Surface Water Impact Assessment – Green Lake & Madawaska River, Madawaska Valley Township, Renfrew County
Revision: 1 (Final)
Prepared for: Combermere Lodge Ltd. 118 Annie Mayhew Road Combermere, ON K0J1L0
Prepared by:
Project Number: 17-223-1
Document ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
July 30, 2018 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Surface Water Impact Assessment – Green Lake & Madawaska River, Title: Madawaska Valley Township, Renfrew County Client: Combermere Lodge Limited Project Number: 17-223-1 Document ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx Revision Number: 1 Date: July 30, 2018 Prepared by: Drew Paulusse, B.Sc., Robert Walsh, Ph.D., P. Eng. Reviewed by: Kenneth Raven, P.Eng., P.Geo.
Approved by:
Robert Walsh, Ph.D., P.Eng.
July 30, 2018 i Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work ...... 1
2 STUDY AREA SETTING ...... 5 2.1 Landforms, Soils and Geology ...... 5 2.2 Surface Water Features ...... 5
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY ...... 7 3.1 Surface Water Sampling ...... 7 3.2 Borehole Investigations and Monitoring Installation ...... 8 3.3 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring and Groundwater Sampling ...... 8 3.4 Recreational Crowding Assessment ...... 9
4 LAKESHORE CAPACITY MODEL ...... 10 4.1 Development and Application ...... 10 4.2 Model Calibration ...... 10 4.2.1 Input Data ...... 10 4.3 Summary ...... 12
5 RESULTS ...... 13 5.1 Surface Water Investigations ...... 13 5.1.1 Trophic Status ...... 13 5.1.2 Green Lake and Labrador Lake Thermal Stratification ...... 14 5.1.3 Surface Water Quality ...... 16 5.1.3.1 Dissolved Organic Carbon ...... 16 5.1.3.2 Phosphorus ...... 17 5.1.3.3 Nitrogen ...... 18 5.1.3.4 Chlorophyll ɑ ...... 18 5.1.4 Water Quality Summary ...... 18 5.2 Madawaska River Discharge ...... 19 5.3 Surficial Geology ...... 20 5.4 Groundwater Elevation and Flow Direction ...... 20 5.4.1 Horizontal Groundwater Gradients ...... 26 5.4.2 Groundwater Velocity ...... 26 5.5 Recreational Crowding ...... 27
6 DISCUSSION ...... 28 6.1 Phosphorus as a Contaminant of Concern ...... 28 6.2 Comparison to the Analog Site ...... 29 6.3 Implications of Site Hydrogeology on Septic Impact ...... 29 6.4 Implications of Site Geochemistry on Septic Impact ...... 30 6.5 Phosphorous Loading to the Madawaska River ...... 31
7 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33
July 30, 2018 ii Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 34
9 CLOSURE ...... 35
10 REFERENCES ...... 36
LIST OF REPORT FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location ...... 3 Figure 2 Site Layout ...... 4 Figure 3 Spring and Fall Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles of Green Lake ...... 15 Figure 4 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Direction: October 2017 ...... 22 Figure 5 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Direction: May 2018 ...... 23 Figure 6 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Direction: July 2018 ...... 24 Figure 7 Cross Section A-A’: Northwest Portion of Site ...... 25 Figure 8 Cross Section B-B’: Central Portion of Site ...... 25 Figure 9 Cross Section C-C’: Southeast Portion of Site ...... 26
LIST OF REPORT TABLES
Table 3.1 Summary of Surface Water Investigations ...... 7 Table 4.1 Shoreline Development Phosphorus Loading Coefficients ...... 11 Table 4.2 Summary of Lake Capacity Model Results ...... 12 Table 5.1 Relationship Between TSI Vales and Trophic State ...... 13 Table 5.2 TSI Values for Green Lake and Labrador Lake ...... 14 Table 5.3 Surface Water Analytical Results for Green Lake and Madawaska River ...... 16 Table 5.4 Madawaska River Discharge at Palmer Rapids ...... 19 Table 6.1 Comparison of Test Site to Analog Site ...... 29
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Lake Capacity Model Input Sheets Appendix B Lake Capacity Model Output Sheets Appendix C Data Summary Tables Appendix D Laboratory Analytical Reports
July 30, 2018 iii Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
1 INTRODUCTION
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. was retained by Combermere Lodge Limited to complete a Surface Water Impact Assessment in support of zoning amendment and plan of subdivision application for part of Lots 2, 3 & 4, Concession 9 and part of Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5, Concession 8 in Madawaska Valley Township. The site location is provided on Figure 1.
1.1 Purpose
The proponent is seeking a zoning amendment and plan of subdivision approval to develop an approximately 77.3 hectare (ha) property into a permanent residential subdivision. The proposed plan of subdivision borders on four distinct water bodies, the outlet of Kamaniskeg Lake, the Madawaska River and two smaller landlocked lakes – Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
To protect natural heritage features, including fish habitat, policy 2.1.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement includes direction that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands adjacent to natural heritage features and areas unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.
Due to the relatively small size of Green Lake and Labrador Lake and the 16 lots proposed to be constructed along the shoreline of the lakes, an assessment of water quality impacts to the lakes is required to assess the potential for excess nutrient loading (primarily in terms of total phosphorus from septic systems) from shoreline development. The development also plans for an additional 18 lots on the north shore of the Madawaska River, requiring a surface water impact assessment to show that no excessive nutrient loading from the proposed development will impact the Madawaska River. The proposed development and adjacent surface water bodies are illustrated in Figure 2.
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work
The objective of the work described herein is to identify potential surface water quality impacts as a result of the proposed development, primarily by way of septic effluent discharging to adjacent surface water features and to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Additionally, at the request of the County of Renfrew this report will also address, in a qualitative manner, concerns relating to recreational crowding of surface water features in relation to the development. Potential surface water quality impacts associated with land development activities such as increased erosion and sedimentation are addressed in the 2017 Environmental Impact Statement (Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2018a). Potential impacts to groundwater quality are addressed in the Golder Associates (2018) Hydrogeological Study and Terrain Analysis. To meet the primary objectives as outlined above, the scope of work includes the following general tasks: Calibration of the Ministry of Environmental and Climate Change (MOECC) Lakeshore Capacity Model (LCM) through input of parameters including; watershed catchment area, existing shoreline development, watershed land-use data and selection of phosphorus retention rates for shoreline soils.
July 30, 2018 1 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Refinement of the LCM through collection of site data including an evaluation the existing trophic status for each waterbody, collection of background (pre-development) concentrations of chlorophyll ɑ, total phosphorus (TP) and dissolved organic carbon from Green Lake and the Madawaska River, and the completion of dissolved oxygen and temperature depth profiles to categorize Green Lake and Labrador Lake’s hypolimnion as anoxic or oxic. Evaluation of LCM application to the site by comparing measured and modelled concentrations of TP to determine if the difference is greater than the 20% threshold for LCM suitability. If, following calibration of the LCM, it is determined to be unsuitable for use, then the interim Provincial Water Quality Objective of 20 µg/L for phosphorus will be used to assess future potential impacts to adjacent surface water features. Installation of a shallow groundwater monitoring well network to determine shallow groundwater elevation and flow direction beneath the site to determine groundwater catchment areas within the study area. Collection of subsurface soil samples to determine the chemical composition of soil at the site and its potential to attenuate septic leachate. Completion of a mass flux analyses to quantify maximum potential phosphorus loading to the Madawaska River.
July 30, 2018 2 Legend Subdivision Boundary Line
INSET MAP
0 5 10 20 30 40 Kilometers
Figure 1 Site Location
Scale 1:34,201
0 150 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Meters ± Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N Source: Renfrew County 2014 Air Photo, LIO, ZanderPlan Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PROJECT No. 17-223-1 PROJECT Surface Water Impact Assessment
DESIGN: ADG CAD/GIS: TEW CHECK: DMP REV: 0
DATE: 02/01/2018
G:\Data\Project\Madawaska\Maps\17-223-1 Lakeshore Capacity Assessment\17-223-1_LakeshoreCapacityAssessment_Figure1_Location.mxd Legend Subdivision Boundary Line Study Area Wetland Proposed Subdivision Lot Final Monitoring Well MW18-05 Runway Pit Surfacewater Sampling Location A' Cross Section A - A' Cross Section B - B' Labrador Cross Section C - C' Lake
TW17-06
MW17-07 B'
Blackfish Bay
MW18-01 Green Lake MW18-03 TW17-05 MW18-02 MW17-01 SW17-1 C' A
TW17-04
MW17-03 MW17-02
TW17-03
MW17-04 TW17-02 MW17-05 Figure 2 Site Layout Mada was B ka Scale 1:7,800 Riv er MW17-06 TW17-01 MW18-04 0 50 100 200 300 400 Meters
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N Source: Renfrew County 2014 Air Photo, LIO, ZanderPlan Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and C the GIS User Community
PROJECT No. 17-223-1
PROJECT Lakeshore Capacity Assessment
DESIGN: ADG SW17-2 CAD/GIS: TEW CHECK: DMP REV: 0
DATE: 27/07/2018
G:\Data\Project\Madawaska\Maps\17-223-1 Lakeshore Capacity Assessment\17-223-1_LakeshoreCapacityAssessment_Figure2_Layout.mxd Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
2 STUDY AREA SETTING
The existing site’s setting is that of a large commercial tourism resort property within a larger rural residential area. The site is bound to the north by Labrador and Green Lakes and to the south by Kamaniskeg Lake and the Madawaska River. To the east, the site is bound by the residences of Lot 5, Concession 8, to the west the site is bound partially by Kamaniskeg Lake and the residences of Lot 2, Concession 9. The current land use by-law designation from the Renfrew County Official Plan is predominately "tourism commercial" with a small portion of the site located in the southwest corner that is designated “rural.”
2.1 Landforms, Soils and Geology
The site lies within the Algonquin Highlands physiographic region as mapped by Chapman and Putnam (1984). Within this region, two distinct physiographic landforms are described on site, shallow till and rock ridges and spillways. The northern portion of the site lies within the shallow till and rock ridges of the Algonquin Highlands and the southern portion of the site lies within the spillways of the Algonquin Highlands.
The elevation of the site is at its greatest in the northwest corner of the site at 293.4 metres Above Sea Level (mASL), whereas the lowest elevation on site is found in the southwest corner, adjacent to the Madawaska River at 283.14 mASL. Generally, the site slopes downwards from the northwest and southeast towards the centre of the site at the Madawaska River, with an average elevation 287 mASL.
Surficial soil within the study area is generally comprised of Precambrian bedrock drift complex, defined as coarse to medium grained, well sorted sand with occasional gravels and cobbles. Organic substrates were only identified in wetlands and with the exception of the Labrador Lake wetland, organic substrates were generally less than 15 cm in thickness.
Bedrock at the site, as determined by the Ontario Geological Survey (2010), is felsic igneous rocks, composed of tonalite, granodiorite, monzonite, granite, syenite and derived gneisses. Subsurface information summarized in the Hydrogeology Investigation, Terrain Analysis and Impacts Assessment completed by Golder Associates (2018), indicates the local bedrock surface north and west of the site is interpreted to rise within approximately 3 m of ground surface, whereas southeast of the site, the bedrock surface is interpreted to be found at depths greater than 30 mBGS. Bedrock outcrops were identified on the northern portion of the site on Lot 1 and along the southern shoreline of Green Lake on Lot 41 and Lot 42 (Golder Associates, 2018). There is no bedrock faulting mapped within the site boundaries.
2.2 Surface Water Features
Surface water within the study area is represented by four distinct water bodies, the outlet of Kamaniskeg Lake, the Madawaska River and two smaller landlocked lakes: Green Lake and Labrador Lake. In addition to these four surface water features, six wetlands are present within the study area comprised of three swamps, two fens and one marsh.
July 30, 2018 5 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Adjacent to the southwestern corner of the study area is the southern end of Kamaniskeg Lake. Kamaniskeg Lake is a large lake with a surface area encompassing approximately 2,914 ha with a maximum depth of 40.5 m and a mean depth of 9.3 m. Flowing through Kamaniskeg Lake and located along the southern portion of the study area is the Madawaska River. The Madawaska River’s source is Source Lake near Whitney, Ontario within Algonquin Park, from there the river runs for 230 km, draining an area of 8,470 km2 before discharging to the Ottawa River at Arnprior, Ontario. The nominal water’s edge elevation for Kamaniskeg Lake and the Madawaska River adjacent to the study is 283 mASL.
Green Lake and Labrador Lake are land locked lakes located along the northern edge of the property boundary and are directly connected by a small channel. In approximately 1973, Green Lake and Labrador Lake drained into Noonan Lake via small discharge channel and culvert beneath Tamarack Road. Following improvements to Tamarack Road, the re-instated culvert was installed approximately 1 m higher than the previous culvert. As a result of this perched culvert, there has effectively been no surface drainage from the combined Green Lake and Labrador Lake basins since 1973.
Despite being isolated from Blackfish Bay and Noonan Lake by the Tamarack Road peninsula, it is likely that both lakes have an indirect hydraulic connection to Blackfish Bay and Noonan Lake and ultimately the Madawaska River. Both Green and Labrador lakes are relatively small, comprising a surface area of 29 and 14.5 hectares, respectively. The nominal water’s edge elevation for both lakes is 285 mASL.
July 30, 2018 6 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
3.1 Surface Water Sampling
Surface water field investigations were completed on Green Lake, Labrador Lake and the Madawaska River, surface water investigations are summarized in Table 3.1 below. Surface water sampling locations are provided on Figure 2. Table 3.1 Summary of Surface Water Investigations
Investigation Date Purpose
August 28, 2017 Late summer oxygen and temperature profiles, background water chemistry in Green Lake September 14, 2017 Late summer oxygen and temperature profiles, background water chemistry in Green Lake and Madawaska River May 15, 2018 Spring turnover oxygen and temperature profiles and phosphorus concentrations in Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
Surface water samples for laboratory analysis were collected using a vertical “Beta Bottle” with an approximate volume of 4.2 L, lowered from the side of the boat. Samples collected in 2017, were stored and shipped in coolers with ice packs and hand-delivered to Paracel Laboratories (a CALA- certified laboratory, located in Ottawa, Ontario) by couriers under chain-of-custody, in accordance with Geofirma QA/QC procedures. Samples collected in 2018, were sent to Maxxam (a CALA-certified laboratory, located in Ottawa, Ontario) following the same QA/QC measures. The 2017 surface water analytical program consisted of the collection of two surface water samples from Green Lake and one surface water sample from the Madawaska River. Samples were analysed for total ammonia, dissolved organic carbon, total phosphorus, chlorophyll ɑ, nitrate and nitrite. The 2018 surface water analytical program consisted of the collection of one surface water sample each from Green Lake and Labrador Lake, for the analysis of spring turnover phosphorus concentrations.
In addition to the laboratory analytical program outlined above, field parameters including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids were recorded during sampling activities on Green Lake, Labrador Lake and the Madawaska River. To determine the maximum extent of summer stratification within Green Lake and to classify the hypolimnion as either oxic or anoxic, temperature and Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) profiles were completed in August and September, 2017. Similarly, to ensure proper collection of spring turnover sampling, temperature and D.O. profiles were completed in May, 2018.
To measure the transparency of surface water in Green Lake, Labrador Lake and the Madawaska River, Secchi depth measurements were completed during all sampling events. Secchi depth measurements are used in trophic state calculations and provide a qualitative measure of algae impaired water clarity. A Secchi depth measurement is conducted by slowly lowering a circular white and black disk into the water on the shady side of the boat. The depth at which the pattern on the disk is no longer visible is recorded as a measure of the transparency of the water, known as the “Secchi depth”.
