hydrogeological assessment and effects...

Otter Creek Wind Farm Limited Partnership

Hydrogeological Assessment and Effects Assessment

Prepared by:

AECOM

105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Floor 7 905 886 7022 tel

Markham, ON, Canada L3T 7W3 905 886 9494 fax

www.aecom.com

Date: February, 2017

Project Number: 60504082



B4_04_D&O - App C Hydrogeology (27.02.2017)

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of Otter Creek Wind

Limited Partnership (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed

therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications

contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of

similar reports;

may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified;

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no

obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have

occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical

conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been

prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other

representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the

Information or any part thereof.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental

reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied

upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the

Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or

decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those

parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss

or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject

to the terms hereof.

AECOM: 2015-04-13

© 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.




Authors

Report Prepared By:

Erin M. Wilson, B. Sc., P.Geo

Hydrogeologist

Report Reviewed By:

Jason A. Murchison, P.Geo., QP(ESA O.Reg. 153)

Senior Hydrogeologist

Senior Manager, Geosciences

(Hydrogeology/ Geotechnical Engineering)




Table of Contents

page

1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

2. Existing Conditions.................................................................................... 3

2.1 Topography and Physiography .......................................................................................... 3

2.2 Geological Setting .............................................................................................................. 3

2.2.1 Bedrock Geology .................................................................................................... 3

2.2.2 Overburden Geology .............................................................................................. 4

2.2.2.1 Surficial Overburden Geology ............................................................................. 4 2.2.2.2 Subsurface Overburden Geology ........................................................................ 4

2.2.3 Economic Geology ................................................................................................. 4

2.2.4 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Hydrogeological Setting ..................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Hydrostratigraphy ................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1.1 Groundwater Flow ............................................................................................... 7

2.3.2 Groundwater Resources......................................................................................... 7

2.3.2.1 Groundwater Use ................................................................................................ 7 2.3.2.2 Depth to Water Table .......................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ..................................................................................... 9

2.3.4 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ............................................................... 9

2.3.5 Well Head Protection and Intake Protection Zones............................................... 10

2.3.6 Permit to Take Water Records ............................................................................. 10

3. Water Taking Assessment ....................................................................... 11

3.1 Temporary Water Takings and Construction Considerations ........................................... 11

3.2 Long Term Water Takings and Operation Considerations ................................................ 13

4. Assessment of Impacts and Monitoring Requirements ........................ 14

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 16

6. References ................................................................................................ 17

List of Figures

Figure 1: Physiography ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Surficial Geology ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3: Water Well Records and Permit to Take Water Records .......................................................................... 8




List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of MOECC Water Well Record Information .............................................................................. 9

Table 2: Site Conditions and Design Parameters ................................................................................................. 11

Table 3: Mitigation Measures, Net Effects and Monitoring Plan: Geology and Groundwater ............................... 14

Appendices

Appendix A. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Water Well Records and Permit to Take Water

Records

Appendix B. Chatham-Kent and St. Clair Intake Protection Zones and Significant Threat Mapping



B4_04_D&O - App C Hydrogeology (27.02.2017) 1

1. Introduction

The Otter Creek Wind Farm Project (the Project) is being proposed by Otter Creek Wind Farm Limited Partnership

(Otter Creek), a partnership of Renewable Energy Systems Canada (RES Canada), Boralex Inc. and Walpole

Island First Nation . The proposed project is a Class 4 wind facility in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, north of the

community of Wallaceburg. The Project is generally bounded by Whitebread Line and Kent Line to the north, Payne

Road to the west, Stewart Line and McCreary Line to the south and Mandaumin Road / County Road 44 to the east

(Figure 1).

The Project will use wind to generate energy through the use of wind turbine technology with a Project nameplate

capacity of up to 50 MW. Twelve (12) turbine locations are currently being assessed for the Project. To facilitate

construction of the proposed Project, a number of permanent and temporary construction components will be

required, including:

Wind Turbine Generators;

Wind Turbine Foundations;

Wind Turbine Access Roads;

Collector Lines;

Electrical Substation;

Communication Tower (if required);

Meteorological Towers;

Interconnection Station;

Operation and Maintenance Building (if required); and

Temporary Turbine Laydown Areas and Turbine Working Areas.

A detailed description of key Project information is presented in the Project Description Report prepared by AECOM

Canada Ltd. (AECOM, 2017).

The scope of this Hydrogeological Assessment was developed in accordance with requirements of the Renewable

Energy Approval (REA) process outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 (O. Reg. 359/09), as amended.

For this assessment, a desktop study was conducted to provide a high-level characterization of existing local

geological and hydrogeologic conditions and to identify potential effects to groundwater through construction and

installation of the Project. For the purpose of this investigation the area being considered for the Project has been

defined as the Study Area shown as a purple polygon on Figure 1 and defined as the general bounded project area

described above. Subsurface stratigraphy, hydrogeological conditions and general groundwater usage near the

Project was interpreted from available secondary source data including:

Quaternary geological mapping from the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS);

Bedrock geological mapping from OGS;

MOECC Water Well Records;

MOECC Permit to Take Water (PTTW) Records;

Drift thickness mapping from OGS; and

Geotechnical borehole data from the Oil, Gas and Salt Resource Library.




Figure 1: Physiography




2. Existing Conditions

2.1 Topography and Physiography

The Project lies within two (2) distinct physiographic regions. The majority of the Project lies within the Chatham

Flats, a sub-region of the St. Clair Clay Plains physiographic region, whereas a small portion of the southeastern

and southwestern portions of the Project are located within the Bothwell Sand Plains physiographic region

(Chapman and Putnam, 1984) (Figure 1).

The Chatham Flats is described as a low relief extensive clay plain consisting of lacustrine and/or alluvial sands, silt

sand clays, that slope gently to the west toward Lake St. Clair. In the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, a shallow sand

layer is found to overlie the predominantly clay soils (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). According to MOECC water

wells records, the sand layer can be up to 5 metres (m) thick in certain areas.

The Bothwell Sand Plain consists of glaciolacustrine fine sands and silts associated with a delta of the Thames

River in glacial Lake Warren (Fitzgerald and Hradsky, 1980). These sands form a thin veneer (less than 2 m thick)

overlying a predominantly clay soil.

Fine-grained soils residing beneath the surficial granular veneer in both physiographic regions typically inhibits

deep infiltration of surface water and precipitation, resulting in the common occurrence of a shallow water table

condition in much of the region (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Topographic depressions commonly exhibit swampy

or wet conditions.

Land use across the Study Area is dominated by a mixture of crop cultivation and livestock agriculture, which has

been made possible by the installation of dredged ditches and tile under-drains to provide satisfactory moisture

conditions within the imperfectly drained soils. Chapman and Putnam (1984) classify the soils of the Bothwell Sand

Plains as low-grade, with the majority of the farmland cultivated with corn and soybeans. In contrast, the soils of

the Chatham flats are considered highly fertile, producing cash crops in addition to corn and soybeans.

Ground surface topography within the Study Area is characterized as possessing low relief, with minor undulations

commonly associated with local surface water features. Generally, the ground surface elevation within the Study

Area decreases toward the west from a high of approximately 180 meters above sea level (mASL) to a low of about

175 mASL (Figure 1).

2.2 Geological Setting

2.2.1 Bedrock Geology

Surrounding the Project, thick successions of Upper Devonian aged Paleozoic sedimentary rocks subcrop beneath

the overburden soils. The Project is underlain by bedrock of the Kettle Point Formation, which can be described

generally as a brown to black, laminated, organic-rich shale and siltstone (Armstrong, D.K., and Dodge, J.E.P., 2007).

