APPENDIX D. Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation. Parkland County Acheson, AB. Project number: (433)

Transcription

1 APPENDIX D Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Acheson, AB Project number: (433) November 21, 2018

2 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the Report ) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. ( AECOM ) for the benefit of the Client ( Client ) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the Agreement ). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the Information ): is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the Limitations ); represents AECOM s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information ( improper use of the Report ), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM: AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM

3

4 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Prepared for: Prepared by: Brian Nguyen, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer T: E: Brian.Nguyen@aecom.com Alex Tam, E.I.T Geotechnical Engineer-in-Training T: E: alex.tam2@aecom.com AECOM Canada Ltd Stony Plain Road NW Edmonton, AB T5S 0C2 Canada T: F: aecom.com 2018 AECOM Canada Ltd.. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. ( AECOM ) for sole use of our client (the Client ) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM

5 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Table of Contents 1. Introduction General Scope of work Methodology Planning and Coordination Geotechnical Desktop Study Quaternary Geology Surficial Geological Bedrock Geology Field investigation Laboratory testing program Subsurface Condition General Profiles Topsoil Silt Soil Chemistry Groundwater Conditions Frost Susceptibility Frost Penetration Seismic Considerations General Site Recommendations General Site Assessment Site Preparation Excavations and Backfill General Engineered Fill Structural Fill Bedding Reservoir and Pumphouse Building Recommendations General Shallow Foundations Deep Foundations Driven Steel Piles Lateral Load Capacity for Piles Subsurface Drainage Lateral Earth Pressures Buoyant Uplift Grading and Drainage Geochemistry Attack on Foundations References RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM

6 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Field Investigation... 3 Table 2-2: Summary of Field Investigation... 3 Table 3-1: Atterberg Limits of Silt... 4 Table 3-2: Grain Size Analysis of Silt... 4 Table 3-3: Soil Chemistry Summary... 5 Table 3-4: Summary of Groundwater Measurements... 5 Table 3-5: Frost Susceptibility... 6 Table 3-6: Frost Penetration Depth... 6 Table 4-1: Recommended Gradation for Crushed Gravel ( Engineering Design Standards, Section 7.4.3)... 8 Table 4-2: Recommended Gradation for Bedding ( Engineering Design Standards, Section 4.5.7)... 9 Table 5-1: Design Parameters for Driven Steel Piles Table 5-2: Values of n h for Cohesionless Soils Appendices Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Testhole Location Plan, Surficial Geology of Alberta, Bedrock Geology of Alberta Modified Unified Soil Classification Chart, Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data, General Statement; Normal Variability of Subsurface Conditions, Testhole Logs Laboratory Test Results RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM

7 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 1. Introduction 1.1 General AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was contracted by to conduct a geotechnical investigation to support the design and construction of the Zone 4 reservoir expansion in Acheson, AB. The capacity of the reservoir expansion is expected to between 4,000 and 5,000 cubic metres (m 3 ). The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to assess the suitability of the ground conditions of the site for the proposed reservoir expansion, and to provide soil parameters for the design and construction of the foundations of the proposed water reservoir and pump house. The recommendations provided in this report are preliminary, and will need to be reviewed and revised, if warranted. A testhole location plan showing the proposed testholes in relation to the proposed reservoir site is included on Figure 1 in Appendix A. Testholes logs are included in Appendix B. 1.2 Scope of work The scope of work for this intrusive geotechnical investigation includes the following: Planning and co-ordination of the field drilling program, which included site reconnaissance, safety planning, utility co-ordination and clearances, logistics planning, and coordination with AECOM subcontractors Performing a geotechnical desktop study which included a review of available geological maps and review of previous geotechnical reports and literature Executing the geotechnical field investigation, which included drilling testholes within the footprint of the proposed water reservoir expansion area Installation of standpipe piezometers in select testholes to monitor groundwater conditions Measuring groundwater levels in the standpipes after completion of the field drilling program Performing laboratory testing on soil samples for soil classification and to determine engineering properties of select soil samples collected during the field investigation Completing a geotechnical investigation report, which includes a discussion of the regional geology, subsurface conditions, design and construction recommendations, geotechnical risks associated with the site, and general site suitability for the proposed reservoir expansion RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 1

8 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 2. Methodology 2.1 Planning and Coordination Drilling operations were executed in accordance with AECOM s drilling standard operating procedures (SOP) to ensure that all work was being completed safely. A job safety analysis (JSA) and task hazard analysis (THA) was prepared to identify all hazards during drilling operations. Alberta One Call, DigShaw, third party private locators, and Parkland Country were contacted to determine the locations of nearby utilities at the proposed site. Additionally, a site reconnaissance was completed prior to completing drilling activities to access site access to the proposed reservoir site. 2.2 Geotechnical Desktop Study Prior to the execution of the intrusive geotechnical investigation, a geological desktop study was conducted to determine the expected ground conditions at the proposed site. The study area is located in Acheson, AB. The following documents were reviewed to determine subsurface geology: Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta Map (Shetsen, 1990) Surficial Geology of Alberta. (Alberta Geological Survey. Fenton M.M., et. al ) Bedrock Geology of Alberta. Alberta, Geological Survey (Prior G.J., et. al. 2013) Quaternary Geology Near-surface geology of the project area was compiled from the Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta map (Shetsen, 1990). The Acheson area consists of fine sediments lacustrine deposits of silt and clay, up to 80 m thick; deposited mainly in proglacial lakes. Deposits also include undifferentiated recent clay sediments. Quaternary geology of the project area as mapped by Shetsen (1990) is shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A Surficial Geological The surficial geology in the study area is expected to include primarily glaciolacustrine deposits. Glaciolacustrine deposits include either deposited sediments consisting of rhythmically fine sand, silt, clay, and till, or littoral sediments consisting of well-sorted silty sand, pebbly sand, and minor gravel Bedrock Geology Bedrock geology of the project area was compiled from the Bedrock Geology Map of Alberta (Prior G.J., et al. (2013)). The bedrock in the project area generally belongs to the non-marine to locally marginal marine Horseshoe Canyon Formation, consisting of grey feldspathic clayey sandstone, grey bentonitic mudstone and carbonaceous mudstone, concretionary sideritic layers and laterally continuous coal seams. This includes white, pedogenically altered sandstone and mudstone. Bedrock geology of the project area as mapped by Prior G.J., et al. (2013) is shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A. 2.3 Field investigation The intrusive geotechnical investigation was started on September 14, 2018 and completed on September 15, The investigation included drilling four testholes to depths of 10.3 m below ground surface (mbgs) and one testhole drilled to a depth of 29.8 mbgs. Five 50 millimetre (mm) diameter PVC standpipe piezometers were installed in all of the testholes. Testhole details are summarized in Table 2-1 below. The soil types were assessed visually in the field and were classified according to the modified unified classification system (MUCS) for soils. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in all testholes and split spoon and grab samples were retrieved from the testholes at select intervals. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 2

9 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Table 2-1: Summary of Field Investigation Testhole Number Coordinates (Northing, Easting) Elevation (m) Depth (mbgs) Well Installed (Y/N) TH N, E Y TH N, E Y TH N, E Y TH N, E Y TH N, E Y 2.4 Laboratory testing program Soil samples collected during the site investigation were tested in AECOM s materials testing laboratory in Calgary, Alberta. The laboratory testing included the determination of moisture contents, Atterberg Limits, grain size distributions, and soil chemical properties. Soil chemical analysis included tests for ph, soluble sulphates, resistivity, and chloride content. The test results are shown on the testhole logs, and are presented separately in Appendix C. Laboratory testing consists of the following: Table 2-2: Summary of Field Investigation Laboratory Test Number of Tests Data Location Moisture content determination 96 Testhole Locations, Appendix C Atterberg limits determination on selected soil samples 5 Testhole Locations, Appendix C Grain Size Analysis on selected samples 5 Testhole Locations, Appendix C Soil Chemical Testing 3 Testhole Locations, Appendix C RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 3

