Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-05-26_Council_Website Agenda Package_Updated_May 24, 2022.pdf Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday, May 26, 2022 Livestreamed via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_uKlob3qOA6eD62x1kK5Kw Office Location: 151 King Street, Chester, NS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (15 minutes – 8:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Council – May 12, 2022. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Committee of the Whole – May 19, 2022 – Warden Webber. 6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 7. MATTERS ARISING 7.1 BY-LAW - First Reading – Amendment to Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By- Law No. 72 to be compliant with the Municipal Government Act changes, reduce the administration fee to a flat 5%, and clarify some definitions. 7.2 POLICY – First Notice – Adoption of a Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy to define responsibilities, maintenance schedules, replacement schedules based on age or hours of use, and financing components. 7.3 Information Report prepared May 6, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management – Economic Development Sponsorships Update. 7.4 Information Report prepared May 17, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management – Results of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). 7.5 Request for Decision – Corporate & Strategic Management - Boundary Review. 8. CORRESPONDENCE Page 2 of 2 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Request for Decision – Community Development & Recreation – Road Name – Yellow Marsh Lane. 11. ADJOURNMENT 9.2 District Council Grant (6) – New Ross Trails Society $1,000. 9.3 Village Planning Advisory Committee – term for members. (Material to follow) 10. IN CAMERA 10.1 In Camera as per Section 22(2)(e) Contract Negotiations – New Ross Community Care. 207 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COUNCIL MEETING Livestreamed via YouTube from 151 King Street, Chester On Thursday, May 12, 2022 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:48 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Veinotte District 5 – Councillor Assaff District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 6 – Councillor Connors District 3 – Councillor Wells District 7 – Councillor Church District 4 – Warden Webber Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner John Gamey, Summer Planning Student Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS Additions:  Addition of Special Council Meeting prior to Committee of the Whole on June 2, 2022 to consider Second Reading of the Outdoor Dining By-Law.  Discussion – New Hotel Development in Chester – Councillor Wells.  Church Memorial Park Update – Councillor Church.  In Camera - Land Acquisition.  Fire Contract with Village Commission – CAO. Council (continued) May 12, 2022 208 2022-185 MOVED by Councillor Assaff SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the agenda and order of business for the May 12, 2022, Council meeting be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Council – April 28, 2022. 2022-186 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the minutes of the April 28, 2022 Council Meeting be approved. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 4.2 Special Council – May 9, 2022. 2022-187 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the minutes of the May 9, 2022 Special Council Meeting be approved. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Equity Diversity & Inclusion Committee – April 26, 2022 – Councillors Connor/Assaff. Councillor Connors reviewed the motions recommended by the Committee. It was noted there were funds in the budget that can be used for the art project. 2022-188 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the following recommendation from the April 26, 2022 Equity Diversity & Inclusion Committee meeting be approved: 2022-178 – “… consider the request of a maximum of $2,000 to fund an art project within the Municipality of Chester Schools that will encourage students to acknowledge people of other countries through flags with the purchase of materials dependent on an approved materials list.” Council (continued) May 12, 2022 209 There was some discussion with regard to the amendment to the flag flying requests for multiple or longer time periods. The concern was that there could be other requests during the extended time period. Council was in agreement with a pre-approved list of flags to be flown but it was suggested that the remainder of the motion regarding multiple dates/times for flying flags not be approved. 2022-189 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Connors that the recommendation (2022-179) from the April 26, 2022 Equity Diversity & Inclusion Committee meeting be approved in part, i.e. (section 2) providing a pre-approved list of flags that would not require an annual application (with staff to bring back an amendment to the policy). “… amend the Flag Raising and Protocol Policy P-102 to provide a pre- approved list of flags that would not require an annual application to raise.” ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. a. Request for Flag Raising – Lunenburg County Pride. 2022-190 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council approve the request from Pride Lunenburg County to fly the Pride Flag for the month of June 2022, Pride Month. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 5.2 Church Memorial Park – Councillor Church. Councillor Church indicated that the Trustees have hired Stantec to conduct a detailed condition assessment; they realize the facility is reaching the end of its structural life. The assessment will focus on the beams. Over the past year they have spent nearly $80,000 on repairs and maintenance. They will continue to apply for the Pew Grant. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 6.1 Blake McNeely, Coastal Action at 9:00 a.m. a. Request for Decision prepared April 21, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Fox Point Lake Monitoring Report and Consideration of 2022 Monitoring Program. Council (continued) May 12, 2022 210 Blake McNeely, Coastal Action reviewed the report Fox Point Lake Monitoring Report and Consideration of 2022 Monitoring Program, noting that there has been seven years of monitoring. He reviewed the following:  Fox Point Lake 7 Year overview. o Results for 2021 for Chlorophyll-a and Phycocyanin, surface temperature, depth profiles temperature and dissolved oxygen (July and August), surface dissolved oxygen, pH, total phosphorous, total nitrogen, fecal coliform, and E. coli, sediment sample results, trophic state index results, and conclusion/recommendations. It is anticipated there will be more algae blooms in the coming years and if biweekly testing was to continue it would help with the measurement of the blooms as they appear. Deputy Warden Shatford indicated that he would like to thank John McNeil for his diligence in testing the lake. He hoped the testing would not stop until there is more data. He also felt this may be a consideration for other lakes in the Municipality as it would give an idea of what is happening to the lakes. In this instance, it was agreed that a development was the cause. Having this information will be an asset as it is thought there will be more pressure on that lake as Hubbards is poised to grow. It was noted that in some jurisdictions phosphorus is dealt with at a policy level. This Municipality may want to tailor testing around a potential policy change. For example, we know that vegetative buffers and setbacks help with such issues. This is an opportunity to study lakes so that when there is development, it is clear what issues might arise. It was suggested to determine a testing regime from what planners think are important and consider policy. Mr. McNeely outlined the Love your Lake promotion helps property owners determine what vegetative buffers and plants are good for the shoreline. b. Bayswater Beach – 2021 Water Quality and Sediment Sampling Report Mr. McNeely provided an overview of the water samples taken following a rainfall incident and another taken after several days with no rain. The water quality samples were good overall. They were most interested in the metal scan. There was a drop in lead at 5 cm (1920). They were also interested in the sediment core – isotope analysis – three distinct fingerprints. The next step for this project is to collect a sample of this material when it pops up again; adjacent owners will let him know and he will sample – they should then be Council (continued) May 12, 2022 211 able to tell where it is coming from or if it’s not coming from any three of the three sources tested. The testing is estimated to cost approximately $300. c. Bacteria Monitoring Results from Goose Creek and Rafuse Cove, Western Shore. Mr. McNeely reviewed the findings from the samples analyzed. The results show a manure pile next to the ditch with a very high amount of e. Coli going into the creek and then into the stream. Councillor Assaff indicated that the Departments of Agriculture and Environment are aware. If there are more issues, those provincial departments can respond. 2022-191 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council accept the following reports from Coastal Action and share the findings with the appropriate Provincial Departments.  Fox Point Lake Monitoring Report.  Bayswater Beach – 2021 Water Quality and Sediment Sampling Report  Bacteria Monitoring Results from Goose Creek and Rafuse Cove, Western Shore. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Councillor Church commented on the proposed housing development off of Stanford Lake Road and suggested it would be a good plan to have baseline data on that lake as well. It was agreed to have Coastal Action provide a price to conduct testing to determine baseline data for Stanford Lake. It was also suggested to have staff consider what other lakes may be important to consider for testing. 2022-192 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Veinotte that Council approve the continuation of the Fox Point Lake Water Monitoring Program in the amount of $12,891.20. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2022-193 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that Council authorize funding to employ Coastal Action to sample and test Bayswater Beach. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Council (continued) May 12, 2022 212 Staff was directed prepare information on a municipal-wide testing program and to include what policy initiatives might come from a testing program. COMMITTEE REPORTS (continued) 5.3 Citizens Advisory Board Committee (Airfield Engineers) – Councillor Assaff. Councillor Assaff reported that the group had just held their first in person meeting since the beginning of COVID. They received updates on projects they have been working on, noting that the past few years have been difficult, depending on what staff they have had available. They were to construct an outdoor classroom at Parkview, but there were some issues pointed out by legal. MATTERS ARISING 7.1 Second/Final Notice – Repeal – Policy P-10 Regular Council Meetings. 2022-194 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council conduct Second/Final Notice to Repeal Policy P-10 Regular Council Meetings. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.2 Second/Final Notice – Repeal Section 6 of the Personnel Policy P-55 (Travel Expense and Meal Allowance Policy. 2022-195 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council conduct Second/Final Notice to Repeal Section 6 of the Personnel Policy P- 55(Travel Expense and Meal Allowance Policy). ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.3 Second/Final Notice – Repeal - Policy P-22 Petty Cash Fund Policy. 2022-196 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council conduct Second/Final Notice to Repeal Policy P-22 Petty Cash Fund Policy. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.4 Second/Final Notice – Adopt – Expense Policy P-95 (with removal of per diem rates). Council (continued) May 12, 2022 213 2022-197 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that Council conduct Second/Final Notice to Adopt Expense Policy P-95. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.5 Second/Final Notice – Adopt - Council and Committee Procedural Policy P-109. 2022-198 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that Council conduct Second/Final Notice to Adopt Policy P-109 Council and Committee Procedural Policy. Discussion:  Councilor Connors noted that item 6.10 states that meetings of Council shall be livestreamed and left on the site for no less than six months. She asked why they would be removed, and it was noted that if there is a space issue, older videos would be removed. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. A break was held from 10:02 a.m. to 10:16 a.m. 7.6 Request for Decision – Corporate & Strategic Management – Priorities Chart Update. Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator, was present to review the Priorities Chart which was updated following workshop held in February. Councillor Wells requested clarification on the beautification project being done and it was noted that the Community Economic Development Officer would be coming to Council with an update. Deputy Warden Shatford asked about community wells, and it was noted that the CET is leading that project and would be providing something to Council in the near future. It was noted that other municipalities are also considering community wells, particularly due to the anticipated dry weather. Councillor Connors asked for clarification on the enviro-toilets referring the March discussion and the additional enviro-toilets discussed. It was noted that the plan was to determine the best model that suits our needs and then to move on to phase 2 and other locations (following a report to Council). Council (continued) May 12, 2022 214 It was agreed to add the additional locations to the strategic priorities chart so that are not forgotten. Deputy Warden Shatford would like to move the matter of the Fire Advisory Committee to be dealt with sooner rather than later and the Deputy CAO indicated that staff is working on it and there should be something for Council in the near future. Deputy Warden Shatford asked for an update on the amber flashing beacons and Fred Whynot, Director of Public Works provided some input; it was clarified that the Hubbards Sailing Club is on the list to receive a flashing beacon. Councillor Wells asked where the Pig Loop Project is in the proposed work and the CAO indicated that Pig Loop Road was identified in a future year, and it is in the Capital Budget. The Traffic Study has helped to determine what might be the best choice. The CAO noted that the Capital Budget has four to five years’ worth of projects Councillor Wells asked for more information so that he could get up to date on the project. 2022-199 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council accept the May 1, 2022 updated version of the Priorities Chart. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.7 Corporate and Strategic Management Department – 4th Quarter Quarterly Report January 1, 2022 to March 31, 2022. Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO reviewed the Corporate & Strategic Management 4th Quarterly Update material provided in the agenda package. The CAO noted that the Association of Municipal Administrators of Nova Scotia Conference will be held at Oak Island and the resort is fully booked. As a committee member, he included the Recreation Department team to facilitate a castle rock visit. They will also be hosting local talent, and Don Oliver will be a speaker. 7.8 First Reading - Outdoor Dining By-Law Adoption - to provide for licensing of outdoor dining areas. 2022-200 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council conduct First Reading to Adopt an Outdoor Dining By-Law No. 153 to provide Council (continued) May 12, 2022 215 for the licensing of outdoor dining areas and refer to Second Reading on June 2, 2022. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 Correspondence dated May 4, 2022 from Donna Whitford requesting Council consider a dust abatement by-law. 8.2 Email dated May 4, 2022 from Ray Cambria requesting Council consider a dust abatement by-law. Councillor Wells commented that the correspondence resulted due to the demolition of building to make way for a proposed hotel. It was agreed to send the letters to staff to determine if there is a policy that could be developed to alleviate the dust concerns due to demolition. The Director of Community Development and Recreation indicated that he and the Infrastructure & Operations staff have been reviewing the process for demolition permits. Nothing pertains to dust, but they want to be inclusive of such things as rodent control, dust, and disconnections from sewer lines. As part of reviewing the process they can look at dust control; however, it is dependent on situation and location of house. If it is centrally located the Municipality may want to provide some suggestions i.e., providing water to control dust. Staff was directed to review and provide a report. It was agreed to direct staff to respond to Mr. Cambria and Ms. Whitford to advise Council has asked staff to provide information on dust issues related to demolitions. 8.3 Letter of request from regarding International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia May 17, 2022 (draft proclamation included) and consideration to fly flag. 2022-201 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the proclamation regarding International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia in the usual fashion and raise the Pride Flag on May 17, 2022. DISCUSSION  Councillor Wells voiced concern regarding the reference to the Quebec Charter. Council (continued) May 12, 2022 216  After discussion it was felt the first two paragraphs could be removed without altering the intent of the proclamation. Whereas Councillor Wells AMENDED the motion, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the first two paragraphs of the proclamation be removed; and the Pride Flag be flown on May 17, 2022. MOTION CARRIED. 8.4 Correspondence dated April 24, 2022 from Bell Canada regarding cell phone coverage updates in the Municipality of Chester. The Deputy CAO advised that a letter has also been sent to the federal government and copied to the local MLAs as well as the Minister of Innovation and Development. Bell has completed some new sites and more work is planned. Deputy Warden Shatford Left the room. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Request for Decision prepared April 2022 – Community Development & Recreation Department – Private Road Name, Constellation Lane, Hubbards. 9.2 Request for Decision prepared April 2022 – Community Development & Recreation Department – Private Road Name, Willow Bay Lane, Blandford. Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation reviewed the road name Requests for Decision. Deputy Warden Shatford returned to the room. 2022-202 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve the Private Road Name, Constellation Lane located in Hubbards, and Willow Bay Lane located in Blandford and direct staff to notify the appropriate agencies. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.3 Request for Decision prepared May 3, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation Department – Appointment of Building Official. 2022-203 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the appointment of Bruce Parks as a Building Official/Special Constable Council (continued) May 12, 2022 217 in the Municipality of the District of Chester. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.4 Request for Decision prepared May 4, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management Committee – Resolutions for Provincial Capital Assistance Program (PCAP) ($25,000) and Flood Risk Infrastructure Investment Program (FRIIP) ($44,250). Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator outlined the projects included in the Request for Decision regarding the Provincial Capital Assistance Program (PCAP) ($25,000) and Flood Risk Infrastructure Investment Program (FRIIP) ($44,250). The FRIIP Program addresses an issue with the Henneberry Lake culvert that was rehabilitated in 2013. Although designed and constructed to meet all permit approvals in 2013, the culvert may not be of adequate size for the watercourse crossing/floodway and for fish migration. This project will accomplish two things - correct the culvert size and ensure fish passage (ecological aspect). This is an unbudgeted item and if the application is successful, it would be brought back to Council for approval The PCAP project is for Otter Point wastewater treatment plant upgrades. These need to be completed to meet regulatory requirements. The goal is to submit the application for design work and to be shovel ready for when Council is ready to take action. This is also an unbudgeted item and if the application is successful, it would be brought back to Council for approval 2022-204 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the following resolutions be approved: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Municipality of the District of Chester submit the project titled Henneberry Lake Culvert Renewal Project for funding to the 2022-23 Flood Risk Infrastructure Investment Program (FRIIP); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council supports the project and commits to provide its share of at least 50% ($44,250) of the estimated $88,500 total eligible project cost. BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Municipality of the District of Chester submit the project titled Otter Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Design Project for funding to the 2022-23 Provincial Capital Assistance Program (PCAP); and Council (continued) May 12, 2022 218 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council supports the project and commits to provide its share of at least 50% ($25,000) of the estimated $50,000 total eligible project cost. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.5 Council District Grant Requests: a. All Districts - Forest Heights Community School - $2,100 = $300 from each district (Prom 2022). 2022-205 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the request from the Prom Committee of Forest Heights Community School be approved in the amount of $300 from each District, totaling $2,100. DISCUSSION:  Councillor Veinotte commented that it was his understanding that schools will no longer be holding proms. This may be something that will start to be requested annually.  Warden Webber also noted that due to COVID the usual fundraising was an issue.  Councillor Wells felt there should be support, noting that in the past communities have promoted safe graduations. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. b. District 2 – Hubbards Area Lions Club - $2,000 (septic system repairs). 2022-206 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve a District 2 Council Grant in the amount of $2,000 for the Hubbards Area Lions Club. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. c. District 2 – Through The Years Day Care & Community Centre - $4,000 (heat pumps). 2022-207 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that Council approve a District 2 Council Grant in the amount of $2,000 for the Through the Years Day Care & Community Centre. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. d. District 3 – Chester Municipal Heritage Society - $3,000 (July 1 and & Celebrations – Canada Day and Garden Party.) Council (continued) May 12, 2022 219 Councillor Wells commented that he was reluctant to provide a grant of this amount so early in the year. He noted that other events that would include the remaining districts have been contributed to by other districts and asked if any other Councillors were interested in assisting in funding the municipal-wide event with him. Following discussion, Councillor Church agreed to fund $500. It was agreed that the remaining amount requested could be revisited if funds allow. 2022-208 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve a District 3 Council Grant in the amount of $2,000 and a District 7 Council Grant in the amount of $500 to the Chester Municipal Heritage Society, with the option to revisit a further amount at a later date if funds permit. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. e. District 6 - Forties Community Centre - $500 (Oktoberfest). 2022-209 MOVED by Councillor Connors, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve a District 6 Council Grant in the amount of $500 for the Forties Community Centre. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.6 Request for Decision – Infrastructure & Operations – Sidewalk Design Award Request for Proposals MODC-T-2022-007. Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations outlined the sidewalk projects Council incorporated in five year capital plan. This project includes the first four of eleven sidewalks to be completed by 2027. He outlined the scoring on experience and pricing for the two submissions received. It was noted that more clarification was required from the two bidders and that was received. He reviewed the options available to Councill. 2022-210 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Veinotte that Council approve the award of the Request for Proposals MODC-T-2022-007 for Sidewalk Design to EXP Services Inc. in the amount of $99,959.00 plus HST. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.7 Fire Contract Council (continued) May 12, 2022 220 The Deputy CAO read the motion from received from the Village Commission regarding the fire services contract; they approved the agreement at their meeting last evening. 2022-211 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the Intermunicipal Fire Services Agreement between the Municipality of the District of Chester and the Village Commission of Chester to form a partnership for a 20-year term to provide fire and emergency protection services within their respective areas. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.8 New Development in Chester – Councillor Wells. Councillor Wells indicated that there is rumour going around that a hotel is to be built on the corner of Valley Road and Main Street where a building was recently demolished. He asked what information is public and what is proprietary. Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner, indicated that there has been a development permit issued for a hotel use. The zoning that is in place now has been in place for many years at that location. It is the Central Commercial Zone where hotels are allowed by right with setbacks and signage compliance. The developer would be required to comply with the parking requirements in the Land Use By-Law. In terms of information that is public, the face of the development permit is public, but the supporting plans are not public. The permit face has some information, i.e., yard setbacks and some building dimensions but does not likely contain what people are looking for such as what the building looks like; those are supporting documents. It was noted that there are no water supply requirements other than what might be required through a mortgage/financing. The Land Use By-Law does not have any requirements to require potable water. The developer has a development permit but not a building permit. In order to receive a building permit, the building department would require sewer/septic approval. He was not aware if a sewer permit had been issued. It was noted that through the Development Agreement process there are policies on providing water but in the “as of right process” there is nothing on water. It was noted that the design would meet the provisions of the Land Use By-Law if a Development Permit has been issued. Council (continued) May 12, 2022 221 Councillor Wells asked about sewer capacity and the Director of Infrastructure and Operations indicated that he would get that information. A brief discussion was held on what would be required for a sewer permit. Councillor Wells asked if any part of that process that would become public and it was indicated that it would not be public as it is all administrative. There was no information on a time frame for construction, but it was noted that the development permit is valid for 18 months with an option to renew. There is a demolition permit in place. If the name of the applicant is on the face of the development permit, then it is public, however, it may be in the name of a company. Councillor Wells asked if it would be appropriate to invite the developer to meet with Council to discuss the project. He knows that it is not required. It was suggested that staff could reach out and advise the developer that Council would like to invite them to make a presentation; however, it would not be a public hearing and the developer would not be required to answer questions. Councillor Wells indicated that there is a lot of interest and questions, particularly with regard to water. He understands there is information that is proprietary. The CAO indicated that if a FOIPOP request is received, the FOIPOP Officer would review and release the information publicly that we can. Councillor Church indicated that Councillors get reports of permits within their districts and asked if it were possible to also receive reports on this type of development, even if it was not within their district. 