granular borrow investigation – area 2 rev. 1 · 2020. 6. 23. · moti bch 1 -13 method a , and...

Prepared for:

R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. 678 Vancouver Street, Prince George, BC V2L 2P3 6 May 2020

Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2 Rev. 1 Highway 29 – Lynx Creek Project # KX052807.52.GBG108

Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2 Rev. 1 Highway 29 – Lynx Creek Project # KX052807.52.GBG108 Prepared for: R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. 678 Vancouver Street, Prince George, BC V2L 2P3

Prepared by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions 3456 Opie Crescent Prince George, BC V2N 2P9 Canada T: 250-564-3243

6 May 2020

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third-Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Revision History Revision Number

Date Description of Change Author of Change

Draft March 25, 2019 Issuance in Draft BNC

Final February 4, 2020 Issuance in Final BNC

1 May 6, 2020 Modified description of oversize fraction in Executive

Summary, Section 5.1, Section 6.1, Section 6.3 BNC

Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2, Rev. 1 Highway 29 – Lynx Creek

Project # KX052807.52.GBG108 | 6 May 2020 Page i

Executive Summary During 2018, Wood carried out excavator test pitting and laboratory assessment of the potential for granular (sand and gravel) borrow of an approximately 8.1 ha prospect (Area 2) comprising a flood plain and terrace feature along the west side of the Peace River, immediately east of the current Highway 29 alignment.

A revised area boundary was created based on the test pits and laboratory testing data that encountered the most suitable area for granular resource extraction. Test results indicated an average of less than 5% fines (silt and/or clay finer than 0.075 mm sieve), necessitating only normal selective excavation, blending, screening and other processing to produce aggregate products requiring less than 5% fines. The deposit has an isolated fraction of oversize material (>75 mm diameter, sub-angular to rounded cobbles, boulders) that would likely require primary jaw crushing to both maximise the use and quality of the resource. From a durability perspective, Sand Equivalent test results did not meet Ministry specification for crushed base course and normal asphalt mix aggregates. All other durability tests were favourable and met Ministry specifications.

An estimated granular resource volume for Area 2 of approximately 171,000 m3 with an average overburden cover of 2.6 m, was indicated by the field test pit and boat launch drilling programs. There is some potential for additional quantities of granular material below the depth of exploration, however such potential may be limited by underlying soils/bedrock and/or groundwater. The potential for additional resources at depth would need to be confirmed by deeper exploration via drilling.


Project # KX052807.52.GBG108 | 6 May 2020 Page ii

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Site Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Field Investigation and Observations .......................................................................................................................... 3 5.0 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

5.1 Gradation Testing ............................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Durability Testing ................................................................................................................................................ 5

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 6 6.1 Aggregate Resource Quality ........................................................................................................................... 6 6.2 Aggregate Resource Volume ......................................................................................................................... 7 6.3 Development Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 7

7.0 Closure ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 8.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

List of Figures Figure 1: Site Location Plan – Area 2 Figure 2: Site Plan Granular Borrow Investigation - Area 2 (Orthophoto) Figure 3: Site Plan Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2 (LiDAR

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Conditions Encountered in Area 2 ..................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Laboratory Gradation Area 2 .......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Aggregate Durability Testing - Area 2 ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 4: Volume Estimate - Confirmed Granular Resource ................................................................................. 7

List of Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Photos Appendix C Investigation Test Pit Summaries Appendix D Laboratory Grain Size Distribution and Durability Testing Results Appendix E Limitations


Project # KX052807.52.GBG108 | 6 May 2020 Page 1

1.0 Introduction and Background In support of the project to relocate portions of Highway 29 along the planned Site C reservoir, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood), formerly Amec Foster Wheeler, was engaged by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. (R.F. Binnie) to carry out granular resource assessment in the vicinity of the planned Lynx Creek highway realignment segment. Potential granular borrow prospect targets comprising topographically distinct areas in the vicinity of the definition design alignment were designated as Areas 1 through 9, of which Area 2 is the subject of this report.

The scope of Wood’s assessment was as described by tasks GBA-G-100 through -G-108 in Section 8.4 of Work Order 7 - Site C Clean Energy Project, Engineering Design Services for Hwy 29 Road and Infrastructure, Western Segments: Functional Design, Version 4 – December 19, 2017, and pursuant to the Sub-Consultant Agreement between Binnie and Wood Environmental & Infrastructure Solutions, a Division of Wood Canada Limited, dated April 1, 2018.

This report summarizes the result of Wood’s granular resource investigation for Area 2.

2.0 Site Description The Area 2 prospect consists of an approximately 8.1 ha relatively low relief, flood plain and terrace feature between the Peace River and the current Highway 29 alignment. Prospect Area 2 is depicted in Figures 1 through 3 (Appendix A), and in photographs in Appendix B.

The overall surface of prospect was generally flat to gently undulating, ranging in elevation from approximately 452 m to 460 m. The lower elevations were proximal to the edges of the Peace River and the higher elevations are associated with a secondary terrace level adjacent to the current Highway 29 alignment.

The surficial geology of the prospect area has been generally mapped and described others, including Hartman and Clague (2008) and Mathews (1978). It is anticipated that the prospect area comprises Holocene aged fluvial terrace deposits of sand and gravel, possibly overlain by an overbank silt and sand cap.

The underlying bedrock geology of the area is described in BGC (2012) and Stott (1982). The Holocene fluvial deposits at the site are underlain by Cretaceous age thickly bedded sandstones with thin interbeds of shale, platy sandstone, mudstone and coal of the Gates Formation. Geotechnical drill investigations carried out in 2018 by Wood did not confirm the depth to bedrock.



3.0 Methodology The following activities were carried out during the course of Wood’s granular borrow assessment:

• Reviewed available terrain mapping, aerial photography, and previous records for the prospect area; • Developed a geotechnical field investigation program with site specific Health and Safety Plan; • Carried out a preliminary site reconnaissance to lay out and finalize the work plan for the field

investigation program; • Monitored and observed an excavator test pit program, including logging and sampling of soils and

groundwater conditions encountered; • Conducted a laboratory test program on selected retained soil samples to assess gradation of

granular materials encountered; • Prepared a summary of test pit results; • Referenced boat launch drill hole results • Prepared site plans showing the test pit and boat launch drill locations, with distribution of potential

granular borrow materials; • Estimated the potential volume of available granular borrow materials; and • Summarized the results of the assessment in this report.

In June and August of 2018, an investigation program consisting of 10 test pits (BP18-LX-027 through BP18-LX-036) was completed to depths of up to 5.0 m. The test pits were excavated by W6 Ranch Ltd. using a Hyundai 210 LC-9 excavator with either a 1.0 m wide toothed bucket or a 1.5 m wide smooth bucket. Bulk samples of potential granular materials were obtained approximately every meter of depth as each test pit was advanced or upon exposure of a soil unit different from the overlying material. For the purpose of this assessment, granular deposits with less than 15 % fines (silt and clay particles with a grain size less than 0.075 mm) by weight were considered as potential granular borrow. If suitable granular material was exposed, the test pit excavation was advanced to the full reach of the excavator, until practical excavation refusal (e.g. sloughing, groundwater, too hard to excavate) or there was not enough room for temporary spoil. The percentage (by weight) of oversize particles (diameter > 75 mm) was estimated visually in the field and recorded.

Although no drilling was carried out specific to the granular borrow investigation, results were available from two 2018 drill locations (TH18-LXB-202 – TH18-LXB-203) used for boat launch design at the west end of the prospect area. The relevant soil drill logs are appended herein.

Photographs of general site conditions and selected test pit areas are provided in Appendix B. Soils were logged according to the BC MoTI Modified Unified Soil Classification System. Details of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are provided on the test pit summary sheets in Appendix C. Summary logs for the boat launch drill holes are also included in Appendix C.