10 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 3. Subsurface Condition 3.1 General Profiles Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in all testholes. The thickness of the topsoil layer was 50 mm. The topsoil contained some silt and some rootlets. The topsoil was organic, fibrous, moist, and was black in color Silt Silt was encountered below the topsoil layer in all testholes at this site. The silt was encountered at depths ranging from 0.05 to 29.8 mbgs. The thickness of the silt layer ranged from 10.3 to greater than 29.8 metres (m). The silt layer extended to the termination depths of all testholes during this investigation. The silt contained trace to some fine grained sand, and trace to some clay. The silt was occasionally oxidized, and brown to light brown in colour. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values for the silt ranged from 4 to 37 blows per 300 mm of penetration, indicating that the silt was very loose to dense. The average SPT N-value for the silt was 15. Moisture content of all silt samples tested varied from 6.9% to 30.9%. Five Atterberg Limits and five grain size analyses were completed on the silt. The test results are summarized in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. Table 3-1: Atterberg Limits of Silt Testhole Sample Number Depth (mbgs) MUSC Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%) TH ML TH ML TH ML TH ML TH ML Table 3-2: Grain Size Analysis of Silt Testhole Sample Number Depth (mbgs) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) TH TH TH TH TH RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 4

11 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 3.2 Soil Chemistry Chemical testing was conducted on select samples to determine ph, resistivity, chlorides content, and water soluble sulphate content. The degree of corrosiveness and corrosion potential for sulphate attack are provided in Table 3-3 below in accordance to the Handbook of Corrosion Engineering and the Canadian Standards Association Guidelines. Table 3-3: Soil Chemistry Summary Testhole Depth (mbgs) Soil Layer Resistivity (ohm-cm) Chlorides Content (mg/l) Water Soluble Sulphate Content (%) ph Corrosion Potential Sulphate Attack TH Silt 5100 <20 < Moderately Corrosive Low TH Silt 6400 <20 < Moderately Corrosive Low TH Silt 4500 <20 < Corrosive Low Based on the above test results, the degree of corrosivity is expected to be moderately corrosive to corrosive at this site. The potential for sulphate attack in concrete is expected to be Low at this site. 3.3 Groundwater Conditions The first groundwater monitoring event was conducted on October 17, 2018 and the second groundwater monitoring event was conducted on November 14, Table 3-4 summarizes the groundwater measurements at this site. Table 3-4: Summary of Groundwater Measurements Testhole Testhole Elevation (masl) Depth of Standpipe (mbgs) Upon Completion of Drilling September 14, 2018 (mbgs) / Elevation (masl) Groundwater Monitoring Event October 17, 2018 Depth (mbgs) / Elevation (masl) Groundwater Monitoring Event November 14, 2018 Depth (mbgs) / Elevation (masl) TH Dry Dry Dry TH Dry Trace groundwater at the bottom of the well Trace groundwater at the bottom of the well TH Dry Dry Dry TH / / / TH Dry Dry Trace groundwater at the bottom of the well Measured groundwater depths are also shown on the Testhole logs in Appendix A. It should be noted that the groundwater levels in Table 3-4 are relatively short term and may not be representative of stable groundwater conditions. Groundwater levels can vary in response to seasonal factors and precipitation. The groundwater conditions at the time of construction may vary from those recorded in this investigation. 3.4 Frost Susceptibility The surficial soils encountered at the site consist of silt. The qualitative frost susceptibility of a soil is typically assessed using guidelines developed by Casagrande (1932) on the basis of the percentage by weight of the soil finer than 0.02 mm and plasticity index. This classification system has been adapted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM, 2006). Soils are classified as F1 through F4 in order of increasing frost susceptibility and loss of strength during thaw. The soil units encountered at the site and their frost group classifications are summarized in Table 3-5. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 5

12 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Table 3-5: Frost Susceptibility Soil Unit USC Finer than 0.02 mm (%) Plasticity Index (%) Frost Group Silt ML - - F4 Generally, the surficial soils at this site were classified in the F4 frost group, which indicates the surficial soils are highly susceptible to frost. 3.5 Frost Penetration The surficial soil deposits in the Acheson, AB area are highly susceptible to frost action. The depth of frost penetration for soils can be determined using the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual guidelines. The depth of frost penetration for the surficial silt is summarized in Table 3-6. Table 3-6: Frost Penetration Depth Soil Unit Frost Penetration Depth (m) Silt 2.8 The frost penetration depths provided above are based on a uniform soil type with no insulation cover. In areas covered with turf or snow cover, the depth of frost penetration will be less. Conversely, if well graded granular backfill is used, the depth of frost penetration will be greater. The depth of frost penetration is dependent on the in situ moisture content, relative density, grain and pore sizes, and permeability of the soil. As a result, frost penetration is expected to vary across the site as the subsurface materials and temperatures vary. 3.6 Seismic Considerations The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM 2006) requires that loading due to earthquake shaking should be considered as an external load in the design of civil engineering structures. The earthquake loading at any given site is related to factors such as subsoil conditions and behaviour, magnitude, duration, and frequency content of strong ground motion and the probable intensity and likelihood of occurrence of an earthquake (i.e. seismic loads). The site soil classification was determined from the energy-corrected average standard penetration test value N 60 of 16.2 in testhole TH18-04 drilled to a depth of 29.8 mbgs. The site is classified as Class D based on the SPT results and according to Table 6.1A in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM, 2006). The typical soil profile for a Class D site consists of generally stiff soils with an average standard penetration resistance (N 60 ) between 4 and 34 blows. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 6

13 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 4. General Site Recommendations 4.1 General Site Assessment The proposed reservoir structure will be a reinforced concrete underground structure with the base at an approximate depth of 7 m to 8 m below the existing ground surface (EL.710 masl to 709 masl). Based on the findings of the testholes, the base of the reservoir is expected to be situated within the slightly plastic to non-plastic silt. Groundwater levels recorded in standpipe piezometers installed at the site ranged from Dry to 16.2 mbgs after completion of drilling, and ranged from Dry to 17.6 mbgs and Dry to 17.9 mbgs on October 17, 2018 and November 14, 2018, respectively. However, it is recommended a groundwater depth of between 3.0 mbgs (EL.714 masl) and 6.4 mbgs (EL masl) be used for preliminary design purposes as the measured groundwater levels are short term readings only. Additionally, it is recommended further groundwater monitoring events be carried out in the upcoming spring season and prior to the start of construction. The proposed reservoir and pumphouse development is considered feasible at the site, based on conditions encountered within the testholes. Geotechnical recommendations for preliminary design of the proposed development are included in the sections below. 4.2 Site Preparation The site should be stripped of all topsoil and other deleterious materials from beneath the footprint of the proposed reservoir and pumphouse structure. Fill required in establishing design grade elevations should consist of imported general engineered fill as discussed in Section 4.4. The soils encountered at this site were generally considered not suitable for use as backfill, site grading, or subgrade preparation, as the silty soils are unstable when wet, difficult to compact, and highly susceptible to frost heaving. 4.3 Excavations and Backfill Excavations are expected to be required for reservoir and pumphouse foundations and underground utility trenches. All excavations should be carried out in accordance with applicable Occupational Health and Safety regulations. Temporary cut slopes, less than 3.0 m high in silt should have side slopes cut no steeper than 2H:1V. Temporary cut slopes exceeding 3.0 m in silt should have side slopes cut no steeper than 3H:1V. Flatter short-term cut slopes may be required in localized zones where groundwater seepage is encountered. Permanent cut slopes in silt should be set at an inclination no steeper than 4H:1V. If cut slopes were to extend below the groundwater table flowing silts and unstable conditions would likely be encountered. In such cases, relatively flat excavations of 5H:1V in combination with free-draining gravel buttresses placed over a geotextile separator would be required in the seepage zones. The thickness of the free-draining material should be at least 500 mm. Based on the subsurface conditions in the testholes, appreciable groundwater seepage flow from the sides and the base of the excavation may not be expected. If seepage is encountered in the excavation extending through the silt, a new work perimeter drainage ditch or another dewatering method will be required. The contractor will be responsible for designing and implementing a dewatering system that maintains a dry subgrade. Grading should be undertaken so that surface water is not allowed to pond adjacent to the excavation. Temporary surcharge loads, such as construction materials and equipment, should not be allowed within 1.5 m (or the depth of the excavation, whichever is greater) of an unsupported excavated face. Vehicles delivering materials should be kept back from the edge of the excavation by at least one-half of the depth of excavation. All excavations should be checked regularly for signs of sloughing, especially after periods of rain. Small earth or rock falls from the side slopes are a potential source of danger to workers and must be guarded against. The base of the excavation should be protected from frost during construction of the foundation. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 7

