Preliminary Existing Conditions Analysis: Hydrogeology

MAY 2008

MATTAMY RICHMOND LANDS

Preliminary Existing Conditions Analysis: Hydrogeology

MAY 2008

MATTAMY RICHMOND LANDS

GOLDER ASSOSCIATES LTD.

32 Steacie Drive, Kanata, OntarioK2K 2A9 (613) 592 9600

www.golder.com

MATTAMY HOMES

123 Huntmar DriveOttawa, OntarioK2S 1B9(613) 831-3532

www.mattamyhomes.com

May 2008 - i - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Mattamy Homes Limited (Mattamy Homes) to compile and document the available hydrogeological information within the vicinity of the Village of Richmond, including the “future development” lands along the western edge of the Village, which are proposed for residential development by Mattamy Homes. The Village of Richmond is located in the southwestern portion of the amalgamated City of Ottawa (City), approximately 25 kilometres southwest of downtown Ottawa. Existing homes with the Village are primarily serviced by private wells and sanitary sewers. The King’s Park Subdivision, located south of the Jock River in the western portion of the Village, is the only area in the Village that has a public water supply managed by the City. The Hyde Park development, located on the north side of Perth Street east of the Richmond Plaza, is serviced by a private communal well system. Published information indicates the surficial geology within the Village of Richmond consists primarily of offshore marine deposits including massive blue-grey clay, silty clay and silt. To the west of the Village, the surficial overburden unit changes to fine- to medium-grained sand, and to the south of the Village, the upper surficial unit is primarily glacial till deposits, or organic deposits. Within the Village, the surficial clay deposits are typically underlain by glacial till which overlies bedrock. The sequence of Paleozoic sedimentary rock underlying the study area (from oldest to youngest and deepest to shallowest) is Nepean Formation (sandstone), March Formation (sandstone/dolostone), Oxford Formation (dolostone) and, where present to the west of the Village, the Rockcliffe Formation (limestone/sandstone/shale). Extensive deposits of coarse and permeable overburden, capable of supplying sufficient quantities of groundwater for domestic use, are not prevalent in the vicinity of the Village of Richmond. For this reason, the bedrock aquifers are considered the principal aquifers for water supply. Oxford Formation Aquifer (Shallow Aquifer) The shallow bedrock aquifer is the primary source of water for private water supply wells, and is interpreted to correspond with the upper and middle part of the Oxford Formation. Typical well yields reported for this aquifer are between 45 to 115 L/min. Over 90 percent of the private supply wells completed in the Village of Richmond obtain their water from the Oxford Formation Aquifer. Hydrogeology studies completed in support of subdivision developments within the Village of Richmond also indicate the shallow aquifer is capable of producing groundwater at a quantity that is sufficient for domestic purposes.

May 2008 - ii- 08-1122-0078

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - cont’d

The water quality from the Oxford Formation aquifer is considered potable. The groundwater is hard, as is typical for carbonate aquifers, iron concentrations are sometimes detected above the non-health related aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L, and low concentrations of hydrogen sulphide are often present. Lower March and Nepean Formations Aquifer (Deep Aquifer) A deep bedrock aquifer is interpreted to be present within the lower part of the March Formation and within the Nepean Formation. The deep aquifer is regionally extensive, and is the primary source of water for large residential/municipal groundwater supply systems including the municipal wells in Almonte, Kemptville, King’s Park (Richmond), Hyde Park (Richmond), Merrickville and Munster. Aquifer testing competed on the communal wells at these locations have demonstrated high sustainable well yields (i.e., as high as 4,450 L/min in Almonte). Water quality from the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer is considered potable. In general the groundwater quality in the deeper aquifer is slightly better than in the shallow aquifer; however, the water is also hard, and exceedances of the non-health related aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L for iron are occasionally detected. The majority of the identified potential sources of groundwater contamination within the Village are downgradient from the site, and therefore should not be a constraint to development using either private wells or communal wells. Farmland to the west of the site could represent a potential source of pathogens (associated with nutrient spreading) or contaminants (i.e., fertilizers, on-site fuel storage, on-site chemical storage, etc.) to wells completed at the site; however, if the site was developed on communal wells, the water would be drawn from the deeper aquifer, which has a lower relative vulnerability to contamination from surface sources. Supply wells completed in the shallow aquifer (i.e., private wells) and wells completed in the deeper aquifer (i.e., communal wells) are expected to produce groundwater that is safe and aesthetically suitable for human consumption. As such, water quality should not be a constraint to development at the site. Both the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer are capable of producing groundwater at a quantity that is sufficient for domestic purposes. The groundwater yields observed in the King’s Park communal wells, as well as communal wells completed in the same lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer in Kemptville, Merrickville, Munster and Almonte, indicate that water quantity in the deep aquifer will not be a constraint to development of the site using communal wells. The Mattamy Lands within the Village of Richmond are within the WHPA for the King’s Park communal well system. The potential planning implications, which would be defined as part of

May 2008 - iii- 08-1122-0078

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - cont’d

the source water protection plan to be developed for the King’s Park communal wells, are currently unknown. Any potential restrictions to development associated with being located within the WHPA would likely be related to land uses that are identified as potential sources of groundwater contamination (i.e., gas stations, dry cleaners, landfills, scrap yards, etc.). Residential development, which is proposed for the site, would likely be considered an appropriate land use. Input was received from residents of the Village of Richmond through an Open House held on April 12, 2008 and a Visioning Session conducted on April 19, 2008. The comments relating to hydrogeology primarily focused on ensuring that the quality and quantity of groundwater is sustained over the long-term. The existing information reviewed as part of preparing this report provides a wealth of data that can be used to comment on the extent of the local aquifers, and potential effects on groundwater quality and quantity associated with future development within the Village of Richmond. The existing data, combined with results from a site-specific hydrogeological assessment (required prior to development on communal wells) would provide the data necessary to assess the long-term capacity of the local aquifers. The potential for contamination of the local aquifers would be addressed through the development of a source water protection plan that would include all City operated communal well systems within the Village.

May 2008 - iv - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Table of Contents iv SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1

1.1 Study Area....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Review ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Applicable Legislation, Standards and Guidelines .......................................... 2

1.3.1 Development Using Private Wells ....................................................... 2 1.3.2 Development Using Communal Wells ................................................. 3

Ontario Water Resources Act – Ontario Regulation 903 ..................... 3 Ontario Water Resources Act (Section 34) – Permit to Take

Water ....................................................................................... 3 Water Taking and Transfer Regulation – Ontario Regulation

387........................................................................................... 3 Clean Water Act................................................................................... 3 Drinking Water Systems Regulation – Ontario Regulation 170 ........... 4

2.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY....................................................................5 2.1 Surficial Geology ............................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Mattamy Homes Lands ................................................................................... 5 2.2 Bedrock Geology............................................................................................. 5 2.3 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1 Overburden Aquifers............................................................................ 7 2.3.2 Bedrock Aquifers.................................................................................. 7

Oxford Formation Aquifer (Shallow Aquifer) ....................................... 7 Lower Oxford/Upper March Formations Aquitard ................................ 8 Lower March and Nepean Formations Aquifer (Deep Aquifer) ............ 8