Depth to bedrock across the Study Area was assessed through a review of Drift Thickness mapping published by

the OGS, as well as MOECC water well record information. Based on this review, overburden thickness within the

Study Area has been shown to range between approximately 13 m and 43 m, with an average thickness of about

24 m.




2.2.2 Overburden Geology

Thick overburden deposits consisting of both fine and coarse textured glacial sediments and fluvial deposits occur

across the Study Area. The Project is situated within an abandoned lacustrine plain that consists of numerous

alluvial features which were deposited in high level post-glacial and non-glacial lakes which historically occupied

the St. Clair basin. Where the Thames River entered the glacial lakes, deltaic sediments of sand and gravel were

deposited.

2.2.2.1 Surficial Overburden Geology

Surficial geology across the Study Area is illustrated in Figure 2. The following surficial sediments are found within

the Study Area, as indicated in the figure:

Alluvial Deposits

Modern alluvial deposits of clay, silt, and sand were laid down in river floodplains during the post-glacial period.

Locally, these deposits occur primarily within the floodplain of two (2) major river systems that transect the Project;

being the Sydenham River and Otter Creek.

Older alluvial deposits of clay, silt, and sand are found in abandoned high-level floodplains within existing floodplains

and along rivers and streams that once flowed into the Erie and St. Clair basins. These rivers and streams have

produced areas of gently rolling and variably textured terrain within the Study Area. Deltaic deposits of fine sand and

silt covers much of the southwest portion of the Study Area (Fitzgerald and Hradsky, 1980).

Glaciolacustrine Deposits

Course textured glaciolacustrine deposits of sand and silt occupy an appreciable component of the northwest

portion of the Project Location (Figure 2). According to MOECC water well records, these deposits are up to 3 m

thick and overlie fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits of silt and clay. In some areas, the course textured

glaciolacustrine deposits underlay approximately 1 m of surface clay.

During periods of deep water deposition, thick sequences of fine-textured glaciolacustrine sediments of silt and clay

accumulated in glacial lakes that occupied the St. Clair basin. These deposits directly underlie the deltaic deposits

described earlier and are exposed at surface throughout much of the Study Area. The thickness of the deposit is

primarily controlled by bedrock topography within the Study Area and ranges between approximately 18 m in the

east to approximately 33 m towards the west. According to MOECC water well records, the deep-water deposits

are described as soft blue clay overlain by up to approximately 6 m of hard brown clay.

2.2.2.2 Subsurface Overburden Geology

Underlying the fine-textured glaciolacustrine sediments within the Study Area is a thin sand and gravel layer which

directly overlies the shale bedrock. This deposit is described in the MOECC water well record database as dense

fine sand and gravel and ranges in thickness from approximately 0.5 m to 1.0 m. Gas deposits are sometimes

associated with this sand and gravel layer.

2.2.3 Economic Geology

Oil and gas exploration is the most important geological resource within the Study Area. Actively producing gas

wells are found within the central and north-central portion of the Study Area (OGSR, 2014). Several major gas

pipelines transverse the Study Area in a north-south direction (OGSR, 1999) (Figure 2).




Figure 2: Surficial Geology




According to the OGS (2010), no pit and/or quarry activities are located within the Study Area.

2.2.4 Seismicity

Seismic hazard is quantified by determining the probability of expected ground motion within an area. The

Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) is responsible for evaluating regional seismic hazards and preparing seismic

hazard maps based on statistical analysis of past earthquakes and from knowledge of Canada’s tectonic and

geological structure. The National Building Code uses seismic hazard maps and earthquake load guidelines to

design and construct buildings to be as resilient to earthquake damage as possible. According to the 2010 Seismic

Hazard Map prepared by GSC (2015), the Project is situated within a low relative hazard area.

2.3 Hydrogeological Setting

Surficial geology and physiography of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent provides a foundation to characterize the

general hydrostratigraphy of the lands within the Study Area. Hydrostratigraphy is the classification of various

major stratigraphic units into aquifers and aquitards, with some simplification or combination of units with similar

properties. A review of available secondary source information was used in this investigation.

2.3.1 Hydrostratigraphy

An aquifer is classically defined as a geological unit that is sufficiently permeable to permit the extraction of a

useable supply of water. Aquifer units within the Study Area are typically comprised of coarse-textured

unconsolidated (overburden) sediments or shale and siltstone bedrock. Surficial coarse-textured overburden

sediments within the Study Area are limited to local glaciolacustrine and alluvial deposits. These coarse-textured

sediments possess limited depth and areal extent, and thus are considered poor groundwater aquifers. A large

portion of the Project is underlain by fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits consisting of silt and clay. Typically,

fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits such as those observed within the area typically possess low hydraulic

conductivity and a limited ability to transmit groundwater, however, heterogeneities, secondary porosity,

permeability features and fractures may locally permit a low yield, and/or provide groundwater recharge-discharge

pathways.

Underlying the surficial fine-textured glaciolacustrine sediments, a confined sand and gravel aquifer exists at a

depth between approximately 20 m and 40 m below ground surface (mBGS) and typically directly overlies the shale

bedrock. This deeper aquifer unit is a highly utilized aquifer unit for domestic and livestock wells within the Study

Area and is referenced herein as the Interface Aquifer.

According to the MOECC water well database, the shale bedrock is a highly utilized aquifer unit within the Study

Area. As discussed previously in Section 2.2.1, the average depth to bedrock in the area is approximately 24 m.

MOECC water well records indicate that the average completion depth for wells drilled in bedrock is approximately

25 m, ranging between about 14 m and 46 m, indicating that the upper / weathered portion of the bedrock unit

commonly possesses a superior aquifer potential. Upon closer inspection of the MOECC water well records it is

apparent that many of the wells classified as ‘bedrock’ wells in the database are sourcing water from the overlying

sand and gravel layer (Interface Aquifer).

The following defines the local surficial sediments and subsurface units into hydrostratigraphic units:

Modern Alluvial Deposits (Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel) – Unconfined Aquifer or Aquitard

Older Alluvial Deposits (Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel) – Unconfined Aquifer or Aquitard

Coarse-Textured Glaciolacustrine Deposits (Sand and Gravel) – Unconfined Aquifer




Fine-Textured Glaciolacustrine Deposits (Silty and Clay) – Aquitard

Interface Aquifer (Sand, Gravel, Weathered Shale) – Confined Aquifer

Shale Bedrock – Confined Aquifer

2.3.1.1 Groundwater Flow

The direction and rate of groundwater flow within each of the hydrostratigraphic units described above will vary

across the Study Area based on a number of factors including, but not limited to: geological composition (including

lateral / vertical extent of formation), bedrock fracturing and interconnectivity, topography, and occurrence of local

surface recharge / discharge features.

On a regional scale, groundwater flow is interpreted to be directed in a general west to southwesterly direction

toward Lake St. Clair.

2.3.2 Groundwater Resources

Within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, water for municipal supply is provided from four (4) surface water facilities

and two (2) groundwater facilities (Chatham-Kent, 2016). There are no municipal surface water intakes and/or

groundwater supply wells physically located within the Study Area. Municipal water supply distribution mapping

was not available at the time of report preparation. It is assumed that the majority of the properties within the Study

Area are not serviced by a municipal water supply and therefore the primary potable water source is private water

supply wells owned and operated by individual property owners.

