final report: environmental site assessment, delineation ... 2 esa cm final...the site consists of...

Final REPORT: Environmental Site Assessment, Delineation, and Remedial Action Plan

Caribou Marsh Reserve #29 2408 Highway 327 Sydney, NS

Prepared for: Membertou Governance Committee

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 40 Highfield Park Drive, Suite 102 Dartmouth, NS B3A 0A3

File No.: 121414278

January 25, 2018

FINAL REPORT: ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, DELINEATION, AND REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN

File: 121414278 i

Executive Summary

At the request of Membertou Governance Committee, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) conducted an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Delineation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) at Caribou Marsh Reserve #29 in Sydney, Nova Scotia (Site). The purpose of the ESA was to assess and delineate soil and groundwater conditions at the Site with respect to potential impacts identified in the Phase I ESA completed by Stantec in April 2013. The Phase I ESA identified four potential sources of environmental impacts at the Site:

• A former oil release from AST (in the area near the DFO storage compound and main building)

• Salt impacts from the former salt storage shed • Waste/debris piles, buried vehicles, and asphalt areas • An off-site landfill located near the southwestern corner of the property.

Groundwater and soil samples were collected to analyze for petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, PAHs and/or general chemistry. Twelve boreholes were drilled and completed as groundwater monitoring wells, where soil and groundwater was sampled. Groundwater samples were also collected at 10 monitoring well locations that were established in previous years. In addition, 16 tests pits were excavated and soil samples were collected.

No free phase petroleum hydrocarbons were observed during field work for this assessment. However, free product was observed in MW1 and MW2 during the September 19, 2014 sampling event, of which was associated with the area of the former diesel AST.

The sampling program identified several exceedances for hydrocarbons, in both soil and groundwater samples. Hydrocarbon impacts were restricted to the area between the DFO storage compound and the main site building, and included the former diesel AST area. Based on these results, the hydrocarbon impacts were delineated.

To determine if there were impacts related to the on-site salt storage, groundwater was tested for sodium. Although sodium concentrations were elevated above aesthetic guidelines at five locations, there is no apparent human health risk associated with salt impacts to groundwater at the Site.

Analytical results indicated exceedances for arsenic at five locations for soil. However, the elevated concentrations of arsenic in soil identified on the Site can generally be attributed to background soil conditions in the Industrial Cape Breton area. There were arsenic exceedances in groundwater at two locations, which can also be attributed to elevated background levels.

The placement of two boreholes converted to monitoring wells were proposed within the garage portion of the building, however, due to the observation of water leakage and mold growth within the building the proposed work was not carried out.


File: 121414278 ii

Based on these results, a remedial action plan (RAP) and Risk Management Plan (RMP) was proposed:

• Excavate petroleum-impacted soils for off-site disposal. The estimated volume of impacted material to be removed is approximately 600 m3, or approximately 1,200 tonnes.

• Complete a mold assessment within the building as extensive water damage and suspect mold growth was observed on the interior wall inside the building. If the building is slated to be demolished (as discussed within the committee meeting) a hazardous materials building assessment should be completed.

• Remove and properly dispose of debris, waste, and asphalt piles. • Consider groundwater chemistry when siting and designing a water supply for the Site.

A wetland survey and screening level ecological risk assessment (ERA) update were also completed and are included as appendices to this report. The ERA update (Appendix E) concluded that there is no significant ecological risk associated related to salt or hydrocarbon impacts at the Site. The wetland survey indicated that wetlands account for approximately 28% of the property area. Refer to Appendix D for more detail.

The statements made in this Executive Summary text are subject to the limitations included in Section 6.0, and are to be read in conjunction with the remainder of this report.


File: 121414278 iii

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use .............................................. 1 1.2.2 Topography and Regional Drainage .......................................................... 4 1.2.3 Surficial and Bedrock Geology ..................................................................... 6

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ............................................................................ 6 1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................. 8

1.4.1 Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................. 8 1.4.2 Site Criteria....................................................................................................... 8 1.4.2.1 Soil ................................................................................................................ 9 1.4.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................. 9

1.5 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.5.1 Scope of Work ............................................................................................... 10

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................. 11 2.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2 RATIONALE ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 12 2.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 12

3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.1 SOIL ................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1.1 Stratigraphy ................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Soil Vapour Concentrations ........................................................................ 13 3.1.2.1 Combustible Soil Vapour Concentrations .....................................................13 3.1.3 Free Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons ........................................................ 13 3.1.4 Soil Analytical Results ................................................................................... 13 3.1.4.1 Commercial ..................................................................................................13 3.1.4.2 Residential ...................................................................................................17

3.2 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................................. 21 3.2.1 Free Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons ........................................................ 21 3.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................. 21 3.2.3 Groundwater Analytical Results ................................................................. 22 3.2.3.1 Commercial ..................................................................................................22 3.2.3.2 Residential ...................................................................................................23

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 28

5.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................ 29

6.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 30

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 32


File: 121414278 iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Property Information .................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 - Site Building Information .............................................................................................. 4 Table 3 - Potential Sources of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 7 Table 4 - Summary of Regulatory Framework ......................................................................... 10 Table 5 - Sample Location Rationale ....................................................................................... 11 Table 6 - Summary of Groundwater Elevations (June 21, 2017) .......................................... 21 Table 7 - Environmental Site Assessment and Delineation Summary .................................. 28 Table Com-1 Soil Petroleum Chemistry ................................................................. Appendix C Table Com-2 Soil Inorganic Chemistry ................................................................... Appendix C Table Com-3 Soil Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Chemistry ........................ Appendix C Table Com-4 Groundwater Petroleum Chemistry ............................................... Appendix C Table Com-5 Groundwater Inorganic Chemistry ................................................ Appendix C Table Com-6 Groundwater General Chemistry ................................................... Appendix C Table RES-1 Soil Petroleum Chemistry .................................................................. Appendix C Table RES-2 Soil Inorganic Chemistry ................................................................... Appendix C Table RES-3 Soil Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Chemistry ........................ Appendix C Table RES-4 Groundwater Petroleum Chemistry ................................................ Appendix C Table RES-5 Groundwater Inorganic Chemistry ................................................. Appendix C Table RES-6 Groundwater General Chemistry ................................................... Appendix C

LIST OF FIGURES AND DRAWINGS Figure No 1. General Site Location and Topography ............................................................. 2 Drawing No.1 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern .................................................... 3 Drawing No.2 Groundwater Contours (June 21,2017) ........................................................... 5 Drawing No. Comm-1 Soil Petroleum Hydrocarbon Exceedances (Commercial) ......... 14 Drawing No. Comm-2 Soil Metals Exceedances (Commercial) ........................................ 15 Drawing No. Comm-3 Groundwater Petroleum Hydrocarbon Exceedances (Commercial) ............................................................................................................................. 22 Drawing No. Comm-4 Groundwater Metals Exceedances (Commercial) ...................... 23 Drawing No. Res-1 Soil Petroleum Hydrocarbon Exceedances (Residential) ................... 17 Drawing No. Res-2 Soil Metals Exceedances (Residential) .................................................. 18 Drawing No. Res-3 Groundwater Petroleum Hydrocarbon Exceedances (Residential) 24 Drawing No. Res-4 Groundwater Metals Exceedances (Residential) ............................... 25

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Methodology Appendix B Monitoring Well and Test Pit Records Appendix C Soil and Groundwater Analytical Summary Tables &

Laboratory Certificates of Analysis Appendix D Wetlands Survey Appendix E Screening Level ERA Update


File: 121414278 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

At the request of Membertou Governance Division (Membertou), Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) conducted an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Delineation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) between November 2016 and August 2017 at Caribou Marsh Reserve #29 in Sydney, Nova Scotia (refer to Figure 1, Page 2). The purpose of the ESA was to assess and delineate soil and groundwater conditions at the Site with respect to potential impacts identified in the Phase I ESA completed by Stantec in April 2013. Refer to Drawing No. 1, Page 3 for photos of areas of potential environmental concerns. As part of the work, a screening level ecological risk assessment update and a wetlands survey were completed; the results of each are included in the appendices of this report. Membertou has indicated that the Site is proposed for redevelopment as a residential/commercial property.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

1.2.1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use

The subject property is located at the Caribou Marsh Reserve #29, 2408 Highway 327 (Gabarus Highway), in Sydney, Nova Scotia (the Site). The Site is a large square parcel of land that is mainly wooded, with a series of gravel access roads. The main building is located near the entrance to the property on the eastern corner of the Site. A salt shed is located along the northeastern exterior wall of the main building and an abandoned 40-foot trailer is located to the west of the main building. A fenced Membertou DFO storage compound is located to the north of the main building. The access road continues past the main building extending westward with a branch to the north to a camp site and a former paint ball arena, a branch to the south to a clear-cut area and a branch to the west to another clearing with cut trees. Debris/waste piles (including asphalt and tires) were observed during site visits conducted during previous and current assessment programs in various locations around the main building and along the access roads.

A summary of property information is provided below.


File: 121414278 2


File: 121414278 3


File: 121414278 4

Table 1 - Property Information

Current Site Owner: Council of Membertou, Her Majesty the Queen (Canada), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Legal Description: PID 15512601

Property Area: 219 hectares (542 acres)

Utility Providers:

Water: Private potable well (not currently connected)

Storm and Sanitary Sewers: Private septic system

Electricity: NSPI

Natural Gas: Not applicable

There is one building on site. It is a two-storey structure built on a slab concrete foundation. It has wooden walls/wooden shingles and a gable asphalt/tar roof. The following is a summary of the site building information.

Table 2 - Site Building Information

Building ID: # of Basement: Area: Year Building Use: General

Levels: Built: Construction:

2408 Highway 327

2 No 235 square metres

1982 Currently used as storage and for mechanical vehicle repairs

Wooden structure with a concrete slab foundation, wooden shingles and gable asphalt/tar roof.

1.2.2 Topography and Regional Drainage

The Site consists of woodlands, swampy areas, low lying vegetation and cleared areas. The wetland survey completed as part of this assessment work indicated that wetlands account for approximately 28% of the property area. Refer to Appendix D for more detail.

Based on an available topographic map (Map 11K/1 from the National Topographic System), observed site topography and current/previous groundwater monitoring programs, regional surface drainage (anticipated shallow groundwater flow direction) appears to be towards the southwest on the southwest side of the Site and northeast on the northeast side of the Site.

Based on groundwater elevation data collected during the ESA, the groundwater table in the developed portion of the Site (near the main building) is relatively flat and exhibits a radial flow to the southwest through southeast (Drawing 2, Page 5).

It should be noted that the direction of the shallow groundwater flow in limited areas can also be influenced by the presence of underground utility corridors and is not necessarily a reflection of regional or local groundwater flow or a replica of the Site or area topography.


File: 121414278 5


File: 121414278 6

1.2.3 Surficial and Bedrock Geology

Based on an available surficial geology map, the native surficial soils of the Site consist of till, sandy; continuous veneer 2 to 4 metres thick, with scattered thicker accumulations as craig-and-tail and drumlinoid hills. The characteristic permeability of these soils is high.

Based on an available bedrock geology map, bedrock in the area of the Site consists of fluvial sandstone with minor conglomerate, mudstone and coal of the South Bar Formation of the Morien Group.

Subsurface investigations conducted on the Site indicate the subsurface soil profile to consist of silty sand and gravel. Bedrock was encountered at depths of 0.5 to 7 metres below ground surface (mgbs).

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

As summarized in the 2013 Phase I ESA, a number of previous environmental reports describe assessment work completed in the vicinity of the main building and the attached salt shed. Environmental assessments at the Site started in the early 1990s with a Phase I ESA completed by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited (JWEL, now Stantec), which identified potential environmental concerns related to a reported fuel oil release from a 4,540L aboveground storage tank located on the northwest corner of the main building. Additional assessment work conducted by JWEL in the mid-1990s included a Phase II ESA, a Phase III ESA, which identified and delineated petroleum hydrocarbon impacts exceeding the generic guidelines and culminated in the completion of a Phase IV ESA. The Phase IV ESA included a Human Health Risk Assessment that revealed no concerns to either human or ecological receptors from the identified salt and petroleum hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater. As part of the management of the identified impacts, on-going monitoring was recommended to confirm the assumptions of the risk assessment.

Neill and Gunter (now Stantec) completed a round of groundwater monitoring in 2004, which resulted in additional work in 2005 and 2006. The work completed by Neill and Gunter included the installation of additional groundwater wells and test pits to assess the identified impacts to groundwater and soil. This work was summarized in a February 2009 report as part of follow-up work completed by SNC-Lavalin(SNC). The summary table of results indicated that petroleum hydrocarbons were present in site soils at concentrations up to 13,000 mg/kg, which exceeded the applicable generic criteria for a commercial property as well as the current Canada Wide Standard criteria for a commercial property. Similarly, the groundwater summary table in the SNC report indicated that groundwater impacts in MW1 and MW2 were consistently above the applicable generic standards for a commercial property.

In 2009 SNC-Lavalin completed the installation of two additional wells MW109 and MW110. Results from sampling these wells and the previously-installed wells indicated that impacts to


File: 121414278 7

groundwater exceeding the generic criteria were still present in MW1 and MW2 as well as MW109. It was noted that hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater MW1 had increased from a value in the 100 mg/L range to 1,700 mg/L. These results were deemed to be consistent with the previous results. The additional assessment work also concluded that hydrocarbon impacts were not present under the concrete slab of the vehicle maintenance area of the building. Salt impacts were consistent with the previous assessment work.

In the 2010 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling report, Stantec noted that in addition to free product in wells MW1 and MW2, there was a hydrocarbon sheen on the water collected from MW110. Hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater were generally non-detect with exceedances in MW1, MW2 and MW110. Well MW109, that in 2009 had petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations above the then-applicable criteria, was not located during this round of monitoring.

In 2011, Conestoga-Rovers and Associates (CRA) completed three reports including a desktop screening level Ecological Risk Assessment in March 2011, a Phase I ESA of the Former Waste Site in July 2011 and a screening level Ecological Risk Assessment in July 2011. The results of the desktop study indicated that there were no ecological concerns with the elevated hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and groundwater due to the limited potential for ecological habitats in the disturbed area around the main building. However, additional sampling of surface water and perimeter monitoring wells was recommended to assess the potential ecological concerns with the salt plume. Additional surface water and groundwater sampling was completed in July 2011. Based on the work completed, CRA concluded that there were no concerns to the ecological habitats from the identified salt impacts in groundwater. The Phase I ESA of the waste areas concluded that there were piles of debris on-site and reported buried waste (including cars) on-site.

The Phase I ESA completed by Stantec in April 2013 provided a summary of the previous work completed at the Site. Table 3 outlines potential sources of environmental impacts as identified in the Phase I ESA report.

Table 3 - Potential Sources of Environmental Impacts

Direction Current Land Use Potential Concern Source Eastern corner of property –

near the DFO Storage Compound

Vacant Fuel oil release from AST Phase I ESA

Eastern corner of the property – location of salt

shed Vacant Sodium and chloride

impacts Phase I ESA

Eastern corner of property – various debris piles Vacant

Soil contamination from debris, waste and asphalt piles at various locations

Phase I ESA

Southern portion of site near property Vacant Off-site dump


File: 121414278 8

The 2013 Phase I ESA provided conclusions and recommendations related to these environmental concerns:

• Free product in monitoring wells near main building: The last monitoring work completed in 2010 identified free phase petroleum hydrocarbons in two monitoring wells and elevated concentrations of dissolved product in three of the wells. It is recommended that additional groundwater monitoring be completed to assess the concentrations on-site. The 1997 risk assessment should be re-evaluated based on the soil and groundwater concentrations (including free-phase product) discovered since 1997.

• Buried debris and debris piles near main building and other locations: A test pit program should be completed to further investigate potential soil impacts related to observed debris/waste areas, reported former partially buried tank south of the building, reported buried vehicle/piping, and piles of unknown fill/waste rock located at various locations throughout the Site.

1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

1.4.1 Conceptual Site Model

This conceptual model is based on the review of historical documents noted in Section 1.3 and the site description in Section 1.2. The Site has the potential for redevelopment as residential and /or commercial land use as indicated by Membertou. Soil at the site is characterized as coarse grained. There is a private well located on the property; therefore, the Site is considered potable.

Potential human receptors on the site include personnel associated with the mechanical vehicle repair garage within the site building, occasional on-site DFO Membertou workers (accessing items from storage), future construction workers (in the case of site redevelopment), potential future residential occupants, and potential future on-site commercial workers. Exposure assumptions for these human receptors are considered in the screening guidelines selected for assessment of this site (both residential and commercial land use). Both guidelines consider the presence of sensitive receptors (i.e., a toddler, 24 hours/day and 7 days/week for residential land use and 5 days/week, 10 hours /day for commercial land use).

Potentially complete exposure pathways based on current or proposed site usage include potable water, soil ingestion and dermal contact, and inhalation of volatiles in indoor air pathway. Ecological receptors are assessed via the Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Update included in Appendix E.

1.4.2 Site Criteria

Based on the conceptual site model, a summary of the pathway-specific environmental quality guidelines to be used for screening existing soil and groundwater quality data for contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) is provided below.


File: 121414278 9

1.4.2.1 Soil

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CCME Online, 2016) applicable pathway specific Soil Quality Guidelines (SQGs) for both human and environmental health for both residential and commercial land use with coarse grained soil type have been referenced for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and metals parameters, where available. For BTEX parameters, only surface soil guidelines are included for comparison as only samples collected from ≤ 1.5 mbg reported concentrations above the laboratory detection limit.

For petroleum hydrocarbon parameters that do not have a CCME SQG, results were compared to Canada-Wide Standards (CWS) Tier 1 guidelines, Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil, Technical Supplement, updated 2012. Pathway specific guidelines were included for comparison: protection of potable water, vapour inhalation, and direct contact.

For PAHs, CCME presents a single Soil Quality Guideline for Human Health (SQGHH) for carcinogenic PAHs, which is expressed as Benzo [a] Pyrene Total Potency Equivalent (B[a]P TPE). B[a]P TPE is the sum of the estimated cancer potency relative to B[a]P for all potentially carcinogenic PAHs. The B[a]P TPE for a soil sample is calculated by multiplying the concentration of each PAH in the sample by its Benzo [a] Pyrene Potency Equivalency Factor (B[a]P PEF) and summing these products. PEFs are order of magnitude estimates of carcinogenic potential based on World Health Organization guidance. Guidelines are based on an incremental cancer risk of 10-5 for protection of human health (SQGHH).

1.4.2.2 Groundwater

The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) (2017) were referenced for metals and general chemistry, as well as BTEX.

The Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGWQG) (2016), specifically Table 2 pathway specific guidelines (vapour inhalation) for residential land use, coarse grained soil type were referenced for BTEX and F1 and F2 PHCs.

Because groundwater impacts can readily migrate off-site to provincially-regulated properties, and there are no federal guidelines relative to TPH, the Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada, Version 3 (2015) was referenced for this parameter as well as BTEX parameters. Specifically, the pathway-specific screening levels (PSSLs) protective of potable water and coarse-grained soil are presented for comparison.

Table 4 presents a summary of the Regulatory Framework used to evaluate the results of the ESA.


File: 121414278 10

Table 4 - Summary of Regulatory Framework

Media Petroleum Hydrocarbons Metals Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Soil

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (residential and commercial land use, potable groundwater use). 2012 Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil (residential and commercial land use, potable groundwater use). 2008

CCME Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (residential and commercial land use, potable groundwater use). 2012

CCME Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (residential and commercial land use, potable groundwater use). 2012

Groundwater

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ). 2017. Pathway Specific Standard Levels (PSSL), Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada. Potable groundwater use. 2015. Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG) for residential and commercial land use. 2016.

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ). 2017.

n/a

1.5 OBJECTIVES

The objective of the ESA was to assess and delineate soil and groundwater quality in the areas of potential environmental concern as identified in Section 1.3, to support development of a RAP and proposed future site redevelopment.

1.5.1 Scope of Work

The scope of the ESA consisted of the following:

• Drilling 12 boreholes, all completed as groundwater monitoring wells (MW01-17 to MW12-17) to assess potential soil/groundwater impacts on the property, including collection and laboratory analysis of representative soil and groundwater samples. Groundwater samples were also collected at 10 monitoring well locations that were established in previous years.

• Two boreholes completed as groundwater monitoring wells were proposed to be drilled within the mechanical vehicle repair garage portion of the site building, however, due to the


File: 121414278 11

presence of water leakage and visual mold impacts as well as concerns expressed by the buildings’ tenant pertaining to the drill program this work was not completed.

• Excavating 16 test pits to investigate the potential soil impacts of the AST, including collection and laboratory analysis of representative soil samples.

• Delineating impacted areas based on results of laboratory analysis. • Preparing this report presenting all observations and measurements made during the

assessment, providing conclusions and recommendations. • Delineating wetlands within the property to identify and delineate wetlands on the site and

collect information on their functional characteristics (Appendix D). • Completing a screening level ecological risk assessment update (Appendix E). • Preparation of a remedial action plan (RAP).

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY

The employees of Stantec who participated in this project familiarized themselves with the relevant Stantec Safe Work Practices (SWPs) prior to commencement of the fieldwork. In addition, Stantec’s pre-job HSE Risk Management Strategy form, which identifies potential health and safety risks, was completed and signed by the participants in the fieldwork. The goal of this document is to identify potential dangers to prevent accidents and injuries from occurring. In addition, a Toolbox Site Safety meeting was held with site personnel, including sub-contractors, and the minutes of the meeting were signed by participants and a copy retained on-site during field work, and subsequently in the project file. No health and safety incidents occurred while Stantec was present on the Site.

2.2 RATIONALE

Sampling locations were chosen to address potential environmental concerns identified in Section 1.3. Generally, the environmental concerns can be split into 3 groups based on the source and location: 1) Waste/debris piles, buried vehicles and asphalt areas; 2) the known petroleum hydrocarbon and salt plumes, and 3) the off-site landfill. The rationale for each sampling location is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 - Sample Location Rationale

Potential Environmental Concern Sample Locations Waste/debris piles, buried vehicles and asphalt areas

TP01-16, TP-02,16, TP04-16 through TP12-16, MW11-17

Petroleum hydrocarbon and salt plumes

TP13-16 through TP15-16, MW01-17 through MW10-17

Off-site landfill MW12-17


File: 121414278 12

Monitoring well and test pit locations are shown on Drawings COMM-1 to COMM-4 and RES-1 to RES-4, throughout this report.

2.3 METHODOLOGY

Field assessment methodology is summarized in Appendix A.

2.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS

Based on soil vapour concentrations, field observations and/or proximity to the water table, 27 soil samples were submitted to Maxxam Analytics, Bedford, NS, SCC-Accredited Laboratory No. 161, for analysis of BTEX and TPH by Atlantic PIRI methodology. Fifteen soil samples, selected to provide a representative assessment of the Site, were submitted to Maxxam for analysis of metals and 13 were submitted for PAH analysis.