2.3.3 Groundwater Flow Direction ................................................................ 9 2.3.4 Groundwater Quality............................................................................ 9

3.0 PRIVATE WELLS ..............................................................................................10 3.1 Well Depths ................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Groundwater Quantity ................................................................................... 11 3.3 Groundwater Quality ..................................................................................... 11

4.0 EXISTING COMMUNAL WELL SYSTEMS .........................................................14 4.1 King’s Park Water Supply System................................................................. 14

4.1.1 System Description............................................................................ 14 4.1.2 Summary of Previous Aquifer Testing ............................................... 14 4.1.3 Groundwater Quality.......................................................................... 15

May 2008 - v- 08-1122-0078

TABLE OF CONTENTS - cont’d

4.1.4 Wellhead Protection Area.................................................................. 16 4.2 Hyde Park Water Supply System .................................................................. 17

4.2.1 System Description............................................................................ 17 4.2.2 Summary of Previous Aquifer Testing ............................................... 17 4.2.3 Groundwater Quality.......................................................................... 18 4.2.4 Wellhead Protection Area.................................................................. 19

5.0 ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ...........................................................................20 5.1 Existing and Historic Potential Sources of Contamination............................. 20 5.2 Groundwater Quality and Quantity ................................................................ 20 5.3 Impacts to Local Wells .................................................................................. 21 5.4 Wellhead Protection Areas and 100 Metre Exclusion Zone .......................... 21 5.5 Input from Public Meetings............................................................................ 22

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT......................................................................23 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................24

In Order

Following Page 26

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - Documents Reviewed LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - Key Plan FIGURE 2 - Site Plan FIGURE 3 - Surficial Geology FIGURE 4 - Bedrock Geology FIGURE 5 - King’s Park – Time of Travel in the WHPA

May 2008 - 1 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Mattamy Homes Limited (Mattamy Homes) to compile and document the available hydrogeological information within the vicinity of the Village of Richmond, including the “future development” lands along the western edge of the Village, which are proposed for residential development by Mattamy Homes. 1.1 Study Area The Village of Richmond is located in the southwestern portion of the amalgamated City of Ottawa (City), approximately 25 kilometres southwest of downtown Ottawa. The general location of the Village is shown on Figure 1. The Village of Richmond was established in 1818, and is approximately 7.4 square kilometres in size. As of the end 2007, the City’s estimated population for the Village of Richmond was 4,461, with approximately 1,450 private dwellings (City of Ottawa, 2008). The Village boundary is shown on Figure 2. Existing homes with the Village are primarily serviced by private wells and sanitary sewers. It is estimated that there are currently in excess of 1,150 private wells within the Village of Richmond. The King’s Park Subdivision, located south of the Jock River in the western portion of the Village (see location on Figure 2), is the only area in the Village that has a public water supply managed by the City. The system consists of two drilled bedrock wells, and services approximately 150 homes. The Hyde Park development, located on the north side of Perth Street east of the Richmond Plaza (see location on Figure 2), is serviced by a private communal well system utilizing two bedrock wells. Mattamy Homes has purchased, or has options on, approximately 143 hectares (353 acres) of “future development” lands (referred to herein as the “site”) along the western edge of the Village of Richmond. The site is legally described as Lot 22, Concession II, III and IV, Village of Richmond. The site boundary is shown on Figure 2. The site is vacant rural land zoned for future residential development. The surrounding lands to the north, south and west of the site are beyond the Village boundary, and are primarily used for agricultural purposes. The lands to the east of the site are within the Village boundary, and consist primarily of low density residential developments. The dominant physiographic feature in the study area is the Jock River which flows southwest to northeast through the southern portion of the site. The headwaters of the Jock River are located in a swampy area near the hamlet of Franktown, approximately 20 kilometres southwest of the Village of Richmond. The Van Gaal Drain runs north to south along the eastern edge of the northern portion of the site, and exits the site to the southwest of the intersection of Fortune Street and Martin Street. The Van Gaal Drain flows in to the Jock River just south of Lennox Street. The location of the Jock River and the Van Gaal Drain are shown on Figure 2. The Richmond

May 2008 - 2 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

Fen, which is a Provincially Significant Life Science ANSI, is located approximately 1.5 kilometres southwest of the site. 1.2 Document Review The documents that were reviewed included the following:

available topographic, surficial geology, structural geology and bedrock geology mapping;

hydrogeological reports prepared for development applications within and adjacent to the Village, prepared by Golder and by others;

hydrogeological reports detailing aquifer testing at the communal wells in the Village (King’s Park and Hyde Park), and for communal wells in surrounding areas that utilized the same water supply aquifer (i.e., Almonte, Kemptville, Merrickville and Munster);

results of preconstruction and other studies with a hydrogeological component, such as water quality sampling for the recent reconstruction of Perth Street;

wellhead protection studies completed for the King’s Park communal wells (Golder, 2003a) and the Hyde Park communal wells (Golder, 2007c);

water quality results and pumping rates for the King’s Park and Hyde Park communal wells; and,

Ministry of the Environment (MOE) water well records for the Village of Richmond. A complete list of the documents reviewed as part of the preparation of the Existing Conditions Report is provided in Table 1. 1.3 Applicable Legislation, Standards and Guidelines 1.3.1 Development Using Private Wells Regulation 903, under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), sets out minimum standards for the design, siting, constructing, tagging, reporting, maintaining and decommissioning wells. The regulation also sets out the licensing requirements for businesses and individuals engaged in well construction, pump and other equipment installation. The groundwater assessment procedure for proposed residential developments utilizing private wells is described in MOE Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment (MOE, 1996). The procedure is designed to ensure that future private wells within a proposed development will produce groundwater that is safe and aesthetically suitable for human consumption, and will provide a sufficient quantity of water for normal domestic purposes.

May 2008 - 3 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

1.3.2 Development Using Communal Wells If communal wells are selected to service the proposed residential development at the site, the following legislation, standards and guidelines would apply: Ontario Water Resources Act – Ontario Regulation 903 Regulation 903, under the OWRA, sets out minimum standards for the design, siting, constructing, tagging, reporting, maintaining and decommissioning wells. The regulation also sets out the licensing requirements for businesses and individuals engaged in well construction, pump and other equipment installation. Ontario Water Resources Act (Section 34) – Permit to Take Water Section 34 of the OWRA requires that an entity that takes more than 50,000 litres of water per day, with some limited exceptions, obtain a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the MOE. The MOE sets limits on the total quantity of water each permit holder can take for the duration of the permit, and establishes conditions, such as, monitoring, reporting, and contingency measures as part of the permit. Water taking permits are issued for a maximum period of 10 years. Technical studies (i.e., hydrogeological, hydrological and/or hydroecological) are typically required as supporting documentation for PTTW applications. Water Taking and Transfer Regulation – Ontario Regulation 387 The Water Taking and Transfer Regulation requires all PTTW holders to collect, record and report data on the volume of water taken daily for the period January 1 to December 31 to the MOE by March 31 of the following year. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act regulates the preparation and implementation of source water protection plans for drinking water supplies. The technical requirements, study approach and methodology to obtain the information to guide the development of the source water protection plan are set out within the Draft Guidance Modules: 3 – Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis, 5 – Issues Evaluation and Threats Inventory; and 6 – Water Quality Risk Assessment, developed by the MOE under the Clean Water Act. Regulations under the Clean Water Act have not been promulgated at the time of preparation of this report. The impact, if any, of these regulations cannot be evaluated at this time.

May 2008 - 4 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

Drinking Water Systems Regulation – Ontario Regulation 170 The Drinking Water Systems Regulation regulates municipal and private water systems that provide water to year-round residential developments and designated facilities that serve vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. Regulation 170 defines the classifications of drinking water systems, and provides information on the water quality sampling, operation, and reporting requirements associated with each classification of system.

May 2008 - 5 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

2.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 2.1 Surficial Geology Published information (Geological Survey of Canada, 1982) indicates the surficial geology within the Village of Richmond consists primarily of offshore marine deposits including massive blue-grey clay, silty clay and silt. In the eastern half of the Village, there are local deposits of silty sand, silt, sand and clay found within the flood plain of the Jock River. To the west of the Village, the surficial overburden unit changes to fine- to medium-grained sand, and to the south of the Village, the upper surficial unit is primarily glacial till deposits, or organic deposits. The glacial till generally forms a thin, discontinuous layer on the bedrock surface in the vicinity of the Village, and consists of a heterogeneous mixture of materials ranging from clay to large boulders. The organic deposits are primarily composed of muck and peat. Figure 3 shows the surficial geology for approximately four kilometres around the Village of Richmond. Within the Village, the surficial clay deposits are typically underlain by glacial till which overlies bedrock. The overburden thickness is greatest along the eastern edge and northern half of the Village (between approximately five metres to ten metres depth). The central portion and western half of the Village typically have an overburden thickness between approximately two metres and five metres. In some areas in the southwestern portion of the Village the overburden thins to less than two metres. 2.1.1 Mattamy Homes Lands A detailed assessment of the surficial geology of the site was completed by Jacques Whitford Ltd. (Jacques Whitford) between June 14 and June 20, 2007 (Jacques Whitford, 2007). The overburden on the site north of Perth Street consists of clay over till over inferred bedrock (depth of bedrock was greater than six metres). The thickness of the clay deposit thins towards the south, and in some locations a sandy silt unit is present between the overlying clay and the underlying till. In general, the depth to bedrock in the central portion of the site (i.e., between Perth Street and Ottawa Street) varies between two metres and six metres (generally thinning towards the south). South of Ottawa Street the clay unit is absent, and the sandy silt unit is at surface and is underlain by till, followed by bedrock. The depth to bedrock south of Ottawa Street typically ranges between less than two metres and four metres. 2.2 Bedrock Geology Published information (Geological Survey of Canada, 2001) indicates the surficial bedrock unit within the Village of Richmond is dolostone of the Oxford Formation. The surficial bedrock unit changes to the sandstone/shales of the Rockliffe Formation approximately 750 metres west of the Village boundary. Figure 4 shows the bedrock geology for approximately four kilometres around

May 2008 - 6 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

the Village of Richmond. No extensive bedrock outcrops are reported within the Village of Richmond. However, some exposed bedrock is present in the southern portion of the site near the Jock River (i.e., where the overburden reportedly thins to less than two metres). The sequence of Paleozoic sedimentary rock underlying the study area (from oldest to youngest and deepest to shallowest) is Nepean Formation (sandstone), March Formation (sandstone/dolostone), Oxford Formation (dolostone) and, where present to the west of the Village, the Rockcliffe Formation (limestone/sandstone/shale). The Nepean Formation sandstone overlies the unevenly eroded Precambrian granitic basement within the study area. Williams (1991) describes the Nepean Formation as white to cream coloured, weathering to grey. It is generally thick-bedded; however, portions are thinly-bedded and water-bearing. The cementing minerals include both calcite and quartz. The thickness of the Nepean Formation is difficult to ascertain precisely as there are few drillholes that have been reported to fully penetrate it. However, two wells were completed at Canadian Golf and Country Club, located approximately 12.5 kilometres northwest of the Village that fully penetrated the Nepean Formation into the underlying Precambrian granite. At this location, the Nepean Formation had a total thickness between 31.7 metres and 35.65 metres (Golder, 2007a). Across the study area, the Nepean Formation thickens towards the east (Williams, 1991), and is likely approximately 40 metres to 50 metres thick in the vicinity of the Village of Richmond. The Nepean Formation is conformably overlain by the younger March Formation, which is characterized by interbedded quartz sandstone and dolostone. The lithology of the quartz sandstone beds of the March Formation are similar to those of the underlying Nepean Formation, while the lithology of the dolostone beds of the March Formation are similar to those of the overlying Oxford Formation (Williams, 1991). As a result, the March Formation is referred to as a transitional unit between the Nepean and Oxford Formations. The contact between the March and Oxford Formations is marked by the upper limit of the common occurrence of quartz sand (Williams, 1991). The March Formation is conformably overlain by the younger Oxford Formation, which consists primarily of thin to thickly bedded dolostone. Shaley interbeds up to 30 centimetres in thickness occur within the Oxford Formation (Williams, 1991). The Oxford Formation was fully penetrated during the installation of the King’s Park sentinel wells in the Village of Richmond (Golder, 2005a). The borehole logs for the sentinel wells indicate that the Oxford Formation is between 57.45 metres and 62.5 metres thick within the Village. The Rockcliffe Formation unconformably overlies on the Oxford Formation (consist of a sequence of limestone, sandstone, and shale). The lower portion of the Rockcliffe Formation contains interbedded shale and sandstone, while the upper portion contains additional interbeds of

May 2008 - 7 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

limestone (Williams, 1991). Within the study area, the Rockcliffe Formation is only found west of the Village (Figure 4). 2.3 Hydrogeology The hydrogeology of the study area is described in the following section. Much of the background information presented below was obtained from engineering reports completed by Golder and by others. Two studies completed by Golder in 2003 are a significant source of information; a Wellhead Protection Study for Munster Hamlet and King’s Park Subdivision communal wells (Golder, 2003a), and the Renfrew County – Mississippi – Rideau Groundwater Study (Golder, 2003b). 2.3.1 Overburden Aquifers Extensive deposits of coarse and permeable overburden, capable of supplying sufficient quantities of groundwater for domestic use, are not prevalent in the vicinity of the Village of Richmond. For this reason, the bedrock aquifers are considered the principal aquifers for water supply. 2.3.2 Bedrock Aquifers The Nepean, March and Oxford Formations are considered to be the primary aquifers (i.e., potentially capable of supplying adequate quantities of groundwater for domestic use) within the study area. Oxford Formation Aquifer (Shallow Aquifer) The shallow bedrock aquifer is the primary source of water for private water supply wells (Geo-Analysis, 1991), and is interpreted to correspond with the upper and middle part of the Oxford Formation. Typical well yields reported for this aquifer are between 45 to 115 L/min (Geo-Analysis and J.L. Richards and Associates Limited, 1992). Drillers’ records indicate that water bearing zones occur at distinct depths within the formation, with water being found within a network of fractures, possibly enhanced by carbonate dissolution, and possibly associated with shale partings (Williams, 1991). Recent aquifer testing of three wells completed in the Oxford Formation found a range in transmissivity between 9 square metres per day (m2/day) and 248 m2/day, with an average of 90 m2/day (Golder, 2006). A study completed by Geo-Analysis Inc. (Geo-Analysis) in 1991 consisting of aquifer testing of eleven test wells found the transmissivity of the Oxford Formation aquifer in the Village of Richmond ranged between 5 m2/day to greater than 100 m2/day, with an average of 46 m2/day. Geo-Analysis developed a numerical groundwater flow model using a conservative transmissivity value of 15 m2/day, to estimate the maximum residential population

