Geotechnical Investigation - Peterborough · 2019-03-15 · 2. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to define and characterize the subsurface conditions

Geotechnical Investigation Trent University Arena Complex Nassau Mills Road and Pioneer Road Peterborough, Ontario

City of Peterborough

September 9, 2016

347 Pido Road, Unit 29, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

K9J 6X7

11115294 | 04 | Report No. 1

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Trent University Arena Complex, Nassau Mills Road and Pioneer Road, Peterborough, Ontario |11115294-04

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Purpose and Scope 1

3. Field and Laboratory Procedures 2

4. Site Location and Conditions 3

5. Subsurface Conditions 4

5.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Topsoil....................................................................................................................................... 4

5.3 Asphalt ...................................................................................................................................... 4

5.4 Fill .............................................................................................................................................. 4

5.5 Silty Sand .................................................................................................................................. 5

5.6 Silt ............................................................................................................................................. 5 5.7 Sandy Silt .................................................................................................................................. 5

5.8 Silty Clay ................................................................................................................................... 6

5.9 Clayey Sandy Silt ...................................................................................................................... 6

5.10 Sand ................................................................................................................................. 6

5.11 Gravelly Sand ........................................................................................................................... 6

5.12 Sandy Gravel ............................................................................................................................ 7 5.13 Gravel ................................................................................................................................. 7

5.14 Cobbles and Boulders ............................................................................................................... 7

5.15 Weathered Bedrock or Boulders ............................................................................................... 7

5.16 Inferred Boulders and Bedrock ................................................................................................. 7

5.17 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 9

5.18 Chemical Analysis ................................................................................................................... 10

6. Discussion and Recommendations 13

6.1 Excavations, Dewatering, and Backfill .................................................................................... 13

6.2 Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 14

6.3 Slab-On-Grade ........................................................................................................................ 16

6.4 Service Installation .................................................................................................................. 17 6.5 Pavement Design .................................................................................................................... 17

6.6 Storm Water Management (SWM) Pond ................................................................................ 18

6.7 General Recommendations .................................................................................................... 19

6.7.1 Subsoil Sensitivity .................................................................................................. 19 6.7.2 Winter Construction ............................................................................................... 20 6.7.3 Design Review ....................................................................................................... 20 6.7.4 Further Investigation .............................................................................................. 20

7. Statement of Limitations 21


Tables

Table 5.1 Depth to Practical Refusal (see Logs for Details) ........................................... 8

Table 5.2: Piezometer Groundwater Levels .......................................................................... 9

Table 5.3: Summary of Metals and Inorganics - Soil ........................................................ 10

Table 5.4: Summary of PHCs and BTEXs - Soil ................................................................... 11

Table 5.5: Summary of Metals and Inorganics - Groundwater ...................................... 11

Table 5.6: Summary of PHCs and BTEXs - Groundwater ................................................ 12

Table 6.1 Preliminary Bearing Pressures ............................................................................. 15

Table 6.2 Pavement Structure ................................................................................................. 18

Enclosures

Plate 1 Test Hole Location Plan

Appendices

Appendix A: Borehole and Test Pit Logs

Appendix B: Physical Laboratory Data

Appendix C: Chemical Laboratory Data

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Trent University Arena Complex, Nassau Mills Road and Pioneer Road, Peterborough, Ontario |11115294-04 | 1

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation that was conducted to support the design and construction of the proposed Trent University Arena Complex, to be located at 3530 Nassau Mills Road, Peterborough, Ontario. GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by the City of Peterborough (the Client) to complete this geotechnical investigation. The work conducted for this investigation was carried out under authorization of the Client (represented by Ms. Mary Gallop and Ms. Gillian Barnes) in accordance with our proposal PG-3517 dated April 13, 2016, with additional work as requested and directed by the Client and their project team including Perkins Will (PW), and D.M. Wills Associates Ltd. (DMW).

It is GHD’s understanding that the project shall include the development of a twin-pad hockey arena with potential for a pool in the proposed area. No basement areas are anticipated. Asphalt-paved parking and access areas are expected, as is corresponding site servicing. The final proposed grading for this facility and site development was not available to GHD at the time of writing this report.

2. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to define and characterize the subsurface conditions of the underlying soil and groundwater at the test hole locations, and to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations relevant to earthwork construction, construction dewatering, backfill material and compaction, foundation design, stormwater management pond, and pavement construction. As requested, limited chemical testing of soil and groundwater samples were performed as part of this investigation, however the information contained herein must in no way be construed as an opinion of this site’s environmental status.

The following scope of work was performed in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes.

1. A site specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) was generated.

2. Test holes were located on site in relation to existing and proposed features.

3. Underground services were cleared prior to advancing the test holes.

4. The subsurface soil conditions were explored by advancing, sampling and logging a total of forty-six (46) test holes during two (2) stages of subsurface exploration as follows:

a. Stage 1:

i. fifteen (15) boreholes to target depths of approximately 4 metres below existing grade (mbeg) or practical refusal;

ii. five (5) test pits were advanced at five (5) of the borehole locations to 4 mbeg or practical refusal;


b. Stage 2:

i. twenty-two (22) boreholes were advanced to target depths ranging from approximately 4 to 6 mbeg or practical refusal;

ii. four (4) test pits were advanced to a target depth of approximately 4 mbeg or practical refusal.

5. Temporary standpipe piezometers were installed in selected boreholes to facilitate monitoring of the groundwater levels.

6. The ground at the test holes locations was reinstated as close as possible to its original condition upon completion of the fieldwork. Care was taken to minimize disturbances particularly to the existing baseball diamond during the fieldwork.

7. One (1) round of groundwater level measurements was obtained from the piezometers at least 24 hours following their installation. In–situ testing was performed in selected piezometers to support assessing the hydraulic conductivity.

8. Laboratory analyses of representative soil samples including:

a. Physical testing: moisture content and grain size distribution testing; and

b. Chemical testing: as requested, one (1) soil sample and one (1) groundwater sample (2 samples total) were tested for benzene toluene ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs F1 to F4), metals, inorganics including EC and SAR, and sulphates.

3. Field and Laboratory Procedures

A field investigation was conducted under the supervision of GHD staff in two stages, with Stage 1 being performed between April 22 and 29, 2016, and Stage 2 occurring between July 20 and 22, 2016. The work conducted during the two stages consisted of subsurface exploration by means of advancing and sampling a total of forty-six (46) exploratory test holes (thirty-seven (37) boreholes and nine (9) test pits) to depths ranging from approximately 1.8 to 6.1 mbeg.

The Stage 1 fieldwork included the advancement of boreholes at fifteen (15) test hole locations; test pits were subsequently excavated at the locations of five (5) boreholes (BH-1, 9, 10, 13 and 14) to provide further information with respect to the ground conditions at those locations. As requested, the Stage 2 fieldwork consisted of twenty-two (22) boreholes and four (4) test pits being advanced.

A detailed log of each borehole and test pit was maintained and representative samples of the materials encountered were collected. A detailed log of each test hole is presented in Appendix A. Note that in cases where a test pit was advanced at the same location as a borehole, it is identified by being named “BH-x (TP-x)”.


The boreholes were advanced using both track and truck mounted drill rigs equipped with continuous flight, solid stem power augers. Representative, disturbed samples of the strata penetrated were obtained using a split-barrel, 50 mm outer-diameter (OD) sampler advanced by a 63.5 kg hammer dropping approximately 760 mm. The results of these standard penetration tests (SPT’s) are reported as “N” values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths. Representative, disturbed samples were also obtained directly from auger cuttings.

The test pits were advanced using a track-mounted excavator with a toothed bucket. Representative, disturbed samples were obtained directly from the excavator’s bucket or directly from the excavation’s sidewalls.

Soil samples obtained from the boreholes were inspected in the field immediately upon retrieval for type, texture, and colour. All soil samples were sealed in clean plastic containers and transported to the GHD laboratory for further visual-tactile examination, and to select appropriate samples for laboratory analysis.

Groundwater measurements and observations were obtained from the open boreholes during the drilling, and via piezometers installed in selected test holes. Groundwater data is presented on individual borehole logs.

Physical laboratory testing was completed on selected soil samples, and consisted of moisture content tests on all samples recovered, and gradation analyses on a total of six (6) representative soil samples including hydrometers. The analytical results of the moisture content tests are plotted on the attached logs. The results of the gradation testing are incorporated into the borehole logs, and are presented graphically in Appendix B.

As requested, one soil sample and one groundwater sample were submitted to Caduceon Environmental Laboratories for chemical testing of O.Reg 153 parameters specified by the Client and consisting of metals, inorganics (including EC and SAR and sulphate), PHCs (F1-F4 fractions), and BTEXs. CEL’s Certificates of Analysis for these tests are enclosed in Appendix C.

The ground surface elevation at each test hole was interpolated from Beninger Surveying Ltd’s survey plan dated April 14, 2016. Elevations contained in this report are strictly for engineering analytical purposes only, and must be verified prior to finalizing any design or contract parameters upon which they are based.

4. Site Location and Conditions

The subject area (Site) is located at the southeast corner of Nassau Mills Road and Pioneer Road, in the City of Peterborough, Ontario. The northwestern, southwestern, and northeastern quadrants of the site is generally flat, with a gradually slope towards the seasonal creek the bisects the western and eastern portions of the Site. The southeastern quadrant of the Site, is sloped down to the south. The Site supports a maintenance yard for Trent University in the northwestern quadrant, a Ministry of Natural Resources yard in the southwestern quandrant, an existing baseball field in the northeastern quandrant and vacant land in the southeastern quandrant.


