WITNESS STATEMENT DANIEL MAN, P.ENG.

Transcription

1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANIEL MAN, P.ENG. Soil Engineers Ltd. 100 Nugget Avenue Toronto, Ontario M1S 3A7 Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) danielman@soilengineersltd.com In the matter of Proposed Residential Development Bronte Green Corporation 1401 Bronte Road Town of Oakville To be heard before The Ontario Municipal Board OMB Case Number: PL141318

2 1.0 QUALIFICATIONS 1.1 I am the president at Soil Engineers Ltd., a geotechnical engineering consultant primarily involved in geotechnical site investigations and engineering studies throughout southern Ontario. 1.2 I have over 35 years of experience in the geotechnical engineering field working on numerous projects and prepared a wide range of soil reports involving slope stability studies. 1.3 I obtained a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Civil Engineering from McMaster University in 1978 and I am a registered Professional Engineer in Ontario. 1.4 My curriculum vitae is attached to this witness statement as Appendix A. 1.5 A copy of the Statement of Agreed Facts for the geotechnical specialists is attached as Appendix B. 1.6 A copy of my Acknowledgement of Expert Duty is attached as Appendix C. 2.0 RETAINER 2.1 Soil Engineers Ltd. was retained by Bronte Green Corporation on July 10, 2012, to prepare a geotechnical investigation and a slope stability study for a proposed residential development on the subject site. The slope stability study report was completed October 23, 2012, and the geotechnical investigation report was completed January EVIDENCE 3.1 A soil investigation report was prepared for the proposed residential development. Geotechnical recommendations were provided in the Soil Investigation Report dated January 2013 for the design and construction of the project. 3.2 A slope stability study was carried out in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources guidelines (Reference 5.4 and 5.5) to establish the Long-Term Stable Slope Line (LTSSL) for the valley slope associated with the south bank of Fourteen Mile Creek, located at the north limit of the site. The LTSSL along the south bank of Fourteen Mile Creek was established for the project and was detailed in the Slope Stability Study Report dated October 23, The LTSSL was to be incorporated into the determination of the development limits. 3.3 My evidence will address the above noted reports, the relevant geotechnical items in the Issues List, and items mentioned the geotechnical specialists Agreed Statement of Facts.

3 4.0 ISSUES AND OPINIONS 4.1 Issue 18(a) on the Issues List asks: Has a compliant geotechnical study been completed and provided? 4.2 Attached to this witness statement are copies of the slope stability report (October 2012, Appendix D ) and soil investigation report (January 2013, Appendix E ) prepared by Soil Engineers Limited. A total of 26 boreholes were drilled and 8 groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the project area to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information to facilitate the preparation of the foregoing reports. I will speak to the contents of these reports in my evidence. 4.3 Paragraph 4 of the Expert s Agreed Statement states: The boreholes spacing as shown on Figure 5 of 'the Burnside Hydrogeological Study Report' exceeds the 100 m spacing as required by the "Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes" publication and no justification is provided. 4.4 While the borehole spacing did exceed the noted publication, it should be noted that the soil stratigraphy for the project site is quite consistent along the valley slope being studied and does not vary drastically. Further, the critical cross-sections analyzed in the slope stability study were all located within 100 m of the borehole locations. Based on this, it is my opinion that the subsurface profile used for the slope stability study is considered sufficient. 4.5 Paragraph 5 of the Expert s Agreed Statement states: Only augering and split spoon sampling was conducted to advance the boreholes into the shale bedrock underlying the overburden (as shown on the Log of Boreholes from the Soil Engineers Limited (2012) report) and hence there were no bedrock core samples obtained which would permit characterization of the bedrock. 4.6 It should be noted that auger samples were retrieved from the boreholes drilled into the bedrock and these samples confirm that the bedrock encountered on site is shale. Soil Engineers Ltd. has supervised numerous construction projects in the neighboring area, and shallow shale bedrock is known to occur in this region. Accordingly, it is my opinion that there is enough information to permit characterization of the bedrock as shale. 4.7 I will elaborate on the above in my evidence. It is my opinion that based on the above, compliant geotechnical studies have been completed and provided in support of the Bronte Green development proposal.