July 30, 2018 7 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
3.2 Borehole Investigations and Monitoring Installation
To map the groundwater table beneath the site and determine the direction of groundwater flow, Geofirma advanced twelve boreholes completed as groundwater monitoring wells. The locations of the monitoring wells were situated to increase the areal coverage of the site, capitalizing on the existing groundwater aquifer test wells installed by Golder as part of their Hydrogeology Study (Golder 2018) and the Geofirma Engineering Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (Geofirma Engineering Ltd, 2018b). The locations of all site monitoring and test wells are provided on Figure 2.
Borehole advancement, subsurface soil sampling and monitoring well installation was conducted using a Geoprobe 7822DT operated by Strata Drilling Group, a MOECC-licensed driller. Using the Geoprobe 7822DT and its direct push, dual-tube technology, seven 101.6 mm diameter boreholes were advanced at the site. Following each 1.5 m long advancement (or less depending on soil conditions), the inner barrel was returned to the surface and the clear plastic tube containing the bored soil was extruded and split length-wise. The soil column was logged for lithology and moisture prior to the collection of soil samples into dedicated Ziploc bags for laboratory submission or archiving.
Boreholes were advanced through the overburden material until the groundwater table was encountered, as evidenced by the saturated soil core returned to surface. Soil samples collected in 2017, for the analysis of metals concentration and soil pH were submitted to Paracel Laboratories (a CALA-certified laboratory, located in Ottawa, Ontario). Soil samples collected in 2018, for the analysis of extractable aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, total inorganic carbon and phosphorus adsorption capacity were submitted to Caduceon Environmental Laboratories (a CALA-certified laboratory, located in Ottawa).
Soil samples selected for laboratory analysis were transferred to appropriate containers, supplied by the analytical laboratory. Samples were stored in coolers with ice packs and delivered to the laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures.
Following completion of each borehole, the borehole was instrumented with 1.5” diameter PVC standpipe with a slotted 3.05 m well screen. The coordinates and elevation of the top of the PVC standpipe of each monitoring well installed in 2017 and 2018, were surveyed by Adam Kasprzak Surveying Ltd., of Pembroke, Ontario.
3.3 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring and Groundwater Sampling
On four occasions, the depth to groundwater was measured in all site monitoring and testing wells to assess the seasonal fluctuations in groundwater beneath the site. Groundwater elevations at the site were collected on October 13, 2017, May 24, 2018, June 1, 2018, and July 5, 2018. Groundwater depths were measured relative to the top of the PVC standpipe using an electronic water level tape. Depth to groundwater was converted to a groundwater elevation by subtracting the depth to groundwater from the surveyed elevation of the top of the PVC standpipe.
Surface water elevations were obtained for the Madawaska River, Green and Labrador Lakes, Jack’s Lake, the Teapot Wetland and the Wayside pit on October 13, 2017, May 24, 2018, and June 1, 2018. Surface water elevations were collected by Adam Kasprzak Surveying Ltd.
July 30, 2018 8 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
3.4 Recreational Crowding Assessment
Recreational capacity refers to the ability of a waterbody to accommodate the various recreational users and uses that may compete for the use of surface of the lake while maintaining the recreational amenity, character and reasonable enjoyment of the waterbody (Gravenhurst, 2008). Recreational carrying capacity is a measure of the number of users that can be accommodated on the surface of a lake while maintaining the recreational amenity of the waterbody.
The origin of the formula presented below is unclear, however it is assumed to be derived from the 1976 MNR Lake Planning Manual. Nonetheless, the recreational crowding assessment approach is suggested in many official plan documents for municipalities on the Precambrian shield (Town of Gravenhurst, Township of Seguin, Carling Township, Lake of Bays, Algonquin Highlands) to determine the recreational carrying capacity of inland lakes.
Guidelines for the calculation of recreational carrying capacity are based on the following formula:
1) Net surface area is calculated by subtracting the total lake surface area by the surface area of the lake that is within 30 metres of the shoreline. 2) A density of one residential unit for every 1.6 hectares and one tourist accommodation unit for every 0.8 hectares of net surface area shall be permitted. The capacity formula involves applying a density of one residential unit for every 1.6 hectares and one commercial accommodation unit for every 0.8 ha of net surface area of the lake. The net surface area is the useable portion of the lake which is the total surface area of the lake less the surface area within 30 metres of the shoreline. The 30 metre area is that portion of the lake that has a max speed limit of 10 km/hr to reduce conflict with boating and shoreline property and uses. The 1.6 ha of boating surface area per waterfront residence assumes each residence has two motorized recreational boats.
July 30, 2018 9 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
4 LAKESHORE CAPACITY MODEL
4.1 Development and Application
The Lakeshore Capacity Model (LCM) developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP) quantifies the linkages between the natural contributions of phosphorus to a lake system, the contributions of phosphorus to a lake from shoreline development, the water balance of the watershed itself, the size and shape of the lake and the resultant phosphorus concentration.
This model is a steady-state, phosphorus mass balance model that was initially developed by Dillon et al. (1986) and revised by Hutchinson (2002) and Paterson et al. (2006), and is recommended by the Province as a tool for setting development guidelines for Precambrian Shield lakes in Ontario (MOE, 2010). The model predicts total phosphorus concentrations in lakes by estimating hydrologic and phosphorus loads from natural and human sources and linking them together with an understanding of lake dynamics.
The model allows the user to calculate how the water quality of a lake will be affected by the addition of shoreline developments such as permanent residences. The model can also be used to calculate the natural, undeveloped condition of a lake, the amount of development in terms of the number of dwellings the lake could sustain without changing its total phosphorus concentration past a given point and the difference between existing conditions and that tolerance point.
The Lakeshore Capacity Model was not developed to be applied to a river system or to model flowing water, such as the Madawaska River. It's designed only for lakes, as such rivers are not represented in the model; rather they are captured in the watershed of the lake. Based on this direction provided from the MOECP, the LCM has only been applied to Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
The revised Provincial Water Quality Objectives for lakes on the Precambrian Shield allows for a 50% increase in the phosphorus concentration from a modeled baseline of water quality in the absence of human influence. Based on this test, a lake would be ‘at capacity’ with respect to phosphorus if the modeling process determined that the existing development, including vacant lots of record, exceeded the modeled ‘background’ or ‘undeveloped’ concentration of total phosphorus, plus 50%.
4.2 Model Calibration
The LCM has been calibrated and successfully tested for lakes with surface areas exceeding 25 ha. Despite this minimum size requirement for application of the LCM, Green Lake (29 ha) and Labrador Lake (14.5 ha) were modeled separately based on the observed differences in water colour (Labrador Lake is a tea-stained lake) and spring turnover phosphorus concentrations. Furthermore, information provided by the County indicated that prior to the construction of Tamarack Road, Green Lake and Labrador Lake were two distinct and separate lakes.
4.2.1 Input Data
To calibrate the LCM, user input parameters such as annual runoff, lake surface area, catchment area, % wetland, % cleared land and anthropogenic sources of phosphorus loading were entered into
July 30, 2018 10 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx the ‘inputs’ portion of the LCM. User input parameters for LCM calibration are provided in Appendix A for both Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
Non-anthropogenic user inputs such as lake surface area, catchment area, percentage wetland and cleared land were obtained primarily through desktop analysis of available GIS information. Mean annual runoff of 300 mm/year was obtained from Statistics Canada (2018), using Environment and Climate Change Canada and Water Survey of Canada data. Max and mean depth information was collected by completing bathymetric profiles of each lake.
The Green Lake watershed contains only 1.5% wetland; therefore the LCM was calibrated following the recommendations provided in Paterson et al. (2006) regarding phosphorus export for watersheds with less than 3.5% wetland. As the percentage of cleared land is less than 15% a natural phosphorus loading rate of 5.5 mg/m2/yr was used for runoff. Late summer oxygen and temperature profiles conducted in Green Lake in August and September, 2017, indicated that the hypolimnion is anoxic, as such a sediment retention coefficient of 7.2 m/yr was used.
The Labrador Lake watershed contains greater than 3.5% wetland; accordingly, the LCM was calibrated following the recommendations provided in Paterson et al. (2006) regarding phosphorus export. Similar to Green Lake, the percentage of cleared land is less than 15% a natural phosphorus loading rate of 5.5 mg/m2/yr was used for runoff. Based on the relatively shallow depth of Labrador Lake, it is assumed that the hypolimnion remains oxic throughout the year, as such, the more conservative sediment retention coefficient of 12.4 m/yr was used.
Anthropogenic phosphorus loading rates were entered into the model for each lake through assessment of land use in their separate catchment areas. In August and September, 2017, a field survey of waterfront property usage was conducted. The results of this survey in coordination with air photo interpretation indicated that there are seven existing developed lots on Green Lake including four permanent residences and three seasonal residences. In addition to the developed lots, four vacant lots of record were identified based on property mapping resources. Currently, there are no developed lots located on the shoreline of Labrador Lake. Table 4.1 below provides a summary of the phosphorus loading coefficients used in the model based on shoreline development type.
Table 4.1 Shoreline Development Phosphorus Loading Coefficients
Shoreline Development Type Phosphorus Loading (capita years/year)
Permanent Residence 2.56 Extended Seasonal Residence 1.27 Seasonal Residence 0.69 Trailer Site 0.69 Tent Camping Site 0.37 Vacant Lot of Record 1.27
Appendix B provides the LCM output pages which present a detailed summary out the model results for Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
July 30, 2018 11 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
4.3 Summary
Using the assumptions and coefficients recommended in the LCM guidance document (MOE, 2010) and detailed above, the LCM model was used to predict current total phosphorus (TP) concentration and future TP concentration. For the calculation of future TP, the model assumes full development of each proposed lot along the respective lakes, and that the groundwater from all proposed lots bordering the lakes flows towards the adjacent lake. In fact, the groundwater below most of the lots bordering Green Lake flows away from Green Lake (see Section 5.4), meaning this is a very conservative analysis. Model outputs and measured spring overturn phosphorus concentrations for each lake are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Summary of Lake Capacity Model Results
LCM Difference 2018 Spring LCM Existing Current Between Future PWQO Overturn Predicted Development TPso1 Modeled and Development (µg/L) TPso1 (µg/L) TP (µg/L) (µg/L) Actual TPso
4 permanent 19 permanent Green 13.0 3 seasonal 8.20 -36.9 % 3 seasonal 19.64 20 Lake 4 vacant 2 vacant Labrador 5 permanent 26.0 2 vacant 5.43 -79.1 % 9.78 20 Lake 1 vacant 1 TPso = spring overturn phosphorous concentration
As evident in Table 4.2, the LCM does not predict current phosphorus concentrations within acceptable limits (i.e. 20%) as defined by the Province of Ontario (MOE, 2010). As such, the interim Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) of 20 μg/L is suggested to protect against nuisance algal blooms when the Lakeshore Capacity Model does not predict phosphorus concentrations within acceptable limits (MOE, 2010).
As with any model, there are several possible sources of error that contribute to the overall uncertainty of error in the model predictions. Some key sources of error in the Green Lake and Labrador Lake models may include:
Legacy effects of hydraulic isolation of Green Lake and Labrador Lake following the construction of Tamarack Road such as disruption to the internal phosphorus cycle within the lakes; The tea-stained colouring of Labrador Lake may indicate a high content of dissolved organic carbon which is known to naturally buffer against excess total phosphorus concentrations; In regards to Labrador Lake, the Lake Capacity Model was not developed for application on lakes less than 25 ha or for lakes with a mean depth of less than 5 m Scale of application, as the model has been developed primarily as a landscape and watershed planning tool the site-level application may be too focused or narrow, magnifying the sensitivity of model predictions to the model assumptions; and, Existing septic systems on Green Lake may be located too close to the shoreline, may be poorly constructed, or antiquated resulting in greater phosphorus loading than assumed in the model.
July 30, 2018 12 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
5 RESULTS
5.1 Surface Water Investigations
Surface water investigations completed in support of this study included the collection of water quality samples from Green Lake, Labrador Lake and the Madawaska River, assessment of the current trophic status in Green Lake and determination of the degree of thermal stratification in Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
5.1.1 Trophic Status
The trophic state index (TSI) as developed by Carlson (1977) refers to the quantity of biologically available nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in a lake. Both natural and anthropogenic factors can influence the trophic state of a lake. A body of water that is high in nutrient input with a high net primary productivity and prone to algal blooms would be classified as eutrophic. Conversely a clear lake, naturally low in nutrients with few inputs and little vegetation would be classified as oligotrophic. Straddling these two extremes is the mesotrophic classification which is indicative of a lake with a healthy balance of nutrient input and vegetation growth. The following table illustrates how TSI values translate into trophic classes.
Table 5.1 Relationship Between TSI Vales and Trophic State
TSI Value Trophic State
<30 – 40 Oligotrophic
40-50 Mesotrophic 50-70 Eutrophic
70-100+ Hypereutrophic
The trophic state index of Green Lake and Labrador Lake was estimated as a function of chlorophyll “ɑ” (Chl) concentrations as per equation (1), total phosphorus (TP) concentrations as per equation (2), and Secchi depths as described in section 3.1 (SD) as per equation (3), outlined below.
2.04 − 0.68 ln 퐶ℎ푙 푇푆퐼(퐶ℎ푙) = 10 (6 − ) (1) ln 2
48 ln 푇푆퐼 (푇푃) = 10 (6 − 푇푃) (2) ln 2
ln 푆퐷 푇푆퐼(푆퐷) = 10 (6 − ) (3) 2
The TSI values calculated using the equations above are summarized in Table 5.2. The chlorophyll ɑ concentration in Labrador Lake was assumed to be the same concentration as was measured in Green Lake. The resulting average TSI value for Green Lake is 32.6 which, in reference to Table 5.1,
July 30, 2018 13 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx indicates Green Lake is a nutrient poor, oligotrophic lake. The average TSI value for Labrador Lake indicates that Labrador Lake has higher nutrient levels and borders between an oligotrophic state and a mesotrophic state.
Table 5.2 TSI Values for Green Lake and Labrador Lake
Parameter Green Lake TSI Value Labrador Lake TSI Value
Chlorophyll “a” 17 17* Total Phosphorus 41 53 Secchi Depth 39.5 50 Average TSI Value 33 40
5.1.2 Green Lake and Labrador Lake Thermal Stratification
Based on the temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles measured in August and September, 2017, and May 15, 2018, both Green Lake and Labrador Lake are characterized as a dimictic lakes. As a dimictic lake, both lakes are thermally stratified during most the summer and the water within the two thermally stratified zones, the upper epilimnion and the lower hypolimnion, mixes at least twice annually. During summer stratification, the epilimnion and the hypolimnion is separated by the thermocline, a thin (~10cm) but distinct layer where the temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration change is rapid with increasing depth. As the surface water cools the thermocline descends deeper, becoming less profound until it disappears, producing a nearly linear temperature gradient from surface to bottom. Once the surface water temperature is around 5°C, a storm system or sustained high wind can cause the epilimnion and hypolimnion to flip, causing the cooler, denser water to be forced to the top as the less dense oxygen and nutrient rich water is forced down the on opposite shoreline by the strong wind.
