

2810226

FillCLSiSASAGR

CLSAGRCLSACLSAGR

SAGRSA

GRCLGR

GRSH

14

W-W

1-1

150

150

BH

1 (S

OIL P

RO

BE

, 2012)

CLSiTFill

BH

3 (S

OIL P

RO

BE

, 2012)

clSiTFill

BH

4 (S

OIL P

RO

BE

, 2012)

FillSA Fill

clSiclSiT

FillSA

siSAsiCLTsiSAT

2807236 (offset 162m

S

)

GRSA

CLSACLGR

CLGRSAGRSACLGRCLGR

SH

2802398 (offset 110m

S

E)

CL

2804748

SALM

CLSAGRGR

14

W-W

1-2

14

W-W

1-3

110

August 2015


Vertical Exaggeration: 10X

LEGEND

Prepared by: SK Verified by: JS

FIGURE 6


OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

SCHEMATIC GEOLOGICAL

CROSS-SECTION A-A'


4901807

BH

11-2

BOREHOLE WELL NUMBER

WELL

GEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY

STATIC WATER LEVEL

(REPORTED ON MOE WELL

RECORD)

WELL SCREEN

MOE WELL RECORD NUMBER

MEASURED WATER LEVEL

(NOVEMBER 2012)

CLAY / SILT / TILL

SAND / GRAVEL

BEDROCK

INTERPRETED GEOLOGICAL CONTACT

WATERCOURSE CROSSING

sa sandy

si silty

cl clayey

gr gravelly

TS Topsoil

LM Loam

Fill Fill

SA Sand

CL Clay

Si Silt

GR Gravel

STN Stones

BLD Boulder

SH Shale

80

70

B

SW

B'

NE

0m 500 1000

90

100

110

120

130

140

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

asl)

80

70

90

100

110

120

130

140

2802789

CL

SH

GR

CLGR

GRSH

2807144 (offset 119m

N

W)

grCL

grSA

BR

ON

TE

R

D.

BH

1 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

BH

1 (S

OIL P

RO

BE

, 2012)

2803104 (offset 79m

N

W)

2802338 (offset 110m

N

W)

2802804

2805326

2805327

150 150

CL

SH

CLSASH

CLSASH

siCLT

siSAT

CLSiTFill

80

70

C

SW

C'

NE

0m 500

90

100

110

120

130

140

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

asl)

80

70

90

100

110

120

130

140

150 150

BH

7 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

siCLTsiCL

BH

6A

/B

(S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)(offset 76m

S

E)

si

siSATSA

BH

3 (S

OIL P

RO

BE

, 2012)

clSiTFill

CLT

BH

4 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)(offset 93m

N

W)

BH

27 (S

OIL E

NG

., 1997)

BH

33 (S

OIL E

NG

., 1997)

siCLTSHSH

siCLT

BH

5 (S

OIL E

NG

., 2012)

SAsiCLT

clSiTFill

BH

2 (S

OIL P

RO

BE

, 2012)

siCLT

Fill

(offset 125m

N

W)

BRONTE GREEN LANDS


14W-W1-214W-M1

14W-E1

14W-W114W-E1

CLSH

BRONTE GREEN LANDS


August 2015




FIGURE 7


OAKVILLE, ONTARIO


CROSS-SECTIONS

B-B' & C-C'


LEGEND

4901807

BH

11-2


WELL


STATIC WATER LEVEL


RECORD)

WELL SCREEN



(NOVEMBER 2012)

CLAY / SILT / TILL

SAND / GRAVEL

BEDROCK



sa sandy

si silty

cl clayey

gr gravelly

TS Topsoil

LM Loam

Fill Fill

SA Sand

CL Clay

Si Silt

GR Gravel

STN Stones

BLD Boulder

SH Shale

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (m

asl)

80

70

D'

N

D

S

0m 1000500

90

100

110

120

130

140

80

70

90

100

110

120

130

140

28

02

40

4 (o

ffse

t 9

4m

E

)

28

04

74

8

28

04

74

9

28

04

74

7

lmSAgrSACL

SH

LM

SH

lmSA

CLSAGRGR

BH

26

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

BH

11

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

BH

13

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

BH

12

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

BH

14

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

BH

16

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

BH

19

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

siCLTSH

siCLTSH

siCLTSH

siCLTSH

siCLTSH

siCLTSH

siCLTSH

siCL

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

BH

6 (S

OIL

P

RO

BE

, 2

01

2)

BH

5 (S

OIL

P

RO

BE

, 2

01

2)

BH

10

(S

OIL

P

RO

BE

, 2

01

2) (o

ffse

t 1

10

mE

)

BH

9 (S

OIL

P

RO

BE

, 2

01

2) (o

ffse

t 9

4m

E

)

BH

8 (S

OIL

P

RO

BE

, 2

01

2) (o

ffse

t 5

7m

W

)

clSiFill

clSiTFill clSi

Fill clSiFill

clSiTFill


14W

LMSN

BH

20

(S

OIL

E

NG

., 2

01

2)

siCLSH

August 2015




FIGURE 8


OAKVILLE, ONTARIO


CROSS-SECTION D-D'


LEGEND

4901807

BH

11-2


WELL


STATIC WATER LEVEL


RECORD)

WELL SCREEN



(NOVEMBER 2012)

CLAY / SILT / TILL

SAND / GRAVEL

BEDROCK



sa sandy

si silty

cl clayey

gr gravelly

TS Topsoil

LM Loam

Fill Fill

SA Sand

CL Clay

Si Silt

GR Gravel

STN Stones

BLD Boulder

SH Shale

1

2

0

120

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

1

5

1

1

5

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

130

115

1

2

5

1

2

5

2802398

2804749

2802400

B

R

O

N

T

E

R

D

.