4 5.0 REFERENCES 5.1 Soil Engineers Ltd., January 2013, A Soil Investigation for Proposed Residential Development, for Bronte Green Corporation, 1401 Bronte Road, Town of Oakville 5.2 Soil Engineers Ltd., October 23, 2012, Slope Stability Study Proposed Residential Development, for Bronte Green Corporation, 1401 Bronte Road, Town of Oakville 5.3 Beacon Environmental, October 2014, Phase 2 Environmental Impact Study, Merton (QEW/Bronte Road), Tertiary Planning Study, Town of Oakville 5.4 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2002, Technical Guide River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit 5.5 Terraprobe Limited, 1998, Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes, for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dated August 27, 2015 Daniel Man, P.Eng.

5 OMB CASE NO. PL WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANIEL MAN, P.ENG. Appendix A CURRICULUM VITAE

6

7

8 OMB CASE NO. PL WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANIEL MAN, P.ENG. Appendix B STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS GEOTECHNICAL SPECIALISTS

9 BRONTE GREEN APPEAL STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS GEOTECHNICAL SPECIALISTS Meeting Date: Friday July 17 th, 2015 Time: 9:00 am to 1:00 pm Location: Oakville Room, Oakville Town Hall Attendees: Daniel Man, P.Eng. Soil Engineers Limited (Representing the Proponent) Anne Poschmann, P.Eng. Golder Associates Ltd. (Representing Conservation Halton) Michael Patterson, P.Eng. Amec Foster Wheeler (Representing Town of Oakville) Arising from the Geotechnical Specialists meeting on July 17, 2015, the following is a summary of areas of agreement among the attendees: 1. There is a Soil Engineers Limited (2012) report presenting the slope stability assessment completed for the Saw Whet property which is referred in the Phase 2 Environmental Impact Study, Merton (QEW/Bronte Road), Tertiary Planning Study, Town of Oakville, Ontario report prepared by Beacon Environmental dated October 2014 ( the Beacon Environmental (October 2014) report ). The Soil Engineers Limited (2012) report has not been received and therefore has not been reviewed. 2. The Log of Boreholes for Boreholes 1 through 26 and the Borehole Location Plan from the Soil Engineers Limited (2012) report are included in Appendix B of the Hydrogeological Study, Merton Tertiary Planning Area, Town of Oakville, Ontario report prepared by R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited dated December 2013 (Revised October 2014) ( the Burnside Hydrogeological Study Report ). 3. The Technical Guide River and Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit published by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources dated 2002 ( The Guidelines ) is applicable for the establishment of the erosion hazard limit and the document titled Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes prepared by Terraprobe Limited and Aqua Solutions (June 1998) forms part of The Guidelines. 4. The boreholes spacing as shown on Figure 5 of the Burnside Hydrogeological Study Report exceeds the 100 m spacing as required by the Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes publication and no justification is provided. 5. Only augering and split spoon sampling was conducted to advance the boreholes into the shale bedrock underlying the overburden (as shown on the Log of Boreholes from the Soil Engineers Limited (2012) report) and hence there were no bedrock core samples obtained which would permit characterization of the bedrock. 6. Toe erosion rates as stated in the Beacon Environmental (October 2014) report are consistent with The Guidelines but are contingent on confirmation from the geomorphological studies that these values are not exceeded by 100 times the average annual recession rate.