2.3.2.1 Groundwater Use

Figure 3 depicts the approximate locations of MOECC water well records within and adjacent to the Study Area,

primary use of the wells, and highlights shallow wells that are screened at a depth of less than 10 m below ground

surface. It should be noted that location inaccuracies of recorded water well supplies exist within the MOECC

Water Well Information System from which the water well record information was obtained. Residents located

within and adjacent to the Project who attended the Public Meetings in July 2016 and January 2017 were invited to

provide confirmation of wells located within the vicinity of the Project. Figure 3 shows the approximate location of

active water supply wells, as depicted from residents within the Project vicinity who attended the first Public

Meetings and provided information. The location and number of active water supply wells depicted in Figure 3

should not be considered complete, as it cannot be assumed all residents and property owners within the Study

Area attended the Public Information meeting and/or provided their water well information. A complete listing of

MOECC water well records is provided in Appendix A. In considering the information provided herein, it should be

recognized that dug wells and sand point wells commonly are not registered in the MOECC database and may

account for a number of additional wells within and local to the Study Area that are not reflected in the following

discussion.

Review of the MOECC database has identified approximately 398 well records within the Study Area. As shown in

Table 1, available well records indicate that 38% of groundwater use in the Project Location is for domestic

purposes. Agricultural supply use (i.e., irrigation and livestock) accounts for 22% of the MOECC water well

records, followed by commercial and/or industrial (2%), and public/municipal sources (<1%). Approximately 32% of

MOECC water well records did not specify the well use and therefore are classified as ‘Unknown’. Approximately,

6% of the MOECC water well records indicate the well is not used, accounting for decommissioning records and

dry wells.




Figure 3: Water Well Records and Permit to Take Water Records




Table 1: Summary of MOECC Water Well Record Information

Primary Water Use Number of Well

Records

Well Depth

(m) Primary Well Type

Commercial/Industrial 7 21.3 to 37.2 1 Overburden, 6 Bedrock

Domestic 150 6.4 to 45.7 54 overburden, 94 bedrock, 2 unknown

Irrigation/Livestock 89 14.9 to 43.9 41 overburden, 48 bedrock

Public 3 21.3 to 31.4 3 bedrock

Not Used 22 16.2 to 35.4 3 overburden, 10 bedrock, 9 unknown

Unknown 127 3.4 to 46.3 22 overburden, 83 bedrock, 22 unknown

The location and depth of MOECC water well records indicates the presence of viable groundwater resources

within the Study Area. Approximately 61% of the wells within the Study Area obtain their source water from the

bedrock aquifer. In contrast, only 30% of the MOECC water well records within the Study Area were completed in

overburden sediments. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, after closer examination of the MOECC water well record

database it is determined that many of the well records classified as ‘bedrock’ wells source water from the Interface

Aquifer that directly overlies the bedrock or from the uppermost portion of bedrock characterized as highly

weathered and fractured. This provides evidence that the shale bedrock of the Kettle Point Formation is a marginal

groundwater resource locally.

2.3.2.2 Depth to Water Table

Given the relatively low number of wells within and adjacent to the Study Area that target the shallow overburden,

some difficulty was presented in characterizing the depth to the water table. Only five (5) MOECC well records

were identified which report a well depth of less than 10 m, sourcing their water from an unconfined overburden

aquifer. Static water levels within these wells are reported on the MOECC records to range between about 2.1 m

and 2.4 mBGS. Static water levels may fluctuate considerably in response changes in precipitation patterns and

seasonal fluctuations. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, it has been conservatively assumed that the

water table within the Study Area is positioned at a depth of approximately 0.5 mBGS.

2.3.3 Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

A highly vulnerable aquifer (HVA) is one that is susceptible to contamination due to its location near ground surface

or the type of material found in the ground around the aquifer. Aquifers that are near the ground surface and have

less of a barrier between the ground surface and water below the ground are considered to be HVA.

Within the Study Area, HVA consists of those areas where coarse textured glaciolacustrine deposits and alluvial

deposits are mapped at surface in Figure 2 (Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Water Protection, 2015).

2.3.4 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas

Surface water received from precipitation will percolate or infiltrate into the ground until it reaches the water table.

This occurs in surficial sediments that are sufficiently permeable to permit the movement of water through its pore

spaces. Areas such as these are known as groundwater recharge areas.

Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA) are characterized by high permeably soils at surface, such as

sand and/or gravel, which allows water to readily pass from the ground surface to an aquifer. These areas are

considered significant when they aid in maintaining the water level in an aquifer that provides water for potable

means or supplies groundwater to a cold water ecosystem.




According to the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Water Protection Committee, SGRA are identified as an

area that has a hydrological connection to a surface water body or aquifer that is a source for a drinking water

system. SGRA have been mapped within the central and western portions of the Study Area, where alluvial

deposits and coarse-textured glaciolacustrine deposits are mapped at or near surface. The remaining surficial soils

within the Study Area are considered fine textured and do not possess the soil characteristics necessary to allow

for significant quantities of groundwater recharge or are coarse-textured deposits that are not hydraulically

connected to a sourced aquifer.

2.3.5 Well Head Protection and Intake Protection Zones

According to the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Water Protection Committee, there are no surface water

or groundwater takings for municipal purposes within the Study Area. The Wallaceburg Water Treatment Plant is

located more than 3.5 km south of the Project. This treatment plant takes water from St. Clair River from the

Chenal Ecarte channel and services the Town of Wallaceburg. Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) delineation mapping

provided by the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Water Protection Committee shows that the IPZ-3 for the

Wallaceburg intake extends into the central portion of the Study Area and represents impacts that the Sydenham

River has on the intake. Well Head Protection and IPZ mapping is provided by the Thames-Sydenham and Region

interactive mapping tool and is presented in Appendix B.

Policies affecting Project activities for areas designated as IPZ-3 associated with the Wallaceburg surface water

intake include:

Fuel storage in event based areas (Policy Reference No. 2.39, MOECC Policy Reference No. 2505);

and

Transportation of fuel and nitrogen based fertilizer along roads, railways and waterways and the

transportation of liquid petroleum through pipelines (Policy Reference No. 2.53, MOECC Policy

Reference No. 1685).

2.3.6 Permit to Take Water Records

Based on a review of MOECC’s on-line database, twelve (12) active surface water Permit To Take Water (PTTW)

records have been identified within the Project Location. All PTTW records are for agricultural purposes, with the

exception of one designated as miscellaneous for wildlife conservation. Figure 3 depicts the approximate locations

of MOECC PTTW records within and adjacent to the Study Area and the primary water source (surface water or

groundwater). A complete listing of MOECC PTTW records is provided in Appendix A.




3. Water Taking Assessment

3.1 Temporary Water Takings and Construction Considerations

As described in the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals (MOE, 2013), an important environmental

effect to consider is the potential for the Project to interfere with existing uses of a water resource. Groundwater

takings for the purposes of providing dry working conditions during turbine foundation construction, collection line

installation, road construction, dust suppression and general maintenance activities may be required during

construction of the Project. Any water taking conducted during the construction phase of the Project is subject to

the REA application and as such does not require a separate PTTW. However, a similar assessment to that which

typically would be required to obtain a PTTW or EASR registration for water takings exceeding 50,000 L/day is to

be submitted as part of the REA application.

It is anticipated that water taking will be required during the construction phase of the Project for the following purposes:

1. Support general construction water demands (e.g. dust suppression, directional drilling fluids and

concrete preparations); and

2. Groundwater dewatering and/or storm water control for the purpose of turbine foundation

construction (e.g. construction dewatering).

During the construction phase of the Project, water may be required to support general construction activities (e.g.,

dust suppression, directional drilling fluids, and concrete preparations). Water demands during construction of the

Project for these purposes are expected to have peak water demands up to 50,000 Litres per day (L/day). Actual

daily demands will vary based on day-to-day operations and will typically be lower in volume than the estimated

peak volume. The proposed source of water for general construction use is a groundwater supply well located at

either the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) building or at the Electrical Substation.

