Geotechnical Investigation Report

Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Salt Storage Shed Majestic Hills Drive Hamilton Township, Ontario Hamilton Township 7 Pido Road Peterborough Ontario K9J 6X7 Canada 568 0 Report No June 08

Table of Contents. Introduction.... Purpose and Scope.... Field and Laboratory Procedures.... Site Location and Surface Conditions... 5. Subsurface Conditions... 5. Fill... 5. Gravelly Sand... 5. Sand... 5. Clayey Silt... 5 5.5 Silty Sand... 5 5.6 Groundwater... 5 5.7 Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing... 5 5.8 Methane... 6 6. Discussion and Recommendations... 6 6. Excavation, Dewatering and Backfill... 6 6. Foundations Options... 7 6.. Subexcavation and Engineered Fill... 8 6.. Ground Improvement Techniques... 9 6.. Helical Piers... 9 6. Floor Slab... 6. Pavement Design... 6.5 General Recommendations... 6.5. Wells... 6.5. Test Pits During Tendering... 6.5. Subsoil Sensitivity... 6.5. Winter Construction... 6.5.5 Design Review... 7. Statement of Limitations... Table Index Table 6. Depth to Competent Native Soil for Footings... 8 Table 6. Bearing Pressures for Footing Design... 8 Table 6. Pavement Structure... GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page i

Enclosure Figure Test Hole Location Plan Appendix Index Appendix A Appendix B Test Hole Logs Physical Laboratory Data GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page ii

. Introduction This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation that was conducted in support of the proposed construction of a salt storage shed, at the Hamilton Township Works Yard located on Majestic Hills Drive, in Hamilton Township, Ontario. GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by Hamilton Township (the Client) to complete this geotechnical investigation. The work conducted for this investigation was carried out under the authorization of Mr. Paul Heffernan, representing the Client, in accordance with our proposal PG-666 dated September 7, 06 and a supplementary investigation carried out under the authorization of Mr. Heffernan in accordance with our proposal PG-55, dated April, 08. It is GHD s understanding that the project shall consist of the construction of a new salt storage shed, within a property located on Majestic Hills Drive, which is currently used as a municipal works storage yard. It is GHD s understanding that the proposed structure will have a concrete slab on grade. Proposed grading including the structure s proposed slab grade was not available to GHD at the time of writing this report.. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site, and to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding earthwork construction, reuse of existing soils as backfill material, asphalt pavement design, foundations and slab-on-grade design. The information contained herein must in no way be construed as an opinion of this site s chemical, environmental, or hydrogeological status. The following scope of work was performed in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes:. A site-specific health and safety plan (SS-HASP) was prepared.. Underground services were cleared prior to advancing the boreholes.. The test holes were located as shown on the Test Hole Location Plans (Figure ).. The subsurface conditions were explored by advancing, sampling and logging four () test pits to depths ranging from.8 to.7 metres below existing grade (mbeg) and four () boreholes to depths ranging from 8. to.8 mbeg. Advancement of borehole was then continued by way of dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing to refusal at depths of 8.6 mbeg and 9.8 mbeg in boreholes BH- and BH- respectively. 5. The ground at the borehole locations was reinstated as close as possible to its original condition upon completion of the fieldwork. 6. Recovered soils samples and monitoring wells were screened using a natural gas indicator in order to assess the potential for methane gas. 7. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in two () test hole location. Groundwater level measurements were obtained from each borehole following completion of drilling operations, and again from the monitoring wells on May 5, 08. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