9.8 Date for Special Council Meeting on Thursday, June 2, 2022 prior to the Committee of the Whole Meeting. This is in order to consider Second/Final Reading of an Outdoor Dining By-Law. 2022-212 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve a Special Council Meeting to be held on June 2, 2022 prior to the Committee of the Whole Meeting. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Council (continued) May 12, 2022 222 IN CAMERA 10.1 In Camera as per Section 22(2)(a) of the Municipal Government Act – Acquisition, sale, lease, and security of municipal property – Marriotts Cove. 2022-213 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the meeting convene In Camera as per Section 22(2)(a) of the Municipal Government Act – acquisition, sale, lease, and security of municipal property. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Following a brief meeting of Council “In Camera” the meeting reconvened with all members present. 2022-214 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council authorize staff to prepare a purchase agreement, subject to legal review, to purchase property at Marriotts Cove (PID 60405859). ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 2022-215 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church the meeting adjourn. (11:51 a.m.) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk MOTIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL OF COUNCIL FROM MAY 19, 2022 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING 2022-216 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AS AMENDED 2022-217 APPROVAL OF APRIL 21, 2022 COW MINUTES 2022-218 NOTICE TO AMEND PRIVATE STREET IMPROVEMENT BY-LAW MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Connors that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to give notice to amend the Private Street Improvement By-Law and proceed to First Reading. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2022-219 NOTICE TO ADOPT LANDFILL VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICY MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to adopt the Landfill Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Policy in order to establish a framework and guide for the on-going, sustainable maintenance, repair and replacement of landfill vehicles and equipment; with an addition to section 3.03 to include the option of purchasing less carbon producing vehicles (Transition 2050). ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2022-220 IN CAMERA – SECTION 22(2)(c) and (e) of the MGA 2022-221 STATUS CHANGE TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR LABOURER POSITION TO FULL TIME MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to approve the change in status for the Public Works Labourer Position from Part-time/Casual to Full-time. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2022-222 MOU WITH ACADIA FIRST NATION (GOLD RIVER) TEMP TRAIL PATH MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Acadia First Nation, Gold River, to allow use of a parcel of land owned by Acadia First Nation as a temporary trail connection (path) to serve users of the Chester Connection Trail during the closure period of the Gold River Bridge (trail). ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2022-223 ADJOURNMENT Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER PRIVATE STREET IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE BY-LAW BY-LAW # 72 1. This By-Law shall be known as the “PRIVATE STREET IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE BY- LAW” 2. In this By-Law, unless the context otherwise indicates: 2.1 “Cost” means the amount of money paid or payable in respect of the street “improvement and/or maintenance”.; 2.2 “Improvement” means laying out, opening, constructing, upgradingupgrading, and improving. 2.3 “Maintenance” means repairing and maintaining. 2.4 “Municipality” means the Municipality of the District of Chester. 2.5 “Owner” includes part owner, joint owner, tenant-in-common or joint tenant of the whole or part of any real property fronting on a street or situate within an affected area and also includes any trustee, executor guardian, agent or other person having the care or control of such real property in the case of absence or disability of the person having the title thereto provided that for the purpose of calculating the percentage of owners in Section 3(1) real property with more than one owner shall be counted as having one owner. An Owner is entitled to one vote for each individual property parcel they own within the Defined Area. In the case where an individual property has more than one Owner, all Owners must agree on the single response. If all Owners are not in agreement, it will be deemed that the Owner’s response is negative. 2.6 “Special Tax” means a tax in respect of the street improvement and/or maintenance based on a per lot basis, a frontage basis, per owner or an area rate based on $100.00 of assessment, as the case may be asas requested in the petition. 2.7 “Street” means any private street, roadway, highway or travelled way, or portion thereof, situate in the Municipality but does not include any unopened or undeveloped street unless specifically included in the Plan attached to Form “A” of the Petition of the owners. 2.8 “Association” means a body corporate incorporated under the Societies Act which represents the owners within the affected area. Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 2.9 “Affected Area” means that area within which the owner shall be liable for the special tax levied pursuant to this By-Law and which is shown on the Plan attached to Form “A” of the Petition of the owners and shall include any subdivision shown therein. 2.10 “Interest” means that rate of interest charged to the Municipality from time to time on the money borrowed for the improvements which the Municipality shall be entitled to recover from the owners as part of the special tax. 2.11 “Approved purpose” means those purposes for which a Municipality is authorized to expend money pursuant to Section 65 (d) (e) (o) (q) and (av(i)) of the Municipal Government Act. 2.12 “Applicant” means the Association referenced in section 2.8 and which has the right itself, or on behalf of the Owners, to maintain the Street. 2.13 “Dwelling” means a residential unit as identified by the Property Valuation Services Corporation filed roll 3. 3.1 Where sixty-seven (67%) of the owners of real property owning at least sixty-seven (67 %) of the real property within an affected area petition in person or by agent the Municipality for an improvement and/or maintenance of a street, for an approved purpose which may be within or outside the affected area or both, the Municipality may make such improvements, and/or provide for such maintenance if it determines that such improvement and/or maintenance carries out an approved purpose and if so shall be entitled to recover all of the cost of such improvements or maintenance by levying a special tax upon the owners of real property within the affected area as provided by in this bylaw and such tax shall be recoverable from each owner by the Municipality by a per foot of lot frontage basis, or by a per lot basis or by a per owner basis or by an area rate of so much per $100.00 of assessed value of real property within the affected area as requested in the petition which is generally to be in the form as shown on Form “A” attached. The owner of a lot which fronts on more than one street within the affected area, shall pay based on only one (1) boundary of his their property, that being the longest boundary that fronts on a street and only this boundary will be considered when calculating the total frontage within the affected area and in calculating the percentage of frontage that the owner owns. a) In the case of recovery of the cost of the street improvement by area rate, based on so much per $100.00 of assessed value of the real property, in the affected area as shown in the petition in Form “A”, such area rate shall be struck by Municipal Council from year to year for a period not to exceed ten (10) years and shall cover all the projected costs including interest, to the Municipality for that year for such street improvement. b) In the case of recovery of the cost of the street maintenance by area rate, based Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 97 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt on so much per $100.00 of assessed value of the real property, in the affected area as shown in the petition in Form “A”, such area rate shall be struck by Municipal Council from year to year for the year for which maintenance is sought as provided for herein. 3.2 In the case of recovery of the cost of the street improvement and/or maintenance on a per lot basis and unless otherwise proved defined in this By-law, lot shall mean each individual developed lot, approved building lot or lot capable of being approved in its existing condition for development purposes and any land not capable of being developed, shall not be considered a lot for the purpose of this By-Law until such time as it is. 3.3 In the case of recovery of the cost of street improvement and/or maintenance on a per owner basis, multiple owners of the same real property shall be considered as one owner. For the purpose ofFor this paragraph, an owner of real property shall be defined as an owner of an area of land that forms one contiguous parcel of land upon which no more than one dwelling unit is constructed and contains at least one lot as defined in paragraph 3(2). If an owner has more than one parcel of land within the affected area separated by intervening property owners, then that owner shall be assessed individually for each separate parcel of land provided that each parcel has at least one lot as defined in paragraph 3(2). Further, if any parcel of land has more than one dwelling unit constructed upon it, then that owner shall be assessed individually for each dwelling unit. 3.4 Every petition for a street improvement and/or maintenance shall be in Form “A” of this By-Law, or similar thereto, and shall clearly state the locality in which the improvement and/or maintenance is requested, the approved purpose for which the maintenance and/or improvement requested and together with the following information shall be presented for approval to the Council of the Municipality. a) A Plan showing the streets outlined in red, which the Petitioners are desirous of having improved and or maintained and within the affected area, the names of the owners, length and width of the roadways and the frontage of each owner if the method of levying this special tax is on a frontage basis. b) In the case of a street improvement an estimate of the cost of the desired improvement along with the names of the persons or Association who shall be responsible for having the improvement carried out. c) In the case of a street maintenance an estimated yearly maintenance budget along with the name of the Association which shall be responsible on a yearly basis for preparing and submitting for approval to the Municipality, a budget for that year’s street maintenance. The budget as submitted shall be verified by the Executive of the Association as having been passed by a majority of the members of the Association in attendance at a duly called meeting for that purpose at which a quorum was present. Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 98 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt 3.5 In the event of a dispute between an owner and the Municipality as to any measurements or area of real property referred to in this By-Law, the owner shall be responsible to retain at his their expense a surveyor in good standing of the Association of Nova Scotia Land Surveyors who shall certify as to the measurements or area or real property to the Council for the Municipality of the District of Chester. 3.6 That notice of the petition for street improvement and/or maintenance shall be sent by registered mail to each owner within the affected area who has not signed the petition including the owner of the street, if known, at the address shown on the assessment rolls and proof of the sending of this notice shall accompany every petition presented to the Municipality but it shall not be necessary to prove actual receipt of notice. The total amount of the special tax levied by the Municipality under this By-Law shall not exceed the cost of the street improvements and/or maintenance to the Municipality plus interest and an administration charge of ten five percent (105%). 5. 5.1 The special tax levied under this By-Law is a lien on the whole of the property of each owner for that owner’s share of the capital improvement and/or maintenance with the same effect as rates and taxes under the Assessment Act and each owner shall be liable for a portion of the total cost of the street improvement and/or maintenance and an administration charge equal to: In the case of property fronting on a street the ratio that the lot frontage of each owner bears to the total frontage in the affected area. Within the affected area equal to the ratio that each lot bears to the total number of such properties situate in the affected area or An area rate of so much per $100.00 of assessed value of the property within the affected area as shown in the petition on Form “A”, In the case of a per owner basis, an equal amount assessed to each owner of a parcel of land as defined in paragraph 3(34) within the affected area as the case may be asas requested in the petition. 5.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of this By-Law, the Municipality may, upon request, exempt from assessment any owners within an affected area whose property abuts and has access to a public highway or do not use or have access to the street upon which improvements and/or maintenance are being sought but subject to the provision that the Municipality may later assess those exempted owners if it appears to it that they are then using the improved streets. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.42 cm Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.42 cm Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.42 cm Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.42 cm Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 99 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt 5.3 A. In the case of a street improvement, the special tax levied pursuant to this By-Law, shall cover a period not exceeding ten (10) years and should cover all projected costs including interest to the Municipality for each year for such street improvement. In the case of street maintenance, special tax levied pursuant to this By-Law shall cover the amount approved by the Municipality pursuant to the budget submitted to the Municipality including all costs together with interest to the Municipality for that year for the street maintenance. 5.4 Notwithstanding paragraph 5.3(c)(ii) an owner subject to this special tax levied with respect to a street improvement, may elect to pay their share of the capital cost in a lump sum as calculated pursuant to this By-Law, and upon payment thereof that property shall bear no further responsibility for the balance of the cost of the street improvement. The special tax levied under this By-Law is collectible in the same manner as rates and taxes under the Assessment Act and by the same proceedings as are rates and taxes under the Assessment Act. 71. With regard toRegarding a street improvement, the lien provided for in this By-Law shall become effective on the date on which the Clerk of the Municipality signs and files at the Municipal Office, a Certificate stating the total costs of the street improvement and the amount of the special tax to be levied on each owner. 7.2 With regard to street maintenance, the lien provided for in this By-Law shall become effective on the date on which the Clerk of the Municipality signs and files with the Municipality a Certificate with a statement that the affected area is subject to an annual special tax for street maintenance in an amount set annually by Municipal Council as provided for in this By-Law and shall remain effective from year to year until terminated pursuant to this By-Law. The Clerk of the Municipality shall keep a separate record of all monies due for the improvement and/or maintenance of streets, which records shall contain: 8.1 The names of the owner of a property liable for the special tax and the name of the improvement and/or maintenance with respect to which the taxes arose. 8.2 The amount of frontage each owner or the number of properties as the case may requiredrequire. 8.3 The amount of the special tax levied on each owner with particulars of the amounts due or owing. The Clerk of the Municipality shall notify the owner of each property within the affected area Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 100 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt upon the filing of the Certificate referred to in Section 7. Attached to such notice shall be a copy of the Certificate. 10.1 The amount payable in respect to the special tax for street improvement by each owner of real property within an affected area may be paid in equal annual installmentsinstalments together with interest over a period not exceeding ten (10) years. 10.2 Each installmentinstalment and each succeeding installmentinstalment in respect of the tax imposed by this By-Law shall be due on the same date as the Municipality, by resolution, requires a payment of rates and taxes and in the event of default of payment of any installmentinstalment the whole balance with interest becomes due and payable. 10.3 The tax imposed by this By-Law shall bear interest at the rate imposed by Municipal Council by resolution for overdue taxes as an additional charge for non-payment of rates and taxes. 10.4 The amount payable in respect of the tax by each owner of real property within the affected area, may at the option of that owner be paid in one lump sum on or before the 31st day in the fiscal year in which the cost has been incurred or at any other time over the ten (10) year period. The special tax imposed pursuant to this By-Law for a street improvement and/or maintenance may be terminated at any time by the Association filing with the Municipality a certified copy of a Special Resolution of the Association passed at a duly constituted meeting at which a quorum was present called for that purpose requesting the Municipality to do so or by the Municipality at its own discretion, if there has been non-compliance by the Association with the provisions of this By-Law. In either case, upon the Clerk filing a Certificate with the Municipality that all monies payable pursuant to this special tax have been collected, then this By-Law shall thenceforth have no further force or effect within the affected area. Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 101 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt APPENDIX "A" FORM "A" PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT & MAINTENANCE To the Municipal Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester. The undersigned,The undersigned are sixty-seven percent of the owners at _________________________ in the Municipality. 1) (1) owning sixty-seven percent of the real property fronting on the street or portion of the street the Municipality of the District of Chester, as hereinafter described 1) 2) (2) owning sixty-seven percent of the real property which includes more than fifty percent of the real property fronting on a street situate in the subdivision in the Municipality of the District of Chester hereinafter described: (i) as the street(s) or portion thereof known as _____________________ i. ii. (ii) in the area situated at _________________________ as shown on the attached plan. Each of the owners, whose signature appears below, respectively propose that the Municipal Council accept this as a petition in compliance with section 3 of the Private Street Improvement and Maintenance By-Law. The improvements and/or maintenance is required for the following approved purpose: ___________________________________________________________ The nature of the improvement required is: ____________________________________________ The nature of the maintenance required is: ____________________________________________ Each of the owners, whose signature appears below, pray that they be levied for a portion of the tax in respect of the street improvement and/or maintenance or both as indicated above on: (i) a per foot of frontage basis i. (ii) a per lot basis ii. (iii) Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: 0 cm Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.9 cm + Indent at: 2.54 cm, Tab stops: -2.54 cm, Left Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.9 cm + Indent at: 2.54 cm Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 2.75 cm, First line: 0.75 cm, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 3.17 cm + Indent at: 3.81 cm Formatted: Indent: Left: 2.75 cm, First line: 0.75 cm Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 2.75 cm, First line: 0.75 cm, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 3.17 cm + Indent at: 3.81 cm Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 1.27 cm, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 1.69 cm + Indent at: 2.96 cm Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 1.27 cm, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 1.69 cm + Indent at: 2.96 cm Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 102 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt i. a per owner basis iii. iv. (iv) an area rate based on assessment. The name of the responsible person or association representing the owners is: _____________________________________________________ Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 1.27 cm, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 1.69 cm + Indent at: 2.96 cm Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 103 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt NAMES AND SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY OWNERS: NAME SIGNATURE Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 104 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt Private Street Improvement & Maintenance By-Law #72 (continued) Effective Date February 9, 2000 Motion 2000-014 105 Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI, 11 pt COPY OF CERTIFICATION I, B. K. Lenihan, Municipal Clerk Treasurer of the Municipality of the District of Chester do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an advertisement duly advertised in the Progress Enterprise on Wednesday, February 9, 2000. Given under the hand of the Clerk and under the corporate seal of the Municipality this 10th day of February, 2000. ______________________________________________ B. K. Lenihan Clerk Treasurer Formatted: Font: (Default) Leelawadee UI Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Tab stops: 8.83 cm, Centered REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: May 26, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure & Operations SUBJECT: Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy ORIGIN: Operations Date: May, 24th, 2022 Prepared by: Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations Date: May 24th, 2022 Reviewed by: Dan McDougall, Chief Administrative Officer Date: May 24, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, Chief Administrative Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION That Council adopt the Landfill Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Policy in order to establish a framework and guide for the on-going, sustainable maintenance, repair and replacement of landfill vehicles and equipment. CURRENT SITUATION There is currently no policy or guidelines in place to effectively manage the vehicles and equipment required for the safe, efficient, and effective operations needed at the Kaizer Meadows Landfill site. BACKGROUND In order to modernize the fleet management of vehicles and equipment, a policy is required to provide guidance on how these assets should be maintained, repaired and replaced. This policy would form part of a broader asset management plan and fleet management initiative. DISCUSSION 1 PRINCIPLES 1.01 The following underlying principles inform this policy: (a) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that the landfill requires reliable equipment to support safe, effective, and efficient landfill operations. (b) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that landfill equipment costs represent a significant percentage of the expenditure at the landfill and that the life cycle costs must be considered in this policy. (c) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that the use of an equipment replacement reserve should be employed to achieve lower costs and predictable tip fees by reducing or eliminating borrowing costs, and by creating a cost structure that reduces or eliminates peaks and troughs in the landfill tip fee. (d) The Municipality of the District of Chester recognizes that management of this policy exists in a dynamic environment and marketplace and that planning documents will be amended and R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 approved by the Council annually or as required from time to time. 2 POLICY (a) The Municipality will establish and maintain long range planning documents. (b) Planning documents will have a planning horizon of at least ten years. (c) The Municipality will develop and follow preventative maintenance practices. 3 PROCEDURES 3.01 Responsibility (a) The Landfill Director has overall responsibility for the development, amendment, and maintenance of planning documents. (b) The Finance Director will review and approve the planning documents to ensure actual and estimated costs and projections accurate and reasonable; and provide advice to the CAO with respect to the policy. 3.02 Maintenance: (a) Preventative maintenance practices will be followed to extend the life of equipment and to reduce the potential for unanticipated equipment failure or repairs. (b) Maintenance schedules will be developed and followed for each piece of equipment. 