14 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 4.4 General Engineered Fill Unless recommended otherwise, backfill should consist of general engineered fill consisting of low to medium plastic clay or clay till. The native silt encountered at site is primarily low plastic, and therefore considered not suitable for use as backfill at this site. The general engineered fill should be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD), and within ± 2% of the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), with the exception of below foundations or floor slabs. All fill placed below foundations, floor slabs or other settlement sensitive structures should be compacted to 100% of the SPMDD, and within ± 2% of the OMC. Placement of backfill material should not exceed 150 mm in compacted thickness. Organic material and frozen soil should not be used as backfill. 4.5 Structural Fill Structural fill should be used under foundations, floor slabs, or any other settlement sensitive structures. Structural fill should consist of well graded, crushed gravel with less than 10% fines (silt and clay), and a maximum particle size of 20 mm. The structural fill should be compacted to 100% of the SPMDD, and within ± 2% of the OMC and placed in lifts not exceeding 150 mm in compacted thickness. The structural fill should extend on each side of the foundation or floor slab a minimum distance of 500 mm. Recommended gradation for crushed gravel is provided in Table 4-1. The supplied material should comply with Engineering Design Standards. Table 4-1: Recommended Gradation for Crushed Gravel ( Engineering Design Standards, Section 7.4.3) Metric Sieve (mm) Percentage Passing by Mass to to to to to to to to to Bedding Bedding should be used under buried pipes, utility services, and insulation. The minimum thickness of the bedding material should be 100 mm below and around the pipe, and 300 mm above the pipe. A nonwoven geotextile fabric should be placed between the foundation soils and the bedding material. The bedding layer should be placed as uniformly as possible to the required density, except that loose, uncompacted material should be placed under the middle third of the pipe, prior to placement of the pipe. Bedding should be compacted to 95% of the SPMDD, and within ± 2% of the OMC, and placed in lifts not exceeding 150 mm in compacted thickness, unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer. Typical gradation for bedding is provided in Table 4-2. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 8

15 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Table 4-2: Recommended Gradation for Bedding ( Engineering Design Standards, Section 4.5.7) Metric Sieve (mm) Percentage Passing by Mass to to to to to to 10 RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 9

16 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 5. Reservoir and Pumphouse Building Recommendations 5.1 General It is understood that the development will consist of a reservoir structure and a pumphouse. The reservoir will be founded at a depth of approximately 7 m to 8 m below grade (EL. 710 masl to 709 masl). Several foundation alternatives are suitable for these structures, including both shallow and deep foundations. The foundation type selected depends on foundation depths, expected loads, allowable soil bearing capacity, and the groundwater table level. 5.2 Shallow Foundations Shallow foundations are considered feasible for this development, provided these foundation types are founded below the frost zone. Raft foundations may be considered suitable for the reservoir structure. It is recommended that raft foundations be founded within one soil type to minimize the potential for differential settlements. Raft foundations may be designed using an allowable net bearing capacity value of 125 KPa and a modulus of subgrade reaction, k s, of 13,500 kn/m 3 at depths below ground surface of approximately 7 to 8 mbgs (EL. 710 masl to 709 masl). Friction between the subgrade and foundation of reservoir structure can be calculated as follows: F = σ v tan (0.66 φ') where: F = Friction between base of reservoir and subgrade σ v = Vertical effective stress on the subgrade φ' = Internal friction angle (use 27 for silt) The reservoir will be constructed at a depth below the existing grade such that the weight of the excavated soil will approach or even be greater than the weight of the structure. Hence a major portion of the settlement of the reservoir would be due to the recompression of the base heave which would occur during the excavation. For preliminary design purposes, assuming a reservoir depth of about 7 to 8 m below grade (EL. 710 masl to 709 masl), the total settlement is not expected to exceed 30 mm. This settlement will mostly occur through loading during construction rather than long term settlement. Differential settlements are typically half to three quarters of the total settlement noted above if rafts are supported with relatively uniform subgrade soil. Differential settlements could be highly variable if the reservoir structure is supported on different subgrade soils. The base of raft excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of all loosened or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. A lean concrete pad about 75 mm to 100 mm thick may be used to protect the bearing surface from disturbance during the period between completion of excavation and casting of the raft foundation. If a satisfactory bearing surface cannot be attained, a 150 mm thick layer of well graded 20 mm minus crushed gravel should be placed and compacted to a minimum of 100% of SPMDD, as discussed in Section 4.5. Rafts should be adequately reinforced to allow the structure to settle uniformly and maintain structural integrity. Flexible connections should be provided from the structure to all connected piping to accommodate differential settlements. It is anticipated that where pipe connections enter the reservoir or the pumphouse building, additional settlement will occur due to the greater thickness of overlying backfill. It is recommended that lean mix RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 10

17 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation concrete be placed beneath the piping within the trench zone at the entrance into the reservoir excavation. 5.3 Deep Foundations Based on the subsurface conditions at this location, driven steel H piles or closed end steel pipe piles are considered suitable pile types to support the reservoir and pumphouse building foundation loads. Drilled cast-in-place concrete piles are not considered at this time due to the presence of slightly plastic to non-plastic soils at this site (silt). A temporary casing will be required for the installation of such piles. Should drilled cast-in-place concrete piles be considered, recommendations for this foundation type can be provided upon request Driven Steel Piles If closed end pipe piles are used, some densification of the silt may be achieved due to displacement during driving, resulting in more favourable skin friction values. Driven steel piles may be designed to carry compressive loading on the basis of the allowable skin friction and end bearing resistance given in Table 5-1 below. Table 5-1: Design Parameters for Driven Steel Piles Depth (m) Soil End Bearing Pressure (kpa) Skin Friction (kpa) Ultimate Factored Ultimate Factored 0 to 1.5 Topsoil / Silt to 16.0 Silt Below 16.0 Silt 1, The following is recommended for driven steel pile installation: For pipe piles, only the exterior surface area of the pile in contact with the soil should be used in the calculation of the frictional resistance. For steel H-piles, the surface area should include the exterior sides of the two flanges plus twice the depth of the web. In calculating frictional resistance for a steel H section, the gross area at the tip may be taken as the cross-section of a rectangle bounded by the flanges. For a pipe pile, the gross area may be taken as that enclosed by the outer diameter of the pile section. The vertical load capacity of steel piles, determined using the recommended shaft friction and end bearing parameters, should be limited to no more than cross-sectional area of steel multiplied by 0.35 f y, where f y is the yield strength of the steel. Steel piles should be driven with a piling hammer of appropriate size and rated energy, depending on the pile design load requirements. As a guideline, a minimum energy of 300 J per blow per square centimetre of steel pile cross sectional area is recommended for lightly loaded piles and 500 J per blow per square centimetre of steel pile cross sectional area for heavily loaded piles. The maximum driving energy should not exceed 630 J per blow per square centimetre of steel cross-sectional area to avoid damage of the pile section. To limit structural damage to the pile, piles should not be driven beyond practical refusal, which may be taken as 10 to 12 blows per 25 mm penetration for the last 250 mm of penetration for the recommended hammer energies. This criterion is a preliminary guide to estimate the size of pile driving hammer that may be required for construction. The ability of a pile driving hammer to drive the proposed piles to the required capacity should be confirmed using wave equation analysis (GRLWEAP software) once the details regarding the proposed hammer configuration and the pile size is known. The required termination criteria should also be determined using wave equation analysis once the hammer energies, hammer type and pile details are known. A minimum centre-to-centre pile spacing should be three pile diameters or three pile flange widths. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 11

