AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Hydrogeological Impact Study

Proposed Plan of Subdivision

3600 Narrows Road

Township of Severn, County of Simcoe

Prepared for:. 2115441 Ontario Inc

Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental

Consulting, Inc.

February 2016

AEC 09-299b

85 Bayfield Street, Suite 400, Barrie, Ontario L4M 3A7 telephone: (705) 721-8451 • fax: (705) 721-8926 • info@azimuthenvironmental.com • www.azimuthenvironmental.com

AEC 09-299b February 8, 2016 2115441 Ontario Inc. 3095 New Street, Suite 200 Burlington Ontario L7N 1M7 Attention: Sherif Khair RE: Hydrogeological Impact Study for a Proposed Plan of Subdivision

3600 Narrows Road, Part of Lot 19, Concession 14 (Geographic Township of Tay) Township of Severn, County of Simcoe

Dear Sir:

Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Azimuth) was retained to conduct a Hydrogeological Assessment pertaining to the construction of a 14 lot, privately serviced shoreline residential development located on Part of Lot 19, Concession 14, Township of Severn, County of Simcoe (3600 Narrows Road).

Azimuth completed a Hydrogeological Impact Study in May 2011 in support of a prior development proposal on the site containing 23 seasonal residential lots. The plan of subdivision now proposed for the site has been significantly revised in response to agency comments and proposes only 14 residential lots.

Based on our interpretation of the available data, it is concluded that the hydrogeologic and hydrologic conditions of the subject property are suitable for the proposed 14 lot shoreline residential subdivision, subject to the sewage disposal and well water findings and recommendations contained in this report.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Mike Jones, M.Sc., P.Geo. President

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. II

Table of Contents

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

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................... 1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................... 2 3.1 Physiography and Topography ................................................................................ 2

3.2 Soils and Bedrock Geology ........................................................................................ 3

4.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ..................... ........... 4 4.1 Preliminary Subsurface Investigation ...................................................................... 4

4.2 Soil Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................ 5

4.2.1 Grain-Size Analysis ................................................................................................... 5

4.3 Ground Water Investigation ..................................................................................... 7

4.3.1 Water Quality Results ............................................................................................... 7

4.3.2 Pump Test Results ..................................................................................................... 8

5.0 SEPTIC SYSTEM CONCEPTS ..................................................... 8 5.1 Sewage Volumes ......................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Sewage Design ............................................................................................................ 9

5.21. Conceptual Leaching Bed Design ........................................................................... 10

6.0 POTABLE WATER SUPPLY ...................................................... 14 6.1 Supply Potential .................................................................................................. 14

6.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 15

6.3 Water Demand .................................................................................................... 15

6.3.1 Residential Water Demand ..................................................................................... 15

6.3.2 Well Construction and Siting .................................................................................. 16

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 16

7.1 Potential for Impacts to Surface Water ................................................................. 16

7.1.1 Phosphorus Loading/ Attenuation ........................................................................... 17

7.1.2 Assimilative Capacity and Dilution Potential ......................................................... 20

7.2 Water Balance / Storm Water ................................................................................ 21

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. III

7.3 Source Water Protection ......................................................................................... 22

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 22

9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................. 25

List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area Location Figure 2 Site Testing Locations Figure 3 Proposed Servicing Layout Figure 4 Locke Well Pumping Test Curve

List of Tables Table 1 Soil Gradation Analysis Results Table 2 OBS Minimum Spacing Requirements

List of Appendices Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: GIN Well Record Print Out Appendix C: Soil Description Logs Appendix D: Geospec Engineering - Soil Analysis Results Appendix E: AGAT Laboratories - Water Quality Results Appendix F: Attenuation/Phosphorus Absorption Capacity Calculations

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION The subject property is municipally known as 3600 Narrows Road and is legally described as Part of Lot 19, Concession 14 (Geographic Township of Tay), Township of Severn (Figure 1). The draft plan of subdivision proposes the development of 14 shoreline residential lots with a single detached dwelling and associated private well and septic system on each lot.

The purpose of this study is to comply with the draft plan of subdivision application requirements of the County of Simcoe and Township of Severn. The Township of Severn Official Plan policies require that the suitability of the property to sustain the construction of a single detached dwelling on each of the 14 lots be confirmed. The Official Plan policies require that a Hydrogeological Study submitted for a proposed development must address the following:

• Assess the water, sewage disposal and other service impacts of the proposed development and the potential impacts of the development on the Township’s ability to supply the necessary services; and

• Assess the impacts of the proposed development on ground water quality and quantity and the maintenance of base flows in adjacent watercourses.

The following sections of this report provide the results of Azimuth’s hydrogeologic evaluation and associated recommendations.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK This study is primarily focused on potential impact(s) to the site’s hydrogeologic and hydrologic features associated with construction of the proposed 14 lot development. It includes an assessment of the suitability of the prescribed lot area for the construction of individual on-site wells and individual on-site septic systems (as it relates to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code).

This evaluation considered available literature and data which was augmented by Azimuth’s existing knowledge and familiarity with the area, as well as the completion of an on-site work program. The following activities were undertaken for this study:

• A review of available geologic mapping from the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA);

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 2

• Review of relevant environmental background material published by the MNRF and Township;

• Completion of a reconnaissance survey of the property and surrounding area by Azimuth staff. The purpose of this task was to confirm the local hydrogeologic conditions, which included the micro-scale topography, as well as local ground and surface water flow pathways;

• Completion of an on-site investigation. A hand auger was utilized to document the composition of the shallow overburden, as well as to determine the presence / absence of a shallow ground water condition in the proposed septic bed area for each lot. Twenty (20) locations were evaluated, and four (4) representative samples of the shallow overburden soils were sent to GeoSpec Engineering Ltd. for gradation analysis. The purpose of this testing was to characterize the grain size distribution for the shallow overburden soils, as well as to determine an estimated infiltration rate (‘T’ time) for future use in the detailed design of the future septic beds;

• Two (2) water quality samples were collected from neighboring wells to ensure a suitable potable water source is available. One (1) pump test of the neighboring wells was also conducted to ensure there is a sufficient local water supply.

• An assessment of potential environmental impacts was conducted for the proposed development. For ground water purposes, the evaluation considers downgradient use and discharge from the shallow system into adjacent water bodies.

The surface water impact assessment focused on the potential for algal growth in the receiving water bodies fostered by additional nutrient loading (i.e., phosphorus loading) from the individual septic beds.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 Physiography and Topography

According to Chapman and Putnam (1984), the subject property falls within the physiographic region known as the Georgian Bay Fringe. The region consists of a broad belt bordering Georgian Bay, characterized by very shallow soil and bare rock knobs and ridges. It occupies much of Parry Sound and Muskoka and extends eastward from

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 3

Muskoka into the area north of Kawartha Lakes, covering about 1,290 square miles. In Muskoka the bare rock ridges are due to the fact that they were washed by the waves when glacial Lake Algonquin inundated this area.

The local topography for the property contains smooth to moderate slopes with surface elevations for the site ranging in the vicinity of 180 masl to 190 masl. Due to the rolling topography within the site, slope direction varies across the property. In general, the lands slope toward the shorelines of the adjacent surface water features (i.e., Severn River, Gloucester Pool, Back Bay).

Two swamp features are located on-site; one within the southern limits of the property, and one within the northern portion or the property. These small swamps receive most of the surface runoff from the site. Surface water from these swamps then flow into “Back Bay” which is a small branch of Severn River (Figure 2).

Ground water flow within the overburden is primarily controlled by the topography of the upper surface of the bedrock, which effectively serves as a lower boundary (i.e., “aquitard”) to the vertical movement of ground water. Conceptually, the ground water moves through the overburden sands and around the bedrock ridges. Thus, the bedrock topography dictates the direction of the ground water flow within the subsurface. Given that the depth to bedrock is generally quite shallow, lateral migration would typically dominate the overburden flow regime. With this being said, it must be recognized that lateral ground water flow migration pathways may also be influenced by two potential boundary effects, being that of no-flow (i.e., bedrock outcroppings, ridges, etc.) and/or constant-head (i.e., lakes, rivers, swamps, etc.).

3.2 Soils and Bedrock Geology

The Quaternary Soil Map of Ontario (Barnett et al., 1991) defines the geology in the vicinity of the subject site as Precambrian bedrock, primarily consisting of undifferentiated igneous rock, exposed at surface of covered by a discontinuous thin layer of drift.

Ontario Geological Survey (1991) describes the regional bedrock as felsic igneous rock which is situated within the Central Gneiss Belt. This bedrock primarily consists of granite, granodiorite, tonalite and gneisses.

The majority of the subject site is covered with a thin layer of nearshore glaciolacustine sediments (i.e. sand and gravel), although sporadic bedrock outcrops exist across the property.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 4

A review of water well records obtained from the Groundwater Information Network (GIN, 2011) within an approximate 2 km radius of the subject property confirms the general geologic conditions of the area (see Plate 1). A total of 23 records show most of the local area is covered by a thin layer of surficial sand or clay (between 0.6 – 5.5 metres in thickness), with occasional meta-granitic bedrock outcroppings. A summary of the well information is presented in Appendix B

Plate 1: Summary of Existing Well Locations, GIN Database

note: well locations are based the MOECC mapping database and may not be accurate in all cases

The geological subsurface investigation completed for the subject property (see Section 4.1) confirms the descriptions listed above, as a surficial silty sand unit was found to be the predominant material found within the subsurface. Significant amounts of silt were also found during the investigation within the areas containing wetland features. Rationale for the observed sediment lies principally upon the nature of the environment existing at the time of deposition. Specifically, the subject property is situated on shallow sand above Precambrian bedrock, which represents ancient lake bottom or shoreline features.

4.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION 4.1 Preliminary Subsurface Investigation

On April 14, 2011, Azimuth staff excavated 20 shallow test holes (TH-1 to TH-20) using a manual sampling auger (Figure 2). The test holes extended to depths between 0.15 and 1.2 metres below ground surface (mbgs), depending on depth to bedrock/boulder contact.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 5

The purpose of the test pits was to confirm the geological conditions on the property and the presence or absence of a shallow ground water table.

Ground water was encountered in all test holes, except for TH-1, TH-2, TH-4, TH-13, TH-14 and TH-15. Ground water conditions during the investigation were presumed to be at peak seasonal levels due to the recent occurrence of spring freshet. The encountered ground water is a perched condition within the shallow overburden over the bedrock. Seasonally, the ground water table is expected to retreat within the bedrock.

4.2 Soil Stratigraphy

The overburden soils throughout the subject property were observed to consist of surficial thin layers (0.15 – >1.2 m) of either sand with some silt, or silt with trace amounts of clay and sand, underlain by shallow meta-granite bedrock. Soil materials are described as brown, grey or mottled and loose to dense. Moisture levels range from moist to saturated.

The sediment profile remained fairly consistent throughout the depth of these each excavations, although the sand layer was found to underlie the silt layer in some instances. Bedrock was found at depths between 0.15 and 1.5 mbgs in majority of the test holes, although bedrock was not encountered in some holes when excavated to the maximum auger depth of 1.2 mbgs.

Detailed test hole soil logs are presented in Appendix C.

4.2.1 Grain-Size Analysis

At the conclusion of the field investigation, samples of the shallow sand and silt were submitted to Geospec Engineering Ltd. for grain size analysis, the results of which are summarized on Table 1 below. The purpose of this testing was to characterize the grain size distribution for the shallow overburden soils, as well as to determine an estimated infiltration rate (‘T’ time) for use in the detailed design of the future septic beds for each lot. Grain-size curves for all samples submitted are presented in Appendix C.

Permeability determines the degree to which soil can accept sewage over a period of time and is measured by percolation rate. The percolation rate is inversely proportional to the soil permeability. A percolation rate of either greater than 1 min/cm or less than 50 min/cm is considered suitable for standard leaching bed construction.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 6

The design criteria for various types of leaching beds (i.e., absorption trench, filter bed) is outlined in Section 8.7 of the OBC. Specific criteria must be met in terms of the minimum distances above the elevation of the bedrock contact and/ or the high ground water table and the percolation rate of the soil. If these criteria cannot be met, it will be necessary to raise the level of the leaching bed such that the surface of the bed is above ground level and that the leaching bed fill extends to form a mantle for at least 15m beyond the outer distribution pipes (Section 8.7.4.2(1)(b)).

For raised leaching beds, soils will need to be imported in order to construct the leaching bed and mantle, which means a larger bed footprint. Imported soils are normally of a granular nature with a percolation rate of between 8 - 15 min/cm and can be obtained from a sand and gravel pit. Alternatively, local fill material can be used for a raised bed if the soils meet the hydraulic properties which appear to be a more practical solution for this site.

To provide an estimate of the hydraulic properties of the shallow soils, the resulting grain size curves were evaluated using the graphical comparison technique of the Unified Soil Classification System (Ministry of the Environment Manual of Policy, Procedures and Guidelines for Onsite Sewage Systems, Appendices 6.3.1 and 6.3.2). They were also determined by lab analysis performed by GeoSpec Engineering Ltd. These results are presented in Table 1 and Appendix D of this report.

Table 1: Soil Gradation Analysis Results Sample Location

Sample Depth (m) Description

Hydraulic Properties* K (m/sec) T (min/cm)

TH-5 0.3 – 0.8 Silty Sand with trace Clay and Gravel

10-4 to 10-6 25 - 35

TH-7 0.6 – 1.0 Silt with trace Clay and Sand 10-6 and less over 50

TH-17 0.6 -1.0 Sand with some Silt and trace Gravel

10-3 to 10-5 12 - 18

TH-20 0.6 – 1.2 Silt with trace Clay and Sand 10-6 and less over 50 *Estimated using graphical technique of the Unified Soil Classification System

For the purposes of this conceptual evaluation, and given the presence of a high ground water table and shallow bedrock conditions, the percolation rate of the least permeable soil will be used in sizing the leaching beds for each lot to demonstrate general septic suitability. The approach is conservative, since the leaching bed will be overdesigned in some cases. The actual leaching bed footprint will be based on site-specific conditions and the applicable OBC criteria and will be confirmed during the building permit submission which is standard.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 7

4.3 Ground Water Investigation

A well survey program took place on April 21, 2011 which targeted an area within 250 m of the development property to quantify the type of wells, their use and supply zones. A total of two landowners (Russell and Locke) agreed to participate in the well survey and testing (see Figure 2), although only one (Locke) allowed a pump test.

As part of this survey a brief questionnaire was completed by the property owners outlining their usage and any historic quality / quantity issues with their wells. A well inspection was also completed by field staff to assess the condition of the well, as well as measurements of well construction (depth, diameter, stick up, etc.) and static water level. In addition, an untreated water sample was collected and submitted for analysis of general water quality parameters (inorganics, nutrients and metals) including microbiology. Any instance where there was a health related exceedence to the drinking water standards (ODWQS, 2006) was observed, the resident was contacted immediately to inform them their water was unsafe for human consumption. In this instance, no health related parameters were exceeded.

A brief pump test was also performed for the Locke Well. A pump test could not be performed on the Russell Well since access to the well was not possible (well drilled in a pit). Dataloggers were installed in the Locke Well to record automatic water level measurements on 5 seconds intervals during the testing sequence. The well was pumped at a rate of 20 L/min (4.4 imperial gallons per minute [IGPM]), while the well drawdown and recovery were timed/measured. The sustainable yield for each well was then calculated using the accumulated field data.

4.3.1 Water Quality Results

An untreated water sample was collected and submitted for analysis of general water quality (inorganics, metals and nutrients) and microbiological parameters. These samples were taken from exterior taps, enabling Azimuth staff to sample the untreated ground water.

The water quality results for both wells were good. The Russell Well exhibited a slightly elevated pH level of 8.55 (ODWQS guideline is 6.5 – 8.5), although this level is not uncommon in this type of bedrock environment. Sodium levels for both wells exceeded the level of 20 mg/L, which is the ODWQS guideline for individuals with sodium restricted diets (guideline is 200 mg/L for non-sodium restricted diets). Although the sodium levels for both wells did not exceed the 200 mg/L guideline, the residents were still notified of the potential health risk. Of note, both water quality samples have a

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 8

chemical signature that is indicative of bedrock water, and do not show the influence of surface water.

Complete water quality results of all parameters tested for both the Russell and Locke wells are provided in Appendix E.

4.3.2 Pump Test Results

A short-term pump test was performed for the Locke Well (see below). This was done to determine if an appropriate local ground water supply can found within the local bedrock aquifer. Water was pumped from the well at set rate, while the drawdown and recovery of water level in the wells were recorded manually and by an automatic datalogger.

Locke Well Details:

Static Water Level: 2.83 metres below ground surface

Total Well Depth: 86.9 metres

Well Stick Up: 0.5 metres

Termination of Well Casing: Approx. 3.0 metres

The results of the pump test indicate a minimum sustainable pumping rate of 20 L/min (4.4 IGPM). A drawdown of 5.8 metres occurred from the well being pumped at this rate for a twenty minutes duration, although the pump kicked on once during the testing sequence. Figure 4 illustrates the plotted datalogger data from the testing sequence, and the amount of drawdown anticipated if the pump did not turn on. Figure 4 also estimates where the water level would have stabilized (approximately 10 mbgs) if the well had been pumped longer than twenty minutes.

It should be noted that the yield for the Locke well is representative of the majority of bedrock wells in the area, based on the GIN well record search. The GIN well records reported comparable well yields for both the shallow and deeper bedrock aquifer systems. Drilled wells in the deeper aquifer zone are being proposed as a source of water supply for the proposed development. A discussion on well yields in the shallow and deep bedrock aquifer units within the local area are discussed in more detail within Section 6.0 of this report.

5.0 SEPTIC SYSTEM CONCEPTS 5.1 Sewage Volumes

The draft plan of subdivision proposes the development of 14 shoreline residential lots. The proposed lot sizes range from 0.638 ha to 5.13 ha, and are larger than most existing

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 9

neighbouring lots. This assessment assumes the use of a three bedroom dwelling to estimate the overall sewage volume. When fully completed, each dwelling will generate an estimated peak daily flow of approximately 1,600 L/day. The peak daily design sanitary sewage volume was calculated using the standards presented in the OBC (1997) for a three bedroom home. The average sewage volume is expected to be about 1,000 Lpd.

No reserve capacity was considered in the calculations, as the OBC no longer requires reserve capacity for approval.

5.2 Sewage Design

It is presumed that individual Class IV septic systems (i.e., septic tank and leaching bed) would be utilized for the residential development units. However, it is acknowledged that other commercial products could be considered for enhanced sewage treatment if required (i.e., tertiary treatment systems).

A standard septic system utilizes a septic tank with a minimum volume of 3,600 litres (MAH, 2006) to remove and degrade solids and a leaching bed to dispose of liquid effluent. The septic tank is a multi-chambered tank that segregates solids and allows liquid effluent to pass. Organic decomposition in the tank reduces the biological load in the effluent. Because of the presence of bedrock outcrop on the property, there is a need to confirm appropriate burial depth at the proposed tank location. It is likely that a shallow (i.e. “low boy”) tank may be better suited to these lots.

In areas with high ground water conditions, shallow bedrock, or poorly pervious natural soils (i.e., T>50 min/cm), a raised leaching bed with a mantle is required. Given the geology of this area, a raised leaching bed system would be required on most of the lots to satisfy the construction requirements of the OBC. The height of the raised bed will need to be confirmed during detailed design.

The OBC requires specific minimum spacing requirements for both the treatment unit (includes septic tank), as well as the distribution piping ("tile field") of the leaching bed from specific site features (i.e., well, surface water). A summary of the OBC minimum spacing requirements is provided on Table 2.

In consideration of the OBC minimum spacing distances, it should be noted that for raised-bed systems, Section 8.7.4.2.(11) of the OBC requires that the distances from distribution piping “…increased by twice the height that the leaching bed is raised above the original grade”. As an example, if a leaching bed were raised by 1.5 m above the

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 10

original grade, then the minimum spacing from a structure would increase from 5 m to 8 m.

