GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBDIVISION - SELECTED LOTS AKISQNUK FIRST NATION WINDERMERE, BC

Transcription

1 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBDIVISION - SELECTED LOTS AKISQNUK FIRST NATION WINDERMERE, BC Prepared For: Akisqnuk First Nation Windermere, BC Box 688 Fernie, BC V0B 1M August 2017

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...i 1.0 INTRODUCTION LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FIELD INVESTIGATION Soil, Bedrock and Seismic Conditions Lab Test Results Terrain Conditions Groundwater Conditions DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS - CONSTRUCTION Geotechnical Assessment Safe Building Areas Site Preparation Shallow Footings Drainage Structural Fill Concrete Slab-On-Grade Concrete Type QUALITY ASSURANCE CLOSURE REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION... 8 APPENDICES Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Figures Photos Borehole Logs Lab Test Reports File: 17m49r

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides the findings and recommendations of a geotechnical site investigation completed on seven selected lots (Lots 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210, and 213) in an existing subdivision on the Akisqnuk First Nation (AFN) in Windermere, BC. The purpose of the investigation was to determine soil, terrain and groundwater conditions on these sites and provide geotechnical recommendations regarding safe building areas, as well as building construction. The investigation identified areas on these lots that are conditionally safe for the placement of single-family residences. Building construction in these areas may be supported by conventional shallow footings; however, only shallow basements (i.e., footing bottoms no deeper than 1.2 m from the existing ground surface) are permissible. Deeper basements are possible on Lots 206 and 208, where the daylighting of foundation drains is possible due to sloping ground to the west. During building construction, quality assurance reviews should be conducted by a geotechnical engineer (or designate). Reviews should be conducted of the subgrade surface, placement and compaction of fills, backfill, and footing drainage systems. Construction of full basements requires engineering approval. File: 17m49r i

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides the findings and recommendations of a geotechnical site investigation completed on seven selected lots in an existing subdivision on the Akisqnuk First Nation (AFN) in Windermere, BC. The assessment was completed by (Groundtech) at the request of Adrian Bergles, Lands Manager for AFN. The purpose of the investigation was to determine soil, terrain and groundwater conditions of seven lots and provide geotechnical recommendations regarding safe building areas, as well as building construction. 2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subdivision is located on Subdivision Road (Figure 1), within the AFN near Windermere, BC. The subdivision is located west of Highway 95 on very gentle west-facing terrain. In terms of a topographic setting, the property is located on the east side of the Rocky Mountain Trench and approximately 830 m east of Lake Windermere. Photos of the site are found in Appendix II. There is a gravel road that provides access to 14 residential lots, seven of which are developed with residences. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The seven undeveloped lots (202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210, and 213) are being considered for the placement of houses. It is assumed the structures will be supported on conventional shallow footings with a lower level concrete slab-on-grade. Vehicle access will be via driveways from Subdivision Road. 4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Ms. Isabel Ferreira, E.I.T., of Groundtech, completed the field investigation on June 13 and 14, The site investigation was conducted with a visual assessment of the subject lots and adjacent areas. Using a wheeled drill rig, seven boreholes (B1 through B7) were drilled to a depth of 8.08 m, to investigate soil and groundwater conditions. The approximate borehole locations are shown on Figure 2. The soils encountered in the boreholes were visually classified and the associated stratigraphy was logged. Soil strength (Undrained shear strength - S u ) was assessed by the use of a Torvane or Pocket Penetrometer (PP) on semi-disturbed fine-grained samples (i.e., split spoon samples). Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was also completed in the boreholes to assess in situ density/consistency of the soils. Note, SPT testing in gravelly or cobbly soils overestimate soil density due to rock effect. SPT blow counts are noted in the text as SPT followed by the blows/0.305 m (e.g., SPT 7). Split spoon sampling was completed at selected depths. Representative disturbed grab samples of selected materials were collected for future reference and/or laboratory testing. The borehole logs are found in Appendix III. The boreholes were completed with piezometers to allow for follow-up groundwater measurements. 4.1 Soil, Bedrock and Seismic Conditions Soil mapping indicates the project area is in an area mantled by glaciolacustrine sediments. The soils encountered during the field investigation are consistent with the mapping. File: 17m49r 1