10 OMB CASE NO. PL WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANIEL MAN, P.ENG. Appendix C ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXPERT DUTY

11

12

13 October 23, 2012 Reference No S148 Page 1 of 7 Argo Bronte Green Corporation c/o David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. 600 Alden Road, Suite 500 Markham, Ontario L3R 0E7 Attention: Mr. Mike Baldesarra Re: Slope Stability Study Proposed Residential Development Saw Whet Golf Course 1401 Bronte Road Town of Oakville Dear Sir: In accordance with your instructions, a slope stability study was carried out at the subject site for the valley slope located on the east side of the property where it abutts the west valley bank of Fourteen Mile Creek. The purpose of the slope study is to analyse the impact of the project on the stability of the valley bank. Detailed descriptions of the soil and groundwater conditions, along with the borehole logs, will be provided in the soil report which will be presented under separate cover. This letter/report/certification was prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd. for the account of the captioned clients and may be relied upon by regulatory agencies. The material in it reflects the writer s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this letter/report/certification, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based upon it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Soil Engineers Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this letter/report/certification.

14 Argo Bronte Green Corporation Reference No S148 c/o David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. Page 2 of 7 October 23, 2012 Slope Stability Analyses A slope stability assessment has been carried out for the slope located along the east limits of the property, which is the west bank of Fourteen Mile Creek. The assessment is based on information obtained from both boreholes and cross-sections. At the locations for the slope study, the investigation has disclosed that beneath a veneer of topsoil and a layer of earth fill at one location, a stratum of stiff to hard silty clay till overlies strata of very dense silty sand till and fine to coarse sand with rock fragments which bed onto shale bedrock. Visual inspection of the slope at the time of report preparation revealed that it is wooded, with a thick ground cover of leaves. At localized steep areas, surface sloughing was visible and the ground surface was bare. Active erosion was noted along the entire creek bank and deep-seated failure was noted, especially where the gradient of the slope was observed to be steeper than 1 vertical:1 horizontal, and where the watercourse was located directly at the bottom of slope; these were noticed along the slope in the south portion of the property. Twelve cross-sections, Cross-Sections A-A to L-L, inclusive, were selected for analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the slope profile and condition. The locations of the cross-sections are shown on Drawing Nos. 1A and 1B. The surface profile of each cross-section is interpreted from the contour lines on the topographic plan provided by David Schaeffer Engineering Limited. The subsurface profile is interpreted from the Boreholes Logs, which will be provided in the forthcoming soil report.

15 Argo Bronte Green Corporation Reference No S148 c/o David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. Page 3 of 7 October 23, 2012 The slope has an overall height of 5.0± to 9.0± m, measured from the bottom of slope to the existing top of slope, with gradients ranging from 1 vertical:0.25± to 3.0± horizontal. The cross-sections of the existing slopes are shown on Drawing Nos. 2 to 13, inclusive. The groundwater, where encountered has been modeled to taper towards Fourteen Mile Creek, slightly below the toe of slope, as per on site observations. The slope stability was analysed using force-moment-equilibrium criteria of the Bishop Method and the soil strength parameters given in the following table. Soil Strength Parameters Soil Type Unit Weight (kn/m 3 ) Effective Cohesion (kpa) Effective Internal Friction Angle (Φ) Earth Fill Silty Clay Till Silty Sand Till Fine to Coarse Sand and Rock Fragments Shale Bedrock Impenetrable The results of the analyses indicate that the factor of safety (FOS) for the existing slope at the locations of Cross-Sections A-A, C-C, D-D, F-F, H-H and K-K ranges from to 2.894, which exceeds the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) guideline requirements for active land use (minimum FOS 1.5). Furthermore, the distance from the creek to the bottom of slope exceeds a toe erosion allowance of 8.0 m at these cross-sections, except at Cross-Section K-K. As such, the existing slope at

16 Argo Bronte Green Corporation Reference No S148 c/o David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. Page 4 of 7 October 23, 2012 these locations, which the exception of Cross-Section K-K, is considered to be geotechnically stable for the proposed residential usage. However, at Cross-Sections B-B, E-E, G-G, I-I, J-J and L-L, the FOS for the bank ranges from to 1.499, which fails to meet the minimum guideline requirement. As such, the slope is considered to be geotechnically unstable. Geotechnically stable gradients ranging from 1 vertical:1.1 to 1.9 horizontal are recommended, depending on the soil conditions as identified by the borehole investigation. Due to the occurrence of shale bedrock near Cross-Sections H-H to L-L, a steeper gradient is acceptable at these locations provided that the slope meets the required toe erosion allowance and minimum FOS. The watercourse is located at the immediate bottom of slope at Cross- Section K-K, and the bank at this location further analysed given a toe erosion allowance. The remodelled slope at Cross-Sections B-B, E-E, G-G, I-I, J-J, K-K and L-L yields a FOS ranging from to 2.552, which satisfies the OMNR requirements. The remodelled cross-sections are presented on Drawing Nos. 14 to 20, inclusive. A summary of the resulting factors of safety against deep-seated failure are given in the following table. Factors of Safety Factor of Safety Cross-Section Existing Slope Long-Term Stable Slope A-A * - B-B C-C * -

17 Argo Bronte Green Corporation Reference No S148 c/o David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. Page 5 of 7 October 23, 2012 (Cont d) D-D * - E-E F-F * - G-G H-H * - I-I J-J K-K ** L-L * The slope at the corresponding sections is considered stable. **The existing slope was adjusted to allow for a 5.0 m toe erosion allowance. In the presence of a watercourse feature at the toe of creek bank (slope) with little to no floodplain, an erosion setback of 5.0 m and 8.0 m will be required where the soils at the base of the slope consist of shale bedrock and hard/very dense tills, respectively. The resulting Long-Term Stable Slope Line (LTSSL), incorporating the specified stable gradient component and toe erosion setback, is established on Drawing Nos. 1A and 1B. Lastly, a development setback for man-made and environmental degradation of the slope will be required. This is subject to the discretion of the Halton Region Conservation Authority. In order to prevent the occurrence of localized surface slides and to enhance the stability of the slope, the following geotechnical constraints should be stipulated:

18 Argo Bronte Green Corporation Reference No S148 c/o David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. Page 6 of 7 October 23, The prevailing vegetative cover must be maintained, since its extraction would deprive the slope of the rooting system that acts as reinforcement against soil erosion by weathering. If for any reason the vegetation cover is stripped, it must be reinstated to its original, or better than its original, protective condition. 2. The leafy topsoil cover on the slope face should not be disturbed, since this provides an insulation and screen against frost wedging and rainwash erosion. 3. Grading of the land adjacent to the slope must be such that concentrated runoff is not allowed to drain onto the slope face. Landscaping features, which may cause runoff to pond at the top of the slope, such as infiltration trenches, as well as frequent lawn watering which will saturate the crown of the slope, must not be permitted. 4. Where development is carried out near the top of the slope, there are other factors to be considered related to possible human environmental abuse. These include soil saturation from frequent watering to maintain of landscaping features, stripping of topsoil or vegetation, and dumping of loose fill and material storage close to the top of slope; none of these should be permitted. All of the above recommendations are subject to the approval of the Halton Region Conservation Authority.

19

20

21

22 Minimum Factor of Safety = property line/ boundary existing top of slope and Long-Term Stable Slope Line BH 1 (o/s 17.8 m) existing slope profile (geotechnically stable gradient) Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek Silty Sand Till Distance (m) Cross-Section A-A (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

23 property line/ boundary Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope BH-MW 2 (o/s 18.7 m and 24 m ) existing slope profile Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till Silty Sand Till Silty Clay Till existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 16.5 m) groundwater level during investigation Fine to Coarse Sand Distance (m) Cross-Section B-B (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

24 Minimum Factor of Safety = Elevation (m) BH-MW 5 (o/s 25 m and 50.5 m ) Silty Clay Till existing top of slope and Long-Term Stable Slope Line existing slope profile (geotechnically stable gradient) existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 57 m) groundwater level during investigation Fine to Coarse Sand and Rock Fragments Distance (m) Cross-Section C-C (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

25 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope and Long-Term Stable Slope Line Elevation (m) BH-MW 5 (o/s 13.8 m and 58.8 m ) Silty Clay Till property line/ boundary 3 1 existing slope profile (geotechnically stable gradient) existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 6 m) groundwater level during investigation Fine to Coarse Sand and Rock Fragments Distance (m) Cross-Section D-D (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