Review of existing secondary source information provided by OGS and local MOECC water well records indicates

that groundwater takings for the purpose of turbine foundation construction (e.g. construction dewatering) may

exceed 400,000 L/day, but is dependent on the design of the wind turbine foundation, surficial material being

excavated, the depth to groundwater, and other hydrogeological characteristics that may be determined during

geotechnical analysis. At the time of this report preparation wind turbine foundation design was not available. For

the purposes of this investigation, and as a conservative measure, anticipated dewatering rates and potential zone

of influence (ZOI) have been calculated for a typical spread-footing turbine foundation excavation scenario in

coarse-textured glaciolacustrine surficial sediments, which typically results in higher shallow groundwater taking

requirements due to the relatively large open excavations required compared to other foundations designs such as

pile-type foundations. Table 2 summarizes the site conditions and design parameters assumed in calculating the

anticipated dewatering rates and potential ZOI.

Table 2: Site Conditions and Design Parameters

Component Value Comments

Water Table Depth (h) 0.5 mBGS Interpreted from MOECC Water Well Records

Hydraulic Conductivity (K) 1x10-4

m/sec Adapted from Freeze and Cherry (1979)

Excavation Dimension 25.0 m L x 25.0 m W Based on typical excavation dimensions

Excavation Depth 5.0 m Based on typical excavation dimensions

Assumed Dewatering Depth (H) 6.0 m Assumed water table will be lowered 1.0 m below base of excavation.

Water Table Drawdown (H - h) 5.5 m




Using information presented in Table 2, the dewatering radius of influence (Ro) was calculated assuming radial flow

to a well, using the following empirical relationship developed by Sichart and Kryieleis (Powers et al., 2007):

𝑅𝑜 = 3000(𝐻 − ℎ)√𝐾𝑠 (1)

Where H is the pre-construction saturated aquifer thickness and h is the dewatered aquifer saturated thickness. A

conservative value for hydraulic conductivity was estimated based on soil descriptions presented in the MOECC

water well records, and was considered for all calculations. Using the noted parameters, an Ro value of

approximately 165 m was calculated.

Equation 2 provides the equivalent radius, rs for a square excavation area of length a and width b. This is a

required input parameter into the groundwater inflow equation (3).

𝑟𝑠 = √𝑎𝑏

𝜋 (2)

Using the noted parameters, an rs value of approximately 14 m was determined.

Using the Ro and rs values determined above, along with previously defined H, h and K values, the dewatering rate

(Q), or the steady-state groundwater inflow for the saturated portion of the excavation was estimated using the

following numerical solution for unconfined aquifers (Powers et al., 2007).

𝑄 = 𝜋𝐾(𝐻2−ℎ2)

ln(𝑅𝑜𝑟𝑠

) (3)

Where: Q = groundwater inflow (m3/sec)

K = hydraulic conductivity (1.0x10-4

m/s)

H = pre-construction saturated aquifer thickness (5.6 m)

h = post construction saturated aquifer thickness (0.1 m)

Ro = radius of influence (165 m)

rs = equivalent radius (14 m)

A typical daily dewatering rate of approximately 346,000 L is calculated for each turbine excavation. It is

recommended that a 3 times Factor of Safety (Fs) be applied to this value for a maximum daily volume of

1,038,000 L for each turbine excavation. This recommendation is based on a number of factors that could cause

the daily dewatering rate required to maintain dry working conditions to be above the typical daily rate. It should be

expected that surface runoff or shallow infiltration, caused by spring freshet and/or precipitation events, will add

water to the excavation area, thus requiring dewatering.

We understand that at least one geotechnical borehole will be drilled at each turbine foundation location and that

site specific soil and groundwater information will become available at that time. Should groundwater taking from a

turbine foundation excavation be expected to exceed 1,038,000 L/day, revised groundwater dewatering rates and

potential ZOI will be provided to the MOECC for consideration.

Water removal from turbine foundation excavations due to overland flow of surface water into the excavation, the

interception of tile drains and farm drains, and direct precipitation inputs are not considered a groundwater taking.

If it is confirmed that groundwater is not present in the excavation area (i.e., observation of dry conditions prior to

precipitation event) it is recommended that water takings from the excavation be permitted at a volume necessary

to remove all surface water infiltration, overland flow and tile drain contribution within one (1) working day. The




maximum required daily water taking for surface water infiltration, calculated as the total volume of the excavation,

is 1,562,500 L. The contractor will be responsible to record daily water taking quantities and source of water

volumes (surface runoff, tile drains, etc.).

3.2 Long Term Water Takings and Operation Considerations

During operation of the Project, there may be up to 4 full time employees present on site. Non-potable water taking

during operation will be limited to regular personnel requirements, which are expected to be approximately 4,500

Litres per day and are not expected to exceed 50,000 Litres per day. Facilities that will provide this non-potable

water may require the construction of one or more new well(s). Adverse effects on local groundwater users

(landowners) and natural ecological features are not known to occur from the operation of groundwater supply wells

at such low rates. Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are expected to occur during operation of the

proposed groundwater supply well(s).




4. Assessment of Impacts and Monitoring Requirements

Potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures, residual effects, and a monitoring plan associated with potential effects to groundwater are described

in Table 3.

Table 3: Mitigation Measures, Net Effects and Monitoring Plan: Geology and Groundwater

Potential Effect Performance

Objective Mitigation Strategy Net Effects Monitoring Plan and Contingency Measures

Temporary reduction in

groundwater flow to natural

features (waterbodies,

watercourses and wetlands)

during groundwater

dewatering activities

associated with turbine

foundation construction.

Minimize reduction

of groundwater

contribution to

nearby natural

features.

Direct dewatering discharge to

the downgradient watercourse

(following sediment and erosion

control practices) to negate the

potential that groundwater

drawdown will decrease

baseflow into streams and

groundwater discharge into

wetlands.

Limit duration of dewatering to as

short a time frame as possible.

Implement groundwater cut-offs,

where practical, to limit

groundwater taking quantities.

Reduction in groundwater

quantity and quality minimized

through application of mitigation

measures.

Low likelihood and negligible

magnitude of long term effects

based on the amount of

dewatering required and the

duration of expected dewatering

activities.

Should groundwater dewatering activities be expected to

exceed 50,000 L/day, the following measures will be

implemented:

Inlet pump head shall be surrounded with clear stone and

filter fabric.

The discharge shall be regulated at such a rate that there is

no flooding in the receiving water body and that no soil

erosion is caused that impacts the receiving water body.

Dewatering effluent shall be discharged more than 30 m

from a watercourse or receiving water body.

The discharge shall be treated for temperature and

suspended sediment to ensure that dewatering discharge

quality is equal to or better than water quality in the receiving

watercourse or waterbody as to not result in additional

sediment input.

Dewatering effluent discharged to a receiving waterbody

shall be free of hydrocarbons and/or other visibly detected

contaminants.

Temporary reduction in

groundwater quantity and

quality to existing

groundwater users (private

water wells) during

groundwater dewatering

activities associated with

turbine foundation

construction.

Minimize reduction

of groundwater

quantity and quality

to existing

groundwater users.

Limit duration of dewatering to

as short a time frame as

possible.

Implement groundwater cut-offs,

where practical, to limit

groundwater taking quantities.


quantity and quality minimized

through application of mitigation

measures.

Low likelihood and negligible

magnitude of long term effects

based on the amount of

dewatering required and the

duration of expected dewatering

activities.

