The new identity of Trow Associates Inc....The new identity of • AECOM Hydrogeological Assessment for Class EA and Route Section Study Project Name Elevated Tank and Feedermain,

• AECOM

Hydrogeological Assessment for Class EA and Route Section Study

Project Name Elevated Tank and Feedermain, Bolton, ON

Project Number BRM-00303334-B0

Prepared By:

exp Services Inc. 1595 Clark Boulevard Brampton, Ontario L6T 4V1 Canada

Date Submitted 06.24.11

The new identity of Trow Associates Inc.

Client:AECOM Hydrogeological Assessment for Class EA and Route Section Study

Elevated Tank and Feedermain, Bolton, ON BRM-00303334-B0

June 20, 2011

i

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Characterization of Hydrogeological Setting ............................................................................. 2 2.2.1 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................... 2 2.3 Existing Water Well Survey ....................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Local Surface Water Features ................................................................................................... 3 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Installation of Monitoring Wells .................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Groundwater Level Monitoring .................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Well Testing and Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil formations ...................................................... 5 3.4 Drawdown and Zone of Influence .............................................................................................. 6 3.5 Estimated Dewatering Rates and Groundwater Control ........................................................... 6 3.5.1 Estimated dewatering Rates ........................................................................................ 6 3.5.2 Managing Groundwater Seepage ................................................................................ 7 3.6 Groundwater Chemistry ............................................................................................................. 8 4 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Impact on Existing Water Users ................................................................................................ 9 4.2 Existing Surface Water Resources and Other Environmentally Sensitive Sites ....................... 9 4.3 Existing Buildings ...................................................................................................................... 9 5 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 10 5.1 Summary of Results and Impact Assessment ......................................................................... 10 5.1.1 Hydrogeological Setting .............................................................................................. 10 5.1.2 Dewatering Requirements .......................................................................................... 10 5.1.3 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Proposed Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................... 11 5.2.1 Pumping Rates and Duration ..................................................................................... 11 5.2.2 Discharge Water Quality ............................................................................................. 11 5.2.3 Residential Well Monitoring Program ......................................................................... 11 5.2.4 Pre-Construction Activities ......................................................................................... 11 5.2.5 Construction Activities ................................................................................................ 11 5.2.6 Post-Construction Activities ........................................................................................ 11 5.2.7 Contingency Plan ....................................................................................................... 12 6 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 13



June 20, 2011

ii

APPENDICES:

Appendix A – MOE Water Well Records Appendix B – Borehole Logs Appendix C – Slug Test Analysis Appendix D – Zone of Influence Calculations Appendix E – Seepage Rate Calculations Appendix F – Laboratory Certificates of Analysis Tables Figures



June 20, 2011

1595 Clark Boulevard, Brampton, ON L6T 4V17, Canada T: +1.905.793.9800 www.exp.com

1

1 Introduction Trow Associates Inc. (Trow) was retained by the Region of Peel to conduct a Preliminary hydrogeological Assessment as part of a Class Environmental Assessment and Route Selection Study to support an Elevated Tank and Feedermain construction project located in Bolton, Ontario.

The study area is bound by Coleraine Drive to the west, Queen Street North/Highway 50 to the east, Columbia Way to the north, and Holland Drive to the south.

1.1 Study Purpose The current Preliminary hydrogeological Assessment was conducted as a part of the Class EA study to be completed for the project. The main purposes of the Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment are:

• establish the local hydrogeological setting within and in the vicinity of the project area;

• determine the potential dewatering requirements associated with the project activities; and

• identify potential impacts associated with the construction.

1.2 Scope of Work The scope of work for the Hydrogeological Assessment included the following:

• collecting and reviewing of available information including geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological information to define the hydrogeological setting of the proposed route and surrounding area;

Information that was reviewed included data from the Ontario Geological Survey, water well records, existing geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological reports in the project area;

• conducting slug tests on two (2) selected monitoring wells to evaluate hydraulic conductivity for till formation, and isolated sandy beds for the creek crossing;

• collecting a groundwater sample from a selected monitoring well and analyze for the Peel Sanitary Sewer Use By-law 53-2010;

• conducted two rounds of groundwater level monitoring;

• preparation of a hydrogeological report that included all of the field test data, potential dewatering needs during construction, potential impacts on the surrounding environment, and recommendations for remediation; and

• applying for and obtain a PTTW as required; liaise with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on PTTW application.



June 20, 2011


2

2 Background 2.1 Project Description The proposed project is to construct a 400 mm to 1,050 mm feedermain that will connect the existing elevated tank on Coleraine Drive, north of Holland Drive to a new tank/reservoir on Columbia Way, east of Queen Street. The total length of the proposed feedermain is approximately 4.7 km.

The preliminary drawings indicate that the most part of the feedermain is to be installed open cut excavation at invert depths ranging from 3 m to 4 m. In two areas, the trenchless technique is expected to be employed to install the feedermain. These two areas are:

a) under the CP Rail on Colerain Drive (approximately 7 m to invert) and

b) under the Humber River on Queen Street, north of Mill Street (11 to 21 m invert depths).

2.2 Characterization of Hydrogeological Setting

2.2.1 Regional Geology The Bolton area is located in the physiographic region known as the South Slope (Chapman and Putnam, 1984), which is characterized by undulating tracts of land faintly drumlinized. The South Slope deposits typically consist of and silt and clay and are primarily surficial soils.

The surficial sediments are underlain by bedrock belonging to the Upper Ordovician Queenston Formation. The bedrock consists of shale with inter-bedded limestone.

The Bolton area lies approximately 2.0 km south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The silty sand/sandy silt layers located within the subject area are influenced by an aquifer system known as the Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer Complex (ORAC). The upper till layer (Halton) acts as a weak to moderate confining layer in the area. ORM sediments occur as channel deposits within the Newmarket or Northern Till. The sediments in this aquifer generally consist of silty fine sand and fine sand and can occur at various depths. These layers have the potential to produce significant amounts of groundwater. Sandy beds belongs to ORM can be expected at various depths in the area. The sand layers found below approximately 50 m can be considered to be part of the intermediate and deeper aquifers in the area.

2.2.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology As a part of the geotechnical investigation, twenty (20) boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 5 m to 20 m below ground surface (m bgs), along the proposed route for the feedermain (Figure 1). The main overburden soil type encountered during drilling was clayey silt and silty clay till belonging to the Halton Till formation.

Silt and sandy silt were encountered at eight locations (BH3, BH4, BH6A, BH7, BH9, BH10, BH11A, BH11B and BH18). In Boreholes BH9, BH10, BH11A and BH11B the silt/sandy silt layer is approximately 7.5 m to 11.7 meters thick. Sandy silt beds were encountered at five locations (BH3, BH4, BH6A, BH7 and BH18) from approximately 2.5 m to 5.1 m bgs.

Five of the nine water wells installed in the area are serviced by shallow and intermediate overburden aquifers (sand and silty sand layers), which shows water table to semi-confined conditions. Based on the data collected from the MOE water well records in the adjacent areas, the bedrock surface is expected to be located at depths greater than 50 mbgs (Appendix A). The deeper aquifer in the area located at depths more than 50 m below ground surface. The deeper aquifer indicates confined conditions. Due to the presence of low to moderately conductive clayey silt and clayey layers at



June 20, 2011


3

shallow depths, no hydraulic connection is expected between shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers in the study area.

