County of Brant Water Supply Study

Airport Water Supply Area County of Brant

Prepared for: Northwest Paris Landowners Group & The Nith Peninsula Landowners Group

Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc.

Revised April 2014

AEC 13-289

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC .

April 24, 2014 AEC 13-289

Brookfield Residential 7303 Warden Avenue, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 5Y6

Attention: Mr. David Murphy, Director, Land Development

Re: County of Brant Water Supply Study Report Brantford Municipal Airport Area, County of Brant

Dear Mr. Murphy:

Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Azimuth) is pleased to submit our County of Brant Water Supply Study report to address municipal Area Study requirements to confirm available water supplies to ensure sustainable development capacity for the Northwest Paris Study Area and Nith Peninsula Study Area developments.

Based on our desktop and field evaluations, we conclude that the area surrounding the Airport water supply is capable of providing capacity for a sustainable potable water supply for the developments referenced above.

Should you have any questions or wish to discuss our findings in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Yours truly,

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Mike Jones, M.Sc., P.Geo. Drew West, A.Sc.T. President Environmental Technologist

85 Bayfield Street, Suite 400, Barrie, Ontario L4M 3A7 telephone: (705) 721-8451 • fax: (705) 721-8926 • [email protected] • www.azimuthenvironmental.com

Table of Contents

page Letter of transmittal i

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2

3.0 AREA GEOLOGY ...... 3 3.1 Pleistocene Geology ...... 3 3.2 Areas Containing High Yield Wells ...... 4

4.0 WELL TESTING PROGRAM ...... 5 4.1 145 Pleasant Ridge Road ...... 8 4.2 445 Ellis Avenue ...... 10 4.3 21 York Road (Confederation Freezers)...... 12 4.4 25 Wight Road (GRCA – Burford Tree Nursery) ...... 13 4.5 Well Yield Summary...... 15

5.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS ...... 16 5.1 Total Coliforms ...... 16 5.2 Manganese ...... 17 5.3 Hardness ...... 17 5.4 Nitrate ...... 17 5.5 Treatment Summary ...... 18

6.0 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER BUDGET...... 18

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 21

8.0 FURTHER WORK ...... 21

9.0 REFERENCES...... 23

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . II

List of In-Text Tables

Table 1 GIN and PTTW Well Information Summary Table 2 Testing Summary – 145 Pleasant Ridge Road Table 3 Testing Summary – 445 Ellis Avenue Table 4 Testing Summary – 21 York Road Table 5 Testing Summary – 25 Wight Road Table 6 Projected Well Yield Summary Table 7 Summary of ODWQS Exceedences

List of Figures

Figure 1 Well Testing Locations Figure 2 GIN and PTTW Well Locations Figure 3 Soil Descriptions (Pleistocene Geology) Figure 4 Estimated Well Yield – 145 Pleasant Ridge Road Figure 5 Pumping Test Data – 145 Pleasant Ridge Road Figure 6 Estimated Well Yield – 445 Ellis Avenue Figure 7 Pumping Test Data – 445 Ellis Avenue Figure 8 Estimated Well Yield – 21 York Road Figure 9 Pumping Test Data – 21 York Road Figure 10 Estimated Well Yield – 25 Wight Road Figure 11 Pumping Test Data – 25 Wight Road

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: GIN and PTTW Records Appendix C: Hydraulic Testing Analysis (Aqtesolv) Appendix D: Water Quality Data

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . III

1.0 INTRODUCTION Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (AEC) was retained by the Northwest Paris Landowners Group through Brookfield Residential to conduct a hydrogeological review of the available water supply for the area surrounding the existing Airport water supply, which is proposed to service future residential development. One of the expansion possibilities for the County is an expansion of this supply zone, its treatment capabilities and connecting it to other Paris area municipal supplies.

The purpose of this study is to address a municipal requirement for a review of available water supplies to ensure sustainable development capacity for the Northwest Paris Study Area and Nith Peninsula Study Area. It is essential to ensure that the water supply can meet the future demand, with no long term detrimental effects on the regional aquifer system.

The Northwest Paris development is located within a portion of the Paris Urban Area that is situated west of Pinehurst Road and south of Watt’s Pond Road in Paris, Ontario (see Figure 1). The development plan (GSP, 2012) consists of approximately 898 units (528 single/semi detached, 86 street townhouse and 284 other multiples) over approximately 85 hectares of land area. Thus, 20 units per hectare for single/semi detached and townhouses, and 50 units per hectare for other multiples is expected. The remaining 25% of the development area is natural area which will be maintained as such. The proposed Northwest Paris development represents a population of approximately 2,244 persons (based on the County’s unit occupancy rates). The County has approved a water supply allocation of 9.1 L/s for this proposed development, based on 350L/day/person.

The Nith Peninsula residential subdivision involves the development of approximately 70 ha in the central portion of the Nith peninsula, on part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 1, Gore, Town of Paris. The site is bounded by the Nith River to the north, east and west and by Highway 2 (King Street) and the northern boundary of the “Southwest Paris Community Design Plan” to the south. The development plan consists of approximately 441 units (273 single/semi detached, 70 street townhouse and 98 other multiples)(Oct 2012 Draft Plan). The proposed Nith Peninsula development represents a population of approximately 1,050 persons (based on the County’s unit occupancy rates). The County has approved a water supply allocation of 4.26 L/s for this proposed development.

Water supplies in the area rely on the taking of ground water. As such, the availability of water is limited by the hydrogeological characteristics of the overburden and the bedrock, in conjunction with climate conditions. The County of Brant intends to maintain ground water as its primary source in the Paris area.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The study area for this evaluation focuses on the lands surrounding the Brantford Municipal Airport, including lands south of Highway 403, north of Norwich Road / Oakland Road (Highways 3 and 4), east of Highway 25 and west of the City limits of Brantford (see Figure 2). This area is proposed to satisfy an Area Study requirement whereby the applicant find an adequate source of water capable of sustaining their future population demands, in this case, the Northwest Paris Area Study and Nith Peninsula Study Area, assuming that a suitable potable water supply is found in this vicinity. The Airport area was selected as discussions between the proponent team and the County confirmed that the Airport area presents a reasonable opportunity for expansion of the water supply system with known high yielding areas where the water quality is expected to be suitable.

As part of this study to demonstrate suitable aquifer water supplies, AEC completed a well testing field program using existing private “high yield” wells within this vicinity. The purpose of the well testing program is to demonstrate available well yields in a geographic distribution in areas around the Airport water supply as potential alternate or additional sources of water that could be utilized by the County for existing and future growth. The scope of the study and field program was discussed with County staff prior to its undertaking.

The program consisted of voluntary well testing (quantity and quality) offered to local land owners who were found to own high yield wells used primarily for agricultural (i.e. crop irrigation) or commercial/industrial purposes. High yield wells are those wells that are capable of providing a supply that is suitable for uses beyond single family residential use, and could used as a municipal supply. As an example, well yields for existing County supplies range from approximately 10 to 100L/s.

The well program consisted of a short term pumping test (between 7 – 9 hours) and detailed water quality analysis for each well. The program was exploratory in nature and was not intended to be a detailed testing of an individual well, rather to demonstrate the scale of available yield for a properly constructed municipal supply well. The data from the existing well construction and associated yield can be used to infer potential yield if the well construction is optimized.

The testing program is intended to supplement the reviews of hydrogeological conditions and water supply availability that have been completed in the past (e.g. Azimuth 2010, Lotowater 2005, etc). These reports were commissioned either by the County or by developers as background studies in support of long term growth planning. These studies

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 2

have identified considerable available resources, both in terms of additional yield from area aquifers and potential increases in production / distribution from existing infrastructure. The Airport area has a surficial aquifer of permeable overburden (sands and gravels) that extends westward from Brantford and the Grand River past Burford. For the most part, these studies have been desktop reviews based on geological mapping and infrastructure reporting.

3.0 AREA GEOLOGY 3.1 Pleistocene Geology The Pleistocene geology of the study area primarily consists of glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial sand and gravel associated with shallow water, outwash and deltaic deposits of the Wisconsinan glacial period. The aquifer sediments in the area are comprised of the Paris and Galt moraines and the Norfolk Sand Plain, extending from north of Glen Morris south to Scotland, and from the Grand River gradually thinning in a western direction. This aquifer complex covers approximately 45,000ha. Minor Wentworth Till deposits are found in the central and southern portions of the study area, and the Port Stanley Till is to the west. The Wentworth Till and the Port Stanley Till are clayey silt or silt to silty sand in nature and provide limits to the surficial aquifer. Modern alluvium deposits consisting of silt, sand, gravel, clay and muck can be found bordering existing watercourses (i.e. Grand River, Whiteman’s Creek, etc.) in the study area. Figure 3 presents the Pleistocene Geology of the Brantford Area Map (ODMNA, 1971). The figure also shows the aquifer complex and the Airport Aquifer. Lotowater (2005) and the Grand River Source Protection Assessment Report provide good descriptions of aquifer conditions.