May 2008 - 8 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

for the Village that could be supported by the Oxford Formation aquifer. The results of the modelling exercise, combined with an assumed water consumption rate of 450 litres per day per person, indicated that a maximum residential population of approximately 7,500 could be supported by the Oxford Formation aquifer (Geo-Analysis, 1991). Lower Oxford/Upper March Formations Aquitard A bedrock aquitard is interpreted to lie within the lower part of the Oxford Formation and the upper part of the March Formation (Raven Beck 1996). Its presence is indicated by strong vertical gradients across this zone and by flowing artesian conditions observed in some wells completed below the aquitard, (i.e., the Alfred Street municipal well in Kemptville (Oliver, Mangione, McCalla and Associates Ltd., 2000) and the Village of Richmond sentinel wells (Golder 2005a). Lower March and Nepean Formations Aquifer (Deep Aquifer) A deep bedrock aquifer is interpreted to be present within the lower part of the March Formation and within the Nepean Formation. This aquifer is generally associated with sandstone rather than dolostone or limestone. Flow within this aquifer is mainly through fractures, since the primary porosity of the sandstone has been reduced by cementation. The aquifer tends to be most productive at the contact between the Nepean Formation and overlying March Formation and at the contact of the Nepean Formation with the underlying Precambrian rock (Brandon, 1960). Within the Village of Manotick, Raven Beck (1996) measured a transmissivity of approximately 600 m2/day over the upper 50 metres of the Nepean Formation using five metre test-interval straddle packers, and found enhanced permeability at the March Formation/Nepean Formation contact. Available data indicate that sustainable yields in the deep aquifer are high, ranging from 150 to 4,450 Litres per minute (L/min; Brandon, 1960; Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates 1990, 1991; Geo-Analysis and J.L. Richards and Associates Limited, 1992). The deep aquifer is regionally extensive, and is the primary source of water for large residential/municipal groundwater supply systems including the municipal wells in Almonte, Kemptville, King’s Park (Richmond), Hyde Park (Richmond), Merrickville and Munster. Aquifer testing competed on the communal wells at these locations have demonstrated high sustainable well yields (i.e., as high as 4,450 L/min in Almonte). The range in transmissivity of the lower March and Nepean Formations measured during aquifer testing at these locations was between 27 m2/day and 6,048 m2/day, with a typical transmissivity for the lower March and Nepean Formations aquifer of greater than 600 m2/day (Golder, 2000, 2001, 2003a, 2004, Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates 1990, 1991, 2000).

May 2008 - 9 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

The higher transmissivity and sustainable well yields observed in the deep aquifer indicate that this aquifer would support a higher maximum residential population within the Village of Richmond than could be supported by the shallow aquifer (previously estimated at 7,500). 2.3.3 Groundwater Flow Direction The groundwater flow direction in both the Oxford Formation aquifer and the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer is generally towards the east. The Oxford Formation aquifer is either confined or unconfined depending on the type and thickness of overlying overburden material, and the lower March/Nepean Formation aquifer is confined. The water level in wells completed in either aquifer is generally within a few metres of ground surface. At some locations, the water levels in wells completed in the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer are above ground surface, resulting in flowing artesian conditions. 2.3.4 Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality is good in the lower March and Nepean Formations, although it is hard and there are localized occurrences of elevated iron. Groundwater quality in the Oxford Formation is acceptable, although elevated concentrations of iron, hardness, sodium and hydrogen sulphide occur locally (Golder, 2003b). Groundwater quality within the Village of Richmond is discussed further in Sections 3.3, 4.1.3 and 4.2.3.

May 2008 - 10 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

3.0 PRIVATE WELLS Existing homes with the Village of Richmond are primarily serviced by private wells and sanitary sewers. It is estimated there are currently in excess of 1,150 private wells within the Village. The MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS), reviewed as part of a Village wide study completed by Golder in 2007, had information on 894 wells within the Village of Richmond (Golder, 2007b). The version of the MOE WWIS provided for the study included information on wells drilled up to June 2003. 3.1 Well Depths One overburden well was identified within the Village, and the remaining 893 water supply wells were completed into the bedrock. The following table summarizes the distribution of water supply well depths within the Village:

Well Depth (metres) Number of Water Supply Wells 0 – 10 18

10.1 – 20 507 20.1 – 30 181 30.1 – 40 94 40.1 – 50 26 50.1 – 60 15 60.1 – 70 22 70.1 – 80 28 80.1 – 90 2

90.1 – 100 1 Total 894

The above table indicates that the majority of the water supply wells within the Village (i.e., over 87 percent) are drilled to a depth between 10 metres and 40 metres below ground surface. All of these wells, along with the wells completed to a maximum depth of 60 metres, are interpreted to obtain groundwater from the Oxford Formation aquifer (i.e., approximately 94 percent of the supply wells in the Village of Richmond). The top of the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer is estimated to be approximately 60 metres below ground surface in the Village of Richmond. The remaining 6 percent of water supply wells within the Village (those deeper than 60 metres) are interpreted to draw water from both the Oxford Formation aquifer and the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer.

May 2008 - 11 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

3.2 Groundwater Quantity Information provided in the MOE WWIS indicates that wells completed within the Village of Richmond are capable of supplying enough water for domestic purposes (i.e., recommended pumping rates are typically above 18 L/min). Hydrogeology studies completed in support of subdivision developments within the Village of Richmond also indicate the shallow aquifer is capable of producing groundwater at a quantity that is sufficient for domestic purposes (Golder, 1992, 1993, 2006; Jacques Whitford, 2001; Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates, 1992). 3.3 Groundwater Quality In general, groundwater quality from private wells within the Village of Richmond is acceptable. Some occurrences of elevated iron, sodium, total dissolved solids and hydrogen sulphide have been reported. The following section provides information on historical sampling within the Village, and provides a general discussion of historical sampling results compared to health and aesthetic related criteria provided in the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (ODWQS; MOE, 2006a). In December 1990, Geo-Analysis completed residential sampling at 10 locations within the Village (Geo-Analysis, 1991). The results of the sampling indicated the following: • nitrate levels were acceptable compared to the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC)

of 10 milligrams per Litre (mg/L) - one location had a nitrate level of 3.5 mg/L, while all other locations were below 0.1 mg/L;

• there was no evidence of a widespread bacteria problem - one location had 2 counts per 100 millilitres (ct/100mL) of faecal Streptococci;

• six of the ten residences had iron levels higher than the MOE aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L, but all were below the treatable limit, using conventional water softening, of 5 mg/L;

• sodium levels were all below the aesthetic criteria of 200 mg/L, however, all locations had sodium levels in excess of 20 mg/L (advisory limit). The MOE suggests the local Medical Officer of Health be notified when sodium concentrations exceed 20 mg/L; and,

• all locations had total dissolved solids (TDS) results near of above MOE aesthetic criteria of 500 mg/L.