The groundwater elevations along the proposed feedermain route varied from approximately 0.76 m to 11.97 mbgs. Due to the complex nature of geomorphology of the area, the shallow groundwater flow pattern is expected to be relatively complex. The anticipated regional groundwater flow direction across the site is to southeast, towards the Lake Ontario. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the overburden in the area close to the Humber River varies from 1.84 x 10-7 to 5.9 x 10-7 m/s.

Recent static water level (SWL) monitoring of the existing monitoring wells suggests that the most part of the feedermain is at or above the SWL.

2.3 Existing Water Well Survey On February 24, 2011, the MOE water well records database was searched for any existing water wells within a 3 kilometer radius of the Site. Approximately 240 wells are present within approximately 2 km of the proposed feedermain alignments as per the MOE water well database (Appendix A).

Approximately 22 of the wells are located within 500 m of the proposed feedermain alignment. The rough well locations are shown on Figure 2. All the wells within 500 m of the feedermain alignment are draw water from overburden aquifers.

The depth of the wells located within 500 m of the feedermain ranged between 15.2 m and 80.8 m. The “water found” depths of these wells vary from 6.1 m to 78.3 m. This suggests the presence of two to three overburden aquifer units in the areas approximately 500 m of the feedermain.

Appendix A proides vdetails of the water wells located within 500 m of the feedermain.

2.4 Local Surface Water Features The primary surface water body present at the site is Humber River. The proposed feedermain alignment crosses Humber River on Queen Street, north of Mill Street.

The tunnel invert ranges from approximately 11 m to 21 m below existing ground surface. The designed tunnel invert is approximately 7.0 m below the river bed.



June 20, 2011


4

3 Methodology 3.1 Installation of Monitoring Wells As a part of preliminary geotechnical investigation (Trow, February 2011), twenty (20) boreholes (BH1 – BH5, BH6A, BH6B, BH6 – BH10, BH11A, BH11B and BH12 – BH18) were advanced between January 20 and February 1, 2011 using a truck mounted CME 75 power auger drill rig.

Samples were taken from each Borehole at 0.76 m intervals of depth in the upper 4 m, and at 1.5 m intervals below, using a split spoon sampler in conformance with the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1557).

Nine (9) of the boreholes were equipped with monitoring wells along the preferred route for the water main. Details on the monitoring wells are given in the geological logs of boreholes (Appendix B).

The monitoring wells installed on-Site were constructed PVC screen and riser. Appropriate lengths of screen and riser pipe were installed and extended to the surface in each monitoring well. Details of the well installation are provided on the borehole logs in Appendix B. The well screens were sealed at the base with a PVC end cap. The annular space around the well screen was backfilled with silica sand. A granular bentonite (‘Hole Plug’) seal was placed in the borehole annulus from the top of the sand pack to approximately 0.3 m below ground surface. The monitoring wells were completed with a flush-mounted protective steel casing cemented into place. Lubricants and adhesives were not used when constructing the monitoring wells.

All of the monitoring wells were developed prior to conducting the groundwater level monitoring. The monitoring wells were purged using dedicated PVC bailers to remove a minimum of three casing volumes of water from the wells or until the wells would become dry twice.

In addition to the monitoring wells mentioned above, two shallow monitoring wells (MW101 and MW102) were hand-augered on the south side of the Humber River as indicated on Figure 3.

A summary of the monitoring well details is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Monitoring Well Details

Well No. BH/MW Depth (m)

Diameter (mm)

Screen Interval (mbgs) Screened Formation/Remarks

BH/MW1 5.0 100 3.7 – 4.9 Clayey Silt Till

BH/MW3 5.0 50 3.4 – 4.6 Clayey Silt and Sandy Silt

BH/MW6A 5.0 50 3.4 – 4.6 Sandy Silt

BH/MW9 15.7 100 12.2 – 15.3 Silt

BH/MW10 20.3 100 16.8 – 19.8 Clayey Silt

BH/MW11A 20.3 100 16.8 – 19.8 Clayey Silt



June 20, 2011


5

BH/MW11B 20.3 100 16.8 – 19.8 Clayey Silt

BH/MW14 5.1 50 3.4 – 4.9 Clayey Silt Till

BH/MW18 5.0 50 3.0 – 4.6 Sandy Silt

MW101 1.9 50 1.52 – 1.90 Clayey Silt Till

MW102 1.8 50 1.55 – 1.80 Clayey Silt Till

3.2 Groundwater Level Monitoring As a part of the geotechnical investigation, water levels were measured on completion of borehole drilling/installation of monitoring wells. Two additional rounds of groundwater level monitoring were carried out during the Hydrogeological Assessment. The first round of water levels was measured prior to conducting single-well response tests (SWRTs) on February 15, 2011. The second round of water level monitoring was conducted on February 17, 2011 to identify any groundwater fluctuations.

The results of groundwater level monitoring are provided in Table 1.

The shallowest water level, which is 0.40 m below ground surface (m bgs), was recorded at MW102 on February 17, 2011. The deepest static water level, which is 12.68 m bgs, was recorded at MW11B on February 15, 2011. Monitoring Wells 1, 3, 6A and 14 were dry immediately after the completion of drilling/installation of well assembly and after about a week water was available in these wells. This suggests the slow recovery of the clayey silt till to sandy silt till formation at these locations.

3.3 Well Testing and Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil formations On February 16, 2011 Single Well Response Tests (SWRT) were performed on two (2) monitoring wells: MW9 and MW11B, to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the soil formations.

One of the objectives of this Hydrogeological Assessment was to estimate dewatering rates during construction and to assess the potential impacts on the Humber River. Therefore, MW9 and MW11B were selected because they are closest to the Humber River crossing.

The static water levels of the wells were measured prior to the start of the test. At the start of the test, a known volume of water was introduced into the well instantaneously. Groundwater level monitoring began immediately after introducing water into the well, and continued until the water level had dropped by at least 90%. Water levels were initially recorded at approximately 30 second intervals during the first minute of the test and measured at increasing intervals after one minute.

Hydraulic conductivity values were estimated from SWRT data as per the Hvorslev’s solution included in the Aquifer Test V.4 software package. Field data collected during the SWRT and semi-log plots for drawdown versus time as well as a complete description of the SWRT procedures are included in Appendix C. A summary of the hydraulic conductivity values estimated from the slug tests is provided in Table 2 below.



June 20, 2011


6

Table 2: Summary of Slug Test Results

Monitoring Well No

Well Depth (mbgs)

Screened Interval

(mbgs) Formation Screened Hydraulic

Conductivity (m/s)

MW9 15.7 12.2 – 15.7 Silt Till 5.9 x 10-7

MW11B 20.3 16.8 – 19.8 Clayey Silt 1.84 x 10-7

As shown in Table 2, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated for clayey silt till is approximately 1.84 x 10-7 m/s; the hydraulic conductivity for Silt Till is approximately 5.9 x 10-7 m/s.

The K values using the Hvorslev solution yeild the highest values for the SWRT curves. Therefore, by using this method, the dewatering values are upwards approximations and can be considered conservative estimates.

The slug tests provide an estimate of the hydraulic conductivity values of the geological formation within the immediate area around the well screens. Figures 3 and 4 provide area of the slug tests and the geological cross section.