3.03 Replacement: (a) Replacement schedules will be based primarily on age of equipment, usage hours or kilometers, and funding availability. (b) Replacement schedules may also consider a number of other factors including workplace safety, cost of maintenance, trade in value, repair potential including availability and cost of replacement parts, and market conditions. (c) Replacement of landfill vehicles and equipment will also consider viable alternative hybrid or electric options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3.04 Financing (a) Maintenance: The landfill budget will include an amount for preventative and regular maintenance of landfill equipment. (b) Equipment Replacement Reserves: The annual landfill budget will include a contribution to an equipment replacement reserve consistent with long range planning documents. (c) Capital from Revenue: In addition to planned contributions to reserves the landfill budget may include capital from revenue as a source of funds for equipment acquisition. (d) Borrowing: Long term financing may also be used to finance equipment acquisition based on a number of factors including maintenance of tip fee stability and borrowing terms including R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 advantageous interest rates. 3.05 Procurement: The Municipality will follow its Procurement Policy P-04 when acquiring equipment pursuant to this policy. OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Landfill Equipment Policy 2. Direct staff to gather additional information and return to council. By-Law/Policy  P-43: Municipally Owned Vehicles Policy  P-04: Procurement Policy Financial/budgetary The are no budgetary implications for the adoption of this policy. Environmental Allows for more frequent review and procurement of new environmentally sustainable vehicles and equipment, to reduce the carbon footprint of Kaizer Meadows landfill. Strategic Priorities Environmental Stewardship:  Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy  Transition 2050: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Work Program Implications There are no work program implications. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) None ATTACHMENTS None Municipality of the District of Chester Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy Policy P-10? Effective Date: Policy P- ??? - Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council: First Notice – Council: Second Notice – Council: Effective Date: Page | 2 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER LANDFILL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICY 1 PURPOSE 1.01 The Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy establishes a framework and guide for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of landfill equipment. 2 PRINCIPLES 2.01 The following underlying principles inform this policy: (a) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that the landfill requires reliable equipment to support safe, effective, and efficient landfill operations. (b) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that landfill equipment costs represent a significant percentage of the expenditure at the landfill and that the life cycle costs must be considered in this policy. (c) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that the use of an equipment replacement reserve should be employed to achieve lower costs and predictable tip fees by reducing or eliminating borrowing costs, and by creating a cost structure that reduces or eliminates peaks and troughs in the landfill tip fee. (d) The Municipality of the District of Chester recognizes that management of this policy exists in a dynamic environment and marketplace and that planning documents will be amended and approved by the Council annually or as required from time to time. 3 POLICY (a) The Municipality will establish and maintain long range planning documents. (b) Planning documents will have a planning horizon of at least ten years. (c) The Municipality will develop and follow preventative maintenance practices. 4 PROCEDURES 4.01 Responsibility (a) The Landfill Director has overall responsibility for the development, amendment, and maintenance of planning documents. (b) The Finance Director will review and approve the planning documents to ensure actual and estimated costs and projections accurate and reasonable; and provide advice to the CAO with respect to the policy. 4.02 Maintenance: (a) Preventative maintenance practices will be followed to extend the life of equipment Policy P- ??? - Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council: First Notice – Council: Second Notice – Council: Effective Date: Page | 3 and to reduce the potential for unanticipated equipment failure or repairs. (b) Maintenance schedules will be developed & followed for each piece of equipment. 4.03 Replacement: (a) Replacement schedules will be based primarily on age of equipment, usage hours or kilometers, and funding availability. (b) Replacement schedules may also consider a number of other factors including workplace safety, cost of maintenance, trade in value, repair potential including availability and cost of replacement parts, and market conditions. (c) Replacement of landfill vehicles and equipment will also consider viable alternative hybrid or electric options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4.04 Financing (a) Maintenance: The landfill budget will include an amount for preventative and regular maintenance of landfill equipment. (b) Equipment Replacement Reserves: The annual landfill budget will include a contribution to an equipment replacement reserve consistent with long range planning documents. (c) Capital from Revenue: In addition to planned contributions to reserves the landfill budget may include capital from revenue as a source of funds for equipment acquisition. (d) Borrowing: Long term financing may also be used to finance equipment acquisition based on a number of factors including maintenance of tip fee stability and borrowing terms including advantageous interest rates. 4.05 Procurement: The Municipality will follow its Procurement Policy P-04 when acquiring equipment pursuant to this policy. Policy P- ??? - Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council: First Notice – Council: Second Notice – Council: Effective Date: Page | 4 5 DEFINITIONS 5.01 “CAO” means the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.02 “Council” means the elected officials that make up the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.03 “Finance Director” means the employee reporting to the CAO that is responsible for overall management and development of operating budgets, capital budgets, and financial statements for the Municipality. 5.04 “Landfill Director” means the employee reporting to the CAO that is responsible for the overall management and operation of the landfill. 5.05 “Equipment” means motor vehicles, wheeled or tracked machinery including compactors, excavators, bulldozers, backhoes, skid steers, loaders, dump trucks, pick up trucks, and other similar equipment. 5.06 “Municipality” means the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.07 “Planning Document” means the spreadsheet and/or other documents that forms the basis for long range equipment maintenance and replacement. Annotation for Official Policy Book Reason for Amendment Notice of Intention to Adopt Date of First Notice at Council Date of Second Notice at Council Effective Date I certify that this Policy was amended by Council as indicated above. _______________________________________ Pamela M. Myra, Municipal Clerk Date INFORMATION REPORT REPORT TO: COW MEETING DATE: May 26, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Corporate & Strategic Management SUBJECT: Economic Development Sponsorships Update ORIGIN: Sponsorship Policy, P-87 Date: May 6, 2022 Prepared by: Erin Lowe, Sr. Economic Development Officer Date: May 6, 2022 Reviewed by: Tara Maguire, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Date: Authorized by: Dan McDougall, Chief Administrative Officer CURRENT SITUATION For the 2022-23 fiscal year, Council has an Economic Development Sponsorship fund to sponsor events or initiatives within the municipality that are designed to help achieve Council priorities and generate local economic development benefit in one or more of the following areas: • Supporting business growth and employment. • Increasing visitor attraction. • Promoting the municipality to residents and visitors. BACKGROUND This Sponsorship is a form of marketing in which organizations pay to be associated with certain events. Additionally, sponsorship provides community relations benefits by increasing visibility and recognition as a good community partner. Organizations are recognized as good community citizens when they support initiatives that assist groups that benefit or improve the quality of life and/or programing in their community. Sponsor opportunities are evaluated by the following criteria: • Relevance to the community. • The Municipal logo must be displayed on some marketing of the event. • The audience should be significant in size or targeted. DISCUSSION/UPDATES The following sponsorships were issued by the Senior Economic Development Officer as of May 6, 2022: Budget 2022-23 $6,000.00 Recent Sponsorships Shoreham Village Foundation Swing for Shoreham Golf Tournament $700.00 Golf 4 Charity $100.00 Hubbards Radio Society Cove FM Kitchen Party $500.00 Previously Approved Balance $4,700.00 R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 ATTACHMENTS Letter from Shoreham Village Foundation Letter from Golf 4 Charity Letter from Hubbards Radio Society 1 Erin Lowe (she/her) Subject:FW: #External: CoveFM On Apr 7, 2022, at 11:07 AM, Gail Dominey <gaildominey@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Floyd, Hubbard's Radio Society is holding their 11th Kitchen Party Fundraiser on Friday, May 27th at the Shore Club. We have 4 talented bands booked and this year we are looking for organizations to sponsor our bands. The Kitchen Party is our major fundraiser and due to covid, we haven't been able to hold it for the past 2 years. Needless to say, this event will bring in some much needed funds. CoveFM is a registered not for profit and is run 100% by volunteers. We were hoping that Chester Municipality would consider sponsoring one of the bands. The cost is $500 and the full $500 goes directly to the band. In return, Chester Municipality will be mentioned on all of our print advertising for the Kitchen Party, be mentioned on our fb page, fb event, and our website along being mentioned on air and in the commercial for the event. We will also throw in 2 free tickets to the Kitchen Party! I look forward to hearing back from you and seeing you at the Kitchen Party. Gail GP Dominey Program Director/Sales Fundraising Covefm.com This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recogize the sender and know the content is safe. CHESTEK Golf 4 Charity aye are Pi:lid:Ng another 1013 hare fundraiser this year, On June 2c)/ 22 Robcrr Steter=rrs arid Tony Cnhcar tWfl be goofing 1100 heilm. au Chester Gnit Cauase- J he chanties we 'ye derided on this year are Kart &stroke Canada M thenless / Uerrrerrtia 12 nada IF C Animal Rescue (Chester BasIM Chssst r Lido Swim Frograrri l IMO I/fola MU) You ar yvur Imo= can adveytlse pa a tee box far $1Ud . if you don's have a sIgn we can prrkvfde one! We are i d'ng art vriiirtt aurtlnh wall if ydafd !Ike to donate product to that slur onlIftaaucUn has been very 5oCcegfui 'AM you rhelp owe raised $12,t7'35, 2 2tt and $11,2OO. in 2021 far our chosen charities C1t2Quas can be mode trot. to Golf 4 Charity a nd seat to 691040 -met,' 243 Old Trunt 3 rest 4 rhr ii$ BOJ /id F MT's carp be sent to ristei+ens peai-ttink.ca CanaotnUmberiare Raberr-002275-4851 or Tony- p2-233-3431 Gary ll i erl - 9U2-275-5337 Thanks for your considerat Ion 1 Hubert and Tony This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recogize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Susan Newhook To:Susan Newhook Subject:#External: SWING FOR SHOREHAM GOLF DAY 2022 Date:March 24, 2022 10:13:44 AM Dear Sponsors, Golfers, Donators and all Supporters, To those of you who have sponsored and registered tfor this year's Swing for Shoreham Golf Day, THANK YOU! As we welcome Spring, thoughts of the upcoming golf season and this year's Shoreham Village annual fundraiser, you are just one click away from registration! Golfer spots are beginning to fill up, so don't hesitate, secure your golfer spot HERE! Improving and uplifting the lives of the residents is what the Shoreham Village golf tournament is all about. This year, Shoreham Village is asking our Foundation to help support some important upgrades for the Home. A few years ago the Swing for Shoreham Golf Tournament funded a heat pump for the large dining room area. It has made an incredible difference. Now, the need is greatest for a HEAT PUMP for the main lounge area. Proper heating is always important for residents but so is the cooling the heat pump provides in the warmer months. The lounge is where residents congregate for all manner of socialization but it has very little access to outside ventilation, and none to cross breezes. A large industrial-grade heat pump is imperative but beyond what the Home can manage without the funding the Swing for Shoreham Golf Day contributes. With the growing incidence of dementia diseases, a ”Sensory Support System” is crucial to the well being of affected residents. It provides support for their memory recall and other cognitive functions. Like the heat pump, the Sensory Support System is costly, but necessary. Neither this, nor the heat pump are very exciting “gifts” for Shoreham, but both are requisite for the people in our care to be the healthiest and best they can be. Please help us make these a reality for Shoreham. We welcome your participation on June 23rd to help make important improvements for our residents and staff at Shoreham Village. If you have any golf or sponsorship questions about this year’s fundraiser, please contact me at 902 223 5052 or hooksyhz@gmail.com or click HERE to register. Gratefully, Sue Sue Newhook, Event Coordinator on behalf of the Shoreham Village Foundation INFORMATION REPORT REPORT TO: Council MEETING DATE: May 26, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Corporate & Strategic Management SUBJECT: Results of KMIP Phase II ESA ORIGIN: Motion #2022-024 Date: May 17, 2022 Prepared by: Erin Lowe, Sr. Economic Development Officer Date: May 18, 2022 Reviewed by: Tara Maguire, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Date: May 18, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, Chief Administrative Officer CURRENT SITUATION Staff have received the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park (KMIP). The Phase II ESA identified elevated cobalt and manganese concentrations exceeding applicable criteria in the groundwater; however, it is the consultant’s opinion that this is attributed to local geology (shallow granite bedrock) and considered within typical background ranges. All other metals parameters comply with the applicable Tier 1 criteria, and it is expected water quality can be addressed via water treatment systems for human health consumption. BACKGROUND In January 2021 staff prepared a plan of work for the development of the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park. Part of the plan included application for the Atlantic Canada Certified Site Designation. The Atlantic Canada Certified Site Designation certifies sites across Atlantic Canada as development ready, creating a roster of quality properties for investors. The goal is to provide investors with immediate access to data and other property information to bring attention and focus to development-ready, high-quality sites across Atlantic Canada that are primed for investment opportunities. This is Atlantic Canada’s only site certification and network of pre- qualified, development-ready sites. Properties that receive a certified site designation are ones that have successfully met a set of pre-defined program requirements commonly used in the commercial and industrial real estate sectors. The approval of the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park site in this program was on hold due to not having a recent Environmental Site Assessment completed (ESA). As a result, council passed Motion # 2021-011: MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that Council approve a proposed plan of work for the development of the park and give pre-budget approval in the sum of $7,000 so that the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at Kaizer Meadow Landfill can be initiated as part of the steps to be included in Atlantic Canada Site Selection Program. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED The Phase I ESA was completed in November 2021 which revealed no evidence of actual contamination; however, due to concerns in connection with the site being located next to a landfill, the consultant recommended further investigation to assess groundwater quality at the site. The consultant recommended a modified Phase II ESA for due diligence purposes in advance of land development. R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 As a result, council passed Motion #2022-024: MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Connors that Council approve the completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park lands at a budget not to exceed $26,500 plus HST; and staff be authorized to obtain water samples from the current businesses within the Park if possible or allowed by those businesses. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION/UPDATES The ESA’s completed for the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park have revealed no major issues/contamination that would cause concern for future development at the Park. Next steps for the park development and promotion include: • Scope of work for more detailed concept map (near completion, to be brought in RFD form to council) • Participating in Nova Scotia Innovation Hub’s Asset Mapping project with Turner and Drake Partners • Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale (legal review complete. RFD to come.) • Signage plan Recently completed items include: • Application for Atlantic Canada Site Certification Program • Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment • Opinion of valuation received from commercial real estate companies • Nova Scotia Power preliminary power capacity assessment • High level, preliminary concept plan completed by staff • Survey and Wetland Delineation for Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, 2019 ATTACHMENTS Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report   LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park Sherwood, NS April 21, 2022 Head Office Railside, 1355 Bedford Hwy. Bedford, NS B4A 1C5 t. 902.835.5560 (24/7) f. 902.835.5574 Antigonish Office 3-A Vincent’s Way Antigonish, NS B2G 2X3 t. 902.863.1465 (24/7) f. 902.863.1389 St. John’s Office #E120 - 120 Torbay Road St. John's, NL A1A 2G8 t. 709.738.8478 (24/7) f. 709.738.8494 Engineering ● Surveying ● Environmental www.strum.com info@strum.com Moncton Office 45 Price Street Moncton, NB E1A 3R1 t. 1.855.770.5560 (24/7) f. 902.835.5574 April 21, 2022 Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester 151 King Street PO Box 369 Chester, NS B0J 1J0 Dear Ms. Lowe, Re: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Attached is the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report prepared for a portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS. This report documents our observations, findings, and recommendations. We trust this to be satisfactory at this time. Once you have had an opportunity to review this correspondence, please contact us to address any questions you may have. Thank you, Thomas Crane, P.Eng. Edwin Hiscott, P.Eng. Environmental Engineer Senior Environmental Engineer tcrane@strum.com ehiscott@strum.com Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Strum Consulting was commissioned by the Municipality of Chester to complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of a portion of six properties (PIDs 60408192, 60145398, 60145414, 60142817, 60689734, and 60658705) located in Sherwood, Nova Scotia, which is adjacent to the Kaizer Meadow Waste Management Facility. The ESA details, findings, and recommendations are summarized in the tables below. Further details are presented throughout the report. Background PID(s); Civic Addresses PID 60408192; No 14 Highway, Windsor Road PID 60145398; 450 Kaizer Meadow Road, Sherwood PID 60145414; No 14 Highway, Windsor Road PID 60142817; No 14, Highway, Windsor Road PID 60658705; 15, 17, 50, 92, 116, and 117 Pintail Road; 454 and 461 Kaizer Meadow Road, Sherwood PID 60689734; 117 Kaizer Meadow Road, Sherwood Site Owner Municipality of District of Chester Current Land Use Resource and commercial Expected Future Land Use Commercial and Industrial Adjacent Land Use Industrial and resource Local Groundwater Use Potable Predominant Soil Type Coarse-grained Field Investigation Summary Assessed Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), general chemistry, dissolved metals, dissolved mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and Per- and Poly- fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in groundwater. Dates of Field Work March 14 to March 18, 2022 Scope of Work  Drilled three sets of boreholes (six total) (BH1-S, BH1-D; BH2-S, BH2-D; BH3-S, BH3-D)  Installed three sets of paired monitoring wells (shallow and deep) (MW1-S, MW-1D; MW2-S, MW2-D; and MW3-S, MW3-D).  Collected groundwater samples for laboratory analysis Subsurface Conditions Summary Predominant Soil Type Coarse-grained soil Bedrock Depth 0.7 m to 3.3 m below surface grade Depth to Groundwater 0.4 m to 1.4 m below surface grade Groundwater Flow  Shallow Groundwater: East/southeast with a horizontal hydraulic gradient of 1.4%  Deep Groundwater: East with a horizontal hydraulic gradient of 1.6% Hydraulic Conductivity  7.1 x 10-5 cm/s in shallow well (MW3-S)  2.6 x 10-4 cm/s in deep well (MW2-D) Free Product Observations No free-phase petroleum or chemical liquid (i.e., free product) observed. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page ii Results Summary Contaminants Identified Elevated metals concentrations (cobalt and manganese) identified in groundwater at the site, but have been attributed to local background occurrences. Delineation Status Further assessment is not required at this time. Ecological Screening Completion of an Ecological Screening Assessment did not identify any significant ecological concerns. Recommendations 1. Although the elevated metals concentrations have been attributed to background occurrences and therefore do not require further assessment at this time, the elevated concentrations may still represent a potential risk to site users if domestic wells are installed during development activities. As such, it is recommended that potable water quality be tested following the installation of any domestic wells during future site development as per Provincial requirements. 2. All monitoring wells should be decommissioned in accordance with Provincial requirements. This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the main findings and recommendations of the environmental site investigations. Complete details are provided in the report and the attached Appendices. The statements made in this Executive Summary are subject to the same limitations as described in Section 8.0. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Adjoining Properties ............................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Previous Assessments ........................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Potential Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................................... 3 2.5 Conceptual Site Model ........................................................................................................... 3 2.6 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................................... 4 3.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 5 4.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 5 4.1 Utility Locates ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Borehole Drilling & Monitoring Well Installation ..................................................................... 6 4.4 Groundwater Sampling .......................................................................................................... 7 5.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 7 5.1 Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Sample Analytical Results ...................................................................................................... 8 5.2.1 Sample Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 8 5.2.2 Sample Exceedances .................................................................................................... 8 5.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) .......................................................................... 9 5.4 Ecological Screening Assessment ......................................................................................... 9 6.0 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 12 8.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS & LIMITATIONS ......................................................... 14 9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 16 TABLES Table A: Site Information Summary ................................................................................................ 1 Table B: Summary of Adjoining Property Land Use ....................................................................... 2 Table C: Potential Contaminants of Concern Summary ................................................................ 3 Table D: Conceptual Site Model Summary .................................................................................... 4 Table E: Assessment Criteria Summary ........................................................................................ 4 Table F: Borehole/Monitoring Well Investigation Summary ........................................................... 6 Table G: Site Conditions Summary ................................................................................................ 7 Table H: Summary of Sample Exceedances .................................................................................. 8 Table I: Summary of Ecological Screening Level Exceedances ................................................. 10 APPENDICES Appendix A: Site Diagrams Appendix B: Site Assessment & Tier I/II Table Checklist Appendix C: Assessment Methodology Appendix D: Photograph Log Appendix E: Borehole Logs Appendix F: Analytical Results Appendix G: Laboratory Certificates of Analysis Appendix H: Groundwater Static Measurements Appendix I: Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Assessment Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Strum Consulting was retained by the Municipality of Chester to complete a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at a portion of the six properties (PIDs 60408192, 60145398, 60145414, 60142817, 60689734, and 60658705) located in Sherwood, Nova Scotia, adjacent to the Kaizer Meadow Solid Waste Management Facility. The subject properties, or “site”, is located in a mixed industrial and resource area of Sherwood, NS. Land use at the site is designated as commercial and resource and the site is mainly undeveloped and forested with a wind turbine and picnic/camp area located on the north portion of the site (PID 606089734), and a gravel road (Kaizer Meadow Road) that provides access from Highway 14 to the neighbouring industrial operations located to the east of the site. The Limited Phase II ESA was completed for due diligence purposes in advance of land development. Further details on the Phase II ESA are provided throughout this report. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Site Description The site is located to the east of Highway 14 near the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park in Sherwood, NS. The site is mainly undeveloped and forested with a wind turbine and picnic/camp area located on the north portion of the site (PID 60689734). A gravel road (Kaizer Meadow Road) runs from west to east across the north portion of the site and provides access from Highway 14 to the neighbouring industrial sites (Kaizer Meadow Solid Waste Management Facility, Rainbow Net and Rigging, and Sustane Advanced Recycling Facility). It is understood that the site will be developed for combined commercial and industrial use. A Site Plan (Drawing 1) is provided in Appendix A. Further details about the site are provided on Table A, below. Table A: Site Information Summary Site Information PID(s); Civic Addresses PID 60408192; No 14 Highway, Windsor Road PID 60145398; 450 Kaizer Meadow Road, Sherwood PID 60145414; No 14 Highway, Windsor Road PID 60142817; No 14, Highway, Windsor Road PID 60658705; 15, 17, 50, 92, 116, and 117 Pintail Road; 454 and 461 Kaizer Meadow Road, Sherwood PID 60689734; 117 Kaizer Meadow Road, Sherwood Property Owner Municipality of District of Chester Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 2 Current Land Use Resource and commercial Expected Future Land Use Commercial/Industrial Property Area 467.5 hectares; 1,154 acres; 4.67 km2 Buildings and Structures None – the site is currently undeveloped Utilities  The site is currently undeveloped and not provided potable or sanitary services. It is expected the site will be supplied potable water via drilled wells and sanitary serviced via septic systems in the future.  Electrical/communications provided via overhead connections from Highway 14. Topography & Drainage  Site topography is relatively flat with an overall down-gradient slope from north to the south.  Surface water drainage is controlled by site topography and is directed into nearby watercourses.  The local area has an overall down-gradient trend from the north to the south. Local Groundwater Flow Groundwater in the local area is expected to flow to the south. Radial shallow aquifer groundwater flow as well as semi-radial bedrock groundwater flow has been previously shown by other consultants on the adjoining properties to the east of the site. Regional Groundwater Flow Regional groundwater is expected to flow to the south. Closest Aquatic Receptor  Shea Lake (nearest down-gradient), located 1.2 km to the south of the site.  Card Lake, located approximately 500 m to the west of the site (cross- gradient). Surficial Geology Silty till plain and drumlins. Silty till plain is typically 3 – 30 m and drumlins are typically 4 – 30 m in thickness (Stea et al, 1992) Bedrock Geology Middle to Late Devonian aged Leaucomonzogranite underlying the north portion of the site and Middle to Late Devonian aged Muscovite Biotite Monzogranite underlying the south portion of the site (Keppie, 2000) 2.2 Adjoining Properties Land use on the properties adjacent to the site is designated as resource, provincial forest, and commercial. Adjoining property land use is shown on Drawing 1 (Appendix A), and details on the adjoining property land use are provided in Table B, below. Table B: Summary of Adjoining Property Land Use Boundary Side of Site Site Use North, (up-gradient) Commercial and Provincial Forest – undeveloped forested land. South (down-gradient) Resource – undeveloped forested land. West (cross-gradient) Resource – undeveloped forested land. East (up/cross-gradient) Commercial and Resource – Sustane Advanced Recycling Facility, Rainbow Net Rigging, and Kaizer Meadow Waste Management Facility followed by undeveloped forested land. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 3 2.3 Previous Assessments Strum completed a Phase I ESA at the site in September 2021 [refer to the Phase I ESA report dated November 4, 2021]. The Phase I ESA identified several areas of potential contamination concerns in relation to the long-term use of the adjoining remaining portions of the PID 60658705 property located to the east of the site as a landfill (Kaizer Meadow Solid Waste Management Facility). Based on the potential presence of contamination associated with the adjoining Kaizer Meadow Solid Waste Facility, it was recommended that an intrusive investigation be completed to assess groundwater quality at the site. This report presents the results of the Limited Phase II ESA. Further details on previous assessments completed at the site are outlined in the reports listed in Section 9. 2.4 Potential Contaminants of Concern Based on the results of previous assessments completed at the site, the Phase II ESA assessed the potential Contaminants of Concern (COCs) listed in Table C, below: Table C: Potential Contaminants of Concern Summary Media Potential COCs Groundwater PHCs, dissolved metals, dissolved mercury, general chemistry/inorganics, PAHs, VOCs, PCBs, and PFAS Notes: 1. PHC: Petroleum hydrocarbons - includes benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and modified Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mTPH). 2. PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 3. VOC: Volatile organic compounds 4. PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyls 5. PFAS: Per- and Poly- fluoroalkyl Substances It should be noted that the Limited Phase II ESA was completed to investigate the potential migration of contamination associated with the operations of the adjoining Kaizer Meadow Solid Waste Facility to the subject site via the groundwater pathway. As such, soil was not considered a potential media of concern at this time and was not assessed as part of this assessment. 2.5 Conceptual Site Model In order to select appropriate site criteria, a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) approach was used that addresses both human and ecological health along with assessing potential contaminant exposure pathways. A summary of the CSM details is provided on Table D, below. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 4 Table D: Conceptual Site Model Summary Conceptual Site Model Current Land Use Resource and commercial Expected Future Land Use Commercial and industrial Adjoining Land Use Commercial, industrial, resource, provincial forest Land Use for Data Comparison Commercial and Agricultural Predominant Soil Type Coarse-grained soil Potable Water Source (on-site) None – the site is currently undeveloped and forested Potable Water Source (local area) Domestic wells Protected Water Areas The site is not located within or near a known source water protection area. Groundwater Use for Data Comparison Potable Potentially Operable Human Health Risk Pathways  Soil leaching to potable groundwater  Ingestion of potable groundwater Potentially Operable Ecological Risk Pathways  Direct contact with shallow groundwater  Groundwater discharge to surface water Notes: 1. Soil type is assumed to be coarse-grained based on surficial soil mapping and field observations of soil sample gradation. 2. Source area protection mapping available from NS Government websites utilized for groundwater potability determination. 3. Soil conditions not assessed as part of the current environmental assessment activities. An Ecological Screening Assessment has been completed and is discussed in Section 5.4. 2.6 Assessment Criteria Based on the results of the CSM, the selected assessment criteria used to evaluate the sample analytical results are outlined on Table E, below. Table E: Assessment Criteria Summary Media Assessment Criteria Groundwater  NS Tier I EQS for commercial and agricultural land use, potable groundwater usage, and coarse-grained soils (September 2021)  Atlantic RBCA ESLs (July 2021)  NS Tier II PSS Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water Receptors Notes: 1. EQS: Environmental Quality Standards 2. RBCA: Risk Based Corrective Action 3. ESL: Ecological Screening Levels 4. PSS: Pathway Specific Standards It should be noted that in order to use the NS Tier I EQS criteria and/or Atlantic RBCA Tier I criteria for assessment of PHCs, the Atlantic RBCA Site Assessment Tier I/II Table Checklist Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 5 must be completed. Strum has completed the checklist, which is included in Appendix B. The following deviations from RBCA default conditions were noted during completion of the checklist.  Groundwater at the site is shallower than 3 m below grade (0.4 m – 1.4 m below surface grade). However, shallow groundwater is common across Nova Scotia, and is not expected to represent a concern for the assessment.  Soil conditions at the site were not assessed as part of the current environmental site assessment activities. No potential contamination concerns associated with soil conditions at the site were identified during the previous 2021 Phase I ESA completed at the site by Strum. As such, soil located on the site was not considered a potential media of concern at this time. 3.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The scope of work for the Limited Phase II ESA consisted of the following:  Drilling of six boreholes at select locations on the site to inspect subsurface conditions.  Following borehole drilling, three pairs of nested groundwater monitoring wells (one shallow and one deep well per nest) were installed in the boreholes to inspect groundwater conditions and collect representative groundwater samples.  Submission of select samples to Bureau Veritas Laboratories in Bedford, NS for laboratory analysis of the parameters listed in Section 2.3.  Comparison of the sample analytical results to applicable assessment criteria to determine if contamination is present on the site.  Completion of a report outlining the results of the assessment and providing recommendations for appropriate next steps. The objective of the Phase II ESA was to assess current groundwater conditions at the site, in order to help determine an environmental plan for moving forward with commercial/industrial development of the site. 4.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES The Phase II ESA investigation activities are described in the following sections. Additional details of the field investigation and sampling methodologies are provided in Appendix C. A photo log of the Phase II ESA field program is provided in Appendix D. Borehole/Monitoring Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 6 Well Logs are provided in Appendix E. The results of the Phase II ESA are detailed in Section 5. 4.1 Utility Locates Prior to conducting the drilling investigation at the site, subsurface and overhead utilities were located and reviewed in accordance with Strum’s occupational health and safety program, and also to identify potential migration pathways for contaminants that may be present at the site. A utility review was completed by R.L. Dennis Associated Limited of Lakeside, NS with Strum personnel on March 11, 2022. Utilities were not identified in the assessment areas. 4.2 Borehole Drilling & Monitoring Well Installation Six boreholes (identified as BH1-S – BH3-S and BH1-D – BH3-D) were completed at the site between March 14 – March 17, 2022 using a CME-45 drill rig owned and operated by Q- Drilling of Fall River, NS. All drilling was completed under the inspection of Strum field staff, who logged the subsurface conditions in the boreholes. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in each of the boreholes and were identified as MW1-S – MW3-S and MW1-D – MW3-D. The monitoring well IDs correspond with the borehole IDs in which they were installed; the ‘S’ indicates shallow (well screened mainly in the soil layer above bedrock) groundwater wells, and ‘D’ indicates deep (well screened in the bedrock) groundwater wells. The borehole/monitoring well locations are shown on Drawing 2 (Appendix A). A summary of the borehole details is provided in Table F, below. Table F: Borehole/Monitoring Well Investigation Summary ID Total Depth (m)1 Depth to Groundwater (mbTOC)2 Evidence of Potential Contamination Notes No. of Soil Samples Analyzed BH/MW1-S 2.4 1.5 No No evidence of impacts. None BH/MW1-D 5.8 1.5 No No evidence of impacts. None BH/MW2-S 3.7 1.2 No No evidence of impacts. None BH/MW2-D 8.9 2.4 No No evidence of impacts. None BH/MW3-S 4.5 1.9 No No evidence of impacts. None BH/MW3-D 12.2 1.5 No No evidence of impacts. None Notes: 1. Total depth is measured in metres below surface grade. 2. Depth to groundwater measured in metres below top of well PVC casing (mbTOC) on March 18, 2022. 3. Boreholes that were completed as monitoring wells are identified as BH/MW. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 7 4.4 Groundwater Sampling Groundwater samples were collected on March 18, 2022 from the six newly installed monitoring wells. Select samples were submitted to Bureau Veritas Laboratories in Bedford, NS for analysis of the parameters listed on Table C in Section 2.4. The monitoring well locations are shown on Drawing 2 (Appendix A). 5.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS The results of the Limited Phase II ESA are summarized in the following sections. Further details are available in the attached Drawings (Appendix A), Photo Log (Appendix D), Borehole/Monitoring Well Logs (Appendix E), data summary tables (Appendix F), laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix G) and the Groundwater Static Levels summary table (Appendix H). 5.1 Site Conditions A summary of the subsurface soil/bedrock conditions, groundwater flow, and other relevant site conditions determined during the assessment is provided on Table G, below. Table G: Site Conditions Summary Conditions Details Soil Stratigraphy Dark to medium brown silty sand with some gravel, overlying granite bedrock. Bedrock Type & Depth Granite – 0.7 m below grade (southeastportion of site) to 3.3 m below grade (north portion of the site). Groundwater Depths 0.4 m to 1.4 m below surface grade (March 18, 2022) Groundwater Flow Direction East/southeast (shallow), and east (deep) Groundwater Horizontal Hydraulic Gradient  1.4% (shallow)  1.6% (deep) Hydraulic Conductivity (K)  7.1 x 10-5 cm/s in shallow well (MW3-S)  2.6 x 10-4 cm/s in deep well (MW2-D) Evidence of Contamination in Soil No evidence of contamination noted in soil or bedrock during drilling. Evidence of Contamination in Groundwater No evidence of impacts identified in groundwater. Free Product Observations Free-phase petroleum or chemical liquid (i.e., free product) was not identified in soil or groundwater during the assessment. Notes: 1. Hydraulic gradient determination is based on triangulation of groundwater elevations recorded on March 18, 2022 (Appendix H). 2. Hydraulic conductivity determined using the Hvorslev method on drawdown test data recorded in MW3-S and MW2-D on March 18, 2022. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 8 5.2 Sample Analytical Results 5.2.1 Sample Analysis Summary Following completion of the field sampling program, Strum submitted select samples to Bureau Veritas Laboratories in Bedford, NS for analysis. The number of samples and requested analyses are listed on Table H, below. Further details on how samples were collected and selected for laboratory analysis are provided in the Assessment Methodology in Appendix C. 5.2.2 Sample Exceedances Following receipt of the sample results from the laboratory, the analytical results were compared to the NS Tier I EQS for agricultural and commercial land usage, potable groundwater usage and coarse-grained soils (September 2021). A summary of the samples that reported exceedances of applicable criteria is provided on Table H, below. Further details are provided on the analytical tables in Appendix F, and sample locations where exceedances were reported are highlighted on Drawing 3 (Appendix A). Table H: Summary of Sample Exceedances Media No. of Samples Submitted for Laboratory Analysis Contaminant Type Applicable Criteria Exceeded No. of Samples that Exceed Criteria Groundwater 7 PHCs1 NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None 6 VOCs NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None 6 PAHs NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None 6 Dissolved Metals NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) 4 NS Tier I EQS (commercial) 4 6 Dissolved Mercury NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None 6 General Chemistry NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None 6 PCBs NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None 6 PFAS NS Tier I EQS (agricultural) None NS Tier I EQS (commercial) None Notes: 1. Indicates that number of samples analyzed includes one field duplicate to assess QA/QC. 2. Further details on field duplicate analysis and assessment of QA/QC are provided in Section 5.3. 3. The IDs of samples that were submitted for analysis are shown on the data summary tables in Appendix F. 4. All samples were submitted to Bureau Veritas Laboratories in Bedford, NS for analysis. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 9 In summary, groundwater with elevated concentrations of dissolved metals (cobalt and manganese) were identified at the site. The areas reporting elevated metals concentrations in groundwater are shown on Drawing 3 in Appendix A. Further discussion of the areas of identified contamination is provided in Section 6. 5.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) To maintain appropriate QA/QC for the assessment, all samples were collected while wearing dedicated nitrile gloves and using either dedicated or decontaminated sampling supplies/equipment. All samples were placed in sealed laboratory-supplied containers, and were kept in cool storage pending transport to the laboratory for analysis. Strum collected one groundwater field duplicate sample from MW2-D (identified as FD1). The groundwater field duplicates were submitted to Bureau Veritas for analysis of PHCs. Additionally, laboratory duplicate analyses were completed by Bureau Veritas on two groundwater samples that were analyzed for various parameters to confirm laboratory QA/QC. The duplicate sample results are summarized on the analytical data tables in Appendix F. The groundwater field duplicate sample results were reported to be consistent with the results of the original sample (all less than laboratory detection limits). 5.4 Ecological Screening Assessment Strum has also completed an ecological screening of the site conditions and sample results to determine if there are any potential concerns to ecological receptors on or near the site (Appendix I). The ecological screening assessment process includes comparing shallow groundwater data (i.e., water table < 3 m depth) to applicable ecological screening criteria. Upon completion of that process, any potential ecological receptors in the vicinity of the site are identified, and then an assessment of any potential contaminant migration pathways to those ecological receptors is completed. All applicable shallow groundwater sample data were compared to the Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs) listed on Table I, below. The number of samples that exceeded the applicable ecological criteria are also listed in Table I. Further details on the sample data comparison to applicable ESLs are provided on the analytical data tables in Appendix F. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 10 Table I: Summary of Ecological Screening Level Exceedances Media Contaminant of Concern Ecological Screening Criteria No. of Samples that Exceed Criteria Groundwater PHCs Atlantic RBCA Tier I PHC ESLs for Plant & Invertebrate Direct Contact with Shallow Groundwater None Atlantic RBCA Tier I PHC Surface Water & Groundwater ESLs for the Protection of Freshwater & Marine Aquatic Life None Metals NS Tier II Pathway Specific Standards (PSS) for Surface Water and Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water 6 General Chemistry/Inorganic Parameters NS Tier II Pathway Specific Standards (PSS) for Surface Water and Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water None PAH NS Tier II Pathway Specific Standards (PSS) for Surface Water and Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water None VOCs Atlantic RBCA Tier I VOC Surface Water & Groundwater ESLs for the Protection of Freshwater and Marine Aquatic Life. None NS Tier II Pathway Specific Standards (PSS) for Surface Water and Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water 2 PCBs NS Tier II Pathway Specific Standards (PSS) for Surface Water and Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water 6 (due to elevated RDLs) PFAS NS Tier II Pathway Specific Standards (PSS) for Surface Water and Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water None As shown on Table I above, metals, VOC, and PCB concentrations in groundwater on the site were reported to exceed applicable ESL criteria in some samples. However, based on a review of conditions on the site and in the vicinity of the site, it is not expected that the elevated metals, VOC, and/or PCB concentrations in groundwater represent an ecological concern, due to the following:  Although the site currently consists mainly of undeveloped forested areas, and provincial forested areas are located on the surrounding properties, the site is to be Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 11 developed as an industrial/commercial property, which is not expected to represent a sensitive ecological receptor.  All contaminants reported concentrations that comply with the applicable ESLs for the protection of plant and invertebrate in direct contact with shallow groundwater.  No freshwater surface water receptors are located within 10 m of the monitoring well locations. The nearest identified freshwater aquatic receptor is a wetland located approximately 475 m to the southeast of BH/MW1-S/D, 150 m to the southwest of BH/MW2-S/D, and 230 m to the northwest of BH/MW3-S/D on the remaining portions of the PID 60145398 and 60145414 properties.  Elevated metals concentrations in groundwater are expected to represent typical background conditions for the area, and it is Strum’s opinion that the metals concentrations are not expected to represent an ecological concern to nearby surface water receptors.  The elevated VOC (chloroform) concentrations were reported from groundwater samples collected from bedrock monitoring wells (MW2-D and MW3-D). All other VOC parameters reported concentrations that comply with the NS Tier I EQS and Atlantic RBCA ESLs. Based on the acceptable chloroform concentrations reported in samples collected from the shallow groundwater monitoring wells (MW2-S and MW3- S), the elevated chloroform concentrations are limited to the deeper monitoring wells/bedrock fractures and are not expected to represent a concern to nearby surface water receptors.  All PCB concentrations in groundwater were reported to be below laboratory detection limits exceeding the NS Tier II PSS criteria. The PCB concentrations were reported below the standard (non-elevated) laboratory detection limits in groundwater (0.05 mg/L) and are not considered to represent a concern to nearby ecological receptors.  No potentially active pathways between the groundwater and ecological receptors in a suitable habitat were identified. Therefore, based on the results of the ecological screening assessment, no significant ecological concerns were identified. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 12 6.0 DISCUSSION Based on the results of the Limited Phase II ESA, all groundwater samples reported elevated metals concentrations exceeding applicable industrial and/or agricultural NS Tier I criteria. However, the metals exceedances in groundwater were limited to cobalt and manganese. In review of general chemistry, inorganics, and metals results, it is not expected that the elevated cobalt and manganese are related to a leachate plume, as higher concentrations of other indicator parameters [sulphate, chloride, nitrite, total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), alkalinity, conductivity, and/or pH) would be expected. Naturally occurring elevated metals concentrations in groundwater are common across Nova Scotia. Based on Strum’s experience, the elevated cobalt and manganese concentrations in groundwater are attributed to local geology (shallow granite bedrock) and considered within typical background ranges. All other metals parameters comply with the applicable Tier I criteria, and it is expected water quality can be addressed via water treatment systems for human health consumption. As such, it is recommended that potable water quality at the site be tested following the installation of any domestic wells during future site development, if applicable. Elevated metals concentrations in groundwater at the site are shown on Drawing 3 (Appendix A). No evidence of PHC, PAH, VOC, PCB, and/or PFAS impacts in groundwater was identified during the Limited Phase II ESA. Additionally, no ecological concerns were identified during the assessment. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS As requested by the Municipality of Chester, Strum completed a Limited Phase II ESA at a portion of the six properties (PIDs 60408192, 60145398, 60145414, 60142817, 60689734, and 60658705) located in Sherwood, NS to assess potential migration of contamination in groundwater associated with the operations of the adjoining Kaizer Meadow Solid Waste Facility. It is understood that the site will be redeveloped for commercial/industrial use as part of the expansion of the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park. The Limited Phase II ESA included the drilling of six boreholes completed as three pairs of nested (shallow/deep) groundwater monitoring wells, and sampling of groundwater from the newly installed monitoring wells. Groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs, dissolved metals, dissolved mercury, general chemistry/inorganics, PAHs, VOCs, PCBs, and PFAS. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 13 Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, the following conclusions are presented:  Site soils primarily consisted of dark to medium brown silty sand with some gravel overlying granite bedrock. Bedrock depths ranged from approximately 1.3 m below grade on the north side of the site to 0.7 m below grade on the southeast side of the site. Groundwater was encountered from approximately 0.4 m to 1.4 m below surface grade in the monitoring wells.  No free-phase petroleum or chemical liquid (i.e., free product) was identified in soil or groundwater during the assessment.  Elevated cobalt and manganese concentrations exceeding applicable criteria were identified in groundwater at the site; however, based on the encountered subsurface conditions and the concentrations that were reported, it is Strum’s opinion that the elevated metals concentrations are related to local background conditions, and not site-specific contamination. Therefore, the elevated metals concentrations do not warrant further assessment at this time.  Completion of an Ecological Screening Assessment did not identify any significant ecological concerns. Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, the following recommendations are forwarded: 1. Although the elevated metals concentrations have been attributed to background occurrences and therefore do not require further assessment at this time, the elevated concentrations may still represent a potential risk to site users if domestic wells are installed during development activities. It is recommended that potable water quality be tested following the installation of any domestic wells during future site development as per Provincial requirements. 2. All monitoring wells should be decommissioned in accordance with Provincial requirements. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 14 8.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS & LIMITATIONS This Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by Strum Consulting (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the Municipality of Chester (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations, and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):  is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)  represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports  may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified  has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued  must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context  was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement  in the case of subsurface, environmental, or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental, or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:  as agreed in writing by Consultant and Client  as required by law Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 15  for use by governmental reviewing agencies Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss, or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. Should additional information become available, Strum requests that this information be brought to our attention immediately so that we can re-assess the conclusions presented in this report. This report was prepared by Thomas Crane, Environmental Engineer, P.Eng., and was reviewed by Edwin Hiscott, P. Eng. Senior Environmental Engineer. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 21, 2022 Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Ms. Erin Lowe The Municipality of Chester Project # 21-7802 Page 16 9.0 REFERENCES Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA), July 2021 Revision. User Guidance for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada, Version 4. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard Z769-00 for conducting Phase II Environmental Site Assessments. July 2002 (reaffirmed 2018). Keppie, J.D. 2000. DP ME 43, Version 2, 2006, Digital Version of Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Map ME 2000-1, Geological Map of the Province of Nova Scotia, scale 1:500,000. Digital product compiled by B.E. Fisher. (Formerly DP ME D00-01). Nova Scotia Environment, September 2021. Contaminated Sites Regulations & Protocols. Stea, R.R., Conley, H. and Brown, Y. 1992. DP ME 36 Version 2, 2006. Digital Version of Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Map ME 1992-3, Surficial Geology Map of the Province of Nova Scotia, 1:500,000. Digital product compiled by B. E. Fisher. (Formerly DP ME D92-03). Strum Consulting. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Portion of Kaizer Meadows Industrial Park (Six PIDs), Sherwood, NS. August 12, 2021. Project No. 21-7802. Website References Atlantic RBCA Tier I EQS & Tier II PSS Tables https://atlanticrbca.com/wp- content/files_mf/1627923620Atlantic_RBCA_EQS_and_PSS_Tables_July_2021.pdf?622599 262 Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (NSDNR) Mineral Resources Branch http://gov.ns.ca/natr/meb/pubs/pubs3.htm Nova Scotia Provincial Landscape Viewer https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7bf89d16ec0940d0a130301b51a d401f Municipal Drinking Water Supplies of Nova Scotia https://novascotia.ca/nse/water/docs/municipal.drinking.water.supplies.map.pdf Protected Water Areas of Nova Scotia https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/docs/protected.water.areas.map.pdf Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations Property Online Database www.novascotia.ca/sns/access/land/property-online.asp APPENDIX A SITE DIAGRAMS PROJECT No.: H: DRAWING No.: DESIGNED: CHECKED:APPR'D: DATE: CLIENT: PROJECT: DRAWN: TITLE: SCALE: LOCATION: CONSULTANT: CONSULTING Engineering * Surveying * Environmental Bedford * Antigonish * St John's * Moncton MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER LIMITED PHASE II ESA APRIL 2022 SITE PLAN AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES 1:12,500 L. PEMBERTON 1 21-7802 P. AVERY T. CRANE N LOT 1 (PORTION OF) PID 60658705 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (COMMERCIAL) CARD LAKE KAIZER M E A D O W R O A D 0 125 250 375 500 625 metres Scale 1:12,500 APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF KAIZER MEADOWS LANDFILL S: \ S t r u m P r o j e c t F i l e s \ 2 0 2 1 F i l e s \ 2 1 - 7 8 0 2 \ D r a w i n g s \ C A D D r a w i n g s \ 2 1 - 7 8 0 2 - D r a w i n g . d w g SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY.......... ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY........ LEGEND: GENERAL NOTES: 1. DRAWING REFERENCES: NOVA SCOTIA PROPERTY RECORDS. DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING BY NOVA SCOTIA GEOMATICS CENTRE. NOVA SCOTIA GROUNDWATER ATLAS. 2. PROJECTION: NAD83(CSRS), UTM ZONE 20 NORTH. 3. ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, SITE FEATURES AND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. SUBJECT TO SURVEY. PORTION OF KAIZER MEADOW INDUSTRIAL PARK SHERWOOD NS HIG H W A Y N O 1 4 ANDERSON LAKE WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND W A T E R C O U R S E WA T E R C O U R S E PID 60419165 LANDS OF NS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LOT 04-2 PID 600145398 CIVIC NO 450 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (RESOURCE) LOT 04-3 PID 60145414 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (RESOURCE) PID 60142825 LANDS OF ROBERT EARLE MITCHELL DONNA ROSE MITCHELL (RESOURCE) PID 601428817 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (MUNICIPAL FOREST) LOT L2 PID 60704418 CIVIC NO 2 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (COMMERCIAL) PARCEL L1 PID 60687548 CIVIC NO 59 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (COMMERCIAL) LOT 04-1(PORTION) PID 60408192 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (RESOURCE) PARCEL LP-1 PID 60689734 CIVIC NO 177 LANDS OF MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER (COMMERCIAL) BLOCK 1 PID 60146685 LANDS OF ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY LTD (COMMERCIAL) PID 60408887 LANDS OF TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010) LIMITED (RESOURCE) PID 6 0 4 0 8 8 9 5 LAN D S O F TIM B E R L A N D H O L D I N G S (201 0 ) L I M I T E D (RE S O U R C E ) PID 60419140 CIVIC NO 3895 LANDS OF NS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PID 60671641 LANDS OF NS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES EXISTING ROAD......................................... APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENT AREA 19 1 m 19 0 m 18 9 m 18 8 m 18 7 m 18 6 m 18 5 m 18 4 m 18 3 m 18 2 m 18 1 m 18 0 m 17 9 m 17 8 m 17 7 m 17 6 m 19 1 m 19 0 m 18 9 m 18 8 m 18 7 m 18 6 m 18 5 m 18 4 m 18 3 m 18 2 m 18 1 m 18 0 m 17 9 m 17 8 m 17 7 m 17 6 m PROJECT No.: H: DRAWING No.: DESIGNED: CHECKED:APPR'D: DATE: CLIENT: PROJECT: DRAWN: TITLE: SCALE: LOCATION: CONSULTANT: CONSULTING Engineering * Surveying * Environmental Bedford * Antigonish * St John's * Moncton MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER LIMITED PHASE II ESA APRIL 2022 INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS AND GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 1:10,000 L. PEMBERTON 2 21-7802 P. AVERY T. CRANE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY.......... ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY........ LEGEND: GENERAL NOTES: 1. DRAWING REFERENCES: NOVA SCOTIA PROPERTY RECORDS. DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING BY NOVA SCOTIA GEOMATICS CENTRE. NOVA SCOTIA GROUNDWATER ATLAS. 2. PROJECTION: NAD83(CSRS), UTM ZONE 20 NORTH. 3. ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, SITE FEATURES AND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. SUBJECT TO SURVEY. 4. GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND FLOW DIRECTION ARE BASED ON STATIC WATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED ON 17-MARCH-2022 AND ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. PORTION OF KAIZER MEADOW INDUSTRIAL PARK SHERWOOD NS EXISTING ROAD.........................................N PAIRED MONITORING WELL (SHALLOW/DEEP)..................................... GROUNDWATER CONTOUR (SHALLOW)0m MW-1(S/D) MW-2(S/D) MW-3(S/D) KAIZER M E A D O W R O A D APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF KAIZER MEADOWS LANDFILL WETLAND WETLAND MW-1(S/D) MW-2(S/D) MW-3(S/D) KAIZER M E A D O W R O A D DETAIL A SCALE 1:10000N 0m GROUNDWATER FLOW (SHALLOW) GROUNDWATER CONTOUR (DEEP) GROUNDWATER FLOW (DEEP) 0 100 200 300 400 500 metres Scale 1:10,000 APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENT AREA PROJECT No.: H: DRAWING No.: DESIGNED: CHECKED:APPR'D: DATE: CLIENT: PROJECT: DRAWN: TITLE: SCALE: LOCATION: CONSULTANT: CONSULTING Engineering * Surveying * Environmental Bedford * Antigonish * St John's * Moncton MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER LIMITED PHASE II ESA APRIL 2022 DISSOLVED METALS IN GROUNDWATER IMPACTS 1:12,500 L. PEMBERTON 3 21-7802 P. AVERY T. CRANE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY.......... ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY........ LEGEND: RED SYMBOL INDICATES EXCEEDENCE OF COMMERCIAL NS TIER I CRITERIA PORTION OF KAIZER MEADOW INDUSTRIAL PARK SHERWOOD NS EXISTING ROAD......................................... KAIZER M E A D O W R O A D APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OF KAIZER MEADOWS LANDFILL HIG H W A Y N O 1 4 ANDERSON LAKE 0 100 200 300 400 500 metres Scale 1:10,000 WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND PAIRED MONITORING WELL (SHALLOW/DEEP)..................................... GROUNDWATER FLOW (SHALLOW) GROUNDWATER FLOW (DEEP) GENERAL NOTES: 1. DRAWING REFERENCES: NOVA SCOTIA PROPERTY RECORDS. DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING BY NOVA SCOTIA GEOMATICS CENTRE. NOVA SCOTIA GROUNDWATER ATLAS. 2. PROJECTION: NAD83(CSRS), UTM ZONE 20 NORTH. 3. ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, SITE FEATURES AND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. SUBJECT TO SURVEY. 4. METAL CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING APPLICABLE TIER I CRITERIA ATTRIBUTED TO BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 5. GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS ARE BASED ON STATIC WATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED ON 17-MARCH-2022 AND ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENT AREA APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENT AREA MW-1(S/D)MW-2(S/D) MW-3(S/D) MW-2(S/D) MW-3(S/D) APPENDIX B SITE ASSESSMENT & TIER I/II TABLE CHECKLIST   $SSHQGL[$WODQWLF5%&$9HUVLRQ 6,7($66(660(17$1'7,(5,,,&+(&./,67   6,7($66(660(17 7,(5,,,7$%/(&+(&./,67 0HWKRG8VHG 6LWH/RFDWLRQ7LHU,5%6/ 6LWH3URIHVVLRQDO7LHU,,366/ 'DWH7LHU,,667/ &RQWDPLQDQWVRI&RQFHUQDWVLWH 0LQLPXP6LWH$VVHVVPHQW5HTXLUHPHQWV2WKHU ,VVXH<HVRU1R &RPPHQW 3,'RZQHUORFDWLRQLGHQWLILHG &XUUHQWDQGDQWLFLSDWHGIXWXUHODQGXVHLGHQWLILHG 5HYLHZRIXQGHUJURXQGVHUYLFHVDVFRQGXLWV +LVWRULFDOUHYLHZFRPSOHWHG /RFDOJURXQGZDWHUXVHLGHQWLILHG $GMDFHQWODQGXVHVDQGUHFHSWRUVLGHQWLILHG (FRORJLFDOVFUHHQLQJFRPSOHWHG 6RLODQGJURXQGZDWHUVDPSOHVIURPDOOVRXUFHDUHDVREWDLQHG )RU&92&VDOOK\GURJHRORJLFXQLWVDVVHVVHG LHVKDOORZGHHS  ,PSDFWVGHOLQHDWHGWRDFFHSWDEOHOHYHOV 5HIHUWR6HFWLRQRIJXLGDQFH GRFXPHQW YHUWLFDOO\DQGKRUL]RQWDOO\IRUSRWHQWLDOUHFHSWRUV DGMDFHQWSURSHUW\ UHFHSWRUPD\KDYHORZHUVFUHHQLQJOHYHOV   *URXQGZDWHUIORZGLUHFWLRQDQGJUDGLHQWHVWDEOLVKHG &RPELQDWLRQRIVXUIDFHDQGVXEVXUIDFHVRLOVDPSOHVDQDO\VHG 9DSRXUVDPSOHVFROOHFWHGDQGDQDO\VHGLIDSSOLFDEOH )UHHSURGXFWREVHUYDWLRQVPDGHLQVRLODQGJURXQGZDWHU /RZODEGHWHFWLRQOHYHOIRUEHQ]HQHLQVRLOLISRWDEOHZDWHUDUHD *UDLQVL]HDQGRUJDQLFFDUERQDQDO\VLVFRPSOHWHGRQVRLO 73+IUDFWLRQDWLRQGRQHRQVRLODQGZDWHULIFDOFXODWLQJ7LHU,,667/IRU73+ $OO&92&V LQFOXGLQJSDUHQWDQGELRGHJUDGDWLRQ GDXJKWHU SURGXFWV DVVHVVHG 6FDOHGVLWHSODQVKRZLQJDOOUHOHYDQWVLWHIHDWXUHV 5HFHSWRUEXLOGLQJFKDUDFWHULVWLFVREWDLQHG HJVWRULHVIORRUFRQGLWLRQFHLOLQJ KHLJKWEXLOGLQJVL]H  0DQGDWRU\&RQGLWLRQV ,VVXH<HVRU1R &RPPHQW 1RQDTXHRXVSKDVHOLTXLGVQRWSUHVHQWLQJURXQGZDWHU 3RWDEOHZDWHUIUHHRIREMHFWLRQDEOHWDVWHDQGRGRXU 6RLOVGRQRWFRQWDLQOLTXLGDQGRUIUHHSHWUROHXPSURGXFW 5HVLGXDOK\GURFDUERQVGRQRWFUHDWHREMHFWLRQDEOHRGRXUVRUH[SORVLYH FRQGLWLRQVLQLQGRRURURXWGRRUDLU 6XUIDFHVRLOVDUHQRWVWDLQHG 1RGLUWEDVHPHQWIORRUVVXPSVZLWKGLUWERWWRPVHWF &RQILUPHGWKDWFRUUHFW73+W\SHVHOHFWHGLQ5%6/RU366/7DEOH &RQILUPHGWKDWFRUUHFWVRLOW\SHVHOHFWHGLQ5%6/RU366/7DEOHV 'HIDXOW6LWH&KDUDFWHULVWLFVDQG([SRVXUH6FHQDULRV ,VVXH<HVRU1R &RPPHQW 'HSWKWRJURXQGZDWHUDSSUR[LPDWHO\PHWUHV ,PSDFWHGVRLOWKLFNQHVVLVOHVVWKDQPHWUHV 'HIDXOWIRXQGDWLRQFUDFNIUDFWLRQLVDSSURSULDWH 'HIDXOWIRXQGDWLRQWKLFNQHVVLVDSSURSULDWH 7ZRIORRUVH[LVWLIXVLQJDUHVLGHQWLDOVFHQDULR 3+&LPSDFWVLQVRLODERYH7LHU,5%6/DQGGHWHFWDEOHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI&92&V LQVRLODUHQRWZLWKLQPRIIRXQGDWLRQZDOOVRUIORRUVODE &RQILUPHGWKDW5%6/RU366/7DEOHYDOXHVLVFRUUHFWIRUDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\ UHFHSWRUV LHXVHUHVLGHQWLDODWSURSHUW\OLQHLIDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\LVUHVLGHQWLDO  :KHUHH[SRVXUHSDWKZD\VKDYHEHHQHOLPLQDWHGDW7LHU,,GHWDLOHGH[SODQDWLRQ SURYLGHGLQUHSRUWH[SODLQZK\SDWKZD\VDUHQRWUHOHYDQW :KHUH366/VWDEOHVDUHXVHGEDVHGRQHOLPLQDWLRQRUFRQWURORIDSDWKZD\WKDW FRXOGEHUHRSHQHGE\FKDQJHVLQVLWHXVHWKLVFRQGLWLRQLVVSHFLILHGDVD OLPLWDWLRQLQWKHUHSRUW  :KHUH7LHU,,667/VKDYHEHHQFDOFXODWHGE\FKDQJLQJGHIDXOWYDOXHVWKH UHSRUWLQFOXGHVWKHSDUDPHWHUFKDQJHGWKHGHIDXOWYDOXHWKHVLWHVSHFLILFYDOXH XVHGDQGWKHUDWLRQDOHDQGRUGHWDLOHGZULWWHQMXVWLILFDWLRQ   ,I1RLQGLFDWHLQFRPPHQWVHFWLRQLIDQGZKHUHLQUHSRUWWKHLVVXHLVDGGUHVVHG &RQVXOWWKH%HVW0DQDJHPHQW3UDFWLFHV $SSHQGL[ IRUDGGLWLRQDOGHWDLOV Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS  Thomas Crane, P. Eng. April 11, 2022 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Only groundwater assessed. Only groundwater assessed. No free product observed. Only groundwater assessed. Not calculating SSTLs. Yes N/A Yes No buildings present. Yes Ye s Yes Yes No free product observed. N/A Yes No buildings present. Yes No 0.4 m - 1.4 m depth. N/A Only groundwater assessed. N/A No buildings present. N/A No buildings present. N/A No buildings present. N/A No buildings present. No pathways eliminated. PSSLs not used. Tier II not calculated. Yes N/A N/A N/A APPENDIX C ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Assessment Methodology Utility Clearance Prior to conducting the field investigation at the site, subsurface and overhead utilities were reviewed in accordance with Strum’s occupational health and safety program, and to determine if preferential pathways for contaminant migration are potentially present on the site. Utilities were located by a private utility clearance contractor, and also through consultation with local utility providers. All identified utilities were marked on the ground with marking paint, and proposed investigation locations were based on maintaining appropriate safe distances from the identified utilities. Utility locations were recorded in the field, and the approximate locations are provided on the drawings attached to the report. Borehole Drilling All boreholes completed during the assessment were drilled using either a truck-mounted or track-mounted geotechnical drill rig owned and operated by an experienced drilling subcontractor. Advancement in overburden soils was achieved with standard flight augers or hollow-stem augers. Where encountered, advancement into boulders or bedrock was achieved via diamond coring, wet rotary, and/or air hammer. Representative soil samples were collected in the boreholes using decontaminated 50 mm outer diameter split-spoon samplers on a continuous basis (where possible), in accordance with industry standard practices. When applicable, bedrock cores were also collected on a continuous basis (where possible) using diamond coring equipment. Subsurface conditions were logged in detail by a Strum field representative during the drilling program. This included recording the depth of each collected sample, the number of blow counts required to drive the split-spoon samplers over a one-foot depth interval (i.e., SPT N- Values), and noting the soil/rock type and colour, soil density (based on N-value), soil moisture content, rock core recovery and Rock Quality Designations (RQDs), and any evidence of potential contamination (e.g., staining, odour, free-phase chemical product, debris, etc.). Monitoring Well Installation Upon completion of the drilling, 50 mm diameter Schedule 40 PVC monitoring wells were installed in select boreholes by the drilling subcontractor under the supervision of Strum field personnel. The monitoring well IDs correspond with the borehole IDs in which they were installed. All monitoring wells consisted of a 0.05 m well point installed at the base of the borehole, followed by a section of slotted well screen, followed by a length of solid pipe that extends to surface grade. The solid pipe was sealed with a fitted plug/cap. A bentonite plug was installed in each monitoring well above the screened interval to prevent surface water from entering each well. Either flush-mount or stick-up well covers were installed at the surface over the monitoring wells to protect the wellhead. Assessment Methodology Monitoring Well Development Following installation, each well was developed by purging a minimum of five casing volumes (or to dryness) using a Waterra hydro-lift pump equipped with decontaminated High Density Poly-ethylene (HDPE) Waterra tubing and footvalve to develop the filter pack around the well screen, and to minimize the amount of sediment in water samples subsequently collected from the wells. Monitoring Well Decommissioning When no longer needed for site assessment purposes, the monitoring wells will require decommissioning. The protective cover and any equipment including tubing will be removed from the well. Each well will be cut to at least 0.3 m below grade prior to grouting. The monitoring well will then be filled entirely with bentonite by slow placement. This process will prevent vertical movement of water throughout the well, and will prevent surface run-off from potentially contaminating the aquifer. The surface at the location of the former monitoring wells will be covered with appropriate topsoil, paving, or gravel, and will be graded to eliminate surface water ponding. Elevation Survey and Groundwater Level Measurement A geodetic survey of the monitoring wells was completed by a Strum survey technician. The ground surface (i.e., “grade point”) elevations and the top of well PVC casing (i.e., “measured point”) elevations were recorded using GPS survey equipment. All recorded elevations are geodetic and are in metres above sea level. Static water level measurements were recorded in the available wells by a Strum field representative. Depth to water was measured from the measured point elevation on the top of each well head using an electronic interface probe. Free Product Monitoring The monitoring wells were also inspected for any evidence of free-phase petroleum or chemical product (i.e., “free product”) using an electronic oil/water interface probe. Free product in groundwater is defined as a thickness of visible petroleum/chemical product recorded to be greater than 1 mm. For assessments of contaminants less dense than water (e.g., most petroleum hydrocarbon products), the free product measurements were completed with the interface probe at the top of the water column in the well. For assessments of contaminants that are denser than water (e.g., VOCs, PCBs, some Bunker C products, etc.), the probe was lowered to near the bottom of the well where those types of free product would be expected to accumulate. Determination of Groundwater Flow Conditions The groundwater flow direction was estimated at the site based on a triangulation of groundwater level elevations recorded in the monitoring wells following completion of the drilling program. This triangulation was used to produce and evaluate groundwater elevation contours on a site plan. A minimum of three monitoring wells were used for the flow determination; however, typically most of the monitoring well water level elevations were Assessment Methodology utilized. If water levels were determined to be unusual outliers (e.g., artesian well conditions, anomalous due to fractured bedrock conditions, etc.), they were excluded from the groundwater flow determination. Following determination of the groundwater elevation contours and flow direction at the site, the groundwater horizontal hydraulic gradient was calculated by drawing an intersecting line perpendicular to the groundwater elevation contours, from the highest elevation contour to the lowest elevation contour. The slope of that line was then determined using the difference in groundwater elevation over the distance between the highest and lowest groundwater elevation contours. The hydraulic gradient is expressed as a percentage. The groundwater hydraulic conductivity (K) was determined by completing a drawdown test on at least one selected monitoring well at the site. This involved recording the initial water level below the top of the well casing using an electronic interface probe, purging water to near the bottom of the well, and then measuring the increasing water level below the top of the well casing at designated time intervals until the water had recovered to near its initial level. Water levels were recorded initially at short time intervals (e.g., 15 seconds), but as the water levels recovered, the levels were recorded as longer time intervals (e.g., 15 minutes). For monitoring wells with a significant recovery period, a groundwater level logger was installed in the well to record the water level recovery over a longer time period. This drawdown water level data was then interpreted using the Hvorslev method to provide an estimate of hydraulic conductivity. Sampling Groundwater Sample Collection Prior to collection of groundwater samples, each well was purged of at least three well volumes (or to dryness) using a decontaminated submersible pump in order to remove any standing water from the well, and to ensure that the samples were representative of the surrounding groundwater. Groundwater samples were then collected using new, dedicated bailers for each well. When sampling groundwater for contaminants that are less dense than water (e.g., most petroleum hydrocarbons), the sample was collected from near the top of the water column in the well with the bailer. When sampling for contaminants that are denser than water (e.g., VOCs, PCBs, some Bunker C products, etc.), the bailer was allowed to sink to near the bottom of the well where any dense contaminants would be expected to concentrate. All groundwater samples were collected using the appropriate laboratory issued glassware (varying bottle types depending on contaminant type), and were placed in cool storage prior to being submitted to Bureau Veritas Laboratories in Bedford, NS for analysis. Unless otherwise indicated in the report, all groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells for analysis of metals parameters were filtered in the field using laboratory-supplied 0.45-micron filters (i.e., were analyzed for dissolved metals). Assessment Methodology Due to the low detection limits, and fact that PFAS is commonly used during manufacturing processes and is present in many types of manufactured goods, special precautions were followed during groundwater sampling of PFAS. Strum field personnel avoided the use of potentially PFAS containing materials (e.g., waterproof field books, markers, raingear, and Teflon). Non-PFAS containing sampling equipment (stainless steel, silicone, and HDPE) were utilized throughout the field activities. PFAS samples were collected in PFAS-free sampling containers provided by Bureau Veritas. Quality Assurance & Quality Control (QA/QC) To obtain representative samples and avoid potential cross-contamination, all samples were collected by Strum field staff while wearing dedicated nitrile gloves, and while using either dedicated or decontaminated sampling supplies and equipment. All samples were placed in sealed laboratory-supplied containers and kept in cool storage pending submission with a completed Chain of Custody (COC) form to Bureau Veritas Laboratories for analysis. Sample duplicate analyses were completed during the assessment in order to evaluate QA/QC of the investigation. This included the collection/analysis of field duplicate samples (FD), and analysis of laboratory duplicates. Evaluation of the QA/QC results was completed by calculating the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the duplicate sample results and the original sample results, and then comparing the calculated RPDs to acceptable tolerance limits. The RPDs between all the duplicates and original samples were calculated using the following equation: It should be noted that to obtain reliable calculations, the RPDs were only calculated when the reported concentrations of the duplicate samples and original samples were at least five times the reportable detection limit (RDL). Concentrations of less than five times the RDL are too low to use for QA/QC evaluation, as only slight concentration differences can lead to significant RPD values. For calculated RPDs, the duplicate sample results are considered to be consistent with the results of the original sample when the RPD is less than or equal to 20%. RPDs calculated to be between 20% and 50% indicate that the duplicate sample results are slightly out of QA/QC tolerance limits, which can often be associated with minor deviations in the collected samples, such as sample heterogeneity, high parameter concentrations, high moisture content in soil/sediment or air samples, or sediment inclusion in water samples. RPDs in this range are evaluated by the Site Professional, but don’t necessarily indicate a significant limitation in the reliability of the data. Assessment Methodology RPDs calculated to be above 50% indicate a significant exceedance of QA/QC tolerance limits, and warrant further evaluation. A review of site conditions encountered during the field program and sampling details is conducted, and a consultation with the analytical laboratory is also conducted to attempt to identify the potential cause(s) of the deviation in the duplicate sample results. In this circumstance, sample data is typically not relied upon for determining plume boundaries, remedial excavation limits or confirming acceptable site conditions, and resampling may be recommended. APPENDIX D PHOTOGRAPH LOG Photo 1: Drilling and installation of BH/MW1-S, looking west. Photo taken March 14, 2022. Photo 2: Drilling and rock core recovery from MW3-D. Photo taken March 17, 2022. Photo 3: View of paired monitoring wells MW3-S and MW3-D, looking southeast. Photo taken March 17, 2022. Photo 4: Purging groundwater from monitoring well MW3-D. Photo taken March 17, 2022. APPENDIX E BOREHOLE LOGS SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS Page 1 SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS SOIL DESCRIPTION Terminology describing common soil layers: Rootmat/Topsoil Organic mat and associated soil that contains higher amounts of organic material and plant nutrients than the soil below. Peat Compressible material of plant origin, with high moisture content. Till Unstratified glacial deposit which may range from clay to boulders . Fill Any materials identified as placed by humans. Terminology describing soils on the basis of grain size and plasticity is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D-2487 or ASTM D-2488). The classification excludes particles larger than 75 millimetres (3 inches). Terminology describing materials outside the USCS, (e.g. particles larger than 76 mm, visible organic matter, and construction debris) is based upon the proportion of these materials present: Trace, or occasional – Less than 10% Some – 10 to 20% Adjective (e.g. Cobbly) – 20 to 35% And (e.g. and cobbles) – > 35% Noun (e.g. Cobbles) – > 35% and main fraction Compactness Condition of Coarse-grained Soils Compactness Condition ‘N’ Value Very loose, < 15% Loose, 15-35% Compact, 35-65% Dense, 65-85% Very dense, > 85% < 4 4-10 10-30 30-50 > 50 Consistency Description of Fine-grained (Cohesive) Soils Consistency ‘N’ Value Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Very stiff Hard Very Hard < 2 2-4 4-8 8-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 ROCK DESCRIPTION Rock Quality Designation (RQD) The classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage in which all pieces of sound core over 100 mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to the close shearing, jointing, faulting, or weathering in the rock mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however, it can be used on different core sizes if the bulk of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ fractures. SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS Page 2 RQD ROCK QUALITY 90-100 75-90 50-75 25-50 0-25 Intact Massive Fractured Severely fractured Very severely fractured Terminology describing rock mass: Strength Classification Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa) Very weak Weak Medium strong Strong Very strong Extremely strong 1-5 5-25 25-50 50-100 100-250 >250 STRATA PLOT Strata plots symbolize the soil or bedrock description. They are combinations of the following basic symbols: Gravel Clay Silt Peat Asphalt Cobbles & Boulders Sand Topsoil & Rootmat Glacial Till Bedrock WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT Borehole or Standpipe SAMPLE TYPE SS Split spoon sample (obtained by performing the Standard Penetration Test) AS Auger sample GS Grab sample BS Bulk sample ST Shelby tube or thin wall tube RC Rock Core HQ NQ Rock core sample types obtained with the use of standard size diamond drilling bits. BQ SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS Page 3 N-VALUE Numbers in this column are the results of the Standard Penetration Test; the number of blows of a 63.5 kilogram hammer falling 760 millimetres, required to drive a 51 millimetres O.D. split-spoon sampler 300 millimetres into the soil. For split-spoon samples where insufficient penetration was achieved and ‘N’ values cannot be presented, the number of blows is reported over sampler penetration in millimeters (e.g. 50/75). OTHER TESTS & LABORATORY ANALYTICAL TESTING PHC Petroleum Hydrocarbons MET Metals PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons VOC Volatile Organic Compounds PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls FRAC Hydrocarbon Fractionation SG Silica-gel Clean Up MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether PHE Phenols GS Grain-size (coarse/fine only) SUL Sulphides PFAS Per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances PES Pesticides S Sieve analysis FD Field duplicate Gs Specific gravity of soil particles k Permeability (cm/sec) H Hydrometer analysis g Unit weight C Consolidation UCS Uniaxial Compressive Strength DRILLING DATE: WATER LEVEL DATE: DRILLING METHOD:ELEVATION DATUM: SOIL DESCRIPTION N- V A L U E TY P E NU M B E R ST R A T A DE P T H ( m ) El e v a t i o n ( m ) SAMPLES WELL INFO DRILLER:DRILL TYPE: WATER LEVEL (m): PROJECT: VO C ( p p m ) RE C O V E R Y ( m m ) AN A L Y S I S CO N S T R U C T I O N MA T E R I A L S WE L L WE L L WA T E R L E V E L BOREHOLE LOG DRILLING SUPERVISOR LOGGED BY:PROJECT NUMBER: -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 March 14, 2022 March 18, 2022 Auger and CoringGeodetic D Q-Drilling CME-45 1.47 (S) and 1.50 (D) (below top of casing) Phase II ESA, Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS BH/MW1-S&D Patrick Avery 21-7802 40 400 130 68% 81% 100% 100% 100% 87.5% SS SS SS RC RC RC RC RC RC S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 23 50/127 mm 53% 48% 100% 0% 0% 79% Bentonite seal. 2" PVC slotted screen with sand backfill. 