The ground surface, with exception of the gravel and asphalt areas in the Trent University maintenance and Ministry of Natural Resources yards, consisted of grassed areas. Various portions of the grassed areas were manicured, while the majority of the area included some vegetation overgrowth. The surrounding properties are Trent University Lands, rural residential and agricultural land use.

5. Subsurface Conditions

5.1 General

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site are presented graphically on the borehole logs (Appendix A). It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been inferred from the borehole and test pit 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 may vary between and beyond the boreholes and test pits.

The test holes generally encountered a surficial layer of topsoil or fill over native soils consisting predominantly of silt and sand soils frequently containing numerous cobbles and boulders, underlain by larger boulders and/or bedrock. Groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was in sixteen (16) of the test holes during drilling and excavation operations, at depths ranging from approximately 0.9 to 3.7 mbeg. Groundwater levels were also obtained from piezometers installed in selected test holes. The following sections describe the major soil strata and subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation in more detail.

5.2 Topsoil

Thirty-six (36) of the test holes (all test holes with the exception of BH-101 to 104 and TP-204) encountered a surficial layer of topsoil. Generally the asphalt thickness ranged from approximately 100 to 610 mm. Borehole BH-112, was located in a low-lying marshy area and encountered approximately 1.1 m of topsoil/organics.

5.3 Asphalt

Borehole BH-104 boreholes encountered a surficial layer of asphalt. The asphalt thickness was approximately 100 mm.

5.4 Fill

Layers of fill were observed immediately beneath the asphalt in borehole BH-4 and at the surface of boreholes BH-101 to 103 and test pit TP-204. The fill extended to depths ranging from approximately 0.6 to 1.8 mbeg. The fill generally consisted of brown gravelly sand to sand with gravel, and was noted to exist in a compact, moist in-situ state. It should be noted that fill encountered within test pit TP-201 contained a buried foundation wall and floor slab, suggesting the possibility that portions of a previous building at this location remain buried in the ground.

Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the fill yielded values of approximately 3 to 8 % moisture by weight.


5.5 Silty Sand

Layers of silty sand were encountered in in most areas of the site, with the exception of boreholes BH-105 and 106. The silty sand was first encountered a depths ranging from approximately 0.1 to 3.5 mbeg. The silty sand extended to depths ranging from approximately 1.5 to 3.5 in test holes BH-13, 111 and 119 and TP-201 and 202, and extended to the full depth of the investigation in the remaining test holes in which it was encountered (depths ranging from approximately 1.2 to 6.2 mbeg). Of the test holes in which the silty sand extended to the full depth of the investigation twenty-five (25) of them were terminated due to practical refusal, which was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 1.2 to 4.7 mbeg. The silty sand was generally brown to grey in colour, and consisted of silty sand, with varying amounts of gravel and clay, and occasionally frequent amounts of cobbles and boulders were encountered and existed in a compact to very dense, moist to wet in-situ condition.

Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the silty sand yielded values ranging from approximately 1 to 19% moisture by weight. Grain size distribution analyses conducted on representative samples of the silty sand suggests the following compositional ranges: 11 to 57% gravel; 29 to 50% sand; and 14 to 42% silt and clay-sized particles. Hydrometer analyses conducted on these samples suggest they contains between approximately 10 to 23% particles between 5 and 75 µm. It should be noted that some of the gradation analysis have elevated gravel content due to the presence of fractured cobbles and boulders in the sample.

5.6 Silt

A layer of silt was encountered, immediately beneath the silty sand in test hole BH-119. The silt was first encountered at a depth of approximately 1.5 mbeg, and extended to a depth of approximately 3.0 mbeg. The silt was generally brown in colour, consisted of layered silt with clay and trace sand, and existed in a compact, wet in-situ condition.

A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the silt yielded a value of approximately 20% moisture by weight. A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of the silt suggests the following composition: 0% gravel; 7% sand; and 93% silt and clay-sized particles. A hydrometer analysis conducted on this sample suggests it contains approximately 82% particles between 5 and 75 µm.

5.7 Sandy Silt

A layer of sandy silt was encountered, immediately beneath the fill in test hole BH-104. The sandy silt was first encountered at a depth of approximately 0.8 mbeg, and extended to a depth of approximately 1.4 mbeg. The sandy silt was generally brown to grey in colour, consisted of clayey sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel and fractured rock, and existed in a compact to very dense, moist to wet in-situ condition.

Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the clayey sandy silt yielded value ranging from approximately 5 to 12% moisture by weight.


5.8 Silty Clay

A layer of silty clay was encountered, immediately beneath the silty sand in test hole BH/TP-13. The silty clay was first encountered at a depth of approximately 3.4 mbeg, and extended to the full depth of the investigation (practical refusal at approximately 4.0 mbeg). The silty clay was generally grey in colour, and existed in a firm, saturated in-situ condition.

A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the silty clay yielded a value of approximately 19% moisture by weight.

5.9 Clayey Sandy Silt

A layer of clayey sandy silt was encountered, immediately beneath the silty sand in test hole BH-111. The clayey sandy silt was first encountered at a depth of approximately 1.5 mbeg, and extended to the depth practical refusal (approximately 4.6 mbeg). The clayey sandy silt was generally dark brown in colour, consisted of clayey sandy silt, and existed in a compact, moist in-situ condition.

A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the clayey sandy silt yielded a value of approximately 3% moisture by weight. A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of the clayey sandy silt suggests the following composition: 7% gravel; 28% sand; and 65% silt and clay-sized particles. A hydrometer analysis conducted on this sample suggests it contains approximately 45% particles between 5 and 75 µm.

5.10 Sand

Layers of sand were encountered in seven of the test holes (BH-101, 102, 105 and 106 to 109). The sand was first encountered at depths ranging from approximately 0.1 to 1.2 mbeg. The sand extended to depths ranging from approximately 1.1 to 2.4 in test holes BH-101, 102, and 107 to 109, and extended to the full depth of the investigation in the remaining test holes in which it was encountered (depths ranging from approximately 3.0 to 3.7 mbeg). Borehole BH-105 was terminated at approximately 3.0 mbeg within the sand layer as a result of practical refusal. The sand was generally light brown to grey in colour, and consisted of sand, with varying amounts of silt, gravel and cobbles, and existed in a compact to dense, moist to wet in-situ condition.

Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the sand yielded values ranging from approximately 2 to 8% moisture by weight.

5.11 Gravelly Sand

Layers of gravelly sand were encountered in test holes TP-201 and 202. The gravelly sand was first encountered at depths ranging from approximately 2.9 to 3.5 mbeg, and extended to the depth of practical refusal (approximately 3.0 to 3.8 mbeg). The gravelly sand was generally brown in colour, and consisted of gravelly sand, with silt, and existed in a compact, moist in-situ condition.

A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the gravelly sand yielded a value of approximately 12% moisture by weight.


5.12 Sandy Gravel

A layer of sandy gravel was encountered, immediately beneath the silty sand in test hole BH-122. The sandy gravel was first encountered at a depth of approximately 3.7 mbeg, and extended to the depth of practical refusal (approximately 4.6 mbeg). The sandy gravel was generally brown in colour, consisted of sandy gravel, and existed in a compact, wet in-situ condition.

A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the sandy gravel yielded a value of approximately 5% moisture by weight.

5.13 Gravel

A layer of gravel was encountered, immediately beneath the sand in test hole BH-102. The gravel was first encountered at a depth of approximately 2.1 mbeg, and extended to a depth of approximately 3.5 mbeg. The gravel was generally light brown in colour, and consisted of gravel, with coarse sand, and existed in a very dense, wet in-situ condition.

Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the gravel yielded values of approximately 5 to 6% moisture by weight.

5.14 Cobbles and Boulders

A layer of cobbles and boulders was encountered in borehole BH-2. The cobbles and boulders were first encountered at a depth of approximately 1.5 mbeg, and extended to a depth of approximately 2.1 mbeg. A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the cobbles and boulders yielded a value of approximately 2% moisture by weight.

It is noted that varying amounts of cobbles and boulders were encountered within the soils throughout many areas of the site, within the other soil layers. This included zones where cobbles and boulders became numerous, and sometimes larger-sized (see details provided on logs).

5.15 Weathered Bedrock or Boulders

A layer of highly weathered bedrock or boulders was encountered immediately beneath the silt in test hole BH-119. This material was first encountered at a depth of approximately 3.0, and extended to the depth of practical refusal (approximately 4.0 mbeg). The weathered bedrock or boulders were generally grey, with interbedded silty sand. A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the silty sand soil particles obtained from within the weathered bedrock or boulders yielded a value of approximately 4% moisture by weight.