Should groundwater dewatering activities exceed 50,000 L/day

and a private water well becomes dry or water quality is

impaired as a likely result of such activities based on a

qualified expert’s opinion, a temporary potable water supply

will be provided to the property owner and a qualified expert

(P.Eng or P.Geo) will establish a contingency plan to include

remedial measures to resolve any impacts to the affected well.




Table 3: Mitigation Measures, Net Effects and Monitoring Plan: Geology and Groundwater

Potential Effect Performance

Objective Mitigation Strategy Net Effects Monitoring Plan and Contingency Measures

Contamination of

groundwater resources due

to accidental spills or

releases of contaminants

(i.e., fuel, lubricating oils and

other fluids) during the

refuelling, operation or

maintenance of Project

equipment.

Prevent contaminant

discharge to the

environment.

Develop a spill response plan

and train staff on procedures and

protocols.

Refuel Project equipment and

vehicles on spill collection pads

and/or in designated areas.

Dispose of any waste material

from construction activities by

authorized and approved off-site

vendors.

Groundwater contamination

minimized through application of

mitigation measures.

Low likelihood and limited

magnitude of effects on

groundwater.

Routine inspections performed by the contractor of construction

equipment for leaks and spills.

In the event of a contaminant spill all work will stop until the spill

is cleaned up.

Notify MOECC’s Spill Action Centre, where appropriate, of any

leaks or spills.


quantity from an increase in

impervious area created by

turbine foundations and

access roads resulting in

reduced infiltration to

unconfined aquifers (coarse-

textured lacustrine deposit)

Minimize the

increase in

impervious areas.

Direct runoff from the

constructed impervious surfaces

to ground surface to prevent any

decrease in infiltration and

recharge.

Minimize vehicle and

construction equipment traffic on

exposed soils to avoid

compaction and a reduction of

water infiltration.

Reduced infiltration near

groundwater recharge areas

minimized through application of

mitigation measures.

Low likelihood and limited

magnitude of effects based on

surface area of turbine

foundations and the primary land

use of surrounding area.

No monitoring or contingency measures required.




5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This desktop hydrogeological assessment was completed for the purpose of providing a high level review of

existing hydrogeological conditions within the Project Location, describe potential groundwater taking needs of the

Project during construction and operation, outline potential effects of the Project on local groundwater resources,

and provide a mitigation strategy and contingency measures that negate these adverse effects.

Results of this desktop investigation indicate that surficial soils within the Study Area predominantly are composed

of fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits of silt and clay with isolated occurrences of thin sand and/or sand and

gravel glaciolacustrine and alluvial deposits at surface. The granular surface materials have the potential to readily

transmit groundwater and turbine foundations excavated within these materials may require significant dewatering

during construction. A site-specific geotechnical investigation has not yet been completed to confirm soil and

groundwater conditions at each turbine foundation location. Should turbines be excavated in coarser-grained

materials (e.g., sand and/or gravel), below the water table, dewatering requirements may exceed 50,000 L/day.

At this time, the wind turbine foundation design is not confirmed. If a spread-footing foundation is used only surficial

soils within approximately 5 m of surface are expected to be impacted from construction activities. In some cases,

site specific conditions, which will be confirmed through geotechnical investigations, may determine the need for a

pile-type foundation. Should a pile foundation be necessary subsurface deposits, such as the Interface Aquifer,

may be encountered. No long-term potential effects are anticipated in the immediate vicinity of the turbines.

In conclusion, there is potential for groundwater takings to exceed 50,000 L/day at certain turbine foundation

locations. This potential will be dependent on the surficial material being excavated, the depth to groundwater

(relative to the excavation extent), and other hydrogeological characteristics that will be determined during a future

geotechnical investigation. Should groundwater dewatering rates be expected to exceed 50,000 L/day from a

turbine foundation excavation, implementation of mitigation measures to minimize the potential impact to

groundwater resources are recommended, as detailed in Table 3.




6. References

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM), 2017:

Project Description Report. Prepared for Otter Creek Wind Farm Limited Partnership. Project No.

60504082. February 2017.

Armstrong, D.K. and J.E.P. Dodge, 2007:

Paleozoic Geology of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Release Data 219.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1984:

The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. 270p. Accompanied

by Map P.2715 (coloured), scale 1:600,000.

Fitzgerald, W.D. and M. Hradsky, 1980:

Quaternary Geology of the Wallaceburg – St. Clair Flats Area, Lambton & Kent Counties, Southern

Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey Preliminary Map P.2368, Quaternary Geology Series Scale 1:50 000

Geology 1979.

Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), 2015:

2010 National Building Code of Canada Seismic Hazard Calculator. Natural Resources Canada.

http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/zoning-zonage/NBCC2015maps-en.php.

Accessed August 10, 2016.

Hewitt, D.F., 1966:

Paleozoic Geology of Southern Ontario, Ontario Department of Mines. Map 2117, scale 1:1,013,760.

Kelly, R.I., A.J. Cooper and C. Styles, 1993:

Drift Thickness of Wallaceburg Area, Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey Preliminary Map.

P.3200, Scale 1:50,000.

Municipality of Chatham-Kent (Chatham-Kent), 2015:

“Drinking Water Quality Management Standard”, http://www.chatham-

kent.ca/WaterandWastewaterServices/Water/Pages/DrinkingWaterQualityManagementStandard.aspx.

Last updated January 29, 2015. Accessed August 9, 2016.

Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), 2010:

Surficial Geology of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release- Data 128-REV.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2015:

Map: Well Records. Updated March 13, 2015. Accessed June 14, 2016.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-well-records.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2013:

Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals.

Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resource Library, 2014:

Access OGSR Library via google earth, 2014




Powers, J.P, A.B. Corwin, P.C. Schmall, W.E. Kaeck and C.J. Herridge, 2007:

Construction Dewatering and Groundwater Control: New Methods and Applications, 3rd Ed. John Wiley

and Sons Inc.

Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Water Protection Committee, 2015:

Interactive Mapping Application, accessed on August 10, 2016.


St.Clair Region Source Protection Area - Assessment Report - Approved, September 16, 2015.


Source Protection Plan, Volume III – Policies affecting the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source

Protection Region except Oxford County – Approved, September 17, 2015.

Appendix A

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Water Well Records and Permit to Take Water Records

Appendix A-1 MOECC Water Well Records

Well ID Bore Hole ID Water KindEasting

(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)

3300128 10184285 FRESH 396493 4717352 Bedrock Domestic 22.73045 9/7/1965 3.6576 15.24 15.8496 18.288

3300195 10184352 FRESH 397913 4717222 Bedrock Livestock 27.27654 10/30/1963 2.1336 14.3256 14.3256 18.5928

3300196 10184353 FRESH 397888 4718002 Overburden Livestock 9.09218 7/15/1947 3.3528 15.24 15.24







3300983 10185138 FRESH 387432.9 4720522 Overburden Domestic 9.09218 6/8/1965 2.1336 4.2672 6.4008

3300984 10185139 FRESH 387322.9 4719842 Bedrock Domestic 22.73045 5/20/1967 4.572 21.336 21.336 23.1648

3300993 10185148 FRESH 394456 4719580 Overburden Domestic 10/22/1947 5.4864 5.4864 21.6408





3301576 10185731 FRESH 380692.9 4718082 Overburden Livestock 50.00699 2/10/1953 3.048 32.004 32.004

3301577 10185732 FRESH 381690.9 4718042 Overburden Livestock 6/11/1949 4.572 31.3944 31.3944


3301584 10185739 FRESH 384432.9 4717542 Bedrock Not Used 10/24/1952 34.7472 33.2232 35.3568


