Description of Project and Site

Transcription

1 DATE May, 0 PROJECT No. 09 TO Bob Wingate, P.Eng. IBI Group FROM Stephen Dunlop, P.Eng. stdunlop@golder.com PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION (REV.) PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND, CLC ROCKCLIFFE LANDS HEMLOCK ROAD AND AVIATION PARKWAY, OTTAWA, ONTARIO This memo presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation carried out for the proposed stormwater management pond on the Canada Lands Company (CLC) Rockcliffe Lands located south of Hemlock Road and east of Aviation Parkway in Ottawa, Ontario. The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation was to assess the subsurface and groundwater conditions at the site by means of a limited number of boreholes, probeholes, and in situ hydraulic conductivity testing. Based on an interpretation of the factual information obtained, a general description of the subsurface and groundwater conditions is presented. The interpreted subsurface conditions and available project details were used to identify potential geotechnical and hydrogeological constraints that could influence design decisions. Recommendations for additional field investigations are also provided. The reader is referred to the Important Information and Limitations of This Report which follows the text but forms an integral part of this document. Description of Project and Site Plans are being prepared to construct a stormwater management pond to be located on the CLC Rockcliffe Lands south of Hemlock Road and east of Aviation Parkway in Ottawa, Ontario. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Key Map inset on the attached Site Plan (Figure ). The following is known about the site and project: It is understood that the pond will have a normal operating level at elevation 7 metres and that the base of the pond may be up to one metre deeper than the normal operating level (i.e., elevation 70 metres). The site is currently undeveloped and vegetated with grass, shrubs, and trees. A creek exists at the east side of the site. The topography gradually slopes upwards to the east and south, with elevations ranging from about 7 metres at the northwest corner of the pond to 77 metres at the southeast corner. A steep hill, about to metres in height, exists immediately south of the pond. The elevation at the crest of the hill is about 8 metres. Golder Associates Ltd. 9 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, KH B7 Tel: + () Fax: + () Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

2 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 Based on published geological maps, the site is located within a historic landslide area, surrounded by areas of sand, silty clay, and shallow bedrock. The bedrock surface is indicated to be between and metres depth; however, records of boreholes completed near the site (to the east) indicate shallow bedrock (less than about metres depth). Bedrock geology mapping indicates the bedrock consists of interbedded sandstone, limestone, and shale of the Rockcliffe Formation; however, interbedded dolostone, limestone, shale and sandstone of the Gull River Formation is also mapped just to the east of the site. Investigation Procedure The fieldwork for this investigation was carried out between January and 9, 0. During that time, a total of seven boreholes (numbered - to -7, inclusive) and five probeholes (numbered -A and -8 to -, inclusive) were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the attached Site Plan (Figure ). The testholes (boreholes and probeholes) were advanced using a track-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig supplied and operated by Marathon Drilling of Ottawa, Ontario. Boreholes - to - (inclusive) were advanced until achieving practical refusal to augering, which was encountered at depths ranging from about 0. to. metres below the existing ground surface. Boreholes - and -7 were terminated within the overburden at about.8 and 9.8 metres depth, respectively. Within borehole -7, a dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) was carried out below 9.8 metres depth until achieving practical refusal to advancement (i.e., cone refusal) at about.9 metres depth. Standard penetration tests were carried out within the boreholes at regular intervals of depth. Samples of the soils encountered were recovered using split-spoon sampling equipment. In situ vane testing was carried out, where possible, in the silty clay deposit to measure the undrained shear strength of this deposit. Upon reaching auger refusal, boreholes - and - were advanced into the bedrock, for depths of about 8. and. metres, respectively, (i.e., to total depths of about 9.8 and 9. metres, respectively) using rotary diamond drilling techniques while retrieving NQ sized bedrock core. Probehole -A was advanced with hollow-stem augers, without sampling, until achieving practical refusal to augering at about 0. metres depth. The remaining probeholes (-8 to -, inclusive) were advanced using a DCPT from the ground surface. The DCPT s were advanced until achieving practical refusal to advancement, which was encountered at depths ranging from about. to 8.8 metres below the existing ground surface. Standpipe piezometers were installed in boreholes -, -, and -7 to allow for groundwater level measurements in the overburden and monitoring wells were installed in boreholes - and - to allow for groundwater level measurements and in situ hydraulic response testing in the bedrock. The groundwater levels were measured in the standpipes and monitoring wells on February, 0. The hydraulic response testing was also carried out within the monitoring wells on February, 0. The fieldwork was supervised by an experienced geotechnical technician from our staff who located the testholes, directed the drilling operations and in situ testing, logged the boreholes and samples, and took custody of the soil and bedrock samples retrieved. On completion of the drilling operations, samples of the soil and bedrock obtained from the boreholes were transported to our laboratory for examination by the project engineer. The testhole locations were selected, staked in the field, and subsequently surveyed by Golder Associates personnel. The locations and ground surface elevations at the testhole locations were determined using a Trimble R8 GPS unit. The elevations are referenced to Geodetic datum. The geodetic reference system used or the survey is the North American datum of 98 (NAD8). The testhole coordinates are based on the modified Transverse Mercator (MTM Zone 9) coordinate system. The elevations are referenced to Geodetic datum (CGVD8). /8