5.16 Inferred Boulders and Bedrock

Practical refusal to further test hole advancement was encountered in thirty-two (32) of the test holes. The cause of practical refusal was generally inferred to be boulders or bedrock in these test holes. The test hole logs provide details regarding the depth at which the inferred or confirmed bedrock was encountered. The following table summarizes the depth to practical refusal in each test hole:


Table 5.1 Depth to Practical Refusal (see Logs for Details)

Test Hole Depth (mbeg) Test Hole Depth (mbeg)

BH/TP-1 3.2 BH-107 4.7

BH-2 4.0 BH-108 2.7

BH-3 2.9 BH-109 2.6

BH-4 2.9 BH-110 3.3

BH-5 3.0 BH-111 1.5**

BH-6 3.5 BH-112 >1.5*

BH-7 3.7 BH-113 3.7

BH-8 3.5 BH-114 2.6

BH/TP-9 1.8 BH-115 1.2

BH/TP-10 2.7 BH-116 2.3

BH-11 3.7 BH-117 2.3

BH-12 3.7 BH-118 3.1

BH/TP-13 4.0 BH-119 4.0

BH/TP-14 3.7 BH-120 >4.6*

BH-15 3.5 BH-121 >4.6*

BH-101 >6.1* BH-122 >4.6*

BH-102 >4.6* TP-201 3.8

BH-103 >4.8* TP-202 3.0

BH-104 >6.2* TP-203 1.5

BH-105 3.0 TP-204 >4.0*

BH-106 >3.7*

*Denotes test holes that did not encounter practical refusal **Test Hole BH-112 advanced with manual equipment; terminated on inferred very dense soil, boulders or bedrock


The depth at which practical refusal was encountered was interpreted by GHD as being the depth at which either larger boulders or bedrock was encountered. It is noted that bedrock typically exhibits a degree of weathering and fracturing in its upper zone. This weathering effect can increase significantly in shale/limestone bedrock. Due to the penetrative nature of advancing test holes with drilling and excavation equipment, the test holes may have penetrated partly into the bedrock, (i.e., through this upper zone of more fractured / weathered bedrock) before encountering refusal. Alternatively, the numerous cobbles and boulders overlying the bedrock may have caused the refusal in at least some instances; numerous cobbles and boulders of typically increasing large size with depth were encountered in the test holes. The boulders were in many cases elongated, flattened, or otherwise slab-like. The nature of the practical refusal to further advancement may in many test holes have been due to bedrock, however the possibility that the refusal was caused by larger boulders and/or highly weathered slabs of bedrock cannot be ruled out at this stage.

5.17 Groundwater

Groundwater observations and measurements were obtained from the open test holes during and upon completion of drilling/excavation operation at each test hole. Groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was in sixteen (16) of the test holes (BH/TP-1, 13 and 14, BH-2 to 5, 101 to 103, 108, 110, 111 and 122) during drilling and excavation operations, at depths ranging from approximately 0.9 to 3.7 mbeg. The remaining test holes did not encounter groundwater seepage and/or accumulation drilling/excavation operations. See the logs for details.

Ground water measurements were also obtained from piezometers installed in selected test holes. The following table summarizes the water levels obtained from the piezometers.

Table 5.2: Piezometer Groundwater Levels

Test Hole Depth (mbeg) Date

BH-2 2.7 May 5, 2016

BH-11 2.3 May 5, 2016

BH-15 Dry* May 5, 2016

BH-101 2.8 July 21, 2016

BH-104 3.0 July 21, 2016

BH-107 2.6 July 21, 2016

BH-119 3.7 July 22, 2016

* Dry to full depth of piezometer installation

It must be noted that groundwater levels are transient and tend to fluctuate with the seasons, periods of precipitation, and temperature.


5.18 Chemical Analysis

As requested, one soil sample and one groundwater sample were submitted to Caduceon Environmental Laboratories for chemical testing of O.Reg 153 parameters specified by the Client and consisting of metals, inorganics (including EC and SAR and sulphate), PHCs (F1-F4 fractions), and BTEXs. CEL’s Certificates of Analysis for these tests are enclosed.

This limited testing was done to support an initial assessment of the handling and disposal options available for excess soils generated during construction. The chemical results generally characterize the material sampled, however, the number of samples, or the analytical parameters tested, may not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the intended receiving site(s). Additional testing may be required depending on the handling option and/or receiving site(s) selected.

The results of the chemical analyses are presented on Tables 5.3 to 5.6 below, and are compared to Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Table 2 Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Groundwater Condition, coarse textured soil (“Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, April 15, 2011), Residential / Parkland / Institutional (RPI) Property Use.

Table 5.3: Summary of Metals and Inorganics - Soil

Parameter Sample Identification

MOECC Table 2 BH-2, SS-1

April. 22, 2016 Antimony 0.5 7.5 Arsenic 1.6 18 Barium 78 390 Beryllium 0.3 4 Boron 5.2 120 Boron (HWS) 0.12 1.5 Cadmium < 0.5 1.2 Chromium 17 160 Chromium (VI) < 0.5 8 Cobalt 6 22 Copper 43 140 Lead 34 120 Mercury 0.028 0.27 Molybdenum 1 6.9 Nickel 9 100 Selenium 0.6 2.4 Silver < 0.2 20 Thallium 0.1 1 Uranium 0.5 23 Vanadium 36 86 Zinc 79 340 Electrical Conductivity (2:1) (mS/cm) 0.12 0.7 Sodium Absorption Ratio (2:1) (no units) 0.952 5 pH @ 25°C 7.76 5-9(1)

Notes: all values in ug/g, unless otherwise noted. (<) denotes less than laboratory detection limits *Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI) Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, April 15, 2011. Bold – Exceeds the Table 2 Provincial Standards (1) pH for Shallow Soils


Table 5.4: Summary of PHCs and BTEXs - Soil



April. 22, 2016 Benzene < 0.02 0.21 Toluene < 0.2 2.3 Ethylbenzene < 0.05 1.1 Xylene, m,p- < 0.03 3.1 Xylene, o- < 0.03 3.1 Xylene, m,p,o- < 0.03 3.1 PHC F1 (C6 to C10) < 10 55 PHC F2 (C10 to C16) < 5 98 PHC F3 (C16 to C34) < 237 300 PHC F4 (C34 to C50) < 86 2800

Notes: all values in ug/g, unless otherwise noted. (<) denotes less than laboratory detection limits *Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI) Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, April 15, 2011. Bold – Exceeds the Table 2 Provincial Standards

Table 5.5: Summary of Metals and Inorganics - Groundwater



May. 5, 2016 Antimony < 0.5 6 Arsenic < 0.7 25 Barium 31.9 1000 Beryllium < 0.1 4 Boron 31 5000 Cadmium < 0.1 2.7 Chromium 1.9 50 Chromium (VI) < 10 25 Cobalt < 0.2 3.8 Copper 5.3 87 Lead 0.83 10 Mercury < 0.02 0.29 Molybdenum 5.5 70 Nickel < 0.6 100 Selenium 1 10 Silver < 0.03 1.5 Sodium 14700 490000 Sulphate 11000 Thallium 0.3 2 Uranium 0.3 20 Vanadium < 0.4 6.2 Zinc < 5 1100 Electrical Conductivity (2:1) (mS/cm) 1.49 NA pH @ 25°C 7.30



Table 5.6: Summary of PHCs and BTEXs - Groundwater



May. 5, 2016 Benzene < 0.5 5 Toluene < 0.5 24 Ethylbenzene < 0.5 2.4 Xylene, m,p- < 1.0 300 Xylene, o- < 0.5 300 Xylene, m,p,o- < 1.1 300 PHC F1 (C6 to C10) < 50 55 PHC F2 (C10 to C16) <50 98 PHC F3 (C16 to C34) < 400 300 PHC F4 (C34 to C50) < 400 2800


All samples and parameters tested meet the Table 2 SCS for RPI land use. Based on the results of this limited testing, the following handling options may be available for excess soils generated during construction at this site:

1. Remain on-site (i.e.: appropriately reused as backfill or for re-grading), under the guidance of a QP as defined by the MOE; and/or

2. Moved to a Table 2 or 3 Residential/Parkland/Institutional or Industrial / Commercial / Community property under the guidance of a QP as defined by the MOE.

Depending on the materials encountered during construction, further sampling and testing may be required to delineate any impacted soils, and to confirm the handling and disposal options for any such impacted materials. Should conditions encountered, or the proposed work scope, vary from those described in this report, GHD should be notified to evaluate the need for further work.

The chemical parameters tested and the number of samples may not meet the requirements of a Record of Site Condition nor meet the requirements of the intended receiving site. This report should not be construed as an Environmental Site Assessment.

It is GHD’s understanding that another consultant (DMW) has performed an environmental site assessment (ESA) of this property. The results of DMW’s environmental testing and ESA study were not available to GHD at the time of writing this report, and have not been considered or factored into our initial assessment of handling options for excess soils generated during construction. DMW’s ESA report(s) must be reviewed for further details regarding the chemical and environmental status of this site, and any impacts this may have on the options available for handling excess materials generated during construction.


6. Discussion and Recommendations

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered at the site and assume that they are representative of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the Site should examine the factual results of the assessment, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as instructions to the contractor.

Based on the information gathered during this investigation, this Site’s subsurface stratigraphy generally consists of a surficial layer of topsoil or fill over native soils consisting predominantly of silt and sand soils, frequently containing numerous cobbles and boulders, underlain by a layer of boulders or bedrock. Groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was in sixteen (16) of the test holes during drilling and excavation operations, at depths ranging from approximately 0.9 to 3.7 mbeg. Goundwater measurements obtained from piezometers on May 5, 2016 yielded depths ranging from 2.3 to 2.7 mbeg. Goundwater measurements obtained from piezometers between July 21 to 22, 2016 yielded depths ranging from 2.6 to 3.7 mbeg.

6.1 Excavations, Dewatering, and Backfill

Any and all topsoil, asphalt, vegetation, fill, disturbed earth, concrete, organic and organic-bearing material is to be stripped and removed from the building envelope (including floor slab) area, as well as new paved roadway, access, and parking areas prior to commencing earthwork construction. The subexcavated surface(s) must be proof rolled and/or approved by a member of GHD prior to placement of fill or foundations.

Excavations should be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation 213/91 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects (OHSA). All excavations above the water table not exceeding 1.2 m in depth may be constructed with unsupported slopes. The native soils encountered during this investigation above the groundwater table are classed by OHSA as Type 2 soils. Unsupported walls of excavations in these soils must be sloped to within a maximum of 1.2 m of the bottom of the excavation, with a slope having a gradient of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H: 1V) or flatter. The fill soils encountered during this investigation are classed by OHSA as Type 3 soil. Unsupported walls of excavations in Type 3 soils must be sloped to the bottom of the excavation, with a slope having a gradient of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H: 1V) or flatter.

Based on the test pits, in general it is expected that a larger excavator should be capable of excavating many of the boulders, depending on the aerial extent of open excavations - some excavations may have to be widened to allow for the removal of larger boulders. The contractor should be aware of these conditions and be prepared to deal with any such boulders and rock slabs during construction.


Depending on the depth of foundations, and presence of any deeper excavations for any other proposed elements (elevator shaft, swimming pool, stormwater pond, trenches, etc.), it is expected that construction excavation operations may encounter and extend into larger boulders and/or bedrock. It is recommended that a unit price allowance for large boulders, rock slabs, and bedrock removal be included in the construction contract due to the variable elevations at which these materials are expected during the proposed construction. Excavation of any boulders, rock slabs, and highly fractured / weathered bedrock may be possible using a large hydraulic backhoe. The use of hydraulic breaking techniques and/or blasting (combined with precondition surveys of surrounding properties and vibration monitoring during construction) may be required for excavations extending into more sound and competent bedrock.

Based on the groundwater conditions observed, and the anticipated excavation depths for the proposed construction, it is expected that some amount of groundwater seepage into open excavations will be encountered. Under such conditions, groundwater control within trenches should be relatively straightforward using sumps and pumps with appropriate excavation grading. Based on in-situ testing and grain size distribution lab testing, the hydraulic conductivity of the native soils are typically expected to range on the order of 10-3 to 10-6 cm/sec. In cases where more intensive groundwater or surface water infiltration is encountered, the use of filtered sumps, or other suitable method of dewatering and/or sheet piling is recommended.

If dewatering or any other form of water-taking will exceed 50,000 litres / day but be less that 400,000 litres / day at any time through the duration of the construction, an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) must be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). The daily volume of water-taking will be dependent on the design as well as the contractor’s sequencing, equipment, techniques and overall methods.

Some excavated inorganic soils may be suitable for use as service trench or pavement subgrade backfill. The reuse of all existing excavated soils is conditional on it being workable, at a suitable moisture content, and receiving final review and approval for such reuse at the time of construction. Some soils will require prior processing (such as aeration) to lower their moisture content before being considered for approval as backfill material.

It is GHD’s understanding that another consultant (DMW) has performed an environmental site assessment (ESA) of this property. The results of DMW’s environmental testing and ESA study were not available to GHD at the time of writing this report, and have not been considered or factored into our recommendations for handling of excess soils generated during construction. DMW’s ESA report(s) must be reviewed for further details regarding the chemical and environmental status of this site, and any impacts this may have on the options available for handling excess materials generated during construction. If needed, any further chemical testing of soil and/or groundwater should be conducted well in advance of construction.

6.2 Foundations

Based on the information obtained by this investigation, and based on experience with subsurface conditions throughout the general project vicinity, for design purposes this site is classed as Site Class C for Seismic Site Response, in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC).

It is expected that structural loading may be supported on spread and continuous strip footings for column and load bearing walls, respectively.


Based on the proposed building being founded no more than 1.5 mbeg, the structural loading for the new building’s footings may be supported on suitably reinforced footings founded directly on the native, undisturbed compact to dense to very dense soils.

Should elements of the proposed building (i.e. elevator shaft, swimming pool, etc.) extend deeper than 1.5 mbeg, further subsurface exploration including diamond coring to confirm the presence and relevant properties of any bedrock that may impact the design and construction of such deeper elements is recommended. It is noted that excavations into the boulders and/or bedrock will encounter high degrees of fracturing, weathering, rock slabs, and boulders. This condition was observed during investigation and construction of neighbouring facilities. The broken, fractured, weathered, or otherwise individual and irregularly-shaped nature of boulders and broken bedrock may prove in some cases to be challenging to excavate and form for footings – as a result, and based on experiences with constructing nearby facilities, it is recommended that a per-unit line item price be requested in the tender to accommodate any zones of over-excavation and filling with engineered fill should excavations need to extend into such materials.

For design purposes, it is recommended that footings constructed on the undisturbed competent native soils or on engineered fill placed directly on such soils be proportioned using the bearing pressures outlined in the following table:

Table 6.1 Preliminary Bearing Pressures

Parameter

Bearing Pressure

Competent Undisturbed Native Soils

Engineered Fill

Rock-based Fill (2) Granular Fill (3) Earth Borrow

Fill (3) Factored Bearing Capacity at ULS (1)

190 kPa (4,000 psf)

225 kPa (4,700 psf)

180 kPa (3,800 psf)

140 kPa (2,900 psf)

Bearing Capacity at SLS 120 kPa

(2,500 psf) 150 kPa

(3,100 psf) 120 kPa

(2,500 psf) 90 kPa

(1,900 psf) Notes: (1) Resistance factor Φ =0.5 applied to the ULS bearing pressure for design purposes (2) At least 1m of Rock-based fill. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill. (3) At least 0.3m of Granular or Earth Borrow fill. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill.

Any engineered fill upon which footings are placed must be a minimum thickness corresponding to the notes that accompany the above table. Rock-based fill must be completely encapsulated with suitable filter fabric to minimize any migration of fine-grained particles from surrounding soils into the voids within the rock fill. Footings (and foundation walls) placed on engineered fill must be suitably reinforced; as a minimum, and where not already specified in the design drawings, this reinforcing should use 2 continuous runs of 15M rebar throughout the footings, and 2 runs of 15M rebar throughout near the top and bottom of the foundation walls.

The following is recommended for the construction of any engineered fill for the footings:

1. Remove any and all existing vegetation, topsoil, fill, organics, and organic-bearing soils to the competent, undisturbed native soil from within the area of the proposed engineered fill.

2. The area of the engineered fill should extend horizontally 1m beyond the outside edge of the building foundations and then extend downward at a 1:1 slope to the competent native soil.


3. The base of the engineered fill area must be approved by a member of GHD prior to placement of any fill, to ensure that all unsuitable materials have been removed, that the materials encountered are similar to those observed, and that the subgrade is suitable for the engineered fill.

4. All engineered fill material is to be approved by GHD at the time of construction. 5. Place approved engineered fill, in maximum 300 mm lifts, compacted to 100% of its SPMDD.

Any fill material placed under sufficiently wet conditions should consist of an approved, rock-based fill, with the inclusion of appropriate geotextile fabric around the rock-based fill should the rock fill contain enough voids to warrant.

6. Full time testing and inspection of the engineered fill will be required, to ensure compliance with material and compaction specifications.

All exterior footings or footings in unheated areas, should be founded at least 1.2 m below the final adjacent grade for frost protection. Footings and walls exposed to frost action should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible granular material.

Under no circumstances should the foundations be placed above organic materials, loose, frozen subgrade, construction debris, or within ponded water. Prior to forming, all foundation excavations must be inspected and approved by a member of GHD. This will ensure that the foundation bearing material has been prepared properly at the foundation subgrade level and that the soils exposed are similar to those encountered during this investigation.

In any subgrade areas (including elevator shaft, and pool if its base is below the exterior grade), it is recommended that to assist with drainage both during and following construction, perimeter drains be installed about such subgrade areas of the structure. The subdrains would serve to drain seepage water that infiltrates the backfill, intersect the groundwater, and help relieve hydrostatic pressures due to any seasonally high groundwater levels. The perimeter drain should consist of a perforated pipe, at least 150 mm in diameter, surrounded by clear, crushed stone and suitable filter protection. The subdrain should discharge to a positive sump or other permanent and appropriate frost free outlet.

For foundations constructed in accordance with the foregoing manner, total and differential settlements are estimated to be less than 25 mm.

6.3 Slab-On-Grade

The floor of the proposed building may be constructed as a normal slab-on-grade, on granular or clearstone fill over native, inorganic subsoils, prepared in accordance with Section 6.1 of this report.

The floor slab should be formed over a base course consisting of at least 150 mm of Granular “A” material (or 19mm clearstone material beneath basement or otherwise sub-grade area slabs), compacted to a minimum of 100% of its SPMDD. All grade increases or infilling below the Granular “A” or clearstone should be constructed in accordance with the engineered fill steps provided in Section 6.2 of this report. All fill placed as engineered fill must be inspected, approved and compaction verified by personnel from GHD.


6.4 Service Installation

The materials encountered during this investigation at the typical service invert elevation generally consist of silty sand soils, boulders, or bedrock. As such, a normal compacted Class “B” bedding is recommended for all underground services. Class “B” bedding is Granular “A”, or 19 mm crusher run limestone, as per Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS). The minimum recommended bedding thickness for the underground services is 150 mm. All bedding should be compacted to 100 % of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).

It is recommended that cover backfilling of the underground services be accomplished using Granular “A”, sand, or other suitable material as allowed by the Municipality’s standards, to a minimum of 300 mm above the pipe. Compaction of this material should attain 100 % SPMDD. It is expected that the excavated, inorganic fill materials may be suitable for reuse as trench and road subgrade backfill, conditional upon suitable moisture content (within 2 % of optimum) and final review and approval by an experienced geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. It should be noted that the native soils may require some form of processing including aeration to try and lower the moisture content to make it workable and able to be appropriately compacted.

It is recommended that the service bedding subgrade be inspected and approved by GHD prior to placing the bedding fill, to ensure its suitability and consistency with conditions encountered during this investigation. Bedding and backfill materials and compaction should also be inspected and tested.

6.5 Pavement Design

Based on the results of this investigation, we would recommend the following procedures be implemented to prepare the proposed asphalt paved access and parking areas for its construction:

1. Remove all asphalt, topsoil, fill, organics, organic-bearing materials and other deleterious materials from the planned pavement areas.

2. Proof roll the subgrade for the purpose of detecting possible zones of overly wet or soft subgrade. Any deleterious areas thus delineated should be replaced with granular material compacted to a minimum of 98 % of its SPMDD.

3. Contour the subgrade surface to prevent ponding of water during the construction and to promote rapid drainage of the sub-base and base course materials.

4. To maximize drainage potential, 150 mm diameter perforated pipe subdrains should be installed below any curb lines. The pipe should be encased in filter fabric and surrounded by clear stone aggregate. It is recommended that the subdrains discharge to a suitable, frost-free outlet.

5. Construct transitions between varying depths of granular base materials at a rate of 1:25 minimum.

The subgrade materials encountered at the anticipated subgrade level in the proposed pavement areas consisted of silt and sand soils. The frost susceptibility of this soil is assessed as being moderate. In this regard, the following minimum flexible pavement structures are recommended for the construction of the new access, roadway, and parking areas.


Table 6.2 Pavement Structure

Profile Material

Thickness (mm) In Conformance with OPSS

Form Light Duty Heavy Duty

Asphalt Surface H.L.1 or 3 40 40 1150

Asphalt Base H.L.8 50 90

Granular Base Granular “A” 150 150 1010

Granular Subbase Granular “B” 300 450

The following steps are recommended for optimum construction of these planned paved areas:

1. The Granular “A” and “B” courses should be compacted to a minimum 100 % of their respective SPMDD’s;

2. All asphaltic concrete courses should be placed, spread and compacted conforming to OPSS Form 310 or equivalent. All asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92.0 % of their respective laboratory Maximum Relative Densities (MRD’s); and

3. Adequate drainage should be provided to ensure satisfactory pavement performance.

It is recommended that all fill material be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness before compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ moisture content within 2 % of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials should be compacted to 100 % SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular “A” and “B” conforming to the requirements of OPSS Form 1010 or equivalent.

It is noted that the above recommended pavement structures are for the end use of the project. During construction of the project the recommended granular depths may not be sufficient to support loadings encountered.

6.6 Storm Water Management (SWM) Pond

It is GHD’s understanding that a SWM pond is proposed in the southern area of the site in the vicinity of test holes BH-119 to 122. Details regarding the SWM pond including the exact location, design depth and final grades, were not available at the time of writing this report. However, based on the anticipated depth of the SWM pond beneath existing grade, it is expected that the bottom of the SWM pond will consist of silty sand to silt. A gradation on a soil sample obtained from the proposed SWM pond areas suggests the following composition: 0 % gravel, 7 % sand, and 93 % silt and clay-sized particles. The hydraulic conductivity of such soils is expected to be on the order of about of 10-4 to 10-6 cm/sec. It is noted, however, that slight variations in the soil stratigraphy may cause variations in the permeability of the soil in both vertical and horizontal orientations.


Based on the soils observed, and depending on the final base elevation, it appears that construction of the SWM pond in this area is feasible. In general, excavation of the soils for the SWM pond are expected to be straightforward, provided that appropriate measures are taken during construction to minimize any overland or near-surficial flow of water into the area. Some groundwater and surficial water inflow into the open SWM pond excavation may be encountered; however this is expected to be controlled by pumping from within the excavation.

It is recommended that the SWM pond subgrade surfaces be proof rolled, and a representative of GHD approve the subgrade prior to construction of the berms. Construction of the berms may utilize excess site soils having a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10-5 cm/sec. Such operations should place soils in lifts no thicker than 150mm prior to compaction, and compacted to at least 95% SPMDD. The native, disturbed soils in a re-compacted form would generally not be suitable to form the SWP’s “liner” since the expected permeability would be too high. Similarly, the coarser-grained site soils (including sand, gravel, cobbles, boulders) would not be suitable to form a pond liner by themselves. Conversely, native, undisturbed soils consisting predominantly of silt and clay would have a sufficiently low permeability where they could substitute for a liner. Once the final proposed grading of the SWP is available, GHD should be allowed to review and provide further commentary on this.

Regardless, an inspection of the excavated and exposed SWP surfaces should be performed at the time of construction, to assess whether any discrete or localized areas of increased hydraulic conductivity are present within the exposed soils, in which case such areas may be lined with a more suitable (ie, less hydraulically conductive) material or an impermeable geosynthetic membrane

For the purpose of the proposed SWM pond, the soils observed should be stable from slip circle failure if sloped at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) or flatter in the long term both above and below the water table. Between the stable water level and the expected high water level, it is recommended that the slopes be lessened to 4H:1V (or flatter) to guard against erosion by wavelet action. The native material will require vegetative root mass (or otherwise suitable erosion protection) to minimize erosional forces on exposed slopes.

Slopes and berms of the SWM pond should be constructed so as to reduce or eliminate the effects of surficial erosion. Features to do so may include slope vegetation, installation of erosion or gabion mats, rip rap, and/or other acceptable stabilizing features.

It is recommended that a regular maintenance program for the SWP include monitoring of it for any potential slope erosion, degradation, or otherwise undesirable structural conditions. Should any such conditions become evident, immediate mitigative actions must be performed.

6.7 General Recommendations

6.7.1 Subsoil Sensitivity

The native subsoils are susceptible to strength loss or deformation if saturated or disturbed by construction traffic. Therefore, where the subgrade consists of approved soil, care must be taken to protect the exposed subgrade from excess moisture and from construction traffic.


6.7.2 Winter Construction

The subsoils encountered across the site are frost-susceptible and freezing conditions could cause problems to the structure. As preventive measures, the following recommendations are presented:

1. During Winter construction, exposed surfaces intended to support foundations must be protected against freezing by means of loose straw and tarpaulins, heating, etc.

2. Care must be exercised so that any sidewalks and/or asphalt pavements do not interfere with the opening of doors during the winter when the soils are subject to frost heave. This problem may be minimised by any one of several means, such as keeping the doors well above outside grade, installing structural slabs at the doors, and by using well-graded backfill and positive drainage, etc.

3. Because of the frost heave potential of the soils during winter, it is recommended that the trenches for exterior underground services be excavated with shallow transition slopes in order to minimise the abrupt change in density between the granular backfill, which is relatively non-frost susceptible, and the more frost-susceptible native soils.

6.7.3 Design Review

Due to the preliminary nature of the design details at the time of this report, it is recommended that GHD’s geotechnical group be allowed to review the building design, stormwater pond design, pavement design, and final grading, prior to its finalization. In addition, we strongly recommend that our firm be retained to review the grading proposals when they are available.

Geotechnical inspection and review of foundation excavations and compaction procedures must be carried out to ensure compliance with our recommendations.

6.7.4 Further Investigation

Should elements of the proposed site development (including any elevator shaft, swimming pool, stormwater pond, trenches, etc.) extend deeper than 1.5 mbeg further subsurface exploration is recommended including diamond coring to confirm the presence and relevant properties of bedrock.


7. Statement of Limitations

The attached Statement of Limitations is an integral part of this report. Should questions ariseregarding any aspect of this report, please contact our office.

Sincerely,

GHD

Pete Hynes, P.Eng.

Garnet Brenchley, P.Eng.

9 Sept 2016


STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is intended solely for the City of Peterborough and other parties explicitly identified in the report and is prohibited for use by others without GHD’s prior written consent. This report is considered GHD’s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of GHD. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to GHD. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold GHD harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client’s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices. The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, GHD will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design. By issuing this report, GHD is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that GHD be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases. It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the forty-six (46) test hole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the 46 test hole locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by construction activities on site (eg. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by GHD is completed.


Appendix A Borehole Logs Enclosures

11115294-04TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONTRENT UNIVERSITY ARENA COMPLEX

3530 NASSAU MILLS ROADPETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO

DATE :

SCALE :

PROJECT NO. :

PLATE NO. :

1:2000

SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

1 (705) 749-3317 FAX (705) 749-9248 WEB: www.ghd.com

PETERBOROUGH, ON K9J 6X7347 PIDO ROAD, UNIT 29

Source:Portion of drawing prepared by Beninger Surveying Ltd., entitled "Plan -Showing Topographic Detail of Part of Trent University Campus beingPart of Lots 5 & 6, Concession 10 and Part of Lots 5 & 6, Concession11, Geographic Township of Douro, now in the City of Peterborough,County of Peterborough", dated April 14, 2016.


Appendix A Borehole and Test Pit Logs

TOPSOIL - with Cobblesand Gravel

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles,Boulders and Gravel, moist,compact(Numerous Cobbles andelongated Boulders)

Very dense

Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0.6

1.5

3.0

3.2

Test Pit TP-1excavated at thelocation ofBorehole BH-1 -Test pitencounteredlayers ofelongatedBoulders with SiltySand - Practicalrefusalencountered intest pit at depth ofapproximately 2.4mbeg due to thepresence ofboulders (Seepicture)

SS-2:57% Gravel29% Sand14% Silt and Clay10% between 5and 75 µm(Elevated Gravelcontent due tofractured Cobblesand Boulders)

Boreholeterminated due topractical refusal tofurther augeradvancement(presence ofBoulders orBedrock inferred -but not confirmed)

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

16

22

87

100+

7798

121210

144047

50=6"

12

5

4

8

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)

Shear test (Cu)Sensitivity (S)

Water content (%)

"N" Value

wp wlAtterberg limits (%)

N

RQD

Elevations interpolated from Beninger Surveying Ltd.'s survey plan dated April 14, 2016

Trent University, Arena Complex

CONE

ELEVATION: 217.6 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-1 (TP-1)

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE

AS - AUGER SAMPLEST - SHELBY TUBE

- WATER LEVEL

DATE: April 22, 2016

METHOD: Track-mount, Solid-stem Augers

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

DRILLING COMPANY: Strong Soil Search

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-1

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

REFERENCE No.: 11115294-01

LOGGED BY: K. Geraldi

%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 3.0 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL -Topsoil withreddish Silty Sand andGravel, moist, compact

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Gravel andCobbles and Boulders,moist, compact

COBBLES ANDBOULDERS - Cobbles andBoulders with brown SiltySand, moist, compact

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andboulders, wet, very dense

Brown to grey Silty Sandwith Cobbles and Boulders,wet, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0.6

1.5

2.1

3.0

4.0

WL - 2.7 m5/4/2016

Borehole cave-in

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

16

12

24

50

90

37912

357

61212

650=3"

204050

10

4

2

9

7

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.8 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-2

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-2

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 2.1 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withCobbles, moist, compactSILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense

Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0.2

2.1

2.9

Borehole Cave-in


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

13

98

80

36711

204850

123050

8

5

8

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.4 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-3

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-3

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 1.5 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withGravel, moistSILTY SAND - brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense

Brown to grey, wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0.2

1.5

2.9

Borehole cave-in


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

32

90

58

2122017

104050

182236

8

3

7

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.4 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-4

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-4

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 1.8 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withGravel, moist, loose

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense

Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

1.5

3.0

Borehole cave-in


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

5

66

38

2233

151546

102018

24

10

11

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 215.6 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-5

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-5

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 0.9 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withGravel, moist, compact

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Gravel andCobbles and Boulders,moist, dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

3.5

Borehole did notencountergroundwaterseepage and/oraccumulationduring drillingoperations

Borehole cave-in


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

25

100+

85

97

4101521

850=4"

233550

304750

19

4

6

3

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.4 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-6

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-6

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withGravel, moist, compactSILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0.2

3.7

Open boreholedid not encountergroundwaterseepage and/oraccumulationduring drillingoperations


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

32

57

93

92

2161616

153532

124350

404547

3

4

2

4

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.3 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-7

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-7

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withCobble, moist, compact


END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

3.5


SS-2:45% Gravel40% Sand15% Silt and Clay10% between 5and 75 µm(Elevated Gravelcontent due tofractured Cobblesand Boulders)


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

26

80

86

93

2121450

203248

304046

454350

12

4

4

3

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.8 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-8

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-8

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

TOPSOIL - Topsoil, moist,compact

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense(Numerous Cobbles andelongated Boulders)

END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

1.8

Open boreholedid not encountergroundwaterseepage and/oraccumualtionduring drillingoperations

Boreholeterminated at 1.5mbeg due topractical refusal tofurther augeradvancement(presence ofBoulders)


SS-1

SS-2

71

60

372150

123030

15

4

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.2 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-9

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withCobble, moist, loose

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense(Numerous Cobbles androunded Boulders)

(Increased Cobbles andelongated Boulders)

END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

1.2

2.7




SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

7

95

53

11612

204550

62627

22

3

2

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.6 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-10

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

TOPSOIL


END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

3.7


Borehole cave-in


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

57

100+

65

76

7750

1250=6"

143530

273541

18

2

2

3

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.0 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-11

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-11

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16 WL - 2.3 m5/4/2016

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withCobble, moist, compact


END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

3.7



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

24

46

65

84

161812

12212540

25303550

10454250

25

2

6

3

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.9 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-12

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-12

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

TOPSOIL - Topsoil withCobble, moist, very loose

SILTY SAND - brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, verycompact(Numerous Cobbles androunded Boulders)


SILTY CLAY - Grey SiltyClay, saturated, firm

END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

1.2

3.4

4.0

Test Pit TP-13excavated at thelocation ofBorehole BH-13 -Test pitencounteredlayers ofelongatedBoulders with SiltySand over layer ofSilty Clay -Terminated atdepth ofapproximately 4.0mbeg (Seepicture)


SS-1

SS-2

SS-4

SS-5

1

77

92

87

0013

122750

164250

354047

23

4

4

19

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.2 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-13

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 3.0 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL -Topsoil withCobble, moist, compact

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Cobbles andBoulders, moist, very dense(Numerous Cobbles androunded Boulders)


END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

1.2

3.7

Test Pit TP-14excavated at thelocation ofBorehole BH-14 -Test pitencounteredlayers ofelongatedBoulders with SiltySand - Practicalrefusalencountered intest pit at depth ofapproximately 3.3mbeg due to thepresence ofboulders

SS-4:11% Gravel47% Sand42% Silt and Clay23% between 5and 75 µm


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

21

100+

46

67

121011

1050=2"

61135

403235

21

5

6

13

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.5 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-14

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

WL - 2.7 m4/22/2016

TOPSOIL - with Cobble,moist, very dense


END OF BOREHOLE

0.3

3.5


WL - DRY5/4/2016

Borehole cave-in


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

53

63

60

68

0350

113033

12436

153038

26

3

3

3

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.2 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

BOREHOLE No.: BH-15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL



CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-15

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



%


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm


Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H

1111

5294

-01,

16-

05-0

4, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

- C

OP

Y.G

PJ

GE

OLO

GIC

.GD

T

9/9/

16

0.6

1.2

2.4

3.0

4.6

6.1

WL - 2.8 m7/21/2016

Borehole cave-inencountered at3.0 mSS-5:19% Gravel50% Sand31% Silt and Clay21% between 5and 75 µm

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

FILL - Brown GravellySand, moist , compact

Brown to grey with Cobbles

SAND - Light brown to greySand with Gravel, moist,compact

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, moist, dense

Wet, compact

Grey, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

60

60

60

80

90

90

100

26

19

29

46

25

100+

100+

13131317

991012

9171214

16232332

1316916

4930

50=4"

50=2"

5

8

5

6

10

9

10


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)

BOREHOLE No.: BH-101

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-16

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

METHOD: Truck-mount, Solid Stem Augers


LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.8 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 2.7 m7/20/2016

0.6

0.9

2.1

3.5

4.6

Borehole cave-inencountered at2.6 m

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

FILL - Grey Sand andGravel fill, moist

Brown Sand with Gravel fill,moist

SAND - Light brown Sandwith Gravel, compact, moist

GRAVEL - Light brownGravel, coarse Sand, wet

SILTY SAND - Grey SiltySand with Gravel, dense,moist

END OF BOREHOLE

85

60

50

75

100

100

11

47

100+

100+

61

100+

4567

15202741

1038

50=5"

4345

50=5"

132239

50=5"

50=3"

3

5

4

6

5

7


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-17

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 215.9 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 0.8 m7/20/2016

1.8

2.3

3.0

4.64.74.8

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

FILL - Light brown to greySand and Gravel fill, moist

SILTY SAND - Light brownSilty Sand, trace Gravel,moist, compact

Trace Clay

Grading to grey

Light brown Sand, wetGrey Silty Sand with Gravel,moist, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

60

90

70

95

100

70

47

72

29

25

38

100+

17232415

17314129

23161313

8101519

15162232

4550=4"

3

5

3

7

7

4


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-18

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.9 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 3.5 m7/20/2016

0.1

0.8

1.4

4.6

4.9

6.2


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

ASPHALT (100 mm)FILL Sand and Gravel fill

SANDY SILT - Dark brownSandy Silt with Clay, moist

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, moist, verydense

Wet

Light brown to grey SiltySand, moist, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

80

70

60

75

100

100

0

14

27

100+

100+

100+

71

100+

157718

10121519

1738

50=5"

4234

50=4"

3150=2"

20224950

3250=5"

4

3

3

2

10

8


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-19

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.6 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 3.4 m7/21/2016

0.6

1.2

2.1

3.0



Boreholeterminated due topractical refusal offurther augeradvancement(presence ofBoulders orBedrock inferredbut not confirmed)

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

TOPSOIL Dark brownTopsoil with Silty Sand

FILL - Brown to greySand,Gravel with Cobbles,moist, compact

SAND - Light brown to greySand with Gravel andCobbles, moist, dense

Light brown, with fracturedrock, very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

40

40

90

80

23

16

43

100+

781512

561019

21202350

1048

50=3"

12

10

3

2


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-20

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.6 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.1