18 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Heave of adjacent piles is a concern where groups of piles are installed at about 3D spacing or less and should be monitored throughout the driving. All piles indicating heave should be re-driven. When piles are re-driven, they should achieve additional penetration approximately equal to the amount of heave originally recorded. Prior to the pile installation, the piles should be inspected to confirm that the material specifications are satisfied. The piles should be free from protrusions, including protruding welds which could create voids in the soil around the pile during driving. If a driving shoe is used, it must not protrude beyond the outside diameter of the pile. Monitoring of the pile installation by qualified personnel is recommended to verify that the piles are installed in accordance with design assumptions. For each pile, a complete pile driving record in terms of the number of blows per 250 mm of penetration and the final set of the pile should be recorded by inspector and reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. The minimum, embedment depth of the piles into the silt to resist frost jacking forces should be determined based on the adfreeze stresses and the pile diameter. The ultimate average adfreeze stresses acting along the pile shafts and on the sides of the pile caps and grade beams may be taken as 65 kpa for the frost penetration depth, which for design purposes may be taken as 2.8 m from finished grade. Frost adfreeze stresses exert upward forces on the pile shaft, which are counteracted by the dead weight of the structure plus the skin friction below the frost penetration depth Lateral Load Capacity for Piles Lateral load capacity will depend on pile stiffness and the geotechnical engineering properties of the native or backfill soil within the upper few metres of the pile. Detailed lateral pile capacities can be provided once the design grades, pile types, pile layout and nature of the backfill have been determined. Lateral pile capacity can be calculated using spring constants called the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (k s ). The following methods of estimating k s have been used successfully where full-scale pile load test data is not available. If lateral deflections are the limiting factor in the overall pile design, it is recommended to conduct full-scale lateral pile load tests to verify the coefficient of subgrade reaction values for this site. For cohesionless soils (sand, silt, and sand and gravel), k s can be estimated using the following equation: k s = n h z/d (MN/m 3 ) where: z = Pile embedment depth (m) d = Pile diameter (m) The values for the factor n h for cohesionless soils are summarized in the table below. Table 5-2: Values of n h for Cohesionless Soils 1 Soil Condition 1) n h (MN/M Above Groundwater Table Below Groundwater Table Loose Compact Dense Values excerpted from Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (Terzaghi, 1955). The soil stratigraphy was generally consistent across the site. Calculations for the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction along the length of the pile, used in determining lateral pile deformations will likely only include the cohesionless soil parameters described above. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 12

19 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 5.4 Subsurface Drainage If foundations or sumps are founded below the groundwater table, placement of a sub-drain (weeping tile system) below the base of foundation will be required to provide drainage and reduce potential adfreeze forces. The drainage system must maintain the groundwater level at or below the base of the foundation. Permanent structures founded below the groundwater table should either be designed to resist the potential hydraulic uplift pressures, or alternatively should have a subsurface drainage system below the foundation or around the perimeter walls to drain water away from the foundations. A higher groundwater table would be expected during spring and upon melting of snow. A subsurface drainage system may be provided to prevent buildup of hydrostatic uplift pressures on the base of the foundation during periods of high groundwater. The recommended approach for permanent subsurface drainage where required is to provide a gravel drainage layer around the perimeter walls and below the base of foundation to collect water. The subgrade should be sloped to drain subsurface water towards permanent drains and sumps. The collected water should be directed to the site drainage system or to a sump for collection and discharge. A minimum thickness of between 300 mm and 1000 mm of free draining gravel with less than 5% passing sieve No. 200 should be used under the base of foundations and behind the walls. It is recommended that a non-woven geotextile be placed directly over the prepared subgrade and at the interface around perimeter wall drainage layer to provide separation between the subgrade and drainage gravel layer and to prevent clogging of the gravel. It is recommended that further monitoring of groundwater levels to be carried out after completion of the site grading works to measure the depth of groundwater below the finished grade. 5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures The reservoir walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures in an "at-rest" condition. This condition assumes a triangular pressure distribution with no hydrostatic pressure and may be calculated using the following equation: P o = k o (γh + q) P o = Lateral earth pressure "at-rest" condition (no wall movement occurs at a given depth) k o = Coefficient of earth pressure "at-rest" condition (use 0.55 for silt and 0.5 for sand and gravel backfill) γ o = Bulk unit weight of backfill soil (use 19 kn/m 3 for cohesive fill and 20 kn/m 3 for granular fill above the groundwater table, and use unit weights of 9 and 10 kn/m 3 for cohesive and granular fill, respectively, below the groundwater table) H = Depth below final grade (m) q = Surcharge pressure at ground level (kpa) Backfill around concrete reservoir walls should not commence before the concrete has reached adequate strength and/or the walls are laterally braced. Only hand operated compaction equipment should be used within 600 mm of the concrete walls. When backfill is compacted, caution should be used to avoid high lateral loads caused by excessive compaction. To avoid differential wall pressures, the backfill should be brought up evenly around the reservoir walls. The upper 0.4 m of backfill should consist of compacted cohesive soil to prevent infiltration of surficial water into foundation soils and backfilled material. Final grades should be established to accommodate settlements in the order of 2% to 5% of the height of backfill around the reservoir walls. Positive drainage away from the structure should be maintained. A geotechnical engineer should be present during excavation and backfilling to confirm soil conditions, and to confirm that the backfill is placed according to the specification. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 13

20 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 5.6 Buoyant Uplift Based on groundwater observations completed on October 17, 2018 and November 14, 2018, the depth of the groundwater table ranged from dry to 16.2 to 17.9 mbgs. However, it is possible that higher shortterm water levels will be encountered after periods of increased precipitation. The magnitude of hydrostatic uplift forces applied to below grade structures should be calculated, assuming that the groundwater table is at an elevation of 3.0 mbgs (EL.714 masl) to 6.4 mbgs (EL masl). The hydrostatic pressure may be calculated using the following equation: P w = w H w where: P w = Hydrostatic pressure (kpa) γ w = Unit weight of water (9.8 kn/m 3 ) H w = Depth below top of water table (m) Given that the reservoir will be relatively large and constructed of concrete, buoyancy forces will likely not have much of an effect on the structure when it is full. However, when empty, the magnitude of the buoyancy forces will impact the structure. Buoyancy forces should be determined using the following equation: U = w V s where: U = Hydrostatic uplift force (kn) w = Unit weight of water (9.8 kn/m 3 ) V s = Volume of structure below the groundwater table (m³) Buoyant uplift forces may be resisted by the mass of the structure, or by extending the base of the slab beyond the walls of the structure, such that the mass of the soils above the projection are used to resist uplift forces. If an extended base is considered, uplift resistance due to the weight of the soil above the projected slab may be determined as follows: R ss = AWH ' where: R ss = Total allowable resistance due to weight of soil (kn) A = Perimeter of reservoir walls (m) W = Width of projected base slab beyond reservoir walls (m) H = Height between top-of-slab and ground surface (m) ' = Submerged unit weight of soil (kn/m 3 ) RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 14

21 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Uplift resistance due to shearing through the soil may be assumed to have a triangular distribution as determined by the following equation: R s = (k o 'dtanφ')/fs where: R s = Allowable shearing resistance (kpa) k o = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (0.5) ' = Submerged unit weight of soil (kn/m 3 ) d = Depth below final ground level (m) φ' = Friction angle of backfill (assume 20 for cohesive fill and 30 for granular fill) FS = Factor of Safety (minimum of 2.0) 5.7 Grading and Drainage Excess water should be drained from the site as quickly as possible both during and after construction. The finished grade should be laid out so that surface waters are drained away from buildings and other structures. Landscaping should be designed such that surface water is prevented from ponding beside buildings. In the development area, the landscaping should maintain a minimum grade of 2%, while around the building area the minimum grade should be 5%. Within 2 m of the building and of other structure perimeters, the hard surfacing should be graded to slope away from the building at a gradient of at least 2%. Asphalt pavement areas should be provided with a minimum grade of 1% and gravel pavements should be provided with a minimum grade of 2% to promote runoff and minimize ponding. 5.8 Geochemistry Attack on Foundations Selected samples of the near-surface soils encountered at the site were subjected to chemical analysis for the purpose of corrosion assessment. The samples were tested for ph, resistivity, soluble sulphates, and soluble chlorides. The water soluble sulphate contents were determined in the laboratory to be less than 0.05%. Based on CSA A , the potential for sulphate exposure is classified as negligible. Since sulphate content may vary across the site, it is recommended to use Type HS sulphate resistant Portland cement for foundation concrete and concrete exposed to soil and groundwater. All concrete work should be performed in accordance with applicable specifications. Higher strength and lower water to cement ratios may be required due to structural considerations or for exposure to de-icing chemicals. A water soluble chloride content of less than 20 ppm is generally considered non-corrosive to reinforced concrete. The ph and conductivity were determined on the same soil samples submitted for sulphate content determination. Analytical ph results indicate that the soils are of neutral to moderate corrosivity to buried ferrous metals. Resistivity results also show that the on-site soils have the potential to be moderately corrosive to corrosive towards ferrous metals. This should be considered in the design. RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 15

22 Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation 6. References Airforce Manual (1987) Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade Subjected to Heavy Loads. U.S. Departments of the Army and the Air Force. Andriashek, L.D., Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Edmonton Map Area, NTS 83H, Alberta Research Council, Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, Third Edition, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), 4 th Edition, Casagrande, A. (1932). A new Theory on Frost Heaving, Highway Research Board, (HRB). Proceedings, No.11, pp Ceroici, W., Hydrogeology of the Southwest Segment, Edmonton Area, Alberta, Earth Sciences Report 78-5, Prior G.J., et. al. (2013). Bedrock Geology of Alberta. Alberta. Geological Survey. Roberge, P. R. (2000). Handbook of Corrosion Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill. Terzaghi, K., Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, Geotechnique Vol. 5, No. 4, aecom.com RPT Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion AECOM 16