To our knowledge, the Airport Aquifer has not been delineated, and is interpreted to be bounded by the Grand River to the east, Whiteman’s Creek to the north and Wentworth Till to the south. The western boundary is not defined as the Airport Aquifer connects to the main aquifer complex to the west. An area of 2,500ha is shown related to a practical contributing area for the Airport and Mt. Pleasant County wells. Geological cross- sections of the Airport area provided by Lotowater (2005) were also reviewed to analyze overburden and aquifer thickness within the study area. With the exception of a thick sand/gravel deposit (~50 metres) within a bedrock valley in the vicinity of the 145 Pleasant Ridge Road well, the regional aquifer is found to be, on average, approximately 25 meters thick with a saturated thickness of approximately 15 metres.

The overburden sands are permeable and provide a significant aquifer that is laterally extensive and can produce water volumes suitable for municipal supplies. Being a

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 3

surface aquifer, there are potential risks associated with contamination from surface sources such as agricultural use of fertilizers and pesticides, septic beds, and releases of petroleum fuel or other contaminants.

Deposited in the Silurian period, the Salina Formation makes up the bedrock in the subject area. The formation has a gentle southwesterly dip and consists of dolomite and shaly dolomite containing lenses of gypsum. Fluvial erosion near Paris (just north of the study area) has revealed outcrops of 15 to 20 feet thick. Further detail and sequencing of the area geology can be found in the Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs Publication: Pleistocene Geology of the Brantford Area Southern Ontario (W.R. Cowan, 1972).

3.2 Areas Containing High Yield Wells To assist in identifying areas of highly permeable soils within the study area which could be targeted for a municipal potable water supply, online public information sources such as the Groundwater Information Network (GIN) and the Ontario Permit to Take Water (PTTW) databases were used. This information is meant to be supplemental to the data collected from our well testing field program (presented in Section 4.0), as only a small amount of well test were completed. The GIN and PTTW records, although not field verified, act as “high volume” information sources which are intended to provide general information over a large study area. In addition, personal reports of high yielding wells from area residents were also considered.

The GIN database includes a mapping system which illustrates the location all water wells in a particular search area, along with downloadable information applying to each well of interest. The PTTW database also includes downloadable information pertaining to all active and non-active permits historically approved by the Ministry of the Environment. Applicable information from this database includes the location of water taking sources, source type, purpose of water takings and permitted water taking volumes. Table 1 below provides a summary of records found for the study area.

Our information searches focused on well and PTTW records identifying existing ground water sources which reportedly produce high yields of >50 imperial gpm (>3.8 L/s). Within the study area, a total of 39 high yield wells are listed the GIN database, and a total of 33 high yield ground water sources are listed in the PTTW database. Table 1 summarizes the applicable data listed for these sources.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 4

Table 1 : GIN and PTTW Well Information Summary Groundwater Information Network Database Minimum Maximum Average Well Depth (m) 6.10 24.38 13.38 Static Water Level (m) 1.22 17.98 5.45 Recommended Pumping Rate (IGPM) 50 (3.8 L/s) 801 (60.6 L/s) 142 (10.7 L/s) Permit To Take Water Database Minimum Maximum Average Permitted Maximum Pumping Rate (IGPM) 80 (6.1 L/s) 801 (60.6 L/s) 323 (24.4 L/s)

The reported locations (UTM’s) of the high yield wells listed in the GIN and PTTW databases were plotted on a map of the study area (Figure 2) to illustrate the spatial distribution and identify existing high yield ground water source areas.

As can be seen in Figure 2, there is a large number of high yielding wells in the aquifer corridor, which matches up with the Pleistocene geology mapping presented in Figure 3, as a significant surficial gravel/gravelly sand unit is shown to exist in this area. For the most part, the rest of the high yield well locations are evenly distributed across the study area, which shows that significant aquifer supplies can be found throughout the region.

Detailed information for each ground water source found in the GIN and PTTW databases are presented in Appendix B.

4.0 WELL TESTING PROGRAM AEC staff coordinated and delivered a well testing field program to identify and analyze high yield wells within the study area. This program focused on finding existing higher yielding wells that could be tested to demonstrate the available scale of well yields. The program is exploratory in nature and is not intended to be a detailed testing of an individual well, rather to demonstrate the scale of available yield that could be for a properly constructed municipal supply well. Initially, the GIN well record database was reviewed, and many wells with capacity over 50 imperial gpm (3.8 L/s) were noted. However, the location data within the well logs is sometimes inaccurate so site visits could not reliably identify the noted wells. We followed up on discussions with private property owners, area well drillers, farmers with irrigation systems, developers and commercial owners. The County is also undertaking work to evaluate and increase well yield at the Airport Water Supply. They have commissioned International Water Supply (IWS) to drill and test a new municipal well at the location of the existing airport supply well (south central part of airport property along Colborne Street).

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 5

Four property owners (see Figure 1 for locations) agreed to the voluntary well testing program, including the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), Confederation Freezers (local industrial company) and two private agricultural land owners. The field testing consisted of a short term pumping test (between 7 – 9 hours) using a set pumping rate, along with water quality sampling/analysis taken at the end of each pumping sequence. The duration of pumping for each test varied based on the set pumping rate used (based on the capacity of each pump), as due to timing constraints a Permit to Take Water could not be applied for. Each test did not yield a total pumping volume of greater than 50,000 litres per calendar day, as tests were run overnight (e.g. 8:00pm to 4:00am). At no time did a pumping volume of over 50,000 litres occur before midnight of each testing day.

Throughout each testing sequence, water levels within the pumping well were monitored on 5-second intervals through the installation of an automatic pressure/temperature datalogger (Levelogger® - LT M30), which was verified by periodic manual water level measurements using an electronic water level tape. Following pumping, water levels were monitored until 100% well recovery was achieved. Water quality samples were taken within 15 minutes of the completion of pumping, with samples being stored in coolers filled with ice until they could be delivered to AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga, Ontario) for analysis. Laboratory analysis included a wide range of nutrient, metals, inorganic and microbiological parameters.

The pump testing results were interpreted to evaluate the well yield, and then using aquifer characteristics, potential changes in well design were considered to maximize the well yield to take advantage of available aquifer yield. “Well yield can be defined as the maximum pumping rate that can be supported by a well without lowering the water level in the well below the pump intake. Aquifer yield can be defined as the maximum rate of withdrawal that can be maintained by an aquifer without causing an unacceptable decline in the hydraulic head in the aquifer.” (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).

An efficient well is designed to have a sustainable well yield that approaches the aquifer yield. For the purposes of this evaluation, we considered changes in the well diameter or length of the well screen to increase the well yield within the limits of the aquifer as well as practical limitations for well construction. The saturated thickness of the regional aquifer is, on average, approximately 15 m, and that a well up to 12” (0.3m) in diameter with a 20’ (6m) long well screen was practical for this scenario. Larger wells and screens are possible, but they are expensive and require special considerations.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 6

The effect of increasing well diameter was evaluated using the pump test data and the Thiem equation (e.g. Fetter, 1994). The Thiem equation is as follows:

Where the variables are shown in the following plate. The change in Q is proportional to the log e (1/ ∆r), and can be determined using the ratio of formulas and assume that the change in heads and the change in contributing radius are negligible.

Plate 1 : Schematic of Steady-state Pumping

The effect of changing the length of the well screen was evaluated by considering the change in partial penetration reduction factors for the existing and enlarged cases. The Kozeny formula provides a practical method to evaluate changes in specific capacity using the following formula:

(the Kozeny formula (1933) as taken from Sen, 1995)

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 7

Where L = screen length, H = saturated aquifer thickness and r = well radius

It is noted that, for thick aquifers, it is more efficient to increase the length of the screen (almost a linear relationship) rather than increasing the well diameter (an inverse log relationship). For instance, doubling the well diameter will cause a 10-20% increase in well yield whereas doubling the screen length will almost double the well yield.

The following subsections summarize the scope of each individual well test, along with a summary of the data collected.

4.1 145 Pleasant Ridge Road Between December 16th and 17th, 2013 a pumping test was completed for a well used for agricultural irrigation at 145 Pleasant Ridge Road, Brantford, approximately 2 km south of the Brantford Municipal Airport. This well supplies approximately 100 indoor sprinklers between May and November of each year, and no historical water issues (quantity or quality) were reported by the property owner.

A well pump contractor was hired to remove the existing pump from the well as it was not able to pump at a high enough rate for the test. The contractor installed a 2 horsepower well pump which was able to pump at a maximum rate of 33 imperial gpm (2.5 L/s).

The test was started at approximately 7:00pm on December 16th and water was pumped at a constant rate until approximately 4:00am on December 17th. Pumped water was discharged approximately 100 metres from the well, into a large low-lying area on the property. No water travelled off-site during or following the testing sequence.

A summary of the testing parameters is presented below in Table 2.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 8

Table 2: Testing Summary – 145 Pleasant Ridge Road Parameter Value Well Depth 20.7 metres Well Casing Diameter 5 inches Static Water Level 13.35 metres Pumping Duration 9 hours Recovery Duration (Time To Achieve 100%) 3.5 minutes Maximum Drawdown During Test 4.6 metres Constant Pumping Rate 33 IGPM (2.5 L/s) Total Volume of Water Pumped 80,900 litres Possible Well Record* No log evident although there are several wells in immediate area *possible well record from the GIN database. Well location and details do not necessarily match precisely due to inconsistencies and the precision of well locations in the database.