3.4 Drawdown and Zone of Influence The results of water level monitoring suggest that the most part of the open cut excavation for feedermain remains at or above the static water level (SWL).

The static water level in the open cut excavation section of the feedermain from approximately 80 m east of Temperance Street on King Street to the drain chamber close to Mill Street is expected to be 0.5 m to 4.0 m above the invert elevation of the feedermain.

The maximum predicted zone of influence to lower and maintain the groundwater level to a depth 0.5 m below the invert elevation of the feedermain is 9 m from the dewatering area.

The tunnel section of the feedermain below Humber River is 2.5 m to 8.5 m below the static water level. The floor level of tunnel shafts to be constructed at each end of the tunnel section across Humber River is expected to be 8 m to 12 m below the SWL.

The predicted zone of influence associated with a drop in the groundwater elevation up to 12 m below the SWL is in the range of 14 m to 28 m. A ZOI of 14 m is expected at the shaft location north of BH11B. The predicted drawdown at the shaft close to Mill Street is 14 m.

The ZOI calculated for each section was calculaetd based on conservative K estimates and the maximum depth of the shafts. Therefore, the ZOI presented is considered representative of the observed conditions.

Appendix D provides details of ZOI calculations.

3.5 Estimated Dewatering Rates and Groundwater Control

3.5.1 Estimated dewatering Rates Dewatering rates for excavation for the installation of feedermain in open-cut trenches and the trenchless crossing shafts to be constructed at each end of the trenchless crossing section beneath Humber River were estimated using Mansur and Kaufman formula (Somerville, 1986).



June 20, 2011


7

The estimated seepage rate for the open cut section of the feedermain is 66.3 m3/day. This dewatering rate was estimated for the full length of the open cut excavations extend into the saturated zone.

The estimated seepage rate at the tunnel shafts is 114.6 m3/day. This dewatering rate was estimated for both of the trenchless crossing shafts.

The expected seepage rate into the trenchless crossing section of the feedermain was estimated using the method proposed by Goodman et al. (1965). The estimated seepage rate into the tunnel section is 88.7 m3/day.

The seepage rates calculated using the most conservative K value obtained from the single well response tests. Therefore, the dewatering rates are considered to be conservative estimates.

Appendix E provides details of the calculation for seepage rate into the tunnel section.

3.5.2 Managing Groundwater Seepage Open Cut Excavations: The estimated dewatering rate for the total section of the open cut excavation that is expected to extend into the saturated zone is 66.3 m3/day. This dewatering rate can be expected if approximately 200 m section of the open cut section is exposed at a time.

Planned open cut excavation sections occur mainly in clayey silt or sandy silt soils. If a saturated sandy silt formation is exposed during excavation higher seepage rates/dewatering rates should be expected compared to the dewatering rates in saturated clayey silt formation.

Given that low to moderate rates of dewatering rates are anticipated in the open cut sections, it is expected that the groundwater seepage can be managed by filtered sump pumps.

If higher seepage rates are experienced due to any unforeseen site conditions, including the presence of highly conductive saturated soil types, dewatering well system may be necessary to manage the groundwater seepage. Based on the available site specific information, the possibility of encountering soil layers with higher hydraulic conductivity is considered to be low to moderate.

Trenchless Crossing Shafts: Results of the groundwater level monitoring suggest that the static water level at Humber River tunnel shaft will have to be lowered between 8 m and 12 m from the static water level. The estimated dewatering rate for both tunnel shafts is 114.6 m3/day.

Installation of tight sheet pilling during excavations for tunnel shaft would decrease daily dewatering requirements. With tight sheet pilling in place, it is expected that the groundwater seepage into the tunnel shaft excavations can be managed by a suitable educator system coupled with filtered sump pumping.

Humber River Crossing: Results of the groundwater level monitoring suggest that the static water level at Humber River crossing section varies from 8 m to 12 m above the invert level of the trenchless crossing. Therefore, dewatering will have to lower the water table a minimum of 13 m below the existing grade. The estimated groundwater seepage into the trenchless crossing section is approximately 88.7 m3/day.

A suitable trenchless crossing construction has to be employed to minimize the groundwater seepage into the trenchless crossing and to prevent occurring unstable soil conditions due to high water table and sandy silt/silt soil formations.



June 20, 2011


8

3.6 Groundwater Chemistry On February 22, 2011, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well MW9, which is screened in the silt. The purpose of the sampling was to determine the general groundwater quality of the project area. The analysis helps determine if any detailed groundwater sampling program should be completed during the detailed design stage of the project. The groundwater quality results obtained from this single sample should not be considered representative of the whole site.

The groundwater sample was collected as per the laboratory protocols. Prior to collecting the sample, three well volumes were purged from the well to remove stagnant water. One set of groundwater samples was collected, temporarily stored in a cooler, and transported to the laboratory on the same day.

The collected water samples were tested for parameters included in the Region of Peel Sanitary Sewer Use By-law 53-2010 analysis package to determine water quality, should dewatering be required to complete the proposed construction of the project. All of the analyzed parameters were below their respective Limit for Sanitary Sewer Discharge.

The groundwater discharge from construction activities is recommended to dispose into Town of Caledon Sanitary Sewer System.

Upon dewatering and construction activities, the dewatering subcontractor should be required to collect and monitor representative groundwater samples to ensure compliance with Region of Peel Sanitary Sewer By-Law Criteria.

The laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix F.



June 20, 2011


9

4 Impact Assessment 4.1 Impact on Existing Water Users Approximately twenty two (22) wells are located within 500 m of the proposed feedermain alignment (Figures 1 and 2). All of these wells are screened in the overburden and depths ranges between 12 m and 75 m below ground surface. Recent static water levels for these wells are not available; however, the MOE water well records indicate that the static water levels in these wells can vary from approximately 1 m to more than 50 m below ground surface.

Five water wells are present at locations less than 50 m away from the proposed feedermain alignment. The Zone of Influence in the sections of the open cut excavation of the feeder main was estimated at 15 m from the dewatering location. There are no water wells located within 15 m of the proposed open cut excavations.

The estimated Zone of Influence at tunnel shaft locations is maximum 28 m from the tunnel shaft location. There are no water wells located within 28 m of the tunnel shaft locations. However, it is suggested to conduct a residential well monitoring program, including a door to door survey, to ensure that there are no dewatering related impacts on the residential water wells in the vicinity of the feedermain alignment.

4.2 Existing Surface Water Resources and Other Environmentally Sensitive Sites

One of the two tunnel shafts is located approximately 20 m to 25 m away from the Humber River.

The estimated dewatering zone of influence at this tunnel shaft (close to Mill Street) is approximately 14 m. Given the Humber Rive is not within the estimated dewatering ZOI no direct dewatering impacts are expected during construction.

However, due to the possible presence of higher conductive sand and gravel soil layers, it is recommended to monitor river flow rates and water levels during the construction phase of the project. This will allow identifying any effects on the Humber River water balance at the proposed tunnel.

In addition to the surface water monitoring program, a groundwater level monitoring program is also recommended to quantify the groundwater drawdown away from the tunnel shafts.

4.3 Existing Buildings It should be noted that in the area of the Humber River, the feedermain comes into close proximity with some existing buildings. The existing buildings are not expected to interfere with the proposed cut. The remaining areas surrounding the feedermain are not in close proximity to any existing buildings. However, it is recommended to implement a groundwater level monitoring program at the tunnel Shaft areas to ensure that groundwater levels do not drop at the buildings.



