1654967 rep 2017'03'17 geotechnical report - hillsdale ... · pdf file5.1 topsoil...

March 17, 2017

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT HILLSDALE, ONTARIO

REP

OR

T

Submitted to:GCSJ Hillsdale Development Inc. 3190 Steeles Avenue East, Suite 300 Markham, Ontario L3R 1G9 Attention: Ms. Shauna Dudding, P.Eng.

Report Number: 1654967 (Rev. 1)

Distribution:

1 eCopy – GCSJ Hillsdale Developments Inc. 1 Copy – Golder Associates Ltd.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT

March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) i

Table of Contents

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

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................................... 1

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Topsoil ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

4.2 (CL/CI-ML) Clayey Silt to Silty Clay .......................................................................................................... 2

4.3 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Upper) .................................................................................................. 3

4.4 (SM) Silty Sand ......................................................................................................................................... 3

4.5 (ML) Sandy Silt ......................................................................................................................................... 3

4.6 (SM) Silty Sand (Till) ................................................................................................................................. 4

4.7 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Lower) .................................................................................................. 4

4.8 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5

5.1 Topsoil Stripping and Reuse ..................................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Engineered Fill .......................................................................................................................................... 6

5.3 Foundation Design .................................................................................................................................... 7

5.3.1 Basement and Garage Floor Slabs ..................................................................................................... 8

5.3.2 Permanent Below-Grade Walls ........................................................................................................... 9

5.4 Excavation for Site Servicing .................................................................................................................... 9

5.4.1 Pipe Bedding and Cover ................................................................................................................... 10

5.4.2 Trench Backfill .................................................................................................................................. 11

5.5 Soil Bulking ............................................................................................................................................. 11

5.6 Construction Dewatering ........................................................................................................................ 12

5.7 Stormwater Management Pond .............................................................................................................. 12

5.8 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................................... 14

5.9 Road Side Ditches .................................................................................................................................. 15

5.10 Culverts .................................................................................................................................................. 15

6.0 ADDITIONAL WORK, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING ....................................................................................... 15


March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) ii

ATTACHMENTS Important Information and Limitations of This Report Figure 1 – Key Plan Figure 2 – Borehole Location Plan Figures 3 to 7 APPENDIX A Method of Soil Classification

Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits

List of Symbols

Record of Boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, TB-1, TB-2 and SWM-1


March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has been retained by GCSJ Hillsdale Development Inc. to provide geotechnical

engineering services in support of the design of a residential development within the existing Sarjeant lands, in

Hillsdale, in the Township of Springwater, Ontario.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the geotechnical information (soil and groundwater) acquired in this

area and to provide preliminary recommendations and comments on the geotechnical aspects of the design and

construction of the proposed development.

The factual data, interpretations and preliminary recommendations contained in this report pertain to a specific

project as described in the report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. If the project is

modified in concept, location or elevation, or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the

report, Golder should be given an opportunity to confirm that the preliminary recommendations are still valid. In

addition, this report should be read in conjunction with the attached "Important Information and Limitations of This

Report", attached to this report. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information, as it is essential

for the proper use and interpretation of this report.

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND It is understood that GCSJ Hillsdale Development Inc. is proposing to develop the Sarjeant Lands as residential

lots, a tile bed and a Storm Water Management (SWM) Pond. The proposed development property is located

north and adjacent to the Hillsdale Heritage Village Development, which is draft plan approved. The Sarjeant

Lands are about 200 m wide north to south and the portion of the lands to be developed extend east about 800 m

from Penetanguishene Road (Highway 93). The site is located in the Township of Springwater, County of Simcoe,

Ontario, as shown on Figure 1.

Based on the current Draft Plan prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. dated December 7, 2016, the proposed

development will consist of residential lots, associated roadways, a tile bed block located on the east boundary of

the property and a SWM pond that is located in the south eastern corner of the site and west of the tile bed block.

3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

3.1 Field Investigation A subsurface investigation was carried out at the site between April 20, 2016 and April 22, 2016, during which time

a total of eight boreholes were advanced at the site (Boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, TB-1, TB-2 and SWM-1). The

surveyed borehole locations are indicated on the attached Figure 2.

The boreholes were drilled using a buggy-mounted drill rig supplied and operated by a specialist drilling contractor.

Soil samples were obtained in the boreholes at approximately 0.75 m and 1.5 m intervals of depth, where possible,

using 50 mm outer diameter split-spoon samplers driven by an automatic hammer, in accordance with the

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedures (ASTM D1586). The split-spoon samplers used in the investigation

limit the maximum particle size that can be sampled and tested to about 38 mm. Therefore, particles or objects

that may exist within the soils that are larger than this dimension will not be sampled or represented in the grain

size distributions. The results of the in situ field tests (i.e., SPT ‘N’-values) as presented on the Record of Borehole

sheets and in subsequent sections of this report are uncorrected.



The groundwater conditions were noted in the open boreholes during drilling. Monitoring wells, 50 mm diameter,

were installed in selected boreholes and were equipped with above ground steel casing access covers to allow for

subsequent monitoring of the groundwater levels at the site.

The field work was observed on a full-time basis by a member of Golder’s engineering staff who arranged for the

clearance of underground utility services, directed the sampling and in-situ testing operations, and logged the

subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes. All of the samples obtained during this investigation were

brought to our Barrie laboratory for further examination, natural water content testing and selective classification

testing.

The borehole locations were staked out in the field by Golder personnel prior to the drilling operations. Following

the drilling, the borehole and monitoring well locations were surveyed by licenced surveyors. The ground surface

elevations (referenced to Geodetic Datum) at the borehole locations were also surveyed at that time.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes, as well as the results of the field

and laboratory testing are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A and on Figures 3 to 7,

respectively, following the text of this report. Golder’s “Method of Soil Classification” and “Abbreviations and Terms

Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits” are also attached in Appendix A to assist in the interpretation of the

borehole logs. It should be noted that the boundaries between the soil strata have been inferred from drilling

observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another

and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of geological change. Further, conditions will vary between

and beyond the boreholes.

In general, the subsurface conditions at the site are variable throughout the site and consist of a surficial layer of

topsoil, underlain by a near surface deposits of sand and silty sand. The underlying stratigraphic sequence is

variable and consists of deposits of silty clay, clayey silt, sandy silt, and silty sand and silty sand till. Groundwater

was encountered in several of the boreholes on completion of drilling and subsequently measured in the monitoring

wells was found to vary throughout the site. A more detailed description of the major soil strata and groundwater

conditions is presented below.

4.1 Topsoil A layer of topsoil ranging in thickness from about 80 mm to 200 mm was encountered at all borehole locations.

4.2 (CL/CI-ML) Clayey Silt to Silty Clay A deposit of cohesive, brown, clayey silt to silty clay containing varying amount of sand was encountered in

Boreholes 16-1 and 16-3. The deposit thickness ranged from 2.3 m to 3.7 m, with only minor variation in the

consistency.

The SPT “N”-values measured in the clayey silt to silty clay ranged from 8 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to

40 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a stiff to hard consistency. In general, the “N”-values were between

8 and 14 indicating the deposit is generally stiff. The higher “N”-values (i.e. hard) of 40 blows per 0.3 m and

50 blows per 0.15 m of penetration were measured in the lower portion of the silty clay deposit in Borehole 16-3.