26 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope BH-MW 6D (o/s 26.9 m ) property line/ boundary existing slope profile Elevation (m) groundwater level during investigation Silty Clay Till Silty Sand Till existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek Fine to Coarse Sand Distance (m) Cross-Section E-E (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

27 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope and Long-Term Stable Slope Line 133 Elevation (m) BH 9 (o/s 30.2 m ) Silty Clay Till Fine to Coarse Sand property line/ boundary existing slope profile (geotechnically stable gradient) existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek groundwater level during investigation Silty Sand Till Distance (m) Cross-Section F-F (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

28 Minimum Factor of Safety = BH 9 (o/s 112 m) property line/ boundary existing top of slope Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till Fine to Coarse Sand existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 15.3 m) Silty Sand Till groundwater level during investigation Distance (m) Cross-Section G-G (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

29 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope and Long-Term Stable Slope Line 132 Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till BH 10 (o/s 76.8 m) property line/ boundary existing slope profile (geotechnically stable gradient) existing bottom of slope Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section H-H (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

30 Minimum Factor of Safety = BH-MW 25 (o/s 17.3 m) property line/ boundary existing top of slope Earth Fill existing slope profile 124 Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 58 m) Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section I-I (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

31 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope 129 Elevation (m) BH 26 (o/s 75.3 m and 6.7 m ) Silty Clay Till property line/ boundary existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 21.6 m) Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section J-J (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

32 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope BH 26 (o/s 24.7 m and 10.9 m ) property line/ boundary existing slope profile Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till Shale Bedrock H:1V slope existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek Distance (m) Cross-Section K-K (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

33 Minimum Factor of Safety = existing top of slope BH 26 (o/s 15 m and 21.4 m ) property line/ boundary Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section L-L (Existing Slope) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

34 Long-Term Stable Slope Line Minimum Factor of Safety = Elevation (m) BH-MW 2 (o/s 18.7 m and 24 m ) property line/ boundary Silty Clay Till Silty Sand Till Silty Clay Till existing top of slope geotechnically stable gradient existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 16.5 m) groundwater level during investigation Fine to Coarse Sand Distance (m) Cross-Section B-B (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

35 Minimum Factor of Safety = property line/ boundary BH-MW 6D (o/s 26.9 m ) Long-Term Stable Slope Line existing top of slope geotechnically stable gradient existing slope profile Elevation (m) groundwater level during investigation Silty Clay Till Silty Sand Till m erosion setback existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek Fine to Coarse Sand Distance (m) Cross-Section E-E (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

36 Minimum Factor of Safety = BH 9 (o/s 112 m) property line/ boundary existing top of slope and Long-Term Stable Slope Line geotechnically stable gradient Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till Fine to Coarse Sand existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 15.3 m) Silty Sand Till groundwater level during investigation Distance (m) Cross-Section G-G (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

37 Minimum Factor of Safety = BH-MW 25 (o/s 17.3 m) Long-Term Stable Slope Line Earth Fill property line/ boundary existing top of slope geotechnically stable gradient Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 58 m) Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section I-I (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

38 Minimum Factor of Safety = Long-Term Stable Slope Line 129 Elevation (m) BH 26 (o/s 75.3 m and 6.7 m ) Silty Clay Till property line/ boundary 2 existing top of slope existing slope profile existing bottom of slope geotechnically stable gradient Fourteen Mile Creek (o/s 21.6 m) Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section J-J (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

39 Minimum Factor of Safety = BH 26 (o/s 24.7 m and 10.9 m ) property line/ boundary Long-Term Stable Slope Line existing top of slope geotechnically stable gradient existing slope profile Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till Shale Bedrock m erosion setback 0.25H:1V slope existing bottom of slope Fourteen Mile Creek Distance (m) Cross-Section K-K (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

40 Minimum Factor of Safety = Long-Term Stable Slope Line BH 26 (o/s 15 m and 21.4 m ) property line/ boundary existing top of slope geotechnically stable gradient Elevation (m) Silty Clay Till existing slope profile existing bottom of slope Shale Bedrock Distance (m) Cross-Section L-L (Geotechnically Stable Gradient) Ref No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale S148 October H: 1:200 V: 1:200