The maximum depth of summer stratification in Green Lake was determined to be approximately 6.5 m below lake surface. The depth of spring stratification in Labrador Lake was determined to be approximately 2 m. The September 14, 2017, and May 15, 2018, temperature and dissolved oxygen depth profile of Green Lake is presented in Figure 3.
July 30, 2018 14 0 0
2 0.5
4 1
6 1.5
8 )) ) ) 2 (mBS (mBS
10
Depth 2.5 Depth 12
3 14
3.5 16
18 4
20 4.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 Temperature (°C) & Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L Temperature (°C) & Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Fall Temperature Fall Dissolved Oxygen Spring Temperature Spring Dissolved Oxygen
September 2017, Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profile Preppyared by: TEW Surface Water Impact Assessment - Green Lake and Madawaska River Reviewed by: DMP
FIGURE 3 Doc. No.: 17-223-1_O2-DO Profile_R0 Date: 19-Jul-18 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
5.1.3 Surface Water Quality
The results of the laboratory testing of surface water from Green Lake, Labrador Lake and the Madawaska River are presented in Table 5.3 below, as well as the relevant PWQO. Evident in Table 5.3 below is the minor exceedence of total phosphorus in Labrador Lake in May, 2018. Brief discussions on key water quality parameters are presented in the following subsections.
Table 5.3 Surface Water Analytical Results for Green Lake and Madawaska River
Parameter Labrador Madawaska Green Lake Duplicate ID > Units PWQO Lake River Date Sampled > 23-Aug-17 14-Sep-17 15-May-18 15-May-18 14-Sep-17 General Chemistry Unionized Ammonia µg/L 20 0.24 0.84 -- -- 0.36 Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L NV 4.5 4.8 -- -- 6.0 Total Posphorus mg/L 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.013 0.026 < 0.01 Chlorophyll α µg/L NV < 0.5 ------Anions Nitrate as N µg/L 13,000 < 0.1 < 0.1 -- -- < 0.1 Nitrite as N µg/L 60 < 0.05 < 0.05 -- -- < 0.05 Field Parameters pH pH 6.5-8.5 7.4 7.7 -- -- 7.2 Conductivity mS/cm NV 0.484 0.382 -- -- 0.458 Temperature °C NV 22.19 19.59 15.00 15.73 20.26 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L >5 8.38 9.34 11.01 11.20 8.92 Total Dissolved Solids ppt NV 0.034 0.028 -- -- 0.034 Secchi Depth mBS NV 4.5 3.8 4.0 2.0 5.0 Notes: All units are ug/L unless otherwise noted NV = No value -- = Parameter not analysed <10 = Not detected above laboratory detection limit PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Ojectives bold = Indicates concentrations which exceed PWQO
5.1.3.1 Dissolved Organic Carbon
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is defined as the chemically reactive organic fraction of the organic carbon pool dissolved in water. DOC originates in the terrestrial ecosystem as a by-product of biodegradation and chemical agents in the cycling of nutrients and natural weathering. In natural waters, DOC is comprised of a number of organic compounds the majority of which are humic acids. DOC concentrations in typical oligotrophic lakes range from 1-4 mg/L (CCME, 2003). Dystrophic lakes, also known as “tea-stained lakes” typically have DOC concentrations ranges between 20-50 mg/L (CCME, 2003). Dystrophic lakes, support an abundance of phosphorus dependent bacteria
July 30, 2018 16 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx which preferentially consume phosphorus, leading to a decreased susceptibility to phosphorus loading.
As Green Lake has been determined to be an oligotrophic lake, with naturally low DOC concentrations to buffer excessive phosphorus loading, it is reasonable to classify Green Lake as a phosphorus- sensitive lake. Conversely, Labrador Lake is visually tea-stained, indicating a high concentration of DOC, as such, it is reasonable to assume that Labrador Lake has a greater natural ability to buffer against phosphorus loading.
5.1.3.2 Phosphorus
Phosphorus is a naturally occurring element released from rocks and sediment, and all living plants and animals (CCME, 2004). Phosphorus is the most limiting nutrient in aquatic environments, controlling plant and algae growth in most lakes. In a lake, sources of phosphorus loading may be external or internal. External anthropogenic phosphorus loading can come from septic system effluent, agricultural runoff, fertilizers and cleaning agents.
As described in Section 5.1.2, as lake water warms up, the lake begins to stratify. Colder, denser water settles to the bottom of the lake and warmer water stays on top, essentially trapping oxygen in epilimnion and hypolimnion until the lake turns over in the late fall. As the hypolimnion loses oxygen throughout the summer due to the decomposition of organic matter and through consumption by biota, it triggers the release of phosphorus from the lake sediment into the water column. This process is known as internal loading (Wetzel, 2001), and has the potential to create additional sources of phosphorus contributing to algae blooms. Algae blooms in Ontario lakes typically occur in late summer when lakes with already high concentrations of phosphorus (~20 ug/L) begin to receive internal loading from sediments.
As Green Lake is an oligotrophic lake and has a late summer (peak) phosphorus concentration of less than 10 µg/L it is less sensitive to internal loading due to a combination of low phosphorus concentrations, high dissolved oxygen and a lower amount of organic content. The spring turnover concentration of phosphorus, regarded as the best indicator of long-term phosphorus concentrations, was measured at 13 µg/L. Current external loading sources to Green Lake and Labrador Lake are assumed partially natural and partially from the existing eight developed waterfront lots on Green Lake. The phosphorus concentration in Green Lake is currently 13 µg/L, which is lower than the interim Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) for phosphorus of 20 µg/L.
Labrador Lake, a dystrophic, tea-stained lake that has a naturally high capacity to buffer against phosphorus concentrations had a measured spring turnover concentration of 26 µg/L, which exceeds the PWQO. The higher than expected concentration of phosphorus in Labrador Lake may be attributable to phosphorus contributions from sediment, the shallow nature of the lake or the presence of beaver dams within the relatively small catchment area. As the spring turnover sample was collected shortly after ice-free conditions developed and shortly following spring turnover, it is plausible that an increased concentration of suspended sediment may also have contributed to the elevated concentration of total phosphorus. This argument is supported by the significant under estimate of TP by the LCM (-76%) and the much shallower secchi depth recorded for Labrador Lake in comparison to Green Lake.
July 30, 2018 17 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
5.1.3.3 Nitrogen
Nitrogen occurs in fresh waters in numerous forms including dissolved N2, a large number of organic compounds from amino acids, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. Enrichment of fresh waters with nutrients needed for plant growth occurs commonly as a result of agricultural runoff, loading from sewage and industrial wastes, and enrichment via atmospheric pollutants, especially nitrate and ammonia. Phytoplankton productivity of infertile, oligotrophic lakes, such as Green Lake, is often limited by the availability of phosphorus. As phosphorus loading to a fresh water body increases and the lake becomes more productive, nitrogen often becomes the limiting nutrient to plant growth (Wetzel, 2001).
All three nitrogen species (un-ionized ammonia, nitrate and nitrite) analysed in 2017 were detected at very low concentrations or not detected at all. Based on the relatively small catchment area of Green Lake in relation to the existing shoreline development, current nitrogen concentrations in Green Lake do not indicate any detectable anthropogenic impacts.
Nitrogen was not analysed in Labrador Lake.
5.1.3.4 Chlorophyll ɑ
Chlorophyll ɑ is the primary photosynthetic pigment of all oxygen-evolving photosynthetic organisms and is present in all algae, cyanobacteria and photosynthetic organisms other than sulfur bacteria (Wetzel, 2001). Based on the nutrient loading relationships described above, phosphorus and nitrogen loading to a lake should have a predictable and related effect on biological responses such as phytoplankton biomass (i.e., chlorophyll concentrations) and productivity.
As the chlorophyll ɑ concentration measured in Green Lake at the end of summer (the period of time in which excess nutrient loading is most likely to cause algae blooms) is less the than the laboratory detection limit of 0.5 ug/L, it is reasonable to assume that any excess nutrient loading from the existing shoreline development is being assimilated through natural lake processes. The typical concentration range of chlorophyll ɑ in an oligotrophic lake is 1-3 ug/L.
Chlorophyll ɑ was not analysed in Labrador Lake.
5.1.4 Water Quality Summary
Based on surface water quality investigations completed in 2017 and 2018, Green Lake is classified as a hydraulically isolated, dimictic, oligotrophic lake, with low DOC content and low nutrient concentrations. Similarly, Labrador Lake is also hydraulically isolated, dimictic, dystrophic with moderate nutrient enrichment. Based on the above summary, it is reasonable to assume that Green Lake is sensitive to nutrient loading while Labrador Lake is less sensitive to nutrient loading.
July 30, 2018 18 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
5.2 Madawaska River Discharge
To aid in the assessment of water quality impacts to the Madawaska River from potential septic leachate discharge a summary of volumetric flow in the Madawaska River adjacent to the site is required.
As site-specific flow and discharge calculations were outside of the scope of this assessment and recognizing the limited value of such short-term assessments, discharge values were reviewed from two sources.
Water Survey of Canada maintains two gauge locations on the Madawaska River system within a reasonable distance of the site. The upstream gauge is located below the Bark Lake dam, approximately 12 km upstream of the site. The downstream gauge located below the Palmer Rapids is located 13 km downstream of the site. Due to the type of flow and level equipment and stringent Water Survey of Canada quality control processes, only the Palmer Rapids gauge (02KD004) provides real-time and historical data suitable for use in this study. The Bark Lake gauge (02KD007) only provides approved data up to 1996.
The following table provides a summary of the past five years of discharge data, as certified by the Water Survey of Canada.
Table 5.4 Madawaska River Discharge at Palmer Rapids
Year Minimum Discharge & Date Maximum Discharge & Date Annual Mean Discharge
2012 8.42 m3/sec on July 6 174 m3/sec on March 24 52.6 m3/sec 2013 10.8 m3/sec on September 19 427 m3/sec on April 25 84.3 m3/sec 2014 9.16 m3/sec on August 30 278 m3/sec on April 22 83.5 m3/sec 2015 10.9 m3/sec on September 10 135 m3/sec on June 8 49.1 m3/sec 2016 8.64 m3/sec on September 15 342 m3/sec on April 6 74.3 m3/sec
Due to the uncertainty of discharge contributions made by tributaries of the Madawaska River downstream of the site but upstream of the Water Survey of Canada Palmer Rapids gauge, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s Ontario Flow Assessment Tool (OFAT) (2017) was also used to generate the mean annual flow for the Madawaska River watershed upstream of the site. The Mean Annual Flow Model imbedded within OFAT is based on the Environment Canada Isoline Method and provides the average annual streamflow based on annual calculations of historical (1970 onwards) and current data.
According to OFAT’s mean annual flow model, the mean annual flow of the Madawaska River watershed upstream of the site is 34.3 m3/sec. The difference between the Palmer Rapids gauge which provides a direct reading and the modeled mean annual flow is likely attributable to the discharge of the York River watershed downstream of Negeek Lake but upstream of Palmer Rapids. Therefore, the OFAT mean annual flow model value has been selected for use in the mass flux assessment presented in Section 6.5
July 30, 2018 19 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx 5.3 Surficial Geology
Table C.1 in Appendix C presents the analytical results for soil samples collected on-site. The results of the borehole and monitoring well installation program and analytical investigations indicate the following:
Overburden soil on-site is relatively homogeneous, and is primarily comprised of an upper 1.5 m of medium grained sand with occasional coarse sand seams underlain by greater than 9 m of fine grained sand. Analytical results from testing of samples collected from BH17-1,BH17-3, BH17-4, BH18-2, BH18-4, BH18-5, AH18-1, AH18-2 and AH18-3 indicate the following: Concentrations of metals in overburden material meet the applicable MOECC, O. Reg 153/04 site condition standards for properties located within 30 m of a waterbody within a potable groundwater scenario; Soil pH at the site is acidic with pH units of 5.20, 5.21 and 4.97 at BH17-1, -3 and -4, respectively; Soil at the site has a very low fraction of organic carbon. All three soil samples analyzed in 2017, had a concentration of organic carbon less than the laboratory detection limit of 0.005 g/g; Percent by weight of extractable aluminum ranged between 0.05% and 0.44% with an average of 0.17% in five samples collected in 2018; Percent by weight of extractable iron ranged between 0.08% and 0.29% with an average of 0.15% in five samples collected in 2018; Percent by weight of extractable calcium ranged between 0.14% and 0.68% with an average of 0.38% in five samples collected in 2018, and; Percent by weight of extractable magnesium ranged between 0.26% and 0.77% with an average of 0.40% in five samples collected in 2018.
5.4 Groundwater Elevation and Flow Direction
Measured groundwater elevations for all groundwater wells (test wells and monitoring wells) between October, 2017 and July, 2018, are provided in Table C.2, Appendix C. The measured groundwater elevation ranges from 283.11 to 289.02 mASL. The lowest groundwater elevations were found in the southeast end of the site while the highest groundwater elevations were measured in the northwest portion of the site.
Interpolated groundwater heads and the corresponding interpretation of groundwater flow directions at the site are depicted in Figure 4 (October 2017), Figure 5 (May 2018), and Figure 6 (July 2018). The effect of the significant topographical high, located off-site to the northwest is evident. The large topographical high is the primary driver of groundwater flow over the western portion of the site, where groundwater flow fans out, flowing to the east, southeast, and south as it descends from the topographical high and flows toward local waterbodies, with hydraulic gradients generally mirroring the surface topography.
July 30, 2018 20 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Groundwater beneath the western portion of the site is directed towards Kamaniskeg Lake and the wetland surrounding Labrador Lake with an additional component of flow directed towards the central portion of the site. Confirming the interpretation of groundwater flow direction in the northernmost portion of the site as being directed towards Labrador Lake is a large area of groundwater seepage observed on Lot 1 (Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2018a).
Groundwater in the central portion of the site is primarily directed south and southeast towards Kamaniskeg Lake and the Madawaska River. This groundwater flow direction is driven by with lateral seepage from Green Lake where the water is at a higher elevation, towards the Madawaska River where the water is at a lower elevation. Figure 7 through Figure 9 provide cross sections of the ground surface and the interpolated groundwater surface between Green Lake or Labrador Lake and the Madawaska River. The location of these cross sections is shown on Figure 2.
By comparing the interpolated groundwater heads in October 2017, May 2018, and July 2018 we can get a good sense of the seasonal variability of groundwater flow directions. With the exception of lots 1, 2, 3, 51, 52, 53 and 54, and the eastern 100 m of lots 47, 48, 49, and 50 groundwater flow directions are consistently towards the Madawaska river. For lots 1, 2, 3, 53 and 54 groundwater flows towards Labrador Lake in all seasons. For lots 51 and 52 the groundwater flow direction switches seasonally between Labrador Lake, Green Lake, and the Madawaska River. For the eastern 100 m of lots 47, 48, 49, and 50 the groundwater flow direction varies seasonally: during the Spring freshet groundwater mounding driven by the local topography shifts the flow direction towards Green Lake (Figure 5), but during dryer conditions, groundwater flows from Green Lake, below these lots, and towards the Madawaska River (Figure 4). An intermediate condition is observed in the July 2018 groundwater surface (Figure 6). These seasonal variations are also observable in cross section B (Figure 8). For the majority of the site, flow directions are nevertheless unchanged by seasonal variations in recharge, as is the surface water body receiving the groundwater discharge.