5 B1 was drilled on the northwest side of Lot 213, to a depth of 8.08 m. The soil stratigraphy consisted of a top layer of loose, dry silt and sand to a depth of 0.91 m, underlain to a depth of 3.96 m by dense to very dense (SPT 42-63), dry gravel and sand with some silt. Compact (SPT 18), wet, gravelly sand with a trace of silt was found between depths of 3.96 m and 6.1 m. Deeper soil horizons consisted of very loose (SPT 3), wet sand with traces of gravel and silt, underlain at a depth of 7.62 m by loose (SPT 6), wet sand with a trace of silt. B2 was drilled on the southeast side of Lot 204. The soil stratigraphy consisted of a topsoil layer of loose, dry sand with some silt to a depth of 0.91 m, underlain by dense, dry sand with some gravel and some silt to a depth of 1.52 m. Dense to compact (SPT 30-22), dry, gravelly sand with a trace of silt was encountered between depths of 1.52 m and 3.35 m. The middle horizon consisted of loose (SPT 6-9), wet sand and silt with a trace of clay to a depth of 7.62 m. The lowermost layer was comprised of loose (SPT 7), wet silt and sand with a trace of clay to a final depth of 8.08 m. B3 was drilled on the north section of Lot 208, to a depth of 8.08 m. The soil stratigraphy consisted of a top layer of loose, moist silt with a trace of clay to a depth of 1.22 m, underlain by compact, moist, silty sand with some gravel and a trace of clay to a depth of 1.52 m. Middle horizons consisted of dense (SPT 45), moist, sandy, silty gravel between depths of 1.52 m and 2.29 m. Compact (SPT 14), dry sand with a trace of silt to loose (SPT 9) wet sand with some silt were encountered between depths of 2.29 m and 6.1 m. The lowermost horizon consisted of compact (SPT 12-11), wet sand with some silt. B4 was drilled on Lot 210, on the southwest portion of the lot. The soil stratigraphy consisted of a top layer of compact, dry silt with a trace of clay to a depth of 1.22 m, underlain by compact (SPT 18), dry, gravelly, silty sand between the depths of 1.22 m and 2.13 m. The middle horizon, between depths of 2.13 m and 4.27 m, is comprised of loose (SPT 8), moist sand with a trace of silt. The lowermost layer consisted of loose to compact (SPT 7-12), wet sand with some silt. The final depth of B4 was 8.08 m. B5 was completed on the east portion of Lot 202, to a depth of 8.08 m. The soil stratigraphy consisted of loose (SPT 6), dry sand with a trace of silt to a depth of 2.29 m, underlain by compact (SPT 16), dry sand with traces of silt and gravel between depths of 2.29 m and 3.66 m. Middle horizons consisted of compact (SPT 23), dry sand with some gravel and a trace of silt to a depth of 5.18 m. The lowermost horizons consisted of loose (SPT 7), wet sand with a trace of silt, underlain by compact (SPT 16), wet sand with some gravel a trace of silt. B6 was drilled on Lot 206, on the east side close to the main road. The soil stratigraphy consisted a thin topsoil layer of loose, moist silt with a trace of clay, underlain by loose, moist sand and gravel with a trace of silt to a depth of 1.22 m. Compact, moist sand and gravel with a trace of silt was encountered from the depths of 1.22 m to 1.52 m, underlain by compact (SPT 20), moist, sandy gravel with some silt to a depth of 2.29 m. The middle horizons consisted of compact (SPT 12), wet, gravelly sand with a trace of silt to loose (SPT 10), wet silt with some sand to a depth of 5.33 m. The lowermost horizon extended from depths of 5.33 m to 8.08 m and consisted of loose (SPT 8), wet sand and gravel with a trace of silt. B7 was drilled on the southeast portion of Lot 205, to a depth of 8.08 m. The upper soil stratigraphy consisted of a layer of loose, dry sand with a trace of silt, underlain by compact (SPT 20), dry, sandy, silty gravel to a depth of 1.83 m. Compact, moist sand and gravel with a trace of silt was encountered from depths of 1.83 m to 2.44 m. The middle horizons consisted of dense (SPT 39), wet sand with traces of gravel and clay to compact, wet sand and silt with a trace of gravel to a depth of 5.33 m. The lowermost layer consisted of loose (SPT 6-10), wet, silty sand. No bedrock was encountered during drilling; bedrock is expected to be at significant depth and should not affect construction. File: 17m49r 2