Groundwater samples were collected from each available monitoring well (22) and submitted to Maxxam for analysis of BTEX/TPH by Atlantic PIRI methodology, total metals, and general chemistry.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 SOIL

3.1.1 Stratigraphy

Subsurface investigations (test pits and monitoring wells) completed in 2016 and 2017 indicate that the soil in this area is primarily fill (up to 2.5 mbgs) underlain by silty sand with gravel till. In three of the boreholes (MW09-17, MW10-17, and MW11-17), clayey silty sand was also encountered, and ranged from 0 to 4.6 metres in depth. Bedrock was most commonly encountered between 1.5 and 3.0 mbgs; TP03-17 encountered refusal on apparent bedrock at 0.5 mbgs and at two locations (MW11-17 and MW12-17) bedrock was not encountered to the boring termination depth of 4.6 mbgs. The bedrock was generally characterized as poor to very poor quality weathered sandstone.

Hydrocarbon odor was detected at boreholes: MW01-17, MW04-17, MW06-17, and MW07-17. The depths at which this odor was detected ranged from 0.6 to to 4.6 metres. Apparent hydrocarbon staining on bedrock was also observed at borehole MW06-17 from 1.7 mbgs to the borehole termination depth of 4.6 mgbs. Hydrocarbon odour was also detected at the bottom of TP15-16 from 0.6 to 1. 2 mbgs.

Detailed descriptions of stratigraphy observed are provided on the Monitoring Well and Test Pit Records, Appendix B.


File: 121414278 13

3.1.2 Soil Vapour Concentrations

3.1.2.1 Combustible Soil Vapour Concentrations

The combustible soil vapour concentration measured in each of the test pit soil samples were generally 0 parts per million per volume (ppmv), with the exception of TP15-16 where soil vapour concentrations were 5 ppmv (0 to 0.61 mbgs) and 20 ppmv (0.61 and 1.22 mbgs).

There are no regulatory criteria for combustible soil vapours, however, elevated vapour concentrations (greater than 500 ppmv) are generally indicative of the presence of volatile petroleum products (i.e. gasoline, and, to a lesser extent, diesel and fuel oil). Concentrations vary with both hydrocarbon type and age, and it should be noted that the readings are intended as a field screening tool to provide only a qualitative indication of hydrocarbon levels and are not directly equivalent to soil analytical results.

3.1.3 Free Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Indications of free phase petroleum hydrocarbons in soil were not observed during the field program.

3.1.4 Soil Analytical Results

Soil analytical results are summarized in Tables Com-1 to Com-3 (commercial guidelines) and Tables Res-1 to Res-3 (residential guidelines) in Appendix C. Laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix C, along with the chemistry tables.

The results are also summarized below.

3.1.4.1 Commercial

PHCs

• The CWS F2 fraction in soil sample TP15-16 SA2 exceeded the Tier 1 CWS protective of both the inhalation of indoor air, and potable groundwater pathways.

• No other samples contained PHC parameters above applicable guidelines.

Results for soil petroleum hydrocarbons (commercial) are shown in drawing COMM-1, Page 14 and Table Com-1 (Appendix C).

Metals

• Six soil samples exceeded the CCME Tier I SQG for arsenic (12 mg/kg) based on a Target Risk of 10-06 (TP02-16 SA1, TP04-16 SA1, TP09-16 SA2, TP16-16 SA1, TP16-16 SA1 (Lab Dup) and MW11-17 SS2 (Lab Dup). For MW11-17 SS2, only the laboratory duplicate exceeded the generic SQG. However, none of the concentrations for arsenic exceeded the SQG for arsenic (31 mg/kg) based on a target Risk of 10-05 (which is accepted by Health Canada).


File: 121414278 14

Furthermore, the concentrations detected were within the range of naturally-occurring arsenic concentrations in soils in Nova Scotia, and well below the regional background soil concentration for arsenic (72 mg/kg) from JDAC, 2011.

• No other samples contained metals parameters above applicable guidelines.

Results for soil metals (commercial) are shown in drawing COMM-2, Page 15 and Table Com-2 (Appendix C).


File: 121414278 15


File: 121414278 16


File: 121414278 17

PAHs

• All 13 samples submitted for PAH analysis revealed concentrations below the associated guidelines.

The results for soil PAH (commercial) are shown in Table Comm-3 (Appendix C).

3.1.4.2 Residential

PHCs

• The CWS F1 fraction in sample TP15-16 SA2 exceeded the Tier 1 CWS protective of the inhalation of indoor air pathway.

• The CWS F2 fraction in sample TP15-16 SA2 exceeded the Tier 1 CWS protective of both the inhalation of indoor air and potable groundwater pathways.

• The TPH F2 fraction in sample MW01-17 SS5 exceeded the Tier 1 CWS protective of the inhalation of indoor air pathway.

• No other samples contained PHC parameters above applicable guidelines.

The results for soil petroleum hydrocarbons (residential) are shown in Drawing RES-1, Page 17 and Table Res-1 (Appendix C).

Metals

• Six of 17 soil samples exceeded the CCME Tier I SQG for arsenic (12 mg/kg) based on a Target Risk of 10-06 (TP02-16 SA1, TP04-16 SA1, TP09-16 SA2, TP16-16 SA1, TP16-16 SA1 (Lab Dup) and MW11-17 SS2 (Lab Dup)). For MW11-17 SS2, only the laboratory duplicate exceeded the generic SQG. However, none of the concentrations for arsenic exceeded the SQG for arsenic (31 mg/kg) based on a target Risk of 10-05 (which is accepted by Health Canada). Furthermore, the concentrations detected were within the range of naturally-occurring arsenic concentrations in soils in Nova Scotia, and well below the regional background soil concentration for arsenic (72 mg/kg) from JDAC, 2011. Therefore, arsenic concentrations do not represent an unacceptable risk to existing or future occupants of the site.

• Two of 17 soil samples (TP08-16 SA1 and TP10-16 SA1, 73 mg/kg and 68 mg/kg, respectively) slightly exceeded the CCME Tier 1 SQG for chromium of 64 mg/kg. This SQG is based on the nutrient and energy cycling check value.

• One of 17 soil samples (TP08-16 SA1, 48 mg/kg) exceeded the CCME Tier 1 SQG for nickel of 45 mg/kg. This SQG is based on the protection of direct context for soil invertebrates (earth worms).

• It is important to note that TP10-16 was excavated into a large fill pile and represents fill material above grade.


File: 121414278 18

• Metals exceedances are minor and localized. While two samples slightly exceed the guidelines for residential land use, they do not exceed the generic guidelines for commercial land use. The exceedances for chromium are 73 mg/kg and 68 mg/kg (two of 17 samples) versus a generic guideline value of 63 mg/kg (protective of bacteria in soil). The exceedance for nickel is 48 mg/kg versus a generic guideline value of 45 mg/kg (protective of direct contact for soil invertebrates (i.e., earthworms)). Based on a qualitative assessment, these values do not represent an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors at the site.

• No other samples contained metals parameters above applicable guidelines.

The results for soil metals (residential) are shown in Drawing RES-2, Page 18 and Table Res-2 (Appendix C).

PAHs

• All 13 samples submitted for PAH analysis revealed concentrations below the associated guidelines.

The results for soil PAH (residential) are shown in Table Res-3 (Appendix C).


File: 121414278 19


File: 121414278 20


File: 121414278 21

3.2 GROUNDWATER

3.2.1 Free Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Free phase petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater were not observed during the field program. A sheen was observed at MW01-17A, MW02-17, MW04-17, MW1 and MW2 during the 2017 groundwater sampling program.

3.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring

The groundwater elevations listed in Table 6 were recorded on June 21, 2017. These elevations indicate groundwater in the developed portion of the Site (near the main building) is generally level and is flowing in a southwesterly to southeasterly direction, with an approximate horizontal hydraulic gradient (ih) of 0.4 %. Review of groundwater elevation data and well construction details for monitoring wells MW01-17 and MW08-17, constructed adjacent to each other as a shallow/deep well pair, indicate an upward vertical gradient. The groundwater contours and flow direction are shown on Drawing No. 1, Page 5.

Table 6 - Summary of Groundwater Elevations (June 21, 2017)

Location Total Depth of Well (m)

Top of Casing Elevation (m)

Groundwater Level (mbTOC)

Groundwater Elevation (m)

MW01-17 4.57 54.38 3.89 50.49

MW02-17 4.57 54.49 3.37 51.12

MW03-17 4.27 53.33 2.68 50.65

MW04-17 4.57 53.60 2.78 50.82

MW05-17 3.96 53.46 3.00 50.46

MW06-17 4.57 54.23 3.45 50.78

MW07-17 4.57 53.43 2.65 50.78

MW08-17 7.62 54.39 3.66 50.73

MW09-17 4.57 53.97 3.28 50.69

MW10-17 4.57 53.37 2.46 50.91

MW11-17 4.57 49.00 2.79 46.21

MW12-17 4.57 32.11 2.22 29.89 Notes:

1. mbTOC = metres below top of PVC casing. 2. Elevation are referenced to control monument number 228451 having a known geodetic datum

of 75.278 masl.


File: 121414278 22

3.2.3 Groundwater Analytical Results

Groundwater analytical results are summarized in Tables Com-4 to Com-6 (commercial guidelines) and Tables Res-4 to Res-6 (residential guidelines) in Appendix C. Laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix C, along with the chemistry tables.

The results are also summarized below.

3.2.3.1 Commercial

PHCs

• Two samples (MW1 and MW2) exceeded the FIGQG Tier 1 for the F2 fraction which is protective of the inhalation of indoor air pathway guideline.

• Five samples (MW02-17, MW04-17, MW06-17, MW1, and MW2) exceeded the RBCA PSSL for TPH (fuel oil fraction) protective of potable groundwater.

• The ethylbenzene concentration in MW06-17 also exceeded the RBCA PSSL for protection of potable groundwater.

• No other sample concentrations exceeded applicable criteria.

The groundwater results for petroleum hydrocarbons are shown in drawing COMM-3, Page 22 and Table Com-4 (Appendix C).

Metals

• Two samples (MW2 and MW02-17) exceeded the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) GCDWQ for arsenic. The concentrations detected were within the range of naturally-occurring arsenic concentrations in groundwater in Nova Scotia.

• Although elevated sodium concentrations were detected, the guideline for sodium is an aesthetic objective; there is no MAC GCDWQ for sodium.

• The remaining samples had concentrations below the associated guidelines for all parameters.

The groundwater results for metals are shown in drawing COMM-4, Page 23 and Table Com-5 (Appendix C).

General Chemistry

• The general chemistry results were compared to the GCDWQG. All samples had parameter concentrations below MAC.

The groundwater results for general chemistry are shown in Table Com-6 (Appendix C).


File: 121414278 23

3.2.3.2 Residential

PHCs

• Five samples (MW02-17, MW04-17, MW06-17, MW1 and MW2) exceeded the FIGQG Tier 1 for the F2 fraction (protective of the inhalation of indoor air pathway).

• The same five samples also exceeded the RBCA PSSL for TPH (fuel oil) protective of potable water.

• In addition, the ethylbenzene concentration in MW06-17 exceeded the RBCA PSSL for protection of potable groundwater.

• The remaining samples had concentrations below the applicable guidelines.

The results for petroleum hydrocarbons (residential) are shown on drawing RES-3, Page 24 and Table Res-4 (Appendix C).

Metals

• Two samples (MW2 and MW02-17) exceeded the GCDWQ for arsenic. The concentrations detected were within the range of naturally-occurring arsenic concentrations in groundwater in Nova Scotia.

• Although elevated sodium concentrations were detected, the guideline for sodium is an aesthetic objective; there is no MAC GCDWQ for sodium.

• The remaining 20 samples had metal concentrations below the applicable guidelines.

The results for metals (residential) are shown in drawing RES-4, Page 25 and Table Res-5 (Appendix C).

General Chemistry

• The general chemistry results were compared to the GCDWQG. All samples had parameter concentrations below MAC.

The groundwater results for general chemistry are shown in Table Com-6 (Appendix C).


File: 121414278 24


File: 121414278 25


File: 121414278 26


File: 121414278 27


File: 121414278 28

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Table 7 outlines the work completed to address the potential environmental concerns identified in the Phase I ESA, the results of the assessment and delineation work, and recommendations for further action, where appropriate. In addition, the wetlands survey indicated that wetlands account for approximately 28% of the property area. Refer to Appendix D for more detail.

Table 7 - Environmental Site Assessment and Delineation Summary

Potential Concern Assessment Completed Results Recommendations

Fuel oil release from AST

Soil and groundwater samples collected for PHCs in vicinity of DFO storage compound and main building.

Soil and groundwater PHC concentrations detected above residential and commercial criteria protective of inhalation of indoor air and potable groundwater. Updated ERA indicates no significant ecological risk.

Delineation generally achieved, with the exception of beneath the main building. Refer to Drawings COMM-3 and RES-3. RAP recommended to address human health risks.

Sodium and chloride impacts

Soil and groundwater samples collected in vicinity of salt shed.

Elevated sodium and chloride concentrations; however no significant human health or ecological risk identified.

No further action is required.

Soil contamination from debris, waste and asphalt piles at various locations

Soil samples and one groundwater sample collected from debris areas.

Low level metals impacts detected in surface soils in several areas. Arsenic concentrations do not exceed background conditions; chromium and nickel concentration are minor and localized. Low level arsenic concentrations in groundwater appear to represent background.

Debris, waste, and asphalt piles should be removed and disposed of properly.

Off-site dump

Soil and groundwafer samples collected from one borehole/monitoring well to assess potential impacts from this off-site source.

Soil and groundwater samples indicated no impacts from this off-site source.

No further action is required.

Site Building Visual observations Evidence of water leakage and mold growth within the building

Mold assessment should be completed within the building. If the building is to be demolished a hazardous materials building assessment should be completed prior to demolition.


File: 121414278 29

5.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN

Based on the recommendations outlined in Table 7, the following RAP is proposed:

• Prior to redevelopment of the Site, excavate and dispose of petroleum-impacted soils at an appropriate off-site disposal facility. Given that redevelopment is proposed, it is recommended that the main building be removed prior to the excavation work taking place. A hazardous materials building assessment should be completed prior to demolition. If the building is not demolished and the intent is to continue with the use of the building as a storage and mechanical service garage a mold assessment should be completed.

• The estimated volume of impacted material to be removed is approximately 600 m3, or approximately 1,200 tonnes.

• Dewatering will be required during the excavation and the water removed will require on-site or off-site treatment prior to disposal.

• Boundary samples should be collected to confirm that PHC concentrations in remaining soils meet applicable criteria.

• Following removal of the impacted material, the area should be backfilled with clean fill. This should be incorporated into the planned redevelopment, if feasible.

• Based on the soil volumes outlined above, and assuming that the building is removed prior to completing the remedial excavation work, it is recommended that Membertou allocate a budget of $230,000 to complete the excavation and disposal of PHC-impacted soils from the Site. In addition, we recommend a budget of $20,000 be allocated for building demolition and disposal (excluding hazardous materials assessment and removal, if required).

• Following the remedial excavation, additional groundwater sampling should be conducted to confirm that removal of source area soils has reduced PHC concentrations in groundwater. This may require installation of additional monitoring wells, as existing monitoring wells are likely to be destroyed during the excavation work.

In addition to the RAP outlined above to address PHC impacts in soil and groundwater, the following risk management activities are recommended:

• Waste and debris should be removed from the Site and disposed of properly. • Arsenic concentrations do not exceed risk based target levels or background soil

concentrations and therefore do not represent an unacceptable risk to human or ecological health.

• Based on the data collected during this ESA, the metals impacted soil exceeding generic Tier 1 SQGs is limited to the vicinity of TP08-16 and TP10-16. It is important to note that TP10-16 was excavated into a large fill pile and represents fill material above grade. Where the magnitude of these metal exceedances in these two areas is minor (maximum of 9 mg/kg above the guideline), and the spatial extent of the impacts is limited (two of 17 samples), do not exceed guidelines for commercial land use, and are not representative of site conditions overall, no further action is required to manage metals in soil.


File: 121414278 30

• Given its location in the vicinity of the sodium, arsenic, and PHC groundwater plumes, it is recommended that the existing water supply well be thoroughly assessed prior to reactivating it to assess whether its water quality meets GCDWQ. Treatment may be required. If the existing water supply well is to be replaced with a new water supply well at the Site, the available groundwater chemistry should be considered when siting and designing the well. Groundwater chemistry data should be collected from the new well to confirm it meets GCDWQ prior to usage.

6.0 CLOSURE

This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential liabilities associated with the identified property.

This report provides an evaluation of selected environmental conditions associated with the identified portion of the property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. There are no assurances regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information. All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others.

The opinions in this report can only be relied upon as they relate to the condition of the portion of the identified property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted. Activities at the property subsequent to Stantec’s assessment may have significantly altered the property’s condition. Stantec cannot comment on other areas of the property that were not assessed.

Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property’s environmental condition. This report should not be construed as legal advice.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report.

The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or sub-surface utilities and structures are not guaranteed. Before starting work, the exact location of all such utilities and structures should be confirmed and Stantec assumes no liability for damage to them.


File: 121414278 31

The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time the work was performed at the specific testing and/or sampling locations, and conditions may vary among sampling locations. Factors such as areas of potential concern identified in previous studies, site conditions (e.g., utilities) and cost may have constrained the sampling locations used in this assessment. In addition, analysis has been carried out for only a limited number of chemical parameters, and it should not be inferred that other chemical species are not present. Due to the nature of the investigation and the limited data available, Stantec does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities nor that the sampling results are indicative of the condition of the entire site. As the purpose of this report is to identify site conditions which may pose an environmental risk; the identification of non-environmental risks to structures or people on the site is beyond the scope of this assessment.

Should additional information become available which differs significantly from our understanding of conditions presented in this report, Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report.

This report was prepared by Jennifer Randall, MES, and reviewed by Maylia Parker, P.Geo.

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Jennifer Randall Maylia K. Parker, P.Geo. Environmental Scientist Senior Associate, Environmental Services v:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\final\final_jwh_dac_fnl_rpt_caribou_marsh_phase_ii.docx


File: 121414278 32

7.0 REFERENCES

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (residential and commercial land use, potable groundwater use). 2012

Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil (residential and commercial land use, potable groundwater use). 2008

Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG) for residential and commercial land use. 2016.

Health Canada (2017). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality—Summary Table. Water and Air Quality Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Pathway Specific Standard Levels (PSSL), Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada. Residential and Commercial, potable groundwater use. 2013.

Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. November 14, 2013.

Appendix A Field Methodology

PHASE III ESA METHODOLOGY A1.0 PRE-DRILLING SITE ACTIVITIES A1.1 Service and Utility Locates The locations of services and utilities were established prior to the drilling and sampling phase of the assessment by Underground Consulting Services, Dartmouth, NS.

A2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION A2.1 Drilling Boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 4.6 metres below ground surface (mbgs) using a truck-mounted rig supplied by Logan Drilling & Geotech, Stewiacke, NS, equipped with standard augers and coring equipment. Samples were collected from split-spoon samplers for logging the characteristics of the materials.

A2.x Test Pitting

Test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of 2.7 mbgs using an excavator supplied by Ivey Trucking Limited, North Sydney, NS. Samples were collected from the excavator’s bucket.

A2.2 Vapour Monitoring During the test pitting program, soil screening for the presence of organic vapours was conducted using a RKI Eagle organic compound gas monitor. The results of this monitoring were used as a guide for the selection of soil samples for laboratory analysis.

The soil samples subjected to field vapour screening were transferred to 250 ml jars. The jars were approximately half filled with soil to provide adequate headspace for the accumulation of released vapours. Samples were broken by hand to increase surface area and permit vapour release. The jars were left to stand upright and undisturbed for a period of at least five minutes at ambient air temperature. The concentration of accumulated vapours in the headspace was then measured by inserting the probe of the instrument into the headspace of the jar. The vapour concentrations were measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv) and recorded on a field log for comparison with subsequent samples and boreholes.

A2.3 Borehole Logging Materials retrieved from the drilling operation were logged by Stantec personnel. The texture and composition of materials and the presence of volatile hydrocarbon vapours or other indications of potential impacts were recorded.

A2.4 Soil Sampling Soil samples from the test pits were collected at regular intervals, at indications of impacts, or changes in stratigraphy.

Soil samples were collected continuously from the boreholes at approximately 0.61 m intervals (where possible) using a 50 mm outside diameter split-spoon sampler or directly from the standard augers.

Samples were placed in laboratory supplied containers for potential laboratory analyses.

A2.5 Monitoring Wells

A 50 mm diameter PVC monitoring well was installed in each of the boreholes drilled. Bentonite sealant was placed around the top of the well to prevent vertical migration of water or contaminants from the surface, or between layers in the subsurface. The monitoring wells were fitted with caps and well casings with covers to protect them from accidental damage and accidental or intentional contamination. Completion details for the wells are included on the Monitoring Well Records, Appendix B.

A3.0 SURVEY A3.1 Survey Well Elevations The elevation of control points was determined for each monitoring well. Subsequent measurement of the elevation of water-air, water-product, and air-product interfaces were made in reference to these control points. The elevations were determined by Stantec personnel using standard surveying methods. The survey benchmark was control monument number 228451 (Northing 5105265.851, Easting 716388.645) having a known geodetic elevation of 75.278 metres above sea level (masl).

A3.2 Static Elevations and Gradients Water levels and depth to product, if present, were measured using a Solinst interface probe. The interface probe was rinsed between monitoring wells using distilled water.

A4.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING Each monitoring well was developed using a clean Waterra ™ foot valve and a new length of polyethylene tubing. The purpose of well development is to remove drilling fluids, solids or other particulates that may have been introduced during drilling. Development restores the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer material surrounding the well to as close to pre-boring conditions as possible. Where possible, five well volumes of water were removed from each well for development purposes.

Prior to sampling, approximately three casing volumes of groundwater were purged from each well to remove the standing water and to obtain a representative sample of groundwater. The wells were then sampled following 90% recovery after purging.

A5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL All samples were collected following strict Stantec sampling procedures. Samples were uniquely labelled and control was maintained through use of chain of custody forms. All samples were collected in laboratory supplied containers and preserved in insulated coolers. Appropriate sampling QA/QC procedures were adhered to at all times.

Appendix B Monitoring Well and Test Pit Records

Ground SurfaceTOPSOIL- frozenVery loose to loose brown silty SAND with gravel- frost lense to 0.08 m BGS- sandstone gravel at 0.61 m BGS

AUGERED to 1.52 m BGS

Medium dense brown silty SAND with gravel TILL- wet

Dense brown silty SAND with gravel TILL- wet

AUGERED to 3.05 m BGS

Very dense silty SAND with gravel TILL- weathered sandstone fragments- petroleum hydrocarbon odour present- wetVery poor quality grey SANDSTONE

End of Borehole

0.0053.450.03

52.271.20

51.951.52

51.342.13

50.732.74

50.423.0550.353.15

48.904.57

54.10

53.47

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

178

203

254

533

76

1448

4

7

20

42

50/76

0%

TPH/BTEX

ABOVE GROUNDWELL PROTECTOR.

BENTONITE.

SLOTTED SCREEN.

Groundwater Level:3.28 m BGS21-Jun-17.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

(ft)

GraphicLog

Lithologic Description

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

MONITOR WELL: MW01-17

MEMBERTOU GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

CARIBOU MARSH, CAPE BRETON

121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:

Date started/completed:

Ground surface elevation:

Top of casing elevation:

Easting:

Northing:

SPLIT SPOON/HOLLOW STEM AUGER

02-Mar-2017

53.47 m AMSL

54.08 m AMSL

n/a

n/a

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfaceSS - split-spoon sampleRC - rock coren/a - not available

Screen Interval: 1.52 - 4.57 m BGSSand Pack Interval: 1.22 - 4.57 m BGSWell Seal Interval: 0.91 - 1.22 m BGS

Sheet 1 of 1Drawn By/Checked By:

ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m

INSTALLATION DETAILS

Ground SurfaceTOPSOIL- frozen

Medium dense brown silty SAND with gravel

AUGERED

Weathered SANDSTONEAUGERED

Very poor quality brown and grey weathered SANDSTONE

End of Borehole

0.00

52.970.61

52.361.22

52.061.5252.031.55

51.142.44

49.014.57

54.51

53.58

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

51

254

25

609

1524

4

11

100/25

0%

75%

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


03-Mar-2017

53.58 m AMSL

54.49 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceLoose brown silty sand with gravel TILL- very moist

Medium dense brown silty sand with gravel TILL- highly weathered sandstone fragmentsvery moist

AUGERED

Very dense brown silty sand with gravel TILL- highly weathered sandstone- wetVery poor quality weathered grey SANDSTONE

CORED

End of Borehole

0.00

51.810.61

51.201.22

50.901.5250.741.68

49.682.74

47.854.57

53.05

52.42

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

152

457

n/a

1092

1473

9

30

500/127

0%

15%

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


03-Mar-2017

52.42 m AMSL

53.03 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceTOPSOILFILL: Medium dense brown silty sand with gravel- occasional organics

Medium dense reddish brown silty sand with gravel TILL- some sandstone fragments- possible petroleum hydrocarbon odour- moist

AUGERED

Very dense brown silty sand with gravel TILL

Brown weathered SANDSTONE fragments- slight petroleum hydrocarbon odour- moistVery poor quality grey SANDSTONE- slight petroleum hydrocarbon odour

Very poor quality SANDSTONE

End of Borehole

0.0052.660.03

52.080.61

51.471.22

51.171.52

50.711.9850.562.13

50.252.44

48.124.57

53.62

52.69

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

102

356

457

330

609

1524

16

26

53

0%

0%

17%

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


06-Mar-2017

52.69 m AMSL

53.60 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceTOPSOIL- frozen- no petroleum hydrocarbon odours- moist

Very dense reddish brown silty sand with gravel TILL- occasional sandstone fragments- moist

AUGERED

Brown sandstone fragmentsVery poor quality brown to grey SANDSTONE

Very poor quality grey SANDSTONE with hard brown clayey silt seams

End of Borehole

0.00

51.940.61

51.331.22

51.031.5250.951.60

49.652.90

48.593.96

53.48

52.55

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

51

229

n/a

609

609

914

16

42

50/76

0%

0%

4%

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.

Groundwater Level:2.09 m BGS21-Jun-17.SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


06-Mar-2017

52.55 m AMSL

53.46 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceFILL: Brown silty sand with gravel- trace organics and wood- moist

Medium dense brown clayey silty sand with gravel TILL- moist

AUGERED

Brown sandstone fragments TILL- possible bedrockVery poor quality brown to grey SANDSTONE- staining present- petroleum hydrocarbon odour present- sheen on bedrock core

End of Borehole

0.00

52.710.61

52.101.22

51.801.5251.701.62

48.754.57

54.25

53.32

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

51

76

51

1372

n/a

12

13

50/102

0%

n/a

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


06-Mar-2017

53.32 m AMSL

54.23 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceFILL: Asphalt and gravel

Medium dense brown silty sand with gravel TILL- moist

AUGERED

Brown silty sand with gravel TILL

Brown weahtered sandstone fragments TILL- moistVery poor quality brown and grey weathered SANDSTONE

End of Borehole

0.0053.280.20

52.261.22

51.961.52

51.651.8351.591.89

48.914.57

53.48

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

381

203

457

431

609

1524

19

6

80/279

n/a

n/a

0%

TPH/BTEX

BENTONITE.

Groundwater Level:2.70 m BGS21-Jun-17.SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


07-Mar-2017

53.48 m AMSL

53.43 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceAUGERED/CORED to 7.6 m BGS 0.00

54.41

53.48


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


08-Mar-2017

53.48 m AMSL

54.39 m AMSL

n/a

n/a

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfacen/a - not available



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS)

Description

Dia

gra

m


AUGERED/CORED to 7.6 m BGS

End of Borehole45.887.60

(m)

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Depth

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


08-Mar-2017

53.48 m AMSL

54.39 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS)

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceTOPSOIL

Medium dense brown silty sand with gravel TILL- moist

Light brown sandstone fragmentsvery moist

AUGERED

Very dense brown silty sand with gravel TILL- very moist

Very poor quality brown and grey weathered sandstone TILL

Very poor quality grey weathered coarse grained SANDSTONE

End of Borehole

0.0052.860.20

52.160.90

51.841.22

51.541.52

50.662.40

50.013.05

48.494.57

53.99

53.06

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

432

457

559

254

914

1524

12

44

55

63/254

0%

17%

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


07-Mar-2017

53.06 m AMSL

53.97 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceTOPSOILFILL: Loose brown silty sand and gravel- moist

FILL: Very dense brown silty sand with gravel- moist

AUGERED

Dense brown clayey silty sand with gravel TILL- fractured sandstone from 1.85 to 2 m BGS- moist

Very poor quality grey SANDSTONE

End of Borehole

0.0053.370.05

52.810.61

52.201.22

51.901.52

51.422.00

48.854.57

53.42

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

102

254

457

965

n/a

6

52/279

45

1%

n/a

TPH/BTEX

BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


07-Mar-2017

53.42 m AMSL

53.37 m AMSL

n/a

n/a




ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceTOPSOILLoose to medium dense brown clayey silty sand with gravel TILL- trace sandstone fragments

AUGERED

Medium dense brown clayey silty sand with gravel TILL- trace sandstone fragments

AUGERED

Medium dense to dense brown clayey silty sand with gravel TILL- trace sandstone fragments

AUGERED

End of Borehole

0.0048.060.03

46.871.22

46.571.52

45.352.74

45.043.05

43.824.27

43.524.57

49.02

48.09

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

178

305

356

356

305

406

6

21

17

20

20

47

METALS

TPH/BTEX


BENTONITE.


SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

S. WALKER

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


08-Mar-2017

48.09 m AMSL

49.00 m AMSL

n/a

n/a

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfaceSS - split-spoon samplen/a - not available



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


Ground SurfaceROOTMAT

Loose brown SAND with gravel- dry

Medium dense bluish grey SAND with cobbles- moist to wet

Medium dense brown SILTY SAND- wet

Medium dense to very dense bluish grey SILTYSAND with cobbles- wet

AUGERED

Medium dense to very dense bluish grey SILTYSAND with cobbles- dry

AUGERED

End of Borehole

0.0031.050.15

30.141.06

29.371.83

29.072.13

28.462.74

28.153.05

27.553.65

26.634.57

32.13

31.20

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

152

508

304

355

330

9

32

32

24

56

TPH/BTEX, PAH,METALS


BENTONITE.

Groundwater Level:1.37 m BGS25-Aug-17.

SLOTTED SCREEN.

(m)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:




121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:


24-Aug-2017

31.20 m AMSL

32.11 m AMSL

n/a

n/a

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfaceSS - split-spoon sampleppm - parts per million by volumen/a - not available



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Elevation(m AMSL)

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Re

cove

ry

N V

alu

e

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Description

Dia

gra

m


0

0

0

0

0

Ground SurfaceFILL: Brown sand and gravel- some boulders

Brown SAND with gravel- blue grey boulders- wet at 0.91 m BGS

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.61

1.83

1

2

3

GS

GS

GS

METALS

TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP01-16



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102022

4599848

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfaceGS - grab sampleppm - parts per million by volumen/a - not available


ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

0

Ground SurfaceFILL: Brown sand with gravel- some wood debris- wet at 0.76 m BGS

End of TEST PIT

0.00

1.22

1

2

GS

GS

PAH, METALS

TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP02-16



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102077

4599898



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

Ground SurfaceShale rock- refusal at 0.46 m BGS

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.46

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP03-16



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102021

4599962



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Depth(m BGS)

Ground SurfaceFILL: Black gravel

Brown SAND with shale lenses

Brown SAND with shale

- wet at 1.2 m BGSEnd of TEST PIT

0.00

0.15

0.61

1.22

1

2

GS

GS

PAH, METALS

TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP04-16



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102021

4599962



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

Ground SurfaceGrey sand with grass roots

FILL: Brown sand with shale lenses- dry

FILL: Black sand- wood debris at 1.7 m BGS

Brown SAND with shale lenses

Light brown to grey silty sand TILL- moist to wet

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.15

1.22

1.70

3.20

4.42

1

2

GS

GS

PAH, METALS

TPH.BTEX

(m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP05-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5101986

4599957



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

Ground SurfaceBrown SAND with gravel- boulders

Blue grey SHALE layer

Brown sand- wet at 2.13 m BGS

Black organics and wood

Grey brown silty sand TILL- wet

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.91

1.07

2.13

2.44

2.74

1

2

GS

GS

PAH, TPH/BTEX,METALS

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP06-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

Ground SurfaceFILL: Black crushed fines- possible asphalt

Brown silty SAND and gravel

Green sandstone

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.15

0.61

1.52

1

2

GS

GS


TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP07-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102027

460052



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

Ground SurfaceFILL: Black crusher dust- possible ashpalt

FILL: Brown silty sand and gravel- rootmat at 1.22 m BGS

Brown silty SAND with gravel- green shale lenses

Rock at 1.98 m BGS

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.15

1.22

2.13

1 GS PAH, TPH/BTEX,METALS

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP08-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102039

4600076



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0


FILL: Brown silty sand and gravel

Black silty SAND- rootmat at 0.91 - 1.52 m BGS

Light brown silty SAND and gravel- boulders and cobbles- dry

- rock at 2.44 m BGSEnd of TEST PIT

0.00

0.15

0.61

1.52

2.44

1

2

3

GS

GS

GS

PAH

TPH/BTEX,METALS

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP09-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5101982

4600053



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

0

FILL: Brown sand and gravel- boulders

- Ground surface

-3.05

0.00

1

2

GS

GS



(m)

-3.0

-2.8

-2.6

-2.4

-2.2

-2.0

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Depth

-9.5

-9.0

-8.5

-8.0

-7.5

-7.0

-6.5

-6.0

-5.5

-5.0

-4.5

-4.0

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

CROSS SECTION OF STOCKPILE: TP10-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102006

4600013



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Top of Stockpile

End of Test Pit

0

0

Ground SurfaceFILL: Black crusher fines- asphalt

Brown silty sand and gravel TILL- rock at 4.5 m BGS

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.15

1.37

1 GS PAH, TPH/BTEX,METALS

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP11-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102044

4600016



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0


Brown silty SAND with gravel

Brown to black sandy SILT with gravel- organics and rootmat- wet

End of TEST PIT

0.00

0.30

0.76

1.37

1

2

GS

GS PAH, TPH/BTEX,METALS

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP12-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102094

4599989



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

Ground SurfaceBrown SAND with gravel- boulders- shale at 0.46 m BGS

Brown SAND with gravel and weatherd shale- wet at 0.91 m BGS

Rock at 1.52 m BGSEnd of TEST PIT

0.00

0.61

1.52

1

2

3

GS

GS

GS TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP13-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102070

4599943

Notes:m AMSL - metres above mean sea levelm BGS - metres below ground surfaceGS - grab samplen/a - not available


ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

Ground SurfaceBrown SAND with gravel and shale- wet at 0.91 m BGS

- rock at 1.22 m BGSEnd of TEST PIT

0.00

1.22

1 GS TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP14-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102070

4599949



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

Ground SurfaceGrass and rootmat with SAND and gravel- some boulders- slight to strong petroleum hydrocarbon odour

End of TEST PIT

0.00

1.22

1

2

GS

GS TPH/BTEX

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP15-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102061

4599944



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

5

20

Ground SurfaceBrown SAND and shale fragments- dry

ROCK at 1.1 m BGS

End of TEST PIT

0.00

1.10

1.22

1

2

GS

GS

PAH, METALS

(m)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Depth

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

(ft)

GraphicLog


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Project:

Client:

Location:

Number:

Field investigator:

Contractor:

TEST PIT: TP16-17



121414278

T. MacDONALD

Drilling method:




Easting:

Northing:

29-Nov-2016

n/a

n/a

5102259

45999299



ST

AN

TE

C B

OR

EH

OLE

AN

D W

ELL

V2

121

4142

78_C

AR

IBO

U_M

AR

SH

_SE

PT

2017

.GP

J S

TA

NT

EC

- D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

9/29

/17

GW

HA

LEN

VapourConcentration

(ppm) 40 80 120 160

Depth(m BGS) S

am

ple

Nu

mb

er

Sa

mp

leT

ype

Lab Analyses

SAMPLE DETAILS

0

0

Appendix C Soil and Groundwater Analytical Summary Tables &

Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

TABLE COM-1 SOIL PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32

TP01-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

Lab Dup - - - - - <10 <10 <15 n/a n/aTP04-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 4.4 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP05-16 SA2(1.66-3.20)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP06-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 0.19 0.013 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 66 66 Unidentified compounds in the lube oil range

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP07-16 SA2(0.61-1.52)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 100 100 Lube oil fraction

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP09-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)


TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-1.37)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 44 190 230 Unidentified compounds in the fuel/lube range. Lube oil fraction.

6-Dec-16 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

Lab Dup <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 - - - - n/aTP14-16 SA1(0.00-0.91)

6-Dec-16 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 35 35 Lube oil fraction

TP15-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

6-Dec-16 <0.025 <0.025 0.059 <0.08 180 3600 2000 740 6500 Fuel oil fraction

ModifiedTPHBenzene Toluene Ethyl-

Benzene Xylenes

FuelF3

BTEX Parameters (mg/kg or ppm) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg or ppm)Sample ID& Depth(mbg)

DateSampled

2016 Test Pit Program

TP02-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

TP13-16 SA3(1.22-1.52)

HydrocarbonResemblance

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\PHC-Soil-potable Page 1 of 9

TABLE COM-1 SOIL PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32


Benzene Xylenes

FuelF3


DateSampled


MW01-17 SS5(3.05-3.20)

5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 26 210 130 54 420 Weathered fuel oil fraction

5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.40 4.3 <10 15 34 53 Lube oil fractionLab Dup <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.40 <2.5 - - - - n/a

MW03-17 SS3(1.52-1.68)

5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW04-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW05-17 SS3(1.52-1.61)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW06-17 SS3(1.52-1.68)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 15 35 86 130 One product in fuel/lube range. Lube oil fraction.

MW07-17 SS3(1.52-1.98)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW09-17 SS4(2.13-2.37)

7-Mar-16 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW10-17 SS3(1.52-2.07)

7-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 31 31 Lube oil fraction

MW11-17 SS6(3.66-4.26)

7-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW12-17 SS3(1.52-2.13)

8-Aug-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

0.03 0.37 0.082 11 - - - - -

- - - - 320 1700 - - -

- - - - 240 320 - - -

- - - - 19,000 10,000 -

Notes:1. mbg = metres below grade2. " - " = no standard available; n/a = not applicable3. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate4. Modified TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons excluding total BTEX5. CCME Guidelines = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and

Human Health (on-line 2017); Commercial land use, coarse grained soil.6. CWS Guidelines = Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil; Commercial land use. June 2012.7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit8. Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable CWS standard (vapour inhalation)9. Bold and underlined = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable CWS standard (protection of gw)

* TP10-16 was excavated into a fill pile. SA1 was taken from the top of the fill pile at 3m above grade. SA2 was collected from the base of the fill pile.

CCME Tier 1 CWS (commercial, coarse grained, protection of direct contact)

CCME Tier 1 CWS (commercial, coarse-grained, vapour inhalation)

CCME Tier 1 CWS (commercial, coarse grained, protection of potable groundwater)

23,000

CCME SQG(commercial, coarse grained)

MW02-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

2017 Monitoring Well Program

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\PHC-Soil-potable Page 2 of 9

TABLE COM-2 SOIL INORGANIC CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

TP01-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP02-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP04-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP05-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

TP06-16-SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP09-16 SA2(0.00-1.52)

TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

MW12-17 SS3(1.52-2.13)

30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 Lab Dup 8-Mar-17 Lab Dup 23-Aug-17Aluminum - 12000 12000 14000 4600 12000 17000 23000 11000 16000 22000 14000 13000 13000 13000 10000 11000 6000Antimony 40 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Arsenic 12, 31 9.8 15 14 11 10 8.4 9.3 14 11 9.7 9.3 11 14 14 12 14 11Barium 2,000 17 15 33 13 20 42 97 53 52 92 45 22 77 74 26 27 72Beryllium 8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Bismuth - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Boron - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Cadmium 22 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.39 <0.3 0.44 <0.3 <0.3 0.35 0.33 <0.30 <0.30 0.36Chromium 87 13 13 22 4.7 11 39 73 14 42 68 36 12 18 17 12 13 11Cobalt 300 8.2 9.6 12 6.1 5.1 14 20 9.7 15 20 13 7.3 13 13 9.6 9.6 7.0Copper 91 8.9 9.9 19 3.1 22 25 59 18 30 46 31 8.1 17 17 13 13 11Iron - 19000 20000 25000 13000 14000 25000 34000 22000 25000 34000 24000 20000 27000 27000 21000 22000 16000Lead 260 43 86 38 11 35 25 23 40 18 20 30 31 41 45 43 43 22Lithium - 17 15 18 2.5 11 23 32 16 22 30 18 13 19 18 12 13 9.8Manganese - 570 1200 920 1500 230 740 1100 1100 1200 1300 930 580 1100 1200 1100 1000 680Mercury 24 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Molybdenum 40 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Nickel 89 14 13 21 2.3 7.8 29 48 15 30 44 26 9.1 23 22 16 17 12Rubidium - 7.9 6.3 8.0 4.2 7.5 4.8 5 7.2 4.1 4.4 4.0 8.3 7.8 7.7 5.6 5.9 3.3Selenium 2.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver 40 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Strontium - <5.0 <5.0 9.1 <5.0 <5.0 25 51 17 26 46 25 <5.0 7.4 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 18Thallium 1 0.13 0.16 0.14 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.10Tin 300 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Uranium 33 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.24 0.40 0.47 0.59 0.63 0.42 0.49 0.52 0.45 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.61 0.41Vanadium 130 18 17 27 17 22 40 63 19 37 61 37 23 22 22 17 17 15Zinc 360 75 70 85 14 56 90 120 94 75 110 91 59 97 92 79 81 67

Notes:1. mbg = metres below grade2. ' -' = no standard available3. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate5. CCME Guidelines = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines

for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (on-line 2017); Commercial land use guidelines6. CCME SQG for arsenic is based on a target risk of 10 -06 and 10-05 respecively 7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit8. Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable CCME Tier I SQG * TP10-16 was excavated into a fill pile. SA1 was taken from the top of the fill pile at 3m above grade. SA2 was collected from the base of the fill pile.

Date Sampled:

Sample ID and Depth (mbg)

Parameters

CCMETier I SQGs

Commercial(mg/kg)

TP16-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

MW11-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\Metals-Soil Page 3 of 9

TABLE COM-3 SOIL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

TP02-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP04-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP05-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP09-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

TP16-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

MW12-17 SA3(1.52-2.13)

30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 Lab Dup 30-Nov-16 Lab Dup 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 6-Dec-16Non-Carcinogenic PAHs1-Methylnaphthalene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0162-Methylnaphthalene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.013Acenaphthene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Acenaphthylene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.048Anthracene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fluoranthene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.015Fluorene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Naphthalene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perylene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Phenanthrene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.034Pyrene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.014Carcinogenic PAHsBenzo[a]anthracene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[a]pyrene 1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[j]fluoranthene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chrysene 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.018Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01IACR 1.0 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.093B[a]P TPE - 5.3 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013


for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (on line 2017); Commercial land use guidelines5. B[a]P PEF = Benzo(a)pyrene Potency Equivalent Factor6. B[a]P TPE = Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalent concentration, which is calculated by multiplying the concentration

of each PAH in the sample by its B[a]P PEF and summing the products. If the concentration is less than the detection limit, then 1/2 the detection limit is used in the B[a]P TPE calculationsAn uncertainty factor of 3 is used when the PAH source is expected to be creosote or coal tar

7. IACR = Index of Additive Cancer Risk8. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit* TP10-16 was excavated into a fill pile. SA1 was taken from the top of the fill pile at 3m above grade. SA2 was collected from the base of the fill pile.

Date Sampled:

Sample ID and depth

Parameter B(a)PPEF

TP06-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

CCMETier 1 SQG

Commercial(mg/kg)

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\PAH-Soil-Potable Page 4 of 9

TABLE COM-4 GROUNDWATER PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32

22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.0012 <0.002 0.046 1.0 0.35 0.13 1.5 Weathered fuel oil fraction.Lab Dup <0.001 <0.001 0.0012 <0.002 0.053 - - - - -

MW02-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.011 0.0026 0.4 3.9 1.9 0.64 6.8 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW03-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.086 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW04-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.016 0.0065 0.2 4.2 1.8 0.96 7.2 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW05-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW06-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.0027 <0.002 0.11 3.3 1.6 0.56 5.6 Weathered fuel oil fraction.

22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.0013 <0.002 0.031 0.58 0.18 0.13 0.91 Weathered fuel oil fraction.Dup01-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.0013 <0.002 0.029 0.48 0.14 <0.10 0.64 Weathered fuel oil fraction.

MW08-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.002 0.027 0.66 0.15 <0.10 0.84 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW09-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW10-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW11-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW12-17 25-Aug-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/a

26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aLab Dup <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 - - - - -

MW103A 14-Feb-96 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW103B 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW104A 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW105 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.061 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/a

MW1 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 0.41 65 45 17 130 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW2 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 0.27 480 250 76 810 Weathered fuel oil fraction.

MW108 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.11 0.53 0.41 1.0

One product in the fuel/lube range. Unidentified

compound(s) in fuel/lube range.

MW302 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/a26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aDup02-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/a

0.005 (MAC)

0.06(MAC)

0.14(MAC)

0.09(MAC) - - - - -

0.005 0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - - -4.4 (gas)3.2 (fuel)

7.8 (lube)

1.8 - 48 - 9.1 17 - - -

Notes:1. ' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable2. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate3. Modified TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons excluding total BTEX4. GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017)

AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based)5. PSSLs = Pathway Specific Standard Levels set forth in the Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) For Petroleum

Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada (July 2013); Commercial, potable groundwater, coarse/fine grained soil 6. Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG) Tier 1 guidelines for commercial use, coarse grained soil. Table 3. June 2016.7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit8. Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable RBCA PSSL standard9. Shaded grey = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable FIGQG

MW01-17

MW07-17

HydrocarbonResemblanceBenzene Toluene Ethyl-

Benzene Xylenes ModifiedTPH

F3

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)Fuel

Sample ID DateSampled

BTEX Parameters (mg/L)

MW303

GCDWQ (2017)

RBCA PSSL (potable water)

FIGQG Tier 1 (commercial - inhalation)

MW102

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\PHC-GW-potable Page 5 of 9

TABLE COM-5 GROUNDWATER INORGANIC CHEMISTRY Membertou Governance Committee Caribou Marsh IR 29 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW102 MW103A MW103B MW104A MW105 MW1 MW2 MW108 MW302

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup DUP02-17Aluminum 100 (OG) 11 22 16 28 300 46 190 82 22 26 26 61Antimony 6 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Arsenic 10 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.8 6.7 15 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.1Barium 1000 (MAC) 9.0 70 27 14 40 18 29 13 5.9 13 14 49Beryllium - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Bismuth - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Boron 5000 (MAC) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Cadmium 5 (MAC) 0.053 0.16 0.067 0.13 0.023 0.012 3.1 0.23 0.090 0.13 0.13 0.21Calcium - 2300 1500 3200 1300 5800 1700 13000 2000 3300 1300 1300 6500Chromium 50 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cobalt - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 13 33 2.7 0.87 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 3.4Copper 1000 (AO) <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 4.3 <2.0 <2.0 4.7 <2.0 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Iron 300 (AO) <50 <50 <50 <50 7400 3600 3500 770 <50 <50 <50 2000Lead 10 (MAC) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.62 <0.50 <0.50 1.7 <0.50 <0.50 0.56 0.52 <0.50Magnesium - 310 870 540 420 2300 700 620 790 440 420 420 2200Manganese 50 (AO) 5.6 30 9.4 40 10000 11000 7400 6200 130 40 40 2600Molybdenum - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Nickel - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6.3 6.5 2.9 3.8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.6Phosphorus - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100Potassium - 410 440 380 400 820 570 3400 560 700 400 400 510Selenium 50 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Sodium 200000 (AO) 3000 3500 3500 12000 21000 4600 580000 11000 23000 12000 12000 5100Strontium - 17 11 14 7.0 18 10 41 11 8.5 5.7 6.0 22Thallium - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Tin - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Titanium - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 3.4 <2.0 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Uranium 20 (MAC) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Vanadium - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Zinc 5000 (AO) <5.0 7.3 <5.0 6.7 <5.0 <5.0 23 7.5 6.3 5.9 6.5 29

Notes:1 lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate2 GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017)

AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based), OG = operational guidence value

3 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit4 Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guideline5 Exceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:

Parameter GCDWQ(µg/L) MW303

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\Metals-GW-Potable Page 6 of 9

TABLE COM-5 GROUNDWATER INORGANIC CHEMISTRY Membertou Governance Committee Caribou Marsh IR 29 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

MW102

26-Jun-17Aluminum 100 (OG) 11Antimony 6 (MAC) <1.0Arsenic 10 (MAC) <1.0Barium 1000 (MAC) 9.0Beryllium - <1.0Bismuth - <2.0Boron 5000 (MAC) <50Cadmium 5 (MAC) 0.053Calcium - 2300Chromium 50 (MAC) <1.0Cobalt - <0.40Copper 1000 (AO) <2.0Iron 300 (AO) <50Lead 10 (MAC) <0.50Magnesium - 310Manganese 50 (AO) 5.6Molybdenum - <2.0Nickel - <2.0Phosphorus - <100Potassium - 410Selenium 50 (MAC) <1.0Silver - <0.1Sodium 200000 (AO) 3000Strontium - 17Thallium - <0.1Tin - <2.0Titanium - <2.0Uranium 20 (MAC) <0.1Vanadium - <2.0Zinc 5000 (AO) <5.0

Notes:lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicateGCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017)AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based), OG = operational guidence value<# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limitShaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guidelineExceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:

Parameter GCDWQ(µg/L)

Sample ID

MW01-17 MW02-17 MW03-17 MW04-17 MW05-17 MW06-17 MW09-17 MW10-17 MW11-17 MW12-17

22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 DUP01-17 22-Jun-17 Lab Dup 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 25-Aug-1711 23 55 45 16 27 32 26 14 15 30 13 270 21

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.06.9 11 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 2.1 4.1 4.1 9.9 10 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.023 17 26 44 20 21 18 18 23 23 16 2.1 24 160

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

<0.01 0.037 0.39 <0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.19 0.034 0.083 0.0434400 3000 2800 5900 9900 7800 14000 14000 4400 4400 4200 3400 4300 47000

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.08.8 18 6.0 8.8 1.5 5.2 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 6.0 <0.40 0.54 0.40

<2.0 <2.0 3.4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.04600 2700 140 15000 <50 1500 2800 2900 4900 4900 2300 <50 340 <50

<0.5 0.93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.2 <0.51500 1300 1200 960 2000 440 1100 1100 1300 1300 1400 370 1200 65008300 8600 3900 16000 690 4800 3300 3300 7900 7800 3500 130 980 1200

<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 12 <2.0 <2.0 2.32.3 5.6 6.3 3.3 4.9 2.4 <2.0 <2.0 3.1 3.2 13 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <1002000 1600 620 1300 2000 3800 3500 3400 2300 2300 1700 1200 740 14000

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

50000 17000 6500 220000 290000 300000 160000 160000 80000 79000 26000 26000 5000 1300018 26 15 22 27 22 33 32 23 23 36 8.2 11 120

<0.1 0.30 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6.3 <2.0<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.17<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

21 7.1 10 <5.0 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.4 7.5 9.0 <5.0 6.9 <5.0

MW07-17 MW08-17

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\Metals-GW-Potable Page 7 of 9

TABLE COM-6 GROUNDWATER GENERAL CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW102 MW103A MW104A MW1 MW2 MW108 MW302

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup DUP02-17Anion Sum me/L - 0.330 0.360 0.390 - 0.690 1.94 - 0.720 20.2 1.02 1.35 0.73 - 0.850Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - 8.4 5.4 8.0 - 6.8 63 - 27 130 16 10 7.1 - 23Calculated TDS mg/L 500 (AO) 21 28 27 - 47 120 - 49 1300 62 85 48 - 56Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0Cation Sum me/L - 0.290 0.310 0.370 - 0.630 1.75 - 0.490 26.3 0.700 1.21 0.630 - 0.830Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L - 7.0 7.4 10 - 4.9 24 - 7.0 35 8.3 10 4.9 - 25Ion Balance (% Difference) % - 6.45 7.46 2.63 - 4.55 5.15 - 19.0 13.1 18.6 5.47 7.35 - 1.19Langelier Index (@ 20°C) N/A - -3.75 -4.01 -3.76 - -4.30 -2.27 - -3.74 -1.57 -3.78 -3.76 -4.19 - -3.05Langelier Index (@ 4°C) N/A - -4.0 -4.26 -4.01 - -4.55 -2.52 - -3.99 -1.81 -4.03 -4.02 -4.44 - -3.30Nitrate (N) mg/L 45 (MAC) 0.12 0.098 0.11 - 0.18 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.25 0.17 - <0.050Saturation pH (@ 20°C) N/A - 10.0 10.4 9.88 - 10.4 8.79 - 9.65 8.36 9.80 9.80 10.3 - 9.14Saturation pH (@ 4°C) N/A - 10.2 10.6 10.1 - 10.6 9.04 - 9.91 8.60 10.1 10.1 10.6 - 9.39Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3) mg/L - 8.4 5.4 8.0 - 6.8 63 - 27 130 16 10 7.1 - 23Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 250 (AO) 3.5 4.2 5.6 - 8.3 24 - 6.5 550 19 24 8.8 - 7.5Colour TCU 15 (AO) <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - <5.0 210 - 5.0 36 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - <5.0Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L - 0.12 0.098 0.11 - 0.18 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.25 0.17 - <0.050Nitrite (N) mg/L 3 (MAC) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.010Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L - 0.051 <0.05 0.11 - 0.064 0.85 - 0.12 0.21 0.18 0.051 0.062 - 0.16Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L - <25 <0.50 9.5 - 0.87 15 - 7.8 190 13 <50 0.60 - <50Orthophosphate (P) mg/L - <0.01 0.015 <0.01 - <0.01 0.09 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.010pH pH 7.0-10.5 (OG) 6.25 6.37 6.12 - 6.07 6.52 6.35 5.91 6.79 6.02 6.04 6.16 - 6.09Reactive Silica (SiO 2) mg/L - 3.3 7.3 5.4 - 4.8 5.4 - 4.5 3.4 4.2 5.0 4.9 - 7.0Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 500 (AO) 2.6 6.0 3.3 - 15 <2.0 - <2.0 100 7.3 22 15 - 8.3Turbidity NTU 1 (OG) 380 13 >1000 >1000 35 59 - 320 490 >1000 >1000 18 - >1000Conductivity uS/cm - 30 39 40 - 70 180 180 68 2100 110 140 75 - 85Sodium mg/L 200 (AO) 3.0 3.5 3.5 - 12 21 - 4.6 580 11 23 12 12 5.1

Notes:1 lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate2 GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017)3 AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based),

OG= operational guidence value4 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit5 Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guideline6 Exceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:

GCDWQG(2017)Parameter Units

MW103B MW105 MW303

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\GenChem-GW-Potable Page 8 of 9

TABLE COM-6 GROUNDWATER GENERAL CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Anion Sum me/L -Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L -Calculated TDS mg/L 500 (AO)Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L -Cation Sum me/L -Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L -Ion Balance (% Difference) % -Langelier Index (@ 20°C) N/A -Langelier Index (@ 4°C) N/A -Nitrate (N) mg/L 45 (MAC)Saturation pH (@ 20°C) N/A -Saturation pH (@ 4°C) N/A -Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3) mg/L -Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 250 (AO)Colour TCU 15 (AO)Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L -Nitrite (N) mg/L 3 (MAC)Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L -Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L -Orthophosphate (P) mg/L -pH pH 7.0-10.5 (OG)Reactive Silica (SiO 2) mg/L -Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 500 (AO)Turbidity NTU 1 (OG)Conductivity uS/cm -Sodium mg/L 200 (AO)


OG= operational guidence value4 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit5 Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guideline6 Exceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:


Sample ID

MW01-17 MW02-17 MW03-17 MW04-17 MW05-17 MW06-17 MW09-17 MW10-17 MW11-17 MW12-17

22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 DUP01-17 22-Jun-17 Lab Dup 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 25-Aug-173.70 1.54 0.66 10.8 10.3 13.4 8.26 8.89 4.54 1.63 1.41 1.17 4.3092 61 13 68 36 180 150 170 97 18 29 41 160200 90 43 650 690 810 490 510 260 110 87 57 230

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.02.79 1.26 0.540 10.6 13.1 13.6 7.88 7.86 4.06 1.61 1.35 0.560 3.8117 13 12 19 33 21 40 40 16 16 9.9 16 140

14.0 10.0 10.0 0.510 12.2 0.630 2.35 6.15 5.58 0.620 2.17 35.3 6.04-1.78 -2.38 -3.82 -2.37 -2.27 -1.32 -1.10 -0.705 -1.84 -2.95 -2.67 -1.80 0.233-2.03 -2.63 -4.07 -2.61 -2.52 -1.57 -1.35 -0.953 -2.09 -3.20 -2.92 -2.05 -0.0180

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.10 <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 0.063 0.63 0.060 <0.058.79 9.07 9.74 8.89 8.96 8.38 8.14 8.10 8.78 9.48 9.35 9.07 7.519.04 9.32 9.99 9.14 9.20 8.62 8.39 8.35 9.03 9.73 9.60 9.32 7.7692 61 13 68 36 180 150 170 97 18 29 41 16052 9.7 10 310 280 260 130 140 73 37 16 8.0 29

<5.0 39 12 92 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.8 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.10 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.063 0.63 0.060 <0.05<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

0.61 1.7 <0.05 0.39 0.098 0.12 0.15 0.23 0.41 0.053 0.067 0.069 0.0915.8 <50 <5.0 <50 <500 <25 8.6 <1.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <25 27

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.012 <0.01 <0.017.01 6.69 5.92 6.53 6.68 7.06 7.04 7.39 6.94 6.53 6.68 7.27 7.745.1 5.5 4.7 4.4 5.1 3.7 7.0 9.0 5.4 5.9 4.0 5.5 6.719 2 5.2 24 86 120 78 81 26 12 16 5.4 9.8450 >1000 92 >1000 >1000 >1000 350 >1000 350 390 >1000 >1000 >1000 360340 140 70 1200 1100 1400 830 880 440 180 140 110 40050 17 6.5 220 290 300 160 160 80 79 26 26 5 13

MW08-17MW07-17

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Commercial_dac_JWH.xlsm\GenChem-GW-Potable Page 9 of 9

TABLE RES-1 SOIL PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32

TP01-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

Lab Dup - - - - - <10 <10 <15 n/a n/aTP04-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 4.4 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP05-16 SA2(1.66-3.20)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP06-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 0.19 0.013 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 66 66Unidentified compounds in the lube oil

rangeTP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP07-16 SA2(0.61-1.52)


TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP09-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)


TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-1.37)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 44 190 230Unidentified compounds in the fuel/lube

range. Lube oil fraction.

6-Dec-16 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

Lab Dup <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 - - - - n/aTP14-16 SA1(0.00-0.91)


TP15-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)



Benzene Xylenes

FuelF3


DateSampled


TP02-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

TP13-16 SA3(1.22-1.52)


V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\PHC-Soil-potable Page 1 of 10

TABLE RES-1 SOIL PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32


Benzene Xylenes

FuelF3


DateSampled


MW01-17 SS5(3.05-3.20)

5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 26 210 130 54 420 Weathered fuel oil fraction

5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.40 4.3 <10 15 34 53 Lube oil fractionLab Dup <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.40 <2.5 - - - - n/a

MW03-17 SS3(1.52-1.68)

5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW04-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW05-17 SS3(1.52-1.61)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW06-17 SS3(1.52-1.68)

6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 15 35 86 130One product in fuel/lube range. Lube oil

fraction.MW07-17 SS3

(1.52-1.98)6-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW09-17 SS4(2.13-2.37)

7-Mar-16 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW10-17 SS3(1.52-2.07)

7-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 31 31 Lube oil fraction

MW11-17 SS6(3.66-4.26)

7-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

MW12-17 SS3(1.52-2.13)

8-Aug-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a n/a

0.03 0.37 0.082 11 - - - - -

- - - - 30 150 - - -

- - - - 240 320 - - -

- - - - 12,000 6,800 -

Notes:1. mbg = metres below grade2. " - " = no standard available; n/a = not applicable3. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate4. Modified TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons excluding total BTEX5. CCME Guidelines = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and

Human Health (on-line 2017); Residential land use, coarse grained soil.6. CWS Guidelines = Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil; Residential land use. June 2012.7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit8. Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable CWS standard (vapour inhalation)9. Bold and underlined = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable CWS standard (protection of gw)


CCME Tier 1 CWS (residential, coarse grained, protection of direct contact)

CCME Tier 1 CWS (residential, coarse-grained, vapour inhalation)

CCME Tier 1 CWS (residential, coarse grained, protection of potable groundwater)

15,000

CCME SQG(residential, coarse grained)

MW02-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

2017 Monitor Well Program

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\PHC-Soil-potable Page 2 of 10

TABLE RES-2 SOIL INORGANIC CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

TP01-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP02-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP04-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP05-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

TP06-16-SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP09-16 SA2(0.00-1.52)

TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

MW12-17 SS3(1.52-2.13)

30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 Lab Dup 8-Mar-17 Lab Dup 23-Aug-17Aluminum - 12000 12000 14000 4600 12000 17000 23000 11000 16000 22000 14000 13000 13000 13000 10000 11000 6000Antimony 20 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Arsenic 12,31 9.8 15 14 11 10 8.4 9.3 14 11 9.7 9.3 11 14 14 12 14 11Barium 500 17 15 33 13 20 42 97 53 52 92 45 22 77 74 26 27 72Beryllium 4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Bismuth - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Boron - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Cadmium 10 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.39 <0.3 0.44 <0.3 <0.3 0.35 0.33 <0.30 <0.30 0.36Chromium 64 13 13 22 4.7 11 39 73 14 42 68 36 12 18 17 12 13 11Cobalt 50 8.2 9.6 12 6.1 5.1 14 20 9.7 15 20 13 7.3 13 13 9.6 9.6 7.0Copper 63 8.9 9.9 19 3.1 22 25 59 18 30 46 31 8.1 17 17 13 13 11Iron - 19000 20000 25000 13000 14000 25000 34000 22000 25000 34000 24000 20000 27000 27000 21000 22000 16000Lead 140 43 86 38 11 35 25 23 40 18 20 30 31 41 45 43 43 22Lithium - 17 15 18 2.5 11 23 32 16 22 30 18 13 19 18 12 13 9.8Manganese - 570 1200 920 1500 230 740 1100 1100 1200 1300 930 580 1100 1200 1100 1000 680Mercury 6.6 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Molybdenum 10 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Nickel 45 14 13 21 2.3 7.8 29 48 15 30 44 26 9.1 23 22 16 17 12Rubidium - 7.9 6.3 8.0 4.2 7.5 4.8 5 7.2 4.1 4.4 4.0 8.3 7.8 7.7 5.6 5.9 3.3Selenium 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver 20 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Strontium - <5.0 <5.0 9.1 <5.0 <5.0 25 51 17 26 46 25 <5.0 7.4 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 18Thallium 1 0.13 0.16 0.14 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.10Tin 50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Uranium 23 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.24 0.40 0.47 0.59 0.63 0.42 0.49 0.52 0.45 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.61 0.41Vanadium 130 18 17 27 17 22 40 63 19 37 61 37 23 22 22 17 17 15Zinc 200 75 70 85 14 56 90 120 94 75 110 91 59 97 92 79 81 67


for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (on-line 2017); Residential land use guidelines6. CCME SQG for arsenic is based on a target risk of 10 -06 and 10-05 respecively 7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit8. Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable CCME Tier I SQG * TP10-16 was excavated into a fill pile. SA1 was taken from the top of the fill pile at 3m above grade. SA2 was collected from the base of the fill pile.

Date Sampled:


Parameters

CCME Tier I SQGsResidential

(mg/kg)

TP16-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

MW11-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\Metals-Soil Page 3 of 10

TABLE RES-3 SOIL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

TP02-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP04-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP05-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP09-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

TP16-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

MW12-17SA3

(1.52-2.13)

30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 Lab Dup 30-Nov-16 Lab Dup 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 6-Dec-16

Non-Carcinogenic PAHs1-Methylnaphthalene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0162-Methylnaphthalene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.013Acenaphthene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Acenaphthylene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.048Anthracene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fluoranthene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.015Fluorene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Naphthalene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perylene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Phenanthrene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.034Pyrene - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.014Carcinogenic PAHsBenzo[a]anthracene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[a]pyrene 1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[j]fluoranthene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chrysene 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.018Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.1 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01IACR 1.0 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.093B[a]P TPE - 5.3 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

Notes:mbg = metres below grade' -' = no standard availablelab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicateCCME Guidelines = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines

for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (on line 2017); Residential land use guidelinesB[a]P PEF = Benzo(a)pyrene Potency Equivalent FactorB[a]P TPE = Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalent concentration, which is calculated by multiplying the concentration


IACR = Index of Additive Cancer Risk<# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit

Date Sampled:

Sample ID and depth

Parameter B(a)PPEF

TP06-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

CCME Tier 1 SQG Residential

(mg/kg)

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\PAH-Soil-Potable Page 4 of 10

TABLE RES-4 GROUNDWATER PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32




MW08-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.002 0.027 0.66 0.15 <0.10 0.84 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW09-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW10-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW11-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW12-17 25-Aug-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/a

26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aLab Dup <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 - - - - -

MW103A 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW103B 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW104A 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW105 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.061 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW1 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 0.41 65 45 17 130 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW2 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 0.27 480 250 76 810 Weathered fuel oil fraction.

MW108 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.11 0.53 0.41 1.0




0.005 (MAC)

0.06(MAC)

0.14(MAC)

0.09(MAC) - - - - -

0.005 0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - - -4.4 (gas)3.2 (fuel)

7.8 (lube)-

0.14 74 16 3.9 0.81 1.5 - - -

Notes:1. ' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable2. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate3. Modified TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons excluding total BTEX

4. GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017)AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based)

5. PSSLs = Pathway Specific Standard Levels set forth in the Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) For Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada (July 2013); Residential, potable groundwater, coarse/fine grained soil

6. Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG) Tier 1 guidelines for residential/parkland use, coarse grained soil. Table 2. June 2016.7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit9. Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable RBCA PSSL standard

10. Shaded grey = parameter concentration exceeds the applicable FIGQG

MW01-17

MW07-17



F3

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)Fuel

Sample ID DateSampled


MW303

GCDWQ (2017)

RBCA PSSL (potable water)

MW102

FIGQG Tier 1 (residential - inhalation)

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\PHC-GW-potable Page 5 of 10

Table RES-5 GROUNDWATER INORGANIC CHEMISTRY Membertou Governance Committee Caribou Marsh IR 29 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW102 MW103A MW103B MW104A MW105 MW1 MW2 MW108 MW302 MW01-17

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup DUP02-17 22-Jun-17Aluminum 100 (OG) 11 22 16 28 300 46 190 82 22 26 26 61 11Antimony 6 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Arsenic 10 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.8 6.7 15 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.1 6.9Barium 1000 (MAC) 9.0 70 27 14 40 18 29 13 5.9 13 14 49 23Beryllium - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Bismuth - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Boron 5000 (MAC) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Cadmium 5 (MAC) 0.053 0.16 0.067 0.13 0.023 0.012 3.1 0.23 0.090 0.13 0.13 0.21 <0.01Calcium - 2300 1500 3200 1300 5800 1700 13000 2000 3300 1300 1300 6500 4400Chromium 50 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cobalt - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 13 33 2.7 0.87 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 3.4 8.8Copper 1000 (AO) <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 4.3 <2.0 <2.0 4.7 <2.0 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Iron 300 (AO) <50 <50 <50 <50 7400 3600 3500 770 <50 <50 <50 2000 4600Lead 10 (MAC) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.62 <0.50 <0.50 1.7 <0.50 <0.50 0.56 0.52 <0.50 <0.5Magnesium - 310 870 540 420 2300 700 620 790 440 420 420 2200 1500Manganese 50 (AO) 5.6 30 9.4 40 10000 11000 7400 6200 130 40 40 2600 8300Molybdenum - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Nickel - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6.3 6.5 2.9 3.8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.6 2.3Phosphorus - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100Potassium - 410 440 380 400 820 570 3400 560 700 400 400 510 2000Selenium 50 (MAC) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Sodium 200000 (AO) 3000 3500 3500 12000 21000 4600 580000 11000 23000 12000 12000 5100 50000Strontium - 17 11 14 7.0 18 10 41 11 8.5 5.7 6.0 22 18Thallium - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Tin - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Titanium - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 3.4 <2.0 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Uranium 20 (MAC) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Vanadium - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Zinc 5000 (AO) <5.0 7.3 <5.0 6.7 <5.0 <5.0 23 7.5 6.3 5.9 6.5 29 21

Notes:1 lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate2 GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking

Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017) AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based), OG = operational guidence value

3 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit

4 Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guideline

5 Exceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:

Parameter GCDWQ(µg/L) MW303

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\Metals-GW-Potable Page 6 of 10