2" PVC casing. Bentonite seal. 2" PVC slotted screen with sand backfill. SILTY SAND: Medium brown with gravel, dry to wet, loose to very dense. - Water seepage encountered at approximately 0.9 m depth during drilling. BEDROCK: White granite, very severley fractured to intact. End of borehole at approximately 5.8 m depth. 191.15 186.85 192.14 192.65 193.64 DRILLING DATE: WATER LEVEL DATE: DRILLING METHOD:ELEVATION DATUM: SOIL DESCRIPTION N- V A L U E TY P E NU M B E R ST R A T A DE P T H ( m ) El e v a t i o n ( m ) SAMPLES WELL INFO DRILLER:DRILL TYPE: WATER LEVEL (m): PROJECT: VO C ( p p m ) RE C O V E R Y ( m m ) AN A L Y S I S CO N S T R U C T I O N MA T E R I A L S WE L L WE L L WA T E R L E V E L BOREHOLE LOG DRILLING SUPERVISOR LOGGED BY:PROJECT NUMBER: -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 March 15 + 16, 2022 March 18, 2022 Auger and CoringGeodetic Q-Drilling CME-45 1.25 (S) and 2.41 (D) (below top of casing) Phase II ESA, Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS BH/MW2-S&D Patrick Avery 21-7802 600 440 380 180 400 0 100% 71% 100% 78% 100% 80% 100% 100% 96% SS SS SS SS SS SS RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 11 19 22 45 - 81% 67% 100% 78% 100% 50% 100% 100% 96% Bentonite seal. 2" PVC slotted screen with sand backfill. 2" PVC casing. Bentonite seal. 2" PVC slotted screen with sand backfill. SILTY SAND: Dark to medium brown with some clay and gravel, dry to wet, loose to dense. - Water encountered at approximately 0.6 m depth during drilling. BEDROCK: White granite, fractured to intact. End of borehole at approximately 8.9 m depth. 179.07 173.47 182.37 183.38183.09 181.84(S) 180.97(D) DRILLING DATE: WATER LEVEL DATE: DRILLING METHOD:ELEVATION DATUM: SOIL DESCRIPTION N- V A L U E TY P E NU M B E R ST R A T A DE P T H ( m ) El e v a t i o n ( m ) SAMPLES WELL INFO DRILLER:DRILL TYPE: WATER LEVEL (m): PROJECT: VO C ( p p m ) RE C O V E R Y ( m m ) AN A L Y S I S CO N S T R U C T I O N MA T E R I A L S WE L L WE L L WA T E R L E V E L BOREHOLE LOG DRILLING SUPERVISOR LOGGED BY:PROJECT NUMBER: -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 March 16 + 17, 2022 March 18, 2022 Auger and CoringGeodetic Q-Drilling CME-45 1.91 (S) and 1.47 (D) (below top of casing) Phase II ESA, Portion of Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS BH/MW3-S&D Patrick Avery 21-7802 170 100% 100% 95% 90% 100% 100% 88% 95% 100% 62.5% 100% SS RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50/127 mm 74% 90% 73% 52% 100% 100% 76% 95% 80% 62.5% 100% Bentonite seal. 2" PVC slotted screen with sand backfill. 2" PVC casing. Bentonite seal. 2" PVC slotted screen with sand backfill. SILTY SAND: Dark brown with some granite clasts, dry, very dense. BEDROCK: White granite, fractured to intact. End of borehole at approximately 12.2 m depth. 176.95176.65 175.90 175.17(D)175.03(S) 163.70 APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS Table 1A: Groundwater Analytical Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 F1 F2 F4 B T E X C6-C10 C10-C16 C16-C21 C21-C32 C32-C50 (yy/mm/dd)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L) Phase II ESA (2022)- MW1-S SDI671 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd - MW1-D SDI672 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd - MW2-S SDI673 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd - MW2-D SDI674 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd - FD1 SDI677 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd -Field duplicate of MW2-D. MW3-S SDI675 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd - MW3-D SDI676 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -nd - 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.09 -0.09 - 4.4 G 3.2 F 7.8 L 4.4 G 3.2 F 7.8 L Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Underline/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed mg/L = milligrams per litre TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons RDL = Reportable Detection Limit RBCA = Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit (i.e., free product present in groundwater). Type = hydrocarbon resemblance based on lab comments and/or distribution of hydrocarbon ranges. G = gasoline; F = fuel oil/diesel; L = lube oil Hydrocarbon concentrations in RBCA fraction format can be combined to be reported as the CCME F1 to F4 fractions and compared directly to the values in this table. Analysis of CCME F4 fraction C32-C50 is not part of standard RBCA lab analysis package. Where provided, analysis of F4 fraction specifically requested. For comparison purposes the combined RBCA fractions C16-C21 and C21-C32 are equivalent to CCME F3 fraction C16-C34. For comparison purposes RBCA fraction C32-C50 is equivalent to CCME F4 fraction C34-C50. Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS. 0.005 0.024 0.0016 - Modified TPH CommentsType Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes --0.02 -0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractions Sample ID F3Date RDL NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse- grained (Sept. 2021) Criteria - Benzene 0.005 --- 22/03/18 GW Value Value Lab ID NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse- grained (Sept. 2021) Sample Type (GW/DW) Table 1B : Tier 1 Groundwater Ecological Screening for the Protection of Plants and Soil Invertebrates (Direct Contact with Shallow Groundwater), Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project #22-8504 C6-C10 (F1)C10-C16 (F2) (yy/mm/dd)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L) MW1-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW1-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW2-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW2-D nd nd nd nd nd nd FD1 nd nd nd nd nd nd MW3-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW3-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd 61 59 20 31 7.1 1.8 350 200 110 120 11 3.1 Notes: Bold/shaded values indicate exceedance of the Atlantic RBCA ESLs - Agricultural/Coarse-grained Criteria Bold/underlined values indicated exceedance of the Atlantic RBCA ESLs - Commercial/Coarse-grained Criteria Source: Alberta Environment (AENV, 2010). Fractions F1 and F2 vary slightly from the RBCA fractions of Gas, Diesel/#2, and #6 Oil/Lube; however, direct comparison acceptable for screening purposes. Hydrocarbon concentrations in RBCA fraction format can be combined to be reported as the CCME fractions and compared directly to the values in this table. These screening levels are applicable only if groundwater is present within 3 meters of ground surface. There is no screening level for F3 and F4 as these fractions are considered insufficiently soluble to migrate to groundwater from soil. mg/L = milligrams per litre nd = not detected nd ( ) = not detected at elevated detection limit n/c = analysis not completed - indicates no established value ESLs = Ecological Screening Levels Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Phase II ESA (2022) Atlantic RBCA ESLs - Agricultural/Coarse-grained Criteria Atlantic RBCA ESLs - Commercial/Coarse-grained Criteria Sample ID Hydrocarbon RangesDateBenzeneTouleneEthyl Benzene XyleneSample Type 22/03/18 GW Project # 21-7752 (yy/mm/dd)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)Gasoline (mg/L)Diesel/Fuel (mg/L)Lube Oil (mg/L) MW1-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd -nd - MW1-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd -nd - MW2-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd -nd - MW2-D nd nd nd nd -nd - FD1 nd nd nd nd -nd - MW3-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd -nd - MW3-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd -nd - Notes: Bold/shaded values indicate exceedance of the Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Levels for Surface Water Bold/underlined values indicate exceedance of the Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Levels for Groundwater Source: PETROTOX Ver 3.06. Groundwater screening levels can be used for evaluating groundwater quality at locations greater than 10 meters from a freshwater or marine water body. It is recommended that surface water screening levels should be applied directly (or unadjusted) when evaluating groundwater quality at locations within 10 m of a water body. The screening level for mTPH (lube oil) set to RDL, actual dervied screening level = 0.06 mg/L mTPH = Modified Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/L = milligrams per litre nd = not detected n/c = analysis not completed - indicates no established value nd ( ) = not detected at elevated detection limit Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Phase II ESA (2022) Surface Water 22/03/18 GW 0.84 0.482.8 0.1 0.1 Groundwater 0.33 1.5 4.6 4.2 3.2 13 2.1 0.77 0.32 Sample ID Date Benzene Toulene Ethyl Benzene Xylene Modified TPH Table 1C: Tier 1 Surface Water and Groundwater Ecological Screening for the Protection of Freshwater and Marine Aquatic Life, Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Sample Type TABLE 2A: Groundwater Analytical Results - General Chemistry/Inorganics & Metals - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW1-D Lab-Dup MW2-S MW2-D MW2-D Lab-Dup MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI673 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 Anion Sum me/L ---3.34 2.86 -1.01 2.19 -0.4 0.98 Bicarb. Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 1 --10 15 -15 42 -9.5 30 Calculated TDS mg/L 1 --200 170 -58 140 -29 63 Carb. Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 1 --nd nd -nd nd -nd nd Cation Sum me/L ---3.18 2.74 -0.84 2.06 -0.37 0.88 Hardness (CaCO3)mg/L 1 --71 68 -17 54 -6.1 22 Ion Balance (% Difference)%---2.45 2.14 -9.19 3.06 -3.9 5.38 Langelier Index (@ 20C)-----3.44 -2.81 --3.17 -1.53 --4.12 -1.92 Langelier Index (@ 4C)-----3.69 -3.07 --3.42 -1.78 --4.37 -2.17 Nitrate (N)mg/L 0.05 --0.086 0.084 -0.052 0.095 -nd 0.053 Saturation pH (@ 20C)----9.08 8.9 -9.46 8.5 -10.1 8.94 Saturation pH (@ 4C)----9.33 9.15 -9.72 8.75 -10.3 9.2 Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 25 --10 15 -15 42 -9.5 30 Dissolved Chloride (Cl-)mg/L 5 --100 80 -24 36 -4.9 5.8 Colour TCU 5 --nd nd -nd 5.9 -28 nd Nitrate + Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.05 --0.086 0.084 -0.052 0.095 -nd 0.053 Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.01 --nd nd -nd nd -nd nd Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen)mg/L 0.05 --0.053 nd -nd nd -nd nd Total Organic Carbon (C)mg/L 0.5 --19 1.2 -12 1.3 -5 1.2 Orthophosphate (P)mg/L 0.01 --nd nd -nd nd -nd 0.023 pH pH ---5.64 6.09 6.15 6.29 6.97 7.07 5.97 7.02 Reactive Silica (SiO2)mg/L 0.5 --9.8 9.9 -4.5 14 -7 9.7 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)mg/L 10 --15 14 -2.2 15 -3.3 10 Turbidity NTU 0.1 -->1000 9.9 -99 120 -13 17 Conductivity µS/cm 1 --400 330 340 110 230 230 41 96 Aluminum µg/L 5 --920 650 -130 100 480 61 62 Antimony µg/L 1 6 6 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic µg/L 1 10 10 nd 1.5 -nd nd 1.3 nd nd Barium µg/L 1 1000 1000 62 46 -32 31 6 4.9 4.8 Beryllium µg/L 0.1 4 4 1.4 1.5 -nd 0.17 0.22 nd nd Bismuth µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Boron (total)µg/L 50 5000 5000 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium µg/L 0.01 5 5 1.1 0.95 -0.14 0.29 0.16 0.086 0.085 Calcium µg/L 100 --20000 20000 -4900 17000 1700 7900 7900 Chromium (total)µg/L 1 50 50 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Cobalt µg/L 0.4 3.8 3.8 8.5 4.6 -7.7 3.3 4.7 0.64 0.63 Copper µg/L 0.5 2000 2000 3.1 1.5 -1.4 24 2.2 2.6 2.6 Iron µg/L 50 --1100 150 -68 220 970 nd nd Lead µg/L 0.5 5 5 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium µg/L 100 --5200 4600 -1300 2600 460 650 650 Manganese µg/L 2 120 120 650 460 -390 500 140 35 35 Mercury (total)µg/L 0.013 1 1 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Molybdenum µg/L 2 70 70 nd nd -nd 3.1 nd 2.1 2.1 Nickel µg/L 2 100 100 3 nd -2.7 27 nd 4.2 4.2 Phosphorus µg/L 100 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Potassium µg/L 100 --1400 1200 -560 3700 580 1900 1900 Selenium µg/L 0.5 50 50 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Silver µg/L 0.1 --nd nd -nd nd nd 0.41 0.4 Sodium µg/L 100 --39000 31000 -11000 20000 4600 8800 9000 Strontium µg/L 2 2400 2400 96 81 -22 53 5.8 13 13 Thallium µg/L 0.1 2 2 0.11 0.13 -nd nd nd nd nd Tin µg/L 2 2400 2400 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Titanium µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd 2.7 nd nd Uranium µg/L 0.1 20 20 1 2.1 -nd 0.76 1.1 0.85 0.88 Vanadium µg/L 2 6.2 6.2 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Zinc µg/L 5 --40 41 -18 35 17 46 46 Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/L = milligrams per litre µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards Unless otherwise indicated, metals results for monitoring well samples are dissolved metals (i.e. field filtered). Unless otherwise indicated, metals results for potable water wells are total metals (i.e. not filtered). Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS General Chemistry/Inorganic Parameters Metals Parameters RDL Criteria NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Parameter Units Phase II ESA (2022) GW SDI672 22/03/18 GW SDI674 22/03/18 TABLE 2B: Groundwater Analytical Results - General Chemistry/Inorganics & Metals - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW1-D Lab-Dup MW2-S MW2-D MW2-D Lab-Dup MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI673 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 Anion Sum me/L ---3.34 2.86 -1.01 2.19 -0.4 0.98 Bicarb. Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 1 --10 15 -15 42 -9.5 30 Calculated TDS mg/L 1 -500 200 170 -58 140 -29 63 Carb. Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 1 --nd nd -nd nd -nd nd Cation Sum me/L ---3.18 2.74 -0.84 2.06 -0.37 0.88 Hardness (CaCO3)mg/L 1 --71 68 -17 54 -6.1 22 Ion Balance (% Difference)%---2.45 2.14 -9.19 3.06 -3.9 5.38 Langelier Index (@ 20C)-----3.44 -2.81 --3.17 -1.53 --4.12 -1.92 Langelier Index (@ 4C)-----3.69 -3.07 --3.42 -1.78 --4.37 -2.17 Nitrate (N)mg/L 0.05 10 -0.086 0.084 -0.052 0.095 -nd 0.053 Saturation pH (@ 20C)----9.08 8.9 -9.46 8.5 -10.1 8.94 Saturation pH (@ 4C)----9.33 9.15 -9.72 8.75 -10.3 9.2 Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 25 --10 15 -15 42 -9.5 30 Dissolved Chloride (Cl-)mg/L 5 -250 100 80 -24 36 -4.9 5.8 Colour TCU 5 -15 nd nd -nd 5.9 -28 nd Nitrate + Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.05 --0.086 0.084 -0.052 0.095 -nd 0.053 Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.01 3 -nd nd -nd nd -nd nd Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen)mg/L 0.05 --0.053 nd -nd nd -nd nd Total Organic Carbon (C)mg/L 0.5 --19 1.2 -12 1.3 -5 1.2 Orthophosphate (P)mg/L 0.01 --nd nd -nd nd -nd 0.023 pH pH --7 - 10.5 5.64 6.09 6.15 6.29 6.97 7.07 5.97 7.02 Reactive Silica (SiO2)mg/L 0.5 --9.8 9.9 -4.5 14 -7 9.7 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)mg/L 10 -500 15 14 -2.2 15 -3.3 10 Turbidity NTU 0.1 0.3 ->1000 9.9 -99 120 -13 17 Conductivity µS/cm 1 --400 330 340 110 230 230 41 96 Metals Parameters Aluminum µg/L 5 -100 920 650 -130 100 480 61 62 Antimony µg/L 1 6 -nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic µg/L 1 10 -nd 1.5 -nd nd 1.3 nd nd Barium µg/L 1 2000 -62 46 -32 31 6 4.9 4.8 Beryllium µg/L 1 --1.4 1.5 -nd 0.17 0.22 nd nd Bismuth µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Boron (total)µg/L 50 5000 -nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium µg/L 0.01 7 -1.1 0.95 -0.14 0.29 0.16 0.086 0.085 Calcium µg/L 100 --20000 20000 -4900 17000 1700 7900 7900 Chromium (total)µg/L 1 50 -nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Cobalt µg/L 0.4 --8.5 4.6 -7.7 3.3 4.7 0.64 0.63 Copper µg/L 0.5 2000 1000 3.1 1.5 -1.4 24 2.2 2.6 2.6 Iron µg/L 50 -300 1100 150 -68 220 970 nd nd Lead µg/L 0.5 5 -nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium µg/L 100 --5200 4600 -1300 2600 460 650 650 Manganese µg/L 2 120 20 650 460 -390 500 140 35 35 Mercury (total)µg/L 0.013 1 -nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Molybdenum µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd 3.1 nd 2.1 2.1 Nickel µg/L 2 --3 nd -2.7 27 nd 4.2 4.2 Phosphorus µg/L 100 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Potassium µg/L 100 --1400 1200 -560 3700 580 1900 1900 Selenium µg/L 0.5 50 -nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Silver µg/L 0.1 --nd nd -nd nd nd 0.41 0.4 Sodium µg/L 100 -200000 39000 31000 -11000 20000 4600 8800 9000 Strontium µg/L 2 7000 -96 81 -22 53 5.8 13 13 Thallium µg/L 0.1 --0.11 0.13 -nd nd nd nd nd Tin µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Titanium µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd 2.7 nd nd Uranium µg/L 0.1 20 -1 2.1 -nd 0.76 1.1 0.85 0.88 Vanadium µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Zinc µg/L 5 -5000 40 41 -18 35 17 46 46 Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: Health Canada Drinking Water Guidelines (MAC) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: Health Canada Drinking Water Guidelines (AO and OG) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/L = milligrams per litre µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards Unless otherwise indicated, metals results for monitoring well samples are dissolved metals (i.e. field filtered). Unless otherwise indicated, metals results for potable water wells are total metals (i.e. not filtered). Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS General Chemistry/Inorganic Parameters Phase II ESA (2022) GW SDI672 22/03/18 GW SDI674 22/03/18 Parameter Units RDL Criteria Health Canada Drinking Water Guidelines (MAC) Health Canada Drinking Water Guidelines (AO and OG) TABLE 2C: Groundwater Analytical Results - General Chemistry/Inorganics & Metals - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW1-D Lab-Dup MW2-S MW2-D MW2-D Lab-Dup MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI673 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 Anion Sum me/L ---3.34 2.86 -1.01 2.19 -0.4 0.98 Bicarb. Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 1 --10 15 -15 42 -9.5 30 Calculated TDS mg/L 1 --200 170 -58 140 -29 63 Carb. Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 1 --nd nd -nd nd -nd nd Cation Sum me/L ---3.18 2.74 -0.84 2.06 -0.37 0.88 Hardness (CaCO3)mg/L 1 --71 68 -17 54 -6.1 22 Ion Balance (% Difference)%---2.45 2.14 -9.19 3.06 -3.9 5.38 Langelier Index (@ 20C)-----3.44 -2.81 --3.17 -1.53 --4.12 -1.92 Langelier Index (@ 4C)-----3.69 -3.07 --3.42 -1.78 --4.37 -2.17 Nitrate (N)mg/L 0.05 13 130 0.086 0.084 -0.052 0.095 -nd 0.053 Saturation pH (@ 20C)----9.08 8.9 -9.46 8.5 -10.1 8.94 Saturation pH (@ 4C)----9.33 9.15 -9.72 8.75 -10.3 9.2 Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)mg/L 25 --10 15 -15 42 -9.5 30 Dissolved Chloride (Cl-)mg/L 5 120 1200 100 80 -24 36 -4.9 5.8 Colour TCU 5 --nd nd -nd 5.9 -28 nd Nitrate + Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.05 --0.086 0.084 -0.052 0.095 -nd 0.053 Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.01 0.06 0.6 nd nd -nd nd -nd nd Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen)mg/L 0.05 --0.053 nd -nd nd -nd nd Total Organic Carbon (C)mg/L 0.5 --19 1.2 -12 1.3 -5 1.2 Orthophosphate (P)mg/L 0.01 --nd nd -nd nd -nd 0.023 pH pH -6.5-9.0 -5.64 6.09 6.15 6.29 6.97 7.07 5.97 7.02 Reactive Silica (SiO2)mg/L 0.5 --9.8 9.9 -4.5 14 -7 9.7 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)mg/L 10 128 1280 15 14 -2.2 15 -3.3 10 Turbidity NTU 0.1 -->1000 9.9 -99 120 -13 17 Conductivity µS/cm 1 --400 330 340 110 230 230 41 96 Aluminum µg/L 5 5 50 920 650 -130 100 480 61 62 Antimony µg/L 1 9 90 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic µg/L 1 5 50 nd 1.5 -nd nd 1.3 nd nd Barium µg/L 1 1000 10000 62 46 -32 31 6 4.9 4.8 Beryllium µg/L 0.1 0.15 1.5 1.4 1.5 -nd 0.17 0.22 nd nd Bismuth µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Boron (total)µg/L 50 1500 15000 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium µg/L 0.01 0.09 0.9 1.1 0.95 -0.14 0.29 0.16 0.086 0.085 Calcium µg/L 100 --20000 20000 -4900 17000 1700 7900 7900 Chromium (total)µg/L 1 8.9 89 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Cobalt µg/L 0.4 1 10 8.5 4.6 -7.7 3.3 4.7 0.64 0.63 Copper µg/L 0.5 2 20 3.1 1.5 -1.4 24 2.2 2.6 2.6 Iron µg/L 50 300 3000 1100 150 -68 220 970 nd nd Lead µg/L 0.5 1 10 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium µg/L 100 --5200 4600 -1300 2600 460 650 650 Manganese µg/L 2 430 4300 650 460 -390 500 140 35 35 Mercury (total)µg/L 0.013 0.026 0.26 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Molybdenum µg/L 2 73 730 nd nd -nd 3.1 nd 2.1 2.1 Nickel µg/L 2 25 250 3 nd -2.7 27 nd 4.2 4.2 Phosphorus µg/L 100 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Potassium µg/L 100 --1400 1200 -560 3700 580 1900 1900 Selenium µg/L 0.5 1 10 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Silver µg/L 0.1 0.25 2.5 nd nd -nd nd nd 0.41 0.4 Sodium µg/L 100 --39000 31000 -11000 20000 4600 8800 9000 Strontium µg/L 2 21000 210000 96 81 -22 53 5.8 13 13 Thallium µg/L 0.1 0.8 8 0.11 0.13 -nd nd nd nd nd Tin µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Titanium µg/L 2 --nd nd -nd nd 2.7 nd nd Uranium µg/L 0.1 15 150 1 2.1 -nd 0.76 1.1 0.85 0.88 Vanadium µg/L 2 120 1200 nd nd -nd nd nd nd nd Zinc µg/L 5 7 70 40 41 -18 35 17 46 46 Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/L = milligrams per litre µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards Unless otherwise indicated, metals results for monitoring well samples are dissolved metals (i.e. field filtered). Unless otherwise indicated, metals results for potable water wells are total metals (i.e. not filtered). Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS General Chemistry/Inorganic Parameters Metals Parameters RDL Criteria NS Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) NS Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) Parameter Units Phase II ESA (2022) GW SDI672 22/03/18 GW SDI674 22/03/18 TABLE 3A: Groundwater Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.05 12 12 nd nd nd nd nd nd 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.05 12 12 nd nd nd nd nd nd Acenaphthene µg/L 0.01 1400 1400 nd nd nd nd nd nd Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.01 4.5 4.5 nd nd nd nd nd nd Anthracene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L 0.01 0.04 0.04 nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene µg/L 0.02 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(j)fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Chrysene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Fluorene µg/L 0.01 940 940 nd nd nd nd nd nd Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene µg/L 0.2 470 470 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perylene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Phenanthrene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Pyrene µg/L 0.01 710 710 nd nd nd nd nd nd Total PAHs µg/L --------- 1/2-Methylnaphthalene Sum µg/L -12 12 ------ Total B[a]P TPE --0.04 0.04 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 Notes:Shading indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Underlining indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit in water (i.e., presence of free-phase chemical product) Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Total PAHs = Total concentration of PAH compounds B[a]P TPE = Benzo[a]pyrene Total Potency Equivalents (sum of individual PAH concentrations multiplied by applicable PEF) PEF = B[a]P Potency Equivalence Factors (relevant for carcinogenic compounds only) IACR = Index of Additive Cancer Risk (relevant for carcinogenic compounds only) *Total B[a]P TPE multiplied by safety factor of 3 for sites with potential creosote or coal tar impacts, as recommended by CCME User Guidance *Where PAH concentrations were reported as non-detect, a value of 1/2 the RDL was used to calculate IACR and Total B[a]P TPE as recommended by CCME User Guidance. *For the 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene isomers, if both isomers are detected, the sum of the two must not exceed the criteria for each individual isomer (shown as 1/2-methylnaphthalene sum) Calculated Parameters Parameter Units Phase II ESA (2022) RDL Criteria NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) TABLE 3B: Groundwater Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project #21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.05 2 20 nd nd nd nd nd nd 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.05 2 20 nd nd nd nd nd nd Acenaphthene µg/L 0.01 5.8 58 nd nd nd nd nd nd Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Anthracene µg/L 0.01 0.012 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L 0.01 0.018 0.18 nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L 0.01 0.015 0.15 nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene µg/L 0.02 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(j)fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Chrysene µg/L 0.01 0.1 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Fluoranthene µg/L 0.01 0.04 0.4 nd nd nd nd nd nd Fluorene µg/L 0.01 3 30 nd nd nd nd nd nd Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene µg/L 0.2 1.1 11 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perylene µg/L 0.01 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Phenanthrene µg/L 0.01 0.4 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd Pyrene µg/L 0.01 0.025 0.25 nd nd nd nd nd nd Total PAHs µg/L --------- 1/2-Methylnaphthalene Sum µg/L -2 20 ------ Total B[a]P TPE ----0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 Notes:Shading indicates exceedance of: NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) Underlining indicates exceedance of: NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit in water (i.e., presence of free-phase chemical product) Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Total PAHs = Total concentration of PAH compounds B[a]P TPE = Benzo[a]pyrene Total Potency Equivalents (sum of individual PAH concentrations multiplied by applicable PEF) PEF = B[a]P Potency Equivalence Factors (relevant for carcinogenic compounds only) IACR = Index of Additive Cancer Risk (relevant for carcinogenic compounds only) *Total B[a]P TPE multiplied by safety factor of 3 for sites with potential creosote or coal tar impacts, as recommended by CCME User Guidance *Where PAH concentrations were reported as non-detect, a value of 1/2 the RDL was used to calculate IACR and Total B[a]P TPE as recommended by CCME User Guidance. *For the 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene isomers, if both isomers are detected, the sum of the two must not exceed the criteria for each individual isomer (shown as 1/2-methylnaphthalene sum) Calculated Parameters Parameter Units Phase II ESA (2022) RDL Criteria NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) TABLE 4A: Groundwater Analytical Results - Volatile Organic Compounds - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project #21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI678 SDI679 SDI680 SDI682 SDI683 SDI684 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/L 2 320 3700 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene µg/L 0.5 14 14 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L 1 640 10000 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L 1 12 12 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 0.5 3.4 3.4 nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethylene Dibromide µg/L 0.2 0.34 0.34 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.5 200 200 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L 1 5 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/L 0.5 70 70 nd nd nd nd nd nd trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/L 0.5 100 100 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L 0.5 9.9 9.9 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 59 59 nd nd nd nd nd nd cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 0.5 5.2 6.