The natural water contents measured on select samples of the cohesive clayey silt to silty clay range from 21 per

cent to 37 per cent.



The results of grain size distribution tests completed on two selected samples of the silty clay deposit are shown

on Figure 3. Atterberg Limits testing carried out on two selected samples of the cohesive silty clay deposit

measured liquid limits ranging between about 38 and 42 per cent, plastic limits ranging between about 20 and

22 per cent and plasticity indices ranging between about 18 and 20. These results indicate that the cohesive

deposit is classified as a silty clay of intermediate plasticity. The grain size distribution curves for two selected

samples of the silty clay are shown on Figure 4.

4.3 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Upper) An upper sand deposit, ranging from 0.5 m to 3.0 m in thickness, was encountered below the topsoil in each of

the boreholes, excluding Borehole 16-4. Gravelly sand was encountered in Borehole TB-1 below the upper sand

layer. The gravelly sand to sand deposit contained varying amounts of fines, is non-cohesive, moist to wet and

was brown to dark brown in colour.

The SPT “N”-values measured in the gravelly sand to sand deposit range from 2 blows to 18 blows per 0.3 m of

penetration indicating that these soils are very loose to compact. In general, the “N”-values were less than 6 blows

indicating that the deposit is generally in a very loose to loose state of compactness, with the two higher

(i.e. compact state) “N”-values of 16 and 18 measured near the surface of the underlying till deposit.

The natural water contents measured on select samples of the upper gravelly sand to sand deposit range between

approximately 6 and 19 per cent. A grain size distribution curve for one selected sample of the sand is shown on

Figure 5.

4.4 (SM) Silty Sand A silty sand deposit, ranging from 0.5 m to 1.4 m in thickness, was encountered in each of the boreholes, excluding

Boreholes 16-3 and TB-1. The silty sand deposit contained varying amounts of fines, is non-cohesive, moist to

wet and brown/dark brown to grey in colour.

The SPT “N”-values measured in the upper portion of the silty sand deposit ranged from 2 blows to 6 blows per

0.3 m of penetration indicating that the upper portion of the deposit is in a very loose to loose state of compactness.

The lower portion of the deposit measured SPT “N”-values ranging from 27 blows to 38 blows per 0.3 m of

penetration indicating that the lower portion of the deposit is in a compact to dense state of compactness.

The natural water contents measured on select samples of the silty sand deposit range between approximately

8 per cent and 21 per cent. The grain size distribution curves for two selected samples of the silty sand are shown

on Figure 6.

4.5 (ML) Sandy Silt A sandy silt deposit was encountered in Boreholes 16-1, 16-2, 16-4, and SWM-1. The sandy silt is non-cohesive,

moist to wet and brown to grey in colour. The deposit ranges in thickness from 0.7 m to over 2.3 m, as

Boreholes 16-1 and 16-2 were terminated in this deposit at a maximum depth of 6.6 m below ground surface.

The SPT “N”-values measured in the sandy silt deposit ranged from 1 blow to 4 blows per 0.3 m of penetration

indicating that the upper portion of the deposit is in a very loose state of compactness. The lower portion of the

deposit measured SPT “N”-values ranging from 19 blows to 51 blows per 0.3 m of penetration indicating that the

lower portion of the deposit is in a compact to very dense state of compactness.



The natural water contents measured on select samples of the sandy silt range between approximately 12 per

cent and 25 per cent.

4.6 (SM) Silty Sand (Till) A deposit of non-cohesive, moist to wet, brown to grey silty sand till was encountered below the cohesive and

non-cohesive deposits in each of the boreholes, excluding Boreholes 16-1 and 16-2. The deposit ranges in

thickness from 1.4 m to over 6.6 m as Boreholes 16-3 to 16-5 and TB-1 were terminated within the till deposit at a

maximum depth of 9.6 m. Although cobbles and boulders were not noted during drilling through the till deposits

at this site, cobbles and boulders are commonly encountered in glacially derived materials and should be expected

within these deposits.

The SPT “N”-values measured within the silty sand till deposit range from 11 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to

56 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating that the deposit is compact to very dense. One sample did not penetrate

the full sample depth at the bottom of Borehole 16-5, which could be indicative of the presence of a cobble/boulder.

The natural water content of the silty sand till samples range from about 7 per cent to 14 per cent. The grain size

distribution curves of four samples of the silty sand till deposit are shown on Figure 7.

4.7 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Lower) A lower deposit of non-cohesive, moist to wet, brown to grey gravelly sand to sand was encountered in

Boreholes TB-2 and SWM-1 underlying the silty sand and silty sand till deposits. The gravelly sand was

encountered in Borehole TB-2 at a depth of about 8.6 m below existing ground surface and was terminated in this

deposit at a depth of 9.6 m. The sand was encountered in Borehole SWM-1 at a depth of about 4.4 m below

existing ground surface and was terminated in this deposit at a depth of 9.3 m.

The SPT “N”-values measured in the lower gravelly sand to sand deposit range between 31 blows and 55 blows

per 0.3 m of penetration indicating that these soils are dense to very dense. One sample did not penetrate the full

sample depth at the bottom of Borehole SWM-1.

The natural water contents measured on the gravelly sand to sand were approximately 13 per cent and 19 per

cent.



4.8 Groundwater Conditions The groundwater conditions encountered during this investigation and monitoring well installation details are

presented on the Record of Borehole sheets. The groundwater levels measured in monitoring wells are

summarized in the following table:

Table 1: Groundwater Measurements

Borehole No.

Surface Elevation

(m)

On Completion April 22, 2016 October 18, 2016

Depth Below

Existing Grade (m)

Elevation (m)

Depth Below Existing

Grade (m)

Elevation (m)

Depth Below Existing

Grade (m)

Elevation (m)

BH16-1 252.62 4.6 248.02 1.64 250.98 4.60 248.02

BH16-2 250.07 2.3 247.77 n/a n/a

BH16-3 245.48 5.3 240.18 1.60 243.88 6.01 239.47

BH16-4 247.21 Dry - 1.26 245.95 5.08 242.13

BH16-5 245.71 Dry - n/a n/a

TB-1 243.90 Dry - 2.65 241.25 5.29 238.42

TB-2 243.12 3.1 240.02 n/a n/a

SWM-1 244.98 4.6 240.38 2.80 242.18 5.48 239.69

It should be noted that the groundwater levels at the site are anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal variations in

precipitation and runoff.

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report provides engineering recommendations for the geotechnical design aspects of the project

based on our interpretation of the boreholes advanced at the site. The information in this portion of the report is

provided for the guidance of the design engineers and professionals. Where comments are made on construction,

they are provided only in order to highlight aspects of construction which could affect the design of the project.

Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the investigation,

satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own interpretation of the

factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, equipment capabilities, costs,

sequencing and the like.

Our professional services for this assignment address only the geotechnical (physical) aspects of the subsurface

conditions at this site. The geo-environmental (chemical) aspects, including the consequences of possible surface

and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the

introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources, are outside of the terms of reference for this report.

It is understood that the site will be developed as a residential subdivision with accompanying site servicing

including a leaching tile bed and SWM Pond. The general grading will result in the roads being approximately



0.5 m to 1.0 m above the original ground surface elevations. The depths of the proposed pipe invert elevations

for underground services are anticipated to be between 3 m and 4 m below the existing ground surface. The SWM

pond will have its deeper base at El. 240.75 m and the normal water level at El. 242.25 m. The proposed re-

grading of the site may be carried out using engineered fill. The results of this investigation should be reviewed

by Golder once the final designs of the proposed residential development are available.