23 Appendix A Testhole Location Plan

24 P UG ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm P P P P P N PP TOWNSHIP RD. 530 PP N ACHESON SITE LOCATION Last saved by: EROSC( ) Last Plotted: Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: Filename: P:\ \900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\30-FIGURES\B\00\ FIG B-0001.DWG FO FO UG FO FO UG X X X X X UG UG FO X UG SITE PLAN X UG X X TH18-02 TH18-04 TH m 1:1000 UG UG X X TH18-01 TH18-03 UG X X UG X X 2018 Microsoft Corporation 2018 DigitalGlobe CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS UG X X X X X X X UG UG X RANGE RD. 262 X X X HIGHWAY 60 LEGEND: HIGHWAY 16A 2018 Microsoft Corporation 2018 DigitalGlobe CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS LOCATION PLAN m 1:15000 TESTHOLE LOCATION Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Project No.: Date: TESTHOLE LOCATION PLAN Figure 1

25 ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm N Last saved by: EROSC( ) Last Plotted: Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: Filename: P:\ \900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\30-FIGURES\B\00\ FIG B-0002.DWG SITE LOCATION LACUSTRINE DEPOSIT: sand, silt and clay, with local ice-rafted stones; up to 80 m thick; deposited mainly in proglacial lakes, but includes also undifferentiated recent lake sediment; flat to gently undulating topography. Coarse sediment: sand and silt; undulating surface in places modified by wind. Fine sediment: silt and clay; flat to gently undulating surface. ICE-CONTACT LACUSTRINE AND FLUVIAL DEPOSITS, UNDIVIDED: gravel, sand, silt and clay, local till; up to 25 m thick; deposited in intermittent supraglacial lakes and streams, or at margins of ice-floored proglacial lakes; undulating to hummocky topography. GLACIAL DEPOSIT (Units 9 through 12a): till consisting of unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel, with local water-sorted material and bedrock; the thickness is generally less than 25 m on uplands, but may reach as much as 100 m in buried valleys; flat, undulating, hummocky or ridged topography. Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Project No.: Date: QUATERNARY GEOLOGY (Central Alberta Map) 0 1: m Figure 2

26 ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm Last saved by: EROSC( ) Last Plotted: Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: Filename: P:\ \900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\30-FIGURES\B\00\ FIG B-0003.DWG SITE LOCATION UPPER CRETACEOUS and PALEOGENE Edmonton Group SCOLLARD FORMATION: generally fine-grained, commonly cross-stratified, light grey to buff sandstone and pale to dark grey, sandy to silty mudstone; thick coal seams and carbonaceous mudstone intervals in upper part; nonmarine UPPER CRETACEOUS BATTLE FORMATION: dark grey to purplish-black silty mudstone with thin, pale grey, siliceous beds in upper part; discontinuous due to erosion; nonmarine HORSESHOE CANYON FORMATION: pale grey, fine- to very fine grained, feldspathic sandstone interbedded with siltstone, bentonitic mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone, concretionary sideritic layers, and laterally continuous coal seams; includes white, pedogenically altered sandstone and mudstone interval at top (formerly assigned to the Whitemud Formation); nonmarine to locally marginal marine BEARPAW FORMATION: dominantly dark grey to brown-grey mudstone with concretionary sideritic and bentonite concretionary layers; concretions locally yield ammonities; marine to marginal marine Belly River Group BELLY RIVER GROUP (undivided): fine- to coarse-grained sandstone; grey to brown carbonaceous siltstone; coal; marginal marine to nonmarine Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Project No.: Date: BEDROCK GEOLOGY (Bedrock Geology of Alberta, Alberta Geological Survey) 0 1: N m Figure 3

27 Appendix B Testhole Logs

28

29 1. Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data The field and laboratory test results, as shown on the logs, are briefly described below. 1.1 Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits The relationship between the natural moisture content and depth is significant in determining the subsurface moisture conditions. The Atterberg Limits for a sample should be compared to the natural moisture content and should be on the Plasticity Chart in order to determine their classification. 1.2 Soil Profile and Description Each soil stratum is classified and described noting any special conditions. The Modified Unified Soils Classification System (MUSCS) is used. The soil profile refers to the existing ground level. When available, the existing ground elevation is shown. The soil symbols used are shown in detail on the soil classification chart. 1.3 Tests on Soil Samples Laboratory and field tests on the logs are identified by the following: N SO 4 (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Count) - The SPT is conducted in the field to assess the in situ consistency of cohesive soils and the relative density of non-cohesive soils. The N value recorded is the number of blows from a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 mm which is required to drive a 51 mm split spoon sampler 300 mm into the soil. (Water Soluble Sulphate Content) - Conducted primarily to determine requirements for the use of sulphate resistant cement. Further details on the water soluble sulphate content are given in Section 1.6. D (Dry Unit Weight) kn/m 3 and T (Total Unit Weight) kn/m 3. Q U C U C PEN (Unconfined Compressive Strength) kpa - May be used in determining allowable bearing capacity of the soil. (Undrained Shear Strength) kpa - This value is determined by an unconfined compression test and may also be used in determining the allowable bearing capacity of the soil. (Pocket Penetrometer Reading) kpa - Estimate of the undrained shear strength as determined by a pocket penetrometer. The following tests may also be performed on selected soil samples and the results are given on the borehole logs: Grain Size Analysis; Standard or Modified Proctor Compaction Test; California Bearing Ratio; Unconfined Compression Test; Permeability Test; Consolidation Test; Triaxial Test efltd-aecom 1 Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data January 2009

30 1.4 Soil Density and Consistency The SPT test described above may be used to estimate the consistency of cohesive soils and the density of cohesionless soils. These approximate relationships are summarized in the following tables: Table 1.1 Cohesive Soils N Consistency C U (kpa) (approx.) 0-1 Very Soft < Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard >60 Very Hard >300 N Table 1.2 Cohesionless Soils Density 0-5 Very Loose 5-10 Loose Compact Dense >50 Very Dense 1.5 Sample Condition and Type The depth, type, and condition of samples are indicated on the borehole logs by the following symbols: Grab Sample Shelby Tube SPT Sample A-Casing No Recovery Core Sample efltd-aecom 2 Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data January 2009

31 1.6 Water Soluble Sulphate Concentration The following table from CSA Standard A indicates the requirements for concrete subjected to sulphate attack based upon the percentage of water soluble sulphate as presented on the borehole logs. CSA Standard A should be read in conjunction with the table. Class of Exposure Degree of Exposure Table 1.3 Requirements for Concrete Subjected to Sulphate Attack Water-Soluble Sulphate (SO 4) in Soil Sample % Sulphate (SO 4) in Groundwater Samples mg/l Minimum Specified 28 d Compressive Strength MPa Maximum Water/ Cementing Materials Ratio Portland Cement to be Used S-1 Very severe over 2.0 over 10, S-2 Severe ,500-10, S-3 Moderate , ,40, or 50 * For sea water exposure see Clause 15.4 See Clause See Clause Type 20 cement with moderate sulphate resistance (see Clause 3.1.2) 1.7 Groundwater Table The groundwater table is indicated by the equilibrium level of standing water in a standpipe installed in a borehole. This level is generally taken at least 24 hours after installation of the standpipe. The groundwater level is subject to seasonal variations and its highest level usually occurs in spring. The symbol on the borehole logs indicating the groundwater level is an inverted solid triangle ( ). efltd-aecom 3 Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data January 2009

32 AECOM Canada Ltd. General Statement; Normal Variability Of Subsurface Conditions The scope of the investigation presented herein is limited to an investigation of the subsurface conditions as to suitability of the site for the proposed project. This report has been prepared to aid in the general evaluation of the site and to assist the design engineer in the conceptual design for the area. The description of the project presented in this report represents the understanding by the geotechnical engineer of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of the subdivision, infrastructure and similar. In the event of any changes in the basic design or location of the structures, as outlined in this report or plan, AECOM should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The analysis and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the test holes drilled at the locations indicated on the site plans and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere on the site are not significantly different from those encountered at the test locations. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the test holes and, also, general groundwater levels and condition may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions, different from those encountered in the test holes are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present beneath or beyond the excavation, AECOM should be advised at once so that the conditions can be observed and reviewed and the recommendations reconsidered where necessary. Since it is possible for conditions to vary from those identified at the test locations and from those assumed in the analysis and preparation of recommendations, a contingency fund should be included in the construction budget to allow for the possibility of variations which may result in modifications of the design and construction procedures.

33 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-01 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 0 OR TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, black SILT - trace clay, trace fine-grained sand, loose, non-plastic, oxidized, humid, brown compact loose - increasing fine-grained sand content ML LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: compact - some clay layers to 6.9 mbgs - sandy, some clay LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault Sample 10: Chlorides - <20 mg/l Sulphate Content - <0.050% ph Resistivity ohm-cm Sample 12: Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index - 2.0% Gravel - 0.0% Sand % Silt % Clay % COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 1 of 2

34 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-01 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) ML END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mbgs - no groundwater or sloughing encountered upon drilling completion - 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mbgs - no groundwater encontered on October 17, no groundwater encontered on November 14, LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 2 of 2

35 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-02 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 0 OR TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, black SILT - some clay, trace to some fine-grained sand, very loose, oxidized, damp, brown some clay, low plasticity, moist loose ML 712 LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: some sand, some clay, compact LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault Sample 10: Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index - 3.0% Gravel - 0.0% Sand % Silt % Clay % COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 1 of 2

36 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-02 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) ML END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mbgs - no groundwater or sloughing encountered upon drilling completion - 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mbgs - trace groundwater encontered at the bottom of well on October 17, trace groundwater encontered at the bottom of well on November 14, LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 2 of 2

37 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-03 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 0 OR TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, black SILT - trace to some fine sand, trace clay, very loose, damp, some oxidized laminations, light brown loose ML 712 LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: sandy, some clay, loose - trace clay layering, increasing clay content - compact - some sand laminations, increasing sand content LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault Sample 10: Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index - 2.1% Gravel - 0.0% Sand % Silt % Clay % COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 1 of 2

38 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-03 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) ML END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mbgs - no groundwater or sloughing upon drilling completion - 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mbgs - no groundwater encontered on October 17, no groundwater encontered on November 14, LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 2 of 2

39 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-04 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): 717 SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 0 OR TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, black SILT - trace to some fine-grained sand, trace clay, very loose, damp, some oxidized laminations, light brown loose ML - moist 712 LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: increasing sand content - compact LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault Sample 14: COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/15/2018 Page 1 of 4

40 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-04 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): 717 SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) Chlorides - <20 mg/l Sulphate Content - <0.050% ph Resistivity ohm - cm trace of clay layering, trace coal sandy, silty, some clay Sample 18: Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index - 1.6% Gravel - 0.0% Sand % Silt % Clay % LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: ML - increasing clay layering, wet layer of silt (squeezing) - dense - trace groundwater LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault Sample 21: Chlorides - <20 mg/l Sulphate Content - <0.050% ph Resistivity ohm-cm COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/15/2018 Page 2 of 4

41 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-04 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): 717 SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 20 - some fine-grained sand, saturated, some groundwater ML LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: grey END OF TESTHOLE AT 29.8 mbgs LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/15/2018 Page 3 of 4

42 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-04 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): 717 SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 30 - groundwater and sloughing at 16.2 mbgs upon drilling completion - 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 22.9 mbgs - groundwater encountered at 17.6 mbgs on October 17, groundwater encountered at 17.9 mbgs on November 14, LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/15/2018 Page 4 of 4

43 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-05 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) 0 OR TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, black SILT - trace fine-grained sand, trace clay, non-plastic, compact, oxidized, humid, brown ML - some clay - increasing fine-grained sand Sample 6: Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index - 7.3% Gravel - 0.0% Sand - 2.2% Silt % Clay % 712 LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: some clay layers to 6.9 mbgs - compact LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 1 of 2

44 PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd. CLIENT: COORDINATES: UTM N E METHOD: Solid Stem Augers TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-05 PROJECT NO.: ELEVATION (m): SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SHELBY TUBE SPLIT SPOON BULK NO RECOVERY CORE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT CUTTINGS SAND DEPTH (m) USC SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE # SPT (N) SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm) PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID COMMENTS ELEVATION (m) ML END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mbgs - no groundwater or sloughing upon drilling completion - 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mbgs - no groundwater encontered on October 17, trace groundwater encontered at the bottom of well on November 14, LOG OF TESTHOLE ACHESON RESIVOIR.GPJ UMA_COC.GDT PRINT: 11/20/18 By: LOGGED BY: Pat Eckel REVIEWED BY: Brian Nguyen PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Casault COMPLETION DEPTH: m COMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018 Page 2 of 2

45 Appendix C Laboratory Testing Results

46 WATER CONTENT (ASTM D2216) CLIENT: PROJECT: JOB No.: DATE : Acheson Reservoir September 28, 2018 TECHNICAN : GU/CK HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 7.9% 9.9% 11.4% 10.4% 18.3% 15.3% 6.9% 9.4% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 16.2% 14.1% 10.2% 10.1% 9.8% 9.6% 16.5% 12.7% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 26.3% 13.5% 21.0% 16.2% 18.5% 18.1% 9.1% 12.0% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 12.8% 10.7% 9.7% 9.8% 10.0% 20.5% 15.0% 25.9% FORM : Acheson Reservoir Moistures.xls DATE: 9/28/2018

47 WATER CONTENT (ASTM D2216) CLIENT: PROJECT: JOB No.: DATE : Acheson Reservoir September 28, 2018 TECHNICAN : GU/CK HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 18.8% 20.3% 24.5% 29.2% 23.0% 11.1% 24.1% 16.1% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 12.6% 11.8% 13.0% 24.5% 17.2% 17.0% 12.0% 17.1% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 24.4% 17.9% 22.5% 21.0% 14.0% 14.5% 12.7% 13.1% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 10.3% 13.1% 8.8% 11.2% 10.9% 13.8% 20.0% 20.6% FORM : Acheson Reservoir Moistures.xls DATE: 9/28/2018

48 WATER CONTENT (ASTM D2216) CLIENT: PROJECT: JOB No.: DATE : Acheson Reservoir September 28, 2018 TECHNICAN : GU/CK HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 20.2% 24.5% 28.5% 25.8% 27.3% 23.4% 22.2% 27.0% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 25.6% 23.5% 29.9% 30.9% 29.9% 23.8% 26.3% 22.6% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 21.2% 24.5% 15.3% 16.9% 16.8% 11.6% 14.7% 23.6% HOLE No DEPTH SAMPLE No TARE No. WT. SAMPLE WET + TARE WT. SAMPLE DRY + TARE WT. TARE WATER CONTENT W% 18.7% 19.8% 14.6% 17.0% 13.3% 15.9% 17.2% 13.0% FORM : Acheson Reservoir Moistures.xls DATE: 9/28/2018

49 ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) CLIENT : PROJECT : JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : Trial No. Number of Blows Container Number Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) Wt. Dry Soil (g) Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) Acheson Reservoir October 1, 2018 AVERAGE VALUES % Liquid Limit 21.8 Trial No. 1 Plastic Limit 19.8 Plasticity Index 2.0 Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LIQUID LIMIT Container Number Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) SAMPLE: Classification: ML Wt. Dry Soil (g) 17.1 Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : 12 GU PLASTIC LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX CH CI MH CL CL-ML ML LIQUID LIMIT FORM: Acheson Reservoir #12 Atterberg.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

50 ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) CLIENT : PROJECT : JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : Trial No. Number of Blows Container Number Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) Wt. Dry Soil (g) Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) Acheson Reservoir October 1, 2018 AVERAGE VALUES % Liquid Limit 24.9 Trial No. 1 Plastic Limit 21.8 Plasticity Index 3.0 Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LIQUID LIMIT Container Number Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) SAMPLE: Classification: ML Wt. Dry Soil (g) 15.2 Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : 10 GU PLASTIC LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX CH CI MH CL CL-ML ML LIQUID LIMIT FORM: Acheson Reservoir #10 Atterberg.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

51 ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) CLIENT : PROJECT : JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : Trial No. Number of Blows Container Number Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) Wt. Dry Soil (g) Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) Acheson Reservoir October 1, 2018 AVERAGE VALUES % Liquid Limit 23.8 Trial No. 1 Plastic Limit 21.7 Plasticity Index 2.1 Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LIQUID LIMIT Container Number Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) SAMPLE: Classification: ML Wt. Dry Soil (g) 14.4 Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : 10 GU PLASTIC LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX CH CI MH CL CL-ML ML LIQUID LIMIT FORM: Acheson Reservoir #10 Atterberg.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