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 0.5 5.2 6.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 5 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene µg/L 1 5 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 100 100 nd nd nd nd nd 1.1 Bromoform µg/L 1 100 100 nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 5.6 33 nd nd nd nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 0.5 0.57 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 14 80 nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane µg/L 8 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform µg/L 1 30 80 nd 1.6 nd 6.6 1.6 5.6 Chloromethane µg/L 8 38 38 nd nd nd nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 190 190 nd nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane)µg/L 3 50 50 nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 1.6 1.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)µg/L 2 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Styrene µg/L 1 100 100 nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrachloroethylene µg/L 1 10 10 nd nd nd nd nd nd Toluene µg/L 1 24 24 nd nd nd nd nd nd Trichloroethylene µg/L 1 5 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (FREON 11)µg/L 8 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride µg/L 0.5 2 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd o-Xylene µg/L 1 --nd nd nd nd nd nd p+m-Xylene µg/L 2 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Xylenes µg/L 1 20 20 nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Trihalomethanes µg/L 1 --nd 1.6 nd 6.6 1.6 6.7 Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit in water (i.e., presence of free-phase chemical product) Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Parameter Units Phase II ESA (2022)Criteria NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) RDL Project # 21-7802 (yy/mm/dd)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L) MW1-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW1-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW2-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW2-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW3-S 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd MW3-D 22/03/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd Freshwater 0.2 a 0.2 a 0.11 a 0.04 a 0.021 b 0.6 a Marine Water NRG NRG 0.11 c NRG 0.02 c NRG Daylighting to Fresh Water e 2.0 d 2.0 d 1.1 d 0.4 d 0.21 d 6.0 d Daylighting to Marine Water f NRG NRG 1.1 d NRG 0.2 d NRG Notes: Bold/shaded values indicate exceedance of the Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Levels for Surface Water Bold/underlined values indicate exceedance of the Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Levels for Groundwater (>10 m from surface water body) Source: a) Source: Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), 1999. b) Source: Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME), 1999, updated 2017. c) Source: British Columbia (BC) Schedule 3.2 d) 10x surface water screening level, as per Atlantic Partners in Risk Based Corrective Action Implementation (PIRI) Envrionmental Quality Standards for Contaminated Sites (draft). NRG: no recommended guideline. mg/L = milligrams per litre nd = not detected n/c = analysis not completed - indicates no established value nd ( ) = not detected at elevated detection limit Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS e) Groundwater screening levels can be used for evaluating groundwater quality at locations greater than 10 metres from a freshwater body. It is recommended that freshwater surface water screening levels should be applied directly (or unadjusted) when evaluating groundwater quality at locations greater than 10 metres of a freshwater body. f) Groundwater screening levels can be used for evaulating groundwater quality at locations greater than 10 metres from a marine water body. It is recommended that marine surface water screening levels should be applied directly (or unadjusted) when evaluating groundwater quality at locations within 10 metres of a marine surface water body. Vinyl Chloride Table 4B: CVOCs, Tier 1 Surface Water and Groundwater Ecological Screening for the Protection of Freshwater and Marine Aquatic Life, Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Surface Water Groundwater (>10 m from surface water body) TrichloroethyleneSample ID Date cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene 1,1-DichloroethyleneSample Type TABLE 4C: Groundwater Analytical Results - Volatile Organic Compounds - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Project #21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI678 SDI679 SDI680 SDI682 SDI683 SDI684 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/L 2 200 2000 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene µg/L 0.5 40 400 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L 1 10 100 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L 1 800 8000 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 0.5 70 700 nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethylene Dibromide µg/L 0.2 5 50 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.5 0.7 7 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L 1 100 1000 nd nd nd nd nd nd cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/L 0.5 200 2000 nd nd nd nd nd nd trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/L 0.5 200 2000 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L 0.5 0.7 7 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 150 1500 nd nd nd nd nd nd cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 0.5 7 70 nd nd nd nd nd nd trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 0.5 7 70 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 26 260 nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene µg/L 1 2100 4600 nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 200 2000 nd nd nd nd nd 1.1 Bromoform µg/L 1 60 600 nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 0.9 9 nd nd nd nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 0.5 13.3 133 nd nd nd nd nd nd Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 1.3 13 nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane µg/L 8 1100 11000 nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform µg/L 1 1.8 18 nd 1.6 nd 6.6 1.6 5.6 Chloromethane µg/L 8 700 7000 nd nd nd nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 40 400 nd nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane)µg/L 3 98.1 981 nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 320 3200 nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)µg/L 2 10000 100000 nd nd nd nd nd nd Styrene µg/L 1 72 720 nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrachloroethylene µg/L 1 110 1100 nd nd nd nd nd nd Toluene µg/L 1 770 4200 nd nd nd nd nd nd Trichloroethylene µg/L 1 21 210 nd nd nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (FREON 11)µg/L 8 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride µg/L 0.5 600 6000 nd nd nd nd nd nd o-Xylene µg/L 1 --nd nd nd nd nd nd p+m-Xylene µg/L 2 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Xylenes µg/L 1 330 2800 nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Trihalomethanes µg/L 1 --nd 1.6 nd 6.6 1.6 6.7 Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit in water (i.e., presence of free-phase chemical product) Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Parameter Units Sample IDCriteria NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) RDL TABLE 5A: Groundwater Analytical Results - Polychlorinated Biphenyls - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 Aroclor 1016 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1221 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1232 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1248 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1242 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1254 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1260 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Calculated Total PCB µg/L 0.05 9.4 9.4 nd nd nd nd nd nd Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/L = milligrams per litre µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit in water (i.e., presence of free-phase chemical product) Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Phase II ESA (2022) Parameter Units Criteria NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) RDL TABLE 5B: Groundwater Analytical Results - Polychlorinated Biphenyls - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project # 21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 Aroclor 1016 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1221 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1232 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1248 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1242 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1254 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Aroclor 1260 µg/L 0.05 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Calculated Total PCB µg/L 0.05 0.001 0.01 nd nd nd nd nd nd Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: Atlantic RBCA Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) GW = groundwater DW = drinking water nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/L = milligrams per litre µg/L = micrograms per litre RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards >SOL = Greater than solubility limit in water (i.e., presence of free-phase chemical product) Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd). Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Phase II ESA (2022) Parameter Units Criteria NS Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (<10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) Atlantic RBCA Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharge to Fresh Water (>10 m from receptor) (Sept. 2021) RDL TABLE 6A: Groundwater Analytical Results - Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project #21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18'22/03/18'22/03/18'22/03/18'22/03/18'22/03/18' Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)ug/L 0.002 30 30 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)ug/L 0.002 0.2 0.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)ug/L 0.002 0.2 0.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)ug/L 0.002 0.2 0.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)ug/L 0.002 0.2 0.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)ug/L 0.002 0.02 0.02 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTRDA)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTEDA)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)ug/L 0.002 15 15 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPes ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS)ug/L 0.002 0.6 0.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)ug/L 0.002 0.6 0.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorononanesulfonic acid (PFNS)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (PFOSA)ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ug/L 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Calculated Parameters IAR PFOS + PFOA (Criteria 1)--1 ------- IAR PFOS + PFOA (Criteria 2)---1 ------ Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards GW = Groundwater Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd) *When PFOS and PFOA are both detected, the Index of Additive Risk (IAR) must be considered for the combined concentrations of the two parameters. *IAR for PFOS+PFOA = [PFOS Concentration/PFOS Guideline Criteria] + [PFOA Concentration/PFOA Guideline Criteria], and must be less than or equal to 1. *No value is given for IAR PFOS+PFOA when one of the parameters is not analyzed or reports non-detectable concentrations. Only applicable when both parameters are detected. Phase II ESA (2022) Parameter Units Criteria NS Tier I EQS - Agricultural, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) NS Tier I EQS - Commercial, Potable, Coarse-grained (Sept. 2021) RDL TABLE 6B: Groundwater Analytical Results - Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Chester, NS Project #21-7802 MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D GW GW GW GW GW GW SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 22/03/18 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTRDA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTEDA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPes mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)mg/kg 0.002 6.8 68 nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorononanesulfonic acid (PFNS)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (PFOSA)mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid mg/kg 0.002 --nd nd nd nd nd nd Calculated Parameters IAR PFOS + PFOA (Criteria 1)---------- IAR PFOS + PFOA (Criteria 2)---------- Notes:Shading/bold indicates exceedance of: NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water ( < 10 m from Surface Water Body) - Fresh Water Underlining/bold indicates exceedance of: NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water ( > 10 m from Surface Water Body) - Fresh Water m = metres below grade mbfl = metres below floor mbf = metres below footing nd = non-detect nd( ) = non-detect at elevated detection limit - = no established value or not analyzed RDL = Reportable Detection Limit mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram RBCA = Risk Based Corrective Action EQS = Environmental Quality Standards PSS = Pathway Specific Standards GW = Groundwater Lab analysis by Bureau Veritas, Bedford, NS Samples collected on the dates indicated (yy/mm/dd) *When PFOS and PFOA are both detected, the Index of Additive Risk (IAR) must be considered for the combined concentrations of the two parameters. *IAR for PFOS+PFOA = [PFOS Concentration/PFOS Guideline Criteria] + [PFOA Concentration/PFOA Guideline Criteria], and must be less than or equal to 1. *No value is given for IAR PFOS+PFOA when one of the parameters is not analyzed or reports non-detectable concentrations. Only applicable when both parameters are detected. Phase II ESA (2022) Parameter Units Criteria NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water ( < 10 m from Surface Water Body) - Fresh Water NSE Tier II PSS - Groundwater Discharging to Surface Water ( > 10 m from Surface Water Body) - Fresh Water RDL APPENDIX G LABORATORY CERTIFICATES OF ANALYSIS Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI672 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 10:40 COC Number N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S RDL QC Batch MW1-D RDL QC Batch MW1-D Lab-Dup RDL QC Batch Calculated Parameters Anion Sum me/L 3.34 N/A 7893504 2.86 N/A 7893504 Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3)mg/L 10 1.0 7893500 15 1.0 7893500 Calculated TDS mg/L 200 1.0 7893509 170 1.0 7893509 Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3)mg/L ND 1.0 7893500 ND 1.0 7893500 Cation Sum me/L 3.18 N/A 7893504 2.74 N/A 7893504 Hardness (CaCO3)mg/L 71 1.0 7893502 68 1.0 7893502 Ion Balance (% Difference)%2.45 N/A 7893503 2.14 N/A 7893503 Langelier Index (@ 20C)N/A -3.44 7893507 -2.81 7893507 Langelier Index (@ 4C)N/A -3.69 7893508 -3.07 7893508 Nitrate (N)mg/L 0.086 0.050 7893505 0.084 0.050 7893505 Saturation pH (@ 20C)N/A 9.08 7893507 8.90 7893507 Saturation pH (@ 4C)N/A 9.33 7893508 9.15 7893508 Inorganics Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3)mg/L 10 5.0 7900747 15 5.0 7900747 Dissolved Chloride (Cl-)mg/L 100 1.0 7900763 80 1.0 7900763 Colour TCU ND 5.0 7900767 ND 5.0 7900767 Nitrate + Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.086 0.050 7900769 0.084 0.050 7900769 Nitrite (N)mg/L ND 0.010 7900770 ND 0.010 7900770 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen)mg/L 0.053 0.050 7900933 ND 0.050 7900933 Total Organic Carbon (C)mg/L 19 (1)5.0 7899222 1.2 0.50 7899222 Orthophosphate (P)mg/L ND 0.010 7900768 ND 0.010 7900768 pH pH 5.64 7900755 6.09 7900752 6.15 7900752 Reactive Silica (SiO2)mg/L 9.8 0.50 7900765 9.9 0.50 7900765 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)mg/L 15 2.0 7900764 14 2.0 7900764 Turbidity NTU >1000 1.0 7900796 9.9 0.10 7900796 Conductivity uS/cm 400 1.0 7900754 330 1.0 7900750 340 1.0 7900750 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Lab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated Duplicate N/A = Not Applicable ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. (1) Elevated reporting limit due to turbidity. Page 4 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER Bureau Veritas ID SDI673 SDI674 SDI674 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:20 COC Number N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW2-S RDL QC Batch MW2-D RDL QC Batch MW2-D Lab-Dup RDL QC Batch Calculated Parameters Anion Sum me/L 1.01 N/A 7893504 2.19 N/A 7893504 Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3)mg/L 15 1.0 7893500 42 1.0 7893500 Calculated TDS mg/L 58 1.0 7893509 140 1.0 7893509 Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3)mg/L ND 1.0 7893500 ND 1.0 7893500 Cation Sum me/L 0.840 N/A 7893504 2.06 N/A 7893504 Hardness (CaCO3)mg/L 17 1.0 7893502 54 1.0 7893502 Ion Balance (% Difference)%9.19 N/A 7893503 3.06 N/A 7893503 Langelier Index (@ 20C)N/A -3.17 7893507 -1.53 7893507 Langelier Index (@ 4C)N/A -3.42 7893508 -1.78 7893508 Nitrate (N)mg/L 0.052 0.050 7893505 0.095 0.050 7893505 Saturation pH (@ 20C)N/A 9.46 7893507 8.50 7893507 Saturation pH (@ 4C)N/A 9.72 7893508 8.75 7893508 Inorganics Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3)mg/L 15 5.0 7900747 42 5.0 7900747 Dissolved Chloride (Cl-)mg/L 24 1.0 7900763 36 1.0 7900763 Colour TCU ND 5.0 7900767 5.9 5.0 7900767 Nitrate + Nitrite (N)mg/L 0.052 0.050 7900769 0.095 0.050 7900769 Nitrite (N)mg/L ND 0.010 7900770 ND 0.010 7900770 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen)mg/L ND 0.050 7900933 ND 0.050 7900933 Total Organic Carbon (C)mg/L 12 (1)5.0 7900838 1.3 0.50 7899222 Orthophosphate (P)mg/L ND 0.010 7900768 ND 0.010 7900768 pH pH 6.29 7900755 6.97 7900755 7.07 7900755 Reactive Silica (SiO2)mg/L 4.5 0.50 7900765 14 0.50 7900765 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)mg/L 2.2 2.0 7900764 15 2.0 7900764 Turbidity NTU 99 0.10 7900796 120 1.0 7900796 Conductivity uS/cm 110 1.0 7900754 230 1.0 7900754 230 1.0 7900754 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Lab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated Duplicate N/A = Not Applicable ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. (1) Elevated reporting limit due to turbidity. Page 5 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER Bureau Veritas ID SDI675 SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A UNITS MW3-S QC Batch MW3-D RDL QC Batch Calculated Parameters Anion Sum me/L 0.400 7893504 0.980 N/A 7893504 Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3)mg/L 9.5 7893500 30 1.0 7893500 Calculated TDS mg/L 29 7893509 63 1.0 7893509 Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3)mg/L ND 7893500 ND 1.0 7893500 Cation Sum me/L 0.370 7893504 0.880 N/A 7893504 Hardness (CaCO3)mg/L 6.1 7893502 22 1.0 7893502 Ion Balance (% Difference)%3.90 7893503 5.38 N/A 7893503 Langelier Index (@ 20C)N/A -4.12 7893507 -1.92 7893507 Langelier Index (@ 4C)N/A -4.37 7893508 -2.17 7893508 Nitrate (N)mg/L ND 7893505 0.053 0.050 7893505 Saturation pH (@ 20C)N/A 10.1 7893507 8.94 7893507 Saturation pH (@ 4C)N/A 10.3 7893508 9.20 7893508 Inorganics Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3)mg/L 9.5 7900747 30 5.0 7900747 Dissolved Chloride (Cl-)mg/L 4.9 7900763 5.8 1.0 7900763 Colour TCU 28 7900767 ND 5.0 7900767 Nitrate + Nitrite (N)mg/L ND 7900769 0.053 0.050 7900769 Nitrite (N)mg/L ND 7900770 ND 0.010 7900770 Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen)mg/L ND 7900933 ND 0.050 7900933 Total Organic Carbon (C)mg/L 5.0 7899222 1.2 0.50 7900838 Orthophosphate (P)mg/L ND 7900768 0.023 0.010 7900768 pH pH 5.97 7900755 7.02 7900755 Reactive Silica (SiO2)mg/L 7.0 7900765 9.7 0.50 7900765 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)mg/L 3.3 7900764 10 2.0 7900764 Turbidity NTU 13 7900796 17 0.10 7898221 Conductivity uS/cm 41 7900754 96 1.0 7900754 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch N/A = Not Applicable ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 6 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA MERCURY BY COLD VAPOUR AA (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A UNITS MW3-D RDL QC Batch Metals Dissolved Mercury (Hg)ug/L ND 0.013 7903379 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI674 SDI675 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S QC Batch MW2-D MW2-D Lab-Dup MW3-S RDL QC Batch Metals Dissolved Mercury (Hg)ug/L ND ND ND 7900798 ND ND ND 0.013 7903379 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Lab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated Duplicate ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 7 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA ELEMENTS BY ICP/MS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D MW3-D Lab-Dup RDL QC Batch Metals Dissolved Aluminum (Al)ug/L 920 650 130 100 480 61 62 5.0 7900859 Dissolved Antimony (Sb)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7900859 Dissolved Arsenic (As)ug/L ND 1.5 ND ND 1.3 ND ND 1.0 7900859 Dissolved Barium (Ba)ug/L 62 46 32 31 6.0 4.9 4.8 1.0 7900859 Dissolved Beryllium (Be)ug/L 1.4 1.5 ND 0.17 0.22 ND ND 0.10 7900859 Dissolved Bismuth (Bi)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Boron (B)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 50 7900859 Dissolved Cadmium (Cd)ug/L 1.1 0.95 0.14 0.29 0.16 0.086 0.085 0.010 7900859 Dissolved Calcium (Ca)ug/L 20000 20000 4900 17000 1700 7900 7900 100 7900859 Dissolved Chromium (Cr)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7900859 Dissolved Cobalt (Co)ug/L 8.5 4.6 7.7 3.3 4.7 0.64 0.63 0.40 7900859 Dissolved Copper (Cu)ug/L 3.1 1.5 1.4 24 2.2 2.6 2.6 0.50 7900859 Dissolved Iron (Fe)ug/L 1100 150 68 220 970 ND ND 50 7900859 Dissolved Lead (Pb)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7900859 Dissolved Magnesium (Mg)ug/L 5200 4600 1300 2600 460 650 650 100 7900859 Dissolved Manganese (Mn)ug/L 650 460 390 500 140 35 35 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo)ug/L ND ND ND 3.1 ND 2.1 2.1 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Nickel (Ni)ug/L 3.0 ND 2.7 27 ND 4.2 4.2 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Phosphorus (P)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 100 7900859 Dissolved Potassium (K)ug/L 1400 1200 560 3700 580 1900 1900 100 7900859 Dissolved Selenium (Se)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7900859 Dissolved Silver (Ag)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.41 0.40 0.10 7900859 Dissolved Sodium (Na)ug/L 39000 31000 11000 20000 4600 8800 9000 100 7900859 Dissolved Strontium (Sr)ug/L 96 81 22 53 5.8 13 13 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Thallium (Tl)ug/L 0.11 0.13 ND ND ND ND ND 0.10 7900859 Dissolved Tin (Sn)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Titanium (Ti)ug/L ND ND ND ND 2.7 ND ND 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Uranium (U)ug/L 1.0 2.1 ND 0.76 1.1 0.85 0.88 0.10 7900859 Dissolved Vanadium (V)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 7900859 Dissolved Zinc (Zn)ug/L 40 41 18 35 17 46 46 5.0 7900859 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Lab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated Duplicate ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 8 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D RDL QC Batch Perfluorinated Compounds Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTRDA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTEDA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPes ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorononanesulfonic acid (PFNS)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (PFOSA)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.020 7910377 Surrogate Recovery (%) 13C2-4:2-Fluorotelomersulfonic Acid %146 101 105 104 103 99 7910377 13C2-6:2-Fluorotelomersulfonic Acid %137 99 100 98 92 99 7910377 13C2-8:2-Fluorotelomersulfonic Acid %131 94 91 95 85 90 7910377 13C2-Perfluorodecanoic acid %120 85 78 84 74 84 7910377 13C2-Perfluorododecanoic acid %111 80 73 79 62 79 7910377 13C2-Perfluorohexanoic acid %128 91 90 90 80 89 7910377 13C2-perfluorotetradecanoic acid %92 62 76 77 52 50 7910377 13C2-Perfluoroundecanoic acid %114 82 75 81 69 79 7910377 13C3-Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid %126 89 86 87 79 88 7910377 13C4-Perfluorobutanoic acid %128 90 90 89 81 88 7910377 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 9 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D RDL QC Batch 13C4-Perfluoroheptanoic acid %134 95 96 95 84 96 7910377 13C4-Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid %121 87 82 86 75 85 7910377 13C4-Perfluorooctanoic acid %128 90 90 89 80 88 7910377 13C5-Perfluorononanoic acid %127 92 87 89 80 89 7910377 13C5-Perfluoropentanoic acid %124 89 88 88 78 88 7910377 13C8-Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide %117 81 78 78 71 81 7910377 18O2-Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid %130 96 89 96 84 92 7910377 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 10 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC-MS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S QC Batch MW1-D QC Batch MW2-S QC Batch MW2-D MW3-S RDL QC Batch Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 1-Methylnaphthalene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.050 7895734 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.050 7895734 Acenaphthene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Acenaphthylene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Anthracene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene ug/L ND 7893968 ND 7893969 ND 7893968 ND ND 0.020 7893969 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(j)fluoranthene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Chrysene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Fluoranthene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Fluorene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Naphthalene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.20 7895734 Perylene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Phenanthrene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Pyrene ug/L ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND 7895734 ND ND 0.010 7895734 Surrogate Recovery (%) D10-Anthracene %93 7895734 93 7895734 96 7895734 94 87 7895734 D14-Terphenyl %99 7895734 103 7895734 101 7895734 101 91 7895734 D8-Acenaphthylene %94 7895734 94 7895734 97 7895734 95 86 7895734 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 11 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC-MS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A UNITS MW3-D RDL QC Batch Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 1-Methylnaphthalene ug/L ND 0.050 7895734 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/L ND 0.050 7895734 Acenaphthene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Acenaphthylene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Anthracene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene ug/L ND 0.020 7893969 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(j)fluoranthene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Chrysene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Fluoranthene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Fluorene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Naphthalene ug/L ND 0.20 7895734 Perylene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Phenanthrene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Pyrene ug/L ND 0.010 7895734 Surrogate Recovery (%) D10-Anthracene %93 7895734 D14-Terphenyl %100 7895734 D8-Acenaphthylene %93 7895734 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 12 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC/MS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI678 SDI679 SDI680 SDI682 SDI683 SDI684 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-SV MW1-DV MW2-SV MW2-DV MW3-SV MW3-DV RDL QC Batch Volatile Organics 1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 7894182 1,1-Dichloroethylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 Ethylene Dibromide ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.20 7894182 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Benzene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Bromodichloromethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND 1.1 1.0 7894182 Bromoform ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Bromomethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 Carbon Tetrachloride ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 Chlorobenzene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Chloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 8.0 7894182 Chloroform ug/L ND 1.6 ND 6.6 1.6 5.6 1.0 7894182 Chloromethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 8.0 7894182 Dibromochloromethane ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.0 7894182 Ethylbenzene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 7894182 Styrene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Tetrachloroethylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Toluene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Trichloroethylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Trichlorofluoromethane (FREON 11)ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 8.0 7894182 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 13 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC/MS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI678 SDI679 SDI680 SDI682 SDI683 SDI684 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-SV MW1-DV MW2-SV MW2-DV MW3-SV MW3-DV RDL QC Batch Vinyl Chloride ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.50 7894182 o-Xylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 p+m-Xylene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 7894182 Total Xylenes ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 7894182 Total Trihalomethanes ug/L ND 1.6 ND 6.6 1.6 6.7 1.0 7894182 Surrogate Recovery (%) 4-Bromofluorobenzene %95 97 98 98 98 98 7894182 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane %98 100 98 99 99 98 7894182 D8-Toluene %100 102 101 103 101 102 7894182 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. Page 14 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA ATLANTIC RBCA HYDROCARBONS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S QC Batch MW3-D RDL QC Batch Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895669 ND 0.0010 7895669 Toluene mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895669 ND 0.0010 7895669 Ethylbenzene mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895669 ND 0.0010 7895669 Total Xylenes mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895669 ND 0.0020 7895669 C6 - C10 (less BTEX)mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895669 ND 0.090 7895669 >C10-C16 Hydrocarbons mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895760 ND 0.050 7896421 >C16-C21 Hydrocarbons mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895760 ND 0.050 7896421 >C21-<C32 Hydrocarbons mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7895760 ND 0.090 7896421 Modified TPH (Tier1)mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 7893728 ND 0.090 7893728 Reached Baseline at C32 mg/L NA NA NA NA NA 7895760 NA N/A 7896421 Hydrocarbon Resemblance mg/L NA NA NA NA NA 7895760 NA N/A 7896421 Surrogate Recovery (%) Isobutylbenzene - Extractable %94 93 88 98 91 7895760 108 7896421 n-Dotriacontane - Extractable %97 98 89 102 98 7895760 114 7896421 Isobutylbenzene - Volatile %103 103 103 104 104 7895669 100 7895669 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. N/A = Not Applicable Page 15 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA ATLANTIC RBCA HYDROCARBONS (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI677 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 COC Number N/A UNITS FD1 RDL QC Batch Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene mg/L ND 0.0010 7895669 Toluene mg/L ND 0.0010 7895669 Ethylbenzene mg/L ND 0.0010 7895669 Total Xylenes mg/L ND 0.0020 7895669 C6 - C10 (less BTEX)mg/L ND 0.090 7895669 >C10-C16 Hydrocarbons mg/L ND 0.050 7896421 >C16-C21 Hydrocarbons mg/L ND 0.050 7896421 >C21-<C32 Hydrocarbons mg/L ND 0.090 7896421 Modified TPH (Tier1)mg/L ND 0.090 7893728 Reached Baseline at C32 mg/L NA N/A 7896421 Hydrocarbon Resemblance mg/L NA N/A 7896421 Surrogate Recovery (%) Isobutylbenzene - Extractable %105 7896421 n-Dotriacontane - Extractable %105 7896421 Isobutylbenzene - Volatile %106 7895669 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. N/A = Not Applicable Page 16 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Bureau Veritas Job #: C273279 Report Date: 2022/04/01 Strum Environmental Client Project #: 21-7802 Site Location:CHESTER Sampler Initials: PA POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS BY GC-ECD (GROUND WATER) Bureau Veritas ID SDI671 SDI672 SDI673 SDI674 SDI675 SDI676 Sampling Date 2022/03/18 10:20 2022/03/18 10:40 2022/03/18 11:00 2022/03/18 11:20 2022/03/18 11:35 2022/03/18 11:50 COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNITS MW1-S QC Batch MW1-D MW2-S MW2-D MW3-S MW3-D RDL QC Batch PCBs Aroclor 1016 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Aroclor 1221 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Aroclor 1232 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Aroclor 1248 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Aroclor 1242 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Aroclor 1254 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Aroclor 1260 ug/L ND 7898117 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7898117 Calculated Total PCB ug/L ND 7893971 ND ND ND ND ND 0.050 7893972 Surrogate Recovery (%) Decachlorobiphenyl %87 7898117 80 76 (1)102 71 93 (1)7898117 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not Detected at a concentration equal or greater than the indicated Detection Limit. (1) PCB sample contained sediment. Page 17 of 33 Bureau Veritas 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com APPENDIX H WATER STATIC MEASUREMENTS Water Statics Results - Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Sherwood, NS Project # 21-7802 Grade Measured Depth to Static Depth to Static Well Point Point Water Elevation Water Elevation Number Elevation Elevation 22/03/17 22/03/17 22/03/18 22/03/18 (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) MW1-S 192.543 193.570 1.489 192.081 1.474 192.096 MW1-D 192.652 193.640 1.510 192.130 1.502 192.138 MW2-S 182.298 183.091 1.012 182.079 1.252 181.839 MW2-D 182.371 183.378 2.383 180.995 2.408 180.970 MW3-S 175.956 176.945 1.484 175.461 1.915 175.030 MW3-D 175.899 176.647 1.356 175.291 1.473 175.174 Measured on indicated dates using electronic interface probe Depth to water measured from Measured Point Elevation on well head All elevations referenced from previous geodetic survey data on a TBM located at measure point at MW4 and MW8-S. APPENDIX I ATLANTIC RBCA ECOLOGICAL SCREENING ASSESSMENT $SSHQGL[$WODQWLF5%&$9HUVLRQ (&2/2*,&$/6&5((1,1* 35272&2/ )253(752/(80 ,03$&7('6,7(6,1$7/$17,&&$1$'$ 6800$5<7$%/( 5(68/762)(&2/2*,&$/6&5((1,1*35272&2/)253(752/(80,03$&7('6,7(6 Instructions to Practitioners: This table is intended to summarize the results of the Ecological Screening Protocol and must be completed in consultation with guidance provided in the protocol. Users should include this completed table in their Environmental Assessment or Closure Report. Details and explanations are to be provided in the body of the Report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x ZHWODQGKDELWDWV x DTXDWLF KDELWDWV x IRUHVWHGKDELWDWV x JUDVVODQG KDELWDWV x SURYLQFLDOQDWLRQDOSDUNVRUHFRORJLFDOUHVHUYHV x NQRZQUDUHWKUHDWHQHG RUHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHV x RWKHUNQRZQFULWLFDORUVHQVLWLYHKDELWDW x RWKHUORFDORUUHJLRQDOUHFHSWRU RUKDELWDWFRQFHUQV N/A Only groundwater assessed. Limited Phase II ESA, Section 5.4 Limited Phase II ESA, Section 5.4 No No No Surface water not present. No Sediment not present. Only groundwater assessed. Limited Phase II ESA, Section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e.g HURVLRQZLQGEORZQFRQWDPLQDQWV E JURXQGZDWHUIORZ F SUHIHUHQWLDORYHUODQGIORZSDWKZD\V e.g GUDLQDJHGLWFKVORSHVZDOH G SUHIHUHQWLDOVXEVXUIDFHIORZSDWKZD\V e.gFXOYHUWWUHQFKVHZHUOLQHSLSHOLQHV VZDOHV VXFK WKDW DTXHRXV PHGLD FRQFHQWUDWLRQV ZRXOG SRWHQWLDOO\ H[FHHG VXUIDFH ZDWHU DQGRU VHGLPHQWTXDOLW\VFUHHQLQJOHYHOV" $UHWKHUHVLWHVSHFLILFFRQGLWLRQVSUHVHQWZKLFKZHUHQRWFRQVLGHUHGLQDQ\VHFWLRQDERYHWKDW VKRXOGUHTXLUHIXUWKHUHFRORJLFDODVVHVVPHQW" ,)$// $16:(56,13$57,,,$5(127+(112)857+(5$&7,21,65(48,5(' REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: May 26, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Corporate & Strategic Management SUBJECT: Electoral Boundary Review ORIGIN: MGA Section 369; 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Date: May 20, 2022 Prepared by: Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator Date: May 20, 2022 Reviewed by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Date: May 20, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED ACTION That Council:  complete Step 1 of the of the Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review by directing changes to, or confirmation of, the number of polling districts in terms of the number of electors in each district and the average number of electors per district; and  direct staff to move to Step 2 Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review and develop further analysis for any required revisions to electoral boundaries, including the development of community consultation. CURRENT SITUATION The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) requires that the Municipality of Chester complete and submit a Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review study that confirms or changes the number and boundaries of polling districts and the number of councillors by December 2022. The UARB outlines this requirement as a two-step process: Step 1: Council first determines the desired number of councillors (i.e., the size of council) and whether leadership should continue with a Warden or switch to a Mayoral system. Step 2: Council then undertakes community consultation on the recommended size of Council and the impact of any changes to the distribution of polling districts and their boundaries. On February 10, 2022, Council discussed possible changes to the Municipality of Chester’s governance structure and reaffirmed a commitment to the current Warden system and provided direction to staff on proceeding with the electoral boundary review: MOTION 2022-051 – MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the governance structure as it is now, i.e. the Warden system, and direct staff to carry out the boundary review in house. The purpose of this report is to provide the data to enable Council to complete Step 1 of the Review process. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 BACKGROUND The Municipal Government Act (MGA) stipulates that municipalities conduct this review every eight (8) years: Study of polling districts required 369 (1) In the year 1999, and in the years 2006 and every eighth year thereafter the council shall conduct a study of the number and boundaries of polling districts in the municipality, their fairness and reasonableness and the number of councillors. (2) After the study is completed, and before the end of the year in which the study was conducted, the council shall apply to the [Nova Scotia Utility and Review] Board to confirm or to alter the number and boundaries of polling districts and the number of councillors. The two-step review process outlined by NSUARB is as follows: Step 1: Council first determines the desired number of councillors (i.e., the size of council) and whether leadership should continue with a Warden or switch to a Mayoral system. Determining the size of council involves the consideration of the desired style and governance structure of Council, and a determination of an effective and efficient number of councillors. Step 2: Once the number of councillors and polling districts has been determined, Council must review the distribution of polling districts and their boundaries. Several factors must be addressed when determining boundaries of polling districts, including the number of electors, relative parity of voting power, population density, community of interest, and geographic size. The NSUARB determines that the variance for relative parity of voting power must be ±10% from the average number of electors per polling district. Any variance in excess of ±10% must be justified in the study submitted to the NSUARB. The larger the proposed variance, the greater the burden on the municipality to justify the higher variance. DISCUSSION CHANGES IN ELECTORS PER DISTRICT The last Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review was completed in December 2014. At that time, the application to the NSUARB confirmed the number of Councillors at seven (7). The rationale for no changes was that the number of polling districts and Councillors had been operating satisfactorily since being created 1994 and that the population of the Municipality, and the distribution of that population among electoral districts, remained stable. The 2014 Review also confirmed that the factors that informed the reduction of the number of Councillors and polling districts from 10 to 7 in 1994 remained relevant and valid in 2014. Community consultation at that time resulted in no concerns being raised, with some constituents expressing satisfaction with the existing number of Councillors and boundaries. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 Statistics Canada census figures for the population of the Municipality was 10,741 in 2006 and 10,599 in 2011. More recent census population figures for the Municipality continue this trend: 10,310 in 2016 and 10,693 in 2021. The 2011 population figures and the number of electors in 2012 informed the analysis for the 2014 Review. Those figures provide the point of comparison with the 2021 census population figures and the electors count as of February 3, 2022 for the 2022 Review. In that context, the change in population between 2021 (10,693) and 2011 (10,599) amounts to 94 people or 0.87%. This would suggest that the Municipality’s population remains stable. However, there has been a significant change in the number of electors between 2012 and 2022. The following chart illustrates the number of electors per polling district between the 2012 election and the most recent electors count in February 2022. These figures reflect the electoral boundaries that were changed in 2006 Review and confirmed in the 2014 Review. Polling District Number of Electors per District in 2012 Number of Electors per District as of February 2022 Change in Electors between 2022 & 2012 % Change 2022 Electors per District as Variation from the District Average 2022 Electors per District as % Variation from the District Average 1 1,142 1,380 238 20.84% 79 6.07% 2 1,164 1,464 300 25.77% 163 12.52% 3 1,065 1,224 159 14.93% -77 -5.92% 4 1,092 1,191 99 9.06% -110 -8.45% 5 1,194 1,400 206 17.25% 99 7.61% 6 1,156 1,280 124 10.72% -21 -1.61% 7 1,011 1,171 160 15.82% -130 -9.99% Total 7,824 9,110 1,286 16.43% Average 1,118 1,301 183 16.36% Although all districts saw an increase in the number of electors, only District 2 surpasses the NSUARB threshold of ±10% percentage variation from the polling district average. This percentage variation effectively triggers necessary boundary review adjustments in Step 2 of the review process. REVIEWING THE SIZE OF COUNCIL As noted above, Step 1 requires Council to review the size of Council. Below is a brief table that outlines how different options for the size of Council will affect the average number of electors per District and per Councillor. This is important in fulfilling the NSUARB directive to assess what constitutes an effective and efficient number of councillors and voter parity. Size of Council Number of Electors per Councillor 5 1,822 6 1,518 7 1,301 8 1,139 R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 To provide some context, the following comparable municipal units (rural municipalities with similar populations) function with the following sized Councils. The Municipality of Richmond County 5 councillors (including Warden) The Municipality of Inverness County 6 councillors including Warden) The Municipality of the District of Yarmouth 7 councillors including Warden) The Municipality of Queens County 8 councillors (including Warden) The Municipality of the District of Argyle 9 councillors (including Warden) OPTIONS Council may choose one of the following options: 1. Recommend that the size of Council remain at seven (7) Councillors and that staff proceed to Step 2 analysis for required revisions to electoral boundaries and subsequent community consultation. 2. Recommend changes to the size of Council and that staff proceed to Step 2 analysis for required revisions to electoral boundaries and subsequent community consultation. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental Not applicable Strategic Priorities The Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Governance & Engagement 1. Ensure municipal service delivery is efficient and effective, communicated and accessible. 2. Ensure municipal bylaw and policy frameworks reflect current and changing needs. Priority Outcomes: Healthy & Vibrant Communities 2. Develop an accessibility, diversity, and equity lens for municipal plans and services, and support partners in advancing accessible and inclusive communities. Work Program Implications The Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review will be developed and completed by the Strategic Initiatives Coordinator and the Deputy CAO. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No X N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 5 COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) A community consultation process will be developed for Step 2 of the Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review ATTACHMENTS None. REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: May 26, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation Dept. SUBJECT: New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: New Private Road Name Request Date: May 5, 2022 Prepared by: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date: Ma 17, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve the proposed private road name Yellow Marsh Lane. CURRENT SITUATION A private right-of-way accessed off of Highway 3 in East River (map attached) that will provide access for a future development of three or more addressable structures requires a name. The landowners have proposed the road name of Yellow Marsh Lane. BACKGROUND When there are three or more addressable structures using an unnamed shared right-of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to Municipal Policy P-44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement (66%) from the landowners that are served by the shared right-of-way. In this instance, the property owners have proposed the following road names: Yellow Marsh Lane, Skyview Lane, Sunset Lane, Bella Lane, Mayflower Lane, Wyman Lane, Nuthatch Lane, and Chickadee Lane. The proposed names were suggested by five (5) of the total eight (8) property owners affected. Four (4) of these five (5) property owners have selected Yellow Marsh Lane as their first choice. While the fifth property owner has selected Wyman Lane as their first choice. Of the eight (8) affected properties, two (2) property owners have not responded and one property owner for a lot accessed off Highway 3 has requested to be excluded in the process for naming the private road as their address will not be affected. Therefore, the suggested road name of Yellow Marsh Lane is the first choice of 57.1% (4/7) property owners (not included, the one property owner that expressed that they would like to be excluded). And 80% (4/5) property owners that have responded (also excluding the property owners that have not responded). DISCUSSION Yellow Marsh Lane would be a unique road name in the Municipality of Chester and Nova Scotia. It is of note that the proposed new road name is similar to the following: - Yellow Birch Lane, Hart Lake, Municipality of the County of Colchester, Colchester County - Yellow Birch Lane, Lakelands, Municipality of the District of East Hants, Hants County - Yellow Marsh Loop, Yellow Marsh, Municipality of the District of Guysborough, Guysborough County - Yellow Marsh Road SE, Yellow Marsh, Municipality of the District of Guysborough, Guysborough County - Yellowleaf Lane, Portuguese Cove, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 - Yellowtail Ridge, West Chezzetcook, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County Comments received for Yellow Marsh Lane: - District 1 Councillor – Councillor Andre Veinotte: no objection with the proposed name - Director of Public Works – Fred Whynot: no objection with the proposed name - Chester Area Fire Dept. – Fire Chief: comments received “All good on our end.” OPTIONS 1. Municipal Council can approve the road name Yellow Marsh Lane. 2. Municipal Council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a name of Council’s choosing. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy Policy P-44 – New Road Names and Road Name Changes. Financial/budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Infrastructure & Operations Department. Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities N/A Work Program Implications N/A Has Legal review been completed? N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition Received 2. Location Map 1389 H i g h w a y 3 H ig h w a y 1 0 3 Rev.:Date:Description: 0 MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER From Date: N /ATo Da te : N/ADate Printed: 22/05/05 ® Legend Civic Address Private Lane Requiring Name Road Building Footprint Property Boundary Affected Property 80 0 8040 Metres 22/05/05 Digital Folders Entry ID:1198577 Status: Ex istsProject ID: N/AClassification #: N/A Representation of Municipality of Chester within Nova ScotiaScale: 1:12 ,500 ,0 00 Scale: 1:4,000 New Private Road Name Proposed:Yelow Marsh Lane New Private Road Naming Sources:Digital Base Map Data from Service N ova Scotia andMunicipal Relations Prepared by the Municipality of the District of Chester Coordinate System/Datum: UTM NAD83 CSRS ZONE20N Map Disclaim er:Information shown on these drawings is compiledfrom numerous sources and may not be complete oraccurate. The Municipality of the District of Chester isnot responsible for any erro rs, omissions ordeficiencies in these drawings. Date printed do es notreflect date ofdata. Actual Map Size: w 11" x h 8.5" Community:East RiverPID:60706496, 60706470, 60706488, 60720430,60720448, 60720455, 60720463, 60706462AAN:10763916, 10763932, 10763924, 10950716,10950724, 10950732, 10444632, 10763940Fire Dept:Chester Area Fire Dept.Description:New private road name request foraccess to new subdivision. New Private Road NameProposed: Yellow Marsh Lane 1379 Page 13 NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): lst 2nd 3rd `fie ►ow Marsh (one fella Lail? May flower bane Signature of affected landowners: PID #: 60706496 Names: Cassidy Dawn Burgoyne 8z Connor Brandon Mcneil Signatures; )ISTRI T i;. 'MENT APR O72Ll2 PID #: 60706470 Names: Johanna Louise Mae Conrad & Jeffery James Snair Signatures: PID #: 60706488 Names: Ryan Pyke & Raeanne Pyke Signatures: TIIE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st V\/ y M,A T--A L-Ae I ©I V1 IF—M 012 1— Jrd 90N UT t- tkT } 1 A N1 ("T-! LEI r r Signature of affected landowners: PID #: 60706496 Naives: Cassidy Dawn Burgoyne & Connor Brandon Mcneil Signatures:. PID #: 60706470 Narnes: Johanna Louise Mae Conrad &. Jeffery Jaynes Snair Signatures: PID #: 60706488 Names: Ryan Pyke & Raeanne Pyke Signatures: Page 13 NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1-St Zca s Cr j '6 Z Al, 2°d S /<'f/ 3rd a-r aw/? Signature of affected landowners: PID #: 60706496 Names: Cassidy Dawn Burgoyne & Connor Brandon Mcneil Signatures: PID #: 60706470 Names: Johanna Louise Mae Conrad & Jeffery James Snair Signatures: PID #: 60706488 Names: Ryan Pyke & Raeanne Pyke Signatures: 6, 4 t THE MUNICIPALITY Of CHESTER TH k. $ ' [i' I',AL I i E.19 CHESTER MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER DISTRICT GRANT APPLICATION Deadline to Apply: February 28 Name of Organization New Ross Trails Society Contact Person Sheena (senor Position with Organization Chairperson Organization Mailing Address Box 69, New Ross, NS BOJ 2M0 Phone: 902-277-1450 Email: sobroome@hotmail.com Date: May 20, 2022 Signature of Signing Officer(s) and their position with Organization: Name (printed) Position Chairperson Endorsement (check box) I declare I am a member of the organization and have authority to submit this application. Amount Requested: $ 1,000.00 Municipal District # 6 1) Please provide a brief description of your project or event. (Maximum 1250 characters) This is a two part request. The first is an event, a "Fairy Walk", to X celebrate the opening of our new trail, Larder's Lane". The second is a project, The Little Ladybug Library, for uuvs Iraii. 2) Please provide a brief description of how you plan to spend any District Grant funding. (Max 800 characters) The event funding will be to cover costs of refreshments, craft items, and materials. The project cost will be to cover materials/supplies New Ross Trails Society Who should the cheque be made payable to? Please forward applications to the following: ATTN: Recreation & Parks Services Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box 369 Chester NS BOJ 110 Email: recreation@chester.ca 1 Pam Myra (she/her) From:Sharon Church Sent:May 21, 2022 9:17 AM To:Chad Haughn; Pam Myra (she/her) Subject:District council grant Hi Chad & Pam: This application was dropped off to me last night. Could it please be added to Thursday’s council meeting. I will bring the original with me. Thanks, Sharon