4.1.1 Results and Interpretation Although the pumping rate during the testing sequence was limited to 33 imperial gpm (2.5 L/s), the observed drawdown (~60% of available drawdown in well) would indicate that the sustainable safe continuous pumping rate (85% of available drawdown in well) is approximately 46 imperial gpm (3.5 L/s). Figure 4 illustrates various pumping rates for he well based on the data collected during the testing sequence, including the recommended safe pumping rate. The hydrograph illustrating the water level fluctuation during the testing sequence is presented in Figure 5. Transmissivity (the measure of the ability of the unit to transmit water) was estimated for the 9-hour test using the Hantush- Jacob solution in Aqtesolv (pumping analysis program). As illustrated in Appendix C, the transmissivity for the aquifer unit was estimated to be 0.00261 m 2/min.

The data from the existing well construction and associated yield can be used to infer potential yield if the well construction is optimized. Wells are typically constructed for a particular purpose and therefore the well design may not necessarily take advantage of the maximum sustainable aquifer yield at that location. A well with larger diameter, a longer well screen or a higher capacity pump could be installed to maximize inlet area and well yield. For example, using the specifications of the 145 Pleasant Ridge Road well screen (2.4 metres in length/4 inches in diameter), if the screen length is increased to 6 metres and the diameter is tripled to 12 inches, the well could theoretically yield upwards of 175 imperial gpm (13.3L/s).

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 9

4.2 445 Ellis Avenue Between December 16th and 17th, 2013 a pumping test was completed for a well used for agricultural irrigation at 445 Ellis Avenue, Brantford, approximately 3 km south of the Brantford Municipal Airport. This well supplies a 5000-head drip irrigation system between May and November of each year, and no historical water issues (quantity or quality) were reported by the property owner.

The existing 2 horsepower pump installed in the well was used for the test, which was able to pump at a maximum rate of 46 imperial gpm (3.5 L/s). The test was started at approximately 8:30pm on December 16th and water was pumped at a constant rate until approximately 3:30am on December 17th. Pumped water was discharged approximately 50 metres from the well, into a large low-lying area on the property. No water travelled off-site during or following the testing sequence.

A summary of the testing parameters is presented below in Table 3.

Table 3 : Testing Summary – 445 Ellis Avenue Parameter Value Well Depth 11.6 metres Well Casing Diameter 6 inches Static Water Level 3.0 metres Pumping Duration 7 hours Recovery Duration (Time To Achieve 100%) 3.5 minutes Maximum Drawdown During Test 3.0 metres Constant Pumping Rate 46 IGPM (3.5 L/s) Total Volume of Water Pumped 87,700 litres Possible Well Record* 1305202 *possible well record from the GIN database. Well location and details do not necessarily match precisely due to inconsistencies and the precision of well locations in the database.

4.2.1 Results and Interpretation Although the pumping rate during the testing sequence was limited to 46 imperial gpm (3.5 L/s), the observed drawdown (~35% of available drawdown in well) would indicate that the sustainable safe continuous pumping rate (85% of available drawdown in well) is approximately 102 imperial gpm (7.7 L/s). Figure 6 illustrates various pumping rates for the well based on the data collected during the testing sequence, including the recommended safe pumping rate. The hydrograph illustrating the water level fluctuation

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 10

during the testing sequence is presented in Figure 7. Transmissivity (the measure of the ability of the unit to transmit water) was estimated for the 7-hour test using the Hantush- Jacob solution in Aqtesolv. As illustrated in Appendix C, the transmissivity for the aquifer unit was estimated to be 0.00233 m 2/min.

The data from the existing well construction and associated yield can be used to infer potential yield if the well construction is optimized. Wells are typically constructed for a particular purpose and therefore the well design may not necessarily take advantage of the maximum sustainable aquifer yield at that location. A well with larger diameter, a longer well screen or a higher capacity pump could be installed to maximize inlet area and well yield. For example, using the specifications of the 445 Ellis Avenue well screen (1.2 metres in length/5 inches in diameter), if the screen length is increased to 6 metres and the diameter is increased to 12 inches, the well could theoretically yield upwards of 730 imperial gpm (55.2 L/s).

Potential Interference with Mt. Pleasant Wellhead Capture Zone The well location at 445 Ellis Avenue is approximately 350m north of the Wellhead Protection Area D (WHPA-D) for the current Mt. Pleasant well supply. WHPA-D is defined as the 25-year capture zone for the well and is determined by backward particle tracking using a ground water model. The implication is that infiltration and ground water entering into the WHPA-D area may be drawn into the well within a 25-year period. It may also pass by the well if more shallow or deep than the well screen horizon.

If another well was created in an area and its WHPA overlapped with the WHPA of an existing well, then the wells will have mutual interference in their capture zones. An example of this can be seen for the Gilbert and Tefler WHPA-D (Map 14-2 in the Proposed Amended Grand River Source Protection Assessment Report), which shows that the WHPA-D is co-mingled and extends further than if either source was considered separately.

If the Zone of Influence for two wells overlaps, then the wells will have mutual interference in terms of the their yield, which will then be reduced for each of the wells. A Zone of Influence is the area where the well causes some degree of drawdown, and is typically considered as the zone where the drawdown is greater than 0.1m. For municipal wells in permeable sediments, the Zone of Influence can be estimated using the Thiem equation and is graphically shown on Plate 1 above (labelled as the “Cone of Depression”). For municipal wells, it is typically within 200-500m, which corresponds with WHPA-B. Where the WHPA-B’s are co-mingled, there can be a corresponding decrease in well yield due to interference.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 11

4.3 21 York Road (Confederation Freezers) Between January 16th and 17th, 2014 a pumping test was completed for a well used for industrial purposes (cooling) at 21 York Road, Brantford, just east of the Brantford Municipal Airport. This well is responsible for temperature stabilization in one of two cooling towers at the building. No historical water issues (quantity or quality) were reported by the property owner.

A well pump contractor was hired to remove the existing pump from the well as it was not able to pump at a high enough rate for the test. The contractor installed a 2 horsepower well pump which was able to pump at a maximum rate of 37 imperial gpm (2.8 L/s). The test was started at approximately 7:30pm on January 16th and water was pumped at a constant rate until approximately 4:30am on January 17th. Pumped water was discharged into an onsite catch basin which is part of the municipal sewer system. The catch basin easily conveyed the discharge with no concerns of backing up/flooding.

A summary of the testing parameters is presented below in Table 4.

Table 4 : Testing Summary – 21 York Road Parameter Value Well Depth 21.3 metres Well Casing Diameter 6 inches Static Water Level 13.9 metres Pumping Duration 9 hours Recovery Duration (Time To Achieve 100%) 1.5 minutes Maximum Drawdown During Test 0.15 metres Constant Pumping Rate 37 IGPM (2.8 L/s) Total Volume of Water Pumped 90,700 litres Possible Well Record* 1300273 *possible well record from the GIN database. Well location and details do not necessarily match precisely due to inconsistencies and the precision of well locations in the database.

4.3.1 Results and Interpretation Although the pumping rate during the testing sequence was limited to 37 imperial gpm (2.8 L/s), the observed drawdown (~2% of available drawdown in well) would indicate that the sustainable safe continuous pumping rate (85% of available drawdown in well) is approximately 495 imperial gpm (37.5 L/s). Figure 8 illustrates various pumping rates

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 12

for the well based on the data collected during the testing sequence, including the recommended safe pumping rate. The hydrograph illustrating the water level fluctuation during the testing sequence is presented in Figure 9. Transmissivity (the measure of the ability of the unit to transmit water) was estimated for the 9-hour test using the Hantush- Jacob solution in Aqtesolv. As illustrated in Appendix C, the transmissivity for the aquifer unit was estimated to be 0.9948 m 2/min.

The data from the existing well construction and associated yield can be used to infer potential yield if the well construction is optimized. Wells are typically constructed for a particular purpose and therefore the well design may not necessarily take advantage of the maximum sustainable aquifer yield at that location. A well with larger diameter, a longer well screen or a higher capacity pump could be installed to maximize inlet area and well yield. For example, using the specifications of the 21 York Road well screen (1.5 metres in length/5 inches in diameter), if the screen length and diameter are increased to 6 metres and 12 inches, respectively, the well could theoretically yield upwards of 1690 imperial gpm (128 L/s).

4.4 25 Wight Road (GRCA – Burford Tree Nursery) Between January 28th and 29th, 2014 a pumping test was completed for a well used for agricultural purposes at 25 Wight Road, Burford (Burford Tree Nursery), approximately 10 km west of the Brantford Municipal Airport. This well supplies a 500-head drip irrigation system between May and September of each year, and no historical water issues (quantity or quality) were reported by the property owner.

A well pump contractor was hired to remove the existing pump from the well as it was not able to pump at a high enough rate for the test. The contractor installed a 2 horsepower well pump which was able to pump at a maximum rate of 42 imperial gpm (3.2 L/s). The test was started at approximately 8:00pm on January 28th and water was pumped at a constant rate until approximately 4:00am on January 29th. Pumped water was discharged approximately 75 metres from the well, into a large low-lying area on the property. No water travelled off-site during or following the testing sequence.