3301586 10185741 384332.9 4717957 Bedrock 3/8/1957 36.576 38.7096

3301587 10185742 FRESH 385492.9 4717622 Overburden Domestic 8/14/1948 3.6576 28.3464 28.3464













3301636 10185791 389173 4717647 Bedrock 3/17/1961 21.336 28.3464

3301643 10185798 389173 4717702 Bedrock 7/13/1964 20.7264 21.336







3301668 10185823 393773 4717082 Bedrock 8/27/1960 18.8976 27.432

3301669 10185824 393773 4717102 Bedrock 8/30/1960 19.2024 27.432

3301670 10185825 SALTY 393743 4717122 Bedrock Not Used 13.63827 9/2/1960 4.2672 23.7744 18.8976 23.7744

3301672 10185827 SALTY 393741 4717102 Bedrock Not Used 9.09218 9/8/1960 7.9248 22.86 18.8976 24.384




Appendix A_MOECC_Wells-PTTW_OtterCreek-Master_Well_Report Page 1 of 9



(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)



3301704 10185859 FRESH 395803 4717367 Bedrock Public 27.27654 5/3/1967 3.3528 17.0688 17.0688 21.336

3301710 10185865 397453 4717342 Bedrock 10/15/1959 15.8496 16.1544

3301711 10185866 397453 4717332 Bedrock 10/16/1959 15.8496 18.288

3301712 10185867 397453 4717297 Bedrock 10/17/1959 15.8496 16.1544

3301713 10185868 397433 4717292 Bedrock 10/19/1959 15.8496 16.1544

3301714 10185869 397398 4717222 Bedrock 10/21/1959 15.8496 16.764

3301715 10185870 FRESH 397153 4717262 Bedrock Not Used 18.18436 11/16/1959 3.048 15.5448 15.8496 16.1544


3301717 10185872 FRESH 397353 4717357 Bedrock Livestock 11/3/1960 3.048 14.9352 14.9352 15.24

3301718 10185873 397358 4717322 Bedrock 10/27/1962 15.5448 19.812

3301719 10185874 397353 4717382 Bedrock 10/29/1962 15.5448 16.764

3301720 10185875 397173 4717122 Bedrock 12/1/1962 15.5448 21.9456


3301722 10185877 FRESH 379432.9 4718207 Overburden Commerical 6/2/1950 4.2672 37.1856 37.1856













3301737 10185892 FRESH 381692.9 4718207 Bedrock Livestock 13.63827 9/27/1963 4.2672 33.2232 31.6992 33.2232


3301739 10185894 383372.9 4718042 Overburden 7/7/1954 32.3088




3301743 10185898 385292.9 4717977 Bedrock 4/10/1958 34.7472 35.052

3301744 10185899 385972.9 4718387 Bedrock 10/31/1956 36.576 46.3296




3301751 10185906 FRESH 388618 4717827 Overburden Domestic 18.18436 6/9/1952 3.6576 22.2504 22.2504


3301753 10185908 388752.9 4719122 Bedrock 10/3/1962 25.908 32.004

3301754 10185909 388752.9 4719039 Bedrock 10/6/1962 25.908 32.004

3301755 10185910 388659.8 4719009 Bedrock 4/22/1963 25.908 45.1104

3301756 10185911 388952.9 4719012 Bedrock 6/3/1963 25.2984 25.908

3301757 10185912 389012.9 4719102 Bedrock 11/2/1963 25.6032 27.432


3301759 10185914 FRESH 389993 4717772 Overburden Livestock 18.18436 5/22/1954 3.6576 21.6408






(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)

3301762 10185917 FRESH 391308 4717712 Overburden Not Used 45.4609 9/20/1955 3.9624 20.4216 20.4216






3301768 10185923 392693 4717617 Bedrock 8/14/1964 21.9456 22.86


3301770 10185925 FRESH 392843 4717632 Bedrock Domestic 11/15/1946 3.6576 21.336 23.1648


3301772 10185927 392633 4717732 Bedrock 10/27/1966 19.812 30.48







3301779 10185934 394768 4717522 Bedrock 4/8/1963 19.2024 24.384

3301780 10185935 FRESH 394733 4717522 Bedrock Public 13.63827 4/11/1963 3.6576 20.7264 19.2024 26.5176



3301783 10185938 396508 4717462 Overburden 10/7/1949 16.764



3301786 10185941 395973 4717492 Overburden 12/27/1948 15.24

3301787 10185942 397333 4717442 Bedrock 5/8/1966 15.8496 17.0688


3301789 10185944 397373 4717442 Bedrock 5/5/1966 15.8496 16.764





3301804 10185959 379572.9 4719607 Overburden 5/4/1961 45.4152

3301805 10185960 FRESH 380642.9 4719957 Bedrock Industrial 27.27654 9/30/1963 3.9624 33.8328 33.8328 36.576





3301810 10185965 383482.9 4720672 Bedrock 3/16/1955 34.1376 37.4904

3301811 10185966 383482.9 4720642 Bedrock 3/19/1955 33.528 37.4904














(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)




3301825 10185980 387432.9 4720052 Overburden 11/2/1948 25.6032


3301827 10185982 387482.9 4720542 Bedrock 9/4/1963 21.9456 25.908

3301828 10185983 387432.9 4720762 Bedrock 9/6/1963 26.2128 30.48



3301831 10185986 SALTY 388612.9 4719192 Overburden Not Used 11/18/1948 31.0896 31.0896

3301832 10185987 388612.9 4720102 Bedrock 5/26/1949 24.384 37.4904

3301833 10185988 388572.9 4719557 Bedrock 11/30/1949 23.7744 24.6888

3301834 10185989 388632.9 4719582 Bedrock 12/6/1949 23.7744 25.908




3301838 10185993 388332.9 4719282 Bedrock 9/5/1962 30.48 36.576


3301840 10185995 SALTY 388352.9 4719212 Bedrock Domestic 9.09218 9/7/1962 5.4864 31.3944 30.48 32.9184

3301841 10185996 389697.9 4720422 Bedrock 10/23/1951 17.6784 19.2024

3301842 10185997 389692.9 4720412 Bedrock 10/25/1951 17.6784 19.5072


3301844 10185999 388362.9 4720462 Bedrock 11/13/1956 17.6784 30.48


3301846 10186001 389312.9 4720477 Bedrock 7/20/1961 17.0688 21.9456

3301847 10186002 FRESH 389312.9 4720402 Bedrock Not Used 7/17/1961 3.6576 19.812 17.3736 28.6512




3301851 10186006 393613 4720142 Bedrock 4/6/1954 21.6408 30.48

3301852 10186007 393623 4720022 Bedrock 4/12/1954 21.336 21.6408





3301857 10186012 394843 4720202 Bedrock 5/1/1948 22.86 28.956






3304661 10188816 388292.9 4719152 Overburden 9/16/1968 10.668



3304852 10189006 FRESH 380102.9 4718202 Overburden Not Used 22.73045 5/26/1969 3.3528 32.3088 32.6136




3305056 10189207 388612.9 4719547 Overburden 12/1/1949 23.7744

3305057 10189208 388632.9 4719547 Bedrock 12/3/1949 25.908 30.1752




(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)

3305058 10189209 388622.9 4719602 Bedrock 12/7/1949 23.7744 25.908

3305059 10189210 388592.9 4719617 Bedrock 12/9/1949 23.7744 25.6032

3305060 10189211 388602.9 4719642 Bedrock 12/12/1949 23.7744 25.2984

3305061 10189212 397513 4720097 Overburden 6/23/1950 23.7744

3305062 10189213 397513 4720102 Bedrock 6/23/1950 18.288 18.5928









3305456 10189598 FRESH 379444.7 4718202 Bedrock Domestic 0 11/3/1971 4.8768 39.624 37.1856 42.0624