5.1 Topsoil Stripping and Reuse Topsoil was encountered in all the boreholes advanced at this site. Surface probing to determine topsoil thickness

in more detail should be carried out in advance of preparing the final plans. The following geotechnical comments

are provided regarding topsoil stripping and reuse at the site:

Consideration may be given to selective stripping operations, consisting of road allowances and building

envelopes (including driveways).

Outside of road allowances and building envelopes, the topsoil may be buried and/or reused as general lot

fill to raise grades. The primary factor controlling methane generation is the organic carbon content of the

topsoil. The loss on ignition (LOI) test provides an indication of the organic carbon content of the sample.

Generally, an LOI value of less than 20 per cent is considered to be acceptable in terms of methane

generation potential. If topsoil is to be reused as general lot fill to raise grades, then LOI testing should be

carried out.

Where the topsoil is used as general lot fill, its thickness should be limited to about 1.2 m. The topsoil fill

should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to 95 per cent of the material’s

Standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). To have any success in placing topsoil as lot grading fill,

it must be placed at or very close to its optimum water content to achieve workability and adequate

compaction, in order to minimize post-construction settlements and/or lateral movements (e.g. of fences,

etc.).

5.2 Engineered Fill Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, deposits of potentially compressible soils

(stiff silty clay deposits) were encountered in Boreholes 16-1 and 16-3. Once the final grading plans have been

prepared, Golder should review the grade raises, if any, to determine if the silty clay deposit is susceptible to

settlement. However, grade raises of less than about 4 m should not result in any long-term consolidation

settlement based on the consistency of the silty clay deposit. If significant grade raises are planned, the silty clay

and near surface loose to very loose granular deposits may have to be removed before placing engineered fill if

they are within the zone of influence of the building foundations.

Prior to placing engineered fill at the site, the topsoil and the surficial layers containing organic matter, must first

be stripped. The area(s) should then be proof rolled in conjunction with an inspection by qualified geotechnical

personnel, to confirm that the exposed soils are native, undisturbed and competent, and have been adequately

cleaned of ponded water and all fill as well as disturbed, loosened, softened, organic and other deleterious

materials. Remedial work (i.e., further sub-excavation and replacement) should be carried out as directed by

qualified geotechnical personnel.

Materials for reuse as engineered fill must be approved by qualified geotechnical personnel prior to placement. In

this regard, excavated native soils from the site, free of significant amounts of organics and other deleterious



materials, may be reused as engineered fill. Based on the measured natural water contents, most of the native

materials (except for the glacial till deposits) encountered in the boreholes are generally higher than their estimated

laboratory optimum water contents for compaction and will require drying prior to compaction. It should also be

noted that due to the fine-grained nature of the near surface soils, their workability is sensitive to moisture

conditions and some difficulty should be expected in achieving adequate compaction during wet weather.

If imported materials are to be used for engineered fill, they must be approved by Golder at the source(s), prior to

hauling to the site. In this regard, imported granular materials which meet the requirements for OPSS Select

Subgrade Material (SSM) would be suitable for use as engineered fill. The approved materials for engineered fill

should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 98 per cent of SPMDD

throughout. The placement of engineered fill must be monitored by Golder on a full-time basis.

The final surface of the engineered fill should be protected as necessary from construction traffic, and should be

sloped to provide positive drainage for surface water during and following the construction period. During periods

of freezing weather, additional soil cover should be placed above final subgrade to provide for frost protection.

Prior to placing additional engineered fill, the surface of the existing engineered fill must be re-inspected by Golder.

5.3 Foundation Design Based on the results of this investigation, the subsurface soil conditions are variable throughout the site with the

upper about 2 m compactness of the near surface sand, silty sand and sandy silt being very loose to loose. Below

about 2 m depth below ground surface, the deposits are generally compact to dense/stiff. Light residential single

family houses with basements may be founded on conventional shallow spread and/or continuous strip footings

bearing in the native, undisturbed soils below the loose to very loose surficial deposits. Such footings should be

designed using a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 200 kPa and geotechnical

reaction at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 125 kPa, for a maximum 25 mm of settlement at or below the

proposed founding depths given in Table 2 below. These bearing values are based on the assumption that strip

footings have a minimum width of 450 mm, spread footings have a minimum dimension of 1 m and maximum

dimension of 3 m. The footings can be founded below these depths to accommodate basements dimensions.

Table 2: Proposed Minimum Founding Depths

Borehole ID

Minimum Depth below Existing Ground

Surface

(m)*

Corresponding Maximum Elevation

(m) Anticipated Founding

Soils

16-1 2.2 250.4 Stiff silty clay

16-2 2.2 247.9 Compact sandy silt

16-3 1.5 244.0 Stiff silty clay

16-4 1.5 245.7 Compact silty sand till

16-5 2.2 243.5 Compact silty sand till

*at least 1.6 m of soil cover, or equivalent insulation, is required after final grading for frost protection.



For foundations in engineered fill, if required to raise the grade, provided that the engineered fill thickness is at

least 2 m, a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of 225 kPa and a geotechnical reaction

at Serviceability Limit State (SLS, for 25 mm of settlement) of 150 kPa may be used. This recommendation

assumes that the engineered fill areas are constructed above suitable subgrade soils at the depths indicated above

and follow the recommendations above.

For an engineered fill thickness less than 2 m, the ULS and SLS values provided above for the native soils should

be used.

Golder should be given the opportunity to review all foundation recommendations once foundation elevations are

finalized.

All foundation excavations at the site should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety

Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. The founding materials are susceptible to disturbance by

construction activity especially during wet weather and care should be taken to preserve the integrity of the

materials as bearing strata. Prior to pouring concrete for the footings, the foundation excavations should be

inspected by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the footings are founded within an undisturbed and

competent bearing stratum that has been cleaned of ponded water and all disturbed, softened, loosened, organic

and other deleterious material. It is essential that all footings founded on engineered fill and/or native soils be

inspected by Golder prior to pouring concrete.

Where spread footings are constructed at different elevations, the difference in elevation between the individual

footings should not be greater than one half the clear distances between the footings. In addition, the lower footings

should be constructed first so that if it is necessary to construct the lower footings at a greater depth than anticipated,

the elevation of the upper footings can be adjusted accordingly. Stepped strip footings should be constructed in

accordance with the Ontario Building Code, Section 9.15.3.8.

All exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be provided with at least 1.6 m of soil cover after final

grading, or equivalent thermal insulation, to minimize the potential for damage due to frost action. In addition, the

bearing soil and fresh concrete should be protected from freezing during cold weather construction.

5.3.1 Basement and Garage Floor Slabs

In preparation for the construction of the basement and garage floor slabs, all loose, wet, and disturbed material

should be removed from beneath the floor slabs. Provision should be made for at least 200 millimetres of OPSS

Granular ‘A’ or 19 mm Crusher Run Limestone to form the base of the floor slabs.

To prevent hydrostatic pressure build up beneath the basement and garage floor slabs, it is suggested that the

granular base below the floor slabs be positively drained. This could be achieved by providing a hydraulic link

between the underslab fill material and the exterior perimeter drainage system. The perimeter drainage system

will be pumped to the road side ditch.