A summary of the testing parameters is presented below in Table 5.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 13

Table 5 : Testing Summary – 25 Wight Road Parameter Value Well Depth 18.9 metres Well Casing Diameter 6 inches Static Water Level 8.8 metres Pumping Duration 8 hours Recovery Duration (Time To Achieve 100%) 4.5 hours Maximum Drawdown During Test 7.8 metres Constant Pumping Rate 42 IGPM (3.2 L/s) Total Volume of Water Pumped 92,400 litres 1306671 (poorly match to location) and several wells Possible Well record* noted with no details provided *possible well record from the GIN database. Well location and details do not necessarily match precisely due to inconsistencies and the precision of well locations in the database.

4.4.1 Results and Interpretation Although the pumping rate during the testing sequence was limited to 42 imperial gpm (3.2 L/s), the observed drawdown (~80% of available drawdown in well) would indicate that the sustainable safe continuous pumping rate (85% of available drawdown in well) is approximately 48 imperial gpm (3.6 L/s). Figure 10 illustrates various pumping rates for the well based on the data collected during the testing sequence, including the recommended safe pumping rate. The hydrograph illustrating the water level fluctuation during the testing sequence is presented in Figure 11. Transmissivity (the measure of the ability of the unit to transmit water) was estimated for the 8-hour test using the Hantush- Jacob solution in Aqtesolv. As illustrated in Appendix C, the transmissivity for the aquifer unit was estimated to be 0.00878 m 2/min.

The data from the existing well construction and associated yield can be used to infer potential yield if the well construction is optimized. Wells are typically constructed for a particular purpose and therefore the well design may not necessarily take advantage of the maximum sustainable aquifer yield at that location. A well with larger diameter, a longer well screen or a higher capacity pump could be installed to maximize inlet area and well yield. For example, using the specifications of the 25 Wight Road well screen (1.2 metres in length/5 inches in diameter), if the screen length is tripled to 3.6 metres

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 14

and the diameter is increased to 12 inches, the well could theoretically yield upwards of 240 imperial gpm (18.2 L/s).

4.5 Well Yield Summary The testing of existing private wells is used to extrapolate the approximate range of yields that could be developed for properly constructed municipal wells and regarding the potential yield that a properly constructed municipal well could have in that location. These are not precise inferences but demonstrate approximate solutions, with an estimated precision of ±20%. Assumptions made fall at the conservative end of a reasonable range. When municipal well is constructed, further delineation of overburden conditions and well design will be required.

To summarize the calculated existing and projected yield for each of the wells tested during the field program, the data included in the previous sections is presented below in Table 6.

Table 6 : Projected Well Yield Summary Test Well Existing Well Yield Projected Well Yield 145 Pleasant Ridge Road 46 IGPM (3.5 L/s) 175 IGPM (13.3 L/s) 445 Ellis Avenue* 102 IGPM (7.7 L/s) 730 IGPM (55.2 L/s) 21 York Road 495 IGPM (37.5 L/s) 1690 IGPM (128 L/s) 25 Wight Road 48 IGPM (3.6 L/s) 240 IGPM (18.2 L/s) *only 50% of the Ellis value incorporated into the totals

A conservative allowance of 50% has been incorporated to the 445 Ellis Avenue to reflect the potential for mutual interference with the Mt. Pleasant well system. Thus, the total projected well yield is ~187L/s. Sustainable well yield is analogous to the maximum day demand. Using a peaking factor of 2.75, this is equivalent to 68L/s average day demand.

The test well locations are presented in Figure 1. As can be seen in this figure, these wells are located within 0.5-5 km of the Airport well supply. The highest yield (existing and projected) calculated using the well testing data was the 21 York Road (Confederation Freezers) well which is the closest to the Airport well.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 15

5.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS A thorough review of the water quality analysis completed by AGAT Laboratories for the wells tested during the field program indicates that water quality within the vicinity of the Airport water system is suitable for a municipal supply. Considering the regional overburden aquifer is largely an unconfined surficial aquifer, there are theoretical risks associated with contamination from surface sources such as agricultural use of fertilizers and pesticides and septic beds. There have also been historical issues in the area (largely within the Paris area) with elevated nitrate, sulphate, iron and hardness levels in the municipal wells supplies (KMK, 2005).

The results provided by AGAT Laboratories show that these parameters (with the exception of hardness) in ground water within the vicinity of the Airport are well below the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (ODWQS, 2006). Nitrate levels were found to be in the range of 1.18 – 7.12 mg/L (Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) = <10 mg/L), sulphate levels were found to be in the range of 38.7 – 134.0 mg/L (aesthetic objective (AO) = <500 mg/L), iron levels were found to be below 0.01 mg/L (AO = <0.3 mg/L) and hardness levels were found to be in the range of 251 – 379 mg/L (operational guideline (OG) = 80 – 100 mg/L). Complete water quality results are presented in Appendix D. The highest level of nitrate was from the Burford Tree Nursery well, which could explain the higher concentration when compared to the other test wells (tree/plant fertilizer applications).

A summary of the ODWQS exceedences is provided below in Table 7, along with a discussion of these parameters and their impact on drinking water and distribution systems.

Table 7: Summary of ODWQS Exceedences ODWQS Exceedences Parameter Units Objective Type Concentration Location Total Coliform 0 Health CFU/100mL 1 145 Pleasant Ridge Manganese 0.05 Aesthetic mg/L 0.07 145 Pleasant Ridge Hardness 80 - 100 Aesthetic mg/L 251 - 379 All Wells

5.1 Total Coliforms The microbiological standard for total coliform has exceeded provincial limits in the well located at 145 Pleasant Ridge Road. The value was 1 CFU/100 mL for the sample taken at the end of the pumping test, while the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) is 0 CFU/100 ml. The coliform group of microorganisms has been the most commonly

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 16

used bacteriological indicator of water quality. The coliform group consists of several types of bacteria and their presence in drinking water is indicative of inadequate disinfection. The limited total coliform counts indicate that these exceedances do not represent a significant issue with the water quality of the target aquifer and disinfection of the source well would likely mitigate this issue. In addition, minimum standards for municipal treatment include disinfection and residual disinfection which are more than capable of resolving the single observed exceedance.

5.2 Manganese The manganese level at the well located at 145 Pleasant Ridge Road exceeded provincial limits. The value was 0.07 mg/L for the sample taken at the end of the pumping test, while the Aesthetic Objective is 0.05 mg/L. Manganese is objectionable in water supplies because it stains laundry, and at excessive concentrations causes undesirable tastes in beverages. Manganese may also encourage the build up of a slimy coating in piping, which can slough off as black precipitate. Manganese at low exceedance levels is most commonly treated by activated carbon or pressure filter systems for household systems. Manganese at the observed levels can be treated at the municipal level by oxidation and filtration.

5.3 Hardness All wells tested during the field program exceeded criteria for hardness. The operational guideline for hardness in drinking water is set at between 80 and 100 mg/L as calcium carbonate. Hard water has a tendency to form scale deposits and can form excessive scum with regular soaps. Conversely, soft water may result in accelerated corrosion of water pipes. The results for the samples collected during the pumping tests were between 251 and 379 mg/L (considered hard water). It can be treated by standard residential water softening systems.

5.4 Nitrate Nitrate levels from the four well tests and at the airport well are below the ODWQS (range of 2-7mg/L) but do show a low level of influence. Nitrate has an MAC of 10 mg/L. Concern for nitrate relates to methaemoglobinaemia, which affects the ability to transfer oxygen to body tissue. The issue is mainly related to susceptible infants and young children.

The potential for the introduction of nitrate mainly relates to the infiltration of water carrying agricultural fertilizer into the ground water regime. Lotowater (2005) provided an evaluation of potential contamination from surface sources by considering ground

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 17

water intrinsic susceptibility (GWIS). This characterization provides a quantitative score based on aquifer permeability, thickness and vertical travel time. It does not include land use as potential sources for contamination. Most of the Airport aquifer has a rating of “High Susceptibility” and therefore warrants specific care to consider surrounding land use near a potential municipal well site. This is particularly relevant to land uses within 500m.

5.5 Treatment Summary The potential requirements for municipal treatment reflect the natural water quality due to the mineralogy of the overburden aquifer and the potential impact from anthropogenic sources to the unconfined aquifer. Water quality and the need for treatment would be verified through the design, construction and testing of any new municipal source.

The natural water quality is quite good with potential need to treat for manganese levels which are slightly above or close to the ODWQS level. Iron was not observed to be elevated, however, it is frequently associated with manganese. Organic concentrations are low so that the formation of trihalomethanes from chlorination is not expected to be a significant issue.

Nitrate primarily from agricultural products is the main potential anthropogenic input requiring treatment. Nitrate levels from the four well tests and at the airport well are below the ODWQS (range of 2-7mg/L) but do show a low level of influence. With careful selection of a municipal well location, it is expected that nitrate levels will remain below the ODWQS and not require treatment.

In summary, the treatment requirements are expected to be similar to the existing requirements for the Airport system. The treatment requirements for a new well or well network is expected to be limited to oxidation and filtration for low levels of metals.