3305508 10189649 393483 4717602 Bedrock 4/26/1972 21.336 37.4904





3305614 10189755 FRESH 384312.9 4717922 Overburden 5/6/1972 36.576 36.576

3305615 10189756 Not stated 384332.9 4717922 Bedrock 5/2/1972 8.5344 36.2712 36.576 42.672

3305616 10189757 Not stated 384342.9 4717952 Bedrock Domestic 9.09218 5/10/1972 8.5344 36.576 37.1856 38.1

3305666 10189807 393913 4717042 Bedrock 12/5/1972 20.4216 21.336



3305762 10189903 FRESH 386432.9 4719272 Bedrock Public 13.63827 5/14/1973 3.6576 24.384 24.384 31.3944


3305766 10189907 FRESH 387080.9 4720255 Bedrock Livestock 0 7/19/1973 2.7432 18.8976 19.2024 19.5072

3305788 10189929 394873 4719862 Bedrock 9/12/1973 18.8976 24.384

3305789 10189930 394833 4719822 Bedrock 9/17/1973 23.1648 28.0416

3305790 10189931 394713 4719902 Bedrock 9/25/1973 21.0312 24.384



3305930 10190071 391666 4719788 Overburden 4/1/1974 21.9456

3305931 10190072 391723 4719798 Overburden 4/5/1974 24.384

3305959 10190100 391697 4719795 Bedrock 6/10/1974 21.336 22.86

3305960 10190101 391668 4719768 Bedrock 6/13/1974 22.86 24.384


3305965 10190106 FRESH 391726 4719173 Bedrock Livestock 90.9218 7/18/1974 3.6576 19.812 20.1168


3305967 10190108 391414 4720024 Overburden 7/8/1974 20.7264

3305968 10190109 391736 4720024 Overburden 7/4/1974 27.432







3306140 10190280 395059 4720211 Bedrock 3/14/1975 21.336 22.86




(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)

3306141 10190281 394898 4719932 Bedrock 3/10/1975 21.336 22.5552



3306248 10190388 390710 4719081 Bedrock 8/27/1975 24.0792 24.6888


3306250 10190390 390712 4719146 Bedrock 8/20/1975 23.7744 24.9936


3306388 10190522 392273 4717562 Bedrock 6/6/1976 21.336 23.1648


3306448 10190582 FRESH 391493 4717602 Bedrock Industrial 36.36872 9/3/1976 3.3528 20.7264 21.336 22.2504







3306769 10190897 SALTY 379512.9 4718242 Bedrock 5/19/1978 42.672 37.1856 42.672

3306770 10190898 FRESH 379512.9 4718242 Bedrock 5/31/1978 37.1856 37.1856 42.672

3306853 10190981 389772.9 4720442 Bedrock 7/13/1978 18.288 24.384


3307064 10191191 FRESH 388653 4717482 Bedrock Commerical 5/31/1979 1.8288 21.9456 3.3528 21.9456



3307143 10191266 390770.8 4719259 Bedrock Livestock 10/12/1979 21.6408 22.86






3307414 10191534 FRESH 391453 4717622 Bedrock Commerical 31.82263 10/30/1980 5.1816 20.7264 21.0312 21.336

3307416 10191536 FRESH 391493 4717622 Bedrock 45.4609 7/1/1980 4.8768 20.7264 21.336 21.6408



3307647 10191765 391813 4720342 Bedrock 10/4/1982 25.908 26.2128

3307648 10191766 391850.8 4720339 Bedrock 10/11/1982 24.9936 28.6512



3307732 10191849 FRESH 385812.9 4719342 Bedrock 13.63827 8/20/1983 4.2672 23.7744 24.0792 24.9936

3307738 10191855 385832.9 4719322 Bedrock 8/22/1983 23.7744 24.9936

3307739 10191856 FRESH 385852.9 4719342 Bedrock 18.18436 9/6/1983 4.2672 22.86 23.4696 24.384

3307863 10191976 FRESH 390799.5 4719743 Overburden Domestic 81.82962 8/16/1984 21.336 21.6408


3308058 10192082 387142.9 4720562 Bedrock 9/6/1986 22.5552 24.384

3308059 10192083 387157.9 4720522 Bedrock 9/8/1986 22.5552 22.86


3308135 10192159 FRESH 379783.9 4718860 Bedrock Commerical 13.63827 2/23/1987 7.3152 20.7264 20.7264 24.384

3308163 10192187 GAS 387022.9 4720292 Bedrock Domestic 22.73045 10/2/1987 3.9624 18.5928 18.5928 19.5072

3308172 10192196 SULPHUR 380612.9 4718162 Bedrock 9.09218 7/27/1987 32.9184 32.9184 33.8328

3308173 10192197 SULPHUR 380612.9 4718202 Bedrock Domestic 36.36872 7/31/1987 2.4384 32.6136 32.6136 33.528





(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)

3308236 10192260 FRESH 389613 4717502 Bedrock 4.54609 5/26/1987 22.5552 22.5552 23.7744

3308237 10192261 FRESH 389623 4717492 Bedrock Commerical 45.4609 6/5/1987 6.096 22.5552 22.5552 24.6888



3308310 10192334 GAS 390479 4719230 Bedrock 8/18/1988 26.8224 26.8224 28.6512

3308920 10192866 SULPHUR 386539.4 4719934 Overburden Domestic 36.36872 10/14/1992 5.1816 17.0688 21.0312


3308932 10192878 389586.9 4719800 Bedrock 2/2/1993 17.9832 19.5072


3308937 10192883 389586.9 4719800 Bedrock 9/10/1992 17.6784 19.812





3309413 10193353 380401.9 4718834 Overburden 6/29/1998 13.716




3309835 10532373 386873.8 4719534 Not Used 11/30/2002

3309883 10545017 394453.9 4719577 Not Used 1/7/2003


3309984 11098389 385312.7 4719983 Not Used 10/29/2003

3310016 11098419 381610.7 4718779 Not Used 9/13/2003

3310021 11098424 391346.8 4718345 Not Used 7/22/2002

3310031 11106044 391369 4718523 Not Used 12/12/2003

3310032 11106045 392026.8 4719684 Not Used 12/1/2003

3310108 11175181 391742 4719999 5/4/2004

3310190 11320239 388591 4717690 Domestic 6/13/2005

3310248 11553127 387684 4719098 12/20/2005

3310250 11553129 386005 4719105 6/9/2005

3310254 11553133 387076 4719614 8/10/2005

3310313 11553192 385079 4719151 6/5/2006 15

3310338 11693155 385499 4719282 8/11/2006

3310339 11693156 385499 4719282 8/11/2006


3402563 10196163 FRESH 379262.9 4720972 Overburden Livestock 22.73045 8/18/1954 4.2672 42.672



3402584 10196184 383752.9 4720872 Bedrock 8/21/1959 32.3088 39.624


3402586 10196186 383572.9 4720792 Bedrock 8/29/1959 32.3088 32.6136

3402587 10196187 FRESH 383752.9 4720842 Bedrock Not Used 9.09218 9/4/1959 4.572 30.1752 31.6992 32.004



3402598 10196198 388682.9 4720932 Bedrock 4/26/1958 18.5928 18.8976


3402600 10196200 388652.9 4720932 Bedrock 4/28/1958 18.5928 18.8976



3402615 10196215 392588 4720742 Overburden 8/20/1958 25.908




(NAD83)

Northing

(NAD83)Well Type

Primary Water

Use

Pumping Rate

(lpm)

Construction

DateStatic Level

Deepest Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Well Depth

(m)

3402616 10196216 392568 4720392 Overburden 8/24/1958 25.908

3402617 10196217 392533 4720382 Bedrock 9/15/1964 25.908 28.956

3402618 10196218 392553 4720742 Bedrock 9/20/1964 28.6512 30.48

3402619 10196219 392553 4720422 Bedrock 8/7/1961 25.6032 36.8808

3402620 10196220 392393 4720402 Overburden 9/30/1964 29.2608


3402622 10196222 FRESH 393473 4720342 Overburden Livestock 8/15/1946 4.572 20.7264 20.7264

3402625 10196225 FRESH 396493 4720202 Bedrock Irrigation 13.63827 8/19/1955 2.1336 16.4592 16.1544 17.0688


3402627 10196227 FRESH 397773 4720302 Overburden Livestock 10/15/1946 4.572 15.24 15.24




3403483 10197083 394933 4720582 Overburden 7/12/1969 26.5176

3403484 10197084 394893 4720622 Overburden 7/10/1969 21.336

3403485 10197085 394873 4720462 Overburden 7/14/1969 21.336





3404808 10198374 393973 4720382 Bedrock 10/28/1975 24.384 25.908

3404809 10198375 393613 4720522 Bedrock 11/11/1975 26.8224 28.0416

3404810 10198376 393973 4720322 Overburden 10/23/1975 24.384





3408429 10532380 389465.8 4720618 Not Used 4/18/2002

3408430 10532381 389457.8 4720609 Not Used 4/18/2002

3408499 10539244 FRESH 396600 4720235 Bedrock Domestic 22.73045 3/4/2003 4.2672 16.764 17.0688

3408500 10539245 396585 4720237 Overburden Domestic 3/4/2003 15.8496

3408714 11320314 381097 4718100 Overburden 3/28/2005 7.6

7051654 23051654 380797 4718442 9/1/2007 3.3528

7051656 23051656 395107 4717457 10/10/2007 7.0104

7051715 23051715 393129 4720567 6/30/2007

7051716 23051716 392986 4720644 6/30/2007

7051717 23051717 392986 4720644 6/30/2007

7100284 1000040679 385118 4719373 11/7/2007 24.9936

7100285 1000040722 385119 4719373 11/24/2007

7125192 1002513938 382051 4720861 6/30/2009 9

7135792 1002876110 388950 4719109 8/17/2009 10

7167314 1003551919 388574 4717381 8/5/2011

7179886 1003713111 393214 4717303 3/23/2012 2.4384

7186139 1004142870 389303 4717913 8/1/2012

7201916

7204608 1004412591 392904 4717961 5/11/2013 3.048

7204771 1004423816 381680 4719396 Domestic 36.36872 5/10/2013 2.667 33.9852

7210389 1004618920 Untested 392880 4720300 7/24/2013


Appendix A-2 MOECC Permit to Take Water Records

Permit

NumberClient Name

Purpose

Category

Specific

Purpose

Expiry

Date

Issue

Date

Water

SourceSource ID EASTING NORTHING

Maximum

Daily

Volume (L)

Permitted

Days per

Year

Maximum

Hours per

Day

Maximum

Volume per

Minute (L)

ACTIVE

3210-

7S8KH4William Konecny Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops5/20/2019 5/22/2009

Surface

WaterSydenham River Site #1 393248 4717242 2016000 35 24 1400 Yes

5026-

7TLQ5RSerkka Farms Inc. Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops7/14/2018 7/22/2009

Surface

WaterWhitebread Tap 379200 4720280 3268800 120 24 2270 Yes

7168-

7GUNTLRoss McCreary Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops7/24/2018 8/12/2008

Surface

WaterOtter Creek #1 389424 4718489 4364160 9 16 4546 Yes

7178-

9KTRST

228786 Ontario Ltd.~1118171

Ontario Ltd.Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops7/31/2018 6/10/2014

Surface

WaterWhite Bread Drain 380421 4720721 1137000 12 10 1895 Yes

7754-

7S9Q9GSerkka Farms Inc. Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops6/25/2018 5/29/2009

Surface

WaterWhitebred drain 381402 4720859 2498364 40 20 2081.97 Yes

8518-

95RRT5

St. Clair Region Conservation

AuthorityMiscellaneous

Wildlife

Conservation3/31/2023 3/19/2013

Surface

Water

Backflooding from Otter

Creek388435 4718202 4578000 365 24 3179 Yes

8741-

9KTHCWSerkka Farms Inc. Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops6/6/2024 6/10/2014

Surface

WaterSkinner Drain 383306 4718036 2996400 30 22 2270 Yes

3210-

7S8KH4William Konecny Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops5/20/2019 5/22/2009

Surface

WaterSydenham River Site #2 394527 4717235 2016000 35 24 1400 Yes

7168-

7GUNTLRoss McCreary Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops7/24/2018 8/12/2008

Surface

WaterOtter Creek #2 390182 4718516 4364160 9 16 4546 Yes

7178-

9KTRST

228786 Ontario Ltd.~1118171


Field and

Pasture Crops7/31/2018 6/10/2014

Surface

WaterBear Creek Drain 380575 4719312 1137000 12 10 1895 Yes

7178-

9KTRST

228786 Ontario Ltd.~1118171


Field and

Pasture Crops7/31/2018 6/10/2014

Surface

WaterSkinner Drain 380575 4719312 1137000 12 10 1895 Yes

8242-

7DQKZJBercab Farms Inc. Agricultural

Field and

Pasture Crops4/15/2018 5/23/2008

Surface

WaterSydenham River (b) 394976 4717178 950400 120 18 880 Yes

Appendix A_MOECC_Wells-PTTW_OtterCreek-PTTW Records Page 9 of 9

Appendix B

Chatham-Kent and St. Clair Intake Protection Zones and Significant Threat Mapping

Sources:Base data, 2010 Aerial Photography used under licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright © Queen's Printer for Ontario; City of London.

Well Head Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones

August 10, 2016Created By:

Legend

Notes: Thames-Sydenham & Region5,7782,889

1:144,447

11,556

metres

0

This map is not a substitute for professional advice. Please contact UTRCA staff for any changes, updates and amendments to the information provided.

The UTRCA assumes no liability for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies in the information provided herein and further assumes no liability for any decisions made or actions taken or not taken by any person in reliance upon the information and data furnished hereunder.

The UTRCA disclaims explicitly any warranty, representation or guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness, fitness for a particular purpose, merchantability or completeness of any of the data depicted and provided herein.

Copyright © Thames-Sydenham & Region Source Protection.2016

Thames-Sydenham & Region SourceProtection Region Online Mapping

This document is not a Plan of Survey.

Source Protection Region

Municipal Wells

Wellhead Protection Area Vulnerability - Approved

Vulnerability = 2

Vulnerability = 4

Vulnerability = 6

Vulnerability = 8

Vulnerability = 10

Vulnerability = 6.3 (WHPA-E)



Issue Contributing Area

Intake Protection Zone/Vulnerability - Approved

IPZ-1

IPZ-2

IPZ-3

EBA

See Essex SPA

http://www.sourcewaterprotection.on.ca

http://www.scrca.on.ca/

http://www.lowerthames-conservation.on.ca/

http://www.thamesriver.on.ca




About AECOM

AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries.

As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges.

From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies had revenue of approximately US $19 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2015.

See how we deliver what others can only imagine at aecom.com and @AECOM.

aecom.com

http://aecom.com/

hydrogeological assessment and effects...

Documents