Upon completion, the test pits were backfilled with the excavated material and marked with a stake. The test pit and drill hole locations were surveyed following completion by R.F. Binnie, and the coordinates were subsequently provided to Wood for reference. The locations are shown in Figure 2 (orthophoto imagery) and Figure 3 (LiDAR imagery).

Environmental monitoring was conducted during the field investigation program by ecological staff from Wood. Archeological monitoring was provided by Ecofor Consulting Ltd. Emergency field medical and transportation services were provided by Blue Fox First Aid & Services Inc. and Kharma Safety Ltd. over the duration of the Highway 29 granular resource assessments.



Laboratory sieve analyses (ASTM C136/C117) were conducted on sixteen samples obtained from the test pits. One of the test pit samples was selected for a suite of typical BC MoTI aggregate durability testing which included additional sieve analysis (ASTM C136/C117) on the crushed fraction, fracture count (BC MoTI BCH 1-13 Method A, and ASTM D5821), abrasion loss by Micro-Deval (ASTM D6928), sand equivalent (ASTM D2419), relative density/absorption (ASTM C127/C128), magnesium sulphate soundness (ASTM C88), and clay lumps/friable particles (ASTM C142).

To prepare the selected sample for durability testing, the sample was screened over a 19.0 mm sieve. Material retained on the sieve and passing the 100 mm sieve was crushed using a 110 by 150 mm laboratory jaw crusher with an apparent opening of 12 mm and 19 mm. The crushed material was used to complete applicable coarse aggregate durability tests. The fine material passing the 4.75 mm sieve prior to crushing was retained and used to complete the applicable fine aggregate durability tests.

Individual lab test results are provided in Appendix D, and are also summarized on the test pit summary sheets in Appendix C.

4.0 Field Investigation and Observations For purposes of the assessment, surficial deposits of organic topsoil, deposits of fine-grained soil, old fill, or sand and gravel having 15 % or more fines (i.e. silt and/or clay particles passing the 0.075 mm sieve) content by weight were considered to represent overburden, i.e. surface materials unsuitable for use as granular borrow and aggregate production. Coarser deposits consisting of sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders with less than 15 % fines by weight were defined as potential granular borrow.

None of the test pits within Area 2 encountered bedrock. The 2018 boat launch drill holes also did not encounter bedrock and were drilled to depths equivalent to elevations ranging from 452.0 m to 452.6 m. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits or drill holes.

Generally, most of the test pits encountered deposits of sand and gravel to the depths excavated. These deposits were beneath a thin veneer of organic topsoil and variable amounts of fine-grained (silt to silty) overburden. Somewhat different overburden thickness and granular gradation conditions were encountered across the site. These conditions are described below.

Ten borrow pits were completed within the original prospect area boundary but based on field and laboratory observations the boundary was revised and to include seven borrow pits and the two boat launch site drill holes. All except one test pit (BP18-LX-035) had a silty sand/silt cap layer between the thin top soil layer and the potential granular layer below. The average overburden thickness was 2.5 m. The top soil component ranged in thickness from 0.1 to 0.2m. Generally, the granular layer was a somewhat variable deposit of either a sandy gravel or gravelly sand. The fines content ranged from 2 to 10% depending on location. The thickness of granular material ranged from 0.8 to 3.5 m (average 1.7 m). The gravel layer encountered during the boat launch drilling ranged in thickness from 3.0 to 3.6 m; four of the borrow pits were terminated in the potential granular resource and the resource likely extends deeper. The maximum depth of test pit exploration was limited by test pit instability and/or maximum reach of the excavator.

Table 1 below summarizes the materials encountered in the seven test pits and completed in Area 2.



Table 1: Summary of Conditions Encountered in Area 2

5.0 Laboratory Testing

5.1 Gradation Testing Grain size (washed sieve) analysis were conducted on selected field samples obtained from the test pits excavated in the prospect area to confirm gradations and compare to BC MoTI Standard Specifications for Highway Construction aggregate products. The individual plots of gradation test are provided in Appendix D. Table 2 below summarizes the laboratory sieve gradations encountered in Area 2.

I.D. No.Depth

(m)From To From To

BP18-LX-029 5.0 0.0 3.8 3.8 5.0Gravel, sandy, trace

silt, GWYes 1.2 0 75 4

BP18-LX-030 4.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 4.5Sand and gravel,

trace silt, SPYes 1.0 5 250 2

BP18-LX-031 3.4 0.0 3.4 3.4 5.0Gravel and sand,

trace silt, GWYes 1.6 5 - 5

BP18-LX-033 5.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0Gravel and sand, trace silt, GP-GM

No 1.0 0 60 6

BP18-LX-034 4.4 0.0 1.2 1.2 2.0Sand, some silt,

SP-SMNo 0.8 0 5 10

BP18-LX-035 5.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 3.7Sand, some silt,

SP-SMNo 3.5 0 5 10

BP18-LX-036 5.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 5.0Gravel and sand,

trace silt, GWYes 2.8 10 300 4

2.5 1.7Average Overburden (m): Average Granular Thickness (m):

Estim

ated

Ove

rsize

(% >

75 m

m)

Max

imum

Size

En

coun

tere

d (m

m)

Estim

ated

Fin

es

(%<0

.075

mm

)

Test Pit

Ove

rbur

den

Dept

h (m

)

Gra

nula

r M

ater

ial D

epth

(m)

Desc

riptio

n of

M

ater

ial

Term

inat

ion

in

Gra

nula

r Mat

eria

lG

ranu

lar M

ater

ial

Thic

knes

s (m

)



Table 2: Laboratory Gradation Area 2

Test Pit I.D. No.

Depth (m)

Fine

s (%

) (<

0.07

5 m

m)

Sand

(%)

(0.0

75-4

.75

mm

) Gravel (%)

Cobb

les

(%)

(>75

mm

)

Clas

sific

atio

n

From To Fine

(4

.75-

25 m

m)

Coar

se

(25-

75 m

m)

BP18-LX-029* 3.0 3.8 14 46 13 15 12 SM1

BP18-LX-029 4.0 5.0 4 30 23 33 10 GW

BP18-LX-030 3.0 3.8 2 51 35 12 0 SP

BP18-LX-031 3.2 4.2 7 42 18 29 4 GP-GM

BP18-LX-031 4.2 5.0 3 30 22 25 20 GW

BP18-LX-033 3.0 4.0 6 38 32 24 0 GP-GM

BP18-LX-033* 4.0 5.0 22 35 16 20 7 GM2

BP18-LX-034* 1.1 1.1 71 28 1 0 0 ML

BP18-LX-034* 3.2 3.2 19 31 20 27 3 GM1

BP18-LX-036 2.5 3.0 4 42 30 24 0 GP

BP18-LX-036 3.0 4.0 5 33 23 18 21 GP

BP18-LX-036 4.0 5.0 4 31 23 23 19 GW

Average Gradation of Granular Materials (* not included in averages)

4 37 26 24

9 49

Some natural variations in gradation (relative proportions of fines, sand, gravel and oversize fractions) within a fluvial granular deposit should be expected (with both depth and location). Generally, the granular material encountered in Area 2 is expected to consist of a relatively clean, sandy gravel with an isolated oversize fraction of cobbles and boulders. On average, the overall bulk gradation had roughly 4% fines (passing the 0.075 mm sieve), 37% sand and 59% gravel sizes or larger. The overall gradation and relatively low fines content should make it conducive to production of typical Ministry construction aggregate products (bridge end fill, base course, select granular sub-base and paving aggregates). Overall the deposit is anticipated to have roughly 33% coarser than the 25 mm gravel size, which should make it gradationally suitable for achieving required fracture for crushed aggregate products. Selective extraction and processing (e.g. blending, screening, washing) could be used to achieve lower fines content and to maximize fracture in finished products.