Beneath the portion of the site located south of Labrador Lake and west of Green Lake the groundwater table is relatively flat. As discussed above, hydraulic head gradients in this area are relatively low, and flow directions are influenced by seasonal variations in recharge rates. For much of the year, groundwater flow in this area, is directed towards the south as indicated by the groundwater contours shown in Figure 6. Further supporting this argument is the width of the rich-fen located along the north and west shoreline of Labrador Lake. Fen wetlands and their unique vegetation communities are dependent on upon groundwater discharge, as the fen dissipates along the southeast shoreline of Labrador Lake, this indicates less contribution of groundwater inflow, supporting the argument that groundwater flow in this area is primarily towards the south.
July 30, 2018 21 Legend Subdivision Boundary Line Study Area Proposed Subdivision Lot Final Waterbody Wetland &< Monitoring Well MW18-05 &< /" Wayside Pit Lot 1 Groundwater Divide 2 8 9 2 .0 Interpretted Groundwater Contour 0 8 Lot 2 . 8 9 .5 (Oct 2017) 8 2 2 Jack's 8 Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction 9 . Pond 0 288.9 2 Labrador 8 /" 6 . 0 Lake 283.13 - Groundwater Elevation (mASL) 2 8 2 8 5 *measured on October 13, 2017 . 5 . 5 8 0 . . 8 7 5 8 6 Lot 54 2 8 .
8 5 2
&< 2 TW17-06 MW17-07 Lot 53 288.55 287.16 Lot 3 &< 287.0 Lot 52
Lot 51 Blackfish Bay Green 28 MW18-01 5.1 TW17-05 Lot 50 Lake 285.2 284.97 &< 284.98 Green Lake MW18-03 &< &< Lot 49/" &< MW18-02 285.0 &< MW17-01 284.95 TW17-04 Lot 48 284.93 MW17-03 &< Lot 47 Kamaniskeg 284.63 2 MW17-02 28 84 Lake &< 4.7 .8 284.83 &< /" 284 .5 Lot 46 2 TW17-03 8 4 283.78 2 .9 84 &< Lot 45 .6 Lot 44 Lot 42 MW17-04 Lot 43 28 283.28 4. 0 28 MW17-05 &< 5.0 283.59 2 &< &< Figure 4 83.5 TW17-02 Lot 41 October 2017 Groundwater Elevations Ma 283.66 and Flows Direction dawa ska Riv MW17-06 Wayside Scale 1:8,000 er 2 283.11 Pit 83 &< &< MW18-04 .13 283.73 &< 0 50 100 200 300 400 ± TW17-01 Lot 40 Meters 283.25 /" Lot 39 /" Teapot Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N Wetland Source: Renfrew County 2014 Air Photo, LIO, ZanderPlan Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
PROJECT No. 17-223-1
PROJECT Lakeshore Capacity Assessment
DESIGN: ADG CAD/GIS: ADG CHECK: DMP REV: 0
DATE: 27/07/2018
G:\Data\Project\Madawaska\Maps\17-223-1 Lakeshore Capacity Assessment\17-223-1_LakeshoreCapacityAssessment_Figure4_GroundwaterFlow_Oct2017.mxd Legend Subdivision Boundary Line Study Area Proposed Subdivision Lot Final Waterbody Wetland &< Monitoring Well MW18-05 &< /" Wayside Pit Lot 1 Groundwater Divide
2 0 88 . Interpretted Groundwater Contour . 9 Lot 2 5 8 2 (May 2018)
2 2 8 8 7 Inferred Groundwater Flow 9 289.0 . . 5 0 Direction
5 2 Labrador
.
8 Jack's Pond 6 5
/" 8
. Lake
2 5 8.5 TW17-06 28 2 282.83 - Groundwater Elevation (mASL) 8 289.02 Lot 54 8 . &< 0 0 7. *measured on May 24, 2018 28 Lot 53 Lot 3 0 6. &< 28 MW17-07 Lot 52 285.33 5.4 285.3 28 Lot 51 Blackfish Bay Green MW18-01 TW17-05 Lot 50 Lake
MW18-03 &< 285.16 285.03 0 &< . &< Green Lake 5 Lot 49 &< 2 /" MW18-02 8
8 &< 2
5
. MW17-01 7 285.16 2
8
6 5 Lot 48 .
. 5 8 1 .
8
5
2 8 Lot 47 2 &< Kamaniskeg TW17-04 &< MW17-02 Lake 285.17 &< 285.06 /" Lot 46 TW17-03 284.01 &< Lot 45 Lot 44 284.5 Lot 42 MW17-04 Lot 43 2 284.15 8 5 2 MW17-05 &< 284.0 .9 85.0 284.3 28 &< &< Figure 5 3.5 283.0 TW17-02 Lot 41 May 2018 Groundwater Elevations 284.39 Mada and Flows Direction was ka TW17-01 Riv MW17-06 Scale 1:8,000 er 283.29 283.7 2 &< 82 &< MW18-04 .8 Wayside Pit &< 0 50 100 200 300 400 ± 3 Lot 40 Meters /" Lot 39 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N /" Source: Renfrew County 2014 Air Photo, LIO, ZanderPlan Teapot Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © Wetland OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
PROJECT No. 17-223-1
PROJECT Lakeshore Capacity Assessment
DESIGN: ADG CAD/GIS: ADG CHECK: DMP REV: 0
DATE: 27/07/2018
G:\Data\Project\Madawaska\Maps\17-223-1 Lakeshore Capacity Assessment\17-223-1_LakeshoreCapacityAssessment_Figure5_GroundwaterFlow_May2018.mxd Legend Subdivision Boundary Line Study Area Proposed Subdivision Lot Final Waterbody Wetland &< MW18-05 Monitoring Well 288.09 &< /" Wayside Pit Lot 1 Groundwater Divide
288.5 Interpretted Groundwater Contour 28 Lot 2 9.0 (July 2018)
Jack's 2 8 Inferred Groundwater Flow .0 7 289 Pond .
5 5
. Direction
288.25 6
5 8
. 2
8 5
/" .
8 Labrador 5
2
8 2 .0 282.81 - Groundwater Elevation (mASL) 8 TW17-06 8 Lot 54 2 .0 288.57 &< 87 *measured on July 5, 2018 2 Lot 53 6.0 28 Lot 3 MW17-07 &< 285.0 Lot 52 2 285.12 85.1 285.2 Lot 51 MW18-01 Green Blackfish Bay .9 MW18-03 4 Lake 283.64 8 Lot 50 283.47 &< 2 284.92 2 &< 8 4 &< Lot 49/" &< MW18-02 . 6 &< 283.51 TW17-05 MW17-01 Green Lake 284.93 284.92
2 2 Lot 48 8 8
4 4
. . 8 7 MW17-03 &< Lot 47 Kamaniskeg 284.6 TW17-04 MW17-02 &< Lake 284.92 284.81 &< /" Lot 46 TW17-03 283.8 &< Lot 45
2 Lot 44 8 Lot 42 4 Lot 43 . 0 MW17-04 2 8 284.01 4 &< .5 MW17-05 283 283.87 .5 &< &< Figure 6 TW17-02 Lot 41 July 2018 Groundwater Elevations 284.09 Mada and Flows Direction wa 28 ska 3.0 Riv MW17-06 Wayside Scale 1:8,000 er 283.15 MW18-04 2 &< Pit 82 &< 283.38 .81 283.30 &< 0 50 100 200 300 400 ± TW17-01 Lot 40 Meters 283.36 /" Lot 39 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N /" Source: Renfrew County 2014 Air Photo, LIO, ZanderPlan Teapot Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © Wetland OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 283.3
PROJECT No. 17-223-1
PROJECT Lakeshore Capacity Assessment
DESIGN: ADG CAD/GIS: ADG CHECK: DMP REV: 0
DATE: 27/07/2018
G:\Data\Project\Madawaska\Maps\17-223-1 Lakeshore Capacity Assessment\17-223-1_LakeshoreCapacityAssessment_Figure6_GroundwaterFlow_Jul2018.mxd Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Figure 7 Cross Section A-A’: Northwest Portion of Site
Figure 8 Cross Section B-B’: Central Portion of Site
July 30, 2018 25 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Figure 9 Cross Section C-C’: Southeast Portion of Site
5.4.1 Horizontal Groundwater Gradients
Groundwater gradients vary seasonally, and throughout the site. To provide representative estimates of groundwater flow rates, we used groundwater elevations measured in October 2017. The horizontal groundwater gradient between Green Lake and the Madawaska River in the central portion of the site as measured by well pair MW17-02 and MW17-04 is 0.005 m/m, and over the eastern portion of the site as measured by well pair MW17-05 and MW17-06 is 0.003 m/m.
5.4.2 Groundwater Velocity
Groundwater velocity is estimated using the Darcy equation, defined as follows:
푘 ∆ℎ 푣 = (4) 푛 ∆퐿 Where 푘 is the hydraulic conductivity (m/s), 푛 is the porosity (unitless), and ∆ℎ⁄∆퐿 is the hydraulic gradient (m/m), which was calculated in the previous section. Based on pumping tests performed by Golder Associates (2018), the transmissivity of the overburden aquifer at the site varies between 7x10- 6 and 6x10-3 m2/s, with a geometric average of 6.5x10-5 m2/s. To convert the transmissivity values to hydraulic conductivity, we use the screen length as an estimate of aquifer thickness, and calculated an average hydraulic conductivity on the site of 2.3x10-4 m/s. Using this value, and assuming the porosity of the sand aquifer is 0.35, we estimate a groundwater flow velocity between roughly 60 and 100 m/a, at gradients of 0.003 m/m and 0.005 m/m, respectively (see Section 5.4.1).
July 30, 2018 26 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
5.5 Recreational Crowding
The recreational capacity of Green Lake and Labrador Lake was determined by calculating their combined surface area minus a 30 m shoreline radius, which is assumed to be unusable for recreational boating, divided by a factor of 1.6 ha per existing residential unit.
The result of this assessment, whose formula was presented in Section 3.4 indicates that the combined lakes have only a 2.97 ha capacity for further recreational boating or just less than two additional residential units, equating to the use of four additional motorized boats. As the proposed development calls for the creation of an additional 16 lots, the results of the recreational crowding assessment suggest Green Lake and Labrador Lake are not of sufficient size to accommodate recreational boating associated with the proposed development.
A recreational crowding assessment for the reach of the Madawaska River adjacent to the proposed development was not completed for the following reasons;
At the Madawaska River’s greatest width adjacent to the site, the permissible boating area would be only by 10 m in width; The existing shoreline development on the south shore of the Madawaska River already exceeds the threshold of 1 lot per 1.6 ha of permissible boating surface area; and The Madawaska River has a considerable cultural legacy as a navigation route between the villages of Barry’s Bay and Combermere and as far south as the Conroy Marsh. As such, it would be inappropriate to limit recreational boat usage along the Madawaska River adjacent to the site.
July 30, 2018 27 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
6 DISCUSSION
The discussion provided herein in relation to surface water impacts to Green Lake and the Madawaska River is concerned primarily with septic effluent discharging from private, single family residential septic systems. As phosphorus is known to be the primary contaminant of concern for aquatic systems impacted by septic effluent, the majority of the discussion below is focused on the potential for phosphorus to migrate from septic leaching fields to adjacent surface water features.
To aid in the discussion surrounding the long term potential for phosphorus migration, we rely upon the data and conclusions provided in the often cited, Robertson, et al. (1998) review of phosphate mobility and persistence in 10 septic system plumes in Ontario.
6.1 Phosphorus as a Contaminant of Concern
Concentrations of phosphorus normally found in domestic sewage effluent typically range from 5 to 20 mg/L which is significantly greater than the phosphorus concentration of 0.03 mg/L which has been documented to cause excessive algae growth in aquatic environments (Robertson, et al., 1998, Dillon and Rigler, 1974).
Phosphorus attenuation in septic system leaching fields utilizes a combination of biotic and abiotic process including sorption/precipitation reactions, plant uptake, and mineralization/immobilization by microbes, however the dominant attenuation mechanisms are sorption/precipitation mechanisms (Wilhelm, et al., 1996).
Although there remains some uncertainty in the scientific community regarding the mobility of phosphate in the subsurface, phosphate is known to be considerably reactive and as such, is strongly adsorbed by most sediments and is capable of combining with a number of metal cations, particularly iron, aluminum, manganese and calcium to form a wide range of minerals that can be stable in low- temperature aqueous environments (Parfitt et al, 1975, Rajan 1975 and Isenbeck-Schröter et al., 1993, in Roberston et al, 1998).
Mechtensimer and Toor (2017) indicated that phosphorus concentrations declined significantly with depth beneath a leaching field; the greatest reductions occurred within the first 61 cm resulting in limited phosphorus transport to greater depths and groundwater. Research by Robertson et al, 1998, Toor, et al, 2005 and Robertson, 2008, has shown that observed differences in phosphate concentrations between septic effluent and underlying groundwater after several years of operation are considered to represent attenuation by processes such as irreversible adsorption and/or mineral precipitation occurring in the unsaturated zone.
While shoreline septic systems can be a significant source of phosphorus to lakes, recent scientific studies have shown that much of the septic phosphorus load can be attenuated by acidic and mineral- rich soils found in the Precambrian Shield. Mechanistic evidence (Stumm and Morgan, 1981; Jenkins et al, 1971; Isenbeck-Schroter et al., 1993) and direct observations made in septic systems (Wilhelm et al., 1996; Zanini et al 1998; Roberston et al., 1998; Roberston, 2003) all show strong adsorption of phosphate on charged soil surfaces and mineralization of phosphate with iron and aluminum in soil. The mineralization reactions, in particular, appear to be favored in acidic and mineral rich groundwater in Precambrian Shield settings (Robertson, et al, 1998; Robertson 2003) such that over 90% of septic
July 30, 2018 28 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx phosphorus may be immobilized. The mineralization reactions appear to be permanent (Isenbeck- Schroter et al., 1993). Recent studies conclude that most septic phosphorus may be stable within 0.5 m of the tile drains in a septic field (Robertson, et al, 1998; Roberston 2003).
The original developer of the Lakeshore Capacity Model, reported that only 24% of the potential loading of phosphorus from septic systems around Harp Lake, Muskoka could be accounted for in the measured phosphorus budget of the lake (Dillon, et al 1994). Dillon et al (1994) attributed the difference between the measured and modeled estimates of phosphorus to retention of septic phosphorus by thick tills in the catchment of Harp Lake, further supporting the mechanistic and geochemical attenuation of phosphorus in soils.
6.2 Comparison to the Analog Site
As mentioned above, to aid in the determination of potential impacts to surface water, comparison of site hydrogeology and geochemical conditions to those of the analog site whose hydrogeology and geochemical conditions are similar will provide a reasonable estimation of future septic leachate plumes at the site.
The analogous site chosen for comparison was one of the ten sites investigated in the Robertson et al (1998) study referenced above. This site is situated on the Precambrian Shield in Muskoka, Ontario and receives septic effluent from one single-family residence. Table 6.1 below provides a comparison between the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions between the analog site and the investigation site.
Table 6.1 Comparison of Test Site to Analog Site
Parameter Analog Site Investigation Site
Fine to Coarse Fine to Medium Soil Texture Grained Sand Grained Sand Soil pH 4.5 – acidic 5.1 – acidic Depth to 2 mBGS ~3.5 mBGS Groundwater Oxidizing State Oxidizing Oxidizing
Groundwater 60-100 20 Velocity (m/a) From section 5.4.2
The resultant septic leachate plume at the analog site was studied for a period of 10 years following initial construction and use, based on 27 soil core and piezometer samples the maximum extent of the groundwater septic plume, defined as a total phosphorus concentration of 0.1 mg/L was 3 m in length and less than 0.5 m in thickness.
6.3 Implications of Site Hydrogeology on Septic Impact
Depth to groundwater at the site varies between approximately 2.3 and 5.2 mBGS, and there is on average a 3.9 m thick unsaturated zone beneath the site. As discussed in previous sections, acidic and oxidizing conditions within the unsaturated zone will promote mineralization and sorption of
July 30, 2018 29 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx phosphorous, which is expected to immobilize the bulk of the phosphorous prior to septic effluent reaching the groundwater table. Robertson, (2005, 2006) suggests for sites where a lake has been shown to be at capacity, then among other conditions, septic fields be located in areas where the unsaturated overburden is greater than 1.5 m thick.
As discussed in Section 5.4, the groundwater flow direction varies seasonally, but is primarily southward, away from Green Lake and towards the Madawaska River (see Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6) with the exception of lots 1, 2, 3, 51, 52, 53 and 54. If septic effluent containing mobile phosphorous does reach the groundwater table, groundwater flow will carry the bulk of it away from Green Lake. This statement is supported by Golder’s (2018) conclusion that rapid stabilization of groundwater draw down during pumping tests was the result of surface water bodies (primarily the up- gradient Green Lake) acting as a constant-head (recharge) boundary to the overburden aquifer. Robertson, (2005, 2006) suggests for sites where a lake has been shown to be at capacity, that among other conditions, septic fields should be located in areas where the groundwater flow direction is such that septic leachate does not flow towards the at capacity or sensitive-lake drainage basin. In the central portion of the site, beneath lots 47, 48, 49, and 50 there is a seasonal change in flow direction. For the majority of the year, groundwater in these lots flows away from Green Lake, and ultimately toward the Madawaska River and Kamaniskeg Lake. During seasons of high water table, such as the Spring freshet in May 2018, groundwater mounding driven by the local topography shifts the flow direction towards Green Lake beneath the eastern 100 m of these lots (see Figure 5).
Phosphorus impacts to the Madawaska River are not anticipated to occur primarily due to retention of phosphate within the unsaturated zone beneath the site. However, any phosphorus enriched groundwater which may discharge to the Madawaska River will be undetectable due to the extremely small volume of septic effluent discharge relative to the discharge rate of the Madawaska River (see Section 6.5).
As a result of the varying groundwater flow conditions and receiving surface water bodies, different lots on the site will require different levels of treatment and varying septic field setbacks from adjacent waterbodies, as is discussed in Section 7.
6.4 Implications of Site Geochemistry on Septic Impact
Overburden material in which septic systems at the site are to be installed consists of unsaturated, non-calcareous, medium to fine grained sand, thus, the oxidation of septic effluent is likely to result in the development of acidic conditions. Robertson, (2005, 2006) suggests for sites where a lake has been shown to be at capacity, then among other conditions, septic fields should sited within overburden material with less than 1% CaCO3 equivalent by weight and with acid extractable concentrations of iron and aluminum greater than 1% equivalent by weight. Based on the analysis of six soil samples collected from within the B or C soil horizons (presented in Section 5.3), on-site soils meet the CaCO3 requirement of less than 1% equivalent by weight but do not meet the greater than 1% iron and aluminum equivalent by weight requirement. Relatively low iron and aluminum concentrations in the native soil will be mitigated by requiring that the septic mantle be constructed of material with iron and aluminum contents greater than 1% by weight. This requirement will enhance the precipitation of iron-phosphorus and aluminium-phosphorus minerals through irreversible mineralization resulting in the decreased mobility of phosphorus in the unsaturated zone (Robertson, et al, 1998). Even at sites with less than ideal conditions, such as the Langton site described by
July 30, 2018 30 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Robertson et al. (1998), 85% of the total sewage phosphorous was retained in the 2 m thick vadose zone after 44 years of operation.
6.5 Phosphorous Loading to the Madawaska River
A mass loading analysis was carried out to estimate the maximum likely phosphorus loading by groundwater discharge from the site to the Madawaska River. The mass loading analysis was carried out using river discharge data presented in Section 5.2, the estimated additional groundwater discharge due to operation of the septic fields, measured phosphorus concentrations from the Madawaska River, and average phosphorus concentrations in septic effluent from three oxidizing- noncalcareous analog sites (Robertson, et al, 1998).
As discussed in Section 6.3, on most of the site, the groundwater flows towards the Madawaska River. The equation below was used to solve for the concentration of phosphorus at the downstream boundary of the property following septic leachate inputs from 45 lots where the groundwater flow direction is towards the Madawaska and Kamaniskeg Lake (i.e. this does not include lots where groundwater flows towards the landlocked lakes, or where tertiary treatment has been recommended).
퐶푅푄푅+ 퐶푃푄푃 퐶푇 = (5) 푄푇
In the equation above CT is the calculated concentration of phosphorus in the Madawaska River at the downstream boundary; QT is the discharge of the Madawaska River at the downstream boundary; CR is the concentration of phosphorus at the upstream river boundary; QR is the discharge of the river at the upstream boundary; CP is the concentration of phosphorus in septic effluent; QP is the septic effluent discharge rate. The product of the concentration and flow rate calculates the mass loading per second.
The Madawaska River discharge value (QR) was selected as the lowest mean discharge over the previous five years (34.3 m3/s, see Section 5.2) and was multiplied by the phosphorus concentration
(CR = 0.0065 mg/L) selected for use in this study (see Section 4.2) to calculate the mass loading of phosphorus per unit time (223 mg/sec).
The total estimated septic system discharge rate (QP) was multiplied by the average concentration of phosphorus in the septic effluent (CP) at the three analog sites. The average concentration of the phosphorus in the septic effluent was taken as the average value (7.4 mg/L) from three mean concentrations reported from septic effluent at oxidizing and non-calcareous sites in Ontario.
The maximum daily septic discharge rate for a residential septic system allowed by the Ontario Building Code (1997) is 10,000 L/day. According to Environment Canada (2017), the average per capita residential water usage in Canadian households was 251 L/day in 2011 the (most recent available statistic). Therefore, the value of 10,000 L/day assumes that approximately 40 people live in each house, or that the residents have very elevated water consumption rates as compared to typical Canadian usage. As such, a daily septic discharge rate of 1,000 L/day, assuming a four-person residential dwelling, has been used in the mass loading calculation. We assume that there will be 4.0 residents per household, which exceeds the average number of people per Ontario household, which was 2.6 in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2018).
July 30, 2018 31 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
It is important to note that this is an extremely conservative assessment. This calculation assumes that the septic effluent discharges directly to the Madawaska River. In reality, we expect that a very large proportion of the phosphorous will be retained in the average 3.9 m thick vadose zone at this site, as discussed in Section 6.4. Robertson et al. (1998) observed phosphorous attenuation rates in the vadose zone of up to 99%. Even at sites with less than ideal conditions, such as the Langton site described by Robertson et al. (1998), 85% of the total sewage phosphorous was retained in the 2 m thick vadose zone after 44 years of operation.
The flow rate at the downstream boundary of the site (QT) was calculated as the sum of QR and QP. The mass loading calculations were carried out using the methods described above, and the results were compared to provincial water quality objective for phosphorus.
Even given this very conservative analysis, the mass loading of phosphorus from un-attenuated septic effluent is minor in comparison to the background concentrations in the river. The calculated downstream increase in phosphorus concentration, resulting from this extremely conservative set of assumptions was 1.73%, resulting in an expected increase in phosphorous concentration from 0.0065 mg/L to 0.0066 mg/L, well below the interim PWQO of 0.02 and the threshold for which eutrophication is known to occur (0.03 mg/L).
July 30, 2018 32 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following mitigation measures and recommendations are provided by Geofirma in order to minimize or eliminate potential septic effluent impacts to surface water features within or adjacent to the site. Due to the groundwater flow direction beneath Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 51, Lot 52, Lot 53 and Lot 54, which is interpreted to flow towards Labrador Lake or Green Lake for all or most of the year, tertiary treatment septic systems such as electrochemical phosphorus removal systems are recommended to prevent potential septic leachate loading to these waterbodies. Such advanced phosphorus removal systems, including the Waterloo Biofilter’s Waterloo EC-PTM have demonstrated the ability to removal up to 99% of total phosphorus from septic leachate prior to discharge to a conventional weeping bed. In Lot 39 and Lot 40 groundwater flows towards the Madawaska river, but a portion of the groundwater downstream of the planned homes and septic systems may be intercepted by the Teapot wetland. For this reason, tertiary treatment of septic effluent is recommended for these lots, as described in the previous bullet point. Due to the interpreted seasonal fluctuations in groundwater flow directions beneath Lot 47, Lot 48, Lot 49, and Lot 50 septic systems constructed on these lots should maintain a setback distance of 100 m from the shoreline of Green Lake ensuring that they remain west of the seasonally present groundwater divide separating flows towards Green Lake and the Madawaska (see Figure 5). Due to the observed groundwater seepage area within Lot 1 development setbacks identified in Geofirma (2018a) should be implemented. Septic systems on Lot 1, Lot 41 and Lot 42 should be sited such that they are not located on the observed bedrock outcrops. Septic system leaching fields should be constructed of noncalcareous (less than 1% CaCO) and high iron and aluminum (greater than 1% by weight) content mantle material to promote the development of acidic conditions, and enhance the precipitation of iron-phosphorus and aluminum-phosphorus minerals. Best practices for siting of Class IV septic systems adjacent to surface water features are applicable at the site. As such all septic systems, if not those identified above, should maintain a minimum setback distance of 30 m or more from any surface water feature and be installed by a licensed septic system contractor ensuring all applicable regulations are met and required permits obtained. The result of the recreational crowding assessment for Green Lake and Labrador Lake indicated that the proposed development would result in an overcrowding of Green Lake and Labrador Lake. The future condominium corporation for Combermere Lodge should incorporate limitations or prohibitions on the use of motorized watercraft on Green Lake and Labrador Lake.
July 30, 2018 33 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
8 CONCLUSIONS
The proponent is seeking a zoning amendment and plan of subdivision approval to develop an approximately 77.3 hectare (ha) property into a permanent residential subdivision. The proposed plan of subdivision calls for the establishment of three residential roads providing access to 54 residential lots, completely developing the 77.3 ha property.
Following review of all available information pertaining to the Surface Water Impact Assessment completed for the site, Geofirma offers the following general conclusions. Investigations of current water quality parameters within Green Lake and Labrador Lake indicate no detectable evidence of excess nutrient loading from existing shoreline development. Spring turn-over phosphorus concentrations in Labrador Lake naturally exceed the interim PQWO for phosphorus. However, as a highly coloured, tea-stained lake, Labrador Lake is not as sensitive to nutrient enrichment as Green Lake. Based on site characterization efforts and comparison to data from analogous sites, it is anticipated that the septic mantle and overburden soils at the site will be capable of immobilizing a substantial proportion of phosphorus from septic leachate, with an appropriately designed septic mantle (see Section 7). The groundwater flow direction over most of the site is southward, towards the Madawaska River and away from Green Lake. At a minority of lots, groundwater flows towards Labrador Lake or Green Lake for all or most of the year. Our conservative calculation predicts that the maximum likely phosphorus concentration in the Madawaska River downstream of the development will be 0.0066 mg/L, well below the interim Provincial Water Quality Objective (0.02 mg/L) and the threshold for which eutrophication is known to occur (0.03 mg/L). This calculation assumed that all septic effluent from the proposed development reaches the Madawaska River unattenuated by processes within the septic mantle and unsaturated zone. If the recommendations in Section 7 are implemented, the proposed development will not adversely affect the water quality of Green Lake, Labrador Lake, or the Madawaska River.
July 30, 2018 34
Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
10 REFERENCES
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2004. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Phosphorus.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2003. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Aluminium.
Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2.
Carlson, R.E., 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:2 361--369.
Dillion, P.J., W.A. Scheider, R.A. Reid. and D.S. Jeffries. 1994. Lakeshore Capacity Study: Part 1 – Test of effects of shoreline development on the trophic status of lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management. 8 (2): 121-129.
Dillon, P.J., K.H. Nicholls, W.A. Scheider, N.D. Yan and D.S. Jefferies. 1986. Lakeshore Capacity Study, Trophic Status. Research and Special Projects Branch, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 89p.
Dillon, P.J. and F.H. Rigler. 1974. The phosphorus – chlorophyll relationship in lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 19: 5: 767-773.
Environment Canada, 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/ environmental-indicators/residential-water-use.html, last modified 2017-04-10, accessed 2018-07-27.
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. 2018a. Natural Heritage Study and Environmental Impact Assessment – Part of Lots 2, 3, & 4, Concession 9 and Part of Lots 2 & 3, Concession 8, Madawaska Valley Township, Renfrew County. Revision 1.
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. 2018b.Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Part of Lots 2, 3 & $, Concession 9 and Part of Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5, Concession 8, Madawaska Valley Township, Renfrew County, Revision 0.
Gravenhurst. 2008. Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan. June.
Golder Associates. 2018. Hydrogeology Investigation, Terrain Analysis and Impact Assessment. Proposed Chippawa Residential Subdivision. Part of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 Concessions 8 and 9, Township of Madawaska Valley, County of Renfrew.
Hutchinson, N.J. 2002. Limnology, plumbing and planning: Evaluation of nutrient-based limits to shoreline evelopment in Precambrian Shield Watersheds. In: R.L. France (ed). Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design, CRC Press, London. Pp. 647-680.
July 30, 2018 36 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Isenbeck-Schröter, M., U. Doring, A. Moller, J. Schroter, and G. Matthess. 1993. Experimental approach and simulation of the retention processes limiting orthophosphate transport in groundwater. Journal of Contamination Hydrology. 14; 2: 143-161.
Jenkins, D., J.F. Ferguson, and A.B. Menar. 1971 Chemical processes for phosphate removal. Water Resources, Vol 5. Number 7: 369-389.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2010. Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook – Protecting Water Quality in Inland Lakes on Ontario’s Precambrian Shield.
Ontario Geological Survey 2010. Surficial geology of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release--Data 128-REV
Mechtensimer, S. and Toor, G.S. 2017. Septic Systems Contribution to Phosphorus in Shallow Groundwater: Field-Scale Studies Using Conventional Drainfield Desgins. PLoS ONE, 12: (1).
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2017. User Guide for Ontario Flow Assessment Tool (OFAT), Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Toronto, Ontario.
Parfitt, R.L., R.J. Atkinson, and R.S.C. Smart. 1975. The mechanism of phosphate fixation by iron oxides. Soil Science Society American Journal: 39:5; 837-841.
Paterson. A.M, P.J. Dillon, N.J. Hutchinson, M.N. Futter, B.J. Clark, R.B. Mills, R.A. Reid, and W.A. Scheider. 2006. A review of the components, coefficients, and technical assumptions of Ontario’s Lakeshore Capacity Model. Lake and Reservoir Management. 22:7-18.
Rajan, S.S.S. 1975. Absorption of divalent phosphate on hydros aluminum oxide. Nature 253; 5491: 434-436.
Robertson, W.D., 2008. Irreversible phosphorus sorption in septic system plumes? Groundwater, 46: 51-60.
Robertson, W.D., 2006. Phosphorus distribution in a septic system plume on thin soil terrain in Ontario cottage country. Technical Report prepare for Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Robertson, W.D., 2005. 2004 Survey of phosphorus concentrations in five central Ontario septic system plumes. Technical Report prepare for Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Robertson, W.D. 2003. Enhanced Attenuation of Septic System Phosphate in Noncalcarous sediments. Groundwater 41:48-56.
Robertson, W.D., Schiff, S.L. and Ptacek, C.J. 1998. Review of phosphate mobility and persistence in 10 septic system plumes. Groundwater, 36: 1000-1010.
Statistics Canada 2018. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=35&Geo2=&Code2=&Data=Count&SearchText =Ontario&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=35, last modified 2018-04-24, accessed 2018-07-27.
July 30, 2018 37 Surface Water Impact Assessment Final Report Green Lake & Madawaska River, Renfrew County Doc. ID: 17-223-1_SWIA_R1.docx
Stumm, W., and J.J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Toor G.S., Condron L.M., Cade-Menun B.J., Di H.J. and Cameron K.C. 2005. Perferential phosphorus leaching from irrigated grassland soil. Euorpean Journal of Soil Science, 56: 155-167.
Wetzel, Robert. 2001. Limnology – Lake and River Ecosystems, Third Edition. Academic Press. San Diego, California.
Wilhelm S.R., Schiff S.L. and Robertson W.D. 1996. Biogeochemical evolution of domestic wastewater in septic systems: Application of conceptual model in sandy aquifers. Groundwater, 34: 853-863.
Zanini L, Robertson W.D., Ptacek C.J., Schiff S.L., Mayer T. 1998. Phosphorus characterization in sediment impacted b septic effluent at four sites in central Canada. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 33: 405-429.
July 30, 2018 38
Appendix A
Lake Capacity Model Input Sheets
Lakeshore Capacity Model - Inputs
Runoff (m) Surface Catchment Years of No. of Avg. Max Mean Trout % % Anoxic Hydrologic ≥25 Lake from area, Ao area, Ad spring TP TP Measured Depth Depth Lake? Wetland Cleared ? Flow ha? Database (ha) (ha) sampling samples TPso (μg/L) (m) (m) (y/n) Green Lake 0.300 29.0 75.4 1.5 5.4 1 1 13.00 y 22 12.9 n No Flow y Lake 2 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 3 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 4 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 5 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lakeshore Capacity Model - Inputs
Runoff (m) Surface Catchment Years of No. of Avg. Max Mean Trout % % Anoxic Hydrologic ≥25 Lake from area, Ao area, Ad spring TP TP Measured Depth Depth Lake? Wetland Cleared ? Flow ha? Database (ha) (ha) sampling samples TPso (μg/L) (m) (m) (y/n) Green Lake 0.300 29.0 75.4 1.5 5.4 1 1 13.00 y 22 12.9 n No Flow y Lake 2 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 3 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 4 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 5 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lakeshore Capacity Model - Anthropogenic Inputs
Campgrounds/ Vacant Other (e.g., agriculture, Extended Trailer Youth Lake Permanent Seasonal Resort Tent tailers/ RV Lots of urbanization, golf Comments Seasonal Parks Camps parks Record course) Green Lake 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 Lake 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 all grayed out lakes are not included in the analysis Lakeshore Capacity Model - Anthropogenic Inputs
Campgrounds/ Vacant Other (e.g., agriculture, Extended Trailer Youth Lake Permanent Seasonal Resort Tent tailers/ RV Lots of urbanization, golf Comments Seasonal Parks Camps parks Record course) Green Lake 19 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 Lake 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 all grayed out lakes are not included in the analysis Lakeshore Capacity Model - Inputs
Runoff (m) Surface Catchment Years of No. of Avg. Max Mean Trout % % Anoxic Hydrologic ≥25 Lake from area, Ao area, Ad spring TP TP Measured Depth Depth Lake? Wetland Cleared ? Flow ha? Database (ha) (ha) sampling samples TPso (μg/L) (m) (m) (y/n) Labrador Lake 0.300 14.5 57.5 17.3 4.5 1 1 26.00 n 5.8 4.7 n No Flow n Lake 2 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 3 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 4 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 5 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lakeshore Capacity Model - Inputs
Runoff (m) Surface Catchment Years of No. of Avg. Max Mean Trout % % Anoxic Hydrologic ≥25 Lake from area, Ao area, Ad spring TP TP Measured Depth Depth Lake? Wetland Cleared ? Flow ha? Database (ha) (ha) sampling samples TPso (μg/L) (m) (m) (y/n) Labrador Lake 0.300 14.5 57.5 17.3 4.5 1 1 26.00 n 5.8 4.7 n No Flow n Lake 2 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 3 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 4 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lake 5 1.000 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 n n Lakeshore Capacity Model - Anthropogenic Inputs
Campgrounds/ Vacant Other (e.g., agriculture, Extended Trailer Youth Lake Permanent Seasonal Resort Tent tailers/ RV Lots of urbanization, golf Comments Seasonal Parks Camps parks Record course) Labrador Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Lake 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 all grayed out lakes are not included in the analysis Lakeshore Capacity Model - Anthropogenic Inputs
Campgrounds/ Vacant Other (e.g., agriculture, Extended Trailer Youth Lake Permanent Seasonal Resort Tent tailers/ RV Lots of urbanization, golf Comments Seasonal Parks Camps parks Record course) Labrador Lake 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lake 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 all grayed out lakes are not included in the analysis
Appendix B
Lake Capacity Model Output Sheets
Lakeshore Capacity Model Green Lake
Anthropogenic Supply Sedimentation Shoreline Development Type Number Usage (capita years/yr) Is the lake anoxic? y Permanent 4 2.56 Settling velocity (v) 7.2 m/yr Extended Seasonal 0 1.27 In lake retention (Rp) 0.87 Seasonal 3 0.69 Resort 0 1.18 Trailer Parks 0 0.69 Monitoring Data Youth Camps 0 0.125 Years of spring TP data 1 Campgrounds/Tent trailers/RV parks 0 0.37 Average Measured TPso 13.00 μg/L Vacant Lots of Record 4 1.27 Measured vs. Predicted TPso -36.9 % Is the model applicable? n Retention by soil (Rs) (0-1) 0 Over or under predicted? under
Catchment Modeling Results Lake Area (Ao) 29.0 ha TPlake 7.58 μg/L Catchment Area (Ad) 75.4 ha TPout 7.24 μg/L Wetland 1.5 % TPso 8.20 μg/L Cleared 5.4 % TPfuture 9.11 μg/L
Hydrological Flow Phosphorus Thresholds Mean annual runoff 0.300 m/yr TPbk 3.92 μg/L Lake outflow discharge (Q) 313200 m3/yr TPbk+40 5.48 μg/L Areal water loading rate (qs) 1.08 m/yr TPbk+50 5.87 μg/L Inflow 1 m3/yr TPbk+60 6.27 μg/L Inflow 2 m3/yr *if TPbk+40% < TPlake < TPbk+60% cell is orange Inflow 3 m3/yr *if TPlake > TPbk+60% cell is red
Natural Loading No. of allowable residences to reach capacity: Atmospheric Load 4.84 kg/yr # Permanent OR N/A Runoff Load 4.15 kg/yr # Extended seasonal OR N/A # Seasonal cottages OR N/A Upstream Loading Background Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Loads Background Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Natural Load w/no developmen 8.99 kg/yr Background Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Background + 50% Load 13.49 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Current Load 17.39 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Future Load 20.91 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Outflow Loads Future Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Background Outflow Load 1.17 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Current Outflow Load 2.27 kg/yr Future Outflow Load 2.73 kg/yr Anthropogenic Loading Current Anthropogenic Load 8.40 kg/yr Future Anthropogenic Load 11.92 kg/yr
Areal Load Rate
Current Total Areal Loading Rate (LT) 59.98 mg/m2/yr
Future Total Areal Loading Rate (LFT) 72.09 mg/m2/yr Lakeshore Capacity Model Green Lake
Anthropogenic Supply Sedimentation Shoreline Development Type Number Usage (capita years/yr) Is the lake anoxic? y Permanent 19 2.56 Settling velocity (v) 7.2 m/yr Extended Seasonal 0 1.27 In lake retention (Rp) 0.87 Seasonal 3 0.69 Resort 0 1.18 Trailer Parks 0 0.69 Monitoring Data Youth Camps 0 0.125 Years of spring TP data 1 Campgrounds/Tent trailers/RV parks 0 0.37 Average Measured TPso 13.00 μg/L Vacant Lots of Record 2 1.27 Measured vs. Predicted TPso 50.7 % Is the model applicable? n Retention by soil (Rs) (0-1) 0 Over or under predicted? over
Catchment Modeling Results Lake Area (Ao) 29.0 ha TPlake 18.88 μg/L Catchment Area (Ad) 75.4 ha TPout 18.05 μg/L Wetland 1.5 % TPso 19.59 μg/L Cleared 5.4 % TPfuture 19.64 μg/L
Hydrological Flow Phosphorus Thresholds Mean annual runoff 0.300 m/yr TPbk 3.92 μg/L Lake outflow discharge (Q) 313200 m3/yr TPbk+40 5.48 μg/L Areal water loading rate (qs) 1.08 m/yr TPbk+50 5.87 μg/L Inflow 1 m3/yr TPbk+60 6.27 μg/L Inflow 2 m3/yr *if TPbk+40% < TPlake < TPbk+60% cell is orange Inflow 3 m3/yr *if TPlake > TPbk+60% cell is red
Natural Loading No. of allowable residences to reach capacity: Atmospheric Load 4.84 kg/yr # Permanent OR N/A Runoff Load 4.15 kg/yr # Extended seasonal OR N/A # Seasonal cottages OR N/A Upstream Loading Background Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Loads Background Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Natural Load w/no developmen 8.99 kg/yr Background Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Background + 50% Load 13.49 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Current Load 43.34 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Future Load 45.10 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Outflow Loads Future Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Background Outflow Load 1.17 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Current Outflow Load 5.65 kg/yr Future Outflow Load 5.88 kg/yr Anthropogenic Loading Current Anthropogenic Load 34.35 kg/yr Future Anthropogenic Load 36.11 kg/yr
Areal Load Rate
Current Total Areal Loading Rate (LT) 149.44 mg/m2/yr
Future Total Areal Loading Rate (LFT) 155.50 mg/m2/yr Lakeshore Capacity Model Labrador Lake
Anthropogenic Supply Sedimentation Shoreline Development Type Number Usage (capita years/yr) Is the lake anoxic? n Permanent 0 2.56 Settling velocity (v) 12.4 m/yr Extended Seasonal 0 1.27 In lake retention (Rp) 0.89 Seasonal 0 0.69 Resort 0 1.18 Trailer Parks 0 0.69 Monitoring Data Youth Camps 0 0.125 Years of spring TP data 1 Campgrounds/Tent trailers/RV parks 0 0.37 Average Measured TPso 26.00 μg/L Vacant Lots of Record 2 1.27 Measured vs. Predicted TPso -79.1 % Is the model applicable? n Retention by soil (Rs) (0-1) 0 Over or under predicted? under
Catchment Modeling Results Lake Area (Ao) 14.5 ha TPlake 4.83 μg/L Catchment Area (Ad) 57.5 ha TPout 4.62 μg/L Wetland 17.3 % TPso 5.43 μg/L Cleared 4.5 % TPfuture 5.74 μg/L
Hydrological Flow Phosphorus Thresholds Mean annual runoff 0.300 m/yr TPbk 4.83 μg/L Lake outflow discharge (Q) 216090 m3/yr TPbk+40 6.76 μg/L Areal water loading rate (qs) 1.49 m/yr TPbk+50 7.24 μg/L Inflow 1 m3/yr TPbk+60 7.73 μg/L Inflow 2 m3/yr *if TPbk+40% < TPlake < TPbk+60% cell is orange Inflow 3 m3/yr *if TPlake > TPbk+60% cell is red
Natural Loading No. of allowable residences to reach capacity: Atmospheric Load 2.42 kg/yr # Permanent OR N/A Runoff Load 6.88 kg/yr # Extended seasonal OR N/A # Seasonal cottages OR N/A Upstream Loading Background Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Loads Background Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Natural Load w/no developmen 9.30 kg/yr Background Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Background + 50% Load 13.95 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Current Load 9.30 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Future Load 11.05 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Outflow Loads Future Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Background Outflow Load 1.00 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Current Outflow Load 1.00 kg/yr Future Outflow Load 1.19 kg/yr Anthropogenic Loading Current Anthropogenic Load 0.00 kg/yr Future Anthropogenic Load 1.76 kg/yr
Areal Load Rate
Current Total Areal Loading Rate (LT) 64.12 mg/m2/yr
Future Total Areal Loading Rate (LFT) 76.23 mg/m2/yr Lakeshore Capacity Model Labrador Lake
Anthropogenic Supply Sedimentation Shoreline Development Type Number Usage (capita years/yr) Is the lake anoxic? n Permanent 5 2.56 Settling velocity (v) 12.4 m/yr Extended Seasonal 0 1.27 In lake retention (Rp) 0.89 Seasonal 0 0.69 Resort 0 1.18 Trailer Parks 0 0.69 Monitoring Data Youth Camps 0 0.125 Years of spring TP data 1 Campgrounds/Tent trailers/RV parks 0 0.37 Average Measured TPso 26.00 μg/L Vacant Lots of Record 1 1.27 Measured vs. Predicted TPso -61.7 % Is the model applicable? n Retention by soil (Rs) (0-1) 0 Over or under predicted? under
Catchment Modeling Results Lake Area (Ao) 14.5 ha TPlake 9.32 μg/L Catchment Area (Ad) 57.5 ha TPout 8.91 μg/L Wetland 17.3 % TPso 9.96 μg/L Cleared 4.5 % TPfuture 9.78 μg/L
Hydrological Flow Phosphorus Thresholds Mean annual runoff 0.300 m/yr TPbk 4.83 μg/L Lake outflow discharge (Q) 216090 m3/yr TPbk+40 6.76 μg/L Areal water loading rate (qs) 1.49 m/yr TPbk+50 7.24 μg/L Inflow 1 m3/yr TPbk+60 7.73 μg/L Inflow 2 m3/yr *if TPbk+40% < TPlake < TPbk+60% cell is orange Inflow 3 m3/yr *if TPlake > TPbk+60% cell is red
Natural Loading No. of allowable residences to reach capacity: Atmospheric Load 2.42 kg/yr # Permanent OR N/A Runoff Load 6.88 kg/yr # Extended seasonal OR N/A # Seasonal cottages OR N/A Upstream Loading Background Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Loads Background Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Natural Load w/no developmen 9.30 kg/yr Background Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Background + 50% Load 13.95 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Current Load 17.94 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Future Load 18.82 kg/yr Current Total Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 1 kg/yr Outflow Loads Future Upstream Load 2 kg/yr Background Outflow Load 1.00 kg/yr Future Upstream Load 3 kg/yr Current Outflow Load 1.93 kg/yr Future Outflow Load 2.02 kg/yr Anthropogenic Loading Current Anthropogenic Load 8.65 kg/yr Future Anthropogenic Load 9.53 kg/yr
Areal Load Rate
Current Total Areal Loading Rate (LT) 123.76 mg/m2/yr
Future Total Areal Loading Rate (LFT) 129.81 mg/m2/yr
Appendix C
Data Summary Tables
Table C.1 - Soil Analytical Results
Residential/Parkland Parameter BH17-1-1 BH17-3-1 BH17-4-2 BH18-02 BH18-04 BH18-05 AH18-01 AH18-02 AH18-03 MOECC Depth (mBGS) > Table 8 1.25 1.25 2.25 1.80 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.35 1.25 Sample Date > Units (µg/g) 13-Oct-17 13-Oct-17 13-Oct-17 1-Jun-18 1-Jun-18 1-Jun-18 1-Jun-18 1-Jun-18 1-Jun-18 Metals Aluminum µg/g NV 9270 6000 4990 ------Aluminum (extractable) µg/g NV ------1600 730 1140 1770 450 4380 Aluminum (extractable) wt% NV ------0.16 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.05 0.44 Antimony µg/g 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Arsenic µg/g 18 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Barium µg/g 220 49.2 52.5 44.9 ------Beryllium µg/g 2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Boron µg/g 36 2.0 2.0 1.5 ------Calcium µg/g NV 2400 3530 2550 3040 2610 6800 4130 1400 4670 Cadmium µg/g 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ------Chromium µg/g 70 13.2 15.2 10.8 ------Cobalt µg/g 22 5.1 6.9 4.0 ------Copper µg/g 92 8.4 13.8 11.9 ------Iron µg/g NV 14500 18900 14400 ------Iron (extractable) µg/g NV ------1510 760 2920 1010 990 1820 Iron (extractable) wt% NV ------0.15 0.07 0.18 0.1 0.1 0.18 Lead µg/g 120 3.1 3.9 2.1 ------Magnesium µg/g NV ------2990 2570 7650 3380 2610 4790 Molybdenum µg/g 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Nickel µg/g 82 7.6 9.7 6.8 ------Selenium µg/g 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Silver µg/g 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ------Thallium µg/g 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Tin µg/g NV <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 ------Uranium µg/g 2.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ------Vanadium µg/g 86 34.7 46.3 35.9 ------Zinc µg/g 290 22.2 20.3 18.2 ------General Chemistry CaCO3 % NV ------<0.005 <0.005 0.024 0.008 0.006 0.009 Fraction Organic Carbon g/g NV <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 ------pH pH units NV 5.20 5.21 4.97 ------
Notes: NV = No Value -- = Parameter not analysed <0.05 = Not detected above method detection limit mBGS = Meters below ground surface MOECC, Table 8 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Groundwater Condition (July, 2011). Residenital/Parkland use soil Bold = Indicates concentrations which exceed MOECC Table 8
Prepared by: TEW Reviewed by: DMP Table X- Soill Analytical Results - Page 1 of 1 Date: 19Jul-18 Residential/Parkland Soil Table C.2 - Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations
Top Depth Screen 13-Oct-17 24-May-18 1-Jun-18 5-Jul-18 of Interval Water Level Water Level Water Level Water Level Water Level Water Level Water Level Water Level Monitoring Well ID Riser Depth Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation (mASL) (mBGS) (mBGS) (mBTR) (mASL) (mBTR) (mASL) (mBTR) (mASL) (mBTR) (mASL) MW17-01 290.59 6.09 3.04-6.06 5.64 284.95 5.43 285.16 5.47 285.12 5.67 284.92 MW17-02 289. 26 4574.57 1521.52-4574.57 4434.43 284. 83 4204.20 285. 06 4254.25 285. 01 4454.45 284. 81 MW17-03 289.58 5.49 2.44-5.49 4.96 284.63 4.74 284.84 4.78 284.80 4.98 284.60 MW17-04 286.51 4.27 1.22-4.27 3.23 283.28 2.36 284.15 2.23 284.28 2.50 284.01 MW17-05 287.94 4.57 1.52-4.57 4.35 283.59 3.64 284.30 3.72 284.23 4.08 283.87 MW17-06 289.17 6.09 3.04-6.06 6.06 283.11 5.88 283.29 5.97 283.20 6.02 283.15 MW17-07 292.60 9.14 6.10-9.14 5.44 287.16 7.27 285.33 6.30 286.30 7.48 285.12 MW18-01 291.30 ------7.59 283.72 7.66 283.64 MW18-02 291.41 ------7.89 283.53 7.90 283.51 MW18-03 291.38 ------7.87 283.51 7.91 283.47 MW18-04 289.60 ------5.87 283.73 6.22 283.38 MW18-05 290.38 ------1.80 288.58 2.29 288.09 TW17-01 288.11 16.76 6.10-10.06 4.87 283.25 4.41 283.70 4.50 283.62 4.75 283.36 TW17-02 288.50 20.12 9.45-13.41 4.84 283.66 4.11 284.39 4.18 284.32 4.42 284.09 TW17-03 288.19 16.76 6.10-10.06 4.41 283.78 4.18 284.01 4.23 283.96 4.39 283.80 TW17-04 290.82 16.76 6.10-10.06 5.89 284.93 5.65 285.17 5.69 285.13 5.90 284.92 TW17TW17-05 05 290.23290 23 15.3915 39 6.10-8.69610869 5.25525 284.98284 98 5.07507 285.16285 16 5.12512 285.12285 12 5.30530 284.93284 93 TW17-06 291.82 59.44 6.10-59.44 3.27 288.55 2.80 289.02 2.83 288.99 3.25 288.57 Madawaska River 283.13 282.83 282.81 Green Lake 284.97 285.03 284.92 Jack's Lake 288.90 288.25 Teapot Wetland -- 283.65 Wayside Pit 283.73 283.65
Notes: mASL = metres above sea level. mBTR = meters below top of PVC riser.
Prepared by: DMP Reviewed by: TEW Date: 1-Nov-17
Appendix D
Laboratory Analytical Reports
300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 1-800-749-1947 www.paracellabs.com
Certificate of Analysis
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Suite 200, 1 Raymond St. Ottawa, ON K1R 1A2 Attn: Drew Paulusse
Client PO: 172231-002 Project: 17-223 Report Date: 5-Sep-2017 Custody: 38556 Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Order #: 1734340
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID 1734340-01 SW17-1
Dale Robertson, BSc Approved By: Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.
Page 1 of 7 Order #: 1734340
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 05-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223
Analysis Summary Table Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date Ammonia, as N EPA 351.2 - Auto Colour 25-Aug-17 28-Aug-17 Anions EPA 300.1 - IC 24-Aug-17 28-Aug-17 Chlorophyll A Subcontract - EPA 8315 - HPLC 5-Sep-17 5-Sep-17 Dissolved Organic Carbon MOE E3247B - Combustion IR, filtration 30-Aug-17 30-Aug-17 Phosphorus, total, water EPA 365.4 - Auto Colour, digestion 25-Aug-17 29-Aug-17
Page 2 of 7 Order #: 1734340
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 05-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223
Client ID: SW17-1 - -- Sample Date: 23-Aug-17 - - - Sample ID: 1734340-01 - - - MDL/Units Water - - - General Inorganics Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 0.02 - - - Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.5 mg/L 4.5 - - - Phosphorus, total 0.01 mg/L <0.01 - - - Anions Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/L <0.1 - - - Nitrite as N 0.05 mg/L <0.05 - - - Subcontract Chlorophyll-a 0.5 ug/L <0.5 [2] - - -
Page 3 of 7 Order #: 1734340
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 05-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223
Method Quality Control: Blank Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Anions Nitrate as N ND 0.1 mg/L Nitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/L General Inorganics Ammonia as N ND 0.01 mg/L Dissolved Organic Carbon ND 0.5 mg/L Phosphorus, total ND 0.01 mg/L
Page 4 of 7 Order #: 1734340
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 05-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223
Method Quality Control: Duplicate Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Anions Nitrate as N ND 0.1 mg/L ND 20 Nitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/L ND 20 General Inorganics Ammonia as N 0.031 0.01 mg/L 0.054 52.0 17.7 QR-01 Dissolved Organic Carbon 5.2 0.5 mg/L 4.5 14.8 37 Phosphorus, total ND 0.01 mg/L ND 10
Page 5 of 7 Order #: 1734340
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 05-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223
Method Quality Control: Spike Reporting Source %REC RPD Result Units %REC RPD Notes Analyte Limit Result Limit Limit Anions Nitrate as N 0.96 0.1 mg/L ND 96.3 81-112 Nitrite as N 0.958 0.05 mg/L ND 95.8 76-117 General Inorganics Ammonia as N 0.330 0.01 mg/L 0.054 111 81-124 Dissolved Organic Carbon 13.6 0.5 mg/L 4.5 91.5 60-133 Phosphorus, total 0.430 0.01 mg/L ND 86.0 80-120
Page 6 of 7 Order #: 1734340
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 05-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 24-Aug-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223
Qualifier Notes:
Sample Qualifiers : 2 : Subcontracted analysis - Testmark.
QC Qualifiers : QR-01 : Duplicate RPD is high, however, the sample result is less than 10x the MDL. Sample Data Revisions None
Work Order Revisions / Comments: None
Other Report Notes: n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Limit Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference.
Page 7 of 7
300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 1-800-749-1947 www.paracellabs.com
Certificate of Analysis
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. 1 Raymond St, Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K1R 1A2 Attn: Taylor Warrington
Client PO: 172231-002 Project: 17-223-1 Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Custody: Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Order #: 1737497
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID 1737497-01 SW17-1 1737497-02 SW17-2
Dale Robertson, BSc Approved By: Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.
Page 1 of 7 Order #: 1737497
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223-1
Analysis Summary Table Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date Ammonia, as N EPA 351.2 - Auto Colour 19-Sep-17 19-Sep-17 Anions EPA 300.1 - IC 19-Sep-17 19-Sep-17 Dissolved Organic Carbon MOE E3247B - Combustion IR, filtration 20-Sep-17 20-Sep-17 Phosphorus, total, water EPA 365.4 - Auto Colour, digestion 18-Sep-17 18-Sep-17
Page 2 of 7 Order #: 1737497
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223-1
Client ID: SW17-1 SW17-2 -- Sample Date: 14-Sep-17 14-Sep-17 - - Sample ID: 1737497-01 1737497-02 - - MDL/Units Water Water - - General Inorganics Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 0.07 0.03 - - Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.5 mg/L 4.8 6.0 - - Phosphorus, total 0.01 mg/L <0.01 <0.01 - - Anions Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 - - Nitrite as N 0.05 mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - -
Page 3 of 7 Order #: 1737497
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Blank Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Anions Nitrate as N ND 0.1 mg/L Nitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/L General Inorganics Ammonia as N ND 0.01 mg/L Dissolved Organic Carbon ND 0.5 mg/L Phosphorus, total ND 0.01 mg/L
Page 4 of 7 Order #: 1737497
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Duplicate Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Anions Nitrate as N 0.53 0.1 mg/L 0.53 0.2 20 Nitrite as N ND 0.05 mg/L ND 0.0 20 General Inorganics Ammonia as N 0.063 0.01 mg/L 0.071 11.1 17.7 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.0 0.5 mg/L 1.7 13.4 37 Phosphorus, total ND 0.01 mg/L ND 10
Page 5 of 7 Order #: 1737497
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Spike Reporting Source %REC RPD Result Units %REC RPD Notes Analyte Limit Result Limit Limit Anions Nitrate as N 1.53 0.1 mg/L 0.53 99.4 81-112 Nitrite as N 1.02 0.05 mg/L ND 102 76-117 General Inorganics Ammonia as N 0.334 0.01 mg/L 0.071 105 81-124 Dissolved Organic Carbon 12.4 0.5 mg/L 1.7 106 60-133 Phosphorus, total 0.458 0.01 mg/L ND 91.5 80-120
Page 6 of 7 Order #: 1737497
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 21-Sep-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 15-Sep-2017 Client PO: 172231-002 Project Description: 17-223-1
Qualifier Notes: None
Sample Data Revisions None
Work Order Revisions / Comments: None
Other Report Notes: n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Limit Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference.
Page 7 of 7
300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 1-800-749-1947 www.paracellabs.com
Certificate of Analysis
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Suite 200, 1 Raymond St. Ottawa, ON K1R 1A2 Attn: Drew Paulusse
Client PO: 172231-001 Project: 17-223-1 Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Custody: 37917 Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Order #: 1742305
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID 1742305-01 BH17-1-1 1742305-02 BH17-3-1 1742305-03 BH17-4-2
Dale Robertson, BSc Approved By: Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.
Page 1 of 7 Order #: 1742305
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Analysis Summary Table Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date CCME-SQG: Metals by ICP-OES based on MOE E3470, ICP-OES 19-Oct-17 19-Oct-17 pH, soil EPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 18-Oct-17 18-Oct-17 Solids, % Gravimetric, calculation 18-Oct-17 18-Oct-17
Page 2 of 7 Order #: 1742305
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Client ID: BH17-1-1 BH17-3-1 BH17-4-2 - Sample Date: 13-Oct-17 13-Oct-17 13-Oct-17 - Sample ID: 1742305-01 1742305-02 1742305-03 - MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil - Physical Characteristics % Solids 0.1 % by Wt. 95.8 92.3 80.8 - General Inorganics pH 0.05 pH Units 5.20 5.21 4.97 - Metals Antimony 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Arsenic 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Barium 1.0 ug/g dry 49.2 52.5 44.9 - Beryllium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Boron 1.0 ug/g dry 2.0 2.0 1.5 - Cadmium 0.5 ug/g dry <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - Chromium 1.0 ug/g dry 13.2 15.2 10.8 - Cobalt 1.0 ug/g dry 5.1 6.9 4.0 - Copper 1.0 ug/g dry 8.4 13.8 11.9 - Lead 1.0 ug/g dry 3.1 3.9 2.1 - Molybdenum 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Nickel 1.0 ug/g dry 7.6 9.7 6.8 - Selenium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Silver 0.5 ug/g dry <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - Thallium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Tin 5.0 ug/g dry <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - Uranium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - Vanadium 1.0 ug/g dry 34.7 46.3 35.9 - Zinc 1.0 ug/g dry 22.2 20.3 18.2 -
Page 3 of 7 Order #: 1742305
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Blank Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Metals Antimony ND 1.0 ug/g Arsenic ND 1.0 ug/g Barium ND 1.0 ug/g Beryllium ND 1.0 ug/g Boron ND 1.0 ug/g Cadmium ND 0.5 ug/g Chromium ND 1.0 ug/g Cobalt ND 1.0 ug/g Copper ND 1.0 ug/g Lead ND 1.0 ug/g Molybdenum ND 1.0 ug/g Nickel ND 1.0 ug/g Selenium ND 1.0 ug/g Silver ND 0.5 ug/g Thallium ND 1.0 ug/g Tin ND 5.0 ug/g Uranium ND 1.0 ug/g Vanadium ND 1.0 ug/g Zinc ND 1.0 ug/g
Page 4 of 7 Order #: 1742305
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Duplicate Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes General Inorganics pH 7.53 0.05 pH Units 7.53 0.0 10 Metals Antimony ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Arsenic ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Barium ND 1.0 ug/g dry 49.2 0.0 30 Beryllium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Boron ND 1.0 ug/g dry 1.98 0.0 30 Cadmium ND 0.5 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Chromium ND 1.0 ug/g dry 13.2 0.0 30 Cobalt ND 1.0 ug/g dry 5.08 0.0 30 Copper ND 1.0 ug/g dry 8.38 0.0 30 Lead ND 1.0 ug/g dry 3.11 0.0 30 Molybdenum ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Nickel ND 1.0 ug/g dry 7.57 0.0 30 Selenium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Silver ND 0.5 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Thallium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Tin ND 5.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Uranium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 0.0 30 Vanadium ND 1.0 ug/g dry 34.7 0.0 30 Zinc ND 1.0 ug/g dry 22.2 0.0 30 Physical Characteristics % Solids 78.8 0.1 % by Wt. 80.1 1.7 25
Page 5 of 7 Order #: 1742305
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Spike Reporting Source %REC RPD Result Units %REC RPD Notes Analyte Limit Result Limit Limit Metals Antimony 225 ug/L 90.0 70-130 Arsenic 241 ug/L 96.6 70-130 Barium 245 ug/L 98.0 70-130 Beryllium 235 ug/L 94.1 70-130 Boron 242 ug/L 96.9 70-130 Cadmium 230 ug/L 92.2 70-130 Chromium 236 ug/L 94.4 70-130 Cobalt 238 ug/L 95.3 70-130 Copper 239 ug/L 95.7 70-130 Lead 237 ug/L 94.6 70-130 Molybdenum 231 ug/L 92.3 70-130 Nickel 233 ug/L 93.2 70-130 Selenium 244 ug/L 97.4 70-130 Silver 238 ug/L 95.4 70-130 Thallium 232 ug/L 92.9 70-130 Tin 242 ug/L 96.8 70-130 Uranium 246 ug/L 98.6 70-130 Vanadium 246 ug/L 98.5 70-130 Zinc 221 ug/L 88.4 70-130
Page 6 of 7 Order #: 1742305
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 26-Oct-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 18-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Qualifier Notes:
Login Qualifiers : Sample not received in Paracel verified container / media Applies to samples: BH17‐1‐1, BH17‐3‐1, BH17‐4‐2 Sample Data Revisions None
Work Order Revisions / Comments: None
Other Report Notes: n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Limit Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference. Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'. Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.
Page 7 of 7
300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 1-800-749-1947 www.paracellabs.com
Subcontracted Analysis
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Suite 200, 1 Raymond St. Tel: (613) 232-2525 Ottawa, ON K1R 1A2 Fax: (613) 232-7149 Attn: Drew Paulusse
Paracel Report No1742305 Order Date: 18-Oct-17 Client Project(s): 17-223-1 Report Date: 26-Oct-17 Client PO: 172231-001 Reference: Standing Offer CoC Number: 37917
Sample(s) from this project were subcontracted for the listed parameters. A copy of the subcontractor’s report is attached
Paracel ID Client ID 1742305-01 BH17-1-1 Fraction Organic Carbon 1742305-02 BH17-3-1 Fraction Organic Carbon 1742305-03 BH17-4-2 Fraction Organic Carbon CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Client: Dale Robertson Work Order Number: 319473 Company: Paracel Laboratories Ltd.- Ottawa PO #: Address: 300-2319 St. Laurent Blvd. Regulation: CCME Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 Project #: 1742305 Phone/Fax: (613) 731-9577 / (613) 731-9064 DWS #: Email: [email protected] Sampled By:
Date Order Received: 10/19/2017 Analysis Started: 10/26/2017 Arrival Temperature: 12 °C Analysis Completed: 10/26/2017
WORK ORDER SUMMARY
ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED ON THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES. THE RESULTS RELATE ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED.
Sample Description Lab ID Matrix Type Comments Date Collected Time Collected BH17-1-1 1017968 Soil None 10/13/2017 BH17-3-1 1017969 Soil None 10/13/2017 BH17-4-2 1017970 Soil None 10/13/2017
METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION
THE FOLLOWING METHODS WERE USED FOR YOUR SAMPLE(S):
Method Lab Description Reference FOC Soil (R55) Garson Determination of Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil Based on ASTM E1915-07
This report has been approved by:
Khaled Omari, Ph.D. Laboratory Director
10/26/2017 16:31 7 Margaret Street, Garson, ON, P3L 1E1 Page 1 of 2 Phone: (705) 693-1121 Fax: (705) 693-1124 Web: www.testmark.ca CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Paracel Laboratories Ltd.- Ottawa Work Order Number: 319473 WORK ORDER RESULTS
Sample Description BH17 - 1 - 1 BH17 - 3 - 1 BH17 - 4 - 2 Lab ID 1017968 1017969 1017970
Criteria: CCME Freshwater General Chemistry Result MDL Result MDL Result MDL Units Sediment Quality Guidelines <0.005 Fraction Organic Carbon 0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.005 g/g ~ [<0.005] <0.005 Fraction Organic Carbon (2) 0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.005 g/g ~ [<0.005] <0.005 Fraction Organic Carbon (3) 0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.005 g/g ~ [<0.005]
LEGEND Dates: Dates are formatted as mm/dd/year throughout this report. MDL: Method detection limit or minimum reporting limit. [ ]: Results for laboratory replicates are shown in square brackets immediately below the associated sample result for ease of comparison. ~: In a criteria column indicates the criteria is not applicable for the parameter row.. Quality Control: All associated Quality Control data is available on request.
10/26/2017 16:31 7 Margaret Street, Garson, ON, P3L 1E1 Page 2 of 2 Phone: (705) 693-1121 Fax: (705) 693-1124 Web: www.testmark.ca 300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 1-800-749-1947 www.paracellabs.com
Certificate of Analysis
Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Suite 200, 1 Raymond St. Ottawa, ON K1R 1A2 Attn: Drew Paulusse
Client PO: 172231-001 Project: 17-223-1 Report Date: 1-Nov-2017 Custody: 37917 Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Order #: 1743508
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID 1743508-01 BH17-1-1 1743508-02 BH17-3-1 1743508-03 BH17-4-2
Dale Robertson, BSc Approved By: Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.
Page 1 of 7 Order #: 1743508
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 01-Nov-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Analysis Summary Table Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date Metals, ICP-MS EPA 6020 - Digestion - ICP-MS 31-Oct-17 31-Oct-17
Page 2 of 7 Order #: 1743508
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 01-Nov-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Client ID: BH17-1-1 BH17-3-1 BH17-4-2 - Sample Date: 13-Oct-17 13-Oct-17 13-Oct-17 - Sample ID: 1743508-01 1743508-02 1743508-03 - MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil - Metals Aluminum 10 ug/g dry 9270 6000 4990 - Calcium 200 ug/g dry 2400 3530 2550 - Iron 200 ug/g dry 14500 18900 14400 -
Page 3 of 7 Order #: 1743508
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 01-Nov-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Blank Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Metals Aluminum ND 10 ug/g Calcium ND 200 ug/g Iron ND 200 ug/g
Page 4 of 7 Order #: 1743508
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 01-Nov-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Duplicate Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Metals Aluminum 6880 10 ug/g dry 9270 29.5 30 Calcium 2530 200 ug/g dry 2400 5.3 30 Iron 14800 200 ug/g dry 14500 2.1 30
Page 5 of 7 Order #: 1743508
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 01-Nov-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Method Quality Control: Spike Reporting Source %REC RPD Result Units %REC RPD Notes Analyte Limit Result Limit Limit Metals Aluminum 51.3 ug/L 103 70-130 Calcium 2280 ug/L 959 132 70-130 QM-07 Iron 6900 ug/L 5800 110 70-130
Page 6 of 7 Order #: 1743508
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 01-Nov-2017 Client: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. Order Date: 27-Oct-2017 Client PO: 172231-001 Project Description: 17-223-1
Qualifier Notes:
QC Qualifiers : QM-07 : The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on other acceptable QC. Sample Data Revisions None
Work Order Revisions / Comments: None
Other Report Notes: n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Limit Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference. Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'. Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.
Page 7 of 7
Your Project #: MB8B4773 Your C.O.C. #: B8B4773-M060-01-01
Attention: JONATHAN URBEN MAXXAM ANALYTICS CAMPOBELLO 6740 CAMPOBELLO ROAD MISSISSAUGA, ON CANADA L5N 2L8 Report Date: 2018/05/28 Report #: R2559857 Version: 1 - Final
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B838514 Received: 2018/05/19, 08:13 Sample Matrix: Water # Samples Received: 2 Date Date Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Analytical Method Total Phosphorus Low Level Total 2 2018/05/26 2018/05/28 AB SOP-00024 SM 22 4500-P A,B,F m
Remarks: Maxxam Analytics’ laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation. Unless otherwise noted, procedures used by Maxxam are based upon recognized Provincial, Federal or US method compendia such as CCME, MDDELCC, EPA, APHA.
All work recorded herein has been done in accordance with procedures and practices ordinarily exercised by professionals in Maxxam’s profession using accepted testing methodologies, quality assurance and quality control procedures (except where otherwise agreed by the client and Maxxam in writing). All data is in statistical control and has met quality control and method performance criteria unless otherwise noted. All method blanks are reported; unless indicated otherwise, associated sample data are not blank corrected.
Maxxam Analytics’ liability is limited to the actual cost of the requested analyses, unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Maxxam has been retained to provide analysis of samples provided by the Client using the testing methodology referenced in this report. Interpretation and use of test results are the sole responsibility of the Client and are not within the scope of services provided by Maxxam, unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Solid sample results, except biota, are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotope dilution methods. Results relate to samples tested. This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. * RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.
Page 1 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 Your Project #: MB8B4773 Your C.O.C. #: B8B4773-M060-01-01
Attention: JONATHAN URBEN MAXXAM ANALYTICS CAMPOBELLO 6740 CAMPOBELLO ROAD MISSISSAUGA, ON CANADA L5N 2L8 Report Date: 2018/05/28 Report #: R2559857 Version: 1 - Final
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B838514 Received: 2018/05/19, 08:13
Encryption Key
Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Omran Desouki, Junior Project Manager Email: [email protected] Phone# (403) 291-3077 ======This report has been generated and distributed using a secure automated process. Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Total Cover Pages : 2 Page 2 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 Maxxam Job #: B838514 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Report Date: 2018/05/28 Client Project #: MB8B4773 Sampler Initials: DP RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER Maxxam ID TL6781 TL6782 2018/05/15 2018/05/15 Sampling Date 11:30 12:30 COC Number B8B4773-M060-01-01 B8B4773-M060-01-01 UNITS SW17-1 (GRZ961) QC Batch SW18-1 (GRZ962) RDL QC Batch Nutrients Total Phosphorus (P) mg/L 0.013 9001823 0.026 0.0010 9001812 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit
Page 3 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 Maxxam Job #: B838514 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Report Date: 2018/05/28 Client Project #: MB8B4773 Sampler Initials: DP TEST SUMMARY
Maxxam ID: TL6781 Collected: 2018/05/15 Sample ID: SW17-1 (GRZ961) Shipped: 2018/05/16 Matrix: Water Received: 2018/05/19
Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Date Analyzed Analyst Total Phosphorus Low Level Total KONE 9001823 2018/05/26 2018/05/28 Tracy (Jing) Ling
Maxxam ID: TL6782 Collected: 2018/05/15 Sample ID: SW18-1 (GRZ962) Shipped: 2018/05/16 Matrix: Water Received: 2018/05/19
Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Date Analyzed Analyst Total Phosphorus Low Level Total KONE 9001812 2018/05/26 2018/05/28 Tracy (Jing) Ling
Page 4 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 Maxxam Job #: B838514 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Report Date: 2018/05/28 Client Project #: MB8B4773 Sampler Initials: DP
GENERAL COMMENTS
Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt
Package 1 0.7°C
Results relate only to the items tested.
Page 5 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 Maxxam Job #: B838514 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT MAXXAM ANALYTICS Report Date: 2018/05/28 Client Project #: MB8B4773 Sampler Initials: DP
Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC Standard QC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value UNITS Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits 9001812 Total Phosphorus (P) 2018/05/28 106 80 - 120 95 80 - 120 <0.0010 mg/L 13 (1) 20 99 80 - 120 9001823 Total Phosphorus (P) 2018/05/28 97 80 - 120 97 80 - 120 <0.0010 mg/L NC (1) 20 99 80 - 120 Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. QC Standard: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of method accuracy. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. NC (Duplicate RPD): The duplicate RPD was not calculated. The concentration in the sample and/or duplicate was too low to permit a reliable RPD calculation (absolute difference <= 2x RDL). (1) Duplicate Parent ID
Page 6 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 Maxxam Job #: B838514 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Report Date: 2018/05/28 Client Project #: MB8B4773 Sampler Initials: DP
VALIDATION SIGNATURE PAGE
The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).
Harry (Peng) Liang, Senior Analyst
Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Page 7 of 7 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone (403) 291-3077 Fax (403) 291-9468 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.: G72033 REPORT No. B18-15421
Report To: Caduceon Environmental Laboratories Geofirma Engineering 2378 Holly Lane 1 Raymond St., Suite 200 Ottawa Ontario K1V 7P1 Ottawa ON K1R 1A2 Canada Tel: 613-526-0123 Attention: Drew Paulusse Fax: 613-526-1244 DATE RECEIVED: 04-Jun-18 JOB/PROJECT NO.: Lake Capacity Assessment DATE REPORTED: 15-Jun-18 P.O. NUMBER: SAMPLE MATRIX: Soil WATERWORKS NO.
Client I.D. BH18-02 BH18-04 BH18-01 BH18-02 Sample I.D. B18-15421-1 B18-15421-2 B18-15421-3 B18-15421-4 Date Collected 01-Jun-18 01-Jun-18 01-Jun-18 01-Jun-18 Reference Date/Site Parameter Units R.L. Method Analyzed TIC % 0.005 Subcontract 11-Jun-18 < 0.005 1 < 0.005 1 0.008 1 0.006 1 P-retention 24hrs µg/g 10 IN HOUSE 14-Jun-18/R 170 100 200 130 Aluminum (Extractable) µg/g 20 84-011 13-Jun-18/R 1600 730 1770 450 Iron (Extractable) µg/g 20 84-011 13-Jun-18/R 1510 760 1010 990 Calcium µg/g 50 EPA 6010 13-Jun-18/O 3040 2610 4130 1400 Magnesium µg/g 50 EPA 6010 13-Jun-18/O 2990 2570 3380 2610 1 . Subcontracted to SGS Lakefield
R.L. = Reporting Limit Greg Clarkin , BSc., C. Chem Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an * Lab Manager - Ottawa District Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill,B-Barrie The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 2. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report C.O.C.: G72033 REPORT No. B18-15421
Report To: Caduceon Environmental Laboratories Geofirma Engineering 2378 Holly Lane 1 Raymond St., Suite 200 Ottawa Ontario K1V 7P1 Ottawa ON K1R 1A2 Canada Tel: 613-526-0123 Attention: Drew Paulusse Fax: 613-526-1244 DATE RECEIVED: 04-Jun-18 JOB/PROJECT NO.: Lake Capacity Assessment DATE REPORTED: 15-Jun-18 P.O. NUMBER: SAMPLE MATRIX: Soil WATERWORKS NO.
Client I.D. BH18-03 BH18-05 Sample I.D. B18-15421-5 B18-15421-6 Date Collected 01-Jun-18 01-Jun-18 Reference Date/Site Parameter Units R.L. Method Analyzed TIC % 0.005 Subcontract 11-Jun-18 0.009 1 0.024 1 P-retention 24hrs µg/g 10 IN HOUSE 14-Jun-18/R 310 460 Aluminum (Extractable) µg/g 20 84-011 13-Jun-18/R 4380 1140 Iron (Extractable) µg/g 20 84-011 13-Jun-18/R 1820 2920 Calcium µg/g 50 EPA 6010 13-Jun-18/O 4670 6800 Magnesium µg/g 50 EPA 6010 13-Jun-18/O 4790 7650 1 . Subcontracted to SGS Lakefield
R.L. = Reporting Limit Greg Clarkin , BSc., C. Chem Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an * Lab Manager - Ottawa District Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill,B-Barrie The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 2 of 2.