3 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 Subsurface Conditions Information on the subsurface conditions is presented as follows: Record of Borehole, Probehole and Drillhole Sheets are provided in Attachment A. Photographs of the bedrock core are provided in Attachment B. Results of the hydraulic conductivity analyses are provided in Attachment C. In general, the subsurface conditions at the proposed stormwater management pond consist of topsoil and a discontinuous layer of sand overlying a deposit of sensitive silty clay and dolostone bedrock. The bedrock surface is shallow (less than metres deep) at the central and eastern portions of the site, and deepens towards the west. The following sections present a more detailed overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the testholes advanced during the investigation. Surficial Topsoil and Sand A layer of topsoil, sometimes being topsoil fill, exists at all of the borehole locations. The topsoil ranges in thickness from about 0 to 00 millimetres. A thin layer of sand exists beneath the topsoil at boreholes -, - and -. The sand contains variable amounts of silt and gravel and extends up to about. metres depth. Standard penetration tests carried out in the sand gave N values ranging from to blows per 0. metres of penetration, indicating a compact to dense state of packing. Silty Clay to Clay A deposit of silty clay to clay exists beneath the topsoil and sand (where encountered) at all of the boreholes (except boreholes - and -, where the bedrock was encountered directly below the topsoil and sand). The upper portion of the silty clay deposit has been weathered to a grey brown crust. At boreholes - and -, the silty clay has been weathered through its entire depth (to about. and. metres, respectively). At boreholes -, -, and -7, the weathered zone extends to depths ranging from about. to.9 metres below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the weathered crust gave N values ranging from to 0 blows per 0. metres of penetration. One in situ vane test carried out in the weathered silty clay gave an undrained shear strength of greater than 9 kilopascals. These in situ test results indicate a stiff to very stiff consistency for the weathered crust. At boreholes -, -, and -7, the silty clay below the depth of weathering is grey in colour. The grey silty clay at borehole - extends to about. metres depth. At boreholes - and -7, the grey silty clay was not fully penetrated, but was proven to about.8 and 9.8 metres depth, respectively. Based on the results of the DCPT carried out in borehole -7, the silty clay deposit at this location likely extends to about. metres depth. Standard penetration tests carried out within the grey silty clay gave N values ranging from weight of hammer to blows per 0. metres of penetration. The results of in situ vane testing in the grey silty clay gave undrained shear strengths ranging from about 0 to 0 kilopascals. These in situ testing results indicate a firm to stiff consistency for the grey silty clay. /8

4 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 Clayey Silt A thin layer of clayey silt, about 0. metres in thickness, exists beneath the silty clay at boreholes - and -. The clayey silt, which contains some sand and variable amounts of gravel, directly overlies the bedrock surface and is about 80 and 0 millimetres thick, respectively. Probable Glacial Till A layer of probable glacial till was inferred at borehole -7, from the DCPT blow counts, at about. metres depth. The probable glacial till extends to at least.9 metres depth, where practical refusal to advancement (i.e., cone refusal) was encountered. Cone refusal could indicate the bedrock surface, or it could represent cobbles or boulders within the glacial till. Auger/Cone Refusal and Bedrock Practical refusal to auguring was encountered at boreholes -, -, and - and probehole -A at depths ranging from about 0. to. metres below the existing ground surface. DCPT refusal was encountered at borehole -7 and probeholes -8 to - (inclusive) at depths ranging from. to.9 metres below the existing ground surface. In general, auger/cone refusal may indicate the bedrock surface; however, it could also represent cobbles and/or boulders within or on the surface of a glacial till layer. The bedrock was proven at boreholes - and - using rotary diamond drilling techniques. The bedrock encountered at boreholes - and - consists of slightly weathered to fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey to dark grey dolostone with shale and sandstone interbeds. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values measured on recovered bedrock core samples range from about 0 to 00 percent, indicating a fair to excellent quality rock. Photographs of the bedrock core are provided in Attachment B. The depth and elevations of the bedrock surface or refusals, as well as the ground surface elevation, at the boreholes and probeholes are shown on Figure and in the following table: Borehole / Probehole Number Existing Ground Surface Elevation Depth to Bedrock or Auger/Cone Refusal Bedrock Surface Elevation BH - 7. >.79 <. BH R PH -A R BH BH R BH BH R BH R PH R PH R PH R PH R Note: R bedrock surface inferred from auger or DCPT cone refusal. /8