5.2 Durability Testing In order to confirm the potential for granular borrow material to meet the BC MoTI Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Sections 202 and 502 for construction and asphalt paving aggregate durability, respectively), a sample from BP18-LX-029 judged to be representative of potential extraction in Area 2 was selected for processing (laboratory crushing) of the +19.0 mm portion and a suite of aggregate durability tests. Individual test results are provided in Appendix D and are summarized in Table 3 below.



Table 3: Aggregate Durability Testing - Area 2

Standards/ Test Pit

Depth (m)

Fracture (%)

MgSO4 (%)*

Micro-Deval (%)

Sand

Equ

ival

ent Relative

Density Absorption

(%) Clay Lumps

(%) Fr

om

To

Met

hod

A

One

Fac

e

Met

hod

B Tw

o Fa

ce

Coar

se

Fine

Coar

se

Fine

Coar

se

Fine

Coar

se

Fine

Coar

se

Fine

Standards

25 mm IGB ≥50 - <20 <25 ≤25 - ≥40 - - - - - -

SGSB - - <20 <25 ≤30 - ≥20 - - - - - -

BEF - - <20 <25 ≤30 - ≥20 - - - - - -

HFSA ≥50 - <20 <25 ≤25 - ≥20 - - - - - -

Class 1 Coarse Paving - ≥85 - - <18 - ≥40 - - <2.0 - <1.0 -

Summarized Results

BP18-LX-029 4.0 5.0 78.2 71.3 16.5 - 17.4 38.1 34 2.686 2.489 1.65 2.92 1.0 1.9

The results of the lab durability testing were favourable for the sample tested. When the +19.0 mm fraction of the field sample was crushed in the laboratory, a well graded product was produced with 1.8% fines generated during the crushing process. Method A fracture counts more than 50% were achieved. The Sand Equivalent test value met the BC MoTI minimum specification of 20 for high fines surfacing aggregate, sub-base aggregates and bridge end fill. However, the Sand Equivalent test results were below the BC MoTI minimum specification of 40 for crushed base course and Class 1 asphalt mix aggregates. The Micro-Deval loss for coarse aggregate met the BC MoTI maximum loss specifications for the aggregate products listed in Table 3. The magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) soundness test loss was 16.5%, which is below the BC MoTI maximum specification of 20% for coarse (> 4.75 mm) aggregate. Relative density and absorption results were within typical tolerances for asphalt mix coarse aggregates, but the clay lump test results exceeded the specification for Class 1 asphalt mix.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Aggregate Resource Quality The test pits within the revised Area boundary encountered a durable and clean, sandy gravel that appears to be suitable for granular construction borrow. It is anticipated that with typical processing operations (selective extraction, blending, screening), the resource obtained from Area 2 would be suitable from both a gradation and durability perspective for production of general granular fill products (structural fill, drainage blankets, bridge end fill), granular pavement structure products (select granular sub-base) and crushed shouldering aggregates meeting current (2016) BC MoTI Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. The deposit has an isolated oversize fraction (averaging 9%) of oversized material (+75 mm, sub-angular to rounded cobbles and boulders). Incorporating the oversize via crushing will likely improve fracture, durability and suitability of both pit run and crushed aggregate products, as well as maximize the use of the resource.



A full suite of testing for determining the suitability of the deposit to produce Portland cement concrete aggregate was outside the scope of our assessment. Further detailed testing would be required if concrete aggregate production meeting BC MoTI and CSA was to be considering for this site.

6.2 Aggregate Resource Volume A granular resource was encountered at depth throughout the revised Area 2 prospect boundary; however, the average overburden thickness encountered ranged from 0.2 to 3.8 m (average 2.5 m). Table 4 below contains a simplified estimate of confirmed granular reserves within Area 2, based on the achieved depth of test pit penetration and the boat launch drill holes. The estimate was developed by multiplying the average of the thickness of suitable granular material observed in each test pit and drill hole by the surface area.

Table 4: Volume Estimate - Confirmed Granular Resource

Area Surface

Area (ha)

Average Overburden Thickness

Encountered (m)

Estimated Overburden

Stripping Volume (m3)

Average Granular Thickness

Encountered (m)

Estimated Granular Resource

Volume (m3)

Estimated Stripping

Ratio (OB:G)

2 8.1 2.6 211,000 2.1 171,000 1.24:1

Bedrock and groundwater were not encountered during test pitting or drilling. The granular deposit extents were not fully defined in Area 2. The two geotechnical boreholes encountered an average granular thickness of 3.4 m. Estimated stripping ratios were high based on the granular layer extents but would improve if the granular layer extended below the depths of current exploration. Further investigation via deeper exploration (i.e. drilling) would be required to confirm the potential for additional granular material at depth and whether or not it would be limited by underlying geology and/or groundwater.

The above volume estimates are based on a simplified interpretation of the site geometry and conditions. The actual resources that could be recovered will be somewhat less, depending on groundwater conditions at the time of extraction, environmental exclusion areas, drainage provisions, as well as practical excavation slopes and set backs from property lines, and the existing Highway 29 embankment.

6.3 Development Considerations In considering various development scenarios, the following geotechnical or geological resource considerations arose from our assessment at the site.

1. The estimated stripping ratio is unfavourable but could improve if the additional granular resources below the current depth of exploration could be confirmed.

2. There is no developed face for gravel extraction at the site. There is considerable flexibility in phasing of extraction because of the size of the site. Based on initial site access, future aggregate extraction could start with an opening cut in the vicinity of the north corner of Area 2 where more favourable overburden thicknesses are present.

3. Excavation face heights and slope heights in granular materials could nominally be planned for a maximum of 8 m and 1.5H:1V, respectively, but should be governed by Ministry of Mines regulations for pit development. The height of face excavation and sloping will be practically limited by the underlying level of groundwater at the time excavation.



8.0 References BGC Engineering Inc., 30 November 2012, “Preliminary Reservoir Impact Lines, Site C Clean Energy

Project”, Technical Report.

Bidwell, A.K., May 1999, “The Engineering Geology of the Fort St. John Area”, University of Alberta, Master of Engineering Report.

Hardman, G.M.D. and Clague, J.J., 25 June 2008, “Quaternary Stratigraphy and Glacial History of the Peace River Valley, Northeast British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Earth Science, Volume 45, pages 549-564.

Mathews, W.H., 1978, “Quaternary Stratigraphy and Geomorphology of Charlie Lake (94A) Map Area British Columbia”, Geologic Survey of Canada, Paper 76-20.

Stott, D.F., 1982, “Lower Cretaceous Fort St. John Group and Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation of the Foothill and Plains of Alberta, British Columbia, District of Mackenzie and Yukon Territory”, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 328

Appendix A

Figures Figure 1: Site Location Plan – Area 2

Figure 2: Site Plan Granular Borrow Investigation - Area 2 (Orthophoto) Figure 3: Site Plan Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2 (LiDAR

1000+0001001+000

1002+000

1003+0001004+000 1005+000 1006+000

1007+000

Chapman Road

Le Sage Road

Highway 29

Millar Road

Resch

keRo

adFarrell Creek Road

P e a c e R i v e r

L y n xC

ree

k

2

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

_̂

VancouverKamloops

ChetwyndFort St John

PrinceGeorge

Area 2

SCALE:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHK'D BY:

DWN BY:

This drawing was originally produced in colour.

CLIENT: DATE:

S:\Internal\KX052807-GIS\5-CorridorGravelAssessment\LC-GranBorrInv-Area2-Fig1-SiteLocPlan.mxd

KX052807

NOVEMBER 2019

A

GRANULAR BORROW INVESTIGATIONAREA 2

SITE LOCATION PLAN

HIGHWAY NO. 29LYNX CREEK SECTION

FIGURE 1

TITLE:

PROJECT:

UTM Zone 10

NAD 83

BC

BBPROJECT NO.:

REV NO.:

$

0 250 500 750 1,000125m

Notes:1. L1000A21 centreline alignment provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file '100PL_17-0472-Lynx.dwg', received 30 October 2019.2. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.3. Orthophoto imagery (foreground) provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.4. Orthophoto imagery (background; 2009) provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd., received 1 June 2011. 1:20,000

LegendL1000A21 Centreline AlignmentMaximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)

Potential Granular SourcePotential Granular Source Boundary

3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045

a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions

BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.2

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

!A

!A

Highway 29

Millar Road

P e a c eR i v e r

2

TH18-LXB-202TH18-LXB-203

BP18-LX-027

BP18-LX-028

BP18-LX-029

BP18-LX-030

BP18-LX-031 BP18-LX-032

BP18-LX-033

BP18-LX-034BP18-LX-035

BP18-LX-036

SCALE:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHK'D BY:

DWN BY:


DATE:

KX052807

NOVEMBER 2019

A



FIGURE 2

TITLE:

PROJECT:

UTM Zone 10

NAD 83

BC

BBPROJECT NO.:

REV NO.:

S:\Internal\KX052807-GIS\5-CorridorGravelAssessment\LC-GranBorrInv-Area2-Fig2.mxd

$

0 50 100 150 20025m

1:2,500



Notes:1. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.2. Orthophoto imagery (foreground) provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.3. Orthophoto imagery (background; 2009) provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd., received 1 June 2011.

BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.Legend!A Test Hole Location") Test Pit Location

Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)

Potential Granular Source

Potential Granular Source Boundary2

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

!A

!A

Highway 29

Millar Road

P e a c eR i v e r

0.1-3.81.2+/5.0+

0.1-3.51.0+/4.5+

0.1-3.41.6+/5.0+

0.1-2.22.8+/5.0+

0.6-3.03.2+/6.2+

0.1-3.20/N/A

0.1-3.10/N/A

0.2-5.00/N/A

0.1-3.01.0/4.0

0.1-1.20.8/2.0

0.2-0.23.5/3.7

0.1-3.03.6/6.6

2

TH18-LXB-202TH18-LXB-203

BP18-LX-027

BP18-LX-028

BP18-LX-029

BP18-LX-030

BP18-LX-031 BP18-LX-032

BP18-LX-033

BP18-LX-034BP18-LX-035

BP18-LX-036

SCALE:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHK'D BY:

DWN BY:


DATE:

KX052807

NOVEMBER 2019

A



FIGURE 3

TITLE:

PROJECT:

UTM Zone 10

NAD 83

BC

BBPROJECT NO.:

REV NO.:

S:\Internal\KX052807-GIS\5-CorridorGravelAssessment\LC-GranBorrInv-Area2-Fig3.mxd

$

0 50 100 150 20025m

1:2,500



Notes:1. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.2. Hillshade imagery processed from LIDAR provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.

BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.Legend!A Test Hole Location") Test Pit Location

Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)

Potential Granular Source

Potential Granular Source Boundary

LegendTopsoil Thickness (m)

Total Overburden Depth (m)

0.2-1.42.0+/3.4+

Depth to Bottom of Granular (m)Thickness of Granular (m)

Groundwater Depth (m)(0)

2

Appendix B

Photos

Photos 1 to 6

PROJECT No: KX052807.52.GBG108

PREPARED BY: P. O’Sullivan

SCALE: NTS

DATE PREPARED: March 2019

Highway 29 – Western Segments - Lynx Creek

Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2

Taken: June and August 2018

Photo 1: View west in partially wooded area, taken east of BP18-LX-027.

Photo 5: View of BP18-LX-028 spoils pile. Encountered silty sand, over gravelly

sand. Note boulders encountered.

Photo 2: View in partially wooded area, taken near of BP18-LX-032.

Photo 4: View of BP18-LX-028 upon completion. Encountered silty sand, over

gravelly sand.

Wood Environment &

Infrastructure Solutions

3456 Opie Crescent

Prince George, BC, CANADA, V2N 2P9

Tel. (250) 564-3243

Fax. (250) 562-7045

R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD

Photo 6: View of BP18-LX-030 upon completion. Encountered silty sand, over

sand and gravel.

Photo 3: View northeast in clearing, taken southwest of BP18-LX-033.

Silty Sand

Sand and Gravel

Topsoil

Gravelly Sand

Topsoil

Silty Sand

Photos 7 to 9

PROJECT No: KX052807.52.GBG108

PREPARED BY: P. O’Sullivan

SCALE: NTS

DATE PREPARED: March 2019

Highway 29 – Western Segments - Lynx Creek

Granular Borrow Investigation – Area 2

Taken: June and August 2018

Photo 7: View of BP18-LX-033 spoils pile. Encountered silty sand, over gravel

and sand, underlain by silty gravel and sand. Note cobbles encountered.

Photo 8: View in partially wooded area, taken near of BP18-LX-032.

View of BP18-LX-036 upon completion. Encountered silty sand, over gravel and

Wood Environment &

Infrastructure Solutions

3456 Opie Crescent

Prince George, BC, CANADA, V2N 2P9

Tel. (250) 564-3243

Fax. (250) 562-7045

R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD

Photo 9: View of BP18-LX-036 spoils pile. Encountered silty sand, over gravel and

sand.

Gravel and Sand

Silty Sand

Topsoil

Appendix C

Investigation Test Pit Summaries

From To From To So

il C

lass

ific

ati

on

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l

Ove

rsiz

ed

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l

3.2 - -

N 214233.9 TS 0.0 0.1 454.0 453.9 0.1

E 572469.4 ML 0.1 3.2 453.9 450.8 3.1 30 70

Z 454.0 B1 0.1 1.0 453.9 453.0 35 65

B2 1.0 2.0 453.0 452.0 25 75 ML 84 16 0 0

B3 2.0 3.0 452.0 451.0 25 75

3.1 - -

N 214374.0 TS 0.0 0.1 457.8 457.7 0.1

E 572601.8 SM4 0.1 2.6 457.7 455.2 2.5 15 85

Z 457.8 B1 0.1 1.0 457.7 456.8 15 85 SM4 44 56 0 0

B2 1.0 2.0 456.8 455.8 15 85

SM1 2.6 3.1 455.2 454.7 0.5 5 35 50 40 60 5 5 500

B3 2.6 3.1 455.2 454.7 10 40 45 5 SM1 20 41 34 5

5.0 - -

N 214529.6 TS 0.0 0.1 458.5 458.4 0.1

E 572703.8 ML 0.1 3.0 458.4 455.5 2.9 90 10

Z 458.5 B1 0.1 1.0 458.4 457.5 90 10

B2 1.0 2.0 457.5 456.5 90 10

B3 2.0 3.0 456.5 455.5 90 10

SM1 3.0 3.8 455.5 454.7 0.8 10 55 35 71 29

B4 3.0 3.8 455.5 454.7 10 55 35 SM1 14 46 28 12

GW 3.8 5.0 454.7 453.5 1.2 5 25 70 50 50

B5 4.0 5.0 454.5 453.5 5 25 70 GW 4 30 56 10 2 12 86 34 17.4 38.1 16.5 - 78.2 2.686/2.489 1.65/2.92 1.0/1.9

4.5 - -

N 214367.9 TS 0.0 0.1 453.7 453.6 0.1

E 572681.5 SM2 0.1 3.5 453.6 450.2 3.4 20 80

Z 453.7 B1 0.1 1.0 453.6 452.7 20 80

B2 1.0 2.0 452.7 451.7 10 90

B3 2.0 3.0 451.7 450.7 10 90

SP 3.5 4.5 450.2 449.2 1.0 5 50 40 70 30 5 250

B4 3.0 3.8 450.7 449.9 5 50 45 SP 2 51 47 0

5.0 - -

N 214611.1 TS 0.0 0.1 459.3 459.2 0.1

E 572731.4 SM2 0.1 3.4 459.2 455.9 3.3 20 80

Z 459.3 B1 0.1 1.0 459.2 458.3

B2 1.0 2.0 458.3 457.3

B3 2.0 3.0 457.3 456.3

GP-GM 3.4 4.2 455.9 455.1 0.8 10 60 30 67 33

B4 3.2 4.2 456.1 455.1 GP-GM 7 42 47 4

GW 4.2 5.0 455.1 454.3 0.8 5 25 65 57 43 5

B5 4.2 5.0 455.1 454.3 GW 3 30 47 20

Project Lynx Creek Area 2 Test Method Hyundai 210LC-9

Project Number KX052807.52.GBG105 Date June 25 - 27, 2018; August 12-13, 2018; August 28, 2018

Granular Borrow Investigation Test Pit Summary Sheet

Durability Lab Test Results

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Te

st P

it D

ep

th (

m)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r (m

)

Be

dro

ck (

m)

Field Visual Classification (%) Lab Gradation (%)

Sa

nd

Eq

uiv

ale

nt

Mic

ro-D

eva

l %

Lo

ss F

ine

Mg

SO

4 %

Lo

ss C

oa

rse

Mg

SO

4 %

Lo

ss F

ine

Fra

ctu

re A

B.R

.D.

Co

ars

e/F

ine

Ab

sorp

tio

n %

coa

rse

/ %

fin

e

We

igh

ted

Ave

rag

e C

lay

Lum

ps

Co

ars

e/F

ine

%

Mic

ro-D

eva

l %

Lo

ss C

oa

rse

BP18-LX-028

BP18-LX-029

BP18-LX-030

BP18-LX-031

Ma

x S

ize

(m

m)

Uncrushed Crushed

Laye

r T

hic

kn

ess

(m

)

BP18-LX-027

Gra

ve

l

Fin

e G

rave

l 4

.75

-19

mm

Co

ars

e G

rave

l 1

9-7

5 m

m

Co

bb

les

Bo

uld

ers

Te

st P

it I

D a

nd

Lo

cati

on

So

il C

lass

ific

ati

on

Sa

mp

le I

D

Depth (m) Elevation (masl)

From To From To So

il C

lass

ific

ati

on

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l

Ove

rsiz

ed

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l





Fin

es

Sa

nd

Te

st P

it D

ep

th (

m)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r (m

)

Be

dro

ck (

m)


Sa

nd

Eq

uiv

ale

nt

Mic

ro-D

eva

l %

Lo

ss F

ine

Mg

SO

4 %

Lo

ss C

oa

rse

Mg

SO

4 %

Lo

ss F

ine

Fra

ctu

re A

B.R

.D.

Co

ars

e/F

ine

Ab

sorp

tio

n %

coa

rse

/ %

fin

e

We

igh

ted

Ave

rag

e C

lay

Lum

ps

Co

ars

e/F

ine

%

Mic

ro-D

eva

l %

Lo

ss C

oa

rse

Ma

x S

ize

(m

m)

Uncrushed Crushed

Laye

r T

hic

kn

ess

(m

)

BP18-LX-027

Gra

ve

l

Fin

e G

rave

l 4

.75

-19

mm

Co

ars

e G

rave

l 1

9-7

5 m

m

Co

bb

les

Bo

uld

ers

Te

st P

it I

D a

nd

Lo

cati

on

So

il C

lass

ific

ati

on

Sa

mp

le I

D


5.0 - -

N 214740.7 TS 0.0 0.2 459.9 459.7 0.2

E 572777.3 ML 0.2 3.4 459.7 456.5 3.2 85 15

Z 459.9 B1 0.2 1.0 459.7 458.9

B2 1.0 2.0 458.9 457.9

B3 2.0 3.0 457.9 456.9

SM2 3.4 4.5 456.5 455.4 1.1 10 65 25 40 60

B4 3.4 4.0 456.5 455.9 SM2 28 51 21 0

ML 4.5 5.0 455.4 454.9 0.5 100

B5 4.5 5.0 455.4 454.9

5.0 - -

N 214546.0 TS 0.0 0.1 452.9 452.8 0.1

E 572790.5 SM1 0.1 3.0 452.8 449.9 2.9 15 85

Z 452.9 B1 0.1 1.0 452.8 451.9 15 85

B2 1.0 1.9 451.9 451.0 15 85

B3 2.0 3.0 450.9 449.9 15 85

GP-GM 3.0 4.0 449.9 448.9 1.0 5 45 50 30 70 60

B4 3.0 4.0 449.9 448.9 5 45 50 GP-GM 6 38 56 0

GM2 4.0 5.0 448.9 447.9 1.0 5 35 55 30 70 5 <5 300

B5 4.0 5.0 448.9 447.9 5 35 55 5 GM2 22 35 36 7

4.4 4.4 -

N 214846.6 TS 0.0 0.1 452.5 452.4 0.1

E 572822.6 ML 0.1 1.2 452.4 451.3 1.1 15 70 15

Z 452.5 B1 1.1 451.4 15 70 15 ML 71 28 1 0

SP-SM 1.2 2.0 451.3 450.5 0.8 10 90

B2 1.9 450.6 10 90

GM1 2.0 3.4 450.5 449.1 1.4 10 45 45

B3 3.2 449.3 10 45 45 GM1 19 31 47 3

SM3 3.4 4.4 449.1 448.1 1.0 30 65 5

B4 4.2 448.3 30 65 5

5.2 - -

N 214962.3 TS 0.0 0.2 452.8 452.7 0.2

E 572856.1 SP-SM 0.2 3.7 452.7 449.1 3.6 10 90

Z 452.8 B1 1.2 451.6 10 90

B2 1.9 450.9 10 90

B3 3.2 449.6 10 90

SM4 3.7 4.0 449.1 448.8 0.3 40 60

B4 3.7 449.1 40 60

SM2 4.0 5.2 448.8 447.6 1.2 20 75 5

B5 5.0 447.8 20 75 5

BP18-LX-032

BP18-LX-033

BP18-LX-034

BP18-LX-035

From To From To So

il C

lass

ific

ati

on

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l

Ove

rsiz

ed

Fin

es

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l





Fin

es

Sa

nd

Te

st P

it D

ep

th (

m)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r (m

)

Be

dro

ck (

m)


Sa

nd

Eq

uiv

ale

nt

Mic

ro-D

eva

l %

Lo

ss F

ine

Mg

SO

4 %

Lo

ss C

oa

rse

Mg

SO

4 %

Lo

ss F

ine

Fra

ctu

re A

B.R

.D.

Co

ars

e/F

ine

Ab

sorp

tio

n %

coa

rse

/ %

fin

e

We

igh

ted

Ave

rag

e C

lay

Lum

ps

Co

ars

e/F

ine

%

Mic

ro-D

eva

l %

Lo

ss C

oa

rse

Ma

x S

ize

(m

m)

Uncrushed Crushed

Laye

r T

hic

kn

ess

(m

)

BP18-LX-027

Gra

ve

l

Fin

e G

rave

l 4

.75

-19

mm

Co

ars

e G

rave

l 1

9-7

5 m

m

Co

bb

les

Bo

uld

ers

Te

st P

it I

D a

nd

Lo

cati

on

So

il C

lass

ific

ati

on

Sa

mp

le I

D


5.0 - -

N 214671.8 TS 0.0 0.1 453.1 453.0 0.1

E 572886.7 SM1 0.1 2.2 453.0 450.9 2.1 15 85

Z 453.1 B1 0.1 1.0 453.0 452.1 15 85

GP 2.2 3.0 450.9 450.1 0.8 5 45 50 40 60 70

B2 2.5 3.0 450.6 450.1 5 40 50 5 GP 4 42 54 0

GP 3.0 4.0 450.1 449.1 1.0 5 35 55 35 65 5 150

B3 3.0 4.0 450.1 449.1 5 35 55 5 GP 5 33 41 21

GW 4.0 5.0 449.1 448.1 1.0 5 30 55 30 70 10 <5 300

B4 4.0 5.0 449.1 448.1 5 35 55 5 GW 4 31 46 19

BP18-LX-036

OD

EX

0.1m

3m

6.6m

S01

S02

S03

S04

S05

S06

S07

S08

S09A

S09B

S08 refusal 50 for 89 mm

63

75

88

92

83

58

46

63

63

TOPSOIL.