6.0 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER BUDGET One option being considered for the generation of water available for potable water use, particularly for the two planned developments and generally for Paris, is focused on the sustainable yield of the surficial and shallow overburden aquifers in the Airport water supply area. Thus, the sustainable aquifer yield relates to an acceptable proportion of the annual recharge that can be utilized for potable water supply without adversely affecting its natural heritage function. Based on water use evaluations in other jurisdictions, the use of up to 25% of the annual infiltration can occur without significant adverse impact to

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 18

the natural heritage function of the ground water regime. Potable water use in Paris is a consumptive use because treated sewage effluent is discharged to the Grand River, and not back into the aquifer system. Irrigation water use is a non-consumptive use because irrigation water is applied to the land surface and either bolsters the soil moisture surplus or compensates for evapotranspiration.

Because the potable water use focuses on shallow ground water, the assessment can be completed using a simple water budget. A water budget represents the balance of water in the hydrological cycle and is defined by:

∆S = P-ET-R-I Where: ∆S = Change in storage (mm/year)(essentially zero over time) P = Precipitation (mm/year) ET = Evapotranspiration (mm/year) R= Runoff (mm/year) I= Infiltration (mm/year)

Precipitation enters the system as either rain or snow. Water is then lost via evapotranspiration, establishing a net surplus or deficit in water. In cases of surplus, the water will either infiltrate into the ground or runoff depending on the type of substrate and its moisture content. Infiltrated water will migrate towards ground water and surface runoff will eventually join a surface water body. On a long time scale, a balance between precipitation, evapotranspiration, infiltration and runoff will be achieved resulting in a net zero change in storage.

46 years (1960-2006) of precipitation and temperature data were collected from the Environment Canada National Climate Data and Information Archive. The Brantford MOE station was selected as it is close to the Town of Paris, and the Thornthwaite and Mather (1957) water balance method was employed to determine the relative quantities of each hydrologic process. This methodology calculates surplus conditions on a monthly basis over the period of record. Allowance is made for retention of moisture as accumulated snow when the monthly average temperature is below -1°C. The following discussion highlights the results on an annualized average basis.

From the climate dataset, total precipitation (rain + snow) is 835 mm/year, within the range of 495 to 1,174 mm/year. The Thornthwaite and Mather method estimates annually 488 mm/year (± 240 mm/year) of water will be lost to evapotranspiration, producing an annual water surplus of approximately 347 mm/year (±302 mm/year). Of

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 19

the 347 mm/year surplus, approximately 195 mm/year will contribute to runoff and approximately 152 mm/year will contribute to infiltration. For comparison, Lotowater completed a similar assessment and estimated infiltration to be an average of 156mm/year, which is essentially the same value. The Source Protection Assessment Report (2012) used an average recharge of 176 mm/year across the entire watershed and used 350 mm/year and 200 mm/year for the glacial outwash and sand respectively around the Airport. Thus, our value is considered appropriate and conservative.

Infiltration is proportional to the surface area over which infiltration occurs. A scenario was considered for the contributing aquifer area near the Airport that could reasonably be assumed to contribute ground water within the catchment area for municipal supply wells.

The Airport aquifer represents about 20% of the available watershed around Paris (~2,500 hectares), and only has a single municipal supply well. A range of infiltration is considered (152mm/year to 200mm/year). Within the local capture area around the Airport, the infiltration is approximately 3.8 to 5.0 million m 3/year and the existing municipal use is approximately 2% of this value. If additional sources were to fully exploit (i.e. to 25% of annual average recharge), then the municipal supplies in this area could utilize 950,000 to 1,250,000 m3/year (which equals 30 to 40 L/s). These values correlate to annual average day demand.

Overall, the general information contends that there is significant additional ground water capacity available that could be brought into production to supply the Paris area. This conclusion is based on the individual sustainable yields from existing sources. In order to fully utilize this capacity, additional storage, treatment and high lift capability will be required. If developed, this additional capacity on its own would be sufficient to satisfy the Paris growth plans.

The well testing work completed as part of this undertaking reflect the promising opportunity to develop additional sources in the area of the Airport. The aquifer system in the area of the Airport is underutilized as a potential source of potable water. The local contributing area is approximately 2,500ha and is partially isolated from the remainder of the Paris aquifer by the valleys of the Grand River and Whiteman’s Creek. The substrate of the Grand River is bedrock and the Whiteman’s Creek valley is approximately 20m deep close to the Grand River, and is about 10m deep near Mount Vernon, partially penetrating the surficial aquifer.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 20

Water quality testing from the existing Airport well and the wells analyzed during our field testing program display low nitrate levels, indicating that this area is less susceptible to the agricultural impacts that are evident to the north. The Airport Drinking Water Surveillance Reports from 2008 and 2012 indicate that nitrate levels in the untreated water fall between 2 and 3 mg/L.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our desktop and field evaluations, we conclude that the Airport Aquifer has annual infiltration of 3.8 to 5.0 million m 3/year and that use of up to approximately 25% of these values (950,000 to 1,250,000 m 3/year) for municipal supply can be undertaken with little risk to ecosystem function. Four wells were tested, having a cumulative sustainable yield of ~187L/s, which correlates to an average day demand of ~68L/s.

These two proposed Paris developments represent a combined incremental water demand of up to 421,000 m3/year (13.4 L/s). Considering the projected well yield analysis completed for the wells tested during our field program, two of the wells tested have the capacity on their own to surpass this water demand, and the aggregate yield is more than 5x this value. Proper design of a supply / treatment system will readily be able to meet this demand.

The water quality data for the target aquifer indicates that it is generally suitable for municipal potable supply, without significant requirements for treatment.

We conclude that the area near the Brant Airport well supply is capable of providing a sustainable potable water supply for the proposed Northwest Paris Study Area and the Nith Peninsula Study Area.

8.0 FURTHER WORK The information supports the likelihood that additional municipal well sources could be developed within the Airport Aquifer to meet future expansion demand for municipal water supply in the Paris. Further work would be required to identify the most appropriate location, to undertake the detailed design of a well or wells and a treatment / distribution system as well as consideration of the legislative requirements to create a new ground water source. The County has instigated a Class Environmental Assessment for these purposes.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 21

An aspect of the program will be to consider the potential hydraulic link to surface water bodies and the potential influx of surface water or recently infiltrated water into the system. Such a source is referred to as ground water under the direct influence (GUDI) of surface water and have enhanced filtration and disinfection requirements under O.Reg. 170/03 (SWDA) as if it is a surface water source.

The Grand River Source Protection Assessment would be updated to reflect the creation of the new source and would incorporate the new source(s) into that analysis.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 22

9.0 REFERENCES Aecom, Bethel Road Water Treatment Plant Scoping Report, August 2009.

Azimuth Environmental, January 2010. Review of Water Supply Options And Long Term Municipal Demand For the Kulmatycky / Zavarella Properties

Cowan, W.R., Pleistocene Geology of the Brantford Area Southern Ontario, Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs, Industrial Mineral Report 37, 1972.

Fetter, C. W., Applied Hydrogeology, MacMillan College Publishing Company, New York, 1994.

Grand River Source Protection Assessment Report, August 2012

GSP Group, May 2012. Northwest Paris Area Study

Lotowater Geoscience Consultants Ltd, Assessment of Groundwater Availability Part I Water Servicing Review for the Southwest Paris and Airport Study Areas, County of Brant, February 2004

Lotowater Geoscience Consultants Ltd, County of Brant Municipal Groundwater Study, June 2005

KMK Consultants Limited, County of Brant, Water Servicing Review for the Southwest Paris and Airport Study Areas, Final Report, January 2005

MHBC Planning, Nith Peninsula Area Study and Supporting Technical Reports, Paris Ontario, County of Brant, updated June 2009

Ministry of the Environment, Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWQS), updated June 2006

Naylor Engineering Associates Limited, Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Residential Subdivision Zavarella and Kulmatycky Properties Dundas Street, Town of Paris, County of Brant, Ontario, June 2008.

Naylor Engineering Associates Limited, Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Subdivision Kulmatycky and Bronstetter Properties Dundas, County of Brant, Ontario, October 2008.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 23

Ontario Department of Mines, Pleistocene Geology of the Brantford Area (West Half), Preliminary Geological Map P.582, 40P/1 West, 1970

Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs, Map 2240, Brantford Area Pleistocene Geology, 1971

Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs, Map 2241, Brantford Area Granular Deposits, 1971

Sen, Z., 1995. Applied Hydrogeology for Scientists and Engineers, CRC Press, 1995

Stantec, 2008 Permit To Take Water Monitoring Report, Gilbert Municipal Wells, Paris Urban Area, County of Brant, Ontario, February 2009a.

Stantec, 2008 Permit To Take Water Monitoring Report, Telfer Municipal Wells, Paris Urban Area, County of Brant, Ontario, February 2009b.

Stantec, Paris Urban Area Groundwater Monitoring Program, 2008 Annual Monitoring Report, County of Brant, Ontario, February 2009c.

Watson and Associates, 2008, Brant County Official Plan Review, Growth Analysis Study, 2006 to 2031

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING , INC . 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: GIN and PTTW Records Appendix C: Hydraulic Testing Analysis (Aqtesolv) Appendix D: Water Quality Data

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC .

APPENDIX A

Figures

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC .

Figure 4: Estimated Well Yield - 145 Pleasant Ridge Road

12

Predicted Drawdown at Various Discharge Rates

Total Available Drawdown Within Well 10 Recommended Maximum Safe Pumping Level (85% of total)

Minimum of Recommended Pumping Range (60% of total)

8

6 Drawdown (m) (m) DrawdownDrawdown

4 Estimated Maximum Yield

209 L/min (46 igpm) 2

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Q (L/min) Figure 5: Pumping Test Data - 145 Pleasant Ridge Road

8

Measured Water Level

10

12 Start of Pumping

14

16 Ground Water Level WaterWaterLevel Level Ground Ground (mbgs) (mbgs)

18

End of Pumping

20

22 Dec-16 5:45 PM Dec-16 7:40 PM Dec-16 9:36 PM Dec-16 11:31 PM Dec-17 1:26 AM Dec-17 3:21 AM Dec-17 5:16 AM Figure 6: Estimated Well Yield - 445 Ellis Avenue 12

Predicted Drawdown at Various Discharge Rates

Total Available Drawdown Within Well 10 Recommended Maximum Safe Pumping Level (85% of total)

Minimum of Recommended Pumping Range (60% of total)

8

6 Drawdown (m) (m) DrawdownDrawdown

4 Estimated Maximum Yield

463 L/min (102 igpm)

2

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Q (L/min) Figure 7: Pumping Test Data - 445 Ellis Avenue 0

Measured Water Level

2

Start of Pumping

4

6

8 Ground Water Level Level Level WaterWater (mbgs) (mbgs) Ground Ground End of Pumping

10

12 Dec-16 7:40 PM Dec-16 9:07 PM Dec-16 10:33 PM Dec-17 12:00 AM Dec-17 1:26 AM Dec-17 2:52 AM Dec-17 4:19 AM Figure 8: Estimated Well Yield - 21 York Road

14

Total Available Head Predicted Drawdown at Various Discharge Rates 12 Conservative Pumping Head (60% of Total) Pump Inlet Depth (85% of Total Head)

10

8 (m)

6 Drawdown Drawdown

4 Maximum flow rate estimated at ~2,250 L/min

2 Minimum flow rate estimated at ~1,600 L/min

0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Discharge (L/min) Figure 9: Pumping Test Data - 21 York Road

13

13.2 Measured Water Level

13.4

13.6

Start of Pumping 13.8

14

14.2 End of Pumping Ground Water Level WaterWaterLevel Level Ground Ground (mbgs) (mbgs) 14.4

14.6

14.8

15 Jan-16 5:45 PM Jan-16 7:40 PM Jan-16 9:36 PM Jan-16 11:31 PM Jan-17 1:26 AM Jan-17 3:21 AM Jan-17 5:16 AM Figure 10: Estimated Well Yield - 25 Wight Road

18

Predicted Drawdown at Various Discharge Rates

Total Available Drawdown Within Well 15 Recommended Maximum Safe Pumping Level (85% of total)

Minimum of Recommended Pumping Range (60% of total)

12

9 Drawdown (m) (m) DrawdownDrawdown

6

Estimated Maximum Yield

220 L/min (48 igpm) 3

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Q (L/min) Figure 11: Pumping Test Data - 25 Wight Road

4

Measured Water Level

6

Start of Pumping 8

10

12

14 Ground Water Level Level Level WaterWater (mbgs) (mbgs) Ground Ground

16

End of Pumping 18

20 Jan-28 6:43 PM Jan-28 9:07 PM Jan-28 11:31 PM Jan-29 1:55 AM Jan-29 4:19 AM Jan-29 6:43 AM Jan-29 9:07 AM

APPENDIX B

GIN and PTTW Records

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC .

Groundwater Information Network Database Information

Depth Water Level Well Yield Well Yield Screen Depth Bottom Well ID Top (m) GIN Lithology Easting Northing (m) (m) (L/min) (IGPM) (m) (m) 1300272 24.38 17.98 454.61 100 22.8 to 24.0 0.00 2.13 Unknown material 554314 4775333 2.13 16.46 Sand 16.46 24.38 Gravel 1300273 21.03 16.76 454.61 100 18.5 to 20.1 0.00 16.15 Sand 554314 4775303 16.15 21.03 Gravel 1300371 12.19 2.13 1363 300 7.6 to 10.6 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 552854 4772172 0.30 1.83 Silt 1.83 12.19 Gravel 1300604 13.72 6.10 340 75 10.6 to 13.7 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 546463 4771707 0.30 13.72 Sand Gravel 1300621 10.06 5.18 363 80 7.6 to 10.0 0.00 0.91 Soil 546764 4770788 0.91 10.06 Sand Gravel 1300633 12.19 2.74 272 60 9.1 to 12.1 0.00 12.19 Sand Gravel 547789 4769273 1300676 18.29 6.71 1363 300 12.8 to 16.7 0.00 18.29 Sand 548964 4767223 1301265 14.94 3.35 3636 801 11.8 to 14.9 0.00 5.18 Sand Gravel 548484 4769822 5.18 12.80 Sand 12.80 14.94 Sand Gravel 1302056 13.41 No Data 681 150 10.3 to 13.4 0.00 0.30 Soil 554253 4768879 0.30 13.41 Sand 1302283 20.12 10.97 727 160 14.3 to 18.9 0.00 3.05 Sand 548634 4770583 3.05 6.10 Sand Gravel 6.10 14.33 Gravel Clay 14.33 16.15 Sand 16.15 17.68 Gravel 17.68 18.90 Sand 18.90 20.12 Gravel Clay 1302451 13.11 4.57 1136 250 10.0 to 13.1 0.00 4.57 Sand Gravel 548434 4768742 4.57 8.23 Sand 8.23 13.11 Sand Gravel 1302452 14.02 No Data 454 100 10.6 to 13.7 0.00 0.30 Soil 550674 4765222 0.30 5.79 Silt 5.79 14.02 Sand 1302877 10.97 1.22 454 100 9.7 to 10.9 0.00 0.61 Topsoil 545994 4770763 0.61 6.10 Gravel 6.10 9.14 Sand 9.14 10.97 Gravel 1303174 17.37 3.66 227 50 14.3 to 17.3 0.00 17.37 Sand 550818 4765241 1303490 12.80 1.52 1363 300 9.7 to 12.8 0.00 0.61 Topsoil 551323 4770682 0.61 12.8 Sand 1303503 14.33 1.52 909 200 11.2 to 14.3 0.00 0.61 Topsoil 550864 4766069 0.61 1.52 Clay 1.52 10.67 Clay 10.67 14.33 Sand 1303541 8.53 3.05 227 50 No Data 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 552823 4767990 0.30 3.66 Gravel 3.66 5.18 Sand 5.18 5.49 Clay 5.49 8.53 Sand 1303542 7.01 3.05 227 50 No Data 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 552823 4767990 0.30 1.83 Gravel 1.83 3.05 Sand 3.05 4.57 Gravel 4.57 4.88 Clay 4.88 7.01 Sand 1303709 7.62 1.22 340 75 No Data 0.00 1.22 Sand 551360 4766659 1.22 6.10 Silt 6.10 7.62 Gravel 1303762 15.85 2.74 454 100 13.4 to 15.8 0.00 1.83 Sand 550883 4766052 1.83 6.71 Clay Silt 6.71 11.89 Sand Silt 11.89 15.85 Gravel Sand 1303838 12.50 1.83 909 200 9.4 to 12.5 0.00 0.61 Topsoil 551337 4770718 0.61 12.5 Sand 1304028 9.75 No Data 454 100 6.4 to 9.1 0.00 0.91 Topsoil 551312 4766633 0.91 6.10 Sand 6.10 6.40 Clay 6.40 6.71 Gravel Sand 6.71 9.75 Sand Gravel 1304749 12.19 5.49 522 115 9.7 to 12.1 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547093 4770596 0.30 12.19 Sand Gravel 1304750 11.58 5.49 522 115 9.1 to 11.5 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547126 4770552 0.30 11.58 Sand Gravel 1304751 12.19 5.49 454 100 10.6 to 12.1 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547087 4770569 0.30 12.19 Sand Gravel 1304752 12.19 5.49 522 115 9.7 to 12.1 0.00 0.30 Soil 547104 4770549 0.30 12.19 Sand Gravel 1304753 12.19 5.49 522 115 9.4 to 12.1 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547119 4770601 0.30 5.49 Sand Gravel 5.49 8.84 Sand Gravel 8.84 12.19 Sand Gravel 1304754 12.19 5.49 568 125 9.1 to 12.1 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547142 4770571 0.30 12.19 Sand Gravel 1305460 15.54 7.92 454 100 12.1 to 15.2 0.00 2.74 Gravel Clay 548376 4769344 2.74 15.54 Sand Gravel 1305800 14.02 6.40 454 100 11.5 to 14.0 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547381 4770530 0.30 7.92 Sand Gravel 7.92 11.28 Sand Clay Gravel 11.28 14.02 Gravel Sand 1305801 14.02 6.40 454 100 11.5 to 14.0 0.00 0.30 Topoil 547381 4770530 0.30 11.28 Sand Gravel 11.28 14.02 Gravel Silt 1305802 14.02 6.10 454 100 11.5 to 14.0 0.00 11.28 Sand Gravel 547381 4770530 11.28 14.02 Gravel Sand 1305803 14.02 6.10 454 100 11.5 to 14.0 0.00 8.84 Gravel Sand 547381 4770530 8.84 11.58 Sand Gravel 11.58 14.02 Gravel Silt 1305805 13.11 5.18 727 160 10.6 to 13.1 0.00 0.30 Topoil 547777 4769212 0.30 5.18 Gravel Gravel Sand 5.18 9.45 Sand Gravel 9.45 10.67 Gravel Sand Clay 10.67 13.11 Gravel 1305806 13.11 4.88 272 60 10.6 to 13.1 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547777 4769212 0.30 1.52 Clay Gravel 1.52 7.92 Sand Clay Gravel 7.92 9.45 Sand Silt 9.45 10.67 Clay Gravel 10.67 13.11 Gravel 13.11 13.11 Sand Silt 1305807 13.11 5.18 818 180 No Data 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547777 4769212 0.30 9.45 Gravel Sand 9.45 13.11 Gravel 1305808 14.02 6.40 454 100 11.5 to 14.0 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547777 4769212 0.30 8.23 Gravel Sand 8.23 11.28 Sand Gravel Clay 11.28 14.02 Gravel Silt 1305809 14.02 6.40 454 100 11.5 to 14.0 0.00 0.30 Topsoil 547381 4770530 0.30 7.92 Sand Gravel 7.92 11.28 Sand Clay 11.28 14.02 Gravel Sand 7045786 6.10 6.19 227 50 15.0 to 16.0 0.00 1.83 Topsoil 546816 4771483 1.83 9.14 Gravel Sand 9.14 16.06 Sand Gravel Permit To Take Water Database Information