Table RES-5 GROUNDWATER INORGANIC CHEMISTRY Membertou Governance Committee Caribou Marsh IR 29 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Aluminum 100 (OG)Antimony 6 (MAC)Arsenic 10 (MAC)Barium 1000 (MAC)Beryllium -Bismuth -Boron 5000 (MAC)Cadmium 5 (MAC)Calcium -Chromium 50 (MAC)Cobalt -Copper 1000 (AO)Iron 300 (AO)Lead 10 (MAC)Magnesium -Manganese 50 (AO)Molybdenum -Nickel -Phosphorus -Potassium -Selenium 50 (MAC)Silver -Sodium 200000 (AO)Strontium -Thallium -Tin -Titanium -Uranium 20 (MAC)Vanadium -Zinc 5000 (AO)

Notes:1 lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate2 GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking

Water Quality; Summary Table (February 2017) AO = aesthetic objective, MAC = maximum acceptable concentration (health based), OG = operational guidence value

3 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit

4 Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guideline

5 Exceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:

Parameter GCDWQ(µg/L)

SAMPLE ID

MW02-17 MW03-17 MW04-17 MW05-17 MW06-17 MW09-17 MW10-17 MW11-17 MW12-17

22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 DUP01-17 22-Jun-17 Lab Dup 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 25-Aug-1723 55 45 16 27 32 26 14 15 30 13 270 21

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.011 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 2.1 4.1 4.1 9.9 10 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.017 26 44 20 21 18 18 23 23 16 2.1 24 160

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

0.037 0.39 <0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.19 0.034 0.083 0.0433000 2800 5900 9900 7800 14000 14000 4400 4400 4200 3400 4300 47000

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.018 6.0 8.8 1.5 5.2 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 6.0 <0.40 0.54 0.40

<2.0 3.4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.02700 140 15000 <50 1500 2800 2900 4900 4900 2300 <50 340 <500.93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.2 <0.51300 1200 960 2000 440 1100 1100 1300 1300 1400 370 1200 65008600 3900 16000 690 4800 3300 3300 7900 7800 3500 130 980 1200

<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 12 <2.0 <2.0 2.35.6 6.3 3.3 4.9 2.4 <2.0 <2.0 3.1 3.2 13 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <1001600 620 1300 2000 3800 3500 3400 2300 2300 1700 1200 740 14000

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

17000 6500 220000 290000 300000 160000 160000 80000 79000 26000 26000 5000 1300026 15 22 27 22 33 32 23 23 36 8.2 11 120

0.30 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6.3 <2.0<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.17<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

7.1 10 <5.0 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.4 7.5 9.0 <5.0 6.9 <5.0

MW07-17 MW08-17

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\Metals-GW-Potable Page 7 of 10

TABLE RES-6 GROUNDWATER GENERAL CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW102 MW103A MW104A MW1 MW2 MW108 MW302

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17Anion Sum me/L - 0.330 0.360 0.390 - 0.690 1.94 - 0.720 20.2 1.02 1.35Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - 8.4 5.4 8.0 - 6.8 63 - 27 130 16 10Calculated TDS mg/L 500 (AO) 21 28 27 - 47 120 - 49 1300 62 85Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cation Sum me/L - 0.290 0.310 0.370 - 0.630 1.75 - 0.490 26.3 0.700 1.21Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L - 7.0 7.4 10 - 4.9 24 - 7.0 35 8.3 10Ion Balance (% Difference) % - 6.45 7.46 2.63 - 4.55 5.15 - 19.0 13.1 18.6 5.47Langelier Index (@ 20°C) N/A - -3.75 -4.01 -3.76 - -4.30 -2.27 - -3.74 -1.57 -3.78 -3.76Langelier Index (@ 4°C) N/A - -4.0 -4.26 -4.01 - -4.55 -2.52 - -3.99 -1.81 -4.03 -4.02Nitrate (N) mg/L 45 (MAC) 0.12 0.098 0.11 - 0.18 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.25Saturation pH (@ 20°C) N/A - 10.0 10.4 9.88 - 10.4 8.79 - 9.65 8.36 9.80 9.80Saturation pH (@ 4°C) N/A - 10.2 10.6 10.1 - 10.6 9.04 - 9.91 8.60 10.1 10.1Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3) mg/L - 8.4 5.4 8.0 - 6.8 63 - 27 130 16 10Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 250 (AO) 3.5 4.2 5.6 - 8.3 24 - 6.5 550 19 24Colour TCU 15 (AO) <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - <5.0 210 - 5.0 36 <5.0 <5.0Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L - 0.12 0.098 0.11 - 0.18 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.25Nitrite (N) mg/L 3 (MAC) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L - 0.051 <0.05 0.11 - 0.064 0.85 - 0.12 0.21 0.18 0.051Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L - <25 <0.50 9.5 - 0.87 15 - 7.8 190 13 <50Orthophosphate (P) mg/L - <0.01 0.015 <0.01 - <0.01 0.09 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01pH pH 7.0-10.5 (OG) 6.25 6.37 6.12 - 6.07 6.52 6.35 5.91 6.79 6.02 6.04Reactive Silica (SiO 2) mg/L - 3.3 7.3 5.4 - 4.8 5.4 - 4.5 3.4 4.2 5.0Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 500 (AO) 2.6 6.0 3.3 - 15 <2.0 - <2.0 100 7.3 22Turbidity NTU 1 (OG) 380 13 >1000 >1000 35 59 - 320 490 >1000 >1000Conductivity uS/cm - 30 39 40 - 70 180 180 68 2100 110 140Sodium mg/L 200 (AO) 3.0 3.5 3.5 - 12 21 - 4.6 580 11 23


OG = operational guidence value4 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit5 Shaded orange = parameter concentration exceeds GCDWQ MAC guideline6 Exceedances are only highlighted for MAC guidelines

Date Sampled:


MW103B MW105

V:\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\deliverable\Final\appendix_c_analytical_tables_and_lab_data\Residential_dac_JWH.xlsm\GenChem-GW-Potable Page 8 of 10





Date Sampled:


Sample ID

MW01-17 MW02-17 MW03-17 MW04-17

26-Jun-17 Lab Dup DUP02-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-170.73 - 0.850 3.70 1.54 0.66 10.87.1 - 23 92 61 13 6848 - 56 200 90 43 650

<1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.00.630 - 0.830 2.79 1.26 0.540 10.64.9 - 25 17 13 12 19

7.35 - 1.19 14.0 10.0 10.0 0.510-4.19 - -3.05 -1.78 -2.38 -3.82 -2.37-4.44 - -3.30 -2.03 -2.63 -4.07 -2.610.17 - <0.050 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.0510.3 - 9.14 8.79 9.07 9.74 8.8910.6 - 9.39 9.04 9.32 9.99 9.147.1 - 23 92 61 13 688.8 - 7.5 52 9.7 10 310

<5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 39 12 920.17 - <0.050 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

<0.01 - <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010.062 - 0.16 0.61 1.7 <0.05 0.390.60 - <50 5.8 <50 <5.0 <50

<0.01 - <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.016.16 - 6.09 7.01 6.69 5.92 6.534.9 - 7.0 5.1 5.5 4.7 4.415 - 8.3 19 2 5.2 2418 - >1000 450 >1000 92 >100075 - 85 340 140 70 120012 12 5.1 50 17 6.5 220

MW303






Date Sampled:


Sample ID

MW05-17 MW06-17 MW09-17 MW10-17 MW11-17 MW12-17

22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 DUP01-17 22-Jun-17 Lab Dup 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 25-Aug-1710.3 13.4 8.26 8.89 4.54 1.63 1.41 1.17 4.3036 180 150 170 97 18 29 41 160

690 810 490 510 260 110 87 57 230<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

13.1 13.6 7.88 7.86 4.06 1.61 1.35 0.560 3.8133 21 40 40 16 16 9.9 16 140

12.2 0.630 2.35 6.15 5.58 0.620 2.17 35.3 6.04-2.27 -1.32 -1.10 -0.705 -1.84 -2.95 -2.67 -1.80 0.233-2.52 -1.57 -1.35 -0.953 -2.09 -3.20 -2.92 -2.05 -0.01800.10 <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 0.063 0.63 0.060 <0.058.96 8.38 8.14 8.10 8.78 9.48 9.35 9.07 7.519.20 8.62 8.39 8.35 9.03 9.73 9.60 9.32 7.7636 180 150 170 97 18 29 41 160

280 260 130 140 73 37 16 8.0 29<5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.8 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0

0.10 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.063 0.63 0.060 <0.05<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

0.098 0.12 0.15 0.23 0.41 0.053 0.067 0.069 0.091<500 <25 8.6 <1.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <25 27<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.012 <0.01 <0.01

6.68 7.06 7.04 7.39 6.94 6.53 6.68 7.27 7.745.1 3.7 7.0 9.0 5.4 5.9 4.0 5.5 6.786 120 78 81 26 12 16 5.4 9.8

>1000 >1000 350 >1000 350 390 >1000 >1000 >1000 3601100 1400 830 880 440 180 140 110 400290 300 160 160 80 79 26 26 5 13

MW08-17MW07-17


Appendix D Wetlands Survey

Appendix D: Caribou Marsh Wetland Report

Caribou Marsh Reserve #29 2408 Highway 327 Sydney, NS

Prepared for: Membertou Governance Committee

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 40 Highfield Park Drive, Suite 102 Dartmouth, NS B3A 0A3

File: No. 121414278

October 25, 2017

APPENDIX D: CARIBOU MARSH WETLAND REPORT

File: 121414287 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 1 2.1 WETLANDS .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 SPECIES OF CONSERVATION INTEREST ............................................................................ 2

3.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 WETLANDS - OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4 4.2 WETLANDS - FUNCTION .................................................................................................... 8

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Wetlands encountered during site survey ................................................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Wetlands and Species of Conservation Concern .................................................... 5

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A Data on the Character and Function of Wetlands Attachment B Wetland Photos


File: 121414287 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of Membertou Governance Committee, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) conducted a wetland assessment at the Caribou Marsh Site in Marion Bridge, Nova Scotia. The purpose of the work was to identify and delineate all wetlands on the site and collect information on their functional characteristics. The following report summarizes the methodology and results of those surveys, and provides information on the associated regulatory framework.

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 WETLANDS

Wetland conservation federally is directed by the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Environment Canada 1991) which sets a conservation goal of no net loss of wetland function. This policy is applied to federal land or federal programs in areas where wetland loss has reached critical levels. Although the provincial wetland policy and associated permitting does not apply to federal lands, it could apply if the land were transferred to another land owner (e.g., the local municipality). The Nova Scotia Wetland Conservation Policy (NSE 2011a) provides context to legislation, regulations and operational policies designed to protect and guide management of wetlands in Nova Scotia. Most importantly, the policy establishes a specific goal of no loss of Wetlands of Special Significance (WSS) and no net loss in area and function for other wetlands. Projects with the potential to alter a wetland (e.g., filling, draining, flooding or excavating), including direct and indirect effects, require a Water Approval (for wetland alteration; unless exemptions apply) from Nova Scotia Environment (NSE), pursuant to the Activities Designation Regulations, prior to starting the work. If alterations to a wetland exceed two hectares in area, a project is also subject to registration under the Environmental Assessment Regulations.

Both the federal and provincial policies advocate that wetland conservation be approached through the application of a hierarchy of preferred alternatives: 1) avoidance, 2) minimization, and 3) compensation. The first step in the sequence (and the priority) is “avoidance”. This option involves avoiding alteration to wetland, forcing the consideration of alterative options for the project that may result in less of an adverse impact to wetland(s). “Minimization” is recommended where unavoidable impacts are anticipated and may encompass a variety of mitigation efforts to reduce effects during construction and operation and that may be accomplished through specific techniques, materials, and/or site choice. “Compensation” requires compensatory mitigation for residual adverse impacts on wetland function or loss of wetland area, through restoration, enhancement, creation and / or expansion of a wetland ecosystem. For alterations that are subject to the provincial policy, the amount of compensation necessary is determined by NSE and ranges from 1 to 4 ha for every 1 ha of wetland altered,


File: 121414287 2

depending on the compensation approach (see NSE 2014a). Compensation expectations under the federal policy may be confirmed through correspondence with Environment Canada.

2.2 SPECIES OF CONSERVATION INTEREST

Species that are protected federally under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) are listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The purpose of this Act is to protect wildlife species at risk and their critical habitat. SARA is administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada Agency, and DFO.

Certain wildlife species are also protected under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act (NS ESA). Species recognized as being at risk of extinction in Nova Scotia are identified by a provincial status assessment process through the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Working Group. The conservation and recovery of species assessed and legally listed under the NS ESA is coordinated by the Wildlife Division of the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (NSDNR). There is also a provincial general status assessment process that serves as a first alert tool for identifying species in the province that are potentially at risk. Under this process, species are assigned to categories that designate their population status in Nova Scotia, including secure, sensitive, may be at risk, and at risk. Although species assessed under this process are not granted legislative protection, the presence of species ranked as sensitive, may be at risk and at risk is an indication of concern by provincial regulators, as are those ranked as S1, S2, or S3 by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Center (AC CDC).

Migratory birds are protected federally under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) and associated regulations, which states that “no person shall disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird” without a permit. Section 5.1 of the MBCA describes prohibitions related to depositing substances harmful to migratory birds. Preferred mitigation to reduce the potential to contravene the MBCA and associated regulations is for vegetation clearing and grubbing activities to take place outside of the bird breeding season (mid-April to late August for Cape Breton). If this cannot be completed, pre-clearing nest searches maybe conducted (with approval from ECCC) to verify there are no nesting birds present at the time of clearing. However, this method is not recommended as it is possible to miss the presence of nesting birds, particularly in shrub or tree-dominated communities. Bird species not protected under the MBCA, such as raptors and cormorants, are protected under the provincial Wildlife Act along with other wildlife.


File: 121414287 3

3.0 METHODS

Wetland surveys were completed within the boundaries of the Caribou Marsh property June 26 – 28th, 2017. Areas within the property boundary that met the definition of a wetland as outlined by Nova Scotia’s Environment Act were delineated in the field following principles outlined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (1987) and classified to wetland class, form, and vegetation type, as identified by the Canadian Wetland Classification System (NWWG 1997). The wetland class places a wetland into one of five categories based on the overall nature of the wetland environment; and include bog, fen, swamp, marsh, and shallow water. Wetland forms are subdivisions of each wetland class based on topographical and hydrological characteristics. Wetland type distinguishes wetland communities based on one of eight groups of dominant vegetation (NWWG 1997).

A functional assessment of the wetlands encountered was performed following the NovaWET (NSE 2011b) approach. This method was designed to assess the condition and functions of Nova Scotia wetlands and involves both a desktop and field component. The approach is intended to provide basic information on project site wetlands, the surrounding landscape, and the contributing watershed to help evaluate the condition of the wetlands in a project area and the functions of the wetlands affected by proposed alterations (NSE 2011b). Functional assessments were completed for individual wetlands or groups of hydrologically connected wetlands (i.e., complexes) and where limited to the portions of wetlands within property boundaries, although many extend outside of these (i.e., and may support additional functions).

As part of the functional assessment, information on the presence of plant and animal Species at Risk (SAR) and Species of Conservation Interest (SOCI) was collected. Incidental observation of mammals, herpetiles, and birds were recorded during the survey and a vascular plant survey was conducted within wetlands. Information on the breeding status of birds was obtained following criteria used by the Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces (Erskine 1992). All species encountered during the surveys were identified and their population status was determined through a review of the designations provided by the NSDNR, AC CDC (2016), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2016), the federal SARA, and the NS ESA. Details on the occurrence of any SOCI encountered, including population size and associated vegetation communities, were recorded. SAR and SOCI are defined in this document as follows:

• SAR: listed as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable under Schedule 1 of the federal SARA and/or the NS ESA.

• SOCI: species not considered SAR that are listed as special concern in Schedule 1 of the SARA; listed in either Schedule 2 or 3 of the SARA; listed by COSEWIC as endangered or threatened; listed as may be at risk or sensitive by NSDNR; or designated as S1, S2 or S3 by the AC CDC.


File: 121414287 4

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 WETLANDS - OVERVIEW

Wetlands are very abundant on the property and account for approximately 60.2 ha, or 28% of its area (Table 1, Figure 1). The majority of wetland is comprised of treed swamp but tall shrub swamp is also relatively common, and areas of graminoid marsh and treed bog are present. Several vernal pool wetlands were also encountered during the surveys in association with hardwood and mixedwood forest. Three wetland complexes have been identified within the property boundaries (Table 1, Figure 1), two of which (i.e., Complex 1A and 1B) are hydrologically connected outside of the property. Wetland complexes were identified where contiguous wetland habitat is present (e.g., outside of property boundaries) or where adjacent wetland areas were connected through surface water features. In addition to those complexes identified, channelized features provide hydrological connectivity between additional wetland polygons. Wetlands on the southern boundary of the property boundary (i.e. wetlands 1, 5, and 11) have been identified by the province as “Wetlands of Special Significance” (Figure 1) because they are contiguous with wetland that occurs on adjacent properties that are under the management of the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture.


File: 121414287 5

Figure 1 Wetlands and Species of Conservation Concern


File: 121414287 6

Table 1 Wetlands encountered during site survey

Wetland ID Wetland Type Area

(ha) Complex1 Polygon

1A

1 Coniferous Treed Flat Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope Swamp, Tall Shrub Riparian Swamp, Graminoid Riparian Marsh 16.75

2 Coniferous Treed Flat Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope Swamp 0.57

3 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp 0.53

4 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope Swamp 4.20

5 Mixed Treed Flat Swamp, Tall Shrub Riparian Swamp 0.56

6 Coniferous Treed Flat Swamp 0.07

1B

7 Mixed Treed / Tall Shrub Slope Swamp 0.45

8 Mixed Treed / Tall Shrub Slope Swamp 0.41


10 Tall Shrub Slope Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope Swamp, Tall Shrub Drainageway Swamp, Mixed Treed Drainageway Swamp 5.24

11 Mixed Treed / Tall Shrub Flat Swamp 1.10



na 14 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp 0.95



na 17 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp, hardwood Treed Drainageway Swamp 0.08

na 18 Mixed Treed Basin Swamp 0.22

na 19 Mixed Treed Drainageway Swamp 0.04

na 20 Mixed Treed Basin Swamp / Vernal Pool 0.02

na 21 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp 1.38

na 22 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp and Coniferous Treed Basin Bog 7.89


na 24 Hardwood Treed Basin Swamp / Vernal Pool 0.01





na 29 Mixed Treed Basin Swamp 0.22


na 31 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp and Hardwood Treed Riparian Swamp 0.86


File: 121414287 7

Wetland ID Wetland Type Area

(ha) Complex1 Polygon

2

32 Coniferous Treed Swamp 1.28

33 Coniferous Treed Swamp 6.54

34 Coniferous Treed and Tall Shrub Basin Swamp 3.59

35 Coniferous Treed Basin Bog 2.23

na 36 Coniferous Treed Basin Bog 0.51



na 39 Mixed Treed Drainageway Swamp 0.09

na 40 Tall Shrub Basin Swamp <0.01

Total 60.18

1Complexes include polygons that are connected through contiguous wetland habitat (e.g., outside of property boundaries) or are otherwise adjacent and connected through surface water features. Channelized features provide hydrological connectivity between additional wetland polygons.

Swamps are mineral wetlands or peatlands and their water table is generally at or near the surface of the swamp, with standing water or water flowing slowly through pools or channels often present (NWWG 1997). There is internal water movement from the margin of the swamp or from other sources of mineral enriched waters. If peat is present, it consists mainly of well-decomposed wood, underlain at times by sedge peat. The vegetation typically consists of a dense cover of trees or shrubs, herbs and some mosses (NWWG 1997, Photo 1). Swamp vegetation types encountered during the survey include coniferous treed, mixedwood treed, hardwood treed and tall shrub dominated communities. A mixture of red maple (Acer rubrum), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), black spruce (Picea mariana), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and tamarack (Larix laricina) comprise the overstory within the swamps. A moderate to well-developed shrub layer was typically present; common species within this stratum include regenerating tree species, speckled alder (Alnus incana), white meadowsweet (Spiraea alba), and common winterberry (Ilex verticillata). Peatmoss (Sphagnum spp.) cover was typically well-developed within the swamps. The cover and composition of the herbaceous layer varied but a variety of forbs and graminoids were typically present including sedges (Carex spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), dwarf red raspberry (Rubus pubescens). Several of the small basin swamps encountered within the property contained vernal pools. These are small (typically less than 0.5 ha), shallow wetlands that lack permanent inlet or outlet streams and often dry out in the summer (NSE 2014b). Vegetation cover was typically sparse in these areas.

Marshes are wetlands that are periodically inundated by standing or slow flowing water that fluctuates daily, seasonally, or annually because of water level fluctuations such as tides or draw down (NWWG 1997). During drier periods declining water levels may expose areas of matted vegetation or mud flats. The surface waters are typically rich in nutrients and the substrate is usually mineral material although well-decomposed peat may occasionally be present (NWWG 1997). Marshes typically display zones or surface patterns consisting of pools or channels interspersed with patches of emergent vegetation, bordering wet meadows and peripheral


File: 121414287 8

bands of shrubs or trees. Graminoid-dominated marsh was encountered within the riparian zone of Caribou Marsh Brook and was dominated by bluejoint reed grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) and tussock sedge (Carex stricta); and lesser amounts of rough bent grass (Agrostis scabra), white meadowsweet, spotted Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum), mountain fly honeysuckle (Lonicera villosa), and mad-dog skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora).

Bogs are peatlands that have the water table at or near the peat surface. The bog surface is virtually unaffected by nutrient enriched groundwater from the surrounding mineral soils. As such, bogs are typically acidic and nutrient deficient. The dominant substrates of bogs are weakly to moderately decomposed sphagnum and woody peat that may occasionally be underlain by peat derived from sedges. Bogs may be treed or treeless and are usually occupied by various species of sphagnum moss and ericaceous shrubs (NWWG 1997). Those encountered within the property were coniferous treed bogs, although a portion of Wetland 35 lacked tree cover because of hydrological modifications (i.e., impoundment) that influenced the vegetative community in that area. The tree canopy within the bogs was open and consisted of stunted tamarack and black spruce. Stunted black spruce also formed a substantial part of a well-developed shrub layer, along with common Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), mountain holly (Nemopanthus mucronatus), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), and leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata). The ground vegetation consists largely of a well-developed layer of peatmoss, sedges (including Carex canescens, C. trisperma, C. echinata, and C. magellanica), three-leaved false Soloman's seal (Maianthemum trifolium), cinnamon fern and other species.

4.2 WETLANDS - FUNCTION

An overview of the functional character of wetlands assessed in June 2017 is provided below. Further information on wetland character and function (i.e., NovaWET results) within individual wetlands and wetland complexes is available in Attachment A. Representative photos of wetland vegetation types and plant SOCI are provided in Attachment B.

Wildlife Habitat

• The swamps encountered have potential to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, such as wetland-associated passerines and amphibians. However, because they generally lack an abundance of surface water, they are unlikely to provide important habitat for mammals that are highly dependent on aquatic environments (e.g., muskrat, beaver). However, wetland areas immediately adjacent to Caribou Marsh Brook (including graminoid marsh, shrub swamp and treed swamp) have potential to be frequented by mammals associated with aquatic habitats.