SILT AND SAND (fine grained), trace clay,loose to compact, non-plastic, light brown,moist.

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to medium grained), trace tosome silt, poorly graded, maximumparticle size observed > 35 mm,sub-rounded to rounded, dense to verydense, brown, moist.

SILT AND SAND (fine to mediumgrained), trace gravel (fine grained),dense, non-plastic, red brown, moist.

TS

ML

GM1

ML

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

Sieve (Sa#S02)G:0% S:38% F:62%Clay:6% Silt:56%

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

Sieve (Sa#S05)G:48% S:38% F:14%

{G:50 S:40 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:0 S:40 F:60}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-LXB-202

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6

Driller: Ryan Horning

Drill Make/Model: Fraste PL

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Lynx Creek, 29

Date(s) Drilled: 30/08/2018Project: Highway No. 29 Lynx Creek Boat Launch

459

458

457

456

455

454

453

Alignment: TBDPrepared by:

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

Drilling Method: ODEX

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Logged by: MN/POReviewed by: DO

7

0

Wood Environment &Infrastructure Solutions

Datum: Ground Surface - Local Coordinates

COMMENTSTESTING

Drillers Estimate{G % S % F %}

KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG

Company: Westech Drilling Corp

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon

Northing/Easting: 214557.531 , 572690.338

Elevation: 459.5 m

Station/Offset: TBD

Coordinates Surveyed 2018-09-05

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Depth of Summary Log: 7.5 mDepth to Top of Rock:

Page 1 of 2

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.1

1 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 2

/25/

19

SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm)

100 200 300 400 Pocket Penetrometer Shear Strength (kPa)

2323

3556

5787

58810

23553943

7241342

5232948

1050

12264424

Refusal

5

8

15

21

3

2

3

2

3

3

SPT

OD

EX

7.5m

S10 96SILT AND SAND (fine to mediumgrained), trace gravel (fine grained),dense, non-plastic, red brown, moist.(continued)

End of Test Hole at 7.5 m.No groundwater encountered.Test Hole backfilled with bentonite chipsand cuttings.

ML

Sieve (Sa#S10)G:1% S:39% F:60%

8

9

10

11

12

13

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)8

9

10

11

12

13



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



452

451

450

449

448

447

446


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


77

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


14

7



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 459.5 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 2 of 2

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.1

1 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 2

/25/

19



12202024

9

SPT

OD

EX

0m

3m

6.2m

S01

S02

S03

S04

S05

S06

S07

S08

S09






33

63

63

63

75

67

25

77

100

TOPSOIL.

SILT, some sand to sandy (fine grained),loose, non-plastic, light orange brown,moist.

-below 0.8 m, light brown

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to medium grained), trace tosome silt, poorly graded, maximumparticle size observed > 40 mm,sub-rounded to rounded, very dense,brown, moist.

End of Test Hole at 6.2 m.No groundwater encountered.Test Hole backfilled with bentonite chipsand cuttings.

TS

ML

GM1

{G:0 S:20 F:80}

{G:0 S:20 F:80}

Sieve (Sa#S03)G:0% S:23% F:77%

{G:0 S:20 F:80}

Sieve (Sa#S05)G:49% S:37% F:14%

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:65 S:25 F:10}

{G:60 S:25 F:15}

{G:45 S:45 F:10}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



458

457

456

455

454

453

452


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 458.75 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.1

1 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 2

/25/

19



2234

2424

4445

4445

4052

144962

450

3050

60

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

6

9

15

17

4

6

3

3

3

SPT

Appendix D

Laboratory Grain Size Distribution

And

Durability Testing Results

PROJECT: KX052807678 Vancouver Street OFFICE: Prince GeorgePrince George, BC TECHNICIAN: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions LabV2L 2P3 DATE: 20-Feb-19

PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing(mm) (%)300.0 100.075.0 100.063.0 100.050.0 100.037.5 100.025.0 100.019.0 100.012.5 100.09.5 100.04.75 100.02.36 99.91.18 99.40.600 99.00.300 98.80.150 97.60.075 84.1

OVERSIZED= 0.0%GRAVEL = 0.0%

SAND = 15.9%FINES = 84.1%

D10 = N/AD30 = N/AD60 = N/A

Cu = N/ACc = N/A

Moisture = 0.6%Tested Weight

(g) = 2,039.9

COMMENTS:

Per:

Brian McLeodReporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of the test results is provided only on written request.

Bridge End Fill

Highway 29 – Granular Borrow Investigation, Area 2

TEST PIT NUMBER: BP18-LX-027 SAMPLED BY: P. O'Sullivan

SAMPLE NUMBER: B2 DATE SAMPLED: 27-Jun-18

DEPTH: 1.0 - 2.0m DATE TESTED: 13-Feb-19

R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM C136/ASTM C117

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

Coarse CoarseCOBBLES

SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium

PROJECT: KX052807678 Vancouver Street OFFICE: Prince GeorgePrince George, BC TECHNICIAN: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions LabV2L 2P3 DATE: 01-Dec-18

PROJECT NAME:


OVERSIZED = 0.0%GRAVEL = 0.1%

SAND = 55.7%FINES = 44.2%

D10 = N/AD30 = N/AD60 = 0.10

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 8,857.1

COMMENTS:

Per:


Bridge End Fill




DEPTH: 0.1 - 1.0m DATE TESTED: 26-Nov-18

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM C136/ ASTM C117


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 40.9%FINES = 19.8%

D10 = N/AD30 = 0.13D60 = 4.33

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 32,121.8

COMMENTS:Largest cobble measured 145mm x 110mm.

Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 46.0%FINES = 14.1%

D10 = N/AD30 = 0.17D60 = 4.69

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 21,290.5


Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 30.5%FINES = 3.7%

D10 = 0.30D30 = 3.28D60 = 27.15

Cu = 89.12Cc = 1.30


(g) = 26,613.6

COMMENTS:

Largest cobble measured 145mm x 110mm.

Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 33.0%FINES = 65.5%

D10 = N/AD30 = N/AD60 = N/A

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 2,951.3

COMMENTS:

Per:



Bridge End Fill



SAMPLE NUMBER: B3 DATE SAMPLED: 28-Aug-18

DEPTH: 2.0 - 3.5m DATE TESTED: 12-Dec-18


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 51.2%FINES = 1.8%

D10 = 0.37D30 = 0.99D60 = 6.89

Cu = 18.50Cc = 0.38


(g) = 31,498.6

COMMENTS:

Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 41.7%FINES = 7.4%

D10 = 0.10D30 = 0.40D60 = 13.29

Cu = 134.24Cc = 0.12


(g) = 19,528.9

COMMENTS:


Per:



Bridge End Fill


TEST PIT NUMBER: BP18-LX-031 SAMPLED BY: B. Garlick




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 29.9%FINES = 3.4%

D10 = 0.32D30 = 3.45D60 = 31.11

Cu = 96.19Cc = 1.19


(g) = 23,614.3

COMMENTS:


Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 50.6%FINES = 28.5%

D10 = N/AD30 = 0.08D60 = 0.29

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 18,379.5

COMMENTS:

Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 38.4%FINES = 5.6%

D10 = 0.21D30 = 1.39D60 = 11.93

Cu = 57.00Cc = 0.77


(g) = 20,107.8

COMMENTS:

Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 35.1%FINES = 21.9%

D10 = N/AD30 = 0.13D60 = 6.48

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 27,691.4


Per:


Bridge End Fill







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 27.6%FINES = 70.9%

D10 = N/AD30 = N/AD60 = N/A

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 2,589.9

COMMENTS:

Per:



Bridge End Fill


TEST PIT NUMBER: BP18-LX-034 SAMPLED BY: M. Hryciuk


DEPTH: 1.1m DATE TESTED: 11-Dec-18


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 30.6%FINES = 19.4%

D10 = N/AD30 = 0.35D60 = 11.63

Cu = N/ACc = N/A


(g) = 29,945.7


Per:



Bridge End Fill


TEST PIT NUMBER: BP18-LX-034 SAMPLED BY: M. Hryciuk


DEPTH: 3.2m DATE TESTED: 12-Dec-18


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 42.4%FINES = 3.5%

D10 = 0.19D30 = 0.86D60 = 10.65

Cu = 57.29Cc = 0.37


(g) = 31,382.0

COMMENTS:

Per:



Bridge End Fill






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 32.6%FINES = 5.1%

D10 = 0.25D30 = 2.20D60 = 24.47

Cu = 99.04Cc = 0.80


(g) = 34,844.6


Per:



Bridge End Fill






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium


PROJECT NAME:



SAND = 30.7%FINES = 4.2%

D10 = 0.26D30 = 2.96D60 = 29.06

Cu = 111.89Cc = 1.16


(g) = 32,058.5


Per:


BP18-LX-036

DATE SAMPLED: 27-Jun-18


DEPTH: DATE TESTED:4.0 - 5.-0m 13-Dec-18

Bridge End Fill


P. O'Sullivan

B4


TEST PIT NUMBER: SAMPLED BY:

SAMPLE NUMBER:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T PA

SSIN

G


GRAVEL


SANDFINES

(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium

Crushed ParticlesBCH 1-13

Client: RF Binnie Project: KX052807

Test Pit Number: BP18-LX-029 Sampled by: P. O'Sullivan

Sample Number: B05 Date Sampled:

Depth: 4.0 - 5.0m Date Tested:

Procedure: 1 Face - Method A Tested By: S. McMahon

Original Original Number of Number of Fractured Weighted

Sieve Percent Particles Fractured Particles Average

Mass Retained Tested Particles

g % % %

23585.0

3525.7 14.9 152 136 89.5 13.4

7494.7 31.8 133 116 87.2 27.7

4467.6 18.9 187 127 67.9 12.9

8097.0 34.3 268 189 70.5 24.2

100.0 Total: 78.2

Comments:

- Section 202, Table 202-B for acceptable values for base courses, IGSB, OGSB and HFSA

Reviewed by:

Glenda Michaud

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions

Prince George, BC

Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of the test results is provided only on written request.

19mm to 25mm

12.5mm to 19mm

9.5mm to 12.5mm

4.75mm to 9.5mm

Refer to BCMoT 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction:

25-Jun-18

20-Feb-19

Size of

Particles

Mass of Sample (g) =

Crushed Particles

ASTM D5821

Client: RF Binnie Project: KX052807

Test Pit Number: BP18-LX-029 Sampled by: P. O'Sullivan

Sample Number: B05 Date Sampled:

Depth: 4.0 - 5.0m Date Tested:

Procedure: 2 Face Tested By: S. McMahon

Original Original Mass of Fractured Fractured Weighted

Sieve Percent Fraction Particles Particles Average

Mass Retained

g % g g % %

23585.0

3525.7 14.9 2023.9 1641.5 81.1 12.1

7494.7 31.8 537.0 439.3 81.8 26.0

4467.6 18.9 386.1 222.3 57.6 10.9

8097.0 34.3 126.3 82.0 64.9 22.3

100.0 Total: 71.3

Comments:

- Section 502, Table 502-B for acceptable values for Superpave, Class 1 and Class 2 aggregates

Reviewed by:

Glenda Michaud


Prince George, BC

25-Jun-18

20-Feb-19

Size of

Particles

Mass of Sample (g) =

Refer to BCMoT 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction:


19mm to 25mm

12.5mm to 19mm

9.5mm to 12.5mm

4.75mm to 9.5mm

Client: R.F. BinnieProject No.:Project Name:Tested By:

MICRO-DEVAL ABRASION

Coarse Aggregate (ASTM D6928)

Grading Sample Pan No. Mic-Dev Init Mass Final Mass DM (CA)ID Jar No. of Sample g of Sample g % Loss

A B (A-B)*100/A8.2 BP18-LX-029(B5) 3 B 1502.0 1241.0 17.4

8.2 Control 6 A 1502.4 1299.6 13.5* The target for the Drain Brothers control aggregate is 13.1%. The acceptable range is 11.4% - 14.8%.

Fine Aggregate (ASTM D7428)

Grading Sample Pan No. Mic-Dev Init Mass Final Mass DM (CA)ID Jar No. of Sample g of Sample g % Loss

A B (A-B)*100/A8.2 BP18-LX-029(B5) 3 B 501.3 310.4 38.1

8.2 Control Dan A 500.2 416.7 16.7* The target for the Sutherland Sand control aggregate is 16.2%. The acceptable range is 15.2% - 18.4%.

Comments:

- Section 502, Table 502-B for acceptable value for Superpave, Class 1 and Class 2 aggregates.


Prince George, BCPer:

Refer to BCMoT 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction; - Section 202, Table 202-B for acceptable values for HFSA, base course, subbase course and BEF. - Section 211, Table 211-E for acceptable value for concrete course aggregate.


190.9

83.5

202.8

Loss ofMass g

A - B

Loss ofMass g

A - B261.0

KX052807Highway 29S. McMahon/B.McLeod

Client: R. F. Binnie Date Sampled: 25-Jun-18Project No.: KX052807 Sampled By: P. O'SullivanSource: BP18-LX-029 (B5) Tested By: B. McLeodSample No.: 4.0 - 5.0m Date Tested: 02-Mar-19Project Name: Highway 29 – Granular Borrow Investigation, Area 2

Trial # 1 2 3 Average

Clay Height (mm):Sediment Period: 20 mins 20 mins 20 minsSand Height (mm):

Sand Equivalent (SE): 33 34 34 34

Calculations: Sand Equivalent (SE) = (Sand Height / Clay Height) x 100

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTSSand Equivalent (SE)

Comments:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure SolutionsPrince George, BC

Per:

Plastic Fines Material Material

Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of the test results is provided only on written request

80 40 30 20

Absence of

Refer to BCMoT 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, Section 202, Table 202-B

Possible Plastic Plastic

SAND EQUIVALENT TEST ASTM D2419

11.5 11.2 11.3

3.7 3.7 3.8

Supplied by: Supplied by:Soils and Aggregate Section Soils and Aggregates SecttionMaterials Engineering and Research Office Materials Engineering and Research OfficeMinistry of Transportation Ministry of Transportation1201 Wilson Avenue 1201 Wilson AvenueDownsview, Ontario, Canada M3M 1J8 Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3M 1J8Phone: (416) 235-3735 Phone: (416) 235-3735

Los Angeles Abrasion and Impact Micro-Deval Abrasion Test MethodsMTO Test Method LS-603 ASTM D7428Mean loss 26.0%; Range: 23.2% -28.8% CSA A23.2-25A

MTO LS 619Relative Density and Absorption (Coarse) Mean Loss 16.8MTO Test Method LS-604 Range: 15.2%-18.4%Mean Relative Density 2.690; Range: 2.681-2.699Mean Absorbtion 0.39%; Range: 0.29% - 0.49% Relative Density and Absorbtion

MTO LS-605Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Absorbtion 1.85%±0.27%MTO Test Method LS-606 Bulk Density 2.611±0.018Mean Loss 8.9%; Range: 4.9%-12.9%

Magnesium Sulphate SoundnessUnconfined Freeze-Thaw MTO LS-606MTO Test Method LS-614 Mean Loss 15.1%±7.6%CSA Test Method A23.2-24AMean Loss 11.9%; Range: 9.5%-15.3% Uncompacted Void Content

ASTM C1252Micro Deval Abrasion Voids 41.3±1.0MTO Test Method LS-618CSA Test Method A23.2-29AAASHTO Test Method T 327ASTM Test Method D6928Mean Loss 13.1%; Range: 11.4% - 14.8%

Drain Brothers Sutherlan SandStoney Lake Quarry Reference Aggregate

Reference Aggregate

The data given below were developed in a multi-laboratory study with participlants ranging from 12labs in LA Abrasion and Impact to 106 in RelativeDensity and Absorption

The data given below weredeveloped in a multi-laboratorystudies with 58 (micro-Deval), 83(absorption/relative density), 32(MgSO4) and 54 (uncompactedvoids) laboratories (see MEROReport 28, Feb. 2008)

Soundness of Aggregates by use of Magnesium SulphateASTM C88

Client: R.F. Binnie Project:Project Name: Highway 29 – Granular Borrow Investigation, Area 2 Sampled by:Source: Date Sampled:Tested by: Date Tested:

Original Original Mass of Mass of Test WeightedSieve Percent Test Test Fraction Fraction AverageMass Retained Fraction after Test Loss Loss

g % g g % %TP16-B-227

20059.37494.7 37.4 672.2 612.2 8.93 3.34467.6 22.3 331.1 255.4 22.86 5.18097.0 40.4 303.6 242.8 20.03 8.1

100.0 Total: 16.5

Date Drain In Oven Out Oven Soak25-Feb-19 15:30 1.300 21.2 21.226-Feb-19 8:10 8:30 14:20 15:40 1.300 20.827-Nov-16 8:20 8:40 15:30 16:20 1.300 20.7 20.828-Feb-19 8:10 8:25 16:15 17:10 1.298 21.201-Mar-19 9:30 9:45 15:40 17:00 1.300 19.9 20.702-Mar-19 11:30 11:4504-Mar-19 7:55 21.2

Comments:

Reviewed by:


- Section 211, Table 211-E; acceptable value for concrete course aggregate is 12%

Brian McLeod


9.5mm - 4.75mm

SpG (1.295 - 1.308) Temperature (oC)

Refer to BCMoT 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction;

Size ofParticles

Mass of Sample (g) =19.0mm - 12.5mm12.5mm - 9.5mm

KX052807P. O'Sullivan

BP18-LX-029 (B5) 06-Jul-18S. McMahon 25-Feb-19

PROJECT: KX052807678 Vancouver Street OFFICE: Prince GeorgePrince George, BC TECHNICIAN: B. McLeod/S. McMahonV2L 2P3 DATE:

TEST PIT NUMBER:

SAMPLE NUMBER: DATE SAMPLED:

DEPTH: DATE TESTED:

COARSE AGGREGATE - ASTM C127 RETAINED ON THE 4.75mm SIEVESample was dried, washed and soaked for 24 +/- 4 hours

AVG

Mass of Pan in Air 385.5 386.1 387.1

Sat. Surf. Dry Mass Agg. + Pan in Air 1958.1 1980.9 1946.3

Sat. Surf. Dry Mass in Water (C) 1002.6 1002.7 989.7

Dry Mass Agg. + Pan in Air 1934.3 1953.3 1921.0

Sat. Surf. Dry Mass Agg. in Air (B) 1572.6 1594.8 1559.2

Mass of Dry Agg. in Air (Ac) 1548.8 1567.2 1533.9

Diff. in SS Mass 570.0 592.1 569.5

Mass Absorbed Water 978.8 975.1 964.4BULK RELATIVE DENSITY A c /(B-C) 2.717 2.647 2.693 2.686

PERCENT WATER ABSORPTION (B-A c /A c ) * 100 1.54 1.76 1.65 (Cabs) 1.65

FINE AGGREGATE - ASTM C128 PASSING THE 4.75mm SIEVESample was dried, washed and soaked for 24 +/- 4 hours

AVG

Mass of Water to Calibrate Flask (Wc) 499.37 499.49

Mass of Flask (X) 211.27 208.91

Mass of Flask & Water 292.76 284.68

Mass of SS Dry Aggregate (Y) 501.27 500.78

Mass of Flask + SS Dry Agg. + Water (Z) 1016.03 1013.85

Mass of Pan in Air 379.29 281.70

Mass of Dry Agg. + Pan in Air 866.26 768.35

Mass of Added Water (Z - Y) (Wa) 303.49 304.16

Mass of Dry Agg. in Air (Af) 486.97 486.65

Diff. in Water Mass (Wc-Wa) 195.88 195.33

Mass Absorbed Water (Y-X-Af) 14.30 14.13

BULK RELATIVE DENSITY Af/(Wc - Wa) 2.486 2.491 2.489

PERCENT WATER ABSORPTION (Y-X-Af)/Af * 100 2.94 2.90 (Fabs) 2.92


Per:

4.0 - 5.0m 22-Feb-19

COMMENTS:

Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of the test results is provided only on written request

PROJECT NAME: Highway 29 – Granular Borrow Investigation, Area 2

BP18-LX-029 SAMPLED BY: P. O'Sullivan

B5 25-Jun-18

BULK RELATIVE DENSITY OF AGGREGATES


1-Mar-19

Clay Lumps in Natural AggregateASTM C142

Client: R.F. Binnie Project No.:Source: Sampled by:Depth: Date Sampled:Tested by: Date Tested:

Original Original Mass After WeightedSieve Percent Mass of Removal Clay AverageMass Retained Fraction of Clay Lumps Clay Lumps

g % g g % %Coarse Aggregate

20059.311962.3 59.6 2012.3 1997.8 0.72 0.48097.0 40.4 1004.1 990.9 1.31 0.5

100.0 Total: 1.0

25.70 100.0 25.70 25.20 1.95 1.9

Comments:

Reviewed by:


Refer to 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction: Section 502, Table 502-B. - Section 502, Table 502-B for allowable percent loss. - Section 211, Table 211-E for allowable percent loss.

Brian McLeod


Fine Aggregate1.18mm to 2.36mm

Size ofParticles

Mass of Sample (g) =9.5mm to 19.0mm4.75mm to 9.5mm

KX052807BP18-LX-029 (B5) P. O'Sullivan4.0 - 5.0m 25-Jun-18S. McMahon 01-Mar-19

Appendix E

Limitations

Limitations

Limitations 1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented are subject

to the following:

a. The Standard Terms and Conditions which form a part of our Professional Services Contract;

b. The Scope of Services;

c. Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and

d. The Limitations stated herein.

2. No other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented.

3. The conclusions presented in this report were based, in part, on visual observations of the Site and attendant structures. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions of the Site or structures, which are not reasonably available, in Wood’s opinion, for direct observation.

4. Where testing was performed, it was carried out in accordance with the terms of our contract providing for testing. Other substances, or different quantities of substances testing for, may be present on-site and may be revealed by different or other testing not provided for in our contract.

5. The utilization of Wood’s services during the implementation of any remedial measures will allow Wood to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. Wood’s involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as they are encountered.

6. This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or the part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or conclusions in the report is the sole responsibility of such third party. Wood accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein.

7. This report is not to be given over to any third party for any purpose whatsoever without the written permission of Wood.

8. Provided that the report is still reliable, and less than 12 months old, Wood will issue a third-party reliance letter to parties that the client identifies in writing, upon payment of the then current fee for such letters. All third parties relying on Wood’s report, by such reliance agree to be bound by our proposal and Wood’s standard reliance letter. Wood’s standard reliance letter indicates that in no event shall Wood be liable for any damages, howsoever arising, relating to third-party reliance on Wood’s report. No reliance by any party is permitted without such agreement.

granular borrow investigation – area 2 rev. 1 · 2020. 6. 23. · moti bch 1 -13 method a , and...

Documents