8. Physical laboratory analysis of the encountered material was carried out including grain size analysis, Atterberg limits test and moisture content tests. 9. Geotechnical engineering analysis of acquired field and laboratory data have been compiled in this report outlining our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical engineering recommendations.. Field and Laboratory Procedures A field investigation was conducted under the supervision of GHD staff on September 7, 06 and on May 5 and May 6, 08. The work consisted of subsurface exploration by means of advancing and sampling four () exploratory test pits to depths ranging from.8 to.7 mbeg and four () boreholes to depths ranging from 8. to.8 mbeg. The location of each test hole is illustrated on the attached Test Hole Plan (Figure ). A detailed log of each test hole was maintained and representative samples of the materials encountered in the test holes were collected. A detailed log of each test hole is presented in Appendix A. The test pits were advanced using a rubber-tire back-hoe. Representative, disturbed samples of the strata penetrated were obtained directly from the excavation walls and/or the excavators bucket. Test pits TP-,, and extended to the practical depth limits of the excavator, Test pit TP- terminated within a native gravelly sand encountered beneath the fill. The boreholes were advanced using a track mounted drill rig equipped with continuous flight, hollow stem power augers. Representative, disturbed samples of the strata penetrated were obtained using a split-barrel, 50 mm outer-diameter (OD) sampler advanced by a 6.5 kg hammer dropping approximately 760 mm. The results of these standard penetration tests (SPT s) are reported as N values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths. Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing was also conducted in boreholes BH- and BH- below.7 mbeg and 9. mbeg respectively, and advanced to practical refusal to further DCP advancement - the results of the DCP testing are reported on the boreholes log at corresponding depths. Soil samples obtained from the test holes were inspected in the field immediately upon retrieval for type, texture, and colour. All test holes were backfilled following completion of the fieldwork. All samples were sealed in clean plastic containers and transported to the GHD laboratory for further visual-tactile examination, and to select appropriate samples for laboratory analysis. Groundwater measurements and observations were obtained from the open test holes during the excavation and drilling operations. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in two of the boreholes, to a depth of.6 mbeg, with sand pack around the screened interval, and bentonite sealant above the screened interval. The monitoring wells were recorded and registered as wells with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and remains as of writing this report. Groundwater data is presented on individual borehole logs. All recovered soils samples and the monitoring wells installed in boreholes BH- and BH-, were screened using a natural gas indicator (model NP-0) in order to assess the potential for methane gas. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with a mixture of auger cuttings and bentonite pellets and sealed at the top with compacted auger cuttings. Physical laboratory testing was completed on representative soil samples, and consisted of moisture content tests on all samples recovered, gradation analyses on a total of six (6) representative soil samples and Atterberg limits test on one () soil sample. The analytical results of the moisture content tests are plotted on the attached logs. The results of the gradation test and Atterberg limits test are incorporated into the test hole logs, and are presented graphically in Appendix B.. Site Location and Surface Conditions The investigated site is located along the north side of Majestic Hills Drive, east of Burnham Street North, in Hamilton Township, Ontario. The investigated site is part of an active municipal storage yard that is apparently used for general storage purposes. The main municipal works yard and municipal office is located across the street, while the remaining surrounding properties are generally rural residential property uses. The general topography in the vicinity of the site is rolling terrain. According to a representative of the Client (Mr. Don Hamly) who was onsite during our fieldwork, the site was formerly used as a gravel borrow pit by the Client, and the western portion of the property (ie, the proposed location for the salt storage structure) was backfilled with unknown quantity and quality of fill. The eastern portion of the property is relatively flat with various stockpiles of soil. As reported by Mr. Hamly, the eastern portion of the site, generally has not been backfilled, and is approximately m lower than the western portion. The eastern portion appears to be generally used for storage of various public works related equipment. 5. Subsurface Conditions Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site are graphically presented on the test hole logs (Appendix A). It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been inferred from the borehole observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another, and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of geological change. Further, conditions may vary between and beyond the test holes. The test holes encountered a surficial layer of fill, underlain by native soils consisting of sand containing varying amount of gravel, and clayey silt. No significant groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was observed in any of the four () test pits during excavation. Groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was observed in all four () boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from 6. to 6.6 mbeg. A groundwater measurement obtained on May 5, 08 from the monitoring well installed in borehole BH-, yielded a water level of.5 mbeg. The monitoring well installed in borehole BH- was measure to be dry to its full depth (.6 mbeg) on May 5, 08. The following sections describe the major soil strata and subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation in more detail. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

5. Fill An overlying layer of fill was encountered in all eight (8) test holes. The fill extended to a depth of approximately 0.9 mbeg in test pit TP-, and to the full depth of the excavation (ie, excavation limits of the back-hoe) in the remaining test pits (TP-, TP-, TP-). The boreholes encountered fill extending to depths ranging from 6. to 9. mbeg. In discussion with the Client s staff while on site (including Mr. Hamly), GHD was informed that backfilling of the previous pit area was accomplished by end-dumping excess soils from various sites across the Township. The fill material encountered during this investigation exhibited variable content and varied in its apparent relative density. The fill encountered in the test holes generally consisted of slough (from nearby stock pile) in the form of grey to black silty sand and gravel with organics, or grey silt with sand and gravel, construction debris and organics; or mixed fill (sand, gravel and silt with organics, trees and wood fragments). The fill encountered during the investigation generally existed in a moist, variable but typically loose to occasionally compact in-situ state. Moisture content tests conducted on representative samples of the fill yielded values ranging from to 6 % moisture by weight. (Note that the elevated moisture content is indicative of elevated organic content and wood fragments). A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of the fill suggests the following composition: 8 % gravel, 70 % sand, and % silt and clay-sized particles. 5. Gravelly Sand A layer of what appeared to be native soil consisting of gravelly sand was encountered immediately beneath the fill in test pit TP-. The gravelly sand layer was first encountered at a depth of approximately 0.9 and extended to the full depth of the investigation (approximately.8 mbeg) in this test pit. This soil was generally grey in colour, consisted of gravelly sand, with silt, and existed in a moist, compact in-situ state. A moisture content test conducted on a sample of this soil yielded a value of approximately % moisture by weight. A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of the gravelly sand suggests the following composition: 9 % gravel, 5 % sand, and 7 % silt and clay-sized particles. 5. Sand A layer of sand was encountered immediately beneath the fill layer in all boreholes at depths ranging from 6. to 9. mbeg. The sand layer extended to 9. mbeg and.7 mbeg in boreholes BH- and BH- respectively and to the full depth of investigation in the remaining boreholes. This soil appeared grey in colour, consisted of sand with some to trace amount clay, silt and gravel was encountered in a generally moist to wet, variable (loose to dense) in-situ condition. Moisture content tests performed on samples of the sand yielded values ranging from about to 0 % moisture by weight. Grain size distribution analyses conducted on representative samples of the sand suggests the following compositional range: to % gravel, 77 to 85 % sand, and to % silt and clay-sized particles. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