PURPOSE SOURCE ID EASTING NORTHING MAX L/DAY MAX L/MIN GPM Agricultural Well 540485 4767291 240000 1000 220 Agricultural Well 540488 4767300 85500 1520 335 Agricultural Well 542703 4765118 682000 570 126 Industrial Well #1 543171 4765079 1310400 910 200 Agricultural Wellpoints 543628 4772241 409140 682 150 Industrial Well #2 543780 4765030 1310400 910 200 Agricultural Casing 543819 4773666 2620000 1818 401 Agricultural Five sand points 543834 4764909 360000 500 110 Commercial 5 Well Points 546349 4765234 2628000 1825 402 Agricultural Home Farm Well 547050 4770650 5040000 3500 771 Agricultural Sandpoints 547084 4767972 2617920 1818 400 Agricultural Sandpoints 547084 4767972 2617920 1818 400 Agricultural Wilson Farm Well 547250 4770150 5040000 3500 771 Agricultural Well 547360 4776021 1309300 950 209 Agricultural Pfleger Farm Well 547500 4769089 2520000 1750 385 Agricultural Well 1 (6 well points) 548360 4768685 1090000 795 175 Agricultural Well "One" (WWR #39996) 548436 4775248 630000 700 154 Agricultural Well 548612 4767610 3273000 2273 501 Agricultural Irrigation Well 549011 4767124 2318460 1932 426 Agricultural Well DaSilva 549291 4771186 5236992 3637 801 Agricultural Wells (6) 550471 4772335 1146000 1591 350 Agricultural Main Well 550715 4766094 720000 500 110 Water Supply TW 1/05 550781 4777853 1296000 900 198 Water Supply PW 1/12 550781 4777853 1310400 910 200 Water Supply PW 2/12 550782 4777834 1310400 910 200 Agricultural 6 Sandpoints 551224 4773909 2589000 1795 395 Agricultural 6 Sandpoints 552165 4775780 2589120 1798 396 Water Supply Airport Municipal Well 553900 4775032 2290000 1590 350 Water Supply Mt. Pleasant Well #1 554813 4770994 2290000 1590 350 Water Supply Mt. Pleasant Well #2 554813 4770994 2290000 1590 350 Commercial Well #1 557245 4777150 200000 900 198 Agricultural 5 Well Points 548018 4766262 1448100 1609 354 Agricultural Well 548169 4773753 219000 364 80

APPENDIX C

Hydraulic Testing Analysis (Aqtesolv)

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC .

10.

1. Displacement (m)

0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec)

145 PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD Data Set: M:\...\145 Pleasant Ridge Road.aqt Date: 01/30/14 Time: 11:35:20

PROJECT INFORMATION Company: Azimuth Environmental Project: 13-289 Test Well: 145 Pleasant Ridge Road Well Test Date: December 16, 2013

WELL DATA Pumping Wells Observation Wells Well Name X (m) Y (m) Well Name X (m) Y (m) Pumping Well 0 0 Pumping Well 0 0

SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush-Jacob T = 0.00261 m2/min S = 0.1193 r/B = 0.887 Kz/Kr = 1. b = 8. m 10.

1. Displacement (m)

0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec)

445 ELLIS AVENUE Data Set: M:\...\445 Ellis Avenue.aqt Date: 01/30/14 Time: 11:41:05

PROJECT INFORMATION Company: Azimuth Environmental Project: 13-289 Test Well: 445 Ellis Avenue Test Date: December 16, 2013

WELL DATA Pumping Wells Observation Wells Well Name X (m) Y (m) Well Name X (m) Y (m) Pumping Well 0 0 Pumping Well 0 0

SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush-Jacob T = 0.002334 m2/min S = 0.04738 r/B = 1.513 Kz/Kr = 1. b = 8. m 1.

0.1 Displacement (m)

0.01 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec)

21 YORK ROAD Data Set: M:\...\21 York Road.aqt Date: 01/30/14 Time: 11:17:42

PROJECT INFORMATION Company: Azimuth Environmental Project: 13-289 Test Well: 21 York Road Well Test Date: January 16, 2014

WELL DATA Pumping Wells Observation Wells Well Name X (m) Y (m) Well Name X (m) Y (m) Pumping Well 0 0 Pumping Well 0 0

SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush-Jacob T = 0.9948 m2/min S = 0.0104 r/B = 0.01177 Kz/Kr = 1. b = 7. m 10.

1. Displacement (m)

0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec)

25 WIGHT ROAD Data Set: M:\...\25 Wight Road.aqt Date: 01/30/14 Time: 11:27:49

PROJECT INFORMATION Company: Azimuth Environmental Project: 13-289 Test Well: 25 Wight Road Well Test Date: January 28, 2014

WELL DATA Pumping Wells Observation Wells Well Name X (m) Y (m) Well Name X (m) Y (m) Pumping Well 0 0 Pumping Well 0 0

SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush-Jacob T = 0.008782 m2/min S = 0.1408 r/B = 0.0335 Kz/Kr = 1. b = 3. m

APPENDIX D

Water Quality Data

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC .

5835 COOPERS AVENUE MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 http://www.agatlabs.com

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, 85 BAYFIELD STREET, SUITE 400 BARRIE, ON L4M3A7 (705) 721-8451 ATTENTION TO: Drew West PROJECT NO: 13-289 AGAT WORK ORDER: 13T795613 MICROBIOLOGY ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY: Inesa Alizarchyk, Inorganic Lab Supervisor WATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY: Mike Muneswar, BSc (Chem), Senior Inorganic Analyst DATE REPORTED: Dec 27, 2013 PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 9 VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

*NOTES

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time. Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 9 Member of: Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory of Alberta (APEGGA) Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA) scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA) Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation. Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 13T795613 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Microbiological Analysis (water)

DATE RECEIVED: 2013-12-18 DATE REPORTED: 2013-12-27

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 445 145 SAMPLE TYPE: Water Water DATE SAMPLED: 12/17/2013 12/17/2013 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5064842 5064847 Escherichia coli CFU/100mL 1 ND ND Total Coliforms CFU/100mL 1 1 ND

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard 5064842-5064847 ND - Not Detected.

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 2 of 9 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 13T795613 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Water Quality Assessment

DATE RECEIVED: 2013-12-18 DATE REPORTED: 2013-12-27

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 445 145 SAMPLE TYPE: Water Water DATE SAMPLED: 12/17/2013 12/17/2013 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5064842 RDL 5064847 Saturation pH 6.98 7.12 pH pH Units 6.5-8.5 NA 8.09 NA 8.04 Langlier Index 1.11 0.92 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 325 0.5 251 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 20 384 20 288 Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 235 5 203 Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 235 5 203 Carbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 <5 5 <5 Hydroxide (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 <5 5 <5 Electrical Conductivity uS/cm 2 712 2 521 Fluoride mg/L 0.10 <0.10 0.05 <0.05 Chloride mg/L 0.20 40.4 0.10 8.85 Nitrate as N mg/L 0.10 1.18 0.05 5.26 Nitrite as N mg/L 0.10 <0.10 0.05 <0.05 Bromide mg/L 0.10 <0.10 0.05 <0.05 Sulphate mg/L 0.20 70.2 0.10 38.7 Calcium mg/L 0.05 93.2 0.05 69.7 Magnesium mg/L 0.05 22.4 0.05 18.8 Sodium mg/L 0.05 12.8 0.05 6.59 Potassium mg/L 0.05 1.63 0.05 0.90 Ammonia as N mg/L 0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 Phosphate as P mg/L 0.20 <0.20 0.10 <0.10 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.03 0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 Reactive Silica mg/L 0.10 6.94 0.10 9.88 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 Colour TCU 5 <5 5 <5 Turbidity NTU 0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 Aluminum-dissolved mg/L 0.075 0.004 <0.004 0.004 <0.004 Arsenic mg/L 0.1 0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 Barium mg/L 0.002 0.077 0.002 0.092 Boron mg/L 0.20 0.010 0.014 0.010 0.011

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 3 of 9 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 13T795613 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Water Quality Assessment

DATE RECEIVED: 2013-12-18 DATE REPORTED: 2013-12-27

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 445 145 SAMPLE TYPE: Water Water DATE SAMPLED: 12/17/2013 12/17/2013 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5064842 RDL 5064847 Cadmium mg/L 0.0002 0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 Chromium mg/L 0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 Copper mg/L 0.005 0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 Iron mg/L 0.3 0.010 <0.010 0.010 <0.010 Lead mg/L 0.005 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 Manganese mg/L 0.002 0.070 0.002 <0.002 Molybdenum mg/L 0.04 0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 Nickel mg/L 0.025 0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 Selenium mg/L 0.1 0.004 <0.004 0.004 <0.004 Silver mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 Strontium mg/L 0.005 0.163 0.005 0.301 Thallium mg/L 0.0003 0.0003 <0.0003 0.0003 <0.0003 Tin mg/L 0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 Titanium mg/L 0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 Uranium mg/L 0.005 0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 Vanadium mg/L 0.005 0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 Zinc mg/L 0.03 0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 % Difference/ Ion Balance 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.4

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to PWQO (mg/L) 5064842-5064847 Samples required dilution prior to analysis in order to keep the analytes within the calibration range of the instruments; the RDLs were adjusted to reflect the dilution.

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 4 of 9 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 http://www.agatlabs.com

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, 85 BAYFIELD STREET, SUITE 400 BARRIE, ON L4M3A7 (705) 721-8451 ATTENTION TO: Drew West PROJECT NO: 13-289 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T802421 MICROBIOLOGY ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY: Inesa Alizarchyk, Inorganic Lab Supervisor WATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY: Parvathi Malemath, Data Reviewer DATE REPORTED: Jan 27, 2014 PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 9 VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

*NOTES

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time. Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 9 Member of: Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory of Alberta (APEGGA) Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA) scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA) Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation. Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T802421 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Microbiological Analysis (water)

DATE RECEIVED: 2014-01-20 DATE REPORTED: 2014-01-27

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: C. Freezers SAMPLE TYPE: Water DATE SAMPLED: 1/17/2014 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5105855 Escherichia coli CFU/100mL 0 1 ND Total Coliforms CFU/100mL 0 1 ND

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to SDWA - Microbiology 5105855 ND - Not Detected.

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 2 of 9 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T802421 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Water Quality Assessment (PWQO) (excl. TDS & Hg)

DATE RECEIVED: 2014-01-20 DATE REPORTED: 2014-01-27

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: C. Freezers SAMPLE TYPE: Water DATE SAMPLED: 1/17/2014 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5105855 pH pH Units 6.5-8.5 NA 8.22 Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 241 Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 241 Carbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 <5 Hydroxide (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 <5 Electrical Conductivity uS/cm 2 643 Fluoride mg/L 0.10 <0.10 Chloride mg/L 0.20 23.5 Nitrate as N mg/L 0.10 3.92 Nitrite as N mg/L 0.10 <0.10 Bromide mg/L 0.10 <0.10 Sulphate mg/L 0.20 58.2 Calcium mg/L 0.05 87.5 Magnesium mg/L 0.05 22.4 Sodium mg/L 0.05 10.6 Potassium mg/L 0.05 1.02 Ammonia as N mg/L 0.02 <0.02 Phosphate as P mg/L 0.20 <0.20 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.03 0.02 <0.02 Reactive Silica mg/L 0.05 11.7 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.5 1.0 Colour TCU 5 <5 Turbidity NTU 0.5 <0.5 Aluminum mg/L 0.004 <0.004 Arsenic mg/L 0.1 0.003 <0.003 Barium mg/L 0.002 0.100 Boron mg/L 0.20 0.010 0.011 Cadmium mg/L 0.0002 0.0001 <0.0001 Chromium mg/L 0.003 0.004 Copper mg/L 0.005 0.003 <0.003 Iron mg/L 0.3 0.010 <0.010

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 3 of 9 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T802421 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Water Quality Assessment (PWQO) (excl. TDS & Hg)

DATE RECEIVED: 2014-01-20 DATE REPORTED: 2014-01-27

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: C. Freezers SAMPLE TYPE: Water DATE SAMPLED: 1/17/2014 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5105855 Lead mg/L 0.005 0.001 <0.001 Manganese mg/L 0.002 <0.002 Molybdenum mg/L 0.04 0.002 <0.002 Nickel mg/L 0.025 0.003 <0.003 Selenium mg/L 0.1 0.004 <0.004 Silver mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 Strontium mg/L 0.005 0.397 Thallium mg/L 0.0003 0.0003 <0.0003 Tin mg/L 0.002 <0.002 Titanium mg/L 0.002 <0.002 Uranium mg/L 0.005 0.002 <0.002 Vanadium mg/L 0.005 0.002 <0.002 Zinc mg/L 0.03 0.005 <0.005 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 311 % Difference/ Ion Balance 0.1 2.0

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to PWQO (mg/L)

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 4 of 9 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 http://www.agatlabs.com

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, 85 BAYFIELD STREET, SUITE 400 BARRIE, ON L4M3A7 (705) 721-8451 ATTENTION TO: Drew West PROJECT NO: 13-289 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T806185 MICROBIOLOGY ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY: Inesa Alizarchyk, Inorganic Lab Supervisor WATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY: Anthony Dapaah, PhD (Chem), Inorganic Lab Manager DATE REPORTED: Jan 31, 2014 PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 10 VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

*NOTES

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time. Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 10 Member of: Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory of Alberta (APEGGA) Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA) scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA) Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation. Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T806185 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Microbiological Analysis (water)

DATE RECEIVED: 2014-01-30 DATE REPORTED: 2014-01-31

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: GRCA SAMPLE TYPE: Water DATE SAMPLED: 1/29/2014 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5128911 Escherichia coli CFU/100mL 0 1 ND Total Coliforms CFU/100mL 0 1 ND

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to SDWA - Microbiology 5128911 ND - Not Detected.

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 2 of 10 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T806185 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Water Quality Assessment excl. Hg

DATE RECEIVED: 2014-01-30 DATE REPORTED: 2014-01-31

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: GRCA SAMPLE TYPE: Water DATE SAMPLED: 1/29/2014 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5128911 pH, Saturation 6.99 pH pH Units 6.5-8.5 NA 7.61 Langelier Index 0.62 Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 194 Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 194 Carbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 <5 Hydroxide (as CaCO3) mg/L 5 <5 Electrical Conductivity uS/cm 2 743 Fluoride mg/L 0.25 <0.25 Chloride mg/L 0.50 24.7 Nitrate as N mg/L 0.25 7.12 Nitrite as N mg/L 0.25 <0.25 Bromide mg/L 0.25 <0.25 Sulphate mg/L 0.50 134 Calcium mg/L 0.05 107 Magnesium mg/L 0.05 27.1 Sodium mg/L 0.05 4.18 Potassium mg/L 0.05 1.02 Ammonia as N mg/L 0.02 <0.02 Phosphate as P mg/L 0.50 <0.50 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.03 0.02 <0.02 Reactive Silica mg/L 0.05 11.1 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.5 1.2 Colour TCU 5 <5 Turbidity NTU 0.5 0.8 Aluminum mg/L 0.004 <0.004 Arsenic mg/L 0.1 0.003 <0.003 Barium mg/L 0.002 0.065 Boron mg/L 0.20 0.010 0.012 Cadmium mg/L 0.0002 0.002 <0.002 Chromium mg/L 0.003 <0.003

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 3 of 10 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested 5835 COOPERS AVENUE Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO CANADA L4Z 1Y2 AGAT WORK ORDER: 14T806185 TEL (905)712-5100 FAX (905)712-5122 PROJECT NO: 13-289 http://www.agatlabs.com CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, ATTENTION TO: Drew West Water Quality Assessment excl. Hg

DATE RECEIVED: 2014-01-30 DATE REPORTED: 2014-01-31

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: GRCA SAMPLE TYPE: Water DATE SAMPLED: 1/29/2014 Parameter Unit G / S RDL 5128911 Copper mg/L 0.005 0.003 <0.003 Iron mg/L 0.3 0.010 <0.010 Lead mg/L 0.005 0.002 <0.002 Manganese mg/L 0.002 <0.002 Molybdenum mg/L 0.04 0.002 <0.002 Nickel mg/L 0.025 0.003 <0.003 Selenium mg/L 0.1 0.004 <0.004 Silver mg/L 0.0001 0.002 <0.002 Strontium mg/L 0.005 0.198 Thallium mg/L 0.0003 0.006 <0.006 Tin mg/L 0.002 <0.002 Titanium mg/L 0.002 0.002 Uranium mg/L 0.005 0.002 0.003 Vanadium mg/L 0.005 0.002 <0.002 Zinc mg/L 0.03 0.005 <0.005 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 20 412 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 0.5 379 % Difference/ Ion Balance 0.1 0.6

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to PWQO (mg/L) 5128911 Elevated RDLs indicate the degree of sample dilutions prior to analyses to keep analytes within the calibration range, reduce matrix interference and/or to avoid contaminating the instruments.

Certified By:

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 4 of 10 Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested