REPORT ON. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 6945 McKEOWN DRIVE OSGOODE WARD, GREELY CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO

Transcription

1 Civil Geotechnical Structural Environmental Hydrogeology 210 Prescott Street, Unit 1 (613) P.O. Box 189 Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0 FAX: (613) REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 6945 McKEOWN DRIVE OSGOODE WARD, GREELY CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO Project # Submitted to: Mr. Nat Giust 3226 Woodroffe Avenue Nepean, Ontario K2J 4G5 DISTRIBUTION 6 copies Mr. Nat Giust 2 copies Kollaard Associates Inc February 19, 2015 Professional Engineers Ontario Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to offer professional engineering services.

2 Civil Geotechnical Structural Environmental Hydrogeology 210 Prescott Street, Unit 1 (613) P.O. Box 189 Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0 FAX: (613) February 19, Mr. Nat Giust 3226 Woodroffe Avenue Nepean, Ontario K2J 4G5 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 6945 McKEOWN DRIVE, GREELY CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO Dear Sirs: This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the above noted proposed light industrial building. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the subsurface conditions at the site based on a limited number of boreholes. Based on the factual information obtained, Kollaard Associates Inc. was to provide guidelines on the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project design; including construction considerations, which could influence design decisions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SITE GEOLOGY Plans are being prepared to construct a light industrial building, with a foot print of approximately 510 square metres, which is intended to be used as an automobile service station. It is understood that the building will contain four bays, office space and washrooms within about a 0.4 hectare (1 acre), irregular shaped property located on the north side of McKeown Drive, in the City of Ottawa, Ontario (see Key Plan, Figure 1). The site has approximately 112 metres of frontage onto McKeown Drive. Preliminary plans indicate that the proposed building will be a single storey metal clad, steel frame structure. The proposed building will be placed on a thickened edge concrete slab-on-grade foundation. Professional Engineers Ontario Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to offer professional engineering services.

3 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, The proposed building will be serviced by a drilled cased well and an onsite septic system. It is understood that an asphaltic concrete and gravel surfaced parking area will be provided for the proposed building. The site is located within a commercial / industrial park. The site is bordered on the east and west by existing industrial and commercial development, on the north by vacant, undeveloped land, and on the south by McKeown Drive. Surface drainage for the proposed building will be by means of sheet flow and swales and ditches. Based on a review of the surficial geology map for the site area, it is expected that the site is in general underlain by coarse textured glaciomarine deposits consisting of sand, sand and gravel, silt and clay cobbles and boulders (Glacial Till). A review of the bedrock geology map indicates that the bedrock underlying the site consists of dolomite and limestone of the Oxford Formation. Based on a review of the topographical map for the site area, it is expected that the upper groundwater flow at the site is towards Shields Creek that exists about 520 metres south/southeast of the site. PROCEDURE The field work for this investigation was carried out on November 27, 2014 at which time two boreholes, numbered BH1 to BH2 were put down at the site using a truck mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow stem auger owned and operated by Marathon Drilling Co. Ltd. of Greely, Ontario. Sampling of the overburden materials encountered at the boreholes was carried out at regular 0.75 metre depth intervals using a 50 millimetre diameter drive open conventional split spoon sampler in conjunction with standard penetration testing to depths of about 6.7 metres below the existing ground surface (ASTM D1586 Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils). In situ vane shear testing (ASTM D Standard test method for Field vane shear test in cohesive soil) was carried out in the cohesive materials encountered at both boreholes. BH2 was continued below 6.7 metres as a probe hole using dynamic cone penetration testing. The subsurface soil conditions at BH1 and BH2 were identified based on visual and tactile examination of the samples recovered (ASTM D Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), standard penetration tests and vane shear results

4 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, as well as laboratory test results on select samples. Groundwater conditions at the boreholes were noted at the time of drilling. A standpipe was installed at BH1 for subsequent ground water level monitoring. The boreholes were loosely backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion of drilling. Three soil samples were submitted to determine the grain size distribution, hydrometer analysis and Atterberg Limits testing. One soil sample from BH2-4 and on from BH2-7 were submitted for Plasticity Index testing (ASTM D Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils) and particle size distribution (ASTM D422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils) respectively. One soil sample at BH1-1 was submitted for sieve analysis (ASTM C136 - Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates). A sample of soil obtained from BH1 was also delivered to a laboratory for testing for chemical properties for any indication of potential soil sulphate attack and soil corrosion on buried concrete and steel. The field work was supervised throughout by a member of our engineering staff who located the boreholes in the field, logged the boreholes and cared for the samples obtained. A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at BH1 and BH2 are given in the attached Record of Borehole Sheets. The results of the laboratory testing of the soil samples are presented in the Laboratory Test Results section and Attachment A following the text in this report. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General As previously indicated, a description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes is provided in the attached Record of Borehole Sheets following the text of this report. The borehole logs indicate the subsurface conditions at the specific drill locations only. Boundaries between zones on the logs are often not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted. Subsurface conditions at locations other than borehole locations may vary from the conditions encountered at the boreholes.

5 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, The soil descriptions in this report are based on commonly accepted methods of classification and identification employed in geotechnical practice. Classification and identification of soil involves judgement and Kollaard Associates Inc. does not guarantee descriptions as exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice. The groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the location and on the date the observations were noted in the report and on the borehole logs. Groundwater conditions may vary seasonally, or may be affected by construction activities on or in the vicinity of the site. The following is a brief overview of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes. Topsoil A thin layer of topsoil, ranging from about 0.13 to 0.15 metres in thickness, was encountered from the existing ground surface at both borehole locations. The material was classified as topsoil based on the colour and the presence of organic materials. The identification of the topsoil layer is for geotechnical purposes only and does not constitute a statement as to the suitability of this layer for cultivation and sustainable plant growth. Sand and Gravel/Sand A deposit of loose to compact, grey brown to grey fine to medium/fine to coarse sand and gravel with a trace of silt was encountered below the topsoil materials at both boreholes. The sand/sand and gravel layer ranges in thickness from about 1.8 to 2.0 metres. The sand/sand and gravel was fully penetrated at both borehole locations. Based on the standard penetration value (N), which ranged from about 5 to 16 blows per 0.3 metres, the sand and gravel/sand was observed to be in a loose to compact state of packing. A sample of sand obtained from BH1 (1-0.0 to 0.6 metres) was submitted to Stantec for grain size distribution testing (ASTM C136). The results of the sieve analysis for the sample from BH1 indicates the sample has a gravel content of 0.4 percent, a sand content of 88.5 percent and a silt & clay content of 11.1 percent.

6 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, The results of the laboratory testing are located in Attachment A. Silty Clay A deposit of grey silty clay was encountered below the sand deposit at both boreholes. A trace to some silt layers were encountered within the silty clay deposit at both boreholes. In situ vane shear tests carried out in the silty clay deposit gave undrained shear strength values ranging from about 63 kilopascals to 90 kilopascals. The results of the in situ vane shear testing and tactile examination carried out for the silty clay material indicate that the silty clay is stiff in consistency. The silty clay layer was fully penetrated at both boreholes at about 3.2 and 3.6 metres, respectively below the existing ground surface. The results of Atterberg Limits tests conducted on a soil sample of silty clay are presented in Table I and in Attachment A at the end of the report. The tested silty clay sample classifies as inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity (CL) in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Table I Atterberg Limit and Water Content Results Sample Depth(metres) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) W (%) BH LL: Liquid Limit PL: Plastic Limit Pl: Plasticity Index w: water content CL: Clay of Low to Medium Plasticity Silt A deposit of grey silt was encountered below the silty clay layer at both boreholes at depths of about 3.2 and 3.7 metres, respectively, below the existing ground surface. The silt layer was fully penetrated at Borehole 2 and found to be about 3.1 metres in thickness. The results of the standard penetration tests carried out in the silt gave N values of about 12 to 29 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating compact state of compaction. The results of the hydrometer testing (ASTM D422) of one soil sample (BH2-7) indicates the sample has a silt content of 68.9 percent and a clay content of about 3 percent. The results are located in Attachment A.

7 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, Glacial Till The dynamic cone penetration test carried out at BH2 gave values ranging from 5 to 100 blows per 0.3 metres between the depths of about 6.7 and 15.0 metres below the existing ground surface. The dynamic cone penetration test values increased with depth below about 9.1 metres and ranged from 54 to 100 blows per 0.3 metres. At a depth of some 10.8 metres below the existing ground surface at BH2, refusal to cone penetration was encountered. It is considered likely that the increase in blow count at about 10.8 metres depth indicates the possible presence of glacial till materials and that practical refusal to cone penetration indicates either a large boulder or bedrock in BH2 at about 10.8 metres below the existing ground surface. A review of two Ministry of Environment Well records within the vicinity of the site indicates a sand, gravel and boulders thickness of 17.3 to 17.7 metres. The well records indicate that sound bedrock was encountered at 17.3 and 17.7 metres below the existing ground surface. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed within the boreholes from about 0.3 to 0.8 metres below existing ground surface at the time of drilling. On December 3, 2014, groundwater was measured in a standpipe installed in BH1 at a depth of about 1.9 metres below existing ground surface. It should be noted that the groundwater levels may be higher during wet periods of the year such as the early spring. Corrosivity on Reinforcement and Sulphate Attack on Portland Cement The results of the laboratory testing of a soil sample for submitted for chemistry testing related to corrosivity is summarized in the following table. Item Threshold of Concern Test Result Comment Chlorides (Cl) Cl > 0.04 % < Negligible concern ph 5.0 < ph 7.0 Neutral / Slightly Basic

8 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, Negligible concern Resistivity R < 1500 ohm-cm Mild concern Sulphates (SO 4 ) SO 4 > 0.1% <0.01 Negligible concern Based on the chemical test results, Type GU General use Hydraulic Cement may be used for this proposed development. Special protection may be required for reinforcement steel within the concrete walls. PROPOSED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOUNDATION General This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the project based on our interpretation of the information from the test holes and the project requirements. It is stressed that the information in the following sections is provided for the guidance of the designers and is intended for this project only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities. The professional services for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous uses or activities at this site or adjacent properties, and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from offsite sources are outside the terms of reference for this report. Foundations for The results of this investigation indicate that the site is underlain by a deposit of sand, silty clay/silt and glacial till beneath a thickness of topsoil. The topsoil is not considered suitable to support the proposed building foundations.

9 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, For predictable performance of the proposed foundation, all topsoil materials should be removed from the proposed building area. It is expected that the subgrade, beneath the topsoil, consists of native undisturbed sand. The excavations within the sand above the groundwater level should not present any serious constraints. With the exception of the topsoil materials, the subsurface conditions encountered at the test holes advanced during the investigation are suitable for the support of the proposed light industrial building on a thickened edge, cast-in-place, concrete, slab on grade foundation bearing on an engineering granular pad placed on a native subgrade. The excavations for the foundation should be taken through any topsoil or otherwise deleterious material to expose the native, undisturbed sand. For predictable performance of the proposed foundation, all existing topsoil and any deleterious materials should be removed from within the proposed foundation area and should be replaced to the proposed founding level using suitable engineered fill. It is expected that the subgrade, beneath the topsoil, consists of native undisturbed sand. The subgrade surface should be inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel prior to placement of any granulars. To allow the spread of load beneath the foundations, the engineered fill should extend out from the outside edges of the thickened edge slab for a horizontal distance of 0.5 metres and then down and out at a slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter. The excavations for the structure should be sized to accommodate this fill placement. The fill materials beneath the proposed thickened edge slab on grade should consist of a minimum of 150 millimetre thickness of crushed stone meeting the grading requirements for OP Granular A immediately beneath the concrete floor slab followed by sand, or sand and gravel meeting the OP for Granular B Type I or crushed stone meeting OP grading requirements for Granular B Type II. Currently, OP documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete to be used in Granular A and Granular B Type II materials. If the source of recycled material cannot be verified, it is suggested that any granular materials used below the founding level be composed of virgin material only. The first lift of engineered fill material should have a thickness of 300 millimetres in order to protect the subgrade during compaction. It is considered that the placement of a geotextile fabric between the engineered fill and the subgrade is not necessary where granular materials meeting the grading requirements for OP Granular B Type I or Type II are placed on a sand subgrade above the

10 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, normal ground water level. If trucks are used to place the engineered fill on the subgrade, a thickened path of 0.6 metres should be used to protect the subgrade from the truck traffic. The engineered fill materials should be compacted in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. It is considered that the engineered fill should be compacted using dynamic compaction with a large diameter vibratory steel drum roller or diesel plate compactor. If a diesel plate compactor is used, the lift thickness may need to be restricted to less than 300 mm to achieve proper compaction. Compaction should be verified by a suitable field compaction test method. The proposed light industrial building, when founded on engineered fill as described above, should be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 100 kilopascals for serviceability limit states design and a maximum of 200 kpa for factored ultimate limit states design; when considering the thickened edge portion of the slab only. The maximum total and differential settlement of the footings are expected to be less than 25 millimetres and 20 millimetres, respectively, using the above allowable bearing pressure and resistance. Based on a review of the proposed grading plan it is expected that the maximum grade raise on the site adjacent the proposed building will be less than 1.0 metres. The above allowable bearing pressure and resistance are suitable for the expected grade raise of less than 1.0 metres adjacent the building. The native soils at this site will be sensitive to disturbance from construction operations and from rainwater or snowmelt, and frost. In order to minimize disturbance, construction traffic operating directly on the subgrade should be kept to an absolute minimum and the subgrade should be protected from below freezing temperatures. The thickened edged slab could be saw cut at regular intervals to prevent random cracking of the slab due to shrinkage and expansion of the concrete. The saw cut depth should be about one quarter of the thickness of the slab. The crack control cuts should be placed at a grid spacing not exceeding 5.0 metres.

11 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, Thermo Protection For Proposed Foundation. Based on the materials encountered within the test holes, it is considered that the subgrade for the proposed building will be at about 0.8 to 1.0 metres below the finished floor level. As such, the proposed thickened edge slab on grade foundation could be protected from frost and frost heave with the use of rigid extruded polystyrene insulation approved for in-ground installation and having a minimum compressive strength of 275 kpa at 5% deformation such as DOW HIGHLOAD 40. The insulation should have a minimum thickness of 50 millimetres and should extend down from the top edge of the foundation to bottom of the thickened edge. The insulation should extend out from the outside edge of the foundation a minimum distance of 1.2 metres and should be placed directly under the entire concrete slab. Foundation Drainage Provided the proposed finished floor surface is above the exterior finished grade, the granular materials beneath the proposed floor slab are properly compacted and provided the exterior grade is adequately sloped away from the proposed industrial building, no perimeter foundation drainage or under slab drainage systems are required. Groundwater inflow from the native soils into the excavations during construction, if any, should be handled by pumping from sumps within the excavations. Seismic Design for the For seismic design purposes, in accordance with the 2012 OBC Section , Table A., the site classification for seismic site response is Site Class D. The subsurface conditions below the proposed footing design level consist of loose to compact sand, sand and gravel followed by silt and glacial till having an average normalized standard penetration resistance of 49 before refusal to further penetration was encountered on underlying boulders in glacial till at a depth of metres. Based on a review of two well records in the vicinity of the site, sound bedrock is indicated to be at about 17.3 and 17.7 metres below the existing ground surface.

12 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, Alternatively Seismic Site Response Site Class Calculation: Depth Layer Description (m) d i (m) N(60) i d i /S ui (blows / S ui (kpa) d i /N i (m/kpa) 0.3m) 1 Sand / sand and gravel Silty Clay Silt Glacial Till Bedrock sum(d i /N(60) i ) d c /(sum(d i /N(60) i ) 46.8 sum(d i /S ui ) d c /(sum(d i /S ui )) 75 Since N(60) = 15 < 46.8 < 50 (site class D) and S u = 50 < 75 < 100 kpa (site class D) the seismic site response is Site Class D. Potential for Soil Liquefaction Consideration for the potential for soil liquefaction was determined by considering the ratio between the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) for the soils between the proposed underside of footing level and the depth at which refusal to further advancement using standard penetration testing was attained. The CRR value was determined from a mathematical expression as determined by Rauch (1997) of the base curve obtained from Robertson and Fear (1996). The CSR was determined from Seed and Idriss (1971). It is considered that a soil with a normalized SPT of greater than 30 is non-liquefiable. It is also considered that a soil with a CRR/CSR ratio of greater than one is not liquefiable. The average CRR / CSR ratio for the materials encountered between the silty clay and depth explored excluding the normalized SPT values above 30 is As such the underlying soils below the proposed foundation are not considered to be liquefiable.

13 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, ACCE ROADWAY AND PARKING LOT PAVEMENTS Subgrade Preparation To avoid soft spots and/or surface depressions within the parking area structure any existing fill and underlying topsoil and any deleterious materials should be removed from within the proposed access roadway and parking lot areas. The exposed subgrade surface should then be proof inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel. Any soft or unacceptable areas evident should be subexcavated and replaced with suitable earth borrow material. The subgrade should be shaped and crowned to promote drainage of the roadway and parking area granulars. Following approval of the preparation of the subgrade, the pavement granulars may be placed. For any areas of the site that require the subgrade to be raised to proposed roadway and parking area subgrade level, the material used should consist of OP select subgrade material or OP Granular B Type I or Type II. Materials used for raising the subgrade to proposed roadway and parking area subgrade level should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick loose lifts and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment. Parking Area Structure Granular Surfaced Areas It is suggested that provision be made for the following minimum pavement structure: 150 millimetres of OP Granular A base, over 400 millimetres of OP Granular B Type II subbase, over (50 or 100 millimetre minus crushed stone) Non-woven geotextile cloth such as Terrafix 270R or Thrace-Ling 130EX or approved alternative

14 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, Asphaltic Concrete Surfaced Areas It is suggested that provision be made for the following minimum pavement structure: For pavement areas subject to cars and light trucks the pavement should consist of: 50 millimetres of hot mix asphaltic concrete (HL3) over 150 millimetres of OP Granular A base over 300 millimetres of OP Granular B, Type II subbase (50 or 100 millimetre minus crushed stone) Non-woven geotextile cloth such as Terrafix 270R or Thrace-Ling 130EX or approved alternative Compaction of the granular pavement materials should be carried out in maximum 300 millimetre thick loose lifts to 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density value using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. The above pavement structures will be adequate on an acceptable subgrade, that is, one where any roadway fill has been adequately compacted. If the roadway subgrade is disturbed or wetted due to construction operations or precipitation, the granular thicknesses given above may not be adequate and it may be necessary to increase the thickness of the Granular B Type II subbase and/or incorporate a non-woven geotextile separator between the roadway subgrade surface and the granular subbase material. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS It is suggested that the final design drawings for the project, including the proposed site grading plan, be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the guidelines provided in this report have been interpreted as intended. The engagement of the services of the geotechnical consultant during construction is recommended to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the proposed development do not materially differ from those given in the report and that the construction activities do not adversely affect the intent of the design. All foundation areas and any engineered fill areas for the proposed building should be inspected by Kollaard Associates Inc. to ensure that a suitable subgrade has been reached and properly prepared. The placing and compaction of any granular materials beneath the foundations should

15 Geotechnical Investigation February 19, be inspected to ensure that the materials used conform to the grading and compaction specifications. The subgrade for the access roadway and parking areas should be inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel. In situ density testing should be carried out on the pavement granular materials to ensure the materials meet the specifications from a compaction point of view. The native topsoil and sand deposits at this site will be sensitive to disturbance from construction operations, from rainwater or snow melt, and frost. In order to minimize disturbance, construction traffic operating directly on the subgrade should be kept to an absolute minimum and the subgrade should be protected from below freezing temperatures. We trust this report provides sufficient information for your present purposes. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further services to you, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Regards, Kollaard Associates Inc. Feb Dean Tataryn, B.E.S., EP. Steve DeWit, P.Eng. Attachments: Record of Boreholes Key Plan, Figure 1 Site Plan, Figure 2 Laboratory Test Results for Sulphate, Resistivity and ph Attachment A Stantec Laboratory Test Results for Soils

16 RECORD OF BOREHOLE BH1 (SOUTH) PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Mr. Nat Guist DATE OF BORING: November 27, 2014 LOCATION: 6945 McKeown Drive, Greely, Ottawa, Ontario PENETRATION TEST HAMMER: 63.5kg, Drop, 0.76mm SHEET 1 of 1 DATUM: DEPTH SCALE (meters) SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (M) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m UNDIST. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa REM. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST blows/300 mm ADDITIONAL LAB TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Ground Surface TOPSOIL Grey brown to grey fine to coarse SAND, trace of gravel Very stiff grey SILTY CLAY, trace to some silt layers Grey SILT, trace to some clay seams End of Borehole 6.71 Water observed in borehole at approximately 0.3 metres below the existing ground surface on November 27, Water measured in standpipe at approximately 1.0 metre below existing ground surface, December 3, DEPTH SCALE: 1 to 75 LOGGED: DT BORING METHOD: Power Auger AUGER TYPE: 200 mm Hollow Stem CHECKED: SD

17 RECORD OF BOREHOLE BH2 (NORTH) PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Development PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Mr. Nat Guist DATE OF BORING: November 27, 2014 LOCATION: 6945 McKeown Drive, Greely, Ottawa, Ontario PENETRATION TEST HAMMER: 63.5kg, Drop, 0.76mm SHEET 1 of 1 DATUM: DEPTH SCALE (meters) SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (M) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m UNDIST. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa REM. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST blows/300 mm ADDITIONAL LAB TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Ground Surface TOPSOIL Grey brown to grey fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel Very stiff grey SILTY CLAY, trace to some silt layers Grey SILT, trace to some clay seams WH 14 Water observed in borehole at approximately 0.8 metres below the existing ground surface on November 27, Borehole continued as Probe Hole, probably grey silt, then grey silty sand with some gravel, cobbles and boulders (GLACIAL TILL) End of Borehole, refusal on large boulder or bedrock DEPTH SCALE: 1 to 75 LOGGED: DT BORING METHOD: Power Auger AUGER TYPE: 200 mm Hollow Stem CHECKED: SD

18 KEY PLAN FIGURE 1 Project North N Approximate Site NOT TO SCALE Project No Date February 2015

19

20 February 20, 2015 Geotechnical Investigation Project # ATTACHMENT A Laboratory Test Results for Chemical Properties

21 EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis Client: Kollaard Associates Inc. 210 Prescott St., Box 189 Kemptville, ON K0G 1J0 Attention: Mr. Dean Tataryn PO#: Invoice to: Kollaard Associates Inc. Report Number: Date Submitted: Date Reported: Project: COC #: Lab I.D. Sample Matrix Sample Type Sampling Date Sample I.D. Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline Agri. - Soil ph 2.0 General Chemistry Cl % Electrical Conductivity 0.05 ms/cm Resistivity 1 ohm-cm SO % Soil BH < <0.01 Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario). Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted. Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request. 146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Page 2 of 3

22 February 20, 2015 Geotechnical Investigation Project # ATTACHMENT B Laboratory Test Results for Physical Properties

23

24 Plasticity Index CH 40 CI 30 CL MH OH Sample ID 20 BH MI OI CL-ML ML ML OL Liquid Limit PLASTICITY CHART Kollaard File # Figure No. Project No

25

26

27 Percent Passing Percent Retained Unified Soil Classification System SAND Gravel CLAY & SILT Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse 100 U.S. Std. Sieve No Sample ID BH Grain Size in Millimetres GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Kollaard File # Figure No. Project No

28

29