5 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 Groundwater Standpipe piezometers were installed in boreholes -, -, and -7 to allow for groundwater level measurements in the overburden. Monitoring wells were installed in boreholes - and - to allow for groundwater level measurements and in situ hydraulic response testing in the bedrock. The detailed results of the hydraulic conductivity analyses are provided in Attachment C. The measured groundwater levels and estimated hydraulic conductivity values are provided in the following table: Borehole Number Geologic Unit of Screened Interval Ground Surface Elevation Groundwater Level Depth Elevation Date of Measurement Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) - Silty Clay February, Dolostone Bedrock February, 0 x0 - - Silty Clay February, Dolostone Bedrock February, 0 x Silty Clay February, 0 - Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally. Higher groundwater levels are expected during wet periods of the year, such as spring. Discussion In general, the proposed preliminary pond design is considered feasible from a geotechnical and hydrogeological point of view. There will be, however, potential issues that will need to be considered/mitigated during the detailed design stage. The following discussion identifies geotechnical and hydrogeological considerations to assist the designers during the detailed design stage of the proposed stormwater management pond. Additional hydrogeological studies will be required during the detailed design of the pond. Recommendations for the additional studies are provided below. Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Considerations It is understood that the floor of the proposed pond is currently proposed to be at about elevation 70 metres, and that a permanent water elevation of 7 metres will be maintained during normal operation. The subsurface conditions on this site generally consist of silty clay overlying bedrock. The bedrock surface elevation varies between about.7 metres at the southwest corner of the pond and 7.9 metres at the northeast corner of the pond. At the time of investigation, measured groundwater levels varied between about elevation 9. metres at the northwest corner of the pond and 7. metres at the southeast corner of the pond. The following geotechnical and hydrogeological considerations will need to be addressed during detailed design: The bedrock surface is currently located higher than the proposed pond floor level for a large proportion of the pond (likely more than 0 percent of the total area). Significant quantities of bedrock removal will be required. At the west side of the pond, excavations to the pond floor level will extend into sensitive silty clay. In general, it is anticipated that pond side slopes of H:V will be feasible in the silty clay; however, this assumes that berms will not be constructed around the perimeter of the pond. If berms will be constructed, additional slope stability analyses will be required. /8

6 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 Details of the pond inlet and outlet have not yet been identified. Additional geotechnical investigation may be required to provide guidelines for foundation and retaining wall design (if required). For the majority of the pond, the natural stabilized groundwater level is currently higher than the proposed operating pond water level of 7 metres. Groundwater inflow from the floor of the pond may be significant, especially where the floor of the pond consists of bedrock (which will be the case for a large portion of the pond). Groundwater inflow will need to be considered as part of the detailed design. If not mitigated in the detail design, this inflow will be constant throughout the operation of the pond. Continuous groundwater inflow may result in lowering of the groundwater level in the surrounding areas. If continuous groundwater inflow is proposed as part of the final design, the extent to which groundwater level lowering may occur would need to be assessed by means of a detailed hydrogeological study (see recommendations for additional study in the section below). An engineering solution may be required as part of the detailed design to lessen/mitigate groundwater inflow. A discussion of potential design solutions is presented in a following section of this memo. Otherwise, groundwater level lowering has the potential to have the following impacts: Settlement of nearby structures (e.g., houses, embankments, bridge foundations) underlain by sensitive silty clay. Lowering of the groundwater level within these sensitive silty clay deposits (due to under-drainage from the bedrock) will increase the vertical effective stress level in the clay deposit, since the water pressures produce natural buoyant forces on the soil fabric. Potentially significant consolidation settlements could occur if the preconsolidation pressure (i.e., yield stress ) of the silty clay is exceeded (or approached), which could result in settlement of structures or embankments. In general, continuous groundwater inflow has the potential to result in lowering the yield of nearby water wells. However, based on a preliminary review of the location and depth of the nearest wells, it is considered unlikely that this will be an issue for the stormwater management pond. This issue would be addressed in the detailed hydrogeological study. Continuous groundwater inflow could also potentially result in migration of contaminated groundwater (if present) to the stormwater pond. It is understood that, based on studies and remediation carried out on the site by others, there is no risk of groundwater contamination originating from the site in the vicinity of the stormwater management pond. The detailed hydrogeological study, to be completed during the detailed design stage, will provide an opportunity to further assess any potential sources of groundwater contamination within the radius of influence of the pond, including potential sources of off-site contamination. Recommendations for Additional Study and Investigation If continuous groundwater inflow is proposed as part of the final design, a detailed hydrogeological study will be required to assess the potential impacts of the groundwater level lowering that would occur as a result of maintaining the pond water level below the current static groundwater level. This study would include the development of a numerical groundwater model of the site and surrounding areas to estimate inflows and the radius of influence. Off-site impacts can likely be assessed from a review of existing borehole information. However, additional boreholes and monitoring wells may be required if large data-gaps exist in the available information. The boreholes advanced for the current investigation will likely be sufficient for geotechnical purposes; however, details of the inlet and outlet structures are not currently known. Additional geotechnical investigation may be required to provide guidelines for foundation and retaining wall design (if required). /8