1

4

W

-

W

1

-

3

14W

-W1-2

1

4

W

-

M

1

2802338

1

4

W

-

W

1

-

1

14W

-W

1

1

4

W

-

E

1

1

2

5

1

1

9

1

2

1

121

1

1

9

1

1

7

1

1

5

1

1

7

1

2

3

1

1

5

2807144

PZ3

PZ4s/d

BH6A/B

BH21

BH19

BH5

BH17

BH2

BH13

BH25

PZ1

PZ2s/d

PZ5s/d

Scale: 1:5,000

August 2015



Datum: NAD83

N


FIGURE 10A

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

INTERPRETED SHALLOW

GROUNDWATER FLOW


WATERCOURSE

INTERPRETED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

(masl)

INTERPRETED FLOW DIRECTION

MONITORING WELL (SINGLE)

MONITORING WELL (NEST)

PIEZOMETER

333.33


(masl - NOVEMBER, 2012)

(333.33)

STATIC WATER LEVEL - masl

(MOECC WELL RECORDS)

PRIVATE WELL (MOECC WELL RECORD)

INTERPRETED DRAINAGE DIVIDE BETWEEN

FOURTEEN MILE CREEK AND BRONTE CREEK

LEGEND

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

ROADWAY

TOPOGRAPHY OFF BRONTE GREEN LANDS

(1m intervals - masl)


TOPOGRAPHY ON BRONTE GREEN LANDS

(0.25m intervals - masl)

Metres

0 400100 200 30050

BH22

BH24

BH23

BH12

BH26

BH15

BH10

BH9

BH8

BH7

BH1

1

2

0

120

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

1

5

1

1

5

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

130

115

1

2

5

1

2

5

B

R

O

N

T

E

R

D

.

1

4

W

-

W

1

-

3

14W

-W1-2

1

4

W

-

M

1

1

4

W

-

W

1

-

1

14W

-W

1

1

0

0

1

4

W

-

E

1

1

2

5

PZ3

PZ4s/d

BH18

BH20

BH14

BH16

BH11BH 4

BH3

BH2

BH3

BH4

BH5

BH6

BH12

BH11

BH8

BH7

BH9

BH10

BH1

SS3

SS8

SS5

SS6

SS4

SS1

BH6A/B

BH21

BH19

BH5

BH17

BH2

BH13

BH25

PZ1

PZ2s/d

PZ5s/d

1:5,000

August 2015



Datum: NAD83

Site Topographical contours obtained from First Base Solutions

LEGEND

N



BRONTE GREEN LANDS

ROADWAY

TOPOGRAPHY OFF BRONTE GREEN LANDS

(1m intervals - masl)

WATERCOURSE

WOODED AREA


INTERPRETED DRAINAGE DIVIDE BETWEEN

FOURTEEN MILE CREEK AND BRONTE CREEK

AREAS OF OBSERVED GROUNDWATER

DISCHARGE ALONG WATERCOURSE

AREAS WHERE INTERMITTENT (SEASONAL)

DISCHARGE MAY OCCUR ALONG

WATERCOURSE

FIGURE 11A

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

AREAS OF GROUNDWATER

DISCHARGE AND POTENTIALLY

HIGHER RECHARGE

AREA WHERE SAND UNDERLIES

SURFICIAL FILL LAYER

Metres

0 400100 200 30050

MONITORING WELL (SOIL ENGINEERS, 2012)

MONITORING WELL NEST (SOIL ENGINEERS,

2012)

BOREHOLE (SOIL ENGINEERS, 2012)

BOREHOLE (SOIL PROBE, 2012)

DRIVE POINT PIEZOMETER

SURFACE WATER MONITORING LOCATION

TOPOGRAPHY ON BRONTE GREEN LANDS

(0.25m intervals - masl)

AREA WHERE BEDROCK UNDERLIES

<4m OF TILL

Scale: 1:5,000

August 2015



Datum: NAD83

N


FIGURE 12

BRONTE GREEN LANDS

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

INTERPRETED DEPTH TO WATER

TABLE BELOW PROPOSED GRADE

031495 BronteGreen_GWvsFG - FIGURE 12.dwg

Metres

0 400100 200 30050

LEGEND

<1m

1m TO 2m

2m TO 2.5m

2.5m TO 3.5m

>3.5m

Bronte Green Witness Statement J Thompson August 26 2015

Documents

Transcript of Bronte Green Witness Statement J Thompson August 26 2015