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127 BH. No. 1 MW2 3 4 MW5 MW6D MW6S 7 8 Topsoil/Topsoil Fill (cm) Elevation (m) El. (m) 133 W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N /15 cm 50/15 cm /NP 55/15 cm 50/7.6 cm /15 cm 50/15 cm 60/15 cm 50/15 cm 50/5.1 cm 55/15 cm 50/15 cm 18 50/15 cm 50/15 cm 50/13 cm 50/10 cm 50/15 cm /5.1 cm 50/15 cm 50/10 cm 50/5.1 cm 50/15 cm /15 cm 50/15 cm 50/15 cm 60/15 cm /13 cm 50/13 cm 50/13 cm BOREHOLE FOR SHALLOW NESTED WELL INSTALLATION ONLY (NO SAMPLING) /15 cm 50/50 cm 22 50/15 cm 50/NP 55 50/15 cm 60/15 cm 50/NP /15 cm /5.1 cm LEGEND 50/15 cm TOPSOIL/TOPSOIL FILL SAND/GRAVEL FILL EARTH FILL 50/10 cm SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY TILL SILTY SAND TILL SILTY FINE SAND FINE TO COARSE SAND FINE TO COARSE SAND AND ROCK FRAGMENTS SHALE BEDROCK SANDY SILT WATER LEVEL CAVE-IN SUBSURFACE PROFILE SOIL ENGINEERS Scale: Horiz.: N.T.S. Ref. No.: 1207-S148 LTD. Vert.: 1:100 Drawing No. 2

128 BH. No MW MW17 Topsoil/Topsoil Fill (cm) Elevation (m) El. (m) 133 W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N /15 cm 50/15 cm 50/15 cm 50/15 cm /15 cm 50/15 cm 50/NP 50/NP 25 50/15 cm 50/15 cm 70/5.1 cm 50/NP 50/1.3 cm /7.6 cm 70/5.1 cm 50/NP 50/NP /7.6 cm 100/2.5 cm 50/NP /15 cm 50/2.5 cm 50/NP 50/NP /15 cm 50/NP 14 50/15 cm 50/15 cm 50/NP 50/NP 24 50/15 cm /15 cm LEGEND TOPSOIL/TOPSOIL FILL SAND/GRAVEL FILL EARTH FILL SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY TILL SILTY SAND TILL SILTY FINE SAND FINE TO COARSE SAND FINE TO COARSE SAND AND ROCK FRAGMENTS SHALE BEDROCK SANDY SILT WATER LEVEL CAVE-IN SUBSURFACE PROFILE SOIL ENGINEERS Scale: Horiz.: N.T.S. Ref. No.: 1207-S148 LTD. Vert.: 1:100 Drawing No. 3

129 BH. No. 18 MW19 20 MW MW25 26 Topsoil/Topsoil Fill (cm) Elevation (m) El. (m) 133 W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W N /15 cm 50/0.01 cm 50/NP /15 cm 50/NP /15 cm 50/7.6 cm 50/5.1 cm 50/NP /15 cm 65 50/15 cm 50/NP /15 cm /7.6 cm 50/15 cm 70/15 cm /15 cm /15 cm 50/15 cm /15 cm 50/15 cm 50/7.6 cm /NP 50/NP LEGEND 50/NP 50/NP TOPSOIL/TOPSOIL FILL SAND/GRAVEL FILL EARTH FILL 50/NP SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY TILL SILTY SAND TILL SILTY FINE SAND FINE TO COARSE SAND FINE TO COARSE SAND AND ROCK FRAGMENTS SHALE BEDROCK SANDY SILT WATER LEVEL CAVE-IN SUBSURFACE PROFILE SOIL ENGINEERS Scale: Horiz.: N.T.S. Ref. No.: 1207-S148 LTD. Vert.: 1:100 Drawing No. 4