7 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 Potential Design Options/Solutions Whether the effects of continuous groundwater inflow and groundwater level lowering can be tolerated will be dependent on the following: The hydraulic capacity of the stormwater management pond; The potential presence of contaminated groundwater from off-site, which might be drawn to the stormwater management pond; The presence of nearby water wells, which might be affected by the potential groundwater lowering; and, If structures underlain by sensitive silty clay, which could experience settlement due to groundwater level lowering, are located within the influence of the groundwater level lowering. If the effects of the estimated groundwater inflow and/or the groundwater level lowering cannot be tolerated, the design of the pond will need to consider methods of reducing the effects of groundwater inflow from the bedrock. The following options can be considered for design: ) Relocate the pond to an area where groundwater infiltration will be less of an issue (e.g., an area consisting entirely of silty clay, such as to the west and southwest of the current location). If gravity drainage is not feasible with a new pond location, pumping of the pond water could be considered. ) Reconfigure the geometry of the pond such that less bedrock excavation is required, since the primary issue is groundwater inflow from the bedrock. ) Increase the operating water level of the pond to reduce the difference in head between the pond and surrounding groundwater level. This option would likely require the use of retention berms around the perimeter of the pond. The design of retention berms would be subject to geotechnical slope stability analyses; however, berm stability is not expected to affect the feasibility of this option. ) Line the pond with a low-permeability membrane to decelerate groundwater inflow from the bedrock. It should be noted that the use of a conventional compacted clay liner on top of the bedrock has not been successful on other stormwater management ponds in the Ottawa area. Consideration may need to be given to other lining options, such as concrete. ) Construct a grout curtain around the perimeter of the pond to reduce the hydraulic conductivity of the rockmass. A grout curtain would consist of drilling a pattern of vertical boreholes into the bedrock around the pond perimeter and injecting grout into the bedrock under pressure (i.e., pressure grouting). 7/8

8

9 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client, IBI Group The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report. The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder's express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then the client may authorize the use of this report for such purpose by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process, provided this report is not noted to be a draft or preliminary report, and is specifically relevant to the project for which the application is being made. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder's report or other work products. The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities. Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions. Golder Associates Ltd. Page of

10 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT (cont'd) Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed. Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during construction. Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client's expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal. Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of Golder's report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder's report. During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of Golder's report and to confirm and document that construction activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder's report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not followed, Golder's responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the preparation of the Report. Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly. Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the system. Golder Associates Ltd. Page of

11 KEY MAP SCALE :0,000 LEGEND APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION APPROXIMATE PROBEHOLE LOCATION G.S.= 7. - GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION, metres B.R.= REFUSAL ON ROCK ELEVATION, metres. - REFUSAL ON ROCK DEPTH, metres R.=. - DCPT REFUSAL ELEVATION, metres DCPT REFUSAL DEPTH, metres APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND Path: \\golder.gds\gal\ottawa\active\spatial_im\ibi_group\rockcliffeswmp\99_proj\09_ibi_rockcliffeswmp\0_prod\phase000_geotech\ File Name: dwg NOTES. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER AOCIATES LTD. REPORT No. 09 REFERENCE. BASE PLAN SUPPLIED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BY IBI GROUP. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 8, COORDINATE SYSTEM: MTM ZONE 9 CLIENT IBI GROUP PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND CLC ROCKCLIFFE LANDS, OTTAWA, ONTARIO TITLE SITE PLAN CONSULTANT PROJECT No :,000 PHASE 000 YYYY-MM-DD PREPARED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED Rev. 0 0 METRES JM ---- SD TMS FIGURE IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI B 0 mm

12 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 ATTACHMENT A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Lithological and Geotechnical Rock Description Terminology Record of Borehole, Drillhole, and Probehole Sheets

13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations commonly employed on Records of Boreholes, on figures, and in the text of the report are as follows: I. SAMPLE TYPE III. SOIL DESCRIPTION AS Auger sample (a) Cohesionless Soils BS Block sample CS Chunk sample Density Index N DO or DP Seamless open-ended, driven or pushed tube samplers (Relative Density) Blows/00 mm DS Denison type sample Or Blows/ft. FS Foil sample Very loose 0 to RC Rock core Loose to 0 SC Soil core Compact 0 to 0 Split spoon sampler Dense 0 to 0 ST Slotted tube Very dense over 0 TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston (b) Cohesive Soils WS Wash sample C u or S u DT Dual tube sample Consistency DD Diamond drilling kpa Psf Very soft 0 to 0 to 0 II. PENETRATION RESISTANCE Soft to 0 to 00 Firm to 0 00 to,000 Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: Stiff 0 to 00,000 to,000 Very stiff 00 to 00,000 to,000 The number of blows by a. kg. (0 lb.) hammer dropped Hard Over 00 Over, mm (0 in.) required to drive a 0 mm ( in.) split spoon sampler for a distance of 00 mm ( in.). IV. SOIL TESTS Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); N d : w Water content w p or PL Plastic limited The number of blows by a. kg (0 lb.) hammer dropped w or LL Liquid limit 70 mm (0 in.) to drive an uncased 0 mm ( in.) diameter, C Consolidaiton (oedometer) test 0 0 cone attached to A size drill rods for a distance of CHEM Chemical analysis (refer to text) 00 mm ( in.). CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU Consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure with porewater pressure measurement PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure D R Relative density WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer DS Direct shear test WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod Gs Specific gravity M Sieve analysis for particle size Cone Penetration Test (CPT): MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified Proctor compaction test An electronic cone penetrometer with a 0 0 conical tip and a SPC Standard Proctor compaction test projected end area of 0 cm pushed through ground at a OC Organic content test penetration rate of cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (q t ), SO Concentration of water-soluble sulphates porewater pressure (u) and friction along a sleeve are recorded UC Unconfined compression test electronically at mm penetration intervals. UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test V Field vane test (LV-laboratory vane test) Unit weight Note: Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior shear are shown as CAD, CAU. Revision 0 0 Golder Associates

14 LIST OF SYMBOLS Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows: I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued). w water content ln x natural logarithm of x w or LL liquid limit log 0 x or log x logarithm of x to base 0 w p or PL plastic limit g acceleration due to gravity I p or PI plasticity Index = (w - w p ) t time w s shrinkage limit FOS factor of safety I L liquidity index = (w - w p ) / I p V volume I c consistency index = (w - w) / I p W weight e max void ratio in loosest state e min void ratio in densest state II. STRE AND STRAIN I D density index = (e max - e) / (e max - e min ) (formerly relative density) shear strain change in, e.g. in stress: ' (b) Hydraulic Properties linear strain v volumetric strain h hydraulic head or potential coefficient of viscosity q rate of flow Poisson s ratio v velocity of flow total stress i hydraulic gradient ' effective stress ( ' = - u) k hydraulic conductivity (coefficient of permeability) ' vo initial vertical effective overburden stress j seepage force per unit volume principal stresses (major, intermediate, minor) oct mean stress or octahedral stress (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) = ( + + ) / shear stress C c compression index (normally consolidated range) u porewater pressure C r recompression index (overconsolidated range) E modulus of deformation C s swelling index G shear modulus of deformation C α coefficient of secondary consolidation K bulk modulus of compressibility m v coefficient of volume change c v coefficient of consolidation (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES T v time factor (vertical direction) U degree of consolidation (a) Index Properties ' p pre-consolidation stress OCR overconsolidation ratio = ' p / ' vo ( ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* d ( d ) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength w ( w ) density (unit weight) of water s ( s ) density (unit weight) of solid particles p or r peak and residual shear strength ' unit weight of submerged soil ( ' = - w ) ' effective angle of internal friction D R relative density (specific gravity) of angle of interface friction solid particles (D R = s / w ) formerly (G s ) coefficient of friction = tan e void ratio c' effective cohesion n porosity c u or s u undrained shear strength ( = 0 analysis) S degree of saturation p mean total stress ( + ) / p' mean effective stress ( ' + ' ) / * Density symbol is. Unit weight symbol is where = g (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity) q ( - ) / or ( ' - ' ) / q u compressive strength ( - ) S t sensitivity Notes: = c' + ' tan ' shear strength = (compressive strength) / Revision 0 0 Golder Associates

15 LITHOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ROCK DESCRIPTION TERMINOLOGY WEATHERING STATE CORE CONDITION Fresh: no visible sign of rock material weathering Faintly Weathered: weathering limited to the surface of major discontinuities. Slightly weathered: penetrative weathering developed on open discontinuity surfaces but only slight weathering of rock material. Moderately weathered: weathering extends throughout the rock mass but the rock material is not friable Highly weathered: weathering extends throughout rock mass and the rock material is partly friable. Completely weathered: rock is wholly decomposed and in a friable condition but the rock texture and structure are preserved. BEDDING THICKNE Total Core Recovery The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or length, measured relative to the length of the total core run. Solid Core Recovery (SCR) The percentage of solid drill core, regardless of length, recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) The percentage of solid drill core, greater than 00 mm length, recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run. RQD varies from 0% for completely broken core 00% for core in solid sticks. Description Bedding Plane Spacing DISCONTINUITY DATA Very Thickly Bedded > m Fracture Index Thickly Bedded 0. m to m A count of the number of discontinuities (physical separations) Medium Bedded 0. m to 0. m in the rock core, including naturally occurring fractures but not Thinly Bedded 0 mm to 0. m including mechanically induced breaks caused by drilling. Very Thinly Bedded 0 mm to 0 mm Laminated mm to 0 mm Dip with Respect to (W.R.T.) Core Axis Thinly Laminated < mm The angle of the discontinuity relative to the axis (length) of the core. In a vertical borehole a discontinuity with a 90 0 angle is horizontal. JOINT OR FOLIATION SPACING Description and Notes Description Spacing An abbreviated description of the discontinuities, whether naturally occurring separations such as fractures, bedding planes and foliation Very Wide > m ground or shattered core and mechanically separated bedding or Wide m foliation surfaces. Additional information concerning the nature Moderately Close 0. m information concerning the nature of fracture surfaces and infillings Close 0 00 mm are also noted. Very Close < 0 mm Abbreviations GRAIN SIZE BD - Bedding PY - Pyrite FO - Foliation/Schistosity Ca - Calcite Term Size* CL - Clean PO - Polished SH - Shear Plane/Zone K - Slickensided Very Coarse Grained > 0 mm VN - Vein SM - Smooth Coarse Grained 0 mm FLT - Fault RO - Ridged/Rough Medium Grained 0 microns mm CO - Contact ST - Stepped Fine Grained 0 microns JN - Joint PL - Planar Very Fine Grained < microns FR - Fracture IR - Irregular MB - Mechanical Break UN - Undulating Note: *Grains > 0 microns diameter are visible to the naked eye. BR - Broken Rock CU - Curved BL - Blast Induced TCA - To Core Axis II - Parallel To STR - Stress Induced OR - Orthogonal Revision 0 0 Golder Associates

16 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 090. ;E 78.9 SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: - BORING DATE: January, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown; moist (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey brown (WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive, very stiff to stiff, w>pl STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 9 Native Backfill Power Auger 00 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey; cohesive, w>pl, firm to stiff Bentonite Seal Silica Sand WH Standpipe Cave End of Borehole..79 W.L. in Standpipe at Elev. 9. m on February, MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

17 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 099. ;E 77.0 SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: - BORING DATE: January, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 PA BORING METHOD (HS) GROUND SURFACE TOPSOIL End of Borehole Auger Refusal SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.0m >0 DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 7 8 MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

18 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 09.0 ;E 77. SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF PROBEHOLE: -A BORING DATE: January, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Unsampled Overburden STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION PA (HS) ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING End of Probehole Auger Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

19 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 098. ;E SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: - BORING DATE: January 8, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 Power Auger BORING METHOD 00 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FILL/TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; dark brown; moist (SM/GM) SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; brown; non-cohesive, moist, compact to dense Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey to dark grey DOLOSTONE BEDROCK, with shale and sandstone interbeds STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES 9 TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION Bentonite Seal C NQ RC DD C NQ RC DD C NQ RC DD Rotary Drill Bentonite Seal Silica Sand NQ Core mm Diam. PVC #0 Slot Screen C NQ RC DD 7 Silica Sand MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 8 9 End of Borehole 0 : C C NQ RC NQ RC DD DD Bentonite Seal Silica Sand W.L. in Screen at Elev. 7.7 m on February, 0 LOGGED: PAH CHECKED: SD

20 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 098. ;E INCLINATION: -90 AZIMUTH: --- RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: - DRILLING DATE: January 8, 0 DRILL RIG: CME DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic METRES DRILLING RECORD DESCRIPTION SYMBOLIC LOG ELEV. DEPTH RUN No. COLOUR % RETURN FLUSH JN - Joint FLT - Fault SHR- Shear VN - Vein CJ - Conjugate RECOVERY TOTAL CORE % SOLID CORE % R.Q.D. % PO- Polished K - Slickensided SM- Smooth Ro - Rough MB- Mechanical Break BR - Broken Rock Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey to dark grey DOLOSTONE BEDROCK, with shale and sandstone interbeds 00 Bentonite Seal Rotary Drill 00 Silica Sand 00 NQ Core BD- Bedding FO- Foliation CO- Contact OR- Orthogonal CL - Cleavage FRACT. INDEX PER 0. m 0 0 B Angle PL - Planar CU- Curved UN- Undulating ST - Stepped IR - Irregular DISCONTINUITY DATA DIP w.r.t. CORE AXIS TYPE AND SURFACE DESCRIPTION Jcon Jr NOTE: For additional abbreviations refer to list of abbreviations & symbols. HYDRAULIC Diametral CONDUCTIVITY Point LoadRMC K, cm/sec Index -Q' Ja (MPa) AVG BEDROCK SURFACE mm Diam. PVC #0 Slot Screen 00 7 Silica Sand 8 00 Bentonite Seal 9 00 Silica Sand MIS-RCK GPJ GAL-MI.GDT 0// JM. End of Drillhole : 0 W.L. in Screen at Elev. 7.7 m on February, 0 LOGGED: PAH CHECKED: SD

21 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 098. ;E 78.8 SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: - BORING DATE: January 8, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown; moist (SW) SAND, trace to some fines; brown; non-cohesive, moist, compact to loose STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION Power Auger 00 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey brown, with sand seams (WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive, w>pl, very stiff Native Backfill Bentonite Seal Silica Sand End of Borehole Auger Refusal 7..0 >0 Standpipe W.L. in Standpipe at Elev. 7.0 m on February, MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

22 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 08.0 ;E 77. SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: - BORING DATE: January 7, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey brown (WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive, w>pl, very stiff STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.0m - DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Power Auger 00 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) Native Backfill 7 (ML) CLAYEY SILT, some sand; grey; cohesive, w>pl Slightly weathered, thinly to medium bedded, grey DOLOSTONE BEDROCK, with shale partings C >0 NQ RC DD Bentonite Seal Silica Sand - vertical fracture from.8 to.79 m depth C NQ RC DD 8 mm Diam. PVC #0 Slot Screen Rotary Drill NQ Core Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey to dark grey DOLOSTONE BEDROCK, with shale and sandstone interbeds Silica Sand C NQ RC DD Bentonite Seal 7 8 Silica Sand MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 End of Borehole 0 : C NQ RC DD W.L. in Screen at Elev. 7. m on February, 0 LOGGED: PAH CHECKED: SD

23 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 08.0 ;E 77. INCLINATION: -90 AZIMUTH: --- RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: - DRILLING DATE: January 7, 0 DRILL RIG: CME DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic METRES DRILLING RECORD DESCRIPTION SYMBOLIC LOG ELEV. DEPTH RUN No. COLOUR % RETURN FLUSH JN - Joint FLT - Fault SHR- Shear VN - Vein CJ - Conjugate RECOVERY TOTAL CORE % SOLID CORE % R.Q.D. % BD- Bedding FO- Foliation CO- Contact OR- Orthogonal CL - Cleavage FRACT. INDEX PER 0. m 0 0 B Angle PL - Planar CU- Curved UN- Undulating ST - Stepped IR - Irregular DISCONTINUITY DATA DIP w.r.t. CORE AXIS TYPE AND SURFACE DESCRIPTION PO- Polished K - Slickensided SM- Smooth Ro - Rough MB- Mechanical Break Jcon Jr BR - Broken Rock NOTE: For additional abbreviations refer to list of abbreviations & symbols. HYDRAULIC Diametral CONDUCTIVITY Point LoadRMC K, cm/sec Index -Q' Ja (MPa) AVG BEDROCK SURFACE Slightly weathered, thinly to medium bedded, grey DOLOSTONE BEDROCK, with shale partings Bentonite Seal Silica Sand - vertical fracture from.8 to.79 m depth 00 8 mm Diam. PVC #0 Slot Screen Rotary Drill NQ Core Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, grey to dark grey DOLOSTONE BEDROCK, with shale and sandstone interbeds Silica Sand 00 Bentonite Seal 7 8 Silica Sand 00 9 End of Drillhole W.L. in Screen at Elev. 7. m on February, 0 0 MIS-RCK GPJ GAL-MI.GDT 0// JM : 0 LOGGED: PAH CHECKED: SD

24 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 08. ;E 77. SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: - BORING DATE: January 7, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL (SW) SAND, some gravel; brown; non-cohesive, moist, compact STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey brown (WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive, w>pl, very stiff to stiff Power Auger 00 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) 8 >9 (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey; cohesive, w>pl, firm WH (ML) CLAYEY SILT, some sand and gravel; grey; cohesive, w>pl End of Borehole Auger Refusal >0 7 8 MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

25 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 07. ;E 78. SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: -7 BORING DATE: January 9, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL - (SW) SAND; brown; moist STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey brown (WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive, w>pl, very stiff (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey; cohesive, w>pl, stiff Native Backfill Power Auger 00 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) 7 WH 7 8 (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey, with black mottling; cohesive, w>pl, stiff WH Bentonite Seal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 DCPT : 0 Probable Silty Clay to Clay CONTINUED NEXT PAGE PM Silica Sand Standpipe Silica Sand Cave LOGGED: PAH CHECKED: SD

26 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 07. ;E 78. SAMPLER HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: -7 BORING DATE: January 9, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, kg; DROP, 70mm METRES BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE --- Probable Silty Clay to Clay DCPT Probable Glacial Till.0.0 End of Borehole Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Refusal..87 W.L. in Standpipe at Elev. 7.7 m on February, MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

27 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 08. ;E RECORD OF PROBEHOLE: -8 BORING DATE: January 9, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Unsampled Overburden STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION DCPT 7 8 MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 End of Borehole Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Refusal. 8.8 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

28 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 080. ;E 770. RECORD OF PROBEHOLE: -9 BORING DATE: January 9, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Unsampled Overburden STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION DCPT End of Borehole Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

29 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N 09.7 ;E RECORD OF PROBEHOLE: -0 BORING DATE: January 9, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Unsampled Overburden STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION DCPT 7 End of Borehole Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

30 PROJECT: 09 LOCATION: N ;E 77. RECORD OF PROBEHOLE: - BORING DATE: January 9, 0 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Unsampled Overburden STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.0m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION DCPT End of Borehole Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 0// JM 9 0 : 0 LOGGED: CHECKED: PAH SD

31 Bob Wingate, P.Eng. 09 IBI Group May, 0 ATTACHMENT B Photographs of Bedrock Core

32 BH - Cored Length of. to.9 metres Core Box and of. m Top of Bedrock.9 m Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Stormwater Management Pond CLC Rockcliffe Lands Hemlock Road and Aviation Parkway Ottawa, Ontario Project No. 09 Drawn: WAM Date: //0 Checked: SD Review: TMS BH - ( of )

33 BH - Cored Length of.9 to 9.78 metres Core Box and of.9 m 9.78 m EOH Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Stormwater Management Pond CLC Rockcliffe Lands Hemlock Road and Aviation Parkway Ottawa, Ontario Project No. 09 Drawn: WAM Date: //0 Checked: SD Review: TMS BH - ( of )

34 BH - Cored Length of.8 to 7.7 metres Core Box and of.8 m Top of Bedrock 7.7 m Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Stormwater Management Pond CLC Rockcliffe Lands Hemlock Road and Aviation Parkway Ottawa, Ontario Project No. 09 Drawn: WAM Date: //0 Checked: SD Review: TMS BH - ( of )

35 BH - Cored Length of 7.7 to 9.09 metres Core Box to of 7.7 m 9.09 m EOH Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Stormwater Management Pond CLC Rockcliffe Lands Hemlock Road and Aviation Parkway Ottawa, Ontario Project No. 09 Drawn: WAM Date: //0 Checked: SD Review: TMS BH - ( of )