5. Clayey Silt A layer of clayey silt was encountered beneath the sand layer in borehole BH-. This material was first encountered at a depth of 9. mbeg and extended to the full depth of investigation. This material was generally grey in colour, and consisted of clayey silt, containing some amount of sand, and existed in a generally wet and soft in-situ state. A moisture content test conducted on a sample of the clayey silt yielded a value of approximately % moisture by weight. A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of this material suggests the following composition: 0 % gravel; 5 % sand; and 85 % silt and claysized particles. A hydrometer analysis conducted on this sample suggests it contains approximately 67 % particles between 5 and 75 µm in size. An Atterberg analysis conducted on a sample of this soil suggests a liquid limit of % and a plasticity index of %. 5.5 Silty Sand A layer of silty sand was encountered beneath the sand layer in borehole BH-. This material was first encountered at a depth of.7 mbeg and extended to the full depth of investigation. This material was generally grey in colour, and consisted of silty sand, containing trace amount of clay and gravel, and existed in a generally wet and dense to very dense in-situ state. Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the silty sand yielded values of about 6 % moisture by weight. A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of this material suggests the following composition: % gravel; 68 % sand; and 0 % silt and clay-sized particles. A hydrometer analysis conducted on this sample suggests it contains approximately 5 % particles between 5 and 75 µm in size. 5.6 Groundwater Groundwater observations and measurements were obtained from the open test holes during and upon completion of excavation and drilling operations. No significant groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was observed in any of the four () test pits during excavation. Groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was observed in all four () boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from 6. to 6.6 mbeg. Groundwater measurements obtained on May 5, 08 from the monitoring wells installed in boreholes BH- and BH- yielded a water level of.5 mbeg (BH-), and dry to its full depth of.6 mbeg (BH-). It must be noted that groundwater levels are transient and tend to fluctuate with the seasons, periods of precipitation, and temperature. 5.7 Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing was conducted in boreholes BH- and BH-. DCP testing commenced at a depth of.7 mbeg (BH-) and 9. mbeg (BH-) and extended to a depth of 8.6 mbeg (BH-) and 9.8 mbeg (BH-), where practical refusal to further DCP testing was encountered in the form of 0 blows per 0.m. The results of the DCP testing are reported on the individual borehole logs. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page 5

5.8 Methane Air monitoring of collected samples and the monitoring wells installed in boreholes BH- and BH-, was conducted using a natural gas indicator (model NP-0). Field monitoring results indicate that there was no detectable presence of methane encountered during our investigation. 6. Discussion and Recommendations Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered at the site and assume that they are representative of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the Site should examine the factual results of the assessment, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as instructions to the contractor. The test holes encountered a surficial layer of fill, underlain by native soils consisting of sand containing varying amount of gravel, and clayey silt. DCP testing beneath depths of 9. and.7 mbeg encountered practical refusal to further advancement at depths of 8.6 and 9.8 mbeg. No significant groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was observed in any of the four () test pits during excavation. Groundwater seepage and/or accumulation was observed in all four () boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from 6. to 6.6 mbeg. A groundwater measurement obtained on May 5, 08 from the monitoring well installed in borehole BH- yielded a water level of.5 mbeg. The monitoring well installed in borehole BH- was measure to be dry to its full depth (.6 mbeg) on May 5, 08. The final site grading and location/layout of the proposed new structure was not finalized or available to GHD as of writing this report. Details regarding our conclusions and recommendations are outlined in the following sections. 6. Excavation, Dewatering and Backfill Excavations should be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation /9 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects (OHSA). All excavations above the water table not exceeding. m in depth may be constructed with unsupported slopes. The materials encountered during this investigation above the groundwater table is classed by OSHA as Type soils, provide that no significant groundwater seepage is encountered. As such, unsupported / unshored excavation walls in these soils must maintain a gradient of horizontal to vertical (H:V) or flatter, to the base of the excavation. Should groundwater seepage be encountered, the soil would be classified as Type, and unsupported / unshored excavation walls in these soils must flatten to maintain a gradient of horizontal to vertical (H:V) or flatter to the base of the excavation. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page 6

Prior to removing any excess soils, it is recommended that such materials be subjected to chemical testing, to characterize the excess soils for handling and disposal purposes. Based on groundwater measurements, and depending on the depth of excavations, groundwater seepage into open excavations may be encountered. Pumping from filtered collection sumps to an acceptable outlet should typically control the groundwater seepage and infiltration, however localized zones of sand and/or gravel soils could produce increased levels of groundwater into excavations. Where excavations extend into layers of sand and/or gravel below the groundwater table and thereby encounter increased amounts of groundwater infiltration requiring more intensive dewatering / groundwater control, the use of more extensive filtered sumps, well points, or other suitable method of dewatering and/or sheet piling may be necessary. If short-term pumping of groundwater at volumes greater than 50,000 L/day and less than 00,000 L/day is required during the construction stage, the Environmental Activity Sector Registry (EASR) must be completed. The EASR streamlines the process and water pumping may begin once the EASR registration is completed, the fee paid and supporting document prepared. If water taking in excess of 00,000 litres/day is required, a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) must be obtained in advance. PTTW applications may take up to 90 working days for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to review and approve. The actual rate of groundwater taking performed during construction will be a function of the final design, time of year, and the contractor s schedule, equipment, and techniques. Depending on the strategy utilized to develop the site and the corresponding depths of construction and dewatering requirements, a detailed Hydrogeological Assessment may be required to support any EASR or PTTW application. Some excavated inorganic soils may be suitable for use as backfill, however due to the manner in which it was deposited and the amount of deleterious materials encountered during the investigation it is expected that limited amounts of existing fill would be suitable as any form of structural backfill. The reuse of all existing excavated soils is conditional on it being workable, at a suitable moisture content, and receiving final review and approval for such reuse at the time of construction. Some soils will require prior processing (such as aeration) to lower their moisture content before being considered for approval as backfill material. 6. Foundations Options At typical shallow foundation depth, the existing soils are not suitable for foundation purposes, and as such foundations for the proposed salt storage shed should be construction by either: ) subexcavating the existing fill and replacing with engineered fill, ) ground improvement techniques, or ) helical piers with structural slab. The following sections provide preliminary details regarding each strategy. The final foundation recommendations may require further subsurface exploratory boreholes to confirm soil parameters specific to the foundation option chosen, depending on the requirements of specialist design firms that would be involved with each option. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page 7

6.. Subexcavation and Engineered Fill Structural loading for the proposed structure may be supported on reinforced, spread and continuous strip footings for column and load bearing walls, respectively. The footings should be placed on engineered fill placed directly on the competent (compact) native soil, requiring full-depth removal of the existing fill materials down to competent and approved native soils throughout the building footprint (including floor slab area). Such suitable competent native soils were encountered at the following depths in each borehole location. Table 6. Depth to Competent Native Soil for Footings Borehole ID Depth (mbeg*) Borehole ID Depth (mbeg*) BH- 6. BH- 9. BH- 6. BH- 9. * mbeg = metres below existing grade It is recommended that footings constructed on engineered fill placed directly on competent (compact) native soils be proportioned using the following bearing capacities: Table 6. Bearing Pressures for Footing Design Parameter Factored Bearing Capacity at ULS () Bearing Pressure on Engineered Fill Rock-based Fill () Granular Fill () Earth Borrow Fill () 50 kpa 00 kpa 0 kpa Bearing Capacity at SLS 50 kpa 0 kpa 95 kpa Notes: () Resistance factor Φ =0.5 applied to the ULS bearing pressure for design purposes. () At least.0m of Rock-based, Granular or Earth Borrow fill. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill. Any engineered fill upon which footings are placed must be a minimum thickness corresponding to the notes that accompany the above table. Rock-based fill must be completely encapsulated with suitable filter fabric to minimize any migration of fine-grained particles from surrounding soils into the voids within the rock fill. Footings (and foundation walls) placed on engineered fill must be suitably reinforced; as a minimum, and where not already specified in the design drawings, this reinforcing should use continuous runs of 5M rebar throughout the footings, and runs of 5M rebar throughout near the top and bottom of the foundation walls. The following is recommended for the construction of any engineered fill for the footings:. Remove any and all existing vegetation, topsoil, fill, organics, and organic-bearing soils to the competent, undisturbed native soil from within the area of the proposed engineered fill.. The area of the engineered fill should extend horizontally m beyond the outside edge of the building foundations and then extend downward at a : slope to the competent native soil. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page 8

. The base of the engineered fill area must be approved by a member of GHD prior to placement of any fill, to ensure that all unsuitable materials have been removed, that the materials encountered are similar to those observed, and that the subgrade is suitable for the engineered fill.. All engineered fill material is to be approved by GHD at the time of construction. 5. Place approved engineered fill, in maximum 00 mm lifts, compacted to 0% of its SPMDD. Any fill material placed under sufficiently wet conditions should consist of an approved, rockbased fill, with the inclusion of appropriate geotextile fabric around the rock-based fill should the rock fill contain enough voids to warrant. 6. Full time testing and inspection of the engineered fill will be required, to ensure compliance with material and compaction specifications. All exterior footings or footings in unheated areas, should be founded at least. m below the final adjacent grade for frost protection, or be treated with an equivalent frost protection (such as suitable insulation). Footings and walls exposed to frost action should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible granular material. Under no circumstances should the foundations be placed above organic materials, loose, frozen subgrade, construction debris, or within ponded water. Prior to forming, all foundation excavations must be inspected and approved by a member of GHD. This will ensure that the foundation bearing material has been prepared properly at the foundation subgrade level and that the soils exposed are similar to those encountered during this investigation. For foundations constructed in accordance with the foregoing manner, total and differential settlements are estimated to be less than 5 mm. 6.. Ground Improvement Techniques As an alternative, the structural loading for the new building may be able to be supported on shallow footings founded on soils improved using suitable ground improvement techniques. This could include (but is not necessarily limited to) rammed aggregate piers (RAPs), or other appropriate systems or techniques. An engineering firm specializing in such systems such as GeoSolv Design Build, Menard, or another suitable firm, should assess the soils information and provide advice regarding suitability of their various systems and techniques including design criteria, load capacities, and further details regarding the construction and overall costing associated with such techniques. Appropriately designed and constructed soil improvement systems could allow for standard strip and spread footings and floor slab to be utilized. 6.. Helical Piers As another alternative, structural loads may be supported on deep foundations consisting of helical piers. The helical piers would be advanced through the fill and/or loose soils encountered in the boreholes, to the underlying compact to very dense native soils. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page 9

