Addendum to Presentation

We gave councillors a copy of the slideshow and these supplementary pages. The BVRA supports the peer reviewer statements and recommendations including but not exclusively:



1. Statements by RJ Burnside (from the letter to Grey Highlands, dated February, 19, 2010)

We would note in general that the proponent’s hydrogeological consultant has either concurred with our comments or has undertaken on behalf of the proponent that additional works will be carried out and that these additional works would be mandated by conditions of draft plan approval. On the understanding that satisfying the conditions will be the proponents responsibility and further that it is the proponent’s risk should any conditions not be met we would support moving forward to drafting appropriate draft plan conditions to address these various works.

We expect that the proponent may wish their own consultants to propose wording for these draft conditions. We would recommend as proposed draft plan conditions are created that we have an opportunity to review the specific wording of those conditions to ensure that the work which they have committed to is clearly identified in those conditions. Alternatively, we could offer our assistance in drafting the draft plan conditions.

As we review this file relative to the servicing issues as well as look back though the chronology of documents within this file we raise the question whether the Ministry of the Environment has actually provided clearance to the County with respect to the Settlement Capability Study and the servicing options that were detailed with that document.

2. Recommendations of RJ Burnside (detailed in the letter, dated December 11, 2009)

a. building permits issued on a lot-by-lot basis upon the successful completion of construction and contractor’s testing of individual wells (Marcus Buck concurs)

b. pre-construction monitoring program to examine water level variations in the bedrock aquifer (Marcus Buck concurs)

c. TW5 tested and retested during the spring freshet period to examine turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients and bacteria to examine water quality trends in the aquifer and design an appropriate water supply system for residents.

d. Municipality will be advised of evidence of karstic features identified during the drilling program, such as bit drops and/or cavernous rock

e. door-to-door survey of residences completed to collect baseline information on neighbouring wells to allow both the developer and municipality to effectively address any future interference complaints (Marcus Buck concurs)

f. more definitive discussions including recommendations for mitigating any potential concerns

g. a letter examining the shallow groundwater flow direction on the site, characterizing migration pathways and providing assurances that the septic effluent will have minimal impacts on the local groundwater resources.

h. The consultant should provide information on the combined effects of drawdown from 45 individual wells on local groundwater resources

3. Recommendations of Marcus Buck (detailed in his letter to County, December, 22, 2009)

a. obtain additional measurements (detailed) when surface flow is high during the spring to complete the collection of baseline data, including water levels in the monitoring wells

b. use additional data to improve the modeling and aquifer characterization

c. phasing of the development will provide an opportunity for the review of data to ensure that additional phases are expected to be environmentally sustainable (RJ Burnside concurs)

d. a monitoring program should be completed during an after each phase of the development (detailed).