All remaining parameters tested were below the respective MOE health related criteria or aesthetic criteria, where one exists. Some sulphur odours and scaling problems were indicated by homeowners, particularly in the southern half of the Village. In addition to the residential sampling completed in December 1990, Geo-Analysis completed water quality testing of eleven test wells installed in 1990 (Geo-Analysis, 1991). The test wells

May 2008 - 12 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

were completed to depths between 25.3 metres and 49.7 metres, and were all completed in the Oxford Formation aquifer. The result of the test well sampling indicated that the groundwater quality met all MOE health related criteria and aesthetic criteria for all parameters tested. In addition, neither pesticides or radionucleides were detected in the test wells (Geo-Analysis, 1991). Water quality results from several hydrogeology studies completed in support of subdivision developments within the Village of Richmond were reviewed (Golder, 1992, 1993, 2006; Jacques Whitford, 2001; Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates, 1992). All reports indicated that water quality from the shallow bedrock aquifer (Oxford Formation) met all MOE health related criteria for the parameters tested. At some locations, the aesthetic related criteria was exceed for iron and TDS, however, the concentrations were within the range that could be treated by conventional water softening (assuming the elevated TDS was related to hardness). As a result, the reports concluded that it was reasonable to expect to obtain groundwater that is safe and suitable for human consumption from the shallow bedrock aquifer. In 2006, as part of the rehabilitation of Perth Street in the Village of Richmond, the City requested that baseline and post-construction groundwater quality data be gathered at residences and business within the work area. Of the 85 potential residences and businesses identified for water well sampling, 66 were sampled during the baseline groundwater quality sampling session, and 67 locations were sampled during the post-construction groundwater quality sampling session. The baseline groundwater quality sampling was completed between February 27 and March 10, 2006. None of the health-related criterion of the ODWQS were exceeded in any of the samples taken, with the following exceptions: • fluoride at one location was measured to be 1.66 mg/L, which is in excess of the MAC of 1.5

mg/L; and,

• total Coliforms of 1 ct/100mL and 6 ct/100mL were measured at two locations (the MAC for total Coliforms is 0 ct/100mL).

The post-construction groundwater quality sampling was completed between December 11, 2006 and January 3, 2007. Results of the post-construction groundwater analyses were also compared to the ODWQS. None of the health-related criterion of the ODWQS were exceeded in any of the samples taken, with the following exceptions: • total Coliforms exceed the MAC of 0 ct/100mL at three locations.

May 2008 - 13 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

Concentrations of several parameters in several of the samples were higher than their respective aesthetic criteria. These parameters include iron, chloride, manganese and turbidity. Most locations tested had concentrations of sodium above the advisory limit of 20 mg/L, but below the aesthetic criteria of 200 mg/L. Overall, the water quality from the Oxford Formation aquifer is considered potable. The groundwater is hard, as is typical for carbonate aquifers, iron concentrations are sometimes detected above the non-health related aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L, and low concentrations of hydrogen sulphide are often present.

May 2008 - 14 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

4.0 EXISTING COMMUNAL WELL SYSTEMS 4.1 King’s Park Water Supply System 4.1.1 System Description The King’s Park Water Supply System consists of two bedrock wells drilled on October 9, 1970 (KP-1) and March 15, 1971 (KP-2). The King’s Park subdivision is located in the northeastern portion of the Village of Richmond (see location on Figure 2), and the wells are located approximately 300 metres apart (i.e., KP-1 is on the eastern boundary of the subdivision, and KP-2 is on the western boundary). The locations of the two water supply wells are shown on Figure 2. The wells are completed to a depth of 66 metres (KP-1) and 61 metres (KP-2), and are completed as open holes through the Oxford and March Formations into the underlying Nepean Formation. It is interpreted that the majority of the water supplying the communal wells comes from the Nepean Formation. The wells are not operated simultaneously (i.e., when one is operating, the second is in standby mode). The permitted pumping rate for each well is 1,310 cubic metres per day (m3/day). The actual average volume of water pumped for the system in 2007 was 191 m3/day (MOE, 2007). A chlorine contact chamber is located at both well locations. The treatment process includes disinfection by injection of sodium hypochlorite solution. The total number of residences serviced by the communal well system is approximately 150. 4.1.2 Summary of Previous Aquifer Testing Previous aquifer testing completed at the King’s Park communal wells indicated the range in transmissivity for the two wells was between 256 m2/day and 624 m2/day (Graham Berman & Associates, 1971; Jacques Whitford, 1991). The pumping tests carried out by International Water Supply Ltd. on behalf or Graham Berman & Associates on KP-1 used a low accuracy airline pressure method for water level measurements. KP-2 was not tested in 1971. During the pumping test investigation carried out by Jacques Whitford in 1991, KP-1 was used as an observation well while KP-2 was being pumped, and visa versa. The well used for observation measurements was also being used to supply water to the communal system, which lead to drawdown data that was difficult to interpret. In addition, the data obtained from the residential wells assigned for observation purposes during this investigation were affected by household use, and could not be used in the aquifer evaluation. Prior to undertaking the groundwater modelling exercise associated with the Wellhead Protection Study completed by Golder in 2003, it was determined that an additional pumping test of either KP-1 or KP-2 was necessary in order to re-evaluate aquifer characteristics (i.e., transmissivity and storativity).

May 2008 - 15 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

A pumping test was conducted by Golder at KP-2 on July 10, 2002. The pumping test consisted of pumping KP-2 for 6 hours at a rate of 1,100 m3/day. To achieve the best possible control over the pumping rate, the pumping test was carried out over night, which corresponded to the period of lowest water demand. Excess water was directed to the local sanitary sewer by means of a bypass valve. KP-1 was maintained in standby mode, and was used as an observation well for the pumping test (i.e., was not pumping during the test). The total drawdown observed in communal KP-2 (pumping well) during the test was approximately 4.3 metres. The total drawdown observed in the observation well (KP-1) was 0.7 metres. KP-2 recovered to 100 percent of the static water level within 5 minutes of returning the well to normal operating conditions. Based on the results of the pumping test, the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer were estimated to be 605 m2/day and 1.9x10-5, respectively. The results of the pumping test completed in 2002 at KP-2 indicated the pumping rate used during the test (1,100 m3/day) was sustainable, and that the King’s Park Communal Water Supply System was capable of supply water at a rate significantly higher than the demand from the King’s Park Subdivision (typically less than 200 m3/day). 4.1.3 Groundwater Quality The Drinking Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 - 2007 Annual Report for the King’s Park Water Supply System provides a summary of the water quality testing completed during 2007 (MOE, 2007). The groundwater from the King’s Park communal wells is tested for a suite of parameters including bacteria, inorganic parameters and organic parameters. The parameters tested, and the frequency of testing, is prescribed by the Drinking Water Systems Regulation. The results of the sampling completed during 2007 indicated the following: • bacteria (E. Coli and total Coliforms) were not detected in raw water (85 samples), treated

water (73 samples) or distribution water (143 samples);

• there were no exceedance of health base or aesthetic criterion for any of the inorganic or organic parameters tested, with the exception of iron, which had an average concentration of 0.399 mg/L during 2007. This average concentration is slightly above the aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L for iron; but well below the treatable limit using conventional treatment technologies (i.e., water softeners);

• all of the organic parameters sampled in 2007 were below the method detection limit, with the exception of trihalomethanes, which were detected at an average concentration of 0.023 mg/L during 2007. The MAC for trihalomethanes is 0.1 mg/L; and,

• sodium was below the aesthetic criteria of 200 mg/L for all samples collected during 2007, however, levels above the advisory limit of 20 mg/L were measured. Notification of the sodium levels above 20 mg/L were made to the MOE and Medical Officer of Health.

May 2008 - 16 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

The results of the 2007 sampling at the King’s Park communal wells were similar to those observed in 2006 (MOE, 2006b). Overall, the water quality from the King’s Park communal wells is excellent, although it is relatively hard. The treated water average for hardness in 2007 was 334 mg/L, which is well above the operational guideline of 80 to 100 mg/L. As a result, water softeners are typically installed and operated by the end users. 4.1.4 Wellhead Protection Area A Wellhead Protection Study (WHPS) was completed by Golder for the communal wells in the King’s Park Subdivision in April 2003 (Golder, 2003a). The technical requirements, study approach and methodology were set out in the MOE Groundwater Studies 2001/2002 Technical Terms of Reference (MOE, 2001). A 3-dimentionsal numerical model was developed for the study area, and a modelling exercise was completed to define the time-related groundwater capture zones for the King’s Park wells. The time-related capture zones of interest included the: 0 to 50 day time of travel (ToT); 0 to 2 year ToT; 2 to 10 year ToT; and 10 to 25 year ToT. The ToT captures zones were then used to define the wellhead protection area (WHPA) for the communal well system. The WHPA defined by the 2003 study was incorporated into the City’s Official Plan as part of Schedule K – Environmental Constraints. In October 2006, a series of draft guidance modules were provided by the MOE as part of the Clean Water Act. Draft Module 3 – Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis provided new technical requirements and methodologies for defining WHPAs (MOE, 2006c). In 2007, the King’s Park wellhead protection area was updated to comply with the requirements and methodology described in Draft Module 3. The following four wellhead protection zones were defined: • Zone A – 100 metre radius pathogen security/prohibition zone;

• Zone B – 2 year ToT pathogen management zone;

• Zone C – 5 year ToT DNAPL/contaminant protection zone; and,

• Zone D – 25 year ToT secondary protection zone. These zones are used to assist in identifying the various levels of potential risks faced by municipal supply wells from pathogens and chemical contaminants. Figure 5 shows the newly defined ToT capture zones that make up the WHPA for the King’s Park communal wells. It should be noted that the ToT capture zones presented on Figure 5 are preliminary and have not yet been approved by the Source Water Protection Committee. The northern two-thirds of the site is contained within Zone B, and the southern one-third of the site is in Zone C. Potential risks associated with chemical contaminants and pathogen contaminants must be assessed within Zone B, while no assessment of pathogen sources is required in Zone C (i.e., only assessing potential chemical contaminants in Zone C).

May 2008 - 17 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

As part of the source water protection process, an issues evaluation and threats inventory for the define WHPA (including the site), as well as a tier 1 water quality risk assessment for identified threats within the WHPA is currently being undertaken by Dillon Consulting Ltd. in accordance with Draft Guidance Module 5 and 6. Once this work is complete, a source water protection plan would be developed for the King’s Park communal wells. The source water protection plan would define the implications, from a planning/development standpoint, of the site being located with the defined WHPA. 4.2 Hyde Park Water Supply System 4.2.1 System Description The Hyde Park Water Supply System consists of two bedrock wells drilled on February 6, 2001 (TW-1) and September 17, 2003 (TW-2). The Hyde Park development is located adjacent to the Richmond Plaza (see location on Figure 2), and the wells are located approximately 315 metres north of the intersection of Perth Street and Nixon Farm Road. The locations of the two water supply wells are shown on Figure 2. TW-1 is the supply well, and TW-2 is a back-up supply well. TW-1 and TW-2 are completed to a depth of 83.8 metres and 92.0 metres, respectively. The wells are completed as open holes through the Oxford and March Formations, and penetrate the underlying Nepean Formation. The permitted pumping rate for the Hyde Park Water Supply System is 576 m3/day, and the estimated average daily flow for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the development is 237.5 m3/day (Golder, 2007c). 4.2.2 Summary of Previous Aquifer Testing Previous aquifer testing was completed at TW-1 in March 2001 and at TW-2 in July 2004 (Golder, 2001, 2004). A summary of the test parameters is provided in the following table:

Parameter TW-1 TW-2 Pumping Rate 576 m3/day 278 m3/day Test Duration 24 hours 24 hours

Total Available Drawdown 81.7 metres 90.9 metres Total Drawdown Observed 5.3 mbgs 36.0 mbgs

Transmissivity 236 m2/day* 112 m2/day to 130 m2/day Storage Coefficient 3.4 x 10-4 to 4.9 x 10-4 3.2 x 10-4 to 9 x 10-4

mbgs – metres below ground surface * - reinterpreted for this report

May 2008 - 18 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

TW-1 produces significantly more water than TW-2, however, both wells are capable of supplying the estimated average daily flow for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Hyde Park development (estimated to be 237.5 m3/day). The transmissivity values calculated using the results of the pumping tests at TW-1 and TW-2 are on the low end of observed transmissivity of the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer. The two wells at the Hyde Park development are also the wells with the lowest groundwater yields among communal wells completed in the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer reviewed as part of this study (i.e., Hyde Park (Richmond), King’s Park (Richmond), Munster, Kemptville, Merrickville and Almonte). 4.2.3 Groundwater Quality The Drinking Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 - 2007 Annual Report for the Hyde Park Water Supply System was not available to Golder the time of preparing this report. As such, the following summary of water quality for the Hyde Park communal wells is based on water quality testing completed during the aquifer testing programs completed in 2001 and 2004. Two groundwater samples were obtained from TW-1 during the 24-hour pumping test conducted in March 2001. The first sample was collected 1 hour into the test, and the second was collected 23 hours into the test. Turbidity measurements in the field were below 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) however, lab results were between 1 and 5 NTU. There were no parameters that exceeded the ODWQS health related or aesthetic criterion, with the exception of total Coliforms. Levels of total Coliforms bacteria exceeded applicable criteria during initial sampling; however, re-sampling following shock chlorination of the well yielded a measurement of 0 total Coliforms. E. coli was not detected during sampling. The concentration of sodium was below the aesthetic criteria of 200 mg/L, however, concentrations were above the advisory limit of 20 mg/L, which may be of concern to those persons on sodium restricted diets. Sodium concentrations in excess of 20 mg/L are common in bedrock aquifers in Eastern Ontario. Three groundwater samples were obtained from TW-2 during the 24-hour pumping test conducted in July 2004. The samples were collected 1 hour, 10.5 hours and 23.5 hours into the pumping test. Turbidity measurements in the field were between 1 and 10 NTU; lab results were below 1 NTU. There were no parameters that exceeded the ODWQS health related or aesthetic criterion. The concentration of sodium was below the aesthetic objective of 200 mg/L, however, concentrations were above the advisory limit of 20 mg/L, which may be of concern to those persons on sodium restricted diets. E. coli and total Coliforms bacteria were not detected during sampling. In summary, groundwater quality from the Hyde Park Water Supply System is considered good. The operational objective for hardness was exceeded at both wells, and turbidity concentrations in untreated water were occasionally detected above the aesthetic objective. Iron, which typically

May 2008 - 19 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

exceeds the aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L within the Village of Richmond, was below 0.3 mg/L for all samples collected from TW-1 and TW-2. 4.2.4 Wellhead Protection Area A WHPS was completed by Golder for the communal wells in the Hyde Park Subdivision in September 2007 (Golder, 2007c). The WHPS was completed in accordance with Draft Module 3 – Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis provided under the Clean Water Act (MOE, 2006c). The following four wellhead protection zones were defined: • Zone A – 100 metre radius pathogen security/prohibition zone;

• Zone B – 2 year ToT pathogen management zone;

• Zone C – 5 year ToT DNAPL/contaminant protection zone; and,

• Zone D – 25 year ToT secondary protection zone. The WHPS for the Hyde Park communal wells has not been finalized, as such, a figure showing the WHPA is not presented in this report. When the draft wellhead protection zones from the Hyde Park communal wells are overlapped with the wellhead protection zones defined for the King’s Park communal wells, there is no change to the zone boundaries at the site discussed in Section 4.1.4 (i.e., the northern two-thirds of the site is contained with Zone B, and the southern one-third of the site is in Zone C).

May 2008 - 20 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

5.0 ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS 5.1 Existing and Historic Potential Sources of Contamination An inventory of potential sources of groundwater contamination within, or in close proximity to, the King’s Park WHPA was completed as part of the 2003 WHPS (Golder, 2003a). The majority of the identified potential sources of groundwater contamination within the WHPA are located in the previously developed portion of the Village (i.e., east of the site), and are concentrated along Perth Street and McBean Street. Since groundwater in the Oxford Formation aquifer and the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer flows from west to east, the majority of the identified potential sources of groundwater contamination are downgradient from the site, and therefore should not be a constraint to development using either private wells or communal wells. Farmland to the west of the site could represent a potential source of pathogens (associated with nutrient spreading) or contaminants (i.e., fertilizers, on-site fuel storage, on-site chemical storage, etc.) to wells completed at the site; however, if the site was developed on communal wells, the water would be drawn from the deeper aquifer, which has a lower relative vulnerability to contamination from surface sources. 5.2 Groundwater Quality and Quantity The water from the Oxford Formation aquifer is considered potable. Hardness is elevated, as is typical for carbonate aquifers, iron concentrations are sometimes detected above the non-health related aesthetic objective of 0.3 mg/L, and hydrogen sulphide is often present. Water quality from the lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer is also considered potable. In general the groundwater quality in the deeper aquifer is slightly better than in the shallow aquifer; however, the water is also hard, and exceedances of the non-health related aesthetic criteria of 0.3 mg/L for iron are occasionally detected. The exceedances of the aesthetic criteria for iron in both the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer are still within the limit treatable using conventional water softening (5 mg/L). Overall, wells completed in the shallow aquifer (i.e., private wells) and wells completed in the deeper aquifer (i.e., communal wells) are expected to produce groundwater that is safe and aesthetically suitable for human consumption. As such, water quality should not be a constraint to development at the site. Both the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer are capable of producing groundwater at a quantity that is sufficient for domestic purposes. The groundwater yields observed in the King’s Park communal wells, as well as communal wells completed in the same lower March/Nepean Formations aquifer in Kemptville, Merrickville, Munster and Almonte, indicate that water quantity in the deep aquifer will not be a constraint to development of the site using communal wells.

May 2008 - 21 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

If the site was to be developed on private wells, the current estimated maximum residential population that could be supported by the shallow aquifer presented in 1991 study completed by Geo-Analysis (7,500 people) could represent a constraint to development at the site. This prediction is based on a highly conservative interpretation of the hydrogeologic data. As such, this estimate would need to be revisited, and the modelling would need to be updated to include the results of hydraulic testing completed within the Village since 1991. 5.3 Impacts to Local Wells The well yields, aquifer characteristics and water quality of both the shallow and the deep aquifer in the Village of Richmond indicate that groundwater quantity and quality should not be constraints to development at the site, whether communal wells or private wells are used (greater intensity of development could likely be supported by communal wells completed in the deep aquifer). However, public opinion on the potential impacts to existing wells associated with the proposed development will likely be a significant issue (see Section 5.5 Input From Public Meetings). As such, a site-specific hydrogeological assessment of the site would likely be required to confirm the available groundwater quantity and quality, and to demonstrate the potential effects of the proposed development, if any, on existing wells within the Village. 5.4 Wellhead Protection Areas and 100 Metre Exclusion Zone The Mattamy Lands within the Village of Richmond are within the WHPA for the King’s Park communal well system. The potential planning implications, which would be defined as part of the source water protection plan to be developed for the King’s Park communal wells, are currently unknown. Any potential restrictions to development associated with being located within the WHPA would likely be related to land uses that are identified as potential sources of groundwater contamination (i.e., gas stations, dry cleaners, landfills, scrap yards, etc.). Residential development, which is proposed for the site, would likely be considered an appropriate land use. If the site was developed on communal wells, a WHPA would have to be defined for the wells, and a source water protection plan would need to be developed. Zone A of the WHPA (100 metre radius pathogen security/prohibition zone) would likely result in constraints to development at the site. The land use within Zone A will likely restricted, and potential sources of pathogens (i.e., septic systems, sanitary sewers, nutrient spreading, etc.) will not be permitted. A restriction on construction of sanitary sewers within Zone A would preclude residential development within this area of the site. Depending on the size of the development at the site, and on well yields, three or more communal wells may be required to service the development. The 100 metre exclusion zone translates into a restriction on 3.14 hectares (7.76 acres) of development land for each communal well required. This land could be used as open space/parkland within the development.

May 2008 - 22 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

5.5 Input from Public Meetings Input was received from residents of the Village of Richmond through an Open House held on April 12, 2008 and a Visioning Session conducted on April 19, 2008. The following summarizes the primary issues identified relating to hydrogeology: • ensure that the quality and quantity of groundwater is sustained over the long-term;

• assess the capacity of the existing aquifer;

• protect aquifers;

• quantity of water – how much is there? How much development will it support?;

• sustainable water;

• mapping of aquifer;

• contamination of aquifer; and,

• assess impact of future development on groundwater quality and quantity. The existing information reviewed as part of preparing this report provides a wealth of data that can be used to comment on the extent of the local aquifers, and potential effects on groundwater quality and quantity associated with future development within the Village of Richmond. The existing data, combined with results from a site-specific hydrogeological assessment (required prior to development on communal wells) would provide the data necessary to assess the long-term capacity of the local aquifers. The potential for contamination of the local aquifers would be addressed through the development of a source water protection plan that would include all City operated communal well systems within the Village.

May 2008 - 23 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Mattamy Homes Limited. The report, which specifically includes all tables, figures and appendices, is based on data gathered by Golder Associates Ltd., and information provided to Golder Associates Ltd. by others. The information provided by others has not been independently verified or otherwise examined by Golder Associates Ltd. to determine the accuracy or completeness. Golder Associates Ltd. has relied in good faith on this information and does not accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatements, or inaccuracies contained in the information as a result of omissions, misinterpretation or fraudulent acts. The services performed as described in this report were conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by other members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions, subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Golder Associates Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made, or actions taken based on this report. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. J.P.A. Oxtobee, M.Sc., P.Geo. Hydrogeologist Stephen Wilson, P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist Reviewed by: Brian Byerley, P.Eng., Senior Hydrogeologist/Associate JPAO:SRW:BTB:th n:\active\2008\1122 - environmental\08-1122-0078 mattamy richmond\existing information report\hydrogeology ec report_final_june 12, 2008.doc

May 2008 - 24 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

REFERENCES

Brandon, L.V., 1960. Preliminary Report on Hydrogeology, Ottawa-Hull Area, Ontario and Quebec. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 60-23 p18.

City of Ottawa, 2008. Village of Richmond Profile – Draft Version (provided for comment at

April 12, 2008 public meeting in Richmond). April 2008. Geo-Analysis Inc., 1991. Hydrogeologic Evaluation – Potential for Village Expansion Based on

Private Individual Services, Village of Richmond. May 1991. Geo-Analysis Inc. and J.L. Richards & Associates Limited. 1992. File No. G9105. Private

Individual Services in the Rural Area, Submitted to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Geological Survey of Canada, 1982. Surficial Geology - Kemptville, Ontario, Map 1492A. Scale

1:50,000. Geological Survey of Canada, 2001. Urban Geology of the National Capital Region, Geological

Survey of Canada, Open File D3256. Golder Associates Ltd., 1992. Terrain Assessment and Hydrogeological Evaluation, Proposed

Lot Severances, Richland Drive, Richmond, Ontario. May 1992. Golder Associates Ltd., 1993. Terrain Assessment and Hydrogeological Evaluation, Proposed

Commercial Lots, Regional Road Number 5, Richmond, Ontario. March 1993. Golder Associates Ltd., 2000. Village of Merrickville – Wolford Municipal Groundwater

Management Study. November 2000. Golder Associates Ltd., 2001. Hydrogeological Evaluation for Communal Water Supply in

Support of the Groundwater Component Requirement for a Permit to Take Water and Water Works C of A. May 2001.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2003a. Wellhead Protection Study Munster Hamlet and Kings Park

Communal Wells, City of Ottawa, MVCA Study Group. April 2003. Golder Associates Ltd. in association with Dillon Consulting Ltd., J.L. Richards & Associates

Ltd. and Agricultural Watersheds Inc. 2003b. Renfrew Country – Mississippi – Rideau Groundwater Study. February 2003.

May 2008 - 25 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

REFERENCES - continued Golder Associates Ltd., 2004. Hydrogeological Evaluation for Communal Water Back-Up

Supply Well in Support of the Groundwater Component Requirement for a Permit to Take Water, Hyde Park Townhome Project, Ottawa, Ontario. November 2004.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2005a. Construction of Multi-Level Sentinel Wells for the King’s Park

Communal Wells, Village of Richmond (Ottawa), Ontario. September 2005. Golder Associates Ltd., 2006. Hydrogeological Investigation – Proposed Residential

Subdivision, Lot 24 and 25, Concession III, Village of Richmond, Ottawa, Ontario. Golder Associates Ltd., 2007a. Hydrogeological Study in Support of a Category 3 Permit to Take

Water Amendment Application, Canadian Golf and Country Club, Ottawa (Ashton), Ontario. July 2007.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2007b. Draft Report – Assessment of Potential for Provision of Public

Water and Wastewater Services to Privately Serviced Villages, City of Ottawa, Ontario. April 2007.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2007c. Draft Report - Wellhead Protection Area Plan, Hyde Park

Development, Ottawa (Richmond) Ontario. September 2007. Graham Berman & Associates, 1971. Groundwater Report Kings Park Subdivision – Richmond,

Ontario. December 1971. Jacques Whitford Limited, 1991. Hydrogeological Study King’s Park Subdivision, Richmond.

March 1991. Jacques Whitford Limited, 2001. Supplemental Well Sampling: Proposed King’s Grant West

Subdivision, Village of Richmond, Ontario. August 2001. Jacques Whitford Limited, 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report – Proposed

Residential Subdivision, Perth and Ottawa Streets, Richmond Area, Ottawa, Ontario. June 2007.

Ministry of the Environment, 1996. Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guideline for Private Wells:

Water Supply Assessment, Revised August 1996.

May 2008 - 26 - 08-1122-0078

Golder Associates

REFERENCES - continued Ministry of the Environment, 2001. Groundwater Studies 2001/2002 – Technical Terms of

Reference. November 2001. Ministry of the Environment, 2006a. Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, Objectives and

Guidelines, June 2003. Revised June 2006. Ministry of the Environment, 2006b. Drinking Water System Regulation O.Reg. 170/03 – 2006

Annual Report, Kings Park Well Supply. Ministry of the Environment, 2006c: Draft Guidance Module 3 – Groundwater Vulnerability

Analysis. October 2006. Ministry of the Environment, 2007. Drinking Water System Regulation O.Reg. 170/03 – 2007

Annual Report, Kings Park Well Supply. Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates Limited, 1990. Hydrogeology and Well Construction

Report, New Municipal Well, Almonte, Ontario. November 1990. Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates Limited, 1991. Hydrogeology and Well Construction

Report, Municipal Well #8, Almonte, Ontario. November 1991. Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates Limited, 1992. Hydrogeological Report – Laffin

Enterprises Subdivision, Part of Units 9 and 10, Index Plan D-25, Village of Richmond, Goulbourn Township. April 1992.

Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates, 2000. Municipal Well Head Protection Study, Town

of Kemptville, Township of North Grenville. November 2000. Raven Beck Environmental Ltd., 1996. Supplementary Bedrock Hydrogeologic Investigation of

PCE Contamination, Village of Manotick. Final Report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy.

Williams, D.A., 1991. Paleozoic Geology of the Ottawa-St Lawrence Lowland, Southern

Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5770, 292p.