• Although the small size of the vernal pool wetlands may limit their value as wildlife habitat; they are often regarded as important features because they may provide breeding habitat for frogs, salamanders, insects and fairy shrimp; and feeding and drinking sites for birds, mammals, turtles and other wildlife (NSE 2014b).


File: 121414287 9

• Two bird SAR were encountered during the surveys: Canada warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) and eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens) (Figure 1). Canada warbler is typically associated with forested swamp habitats and was encountered in association with Wetlands 1, 4, 32, 34, and 38. The eastern wood-pewee was recorded in association with upland hardwood stands in the northern extent of the property. Additionally, six other bird SOCI were observed including boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonica), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis), pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator), and yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris). A list of birds recorded during surveys, including information on their population status is available in Attachment A.

• No plant SAR were encountered during surveys but three SOCI were observed within wetlands: hidden-scaled sedge (Carex cryptolepis; Wetland 1), Labrador bedstraw (Galium labradoricum; wetlands 8 and 10), and bulbous rush (Juncus bulbosus; Wetland 5) (Figure 1). The bulbous rush could not be confirmed due to incomplete / immature material; however, this species is known from a number of locations in the area so its presence in the study area is not unexpected. A list of plants recorded during surveys, including information on their population status is available in Attachment A.

• Wetlands associated with permanent watercourses (e.g., wetlands 1 and 5) were considered to have value as fish habitat. Although they are not sufficiently inundated to support fish, their shrub and treed-dominated plant communities have potential to contribute to the function of stream shading.

• None of the wetlands were considered to have a high diversity of plant communities or to support plant communities that are unique or rare within the province or region. For example, none were observed to support calcareous fen, black ash swamp, cedar swamp, or wild rice marsh. The vegetative communities within the wetlands did not suggest that any were particularly nutrient-rich or nutrient-poor, as may be respectively observed in areas with calcareous or acidic substrates.

• The vegetative integrity of the assessed wetlands ranged from medium to high depending on the influence of human disturbance. Non-native or invasive plants were not found to be prevalent within any of the wetlands.

Hydrological Condition and Integrity

• The hydrological condition of most wetlands was in a relatively natural state but that of wetlands 16, 21, 35, 36, 37, and 40 was considered modified because of the presence of roads, drainage ditches, and / or disturbance to their vegetative communities and soils.

• Some of the wetlands on the property would classify as headwater wetlands (i.e., located in association with a perennial stream of order 1 or 2) and may therefore be potentially important for maintaining stream flow; including wetlands 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 31, 32, 33, and 34.

• The ability of the wetlands to detain surface water varied from low to high. Surface water was not observed within many of the wetlands, although there was evidence in some sections (e.g., sparsely-vegetated concave surfaces, blackened leaves) that water does collect locally following high precipitation and / surface water runoff events. For example, although they lacked surface water at the time of the survey; wetlands 20, 26, and 30 are expected to be temporarily flooded following high precipitation or surface water runoff events.


File: 121414287 10

Water Quality

• Although all wetlands were considered to have the capacity to improve water quality in downstream resources they are not expected to currently support this function to an important degree because there was low evidence of excess nutrient loading / contamination within the wetlands.

Groundwater Interactions

• Although not confirmed, the hydrologically isolated nature of some of the wetlands suggests that they may have potential to serve as groundwater recharge site (e.g., 20, 24, 26, 27, 30, and 38).

• The surrounding topography, land use, wetland soils, expected hydroperiod, and inlet/outlet configuration indicate that many are likely to serve as groundwater discharge sites.

Shoreline Stabilization and Integrity

• Wetlands 1 and 5 are located along Caribou Marsh Brook and may be considered to have moderate potential to contribute to the function of shoreline stabilization. Wetlands located along smaller watercourses were not considered to contribute to this function to an important degree because of low amounts of erosional forces in those areas.

Community Use / Value

• None of the wetlands assessed during field surveys were considered important for community use. Apart from tree harvesting, they generally have low potential to support economic activities and are they not expected to be regularly visited for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Forest harvesting in the central portion of the wetland was observed to extend into wetlands, where trees at the wetland upland interface were preferentially harvested (i.e., these tended to be softwood trees of good size and form compared to deciduous trees in the upland areas and stunted softwood trees in the wetlands).


File: 121414287 11

5.0 REFERENCES

AC CDC (Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Center). 2017. Understanding Ranks. Available at: http://www.accdc.com/en/rank-definitions.html

AC CDC (Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre). 2016. Rarity ranks and legal status by province. Available from: http://www.accdc.com/en/ranks.html. Accessed: February 2017.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2016. Wildlife Species Search. Available online at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm

Environment Canada. 1991. Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation.

Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax

Munro, M.C; R.E. Newell; and N.M. Hill. 2014. Nova Scotia Plants. Nova Scotia Museum. Available online at: https://ojs.library.dal.ca/NSM/issue/view/508

NSE (Nova Scotia Environment). 2011a. Nova Scotia Wetland Conservation Policy. Available online at: http://www.novascotia.ca/nse/wetland/conservation.policy.asp.

NSE (Nova Scotia Environment). 2011b. Nova Scotia Wetland Evaluation Technique (NovaWET). Version 3.0.

NSE (Nova Scotia Environment). 2014a. Wetland Compensation. Available at: http://novascotia.ca/nse/wetland/docs/Wetland_Compensation.pdf

NSE (Nova Scotia Environment). 2014b. Nova Scotia’s Wetlands. Available at: https://novascotia.ca/nse/wetland/

NWWG (National Wetlands Working Group). 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System. Second Edition. Wetlands Research Centre. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.


Attachment A Data on the Character and Function of Wetlands

Table A1: Summary of wetland character (field assessment results)

Wetland(s)1 Wetland Type Water Flow Path Landform Landscape Position Origin Water Regime

Ave Water Depth (cm)

% Inundated Inlet / Outlet Stressors

1, 2, 3, 6Coniferous Treed Flat Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope Swamp, Tall Shrub Riparian Swamp,

Graminoid Riparian Marsh

Throughflow (perennial)

Slope, Flat, Floodplain Lotic Stream Natural Permanently saturated and

seasonally flooded 10 2

Inlet and outlet (Caribou Marsh Brook

and smaller unmapped channels

flow through)

Forestry activity, transmission line RoW

4 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope Swamp

Outflow (intermittent) Flat and Slope Terrene Natural Permanently saturated and

seasonally saturated 5 1 Outlet (intermittent) Roads, fill, urban/commercial development

5 Mixed Treed Flat Swamp, Tall Shrub Riparian Swamp Throughflow Flat and

Floodplain Lotic River Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily flooded na 0 Inlet and outlet Forestry activity

7,8 Mixed Treed / Tall Shrub Slope Swamp Throughflow (intermittent) Slope Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 10 2 Inlet and outlet Roads, forestry activity

9 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp Outflow Slope Terrene Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily flooded, permanently flooded 6 5 Outlet Roads

10Tall Shrub Slope Swamp, Mixed Treed Slope

Swamp, Tall Shrub Drainageway Swamp, Mixed Treed Drainageway Swamp

Outflow Slope Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 15 1 Outlet Roads, forestry activity

11 Mixed Treed / Tall Shrub Flat Swamp Outflow Flat Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 5 2 Inlet and outlet Roads, forestry activity

14, 15 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp Thoughflow Slope Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Inlet and outlet Drainage ditch, roads, forestry activity

16 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp Outflow Slope Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet Drainage ditch, fill, roads

17 Mixed Treed Slope Swamp, hardwood Treed Drainageway Swamp

Outflow (intermittent) Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily

flooded, seasonally saturated na 0 Outlet (ephemeral) Roads, forestry activity

18 Mixed Treed Basin Swamp Outflow (intermittent) Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet (ephemeral) Roads, forestry activity

19 Mixed Treed Drainageway Swamp Throughflow (intermittent) Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily

flooded, permanently flooded 10 30 Inlet and outlet Roads, forestry activity

20 Mixed Treed Basin Swamp / Vernal Pool Isolated Basin Terrene Natural Temporarily flooded na 0 No

21 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet Drainage ditch, fill, roads, forestry activity

22 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp and Coniferous Treed Basin Bog Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet Forestry activity

23 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet

24 Hardwood Treed Basin Swamp / Vernal Pool Isolated Basin Terrene Natural Seasonally saturated na 0 No

25 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet Forestry activity

26 Hardwood Treed Basin Swamp / Vernal Pool Isolated Basin Terrene Natural Temporarily flooded na 0 No

27 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Isolated Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 No Forestry activity28 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet Forestry activity

29 Mixed Treed Basin Swamp Inflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily flooded na na Inlet Forestry activity, fill, road,

Table A1: Summary of wetland character (field assessment results)

Wetland(s)1 Wetland Type Water Flow Path Landform Landscape Position Origin Water Regime

Ave Water Depth (cm)

% Inundated Inlet / Outlet Stressors

30 Hardwood Treed Basin Swamp / Vernal Pool Isolated Basin Terrene Natural Temporarily flooded na 0 No

31 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp and Hardwood Treed Riparian Swamp Outflow Floodplain /

Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 Outlet ATV trails

32, 33, 34 Coniferous Treed and Tall Shrub Basin Swamp Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 10 1 Outlet Roads, forestry activity

35 Coniferous Treed Basin Bog Outflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 5 2 Outlet

Drainage ditch, oil/chemical spill, dead/dying woody plants,

fill, roads, garbage, urban/commercial

development

36 Coniferous Treed Basin Bog Throughflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 10 1 Inlet and outlet (ditch)Drainage ditch, oil/chemical

spill, fill, roads, transmission line RoW

37 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Isolated Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated na 0 No Roads38 Coniferous Treed Basin Swamp Isolated Flat / Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated 10 1 No Roads, forestry activity

39 Mixed Treed Drainageway Swamp Throughflow Floodplain / Basin Lotic Stream Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily

flooded 10 10 Inlet and outlet Roads, forestry activity

40 Tall Shrub Basin Swamp Inflow Basin Terrene Natural Permanently saturated, temporarily flooded na na Inlet (ditch culvert) Roads, forestry activity, drainage

ditch1Information on wetland character is provided for individual wetlands or groups of wetlands (i.e., complexes) depending on their hydrological connectivity

Table A2: Summary of significant wetland functions (field-assessment NovaWET results)

Wetland(s)1

SF3

(Gen

eral

con

ditio

n /

inte

grity

)

SF4

(Adj

acen

t Lan

d co

nditi

on /

inte

grity

)

SF5

(WSS

?)

SF6

(Com

mer

cial

/rec

reat

iona

l fis

h /

shel

lfish

?)

SF7

(Spe

cies

of f

ed o

r pro

v co

ncer

n)

SF8

(Con

serv

atio

n/

com

pens

atio

n ag

reee

men

ts

/ ac

tivity

?)

SF9

(Cal

care

ous f

en, b

lack

as

h, c

edar

swam

p, o

r wild

ric

e m

arsh

?)

SF10

(Drin

king

Wat

er

Prot

ecte

d A

rea)

SF11

(Flo

odpl

ain

upst

ream

or

with

in p

opul

ated

are

a?)

SF12

(fed

/Pro

v/M

unic

ipal

ar

ea o

f int

eres

t?)

SF5-

SF12

Com

men

ts

SF13

(WL h

ydro

logi

c co

nditi

on)

SF14

(WL i

mpo

rtant

for

mai

ntai

ning

stre

am fl

ow?)

SF15

(WL

abili

ty to

det

ain

surfa

ce w

ater

)

SF13

-SF1

5 C

omm

ents

SF16

(Wet

land

impr

oves

w

ater

qua

lity?

)

SF17

(Evi

denc

e of

exc

ess

nutri

ent l

oadi

ng /

co

ntam

inat

ion?

)

SF18

(WL

cont

ribut

es to

wat

er

qual

ity in

dow

nstre

am

reso

urce

s)

SF18

Com

men

ts

SF19

(WL s

erve

s as a

re

char

ge si

te)

SF20

(WL s

erve

s as a

di

scha

rge

site)

SF19

-SF2

0 C

omm

ents

SF21

(WL

abili

ty to

sta

biliz

e sh

orel

ine)

SF21

Com

men

ts

SF22

(Uni

que

or ra

re p

lant

co

mm

unity

?)

SF23

(Con

tain

s a d

iver

sity

of

plan

t com

mun

ities

?)

SF24

(Ove

rall

inte

rity

/ qu

ality

of

pla

nt c

omm

unity

?)

SF25

(Rar

e or

end

ange

red

plan

t spe

cies

?)

SF22

-SF2

5 C

omm

ents

SF26

(Doe

s WL s

uppo

rt fis

h /

fish

habi

tat?

)

SF27

(rar

e or

end

ange

red

fish

/ w

ildlif

e sp

ecie

s?)

SF28

(Ove

rall

fish

and

wild

life

habi

tat q

ualit

y)

SF26

-SF2

8 C

omm

ents

SF29

(Com

mun

ity u

se /

va

lue)

1, 2, 3, 6 High High Yes Yes See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No

WL-1 overlaps mapped WSS

(EHJV), fish habitat in brook

Natural Yes Medium

Important for maintaining

flow of smaller watercourses

Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes

Discharge into Caribou Marsh

BrookMedium Caribou Marsh No Medium High Yes

See tables and

figure for

Yes Yes HighSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCILow

4 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No

Hydrologically connected to

WSS (EHJV)Natural Yes Medium

For small tributary to

Caribou Marsh Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1

km downstream No Yes Outflow present N/A Intermittent

stream only No Low High No No Yes MediumSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCILow

5 High High Yes Yes See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No

Overlaps mapped WSS (EHJV), brook provides fish

habitat

Natural No Medium

Not an important

contributor to brook

Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes Medium Caribou Marsh No Medium High Yes

See tables and

figure for SAR /

Yes Yes High

See tables and figure for SAR /

SOCI; fish habitat in brook but not within wetland

Low

7,8 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No


WSS (EHJV)Natural Yes Medium

Small watercourse present only,

Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes Outflow

present N/A Intermittent stream only No Low High No No No Low Low



WSS (EHJV)Natural Yes Medium Soource of

small stream Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes

Outflow present,

seepages at N/A Intermittent

stream only No Low High No No No Medium Low



WSS (EHJV)Natural Yes Medium Headwater

wetland Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes Outflow

present N/A Intermittent stream only No Medium High Yes

See tables and

No Yes MediumSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCILow

11 High High Yes No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No

Overlaps mapped WSS (EHJV), brook provides fish

Natural Yes Medium Headwater wetland Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1



14, 15 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Medium Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1

km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent stream only No Medium Medium No No No Medium Low

16 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Modified No Low Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1

km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent stream only No Low High No No No Medium Low

17 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Medium Evidence of

seasonal Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes Outflow

present N/A Intermittent stream only No Low High No No No Medium Low

18 High High No No See SF25 and SF28 No No No No No Natural No Medium Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1



19 High High No No See SF25 and SF28 No No No No No Natural No Medium Wetland fed by

small stream - Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent


20 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Medium Yes Low Low

No surface water connection to

downstream fish habitat

Yes? No No outflow N/A No outflow No Low High No No No Low-High

But could be important for vernal pool-dependant

Low

21 Medium High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Modified No High Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1

km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent stream only No Medium Medium No No Yes Medium See tables and

figure for SAR / Low

22 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural Yes High Source of small

stream Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent

stream only No Medium Medium No No Yes Medium See tables and figure for SAR / Low

23 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No High Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1

km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent stream only No Low High No No No Medium Low

24 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No High Yes Low Low



Yes? No N/A No outflow No Low Medium No No No Low-High Low

25 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Medium Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1

km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent stream only No Medium High No No No Medium Low

26 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Medium Yes Low Low



Yes? No N/A No outflow No Low High No No Yes Low-HighSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCILow

27 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No High Yes Low Low



Yes? No N/A No outflow No Medium Medium No No Yes MediumSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCILow

28 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No High Source of

intermittent Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent

stream only No Low Medium No No No Medium Low

29 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No High Yes Low Low



No No N/A No outflow No Low Medium No No No Medium Low

30 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No High Yes Low Low



Yes? No N/A No outflow No Low High No No No Low-High Low

31 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural Yes Medium

Headwater wetland to intermittent

Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent

stream only No Medium High No No Yes MediumSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCI, intermittent Low

32, 33, 34 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural Yes High Headwater

wetland to Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent

stream only No Medium High No No Yes Medium See tables and figure for SAR / Low


km downstream ? ? N/A Intermittent stream only No Low High No No No Low Low


km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent stream only No Medium Medium No Disturbed

by RoW No Yes Medium See tables and figure for SAR / Low

37 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Modified No Medium Along road

with ditch Yes Low Low



No? Yes Discharge from ditch N/A No outflow No Low High No No No Low Low

Table A2: Summary of significant wetland functions (field-assessment NovaWET results)

Wetland(s)1

SF3

(Gen

eral

con

ditio

n /

inte

grity

)

SF4

(Adj

acen

t Lan

d co

nditi

on /

inte

grity

)

SF5

(WSS

?)

SF6

(Com

mer

cial

/rec

reat

iona

l fis

h /

shel

lfish

?)

SF7

(Spe

cies

of f

ed o

r pro

v co

ncer

n)

SF8

(Con

serv

atio

n/

com

pens

atio

n ag

reee

men

ts

/ ac

tivity

?)

SF9

(Cal

care

ous f

en, b

lack

as

h, c

edar

swam

p, o

r wild

ric

e m

arsh

?)

SF10

(Drin

king

Wat

er

Prot

ecte

d A

rea)

SF11

(Flo

odpl

ain

upst

ream

or

with

in p

opul

ated

are

a?)

SF12

(fed

/Pro

v/M

unic

ipal

ar

ea o

f int

eres

t?)

SF5-

SF12

Com

men

ts

SF13

(WL h

ydro

logi

c co

nditi

on)

SF14

(WL i

mpo

rtant

for

mai

ntai

ning

stre

am fl

ow?)

SF15

(WL

abili

ty to

det

ain

surfa

ce w

ater

)

SF13

-SF1

5 C

omm

ents

SF16

(Wet

land

impr

oves

w

ater

qua

lity?

)

SF17

(Evi

denc

e of

exc

ess

nutri

ent l

oadi

ng /

co

ntam

inat

ion?

)

SF18

(WL

cont

ribut

es to

wat

er

qual

ity in

dow

nstre

am

reso

urce

s)

SF18

Com

men

ts

SF19

(WL s

erve

s as a

re

char

ge si

te)

SF20

(WL s

erve

s as a

di

scha

rge

site)

SF19

-SF2

0 C

omm

ents

SF21

(WL

abili

ty to

sta

biliz

e sh

orel

ine)

SF21

Com

men

ts

SF22

(Uni

que

or ra

re p

lant

co

mm

unity

?)

SF23

(Con

tain

s a d

iver

sity

of

plan

t com

mun

ities

?)

SF24

(Ove

rall

inte

rity

/ qu

ality

of

pla

nt c

omm

unity

?)

SF25

(Rar

e or

end

ange

red

plan

t spe

cies

?)

SF22

-SF2

5 C

omm

ents

SF26

(Doe

s WL s

uppo

rt fis

h /

fish

habi

tat?

)

SF27

(rar

e or

end

ange

red

fish

/ w

ildlif

e sp

ecie

s?)

SF28

(Ove

rall

fish

and

wild

life

habi

tat q

ualit

y)

SF26

-SF2

8 C

omm

ents

SF29

(Com

mun

ity u

se /

va

lue)

38 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Low Yes Low Low



Yes? No? N/A No outflow No Low High No No Yes MediumSee tables and figure for SAR /

SOCILow

39 High High No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Natural No Low Water in chanel

only; wetland Yes Low High Fish habitat within 1 km downstream No Yes N/A Intermittent

stream only No Low High No No No Low Low

40 Medium Medium No No See SF25 and SF27 No No No No No Modified No Medium Yes Low Low



No Yes N/A No outflow No Low High No No No Low Low

1Functional assessments were completed for individual wetlands or groups of wetlands (i.e., complexes) depending on their hydrological connectivity

Table A3: Plant species observed and percent cover estimates for dominant wetland species

4 8 9 11 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 40

CTS MTS MTS TSS GM CTS TSS MTS/TSS TSS MTS TSS MTS MTS MTS MTS MTS MTS MTS/VP CTS CTS CTB CTS MTS HTS HTS CTS CTS HTS CTS HTS CTS CTS TSS Bog CTB CTS CTB CTS/TSS CTS MTS TSS

Abies balsamea Balsam Fir S5 Secure 30 25 30 25 20 30 15 40 35 30 40 60 5 40 15 2 1 10 30 30

Acer rubrum Red Maple S5 Secure 30 40 10 30 30 5 20 20 50 80 1 25 40 25 2 2 5 5 10 30

Acer saccharum Sugar Maple S4S5 Secure 25 30

Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch S5 Secure 40 15 60 5 50 5 5 5 5 2 20 50 1

Betula papyrifera Paper Birch S5 Secure 25 25 25 30

Fagus grandifolia American Beech S5 Secure 5

Larix laricina Tamarack S5 Secure 20 5 5 1 5 5 2 10 20 70

Picea glauca White Spruce S5 Secure 5

Picea mariana Black Spruce S5 Secure 30 20 35 25 30 10 30 10 2 40 20 45 20 40 35 15 1 2 5 10 30 30

Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine S5 Secure

Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen S5 Secure

Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock S4S5 SecureUnderstory Abies balsamea Balsam Fir S5 Secure 35 15 10 15 10 25 0.5 5 1 1 1 7 10 2 20 20

Acer pensylvanicum Striped Maple S5 Secure 1

Acer rubrum Red Maple S5 Secure 5 0.5 1 2 5 1

Acer saccharum Sugar Maple S4S5 Secure 5 5

Acer spicatum Mountain Maple S5 Secure

Agrostis scabra Rough Bent Grass S5 Secure

Alnus incana Speckled Alder S5 Secure 90 10 90 40 80 60 50 35 5 35 30

Alnus viridis Green Alder S5 Secure

Amelanchier sp. a Serviceberry na na

Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla S5 Secure 10

Arceuthobium pusillum Eastern Dwarf Mistletoe S5 Secure

Athyrium filix-femina Common Lady Fern S5 Secure 5

Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch S5 Secure 2 2 20 10 10

Betula papyrifera Paper Birch S5 Secure 10Betula papyrifera var. cordifolia Heart-leaved Birch S5 Secure

Brachyelytrum septentrionale Northern Shorthusk S5 Secure

Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Reed Grass S5 Secure 30 60 20 30 25 50 2 2

Calamagrostis pickeringii Pickering's Reed Grass S4S5 Secure

Calla palustris Wild Calla S4 Secure 10

Callitriche sp. a Water-starwort na na

Cardamine pensylvanica Pennsylvania Bittercress S5 Secure

Carex aquatilis Water Sedge S4S5 Secure 15

Carex arctata Black Sedge S5 Secure

Carex brunnescens Brownish Sedge S5 Secure 5 25

Carex canescens Silvery Sedge S5 Secure 2 15 25

Carex communis Fibrous-Root Sedge S5 Secure

Carex cryptolepis Hidden-scaled Sedge S3 Secure

Carex disperma Two-seeded Sedge S5 Secure

Carex echinata Star Sedge S5 Secure 10 2

Carex gynandra Nodding Sedge S5 Secure 10 10 5 15

Carex intumescens Bladder Sedge S5 Secure

Carex lasiocarpa Slender Sedge S5 Secure

Carex leptalea Bristly-stalked Sedge S5 Secure

Carex leptonervia Finely-Nerved Sedge S5 Secure 2

Carex magellanica Boreal Bog Sedge S5 Secure 10 15 1 5

Carex nigra Smooth Black Sedge S5 Secure

Carex pauciflora Few-Flowered Sedge S4S5 Secure

Carex stipata Awl-fruited Sedge S5 Secure

Carex stricta Tussock Sedge S5 Secure 20 40 60 20 30

Carex trisperma Three-seeded Sedge S5 Secure 20 5 5 5 15 2 15 8 2 2 30 2 5 10 2

32, 33, 34

Overstory

Strata Scientific Name Common Name AC CDC S-Rank

NSDNR General

Status Rank

Wetlands and Vegetation Communities1

1, 2, 3, 6 5 22 31


4 8 9 11 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 40


32, 33, 34Strata Scientific Name Common Name AC CDC S-

Rank

NSDNR General

Status Rank


1, 2, 3, 6 5 22 31

Understory Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf S5 Secure 10

Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed S5 Secure

Chelone glabra White Turtlehead S5 SecureChrysosplenium americanum

American Golden Saxifrage S5 Secure 10

Circaea alpina Small Enchanter's Nightshade S5 Secure 1

Cirsium muticum Swamp Thistle S4S5 Secure

Cladina spp. Reindeer Lichen na na 20

Clintonia borealis Yellow Bluebead Lily S5 Secure

Coptis trifolia Goldthread S5 Secure 5 2 5 2

Corallorhiza trifida Early Coralroot S4 Secure

Cornus canadensis Bunchberry S5 Secure 20 10 20 10 2 5 2 10 10 2

Cornus rugosa Round-leaved Dogwood S4 Secure

Cypripedium acaule Pink Lady's-Slipper S5 SecureDennstaedtia punctilobula

Eastern Hay-Scented Fern S5 Secure 10

Doellingeria umbellata Hairy Flat-top White Aster S5 Secure 15 5 10

Drosera intermedia Spoon-Leaved Sundew S5 Secure

Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaved Sundew S5 Secure

Dryopteris campyloptera Mountain Wood Fern S5 Secure

Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Wood Fern S5 Secure

Dryopteris cristata Crested Wood Fern S5 Secure

Dryopteris intermedia Evergreen Wood Fern S5 Secure 20 y 15 20

Dryopteris x boottii a Hybrid Wood-fern SNA Not Assessed

Eleocharis acicularis Needle Spikerush S5 Secure

Epigaea repens Trailing Arbutus S5 Secure

Epilobium ciliatum Northern Willowherb S5 Secure

Epilobium leptophyllum Bog Willowherb S5 Secure

Epilobium palustre Marsh Willowherb S5 Secure

Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail S5 Secure

Equisetum sylvaticum Woodland Horsetail S5 Secure 20 20

Eriocaulon aquaticum White Buttons S5 Secure

Eriophorum vaginatum Tussock Cottongrass S5 Secure

Eriophorum virginicum Tawny Cottongrass S5 Secure 1

Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe-pye-weed S5 Secure 2

Eurybia radula Low Rough Aster S5 Secure 40

Fagus grandifolia American Beech S5 Secure 1 1

Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry S5 Secure

Galium labradoricum Labrador Bedstraw S2 Sensitive

Galium sp. a Nedstraw na na

Gaultheria hispidula Creeping Snowberry S5 Secure 2 10 5

Gaultheria procumbens Eastern Teaberry S5 Secure

Gaylussacia baccata Black Huckleberry S5 Secure 20

Geum rivale Water Avens S5 Secure

Glyceria borealis Northern Manna Grass S5 Secure

Glyceria canadensis Canada Manna Grass S5 Secure

Glyceria laxa Northern Mannagrass S4? Secure

Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass S5 SecureGymnocarpium dryopteris Common Oak Fern S5 Secure 5 10

Hippuris vulgaris Common Mare's-Tail S4 Secure

Huperzia lucidula Shining Firmoss S5 Secure


4 8 9 11 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 40



Rank

NSDNR General

Status Rank


1, 2, 3, 6 5 22 31

Understory Hypericum ellipticum Pale St John's-Wort S5 Secure

Ilex verticillata Common Winterberry S5 Secure 25

Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewelweed S5 Secure 20

Juncus bulbosus Bulbous Rush S1S2 Undetermined

Juncus canadensis Canada Rush S5 Secure

Juncus effusus Soft Rush S5 Secure 5

Juncus filiformis Thread Rush S5 Secure

Kalmia angustifolia Sheep Laurel S5 Secure 10 25 10 5 5 5 10

Kalmia polifolia Pale Bog Laurel S5 Secure 5

Larix laricina Tamarack S5 Secure 25 10 2 2 2 70

Ledum groenlandicum Common Labrador Tea S5 Secure 10 15 30 20 5 15 10

Linnaea borealis Twinflower S5 Secure 2 1 5

Listera convallarioides Broad-Leaved Twayblade S4 Secure

Listera cordata Heart-leaved Twayblade S4 Secure

Lonicera canadensis Canada Fly Honeysuckle S5 Secure

Lonicera villosa Mountain Fly Honeysuckle S4S5 Secure 5

Luzula acuminata Hairy Woodrush S5 Secure

Lycopodium annotinum Stiff Clubmoss S5 Secure

Lycopodium clavatum Running Clubmoss S5 SecureLycopodium dendroideum

Round-branched Tree-clubmoss S5 Secure

Lycopus uniflorus Northern Water Horehound S5 Secure

Lysimachia terrestris Swamp Yellow Loosestrife S5 Secure

Maianthemum canadense Wild Lily-of-The-Valley S5 Secure 10 15 2 5 10 10

Maianthemum trifolium Three-leaved False Soloman's Seal S5 Secure 10 20 10 20 25 5 15 15 20 5 35 35 20 20

Mitella nuda Naked Bishop's-Cap S4S5 Secure

Moneses uniflora One-flowered Wintergreen S4S5 Secure

Monotropa uniflora Indian Pipe S5 Secure

Myrica gale Sweet Gale S5 Secure 10 2Nemopanthus mucronatus Mountain Holly S5 Secure 10 15 2 5 15 1 15 10 20 50 5 10 2

Nuphar lutea Variegated Pond-lily S5 SecureNuphar lutea ssp. rubrodisca

Red-disked Yellow Pond-lily S4 Secure

Oclemena acuminata Whorled Wood Aster S5 Secure 5

Oclemena nemoralis Bog Aster S5 Secure

Oclemena x blakei a hybrid White Panicled American-Aster S5 Secure

Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern S5 Secure 10 20 5 5

Orthilia secunda One-sided Wintergreen S5 Secure

Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern S5 Secure 20 20 70 35 50 60 15 10 50 20 15 15 35 10 5 10 10 15 15 5

Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted Fern S5 Secure

Osmunda regalis Royal Fern S5 Secure 40 5

Oxalis montana Common Wood Sorrel S5 Secure 5 1

Packera schweinitziana Schweinitz's Groundsel S4 Secure

Phegopteris connectilis Northern Beech Fern S5 Secure

Photinia pyrifolia Red Chokeberry S4 Secure

Photinia sp. a Chokeberry na na

Picea glauca White Spruce S5 Secure 5

Picea mariana Black Spruce S5 Secure 10 15 2 5 5 5 25 10 10 2 0.5 10 2 10 20 40

Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine S5 Secure


4 8 9 11 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 40



Rank

NSDNR General

Status Rank


1, 2, 3, 6 5 22 31

Understory Platanthera clavellata Club Spur Orchid S5 Secure

Platanthera dilatata White Bog Orchid S4S5 Secure

Platanthera sp. an Orchid na na

Pleurozium schreberi Red-stemmed Schreber's Moss na na 10 35 30 20

Poa palustris Fowl Blue Grass S5 Secure

Poa pratensis Kentucky Blue Grass S5 SecurePoa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Blue Grass S5 Secure

Poa saltuensis Weak Blue Grass S5 Secure

Polygonatum pubescens Hairy Soloman's Seal S4S5 Secure

Polygonum sagittatum Arrow-leaved Smartweed S5 Secure

Polytrichum sp. Broom Mosss na na 20 30 10

Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen S5 Secure

Potamogeton alpinus Alpine Pondweed S4 Secure

Potamogeton gramineus Variable-leaved Pondweed S5 Secure

Potamogeton natans Floating-leaved Pondweed S5 Secure

Potamogeton sp. a Pondweed na na

Prenanthes altissima Tall Rattlesnakeroot S5 Secure

Prenanthes trifoliolata Three-leaved Rattlesnakeroot S5 Secure

Prunella vulgaris Common Self-heal S5 Secure

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern S5 Secure 10 5

Ranunculus acris Common Buttercup SNA Exotic

Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup SNA ExoticRhododendron canadense Rhodora S5 Secure 15

Ribes glandulosum Skunk Currant S5 Secure

Ribes lacustre Bristly Black Currant S5 Secure

Ribes triste Swamp Red Currant S4 Secure

Rosa nitida Shining Rose S4S5 Secure 2 5

Rubus hispidus Bristly Dewberry S5 Secure

Rubus idaeus Red Raspberry S5 Secure

Rubus pubescens Dwarf Red Raspberry S5 Secure 15 10 10 10 10

Rubus sp. a Blackberry na na

Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow S5 Secure

Salix pyrifolia Balsam Willow S5 Secure 0.5

Salix sp. a Willow na na 2 5

Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry S5 Secure

Scirpus atrocinctus Black-girdled Bulrush S5 Secure

Scutellaria galericulata Marsh Skullcap S5 Secure 1

Scutellaria lateriflora Mad-dog Skullcap S5 Secure

Sium suave Common Water Parsnip S5 Secure

Solidago rugosa Rough-stemmed Goldenrod S5 Secure 20 10

Solidago uliginosa Northern Bog Goldenrod S5 Secure

Sorbus americana American Mountain Ash S5 SecureSparganium americanum American Burreed S5 Secure

Sparganium sp. a Burreed na na

Sphagnum sp. Peatmosss na na 90 65 50 70 10 90 70 70 80 80 80 40 90 80 90 40 40 80 50 90 90 20 80 50 40 90 95 90 90 90 90 90 90 50

Spiraea alba White Meadowsweet S5 Secure 20 5 30 10 10

Stellaria alsine Trailing Stitchwort S4 Secure 20

Streptopus amplexifolius Clasping-leaved Twisted-stalk S4S5 Secure


4 8 9 11 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 40



Rank

NSDNR General

Status Rank


1, 2, 3, 6 5 22 31

Understory Symphyotrichum novi-belgii New York Aster S5 Secure

Symphyotrichum puniceum Purple-stemmed Aster S5 Secure 10

Thalictrum pubescens Tall Meadow-Rue S5 Secure 2Thelypteris noveboracensis New York Fern S5 Secure 5 15 35

Thelypteris palustris Eastern Marsh Fern S5 Secure

Triadenum fraseri Fraser's Marsh St John's-wort S5 Secure

Trichophorum caespitosum Tufted Clubrush S5 Secure

Trientalis borealis Northern Starflower S5 Secure 10

Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock S4S5 Secure

Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot SNA Exotic

Typha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail S5 Secure 3 1

Utricularia intermedia Flat-leaved Bladderwort S5 Secure

Vaccinium angustifolium Late Lowbush Blueberry S5 Secure 10

Vaccinium myrtilloides Velvet-leaved Blueberry S5 Secure

Vaccinium oxycoccos Small Cranberry S5 Secure 2 10

Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell S5 ExoticVeronica serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia

Thyme-Leaved Speedwell SNA Exotic

Viburnum nudum Northern Wild Raisin S5 Secure 5 1 5 2 5 15 20 5 2 0.5 1 5

Viola cucullata Marsh Blue Violet S5 Secure

Viola macloskeyi Small White Violet S5 Secure

Viola sp. a Violet na na 10

1CTS = Coniferous Treed Swamp, MTS = Mixed Treed Swamp, HTS = Hardwood Treed Swamp, TSS = Tall Shrub Swamp, CTB = Coniferous Treed Bog, GM = Graminoid Marsh. Plant community descriptions are provided for individual wetlands or groups of wetlands (i.e., complexes) depending on their hydrological connectivity

Table A4: Bird species observed in association with wetlands

1, 2, 3, 4, 6

5 7, 89, 10,

11, 12, 13

14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 3132, 33, 34

35 36 37 38 39

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum S5B Secure Possible xAmerican Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5 Secure PossibleAmerican Goldfinch Carduelis tristis S5 Secure Possible x x xAmerican Redstart Setophaga ruticilla S4S5B Secure Possible xAmerican Robin Turdus migratorius S5B,S3N Secure Possible x x x x xBelted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon S5B Secure PossibleBlack-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia S5B Secure Possible x x x x x x x xBlackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca S4B Secure Possible xBlack-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla S5 Secure Possible x x x x x xBlack-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens S5B Secure Possible x xBlack-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens S5B Secure Possible x x x x x x x x xBlue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 Secure Possible x x xBlue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius S5B Secure Possible x x xBoreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica S3 Sensitive Possible x xCanada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis S3B At Risk Possible x x xCedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5B Secure Possible x xChestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica S5B Secure Possible xCommon Raven Corvus corax S5 Secure PossibleCommon Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas S5B Secure Possible x x xDark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis S4S5 Secure Possible x x x x x x x x xDowny Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 Secure Possible xEastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens S3S4B Sensitive PossibleGolden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa S5 Sensitive Possible x x xGray Jay Perisoreus canadensis S3 Sensitive Possible xHairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus S5 Secure Possible x xHermit Thrush Catharus guttatus S5B Secure Possible x x x x x xLeast Flycatcher Empidonax minimus S4S5B Secure Possible x xMagnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia S5B Secure Possible x x x x x x x x x xNashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla S4S5B Secure Possible x x x

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S5B Secure No indication x

Northern Parula Parula americana S5B Secure Possible x x xOvenbird Seiurus aurocapilla S5B Secure Possible x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x xPalm Warbler Dendroica palmarum S5B Secure Possible x x xPileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus S5 Secure Possible

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator S2S3B,S5N

May Be At Risk Possible x

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus S4S5B,S3S4N Secure Possible x x

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S5B Secure Possible x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S5 Secure No indication

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula S3S4B Sensitive Possible x x x x x x x x x xRuffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus S5 Secure Possible xSpruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis S4 Secure Possible xSwainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus S3S4B Secure Possible x x x xSwamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana S5B Secure Possible x xWhite-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis S5B Secure Possible x x x xYellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris S3S4B Sensitive Possible x x x x xYellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius S4S5B Secure Possible x xYellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata S5B Secure Possible x x x x1Lists of observed species were obtained for individual wetlands or groups of wetlands (i.e., complexes) depending on their hydrological connectivity

Wetlands1

Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank

NSDNR General

Status Rank

Observed Breeding

Status

Table A5: Herpetiles and mammals observed in association with wetlands

1, 2, 3, 4, 6 5 7, 8

9, 10, 11, 12,

1314 22 26 27 30 31 32, 33,

34 35 36

American Toad Anaxyrus americanus S5 Secure x xGreen Frog Lithobates clamitans S5 Secure x x x x x

Maritime Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis pallidulus S5 Secure x

Pickerel Frog Lithobates palustris S5 Secure x xWood Frog Lithobates sylvaticus S5 Secure x x x x x xEastern Coyote Canis latrans S5 Secure xNorthern River Otter Lutra canadensis S5 Secure

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus S5 Secure x x x x x

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus S5 Secure x x x xWhite-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus S5 Secure x x x

1Lists of observed species were obtained for individual wetlands or groups of wetlands (i.e., complexes) depending on their hydrological connectivity

NSDNR General Status Rank

Wetlands1

Herpetiles

Mammals

Scientific Name AC CDC S-RankCommon Name


Attachment B Wetland Photos

File No. 121414278 Page 1 of 6

Wetland Vegetation Types

Photo 1: Graminoid marsh along Caribou Marsh Brook (Wetland 1)

Photo 2: Mixed treed swamp (Wetland 9)


Photo 3: Tall shrub swamp (Wetland 10)

Photo 4: Riparian tall shrub swamp along Caribou Marsh Brook (Wetland 5)


Photo 5: Coniferous treed swamp (Wetland 1)

Photo 6: Hardwood treed basin swamp / vernal pool (Wetland 26)


Photo 7: Coniferous treed bog (Wetland 35)

Photo 8: Coniferous treed swamp (Wetland 27)


Plant Species of Conservation Interest

Photo 1: Labrador bedstraw (Galium labradoricum) within Wetland 10

Photo 2: Unconfirmed specimen of bulbous rush (Juncus bulbosus) in Caribou Marsh Brook (Wetland 5)


Photo 3: Hidden-scaled sedge (Carex cryptolepis) along Caribou Marsh Brook (Wetland 1)

Appendix E Screening Level ERA Update

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 102-40 Highfield Park Drive, Dartmouth NS B3A 0A3

September 29, 2017 File: 121414278

Attention: Ms. Cheryl Knockwood, Governance Coordinator Membertou Governance Committee 111 Membertou Street Membertou, NS B1S 2M9

Dear Ms. Knockwood,

Reference: Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Update 2408 Highway 327, Sydney, NS (PID No. 15512601)

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was requested by the Membertou Governance Committee (Membertou) to undertake an update of the Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for the above noted Site, which was previously completed by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA). The following report was reviewed, along with data collected by Stantec between 2011 and 2017 (presented in the report Draft Report: Environmental Site Assessment, Delineation and Remedial Action Plan, dated September 29, 2017):

• Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment, 2408 Highway 327, Caribou Marsh Reserve #29, Caribou Marsh, Nova Scotia, prepared by CRA for North Shore Micmac District Council, dated July 2011

Review of Previous Reporting

A preliminary assessment was completed by CRA in March 2011, which considered soil data collected between 1996 and 2009, by other consultants (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited (now Stantec), Neill and Gunter Limited (now Stantec), and SNC_Lavalin Inc.), as well as groundwater data, most of which was from 2005. The preliminary ecological risk assessment was focused on petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and sodium/chloride in soil and groundwater.

CRA’s preliminary assessment identified localized PHC impacts in soil, which were considered to be low risk, and soil leaching was also not considered to be a concern. Localized sodium and chloride impacts were identified in groundwater, but downgradient monitoring wells did not exceed the guidelines considered applicable at the time. Given the distance to ecological receptors, CRA concluded that ecological risk was unlikely. They recommended that additional groundwater monitoring be undertaken to confirm the preliminary assessment results.

Additional assessment was completed by CRA in July 2011, including collection of 10 additional groundwater samples (including one field duplicate) from existing monitoring wells (MWs), focusing on the potential migration of the groundwater sodium/chloride plume. In addition, three surface water samples (including one field duplicate) were collected from the nearest intermittent

September 29, 2017 Ms. Cheryl Knockwood, Governance Coordinator Page 2 of 6


stream, located approximately 150 metres (m) downgradient (to the south) of the developed portion of the Site (former DFO compound).

CRA indicated that there was no visual impact on vegetation in the area between the former DFO compound and the intermittent stream. As there was no Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guideline for chloride in surface water, the results were screened against the Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG) for protection of freshwater aquatic life (guideline of 230 mg/L). Neither CCME or FIGQG had a guideline for sodium in surface water. There were no exceedances of CCME of FIGQG guidelines in the three surface water samples.

The majority of the groundwater samples were below the FIGQG guideline for chloride, with the exception of samples from MW301 and MW303 in 2005. Subsequent samples at those locations, and at surrounding MWs, were below the FIGQG guideline.

Based on the groundwater and surface water sodium and chloride results, CRA concluded that there were no unacceptable risks to ecological receptors.

Updated ERA

During 2016 and 2017, Stantec did additional environmental assessment at the Site, which included sampling of soil (testpit [TP] and MW program) and groundwater (MW program). Soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs, metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), while groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs, metals and general chemistry (including sodium and chloride). Description of the field program, laboratory certificates of analysis, etc., are provided in the report Draft Report: Environmental Site Assessment, Delineation and Remedial Action Plan, dated September 29, 2017.

The analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling were screened against the following ecological guidelines:

• Soil – CCME environmental soil quality guidelines (SQGE) for direct soil contact (commercial and residential criteria), for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), metals and PAHs (on-line, 2017)

• Soil – CCME Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for eco soil contact, for F1, F2 and F3 petroleum hydrocarbon fractions (June 2012)

• Groundwater – FIGQG for the protection for freshwater aquatic life – for BTEX, F1, F2, metals and general chemistry parameters (June 2016)

The 2016 and 2017 laboratory results are presented in the attached tables Table ERA-1 to Table ERA-6, and are summarized below.



Soil PHCs

BTEX compounds were detected in two of 27 soil samples, with concentrations below both the residential and commercial CCME SQGE (see attached Table ERA-1). One or more of the F1, F2 and F3 fractions were detected in 11 of the 27 samples, but only one sample (TP15-16 SA2) exceeded the CWS F2 and F3 criteria (for both residential and commercial land use).

Based on the limited area of PHC impacts in soil above eco contact guidelines (see attached Drawing No. ERA-1), unacceptable ecological risk is not expected. In addition, eventual re-development of the site is expected to include excavation and removal of the PHC impacted soil.

Soil Metals

Metals were not assessed previously by CRA, from an ERA standpoint. The only metals exceedances measured in the 15 samples submitted for analysis were chromium in two samples (TP08-16 SA1 and TP10-16 SA2) and nickel in one sample (TP08-16 SA1), which exceeded the CCME SQGE for a residential site (see attached Table ERA-2). There were no exceedances of the commercial CCME SQGE.

Based on the isolated metals exceedances (see attached Drawing No. ERA-1), the metals concentrations may be associated with background conditions. In any case, unacceptable ecological risks are not expected.

Soil PAHs

Of the 13 soil samples submitted for PAH analysis, only one sample (MW12-17 SA3) had any detectable PAH parameters (see attached Table ERA-3). The sample MW12-17 SA3 had seven PAH parameters with detectable concentrations, but all were below the CCME SGQE.

Therefore, there are no unacceptable ecological risks from PAH parameters.

Groundwater PHCs

One or more BTEX compounds were detected in eight of the 22 groundwater samples submitted for analysis (see attached Table ERA-4), and all were below the FIGQG for protection of freshwater aquatic life (FAL). There are only FIGQG FAL guidelines for F1 and F2 fractions, and 11 of the 22 sample locations had detectable F1 and/or F2 concentrations. Five samples (MW1, MW2, MW02-17, MW04-17, and MW06-17) had exceedances of the FIGQG FAL for F2.

Similar to the soil results, the groundwater PHC impacts are in a limited area, around the former location of an underground storage tank (UST), and do not extend in a downgradient direction (to the south) toward the closest FAL ecological receptors (see attached Drawing No. ERA-2). Unacceptable ecological risk is therefore not expected, and eventual re-development of the Site



is expected to include excavation and removal of the PHC impacted soil, which will also result in improvement in the groundwater quality.

Groundwater Metals

The majority of the metals parameters, where detected in the 22 samples submitted for analysis, were below the FIGQG FAL. This includes sodium, for which there is no FIGQG FAL. The only exceptions were arsenic, which had samples at seven locations which exceeded the FIGQG FAL, and iron, which had samples at 13 locations which exceeded the FIGQG FAL. Given the widespread presence of arsenic, and the specific concentrations measured (similar to naturally occurring arsenic concentrations in groundwater in many parts of Nova Scotia), it is likely that the arsenic is attributable to background concentrations. The iron concentrations that exceed guidelines are significantly different from the surrounding MWs, so are not likely background. However, they are closely associated with the presence of the PHC impacts in soil and groundwater. PHC impacts will often create a groundwater iron ‘halo’ by changing the oxidation conditions in groundwater.

The groundwater metals impacts above FIGQG FAL are in a limited area and do not extend in a downgradient direction (south) toward the nearest FAL ecological receptor (see attached Drawing No. ERA-2). Therefore, no unacceptable ecological risk is expected.

Groundwater General Chemistry

The majority of the general chemistry parameters do not have FIGQG FAL guidelines, and therefore are not of concern. The only exceedances that were measured were for chloride at five of 22 locations sampled (MW2, MW04-17, MW05-17, MW06-17, and MW-07-17), and pH in nine of 22 samples. Low pH in groundwater, below the FIGQG FAL range of 6.5 to 9.0, is common to groundwater in Nova Scotia, and is expected to be naturally occurring. The chloride exceedances are surmised to be associated with former salt storage on the Site.

The chloride impacted plume does not extend in a downgradient direction (south) toward the nearest FAL ecological receptor (see attached Drawing No. ERA-2), and therefore, no unacceptable ecological risk is expected.



Conclusions

Based on the review of soil and groundwater chemistry from the most recent site assessment program, impacts above ecological screening criteria are either isolated, or have been delineated and do not extend in a downgradient direction toward the nearest FAL ecological receptor. Therefore, no unacceptable ecological risk is expected on the Site.

Expected removal of PHC impacts in soil as part of future development of the Site will address any future concerns.

Regards,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

John Henderson, P.Eng. Associate, Environmental Remediation Phone: (902) 468-7777 Fax: (902) 468-9009 [email protected]

Attachment: Chemistry Tables ERA-1 to ERA-6 Drawing No. ERA-1 Soil Exceedances Drawing No. ERA-2 Groundwater Exceedances

LIMITATIONS

This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential liabilities associated with the identified property.

All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others.



Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property’s environmental condition. This report should not be construed as legal advice.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report.

The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or sub-surface utilities and structures are not guaranteed. Before starting work, the exact location of all such utilities and structures should be confirmed and Stantec assumes no liability for damage to them.

TABLE ERA-1 SOIL PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32

TP01-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

Lab Dup - - - - - <10 <10 <15 n/a -TP04-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 4.4 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP05-16 SA2(1.66-3.20)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP06-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 0.19 0.013 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 66 66 Unidentified compounds in the lube oil range

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP07-16 SA2(0.61-1.52)


TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP09-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)


TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-1.37)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

30-Nov-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.01 <0.05 <2.5 <10 44 190 230 Unidentified compounds in the fuel/lube range. Lube oil fraction.

6-Dec-16 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

Lab Dup <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 - - - - -TP14-16 SA1(0.00-0.91)


TP15-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)


MW01-17 SS5 5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 26 210 130 54 420 Weathered fuel oil fraction5-Mar-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.40 4.3 <10 15 34 53 Lube oil fractionLab Dup <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.40 <2.5 - - - - -

MW03-17 SS3 5-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -MW04-17 SS2 6-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -MW05-17 SS3 6-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

MW06-17 SS3 6-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 15 35 86 130 One product in fuel/lube range. Lube oil fraction.

MW07-17 SS3 6-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -MW09-17 SS4 7-Mar-16 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -MW10-17 SS3 7-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 31 31 Lube oil fractionMW11-17 SS6 7-Mar-17 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -MW12-17 SS3 8-Aug-17 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 <2.5 <10 <10 <15 n/a -

31 75 55 95 - - - - - -

180 250 300 350 - - - - - -

- - - - 210 150 - -

- - - - 320 260 - -

Notes:1. mbg = metres below grade2. ' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable3. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate4. Modified TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons excluding total BTEX5. CCME Guidelines = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and

Human Health (Online 2017); Residential and Commercial land use, coarse grained soil. 6. CWS Guidelines = Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil; Residential and Commercial land use. January 2008.7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit8. Bold and Underlined = parameter concentration exceeds the CCME SQGE for Eco Soil Contact at a residential site 9. Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the CCME SQGE for Eco Soil Contact at a commercial site

Bold and Underlined = parameter concentration exceeds the CWS for Eco Soil Contact at a residential site Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the CWS for Eco Soil Contact at a commercial site


2500

1300

Toluene Ethyl-Benzene Xylenes

FuelTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg or ppm)

MW02-17 SS2

Sample ID& Depth(mbg)

DateSampled


2017 Monitor Well Program

TP02-16 SA2(0.61-1.22)

TP13-16 SA3(1.22-1.52)

HydrocarbonResemblanceBenzene

ModifiedTPH 4

F3

BTEX Parameters (mg/kg or ppm)

CCME Pathway specific CWS for eco soil contact (commercial)

CCME Pathway Specific SQGE (soil contact, commercial use)CCME Pathway specific CWS for eco soil contact (residential)

CCME Pathway Specific SQGE (soil contact, residential use)

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\PHC-Soil-Eco Page 1 of 1

TABLE ERA-2 SOIL INORGANIC CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

TP01-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP02-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP04-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP05-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

TP06-16-SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP09-16 SA2(0.00-1.52)

TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

MW12-17 SS3(1.52-2.13)

Date Sampled: 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 Lab Dup 8-Mar-17 Lab Dup 23-Aug-17Aluminum - - 12000 12000 14000 4600 12000 17000 23000 11000 16000 22000 14000 13000 13000 13000 10000 - 6000Antimony - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Arsenic 17 26 9.8 15 14 11 10 8.4 9.3 14 11 9.7 9.3 11 14 14 12 14 11Barium - - 17 15 33 13 20 42 97 53 52 92 45 22 77 74 26 27 72Beryllium - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 - <2.0Bismuth - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 - <2.0Boron - - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - <50Cadmium 10 22 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.39 <0.3 0.44 <0.3 <0.3 0.35 0.33 <0.30 <0.30 0.36Chromium 64 87 13 13 22 4.7 11 39 73 14 42 68 36 12 18 17 12 13 11Cobalt - - 8.2 9.6 12 6.1 5.1 14 20 9.7 15 20 13 7.3 13 13 9.6 9.6 7Copper 63 91 8.9 9.9 19 3.1 22 25 59 18 30 46 31 8.1 17 17 13 13 11Iron - - 19000 20000 25000 13000 14000 25000 34000 22000 25000 34000 24000 20000 27000 27000 21000 22000 16000Lead 300 600 43 86 38 11 35 25 23 40 18 20 30 31 41 45 43 43 22Lithium - - 17 15 18 2.5 11 23 32 16 22 30 18 13 19 18 12 13 9.8Manganese - - 570 1200 920 1500 230 740 1100 1100 1200 1300 930 580 1100 1200 1100 1000 680Mercury 12 50 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Molybdenum - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Nickel 45 89 14 13 21 2.3 7.8 29 48 15 30 44 26 9.1 23 22 16 17 12Rubidium - - 7.9 6.3 8 4.2 7.5 4.8 5 7.2 4.1 4.4 4 8.3 7.8 7.7 5.6 5.9 3.3Selenium 1 2.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver - - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Strontium - - <5.0 <5.0 9.1 <5.0 <5.0 25 51 17 26 46 25 <5.0 7.4 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 18Thallium 1.4 3.60 0.13 0.16 0.14 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.17 <0.1Tin - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Uranium 500 2000 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.24 0.4 0.47 0.59 0.63 0.42 0.49 0.52 0.45 0.6 0.66 0.6 0.61 0.41Vanadium 130 130 18 17 27 17 22 40 63 19 37 61 37 23 22 22 17 17 15Zinc 200 360 75 70 85 14 56 90 120 94 75 110 91 59 97 92 79 81 67


for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (1999; last updated 2012); Residential/Commercial/Industrial land use guidelines5. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit6. Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the CCME SQGE for Eco Soil Contact at a residential site * TP10-16 was excavated into a fill pile. SA1 was taken from the top of the fill pile at 3m above grade. SA2 was collected from the base of the fill pile.


ParametersCCME SQGEResidential

(mg/kg)

CCME SQGECommercial

(mg/kg)TP16-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

MW11-17 SS2(0.61-1.22)

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\Metals-Soil - Eco Page 1 of 1

TABLE ERA-3 SOIL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

TP02-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP04-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP05-16 SA1(0.00-1.66)

TP08-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP09-16 SA2(0.00-1.52)

TP10-16 SA1*(-3.0)

TP10-16 SA2*(0.0)

TP11-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP12-16 SA2(0.77-1.37)

TP16-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

MW12-17 SA3(1.52-2.13)

Date Sampled: 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 Lab Dup 30-Nov-16 Lab Dup 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 8-Aug-17Non-Carcinogenic PAHs1-Methylnaphthalene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0162-Methylnaphthalene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.013Acenaphthene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Acenaphthylene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.048Anthracene - 3 32 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fluoranthene - 50 180 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.015Fluorene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Naphthalene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perylene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Phenanthrene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.034Pyrene - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.014Carcinogenic PAHsBenzo[a]anthracene 0.1 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[a]pyrene 1 20 72 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[j]fluoranthene 0.1 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chrysene 0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.018Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.1 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01B[a]P TPE - - 5.3

Notes:1. mbg = metres below grade2. ' -' = no standard available3. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate4. B[a]P PEF = Benzo(a)pyrene Potency Equivalent Factor5. B[a]P TPE = Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalent concentration, which is calculated by multiplying the concentration


6. CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guideline for Protection of Human Health based on carcinogenic effects for PAHs with 10-5 incremental lifetime cancer risk (2010)7. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit


CCME Tier 1 SQGE

Residential

CCME Tier 1 SQGE

Commercial TP06-16-SA1(0.00-0.61)

TP07-16 SA1(0.00-0.61)

Sample ID and depth

ParameterB(a)PPEF 5

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\PAH-Soil-Eco Page 1 of 1

TABLE ERA-4 GROUNDWATER PETROLEUM CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Gas LubeF1 F2

C6-C10 >C10-C16 >C16-C21 >C21-C32




MW08-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.002 0.027 0.66 0.15 <0.10 0.84 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW09-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW10-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW11-17 22-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW12-17 23-Aug-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.1 n/a

26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aLab Dup <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 - - - - -

MW103A 14-Feb-96 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW103B 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW104A 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW105 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.061 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10 n/aMW1 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 0.41 65 45 17 130 Weathered fuel oil fraction.MW2 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 0.27 480 250 76 810 Weathered fuel oil fraction.

MW108 26-Jun-17 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.01 0.11 0.53 0.41 1.0




0.69 0.083 41 18 9.8 1.3

Notes:1. ' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable2. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate3. Modified TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons excluding total BTEX

4. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit5. FIGQG = Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines, 20166. Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the FIGQG for protection of freshwater aquatic life



F3

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

MW102

FIGQG for protection of freshwater aquatic life

FuelSample ID Date

Sampled


MW01-17

MW07-17

MW303

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\PHC-GW-Eco Page 1 of 1

TABLE ERA-5 GROUNDWATER INORGANIC CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW102 MW103A MW103B MW104A MW105 MW1 MW2 MW108 MW302 MW01-17 MW02-17

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup Dup02-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17Aluminum - 11 22 16 28 300 46 190 82 22 26 26 61 11 23Antimony 2000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Arsenic 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.8 6.7 15 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.1 6.9 11Barium 2900 9.0 70 27 14 40 18 29 13 5.9 13 14 49 23 17Beryllium 5.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Bismuth - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Boron - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Cadmium - 0.053 0.16 0.067 0.13 0.023 0.012 3.1 0.23 0.090 0.13 0.13 0.21 <0.01 0.037Calcium - 2300 1500 3200 1300 5800 1700 13000 2000 3300 1300 1300 6500 4400 3000Chromium 8.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cobalt - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 13 33 2.7 0.87 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 3.4 8.8 18Copper - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 4.3 <2.0 <2.0 4.7 <2.0 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Iron 300 <50 <50 <50 <50 7400 3600 3500 770 <50 <50 <50 2000 4600 2700Lead - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.62 <0.50 <0.50 1.7 <0.50 <0.50 0.56 0.52 <0.50 <0.5 0.93Magnesium - 310 870 540 420 2300 700 620 790 440 420 420 2200 1500 1300Manganese - 5.6 30 9.4 40 10000 11000 7400 6200 130 40 40 2600 8300 8600Molybdenum 73 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Nickel - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6.3 6.5 2.9 3.8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.6 2.3 5.6Phosphorus - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100Potassium - 410 440 380 400 820 570 3400 560 700 400 400 510 2000 1600Selenium 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Sodium - 3000 3500 3500 12000 21000 4600 580000 11000 23000 12000 12000 5100 50000 17000Strontium - 17 11 14 7.0 18 10 41 11 8.5 5.7 6.0 22 18 26Thallium 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.30Tin - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Titanium 100 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 3.4 <2.0 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Uranium 15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Vanadium - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Zinc 30 <5.0 7.3 <5.0 6.7 <5.0 <5.0 23 7.5 6.3 5.9 6.5 29 21 7.1

Notes:1. ' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable2. lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate3. <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit4. FIGQG = Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines, 20165. Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the FIGQG for protection of freshwater aquatic life

Parameter

Date Sampled:

MW303

FIGQG for protection of

freshwater aquatic life

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\Metals-GW-Eco Page 1 of 2

TABLE ERA-5 GROUNDWATER INORGANIC CHEMISTRYMembertou Development CorporationCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW03-17 MW04-17 MW05-17 MW06-17 MW09-17 MW10-17 MW11-17 MW12-17

Date Sampled: 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 DUP01-17 22-Jun-17 Lab Dup 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 25-Aug-17Aluminum - 55 45 16 27 32 26 14 15 30 13 270 21Antimony 2000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Arsenic 5 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 2.1 4.1 4.1 9.9 10 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Barium 2900 26 44 20 21 18 18 23 23 16 2.1 24 160Beryllium 5.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Bismuth - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Boron - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Cadmium - 0.39 <0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.19 0.034 0.083 0.043Calcium - 2800 5900 9900 7800 14000 14000 4400 4400 4200 3400 4300 47000Chromium 8.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cobalt - 6.0 8.8 1.5 5.2 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 6.0 <0.40 0.54 0.4Copper - 3.4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Iron 300 140 15000 <50 1500 2800 2900 4900 4900 2300 <50 340 <50Lead - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.2 <0.5Magnesium - 1200 960 2000 440 1100 1100 1300 1300 1400 370 1200 6500Manganese - 3900 16000 690 4800 3300 3300 7900 7800 3500 130 980 1200Molybdenum 73 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 12 <2.0 <2.0 2.3Nickel - 6.3 3.3 4.9 2.4 <2.0 <2.0 3.1 3.2 13 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Phosphorus - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100Potassium - 620 1300 2000 3800 3500 3400 2300 2300 1700 1200 740 14000Selenium 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Silver - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Sodium - 6500 220000 290000 300000 160000 160000 80000 79000 26000 26000 5000 13000Strontium - 15 22 27 22 33 32 23 23 36 8.2 11 120Thallium 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10Tin - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Titanium 100 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6.3 <2.0Uranium 15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.17Vanadium - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Zinc 30 10 <5.0 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.4 7.5 9.0 <5.0 6.9 <5.0

Notes: '' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit FIGQG = Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines, 2016 Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the FIGQG for protection of freshwater aquatic life

MW07-17 MW08-17Parameter



\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\Metals-GW-Eco Page 2 of 2

TABLE ERA-6 GROUNDWATER GENERAL CHEMISTRYMembertou Governance CommitteeCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

MW102 MW103A MW103B MW104A MW105 MW1 MW2 MW108 MW302 MW01-17 MW02-17 MW03-17 MW04-17 MW05-17

Date Sampled: 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 Lab Dup Dup02-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17Anion Sum me/L - 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.69 1.94 0.72 20.2 1.02 1.35 0.73 - 0.85 3.7 1.54 0.66 10.8 10.3Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - 8.4 5.4 8 6.8 63 27 130 16 10 7.1 - 23 92 61 13 68 36Calculated TDS mg/L - 21 28 27 47 120 49 1300 62 85 48 - 56 200 90 43 650 690Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cation Sum me/L - 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.63 1.75 0.49 26.3 0.7 1.21 0.63 - 0.83 2.79 1.26 0.54 10.6 13.1Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L - 7.0 7.4 10 4.9 24 7.0 35 8.3 10 4.9 - 25 17 13 12 19 33Ion Balance (% Difference) % - 6.45 7.46 2.63 4.55 5.15 19 13.1 18.6 5.47 7.35 - 1.19 14 10 10 0.51 12.2Langelier Index (@ 20°C) N/A - -3.75 -4.01 -3.76 -4.3 -2.27 -3.74 -1.57 -3.78 -3.76 -4.19 - -3.05 -1.78 -2.38 -3.82 -2.37 -2.27Langelier Index (@ 4°C) N/A - -4.0 -4.26 -4.01 -4.55 -2.52 -3.99 -1.81 -4.03 -4.02 -4.44 - -3.3 -2.03 -2.63 -4.07 -2.61 -2.52Nitrate (N) mg/L 13 0.12 0.098 0.11 0.18 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.25 0.17 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1Saturation pH (@ 20°C) N/A - 10.0 10.4 9.88 10.4 8.79 9.65 8.36 9.8 9.8 10.3 - 9.14 8.79 9.07 9.74 8.89 8.96Saturation pH (@ 4°C) N/A - 10.2 10.6 10.1 10.6 9.04 9.91 8.6 10.1 10.1 10.6 - 9.39 9.04 9.32 9.99 9.14 9.2Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3) mg/L - 8.4 5.4 8 6.8 63 27 130 16 10 7.1 - 23 92 61 13 68 36Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 120 3.5 4.2 5.6 8.3 24 6.5 550 19 24 8.8 - 7.5 52 9.7 10 310 280Colour TCU - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 210 5.0 36 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 39 12 92 <5.0Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L - 0.12 0.098 0.11 0.18 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.25 0.17 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1Nitrite (N) mg/L 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L - 0.051 <0.05 0.11 0.064 0.85 0.12 0.21 0.18 0.051 0.062 - 0.16 0.61 1.7 <0.05 0.39 0.098Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L - <25 <0.50 9.5 0.87 15 7.8 190 13 <50 0.6 - <50 5.8 <50 <5.0 <50 <500Orthophosphate (P) mg/L - <0.01 0.015 <0.01 <0.01 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01pH pH 6.5-9.0 6.25 6.37 6.12 6.07 6.52 5.91 6.79 6.02 6.04 6.16 - 6.09 7.01 6.69 5.92 6.53 6.68Reactive Silica (SiO 2) mg/L - 3.3 7.3 5.4 4.8 5.4 4.5 3.4 4.2 5 4.9 - 7.0 5.1 5.5 4.7 4.4 5.1Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 100 2.6 6.0 3.3 15 <2.0 <2.0 100 7.3 22 15 - 8.3 19 2 5.2 24 86Turbidity NTU - 380 13 >1000 35 59 320 490 >1000 >1000 18 - >1000 450 >1000 92 >1000 >1000Conductivity uS/cm - 30 39 40 70 180 68 2100 110 140 75 - 85 340 140 70 1200 1100Sodium mg/L - 3.0 3.5 3.5 12 21 4.6 580 11 23 12 12 5.1 50 17 65 220 290

Notes:1 ' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicable2 lab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate3 <# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limit4 FIGQG = Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines, 20165 Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the FIGQG for protection of freshwater aquatic life

Parameter UnitsMW303



\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\GenChem-GW-Eco Page 1 of 2

TABLE ERA-6 GROUNDWATER GENERAL CHEMISTRYMembertou Development CorporationCaribou Marsh IR 29Stantec Consulting Ltd. Project No. 121414278

Sample ID

Parameter Units



MW06-17 MW09-17 MW10-17 MW11-17 MW12-17

Date Sampled: 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 DUP01-17 22-Jun-17 Lab Dup 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 22-Jun-17 25-Aug-17Anion Sum me/L - 13.4 8.26 8.89 4.54 - 1.63 1.41 1.17 4.3Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - 180 150 170 97 - 18 29 41 160Calculated TDS mg/L - 810 490 510 260 - 110 87 57 230Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Cation Sum me/L - 13.6 7.88 7.86 4.06 - 1.61 1.35 0.560 3.81Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L - 21 40 40 16 - 16 9.9 16 140Ion Balance (% Difference) % - 0.63 2.35 6.15 5.58 - 0.620 2.17 35.3 6.04Langelier Index (@ 20°C) N/A - -1.32 -1.1 -0.705 -1.84 - -2.95 -2.67 -1.80 0.233Langelier Index (@ 4°C) N/A - -1.57 -1.35 -0.953 -2.09 - -3.20 -2.92 -2.05 -0.018Nitrate (N) mg/L 13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 - 0.063 0.63 0.060 <0.05Saturation pH (@ 20°C) N/A - 8.38 8.14 8.10 8.78 - 9.48 9.35 9.07 7.51Saturation pH (@ 4°C) N/A - 8.62 8.39 8.35 9.03 - 9.73 9.60 9.32 7.76Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3) mg/L - 180 150 170 (2) 97 - 18 29 41 160Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 120 260 130 140 73 - 37 16 8.0 29Colour TCU - <5.0 <5.0 7.8 <5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L - <0.05 <0.05 ND <0.05 - 0.063 0.63 0.060 <0.05Nitrite (N) mg/L 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 ND <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L - 0.12 0.15 0.23 0.41 - 0.053 0.067 0.069 0.091Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L - <25 8.6 ND (1) <5.0 - <25 <5.0 <25 27Orthophosphate (P) mg/L - <0.01 <0.01 ND <0.01 - <0.01 0.012 <0.01 <0.01pH pH 6.5-9.0 7.06 7.04 7.39 6.94 - 6.53 6.68 7.27 7.74Reactive Silica (SiO 2) mg/L - 3.7 7 9.0 5.4 - 5.9 4.0 5.5 6.7Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 100 120 78 81 (2) 26 - 12 16 5.4 9.8Turbidity NTU - >1000 350 >1000 350 390 >1000 >1000 >1000 360Conductivity uS/cm - 1400 830 880 440 - 180 140 110 400Sodium mg/L - 300 160 160 80 78 26 26 5 13

Notes:' -' = no standard available; n/a = not applicablelab dup = laboratory QA/QC duplicate<# = parameter concentration below laboratory's reportable detection limitFIGQG = Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines, 2016

Shaded = parameter concentration exceeds the FIGQG for protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life

MW08-17MW07-17

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121414278\05_report_delivery\draft_doc\esa\appendix_f_era\tbl_121414278_presentation_ERA Update_dac.xlsm\GenChem-GW-Eco Page 2 of 2

final report: environmental site assessment, delineation ... 2 esa cm final...the site consists of...

Documents