Table 2: OBC Minimum Spacing Requirements

Site Feature Treatment Unit (m)

Distribution Piping (m)

Structure 1.5 5

Well (watertight casing >6 m) 15 15

Any other well 15 30

Lake 15 15

Pond 15 15

Reservoir 15 15

River 15 15

Spring not used as a source of potable water 15 15

Stream 15 15

Property Line 3 3

The proposed servicing plan (Figure 3) provides the location of the well and the total area of the leaching bed which includes the tile field, mantle and associated side slopes. As observed in Figure 3, the 15m setback from a well to a treatment unit and/ or the distribution piping ("tile field") has been achieved for each lot.

5.2.1. Conceptual Leaching Bed Design

The leaching bed must be appropriately sized to readily dissipate the effluent volume across its area. The sizing and structure of the leaching bed area is directly affected by the volume of effluent being pumped, the nature and composition of the underlying material, and as well as the elevation of the high water table and/ or bedrock.

A part of the septic suitability evaluation, various types of leaching beds were evaluated for the proposed development. Sizing calculations for a standard absorption trench, a shallow buried trench, and a filter bed have been provided in the following sections and demonstrate that there is a suitable solution for sewage disposal. The conceptual layout of the leaching bed for each lot is illustrated on Figure 3; final layout and detailed design will be completed on a lot by lot basis as part of the building permit submission.

1) Standard Absorption Trench A standard absorption trench consists of a series of trenches with stone along the bottom and perforated drain pipes above the stone layer. The length and number of absorption

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 11

trenches is based on the "design" percolation rate of the imported sand fill material and the peak daily design volume (OBC Section 8.7.3.1(2)).

The percolation rate for the native soil (i.e., silty clay unit) found on most of the property is >50 min/cm, thus, 30 min/cm will be used for the design percolation rate, which is representative of a sand fill material used in the construction of a leaching bed.

The required length of tile piping was calculated to determine the size of the leaching bed and general sitting opportunities for any given lot and is based on following OBC formula:

200IQT

LOP= ,

where, LOP - length of distribution piping (m),

Q - daily design septic discharge (OBC for 3 bedroom residence = 1,600 L),

TI - design percolation rate (30 min/cm).

Therefore,

240200

)30(600,1 ==LOP m (e.g., 12 runs at 20.0 m/run)

Based on the calculation, a leaching bed configuration consisting of 12 pipe runs at 20.0 m/run (240 m of pipe) would be constructed. The area is conservative since is used a design percolation rate of 30min/cm. The total area of the leaching bed (i.e., tile field) would be approximately ~365 m2 incorporating a 1.6 m centre spacing between runs, a minimum pipe trench width of 0.5 m and including all setback requirements as per current OBC regulations (i.e., lot lines, residence).

For a raised leaching bed, the OBC stipulates that a mantle be constructed on the downgradient side of the tile field to a minimum length of 15 m, and that all other sides of the bed be constructed on a maximum slope of 1V:4H (OBC Sect. 8.7.2.1.(4)). The addition of the mantle would result in a bed area of 545 m2, and depending on associated side slopes, the total footprint of the bed would be ~ 1,200m2 to as much as 1,600m2.

A standard absorption trench is not recommended in this case due its size relative to the configuration and potential constraints associated with each lot.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 12

2) Shallow Buried Trench In a shallow buried trench system, a tertiary treatment system is required; however the use of a pressure trench for disposal allows a much smaller area to be utilized and can usually be accommodated within highly constrained conditions. After treatment, sewage effluent is discharged from a pump chamber to the pressurized pipe trenches and into the underlying soils.

The total length of trench required is calculated using the following OBC formula:

I30

QL = , for soils with a “T” time between 50 and 125 min/cm

where, L – length of trench (m),

Q - daily design septic discharge (1,600 L - OBC),

TI - infiltration rate of underlying soils (50 min/cm).

Therefore,

5330

600,1 ==L m

Each system would consist of two shallow buried trenches with minimum dimensions of 0.6 metres in depth and 0.6 metres in width. The proposed pressure trenches for each lot would total 53m in length (Q/30) and would be constructed according to the Ontario Building Code requirements (OBC S 8.7.3).

Based the above, a shallow buried trench system provides a suitable alternative for sewage disposal and can be accommodated within each lot if required.

3) Standard Filter Bed The filter bed is an alternative leaching bed and is generally used on sites where there is insufficient area for a conventional absorption trench, or where there are natural features, such as treed areas and bedrock that minimize the available leaching bed area. The capital and operating costs are partially offset by the reduced construction costs for a smaller leaching bed configuration, which may be beneficial for areas of the site where raised leaching beds are required.

The filter bed system requires even distribution of the treated effluent over an adsorption system consisting of a stone layer with piping ("tile field" overlying an unsaturated sand layer. The sand layer is sized so that its area is equivalent to the product of the peak flow

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 13

and native soil percolation rate divided by 850 (OBC S 8.7.5.3(6)). The overlying stone layer is designed to provide an area equal to 75 L of treated water per square meter of stone for sewage volumes of less than 3,000 L/day (OBC S 8.7.5.2(3)).

The approximate area of the bed was calculated to determine the sizing and the ability of the lot to house the required filter bed. The calculation for the loading on the surface of the filter media (stone area) is based on the following OBC formula:

75

QA = ,

where, A – Filter media surface area (m2),

Q - daily design septic discharge (1,600 L - OBC),

Therefore,

3.2175

600,1 ==A m2 (Each bed must be less than 50 m2)

The base of the filter media (sand layer) area is calculated using the following formula:

850ITQ

A = ,

where, A – Filter media base area (m2),

Q - daily design septic discharge (1,600 L - OBC),

TI - percolation rate of underlying soils (<50 min/cm).

Therefore,

1.94850

50600,1 =∗=A m2

Based on the calculations for a filter bed, the recommended area of the stone layer (i.e., tile field) is ~30m2 and the recommended area of the sand layer (filter media) is ~100 m2. In this calculation, a distribution piping spacing of 1.0 m on-centre, plus setback requirements as per current OBC regulations (i.e., buildings) has been included.

The OBC (Section 8.7.4.1) also requires the loading rate to be applied to the mantle (6 L/m2/day). The filter bed would therefore need to be expanded to ~400m2 to meet these minimum requirements (1,600Lpd /6 L/m2/day).

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 14

With the addition of the mantle and associated side slopes, the total footprint would be a minimum of 400m2 to as much as 500m2. The actual bed footprint would vary depending on side slopes which would be determined on a site by site basis during detailed design. A setback distance of 15m between the tile field and the shoreline of a surface water feature is required.

For this application, a standard raised filter bed system with a mantle represents a suitable solution for sewage disposal assuming that all OBC setback requirements can be met in the final design. Figure 3 provides the conceptual layout of the leaching bed configuration for each individual lot and is based on worst case scenario conditions (i.e., includes the tile area (30m2), a 15m mantle, and 6:1 side slopes) and addresses the loading requirements. The actual leaching bed footprint would be based on site-specific conditions and the applicable OBC criteria for each lot and would be confirmed during the building permit submission.

A pressure trench is also practical for clay and silt soils with potential land area constraints, and thus represents a suitable alternative to the filter bed if necessary.

6.0 POTABLE WATER SUPPLY The depositional environment has created a geological profile that includes multiple aquifer units (fractures) within the shallow and deep bedrock profile. Locally the overburden does not serve as an aquifer for residential potable water supplies. According to information sources reviewed for this project, the fractured bedrock can provide sufficient volumes of ground water for normal residential use.

The GIN well records indicate that near the site, the upper bedrock (0 -50 mbgs) and lower bedrock (>50 mbgs) can provide sufficient volumes of ground water for normal residential use. A total of eight (8) wells draw ground water from the shallow aquifer zone, and fifteen (15) draw ground water from the deeper aquifer zone.

6.1 Supply Potential

Water bearing zones identified in the GIN water well records range between 0.3 – 115 mbgs within the bedrock (Appendix B). The shallow zones have produced low to adequate yields, ranging between 4.54 – 45.4 L/min (1 - 10 IGPM). Wells in the deeper aquifer system have produced similar yields to that of the upper unit, ranging between 4.54 – 68.2 L/min (1 - 15 IGPM).

Based on a review of the information sources, a drilled well is the recommended option for each lot. Wells should be drilled to depths of no less than 30 mbgs to ensure that the surficial unit receiving septic effluent is hydraulically separated from the unit that

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 15

supplies potable water to the development, and that the water source is not under the influence of surface water.

6.2 Water Quality

The quality of water obtained from the potable water wells upon neighbouring properties (Locke and Russell) meet the criteria of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (MOE, 2006). Throughout the surrounding area, ground water is widely used for domestic purposes. Slightly elevated sodium and pH levels found in the samples taken from the neighbouring properties are of little concern from a human health perspective.

Ground water quality should be confirmed for the water well installed upon each building lot. In this regard, a water quality analysis should be completed for a suite of metals, inorganics, general chemistry, and microbiological parameters (E. coli, Heterotrophic Plate Counts). Once the quality of potable water available at each water well is known, the need and/or type of treatment required could then be evaluated.

6.3 Water Demand

6.3.1 Residential Water Demand

In accordance with Ministry of the Environment (MOE) document Procedure D-5-5 – Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment (August 1996), a per-person domestic water requirement of 450 L/day has been assumed here. Coupled with this, a 180 minute daily peak use period (8x peaking factor) has also been incorporated, which equates to a peak per-person ground water demand of 2.5 L/min/person. With these values in hand, the minimum supply rate is calculated as the product of the peak per-person rate times the “likely number of persons per well”. Section 4.3.2 of MOE Procedure D-5-5 defines the “likely number of persons per well” as the number of bedrooms within a residence plus one (4 person minimum). For the purposes of this evaluation, a total four persons per residence has been assumed here, resulting in a calculated peak supply rate of 10 L/min (2.1 IGPM).

Based on a review of the recommended flow rates stated in the information sources, a ground water resource of sufficient volume exists within the bedrock to meet residential demands. In a fractured bedrock aquifer, there may be a small amount of cumulative impact between wells, so the deeper bedrock aquifer (i.e. deeper than 30m) should be designated as the target unit for all future water wells drilled at the site (i.e., due to sufficient yield and water quality). This will ensure that there is sufficient water column in each well to make these potential impacts negligible.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 16

6.3.2 Well Construction and Siting

Well siting upon each building lot should be upgradient of the associated leaching bed, and must comply with the spacing requirements of the OBC, which stipulates a minimum distance of 15 m for drilled wells (assuming a minimum watertight casing length of 6 m) from the distribution piping and/or treatment system. In contrast, a minimum 30 m setback is required for shallow wells (casing length <6 m), however, we recommend that shallow wells not be utilized. If they are used, they must not be located downgradient of a leaching bed, regardless of the setback.

Each water well must also be constructed by a licensed well driller in adherence with the construction requirements of O.Reg. 903 (as amended to O. Reg. 372/07). Finally, it is also recommended that wells not be located downgradient of leaching beds on adjacent properties since this would increase the potential risk of contamination. The same required setbacks apply to these adjacent systems. The exact locations would depend on the dwelling envelope and other features such a driveways and walkways.

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potential impacts to both the local ground and surface water regime are dependent upon the local hydrogeology / hydrology and the treatment performance of the sewage treatment system(s). Ground water is generally examined within the scope of the MOE Reasonable Use Policy, however in this particular case, the downgradient receiver is a surface water feature, thus RUP does not apply.

Surface water assessments generally focus upon the potential for algal growth fostered by additional nutrient loading (i.e., total phosphorus loading), in addition to the detrimental impacts to fish due to ammonia. In the regard, total phosphorus (TP) loadings to the downgradient surface water receptor(s) and the ability for the surface water to assimilative phosphorus is evaluated.

A summary of the major arguments devised through this assessment are provided in the following sections.

7.1 Potential for Impacts to Surface Water

The topography of the land within the vicinity of the subject property varies and either slopes toward Gloucester Pool, The Narrows and/ or the Back Bay. In general, treated effluent will discharge to a disposal system which then discharges to the ground water system and migrates as shallow ground water flow towards the low-lying areas on property. Based on the topographic mapping, shallow ground water flow and drainage on

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 17

the property would follow the natural topography of the land and is inferred to flow toward the Gloucester Pool, and/ or the Back Bay.

A review of the topographic mapping indicates that nine of the proposed fourteen lots (Lots 5 -7 and Lots 9 thru 14) drain directly towards the Back Bay and the remaining five lots (Lots 1 thru 4 and Lot 8) drain indirectly to Back Bay and/ or Gloucester Pool.

For the nine lots draining directly to the Back Bay, treated effluent from the leaching beds will migrate as shallow ground water flow towards the Back Bay. Figure 3 shows the configuration of the leaching bed for each lot which includes the area of the tile field (~30m2) plus the mantle and associated side slopes for a total area of up to~500m2. The tile fields for Lots 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 are closest to the shoreline of the Back Bay (~50-65m) and the downgradient portion of the leaching beds (i.e., mantle and side slopes) are between ~35-55m from the shoreline. The tile fields for Lots 9- thru 12 are more than ~80m to as much as ~140m from the shoreline of the Back Bay.

Based on the topographic mapping, a majority of the treated effluent from the remaining proposed beds on the property (Lots 1 thru 4 and Lot 8) will migrate as shallow ground water flow towards Gloucester Pool; a small portion could migrate towards Back Bay. The tile field for Lot 8 is ~45m from the Gloucester Pool and the remaining lots are more than ~80m away.

Gloucester Pool and the Back Bay are both part of the Severn River subwatershed which is part of the larger Georgian Bay watershed. The Severn River subwatershed receives water from Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching as well as Kahshe Lake, which flows directly into Sparrow Lake. Morrison Lake, Six Mile Lake and Gloucester Pool all flow directly into the Severn River and then into Georgian Bay at Port Severn. This portion of the watershed discharging into Georgian Bay via the Severn River is approximately 357 km2 (35,700 ha).

A phosphorus evaluation was completed for the proposed new leaching bed systems for the 14 lot development as us described in more detail below:

7.1.1 Phosphorus Loading/ Attenuation

An evaluation of the attenuation/ phosphorus absorption capacity was completed for the Subject Property and assumes the use of a standard Class IV septic system (i.e., septic tank and filter bed). The calculation also include the attenuation/ phosphorus absorption capacity between the leaching bed and the receiving water body and assumes a distance of 40m between tile fields and the shoreline, which is conservative since the tile fields are expected to be at least 50m away.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 18

The phosphorus loading to the natural environment is a function of the phosphorus concentration in the treated effluent, the effluent production rate and the fate of phosphorus in the leaching bed ("bed") as well as between the bed and the downgradient surface water receptor. In general, two retardation factors are considered appropriate when evaluating surface water impacts. The first factor is a 50% retention in the bed and the second factor is based on velocity retardation of the phosphorus plume during migration with ground water. With regard to the first factor, the MOECC typically agree that a 50% reduction in phosphorus is a reasonable adsorption function within the leaching bed. No other function other than dilution is considered in the loading calculation and thus represents a conservative approach in terms of evaluating overall impacts to surface water from the proposed leaching beds. The average concentration of phosphorus in the raw sewage effluent for a residential dwelling is estimated to be about 8-10 mg/L. This concentration is considered to be high based on phosphorus data collected at other similar cottage developments in southern and northern Ontario, which have indicated that an average concentration of phosphorus in raw sewage is typically around 3 to 5 mg/L. Using a phosphorus concentration of 8 mg/L and the OBC peak daily design volume of 1,600 Lpd for a three bedroom dwelling, the predicted load to a leaching bed would be 4.1 kg/year (1,600 L/d * 8 mg/L /1,000,000 mg/kg * 365 d/yr). Assuming a 50% reduction in phosphorus concentrations in the bed, the loading leaving the leaching bed is estimated to be ~2.0kg/a.

The actual loading to the bed would be much less since the average sewage volume for a three bedroom home is only ~1,000 Lpd (MOECC, 1998). For example, using a phosphorus concentration of 8 mg/L and the average daily volume of 1,000 Lpd, the predicted load to a standard leaching bed would be 2.9 kg/year (1,000 L/d * 8 mg/L /1,000,000 mg/kg * 365 d/yr) and only 1.5kg/a (assuming 50% reduction in the leaching bed).

The remaining effluent from the leaching bed then moves with ground water, however, its movement is slower than ground water flow due to retardation by adsorption, also not accounted for in the loading calculation. Retardation during migration with ground water between the bed and the downgradient surface water receptor (i.e., Gloucester Pool or Back Bay) plays an important role in further attenuating the net loading to the receptor. Thus, if there is adequate separation between the leaching bed and the receiver and if the distance is long enough such that the TP plume would take much longer to reach the receiver than what would be a reasonable life time of the bed, impacts would be immeasurable at the downgradient surface water receptor. A majority of the leaching

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 19

beds are more than 80m away, which is more than sufficient to ameliorate impacts from the beds.

For example, Robertson et al. (1998), and Robertson (2003), Harman et al. (1996) and Zanini et al. (1998) conducted several studies involving phosphorus loadings from leaching beds that were located close to surface water bodies. The research suggests that phosphate has reduced mobility in soil systems due to sorption onto positively charged mineral surfaces (calcite and ferric (oxy)hydroxides), or due to its precipitation as a sparingly soluble secondary mineral (e.g. hydroxyapatite; Ca5(PO4)3OH).

The quantity of phosphorus that is immobilized is controlled by a number of factors including the buffering capacity of the soil sediments. However, the journal articles demonstrate that the reaction pathways are variable and attenuation reactions proceed in calcareous soils typical of southern Ontario as well as the silicate-based soils typical of overburden on the Canadian Shield. Soil sediments of the northern Ontario are calcareous in nature and hence are calcium-enriched and also have moderate iron levels due to release from the weathering of bedrock. The research indicates that if metal cations such as calcium, iron, aluminum and magnesium are available for co-precipitation with PO4, then phosphorus accumulation will reduce with time as the cation supply is consumed. Where the availability of cations is high, such as at this site, the ability to adsorb will reduce phosphorus mobility for the foreseeable future. Their monitoring indicated that 25 to 99% of the phosphorus loading was retained in the vadose zone even after long periods of effluent dosing. Robertson et al. (1998) monitored ground water downgradient of a leaching bed in Muskoka and found that average influent phosphorus was 9.7 mg/L and that downgradient ground water concentrations were between 0.02 and 0.1 mg/L, which is only slightly above background levels.

At the subject lands, the native soils are expected to have a phosphorus adsorption capacity of 50 to 100 mg/kg (Harman et al., 1996). For a standard Class IV leaching bed (i.e., filter bed) with an unsaturated zone of more than 0.6m, complete attenuation within the bed itself is predicted to occur for 12 to 22 years. Based on the measured phosphorus precipitation (1,000 mg P /kg soil) by Harman et al. (1996), inorganic precipitation of phosphate minerals could provide additional attenuation that would last for hundreds of years. Further attenuation is expected to occur along the ground water flow-path between the bed and the shoreline. For these systems, total attenuation is predicted to occur for at least 20 to 35 years for the closest beds and between 35 – 50 years for the bed that are furthest away from the shoreline.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 20

7.1.2 Assimilative Capacity and Dilution Potential

In the case of the Gloucester Pool, the watershed is very large (1,377ha), thus this feature provides significant dilution of the treated effluent and therefore has limited ability to impact the overall watershed quality. The tile fields are far enough away and given the size of the Gloucester Pool watershed and its ability to assimilate phosphorus, any loadings released to the natural environment from the proposed beds would be immeasurable. Furthermore, the input from the upgradient subwatershed would provide additional dilution potential to mitigate any potential loading issues. Based on modelling/ dilution calculations for other developments on the Severn River/ Georgian Bay subwatershed, the proposed tile fields are not expected to cause any negative impacts to the water quality of the Gloucester Pool.

The Back Bay on the other hand is a small local bay with limited flow through other than runoff from the adjacent lands. As indicated, there are five tile fields within 50-65m of the Back Bay and four tile fields that are between 80m to 140 away. Thus as part of the surface water evaluation, an assimilative capacity study (ACS) on the Back Bay was completed and includes the nine proposed lots on the Back Bay.

The ACS involves a preliminary lake impact analysis for the subject property to evaluate the net contribution of phosphorus to the Back Bay from the leaching beds both prior to and following development of the subject property. In our approach, we have incorporated the principles contained within the document entitled Lakeshore Capacity Study – Trophic Status, as prepared by Dillon et al. for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs (May 1986).

Based on a review of the mapping, the Back Bay subwatershed has a drainage area of approximately 18ha. Along the shoreline of the Back Bay, there are nine lots from the proposed development and three existing cottages. The potential loading from nine additional cottages is approximately 18 kg/s (2.0kg/a x 9 leaching beds) using the peak daily design volume of 1,600Lpd and only 13.5kg/a using the average daily flow of 1,000Lpd.

The predicted lake TP concentration is ~8µg/L, and the creation of nine new lots on the Back Bay could potentially increase the concentration to ~16 µg/L, compared to the PWQO of 20 µg/L for lakes and 30 µg/L for rivers and streams µg/L. This approach is conservative since the calculation ignores adsorption in the leaching beds soils and the affects of adsorption during migration with ground water (as discussed) all of which will significantly attenuate phosphorus loadings. The calculations also ignore flushing from water flowing through The Narrows, which is also significant and would further mitigate impacts.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 21

The interpretation of these values reflects a worst-case theoretical mass balance approach and does not reflect phosphorus levels that are predicted to occur because there are many other factors that ameliorate phosphorus levels. However, the relative increase does reflect the relative increase in the overall loadings that would be released to the natural environment. This approach confirms that the increase from nine dwellings is relatively small and is not expected to cause any discernible negative impacts to the water quality in the Back Bay.

7.2 Water Balance / Storm Water

In this instance, the potential for hydrogeological impacts to occur in a shallow bedrock environment is low due to the existing lack of ground water infiltration into the underlying aquifer. Currently, infiltrating precipitation percolates through the thin layer of highly permeable overburden until it reaches the underlying bedrock surface. The upper bedrock surface serves as a boundary and prevents ground water from penetrating below, thus conveying ground water flow in the direction of topographic lows. These low-lying topographic areas within the local area are typically in the form of surface water features (i.e., wetlands, streams, lakes, etc.) due to the lack of sufficient drainage.

As mentioned previously, the site contains small swamp features which are connected to Gloucester Pool. Currently, the majority of the site’s drainage is conveyed to this swamp and river system, either by ground water discharge through the shallow, sandy overburden or via overland runoff.

The proposed residential development consists of 14 lots with dwellings to be constructed on each lot. The introduction of impervious surfaces (i.e. rooftops, paved surface, etc.) to the site will decrease the overall area of permeable overburden, thus reducing the overall ground water infiltration capability of the site. Since much of the overburden has low permeability and the bedrock surface is shallow (<2m), infiltrating ground water ultimately flows laterally into adjacent surface water features, thus, the creation of new hard surfaces will have essentially no impact on the water balance.

The same physical constraints affecting the water balance also affect the stormwater considerations. The use of lot level controls are appropriate as it is expected that development of the property will generally maintain the existing topography. This is typical for existing development within the immediate area. Significant changes would require substantial blasting of the bedrock surface. Rooftop leaders should diffuse flow to sideyards and driveway drainage should be directed laterally.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 22

7.3 Source Water Protection

As shown in Figure 9-1 of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Water Protection Plan, the subject development is not located within a Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA), and Issue Contributing Area (ICA) or an Intake Protection Zone (IPZ).

8.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our interpretation of the available data as outlined in this report, it is concluded that the hydrogeologic and surface water conditions of the subject site can accommodate the proposed 14 lot draft plan subject to the findings and recommendations summarized in the following sections:

Septic System Design:

1. The results of the Ontario Building Code sizing calculations show that a standard leaching bed can be utilized to service each lot, assuming that all OBC spacing requirements are met as part of the detailed lot design requirements undertaken in accordance with building permit application requirements.

2. Given the configuration of each property a filter bed is recommended over a conventional bed since it is smaller and can be accommodated with the flat areas of the property.

The use of tertiary treatment systems discharging to a pressure trench system is a viable alternative for lots that are constrained by bedrock, size or setbacks.

3. Given the low permeability of the native soils on site and shallow bedrock conditions, a raised leaching bed is required to meet the minimum separation distance (0.9m) between the underlying less permeable soils (and/ or bedrock) and the tile piping.

4. A raised bed requires the construction of a mantle on the downgradient side of the bed and will need to meet a loading rate of 6L/m2/day (400m2). Additional area may be required to accommodate side slopes (up to 500m2).

5. Select imported fill material used in the construction of the leaching beds should be comprised of clean sand and gravel with a percolation rate of between 6- 8min/cm. The material should contain no more than 5% fines such as silt and clay (i.e., particles 0.075mm or smaller). Testing and Inspection of the imported fill material is recommended to confirm percolation rates.

6. The lot sizes as they are currently shown are sufficient to meet the requirements of the OBC for setbacks related to septic systems. .

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 23

7. There will be no wells located downgradient of any septic systems thus no significant net degradation to the overburden ground water quality downgradient of the site would be anticipated.

8. As a result of the distance from the leaching bed to the site’s hydrologic features, the attenuation capacity of the overburden soils and the length of the flow path will minimize any quantifiable impact on the water quality of the downgradient surface water features.

9. Surface water impacts as a result of the 14 lot development are expected to be minimal in nature. Based on assimilative capacity calculations for the Back Bay, potential impacts are low and are appropriately addressed through the proposed site design. The tile fields for the nine lots are ~ 50m to as much 140m from the Back Bay.

10. Individual tertiary treatment systems could be considered to improve the efficiency of sewage treatment if required, particularly where raised leaching beds are needed. This would reduce the constituent loading that enters the ground water regime and ultimately the downgradient surface water receptors.

Water Quality and Quantity

1. Based on the well survey information and the MOECC water well database, sufficient ground water supply exists within the local bedrock aquifer.

2. The location, depth, water supply and water quality for each well will be addressed as part of the detailed lot design requirements submitted with a building permit application. For individual water wells installed on each lot, a well test will be completed by the driller as per the requirements of the MOECC well log submission.

3. It is recommended that individual potable water wells on each of the proposed lots be drilled into the bedrock aquifer (>30m bgs) with extended well casing and properly sealed to prevent shallow overburden waters from leaking into these aquifers.

In a fractured bedrock aquifer, there may be a small amount of cumulative impact between wells, so the deeper bedrock aquifer should be designated as the target unit for all future water wells drilled at the site (i.e., due to sufficient yield and water quality). This will ensure that there is sufficient water column in each well to make these potential impacts negligible. Furthermore, will ensure that the surficial unit receiving septic effluent is hydraulically separated from the unit that supplies potable water to the development, and that the water source is not under the influence of surface water.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 24

4. The quality of water obtained from the potable water wells upon neighbouring properties (Locke and Russell) meets the criteria of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (MOE, 2006). Throughout the surrounding area, ground water is widely used for domestic purposes. Slightly elevated sodium and pH levels found in the samples taken from the neighbouring properties are of little concern from a human health perspective.

As part of the detailed lot design associated with a building permit application, a well water quality analysis should be completed for a suite of metals, inorganics, general chemistry, and microbiological parameters (E. coli, Heterotrophic Plate Counts) to determine if treatment is required and if so, the type of treatment necessary.

5. Well siting upon each building lot should be upgradient of the associated leaching bed, and must comply with the spacing requirements of the OBC.

6. In the construction of all potable water wells upon the site, strict adherence to the requirements specified under O.Reg. 903 (as amended to O.Reg. 327/07) of the Ontario Water Resources Act (R.R.O. 1990) is required.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 25

9.0 REFERENCES Azimuth. 2011. Environmental Impact Study for Part of Lot 19, Concession 14 and all of

Lot 1, Registered Plan 51M-342 and Part of the 0.305m reserve Registered Plan 1543. For Morgan Planning and Development Inc. January 2010.

Barnett, P.J. Cowan, W.R. and Henry, A.P. 1991. Quaternary Geology of Ontario,

southern sheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2556, Scale 1:1,000,000. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1984.The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd

Edition, OGS Special Volume 2, MNR, ISBN 0-7743-9422-6.

Dillon, P.J., K.H. Nicholls, W.A. Scheider, N.D. Yan, and D.S. Jeffries. 1986. Lakeshore Capacity Study. Trophic Status. Min. of Mun. Affairs, Ontario. 90 pp.

MMAH, 1997. Ontario Building Code, Part 8 – Sewage Systems. Ont. Reg. 403/97 made under the Building Code Act, 1992. As amended from time to time.

MOE, 1995. MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications, ISBN 0-7778-4340-4, April, Queen’s Printer.

MOE, 1996. Procedure D-5-5 – Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply

Assessment. MOE, 1996. Procedure D-5-4 – Technical Guideline for Individual On-Site Sewage

Systems: Water Quality Impact Assessment. MOE. 2006 (revision). Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water

Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines MOE, 2000. Water Well Records – Township of Georgian Bay, County of Muskoka.

Ground. Water Bulletin Report.

Ontario Geological Survey, 1991. Bedrock Geology of Ontario. South Sheet. Map 2544 Robertson, W.D.. Enhanced attenuation of septic system phosphate in noncalcareous

sediments, Ground Water, vol. 41, #1, 2003

Robertson, W.D., Schiff, S.L. and Ptacek, C.J.. Review of phosphate mobility and persistence in 10 septic system plumes. Ground Water, 1998, 1000-1010

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 26

Voigt, D.R., J.D. Broadfoot, and J.A. Baker. 1997. Forest management guidelines for the provision of White-tailed Deer habitat: Version 1.0. Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Management Branch, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.

Zanini, L., Robertson, W.D., Ptacek, C.J., Schiff, S.L. and Mayer, T. Phosphorus characterization in sediments impacted by septic effluent at four sites in central Canada, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, vol 33, 1998

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: GIN Well Record Print Out Appendix C: Soil Description Logs Appendix D: Geospec Engineering - Soil Analysis Results Appendix E: AGAT Laboratories – Water Quality Results Appendix F: Attenuation/Phosphorus Absorption Capacity

Calculations

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDIX A

Figures

N

a

r

r

o

w

s

R

o

a

d

R

u

s

s

e

l

l

R

o

a

d

N

a

r

r

o

w

s

R

o

a

d

S

t

.

A

m

a

n

t

R

d

.

B

a

g

u

le

y

R

d

.

DAYSTAMP:

Figure No.

REFERENCE:

C

DATE ISSUED:

PROJECT NO.:

CREATED BY:

ONSULTING, INC.ZIMUTHA ENVIRONMENTAL

LEGEND:

L:\09 Projects\09-299 Russell Road EIS\Drafting\dwg\09-299.dwg

Study Area Location

3600 Narrows Road,

Township of Severn, ON

February 2016

JLM

09-299b

Softmaps Technologies Inc.

1

Approx. Property Boundary

Russell Well

9

±

5

.

1

3

1

h

a

.

8

±

1

.

4

0

1

h

a

.

1

±

1

.

3

7

3

h

a

.

2

±

1

.

1

6

7

h

a

.

3

±

0

.

6

6

3

h

a

.

4

±

0

.

6

3

9

h

a

.

1

0

±

1

.

8

1

1

h

a

.

1

1

±

1

.

2

4

0

h

a

.

1

2

±

3

.

0

4

1

h

a

.

C

o

n

d

o

m

i

n

i

u

m

A

m

e

n

i

t

y

A

r

e

a

±

0

.

3

0

3

h

a

.

BLO

CK

15

Condom

iniu

m R

oad

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

O

p

e

n

S

p

a

c

e

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

R

u

r

a

l

(

R

U

)

B

L

O

C

K

1

6

7

±

0

.

4

8

1

h

a

.

1

4

±

0

.

6

3

8

h

a

.

6

±

0

.

4

3

4

h

a

.

5

±

0

.

6

5

6

h

a

.

1

3

±

0

.

7

9

2

h

a

.

Back Bay

R

o

c

k

c

l

i

f

f

e

C

o

u

r

t

Gloucester Pool

T

h

e

N

a

r

r

o

w

s

N

a

r

r

o

w

s

R

o

a

d

4

8

0

m

²

4

8

0

m

²

4

8

0

m

²

48

0m

²

4

8

0

m

²

Locke Well

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

R

u

s

s

e

ll

D

r

iv

e

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.

ONSULTING, INC.ZIMUTHA ENVIRONMENTAL

LEGEND:

L:\09 Projects\09-299 Russell Road EIS\Drafting\dwg\09-299.dwg First Base Solutions

09-299b

JLM

February 2016

2

Testing Locations

3600 Narrows Road,

Township of Severn, ON

Approx. Property Boundary

Testpit Locations

Test Wells

Development Envelope

Proposed Building (216m²)

Proposed Filter Bed (≤500m²)

Proposed Well

9

±

5

.

1

3

1

h

a

.

8

±

1

.

4

0

1

h

a

.

1

±

1

.

3

7

3

h

a

.

2

±

1

.

1

6

7

h

a

.

3

±

0

.

6

6

3

h

a

.

4

±

0

.

6

3

9

h

a

.

1

0

±

1

.

8

1

1

h

a

.

1

1

±

1

.

2

4

0

h

a

.

1

2

±

3

.

0

4

1

h

a

.

C

o

n

d

o

m

i

n

i

u

m

A

m

e

n

i

t

y

A

r

e

a

±

0

.

3

0

3

h

a

.

BLO

CK

15

Condom

iniu

m R

oad

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

S

e

a

s

o

n

a

l

R

e

s

i

d

e

n

t

i

a

l

(

S

R

2

)

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

O

p

e

n

S

p

a

c

e

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

R

u

r

a

l

(

R

U

)

B

L

O

C

K

1

6

7

±

0

.

4

8

1

h

a

.

1

4

±

0

.

6

3

8

h

a

.

6

±

0

.

4

3

4

h

a

.

5

±

0

.

6

5

6

h

a

.

1

3

±

0

.

7

9

2

h

a

.

T

h

e

N

a

r

r

o

w

s

Back Bay

R

o

c

k

c

l

i

f

f

e

C

o

u

r

t

Gloucester Pool

N

a

r

r

o

w

s

R

o

a

d

4

8

0

m

²

4

8

0

m

²

4

8

0

m

²

48

0m

²

4

8

0

m

²

R

u

s

s

e

ll

D

r

iv

e

Approx. Property Boundary

Intermittent Watercourse

Development Envelope

Proposed Building (216m²)

Proposed Filter Bed (Note 4)

Proposed Well

Notes:

1. Maximum bed sizing is based on worst caseconditions as per the following criteria; actual bedfootprint would vary depending on the applicablecriteria and would be determined on a site by sitebasis by a qualified professional.· 1600Lpd per dwelling

· Percolation rate of 35 <T≤ 50

· Loading rate of 6L/m²/day

· Raised Filter Bed with 15m mantle and 6:1

side slopes

2. The final design and placement of the leaching bed will be confirmed during detailed design/permitting application stages.

3. Location of the well will be confirmed duringdetailed design/ permitting application stages andassumes that the minimum 15m setback betweenthe well and septic system (tile piping/ septic tank)will be met in the final stages of design.

4. Maximum bed footprint is ~500m² unless otherwisestated; smaller square (lots 6 and 7 only) denotestile field area (max. 30m²).

NVIRONMENTALEAZIMUTH ONSULTING, INC.

Created By:

Project No.

Figure No.Date Issued:

C

DAYSTAMP:Reference:

3

Proposed Servicing Layout

3600 Narrows Road,

February 2016

JLM

09-299a

L:\09 Projects\09-299 Russell Road EIS\Drafting\dwg\09-299.dwg

Township of Severn, ON

LEGEND

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wa

ter

Le

ve

l I

n W

ell

(m

bg

s)

Figure 4: Locke Well Pumping Test Curve

Pump

Kicked On

Drawdown

Recovery

8

9

10

11

1211:45 AM 11:52 AM 12:00 PM 12:07 PM 12:14 PM 12:21 PM 12:28 PM 12:36 PM 12:43 PM 12:50 PM

Wa

ter

Le

ve

l I

n W

ell

(m

bg

s)

Anticipated

Drawdown

Curve

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDIX B

GIN Well Record Print Out

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDIX C

Soil Description Logs

1

TEST PIT SOIL LOGS

Project #: 09-299b Project Name: Russell Road Residential Development Date: April 15, 2010 Weather: Sunny, 8°C. Location: Russell Drive, Port Severn, ON

Attendance: Drew West - Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc.

Method of Examination: A manual hand auger was used to excavate test pits at 20 locations across the property. Each test pit was visually logged at the time of excavation, and soil samples were re-examined in the office and submitted to Geospec Engineering for grain size analysis.

Legend: Soil Texture

Boulders >200 mm Cobbles 60 –200 mm Gravel Coarse 20 – 60 mm Medium 6 – 20 mm Fine 2 – 6 mm Sand Coarse 0.6 – 2 mm Medium 0.2 – 0.6 mm Fine 0.06 – 0.02 mm Silt 0.02 – 0.006 mm Clay <0.002 mm

Fine sand: smallest particle visible to the naked eye Silt: particles not visible to the eye / slightly plastic Clay sticks to skin / plastic

Soil Composition

“trace” <10%

2

“some” 10 – 20% adjective (e.g. sandy) 20 – 35% “and” 35 –50% noun (e.g. sand) >50%

Moisture Condition – Cohesionless Soils

“dry” absence of moisture, dusty “moist” damp but no visible water “wet” damp and contains noticeable water “saturated” soil is completely wetted to excess and may be dripping

Compactness Condition – Coarse Soils

‘N’ Value

“very loose” <4 can be excavated by hand “loose” 4 - 10 can be excavated with a spade “compact” 10 - 30 requires a sharp spade “dense” 30 - 50 requires a pick for excavation “very dense” >50 difficult to excavate with pick

3

Test Hole #1

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.15 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.15 – 0.3 m Sand and Gravel

Reddish brown sand and gravel, loose, moist. 0.3 m Bedrock

-No ground water observed -Test hole terminated at 0.3 m bgs Test Hole #2

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.15 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.15 m Bedrock

-No ground water observed -Test hole terminated at 0.15 m bgs

Test Hole #3

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.1 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.1 – 0.3 m Silt

Grey silt, trace clay and sand, compact, wet. 0.3 – 0.6 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay, compact, saturated.

4

0.6 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.3 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 0.6 m bgs Test Hole #4

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.1 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.1 – 0.25 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay and gravel, compact, moist to wet.

0.25 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.25 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 0.25 m bgs Test Hole #5

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.15 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.15 – 0.8 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay and gravel, compact, moist to wet.

0.8 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.35 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 0.8 m bgs Test Hole #6

Test Hole Description 0.0 – 0.3 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, compact, wet.

5

0.3 – 0.6 m Silty Sand Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay and gravel, compact, saturated.

0.6 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.45 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 0.6 m bgs Test Hole #7

Test Hole Description 0.0 – 1.05 m Silt Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist. 1.05 – 1.2 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay, compact, wet. -Ground water observed at 1.15 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs Test Hole #8

Test Hole Description 0.0 – 1.05 m Silt Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist to wet. 1.05 – 1.2 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay, compact, wet. -Ground water observed at 0.6 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs Test Hole #9

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.1 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.1 – 0.45 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay, compact, moist to saturated.

6

0.45 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.3 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 0.45 m bgs Test Hole #10

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.15 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.15 – 0.65 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist to saturated. 0.65 – 0.8 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay, compact, saturated. 0.8 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.5 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 0.8 m bgs Test Hole #11

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.2 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.2 – 0.8 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, saturated. 0.8 – 1.0 m Silty Sand

Brown/grey mottled silty sand, trace clay, compact, saturated. 1.0 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.05 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.0 m bgs

7

Test Hole #12

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.1 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.1 – 1.2 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, saturated. -Ground water observed at 0.15 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs Test Hole #13

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.25 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.25 m Bedrock

-No ground water observed -Test hole terminated at 0.25 m bgs Test Hole #14

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.05 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.05 – 0.5 m Sand with some Silt

Reddish brown sand, some silt, loose, moist. 0.5 m Bedrock

-No ground water observed -Test hole terminated at 0.5 m bgs

8

Test Hole #15

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.07 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.07 – 0.65 m Sand with some Silt

Reddish brown sand, some silt, loose, moist. 0.65 m Bedrock

-No ground water observed -Test hole terminated at 0.65 m bgs Test Hole #16

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.1 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.1 – 0.8 m Sand with some Silt

Brown sand, some silt, loose, moist. 0.8 – 1.2 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist to wet. -Ground water observed at 1.2 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs Test Hole #17

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.08 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.08 – 0.55 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist.

9

0.55 – 1.05 m Sand with some Silt Brown sand, some silt, loose, saturated.

1.05 m Bedrock

-Ground water observed at 0.6 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.05 m bgs Test Hole #18

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.05 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.05 – 1.2 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist to saturated. -Ground water observed at 0.9 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs Test Hole #19

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.05 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above. 0.05 – 1.2 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, moist to saturated. -Ground water observed at 0.5 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs Test Hole #20

Test Hole Description 0.0 - 0.1 m Topsoil Dark brown organic soil, sandy, moist, loose, no structure, rooting from

above.

10

0.1 – 0.3 m Sand with some Silt Grey sand, some silt, loose, wet.

0.3 – 1.2 m Silt

Brown/grey mottled silt, trace clay and sand, dense, saturated. -Ground water observed at 0.5 m bgs -Test hole terminated at 1.2 m bgs

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDIX D

Geospec Engineering – Soil Analysis Results

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDIX E

AGAT Laboratories – Water Quality Results

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,85 BAYFIELD STREET, SUITE 400BARRIE, ON L4M3A7

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Elizabeth Polakowska, MSc (Animal Sci), PhD (Agri Sci), Inorganic Lab Supervisor

MICROBIOLOGY ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

Mike Muneswar, BSc (Chem), Senior Inorganic AnalystWATER ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 11

Apr 29, 2011

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712 5100, or at1-800-856-6261

11T487704AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 11

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested

Russel Locke

2362237 2362238Parameter G / S RDLUnit

CFU/100mL 10 ND NDEscherichia coli

CFU/100mL 10 ND NDTotal Coliforms

CFU/100mL 1 ND NDFecal Coliform

CFU/1mL 10 ND NDHeterotrophic Plate Count

RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to SDWA - MicrobiologyComments:

2362237-2362238 ND = Not Detected.

Results relate only to the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: Apr 21, 2011DATE SAMPLED: Apr 20, 2011

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Drew WestCLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Microbiological Analysis (water)

DATE REPORTED: Apr 29, 2011 SAMPLE TYPE: Water

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 11

Russel Locke

2362237 2362238Parameter G / S RDLUnit

8.17 7.78pH, Saturation

pH Units NA(6.5-8.5) 8.55 8.38pH

0.38 0.60Langelier Index

mg/L 5(30-500) 183 312Alkalinity (as CaCO3)

mg/L 5 172 305Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)

mg/L 5 11 7Carbonate (as CaCO3)

mg/L 5 <5 <5Hydroxide (as CaCO3)

uS/cm 2 853 725Electrical Conductivity

mg/L 0.051.5 1.49 0.62Fluoride

mg/L 0.10(250) 148 34.3Chloride

mg/L 0.0510.0 <0.05 <0.05Nitrate as N

mg/L 0.051.0 <0.05 <0.05Nitrite as N

mg/L 0.05 1.54 <0.05Bromide

mg/L 0.10(500) 16.2 40.7Sulphate

mg/L 0.05 8.13 9.08Calcium

mg/L 0.05 1.58 3.76Magnesium

mg/L 0.0520 (200) 167 155Sodium

mg/L 0.05 1.28 1.37Potassium

mg/L 0.02 0.10 0.06Ammonia as N

mg/L 0.10 <0.10 <0.10Phosphate as P

mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05Total Phosphorus

mg/L 0.05 10.7 13.5Reactive Silica

mg/L 0.5 3.4 4.2Total Organic Carbon

TCU 5(5) 5 8Colour

NTU 0.5(5) <0.5 <0.5Turbidity

mg/L 0.004(0.1) 0.050 0.054Aluminum

mg/L 0.0030.025 <0.003 <0.003Arsenic

mg/L 0.0021 0.051 0.060Barium

mg/L 0.0105 1.41 0.765Boron

mg/L 0.0020.005 <0.002 <0.002Cadmium

mg/L 0.0030.05 <0.003 <0.003Chromium

mg/L 0.003(1) 0.007 0.030Copper

mg/L 0.010(0.3) <0.010 0.011Iron

Results relate only to the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: Apr 21, 2011DATE SAMPLED: Apr 20, 2011

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Drew WestCLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

AZIMUTH - Water Quality Assessment

DATE REPORTED: Apr 29, 2011 SAMPLE TYPE: Water

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 3 of 11

Russel Locke

2362237 2362238Parameter G / S RDLUnit

mg/L 0.0020.01 <0.002 <0.002Lead

mg/L 0.002(0.05) 0.005 0.021Manganese

mg/L 0.002 0.004 <0.002Molybdenum

mg/L 0.003 <0.003 <0.003Nickel

mg/L 0.0040.01 <0.004 <0.004Selenium

mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002Silver

mg/L 0.005 0.260 0.326Strontium

mg/L 0.006 <0.006 <0.006Thallium

mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002Tin

mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002Titanium

mg/L 0.0020.02 <0.002 <0.002Uranium

mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002Vanadium

mg/L 0.005(5) 0.008 0.006Zinc

mg/L 20(500) 480 454Total Dissolved Solids

mg/L 10(80-100) 27 38Total Hardness (as CaCO3)

0.1 2.6 3.5% Difference/ Ion Balance

RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to O.Reg.169/03Comments:

Results relate only to the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: Apr 21, 2011DATE SAMPLED: Apr 20, 2011

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Drew WestCLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

AZIMUTH - Water Quality Assessment

DATE REPORTED: Apr 29, 2011 SAMPLE TYPE: Water

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 4 of 11

2362237 O.Reg.169/03 AZIMUTH - Water Quality Assessment Sodium 20 (200) 167Russel

2362237 O.Reg.169/03 AZIMUTH - Water Quality Assessment pH (6.5-8.5) 8.55Russel

2362238 O.Reg.169/03 AZIMUTH - Water Quality Assessment Sodium 20 (200) 155Locke

Results relate only to the items tested

Guideline Violation

ATTENTION TO: Drew WestCLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

SAMPLEID GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULTSAMPLE TITLE

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V1) Page 5 of 11

Microbiological Analysis (water)

Escherichia coli 1 ND ND 0.0% < 1

Total Coliforms 1 ND ND 0.0% < 1

Fecal Coliform 1 ND ND 0.0% < 1

Heterotrophic Plate Count 1 ND ND 0.0% < 10

Comments: ND = Not Detected.

Certified By:

Results relate only to the items tested

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

Microbiology Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Apr 29, 2011 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 6 of 11

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

AZIMUTH - Water Quality Assessment

pH 1 2362237 8.55 8.65 1.2% N/A 100% 90% 110%

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 1 2362237 183 185 1.1% < 5 100% 80% 120%

Electrical Conductivity 1 2362237 853 845 0.9% < 2 100% 80% 120%

Fluoride 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 108% 90% 110% 99% 90% 110% 93% 80% 120%

Chloride

1 174 176 1.1% < 0.10 97% 90% 110% 97% 90% 110% 103% 80% 120%

Nitrate as N 1 0.174 0.192 9.8% < 0.05 99% 90% 110% 102% 90% 110% 105% 80% 120%

Nitrite as N 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 NA 90% 110% 92% 90% 110% 104% 80% 120%

Bromide 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 102% 90% 110% 109% 90% 110% 107% 80% 120%

Sulphate 1 157 159 1.3% < 0.10 100% 80% 120% 102% 90% 110% 103% 80% 120%

Calcium

1 108 107 0.9% < 0.05 100% 90% 110% 101% 90% 110% 104% 70% 130%

Magnesium 1 18.4 18.4 0.0% < 0.05 101% 90% 110% 102% 90% 110% 108% 70% 130%

Sodium 1 77.7 76.8 1.2% < 0.05 100% 90% 110% 101% 90% 110% 98% 70% 130%

Potassium 1 0.90 0.89 1.1% < 0.05 98% 90% 110% 97% 90% 110% 101% 70% 130%

Ammonia as N 1 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.0% < 0.02 98% 80% 120% 103% 80% 120% 92% 80% 120%

Phosphate as P

1 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.0% < 0.10 96% 90% 110% 100% 80% 120% 116% 80% 120%

Total Phosphorus 1 238 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 98% 90% 110% 97% 90% 110% 102% 80% 120%

Reactive Silica 1 5.02 4.81 4.3% < 0.05 102% 90% 110% 100% 80% 120% 93% 70% 130%

Total Organic Carbon 1 5.5 5.7 3.6% < 0.5 95% 90% 110% 101% 80% 120% 82% 70% 130%

Colour 1 < 5 < 5 0.0% < 5 80% 120%

Turbidity

1 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 105% 80% 120%

Aluminum 1 0.010 0.010 0.0% < 0.004 100% 90% 110% 98% 90% 110% 94% 90% 110%

Arsenic 1 0.008 0.008 0.0% < 0.003 100% 90% 110% 98% 90% 110% 110% 70% 130%

Barium 1 0.048 0.047 2.1% < 0.002 95% 90% 110% 96% 90% 110% 101% 70% 130%

Boron 1 0.026 0.027 3.8% < 0.010 103% 90% 110% 103% 90% 110% 97% 70% 130%

Cadmium

1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 102% 90% 110% 110% 90% 110% 106% 70% 130%

Chromium 1 < 0.003 < 0.003 0.0% < 0.003 98% 90% 110% 101% 90% 110% 94% 70% 130%

Copper 1 0.0230 0.0223 3.1% < 0.003 94% 90% 110% 95% 90% 110% 92% 70% 130%

Iron 1 0.937 0.938 0.1% < 0.010 108% 90% 110% 100% 90% 110% 98% 70% 130%

Lead 1 0.007 0.007 0.0% < 0.002 100% 90% 110% 103% 90% 110% 94% 70% 130%

Manganese

1 0.062 0.063 1.6% < 0.002 105% 90% 110% 102% 90% 110% 99% 70% 130%

Molybdenum 1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 100% 90% 110% 98% 90% 110% 102% 70% 130%

Nickel 1 0.020 0.020 0.0% < 0.003 103% 90% 110% 102% 90% 110% 100% 70% 130%

Selenium 1 < 0.004 < 0.004 0.0% < 0.004 100% 90% 110% 96% 90% 110% 110% 70% 130%

Silver 1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 102% 90% 110% 105% 80% 120% 107% 70% 130%

Strontium

1 0.300 0.300 0.0% < 0.005 101% 90% 110% 99% 90% 110% 102% 70% 130%

Thallium 1 < 0.006 < 0.006 0.0% < 0.006 99% 90% 110% 105% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%

Tin 1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 91% 90% 110% 100% 90% 110% 102% 70% 130%

Titanium 1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 105% 90% 110% 100% 90% 110% 101% 70% 130%

Uranium 1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 110% 90% 110% 96% 90% 110% 97% 70% 130%

Results relate only to the items tested

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

Water Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Apr 29, 2011 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 7 of 11

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Vanadium

1 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.0% < 0.002 100% 90% 110% 97% 90% 110% 100% 70% 130%

Zinc 1 0.0780 0.0772 1.0% < 0.005 100% 90% 110% 106% 90% 110% 100% 70% 130%

Total Dissolved Solids 1 486 480 1.2% < 20 98% 80% 120%

Certified By:

Results relate only to the items tested

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

Water Analysis (Continued)

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Apr 29, 2011 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 8 of 11

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Microbiology Analysis

Escherichia coli MIC-93-7010 EPA 1604 Membrane Filtration

Total Coliforms MIC-93-7010 EPA 1604 Membrane Filtration

Fecal Coliform MIC-93-7000 SM 9222 D MF/INCUBATOR

Heterotrophic Plate Count MIC-93-7020 SM 9215C Spread Plate

Results relate only to the items tested

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Method Summary

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 9 of 11

Water Analysis

pH, Saturation SM 2320 B CALCULATION

pH INOR-93-6000 SM 4500-H+ B PC TITRATE

Langelier Index SM 2330B CALCULATION

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) INOR-93-6000 SM 4500-H+ B PC TITRATE

Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) INOR-93-6000 SM 4500-H+ B PC TITRATE

Carbonate (as CaCO3) INOR-93-6000 SM 4500-H+ B PC TITRATE

Hydroxide (as CaCO3) INOR-93-6000 SM 4500-H+ B PC TITRATE

Electrical Conductivity INOR-93-6000 SM 4500-H+ B PC TITRATE

Fluoride INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Chloride INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Nitrate as N INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Nitrite as N INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Bromide INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Sulphate INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Calcium MET-93-6105 EPA SW-846 6010C & 200.7 ICP/OES

Magnesium MET-93-6105 EPA SW-846 6010C & 200.7 ICP/OES

Sodium MET-93-6105 EPA SW-846 6010C & 200.7 ICP/OES

Potassium MET-93-6105 EPA SW-846 6010C & 200.7 ICP/OES

Ammonia as N INOR-93-6002 AQ2 EPA-103A & SM 4500 NH3-F AQ-2 DISCRETE ANALYZER

Phosphate as P INOR-93-6004 SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Total Phosphorus INOR-93-6057QuikChem 10-115-01-3-A & SM 4500-P I

LACHAT FIA

Reactive Silica INOR-93-6047 AQ2 EPA-122A & SM 4500 SiO2 D AQ2 DISCRETE ANALYSER

Total Organic Carbon INOR-93-6049 EPA 415.1 & SM 5310 SHIMADZU CARBON ANALYZER

Colour INOR93-6046 SM 2120 B SPECTROPHOTOMETER

Turbidity INOR-93-6044 SM 2130 B NEPHELOMETER

Aluminum MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Arsenic MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Barium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Boron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Cadmium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Chromium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Copper MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Iron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Lead MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Manganese MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Molybdenum MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Nickel MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Selenium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Silver MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Strontium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Thallium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Tin MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Titanium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Uranium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Vanadium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Zinc MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 6020A & 200.8 ICP-MS

Total Dissolved Solids INOR-93-628 SM 2540 C BALANCE

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) MET-93-6105 EPA SW-846 6010C & 200.7 ICP/OES

Results relate only to the items tested

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Method Summary

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 10 of 11

% Difference/ Ion Balance SM 1030 E CALCULATION

Results relate only to the items tested

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T487704

Method Summary

ATTENTION TO: Drew West

CLIENT NAME: AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,

PROJECT NO: 09-299b

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 11 of 11

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

APPENDIX F

Attenuation/Phosphorus Absorption Capacity Calculations

APPENDIX F: Attenuation/Phosphorus Absorption Capacity Calculations

Parameter UnitsPre-

Development Existing**

DevelopmentPost**

DevelopmentA. Watershed CharacteristicsSurface Area of Cove ha 6.0 6.0 6.0Mean Depth of Cove m 4 4 4

Volume m3 240,000 240,000 240,000

Land Drainage Area ha 18 18 18

B. Climate Data (Midland Climate Station - 1987 to 2002)

Total Precipitation (a) m / a 0.989 0.989 0.989

Water Surplus (b) m / a 0.489 0.489 0.489

Evapotranspiration m / a 0.501 0.501 0.501Evaporation m / a 0.355 0.355 0.355C. Water InflowRunoff (overland) m3 / a 88,020 88,020 88,020Direct Precipitation onto Surface Water Features m3 / a 50,580 50,580 50,580Annual Flushing Factor 1.9 1.9 1.9

Lake flushing m3 / a 100,000 100,000 100,000

Total Input m3 / a 238,600 238,600 238,600

D. Water OutflowTotal Output m3 / a 238,600 238,600 238,600

Flushing Rate year/ time 1.0 1.0 1.0E. Phosphorus Input (from Dillon et al. , 1986)i) Natural Sources

Natural Phosphorus Loading from Watershed (c) mg / m2a 5.5 5.5 5.5

Total Phosphorus Loading from land kg/a 1.0 1.0 1.0ii) Private ResidencesNumber of private residences 0 3 3

Usage (d) cap a / a 0 3.2 3.2

TP Concentrations in Septic Tank (e) mg / L 0 8 8

Water Usage (f) L / capita / day 0 120 120

TP Loading to Septic Tank kg / capita / a 0 0.35 0.35

TP Removal in Septic Tank (Sludge Accumulation) (g) kg / capita / a 0 0.18 0.18

TP Retention Coefficient for Septic Bed (h) 0 0.65 0.65

TP Loading into Subsurface kg / capita / a 0 0.06 0.06TP Input due to Residences kg / a 0.0 0.6 0.6iii) Onsite Loading Number of Cottages onsite 0 0 9

Usage (d) cap a / a 0 3.2 3.2

TP Concentrations in Septic Tank (e) mg / L 0 8 8

Water Usage (f) L / capita / day 0 120 120

TP Loading to Septic Tank kg / capita / a 0 0.35 0.35

TP Removal in Septic Tank (Sludge Accumulation) (g) kg / capita / a 0 0.18 0.18

TP Retention Coefficient for Septic Bed (h) 0 0.65 0.65

TP Loading into Subsurface kg / capita / a 0 0.06 0.06TP Input from Development Sewage Works kg/a 0.0 0.00 1.77iv) Nutrient Supply by Forest LitterTotal Length of Shoreline km 1.7 1.7 1.7

Total Mass Input of Airborne Vegetation Litter (i) kg / a 442 442 442

TP Input from Vegetation Litter (j) kg / a 0.71 0.71 0.71TOTAL TP INPUT TO BAY kg / a 1.7 2.3 4.1Site as % of Total Annual TP Input 0.0% 0.0% 43.6%

F. Phosphorus Removal (from Dillon et al. , 1986)i) Fishing Effort Summer Fishing Effort by Cottagers angler hrs / a 0 105 105

angler hrs / ha / a 0 18 18Summer Fishing Effort by Non-Residents angler hrs / a 0 98 98

angler hrs / ha / a 0 16 16Total Summer Fishing Effort angler hrs / a 0 203 203

angler hrs / ha / a 0 34 34Total Winter Fishing Effort angler hrs / a 0 144 144

angler hrs / ha / a 0 24 24Total Fishing Effort angler hrs / a 0 347 347

angler hrs / ha / a 0 58 58

Morphoedaphic Index (MEI) g / m4 8 8 8

Total Harvest (wet weight) kg / a 0 27 27kg / ha / a 0 4.5 4.5

Total Harvest (dry weight) kg / a 0 5 5kg / ha / a 0 0.9 0.9

TP Concentration Removed due to Fishing kg / a 0.00 0.22 0.22TOTAL TP REMOVAL FROM BAY kg / a 0.00 0.22 0.22

Predicted TP Concentration within Bay (k) mg/L 0.007 0.009 0.0161

Observed TP Concentration in Bay (L) mg/L 0.007 0.0119Calibration Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0

Predicted TP Concentration in Bay mg/L 0.0071 0.0087 0.0161

Notes:

(a) climate data obtained from EC Station at Midland (1987-2002)

(b) determined using method developed by Thornthwaite and Mather (1953)

(c) mean value for Forest Pasture (>15% of watershed cleared) in an Igneous geological classification (Dillon, unpublished manuscript)

(d) estimated value based upon Dillon et al. (1986)

(e) mean value from results of 21 studies presented in Dillon et al. (1986)

(f) mean value from 10 literature sources presented in Dillon et al. (1986) with seasonal usage

(g) mean value from literature sources presented in Dillon et al. (1986)

(h) mean value for 762mm sand with D10 = 0.3mm, from Brandes et al. (1974)

(i) assumes input is 260kg/km of shoreline - from Dillon et al. (1986)

(j) assumes TP content of litter is 0.16% - from Dillon et al. (1986)

(k) worst-case scenario, assumes no sedimentation of TP

(L) From 2009 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Draft Report