DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of the Groundwater Resources of Northern Ontario

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Hydrogeology of Ontario Series (Report 2) AN ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF NORTHERN ONTARIO AREAS DRAINING INTO HUDSON BAY, JAMES BAY AND UPPER OTTAWA RIVER BY S. N. SINGER AND C. K. CHENG ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND REPORTING BRANCH MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT TORONTO ONTARIO 2002 KK PREFACE This report provides a regional assessment of the groundwater resources of areas draining into Hudson Bay, James Bay, and the Upper Ottawa River in northern Ontario in terms of the geologic conditions under which the groundwater flow systems operate. A hydrologic budget approach was used to assess precipitation, streamflow, baseflow, and potential and actual evapotranspiration in seven major basins in the study area on a monthly, annual and long-term basis. The report is intended to provide basic information that can be used for the wise management of the groundwater resources in the study area. Toronto, July 2002. DISCLAIMER The Ontario Ministry of the Environment does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the ministry. KKK TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. INTRODUCTION 7 2.1 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 7 2.2 IMPORTANCE OF SCALE IN HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDIES 7 2.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY 8 2.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 8 2.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 9 2.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13 3. DATA AND METHODS USED IN THE STUDY 14 3.1 DATA USED IN THE STUDY 14 3.2 THE WATER WELL INFORMATION SYSTEM 15 3.3 METHODS USED IN THE STUDY 16 4. GEOGRAPHY 18 4.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY 18 4.1.1 The Hudson Bay Lowland Physiographic Region 4.1.2 The Canadian Shield Physiographic Region 18 4.2 DRAINAGE 20 4.2.1 The Severn River Basin 21 4.2.2 The Winisk River Basin 21 4.2.3 The Attawapiskat River Basin 22 4.2.4 The Albany River Basin 22 4.2.5 The Moose River Basin 23 4.2.6 The Upper Ottawa River Basin 24 4.3 CLIMATE 25 4.4 POPULATION AND ECONOMY 27 KX 5. GEOLOGY 28 5.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY 28 5.2 PRECAMBRIAN ROCKS 28 5.3 PALEOZOIC AND MESOZOIC ROCKS 30 5.3.1 Lower Ordovician Strata 30 5.3.2 Middle to Upper Ordovician Strata 31 5.3.3 Late Ordovician Strata 32 5.3.4 Early Silurian Strata 33 5.3.5 Middle Silurian Strata 33 5.3.6 Late Silurian Strata 34 5.3.7 Early Devonian to Middle Devonian Strata 34 5.3.8 Middle Devonian to Early Mississippian Strata 35 5.3.9 Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous Strata 35 5.4 QUATERNARY GEOLOGY 36 5.4.1 Illinoian Record 37 5.4.2 Sangamonian Interglacial Record 37 5.4.3 Middle Wisconsinan Record 37 5.4.4 Late Wisconsinan and Holocene Record 38 5.4.5 Quaternary Deposits 40 5.4.5.1 Glacial Deposits 40 5.4.5.2 Glaciofluvial Deposits 41 5.4.5.3 Glaciolacustrine Deposits 42 5.4.5.4 Glaciomarine Deposits 43 5.4.6 Recent (Holocene) Deposits 43 6. HYDROGEOLOGY 44 6.1 GROUNDWATER 44 6.2 AQUIFERS 44 6.3 HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS 45 6.4 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE IN THE BEDROCK 47 6.4.1 The Canadian Shield Hydrogeologic Unit 48 6.4.2 The Paleozoic and Mesozoic Hydrogeologic Units 52 6.4.2.1 The Beekmantown Group Hydrogeologic Unit 55 6.4.2.2 The Ottawa Group Hydrogeologic Unit 56 6.4.2.3 The Liskeard Group Hydrogeologic Unit 57 X 6.4.2.4 The Wabi Group Hydrogeologic Unit 58 6.4.2.5 The Earlton-Thornloe Hydrogeologic Unit 59 6.5 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE IN THE OVERBURDEN 59 6.5.1 Overburden Aquifers 61 6.5.2 Groundwater Occurrence in Glaciofluvial Ice-Contact Drift Deposits 61 6.5.3 Groundwater Occurrence in Glaciofluvial Outwash Deposits 62 6.5.4 Groundwater Occurrence in Sand and Gravel Deposits of Glaciolacustrine Origin 62 6.5.5 Groundwater Occurrence in Sand and Gravel Deposits of Glaciomarine and Marine Origin 63 6.5.6 Groundwater Occurrence in the Till of Map Unit 18 63 6.5.7 Groundwater Occurrence in the Till of Map Unit 21 64 6.6 A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE WATER-YIELDING CAPABILITIES OF THE BEDROCK AND OVERBURDEN 65 7. WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS 66 7.1 GENERAL REMARKS 66 7.2 TEMPERATURE 67 7.3 PRECIPITATION 68 7.4 SNOW 70 7.5 SNOWMELT 72 7.6 POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 74 7.7 ACTUAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 75 7.8 SURFACE WATER 77 7.8.1 Variation of Annual and Monthly Flows 79 7.8.2 Flow Duration Analysis 81 7.8.3 Flow Separation and Groundwater Discharge 82 7.8.4 Soil Moisture and Groundwater Recharge 87 7.8.5 Long-term Annual Groundwater Recharge and Discharge 88 7.8.6 Results of the Water Budget Calculations 93 8. GROUNDWATER QUALITY 94 8. 