6 The soils at the site are considered to be Class E (soft) soils, in terms of the Site Classification for Seismic Site Response as per Table 6.1A in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4 th Edition). 4.2 Lab Test Results Washed gradation tests (ASTM C136 and C117) were completed on six soil samples to determine gradational characteristics. Moisture content tests were also completed on the samples. The test results are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Sample Cobble Gravel Sand Silt Moisture (%) (%) (%) (%) Content (%) Description B1/S Gravel and sand, some silt (GM) B2/S Sand and silt (NP ML) B3/S Sandy, silty gravel (GM) B4/S Gravelly, silty sand (SM) B6/S Sandy gravel, some silt (GM) B7/S Sandy, silty gravel (GM) The above samples have significant silt content, indicating moderate to high frost action potential. None of the samples tested are suitable for re-use as structural fill. The lab test results are found in Appendix IV. 4.3 Terrain Conditions In general, the subdivision area has very gentle slopes, descending to the west with local vertical relief in the order of 1 m to 2 m. Terrain is slightly steeper on the west edge of Lots 206, 207 and 208, where the terrain forms the gentle headwall slopes of a draw. The steepest terrain was found on the southwest side of Lot 208 where slope angles approach 20. Areas containing seepage and/or wet soil areas were identified on portions of Lots 206, 208 and 213 These are interpreted to be springs and/or areas where groundwater daylights near the crest of steeper slopes. No signs of slope instability were observed on or near the site. 4.4 Groundwater Conditions Table 2 - Depth to Groundwater (June 20, 2017) Piezometer Depth to Groundwater (m) B1 4.0 B2 3.0 B3 4.2 B B B6 2.1 B The groundwater levels observed and detailed in Table 2 may not be peak levels. It is possible groundwater levels could rise to 1 m to 2 m from the ground surface, especially near B2, B6 and B7. Groundwater levels will present seasonal trends with increasing to peak levels in the spring or earlier summer; increasing trends are in response to snowmelt. Following peak levels, declining trends typically occur that extend through the remaining summer, fall and winter periods. Short-term increases can occur in response to rainfall events. File: 17m49r 3

7 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS - CONSTRUCTION 5.1 Geotechnical Assessment Geotechnical recommendations regarding safe building areas, as well as building construction are provided in the following report sections. Construction of residences on lots 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210 and 213 in areas considered safe is considered conditionally acceptable. Areas considered not safe contain weak soil and/or surface water, springs, seepage and wet soil areas. These areas are discussed further in Section 5.2 of the report. Where ground conditions are considered suitable (i.e. Safe Building Areas), buildings may be constructed with conventional strip and pad footings. Half basements (i.e., underside of the footing no deeper than 1.2 m) are permissible. Due to the potential for high groundwater, homes with full basements are not recommend unless the basement can be effectively drained downslope. Deeper basements are possible on Lots 206 and 208 where the daylighting of foundation drains is possible due to sloping ground to the west. Construction of full basements requires approval by a geotechnical engineer. 5.2 Safe Building Areas Some of the area considered for construction of residences is not considered suitable due to poor ground conditions and/or steep slopes. Building of residences in certain areas are not recommended due to the presence of weak soils and/or surface water in the form of seepage or streams. Poor soil bearing and/or challenges with respect to managing surface or groundwater are anticipated in these areas. As such, construction of residences supported on conventional shallow footings is not recommended in these areas. Certain areas were not considered suitable due to steep terrain/slope stability. To supplement the field assessment of terrain stability, a desktop study of stability of steep slopes was carried out to help delineate unsuitable building areas. It is engineering practise to require terrain considered for residential development have at least a threshold acceptance Factor of Safety (FOS) of 1.5 (static) and 1.0 (seismic) against landslides. In geotechnical engineering practise, the degree of stability of a site is measured by the FOS parameter, where the FOS is the ratio of the resisting forces to the driving forces for a given slope profile and failure surface. A FOS of close to one or less than one would represent an unstable slope. FOSs at increasing values above one lend increasing confidence in the stability of the slope. Seismic analysis was not completed for this site as static FOSs typically govern. For the desktop study, the infinite slope solution was used as an aid to define safe building areas. The infinite slope solution equation is as follows: FOS = (ć + (γ - (Dw/D)γw)Dcos 2 βtanφ )/γdsinβcosφ Where: ć = effective cohesion Φ = effective friction angle γ = moist unit weight β = slope angle γw = unit weight of water D = soil depth Dw = saturated soil depth For a dry site and assuming ć = 0 the equation simplifies to: FOS = tanφ /tanβ File: 17m49r 4

8 The soil types on the sites are variable, and include mixtures of sand and gravel and mixtures of silt and sand. Φ values for these materials typically range from 28 to in excess of 40. A Φ value of 35 and Dw/D ratio of 0.5 was selected for use in the analysis and is considered conservative. Analysis using this equation indicates a slope angle of 20 (i.e., 36 %), provides a FOS in excess of 1.5. This value, as well engineering judgement, was used as a guide in the field to identify safe building area boundaries. The safe building areas are shown on a Figure 3. Construction beyond these areas is possible, but would require special measures, further geotechnical investigation, and engineering design. 5.3 Site Preparation Subgrades should be prepared by removing any disturbed, loosened or water softened soils. Any organics should be removed from the subgrade. Any standing water within the building sites should be removed prior to site preparation. The surface of the subgrade should be trimmed smooth with the clean-up bucket of an excavator. The subgrade soils are expected to be native sand and gravel soils in some areas; as such, the subgrade surface will likely be loosened by the excavation process. This being the case, a 1000 lb vibratory plate tamper should be used to compact the subgrade prior to the placement of footings, slab-on-grade drainage layers, structural fills, etc. A minimum of four passes with the tamper should be completed. Following site preparation, heavy machinery should be restricted from prepared areas to not disturb and weaken subgrade soils. 5.4 Shallow Footings It is assumed the footing subgrades will be prepared in native sand and gravel soils. Maximum allowable soil bearing capacities of 100 kpa Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and 450 kpa Ultimate Limit States (ULS), un-factored, may be used for footing design. ULS (factored resistance) is based on shear strength and SLS is based on an acceptable total and differential settlement values, which in this case was selected as 25 mm and 19 mm, respectively. Minimum footing sizes for the residence should be consistent with the local building code. Given the soil characteristics, exterior wall footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 1.2 m below final site grade for protection from frost penetration. Similarly, footings in unheated areas should be founded at a minimum depth of 2.1 m below final site grade. If these depths cannot be achieved, the footings should be suitably insulated. 5.5 Drainage It is possible silty soils may be encountered at footing depths, such soils are prone to weakening if wetted. As such, a footing drain system should be placed at the toe of the exterior footing. The drain should consist of a rigid 100 mm diameter perforated PVC pipe covered with clean (i.e., < 5 % passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve), 50 mm minus drain rock. The pipe and drain rock system should be enveloped by nonwoven geotextile (i.e., Nilex 4551 or approved equivalent). The drain should outfall to a rock pit consisting of a 1 m wide x 1 m long x 1 m deep (i.e., below underside of footings) excavation, filled with drain rock. The drain rock fill should be separated from underlying, adjacent and overlying soils by geotextile, as described above. The rock pit should be placed west of and no closer than 10 m from the building. File: 17m49r 5

9 Where full basements are permissible, a granular 0.6 m thick (minimum) drainage layer should be placed against the exterior of basement foundation walls and consist of moderately compacted, clean (i.e., < 5 % passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve), 75 mm minus sand and gravel. To promote drainage of surface waters away from the exterior of the foundation walls, the surface of any foundation backfill should be capped with a 0.3 m minimum thickness of low permeability soil (silt/clay) and the final ground surface adjacent to the foundation walls should be sloped away from the building at a minimum grade of 1 % to 2 %. 5.6 Structural Fill Structural fill should consist of clean (i.e., < 5 % passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve), well-graded, 75 mm minus sand and gravel (pit run) or crush and should be thoroughly compacted in maximum 150 mm thick lifts. To achieve suitable compaction, a minimum of eight passes per lift with a 1000 lb vibratory plate tamper or 10,000 lb roller should be completed. Depending on the natural moisture content of the material, the addition of water may be required to achieve suitable compaction. Should this be the case, water should be applied to the fill during the spreading of lifts, prior to compaction. Compaction testing (i.e., with a nuclear densometer) should be conducted on structural fills that are thicker than 1 m. The minimum compaction should be 100 % of the material s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. If the surface of the backfill on an exterior foundation wall is to support structures sensitive to settlement, such as sidewalks, driveways or parking areas, the backfill should consist of compacted structural fill, as described above. The onsite sand and gravel soils are likely suitable for re-use as structural fill but should be approved by Groundtech prior to use. 5.7 Concrete Slab-On-Grade Floor slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a granular drainage layer consisting of at least 150 mm of clean (i.e., < 5 % passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve), 19 mm minus crush or clean, 50 mm minus sand and gravel and should be thoroughly compacted using a vibrating plate tamper, as described above. To inhibit the upward migration of moisture, slabs should be separated from the underlying drainage layer by 0.15 mm (6 mil) thick polyethylene sheeting vapour barrier. Adjacent sheets of vapour barrier should overlap a minimum of 0.6 m. 5.8 Concrete Type Type 10 Normal Portland concrete is recommended, as the soils in the area typically do not have any significant soluble sulphate content. 6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE Quality assurance reviews should be conducted by a geotechnical engineer (or designate) at intervals during construction of the structures. Reviews should be conducted of the subgrade surface, placement and compaction of fills, and footing drainage systems. If building schedules are required, these inspections are mandatory. File: 17m49r 6

10 7.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Akisqnuk First Nation for this project. This report is based on subsurface information obtained during the site investigation, which was conducted with accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. It should be noted that natural soil and groundwater conditions can be variable. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Groundtech should be contacted if subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from those anticipated and/or interpreted from the site investigation. Individual recommendations presented in this report should not be used out of context with the entire report. Interpretation of any part of this report should be made in consultation with Groundtech. Any use or reliance of this report by a third party is the responsibility of said party and Groundtech accepts no responsibility for any damages suffered by said party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. If there are any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing information, please call Douglas Clapp, P.Eng., at (250) Respectfully submitted, Douglas A. Clapp, P. Eng. DAC/dac September 30, 2017 File: 17m49r 7

11 8.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION The following information was reviewed as part of the investigation: 1. Soil Resources of the Lardeau Map Area (82K), RAB Bulletin 15, Report No. 27, British Columbia Soil Survey; BC Ministry of the Environment, Resource Analysis Branch; Geological Hazards and Geology of the South Columbia River Valley; Ministry of Highways and Public Works (Highways), Geotechnical and Materials Branch; March 1978, File: 17m49r 8