Although the groundwater levels at the site were observed to fluctuate, the groundwater levels were measured as

high as 1.2 m to 2.8 m below ground surface during April 2016. Localized perched water tables may be

encountered within the near surface non-cohesive deposits overlying the silty clay deposits (Boreholes 16-1 and

16-3). If the groundwater level is encountered above subgrade level, a geotextile should be placed between the

underslab fill and the granular subgrade soils, to control the potential loss of fine soil particles from the subgrade



soil into the drainage system. In the extreme case, loss of fines into the drainage system could cause ground loss

beneath the slab, slab settlement and plugging of the drainage system which could result in wet basements.

5.3.2 Permanent Below-Grade Walls

The design of the basement foundation walls for the residential buildings should take into account the horizontal

soil loads, hydrostatic pressure and surcharge loads that may occur during or after construction. The permanent

below-grade wall is considered to be a rigid structure and should be designed to resist at-rest lateral earth

pressures calculated as follows:

p = K ( h + q)

where:

p = lateral earth pressure acting depth z, kPa

K = Ko at rest earth pressure coefficient, use 0.5

= unit weight of retained soil, a value of 21 kN/m3 may be assumed

h = depth to point of interest in soil, metres

q = equivalent value of surcharge on the ground surface, kPa

The above expression assumes that the perimeter drainage system prevents the build-up of any hydrostatic

pressure behind the wall. Should hydrostatic pressures act on the walls, they must be included in calculating the

lateral earth pressures.

Drainage of the wall backfill should be provided by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of concrete

sand, fully wrapped in geotextile, which leads by gravity drainage to a sump pit. Conventional damp proofing of

the basement walls is appropriate with the above design approach.

Where backfilling of below-grade walls is required, the backfill materials should consist of imported, free-draining

granular soils approved by Golder. The backfill materials should be placed evenly in lifts not exceeding 200 mm

of loose thickness. The layers should be compacted to at least 95 per cent of the materials’ SPMDD. Light

compaction equipment should be used immediately adjacent to the wall; otherwise compaction stresses on the

wall may be greater than that imposed by the backfill material. The upper 0.3 m of backfill should consist of clayey

material to provide a relatively impermeable cap and the exterior grade should also be shaped to slope away from

the building. Alternatively, where site excavated material is to be reused for all backfill, an approved geo-composite

drainage system should be used directly against the wall.

5.4 Excavation for Site Servicing The underground services are anticipated to be located between 3 m and 4 m depth below ground surface. The

native stiff silty clay, compact gravelly sand, sand, silty sand and/or sandy silt and compact silty sand till is

considered to be suitable for supporting the pipes, provided the integrity of the base can be maintained during

construction. Some difficulty may be encountered in excavating the compact to dense tills encountered in

Boreholes 16-4 and 16-5, if the excavation extends into these deposits, due to the potential presence of cobbles

and boulders, as previously noted.

Based on the groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes during drilling, the pipes are anticipated to be

near or below the local groundwater table at most locations. Groundwater control during excavation within the



predominant near surface non-cohesive deposits will require some form of active dewatering (such as well points).

As such, it is our opinion that a Permit to Take Water will likely be required for installation of the underground

infrastructure. Further details are provided in Sections 5.6 and 5.7.

It is recommended to carry out a "public digging" (i.e. test pitting) during the tender stage, to allow prospective

bidders to assess the subsurface conditions and determine the type of groundwater control required, consistent

with their equipment capabilities and the actual groundwater conditions at that time. The locations of the test pits

should be determined in consultation with Golder.

It is anticipated that the trench excavations will consist of conventional temporary open cuts, with side slopes not

steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical below the groundwater table (without pro-active dewatering) and 1 horizontal

to 1 vertical above the groundwater table or in soils that have been sufficiently dewatered. However, depending

upon the construction procedures adopted by the contractor, actual groundwater seepage conditions, the success

of the contractor’s groundwater control methods and weather conditions at the time of construction, some flattening

and/or blanketing of the slopes may be required. Care should be taken to direct surface runoff away from the

open excavations and all excavations should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety

Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. According to OHSA, the near surface very loose to loose non-

cohesive materials would be classified as Type 4 soils; and the compact to dense glacial till and stiff silty clay

deposits would be classified as Type 3 soils, above the water table. Unless the very loose surficial materials are

removed and replaced with engineered fill, the temporary trenches will have to be sloped at 3 horizontal to

1 vertical and the soils classified as Type 4 soils.

Some trench excavations could be carried out using a vertically excavated, unsupported excavations (using a

properly engineered trench liner box for protection, certified by an experienced engineer); or by a supported

(sheeted) excavation if conditions warrant in wet areas and/or in close proximity to adjacent underground services.

It must be emphasized that a trench liner box provides protection for construction personnel but does not provide

any lateral support for adjacent excavation walls, underground services or existing structures. It is imperative that

underground services and existing structures adjacent to the trench excavations be accurately located prior to

construction and adequate support provided where required.

If required to support adjacent services or structures, shoring may be used and could consist of braced soldier pile

and lagging, braced sheet piles or potentially a slide rail system designed by a Professional Engineer including

assessment of the potential for basal heave. If shoring is implemented at the site, the requirements of

OPSS.PROV 539 should be followed. Design of temporary works will be entirely the responsibility of the

contractor.

5.4.1 Pipe Bedding and Cover

The bedding for watermains and sewers should be compatible with the type and class of pipe, the surrounding

subsoil and anticipated loading conditions and should be designed in accordance with Township of Springwater

or County of Simcoe standards. Where granular bedding is deemed to be acceptable, it should consist of at least

150 mm of OPSS Granular A or 19 mm crusher run limestone material. From the springline to 300 mm above the

obvert of the pipe, sand cover may be used. All bedding and cover materials should be placed in maximum

150 mm loose lifts and should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 per cent of SPMDD. Clear stone bedding

material should not be used in any case for pipe bedding or to stabilize the base.



5.4.2 Trench Backfill

The excavated materials from the site will consist of silty sand to sand, silty sand till or silty clay. The majority of the native subsoils (except for the glacial till deposits) encountered in the boreholes are generally higher than their estimated laboratory optimum water contents for compaction. The excavated materials at suitable water contents may be reused as trench backfill provided they are free of significant amounts of topsoil, organics or other deleterious material, and are placed and compacted as outlined below. All topsoil and organic materials should be wasted or used for landscaping purposes. All oversized cobbles and boulders (i.e. greater than 150 mm in size) should be removed from the backfill. Where the trench will be covered with a hard surfaced area, the type of native material placed in the frost zone (between subgrade level and 1.6 metres depth) should match the soil exposed on the trench walls for frost heave compatibility.

All trench backfill, from the top of the cover material to 1 m below subgrade elevation, should be placed in

maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 95 per cent of SPMDD. From 1 m below

subgrade to subgrade elevation, the materials should be compacted to at least 98 per cent of SPMDD.

Alternatively, if water contents at the time of placement are too high, or if there is a shortage of suitable in-situ

material, then an approved imported sandy material which meets the requirements for OPSS Select Subgrade

Material (SSM) could be used. It should be placed in loose lift thicknesses and compaction requirements as

indicated above. Backfilling operations during cold weather should avoid inclusions of frozen lumps of material,

snow and ice.

Normal post-construction settlement of the compacted trench backfill should be anticipated, with the majority of

such settlement taking place within about six months following the completion of trench backfilling operations. This

settlement will be reflected at the ground surface and in pavement reconstruction areas, may be compensated for

where necessary by placing additional granular material prior to asphalt paving. However, since it is anticipated

that the asphalt binder course will be placed shortly following the completion of trench backfilling operations, any

settlement that may be reflected by subsidence of the surface of the binder asphalt should be compensated for by

placing an additional thickness of binder asphalt or by padding. In any event, it is recommended that the surface

course asphalt should not be placed over the binder course asphalt (across the full road width) for at least

12 months. Post-construction settlement of the restored ground surface in any boulevard/ditch trench areas is

also expected and should be topped-up and re-landscaped, as required.

It should be noted that in some cases, even though the compaction requirements have been met, the subgrade

strength in the trench backfill areas may not be adequate to support heavy construction loading, especially during

wet weather or where backfill materials wet of optimum have been placed. In any event, the subgrade should be

proofrolled and inspected by Golder prior to placing the Granular B subbase and additional subbase material

placed, as required, consistent with the prevailing weather conditions and anticipated use by construction traffic.

5.5 Soil Bulking Soil bulking is the increase in total volume of soil over the volume of the same material in the undisturbed state.

Bulking of native soils occurs when they are excavated from undisturbed ground. It should be noted that due to

the variability of the subsoils on the site, the actual soil bulking factor can only be best determined when the

proposed site grading plan is available and a series of additional laboratory and in-situ field tests are completed

on the proposed "cut" soils. However, for initial design purposes and considering the predominant native silty

sand to sand soils at this site, bulking of about 15 per cent (increase in total volume) would be expected after



excavation and prior to re-compaction. After re-compaction, bulking of about 5 per cent would be expected. Higher

values may be anticipated for the silty clay soils.

5.6 Construction Dewatering Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the borehole investigation, it is anticipated that due to the

relatively high water levels measured across the site, active dewatering will be required for excavations for the site

services and potentially for at least some of the proposed basements. In order to maintain the stability of the

sidewalls and base of the excavation, an external groundwater control system (e.g. well points or eductor wells)

will be required to sufficiently lower the groundwater level in the granular deposits (e.g. to a level at a minimum of

1 m below the base of the excavation) before the excavation deepens. Design of the dewatering system will be

entirely the responsibility of the contractor.

It is anticipated that the construction dewatering activities will require a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) or

Environmental Activity and Section Registry (EASR) be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate

Change (MOECC). A hydrogeological assessment will be required along with the appropriate permit applications,

including a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) or Environmental Activity and Section Registry (EASR), to reduce

potential groundwater related construction delays and to support the design of long-term basement drainage

requirements.

5.7 Stormwater Management Pond Borehole SWM-1 was advanced in the area of the proposed SWM pond. Underlying the topsoil a deposit of very

loose to loose sand to sandy silt was encountered which extended to a depth of about 2.1 m below ground surface

(Elevation 242.9 m). The near surface sand to sandy silt is underlain by a deposit of compact to dense silty sand

till extending to a depth of about 3.7 m below ground surface (Elevation 241.3 m). The glacial till deposit is

underlain by a deposit of dense to very dense silty sand to sand in which the borehole terminated at a depth of

about 9.3 m below ground surface (Elevation 235.7 m). The lower pond bottom elevation is set at 240.75 m (depth

of about 4.3 m) and normal operating level of the pond is set at an elevation of 242.25 m (depth of about 2.75 m).

The groundwater level in the monitoring well installed in Borehole SWM-1 was measured at as high as about 2.8 m

(Elevation 242.2 m) on April 22, 2016 which is very close to the design normal operating water level.

The excavation of the pond will extend through non-cohesive deposits below the groundwater table. Pro-

active dewatering will be required to facilitate stable pond construction below the groundwater table. It is

anticipated that groundwater control will require perimeter well points or educator wells in addition to pumping

from filtered sumps.

The operating normal water level of the pond will be at about the measured groundwater level; however, the

groundwater level is likely to vary seasonally.

To minimize groundwater and stormwater interaction along the pond excavation and slopes, the base and

slopes should be lined with a low hydraulic conductivity liner, such as a Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) or a

0.6 m thick compacted clay liner (minimum Plasticity Index of 10 and minimum fines 15%). Both liner types

will require a minimum of 300 mm of clayey soil over the top as a protection layer with a maximum particle

size of 100 mm. Prior to placing of the GCL the subgrade will have to be prepared and inspected to ensure

that the surface receiving the GCL is smooth and free of any debris, sharp rocks or other deleterious materials

larger than 50 mm as well as free of any voids, large cracks, standing water or ice. The clay liner should



consist of material which is consistent in composition without any significant zones of silt, sand or gravel. The

largest particle size should not exceed 100 mm. The material for the clay liner should be placed in maximum

150 mm thick lifts at a water content between 0 to 4 per cent above its optimum water content and compacted

to a least 95 per cent of the SPMDD.

Resistance to buoyancy of the liner will be required during maintenance activities (i.e. when the pond is

drained). In this regard, the liner will need to be covered with sufficient soil weight (ballast) to counteract the

upward seepage pressures based on the water levels at the site. The top of the ballast should consist of

50 mm-150mm gravel/rip rap to help minimize the potential of damaging the liner during maintenance period.

The material used to construct berms for the pond (if required) should be approved by Golder prior to

placement. In this regard, the excavated materials would be suitable for reuse for berm construction provided

these materials are at suitable moisture contents and cobbles/boulders are removed. The non-cohesive

deposits of sand to sandy silt encountered on site are not suitable for berm construction. The approved

material to construct berms should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to

at least 98 per cent of the SPMDD. Strict control over the water content of the material will be necessary.

Care should be taken to ensure homogeneity of the constructed berm (i.e. no erodible layers). The prepared

foundation for the berm should be inspected by Golder prior to placement of berm fill material.

It is understood that the pond slopes will not be steeper than 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V) above the

normal water level; side slopes below the permanent water level will be no steeper than 5H:1V or flatter.

These slopes are considered to be stable subject to inspection by Golder during construction. To prevent

the potential for surface erosion, a seeded erosion mat should be installed as soon as possible on all slopes

above the permanent pond level. The slopes should be maintained until the roots have taken hold.

Where pipes enter or exit the pond, they should be provided with a concrete collar and be backfilled with a

relatively impermeable material (e.g. silty clay to clayey silt) to minimize preferential flow through the pipe

bedding and backfill and possible loss of ground. Pipes entering or exiting the pond should be sized and

designed to allow for cleaning.

The pond will be equipped with an emergency spillway designed to eliminate the possibility of over-topping

of the berms.

The non-cohesive deposits encountered in the borehole and anticipated at the base of the pond are extremely

susceptible to disturbance by heavy construction equipment, which would affect construction traffic on the

base of the excavation, especially during wet weather and/or where seepage is encountered. A base

treatment may be required, such as blanketing with crushed stone or the like, to protect the exposed base,

to facilitate construction and future maintenance.



5.8 Pavement Design This section of the report provides engineering information for the geotechnical/pavement design aspects of the

project, based on our interpretation of the information obtained under this investigation, and our understanding of

the project requirements.

As traffic information was not available, it is anticipated that the proposed residential roads will be used by

homeowners as well as emergency and garbage collection vehicles. Golder should be given an opportunity to

review the pavement design once the traffic data is available or the traffic loads are different from that assumed.

Based on the results of the investigation, the predominant subgrade material at this site is expected to be silty

sand. The recommended pavement structure for the proposed residential roads is as follows; and is consistent

with the pavement designs within the Township of Springwater Engineering Design Standards.

Table 3: Pavement Design

Topsoil or any organic matter encountered within the footprint of the proposed roadway should be stripped

completely regardless of depth.

The subgrade should be proofrolled prior to placement of any granular materials. Loose or soft areas identified

by proofrolling should be sub-excavated and replaced with Select Subgrade Material (SSM), compacted to provide

a stable uniform subgrade to meet the requirements of OPSS.MUNI 501 (November 2014). The remedial work

should be carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by Golder. After

proofrolling, grade the subgrade to the desired crossfall and compact any required fill material to a minimum of

98 per cent of the material’s SPMDD within 1 m below subgrade level.

The granular base and subbase materials should be placed and compacted to meet the requirements of

OPSS.MUNI 1010 (November 2013) and OPSS.MUNI 501 (November 2014). The granular base and subbase

materials should be compacted to 100 per cent of the material’s SPMDD. Care should be taken during excavation

to ensure that the new granular materials are not contaminated by construction traffic.

The hot mix asphaltic concrete should be produced, placed and compacted to meet the requirements of

OPSS 1150 (November 2010) and OPSS 310 (November 2012). Design and placement of Superpave mixes

should conform to current OPSS and AASHTO specifications. The asphalt cements should conform to

Material Standard 8.5 m Road

Thickness of Pavement Layers (mm)

Asphaltic Concrete (OPSS 1150)

HL 3 or Superpave 12.5 Surface Course

40

HL 4, HL 8 or Superpave 19.0 Binder Course

50

Granular Materials (OPSS. MUNI 1010)

Granular A Base 150

Granular B, Type I Subbase 300

Total Pavement Thickness (mm) 540

Prepared and Approved Subgrade



OPSS.MUNI 1101 (November 2013). It is recommended that PG 58-28 asphalt cement be used for all asphalt

mixes. The hot mix asphalt should be compacted to at least 92 per cent of the material’s Maximum Relative

Density (MRD). Tack coat should be applied between the surface and binder courses of the asphaltic concrete.

Where new pavement abuts existing pavement (e.g. at the development limits), proper transverse joints should

be constructed to key the new asphalt into adjacent existing surface. The existing asphalt edge should be provided

with a proper sawcut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. It should be ensured that any undermining or broken

edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the sawcut.

It should be noted that in some cases, even though the compaction requirements have been met, the subgrade

strength may not be adequate to support heavy construction loading especially during wet weather or where

subgrade soils are wet of optimum. In this regard, the design subbase thickness may not be sufficient for a

construction haul road and additional granular materials may be required. The subgrade should be proofrolled

and inspected by Golder prior to placing the subbase and additional material placed as required to address the

subgrade soil conditions and the anticipated construction traffic.

5.9 Road Side Ditches To preserve the integrity of the completed paved areas, a permanent drainage system is recommended. For this

subdivision development, ditching is proposed to accomplish sufficient drainage for the pavement structure. The

inverts of ditches should be established at least 0.3 m below the elevation of the top of subgrade and, due to the

presence of very loose to loose upper sandy deposits, should be sloped not steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.

The ditches should be grassed or lined with sufficient materials to promote resistance to erosion. Ongoing

maintenance is recommended to promote the long term stability of the ditch slopes.

5.10 Culverts Two box culverts are proposed to cross the southern boundary of Sarjeant Lands. The eastern twin 1830 mm x

910 mm concrete culvert will have inverts of ranging from El. 242.1 m to El. 242.2 m. The western twin 1830 mm

x 910 mm concrete culvert will have inverts of ranging from El. 243.9 m to El. 244.1 m.

Based on the nearest borehole (Borehole 16-3), both culverts may be designed using a factored geotechnical

resistance at ULS of 150 kPa and a geotechnical reaction at SLS of 100 kPa for a maximum total of 25 mm

settlement.

Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko = 0.5 and unit weight of retained soil of = 21 kN/m3 may be assumed for

the design.

6.0 ADDITIONAL WORK, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING Prior to tendering, the geotechnical aspects of the final design drawings and specifications and the proposed geo-

related construction methodology should be reviewed by Golder to confirm that the various aspects outlined in this

report have been met. During construction, sufficient subgrade monitoring, in-situ density tests, and materials

tests should be carried out to confirm that the ground conditions encountered are consistent with those

encountered in the boreholes, and to monitor conformance with the pertinent project specifications.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

2013 1 of 2

Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

Basis and Use o f the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder can not be responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client can not rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.

The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the report. Golder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.

Soil, Rock and Ground water Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

2013 2 of 2

Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.

Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during construction.

Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client’s expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal.

Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of Golder’s report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder’s report.

During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of Golder’s report and to confirm and document that construction activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder’s report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not followed, Golder’s responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the preparation of the Report.

Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.

Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the system.

HILLSDALEELMVALE

ORR LAKE

WAVERLEY

PHELPSTON

MOONSTONE

CRAIGHURST

SITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION

SARJEANT LANDSHERITAGE VILLAGE

GCSJ HILLSDALE DEVELOPMENT INC.

025

mm

1649706CONTROL

FIGURE

1----

2016-11-18

STB/MK

OS

SEMP

SITE LOCATION PLAN TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECT

CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\Mis

siss

auga

\SIM

\Clie

nts\

Ger

aniu

m\H

illsda

le\9

9_PR

OJ\

1649

706_

Ger

aniu

m_H

illsda

le\4

0_PR

OD

\000

3_G

eote

ch\

| Fi

le N

ame:

164

9706

-000

3-BG

-000

1.dw

g

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

A

1:100,000

5,0000

METRES

2,500

LEGEND

REFERENCE(S)

BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2016PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OFNATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2016PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N

ROAD

WATERCOURSE

SITE LOCATION

WATER AREA, PERMANENT

WETLAND / SWAMP AREA, PERMANENT

RAILWAY

025

mm

1649706CONTROL

FIGURE

2----

2016-11-18

STB/MK

OS

SEMP

SARJEANT LANDSHERITAGE VILLAGE

GCSJ HILLSDALE DEVELOPMENT INC.

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\Mis

siss

auga

\SIM

\Clie

nts\

Ger

aniu

m\H

illsda

le\9

9_PR

OJ\

1649

706_

Ger

aniu

m_H

illsda

le\4

0_PR

OD

\000

3_G

eote

ch\

| Fi

le N

ame:

164

9706

-000

3-BG

-000

2.dw

g

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\Mis

siss

auga

\SIM

\Clie

nts\

Ger

aniu

m\H

illsda

le\9

9_PR

OJ\

1649

706_

Ger

aniu

m_H

illsda

le\4

0_PR

OD

\000

3_G

eote

ch\

| Fi

le N

ame:

164

9706

-000

3-BG

-000

2.dw

g

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

BOREHOLE LOCATION (2016)

DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY

LEGEND

REFERENCE(S)

BASE MAP DATA - MALONE GIVEN PARSON LTD. PROJECT NO. 16-2551, DECEMBER 7, 2016BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RADY-PENTEK & EDWARD SURVEYING LTD., APRIL 25, 2016DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 17

1:2,000

1000

METRES

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PLA

STI

CIT

Y I

ND

EX

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

Figure No. 3

Project No. 1654967 PLASTICITY CHART

(CI) SILTY CLAY

ML

ML or OL

MH or OH

CH

CL - ML

CI

SYMBOL

4

LEGEND BH SAMPLE

16-1 4

16-3

CL

Checked By: OS

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(CI) SILTY CLAY FIGURE 4

Date: 13-Jul-16

Project Number: 1654967

Checked By: OS Golder Associates

LEGEND

BOREHOLE SAMPLE ELEVATION(m)

16-3 4 242.9616-1 4 250.10

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

TF

INE

RT

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch

COBBLE

SIZE

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES

GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(SP) SAND FIGURE 5

Date: 08-Sep-16



LEGEND


16-5 2 244.71

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

TF

INE

RT

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE



GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(SM) SILTY SAND FIGURE 6

Date: 29-Aug-16



LEGEND


16-2 3 248.32SWM-1 6 240.98

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

TF

INE

RT

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE



GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(SM) SILTY SAND (TILL) FIGURE 7

Date: 29-Aug-16



LEGEND


16-4 3 245.46SWM-1 4 242.46

16-5 5 242.4116-3 9 239.15

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

TF

INE

RT

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE




March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1)

APPENDIX A Method of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits List of Symbols Record of Boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, TB-1, TB-2 and SWM-1

METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group

Type of Soil Gradation

or Plasticity 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 =

𝑫𝑫𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔

𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏𝟔𝟔 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 =

(𝑫𝑫𝟑𝟑𝟔𝟔)𝟐𝟐

𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏𝟔𝟔𝒙𝒙𝑫𝑫𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔

Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Group Name

INO

RG

AN

IC

(Org

an

ic C

onte

nt

≤30

% b

y m

ass

)

CO

AR

SE

-GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(˃

50

% b

y m

ass

is la

rge

r th

an

0.0

75

mm

)

GR

AV

EL

S

(>5

0%

by

ma

ss o

f co

ars

e f

ract

ion

is

larg

er

tha

n 4

.75

mm

)

Gravels with

≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded

<4 ≤1 or ≥3

≤30%

GP GRAVEL

Well Graded ≥4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL

Gravels with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line

n/a GM SILTY

GRAVEL

Above A Line

n/a GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

SA

ND

S

(≥5

0%

by

ma

ss o

f co

ars

e f

ract

ion

is

sma

ller

than

4.7

5 m

m) Sands

with ≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded

<6 ≤1 or ≥3 SP SAND

Well Graded ≥6 1 to 3 SW SAND

Sands with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line

n/a SM SILTY SAND

Above A Line

n/a SC CLAYEY

SAND

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group

Type of Soil Laboratory

Tests

Field Indicators Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Primary Name Dilatancy

Dry Strength

Shine Test

Thread Diameter

Toughness (of 3 mm thread)

INO

RG

AN

IC

(Org

an

ic C

onte

nt

≤30

% b

y m

ass

)

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

(≥5

0%

by

ma

ss is

sm

alle

r th

an 0

.07

5 m

m)

SIL

TS

(N

on

-Pla

stic

or

PI

and

LL

plo

t b

elo

w A

-Lin

e

on

Pla

stic

ity

Ch

art

b

elo

w)

Liquid Limit

<50

Rapid None None >6 mm N/A (can’t roll 3 mm thread)

<5% ML SILT

Slow None to

Low Dull

3mm to 6 mm

None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Dull to slight

3mm to 6 mm

Low 5% to 30%

OL ORGANIC

SILT

Liquid Limit ≥50

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Slight 3mm to 6 mm

Low to medium

<5% MH CLAYEY SILT

None Medium to high

Dull to slight

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium to high

5% to 30%

OH ORGANIC

SILT

CL

AY

S

(P

I a

nd

LL

plo

t a

bo

ve A

-Lin

e o

n

Pla

stic

ity C

ha

rt

be

low

)

Liquid Limit <30

None Low to

medium Slight

to shiny ~ 3 mm

Low to medium 0%

to 30%

(see

Note 2)

CL SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit 30 to 50

None Medium to high

Slight to shiny

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium

CI SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit ≥50

None High Shiny <1 mm High CH CLAY

HIG

HL

Y

OR

GA

NIC

S

OIL

S

(Org

an

ic

Co

nte

nt

>3

0%

b

y m

ass

)

Peat and mineral soil mixtures

30%

to 75%

PT

SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT

Predominantly peat, may contain some

mineral soil, fibrous or amorphous peat

75%

to 100%

PEAT

Note 1 – Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 – For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor “trace organics” for soils with between 5% and 30% organic content include the prefix “organic” before the Primary name.

Dual Symbol — A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC and CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between “clean” and “dirty” sand or gravel. For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left). Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to indicate a range of similar soil types within a stratum.

February 2017 1

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS

PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS

Soil Constituent

Particle Size

Description Millimetres

Inches (US Std. Sieve Size)

BOULDERS Not

Applicable >300 >12

COBBLES Not

Applicable 75 to 300 3 to 12

GRAVEL Coarse

Fine 19 to 75

4.75 to 19 0.75 to 3

(4) to 0.75

SAND Coarse Medium

Fine

2.00 to 4.75 0.425 to 2.00

0.075 to 0.425

(10) to (4) (40) to (10) (200) to (40)

SILT/CLAY Classified by

plasticity <0.075 < (200)

SAMPLES

AS Auger sample

BS Block sample

CS Chunk sample

DO or DP Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube sampler – note size

DS Denison type sample

FS Foil sample

GS Grab Sample

RC Rock core

SC Soil core

SS Split spoon sampler – note size

ST Slotted tube

TO Thin-walled, open – note size

TP Thin-walled, piston – note size

WS Wash sample

MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS

Percentage by Mass

Modifier

>35 Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY)

> 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable

> 5 to 12 some

≤ 5 trace

SOIL TESTS

w water content

PL , wp plastic limit

LL , wL liquid limit

C consolidation (oedometer) test

CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text)

CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1

CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement1

DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs)

DS direct shear test

GS specific gravity

M sieve analysis for particle size

MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis

MPC Modified Proctor compaction test

SPC Standard Proctor compaction test

OC organic content test

SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates

UC unconfined compression test

UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test

V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test)

γ unit weight

1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU.

PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod

NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

Compactness2 Consistency

Term SPT ‘N’ (blows/0.3m)1 Very Loose 0 - 4

Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50

Very Dense >50 1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure

effects. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT ‘N’ ranges from Terzaghi

and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average N60 values.

Term Undrained Shear

Strength (kPa) SPT ‘N’1,2

(blows/0.3m) Very Soft <12 0 to 2

Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15

Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 Hard >200 >30

1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects; approximate only.

2. SPT ‘N’ values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to consistency; for sensitive clays (e.g., Champlain Sea clays), the N-value approximation for consistency terms does NOT apply. Rely on direct measurement of undrained shear strength or other manual observations.

Field Moisture Condition Water Content Term Description

Dry Soil flows freely through fingers.

Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool.

Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled.

Term Description

w < PL Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit.

w ~ PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit.

w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit.

February 2017 2

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows:

I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content π 3.1416 wl or LL liquid limit ln x natural logarithm of x wp or PL plastic limit log10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 lp or PI plasticity index = (wl – wp) g acceleration due to gravity ws shrinkage limit t time IL liquidity index = (w – wp) / Ip IC consistency index = (wl – w) / Ip emax void ratio in loosest state emin void ratio in densest state ID density index = (emax – e) / (emax - emin) II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) γ shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties ∆ change in, e.g. in stress: ∆ σ h hydraulic head or potential ε linear strain q rate of flow εv volumetric strain v velocity of flow η coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient υ Poisson’s ratio k hydraulic conductivity σ total stress (coefficient of permeability) σ′ effective stress (σ′ = σ - u) j seepage force per unit volume σ′vo initial effective overburden stress σ1, σ2, σ3 principal stress (major, intermediate,

minor)

(c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) Cc compression index σoct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 Cr recompression index τ shear stress (over-consolidated range) u porewater pressure Cs swelling index E modulus of deformation Cα secondary compression index G shear modulus of deformation mv coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility cv coefficient of consolidation (vertical

direction) ch coefficient of consolidation (horizontal

direction) Tv time factor (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation σ′p pre-consolidation stress (a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ′p / σ′vo ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* ρd(γd) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength ρw(γw) density (unit weight) of water τp, τr peak and residual shear strength ρs(γs) density (unit weight) of solid particles φ′ effective angle of internal friction γ′ unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction (γ′ = γ - γw) µ coefficient of friction = tan δ DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid c′ effective cohesion particles (DR = ρs / ρw) (formerly Gs) cu, su undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress (σ1 + σ3)/2 n porosity p′ mean effective stress (σ′1 + σ′3)/2 S degree of saturation q (σ1 - σ3)/2 or (σ′1 - σ′3)/2 qu compressive strength (σ1 - σ3) St sensitivity * Density symbol is ρ. Unit weight symbol is γ

where γ = ρg (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity)

Notes: 1 2

τ = c′ + σ′ tan φ′ shear strength = (compressive strength)/2

February 2017 3

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

5

3

14

10

9

27

19

26

MH

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines;brown and dark brown; non-cohesive,moist, very loose to loose

(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose

(CI) SILTY CLAY, some sand; brown;cohesive, w>PL, stiff

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; non-cohesive,moist to wet, compact

(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,wet, compact

End of Borehole

NOTES:

1. Water level measured at a depth of4.6 m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 20, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of1.64 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.

0.15

1.37

2.13

4.42

5.18

6.55

251.25

250.49

248.20

247.44

246.07

Hole Plug

Silica Sand

Screen

Cave

April 22, 2016

TY

PE

BORING DATE: April 20, 2016

NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR

STANDPIPEINSTALLATION

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s

Wp W

WATER CONTENT PERCENT

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1

SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC

RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 16-1

SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937672.00; E 597838.00

DD

0.00252.62

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B

DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m

20 40 60 80

SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa

20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

2

6

21

51

35

38

39

41

M

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown; non-cohesive, moist, very loose

(SM) SILTY SAND; brown to grey;non-cohesive, moist to wet, very loose toloose

(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,moist to wet, compact to very dense

(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, wet, dense

(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,wet, dense

End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Water level measured at a depth of2.3 m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 20, 2016.

0.15

0.69

2.13

4.42

5.18

6.55

249.38

247.94

245.65

244.89

243.52

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937601.00; E 597971.00

DD

0.00250.07

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3

4

9

8

11

40

50/ 0.15

18

55

MH

M

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown to brown; non-cohesive, moist,very loose

(CI) SILTY CLAY, trace sand; brown;cohesive, w>PL, stiff

(ML) CLAYEY SILT; brown; cohesive,moist, stiff

(CL) SILTY CLAY; brown; cohesive,moist, hard

(SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; brown,(TILL); non-cohesive, wet to moist,compact to very dense

End of Borehole

NOTES:

1. Waterlevel measured at a depth of 5.3m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 20, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of1.6 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.

0.15

1.37

2.90

3.66

5.11

6.55

244.11

242.58

241.82

240.37

238.93

Hole Plug

Silica Sand

Screen

Cave

April 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937737.00; E 598251.00

DD

0.00245.48

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

1

17

17

40

23

36

45

34

MH

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose

(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,wet, very loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey and brown, (TILL);non-cohesive, moist, compact to dense

End of Borehole

NOTES:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling, April 22, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of1.26 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.

0.10

0.69

1.37

6.55

246.52

245.84

240.66

Hole Plug

Silica Sand

Screen

Cave

April 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937861.00; E 598167.00

DD

0.00247.21

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

4

2

21

22

31

24

56

50/ 0.15

M

MH

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown to brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose

(SP) SAND, some non-plastic fines;brown; non-cohesive, moist, loose

(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, gravelly to somegravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive,moist, compact to very dense

End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling, April 22, 2016.

0.15

0.69

1.37

2.13

6.40

245.02

244.34

243.58

239.31

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937942.00; E 598242.00

DD

0.00245.71

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

16

25

20

19

27

11

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL

(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown to brown; non-cohesive, moist,very loose

(SW) gravelly SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, compact

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive, moistto wet, compact

End of Borehole

NOTES:

0.20

1.06

2.50

9.60

243.70

242.84

241.40

234.30

Hole Plug

Silica Sand

Screen

April 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 2


RECORD OF BOREHOLE: TB-1

SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937977.00; E 598344.00

DD

0.00243.90

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling, April 22, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of2.65 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937977.00; E 598344.00

DDDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3

6

18

50

52

42

55

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown to brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose

(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines;brown; non-cohesive, moist to wet, looseto compact

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive,moist, very dense to dense

(SW) gravelly SAND, trace non-plasticfines; grey; non-cohesive, moist, verydense

End of Borehole

NOTE:

0.08

1.06

4.04

8.61

9.60

242.06

239.08

234.51

233.52

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937926.00; E 598434.00

DD

0.00243.12

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

1. Water level measured at a depth of3.1 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling, April 22, 2016.

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937926.00; E 598434.00

DDDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Bug

gy M

ount

Pow

er A

uger

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2

5

4

29

47

31

31

44

44

50/ 0.15

M

M

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

108

mm

I.D

. 216

mm

O.D

.

TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown to brown; non-cohesive, moist,very loose to loose

(ML) sandy SILT; grey; non-cohesive,moist, very loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey,(TILL); non-cohesive, moist, compact todense

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey;non-cohesive, moist, dense

(SP) SAND, trace to some gravel;brown; non-cohesive, moist to wet,dense to very dense

End of Borehole

NOTES:

1. Water level measured at a depth of

0.15

1.37

2.13

3.66

4.42

9.30

243.61

242.85

241.32

240.56

235.68

Hole Plug

Silica Sand

Screen

April 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 2


RECORD OF BOREHOLE: SWM-1

SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937837.00; E 598296.00

DD

0.00244.98

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

4.6 m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 21, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of2.8 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 2


RECORD OF BOREHOLE: SWM-1

SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1654967

LOCATION: N 4937837.00; E 598296.00

DDDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL/OS

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\GE

RA

NIU

M\H

ILLS

DA

LE\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\165

496

7-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 1

0-1

9-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Golder Associates Ltd.

121 Commerce Park Drive, Unit L

Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8X1

Canada

T: +1 (705) 722 4492

1654967 rep 2017'03'17 geotechnical report - hillsdale ... · pdf file5.1 topsoil...

Documents