FINAL LOWER CHURCHILL PROJECT BASELINE WATER QUALITY …€¦ · estuary contains a bottom layer of...

FINAL

LOWER CHURCHILL PROJECT

BASELINE WATER QUALITY AND

SALT WATER INTRUSION STUDY

MUD LAKE

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

Submitted to:

Nalcor Energy

Hydro Place, 500 Columbus Drive

P.O. Box 12800.

St. John's, NL

A1B 0C9

Submitted by:

AMEC Earth & Environmental

133 Crosbie Road

St. John’s, NL

A1B-4A5

March, 2010

TF9110466.2000

Lower Churchill ProjectNalcor EnergyBaseline Water Quality and Salt Water Intrusion StudyMud Lake, Newfoundland and LabradorMarch, 2010

Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited, was retained by NalcorEnergy in May, 2009 to conduct a Baseline Water Quality and Salt Water Intrusion Study,located in the community of Mud Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador.

The 1980 Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Churchill Project (LCDC, 1980)identified the Churchill River below Muskrat Falls as potentially susceptible to salt waterintrusion from Goose Bay during the temporary reduction in river flows that would occur duringthe process of reservoir impoundment. To estimate the extent of any salt water intrusion(defined as the section where salinity increases by approximately 2 parts per thousand) thatcould occur, a three-dimensional numerical model of the Churchill River and Goose Bay estuarywas set up and run by Hatch (Hatch 2008a and 2008b), using DHI MIKE 3, a hydraulicmodeling package that simulates flows in rivers, lakes, estuaries, bays and seas. The modelresults indicate a potential for temporary salt water intrusion up the Churchill River, to a pointapproximately 2 km upriver of the confluence of the Channel from Mud Lake at its maximumextent during impoundment of the Gull Island Reservoir. A possible implication of thistemporary salt water intrusion is an impact (i.e., reduced water quality) to groundwater used bythe residents of Mud Lake.

The main objective of this Study is to determine the potential for salt water from Goose Bay toenter the shallow groundwater aquifer that is used by the residents of Mud Lake as a drinkingwater source during the process of reservoir impoundment. Specific components of this Studyinclude:

Conduct a water quality survey to assess the baseline conditions of the drinking water ateach accessible home in Mud Lake.

Install and survey monitoring wells at various locations within Mud Lake to gauge the watertable elevations.

Install pressure transducers in the monitoring wells to determine any change of groundwaterlevels resulting from tidal impacts.

Create a groundwater flow map to illustrate groundwater elevations, surface waterelevations and groundwater flow direction.

The findings of the Study demonstrate that even under high tide conditions, the aquifer that issupplying groundwater to the residents of Mud Lake is being recharged from precipitation fallingon the higher ground to the south of Mud Lake, on the central areas of the Island, and on thepeninsula between the Channel and the Churchill River. From these recharge areas,groundwater is consistently flowing towards either the Churchill River or the Channel. At notime during the monitoring period was there groundwater flow from either the Channel or theChurchill River inland towards the resident’s wells. Therefore, AMEC is under the opinion thatsalinity conditions of the Churchill River as described by Hatch (2008a and 2008b) during theimpoundment of the reservoir, will not affect the groundwater quality of the shallow wellslocated in Mud Lake under normal conditions.


Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................1

1.2 Study Area..........................................................................................................1

1.3 Background Information ...................................................................................2

1.3.1 Estuary Environment.........................................................................2

1.3.2 Baseline Salinity Conditions.............................................................2

1.4 Hatch Salt Water Intrusion Study .....................................................................3

1.4.1 Model Setup .......................................................................................3

1.4.2 Modelling Results ..............................................................................3

1.5 Scope of Work....................................................................................................4

2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................5

2.1 Climate................................................................................................................5

2.2 Physiography and Drainage..............................................................................5

2.3 Churchill River Bathymetry...............................................................................5

2.4 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting ...............................................................5

2.4.1 Geology ..............................................................................................5Surficial Geology............................................................................................................................. 5

Bedrock Geology............................................................................................................................. 6

2.4.2 Hydrogeology.....................................................................................6Overburden Aquifer ........................................................................................................................ 6

Bedrock Aquifer............................................................................................................................... 6

Groundwater Flow System............................................................................................................. 6

3.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................7

3.1 Water Well Inventory .........................................................................................7

3.2 Baseline Water Quality Survey .........................................................................7

3.2.1 General Chemistry and Metals Analyses .........................................7

3.2.2 Bacteriological Analyses...................................................................8

3.2.3 Laboratory Analytical Program.........................................................8

3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control...................................................8

3.3 Borehole / Monitoring Well Installation............................................................9

3.4 Monitoring Well / Surface Water Surveying .....................................................9

3.5 Gauging Monitoring Wells ................................................................................9


Page iii

3.6 Pressure Transducers .....................................................................................10

4.0 FINDINGS .....................................................................................................................10

4.1 Water Well Inventory .......................................................................................10

4.2 Water Quality Results......................................................................................10

4.2.1 General Chemistry...........................................................................10

4.2.2 Metals ...............................................................................................11

4.2.3 Bacteria ............................................................................................12

4.3 Tidal Fluctuations ............................................................................................12

4.4 Barometric Pressure Data...............................................................................13

4.5 Subsurface Conditions....................................................................................13

4.5.1 Soil Conditions ................................................................................13

4.5.2 Groundwater Conditions.................................................................13

4.5.3 Surface Water Conditions ...............................................................14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................14

6.0 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................15

7.0 CLOSURE.....................................................................................................................16

8.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................17

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Appendix B Mud Lake Water Well Record

Appendix C Monitoring Well Logs

Appendix D Home Owner Survey Results

Appendix E Monitoring Well and Surface Water Survey Results

Appendix F Groundwater and Surface Water Elevation Data Tables

Appendix G Hydrograph of Groundwater Elevations

Appendix H Laboratory Data Tables

Appendix I Laboratory Certificates of Analyses

Appendix J Tidal Fluctuations

Appendix K Report Limitations


Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC), was retained by

Nalcor Energy (Nalcor) in May, 2009 to conduct a Baseline Water Quality and Salt Water

Intrusion Study, located in the community of Mud Lake (Mud Lake), Newfoundland and

Labrador (NL) (refer to Figure 1, Appendix A).

The 1980 Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Churchill Project (LCDC, 1980)

identified the Churchill River below Muskrat Falls as potentially susceptible to salt water

intrusion from Goose Bay during the temporary reduction in river flows that would occur during

the process of reservoir impoundment. To estimate the extent of any salt water intrusion

(defined as the section where salinity increases by approximately 2 parts per thousand) that

could occur, a three-dimensional numerical model of the Churchill River and Goose Bay estuary

was set up and run by Hatch (Hatch 2008a and 2008b), using DHI MIKE 3, a hydraulic

modeling package that simulates flows in rivers, lakes, estuaries, bays and seas. The model

results indicate a potential for temporary salt water intrusion up the Churchill River, to a point

approximately 2 km upriver of the confluence of the Channel from Mud Lake at its maximum

extent during impoundment of the Gull Island Reservoir. A possible implication of this

temporary salt water intrusion is an impact (i.e., reduced water quality) to groundwater used by

the residents of Mud Lake.

1.1 Objective

The main objective of this Study is to determine the potential for salt water from Goose Bay to

enter the shallow groundwater aquifer that is used by the residents of Mud Lake as a drinking

water source during the process of reservoir impoundment.

Specific components of this Study include:

Conduct a water quality survey to assess the baseline conditions of the drinking water at

each accessible home in Mud Lake.

Install and survey monitoring wells at various locations within Mud Lake to gauge the water

table elevations.

Install pressure transducers in the monitoring wells to determine any change of groundwater

levels resulting from tidal impacts.

Create a groundwater flow map to illustrate groundwater elevations, surface water

elevations and groundwater flow direction.

1.2 Study Area

The community of Mud Lake is located approximately 8 km east of the Town of Happy Valley

Goose Bay (HVGB), NL near the mouth of the Churchill River (refer to Figure 1, Appendix A).


Page 2

A channel of the Mud Lake River (the Channel) divides the mainland from an island (the Island)

that is accessible by a foot bridge. Houses are located on the mainland and the island. The

community of Mud Lake is accessible by boat in the summer months and by snowmobile in

winter from HVGB.

1.3 Background Information

1.3.1 Estuary Environment

As discussed in the Hatch, 2008a report, an estuary is an area of interaction between salt and

fresh water. Commonly, it is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water which has a free

connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water

derived from land drainage. The environment in estuaries is generally the result of a dynamic

balance between factors such as tides, river runoff and sea salinity, local meterological

conditions, and topography.

The Goose Bay estuary is the receptor for the Churchill River watershed, as well as other,

relatively smaller drainage basins (AMEC, 2001). The estuary is located at the upstream,

western end of Lake Melville, a large brackish water body which discharges into the Labrador

Sea through Hamilton Inlet. The Goose Bay estuary is 120 km inland from the sea. The

estuary contains a bottom layer of salt water that intrudes from the sea and is covered by a

surface layer of fresh water from river inflow.

The fresh water flow from Churchill River, which is the dominant fresh water input into the

Goose Bay estuary, acts to maintain a stable fresh water surface layer (average 5 m), whereas

the exchange flow from Lake Melville (through the Goose Bay Narrows) provides a stable,

dominantly saline water bottom layer. This saline layer extends below 10 m depth in most of

Goose Bay, except at or near the Narrows where a shallower layer persists (AMEC, 2001).

The main driving force in Lake Melville is tidal. Water current circulation in Goose Bay estuary

is controlled by the Goose Bay Narrows which acts as a barrier between Lake Melville and

Goose Bay. The tidal currents inside the Goose Bay estuary are much less variable (lower

amplitudes) than those found in the western part of Lake Melville (AMEC, 2001).

1.3.2 Baseline Salinity Conditions

In stratified situations, the intrusion of salt water in a river connected to the sea occurs by the

motion upstream of a definable and limited saline layer underlying fresh water (Hatch, 2008a).

This is called a saline wedge. In its theoretical form, with no tidal action or physical barriers,

and with river flow, water depth and sea water salinity remaining constant, the wedge will

advance to a point where it achieves equilibrium with the river flow. This is called an arrested

saline wedge. According to the theory for the mechanism of an arrested saline wedge, the

length of the wedge upstream in a river from the sea is a function of the densities of the fresh

and salt water, the river flow velocity, and the depth of the river.


Page 3

The baseline salinity measurements of the Churchill River were uniform with depth, indicating

that the river is well mixed, with no stratification (AMEC, 2001). The measured salinity was

slightly brackish at 2 to 3 practical salinity units (PSU), for the length of the river between Mud

Lake and Muskrat Falls. For comparison purposes, ocean water has a PSU ranging between

31 to 39.

1.4 Hatch Salt Water Intrusion Study

1.4.1 Model Setup

A three-dimensional finite element, numerical, hydraulic model was developed by Hatch in 2008

to predict the space and time behaviour of the salinity in the lower Churchill River during

impoundment of the Gull Island Reservoir (Hatch, 2008a and 2008b). The model was set up

using DHI MIKE3, a three-dimensional, hydraulic, modelling package applicable to simulations

of flow in rivers, lakes, estuaries, bays and seas. Bathymetric surveys of the Churchill River

and Canadian Hydrographic Service nautical chart data, and temperature and salinity

measurements from AMEC, 2001 were used.

The DHI MIKE 3 model was used to simulate the effect of impounding the Gull Island Reservoir

under average flow conditions and assuming that all flow from the upstream of Gull Island was

cut off. Examining the effects of compensation flow release over the spillway at Gull Island

were not considered necessary (Hatch, 2008b).

For the purposes of the Hatch, 2008 study, it was assumed that impoundment would be carried

out in September.(Hatch, 2008b). Assuming that river closure takes place on September 1,

with no compensation flow release, the inflow at the model boundary was reduced from 1,457

m3/s to 59 m

3/s during the impoundment of the reservoir. Reservoir filling would take 37 days.

Once reservoir filling is complete, normal river flow would be restored on October 8.

1.4.2 Modelling Results

The model results indicate a potential for salt water intrusion within approximately 2 km upriver

of Mud Lake at its maximum extent during impoundment of the Gull Island Reservoir. The

salinity in the area of Mud Lake is temporarily expected to reach a maximum of 4 to 6 PSU.

The intrusion was not stratified, instead taking the form of a diffuse well-mixed salinity gradient,

oscillating with the tide within the last few kilometres of the river.

Although there are some deep passages in the Churchill River (in excess of 8 m depth), the

overall bed structure is braided and most of the river cross-sectional area is relatively shallow.

This creates a relatively turbulent environment, prompts mixing, and prevents a distinct saline

wedge from forming (Hatch, 2008a).


Page 4

The model showed the cyclic effect of the tide on intrusion. The small tidal range of less than 1

m limits the volume and speed with which the salt water can be forced upriver. If the river were

considerably deeper and/or wider, the tidal effect would be more pronounced.

1.5 Scope of Work

The AMEC work program included the following tasks:

Conducting a water well inventory of all of the accessible houses in the community of Mud

Lake using standardized questionnaires. Information about the well owner, the property, the

construction of the well, water treatment and the history of the well was requested from the

home owner at the time of sampling;

Collecting potable water samples from the most common tap source in accessible houses

within the community;

Submitting water samples to Government Service Center in Happy Valley Goose Bay

(HVGB, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)) for analyses of bacteriological parameters and

to Maxxam Analytics in St. John’s, NL for analyses of general chemistry and metals

parameters;

Comparing the laboratory results to the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

(GCDWQ);

Installing 6 monitoring wells at various locations within Mud Lake. Boreholes were drilled

using a hand auger and gas auger drill to approximately 3 - 5 m bgs. Monitoring wells were

installed in the boreholes to gauge the water table level.

Surveying the tops of each newly installed monitoring well to a relative elevation in order to

determine the groundwater flow direction. In addition, several surface water features

surrounding the community of Mud Lake, including the Churchill River, were surveyed to

determine relative elevations.

Installing transducers in the monitoring wells for a period of 43 hours in order to determine

any change of groundwater levels resulting from tidal impacts.

Based on survey results, creating a groundwater flow map. The map illustrates

groundwater elevations, surface water elevations and groundwater flow direction.

Preparing a report stating our opinion on the potential for salt water to intrude the shallow

wells located in Mud Lake, along with a record of baseline water quality for the drinking

water resource of Mud Lake.


Page 5

2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

2.1 Climate

Data on climatic normals including temperature and precipitation were obtained from

Environment Canada. There is one active climate station near the study area located at the

Goose Bay Airport. Data from the climate station dates back to 1971.

The monthly mean temperature in the study area is -0.5°C, ranging from a high of 15.4°C in

July to a low of -18.1°C in January. Average annual precipitation in the area is 949 mm, of

which 59% falls as rainfall and 41% as snowfall. July is typically the wettest month, and

February is typically the driest month.

2.2 Physiography and Drainage

Mud Lake is located within a low-lying coastal plain bordering Lake Melville, referred to as the

Melville Plain. This physiographic region is characterized by very low relief and elevations near

sea level. Mud Lake is relatively flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 3 m above mean

sea level with a gentle slope towards Mud Lake River.

2.3 Churchill River Bathymetry

The geometry of the Churchill River bed (bathymetry) is represented by cross sections in Hatch,

2008c. Bathymetric surveys were generally conducted by driving a boat straight across the

river from one bank to the other while transmitting sound pulses to the bottom and recording the

returns. The depth of water was then calculated for each pulse, and a GPS unit recorded the

location of each depth measurement.

According to Hatch, 2008c, the Churchill River at a 2 km section adjacent to Mud Lake is

approximately 5 to 8 m deep.

2.4 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting

2.4.1 Geology

Surficial Geology

The surficial geology of the Mud Lake area is presented in Figure 2, Appendix A. Information

on the surficial geology of was obtained from Liverman and Taylor (1990) and Klassen, R.A. et

al. (1992).

The Churchill River valley is infilled with deep sandy drift of glacial, glaciofluvial and fluvial

origin. Uplift of the region and relative lowering of base level has initiated erosion of this drift

with the formation of numerous terraces and outwash deltas.


Page 6

Mud Lake is located in an area covered by extensive and thick glaciofluvial deposits, consisting

of sands and gravels that form fans, deltas, outwash plains, terraces and kames.

Bedrock Geology

The bedrock geology of the Mud Lake area is presented in Figure 3 Appendix A. Information

on the bedrock geology of Labrador was obtained from Wardle et al. (1997).

Labrador is the easternmost part of the Canadian Shield which is dominated by metamorphic,

igneous, and lesser sedimentary rocks. The bedrock geology for the study area is dominated

by the sandstones and conglomerate of the Neoproterozoic Double Mer Formation. This unit

represents graben-fill sedimentation, which occurred within a down-faulted block corresponding

to the Lake Melville Lowland area in response to initial rifting associated with Appalachian

orogenesis.

2.4.2 Hydrogeology

Overburden Aquifer

Deposits of sand and silt representing primarily glaciofluvial plain deposits occur extensively

around the Mud Lake area. A total of 1 water well record within the study area was obtained

from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DOEC) Water Well Records (Well ID

20704) which is provided in Appendix B. This well record does not include lithology, but it is

assumed that the well was drilled in the overburden sand and gravel aquifer. The well yield, as

determined by a short term blow test, was reported to be 22.5 litres per minute. The well depth

was 6.2 m. At the time of drilling, the groundwater table was measured at 5.2 m.

Bedrock Aquifer

Information regarding the bedrock aquifer underlying Mud Lake was obtained from JWL, 2008.

A total of 4 well records from the nearby Town of HVGB were used to characterize the

groundwater potential of the Double Mer Formation strata. Based on the well data, the Double

Mer Formation rocks are considered capable of providing wells with low yields, having water

yields ranging from 2 to 18 L/min at well depths of 31 to 129 m, and an average yield of 7 L/min

at 56 m depth. However, median yield and depth estimates of 5 L/min at 32 m depth are more

likely representative of the typical groundwater potential of this unit.

Groundwater Flow System

Mud Lake and surrounding area is underlain by an unconfined aquifer system contained within

the overburden material and underlying bedrock. The rate of movement of groundwater

through the overburden material is controlled by primary porosity, while groundwater flow within

the underlying bedrock can be expected to mainly occur within secondary openings, such as

fractures and joints, and will be variable depending on the frequency and interconnection of

these structural features.


Page 7

The direction of shallow groundwater flow in Mud Lake is a function of water table surface and

local variations in topography. Based on a review of the monitoring well logs located in

Appendix C, groundwater levels are within 0.20 m above sea level (asl) to a maximum of 1.45

m asl and are generally assumed to be a subdued reflection of the topography. Based on the

topography, groundwater is thought to be recharging along areas of high ground and

discharging at various wet lowland areas, ponds, lakes and rivers.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Water Well Inventory

Information about the well owner, the property, the construction of the well, well water treatment

and the history of the well was requested from the well owner at the time of sampling and

recorded on a standardized questionnaire. The information provided by the home owner was

based on their current knowledge of their well water. Results of the standardized questionnaires

are provided in Appendix D.

3.2 Baseline Water Quality Survey

A water quality survey was conducted to assess the baseline conditions of the drinking water at

each accessible home.

The baseline water quality survey has been designed to gather data on a combination of water

quality parameters – including general chemistry, metals and bacteria. However, sodium,

chloride and electrical conductivity will be of prime interest as these parameters will indicate if

the drinking water is affected by a salt water condition.

3.2.1 General Chemistry and Metals Analyses

Water samples were collected at fifteen houses within the community of Mud Lake for general

chemistry and metals analyses. All results were compared to the GCDWQ.

The following procedures were carried out during the sampling program:

Where possible, all aerators, tap screens, hoses, filters or other attachments were removed

from the faucet prior to turning on the cold water.

The flow rate was increased to full, or as high as practical, to allow the system to purge.

A 200 ml plastic bottle and a 50 ml plastic tube (for general chemistry and metals,

respectively) were placed under the faucet for successive sample collection. The cold water

was opened at a flow rate sufficient to allow collection of the sample without flushing out

preservatives inside the sample containers.


Page 8

3.2.2 Bacteriological Analyses

Bacteriological samples were collected at fifteen houses within the community of Mud Lake.

The bacteriological samples were tested for total coliforms and fecal coliforms. All

bacteriological results were compared to the GCDWQ.

The bacteriological samples were collected using the following procedures:

The faucet orifice was disinfected by submersion in a sodium hypochlorite solution (1 part

5.25% bleach in 10 parts water).

The flow rate was increased to full, or as high as practical, to allow the system to purge.

The flow was reduced to permit filling the sample container without excessive loss of the

sample and preservatives. Two 100 mL sterile plastic bottles were placed successively

under the faucet for sample collection.

The sample bottles were capped tightly and placed in a cooler with ice packs. Every

precaution to help ensure that the inner surfaces of the cap and the threads of the bottle did

not contact any unsterile surfaces during the sampling procedure was made.

3.2.3 Laboratory Analytical Program

All samples were collected in proper laboratory supplied bottles and forwarded to Maxxam

Analytics Inc. (Maxxam) laboratories in St. John’s, NL for general chemistry and metals

analyses and the Government Services Center in Happy Valley Goose Bay, NL for

bacteriological analyses. Maxxam laboratories are accredited by the Canadian Association for

Laboratory Accreditation (CALA). During the sampling operations and transport, the samples

were stored in coolers equipped with several frozen ice packs to maintain sample storage

temperature as close to 4oC as practical.

3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measure, a completed Chain of Custody form

was forwarded to the lab with each batch of samples to mitigate potential confusion concerning

requested analyses and to help ensure timely processing of the samples. In addition, two blind

field duplicate samples (QA/QC) were collected for analyses and comparison to the results.

In order to minimize cross contamination during sampling, a field QA/QC program was carried

out, which included the following measures:

Latex gloves were worn during all sampling (new gloves for each sample);

Pre-cleaned laboratory-supplied jars, bottles and vials were used to collect water samples;

and,

Samples were stored in a cooler with ice to prevent freezing while on-Site and to keep cool

during shipment to the laboratories.


Page 9

3.3 Borehole / Monitoring Well Installation

The borehole installation program consisted of advancing 6 boreholes (MW1 to MW6) at

various locations within the community of Mud Lake (refer to Figure 4, Appendix A). Boreholes

were manually drilled to depths ranging from 1.83 m (MW1) to 3.36 m (MW2) below the ground

surface (bgs) using a hand held auger and a gas engine powered auger. The boreholes were

drilled using 125 mm inside diameter hollow stem augers.

Monitoring wells were installed in all six boreholes advanced at the Site. The monitoring well

materials consisted of 25 mm diameter PVC flush threaded pipe and screen. The screened

interval was installed such that it straddled the water table. Solid riser pipe was added from the

top of the screened interval to ground surface. The screened portion of each well was packed

with native sand to fill the annular space around the screen to a level of approximately 0.3 m

above the screen. A bentonite seal was placed above the screen and the remainder of the void

was filled with sand to just below the ground surface. To provide security and to prevent any

entry of foreign material, the tops of the monitoring wells (PVC riser pipe) were capped using

lockable J-Plugs. The monitoring wells were developed after installation using dedicated

WaTerraTM

hand pumps to remove a minimum of 10 well volumes of water from each well.

Soil stratigraphy, monitoring well construction details and groundwater levels are provided on

borehole/monitoring well logs presented in Appendix C.

3.4 Monitoring Well / Surface Water Surveying

AMEC retained the services of a local land surveying company, N.E. Parrott Surveyors Limited,

to conduct a survey for the 6 newly installed monitoring wells (MW1 through MW6) and various

surface water features within the area of Mud Lake on November 20, 2009. The survey

established ground surface elevations, top of casing (TOC) elevations, coordinates relative to

the Modified Transverse Mercator coordinate grid (NAD83, Zone 4) to sub millimetre (mm)

accuracy using GPS instrumentation, and the time at which the measurements were taken.

The data obtained from the survey is presented in Appendix E and was used to plot the

monitoring well locations and surface water features on a scaled survey plan (refer to Figure 4,

Appendix A) and to establish groundwater and surface water elevation levels for each survey

point (refer to Tables F-1 and F-2, Appendix F). Once water elevation levels were established,

the groundwater flow direction was interpreted in order to estimate groundwater flow movement

throughout the Site.

3.5 Gauging Monitoring Wells

All six monitoring wells present at the Site were gauged using a HeronTM

Instruments water

interface meter to determine static groundwater elevations. Gauging was conducted by lowering

the probe down the monitoring wells until a tone was obtained indicating that liquid had been

contacted. The probe was then immediately raised until the tone ceased and then by very


Page 10

slowly lowering the probe, the depths at which the tones were first sounded were then carefully

noted to the nearest millimetre.

3.6 Pressure Transducers

Water table fluctuations due to tidal effects were investigated by AMEC from October 2 to

October 4, 2009. Submersible pressure transducers, combined with electronic data recorders,

were installed in each monitoring well after the static water level had been measured manually.

In addition, one pressure transducer was installed in the surface water (the Channel) to

measure variance in surface water levels during low tide and high tide. The pressure

transducers made it possible to collect nearly continuous water level or pressure data.

Six of the monitoring wells and a surface water location were monitored for approximately 30

hours from October 2 to October 4, 2009. Each pressure transducer was set up to take

readings every minute. The water level data is presented as a hydrograph provided in Appendix

G and discussed in further detail in Section 4.0 of this report.

4.0 Findings

4.1 Water Well Inventory

Home owners were surveyed by questionnaire at the time their tap water was sampled to

provide information on their water supply (refer to Appendix D). The locations of the houses

that were surveyed are shown in Figure 4, Appendix A.

Ten of the fifteen home owners interviewed obtained their water from a private well. The

remaining five home owners obtained their water from surface water (the “Channel”). Based on

the private well owner responses, all local wells are completed in the overburden sand aquifer

at shallow depths and draw water from the top of the water table.

4.2 Water Quality Results

This section provides a summary of the laboratory analytical results for water samples collected

during the baseline water quality testing program. Fifteen houses within the community of Mud

Lake were sampled. Summary data tables comparing the laboratory analytical results with the

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ, 2008) are presented in Tables H-1

to H-3, Appendix H and the Laboratory Certificates of Analyses are presented in Appendix I.

Guidelines are either health-based and listed as Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) or

based on aesthetic considerations and listed as Aesthetic Objective (AO).

4.2.1 General Chemistry

Table H-1, Appendix H presents general chemistry analytical results for the tap water samples

collected from community houses on August 25, 2009.


Page 11

The following general chemistry parameters exceeded the GCDWQ:

Colour: Concentrations of colour detected in tap water samples SA-1, DUP-1, SA-2, SA-3,

SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-10, SA-11, SA-14 and SA-15 exceeded the GCDWQ AO of 15 true

color units (TCU).

pH: pH concentrations of tap water samples SA-4, DUP-2, SA-8, SA-9, SA-12, SA-13, SA-

14 and SA-15 were below the GCDWQ MAC range of 6.5 – 8.5.

Turbidity: Turbidity concentration of tap water samples SA-1, DUP-1, SA-2, SA-3, SA-4,

DUP-2, SA-5, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, SA-11, SA-12, SA-13, SA-14 and SA-15

exceeded the GCDWQ MAC of 0.1 Nephelometric Turbidity Units NTU.

No other exceedances of applicable GCDWQ criteria were reported for the general chemistry

analyses parameters obtained during this sampling event.

It should be noted that the turbidity MAC of 0.1 NTU is meant for the assessment of water being

produced directly from a membrane filtration unit. In many Canadian jurisdictions, the objective

for turbidity in a distribution system is 5 NTU. Turbidity levels reported in all water samples

collected during the current sampling event were below 5 NTU with the exception of the water

sample SA-6 (6.6 NTU).

Sodium concentrations (1.2 mg/L to 7.2 mg/L) and chloride concentrations (<1.0 mg/L to 9.0

mg/L) in all water samples were well below the GCDWQ of 200 mg/L and 250 mg/L,

respectively. The low sodium and chloride concentrations indicate that neither the Channel nor

the shallow aquifer used by local water wells are affected by a pre-existing salt water condition.

The electrical conductivity measurements obtained from the tap water samples ranged from 24

microsiemens/cm (µS/cm) to 50 µS/cm. These measurements were compared to the baseline

salinity measurements of 2 to 3 PSU (approximately 4,000 µS/cm to 5,000 µS/cm) that were

obtained during the AMEC, 2001 study (refer to Section 1.3.2). Therefore, baseline drinking

water salinity measurements are 2 orders of magnitude less than baseline salinity

measurements of the Churchill River, indicating that there is no existing interaction between the

Churchill River and the shallow groundwater aquifer used by local water wells.

4.2.2 Metals

Table H-2, Appendix H presents analytical results for metal concentrations for the tap water

samples collected from community houses on August 25, 2009.

The following metals exceeded the GCDWQ:


Page 12

Aluminum: Concentrations of aluminum detected in tap water samples SA-1, SA-2, SA-4,

SA-6, SA-8, SA-9, SA-10 and SA-11 exceeded the GCDWQ AO of 100 µg/L;

Copper: Concentrations of copper detected in tap water sample SA-12 exceeded the

GCDWQ AO of 1000 µg/L;

Iron: Concentrations of iron detected in tap water samples SA-1, DUP-1 (a blind field

duolicate of SA-1), SA-2, SA-4, DUP-2 (a blind field duplicate of SA-4), SA-5, SA-6, SA-7,

SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, SA-11, SA-12, SA-13, SA-14 and SA-15 exceeded the GCDWQ AO of

300 µg/L.

No other exceedances of the applicable GCDWQ criteria were reported for the metals

parameters obtained during this sampling event.

4.2.3 Bacteria

Table H-3, Appendix H presents bacteria analytical results for the tap water samples collected

from community houses on August 25, 2009.

The following bacteriological parameters exceeded the GCDWQ:

Total Coliforms: Concentrations of total coliforms detected in tap water samples SA-1,

DUP-1 (a blind field duplicate sample of SA-1), SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, and SA-7 exceeded the

GCDWQ MAC of 0/100mL;

Fecal Coliforms: Concentrations of fecal coliforms detected in tap water samples SA-2, SA-

6, and SA-7 exceeded the GCDWQ MAC of fecal coliforms;

Only one of the five tap water samples collected that reported exceedences of either Total

or Fecal Coliforms was obtained from a private water well source. The remaining four tap

water samples that reported exceedences of either Total or Fecal Coliforms were obtained

from the Channel.

4.3 Tidal Fluctuations

Information on tides and water levels were obtained from the Canadian Hydrographic Service

(CHS) section of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The nearest station to Mud Lake is

located in North West River (Station #1335) which is located approximately 25 km north of Mud

Lake. The predicted times and heights of high and low waters and the hourly water levels

during the period of October 2 to October 4, 2009 to for North West River are provided in

Appendix J.

During the water level monitoring period, high tides occurred at approximately 10:45

Newfoundland Standard Time (NST) and 23:00 NST and low tides occurred at approximately


Page 13

5:00 NST and 17:00 NST. The tidal amplitude was approximately 0.4 m at the North West

River Station.

The results of the datalogger installed in the Channel from October 2 to October 4, 2009

indicated that the maximum tidal amplitude within the area of Mud Lake was 0.25 m (refer to

Table F-2, Appendix F).

4.4 Barometric Pressure Data

Temporal fluctuations in barometric pressure and tides can influence the measurements of

water levels in unconfined aquifers in coastal areas. Due to its location furthest from the

Channel, monitoring well MW4 is least likely to be affected by tidal influence of all the

monitoring wells, and the observed temporal fluctuations observed in this monitoring well were

assumed to be solely due to changes in barometric pressure. In order to reduce inaccurate

water level measurements caused by barometric pressure, the variations of pressure data

obtained from monitoring well MW4 were subtracted from groundwater and surface water

measurements as variations in barometric pressure.

4.5 Subsurface Conditions

4.5.1 Soil Conditions

The soil stratigraphy at the locations of boreholes MW1 through MW6 generally consisted of

dark brown, poorly graded, fine to medium sand with trace silt. Detailed soil descriptions and

sampling depths are provided on the borehole/monitoring well logs presented in Appendix C.

4.5.2 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater elevation readings obtained from dataloggers for each monitoring well present at

the Site from October 2 to 4, 2009 are provided as a hydrograph in Appendix G. Manual water

level readings obtained from monitoring wells on October 2, 2009 and October 4, 2009 are also

shown on the hydrograph for comparison. Groundwater level measurements were corrected for

barometric pressure variations, as discussed in Section 4.4.

The elevation of the top of groundwater ranged from 0.19 m above sea level (asl) in monitoring

well MW2 to a maximum of 1.81 m asl in monitoring well MW6 during the monitoring period with

the temporal fluctuations varying between 0.00 m and 0.03 m in monitoring wells MW4 and

MW1, respectively (refer to Table F-1, Appendix F). The greatest fluctuation in groundwater

levels occurred at the monitoring wells near the Channel. For comparison, the fluctuations in

Channel levels were 0.25 m (refer to Table F-2, Appendix F).

From the hydrograph provided in Appendix G, it appears that groundwater levels are essentially

unaffected by tides. Therefore, manual water level measurements obtained on October 4, 2009

were used to represent groundwater levels under both low and high tide conditions.


Page 14

A groundwater elevation contour plan extending across the Site during high tide is provided as

Figure 5, Appendix A. Based on groundwater elevations recorded in all monitoring wells, in

addition to surface water elevation data, groundwater flow at the Site is inferred to travel

towards the Channel and the Estuary both during low tide and high tide. At no time did

groundwater flow appear to flow from the Channel or the Estuary.

4.5.3 Surface Water Conditions

The range of surface water elevation readings during high tide and low tide are at each surface

water location are presented in Table F-2, Appendix F. High tide and low tide measurements

for the surface water stations were selected based on the elevations of the surface water at the

time of the elevation survey (see Section 3.4), corrected to an estimated high tide elevation by

addition of a correction factor to account for whether the measurement was taken under low

high or intermediate tide. The correction factor was estimated as a proportion of the maximum

amplitude of the observed tidal fluctuation (0.25 m, see Section 4.3). The proportion of the

correction was calculated to be between 0.00 m and 0.25 m based on a comparison of the time

of the survey measurement and the time of the observed high and low tides (the correction was

0.00 m for a surface water measurement taken at peak high tide and 0.25 m for a surface water

measurement taken at low tide, and in between 0.00 m and 0.25 m for measurements taken

between high and low tide.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the Baseline Water Quality and Salt Water Intrusion Study conducted

by AMEC, the following conclusions can be made:

Ten of the fifteen home owners interviewed obtained their water from a private well. The

remaining five home owners obtained their water from surface water (the “Channel”).

Private wells are completed in the overburden sand aquifer at shallow depths and draw

water from the top of the water table.

The low sodium (1.2 mg/L to 7.2 mg/L) and chloride concentrations (<1.0 mg/L to 9.0 mg/L)

in all tap water samples indicate that neither the Channel nor the shallow aquifer used by

local water wells are affected by a pre-existing salt water condition.

Baseline drinking water salinity measurements obtained from the tap water samples are 2

orders of magnitude less than baseline salinity measurements of the Churchill River,

indicating that there is no existing interaction between the Churchill River and the shallow

groundwater aquifer used by local water wells.

The elevation of the top of groundwater ranged from 0.19 m asl in monitoring well MW2 to a

maximum of 1.81 m asl in monitoring well MW6 during the monitoring period with the

temporal fluctuations varying between 0.0 m and 0.03 m in monitoring wells MW4 and

MW1, respectively. The greatest fluctuation in groundwater levels occurred at the


Page 15

monitoring wells near the Channel. For comparison, the fluctuations in Channel levels were

0.25 m.

The groundwater and surface water level data indicates that groundwater flow was

consistently towards the Channel and the Churchill River under both low and high tide

conditions, indicating that neither the Channel nor the Churchill River was a source of water

for those residents that use wells.

6.0 DISCUSSION

Groundwater levels presented in the hydrograph presented in Appendix G show that

groundwater levels are unaffected by tidal influence. Figure 5, Appendix A demonstrates that

even under high tide conditions, the aquifer that is supplying groundwater to the residents of

Mud Lake is being recharged from precipitation falling on the higher ground to the south of Mud

Lake, on the central areas of the Island, and on the peninsula between the Channel and the

Churchill River. From these recharge areas, groundwater is consistently flowing towards either

the Churchill River or the Channel. At no time during the monitoring period was there

groundwater flow from either the Channel or the Churchill River inland towards the resident’s

wells. Therefore, AMEC is under the opinion that salinity conditions of the Churchill River as

described by Hatch (2008a and 2008b) during the impoundment of the reservoir, will not affect

the groundwater quality of the shallow wells located in Mud Lake under normal conditions.

During the temporary low river flow (i.e. reservoir impoundment), there will be a drop in the river

level. The drop in the river level is believed to be insignificant (i.e. a few 10's of centimetres),

therefore there will be no appreciable increase in the groundwater gradient towards the river.

However, during the low river flow period, the groundwater gradient will not slow or reverse

direction.

Under storm conditions, water levels in the Channel may temporarily increase above

groundwater levels in response to a storm surge, as is possible under current conditions.

However, once the storm subsides, normal groundwater conditions would push any salt water

back into the Channel. During reservoir impoundment, any potential intrusion of a salt water

lens in the Channel as described by Hatch (2008a) under storm conditions is not expected to

significantly alter the groundwater regime from current conditions.


Page 17

8.0 REFERENCES

AMEC Earth & Environmental (AMEC) and SNC-Lavalin, 2001. Aquatic Environment of the

Goose Bay Estuary. Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Lower Churchill

Project, May 2, 2001.

Hatch, 2008a. Salt Water Intrusion 3D Model Study. Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro Lower Churchill Project. October 2008.

Hatch, 2008b. Salt Water Intusion 3D Model Study Addendum No. 1. Prepared for

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Lower Churchill Project. January 2009.

Hatch, 2008c. Hydraulic Modelling of River. Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

Lower Churchill Project, January 2008.

Jacques Whitford Limited (JWL), 2008. Hydrogeology of Agricultural Development Areas in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Prepared for Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Department of Environment and Conservation, Water Resources Division.

Klassen, RA., S. Paradis, A.M. Bolduc and R.D. Thomas. 1992. Glacial Landforms and

Deposits, Labrador, Newfoundland and Quebec. Geological Survey of Canada, Map

1814A, Scale 1:1,000,000.

Lower Churchill Development Corporation (LCDC), 1980. Environmental Impact Statement for

the Proposed Gull Island and Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generation Project. St.

John’s, NL.

Liverman, D.G.E., 1997. Quaternary Geology of the Goose Bay Area. In: Current Research.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey,

Report 97-1, pages 173-182.

Sanford, B.V., Grant, G.M. 1976. Physiography, Eastern Canada and Adjacent Areas,

Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1399A. Geological Survey of Canada, scale: 1:2000.

Wardle , R.J., Gower, C.F., Ryan, B., Nunn, G.A.G., James, D.T., and Kerr, A., Geological Map

of Labrador; 1:1 million scale. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department

of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey, Map 97-07.

APPENDIX A

Figures

Kena

mu R

iver

Churchill River

Muskrat Lake

Traver

spine

River

Happy Valley - Goose Bay

Rabbit Island

Waters of Goose Bay (Hamilton Inlet)

Mud Lake

Churc

hill Ri

ver/Go

ose Ba

y

Estua

ry

English PointSnake Island

Goose River

Terrington Basin

The ChannelMan O' War

Island

November 2009DATE

APPROVED BYP.Boonsinsuk

PROJECT

DRAWN BY

Fig No.

REVIEWED BY

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT NUMBER

REV0

M.Day J. McNally

1

1:110,000

Study Area

TF9110466.2000

AMEC Earth & EnvironmentalCLIENT

Description Drawn

NOTES

No. Date Chk'd App'd

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS.2. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING.3. THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED TO SHOWRELATIVE LOCATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONOF THE STUDY AREA IN SUPPORT OFTHIS REPORT.4. ALL LOCATIONS, DIMENSIONS, ANDORIENTATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.5. THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INTELLECTUALPROPERTY OF NALCOR ENERGY AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR COPIED WITHOUT THEIRWRITTEN CONSENT.6. ALL LOCATIONS ARE IN NAD 83 MTM ZONE 4.

0 05/10/2009 ISSUED WITH REPORT MD JM JM

Lower Churchill ProjectBaseline Water Quality and Salt Water Intrusion Study

Mud Lake, Labrador

0 42Kilometers

SCALE:

Study Area

December 2009DATE

APPROVED BYJ. McNally

PROJECT


Mud Lake, Labrador

DRAWN BY

Fig No.

REVIEWED BY

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT NUMBER

REV0

M.Day J. McNally

2

1:16,093

Surficial Geology

TF9110466.2000


Description Drawn

NOTES



5 14/12/2009 ISSUED WITH REPORT MD JM

0 0.60.3

Kilometers

Legend

JM

Churchill River

/Goose Bay

Estuary

Mud Lake

The Channel

Fluvial Sand and Gravel

Trails

Sand Bars or Sand Beaches

Ancient Meander Scars

SCALE

Building

Bog

December 2009DATE


PROJECT


Mud Lake, Labrador

DRAWN BY

Fig No.

REVIEWED BY

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT NUMBER

REV0

M.Day J. McNally

3

1:14,000

Bedrock Geology

TF9110466.2000


Description Drawn

NOTES




0 0.50.25

Kilometers

Legend

JM

Arkose, Conglomerate

Churchill R

iver/Goose Bay

Estuary

Mud Lake

The Channel

Trails


Building

Bog

SCALE

Mud Lake

SW9

SW8

SW7

SW6

SW5SW4

SW3SW2

SW1

SW10

MW3

MW2

MW6

MW5MW4

MW1

December 2009DATE


PROJECT


Mud Lake, Labrador

DRAWN BY

Fig No.

REVIEWED BY

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT NUMBER

REV0

M.Day J. McNally

4

1:14,000

Location of Monitoring Wells and Surveyed Surface Water Features and

Houses that were Sampled

TF9110466.2000


Description Drawn

NOTES




0 0.50.25

Kilometers

Legend

Monitoring Wells

Surface Water Locations

JM

Houses that were Sampled

Churchill River

/Goose Bay

Estuary

The Channel

Mud Lake

SCALE

Trail


Mud Lake

0.1

0.40.8

2.0

1.21.6

0.1

0.4

SW9 (2.2 - 2.2)

SW10 (2.2 - 2.2)

SW8 (-0.1 - 0.1)

SW7 (-0.2 - 0.1)

SW6 (-0.2 - 0.1)

SW5 (-0.1 - 0.2)SW4

(-0.1 - 0.2)

SW3 (0.23 - 0.25)

SW2 (0.23 - 0.25)

SW1 (0.23 - 0.25)

MW2 (0.2 - 0.2)

MW1 (0.4 - 0.4)

MW6 (0.8 - 0.81)

MW5 (0.34 - 0.34)

MW4 (0.78 - 0.78)

MW3 (0.23 - 0.25)

January 2010DATE


PROJECT


Mud Lake, Labrador

DRAWN BY

Fig No.

REVIEWED BY

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT NUMBER

REV1

K. Keough J. McNally

5

1:14,000

Groundwater Flow Directions Under High Tide Conditions (Oct. 4, 2009 data)

TF9110466.2000


Description Drawn

NOTES




0 0.50.25

Kilometers

Legend

Direction of Groundwater Flow

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contours (masl)

Monitoring Wells

Surface Water Locations

JM

2.0

(0.1 - 0.2) Groundwater and SurfaceWater Elevation Range (masl)

0.10.4

0.8

SCALE

Sand Bars or Sand BeachesChurchill River

/Goose Bay

Estuary

Mud Lake

The Channel

APPENDIX B

Mud Lake Water Well Record

Water Well Record

Well ID Number: 20704GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLANDAND LABRADORDepartment of Environment and ConservationWater Resources Management Division

Well OwnerName:

Address:

LABRADOR SCHOOL DIST.

HAPPY VALLEY-GOOSE BAY

Well LocationMUD LAKETown:

GPS Coordinates

N

W

°

°

Type of Water Encountered:

Lithology Listing:

Well / Water Use:

Type of Work Completed: NW

Drilling Method: OT

Pump RecommendationsPump Type:

Intake Setting:

Pumping Rate:

Estimated Safe Yield of Well: 22.50

Drillers Comments:

DRILLING METHOD USED AIR COMPRESSION.

Total Depth: 6.20 Depth to Bedrock:

Water Bearing Zone(s)

5.20Lpm at

Lpm at

Lpm at

Lpm at

m 22.50

m

m

m

Casing Type: S

Casing Length:

Casing Thickness:

6.20

NDrive Shoe Used:

Well Grouted: Y

Grout Type:

BENOITE CLAY

1.80from to 4.30

Screen Info:

Pumping Test

UTM Zone:

Northing:

Easting:

Map Number:

NAD:

Pumping Rate: 22.50 Duration 2,880

Well Overflowing: N Overflow Rate:

'

'

"

"

Lpm

Lpm min

Lpm

mm

Method:

m

mm

Diameter: 150.00 mm

Lpm

m

m m

Name of Drilling Company Licence Number Date Well Completed

Northeast Well Drilling Co. Ltd. 17 21 /03/2003

This RecordModified by:Modified date:

bwelcher

09 /03/2006

APPENDIX C

Monitoring Well Logs

Oct 2, 2009 0.4 m

1

STICK-UP: (m)AGS

October 2, 2009

No.

INSTALLATION DATASTRATIGRAPHICDESCRIPTION

J. McNally

Nalcor Energy, Lower Churchill Project

DATE: LEV.(m)btoc: ELEV.(m):

WATER LEVELS

1.14

N-V

ALU

EO

R R

QD

(%)

SAMPLES

CONTRACTOR:Mud Lake

TOPSOIL/ROOTMAT - Dark brownto black organics with rootlets andmoss, moist, loose.SAND - medium grained, poorlygraded, dark brown, moist to wet,loose to compact.

Coordinates:5909522.46 N393715.23 E

Transducer installedat 1.73 mbgs at 3:35pm October 2, 2009and removed at 10:20am October 4, 2009.

DATEINSTALLED: October 2, 2009

SCREEN: #20 25 mm I.D. Sch. 40 PVCRISER: 25 mm I.D. Sch. 40 PVCSANDPACK: No. 2 Silica sandSEAL: BentoniteTOP CAP: J-PlugBOTTOM CAP: End CapLOCK?: NKEY No.:

TF9110466

LOGGED BY:

CHECKED BY: OF

SY

MB

OL

DE

PTH

(m)

1

VERTICAL SCALE

1.540 mNAD27, Zone 20AMECHand AugerB. Walsh

SV

H(p

pm)

Salt Water Intrusion Study

DATE COMPLETED:

ELE

VA

TIO

N(m

)

1

1

0

REMARKS

DATE STARTED:

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TYP

E

PROJECT No.:LOG OF MONITORING WELL MW-1

WELL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

October 2, 2009

1:25

GROUND ELEVATION:

EQUIPMENT:

CLIENT:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION:

DATUM:

SHEET

WATER LEVELS

October 2, 2009

No.


Mud Lake

J. McNally




2.62

N-V

ALU

EO

R R

QD

(%)

SAMPLES

1

CONTRACTOR:Salt Water Intrusion Study

Oct 2, 2009 0.2 m

LOGGED BY:

SAND - fine to medium grained,trace fines, poorly graded, darkgrey-brown, moist to wet, loose.

Coordinates:5909122.50 N393630.25 E

Transducer installedat 3.26 mbgs at 11:20am October 2, 2009and removed at 11:30am October 4, 2009.

STICK-UP: (m)AGS

1CHECKED BY: OF

SY

MB

OL

Nalcor Energy, Lower Churchill ProjectD

EP

TH(m

)

LOG OF MONITORING WELL MW-2TF9110466 2.820 m

NAD27, Zone 20AMECHand AugerB. Walsh

SV

H(p

pm)

ELE

VA

TIO

N(m

)

1

2

3

2

1

0

October 2, 2009

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TYP

E

PROJECT No.:

SHEET

VERTICAL SCALE

DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED:

REMARKS

1:25

GROUND ELEVATION:

EQUIPMENT:


DATUM:


WATER LEVELS

October 1, 2009

No.


Mud Lake

J. McNally




1.63

N-V

ALU

EO

R R

QD

(%)

SAMPLES

1


Oct 1, 2009 0.23 m

LOGGED BY:

SAND - fine to medium grained,trace fines, poorly graded, darkgrey-brown, moist to wet, loose.

Coordinates:5908981.97 N393211.39 E


STICK-UP: (m)AGS

1CHECKED BY: OF

SY

MB

OL


EP

TH(m

)


NAD27, Zone 20AMECGas Powered Post-Hole AugerB. Walsh

SV

H(p

pm)

ELE

VA

TIO

N(m

)

1

2

1

0

October 1, 2009

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TYP

E

PROJECT No.:

SHEET

VERTICAL SCALE


REMARKS

1:25

GROUND ELEVATION:

EQUIPMENT:


DATUM:


Oct 2, 2009 0.78 m

1

STICK-UP: (m)AGS

October 2, 2009

No.


J. McNally

Nalcor Energy, Lower Churchill Project


WATER LEVELS

2.35

N-V

ALU

EO

R R

QD

(%)

SAMPLES

CONTRACTOR:Mud Lake

TOPSOIL/ROOTMAT - Dark brownto black organics with rootlets andmoss, moist, loose.SAND - fine to medium grained,trace fines, poorly graded, darkbrown to grey brown, moist to wet,loose to compat. Material becomessiltier and more compact below thewater table.

Coordinates:5908500.74 N393403.89 E




TF9110466

LOGGED BY:

CHECKED BY: OF

SY

MB

OL

DE

PTH

(m)

1

VERTICAL SCALE


SV

H(p

pm)

Salt Water Intrusion Study

DATE COMPLETED:

ELE

VA

TIO

N(m

)

1

2

3

3

2

1

0

REMARKS

DATE STARTED:

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TYP

E

PROJECT No.:LOG OF MONITORING WELL MW-4


October 2, 2009

1:25

GROUND ELEVATION:

EQUIPMENT:


DATUM:

SHEET


STICK-UP: (m)AGS

October 2, 2009

No.


Mud Lake

Oct 2, 2009 1.45 m

WATER LEVELS

2.56

N-V

ALU

EO

R R

QD

(%)

SAMPLES

1

TF9110466

J. McNally

SAND - fine to medium grained,trace fines, poorly graded, darkbrown, moist, loose.

Coordinates:59086648.48 N393816.03 E

Representativesample collected at 0to 3.0 mbgs.

Transducer installedat 3.25 mbgs at 9:40am October 2, 2009and removed at 11:25am October 4, 2009.

1



LOGGED BY:

CHECKED BY: OF

SY

MB

OL

Nalcor Energy, Lower Churchill ProjectSalt Water Intrusion Study

DE

PTH

(m)

CONTRACTOR:

VERTICAL SCALE


SV

H(p

pm)

DATE COMPLETED:

ELE

VA

TIO

N(m

)

1

2

3

2

1

0

REMARKS

DATE STARTED:

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TYP

E

PROJECT No.:

SHEET

LOG OF MONITORING WELL MW-5


October 2, 2009

1:25

GROUND ELEVATION:

EQUIPMENT:


DATUM:

WATER LEVELS

October 1, 2009

No.


Mud Lake

J. McNally




1.45

N-V

ALU

EO

R R

QD

(%)

SAMPLES

1


Oct 1, 2009 0.7 m

LOGGED BY:

SAND - fine to medium grained,trace fines, poorly graded, darkbrown, moist, loose.

Coordinates:5908347.27 N393658.57 E


STICK-UP: (m)AGS

1CHECKED BY: OF

SY

MB

OL


EP

TH(m

)


NAD27, Zone 20AMECGas Powered Post-Hole AugerB. Walsh

SV

H(p

pm)

ELE

VA

TIO

N(m

)

1

2

2

1

0

October 1, 2009

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TYP

E

PROJECT No.:

SHEET

VERTICAL SCALE


REMARKS

1:25

GROUND ELEVATION:

EQUIPMENT:


DATUM:


APPENDIX D

Home Owner Survey Results

Date: 25-Aug-09 Time: 13:25

Property: SA-1, DUP-1 City/Town: Mud Lake

Site AddressGPS Co-ordinates 688441

5910024

Surface water or groundwater source? Surface water.

Yes □ No ■

If yes, indicate date of last maintenance:

Is there a history of poor water quality at the location? Yes ■ No □

How deep is the well? N/A

What is the water level in the well? N/A

History of flooding around the water source? Yes □ No ■

Have any water shortages been experienced lately? Yes □ No ■

When was the well installed? N/A

By whom? N/A

Well Information

Sampling Event Information

Water Supply Inventory Survey

General Water Quality Information

Is there a water treatment system on-site?:

If yes, provide details of system and attach photographs:

Date: 25-Aug-09 Time: 14:00 PM

Property: SA-2 City/Town: Mud Lake


5909976


Yes □ No ■








By whom? N/A

Well Information









5909977


Yes □ No ■








By whom? N/A

Well Information







Property: SA-4, DUP-2 City/Town: Mud Lake


5909413

Surface water or groundwater source? Groundwater.

Yes □ No ■


Is there a history of poor water quality at the location? Yes □ No ■

How deep is the well? 3.5 m

What is the water level in the well? 1.2 m



When was the well installed? 20 years ago

By whom? Owner

Well Information








Site AddressGPS Co-ordinates no signal


Yes □ No ■








By whom? Owner

Well Information









5909499


Yes ■ No □

2 sediment filters on a jet pump (photos attached)

If yes, indicate date of last maintenance: unknown







By whom? Owner

Well Information









5909466

Surface water or groundwater source? Surface Water

Yes □ No ■








By whom? N/A

Well Information









5909613

Surface water or groundwater source? Groundwater

Yes ■ No □

sediment filter (under the house, no photos)




What is the water level in the well? 2 m



When was the well installed? Jun-09

By whom? Owner

Well Information









5909675


Yes □ No ■



How deep is the well? 3.5 m Well is located under the house.





By whom? Owner

Well Information








Site AddressGPS Co-ordinates no signal


Yes ■ No □

Combination of slow sand filtration and an aeration device.







When was the well installed? Jun-05

By whom? Owner

Well Information









5910062

Surface water or groundwater source? Surface Water

Yes ■ No □

Reverse osmosis system, 2 sediment filters, Ultraviolet

If yes, indicate date of last maintenance: Late July, 2009







By whom? N/A

Well Information









5910024


Yes □ No ■




What is the water level in the well? 1.2



When was the well installed? 1965

By whom? Owner

Well Information









5910369


Yes ■ No □

sediment filters

If yes, indicate date of last maintenance: 2 months ago







By whom? Owner

Well Information









5910361


Yes ■ No □

sediment filters

If yes, indicate date of last maintenance: 2weeks ago





Have any water shortages been experienced lately? Yes ■ No □ Low water table


By whom? Owner

Well Information









5910374


Yes □ No ■







When was the well installed? 1993

By whom? Owner

Well Information






APPENDIX E

Monitoring Well and Surface Water Elevation Results

Location Northing (m) Easting (m) Ground Elevation (m) Date and Time

MW1 5909522.46 393715.23 1.54 Nov.04/2:20:40am

MW2 5909112.50 393630.25 2.82 Nov.04/11:17:02am

MW3 5908981.97 393211.39 1.77 Nov.04/2:02:01pm

MW4 5908500.74 393403.89 3.13 Nov.04/10:27:17am

MW5 5908648.48 393816.03 2.90 Nov.04/11:03:06am

MW6 5908347.27 393658.57 2.26 Nov.04/9:28:33am

SW1 5908923.34 393298.43 -0.12 Oct.29/3:50:04pm

SW2 5908895.68 393312.64 -0.14 Oct.29/3:51:16pm

SW3 5908882.40 393322.52 -0.12 Oct.29/3:51:48pm

SW4 5908308.95 394045.51 -0.07 Oct.29/4:03:56pm

SW5 5908312.80 394060.39 -0.10 Oct.29/4:05:26pm

SW6 5908759.05 394130.65 0.07 Nov.04/1:44:11pm

SW7 5910450.87 393843.17 0.05 Nov.04/1:48:46pm

SW8 5910341.78 393253.53 0.14 Nov.04/1:52:28pm

SW9 5907704.52 393962.42 2.16 Nov.04/3:24:31pmSW10 5907706.04 393961.15 2.25 Nov.04/3:32:31pm

Table E-1: Monitoring Well and Surface Water Elevation Survey Results

Coordinates are 3 degree M.T.M. Zone 4, Nad83 referenced to Control Monument No. 388003. Observations obtained October 29th andNovember 4th 2009.

APPENDIX F

Groundwater and Surface Water Elevation Data Tables

Well IDGround Elevation

(masl)

Maximum

Groundwater

Elevation (mbtoc)

Miniumum

Groundwater

Elevation (mbtoc)

Variance between Minimum

and Maximum Groundwater

Elevations (m)

MW1 1.54 0.428 0.398 0.030MW2 2.82 0.220 0.198 0.022MW3 1.86 0.250 0.230 0.020MW4 3.13 0.781 0.781 0.000MW5 2.90 0.345 0.328 0.017

MW6 2.26 0.810 0.804 0.006

Notes:

masl - meters above sea level

mbtoc - meters below top of casing

Table F-1: Groundwater Elevation Data

Surface Water Location IDMaximum Surface Water

Elevation (masl)

Minimum Surface Water

Elevation (masl)

Variance between Maximum and

Minimum Surface Water

Elevation (m)

1 0.13 -0.12 0.25

2 0.11 -0.14 0.25

3 0.13 -0.12 0.25

4 0.18 -0.07 0.25

5 0.15 -0.10 0.25

6 0.07 -0.18 0.25

7 0.05 -0.20 0.25

8 0.14 -0.11 0.25

9 2.16 2.16 0.00

10 2.25 2.25 0.00

Notes:

masl - meters above sea level

Table F-2: Surface Water Elevation Data

APPENDIX G

Hydrograph of Groundwater Elevations

Hydrograph of Groundwater Elevations in Monitoring Wells Located in Mud Lake

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

10/2/200914:24

10/2/200919:12

10/3/20090:00

10/3/20094:48

10/3/20099:36

10/3/200914:24

10/3/200919:12

10/4/20090:00

10/4/20094:48

10/4/20099:36

10/4/200914:24

Date and Time

Gro

un

dw

ate

ran

dS

urf

ace

Wate

rE

levati

on

(masl)

MW6

MW5

MW4

MW3

MW2

MW1

MW6 = 0.806 masl

MW4 = 0.781 masl

MW1 = 0.4 masl

MW5 = 0.341 masl

MW3 = 0.23 masl

MW2 = 0.22 masl

MW6 = 0.801 masl

MW4 = 0.781 masl

MW1 = 0.409 masl

MW5 = 0.344 masl

MW3 = 0.248 masl

MW2 = 0.218 masl

APPENDIX H

Laboratory Data Tables

WATER SOURCE Channel Channel Channel Channel Private Well Private Well Private Well Private Well Channel Private Well Private Well Private Well Channel Private Well Private Well Private Well Private Well

DATE 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 26-Aug-09 25-Aug-09

TIME 1:25:00 PM 1:25:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 2:15:00 PM 14:45 PM 14:45 PM 15:00 PM 3:30:00 PM 3:45:00 PM 4:10:00 PM 4:30:00 PM 4:55:00 PM 5:35:00 PM 18:15 PM 7:45:00 PM 9:50:00 AM 10:15:00 AM

PARAMETERS Units RDL Guideline MAC or AO1

Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 1 11 10 11 11 8 8 11 11 11 10 9 10 10 14 12 12 8 --- MAC

Calculated TDS mg/L 1 30 29 28 23 23 22 32 27 31 40 34 39 29 37 33 31 29 500 AO2

Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 --- MAC

Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 1 11 11 11 10 7 7 11 10 11 12 10 13 11 13 11 10 8 500 MAC3

Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A N/A -2.80 -2.89 -2.89 -2.92 -4.01 -3.79 -3.10 -2.93 -2.82 -3.76 -4.04 -3.29 -2.95 -3.28 -3.50 -3.64 -3.66 --- MAC

Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A N/A -3.05 -3.14 -3.14 -3.17 -4.26 -4.04 -3.36 -3.19 -3.07 -4.02 -4.29 -3.54 -3.20 -3.53 -3.76 -3.90 -3.91 --- MAC

Nitrate (N) mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.13 0.13 0.51 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 0.44 1.4 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.12 10 MAC

Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A N/A 9.87 9.90 9.88 9.88 10.1 10.1 9.74 9.90 9.89 9.81 9.98 9.84 9.90 9.60 9.79 9.79 10.1 --- MAC

Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A N/A 10.1 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.1 10.2 9.85 10.0 10.0 10.3 --- MAC

Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 5 11 10 11 11 8 8 11 11 11 10 9 10 10 14 12 12 8 --- MAC

Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 1 8 8 7 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7 9 1 <1.0 3 8 <1.0 1 <1.0 <1.0 250 AO

Colour TCU 5 39 36 35 27 9 9 5 34 38 63 9 26 37 <5 11 21 27 15 AO

Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.13 0.13 0.51 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 0.44 1.4 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.12 --- MAC

Nitrite (N) mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1 MAC

Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 --- MAC

Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 0.5 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.0 2.5 2.3 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 6.4 4.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 1.6 --- MAC

Orthophosphate (P) mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 --- MAC

pH pH N/A 7.07 7.01 6.99 6.96 6.05 6.30 6.64 6.97 7.07 6.05 5.94 6.55 6.95 6.32 6.29 6.15 6.44 6.5 - 8.5 MAC

Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 0.5 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.5 11 11 11 3.7 3.9 17 16 14 4.0 13 13 13 13 --- MAC

Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 2 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 3 <2.0 <2.0 5 4 <2.0 <2.0 6 3 3 3 500 AO

Turbidity NTU 0.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.5 1.3 0.9 6.6 1.9 2.5 0.6 0.4 1.6 3.8 1.7 1.4 5.2 0.1 MAC4

Conductivity uS/cm 1 50 50 49 40 24 24 39 48 54 38 35 49 45 47 36 36 28 --- MAC

Cations

Total Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.0 3.1 2.1 2.3 3.0 2.3 2.9 2.4 3.5 2.7 2.6 2.0 --- MAC

Total Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 --- MAC

Total Phosphorus (P) mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 --- MAC

Total Potassium (K) mg/L 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 3.2 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.9 0.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.1 --- MAC

Total Sodium (Na) mg/L 0.1 6.2 6.6 5.4 3.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 5.0 7.2 1.5 1.7 3.1 6.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 200 AO

Ion BalanceAnion Sum me/L N/A 0.450 0.430 0.420 0.350 0.180 0.170 0.330 0.420 0.470 0.340 0.290 0.390 0.430 0.420 0.340 0.310 0.230 --- MAC

Cation Sum me/L N/A 0.520 0.540 0.490 0.400 0.250 0.240 0.370 0.460 0.570 0.490 0.330 0.480 0.530 0.410 0.360 0.360 0.360 --- MAC

Ion Balance (% Difference) % N/A 7.22 11.3 7.69 6.67 16.3 17.1 5.71 4.55 9.62 18.1 6.45 10.3 10.4 1.20 2.86 7.46 22.0 --- MAC

NOTES:

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

- = Sample not Taken

--- = No Value

1. Guidelines are either health-based and listed as Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) or based on aesthetic considerations and listed as Aesthetic Objective (AO).

DUP-1 is a blind field duplicate of SA-1


Shaded and bold data exceeds the GCDWQ

Table H-1: General Water Chemistry Concentrations

3. There is no guideline for Hardness; however, levels in excess of 500 mg/L are normally considered unacceptable.

* = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Health Canada, May 2008.

DATA

SA-7 SA-8SA-6 SA-13REPORT ID SA-11SA-3SA-1 DUP-1 SA-15

4. Turbidity levels should target less than 0.1 NTU at all times; however, chemically assisted filtration shall be </= 0.3 NTU, slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration shall be </= 1.0 NTU and membrane filtration shall be </= 0.1 NTU.

DUP-2 SA-5 SA-12

2. Calculated result only includes measured parameters. Actual TDS may be higher.

SA-9 SA-10SA-4SA-2 SA-14

GUIDELINES

Guidelines for Canadian

Drinking Water Quality

(GCDWQ)*


DATE 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 26-Aug-09 25-Aug-09TIME 1:25:00 PM 1:25:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 2:15:00 PM 14:45 PM 14:45 PM 15:00 PM 3:30:00 PM 3:45:00 PM 4:10:00 PM 4:30:00 PM 4:55:00 PM 5:35:00 PM 18:15 PM 7:45:00 PM 9:50:00 AM 10:15:00 AM


Total Aluminum (Al) ug/L 5.0 152 86.0 203 87.5 107 91.7 90.8 207 86.9 113 168 268 159 39.3 53.7 42.5 61.7 100 AO2

Total Antimony (Sb) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 6 MAC

Total Arsenic (As) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 10 MAC

Total Barium (Ba) ug/L 5.0 9.1 8.4 10.3 8.7 12.4 11.2 32.3 9.6 8.0 17.6 17.6 59.9 11.1 31.1 15.0 15.9 17.5 1000 MAC

Total Beryllium (Be) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 --- MAC

Total Bismuth (Bi) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 --- MAC

Total Boron (B) ug/L 5.0 5.4 5.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5000 MAC

Total Cadmium (Cd) ug/L 0.017 0.018 0.027 0.030 0.020 0.020 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 0.020 0.020 0.017 0.050 <0.017 0.050 0.023 0.030 0.114 5 MAC

Total Chromium (Cr) ug/L 1.0 1.1 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.7 1.6 2.8 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 50 MAC

Total Cobalt (Co) ug/L 0.40 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.44 1.35 1.14 <0.4 0.53 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 --- MAC

Total Copper (Cu) ug/L 2.0 31.1 62.4 60.4 30.0 84.4 73.3 42.6 33.5 20.2 <2.0 139 31.6 124 1900 274 205 330 1000 AO

Total Iron (Fe) ug/L 50 560 389 599 291 835 715 382 573 411 4230 516 793 761 851 760 1550 2720 300 AO

Total Lead (Pb) ug/L 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.26 0.81 0.61 0.52 1.52 1.98 <0.50 <0.50 0.72 1.96 1.06 3.95 1.40 0.66 2.59 10 MAC

Total Manganese (Mn) ug/L 2.0 15.3 13.0 22.0 8.4 11.2 9.3 11.5 27.8 9.4 34.7 27.0 16.7 20.1 41.7 18.1 25.1 21.0 50 AO

Total Molybdenum (Mo) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 --- MAC

Total Nickel (Ni) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.3 3.8 <2.0 <2.0 3.0 <2.0 2.5 <2.0 --- MAC

Total Selenium (Se) ug/L 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 10 MAC

Total Silver (Ag) ug/L 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 --- MAC

Total Strontium (Sr) ug/L 5.0 18.0 18.6 17.1 17.6 16.6 15.6 20.7 16.5 18.5 21.9 12.6 24.2 17.5 24.9 17.4 17.6 15.3 --- MAC

Total Thallium (Tl) ug/L 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 --- MAC

Total Tin (Sn) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 --- MAC

Total Titanium (Ti) ug/L 2.0 5.9 4.1 11.1 3.4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 9.6 4.4 <2.0 <2.0 2.6 9.8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 --- MAC

Total Uranium (U) ug/L 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.10 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20 MAC

Total Vanadium (V) ug/L 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.6 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 --- MACTotal Zinc (Zn) ug/L 5.0 15.2 10.9 15.4 90.9 62.4 61.4 103 20.7 8.2 434 64.3 233 26.6 360 508 808 197 5000 AO

NOTES:



--- = No Value





Table H-2: Total Metal Concentrations

GUIDELINES


Drinking Water QualitySA-9 SA-10SA-4

DATA

SA-13REPORT ID SA-5 SA-12SA-8SA-6

(GCDWQ)*

SA-14 SA-15DUP-2 SA-11SA-2

2. Aluminum Aesthetic Objective: Conventional Treatment Plants = 0.1 mg/L (100 ug/L),

SA-3SA-1 DUP-1


SA-7


DATE 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 25-Aug-09 26-Aug-09 25-Aug-09

TIME 1:25:00 PM 1:25:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 2:15:00 PM 14:45 PM 14:45 PM 15:00 PM 3:30:00 PM 3:45:00 PM 4:10:00 PM 4:30:00 PM 4:55:00 PM 5:35:00 PM 18:15 PM 7:45:00 PM 9:50:00 AM 10:15:00 AM


Total Coliforms CFU/100mL 1 780/100mL 780/100mL 780/100mL 780/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 30/100mL 780/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL MAC

Fecal Coliforms CFU/100mL 1 0/100mL 0/100mL 2/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 2/100mL 5/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL MAC

NOTES:







CFU = Colony Forming Units

Table H-3: Bacteria Concentrations

(GCDWQ)*

DUP-2 SA-5 SA-12

GUIDELINES


Drinking Water QualitySA-14SA-9SA-2 SA-4SA-3SA-1 DUP-1 SA-10 SA-15


DATA

SA-7 SA-8SA-6 SA-13REPORT ID SA-11

APPENDIX I

Laboratory Certificates of Analyses

Your Project #: TF9110466.3000 Site: MUD LAKE Your C.O.C. #: 18166

Attention: Janet KingsleyAMEC Earth & Environmental LimitedPO Box 13216133 Crosbie Rd/ Suite 202St. John's, NLA1B 4A5

Report Date: 2009/09/10

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: A9B5144Received: 2009/09/01, 10:04

Sample Matrix: Water# Samples Received: 17

Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceCarbonate, Bicarbonate and Hydroxide 17 N/A 2009/09/08 Alkalinity 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00013 R4 Based on EPA310.2 Chloride 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00014 R6 Based on SM4500-Cl- Colour 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00020 R3. Based on SM2120C Conductance - water 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00004 Based on SM2510B

R4/00006 R4Hardness (calculated as CaCO3) 17 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00048 Based on SM2340B Metals Water Total OES - Partial Scan 6 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00025 R4 Based on EPA200.7 Metals Water Total OES - Partial Scan 11 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00025 R4 Based on EPA200.7 Metals Water Total MS - Low Level 6 N/A 2009/09/05 ATL SOP 00024 R4 Based on EPA6020A Metals Water Total MS - Low Level 11 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00024 R4 Based on EPA6020A Ion Balance (% Difference) 17 N/A 2009/09/09 Anion and Cation Sum 17 N/A 2009/09/09 Nitrogen Ammonia - water 17 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00015 R5 Based on USEPA 350.1Nitrogen - Nitrate + Nitrite 17 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00016 R4 Based on USGS - Enz.Nitrogen - Nitrite 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00017 R4 Based on USEPA 354.1Nitrogen - Nitrate (as N) 17 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00018 R3 Based on ASTMD3867 pH 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00003 Based on EPA150.1

R5/00005 R6Phosphorus - ortho 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00021 R3 Based on USEPA 365.1Sat. pH and Langelier Index (@ 20C) 17 N/A 2009/09/09 Sat. pH and Langelier Index (@ 4C) 17 N/A 2009/09/09 Reactive Silica 17 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00022 R3 Based on EPA 366.0 Sulphate 17 N/A 2009/09/08 ATL SOP 00023 R3 Based on EPA 375.4 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS calc) 17 N/A 2009/09/09 Organic carbon - Total (TOC) 17 N/A 2009/09/10 ATL SOP 00037 R3 Based on SM5310C Turbidity 17 N/A 2009/09/09 ATL SOP 00011 R4 based on EPA 180.1

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.* Results relate only to the items tested.

../2

This document is in electronic format, hard copy is available on request.

Page 1 of 16

AMEC Earth & Environmental LimitedMaxxam Job #: A9B5144 Client Project #: TF9110466.3000Report Date: 2009/09/10 Project name: MUD LAKE

-2-

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

MICHELLE HILL, Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (902) 420-0203

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. SCC and CALA have approved this reporting process and electronic report format.

For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page

Total cover pages: 2

This document is in electronic format, hard copy is available on request.Page 2 of 16


RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF WATER

Maxxam ID DO8730 DO8730 DO8731 DO8732 DO8733 DO8733 DO8734 DO8735Sampling Date 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25

Units SA-1 SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 QC Batch SA-4 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 RDL QC BatchLab-Dup Lab-Dup

Calculated ParametersAnion Sum me/L 0.450 0.420 0.350 1927469 0.180 0.330 0.420 N/A 1927469Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 11 11 11 1927659 8 11 11 1 1927659Calculated TDS mg/L 30 28 23 1927472 23 32 27 1 1927472Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L ND ND ND 1927659 ND ND ND 1 1927659Cation Sum me/L 0.520 0.490 0.400 1927469 0.250 0.370 0.460 N/A 1927469Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 11 11 10 1927778 7 11 10 1 1927778Ion Balance (% Difference) % 7.22 7.69 6.67 1927468 16.3 5.71 4.55 N/A 1927468Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A -2.80 -2.89 -2.92 1927470 -4.01 -3.10 -2.93 1927470Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A -3.05 -3.14 -3.17 1927471 -4.26 -3.36 -3.19 1927471Nitrate (N) mg/L ND ND ND 1927124 0.13 0.51 ND 0.05 1927124Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A 9.87 9.88 9.88 1927470 10.1 9.74 9.90 1927470Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A 10.1 10.1 10.1 1927471 10.3 10.0 10.2 1927471InorganicsTotal Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 11 11 11 1929614 8 11 11 5 1929614Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 8 7 5 1929616 ND ND 7 1 1929616Colour TCU 39 35 27 1929620 9 5 34 5 1929620Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L ND ND ND 1929622 0.13 0.51 ND 0.05 1929622Nitrite (N) mg/L ND ND ND 1929623 ND ND ND 0.01 1929623Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L ND ND ND ND 1932119 ND ND ND 0.05 1932119Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 4.8 4.5 4.0 1934871 2.5 2.3 2.5 4.0 0.5 1934916Orthophosphate (P) mg/L ND ND ND 1929621 ND ND ND 0.01 1929621pH pH 7.07 6.99 6.96 1931285 6.05 6.64 6.97 N/A 1931285Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 4.0 3.9 3.5 1929619 11 11 3.7 0.5 1929619Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L ND ND ND 1929618 ND 3 ND 2 1929618Turbidity NTU 2.0 2.3 2.2 1933341 2.5 0.9 6.6 0.1 1933341Conductivity uS/cm 50 49 40 1931289 24 39 48 1 1931289

N/A = Not ApplicableND = Not detectedRDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 3 of 16



Maxxam ID DO8736 DO8737 DO8737 DO8738 DO8739 DO8740Sampling Date 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25

Units SA-7 RDL QC Batch SA-8 SA-8 RDL QC Batch SA-9 SA-10 SA-11 RDL QC BatchLab-Dup

Calculated ParametersAnion Sum me/L 0.470 N/A 1927469 0.340 N/A 1927469 0.290 0.390 0.430 N/A 1927469Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 11 1 1927659 10 1 1927659 9 10 10 1 1927659Calculated TDS mg/L 31 1 1927472 40 1 1927472 34 39 29 1 1927472Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L ND 1 1927659 ND 1 1927659 ND ND ND 1 1927659Cation Sum me/L 0.570 N/A 1927469 0.490 N/A 1927469 0.330 0.480 0.530 N/A 1927469Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 11 1 1927778 12 1 1927778 10 13 11 1 1927778Ion Balance (% Difference) % 9.62 N/A 1927468 18.1 N/A 1927468 6.45 10.3 10.4 N/A 1927468Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A -2.82 1927470 -3.76 1927470 -4.04 -3.29 -2.95 1927470Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A -3.07 1927471 -4.02 1927471 -4.29 -3.54 -3.20 1927471Nitrate (N) mg/L ND 0.05 1927124 0.06 0.05 1927124 0.44 1.4 0.06 0.05 1927124Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A 9.89 1927470 9.81 1927470 9.98 9.84 9.90 1927470Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A 10.1 1927471 10.1 1927471 10.2 10.1 10.2 1927471InorganicsTotal Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 11 5 1929614 10 5 1929614 9 10 10 5 1929614Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 9 1 1929616 1 1 1929616 ND 3 8 1 1929616Colour TCU 38 5 1929620 63 30 1929620 9 26 37 5 1929620Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L ND 0.05 1929622 0.06 0.05 1929622 0.44 1.4 0.06 0.05 1929622Nitrite (N) mg/L ND 0.01 1929623 ND 0.01 1929623 ND ND ND 0.01 1929623Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L ND 0.05 1932119 ND ND 0.05 1932122 ND 0.05 ND 0.05 1932119Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 4.0 0.5 1934916 4.9 0.5 1934916 4.0 6.4 4.4 0.5 1934916Orthophosphate (P) mg/L ND 0.01 1929621 ND 0.01 1929621 ND ND ND 0.01 1929621pH pH 7.07 N/A 1931285 6.05 N/A 1931285 5.94 6.55 6.95 N/A 1931285Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 3.9 0.5 1929619 17 0.5 1929619 16 14 4.0 0.5 1929619Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L ND 2 1929618 5 2 1929618 4 ND ND 2 1929618Turbidity NTU 1.9 0.1 1933341 2.5 0.1 1933341 0.6 0.4 1.6 0.1 1933341Conductivity uS/cm 54 1 1931289 38 1 1931289 35 49 45 1 1931289


Page 4 of 16



Maxxam ID DO8740 DO8741 DO8741 DO8742 DO8742 DO8743Sampling Date 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25

Units SA-11 QC Batch SA-12 SA-12 QC Batch SA-13 SA-13 QC Batch SA-14 RDL QC BatchLab-Dup Lab-Dup Lab-Dup

Calculated ParametersAnion Sum me/L 1927469 0.420 1927469 0.340 1927469 0.310 N/A 1927469Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 1927659 14 1927659 12 1927659 12 1 1927659Calculated TDS mg/L 1927472 37 1927472 33 1927472 31 1 1927472Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 1927659 ND 1927659 ND 1927659 ND 1 1927659Cation Sum me/L 1927469 0.410 1927469 0.360 1927469 0.360 N/A 1927469Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 1927778 13 1927778 11 1927778 10 1 1927778Ion Balance (% Difference) % 1927468 1.20 1927468 2.86 1927468 7.46 N/A 1927468Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A 1927470 -3.28 1927470 -3.50 1927470 -3.64 1927470Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A 1927471 -3.53 1927471 -3.76 1927471 -3.90 1927471Nitrate (N) mg/L 1927124 0.11 1927124 0.20 1927124 0.17 0.05 1927124Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A 1927470 9.60 1927470 9.79 1927470 9.79 1927470Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A 1927471 9.85 1927471 10.0 1927471 10.0 1927471InorganicsTotal Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 1929614 14 1929614 12 1929614 12 5 1929614Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 1929616 ND 1929616 1 1929616 ND 1 1929616Colour TCU 1929620 ND 1929620 11 1929620 21 5 1929620Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 1929622 0.11 1929622 0.20 1929622 0.17 0.05 1929622Nitrite (N) mg/L 1929623 ND 1929623 ND 1929623 ND 0.01 1929623Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L 1932119 ND ND 1932130 ND 1932119 ND 0.05 1932120Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 1934916 1.6 1934916 1.9 1934916 2.2 0.5 1934916Orthophosphate (P) mg/L 1929621 ND 1929621 ND 1929621 ND 0.01 1929621pH pH 1931285 6.32 1931285 6.29 6.34 1931285 6.15 N/A 1931290Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 1929619 13 1929619 13 1929619 13 0.5 1929619Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 1929618 6 1929618 3 1929618 3 2 1929618Turbidity NTU 1.9 1933341 3.8 1933345 1.7 1933345 1.4 0.1 1933345Conductivity uS/cm 1931289 47 1931289 36 36 1931289 36 1 1931293


Page 5 of 16



Maxxam ID DO8744 DO8745 DO8745 DO8746 DO8746Sampling Date 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25

Units SA-15 RDL QC Batch DUP-1 DUP-1 RDL DUP-2 DUP-2 RDL QC BatchLab-Dup Lab-Dup

Calculated ParametersAnion Sum me/L 0.230 N/A 1927469 0.430 N/A 0.170 N/A 1927469Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 8 1 1927659 10 1 8 1 1927659Calculated TDS mg/L 29 1 1927472 29 1 22 1 1927472Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L ND 1 1927659 ND 1 ND 1 1927659Cation Sum me/L 0.360 N/A 1927469 0.540 N/A 0.240 N/A 1927469Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 8 1 1927778 11 1 7 1 1927778Ion Balance (% Difference) % 22.0 N/A 1927468 11.3 N/A 17.1 N/A 1927468Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A -3.66 1927470 -2.89 -3.79 1927470Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A -3.91 1927471 -3.14 -4.04 1927471Nitrate (N) mg/L 0.12 0.05 1927124 ND 0.05 0.13 0.05 1927124Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A 10.1 1927470 9.90 10.1 1927470Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A 10.3 1927471 10.2 10.3 1927471InorganicsTotal Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 8 5 1929614 10 10 5 8 5 1929627Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L ND 1 1929616 8 8 1 ND 1 1929631Colour TCU 27 5 1929620 36 38 10 9 5 1929636Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.12 0.05 1929622 ND ND 0.05 0.13 0.05 1929639Nitrite (N) mg/L ND 0.01 1929623 ND ND 0.01 ND 0.01 1929641Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L ND 0.05 1932120 ND ND 0.05 ND 0.05 1932120Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 1.6 0.5 1934916 4.3 0.5 2.3 0.5 1934916Orthophosphate (P) mg/L ND 0.01 1929621 ND ND 0.01 ND 0.01 1929637pH pH 6.44 N/A 1931290 7.01 N/A 6.30 6.42 N/A 1931290Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 13 0.5 1929619 4.0 4.0 0.5 11 0.5 1929634Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 3 2 1929618 ND ND 2 ND 2 1929633Turbidity NTU 5.2 0.1 1933345 2.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 1933345Conductivity uS/cm 28 1 1931293 50 1 24 25 1 1931293


Page 6 of 16


ELEMENTS BY ICP-AES (WATER)

Maxxam ID DO8730 DO8731 DO8732 DO8733 DO8734 DO8735 DO8736 DO8737 DO8738Sampling Date 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25

Units SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 QC Batch SA-7 SA-8 SA-9 RDL QC BatchMetalsTotal Calcium (Ca) mg/L 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 3.1 2.1 1932630 2.3 3.0 2.3 0.1 1933040Total Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.7 1.2 1932630 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.1 1933040Total Phosphorus (P) mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1932630 ND ND ND 0.1 1933040Total Potassium (K) mg/L 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 3.2 0.6 1932630 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.1 1933040Total Sodium (Na) mg/L 6.2 5.4 3.9 1.2 1.4 5.0 1932630 7.2 1.5 1.7 0.1 1933040


Units SA-10 SA-11 SA-12 SA-13 SA-14 SA-15 DUP-1 DUP-2 RDL QC BatchMetalsTotal Calcium (Ca) mg/L 2.9 2.4 3.5 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.4 2.0 0.1 1933040Total Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.1 1933040Total Phosphorus (P) mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 1933040Total Potassium (K) mg/L 1.9 0.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.1 1933040Total Sodium (Na) mg/L 3.1 6.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 6.6 1.2 0.1 1933040

ND = Not detectedRDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 7 of 16


ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (WATER)

Maxxam ID DO8730 DO8731 DO8732 DO8733 DO8734 DO8735 DO8736 DO8737 DO8738Sampling Date 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25 2009/08/25

Units SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 QC Batch SA-7 SA-8 SA-9 RDL QC BatchMetalsTotal Aluminum (Al) ug/L 152 203 87.5 107 90.8 207 1931213 86.9 113 168 5.0 1932609Total Antimony (Sb) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Arsenic (As) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Barium (Ba) ug/L 9.1 10.3 8.7 12.4 32.3 9.6 1931213 8.0 17.6 17.6 5.0 1932609Total Beryllium (Be) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Bismuth (Bi) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Boron (B) ug/L 5.4 ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 5.5 ND ND 5.0 1932609Total Cadmium (Cd) ug/L 0.018 0.030 0.020 0.020 ND ND 1931213 0.020 0.020 0.017 0.017 1932609Total Chromium (Cr) ug/L 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND 2.7 1.6 1.0 1932609Total Cobalt (Co) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND 0.44 1.35 0.40 1932609Total Copper (Cu) ug/L 31.1 60.4 30.0 84.4 42.6 33.5 1931213 20.2 ND 139 2.0 1932609Total Iron (Fe) ug/L 560 599 291 835 382 573 1931213 411 4230 516 50 1932609Total Lead (Pb) ug/L ND 1.26 0.81 0.61 1.52 1.98 1931213 ND ND 0.72 0.50 1932609Total Manganese (Mn) ug/L 15.3 22.0 8.4 11.2 11.5 27.8 1931213 9.4 34.7 27.0 2.0 1932609Total Molybdenum (Mo) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Nickel (Ni) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND 2.3 3.8 2.0 1932609Total Selenium (Se) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 1.0 1932609Total Silver (Ag) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 0.10 1932609Total Strontium (Sr) ug/L 18.0 17.1 17.6 16.6 20.7 16.5 1931213 18.5 21.9 12.6 5.0 1932609Total Thallium (Tl) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 0.10 1932609Total Tin (Sn) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Titanium (Ti) ug/L 5.9 11.1 3.4 ND ND 9.6 1931213 4.4 ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Uranium (U) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND ND 0.10 0.10 1932609Total Vanadium (V) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1931213 ND 2.6 ND 2.0 1932609Total Zinc (Zn) ug/L 15.2 15.4 90.9 62.4 103 20.7 1931213 8.2 434 64.3 5.0 1932609


Page 8 of 16


ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (WATER)


Units SA-10 SA-11 SA-12 SA-13 SA-14 SA-15 DUP-1 DUP-2 RDL QC BatchMetalsTotal Aluminum (Al) ug/L 268 159 39.3 53.7 42.5 61.7 86.0 91.7 5.0 1932609Total Antimony (Sb) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Arsenic (As) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Barium (Ba) ug/L 59.9 11.1 31.1 15.0 15.9 17.5 8.4 11.2 5.0 1932609Total Beryllium (Be) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Bismuth (Bi) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Boron (B) ug/L ND 5.1 ND ND ND ND 5.9 ND 5.0 1932609Total Cadmium (Cd) ug/L 0.050 ND 0.050 0.023 0.030 0.114 0.027 ND 0.017 1932609Total Chromium (Cr) ug/L 2.8 ND ND 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.1 ND 1.0 1932609Total Cobalt (Co) ug/L 1.14 ND 0.53 ND ND ND ND ND 0.40 1932609Total Copper (Cu) ug/L 31.6 124 1900 274 205 330 62.4 73.3 2.0 1932609Total Iron (Fe) ug/L 793 761 851 760 1550 2720 389 715 50 1932609Total Lead (Pb) ug/L 1.96 1.06 3.95 1.40 0.66 2.59 ND 0.52 0.50 1932609Total Manganese (Mn) ug/L 16.7 20.1 41.7 18.1 25.1 21.0 13.0 9.3 2.0 1932609Total Molybdenum (Mo) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Nickel (Ni) ug/L ND ND 3.0 ND 2.5 ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Selenium (Se) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 1932609Total Silver (Ag) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.10 1932609Total Strontium (Sr) ug/L 24.2 17.5 24.9 17.4 17.6 15.3 18.6 15.6 5.0 1932609Total Thallium (Tl) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.10 1932609Total Tin (Sn) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Titanium (Ti) ug/L 2.6 9.8 ND ND ND ND 4.1 ND 2.0 1932609Total Uranium (U) ug/L 0.24 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.10 1932609Total Vanadium (V) ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1932609Total Zinc (Zn) ug/L 233 26.6 360 508 808 197 10.9 61.4 5.0 1932609


Page 9 of 16


GENERAL COMMENTS

Sample DO8730-01: RCAp Ion Balance acceptable. Anion/cation agreement within 0.2 meq/L. Low ionic strength sample.














Page 10 of 16


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT

Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits1929614 Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2009/09/08 NC 80 - 120 104 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5 mg/L 0.02 25 106 80 - 1201929616 Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2009/09/08 NC 80 - 120 105 80 - 120 ND, RDL=1 mg/L 1.2 25 102 80 - 1201929618 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2009/09/08 NC 80 - 120 108 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2 mg/L 1.3 25 104 80 - 1201929619 Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2009/09/09 NC 80 - 120 102 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.5 mg/L 0.5 25 105 75 - 1251929620 Colour 2009/09/08 ND, RDL=5 TCU NC 25 101 80 - 1201929621 Orthophosphate (P) 2009/09/08 93 80 - 120 101 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.01 mg/L NC 25 99 80 - 1201929622 Nitrate + Nitrite 2009/09/09 108 80 - 120 108 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.05 mg/L NC 25 102 80 - 1201929623 Nitrite (N) 2009/09/08 101 80 - 120 105 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.01 mg/L NC 25 105 80 - 1201929627 Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2009/09/09 112 80 - 120 106 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5 mg/L NC 25 103 80 - 1201929631 Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2009/09/08 108 80 - 120 109 80 - 120 ND, RDL=1 mg/L 0.2 25 107 80 - 1201929633 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2009/09/08 111 80 - 120 107 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2 mg/L NC 25 105 80 - 1201929634 Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2009/09/08 100 80 - 120 102 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.5 mg/L 0.3 25 100 75 - 1251929636 Colour 2009/09/08 ND, RDL=5 TCU NC 25 103 80 - 1201929637 Orthophosphate (P) 2009/09/08 92 80 - 120 100 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.01 mg/L NC 25 98 80 - 1201929639 Nitrate + Nitrite 2009/09/09 111 80 - 120 111 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.05 mg/L NC 25 101 80 - 1201929641 Nitrite (N) 2009/09/08 96 80 - 120 108 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.01 mg/L NC 25 104 80 - 1201931213 Total Aluminum (Al) 2009/09/05 NC 80 - 120 109 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 0.9 25 101 80 - 1201931213 Total Antimony (Sb) 2009/09/05 116 80 - 120 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 25 113 80 - 1201931213 Total Arsenic (As) 2009/09/05 112 80 - 120 89 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 25 92 80 - 1201931213 Total Barium (Ba) 2009/09/05 NC 80 - 120 102 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 1.3 25 99 80 - 1201931213 Total Beryllium (Be) 2009/09/05 106 80 - 120 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 25 101 80 - 1201931213 Total Bismuth (Bi) 2009/09/05 94 80 - 120 92 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 251931213 Total Boron (B) 2009/09/05 109 80 - 120 94 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L NC 25 92 80 - 1201931213 Total Cadmium (Cd) 2009/09/05 108 80 - 120 95 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.017 ug/L 7.5 25 92 80 - 1201931213 Total Chromium (Cr) 2009/09/05 93 80 - 120 91 80 - 120 ND, RDL=1.0 ug/L NC 25 98 80 - 1201931213 Total Cobalt (Co) 2009/09/05 98 80 - 120 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L 6.1 25 96 80 - 1201931213 Total Copper (Cu) 2009/09/05 92 80 - 120 96 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 3.5 25 101 80 - 1201931213 Total Lead (Pb) 2009/09/05 90 80 - 120 95 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.50 ug/L NC 25 100 80 - 1201931213 Total Manganese (Mn) 2009/09/05 NC 80 - 120 106 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 0.5 25 100 80 - 1201931213 Total Molybdenum (Mo) 2009/09/05 109 80 - 120 94 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 25 98 80 - 1201931213 Total Nickel (Ni) 2009/09/05 94 80 - 120 91 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 3.8 25 99 80 - 1201931213 Total Selenium (Se) 2009/09/05 110 80 - 120 91 80 - 120 ND, RDL=1.0 ug/L NC (1) 25 96 80 - 1201931213 Total Silver (Ag) 2009/09/05 96 80 - 120 96 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.10 ug/L NC 251931213 Total Strontium (Sr) 2009/09/05 NC 80 - 120 95 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 0.7 25 100 80 - 1201931213 Total Thallium (Tl) 2009/09/05 87 80 - 120 89 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.10 ug/L NC 25 110 80 - 1201931213 Total Tin (Sn) 2009/09/05 105 80 - 120 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 251931213 Total Titanium (Ti) 2009/09/05 97 80 - 120 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 251931213 Total Uranium (U) 2009/09/05 91 80 - 120 85 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.10 ug/L 6.7 25 78(2) 80 - 1201931213 Total Vanadium (V) 2009/09/05 95 80 - 120 92 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L NC 25 97 80 - 1201931213 Total Zinc (Zn) 2009/09/05 101 80 - 120 99 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 4.8 25 92 80 - 120

Page 11 of 16



Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits1931213 Total Iron (Fe) 2009/09/05 ND, RDL=50 ug/L 0.4 25 110 80 - 1201931285 pH 2009/09/08 5.90, RDL=0 pH 0.8 25 101 80 - 1201931289 Conductivity 2009/09/08 ND, RDL=1 uS/cm 0.3 25 102 80 - 1201931290 pH 2009/09/08 5.92, RDL=0 pH 1.9 25 101 80 - 1201931293 Conductivity 2009/09/08 ND, RDL=1 uS/cm 1.6 25 103 80 - 1201932119 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2009/09/09 98 80 - 120 96 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.05 mg/L NC 25 99 80 - 1201932120 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2009/09/09 96 80 - 120 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.05 mg/L NC 25 100 80 - 1201932122 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2009/09/09 97 80 - 120 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.05 mg/L NC 25 98 80 - 1201932130 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2009/09/09 103 80 - 120 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.05 mg/L NC 25 99 80 - 1201932609 Total Aluminum (Al) 2009/09/08 106 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 100 80 - 1201932609 Total Antimony (Sb) 2009/09/08 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 120 80 - 1201932609 Total Arsenic (As) 2009/09/08 88 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 94 80 - 1201932609 Total Barium (Ba) 2009/09/08 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 100 80 - 1201932609 Total Beryllium (Be) 2009/09/08 96 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 99 80 - 1201932609 Total Boron (B) 2009/09/08 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 93 80 - 1201932609 Total Cadmium (Cd) 2009/09/08 88 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.017 ug/L 93 80 - 1201932609 Total Chromium (Cr) 2009/09/08 99 80 - 120 ND, RDL=1.0 ug/L 102 80 - 1201932609 Total Cobalt (Co) 2009/09/08 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L 106 80 - 1201932609 Total Copper (Cu) 2009/09/08 101 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 104 80 - 1201932609 Total Iron (Fe) 2009/09/08 ND, RDL=50 ug/L 116 80 - 1201932609 Total Lead (Pb) 2009/09/08 101 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.50 ug/L 105 80 - 1201932609 Total Manganese (Mn) 2009/09/08 96 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 97 80 - 1201932609 Total Molybdenum (Mo) 2009/09/08 92 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 104 80 - 1201932609 Total Nickel (Ni) 2009/09/08 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 107 80 - 1201932609 Total Selenium (Se) 2009/09/08 82 80 - 120 ND, RDL=1.0 ug/L 107 80 - 1201932609 Total Strontium (Sr) 2009/09/08 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 102 80 - 1201932609 Total Thallium (Tl) 2009/09/08 100 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.10 ug/L 124(3) 80 - 1201932609 Total Uranium (U) 2009/09/08 95 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.10 ug/L 87 80 - 1201932609 Total Vanadium (V) 2009/09/08 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L 101 80 - 1201932609 Total Zinc (Zn) 2009/09/08 88 80 - 120 ND, RDL=5.0 ug/L 94 80 - 1201932609 Total Bismuth (Bi) 2009/09/08 100 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L1932609 Total Silver (Ag) 2009/09/08 92 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.10 ug/L1932609 Total Tin (Sn) 2009/09/08 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L1932609 Total Titanium (Ti) 2009/09/08 101 80 - 120 ND, RDL=2.0 ug/L1932630 Total Calcium (Ca) 2009/09/08 90 80 - 120 92 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 0.9 25 95 80 - 1201932630 Total Magnesium (Mg) 2009/09/08 90 80 - 120 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 1.5 25 92 80 - 1201932630 Total Phosphorus (P) 2009/09/08 96 80 - 120 95 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L NC 25 88 80 - 1201932630 Total Potassium (K) 2009/09/08 97 80 - 120 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 1.8 25 99 80 - 1201932630 Total Sodium (Na) 2009/09/08 NC 80 - 120 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 1.1 25 100 80 - 1201933040 Total Calcium (Ca) 2009/09/09 96 80 - 120 95 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 3.9 25 99 80 - 120

Page 12 of 16



Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits1933040 Total Magnesium (Mg) 2009/09/09 96 80 - 120 96 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 4.5 25 97 80 - 1201933040 Total Phosphorus (P) 2009/09/09 101 80 - 120 100 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L NC 25 104 80 - 1201933040 Total Potassium (K) 2009/09/09 101 80 - 120 101 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 2.4 25 105 80 - 1201933040 Total Sodium (Na) 2009/09/09 104 80 - 120 104 80 - 120 ND, RDL=0.1 mg/L 3.3 25 108 80 - 1201933341 Turbidity 2009/09/09 ND, RDL=0.1 NTU 14.8 25 100 80 - 1201933345 Turbidity 2009/09/09 ND, RDL=0.1 NTU NC 25 100 80 - 1201934871 Total Organic Carbon (C) 2009/09/10 100 75 - 125 100 75 - 125 ND, RDL=0.5 mg/L NC 25 107 80 - 1201934916 Total Organic Carbon (C) 2009/09/10 101 75 - 125 89 75 - 125 ND, RDL=0.5 mg/L NC 25 101 80 - 120

N/A = Not ApplicableRDL = Reportable Detection LimitRPD = Relative Percent DifferenceDuplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.QC Standard: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recoverycalculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable calculation.(1) - Elevated reporting limit due to sample matrix.(2) - Typical recovery for RM matrix.(3) - Secondary RM is acceptable.

Page 13 of 16

Validation Signature Page

Maxxam Job #: A9B5144

The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).

JERRY ARENOVICH, Inorganics Manager

KEVIN MACDONALD, Inorganics Supervisor

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. SCC and CALA have approved this reporting process and electronic report format.

Page 14 of 16

APPENDIX J

Tidal Fluctuations

Time (NST) Height (m)04:36 0.510:24 0.816:26 0.522:29 0.9

Time (NST) Height (m)04:55 0.510:48 0.817:01 0.522:57 0.9

Time (NST) Height (m)05:18 0.511:16 0.917:38 0.523:26 0.9

Time (NST) Height (m)03:23 0.509:31 0.715:00 0.621:07 0.8

Time (NST) Height (m)00:04 0.806:11 0.412:39 1.019:23 0.5

Notes:

NST: Newfoundland Standard Time

m: meters

2009-10-29 (Thursday)

2009-11-04 (Wednesday)

2009-10-04 (Sunday)

North West River (Station #1335)

Times and Heights for High and Low Tides

2009-10-02 (Friday)

2009-10-03 (Saturday)

APPENDIX K

Report Limitations

LIMITATIONS

1. The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted hydrogeological practicesfor the exclusive use of Nalcor Energy (Nalcor). No other warranties, either expressed orimplied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contractand included in this report.

2. Third party information reviewed and used to develop the opinions and conclusionscontained in this report is assumed to be complete and correct. This information was usedin good faith and AMEC does not accept any responsibility for deficiencies, misinterpretationor incompleteness of the information contained in documents prepared by third parties.

3. The services performed and outlined in this report were based, in part, upon visualobservations of the site and attendant structures. Our opinion cannot be extended toportions of the site which were unavailable for direct observation, reasonably beyond ourcontrol.

4. The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based exclusively on the fieldparameters measured and the chemical parameters tested at specific locations. It shouldbe recognized that subsurface conditions between and beyond the sample locations mayvary. AMEC cannot expressly guarantee that subsurface conditions between and beyondthe sample locations do not vary from the results determined at the sample locations.Notwithstanding these limitations, this report is believed to provide a reasonablerepresentation of site conditions at the date of issue.

5. The contents of this report are based on the information collected during the monitoring andinvestigation activities, our understanding of the actual site conditions, and our professionalopinion according to the information available at the time of preparation of this report. Thisreport gives a professional opinion and, by consequence, no guarantee is attached to theconclusions or expert advice depicted in this report.

6. Any use of this report by a third party and any decision made based on the informationcontained in this report by the third party is the sole responsibility of the third party. AMECwill not accept any responsibility for damages resulting from a decision or an action madeby a third party based on the information contained in this report.

----------------------

FINAL LOWER CHURCHILL PROJECT BASELINE WATER QUALITY …€¦ · estuary contains a bottom layer of...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL LOWER CHURCHILL PROJECT BASELINE WATER QUALITY …€¦ · estuary contains a bottom layer of...