June 20, 2011


10

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Summary of Results and Impact Assessment Based on the findings of the current Hydrogeological Assessment, the following is a summary of the conclusions and recommendations provided in the report:

5.1.1 Hydrogeological Setting The Bolton area is located in the physiographic region known as the South Slope, which is characterized by undulating tracts of land faintly drumlinized.

The groundwater elevations along the proposed feedermain route varied from approximately 0.76 m to 11.97 mbgs. Recent static water level (SWL) monitoring of the existing monitoring wells suggests that the most part of the feedermain is at or above the SWL. Due to the complex nature of geomorphology of the area, the shallow groundwater flow pattern is expected to be relatively complex.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the overburden in the area close to the Humber River varies from 1.84 x 10-7 to 5.9 x 10-7 m/s.

Approximately 22 of the wells are located within 500 m of the proposed feedermain alignment. All the wells within 500 m of the feedermain alignment are screened in overburden aquifers.

5.1.2 Dewatering Requirements The maximum predicted zone of influence to lower and maintain the groundwater level to a depth 0.5 m below the invert elevation of the feedermain is 9 m from the dewatering area.

The predicted zone of influence to drop and maintain the groundwater level below 8.0 m to 12 m below the SWL is in the range of 14 m to 28 m.

The estimated seepage rate for the open cut section of the feedermain is 66.3 m3/day. This dewatering rate was estimated for the full length of the open cut excavations extend into the saturated zone.

The estimated total seepage rate at both tunnel shafts is 114.6 m3/day.

• The estimated seepage rate into the trenchless tunnel section is 88.7 m3/day.

• All of the analyzed parameters were below their respective Limit for Sanitary Sewer Discharge. The groundwater discharge from construction activities is recommended to dispose into Town of Caledon Sanitary Sewer System.

5.1.3 Potential Impacts Results of the study suggest that there are no potential impacts of the dewatering activities at the site on the existing residential water wells.

A surface water and groundwater monitoring program during the construction period at the tunnel shaft locations is recommended.

Recommended to conduct a residential well monitoring program for the wells located within 500 m of the feedermain alignment.



June 20, 2011


11

5.2 Proposed Monitoring Plan

The following monitoring activities are proposed to be undertaken during dewatering:

5.2.1 Pumping Rates and Duration

The pumping rate should be measured using an in-line flow meter or other suitable method.

A record of dewatering rates and duration will be required by the Ministry of the Environment on completion of dewatering works.

5.2.2 Discharge Water Quality

Dewatering effluent water quality should be monitored to ensure that the dewatering water quality is in compliance with the Region of Peel Sanitary Sewer By-Law Criteria.

It is recommended to monitor the discharge water quality on weekly basis during the first month of dewatering. The discharge water quality monitoring frequency can be reduced to once a month after the first month, if discharge water quality issues are not documented during the first month of monitoring.

5.2.3 Residential Well Monitoring Program A proposed residential well monitoring program including the pre, during and post construction activities for the Bolton feedermain development is provided below.

5.2.4 Pre-Construction Activities It is recommended that three rounds of residential well monitoring be completed to establish baseline well condition, water level and water quality of the existing residential water wells within an identified ‘Area of Influence’.

The proposed pre-construction residential well monitoring program will consist of a door-to-door survey.

A Baseline Well Condition and Monitoring Report would then be completed and submitted to the Region of Peel.

5.2.5 Construction Activities During the construction activities, groundwater levels in all authorized residential wells should be measured on a weekly basis. The frequency of the monitoring events would be tailored based on the results of the measurements (i.e. from weekly to monthly monitoring events).

5.2.6 Post-Construction Activities Once the construction activities are complete, one round of well water samples should be collected and analyzed for the same parameters that were specified in the pre-construction sampling program.



June 20, 2011


12

Monthly groundwater levels would be measured for the first six months in all authorized residential wells followed by quarterly measurements also for a period of six months. The period of the proposed total post construction residential well monitoring program will be one year.

5.2.7 Contingency Plan A contingency plan is recommended to address potential well concerns related to the construction dewatering works. This plan includes short-term and long-term measures. When exp receives a well concern from a well owner residing in the area of influence of the feedermain development, an exp representative will respond to investigate a residential water well concern within four (4) hours. At this time, the home owner will be offered bottled water for consumption. After the initial assessment, exp would recommend a suitable remedy to the resident, and advise the Town and the land owner. Depending on the nature of the concern, a short-term or long-term response would address groundwater quality impairment and/or reduced groundwater supply.



June 20, 2011


13

6 Limitations The information presented in this letter report is based on a limited investigation designed to provide information to support an assessment of the current hydrogeological conditions within the study area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report reflect Site conditions existing at the time of the assessment. Trow must be contacted immediately if any unforeseen site conditions are experienced during the dewatering activities. This will allow Trow to review the new findings and provide appropriate recommendations to allow the construction to proceed in a timely and cost effective manner.

Our undertaking at Trow, therefore, is to perform our work within limits prescribed by our clients, with the usual thoroughness and competence of the geoscience/engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in this report.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of AECOM and the Regional Municipality of Peel. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Trow, or used or relied upon in whole or in part by other parties for any purposes whatsoever. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any part thereof, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Trow Associates Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.



June 20, 2011


14

We trust that this information is satisfactory for your purposes. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

exp Services Inc. Jennifer Mule`, B.Sc. Environmental Specialist Environmental Services

Jay Samarakkody, P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist Environmental Services

Dan Menard, P.Geo, MBA Head, Hydrogeological Services Environmental Services



June 20, 2011

Appendix A – MOE Water Well Records

No WELL_ID X Y Well Depth (m) Water Found Depth (m) Final_Status Well Use1 Well Use2

1 4900265 600992.6 4857721 25.9 12.2, 24.4 Water Supply Domestic2 4900319 600319.6 4858462 15.2 15.2 Water Supply Domestic3 4900320 600967.6 4858821 15.2 10.7 Water Supply Domestic4 4900321 601111.6 4859422 80.8 75.0 Water Supply Domestic5 4900323 600039.6 4860503 53.0 53.0 Water Supply Domestic6 4900325 599933.6 4860568 79.9 78.3 Water Supply Public7 4900385 600255.6 4860508 49.4 48.2 Water Supply Livestock Domestic8 4900386 600315.6 4860511 57.0 54.9 Water Supply Livestock Domestic9 4903224 599714.6 4860723 45.7 45.7 Water Supply Domestic

10 4903460 600664.6 4859623 74.7 74.7 Water Supply Domestic11 4903720 601114.6 4857543 29.0 12.2 Water Supply Domestic12 4903761 600664.6 4859448 15.2 6.1 Water Supply Domestic13 4903824 601194.6 4857553 29.0 29.0 Water Supply Domestic14 4904841 602131 4858792 108.8 na Water Supply Municipal15 4905511 600564.6 4859323 45.7 45.7 Water Supply Domestic16 4905679 599914.6 4860773 45.1 42.7 Water Supply Domestic17 4906158 601039 4861213 93.0 91.2 Water Supply Domestic18 4905962 600214.6 4858323 75.3 72.5 Water Supply Domestic19 4906481 600709.6 4859452 42.7 40.5 Water Supply Domestic20 4906483 600263.6 4858447 77.7 75.9 Water Supply Domestic21 4906972 600581.6 4859383 47.2 45.4 Water Supply Domestic22 4907240 600622.6 4859469 49.7 46.6 Water Supply Domestic