For design purposes, a helical pier installation depth of mbeg is anticipated in order to achieve the sufficiently dense native soils. It is recommended that a unit price for pier installation depth be requested in the helical pier tendering to allow for the expected variations in depth of pier installation. The helical piers should be designed by experienced engineers specializing in such foundation elements, who will confirm the products available, mechanisms and equipment that would best suit this project s conditions, and the structural load capacities of their piers. The piers must be installed by an experienced and qualified contractor. The installation of the helical piers should be monitored and reviewed by a representative of GHD. 6. Floor Slab Should the subexcavation and engineered fill option or ground improvement options be utilized, the floor of the proposed building may be designed and constructed as a normal slab-on-grade, on granular fill over the approved subsoils. Such a floor slab should be formed over a base course consisting of at least 50 mm of Granular A material, compacted to a minimum of 0 % of its SPMDD. A normal slab constructed in conjunction with the ground improvement option may require a specially-designed granular fill pad beneath the slab this would be designed by others in conjunction with the ground improvement technique. All grade increases or infilling below the Granular A should be constructed in accordance with the engineered fill steps provided in Section 6.. of this report. All fill placed as engineered fill must be inspected, approved and compaction verified by personnel from GHD. The use of a helical pier option would require the floor slab to be designed by a qualified structural engineer as a structural floor slab to span over the existing fill that remains in place. While no methane was encountered during our borehole investigation, the Client may wish to consider including a passive methane venting system beneath the floor slab should any of the existing fill remain in place. 6. Pavement Design It is recommended that the existing fill be removed at least 0.6 m below the proposed subbase of the new pavement structure (see pavement structures provided in the Table 6. below) at which point an assessment of the exposed soils by a member of GHD s geotechnical group will deem whether further removal or other treatment is required. Overly loose, or otherwise deleterious materials will require removal and replacement with an approved backfill material. Based on the results of this investigation, we would recommend the following procedures be implemented to prepare the proposed asphalt paved access way and parking areas for its construction:. Remove all asphalt, topsoil, fill, organics, organic-bearing materials and other deleterious materials from the planned pavement areas to at least 0.6m below the design pavement subgrade required to allow the new pavement structure. Place woven geotextile such as Terrafix 00W or Mirafi HP70 on the exposed surface, after its approval and prior to placement of any subsequent fill. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

. Place granular, select subgrade, or otherwise approved material compacted to a minimum 98 % of its SPMDD up to the granular subbase, in maximum 00 mm lifts, compacted to 0% of its SPMDD. Contour the subgrade surface to prevent ponding of water during the construction and to promote rapid drainage of the sub-base and base course materials. 5. To maximize drainage potential, 50 mm diameter perforated pipe subdrains should be installed below any curb lines. The pipe should be encased in filter fabric and surrounded by clear stone aggregate. It is recommended that the subdrains discharge to a suitable, frostfree outlet. 6. Construct transitions between varying depths of granular base materials at a rate of :5 minimum. The subgrade materials in the proposed pavement areas will consist of fill containing variable amounts of organic matter and wood fragments. The frost susceptibility of these soils is assessed as being high. In this regard, the following minimum flexible pavement structures are recommended for the construction of the new access and parking areas. Table 6. Pavement Structure Profile Material Thickness (mm) Light Duty Heavy Duty In Conformance with OPSS Form Asphalt Surface H.L. 0 0 Asphalt Base H.L.8 50 50 Granular Base Granular A 50 50 Granular Subbase Granular B 00 50 50 The following steps are recommended for optimum construction of paved areas:. The Granular A and B courses should be compacted to a minimum 0 % of their respective SPMDD s.. All asphaltic concrete courses should be placed, spread and compacted conforming to OPSS Form or equivalent. All asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum 9.0 % of their respective laboratory Maximum Relative Densities (MRD s).. Adequate drainage should be provided to ensure satisfactory pavement performance. It is recommended that all fill material be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 00 mm in thickness before compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ moisture content within % of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials should be compacted to 0 % SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular A and B conforming to the requirements of OPSS Form or equivalent. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

The performance of the pavement structure is highly dependent upon the subgrade support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure that uniform subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as practically possible. It is noted that the above recommended pavement structures are for the end use of the project. The most severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. As such, during construction of the project the recommended granular depths may not be sufficient to support loadings encountered. Consequently, special provisions such as appropriate sequencing, restricted lanes, half-loads during paving, etc. may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavorable weather. 6.5 General Recommendations 6.5. Wells Any decommissioning of wells on-site must be performed by an appropriately-licensed well contractor, in compliance with O.Reg. 90. 6.5. Test Pits During Tendering It is strongly recommended that test pits be excavated at representative locations of this Site during the tendering phase, with mandatory attendance of interested contractors. This will allow them to make their own assessment of the groundwater and soil conditions at the Site and how these will affect their proposed construction methods, techniques and schedules. 6.5. Subsoil Sensitivity The native subsoils are susceptible to strength loss or deformation if saturated or disturbed by construction traffic. Therefore, where the subgrade consists of approved soil, care must be taken to protect the exposed subgrade from excess moisture and from construction traffic. 6.5. Winter Construction The subsoils encountered across the site are frost-susceptible and freezing conditions could cause problems to the structures. As preventive measures, the following recommendations are presented:. During winter construction, exposed surfaces intended to support foundations must be protected against freezing by means of loose straw and tarpaulins, heating, etc.. Care must be exercised so that any sidewalks and/or asphalt pavements do not interfere with the opening of doors during the winter when the soils are subject to frost heave. This problem may be minimized by any one of several means, such as keeping the doors well above outside grade, installing structural slabs at the doors, and by using well-graded backfill and positive drainage, etc.. Because of the frost heave potential of the soils during winter, it is recommended that the trenches for exterior underground services be excavated with shallow transition slopes in order to minimize the abrupt change in density between the granular backfill, which is relatively nonfrost susceptible, and the more frost-susceptible native soils. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

Enclosure GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0)

TP- TP- BH- BH- TP- TP- TP- TP- BH- TP- BH- TP- Source: Base plan obtained from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Make a Topographic Map, accessed June, 08. Scale - See Above HAMILTON TOWNSHIP PROPOSED STORAGE SHED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 568-0 June, 08 Coordinate System: NAD 98 UTM Zone 8T TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN FIGURE

Attachment A Test hole Logs GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0)

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 CLIENT: Hamilton Township PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: P. Hynes TEST PIT No.: TP- ELEVATION: Existing Grade DATE: 7 September 06 ENCLOSURE No.: A- TEST PIT REPORT Page: of LEGEND GS - GRAB SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL EXCAVATION COMPANY: Hamilton Township METHOD: Rubber Tire, Back-hoe NOTES: Depth m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Moisture Content Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l Field Lab COMMENTS ft m 0.0 GROUND SURFACE FILL - Brown Sand and Gravel, moist, loose % 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Open testpit did not encounter groundwater seepage and/or accumulation during excavation operations 0.5.0 0.6 Dark brown to dark grey to black Silty Sand and Gravel, with ORGANICS, moist, compact 5.5.5 Grey Silt with Sand and Gravel, moist, compact 6.0 TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH 6765-0, 6-09-9, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT //6 7 8 9.5.0.5.0.5. END OF TEST PIT GS- Test Pit terminated a practical depth (extent of excavator)

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 CLIENT: Hamilton Township PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: P. Hynes TEST PIT No.: TP- ELEVATION: Existing Grade DATE: 7 September 06 ENCLOSURE No.: A- TEST PIT REPORT Page: of LEGEND GS - GRAB SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL EXCAVATION COMPANY: Hamilton Township METHOD: Rubber Tire, Back-hoe NOTES: Depth m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Moisture Content Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l Field Lab COMMENTS ft m 0.0 GROUND SURFACE FILL - Brown Sand, loose % 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Open testpit did not encounter groundwater seepage and/or accumulation during excavation operations 0.5.0 0.9 GRAVELLY SAND - Grey Gravelly Sand, with Silt, moist GS- GS-: 9% Gravel 5% Sand 7% Silt and Clay 5.5 6.8 END OF TEST PIT.0 TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH 6765-0, 6-09-9, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT //6 7 8 9.5.0.5.0.5

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 CLIENT: Hamilton Township PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: P. Hynes TEST PIT No.: TP- ELEVATION: Existing Grade DATE: 7 September 06 ENCLOSURE No.: A- TEST PIT REPORT Page: of LEGEND GS - GRAB SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL EXCAVATION COMPANY: Hamilton Township METHOD: Rubber Tire, Back-hoe NOTES: Depth m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Moisture Content Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l Field Lab COMMENTS ft m 0.0 GROUND SURFACE FILL - Mixed Fill (Sand, Gravel and Silt) with ORGANICS/TREES, loose % 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Open testpit did not encounter groundwater seepage and/or accumulation during excavation operations 0.5.0 GS- 5.5 6.0 TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH 6765-0, 6-09-9, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT //6 7 8 9.5.0.5.0.5..0 Light grey to dark grey Clayey Silt to Silty Clay with ORGANICS, moist to wet END OF TEST PIT GS- 8 Test Pit terminated a practical depth (extent of excavator)

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 CLIENT: Hamilton Township PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: P. Hynes TEST PIT No.: TP- ELEVATION: Existing Grade DATE: 7 September 06 ENCLOSURE No.: A- TEST PIT REPORT Page: of LEGEND GS - GRAB SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL EXCAVATION COMPANY: Hamilton Township METHOD: Rubber Tire, Back-hoe NOTES: Depth m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Moisture Content Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l Field Lab COMMENTS ft m 0.0 0. GROUND SURFACE FILL - Brown Sand, loose Grey % 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Open testpit did not encounter groundwater seepage and/or accumulation during excavation operations 0.5 0.6 Grey Clayey Sandy Silt, trace Gravel, Debris with ORGANICS, loose.0 GS-. Light brown to grey Silty Sand with Gravel 5.5 6.0 TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH 6765-0, 6-09-9, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT //6 7 8 9.5.0.5.0.5.7 END OF TEST PIT GS- 7 Test Pit terminated a practical depth (extent of excavator)

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-5 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 ft 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 6 7 Depth m.0.0.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 m Below Existing Grade 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 FILL - Brown Sand, Some Gravel, Some Silt, Moist, 6 SS- 50 8 9 5 Compact...0.8 5.0 6. 6.7 8. Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Brown/Black Organic Silt, Some Gravel, Some Sand, Moist, Compact Brown Wood Fragments, Trace Sand, Trace Silt Silt, Moist, Very Loose Brown Sand, Some Gravel, Some Wood Fragments, Moist, Very Loose Grey Sand with Rootlets, Some Silt and Clay, Some Gravel, Moist, Very Loose Brown Wood Fragments, Trace Sand, Trace Silt, Moist, Loose SAND Grey Sand, Some Gravel, Some Silt and Clay, Wet, Compact Dense END OF BOREHOLE Type and Number SS- SS- SS- SS-5 SS-6 SS-7a SS-7b SS-8 SS-9 SS- Recovery 0 90 60 90 80 85 Moisture Content 9 8 6 6 Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm 7 5 6 5 6 8 0 0 7 5 6 6 Penetration Index 6 6 Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) Field Lab RQD CONE 6 COMMENTS SS-6: 8% Gravel 70% Sand % Silt and Clay WL - 6. m 5/5/08 SS-9: % Gravel 77% Sand % Silt and Clay

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-6 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK FILL - Brown Sand, Some Gravel, Trace Silt, With Organics (wood fragments), Moist, Compact to Loose Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS m m.0 5 6 7.0 BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 6 7.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0..6 6. Dark Brown to Black, Sandy Silt, With Organics, Moist, Very Loose Dark Brown Gravelly Sand, Some Silt, With Organics, Loose SAND - Brown to Grey Sand, Some Silt and Clay, Trace Gravel, Moist, Compact SS- SS- SS- SS- 50 50 75 0 5 5 8 9 5 8 WL -.5 m 5/5/08 WL - 6. m (Upon completion of drilling) SS-: % Gravel 85% Sand % Silt and Clay

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-6 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS 9 0 9.0.0 9. 9. Wet, Very Loose CLAYEY SILT - Grey Clayey Silt, Some Sand, Wet, Soft SS-5a SS-5b 0 0 SS-5b: 0% Gravel 5% Sand 85% Silt and Clay 67% between 5-75 µm LL = % PI = % 5 6 7.0.7 UNDETERMINED - Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing Commenced at.7 m 6 8 BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 9 0 5 6 7 8 9 50 5 5 5 5 55.0.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0 0 6 9 70 59 5 57 7 5 5 5 8 50 5 68

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-6 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 6 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS 57 67 58 58 59 8.0 8 60 6 6 6 8.6 9.0 END OF BOREHOLE 0 Practical refusal to Dynamic Cone Penetration encountered at 8.6 m 6 65 66 0.0 67 BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 68 69 70 7 7 7 7 75 76 77 78 79 80 8 8 8.0.0.0.0 5.0

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-7 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft 5 6 7 8 Depth m.0.0 m Below Existing Grade 0.6. Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK FILL - Brown Sand, Some Gravel, Trace Silt, Some Organics, Moist, Compact to Loose Grey Clayey Sandy Silt, Trace Gravel, Debris with Organics, Moist, Loose Light Brown to grey Silty Sand, With Gravel, With Rootlets, Moist, Very Loose Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS m m WL - Dry 5/5/08 9 BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 6 7.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0.6 6. 7.6 With Wood Fragment Wet, Compact - Asphalt fragment at ~6. m SAND - Grey Sand, Some Silt, Trace Gravel, Wet, Very Loose SS- SS- SS- SS- 0 75 0 0 7 7 0 7 6 6 6 9 WL - 6. m 5/5/08

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-7 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS 9 0 9.0 9. UNDETERMINED - 8 Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing Commenced at 5 9. m.0 7 5 9 6.0 7 8 6 BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 9 0 5 6 7 8 9 50 5 5 5 5 55.0.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 9 77 6 5 7 8 0 0 8 8 7 8 7

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-7 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 5 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS 57 6 58 59 8.0 5 60 5 6 59 6 6 9.0 67 80 6 65 66 9.8 0.0 END OF BOREHOLE 0 Practical refusal to Dynamic Cone Penetration encountered at 9.8 m 67 BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 68 69 70 7 7 7 7 75 76 77 78 79 80 8 8 8.0.0.0.0 5.0

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-8 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 6 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 FILL - Brown Sand with Gravel, Some Silt, With 5 SS- 0 9 Organics, Moist, Loose Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS.0 5 6 7.0.7 Brown Gravely Sand, Some Silt, Moist, Compact SS-a SS-b 50 7 0 8 9. Boulders BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 6 7.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0.0.6 6.6 7.6 Dark Brown to Black Orgainc Sandy Silt with Gravel, Cobbles, Wood fragments and Rootlets, Moist, Very loose Grey Sand with Gravel trace Silt, Wet, Very Loose Dark Brown to Black Organic Sandy Silt trace Gravel and Rootlets, Wet, Compact Trace Clay, Wet, Loose SS- SS- SS-5a SS-5b SS-6 0 80 90 70 9 7 5 8 7 5 6 5 6 WL - 6.6 m 5/6/08

REFERENCE No.: 568-0 BOREHOLE No.: BH- ELEVATION: Existing Grade ENCLOSURE No.: A-8 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: of CLIENT: Hamilton Township LEGEND PROJECT: Salt Storage Shed LOGGED BY: JC DRILLING COMPANY: Strata Drilling Group NOTES: DATE: 6 May 08 METHOD: Hollow Stem Augers & Split Spoon SS AS ST CS - SPLIT SPOON - AUGER SAMPLE - SHELBY TUBE - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK Type and Number Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0. m) 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 5 cm Penetration Index Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS 9 0 9.0 9. SAND - Grey Sand, Some Gravel, Trace Silt, Wet, Dense SS-7 0 9 8 5 7.0 5 6 7 8.0.7 SILTY SAND - Grey Silty Some, Trace Clay and Gravel, Clay and Silt, Wet, Dense SS-8 0 6 0 0 5 SS-8: % Gravel 68% Sand 0% Silt and Clay 5% between 5-75 µm BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH 568-0, 8-05-5, BOREHOLE LOGS, JC.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT /6/8 9 0 5 6 7 8 9 50 5 5 5 5 55.0.0.0 5.0 6.0 7.0..8 Very Dense END OF BOREHOLE SS-9 80 6 6 50=5" 80

Attachment B Physical Laboratory Data GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0)

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical) (USCS) (ASTM D) Client: Hamilton Township Lab no.: SS-6-99 Project/Site: Salt Storage Shed Project no.: 568-0 Borehole no.: TP Sample no.: GS Depth: 0.9 to. mbeg Enclosure: B- 0 0 90 80 0 70 0 Percent Passing 60 50 0 0 50 60 Percent Retained 0 70 0 80 90 0 0 0.00 0.0 0. 0 Diameter (mm) Clay & Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Unified Soil Classification System Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt TP GS 9 5 7 Remarks: Performed by: Verified by: Date: Date: November 5, 06 November 5, 06 GHD FO-90.-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D) - Rev. 0-07/0/05

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical) (USCS) (ASTM D) Client: Hamilton Township Lab no.: SS-8-9 Project/Site: Proposed Salt Done, Majestic Hills Drive Project no.: 568-0 Borehole no.: BH- Sample no.: SS-6 Depth:.-.9m Enclosure: B- 0 0 90 80 0 70 0 Percent Passing 60 50 0 50 Percent Retained 0 60 0 70 0 80 90 0 0 0.00 0.0 0. 0 Diameter (mm) Clay & Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Unified Soil Classification System Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH- SS-5 8 70 Remarks: Performed by: J. Sullivan Date: May, 08 Verified by: Date: June, 08 GHD FO-90.-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D) - Rev. 0-07/0/05

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical) (USCS) (ASTM D) Client: Hamilton Township Lab no.: SS-8-9 Project/Site: Proposed Salt Dome, Majestic Hills Drive Project no.: 568-0 Borehole no.: BH- Sample no.: SS-9 Depth: 6.9-7.5m Enclosure: B- 0 0 90 80 0 70 0 Percent Passing 60 50 0 50 Percent Retained 0 60 0 70 0 80 90 0 0 0.00 0.0 0. 0 Diameter (mm) Clay & Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Unified Soil Classification System Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH- SS-9 77 Remarks: Performed by: J. Sullivan Date: May, 08 Verified by: Date: June, 08 GHD FO-90.-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D) - Rev. 0-07/0/05

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical) (USCS) (ASTM D) Client: Hamilton Township Lab no.: SS-8-9 Project/Site: Proposed Salt Dome, Majestic Hill Drive Project no.: 568-0 Borehole no.: BH- Sample no.: SS- Depth: 6.-6.7m Enclosure: B- 0 0 90 80 0 70 0 Percent Passing 60 50 0 50 Percent Retained 0 60 0 70 0 80 90 0 0 0.00 0.0 0. 0 Diameter (mm) Clay & Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Unified Soil Classification System Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH- SS- 85 Remarks: Performed by: J. Sullivan Date: May, 08 Verified by: Date: June,08 GHD FO-90.-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D) - Rev. 0-07/0/05

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical) (USCS) (ASTM D) Client: Hamilton Township Lab no.: SS-8-9 Project/Site: Proposed Salt Dome, Majestic Hills Drive Project no.: 568-0 Borehole no.: BH- Sample no.: SS-5B Depth: 9.-9.8m Enclosure: B-5 0 0 90 80 0 70 0 Percent Passing 60 50 0 50 Percent Retained 0 60 0 70 0 80 90 0 0 0.00 0.0 0. 0 Diameter (mm) Clay & Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Unified Soil Classification System Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH- SS-5B 0 5 85 Remarks: Performed by: J. Sullivan Date: May, 08 Verified by: Date: June, 08 GHD FO-90.-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D) - Rev. 0-07/0/05

Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit Testing LS-70&70 PLASTICITY CHART Project Name: Proposed Salt Dome Project No.: 568-0 Client: Hamilton Township Depth: 9.-9.8m Borehole No.: BH SS5B Enclosure: B-6 Low High 60 60 LL 50 HIGH PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAY 50 50 LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAY CH PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)% 0 0 LOW COMPRESSIBILITY INORGANIC SILT CL MH OH 0 0 0 HIGH COMPRESSIBILITY INORGANIC SILT OR INORGANIC CLAY 0 0 CL ML ML ML OL 0 0 0 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 0 LIQUID LIMIT (LL)% MEDIUM COMPRESSIBILITY INORGANIC SILT INORGANIC CLAY Symbol Borehole Sample Depth Sample Results Value BH- SS-5B 9.-9.8m Plasticity Index (%) Liquid Limit (%) Performed By: J. Sullivan Date: May, 08 Verified By: Date: May, 08

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical) (USCS) (ASTM D) Client: Hamilton Township Lab no.: SS-8-9 Project/Site: Proposed Salt Dome, Majestic Hills Drive Project no.: 568-0 Borehole no.: BH- Sample no.: SS-8B Depth:.7-.m Enclosure: B-7 0 0 90 80 0 70 0 Percent Passing 60 50 0 50 Percent Retained 0 60 0 70 0 80 90 0 0 0.00 0.0 0. 0 Diameter (mm) Clay & Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Unified Soil Classification System Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH- SS-8B 68 0 Remarks: Performed by: J. Sullivan Date: May, 08 Verified by: Date: June, 08 GHD FO-90.-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D) - Rev. 0-07/0/05

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is intended solely for Hamilton Township, and other parties explicitly identified in the report and is prohibited for use by others without GHD s prior written consent. This report is considered GHD s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of GHD. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient s sole risk, without liability to GHD. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold GHD harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices. The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, GHD will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design. By issuing this report, GHD is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that GHD be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases. It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the eight (8) test hole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the 8 test hole locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by construction activities on site (e.g. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by GHD is completed. GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, Hamilton Township Works Yard, Proposed Salt Storage Shed, Majestic Hills Drive, Hamilton Township, Ontario 568 (0) Page

Leandro Ramos Leandro.Ramos@ghd.com 9-9-06 Garnet Brenchley Garnet.Brenchley@ghd.com 9-9-0588