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 94 8. 2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE BEDROCK 96 8. 3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE OVERBURDEN 98 XK 8.4 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GROUNDWATER TO CONTAMINATION 99 8.4.1 Area 1 - Canadian Shield 100 8.4.2 Area 2 - Deposits of Sand and Gravel of Glaciofluvial, Glaciolacustrine and Glaciomarine Origin 100 8.4.3 Area 3 - Sand to Silty Sand Till Deposits 101 8.4.4 Area 4 - Silty Clay Till Deposits 101 8.4.5 Area 5 - Clay Deposits of Glaciolacustrine and Glaciomarine Origin 101 8.4.6 Area 6 - Paleozoic Rocks 101 8.5 POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION THREATS 102 9. 0 SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS 103 9.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 103 9. 2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 108 9.2.1 Climatic Data 108 9.2.2 Streamflow Data 108 9.2.3 Groundwater Quality Data 108 9.2.4 Water Use 109 9.2.5 Groundwater Monitoring Network 109 9. 2.6 Technical and Geologic Drilling 109 9.2.7 Municipal Water Supplies 109 REFERENCES TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX I STATIONS WITH LONG-TERM TEMPERATURE DATA LOCATED ABOVE LATITUDE 450 NORTH APPENDIX II LONG-TERM PRECIPITATION STATIONS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO APPENDIX III STREAMFLOW STATIONS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO XKK LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Climatological statistics recorded at various meteorological stations in the study area. Table 2. Mean monthly temperatures at selected meteorological stations in the study area. Table 3. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at the Big Trout Lake meteorological station in the Severn River drainage basin. Table 4. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at the Winisk meteorological station in the Winisk River drainage basin. Table 5. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at the Lansdowne House meteorological station in the Attawapiskat River drainage basin. Table 6. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at Fort Albany Meteorological station in the Albany River drainage basin. Table 7. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at the Moosonee meteorological station in the Moose River drainage basin. Table 8. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at the New Liskeard meteorological station in the Montreal River drainage basin. Table 9. Monthly and annual precipitation and snowmelt at the Lake Traverse meteorological station in the Petawawa River drainage basin. Table 10. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Severn River drainage basin. Table 11. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Winisk River drainage basin. Table 12. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Attawapiskat River drainage basin. Table 13. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Albany River drainage basin. XKKK Table 14. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Moose River drainage basin. Table 15. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Montreal River drainage basin. Table 16. Monthly and annual potential and actual evapotranspiration in the Petawawa River drainage basin. Table 17. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Severn River drainage basin. Table 18. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Winisk River drainage basin. Table 19. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Attawapiskat River drainage basin. Table 20. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Albany River drainage basin. Table 21. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Moose River drainage basin. Table 22. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Montreal River drainage basin. Table 23. Monthly and annual surface runoff in the Petawawa River drainage basin. Table 24. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04CA003 in the Severn River drainage basin (1967-1992). Table 25. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04DA001 in the Winisk River drainage basin (1966-1996). Table 26. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04DB001 in the Winisk River drainage basin (1924-1993). Table 27. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04FA002 in the Attawapiskat River drainage basin (1967-1993). KZ Table 28. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04FA003 in the Attawapiskat River drainage basin (1966-1994). Table 29. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04JC003 in the Albany River drainage basin (1966-1994). Table 30. Estimates of monthly and annual groundwater contribution to surface runoff at gauging station 04GB004 in the Albany River drainage basin (1966-1994). Table 31.
Recommended publications
  • " What Indians Are We Talking About?": a Discourse Analysis Of

    " What Indians Are We Talking About?": a Discourse Analysis Of

    "What indians Are We Talking About?": A Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Dialogues in an Ojibway Setting Jordan Davidson A Thesis in The Department of Sociology and Anthropology Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Social and Cultural Anthropology) at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada June 2008 © Jordan Davidson, 2008 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-42480-3 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-42480-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation.
  • Long Lake and Ogoki River Water Diversion Projects

    Long Lake and Ogoki River Water Diversion Projects

    14 Wawatay News NOVEMBER 20, 2020 ᐧᐊᐧᐊᑌ ᐊᒋᒧᐧᐃᓇᐣ Community Regional Assessment in the Ring of Fire Area Engagement Activities and Participant Funding Available November 12, 2020 — The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has determined that a regional assessment will be conducted in an area centred on the Ring of Fire mineral deposits in northern Ontario. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) is inviting the public, Indigenous communities, and organizations to provide input to support the planning of the Regional Assessment in the Ring of Fire area. Participants may provide their input to the Agency in either official Rick Garrick/Wawatay language until January 21, 2021. Participants are encouraged to refer to The impacts of waterway diversions in the Matawa region were raised during Treaties Recognition Week the Ring of Fire regional assessment planning information sheet for on the Matawa First Nations Facebook page. additional details. Participants can visit the project home page on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry (reference number 80468) for more options to submit Waterway diversion information. All input received will be published to the Registry as part of the regional assessment file. The Agency recognizes that it is more challenging to undertake meaningful public engagement and Indigenous consultation in light of the education important circumstances arising from COVID-19. The Agency continues to assess the situation with key stakeholders, make adjustments to engagement activities, and is providing flexibility as needed in order to prioritize the health and safety of all Canadians, while maintaining its duty to conduct meaningful for youth engagement with interested groups and individuals.
  • (De Beers, Or the Proponent) Has Identified a Diamond

    (De Beers, Or the Proponent) Has Identified a Diamond

    VICTOR DIAMOND PROJECT Comprehensive Study Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview and Background De Beers Canada Inc. (De Beers, or the Proponent) has identified a diamond resource, approximately 90 km west of the First Nation community of Attawapiskat, within the James Bay Lowlands of Ontario, (Figure 1-1). The resource consists of two kimberlite (diamond bearing ore) pipes, referred to as Victor Main and Victor Southwest. The proposed development is called the Victor Diamond Project. Appendix A is a corporate profile of De Beers, provided by the Proponent. Advanced exploration activities were carried out at the Victor site during 2000 and 2001, during which time approximately 10,000 tonnes of kimberlite were recovered from surface trenching and large diameter drilling, for on-site testing. An 80-person camp was established, along with a sample processing plant, and a winter airstrip to support the program. Desktop (2001), Prefeasibility (2002) and Feasibility (2003) engineering studies have been carried out, indicating to De Beers that the Victor Diamond Project (VDP) is technically feasible and economically viable. The resource is valued at 28.5 Mt, containing an estimated 6.5 million carats of diamonds. De Beers’ current mineral claims in the vicinity of the Victor site are shown on Figure 1-2. The Proponent’s project plan provides for the development of an open pit mine with on-site ore processing. Mining and processing will be carried out at an approximate ore throughput of 2.5 million tonnes/year (2.5 Mt/a), or about 7,000 tonnes/day. Associated project infrastructure linking the Victor site to Attawapiskat include the existing south winter road and a proposed 115 kV transmission line, and possibly a small barge landing area to be constructed in Attawapiskat for use during the project construction phase.
  • Iroquois Falls Forest Independent Forest Audit 2005-2010 Audit Report