Appendix ATable A-1

Water Well Details 1

WELL_ID X Y Main Material Material 2 Material 3 Depth (m)

4900265 600992.6 4857721 CLAY 24.44900265 600992.6 4857721 CLAY 25.94900265 600992.6 4857721 GRAVEL 24.74900265 600992.6 4857721 MEDIUM SAND 12.24900265 600992.6 4857721 TOPSOIL 4.64900265 600992.6 4857721 CLAY 10.74900265 600992.6 4857721 COARSE SAND 14.04900319 600319.6 4858462 GRAVEL 15.24900319 600319.6 4858462 TOPSOIL CLAY 4.64900319 600319.6 4858462 CLAY 14.94900320 600967.6 4858821 MEDIUM SAND 15.24900320 600967.6 4858821 CLAY 10.74900321 601111.6 4859422 MEDIUM SAND 80.84900321 601111.6 4859422 HARDPAN 57.04900321 601111.6 4859422 CLAY 13.74900321 601111.6 4859422 CLAY 67.44900321 601111.6 4859422 CLAY 39.34900321 601111.6 4859422 CLAY MEDIUM SAND 2.44900321 601111.6 4859422 MEDIUM SAND STONES 75.04900323 600039.6 4860503 CLAY 36.64900323 600039.6 4860503 CLAY SILT 50.34900323 600039.6 4860503 FINE SAND 51.54900323 600039.6 4860503 COARSE SAND GRAVEL 53.04900325 599933.6 4860568 TOPSOIL 0.64900325 599933.6 4860568 CLAY 3.74900325 599933.6 4860568 COARSE SAND CLAY 79.94900325 599933.6 4860568 CLAY STONES 76.54900385 600255.6 4860508 CLAY 2.14900385 600255.6 4860508 CLAY 32.94900385 600255.6 4860508 FINE SAND 48.24900385 600255.6 4860508 COARSE SAND 49.44900386 600315.6 4860511 CLAY 33.54900386 600315.6 4860511 CLAY 54.94900386 600315.6 4860511 HARDPAN GRAVEL 48.84900386 600315.6 4860511 MEDIUM SAND 57.04900386 600315.6 4860511 CLAY MEDIUM SAND 18.34903224 599714.6 4860723 MEDIUM SAND GRAVEL 45.74903224 599714.6 4860723 CLAY 32.04903224 599714.6 4860723 CLAY 7.64903224 599714.6 4860723 CLAY SILT 43.64903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY GRAVEL FINE SAND 30.54903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY 5.84903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY MEDIUM SAND 73.84903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY MEDIUM SAND 41.14903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY 28.0

Appendix ATable A-2

Water Well Details -2

Page 1 of 3


Appendix ATable A-2


4903460 600664.6 4859623 MEDIUM SAND 18.04903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY 17.74903460 600664.6 4859623 MEDIUM SAND 74.74903460 600664.6 4859623 CLAY 69.84903720 601114.6 4857543 CLAY 29.04903720 601114.6 4857543 CLAY 3.74903720 601114.6 4857543 MEDIUM SAND 12.84903720 601114.6 4857543 CLAY 12.24903761 600664.6 4859448 TOPSOIL 0.34903761 600664.6 4859448 CLAY 4.64903761 600664.6 4859448 CLAY 15.24903824 601194.6 4857553 CLAY 28.34903824 601194.6 4857553 COARSE SAND 29.04903824 601194.6 4857553 SAND 13.74903824 601194.6 4857553 TOPSOIL 3.74903824 601194.6 4857553 CLAY 13.14904841 602136 4858792 TOPSOIL 0.34904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL CLAY 0.94904841 602136 4858792 CLAY BOULDERS 46.34904841 602136 4858792 SAND GRAVEL 53.34904841 602136 4858792 CLAY GRAVEL 73.54904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL CLAY 75.94904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL SAND CLAY 82.94904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL CLAY 84.74904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL SAND CLAY 90.84904841 602136 4858792 CLAY GRAVEL 91.74904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL SAND CLAY 108.5

4904841 602136 4858792 GRAVEL CLAY 108.84905511 600564.6 4859323 CLAY 37.84905511 600564.6 4859323 SAND 34.44905511 600564.6 4859323 SAND 40.54905511 600564.6 4859323 CLAY 1.54905511 600564.6 4859323 CLAY 4.64905511 600564.6 4859323 CLAY 31.74905511 600564.6 4859323 SAND 45.74905511 600564.6 4859323 SAND 2.44905511 600564.6 4859323 CLAY 42.74905679 599914.6 4860773 CLAY 41.84905679 599914.6 4860773 GRAVEL CLAY HARD 25.04905679 599914.6 4860773 SAND 45.14905679 599914.6 4860773 CLAY 4.34905962 600214.6 4858323 CLAY SANDY 71.64905962 600214.6 4858323 TOPSOIL 0.64905962 600214.6 4858323 CLAY GRAVELLY 5.24905962 600214.6 4858323 CLAY 13.1

Page 2 of 3


Appendix ATable A-2


4905962 600214.6 4858323 CLAY SANDY 21.94905962 600214.6 4858323 SAND 75.34905962 600214.6 4858323 CLAY 61.34906158 601039 4861213 CLAY 5.54906158 601039 4861213 CLAY STONES 29.04906158 601039 4861213 CLAY SANDY 58.54906158 601039 4861213 CLAY HARD 68.34906158 601039 4861213 CLAY 70.74906158 601039 4861213 CLAY SANDY 75.04906158 601039 4861213 CLAY 82.34906158 601039 4861213 CLAY SANDY 86.04906158 601039 4861213 CLAY SHALE 88.74906158 601039 4861213 SHALE 93.04906481 600709.6 4859452 MEDIUM SAND 42.74906481 600709.6 4859452 CLAY 40.54906481 600709.6 4859452 CLAY 36.64906483 600263.6 4858447 CLAY STONES 5.54906483 600263.6 4858447 CLAY STONES 22.64906483 600263.6 4858447 FINE SAND 77.74906483 600263.6 4858447 CLAY 54.94906483 600263.6 4858447 CLAY SILT 75.94906972 600581.6 4859383 CLAY 4.94906972 600581.6 4859383 SAND CEMENTED SILT 45.44906972 600581.6 4859383 CLAY 27.44906972 600581.6 4859383 SAND 47.24906972 600581.6 4859383 CLAY SILT 44.24907240 600622.6 4859469 CLAY STONES HARD 36.64907240 600622.6 4859469 FINE SAND 49.74907240 600622.6 4859469 CLAY SOFT 29.04907240 600622.6 4859469 SAND CLAY 6.74907240 600622.6 4859469 SILT FINE SAND CLAY 46.6

Page 3 of 3



June 20, 2011

Appendix B – Borehole Logs



June 20, 2011

Appendix C – Slug Test Analysis

1 of 3 Initials ___

A Single Well Response Test (SWRT), also known as a bail test or a slug test, is conducted in order to determine the hydraulic conductivity (k) of an aquifer. The method of the SWRT is to characterize the change of groundwater level in a well or borehole over time.

In order to ensure consistency and repeatability, all exp. employees are to follow the procedure outlined in this document when conducting SWRTs.