0.6

2.9

3.7



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

TOPSOIL (100 mm)FILL - Grey Gravel andfractured rock

SAND - Light Brown togrey Sand with Silt andGravel, moist, very dense

Coarse Sand, wet

END OF BOREHOLE

60

80

70

90

100

40

58

100+

68

72

4112929

16263220

1847

50=5"

102246

50=4"

31413133

2

2

2

3

3


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-21

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.2 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.1

1.4

2.12.3

2.9

4.7



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

TOPSOIL (100 mm)SAND - Brown to greySand with Gravel andCobbles, moist, very dense

Brown Sand with Silt andGravel, moist to wet, verydense

WetSILTY SAND - Grey SiltySand with Gravel, moist,very dense

Grey Silty Sand with Gravel,trace Clay, moist to wet,very dense

END OF BOREHOLE

50

50

100

100

100

27

100+

100+

100+

100+

8111622

1450=5"

50=5"

50=4"

3346

50=3"

4

5

8

7

10


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-22

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 215.7 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16 WL - 2.6 m

7/21/2016

0.1

1.4

2.3

2.7Boreholeterminated due topractical refusal offurther augeradvancement(presence ofBoulders orBedrock inferredbut not confirmed)

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

TOPSOIL - (75 mm)SAND - Brown to greySand with Gravel, moist

SILTY SAND - Light brownSilty Sand with Gravel,moist

SAND - Brown, coarseSand, wet

END OF BOREHOLE

50

70

70

100

45

100+

100+

100+

4222330

50=5"

3450=5"

2548

50=2"

4

6

3

7


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-23

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

METHOD: Track-mount, Solid Stem Augers


LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 215.7 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 1.2 m7/20/2016

0.1

0.6

1.4

2.1

2.6



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

AS-4

TOPSOIL (100 mm)SILTY SAND Brown SiltySand with Gravel

SAND - Grey Sand withGravel and broken rock

Light Brown Sand withGravel, trace Silt, moist

SILTY SAND - Brown SiltySand with Gravel, moist

END OF BOREHOLE

60

80

70

19

38

100+

381120

8122631

3050=3"

4

5

3

2


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 20, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-24

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.6 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.3

3.3



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

TOPSOIL (305 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, damp tomoist

END OF BOREHOLE

75

100

83

100

49

100+

55

100+

3242525

1450=5"

103025

2850=3"

2

4

5

7


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-25

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.2 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 2.1 m7/22/2016

0.3

1.5

1.8

2.3

3.0

4.0

4.6




SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

AS-6

TOPSOIL (305 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, moist,compact

CLAYEY SANDY SILT -Brown Clayey Sandy Siltwith Gravel, moist to wet,compactGrey

Moist

with fractured ROCK

Moist to wet

END OF BOREHOLE

83

100

89

100

100

23

100+

26

100+

100+

371632

1050=5"

41016

3050=4"

50=4"

12

4

11

5

8

12


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-26

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 214.8 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 3.4 m7/22/2016

1.11.2

1.5Manuallyadvancedboreholeterminated atpractical refusal tofurther advance(due to presenceof either densesoils, Boulders orBedrock)

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

TOPSOIL/ORGANICS

SILTY SAND - Grey ClayeySilty SandGravel with Cobbles andBoulders

END OF BOREHOLE

67

83

100

3

13

100+

0211

25842

4050=5"

303

95

19

11


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-27

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

METHOD: Manual Hammer



%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 214.7 m


DRILLING COMPANY: GHD

SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

303

0.2

3.7



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

TOPSOIL (230 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand boulders, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

100

100

100

100

100+

78

100+

100+

29

50=4"

254038

3031

50=4"

3050=4"

4

2

2

3


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-28

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.4 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.2

2.6




SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

TOPSOIL (150 mm)SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

71

100

100

35

100+

69

5161921

2832

50=5"

253336

3

2

3


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-29

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.9 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.2

1.2



SS-1

SS-2

TOPSOIL (230 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

100

100

100+

54

2414

50=5"

142133

4

4


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-30

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.2 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.3

2.3



SS-1

SS-2

TOPSOIL (305 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

63

100

9

100+

3369

3650=4"

8

3


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-31

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.8 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.3

1.5

2.3



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

TOPSOIL (305 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownSilty Sand with Gravel,frequent Cobbles andBoulders

Grey

END OF BOREHOLE

100

100

100

100+

17

100+

612

50=3"

1089

3130

50=3"

8

5

2


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-32

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.1 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.3

3.1



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

TOPSOIL (305 mm)

SILTY SAND Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel, frequent Cobblesand Boulders, damp

END OF BOREHOLE

67

90

100

100

24

100+

100+

100+

1121218

237

50=1"

2250=1"

50=4"

4

1

2

4


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-33

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.2 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.3

1.5

3.0

4.0




SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

TOPSOIL (305 mm)

SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel and fractured rocks,frequent Cobbles andBoulders, damp, dense tovery dense

SILT - Brown layered Silt,with Clay, trace Sand, wet,compact

WEATHERED BEDROCKOR BOULDERS -Weathered Bedrock orBoulders, with Silty Sand

END OF BOREHOLE

58

89

100

35

16

100+

553034

788

3027

50=3"

3

20

4


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-34

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 217.1 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 3.7 m7/22/2016

0.5

2.3

3.0

4.3

4.6



SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

AS-6

TOPSOIL (455 mm)

SILTY SAND - Silty Sandwith Gravel, frequentCobbles and Boulders,damp, compact to dense

with fractured rock

Moist

Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

33

78

67

100

100

4

36

33

60

58

2225

81620

241419

153525

242236

10

4

2

2

2

5


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-35

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 218.1 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.2

1.5

2.3

3.0

4.6


SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

TOPSOIL (150 mm)SILTY SAND - Light brownto grey Silty Sand withGravel and Cobbles andBoulders, damp, dense

Very dense

trace Clay

Light brown to grey Siltycoarse Sand with fracturedrock, wet

END OF BOREHOLE

67

100

100

32

100+

75

672427

3550=6"

163540

5

3

5


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-36

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.8 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

0.2

2.3

3.7

4.6

SS-1

SS-2

AS-3

AS-4

TOPSOIL (150 mm)SILTY SAND - Light brownSilty Sand with Gravel,frequent Cobbles andBoulders, damp, compact

Trace Clay, moist

SANDY GRAVEL - BrownSandy Gravel, wet, compact

END OF BOREHOLE

63

100

15

22

4787

141210

9

9

9

5


Water content (%)

"N" Value


N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FieldLab

NOTES:

(blows / 0.3 m)


ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

COMMENTS

LEGEND

DATE: July 21, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0 GROUND SURFACE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-37

of 1Page: 1

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rec

over

y

Blo

ws

per

6 in

. / 1

5 cm

RQD



CONE

ELEVATION: 216.5 m



SS - SPLIT SPOON

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

GE

OT

EC

H (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

1529

4-04

, 16-

07-2

6, B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

9/16

WL - 3.7 m7/21/2016

GS-1

TOPSOIL (150 mm)

FILL - Brown Silty Sand with Gravel,occasional ROOTS and ORGANICS,moist

SILTY SAND - Brown Silty Sand withGravel, trace Clay, occasional Cobblesand Boulders, moist

GRAVELLY SAND - Brown GravellySand with Silt, wet

Existing concrete block,foundation wall andconcrete floor slabencountered

Test pit terminated atpractical refusal onconcrete slab. Test pitrelocated 2 m Northand re-excavated

Practical refusal tofurther excavationadvancement(presence of bouldersor bedrock confirmed)

0.2

1.4

3.5

3.8

12

END OF TEST PIT

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0

PROJECT:

TEST PIT REPORTTEST PIT No.: TP-201

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-38

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:

Sensitivity (S)Water content (%)


GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

EXCAVATION COMPANY: Drain Bros. METHOD: Track-mount Excavator

ELEVATION: 217.1 m


TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

11

1152

94-0

4, 1

6-07

-26,

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

10/1

6

WL - 3.5 m7/22/2016

GS-1

TOPSOIL (305 mm)


GRAVELLY SAND - Brown GravellySand with Silt, wet

(See picture)


0.3

2.9

3.0

11

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0

PROJECT:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-39

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 217.5 m


TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

11

1152

94-0

4, 1

6-07

-26,

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

10/1

6

WL - 3.0 m7/22/2016

END OF TEST PIT

TOPSOIL (230 mm)


Open test pit did notencounter groundwaterseepage and/oraccumulation duringexcavation operations

(See pictures)


0.2

1.5END OF TEST PIT

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0

PROJECT:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-40

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 218.2 m


TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

11

1152

94-0

4, 1

6-07

-26,

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

10/1

6

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

FILL - Brown Gravelly Sand, moist


0.6

4.0

3

7

5

END OF TEST PIT

DATE: July 22, 2016

CLIENT:

0.0

PROJECT:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


FieldLab

Shear test (Cu)



LOGGED BY: P. Hynes

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-41

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 216.7 m


TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

11

1152

94-0

4, 1

6-07

-26,

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

9/

10/1

6


Appendix B Physical Laboratory Data

Client: Lab no.:

Project/Site: Project no.:

Borehole no.: Sample no.:

Depth: Enclosure:

SS2

B-1

BH1

0.8 to 1.2 mbeg

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical)

City of Peterborough SS-16-34

Trent Arena 11115294-01

(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

6040

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Perc

ent

Pass

ing

GHD FO-930.103-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D422) - Rev. 0 - 07/01/2015

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

SandGravel Clay & SiltSoil Description

BH1 SS2 57 29 14

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100Diameter (mm)

Unified Soil Classification System

Clay & SiltSand Gravel

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse


Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0.8 to 1.2 mbeg

BH8 SS2 45 40 15

SS2

B-2

BH8

SandGravel Clay & Silt Soil Description

May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

t R

eta

ined

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Diameter (mm)


Clay & Silt

Sand Gravel



Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

3.0 to 3.5 mbeg

BH14 SS4 11 47 42

SS4

B-3

BH14


May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

t R

eta

ined

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Diameter (mm)


Clay & Silt

Sand Gravel



Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 8, 2016

August 8, 2016

SS5

B-4

BH101


3.0 to 3.5 mbeg

BH101 SS5 19 50 31


The City of Peterborough SS-16-68

Trent University, Arena Complex 11115294-04

(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

t R

eta

ined

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Diameter (mm)


Clay & Silt

Sand Gravel



Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

1.5 to 2.0 mbeg

BH111 SS3 7 28 65

SS3

B-5

BH111


August 8, 2016

August 8, 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

t R

eta

ined

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Diameter (mm)


Clay & Silt

Sand Gravel



Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 8, 2016

August 8, 2016

SS2

B-6

BH119


1.5 to 2.0 mbeg

BH119 SS2 0 7 93




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Perc

en

t R

eta

ined

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Diameter (mm)


Clay & Silt

Sand Gravel




Appendix C Chemical Laboratory Data

02-May-16DATE REPORTED:

Caduceon Environmental Laboratories

289-562-1963

110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9

289-475-5442Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B16-10506 (i)

GHD Limited651 Colby Drive, Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2 Canada

Report To:

Attention: Pete Hynes

26-Apr-16DATE RECEIVED:

73503334P.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.SoilSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G46457

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Parameter Units R.L.Reference

MethodDate/Site Analyzed

BH-2, SS-1Client I.D.

B16-10506-1Sample I.D.

22-Apr-16Date Collected

pH @25°C 7.76pH Units MOEE 3137 02-May-16/RConductivity @25°C 0.12mS/cm 0.07 MOEE3138 02-May-16/RSodium Adsorption Ratio 0.952units SM 3120 28-Apr-16/OSulphate 10µg/g 10 SM4110C 29-Apr-16/OAntimony 0.5µg/g 0.5 EPA 6020 28-Apr-16/OArsenic 1.6µg/g 0.5 EPA 6020 28-Apr-16/OBarium 78µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OBeryllium 0.3µg/g 0.2 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OBoron 5.2µg/g 0.5 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OBoron (HWS) 0.12µg/g 0.02 MOE3470 28-Apr-16/OCadmium < 0.5µg/g 0.5 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OChromium 17µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OChromium (VI) < 0.5µg/g 0.5 EPA3060A 27-Apr-16/RCobalt 6µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OCopper 43µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/O

Page 1 of 2.

Lab ManagerSite Analyzed: K-Kingston, W-Windsor, O-Ottawa, R-Richmond HillR.L. = Reporting LImit

The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories.

Uncertainty Values avialable upon request

Christine Burke

Trent University Arena/11115294-01




289-562-1963


289-475-5442Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report



Report To:





C.O.C.: G46457







Lead 34µg/g 5 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OMercury 0.028µg/g 0.005 EPA 7471A 29-Apr-16/OMolybdenum 1µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/ONickel 9µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OSelenium 0.6µg/g 0.5 EPA 6020 28-Apr-16/OSilver < 0.2µg/g 0.2 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OThallium 0.1µg/g 0.1 EPA 6020 28-Apr-16/OUranium 0.5µg/g 0.1 EPA 6020 28-Apr-16/OVanadium 36µg/g 1 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/OZinc 79µg/g 3 EPA 6010 28-Apr-16/O

Page 2 of 2.


The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from

µg/g = micrograms per gram (parts per million) and is equal to mg/KgF1 C6-C10 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F1-btex if requested)F2 C10-C16 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F2-napth if requested)F3 C16-C34 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F3-pah if requested)F4 C34-C50 hydrocarbons in µg/gThis method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory.Any deviations from the method are noted and reported for any particular sample.nC6 and nC10 response factor is within 30% of response factor for toluene:nC10,nC16 and nC34 response factors within 10% of each other:C50 response factors within 70% of nC10+nC16+nC34 average:Linearity is within 15%:All results expressed on a dry weight basis.Unless otherwise noted all chromatograms returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.

Unless otherwise noted all extraction, analysis, QC requirements and limits for holding time were met.If analyzed for F4 and F4G they are not to be summed but the greater of the two numbers are to be used in application to the CWS PHCQC will be made available upon request.


Christine Burke



289-562-1963


289-475-5442Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B16-10506 (ii)


Report To:





C.O.C.: G46457







Benzene < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-16/RToluene < 0.2µg/g 0.2 EPA 8260 26-Apr-16/REthylbenzene < 0.05µg/g 0.05 EPA 8260 26-Apr-16/RXylene, m,p- < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-16/RXylene, o- < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-16/RXylene, m,p,o- < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-16/RPHC F1 (C6-C10) < 10µg/g 10 CWS Tier 1 26-Apr-16/RPHC F2 (>C10-C16) < 5µg/g 5 CWS Tier 1 28-Apr-16/KPHC F3 (>C16-C34) 237µg/g 10 CWS Tier 1 28-Apr-16/KPHC F4 (>C34-C50) 86µg/g 10 CWS Tier 1 28-Apr-16/K% moisture 11.9% 26-Apr-16/R

Page 1 of 1.



µg/g = micrograms per gram (parts per million) and is equal to mg/KgF1 C6-C10 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F1-btex if requested)F2 C10-C16 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F2-napth if requested)F3 C16-C34 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F3-pah if requested)F4 C34-C50 hydrocarbons in µg/gThis method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory.Any deviations from the method are noted and reported for any particular sample.nC6 and nC10 response factor is within 30% of response factor for toluene:nC10,nC16 and nC34 response factors within 10% of each other:C50 response factors within 70% of nC10+nC16+nC34 average:Linearity is within 15%:All results expressed on a dry weight basis.Unless otherwise noted all chromatograms returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.

Unless otherwise noted all extraction, analysis, QC requirements and limits for holding time were met.If analyzed for F4 and F4G they are not to be summed but the greater of the two numbers are to be used in application to the CWS PHCQC will be made available upon request.


Christine Burke


City Ptbo, Nassau/11115294-01



289-562-1963


289-475-5442Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report



Report To:

Attention: Kyle Geraldi

06-May-16DATE RECEIVED:


WATERWORKS NO.GroundwaterSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G58323




BH - 2Client I.D.


05-May-16Date Collected

pH @25°C 7.30pH Units SM 4500 10-May-16/RConductivity @25°C 1.49mS/cm 0.001 SM 2510 06-May-16/RSodium 14700µg/L 30 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RSulphate 11000µg/L 1000 SM4110C 09-May-16/OAntimony < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RArsenic < 0.70µg/L 0.70 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RBarium 31.9µg/L 0.6 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RBeryllium < 0.1µg/L 0.1 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RBoron 31µg/L 2 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RCadmium < 0.1µg/L 0.1 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RChromium 1.9µg/L 1.1 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RChromium (VI) < 10µg/L 10 SM3500CrB 10-May-16/R 1

Cobalt < 0.2µg/L 0.2 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RCopper 5.3µg/L 0.3 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RLead 0.83µg/L 0.05 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RMercury < 0.02µg/L 0.02 SM 3112B 11-May-16/RMolybdenum 5.5µg/L 0.3 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RNickel < 0.6µg/L 0.6 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RSelenium 1.0µg/L 0.5 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RSilver < 0.03µg/L 0.03 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RThallium 0.3µg/L 0.1 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RUranium 0.3µg/L 0.3 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RVanadium < 0.4µg/L 0.4 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/RZinc < 5µg/L 5 EPA 200.8 06-May-16/R

1 . Chromium (VI) result is based on total chromium

Page 1 of 1.

Christine Burke Lab Manager

R.L. = Reporting Limit


Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond HillTest methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

City Ptbo, Nassau/11115294-01



289-562-1963


289-475-5442Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B16-11855 (ii)


Report To:

Attention: Kyle Geraldi

06-May-16DATE RECEIVED:


WATERWORKS NO.GroundwaterSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G58323




BH - 2Client I.D.


05-May-16Date Collected

Benzene < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-16/RToluene < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-16/REthylbenzene < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-16/RXylene, m,p- < 1.0µg/L 1.0 EPA 8260 09-May-16/RXylene, o- < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-16/RXylene, m,p,o- < 1.1µg/L 1.1 EPA 8260 09-May-16/RPHC F1 (C6-C10) < 50µg/L 50 MOE E3421 09-May-16/RPHC F2 (>C10-C16) < 50µg/L 50 MOE E3421 11-May-16/KPHC F3 (>C16-C34) < 400µg/L 400 MOE E3421 11-May-16/KPHC F4 (>C34-C50) < 400µg/L 400 MOE E3421 11-May-16/K

Page 1 of 1.

Christine Burke Lab Manager

R.L. = Reporting Limit


Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond HillTest methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *

Documents

Geotechnical Investigation - Peterborough · 2019-03-15 · 2. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to define and characterize the subsurface conditions