52 ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) CLIENT : PROJECT : JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : Trial No. Number of Blows Container Number Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) Wt. Dry Soil (g) Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) Acheson Reservoir October 1, 2018 AVERAGE VALUES % Liquid Limit 20.7 Trial No. 1 Plastic Limit 19.2 Plasticity Index 1.6 Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LIQUID LIMIT Container Number Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) SAMPLE: Classification: ML Wt. Dry Soil (g) 17.2 Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : 18 GU PLASTIC LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX CH CI MH CL CL-ML ML LIQUID LIMIT FORM: Acheson Reservoir #18 Atterberg.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

53 ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) CLIENT : PROJECT : JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : Trial No. Number of Blows Container Number Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) Wt. Dry Soil (g) Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) Acheson Reservoir October 1, 2018 AVERAGE VALUES % Liquid Limit 31.3 Trial No. 1 Plastic Limit 24.0 Plasticity Index 7.3 Wt. Sample (wet+tare)(g) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LIQUID LIMIT Container Number Wt. Sample (dry+tare)(g) Wt. Tare (g) SAMPLE: Classification: ML Wt. Dry Soil (g) 13.4 Wt. Water (g) Water Content (%) DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : 6 GU PLASTIC LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX CH CI MH CL CL-ML ML LIQUID LIMIT FORM: Acheson Reservoir #6 Atterberg.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

54 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT OF SAMPLE SIEVE NO. ( m) SIZE OF OPENING APPROX. mm SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : WEIGHT RETAINED (g) PERCENT RETAINED INCHES Before Washing 150, % 100% Wet + Tare 75, % 100% Dry+Tare , % 100% Tare , / % 100% Wt. Dry , % 100% Moisture Content 20,000 3/ % 100% Wet + Tare 16,000 5/ % 100% Dry+Tare 12,500 1/ % 100% Tare 10,000 3/ % 100% MC (%) 5, % 100% Passing After Washing 2, % 100.0% Wt. Dry+Tare 1, % 100.0% Tare % 100.0% Wt. Dry % 100.0% Tare No % 99.8% % 68.0% PAN HYDROMETER DATA READING TIME (min) DIAMETER (mm) TEMP. ( C) CORR. READING PERCENT FINER THAN Wt Dry+Tare % Wt Tare % Wt Dry % Sample Size : % Wt Retained 2 mm: % % Passing 2 mm: 100.0% % Specific Gravity : % Hydrometer No.: % Solution (g/l) : % % % 12 GU PERCENT FINER THAN REMARKS REMARKS FORM: Acheson Reservoir #12 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

55 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : SIZE OF OPENING Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 32.0% Silt = 54.6% Clay = 13.4% 12 GU 100% SIEVE SIZE (mm) % 80% 70% % FINER THAN 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% acobblesa Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine asilt or Claya FORM: Acheson Reservoir #12 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

56 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT OF SAMPLE SIEVE NO. ( m) SIZE OF OPENING APPROX. mm SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : WEIGHT RETAINED (g) PERCENT RETAINED INCHES Before Washing 150, % 100% Wet + Tare 75, % 100% Dry+Tare , % 100% Tare , / % 100% Wt. Dry , % 100% Moisture Content 20,000 3/ % 100% Wet + Tare 16,000 5/ % 100% Dry+Tare 12,500 1/ % 100% Tare 10,000 3/ % 100% MC (%) 5, % 100% Passing After Washing 2, % 100.0% Wt. Dry+Tare 1, % 100.0% Tare % 100.0% Wt. Dry % 100.0% Tare No % 99.8% % 82.2% PAN HYDROMETER DATA READING TIME (min) DIAMETER (mm) TEMP. ( C) CORR. READING PERCENT FINER THAN Wt Dry+Tare % Wt Tare % Wt Dry % Sample Size : % Wt Retained 2 mm: % % Passing 2 mm: 100.0% % Specific Gravity : % Hydrometer No.: % Solution (g/l) : % % % 10 GU PERCENT FINER THAN REMARKS REMARKS FORM: Acheson Reservoir #10 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

57 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : SIZE OF OPENING Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 17.8% Silt = 67.8% Clay = 14.4% 10 GU 100% SIEVE SIZE (mm) % 80% 70% % FINER THAN 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% acobblesa Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine asilt or Claya FORM: Acheson Reservoir #10 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

58 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT OF SAMPLE SIEVE NO. ( m) SIZE OF OPENING APPROX. mm SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : WEIGHT RETAINED (g) PERCENT RETAINED INCHES Before Washing 150, % 100% Wet + Tare 75, % 100% Dry+Tare , % 100% Tare , / % 100% Wt. Dry , % 100% Moisture Content 20,000 3/ % 100% Wet + Tare 16,000 5/ % 100% Dry+Tare 12,500 1/ % 100% Tare 10,000 3/ % 100% MC (%) 5, % 100% Passing After Washing 2, % 100.0% Wt. Dry+Tare 1, % 100.0% Tare % 100.0% Wt. Dry % 100.0% Tare No % 100.0% % 73.6% PAN HYDROMETER DATA READING TIME (min) DIAMETER (mm) TEMP. ( C) CORR. READING PERCENT FINER THAN Wt Dry+Tare % Wt Tare % Wt Dry % Sample Size : % Wt Retained 2 mm: % % Passing 2 mm: 100.0% % Specific Gravity : % Hydrometer No.: % Solution (g/l) : % % % 10 GU PERCENT FINER THAN REMARKS REMARKS FORM: Acheson Reservoir #10 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

59 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : SIZE OF OPENING Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 26.4% Silt = 61.7% Clay = 11.9% 10 GU 100% SIEVE SIZE (mm) % 80% 70% % FINER THAN 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% acobblesa Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine asilt or Claya FORM: Acheson Reservoir #10 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

60 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT OF SAMPLE SIEVE NO. ( m) SIZE OF OPENING APPROX. mm SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : WEIGHT RETAINED (g) PERCENT RETAINED INCHES Before Washing 150, % 100% Wet + Tare 75, % 100% Dry+Tare , % 100% Tare , / % 100% Wt. Dry , % 100% Moisture Content 20,000 3/ % 100% Wet + Tare 16,000 5/ % 100% Dry+Tare 12,500 1/ % 100% Tare 10,000 3/ % 100% MC (%) 5, % 100% Passing After Washing 2, % 100.0% Wt. Dry+Tare 1, % 100.0% Tare % 100.0% Wt. Dry % 100.0% Tare No % 99.4% % 55.0% PAN HYDROMETER DATA READING TIME (min) DIAMETER (mm) TEMP. ( C) CORR. READING PERCENT FINER THAN Wt Dry+Tare % Wt Tare % Wt Dry % Sample Size : % Wt Retained 2 mm: % % Passing 2 mm: 100.0% % Specific Gravity : % Hydrometer No.: % Solution (g/l) : % % % 18 GU PERCENT FINER THAN REMARKS REMARKS FORM: Acheson Reservoir #18 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

61 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : SIZE OF OPENING Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 45.0% Silt = 44.1% Clay = 10.9% 18 GU 100% SIEVE SIZE (mm) % 80% 70% % FINER THAN 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% acobblesa Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine asilt or Claya FORM: Acheson Reservoir #18 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

62 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT OF SAMPLE SIEVE NO. ( m) SIZE OF OPENING APPROX. mm SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : WEIGHT RETAINED (g) PERCENT RETAINED INCHES Before Washing 150, % 100% Wet + Tare 75, % 100% Dry+Tare , % 100% Tare , / % 100% Wt. Dry , % 100% Moisture Content 20,000 3/ % 100% Wet + Tare 16,000 5/ % 100% Dry+Tare 12,500 1/ % 100% Tare 10,000 3/ % 100% MC (%) 5, % 100% Passing After Washing 2, % 100.0% Wt. Dry+Tare 1, % 100.0% Tare % 100.0% Wt. Dry % 100.0% Tare No % 99.8% % 97.8% PAN HYDROMETER DATA READING TIME (min) DIAMETER (mm) TEMP. ( C) CORR. READING PERCENT FINER THAN Wt Dry+Tare % Wt Tare % Wt Dry % Sample Size : % Wt Retained 2 mm: % % Passing 2 mm: 100.0% % Specific Gravity : % Hydrometer No.: % Solution (g/l) : % % % 6 GU PERCENT FINER THAN REMARKS REMARKS FORM: Acheson Reservoir #6 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