The figure below depicts a schematic of a slug and bail test and the respective water level changes.

Slug Test Procedure

Equipment Required • Water level meter • Slug • Garbage bag • De-ionized water

2 of 3 Initials ___

• Latex gloves • Field sheets/log book • Methanol • Pails for washing • Stop watch or watch with seconds • Bailer and rope • Lab grade soap

Testing Procedure 1. Remove cap from well and collect static water level 2. Remove waterra tubing/bailer and place in garbage bag. Record static water level measurement again. 3. Lower the slug into the well and record the dynamic water level. 4. Record the drawdown (for the slug test) at set five (5) second intervals for the first five (5) minutes, then

reduce to every one (1) minute. 5. Continue recording the drawdown until 95% recovery is reached. To calculate this value: Find the difference

between the dynamic water level and the static water level, then multiply by 95% (.95). Add the resulting value to the dynamic water level.

(Static Water Level – Dynamic Water Level).95 + Static Water Level = 95% Recovery Value 6. Once complete, replace the waterra tubing/bailer and re-secure the well cap.

Note: If the well is deep, more than one slug may be inserted by attaching the slugs to a series.

Slugs must be washed with methanol, then lab grade soap, and then rinsed with de-ionized water after each use.

Based on the recorded observations, the hydraulic conductivity (in m/s) of the aquifer will be determined. In order to determine the hydraulic conductivity; the well diameter, radius of the borehole and length of the screen will also be required.

Bail Test Procedure

Equipment Required • 20 L (5 gal) Graduated pail • Stop watch or watch with seconds • Garbage bags • Water level meter • Field sheets/log book • Latex Gloves • Bailer and Rope

Procedure 1. Remove cap from well and collect static water level. 2. If using a bailer:

a. Affix the rope to the bailer. b. Remove the waterra tubing and place in garbage bag c. Record static water level measurement again. d. Record how much water was removed by either counting the number of full bailers or emptying

removed water into a container. e. Quickly lower the bailer into the well and remove. f. Continue this process until the water level will reduce no further.

3 of 3 Initials ___

g. Record the dynamic water level. 3. If using waterra to bail the water:

a. Pump the water into graduated bucked until the water level will reduce no further. b. Record how much water has been removed. c. Record the dynamic water level.

4. Record the recovery at set five (5) second intervals for the first give (5) minutes, then reduce to every one (1) minute.

5. Continue recording the drawdown/recovery until 95% recovery is reached. 6. Once complete, replace any waterra tubing that may have been removed from the well and re-secure the

well cap.



June 20, 2011

Appendix D – Zone of Influence Calculations

Appendix D

Zone of Influence Calculation

R0 = 3000 x DD x K0.5

(Sichardt's Relationship)

R0 = Zone of InfluenceDD = Required DrawdownK = Hydraulic Conductivity

Open Cut Section (from 80 m west of teperence street on King Street West to tunnel shaft at close to Mill Street)

K Maximum DD

R0

m/s m msandy silt to silt 1.84E‐07 4 5.1clayey silt 5.90E‐07 4 9.2

Table XX‐2: Tunnel Shafts

KMaximum

DDR0

m/s m m

at Mill St.Sandy silt to

silt5.90E‐07 8 18.4

at Centennial Dr.Sandy silt to

silt5.90E‐07 12 27.7

Formation

Table XX‐1: Zone of Influence ‐ Open Cut

Shaft Formation



June 20, 2011

Appendix E – Seepage Rate Calculations

Appendix E

Seepage Rate Calculations for Open Cut Section

Considered as a narrow trench dewatered using double line of well pointsQ = [(0.73+0.27 x (H-h0)/H) x K x X/DL x (H2-h2

o)]

Q = total discharge from two lines of well points (m3/s)X = length of a trench (m)H = height of static water table (m)h0 = height of water table in well points (m)DL = distance to a line source (m)K = hydraulic conductivity (m/s)Bottom of aquifer = 200 masl

Table C-1: Seepage Rates for Open Cut Sections

m3/s m3/day1 BH3 & BH4 170 217.12 213.5 213.00 1.84E-07 9.40 3.28E-04 28.362 BH4 & BH5 100 215 213.2 212.70 1.84E-07 9.40 9.62E-05 8.313 BH5 & BH9 170 213.2 212 211.50 5.90E-07 9.40 3.43E-04 29.61

* Distance to line water source was assumes as 9.4 m from the trench Total 66.3

Seepage Rate (Q)Section ID

Lowest Watermain Invert Ele.

(masl)

Excavation Bottom ele.

(masl)K (m/s) Distance to Line

Source* (m)Watermain

Distance (m)Borehole No. Highest SWL (masl)

1

Seepage Rates at Tunnel Shafts

Full penetration by a single well of unconfined aquifer fed by circular source

Q = πΚ (H2 - hw2)/loge(Ro/rw)

K - Hydraulic ConductivityH - Water column above the confining layer (at SWL)hw - lowest water level above the confining bed (after pumping)rw - effective radius

Bottom of aquifer: 200 masl

Table C-2: Seepage Rates at Tunnel Shafts

Length Width

m/s m m m m m m3/s m3/day1 5.90E-07 10 5 4 13.2 14.0 4.0 5.38E-04 46.52 5.90E-07 10 5 9 21 28.0 4.0 7.88E-04 68.1

** geometric mean of the K values for sand layer and silt till layer Total 114.6

Seepage Rate for Tunnel Section

Q was estimated using the method proposed by Goodman et. al. (1967)

Qo= 2πKH0/2.3 log(2H0/r)

K =hydraulic conductivity SWL (Ave) - Average Static Water Level for the tunnel section (between two tunnel shafts)Ho - Water table above the centre of the tunnel r - radius of the tunnelQo - groundwater seepage rate per 1 m of tunnel

Table C-3: Estimated Groundwater Seepage - Tunnel Sections

K SWL (Ave)Elevation of

Center of Tunnel (Ave)

Ho (Ave) r* Qo** Length of Tunnel

Seepage Rare for

Total Length

m/s masl masl m m m3/d m m3/dayHumber River Crossing silt to sandy silt 5.90E-07 213.8 207.3 6.5 0.25 6.11E-06 140 73.8

Humber River Crossing clayey silt 1.84E-07 213.8 207.3 6.5 0.25 1.90E-06 90 14.8

*diameter of the tunnel was taken as 100mm + feedermain dia. Total 88.7**Steady State Conditions

Section Formation

Seepage Rate (Q)H Ro Effective Radiusrw

Shaft NoK

Shaft Dimensionshw

2



June 20, 2011

Appendix F – Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

Your Project #: BRM-00303334-BO Site Location: BOLTON/HYDROGEOLOGY ASSESSMENTYour C.O.C. #: 23312

Attention: Jay SamarakkodyTrow Associates Inc1595 Clark BlvdBrampton, ONL6T 4V1

Report Date: 2011/02/28

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B123401Received: 2011/02/22, 14:22

Sample Matrix: Water# Samples Received: 1

Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceABN Compounds in Water by GC/MS 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/24 CAM SOP-00301 EPA 8270 (modified) Carbonaceous BOD 1 N/A 2011/02/28 CAM SOP-00427 APHA 5210B Total Cyanide 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/24 CAM SOP-00457 EPA 335.3 Fluoride 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00448 APHA 4500FC Mercury in Water by CVAA 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00453 EPA 7470 Dissolved Metals Analysis by ICP 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/24 CAM SOP-00408 EPA 6010 Total Nonylphenol in Liquids by HPLC 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00313 In-house Method Nonylphenol Ethoxylates in Liquids: HPLC 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00313 In-house Method Animal and Vegetable Oil & Grease 1 N/A 2011/02/22 CAM SOP-00326 SM 5520 B Total Oil and Grease 1 2011/02/22 2011/02/22 CAM SOP-00326 EPA 1664A Polychlorinated Biphenyl in Water 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00309 SW846 8082 pH 1 N/A 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00448 SM 4500H Phenols (4AAP) 1 N/A 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00444 MOE ROPHEN-E3179 Sulphate by Automated Colourimetry 1 N/A 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00464 EPA 375.4 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Water 1 2011/02/23 2011/02/24 CAM SOP-00454 EPA 351.2 Rev 2 TPH (Heavy Oil) ( 1 ) 1 2011/02/22 2011/02/22 CAM SOP-00326 SM 5520F Total Suspended Solids 1 N/A 2011/02/23 CAM SOP-00428 SM 2540D Volatile Organic Compounds in Water 1 N/A 2011/02/24 CAM SOP-00226 EPA 8260 modified

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.* Results relate only to the items tested.

(1) Note: TPH (Heavy Oil) is equivalent to Mineral / Synthetic Oil & Grease

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

SARA SAROOP, Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (905) 817-5700 Ext:5821

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Mississauga Env: 6740 Campobello Road L5N 2L8 Telephone(905) 817-5700 FAX(905) 817-5777

Page 1 of 9

Trow Associates IncMaxxam Job #: B123401 Client Project #: BRM-00303334-BOReport Date: 2011/02/28 Project name: BOLTON/HYDROGEOLOGY ASSESSMENT

PEEL SANITARY SEWER USE BYLAW (53-2010)

Maxxam ID IS1301 IS1301Sampling Date 2011/02/22 2011/02/22

Units MW9 MW9 Lab-Dup RDL QC BatchCalculated ParametersTotal Animal/Vegetable Oil and Grease mg/L <2 2 2411784InorganicsTotal Carbonaceous BOD mg/L 19 2 2412370Fluoride (F-) mg/L <1(1) <1(1) 1 2412692Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 5.6 0.5 2412775pH pH 11.7 11.7 2412685Phenols-4AAP mg/L 0.002 0.001 2412043Total Suspended Solids mg/L 320 10 2412302Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 19 1 2409956Total Cyanide (CN) mg/L <0.02(2) <0.02(2) 0.02 2413179Miscellaneous ParametersNonylphenol Ethoxylate (Total) mg/L <0.025 <0.025 0.025 2412779Nonylphenol (Total) mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0.001 2412774Petroleum HydrocarbonsTotal Oil & Grease mg/L <2 2 2412250Total Oil & Grease Mineral/Synthetic mg/L <2 2 2412256MetalsMercury (Hg) mg/L <0.0001 0.0001 2412394Semivolatile OrganicsBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/L <2 2 2413188Di-N-butyl phthalate ug/L <2 2 2413188Surrogate Recovery (%)2,4,6-Tribromophenol % 78 24131882-Fluorobiphenyl % 95 24131882-Fluorophenol % 50 2413188D14-Terphenyl % 114 2413188D5-Nitrobenzene % 92 2413188D5-Phenol % 34 2413188

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch(1) - Due to the sample matrix, sample required dilution. Detection limit was adjusted accordingly.(2) - Detection Limit was raised due to matrix interferences.

Page 2 of 9


PEEL SANITARY SEWER USE BYLAW (53-2010)


Units MW9 MW9 Lab-Dup RDL QC BatchVolatile OrganicsBenzene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375Chloroform ug/L <0.2 0.2 24123751,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.4 0.4 24123751,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.4 0.4 2412375Dichlorodifluoromethane (FREON 12) ug/L <1 1 2412375cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L <0.4 0.4 2412375Ethylbenzene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375Hexane ug/L <1 1 2412375Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane) ug/L <1 1 2412375Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) ug/L 15 10 2412375Styrene ug/L <0.4 0.4 24123751,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L <0.4 0.4 2412375Tetrachloroethylene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375Toluene ug/L <0.4 0.4 2412375Trichloroethylene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375p+m-Xylene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375o-Xylene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375Xylene (Total) ug/L <0.2 0.2 2412375Surrogate Recovery (%)4-Bromofluorobenzene % 102 2412375D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 91 2412375D8-Toluene % 109 2412375PCBsTotal PCB ug/L <0.05 0.05 2412389Surrogate Recovery (%)2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene % 72 2412389Decachlorobiphenyl % 98 2412389

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 3 of 9


ELEMENTS BY ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY (WATER)


Units MW9 MW9 Lab-Dup RDL QC BatchMetalsDissolved Aluminum (Al) mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.1 2412527Dissolved Antimony (Sb) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2 2412527Dissolved Arsenic (As) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2 2412527Dissolved Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.08 0.08 0.02 2412527Dissolved Beryllium (Be) mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.005 2412527Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2 2412527Dissolved Boron (B) mg/L 0.23 0.22 0.02 2412527Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.005 2412527Dissolved Calcium (Ca) mg/L 20.1 19.9 0.05 2412527Dissolved Chromium (Cr) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.01 2412527Dissolved Cobalt (Co) mg/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02 2412527Dissolved Copper (Cu) mg/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02 2412527Dissolved Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 2412527Dissolved Lead (Pb) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 0.05 2412527Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 9.22 9.17 0.05 2412527Dissolved Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 2412527Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02 2412527Dissolved Nickel (Ni) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 0.05 2412527Dissolved Phosphorus (P) mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.1 2412527Dissolved Potassium (K) mg/L 2 2 1 2412527Dissolved Selenium (Se) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2 2412527Dissolved Silicon (Si) mg/L 7.2 7.2 0.2 2412527Dissolved Silver (Ag) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.01 2412527Dissolved Sodium (Na) mg/L 49.2 48.9 0.5 2412527Dissolved Strontium (Sr) mg/L 0.40 0.39 0.01 2412527Dissolved Sulphur (S) mg/L 0.6 0.5 0.5 2412527Dissolved Tin (Sn) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2 2412527Dissolved Titanium (Ti) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.01 2412527Dissolved Vanadium (V) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.01 2412527Dissolved Zinc (Zn) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.01 2412527

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 4 of 9


Package 1 3.7°CEach temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt

GENERAL COMMENTS

O&G/TPH-L; Low volume sample. DL adjusted accordingly

Sample IS1301-01: VOC Analysis: Due to foaming and high concentrations of non-target analytes, sample required dilution. The detection limits were adjusted accordingly.

Page 5 of 9


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT

Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits2409956 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2011/02/23 NC 75 - 125 101 80 - 120 <1 mg/L 1.4 252412043 Phenols-4AAP 2011/02/23 98 75 - 125 96 75 - 125 <0.001 mg/L NC 252412250 Total Oil & Grease 2011/02/22 99 85 - 115 <0.5 mg/L 1.0 252412256 Total Oil & Grease Mineral/Synthetic 2011/02/22 96 85 - 115 <0.5 mg/L 1.6 252412302 Total Suspended Solids 2011/02/23 <10 mg/L NC 25 97 85 - 1152412370 Total Carbonaceous BOD 2011/02/28 <2 mg/L NC 25 110 75 - 1252412375 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2011/02/24 100 70 - 130 98 70 - 130 93 %2412375 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2011/02/24 91 70 - 130 96 70 - 130 95 %2412375 D8-Toluene 2011/02/24 107 70 - 130 107 70 - 130 110 %2412375 Benzene 2011/02/24 80 70 - 130 82 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 Chloroform 2011/02/24 83 70 - 130 85 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2011/02/24 94 70 - 130 96 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402412375 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2011/02/24 96 70 - 130 97 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402412375 Dichlorodifluoromethane (FREON 12) 2011/02/24 96 60 - 140 97 60 - 140 <0.5 ug/L2412375 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 2011/02/24 78 70 - 130 81 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 2011/02/24 84 70 - 130 88 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402412375 Ethylbenzene 2011/02/24 93 70 - 130 96 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 Hexane 2011/02/24 89 70 - 130 88 70 - 130 <0.5 ug/L2412375 Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane) 2011/02/24 76 70 - 130 81 70 - 130 <0.5 ug/L NC 402412375 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 2011/02/24 83 60 - 140 89 60 - 140 <5 ug/L NC 402412375 Styrene 2011/02/24 96 70 - 130 99 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402412375 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2011/02/24 90 70 - 130 96 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402412375 Tetrachloroethylene 2011/02/24 91 70 - 130 93 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 Toluene 2011/02/24 93 70 - 130 93 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402412375 Trichloroethylene 2011/02/24 79 70 - 130 80 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 p+m-Xylene 2011/02/24 93 70 - 130 95 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 o-Xylene 2011/02/24 94 70 - 130 96 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412375 Xylene (Total) 2011/02/24 <0.1 ug/L NC 402412389 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene 2011/02/23 68 40 - 130 72 40 - 130 69 %2412389 Decachlorobiphenyl 2011/02/23 91 40 - 130 92 40 - 130 90 %2412389 Total PCB 2011/02/23 72 30 - 130 78 30 - 130 <0.05 ug/L 9.3 402412394 Mercury (Hg) 2011/02/23 101 75 - 125 100 80 - 120 <0.0001 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2011/02/24 97 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.1 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2011/02/24 93 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.2 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2011/02/24 101 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.2 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2011/02/24 97 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.02 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.005 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2011/02/24 96 80 - 120 94 90 - 110 <0.2 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Boron (B) 2011/02/24 98 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.02 mg/L 2.8 252412527 Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 100 90 - 110 <0.005 mg/L NC 25

Page 6 of 9



Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits2412527 Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2011/02/24 NC 80 - 120 101 90 - 110 <0.05 mg/L 0.8 252412527 Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 101 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2011/02/24 101 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.02 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2011/02/24 97 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.02 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2011/02/24 102 80 - 120 102 90 - 110 <0.02 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2011/02/24 103 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.05 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2011/02/24 95 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.05 mg/L 0.5 252412527 Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2011/02/24 98 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2011/02/24 98 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.02 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2011/02/24 100 80 - 120 100 90 - 110 <0.05 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 100 90 - 110 <0.1 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Potassium (K) 2011/02/24 98 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <1 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2011/02/24 102 80 - 120 101 90 - 110 <0.2 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Silicon (Si) 2011/02/24 96 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.2 mg/L 0.2 252412527 Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2011/02/24 94 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2011/02/24 NC 80 - 120 101 90 - 110 <0.5 mg/L 0.7 252412527 Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2011/02/24 95 80 - 120 100 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L 0.9 252412527 Dissolved Sulphur (S) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.5 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2011/02/24 96 80 - 120 98 90 - 110 <0.2 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2011/02/24 97 80 - 120 97 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 99 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L NC 252412527 Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2011/02/24 100 80 - 120 100 90 - 110 <0.01 mg/L NC 252412692 Fluoride (F-) 2011/02/23 100 80 - 120 101 85 - 115 <0.1 mg/L NC (1) 252412774 Nonylphenol (Total) 2011/02/24 51 50 - 130 96 50 - 130 <0.001 mg/L NC 402412775 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 2011/02/24 NC 80 - 120 95 85 - 115 <0.1 mg/L 4.2 20 94 N/A2412779 Nonylphenol Ethoxylate (Total) 2011/02/24 51 50 - 130 84 50 - 130 <0.025 mg/L NC 402413179 Total Cyanide (CN) 2011/02/24 99 80 - 120 99 80 - 120 <0.005 mg/L NC (2) 252413188 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 2011/02/24 91 10 - 130 90 %2413188 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2011/02/24 101 30 - 130 107 %2413188 2-Fluorophenol 2011/02/24 54 10 - 130 56 %2413188 D14-Terphenyl 2011/02/24 117 30 - 130 119 %2413188 D5-Nitrobenzene 2011/02/24 91 30 - 130 103 %2413188 D5-Phenol 2011/02/24 35 10 - 130 37 %2413188 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2011/02/24 100 30 - 130 <2 ug/L 5.7 40

Page 7 of 9



Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits2413188 Di-N-butyl phthalate 2011/02/24 97 30 - 130 <2 ug/L 0.5 40

N/A = Not ApplicableRPD = Relative Percent DifferenceDuplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.QC Standard: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recoverycalculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable calculation.(1) - Due to the sample matrix, sample required dilution. Detection limit was adjusted accordingly.(2) - Detection Limit was raised due to matrix interferences.

Page 8 of 9

Validation Signature Page

Maxxam Job #: B123401

The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).

CHARLES ANCKER, B.Sc., M.Sc., C.Chem, Senior Analyst

CRISTINA CARRIERE, Scientific Services

FLOYD MAYEDE, Senior Analyst

ROBERT MACAULAY, Senior Analyst

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 9 of 9



June 20, 2011

Tables

On completion First Round (Feb. 15, 2011) SWL elevation Second Round

(Feb. 17, 2011) SWL elevation

masl m bgs m bgs m bgs masl m bgs maslBH/MW1 233.5 5.0 no free water 3.25 230.25 3.16 230.34BH/MW3 220.5 5.0 no free water 3.38 217.12 3.38 217.12

BH/MW6A 216.0 5.0 no free water 3.35 212.65 2.78 213.22BH/MW9 216.0 15.7 15.7 2.84 213.16 N/A N/A

BH/MW10 217.7 20.3 20.2 4.29 213.41 4.16 213.54BH/MW11A 219.0 20.3 19.8 9.20 209.80 8.62 210.38BH/MW11B 227.1 20.3 20.3 12.68 214.42 12.09 215.01BH/MW14 269.0 5.1 no free water 4.47 264.53 4.44 264.56BH/MW18 264.2 5.0 4.3 1.81 262.39 1.24 262.96MW101 N/A 1.9 N/A 1.19 N/A 0.50 N/AMW102 N/A 1.8 N/A 0.42 N/A 0.40 N/A

Notes:m bsg meters below ground surface

masl meters above sea levelN/A not available

Ground ElevationWell ID

Well Depth

Summary of Water Level Monitoring

Table 1

Water Level Measurements



June 20, 2011

Figures

Documents

The new identity of Trow Associates Inc....The new identity of • AECOM Hydrogeological Assessment for Class EA and Route Section Study Project Name Elevated Tank and Feedermain,