12 APPENDIX I Figures

13 Figure 1 Site Location Map Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Site Location Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49fg

14 Figure 2 Site Plan Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Legend: Approximate location of boreholes: Lots of Interest: 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210 and 213 Scale: NTS File: 17m49fg

15 Figure 3 Safe Building Areas Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Legend: Safe Building Areas: Unsafe Building Areas: Lots of Interest: 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210 and 213 Scale: NTS File: 17m49fg

16 APPENDIX II Photos

17 Photo 1 South View of Subdivision Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

18 Photo 2 South View of Subdivision Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

19 Photo 3 East View of Subdivision Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

20 Photo 4 Typical Site Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

21 Photo 5 Typical Site Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

22 Photo 6 Typical Site Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

23 Photo 7 Typical Wet Area Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

24 Photo 8 Typical Wet Area Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

25 Photo 9 Typical Wet Area Project: Geotechnical Site Investigation Akisqnuk First Nation Subdivision Selected Lots Kootenay No. 3 Road Windermere, BC Scale: NTS File: 17m49ph

26 APPENDIX III Borehole Logs

27 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivsion Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 213 Bore Hole: B1 Date: June 13, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface light brown, loose, dry silt and sand light brown, dense to very dense, dry gravel and sand, some silt S1 S S light brown, compact, wet, gravelly sand, trace silt 3.96 S4 S m 06/20/17 switch to hollow stem light brown, very loose to loose, wet sand, trace gravel and silt 6.10 S light brown, loose, wet sand, trace silt End of Bore Hole Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Solid Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

28 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivsion Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 204 Bore Hole: B2 Date: June 13, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface light brown, loose, dry sand, some silt light brown, dense, dry sand, some gravel and silt S1 S2 30 light brown, compact, dry, gravelly sand, trace silt 3.00 S m 06/20/ S4 6 light brown, loose, wet sand and silt, trace clay 6.00 S light brown, loose, wet silt and sand, trace clay End of Bore Hole S Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Hollow Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

29 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivision Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 208 Bore Hole: B3 Date: June 13, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface 0.00 light brown, loose, moist silt, trace clay light brown, compact, moist, silty sand, some gravel, trace clay light brown, dense, moist, sandy, silty gravel S1 S2 S light brown, compact, dry sand, trace silt S light brown, loose, wet sand, some silt 4.57 S m 06/20/ S light brown, compact, wet sand, some silt 8.00 End of Bore Hole 8.08 S Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Hollow Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

30 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivision Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 210 Bore Hole: B4 Date: June 13, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface 0.00 light brown, compact, dry silt, trace clay light brown, compact, dry, gravelly, silty sand S light brown, loose, moist sand, trace silt S m 06/20/ S light brown, loose to compact, wet sand, some silt S End of Bore Hole 8.08 S Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Hollow Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

31 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivision Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 202 Bore Hole: B5 Date: June 13, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface light brown, loose, dry sand, trace silt S1 S light brown, compact, dry sand, trace silt and gravel S light brown-grey, compact, dry sand, some gravel, trace silt m 06/20/ light brown, loose, wet sand, trace silt S light brown, compact, wet sand, some gravel, trace silt 7.92 S End of Bore Hole Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Hollow Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

32 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivision Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 206 Bore Hole: B6 Date: June 14, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface tan, loose, moist silt, trace clay light brown, loose, moist sand and gravel, trace silt light brown, compact, moist sand and gravel, trace silt light brown, compact, moist, sandy gravel, some silt S1 S m 06/20/ light brown, compact, wet, gravelly sand, trace silt S light brown, loose, wet silt, some sand S S light brown, loose, wet sand and gravel, trace silt S End of Bore Hole Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Solid Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