    Iroquois Falls Forest Independent Forest Audit 2005-2010 Audit Report

    349 Mooney Avenue Thunder Bay, Ontario Canada P7B 5L5 Bus: 807-345- 5445 www.kbm.on.ca © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2011 Iroquois Falls Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2005-2010 Audit Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ii 2.0 Table of Recommendations and Best Practices ............................................................... 1 3.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................. ... 3 3.1 Audit Process ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Management Unit Description............................................................................................... 4 3.3 Current Issues ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit .......................................................................... 6 4.0 Audit Findings .................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Commitment.................................................................................................................... ... 6 4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement ...................................................................... 7 4.3 Forest Management Planning ...............................................................................................
  • TOXIC WATER: the KASHECHEWAN STORY Introduction It Was the Straw That Broke the Prover- Had Been Under a Boil-Water Alert on and Focus Bial Camel’S Back

    TOXIC WATER: the KASHECHEWAN STORY Introduction It Was the Straw That Broke the Prover- Had Been Under a Boil-Water Alert on and Focus Bial Camel’S Back

    TOXIC WATER: THE KASHECHEWAN STORY Introduction It was the straw that broke the prover- had been under a boil-water alert on and Focus bial camel’s back. A fax arrived from off for years. In fall 2005, Canadi- Health Canada (www.hc-sc.gc.ca) at the A week after the water tested positive ans were stunned to hear of the Kashechewan First Nations council for E. coli, Indian Affairs Minister appalling living office, revealing that E. coli had been Andy Scott arrived in Kashechewan. He conditions on the detected in the reserve’s drinking water. offered to provide the people with more Kashechewan First Enough was enough. A community bottled water but little else. Incensed by Nations Reserve in already plagued by poverty and unem- Scott’s apparent indifference, the Northern Ontario. ployment was now being poisoned by community redoubled their efforts, Initial reports documented the its own water supply. Something putting pressure on the provincial and presence of E. coli needed to be done, and some members federal governments to evacuate those in the reserve’s of the reserve had a plan. First they who were suffering from the effects of drinking water. closed down the schools. Next, they the contaminated water. The Ontario This was followed called a meeting of concerned members government pointed the finger at Ot- by news of poverty and despair, a of the community. Then they launched tawa because the federal government is reflection of a a media campaign that shifted the responsible for Canada’s First Nations. standard of living national spotlight onto the horrendous Ottawa pointed the finger back at the that many thought conditions in this remote, Northern province, saying that water safety and unimaginable in Ontario reserve.
  • Englehart Municipal Council Agenda January 11, 2012 at 6:30 P.M

    Englehart Municipal Council Agenda January 11, 2012 at 6:30 P.M

    ENGLEHART MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 11, 2012 AT 6:30 P.M. HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3-5 1. Minutes of December 14, 2011 4. DELEGATIONS 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 6. CORRESPONDENCE 6-7 1. Correspondence log 8 2. Bud Colqhoun re Land for 701 9-10 3. AMO re: 2012 Membership 11 4. Township of Carling re: Paved shoulders 12-16 5. MPAC re: Service Delivery 17-20 6. O.P.P. 21-22 7. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 23 8. Municipality of Clarington 24 9. Municipality of Clarington 25-26 10. Heart & Stroke Foundation 27-28 11. Nottawasaga Police Services Board 29 12. MPAC re OPSEU 30 13. OMAFRA re Community Economic Development workshop 31-33 14. John Vantoff re Gas Price Meeting 7. FINANCE REPORT 34-36 1. Finance Report Jan 11, 2012 8. BYLAWS 37 1. Borrowing By-Law 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Airport 2. Environment/Public Works 3. Planning Board Page 1 of 44 ENGLEHART MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 11, 2012 AT 6:30 P.M. Page 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. Museum 5. Finance/General Government 6. Learning Center 7. Library 8. TMA 9. Fire 10. Recreation 11. Community Policing 12. Emergency Management 13. Economic Development 14. Chamber of Commerce 15. Hospital Retention & Recruitment 16. 701 Restoration 17. Wheelchair Bus Committee 10. NEW BUSINESS 38-42 1. Water MOU 43-44 2. Elevator Proposals 11. IN CAMERA 12. NEXT MEETING January 23, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
  • Supplement 1997

    Supplement 1997

    Open Doors – Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Supplement to the 1997 Annual Report The Environmental Bill of Rights requires that the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario include a summary of the information gathered in the review of the implementation of the legislation and how ministries comply with the act. In addition, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario must provide a list of all proposals posted on the Environmental Registry for which decisions had not been posted by December 31, 1997. This Supplement provides the following information, intended to complement the main body of the 1997 Annual Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Appendix A: Posted Acts and Regulations Appendix B: 1997 Policy Postings Appendix C: Unposted Decisions Appendix D: Selected 1997 Exceptions Appendix E: Environmental Monitoring Programs Appendix F: Selected Ontario Voluntary Agreements Appendix G: Applications for Reviews and Investigations Appendix H: Ministry Compliance with 1996 Recommendations Appendix I: Technical Supplement Section 1: List of Policies, Acts and Regulations Section 2: List of Instruments Section 3: Education Outreach Appendix A: Posted Acts and Regulations ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND RURAL AFFAIRS (OMAFRA) (MCCR) Bill 146, Farming and Food Production Protection Act, Standard adopted under the Gasoline Handling Act: 1997 (AC7E0001.P) Diking and Secondary Containment for Aboveground Tanks (RL6E0003.D) Proposal posted 28-Jan-97 Decision not posted Proposal posted 28-Nov-96 • Provides broader protection to farmers against complaints from neigh- Decision posted 9-May-97 bours than the Farm Practices Protection Act 1988 (FPPA) which it • Double-walled aboveground gasoline storage tanks will no longer be replaces required to be surrounded by an earth dike (single-wall tanks will still • Expands list of nuisances that farmers are permitted to cause as a require dikes).
  • FINAL 2009 Annual Report

    FINAL 2009 Annual Report

    NEOnet 2009 Annual Report Infrastructure Enhancement Application Education and Awareness 2009 Annual Report Table of Contents Message from the Chair ..............................................................................................2 Corporate Profile........................................................................................................3 Mandate ....................................................................................................................3 Regional Profile ..........................................................................................................4 Catchment Area.......................................................................................................................................................5 NEOnet Team .............................................................................................................6 Organizational Chart..............................................................................................................................................6 Core Staff Members...............................................................................................................................................7 Leaving staff members..........................................................................................................................................8 Board of Directors ..................................................................................................................................................9
  • 6 Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area 6.1 Study Area

    6 Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area 6.1 Study Area

    Webequie Supply Road Environmental Assessment Draft Terms of Reference 6 Existing Environmental Conditions in the Study Area 6.1 Study Area The Project is located in Northwestern Ontario, with the northern end of the road approximately 525 km northeast of Thunder Bay (refer to Figure 1.1). The Project is located on provincial Crown land, Webequie First Nation Reserve land under federal jurisdiction), and the traditional territories of Indigenous communities (refer also to Section 6.4.6 Land and Resource Use). Figure 6.1 illustrates the location of the alternative routes in relation to project area features and sensitivities. Due to confidentiality constraints (including those imposed by Webequie First Nation and Government of Ontario ministries), and the need to respect the wishes of potentially affected Indigenous communities with respect to divulging certain information on the use of lands in the project area, it is not possible to illustrate the location or bounds of a number of features and sensitivities, including First Nations’ traditional territories, individual camps/cabins, species at risk (e.g., caribou ranges), and government-regulated hunting areas (e.g., trapline licences). However, sensitive features and resources are described in general terms in this section of the ToR. The EA will summarize past investigations and analyses of alternative road alignments between Webequie and the mineral deposit area near McFaulds Lake, and will assess the potential impacts of alternative alignments in the preferred corridor for the Webequie Supply Road. The significance of an environmental impact partially depends on the geographic extent. As such, the impact assessment will be conducted on the basis of specific study areas related to the project development, adopting a multi-scale approach for describing baseline conditions (existing environment) and predicting effects from the Project.
  • Online Voting in Ontario's Municipal Elections a Conflict of Legal Principles and Technology?

    Online Voting in Ontario's Municipal Elections a Conflict of Legal Principles and Technology?

    Online Voting in Ontario's Municipal Elections A Conflict of Legal Principles and Technology? Authored by Anthony Cardillo Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Aleksander Essex, PhD., P.Eng. Western University, Canada Associate Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Western University, Canada Nicholas Akinyokun School of Computing and Information Systems The University of Melbourne, Australia PUBLICATION NOTE An extended abstract of this report was presented at the Fourth International Joint Conference on Elec‐ tronic Voting (E‐Vote‐ID) in Bregenz, Austria, October, 2019. It won the Best Paper Award in the Trackon Security, Usability and Technical Issues. Cite the extended abstract as: Anthony Cardillo, Nicholas Akinyokun, and Aleksander Essex. Online Voting in Ontario Municipal Elections: A Conflict of Legal Principles and Technology?. In: Krimmer R. et al. (eds) Electronic Voting. E‐Vote‐ID 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11759, pp. 67‐82, 2019. Cite this full report as: Anthony Cardillo, Nicholas Akinyokun, and Aleksander Essex. Online Voting in Ontario Municipal Elections: A Conflict of Legal Principles and Technology? Whisper Lab Research Report, Western University, 2020. Available online: https://whisperlab.org/ontario-online.pdf Acknowledgments We are grateful to a many individuals in Ontario and beyond for helpful conversations and important in‐ sights. Special thanks to Jane Buchanan for her tireless effort searching municipal documents. Thanks to Joe Abley, Richard Ackerman, Tony Adams, Matt Bernhard, Kevin Creechan, Faye and Ron Ego, Josh Franklin, Nicole Goodman, Jared Marcotte, Beata Martin‐Rozumiłowicz, John Meraglia, Scott Richie, Matt Saunders, Cameron Shelley, Ken Strauss, Dave Suffling, Vanessa Teague, Anne Walkinshaw, Susan Watson, Uli Watkiss.
  • Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole Gold Project, Ontario, Canada

    Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole Gold Project, Ontario, Canada

    Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole Gold Project, Ontario, Canada Report Prepared for Report Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. 2CG026.000 Effective Date: March 25, 2013 Amended: October 7, 2016 2CG026.000 – Gold Canyon Resources Inc. Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole Gold Project, Canada Page i Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Springpole Gold Project, Ontario, Canada Prepared for: Prepared by: Gold Canyon Resources Inc. SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Suite 810–609 Granville Street 2200–1066 West Hastings Street P.O. Box 10356, Pacific Centre Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2 Vancouver, BC V7Y 1G5 Canada Canada Tel: +1 604 682 3234 Tel: +1 604 681 4196 Tel 2: +1 888 242 3234 Web: www.srk.com Fax: +1 604 682 0537 Web: www.goldcanyon.ca Email: [email protected] SRK Project Number: 2CG026.000 Effective date: March 25, 2013 Signature date: October 7, 2016 Authored by: Dr. Gilles Arseneau, PGeo Bruce Murphy, FSAIMM Associate Consultant (Geology) Principal Consultant (Geotechnical) Dr. Adrian Dance, PEng Michael Royle, PGeo Principal Consultant (Metallurgy) Principal Consultant (Hydrogeology) John Duncan, PEng Dr. Maritz Rykaart, PEng Principal Consultant (Water Resources Principal Consultant (Geotechnical Engineering) Engineering) Chris Elliott, FAusIMM Dino Pilotto, PEng Principal Consultant (Mining) Principal Consultant (Mining) Mark Liskowich, PGeo Principal Consultant (Environmental) Peer Reviewed by: Neil Winkelmann, FAusIMM Principal Consultant (Mining) Acknowledgement: SRK would like to acknowledge the support and collaboration provided by Gold Canyon personnel. Their collaboration was greatly appreciated and instrumental to the success of this report. Cover: Springpole camp March 2013 (source: The Northern Sun News) AD/NW 2CG026 000_Springpole_PEA_TechnicalReport_20161014_FNL October 7, 2016 2CG026.000 – Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
  • Geology of the Big Trout Lake Area

    Geology of the Big Trout Lake Area

    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).