63 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) CLIENT : PROJECT : Acheson Reservoir JOB No. : LOCATION : TESTHOLE: DATE : October 1, 2018 SAMPLE: DEPTH : TECHNICIAN : SIZE OF OPENING Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 2.2% Silt = 76.0% Clay = 21.8% 6 GU 100% SIEVE SIZE (mm) % 80% 70% % FINER THAN 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% acobblesa Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine asilt or Claya FORM: Acheson Reservoir #6 Hydro.xls DATE: 10/3/2018

64 AECOM Canada Ltd. ATTN: Chris Keeley Suite 300, 48 Quarry Park Blvd SE Calgary AB T2C 5P2 Date Received: Report Date: Version: 27-SEP OCT-18 15:46 (MT) FINAL Client Phone: Certificate of Analysis Lab Work Order #: L Project P.O. #: NOT SUBMITTED Job Reference: ACHESON RESERVOIR C of C Numbers: Legal Site Desc: Comments: Note: Total Sulphate Ion Content (SO4-T-CSA-A23-ED) results were <0.2% for all samples, therefore Water Soluble Sulphate Ion Content (SO4-S-CSA-A23-ED) not required for analysis. Nelson Kwan, B.Sc. Account Manager [This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written authority of the Laboratory.] ADDRESS: Street NE, Calgary, AB T1Y 7B5 Canada Phone: Fax: ALS CANADA LTD Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company

65 ACHESON RESERVOIR ALS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL REPORT L CONTD... PAGE 2 of 3 Version: FINAL Sample Details/Parameters Result Qualifier* D.L. Units Extracted Analyzed Batch L Sampled By: ACHESON RESERVOIR - TH18-01 #10 n/a on 25-SEP-18 Matrix: soil Miscellaneous Parameters % Saturation Chloride (Cl) Resistivity Sulfur (as SO4) Total Sulphate Ion Content ph in Saturated Paste Salinity in mg/kg Chloride (Cl) Sulfur (as SO4) 36.7 < < < % mg/l ohm cm mg/l % ph mg/kg mg/kg 15-OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT-18 R R R R R R L Sampled By: ACHESON RESERVOIR - TH18-04 #14 n/a on 25-SEP-18 Matrix: soil Miscellaneous Parameters % Saturation Chloride (Cl) Resistivity Sulfur (as SO4) Total Sulphate Ion Content ph in Saturated Paste Salinity in mg/kg Chloride (Cl) Sulfur (as SO4) 33.3 < < < % mg/l ohm cm mg/l % ph mg/kg mg/kg 15-OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT-18 R R R R R R L Sampled By: ACHESON RESERVOIR - TH18-04 #21 n/a on 25-SEP-18 Matrix: soil Miscellaneous Parameters % Saturation Chloride (Cl) Resistivity Sulfur (as SO4) Total Sulphate Ion Content ph in Saturated Paste Salinity in mg/kg Chloride (Cl) Sulfur (as SO4) 41.5 < < < % mg/l ohm cm mg/l % ph mg/kg mg/kg 15-OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT-18 R R R R R R * Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

66 ACHESON RESERVOIR Reference Information L CONTD... PAGE 3 of 3 Version: FINAL Test Method References: ALS Test Code Matrix Test Description Method Reference** CL-PASTE-COL-CL PH-PASTE-CL RESISTIVITY-PASTE-CL SAL-MG/KG-CALC-CL SAT-PCNT-CL SO4-PASTE-ICP-CL Soil Chloride in Soil (Paste) by Colorimetry A soil extract produced by the saturated paste extraction procedure is analyzed for Chloride by Colourimetry. Soil ph in Saturated Paste A soil extract produced by the saturated paste extraction procedure is analyzed by ph meter. Soil PASTE RESISTIVITY This analysis is carried out using procedures adapted from ASTM G57-95a (2001) "Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method". In summary, 200 to 500 grams of sample is mixed with deionized water as required to create a saturated paste. The sample is then placed directly into a four electrode resistivity soil box and measured for resistivity using a resistivity meter. Soil Soil Salinity in mg/kg % Saturation Saturation Percentage (SP) is the total volume of water present in a saturated paste (in ml) divided by the dry weight of the sample (in grams), expressed as a percentage, as described in "Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis" by M. Carter. Soil Sulphate (SO4) A soil extract produced by the saturated extraction procedure is analyzed for sulfate by ICPOES. CSSS, APHA 4500-Cl E CSSS Ch. 15 ASTM G57-95A Manual Calculation CSSS 18.2-Calculation CSSS CH15/EPA 6010B SO4-T-CSA-A23-ED Soil Total Sulphate Ion Content CSA INTERNATIONAL A23.2 Total sulphate content is determined by mixing soil with water then hydrochloric acid, and digesting just below boiling point, for 15 minutes. Analysis by ion chromatography follows. NOTE: the CSA-A23 method states that for a total sulphate ion content greater than 0.2%, soluble sulphate ion content shall be determined on the basis of a water extraction. This water extraction requires the total sulphate ion content result to calculate the correct ratio for the water extraction. ** ALS test methods may incorporate modifications from specified reference methods to improve performance. The last two letters of the above test code(s) indicate the laboratory that performed analytical analysis for that test. Refer to the list below: Laboratory Definition Code ED CL Laboratory Location ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA Chain of Custody Numbers: GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS Surrogates are compounds that are similar in behaviour to target analyte(s), but that do not normally occur in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. In reports that display the D.L. column, laboratory objectives for surrogates are listed there. mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram based on dry weight of sample mg/kg wwt - milligrams per kilogram based on wet weight of sample mg/kg lwt - milligrams per kilogram based on lipid-adjusted weight mg/l - unit of concentration based on volume, parts per million. < - Less than. D.L. - The reporting limit. N/A - Result not available. Refer to qualifier code and definition for explanation. Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. Analytical results in unsigned test reports with the DRAFT watermark are subject to change, pending final QC review.

67 Quality Control Report Workorder: L Report Date: 17-OCT-18 Page 1 of 2 Client: AECOM Canada Ltd. Suite 300, 48 Quarry Park Blvd SE Calgary AB T2C 5P2 Contact: Chris Keeley Test Matrix Reference Result Qualifier Units RPD Limit Analyzed CL-PASTE-COL-CL Soil Batch R WG IRM Chloride (Cl) SAL-STD % OCT-18 WG Chloride (Cl) LCS 99.9 % OCT-18 WG Chloride (Cl) MB <20 mg/l OCT-18 PH-PASTE-CL Soil Batch R WG IRM ph in Saturated Paste SAL-STD ph OCT-18 RESISTIVITY-PASTE-CL Soil Batch R WG IRM Resistivity SAL-STD % OCT-18 WG Resistivity LCS % OCT-18 SAT-PCNT-CL Soil Batch R WG IRM % Saturation SAL-STD % OCT-18 SO4-PASTE-ICP-CL Soil Batch R WG IRM Sulfur (as SO4) SAL-STD % OCT-18 WG Sulfur (as SO4) MB <6.0 mg/l 6 09-OCT-18 SO4-T-CSA-A23-ED Soil Batch R WG CRM Total Sulphate Ion Content ED-634A_CEMENT 98.1 % OCT-18 WG LCS Total Sulphate Ion Content 95.7 % OCT-18 WG MB Total Sulphate Ion Content <0.050 % OCT-18

68 Quality Control Report Workorder: L Report Date: 17-OCT-18 Page 2 of 2 Legend: Limit ALS Control Limit (Data Quality Objectives) DUP Duplicate RPD Relative Percent Difference N/A Not Available LCS Laboratory Control Sample SRM Standard Reference Material MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate ADE Average Desorption Efficiency MB Method Blank IRM Internal Reference Material CRM Certified Reference Material CCV Continuing Calibration Verification CVS Calibration Verification Standard LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate Hold Time Exceedances: All test results reported with this submission were conducted within ALS recommended hold times. ALS recommended hold times may vary by province. They are assigned to meet known provincial and/or federal government requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by the US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, or Environment Canada (where available). For more information, please contact ALS. The ALS Quality Control Report is provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS includes comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against predetermined data quality objectives to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results. Please note that this report may contain QC results from anonymous Sample Duplicates and Matrix Spikes that do not originate from this Work Order.

69