33 Project No: 17m49 Project: Seven Lot Subdivision Client: Akisqnuk First Nation Location: Lot 205 Bore Hole: B7 Date: June 14, 2017 Engineer: Douglas A. Clapp Depth (m) Symbol (USCS) Description Elev./Depth (m) Number Type Uncorrected SPT Blowcounts Blows/.3m % Fines < mm Moisture Content Piezometer Remarks 0.00 Ground Surface light brown, loose, dry sand, trace silt light brown, compact, dry, sandy, silty gravel light brown, compact, moist sand and gravel, trace silt light brown, dense, wet sand, trace gravel and clay S1 S2 S m 06/20/ light brown, compact, wet sand and silt, trace gravel S S light brown, loose, wet, silty sand S End of Bore Hole 8.08 S Excavated By: Chilako Drilling Equipment: 6" Solid Stem Logged By: IF Box 688 Fernie, B.C., V0B 1M0 Datum: Sheet: 1 of 1

34 APPENDIX IV Lab Test Reports

35 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project No: AR Lab ID: S17353 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd Client Project: Akisqnuk Sub Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: CC: - June 16, 2017 Sample Description: GRAVEL and SAND, some silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B1 S1 grab 5' Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client Specification: NA Sieve Analysis 100 % PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Specification limits #N/A 75.0 #N/A Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 41.1 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 39.2 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 19.8 % % p a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Moisture Content: 2.3% Comments: Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing Report Date: June 26, 2017 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc.

36 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project No: AR Lab ID: S17352 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd Client Project: Akisqnuk Sub Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: CC: - June 16, 2017 Sample Description: SAND and SILT/CLAY Sample Date: - Sample ID: B2 S5 SS 20-22' Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client Specification: NA Sieve Analysis 100 % PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Specification limits #N/A 75.0 #N/A 37.5 #N/A 19.0 #N/A 12.5 #N/A 9.5 #N/A Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 41.7 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 58.3 % % p a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Moisture Content: 25.4% Comments: Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing Report Date: June 26, 2017 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc.

37 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project No: AR Lab ID: S17348 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd Client Project: Akisqnuk Sub Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: CC: - June 16, 2017 Sample Description: Sandy, silty/clayey GRAVEL Sample Date: - Sample ID: B3 S3 grab 5-7' Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client Specification: NA Sieve Analysis 100 % PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Specification limits #N/A 75.0 #N/A Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 42.0 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 34.1 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 23.9 % % p a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Moisture Content: 5.8% Comments: Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing Report Date: June 26, 2017 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc.

38 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project No: AR Lab ID: S17351 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd Client Project: Akisqnuk Sub Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: CC: - June 16, 2017 Sample Description: Gravelly, silty/clayey SAND Sample Date: - Sample ID: B4 S1 SS 5-7' Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client Specification: NA Sieve Analysis 100 % PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Specification limits #N/A 75.0 #N/A Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 26.3 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 48.3 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 25.4 % % p a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Moisture Content: 5.8% Comments: Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing Report Date: June 26, 2017 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc.

39 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project No: AR Lab ID: S17349 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd Client Project: Akisqnuk Sub Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: CC: - June 16, 2017 Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, some silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B6 S1 SS 5-7.5' Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client Specification: NA Sieve Analysis 100 % PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Specification limits #N/A 75.0 #N/A Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 48.7 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 34.2 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 17.1 % % p a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Moisture Content: 8.2% Comments: Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing Report Date: June 26, 2017 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc.

40 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project No: AR Lab ID: S17350 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd Client Project: Akisqnuk Sub Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: CC: - June 16, 2017 Sample Description: Sandy, silty/clayey GRAVEL Sample Date: - Sample ID: B7 S2 SS 5-7' Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client Specification: NA Sieve Analysis 100 % PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Specification limits #N/A 75.0 #N/A Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 48.9 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 30.0 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 21.1 % % p a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Moisture Content: 7.9% Comments: Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing Report Date: June 26, 2017 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc.